The URL can be used to link to this page

05-868Counci] File # VS� O� � GreenSheet# J��V� 1 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To WF�REAS, Joseph E. Marrone, made application to the Board of Zoning Apgeals (hereinafter, the "BZA") in BZA Zoning File No. OS-107924, for variances from the strict application of the zoning code for property commonly known as 413 Burlington Road and legally described as BiJRLINGTON HEIGH'I'S, DIVISION NO. 2, RAMSEY COLTNTY, MINNESOTA VAC EDGEWOOD PLACE BETWEEN 8c FOL; LOTS 39 & 40 BLK 6& PART OF LOTS 4& 6 BLK 4 LYING SLY OF A LINE RUN FROM NE COR OF SD LOT 6 TO NW COR OF SD LOT 4 BLK 4; and IS 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 WHEREAS, The purpose of the application was to vary the zoning code standards in order to obtain two variances in order to replace a legai nonconfornung structure: a single family dwelling. The two variances sought were: (1) A bluff setback of 40 feet was required. A 14- foot setback was proposed for a variance of 26 feet. (2) A sideyazd setback of 10 feet was required. A setback of 5 feet on the north side of the lot was proposed for a variance of 5 feet; and WHEREAS, The BZA, after having provided notice to affected property owners, duly conducted a public hearing on the Marrone application on 7uly 5, 2005. After the close of the public hearing and based upon the files and records in the matter, the BZA, contrary to the recommendation of the BZA staff, moved to deny the Marrone application for the reasons stated on the record and duly adopted under BZA Resolution No. OS-107924, dated July 18, 2005, as follows: Committee: Date The property in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant states that the foundation and structural members of his existing house have deteriorated to the point that the house needs to be replaced. He is proposing to build a new, larger house in approximately the same location. This property is located within the River Corridor as well as the Tree Preservation Overlay District. Section 68.402(4) states "Bluff development shall take place at least 40 feet landwazd of all bluff lines." The existing house is located abou�t 14 feet from the bluff line and is a legal nonconforming structure. According to state law, non-conformities may be replaced but may not be enlarged. The zoning code specifies that a nonconfornung structure may not be moved to a new location unless it conforms with the current code requirements. oS- 8�4' 2 The applicant is proposing to construct the new house with the same 3 setback from the bluff line on either side but further away from the point of the 4 bluff and closer to the street. The applicant states that he needs a lazger house and 5 if he were Forced to build on the same foundation, he would have to construct a three- 6 story house to get the room he needs. He could build the house closer to the street 7 without the need for any variances. E 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 a. 3. The plight of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to this properry, and these circumstances were created by the Zand owner. There are other homes in this area that are located within the 40-foot bluff setback. There is nothing unique about this site. The proposed variance is not 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. According to Section 67.201 of the zoning code: "The TP (Tree Preservation Overlay District) is designed to preserve the essential character of those areas that are heavily wooded and in a more natural state by encouraging a resourceful and prudent approach to their development that includes minimal t��ee loss and mitigation of tree removal resulting from development. The TP district is further provided to reduce stormwater runoff and minimize flooding; to aid in the stabilization of soil by preventing erosion and sedimentation; to aid in the removal of carbon dioxide and the generation of oxygen in the atmosphere; and to maintain the visual screening, wind break, dust collection, heat and glare reduction, and noise barrier characteristics exhibited by trees." The objective of the River Corridor Standards and Criteria, under Section 68.401, is to: "maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the river corridor in conformance to the St. Paul Nlississippi River Corridor Plan by reducing the effects of poorly planned shoreline and bluff line development; providing sufficient setback for sanitary facilities; preventing pollution of surface and groundwater; minimizing flood damage; preventing soil erosion; and implementing metropolitan plans, policies and standards." Section 68.402, under Protection of shore lands, flood plains, wetlands and bluffs, goes on to say that "Development shall be conducted so that the smallest practical area of land be developed at any one time and that each area be subjected to as little erosion or flood damage as possible during and after development." According to these two sections, the requirement for setback from bluff lines is to minimize erosion during and after construction, as well as to maintain the natural Page 2 of 7 o S - 8�8 z � 0 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 50 environment of the river corridor and to reduce the effects of poorly planned bluff line of development. Section 68.601(a) states in part: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to demonstrate conclusively that such variance will not result in a hazard to life or property and will not adversely affect the safety, use of stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the natural environment; such proof may include soils, geology and hydrology reports which shali be signed by registered professional engineers. Variances shall be consistent with the general putposes of the standazds contained in this chapter and state law and the intent of applicable state and national laws and programs." The proposed variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Plan which incorporates the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Plan as well as various other local, state and federal plans. 4. The proposed variances will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, but wtld alter the essential character of the surrounding area and may unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. This house is located considerabiy further back from the street than either of the neighboring homes. The requested variances would not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The exisUng house was constructed in 1922 with a 14-foot setback from the bluff. The applicant can rebuild the house in the same location which wouid maintain the character of the area or build a new house on the front of the lot that meets all of the code requirements. 5. The variance, if granted, would not per�reit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code of the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classifzcation of the property. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for varzance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. AND, WHEREAS, The applicant, pursuant to L,eg. Code § 61.702(a), filed an appeal from the determination made by the BZA, under BZA Zoning File No. OS-139400, and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the BZA; and Page 3 0£ os- �� 2 WfIEREAS, Acting pursuant Leg. Code § 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, a 3 public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on August 17, 2005 where all interested 4 parties were given an opportunity to be heard and, at the close of the public hearing, the City 5 Council moved to lay over a decision on the matter until the August 24, 2005 City Council 6 session; and 8 WHEREAS, On August 24, 2005, the City Council, based upon all the statements made, 9 and having considered the variance application, the BZA staff report and recommendation, the 10 record, minutes and resolution of the BZA, and the testimony and all the records presented to the 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Council at the August 17, 2005 public hearing, DOES, HEREBY RFSOLVE, That the BZA's decision in this matter shall be reversed based upon enors found under findings 1, 2, 3, and 4 of BZA Resolution No. OS-107924; and BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED, That pursuant to L.eg. Code § 61.704, the Council finds that the two variances requested may be granted, based upon the following findings which shali amend erroneous findings No.'s 1, 2, 3 and 4 and augment finding No. 6 in the said BZA resolution, provided that the bluff line setback variance is modified from the proposed 14 foot setback to 23 feet for a variance of 17 feet and further provided that the applicant abide by the three canditions which are specified in the next section below. Accordingly, BZA Resolution No. OS-107924 is hereby modified to read as follows: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant states that the foundation and structural members of his existing house have deteriorated to the point that the house needs to be replaced. He is proposing to build a new, larger house in approximately the same location. This property is located within the River Corridor as well as the Tree Preservation Overlay District. Section 68.402 (4) states "Bluff development shall take place at least 40 feet landward of all bluff lines." The existing house is located about 14 feet from the bluff line and is a legal nonconfornung structure. According to state law, non-confornuties may be replaced but may not be enlarged. The zoning code specifies that a nonconfornung structure may not be moved to a new location unless it conforms to the current code requirements. The variances will result in a new house with a greater setback from the bluff line and will be further away from the point of the bluff and closer to the street. The applicant states that he needs,a larger house and if he were forced to build on the same foundation he would have to construct a three-story house to get the room he needs. He could build the house closer to the street without the need for any variances but this would result in the loss of mature trees and the bluff view that the current location has. The location proposed for the new fiouse with a setback of 23 feet from the bluff line allows for a greater distance from the bluff than the current structure and addresses the intent of the Tree Preservation Overiay District. Page 4 of 7 os- 8�g 2 2. 3 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morats and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. 4 5 The topography of the property as weil as the location of the existing 6 house and accessory buiidings and the locations of mature trees on the site are 7 circumstances that dictate the most practical location for a new house. 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 50 According to Section 67.201 of the zoning code: "The TP (Tree Preservation Overlay District) is desagned to preserve the essential character of those areas that are heavily wooded and in a more natural state by encouraging a resourceful and prudent approach to their development that includes minimal tree loss and mitigation of tree removal resulting from development. The TP district is further provided to reduce storm- water runoff and minimize flooding; to aid in the stabilization of soil by preventing erosion and sedimentation; to aid in the removal of carbon dioxide and the generation of oxygen in the atmosphere; and to maintain the visual screening, wind break, dust collection, heat and giaze reduction, and noise barrier characteristics exhibited by trees." The plight of the Zand owner is due to circumstances unique to this properry, and these cfrcumstances were not created by the land owner. The progosed location for the new house would aliow several mature oak trees to be preserved and is consistent with the goals of the Tree Preservation Overlay District. A tree preservation plan will need to be submitted prior to the pernut issuance that is in compliance with the requirements of Section 67.200. The objective of the River Corridor Standazds and Criteria, under Section 68.401, is to: "maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the river corridor in conformance to the St. Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan by reducing the effects of poorly planned shoreline and bluff line development; providing sufficient setback for sanitary facilities; preventing poilution of surface and groundwater; minimizing flood damage; preventing soil erosion; and implementing metropolitan plans, policies and standards." Section 68.402, under Protection of shore lands, flood plains, wetlands and bluffs, goes on to say that: "Development shall be conducted so that the smallest practical area of land be developed at any one time and that each area be subjected to as little erosion or flood damage as possible during and after development." According to these two sections, the requirement for setback from bluff lines is to minimize erosion during and after construction, as well as to maintain the natural environment of the river comdor and to reduce the effects of poorly planned bluff Page 5 of • : - ,� 2 3 4 5 6 7 line development. The proposed location for the new house is on the flattest portion of the site which will present the least danger of erosion and require the least stabilization during and after construction. The applicant has not submitted a certified survey or detailed construction plans for the proposed dwelling. Section 68.601(a) states in part: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 "The burden of proof shali rest with the applicant to demonstrate conclusively that such vaziance will not result in a hazard to life or property and will not adversely affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the natural environment; such proof may include soils, geology and hydrology reports which shall be signed by registered professional engineers. Variances shall be consistent with the general purposes of the standards contained in this chapter and state law and the intent of applicable state and national laws and programs." Provided that the applicant submits a certified survey and the necessary documentation from a registered professional engineer, the proposed variances aze in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Plan which incorporates the Mississippi Nauonal River and Recreation Area Plan as well as various other local, state and federal plans. The requested variance will not adversely affect the health or weifare of area residents. 4. The proposed variance will not zmpair 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 surrouncling area. This house is located considerabiy further back from the street than either of the neighboring homes. The requested variances would not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The existing house was constructed in 1922 with a 14-foot setback from the bluff. Expanding the footprint of the new house and moving it closer to the street, while maintaining the same or greater setback from the bluff would have a minimai impact on the property. Building a three-story house in the current location would change the view of the biuff from the river valley and for the homes across the street. Removing 100-year-old oak trees in order to move the house further from the bluff would alter the character of this heavily wooded pazcel. The property owner has a right to a reasonable use of his property and this proposal is a reasonable compromise given the goals of the Tree Preservation Overlay Districi, the River Corridor Standards and Criteria and the owner's desire to have a new home. Page 6 of 7 as - g�8 5. The variance, if granted, 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 alter or change the zoning district classifzcation of the property. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of Zand. The proposed variances are based on the need to replace a building that has deteriorated to the point of needing replacement. The primary purpose of the variance is to replace the structure with greater blu£f setbacks and to preserve the mature trees on the lot. AND, BE TI' FURTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of Joseph E. Marrone is granted subject to compliance with the following conditions on the said variances: 1) The applicant must subnnit a certified survey of the property showing the location of all structures, displaying the contours of the land and any trees 12 inches in diameter that would be affected by the proposed development; 2) The applicant must submit a tree preservation plan in compliance with the requirements of Section 67.200; and 3) The applicant must submit documentation from a registered engineer certifying that the proposed development will not adversely affect the stability of the slopes, bluff or drainage to the surrounding property. 