The URL can be used to link to this page

06-585CouncilFile# Ob S Green Sheet # � Q�j� � RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MIlVNESOTA Presented By �r 2 Whereas, Mike Mangan made application to the Board of Zoning Appeals (hereinafter, the 3 "BZA"), in BZA File No.06-063127, for a vatiance from the strict application of the provisions 4 of the Saini Paul Zoning Code for property commonly known as 1333 Dale Street North and with 5 a proposed legal description: SLAYTON'S FIRST ADDTl'ION TO SAINT PATJL, THE E 80.63 6 OF LOTS i& 2, BLOCK 1; and 7 8 Whereas, The purpose of the application was to vary the zoning code's standards in order to split 9 a parcel and create a build-able lot: (1) a lot size of 6,000 square feet is required for Parcel A, 10 with 5,600 proposed for a variance of 400 squaze feet; and (2) Parcel B requires a rear yard 11 setback of 25 feet; with10.7 feet proposed for a variance of 14.3 feet; and 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3b 37 38 39 4Q Whereas, The BZA conducted a public hearing on May 8, 2Q06, after having provided notice to affected property owners, and the BZA, by its Resolution No.06-063127, adopted May 8, 2006, decided to deny the application based on the following findangs and conclusions: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant recently purchased this property and is proposing to split the parcel and create a new build able lot. The parcel consists of three lots and is large enough to split equally and meet the minimum lot size requirements for the district. However, if split equally, the existing house would have a little rear yazd. This proposal will cteate two lots of approximately the same size and allow for some rear yard for the existing house. This is a reasonable compromise between minimum lot size and rear yard setback requirements. Dividing this property for two single family homes is a reasonable and pernutted use that cannot be accomplished under the strict provisions of the code. 2. The plight of the Zand owner is due to circumstance unzque ta this property, and these circumstances were not created by the larzd owner. The existing house on this site was built in 1900 prior to the adoption of zoning regulations in the City. The location of the house on the site prevents the reasonable use of the property without a variance. This is a circumstance that was not created by the cunent property owner. 0�-SgS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 Whereas, Acting pursuant to Sections 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected pazties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on June 7, 2�06, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and Whereas, The Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Soard of Zoning Appeals, does hereby Resolve, That the Council does hereby uphold the decision of the BZA in this matter as the appeilant did not demonstrate error in any fact, finding or conclusion of the BZA; and be it Further Resolved, That the appeal of Mike Mangan is hereby denied; and, be it Further Resolved, that the Council hereby adopts the findings of the BZA as its own in this matter; and be it Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Mike Mangan, the Zoning�Administrator, the Plann� Commission and the BZ�A. d � i C � Jo�rn /-�r.Vdw;�- � � �� " JdG�r� 1�' �(II Requeted by Department oi: Approved by Mayoi: D !�� J Q� � � ( By: � • Folm Approved by City Attomey Br �L✓!�' cYVi^�-^ �— Z o_ 0 6 Form Approved by yoi far Submissio¢ to Council By � Adoplion Cerhfied by Council Seaetazy BY // /L9G� �/L�L.�-SDi2 f%� Z 3. The proposed variance is in keepang with the spirit and intent of the code, 3 and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of 4 the inhabitanZS of the Ciry of Saint Paud. 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Along with creating a lot for a new single-family home, the applicant states that he will be renovating the existing house. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Flan which encourages the development of new housing units and the maintenance of existing housing stock. Provided that the proposed subdivision is approved by the Planning Administrator, the requested variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and wili not affect the health or welfare of the area residents. 4. The propased variance will not impair an adequate suppty of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably dimznish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed setback variance will affect only the newly created lot and can be mitigated through the placement of the new house. The relatively minor lot size variance will not significantly affect Che supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The exisdng parcel is larger than most properties in the area. After subdivision, the resulting parcels will be similar in size to other lots in the area. The proposed lot split will not change the character of the neighborhood. The construction of a new single-family home and the renovation of the existing home will help revitalize the neighborhood and should have a positive impact on the sunounding properties. 5. The variances, 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 tand 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 based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. It appears that the applicant's primary desire is to increase the value or income potential of the property. Whereas, The applicant, pursuant to the provisions of I.eg. Code § 61.702(a), duly filed under Zoning File 06-084709, an appeal from the determination made by the BZA and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the BZA; and � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � `- [11__�R"C �._ '�,.,J: ..e; ' �/ V v VJ Departrnenf/office/council: Date Initiated: cA - CiryAttomey 2�� Green Sheet NO: 3031094 CoMact Person & Phone• DepaRment Sem To Person initiailDate j PeterWamer � 0 , iLvAi[omev � I I 266-8710 � i Assign 1 i A omeY DroartmentDirector I Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date • Number � � � 2 �itv Attomev �""' � �� Routing 3 a or's Office Ma or istant Order 4 oun il 5 i erk C' CIe I I Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature) , Action Requesfed: Memorializing City Council's June 'J, 2006 morion to uphold the decision of the Boud of Zoning Appeals and deny the appeal for a variance to split a parcel and create a build able lot at the property commonly known as 1333 Dale Stseet North in Saint Paul. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Rejed (R): Personal5ervice Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 7. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this deRartment? CIB Committee . Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person�rtn ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this perso�rm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curcent city employee? Yes No F�cplain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Probtem, Issues, OpportuniTy (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantapes If Approved: The Council is required pursuant to the City Charter to have its actions reduced to writing either in the form of a resolurion or ordinance dependent upon the nature of the matter before it. The decision of the Council in this matter required a written resolurion in order to comply with the Charter. Approving the attached resolurion fulfills the Council's duty under the Charter. DisadvanWaes If Approvetl: None. DisativanWqes If Not Approved: Failure to approve the tesolution violates the City's Charter requirement. r Totai Amount of CostfRevenue Budgeted: Transaction: �� n � � anC Fundinp Source: Activity Number. G, UU Financial 1nFOrmation: (Explain) OFFICE OF LICIIdSE, INSPECIYONS AND ENVIItONMII4T'AL PR07'ECIiON Bab Kestler, Drrector � s.��r IYpI l �� 'Al1Ap� CITY OF SAINT PAUL L'17lLSlOp11Pl B. �HRQIf. �0I 7/i May 18, 2006 Ms. Mary Erickson Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: COMMERCEBUILDING 8 Forvlh 8beetFnst, $uue 200 StPaul, M'omesom55107-IO24 O��S�S Trlepl�nne.� 657-?b6-9090 Pocsimile: bSld66-9714 Web: wwwliep.w 5� I would like to confizm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, June 7, 2006 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Zoning File #: • Purpose: Location: Staff: District : Boazd: Milce Mangan 06-063127 Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying a vaziance to subdivide a pazcel and construct a new single family home. 1333 Dale Street N. Recommended approval. No recommendation from District 10. Denied on a 5- 2 vote. I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Helgen. 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. T'hanks ! Sincerely, . John Hazdwick, Zoning Specialist AA-ADA-EEO Employer " ' NflTICE OR �[1BLIb rmn+¢*nrG �The'Sainf'PaiYl"GYty Cound( wilt conduct.a public hearing on Wednesday;-JUne Z, 2A06 at 5:30 ,p.m�..�in the Gity Conneii Chambers, Third Floos-City-:Hal�.,. ib �Vest Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN, to�.con- sider ffie appeal of Mike 11Sangan�fo a sion of the Boarc] of Zo ninro ,AppeaLs [leny -ing a variance 30 'subdivicle a parcel and- constrvct a n�w single�faai7y 1333 Da3e Street North. � ' � � DaEed: May 19, 2006 � , 'Mr1i2Y`EHIGrS�N - _" �"�- -.