06-99Council File # 06-99
Green Sheet # 3029514
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
2 WF�REAS, Wellington Management, Inc., in Planning Commission File No. OS-184-
3 397, made application to the Saint Paul Pianning Commission (hereinafter, the "Commission")
4 for certain variances for the purpose of constructing a 21-unit condominium apartment building
5 on property classified for zoning purposes as RM2, subject to an RC3 overlay commonly
6 known as 205 Otis Avenue, and legally described as DESNOYER PARK RAMSEY CO.,
7 MIlVN. WLY '/z OF VAC ALLEY ADJ AND FOL ELY 15 FT OF LOTS 7 8 AND 9 ALSO
8 ELY'h OF VAC ALLEY ADJ AND FOL LOTS 16 17 AND LOT 18 BLK 46, [Ramsey County
9 PIN No. 052823210026]; and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
WHEREAS, the application requested the following variances: 1) Height, 50 feet (40 ft.
pernutted under the RC3 overlay classification); Front Yazd Setback, 22 feet (25 ft. required
under the RM2 classification); Side Yazd Setback, 7.8 feet ('/z the height of building/25 ft.
required under the RM2 classification); Rear Year Setback, 9 feet. (25 ft. required under the
RM2 classification); and, I,ot Coverage, 53% (35% pernutted under the RM2 classification); and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2005, the Commission's Zoning Committee, having
provided notice to affected property owners, duly conducted a public hearing where all persons
interested were given an opportunity to be heard and, at the close of the hearing, moved to
support the staff recommendation and findings to approve the application and submitted this
recommendation to the Commission; and
WF3EREAS, on November 18, 2005, the Commission, by its Resolution No. OS-96
decided to grant the said variance applications based upon the following findings and
conclusions:
1. The applicant is proposing to construct a muiti-family residential building
with 20 condominium units on three floors, and a fourth floor penthouse
unit that is setback from the roof line of the main building. Underground
parking will be provided for 42 cazs below grade parking spaces for 2 cars
along the south side of the building, for a total of 44 off-street parking
spaces.
2. The proposed building conforms with the maximum height of 50 feet
permitted in the RM2 Multiple-Family Residential District. The site is
also located within the RC3 River Corridor Urban Open Overlay District,
where a maximum height of 40 feet is permitted. The facades of the main
part of the building are three stories and have a height of 39 feet above
grade. The proposed penthouse unit, which is stepped back an average of
1 14 feet from the main building facades, is 50 feet high. A variance of the
2 40 foot RC3 height limit is needed for the 50 food height of the proposed -, ��
3 penthouse unit. �° �
4
5 3. A front yazd setback of 25 feet is required. IvIost of the front facade of the
6 building is set back more than 25 feet and meets this setback requirement.
7 However, three bay projections encroach into the required front yazd, and a
8 3 foot front yard setback variance is requested to allow a 22 foot setback
9 for the three bays.
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
4. The required side yazd setback is'h the height of the building, or 25 ft.
based on the 50 foot height of the penthouse. The north side of the
underground parking garage extends out from the facade of the buiiding
and provides a first floor terrace. At the northeast corner is approximately
3 ft. above grade and 7.8 ft. from the property line, for a variance of 17.2
ft. The south side of the building is approximately 31.5 ft. from the
property line, and no variance is needed.
5. A reaz yard setback of 25 ft. is required. The reaz facade of the building is
setback 16.5 ft. and 19.4 ft., 6 ft., to 8.5 ft. closer to the reaz lot line than
permitted. The west side of the underground parking garage extends out
from the rear facade of the building, provides a first floor teirace, and due
to the slope of the site is approximately, 9.5 ft. above grade. It has a 9 foot
set back from the rear property line, for which a 16 foot variance has been
requested.
�
7
A maacimum lot coverage of 35% is pernvtted and 53% is proposed.
§61.601 set out the required findings for a variance of the Zoning Code:
(a) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict
provision of the code. The proposed four story, 50 foot high multi-family
residential building, including the underground parking that extends out
from the north and west facades of the building and provides a first floor
terrace, is a reasonabie use of this site. The property cannot be put to this
reasonable use under the strict provision of the code.
(b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his
property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner.
The property has a significant slope and a relationship to a taller adjacent
building between the proposed building and the river that aze
circumstances not created by the landowner and unique to this property.
The design of the proposed building is to respond successfully to these
unique circumstances, to the goal in the comprehensive plan and
incentives in the Zoning Code for underground parking to reduce its
negative impact on the surrounding property, and to the intent and purpose
statements in §60.103 (g) and (i) of the Zoning Code to provide adequate
off-street pazking and "to encourage a compatible mix of land uses, at
densities that support transit, that reflect the scale, character and urban
design of Saint Paul's existing traditional neighborhoods."
�
1 (c) The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code,
2 and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of
3 the inhabitants of the City of Saint Paul. This requirement is met. The
4 intent and purpose of the 40 foot RC3 River Corridor District height limit
5 is to implement objectives and policies in the Mississippi River Corridor
6 Plan chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Pian to preserve critical
7 public views between the top of the bluff and the river, and similar
0
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
4�4
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
standards and purpose statements in Governor's Executive Order No. 79-
19, which designated the Mississippi River Corridor as a critical area. The
proposed building will not affect views between the bluff and the river,
and will not even be seen from the river because there is a taller building
between it and the river.
The front yard setback variance for the three bay projections is consistent
with the spirit and intent of §63.106(d) to allow "decorative details and
bay windows ...[to] project into a required yard sixteen (16) inches plus
two (20 inches for each foot of width of the required side yazd.") Because
the proposed bay projections extend down to grade, the Zoning
Administrator does not consider them bay windows, and to avoid any
concern that they may be covered by the term "decorative details" in
§63.106(d), the applicant has requested a setback variance for the three
bay projections.
The intent of the side and rear yard setback requirements is to reasonably
provide for light and air to adjacent property, and a safe distance between
buildings. A setback variance for the underground parking, which is
between 3 ft. and 9.5 ft. above grade and is essentially a first floor terrace,
is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the setback requirements. In
addition, the adjacent property to the north is the vacant rear yard of
institutional property, and a smaller setback here would have no negative
impact on the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of users of the
adjacent property. To the extent that the setback variances are to
accommodate underground parking, the variances are very much in
keeping with the intent and purpose of the code to encourage underground
parking and to minimize the effect of off-street parking on adjacent
property.
The intent of the maximum lot coverage requirement is to maintain a
reasonable amount of green space on the lot. The need for a variance of
this is primarily the result of providing underground parking, which results
in more green space on the lot than if there were surface parking. The
proposed lot coverage variance, combined with providing more green
space by putting the parking under the building, is in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety,
comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the city.
(d) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properry, nor will it alter the essential character of the
surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established properry values
within the surrounding area. This requirement is met. With the added
setback of the fourth floor and the greater than required setback on the
south side of the building, and with the facts that the adjacent property to
,. _, �, �^ ;-
�
the north is the vacant rear yazd of institutional property, and the portion of
the building that is closest to the lot lines is underground parking that
provides a first floor terrace, the proposed variances will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The proposed
building is consistent with the design and scale of surrounding property
buiidings, and will not alter the essential character of the surrounding area
or unreasonably diminish established property values within the
surrounding area.
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
52
(e) The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permined
under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the
affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district
classifzcation of the property. This requirement is met. A multipie-family
residential building is a permitted use in the RM2 Multiple-Family
Residential District and in the RC3 River Corridor Urban Open Overlay
District. The requested variances would not alter or change the zoning
district classification of the property.
(f j The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the
value or income potential of fhe parcel of land. This requirement is met.
The request for variances is primarily to accommodate a building design
that responds most successfully to circumstances unique to this property,
to the goal in the comprehensive plan and incentive in the Zoning Code of
underground parking and for reducing the impact of off-street parking on
surrounding property, and to the intent and purpose statements in
§60103(g) and (i) of the Zoning Code to provide adequate off-street
parking and "to encourage a compatible mix of land uses, at densities that
support transit, that reflect the scale, chazacter and urban design of Saint
Paul's existing traditional neighborhoods."
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of I.eg. Code § 61.702(a), Michael McDonough,
in Zoning File No. OS-207-054, duly filed an appeal from the deternunation made by the
Commission and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the
actions taken by the said Commission; and
WHEREAS, Acting pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected
parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council on January 4, 2006,
where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, The Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the
application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Commission and iYs
Zoning Committee, does hereby
RESOLVE, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby affirms in part, and reverses
in part, the decision of the Commission in this matter, based upon the following findings of the
Council:
1. The Citg Council finds no ezror in fact, finding or procedure with respect to the
Commission s decision to grant Front Yard, Side Yard, Reaz Yazd and I.ot
Coverage variances from the RM2 standards and affirms the decision of the
Commission with respect to those applications and adopts the findings of the
Commission as its own.
2
�
10
11
12
13
14
15
2. The Council finds eiror in the Commission's decision to grant a Height "`
variance from the RC3 overlay district standard of 40 feet to the requested height
of 50 feet for the following reasons:
A. The Commission failed to make specific findings regarding variances
from the River Corridor Overiay District standards under Leg. Code §
68.601(a) which require a River Corridor Overlay District applicant to
"Demonstrate conclusively that such variance will not result in a hazard to
life or property and will not adversely affect the safety, use or stability of a
public way, slope or drainage channel or the natural environment" and that
the requested "Variances shall be consistent with the generai purposes of
the standazds contained in this chapter and state law and the intent of
applicable state and national laws and programs."
16 The resolution of the planning commission did not specifically make either
17 of these findings with respect to the applicant's request to vary the RC3
18 river corridor height standard of 40 feet to 50 feet. The Planning
19 Commission only applied the standard analysis applied to all variance
20 requests under I.eg. Code § 61.601(a-� without making the specific River
21 Corridor variance findings required under L.eg. Code § 68.601(a). Failure
22 to make the specific River Corridor findings constitutes reversible error.
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
52
Although the Planning Commission found that the overall building design
and underground parking resulted in a design that reflected the existing
scale, character and urban design of the surrounding neighborhood, the
Planning Commission failed to make any specific finding showing that the
height variance would not affect the natural environment or that the height
variance was consistent with genera] standards of city, state or federal laws
and programs in the River Corridor. The Mississippi National River and
Recreation Area's Site Development Policies specifically call for "reducing
the visual impact and protect views of the river and from the river and its
shoreline areas by establishing maacimum building heights." The RC3
zoning district restricts building heights to 40 feet. The record is silent as
to why allowing the applicant to build a 50-foot building is consistent with
the general purpose of either the City's River Corridor standards or the
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area's Site Development
Policies. The failure to make any specific finding with respect to
applicable River Corridor variance requirements constitutes an error in the
decision.
B. In addition, granting the height variance violates Leg. Code §
61.601(fl. The requested variance ailows the applicant to build additional
units above the RC3 40-foot height standard the sale of which, the
applicant testified, was necessary to meet the applicant's income
expectations for the overall project based upon the need to cover the cost
of added "improvements" to that portion of the project below the RC3 40-
foot heigh limit. Whatever the explanation, the variance was requested
was based primarily upon a cost or income expectation for developing this
pazcel of land.
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
AND, BE Tl' F[TRTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of Michael McDonough, with
respect only to his appeal of the River Corridor Height variance, is hereby granted for the reasons
noted above, while his appeals with respect to the RM2 standards, aze hereby denied as the
Council does not find any enor in the facts, findings or procedures of the Commission regarding
those variances and, accordingly, the Council adopts the Commissions findings as its own; and,
BE IT FTNALLY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
the Michael McDonough (the appellant), Wellington Management (the vanance applicant), the
Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Adopted by Council: Date
Adoption Certified by Council
�: i
Approved bg i D� � Ols
B�':
� Form Approved by City Attorney
�oOG ay: �� �L ! — "LS_ o G
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
� Green
Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
�' "
� � . :, 06-99
�
Department/office/council: Date Initiated:
PE ����ng&EconomicDeve7opment �,,� Green Sheet NO: 3029514
ContaG Person & Phone- Deoar6nent Sent To Person Initiai/Date
Allan TofStenson � 0 la nin nomi velo "
26fr6700 /�,5�gn 1 lannin & Ernnomic Develo De artment DireMOr
Must Be on Council qgenda by (Date): Number Z • Attorn {^ZS^° �
2SJAN-06 Fa
ROUting 3 or's OtSc Ma odAssistant
Ofder 4 ou cil
5 Clerk Ci C7erk
ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip NI Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
Approve resolution to memorialize Ciry Council action taken I-18-06 to gant in part and deny in part the appeal of Michael
McDonugh of a Planuing Commission decision regazding property at 205 Otis Ave.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Mswer the Following Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this pe�nffinn ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Serrice Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally passessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Ezplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When. Where, Why):
City Charter requues CouncIl Resolukon for all decisions. Minn. Stat. 15.49 requires written statement of zeasons for final decision
denying a zoning application in light of a staff recomendarion to approve the applicarion.
AdvantageslfApproved: '
Council's action complies with city and state regulations.
Disadvantages If Approved:
None.
DisadvanWges If Not Approved:
Council's acrion will not comply with state regularions. Zoning applicarion would be approved by operarion of ]aw, contrary to the
Council's decision.
Total Amount of
Trensaction: � CosURevenue Budgeted: N
FuMlinsa Source: nja Aetivity Number:
Financial Information: -
(Explain)
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Susan Kimberty, Directar
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. Kelly, Mayor
25 A'est Pourth Sbeet
SaintPaui, MN55/02
� �..
�� � �- �..: �
�.�
Telephone: 651-266-6700
Fncsimile: 651-218-3220
��
December 6, 2005
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hail
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, January 4, 2006, for the following zoning case:
Zoning File Number: 05-207-054
Appellant: Michaei McDonough
Address: 205 Otis Avenue, between Dayton and Marshall
Purpose: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of height and setback
variances to construct a 21-unit condominium (Zoning File Number
05-184-397)
Previous Action:
Zoning Committee Recommendation: approval, 5- 0 November 10, 2005
Planning Commission Decision: approval, unanimous, December 2, 2005
I have confirmed this day with Councilmember Benanav's office. My understanding is that this
public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the December 28, 2005, City Councii
meeting and that you wili publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger at least 10
days in advance of January 4, 2006. Please call me at 266-6639 if you have any questions.
Si rely, ��
—�(�L.�.x-cz �
Patricia James
City Planner
cc: File #: 05-207-054
Appeilant; Michael McDonough
Wellington Management, Inc., Tanya Bell
Song Fawcett
Paul Dubruiel
Wendy Lane
Carol Martineau
Allan Torstenson
xoxic� ax rvs�e �sxnac �
1he Saint Paul C�ty Counc�l wilt conduct a
pubHc hearing on Wednesday,danuary 4,
2006 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council
Chambe.rs, Tl�lyd Ftoor City Hall, 15 West
Kellogg Boutevard,; St. paul, NIN, to con-
sYder the appeal of Michael MeDonoughYo
a i3eci "sion-ot the Planning Commission for
approval of height and setback variances
to consiruct a 21-unit condomini.um at
205� Otis Avenue, between Dayt'on and
Mazshall. (Zo nin,� File 05-184-39'7) �
- Dated: Decentber 9, 2005- "
MARY ERICKSON " - � -
Assistant City�Council Secretary "
� (December I5)
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & `� .- - � t"1
ECONO_MIC DEVELOPMENT f ' ° ` � � �
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. Kelly, Mayor
December21, 2005
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Research O�ce
Room 310 City Half
Sainf Paul, Minnesota 55102
Telephane: 651-166-6700
Faccimiie: 651-228-32?0
Re: Zoning File #: 05-207-054
File Name: Michael McDonough
Address: 205 Otis Ave,
Purpose: Appeal ofi a Pianning Commission decision (05-184-397)
approving lot coverage, height and setback variances to construct
a 21 unit condominium.
�
�
Citv Council Hearina: January 4 2006 5�30 p m Citv Council Chambers
Staff Recommendation:
District Councii:
Zoning Committee Recommendation:
Support:
Opposition:
Planning Commission Recommendation:
25 W. Founh Street
SainiPau{ MN55102
Approval
Qistrict 13 Merriam Park recommended approval
Approval, vote: 5 - 0
0 peopie spoke, 0 letters were received
6 people spoke, 4 letters were received
Approval, vote: unanimous
Staff Assigned: Patricia James, 651-266-6639,�
While staff befieves that the Planning Commission's reasons for approving the variances
are clear from the record and has no comments on the merits of the appeal itself, there are
some factuai errors in the Grounds for Appeal that should be pointed out:
2
3
Appellant claims error in Pianning Commission resolution regarding number of units.
Third "Whereas" of Pianning Commission resolution states in pertinent part: "20
condominium units on three floors and a fourth floor penthouse unit...." This totals 21
units, the same number as in the first "Whereas."
AppellanYs analysis of buiiding heights is in error. First, the height was not figured using
average grade of the lot as required in the zoning code. Second, appellant erroneously
assumes that °building height° does not include that part of the underground garage that
is above-grade. In fact, the height variance requesfed iriciudes the garage area that is
above-grade. Even using the lowest point of the lot (135.8 ft.) as the base for calculation
resuits in a building height of 51 ft., not 59_5 ft.
Appellant's interpsetation of "reasonable use° is not consistent with fhe Minnesota Court
of Appeals ruling that "reasonable use' means that the proposed use is a reasonable
use and such reasonable use is not possibie absent a variance. It does not mean that
there is no other reasonable use for the property. (Saqstetter v. Citv of St. Paul, 259
N.W. 2d 488, Minn Ct. App. (1995)
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
Ms. Mary Erickson
Zoning File OS-207-504
Page 2 �. _
+,� '� ` �`
Attachments:
Planning Commission resolution: 05-96 •
Plan�ing Commission minutes, November 18, 2005
Zoning Committee minutes, November 10, 2005
Correspondence received
Staff Report packet
cc: Zoning File #: 05-207-054
Appellant: Michael McDonough
Appiicant: Wellington Management, Ms. Tanya Bell
City Council Members
District Council: 13-Merriam Park
Wendy Lane
Larry Soderhoim
Allan Torstenson
Peter Warner
�
u
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
DepaKment ofPlanning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
1400 City HaZ[ Annex
25 West FouKh Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102-I634
(65I) 266-6589
Name�,C.rfi't-PL �C��,
APPLICANT Address_ ��o fiJ , �i eS �
PROPERTY
LOCATION
City � " @
Zoning File
Address / L
Zip
�
��
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
� Board of Zoning Appeals �City Councii
� Ptanning Commission
Under the provision of Chapter 61, Secfion 1/JJ� Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a
nade by the _
� t� f«6 C� . 20�. File Number: l.o� "���� `" � 1�
(date o decision)
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or
refusal made by an administretive official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding
made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning C� sio . ��� .�
�� �� �.� �� � r�-�-�--�-`- � ���`���
� �� '�.� � _� ���. � ���
� . �, � � �-�� �t �
� c���-�.- --�-� �'�� �
_ -� �� �-�--�' �` � ��'- �-� (/. �
r /� /y
E� "'/ U1�2.).� t/�.L• !�'t�i � � /�B "�`"�
� � yq �� /
(� � '.GA
� °� uv��—�. G�a.�� � - /r ` c�
(attach additional sheet if necessary) � G ���� ` n ����� '
��i
CJ
Applicant's
Cify Agent 1
K:�f'omss]appforzppeal.wpd IS/&/04
�p ; `, �. ;. � � . ..
Appeal to St. Pau{ Planning Commission action to approve variances for 205 Otis Avenue — St.
Paul, Minnesota.
By Michael McDonough 200 Mississippi River Blvd. Unit 4D
651 642-9149
The action approved five variances that allow too large of a building to be built in the Mississippi
River Critical Area. The building should be built to meet the existing zoning cotle. Some
exceptions could be made on the parking level to allow for more underground parking.
current
zoning
front set back
rear set back
north side set back
souih side setback
Developer amouni of %
request increase(decrease increase
25 22
25 9
25 7.8
25 31.5 rta
3.0 12%
16.0 64%
172 69%
na
�
Entrance fo partial underground parking is on this side so the building set back exceeds the 25 required setback
Is there a retaining wall? Does this require a
setback?
height - feet 40 50 90.p 25%
height-Above existing
grade 40 59.5 19.5 49% �
% surtace cover - sq. ft. 35% 53% 18% 51 %
Parking spaces 31 44 (42 partially underground and 2 surface spaces)
1.5/unit? 30 for a 20 unit building or 32 for a 27 unit building?
The 1 � whereas —
The report by the planning commission says 21 units in the 1st whereas, but says 20 units in the
3rd whereas.
#2 States that he maximum height for a building in the Mississippi River Critical area is 40.
The 3rd whereas —
#4 states that the top of the underground parking at the east side of the building is 3 feet
above grade so the building will be 53 feet above the existing grade in this location.
#5 states that the top of the underground parking is 9.5 above grade - so the buiiding wiil be
59.5 feet above the existing grade in this location. (The argument has been made that the
building at 200 Mississippi River Bivd. (MRB) wiil block the view of the proposed new
buiiding. The 200 MRB buiiding is 50 feef tall. The proposed new building maybe shorter than
200 North Mississippi Bivd. as measured from the top of the partial underground parking but
will be higher than 200 Mississippi Blvd. because the existing ground levei at the river side of
the new building is approximately 3 feet higher up the slope away from the river tiian ffie
base of 200 MRB, the "underground" parking is 9.5 above the existing grade and the variance
would allow 50 feet of livabfe space above fhe parking. The top of the proposed new building
wili be 62.5 feef above the base of the 200 MRB. This is 12.5 feet higher than MRB. (The
same height as the single penthouse unit proposed on the new building.)
r ,
��
�l
f ;' � -•- v'.
city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
�
fife number 05-96
date November 18, 2005
WHEREAS, We!lington Management, Inc., File # 05-184-397, has applied for variances, under the
provisions of §61.601 of the Saint Paul Legisfative Code, to construct a 21-unit condominium aparfinenf
building with a height of 50 feet (40 ft. permitted), a 22 ft. front yard setback (25 ft. required), a 7.8 ft.
side yard set back ('/= the height of building/25 ft. required), a 9 ft. rear yard setback (25 ft. required),
and a 53% lof coverage (35% permitted), on property located at 205 Otis Ave, Parcel Idenfification
Number (PINj 052823210026, legally described as DESNOYER PARK RAMSEY CO., MINN. WLY'/z
OF VAC ALLEY ADJ AND FOL ELY 15 FT OF LOTS 7 8 AND 9 ALSO ELY'/z OF VAC ALLEY ADJ
AND FOL LOTS 16 17 AND LOT 18 BLK 46; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on November 10, 2005, held a public
hearing at which ali persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant fo said application
in accordance v�ith the requirements of §64.300 of the Saint Paul Legisfative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning
Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of
fact:
1. The applicant is proposing to construct a multi-family residential building with 20 condominium units
on three floors, and a fourth floor penthouse unit that is set back from the roof line of the main
building. Underground parking will be provided for 42 cars, and below grade parking spaces for 2
cars along the south side of the building, for a totaf of 44 off-street parking spaces.
