The URL can be used to link to this page

06-499Counci� File # O6 — � Greensheet# 3030 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAIDiT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By 13 WHEREAS, Ilya Konkov (Zoning File #06-047-485) has appealed a Planning Adniinistrator decision to deny a lot split (Zoning File #OS-202-383) under the provisions of §61.701(c) and (d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the property located at 811 White Beaz Ave N, Parcel Identification Nuxnber (PII� 272922440022, legally described as KLTHL'S 2ND ADDITION TO ST. PAUL LOTS 29 & LOT 30 BLK 1; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on March 16, 2006, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heazd pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of §64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3Q 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 WHEREAS, The Saint Paul Plamiing Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: Zoning Code §61.701(d) requires that an appeal of a decision of the planning administrator sha11 specify the grounds of the appeal. The application for appeal received on Fabruary 24, 2006, from Mr. Konkov specifies the grounds for appeal. §69304 lists seven required conditions for approval of lots splits, including (6), that the division does not result in the creation of a nonconforming structure or use. Because the proposed lot split would result in the creation of nonconforming setbacks, Mr. Konkov applied to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals for a vaziance from setback requirements. The BZA denied the setback vaziance on Ianuary 3, 2006 (Zoning File #OS-216-890). The City Council denied an appeal by Mr. Konkov of the BZA decision, and upheld the BZA decision on February 1, 2006. 3. §69.406 (a) lists seven findings that "shall be made prior to the approval of a subdivision of a lot split" including (1) all the applicable provisions of the Legislative Code are complied with; (2) the proposed subdivision will not be detrimental to the present and potential surrounding land uses; (3) the area surrounding the subdivision can be planned and developed in coordinarion and compatibility with the proposed subdivision; [and] (4) the subdivision is in conformance with the comprehensive plan." It states that all of the seven findings must be made, which cannot be done. The lot split does not comply with setback requirements in the Legislative Code for which a variance was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals and by the City Council. In addition, the White Bear Avenue Small Area Plan, an element of the comprehensive plan, calls for widening of White Bear Avenue to create left turn lanes at East Seventh Street, a project that will take 20 feet from the east side of the lot at 811 White Bear Avenue. Therefore, the proposed lot splits is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan, and would be detrimental to the creation of left turn lanes to improve traffic safety on White Bear Avenue. o�-�q� 1 WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 64.206, Ilya Konkov, duly filed with 2 the City Clerk an appeal (Zoning File #06-063-535) from the determination made by the 3 Plamiing Commission, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose 4 of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and 5 6 WHEREAS, Acting pursuant to Sections 64.206 through 64.208, and upon notice to 7 affected parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 3, 2006, where 8 all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 WT3EREAS, The Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the applicarion, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and of the Plamiing Commission, does hereby RESOLVE, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter, based on the following fmdings of the Council: be it The Council finds that there was no error in fact, finding or procedure by the Commission in this matter and, accordingly, the Council adopts the findings of the Commission as its own; and FURTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of Ilya Konkov be and is hereby denied; and, FINALLY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Ilya Konkov, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. Requested by Departrnent of: ✓ ✓ � AdoptedbyCouncil Date ��07� o1f/o� AdopSon Certifted by Council Secretary BY� �.SiY>> Approved by B4tayo . ate By: B v {./ �_ �� —� Focm pr edbyCiTy ttom BY �i Folm Approved�Mayor for Submission [o Council sy � O 1�t �� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet o� —�I �. � 4 DepartmetHloffice/counc{I: Date initiated: I ca ��tyA�� ,a�Y� Green Sheet NO: 3030707 i CoMact Person & Phone: " DeoartrneM SentTOPerson InitiaVDate I � Rache! GufMerson 0 'tv Attoroev � � � 266-8710 p��y 1 i Attorne De artme¢tDirector I Must Be on Councii Agenda by (Date): Number 2 �tv Attornev f Fof � Roufing 3 avor's Office Mavor/Assistant Order 4 ouucil 5 " Clerk Ci Clerk Total # of Signature Pages _ iCfip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Memorializing City Council's May 3, 200b motion to deny the appeal of Ilya Konkov and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a lot split for the property located at 811 White Beaz Avenue North. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personlflm� ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person�rm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personlfrtn possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No I Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): RECE�VED MAY 1 1 200fi 9 AdvanfapeslfApproved: The Council is required pursuant to the City Charter t� have its actions reduced to a writing either in the form of a resolution or ordinance dependent upon the nature of the matter before it. The decision of the Council in this matter required a written resolution in order to comply with the Charter. Approving the attached resolution fulfills the CounciPs duty under the Charter. Disadvanta�tes If Approved: None Disadvantages If Not Approved: Failure to approve the resolution violates the City's Charter requirement. Total Amount of CostlRevenue Budgeted: �� Ci�r Transactiom � Fundinp Source: Activitv Number: q Financial information: M'�� r" �°°' (EXplain� /, � ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � Tony SchertIer, Interim Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher B. CoTeman, Mayor April 10, 2006 Ms. Mary Erickson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hali Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: 25 W. Four[h Street Saint P¢ul, MN 55102 Telephane: 65l-266-6700 Facsimile: 651-2Z8-3120 I would like to confirm that a pubiic hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 3, 2006, for the following zoning case. Zoning File Number: 06-063-535 File Name: Address: Purpose: Ilya Konkov 811 White Bear Ave N, NW corner at Ross Appeal of a Planning Commission decision (File # 06-047-485) uphoiding the Planning Administrator's denial ofi a lot spiit Previous Action: Zoning Committee Recommendation: denial, 7- 0 Planning Commission Recommendation: denied, unanimous I have confirmed this day with Councilmember Bostrom's office. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the April 22, 2006, City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please cali me at 651-266-6579 if you have any questions. � Sincerely, Allan Torstenso �� City Planner cc: File #: 06-063-535 ApplicanUAppellant: Ilya Konkov Paul Dubruiel Wendy Lane Carol Martineau ftQTICE"OF PfIBLIC H(�:ARiNG" " . 1he Saint Paul City Crnmcil wi71 _eqnduct a public :fieaiing on Wednesday, Mag_ 3,- 200fi'at �5 30 p.m. in" the City, Cotutcll. Chambei"s. Tlih�d Floor City Hall: 15 West Ke7logg Boulevard, 5t. Paui,. MN, to com- sider the appeal df �Ilya Konkov to a deci- sion of the Planning G�`�omn�issiou-uphbT�- ing the Pfanningqdmuiistrator's 3eirial,of a lot split at 811 Wtrite Bear Avenue Norfli� (nortttwest comer at Ross,llvenue)...(Zon-� ing k ile Y.06-Q63-5351 _. _ �.. -_ ; ' . ., -, � Dated: Apzil.21, 2006 �. . . .. � Fv7ARY ERICKSON ' .. .. � . ; -_. _ � - " - . �(APa7 13) �- ' - - _ —==.ST. PAUL LEdAL bEDGER ='--='e 22113626 � ' - AA-ADA-EEO Employer � / DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Zony Scher[le�, Infe>im Disector CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor April 25, 2006 Ms. Mary Erickson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 � � 25 Wesl Fourlh Street TeZephone: 65I-266-6986 SaintPaul,MN55702 Frscsimile:65l-228-3220 Re: Zoning File #: 06-063-535 Appellant: Ilya Konkov Address: 811 White Bear Ave N, NW corner at Ross Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision (Zoning File # 06-047-485) upholding the Planning Administrator's denial of a lot split (Zoning File # 05-202-383) Citv Council Hearinq: Mav 3. 2006, 530 p.m., City Council Chambers � Staff Recommendation: denial District CounciL none Zoning Committee Recommendation: denial, vote: 7- 0- 0 Support: 0 people spoke, 0 letters were received Opposition: 0 people spoke, 0 letters were received Planning Commission Decision: denial, vote: unanimous Deadline for Action: Staff Assigned: extended to June 28, 2006 Allan Torstenson, 651-266-6579 Attachments: Planning Commission resolution #06-27 Planning Commission minutes, 3/24l06 Zoning Committee minutes, 3/16/06 Staff Report packet cc: Zoning File #: 06-063-535 Appellant: Ilya Konkov City Council Members District Council: 2 Wendy Lane Larry Soderholm Allan Torstenson Peter Warner • AA-ADA-EEO EMPLOYER APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Departmen[ ofPlanning and Economic Devetopmext Zoxing Sectian I400 City Hall Axnex 25 West Fourth Street Satnt Paul, MN SSIO2-I634_ (65I) 266-6589 Name ��.VA � / l�� ` P�1KC1 1 / APPLICANT Addres� �N �; }� �E PROPERTY LOCATION Cit � y,_ ,� v�� Ftu� St. ��Zip ��E� Daytime Pho Zoning File Address I L'. TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made fior an peal to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals City Council Under fhe provision of Chapter 61, ion made by the � ite of decision) v 20 � . File Number: � Planning Commission of fhe Zoning Code, to appeal a `�� GROUNDS FOI2 APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made 6y an admin+stsative officiat, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. There is One small house on Twa Lots. I am not changing the e�sting house, why is there a problefn with it? Flease . consider the placements of the surrounding houses. Thaze is z�o project for the widening of White Bear Ave, no reason for denial, even if there was, tivho owns fhe propert-�? ��3�b (a4fach additional sheet if necessary� � � . ,�`� O ; � �j , ` App{icanYs Signatur U a{e 03 l 31 �� City Agen K:\forsrts]appforzppeafwpd - ti/8/04 DG- �3��.35� ��'�� ,city of saint paul i planning commission resolution fiie number 06-27 date March 24, 2006 WHEREAS, Ilya Konkov, Zoning File # 06-047-485, has appealed a Planning Administratordecision fo deny a lof split (Zoning File # 05-202-383) under the provisions of §61.701(c) and (dJ of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for property located at 811 White Bear Ave. N, Parcel Idenfification Number (PIN) 272922440022, legally described as KUHL'S 2ND ADQiTION TO ST. PAUL LOTS 29 & LOT 30 SLK 1; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of.the Planning Commission, on March 16, 2006, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of §64.300 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially refiected in the minutes, made the #�Ilowing findings of fact: 1. Zoning Code §61.701(d) requires that an appeal of a decision of the planning administrator shall specify the grounds of the appeal. The application for appeal received on February 24, 2006, from Mr. Konkov specifies the grounds for the appeal. 