31 AND, BE IT FINAL.LY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this 32 resolution to the appellant, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the BZA. � Green Shee't Green ca -c;TyAtt�a� . CoMaet Person 8 Phone: Peter Wamer 266-8710 must Be on Council /�qenda OS- �$ Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � Date Ini6a6 saauc-os � Assign Number For Routing Order Green Sheet NO: 3027854 0 ' A m 1 i Att m De artmentDirector � 2 " A 3 a or's Otfice Ma or/Assistant 4 uncil 5 itv Clerk Ci Cierk Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip Ali Locations for Signature) Memorialize City Council's August 24, 2005 Motion to Grant the appeal of 7oseph Mazrone &om the decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denying two variances in order to construct a new single faznily home at 413 Burlington Road. itlaGOns: Approve (A) w R Planning Commission CfB Cammittee Civil Service Commission 0 1. Has this perso�rm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally 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, Wh»: Advantages If Approvetl: � The CouncIl is required pwsuant to the City Charter to have its actions reduced to a writing eithet in the form of a zesolurion or ordinance depending upon the nature of the matter before. The decision of tke Council in this matter requires a written resolution in order to comply with the Charter. Approving the atfached resolution fuifills the Commcil's duty und�r the Charter. DisadvantaqeslfApproved: None. RECEf`JED Disadvantages If Not Approved Failure to approve the resolution violates the Cit}�s Charter requirements. SEP 12 2Q�5 MAYOR'S OFFICE Toql Amount of Transaction: Funding Source: Questians: Cost/Revenue Budgeted: Activity Number: ��P('}1 f°�n4pf Financial Information: (ExPtain) s��i" J. J Zo�,J os-��g CITY OF SAINT PAUL Rmtdy C Kelly: Malros E1llgl1$Y 1� 2��5 Ms. Mary Erickson Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECITONS AND ENVQiONl1�N'CAL PROTECIYON � .Itmeen E. Rasar, D'vector COMMERCEBUILDING Trlephone: 651-266-9090 8 Pmoth Stred East, Suite 200 Fapineile: 651-266-9724 Sn'vrtP¢u7,bffnnesotaSS101 {Yeb: wwwlien.us I would like to coiifirni that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, August 17, 2005 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Joseph Marrone Zoning File #: OS-107924 Purpose: Location: Staff: District : Board: Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying a two variances in order to construct a new single family home at 413 Burlington Road. 413 Burlington Road. Recommended approval. District 1 recommended denial. Denied on a 6- 1 vote. I have confinned this date with the office of Council President Kathy Lantry. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Councd at your earliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks ! Sincerely, John Hardwick, Zoning Specialist AA-ADA-EEO Empbya FOTICE OF PQBLIC HEARING TheSaint Paul L7ty CouncIl wi71 �ct a public heazing on Wednesday, August 17, 2005- at 5:30 p.m. in the �Yty Council Cl�ambers, Third Floor CYty Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paut, MN, to con- sider the appeai of Joseph'Marrone to a decision of the Board of ZoniIlg Appeals denying. two variances in order to con- shuct a new single faznily home at 413 Burlington Road: � , Dated: August 1, 2QQ5 MARY ERICRSON Assistazrt City Counc�l Secretary (Angust 4) — '� S1: PAUL LEGAL'_a'^^—"R s— - 22101052 - , � , OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPEC'ISONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .7aneen E. Rosar, Director � � crrY oF sa�rT PAUZ, �� Runay,c. Keuy, Mayor E1llgUS� 1, Z0�5 Ms. Mary Erickson Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: 05=�6 8 COMMERCEBUILDTNG Telephone: 651-2669090 8 Fowtle Street East, Suite 200 Pacsimile: 65I-266-9124 SainE Pnui, Minnesom SSI01 We6: www.[ie�.us I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Couticil is scheduled for Wednesday, August 17, 2005 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Joseph Marrone . Zoning File #: OS-107924 Purpose: Location: 3taff: Dishict : Board: Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying two vatiances in order to construct a new single family home at 413 Burlington Road. ' 413 Burlington Road. Recommended approval. District 1 recommended denial. Denied on a 6-1 vote. I have confumed this date with the office of Council President Kathy Lanhy. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks ! ��' � 1�^" EIazdwi k, Zoning Specialist AA-ADA-EEO Employer e u , I �PZLLI i, ! y�i 'fiAilA' � APPlIGATION FOR APPEA! ➢eparlment ofPlanxing and Economic Development ZnningSeetion 1400 CityHa[Letruerx 25 West Fourtk Street SairuPauy MN 55102-Z634 (b5I) 266-6589 �� APPLICANT ---•-°- ��. � ��<,��, ._�, „r --- City��f �UlL St.�ip_,��1� Daytime PROPERTY LOCATION Zoning File Address / L L�� 1 '_ ' -.. -��.5 =�3��L TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made fo� an appeal to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals �City Council Under the provision of Chapter fi4, Section �_Paragraph '7��of the Zoning Code, to appeat a � � dec�sion made by the �-t'�'.t�y t7'� �� l�-.,�i�r, �� on ! �( � . 20 a� . File Number. C`�- � a`7 �j Z� (date of decision), GROUNDS FQR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative officiai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made hy the Board of Zoning Appeals or the P(anning Commission. � �.�-c � 69-��9 i��f.� (attach additional sheet if necessary) ApplicanYs � � G 7 GLJ City Agent � �t� j��^ („)/r/G�� , ( �05-•86� Dear City Couneil Members, I am appealing this decision of tke BZA based on tke followiu,;: In preseutiug my plea at the time of the BZA hearing of my variance request, my opposition was making fatse statemeuts about buildable azea at the front of my property_ Ia my rebuttal, the BZA was not iuterested in seeing documentation (pichues), I brought to the hearing to countez these statements and show clearly that the information provided by my opposition was false regarding buildable area at the front of my properiy. Furthermore, the resolution on item two (2) clearly did not address tke unique circamstances of my pmperLy, but rather offers a geaeric unsupported comment as follows: " There are other homes in this area that are located within the 40 foot bluff setback. There is nothing unique about tlus propert�'. That statement holds about as much water as this one: "We are all standing next to the catholic church, so all o€us are Catholics" In item one (1) of the BZA resolution the following statement is made, "The applicant states that he needs a lazger house and if he were forced to build on the same foundatiott fie woutd have to construct a three story house to get the room he needs. He could buitd the house clos� to the stceet without the need for any variances". I don't recall anyone forcing me to build on the existing footprim. This is a choice for me rather than building on at the fro� of tke property and blocking my access to the garage and taking down mature trees wluch I think aze an asset to the bluff area. It is a IegaI option for me, ttot a forced situation. I do not "need" a targer house. I desire a larger house. 770 square feet can be quite cramping for four people. Item three (3) of the resolutioa quotes the Tree Preservation Overlay District Section 67.201 of the zoning code. Too 2eagtky to type here, but basically states tke importance of preserving the essential character a,nd natural state of the azea with minimal tree loss. Suggesting I build at the front of the lot is in direct conflict with that staiement. It continues quoting Section 68.401, the River Comdor Standards and Criteria, " by reducing the effects of paorly planned shoreline and bluff line developznem... preventing pollution of surface and groundwater, minimizing flood damage; preveuting soil erosion; and implementin� metropolitan plans, policies and standazds". Clearly removing my entire eexisting foundation rather thau collapsing only two feet below grade would be more destruckive to the b2uff combined with comanued runoff from Burtington Roadslack of a storm sewer and the thought of removing natural vegetation including remoual=saf mature trees at the frorn of the properiy to build there is cornrary to that statement. Ne� is secfion 68.402, protection of shore tands, flood plains, wettands and bluffs: "Development shall be conducted so that the smalIest pradical area of land be developed at any one time and that each area be subjected to as little �osion or flood dazuage as possible during and after development" This compowtds it one more time- building at the front of the properiy would be a much lazger foo a��s�ature trees would be removed, and the driveway would be moved along wittt �e�gg�he existing sixucture. This is a lot of disruption to the sioped part ofthe �oi and is not inkeeping with 2 ;a: � � �� .. . ! "sivallest practical area". My proposal only asks for 286 more square feet than what alre�dy exists. Also, only 500 square feet of the proposed structure would be two stories talI. Lastly, it appears thax the spirit and antent of the code is not being considered in the big picture. I say this because the optians of building elsewhere on the lot cause more disruption to the preservation of the bluff area than simply allowing this minimal eapansian by variance as is the intent af the law to begin with. "Variance: In zoning, a variance is an administrative exception to land use regulations, generally in order to compensate for a deficiency in a real properiy which would prevent tfie properry from complying with the zoning regulation" ' �'� �__. c Joseph Marrone 413 Burlington Road Saint Paul, MN � � � .Q�-�38 `�fbQ APPI.ECATION FOR ZONINT VARIANCE OFFICE OFLICEIUSE, Ih]SpECT10NS, A1Vp ENYIROIVMENTAL FRO7'ECTION BFOUrth SY. E, Suite 200 Sainf Pau� MN 55101-1024 b51-266-90Q8 Zoning oT�i e use only File number Fee $ 1J4� —� _.• -• ri_�, Ter�tative hearing date • 7�.(l.p� SECUOII(5) G$.lfn7_ f�eM APPLICANT PROPERTY �+i f—�.ti� s+am/�,�P�1�oaytimePtror�c3'1—t/d�J—�34 Property irt�rest of appl'�caM (owner, �or,o-a�e Fx,r��r, atc.� b c�r.rr�"� Name of ownar (ddfier�t) _ Le�! desaiption �� /RYT/gG'1dF� (m� additfnnal sheet rt'n�y) tMsize �.�''�l✓�, Presant �k7 Proposed Use �%/+7(� '�•'A��/ dG �_��'T121lG ��J�✓ Trl2�+ `�2 �Q variance(s)requested: l..EG�G�7'io -�.i+/ �O'f .+�Let�'� � �-o �� ` �'� ��t- � � e�z��r �-� < �.�.�� 2. What physics! charac�ristics of the property prevent its being used far any of ffie permitted uses in your mne? (�pograPhY, size andshape oflot, sol cornii6ans, etc.) j 6�/P1��2�y.P1+°� � cf2KI¢DLr �FJ �� /OA/ �-� E7I'`f/LfJCa� � /y1.�4 2 � 7',t�-S�'`S� 3. Exptain taw the strid appiication of the provisions of Ure Zoning Ordinsnce would resuR i� pecufiar or exceptionel practical diffieW6as aexcepfional undue hatdships. G��dtT Z/R /'2 Bti A P t�'�`c/6' 7 � `° 'Y'''��' ;� �icrd� ..so s�v2 �� a�'� e'riF2a�6 A-e�Ej�' c�'c�c-v d� -�'..re✓i`d .>`r � a2.arrr/L� ?�c : ` L � I v�eutD /i'��s� Ta ff'� IC�'i'�20T/C.r. c CA9HIERSUSEONLY 4. Explain how the granting of a variance wilf not be a su6star�tial detrimerrt to the pubkc gcotl or a subsiaMial impairmerd of iha irrterrt and purpose oftheZoningOrti'mance. � �� 4�� l'�c �t✓-i= vs�w �,c rrrF �c�-�' F i !�-�'/�f �/�� Jf'Z %/r� !i./:tlT�/2 /yfSA s�,�.,o w� �o �B r�.� : ..�� du.c�- x � 7id�' Pftrs�� f*t2SaR£�'Z _�.e,orn � e�Gr AppiicanYs � � t��'� � � � Oate .3 � � � . ., • May 20, 2005 Joseph E. Marrone 413 Burlington Road Saint Paul, MN 55119 7•TFP 8 Fourth Street Suite 200 Saint Paul, MN SS101-1024 �� =-- � � = �� y•� Re: Application for a setback variance for properiy located at 413 Burlington Road, Saint Paul. Boazd of Zoning Appeals: I write in an effort to clearly e�lain the circumstances and reasons for my request of variance. My intentions are to demo my e�sting 720 square foot home and conshuct a moderate 1600 square foot single family residence with a 1033 square footprim. The current homes partially stone foundation and roof inembers ue degraded to the point of total repair and the confines of the home are very limiting. I had inquired with the Department of L1EP one year ago. I spoke with Ed and obtained � the requirements regarding demolition and new construction and discussed the intentions of this project. I was told at the time that I could demo the current home and expand much like he and a relative were currently doing in another location. I was clear in my location "on the bluff in Burlington Heights" and provided my address. There was no discussion of bluff setbacks. I moved forward with my plans, retained an azchitect and spent the winter and $ b,000.00 with designs that were within budget and would compliment the settiug and the neighborhood. I inquired with neighbors most impacted and invited their input. This spring I weut to the Department of LIEP with all the copies and required documentation for a site plan review. I visited with Tom Beech to go over these plans. At this point that I was told about the minimum bluff setback of 40'. I was offered the option of a variance, but was told that this area is under "a microscope" and a variance agproval was unlikely. Note my current minimum setback is 14' from the bluff line. Three days later I met with Tom Beech and 7im Bloom at Tim's suggestion. I was told I could espand the current footprint, but had to observe my current minimum setback of 14' or greater with any e�ansion. I was asked to shoot elevations to confinn location of the bluff line based on an 18% change in grade. The city was unable to define where the bluff line was and did not have the manpower to determine it. As a responsible homeowner I shot ths elevations. I asked for written e�lanation of what I could and could not build. I was asked if an email was sufficient and I stated I would rather have it � mailed in writing. Four weeks iater I asked again as I had not received anyttring in � writing. r� � • �� N--= �`F�. :� i f � Af4er much discussion with L1EP, the DNR, Sheldon Johnson's office, the City Attomey and other individuals it has fivally been determined and esplained to me bq Wendy Ia.ne, who has been a great help, that I can only expand upon my existing footprint if that expanded portion is at or exceeds the 40' miuimum bluff setback. Obviously, this creates conflict. Tius was on Monday May 16�'. Aa +n I asked for a written response and was toid I would receive one "soon". I have not received aaything as of this writing. It is obvious to me that bluff line setback requirements have not always been adhered to as noted bq recent residential construction on tlris bluff line in my neighborhood. I am not suggesting that because oversigfit or errors have been made in the past that more should be made. I am suggesting that because of unusuat chuacteristics of this property, i, e. topography and shape, former variance approval and my desire to keep the mature trees in ptace and contribute to the beauty of the area, that ttus site pian and variance be approved. I understand that bluff tine setback criteria, particutarly in this case, is new to the City. My itttentions are ttot to "point fingers" or blame for lack of definitive information in a timely fastrion. All parties involved, including Wendy Lana, 7im Bloom and Tom Beech have responded to my questions and concerns upon research of the complex statutes with the assistance of the City Attomey. I understand the need to maintain the beauty of the bluff for environmental reasons as well as protection of wildlife. Surely what I am proposing to do is helping that cause and the "human cause" which is often overlooked. It atso atlows me to construct a quieter, reasonably sized living space for four, so the windows don't shake from the trains (true story), and a few more feet to get away from the conskwt "humpin�' of trains directly below the bluff. Constxut traffic noise from Awy_ 61, the wonderful smelt of the tra.in brakes, the airport noise and the effiuent plant; all of which, in my opinion, cause a greater threat to the River Corridor than my simple little project. It is not as though I am building huge unatiractive square boxes in clear view of the rivet like the new conshuction currently tal�ng place just south of downtowa Often the view from the river enjoyed by many is much better than the view of tfie river from the bIuff. I have spent countless hours shooting elevations, trying to rearrange my currevt plans, flipping and reversing and have even eliminated an aitached two story screetted-in porch from the north end of the proposed home in an effort to meet these setback criteria. I am askiug for the enclosed groposed new construction to go forwazd. My greatest concern is a very large oak tree that is magnificettt and provides and adds to the beauty of the area. This oak is located 21' from the northeasterly portion of the proposed consiruction Each change I trie� to create eacroached on this tree's root system aad I ha�e no interest in building a struclure tt�at might cause it harm. Two different arUorists have suggested I do not build any closer than I have pmposed. Upon a visit to my properry you will see that it is heavily wooded on three sides. To the east, (street side), there aze also trees that prolubit building at the &ont of the property and also access to a � � `F� � � > . . ., ��_ _ �; ._:� `� e T'. � ' � �f � recernly constnicted garage that was part o£ the whole plan and approved by this Board three years ago. The alternative is to build a 30' lugh shucture on the existing footprirn (21' x 37'), which is only 14' from the bluff. Not appealing, not complimentary to the new garage or surroundiags and not in keeping with the bluff scenery or the neighborhood. Additionally it wouid obstruct the winter view from the residents across the street. I would also need to completely start over, pay more architectural fee's and absorb the costs and tnne I have already incurred wlaich creatas a moderate financial burden for me. I believe tius would decrease the value of the neighborhood to have such a tower rising upwazd from the bluff. A phallic symbol, if I may be so bold and quite viewable from the river. My proposed site plan would actually move the struchue fatther away from the bluff at the west and stay within my e�sting setback. I have read the River Corridor Plan, I have read the State Statutes that apply and I have made reasonable concessions, including cutting back on my plans and ask the same of all of you. I believe what I propose is not only conservative, but will add to the beauty of the bluff as I am moving fiuther away from the west. Further, it will allow me to maiirtain the eausting landscape and make good use of the properiy creating a conservative 1600 square feet of living space for the four of us that currently reside here. I believe the primary purpose of the River Corridor Plan, the Tree Preservation District guidelines and � the Critical Bluff Area plans are to preserve the beauty and wildlife in these areas. My proposed site plan considers all of this. I await your findings and ask for your considerations. Sincer� //,�_ �. 