The URL can be used to link to this page

07-827Suspension — September 5, 2007 RESOLUTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 OF Presented by Council File # 07-827 GreenSheet# 3043739 PAUL, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Michael Aeling, File # 07-074111, has submitted a site plan for review under the provisions of Sec. 61.400 of the Saint Pau] Legislative Code, to develop on slopes steeper than 12% in the River Corridor (add a deck to an existing house, build a retaining wall, install drain ti]e and other work associated with renovating an existing house) on property located at 2108 Douglynn Lane, legally described as LEWISTON HEIGHTS SECOND ADDITION LOT] BLKS; and, WHEREAS, in addition to the site plan, Michael Aeling has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 68.402(b)(3) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to development on slopes geater than 18% in the River Corridor at the same property located at 2108 Douglynn Lane; and WHEIZEAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on July 14 and 21, 2007, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportuniry to be heard pwsuant to said applications in accordance with the requirements of 61303 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and, WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The properry in question cannot be put to a reasonab[e use under the strict provisions of the code; Variances for the drainage system and retaining wall to permit development on slopes steeper than 18% are needed to allow reasonable use of the property: • 7'he changes to the existing drainage system are needed to correct problems caused by the existing drainage system. • The limited amount of re-grading a�d the smali retaining waVl east of the garage are needed to stabilize the slope from work done by the previous owner. However, ihe house can be put to a reasonable use with a smaller deck that does not impact slopes steeper than � s°io. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unigue to the property and these circumstances were not created by the landowner; The circumstances related to the drainage system and retaining wall are unique to the property and were not created by the current landowner: • There is a spring on the site and the steps taken by the previous property owner to correct drainage problems were not done correctly. A new drainage system is required and this cannot be done without affecting slopes steeper than 18%. • The retaining wall is intended to correct and stabilize work that was done by the previous owner 3. The proposed variance is in keeprng with the spirit and entent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfart, mora[s and welfare of the inhabitants of the ciry; Correcting the existing drainage problems on the site and building a small retaining wall can be done in a way that witl not hurt sensitive steep slopes and is therefore is consistent with the intent of the code and the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the ciry. The deck is proposed to go over an area where slopes are well in excess of I S°!o and constructing the deck could result in degradation of the slope. d� -8a-'1 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 7g ?9 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 84 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adeguate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nar will it alter the essential character of tFze surrounding area or unreasonably diminish esfablished property values within the surrounding area, The variances wi11 not impair the adjacent property or surrounding azea. The house and area where the improvements will be made are set well away from any nearby property and the scope of the improvements requirin� the variances is limited. .i. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit arry use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the properry in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification ofthe property; The use of the structwe as a single family home is permitted by the current RL zoning. 6. The reguest for variance is not based primarily an a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of tand The request for the variances is based primarily on a desire to renovate the existing house so it can be used in a reasonable way and to correct existing drainage problems. The variance also meets an additional finding for variances in the River Corridor established in Section 68.601: Applications far variance to ihe pravisions of this chapter may be filed as prwided in section 61.600 The burden ofproofshall rest with the applicant to demonstrate conclusively that such variance will not result in a hazard to (ife or property and wi11 not adversely affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the natural emironment; such proof may include soils, geolo� and lrydrology reports which shadl be signed by registered professionat engineers. Variances shal! be consistent with the generat purposes ojthe standards contained in this chapter and staEe law and the intent of applicable state and national laws and programs. Although variances may be used to mod� permissible methods of�laod protection, no variance shall have the effect af a1lawJng in arry district uses prohibited in that dastrict, permit a lower degree aff(oodprotection than the floodprotection elevadion for theparticular area, orpermit a lesser degree offloodprotectron than required by srate law. The vaziances for the drainage system and small retaining wall will not adversely affect the safety, use or stabiliry of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the natural environment. They are consistent with the general purposes of the standards of the River Conidor Overlay District and state law and the intent of applicable state and national laws and programs. The variance for construction of the deck could adversely affect the stability of the slope and is not consistent with the general pwposes of the s4ndazds of the River Corridor Overlay Dtistrict and state law and the intent of appiicable state and national laws and programs; and, WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings as requ'ved under the provisions of 61.402(c) that the site plan is consistent with: 1. The city's adopred comprehensive plan and development or projecl plans for sub-areas of the ciry. Renovating an existing vacant home so that it can be used again is consistent with the City's Housing Plan. CQnecting an existing drainage pmhlem in a way tltat will not harm sensitive staep slopes is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 67�ga� 2. Applicable ordinances of the City ofSaint Paul. The site plan is consistent with all applicable ordinances except the regulations on development on slopes steeper than 18% in the River Corridor. Vaziances were approved to consvuct portions of the project related to correcting existing drainage problems and building a small retaining wall to correct and existing wndition created by the previous property owner have been approved. However, a variance that is required for the proposed deck was not approved 3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historicalty significant characteristics of the Ciry and errvironmentally sensitive areas. The 24" high retaining wall on the steep slope east of the garage will help to stabilize the grading that was done by the previous owner. Thee new pipe and rip rap to handle the water flowing from the spring will be an improvement over the previous situation. However, the existing slopes on the south side of the house aze in excess of 18% and building the proposed deck here could result in degradation of the steep slope. 4. Protection ofadjacent and neighbortng properdies througTi reasonable for such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. The project will improve the existing drainage and will not impact neighboring land uses. 5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilitfes of the proposed development in order to assure abutting properry and'or its occupants will not be unreasonably affected The renovation of the existing house and the associated site improvements will not unreasonably affect abutting property. 6. Creation of energy-conserving design through landreaping and location, orientation and elevation of structures. Renovation of the existing house and the associated site improvements are consistent with current practices for energy conservation. 7. Safety and comenience of both vehicular and pedestrian tra�c both within the site and in relation to access stre¢ts, including tra�c circulation features, the locations an design of entrances and exits and parking areas within the site. Renovating the ex3sting house and the associated site nnprovements will not have a significant impact on vehicular pedestrian traffic. 