2. §69.304 lists seven required conditions for approval of lot splits, including (6), that the division does not result in the creation of a nonconforming structure or use. Because the proposed lot split would result in the creation of nonconforming setbacks, Mr. Konkov applied to fhe Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from setback requirements. The BZA denied the setbackvariance on January 3, 2006 (Zoning � File # 05-216-890). The City Council denied an appeal by Mr. Konkov of the BZA decision, and upheld the BZA decision, on February 1, 2006. 3. §69.406(a) lists seven findings that "shall be made prior to the approval of a subdivision or a lot spiit," including "(1) all the applicable provisions of the Legislative Code are complied with; (2) the proposed subdivision will not be detrimental to the present and potential surrounding land uses; (3) the area surrounding the subdivision can be planned and developed in coordination and compatibility wifh the proposed subdivision; [and] (4) the subdivision is in conformance with the comprehensive plan." It states that all of the seven findings must be made, which cannot be done. The lot split does not comply with setback requirements in the Legislative Code for which a variance was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals and by the City Council. In addition, the White BearAvenue Small Area Plan, an element of the comprehensive plan, calls for widening of White Bear Avenue to creafe Ieft tum lanes at East Seventh Street, a project ttiat wili take 20 feet from the east side of the lot at 811 W hite Bear Avenue. Therefore, the proposed lot splif is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan, and would be detrimental to fhe creation of left turn lanes to improve traffic safety on White Bear Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, underthe authority of the City's Legisiative Code, that the appeai of a Pianning Administrator decision to deny a lot split at 811 White BearAve. N is herebyclenied. moved by Nlorton seconded by • in fiavor Unanimouslv denied against � l� �� ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT � FILE NAME: Ilya Konkov FILE # 06-047-485 APPLICANT: ifya Konkov HEARING DATE: March 16, 2006 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Appeai LOCATION: 811 White Bear Ave N, NW comer at Ross PIN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 272922440022, KUHL'S 2ND ADDITION TO ST. PAUL LOTS 29 & LOT 30 BLK 1 � • PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 PRESENT ZONING: R4 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §61. 701 (c)(d), §69.304, §69.406(a) STAFF REPORT DATE: March 7, 2006 BY: Aflan Torstenson DATE RECEIVED: February 24, 2006 60-DAY DEADLINE FOR ACTION: April 29, 2006 A. PURPOSE: Appeal of a Planning Administrator decision to deny a lot split (zoning file #05-202- 383). B. PARCEL SIZE: 80 ft. (Ross frontage) x 118 ft. (White Bear frontage) = 9440 sq. ft. C. EXISTING LAND USE: Single-family house D. SURROUNDING LAND USE: There are commercial land uses across White Bear Avenue and single-family dwellings on al� other sides. E. ZONING CODE CIT/aTION: §61.701(c) states that decisions on matters delegated to the planning administrator are subject to appeal to the planning commission, and §61.701(d) regulates appeals of planning administrator decisions. §69.304 lists seven required conditions for approval of lot splits. §69.406(a) lists seven findings that "shall be made prior to the approval of a subdivision or a lot split." F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: On January 3, 2006, the Board of Zoning Appeafs denied a setback variance necessary for the proposed lot split (Zoning File #OS-216-890). A copy of the Board of Zoning Appeals resolution denying the variance is attached. On February 1, 2006, the City Council denied an appeal by Mr. Konkov of the BZA decision (Zoning File #06-005-445). A copy of the City Council resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals is attached. On February 16, 2006, the Planning Administrator denied the lot split (Zoning File #05-202-382). The planning administrator's letter denying the lot split is attached. . G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATiON: The District 2 Council had not made a recommendation at the time this staff report was prepared. H. FINDINGS: 1. Zoning Code §61.701(d) requires that an appeal of a decision of the planning administrator shall specify the grou�ds of the appeal. The application for appeal received on February 24, 2006, from Mr. Konkov, which is attached to this report, specifies the grounds for the appeal. Zoning File # 06-047-485 Zoning Commiftee Staff Report Page 2 2. §69.304 lists seven required conditions for approval of lot splits, including (6), that the division does not result in the creation of a nonconforming structure or use. Because the proposed lot split would result in the creation of nonconforming setbacks, Mr. Konkov appiied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from setback requirements. The BZA denied the setback variance on January 3, 2006 (Zoning Fite #05-216-890). The City Council denied an appeal by Mr. Konkov of the BZA decision, and upheid the BZA decision, on February 1, 2006. 3. §69.406(a) lists seven findings that °shall be made prior to the approval of a subdivision or a lot split," inciuding "(1) all the appiicable provisions of the Legislative Code are complied with; (2) fhe proposed subdivision wifi nof be defrimental to the present and potential surrounding land uses; (3) the area surrounding the subdivision can be planned and developed in coordination and compatibility with the proposed subdivision; [and] (4) the subdivision is in conformance with the comprehensive plan:' it states thatall of the seven findings must be made, which cannot be done. The !ot split does not complywith setback requirements in fhe Legislative Code for which a variance was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals and by the City Council. In addition, the White Bear Avenue Smali Area Plan, an element of the comprehensive pian, calis for widening of White Bear Avenue to create left tum lanes at East Seventh Street, a project that will take 20 feet from the east side of the lot at 811 White Bear Avenue. Therefore, the proposed lot spiit is not in conformance with the comprehensive pian, and would be detrimentat to the creation of left tum lanes to improve traffic safety on White Bear Avenue. C� I. STAFF RECOMMENDATlON: Based on the above findings, staff recommends denial of the appeal of aplanning administrator decision to deny the proposed lot split at 811 White Bear � Avenue. � 58iRi PAUG � A11AA AAp�lCATlOt� FOR APPEA! Deparrment ofP[anning and EconomicDevelopment Zoning Section I400 City HallAnn� 25 Wesf Faurth Street SaintPaul, MN SSIO2-1634 (65I) 266-6589 APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION Zoning File AddresslL TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals ❑ City Council Planning Commission Under the provision of Chapter 61, Section �_Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a the (date of decision) �� ,�h,;� 5 ��h ..s-�-�.