7oseph E. Marrone � � '�–� �r/R�ln/4�°�v Rc.�O —� f�,i;oy°SeD ��sio�iJ¢E y/3 �u.ee+N4� ' �$RrNi %/F�'L� M2/ '4 � / . N�T� id7'+iJy IY�Je1'BRep � � pE /8% [u+hntrE x✓ a2rF0E N>£: � T4c4 � !Y. IB"�R• �,TQ✓.YR' ildG a cn � � � •• : � �� r ;;�: � ;,: �<�, , � �- � Exh�it A Legat Descr[pNon Y /v ? b'r�2z-�'aJ6i�`a°r� , LOTS 39 AND 40, BI.00K 6, AND TNAT PART OF LOTS 4 ANp 6, HLOCK 4 DESCRIBE� AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING A7 TIiE NORTHEAST CaR�lER OF LOT 6; THENCE WE51'ERLY TOTHE NORTHWEST C�RNER OF LOT 4; 7HENCE SOUTHEAS7ERLY 70 THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE EASTERLY TO THE SOUTHEAS7ERLY GORNER OF �OT 8; THENGE htORTHERtY TO A Pd1NT OF 8EG{NNiNG, TOGETH�R WITH THAT PAR7 OF VACATED STREET ADJACENT TO SAIp L�T 4 bESCRlBED AS FQLLOWS: C�MMENCING AT THE NORTIiWEST CORNER OF LOT 4, HLOCK 4; TEiESJCE WE5{'�RLY T� TFiE NORTt1EAST CORNER �F l.OT d0, BLOCK 6; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF !OT 39, BLOCK 6; 7HENCE EASTERLY TO THE SOUTHWEST COE•.HER �F L�T 4, BLaCK A THENCE NORTHWESTERLY TO THE POfNI' OF BEGINNING, ALL IN BURLINGTON HEIGHTS D1VISI�N H0.2, RAMSEY COUN7Y, MINNESaTA. �� ''� � . ' •. . � � . . LL • / ` CTLY OF SAINT PAUL Randv G Kel1y, brayo> May 25, 2005 7oe Mazrone 413 Burlington Road Saint Paul, MN 55119 Re: 413 Burlington Road Dear Mr. Marrone: ��FS - OPFICE OF LICENSE, INSYECTIONS AND �s ,� INVIltONMENTAL PROTECTiON ✓aneen E. Rosas; Director CD�?ERCE$UILDING Telephone: 651-266-9090 � 8Foi�rti�StE,Suite200 - X+acsim�7e: 651-2669124 Saint Pau1, Mimiesora SSIOI-1024 Web: www.lien.ur The referenced property is located in a Rl zoning dishict (single family residential) with a RC3 overlay disirict (River Corridor Urban Open Overlay District) and a Tree Preservation overlay district. According to Section 68.402.(4) of the Saint Paul zoning code, in the river corridor districts `Bluff deve2opment shall take place at least forty (40) feet landwazd of all bluffiines: ' The plan you suhmitted shows the existing hoiuse set back appro�mately 14' from the bluffline. Therefore, the structure does not conform to the cuffent zoning code standard. The use as a single family dwelling is a conforming use and your house is consigered a nonconforming shucture with a conforming use. Section 62.105 specifies regulations far nonconforming structures with confornring uses as follows: Sec. 62.105. Nonconforuung structures wfth conforming uses, Nonconforming shuctiues with confo*�++ino uses aze subject to the following provisions: (a) A nonconfomring shuchue may continue. (b) A nonconfomring shuctute may be enlazged ox akeied so long as such enlazgement or alteratiori does not increase itsnonconformity. Accessorybuildings may be added so long as they confomi m all xespects to the zequsemeuts of section 63.501, accessory buildings. (c) When a nonconforming structuce is destroyed by any means to an extent of more than sixry (60) percent of iYS replacemenY cost, exclusive of the faundation, at the time of deshvction, it sLall not be ieconstructed eacept m confomaity with the provisions of this code. A nonconfotming residential garage, however, may be rebuilt in a reaz yazd with the same nonconfomung setback withiu one (1) yeax of iYs destruction, provided that it is wiihm the ma�m height and size l�ts for an acgessory structure outliued in section 63.501(c) and (d). (� �Vhen a nonconfomxing structtse is moved for anyreason for auy distattce whatevet, it sl�all thereafter conformto the xegulations for the dishict in which it is locaYed after it is moved. There was a change in state Iaw that went into effect August 1, 2004 regarding nonconformities. T'he statute currenfly reads: L� !� • l ,� • .� i� � cy €'.—, , '�� / i 7oe Martone May 25, 2005 • Page 2 462357 Official controls: zoning ordinance. S�bd. le. Nonconformifies. Any nanconfonnity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or prenvses e�sting at the time of the adoption of an addirional control tmder this cLapter, may be conimued, includ'mg through repair, replacement, xastoration, mamtenauce, or improvement, but not including expansion, �mless: (1) the nonconfomrity or occupancy is disconiiuued for a period of moie than one yeaz; or (2) any nonconfomilng use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 peicent of its mazket value, and no building permit ]�as been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged In tUis case, a nnmicipality may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in ordez to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises sball be a confomilug use or occupancy. A immicipality may, by ordina.nce, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconfornuties reasonable regularions to prevent and aBate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfaze, oc safety. Tbis subdivision does not pzolu'bit a municipality $om enforcing an ordinauce that applies to adults-only bookstores, adutts-only theaters, or sixnilaz adults-only bnsinesses, as defined by ordinauce. Although the state law allows nonconfomrities to be replaced, it does not allow the � e�ansion of nonconformities unless the municipality peimits it by ordinance. It also clarifies that municipalities may adopt reasonable regulafions for nonconfomuties. Section 62.105.(b) of the zoning code peinuts the expansion of nonconformities subject to conditions. It states that "A nonconforming structure may be enlazged or altered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity." Your proposed plan would increase the nonconfornuty since it would occupy a lazger footprint within the 40 foot setback area. Section 62.105.(d) of the zoning code states that a nonconforming structure cannot be moved for any distance. Your proposed plan would move the building. Therefore, the existing house may be replaced in its current footprint/location. However, it may not be enlarged to occupy a larger footprint within the 40 foot setback area and it cannot be moved within the 40 foot setback area. You have the option of applying to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variauce from the required 40 foot setback from the bhiffliue. In addition to standazds for general variances, there aze specific standards for variances from the river corridor overlay district as follows: Sec. 68.601. Variances. � (a) Applications for variance to the provisions of this chaptei may be filed as ptovided in section 61.600. The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to demonshate ' conclusively that such vaziance will not xesult in a t�azazd to life ox ptaperty and tvill not � � V . . _. 7oe Manone May 25, 2005 Page 3 adveisely affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or dra,'na�e cl�annei, ot the napual endso�ent; subfi proofmay incIude soils, geology and hydrology reports wLich shall be signed by registered pmfessional engineeis. Variances sk�all be consistent with the genecal pucposes of the standazds wntained in tbis cltaptei and state law and the inteirt of applicable state and national laws and programs. �� / = ._.,.; A new house may be built optside of the 40 foot setback area. Anq new construction must also meet all other zoning eode standarcLs, srzch as setbacks from Yke properiy lines, lot coverage, height, construction on slopes and iree removal. Please contact Tom Beach at 651-266-9086 if you have questions about other zoning staudards. This decision regarding restrictions for house replacement within the bhiffline may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Appflcations must be made within 10 days of this date and there is a$435 filing fee. Please let me I�ow if you have finther questions. Sincerely, � Wend�YL� ; Zoning Manager 651-266-9081 � \J t� � �e � � ` � Sp(' ��° �� a 1 ry � � �e , r��d e�P�ci�--�'rew7 �, �1 �f� -'-� � / q � �� W � � � 4 �� . Q5-81o� � .��. L �� ss � y � �. . V . , K ,� �� q �� .. � �� ,�,�` �� ,v� �� "� � id WdTS:�e SOaZ 9T '�ELJ :'ON XH� � / �j�� 2�sr �c ��'•� " ' C� ��.,c� � -51' �am �s.t� 1� �; : Wo ,� _ , i a � r � From the desk of Bill & Met"cssa CoUixs 435Bartinglon dtoad SaintP� MNSSII9 June 10, 2005 Board ofZoning Appeals Office ofLTEP 8 Fourth Street East Suite 200 St Paiil, MN 55161-1024 RE: your file # OS-107924 r ��.0 . ` - ,:.,;`� � . We own the PT�P�S' �Jacent to 413 Burlington to the south. This letter is to support the vatiance request made by 7osephMazrone for bluff setback and yazti setback in order to const�uct a new singte-family home_ The PmPos�d constcuction will be an assex to the neighborhood. The existiag home is already within 14 feet ofthe bluff and the plan for the improveme� does not encroach any closer tb the bh�ffline. To remove the existing smail home and rebuitd with x more attractive st�udure would increase the property values in the area along with the tax base. This requested variance is reasonable aud fias no n�aiive impact on the environmeut. We.askthatgou approvethevariance. SincerelY ; � � �� i , �1 � Bili az[d Melissa Collins r : : ; , _.:r; r .. . .. . ., , ;�a.; , - . . .. s:�:`. .. .:-. a;. .,. . .:� :.. , .,. ,. , , ... .:;z:. c: . .. , :t � �� . � . - .. .. . F:., . , .. .. .. . . . _ . 'i � _. .. • .. ,�. .. , _. - .. . . t..:,., , , .. : .. -. �. . .. . . . : ., . . . — ..... . . . . _ . . ".. , ., � � � � � p� �� . . . . . .. - . -. From: "ELIZABETH A WEBSTER" <edmundweb@msn.com> To: <John.Hardwick@ci.stpaui.mn.us> Date: 6/13/2005 4:09:17 PM Subject: 413 •Burinngton Rd. variances loseph Marrone I am ]oseph Marrone neighbor at 409 Burlington Rd. I would like to see the two variances granted to the Marrones. Tfie house they are living in was built 1914 by my.GrandfatMer. 3t was used by a man who worked as a care taker for what was then a large garden. My Grandfather lived below the hill on point Douglas Rd, and had his gardens on top of the hill: The house did not have water or plumbing until the late 1930's when my Grandfather build a new house on the property and ren water to the house. To not grant the variances would mean that they wouid need to build father away form the bluff. This would require the removal of several large trees and would reduce the view we have over the hill looking south. My family has lived in the Highwood area for almost 100 years. The area is one of the oldest if not the oldesY neighbor in St. Pau1 witli houses built much closer to the blufF then the Marrones are requesting. To ndt grant the variances would be a big mistake. Thank Edmund Webster �' � l� file://C:�Documents%20and%20Settings�hazdwicj�L,ocal%20Settings\Temp\GW} 000O1.�I... 6/15/2005 � �� http://pw8 5/17/2005 Map Output � �'" ° `:'_. ,,,� � � Page 1 of 1 � a. os- o� �a�( _� _ � PROPERTY WITHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL; 413 BURLINGTON ROAD � �•�1' -�-- -_ , ��r�' =" � 405 \ .'� ,` •.. • ; . � 0 .:. O� _ _ • ` , .__.. Q 409 - � y 'c ti� �� t � �F � �-w,i.�� > s � � � ��y �� . 4 � �a � � . � ... � t `: _. .� : . �* � � � �� , � �' �x : : w_ �> �. �. � � �� : � . � � �� :, N CREATED BY LI EP � � -.s � � � i , •s �.• � � � 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. S. 7. 8. 9. lU. 11. 12. i3. 14. 1S. lo. i �. SUNP.nY-Bfi T?ZECREEK-HIGHV,�OOD HA7 � PARK FLLADEN-PROSPBRITY HILLCREST WES"T SIDE DAYTUN'S BI,iJFF' PAYNf: PHAI,EN NORTI-I END THOMAS-DALE SCTMMIT-LJ2II�IERSIT'Y WEST SEVENTH COMQ HA2�r1I,TNE-HfID'WAY ST. AAITHONI' PAt`2 K �viERF �Ai� PAP.K-LE�ING 1 �N I'�tvtL3NE-S?VELLING HAh4LI2�IE �PC.�LESTE'R GROZIEL�VI' HIG�IT.AND S T3 L I� � +��:�i��' Y i� � �� Qs CITIZEN PARTICIPATiON PLAN7VING DISTRICTS ♦ ' : .. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF' REPORT TYPE OF APPI,ICATION: APPLICANT: HEARING DATE: LOCATION: Major Variance JOSEPH E. MARRONE 7une 20, 2005 413 BURLINGTON ROAD FILE #OS-107924 � LEGAL DESCRiPTION: BURLINGTON HEIGHTS, DIVLSION NO. Z, RAMSEY COUNTY, NIINNESOTA VAC EDGEWOOD PLACE BETWEEN & FOL; LOTS 39 & 40 BLK 6& PART OF LOTS 4& 6 BLK 4 LYING SLY OF A LINE RUN FROM NE COR OF SD LOT 6 TO NW COR OF SD LOT 4 BLK 4 PLANNING DISTRICT: PRESENT ZOIYING: Rl; TPD; RC-3 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 68.402 & 66.231 REPORT DATE: 7une 13, 2005 BY: 7ohn Hazdwick DEADLINE FOR ACT'ION: 7uly 5, 2005 DATE RECEIVED: May 26, 2005 A. PURPOSE; Two variances in order to construct a new singt�family house. 1) A bluff setback of 40 feet is required and a setback of 14 feet is proposed, for a variance of 26 feet. 2) A side yard setback of 10 feet is required and a setback of 5 feet on the north side is proposed, for a variance of 5 feet B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This is a large uregular shaped lot with no alley access. The reaz third of the lot sits on a bluff-line. Surrounding Land Use: Singie-family homes. C. BACKGROI7ND: The applicant is proposing to demoksh his elcisting house and build a new home in approximately the same location. D. FINDINGS: Page I of 5 � 1 � r . J � � 7 • � File #OS-107924 Staff Report 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant states tbat the foundation and structural members of his eacisting house haue deteriorated to the point that the house needs to be replaced. He is proposing to build a new, larger house in appro�mately the same location. This properry is located witUiu the River Corridor as well as the Tree Preservation Overlay District. Secrion 68.402 (4) states `Bluff development shall take place at least 40 feet landwazd of all bluff lines." The existing house is located about 14 feet from the bluff line and is a legal nonconforming structure. Accarding to state law, non-conformities may be replaced but may not be enlazged. The zoning code specifies that a nonconforming structure may not be moved to a new location unless it conforms to the current code requirements. The applicant is proposing to construct the new house with the same setback from the bluff line on either side but fiuther away from the point of the bluff and closer to the street. The applicant states that he needs a larger house and if he were forced to build on the same foundation he would have to construct a ttuee-story house to get the room he needs. I3e could build the house closer to the street without the need for any variances ! but tlus would result in the loss of mature trees and the bluff view that the current location has. All things considered, the location for the new house is a reasonable proposal. 2. The plight of the Zand owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the Zand owner. The topography of the property as well as the location of the existing house and accessory buildings on the site are circumstances that dictate the most practical locarion for a new house. These are circumstances that were not created by the current property owner. 