8. The satisfactory availabiliry and capacity ofstorm and sunitary sewers, including soluEions to arry drainage problems in the area ofthe development. Sanitary sewer is not available for this property. However, septic systems are permitted in this part of the city and a new system is proposed. The steps being taken to reroute water ftom the spring on the site will improve the previous situation. d�-g�� 152 153 154 I55 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 lb8 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 18$ 186 187 1$8 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 aal 202 203 204 ?OS ?06 ?07 9. Su�cient landscaping fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives. The project will provide enough pazking to meet zoning requirements. Limited retaining walls are proposed. The owner needs to submit a revised Tree Preservation Plan for the azea where the new septic system will be buiit to show the impact on existing trees. 10. Site accessibi(ity in accordance wrth the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Acr {ADA, including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes. The site plan meets ADA standards for single family houses. 11. Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion Sediment and Control Handbook" The site plan complies with this condition; and, WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code 61.702(a), John J. Rogers, on July 4, 2407, im m�ing file �7-0741 I 1, duly filed an appeal from the said determinatians made by the Pla�ning Commission and reqvested a hearing before the Ciry Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the Commission; and, WHEREAS, the appeal cites several concems about the site plan and staff interpretation of the code including: 1) The information contained in the original site plan was incomplete and the omissions in the site p]an made it impossible for the Planning Commission to make accurate decisions; 2) The site plan should have induded information about the location of the existing well head, the year it was built, and the depth of the well; 3) The well head should be flood proofed because of its proximity to natural springs in conformance with Leg. Code 68.404(b)(3) which states: Private wells shall be placed in areas not subject to flooding and up slope from arry source of contamination. Wells already existing in areas subject to flooding shall be jloodproofed in accordance with accepted engineering standards; 4) The front enhy way is proposed to sit directly on top of the well head in violation of Minnesota State Code Chapter 4725; 5) The site plan should have included previous and new grading shown in two foot contour intervals; 6) The flow of the existing spring and natural openings should have been documented before it was dramatically changed; 7) The site plan should have included a detai]ed analysis of erosion control measures on the site; 8) The proposed deck shonld not be allowed over the 18% slope of the bluff line; 9) The garage constructed in the in the front yard should not be allowed as pazking or installing off-street parking spaces in the front yard is not permitted; 10) The garage should not have been allowed because no determination was made or couid be made on the soil co�ditions because the soil had been graded; 1 I) City staff misintetpreted the code by considering only one bluff ]ine when multiple bluff-lines exist and therefore allowing the garage to be built within 40 feet of the bluff line; 12) City staff issued bui]ding permits for the garage prior to an application for variance; zo8 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 2S8 259 260 Z61 a�-�� 13) Ciry staff did not require permits for excavation and re-routing of a sffeam as required under 68.103(a} and {c); ] 4) Ciry staff provided inaccurate information to the applicanu and concemed neighbors and withheld information about the permit and application process; and, I S) Ciry staff failed to monitor construction on the site and work completed exceeded the permitted activities including the �ading of steep slopes and the installation of two retaining walls on steep slopes; and, WHEREAS, upon further discussion between the applicants and the appellants, the applicants agreed to provide an updated site plan; additional information about the construction of a curtain drain on the site including accurate information about its location, why that form of drainage system was selected; and the adequacy of the system for proper drainage on the site; and, WHEREAS, the applicants supplied to the appellants and the City an updated site plan and additional information about the drainage system in a report from Hanson Construction; and, WHEREAS, the applicants agreed to seek an opinion from a certified engineering company about the adequacy of the drainage system and well head protection; and, WHEREAS, the applicants supplied to the appellants and the City a report from Barr Engineering eva]uating the adequacy of the curtain drain; the efficacy of waterproofing the well-head; and an evaluation of the potential for contamination of the aquifer; and, WHEREAS, the appiicanu have agreed that they will not construct a front entry addition; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have agreed that they will not seek to expand the gazage on the site at any time in the future; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have agreed that they will not seek to add a deck to side of the side of the house; and, WHEREAS, the appellants have ageed that they will not object to t6e creation, with permeable pavers or similar material, of a patio on the side of the house; and, WHEREAS, the appellants have agreed that they will not object to other exterior repairs made to the house including the roof, windows, and siding and will not seek additional review by the ciry beyond that requ�ed by regular building permits and the city code; and, WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Leg. Code 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was conducted on August 1, ] 5, 22 and September 5, 2007, where all interested parties were given an opporiunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Commission and its Zoning Committee; does hereby RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul pursuant to Leg. Code 61.704 does hereby upho(d the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter based on the following findings of the Council: ]. The Planning Commission did not en in their findings; and, FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of 7ohn J. Rogers be and is hereby denied; and, FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Councii calis upon City Staffto more cazefully review applications for site plans, building permits, and variances within the River Corridor Critical area; particularly in areas that have issues with running water; and, FURTHER RESOLVED, thaY the Council calls upon city staffto refrain from issuing permits for conshuction without full site plan approval; and, D�-ga� 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council calls upon City Staffto recognize that the river bluff is not a single line on the map, but can have severa] elevations marked by steep slopes; and, FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council calls upon Ciry Staffto endeavor to provide accurate and time]y information to applicants and interested parties in licensing and zoning matters; aud, FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Counci] calls upon City Staffto carefully monitor construction activities within the Mississippi River Critica3 Area to enswe that regulations protecting this sensitive area are being foliowed; and, FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CiTy Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Michael and Ellen Aeling, John J. Rogers, the Zoning Adminishztor, and the Planning Commission. Yeas� Nays Absent Requested by Department of: Harris � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adopted by Council: Date Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY= / /' 1 s'//<� �✓/�!',C��/��I . Approved b Mayor: Date B9� tlP�f�r�t'� G��i� � .• . �r . �O ��;��,�� i� Porm Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � 0?�ga� co -c�,��il ContaM Person 8 Phone: Counal President Lantry 266-8670 Must Be o� Counci! Agenda 05SEP-07 Doc. Type: RESOLUTION EAocumentRequired: tJ Document Contact: Contact Phone: OSSEP-07 � Assign Number Fof Routing Order Total # of SignaWre Pages _(Clip AII Locations for Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3043739 0 omcil I 1 oancil , Depar�enf D'vector 2 !C7ty Clerk LStv Qerk 3 4 5 Memorializing Ciry Council action taken September 5, 2007 denying the appeal, with condafions, of John J. Rogers to a decision of the Plauving Commission approving the site plan and vatiance to develop on slopes steeper than 12% in the River Corridor at 2108 Douglyun Lane. Planning Commission 7. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Givd Service Commission 2. Has this personffirm ever been a city employee? � Yes No 3. Does this pereon/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No E�cplain all yes answers on separate sheet antl attach to green sheet lnitiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why}: Advanqges IfApproved: Disadvarttages If Approved: DisadvanWges If Not Approved: Srensaction: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) Activity Number. GostlReveoue Budgeted: September 7, 2007 1:06 PM Page 1 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor ruly io zoo� Ms. Mary Erickson Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS � BobKessler, Director 6' � j a COMMERCEBUILDI.