07-1028Suspension - 10/24/2007
RESOLUTION
Council File # 07-1028
Green Sheet # 3045555
1 WIIEREAS, on or about June 22, 2007, Keith Jans, d/b/a/ Real Estate Equities (hereinafter, the
2 "zoning applicanP'), in DSI Zoning File No. 07-106418, applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals
3 (hereinafter, the `BZA") for several variances from the sh application of the Zoning Code in
4 order to redevelop the site laiown as the St. Paul Church Home with cooperative housing with
5 underground parking for senior citizens and town-homes, the said site being located in an RM2
6 zoning district and commonly known as 484 Ashland Avenue and legally described as
7 WOODLAND PARK ADDITION TO ST. PAUL LOTS 7 THRU 12 BLK 14 LOT 12 BLK 14;
8 and
WHEREAS, the following variances for the housing site were requested: 1) a maacimum 35% lot
coverage is allowed, 65% is proposed for a variance of 30%; 2) a 25-foot rear-yazd setback is
required, 9 feet is proposed for a 16-foot rear yard setback; and
WHEREAS, the following variances for the townhouse site were requested: 1) a maximum 35%
lot coverage is allowed, 41% is proposed for a variance of 6%; 2) a 25-foot rear yard setback is
required, 10 feet is proposed for a 15-foot rear yard setback variance; 3) a side yard setback of
15-feet is required on the north side, 13-feet is proposed for a 2-foot side yard setback variance;
and
WHEREAS, the BZA, on July 16, 2007, having duly notified affected property owners, duly
conducted a public hearing where the zoning applicant represented that it was the applicanYs
desire to fiirther continue the matter for the purpose of ineeting with the local neighborhood
district council to discuss issues related to the said project; and
WHEREAS, the BZA, based upon the representation of the zoning applicant and the local
neighborhood district council, moved to continue the public hearing for two weeks to July 30,
2007; and
WHEREAS, the BZA, on July 30, 2007, reopened the public hearing at which all persons
interested were afforded the opportunity to be heard and, following extensive testimony
regarding the said variance applications, the public hearing was closed and the BZA took action
on the following motions: 1) a motion to deny the variance applications which failed on a 3-3
vote; 2) a motion to grant the variance applications which failed on a 3-3 vote; and 3) a motion
to further continue consideration of the matter to August 13, 2007 which passed on a unanimous
voice vote; and
WHEREAS, the BZA, on August 13, 2007, reconsidered the variance applications and, based
upon a motion to approve the variances, granted the variances on a 5-2 vote based upon the
following findings of fact, as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 07-106418, adopted August 13,
2007:
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict
provisions of the code.
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
�
The applicant is proposing to convert the former St. Paul Church Home building into a -�Q
senior housing co-operative with underground parking. They are also proposing to ��' � � o�'
construct a five-unit townhouse structure on the former parking lot site. In converting the
Church Home building they will be retaining the original building, removing two
additions and building a new addition on the east side of the original building. The
underground parking will be located under the new addition and will be accessed from
the alley. The proposed townhouse structure will have a combination of garage and
surface parking that will also be accessed from the alley. This a reasonable and
permitted use of this property that cannot be accomplished under the sri application of
the code.
The plight of the Zand owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were not created by the Zand owner.
Designing a development that incoxparates the original Church Home building, which is
a historically significant structure, and provides sufficient underground parking into
limestone subsoil is complicated from and engineering standpoint and expensive. The
requested variances are needed to make the redevelopment of this site economically
feasible. These are circumstances that were not created by the current property owners.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the
City of Saint Paul.
The proposed senior co-op housing and the townhouse building provide a good reuse of
this property. The development will preserve the historic original building and provide
adequate off-street parking. The RM2 zoning would allow a taller building and greater
density, however, in an effort to construct a building in keeping with the height of the
original Church Home, the applicant is proposing to expand the building outward rather
than upwazd. This has resulted in the lot coverage and setback variances. In order to
ensure that there would be adequate underground pazking for the new buildings, the
applicant has held down the number of dwelling units. The underground parking means
that land that would have been used for surface parking can be used instead for green
space. The requested variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and
this proposed redevelopment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent
property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or
unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
The setback variance for the senior housing building is separated from the nearest
residential property by the alley and will not significantly affect the supply of light or air
to those properties. The rear of the townhouse is also separated from the Church Home
by the alley and neither that nor the relatively minor side yard setback variance will
significantly affect adjacent properties.
The proposed lot coverage and setbacks are similar to other buildings in the immediate
area. Although the proposed building heights do not require a variance, they are similar
to the height of the other buildings in the area. This development is one of the few multi-
family developments that will meet the off-street parking requirements. This site is
located within the Historic Hill dish and the new development will require design
approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission. That should ensure that the new
construction is consistent with the historic character of the neighborhood. This project
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
12$
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
�
with the requested variances will not change the character of the neighborhood and �
should help revitalize this azea. D��I pa
The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located,
nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property.
The proposed multi-family housing unit buildings are permitted uses within this zoning
district. The proposed variance, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning
classification 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.
The proposed variances are based upon a desire to build a development consistent with
the historic character of the neighborhood.
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 61.702(a), 31 neighbors to the project,
represented by Judith Beck and Susan Burnight (hereinafter, the "appellants"), on or about
August 23, 2007, filed an appeal under DSI Zoning File No.07-137535 from the determination
made by the BZA and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering
the actions taken by the BZA under DSI Zoning File No. 07-106418; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Leg. Code §61.702(b), an upon notice to affected parties, a public
hearing was duly set on before the City Council on September 19, 2007 at which time the
Council, based upon its understanding that the zoning applicant and the appellants were meeting
separately to resolve their differences, moved to fiu continue the public hearing to October 3,
2007; and
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2007, the City Council duly moved to continue the public hearing to
October 17, 2007 having been apprised that the zoning applicant, having met with the appellants,
on October 1, 2007, made several changes to its site plan which would result in a change to the
proj ect and the variances granted by the BZA, by reducing the number of dwelling units,
reducing the lot coverage, increasing the setback line along the east property line but requiring a
parking variance; and
WHEREAS, DSI staff, based upon these representations, on October 4, 2007 duly provided
written notice affected property owners of a proposed new parking variance which was required
based upon the zoning applicant's amended plan of October 1, 2007, which would be heard by
the Council at the October 17, 2007 public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2007, the City Council finally conducted a public hearing on the
said appeal where all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard, and at the close
of the public hearing, the Council, having heard the statements made and having considered the
variance applications, the report of staff and the record, minutes and resolution of the BZA,
together with the information regarding the October 1, 2007 compromise in the design and site
plan far the said project does hereby
RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, having considered all the records and
testimony in this matter, including the changes to the plan dated October 1, 2007, as presented
by the zoning applicant, hereby affirms the decision of the BZA in this matter as the appellants
have failed to demonstrate error in the facts or findings of the BZA in this matter and that the
Council adopts as its own and to the extent modified below, the facts, findings and conclusions
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
of the BZA as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 07-106418 ; and be it
��
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council, pursuant to its authority under Leg. Code § 61.704,
hereby modifies the findings and decision of the BZA in this matter, based upon the zoning
applicant's October 1, 2007 plan which represents the addirion of a front court yazd, variations to
the structure's building lines, additional exterior parking, a reduction in the overall number of
dwelling units from 48 to 44, recessing the 4`� floor dwelling units towards the reaz of the
building, increasing the setback along the east property line and reducing the lot coverage from
65% to 52%, in order to grant the parking variance necessary to incorporate these modifications;
and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the said parking variance of 10 spaces which is necessary in order
to implement the zoning applicanYs design changes dated October 1, 2007, is hereby granted
based upon the following finding of fact which shall be generally incorporated into BZA
Resolution No. 07-106418 by reference and specifically incoxparated in to findings Nos. l, 3 and
4 of the said BZA resolution as follows:
"The requested parking variance will allow the lot coverage to be reduced and the
setback from the residential property line to the east increased. While the 13
stacked parking spaces cannot be counted as meeting the required parking, they
will presumably be used by tenants with two vehicles and would for practical
purposes help mitigate the proposed parking shortage."
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal on behalf of 31 neighbors by Judith Beck and Susan
Burnight is hereby denied and, be it
FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to the appellants,
the zoning applicant, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the BZA.
Requested by Department of:
�
Form Approv d by City Attomey
B �L✓l✓wr��- /�
Adopt�on Certified by Council
BY �1P1
0
Approved by ay : D te _
By:
io����� �
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
m
AdoptedbyCouncil Date /!�{���1/,�1Ji .�H. �/�/�7
o�—iozs
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
C� �ounnl
Contact Person 8 Phone:
Renee Tyler
266-8611
Must Be on Council Aaen
Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
E-Document Required: Y
Document Contact:
Contact Phone:
z¢o�T-07 � I Green Sheet NO: 3045555
� , VepGNnenl Oent�ere�sef�
0 ounc0
Assign 1 ounetl De artmen[D'uecror
Number 2 ouncil
For
Rout�ng 3 onnoil Ma odASSistant
Ofder 4 ouncil
5 ' Clerk (SNCIeck�
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
Approve resolu[ion pertaining to 484 Ashland
�danons: Hpprove (H) or w
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Commission
Answer the Followina Questions:
t Has this personlfirm ever worked under a contract for this depattme�t?
Yes No
2 Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3 Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantages IE Approved:
Disadvantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Transaction:
Funding Source:
Fi nancial Information:
(Explain)
CosURevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
October 24, 2007 3:51 PM Page 1
.
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS �(
Bob Kessler, Direcfo� b �'�D�J
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Christopher B. Co[eman, Mayor
.Alla ST 2�, 2���
Mary Erickson
Council Reseazch
310 City Hall
St Paul MN 55102
Dear Mary:
COMMERCEBUILDING Telephone: 651-266-9090
8 Fourth Street Eas; Suite 200 Facsrmde: 65I-266-9124
St Pau[, Minnesaa 5510l-1024 Web. wvnv smaul ew/ds�
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, September 19, 2007, for the following zoning case:
Appellant: Judith Beck and 31 neighbors
Zaning File #: Q7 137535
Purpose: An appeal of a decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approving the
variances for lot coverage and setbacks to redevelop the St Paul Church Home site
for senior housing with underground parking and townhomes.
Location:
Staff:
District:
Board:
484 Ashland Ave
Recommended Approval
Recommended Denial
Approved on a 5- 2 vote
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Debbie Montgomery. My
understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your
earliest convenience and that you will publish notice of ihe hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Thank you! i
Sincerely,
Corinne Tilley
DSI Zoning and Site
NOTICE OF PUBLIC }IEARING
The Saint Paul City Council wlll con-
duct a public hearing on Wednesday, Oc-
tober 1'7, 2007, at 5:30 p.m. in the City
Council Chamhers. Third Floor, City
HalllCourtkiouse, 15 West Kello� Boule-
vard, St Paul, MN, to consider tfie appeal
of Judith Beck and 31 neighbors to a deci-
sion of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals ap-
proving the variances for lot coverage and
setbacks to redevelop the St. Paul Church
Home site for senior housing with under-
ground parking and townliomes. This is a
revised hearing notice which reflects pro-
posed changes to the variances requested
as a result of discussions beriveen the ap-
pellants and the develop�r. (ZF
07-137535) (Public kiearing continued
from October 3J
Dated: October 4, 2007 .
MARY ERICKSON,
tlssistant City Secretary
(October 8) .
_ '__-�= ST. PAUL LECxAi. LEDGER _-_�_'__'
2214$953 ' �
NOTICE OF PUBIaC HEARING
The Saint Paul �ty Council will con-
duct a public heariri� on Wednesday, Sep-
tember 19, 2007. at 5:30,p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, Third Floor, City
Hall/Coucthovse, 15 West Kellogg Boule-
vard, 5t. Pavl, MN. �to consider the appeai
of Judith Beck and 31 neighbors to a deci-
sion of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals ap-
provu�g vazlances for lot coverage and set-
backs to -redevelop the � St Paul Church
Home s3te £or senior housing with unda-
gcound pazlang and townhomes at 484
Ash]and Avenue. (ZF 07-137-535) .
Dated: August 27. 2007 . '
MARY ERfCKSON
Assistant.�ty Council Secretazy
- (Angust 30]
—�-s- 81: PADL LEGAi.IEDCdR =—_=
22145646
DEPARTMENTOFSAFETYANDINSPECTfONS �� �� ��
Bob Kess[er, Drreclor
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Chrrstopher B. Co[eman, Mayor
October 3. 2007
Mary Erickson
Council Researoh
310 City Hali
St Paul MN 55102
Dear Mary:
COMHIERCEBUILDING Telephone: 651-266-9090
8 Fourlh Street Eost, Suite 200 Facsimi[e: 651-266-9124
StPmd,Minnesom357D]-]024 Web: wwwsmaul.eov/dri
This hearing was originally scheduled for September 19, 2007 and has been laid over for a public
hearing on October 17, 2007. This is a revised hearing notice reflecting the new hearing date and
proposed changes to the variances requested as a result of discussions between the appellants and the
developer. I will be sending out new notices to the surrounding proper[y owners and the new hearing
date and revised variances should be included on the agenda for October 17, 2007.
Appellant: Judith Beck and 31 neighbors
Zoning File #: 07 137535
Purpose: An appeal of a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approving the
variances for lot coverage and setbacks to redevelop the St Paul Church Home site
for senior housing with underground parking and townhomes.
NOTE! The following variances are being requested pursuant to a revised
plan:
1.) A rear setback of 25 feet is required and a setback of 9 feet is
proposed, for a variance of 16 feet.
2.) Lot coverage of 35% is allowed and coverage of 52% is requested,
for a variance of 17%.
3.) The revised plan for 44 dwelling units requires 66 parking spaces
and 56 non tandem spaces are proposed, for a variance of 10 parking
spaces.
Location:
StafF.
District:
Board:
484 Ashland Ave
Recommended Approval
Recommended Denial
Approved on a 5- 2 vote
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Debbie Montgomery. My
understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your
earliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Thank you!
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
�7
•
•
•
CiTY OF SANT PAL'L
Chris[opher B. Colearan, A,-(¢yo
August 27, 2007
�1ary Erickson
Council Research
310 City Ha11
S# Paul NN 55102
Dear Ufary:
,�y ���
DEYARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS
�
5ab Kessler, Director !� � � 0
/J
CO.LIil4El?CFBUILDl,i'G Zelephone: 651-265-9090
8 Fourth S(reet East, Su�:e 200 Facsinrle� 6SI-266-9124
St Pou1, Prfinnescta 5 51 0 1-1 024 ryeh: u:��.v s aul ew/dsi
I would like to co�firm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, September 19, 2007, for the following zoning case:
Appellant: Judith Beck and 31 neighbors
Zoning File #: 07 137535
Purpose: An appeal of a decision of die Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approving the
variances for lot coverage and setbacks to redevelop the St Paul Church Home site
foc senior housing with undergxound parking and townhomes.
Location:
Staff:
District:
Board:
484 Ashland Ave
Recommended Approvat
Recommended Denial
Approved on a 5- 2 vote
I have confirmed this date with the offlce of Council Member Debbie Montgomery. My
understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your
eariiest c�nvenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Thank you!
Sincere]y,
( � i ������ ` ��
Corinne Tilley
DSI Zoning and Site Plan Review
AA-ADA-EEO Emptoyer
•
� VtS:� .S�I�P IN �/✓+/�/
07 /aa-�
Zoning office use oniy
APPlICATlON FOR APPEAL Fi�e no. ��' I 3��'J`J
Departrrzent of Safety and Inspeciio ��� � D.S.I. �ee �.�'? . U o
200 Commerce Building AUG 2 3 2D07 Tentative hearing date:
8 Fourth St. E, Suite Z00 �'� � I �
Saint Paul, MN SSIOI-IO24
65I-266-9008
APPItCANT
Zip Daytime phone
.
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Name of owner (if different)
Address �{g � E1 LAY/D
Legal description:
(attach addifional sheet if necessary}
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
� Board of Zoning Appeais �City Counci(
under the provisions of Chapter 61, Section ,10t, Paragraph at of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision
made by
on
200�. File number: d� '/b( f�/ff
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit,
decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the
Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pl2nning Commission.
S �E /!!l��nG�
mC U rMt NTS — L'oV�TZ MEM o
�t A�7A14 et FiNOIN 6S'
additiona( sheet if
•
AppiicanYssignat - u � Date�Cityagent
�
Attachment One
Address andNames ofNeiglzbors of484 Ashland
41 S Ashfand
478 Holty
478 Hof(y
477 Hotly
477 Ho((y
487/489 Ashfand
456 Ashiand
463 Ashtand
4S4 Ashtand
467 Ashland
454 Ashtand
418 Ashiand
� 482 Hotty
488 Holly
442 Ash(and
442 Ashland
448 Ashland
91 Kent
491 Ashtand
472 Holly
472 Holly
491 Ashland
192 Mackubin
483 Ashland
483 Ash(and
463 Ashland
453 Ashiand
457 Ashland
454 Ashland
457 Ash{and
471 Ashtand
471 Ashiand
Gera(d Bames
Ed Barnes
Susan 8ames
Biil Barrett
Kaf(ry 8arreft
Judith Beck
Jim 6rooks
Sue Burnight
Tom Davis
Ethan det�aray
Susie Deshon
Val Evje
Tess Galati
Bill Gray
Frantc Greczyna
Marcia Greczyna
Len Jackson
Ed Lambert
Don Lee
Judy McCoy
Paut McCoy
Nan McGrane
606 Meier
Dan Muelier
Diane MuNfer
paug Mueller
Maureen Novak
Susan O'Keefe Wethington
Ken Rockter
Jaseph Wethipgton
Phitfip Ze(azo
�
•
�J
�
0 7 /o�-�
• August 23, 2007
To: 7ohn Hazdwick
Re: Application for Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals decision from the August 13,
2007 meeting regarding 484 Ashland (#07-1Ob418)
From: This appeal application is submitted by over thirry neighbors d'uectly affected hy
the development at 484 Ashiand. Names and addresses are listed on page three. Point
of eontact for the neighbarhood is Judith Beck 651-227-2890 and/or Susan Burnight 651-
665-9650.
This appeal is brou�t forward due to the error in findings regazding the variances. �'he
neighborhood concerns focus on two variances - the variance £or lot coverage and the
variance for alley set backs. These are the two variances that have the biggest impact.
The neighborhood is happy to see improvements in the property. The neighborhood and
the current developer are in general agreement on the following areas as it relates to
development of the property
• Renovation of the 1893 structure referred to as the Ashland hotel.
• Demolition of the associated 1960's and 80's additions as soon as possible.
� • Mazket rate owner occupied use of the property.
• Use of the properties far seniors only.
• Cooperative housing operating model for the management of the senior housing,
(if there is a binding conunitment to that model or owner occupied model).
• Underground parking for residents is a positive attribute.
• Townhouse portion of the development.
The Board of Zoning Appeals made an error in granting the large variances for this
development. The problem is the mass and intensity and the e�loitation of the space
used for the massive cooperative honsing building is not allowed by the cunent land use
standards.
• The vaziance granted for lot coverage of 65% is excessive. It is almost double the
lot coverage allowed.
• The vaziance for alley set backs is excessive. The set back granted is about one
third the requirement. (9 feet when 25 is required.) This is a safety issue with
three e�ts onto the alley for 77 cars ih the parking garage.
• The cooperative building is 15,000 square feet bigger than the structures removed.
The cooperative is donble the size of fhe e�vsting structure. This magnitude of the
size violates the `spirit of do no harm".
• The mass and design do not fit with the histoxic district xequirements.
• The livability of the neighborhood is negatively affected by the size and large
number (48) units. There is no parldng provision for guests, services or staff.
• • The "build it on a bigger footprint" takes away green space.
• This is a fabulous residential neighbarhood and a desirable property for
development. It is not an area in need of revitalization. �
Page 1 of 1
This appeal is requesting that all ar at least two of the four variances the zoning board ,
approved be reversed. The two variances with the biggest impact are for the lot coverage
and alley set backs. The lot coverage variance is extreme and egregious_ This will be
the biggest building in this residentiat neighborhood. The size is ouk of step for the
residential blocks tbat are nat on a commercial corridor such as Western or Selby. The
new structizre is too big aud the nine foot alley set back unsafe for the voliune of cars.
This development is out of step with the area long range plan foz this azea. Density is a
useful and effective inner city development objecrive. It is most useful on major arteries,
intersections and near commerciat streets. On residential streets a certain amount of
density is useful. This is a residentiat street that already l�as density and the current
amount of density is enough
Homeowners are looking for a commitment from the city officials to adhere ta the
existing Iand use standards. This is a fair expectation for homeowners who have
invested their spirit and energy and equity in restoring and creatmg a desirable historic
neighborhood.
Tbe neighbors continue to be willing and engaged in meeting with the developer and
work towards solufions. The neighborhood is open to a mediation process.