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. According to Section 67.201 of the zoning code: "The TP {Tree Preservation Overlay District) is designed to preserve the essential character of those azeas that are heavily wooded and in a more natural state by encouraging a resourceful and prudent approach to their development that includes nunimal tree loss and mitigation of tree removal resulting from development. The TP � district is further provided to reduce storm water zunoff and minimize flooding; to aid Page 2 of 5 � V � �►, : _ : File #OS-107924 StaffReport in the stabilization of soil by prevenfing erosion and sedimentation; to aid in the removal of cazbon dio�ride and the generation of o�rygen in the ahnosphere; and to maintain the visual. screening, wind break, dust collecfion, heat and glare reduction, and noise bartier characteristics exhibited by trees: ' The proposed location for the new house would allow several mature oak trees to be preserved and is consistent with the goals of the Tree Preservation Overlay District. A tree preservation plan will need to be submitted prior to the permit issuance that is in compliance with the requirements of Section 67.200. The objective of the River Corridor Standards and Criteria, under Section 68.401, is to: � "maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the river corridor in conformance to the St. Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan by reducing the effects of poorly planned shoreline and bluff line development; providing sufricient setback for sanitaty facilities; preventing pollution of surface and groundwater; min;m;�;ng flood damage; preventing soil erosion; and implementing metropolitanplans, policies and standards:' Section 68.40Z, under Protection o£ shore lands, flood plains, wetlands and bluffs, goes on to say that: "Development shall be conducted so that the smallest practical azea of land be developed at any one time and that each area be subjected to as little erosion or flood damage as possible during and after development " According to these two sections, the requirement for setback from bluff lines is fo *ninim;�e erosion during and after constniction, as well as to maintaiu the natural environment of the river corridor and to reduce the effects of poorly planned bluff line deveIopment. The proposed location for the new house is on the flattest portion of the site which will present the least danger of erosion and require the 2east stabilization during and after constntction. The applicant has not submitted a certified survey or detailed construcrion plans for the proposed dwelling. Section 68.601(a) states in part: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to demonstrate conclusively that such variance will not result in a hazard to life ar properry and will not adversely affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channei, or the natural environmettt; such proof may include soils, geology and hydrology reports which shall be sigaed by registered professional engineers. Variances shall be consistent with the general purposes of the standards contained in this chapter and sfate Iaw and the intent of applicable state and nationallaws and programs: ' Page 3 of 5 � � �� OS-8<o3� File #05-107924 ! StaffReport Provided that the applicant submits a certified survey and the necessary documentation from a registered professional engineer, the proposed variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Plan which incorporates the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Plan as well as various other local, state and federal plans. The requested variance will not adversely affect the health or welfare of area residents. 4. The proposed variance wi11 not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor wiTl it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonaSly diminish established property values within the surrounding area. This house is located considerably further back from the street than either of the neighboring homes. The requested variances would not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The existing house was. constructed in 1922 with a 14-foot setback from the bluff. Expanding the footprint of the new house and moving it closer to the street, wlule maintaninig the same or greater setback from the bluff would have a miuimal impact on � the propezty. Building a three-story house in the current location would chaaige the view of the bluff from the river valley and for the homes across the street. Rexnoving 100-year old oak trees in order to move the house further from the bluff would alter the character of this heavily wooded pazcel. The property owner has a right to a reasonable use of his property and this proposal is a reasonable compromise given the goals of the Tree Preservarion Overlay District, the River Corridor 5tandards and Criteria and the owner's desire to have a new home. 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 land is Zacated, nor would it alter or change the zoning district cZassification of the property. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning classification of the properly. � 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the vaZue or income potential of the parcel of land. E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMb�NDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from District 1. . F. CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has not received any correspondence regazding this matter. Page 4 of 5 � � 05-8� 8 File #05-107924 Staff Report G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staffrecommends approval of the variances subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant must submit a certified survey of the property showing the location of all structures, displaying the contours of the land and any trees 12 inches in diameter that would be affected by the proposed development; 2) The applicant must submit a tree preservation plan in compliance with the requirements of Section 67.200; and 3) The applicant must submit documentation from a registered engineer certifying that the proposed development will not. adversely affect the stability of the slopes, bluff or drainage to the surrounding property. , � � Page 5 of 5 • �� MINUTES OF TFIE MEETING OF Tf� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS C1TY CAiJNCII, CHAMBERS, 330 CTTY HALL � ST. PAiTL, MINNESOTA, J[7LY 5, 2005 PRESENT: Mmes. Bogen, Maddo� and Morton; Messrs. Coistney, Faricy, Cralles, and Wilson of the Boazd of 7.ouing Appeais; Ms. Cnmderson, Assistant City Attorney�, Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protecfion. ABSENT: none The meeting was cbaired by 7oyce Maddox, Ghair. Joseoh �. Marrone (#OS-107924) 413 Bnrlington Road• Two variances in order to conshuct a new single-family house. 1.) A bluff setback o#'40 feet is required and a setback of 14 feet is proposed, for a variance of 26 feet. 2.) A side yard setback of 10 feet is required and a setback of 5 feet ou the north side is proposed, for a variance of 5 feet. Mr. E3ardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant must submit a czrtified survey of the property showing the location of all siructures, displaying the contours of the land and auy trees 12 inches in diameter that would be affected by the proposed development; 2) The applicant must submit a tree preservation plan in compliance with the requirepients of Section 67.200; and 3) The applicant must submit documentation from a registered engineer certifying that the praposed development wiJl not adversely affect the stabiliiy of the slopes, bluff or dtainage to the sunounding properiy. � One letiter was received supporting the variance request. Also one phone call was received supporting the variance request. One letter was received from District 1 recommending a compromise, that states "if the house can be built so that at least 50% of the footprint is at least 30 feet away from the bluff line, they would support the variance." � Mr. Audwickrequested that legal council address the fact that the notification to neighbors that went out was a 14-foot bluff setback and on the new survey one side has 11.28 foot setback, is that close enough to constitute proper notification. Ms. Gunderson questioned what went out. Pvlr. Hardwick replied that what is on the purpose statement on the front of the staff report. Ae explained that the purpose statement was copied word for word on the postcazd notification to the neighbors. Ms. Gunderson stated that the notification is sufficient, given that if outlines what the praper setback would have been: Ms. Gunderson fiu�ther questioned whether the shuciure right now encroaches beyond the 14 feet? She fixrther questioned by how much`t Mr. Hardwick zeplied 11.28 feet. Ms. Gunderson replied that she does thivlc the notification was sufficient. Mr. Hardwick stated that there aze a couple of altematives. If the Boazd decides tA grant the variances, �s to hold the applicant to the origina114 feet, which would require him to revise his plans. Or to go ahead and grant a.modified variance 11.28 feet on the south side and whatever it is, he tUinks it is about 14 feet, on the north side. Ms. Bogen questioned Mr. Hazdwick whether the letter from the engineering consultants would he valid because of the setback change to 11.28 feet. Mr. Hardwick replied according to the report on paragraph three of the front page, they state that the over-dig outsid'e of the footing line would be approumately two feet. From the reaz foundation to the bluff edge of 14 feet the excavarion would extend to within 12 feet of the bluff edge. With a setback of 11.28 feet and a 2-foot over-dig the constnxction would extend AA-AAA-EEO Employer � � � �� ,. File #OS-107924 Minutes 7uly 5, 2005 Page Two to 9.28 feet of ti�e bIu� so it is still outside ofthe 8-foot area. Ms. Bogen fiirther questioned wtiat does that inwlve? 1bIachinery and things like that desiroying the bluffvegetation? Mr. Hardwickteplied no, what fie is falldug abouf is when they dig a french to put in footings and foundations that trench is angled and t1�at is the over-dig. Noting that the letter does state tYiat a bob cat within that azea will not have any significant effr.ct. i Ms. Maddox questioaed Mr. Hardwicl5 m an effort to presetve the bluff and sa�e ffie trees, what is his opinion of the District 1 proposal? blr. Flardwick stated according to the District 1 proposal, wluch they thought was a reasonable compromise. He stated t1�at ke did speak to Aan Muller, the Executive Dffector of District 1, and she stated the reason for that was that the Dishict thought that moving the house further toward the street would disriipt the character of the neighborhood They felt that the loss df any mature trees on the site vi*ould be much more detrimental than building the new house with the same pro�mity to " the bluff as the earistirig house. The DistricY also thonght that keeping the house further baek on the lot would preserve the staggered effect of Yhe houses in this azea. Some of the house5 are close to the slreet and some are back, whioh creates a unique chazacter of the neigfiborhood. If the appficauYs £egures are correct and the new house fooiprnit is over 50% or more outside of 30 feet of the bluff line, than the District 1 recommendation is met Tliat again is something that will kiave to be checked over very closely during the site plan review process. It is pretly close just looldng at it witli a layman's eye. Ms. Maddox questioned "we could still stick to the 14 feet verses the 11.28 feet?" Mr. Aazdwick repIied you could, � but itwould require the applicant to modify his plans and move the house. The applicant JOSEPH E. MARRONE, 413 Burlington Road, was present. Mr. Marrone apologized for not getting the surveys sooner, however, it was difficult to find someone to do it at a reasonabie price during the height of consh�uction season, within a time line. He statedhe would not have a problem with moving to the 14 feet, he did not have a cerlified survey when he put lus pnis out to have the surveyors to measure the distance to the bluff. He stated he had two letters of support from the neighbors to the north and the south of his property, and a phone call from Mark across the street Ae has removed a second story screened porcfi on one end to try to come to some compromise. He has hied to move the house any way he could get it in without taldng out any trees, The current house is 720 square feet and the prapqsed house is 1056, so it is not a huge difference. Five hundred square feet are second floar footage and the remainder is single shed roof level. It is fairly conservative. Ed Webster, 409 Burlington Road, stated he is on the north of the property in question. He wrote the letter in tke packet and has lived 'm his home his whole 1ife. The house at 413 Bzslington Road was built in the 1920s and at that time the house had no plumbing and they used a cistern for the water. He e�lained that his gandfather put the plunibing in the house itt the 1930s. Mr. WebsEer stated that if Mr. Marrone built the house up to the level that lus home is on it would blocklus view and would have to take out a bunch of lrees tUat his grandfather planted. $e does not want to see thaf fiappen. Mr. Webster stated that the house has been there as long as he t�as been alive and it needs to be replaced. He is in favor of this variauce. Ann Muller, bistrict 1 Community Council, stated that flus was hard for the District A couple of the Boazdmembers walked the properiy, sgoke to the ownez and the neighbors and discussed this a lot. Ms. � nn-nnn-sso �,1oy� �� • ._- . File #05-107924 Minutes 7uly 5, 2005 Page Three Muller stated that they decided on a compromise. Because we want the house to be a bit more off the bluff line to preserve the blu� However, there zce mature lrees on the frant of the properiy. Driving azoimd Highwood the neighborhoods all Lave a sfaggered housing lool� They aze not all on the ctub on the front of the lot. The District thinks tt�at if the house is moved forward a bit, but not right up to the front of the property, it would stab�7ize that neighborhood and make it look better. That is the reason we did not follow the Highwood Plan this time, we feel that this is the best way for ttus house to be buil� There was opposition present at the hearing. Tom Diamond, 2119 Skyway DrivB, stated that it is best to start with what everyone agrees on. Everyone agrees that we should hy to protect the trees. Then the issue is how do you ge� there? He contended that there aze etrors in the staff report. Bust it states that there are several oak trees that would be lost. I,00ldng at the most current survey it identifies one oak iree and that is in the back not in the front. He feels it is important to note that it is just one oak tree not several as stated in the report. Another important point is the issue that they could build a very high building and that would block views. Tn fact the code does not allow them to huild a larger structure thau is currently there. He continued that because of the state billboard statutes, they could rebuild the house, but only the same size as it is. So blocldng views is not an issue. Also there are statements from the DNR (Deparhnent of Natural � Resources). Mr. Diamond stated that the property could be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Both the District and the DNR looked at moving the house back further from the bluff: Which also could be done. There is nothing preventing this house from being moved further baok from the blufF line. Moving the house back by the garage would not impaci the trees. He azgued that the first finding could not be met so the Board could ttot grant the variance. Then the issued that the plight of the land owner is unique to the properiy and was not ereated by the properiy owner. As the DNR states in their letter, court cases ha�e shown that problems peculiar to the present owners and theu individual desires ar economic desires do not satisfy the prerequisite. Because they do not relate to the propecty. If the problem is common to a number of properties along the river such as bluff lines, slopes " greater than the 18%, that is not unique to the subject property and does not qualify. The DNR has determined that the property is not unique. In the staff report, in item it one states clearly that the properiy can be built on without variances. Mr. Diamond azgued that the regulations stated that any deyeiopment shall take place at least 40 feet landwazds &om the bluff line. Next is the intent of the code to protect the development, he azgued, that this sets a dangerous precedent. Going tvith a sympathetic cases sets a precedent for other cases. Ae contended that if the Boazd finds with the cases that aze s}vipatlietic it causes a problem with legality as well as fairuess in the system. We axe not talldng about a foot or two issue. The reason for ttris is because they want the views and for that they aze requesting a 26-foot variance. Mr, Diamond coutinued to azgue that there i"s already an exemption in the code to allow removal of trees in the building pad. He submitted photos of the property. Mr. Diamond azgued that the state allows replacement but'it does not allow eacpansion. In the City as a whole that prohibition does not eicist but in this azea it does. Development is not alIowed in this 40-foot space, reconstruct, alteration