The URL can be used to link to this page

06-600Council F51e # I��/ _�� Green Sheet # � 30 Yf RESOLIITION 2 WHEREAS, I.ouise Miller-ONeil, on 7anuary 26, 2006, in Zoning File No.06-014-461 made 3 application to the City's planning administrator for a lot split to adjust the common boundary of 4 real estate commonly known as 701 Summit Avenue, (Pazcel Identification No. 02-28-23-14- 5 0274) and legally described as HOLCOMBE'S ADDTTION, THE E'h OF LOTS 25 & 6, TIIE W 6 '/x OF LOTS 27 & 4, AND ALL LOTS 26 & 5, INCLUDING "THE VAC ALI.EY ACCRiTING, 7 BLOCK 15, EX TI� N 88.51 FI' THEREOF, and the lot to the north, which has frontage on 8 Portland Avenue and is legally described as HOLCOMBE'S ADDiTION, N 88.51 FT OF THE 9 FOL: E'h OF LOT 6, W'h OF LOT 4 AND AI.L OF LOT 5, BLOCK 15, under the provisions 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 of Leg. Code §§ 69.406(a)(1) and (2); and WHEREAS, in a letter dated February 16, 2006, the planning administrator informed the applicant that the requested lot split was denied for the reasons stated therein; and WHEREAS, on February 2A, 2006, the applicant, pursuant to I.eg. Code § 61.701(c), duly filed an appeal from the planning administrator's decision and a hearing was scheduled before the planning commission's zoning committee for the purpose of considering the decision of the planning administrator; and WIIEREAS, on Mazch 16, 2006, the zoning committee conducted a public hearing where all persons present were given an opportunity be heard in accordance with the requirements of the I.egislative Code and, at the close of the public hearing, the committee moved to recommend that the appeal be denied for the reasons stated in the staff report dated March 1Q 2006; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2006, the planning connmission, based upon all the evidence presented to the zoning committee, as substantially reflected in the minutes, moved to deny the said appeal based upon the following findings of facts as set forth in planning commission resolution no. 06-28: L The appeal received on February 24, 2006, from I.ouise O'Neil includes and attachment specifying grounds for the appeal. 2. On January 26, 2006, L,ouise ONeil appiied for adjustment of the common boundary between the lot at 701 Summit and the lot immediately to the north, which has frontage on Portland Avenue (Zoning File #06-014-461). This application was referred to the Department of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) for review as required under Zoning Code §69.306(a). Because the subject property is within the St. Paul Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District, the proposed lot split was reviewed by the HPC staff in LIEP and by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). IA CITY OF SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA 1 3. On February 9, 2006, the HPC reviewed the proposed lot split and voted �� 2 9-0 to recommend denial. In the HPC report, which includes findings 3 pertaining to their reasons for recommending denial, finding #1 correctly 4 states that the propezTy at 701 Summit is classifted as pivotal to the 5 historical and azchitectural integrity of the Hill Historic District. 6 Q 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 The HPC report, finding #2, correctly states that the proposed lot fwtiic wou su s an i y re uce e rear yard at 701 Summit) ` negatively impact the spatial relationships that chazacterize the property. 5. The HPC report, finding #3, notes that the lot split that was approved by the Planning Administrator on January 11, 2005, provides for a separate lot with frontage on Portland Avenue while leaving a large enough lot for the mansion at 701 Summit Avenue. In findings #3 and #4, it correctly finds the proposed adjustment of the common boundary between these two lots, which would substantially reduce the rear yard at 701 Summit would negatively impact the historical integrity of the site and district, and long term preservation and stewardship of the site. 6. Zoning Code §69.406(a) lists seven findings that "shall be made prior to the approval of a subdivision or lot split, " including "1) all the applicable provisions of the I,egislative Code are complied with; and 2) the proposed subdivision will not be detrimental to the present and potential surrounding land uses." Based on the HPC findings and recommendation on the proposed lot split, the Planning Administrator correctly found that the lot split does not comply with the required findings in §69.406(a) (1) and (2). WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 61.701(d), Louise Miller-O'Neil, in zoning file no. 06-063-510, duly filed an appeal &om the determination made by the planning commission, and a hearing was scheduled before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and WEIEREAS, Acting pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702 and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 3, 2006, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, The Council, having heazd the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the zoning committee and of the planning 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, there being no showing by the appellant that the planning commission's decision in this matter was based upon error in any of its facts, findings or conclusions; and, be it FLJRTHER RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby affirms the decision of the planning commission in this matter and the Council further adopts as its own, the reasons and findings of the planning commission in this matter, set forth in planning commission resolution no. 06-28 as its own; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of L.ouise Miller-ONeil is hereby denied; and, be it � pw 2 3 4 FIN.4I.LY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to I.ouise Miller- ONeil, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date ��j7 r /y� o ,7�Q'� Adopuon Cer[ified by Council Secretary BY� / 1 //✓/lG �!G/CSd/Z (/ Approved by May ",��/ � f`^ _` _" 1 \._/ _ .� By. Form ppproved by City Attomey By: �� L✓�i�n�— �- 3/- o G Foem Approved by Mayor for Submission [o Council By: � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � c�'6vt3 CA "��5 Attomey Contact Person 8 Phone: Peter Wamer 276fr8710 3'1-MAY-06 � Green Sheet NO: 3030918 Deoarimert SentToPe�son tn45aWate 0 i Attorue �ust Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z itv Attornev _ � For � Routing 3 a or's Office Ma or/ ssistant Order 4 ounci 5 " Clerk C5 Clerk Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Memorializing City Council's May 3, 2006 moUon to deny the appeal of Louise Miller-ONeil and affuin the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a lot split for the property located at 701 Snmmit Avenue. �dations: Approve (A) or R Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Gontracts Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvantaqeslfApproved: 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 mauer required a written resolution in order to comply with the Charter. Approving the attached resolution fulfills the Council's duty under the Charter. DisadvantapeslfApproved: None Disadvantapes If Not Approved: Failure to approved the resolurion violates the City's Charter requirement. otal Amount of Transaction: Fundinp Source: CosURevenue Budgeted: Activiry Number: COUIICI� JUN 021006 Fi nantial Information: (Explain) D�-�ea � DEPARTNIENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC D&VELOPMENT � Torry Schert[er, Irzterim Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor 2i W. Fourth Sireet SainrP¢ul, MN�i102 Telephone: 651-266-6700 Facsimile: 6i I -228-3220 �� April 10, 2006 Ms. Mary Erickson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 3, 2006, for the following zoning case. Zoning File Number: File Name: Address: Purpose: 06-063-510 Louise 0'Neil 701 Summit Ave, Appeal of a Planning Commission decision (File # 06-047-517) upholding the Planning Administrator's denial of a lot split. Previous Action: Zoning Committee Recommendation: denial, 7- 0 Planning Commission Recommendation: denied (unanimous) I have confirmed this day with Councilmember Thune's office. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the April 19, 2006, City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in ihe Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 651-266-6579 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Allan Torstenson City Planner cc: File #: 06-063-510 Applicant/Appellant: Ms Louise O'Neil Paul Dubruiel Wendy Lane Carol Martineau NOTICE OF PUBLIC �'Ai+raG The Saint Paul (.Yry Councl wili conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Qouncil Chatnbers, Tfiird F7oor City Fiall, 15 West Kellogg Bovlevard, St. Paul, MN, to con- sider the appeal of Lonise ONeil to a'deci- sion of the Planning Commission uphold- ing the Ylanning Administratar's denial of a lot split at 701 Sumxnit Avenue. (ZOi�iing FYIe #06-063-510) � Dated: April 11, 2006 - _ MARY ERICKSON � ' Assistant ciTy Council Secretary (Apri113J" __ = ST. PADL LEGAL IL77GER =�_=- zaiissas - � DEPARTTgNT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMENT ToiryScher[ler, Interim Drrector CITY OF S�II�IT PAUL Chr�stapher B. Coleman, Mayor 23 Wes[ Fowfh S[reet Saint Paul, MN 55702 �ii�Q(�o� ,..,....,. ��t Telephone: 657-266-6700 F¢csim i(e: 651-228-3220 April 25, 2006 Ms. Mary Erickson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: Zoning File #: 06-063-510 Appeliant: Louise O'Neil Address: 701 Summit Ave, N side between St. Albans and Grotto Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision (Zoning File # 06-047-517) upholding the Planning Administrator's deniai of a lot split. (Zoning File # 06-014-461) Citv Council Hearinq: Mav 3. 2006. 530 p.m. Citv Council Chambers Staff Recommendation: • District Council: Zoning Committee Recommendation: Support: Opposition: Planning Commission Decision: Deadline for Action: Staff Assigned: deniai none denial, vote: 7- 0- 0 1 person spoke, 0 letters were received 2 peopie spoke, 1 letter was received vote: unanimous extended to June 28, 2006 Allan Torstenson, 651-266-6639 Attachments: Planning Commission resolution #06-28 Pfanning Commission minutes, 3/24l06 Zoning Committee minutes, 3/16l06 Staff Report packet cc: Zoning FiVe #: 06-063-510 Appellant: Louise O'Neil City Council Members District Council: 8 Wendy Lane Amy Spong Larry Soderholm Alian Torstenson Peter Warner � AA-ADA-EEO EMPLOYER u�- �bo C � z:.i:.:: �.e.