-_, ___ � - Assis{ant C9tyCouncil'Secretary. . __ . ' 'FNTay.257� � ' - - � _ ==sr, rAm. �GA�..�BOER =-=__ 221188'7s �- . - - - -. . _ ,. OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPEC'1'IONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Bob Kessler, Director CSTY OF SAINT PAUL � ChristopherB. Colemarz, Mayor May 18, 2006 Ms. Mary Erickson Council Research Office Room 310 Ciry Hail Saint Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: COMMERCEBUCLDING 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200 Sr Paul, Minnuaia 55707-IO24 o� -�� TeZephone: 657-2669090 Facrimile_ 651-26G9124 Web: www.iie�.us I would like to confinn that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, June 7, 2006 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Zoning File #: � Purpose: I.ocation: Staff: District : Board: Mike Mangan 06-063127 Appeal a deeision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying lot size and rear setback variances to subdivide a parcel and construct a new single family home. 1333 Dale Street North. Recommended approval. No recommendation from Aistrict 10. Denied on a 5- 2 vote. I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Helgen. 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 nofice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks ! S' c ely, � ohn Hardwick, Zoning Specialist • AA-ADA-EEO Bmployer � � �g� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Of�'ice of Ltcense, Inspectians and Environmentat Protection Commerce Building 8 Fourth St E, Suite 200 Saint Pau� MN SSI01 65I-266-9008 APPL{CANT � � ��g�' Name Mika Man� RniP S;Pt,ai� Address 1225 Edcxcumbe Rd. / 1037 Montana Ave W City St. Paul/St. Paul St. Mt3 Zip 55105 Daytime phone 651-247-3690 Name of owner (if different) 55117 612-889-1688 PROPERTY Address 1333 Dale St. N. St. Paul, Ml�tt LOGATION Legaldescription: SLAYTON"S FIRST ADDITION TO 5AINT PAIIL, THE E 80.63 OF LOTS 1& 2. Rr.ncu 1 � TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �5 Gity Council under the provisions of Chapter 61, Section 702 Paragraph a&b of the Zoning Code, to appeaf a decision madebyfhe Board of Zoning Appeals on April 24. , 20Q 6, �iie number. 06-063127 _ _ (dafe of decision} GftOUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative o�cial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals ar the Planning Commission. Please see attached. • ApplicanYs ��7 6b City agent �� ``�0$�Z� � �� ' FERDINAND F. PETERS, Esq. Law Firm Lakes & Plains Office Building 842 Raymond Avenue, Suife 200, St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone: (651) 647-6250 Fax: (651) 251-1183 ferdpeters @ ferdlaw.com May 17, 2006 Office of License, inspections & Environmental Protection Commerce Building 8 Fourth Sfreet East, Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55101 Subject: Application for Appeat to St. Paul City Council Variance Application for 1333 Dale St. North, St. Paul, MN Grounds for pppeal To Wham It May Concem: INTRODt�CTiON • Applicants Mike Mangan and Boje Sie6els base fhis appea( on errors in the finding of facts and the procedures of the Board of Zoning Appeals witk� regard to their variance � applicafion for i333 Dale Street North. REQUEST WILL REDUCE NUMBER OF LEGAL LO7S FROM THREE TO� TWO Applicants purchased 1333 Dafe Street and requested a major variance to create one new buildable lof. In their zoning variance appiication, Applicants stated that their . purpose was to redoce the existing parcel fr4m three lots to iwo buildable lots. One of these lots currently contains a home and the other will be available for a single family home to be built. The variance wili allow a driveway to be built behind the existing home while meeting rear yard setback requirements and aiso atl area requiremenfs on the proposed new buildable lot. Applicants also plan to rehabilitate the existing home to improve the overall appearance of the btock. This variance woutd a(low for an additionat home to be built, leading to a stronger neighborhood feeling in the area with the added bonus of cosmetic improvements to the block. The 8oard of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Staff Report, dated Apri110, 2006, fully supported Applicants' variance application: The fndings of this report state that "Dividing this property for two single family homes is a reasonable and permifted use thaf cannot be • � � � � Office of LIEP Grounds of Appeal May i 7, 2006 Page 2 � (�'��J accompiished under the strict pro�isions of code." Additionally, "the location of the house on the site prevenfs the reasonable use of the property without a variance" In fetters of opposition to the variance, two neighbors claimed that Mr. Mangan made a comment at a neighborhood meeting stating that his purpose in requesting a variance was merely to increase the value of the property and the income potentia{ of the {and. li is obvious that these two letters received by the BZA staff and shared with the board, and further testified to by the authors, merely parrot each other and oddfy enough, use aimost the exact wording of the factor in the zoning code. This is a c{ear indication that these neighbors misrepresented Mr. Mangan's statements as he tioes not make it a regu{ar practice to quote zoning codes verbatim when speaking with neighbors at a community meeting. Mr. Mangan adamant{y denies making any statement indicating that his primary purpose in seeking the lot sp(if was to increase the va{ue and the income potential of the property. Applicants believe that two neighbors have purposely and willfully rimisstated and misquoted Mr. Mangan in order to torpedo efforts to reduce the number of lots in the parcel, which will ultimately provide greater single fam+{y home density to a busy street. 7here would have been nothing wrong for these two neighbors to have stated that it is their "opinion" that the primary purpose of the applicant was to increase vafue/increase income, but it is misleading and a usurpation of the need for truthfulness in this process for falsehoods to guide a BZA decision. BZA members were asked to state the finding numbers upon which they based their denfaf of the variance. 7he onfy reason given for denial was finding number six (6), which stafes: "The request for a variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parce! of land." The BZA stated a conclusion in reversing finding number six without any tacfual documentation, other than a false and misleading statement from fwo neighbors. The BZA staff report is in direct opposition of the BZA's denial based on finding number six. The report states, "The applicanYs primary desire is to put the property to a reasonab(e use by converting these three ptatted lots into fwo lots that are similar in size to other parcels in the area." To cite this finding as the lone reason for denial, BZA members obviously re{ied solely on the fafse andlor misieading statements of the neighbors since al� other BZA reasons contained in fhe resolution support fhe variance. � Neighbors expressed concern over the issuance of this variance. Applicants feel that the BZA was unfairly inffuenced by these neighbors whose real motivation and reasons for opposition is that they enjoy seeing an open yard and green grass when they look out their windows, rather than the reasons submitted to the BZA. Office of LIEP Grounds of Appea( May 17, 2006 Page 3 It is important to note that there is nothing wrong for an applicant to have a purpose of increasing value of the property and/or the income from the properry. It is just manifest tfiat the app(icant not have such purpose as his/her "primary" desire. It is evident from the record and from the BZA's resofution thaf alt ofher five facfors support the variance, and that the property owners are sacrificing three lots and ending up with oniy two, a(beit with the proviso that the variance be allowed so as to ensure that the second !ot is buildab(e for an appropriately scated singfe family home in the neighborhood. The proposed variance would produce lots that are the same size as almost all existing lots in the same block area. BZA member Courtney acknowledged this, stating that Applicants' proposal is consistent with what aiready exists. The BZA staff report further supported this idea under finding number four, which states, °After subdivision, the resulting parcels will be similar in size to other lots in the area. The proposed lot split witl nof change the character of the neighborhood " The Applicants' proposal makes reasonable use of the property without compromising the integrify of the neigh6orhood. � \..1 Appiicants are trying to facilitate a nice residential corner on a busy street while ! preserving the customary took and feel of fhe neighborhood. The proposed variances keep with the spirit and intent of fhe code and are. consistent with the heaith, safery, morals and welfare of the inhabitanfs of the City of St. Paul. As St. Paul residents themselves, Applicants are interested in having a positive impact on the communiry. Applicants feel that they have been treated unjustly in this pracess since the only factor cited by the BZA could only be supported by facts from only two neighbors who have tainted the process of community input by choosing to characterize their own personal opinions