We all look farward to resolving this matter successfully,
Attachment 1 List ofApplicants
Attacl�ment 2 Standard Application Form Grounds for Appeal
Attachment 3 Grounds for Appeal Detail
Attachxneirt 4 SupporCing petition and signatures
�
�
(
Page 2 of 2
47-/o�-g
�
City of 5aint Paul
Soard of Zoning Appeals Resolution Zoning File Number 07-I064i8
Enor in Fact
1. T$e variances c�rere granted based on a significant, directly relevant, factual error of
omission. The HPC's preliminary finding on Thursday, August 9, was not addressed by
the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. The applicants believe this information should have been
provzded to the Board of Zoning Appeals at the meeting. Due to tkus omission, the Board
of Zoning Appeals had only the information �hat HPC had no concerns, when in fact the
commissioners had signi&cant concerns and asked foz design changes on August 4. The
HPC's preliuunary finding was that the applicant's proposal was not consistent with the
HPC's requirements relating to massing, rhythm and directional emphasis. The FiPC
required the applicant to work with the HPC to develop a smaller structure for the
cooperative housiag element that complied with the HPC guidelines in those areas. The
HP'C Chair stated that imtil the problems with massing, rhytt�m aud directional emphasis
wexe xesolved hexe was no teason to address other azchitectural issues relating to the
project.
This relevant and new inforn�ation, especially mass, size and rhy'tlun should have been
• provided to the Board of Zoriing Appeals befoie voting.
2. The appellants request that the calculation and numbers used for the % lot coyerage
for the senior cooperative be pxovided. The appellants request the ability to pxovide
additional comments after those numbers are auailable and discussec� with city staff.
Error in Findings:
The Apgellants' believe that all of the six findings required by Section 61.601 of the
legislative code cannot be sustained.
I. The property in question cannot be put to a reasoi�able use under the str�ict provisions I
of the code.
There are many other possible uses of the property that would be reasonable and could be
implemented within the strict provisions of the Code, or with much lesser impact
vaziances. The properiy could be used tvith different types of housing and numbers of
units that fit the provisioris of the code.
The finding states that the proposed "...use of this property ... cannot tie accomplished
under the strict application of the code." This finding doesn`t address the issue reguired
by the Code. The Code requires a finding that the "...property cannot be pnt to a
reasonable use under the strict provisions ofthe Code...", not that the proposed use
� cannot be accomplished under the strict provisions ofthe Code.
�
Page 1 of 1
0
2. The plfght of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to this properry, and these
circumstances were not created by the ZandowneY.
The second finding requires a determina.tion that the variances aze necessary due to
circumstances unique to the property, not circumstances unique to the proposed
development. There is riothing about the existing Ashland Aote1 sh�ucture that demands
such an enormous structure to be built with such dzastic lot coverage and setback
variances.
Underground parldng is appropriate, however that is not a reason to grant the maguitude
of variances requested. While some variances for underground parking may be
acceptable, ones of this size are excessive.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the coc�e, and is
consistent with the health safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the
City of Sttint Pau1.
The setback reductions on the already badiy deteriorated alley will create a
dangerously smalt ingress and egress azea for a large additional number of
vebicles. �
Expanding "outward rather than upward" does not keep with the "spirit
and intenf" of the code. The findings state that the use of "underground parkiug" means
that the land that would have been used for surface parking can instead be used for green
space. Eacpanding outward is actually greatly reducing the amount of green space.."
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or
unreasonabdy diminish established property values within the surrounding af
The developer has failed to provide any data regazding the impact of the strueture on the
immediately adjacent dwellings to the north and east. On the east, the developer has
stated in neighborhood meetings that the cooperative buiiding will be 20' 8" from the east
lot line. This will significantly impair adequate light and air to that adjacent property (464
Ashland Avenue), and also significantly impair late afteinoon light to the property at 456
Ashlaud Avenue. There is also concern about the winter afternoon shadow effects on
Ashland for several ofthe homes across the street to the north.
The proposed cooperative building will drastically alter the essential character of the
surrounding area and unzeasonably diminish established property values within the
surrounding aze� The developer has aclmowledged that tY�is building will ba the largest �
structure on a residential street in the Ramsey Hill area. Buildings including the
Commodore and the newly bu$t Western Row and Aberdeen condominiums aze all an a �
Page 2 of 2
D � /o a-�
� commercial thorougbfaze (Western Avenue), unlike the proposed structure, wluch is
Iocated exclusively on residential side streets. We believe that, in fact, the proposed
development may be the largest residential, institufionat or commercial structure on a
residential street in the Ramsey Hill azea.
S. The variance, if grantec� tivould not petmit any use that is not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the disirict where the affected Zand is
lacated, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the properry.
We do not believe all relevant provisions of the code affecting the praperty are addressed
in this finding. The developers have not yet demonstrated that the code provisions for the
Historic District and Watershed Aistrict have been met.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
The economic and business model and pxofit from the development is the basis for the
size ofthe buHding and associated variances. The Applicant has often stated in
neighborhood meetings that the reason the variances are being requested is tt�at they aze
necessary to make the project riumbers work. The primaty need for such a large building
. is value and income.
The Appellants' respectfully request an oppo�•hu�ity to supplement this appfication.
�
�
Page 3 of 3
We, the undersigned, join in our disapprovai ofthe projecf Yo redo the St. PauI's Church �
Home at 484 Ashland as proposed by Real Estate Equities.
.� (�ffID
1. Extreme Vaziances:'�}-F3"/o = 87% increase
2. Not appropriate for the site.
3. Current lot coverage is about 15,000 sq. ft.
Proposed lot coverage is about 31,000 sq. ft.
4. The project is not compatibie with Aistaric PreservaYion Commission guideliaes.
R-
_ I
�
�
D7 /o�g
• We, the undersigned, join in our disapproval of the project to redo the St. Paul's Church
Home at 484 Ashland as proposed by Real Estate Equities.
3S
1. Extreme Variances: 3�% = 87% increase
2_ Not appropriate for the site.
3. Current lot coverage is about I5,000 sq. ft.
Proposed lot coverage is about 31,000 sq. ft.
4. The project is not compatible with Historic Preservation Commission guidelines.
•
i
�
�$ (� � '`��
�-
We, the undersigned, join in our disapproval of the project to redo the St. Paul's Church .
Home at 484 Ashland as proposed by Rea1 Estate Equifies.
3s — � s�o
i. ExtremaVariances:�%=87%increase
2. Not appropriate for the site.
3. Cuzrent lot coverage is about 15,000 sq. ft.
Proposed lot coverage is about 31,000 sq. ft.
4. The project is comparible with Historic Preservafion Commission guidelines.
i�J
�
L J
� �i
.I
1
� - // I / �i a'g
. We, the undersigned, join in our disapproval of the project to redo the St. PauPs Chuich
Home at 484 Ashland as proposed by Real Estafe Equities.
�S— � S
1. Extreme Variances: �% = 87% increase
2. Not appropriate for the site.
3. Current lot coverage is about 15,000 sq. $.
Proposed lot coverage is about 31,000 sq. ft.
4. The project is not compatible with Historic Preservation Commission guidelines.
�
•
l�
We, the undersigned, joitt in our disapproval of the project to redo the St: Paul's Church �
Home at 484 Ashland as proposed by Real EsYate Eqnifies.
3S— ���o
1. Exh Variances: �/o = 87% increase
2. Not appropriate for the site.
3. Current Iot coverage is about I5,000 sq. ft.
Proposed lot coverage is about 31,�00 sq. ft.
4. The project is not compafible with Historic Preservation Commission guidelines.
�
•
I�
D7-/o a-g
�
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
TYPE OF 9PPLICATION:
APPLICANT:
AEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PLANNTNG DISTRICT:
PIiE5ENT ZONING:
REPORT DATE:
DEADLTNE FOR ACTION:
Vlajor Variance
KEITH JANS, Real Estate Equites
7uly 30, 2007
484 ASHLAND AVENUE
FILE #07-106418
WOODLAND PARK ADDITION TO ST. PAUL LOTS 7
THRU 12 BLK 14 LOT 12 BLK 14
RM2; HPL-Hill
July 9, 2007
August 7, 2007
BY: 7ohn Hardwick
DATE RECEIVED: June 28, 2007
� A. PURPOSE: Several variances in order to redevelop the St. Paul Church Aome site for
senior housing with underground pazking and town homes. Senior housing site: 1) A
maximum 35% lot coverage is allowed, 65% is proposed, for a variance of 30%. 2) A
25-foot reaz yard setback is required, 9 feet is proposed for a 16-foot rear yard setUack
va� Townhouse site: 3) A maximum 35% coverage is allowed, 41% is proposed
for a variance of 6% lot coverage. 4) A 25-foot rear yard setback is required, 10 feet is
proposed for a 15-foot rear yard setback variance. 5) A side yard setback of 15-feet is
required on the north side, 13 feet is proposed for a 2-foot side yard setback variance.
B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This development consists of two separate parcels,
the senior co-op parcel and the townhouse parcei. The co-op parcel is about 49,000
square feet and is the site of the St. Paul Church Home buiiding. The townhouse parcel is
about 15,000 square feet and is the site of the parking lot for the Church Home. An alley
separates the two parcels.
Surrounding Land Use: Mixed residentiai uses.
�
C. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to redevelop this property.
D. FINDII�GS:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reczsonable use under the strict provisions
of the code.
Page I of 3
ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 66.231
I�
File #07-106418
Staff Report
The appticanf is proposing to convert the former St. Paut Church Home buiiding into
a senior housing co-operative with underground pazking. They are also proposing to
construct a five-unit townhouse structure on the former parking lot site. In converting
the Church Home building they wiil be retaining the original building, removing two
additions and building a new addition on the east side of th€ original building. The
underground parking will be Iocated under fhe new addition and will be accessed
from the alley. The proposed townhouse structure will have a combinarion of garage
and surface parking that will also be accessed from the alley. This is a reasonable and
permiited use of this property that cannot be accomplished under the strict application
of the code.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, anct
these circumstances were not created by the land owner.
�
Designing a development that incorporates the original Church Home building, which
is a historically significant structure, and provides sufficient underground parking into
limestone subsoil is complicated from an engineering standpoint and expensive. Tke
requested variances are needed to make redevelopment of this site economically �
feasible. These are circumstances that were not created by the current property
owners.
3. The proposed variance is irz keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
consistent with the Tzealth, safety, comfort, morals and weZfare of the inhnbitants of
the City of St. Paul.
The proposed senior co-op housing and the townhouse building provide a good reuse
of this property. The development will preserve the kustoric original buiIding and
provide adequate off-street pazking. The RM2 zoning would allow a taller building
and greater density, however, in an effort to construct a building in keeping with the
height of the ariginal Church Home, the applicant is proposing to expand the building
outward rather than upward. This has resulted in the lot coverage and setback
variances. In order to ensure that there would be adequate underground parking for
the new buildings, the applicant has held down the number of dwelling units. The
underground parking means that land that would have been used for surface parking
can be used instead for green space. The raquested variances are in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the code and this proposed redevelopment is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed variance will not i�npair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent
property, nor will it alter the essential character of the sur^rounding area or �
unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
��
Page 2 of 3
I /, ;
, File #07-106418
Staff Report
The setback variance for the senior housing huilding is separated from the nearest
residential property by the alley and will not significantly affect the supply of light or
air to those properties. The rear of the townhouse is also separated from the Church
Home by the alley and neither that nor the relatively minor side yard setback variance
will significantly affect adjacent properties.
The proposed (ot coverages and setbacks are similar to other buildings in tlie
immediate area. Although the proposed building heights do not require a variance,
they are similar to the height of other buildings in the area. This development is one
of the few multi-family developments that will meet the off-street parking
requirements. This site is located within the Historic Hill district and the new
development will require design approval from the Heritage Preservation
Commission. That should ensure that the new construction is cousistent with the
historic character of the neighborhood. This project with the requested variances will
not change the character of the neighborhood and should help revitalize this area.
5. The vaYiance, if granted, would not pennit any use that is not permitted under the
. pYOVisions of the code for the property in the district wheYe the affectecl land is
Zocated, nor would it atter oY change the zoning district classification of the property.
The proposed multi-family housing unit buildings are permitted ases within this
zoning district. The proposed variances, if granted, woald not change or alter the
zoning classification of the property.
6. The request for variance zs not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the pctrcel of Zand.
The proposed variances are based upon a desire to build a development consistent
with the historic character of the neighborhood.
E. DISTffiCT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIOl\T: As of the date of this report, we have
not received a recommendation from District 8.
F. CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has not received any conespondence regarding this
matter.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based oti findings 1 through 6, staff recommends
approval of fl1e variances subject to the condition that the applicant obtains design
� approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission.
`S
Page 3 of 3
� ;// -, ,
F � " � � ��-j 4f/ �� �
'•-� �;,� i(�,c �' Zoning ef#�ce use an
���LEC��oo�������f��i,/�{�iOQ��;� Filenumber. ���I����$
✓
Fee: $ ��D . �
OFFCCE dF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS, AND 7,/,�, p
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Tentative hearing date:__z__
8 Fourth Street 8ast, Suite 20�
Saint Paul, MN SSIOX
65I-2b6-9�08
APPlICANT
PRdPERTY
Section(s):
Ciry agent
Name�.�l'�� SQNS Company �e4, �S'��� �Wi.i �i�S
Address�s S"�'• �i Slree
City S-�• Pa�...d State_j/lSlZip 5 �Z DaytimePhone 651 3�aO
Propertyinterestofapplicant(owner,�contractpurchaser, COY��FQGf R�YCIie.SeY`
Name of owner (if different) �-/ ia i.. ��s C�iuYCfit f/plH.t j �ne.
�egal description� �E .Q-��
(attach additionat sheet if necessaryj
Lot size
Present Zoning Present Use
ProposedUse yg �-�' SehCC�r �za,.._ StkJC'ma2M'�ive..4 5-1-�u7v��nnntaS
Variance[s] requested:
Se e A.tM�-�"-��
Supporting tnformation: Supply the necessary information that is applicabie to your variance request, provide
details regarding tha project, explain why a variance is needed. Duplex/triplex conversions may require a pro forma
to be submitted. Atiach additional sheets if necessary.
SP.C.
Attachments as required:
� �o.���
Site Plan Attacfiments
Pra Forma �
Applicant's signature ��� ��,.—�-- Date o Z �
,
` ; .� .':-
� f ; . .
� EXHISTT A D7 1 ���
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Following are the legal descriptions for the main parcel or 484 Ashland Avenue and the
parking lot parcel:
Main Parcel
Except the E 15 ; Lot 6, Block 14, and Lots 7-12, Block 14, Woodiand Park
Addition to St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
�
•
n
Parking Lot:
Lots 13 & 14, Block 14, Woodland Park Addition to St. Paul, Ramsey Counry,
Minnesota.
��
A-i.
1977477v4
� , �t
St. PauPs Church Home Redevelopment — Variance Request
Our proposai is to redevelop the existing Saint Paul's Church Home site located at 484
Ashland Ave into 48 senior cooperative housing units.
Current Site Conditions
The Saint Paul's Church Home complex at the corner of Ashland and Mackubin is
composed of three shuchzres, one constructed in 1896 and one constructed in 1960 with a
large three-story addition to the reaz in 1985. The western most and oldest buiiding in the
complex was historically known as the Ashland hotel. There is also an exiting parking
lot across the alley from the complex.
Proposed Chan�es
Our proposal is to renovate the existing 1896 built structure, remove the later (1960 &
1985) additions, and construct a senior housing cooperative with underground parking.
We are also proposing to construct five townhomes in the location o£the existing parking
Iot that wilI have garage and surface pazking Iocated offthe aliey.
Variances Requested:
Cooperafive Site:
1) Lot Coverage — Our proposal requires 65% lot coverage. Current zoning code
aliows 35%.
2) Rear Yard Set Back — Our proposal is for a 9' rear yazd set back. Current zoning
requires 25'.
Townhouse Site:
1) Lot Coverage — Our proposal requires 41 % lot coverage. Current zoning allows
35%.
2) Rear yard Set Back — Our proposal is for a 10' reaz yard set back. Current zoning
requires 25' feet.
3) Side yard set back. Our proposal is for a 13' foot side yard set back. Current
zoning requires 15' feet.
Supporting Arguments for the requested Variances
Lot Coverage — The proposed lot coverage is partially due to the fact that we are
praviding the required 1 S parking stalls per unit under the bnilding. The actual3 story
structure does not cover the entire 65% it actually only covers 55%. Having the parking
underground allows us to have no surface pazking on the cooperarive site and the total
impervious area to be only 67%. We also believe the proposed lot coverage fits within
the context af the neighborhood. We have included a neighborhood map that highlights
properties that exceed 70% lot coverage.
i
�
�i
�
2 � ->,: :_:'_ .�::. .
�
�
�
�
D�-/D�g
Rear Yard Set Back — We feel that the requested set backs fit within the context of the
neighborhood. Many of the existing garages along the alley are built on or within a
couple of feet of the rear yard property lina. The requested side yard setback along
Mackubin is consistent with praperties on both sides of sneet for severat blocks.
� ��
n, �
1��! �$��,�,t� 1��!
�� �:_� ,�.��: `�.1
��AI� E S"I'ATE EQ,U S
�� Providing Housing for Quality Living �� �
Andrew Schaefer
345 Saint Peter Street, Suite 1600
Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55102
Phone: 651-389-3821 Fax: 651-389-3721
Cell: 612-720-4108
Email; aschaeferC�reeliving.com
Memo
TO:
FRpM:
Date:
RE:
7ohn Nardwick
Andrew Schaefer
June 22, 2007
Variance Application
�
�,o`�-lF��� �
!f you have any questions on the variance application p}ease feel free to contact me. Thanks for
your time yesterday.
Andrew
�� ` ���� �
�ZJr S(�Q^ �
Real E'state Equities, Inc. • Real Estate Equities Oevelopment, LLC • Reat Estate Equities Management Company
Phone: 651-227-6925 • Fax: 651-227-9001 • REELIVING.COM
•
07 /0�-8 �
��- ..�.
� _._ �
7 0 "-`�� �.
� �:
v
i
�� o
�r �
r/ i
Q
�
•
i
4
�
�
i�
�
c
a
.�
�
�
m
w
s
3
0
N
Z
4
C
1
r
C
0
.�
�
�
W
N
�
�.l
�
�
.
�
V
L
�
3
�
a
�
.�
�
4
a
rT
�
�
0
m
7
N
W
t
�
t
D
z
�=� .�c�
Ql
_ �' �
���
1 �a
Vr�
4
0
m
��
�
�
c
0
.
�
�
N
L11
N
N
d
�
07 /Da-8
�.�
�= Y�
�� _
�
N
Ql
(D�
_n
_�
0
� II
�
1�
�
�
4
0
CJ
'
�
a
.�
�
W
t
7
O
N
4
L]
(9
;�
�
0
.�
�
W
aa
��
.�
w
r
s
�
z
U
�
a
�
/��
Y�
0
z
�
_
Q
�_ ;
�
�� �
�. �
��
a
�'
U °
�
,
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
;
;
�
;
�
�
�
� Nienx�vw � t
�
� c
i I � �----- --- -
�: i �.y_: \_�._ ���5
�� _. � •
�
��
a
� n
i
�
�
.
� �
Q
�
J
�
Q
��
rv��nN�ew
, � 07 /Da$
� `_`� - �
r,lJ- �,
--- � ��
� ,
�;
I � �;
� > i �
� ,�. � ,
�,' I o wa
� �
w� �
�m z�
��' =
�
tw-Y . w0
� �.
a Q
1 I
� ,
I I
� �
I
i �
I I
�
1 i
�- � I
, ;�
I '° i
a
�;�
I �I
a
_k �
u� �
w Q w �
_U m
K (� I
W `
�
� / � i
l �
1 �
� �
i
' �
i t
I W II
� J �
i Q i
� f
J �
� �
1 �
1 1
_ s k I
�� �
� i
,
� �
� {
� �
1 f
� �
� � I
�
�
�
N
s�.
�
�
i
�—
Y
�
-- - - - - - - . . --- -- _..
� :
C �
�V�
" O
W 2
� :
� y
� �
O
� C
z �
�
w
�
m
Z
E�
�a
c..
�� m
L
Y
��
� �...
Q :
W :
[O �
Q. ;
N '
N 4 '
� U
L
O
U
¢.cu 3
� -v -
? ".O�Ab
m
L _
� N
� N
Q �
��
N
H
m
m
N
Y
Z
C
�
.�
Q�
W
t
L
O
z
� �` i
��
� �� �
�
u y J
� :. '
.�.
�
m .L
m �
Ns
Y
D �
z
C �
�
� �
Q) �
W
N �
� �
(��
YO
�
7 �
� O N
a o 3
� m > a
�� a
U �, � C
m Z U �i
��
�
m�
O C�
N.0
�n � /. �
� I
k �� , '
��
s.z'�� '
L�S
�
.
�
W
N
a�+
Z
C
O
.�
d
W
L
aa
7
C
�
�
U
N
0
a
Z
C
O
.
m
d
W
�
W
�
W
�
�
�v
�
s
v
�
� P
r
�
�
�
.�
Ya
�
m
� a
� � �
� � o
Y E � �
U L � C
m` z r� �
anuand (���o�
�— �'�� ���-: OL
�— �
_-
Oe
V�
�
�
u
a
w
�a
u
N
a
a
Z
C
O
.
N
�
N
W
L
7
❑
N
v
�
N
Y
z
�
0
.�
�
W
L
�
O
z
t '� " � 7 /DaS �
7�10 y
`:�-- �
- o
��
��
�_
,. .,.. � a
a
d
U
N
Y
z
�
0
.�
�
d
W�
� �
N
4]
�
0
L
C
�
F
W
T
�v
N
g
v
s
P �
i
U
�
0.
�
D � /o �-g
Agenda IYem V.A.