of the size, or material change in the external appearance of the shvcture is piohibited in that 40 feet So inc'reasing the height of the gtiucture is not allowed by the code. They could reconshuct it, but not e�and it. The grading would also need a variance. He argued that the District Council was � worldug with a different setback line than what is being presented today: So the District Council never AA-ADA-EEO Employa �� • ; _; File #OS-107924 Minutes 7uly 5, 2005 Page Four saw this new paperwork. He stated that lus point is that there aze ways toplace the house on the site and retain Yhe 40-foot bluff seYback 7ohn Crizzybek, 1330 St Paul Avenue, stated he is in opposition to the requested variances. He stated that there aze several inshances where the prenequisites have not been met. Mr. Diamond has covered this. Mr, Crizzybek stated tt�at he wanted to address a couple of imporEant points with regard to policies and the code that have been addptedby the City. To protect the natutal enviranment in the critical azea. He cantended t1�at Mr. Hazdwick spoke as if fhe Tree Preservc�tion portion of the code and the critical azea zoning code, astd the river corridor plan are incompah'ble. When in fact they.aze not, they aze meant to work together to achieve th� goals of the City, wluch has been adopted by the Comprehensive Pan through the River Corridor Plan. T'here is tfie need to protect the Corridor. Exeautive order number 7919 created the critical azea and the Zoning Code also does so as a layer of first line of proteotion. He contended that the s�svey presented today answers quite a few questions with regard to oppositiori to�the granting of the variances. One of wlrich is the bistrict 1 compromise of a 30-foot setback seems like a very reasonable altemative to this pazticulaz problem_ Mr: Gizzybek stated he sat on a disirict council for several yeazs, so he can appreciate the efforts of the Disirict Coimcil to come to a compromise with regard to neighborhood disputes and the ganting of variances. He feels that the Disirict Coimcil did not have all of the information when it made its decision. This siavey tUat was handed out today shows the 30 foot setback from the bluff line is only on the south side of the property, if he is reading the sarvey correctly. The point of the bluff is on the west end. If he were a member of the Dishict Coimcil looking for a solution his 30-foot setback would be from that point east and also from the south side as well. That would put the house significanfly back and it also xaises a question as to whether ar not all other reasonable altematives bave beeu explored, and it appears that they have no� He contended that there aze other altematives tbat have not been explored. Moving the house back from the bluff line still allows the trees to be preserved. And meets the goals of the Tree Preservation Plaa, the River Corridor Plan, and the Zoning �ode, that requires setbacks of 40 feet from the bluff lixie. The DNR is against the variances and it asks some vezy basic questions that can be answered, in the negative, which means tbat the variance canuotbe granted. On page two of tlie DNR letter, in the fust paragraph it asks "does the granting of these variances protect the Mississippi River Comdor and prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this resource?" The answer would be no, it the Board allows this variance the house will be at the very edge of the bluff. ThaY is contrary to tlte goals of the River Corridor Plan, in terms ofprotecting the bluff line and protecting the viaws of vistas from and ta the river. "Does the gcanting of these variances meet the piapose of the Urban Open Space Distdct and serve and protect the e�sring and potential recreaflonal; scetric, national and tustoric resources?" Again tfie answer is no. In paragraph three it asks "have all altemative locations for the proposed footprint been explared?" "That still meet the awner's objectives, to keep the mature trees, keep the location of the garage and move the bulk of the home fiuther from the bluff" The answer is no. Mr. Giaybek sEated fie has not heazd any testimony today in which the home owner or staff have looked iato altemative locations for these particulaz footprinls. Wouid it involve extra work with regard to stabilization of the soil, again having just seen the survey today, he does not have tfiat pazEiculaz answer. He contended tl�at the burden is on the home owner to ass�e the public that no other alternative eicists, he does not think that sraff has had adequate time to shxdy this because they just received this sarvey today. The bNR only received the survey on 7uly 1, and aze responding to it today, based on this particulaz s�svey. The wning code shoulfl not allow � AA-ADA-EEO Employa � • i � OS-86� � File #OS-107924 Minutes 7uly 5, 2005 Page Five the variances to go forwasd based on infoimation that staff l�as not had, adequate time to review, _ conuneut on and inciuding the public who have just received the survey today. Mr. Gizzybek stated thaY the City code is an adopfion of policies, tt�at in granting variances should be the exception and not the rule. He argued ttiat granting variances that fall contrary to the overall portion of the Comprehensive Plan that focuses on protection of the Critical Area Plan. There is a task force that will grant even fixrther and stronger protections than those already in place. He requested that the Boazd take into consideration the policies that are exnbodied within the Comprehensive Plan; and the Zoning Code tUat currenfly eacists that were adoptedby the City for the City and enforce it. Granting these variances today would not lie the enforcement of the policy. It would be contraty to the intent of the of the City, the City Couucil, and the Public and to the Citq Code ouiright � Mr. Marrone stated that he has explorerl the possibility of moving the house azound for the last nine months. He questioned whether he is allowed to build on the existing footprint 30 feet high? Mr. Hazdwick replied yes, on page 68 of the packet, fhere is a letter addressed to Mr. Marrone i'rom Wendy I.ane. 7n the first paragraph she has included a copy of Secrion 62.105 of the Cify Zoning Qrdinance wtrich deals with non-conforming shuctures with conforniing uses. Which is the case here. A single- � family home is confomuug in this distdct, but it is non-conformuig because it is too close to the bluff line. In paragraph B there, it states a non-conforming strncture may be enlazged ar altered, as long as such enlazgement or alteration does not increase the non-conformity. Replacing the house on the existing � footprint but building it taller yet within the height limits within the code would not increase its non- aonformity. �Therefore, under this section it would be pernutted. The height lunit for that Zaniug District is 30 feet. If he built iE with the same footprint, in the same location he could build it up to 30 feet and still be within the height limits and the struch�e would not be any more non-conforming than it is already. Mr. Marrone stated he would do that before he wouid move it to the front of the property. He feels that putring the house on the front of the property would be a very bad idea. Whether the tree is an oak or an elm if he repiaced it he would certainly notreap the benefits imtil he is dead and gone. There is also a fifty-seven foot setback from the front of the property. That is why there are no irees in that azea, the fust tree is at fifty-eight feet. There aze not two six-inch elms there, they aze eighteen feet and better. The very closest to the street is fourtesn. He contended tt�at he has hied to work the house azound the foof print and has taken offpart of the house in order to get a little bit closer. He is more thatt willing to move his plans in to the fourteen foot line. The engineer suggested that he sliould not build any closer than nine feet. He also suggested tl�at if ha went deeper with the foundation he would socket it into the hillside and min;mi�� erosion and top load on the soil. He feels that his properiy is unique and no one has suggested how his proposal would actually affect the bluff. Mr, Marrone stated if the variances aze not granted he will build 30 feet high, on the point, because that is what he wants to do, he does not want to build in the front. Yes, he likes the view but it is not the sole purpose. � Ms. Bogen quesrioned Mr. Marrone, it does not appeaz that there aze any trees between where the house is planned for and where the existing garage is located. It looks like the oaks aze south of there. Mr. Marrone stated yes, directly soutt: aze the box elders, east of those are the larger elms. Ms. Bogen fiu kher stated that the oaks aze east of the garage and then south. Mr. Marrone stated he tl�inks he lmows where 1VIs. Bogen is going, you are probabiy going to suggest thaf he move the house fiuther forwazd. The only problem is that it encroaches on the one oak to the south and it involves rotating the greenhouse. He AA-ADA-SEO Ea�loyer �� OS-��.� File #OS-107924 Minutes 7uty 5, 2005 Page Sis stated he does not have an answer, however, it encroaches on the oak tree and he does not want to do that Also the area between the garage and the greenhouse is extensively landscaped, there is achially conirol for runoff. It was all mud when he moved in, There are french dtains so we do not water the gardens at all. Mr. Marrone submitted photos of the landscaped yard_ He does not want to destroy that. Building up at the front is also building on a slope that changes in grade almost twelve feet. He contended that if the stance with the Highwood Plan is to not allow any variances, 4han the mtent of the law is faulted. If it is a blatant no, what is the purpose of his being before the Boazd? Hearing no futther testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. � Mr. Hazdwick shted he had a response to a couple of comments made by Mr. I}iamond. Regarding the staff findings and the requirements that the Boazd is required to make in order to grant a variance. The first finding that the properiy cannot be put to a reasonable wse according to the siriet pr sions of the code. That statement does not mean that it has to be put to its current use. It means if the proposed use is a reasonable use of the property it falls within the definition of that finding. Staff's recommendatio�n found tbat what they are proposing is a reasonable use of the property. Finding two, somettriug imique to the property. Mr. Hardwicic sfated he found ttiat this piece of properiy is a very unique piece of property. While the situation of having the house closer to the bluffline tUan 40 feet to the bluffin itself is not imique, the bluff at this point in the Aighwood Area comes to a pretty sharp peninsula. There are very � few places if any in the city that he lmows of that tiave a similar situatian. This is a imique site and tlie fact that the existing house is built on the point of tlus peninsula is a imique situation. Mr. Diamond and Mr. Gizzybek made a point of the fact that the E3ighwood Plan and the Tree Preaervaiion Plan do not conflict Mr. Hardwick stated he agrees that is true. He does not think that anywhere in lus staff fmdings does he suggest that they do. What he does pnint out in ihe siaffreport is that both the Tiee Preservation Plan and the River Comdor Plan have to be taken into consideration. That is what staffhas done. It is stafPs opinion tUat the propos�d site is a reasonable compromise of what the applicant could do under the law without the need for variances. What he is proposing to do is a compromise tUat will protect the bluff in a reasonable manner as least as good as it has be�n in the last 80 years. It will preserve the lazgest number of trees. Thi� solution is a reasonable compromise and it is not mutually exclusive of either the Tree Preservation Plan or the River Corridor Plan. Ms. Bogen stated that the threat of building the house 30-feet up in the air is ldnda o£imbelievable that someone would actually take a 720 sqiaare foot footprint and go up 30 feet. Whether the owner could actually do that or plans to do that, without an elevator, she is not sure how stairs would be put in there. Mr. Wilson commented about tUe Tree Preservation Plan tbat, if he reads it right, any non-conformity may be replaced. (Could not make out the rest of the comment.) Mr. Hazdwickreplied that the state statute that is quoted states that "a non-conformity may be replaced but it may not be enlarged: ' It goes on fiather to state that "that the city or municipality by ordinance can permit an enlazgement " Tbat is why the City in this case has the Planning Commission to grant an enlazgement of a non-conforming use permit There is a procedure for that However, that same statement allows the city by ordivance, to permit an enlazgement. The city in this case in section 62.105 paragraph b says that a"non-confornung stmchtre may be enlarged as long as that enlazgemeht does not increase its non-conformity. � AA-ADA-EEO Employer � � • ' ` • File #OS-107924 Minutes July 5, 2005 _ Page Seven They canby ordinance builditbigger, build it tallei. But Mr. Wilson is correct they cannot e�cpandthe footprint without a variance or without an eacpansion of a non-confonuing use permit. Ms. Bogen moved to deny the variance and resolution based on findings 1, 2, 3, and 4. Ms. Maddox requested that Ms. Bogen expand her reasons for denial under findings 2, 3, & 4. Ms. Bogen stated tt�at under finding one she feels it can be put to a reasonable use. Under finding two she would refer to the letter from the DNR letter where it tallts about all the properties having the same setback requirements and aze all on a bluff. Finding three she does not think that it is in the spirit and intent of the code when it does not protect the Mississippi River Corridor. Finding foia it will alter the essential character of the neighborhood to have a house back therg in the bluff line. Mr. Fraicy voted to — against the denial"of the variances. IvIT. Wilson voted to deny on findings 1, & 2. Mr. Courtney voted to � deny on findings 1, 3, & 4. Mr. Galles voted tu deny on findings 1& 3. Ms. Morton voted to deny on findings 1, 3,.& 4. Ms. Maddox voted to deny on findings 1, 3, & 4. Mortbn seconded the motion, wluchpassed on a roll call vote of 6-1(k'ariey). � bY� Approve j r � Hardwick � Gloria Bogen, Secretazy AA-ADA-EFA Employer � � . . I. .<- . CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE 1YUMBER: #05-147924 DATE: July 18, 2005 WHEREAS, 7oseph E. Marrone has applied for a variance from the shict application of the provisions of Section 68.402 & 66.231 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to 1) the required bluff setback, 2) the required north side yard setback, in order to construct a neiv siagle- family home in the RI zoning district at 413 Burlington Road; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 7uly 18, 2005 pursuaut to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the I.egislative Code; and �"� Wf�REAS, fhe Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substaniially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The properly in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. � The applicant states that the foundation and shuctiu�at members of his existing house have � deteriorated to the point tUat the hottse needs to be replaced. He is proposing to build a new, lazger house in appro�umately the same location. This property is locat� wiU�in Uze I2iver Corridor as well as the Tree Preservation Overlay Disirict. Section 68.402 (4) states `Bluff development shall take place at least 40 feet landward of all bluff lines: ' The e�sting house is located about 14 feet from the bluff line and is a legal nonconforming shvcture. According to state law, non-confoxmities may be replaced but may not be enlazged. The zoning code specifies that a nonconforming shucture may not be moved to a new location unless it confoxms to the current code requirements. _ The applicant is proposing to constrnct the new house with the same setliack from the bluff line on either side bnt further away from the point of the bluff atid closer to the street The applicant states that he needs a lazger house and if he were forced to btuld on the same foundation he would have to construct a tkree-story house to get the room he needs. He could build the house closer to the street without the need for any variances. 