as an utterance from one of the appiicants at a public meeting. i'he BZA has not adequately substaniiated its denial of the proposed variances. Additionally, Mr, Mangan's character and statemenCs have been horribiy misrepresented, and as a result, the BZA has been unfairly influenced to quesfion Appiicants' intent in this maiter. Applicar�ts appeal the Board's denial and would appreciate a full review of their decision. r � \� � Office of LtEP Grounds of Appeai May 17, 2006 � Page 4 Sincerely, , Brianna J. Skrypek Ferdinand F. Peters Attomeys for the Appellants FFPl6js cc: Mike Mangan Boje Siebels lJ � L� V lY � J U �/. � BOAl2D OF ZOIVING APPEALS STAFF REPORT TYPE OF APPLICATION: APPLICANT: HEAItING DATE: LOCATION: Major Variauce Mike Mangan ApriI24,2006 1333 DALE STREET NORTH FILE#: 06-063127 LEGAL DESCRTPTION: Proposed: SLAYTON'S FIRST ADDITION TO SAINT PAUT,, TF� E 80.63 OF LOTS 1& 2, BLQCK 1 PLANIVING DISTRICT: 10 PRESENT ZONING; R3 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 66.231 REPORT DATE: DEADLINE FOR ACTION: April 10, 2006 May 15, 2006 BY: 7ohn Hardwick DATE RECEIVED: Apri15, 2006 � A. PURPOSE: Two vaziances in order to split a pazcei and create a build able lot: 1) A lot size of 6,000 squaze feet is required for Pazcel A, 5,600 squaze faet is proposed for a variance of 400 square feet. 2) Parcel B requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet, 10.7 feet is proposed for a variance of 143 feet. B. SITE AND AT2EA CONDITTONS: This is an 80 by I51-foot pazcei. Theze is no alley access to the site and the e�cisting garage is accessecl from Wheelock Parkway. Surrounding Land Use: Single-family homes, C. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to split this parcel and create a new build able lot for a single-family home. D. FTNDINGS: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions oj'the code. The appIicant recently purchased this properiy and is proposing to split the pazcel and create a new build able [ot. The pazcel consists of three lots and is lazge enough to split equally and meet the minimum 1ot size requirements for the district. However, if split � equally, the escisting house would have little rear yard. This proposal will create rivo 1 of 3 �L/J �� /�/`�� • Rile #06-063127 Staff Report lots of appro7cimately the same size and ailow for some rear yard for the existing house. This is a reasonable compromise between minimum lot size and rear yazd setback requirements. Dividing this property for two single fanuly homes is a reasonable and persnitted use that cannot he accomplished under the strict provisions of the code. 2. . The plight of the land owner is due to cdreumstances unique to fhis property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The existing house on this site was built in 1900 prior to the adoption of zoning regulations in the City. The location of the house on the site prevents the reasonable use of the properiy without a variance. This is a circumstance that was not created by the current property owner. 3. The praposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consisfent with the heaPth, safery, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Caty ofSt. Paul. Along with creating a lot for a new single-family home, the applicant states that he will be renovaring the existing house. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan � which encourages the development of new housing units and the maintenance of existing housing stock. Provided that the proposed subdivision is approved by the Planning Administrator, the reqnested variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and will not affect the health or welfare of area residents. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it atter the essential character of the surrounding ctrea or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surYOUnding area. The proposed setback variance will affect only the newly created lot and can be mitigated through the placement of the new house. The relatively minor lot size variance will not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The existing pazcel is larger than most properties in the azea. After subdivision, the resulting pazcels wi11 be similar in size to other lots in the area. The proposed lot split will not change the character of the neighborhood. The construction of a new single family home. and the renovafion of the existing home will help revitalize the neighborhood and should have a posirive impact on surrounding properties. 5. The variance, afgranted, would not permit any use that is not pet-mitted under the provisions of the code for tke property in the district where the affected Zancl is located, nor would it aZter or change the zoning district classification of the property. � 2 of 3 � File #06-063127 Staff Report 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 £he parcel of Zand. The apglicant's primary desira is to put the pmperty to a reasonable use by converting these three platted lots into two lots that aze sixnilar in size to other parcels in the area E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATTON: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from District 10. F. CORR�SPONDENCE: Staff has not received any correspondence regarding thzs matter. G. STAFP RECOIVIlVIENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staffrecommends approval of the variances subject to the condition that subdivision approval is obfained from the Planning Adiuinistrator. � � 1 � � 3 of 3 � f�rl,Nn: � j� � � . , APPLfCATIOf�I FOR ZONING VARIANCE I ZQning office use only File number D�� 4 � OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS, AND Fee $ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 330 St. Peter Street, Suite 3d0 Tentative Saint Paut, MN 551 D2-1510 ��y, ��U�PSOfi� / Sect�on(s 651-266-9008 � �od-� .Cd� City Ager �if/t � �--� �r��,��-c� (dst � � �- 3 G 9 � APPUCANT I ni�..,o �C}T� S�� {• �� P S' J� � ��, -,a ��ty S State_Zi S� Da ime �Phone I? R 8� 6_5_1 Property interest oF appficant (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) .�� 3 3 N"" Name of owner (if dif(erent) � PROPERTY Legal description�� (anaon additional she Lot size _ �� 3 C t Proposed Use � 1. Variance(s) requested: �� "� � iy�.�.P'�( t�tA t3'1�11�7`r3 C��- e?en.Z �,�4n,d ? ��/ .�. 6"�Qa p�;y�s6o�, �I�ch�c�,.��' �� ,� ��a : a�� f��f o av �� 1�� ce r� ' t physical cfi� istics of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your ione? (topography, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) 5 a�� 3. Explain how the strict applica4ion of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would resuit in peculiar or exceptional pradical difficulties or exceptional undue hardships. 33 � Present Zoning Present Use rJ'2�- fN�"G�w�9 �G.e..// CASHiERS USE ONIY 4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or a su6stanGal impairtnent of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. i ) . ApplicanYs Date �� ' � � \ � ; _� -- p��p. �d�1`�SS : - `7 /�33 �.te �i �� d- o_ � - �= , ,e �,. �,�,�1 i r,wrr� r� �u - �t --� rn� o w� i _L �-= �d'� GrLI � 2!'c�f T"�M 3 �-e �� ,� �d a �uew fB G-�am,e�� P/�iSi � •v'y �o/uC �� / / �f' f )' ///'//V�IV� - L "I.V� t.�_ In{�P (/S.�L L( lV 4/ `.� �6f"5 1 �..� 1 � "" �aj °NS `�E' Ce�'ra��f- � f- � rl� p,t,� S;n.�4�_�'__ � pa,rce � ,� t` �as � � h41�/LP / Q/� �' �S � �Q� f �6 (/f �, �S� Gue l.vact �� l �` � �' �W � �x�NL� Ltt�N�rP 0�`Z c�i/� � � �G c� Q�!'.lit°W�LL CTN � � �. � LCSiP/Z- �a,�P 1 �P Cc �'P ('P u.•LS�i�- — � �D r � � �_ ___%�!'!'`�`j--- S-2� ��c_ G�r __ / -�,� S�� 7�; s var; e�v�e WE�I `u_ _-S_ _� bu,s �� a d�`.`�� c_ ____'`-'�"- �,�r'��---- � � �� D(�� I �a ��3 �� s� � - r-- -- - -- ---- - --- - - - --- --- - - �� - ___--'__��G c��rc� � -�.� 1`,s� or — i ��-GC�Ew`�S Of11 �4,�'� S�/'-�'_'?�c._L��!'a�"✓�C`�/ -�G� s - !_��u--�t—�.�� .w�� i� �`�. �C��eprv �'eQ/' '✓'r�a�c��s �vr ;�-�vP P� � 0 ;`{7 r Rr�o �e c � ver�C/ c��e� c�,vice �� ' �� ef'� �rcver�e�u�s , cl a�a�"�a� l� _' /�d��la�il� ��—� ------- :�iN9��P �le�.[ _�DsZr� GEQ':�N9 ?'�/ Gl�l9 �� 1�10 C�a�/ II�t,Ce.N o &1 Q,� � J L(�6 � LS �__. _ �S( Gsi-��q��{�S � U� �� 5 � � �. � r�'i N �� M 4 � � � y � � V a �� 8 � � .L.7..2Q.1.�47 � l V Q i Cd C� �-'�;--F_ l� •' —78.51-- S 007A'47' E O �. _� r.' � � � s � �+ a`� � � � � � � � 6� � � O� � � � �� a� � �s� ° s: � � � r � � N 00'20'41' W I a \ � g � �� s�� '3P� t 2G-11� x � �, �-?�°'^r U ° �. S � � _ � ____ � I I 3 <<; � '� �� m F ga � q Q mt� I _' �� I 1 I� �� m r��W � � i � } =---;--I �� i j � i � �� ...� � I I I I I � � � � � � � GISmo ��Sf�tO ;� $ � �' Page 1 0£ 1 O��O"J http://argo.ci.stpaul.mn,us/gis/gambit/htrnUgambit.�nl 4l11l2006 ; rrc�YtK i Y W n IN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: 1333 DALE STREET NORTH ' �� a r�,.°� y � _ � ,� . o �ui � ��-; � , , ;� �; � �-� _. � � � z �¢ � � � " I �'�' �� 2 ��, � � � 1330 � � � �� 602 � — _ _'.� 04 6 W � •. �,� � � _'- " ��- 4:} ��v � s� 9 28 �OZ i �� 1'� � i � o� �� Q I � �= I I � � � N - W E CR EATE D BY L EP S � l `� � V �l �� • � �' 2. 3. 4. 5. s. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. I3. ra. 25. io, 1 i. S UT H�JOOD HAZE,T, PARK I HTLLCP�EST 1�VEST SI7�E DAl'T(�Id'S BLUPF PAYNI: PT3ALEN TVOF2T7-1 END TT SIIIvIMIT-UI�II VEP�SIT`Y ��s� s�vEra� COIViO I t�lE-?vf ID W A Y ST. ANTHO�fY Pti12IC MERIL`Ai:�I P-"iT�'K-LiX_I1�dCiTON HA�.'1LTNE•S�.ELLIi�IG I�1vfLIA1E IiAC.4LES'IER GR�VEL.AiY� l IiGI�,4ND �UMh21T HILL �� Dourr;TOtxJ:v � �� CI'IZZ�N PAFTTCIPATION PI.ANNTNG DIS'T'RICIS FAOM MESSERLI & KAAMER IMON) 4. 