�✓G Telephone: 651-266-9090 8 Fw�th St>eet Eas�, Surte 200 Facsrmile: 651-266-9/24 St P¢u!, Mmrsesom J5101-7024 Web: �vww.sfiaul zov/ds� I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, August 1, 2007, for the following zoning case: Appellant: 7ohn J. Rogers Zoning File #: 07-113295 Purpose: An appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission (PC) approving the site plan and variance to develop on slopes steeper than 12% in the River Corridor. Location: Staff: District: Board: 2108 Douglynn Lane Recommended Approval. No xecommendarion from District 1. Approved on a I S- 1 vote. I have confirmed this date vaith the office of Councii President Kathy Lantry. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thank youl Sincerely, Corinne A. Tilley Zoning Specialist AA-ADA-EEO Employer NOTICE OF The Saint Paul CITy Councit wIll rnnduct a public hearing on Wednesday. August 1. 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Coyncll Chambers. Third Floor City Aall/ Court- house. 15 West KeTlogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN, to consider the appeal of John J. Ttogers to a decision of the Planning Commisslon approving the site plan and vadance to develop on slopes steeper than 12"/o in the 13ver Corridor at 2105 Doug- lynn Iane. Dated: Juty 12, 2007 " MARY ERICI{SON ' Assistant CitY Council Secret2ay - Wuly 16] —'—_ 81: PAIIL I8'.(iALl.6I1fi8R ----- 22142814 DEPARTME*17 OF SAFETY At�'D INSPEC710NS Bob Kusler, Dirutar , • CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christapher B. Coleman, Mayor COMMERCEBUILD/NG Telephone: 651-266-9090 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200 FacsimiTe: 651-266-9124 St P¢u7, Minnesota 55/O!-lQ24 Web: wvnv smaul eov/dsi � � AllgiISL 2$, ZQ�� Ms. Mary Erickson Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Deaz Ms. Erickson: I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, September 5, 20�7, for the zoning case listed 6elow. Appellant: Zoning Fdle #: 3ohn J. Rogers 07-113295 Purpose: An appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission {PC) approving the site plan and two variances to develop on slopes steeper than 18% in the River Conidor. Locatzon_ 5taff 21Q8 Douglynn Lane Recommended Approval. District Council: District 1 recommended approval of the site plan and variance for relocating a drain tile. They recommended denial of a variance for a deck on slopes steeper than 18%. Planning Commission: Site plan and variances for relocating the drain tile and building a low retaining wali were approved on a 15 - 1 vote. A variance to build the deck was denied. Background There is an existing single-family house at 21Q8 Doaglynn Lane. It was built in the 1460's, prior to Saint Paul's adoption of the River Corridar 2oning. The house sits on a slope steeper than 18% and so it is nonconforming. The house was purchased in 2006 by Mike and Ellen Aeling. The house was in poor condition when they bought it and did not have a garage. The Aeling's proposed to rehab the AA-ADA-EEO Employer house and build a gazage. Zoning staff approved tkis because repairs to nonconfortning structures aze permitted and the garage did not affect siopes steeper than 18%. ! It later came to staff's attention that the Aeiing's had done or were pianning to do some additional work that required variances because they affect slopes steeper than 18%: • Relocate an existing drain tile that captured water from a spring and direct iY around the north end of the house instead of the south end. • Add a deck on the south end of the kouse • Construct a 2' higk retaining wall along the driveway to the garage. The Aelings applied for variances and site plan review. Tkie Pianning Commission approved the site glan an@ tke variances far the clrain rile and the low retaining wall. They denied the variance for the deck. John Rogers, a nearby resident, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approvals. Sincerely, 1 Tom Beach Zoning Specialist r1 � _ .��, ��ir000 . 7 _ _� P�oPe�� sl�. oF � sy P� �„"�" . a�-��-� , Attached sheets: Page 1 Appeal filed by John Rogers 23 Planning Commission resolutions and minutes from Zoning Committee 30 Memo/update to Zoning Committee from staff 33 Letters in opposition 44 Letters from District 1 45 Staff report for Zoning Committee 52 Zoning application forms and letter from the property owner 55 Plans, other drawings and photos � • l APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Degarfinent of Planrciag and Economic llevetopment Zonirzg Sectian X400 L�ty HaIZAnnex 25 WesL FourCh Street Sairzf Paul, MN 55102-Zb34 (651)266-6589 R APPi.fCANT PFtOPERTY LOC1�TiON City � f - Ptizv� Sf. Zoniqg Fil+ Address I ��`�� ( (�( Daytime Phone �73 s� TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: ❑ Board of Zonirtg Appeals � City Councii Under Yhe provision of ChapYer 64, Section Paragraph of the Zoning Coda, fo appea[ �� decision made by the t-' S��n �. E<✓E C c7 �.. � i G S�.2� l �.. on J(x..�k�. ?� 20_Q.�_. F(etlumber: f7�"]_ �( � (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Exp(ain why pou fee( fhere has been an error in any requirement, perraif, decision or refusai made by an adminisfrative dfficial, or an error +n fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Rppeals or the Planning Gommission. 5�L �� \ John J. Rogers Matexials Engineer Speeialist Ptocess LaboraMry� ' � � 3lLi Cotporate Aesearch Lsborafory � � 3M Cemer, Building 0218-02-8-03 St..Paul, MN 53144-1000 � �65I 733 0884 Office � � 651 737 4055 Fax . . jjmgers0i@mmmcom (attach additionaLsheet if necessary) C � 7 3 �� ✓ 0 "l �_� f\"i� e .r C�.o C.ul+w�n/� ! ' — - � � \ 0 � -8�-� • _ C'rrounds for appeal i File #: 07-0741 I 1 Location: 2108 Dougiynn Lane Executive Summary We feei that ail pernuts and variances for the property at 2108 Douglynn Lane should be derued for several reasons. The River Corridor Overlay Districts, designated in Chapter 68 o£the zoning code is one of the most unique environments wifhin the state of Minnesota. `The city of �auit Paul recognized this over 20 years ago with a special zoning desig�ation for this atea of stee`p bluffs atong the Mississippi River. Sec. 68.IQ1 clearly states this zoning code is ta protect and preserve tf:e Mississippi River Corridor as a unique ¢nd va[uab[e resource for tke beneft oft/¢e hea[th, safety and welfare of the citizens of tl:e city and the state. To prevent artd mitigafe irreversi5le damage fo tke tYfississippi River Corridor;... We believe that city staff has taken the least restrictive view of the city codes as applied in greater Saint Paul rather than the more strict interpretation that ttus unique area i.n Minnesota requires. 1} The site plan that was submitted to the zoning committee was incomplete in a way that served � t the interests of the current owners. Many omissions were made to the site pian that made it impossible for the Zoning Committee to make accurate decisions. � 2) The site plan should have included a location for fhe existing well head. The site plan should have inctuded detaiis about the location of the well, year it was built, depth, and any other pertinent infozmation. See Figurel and Figure 2. 3) The well head must be flood proof�d because of how close it is to the natural springs. Sec. 68.404,6 3 Private we[Cs shall be p[aced in areas not subject to flooding and up slope from any source of corttami�iation. Wetls already exisiing in ttreas subject lo ftooditcg slxa![ be }loodproofed zn accordance with accepfed engineering standards. The owner has testified that water entering the basement has been a problem with this pxoperty. Doesn't the city want to take fhe most proacfive approach to protecting ground waters in the State of MN? The water in the well may test fine today but what will happen in 10 pears? These extensive changes to the natural spring and gxading of the property could cause problems. This is especially of concem since there were no engineering studies to deYeimme the best and safest way to make these changes to the natural sprit�g and the contour of the land. 4) The front entry way should be denied. The front entry way that is proposed will be sitting directly on top of the well head. This is not atlowed hy the Nlinnesota State Code Chapter 4725. The current owners purposely left off the location of the well head in the site plan they submitted to the Zoning Comsnittee. � 5) The site plan ahguld have included prevzous and new grqding shown in two joot contout• intervafs. The grade of the land prior ta fkie work done by the current owners was never included. Tlie extensive grading that was done was onl� partially shown. � � � 6} Suck other xnformatior� corzcerning tke zoning lQt or adjozxfng lots as may be determined by the zoning administrator as essentia(for defermining wlxether tlxe provesions of tku cade are being observed Relevant to this properiy is a nafural spring that flows aIl year. Natuzal springs are a unique feature that should be cansidered essential fo adfninistrafian of the zoning code. The flow of the existing spring should have been documented before it was dramarica[ly changed. The spring hzd sevexat openings tha# should haVe been documentecl. 