2. T7xe plight of the Zand owner is not due to circumstances unique to this properiy, and these circumstances were created by the Zand owner. There are other homes in tlus atea that are Tocated within the 40 foot bluff setback. There is nothing tmique about this site. � Page 1 of 4 � • i ,� File #OS-107924 Resolution � 3. The proposed variance is not in keeping with tlze spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent wi�h the health, safety, comfort, morals and we fare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Pau1. According to Section 67.201 of the zoning code: "Fhe TP (Tree Preservation Overlay.District} is desigaed to preserve the essential chazactex of those areas that are heavily wooded and in a mdre natural state by encouraging a resourceful and prudent approach to their development that includes minuual tree lo.ss and mitiga,tion of iree removal zesulting from development. The TP clisirict is fiirther provided to reduce stormwater runo£f and *n;n;rr,;�e flooding; to aid in the stabilization of soil by preventiug erqsion and sedimentation; to aid in tUe removal of cazbon dioxide and the generation of oxygen in the atmosphere; and to maintain the visual screening, wind brealc, dust collection, heat and glare reduction, and noise barriar characteristics exhibited by frees.'.' . The objective of the River Corridor Standards and Criferia, under Secfion 68.401, is to: "maintain the aesthetic integrity aud nahual environment of the river coiridor in � conformance to the St. Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan by reducing the effects of poorly planned shoreline and bluff line development; providing sufficient setback for • sanitary facilities; preventing pollution of surFace and groundwater; m;n;,»;T„g flood damage; preventing soil erosion; and 'unplementing mefmpolitan plans, policies and sfandards." Secfiori 68.402, under Protection of shore lands, fLood plains, wetlands and bluffs, goes on to say that: "Development shall be �onducted so that the smallest practical area of land lie developed at any one time and that each area be subjected to as little erosion or flood damage as possible during and after develbpment " According to these two sections, the requirenaent for setback from bluff lines is to min;mi�e emsion during and after coxishuction, as well as to maintain the natural environment of the river corridor and to reduce the effecfs of poorly plannedbluff`linedevelopment. . � Section 68.601(a) states in part: � "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to demonstraYe conclusively that such variance will not result in a hazard to life or property and will not adversely affect the safety, use or stabili .ty of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the natural environment; such proof may include soils, geology and hydrology reports which shall be signed by registered professional engineers. Variances shall be consistent with the general purposes of the standards contained in this chapter and stafe law aud the intent of applicabie state and nationallaws and pxograms." Page 2 of 4 J � Ii s -i File #OS-107924 Resolution The proposed vatiances aze not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Plan wiuch incorporates the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Plan as well as various other local, state and federal plans. 4. The praposed variances will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, but wild alter the essential character of the surrounding area and may unreasonably diminish established propeKy values within the surrounding area. This house is located considerably £mther back from ttce street than either of the neighboring homes. The requested variances would not significantly affect Ehe supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The existing house was constructed in 1922 with a 14foot setback from the bluff. The appficant can rebuiId the house in the same location which would maintaiu the chazacter of the area or build a new house ori the front of the lot that meets all of the code requirements. 5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not peymitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the disirict where the affected Zand is located, nor wauld it alter or change the zbning district classifzcation of the property. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. NOW, Tf�REFORL, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning AppeaLs that the request to waive the provisions of Section 68.402 & 66.231 in order to construct a new single- family home on pmper[y located at 413 Burlington Road; and legally described as Burlington Heights, Division No. 2, Rawsey County, Minnesota Vac Edgewood Place Between & Fol; Lots 39 & 40 Blk 6& Part Of Lots 4& 6 Blk 4 Lying Sly Of A Line Run From Ne Cor Of Sd Lot 6 To Nw Cor Of Sd Lot 4 Blk 4; in accordauce with the application for variance and the site plan on fi1e with the Zoning Administrator; IS FIEREBYDENIED. MOVED BY: so SECONDED BY: Mo�on Il�T FAVOR: s AGAINST: o �an.ED: July 19, 2005 � i �J � • Page 3 of 4 . � � � CTTY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING F1LE NUMBER: #OS-107924 DATE: July 18, 2005 WHEREAS, 7oseph E. Marrone has applied far a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 68.402 & 66.231 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to 1) the required bluff setback, 2) the required north side yazd setback, in order to consh a new singl� famiIy home in the Ri zoning district at 413 Burlington Road; and WF3EREAS, the 5aint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on July 18, 2005 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the I.egislative Code; and WF3EREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the xninutes, made the following 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 the foundafion and structural members of his existing house have deteriorated to the point that the house needs to be replaced. He is proposing to build a new, lazger house in approxunately the same location. This property is located within the River Corridor as well as the Tree Preservation Overlay District. Section 68.402 (4) states `Bluff development shall take place at least 40 feet landward of all bluff lines: ' The e�sting house is located about 14 feet from the bluff line and is a legal nonconforming structure. According to state law, non-confornuties may be replaced but may not be enlarged. The zoning code specifies that a nonconforming structure may not be moved to a new location unless it confoims to the current code requirements. The applicant is proposing to construct the new house with the same setback from the bluff line on either side but further away from the point of the bluff and closer to the street. The applicant states that he needs a larger house and if he were forced to build on the same foundation he would have to construct a three-story house to get the room he needs. He could build the house closer to the street without the need for any variances. 2. The plight of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to this proper•ty, and these circumstances were created by the land owner. There aze other homes in ttus area that are located within the 40 foot bluff setback. There is � nothiug unique about this site. Page I of 4 � � v�-�� File #OS-107924 Resolution . 3. The proposed variance is not 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. According to Section 67.201 of the zoning code: "The TP (Tree Preservation Overlay District) is designed to preserve the essentaal character of those areas that aze heavily wooded and in a more natural state by encouraging a resourceful and prudent approach to their development that includes *n;n;mal tree loss aud mitigarion of tree removal resulting from development. The TP district is fiuther provided to reduce stormwater runoff and minimi�e flooding; to aid in the stabilization of soil by preventing erosion and sedimentation; to aid in the removal of cazbon dioxide and the generation of oxygen in the ahnosphere; and to maintaiu the visual screening, wind break, dust collection, heat and glare reduction, and noise barrier characteristics earhibited by trees." The objective of the River Corridor Standazds and Criteria, under Section 68.401, is to: "maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural entvironment of the river comdor in conformance to the St. Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan by reducing the effects of � poorly planned shoreline and bluff line development; providing sufficient setback fox sanitary facilities; preventing pollution of surface and groundwater; minimizing flood damage; preventing soil erosion; and implementing mefropolitan plans, policies and standards." Section 68.402, under Protection of shore lands, flood plains, wetlands and bluffs, goes on to say that: "Development shall be �onducted so that the smallest practical area of land be developed at any one time and that each area be subjected to as little erosion or flood damage as possible during and after development." According to these two sections, the requ'vement for setback from bluff lines is to m;n;mi7e erosion during and after corisiruation, as well as to maintain the natural environment of the river corridor and to reduce the effects of poorly planned ble�ff line development. Section 68.601(a) states in part: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to demonstrate conclusively that such variance will not result in a hazard to life or properry and will not adversely affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the natmal environment; such proof may include soils, geology and hydrology reports which shall be signed by registered pmfessional engineers. Variances shall be consistent with the general purposes of the standards contained in this chapter and state law and the intent of �• applicable state and national laws and pmgrams." Page 2 of 4 � � . . .. � File #OS-107924 Resolution The proposed variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Plan which incorporates the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Plan as well as various other local, state and federal plans. 4. The proposed variances will not impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, but will alter the essential character of the sus�-ounding area and may unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. This house is located considerably fiuther back from the street than either of the neighboring homes. The requested variances would not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The existing house was constructed in 1922 with a 14-foot setback from the bluff. The applicant can rebuild the house in the same location which would maintain the character of the area or build a new house on the front of the lot that meets all of the code requirements. 5. 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 land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. . The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for varzance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of Zand. � NOW, THEREFORE, BB TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the request to waive the provisions of Secfion 68.402 & 66.231 in order to consiruct a new svngle- family home on properiy located at 413 Burlington Road; and legally described as Burlington Heights, Division No. 2, Ramsey County, Minnesota Vac Edgewood Place Between & Fol; Lots 39 & 40 Blk 6& Part Of Lots 4& 6 Blk 4 Lying Sly Of A Line Run From Ne Cor Of Sd Lot 6 To Nw Cor Of Sd Lot 4 Blk 4; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file vc�th the Zoning Adtniiustrator; IS HEREBYDENIED. MOVED BY: so SECONDED BY: Morton IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: o MAILED: July 19, 2005 �� Page 3 of 4 � �� • File #OS-107924 Resolution TIME LIlVIIT: No decision of the zoning or planning administrator, planning commission, board of zoning appeals or city conncil approving a site plan, permit, variance, or other zoning approval shall be valid for a period longer than two (2) yeazs, nnless a building permit is obtained within snch period and the erection or alterafion of a building is proceeding under the terms of the decision, or the nse is established within snch period by actnal operation pnrsnant to the applfcable conditions and reqnirements of the approval, nnless the zoning or planning administtator grants an extension not to exceed one (1) year. APPEAL: Decisio� of the Board of Zoning Appeals are fual snbject to appeal to the C�ty Conncil within 10 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building 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 constrnction shall cease nntil the City Conncff has made a final determinafion of the appeaL �.J CERITTICATION: I, the nndersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my offiee; aud fnd the same to be a trae and � conect copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minntes of the Saint Panl Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on Jnly 18, 2005 and on record in the Office of License 3nspection and Environmental Protectfon, 8 Fourth St E, Saint Panl, Minnesota. SAINT pAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS � °� �, Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board Page 4 of 4 � � � • �' � v ♦ � . � 4 .. ' - � �'' .. r , /� � From: John Hazdwick . To: Hardwick, 7ohn; 7oe Subject: Re: BZA denial CC: Beach, Tom; dishicticouncil@aol.coay Fech� Sandy; Lantry, Kathy Joe, When the Board disagrees with staffs recommendation I must prepare a re�olution memorializiug their deci"sion and bring it to the next meeting for thear appxoval. The resolution is then.typically mailed the following day. You will have l0 days from the date the resolution is mailed to appeal the Board's decision to the City Council if you so desire. If you decide to appeal, you must submi# an application for appeal statxng why you believe the Board erred in theu decision. We will then schedule a hearing before the Council within 30 days. If you decide to proceed with your plans to build on the same footprint as the e�sting house, you will not need a variance if your plans meet all of tlie dimensiottal standards for a single family home in the R 1 zoning district. You will ho`wever still need fa get Site Pian Review approval. This is an admiuistrative process aud does not typically reqnire any public hearings. Site 1'lan 12eview will look at such things as tree preservation, erosion control, landscaping etc. You will need to fill out an application in LIEP and submit a copy of the survey, building plans with detailed conslrucfion notes outliniug erosion control measures, tree protecfion measures and specifing lunits of conshuction area. Also landscaping details that indicate how the disturbed areas will be stabilized after construction. You may submit your builclirig plans for review at the same time so that both processes are conducted concurrently. The length of these review processes depends on the completeness of the pian5 you submit and if any chat�ges-are needed but it usually takes about two weeks. If you have any quesfions about the appeal process you can drop me a line. If you haue any questions about the Site Plan Review process, you can contact Tom Beach. John. »> "Joe" <o.m@comcast.neU 7J5/2005 6:12:40 PM »> Mr. John Hazdwick, I am just home from the hearing today of which my variance was denied. First, fliank you for youz comments and support. Anne, thank you as well! One thing that really sticks out fot me aside from the opposition wlrich cleuly has friends on the BZA committee, and I must say seems more important tt�an the whole process here, is a comment by one of the boazds members. I wish I could recall her uame. She sat d"uectly to youz left at the hearing. She commented that I made a "flueat" to build 30' high on the e�sting footprint I find such a remark extremely unprofessional and inappropriate. I did not threaten anytl�iug. If anyone took the time to get to know me, I am not the type to threaten at all. Period Rather, I am the type of person that helps others when they need it. I hy diligenfly not to judge others and mostly I always try to � find an easier path for those that might find themselves experiencing somethin� negative that i have been familiat with in my expeiiences. � I said that I was going to build on the e7cisting footprint 30' high if this variance was not granted. I said it was not my desire to build at the front of the propexty - as I consider my neighbors wishes as part of a strong communiry. Whethez ox not I appeal to the eity couneil, which seems a about:biank �� 7/6/2005 � ' . .. Piirtlxer waste of my time and money, my intenf is to buiId on the existing footpxint, 30' ta1L T would appxeciafe i't if you could foxwazd this to the BZA member I am refe to and copy myself as well as those copied on this ema�. S�ch comme�s suggesting I am threatening aze imcalled for and cextainly not for public hearings. A written apology wauldbe appxopriate if it weie my child that said such 82ings. Addititonally, I hope that you might shaze with me flie process W move foiward with a new pLOposed struchse on the existing footprint I assiane I do not need any vatiance to acconiplish it? Would Plan Review be a betEer source for fhe cosect info�ation? ' It is unforhwate that those who make fhese decisions aze not required to visit sites when the issues aze this critical. Then again three of themwere late to this hearing, Maybe their schedules are too e�dxeme or my expectations too high. I wonder how many actually tead tbcough the doc�mieptation m it's entirety. I saw pxofessional opinioirs that were not even considered and arg¢ed against by infIuenfiai non professionaLs. Tfte fixstpersonfliatmovedfor denial couldnoteven supportwhy she was denyiug and then stcuggled foi an answer. Almast makes me think the decision was m'ade before the hearing was started, gimply amazmg� Please respo� as qnickly as you may be able to. I would l�ke to be pe�itted on a new structise befoze August 1 if at all possible. I have nearly completedplans for a 30' tali building on the existiug footpri� Regatds- Joseph E. Mauone 413 $urlmgton Road Saint Paul, MN 55119 651.485.3412 Page 2 of2 � � �� about:b].ank 7/6/2005 • : _: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40��/ Phone: (651)297-2401;f�c296-0445 E-mail: sandy.fecht@dnr.state.mn.us . . a,� $, 200$ Boazd of Zoning Appeals c% 7ohn Hazdwick /Debbie Crippen Office.of LIEP 8 41h E Street, Suite 200 St. Paul, NIlV 55101-1024 By fax and mail RE: Variances to construct single-family house, including bluff setback of 14 feet instead of 40 feet (#OS-10797�t) Joseph E. Marrone, 413 Burlington Road Mississippi River Critical Area/MDII2RA Conidor Deaz Board Members: Thank you for the notification of the vaziance applicarion of Joseph Man•one for variances to construet singte-family house, including a bluff setback of 14 feet instead of 40 feet. The survey shows the proposed house will be 1128 feet from a named bluffline. The engineer's report states that excavafion will extend to within 12 feet of the blufF edge. City staff have determined,that the enlazgement or alteration of the nonconforming slructure will increase the nonconformity, occupying a lazger footprint within the 40 ft. setback area (5-25-OS). Notificarion and materials relating to this hearing weze received June 16, 2005, from the City, and a survey and engineering report July 1 from the applicant. We submit the following coznments for consideration and submission to all decision-making and hearing records. This lot is within the state Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor District, established in 1976, and the federal Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), established in 1988. This site is within the Urban Open Space Aistdct, River Corridor (RC) - 3. The purposes of designating the Mississippi River and its Comdor as a state Critical Area include protecting and preserving a unique and valuable state and regional resource for the benefit of the citizens for the state, region, and nation; preve;�ti� aad �#�at�xsg irt: .