2. The proposed building conforms with the maximum height of 50 feet permitted in the RM2 Multiple-
Family Residential District. The site is also located within the RC3 River Corridor Urban Open
Overlay District, where a maximum height of 40 feet is permitted. The facades of the main part of
the building are three stories and have a height of 39 feet above grade. The proposed penthouse
unit, which is stepped back an average of 14 feet from the main building facades, is 50 feet high. A
variance of the 40 foot RC3 height limit is needed for the 50 foot height of the proposed penthouse
unit.
3. A front yard sefback of 25 feet is required. Most of the front facade of fhe building is set back more
than 25 feet and meets this setback requirement. However, three bay projections encroach into the
required front yard, and a 3 foot front yard setback variance is requested to allow a 22 foot setback
for the three bays.
4. The required side yard setback is'/z the height of the building, os 25 ft. based on the 50 foot height
of the penthouse. The north side of the underground parking garage extends out from the facade of
the building and provides a first floor terrace. At the norfheast corner it is approximately 3 ft. above
grade and 7.8 ft. from the property line, for a variance of 17.2 ft. The south side of the building is
approximately 31.5 ft. from the property line, and no Variance is needed.
moved by Mortor,
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
l.1
Zoning File # 05-184-397
Piannirog Comrnission Resolution File " „ _
Page 2 � ° ,
5. A rear yard setback of 25 ft. is required. The rear facade of the building is setback 16.5 ft. and 19.4
ft., 6 ft. to 8.5 ft. cioser to the rear lot line than permitted. The west side of the underground parking
garage extends out from the rear facade of the buifding, provides a first floor terrace, and due to the
slope of the site is approximately 9.5 ft. above grade. It has a 9 foot set back from the rear property
line, for which a 16 foot variance has 6een requested.
6. A maximum lot coverage of 35% is permitted and 53% is proposed.
7. §61.601 sefs out the required findings for a variance of the Zoning Code:
(a) The prope�ty in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provision of the
code. The proposed four story, 50 foot high multi-family residential building, including fhe
underground parking that extends out from the north and west facades of the building and
provides a first floor terrace, is a reasonabie use of this site. The property cannot be put to this
reasonable use under the strict provision of the code.
(b) The plighf of fhe landowner is due to ci�cumstances unique to his properfy, and these
circumsfances were not creafed by tire landowner. The property has a significant slope and a
relationship to a taller adjacent building between the proposed building and the river that are
circumstances not created by the landowner and unique to this property. The design of the
proposed buifding is to respond successfully to these unique circumstances, to the goal in the
comprehensive plan and incentives in the Zoning Code for underground parking to reduce its
negative impact on surrounding property, and to the intent and purpose statements in
§60.103(g) and (i) of the Zoning Code to provide adequate off-street parking and "to encourage
a compatibie mix of land uses, at densities that support transit, that reflect the scale, character
and urban design of Saint Paul's existing fraditional neighborhoods."
(c) The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intenf of fhe code, and is consistent with
the fiealfh, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Saint Paul. This
requirement is met. The intent and purpose of the 40 foot RC3 River Corridor Disfrict height
limit is to implement objectives and policies in the Mississippi River Corridor Plan chapter of the
Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan to preserve critical pubiic views befween the top of the biuff
and the river, and similar standards and purpose statements in Governor's Executive Order No.
79-19, which designated the Mississippi River Corridor as a critical area.. The proposed
building wi(I nof affecf views befween the bluff and the river, and wi(I not even be seen from tt�e
river because there is a tailer building between it and the river.
The front yard sefback variance for the three bay projecfions is consisfenf wifh fhe spirif and
intent of §63.106(d) to allow "decorative details and bay windows ...[to] project into a required
yard sixteen (16) inches pius two (20 inches for each foot of width of the required side yard."
Because the proposed bay projections extend down to grade, the Zoning Administrator does
not consider them bay windows, and to avoid any concern that they may not be covered by the
term °decorative details" in §63.106(d), the applicant has requested a setback variance for the
thre,e bay projections.
The intent of the side and rear-yard setback requirements is to reasonabiy provide for Iighf and
air to adjacent property, and a safe distance between buildings. A setback variance for the
underground parking, which is befweet� 3 Ft. and 9.5 ft. above grade and is esse�tially a first
floor terrace, is in keeping with the infent and purpose of fhe setback requiremenfs. In addifion,
the adjacent property to the north is the vacant rear yard of institutionai property, and a smaller
setback here would have no negative impact on the heatth, safety, comforE, morals and v,relfare
of users of the adjacent property. To the extenf that the setback variances are to
accommodate underground parking, fhe variances are very mueh in Keeping with the intent and
purpose of the code to encourage underground parking and to minimize the effect of off-sfreet
parking on adjacent property.
,.
,
Zoning File # OS-184-397
Planning Commission Resolution File
Page 3
The intent of fhe maximum lot coverage requiremenf is to mainfain a reasonable amount of
green space on the iot. The need fior a variance of this is primarily the result of providing
underground parking, which results in more green space on the lot than if there were surface
parking. The proposed lof coverage variance, combined with providing more green space by
putting the parking under the building, is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
consisien't wi'th fhe healih, satefy, comfort, morais and welfare of fhe inhabitants of the city.
(d) The proposed variance will nof impair an adequate supply of lighf and air fo adjacent properfy,
nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonab(y diminish
established property values within the surrounding area. This requirement is met. With the
added setback of the fourth floor and the greater than required setback on the south side of the
building, and with the facts that the adjacenf property to the north is the vacant rear yard of
institutional property, and the portion of the building that is ciosest to the lot lines is
underground parking that provides a first floor terrace, the proposed variances wili not impair an
adequafe supply of light and air to adjacent property. The proposed building is consistent with
the design and scale of surrounding prope�ty buildings, and wi4l not alter the essentia! character
of the surroundfng area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the
surrounding area.
(e) The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the p�ovisions of
the code for the property rn the district where the affected land is located, nor would rt alter or
change the zoning district classifrcation of the property. This requirement is met. A multiple-
family residential building is a permitted use in the RM2 Multiple-Family Residential District and
in the RC3 River Corridor Urban Open Overlay District. The requested variances would not
a(ter or change the zoning district classification of the property.
(f) The requesf for variance rs not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or rncome
potential of the parcel of land. This requirement is met. The request for variances is primarily to
accommodate a building design that responds most successfulfy to circumstances unique to
this property, fo the goai in fhe comprehensive pian and incentives in the Zoning Code for
underground parking and for reducing the impact of off-street parking on surrounding property,
and to the intent and purpose statements in §60.103(g) and (i) of the Zoning Code to provide
adequate off-street parking and "to encourage a compatible mix of land uses, at densities that
support transit, that reflect the scale, character and urban design of Saint Paul's existing
traditional neighborhoods."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, under the authority
of the City's Legislative Code, that the application of Weliington Management for variances to construct
a 4-story, 50 ft. tall, 21-unit condominium apartment building with a 22 ft. front yard sefback, 7.8 ft. side
yard setback, a 9 ft. rear yard setback, and a 53 % lot coverage at 205 Otis Avenue is hereby approved.
MINUTES OF THE ZONfNG COMMlTTEE
Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 3:30 p.m,
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor
Cify Hail and Court House
'IS Wesf Kellogg Boulevard
PRESENT: Alfon, Anfang, Johnson, Kramer, Mejia and Mo�on
STAFF: Christina Danico, Patricia James, Allan Torstenson, Emily Ulmer, and Peter Warner
EXCUSED: Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, and Gordon
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton.
Shadow Falls - Otis (05-184-397) - Application for variances to construct a 21-unit condominium
apartment building: 'I) height, 40 ft permitEed, 50 ft proposed; 2) front yard sefback, 25 ft required, 22
ft proposed; 3) side yard sef back, 1/2 the height of building required, 7.8 ft proposed; 4) rear yard
setback, 25 ft required, 9 ff proposed; 5) lot coverage, 35% permitted; 53% proposed.
Shadow Falls - Otis (OS-182-739) - Sife Plan Review for a 21-unit condominium apartment building.
205 Otis Avenue, between Dayton and Marshall.
Patricia James presenfed the staff report with a recommendation of approval for the Variances, and a
recommendation of approval with conditions for the Site Pian Review. Ms. James also stated that District 13
recommended approvai with conditions for the Variances, and made no recommendation for fhe Site Plan
Review. There were no lefters in support, and 4 letters in opposition.
Song Fawcett, the attorney representing the applica�t, was present to answer questions.
Phii Zines, 191 Otis Avenue, objected to any change in the zoning of the property, citing the height variance,
density, and neighborhood integrity as his main concerns.
Michael McDonough, 200 N. Mississippi Boulevard, stated that he opposed the projectdue to its location in
the designated Critical Area of the Mississippi River, and because the building he currentiy lives in afready has
storm water problems. He also noted that the curre�t struc�ure on the site may be historically significant.
Lois Balfanz, 220 N. Mississippi Boulevard, stafed concems regarding the setback variances in regard to
future buildings on their property.
Leonard Fricke, 200 N. Mississippi Boulevard, stated that he is opposed to the variances because they wi{I
increase already high demand for parking. He added that any proposals for the site should include solutions
for neighborhood parking problems.
Barb Haley, 75 Otis Avenue, gave her opposition to the variances, stating that there is too much traffic and
insufficient parking in the neighborhood.
Catherine Born, 200 N. Mississippi Boulevard, represented fhe condominium association of the same address.
She suggested a traffic and parking impact study be completed on the area, analyzing automobile speed and
pedestcian safety. She stated that they are pleased that the development is residential, but added that she
also has storm water concerns.
Pete Keely, architect of the project, reviewed the proposed design, addressing the parking and storm water
concerns of residents. He added that changes to the plan were made in response to community input, and
noted that the extra heighf allows the developer to provide more high quality maferials and underground
parking. Mr. Keely also clarified the parking garage setbacks and visibility.
The public hearing was closed.
�
Commissioner Matthew J. Mejia moved approva( of fhe Variances. Commissioner seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0
Adopted Yeas - 5 Nays - 0 Abstained - 0
Commissioner Matthew J. Mejia moved approval with conditions of fhe Site Plan Review. Commissioner Brian
Alton seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0
Adopted Yeas - 5 Nays - 0 Abstained - 0
Drafted by:
���,���-
Christina Danico
Recording Secretary
Submitted by:
Patricia Jarnes
Zoning Section
Approved by:
1 `� � �
Gladys M on
Chair
�
ZGMinufes.fm�
1
�
city of saint paul
planning commission resolu#ion �� �
file number o5-96
date November 18. 2005
WHEREAS, Weliington Management, Inc., File # 05-184-397, has applied for variances, under the
provisions of §61.601 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to construct a 21-unit condominium aparfinent
building with a height of 50 feet (40 ft. permitted), a 22 ft. fronf yard setback (25 ft. required), a 7.8 ft.
side yard set back ('/ the height of building/25 ft. required), a 9 ft. rear yard setback (25 ft. required),
and a 53°10 4ot coverage (35°!o permitted), on property located at 205 Otis Ave, Parcel fdentification
Number (PIN) 052823210026, legally described as DESNOYER PARK RAMSEY CO., MINN. WLY'/
OF VAC ALLEY ADJ AND FOL ELY 15 FT OF LOTS 7 8 AND 9 ALSO ELY'/z OF VAC ALLEY ADJ
AND FOL LOTS 16 17 AND LOT 18 BLK 46; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on November 10, 2005, held a public
hearing at which ali 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 at the public hearing as substantially ref�ected in the minutes, made the following findings of
fact:
1. The appiicant is proposing to construct a multi-family residential building with 20 condominium units
on three floors, and a fourth floor penthouse unit that is set back from the roof line of the main
buiiding. Underground parking will be provided for 42 cars, and below grade parking spaces for 2
cars along the south side of the buiiding, for a total of 44 off-street parking spaces.
2. The proposed building conforms with the maximum height of 50 feet permitted in the RM2 Multip(e-
Family Residential District. The site is aiso located within the RC3 River Corridor Urban Open
Overlay Disfrict, where a maximum height of 40 feet is permitted. The facades of the main part of
the buiiding are three stories and have a height of 39 feet above grade. The proposed penthouse
unit, which is stepped back an average of 14 feet from the main buiiding facades, is 50 feet high. A
variance of the 40 foot RC3 height limit is needed for the 50 foot height of the proposed penthouse
unit.
3. A front yard setback of 25 feet is required. Most of the front facade of the building is set back more
than 25 feet and meets this setback requirement. However, three bay projections encroach into the
required front yard, and a 3 foot front yard setback variance is requested to aliow a 22 foot setback
for the three bays.
4. The required side yard setback is Y the height of the building, or 25 ft. based on the 50 foot height
of the penthouse. The north side of the underground parking garage extends out from the facade of
the buiiding and provides a fust floor teerace. At fhe northeast corner it is approximately 3 ft. above
grade and 7.8 ft. from the property line, for a variance of 17.2 ft. The south side of the building is
approximately 31.5 ft. from the property line, and no variance is needed.
moved by Morton
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against _ _
.� � �
i
Zoning Fiie # 05-184-397
Planning Commission Resolution File
Page 2
5. A rear yard setback of 25 ft. is required. The rear facade of the building is setback 16.5 ft. and 19.4
ft., 6 ft. to 8.5 ft. closer to the rear lot line than permitted. The west side of the underground parking
garage extends out from the rear facade of the building, provides a first floor ferrace, and due to the
slope of the site is approximately 9.5 ft. above grade. It has a 9 foot set back from the rear property
line, for which a 16 foot variance has been requested.
6. A maximum lot coverage of 35% is permitted and 53% is proposed.
7. §61.601 sets out the required findings for a variance of the Zoning Code:
(a) The property in question cannot be puf fo a reasonable use under fhe strict provision of the
code. The proposed four story, 50 foot high multi-family residentiai building, including the
underground parking that extends out from the north and west facades of the building and
provides a first floor terrace, is a reasonable use of this site. The property cannot be put to this
reasonable use under the strict provision of the code.
(b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his properfy, and these
circumstances were not created by fhe landowner. The property has a significant slope and a
relationship to a taller adjacent building between the proposed building and the river that are
circumstances not created by the landowner and unique to this properfy. The design of the
proposed building is to respond successfully.to these unique circumstances, to the goal in the
comprehensive plan and ince.ntives in the Zoning Code for underground parking to reduce its
negative impact on surrounding property, and to the intent and purpose statements in
§60.103(g) and (i) of the Zoning Code to provide adequate off-street parking and "fo encourage
a compatible mix of land uses, at densifies that support transit, that reflect the scale, character
and urban design of Saint Paul's existing traditional neighborhoods."
(c) The proposed varrance is in Keeping with the spirit and intenf of the code, and is consistenf wrth
fhe t�ealfh, safety, comforf, morals and welfare of the inhabitanfs of the City of Saint PaUl. This
requirement is met. The intent and purpose of the 40 foot RC3 River Corridor District height
limit is to implement objectives and policies in the Mississippi River Corridor Plan chapter of the
Saint Paul Comprehensive Pian fo preserve critical public views between the top of the bluff
and the river, and similar standards.and purpose statements in Governor's Executive Order No.
79-19, whfch designated the Mississippi River Corridor as a critical area.. The proposed
building will not affect views befween the biuff and the river, and will not even be seen from tMe
river because there is a taller building between it and the river.
The front yard setback variance for the three bay projections is consistent with fhe spirit and
intent of §63.106(d) to allow "decorative details and bay windows ...[to] project into a required
yard sixteen (16) inches plus two (20 inches for each foot of width of the required side yard."
Because the proposed bay projections e>tfend down to grade, the Zoning Administratnr d.oes
not consider them bay windows, and to avoid any concern thaf they may not be covered by the
� term "decorative details" in §63.106(d}, the applicant has requesfed a setback variance for the
fhree bay projections. ,
The intent of the side and rear-yard setback requirements is to reasonably provide for light and
air to adjacent property, and a safe distance between buildings. A setback variance. for the
underground parking, which is between 3 ft. anct 9.5 ft. above grade and is essentialiy a first
floor terrace, is in keeping with the intent and purpose of fhe setback requirements. In addition,
the adjacent property to the north is the vacant rear yard of institutional property, and a smaller
setback here would have no negative impact on the heatth, safety, comfort, morals and weifare
of users of the adjacent property. To the e�enf fhat the setback variances are to
accammodate underground parking, the variances are very mueh in keep�ng with tf�e infent and
purpose of the code to encourage underground parking and to minimize the effect of off-street
' parking on adjacent property.
�
Zoning File # 05-184-397
Planning Commission Resolution File
Page 3
The intent of the maximum 1ot coverage requirement is to maintain a reasonable amount of
green space on the lot. The need for a variance of this is primarily the result of providing
underground parking, which resulfs in more green space on the lot than if there were surface
parking. The proposed lot coverage variance, combined with providing more green space by
putting the parking under the building, is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
consis'teni with fhe health, satety, comfort, morals and wellare of the inhabitants of the city.
(d) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property,
nor wi/! if alfer the essenfial characfer of fhe surrounding area or unreasonably diminish
established property values within the surrounding area. This requirement is met. With the
added setback of the fourth floor and the greater than required setback on the south side of the
building, and with the facts that the adjacent property to the north is the vacant rear yard of
institutionai property, and the portion of the building that is closest to the lot lines is
underground parking that provides a first ffoor terrace, the proposed variances wi{I not impair an
adequate suppiy of light and air to adjacent property. 7he proposed building is consistent with
the design and scale of surrounding property buildings, and will not alter the essential character
of the surrounding area or unreasonabiy diminish established property values within the
surrounding area.
(e) The var�ance, if granted, would not permit any use that is nof permitted under the provisions of
the code for the property in the district where the atfected land is located, nor would it alter or
change the zoning district classiflcation of the properfy. This requirement is met. A mult+ple-
family residential building is a permitted use in the RM2 Multiple-Family Residentiai District and
in the RC3 River Corridor Urban Open Overlay District. The requested variances would not
aiter or change the zoning district classification of the property.
(f) The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income
potential of tFie parcel of land. This requirement is met. The request for variances is primarily to
accommodate a building design that responds most successfully to circumstances unique to
this property, to the goal in the compFehensive plan and incentives in the Zoning Code for
underground parking and for reducing the impact of off-street parking on surrounding property,
and to the intent and purpose statements in §60.103(g) and (i) of the Zoning Code to provide
adequate ofiP-street parking and "to encourage a compatible mix of land uses, at densities that
support transit, that reflect the scale, character and urban design of Saint Paul's existing
traditional neighborhoods."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, under the authority
of the City's Legislative Code, that the application of Weliington Manageme�t for variances to construct
a 4-sfory, 50 ft. tall, 21-unit condominium apartment building with a 22 ft. front yard setback, 7.8 ft. side
yard setback, a 9 ft. rear yard setbacR, and a 53 % lot coverage at 205 Otis Avenue is hereby approved.
� `� -
• #7b states fhat the property can not be put to a reasonable use — A 4-s#ory, 20 ur�it building is
reasonable. lt does not need the 5' floor penthouse to be reasonable. At 49.5 above grade at
the river side of the building it would still be 9.5 feet higher than the allowed 40 feef.
#7c states that the purpose ofi the criticaV area is to preserve critical public views between the
top of the biuff and the river. The variance as approved by the planning commission would
ailow for a building that is 59.5 feet tall that would raise to 12.5 feet above the building at 200
North MRB. The Mississippi Gorge parks were established at the turn of the century to keep
the river shoreline and bluffs parks for all of the public. The Mississippi Gorge Park is the
second most visited park in St. Paul affer Como. The real estate values of homes that have
been built afong MR8 are some ofi the highest in the city — clearly a result of views of the river
and being on the parkway. If St. Paul has a"gold coasY' this is it. People are attracted to the
naturalness of the river gorge parkways. If the parkways are lined with tall building the values
witl decline. �he top ofi the proposed new building will be at a higher elevation than the
building between it and the river (200 Miss Bivd.). Also the building will easily be seen from
the paths along both MRB and West River Road in Minneapolis and from some water surtace
of the river over the single story rambler to the SW of the building and over the 2.5 story
building to the NW of it.
The 3rd whereas -#7d States that the variances will not impair adequate light or air to the
adjacent property. Allowing a new building to be closer to the west and north property lines
than permitied by current zoning will reduce light and air movement into the building to the
west and future development on the property to the north. Eastern morning sunlight light will
be blocked from entering some of the windows on the east side of the building at 200 MRB if
� the variances are granted.
#7f States that the variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase value or income
potential. This statement should be plural - there are five different requested variances.
The requested height variance is to allow for the 5�' floor (Parking level plus fhree full floors
and penthouse). The proposed oenthouse is for economic qain Units in the development
were reported to be for sale for between $350,000 and $850,000; later revised to $460,000 to
$1,300, 000. (Some ofi the other requested variances may help accommodate the partial
underground parking but the surtace cover ratio is also a factor.)
In regards to the approvai of the impervious surtace cover variance from 35% to 53% the
developer could maintain the maximum 35% impervious cover by installing a green roof on top of
the buiiding.