24' 06 10:36/ST. 10:36/NO. 4860001906 P 1 r. ' '. ��.-:`?.�.°�'} - � Apri124, 20Q6 John Hazdwick — City of SL Paul - LIEP Fax:651-Z66 Re: File # 06-063727 Please accept these cotnznen�s in opposition fo the two major variances requested from Mike Mangen. My home is diiectly around the corner from tfiis pmperty. My opposition in sugported by the code requirements set forth in St. Paul's Zoning Code. A variance should not tie giveri if the groposed vaziance is not in keeping with ihe spirit and inteat of the code, and is consistent with the Tiealth, safety, comfort, morals and welfaze of the inhabitants of the city of St. Paul. Furthermore, the proposed variance, if granted, must not impair an adequate supply of ligfit and air to the ad}acent properiy, nor will it alter the essentiat chazactes of the surrounding azea or unzeasonable diminish established property values of the surrounding areas. If granted, this variance would allow Mr. Mangen to build a struchue on a smali lot which would literally impede on the views, privacy, and enjoyment of fhe neighbor's property. 'fhe struchue would be so olose to tfie neighboring ptoperties that the comfort and weIfaze of the inhabiwnts of the neighbors would be severely harmed. Similazly, a structure on such limited space and in ttris pazticulaz location wilt absoldtely itnpair adequate air and liglrt to the neighboitng properties. For these reasons alone the variance should not be granfed. Aowever, in addition to these reasons, Mr. Mangen-stated at the neighborfiood meeting that tivs variance is needed solely to incxease fhe income of the owner. Consistent with Sf. Paul's zoning code, a request far a variance may not be basad primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the pazcel of land. Based on the foregoing, I strongly object to this variance request and request its denial. Sincerely, Nancy H 1345 Maywood Street �/ r� U 5t. Paul, IvIN 55117 • 1 � � � �� i� �.�� Dear Board of Zoning Appeals, APR � 1 20fl� p�P'�� y� - 3t 7 4/18/2406 This letter concerns File # 06-053127. T4ie owners of 1333 Dale Street North are asking for two variances in order to split a pazcel and create a buildable lot. My name is Henry IIite and T am the owner of b45 West Wheelock Parkway. I own the property nea�t to the applicant of Mr_ Mangan I purchased my property in August of 1485. My two brother in laws live there and have since 1985. We love the neighborhood and the variety of homes and everyone's yards. It is inappropTiate and will nnpact my property negatively if these two variances are approved. Most of #he lots in the neighborhood are fairly small and creating smaller lots than the required lot size will create moxe densiry, noise, traffic and impact to the neightiorhood `I`he new house that will be built'on the new lot will be right on top of us. And it will very much impact the tliree lots that adjoin the rear yard. Please deny this application and do not allow a lot split with vaziances. Respectfuily, Henry Hite �� . Henry Hite PO Box 155 Woody Creek Colo. 81656 ` � a � 1 . .. � ... . . .. ... f' � � l 0�2-2t-Q6:1Z:3QPM: Apri120, 2006 John FTardwick City of St I'aui Qffiee oi' License, Izxspeciions & Envizonmencat Pzotection Fax 651-266-91?�4 Re: FiZe # 06-063127 � 2/ � �;c_w� o-- ..ti:a. �, ^� . I am wziting tiiis letter to express my objection to tfie tvro major variances zequested. I live in Yhe neighboxhood, just around rhe coiner from Chis lot. Per che attached `Code Requixement', taken from you web site; E will site ehe reasons for this objection. I. The plight of the landowner is due circumstaaces unique ro rhe,vroperty and were not created by the Zandowner. Ln fact, this otivner bought the property speczfically for �e use to sub-divzde and se1L He knew about the `unique c9rcumstances' when )�a pureflased the 2oc 2- The psoposed v¢riance will adter rke essentir�d cha of the surrnunduag area. �1J1 the houses on thzs btock have deep back yards. This new lo�, and ultiznately z�ew house, would be laterally sitting on top of ihe irrxmediate neighbocs back yards — this is a�ajos ekance to th� chaza;,ter of our area. 3. Due to the character change, this vaziance wuuld dimuaish est¢blished property values within the surrounding area. 4. The reguest for variance is based prirna,idy un a desire to increase rhe value anJ/ar income of rhe parcel. At the neigttborhood meef.ing, the owner and reai estate representarive (Mike Mangen) came righe and said rhat this variance is needed to be dane to increase the income for khe ovvner. This variance request is a blaranc attempt to make a few doIlars at the expense b£ alt the property owneis cuaent�y living near the ]ot in question. Ttte oYwner Imew thc situation whan he bought the kouse, he knevr che variances would be necessary to sell and bui.[d. There is no concernAo the impacC on the character o£ the neighborhond, or the resulting negacive impact on kome values. Tt is ohviai�s from the neigbborhood meeting that ttais was done pucely to incxease che value and or income potentiai of the existing propex-ly. Please, do NOT approve tbese variances. iLS.t . 1 / � ' �•, Kimbeztee Beechazu 13�4Maywood St St Pau� MN SSI17 � encl � � _ l Od-21-06;12;30PM: �� 3/ 3 V �-C y � Code Requiremeztts � aaording to the zoning code, the 6ZA must make tha following findings before they can grant a variance: • The property in questlon cannot be put tfl a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. •�'Che pftght of the landowner is due to dreurnstances unlque to the properCy, a�d Ehese ctrciimstances were not creatad by the {aadownsr. • Tfie proposed variance Is In keeping wlth the spirit and intent of the code, and Is consistent with the health, safety; comfott, moreis and welfare of Yhe Inhabit3nt5 of Ute G�ty oF SaInY Paul. !.� �Fhe proposed_varfance will noC impair an adequate supply of IigftC and air in the adjacent properCy,, no� �.411f It atter �he e55enGel characterof the sur�cunding area n�.uareasoRabry pfminlsli;esfablistied,property values�wiChin �Che surrounding areas: • The variance, If grantetl, would not perm7t any use that ts not permitted under the provistons of the code for the property in the distritt where afFected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning dishict classification of the property. ..'.7he regue'stfor variance is not based,priinarify on, a desire to increase the ual'ue.or Income �pOfEnfjdl,Qf hhE p8fC01 Of IdOd. � In granC�ng a vanance, the BZA may attach �easonable condltions to thelr approvai. The BZA do� not have the auChority to allaw a use that is not othecwise permltted in the zoning d{strlct. � • l� File # 06-Q63127 1333 Dale st. North variance application John Hardwick - File # 06-063127 1333 Dale st. North variance application From: "7effrey Galbus" <effreq.galbus@bevcore.com> To: <john.hardwzck�a,cistpaul.mn,us> Date: 4/18/2006 7:41 AM Subject: File # 06-063127 1333 Dale st North variance application CC: <disttictl0(n�comopark.org> Mr. Hardwick: My wife and I live at the below address which Ps across wheefock from the residence looking for a variance. I am emailing fo express our.concem about the proposed variances and because we will not be able to attend the 3:00 meeting scheduled for Aprii 24. i We are opposed to the variances for a number of reasons. 1) We moved to the como area from the phalen area because the lots(or multiple lots) that homes are built on are bigger and it gives a more neightiorhood like feei. We bought our home on 3 lots forjust such a reason (more space and room to breathe). 2) The rules/codes exist for a reason and we abide by them why shouldrt'E everyone, 3) The 2nd part of the variance seems very significant (14 feet of 25 is more tfian half of the existing code), that in our opinion is too Iarge a yariance 4) Concems about property upKeep. As it stands right now this property didn't shovel their sidewalk all winter, they have iawn leaf bags on the properly that have been there since the fall and it doesn't appear that there is much concem for neighborhood appearance. 5) The increase of people jamming homes into tiny lots driving down property values irt the area is something we do not wish to oontinue to see. 1 do not know if any of the above concems have any bearing on the resulting actions of the hearing but felt we � needed to express our opposition. Thank You. Jeff and Ann Galbus 642 wfieelock pkwy west St Paul 55117 651-774-7197{h) �� Page 1 of 1 file:UC:�Documents and SettingslHazdwicjlLocal Settings\Temp1GW}00OO1.H'TM 4/18/2006 b i� �� • CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF �ONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONIl�TG FILE NUMBER: 06-063127 DATE; May 8, 200b WHEREA3, Mike Mangan has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 66.231 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to two variances in order to split a parcel and create a build able lot, 1) a lot size of 6,000 square feet is required for Parcel A, 5,600 is proposed for a variance of 400 square feet. 2) Parcel B requires a rear yazd setback of 25 feet; 10.7 feet is proposed for a variance of 14.3 feet in the R3 zoning district at 1333 Dale Street North; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on May 8, 2Q06 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Secrion 64.203 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upan evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: : 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant recentiy purchased this property and 'as proposing to split the parcel and create a new build able lot. The pucel consists of three lots and is large enough to split equally and meet the minimum lot size requirements for the district. However, if split equally, the existing house would haue little rear yard. This proposal will create two lots of approximately the same size and allow for some rear yard for the existing house. This is a reasonable compromise between minimum lot size and reaz yard setback requirements. Dividing this property far two single family homes is a reasonable and pernutted use that cannot be accomplished under the strict provisions of the code. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circutnstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the Zand owner. The existing house on this site was built in 1900 prior to the adoption of zoning regulations in the City. The location of the house on the site prevents the reasonable use of the properiy without a variance. This is a circumstance that was not created by the current property owner. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spir-it and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safery, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. i Page 1 of 3 �� I File #06-063127 Resolution Along with creating a lot £or a new single-family home, the applicant states that he will be renovating the existing house. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which encourages the development of new housing units and the maintenance of existing housing sfock. Provided thaf the proposed subdivision-is approved by the Plauving Administrator, the requested variances ara in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and will not affect the health or weIfare of area residents. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and azr to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essentfal character of the surrounding area or unt diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed setback variance will affect only the newly created lot and can be mirigated through the placement of the new house. The relatively minor lot size variance will not si�i$canUy affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. � The existing parcel is largec than most properties in tUe azea. After subdivision, fhe resulting pazcels witl be similar in size to ofher lots in the area. The proposed lot spfit wi11 not change the character ofthe neighborhood. The construction of a new single-family home and the renovation of the existing home will help revitalize the neighborhood and should haue a . posifive ixnpact on swrrounding properties. S. The variance, if granted, would not permit ¢ny 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 dists-ict classification 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 based primarily on ¢ desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. It appeazs that the applicanYs primary desire is to increase the value or income potential of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the request to waive the provisions of Section 66.231 to allow 1) 5600 square feet for Parcel A, a variance of 400 feet ; 2) a rear yard setback of 10.7 for Pazcel B, a variance of 14.3 feet in order to split a parcel and create a build able lot on property located at 1333 Dale Street North and legally described as Proposed: Slayton's First Addifion To Saint Paul, The E 80.63 Of Lots 1& 2, Block 1; in accordance with the applicaYion for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning � Administrator. IS HEREBYDEIVIE'D. Page 2 of 3 � � �(�-5g� • File: #06 - 063127 Resolution MOVED SY: w�san SECONDED BY: Morton IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: a MAILED: May 9, 2006 TIlVI� LINIIT: No decision of the zoning or planning administrator, planning commission, board of zoning appeals or city council approving a site plan, permit, variance, or other zoning approval shall be valid for a period longer than two (2) years, unless a bnilding permit is obtained witlun such period and the erection or alteration of a bnilding is proceeding under the terms of the decision, or the use is established within such period by actual operation pursuant to the applicable conditions and requirements of the approval, unless the zoning or planning administrator grants an extension not to exceed one (1) year. • APPEAI,: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 16 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construetion shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned 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 office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on May 8, 2006 and on reeord in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protecflon, 8 Fourth St. E, Saint Paul, Minnesota. PAUL BOARD OF ZOIVING APPEAL5 f l d ,�( r� _ De�ibie Crippen Secretary to the Board . Page 3 of 3 �-- �� MINUTES OF TH$ MEETING OF THE SOARD OF ZONING APPEALS • CITY COUNCTL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HAI.L ST PAUL, IvIINNESOTA, APRIL 7A, 2006 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Mortom; Messrs. Courtney, Fazicy, Galles, and GVIlson af the Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wazner, �ity Attorney; Mr. Hawkins and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Tnspections, and Environmenta! Protectioa. ABSENT: None The meeting was chaired by 7oyce Maddox, Chair. Mike Man�an (#06-063127) 1333 Dale Street North: Two variances in order to split a pazcel and create a build able lot; 1) A Iot size oF 6,000 squaze feeE is tequired for Parcel A 5,600 squaze feet is proposed for a variance of 4�0 squaze feet: 2} Pazcel B iequires a reaz pard setback of 25 feet, 10.7 feet is proposed for a variance of 14.3 feet. Mr. Hawkins showed slides of the site add reviewed the staff ieport with a iecommendafion for approval, subject to tha condition that subdivision approval is obtained from the Plannin� Adwinistrator Three letters were received opposing tha vaziance request. No correspondence was received from District 10 regazdiag the variance request. The applicant lYlII� MAIVGAN, 1225 Edgcumbe Road, was present. Mr. Mangan stated he is • represeating Mr. $oje Siebeis, who is tree owner of tifle and because he also has an znterest in the properly. He thanked the Boazd for hearing tke case. Ms. Maddox interrupted, requesting that the audience take their conversaflons out of the room ducing the proceedings, as it is difficult to record the hearing with the halkiug going on in the background. Mr. Mangan stated that this is a project where they az'e trying to take three previously plotted pazcels and tum them into two build able lots. They were planning on Lequesting the Iot split onto Dale Street, however, it was suggested by the Ciry that it might be safer, &om a public safery standpoint, to cut into Wheelock. They went thrdugh considerabie effort and planning with the people tUat are in chazge of puk land, to obtain approval for a special driveway conditions so ttiey could split off the back portion and create another buitd able lot. The reaz yazd setback, which is probably the greatest point of interest heLe, they feel, would be off-set by the ext�emely lazge side yard. It is approximately three-nine feet(confusing statement) to the previously plotted lot line by apptoxunately eighty feet. That would be tfie side yazd so we would be reducing the back yard by fourteen feet but the side yarcl is of considerabte size. That is the justification tltey were hoping for on the rear yazd setback. They met with the Land Use Committee from the District 10 Planniug Council and prior to moving forward with any plans fluough Paut Du Bruiel's office. They were brought out to the site and walked around with tsvo land use committee members and they seemed m tike the idea at ti�at time. So they moved forwazd with the project. Ms. Morton queslioned when they purchased the pcoperfy. , Mr. Mangan requested to ask Mr. Siebeis, who responded Iast September. Ms. Morton continued less th,w a year ago? Mr. Mangan replied yes. Mr. Ga[les questioned Mr, Mangan about the letfer in opposition from a neighbor clainung that he made . a cotnment at tfie Community Council meeting relative to the ability to increase the value of the properiy, � � . AA-AbA-EEO Employer V lE' / ✓V✓ . File #06-063127 Minutes April 24, 2006 Page Two is that aecurate? Mr. Mangan stated he is not familiar witfi the comment tfiat was being refening to. He stated he would like to answer that because this is his first Community �ieet'ing where they received some zeal concern from the neighborhood. They showed up specifically to address that concern. That was not it. Ssaff gave him copies of the letters received in opposiflon from neighbors. He stated he wanted to go on the tecord stating that he made vo such comment. He understands these fieazings he stated he specifically did make such a comment and would not. It