�� - 20, a�. FiteNumber._ � vS ��`�.�� GROUNDS FORAPPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an adminisfrafive officiaf, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. There are two Lots on the property and ane small house. The existing dwelling sits on the border of tha two Lots, incorrectly, when it should be on one lot. There are plenty of honses that kave very similar con�igurafion, in direction of Lots and house placement. It is very improper far a city official to ask to change the e�sting dwelling, in order to redefine to the correct lot configuration. (atYach additiona! sheet if necessary) r ApplicanYs K:\fnrniclannfnanne.al wnd 11/8l06 �3S City Agent W' �_2�--d� � DEPARTMENTOFPLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMENT Tony Schertler, lnterim Dirutor b�e-y�� v w�.,� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Chris[opher B. Colemars, Mnyor February 16, 2006 Mr. Ilya Konkov 811 White Beaz Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106 RE: 811 White Bear Avenue Lot Split Zoning file #OS-202382 • • Dear Mr. Konkov: 25Wes�FounhStreet Telephane:651-266-6700 Saint Pnul, MN 55102 Facsimiie: 651-?28-3220 Your application for lot split review for 811 White Bear Avenue is hereby denied because it would result in the creation of nonconformittg setbacks. Your application for variance of setback requirements was denied by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on January 3, 2006 (Zoning File #OS-216890), and your appeal of the BZA decision was denied by the City Council on February, 1 2006 (Zoning File #06-Q05445). Any interested party may appeal this decision by the Planning Administrator to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the date of this letter. If you have questions, please call me at (651) 266-6583. Sincerely, � �� Paul Dubruiel, on behalf of the Planning Administrator cc: 7ohn Hardwick, LIEP District 2 Community Council • S89°56'2?°E 4�,04 w � N 2.43 � �� 28 � { w GA AGE TO B 25 � DEl�OL1SHED � � � � O � EAST UNE OP SEC. 27 T29N � �� —. __��_.-,- S8S°56`�3�� 40,0��- � =� � ; � I FA �ELi B PRQ� � 25 �^i '� t � �� o .__.. � --�- �---- 0 �- n m 23.85 �-- ��: � �. W p� �_. --- � b HOUSE O � .� 3 0 z . . � �� Z �s �i 21.27 0 �� o ri y � �, �� n � N P�.�E A� � Q� . 0 Z 58�3°� '�3''E 40,04 8Q,�J8 n .-. . �y � � _.._,__.r�.._. {� "-.--...`.-J-..� l f ..._ i, '.. w ROSS AVE. � �, 1 n � � ,� � � I � � ,. SPLI? , � � � � � � � f w �f j �( !�. j �I 1 � � � �� y �� ( � �� . j � � � � � ` i � j { � �� < ' ;-�o , � 3a 3 >> --------. 10TES � CER`�'IFI.CATION _ . , I hereby certify� fhat �his survey, plan ar � RES{3LUTiON CTTY OF SA1NT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� CovncilFile#�� t *?_U GreenSheet# 3Qr�4 b'i J �Z I�T2ES.EA'TED $Y �"k`k�tRED TO CONIbIITT7EE: paTE z Whereas, Ilya Ronkov made applicafion to the Boazd of Zoxun� Appeals (Fi1e #OS- z 216890) for a variance from the strict applicarion of the provisions of the �aint Paul Zoning 3 Code for property JocaEed at 811 White Bear Avenue North, legally described as KLTI�[.'S ZND s� ADDITIOIV TO ST. PAUL LOTS 29 & LOT 30 BLK 1; and ti� s Whereas, The purpose of the application was to vary the standazds of the Zoning Code � pertainina to the minimum requixed rear yard setback in order to split the parcel and constzuct a s new single-family dweliing on the resuIting vacant lot and an attached gazage on the west side of 9 fhe existing house in Yhe R4 Zoning Districi; and io ii 12 13 Whereas, a 25 foot reaz setback is required for the existing house and a setback of 4 feet is proposed from the west property tzne for a variance af 21 feef; and 14 Wheraas, The Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 7anuary 3, 2006, � s after having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Eoazd, hy its Resolntion #OS- s 216890 adopted January 3, 2006, decided to dany the variance application based on the £ollowing i7 findings and conclusions: ls rg I: The property in guestion cannot be put to a reasonable use u7ider the strict 2 Q provzsions of the Code. zl 2 2 The pazcel was origznally platted as two 40-foot wide lots. The existing house is 2 3 located on the soufhem end ofthe site, probably to provide street access to the 24 house since most of the properry is elevated so high abave White Bear Avenue 2 5 North. The applicant would iike to split the property and build a new house far 26 himsalf and his sister. His parents would coniinue Yo live in the existing house. 2 '� This is a reasonable attd pemutted use of the proper[y. The proposed new Iots as 2 8 currently laid out by the applicant would meet the 2ot size arzd width requirements 29 aud it only the pIacement af the existing house on fhe site that creafes the need for 3o a variance. 31 32 33 34 85 36 � s s 2. The plaght of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to ihis property, and these circn�rstances were not created by the land owner. The elevation and contours of the property as well as the placement of the e7cisfing hoase on the site are citcumstances that prevent reasonable use of the property under the strict provisions of the Code. These cireumstances were not created by the current property owner. �4��s i 3. 