� J
ci�y of saint pau(
planning commission resolutio�
o����
fi[e number 05-96
C�ate IVovember 18 2005
WHEREAS, Weilington Management, Inc., File # 05-184-397, has applied for variances, under the
provisions of §61.601 of fhe Saint Paul Legisiative Code, fo construct a 21-unit condominium apartmen:
buiiding with a heighf of 50 feet (40 ft. permitted), a 22 ft. fronf yard setback (25 ft. required), a 7.8 ft.
side yard sef back (% the heighf of building/25 ft. required), a 9 ft. rear yard setback (25 ft. required),
and a 53% Iot coverage (35% permitted), on property located at 205 Otis Ave, Parcel Identification
Number (PIN) 052823210026, lega!!y described as DESNOYER PARK RAMSEY CO., MINN. WLY'/
OF VAC ALLEY ADJ AND FOL ELY 15 FT OF LOTS 7 8 AND 9 ALSO ELY Yz OF VAC ALLEY ADJ
AND FOL LOTS 16 17 AND LOT 18 BLK 46; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on November 1 Q, 2005, heid a pubiic
hearing at which all persons present were given an opporEunity fo be heard pursuant fo said application
in accordance with fhe requirements of §64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Pauf Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning
Committee at the public hearing as substantialiy reflecied in ffie minutes, made the following findings of
fact:
�
1. The applicant is proposing to construct a multi-family residential building with 20 condominium units
on three floors, and a fourth floor penthouse unit that is set back from the roof line of the main �
building. lJnderground parking will be provided for 42 cars, and below grade parking spaces for 2
cars along the south side of the buifding, for a totai of 44 off-street parking spaces.
2. The proposed building conforms with the ma�mum height of 50 feet permiffed in fhe RM2 Mu(fip(e-
Family Residenfiai District. The site is also located within the RC3 River Corridor Urban Open
Overlay Districf, where a maximum height of 40 feet is permitted. The facades of fhe main parf of
the building are three stories and have a height of 39 feet above grade. The proposed penthouse
unit, which is stepped back an average of 14 feet from the main buiiding facades, is 50 feet high. A
variance of the 40 foot RC3 heighf limit is needed for the 50 foot height of fhe proposed penthouse
unit.
3. A front yard setback of 25 feef is required. Most of the front facade of the building is set back more
than 25 feet and meets fhis setback requirement. tiowever, three bay projections encroach into the
required front yard, and a 3 foot frortt yard setback variance is requested fo al(ow a 22 foot setback
for fhe three bays.
4. The required side yard setback is % the lieighf of the building, or 25 ft. based on the 50 f.00t height
of fhe perithouse. The north side of the underground parking garage extends out from the facade of
fhe building and provides a first ftoor terrace. At the norfheast comer it is approximafely 3 ft, above
grade and 7.8 fit. from the property line, for a variance of 17.2 ft. The south side of the building is
approximately 31.5 ft. from the properry line, and no variance is heeded.
moved by Morton
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
�
•
Zoning File � OS-184-397
Planning Commission Resoluiion File
Page 3
..., ,
The inient of the maximum lof coverage requiremenf is to main�ain a reasonable amou�t of
green space or ihe lot. The need for a variance oi ihis is orimarily the result oi providing
underground parking, which resuits in more green space on the Iot �han if �here were surface
parking. The proposed Io't coverage variance, combined with providing more green space by
pu;ting the parking under the building, is in keeping with the spirif and inten*, of the code, and is
consistent with fhe health, safefy, comfort, morais and welfare of the inhabitants of :he city.
(d) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property,
nor will rt alter the essenfia/ character of fhe surroundrng area or unreasonably diminish
established property values within the surrounding area. This requirement is met. Wifh the
added setback of the fourth floor and the greater fhan required setback on ihe south side of the
building, and with the facts that the adjacenf property to the north is the vacant rear yard of
institutionai property, and the portion of the building that is closest to the lot lines is
underground parking that provides a first fioor terrace, the proposed variances wiil not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The proposed building is consistent with
the design and scafe of surrounding property buiidings, and wifl not alter the essential characfer
of the surrounding area or unreasonabiy diminish established property values within the
surrounding area.
(e) The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted unde� the provrsions of
the code fo� the property in tha dist�rct where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or
change the zoning disfrict classifrcation of fhe properfy. This requirement is met. A multiple-
fami4y residential bui4ding is a permitted use in the RM2 Multiple-�amify Residenfiai District and
in the RC3 River Corridor Urban Open Overlay District. The requested variances would not
alter or change the zoning disfrict classificafion of the property.
The requesf for variance is nof based primarily on a desire to increase the value orincome
potentia! of the parcel of land. This requirement is met. The request for variances is primarily to
accommodate a building design that responds most successfuily fo circumstances unique to
fhis p�operty, to the goal in fhe comprehensive plan and incentives in the Zoning Code for
underground parking and for reducing the impacf of off-street parking on surrounding property,
and to the intent and purpose statements in §60.103(g) and (i) of fhe Zoning Code fo provide
adequate off-street parking and "to encourage a compati6le mix of fand uses, at densities that
support transit, that reflecf the scale, character and urban design of Saint Paul's existing
traditional neighborhoods."
THEREFORE, SE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Pianning Commission, under the authority
City's Legislative Code, that the appiication ofi Wellington Management for variances to construcf
� �
NOW,
of the
a 4-sfory, 50 ft. tail, 21-unit condominium aparfinent building wifh a 22 ft. front yard setback, 7.8 ft. side
yard setback, a 9 ft. rear yard setback, and a 53 % lof coverage at 205 Otis Avenue is hereby approved.
��
�
Saint Paul PIanning Commission
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Bouievard West
_: -����i
Minutes of November 18, 2005
A meeting of ffie Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 18, 2005,
at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners Mmes. Doanelly-Cohen, 2immer Lonerii, Lu, McCall, Morton,
Present: and Porter; and Messrs. A1ton, Anfang, Bellus, Coletta, Gordon, 7ohnson,
Kramer, and Mejia.
Commissioners Mmes. *Faricy; "Trevino and Messrs. y Aligada, Dandrea, *Goodlow, Kong, and
"Scott.
Absenf:
"Excused
Also Present: Lazry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Allan Torstenson, Patricia James,
Christina Danico, Eznily Ulmer, Shawntera Hardy, Jessica Rosenfe�d,
Councilmember Lee Aelgen, and Kate Fleming, Department of Planning and
Economic Development staff:
T.
Q
Approval of minutes of November 4, 2005
MOTION: Commissioner poxnelly-Cohen moved approval of the minutes ofNovember 4,
2005. Commissioaer Coletta seconded the motio�x. TTie mofion carried unanimously on a voice
vote.
Chair's Announcements
Chair Johnson announced that with the transition to the new Mayor the Planniug Commission will
be involved in a lot of activifies in the next few months.
Chair Johnson reminded members of the Holiday Parry, December 9, 2005, at Awada's. This
year members can bring a guest. A sign-up sheet for the parry is being circutated at today's
meeting. The Steering CommitEee decided to also invite the BZA to the party because of its close
relationship with the Planning Commission on zoning cases..
Chair 7ohnson stated that eazlier this month, �ut Milbum, Director of the Phalen Corridor
Tnitiative, went to the 2005 National Brownfields Con£erence in DenvBr, where the Czty of Saint
Paul received the top award for the Best Brownfceld Pzoject in the country. The Chair has inyited
Mr. Milbum to make a gresentation to the Planning Commission in December.
�
�
�
�
�
III. . Planning Administrator's Annonncements
E\�I
Larry Soderholm *epored on Ciry Council business ior last week and announced fheir agenda ioz
next week.
Mr. Soderholm is arranging-aa interdepartmertal stafi meeting on December 5, 2005, to collect
comments on the Capitol Regioa Watershed Disfrict's proposed rules. The comments will go to
the City Council meeting on December 14th_ The Watershed DisL*ict has extended its public
comment period until Decembe* I5, 2005. The Planning Commission may want to prepaze
comments of its own at its meeting on December 2nd.
Zoning Committee
Commissioner Morton gave the Zoning Committee report.
OLD BUSTNESS
# OS-162-754 - EnvironmentaJ Wood Su�piv - Review of Conditionai Use Permit approved in
2004 for wood recycling center. 2165 Pigs Eye Lake Road, between CP rail yards and
Metropolitan Waste Treatrnent Plant. (PatriciaTames, 651/266-6639)
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Committee's recommendaxion that the
case be Zazd oves up to 60 d¢ys. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
NEW BUSIt�TESS
# 05-184-095 - Gloria Dei Lutheran Church - Conditional Use Pemut to allow for ovemighf
emergency shelter one month per yeaz. 700 S. Snelting Avenue, between Highland and Eleanor.
(EmiZy Ulmer, 651/266-6591)
MOTION: Commissioner Morton rnoved the Zoning CommiEtee's recommendation to approve
the conditional use permit. The motion earried unanimously on a voice vote.
# OS-184-397 - Shadow Falls - Otis - Application foz variances to construct a 21-unit
condominiuxn: 1) height, 40 ft pemutted, 50 ft requested for 10 ft variance; 2) front yazd setback,
25 ft required, 22 ft requested for a 3 ft vaziance; 3) side yazd set back, %z the height of building
required, 8$ requested; 4) reaz yard setback, 25 ft required, 9 ft requested for a 15 ft variance.
205 Oris Avenue, between Dayton and Marshall. (Patricia Tames, 651/266-6639)
the variances . The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Committee's recommendation to approve
�
/
i
� � �'�
0
�r OS-182-739 - Shadow Fa2�s - Otis - Site Plan Review for a 21-unif condominium.
20S Otis Avenue, between Dayton and Mazshall. (Tom.Beach, 651/266-9086)
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Commiitee's recommendation to approve
the site pZan review with conditions. The motion camied unarzimously on a voice vote.
7 OS-184-704 - Wellineton Manaeement- Rezoning from B2 (Community Business) to TN2
(Traditional Neighborhood) for 7-sfory mzxed use building with 24 residential unifs. 2318
Mazshall Avenue, SE comer of Otis. (Patricia Tarrces, 651/266-6639)
MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Committee's recorrzmendation to approve
the rezorzing. The motion carried ananimously on a voice vote.
: OS-184-791 - Wellinaton Manaeement _ Vaziances of heighf and setback to construct a 7-story
building with a 54 ft. height for the main mass of the building (the lower 5 floors), a 78 ft. height
for the Yop fwo floors (which have a greater setback), a 13 ft. front yazd setback, and a 6.S ft. front
yard setback for an azchitectural feature at the front enhy. 23I8 Mazshall Avenue, SE comer of
Otis. (PatriciaTames, 651/266-6639)
iVIOTION: Commissioner Morton moved the Zonirzg Commzttee's recommendation to approve
the variances. The motion carried on a vote of Z2-2 (Bellus, Johnson). �
#� OS-182-516 - Wellineton Manaeement - Site Plan Review for mixed use building.
2318 Marshall Avenue, SE comer of Otis. (Tom Beach, 65l/266-9086)
MOTION: Commissioner Mor[on moved the Zoning Cornmittee's recommendation to approve
the site plan review. The motion c¢rried unanimously on a voice vote.
# OS-152-309 - Bracke Pazidn Lot - Site Plan Review for used car sales lot.
80 Arlington Avenue E., SW comer at 7ackson. (JeffFlawkins, 65I/266 9083)
P'4�3'ION: Com�rissicner tY< ;izoved tFe Zarirg Comrnz�ee's re�ommer.�eti�r_ thet th_e
case be Zaid over to the November 22, 2005, Zbning Committee rrceeting. The motion c¢rried
unanimousdy on a voice vofe.
# OS-180-955 - Crret Lehman - Change of Nonconfomung Use from beauty salon to tattoo school.
360 Clifton St., SE comer at Jefferson. (EmiZy Ulmer, 651/266 659I)
MOTION: Commissionet Morton rrzoved the Zoning Commzttee's recommendation that the
case be laid over to the November 22, 2005, Zoning Comrrziltee meeting. The motion carried
unanirnously on a voice vote.
.
d
�
�,
��_�.
CJ
XI.
XII.
New Business
Site Plan Review for Phase II of Island Station - Request by Sainf Paul Friends of tne Parks and
Trails �ac the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the site plan.
Tom Beach of LIEP reviewed the status of the Island Station development and recommended
that the si�e plan review be handled by staff without a public hearing. Aiter discussion, several
commission members felt the pzoposed development has policy implications because ii is on tfie
river and rhai it is likely that a staff decision would be appealed to the Commission anyway.
MOTION: Commissioner Gordon moved that the Planning Commission should hold a
public hearing on the Island Station Phase TI site pZan at its Zoning Committee. Seconded by
CommissionerLu. Tlze motion passed 7-3 (Mejia, Morton, Zimmer-Lonetti).
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
� Recoxded and prepared by
Kate Fleming, Planning Commission Secretary
Planning and Economic.Development Department,
City of Saint Paul
Respectfully submitted,
��n'✓� `� "Y' " �"'
Larry 3 d hoim
Planning Admuristratar
Approved �
(Date)
/,/ - �����
u McCall
Secretary of the Planning Comznission
� PED1FleminglMinutesV�iovember 18, 2005 Minutes
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Tfiursday, November 10, 2005 - 3:3Q p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor
City Hatl and Courf House
15 West Keliogg Boulevard
� � � � � �
� �.
PRESENT: Aiton, Anfang, Johnson, Kramer, Mejia and Morton
STAFF: Christina Danico, Patricia James, Ailan Torstenson, Emily Ulmer, and Peter Warner
EXCUSED: Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, and Gordon
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton.
Shadow Falls - Otis (05-184-397) - Application for variances to construct a 2'I-unit condominium
apartment building: 1) height, 40 ft permifted, 50 fE proposed; 2) front yard setback, 25 ft required, 22
ft proposed; 3) side yard set back, 1/2 the height of building required, 7.8 ft proposed; 4) rear yard
setback, 25 ft required, 9 ft proposed; 5) lot coverage, 35°/a permitted; 53% proposed.
Shadow Falis - Otis (05-182-739) - Site Plan Review for a 21-unit condominium apartment building.
205 Otis Avenue, between Dayton and Marshall.
Pafricia James presented the stafF reporE with a recommendation of approval for the Variances, and a
recommendation of approval with conditions for the Site Pian Review. Ms. James also stated that District 13
recommended approval with conditions for the Variances, and made no recommendation for fhe Site Plan �
Review. There were no letters in support, and 4 letters in opposition.
Song Fawcetf, the attorney representing the applicanf, was present to answer questions.
Phil Zines, 191 Ofis Avenue, objected to any change in the zoning of the property, citing the height variance,
density, and neighborhood integrity as his main concerns. .
Michael McDonough, 200 N. Mississippi Boulevard, stated that he opposed the projectdue to its location in
the designated Critical Area of the Mississippi River, and because the building he currently lives in already has
storm water problems. He also noted that the current structure on the site may be historically significant.
Lois Baifanz, 220 N. Mississippi Boulevard, stated concems regarding the setback variances in regard to
future buildings on fheir property.
Leonard Fricke, 200 N. Mississippi Boulevard, stated that he is opposed to the variances because they will
increase already high demand for parking. He added that any proposals for the site should inctude solutions
for neighborhood parking probiems.
Barb Haley, 75 Otis Avenue, gave her opposition to the variances, sfating that there is too much traffic and
insufficien# parking in the neighborhood.
Catherine Born,-200 N. Mississippi Boulevard, represented fhe condominium association of the same address.
She suggested a traffic and parking impact sfudy be campleted on fhe area, analyzing automobile speed and
pedestrian safieiy. She stated that they are pfeased that the deveiopmeni is resideniiai, but added that she
aiso has storm water concems. •
Pete Keely, .architect of the project, reviewed the proposed design, addressing the parking and storm water
concerns of residenfs. He added that changes to the pfan were made in response to community input, and
noted that the extra height allows the developer to provide more high quality materials and underground
parking. Mr. Keely aiso clarified the parking garage setbacks and visibiliiy.
Pafricia James - File # 05-184-704, # 05-184-791, # 05-182-516
n .
. l .
Yage 1 of 1
- _ .,: ��,,. _.. ��-� ..�,
!i-om: <JOANCGATES@aoi.com>
To: <patricia.james@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 11f9(OS 2:02:05 PM
Subject: File # 05-184-704, # OS-184-791, #� 05-182-516
Hearin date Thursdav November 10 2005 at 3�30 o m
On behalf of the Saint Germain Foundation:
1. We assume the property is surveyed. We would Iike Wellington to show us the property line.
2. Ifi there is any run-off from their property to ours, we would Iike assurance that problem will be addressed when
they begin construction.
Thank you, Patricia, for returning my call (even though I did not leave my phone number for you)!
As mentioned, you will Iet me know the cost for a copy of the audio tape of the hearing and I will send you my check.
My phone: 715/549-6739.
My name and address:
Joan Gates
1428 County Road V
Houlton, WI 54082-2125
anks again for being he�pful.
an Gates
�
file://C:�Documents%20and%20SettingsUames�I.ocai%20Settings\Temp\GW}00OO1.HTM 11/9/2005
���o��,
� ��
d a�c
10 Novembar2005
.
Merr�am Park � - rv
Comrnunit� X Council
1684 Selby Avenue • St. Paul • Minnesota • 55104
mpcc@meiriam pazic.org • www.merriam-park.org
te1:651.645.6887 • faac: 651.9I7.9991
- -- - ._..._ _.. . .
., -r�--� ..�-m.,,�-,-�_ ._.
Patricia JameslAtian Torstenson
Department of Ptanning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
140Q City Hall Annex
25 Wesi Fourth Streei
Saint Paul, !AN 551U2-1634
re: Weilington Management
File # 05 182739
File # 05 182516
File # 05-184�397
File # 05-184-704
File # 05-184-791
�ear Patricia and Allan:
At the November 9, 2005 Board of Directas meeting of the Merriam Park CommunityCounc� (MPCC).
the MPCC Land Use Committee presented to the Board tl�e#otiowing recomme�dations regarding the
Shadaw FaNs Housing develapment projects proposed by Wettingtort Management, inc.:
(i) Approve a 10 feet height variance of the church site building (205 Otis Avenue) and the other
variances for this property, induding a setback varianca conditia�ed uporr �e findeng of additional guesf
pattcing spaces.
(ii) Approve of the rrmning of parldng lot parcel (231.8 Marshail) from B-2 to TN-2.
(i;;) Make nfl recanmenda6on on the height varlance and all otner variances for the
parking lot parcel (2318 Marshall).
These recommendatfons were pvt furth as three (3) separate mattons. The Board approved alI three.
MPCC Land Use Committee Chair Dr. James Marti will provide a rationate for the above
recomme�dations by verbal testimony befnre the Saint Paul Planning Commission Zaning Committee at
its Pubtic Hearing on November 10, 2005.
Thank }rou for your assistance Go the Merriam Park Community'Councii. Piease direct any questions you
M8y h8ve t0 OU� Ex n�re�+n� ThAieS2 HeitSfld, 8t 651-645-5887.
�,....�...... - --
��
r�
U
President
Merriam Park Community Councii �
� Petriaa James - Comments regarding zomng varianae requests� � � � � "� � ��"��� '� � ���� "��`� � � '��Page 1''
�
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Len Fricke" <Isfricke@msn.com>
<pafricia.james@ci.sfpaul.mn. us>
1 1/1 0/05 225:47 PM
Comments regarding zoning variance requests
�
�
Ms. James,
Attached is an MS word file with the same comments I wif4 make be4ow but
which are formatted for two pages. Please pass these comments on to
Councilmember Jay Benanav and to the other parties reviewing the request for
zoning variances made by the Wellington Management Company for 2318 Marshail
and 205 Ofis.
I am not certain if I can make this afternoon's hearing. Hopefully I can
attend this hearing and make my comments, but I want fhis communication to
be part of the official record.
I want to express my concern to all parties with the city that 3:30 p.m.
hearings are easy for professional developers and their attorneys to attend
because this is part of fheir workday but not so for the average citizen who
othenvise has to leave work. i know this was a major factor for many fhe
other owners in my condominium association.
Please note that while my comments request denying the variance I have
proposed an aiternative that might be acceptable to both the neighborhood
and to the developer, but will not be considered by fhe developer unless the
variance is held over their head.
Thank you,
Len Fricke
200 N. Mississippi River Blvd.
The attachment reads as follows:
November 10, 2005
Re: Variances for 2318 Marsha{I and 205 Otis
November IQ 2005
Re: Variances for 2318 Mazshali and 205 Otis
Submitted fo the Saint PauI City Council
��-�f
I am writin� in opposition to the granting of these variances because the citv has a uniaue
opportunity to work with the current developer, Wellington Management, to consider
attematives that couId be better for the nei2hborhood and still allow for the applicants to
develop their property in a manner that makes economic sense.
Back2round:
My wife and I have spent the past 29 yeazs as homeowners in the 200 River Drive
Condominium Association. Our Associarion shares a boundary line with the proposed
Otis Avenue development. More unportant is our experience in a neighborhood
chronically short of both off-street and on-street parking, a situatiott wluch ultimately is
the city's responsibility. Our bock currenfly includes two major multi-story apartment
building and our own condominium all of which are significantly short of off-street
pazldng for residents alone, not to mention guests. As important, on the four sides of our
block 50% of the potential on-street parking area on the surrounding streets is no-narldng
zones. We are hemmed in to the North by the Town and Country Club, to the West by
River Road which has no pazldng and on the South by Eastcliff and again by the River
Road (with no pazking) so the only place for residents and guests to go to find parking is
into the residential neighborhood to the East. This situation is frequently made worse by
official gatherings at Eastcliff which provides no off street pazking to University guests.
The situation on the bock in which the 2318 Marshall proj ect is situated is not much
better with 6-7 major apartment buildings each also without sufficient parlang. For tke
past several years much of the parlang demand was alleviated by the pazking lot which is
the site of the proposed seven story building and it wi11 no longer be available. On top of
all this just up the hill the neighborhood is fitrther negatively "vnpacted by pazlang
demands of tl�e University of St. Thomas. Pazldng concems were a major item brought
to the developer's attention at their June/7uly initial neighborhood informational meeting
held at the Town and County Club as they sought to devetop support for their variances.