7) _ Erosion controt measccres Erosion contrbi is vitat on sYeep slopes. There was no detailed analysis of erosion contsol measures that wi11 be unplemented on fhis pxoperty. The only erosion control that was tnentiou was the exit of fhe new pipe that was installed on the north side o£the house. The site pIan does not include the new drain pipe inspiled on the south side, ofthe house. 8) We agree with the Zoning Committee �hat the deck should be denied since it is to be built over the 18% stope of the btuff tine. 9) Parking or installing off-street paridng spaces in the front yard is nof permitfed: It can be demonstrafed by cIear and canvinciag evidence that the parking space has been in e:�istence and used continuousty since Octoher 25,1975. The 6urden of proof shalt be on . the property owner. Adding a garage to the front yard is installing off street pazking spaces in the front yard. Tn the 17 years we hava lived next door the Iocation of the new garage was �, never used as a parking sgaee. � t 10) The garage should be denied because sec. 68.404, bl, Development shalt not be permztted on wet soils, very shallow soils, soils with high slzrinl4swetl or frost action potential unless it is s/zotvn that appro,oriate constr�uctian techniques capable of overcoming tke resfrictive . condition will Ge utiLizerL Since the current owners had the property freshly graded before any work was done it was impassible fcr city officials to detemvne whether there were any problems with the soil. The cunent owners have claimed that it was the previous owner who graded the properiy the day before settlement when the swinuning pool was filled in. We believe that tlia new owners requested the grnding because the builder/cotttractor who filled in the swimming pool was fhe exact same buitder who did a vast majority of the work £or the new owners. 17 ) The garage was built within 40 feet of the bluff Iine on the praperty. Section 68.103, (c) of the city code would talce priority over the bluff ]ine. This section states no structures or ofher object slTall hereafter be locafed, used, coristructec� extexded, converted or altered witlain the disirict withoutfull compliance wiih this chapter. City staff seems to atways ignoLe this part of the city code. Section 68.402 (4) Bluff development slzall take place at [east forly (40) feet landward of alL blufflirces. City staff is not interpreting the zoning code as it is currently written. Briefly the city staff interprets chapter 60 and does not consider Chapter 68. In chapter 60, city staff interprets the sentettce a line aloxg the top as meaning that only one bluffline is posszble. `I'firoughout the city co@es the words a property line, a street, a sewer line..etc are interpreted hased on the plot of Iand' being discussed. Obviousiy tl2e city. sYaff aclrnowledges many property lines, streets, sewer lines ...etc yet they insist that theze � only one bluffline. This will be discussed in detail tater. fj � 2 p�-8a-� � � � r5� �X� i' �� `Y�ry ` _ � �� x - ' � � �{ `: . S' S+ ` � E r� ' � - G . � (sC'l�y Y� �. `� � � � r 4S -4'� ^--.. � � -� � . � � " � },, � � 4 ; f � Figure l: Site plan submitted to Zoning Committee Hearing June 7 and June 21. y '°i ._ � ��.r U . � ^ �34 �� a � ¢;� � ti �� ' � i "� ' ., � u� �. . _'.p g �. ;r '��"_ , ?�o � �; �r. e + ` ' m: �.,.> . . � �� [ �� . �� : , �� . . � °" a. ��, s�� st; � � 3 t' � � 0 ,°`�; ��. ; .� z.. �• ` ��r . � � � a a i . � -- �. �' i . �,- - . _ t . �'. � � � . Q. � Figure 2: Site plan submitted for septic system from early 2007. � ,- _ - .. _- � � � ,� �- -�- � � � -.�. � � � _ . �; �.� : ;. �. � � i �� l. �� : . '� � ; � ' �- u � � .. . .. . a,�+"= �.� � `� v � : . � �� . [F � . � ' . , � U . �� tl? _ N � � _ ... i ' i t_ ; -T 1 � _. .� . = . � �� . "�.? - `� � �! ` , a � O ! j � �. , `r� 'tiY:,+/ :'.i4. i,", ❑ s (y�;`i ) j V . �rtYi;'S * ��S 0 ��:, � � _ Q � �, �°� �� , �, �,:, c �� 5 i+�Q,^�.�,� z..y .x":4 J�� , �� 0 h 1 �. a� �8�7 0 � 'r.c;'�t^,: 4 4�': v�:, �'n: � �Y:e z` � r � ,t' �,��i Y'�v%^ � N�ClJO T a — _ z r« r a N.:._ 4 `'� �� p a �� ` � W �'�r. r�t � ;. � �� z 2 �� e � � Detaiied Repart Ttems 1 to 4 1) Sea 68.404 Pretection of water Quality a) Generally. Developmenf shall occur so that surface and subsurface Fvater is not adversely affected by contaminants. Water quality should meet or exceed state standards, b) Cotttamitiation, � 1) Development shall no be pemutted on wet soils, very shaltow sofls, soils with high shrink-swell or frost action potenfial unless it is shown that appropriate conshvction teckuuques - capabte of overcoming the resirictive condition will lie utilized. 2) Sepiic tanks and soil absorprion systems shall no# be permitted where public sewer systems are ayailable. In azeas where public sewers are not available, system shall be set back from the normal high water mark in accordance with the class of public waters as prescribed in N1im�esota Regulations NR-82: a} On natural env�ronmental waters, at Ieast one hundred fifty {150) feet 3) Private wetls shail be piaced in areas not subject to flooding and up slope from and source of contamiiiation. Wells aiready existing in areas subject to flooding shail be ftoodproofed in accordance with accepted engineeriing standards as defined in tke Uniform State Building Code. 6) Development which takes place neaz slopes greatei than twelve (I2} percent sha11 not resutt in increased runoff onto those slopes sufFcient to damage vegetafion or shuctures thereon. � Sec. 68.6Q1. Variances (a) ....The burden of proof skatl rest with the applica.nt to demonsisate conclusively that such a variance witl not result in a hazard to [ife or property and will not adyersely affect the safety, use or stability of a pub�ic way, slope or drainage cl�annel, or khe natural environmenf: such proof may include soils, geoiogy and hydrology reports which sha11 be signed by registered professional engineers.... The applicant never submitted a complete site plan. Tnformation was intenrionally left off the plan submitted to the zoning committee. Figtue 1 shows the site plan submitfed to the zoning comrnittee that does not even ittdicate a well is present on the pmperiy. The exact location of the well head is purposely left off the ptan. It atso does not show any of the details af the natival springs as they existed be£ore any work was done on the property. The site pian aIso does not show fhe nahzrai springs as they have now been diverted on the properiy. Figure 2 is a copy �f the site plan for the proposed septiC system that is to be insfliled on fhe properly. Figure 2 was suhmitted by the applicanY and is in city plumbing records. This figuze cleazly shows the weli head is located about 3 feet in fronf of fhe front door to fha pmperty. _ At the zoning comxnittee hearing the applicant festified that the well head is Iocated in the baseinent and has not been affected by the grading that was done or the new eonshucrion tkiat is proposed. The well head is actually located in a basement offset which was aliowed prior to 1974. White flie appl'tcant might not have avertiy lie@, he certainly did not provide full disclosure about the locafion of the well head to the zoning committee. Without fuil di�closure the zoning eommittee woutd not have been abie to rule that the enhy way w� not allowed because of the State of Minnesota rules iegarding wells. _ '�� s 1�7-8a� ! ,- nouseho�d water of area residents, if couid cost each resident $50,000. This �vill mean a cost to the � area of at least �y 1,000,000 to Saint Pau: residentslvoters. The zoning committee members thought that our concem about the quality of the drinking water meant the current quality that could be answered by a single water qualit�� test. These changes may nof contaminate fl grqund tivater ior 5 or more years. 