77ae proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code, and s is not consisienf with the health, safery, comfort, morals and weljare of the ` s znhabitanu of the City of Saint Paul. �+ ` � s The Wlute Beaz Avenue Small Area Pian calls for widening White Bear Avenue s at East Seventh Street in arder to create tum lanes at the intersection. According � to Public Works staff, 20 feet will be taken &om the properly on tke west side of s White Bear Avenue all fhe way from East Seventh Sireet south to Ross Avenue. s This will pzobably result in the loss of ihe existing house an #his properiy since it zo is Iocated only 21-feet from the e�sfing street right-of-way. However, if the i1 eaisting house must be removed, the remaining 60 by l l7-foot pazcel would be i2 similar in size to the otherparcels on the block and large enough to build a new is home. Ttus is an unfortunate cirevmstance but it is necessary in order to improve �� traffic and gedestrian safety at this busy interseciion. Subdividing the property at is this time wouId be in keeping with the sgirit and inient o£ tfie Code. is i� 4. The proposed variance will impair an adequate supply of Zigkt and air to adjacent is property, and aZter the essentictl characfer of the surrounding area and may is unreasonabTy diminish estdbtished propei�y values within the surrourzding area. �o a� The loss of 2Q feet from fhis parce] would make the property too smatt to z2 accom modate a second house without several large variances. The resulring small z3 lots would not be in keeping with the siae of the otfier pazcels in the z4 neighborhood This in turn coufd have an adverse impact on the sunounding zs properiy values. zs 27 5. The variance, ifgrttnted, would not permit any use that is notpermitted under the 2s pravisions of the Code for the property in the district where 11ie affected Zand is zs Zocated, nos wauld it aiter or ckange the zoning disfrict cicrss�cation of the 3o property. 31 3� 33 3L1 35 6. 3S 37 The requested variance, if granted, wouid not change or alter the zoning classi&cafion ofthe property, The request for variance is not based primariZy on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the p¢rcel of Zand. as Wfiereas, pursuant to the pmvisions of Section 64.2Q5, Ilya Konkov, duly filed with the a9 Ciry Clerk an appeal {File #06-005445) from the determination made by the Board of Zaning go Appeals, requestiug thaf a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering 4i the actions takenbythe said Boazd; and 42 s3 Wliereas, Acting pursuant to SecTions 64205 through b4.208, and upon notice to affected 44 parties a pubfic hearing was duly conducted by the City Councit on February I, 2006, where all s s interested parties were given an opportunity to be fieazd; and 46 4z Whereas, The Council, having heazd the statements made, and ha�ing considered the 4s variance application, the report of sYaff, the record, minutes and resolution of tfie Board of 4a Zoning Appeais, does hereby so � r1 �J • I � � �� 1 Resolve, Tha# the Counci[ of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the decision of the 2 Boazd of Zoning Appeals in this maiter, base.a on the findings of fhe Board of Zoning Appeals 3 and the following addifional findings of fhe Council: 1Y _�g� � LZ9 5 I. The City Council finds no eaor in fact, findin� ar procedure wifih respect to the 6 Boazd of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny the rear yard setback variance of 21 � feet 8 9 2. The City CouncIl finds that ilze 21 foot variance from the rear yard setback also io changes tfie curreat the west side yud into a westem rear yard. The variance also 1 Y changes the lot now facing south oa Ross Avenue with au east side yard bordering 12 4Vhite Beaz Avenue to a lot facinb east on White Beaz Avenue with a northem 13 side yazd borderi�c, an alley. Thaf would create an addirional residential lot facing �¢ comaiercial property on White Bear Avenue. This proposai, as submirted to the 15 City Council, is not in keeping with the spirit and infent of the code. xs ia is 19 20 zi 22 23 z4 \ J 3. The City Council finds that the variance of 21 feet with only 4 feet remainzng as a rear seYback is lazge and noT in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. Further Reso2ved, Tkat the appeal of Ilya Konkov be and is hexeby denied; and, Ue it Finally Resotved, That ttce City Clerk shatl mait a copy of fhis resoiution to IIya Konkov, Che Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and Boazd of Zoning Appeals. Requested by Department oP; �� -'opted by Council: Date � Adqption Certified by Council BYo xpproved b a r: Date Z`"`"1'� Bv: • � Forn� Approved by Ci Attorney �v.�� B i Apprw d; by M o for issi to Council $Y� �1�'�q� Ol�-188 �� I'I`�' C}F �AIl�'T PAUL Bt��l� �3� �EE}NING APPEAI� RE�OL�ITI(?I�I �ONT1dTG FTL�+ l�Tf.TN3�E�Z: O�S-216�9t3 DAT�: 3`aa��ary 3, ZOa6 VJI-�?REAS, I[ya Konkov has applied fox a, variauca fram the strict application of the provisions of 5 ection 62.23 i of the Saint Paui LegisiaEive Code pertainiag to the i�tinimtim requi_red rear yard setback in order fo split tt�e paxcel and canstruct a new singte-fawily dwelling on the resultiug vacant lot and an attached garage on tke west side of the exzsting house in the R4 Zoni.ng District af 8I I Wlute Bear Avenue No�h; and "� EItEAS, the Saiut Paul Boatd of Zo�ing Appeals conducYed a pubfic hearin; oa Jaa�azy 3, 200b pursuaut to said appficafion in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the I.egislative Code; and tiVE�E1tEAS, the Saint Paul }3oard of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substanfiaily reflected ia tke minutes, made tbe following fitidings of fact: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonabte use under the strict provisions of the Code. Tkis parcel was origiva2ly ptatted as fwo 40-£oot wide lo#s. The e�sfing house is located on the southem end o£ the site, pzobably to provide street access to tha house sinee most of the proparty is elevaYed so high above White $ear