�� _�:. � . �!4` A11AA APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Offue ojLicense, Inspeclions and Environmenta! Protection Commerce Building - $ Fourih St E, Suite 200 APPLICANT 65I-Z66-9008 Zoning otF�� File no. //� �ee 7 �.� � o Tentative hearing date: , � � ��:".r� /��1�-z..r � U � 1 - v �... �. : � , -� ��, �ve -�� Daytime phone 2z7� '�`.�� 1 PROPERTY LOCATION • Aildress 7� I Tv sy- �.. �' .� r� e• Legaldescription: �-e'C �a.�iu��y (attach additiona! sheef if necessary) TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: ❑ Soard of Zoning Appea{s �City Council under the provision of Chapter 61, Section '7�2, Paragraph �. of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the �i� .�-..-� .. �, ��✓�-✓�LSs ra �- on /�4 � `�'"� �rC� , 200�. File number:_ �� '✓ `r`7- ,sl - 7 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL' Exp�ain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. �(4nn.in,s LtJ !'a.11er.l. �u 7a.�P �h�c �!'i+tiio�p,rcc,i 3 D / / ��cri� ./�I.c L�Fay� r'��wf' �/a...a Wevjc+�- �2. r�lbs�an."�s4l�t� �h�ti 0 g Sarv�� w,5' �l� c'�%u.� rc<ti c`�,-�� a,. 9'� 6r oa�, C k 1,�`�'�g �{3�� C. ApplicanYs signature i �Ei � � City • ,��3�� U� city of saint paul planning commission resolution � file number 06-28 date March 24. 2006 _ _ -- WHEREAS, Louise O'Neif, Zoning �ife#06-047-517, has appealed a Planning Administrator decision to deny a lot split (Zoning File # 06-014-461) adjusting the common boundary between the lot at 701 Summit Ave., Parcel Identificafion Number{PIN) 02-28-23-14-0274, legallydescribed as HOLCOMBE'S ADDfTION, THE E'/zOF LOTS 25 & 6, THE W%z OF L07S 27 8� 4, & ALL OF LOTS 26 & 5, INCLUDING THE VAC ALLEY ACCRUING, BLOCK 15, EX THE N 88.51 FT THEREOF, and the lot to the north, which has frontage on PoRland Avenue, Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 02-28-23-14-0275, fegaily described as HOLCOMBE'S ADDITION, N 88.51 FT OF THE FOL: E'/ OF LOT 6, W'/ OF LOT 4 AND ALL OF LOT 5, BLOCK 15, under the provisions of §61.701(c) and (d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; 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 Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee atthe public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The appeal received on February 24, 2006, from Louise O'Neil includes an attachment specifying the grounds for the appeal. 2. On January 26, 2006, Louise O'Neil applied for adjustment of the common boundary between the Iot at 701 Summit and the !ot immediately to the north, which has frontage on Portfand Ave.(Zoning File #06-014-461). This application was referred to the Dept. of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) for review as required under Zoning Code §69.306(a). Because the subject Qroperty is within the St. Paul Historic • Hili Heritage Preservation District, the proposed lot split was reviewed by HPC staff in LIEP and by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). 3. On February 9, 2006, the HPC reviewed the proposed lot split and voted 9- 0 to recommend denial. In the HPC report, which includes findings pertaining to their reasons for recommending denial, finding #1 correctiy states that the property at 701 Summit is classitied as pivotaf to the historical and architectural integrity of the Hill Historic District. 4. The HPC report, finding #2, correctiy states that the proposed lot split (which woufd substantially reduce the rear yard at 701 Summit) would negatively impact the spatial relationships that characterize the property. 5. The HPC report, finding #3, notes that the lot split that was approved by the planning administrator on .lanuary 11, 2005, provides for a separate lot with frontage on Portland Avenue while leaving a large enough lot for the mansion at 701 Summit Avenue. In findings #3 and #4, it correctly finds that the proposed adjustment of the common boundary between these two 1ots, which would substantiaily reduce the rear yard at 701 Summit, would negatively impact the historical integrity of the site and district, and long term preservation and stewardship of the site. 6. Zoning Code §69.406(a) lists seven findings that "shall be made prior to the approval of a subdivision or lot split," including "1) all the applicable provisions of the Legislative Code are complied with; and 2) the proposed subdivision will not be detrimental to the present and potenfiai surrounding land uses." Based on the HPC findings and recommendation on the proposed lot split, the planning administrator correctly found that the lot split does not comp{y with the required findirSgs in §69.406(a)(1) and (2). NOW, THEREFORE, BE I7 RESOLVED, bythe Saint Paul Planning Commission, underthe authorityofthe City's Legislative Code, that the appeal of a Planning Administrator decision to deny a fot spfit at 701 Summit Ave. is hereby denied. moved by Morton � seconded by in favor Unanimously denied again�t ��o� � Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hali Conference Center Minutes March 24, 2006 A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, March 24, 2006, at 8:00 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Lu, McCall, Morton, Porter, Smitten Present: and; and Messrs. Aligada, Alton, Bellus, Commers, Cudahy, Johnson, Kong, Kramer, Mejia and Nelson. Commissioners Ms. *Trevino, and Messrs. Dandrea, *Goodlow, *Gordon Absent: *Excused C� Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Allan Torstenson, Lucy Thompson, Penny Simison, Shawntera Hardy, Christina Danico, Gary Peltier, Tom Beach and Wendy Lane from LIEP, Casey MacCallum (intem), and Kate Flesnmg, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. I. II. Swearing in of New Members Mr. Jon Commers, Ms. Krisrina Smitten, Mr. Gauis Nelson and Mr.Bob Cudahy were sworn in as Saint Paul Planning Commission members by Ms. Shari Moore, City Clerk. Approval of minutes March 10, 2006. MOTION: Commissioner Jolznson moved apprnval of ihe minutes ofMarch Z0, 2006. Cornmissioner Bellus seconded fhe motion. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. III. Chair's Announcements No announcements • • rrEw sus�ss # 06-047-485 Ilva Konkov — Appeal of a Planning Administrator decision to deny a lot split (Zoning File # OS-202-383) 811 White Bear Ave., NW comer at Ross. (AIZan Torstenson, 651/266-6579) MOTTON: Commissioner MoKon moved the Zoning Committee's recommendation to deny the appeal of a Planning Administrator. The motion to deny carried unanimously on a voice vote. # 06-047-517 Louise O'Neil - Appeal of a Planning Administrator decision to deny a lot split (Zoning file #06-014-461) 701 Summit Ave., between St. Albans and Crrotto. (AIIan Torstenson, 651/266-6579) MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Committee's recommendation to deny the appeal of a Planning AdmznisYrator. The motion to deny carried unasimously oa a vaice vot� # 06-047-258 Arch Service Providers — Conditional Use Permit for a transitional housing facility with 60 residents. 135 Colorado St. E, NE corner at Clintoa. (Jessica Rosenfeld, 651/266-6560) MOTION: Commissioner MoKon moved the Zoning Committee's recommendation that the case be laid over to the Zoning Committee. The motion passed on a vote of 16-I (%ramer). # 06-047-269 Marv Sanders — Establish Legal Nonconfornung Use status as a duplex. • 1501 Asbury St., NW comer at Nebraska. (Yang Zhang, 651/266-6659) MOTION: CommissionerMorton moved the Zoning Committee's recommendation to approve the nonconforming use permit with conditions. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. # 06-045-985 Hoc Neuven — Conditional Use Pernut for outdoor used auto sates with 25 vehicles offered for sale and 38 vehicles total pernutted on the property (23 total vehicles allowed under current permit) (Yang Zhang, 651/266-6659) MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Committee's recommendation to deny the conditional use permix The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. # 06-045-338 Herbal Miracle — Change of Nonconforming Use from home repair and carpet business to herbal mail order business. 962 Forest Ave., NW corner at Case. (Patricia James, 651/266-6639) MOTION: Cammissioner Morton moved the Zoning Committee's recommendation to approve the nonconforming use permit with condifions. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. �� a(� -(�60 • No report IX. Task Force Reports No report X. Old Business None XI New Business None XII. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Soderholm reported on recent City council and I-IRA decisions. XIII. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. • Recorded and prepared by Kate Fleming, Planning Commission Secretary PJanning and Economic Development Deparhnent, Cty of 5aint Paul Respectfully submitted, Approved (Date) Larry Soderholm Planning Administrator PED�FIeming�March 24, 2006 • Marilyn Porter Secretary of the Planning Commission 0 oi� • MINUTES OF TNE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 3:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hali and Court House PRESENT: Aiton, Donneliy-Cohen, Faricy, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, Mejia and Morton EXCUSED: Anfiang STAFF: - Rachel Gunderson, Carol Martineau, and Allan Torstenson The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton. Louise O'Neil - 06-047-517 - Appeal of a Planning Administrator decision to deny a lot split, 701 Summit Ave, between Sf. Albans & Grotto. Alian Torstenson presented the staff report with a recommendation of denial of the appeal of a Planning Administrator decision to deny a lot split. Alian Torstenson also stated District 8 made no recommendation, and there were 0 letter(s) in support, and 1 letter in opposition. At the question of Commissioner Mejia, Mr. Torstenson stated the applicant wanted to increase the size of the vacant lot with Portland Ave, frontage for proposed deve{opment. � Louise O'Neil, the applicant, gave a history of the use of her house at 701 Summit and splitting off the vacant 1ot on Portland from her property at 701 Summit. She said the new vacant lot on Portland is large enough for a duplex, but a duplex on that lot is economically unfeasible. A developer wanted to increase the lot on Portland to more than 9000 sq. ft. so it would be large enough for a 4-plex or 6-p1ex. Pat O'Neil, 701 Summit Ave., presented drawings of a proposed new garage for the existing house at 701 Summit showing how it would be located with the new lot line. Af the question of Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen about plans for the Portland lot, Mr. O'Neil explained they are looking to sell the property as is and a developer would decide what should be developed on the land. Steve Ford, 703 Portland Ave., stated they were in opposition to the lot split adjusting the lot line as proposed because it would not leave enough space for the existing mansion, and because a large new apartment building developed behind the mansion would not fit in with the neighborhood and mansion, and could create parking issues. Charlie Neimeyer, 710 Summit Ave., #3, stated he was in opposition to the lot split because it would harm the historic integrity of the existing mansion. Louise O'Neil declined a rebuttal. • The public hearing was ciosed. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Torstenson stated a duplex could be built on the • vacant lot as ii stands now. Amy Spong, LI�P, explained the design chaHenges fhat would go along with the lot split. Upon the questions of the commissioners, Mr. Torstenson explained the set backs and the buildings that could possibly be deve(oped on the property. Commissioner Gordon moved denial of the appeal. Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-0. Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0 Abstained - 0 Drafted by: Submitted by: Approved by: Carol Martinea Allan To ten on Gladys Morton Recording Secretary Zoning Section Chair r, �J • Q�-�ab C� ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: Louise O'Neil APPLICANT: Louise O'Neii HEARIIVG FiLE # 06-047-517 • • LOCATION: 701 Summit Ave, between St. Albans and Grotto PIN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Original parcel 022823140176, Current parcels 022823140274 & 022823140275; HOLCOMBE'S ADDITION, THE E 1/2 OF LOTS 25 & 6, & THE W 1/2 OF LOTS 27 & 4, & ALL OF LOTS 26 & 5 1NCLUDING THE ADJACENT VAC ALLEY, BLOCK 15, EX THE N 112.05 THEREOF PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §61.701(c)(d), §69.406(a) STAFF REPORT DATE: March 10, 2006 BY: Allan 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 adjusting the common houRdary between the lot at 701 Summit and the {ot immediately th the north, which has frontage on Portland Avenue (Zoning File #06-014-461). B. PARCEL SIZE: Parcel 022823140274 is 80.4 ft. (Summit frontage) x 170.49 ft. = 13,707.4 sq. feet. Parcel 022823140275 is 80.4 feet (Portland frontage) x 88.51 ft. = 7,116.2 sq. feet. C. EXISTING LAND USE: Residential Duplex at 701 Summit Avenue (PIN 022823140274). The parcel with frontage on Portland (PIN 022823140275) is vacant. D. SURROUNDING LAND USE: The property is surrounded by single and multiple-family residentiai Iand use, and there is a church parking lot on the southwest corner of Portland and St. Albans, adjoining the site on the east. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: §61.701(c) states that decisions on matters delegated to the pianning administrator are subject to appea� to the planning commission, and §61.701(d) regulates appeals of planning administrator decisions. §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 11, 2005, the planning administrator approved a lot split for 701 Summit Avenue (PIN 022823140176) dividing the original 20,823.6 sq. ft. parcel, a through lot with frontage on both Summit and Portland, into the two existing parcels (Zoning File #04-184- 543). The planning administrator's letter approving this lot split is attached. On October 4, 2005, Ms. O'IVei! applied for ad}ustment of the common boundary between the two lots created by the lot spiit in 2005 in order to increase the size of the vacant lot with Portland Avenue frontage and decrease the size of the lot at 701 Summit Avenue (Zoning File #05-176-657). On January 12, 2006, the Planning Administrator denied this lot split because the smaller lot at 701 Summit did not comply with the parking requirement for the triplex on the lot. The Planning Administrator's letter denying this lot spfit is attached. The letter discusses options for applying for a variance of the parking requirement, converting the triplex to a duplex, and appealing the denial. The letter also notes that the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) had raised concerns about the negative impact reducing the size of the lot at 701 Summit could have on the pivotal Cass Gilbert house at 701 Summit, and how to contact the HPC for review of tF�e options. The Pianning Administrators decision to deny this lot split was initially appealed, but the appeal was later withdrawn. PRESENT ZONING: RM2, RT2 On January 26, 2006, Ms. O'Neil reapplied for adjustment of the common boundary between the two lots, with the house at 701 Summit converted from a triplex to a duplex • (zoning file # 06-014-461). On February 9, 2006, the HPC reviewed the proposed lot split and vated 9— 0 to recommend denial. A copy of the HPC report, which includes findings pertaining fo fheir reasons for recommending denial, is attached. On February 16, 2006, the Planning Administrator denied this lot split based on the required findings in Zoning Code §69.406(a)('1) and (2) and the NPC findings and recommendation. The planning administrator's letter denying the lot split is attached. G. DlSTRICT GOUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The District 8 Council had nof 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 grounds of the appeal. The appeai received on February 24, 2006, from Louise O'Neil inciudes an attachment specifying the grounds for the appeai, which is attached to this report. 2. On January 26, 2006, Louise O'Neil applied for adjustment of the common boundary between the lot at 701 Summit Avenue and the lot immediately to the north, which has frontage on Portland Avenue (Zoning File #06-014-461). This application was referred to the Dept. of License, inspections and Environmentai Protection (LIEP) for review as required under Zoning Code §69.306(a). Because the subject propefij is within the Saint Paul Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District, the proposed lot split was reviewed by HPC stafF in LIEP and by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). 3. On February 9, 2006, the HPC reviewed the proposed lot split and voted 9- 0 to recommend denial. A copy of the HPC report, which includes findings pertaining to their reasons for recommending denial, is attached. • 4. The HPC report, finding #1, correctly states that the property at 701 Summit is classified as pivotal to the historical and architectural integrity of the Hill Historic District. 5. The HPC report, finding #2, correctiy states that the proposed lot split {which would substantially reduce the rear yard at 701 Summit) would negatively impact the spatial relationships that characterize the property. 6. The HPC report, finding #3, notes that the lot split that was approved by the planning administrator on January 11, 2005, provides for a separate lot with frontage on Portland Avenue while leaving a large enough lot for the mansion at 701 Summit Avenue. In findings #3 and #4, it correctiy finds that the proposed adjustment of the common boundary between these two lots, which woutd substantialiy reduce the rear yard at 704 Summit, would negatively impact the historical integrity of the site and district, and long term preservation and stewardship of the site. 7. Zoning Code §69.406(a) lists seven findings that "shall be made prior to the approval of a subdivision or lot split," including `1) all the applicabie provisions of the Legisiative Code are complied with; and 2) the proposed subdivision will not be detrimental to the present and potential surrounding land uses." Based on the HPC findings and recommendation on the proposed lot split, the planning administrator correctly found that the Iot split does not comply with the required findings in §69.406(a)(1) and (2). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings above, staff recommends deniai of the appeal of a planning administrator decision to deny the proposed lot split at 701 Summit Avenue. • • APPLICATION FOR APPEAL O�ce of License, Inspections and Environmenla! Protection Commerce Building 8 Fourth St E, Suite 200 APPLICANT 651-266-9008 �oC��-o�7Sl � Zoning o�ce use oniy File no.`(�c�7� Fee �� .�� Tentative hearina date: t e � C�ie7 Address ?G � �✓ M n^ . � �v��s City SY /�4 �) St �'y� Zip ff/�t Daytime phone z a 7 '.7�/ Z Z Name of PROPERTY Address `?i'� l�vM�� f /fc�z�u-L LOCAT{ON Legal description: 'P Gt `f/ c GtiP (attach additiona! sheet if necessarvl TYPE OF APPEAL: Appl�ation is here made for an appeal to the: �� c} �i7s��t`>�t� '��App€als ❑ City Council �\ . under the provisions of Chapter 61, Section 7�'�� , Paragraph S.«J of the Zoning Code, to appeaf a decision made by the_� Ofl Tliir✓a� Of r. 200 �. Filenumber: �6 - �/�`;?�3 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an etror in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an adminisVaSve offlciai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or the Planning Commiss �-c' �2 GP- �Cc L L�i.2_o1 C{� ��S'� � om �r� � (attach additional sheet ApplicanPs signature � , 7 `3 --� 6 te Z ' 2 �'O�City agent �, .