1`he developer/owners v.ill haue already sold tfie property and then who will be responsihle for the contaminafion? It has been dacumented thaf the old cede for wells ailowed ground water to penehate into the Iower aquifers and contanwiate the water suppiy. Why is the city staff so reluctant to insist on a hydrology study? It wiil cosf the city a great deal more money if the ground water becomes contaminated in several years because of the low cost work that was done this �ear. � � � � 7 Minnesota Rules chapter 4725 which relafes fo welts, bozings, and underground uses. Secrion � 4725.2175 Subpart 1. Location in a building. A we11 or boring must not be Iocated within a buitding unless the building is constructed according to this part over the well ar boring exclusiveIy to protect the wetl, boring, pump, and water treatment equipmenf:.. According to Tom Alvarez (f 51) 2C}I-458f..., State Department of Health, We110ffice, To build a building or entry Way over a well head would requue a variance to be issued by the State of lYtinnesota. See Figures 3 and 4 for the location of the well head. There is na question the well head is located in area that is subject to flooding. Even the owner testified to itus fact, in an indirect way, that water has entered the lowest floor of the properiy. Once again there was less than fuil disclosure of the in£ormation about the ground water issues on the properly. This weil should be moved to a safer area and brought up to current standazds or the existing weil head shoutd be flood proofed. Flood proofmg a well is required in the city code. Why isn't this being recommended for tlus property? According to the DNR and ffie Minnesofa Dept of Heatth, a perenniatly running sgring is considered natural waters. Department of Health regulafions state that a wellhead must be SQ feet and a septic system must be 150 feet from a natuxal water discharge. Our concem is that the water from the natural spring will flow into the well head and confaminate our drinidng water with poilntants and mierobes. The house and well at 2108 Douglynn Lane wete built prior to the new well� regulations. The new well regulations were instituted to prevent surFace ground water from infrltrating into the lower aquifers. The natural spring's route was about 6 feet from the weil head. The extensive grading of the land with lazge equipment could have easily caused changes to the fiow of the ground water. Figure 5 shows some of the extensive grading of the property. The figures 8 to 10 how the condition of the properiy when it was purchased in November 2006. As disclosed at the zoning committee hearing meeting, the current owners have rerouted the nataral springs wvithout a detailed analysis of either the envir4nmental or heatth impact of these changes. The current well was bnilt to old standards that aza known to ailow surface water to leak into the tower aquifers. This problem is amplified when a well has not been used regulazly. Since the house has 6een vacant for over two years, the well at 2108 has not been in regular usa. During fhe zoning committee meeting, there was discussion about the high cost of a geologicaVhydroiogicai study to the pmpariy owners_ We are concerned about the high eosE of replacing the drin[dng and househoid water soarce for tke resideats of Douglynn Lane. We are demanding that a hydrology study of the azea where the work was done be completed to insure that the work. was done correctty. During the cfiscussion by the zoning committee, committee members seem concemed about the seope of and the high cosf of such a study. The scope of tha shzdy woutd be limited to the area where the spring was rerou�ed, fhe garage area and the azeas associated with zoning variances. The cast of a hydrology should not be considered when ganting variances.� the devetoper/owners cannot afford to have the study done to ensure residents' water quality, then t developer cannot afford to do the new construction. If long-term harm is done to the drinking and � o�-�a-� � � �� Figure 3 � Front Entry to 2108 Douglynn Lane showing well head and location of new drain pipe. � � �r� =- � � { . � —s:�' � f ;:;,_"_.��c > `° � •r j y -�*�..�-` �._ . � � �_ �� f-i �b w?�i �� £ yi iY � I II .a�� ¢ �� 4 . S `� fj : v " _ M' {� � _ �� ' � ` � �.�. � _, . :,. � ±� ' -.� �� ' � " ' x e 4" - ��R�,`t'4 "��' . �� v._. - , m . ?.�$ ,..�� .. . . _.. ,. Items 5,6 and 7 � �. No detailed p1an"s weze submitted to demonstrate that ttze changes to the natural spring would not a.ffect. soil erosion. At the zoning committee hearings the owner testified fhat the new routing of the nahzral spring fixed the pzohleins of wafer infiltration into the £irst floor of the house and the erosion problems. As can be seen in the fotlowing figures there aze still erosion problems on this sife. TTus year ha� had veiy rain. This is considered a moderate drought year. Even in ttus tuiusually dry yeaz the spring on fhe property has continued to flow. In this dry yeax i£there are still erosion problems Fvhat does fl�is ineari for erosion issu.es in a year.with above average rainfall? If the site plan is approved as if is ctuzendy subiiuttea than no fiutYier erosion grotection will be required to be implemented. Without an engineering study of the changes to the naturai springs haw will the city ' ' - - ' ' _ ' - . . . . . � . .. ., . _ . _ca_ _ r_L'mC_,...«,7 :...<,. • � s� 11 Figpre 6: Area over oid swimming pool showing current erosion issues. • � b?�d �� Figure 7: Area over swimming pool area showing exits for natural springs and erosion concerns Items 8,9, & 10 Section 63.202 Site p1an requized A site plan approved by the pianning commission shall be required £or the establishment of a new off street pazking facility, for the paving of an unimproved off street pazking facility and for the repaving of an off street ... etc. No site plan was approved priar ta the grading and insfallafion of a gravel driveway/parldn� _ area and construction of a garage. Secuon 62104 of the Zoning Code: Nonconforming uses of land. � An existing off street parking space for one and two family dwellings in a required front or side . yard shali be considered a legal nonconforming use provid'ed ffie parking space was established pursuant to a curb cut permit issued by the depariment of public wor�s prior fo Qctober 15, t475, and the parking space has been continuous since the permit was issued or it can be demonstrated by clear l� �I Z and convincing evidence thaf the pazking space has been in esistence and used continnousiy since � Octobei I5, 1�75. The bnrdeu of proo£ shaTl be on the p� owner. Section b3.Sd2. Accessory Buitdings - b) �lccessory buiidings; structures_ or, uses shall not be eLected in or established in a required yard �cegt a rear yard, Fassenger yehicles may be parked in fronY yards providing they are located on an approved driveway that Ieads to a Iegai parking spaee. ._ Section 68.4Q4. Profection of Water Quality (}�) T) DevelopmenY s1Ya11 no be pemutted on wet soils, very shallow soils, soils, with high sl�rink- swell or frost action potentiat untess if is sfiown that appropriate eonshuction techniques capable of overcoming the restrictive condition will be urilized `I'tie area that the garage was built on has nof been used as a parking area for at least 17 yeazs. The 1and waS too unduiated to pazk a caz. There were one to two foot undutating land masses that made it impossible to pazk a vehicle, Land undulates for riuo possible zeasons: The area has ground water probtems or the area.is made from, poor fill. This pioperCy has bofh issues. The faliowing aerial photos from Y2ia inYemet eleariy show the automobile tire tracks stop in front of th� house arid do not continue ta where the garage is now built. The sales bxochine that is attached ctearly skows that the area tttat the new garage was Iiuilt was not a parking area. � Tt would have been uripossible for city inspectots to have seen the topography because the current '# owner fiad the front yazd completely graded and filled befote the sale of tYie house was completed. The current owner has continually claimed that the grading of the yazd the responsibility of the previous ow�er that was selling the property. This is untrue. The currerit owner claims no_know!edge of wky the yard was graded but the yard was graded and excavation was started exactly where the garage is now built. This complaint was tecorded by Dave Netson and is in the city records. The contractor that filled in the swizmning pool for the seller is the same con�actor who has done al[ of the subsequenf excavating work, grading, and filling for tLe current owner. If the eurrent owner had to restore the land after it was graded why would the current owner continue to use the same eoxitactor? Why wouid the owner eontinue to use an irresponsible contcactor that caused the owner to plant grass seed and apply erosion protection netting in December? � � � 13 •� 'Y . �-: _ � � . _ ; o.. � a f -UO'� : �FL�:'�� C �.._....�:x�" �£E'.ief:Cf u4- i�^.€:= �.'c�r .r £.i?