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
� HERITAGE PRESERVATIdN COMMISSION STAFF REPORT p �, 0 y/
FII,E NAME: 484 Ashland Avenue
DATE OF APPLICATION: May 29, 2007
APPLICANT: Andrew Schaefer, Real Estate Equities
OWNER: Saint PauPs Church Aome, Inc.
DATE OF PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW: 7une 14, 2007
HPC SITElDISTRICT: Hill Historic Disirict
CATEGORY: Pivotal
CLASSIFICATION: Pre-Appiication Review
STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: Cluisrine Barr
DATE: June 8, 2007
A. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The Saint Paul's Church Home complex at the corner of Ashland and Mackubin is composed of two
structures, one constructed in 1896 and one constructed in 1960 with a large three-story addition to the
rear constructed in 1985. The westem-most and oldest building in the wmplex was historically known
as the Ashland HoteL The three story classical revival style building of lightbrown brick was designed
by Herman Kretz. The structure has a flat roof with a projecting modillioned cornice. The main (north)
facade is arranged syuimetrically, with wide steps leading to a central enhy portico. The portico has an
azched roof supported on Tuscan columns. At each end of the building, a three-sided, third-story
window bay projects from the facade. The building is categorized as contributing to the Hili District.
• The 1960 addition, located to the east of the historic building, is brick with concrete trim, aluminum
spandrels and horizontal sliding windows and is categorized as non-contributing to the district. The
1985 addition, approved by the HPC and located off the south (reaz) elevation of the 1960 addition, is
brick with aluminum double-hung windows. Two lots at the corner of Mackubin and Holly at the reat
of the complex were rezoned in 1978 to allow them to be used for parking.
B. PROPOSED CHANGES: a ,, �,� ti,� c«����
The applicant is proposing to remove the later additions and construct��ts�along Ashland
with underground pazking and townhomes along Mackubin that will have garage and surface pazking
behind and located off of the alley. The historic building at the comer is proposed to have its rear
enclosed porch removed and the new addition would connect to the eastem half of the rear elevation
and southeast corner of the building. The windows on the historic building are proposed to be replaced
with matching wood windows. The existing chimney does not appear in the elevation drawings.
C. GUIDELINE CITATIONS:
HaTl Hisforie District DesiQn Review Guidelines
Restoration and Rehabilitation
General Princ�les:
1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal
alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally
• intended purpose.
2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall
not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features �
should be avoided when possible. �
�. . �
G��I�J� Yl�
Agenda Item V.A.
3. AIZ buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have
no historical basis and which seek to create an earZier appearance shall be discouraged.
4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and develapment of .
a building, structure, or site and its environment. Theses changes may have acquired significance in their
own right, and this signiftcance shall be recognized and respected.
5. Distinctive stylistic features ar eramples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a buitding, structure,
or site shall be treated with sensitivity.
6. Deteriorated archifectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event
replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition,
deszgn, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or'replacement of missing archifectural features
should be based on accurate duplicafions offeatures, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial
evidertce rather ihan on conjectural designs or the availability of diffet-ent architectural elements from
other buildings or structures.
7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and
other cleaning methods that will darrcage the historic building materials sha11 not be undertaken.
8. Every reasonabte effort shail be made to protect and preserve archaeoZogical resources affected by, or
adjacent to any project.
9. Contemparary design for alferations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when
such alterations and additions do not destroy significant histarical, architectural or cultural material, and
such design is compatible with the size, scaZe, color, material, and character of the praperty, neighborhood,
or environment.
10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such
alterations were to be removed in tFie future, the essential form and integrity of the structure wauld be
unimpaired.
Masonry and Foundation: •
YVhenever possible, original masonry and mortar should be retained without the appZication of any surface
treatment. Masonry should be cleaned only when necessary to halt deterioration and always with the gentlest
methad passible, such as Zow pressure water and sofY natural bristle brushes. Bricicand stonesurfaccsshould not
be sandblasted becaure it erodes the surface of the material and accelerates deterioration. Chemical cZeaning
products which could have an adverse chemical reaction with the masonry material should not be used.
Original mortar joint szze and profzle should be retained, and replacement mortar should match the original
mortar in color and texture. Material artd ingredient proporHans similar to the origtnal mortar should be used
when repointing, with replacement mortarsofter than the masonry units and no harder than the historic mortar.
This wi11 create a bond similar fo the original and is necessary to prevent damage to the masonty units.
Repointing with mortar of high portland cement content often creates a bond siranger than is appropriatefor the
original building materials, possibly resulting in cracking or other damage. Mortar joinu should be carefully
washed after set-up to retain the neafness of the joint Zines and keep exbaneous mortar off of masonry surfaces.
Theoriginalcolorandtexiureofmasonrysurfacesshouldbe'retained. WhileunpaintedmasonrysurfacesshouZd
not be painted, paint should not be indiscriminately removed from masonry surfaces because some bricksurfaces
were originally meant to be painted.
Siding and Surf'ace Treatment:
Deteriorated siding materials should be replaced with material used in original construction or with materials
that resemble the appearance of the o!d as closely as possible. Hesurfacing fi�ame buildings with new material
such as artifcial stone, artifzcial brickveneer, ar asbestos and asphaltshingles is inappropriate gnd should not
be done. Four-inch lap vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding may be used in some cases to resurface clapboasd
structures, especially shuctures categorized as non-contributive to tke district, ifwell detailed, well designed and
in keeping with the historic character ofthe structure. Yentilation must be carefully provided when using these
products to prevent damage to the original wood fabric by trapping moisture. The width, pattern and profile of .
the original siding should be duplicated Residingshould not alter theprofile ofbordering trim such as drip caps,
frieze boards and corner boards; if replacement is necessary, they should be matched. Color is a significant� _
2 �
c�7-(G /
�� /�� Agendaltem V.A.
design eZement, and paint colors shouZd be appropriate to the period and siyZe ofthe structure. BuiZding pe»nits
are not required for painting, and atthough the Historic Preservatiorc Commission may review and comment on
, paint color, paint color is not subject to Heritage Preservation Commission approval.
Roo s:
Original roofing maferials should be retained unless deteriorated. When partially reroofing, deteriorated roof
coverings shoutd be replaced with new materials that match the otd in composition, size, shape and tec£ure. YYhen
entirely reroofing, new materials which differ to such an extentfrom the old in composition, size, shape, color or
texture that the ¢ppearance of the building is altered should not be used.
Wood shingles in the nineteenth century were often dipped in creosote fo preserve them, giving them a very dark
brown color. Victorians often stained wood shingles deep red or darkgreen to complement rather than match the
color of the house. When asphalt shingles began to be used in the 1890's, the most common colors were solid,
uniform, deep red and solid, uniform, darkgreen. A weathered-woad color may be acceptablefor new asphalt
shingZes because it is neutrai and blends in. Black may be acceptable for Colanial Revival houses built after the
1920's, but itshould be avoidedfar Victorian houses.
The original rooftype, slope, and overhangs shouZd be preserved. New dormers may be acceptable in some cases
if compatible with the original design. Modet-n skylights are a simple way to alter a roof to admit light and air
without disrapting its plane surjace, are less noticeable than dormers, and may also be acceptable. Skyiights
shoxtd be flat and as dose to fhe roof plane as passible. They should not be placed on the front roof plane,
c
Windows and Doors: ,
Existing window and door openings should be retained. New window and door openings should not be
introduced into principal elevations. �'nlarging or reducing window or daor openings to f:t stock window sash or
new stock door sizes skould not 6e done. The size of window panes ar sash shouZd not be altered. Such changes
• destroy the scale and proportion of the building.
Window sash, glass, lintels, szlls, architraves, doors, pediments, hoods, steps and a11 hardware should be
retained. Discarding original doors and door hardware, when they can be repaired and reused in place, should
be avoided.
The stylistic period(s) ¢ building represents should be respected. If replacement of window sash ar doors is
necessary, the replacement should duplicate the material, design and hardware ofthe older windowsash or door.
Inappropriate new window and door feaiures such as aluminum storm and screen window combinations, plastic
ar metal.rtrip arovnings, orfake shutters that disturb the character and appearance of the building should not be
used. Combination storm windows should have wood frames or be painted to match trim colors.
Porches and Exterior Architectural Features:
Porches and steps which are appropriate to the building and its development should be retained. Porches and
additions refZecting later styles of architecture are often important to the building's historical integrity and,
whenever possible, shauld be retained. Porches and steps removed from the building shouZd be reconstructed,
usingphotographic documentation and historical research, ta be compatible in design and detait with theperiod
and style ofthe building. In replacing porch railings, it is impartant to mainfain the originalspacing, section and
profile of the balustrades.
Decorative architectural features such as cot-nices, brackets, railings, and those araundfront doors and windows
should be preserved. New material used to repair or replace, where necessary, deteriorated architectural features
of wood, iron, cast iron, terra-cotta, tile and brick should match the originad as closely as possible.
Shutters shouldreot be usedon buildings not designedfor them. If used, they shouldbe large enough to cover the
entire window area, should be functional and operabte, and should not look as if they were simply flat-mounted
on the wald.
• Deck and fzre stair additions may be acceptable in some cases, but should be kept to tfie rear ofbuildings where
they will be the most inconspicuous and detract the leastfrom the historical contect. The detailing ofdecks and
exterior stairs should be compatible with the periad and style of the buiZding. �
3 �
�tG� `
Agenda Item V.A.
New Constructinn
General Principles:
The basicprinciptefor new construction in the Historic Hi11 District u to maintain the disfrict's scale and guality •
ofdesign. TheHistoric Hill District is architecturallydiverse within an overatl pattern ofharmony and continuity. .
These guidelines for new construcfion focus on general rather than specifcc design elements in order to encourage
architecfural innovation and qualiry desigtz whiZe maintaining the harmony and continuity of fhe district. New
constraction should be compatible with the size, scaZe, massing, height, rhythm, setbacl� color, material, building
elements, site design, and character ofsurrounding structures and the area.
Massin¢ and Heigh[:
New construction should conform to the massing, votume, height and scale ofexisting adjacentstructures. Typical
residenlial sriuctures in theHistoric Hill District are 25 to 40 feet high. The height ofnew construction should be
no Zower than the average height ofa11 buildings on both blockfaces; measurements shouZd be rnadefrom str-eet
level to the highest point of the roofs. (Z'his guideline does not supersede the City's Zoning Code height
Zimitations.)
�thm and Directional Emphasis:
The existence af uniform narrow lots in the Historic Hill naturaliy sets up a sirong rhythm of buildings to apen
space. Historically any structure built on more than one lot used vertical facade elements ta maintain and vary
the overall rhyfhm of the street rather than interrupting the rhythm with a long monotonous facade. The
directional ezpression of new construction should reZate to thal of existing adjacent structures.
Materials and Details:
Trariety in the use of architectural m¢terials and details adds fo the intimacy and visual delight of the district. But
there is also an overall thread ofcantinuity provided by the range ofmaterials commonZy used by turn-of-the-
century builders and by the way these materials were used. This thread of continuity is threatened by the .
introduciion ofnew industrial materials and the aggressive exposure ofearZier materials such as concrete block
metalframing, andglass. The purpose ofihis seciion is to encaurage theproper use ofappropriate materials and
details.
The materials and details of new construction should relate to the materiats and details of existing nearby
buiZdings.
Preferred roof materials are cedar shingles, sZate and tile; asphali shingles whicfi match the approximate color
and texiure of the preferred materials are acceptable substitutes. Imitative materials such as asphalt siding,
woad-teCturedmetalorvinylsiding, artificialstone, andarfiftcialbrickveneershouldnotbe used. Smoothfour-
inch lap vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding, when well instaZled and carefulty detailed, may be acceptable in some
cases. Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in relation ta the
overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding sriuctures.
Calor is a significant design element, andpaint colors shauld relate to surrounding shuctures and the area as
we11 as to the style of the new structure. Buildingpermifs are not required forpainting and, although the Heritage
Preservation Commi,rsion may review and comment on painl color, paint color is not subject to Heritage
Preservation Commission approval
Building Elements:
Individual elements ofa building should be integrated into its compasition for a balanced and complete design.
These elements for new construction should compZiment existing adjacent sriuctures as well.
Roofs.
There is a great variety of roof treatment in the Historic Hill District, but gable and hip roofs are most common.
The skylirze or profzle of new construction should relate to the predominant raof shape of ezisting adjacenl •
6uildings.
Most houses in the Historic Hill District have a raofpitch of beriveen 9:12 and 12:12 (rise-to-run ratio). Highly
visible secondary structure roofs should match the roofpitch of the main structure, and generally should have �/
l�i
4
47 /0�8 �`7-!�(�
Agenda Item V.A.
rise-to-run ratio of at least 9:12. A roof pitch af af least 8:12 should be used if it is somewhat visible from the
street, and a 6:12 pitch may be acceptable in some cases for structures which are not visible from the street.
• Roof hardware such as skylights, vents, and metal pipe chimneys should not be placed on the front roofplane.
Windows and Doors.
The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing ofwindows and doors in new construction should be compatible with
that of e,risting adjacent buildings. Most windows on the Hill have a vertical orientation, with a proportion of
between 2:1 and 3:1 (height to width) common. Individual windows can sometimes be square or harizantal ifthe
rest of the building conveys the appropriate directional emphasis. Facade openings of the same general size as
those in adjacent buildings are encouraged.
Wooden double-hung windows are traditional in the Historic Hill District and should be zhe first choice when
selecting new windows. Paired casement windows, although not historically common, will often prove acceptable
because of their vertical orientation. Sliding windows, awning windows, and horizontally oriented muntins are
not common in the district and aregenerally unacceptable. Yertical muntins and muntin grids may be acceptable
when compatible with the period and style of the building. Sliding giass doors should not be used where they
would be visible from the street.
Although not usually improving the appearance of a building, the use of inetal wiradows or doors need not
necessarily ruin it. The important thing is that they should look like part of the building and not like raw metal
appliances. Appropriately colored or bronze-toned aluminum is acceptable. Mill finish (sliver) aluminum should
be avoided.
Porches and Decks:
In general, houses in the Historic Hill District have roofed frontporches, while in most modern construction the
• front porch has disappeared. Front porches provide a transitional zone behveen open and closed space which
unites a building and its site, semiprivate spaces which help to defzne the spatial hierarchy af the district. They
are a consistent visual element in the district and often introduce rhythmic variation, clarify scale or provide
vertical facade elements. The porch treatment of new structures should relate to the porch treatment ofexisting
adjacent structures. Ifaporch is not buiZt, the transition fromprivate topublic space should be articulaled with
some other suitable design element.
Open porches are preferable, but screened orglassed-in porches may be acceptable ifwell detailed. Most, but not
all, porches an the Hill are one story high. Along some streets where a strong continuity of porch size or porch
roofline zrists, it may be preferable to duplicate theseformal elements in new construction. The vertical elements
supporting the porch roof are important. They should carry the visual as well as the actual weight of the porch
roof. The spacing of new balustrades should reflect the solid-to-void relationships of adjacent railings and
porches. Generally, a solid-to-void proportion between 1:2 and 1:3 is common in the Historic Hill.
Decks should be kept ta the rear of buildings, should be visually refined, and should be integrated into overall
building design. A raiseddeckprotrudingfrom a single wall usually appears disjointedfrom the total design and
is generally unacceptable.
Site
Setback.
New buildings shauld be sited at a distance not more than 5% out-of-Zine ft the setback of e,cisting adjacent
buildings, Setbacks gr-eater than those ofadjacent buiZdings may be allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may
be acceptab[e at corners. This happens quite often in the Historic Hi11 area and can lend delightful variation lo
the street.
Landscaping.
• Typically, open space in the Historic Hill District is divided into publiq semipublic, semiprivate and private
space. The public space of the street and sidewalk is often distinguished from the semipublic space of the fror�t
yard by a change in grade, a Zow hedge or a visually open fence.
5 ��
.i �
.� �., �
Agenda Item V.A.
The buildings, landscaping elements in front yards, and boulevard trees together provide a"watl of enclosure"
for the street "room". Generally, landscaping which respects the street as a public raom is encauraged.
EncZosures which allow visual penetration af semipublic spaces, such as wrought-iron fences, painted picket a
fences, low hedges or limestone retaining walls, are characteristic of most of the Historic Hill area. This
appsoach to Zandscaping and fences is encouraged in contrast to camplete enclosure ofsemipublic space by an
opaque fence, a tall "weathered wood"fence or tald hedge rows. Cyclone fence should not be used in front yards
or in the front half of side yards. Landscape timber should not be used for retaining walls in front yards.
For the intimate space ofa shallow setback, ground covers and low shrubs wi11 provide more visual interest and
require less maintenance than grass. When lots are left vacant, as green space ar parking area, a visual hole in
the street "wall" may result. Landscape treatmenf can eliminate this potential problem by providing a wall of
enclosure from the street. Boulevard trees mark a separation between the automobiZe corridor and the rest ofthe
streetscape, and should be maintained.
Garages and Parking.
If an a11ey u adjacent to the dwelling, any newgarage should be lacated ofjthe alley. Where alleys do not ecist,
garages facing the street or driveway curb cuts may be acceptable. Garage doors should not face the street. Ifthis
is found necessary, single garage doors should be used to avoid the harizontal orientation of rivo-car garage
doors.
Parking spaces should not be lacated in front yards. Residential parkingspaces should be Zocated in rear yards.
Parking lots for commercial uses should be to the side or rear of commerciad structures and have a minimum
number of curb cufs. All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping. The scale ofparking lots should be minimized and the visual sweep ofpavement should be broken
up by use of planted areas. The scale, level of light output, and design of parking lot lighting should be
campatible with the character of the district. .
Publiclnfrastructure . .. .. .
The traditianat pattern afpublic streets, curbs, boulevards, and sidewalks in the area should be maintained.
Distincrive features of public spaces in fhe area, such as brick alleys, stone slab sidewalks, granite curbs, and the
early twentieth century lantern style street lights, should be preserved. The same styZe should be used when new
sireellzghts are installed. New street furniture such as benches, bus shelters, telephone booths, kiosks, sign
standards, trash con[ainers, planters and fences should be compatible with the character of the district.
Brick alleys and stone slab sidewalks generally should be maintained and repaired as necessary with original
materials; asphalt and concrete patches should not be used. YYhen concrete tile public sidewalks need to be
replaced, new poured concrete sidewalks should be the same width as the exitingsidewalks and shouZd be scored
in a 2 foat square or IS inch square pattern to resemble fhe old tiles; expansion joints should match the scoring.
Handicap ramps should be installed on the inside of curbs aspart ofthepoured concrete sidewalk, where there is
granite curbing, a section should be lowered for the ramp.
EZectric, telephone and cable TV lines should be placed underground or alang alleys, and meters should be
placed where ixconspicuous.
Demo(ition
YYhen reviewingproposalsfor demolition afstructures within the district, theHeritagePreservation Cammission
refers to Section 73.06 (i)(2) of the Saint Paui Legislafive Code which states the foZZowing:
In the case of the proposed demolitian ofa building, prior to approval ofsaid demolition, the commission shall
make written findings on the follorving: the architectural and historical merit of the building, the effect of the
demolition on surrounding buildings, the effect of any proposed new construction on the remainder of the
building (in case ofpartial demoZition) and on surrounding buildings, and the economic vaZue or usefulness ofthe
building as it now exists ar if adtered or modified in comparison with zhe value or usefulness of any proposed
siructures designated ta replace the present building or buildings.
�
6 �
�
�
, >:�.:.y..,
r • ' ,'�,
'r
t. . �� �
_ � J
�
•
TKE MEETLNG FORMAT FOZL PRE-APPLICATION ItEVIEWS`
Typically, theHPCallowsfor20-30minutesforreviewofeachproject. Theinfor�naZreviewformatisasfollows:
➢ S.affwtll make a briefpresentation (S minutes) identifying issues that shoccid be addressed by the
HPC.
➢ The applicant will make a brief presenfation (S minufes) describing the historic preservation design
considerations pertaining to the project scope.
➢ The HPC will discuss fhe project and consider whether the project is consistenf with the appticable
design review guidelines and the SOI. YPhile committee members may discuss the appropriateness of
a design approach in addressing the guidelines or SOI, their role is not to design the project. Given
the nature of some large rehabilitation projects, the HPC may suggest that the applicant retain a
preservation archifect.
➢ At the end of the review, the HPC Chairperson will summarize the issues that were identified, the
position of the committee members, and list all recommendations for revisions. The summary
includes majority as we11 as minority or split opinions. The summary should cite all applicable
design guidelines and Standards.
Although the HPC works toprovide comments that will result in a project that wi11 be recommendedfor approval
by the HPC the discussion is preliminary and cannotpredict the ftnal recommendation ofstaff, public comment,
and the decision of the fu11 HPC during the Public Hearing Meeting.
It is assumed that one pre-application review will take placeprior to a project beingsubmittedfor an HPCPublic
HearingMeeting. On certain occasions, theHPCmay recommend that an additional pre-application review take
place. If another pre-applicatian review is scheduled, then neighboringproperty owners may be notified of the
review within at Zeast 300 feet from the project site.
E. PRELIlVIIi�iARY FINDINGS:
1. The 1896 building is categorized as contributing to the local Hill Historic District and the
National Register Historic Hill District.
2. The 1960 and 1985 additions were built outside of the period of significance and are categorized
as non-contributing to the historic district.