��-OG CJ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The East Half of Lots 25 and 6, and the West half of Lots 27 and 4, and all of Lots 26 and 5 including the adjacent vacated alley, Block 15, Holcombe's Addition, Ramsey County, Minnnesota. With an easement for eaves and gutters over the west property line of above said property described as: Beginning at the southemmost point of the east line of the WesY 1/2 of Lot 25, Block 15, Holcombe's Addition to St. Paul, north along said East line a distance of 70 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described herein; thence East at right angle to the East line a distance of Fo 3.2 feet; thence Northerly along a line parallel to the East Iine of Yhe West 1/2 of said Lot 25 a distance c^P of 35 feet; thence West at a zight angle to the East line of said West 1/2 of Lot 25 a distance of 3.2 feet; thence 35 feet to the point of beginning; all located in Lot 25, Block 15, Aolcombe's Addition to St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota. — • • 6 (� - (� bb � I petitioned for a lot split. On February 11, 2006, I received a letter from Planning, formally denying my petition. The letter stated the grounds for denial as well as its dependence upon the report prepared by the Heritage Preservation Couunission (HPC). It is my position that the HPC report contains errors of fact and law. In the HPC report, paragraph "A" page 1, the report notes that the building next to mine was designed by Cass Gilbert. It then states that my building was designed by an architect who must have collaborated with Mr. Gilbert as the designs aze similu. This is cleuly speculative as no one knows the name of the azchitect. However, on page two of the HPC report, this speculation becomes fact. Twice it states that my building was in fact designed by Cass Gilbert. This is enor. This error may have contributed to the HPC finding that my property was "pivotal to the historic and azchitectural integrity of the Hill Historic District." HPC's finding #2 states that the "pzoposed lot split and proposed location of a new gazage will negatively impact the spatial relationship with the main house: ' The proposed • location of a garage was simply that: a proposal. Off the record, I was informed that merely locating a new two-car garage behind my building rather than on the northeast corner would suffice. It is my position that the construcuon and location of new two-caz garage is irrelevant to my lot split application. The decision to even build a garage has not been made. When and if that decision is made, it would become the subject of a later proceeding. It is irrelevant to the current matter. HPC's finding #3 is just simply wrong. It states ihat the lots immediately surrounding my property range from 190-250 feet deep and 75-80 feet wide. This is false. I consider my surrounding area to be bounded by Dale Street on the east, Victoria on the west, Grand on the south and Portland on the north If this is my neighborhood, there aze a total of 50 buildings on Summit Avenue. These buildings are churches, rowhouses, condos, apaztments, duplexes and single-family structures. Using the footage cited by the HPC above, there are a total of four buildings that also have "green azeas" in accordance with those numbers. The lot dimensions cited as "typical of Sumcnit Avenue mansions" have not existed for decades. The dimensions cited are more an the nature of a remembrance of a grand past and not reflective of reality. The HPC description didn't even exist when the Grand, Summit and Portland neighborhood was built. As I stated above, there are only four "green" lots remaining. My lot split proposal cannot diminish the "significance and stateliness" of Summit Avenue because the lot sizes envisioned by APC don't exist but in rare circumstances. The depth of the typical block in my neighborhood, sidewalk to sidewalk, is about 260 feet. Within this depth there aze either two buildings or a building and pazking lot, except for four. It has been this way for decades. My lot • split proposal cannot negatively impact the uea. My proposal simply aligns the property with the area. It is too late to envision a Summit Avenue where every building runs the full depth of the block. For this reason, HPC's finding #3 is just simply wrong. � HPC's finding #4 is again out of touch with the real Summit Avenue as was its finding #3. If HPC wanted to preserve the 250-foot depth ideal for Summit Avenue, it should have acted 90 years ago Everything is built. With the exception of four buildings, the HPC's ideal lot size is non-e�stent. My lot split proposal is absolutely within the character and size of the neighborhood. HPC's finding #5 puts the cart before the horse. The location of a proposed gazage was just a proposal. I have no plans to build. My back yazd where the prior garage stood is already paved and has been for five decades. Consequently, finding #5 is iminaterial. As I stated above, the Planning Administrator based its denial of my lot split upon the HPC recommendation. I believe I have pointed out the numerous errors in the HPC findings. The Planning Administrator then stated that my proposal violates Section 69.406(a) (1) and (2)., I submit that my proposal violates neither subparagraph. Subpazagraph (1) states that the proposal must not violate any provision of the legislative code. Since the findings of the HPC regarding lot size for Summit Avenue building hasn't existed during anyone's lifetune, and since the Planning Administrator didn't state any specific legislative code violations, then subparagraph (1) has no bearzag on my application. Subpazagraph (2) refers to whether the proposed lot split is detrimental to the present and . surrounding land uses. My block on Portland Avenue, from east to west, goes: pazking lot, my yard, pazking lot, out of neigfiborhood chazacfer condo buiIding, and pazking lot. IC is ludicrous to say that my proposed lot split is detrimental where nothing but a small condo building exists. Should some future developer wish to build a beau6ful structure on the lot, I'm sure that HPC and Zoning will have great input. To deny my lot split in an azea where the primary land use is pazking is an error in interpreting the law. A lot split changes nothing. A sale of a lot changes nothing, A future developer must deal with you. In conclusion and in reference to the Planning Administrator's letter of February 16, 2006, where he stated that my proposed lot split would leave my house with an undersized back yazd that would be out of chazacter for Summit Avenue, I again point out that only four of 50 buildings on Summit Avenue have any back yazds of any size or consequence. I submit that the character of Summit Avenue buildings are the buildings themselves, not the back yards. There aze no back yards. C� 3, 2005 w move property spiit line, change ]egal deswipaon end relocate 2005 to wirect dimension PORTLAND +�vd 6, a�d the West htf of Lots 27 md 4, and all of Lois ?b and 5 including I, Block 15, Holcombe's Addition, Raznsey Couvty, Mmlmesots, ves md gu[ters over ihe west property ]ice of above aidproperty descnbed o s[ point of the eest Ime of fhe Wat 12 ofLot 25, Black 15, Fw,w t/Y , rth along said Fast line a dviamx of 70 Feet to iLe poivt of ��m Q+� a �bed hereiq theuce Fast az right angle b flie Fast line a disrance of �� y alox� a Iine parallel to the Eas[ lvie of the Wca ]2 of said Lot 25 a disranw I -- ?! G � t ¢ri�t�gletotheEestlroeofsaidWestl2oFLot25adistanceof3l �� ON FOR NORTH PARCII,: 16e follovring described tract The East Ha]fofLot 6, the West ha]f ofLot 4, �. Holwmbe's Addition, Rsmuy County, Min�esois. ION FOR SOUTH PARCII,: and 6, aid the Wes[ Lalf o£Lois 27 and 4, and a➢ of Lois 26 and 5 iacluding ' Blxk I5, Aolcombe's Addition, Ramary County, Minnnesota, Except the £ ias and gutters over ihe wes[ property Iwe of above saidproperty described >uthemmost point oF the east Iirie of We West 12 of Lot 25, Block 15, I +t Paui, noRh along mid Fast line a disrnnce of 70 feet to fhe poix�t of I L � be descri6ed herein; Ihence Eas[ at xight augle m the Fas[ lme a d�stance of � � along a]ine parallel to the East ]ine of the West ]2 of said Lot 25 a distance � a ri�t angle to ttw Eastlice of said West ]2 of Lot 25 a distance of 3.2 point of begiaruag; all located m Lot 25, Block I5, Holcombe's Add�tion to Mumesota. f'aaHn i/r I CMPm IRON-� I ``` ��. --y- X-�--=i id daection of boundery lioes of t6e above legat descriplion. The I : not inciude detemvning what you own, which is a legal maIIer. � � cription with your records or consult wi$ compete¢t legal co'' � � �at rt is conect, a� tLat any matters of record, such as easemevts, that yo'u �� '�� ' have been shown � e� �f existing improvemenis we deemed imporrant. ts or verifying old monuments to mazk ihe comers of the properry. �� L ` IONS. ° _ (4,- plugbeaangStateLicenseNwnber9235,set,uulessotherwise I s plan, specification, report or survey wes prepared by me or I ision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and ---�� mder ihe laws of the State of Minnesota. � � �n�9d � : P.S. No. 9235 I EXISlING F40USE I � � i ;�� o ,o � � ( M FEFT ) ----- � ROOF OVEAMANC-I� I 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � — SUMMIT �::� i i ��. � o � � G � � I c�� s�,e � � � I I � V I $88�rJ8�48;Y/ ROOF �VEAHANC-. � 80.32 I I ___ ,�- � � �� w � � ; ,� > ; )� P. \ \ '•^ a-in i/.'.i —•�'��`�� 1 0 / �� / I�Y ' i w I 26 � . w � � � I COVERED � I ENTRY U � �u ' x °�waa"c raa X- 80.32 N88'S8'48"E AVENUE Ui.� �L�bO _ _ ^ _ _ _ _ � _ i I I 1 I � I I I I I I � � � �� -� ' � � � I I I --�------ AVENUE DEPAR1Mb1V'L OF PL.qNNINt'i & ECONOMIC DEVELOpMENT Susan Kimberly, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kel[y , Mayor " 25 West Faurth Stree[ Saint Paul, MN 55T 02 ��p-QD Telephone: 651-266-6700 Facsimi[e.� 651-228-3220 January 11, 2005 � � Ms. Louise Miller 0'Neil 701 Summit Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota SS 10S RE: 701 Sumxnit Avenue Lot Split Zoning File #04-184-543 Dear Ms. O'Neil: This letter is to inform you that the lot split reuiew applicarion for the above referenced property has been approved for compliance with the City of Saint Paul's subdivision regulations, entitling you to record this proposed subdivision with Ramsey County. This approval is subject to providing four off- street parking spaces on the 701 Summit lot according to standards in the Saint Paul Zoning Code if the existing house is to be used as a triplex and three off-street parldng spaces if it is to be used as a duplex. Use of the house as a triplex requires a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Fire Depadment. The new 7109 sq. foot northem pazcel with frontage on Portland Avenue is zoned RM2 Residential, a large enough lot for one residential structure with no more than 2 dwelling units. It is the opinion of zoning staff that there is nothing mmique about this property hat would allow variance of this density standard under the requirements for variance in the Zoning �ode and in State Statutes. The enclosed stamped and signed surveys as approved by the Planning Administrator are your record of subdivision approval by the City of Saint Paul. A stamped and signed survey is required by Ramsey County in order for them to record this proposed subdivision. It is the responsib'tlity of the property owner to record the subdivision with the Ramsey County Department of Property Records and Revenue. Any interested party may appeal this decision bg the Planning Administrator to the Planning Coixunission within ten days as provided under Secfion 61.701 of the Zoning Code. Sincerely, l� � Larry erholm Planning Administrator c: Wendy Lane, LIEP AA-ADA-EEO Employer DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING . & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN"P � Tony Schertler, Interfm Direcmr a , CI1 