�C� mR ?13 rR1:�`. � r� � � Figare 8 : Aerial photos obtained from MSN Live Maps from prior to purchase by Mike and E11en Aeling. � l� 14 �'€scfe ��or��t L€��S �ra�i:marks �s��r�:�p�r, �t�aut E H�;� l F��#�ac� � D1 � �� _ WeScozae to 2YQ8 IIouglynn Lane in {,goutIx East) Sainf Pa�1, MN SSI19 Presented to you by: Heather Erb (fasinerly Xeather Clarkson} ColdweJ.1 Banker Surnet Realty, Woadbuzy Of�iee (651} 339-3790 CeZ1 # (651J 738-7Q60 Fax # � This private, heavily wooded lot is over one'acz�e tucked • way away, yet in the heart o£ the city! Privacy and convenaence with beauty and nature as well as winter views of the Mis�issippi River! � Brinq your oun builder, what possibilities await for your beautiful new dream home! �1gt1Y'C IQ: Original sales broch�e. The top two photos show the area where the new gazage is now located. The cat taiis betund the fence are the location ofthe old pool. The text at the bottom of the brochure was false � advertising information. At least 4 different nei�bors contacted khe reat estate agent and informed her that tt�ere are many restrictions in the-River Corridor Disirict. �� 16 � I�em i 1 - Accordingto Chapter 68. ZAning Code — River Corridor Qverlay Districts, Article IV. 6&.400 River Corridar Standaxd and Criteria Sec. 68.4Q l . Objectives The objective of standards and criferia is to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natival environment of the riuer corridor in conformance to the St. Paul Mississippi Corridoz Plan by reducing the effects of poorly planned shoreiine and blufftine development; providing sufficient setback for sanifary faciliries; preventing pollution of surface and groundwatei; minim;zutg flood damage; preventing sail erosion; and implementing metropalitan plans, polzcies and standards. SecUon 68.103 (c) Compliance of Struciutes, fill, etc. No sfructute, f tl, maCerial or object sl2all hereafter be placed on or removed from tfie lands within the Rivef Corridor DisiiicE, and na structures or other object shatl hereafter be Iqcated, used, constructed, extended, converted or altered wi4hin the district without full compliance witfi this chapter and other applicable Iaws. Section 68.402 Protecfion of shoretines, floodptains, wetlands arid,bluffs. (b}Placement of sixuchues� � � ` � - � � � ` �" � � � � _ . (3J No residentiat development shall be pennitted on slopes greatet than eighteen percerit (4} Bluf� development shall take place at least forty feet tandyvard of ail btuff lines � Section 60.203 B. Zoning Code — Creneral provisions and dafuiirions; Zoning Districts and Map Bhzfflnle. A line atong the top of certain steep slopes facing the Mississippi River Vailep as shown on the River Corridor Zoning Nlaps. , Iu.any parEicular ease, the bluffline shall mean a Iine clrawn along the top of tha bluff such that the slope beiow the Iine is steeper than eighteen(I8) percent and the slope above is ezghtee� (18) percent or less. � � � � • According to the city staff reports Che bluff is one and only one Pine and.tt�at th� eode cteazly states that oniy one line is allowed. If the code was meant to be interpreted as only one linefor the bluff tliaii fhe �tatements in the code would have more cIeazIy stated tha�. If the code realiy meant one bluff line than the code would read, "a singte bluff line", "only one �i��lv�e ", "there is only a single bluff line for each IoY'..etc. .Instead fhe code uses the excat same wording as when describing a properiy line, a street, a sewer line, an intersecfion. _, etc. Since the city zoning staff interprets the zonizig code to mean many pcoperCy lines or sheets than why does it insist on a single bluff line? In section 60.203 B the code uses the words irc any particutar case, in other wards the biuff Iine is dependent on the particular Iot This 1of at 2108 Douglynn Lane is very ciearly in the middle of the bluff leading to the Mississippi River. How was the city staff able to determine that the new gazage is in front o�the bluff line when there are at least two bluf3�ines on this property? Why wastt't the garage subject to the 40 foot setback zequirements far btufrlines? The city staff seems to always ib ore Secfian 68.103 and SecUon 68.402 of the zaning code. Section 68.103 cleazly states fiill compliance with this chapter (68) over the rest o� the codes in the city. Chapter 68.402 cieazly acimowledges that deyelopcnent landward of ALL BLUFFLiNES. NoE just a single bluff • line but all bluff lines. 7ust because the city sta£f has been using a map_witYi a single 6luff Iine for a number of years does not meap they aze interprering Yhe zoning code conecdy. �� t7 � • ��. �, 07�� Precedence set by allowing variances to avaid foliowing zoning regulafions Zoning regulations are deveioped and enforced by the City of Sa_nt Paul to guarantee the health, safety and property vaiues of its citizens. These proposed variances stand to risk the health of the residents of DougJynn Lane through possible contamination of their well (drinldng).water. The p:operty values of the residents will be negatively affected i£ developers ace allowed to buitd without concern for the characferand aesthetics ofthe neighborhood. Tf these variances are issued, riot only is pxecedence set foc this properiy, but for all other properties in the Highwood azea. This is not a case of a city resident needing to bring their hume up ta code, but of developexs wanting to increase the desi�ability and value of a property they are selling. Variances should not be granted for the profit of developers or be used to circumvent inconvenient city zoning codes. . The cost of comptying with city zoning codes shonld not be considered by the planning commission. The burden of cost should be borne by the developer. I£ the deve(oper cannot afFord the cosfs of correctIy insEalling proposed variances, then the developer should not expect fhe city to waive the reqniremenfs. � Lack of response by the city to area residents concerns, disappearance of permit information £rom the public domain and arbifrary waiving of cify zoning regulations The city has done a poar job of enforcing the currenY zoning regulations with regards to this property. One of the variances being discussed is in regards to a permit already issued for conshuction o£ a garage. The garage was completed prior to the variance hearing. Despite over seven pi�one conversations between area residents and Tom Beach and Wendy Lane regarding the wark and its possible violation of curreni zonzng regulations, a hearing was never called prior to issuing the permit. Now that the work is completed, the city deems it necessary to issue a zoning variance. Also, the online record of the permit application disappeared from the website shortly after our conversations and did not reappeaz until after the work was completed. This teads us to infer that the city is being less than up front abouC this process. We are concemed that future work on this properly will be completed without the required publie meetings. Lack of oversight and enforcement of permits by fhe city and tack of adherence tQ permifs by the praperty's developers Immediately following the sale of ttte property, a pernut was issued to fill in the pool. This permit was exceeded in two ways. The properly was graded and the top of the steep slope was dug into by construction equipment. Grading of the property has allowed the owners to claim that the garage was conshucted on level land. The LIEP office was called by multiple residents regarding this. LIEP did noY respond to residents concerns until Katt�y Lantry's office became involved. At this time, the owners were required to restore the area by planting grass seed. A pernut was issued for a garage only, however two retaining �alis were constructed on steep slopes. While the developers may claim that ttris stabilized the slopes, this does not preciude the need for a correct permit. Again, LIEP was informed. A chamiet was cut into the bluffto allow water to run offprior to the gazage construction. The required siIt fence was never instalIed during garaae construction. Area residents expect adequate vigilance over this properCy due ta the environmenfally sensitive nature of fhe property, the existence of multiple levels of z4ning code and � �- 18 the exceeding of muitiple permit Iunits by the property owners. Instead, area residents have been met • with hostility and inacriori from the LIEP office. �olation of the pending River Corridor Plan The proposed zoning variances aze in direcf viotation of the propased Mississippi Cor: Plan. The Mississippi Corridor Plan was developed to protect the nattual area oveclooking the Mississippi and to provide ail citizens with an aesthetic view that enhances their use bf the river. A building moratorium was issued to protect this community resource while the p1an was finalized. Additionatly, apart from the development of the Mississippi Corridor Plan, there is a long history of protection for this area Curcent . residents willingly accept tha resirictions as gart af tiving in this special azea. Tha Pro�osed zoning variances are in clear opposition to this tong held view of protection. � � � t �� 19 �7��-�. � Czty of Saint l'ani Planniz�g Commisszon Resoiutian File Numbei� o�-�s ` — � - t" Date r nP �9,_7nn� Wf�REA_S ivlichael Aeling;� File ; 07-4�411:1, has su�mitted a site plan for review undez the provisions o£Sec. 61.4Q0 of tfie Saint Paul Leg�slative Code; to. develop.oa slopes steepeT thast 12°/a in the River Conidor (add a deck to an existing liouse, build a retauling walI, instaiT drain tile and other work associated with renovating an e�sting hoase) on property located af2108 Douglynn Lane, legally desczibed as LEWISTON HEIGF3TS SECOi�iD ADDITIOI� LOT1 BLKS; and . . ' WHEREAS,.the Zoning Committee of the Planning Cottunission, ou July 14 and 21, 2007, held a public hearing at wfiich all persons present were given an opportunity to be keard pursuant to said applicatzon in accordance wif$ the requirements of §61.303 of the Saint Paul Legislatiye Code; and . � WHEREAS, the Saint Pau1 Plazu�uig Commission, based on tfie evidence,preaented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the nvnutes, made the foliowing findings as required under the provisions of §b1.402(c� tlsat the site plan is cansistent with: . 