The neighborhood parking situation is the problem that requires a solution:
Pazking is an undeniable problem we e7cpect our elected representatives to at least hold
neutral an@ certainly to not make worse when they make decisions to issue zoning
variances. Please do not make our parking problems worse just to increase the City's taY
base at the expense of tke quality of living in this neighborhood. Council members
should consider the outcome of Tuesday's mayoral election in which one of the
signi�cant issues that contributed to the defeat of Mayor Kelly was a concern by city
residents that he did not listen to the concerns of neighborhoods and that too many
decisions were being made by "downtown officials" out of touch with the day-to-day
realities common citizens face. Our situation is one that begs for leadezship on the part
of council members. -
,
�
�
Page 1 of 2
Patricia James - RE: 2318 Marshall & 205 Otis Public Hearing • 4 �
�-�y
� m: "Catherine Bom" <cborn@mic.umn.edu>
o: <patricia james@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 11(10(OS 9:4038 AM
Subject: RE: 2318 Marshall & 205 Otis Public Hearing
Patricia 7ames
Saint Paul PED
1400 City Hall Annex
25 West 4th Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
651-266-6639 (phone)
651-228-3220 (fax)
Deaz Ms. James:
As the President of the 20Q River 1?rive Condominium Association and on behaif of the Association members,
I am submitting the following as testimony to the St Pau1 Plamung Coxnxnission Zoning Committee for the
public hearing scheduled November 1 Q 2005 at 330 pm. re: Wellington's application for rezoning, variances
and site plan review to construct a xnixed use building at 2318 Marshall Ave and SE corner of Otis Av. (File #
OS-184-704, #OS-184-791, #OS-182-516). First of all fhe majoriiy of owners aze pleased that this properiy is
mg developed for residential use.
wever at this point the 200 River Drive Condominium Association, comprising 20 owners of the properiy
located at 200 N. Mississippi River Boulevard, opposes the requested variances for 2318 Mazshall and 205 Otis
on the grounds that: add'ang new high density housing in a neighborhood that already consists primarily of high
density housang without providing adequate pazking for the additional residents and their visitors will further
strain the neighborhood's already very limited parking options and add to traffic congestion.
Prior to approving any of the requested variances, the Association requests a Traffic and Parking Impact Study
to consider issues regarding parking, safety and accessibility. The study would assess current and future parking
limitations in the immediate neighborhood in context of :
• The most recent expansion of the University of St_ Thomas.
• The impact of proposed plans for Town & Country enhancements.
• The event pazking at East Cliff and for other public events e.g. Twin Cities Mazathon, various chazity
walks etc
• Increasing the already high volume of traffic on Marshall Ave. Current congestion and speeds at 30+ MPH
hamper pedestrians and parkers alike.
• Increasing pedestrian tr�c and safefy issues associated with waiking to and from cazs parked at fuither
distances.
• The access for service, plow and emergency vehicles, especially during the winter montt�s.
While the tra�c voluxue already exists, at ininimum the 200 River Drive Condominium Association feels that
�� the City of St. Paul and Wellington Management must be held accountable for ensuring additional parking
cient to accommodate their residents, guests and service providers. (Reasonable esfitnate of 15 to 20
g spots in addifion to the resident parking that is already planned).
fi le : //C:�Documents% 20 and% 20 SettingsUames�I,oca1%20Settings\Temp\GW}00OO1.ATM 11/10l2005
. �, , Page 2 of 2
� �� a�� c
The 200 River Drive Condo Association is willing to work in parinership with the City of St. Paul and
Wellina on Management to create additional parking between the 205 Otis property and fhe 200 Mississippi
River Blvd. property if financial incentives can be mada available. �
Thauk you for the opportunity to express our concerns and to help us move towazds a mutually beneficial
solution.
Catherine Bom
President
200 River Drive Condominium Association.
612-625-4626
�
�
file://C:\Documents%20and%20SettingsUames�L,oca1%20Settings\Temp\GW}00OO1.HTM 11/10/2005
• A parking solution wiil require something from all parties, not just fhe developer:
By all accounts Wellington Mana�ement has a good reputation for c}uality developments
and civic involvement so these comments should not be construed as criticism of that
fum. It is not fair of the neighborhood, or the City Council, to assuzne the developer wiIl
simply pay for resolving a parking problem which it did not create without receiving
something in retum. At the same time no business will volunteer to make a project more
complex or assume additional risk simply to be nice. Tt does not appear the developer
made any significant changes in their project to address neighborhood parking concems
following the meeting in 3une/7uly mentioned above. Why should they without a clear
economic reason (the vaziance) to do so? Businesses just don't wozk that way because
their bottom line is totally economia The City Council has tugher responsibitities.
An entity as competent as Wellington Management cleazly lrnew of the parking problems
prior to purchasing the properiy. The mazket price for that property took into
consideration the existing zoning regulations, so zonin� variances sought by a developer
should be linked to providing benefits to the neighborhood rather then just to the
developer's pocket book. This is not a variance request from a 30 yeaz property owner
who wants a Iarger garage but rather a purely business activity. A viable solution will
likely require compromises by both the neighborhood and by Wellington Management.
A compromise idea:
It appears the city and the neighborhood would benefit from the addition o£high quality
� (and high tas) housing on this unique location so long as the parking problem can be
mitigated within reason. The neighborhood can provide fhe polificai ability to vary both
the setbacks and the height restricrions on these properties to make an economically
viable project. Wellington Management can provide the fmancial horsepower (and
admittedly the risk-taking) necessary to fund the construction of a more expensive
project. My suggesrion is that the City Council, through its local counciLman, negotiate
with Wellington Management to ailow additional (above the planned 7 and 4) stories to
be added to either building in their project in retum for providing A) more off-street
parking for visitors to these buildings, and B) at least 20 new off-street parking spaces to
be made available to neighborhood residents on annual leases. This is a prime location
and each additional floor of housing units should bring economic rehuns to the developer
sufficient to recover the additional front-end cost
The City Council should deny these variances but then work with the developer to
come up with a plan which helps reduce the parking problem but offers economic
incentives to the developer in return for the additional front-end cost
Respectfully subxnitted,
Leonard S. Fricke
200 N. Mississippi River Blvd., #4A/B
651-645-4577
� lsfricke(c�msn.com
z�F �� os /84 -397 05—/8�-� oS- ig�F 79 (
Patricia James - Wellington Management, Inc, housing proposal for 2318 Marshail Ave. aad 205 Otis
Ave
-; `°'; ,'• 1
°� � c ;:. ��
; �, ,.
From: "Frank Popplewell" <frankpop@comcastnet>
To: �patricia james@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 11/9/OS 9:49:46 PM
Subject: Wellington Management, Inc. fiousing proposal for 2318 Marshall Ave. and 205 Otis Ave
CC: `"Catherine Bom'" <cborn@mic.umn.edu>, "Lea Hietala" <541ea@comcast.net>, "'Janie Metcalf"
yanie.metcalf�aa)hmshost.com>,'"RandyHerman"' <wrherman@stthomas.edu>, "'Bruce Scheuing'"
<bruce@actmanagement.org>, "Len Fricke" <lsfricke@msn.com>, QoeKuznik@aol.com>
Patricia James
Saint Paul PED
1400 City Nall Annex
25 West 4th Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
November 9, 2005
Dear Patricia:
I am a member of the Condo Association Board of 200 River Drive. I will be unable to attend tomorrow's meeting so I
am sending you my written concems.
First of all, let me say that I am not averse to the new development in the neighborhood. I think it can be a positive, a
I was very happy to learn that the new developers will be fully addressing a problem that our residents have faced for �
long as I can remember: the routine flooding of our garages by water runoff from the Otis property.
However, I do have significant concems about the parking congestion that Weilington's current pian could well cause.
Our 19-unit building has guest partGng spaces for 9 or 10 cars. Even though ours is a very quiet buiiding, there are stili
occasions when guests spill over and need to park on nearby city streets. By that metric, it would seem that 2318
Marshall and 205 Otis would need at least as many spaces as we have in order to avoid significant, routine street parking
overFlow. As I recali, each bui(ding is currently planned to have 5 or fewer guest parking places.
It is aiso important to keep in mind that the church generously made their lot availabie for resident parking by the many
nearby aparlment buildings. Once the lot is no longer available, those 20 cars wii! also be moving laack to the streets.
For these reasons, I think it behooves the city of St. Paul to be very certain that adequate parking is provided for the new
buildings.
Thank you.
Sincerefy,
Frank Poppfewell
200 Mississippi River Blvd N 1B
St Paut, MN 55104
Public Nearing re: Wellington ManagemenY, Inc. housiqg proposal For 2328 Marshatl Ave. and 205 Otis Ave. (Sfiadow Falls) ��
Wellington Management Co. has submitted an applipUon for rezoning, variances, and site plan review to construtt a mixed use building. The SG Paul Ptanning
Gommission Zoning CommitTee will mnduct a Public Hearing on Thursday, November 10, 2005, at 330 p.m. in Gty Hali Chambers, 3rd Floor Gty Hail - Court
Hotise, 15 W. Kellogg Boulevard. You may sentl writYen comments � Zoning Committee, City of Sairit Paul, 1400 Gty Hall Mnqc, 25 West Fourth Street, Saint
Paul, MN 55102-1634.
file:// C : � D ocuments% 20 and% 20 SettingsVames�I.oca1%20Settings\Temp\GW}00OO1.TiT'M il/10/2005
0` ��
���
ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
• 1. FILE NAME: Shadow Fa{fs - Otis FILE #: 05-184-397
2. APPLICANT: Weliington Managemenf HEARING DATE: November 10, 2005
3. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Major Variance
4. LOCATtON: 205 Otis Avenue, between Dayton and Marshail
5. PIN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 05-28-23-21-0026, DESNOYER PARK RAMSEY CO., MfNN.
WLY'/z OF VAC ALLEY ADJ AND FOL ELY 15 FT OF LOTS 7 8 AND 9 ALSO ELY %2 OF VAC
ALLEY ADJ AND FOL LOTS 16 17 AND LOT 18 BLK 46
6. PlANNiNG DISTRICT: 13
7. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §61.601; 61.202(b)
STAFF REPORT DATE: November 7, 2005
PRESENT ZON(NG: RM2, RC3
BY: Allan Torstenson
9. DATE RECEtVED: October 19, 2005 60 DAY DEADLINE FOR ACTION: December 18, 2005
A. PURPOSE: Application for variances to construct a 21-unit condominium apartment buifding:
1) height, 40 ft. permitted, 50 ft. proposed; 2) front yard setback, 25 ft. required, 22 feet
proposed; 3) side yard set back, '/2 the heighf of building/25 ft. required, 7.8 ft. proposed; 4) rear
yard setback, 25 ft. required, 9 ft. proposed; 5) lot coverage, 35% permitted, 53 % proposed.
6. PARCEL SIZE: 28,103 sq. ft., with 150 ff. of frontage on Otis.
C. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant church
D. SURROUNDING LAND USE:
North: Vacant rear yard of institutional property at 220 N. Mississippi River B1vd. (RM2)
� East: Multiple family residential (RM2)
South: Single family residential (R2)
West: Mulfiple family residentiai (RM2)
E. ZONING CODE CITATION: §61.202(b) authorizes the Planning Commission to grant variances
when related to permits, rezoning, or site plan approval considered by the Planning Commission
at the same public hearing, using the required findings of §61.601.
F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: Previous zoning cases for this site were for a �hurch parking iot on the
north end of the property in 1959 (Z.F. 4302) and a cross structure in the required front yard in
1961 (Z.F. 4716). A site plan review (Z,F. 05-182-739) is a companion to this variance request to
be considered at the same public hearing.
G. DISTR(CT GOUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: District 13 fiad not commented at the time this staff
report was prepared. �
H. F{NDINGS:
1. The applicant is proposing to construct a mufti-family residenfiai building with 20 condominium
units on three fifoors, and a fourth floor penthouse unit that is set back from the roof line of the
main building. Underground parking will be provided for 42 cars, and below grade parking
spaces for 2 cars along the south side of the buiiding, for a total of 44 off-street parking
spaces.
2, The proposed building conforms with the maximum height of 50 feet permitted in the RM2
Muitiple-Family Residential District. The site is also located within the RC3 River Corridor
Urban Open Overiay District, where a maximum height of 40 feet is permitted. 7he facades of
� the main part of the buiiding are three stories and have a height of 39 feet above grade. The
proposed penfhouse unit, which is stepped back an average of 14 feet from the main buiiding
facades, is 50 feet high. A variance of the 40 foot RC3 height limit is needed for the 50 foot
height of the proposed penthouse unit.
Zoning File # 05-184-397
Zoning Committee Staff Report
Page 3
(d
(eJ
(�
requested a setback variance for the three bay projections.
i8��
V�; �
The infenf of the side and rear yard setback requirements is to reasonably provide for light
and air to adjacent properfy, and a safe distance befween buildings. A setback variance
for the underground parking, which is befween 3 ft. and 9.5 ft. above grade and is
essentially a first floor terrace, is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the setback
requirements. !n addition, the adjacent properfy to the norfh is the vacant rear yard of
institutional property, and a smai(er setback here would have no negative impact on the
healfh, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of users of the adjacent property. To the extent
thaf the setback variances are to accommodate underground parking, the variances are
very much in keeping with the intent and purpose of fhe code to encourage underground
parking and to minimize the ef#ect of off-street parking on adjacent property.
The intenf of the maximum !ot coverage requirement is to maintain a reasonable amount of
green space on the lot. The need for a variance of this is primarily the result of providing
underground parking, which results in more green space on the !ot than if there were
surFace parking. The proposed iot coverage variance, combined with providing more green
space by putting the parking under the building, is in keeping with fhe spirit and infent af
the code, and is consisfent with the heaith, safety, comfort, morais and welfare of the
inhabitants of the city.
) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply oflight and air to adjacent
property, nor wil! it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasona8ly
diminish established properfy values witAin the surrounding area. This requirement is met.
With the added setback of the fourth floor and the greater than required setback on fhe
south side of the buiiding, and with the facts that the adjacent property to the north is the
vacant rear yard of institutional property, and the portion of the buiiding that is ciosest to
ffie fot (ines is underground parking that provides a first floor terrace, the proposed
variances will not impair an adequate suppiy of light and air to adjacenf property. The
proposed building is consistent wifh the design and scale of surrounding property buildings,
and will not aiter the essentiai character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish
established property values within the surrounding area.
The variance, if granted, would not permit any use thaf is not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor
would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the properfy. This requirement is
met. A m�itiple-family residential buitding is a permitted use in the RM2 Mutfip(e-Family
Residential District and in the RC3 River Corridor Urban Open,Overlay District. The
requested variances would nof alter or change the zoning d+strict classificatiort of the
property.
The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land. This requirement is met. The request for variances is
primarily to accommodate a building design that resportds most successfuliy to
circumstances unique to this property, to the goai in tfie comprehensive plan and incentives
in the Zoning Code for underground parking and for reducing fhe impact of off-sfreet
parking on surrounding property, and to the intent and purpose statements in §60.103(g)
and (i) of the Zoning Code to provide adequate off-street parking and "to encourage a
compatible mix of land uses, at densities that support transit, that reflect the scale,
character and urban design of Saint Paul's existing traditional neighborhoods."
�
�
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends approvai of height �
and setback variances for a 4-story, 50 foot tail, 21-unit condominium aparfinent building with a 22
foot front yard setback, a 7.8 foot north side yard setback, a 9 foot rear yard setback, and a 53%
lot coverage at 205 Otis Avenue.
� ".' �� .
• neighborhood as there are various residential and non-residential sfructures which are
non-conforming in front setback characteristics. __
3) Side Setback: The North side of fhe buitding requires a variance down to an 8-foot
setback depfh from the required '/z fhe height of the building. The rear of the building
requires a reduction to a 9-foot setback from the required 25-foot setback. It should be
nofed that fhese setbacks pertain to oniy garage (parking) terrace level and nof from the
main fa�ade of the building which is 16-feef from North side yard. 7he 2 to 1 parking
ratio requires the underground parking to extend beyond the footprinf of the buiiding.
SUMMATION:
The proposed building requesfs side and rear yard setbacks. These setbacks are
needed to accommodate an extended parking level below the building. Because the
grade drops seven feet from Otis to the East property line, approximately seven feet of
the parking deck is exposed toward the rear of the site, and thus considered within the
setback area. The proposed building offers two to one parking for the residential units,
which would minimize parking impact issues in a neighborhood where parking is
currently scarce.
The proposed building is four stories in height for a totai of 50 feet as measured from
the average of the adjacent grade, in compiiance wifh the currenf RM2 zoning. All
facades of the building are three stories at an average height of 39 feet, below the 40
� foot height limit of the River Overlay District. A fourth floor has been added to the
structure increasing the height to the proposed height. The fourth floor of the building is
stepped back from the perimeter an average of fourteen feet, thus reducing the
appearance of tMe height from alf sides. Although the proposed building is within the
River Overlay District, there are three structures of 51 and 47 feet between the
proposed building and the river, thus minimizing the impact of the height variance.
Supporting Information: Supply the necessary information that is applicable to your variance
request, provide detaiis regarding the project, explain why a variance is needed. Duplex/tri¢lex
conversions may require a pro forma to be submitted. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Attachments as required: Site Plan Attachments Pro Forma
/ (
�
��
Dafe:
h�
az
3�'=
oo3j
¢�oi
„°e'
U _.
�
N
' i��i
- �id'
-;__, tii) B � &
o � ���
�
a
N
��o ��
¢ °�F � 3 �O
£o„o ' d � 1
„zz i.� � } St�/1
° u a e - � p
OT/S At�ENUE
\�I �
�
�
�
�,_
a
_ , .
A4 f" y
�� /,� �
�
'3
i, �
_ �
� ,� _
I
��—r W �
. . �i I fe
� I +J—
' 3 �
�� �_— �,—�
�
�
O
�
I7
_ q
� O
J �
—� c
LL �
� �Pe ' ; . � � �; � �'? I ���� � � py
-- '�- '—_' , � a � - z � r} � � � � t� . � 6 � �:,
�._ � � T , i / _ I t "
g ! _ '=-"�" "� � � � a
�� 1 : 1.
t � d s � � s - �, � � ' � �: �1
i \ ' $ i� :: l �
�� 1 3 r �' t
4 , s___, �x 1 i 1 . , \
— q 3
� '— __� `, *-�\ . x e '� : 8 �\
g,� a
\ s� ' 1 ' \
� �.. �
� 0 i ' _ � � _ � . ; � . �
�
a � 3; a �� ' ._�� ' —`� ? ' ��
w . 3 . .�
�e_..y
5 �a s � t' � • � v a s3_ '-•----� � —. i ":. ;; '.
- ,
� 3
� r�! f A � ? r "`".a 1'
3 . �� i.� .�,s. ";y �.
� i�� � \' �e'� i 1 � :. .�s
.� ' � � � } ' � i'? '�.
� � 3 I �� , � �,\ '. .� j � ��
; s t I � G ;� �`. j
i�, � 3 I I r � V p � �\ •� ��� �:„�
r . x_ v � j
�', � \\� 3 — � `T i 3 F (1 � \\ j! ��yl.' ___[� " .
i , . �—! � �,
� ; ' y \3 �' � ! ! 3 V w. . i ' � : � ��i
���=�!� � ����-�t� :�
�: , � . � � , ,
\ . .. � � _ ' � — � � s9 �� I; . } 4.'� •
`\\� `y • ' t � � � � ` !u j `
Y V g er
3 — \ ; UACATE��;� ALLE ` e\ �`,
3 =� j '� �
� � .. � 3 � �i" � � .� _�._
� �, ;
�, • ` �" - .
M � ° °` ' ' � �
� ' `. a , � ' �,
; , _ • • „F.nc.y aro
!,» i . �
� -e. .. m
-- +^ ' �� �
� '
� � 'j � _
/ !�
?! I�
�• �t�xt�'r`.�3y,..' ��C4..� 9 �'���.�:
s G; : �' ;• �e�� �. �
� . � ' � R\ � `� : .'
5 d �
����
`� 7 .t �' r ��, �.,, -�.,�
� �� ��
`� _ ' �, :;�, x
�"
�a""
�':
t � � .
� _.
'<F r" . -
r>
� � :
�
- ` , t ' _
x " .
,
- � -..
'�
�
�
�
CETIZEN PARTICIPATI(}N PLANNING DIS7RICTS
1.S,UNRAY=BRT7l.EC�EEKYHiGHW00D
2.6REATER EAST S.IIIE
3.41EST" SIDE
4.DAYTON'S SLUFF .
S:PAYNE-PHkIEN. -
6.NORTH END �
7.THOMAS=DALE
S,SUMMiT-UNIVERSITY �� � ��
9:WEST SEVENTH w►e
1Q.CO�ib �� �
1].HAMLINE-MiaWAY
� _ ST. ANTHOtvY
. �3. ERRIAM PK.-LE�IA'GTON HAMLINE
..GROVELAND�MACALESTER �
" - 15.FiIGHLAND '
. �6:SUMMIT HILL
" 17.DOWNTbWN
CITIZEN PARTIC!P{iTiON D!'SlRiCiS '
•
<.�.�> >-
� �,� y4, • �x �
`� �, ��£
� x �..,,x � :� �
<W
i .
} ;a..- ,.,� c.;
•�d
� � 4 �` � �� K :
2.. ..3 - . x
�a�.:-� .z< _ �....$ �
.�.�.�°•=° -� �
�_ 3 i �.!—�
��� � ��
£ r .
�a i �
_*, r , �
j 3`S F
'� �" -' �
� -- - ��� �---� ��� .�...L�;
aa' . _ +-F r . _
_ � �� � �
� � � Y �
�... �, �,; � ,. -�
, -�
� �, �: � �
� �-- � � �' �
� �� � . .
s.
� � �� ��� � _-.
1 � ,�
. ,-��'"; �.
� � �3 - 1" � _ -:
� 3 y � � , "'- .