Demolition:
3. The parameters that the Commission shall review a demolition permit under are as follows:
•
In the case of the proposed demolition of a building, prior to approval of said demolition, the
commission shall make written fndings on the following: the architectural and historical merit
of the building, the effect of the demolition on surrounding buiZdings, the effect ofanyproposed
new construction on the rernainder of the building (in case of partial demolition) and on
surrounding buildings, and the economic value or usefulness of the buiZding as it now e,rists or
if attered or modif ed in comparison with the value or usefulness of any proposed structures
designated to replace the present building ar buildings. The yeaz of construction for the
additions is outside of the period of significance far the district. Although the additions are
modem, they were built incorporating some details and design of the historic hotel. The 1960s
addition is a classic example of mid-century modern institutional architecture. Staff does not
believe that razing the additions will have a negative impact for the properiy or the historic
district.
4. The rear parch is not originai to the building. 5taff reviewed the 1928 Hopkins Plat Book and
the addition was not evident. The period of significance for the Hill Historic Dish is 1858 to
1930. The rear porch was likely consfructed outside of the period of significant and its removal
would not have a negative impact on the building or the historic disirict.
� �
�Il
Agend . h
:�.
New Constructian: _ � ��"7 ;-)
Condominium — Ashland Avenue � �
Townhomes —Mackubin Street (only Option #1 was reviewed) �
5. This proposal compIies with the guideline which states, "New construction should be
compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setbacl� color, material, building
elements, site design, and character of surrounding sttuctures and the area. " While detailed
specifications regarding the windows, doors, cornice, brick, railings, foundation above grade
and setbacks weren't provided, staff believes the general design and intent will not have a
negative impact on the main building or historic district.
6. The additions proposed are similar to the height and scale of the existing adjacent structures
and complies with the guideline for massing and heighG The applicant supplied photos to staff
of the existing historic building and surrounding buildings.
7. The rhythm and directional emphasis of this proposal relates to the existing historic building
and its bays and compiies with the guideline. This is a large portion of the block and the rhythm
of the green space will not be compromised by the proposal.
S. The applicant has notad on the plans general information for some of the materials proposed for
the new conshuction; however samples, details and pfiotos were not provided fo staff.
9. The proposed roof style is flat and matches that of the existing historic building, thus complying
with the guideline which stats it should relate to the predominant roof shape of existing
adjacent buildings.
10. The proportion, size and rhythm of the windows aze compatible with those on the existing
adjacent buildings; however, the detai[ing of windows and doors do not appear to be
compatible as the windows appear to be casement, fixed and awning styles. The majority of the
windows have a vertical orientation, with a proportion ofbetween 2:1 and 3; I(height to width) �
wkich complies with the guidelines. The size of the facade openings aze several sizes with
some the same general size as those in adjacent buildings.
I1. There aze several clad-wood, window-types shown on tUe concept drawings. The guidelines
state, wooden double-hung windows are traditional in the Historic Hill District and should be
the first choice when selecting new windows. Paired casement windows, although not
historically cammon, will often prove acceptable because of their vertical orientation. Sliding
windows, awning windows, and horizontally oriented rnuntins are not corrzmon in the district
and are generally unacceptable. Yertical muntins and muntin grids may be acceptable when
compatible with theperiod andstyle of the building. Specificarions and details for the proposed
windows were not submitted for review.
12. The drawings show sliding glass doors on the front elevation ofthe condominiums. This does
ttot comply with the guideline that states, sliding glass doors should not be used where they
would be visible from the street.
13. Alumin�un sYarefronts and spaztrlrel glass are shown on the recessed portions of the new
additions. The guideline states, although not usually improving the appearance ofa building,
the use ofinetal windows or doors need not necessarily ruin it. 77xe important thing is that they
should look like part of the building and not like raw metal appliances. Appropriately colored
or bronze-toned aluminum is acceptable. Mill finish (sliver) aluminum should be avoided, The
finish of the aluminum was not submitted.
14. Open front porches and balconies aze shown along the street elevarion on the drawings, The
existing historic buitding has only a central covezed front entrance. There is a covered porch-
like detail or azbor located centrally on the plans. Although not relaring to the porch treatrnent •
of the existing adjacent stt-uctures, the design of the porches do not appear to negatively impact
the design or the relarionship aad comply with the guidelines. �/�
ll
8
��
o�- � -� �
. Agenda Item . .
15. A terrace is proposed at the reaz of the historic building which would be visible and accessible
• from Mackubin. The terrace is set back half the length of the historic building and complies
with the guideline that states, Decks should be kept to the rear of buildings. StaFf was not
supplied enough detail to determine if the terrace would comply with the guideline and be
visually refned and zntegrated info overatt buitding design.
16. The proposed setbacks comply with the guideline which states; new buildings should be sited at
a distance not more than S°/a aut-of-line from the setback of existing adjacent buiZdings.
Setbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be aZlowed in some cases.
17. The proposed surface and underground parking is located off of the altey, thus complying with
the guideline.
18. The proposed surface parking has some planted areas and a landscaped border that minimizes
the visual sweep of the pavement and complies with the guideline for parking.
19. The surface parking has been scaled down to be more compatible with ehe character of the
district a proposal for lighting was not submitted with the pre-application.
20. Staff was not supplied inforxnation regarding the brick alley or the sidewalks. The guideline
states, Brick alleys and stone slab sidewalks generally should be maintained and repaired as
necessary with original materials; asphalt and concrete patches should not be used. YVhen
concrete tile public sidewalks need to be replaced, new poured concrete sidewalks should be the
same width as the exiting sidewalks and should be scored in a 2 foot square or 18 inch square
pattern to.resemble the old tiles; expansion joints should match the scoring. Handicap ramps
should be installed on the inside of curbs as part of the poured concrete sidewalk; where there
is granite curbing, a section should be lowered for the ramp.
• 21. Information regazding utilities was not included with the pre-application. The guideline states,
Electric, telephone and cable TV lines shauld be placed underground or along alleys, and
meters should be placed where inconspicuous.
Restoration and Rehabilitation:
22. The application proposes to replace the windows in. the historic building with "new wood
windows to match.existing." SCaff cannot apply the guidelines, as details of the existing and
proposed windows were not supplied to staff. The guideline for windows and doors states, the
stylistic period(s) a building represents should be t Ifreplacement of window sash or
doors is necessary, the replacement should duplicate the material, design and hardware of the
otder window sash or door. Inappropriate new window and door features such as aluminum
storm and screen window combinations, plastic or meta! strip awnings, or- fake shutters that
disturb the character and appearance of the building should not be used. Combination storm
windows should have wood frames or be painted to match trim colors.
•
9 ��
Page 1 of 1
Debbie Crippen - Re: Fwd: Pretiminary paperwork
.. �__n _.� �� �__� �� . � �w�zu � , �w,...r._ � � � ���:. .���� y� �r�_�� m �.�_��:� . , _ ��-< ,.�...�, n__�
x�
�rom:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Bnan Baifanz
Crippen, Debbie
7/9/2007 10:09 AM
Re: Fwd: Preliminary paperwork
Martinez, )ody
St. Paul Parks & Recreation has no specific objections to this proposed project.
However, the mass of building and the variance request for up to 65°l0 of space for built structures
would put additional stress on the area in terms of reducing green space and surface water run-off
absorption. Also, this area of the city has very few Park Spaces, and the increased population
density will add stress to the nearby Cochran, Nathan Hale, McQuiilan, and Holly Ave Totlot Parks.
thanks,Brian
»> Debbie Crippen 7/5/2007 9:0� AM »>
Attached is a copy of the preliminary paperwork for BZA Case #07-106418 for 484 Ashland Avenue
for July 16, 2007.
�
�� ��
file:/lC:�Documents and Settings\Crippend\Local Setrings\Temp�XPgrpwise\46420968maildpo1100... 7/9l2007
---- --
D7 -�0 a-g o �-i a � ,
PROPERTY WITHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: 484 ASHLAND AVENUE
,� f � '_. � �- l
a I. i i ; ; b1's 5osi �nz �
= � ��.� '
�
� , _ � 'i 1 '_7. ' i � � � _11� _j_
�a�j �� ����7� ��
_- ,�
--- -- -- -r- �-�
--=- --- --!--- -
_ 1
'�
�
�
LL.
— -, , . �
- r ,
-�'� �i'� i � I ''� i.-'� I
i �� 46���.1 � � If � , L � '� �� � � � � i
�� � 14 � T" � � ; � ,
�,
�''� �455�[ � 444 � ' 'L. � , i � i
`=��_I _ 1 _.�- - � _ �`� i � '' i .�i � I
�{ ` �—,�� ;;�� �I I ��--� � i
����� 493 I C� l �� ' -' �
, I
� � � ' � �� � � �
��
a� �i ,�
--- --J�: ,,..:
-- -- __ � � _ _ .
. _ , _ � -�- _
-- Tf��T_^��c:-r�;___.,�� !(;:__.;=.;-�
i �sa� i 1r .`:' aa�; (aa� � C. y;` I
t �" '�x ��;�� '�4 �� I ��,1 �'��� ' � ;� �,_ .r
_,
i �
� ,_. ��� ! �.;
,. '_LL'J ��cl_r.;a�=�=jiL';.�_" � � `-�'�'�: i
i '_a
'� �1 ��� � , f �,r : ;
i ��� ,-�� �t� ,� r � 1� �1 I _
'�� I` :� I � I.�_T�I `
�
:�-_}� i�r'� = � 45 � - --r ��-t , � �,--- 1 . .
_-�'_ _ ___ .- -_____ _ _..'. ___ _.
. �
- ;1 _� � ��___��
t I 1r � �,
3. `Q7 I r �� � `4���1 1 ���`�� q �+ � � ;' -, ' T _
—�� � � � t��� _ � I
-�,�.E ������;�=- -!�-t,I I��-- � I
, l , , `.
. _ _ f,�?�,;�� Tr=..� _, ��I i � �G �t��r �
�t���.t, .�,i., ��. �
` - ,0.06 . • 0 . Q:06, - - 0.12 Miles
CREATED B� QSI
..�. , .',. � �-�.
- , _ .. - N . �
� _ . _. j
,.
,
� �.
�
. �
` W Ei
�
�
S , ,
;
�
- �
�a � � s�� � ! i ' ��� ��� ���`� � �4 �f
�L (-5 `� � I a� I—� i �L����� �� �
L
- -- -= - -ASF�LAI�D ==--
.�: _, �
• �O y ✓'_Oi�K
y K` � �
l,
.w... o
�
KR �
ii � .�.�. .� r
� � 7= F
s� 3 � r c
T �
14
�1 u• �
�
i.-o—�—d ,
� �
>� °` �, t
G = 2 �
F B - M�
b S � F � � �
Jy �
4 _ � �
C rt
u • �
a �
�` } G
�w 2
' a
..� ..�� w `'r.
. ° j4
\ � � �
. y 4
0. ^_ � �.�5 � 4
� b�.d �
� 6 t . " � ` i' � �o— `' E. R .
I
CITIZEN PAI2TICIPATION PI.ANNTNG DISTRICFS '
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13,
14.
15.
16.
17:
SiJNRA1'-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD .
IIAZEL PARK IiADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
WEST SIDE , "
DAXTON'S �LUFF ,
PAYNE-PHAI.EN
NORTH END
THOMAS-DALE
Si7MMIT-'UNiVERSITY
WEST SEVENTIi
COMO
HAMLINE-MIDWAY
ST. ANI�HONY PARK
MERRIAM PARK-LEXING'TON HAMLTNE-SNELLING HAMLINE
MACALESTER GROVET.,ANA
HIGHLt1ND
SUMMIT HILL � f (�
DOWNTQWN --�I-{..�-
������� ���� a�-?��� �
•
_ I
�
�1� �� „
Y.` 5, -�:
<y,U �ry - ,
{-{ ` � � i. �^ �� } � !
"_' _ _ _ _ '-_ -. a
_" .-. C y _�� _ � - _ ., �
_-= _ ' 3..
2h,«Rl•T - -
r_ - -
- __a i�-�Nr. `�' :;
'. ��`t, �,:-- �,1 . .
_° r" " � �`'_ ,.
4 -� . �i C'_ . a.
S � _ _ ~
�r ,l'' ' �.. �
$_" 4 "."_ _._ . __
� -` .. u
a�__ _ � _ . _ ��.
_ y3 .. _—��'��' "�_ /�.
i .n_:�, . - _ ; =r� -r-- {-
i? :.> ; s "" °; _Y �.
� ryt �i ';� , _ _..-.
- ��u 5
� ' ,. ��
� l �
:4 r' ��t . �
u. C� . rl
.�. -
� 1 � � � � � a�Yv J�'.4 �
�.k i
fl� �� ' � i �
l,�}�
J'..1� IY ,_ti N �
, ' ""�� , _1 � ' :
_ ' ,.. . ,�-.�r._a____.
. � - �
' <�� '„� ' r' `
• . D4 . ..._...�� .: a
t' �..' $ ' Y
:r<i�r.xx5.ai.4(at's:aw. ``�- ' -.-
. .�t 1 u �-
�� ^ F - ' .�-�
i.'.YI'F ��'�-� `'�_ ` _�j..�_... x .
t��'�' tiil.`_,�.,�t',:�"'� i1-?(! ✓�� / �' j
� �
3:_:x:i-. 'a�,-
s . . -
, _ ':� e • Iw :. o-r�:it,e:w,iau; ;
, ;liG.V"$�i."L :ii•�5(Y n �
'fe �
" di�ti '
.ra� 1S'tn14.^l Y:n'.rv._
: Y C �' 4 � '�.i}
�_
C
�
_� ' • /� i � (j
�' � "l
- �� . ( _ .
• ' Y
:Y . �� , Z >zt:i
' _ _ _' ✓ �C
i� , ��1"�..{� �.rr.
;�.irrr_ .:�r�=n�. � �`�'='
S Sj'..7 �
.� �f� f
� �' � � �. i �"'�
' .Yy -�'L i 1
5:
^ .
� - � .,.
__� V
�?
.tiK
Y 'e
� �- a=:
'^ I . ' °_
,^ � t
�_"' r Y
�—�.-..� .:
�i -� �a � _ �:3
I�i ' ;lofll ,
.i'cy"f: I iS 1 P`( Rl
�� � ^ � i �I'_
�. t ' " . , i . . �
� j � �p �-' `.t.
L { X¢-.'
` trt^ V � � t.l�'� f .
v � _ �
.� � .". ' i i :
_-- ...._. n^N�' 3 tt N{ ^
V �t�' , 7 1 }ti.
� .- -_iA..p;. �. � rv C�kY Ldit ` .
_ •.r� ' o,.
� - ; - ,`�+'.
t
�>_ . � 99 A
_ _,__ .. i ...�. _.�__"._. �
v;_ �'" ' '�"'" r.' :
�' ___ �_ ___� ,'~•�.
� O�l�[��.f �� ^� Yr.
.{_ Jv�4.._ ._.Y �.� _.
.� �- � �~ . �
•N P.� • � Ff'1a ,�
a
� ;x.ii :� r ieii� �
= f � � .�� � { ' 2 f�.�
- -- . � .� � � '. 1�
a �� -- ' ;� � l M1
� ii4'd�. �.yev nj j - . �
M1.
w " � '"i .,
Y �N BP�L�:ti/: dYt��S'.:.�n y j \
. .. V ! �.Fj� -� .
6"1-/0.��
�� r fi h�'r �^ �) _
7 /��V��
r�T-:_ . _ - r_4_ "
- � � _ _ �� -�u_
. �� f" � �� ��� r. -
. ~ ��i1� =
i_ ' *��' _
—z.a,-.. —�.�:: F� ..C�
�. V _ . _� j ...._.— .._'�.
:� +1 w
X ��S.t-=-....s -P-�.
y y _ Y = y �. _ -
__ .� _ ..-"'.__ ___ � Y � ' --
�.
_ - Y - � - . � � �...�` J�.
` ---" -- � '-- -. _�� .
�� G . � ' .Y ' ' __'
n .`�..� � _ �� � V ` �. = �� i
.�. � - _ , ,:ti C`I �
. "}
_� ::YiiMl li�� �,in,�i::
.+ = ? „ C.:F: :: :.
f � �'a :ll'f L:I
� �?1♦TF:Y":r:�
Vf : • ' ��a�' f5�a
t'Y. f_�';F !'1 �� � '} .. 1J.9�3 . -
+ j^r�`�t.=_--...
i�� -.���'3..`.... r �` \8�� . r �:^ t
. ..._ _ w` � L, � ^ _i L .�e, ..�'
� '�3 � 4.- - s T ' '.
� �� 1 - �
� j r� - •
Y : .. � � __.-..__' .h'
. *^ -. 7 � � � �< n � ,
. '��-�'
. ,.�-q ++.1 � r:�
a.� � . i - � M -�- .
o '"—`' . � ;m_ �ky '� ': �
_ 1 ` . �yi f._ ....
.., ... _� _ L .'S
� � � Y' � • '4��q- M . ..
f:i�5i}:tii7 _ " . _ �-
x . ,« ' ' . r ❑
venax.-: �cmes9�r �: :
.?'ayt' -.�. ..•,cve .,
M �.
=�_ x
�Sy \�:il � .R.E b: 'Y).
, �C`� _` �,�..`,�' _ '_hJ
Y �` .
.�i . .t _ �..�� � ��- �
�
A f �
*3 !� . {F
� �. ��
f � � . _ '
���� - — tF�/ N .�
Y� �l Ty _ �
J..,.
Board of Zoning Appeals
cto John Hardwick (via emait)
City of Saint Paul LIEP
8 Fourth Street East
St. Paul MN 55101
July 12, 2007
Dear Zoning Appeals Board Members:
l am writing on behalf of the Ramsey Hill Association to express concerns about
the pianned construction at 484 Ashland, the former St. Paul Church Home. As 1
understand it, the developers have requested a number of variances, including
variances for lot coverage (a 30% variance), and yard set-back. The Ramsey Hill
Association opposes the number and size of the variances and the growing
encroachment on �eighborhood green space,
Further, ! would like to request thaY both the Ramsey Hill Association and the
District 8 Council be given longernotice when variances of this magnitude are
being appealed. lf we are to be a part of the City planning process, it is
important that we have sufficient time to consult with our neighbors.
Thank you for considering our concerns.
Leah S. Harvey
President, Ramsey Hill Association
Cc: District 8 Council (via S. Boland)
RHA Board
�
Page 1 of 1
D � l�a-g
�
, •
John Hardwick - St.Paul Church Home
�ram: "Joseph Wethington"
To:
Date: 7i1312007 2:00 PM
Subject: St.Paul Church Home
CC: "'Susan O'Keefe"' ,
John,
We are unable to attend the Zoning meeting due to shorY notice and business travel. We are writing our
opposition to the number and sizes of the variance requests for the St. Paul Church Home Site. We beiieve the ,
variance of 30% lot coverage and 15' rear variance indicates once again fhe intent to put too large of a structure
(s) on residential neighborhood lot and will impact the quality of life on our block and neighborhood. The scale of
this project appears to have grown from initial neighborhood presentations. Piease note our opposition to these ,
variance requests. '
Sincerely, �
Susan O'Keefe and .loseph Wethington Family
457 Ashland Avenue -
651224,1722 "
. - . ,
l '
� �� �
!
F7,�•//(+-\Tl.-...,.«..o..t.......i C.�t+:....n\FI..�.S�..:�.:lT n�.�l Co4k:.-.�cc\Ta.mr\Y 'T/1Fi(?(1(1'7
Chair
Secretary
Darcen Tolbot
Treasurer
Tim Jorissen
Re: Variance requests for 484 Ashland Avenue
Dear Mr. Hardwick,
community Before getting to the substance of the comments from Summit-University Planning
improvement ond Council, the Executive Committee has asked that our letter to you in this matter begin with
Sofety, Chair our stron concem about how much notice was rovided to Summit-U for this articular
Ricnara •`woody" g P p
�;crson variance request. While we have been in conversation with Reai Estate Equities about
this project for some time, at the two previous pubiic meetings on this topic we assured
Communications neighbors that there had not yef been any application for variance and so the first
and Ouireach,
cnatr meetings were strictfy informationat and we would hold an additiona! public d+scussion
Dan Duddingston when specific variance applications were made. �
cno�r, The formal notice in this case was ostmarlced for Jui 6 and arrived in our office on Jui
Neighborhood P y y
oe�eropment 8, with a hearing date set for July 16. That simply is not enough time for the Council to
comm�xee find a location, schedule and publicize a meeting, deliberate on the input from neighbors
Jeff Gardner-Sel6y and provide the Board of Zoning Appeais with thoughtFu( feedback +n this matter. We
Area Business
Asso��anon have asked the city in the past to examine ways to provide reasonable timelines on such
development proposals, especiatiy one so dramatic to a residential neighborhood as this
unity cnurcn- one. We will continue to advocate for the best possible notice procedure so we may
Unitarian accom tish our mission of involving neighbors in the develo ment of the+r communit
Paufine Echten p p y'
Ramsey Nii!
AssociatiOn
Sarah Chevallier
Model Cities, Inc.
8abette Jamison
Frances Gaodlow
Stan Gardner
RowGe Moore
As noted above, the Pianning Council hetd two previous public meetirtgs on the proposal
for a senior cooperative to be constructed on this site, though these previous meetings
were in broad strokes and with ptans that have changed considerably tothe version now
before the Board of Zoning Appeals. The first of these meetings had over 60 residents
attend, and the second, hetd at the end of May, had more than 2fi. At the time, severa!
concerns were raised regarding effects on parking, density of appearance, property
values, the aliey, design questions, and more. Other comments included sapport for
senior housing options that provide a range of housing types in the neighborhood.