•ers:bla �aae; �ressrwing and �uk�r=eina its nab, ra1, a�*h�tic, c�lfiiz?, and historical value for public use; protecting and preserving the river as an essential element in the national, state aud regional transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems; and protecting and preserving the biological and ecological funcrions of the Corridor. Executive Order 79-19 requires protection of bluffs within the entire River Corridor greater than 18%, and spec�c conditions for development of slopes between 12 and 18%. The Order also requires for all plans and regulations that bluffs aze to remain in their natural state, minimi�ation of site alteration, and retention of existing vegetation and landscaping. These bluff protecrions serve many putposes including protecrion of the stability of the bluff, reduction of runoff rates, protection of scenic_ and natural values which led to the designation as a Criflcal Area, reduction of erosion and sedimentation, and protection and continuation of wildlife habitat, biological diversity, and already connected greenways. . Under the City's Zoning Code, Seo. 68.401, "the objective of standards and critezia is to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the river corridor in conformance to the St. Paul DNRInformation:651-296-6157 • I-888-645-6367 • TTY:651-296-5484 • 1-806-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer �� Prin[ed on Recyded Paper Containin� a Niinimum of 109c Pos[-Consumer Waste -1 f�5-86 � Vaziance - 413 Burlington Road (#OS-107924) Page 2 Mississippi River Corridor Pian by reducing the effects of poorly planned shoreline and blufFline development, ...preventing soil erosion; and implementing metropolitan plans, policies, and standards." . For the Urban Open Space Dishtict, the "lands and waters within this dislrict shall be managed to conserve and protect the existing and potential recreational, scenic, natural, and historic resources and nse within this district for tke use and enjoyment of the surrounding region. Open space shall be provided in the open river valley lands for public use and the protection of unique natural and scenic resources." Uttder state statutes for variances required by the Critical Area laws, members acting as a Board of Zoning Appeals on variance decisions should solicit testimony on all of the followiug variance prerequisites from Minnes4ta Statutes. We ask the Boazd to consider the staNtory prerequisites and posed questitons {shown in italics) regazding the Critical Area River Corridoi in their final decision. According to the courts, the applicant has a hea�y burden of proof to show that all of the prerequisites have been met. Ia addition Yo the statewide statutory reauirements, the Boazd also,neecls to follow more restrictive variance requirements in theu ordinance. The Boazd of Zoning Appeals has the following. statutory gowers with respect to variances aud the zoning ordinance fram MN Statutes, section 462357, subd. 6: 1) Variances shall only be granted when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keepittg with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Does the granting of these varicmces protect the �ssissippi River Corridor and prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this resource? Does the granting of these variances meet the - purposes for the Urban Open Space Disirict fo conserve and protect the exisring and potential recreational, sceniq natural, and historic reso�ces? Does rhe grantirag of a varicmce reduce • the effects of poorly planned shoreline and bluffline development, prevent soil erosion, and implementplans for the CrilicaZArea? 2) Strict enforcement woutd cause undue hazdslup because of circumstances unique to tfie individual property. WWfiut unique circumstances of the properry compel the development within the setbacks of slopes greater thcm I8%? If the constrainf is common to a number of properties in the area or along the river, such as blufflines or slopes greater fhan 18% cmd setbacks, which is the case here, then the circumstcuices are not unique to the subjecfproperty. 3) Undue hazdship means the proper[y in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Have all alternative lacatiorrs for the proposed footprint been explored that still meet the owners' objectives to keep the mature trees, keep the location of the garage, and move the bulk of the home further from the blufJ? 4) Undue hazdship means the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the pmperty not created by the landowner. Cow�i cases have shown that problems peculiar io the present owners, their individual desires, or economic desires do not satisfy the prerequisite because they don't relate to the property . itself. YYhat is unique aEout the actual land of the individual praperry far the structures and �� 1� : -: Vaziance-413 Burlington Road (#OS-107924) Page 3 development? If the problem is common to a number ofproperties in the area or along the river•, a such as blufflmes and slopes greater than 18% and setbacks, then it is not unique to the subject property. 5) Undue hazdship means the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Is fhe essenfial chmcrcter of the Mississippi River Comdor and purposes of designation detrimentally altered :f expmuion is allowed to increase the amount of strucnsres within the bluffline setback? 6) Economic considerations alone sball not constitute an undue hazdship if a reasonable use of the properCy e�sts under the terms of the ordinance. 7) No variance shall be granted that would permit any use that is prohibited in this ordinance. 8) Undue hazdship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to d'uect sunlight for solaz energy systems. A certified survey of e�sting and proposed structures and topographic and vegetative information is key information for decision makiug. The survey did not show all contours or slopes on the property land greater than 18%, so an accurate determination of the bluffline or the bluffliue setback in relation to the proposed footprint cannot be determined. The bluff line shown may or may not be accurate. • The circumstances of this individual property or land itself aze �ot unique. Many properties neaz to the Mississippi River in the city have blufflines, and slopes greater than 18%. The intent of the Critical Area requirements is to preserve and protect bluffs geater than 18% and ensure bluffs remain in their natural state, and retention of eacisting vegetation. We fu]ly endorse the retention and protection of the 38°' oak, but it appeazs the proposed footprint locafion encroaches closer to the 38" oak and may be abutting the sketched drip line. It is uulniown how close the proposed house and construcfion activiTy/vehicle movement will be to the critical root zone of specific trees that need to be protected and that was given as the reason for the variance. By taking a footprint "cutouY' of the proposed structure in rela6on to the certified survey and shown trees and objects, it appeazs there are other alternatives to rotatea structure location of simiiar footgrint available that are farther away (eastward) from the presumed bluffline and yet still west of the existing gazage -- more clustered alternarives that avoid all of the shown trees oa the survey (and may in fact increase the distauce from the drip line of the 38" oak); move the bulk of the home further from the blufF and noise; and maiutains the location of the gazage. The intent is to decrease the nonconformity, that is the amount of s�tructures within the setbacks, and at the same time, protect the resources. If all the prerequisites for the variance can be met and hazdship proved and there aze no other alternative locaflons where the proposed footprint can be placed, we strongly recommend the following be included as conditions of any vaziance approval: 0 Given the proposed excavarion within 12 feet of the pzesumed bluffline and likely constructiott • traffic even closer, we aze particularly concemed about alteration to the setback area, surface water runoff, erosion and sedimentation. Conditions should be nnposed to ensure minimization of runoff, �� v�-s� � Vaziance - 413 Burlington Road (#OS-107924) page 4 and that erosion or sedimentation is prevented during and after constnection. A minimum buffer of 12 feet landwazd of the bluffline should be converted from the short-rooted, groomed lawn azea instead to a vegetated buffer of deep-rooted native vegetation that is not mowed. EstablishmenY of this type of vegetative buffer along the top of the bluff will help stabilize the soil and ensure greaterlslower infiltration of runoff A variety of aesthetically-pleasing, native perennial grasses, shrubs, and flowering plants appropriate to the ecology aze available on the market today. http://www.greahiverereenin¢.org/restoration methods asp H Best management practices of the highest nature should be implemented to prevent construction activities and traflic azound existing trees and their critical root zones. Soil compaction is the single lazgest killer of urban trees. _ http://www.ea�tension.umn.edu/distribufion/housineandclothine/DK6135 html H The removal of the e�sting octagonal deck within the setback, if not already proposed, to zeduce the amount of sh on the property within the setback_ Thank you for implementing the state variance statutes and protecting and preserving tfie Mississippi Critical Area Corridor. of the final decision on tlus proposal. Sincerely, DNR Waters �3�"j� Sandy Fecht Mississippi River Critical Area1MNRRA Hydrologist Critical Area plans and regulations in As required, please send us notification • � �� Districtl Community Council 2090 Conway Street St. Paut, MN 55119 John Hardwick City of Saint Paul- LIEP 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55101-1024 RE: District 1 decision for 413 Burlington Road � 651-501-6345 July 4, 2005 John, The District 1 Community Council has reviewed and discussed the variances needed in order to construct a single family home at 413 Burlington Road. The District 1 land use committee met with the owner, Joe Marrone, and neighbors along with Tom Dimond at our ]une 27th board meeting and also looked at the property. After much discussion, the following recommendation has been formu{ated by the District 1 Community Council: Move the house so that at least 50% of it is 30 feet from the bluffline. The community council believes the house should not be so close to the biuff, however moving it to the required 40 feet would not be beneficial to to the neighborhood as it would take out trees and create a cramped look at the front of the lot. We feel that the recommendation not only brings the construction closer to within the required code written in the Highwood Plan but keeps ihe area true to it character ofi staggered housing. In addition, it should be noted that if the owner built on the original footprint within code, he would most likely to build up, significantiy impacting the neighborhood as the house would be a distraction from both above and below the biuff. Feel free to call me if you have any question9 regarding District 1's decision. Thanks, Ann Mueller- Community Organizer, District 1 Community Council cc: District 1 President Phillip Fuehrer �� . • � ..j �� a� � Tom Dimond 2119 Skyway Drive Sainf Paut, MN SS I19 651-735-6667 7uly 5, 2005 Re: 413 Burlington - OS-107924 State I.aw effective August 1, 20Q4 allows replacement but not expansion. Development in the river corridor includes reconst�uction, alteration of #he size or material change in the e�erior appearance Sec. 6Q205.D. Development in the river comdor is required to be a minimum of �#0 feet from the bluff Sec. 68.402(b)(4). Since the City does prolubit e�ansion in the 40 feet setback fbat provision is sti11 allowed by State law_ The cuirem nonconforming structures footprint can not be changed (Wendy Iane letter dated May 25, 2005). The heigtrt also can not be changed because � State Law allows the City to restrict e�ansion_ Development in tha river coriidor includes grading. Va�iances aze also needed for grading in the 40 feet tninimum setback. The grading would need even greate�` variances than the proposed 26 feet variance foz the shueture. The Zoning Code prolubits the ch�e of size and exterior appearance in the 40 feet minimum setback. Variances also aze needed for size and exterior change. � �� '! : � � & 60203 • LEGISLATiVE CODE tional institutions, or panels, seminars or other similaz services offered by such institutions; ar churches or synagogues. Councit. The council of the Cifi.y of Saint Paul. Currenry exch¢nge. Curreney e%change, as de- fined in Minnesota Statutes Section 53AOi, means any person, eacept a bank, trust company, savings hank, savings and loan associatian, credit union, or industrial loan and thrift company, engaged in the business of cashing checks, drafts, money orders or tzavelers' checks for a fee. "Currency egchange" does not include a.person who provides these services incidental to the person's primary business if the chazge for cashing a check or draft does not eaceed one dollar ($1.00) ur one (1) percent of the value of the check or draft, which- ever is greater. (Code 1956, §§ 60.315-60.317, 60.319; Ord. Na. 16876, 1-28-52; Ord. No. 17039, 1-7-83; Ord. No. 17054, 10-&83; Ord. No. 17204, 1-15-85; Ord. No. 17564; § 2, 5-19-88; Ord. I3o. 17646, § 3, 4-6-89; No. 17845, § 1, 6-27-91; Ord. No. 17889, § 3, -21-91; C.F. No. 93-1718, § 7, 12-14-93; C.E No 94-1863, § 1, 1-18-95; C.F. Na. 96-1342, § 1, 11-13-96; C.F. No. 00-972, 11-8-00) • Sec. 60.204. D. ... Day c¢re. The care of one or more children on a regulaz basis, for periods of less than twenty-four (24) fiours per day, in a place other than the child's own dwelling unit. Day care includes fam- ily day caze, group family day care and group day care, as hereinafter defined: . (1) Family Day Caze_ A day care program providing caze for not more than ten (10) children at one time, and which is li- censed by the couni,y as a family day care home. The licensed capacity must include all children of any caregiver when the children aze present in the residence. (2) Group Family Day Caze: A day care pro- gram providing care for no more than fourteen (14) chiidren at any one tinze of • which no more than ten (10) aze under school age and which is licensed by the county as a group fami�y day care home_ The licensed capaeity mus� include all ehildreu of any cazegiver when the chil- dren are present in the residence. t3) Group Day Care: A dap