i Ol' �Ly.t1VT pAUL Christopfier B. Coleman, Mayor 7anuary 12, 2006 Ms. Louise O'NeiI 701 SuuunitAvenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 RE: 701 Suiunut Avenue Lot Sp1it Zoning file #OS-176657 Dear Ms. O'Neil: 25WutFourthStreet Telepkone:65I-266-6700 SnzniPau(MNSSIO2 Facsimile:651-2283220 This letter is to inform you that your tot split application for ffie above referenced property fias been denied because it does not comply with the Ciry of Saint Paul's subdivision regulations. According fo Tom Beach in the Offtce of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection (LIEP), you told him that the use of this property is a triplex. The lot split you have proposed do8s not meet City standards in Section 63.207 of the City Code for tots containing a hiptex. A 4iplex xequires 1.5 off-sfreef parking spaces per unit for a totat of 4 parking spaces. T`he proposals submitfed by your representative have not met this requuement. You may apply for a variance from the parking standazd. Variances are handled by John Hazdwick in the LIBP Office at (651) 266-9Q82. Variances aze a sepazate process `raith a sepazate application fee and require a public hearing befoze the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). If the use of the propeity is no Ionger a triple� please contact Yaya Diatta in LIEP at (651) 266-9080, for an inspec6on to verify the use. In theu review of your proposed lot split, LIEP notes that your property is within the Historic Hill Aeritage Preservation Disfrict and requires review of the lot split by the Heritage Pieservation Commission (HPC). Please contact Amy Spong in LIEP for informa8on about that process. Her phone number is (65I) 266-9684. At this time the Plazming Administrator cannot approve yout application for a lot split. If the use changes or you obtain a pazking variance and reapply for lot split approval within the next yeaz, the Planning Adminishator will waive the application cost for lotsplit review. Any interested party may appeal this decision by the Planning Administrator to the Planning Cominission within 10' days of the date of this letter. If you have questioas, please call A1 Torstenson, the Zoning Super�!isor in PED, at (b51� 266-6579. Sincerely, Larry S d rholm, City of St Paut Planning Administrator cc: TomBeach, Amy Spong„ Yaya Diatta, LTEP • • AA-ADA EEO Employec 0�-l��b Agenda Item III.B. -Removing a historic building, buiZding feature, or landscape or str-eetscape feature that is important in deftning the overall historic character of the district or the neighborhood. 1. The property is classified as pivotal to the historical and uchitectural integrity of the Hill Historic District. 2. The Secretazy of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation state "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize a property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, feafures, size, scale and proportion, and massing ta protect the integrity of the property and its environment. " The proposed lot split and proposed location of a new garage will negatively impact the spatial relationship with the main house. 3. The National Register Nomination for the West Summit Avenue Historic District describes the significance of Summit Avenue: "The potential district is distinguished from its immediate surroundings by larger lots which range from 190 to 250 feet deep. Although lots were platted at 40 and 50 feet wide, most properties site on double or multiple lots. The average residence on Summit Avenue is sited on a lot of 75-80 feet wide. Overall, the feeling on the avenue is one of stateliness. This feeling is a result of the combination of lazge lots, large houses, compatible azchitectural styles, generous set-backs, the boulevard, and mature plantings. It is this combination which sets Summit Avenue apart from adjacent residential neighborhoods to the north and south and makes it a unique avenue in the Twin Cities." � The first lot split approved made the lot about 170 feet deep—while not within the range cited above at 190 to 250 deep, it would still allow for a larger garage with a spatial relationship between the building that is more typical of Summit Avenue mansions of this scale. With the second lot split being proposed now, the depth of the lot would be about 147 feet, negatively impacting the historical integrity of the site and district. Making lazge lots smaller than what was originally intended and designed for Summit Avenue diminishes the significance and stateliness referred to in the National Register Nomination. 4. The Hill District Guidelines state "Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which reguires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originalty intended purpose." Typically, increasing the number of housing units within a large historic building originally built for a single family requires only minimal alteration to the building, site and its environment. Staff believes, however, that by reducing the amount of space available on the lot and the requirements for parking that there will be a negative impact for the long-term preservation and stewardship of this site. 5. The Hiil District Guidelines state "Residential parking spaces should be located in rear yards. All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. The scale of parking dots should be minimized and the.visual sweep of pavement should be broken up by use of planted areas. " Given the proposed location of the off-street parking space and the garage at the northeast comer of the property, the pavement is not broken up by planted areas, nor is the space adequately screened from Summit Avenue, thus not complying with this guideline. • � RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings, the HPC recommends denial of the lot split application. E: Agenda Itei� III.B. District/Neiph borhood Recommettded: • -Identifying, retaining, andpreserving buildings, and streetscape, and Zandscape features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the district or neighborhood. Such features can include streets, alleys, paving, walkways, sh-eet lights, signs, benches, parks andgardens, and trees. -Retaining the historic relationship between buildings, and streetscape and landscape features such as a town square comprised of row houses and stares surrounding a communal park or open space. Alterations/Additions for the New Use -Designing reguired new parking so that it is as unobtrusive as possible, i.e., on side streets or at the rear af buildings. `5hared"parking should also be planned so that several businesses'can utilize one parking area as opposed to introducing random, multiple lots. -Designing and constructing new additions to historic buildings when required by the new ure. New work should be compatible with the historic character of the dish-ict or neighborhood in terms of size, scaZe, design, material, color, and texture. -Removing nonsignificant buildings, additions, or streetscape and Zandscape features which detract from the historic character of the disbict or the neighborhood. Nof Recommended.• -Removing or radicaZly changing those features of the district or neighborhood which are important in defining the overall historic character so that, as a result, the character is diminished, -Destroying streetscape and landscape features by widening existing streets, changing paving material, or � introducing inappropriately located new streets or parking Zots. -Removing or relocating historic buildings, or features of the streetscape and landscape, thus destroying the historic relatianship behveen buildings, features and open space. -Failing to undertake adequate mearures to assure the preservation of building, sh-eetscape, and landscape features. -Replacing an entire feature of the building, streetscape, or landscape such as a porch, walkway, or streetlight, when repair of materials and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing parts are appropriate. -Using a substitute material for the repZacement pcmt that does not convey the visual appecmance of the surviving parts of the building, streetscape, or landscape feature or that is physicaZZy or chemically incompatible. -Removing a feature of the building, streetscape, or landscape that is unrepairable and not replacing it; or repZacing it with a new feature that does not convey the same visual appearance. Design for Missing Historic Features -Introducing a new building, stseetscape or landscape feature that is out of scale or otherwise inappropriate to the setting's historic character, e.g., replacingpicketfencingwith chain linkfencing. -Placing parking facilities directly adjacent to historic buiZdings which cause the removal of historic plantings, relocation of paths and walkways, or blocking of alleys. • -Introducing new construction into historic districts that is visually incompatible or that destroys historic relatiorrships within the district or neighborhood. 7 Oi� - l� bo Agenda Item III.B. of the front yard by a change in grade, a low hedge or a visually open fence. • The buildings, landscaping eZements in front yards, and bouZevmd trees together provide a"wa11 of enclosure" for the street "room". Generally, Zandscaping which respects ihe street as a pubiic room is encouraged. Enclosures which aZlow visual pene[ration of semipublic spaces, such as wrought-iron fences, painted picket _ fences, low hedQes or limestone retainin�wczlls,_cu�e�h�m��to 'rr'�,�s�r�{+�n, z� �','U:-_ approach to Zandscaping and fences is encouraged in contrast to complete enclosure of semipublic space by an opaque fence, a tall "weathered wood" fence or tall hedge rows. Cyclone fence should not be used in jront yards or in the front half of side yards. Landscape timber shouZd not be usedfor retaining wa11s in frontyards. For the intimate space of a shaZZow setback, ground covers and Zow shrubs wi11 provide more visual interest and require less maintenance than grass. YVhen lots are Zeft vacant, as green space or parking area, a visual hole in the street "wall" may result. Landscape treatment.can eliminate this potential problem by providing a wall of enclosure from the street. Baulevard trees mark a separation beriveen the automobiZe'corridor and the rest of the streetscape, and shouZd be maintained. Garages and Parking. Ij an alley is adjacent to the dwelling, any new garage should be located off the alley. Where alleys do not exist, garages facing the street or driveway curb cuts may be acceptable. Garage doors should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single garage doors should be used to avoid the horizontal orientation of two-car garage doors. Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in rear yards. Parking Zots for commercial uses should be to the side or rear of commercial structures and have a minimum number of curb cuts. All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the sh-eet and sidewalk by landscaping. The scale of parking lots should be minimized arxd the visual sweep of pavemettt should be broken up by use of planted areas. The scale, Zeve1 of light output, and design of parking lot lighting should be compatible with the character of the district. • The Secrefarv of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: 1. A properry wi11 be used as it was historically or be given a new use that reguires minimal changes to its distlnctiue materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationshfps. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration offeatures, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterzze a property will be avoided. 3. Each properry will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical deveZopment, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. S. Distinctive materials, features, finishes,'and construction techniques or examples of crajtsmanship that characterize a property wi11 be preserved. 6. 1Jeteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than repZaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, testure, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials wi11 not be used. 8. Archeological resources wiZ1 be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction wi11 not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize a property. The new work sha11 be d�erentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, si�e, scale and proportion, and tnassing to protect the integrzty of the property and its errvironment. • 10. New additions and adjacent or reZated new construction wi11 be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Agenda Item ITI.B. continuity is threatened by the introduction of new industrial materials and the aggressive exposure of earlier materials such as cancrete bZocic, metal framing, and glass. The purpose of this section is to encourage ihe � proper use of appropriate materials and details. The materials and details of new construction should relate to the materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and tile; asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and tzrture of the preferred materials are acceptable substitutes. Imitative materials such as asphaZt siding, wood-textured metal or vinyl siding, artificial stone and artificial brick veneer should not be used. Smooth four- inch lap vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding, when well installed and carefully detailed, may be acceptable in some cases. Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding structures. Color is a significant design element, and paint coZors should reZate to surrounding structures and the area as we11 as to the style of the new structure. BuiZding permits are not required for painting and, although the Heritage Preservation Commission may review and comment on paint color, paint color is not subject to Heritage Preservation Commission approval. Building E[enzents: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construction shouZd compliment existing adjacent structures as well. Roojs. There is a great variety of roof treatment in the H'tstoric Hill District, but gable and hip roofs are most common. The skyline or profiZe of new construction should relate to the predominant roof shape of existing adjacent buildings. Mast houses in Ihe Historic Hil! District have a roofpitch of belrveen 9.•I2 and 12:12 (rise-to-run ratio). F7ighly visible secondary structure roofs should match the roof pitch of the main structure, and generally should have a rise-to-run ratio of at Zeast 9:12. A roof pitch of at least 8:12 shouZd be used if it is somewhat visible from the � street, and a 6:12 pitch may be acceptable in some cases for structures which are not visible from the street. Roof hardware such as skylights, vents, and metal pipe chimneys should not be placed on the front roofplane. Windows and Doors. The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and doors in new construction should be compatib[e with that of existing adjacent buiZdings. Mast windows on the Hill have a vertical orientation, with a proportion of behveen 2:1 and 3:1 (height fo width) common. Individual windows can sometimes be square or horizontal if the rest of the building conveys the appropriate directional emphasis. Facade openings of the same general size as those in adjacent buildings are encouraged. - Wooden double-hung windows are traditional in the Historic HiZl District and should be the frst choice when selecting neiv rvindows. Pqired casement tivindows, aZthough not historicaZly common, wi11 often prove acceptable because of their vertical orientation. Sliding windows, awning windows, and horizontally oriented muntins are not common in the district and are generally unacceptable. T/ertical muntins and muntin grids may be acceptable when compatible with the period and style of the building. Sliding glass doors should not be used where they would be visible from the street. A[though noi usuaZly impr-oving the appearance of a building, the use of inetal windows or doors need not necessarily ruin it. 7Tie important thing is that they should Zook Zike part of the building and not Zike raw metal appliances. Appropriately coZor or bronze-toned aluminum is acceptable. Mil1 f:nish (sZiver) aluminum should be avoided. Site Setback. New buildings should be sited at a distance not more than S% out-of-Zine from the setback of ezisting adjacent buildings. Setbacks.grearer than those of adjacent buildings may be allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at corners. This happens quite often in the Historic Hill area and can lend delightful variation to the street. • Landscaping. Typically, open space in the Historic Hill District is divided into pubZic, semipublic, semiprivate and private space. The pubZic space of the street and sidewalk is often distinguished from the semipublic space �l� - (�bU A�enda Ttem III.B. larger, but the height would. Hazgens reminded that there is a wonderful prominent building on the lot and the . proposed building should be simpler and appear as more of an accessory strvcmre to the main building. Lazson stated that despite difFiculties, the proposed building should be larger than a single family residence. Momssey agreed, but based on the economics of the potential units in the building. Larson added that would be another _ reason to go towards a more modem style; to give it more of an urban identity. He added that the choice of materials will be critical, especially in its relationship with the house on Summit Avenue. Spong stated that sfaff will now be working with Monissey, along with zoning and site plan review. D) GUIDELINE CITATIONS: Historic Hill Disbict Guidelines 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing original gualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 3. AIZ 6uiZdings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. AZterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. Theses changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeoZogical resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. 9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shaZl not be discouraged when such � alteratians and additions do not destroy signifzcant historical, architectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, colar, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. I0. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to sn-uctures shall be done in such a manner that if such alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. New Construction General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic Hill District is to maintain the districPs scale and guality of design. The Historic Hi11 District is architecturally diverse within an overqll pattern of harmony and continuity. These guidelines for new construction focus on general rather than specific design elements in order to encourage architectural innovation and quality design while maintaining the harmony and continuity of the district. New construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color, material, building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the area. Massing and Height: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height and scale of existing adjacent structures. Typical residential siructures in the Historic Hi11 District are 25 to 40 feet high The height of new construction should be no lower than the average height of all buiZdings on both block faces; measurements should be made from street Zevel to the highest point of the roofs. (This guideline does not supersede the City's Zoning Code height Zimitations.) Rhythm and Directiona[ Emphasis: The existence of uniform narrow Zots in the Historic Hill naturally sets up a strong rhythm of buildings to open space. Historically any structure built on more than one loi used vertical facade eZements to maintain and vary the overall rhythm of the street rather than interrupting the rhythm with a long monotonous facade. The directional expression of new constntction should relate to that of existing adjacent structures. • Materials and Details: Variety in the use of architectural materials and details adds to the intimacy and visual delight af the dish-ict. But there is also an overall thread of continuity provided by the range of materials commonly used by turn-of-the-century builders and by the way these materials were used. This thread of CI Agenda Item III.B. was ready to go back to staff to start working on these new problems. He added that he still wanted to get some feedback on the design and would like to heaz the commission address their concerns about the lot split and � express their ideas about the details. Morrissey added that the setbacks for the development in plans he drew up were difficult to come up with due to there being parking lots on both sides of the property, thus no precedent, so they made them ten feet at the front. They also came up with a height based on neighborhood heights. Wilsey asked if the city had given approval for that many units. Morrissey replied that he did