��
� j � �.. "
S
d y y''
� � x
t � : � __ � ' ��� �"_'�.-',,_
,--.�......� � ..,.,.�::.-
�: �VV 1 i• l 7�iM 1i11 't/R9R�G�ND
}� a ,w
PJ�?OS[ W�� �'i�• � zon��g dislrict t�und=_ry
=11E til�� � DATE i� ��� ��' suS;eci prope,;y ' �< �„�,�.-,
°LtdG. DIST F.tA� r���_ o on_ lamiiy •< � conme.��
� � F.�:o family 4 .o,> indust:i�!
� ,
.� ' '_'""_ ' � � R1UI11��218T1� _ . : ..._.`.� N2�.2[5". -
...--_° '� . _:...
� � � - - ' .__s- a i �� � *_ r�a : .,�. i .,,..: � 3 �Y"�� �"�i�
4i �
. f
� ` rr �.
``.�,,_.
The Mississippi River is a wonderful resoarce •` "
Egamples of nature.....birds deer, fall color, often see photographers along the gorge vision of
Cleveland and other to make it a pazkway—which has since had trails added – The Mississippi
Gorge is the 3`� most visited regional pazk in the metro area out of 70 pazk units – almost 2
million annual visits in 2004—people come for the nature the river, the fall color the birds and
wildlife – eagle on the ice, Great blue heron, green heron, eg�ets and even a Black Crowned night
Heron, Ducks – mallards- wood ducks, diving ducks like mergansers, golden eyes, a deer –
Franklin and the river are the popularion center of the entire region. I don't think people would
be as attracted if it was lined with tall buildings and covered with impervious surface right up to
the edge.
Local citizen - I have had the good fortune of living along the river for more than 20 yeazs –
virtualiy all of my adult life. I served 5 yeazs on the community council and various task forces
like striping g the bike lane on Mississippi Blvd, Lake Street bridge redesign, and St. Thomas
expansion.
Play by the rules – The public should be able to expect the city staff and elected officials to up
hold the exisring zoning except in exffaordinary circumstances.
City significance -Tum of the cenhuy both cities planned and implemented world renowned
parkway systems.
City is out promoting great river park which is great idea – this body approve a bonding initiative
for $11 million for the Great River park on one hand conserving the resource –while the other
hand is allowing more impervious surface and making it less natural by allowing for taller
buildings than the zoning code calls – starting to line with a wall of buildings – Miami Beach a
down town environment – NOT what the plan calls for in the gorge
State significance – Crifical Area designation in 1975 – partnership with State - may have gotten
a letter from DNR but they said it was low wark priority because St. Paul often ignores their
comments.
Federal significance – MNNRA- Should have a letter from Superintendent Kyral
Non profit groups
- Friends of St. Paul and Ramsey Parks - board unanimously approved sending the letter to
respect crirical area zoning.
- Friends of Mississippi River – sent letter did balloon test
-(DPIA) Desnoyer Park Improvement Associaflon - letter Home improvement associarion
next to both proposals boazd voted 9-1 in favor of a letter asking the city to respect the critica]
area zoning.
5 variances – front, side, rear, impervious cover and height. I don't think that they should get
any of them. I mostly object to the increased height and surface cover because they negarively
affect the river. The height starts a precedent for lining the gorge with tall building instead of the
pastoral park setting that has been they for all to enjoy since the habitat needs the support of green
space in the critical area adjacent to the river and public pazk land. – the impervious surface help
infiltrate and filter water so that it doesn't run directly in to the storxn sewers that drain un treated
directly to the river causing erosion and washing oil and other pollutants in the street into the
river.
�,
:
� �. ,.
� E; � �t� ,
; ;.
current Deueloper amount of %
zoning request increase/decrease increase
front set back 25 22 3.0 12%
reaz set back 25 9 16.0 64%
north side set back 25 7.8 17.2 69%
south side setback 25 31.5 na na
Entrance to partial underground paridng is on this side so the building set back exceeds the 25 required setback
height - feet
height-Above existing
grade
40 50
40 59.5
35% 53%
10.0 25%
19.5 49%
18% 51%
% surface cover - sq. ft.
Parking spaces
31 44 (42 partially underground and 2 surface spaces)
1.5/unit? 30 for a 20 unit building or 32 for a 21 unit building
Flawed public process
Presented a 3-story /21 unit condo building with underground parking at the public meefing
attended by about 100 people. (Presumably with in the 40 foot height limit.) — This shows that the
developer themselves thought that this was a reasonable use.
Bait and 5witch
Later the developer convinced the land use committee and Merriam Park Community Council to
approve the taller and bigger project. — The Council members said they approved it because there
were no objecrions and they only remember a discussion about parldng. They were not familiaz
with the Critical Area zoning and said they were glad I made them aware of it and would consider
it next time. — they said that they would not rescind their approval because they had already spent
too much time on it.
5hould have held another public meeting because the pro}ect increase in height by 25% and now
violated the maximum height of the Critical azea zoning. 40 feet to 50 feet — on the river side up
to 59 feet. The staff rebutta] references a different plan sheet but the point is the variance rules.
The zoning code says that the variance should not be primarily on the desire to increase
value or income. Developer said they inctease the size because they could make more money
They said they did more market studies and found out that they could sell for a higher price so
they changed from 18 units on 3 floozs to 18 units on 4 floors — 4lazger units on the 3'� with 2
penthouse units.
View from the river - The staff report says the building will not even be seen from the river --
see the picture. It could be seen from the h on MRB. It could be seen over 200 MRB from
thesouth overlook in the center of the Marshall lake Street Bridge. See plan view of the block.
There aze a one-story rambler and a 1%z story house SW of the proposed building and a 2%z story
house ( St Germain Society) NW. The proposed building can be seen over all of these buildings.
Developer and staff provided seleMive information
No cross secrion, height only from Oris side, inconsistent plan sheets.
Staff finding say twice that there is a taller building between the proposed building and the river.
This is false. — they say that the undeiground parldng is 9.5 feet above the exisring grade on the
�
�
�' , _��
n}` -_ , ! ,-/ : _
river side of the property — they are asking for a variance for a 50 foot building.. The info
provided to the planning commission has in consistent heights on different plans — the point is the
variance is for 10 feet and the city code does not count under ground parldng — there fore if you
don't over tum these variances the developer can build a build that is 59.5 feet above the e�sting
grade — I went out last night and remeasued — the gazages at the back of 200 MKB are built in to
the slope — the height of the concrete wall at the back of the gazage is at least 4' in this comer and
the land slopes up from there - Therefore the top of the proposed building with the variance
could be up to 63.5 above the base of 200 MRB — 200 MRB is 49 feet 4 inches. The new building
could be more than 14 feet taller than 200 MItB.
Economic hazdship to pay for the underground garages and brick exterior - the city does not
have, did not ask for or received any proforma info on the project to justify this. The also said that
there were cost associated with underground pazldng but they had no cut and fill data, no quanrity
esrimate of purported shale — which lead one to wonder if we really want to be going that far into
the earth any how.
- Reportedly going to sell for $350IC to $850K later raise to $460K -$13 Million — even a modest
$SOOK for 20 units would be $10 Million with a profit of 20 to 25% $2 to $2.5 million = as if
people at that price would buy without a garage — also the propose increase in impervious cover
would not leave enough azea to put cars. It they can't provide for all of the cazs they want maybe
the building it s too big. T`here is no god given right that I lmow that says that Steve Wellington
gets to have as many units as he wants
No Public benefrt for the variance
- no affordable units
- Less green space than the code calls for 53 percent — more than half instead of 355
allowed for under the code.
The acrion approved five variances that allow too large of a building to be built in the Mississippi
River Critical Area. The building should be built to meet the exisring zoning code. Some
exceptions could be made on the pazking level to allow for more underground pazking.
Some times it is shocking how much develops ask for — and even more shocldng how much
they get by working the system.
Tip of the iceberg /Precedent — Developer tried to buy the St. Gerxnaine /I Am Temple, a
developer owns 1 of 4 houses on the block, one owner would sell for the right price, even the
older brick apartments on the corner of MRB/Mazshall would be wlnerable to being torn done if
a developer can expect this big variances to be approved by the city - 200 MRB was built in
1963 grandfathered as non confornung use so it should not be used as a precedence but a new
building allowed today would surely be used as a precedence.
Kill the goose golden that laid the golden egg -- choke the gorge with tall buildings and
increased impezvious surface that reduce green space — this will reduce the amacfiveness of the
"wild river in the center of both ciries.
Met Council 2002 Survey" As areas develop, �overnment should do more to protect the natural
features, such as wetlands, woodlands, lakes and rivers, 72 % Strongly agree, ZO % agree —
therefore 92% of the public surveyed agrees.
In this case each of vou renresents the "government" I ask you to do the right thing for protecring
naturalfeatures!
�
�
� � � vR
All my neighbors and I are asldng is that the development be built within the exisring zoning code
with no variances because they are no hardship and no exira public benefits aze being offered as
mitigation.
Cleveland quote. "Look forward century when the city has a popularion of 1 million, and thinks
what their wants will be. They will have weakh enough to purchase all that money can buy, but
al their wealth cannot purchase a lost opportunity, or restore natural features of grandeur and
beauty"
Please over turn the variances to help conserve the river and parks and trail along it for the public.
�
+ ��
,,.:. �
` >
��� i , ,
�
'. ,� '. �� , . ''
■ -! � S�{ _ ; � � ; ; ,'
: �_� $ ��; � r�_,. ,•.
' �I�� � �� ���
�
���� � ��: ��� :
' �� ��i a � , a n�. � �i �
�
'.��'• i��i11i � �:l�i�i� ��i1ij d
�� � .
f '�� ? a�� ���` 1� , ;'
, ��. .F��� ��i ::
,_ ,
{
� �i 1�� � ���, a�� � ..�;��
��� � �o�� ��� : � I
, , �
��!�� �aa� ��, ���
'�� ���� '��' ����
,� ���, �;��� ���
, �.���'� t � '�',
�,���' ; -g�s .�� .:
���� ���- . ;;
���� i��,.. Iwni 7�i
� �CI
.� ���i '�1{:'� 1��� �:
��� ���€ ;���� i�f� '��:
`�� '�...�� ,;;�� I�� �����
�� �.�t�l'f` �a��� ■��'� s
� t
I r .
� �� ��
� ��� e l���
�.�f �!���. ��� r� .
-
!� � ��. ..
r �` �
�
wa
�- ��:,
�,�
,-; .
��
>
u�
f
O
p .
� -
U°.
_ :e::: !
� s it"- �yi�
� � — � � i; � � @
��'e=_� �EI�
,
�;. . �
� � — �; L . .
o � �.— . i
i°E< �°
?�H � (1
�� $ � � �l�
d V � ° 5 E�
OT/S A�ENUE
� � ��
����
6=2'34'29'
_ �_� __.�
o�t
r►
�
a
�.�
,
�' � ` ��` �``�,�.� � ,� Z � 5 c�, r s ;
;
���� � � c��- � N ��, G� .
�f c M�X F�'�t�
� ��
'� - c �
aw c►-��� � r f� 7�oMtZB
ScvTiL�
2�
`(' `�' �
�' � �Z'
e � �
�i� � _ _.
f,ow� �2�
� (z ��'
� � s�.�- �Z�
��
t� ��'� ,
, ;
�� �� ! _
� t e��s� t�
_�-------!
z '
l f - �Z �
`i
J
� i�(
��� �
�
_--_..__.__.._ . __�._
� /�
_._�
���
`-_ __.
�
�
(yU MR-Pf ��,�r'"w''-
_���,s���
� j
�
— ��
5��� �,�z
�� �� �
�� �
�
�
��
I �-- _ �
�
�
�,,�t-�
� ���
��
�
r.
sr= =-�+ c�2��
�dj�1
r7/iTi���'.
. _ � ,.. ' . . .. ;_. . . ,. . ..,, ; - - � � + : , '` , .r
� . _
. � ��.�. .. .
.. . . r. �, . .
_ �
]
�i ' .
��1.. 1 _
}
.. . . . . . ry « '_.
{� r
v i Y a
a ' � �
5 �
.. , , � ` •. v� .: � '. � � 1 � .
Y � a d .
. o, �, . ' : a : . . .. �' �
. . _ . . '" .�T�. F.=. _ '
� . ,v-.:!"'= � _ ,
�1 . .� . .. r .. � r
. . , � .. . . . � 1 ..�• � ' �_
_ �
� � � _ ��J .. _
: - - - � . � �� } � 5
. � `� �es�� � »�+
� � ��
�
' �.: y , . � , : - �.. .
� , �--"-'; , ,�,,�- , ; _ _ _
� . , , � ,
�'� 1 � . � � � � ';
1 � � ���,:, �
, � l � - ' � - �� 4
� .. .. 1,. =� .�. x .
�'� _ -� � y , t� ,�. ^. . • _
/t �`
� - � . `� ' � . .
� !-.
� � � � - �`
.t y - '
"_ ��' ( _..��t � �`it. 1 � #`
1 �� � 3�
.�-_--� � ��_ ;�
;
t �_
. . __ , � : _ _
� � � , � ; � 1 � � t -
1°` i
:
� �------ � - , - � _
� , �� _ , � _ ,
' � � ���
1 i � �_ _ _ � .
, _` , {
_ , � �,�� �� ��� ��. �� �
_ � � _ -_ ��� , :�
; , � ; � ..
> _
�
_ � _
�
' t
-,- .
. _ .. . . _ � .... . . . ` ._ , � � . . _. _
..... . _. -;. �
� rw . •�� .__. ._ -_
� ' �: .. t ,. _
. { � . . .. . ,. 1 .. � ..
1
� ��� � . . . . � � .
� ' `� �
'� f � R
. �` ,`city of saint paul
planning. commission reso{ution
fiile number
date
0�=��
WHEREAS, Weilington Management, Inc., File # 05-184-397, has appli r variances, under fhe
provisions.of §61.601 of the Sainf Paui Legislative Code, to construct 1-uni condominium apartment
building with a hei ht of 50 feet (40 ft. permitted), a 22 ft. front ard setba 25 ft. required), a 7.8 ft.
side ard set bac '/z.the height of building/25 fit. require �, a ft. rear ard setback (25 ft. required),
an a /o lot coverage (35°!o permitted), on property focated at 205 Otis Ave, Parcel Identification
Number (PlN} �52823210026, legally described as DESNOYEft PARK RAMSEY CO., MINN. WLY %2
OF VAC ALLEY ADJ AND FOL ELY 15 FT OF LOTS 7 8 AND 9 Al.SO ELY Yz OF VAC ALLEY ADJ
AND FOL LOTS 16 17 AND LOT 18 BLK 46; and
WHEREAS, the Zon�ng Committee of the Pla�ning Gommission, on November 10, 2005, hetd a public
hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application _
�n 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 at the public hearing as substanfially reflecfed in the minutes, made the foliowing findings of
fact:
1. The appiicant is proposing to consfruct a multi-family residential building with 0 ondominium units
on three floors, and a fourth floor penthouse unit that is set back from the roo ine of the main
6uilding. Underground packing wi41 be provided far 42 cars, and befow grade parking s�aces for 2
cars along the soufh side of the Building, for a totai of 4�A otf-street parking spaces. , 3l �21• �
2. . The proposed building conforms with the maximum height of 50 feet permitted in the RM2 Multiple-
Family Residentiai District. The site is aiso lo ted within the RC3 River Corridor Urban Open
Overlay District, where a maximum height of feet is permitted. The facades of the main part af
the buiiding are three stories and have a heighf of 39 feet above grade. The proposed penthouse
unit, wtiich is stepped back an average of 14 feet from the main building facades,_ is 50 feet high. A
variance of the 40 foot RC3 height limit is needed fdr the 50 foot height of the proposed penthouse
unit
3. A front yard setback of 25 feet is required. Most of the front facade of the building is set back more
than 25 feet and meets this setback requirement. 4iowever, fhree bay projections encroach into the
required front yard, and a 3 foot front yard setback variance is requested to allow a 22 foot setback
for the three bays.
4. The required side yard setback is % the height of the building, or 25 ft. 6ased on the 50 foot height
of the penthouse. The north side of the undergro�nd park'ing garage e�ends out from the facade of
the building and provides a first floor terrace. At the northeast corner it is approximafely 3 ft. above
grade and 7.8 ft. from the praperty line, for a variance of 17.2 ft. The south side of the building is
approximately 31.5 ft. from the property line, and no variance is needed.
moved by _
seconded by
in fiavor
against
Zoning File # 05-184-397
Planning Commission Resolution File
Page 2
�1J {�� ��
5. A rear yard setback of 25 ft. is required. The rear facade of the building is setback 16.5 ft. and 19.4
ft., 6 ft. fo 8.5 ft. closer to the rear lot fine than permitted. The west side of the underground parking ,
garage extends aut from the rear facade of the buiJding, provides a frst floor terrace, and due to the
slope of the site is approximately ft, abov�e. It has a 9 foot set back from the rear property
line, for which a 16 foot variance hasTeen requested.
6. A maximum lot coverage of 35°� is permitted and 53% is proposed:
7. §61.601 sefs out the required findings for a variance of fhe Zoning Code:
x
(a) The property in quesfion cannot be put to a reasonable use under fhe strict provision of fl�e
code. 'fhe proposed four s`�ory, 50 foot high mutti- ami y residential buiiding, including the
underground paricing that extends out from the north and west facades of the buitding and
provides a first floor terrace, is a reasonable use of this site. The propetty cannot be put to this
reasonable use under the strict provision of the code. �'--'�
(b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his properfy, and these
circumsfances w created by the landowner. The ro erty has a si nificant sio
relationshi� to tal�ler�iacent buildinq between the proposed u� mg and_the river tl
propo�sed building is to respond success u y o t ese umque circumstances, to the goal in the
comprehensive plan and incentives in the Zoning Code for underground parking fo reduce ifs
negative impact on surrounding property, and fo fhe intent and purpose sfatements in
§60.103(g) and (i) of the Zoning Code to provide adequate off-street parking and "to encourage
a compatible mix ofi land uses, af densities that support fransit; that reflect the scale, character
and urban design of Saint Paul's existing traditional neighborhoods "
(c) The proposed variance is in keeping wlth the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistenf with
the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of�the in abifants o e ity of Sainf Paul. This
requiremenf is met. 7he intent and purpose of the 40 foot RC3 River Corridor District height
limit is to implement objectives and poliaes in the Mississippi River Corridor Plan chapter of the
Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan to reserve critical public visws betwee
and the river, and similar standar s an purpose s atements in Governor's Execufive Order No.
9-1 , which designaYed fhe Mississippi River Corridor as a criticai area.. The proposed
buitding wiii not affect views between the bluff and the river, and wil! not even be seen f�om tha
river because there is a taller building beiween it and the river. '
e front yard setbacK variance for the fhree bay projections is �nsistent with the spirit and
ir+tert of §63.106(d) to allow "decorative details and bay windows ...[.o) prajecf into a required
yard sixteen (16) inches plus two (20 inches for each foot of width of the required side yard:'
Because the proposed bay projections extend down to grade, the Zoning Administrator does
not consider them bay windows, and'tb avoid any concem that they may not be covered by th�
term "decorative detaiis" in §63.106(d),.the applicant has requested a setbacK variance for fhe
three bay projections.
The intent of the side and rear yard setback requirements is to reasonably provide for light and
air to adjacent properly, and a safe distance between bui(dings. A sefback variance for the
underground parking, which is between._3 f: and 9.5 ft. a ve grade and is essentially a first
floor terrace, is in keeping with the inten�"and purpose of the set ac 'tequirements. !n addition,
fhe adjacent property to the north is the vacant rear yard of insfitutional property, and a smaller
setback here would have no nega6ve impact on the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare
of users of the adjacenf property. To the e#ent that the setback variances are to
accommodate underground parking, the variances are very much in keeping with the interit and
purpose of the code to encourage underground parking and to minimize the effect of off-street
parking on adjacent property.
' �tl
Zoning File # 05-184-397
Planning Commission Resolution File
Page 3
ra�
(e)
� y� � v� .�
�
The intent of the maximum lot coverage requirement is to maintain a reasonabie amount of
green space on the lot. The need for a variance of this is primarily the result of providing
underground parking, which resuits in more green space on the lot fhan if there were surface
parking. The proposed lot coverage variance, combined with providing more green space by
putfiing the parking under the building, is in keeping with fhe spirit and intent of the code, and is
consistentwith the heatth, safety, comfort, morafs and welfare of the inhabitants of the ciTy.
The proposed variance wi(i not impair an adequate supp(y of light and air to adjacent property,
nor wil( it atfer fhe essential characfer of fhe surrounding area or unreasonably diminish
esfablished property va(ues within fhe surrounding area. This requirement is met. With the
added setback of the fourth floor and the greater than required setback on the south side of the
building, and with the facts that the edjacent property to the north is the vacant rear yard of
institutional property, and the portion of the building that is closest to the lot lines is
underground parking that provides a first floor terrace, the proposed variances will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent propery. The proposed buiiding is consisfent with
the design and scale of surrounding properly buildings, and wi11 not alter the essentiai character
of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established properry values within the
surrounding area.
The variance, if granted, wou(d not permit any use that is not permifted under fhe provisions of
the code for the proper(y in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or
change the zoning district class�cation of the property. This requirement is met. A multiple-
family residential building is a permitted use in the RM2 Multiple-Family Residential District and
in the RC3 River Corridor Urban Open Overlay District. The requested variances would not
alter or change the zoning district ciassificafion of the property.
(� The request for
based arimarilv on a desire to increase the value
potential�o3�fie�arcel of (aad. This re.quirement is met. The request for variances is primarily to
�modafe a bwlding design that responds most successfuily to circumstances unique to
this property, fo the goal in the comprehensive pian and incentives in the Zoning Code for
underground parking and for reducing the impact of off-street parking on surrounding property,
and fo the intent and purpose statements in §60.103(g) and (i) of the Zoning Code to provide
adequate off-street parking and "to encourage a compatible mix of Iand uses, at densities that
support transit, that reflect the scale, character and urban design of Saint Paui's existing .
traditional neighborhoods'
NOW, THEREFORE, 8E fT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, under the authority
of the City's Legislative Code, that the applicatian of Wetiingfan Managemenf 4or variances to construct
a 4-story, 50 ft, tali, 21-unit condominium apartment building with a 22 ft. front yard setback, 7.8 ft. side
yard setback, a 9 ft. rear yard setback, and a 53 % lot coverage af 205 Otis Avenue is hereby approved.