Neighbors at these first meetings appreciated the timely notice and opportunity to
comment.
�
Cart Neimn
Richard Kleinbaum ARer we received notice of the formal request for variance for maximum lot coverage and
yard set backs, the Ptanning Council sought a iocation for a public meeting, and were
Chorisso Bryant unable to secure one until Thursday, July 12. As soon as we had confirmed Dayton
Rena nnoran Avenue Presbyterian Church for Saturday, Juty 94 at 10:30, we sent email notification to
408 residents on our list, did paper flier distribution for two blocks surrounding the
�avina wens properfy, and asked the Ramsey Hitl Association to contact its membership as well. We
knew this was a very last-minute notification, but the Pianning Council felt a last-minute ��
Morquitta Ronsom meeting was better than no meeting at all. 1�
Kenneth Cobb V �
emmerson ward 7 Selby Avenue - Saint Paul, MN 55104 :: Voice 651-228-1855 - Fax 651-225-1108
h#p_//www.Summit-U.com - info@Summit-U.com
Edward Swanson
SteveWilson-Nallie ,1ohn Hardwick -
4 • BfO �"" Department of Planning and Economic Development
Communify Center
City of Saint Paul
vice Chair 25 4'� Street W
AmyMichoei SaintPaul,tvlN 5b902 �
variance for setback there were 18 people in attendance. The vote of the attendees for
the two issues was eight of the attendees opposed the variances and four of the
attendees were not opposed the variances. Others present abstained, some citing the
lack of notice and time to discuss this as a reason. The following concems were
voiced towards the project:
1) Severai of the neighbors were concerned with the mass of the building
changing the character of the neighborhood as far sight lines, sun lines, and that it did
not conform to the block. (It was pointed out that there are several otfier buildings
within neighboring blocks that used a larger foot print, though they were built before
the code was put in place) Additionally, that due to the lot coverage of the building
there was no space left for off street visitor parking. It was.discussed that even though
the parking requirement for residents was met none of it was available for visitors
leaving the 48 units in the main complex with just street parking for visitors.
2) On the topic of Set Back, the requested set back of primary concern was the
alley. Neighbors were concerned with handiing snow and the maintenance of the alley,
It was stated that it is already difficult for neighbors to access their garages in the
winter time and without a place to put the snow under this plan it could cause a serious
problem.
Overall, the feeling of the attendees was that they would like to see the site developed
• and they supported the intended use. The issue of lack of notice for this meeting and
the unwillingness of the developer in this case to postpone Monday's meeting so that
� our issues could be heard and responded to created a more adversarial environment.
it is the opinion of the Directors of Summit-University wBo were present for the meeting
that both parties could have come to a more positive deliberation if more time was
given for this process by city staff and/or the developer.
Sincerely,
�
Jeff Gardner
Chair, Neighborhood Development
"t�
627 Selby Avenue - Saint Paul, MN 55104 :: Voic� 651-228-1855 - Fax 651-225-1108
http://www.Summit-ll.com - info@Summit-U.com
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMBER: 07-106418
DATE: August 13, 2007
WHEREAS, Keith Jans — Real Estate Equities has applied for a variance from the strict
application of the provisions of Section 6b.231 of the Saint Paul LegislaYive Code pertaining to
several variances: for the Senior housing site: 1) the maximum allowed lot coverage is 35%, 2)
the minimum required rear yazd setback is 25 feet; for the Town home site: 3) ma�cimum
allowed Iot coverage is 35%, 4) the minimum required rear yard setback is ZS-feet, 5) the
minimum requued north side yazd setback is 15-feet in order to redevelop the St. Paul Church
Home site for senior housing with underground pazking and town homes in the RM2 zoning
district at 4$4 Ashland Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on August 13,
2007 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the
Legislative Code; and
WI�EREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the
public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the
code.
The applicant is proposing to convert the former St. Paul Church Home building into a senior
housing co-operative with undergromid parking. They are also proposing to consiruct a five-
unit townhouse structure on the former parking lot site. In converting the Church Home
building they will be retaining the original building, removing two additions and building a
new addition on the east side of the original building. The underground pazlcing will be
located under the new addition and will be accessed from the alley. The proposed townhouse
structure will have a combination of gazage and surface parking that will also be accessed
from the ailey. This is a reasonable and permitted use of this property that cannot be
accomplished under the shict application of the code.
2. The plight of the lancl owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, aisd these
circumstances were not cs-eated by the land owner.
Designing a development that incorporates the original Church Aome building, which is a
historicaliy significant shucture, and provides sufficient underground pazking into limestone
subsoil is complicated from an engineering standpoint and expensive. The requested
variances are needed to make redevelopment of this site economically feasible. These are
circumstances that were not created by the current property owners.
Page I of 4 `1
�
�
�
� �-�a��
• Fi1e �07-106418
Resolution
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of tke code, and is consistent
with the health, safery, comfort, morals and welfare of ths inhabitan[s of the City of St. Pau(.
The proposed senior co-op housing and the townt:ouse building provide a good reuse of this
property. The development will preserve the historic original building and provide adequate
off-street parking. The RM2 zoning would allow a taller building and greater density,
however, in an effort to construct a building in keeping with the height of the original Church
Home, the applicant is proposing to expand the building outward rather than upwazd. This
has resulted in the lot coverage and setback variances. In order to ensure that there would be
adequate underground parking for the new buiidings, the applicant has held down the number
of dwelling units. The underground pazking means that land that would have been used for
surface parking canbe used instead for green space. The requested variances are in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the code and this proposed redevelopment is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light ancl air to adjacerat
property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding arecz or unreasonctbly
diminisls established property valt�es within the surrounding area.
• The setback variarice for the senior housing Uuilding is separated from the nearest residential
property by the alley and will not significantly affect the supply of light or air to those
properties. The reaz of the townhouse is also separated from the Church Hon�e by the alley
and neither that nor the relatively minor side yard setback variance will significantly affect
adjacent properties.
The proposed lot coverage and setbacks are similar to other buildings in the immediate area.
Aithough the proposed building heights do nat require a variance, they are sirnilar to the
heiglrt of other buildings in the area. This development is one of the few multi-family
developments that will meet the off-street parking requirements. This site is located within
the Historic Hill district and the new development will require design approval from the
Heritage Preservation Commission. That should ensure that the new construction is
consistent with the historic character of the neighborhood. 3'his project with the requested
variances will not change the character of the neighborhood and should help revitalize this
area. -
S. The variance, ifgrantecl, would not permit any use that is not permitted under tlze provisions
of the code for the property in the district wher^e the affected land is located, nor would it
alter or change the zoning district classification af the property.
The proposed multi-family housing unit buildings are permitted uses within this zoning
� district. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning
classification of the property. � '
Page 2 of 4
File #07-106418
Resolution
6. The request for variance is not based primaYily on a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel af tand. -
The proposed variances aze based upon a desire to build a development consistent with the
historic character of the neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the
provisions of Section 66.231 are hereby waived to aItow for: 5enior housing site: 1) maximum
lot coverage of 65% for a variance of 30%, 2) a 9 foot rear yazd setback for a variance of 16-feet;
Town house site: 3) a maximum lot coverage of 41% for a variance of 6%, 4) a 10 foot rear
yard setback for a variance of 15 feet, 5) a north side yard setback of 2-feet for a variance of 13
feet, subject to tlxe conditio�2 tlxat tlxe applicant obtains design approval fr^om the Heritage
Preservatian Commission on property located at 484 Ashland Avenue; and legally described as
Woodland Pazk Addition To St. Paul Lots 7 Thru 12 Blk 14 Lot 12 Blk 14; in accordance with
the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator.
MOVEI) SY : Linden
SECONDED SY: ward
IN FAVOR: s
AGAINST: a
MAILED: AUGUST 14, 2007 .
TIME LINIIT: No decision of the zoning or planning administrator, planning commission,
board of wning appeals or city council approving a site plan, permit,
variance, or other zoning approval shall be valid for a period longer than two
(2) years, unless a building permit is obtained within such period and the
erection or alteration of a building is proceeding under the terms o£ the
decision, or the use is established within such period by actual operarion
pursuant to the applicable conditions and requirements of the approval,
un[ess the zoning or planning administrator grants an extension not to exceed
one (i) year.
Pabe 3 of 4
�
•
J �
�`�
. File #07-106418
Resolution
APPEAL: Decisions of the Soard of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the
Cify Council within IO days by anyone affected by the decision. Building
permifs shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. IF permits have
been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended
and construcfion shall cease until the City Council has made a final
determinafion of the appeal.
CERTIFTCATION: I, the undersigned Secrefary to the Boaf of Zoning Appeals for the City of
Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify tl�at I have compared the foregoing
copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and
correct copy of said original and of the whole thereo£, as based on aQproved
minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on August
13, 2007 and on record in the Department of Safety and Inspections, 8 Fourth
St. E, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
S INT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEAb,5
' �. _
• � � �� � ;��
Aebbie M. Crippen
Secretary to the Board
�
Page 4 of 4 (� �
J
`._ _. _. ...�_., ':_ '/
�
7/30/07
Mr. John Hardwick
Director
City of Saint Pavl
Board of Zoning Appeats
Dear Mr. Hazdwick:
I azn writing to request that you grant variances to Real Estate Equities Development to
enable them to buiid The Sui7unit of Ramsey Hill. As you know, The Suuunit of Ramsey
Hill is a cooperative community proposed for construction on the site of the former Saint
PauPs Church Home at Ashland and 1Vlackubin in Saint Pau1.
I support the creation of the Summit of Ramsey Hill for the foliowing reasons:
I have been a resident of the neiglxborhood since buying a condominium at The
ComFnodore seventeen yeazs ago and I am interested in preserving the quality of the
neigYcborhood Real Estate Equities shazes ttus concern.
They aze plazuiing to preserve the originat nutsing home building which was built as the
Ashiey Hotel in the later half of the nineteenth century, but they will tear down the ugly
si�cties edition and build a much more estheficatly pleasing building. They have some
very aitractive green -spaces planned, and aze even creating many more parking spaces
than is typical in the azea.
What I find most appealing is that The Sumruit of Ramsey Hill is a resource that does noY
cuzrenfly exist in the neighborhood. It is a cooperative housing development for people
age fifty -five and older. Walker Methodist, a creatar of many outstandiug senior
resources in the metropolitan area, is a partner in this development. As you may know,
cooperative communities aze very popular on the east coast and aze being developed in
the iwin cities. .
Finally adding this cooperative development to Ramsey Hill would fill a community need
as many of the residents of the neighborhood aze over age 55. Also, what better group to
attract to any city than active; engaged seniors whom have the time, money, and energy
to contribute to civic life.
I hope variances aze �ranted so tlus project can go forward. It wiA be a wonderful
addition and the deserted site as it now stands is neighborhood blight.
Sznce ly urs,
I �
haron e � / � / ���--..
G
•
�
�
5 ��
•
�
�
1 �
�7
r Fr,�.,..,r � : -_
--..,. _ _ ._ —_
Presentation Overview
• The current property conditions
• Design changes that have been made
• Current design
• Variances
�r Y �
lllli )U\iNIT
=\t_.��t__
Desian Process
• W e staAed vnih a four story huiiding consisting of 67 ��j
Units which spanned the alley.
• We have met with lhe HPC staff numerous times and �+
had a preliminary HPC design review �J
• We have met with the neighborhood organiza[fons and
hatl four neighborhood meetings
• We have reduced the project to a three stones and 48
units and 5 townhomes
o � {�b � E �,`'v tM1 �fl ,
„��n �nti� � 1� {�`�
fffC .SUM1IM1tIT
i
�- �i A-C��u'� �,
�- ��� � ����L �c_
� �c�url,r�- �-�— �w
� ���
0
� �
�
fliti tiL`\lNli -'
�1_l 1�
E.'m�a co�e'eom
�
t '
iH'��. S�MNIT
� �-�_ �� �� �� �� —z
7a%+ Coverage
^�,4•����r.-;�.i��, ��;-_��:_, -..-
�.x � 9 � ... 13 yv�
� .�� .� � �''__ _ _ _
1 s � � �`��� _ _ �. ;
$�
$_
s � - _��, " � �' �3 �"a���
.e�w. �. _-. . .l:F' . ._ '_Z_' �. _ � . �
�
I ;" �� ' X ' �� ""-
� �9 �` � �
�� �s i ,.. -� , ..;� � �r" ,
� _ _ ____.-_.,._�.. _.�._. ���_.�
.:,
2
� g � �� = -
�_�� � ��
Ues�an
• We acknowledge design issues
— We wil! �n5nue to work with the FfPC and
Neighborhood to make the design more
acceptable to the neighborhood.
• HPC is an open process and can help
assure there is a design resolution.
.
� ��� � � ��.
�' �� '`
<<
� ��7 _
, �
��� � �
5
�
2
�
�
u
�° �
..,r �:::uF -' .f - `� —;.
� _ ___ . t _ ��
Tre�c and Parkinq Statistics
Averaqe Dailv Trios AM Peak
Senior Coop 3.48/per unfl .297per unit
Single Famiiy 9.55/per unit ]5lper unit
. :�,� �� m �„ ��,�,,�,,,a�+�, �.,�,
Parkino Averaqes of Four Ooeratina REE C000eratives
Undergrowe=l?/perunit Sudace=5/perumlTalal=l6lperunit
On an average day 1.25lper unit are used (inclutling staf�
' We will provide a minimum of 1.6 Stalls PerlUnii
t � S•�' ��.s.
'7 f,� .
�7
:re'��a �.�
We are ffi the point were we can not shrink the
Cooperative budding.
In orderto wntinue to develop the design to the
neigh6orhoods wishes we need approval of the
variances
• We will continue to work with the neighborhood
and HPC for fnai design approval
V) �
3
Ghair
StevetMdson-Hallie �ohn Hardwick �
Q. Brown Community Department of Planning and Economic Developmerit
Center
City of Saint Paul
Yce Chair 25 4�' Street W
Amy Michaei
Saint Paul, MN 55102
�«�y
Darren To16oC
7reasurer
Tim Jorinen
Communi(y
Improvemen[ and
Safeq.Chair
Richard "Woody"
Erickson
Communications and
OuveacF�, Chair
Dan Duddingston
Chair, Neighborhood
oe�eio�,�,�
Committee
JeffGardner—Seiby
Area Business
Assodauon
�
Re: Variance requests for 484 Ashiand Avenue
Dear Mr. Hardwick,
The Neighborhood Development Committee of the Summit-University Planning Council
held a special meeting July 26 to hear neighborhood questions and comments on the
Summit of Ramsey Hill, a proposed senior cooperative development at 484 Ashland, the
former Saint Pauf Church Home property. Tfie Counci( and neigfibors were abte to
provide over a week's notice to residents as a resuit of the Board of Zoning Appeals
iaying over this matter to July 30. We are grateful for this opportunity to both ihe Board
and to Reat Estate Equities. We sent emails to ali previous attendees for whom we had
an email address, we fliered twelve square blocks surrounding the property and we
posted an oversize sign outside the property. We had over 60 residents in attendance,
much higher than the previous meeting where we were unable to provide adequate nolice
to the neighbors in the area.
u��ty cn��a, - The meeting began with a presentation from the developer who was asked to respond to
Uniarian
Pauline Eidicen the issues that arose in prior meetings. The developer presented information showing the
55+ clients targeted uses significantly less parking and make fewer trips per day than
Ramsey Hill Association �uyers that are stiil in the work-force or have children at home. The developer also went
Saah Chevallier
over the three design changes they have made to address the issues relating to the size
Model Cities, Inc of the building and the sight lines. The developer explained the need for the setbacks and
Babettejamison mass were due to economies of scale relating to building materials needed to meet the
Frances Goodlow requirements of the Heritage Preservation Commission and that 48 units was a minimum
San Gardner to support the long-term management and maintenance needs associated with the type of
development they were proposing.
Rosalie Moore �
Cari Nelsan The floor was oQen to questions. Some of the non-variance related concerns voiced were:
noise created by 48 air conditioning units, saving the large oak trees, storm water run-off,
Richazd Kleinbaum rodent issue associated with large garbage collection containers. The primary concern not
Charissa 8ryan[ related to the variances was the appearance of the building, with neighbors asking for a
design that did not look "industrial ar "institutional". Concerns relating to the setbacks
Rena Moran included the effect of shadowing on snow meft and ice buildup in the altey irom the
�v�w�is structure; the sight line down Ashland Avenue from the east; garbage coilection and
placement of dumpsters restriciing alley access in the winter.
Marquim Ransom
Kenneth Cabb
Emmerson Ward
Edward Swan:on
Annie Heideman
MicheAe Beeman
The lot-size variance was the primary concern of the variances requested. Some present
suggested the lot coverage over the allowabte in the zoning code was too much. The
exampte tfiat was used several times was granting a variance alfowing a 32% increase in
lot coverage from 35%to 67%was a 87°/a increase in size of the allowable structure,
even though it is only a 32% increase in lot coverage.
627 Selby Avenue - Saint Paul, MN 55104 � Voice 651-228-1855 - Fax 651-225-1108
- http:l/www.Summit-U.com-info@SummitU.com
�
� �
The deveioper presented some options to increase off street parking and also stated
that they were working on solutions to resolve the visitor parking issue. They
presented a new plan showing nine parallel parking places in the alley, allowing two
staff parking places in the underground parking and two additional parking spaces on
the row-houses lot. The nine parallel parking spots were determined to be more of a
detesfent to the development and they said they would take that back to the drawing
board.
At the conclusion of the meeting we took a secret balfot, polling the attending
residents. The results were 27 opposed to the variances, 19 in support of the
variances, with one vote for whatever the majority decided. The Board of Summit-
University has not taken an official stance as there was not time to schedule a full-
Board discussion after the community discussion and prior So the Board of Zoning
Appeals considering this question again. The Board did have a presentation from Real
Estate Equities at its July 24 meeting and has discussed these issues electronically
since that time. While some Directors have expressed concern about the size of the
development, most have supported the idea of a senior cooperative as an appropriate
use of this site.
Again, we are grateful for the extra time allowed by the Board of Zoning Appeals and
Real Estate Equities to engage neighbors in this discussion.
� Sincerely,
Jeff Gardner
Chair, Neighborhood Development
•
627 Selby Avenue - Saint Paul, MN 55104 :: Voice 651-228-i S55 — Fax 651-225-I 108 ��
http:!/www.Summio-U.com — info@Summit-U.com
Page 1 of 2
John Hardwick - Summit of Ramsey Aill
From:
To:
Date: 7/27/2007 4:57 PM
Subject: Sum�iit of Ramsey Hill
Because I won't be able to attend the Monday afternoon meeting regard+ng
this project, I'm writing to let you know that I support it with enthusiasm.
In fact, I have already put down my initial "investment" and hope to be abie
to live in one of the units upon its completion.
At the present t+me, I do not I+ve in the immediate neighborhood but am a
resident of n nenrby neighborhood. I know there is some opposition to the
plan as it now stands--and I also know that the developers have bent over
backwards to accommodate the wishes of people in thnt area, and I expect
they' II continue to do so unless the development becomes totally unfeasible.
And I hope that does not happen, since this will be the perfect solution for
me in a couple of years when I' II wanfi to downsize yet stay in this area. A big
reason for my support is that, for a single person such as myself, one of
those units will be affordable and will give me the peace of mind knowing
that I no longer have to concern myself with the upkeep of the duplex I own
and in which I now live.
Another of my reasons for supporting this pro ject is that, once it's f+n+shed
and landscaped, it will be an outstanding addition to thctt neighborhood. I
can't imagine why opponents would prefer to keep the eyesore of the
neighborhood, the old nursing home, on that property -- and I don't doubt
that that's what will happen if the requested variances are not granted to
the developers.
�
�
Please count me among the supporters. And plense feel free to call me if you�
have questions. Thank you. ��
_ . .__ . . .,� ... .. .... ,.>,. - �.�. an�oi+__ -r�1n/nnn-I
Page 2 of 2
D � /oa8
� Sincerely,
Peggy Lemmon
952 Goodrich Ave.
St. Pauf 55105
651-224-5490
*�***����,�**�*���*��***�;�;���***��*�**�
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memediaolcom30tou r
`J
�
��
MINUTES OF TAE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ,
CITY COUNCIL CAAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
S'i' �r1UL, MINNESOTA, JULY 30, 2007
P12ESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Morton; Messrs. Courmey, Faricy, and Ward of the Board of
Zoning Appeals; Ms. Gnnderson, City Attomey; Mr. Aardwick and Ms. Crippen of the
Department of Safety and Inspections.
ABSENT: Buzz Wilson*
*Excused
The meeting was chaired by 7oyce Maddox, Chair, -
Keith Jans (#07-1�64181 484 Ashland Avenue: Several variances in order to redevelop the St Pau1
Church Home site for senior housiag with underground parking and towtt homes. Senior ho¢sing site:
1) A maximum 35% Iot coverage is allowed, 65% is proposed, for a variance of 3Q%. 2) A 25-foot rear
yard setback is required, 9 feet is proposed for a 16-foot rear yard setback variance, Townhouse site: 3)
A maximum 35% coverage is allowed, 41 % is pioposed for a variance of 6% lot coverage. 4) A 25-foot
rear yard setback is required, 10 feet is proposed for a IS foot rear yard setback variance. 5) A sideyard
setback of 15 feet is required on the north side, 13 feet is proposed for a 2 foot sideyard setback
variance.
Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for
approval, subject to the condition that the applicant obtains design approval from the Heritage •
Pieservation Commission.
Two letters were received opposing the variance tequest. Staff also received two letters in support of the
variance request. •
One letter was received from District 6 regarding the variance request.
NIs. Morton questioned Mr. Hardwick whether there is a height limit in that area? Mr. Hardwick stated
that the height in the RM2 district is five stories or fifty-feet, Ms. Morton further questioned and this is
going to be three stories? Mr. Hardwick replied that is correce.
Ms. Maddox instructed the audience that with the excepflon of the applicant, the district council and
someone that is representing Ramsey-HiIl Associafion, she would ask that they limit their testimony to
three minutes. Please do not repeat what otheis have already stated.
The applicant KEITH JANS, Real Estate Equities - 345 St Peter Street, was preserit, with Pete Keeley,
530 3r Street North, who is the architect with ColIage Architects; Gar Hargans is our historic consulfant;
Andrew Schafer, is the project manager iri charge; also representing VValker Methodist who are partners
with us axe also here. Ae commented that all of them are in attendance to answer any questions the
Board may have about this project. Mr. Jans stated that flieq ace excited about the opportuniry to
redevelop this site. When it was brought to us, our friends at Walker were given the opportunity to Iook
at this site and being a use of a nursing home that had shut down we had both thought that it wouid be a
great idea to put some type of senior housing in. They had some previous meetings before us and we had
some meetings and we have had experience working with cooperative housing. We thought that diis was •
a great opportunity to come in and add a new dynamic to the neighborhood. We understand going in fhat
� �
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
��
• File `�07-I06418
Vtinu!es July 30, 2007
Page Two
we will need to work with everybody in the building and today what we are looking at are the variances
presented by Mr. Hardwick. With that he turned the presentation over to Mr. Keeley.
u
Mr. Keeley, 493 Pellum, stated that he wants to go through a quick oveivieFV of what they are going to
talk about. Essentially go through some of the property conditions as to where they are he thinks Mr.
Hardwick has covered most of chem but a couple of quick points. A little bit of the design process
6ecause we have worked pretty hard on the design and he wants it known that they are still working very
hard on it but we are coming to this crucial point and we know that the size is an issue. Certainly �he
cucrent design where we are here today, a little discussion why the variances and why we need to be
where we are at. The existing hotel as can be seen on the upper right hand corner, that was a 1900s
hotel that was built it was converted right aronnd I460 into the Saint Paul Church Home. The Church
Home building is a 1960s structure, The slide on the left shows the 1960s version, as a point of
reference the building that we are proposing on this site is essentially the same height, which is about 39
feet, the existing hotel is about 43 feet on this side and the corner of the 1960s hotel is part of the corner
noting that he would point that out in the site plan as well. On the back-side is the 1985 structure he.
believes it was built in 1991 started in 1485, and that has been taken out. It was a 90 bed facility with
120 totat staff with 48 parking stalls. This cteated some issues with the neighborhood, he is suie that
they can go back much more into the history than he can. The conversion to the"Co-op would minimize
this�parking impact. A quick note on the design process this has been on �oing for many months it
started out as a 61 unit building_which incorporated both sites. It incorpoiated the southern site with the
town homes, and the norfihern sight, it spanned the alley: That was the very stait of the process. As we
_ moved through, as we met with HPC staff, as we met With the neighbors this building" has chaaged four
of five times. It is now down to a 48 unit project, the connection to the south side, the south lot fias been
split off to be a town house project so that town house project is much more in scale and chacacter. We
were concerned about some of the alley issues, so it is really right now at the smallest number of units
that make sense for a cooperative unit in terms of the social-aspects of that and also creating soine
element of affordability between units seiling for $225,000 up to about $500,000. Mr. Keeley pointed
out the site plan, this is the site plan,�one of the things we were trying to do in both lots is, there are
some existing trees along MacKubin Avenue they are very makure oaks, pointing out the large green
cixcles on the site plan. We tried to stay as far back from the MacKubin side as possible to inaintain the
life of those mature oaks. Also on the southwest corner, which would be the northeast corner of Holly
and MacKubin there are also two large oaks. So part of the reason foc the setback on tfie town house
project is that we are trying to step away from the oaks. That is about a 15-20 foot setback off of Holly
Avenue that pushes toward the alley to maintain those oaks. One of the discussion points of the HPC �,vas
to maintain the (ook and character of the existing hotel. So whaT we are trying to do is pull inost of flie
building mass away from the existing hotel and just touch the souttreasf corner of that hotel just as
minimally as possible. Than another point with the HPC wasto keep the building stepped as far away as
possible, so that existing hotel maintains its own identity. We have worked very hard to pull the building
back and essentially what we have done if pull die huilding back towacd the alley agd the south side�
• Mr. Keeley continued here are a couple of shots along Ashland Avenue, he pointed out this light cream
corner where it comes dotivn to a stone column that was the corner, if you look at the front along Ashland
Avenue it stays consistent, there is a consistent line witli the existing hotel, it hits a corner and that is �
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File (#07-106418
Minutes July_30, 2007
Page Three
�
pretty muc� tlie same corner within about a foot ar.d a half of fhe existing-hotel Gvhich sat as.a mass right
here. Then it steps back about 30 feet behind the line of Pne existing home on the other side. So we hzve
stegped the building back along the edge, we have stepped the building back along the entry, indicating
the west side of the hotel and the easT side of the hotel, we have stepped the building back along the other
side of the hotel., Pointing out the back of the building and the gra6ng shown �n the site plan, what is
being shown in this locauon is a covering for the underground parking. That covering altows us to get to
the rario of 1.6 stalls per unit completely underground. We could have opted, in some of the original
schemes opted for surfaca parking we decided that it is better to have Those parking stalls underground.
However, underground parking with structuie over the top if it counts as enclosed space, he poin[ed out
the town home project it is a two-and-a-half story five-unit project. Maintaining the existing t�ees on the
corner, we acknowledge that there are some design issues from the initial process to where we are today
in terms of fitting in with a historic neighhorfiood. We have had a number of ineetings and we wiIl have
a number of moce meetings going tfiLOUgh the HPC, working with the neighborhood to cesolve whaC tYie
look of the building should be. However, we have gotten to the point with the massing of the building
and we believe we have gotten feedback from the HPC saying that fhe massing of the building was
consistent to begin to say now we really need to dive into the design of it. But the overall scaIe and size
of it needs to remain the same in order to maintain the 48 units to keep the coop viable. This is a quick
diagram of everything that is 70% coverage in the neighborhood pointing out page 95 of the Board'
packet. Typically there are lots of multi-family seructures on the corners these`aie three to four stories �
there is a five story brick building. We originally proposed a four story building on this. At the first
meeting we heard pretry Ioud and clear don't go fouc stories. So we dropped it d'own to tk�ree stocies, we
dropped off units and it did eacpand out a little to make up for the loss. One of the issues that is going 'on
here is the existing building which has a 31 % of lot area for the footprint, 3t was also surrounded by
impecvious surface, surface parking lots to come to a 63% ratio. We are at a 65% ratio there is 55%
habitable space, what that means is that that extra 10 % is outdoor terraces and it covers the underground
parking. There is no surface parking on this lot. Imperviaus surface ratio is about 67 % he stated he just
wanted to make a note that the impecvious surface is pretty close.
Mr. Keeley showed photos of examples within the neighborhood showing where fhe buildings come right
up to alleyway very close to the propexty line. He believes it is consistent within the neighborhood to
have three-stories very close to streets, very close to the alley. He"explained that they have gone to
efforts on the facade to break down the building into parts. Pointing out that they ar`e [reating'each
section of the building as a building mass, so we are trying to break it up into brick boxes to Ry and
repiicate what is going on in the existing neighborhood. Traffic and parking is always a concern. One of
the big issues on a senior coop is that it does not generate as much tcaffic as other buildings. Noting that
these numbers are from the Insritute of Tzansportation Engineers, this is a nauonal organization that
ttacks how pe.ople. use buildings, what they do, what traffic it generates. A senior coop on average
generates 3.48 daily trips, a single-family 9.55, so it is about 1/3 so if it were roughly calculated it would
be about the same as 17 single-family homes over seven lots on the site. Real Estate Equities mns m�ny
senior cooperatives around the region, on an avera�e day 1.25 stalls are used including the staff. These
are not staffed like a nursing home, it is not a nursing faciIity, they are very independent they do come
and go. $o there is not a lot of commerciai traffic generated with this, these are more household type
traffrcs. In this proposal there are 1:6 stalls per unit that is 6eing proposed and all of those are •-
underground. At this point to do a 7 LI
ll'
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
D�-�o�
• File `#07-IOfi418
iVIinutes July 30, 2007
Page Foui
�
cooperative i; canaot shLink and that is based on the social structure of how it is put together. In order to
continue to develop the design, bring it 6efore the HPC and that process and to continue to work with the
neighborhood we need to get the variance because we really cannot shrink the building any more.
Ms. �lorton questioned whether MacKubin is the street that runs north and south? Ashland runs east and
west? Mr. Ward replied correct. She fuLther questioned how many units aYe in the large apartment
kitty-corner from the property? Mr. Keeley replied he did not know how many units aze in that but he
does know that the buiiding is over 70% coverage. This is all taken out of the Ramsey County
information on the real-estate piece.
Mr. Courtney questioned that NIr. Keeley is telling the Board that this as senior coops generate less
traffic. Once this vaiiance is granted how do we prevenC this from becoming a single-family? It is
changing constantly as you have told us, how do we know it is not going to change right after the
variance, ot you find out you cannot xentto seniors?. Mx. Keeley ceplied this project will have a set of
iegal documents that wiU be drafred that will be tied to the financing ffiat is done on this stmcture. We
have already 6egun to test market and in the last five weeks we have had ten people that have signed up
for reservations. As far as going forv✓ard with the development we .would not go wifh a single-family
style development. Tt is not something that is going to work foz a number of reasons. The cost of .
acquisition, the cost of site redevelopment, you are going ko have to do that to a single-family
development and we believe a cooperative is the best structure and he does not believe that a singte-
family structure or change to that woutd work. Mr. Coustney questioned what if you change your inind?
Mr. Keeley stated he does not know that, he has not changed his mind and does not believe he would do
that.
Mr. Ward questioned this is being presented as a cooperative, which is somewhat similar to a association
but not quite the same. Is there a management company that is going to be selup to maintain and keep
this building in a condition that is suitable to the neighborhood rather than have elderly people who
historically have difficulty with finances, with mobility, and being able to get people in to maintain this
structure, being that these town homes are going to be separately owned. What is your plan to take care
of this? Mr. Keeley stated there are a number of subtleties that are different between this"and other
associations. This will be a senior 55 and over codperative structure. With tfiat each member owns a
share in the coopeiative and the Boatd of Diiectors is elected fxom those shares. Unlike the associations
that we run, the condo/town house associations that we run, this has monthly meetings, and
subcommittees and a substantial numtier of the people are very, very active in the process. As far as the
operating structure works, we at this point are proposing our company to be the management company
for the project. We manage about 4500 units in the Twin Cities and we are right now close to abou[ 300
cooperatives that we manage. _ Along with that we will have professional maintenance, professional house
keeping, there is going to be Concierge services involved with the process. It will be maintained, it will
be a very nice propetry, actually the people that live in these have the highest standazds of any of the
properties that we inanage. Mr. Ward further questioned what is your planned absorption? Right now
� the real estate maiket is very flat and building something of this caliber particularly at the price points
that you quoted earlier, what if it takes 5 years to absor.b all these units, your talking 48 units so what is
your strategy? Mr. Keeley stated that their strategy is that they had introduced this product about 4-5�
�� AA-ADA-EEOEmployer
File #07-106418
IvIinutes 7uly 30, 2007
Page Five
weeks ago and we currentiy have ten people signed up on the reservation list.. In order to get our
financing in place we have to have 50% of these sold with a substantial amount of money down at that
point in time. @Ve believe that the properry will probably sell out in about a year with occupancy to about
a year and a half after construction starts. We anticipate consfruction starting, if there is an adequate
presale to get the financing, we anticipate that constmction woutd stazt sometime next spring. It is about
a twelve month construction peiiod. Than after if sales go well it will be occupancp otherwise typically
after about six months after that for occupancy. The United Stated and the azea has had a tuff time with
the real estate market, he is happy to say within the cooperative market that they do not have that, this :s
a different product, it is marketed in a different way. A substantiat number of the peopte are from this
neighborhood and the sur�ounding neighborhoods and they are fully confident in their ability to sell their
homes. Typically people who move into ou� products are people whose houses, if they aze priced
correctly, sell regularly, they are desired houses. So that would be our plan, to have it sold out and
occupied over the next probably up to eighteen months after construction staLts.
i
Ms. Bogen questioned whefher the town houses were a part of tliis properry also? Mr. Keeley replied the •
town houses will not be a part of the cooperative. The town.houses will be"managed as a separate
association; those price points will probably begin something in the $500,000 to $600,000 range and go
up from'there. We wil[ probably be able to sfiare services across the board but they will be two �
independent associations and we would propose to be the management company on both Of ehose. Ms.
Bogen fuzther questioned will they be age limited also? Mr. Keeley replied no they are not.
Mr. Courtney quesfioned while we aze looking up at this slide here which he thinks is"televant, he
questioned whether anyone could tell him how many units are in any of the areas noted to have more than
7Q% density. Are there any that have 48 and fie is anticipating that he is going to hear from the
neighborhood that this is going to create too much traffic? Mr. Keeley stated he does not think that he
can answer that, a number of these structures were aparhnents, some still aze and some have been
�Qnverte�d, so he would say most of [hem do not provide parking. A Iot of them �vill provide a litfle bit
of.parking along a surface lot alang the back side but the majoriry of these were built eighty years ago
when parking was not the issue that it is now, so they relied on off-site parking rather than on site. That
said there are some surface lots that have been deveIoped throughout the neighborhood for these. He
would guess that 48 is on the high side of what any one of these piojects would represent.
Mr. Jans stated_ thaY the other thing that we looked at when we looked at this project was that this was a
nursing home with 90 residents with one hundred and twenty people there with the parking, coming an8
going, truck traffic you do not have that with a cooperafive. These people are independent people living
there. We do not have truck traffic, we do not have a Iarge staff, and typicatly it would probably be two
full-time staff at any given point in tima: We are going to put the parking underground. He could not
answer the number of people living in e�ch of those buildings.
Mr. Wazd questioned Mr. Jans during the construction of this 48 unit building, which is going to be your
cooperative, the town houses, will those be phased as a second project? Or are you going to try to do
them both at once? What is you anticipation of impact? As far as ennstrucYion on the neighborhood ,
uucks, noise, have you done a study to figure out what other projects are being done in the area that are
��
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
� �-�oa$
• File rY07-106418
i�li�tutes. July 30,,2007
Page Six
this large? V(r. Jans stated'that at this point they are not aware of additional projects that would be going
on. The answer to the first part of the question, yes this �kill be a phased project. We will get tne
cooperatibe structure to a level that we would be able to keep the traffic and delivezies and that soLt o£
thing at the structure. Initially we would use the parking lot for staging and those iype of things. The
contractors that will work with Mr. Keeley and themselves, have worked in an urban setting before as far
as minimizing the amount of sto�age and tmck tcaffic on the site and the working Yraffic. Yes we are
going to stage the town houses and txy to minimize what we can in the neighborhood.
Sheila Mociarty, 41 MacKubin Stceet, stated that she Lives in a house fhat is kitty-corner to the pso}ect
and she is speaking in behalf of this project stating that she hopes that it goes through. She has been to
Iots of ineetings in the neighborhood, but not as many as she has in the last few months. First of all she
has been very impressed with the professionalism of the staff, who have been accominodating the vaxious
difficulties that people have had. From her perception she thinks that they range from loss of parking to
loss of sun light, bigger buildings, feeling like your a little bit cro�vded. She stated that she grew up in a
working class neighborhood in Boston, a great ciry like St. Paul, but we lived in houses that were
scrunched in on top of each other, we used to call them flats. We never even had a garage that she
• knew, none of her neighbors did any way. We had parking sometimes, she thinks that beauty is in the
eye of the beholder. People look at these situations in modern development very differently and she sees
the potential of this as a very big asset to their neighborhood. iVls. Moriazry continued that when they
moved in�o their house in 1974 the places were perceived'as drug ridden, crime ridden, unsafe places to
be, no one in St. Paul wanted to buy in our area and evexybody who bought at that time were from other
states. Because we saw in [hese houses a great mix of different types of sryles and different living styles
too and that excited us. Over the years the variety of different housing options encouraged a very
different mix of peopie. So in the house across the street you have a rooming house, next to that was a
cominune with cohabitating couples lefr over fram the hippy days, the next block we had Mexican
Ainecieans fxam the sugar beet plantations iri tliose row houses that ace now pcieed at half a mitlion
dollars each. The next block someone pointed out the rental units, African Americads live there. Across
the street a church where you-eould hear Baptist songs belted out on a Sunday morning 'that would shake
your sou1. This was the kind of neighboihood that she IoVed, but over the yeacs as housing has become"
more economically segregated many people have had to leave our neighborhood. We have lost mainly --
many of the middle class fainilies that we had before. She sees this new senior cooperative as the first
time we have had someone talk about affordable housing in our area. It is no longer the economically
segregated anything available in our area have been high priced condds, or high priced town homes,
there is nothing for regular people. This is the neighborhood that she longs to have again. She would
like to say to those in our community who do not want to change anything there is nothing we can do to
make them happy she does not think. But there're a lot of others in our community that put a 1ot of sweat
equity in their homes and they fear that fliis development will take advantage of their efforts, and to them
she would like to say when we are no longer able to maintain our own homes, won't it be wonderful to
have something around the corner that we can turn to that will support our living in the neighborhood and
continuing. She thinks that they need to extend a hand of friendship to those outside their borders to
. welcome them to their neighborhood. This-is the best proposal that we aze Iikely to see in a long tiine if
we do not like this particular proposal we are going to be left with a nursing home that will be a blight on
ouL commanity that �vill inciease the crime rate and otlierwise bcing difficulry to us all, �
�
AA-ADA-EEO Emptoyer
File #07-123888
Minutes_7uIy 30, 20Q7.-
Page Seven
�
Mary Nuebel, 72 Kent Street #1, stated that she has lived in the Ramsey Hill area fot two and a half
years in a two unit condo that was bui1E as a single-family home in 1910. It is kind of an oxymoion, it is
not really a condo it is a heck of a lot of work. The whole house sets on 71% of the lot and it is a block
from this proposed project. She has liad experience with senior cooperatives, her parents purchased one .
ia Burnsvitle back ia 1982, for the next two years they lived there they loved it. There was noY the kind.
of traffic that she has heard there was here with a nursing home staff, with trucks rumbling by. She was
in the neighborhood as they have built another condo tmit up on Western and tke neighborhood seemed to
accommodate to the constzuction the same with Aberdeen, which is another condo unit. She stated that
she has been fotlowing this because she does live in the neighborhood and what she purchased was
proposed as a condo, and it has turned o¢t not to be a condo. Ms. Nuebel stated that at first she was just
cucious and now she is an avid supporter and has one of the ten applicants for a unit, noting that she has
come to love the neighborhood. She stated that this is whece she wants to be, but she does not want to be
on a ladder on the thicd floor and doing yard work as sfie feels she is ge[ting too old for that. One of the
things you might have seen in your documentation is that in the last community meeting that there weie
27 opposed and 17 supportecs, she woutd like to take issue with tfiat. Many of the folks fhae wete in.
support left eacly, they were tired of what seems like and exhausting fight of saying the same thing over
and over again. She stated that she has been really impressed with this company thaEeach time she goes
to a meeting, they come back the next time and have listened to the neighborhood and instead of being
four stories high it has now dropped down to three, because the neighbors around there don't wattt to �
have that sun space blocked, so she is very impressed with them. '�'he same with the fact that they are
going to remove one tree, because of the way they a�e working with the land; she is teally impressed
with that_ This was not done over in IbIinnehaha Park when they were putting in the light rail. She is
also supporting this because the asking price is lowar so we will have more diversity in our neightiorhood
in stead of half a million dollars. She knows several people that l�ow the builder and they all approve of
the buildets reputation and are supportive of this project, so she is also supporting it. She feels that
environmentally density is the way to go, she has friends living in $oston, New York Ci[y, some of the
Iarger cities and this is not dense. Her tast point is that we could do a heck of a lot worse.
Ms. Bogen questioned what Ms. Nuebel's address was. Ms, Nuebel replied 72 Kenf #1, she lives on the
corner of Kent & Holly.
7��ry Tioy, 1594 Edgcumbe Road, sfated that he and his pattner Bob Zanfls are the owners of Real Estate
Equiries and partners with Mr. Jans, noting that they have a 30 year history in the Real �state business in
St, Paul: They are excited abont this new way fo create condominiums it is a difFerent path that really is
about creating communities. It is about ownership he heard the quesEioB what-if they weren't rented?
they are not rented but they are purchased as a properry, but this is not justthe idea of sell"mg
candominiums but cieating community is an exciting activity for them. He jusf wants to say as people
who have a long history of cnmmitment to the city and have some concern about our repetition'lodg term
in this city we aze definitely going to honor and respect and take care of what hagpens in tYtis
nei,ghborhood.