Avenue North, The applicaut would like to split the property and btrild a new house for tumself and bis sister. Hzs parents woutd continue to tive in ttte exis(ing house. This is a reasonahte and permitfed use of the property, Tlae proposed new lots as eturentiy laid out bq the applicant would meet the 2ot size and width zequiremenfs aud it is only the ptacement o£ the existing house on the site that creates the need for a varzance. l. The plight of the land owner is due to ciYCUmstances unique Lo this property, and these cir were not created by She land o�.vner. The elevarion and contours o#'the property as Well as fhe p2acement of the er,isting house on the site aze circumstances thaf preveriY the reasonable use o£ the property tmder the strict grovisions of Yhe Code. Tfiese cireuznstances were not created by tha curreut pmperty owtler. •� 3. The proposed variance is rwt in keeping with the spirzt and inten# of the Code,"and is not consistent with the heaZth, sa, fety, comfort, rt�orals and welfare of the inhabitants of tha �ity ofSY: Paut. Page 1 of 3 �� 1 r s � a • #t}5-138572 Resalution The 4Vhz#e $ear Avenue Smat1 Area Plan catls foF widening.White Bear Avenue at East Seventh Street in ozde�r to cz�ate tum lanes at the inte�ection. According to Public Works staf� 20 feet wt�l be taken froitt the properry on the west side of W6ite Bear'Avenue aII the way from: F.ast Seventh Street sauth to Ross Aveuue; T�is wi11 probablyresult in the Ioss af the e�.sting house on this property since it is Iocated only 21-feet from the existing stteet zight-of-way. I3owever, if the exisfing house must be reraoved, fhhe rema'cuing 60 by I17- foof pazcelivouid be similaz iu szze to the otherpazcels ion tfie block and Iazge enough to build a new kome. This is au emforhzuate circlunsfance but st is necessary in ordez to improve traf&c and pedestrian safety a# this bnsy inferseeiion. Subdividing the pzaperiy at ihis time wovld aot be inkeep3ng with tTie spirit and intent of the Code. 4. Theproposed variance tivitf irizp¢ir cr�z adequate supply oftfght and aix to ad,jacent proper ty, and atfer the essentittl chaPaeter of ihe surrourtding area and may unreasonably ditnixish established propeYty values within the surrounding area. The 2oss of20 feet from tbis pazcel wotild ina.ke tTze propertytoo smalt to accomm.odate a secand house without several lazge vauances. The resniting smatl lots woutd not be in keeping with the size of the otl�er parcels im the neighborhood. This in tum cauid have an adverse imgact on the suaounding property vatnes. 5. The varuuzc� zf gr¢nted, ivould not pernzit any use that is not permi#ed under the provisions of ihe Code for the propsKy in tke disfrict w�ers the a,�'ected tand rs locater� xar would zt a7ter or change the zoxing district ctass�tion of the propeKy. The requested variauce, i£granted, would not change ar alter the zouing classification o£the property. 6. The requestfor variance is naf based primarily on a desire to increase the value or fncome .. patential ofthe pareel o, fland - N��V, TTIEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by #he Saiut Paul Board af 7,onin8 ApPeals thaE the request to waive #he provisions of Sec#toa 66.231 to a12ow a rear yazd setbackof 2I feet, iu order to split #Ius paccel and consfrnct anew single=famly dwe3ling ott the resutting vacaat 3ot attd au attached garage ou fhe west side o£the ex[sting house onproperty 16cafed at $ii White Seat Avenue Nortb; and legaily descn`bed as KnbPs 2nfl Addition To St. Paut I,ots 29 & I.ot 30 Blk 1; iu accordaace wi� the application for variance and the site plan on filewith the Zoning Administrator. _ . ISH�BEBFDENIED. � Page 2 0£3 � � • � �� • Q�'�� f�- ) 88 � � � � �'ite # €35 - 21689Q Resolution l��D �Y: c�� SECI?l�?]C+I? BY: �o II�T FAV�R: � AGAIl4��T: o MA'�.EA: 7anuary 4, 2046 T� �I�: No decisiott o£ the zoning or planniug adn�iuistxafor, planning conimission, board of zoning�appeais or city counc4I approving a site ptan, permit, vaxiance, or other znning appx4rat sha]I be yatid for a period idng6r ftcan Lwo (2) yeaxs, nnless a huilding pernniY is obtaiaed w7f2ciA sech periad and the erectiou or a2tera#on af a huitding is proceeding uzidel-the tex�ns of Yhe deciszott, or the use is established witliin such period by actizal operatioxi puxsuant ttf tLe applicable cundiiions and reg�yiremeuts of fhe appravai, nniess the zontng or gianuisg administratox grants an extensiou not to eaceed one (1) pear. �P�� Decisions of the Board of Zaning Appexts are �nal snhject to appeat to the City Conncil within 10 days by asxyone affected by the deciszou. Bniidiag permifs shall not be issued after an appeal has heen filed. 7f pertuits ]tsva beea issved before an app@aI has been f�lati, fhen fke germi#s are snspended and construction shall cease unfil the CSfy Council has nuade a fmal defermination of t�e appeal. CERT3I+'�CATTON: I, ihe uudersigned Sacretary to tite Baaxd of Zoninb Appeais fox fhe City of ' Saint l'aat,lVIinuesota, do hereby cerfify that I hawe compaxed Ehe foregoing copy with the ariginal recoxd in my office; and T�nd the same to be a frae and correct capy of said ortginal and of the whole thereof, as based on apprnved miunfes of the Safint paui Boazd of Zoaing Appeals meeflug hetd on January 3, 20U6 and on xecord in the Offzcg of I.fcense Inspection and Environmenfai �'rofeciian, 8 Fourth St E, Saint PanI, Minnesota. S T P�YJT. BOARD O�' ZONI�TG APPEAI.S � �� DeHHie Crippen Secretaxy to the Board Page 3 of 3 � ♦ • %� tuLt►! 1t _ • �i ;, �t, t _ � : a � � ► • • �► crz� cocrrFen, c�r�a�xs, sso c� �z, ST. PAUL, IviINNFSOTA, 3AMIARY 3, 2006 PRE5E23T`: Mmes. Maddox, $ogen, and Morton; Messis. Courmey, Faricy, Gailes, and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; NLs. Rachel Gnnderson City Attorney; Mr_ �lazdwicic aud .Ms_ Crippen of ihe Office of X.icense, Iuspec8ons, and Environmental Protectiau_ ABSE33T Nona The meeting was cIiaired by 7oyce NSaddox, Chas. llpa Konkov f#05 216890) S11 White Bear Avenne North: A rear yard setback variance ixt order to sgiit this pazcel aad construct a new singte famiTy dweLtutg on the resulting vacant lot and aa attached garage on the existu� house. A 2S foot rear setbac& is required far tha exis�ing house and a setback of 4 feet is pmposed &om tfie wesE pioperry line for a variance of 21 feet. Mr. Hacdwick showed slides of the site and teviewed ihe staff report with a recommenda�on foz denial. 