was not tUeir intent. Mr. Wilson quesfloued that Mr. Mangan went to the Council heuing and did they make a recommendation one way or anothet or did they make no recommendation? Mr. Mangan stated that when the house was first gutchased, they called the Dist�ict Council. S�e put them in touch with theu Land Use Committee. The Land Use Committee sent two representatives out to the ptopezry with Mr. Siebeis and him sel£ They walked the lot and he showed them tfie proposal, explained the plans at ihat time they eacpressed that they liked the plan. We said that we would move forward with it at that point. Then the other day we had a neighborhood meeting. We wanted to include the neighborhood in the plans and to go through things. At that point Sue_said she was going to go neutral with her decision. Although it sounds like she has not done that, so he does not ]rnow what her recommendaflon is formally. He was just referring to the comments made by the Land Use Committee that are part of that District Council. . Ms., Maddox questioned whether Mr. Hawkins had received that? Mr. Hawkins stated that we have not received any recommendation either for or against the project. Mr. Courtney quesfioned there is a house on Dale 5treet? Mr. M�ngan replied yes. Mr. Couitney continued and you want to build a house on Wheelock. Mr. Mangan replied yes, there is frontage on Dale Stceet fox the existing house which has a front door on Dale. But it is kind of confusing because the driveway has always heen on Wheelock. There was never a curb cut onto Dale, to his knowledge. The house sits facing Dale Street and the diiveway is in ttie back on Wheelock. They propose to take the previously platted land and cather than sglitting it alang the previously platted lot lines off of Dale, they want to go behind the house and come in off the er,isting dciveway. Mr. Courtney questioned we are talldng about pmpecry that was 8� by 151-feet, is that xight? Mt. Mangan replied roughly, about 78.66 by 151-feet. Mr. Courtney questioned does that include lots l, 2, & 3? Mr. Mangan replied yes, but it is actually lots 1, 2& 4. Lot 3 is parkway land owned by the City of Saint Paul. There was opposition present at the heazing. Angela Hite, 645 Wheelock Pazkway West, stated that her husband sent a letter opposing this. Mr. Hawkins stated that he had letters from Jeff & Ann Galbus, Kimberly Beecham, and one from Nancy Haas. Ms. Hite asked to read the letter, that staff had not yet received. Mr. Hawkins replied yes. Ms. Hite iead "Dear Boazd of Zoning Appeals, this letter concerns file # 06-063127. The owners of 1333 Aale 5t�eet North aze asldng for rivo variances in order to split a pazcel and create a build able lot. My • name is Henry Hite and I azn the owner of 645 Wheelock Pazkway. I own ffie properry next to the �� AA-ADA-EEO Bmployer File #Ofi-063127 Minutes April?A,2006 Page Thtee applicant o£ Mr. Mangan. I purchased my property in August of 1985, My two brothers-in-law live tfiere and have since 1985. _ We love the n8ighborhood and tfie vaziety of homes and everyone's yard. It is inappropriate and will impact my property negatively if these two vaziances aze appioved, Most of the lots in the neigfiborhood aze faitly small and creating smaller, lots than the tequired lot size will create mora density, noise, traffic, and impact to the neighborhood. The new house that will be built on trie naw lot will be right on top_ of us and iC will vary much impact the tkuee lofs that adjoin the reaz yazd. Please deny tlus application and do not allow a lot split with variances, RespectLully Henry Hite". � Mr. Courtney stated he is still hying to figure this whole thing out. What you aze saying I think is what tfie staff report says. That there are a lot oF smallei lots in ffie azea, so what they aze proposing is somewfiat consistent with wfiat already exists. Ms. Hite replied, well except for my lot which will be impacted the most. When we bought this we bought the next one to it, so we have open space on our side wfiich everyone in tfiat suttounding back yard area does enjoy. But they are coming so ctose to our fence line. She requested tfiat Mr. Hawkins put fhe slide of the site back on the scteen so she could point out where fier gazage is. 11u. $awkins put the slide on the screen. Ms. Hite stated the yeltow house on the left is hers. Tius wiIl fieIp you atso sea tbe Iand that the City owns in front of it: See how ctose out gaza�e is on that side, so tfiey aze moving this way (i fliink she pointed towazd her pmperty). Everyone in this nezghborhood is very impeccable. They have already trashed the neighborhood and they have only been there since last September, those aze leaves that aze &om Iast faIl and her brother had finally � got them to move them a few days ago. It has already deteriorated in a vezy very short time. She assumes that Mr. Mangan zs not going to move in theze, it Iooks like something he is going to divide it build another place, dun it over and move on. It is nof a very positive tfiiug for tfie neighbothood. Mr. Courtriey questioned Ms. Hite, would the new house, not tfiat you would be tfie person to ask this question, but as long as the pictare is up theTe, would tfie new house go whete that gazage is? Ms. Maddox questioaed whether Mr. Hawkins knew where the fiouse was going? Mr. Hawkins stated fie would assutne that is where the house is goiag because fifiat is wflere the split is. Mr. Couriney questioned Ms. Hite whether sfia could exptain this lot three tfiaf is owned by tfie City. It seems I�Tce an odd thing? How does that come into play? Ms. Hite stated st�e does not know fiow ie comes into play. It is from the cutb all the way back, she asked her brother how faz it goes. Sfie repeated fier bcottiers response, 20 feet. Ms. Maddox stated that maybe the applicant can come bacK and explaiu that, Steva Olson (2 the tape did not catch name and the address he also did not sign in. It sounded Iike Steve Olson. He was inshucted to sit and give his name and address, but he did not restate his name and address.), 456 West Wheelock Parkway, stated that wkere the fence there on the left there, it zs his understanding after talldug to the applicants that the house will not go Qvhere tha gazage is but six feet &om the left side o£ that fence. ThaY puts it six feet from our tot line, that seem� pretty tight. They aze going to build a gazage six feet from that gazage in yellow. Mr. Couttney quesrioned but that is not a variance they aze asking for, is it? They are allowed to da that by law, he thinks, that is not what they are talldng abont. If you don't know, just say yon don't know. Mr. Olson stated he did not l�ow what to say. � . `�� AA-ADA-EEO Employer V �Y /' l � �/ File #06-063127 • Miflutes Apri124, 2006 Page Four Ms. Bogen stated that sfie thinks that the vaziance they aze tallflng about is for the house that is already there. To dLaw a lot line so it is closer to that house than twenty-five feet. So that house will be ten- twelve feet from the new lot line. Does that vaziance bothei your home? Mr. Olson stated that tfiese lot sizes were originaliy set up to be whatever they were about 6,000 square feet. Now they want to change them jnst so they can stick another fiouse in there. Why should they be granted that, they sfiould have to go by the rules and tegulaflons that everyone else daes. Ms. Bogen questioned so your issue is with the new Iot that is being fozmed that is smaller and they aze asking for the variance for the size of that lot? Mr. Olson replied righC. " Kimberly Beecham, 1354 Maywood Street, stated you have a letter from me already. She just wants to ' reiterate some points from the letter. The staff report speaks to the circumstances that aze unique to the property and that this land owner did not create that. 23o he did not create it, but he la�ew full well when he purchased it less than a year ago, the situation of the properry and what he would haue to do the sell it and make some money. Tfris vazianca does alter the essenflal character of surrounding azea. Our azea in Como Pazk does not have alley's we have driveways that come down beside the houses so we have a rath0r respectable distance between the houses. We have pretty tespectable back yards unlike over on the other side of Lake Como where they have tiny little yazds, about the size of this table. We have big deep back yazds and it creates a sense of privacy in our part of Como Pazk. This vaziance will allow • these fiouses will allow these houses to come into a smaller lot and sit closer to all of our back yards and houses than is the norm for our block and our few blocks azea. So it does really alter the essential character. Lastly a point that she wants to reiterate, it was very blunt and clear to us at the Communiry Meeting that this is solely done Yo be making money. That "it was nof fmancially feasible for him to just _ own this one properry and rent it." So she thinks that the primary desire is to make a buck here at the cost of my property and everyone else around it. Mr. Courtney quesdoned how big Ms. Beecham's lot is? Ms. Heecham stated sfie does not lmow the square fooFage of her lot. $ut she has a really deep back yard and a driveway on both sides of her house so she does not have anybody sitting six feet away from her house. Mr. Dick Felvey, 1366 Maywood