Kathryn Larson, 79 Western Avenue N. stated that she lives in the Commodore at Ashland and Western �
Avenue. She would like to echo her suppod for what Sheila and Mary have said about what this building
and this coop will mean to the neighborhood. She is more concerned about what kiad of space she is �
�i
AA-ADA-EEO Emplayer
°� /a�g
• File #07-106418
Ivtinutes July 30, 2007
Page Eight
goirig to live in next, and she feels that the planners and developers have woiked out floor ptans for
individuat apartments that are extremely adaptable to all kinds of living azrangemenes. For example all of
the two bedroom apartments ha.ve the two 6edrooins and two baths separated by the living area. Tha[
means that two single people can share that apaihnent vesy comfoctabiy and have their own pcivate
space. This is a design idea that started on the west coast and we don't have very much of in this part of
the country and she thinks that will take care of the ongoing viability of this unit. So if a inarried couple
move in and one spouse dies, they can move in a ielative and make some othet kind of living
arrangement.
N1s. Maddox instzucted the audience that the Board looks at the variances, and we have notl�ing to do
with the traffic and the units, so if you can keep youz discussion focused an our discussion that would
help us.
Mr. dohn Bachman, 472 Otis Avenue, stated that he is also interested in and has put money _down on this
project. He stated tliat he and his wife have been looking for approximately three years in the entire
metro, MinneapolisiSt. Paul area mainly in the city as opposed to the suburbs and it seems like we have
�' finally found somethin� that is affordable. The floor plans are very adaptable and the neighborhood is
very desirable so he tully supports it and is looking forward to it progressing.
There was opposition present at the hearing.
•
Dan Miller, 483 Ashland Avenue, stated he lives just across the street from the front door of tfie former
St. Paul nursing home. He would also like to say his profession is as a professional real estate appraiser.
He is a principle owner of Integra Realty Resources a national appraisal; valuation, and consulting=firm
and this year he is the 2007 president of the North Star Appraisal Institute. He mentions that because he
does not want the Board to think that he is just another close by neighbor who is opposed to a project that
is proposed across the street. As a matYer of fact he would like nothing more-than to see the St. Paul '
Church Ho�ne to go dovi�a because it is an eye sore and it has not been very weli maintained since it-�as
gone vacant. Obviously that is not a good thing. But we have to realize that real estate is a long term
proposiTion; it is not something that is just going to be with us for a very short time. We have to live
with it, for properties in our neighborhood our propezty is 115 years old so we have to assume thzt the
decisions that are made for this site are decisions that the neigliborliood and the City will have to'"[ive
with for a long time. What concerns him about this is the inagnitude of the variances here. In his
opinion the notices that go out tend to understate what the variances really are in these matters. The
variance that come out for example on the card that we received and that the Chair read earlier; stated
that the developers for the St. Paul Church Home building site were requesting a 65 % variance against a
35% allowance indicating a 30% variance. Well he will say that is not a 30% variance that is an 85%
variance. So what the developers are asking to do is nearly double the site coverage that is allowed for
that site and that is extreme. A slide shown earlier that shows all the buildings that are in the
neighborhood that show 70% or more site coverage. That is true there are buildings like that but also if
you look at those sites you'll see that this proposed property extends for over half of one side of the
block. Yon will not see anothei pzoject in the neighborhood that comes close and would appear to have
that type of site coverage would be the old Commodore Hotel. But the thing that was not pointed out is
l� C �
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
Fi1e #07-106418
Ltinutes 7u[y 30, 2007
Page Nine
�
that the Commodore Hotel also owns the pazking lot to the north of that building: So not only have they
the side of the block that their building resided on but they aIso have the othec side of ttce black. So the
true site coverage for that building is not nearly as extreme as what is being proposed here. Often when
we have the re-use of tand that has a large structuies on it the proposal is presented in such a fashion that
"while we are not really doing much moie, or any more, or we are noT stretching the envelope a great
deal further than what already exists on the site.- The flaw in that logic is that you are assuming that what
is on the site is an appropriate use. Mr. Miller continaed ttiat he has tived across the street from the St.
Paul Church Home for fifteen yeacs, he always enjoped the neighbors they went over anfl visited with the
people and found them to 6e excellent neighbors. He never did think that building was a proper use of
that site and what we are looking at here is essentially a replication and somewhat of an expansion of that
building. Which he thinks goes really far beyond,in his opinion, the intent of the zoniag variance should
be. He atso wanted to point out that as a commercia2 real estate apgraiser he gets into a lot of issues that
have to do with financial feasibility and highest and best use and these matters often get presented in such
a minor that if Uiese variances aren't approved that zedevelopment of a site is rioLfinancially feasible.
That may be the case for the proposal that is "m front in any particular matter, a lot of times the financial
feasibility to a developer realiy. rests with how much they are paying for the land. Not necessarily
whether there could be a re-use of the site thaY would iri fact work and be a better fit fox the
neighborhood and the City, $e thinks that their neighbozhood is an absolute jewel for this City. He also •
thinks that these kinds of variances should not be taken lightly by the Council. So far those that are in
suppozt of this proposal he hasn't heard any addresses that aie in very close proxunity to this pLOperty.
Everybody that is in favor of it are several blocks away or outside the neighbozhood entirely. In his way
of thinking he does not think That those are the people that should be speaking and offering opinions for a
proposal that affects peopie who have literally worked hard and thrown our lives into this neighborhood.
We just want to see something that is done right and he is completely in favor of this site being
redeveloped he just wants to see it�edeveloped right. He conrinued he does not think that an SS %
variance is needed in order to see that happen.
Mr, Ward questioned what Ivir. Miller would propose? Mr. Miller stated that is difficult without seeing
the numbers, and that is something the Board never gets the chance to see. You hear testimony that says
if we don't get tfiis it won't woLk, but nobody ever proves that to you, tFiey }ust say that. As a
professional in this area he looks at numbeis and he looks at the way things gravitate down to land value
to see what would work: If you yy�dn� his opinion without those numbers he thinks it is certainly possible
to have the Ashland Hotel as a separate facility,.he real�s that is an impediment to this as far as
converting that and keeping most developers would rather take it down as these developers would too if
tfiey were able to do that. Because ii is tnore cost effective fo start from scratch. But this is a large site,
it is a vecy unique piece of propecty and a very unique opportunity in this neighborhood when most of the
time things are build on very limited small sites, Certainly you could look at some kind of clustering,
you could look as some town homes, you could look at a mix of maybe a smaller inulti-family building
and some other town homes mixed in that would not consume the entire landscape of half a block.
Because if you Iook at this biock except for the St. Paut-Ghurch home this is a single-famity residenual
block. It is not a multi-family block and this is really an extreme change from that land use. He is sorry
to go on 6ut he has attended all these meetings also and one of the statements that he has repeaeedly heard
is that this development fits with the rhythm of this neighboThood and the foundation for that is that if you�
�
AA-ABA-EEO Employer
a�ia�
• File '�07-1064I8
Minutes July 30, 2007
Page Ten
look around the neighborhood you find multi-iamily or larger buildings on corners and that is true you
do. He belieues that this project was originally developed to fit with the rhychm of che neighborhond and
that is iepre"sented by the original Ashland Hotel, it is not cepresented by the expansions that occurred
over time of the St. Paul Nursing Home.
Frank Radscina, 422 Ashland Avenue, stated that he lives at the opposite end of the block from where the
Chuech Home is. He stated he is a neighbor and has lived in the neighborhood for seven years he is also
a developex builder and has iedeveloped and built eight row homes just one block to tlie nozth of this
project on,[he corner of Laurel and MacKubin. In addition he has built the building he is living in on the
east end of Ashland, iY is a two family building, on a lot that sat empty for 35 years. He redeveloped that
and built a foui-sqnaze historic type two-fami(y residence there. He built that seven yeazs ago he had no
intention of living in the neighborhood, but he liked it so much aftex his firs[ experience that he did do
that. He staCed he finds it strange to be. setting here because he has never sat down in opposition of _
another buiider on anything in 35 years. He continued that he also does a lot of commercial construction
and has•buiit the ciub house for Hillcrest Country Club in St. Paul, just to tell the Hoard that he has been
in the business many years and he thinks he has a rea( feel for neighborhoods. He stated that he has a-
• problem with this project, as Mr. Miller stated earlier, he thinks that it is an overuse of the propecty.
The proposed building is taking advantage of a beautiful city block whicti is mostly residential, single-
family, cnulti-family and the Church Aome's mandate was to minister to the eldeily for one hundred
years. Now they are gone and he does believe, not to be harsh, but he believes that their mandate is now
to sell their property for the most they can get which is part of the probiem why you have to see so inany
units proposed on this property, because financially it does not work anyway. With all due respect to the
developer/builder that is their business, their business is to build and make money. They would� t be in
business for all those years if they didn't and he respects that and so he wants to say, he has appeazed
before this Board to ask for variances on projects but his variances were very small and he listened to the
neighborhood and took to heart what they were saying. He stated emphatically that it is really a miss-use
if you gxant variances of this magnitude, than thete is no such thing as a vaziance thece, the wotd does
not exist in this neighborhood, because you have basica7ly blown it away. If y`ou say this should be what
we should do and caver that block with another great big building you will never get down that 2����:
TheLe is no place foc snow retention theze is nothing, you h�ve to live there to see it. It would be a
nightmare. Mr. Radscina stated he just really encourages the Board to think hard about before they grant
these variances and say leYs build anqther great big building there. He thinks it is not Western row, it is
not on WesTern Avenue, it is not on Dayton and Marshall, or it is not on Dale and Marshalt it is not the
same type of street it is not a arterial thoroughfare street it is a residential street and he thinks that the
best thing that could happen is that those old concrete buildings are going to go but some wonderful
multi-family use could go in there that'wouldn't cover it like a inonolith. He stressed that the variances
that are being asked for are exkreme. He stated that he has been here before and it would nev�r- h�ye..
happened before. ,� - - _. - _
. Mr. Couxtney questioned Mr. Radscina he can do the numbers and he can understand that this is a big
var3ance, but what he is trying to get a hold of is how this structure is going to cause a problem? There
is a reason that there are density rules and it is usually because there is going_to be too much traffic, or it
is going to be too rnuch this, or it is }ust going to lopk poor, where does this fit in? Mr. Radscina ieplied
./'�
�
AA-ADA-EEO Emplayer
Fi1e #07-106418
Minutes July 30, 2407
Page Eleyen
that he believes tkaC if you dzive that neighborhood if you go up and down Holly or Ashland or Laurel,
or Portland you do-noY see huge-structures like this in thi"s general area you do not see huge structuces
l3ke tfiey are proposing to put up. This is more of a multi-family, small multi-fainily, or single-family
rype of neighborhood, so we are not saying it is our neighborhood, he has only been there_ seven years
and ha built a two-family home there, Not just a single-family. But it is a h¢ge use of that block to take
hatf that block and put-this monolith up therz. May6e it is not the numbers of fainilies.or residents but it
just does not fit into thae unique area of Ramsey Hill. Like he said Western Row Town Homes, that are
on Western Avenue, it is a busy street, it would be a totally different thing, it has the Commodore across
the street. Tlzere is nothing like this aiound here, there is not anything of this mass or capaciry that is
going up. Mr. Courtney commented what you are saying is that it does not fit in because it is too big,
and that is one of the criferia. Mr. Radscina stated that is part of youc variances, if they couldn't get the
variances they couldn't build anything so big. You have your own variances and you enforce them, and
you make them and it sounds like it is going, well everything has changed, changed, change.
�
Ms. $ogen questioned whether the neighbors were concerned about the teduction of green space? How
much bigger is this foot piint going to be tr:an what is already there? Is it biggec than what is already ..
there? Mr. Radscina replied he does not want to talk about that as he is not as informed as some of the
other peop[e might fie, but he believes it is because it covers part of another tot that is jusi setting there. •
Ken Rockliner, and S�sie DeShon, 454 Ashland Avenue, Mr. Rockliner stated that Susie is the home
owner and he is a relative new comer to the area and has only-been there for eight years, Susie has been
there for 24 years. First of all no one person here can represent the neighborhood because we really
have not had a chance to get a formal vote together. VJhether it is this incident oz other things that are
before you, he thinks that the process needs to be cefined a little. It was not until 12:10 this afreTnoon
that they had any idea of what Summit-Universiry ot Ramsey Hill's position would be. Despite the fact
that you have heard some people say that they are id favor of it here the two [arge meecings that just took
place he thinks were fairly overwhelming in teims of the neighbots. Not just everybody that is in
�tamsey Hill but the neighbor's are overwhelmingly.opposed to the project as it sits right now. Not
necessarily the idea of a pro}ect, we aze not trying to stone wall any development here. IVfr. Ward asked
tfie quesflon what could you see goiug in there? But as Dan pointed out we haven't reaily seen the
numbers but he would say that.a 3�-32 ¢nit condo would be there and you say that a condo is di€ferenT
than a coop. Well there are, three parties that are really being dealt with here, there are the existing
neighbors that are there, theie is the developer that is planning on coming in, and there are the people
who want to move in. He thinks that while all three need to be looked at he does not think that the Board
wants to take the developers and atlow them for the profit that needs to be there and to piovide the homes
for the new people to be there on the backs of the neighbors that are already there. We proposed, and he
Says "we" are not a tegal organization, we were �ust an ad fiock group of people that me�'at St: 7ohn's
Ghurch and we did not have unanimity in this offet either but in trqing not to stone walt it, rather than
saying why don`t we request a 5% more increase. �Ve talked about giving as opposed to the 35% that is
legally supp,�sed to 6e there now. The group fairly well agreed and we conveyed it to the Ramsey Hill
members-ttiat were there. We talked about increasing the amount of allowable space by over 33% for
47% lot coverage. Beca�se.the figure that you are looking at is really boils down to a percentage of ari
allowable increase of 87%. Developers feared that there were a lot of ineetings with the neighbois,
�
�
�
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
���io�g
• File �07-106418
i�4inutes _Juty 36, 2007
Page T�velve
well that is tme but ail the neighbors he has talked to said that £ney never approved what finally came
before us the other day. Again we did not know about the first ineeting until one day before it. The
bottoin line is that rhis is just too much for the site and he has a proposal and an answer to �Ir.
Courtney's question about what problems we see in the neighboxhood. He stated that he recently lost a
i�'gsnd so has become more conscious of it, but many a time in the last few yeazs he has had to park on
Holly or Laurel and maybe that is acceptable, but if it is the dead of winter and you are coming home at
I0:00 pin and it is 30 below walking a block and a half is not good. Recently he has become much moce
cognizant of it since the amputation. So we looked on the block with nothing on the block right now and
there were zero parking spots on Ashland and we got into an argument about whether there were three or
four legal spots on Arundel or not. So it is a severe parking probtem, he does not know i� that is an
official pact of the vaciance, 6ut it is a diiect result of a variance gcanting that much of an exception that
is there. He thinks that the developers have acknowigdged that when they tried to put some parking there
in the back, but he thinks that even the developers will tell you that probably is not going to work. If you
weze to pass that Qcoject right now and put a caincorder on that neighborhood and see it a year after it is
developed. Despite any numbers you hear right now your going to find that there is, he is not sure about
a traffic problem, but he thinks there wiil be a little bit more also but a deteriorating parking problem in
• an area that already has a problem at this point. What could be a solution, how about a couple of more
weeks so we could actually get an appointed group to sit down with the developer and go through these
numbers a little bit. To a certain e.xtent it is none of our business buC it seeins that the difference between
condos and cooperatives is a inatter of how much profit there is for the developer. Tt is not our position
to say what that profit is but he thinks they would feel a whole lot better it they had some idea of whetlier
it is feasible or not. When you look into this, he knows that everybody means well here he thinks that
� the developers seem like decenC people, but he will quote his father here. It hurts almost as much to be
xun over by accident as it does on purpose. So regacdless of intent as somebody that ]ives in the
neighborhood he thinks almost everybody in the neighborhood feels the same way, there are some people
that voted in favor of it because they are worried about the alternative'. Give us a cfiance to sit down face
to face with the developer and see whethei there is a condominium possibility. He stated ttiat he knows
some people that haven't heard this yef but he would be glad to volunteer them for that committee, they �
are people that have a lot of expertise in a lot of a�eas:
James Brooks, 256 Ashland Avenue, stated that he Iives two doors down from the proposed construction
and comes before the Board solely for the pnrpose of opposing the variance request for a 25 foot setback
reduced Yo a 9-foot setback fox the rear of the builtling on the aliey. �Vhat is not shown is in the vaLibus
examples and he thinks it is very important to note, that thera are three entrances'and exits to the
underground parking ramp that will be coming out only 9 feet from the alley. His concern is with 60
cazs poteniially in that parking ramp there witL not only be incceased traffic up and down the alley but the
potential for increased accidents up and down the alley when people cannot see those ramps because they
are so close to the alley. Kids on bicycles cannot see what is going in and out of that ramp because it is
so close to the alIey and there will be more accidents witYr people on bicycles. The difference between
this and a single-family detached garage situation are the site lines these_�hree_entxances/exits are buried
. in the middle of a large stmcture only_nine feet from the alley, Iess than a basketbaFl hoop is from the
ground. We are taiking about a very small area and_his concern is for safety and welfare of the
��
AA-ADA=EEO Empl9yer
I�i��, #07-106418
Minutes 7�i1y 30, 200��-=_-
P_�g� 3'hirteen
neighborhood includingrthe people who will be liviag in the new coop and he would encourage that
whatever design is drawn that it will be in keeping with the zoning requirement of the 25 foot setback on
the alley.
❑
Tom Davis, 464 A'shland Avenue, stated he is the house directly abutting the eastern end of the properry._
Firsf of all he has lived in that same house in the neighborhood for 25 years, a lot of his family and
friends said he was an urban pioneer when he moved into that neighborhood in 1983. He assured them at
that pohlt that the neighborhood was safe, and genecally it is. It is a nice neigfiborhood and St. Paut
Ghucch Home was a nice neighboi to have. Where as the patients did not interact with the neighborhood
a lot, the ones t}iat were mobile did sit on the porch and we were able to talk to them they would walk up
and down the sidewalk in front of his house. They would stop and ask hiin questions as he was mowing
the lawn on Sunday morning. Ae has heard a lof of talk about community, there is a communiry there,
there always has been there: It is more comraunity than he ever saw before znoving into the
neighborfiood: He came in from the suburbs from far western Hennegin County and did not �cnow
anybody when he moved in and within days neighbors had come up and asked him to various events in
tlie neighborhood. There was and there still is a ceal feeling of communiry and what you are hearing
today comes from the community. He stated he is absotutely in favor of 55 and over, he does not want �
ta call it senior housing, because he is past 55 and still actively working and actively mowing his lawn
and he plans to be doing so for quite some time. He thinks the idea of a cooperative tfiere is wonderful,
he has seen a number of disagreements over the use of the St, Paul Chucch Home. Last time was in the
early 9Qs Mr. Faricy was on the loosing side of that argument where the neighborhood won, where there
was a proposed building that was going to be built on 100 feet of gceen spaca just ea�t of the existing St.
Paul's Church Home and just west of his home, and the neighborhood e"ssenfially won that argui�ent
based on loss of green space. He would also like to say ditto to the alley comments. He invited any or
all of the Board to try to drive down that alley in 7anuary, suggesting they should wait until there is a
good snow fall when the plows have not been through yet with a nine foot setback there will be no way
that alley. will be accessitile to 48 condominium/cooperative units. He also feels that the mass and
covezage of that building ceally does not fit the rhythm of that neighborhood. Granted there are other
large buitdings, but also gzanted there is nothing that is that large and nothing that is in the zniddle of
what is a residenfial acea, not on a main thoroughfare but a residential area. Also as far as affects he
believes the staff'person said that the alley residents to the south, their light and air would not be
infringed on by the bnilding. He would say that himself and his immediate neighbor 7ames BrooKs wilI
be affected by liglit and air that buitding will be 20:8 feet from his property line at this point and he can
see summer and winter being in virtual shade all afternoon. From one or t�vo o'clock.in the winter and
certainiy 3-4 o'clock in the spring and summer and early fall so he does think that they will be affected
by lack of light and air. Parking he thinks is going to be a terrible problem where they have the
altowable number of units they have no altowance for guest parking in the curredt plan. Some mention
was made last week of havi�ig guest parking along the altey on their 9 foot setback, he begs to differ, if it
is wintei time that 9 foot setback is not going to be there. There is no place for guest parking and if you
were to visit the neighborhood right now in theeyening both Ashland and MacKubin are both parked up -
at-this p4int. •
� �
At� Employer
��-�� a�
• File �07-106418
i�linutes July 30, 2007
Paga Fourteen
ti Courtney stated he can cercainly undec�tand their comments, he is just wocdecing and it is not like it
has not happened before, where we vote something down and then chey say fine, we are just going to
build up and we don't have the density, your right there and that is really going to biock your light Ntr.