;•
�,�,
.., , .
�
..
%'�!.
�
i t '"�
i
1�
'/
�
r� ,: �, � :�
�� - ;
The Desnoyer Pazk Improvement Association (DPIA) recog�izes the Mississippi River as a very
important asset for the neighborhood as well as the city and beyond.
DPIA thinks that the height variance for 205 Otis, as approved by the St, Paul Plaauiing
Commission, violates the Mississippi River Crirical Area which allows a maximum height of 40
feet.
DPIA thinks that variance would aliow for a building that would unnecessarily negatively affect
the views from the river, the Mississippi ltiver Gorge Puk and the associate trails along MRB.
DPIA requests that the City Council over turn the planning commission findings and reject the
height variance.
The developer presented a proposed 3-story building at 205 Otis at the public meeting held at
Town arid County and said that the building wouid be the same height as the building at 200
Mississippi River Blvd. (Wlvch is 50 feet tall). They presented the proposed 205 Otis buidding as
being shorter and behind 200 MItB thereby having no unpact on the river views.
At some point after that meeting a penthouse was added to the proposal. The number of proposed
units has varied from 18 to 21. At one point it included '7 units on each of 3 floors.
The zoning code states that variances should not be given primarily to increase value for the
landowner. The staff'report to the plamting coxnmission said the property could not be put to a
reasonable use with out the variances. This dces not is justifiable.
At a meeting on November 28`� with Council Member Benanav, several resident of 200 Miss.
Blvd. and the developer, the developer stated that they were planning a 4-story building with 18
condo units with underground pazking; each floor being 12 feet high. They said that their market
analysis showed that they could sell more e7cpensive units. At some point they said they need the
penthouse to pay for underground parking and a brick exterior on the building. However, the
suggested price for the units as reported in the paper was originally behyeen $350,000 and
$850,000 per unit. Ttris was later revised up to $460,000 and $1,300,000. At even the lowest of
those estimated selling prices buyers wouid expect garages and an upscale exYerior like brick.
Underground pazking — approximately 40 spaces. This would be above the existing grade
between 3.5 and 9.5 feet. With the northwest corner of the bldg. being the most exposed.
l Floor — 6 condo units
2" Floor — 6 condo units
3`� Floor - 4 condo units
4 Floor/penthouse — 2 condo units
The planning commission approved a rear yard set back to be reduced from 25 feet to 8 feet for
the underground parking structure the living spacc is set back approxitnately 17 feet.
3.5 feet - The height of the existing grade at the NW comer above the base of the 200 MRB bldg.
9.5 feet — The amount of the underground paridng structure exposed above the existing grade.
36.0 feet- The height of 3 levels of condos with 12 feet per floor
12 fe�t - additional height for penthouse with 21azge condo units.
,
.
. r � �� �.
� ,�, , � �
The top of the building with the variance would be approximately 61-feet in relation to the base
of 200 MRB or 11 feet higher than the existing 200 MRB.
Even with out the variance the building would be 45.5 above the existing grade on the river side
of the proposed building.
Marshall and Otis Avenue tot
��
�� �
Q�� %
�
The Olis Avenue is the dividing line for the River Crirical Area so the proposed building at
Marshall and Otis on the outside edge of the GYirical area but due to its locarion will affect views
from the river.
The pianning Commission approved a number of variances for this property. It also forwarded a
recommendation to change the zoning from commercial to TN-2 wlrich will allow for the
building to be residenrial oniy and not require commercial on the first floor.
The zoning related to height states that there has to be a set back of 6-feet on rear and side. The
front set back on Otis is zero in the current Cbmmercial zoning and would be 15 feet in 1N-2.
From these set back lines the building can rise 30 feet (35 feet in'TN-2). From that point for every
foot the building is set back it cau rise anotfier foot.
DP7A recommends that Yhe City Councii approve the wning change with the stipulation that there
be no height variances gaatecl. This will result in a shorter building of a 4 story base with one or
two floors set back for a total of a 5 of 6 starybuilding.
r
.� ��;�
-�' .
Appeal to St. Paul Planning Commission action to approve variances for 205 Otis Avenue — St.
Pauf, Minnesota.
By Michael McDonough 200 Mississippi River Blvd. Unit 4D
651 642-9149
The action approved five variances that a{tow too large of a buiiding to be built in the Mississippi
River Critical Area. The buiiding should be built to meet the e�sting zoning code. Some .
exceptions could be made on the parking levei to allow for more underground parking.
\ frontsetback
\ rear set back
north side set back
south side setback
current Developer amount of °/,
zoning request increase/decrease increase
25 22
25� 9'
25 � 7.8
25 31.5 ' na
Entrance to partiai underground parking is on this side so the bui{ding set back exceeds the 25 required setback
Is there a retaining wail? Does this require a
setback?
�
heigfit-feet
height-Above existing
,
grade
� % surface cover-sq.ft.
Parking spaces
40 50
40 59.5
35°/a 53%
3:0 12%
16.0 64%
17.2 69%� -
na
10.0 25%
19.5 49%
18% 51%
31 44 (42 partially underground and 2 surface spaces)
1.5/unit? 3� for a 20 unit buiiding or 32 for a 21 unit building?
The 1 �` whereas —
The report by the planning commission says 21 units in the 1 st whereas, but says 20 units in the
3rd whereas.
#2 States that he maximum height for a buiiding in the Mississippi River Critical area is 40.
The 3rd whereas —
#4 states that the top of the underground parking at the east side of the building is 3 feet
above grade so the building will be 53 feet above the existing grade in this location.
#5 states that the top of the underground parking is 9.5 above grade - so the building wilt be
59.5 feet above the existing grade in this iocation. (The argument has been made that the
buiiding at 200 Mississippi River Bivd. (MRB) will biock the view of the proposed new
buitding. The 200 MRB building is 50 feet tall. The proposed new buiiding maybe shorter than
200 North Mississippi Blvd. as measured from the top of the partial underground parking but
will be higher than 200 Mississippi Blvd. because the existing ground level at the river side of
the new building is approximately 3 feet higher up the slope away from the river than the
base of 200 MRB, the "underground" parking is 9.5 above the existing grade and the variance
would allow 50 feet of livable space above the parking. The top of the proposed new buifding
will be 62.5 feet above the base of the 200 MRB. 7his is 12.5 feet higher than MRB. (The
same height as the single penthouse unit proposed on the new building.)
��-��.��
#7b states that the property can not be put to a reasonable use — A 4-story, 20 unit building is
reasonable. It does not need the 5�' floor penthouse to be reasonable. At 49.5 above grede at
ihe river side of the building it would still be 8.5 feet higfier ihan the aflowed 40 feef.
#7c states that the purpose of the critical area is to preserve critical public views between the
top of the bluff and the river. The variance as approved by the planning commission would
allow for a building that is 59.5 feet tall that would raise to 12.5 feet above the building at 200
North MRB. The Mississippi Gorge parks were esfablished at the tum of the century to keep
the river shoreline and bi�ffs parks for alt of the public. The Mississippi Gorge Partc is the
second most visited park in St. Paul after Como. Fhe real estate values of homes that have
been built along MRB are some of the highest in the city — clearly a result of views of the river
and being on the parkway. If St. Paul has a"gold coast" this is it. People are attracted to the
naturalness of the river gorge parkways. If fhe parkways are lined with tall building the values
will decline. The top of the proposed new buitding witl be at.a higher elevation than the
building between it and tbe river (200 Miss Bivd.)_ Aiso the building will easily be seen from
the paths along both MRB and West River Road in Minneapolis and from some water surface
of the river over the single story rambler to the SW of the building and over the 2.5 story
buifding to the NW of it.
The 3rd whereas -#7d States that the variances will not impair adequate light or air to the
adjacenf property. Allowing a new buildi�g to be closer to the west and north properry fines
tfian permiffed by current zoning will reduce light and air movement into the building to the
west and future development on the property to the north. Eastem moming sunlighf ligfif will
be blocked from entering some of the windows on the east side of the building at 200 MRB if
the variances are granted.
#7f States that the variance is not based primariiy on a desire to increase value or i�come
potential. 7his stafemen! should be plurai - there are five different requested variances.
The requested height variance is to allow for the 5�' Boor (Parking Ievel plus three full floors
and penthouse}. The proposed oenthouse is for economic qain Units in the development
were reported to be for sale for between $350,000 and $850,000; lafer revised fo $460,000 to
$1,300, 000. (Some of the other req�ested variances may help accommodate the partial
underground parking but the surface cover ratio is also a factor.)
tn regards ta the approvai of the impervious surface cover variance from 35°/a to 53% the
developer could maintain the maximum 35% impervious cover by irtstalling a green roof on top of
the building.
L
�
•�.y
�M
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
�
�
a�
�
�
.�
�
...,
�
�
�
� �
� � � �
�
� � � o
a� c� e� :�
� � 3 �
� o.a o �
�� �
� ��o 0
.n�•�a o
r..� ., . •""'
"" y ,..� � �
� � � � �
� � � 3 O
v� ,� p � �"
y ,a,� ° a� �
� � � � �
�
� � � � �
�
���>,�
���°�
a o •� � �
�A 3��
� � �
� � � �" �
��"���
�� ��,
� v � O �
�
�
�
�
.�
a�
�
�
�
� � � � � �
� � �
w, '� o � .�
�°��•��
c����°
y, o � s� �, � .�
� � � � � � �
�
4
� w
w �
��
w �
��
� �
� �
� �
� �
� O
w �
� c�.>
o �
� �
� �
� •N
4�
� �
4� �
�
� v�'
►y �
�a
� �
�, 's�
� �
h �
�
�
�
�
�
` b�'°
�
�
�w
�
+.a
�
�
�
0
w
�
O
�'
.�
� �
o �
� �
��
0
�
C C�
e� y
U �
�
��
��
� �
�r �
�r �
� o
ai y
� �
� �
� �
� �
� �,
��
��
a� �
� o
�
0
�
.�
�
�
�
•
•i�.y
�
�
a
°
�
�
�
.�':�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� �
� �
� �
� o
�° �
� �
� �
�, "
��
a� �
�
a�
_ �'.� �l. ✓'-'3
�
ti
�
v
�
�
�
=� ... . ..
_�;:
�'-'
" �
g� � �
?
x'.„� —
� � ' '�
s ,,,
�e3 � > �
,�... ,:* �.,, - . .
k;'
i l�� ��
� � �
qg� ��
d` � e.. «
tl-r
... t..- ii�.�,
x.' y�'
��
Me� C�,��vc��
. �� �✓�W c.7�� ��-s��y�✓
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area � V"- `
Attitudes About Smart Growth Devetopment
■ Strongly agsee ❑ Agree �
As areas devetop, government should
do more to protect the naturai features,
such as wettands, woodtands, lakes &
streams
City & suburban neighborhoods should
provide many options for ways of
getting around, incfuding wafking,
biking, driving & pubiic transit or buses
Town squares, green spaces & locai
parks shoutd be a part of every
neighborhood
Neighborhoods should have a mix of
homes, shops, offices, schools & parks,
so people can more easily meet their
everyday needs
Neighborhoods should have many
types of housing available for
people of different ages & incomes
Government needs to take a stronger
role in efforts to revitalize & redevelop
parts of Mpls., St. Paul & older suburbs
Prime agricultural land should be
permanently protected from
development
Urban sprawl shoutd be reduced
Urban sprawf is out of control
�� . . . ,
� ,
, a
�:�
s
��
y
:�3 .
;
9
��
s�
� ��
33% 13%
38% 11 °10 -
��
� :�
�fi:�� �
� ��:�`�`'�,��`
32°/a � 28°l0
r -
0% 25°fo 50% 75%
7
� oo°io
mm868
Mary Erickson - Fwd: Re: FILE OS-207-054, MICHAEL MCDONOUGH Page 1
� 4 ��
, v � �;.
From: Patricia James
To: City Council - Letters
Date: 12/29/2005 9:56:31 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: FILE 05-207-054, MICHAEL MCDONOUGH
This e-mail is in response to the public hearing notice on ZF # OS-207-054:
»> <Gj217@aol.com> 12/28/OS 8:28 PM »>
THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR PROMPT AND THOROUGH REPLY. WHERE ARE ALL THE
PEOPLE WHO PRESENTLY LIVE IN THE APARTMENTS GOING TO PARK? THEY USED THE OTIS
MARSHALL LOT DURlNG THE WEEK. NOW WHAT? THEY'LL DRIFT UP TO MONTROSE PLACE
WHICH IS ALREADY LOADED WITH CARS. MY SISTER IS HANDICAPPED WHAT IS SHE
SUPPOSED TO DO? I REALIZE THEY ARE OUT TO MAKE MONEY AND SECURED THEIR
BUILDING, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CURRENT HOMEOWNERS AND THEIR RIGHTS TO PARK AT
LEAST NEAR TO THEIR HOME? TH1S IS GOING TO CREATE A TOTAL MESS AS FAR AS
PARKING GOES. WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT THAT? NOTHING ! SUPPOSE. JUST LET THE
DEVELOPER MAKE MONEY. NOTHING NEW THERE.
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP
GERRI
N�
_ ss��
Attached are opinions regarding the Wellington projects o#49  of the
today's Council Agenda for your reference.
_ _ , .
��Cerol�Broermann - Letter Regard'ing Shadow Falls.doc ��� �� � Page 1
` ' ��
�►�
�►�
December 30, 2005
City Couuncilmember Jay Benanav
City Hall, 310
15 W. Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
Dear Jay:
I am writing to express the Midway TMO's suppori for higher density development along transit comdors in
the area, including the Shadow Falls development on Marshall Avenue and Otis. As you know, the TMO's
mission is to reduce automobile congestion and increase the use of altematives to driving alone in the
Midway area. One of ihe ways ihallhis goal �an be achieved locally and regionally is by increasing
development density along transit corridors such as Marshall Avenue.
The TMO understands and respects the concems of some members of the Merriam Park neighborhood
regarding the height of the buildings and the potential blocking of viewsheds of the river comdor. However,
the TMO believes that the issue of four vs. five, or five vs. seven story buildings is primarily one to be
worked out by the neighbors, the Merriam Pa�C Communiiy Coancil, and the developer.
The TMO believes that altemative developments on that site, such as the previously proposed convenience
store, wouid most likely be single-story, auto-oriented retaii, which would increase automobile traffic at least
as much if not more than the proposed Shadow Falls development.
The altemative to higher density development along urban transit corridors is more development on the
suburban fringe. There is good data to suggest that compared to a new housing unit in the exurbs, the
occupants of new units at Shadow Falls will drive fewer miles, make more trips on transit, bike, and foot,
and therefore contribute less to regional air pollution, traffic congestion, and other quality oi life detriments.
As such, the Shadow Falls development will, in our assessment, further the goals of the Midway TMO.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Russ Stark
Executive Director
cc: Wellington Management
Merriam Park Community Council
J ��.��
r �
1954 Universiry Avenue, Suite 1 St. Paul, MN SS 10d
phone 651-644-5108 far(651)641-0293
www.midwavtmo.org midwaytmo@universityunited.com
n_. � ._ . �.
� Carol Broermann FW Shadow Falls Housmg Develo�menY,meeYing ��� � . Page T
� �a=. w�
across the river to our west. Ctearly that seetion of
Lake St. has been under-utilized for years and the
neighborhood is weicoming the investment in thelr
community. There are fewer existing constraints in
that neighborhoold and thus more room for the mixed
use mode4.
Tim
— Theresa Heiland <mpcc@merriam-park.org> wrote:
> Hello everyone:
>
> Thank you for attending the public meeting last week
> regarding Wellington's
> Shadow Fafis housing proposafs.
>
> in addition to the comment cards you received to
> send to Wellington
> Management, please feel free to send comments to the
> Merriam Park Community
> Council. You can simply reply to this e-mail if you
> wish.
>
� Regards,
>
> Theresa Heiland
> Executive Director
>
> Merriam Park Community Cou�cil
> 1684 Selby Avenue
> St. Paul, MN 55104
> Phone: 651.645.6887
> Fax: 651.917.9991
> Web: www.merriam-park.org
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
h ttp://mail.ya hoo. com
_...__ . . _ s
�_. .u_.__, _�._._. ...�,.. __ il.L
- Carol Broermann - FW: Shadow Falls Housin�_ Development meeting _ Page 1.
From: 'Tanya Beli" <TBelt@WELLiNGTONMGT.COM>
To: "Jay Benanav" <Jay.Benanav@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 12/14/2005 10:53:51 PM
Subject: FW: Shadow Faiis Housing Developmenf ineeting
I don't believe early e-maiis in support were ever counted or credited
so I am going through my files.
—Original Message--
From: Tim Faust [mailto:tandcfaust@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 6:50 PM
To: Theresa Heiland
Cc: Tanya Bell; Pete Keely; Jane Prince; Jay Benanav;
jim. marti@skypoint.com
Subject: Re: Shadow Falis Housing Development meeting
I'm supportive of the proposals in general. I think
the buiidings will be good additions to the
neighborhood. They wilt add to the parking oongestion
due to the conversion of the existing parking lot to
other uses but i believe that was inevitable.
As I stated in the meeting, I am not supportive of the
suggestions from University United reps also in
attendance at the meeting to add retail to the
buildings. We have a heavy concentration of apartment
buiidings in the area. I believe this is the highest
concentration in Merriam Park. We also have park and
ride use of the existing parking due to the
availability of mass transit. As someone noted in the
meeting, the neighborhood aiso provides parking for
Eastcliff events. ThaYs 7,200 people per year due to
a recent newspaper articie. In addition, we provide
parking to the commuting students at UST (day and
night), UST events, the UST dorm students, and the
rentai properties for UST students who have an
i�ordinate number of cars. We also have commuters
cutting through our neighborhood to avoid the Cretin
and Marshall intersection. Given the above, 1 don't
think we need to attract khe additional tra�c and
parking that retail wiil bring.
We are a"landlocked" neighborhood, with the golf
course to the north, UST to the east, the Shadow Falls
gorge to the south, and the river to the west. When
ihe last parking spot is gone in the neighborhood,
iYs a pretty Iong hike to the ne� one.
I believe the mixed use model for trensit friendly
development is a good one when consideration is given
fo existing condifions in the neighborhood. I befieve
the existing conditions in Shadow Falls wouid suggest
that retail would be probiematic here. Weiiington
came to the same conciusion.
At the same time, I'm excited about the developments
��o��
.. ��������;
the sky. You probabfy are not going to hear much from all the many
� "��
peop(e in our neighborhood who support the Shadow Falls pro}ect. You
will hear mostly from the few who oppose it and organizations fhey've
managed to persuade to help them stop it. But I suspect that a survey
of neighbors would reveaf much more support than apposition for the project.
I realize that the project is considered part of the'critical' area for
the Mississippi River. However, as an advocate for a11 kinds of issues
related to the river throughout my adult life, I wouid have to say that
the issue of'sight lines' ranks at or near the bottom of the river's
needs. Things like the locks & dams, road polfution run-off, farming
practices and a whole host of other issues are a lot more pressing in
terms of the health and vitality of the Mississippi.
I urge you to support the decisions of the Planning Commission on the
Shadow Falis Project.
Regards, Tom
c: Council President Lantry, Theresa Heiland, Jane Prince
Thomas Welna
Director, The High Winds Fund
Macalester College
1600 Grand Avenue
Sainf Paul, MN 55105
(651)696-6305
CC: Jane Prince <Jane.Prince@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, Kathy Lantry
<kathy.lantry@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, Theresa Heiland <ccmerriam@agiliti.�et>
From: Tom Welna <welna@macalester.edu> i--'`� �
To: "Benanav, Jay" <Jay.Benanav@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 12121 /2005 4:53:52 PM r
Subject: Shadow Faffs Projecf
,� � -_
Dear Jay, � � `� �
I noticed in the latest Viilager that fhere is going to tae a� appeaf of
the Planning Commission decisions conceming the Shadow Falls/Wellington
development. 1 am writi�g to urge you to uphold the Planning Commission
decision. I write as a neighbor, living around the comer on the Cretin
side of Town & Country, and, as a Iife-long environmentafist.
First, this is exactly the kind of development that we need to enhance
Marshall Avenue. I believe it wiil cause others to take another look at
Marshall and could quite possibly improve fhe mix of neighborhood
businesses at both Cretin & Marshall and at Cleveland & Marshall — both
of which are currenUyjust a hodge-podge collection of services that
are not terribly usefui to nearby residents. Second, like others in our
neighborhood, I would like to have an option Iike fhe Shadow Faiis
residences when it comes time to send my little giris ouY into the real
wor)d and seil the home on Carroll. Piii Hill, Shadow Faiis and
Desnoyer are great piaces to iive but don't offer all that much in the
way of high quality retirement housing for those of us who want to sfay
in the neighborhood long after we no longer need our big houses and yards.
I also believe that the sort of density that is being proposed is also
exactly what is needed if we are to achieve sustainability of our urban
environment. �ight rail projects, streetcars, car-sharing programs, the
developement ot neighborhood businesses that we can waik to — all these
things can only be sustained if we have enough high quaiity density both
in terms of users and in terms of taxpayers. Unfortu�ately, there is
stiil a lot of out-of-date thinking on the issues of density. The idea
that we can't build anything higher than a couple of stories in height
because it will 'just bring more cars' or'it will change the character
of our neighborhood' has been proven wrong in cities throughout Europe
and North America. tocatiy, I think of the near northside of
Minneapolis, where the high-density development changed the charaeter of
the neighborhood and it is now a thriving community. Even what
Minneapolis has done just across the Marshall/Lake bridge has cleariy
enhanced the qualify of the neighborhoods on both sides of the river.
In your hometown who complains about Yall buildings around Central Park?
Instead most people would just love to Iive there.
7he Twin Cifies is going to grow dramaticaliy in the next 20 or 30
years. Saint Paul has a choice: we can provide high quaiity, high
density urban developments or we can pay (directiy and indirectly) for
more development in exurbia — a choice that will do nobody any
environmental favors. Tfie more prepared Saint Paui is to weicome that
population growth, Yhe richer we wi!! be tor iY — both poiiticaily and
economicaliy.