Street, stated he is also the custodian for his mother-in-law's house at 1336 Maywood. He is speaking mainly for her benefit because this house will be looking back into her backyazd. The house that is cucrenfly purchased is higher than the rest of the neighborhood. The new honse would probably also be higher. So we will have people looldng down into a yard that is very close to his mother-in-laws house. He stated he has known Bee Ying for sixty years, who was the original � owner of this house, before it was purchased by these gendeman. Her comment to Mr. Felvey was "I got some young guy who is going to move in and take caze of the house." That did not last very long '. because the house is rented. Now fie is trying to build another house next door which would be another '� small house into an azea where there aze a lot of nice large houses. It will now further degrade the properry values. The applicant talked about the fact that they aze all single-family homes in the neighborhood. That is probably not true because directly across the street from him is a four-plex, which has Iiad a lot of police activity over the years because of a11 the renters. So we are looking at putting • more rental units into a nice neighborhood. The neighbothood, Dale Street has huned into about three or four homes on the current block that are already rental properry. So we aze looking to not add mote . �� AA-ADA-EEp Employer File #06-063127 Minutes Apri124, 2006 Page Five rental property into a nice residential azea, Although he did not attend the Commuttity Meeting on Thursday night, it was mentioned that thete were some gubage bags laying azound the yazd. AY that time the hearsay he has about that is tfiat tiiey wouid be picked-up they weTe just yazd waste from the previous winter. This morning as he came to the hearing there were still gazbage bags ia the back yard. He would think that someone that is intecested in developing nice land would take two minutes to make sure tfie yazd looked well befoLe presenting this to the Boazd. Mr. Felvey stated that what he is looldng at from his stan@ poinY is, the neighborfiood that he has lived in sutce 1977. His mother-m-Iaw built tfie fiouse at 1336 and has lived there all her life. Coming from a neighborhood that is great for raising kids to one tfiat you aze quesflonable about because of all the rental properties going in there. Not thax rental properry is always bad, but he thinks tfie Board knows well that as you add rental pxoperty and squeeze in small cheep houses as you know brings dotvn the properiy values. What you don't see is across the street from thete aze homes that aze on huge lots_ They are on Wheelock Pazkway, wIuch is supposed to be a sfiow place for our Ciry. Now they aze going to add some small cheep house and rent it right on a a�ajor thoroughfare. He requested that the Board not tet this go thcough. • Mr. Courtney quesrioned Mr. Felvey how we l�ew either one of these is rental ptoperty`? Mr. Felvey ques@oned how do we know wfiat is renfa[ ptoperly? Mr. Courtney clarified either one o£ these houses. Mr. Felve stated that wa I�ow the one is rental property because there are renters iu it. The only thing he could say is that the owner when he was purchasing the house. told_ the seller, of course you don't have • to ceII the seIler anythiug, but he told the seller that he was going to mova intq it and fix it up. That did not happen so we aze assuming than following that Line of 8�inking that tfiis will be rental property. Mr. Courtney questioned how do we lmow it is small and cheep? Mr. Felvey stated because of tfie loY size, and he is trying to maximi�e his dollazs. Mr. Mangan stated that there is another party if the Board members would like to speak to who can answer questions if he does not answer the questions adequately. It is Boje Siebeis he is entitled as the owner of the properiy and is available to you. He stated that he is really offended because of some of the comments he has heard. He knows that is not relevant, however, he has to say it so it is on the tape. Because he is a long standing citizen of St. Paul as well. Ha stated he raised lu� children at 1629 Victoria Street IVorth in Como Pazk, It is a beautiful place to raise a family. His sister is raising het kids at 838 Iowa which is a few blocks to the nortfi. His other sister, both transplants &om Bcower County, FL, coming hete for the life we have here, lives ai 1105 Dale with her family. Mr. Maagan stated he is a licensed realtor in the state of Minnesota. There is a gentleman here that has made a numUer of comments about wfiat was said to the seller. Foriunately for him, he was tfie buyer:s agent on this transactzon and the buyer aud the selter had no contact until ffie sate was comptete. That is because we cazed about tfiis woman and wanted tn hava some sort of rapport there. Questions like who's moving in here? aze they on public assistance? is this rental? what is the familiaz status? aze illegal questions for a ticensed Realtor to answer, The otfiez agent on the other side of the transaction was her grandson, he . believes. Or possibly her nephew, he couldn't recaIl, however, ke asked who is moving iu here? Mr. Mangan stated that he said that a family will be moving in here. There is a single-father with an adopted child and another child that is his as well tbat live in that property now. Nothing that.he commends the tenant for raldng his lawn and getting ail of the refuse picked up. Ms. Maddox stated that all of this is • irtelevant. Mr. Mangan replied lets get to the relevant. It is just as a resident of St, Paul, he stated he � � AA-ADA-EEO Empioyet �� D(�� . File #06-063127 Minutes Apri124, 2006 Page Six really does iove this process in the City. TtafFic and noise, we aze talking about Dale and Wheelock, it is a bnsy street Wheelock is noY necessarily less busy either, VJe have taken precaudoas with this presentauon to, rather than create another curb cut onto Dale Street, whexe according to Zoning we may not need a vaziance at ail. But we chose to go through this process because it makes more sense to use the driveway that is there from a safety standpoinC and that was suggested from the Ciry its self, it is not something he came up with. There has been a lot of speculaflon about the house that is going.there. That is absalute speculation, because Weze is not plan that has been firmed up, that could be presented to the Boazd at this time. We all l�ow that there are zoning rules that they haue to follow when they build a house. So six feet from the property line in an R3 happens to be the minnimm standazd by which'they can build. So that is where the suc feet came from, that was him trying to help some neighbors understand what could happen to that lot. It will be a single-family home if a home is built there. It is his understanding that nothing eise can be built there. So as far as speculation about the house, the placement of the house, the condition of the house, tfie size of the house he just does not have an intelligent answer for the Boa{d because there is not one. Other than that he thinks that this is in keeping with the plans of the City. Tliat is why the proposal tivas made in tfie fitst place. The Housing 5000, the development of new houses and what not. This is a single-family fiome in a neighborhood that we thought needed some reasonable variances and that is why we made the request. • NIr. Couriney quesfioned, aIthough there are no direcrions on the site plan, whether the lot line could be moved back closer to the existing house? Mr. Mangan stated that we actually met with John Hazdwick and he suggested to Mr. Hazdwick that they just move the lot line a few feet because we have that giant side yaLd and he said he would like to see some back yard there even with the side yazd and that a 40Q , square foot vaziance, we should make our case to ttte Boazd over that so that there is a good 10.4-feet along wiffi the side yazd. So yes, Mr. Courtaey we did think of that and we would consider it. IVIr. Courtney fiuther questioned where else was the applicant planning to place the house? Mr. Mangan offered to give Mr. Courtney some directions because he had just menfloned there were no direckons on � the plan. The house is facing east onto Dale Street. Behind the house is where the builder would build on, if the loC is approved, it would be a bulld able lot for a single-facuily, would be to the west of the current house. Noting that he could not speak intelligenUy because he would have to follow whatever rules are sehtp already.. In order to place that house and he knows ihece aze a lot of issues that surround that. He is assmning that the builder will kuow what those rules aze, alihough he does ffiow that in an R2 you cannot build closer than six feet to the properly line on the sides without a variance. Mr. WIlson quesfloned Efie size of the Iots gtesenfly, lots 1, 2, aud 4, are they 80 by 151 feet. Mr. Mangan xeplied yes. Mr. Wiison further quesiioned what will the lot size be for the existing house and the house you intend to build, once your get them split? Mr. Mangan replied roughiy 80 by 80 feet, and 80 by 71. Mr. Wilson quesfioned that puts the existing house how far off the 1ot line of the newly created yard? Mr. Mangazt replied 10.7 feet. Mr. WiIson responded Yhat is