not have approvals for anything at this point. Wilsey commented that she was familiar with this lot split and believed that she had been told that it was approved only for a single family residence or duplex. Mortissey replied that was correct, but for the first lot split dimensions. Wilsey quesrioned whether the driveway for the Summit Avenue property was even drivable. Hargens replied that it was tight through the porte cochere. Hargens also requested confirmation that 718 Portland was the only other building on the south side of that block of Portland Avenue along with three pazking lots. Meyer asked that as far as the setbacks aze concemed, what the standazd was. What is the average setback across the street or at 718 Portland? Hazgens agreed that this was an important question to ask and that his sense was that the setbacks were much further back than what had been proposed. Hargens stated there needed to be some respect for the historic pattem there would be part of the lot that would be open, but now as we build were aze covering almost all of it with buildings and parking. There would be dense organization where there was none prior. Larson stated that he had serious concems regazding an important historic house being surrounded by a sea of asphalt and that the back yard would go away and behind that would be the back yard of a neighbor that is proposed to be covered in garages and asphalt. He continued adding that the house proposed for the historic district would be completely surrommded by driveways and no green space and would look like a house set in a parking lot which would be an unsuitable appeazance for the historic district. Morrissey stated that currently there is an abandoned caz and sailboat in the lot a(ong with piles of junk and dead trees adding located in the lot. Lazson replied that he didn't doubt that the lot needed some improvement and reiterated that it is an impodant � site. Hargens added that regazdiess of how many units could be developed on the lot; there would be an issue of site coverage. Hargens asked if there would be a possibility to shaze parking somewhere offering the suggestion of approaching the owners of the surrounding parking lots. He added there aze locations in the district where this has been accomplished. Morrissey replied he has spoken to the church fhat owns the lot to the east, but to explain to them what he was proposing, not to ask about shazed parking. Meyer strongly encouraged him to explore that opfion adding that it would benefit the project Larson stated he understood Morrissey to be making the statement that the proposed building had to have a large footprint in order to be economically feasible. Morrissey replied that it does because he wanted to build something affordable and if the building were smaller, there would be fewer units that would then be more expensive. Lazson replied that if the project comes back to the HPC, he would have a difficult time seeing a building with the same dimensions currently proposed. He added that the setback of the neighbors at 718 Portland appeazs to be thirly feet and if that were to be applied to the proposed development, the building would disappeaz. Larson stated there was just too much going on in the plan for the lot. Hazgens agreed and added that Morrissey should consider making the garages and driveways disappeaz. Hazgens added that stylistically the other building on the block, being modeme, the sryle sketch so far is "vaguely historic" and the Secretary of Interior's Standards encourage new construction to be more of its time yet sympatketic to surrounding azchitecture. Larson added that the former academy building at 718 Portland has a flat roof and that would also work with the proposed development. Wilsey added that the condos across the street have flat roofs as well. Igo added that he's not against building in the lot, but it would have to be just the right size and design. Wilsey suggested attached gazages. Spong replied that Monissey originally suggested a tuck-under garage from the front of the property, which would not be allowed by the guidelines. However, there is precedent for a tuck- under gazage from the rear, but the principle shvcture would become larger and taller. The dish�ict guidelines • state that parking should be detached, at the rear of the property and accessible from the aliey where possible, but the commission may want to consider doing something more creative in this situation but keep in mind that it would make the principle structure lazger. Morrissey replied the footprint wouldn't necessazily become U(� � (P� Agenda item III.B. will be heazd on February 16, 2006. The applicant has also made application to the planning • administrator proposing the second lot split line-34 feet from the rear, because the conditions have changed and the property is now a legal duplex(requiring three pazking spaces instead of four). ---F911nwino arP thP m' >>fP� fr,,,,, +t,a� r . — Concept review for 70x Portland Avenue Historic Hill District Spong stated there was new information based on zoning and site plan review regarding this projecf and the lot split. Spong continued that in order for both property owners to do what is proposed now, major zoning variances would be needed and zoning staff was skeptical if those would be approved. Staff presented a revised report based on this new information with preliminary £indings. Spong stated that she wanted to go into more detail about the big picture and how staff and the developer got to where they were on the project. The lot had been part of 701 Summit Avenue, a home designed by Cass Gilbert. The lot extended from Summit to Portland Avenue. Spong explained that there are a few blocks of Summit where this type of ]ot exists. The owner of 701 Summit Avenue, Pat O'Neil, originally split the lot so that the Portland side of the split could be developed into a one or two-family residence, according to a letter from the planning administrator. The pxospective buyer, Morrissey Development, wanted to do a larger development on the lot and in talking to the owner had come to the agreement to move the lot split line so that the Portland side of the lot would be just over nine thousand square feet and that would theoretically allow for a six-unit development. Spong stated that in ta]king with PED and LIEP staffthe 701 Summit Progerty, classified as a triplex, required four parking spaces and would need to build a garage. However, due to where the lot line was moved, a garage at 701 Summit Avenue would not fit without obtaining variances. The proposed six-unit development on Portland Avenue would also require several variances. Spong stated that commenting on the specifics of the design of this project would be premature at this point. However, in talking with Larry Soderholm, he asked if the commission would respond to the impact of the lot split on the historic district. Since the property that was split is a Cass Gilbert, even if it did become a single-family home again or stays multi-unit, is the lot split a detriment to the district since it • leaves a small yard with very little green space. Spong stated the hope is to have the discussion focus more on the bigger picture of the massing of the development and the impact of lot splits as the commission is akeady reviewing another lot split development at 985 Summit Avenue. Spong pointed out on an aerial photo where the lots were situated, the sTyle, size and setback of neighboring buildings and that the lot proposed for development was boarded on the east and west sides by parking 1ots. Foote asked if the former school was now apartments. Spong stated that she believed it was condos and the developer'confirmed that. Igo asked if the lot split had been approved. Spong replied that the split had not yet been formally approved and that zoning staff was still working to verify whether 701 Summit was a duplex or triplex. Meyer asked far clarification about the lot split drawing, where it came from and the sketched in parking pads for 701 Summit. Spong replied that Tom Beach, site plan review, sketched them in to try to figure out a way to fit four parking spaces on the lot and still have a way to turn a car around since you can not back a car out on to Summit Avenue. Meyer asked if the spaces for parking were to be asphalt. Spong replied the owner had proposed parking pads to comply with the pazking requirement for four off-street spaces, but had plans to build a garage at a later date. Hargens clarified that the HPC's usefulness would be to comment on the bigger picture and added that the aerial context provided to the commissiori was very helpful. Spong stated that the prospective buyer was present to get feedback about whether his proposal would be doable. Meyer asked for clarification on the aerial of the location of Portland Avenue and commented that the proposed development would be in a"field of asphalt " Jason Morrissey, the developer, was present to answer questions. Mr. Morrissey acknowledged that there was not much for the commission to go over given the announcement and stated that "the lot split was done willy- nilly." His opinion was that the owner had "picked a line and threw a sign ouY' and after meeting with Mr. O'Neil reviewed what was necessary to do any multi-family development and to have a conforming lot. Monissey stated that Mr. O'Neil then redrew the line for the split and that required that he move his gazage. He added that the new twist was that the attention was focused more on dealing with the Summit lot and iYs pazking situation than the Portland lot. He stated that he was here now for more of a pre-concept review and 2 A�enda Item III.B. CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: 701 Summit Avenue DATE OF APPLICATION: January 3I, 2006 APPLICANT: Louise O'Neil OWNER: same DATE OF HEARING: February 9, 2006 HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Hill Historic Distric[ CATEGORY: Pivotal CLASSIFICATION: Lot Split STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: Amy Spong DATE: February 2, 2006 – u pdated: Fe bruary 10 2006 A) SITE DESCRIPTION: The W.H. Elsinger House at 701 Summit Avenue was designed by Clarence H. Johnston, Sr. and built by the St. Paul Building Co. in 1898. According to the inventory form, this house is historicatiy significant as the home of St. Paul businessman W.H. Elsinger, owner of the Aberdeen Hotel, partner in the firm of W.H. Elsinger and Company. It is architecturally significant as an impressive, massive