care program providing caze for more tS�an sia (6) chil- dren at one time and licensed by the state or the city as a group day.caze center. Group day.care includes prograzns for ehildren known as nursery scliools, day nurseries child caze centers, play groups, day caze centers for school age children, after school programs, infant day eaze centers, cooperative day caze centers and Head Start programs. D¢nce h¢ll, public. Any room, place or space open to the general public patronage in which is carried on dancing wherein the public may par- ticipate, whether br not a chazge for admission for dancing is made. DBH. Diameter at breast height, or the diam- eter in inches of a tree measured at four and one-half (4�lz) feet above the e�sting grade. Deuelopment. The construction of a necv build- ing or other structure on a zoning lot, the reloca- tion of an e�sting building on another zoning lot, or the use bf open land for a new use. � Deaelopment (Riuer Corri.dorDistrict only}. The malring of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land including, but not lixnited to: a reconstruction, alteration of the size, or material change in the esternal ap- peazance, of a strueture or the land; a change in the intensity of use of the land; alteration of a shore or bank of a river, stream, lakz or pond; a commencement of drilling (eacept to obtain soil samples); miniug or excavation; demolition of a structure; clearing of land as an adjunct to con- struction; deposit of refuse, solid or liquid waste, or fill on a pazcel o£ land; or the dividing of land into two (2) or more pazcels. District. A portion of the incorporated azea of the municipality witlun which certain regulations and requirements or various combinations thereof apply under the pmvisions of this zonino code_ . Dormitory. A building designed for or used as grnup living quarters for students of a high school, � `. �-,� � � ��' Supp. No. 45 514 Ptronc (651)297-2401:fmc2g6-0945 Etna1 sandy.fecht(�dnr.state.mn.us 7uly 5, 2005 Boazd of Zoning AppeaLs c/o 7olm Hardwick/Debbie Crippen Office of LIEP 8 4th E Street, Suite 200 • St. Paul, IvIN 55101-1024 � RE: Variances to cnnstruct single-family bouse, mcludimg bluff setback of 14 feet instead of 40 feet (#OS-107924) Joseph E. Mazrone, 413 Burlington Road Mississippi River G�itical Atea/NINI2RA Corridor Deaz Boazd Membecs: Thank you for the notification of the variance application of Joseph Marrone for variances to conshuct single-family house, mclud"mg a bluff setback of 14 feet mstead of 40 feet. The survey shows the proposed house will be 1128 feet from a named bluffline. The engmeec's repoit states ft�at excavatioa will extend to within 12 feet of the bluff edge. City staff have dete�ed �th2t the enlazgement or alteration of the nonconfox�ng struct�xe wiIl inccease the noncoaformity, occupyix�g a lazger fooiprint within the 40 ft. setback area (5-25-0�. Notification and materia7s z0lating to this hearing were xeceived 7ime 16, 2005, fzom the C�ty, and a swvey and engineering report 7uly 1 from the applicant We submit the following commenfs for consideration �d submission to all decisiou-mal�g and hearing recozds. This lot is witbin the state Mississippi River Critical tlrea Corridor Dishict, established 'm I976, and tiie federal Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (NII�RRA), established in 1988. This ste is vrithin the Urban Open Space Dishict, River Coxridor (RG� - 3. The purposes of desigaaiing the Mississippi River and its Comdor as a state Critical Area include protecting and preservmg a unique and valuable sfate and regional reso�uce for the benefit of fhe citizens �or the state, region, �d nation; preventing aud imtia ting ixreversiible damage; preserving 3nd enLancing its natural, aesthetic, culiuml and historical vatue for public use; grotecting and preserving the river as an essential element in the national, siate �d regional transporfation sewer and water and recrealional systems; and protecimg and piesserving the biological and ecological functions of the Comdor: Fxecutive Ocdet 79-19 requires protection of bluffs withm the entire River Corridor geater thau 18%, and specific conditions for develapment of slopes between 12 and 18%. The Order a]so requires for aU plans and regutalions thaY bluffs are to remam in tfieir natutal state, �i�zation of site alteration, and retention of existing.vegetation �d landscaping, These bluff pmtections serve many purposes mcluding proteciion of the stability of the blu� reducfron of iunoff rates, protection of sceaic aud nahual vatues which led to the designation as a Critical Area, raduction of erosion and sedimentation, and protection and continuation of wildlife habitat, biological diversity, and already connected greenways. Under the City's Zoning Code, Sec. 68.401, "the objective of standards and criteria is to maintam the aesthetic iategr[ty and nattual euvitn�ent ofthe river corridor in confoxm�mce Yo the St Paul � v�e - ais ss� �xoaa ��sio�vza� Page2 Mississippi River Cozridor Plan by reducing the effects of poorly plmmned shoreline and bluffline development, ...preventing soil erosion; and implementmg metropolitan plans, poficies, and standards!' For ihe Urban Open Space I}istric� the 'lands and wafeis within tbis district sUall be managed fo conserve and protecE the existing �d potential reCreational, scenic, nahual, aud historic resources and use within this dishict for the use and en}oyment of the siurotmding region. Open space shall be grovided 'm the open river valley lands for public use and the protection of unique natural and scenic ' resources:' . Under state statutes for variances required by the Glitical Area laws, members acting as a Boazd of Zoning Appeals on variance ,decisions should solicit testimony on all of the following vaziance prerequisites from Minnesota Statutes, We ask the Boazd to consider the statutory prerequisites and posed questions (shown m italics) regazd"uig the Critical Area River Corridor in their final decision. Acwrding to the courts, the applicant has a heavy burden of proof to show that all of the prerequisites have been met. 3n addition to tlie statewide staffitory requirements, the Boazd also needs to follow more restrictive variance requirements in their ordinance, The_$oard of Zoning Appeals bas the foAowing statutory powers with respect to variances and the zoning ordinance from MN Statutes, section 462.357, subd. 6: 1) Variances shall only be ganted when it is demonstrated t1�at such actions will be ui keeping with the spirit and intent Qf tfie ordinance. Daes the granting of these.variances protect the Mississdppi River Corridor and prevent and mitigafe irreversible damage io ihis resource? Does the granting of these variances meet the purposes for ihe Urban Open Sp¢ce District to concerve and protect 2he ezisting and poteniial recreational, scenic, natural, arzd historic resources? Does the granting of a variance reduce fhe efjects of poarly planned shoreline and bluffline development, prevent soil erosian, and implement pZans for the Critical Area? 2) Strict enforcement would cause undue hardstrip' because of c'ucumstances unique to the individual property. YYhat unique circumstances of the property compel the deyelopment within the setbacks ofslopes . greater than 1$%? If the consirainY is common 3o a number of propeHies in the area or along the river•, such as blufflines orslopes greater than 18% and setbacks, which is the case here, then the circumstances are noi unique io the subject property. 3) Undue Lardslup means the property in question cannot be pnt to a ieasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Have a11 alternative locations for the proposed footprint been �lored that still meet the o.wners' objectives to keep the mature trees, keep the Zocation of the garage, and move the bulk of the home furtherfrom the b1ufJ? 4) Undue hazdship means the plight of the landowner is due to c'ucim�stances unique to tfie properiy not created by the landowner. Court cases hme shown ihat problems peculfar to the present owners, their individual desires, or econamic desires do noY saiisfy the prereguisife because fhey don$ relate to fhe property itself. W)zat.is mzique about the actual land of the individuat propertyfor the structures arzd ��, Vaziance-413 B�3'mgtouRoad(Np5-307924) Page3 � 0 � 8) development? If theproblem is convrwn to a nvmber ofproperdies in the area or aZong the river, such as blufflines and slopu greater thme 18% and setbacks, then it is not unique to the subject PT�P�Y� i3ndue I�ardslup means the variance, if ganted, will not alter the essentiat cbazactec of the locality. Is the essentiaZ chm�acter af the MissisSippi River Corridor and purposes of de,signation detrimentally aZtered tf expwesion is allowed to irzrrease the amount of siructures wit{ip� ihe bluffline setback? Economic considerations aloae sl�a]1 aot cons4iute an �mdue hazdship if a reasonable use of the property exists imder the terms of the ordmance. No variance shall ize granted ti�af woutd permit any use tliaf is proIubited in tfiis ord"mauce. Undue hardship a]so atcludes, but is not limited to, madequate access to direct sunligTit for solaz energy systems. . A certified smyey of existing and proposed struct¢res and topograpluc and vegetative information is key information for decision maldng. The sim�ey did not show all contours or slopes on the property land greater flian' 18%, so an accisate deter�afion of the bluftlme or the blufAine setback m relation to the proposed footprint cannot be dete�ed The bluff line shown may oi may not be accurate. The cucumstauces of tIris individuat property or Iznd itself aze not umque. Many properties near to the 1Vfississippi River m the city }iave blufQines, and slopes gxeater than 18%. The mtent pf the Critical Axea iequirem�ts is to preserve and pmtect blu$'s greater tban 18% and ensise bluffs rewam m their nattsal state, and reteation of existing vegetation. We fully endorse the retention and protection of the 38" oak, but it appeazs the proposed footprint location encroaches closer to the 38" oak aud may be abutting the sketched drip line_ It is �mknowa how close the proposed hovse and coastruc(ion activity/ve3icle movement wiA be to the critical root wne of specific trees that need to be protected �d that was given as the reason for khe variance. $y taking a footprint "cutouY' of the pzoposed shvctare m re]ation to the certified suxvey and shotvn trees and objects, it appeazs there are other.alte�atives to rohted struchse location of siffilaz footprint available tfiat aze.farther away (e'astwar� from the pres�ed blu$lme and yet still west of the existing gazage — more cJustered aitematives that avoid aIl of the showa trees on the survey (ffid may in fad increase the distance from the drip line of the 38" oak); move the bulk of the bome further ftom the bluff and noise; and maintains the location of the gazage. The mtenYis to deciease the nonconfomuty, that is the amount of structutes witbin the setbacks, and at the same time,.piotect the iesources. If all the prerequisites for the vaziance can be met and hazdship proved and there aze no other altemative locaizons where the proposed footprint can be placed, we strongly recommend the following be included as condifions of any variance approvai; EI Given the prnposed excavation within 12 feet of the presumed blufflme and likely conshuction haffic even closer, we aze particulaziy concemed about aiteration to the setback azea, sisface water runoff, erosian and sed"u¢entation. Conditions shouldbe imposed to enstue m;n;mi��tion of nmo$ 5� Vari�ce- 413 $islmgtpn Road (,�5-107924) Page 4 and that ero.sion or sedimentation is prevented during and after construction. A�nimimm buffer of 12 feet landwazd of the b1ufEline should be converted from the short-rooted, goomed lawn area instead to a vegetated bu$'er of deep-ro6ted native vegetation that is not mowed. Establishment of this type u£ vegetative.buffer along the top of the bluff will help sfabilize the sofl and ensure greater/slower infiltration of nmoff A variety of aesthetically pleasing, native perennia7 grasses, sluubs, and Aowering plants appropriate to the ecology are available on the market today. htt�•//www geatriver�eenme or restoretion methods a� H Best management practices of the highest nahue should be implemented to prevent conshuction activities and 4affic azound e7isting ttees ancl their critical root zones. Soil compaction is the single ]azgest Idller of iaban trees. htto:!lwww.extension.uxcm edu(distnbutionlhousin�andclothine/DK6135 htrni � The removal of the e�cisting octagoaal deck within the setback, if not already proposed, to reduce the amount of shuctures on the proper[y within the setback Thank you for implementing tlie state variance statutes and protecting and preserving the Mississippi GYitical Area Corcidor. of the 5na1 decision on this proposal, Sincerely, DNR Watess SandyFecht Mississippi River Critical AreaMINRRA gydrologist Critical Area plans and regulations in As requiued, please send us notification 5 I • :-� . �o� � . AR75 OE LDT 4& fi, BLbCK 4, LYWG 1ERLY OF A IJNE RUN EROM 7HE FIEAST CARNER OF SAI� lAT fi 70 1HE HWEST CORNER aF SAI� LOT 4 ANO ALL ]TS 39 & 40, BLOCK 6, 9IlRUNGii1N � 175 OMSION NO. Z RNdSEY CAUNTY, -SDTATOC�7FIER H7IH 7HAT PAEi4 OF .TE➢ mGEW000.PlACE ACCRIIING. iMAt2K. R OF SPNITARY 64VJHOLE WM 7N THE E OF HURLWGTON .ROAD NEAR "(HE 9EAS7 CORNER OF LO'[ §. � \710N=S23.59 (CCIY,OF Si. PAUL �ANNj ��R`��'ICAT� �OSEP�I O�' SUtt�t.�� c: �hAi� �RONE � ' =� � � . . 1 _ � ' ' . ' • �— �_y_._�_-s�--�__.__ � NE CtiRelFft OF !Di ' � � r= . �_ . . �: � � � �-_ / � � J ��z� ( \ � �� , � , . � m m ; � . _ NW CSA�R OF 1(IT 4-� � i , / / ' � N as'I4ss" 7s.00� • ' % i °a ' �, f � ��, �e �, � � a`r'Sni / \ ` u . ` eLtkF W • \\ ' . . . ` � \ ``. - � \ �B�LRiGT01�7 Bp6b W .0 , `��`'�' •-�� .- � ,•'\ .;° . ; f� , \ ' (i \ � \ T� . ` ' \ - 1 \ ,` \ � . , - ' ` � , . . . _ � ,; � �� -� � - . � � � � . � �� . �� . � - �: . i . . ' GRAPHIC SGHL'E . w _J • � � "i � l 1i�9.� . — ' , - -------_ t �� f :. � � . � ; � !. � � i _ - . .. . - + I . ' 30tIlH UNE OF LOi 4 � I � 4'04'.tEILER • • ' � _ � � � :.>S 8873'3�' & 75.90 0 . _ Sa �`� �,s� . � � . . A � R y � . � � FOR 7HE PuRPO5E5 oF ZHis SURYET Tr SOU7H �LlNE OF lOT 4 IS AT AN ASSl1M eEAWNG �' NOR7H 86 OEGREES 2b M1dR' �9 SEC@iD5 WEST. _ . + 1�. ��\-� � � �� . . ' • . . • / � \ \. �i� j , \ : � x• _ •„_+o . . �. . � . � - . � , . N " \ m� \' . � ` \ _ . O�� 'x �- v ,' ' � . . r r^ � " • . � ��`\J ' . \. 'o ' i � .. � ;�l � ` • \ ' �\ �l � . ' ,` _' ` � � . [••� 1 \�. � • 1J• ` . \ J ` �� . N `1 / �` . , k ��. • . r .. \ • �. - � � i i�� \ e oExa� auirt uwvusaacr Foism o- owmFS ¢wa �ea�uaExr sEr � n�vons unwio� � DEF30'(=5 ElEC[1�C EdE7EF2 Z D41D7E5 FIYPRNdT . 5.� T -onvo'�s Poxmr ao� � pENO'IES LIGHT POLE c�. n¢�o'o-s - �.Frx� aox PK DEfIO7E5 NAIL gi' C� OEN07E5 CAiikl BA9N � ti�,o� � —5—� OET10'�55 SM —ST— DE]JD7E5 SIC —Yl— OF?lOi6 WA —E-- DE]J07E5 a= �r.— nrAn1E4 G� ��'_��J '� ` � ��2� i � �2v�� =� i f�� G �22� �f��= ls /,�C� � i O , � ��s �� /S v'7ir� i �-� /��-� �� Y �.�-C�r- �/'�2i�� ` �� 5 �cr.2 �icl��-i2� i��a`� — � � �,� � ��—,� �� - ��`S =�� O � ., i � ^ a x � � � �� d c.t3��i`v�J c�� 3� � �� tl iS ��` �i/t �td'�' �r�3 �� N�.ia� j� c Ul� �� `�. i,E l� -�� 2 �� ,,, • � � � �V P� O W � � � 0 � � E W U z F�! � a 0 h'� f t I t � ! I � � f i 1 1 Q9 � m l�e ; �� ! � Og m / � , O I U / = f < F € 6�Z� '� O�rZi < ZO<Z �br7V�.= � oo�oom�< mLL �O�p'�� Q m jyV�lY��U y. � �WOOJ�� F.jzzmiW �` �`$c�u'x�7f° Y1� {�y �<�W3F � O ��OS�> N W�� Z y � ��N N N Gw N <� W 4 fA0 O M m N�� y C�� aW4-Q ��Z W ~ KKKp � ' Ky 4 N m O l ---- -----___, � I ! � f ., . � � � ! Y i O ' t � �� ' � � ! -= o �� ---_ t£"OSL M f60.9Z.�B N I I -.,_ _.v ii� / � �_;- --�-L----, j ,�., �� , `y � ` � ! . I { � ,�,� m � \ \ \ � . ' � � _ �, ` �� .. �. � W � ,� � � ° �� , � � m � � ��iA � � � ;f \ 9 V .e � ��, t �48'i6t 3 .15.90.98 S ` N ` � \ n� � ��\ L�—� � 1 / �`� rs ssi_�v ��m �� — �� a Z J��y Z��O >�� U�� f22 O � n ��^ NmG1 � ` �I mV2tl1W � w z �€ o Z J � � �� r \ / / . ` - X� a i \ . , . i� /� i / / \ -r, \ i��.'� i " ' , ��; ; _,- - ,�, i` i �. � V� �' , • _. 5 -!� � / / 3 V� -S� / � 1 �� / J � � �� : �� / �S � � i � � �-� _ '�� i \ ; Z \, \ � i � F � = 3 p � � � �� bt�o � � �� oo�o �liil s F T � �� I I x 0 m z W � d' ��m�� p F 6 � � ! , Q C ��' il � W- Z U O 3 N N N N N� W N N F� F� F F F O O O O O O O �oo��' Ex�'d� d��d � � � � W U s25 � �' < � ? 1 W � Za � S y � O > i � V < z � � < V 2 3 W � � � 0 / ' • OA��F�AO � �.�.7 � �': ��>� , �� \ a �.-�. � � -s . � . , �,�, ��.�� ' � � z , a o9 , \ V �' �' , _, s � N 6g � _, � -;_ �i � � �a.� � � � . / \ �7`°� �` '^ ' , .i ..X' a" �. / � � t I h _ ' _ � �� / 1 � ^ ` / / \ $ � - �' / �i, ` =« � � �' � \ ' ; � , � � i � "t ,_ / � � / ' ` / ' �` y � � �` . � � U � . x � � s � � � a� . 0 � u� � i a � Wrc z �� a a a > c v €goa p � > _ 6rr O'� A n °� o '� n O O r� W �rnN V U Ny�� Z N Z V h W �n V � K 0 � � W � M �� v� � � V�� } � 3 Q � �` � � � � a � � U � � / gl� r �� < o�� N�Iw �° � > � O� �� yN �� `J • i