There is also a misguided notion that tall structures are'ugly' and
shouldn't be seen. I got some of that myself when Macalester decided to
put up its wind turbine. The fact is, most people see the turbine as a
beautiful thing symbolizing a pollution-free future— not some menace in
: i -� '���
;. ,� ; .
Management-Shadow Falls Housing proposals: 205 Otis Ave., 2318 Mar... Page 3 of 4
recommendations, which were the following: �����
:� � ,� ,�
205 Otis:
The stafF recommends approvai of the site plan to allow construction of a
21 unit condominium with underground parking at 205 Otis Avenue
subject to the fo!lowing conditions:
l. Variances for building height and setbacks must be approved.
2. A fina4 sewer and storm water management plan must be approved
by Public Works, including provisions for draining the low end of the
ramp leading to the underground parking.
Staff also recommends approval of height and setback variances for a 4-
story, 50 foot tafi, 21-unit condominium apartment buiiding with a 22
foot front yard setback, a 7.8 foot north side yard setback, a 9 foot rear
yard setback, and a 53°10 lot coverage at 205 Otis Avenue.
2318 Marshall Ave.
The staff recommends approval of the site plan to allow a mixed-use
development with 24 units and limited commercial space on the first
floor at 2318 f�arshail Avenue, subject to the foJlowing conditions:
1. The proper�y must be rezoned to TN2 and variances must be
approved for building height and setbacks.
2. A final sewer and storm water management plan must be
approved by Public Works, including provisions for draining the low end
of the ramp leading to the underground parking.
3. A revised landscape plan must be submitted that shows two new
shade trees in the boulevard on Otis.
The Merriam Park Community Council submitted the following
recommendations:
1. Approve a 10 feet height variance of the church site building (205
Otis Avenue) and the other variances for this property, including a
setback variance conditioned upon the finding of additiona! guest parking
spaces.
2. Approve of the re-zoning of parking lot parcel (2318 Marshall)
from B-2 to TN-2.
3. Make no recommendation on the height variance and all other
variances requested for the parking lot parcel (2318 Marshall).
The Zoning Committee will submit these recommendations to the Saint
Pauf Pianning Commission on Friday, November 18 at 8:30 a.m., Room
40 (basement) in City Hali. This is not a pubiic hearing, however, the
public are welcome to attend. The City Council wlli take final action on
the rezoning request. However, the height and setback variances will be
determined by the Planning Commission.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Prince\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00OO1.HTM 11/17/2005
�,�=°�i�6
��
� o
� x
10 November 2005
Merriam Park
�; � � � --t�
� �� " '�!
Community Council
1684 Selby Avenue • St. Paul • Minnesota • 55104
mpcc@merriam-pazk.org • www.merriam-pazk.org
teI: 651.645.6887 • fa�c: 651.917.9991
Paficia James/Altan Torstenson
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
1400 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102-1634
re: Wellington Management
File # O5 182739
File # 05 182516
File # 05-184-397
Fife # 05-184-704
File # 05-184-791
Dear Patricia and AIIan;
At the November 9, 2005 Board of DirecTors meefing of the Merriam Park Community Council (MPCC),
the MPCC Land Use Committee presented to the Board the following recommendations regarding the
Shadow Falls Housing development projects proposed by Wellington Management, Inc.:
(i) Approve a 10 feet height variance of the church site building (205 Otis Avenue) and the other
variances for this property, incfuding a setback variance conditioned upon the finding of additional guest
parking spaces.
(ii) Approve of the re-zoning of parking lot parcel {2318 Marshall) from B-2 to TN-2.
(iii) Make no recommendation on the height variance and ali other variances requested for the
parking loY parce! (2398 Marshal!).
These three recommendations were put foRh as three (3) separate motions. The Board approved all
three. MPCC Land Use Committee Chair Dr. James Marti wilf provide rafionate for the above
recommendations by verbal testimony before Saint Paul Planning Commission Zoning Committee at its
Pubiic Hearing on November 10, 2005.
Thank you for your assistance to the Merriam Park Community Council. Please tlirect any questions you
may have to our staff, Theresa Heiland, at 651-645-6887.
Very Truly Yours,
Scott Banas
President
Merriam Park Community Council
��ti���
Page 1 of i
Carol Broermann
_� -- — `' � ;
._ . t :
From: "Paul R. Knapp" <pknapp(a�scvinc.com>
To: <ay.benanav(�a,ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 12/14/2005 10:46 PM
Jay:
dust wanted to drop you a note and express my support, as a neighborhood resident and as a St. Pau!
businessman, for Weilington's Shadow Falis redevelopment(s)
Weflington is a first class developer, and the projects it is proposing wiN be a real positive for our neighborhood
I would be happy to discuss the project further if you like - if you think my testimony would be helpful, please do
let me know
Happy holidays to you and your family -
Regards,
Paul Knapp
651-6D4-4204 office
612-710-1203 cell
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Broerman\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 1/4/2006
_.�. ..
. .. _ . ---
Carol Broermann . � � _ Pa9e 1
From: <loisquam@aol.com>
To: <jay.benanav@ci.stpaui.mn.us>
Date: 12/1 S/2005 725:19 PM
Jay,
I want to let you know that ! am in strong support of the Shadow Fafls
project at Otis and Marshail. This site offers a unique opportunity to
maximize the tax base with respeciful, well-designed density that takes
advantage of the Marshall Avenue transit and the views of downtown.
This is a great oppoRunity to do what is right for the city - provide
exceilent attractive housing in a convenient location in order to stem
movement to Mendota Heights or downtown Minneapolis. This is an
opportunity for a vibrant development without changing the integrity of
that area.
Jay, I woufd appreciate your suppor[.
Yours,
Lois Quam
_.
Carol Broermann Shadow Falls � _„ _,_._ _ Page 1,,
From: "Maggie Passmore" <Mpassmor@Issmn.org> -
�i
To: yay.benanav@ci.stpaui.mn.us>
Date: 12/19l2005 1222:21 PM
Subject: Shadow Fafls
Mr. Benanav: We are writing to express our support for the proposed Shadow Falls devefopment at the
corner of Otis and Marshall.
This sort of project is exactly the kind of development our neighborhood and city needs. It is respectFui of
the surrounding landscape while still allowing us to grow our residential tax base, something that you are
only too aware that we are seriously in need of. 1 urge you to support this project when it comes to the
City Council's attention at your meeting on December 21.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Maggie and Rich Passmore
1835 Ashiand Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55104
651-647-6730
mpassmore@Issmn.org
� � � �'��
From: <Steve.Sheahan@visi.com>
To: <jay.benanav@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 12/27/2005 2:01:34 PM
Subject: Shadow Falis Project
Jay,
I am writing to you today to voice my support for the proposed Shadow Falis
Projects. As a life long Saint Paul resident I am grateful that there is more
of a choice for today's residents to have the opportunity to stay in the City
of Saint Paui.
1 can remember the old Gas Station at the corner of Otis and Marshall Avenue.
To have a chance to use the site for the purposes of adding housing to our
great city is wonderful. The Otis Avenue site is equally exciting in my
opinion as many of the neighbors I grew up with have been, in effect forced to
make a move outside of the neighborhood they have loved because there has not
been an alternative that meets their needs.
Community is very important to me. To afford people the chance to stay in the
place the have lived most of their Iives is a"win, win" situation.
Respecffully,
Steve Sheahan
Carol Broermann Wellington Management Shadow Falls Development Project � �� � � 1'�
; r ..« :.�
From: "Beverly Mercil" <bevmercil@hotmail.com>
To: <jay.benanav@ci.stpaui.mn.us>
Date: 113J2006 126:15 PM
Subject: Weifington Management Shadow Falls Development Project
Jay Benanav,
As new owners at 200 N. Mississippi River Drive Condominiums, we would like
to express support for our Association working with Wellington Management to
resolve any issues that arise from Wellington's development of their Otis
site. The Otis site is directly behind our building. We believe working
together will benefit both parties.
Beveriy & Arfan Mercif
200 N. Mississippi River Drive #2D
St. Paul, MN 55104
http://messengec
Support for Shadow Fa11s
Page 1 of 1
�. . �.
Carol Broermann - Support for Shadow Falls
From: Megan Junius <mjunius(a�peterhilldesign.com>
To: <wazd3�a,ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 12/29l2005 1032 AM
Subject: Support for Shadow Falls
CC: <wazd4@cistpaul.mn.us>, <ward7@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Dear Pat,
I have been reading the articles in the Villager regazding Wellington Management Inc.'s Shadow Falls development
with much interest. As a new Mac/Groveland resident, I think this is exactly what St. Paul needs to diversify their
housing options. It seems that most deve3opments are going to the downtown area and it is great to have more multi-
family housing options right in the residential neighborhoods where most people want to live.
The plans for the two bui]dings seem to match exactly the character and design of the neighborhood. The proposed
height will actually enhance Marshall Avenue and bring a well-designed landmark to ihe entrance of St. Paul from the
Lake Street Bridge. Maybe this will entice other developers to update some other parts of Marshall Avenue or bring in
more in-demand retail and restaurants.
Many St. Paul residents are growing older and don't want to leave the neighborhood. My husband's grandmother is one
of them. After residing 50+ years on Berkeley, where else would she want to live? Her livelihood is in this close-knit
neighborhood. Her community is her nearby family, church, and neighborhood grocery store. It would be nice to have
another housing option for her close by when she is unable to care for her house and yazd.
I urge you to support the decisions of the Planning Commission on the 5hadow Falls Project. This will be a great
addition to Merriam Park and St. Paul as a whole.
Sincerely,
Megan Junius
1734 Princeton Avenue
cc: Council President Kathy Lantry, Jay Benanav
file:/(C:\Documents and Settings\Broerman\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOQ02.HTM 1!4/2006
� � ��
l�
December 22, 2005
Councilperson
City Council
City of St. Paul
City Hall
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Application of Wellington Management to re-zone pcoperty
At SE comex of Marshall and Otis avenues in St. Paul
Dear Mr.iMs.::
We, the Desnoyer Pazk Improvement Association ,"DPIA", the neighborhood
organization of the residents of Desnoyer Pazk, stand in opposition to the attempts of
Wellington Management to obtain a variance with respect to height for construction of a
building at the SE Corner of Marshall and Otis avenues in St. Paul.
For many yeazs this property held a gas station and more recently a church parking lot, neither of
which created any heigJ�t issues. It is our understanding that in order to circumvent the applicable height
requirements the developer is using the top of the proposed underground parking garage nine feet above
ground level as the base for measuring the height of the building rather than the ground level. It is also our
understanding that the proposed height of the building even if ineasured from the ground would exceed
applicable height xesuictions.
This site is immediately adjacent to the desi�aated Critical Area along the Mississippi River. Our
organization is dedicated to the preservation of the Mississippi River gorge and actively supports the City
of St. Paul's Great River Pro}ect which states a similar commitment. Pesmitting this project to exceed the
height which the zoning regulations impose would have a strong negative impact not only on this critical
azea along the Mississippi River but faz beyond it. Moreover, it would set the stage for successive
development of neighboring properties each of which will edge even fiuther above the height resuictions
imgosed 6y the wning regulations. The protection of this unpazatleled national public resource is far more
important that the economic gain which would result from allowing this developer to exceed the height
requirements imposed by the applicable zoning restrictions. Determination of the appropriate macimwn
height of buildings in this area is a matter of public policy which should be determined tl�rough zoning
regulations and not by successive variances for special interests. The authorization of vaziances for this
purpose by the Planning Commission is per se azbitrary and capricious and should be rejected by the
Council.
We urge you to vote to protect the Mississippi River Critical Area. We urge you and the council to
reject this height variance.
Very truly yours,
Desnoyer Park Improvement Association
Boazd of Directors
Ms. Peck Tierney
Chair
Page 1 of 1
Carol Broermann - Shadow Falls
�� '�.
From: "Nancy Gregg" <holrruim�a,hohnail.com>
To: <jay.benanav�a,cistpaul.mn.us>
Date: 12{3012005 436 PM
Subject: Shadow Falls
Dear City Councii Member Benanav,
�v��
I am writing in support of the proposed building/site plans for 2318 Marshall Ave. and 205 Otis Ave.
am a current resident of St. Paul and see this plan as a great improvement on the land maYimizing its
value.
I have heazd many make reference to the lack of upscale condo living in these areas of St. Paul. The two
proposed buildings will allow current residents to enjoy a worry-free lifestyle and stay in St. Paul.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
Nancy Crregg
file:/JC:\Documents and Settings\Broerman\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00004.HTM 1/3/2006
�. _ _ _
Carol Broermann Shadow Falls project " __. _,_ _, Page 1
� � , 5 ������'�
From: "ROGER A BARR" <barr1843@msn.com>
To: <jay.benanav@ci.stpaui.mn.us>
Date: 12/30/2005 2:19:17 PM
Subject: Shadow Fails project
Jay -
I'm aware that some controvercy has deveioped about the height of the Shodow
Falls project at Otis and Marshali. I wanted to let you know that I think
that the proposed project is very desiravble for St. Paul and the
neighborhood. Wellington has a long history of high quality projects and our
neighborhood will benefit from new ownershop options in a highky desirable
location. The height of the building seem very reasonable.
I hope that you can help bring this new development, with new residents and
a better tax base, to fruition.
Kate Barr
651-647-1643
����a�� �:
� � �` :
.� � �
140 Otis Avenue
St. Paul, IvLN 55104
December 30, 2005
To: St. Paul Ciry Council
Re: Wellington Management, Inc. develapments on Otis Avenue
Dear Council Members:
I am writing to let you know that I support the condominium developments at 205 Otis Avenue
and 1385 Marshall Avenue proposed by Wellington Management, Inc.
I have lived in the neighborhood for almost 14 years. i support the Weilington project for two
reasons. First, I believe we need high-quality deveIopments in ptace of the existing uses (former
church and parking lot). Second, I think the Wellington projects are consistent with the chazacter
of the neighborhood and that they will contribute to the neighborhood's charm and long-term
stability.
I understand that the City has approved applications for rezoning and height variances for both
sites, but that a cidzen has fi]ed an appeal of the height variance for the Otis Avenue site. I ask
you to deny the appeal. The height of the ptis Avenue development is part o£ the plan for
providing high-qualiry condomuuum units there. Without the planned height, there is a risk that
units in the QRs Avenue developmenY will have to be scaled back such that they will lack the
quality and style that is important to our neighborhood.
In the interest of full disclosure, I want to let you Imow that I work at the ]aw firm that represents
Wellington Management, Ine. However, that fact has not influenced my support of these
developments.
Sincerely, �
��d
Carolyn . Wolski
- -- - -- _ - - -- -- --
Mary Erickson - Fwd: Rezoning from B2 to TN2 for 7-story mixed use building w ith 24 reside unit Page 1
•�-.� : �,4 �
r �
From: Patricia James
To: City Council - Letters
Date: 1/4/2006 11:45:46 AM
Subject: fwd: Rezoning from B2 to TN2 for 7-story mixed use building with 24 residential unit
Received this morning re Z.F. 05-184-704, rezoning of 2318 Marshall Ave., which is on the Council
agenda for public hearing this evening.
»> "BILL SCOTT" <ktobscott72@msn.com> 01/04/06 10:45 AM »>
Patricia and Zoning Committee Members:
As a ten-year resident of 32 Otis Ave., I am totally opposed to the planned 7-story development at the
corner of 2318 Marshall Ave., SE corner at Otis. This is simply too much for the neighborhood. This is
already a busy corner with little available parking. This will add to an already busy traffic pattern on Otis
Ave. heading east. I would be open to considering a smaller, two to three story complex similar to those
in the area.
Please, vote against this proposed rezoning. It is not the right development for the neighborhood.
Thank you. Please e-mail me results of the hearing today.
Katherine O'Hara
32 Otis Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
(651)645-6040
Friends of the Mississip�i River =
46 East Fourth Street, Suite 606 • Saint Paul, MN 55101 • 651/222-2193 ' f� G51/222-6005 •
��mG:
TX/orking to protect tbe Missi,ssippi River and its watersbad in the Twin Cities area
December 28, 2005
Sai�t Paul CiTy Council
City Hall - West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Deaz Council Member Benanav,
Friends of the Mississippi River (FMRj is a local non-profit citizen-based oraanization YhaY works io protect and
enhance the Mississippi River and its watershed in the Twin Cities mettopolitan azea., FMR has over 30Q active
members and thousands of volunteers whom live within the City of St. Paul and care deeply about the river.
I am writing in regazd to the Shadow FaIls I development proposed by Wellington Management, Inc. at the corner of
Otis and Pvlazshall. The project proposal recently received a height variance to allow a seven-story ?8-R structure,
contingent upon a zoning change that will be before the Saint Paul CiTy Council on January 4, 2006. Friends of the
Mississippi River respectfully requests that you deny the requested ioning change for the property in order to prevent
the height vaziance from being granted.
When FMR first leamed about the project, we had some concems about the impact a tall building at this site could
have on scenic views to and from the Mississippi River. We initially did not pursue a resolutioz� to our concems
because the project is just outside the Mississippi River State Critical Area boundary. However, upon fwther
consideration, we conducted a"Balloon Test" at fhe site with seven volunteers on December 13, 2005, in order to see
for ourselves how significant the visual impacts might be. A 4-ft wide red balloon was raised from the corner o£
Marshall and Otis to 80 feet, 60 feet and 40 feet, while volunteers took digital photos from several locations on both
sides of the rivec (Photo sheet enclosed).
The results of the Balloon Test provide evidence that an 80-foot building at this site would negatively impact the
unique scenic qualities of the Mississippi Gorge Regional Park — a natural and recreational resource that is treasured
by citizens (and cities!) on both sides of the river. Presently, no buildings stick up above the tops of tha trees when
one looks across- or down-river from the bike trail or the river's edge, and St. PauPs critical azea regutations have
succeeded in maintaining this iruportant public viewshed for over 3U years.
We encourage the City Council to ensure that these views continue to stay protected by limiting the height of this
building to 5 stories (60 ft) or iess. Failure to do so, will set a dangerous precedence that could lead to additional and
cumulative impacts from other tall development near ths river both in and outside of the critical area.
The Mississippi River has only one true gorge, and it provides an important pIace of sanctuary and refuge for both
urbanites and wi]dlife alike. Please do al] you can to protect a viewshed that has been the subject of human
admiration for thousands of yeazs, and to this date, has remained relatively unchanged.
Sincerely,
lrene Jones
Outreach Direc o
� ��
Printed on.100°/a recycled paper w:th roy-btued ink
����:
Friend.s af the Mississippi River �
46 East Fourrh Stceet, Suire 606 • Saint Paul, IvIN >5101 • G�1/222-2193 • faz 651/222-600� •
Working to �rotect the Mzssissippi River and its watershecL in the Twin Cities area
December 28, 2005
Saint Paul City Council
City Hall - West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Deaz Council Member Benanav,
Friends oi the Mississappi River (FMR) is a locaI non-profit citizen-based organization that works to protect and
enfiance the Mississippi River and its watershed in the Twin Cities metropolitan azea. FMR has pver 300 active
members and thousands of volunteers whom live within the CiTy of St. Paul and caze deeply about the river.
�'��t
I azn writing in regazd to the Shadow Falls II development proposad by Wellington Management, Inc. at 205 Otis
Avenue. The pro}ect site is within the Urban Open Space District of the Mississippi River Critical Area, which
ailows for 40-ft maximum height in St. Pau1. A decision by the P}anning Commission to grant a height variance for a
SQ-ft structure was appealed by a local resident and will be before the City Council on Sanuary 4, 2006. Friends of the
Mississippi River respectfully requests that you deny the requested height variance for Shadow Falls IT.
Wlieri FMR first learned about the project, we wer.e told by ciry staff that the building proposed would be no taller
than the 5-story building to the west at 200 N. Mississippi River Blvd, and therefore it would have_ no impacts to
views of and from the river. We have since teamed that due to a variety of factors (grade change, underground
pazking, 12-foot floors) that Shadow Falls IT will stick up a ful] 10-12 fee above 200 N. Mississippi River Boulevard;
and therefore it will be visible from the river and impact some uiews.
FMR has two main concerns about this height variance. The 5rst is the precedence of allowing variances for height
within the criticai area. Without demonstration of real hardship, variances should simply never be given out. The
City Council needs to take seriously its commihnent to protecting the river corridor by sticking to its own p1an and
zoning code. Failure to do so, can set a bad precedence that could lead to additional and cumulative impacts from
other tall development in the critical area.
The second is that some members of the community were told the same mis-leading information that we were (i.e.
the building will be no talier than the building to the west) and this mis-information �uld have been a factor in
Merriam Park's recommendation for approval of the variance.
A variance for height should not be granted unless the project proposer can demonstrate clearly and consistently that
the project will not be Ya11ec than aurrounding buiIdings. '
Sincerely,
�-ff �� �
ene"Jones
Printed on 100% recycledpaper witb.roy-bared ink
.
Page 1 of 3
s..
t,.� i . � M/ 1
Jane Prince - November 10, 2005 at 3:30 pm- Tesfimony to the St Paul Planning
Zoning Committee for the public hearing
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Catherine Born" <cborn@mic.umn.edu>
<j ane.prince@cistpaul.mn.us>
11/10/2005 9:52:04 AM
November 10, 2005 at 330 pm- Testunony to the St Paul Plamiivg Commission Zoning
Committee for the public hearing
Dear Ms. Prince I am forwarding fwo letters which reflect our concerns regazding the requested
variances in our neighborhood. We hope Councilman Benanav will support and address our concerns.
Please feel free to contact me directly.
Catherine Born
President
200 River Drive Condominiusn Association
Dear Ms. James:
As the President of the 200 River Drive Condominium Association and on behalf of the Association
members, I asn submitting the following as testimony to the St Paul Planning Commission Zoning
Committee for the public hearing scheduled November 10, 2005 at 3:30 pm. re: Wellington's
application for rezoning, variances and site plan review to construct a mixed use building at 2318
Mazshall Ave and SE corner of Otis Av. (File # OS-184-704, #OS-184-791, #OS-182-516). First of all
the majority of owners are pleased that this property is being developed for residential use.