1Vo cozrespora3ence was received opposing the variance request. No correspondenee was received from District 2 zegarding the variance request. The apglicant ti.YA gC?NKQV , 81i Wfute Beat Avenue North, was present. Mr. Konkov stated they have the property and had pvrchased it in order to buiId on it. He only found out ahaut the project fo widen Ehe street when spea}dng to kis aeigh8ors ahout the lot sp&t aud house buiiding projeck He spoke to tke Distact 2 far the Ciry Planuing they sa%d they did not have anythmg 1�7te that and were ia ti�e decisioa making process for that pmJec# and it was not certain fhat project wnuld go rIuough. He reQuested that the Boazd appzove his plan to apfit the lot and br.u'td a new siagle-famity hame on the tot. Vladimit Sivriver, &480 Wayzah $IvcY. stated fie is #he sun�eyor for this paoject. Mr. Sivriver stated he is asking the Board for saQpart of rhe iot sg&t because he F�as 6eea worki¢g nn a Iot of Iot spiits this year, but this one meefs aIl of the City requirements to grant the splik The fuvue project to widen t?te street in his opinion azry fature groject in ihe next Tve ta ten years should not affect t&is groject. Tnere was no opposition present at the hearing. Ms. 14laddox �equesied ihat Mr. I3ardwick offez sosne fiuther iuput about the p3ans of the City if he &naws. Mr. Hazdwick stated that tfie smaSF azea plan was adagted in 200L It caIIs faz widening the toad and providing iuxning Ianes at ali the busy ia#etsections, Maryiaztd Avenue, Seventh Siceet, and Minuehaha Avenue he believes, so it is goiag eo be done.' White Bear Avenue is a state aid hi�way or counry aid road. �e City Las to apply through the Couuty in order tn do these grojects. Right now there is the widening of Maryland Aveuue and White �eaz Avenue is on ilie Councit Agenda. 7n that case they bought the enzire pazcel ou the southwest corner of lviaryiand Avenue. According to Mike C3ausen the Tiaffic Eugineer, this project wi4 be done in the next year or taro probably_ It is aot a qaesiion of whet6sr it vritl-be dane it is a guesEion of when they can get the funding in Line through the � � � �� i i AA ADA-EEO EmpIo}� �� a � f � £ � �f .1�� - : ��, � �� :� _- �� _�.;�' j� ,�- . �. °" `: 4., _'�- �_ ;, �-��, � � �� w� � � -.3 �444.yy�d� � HR'� .�.�+.� ��. ` � y tii5:: } � � Q ^ .i � _� � Y+s{: °.:�°&'n �°� ' w '�3. ��1� •. ; . °. }..t _-:. ° `�a�C' , _ .0 qS� ;.y.w>... 4� ..�.. � ➢ -�-,-. � . .. b3. ,y � ,x3"�* --"S w*,.� s : .m..i, , �� °�.> .,.� � � . i:i:r • • • Rear of Site along Whife Bear ZF #06-047-485 b(��- _ __.. . ,. .. .. � ., n .. �� , --,. � __ _ �y:=�a m � � � l. CITIZEN PF�R ICIPATFOr DIS7�ICTS CITIZE�I PARTICTPATI(kN PLANNIN� DISTRICTS NRAY=BATTLEC&��-HTGHWOOD . 2. EATER EAST S.IDE .4(EST bI�E 4.DAYTON'S BCUFF . - S.PAYNE-PHkLEN �-• 6.NORTH END ' �.. 7.THOMAS-.DALE B:SUMMIT-UNIVERSI7Y " - . 9:ki�ST SEVENTH • 10. COi10 � � � / � �� il.HAMLINE-MIDWAY /f � � 12 ST aNTHOf�Y v 13.MERRIAM PK.-LEkIt�GTON HAMLtNE 14..GROVELRt�D=MACALESTER-. . � • 15.HIGHLANO 9b.5UMMIT HILL 17. �OWNT641N � ar�-�� GREATER EAST SIDE DISTRICT 2�_ 500 'OQ � n000 4004 SNO SGLE )N FEET .. . ... . ...... .... . ..... y I� i �' • . " � VM ~ V� ( / � a � � e � `„`°'��-. �f � � � �� . # "s �"`'`' �� -��fi�`a�`�� :7 .�� ' �+ � i � � � t �- �� ,_ : � t ( E �� {3 � F � t � ➢ F �� i�{� 1 ; - ��'�f � L� {�� ._ � k t 4 ��°` 4" i ; � � i I { � ` `{ F � � # � x � T P g } � [ � � � � 1 f � . � � ¢ x � `�`�'�°�'� a F [ ' f ( � ' i � ��-._�, , £ � _ � x � i � r* t � � f . � t ' i � � f �i � ��t ��s�� ' � i � � 'i' i� � 4 1 �f"�.+�¢ � . � � � � �G�h�� ;��° �� i k � � �; . �r. , `'� `C-:'--. ; =� - .��^-°�..�; -"�.-�.,.:�;: � � � � � � �� .. � �_ . � �� ¢ F ' ��.. ��`;. __„�'�.,�.�-:-. . . .� ; - �� • t £ S . � { F . t � 3 ! � 4 . 3 � ��....� . k . , ' { ��,� � �i . _ "�"" _'—__. AP?UCF,t�1T � �� LEG�NO �' ��i� K.�� zonin dis(ricl t�unda °UR°OS[ 9 �Y (� {%ii'7TT17�7 suSj��i ro = LL ILE G� � �a�pATE p ?- �LiJG. DIST�_ P,1AP ��_—_ � on_ (zRtily e=, � hvo tam}fy � �� • �],�� mulli�la(amily s- �} 3 �_d �. �-� art�� • x ^ comm• 4 .�.v indust� 4' v2can! i g ,�. g # �i� .,� , z . ; p s � � ,� � � �:� '€ L .i� 4 � ��[�.._,�.�� 1 t �� . ' f j � ° € a k ` t . : . . . . ' t s � � b10 ��-1�tq EAST IJN CF $ TI T29N R�',cN` , ' � _—_ �- -A7fFY "__ -._ _'__ ___ - "�"_�� ,_ . , _ ' _ _ _ _ _ - S89°56'23'E — _- __ _. __"�"_ �"' _�n . . . � EXIS�ING . �� , '� . � ' ' � PH1tiCEi�, D� PR L0T 5 ��T ' !� , � '_ __ - - Z5 ' ; . . � BLOCK 1 � � � � �� ; � � � . f- SE76AC9C LJNE� • N � , � �, n ��: �� 28 , o� 29 -_ _f.� 3s� �' x; , < _._ _ f d � W . . ar � � � � ' m �: ' ' . : o <"' e m � .- G: � - w : . � s ;-a. _ . O Q , E " ' : , , _�_ _. � z t �.�s �'. s x, , � �� , � � � � .. .-- � - --- � z, _ � ,. I � _ _ : €wsn� I , � � c � ' HOUSE. �o`�� : , . , u. _ .. .,. .. ... �t� _ v � � � , . , 4 g F I ~._ ' P�1KCE$� A � � ' � '.s . ., � Y `�"3 � ^ � � I I I 4 ' o � � � � fi � � ��, _' " " • �; , ' , � — � i4 �.�w,.m�� .3D . E 30 � a � , T- --'� • __ — - �-- r — ��.� -- �- � _ - -- � - -__ _ _ U, -------- . , , � � = , n — _`_ ,4 , _ � .�--- : .� �__ ROSS AVE. ..___,�_ .�____;..�__ _�._.— ' --.�.__._..--. _______.,�._.. ,., _'- ----'�----'— -- .. -';-- . �=•, - y �: -- � _ , �� t , � _ . _, . ._ , .. . � i --- There are TWO Lots, and ONE small house. House sits on the border of the two lots. b�—�q� m rv2i i � `. .,. \ � Y � \ � 1027 White Bear Ave — The house was built so recently that it doesn't even show up on the map. 1023 White Bear Ave $24 � �� a�a m ' �� : {� �i z � � �1 / 807 White Bear Ave — there is no front or rear Yard, just one side yard, and 2 feet away from the border. 801 White $ear Ave There are plenty of houses with "nonconforming setbacks" 791 White Bear Ave '773 4Vhite Bear Ave 780 White Bear Ave 768 White Bear Ave / � �_.