house designed by a prominent Iocai azchitect who must have collaborated with the architect of the house next door, Cass Gilbert, since they were both built the same yeaz and compliment each other so weIl. Constructed of rock-faced buff-colored limestone, this two-and-one-half story house has an intersecting hip and gable red tile roof with two small gabled dormers with stone crenellations at the base. There is one stone exterior chimney. Though the facade is somewhat symmetrical, it has a rounded corner huret on the east side. There is a hipped roof open porch with three, wide azched openings supported by squat light-colored stone columns which aze round and have medieval inspired capitals. The property is classified as pivotal to the Hill Historic District. B) PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant is proposing a lot split that would divide the reaz of the property from the front proper[y facing Summit Avenue. The proposed lot split line would be about 34 feet from the rear elevation of the main house. Because the properiy has recently been verified as a legal duplex there is a requirement to provide three off-street parking spaces. The width of the lot is about 80 feet wide. Originally the lot extended through to Portland Avenue, but was split into the current configuration on January 12, 2005. C) BACKGROUND: Lot splits are reviewed and approved by the planning administrator in the City of Saint Paul and there are several conditionsthat must be met in order for a lot split to be approved. Chapter 69 of the City's Legislative Code also states that the administrator "sha11 cause the application to be reviewed by the public wor^ks department and other affected city departments, if appropriate, and sha11 not� the applicant of any required mod f cations. " The first requested lot split was approved as it met the conditions of Chapter 69 and HPC staff fe2t it was consistent with ofher simiIar Iots within the Hill Historic District. The second lot split request moved the reaz lot line closer to 701 Summit Avenue— 34 feet from the rear, was denied based on questions regarding the use of the building as a triplex or a duplex and the concerns stated from the HPC during the concept review on December l, 2005 for a proposed 6-unit buiiding on the north portion of the split parcel facing Portland Avenue. The applicant has appeaIed the planning administrator decision to the planning commission and the appeal C �� J • 1 CITY OF SAINT PAUL ChristopherB. Coleman, Mayor OFFICE OF LICENSE, AISPECTIONS AND ENVII20NMENTAL pROTECTION Bob Kessler, Director COMMERCEBUlLD/NG 8 Four[h Street Eas[, Suite 200 S! P¢u7, Minnesom 55701-/024 o(�- t�o� Te7ephone: 651-166-9090 Facsimile: 651-266-9124 Web: www.liep.vs February 10, 2006 r • Lazry Soderholm Planning Administrator, City of Saint Paul 1400 City Hall Annex, 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re: 701 Summit Avenue - Lot Split, Hill Historic District HPC Business Meeting, February 9, 2006 Deaz Mr. Soderholm: As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) considered at its February 9, 2006 meeting the application for a lot split at the property listed above. The HPC voted 9— 0 to recommend denial of the lot split. This decision was based on the discussion at the meeting, public testimony and findings by the HPC. The findings are listed in the enclosed staff report. Please feel free to call me at 651.266.9079 if you have any questions. Sincerely, � Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist Encl Cc: Ms. Louise O'Neil, owner/applicant Tom Beach, LIEP Allan Torstenson, PED Paul Dubruiel, PED Peter Warner, CAO Wendy Lane, LIEP File AA-ADA-EEO Employer DEPARTMENT�OF PLANNING � & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Tony Schertler, Interim Dvecfor � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Chsistopher B. Coleman, Mayor February 16, 2006 Ms. Louise O'Neil 701 Summit Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 25 WestFourth Stree[ Telephone. 65I-266-6700 Sau[Pau1,MN55102 Facsimile.651-228-32?0 � RE: 701 Summit Avenue Lot Split (Zoning File#06-014383) Dear Ms. O'Neil: This letter is to inform you that your lot split application for the above referenced property has been denied because it does not comply with the City of Saint PauPs subdivision regulations, specifically Section 69.406(a)(1) and (2). As you lmow, on February 9, 2006, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) determined, by a 9-0 vote, fhat your lot split applicafion is not consistent with the Historic Hill : District standards. Essentially, they concluded that a large, beautiful Suminit Avenue house like yours needs to maintain generous yazds. Both the buildings and the yard spaces between the buildings contribute to the gracious hisfonc character of Summit Avenue. I'our proposed lot split would leave your house with an undersized backyard that wquld be out of characterfor Summit Avenue. �' - The HPC's decision was mailed to you on February 10, 2006, together with the staff report and the HPC's fmdings. If you questions about their decisiori, please cail Amy Spong of the HPC staff at 651-266-90'79. Either you or any ofher interested party may appeal this denial of your lot split application to the Saint Paul Planning Commission within ten days of the date of this letter. - If you haue questions, �ilease ca11 AI Torstenson, PED Zoning Supervisor in PED, at (651) 266-6579. Sincerely, Lazry. Soderholm Planning Administrator s • cc: Amy Spong, LIEP; 7eff Hawkins, LIEP; Summit-University Plamiing Council . _. � � . tAlian Torstenson - Comment on File #06-047-517 Page_1 ° �� . From: To: Date: Subject: Lori Brostrom <Ibrostrom@comcast.net> <a Ilan.torsten son @ci.stpau I. m n.0 s> 3(14/2006 11:20:47 AM Comment on File #06-047-517 • Thanks for taking the time to explain to me what the situation is with the lot split proposed for 701 Summit. I walked over there and looked at the site again, and feel that extending the lot line southward would be a signficant detriment to fhe neighborhood. Especially beca�se iYs a biock with no alley, iYs already cramped, and this lot split would create some significant issues with anyone on the Summit Avenue side of the block--not just the future owners of the property at 701 and the adjoining vacant lot, but those next door, too. It would result in unacceptable levels of lot coverage with Iittle green space, and no room to site a garage, resuiting in more cars on the street in an already congested area. Thus, I would request that the current decision denying the lot split, stand as is. Thank you, Lori Brostrom 710 Summit Avenue • D�-�o� • • C J Aerial Photo of property Summit frontage .;�,�., ZF #06-047-517 VW / l.� �� Rear of house ZF #06-047-517 • • • a x".� a u'°^ ��' �,_,�}�' iv 9 $�� x sss��... �r�'� '� c" i a ` .: ,p y'�' � xs :3 •r r° b. �� i -�y�� , �r s .z'.�*� i �� qvh�$��?�d , � �_�� '� e.: � ��k ` � � ri; � `��''` ' A'$�'.. . _ �_ t � . �� ?�.�g�''� '°c??t'�' �,§;f.Y+. S � C -".—°°-� T �- ' .� ��''� z'� .,� § ' a`: . � r .. � i1 ^�e. � .'fi � =a,, r �_�" . = c 3.: _��a..'' x fr _ u , _ _ , _ _ _ qF = -- r i �":.: ' -a . _'"� a, . : t � �., ' . � . ��f r ._ � . .. 6(o-t�oa CITEZEN PAR'fICIPATION PLAFtNING QISTRICTS 1.SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HTGHWOOD 2.GREATE�t EAST SIdE 3.WE5T SIDE 4.DAYTON'S BLUFF , 5.PAYNE-PHALEN • 6.NOR7H END ' a J, ; THOMAS=DAL� ��TUMMIT-UNIVERSITY 9.WE5T SEVENTH , - lO:COMO 11.HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12. ST.. ANTHONY �� O( =�c�} -S (}.. 13.MERRTAM PK.-LEkINGTON HAMLINE . 74.GROV€LAND-MACALES��R 15.HI 16.SUMMIT HILL - 17.00WNT6WN • CITIZEN PARTICIPATIO DIS RICTS ��°� �� — � `�' � A =' � � � �JC d �i � � � � v • � � � �� SUMMIT-UNIVERSITY � � �.:.�....:�.s��o�� x -- � ^ ,�_ .�, � � . �. •. t�� c�� :��,:�-., �f;�::�;, �� - . .,. °{�; ,� �"� �. � � t � �4 � � � � � . � _��' �v -� � � �� : '�° \ ._ �►m,:_ .� �� a�� . t �� ::. � � � 3; : v� :. �':. 's �._:' � ��'r� ,�,. _ . _. ___ - __ __ ..-- F ��. � L LEGCNO --� - PURPOSE �� zoning d�slrici tvundzry /�� p a � , - /� =1LEL'4�'!L 0�� DP�7E �-� su5;zclprop=��y n-�- o;,ti` - °Lt�G. DIST_�__ F,1AP � � o on� Izmily • x n comm;rciz': � � t�.•rofamily 4.n,a industri=.: 0 �""'-- .._--._ �-�Q mulUpl? family _ V vzcan: �^ b . *�° C Op o �o . C �q � b� �• Q a M � c �M N `� ` �V N N `� c � o � N `� ` -=�; b ` � - - ry---- - -- F �� ] � ---z �'='-- �� - 6 N tia N ` -�= ----- o-------- ;� N � � ti` � ti - �� , � P ` b *ti cV � Ro ry: '�I _ Ty � °v- Mq �o �v; ~�- �� °: �nll��Q[1�� N' ^ Y _ � �� 5��87� ZS ~ �'- .' �:J11 dlF�t ?Z.�l�iMO b a _., snr�r�!z �° __ °` y- sr�� .�; e - - -- -- � �- --� -- � -. L+N� ti ,6I7 M � � � � � � � � 1 � f � � _ � 7 � QO � � � � � I � � � � � �. � •. � � � � � � � � � � � � � s � � �i S � � " '8- � � `- .. a � s ,, 9 d" �,� }. M � � � a .k X a: _ � � � � � .. „ / � � ti � � � �,��Z��_'.'� � - - - i -,76=8t-- ,56'9SZ i � I i N � M � ! p ` O �` O. O �' . a ri 1 � Q � � �1 � ^ m �T, � ry.�zb_r€ � f � ' ""'° - ,SL - � N c ei ( . ` i � � . . : • � �� I I � � O � � O v �� ,,, _ .� � �l' �C �� =_ �� t-`t {t d � �� `�e � � � ��:, s ;��'�� y�� , �. ss �� "' �,� .3� r e,.� sY�� tt �;? �,i'�. 3, �� `Fy'� .�*��t � � s�r. � PORTLAND SUMMIT � � � D r � D z � p `�7�;. t- '- � � ,� 3 U� � (�OD cz,t �o � S:.�w�r,<,�.; � �� 3 ��o� C.�u.,��e� ��`llev O `N�:�� z�;v�er j ��cJe �c�v8� o.cy-�ss �� rY'� �r�c:a �or �:.�+uw� �� ek j'�e �ot'7"�ac�� Ve. S:t�e� fot� .>'�, �2�Ifs, P� W:�� czx� ,Z �tkve t''c�isec/ � ��w�T (� �.;.�d Li��e �ee..� c��f ;i�Je/�e� r�c. a�e�c��ivr�i�r� Ess�s ° � �� r� � J l J � / C 1�� %C) � �cz�.tr mY , �s (: uc eV �nr zv-o tr�ci � r� �¢ �c �/� p Ct ! y 7o r�.zJe��/) P"!� tfGY�ZeI� .Se�na � 5�i �.� 1'� c..9LC5 �E��\J�7��f'V: �o �o� �c� ktl�Qle [Lt,CtlDtic.e �aKS�� 5 4 1"e.sK,d'� 1"-� w �.e.ec es5�v - �o c�.ccE 7` � �JCr�;a.4 le � CcS �6+.�� T� ��a�� elc.l� t.e:� Ct�e�. � leij ��V'�Ct,� �wccs � �u ��"' e ��lr��s� lo� o� f�e C'Ctj( � �� 4�oc� v c<u� ��ie ce;6S �/ CerkC�+t� 1 S 't'�zkek Z,cjO lr� ('he �f�ey v� C.r�re C'�e�tret� (ot, (.�JC. co.eec� '�'o l�U'3u�j SG+,:�.e C,Ji(ity '�v ��ct� SacE� dT �cv��'j�w� t'� kaf ��. ra `�� (��a W : - F� c�c�o�'�.�r ) (o�r �{ 54��(CeY 5f'lrz wit� t�slcTe s�y��i�--�c'2t,r�c�ty u5ee �� 0 � T�e �a� 5l9�t� i�a:.i�Q �(c�e� (aEy ` �le9t , �l.iden.W �� `' � oy C�uy 'wC C��JG'�t t�t.��?//)Ya�YrlcTf'� G�lmSQ `�E V7`G�.e L�.cL �.s,a�� ,`t ��:�1� ��.�:�.� TG.z ikfe�4-+t� o� ��u.'� { '� -1r 'J��Oi"EG. ��' x � � O S � � eJ e. f"oYc� �� 'a�tl��.�' ��. 5-� � P��, r-1,J ��i�� (�Sr� ,zaF-br�Et `