However at this point the 200 River Drive Condominium Association, comprising 20 owners of the
properiy located at 200 N. Mississippi River Boulevard, opposes the requested variances for 2318
Marshall and 205 Otis on the grounds that: adding new high density housing in a neighborhood that
already consists primarily of high density housing without providing adequate parking for the
additional residents and their visitors will fiirther sh the neighborhood's already very limited
parking options and add to tr�c congestion.
Prior to approving any of the requested variances, the Association requests a Traffic and Parking Impact
Study to consider issues regarding parking, safety and accessibility. The study would assess current and
future parking lnnitations in the immediate neighborhood in contea�t of :
• • The most recent expansion of the University of St. Thomas.
• • The impact of proposed plans for Town & Countty enhancements.
• • The event parking at East Cliff and for other public events e.g. Twin Cities Mazathon, various
charity walks etc
• • Increasing the already high volume of traffic on Marshall Ave. Current congestion and speeds at
30+ MpH hamper pedestrians and parkers alike.
• • Increasing pedestrian traffic and safety issues associated with walking to and from cars parked
at further distances.
• • The access for service, plow and emergency vehicles, especially during the winter months.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Prince\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOS.HTM 11/11/2005
v �U1
����til
�
Page 2 of 3
� - � :� � �
While the ir�c volume already e�sfs, at min;mum the 200 River Drive Condomiruum Association
feels that both the City of St. Paul and Wellington Management must be held accountable for ensuring
additional parking sufficient to accommodate their residents, a ests and service providers. (Reasonabie
estimate of 15 to 20 parking spots in addition to the resident parking that is already planned).
The 200 River Drive Condo Association is ��illing to work in partnership with the Cit;� of St. Paul and
Wellington Management to create additional pazking between the 205 Otis property and the 200
Mississippi River Blvd. property if financial incentives can be made available.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns and to help us move towards a mutually
beneficial solution.
Catherine Born
President
200 River Drive Condominium Association.
612-625-4626
Patricia James
Saint Paul PED
1400 City Hall Annex
25 West 4th Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
November 9, 2005
Dear Patricia:
I am a member of the Condo Association Board of 200 River Drive. I will be unable to attend tomorrow's meeting
so I am sending you my written concerns.
First of ail, let me say that I am not averse to the new development in the neighborhood. I think it can be a
positive, and I was very happy to learn that the new developers wili be fully addressing a problem that our
residents have faced for as long as I can remember: the routine flooding of our garages by water runoff from the
Otis property.
However, I do have significant concerns about the parking congestion that Wellington's current plan could well
cause.
Our 19-unit building has guest parking spaces for 9 or 10 cars. Even though ours is a very quiet building, there
are still ocwsions when guests spill over and need to park on nearby city streets. By that metric, it would seem
that 2318 Marshall and 205 Otis would need at least as many spaces as we have in order to avoid
significant, routine street parking overflow. As I recall, each building is currently planned to have 5 or fewer
guest parking places.
It is also important to keep in mind that the church generously made their lot available for resident parking by
the many nearby apartment buildings. Once the lot is no longer availabie, those 20 cars will also be moving back
to the streets.
For these reasons, I think it behooves the city of St. Paul to be very certain that adequate parking is provided for
the new buildings.
file://C:�Documents and Settings\Prince\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOS.HTM 11/11/2005
Yage .i oi i
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Frank Popplewell
200 Mississippi River Blvd N 16
St Paul, MN 55104
(� f` ' � �
yz �
Public Hearing re: Wellington Management, Inc. housing proposal for 2318 Marshal{ Ave. and 205 Otis Ave. (Shadow Fafls)
Weliingmn Management Co. has submitted an appiication for rezoning, variances, and site pla� review to construct a mixed use building. The St. Paul
Planning Commission Zoning Committee will wnduct a Pubiic Hearing on Thursday, November 10, 2005, at 3:30 p.m. in Gty Hall Chambers, 3rd Floor
CRy Hail - Court House, 15 W. Kellogg Boulevard. You may send written comments to Zomng Committee, Gty of Sai�t Paui, 1400 Gty Hatl Annex, 25
West Fourth Street, Saint Paul, MN 55302-1634.
Purpose (2318 Marshall): �
Variances for7-story building with 24 housing units
1) height 35 ft pertnitted, 78 ft requested for variance of k3 ft.
2) front setback, 15 ft required, 6 ft requested for variance of 9 ft.
Rezone from B2 (COmmunily Business) to TN2 (Tradi6onal Neighborhood) for 7-story building with 24 units.
Purpose (205 Otis Ave, between Daycon & Marshatl):
Appiications kr variances in .
1) height 40 ft max, 50 ft requested for 10 ff variance
2) front yard setback 25 ft. required, 22ft requested for 3 ft variance,
3) side yard set back to requested 8 R. (less than 1/2 the hei9hf of proposed building)
4) rear yard setback required 25 ft, mquested 9 ft for 15 ft variance.
ContaCt Planning and Economic Development staff: Patricia James, 651-266-6639
file:/1C:\Documents and Settings\Prince\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOS.HTM 11/1112005
:
� . a n. \ �
1�> v ,� ^ ���'�
Y
[DPIA LETTERHEAD]
�
� h � u � .
Hon.[<Debbie Montgomery> <Dave Thune> <Pat Harris> Uay Benanav> <Lee Helgen>
<Dan Bostrom> <Kathy Lantry>]
Councilperson
City Council
City of St Paul
City Hall
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Application of Wellington Management for variances for project at 20� Otis
Dear <1VIr> <Ms> [last name of councilperson]:
We are writing on behalf of the Desnoyer Park Improvement Association,
"DPIA", the neighborhood organization of the residents of Desnoyer Park. Desnoyer
Pazk is a neighborhood of 400+ households geographically bounded by Marshall Ave.,
the Mississippi River, I-94 and Cretin Ave. DPIA includes 12 elected board members
each of whom serves a 2 yeaz term. We stand in opposition to the attempts of Wellington
Management to obtain a height variance for construction of a building at 205 Otis Ave.
An appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to approve the variance is on the
CounciPs agenda on January 4, 2006.
For many years the 205 Otis site held a church designed by landmark azchitect
Ralph Rapson. The building created no heigl�t issues It is our understanding that the
height of the proposed building if the vaziance is approved will be appraximately 61 feet
in relation to the base of the abutting property at 200 Mississippi River Boulevard. This
would be 11 feet higher than the existing church building presently at this site. It is our
fiuther understanding that even without the proposed variance the builcting would be 45.5
feet above the existing grade on its river side. This property is included in the designated
Critical Area along the Mississippi Rivex. If is our understanding that the Cxitical Area
height restriction applicable to this property is 40 feet.
Our organization is dedicated to the preservation of the Mississippi River gorge
and actively supports the city of St. Paul's Great River Project which states a similar
commitment. Permitting this project to exceed the height which the Critical Area zoning
regulations impose would have a strong negative impact not only on the Crifical Area
along the Mississippi River but far beyond. Moreover, it may set the stage for successive
development of neighboring properties, each edging even further above the height
restricrions imposed by the zoning regulations. The protection of this unparalleled
national public resource is far more important that the economic gain which would result
from ailowing a developer to exceed the height requirements imposed by the applicable
zoning restrictions. Determination of the appropriate masimum height of buildings in
this azea is a matter of public policy which should be determined through zoning
„ ,.
g�
regulations and not by successive variances for special interests. The authorization of
variances for ttus purpose by the Pla.uning Commission because (as per the staff report)
the properiy could not be put to reasonable use without it is contrary to the provision in
the zoning code which states that variances should not be a anted primarily to increase
the property's value to the landowner.
The Plaiming Commission's approval of the variance is per se arbitrary and
capricious. We urge you to vote to reject it.
V ery truly yours,
Desnoyer Pazk Improvement Association
Boazd of Directors
Peck Tierney,
Chair
Cc: Scott Banas
Chair
Merriam Park Community Council
� r�
[DPIA LETTERHEAD] .. _ ,
[DATE]
Hon. [<Debbie Montgomery> <Daue Thune> <pat Aarris> <Tay Benanav> <Lee Helgen>
<Dan Bostrom> <Kathy Lantry>)
Councilperson
City Council
City of St. Paul
City Hall
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Applicarion of Wellington Management for variances for project at 205 Otis
Deaz <Mr> <Ms> [last name of councilpersonj:
We aze writing on behalf of the Aesnoyer Park Improvement Association,
"DPIA", the neighborhood organizafion of the residents of Desnoyer Park. Desnoyer
Park is a neighborhood of 400+ households geographically bounded by Marshall Ave.,
the Mississippi River, I-94 and Cretin Ave. DPIA includes 12 elected board members
each of whom serves a 2 yeaz term. We stand in opposition to the attempts of Wellington
Management to obtain a heigJ�t variance for construction of a building at 205 Otis Ave.
An appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to approve the variance is on the
Council's agenda on January 4, 2006.
For many years the 205 Otis site held a church designed by landmark architect
Ralph Rapson. The building created no height issues It is our understanding that the
height of the proposed building if the variance is approved will be approximately 61 feet
in relation to the base of the abutting property at 200 Mississippi River Boulevard. This
would bei l feet higher than the existing church building presently at this site. It is our
fiirther understanding that even without the proposed variance the building would be 45.5
feet above the existing grade on its river side. This property is included in the designated
Critical Area along the Mississippi River. It is our understanding that the Crifical Area
height restriction applicable to this property is 40 feet.
Our organizafion is dedicated to the preservation of the Mississippi River gorge
and acfively supports the city of St. Paul's Great River Project which states a similar
commitment. Permitting this project to exceed the height which the Critical Area zoning
regularions impose would have a strong negative impact not only on the Critical Area
along the Mississippi River but fax beyond. Moreoeer, it may set the stage for successive
development of neighboring properties, each edging even further above the height
restrictions imposed by the zoning regulations. The protection of this unparalleled
national public resource is far more important that the economic gain which would result
from allowing a developer to exceed the height requirements imposed by the applicable
zoning restrictions. Determinarion of the appropriate maxnnum height of buildings in
this azea is a matter of public policy which should be determined through zoning
regulations and not by successive variances for special interests. The authorization of
variances for this purpose by the Planning Commission because (as per the staff report)
the property could not be put to reasonable use without it is contrary to the provision in
the zoning code which states that variances should not be granted primarily to increase
the property's value to the landowner.
The Planning Commission's approval of the variance is per se arbitrary and
capricious. We urge you to vote to reject it.
Very truly yours,
Desnoyer Pazk Improvement Association
Board of Directors
Peck Tierney,
Chair
Cc: Scott Banas
Chair
Merriam Park Community Council
'. Comments on Shadow Falls-Otis plan review
r
� Carol Broermann - Comments on Shadow Falls-Otis plan review
Page 1 of 2
� � ������
���
�-- .�������� ���,��-.w..-.... .��.��,�� �...�,..�,_-___ ._., .� ..�w �_ , ._ ;. : �... u ..,� �
From: Steve Sikora <steve@designguys.com>
To: <patricia.james@cistpaul.mn.us>, <wazd4@cistpaul.mn.us>
Date: 11/8/2005 738:52 PM
Subject: Comments on Shadow Falls-Otis plan review
CC: Lynette Sikora <lynette@designguys.com>
File# OS-184-397, #05-182-739
Regarding: Plan Review Shadow Falls-Otis Condominiums
Dear Committee Members,
My wife and myself have lived in the Shadow FaIIs neighborhood for over 12 years. We will be unable to
attend the Planning Commission's Zoning Committee Public Hearing at 3:30 on Thursday due to professional
obligations, but wanted to share our opinions with you. We were initially drawn to St. Paul and to our
neighborhood for the beauty and serenity it offered. We had lived for many years in Minneapolis in a beloved
house we restored, 6ut were ultimately driven away from It as our neighborhood steadily became unlivable. A
local school and its associated problems was the cause of the degradation of our last neighborhood. I never
would have imagined the same sort of thing occurring here in Shadow Falls.
Over the years we have witnessed the University of St. Thomas slowly devouring the East and South sides of
the Shadow Falls neighborhood. Traffic, at a minimum is now 200% what is was when we first moved in. That
of course will only increase as the University's new buildings are erected and filled with students. It seems to
us that money and influence walk hand in hand in St. Paul. Our valiant neighborhood has attempted to stop
the sprawl to little effect. St. Thomas has high profile support, and so they build as they please, relatively
unimpeded. We are becoming resig�ed to it. However, the thought of this new threat of increased population
density to the North and East, is very upsetting and we do not intend to see peace in our neighborhood
further eroded. As it is, St Thomas has the area flooded with day parkers. We live on the corner of Montrose
Place and Dayton, far from The campus but have cars in front of the house almost constantly while school is in
session. In addition, the many apartment complexes that already exist on Otis and Montrose have virtually no
off-street parking. The one available lot, which incidentally fills up every night, is going to be lost to one of the
proposed high rise buildings. That means we are at a significant parking loss without factoring in any
additional cars.
Today the Shadow Falls neighborhood is flooded with faculty, associates of St. Thomas & student day parkers.
Add to that the apartment dwellers who already inhabit the complexes in the neighborhood. As many as 3
people share an apartment and each has a car. Consider the eight to ten apartment buildings already on the
two blocks in question and you'll understand why the only place for overflow parking to occur is on the streets
occupied by private homes. This scenario compromises the quality of life for resident homeowners already
burdened with high property taxes and the cost of street maintenance. We often can't park in front of our own
homes.
Although we are not totally opposed to development or building, the proposed condos seem ludicrously over-
scaled for the available sites. As I hope I am clearly emphasizing, there is already a parking problem. A severe
one. The plan seems to offer absolutely no provision for the cars that currently park off street in the soon to
be Iost surface lot. All of these spaces will be displaced by a building and inadequate parking provision for cars
of the new residents (two spaces per u�it at a minimum plus visitor parking should be requiried). Please prove
to us that the City Council is capable of good judgment. You can do so by drastically scaling down the two new
developments and above all, by thinking through the parking and tra�c issues which will severely test an
already problematic situation.
The impact of a 7 story building goes well beyond parking and traffic congestion. The proposed condominiums
are to be erected in a particularfy picturesque location, One that in the year 2005 allows for a beautiful views
of the downtown Minneapolis skyline, and St. Paul depending on the direction one is driving. Highrise
structures would destroy the view and the beauty for all, except perhaps for the select few living at the tops of
file:lfC:�Docuxnents and 5ettings\Broerman\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00003.HTM 11l912005
Comments on Shadow Falls-Otis plan review
.�
.
Page 2 of 2
the new buildings. ArchitecturalVy blending two towers into the cozy historic neighborhood of two and three
story buildings is not possible. A more thoughtFUl approach would be to design the new condos to be at
maximum 4 stories in height. In this way, with some sensitivity they could coexist with single family
dwellings.
In summary, a new building must suit the neighborhood in tone, texture and scafe. Tra�c and parking are
already a significant problem for area residents and commuters alike. These issues are of enormous concern
to us taxpayers who acYually live here. Please do not ignore the obvious flaws in any plan that does not
address and solve each of these troubling issues for the local community.
Sincere(y,
Steve Sikora
Lynette Erickson-Sikora
173 Montrose Place
St. Paul, MN 55104
651-646-2554
file://C:�Documents and Settings\Broerman\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00003.HTM 11/9/2005
� a � d \
�r n
St. Paul and
Ramsey Cou
20TH ANNiVERSARY
1985-2005
1621 Beechwood Ave.
SC Paut, MN 55116
651-698-0543
Fvc - 651-69&8761
www.fiendsoftheparks.org
m�i�oc
Aadrca Vrnto
v��� a��arn�
Michazl Pri<herd
7eaone Weigum
Trcenuer
Sames R Bricher
D;�um�
Duke Addicks
cnar smok��
]effny Croonquist
Mark D9vis
Trudy Dunhartf
Tt�onias T. Dwig6t
xrit �
w��u� r�
Suve Hauser
Marilyn Lundberg
Robert Nethercut
� rn. r�i�n
Scoa xan,say
P'iern Regnitt
Mars6a Soucheray
Cyethia Wheeler
Dirxror Emcritus
David Lilly
Truman W. Porter
Ez Officio
Bab Bierscheid
Dan Collins
Mazc Gocss
Greg Mack
Telry Noonan
Bob Sandquis[
Ezecutive Director
and Secrctary
Peggy Lynch
December 23, 2005
Councilmember Jay Benanav
Suite 310D, City Hall
15 W. Keliogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
RE: Variances for 250 Otis Ave.
Deaz Councilmember Benanav:
The Board of the Friends of the Parks urges you to deny the height variance for the housing
development at 250 Otis Ave. The appeal for the variance is scheduled for the Council
agenda on January 4, 2006.
The development is in the crifical area and the current height pernuts a 40 ft. building. The
variance wi11 a11ow a 50 ft. building. There was no mention in the report to the Zoning
Committee of the Planning Commission that this building is in the Mississippi River
Critical Area or is part of the MNRRA.
Unfortunately 1ittle by little the critical area is being compromised by variances issued one
at a time. If a vazlance on this building is permitted, we are concerned about the precedent
this action will have on future development in the critical azea.
We ask that you consider our request.
Sincerely,
(�ii�Y�.W `.�— lf .�
Andrea Vento
President �y�',
Page 1 of 1
Jane Prince - Wellington Condo Project
e.. .✓.r v �_ .� y ,� -�--v. ��.--.��.x_ _.,�� H.._ ��.-.. ._ _._.-<.
From: "Dorothy Heinz" <dmheinz@pauletslater.com>
To: <mary.bzuton@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: i l/18/2005 9:03:06 AM
Subject: Wellington Condo Project
CC: <wazd4@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
1 again viewed the "proposed" condo project for my neighborhood. Again the perspective showed the view
apparently from a hovering helicopter - i.e. the four-story walk-up, down hifi and across a narrow neighborhood
street, is shown as taller than the proposed monstrosity. Why does the developer fear showing the neighbors
how the building would really look in the existing neighborhood?
How does stepping the building back toward the residentiai area surrounding the building make everyone feei
better - especiaily those in the building �ext door on Otis?
If Wellington again gets anything he wants from the city - many of us who will have to live with this will always
view this as Weffington giving us and the city the finger.
Dorothy Heinz
1969 Selby Avenue
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Prince\Local SettingslTemp\GW}00002.HTM 11/18/2005
� �� � Page 1 of 1
Jane Prince - WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT PROPER�ES ��� 1 �
From: "Gem Patterson" <gerri@thompsonandassoc.us>
To: <jane.prince@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 11/18/2005 10:23:00 AM
Subject: WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT PROPERTIES
THE MORE I CONSIDER WELLINGTON'S PROPOSAL TO BUILD CONDOMINIUMS ON MARSHALL AVE.
THE MORE CONCERNS f HAVE . THE MAJOR ftEASON 1S TNAT IT WIIL TOTALLY CHANGE THE VIEW OF
THE COUNTRY CLUB FROM SEVERAL ANGLES. THIS AREA IS HISTORICAL AND BEAUTIFUL. THE TWO
ISSUES I HAVE ARE: THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. IT WILL COMPLETELY OVERTAKE THE AREA
AND THE PARKING . T1iEftE IS NO PARKING f30W. THE NEWER CONDOS ACROSS THE RIVER AftE
NOT VISUALLY APPEALING AT ALL. THE DRAWING IN THE PIONEER PRESS THAT WELLINGTOf�f HAS
SUBMITTED HAS NO GRACE OR STYLE TO IT. IT IOOKS LIKE THOSE ACROSS THE RIVER. I AM NOT
AGAINST BUILDING THE COMDOS ON THAT SPOT - JUST THE PRESERVATfON OF A FLOW OF
GREENERY AND HILLS THAT GO TO THE RIVER. THIS AREA IS VERY SCENIC AND ANY NEW
BUILDINGS SHOULD FLOW WITH THIS BEAUTY.
file://C:�Documents and Settings\Prince\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 11/18/2005
_. . . . .. _ ._ _ ..
Carol Broermann - Shadow Falls January_3 doc ' Page 1�
7anuary 4, 2006
7ay Benanav, Councilmember
City of St. Paul
I S West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
Dear Council member Benanav:
I am writing in regard to two residential development projects that are proposed for the
Merriam Pazk neighborhood where I live. Both are on the public hearing agenda for
January 3, 2006. They include 1) a seven story, 24 unit building at 2318 Marshall
Avenue o� the southeast comer of Marshall and Otis — Zoning File OS-184-704 and 2) a
condominium building with 21 uniu at 205 Otis between Marshal] Avenue and Dayton -
Zoning File OS-184-397.
I do not support the project at 205 Otis if it violates existing city code or state law or rule
in regard to height restrictions in the Mississippi River corridor. I do support these
projects from the perspective of increasing the density of development in our
neighborhood and St. Paul in general. The construction of residential and commercial
buildings of four to six stories along Mazshall Avenue (served by the #21 and #53 bus),
along other transit corridors, and at neighborhood commercia] hubs is a good thing.
Construction of even taller buildings makes sense in downtown or at proposed station
locations on light rail uansit.
Most of St. Paul is a relatively low density and too many of the ciTy's commercial
conidors and neighborhood hubs look more like aging suburban strips than vibrant urban
places. Higher density development means more people to snpport neighborhood retai]
and to justify expanded bus service. Higher density development increases the city's tas
base and helps to maintain the city's clout in the legislature — clout which has eroded as
St. Paul's share of the region's population has shrunk.
I wish that the St. Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development had strongly
encouraged the inclusion of retail on the first floor of the project proposed for 2318
Marshall Avenue. Our neighborhood needs more services to which residents can walk—
a small grocery store for example like Speedy Market in St. Anthony Park. Without this
important neighborhood amenity, the vast majority of people in this part of Merriam Park
wiil have to make a car trip every time they need a loaf of bread, a quart of ice cream, a
pound of hamburger, a bottle of aspirin, etc. All those car trips by neighborhood
residents contribute to noise and air pollution, traffic congestion, and the demand for
parking.
Sincerely,
Bazb Thoman
2157 Roblyn Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55704