Davis stated that he would come back and tell you the same thing that it is going to block my light and air
even more. 1�Ir. Courtney commented they are entitled to build up. Mr. Davis replied, they aze entitled
to build up, but they have already publicly stated that they do not want to build up so now they are going
to have to build a case for building up. As he understands it, he requested that the Board tell him if he is
wrong, being he is not a legal expert. To get a vaziance you have to show a hardship and is he correct in
assuming that economic hardships do not count and it has to be another type of hardship? So if they are
going to ask for another variance the neighborhood is going to be back here again. When he first heard
that the Se. Paul Church Home was going to close the first thing he thought of was the fact that he
understands that the maintenance hasn't been as good and he had heacd that the numbers had been bad
for them. He thought in his head wouldn't it be nice to have a.street that looks like those old historical
sociery photos that have the Ashland Hotel on the corher there and then Victorian home after Victorian
home after Victorian home all the way down the street, he thinks that would be terrifia Some of them
could be twin hames, some of them could be single-family and they would look. like what the
neighborhood looked Iike at the turn of the century or slightly after that. But that is not what is being
• proposed. We have seen other developments in the neighborhood that have done that and look very good
and so the question what would he propose, he thinks that the Board has just heard it, that.is v✓hat he
would propose, but it might not be the highest and best use. So what would be a highex use and a second
best use? A higher use would be a building tYtat would not cover nearly as much area, would not loose as
much green space in the neighborhood and would look more in character with the building.
Sharon Pfeifer, 529 Holly Avenue, stated that she was not planning on speaking on open space, she
supports everything that has been said by their vecy articulate residents, but she is on Governor's
worki� T��k Force on Land Use and Transportation and is part of the Metro Greenways Regional Green
Space Program for the Department of Natural Resources and she has some concerns about this
development with regard to loss of open space, with regard to storm wateY management issnes and the
associated potential health issues with a lot more cars in an area that is already concentrated and the
potentlal for increased emissions, and asthma, etc., Ramsey County is the de�sest Counry in the metro
area, Ramsey County has the ieast open space of any of our seven counties. We have a celatively few
parks, small tot tots in our area so we do not have a lot of open space, we do have a(ot of trees and that
is a good"thiag from a health perspective, because they do as you know clean the air. There have been
some comments about saving some of the historic oak trees on this property and looking at the drip line
of those trees she would be very surprised if at least three of those don't die just froin the weaghT of
construction because that will kill them if their is any kind of wmpacting soil that covers 30% of the drip
line of those trees, and she would be very surprised if �ye didn't loose those. Checking with the Ciry
Forester she understands that there is no historic tree preservation tree ordinance at all, there is no tree
ordinance in St. Faul. Ms. Pfeifer stated that a number of us were down here about eight years ago to
talk about storm water issues with a Ciry Engineer because every year we have such severe storm water
� runoff that we have what we ca11 Lake Holly at the end of our alley on the Kent side. So she is
coneerned ��ou#-stoim water and how it is �being According to Capital Region Watershed
Districtshe understands that they are going io contain the water underground, she also understands that
there is �
�
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
�
Fila �f07-106418
Midutes 7uly 30, 2007
Page Fifteen
bedrock, and they may have fo blast into_6edrock and they may have to blast into limestone for the
garages, so she is assuming that they wilt haye to blast into limesfone fo also stoce the water weather in
tank"s or pipes they are requited by Capital Region they are required to have at least three feet of soiT
under what ever storage tanks they wiTl have underground. Someone said that the economics hece are
very costty. The iast thing she wants to say is that he iaitial impression on this, white she is fine with
developinent and she thinks these people have been Fine to work with, hut the development here seems to
6e quite uninspired and when she tooked at other templates of other Methodist-Walker places around the
seven counties it looked to her like they took the recTangulaz block that has been done in some of the .
suburbs and plopping it down in our ueighborhood which is a historic district. We have spent 25 years
iicto restoring room by rooin their house, she and her husband have pnt 25 years of sweat equity into
their house and they are very proud of what we have done. They love the neighborhood and every night
say how blessed they are because there aze so many great homes and' she really feets in some regards
because of the size of this_ development and what it looks like that this pazticular project is a free rider,
they are riding on incredible amenity of the neigh6ochood but unless they change the design and the mass
they really are not giving us back what many of us had hoped for. Open space yes we do need it and "we
will loose it."
Ms. Maddox instructed the audience to restrict themselves to fliree minutes.
Len 7ackson, 448 Ashland Avenue, stated that their neighborhood it is considered a historic pieseivation
area and the drawings we have seen of what they are proposing are block things and in this book it says
specifically it says do not build flat top buildings theie, town houses are flat topped buildings, this is a flat
toped building. He is concerned about the parking, if they are p�rking in their 9-foot setback snbw
removal will be a problem, garbage will be a pcoblem he asked if they are building it up Co LEEb energy
efficien�y and fhey said they are not. It is not HPC compatible, ttie mass is very big and he asked if they
were going to have spLinklers and he is not sure what the answer was but he thinks building a building in
this day and age and not making it the most energy efficient as possible is a real big problem.- He has
lived in .the neighborhood a real long time and he agrees with aii the other neighbors.
Ms. Morton questioned Mr. Hardwick all new buildings have to be sprinkled don't they? Mi: Hardwick
ceptied he is not an expert on building code issues, but that is something that will be looked at befare any
construction plans or permits aze approved. He believes they have to meet all the state buflding and fire
code regulations before any permits are issued.
.
7udith Beck, 487 Ashland Avenue, stated she lives dicectty across fhe street from the entrance to the main
development and has lived on the properry foc over 25 years and has`invested a great deal into the
properry including iots of sweat equiry. As a concerned neighbor she is opposed to granting the
variances in particular she is opposed to the variance that addxesses the lot coverage. This is a historic
street Kaskell-Brits(?) First house is on this street it is very residentiaL There is no building that is nearby
that is as big as this buIlding. This is a request for the largest building in the neighborhood, a developers •
McMansion, the size wIll impact the livabiliry, the lot variance represents a building that is too big and
too intense for the location. There is no green space, there ace no court yards, there is no place for '
snow, theie are no gardens, all the services are being pushed to the street and the alley. Ther�. Fyill be 46
� °
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
��-/���
�
Pile #07-106418
ytinutes July 30, 2007
Page Sixteen. —
AVHC compressors on t�'�e roof top. This is the last open space on the block che lot coverage is simply
too big. So she is asking that the foot print which is represented by the lot coverage variance not to 6e
granted.
Ms. Maddox invited the developer back to refute anything that had been said in testimony.
Mr. 7ans scated that he would like to zespond to direct questions as the Board goes forward, Mr. Keeley
may answer any questions he feels are. appropriate.
Ms. Bogen questioned whether the foot print of the new building is larger than the foot print of what is
curcently there? Mr. Jans replied yes it is. Ms. Bogen questioned how much it is larger? Mr. Keeley
replied the current foot print of the building is 14,972 square feet and the impervious surface on that is
30,500 feet, it is surrounded by a surface parking lot and it has parking statls off of the alley. The new
proposed bnilding is 26,996 square feet in addition to the 26,996 is the existing (iotel for a total of
31,415. Ms. Bogen further questioned whether the 14,972 included the Hotel?. Mr. Keeley replied yes it
did.
• Mr. Ward requested that more light be shed on the parking in the alley as to sight lines and traffic ways
and entry and egress into the garage area? Mr. Keeley replied yes, we proposed itlast week, because
diere were some concerns and discussion with the neighbors about parking and lack of visitor parking so
one of the proposals was to take some of the visitor stalls and put them on the town house side. He
thinks that they will probably proceed forward wifll that. We aiso at that tzme propose putting parking
stalls on the alley as a potential solution to this problem. Through the discussions with the neighborhood
he thinks what fliey have gone through we don't think that is a good idea either. So the parking along the
alley is not what was submitted and is not anything we ar� looking at right now. He does think that does
help the site lines. He thinks that there are_ certain aduantages to getting in and out of the underground
parking that is very dissi�nilar from a single-family garage. Most single-family gazages are entered and
they are about five feet off the alley and to get out of those garages you have to back up most people do
not back into their garages. The way the underground parking is structured is you pull in, you pull into
your stall you back completely inside the door goes open and you are facing the alley. So thece is
actually more distance than a very typical singie-family home. He actually thinks it is better than a
single-family garage, granted there are more of them but it is a much better condition. Mr. Keeley stated
that he would just like to clarify on the sprinkier system, yes it is sprinkled. One more had to do with
storm water runoff. The storm water is kind of mandated by the Capital Region Watershed, we are
foliowing their guidelines it does go underground there is rate control, there is quality control, and there
is flow control all of those are engineered we are taking care of it underground. There will not be any
blasting of bed rock to fit this under the system, it all fits between the bed rock and the disturbed soil as it
is. It is a highly engineered system, it a11 has oversight by Capital Region Watershed and should work
}ust fine.
• Ms. Bogen questioned where garbage binsgo? Mr. Keetey replied ihat there is a central facility within
the building, a trash shoot, that comes dowa to a compactor to_� bin in the garage portion. . Then the
management company contracts with a service to come in, they don't bring big garbage trucks because
��
AA-ADA-EEO Emploker -
�
File 1f07-106418
Minutes duly 30, 2007
Page Seventeen _ _ �
big gazbage trucks do not fit under these facilities, they-tend to biing the little Cushman or the little cact
that will come in and take the gaxbage out to the street. That is done on a basis depending on how big
the trash is and what the management contract is with them. Ms. Bogen furtherquestioned they go into
the garage for tfia[? Mr. Keeley replied that the Iittle smali carts go into the garage to pick up the
compacted trash. Ms. Bogen questioned then they back out? Mr. Keeley replied no there is enough
space inside that area that they can come inside that area so that the trash truck will come in they wiil
load it up, they can back up and then come out forward. Ms. Bogen commented that Mz- Keeley had
said back up dawn the alley, so that is where that is coming from. Mr. Keeleg stated he is so�ry if he
did, there should be no reason for anybody to back up out of the parking because there is sufficient space
to do all the maneuvering of the vehicles below grade.
Aearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Ward commented that if we just break these vaziances down and laok at them, the 65 % which is the
first one and is a 30% varianee, then there is a 9-foot groposed for a 16-foot rear yard setback and just in
his opinion the rear yard setback we grant all the time and he does not see a problem with the cear yard
nor dose he see a problem with the side yard a 13-foot pLOposal for a variance of 2 foot side yard •
variance. Then there is item number 3 the maximum 35 % coverage which is allowed and 41 % is
proposed for a variance o£ a 6% lot coverage ail of those he has just read we do those prefty much alI the
time. The biggest one is the first one is this number 1 which is 65% proposed with a variance of30%
and it seems that is the biggest issue cather than the side yard or the rear yard. If he is reading and
hearing what he has heard correctly? It seems fliat the developer has done its due diligence in checking
out everything in the neighborhood it had meetings, they have checked with City regulations and
guidelines and there is a site plan that needs to be reviewed'by planning so all the other issues will be
taken care of 6y DSI and if they don't meet the guidelines necessary_in order to build the site then it
cannot get apgroved. He thinks the biggest issue is the 30% which is number one and he would like to
hear a little more discussion to hear what the oflier commissioners ara thinking about.
Mr. Courtney stated it sounds like a great project and he hopes if goes through. It has been setting doing
nothing foc a while, and does he hope it goes through, because it is not in his neighborhood? Maybe.
He thinks that when you get a variance that is this big it is all focusing on number one and everybody
focuses on it. He thinks the ordinances are there for a reason, it is to piotect the reasonable interests of
the neighborhood. They are all owners there and they have made some pretty good arguments and again
he does not care if he loses, but he just thinks they have made reasonable arguments, it does seem like a
huge_project, their objections seem reasonable, and the percentage t�e does not triink that we are
protecting them properly and that is what it is there for. He thinks that is what the rules. aze there for.
That if they make reasonable objections we need to listen to that and he is voting against it.
Ivts. Bogen commented that she looks at what is there now she knows the area and she knows what is
there now and she hears the argument that the total that is going to cover those lots iS going to moce than
doubte.in size, to her that is too much, that is mo dense. There is no green space there, fl3ere is a new .•
City Council Oidinance where if you are going to build developments and if you can't put a park on your
dev_elopment you have to pay in to put a park somewhere. else, but this arsa needs green space it does not�
�
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
I��1 �/��
•
File r07-106418
Minutes 7uly 30, 2007
Page Eighteen
need a pazk that you put some whece two miies away. She }ust thinks this is too massive and the
neighbors have excellent argumenfs against it, and she is going to vote against at least the first variance if
not one or two other ones but for sure the first one, which is the big one.
Ms. Morton commented that she is going to support this. This is a large variance 6ut cve are an ucban
area and she does think that this property has set caeant since whenever the Church Home closed. She
cemembers when the Church Home asked for an addition and the neighbors objected at that tiine. The
Church Home closed and went out into the suburbs. She stated that she is going to suppoct this, she is .
familiar wi[h another project that this developer has done housing out on the Eastside that has been_very
successful and she is sure he is going to do a good job here if he takes into consideration all of these
things and all of the things he has been listening to the neighbors, he could go up to five Iloors but he has
listened to the neighbors and has gone to three floors so it makes the sucface bigger, so she is supporting
it.
Mr. Courtney inoved to deny the all the variances and resalution based on findings 4 and 6.
• Ms. Bogen seconded the motion; which failed on tie vote of 3-3(Ward, Morton, Maddox).
Ivls. lvladdox stated another motion is needed.
The audience wanted to know what is going on. ' Ms: Maddox explained that the vote to deny the
variances was a tie vote so the Boazd has ta see if we have anothez motion and see what happens with
that.
Mr. Ward moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6.
Mr. Faricy stated he is confused. Ms. Maddox instructed that this is a motion to approve the staff
findings, to approve all the variances.
Ms. Morton seconded the motion, which failed on a tie vote of 3-3(Faricy, Bogen, Courtneyk.
NIs. Marton moved to lay Uie matter over for two weeks.
Mr. Ward seconded the motion which passed on a voice vote.
•
� �
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
�
Eite_ #07-106418
Minutes July 30, 2007
Paga Nineteen
Ms. Gunderson explained for the audience that this is a Board of seven people, but we are down one
member today which is Why we have a tie. At khe next hearing when we have seven people Ehe Board
will readdress this but they will simply discuss it and then take a vote there will not be another public
heazing at the next meeting. Someone in the audience asked if they could object to that. Ms. Gunderson
replied no, you do not. The audience continned to complain about the. procedure, Ms. Maddox
explained that this is consistent with the way we handle affairs.
Submicted by: �.
1 ��
I'
� / �
7o n Har wick
Ap'proved by:
- ia Bogen, Secrefary
u
�
� �
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
c �-/o� g
• :VIINUTES OF THE ?v1EETING OF THE BOARD OF 7,ONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST PAUL, ibIINNESOTA, 7ULY 16, 2�07
PRESENT: Mmes. �Saddox, Bogen, Linden, and �4orton; Messrs. Faricy, �Vard, znd ��/ilson of the
Board of Zoning Appeals; Ms. Gunderson, City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen
of the Bepartment of Safery and Inspections.
ABSENT: Vincent Courtneyx
MBxcused
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair.
I�eith Jans (#07-1Q64181 484 Ashland Avenue: Severai variances in order to redevelop the St Paul
Church Home site for senior housing with underground parking and townhomes. Senior housing site: 1)
A inaximum 35% lot coverage is allowed, 65% is proposed, for a variance of 30%. 2) A 25-foot rear
yard setback is required, 9 feet is proposed for a 16-foot rear yard set6ack variance. Townhouse site: 3)
A maximum 35% coverage is allowed, 41 % is proposed for a variance of 6% lot coverage. 4) A 25-foot
rear yard setbaCk is cequired, 10 feet is proposed for a IS foot rear yard setback variance. 5) A sideyard
setback of 15 feet is requixed on the north side, 13 feet is proposed foi a 2 foot sideyaxd setback
variance.
S Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for
approval, subject to the condition that the applicant obtains design approval from the Heritage
Preservation Commission. Mr. Hardwick suggested opening the public hearing to question the applicant
and the District Council to see if they want to lay it over for a couple of weeks, or whether they want to
proceed today and leave it up to the Board to decide whether to continue with it or not.
The applicant T�EITH JANS, Real Estate Equities - 345 St. Peter Street, was present. Mr. ians stated
that he would like to defer to the District Council to find out what the issues are and then come back?
Mr. Steve Boland, SS6 Seiby Avenue, stated that he is the Executive Director for fhe Summit-University
Planning Council. Mr. Boland stated that they have been in conveisation with Real Estate Equities on
this property for a number of months. They have been very helpful coming to our office to show us
information. We have had two prior communiry meetings, ouz concern and request to ask for more time
to do this was at those two prior community meetings. We have seen versions of the project that were
substantially different. The first one from what was evolving at the second meeting and we toid the
residents at that second meeting no application had been provided, so we could not guarantee that this
was the pioject that they would be looking at variances for. But we will certainly notify you and let you
know what that final word is and what that final variance is going to look like. What the project is going
to be, he thinks that the neighbors were very grateful for the oppormniry to learn early about the project,
but realized it was changing and did not know at that point what level of change, what it was going to
look like. We received postal notification one week ago today, to get out to the community, tell them
what the final variance applications look like, the lot size variance, the coverage. We did our best to ge[
a community meeting together on very shor[ notice and we wrote a letter and 7ohn got that letter by e-
• mail about thtee hours ago. The ma}oc xequest from a11 those in attendance and from our Board of
Directors was that we really think that there is more to be discussed about how this impacts that area of
our community and we would really like more time to do that. The problem was that several people �
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File N�7-106418
Minutes 7uty 16, 2007
Page Two
were unable to come to see the fmal Iot size conditions, the finat side yard setback areas. So aur request
to Andrew Shafer, who fias been very good in coming to us, but our request to him last Saturday, �yas
please take this off the table for tittle bit, although we reaGzed thece axe business drivers that could not be
controlled, but we really need more time to tallc to the peopie. This size project in a residential
neighborhood does not happen every day and we really want to make sure that the people that are
surrounding have'an opporiuniry to get fuil infoanation before being asked to weigh in on the impact on
their neighborhood. Ms. Maddox questioned whether two weeks would be enough time7 Mr. Boland
stated compared to what we were able to do in four days, you bet, he thinks two weeks would be great.
Mr. Hans stated that tfiey.are fine with granTing.the exfension and it is ok for them to coine back in two
weeks. Ms. Maddox stated that it is her understanding that these variances could change, maybe they
won't, but they could. So those in the audience that are here to testify, if you feel that you cannot
comeback in two weeks, ox do not want to come back, whatever we could open the hearing now,
otherwise you can go back and there will be a presentation from the District Council and can become
more informed and come back in two week's. Otiterwise we are going to wait two weeks. Ms. Maddox
questioned the audience those that are interested in this case, are there some of you that would just as
soon testify today? Someone in the audience stated that they have major storm water issues in the
neighborhood. Ms. Maddox stated that should be taken to the District Council.
Hearing no further testimony, Ivfs. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. Linden moved to lay the matter over for two weeks.
Mr. Ward seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 7�0.
Submitted by:
I� � ^
ohn Ha wick
Approved by:
__��
Glor' ogen, Secretary
�
�J
� ,
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
o � -/�a�
�
�;
�
i
�
° o .:
N p
i �
F � �
O a
n ��� ��
0
N
m • 8 � � � �
� b
a wa �
� � � E
. �a ( -�
� [SUOo�oN
h
�
�
ri
0
�
a
z
w
z d 6aa� �N
�
C
�
Q
�
�
q
� �m
U ° �
'� '8 > �
a ffi��
~ C. W
����
� ��
W �A ^
�.�,� a
�� �
�,��a
��A �
u � � �
� A q
���
a�.��
� � 7
�q�b
����
� � �
q � U
o p
� 0.� �°
d����
:� � �-�'�
;x���
�
3
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
8
N
� p,
N'
'�
ro
��
3 ��
� �
����� � �
2� m
t��o�
��� �
��Q��
o � �
.����a
a�
� �� �
�
�b� � �
d
����
����m
.���� �
������
� U � ES :-
^, �
'� � �. �
�Y �"��
� �
���A�O
a� � O 6�
� � 9
�d��
�.ew
E3 d '� o
38�8aa
��
�
�A6
���
�
�� o
�p o
���
��
£
�9
.� p .,
�$�
���
N
���
�� �
� � �
���
� � ��
���
a
� � �
3 da o
�
�
�
B
�
��
0
s�
w
��
�� �
a�. �
� �
� �
� �
a�
� �
.� a
3�
�
h
O
�
p m
,� f`
Q
P �
��
Wdas�9 LOOZ '9 'tlaS
� � �o ag
September 1 S, 2007
',3oazd of Zo IIIIIg Appeals
C(O Mr. John Hazdwick
Office of L.I_E.P.
City of Saint Paut
Commerce Building
8 East 4"� Street, Suite 200
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Re: Zoning File #(c) 7-137535/Hearing on Appeal Scheduled for September 19, 2007
Dear Boazd Members:
We understaud Reai Estate Equities (REE), the appficant in the above matter, has
agreed to a continuance until October 3, 2007, far the heazing of our Application
for Appeal to the City Council of the Boazd's approval of REE's zoning requests.
Mr. $ardwick has advised us t6at the BZA has e�ctended the 60 day period
required under Mnm. Stat. 15.99 for a final decision on REE's request for wning
variances for an addifional period ending November 19, 2007. Thus, Yiie City Council's
heazing on our Appeai will occur within the ea�tended t 5.99 period.
If our understanding is correct, we agree to continuance of the hearing on our
Appeal to October 3, 2007. If out understanding is not conect, please contact
Judy Beck as soon as possible. T'hank you for your assistance.
� r
�r� ��// � ,...�.��:% ��!
: , _,� ,. . ..,-. . , :- ... ., . • ,.-.
cc: Ms. Renee Tyler \
Neighborhood Applicants for Appeai