� . :z,.:;a . �� .� � i o� \ 6JSNAVE ? � ��t *' � sx>r, r *.��,�... ..3��iu-"�`ti ' � � � 908 White $ear Ave 900 White Bear Ave 877 White Bear Ave / � � � � �N., � � � i ;a`" ..�-�.'«'�"a � '�'< `°�'a'�':, � f >lr K �'.� M a3 YC s � A \ � ��; ;. � �;�� . �;;, �;: b� ��q� Sec. 66,232. Density and dimensiooa! standards table. Table 66.231, residential district dimensionai standards, sets forth density and dimensional standards that are specific to residentfai districts. These standards are fn addition to Yhe provisions of chapter 63, regulations of general applicabiliiy. Tabie 66.231. Residential District Dimensionai Standards Zoning District RL one-family large lot Ri one-family R2 one-famify R3 one-family R4 one-family RTl two-farhily R72 townhouse RMi multiple-family RM2 multiple-family RM3 multiple-family Lot Size Minimum (per unit) Area (sq. ft.)(b) Width (feet) 21,780(d) 80 9,600(e) 80 7,20Q 60 6,000 50 S,OOD 40 3,000(� 25 2,500(c),(fj 20 2,OOD (c),(� n/a 2,5o0(c),(� n/a 800(c) n/a Height Maximum Yard Setbacks Minimum (feet) Stories Feet 3 30 3 30 3 30 3 30 3 30 3 40 3 40 3 40 5 50 Front Side 30(g),(h) 10(h) 30(g),(h) 10(h) 25�9).Ch) $Ch) 25{g),(h) 6(h) 25(9).(h) 4(h) 25(g),(h) 9(h) 25(9).�h) 4Ch),��) Rear 25(h) 25(h) 25(h) 25(h) 25(h) 25(h) 25(h) 25(9),(h) 1/2 hei9ht�B)�C�) ZS�h),(i) 25(g),(h) 1/2 height(h),(i) 25(h),(i) no max. no max. (g),(h),{j) (h),(i),(j) (h),(i),(j) n/a - not applicable Notes to table 66.231, resitlentiai district dimensional standards: (a) R4 one-Family district dimensional standards shali appiy when one-family dwellings are erected in less restrictive resitlentlal districts. RTi two-famtty district dimensionat standards shali apply when two-famiiy dwefiings are erected in less restrictive residentiai tlistricts. RM2 multiple-family districc dimensional standards shall appiy when muitiple-family residential dwetlings five (5) stories or less in height are constructed in an RM3 multiple-family district. (b) In calculating the area of a lot that adjoins a dedicated pubiic alley, for the purpose of applying lot area and density requirements, one-half the width of such attey adjoining the lot shatl be mnsidered as part of the lot. (c) In calculating the area of a lot for the purpose of appiyin9 the minimum lot area per unit requirement, the lot area figure may tre irtcreased try three hundred {3D0) square feet for each parking space (up [o twa (2) parking spaces per unit) within a multiple-family structure or otherwise completely underground. Parking spaces within an above-ground parking structure, except for Yhe Yop level, may also be ased for this !ot area bonus. The maximum number of units poss+b)e on a lot using Yhis loi area 6onus can be calculated using the fnrmula X= L v(A--600), where X= maximum units allowed, L= Iot area in square feet, and A= required lot area per u�it in square feet. A site P�an showing pariting layout and dimensions shall be required when applying for this lot area 6onus. No multiple-family dwelling shail be built, nor shatl any existing structure be converted to a multiple-family dweliin9, on a lo[ that is Iess than nine thousand ( 9,000) square feet in area. (d) A larger lot may be required depending on how much square footage is actually needed to properly site and instail an individual sewage treatment system. (e) Where over half of the lot has slopes of twelve (12) percent or greater, the minimum lot size shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. When determining Iot size, the slope shall be that in existence prior to any grading or filling. Aiterations shali not be allowed that wiil lower the slope from twelve (12) percent or greater to less than twelve (12j percent prior to the creation of new lots. (� If townhouses are developed on parcels where oNy the land immediately beneath each dwellin9 unit mnstitutes an individually described lot and ali other land required for yards, other open space, parking, and other necessary land as required by this mde constiWtes "common" properties, jointiy owned by the owners of the described lots beneath each dwelling unit, the minimum size lot per unit shail be applied to the entire parcel. (g) Where at least fifty (50) percent of the front footage of any biock is built up with prtncipal structures, the minimum front yard setback for new structures shall be the average setback of the e�cisting structures, or the normal setback requirement in the district plus haif the amount the average setback is greaEer than the normat setback requirement, whichever is less. Existing strudures set back twenty (20) percent more or less than the average shail be discounted from the formula. (h} for permitted and conditionat principal uses ailowed in residentiat districts otfier than residentiat uses, the front yard shall be equai to the front yard required for residential use and the side and rear yards shall be equal to one-half the height of the buitdirtg but in no instance less thaa the minimum requirements of the district in which said use is located. (i) Side yards are required only for dwelling units on the ends of townhouse structures. When two (2) or more one-family, two- family, or townhouse structures are construct�ed on a single parcel, there shall be a distance of at least twelve (12) feet between principal buildings. Whe� two (2) or more multifamily buildings are constructed on a single parcel, there shali be a distance of at least eighYeen (18) feet between principal buildings. (j) Minimum front, side and rear setbacks shall be fifty (SO) feet or one-haif the building height, whichever is less. Sec. 66.232. Maximum lot coverage. In residential districts, principai structures shali not cover more than thirry-flve (35) percent of any zoning lot. Sec. 66.233. Minimum buifding width. in residential districts, the building width on any side of one-family and two-family dwellings shail be at least twenty-two (22) t�et, not tncluding entryways or other appurtenances that do not run the fvtl length of the building.