a 14 foot vaz3ance. Ivir. Mangan replied yes. _ . Mr. Hawkins stated he could comment on where the house would be percnitted to be built without • vaziances. `i'hexe has been a lot of discussion of reaz yazds and spacious rear yards. A.11owing this �� an-nnn-$$o �pioy� File #06-063127 Minutes April ?A�, 2006 Page Seven . var'iance to go through, the house would be huilt facnxg Wheelock Parkway, which would require a 25- foot teaz yazd setback, wlucfi would be on the north side of pazcel A. Which would again have the rear yazds to all the other adjacent property there would be a 25 foot buffet thete and the ciosest it couid be built on the west would be 6 feet off the adjacant properry line. But again 6 feet which is probably what the current house is right now woutd be permiffed as a minimutn, Tlian it would be 25 feet in the ceaz, whereas, if you look at where the existing two,-story is in reference to tke properry to its aorfh it is 4-feet off of that property line. So that wou(d open it up, but it would not ba as large as it is now. But as a legal lot it would sti�1 not be back any futher back than the 25 feet, untess a vatiauce weLe granted, So tfie closest tUey could build would be similar to where the e�sting building is on the west. That is where it would be posztioned on tha lot in his assumptiott, because they would not want to go tbrough variances agaitt. i Mr_ Wilson questioned what the foot print is of the pmposed house, Mr. Mangau rep&ed he is not the builder and he does not have the plans. He was hoping to get the plans prior to tfie meeting but the plans have not been decided on and they do not know what they aze going to buitd there. They axe awaze that if a variance is needed they would have to come back before the Board. There is no foot print to put thete, otherwise he would have something to show the Soard, Mr. Wilson stated the reason for the question is that he would hate to see someone come back and have us tell them the cannot put that hoase there, we need a bigger fiouse Yo build, He woutd have liked to lmow. Mr. Mangan stated he just • thought it was bettex not to specnlate on it, because he cannot give an inteUigant answet on it. Mr. Wilson stated tfiat he will be Lequued by the amount of properry left. Mr. Hawkins stated he had done some figures and the 5600 squaze foot yazd would allow for alrout a 1300 square foot, footprint for the house. Hearmg no fiuther testimony, Ms. Maddox closad the public portion of the meeting, Ms. Bogen stated that based on the fact tLat the variance reques2ed will mainly affect the new house , she dces not see any problem with this 1ot being 400 squate feet Iess tban is needed, especiallq since he could switch the lot line. Ms. Bogen moved to approve the variance and resolution based on fiudings 1 through 6, subject to the condition that subdivision approvai is obtained from tha Planniug Administrator. Ms. Morton stated she is not going to support this motion. She feels that tke Board is splitting a lot again and we have to have variances, sfie feels that ffie applicant knew tfie siivafion when they pnrchased the piopezty. If they can $gure out some other way to gut this on here, without makiug a 400 squaze foot vaiianca, then sfie thinks tfiey should do tfiat. Mr. WiLson stated he also thinks that is stricfly a matter of finances, �� AA-ADA-EEO Employer � ��' � ' � File ({06-063127 Minutes Apri124, 2006 Page Eight Ms. Maddox reminded the Boazd members that if they voted against flris they needed to state tfie finding numbers they aze denying on. Ms. Bogen stated only if the motion is to deny, and the motion is to approve rigfit now. Ms. Maddox replied tt�at is true. Mr. Galles stated that he does not tUivk that in the sie yeazs he has been on and off the Boazd he has been down the middle of the issue more on a case. Noting that he is hung-up on the financial piece. Noting that he recalls a case about a year or two ago in Battle Creek where the builder had a fiouse under conixact and then oame before the Boatd before he pulled the trigger. We had made the decision that it was for economic reasons and he thinks that the oniy thing that has changed is that this rime he achzally owns the pazcel. NoGng that he thinks he supported the proposal last time and this time he is leaning towazd Commissioners Morton and Wilson on the economic reasons. Mr. VJilson quesrioned whether it was the house on Point Douglas Road where he xepositioned it and came back because he had the building in tfie wrong spot? NTr. Galles replied no. Mr. Courtney seconded the motion, which failed on a ro11 call vote of 2-5(Faricy, Wilson, Galles, Morton, Maddox). • Mr. Courtaey moved to approve a variance to reposiflon the 1ot line so no vaxiance is needed foz parcel A and pazcel B will have a 19.3 foot vaziance for the back yazd based on findings 1 thtougfi 6, subject to � the condirion that subdivision approval is obtained from the Planning Administratnr. Mr. Galles questioned Mr. Warner whether the Boazd could give the applicant's something that they did not ask for? Mr. Wazner teplied he did in fact ask for that. He asked for a rear yard vaziance and you are sunply moving the line over. The outcome is that the existing house on lot b will have no back yard or a very' tiny back yard. It is a reasonable thing to do. Mr. Wllson requesYed that Mr. Courtney repeat what he said a little louder. Mr. Courtney stated that what he is trying fo do is, looking at page 29, all he is doing is moving tfiat lot Line up five feet so they. need a bigger vaziance for the back yazd. That has the effect of increasing the lot size for the loY that will be on Wheelock, making it the fu116,000 squaze feet the only detciment will be the house on Dale will not have a very big back yard but it has a ton of space for a side yard. Mr. Wilsori futther questioned whether that were pernussible to do? Mr. Warner replied yes, because he is assuming that the notice provided to split a lot and one of the things being proposed was the modificatian of the rear yazd setback. All they are doing is modifying the numerical amount, you are not modifying the thing that was asked for. . Ms. Morton questioned Mr. Courtney fiow much more would the back yard variance be for? Mr. Courtney replied five feet more than it was before. Staff requested clazification whether the condition were Ueing added to the variance? Ms. Bogen replied . yes. �j � nn-Ann-r.�o a�ioy� File #06-063127 Minutes Apri124, 2006 Page Nine � Ms. Bogen seconded the motion, shating that if John were fiere he might recommeud tfie sama thing. She does not see why such a latge back yazd is needed, with the lazge side yazd, then we are only 2ooking a "- vatiance for the e�sting house, the modon failed on a roll call vote of 2-5(Wilson, Galles, Morton, Faricy, Maddox). Mr. VJilson moved to deny the variance and resolution based on finding 6, this is being doue primarily for financiat gain. lvts. Morton seconded tlte motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 5-2, based on finding 6.(Coarhiey, Bogen). bY� f ~ Appzoved by: Hazdwick � Glotia Bogen, Secretary • '� � nn-nnn-�o�ioyer � OFFICE OA LTC'SNSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVSRONMENTAL PRO'1F,CfION Bob Kess7er, Directar CITY OF SAINT PAUL ChrsrtopherB. Coleman, Mayor. Ma� 12, 2006 Mike Mangan 1225 Edgcumbe Road Saint Paul, Mn. 55105 COMMERCEBUILDING SPourth StreetFas� Suite 200 StPaul, MSmresom SSI01-Z024 ItE: Variance applicafion for 1333 Da1e St. N. Zoning file # 06-063127 Dear NIr. Mangan: �� "✓U� Te7ephone: 651-266-9090 Faarimile: 651-266-9124 YPeb: wvrw.Ziep.us On Apri124, 2006 the Board of Zoning Appeals denied your variance request for. the referenced properly, It ius our understanding that you intend to appeal that decision to the City Council. Therefare we are extending the 60 day deadline for action an additional 60 days pursuant to State 5tatute 15.94 in arder to allow the City Council an.opportunity Yo hear your appeal. If qou have any questions regarding this matter you may contact me at 651-266-9082. . S" ce y C ! �' John Hazdwick, Zoning Specialist CC: Ferdinand Peters � / � AA-ADA-EEO Employer Page 1 of 1 ��}_� r� b �, �,.�� : ,�g�' John Hardwick -1333 Dale Street North ��" Q� . From: <vikikane@usfamily.net> To: <john.hardwick�a,ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 5/21/2006 11:36 AM Subject: 1333 Dale Streetl3orth Mr. Hardwick, l hope the appeais are not granted. This is a very stupid idea on the part of the owner. The former Geng residence is a beautiful old house and iYs looks match the other three old lovely houses on the corner. i live three houses away on Daie and I do not want to see the character of our corner compromised by houses that do not belong. We went though a very hard fight wifh Jim Dey who destroyed his green house operation and tried to put in first a huge gas station and some other developments before the nice building that is there now. I do not believe the owner of this properly has the money to do this and I think it is ridicufous to undertake such an expence, teil him to build his houses on new land in the suburbs, he can get more rent money! Thankyou Victoria Kane --- USFamil .y Net - $8.25Jmo! -=�-Ii�hs�eed - $19.99/mo! --- • � file:/1C:�Documents and Settings\Hardwicj�L,oca1 Settings\Temp\GW}00OO1.HTM 5/22l2006