1 The city`s adopted compz'ehensive plan and develapment ot' pr'aject plans for sub- areas of the city. . _ "'.' . Renovating an, elcisting vacant Home so that it can be used again is conszstent with ttie City's Housing Plan., Correcting an existiiig drainage ptoblem in. a way that , wili not harm sensitive steep slopes is also consistent,witk the Comprehensive . Plan. � . , �ipplicable ordinances af the City of Saint Pdul. � The site plan is consisferiY with all applicatale orclinances'except the regulations on development on slopes: steaper than I8°/o in tiie 3tiver Corridor.. Vatiances were approved fo construct porCions of the proj ect zelated to cbnecting existuig ', , drainage problems and building'a small retainuig wall to corract and existing condifion by the previons property owner have been approved., .�Iowever, a variance that is required for the proposed deck was�not approved. 2. � MOVCC� �S3' Morton ��C4tIC1�Cl �y X11 ��V�Y ' 15 Against i {'Nelson3 � � i � Z� . Zouing File 07-07A-11I . � ' . ` . � 7Une�21, 2007, Plauning Comsnissioa Re'salution, � � . : Page 3 of 3 _ ` The sfeps tieing faken Yo reroute water from the'spring on the site witl improve the • pzev�,ous s3�uation. - � - . . 9. Sufficien� landscaping, fences, watls andgaYking necessary to meet the above ' _ . ob�ectives. : � `1 he groject wi11 provzde enough parking to meet zoning requireinents.. Limited. retaiivng waits are proposed. The owner rieeds to submit a Tree Prese�ia[iott Plan £az the area,where tke n�w septic systemwzll be built to show -. Y theampact.onexi"stingtrees , • l Q. Site accesszbility in accordan�e witk the provisions of the �Imericans with - Disabilities Act (f1D.�4}, includingpaxking.spaces, passenger [oadingzones and . - accessible routes. . : The site plan meefs ADA standards for single fasnilyhouses. I1: Provision fot erosion a3zd se�iment contral as specified in the ' Ramsey Erasion Sedzment arid Control Handboolc" = � The site plan complies vrifh this conditiou � � (� ; NOGV, THERE�ORE, BE IT RESOP,VED, by the Saiut Pau1 Flatming Coziunzssion, � under the authority of the City's I,egislative Coile, that the application ofMichael Aeling for a site plau review Yo do work associated wifh ienovating an. e7sisting house ori slopes � . steeper than 1$% in the River Cazridor af 2108 Dougiynn Lane is:heraby apptoved. . subject to t�e followin� conditions: : .. �. � Work on the proposed deck musf be limited to azeas where the grade does not exceed " � I'8%. . ` . � . . �� • . CI'I°Y OF: SAIN'�' PAUL . PLtS�NNING C014��II�SION RESOI.UTIflN � �-� FILE NTJI1�BER: . o�-a7 D� �E�.TF+: ` 3une- 29,- 2Q07 . � . � ShIH$REAS, ivlichael Aeling fias applied far a vasiance fror,l the strict 2pplzcation oi tke provisions of Secfion 6&.402.b3 of rhe Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaini�g to development on slopes greatex than 18°l0. in the River Corridor on property iqcafed at 21�8 Douglyns�Lane; and legally described as LEWISTQN FTELGHTS SECONI7 ADDITiON LOTk BLKS; and WHEREAS, the Saint I'aul Zoning Commit�ee coriducted apublie heaiipg on 7une 7 and t4 2007 pursuant to said application iri accorclance with the requiremenfs of Section 64.203 of the Legislative Code; arid WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zozung Appzals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing; as substanfially reflected in the minutes, made the followittg findings of £act: The standards for variances are established in Secfion 61.601 0£ the Zozung Code: 1. The pt in questiote cannot be put to a reasonable use under tlse strict provisions of the code; ' . . _ - Vaziances fot Yhe drainage system and reYaining wall to pezmiC development ott slopes steeper than t 8% are needed to aIlaw reasonable use of the property: � The changes to fhe exisiiug drainage system are needed to correct problems caused 6y fhe existing dtainage sysfem. a'I'fie liznited atnount of zegrading and the sma11 retaining wall east of the garage" are needed fo stabilize tfie slope from work dona by ftie previous owtter. However, the house ean be pnt to a reasonable use with a smaller deck that does not impact slo�es,steeperfhan 18°l0. . , 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unzque to the property and these .. circumstances were nol created by the lan.downer; 1'Yl��} d]i A :. � Morton - : . ... tJ.L'iCOl\Jl�Jll .F� Z . . . . . Il�T l�+A��►R: . t � � A Vt�(1\ G7 Y_i 2(Nelson, Smieten) a ( . � , � . . � � ' ' _ � - � . � `Case # 07-D74-111 � � June 21; 2007, Ptar�ning Cammiftee Resotutinn ' Page 3 of 3 _ , ' 7. .4pplications for variance to theprovisions of this chapter may be f led ezs provided in section 61, 600. The burden of proof shalt rest witFi the applicatit to, demonstr�ate conclusiv�ly tkat such variance wzll not Yesult in a kazard to life or property and wilZ not adversely affect the safefy, use or stabili2y bf a public tvay sTope or drainage channel, or the'natural � environment; suck pr"oof may fnctude soils, geotogy and hydrotogy reports whict2 shatd be signed �iy registeYed prafessionad engineers, Tlariances skalt be consistent tvith the general j3t1Y�lOS2S O f the standards eontdined in this chapter^ and state law and the rntent of applzcable state and national7aws andprograrns. /Ilthough variances may be used to raod� � perrrczssible methods of ftood protectzan, no variance shall have the efj'ect af allowing ix any district uses prohibited in that districf, permit a lovrer degree of,flaod protection thdn the ftood protection etevation for the par�licular area, ot^ permit a tesser degYee of flood _ protection th¢n requzred by state law. , .. � The variances for the drain age system and small retauung wall wi21'not adversely affect tfia safety, use or stability of a pubiic way, slope or drainage channel, or the nafural environment. They aze consistent witli the generaTpurposes of fhe standazds of fhe River Comdoz Overlay DishicY and state law and the in#ent of applicable state and national laws pragrams. � The variance for eonshuctYOn of ttie decic eould adversety affect the sfabiizty af the slape and is not consistent with the general purposes of tke stanfl�ds o£tke River Coriidor Overlay _ Dishict and state law and the intent of applicable, state and riational Iaws and pxograms . � NOW, THEREFORE, BE Ti' RESQLVED, by fhe Saint Paul Plauniixg Commission that, based on findings 1-3 the application to waive the provisions of Section 68.402.li3 pertaining to development on�siapes greater.than 18% in the Rivez Corridor on property located at 2108 � T3ouglynu Iane is hexeby: � " . � . �, e Appraded for dsainage improvemeit�s aY�d. a s�all reta4ning wall Denieii for the proposed deck ou the sonth �side of the house� in accordaace with the appSication foz ihe variance and the site plau on file with tha Zoning Adiz�inisfrator. . • • , . . � � � �,� � .�� a7�g�"� • + �� . N(INUTES OE THE ZQNtNG COMMITi�EE Thursday, Sune 21, 2007 - 3:30 p.m. Cify Gouncil Cham6ers, 3rd �loor City Hall aced GourE House 15 West Keilogg Boutevard PRESENTc R!ton, Conneify-Cohen, Faricy, Gordcn, .!ohnson, Kramer, Modcn and Rosemark S7AFf: Tom Beach, Pafricia Sarr+es, Caro{ Mart+neau, and Peier Wamer The meeting v�as chaired by Commissioner Morton. iNike Aeling- Site Plan Review and Variances, 21 OS Dougiynn Lane Tom Beach presented the staff report vrith a recommendafion of approval with conditions for the Site Plan Review and Variances: District 1 recommended approval of the drainage improvements and refaining wall but nof t6e deck. At the question of the Commiss{oners, M�. BeacN exp(ained the issues oF Nonconforming Use versus Nonconforming Sfrueture, "and why a variance was se4ected. He also stated he did not have dacumentation saying the well was not confaminated. He went on to describe the welf and also stated the bank wou(d normally require proof that the well was taken care of before approving a mortgage. He atso explained how the deck would 6e erected in relationship fo the steep slopes. He also stated DSI staff had inspected the drainage improvements and they were satisfied that with the rip-rap fo protect the sod, that slope would not be affected. No one spoke in support. Lisa Rogers, 2121 Douglynn Lane, see attachment Sec. 63.111 and Sec 62.102. Mike Aeting, the appiicant, gave a hisfory of fhe property. He stafed aA the appGances we�e working and the house was tivable and so the house was definitely not destroyed to more than 60°/a of its value, Fie a{so stafed the well is in the basement of fhe house and there was rio contamination of the weN now and the bank had it tested before they purchased the property. He afso explained what the prior owners did and what they did fo the property. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gordon moved to approve the staff recommendation with an additional condition that the applicant submits the resufts of the testing of tfie welL Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion. After some discussion perfaining to the va�iance and the nonconformance the motion was de�ied by a vote of 5-3 with Gommissioner ponnel(y-Cohen, Johnson, Kramer, Rosemark and Chatr Morton in oppositian. Afler further discussion Commissioner Alfon moved: • Approvai of site plan • Approval with the conditions proposed 6y staff of the variances for the drainage improvemenfs and the refainin� wall + Deniai of the variance for The deck. � Cammissioner.lahnson secanded the mation. The motian passed by a vote of 8-0. Adopted Yeas - 8 Nays - 0 Drafted by: Submltted by: Abstained — 0 Approved by: Carol Martineau Tom Beach Recocding Secrsj,ary Znning Section Gladys Morton Chair � Z� ( MINllTES OF THE ZONING COMMlTTEE Thursday, Jane 7, 2007 - 3:30 p.m. City Council CHambers, 3rd Fioor City Hall and Court House 15 West Ketlogg Boufevard PRESENT: Atton, Dar�neliy-Cohen, Faricy, Gordon, Johnson, Krarr�er, Morton and Rosemark STAFF: Tom Beacfi, Rache[ Gunderson, Patricia James and Carol Ma�fineau, The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton. Tom Beach presented the staff report with a recammendafion of approval of the sife plan (07- 07411) and variances (07-Q80070) with condi#ions. He said fhat iinal a�tion would have to 6e detayed unfil the_ nexf ineefing since nntice of fhe hearing was nof included in the Lega[ Ledger. =_ He a(so stated District 1 supports the variance for the drainage system on the steep slope but opposes the variance to a{!ow the deck on steep sfopes. . � Upor� the question of fhe Commissioners, Mr. B�ach stated that when staff is dealing with nonconforming uses, the po[icy for singfe-family houses is thaf a house does not lose ifs. nonconforming status because the house has been vacant. Ne e�tained that the applicant was not aware that he should have applied for variances for fhe drainage wo�k and fhe grading done on the stope east of the garage. � MiKe Ae(ing, the applicant gave a history of tF�e properfy. He said the garage is on flaf ground, � and the low retaining waii east of the garage was put in to protect for erosion. He said that they reroufed the spring. fo where it was ariginai(y. He would like to put a deck up because that is whaf the house is designed for. At the request of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Aeling stafed he wou(d try to get proof of tF�e history of the properfy. Commissiorter John"son said he was concerned about fhe deck being b�ift aver sfeep slopes and suggested that it coutd be redesigned and made smaller so ffiat if wouid avoid the stopes. No one else spoke in support. John Rogers, 2120 Douglyn Lane spoke in opposifion and �aised concerns about how the site grading couid afFect the well and gTOUnd water. (See John and Lisa Rogers aftached letter.) At the quesfions of the Commissioners, Mr. Beacf� expfai,�ed staffs position fhat there is just one bluff line on fhe property and fhat it is located easf of the proposed improvements. He stated that the location of the wetf is in front of the house and 'rs not refafed ta the variance_ Tom Diamond, 2119 Skyway �rive spoke in opposition and submitted phofos of the property for- the record. (See 7om Dimond's affached document.) Dan McGuine:ss, 2160 Ogden Ave spoke.in opposition. {See Dan McGuiness' attached tetter.) � He also stated he does noY agree with District 1 council's recommendation in regards to the « variance for tfie drainage work on steep s(opes, � . ��' g�� Mike Aeling f Fi[e #07-474111 dune 7, 2aQ7, Zoning Gase Page 2 of 2 Upan the questions of the Gamm'tssioners, Mr. Beach sfated fhe use o4 the ex'ssting house is a conforming use but the sfrucfure is noncenforming beeause (t is on sfeep sfopes. He said �hat the deck increases the nonconformity oP the structure so it needs a variance. Pafsicia dames taikec! abouf whefher the deck would need a var"sance or an expansion of a nonconforming use Tfie hearing remained open. Commissioner Johnson stated he had some issues that raised serious concems pertaining to public heafth and safety. He went on to say he was going fo irivestigate fhe environmental issues pe�taining fo this case. He a{so stated any addStional evidence from fhe applicant and history of the prape�fy would be he(pful. {t was aiso suggested the staSf work with tfie City Ai#orney's offlce. After further discussion pertainmg fo the site p(an review, variances, and permits that may be � needed. Commissioner Kramer moved to iay over to June 29, 2007, Commissioner Gardon seconded the mation. � The motion passed 6y a vote af 8-0-0. Adopted Yeas - 8 Nays - � A6stained - 0 Draffed by: Submitted by: +�, Approved by: u�� , ! 1�.�� '�-�� Carof Martineau - Tom Beach Gia s Morton Recording Secretary Zoning Section Chair � �„- �i DEPAftTMENT OFSAFETY ANDiNSPECTtONS 8ob Kessler,Director CITY OF SAI�IT PAUL Christopher B. Cofen¢an, Nt'ayor Date: 6/13/d7 To: Zaning Committee From: Tom Beaeh7�' RE: 2108 Douglynn Lane COMMERCEBUILD(NG Tetzpleane: 65L-2G�-9D90 8 Fo�vlh Street East, Suite 200 Fecstnule: . 651-266-9114 StPuul,A�innesota55701-IO14 Web: wicwstomd oe v/dsi Afthe pubtic hearing on 7une 7, the 7.oning Committee asked staf£to took into some of the issues Yhat came up at the meeting and repoct back. Renovating the exis4ing house °The existing single-famity house is a conforming use zn a izonconforming structure: a single-farscily house is a 'permittec� ase in the KLG district but the structure is nonconforming because sits on stopes greater than 18% 'in the Rivee Corridor. The house conformed to alt applicable zoning regulations fhat wece in effect when the house was buiIt ia the 1460's, The cua�ent restzictzons on buildinggii siopes greater than 18% went into effecl in the early 1980's. The Zoning Code says flie following abQUe nonconforming structures and uses: • Xt is fhe intent o f this code to gerinit legal i2onconforn2zng .., structures ... �Co contiieue until they are rernoved (Section 62.IQ1) • A noncoreforming structure n7ay be enlarged or aZter-ed so long as such enlargement or alter^ation does not increase its nonconfor�nity. (Section 62.IOS.b) The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing huusa. This will not increase its nonconformity. He is also proposing to add a small (6' x 8') enciosed entry)._ The enhy will be buL[t on leve[ grouttd and will not increase the nonconformity of the existing siructure. The appticant is also proposing to_ add a 25' x 8' deck to the side of the house. The deck is over,slopes steeper than 18% and wil! inerease U�e nonconfoxmity of tlte house and so the appticant has applied for a variance to construct the dack_ (A quesrion was raised about wheeher the deck shoutd be considered as an entargement of a nonconforming use under the Section 62.104.d. However, the nonconfoanity hera is with the structure aad not with tite use. Tl�erefore Section 62.109.d does not appty and a variance is tiie correct procedure.) YYhen a nanconforming use is destroyed by any means to cnc extent of more than 60% of its replacement cost, exclusive af the foundatian, at the time of destruction, it skall not 8e recanstructed ezcept in conforznity witk the pravisions of this code, (Seetrorz 62.IOS.c) The house was vacant for about 18 manths and needs quite a bit of clean up and wor[c but it was not destroyed. The applicant told staff that the cost of the work on the house will be tess tfian 60% ofthe replacement va[ue of fhe house. Tfiis seems reasonabl� to staff and we did not ask the applicant for a' more defailed budget and set of costs. • When a noneorzfornting use is discontinued ar ceases to exist for a confinuous period of 365 days, the building... sTtall thereafter be used in conformance with the regulations of the district in which is rt [ocated. (Seciion 62.106.g� The fact that the house was empty for approximately t8_ months was brought up at the hearing. � � � �� AA-ADA-EEQ Employer / :. � However, this section app]ies to norxco.�fenning uses and aot to nonconfcrming structures. Since the use of flie house as a singt�family house is conforming, tnis section does nof apply ia this case. Tflis is consistent �vith how AST has apptied this sectica in the past. Stuf£ line � There �vere questions raised about the btuff line: where is the bluff line on this site; caa there be mcre than one bLuff tine; and hotv does this affecY what can be done on the site. Tnese qeestioes are important because the River Corridor Regutations prohibit development on any slope greater than 18% but for a slope that is desigaated as a btuff line there is an additional "no buitd" setback 44' landward of a bluff fine. The zoning code de$nes the bluff line as "a lirae along the top of certain steep slopes facing tl7e Mississippi River Pa7t2y as shown on the River Corridor Zoning Maps. In any particular case, the bIuff line shall inean a iine deawn aLong the top of Uie bluff such thaf the slope below the line is steeper than eigt�teen (18) percent and the stope above is eighteen (18) percent or (ess." (Italics added 6y staf£) Based on this, DSI staff refetred to the Map #19 o£the River Cottidor Zoning Maps. This �nap shows a single bluff line near the east property lina at the top of the slope. The house, garage or dzainage work proposed would noY be 40' landwar¢ of this bluff liue. Tl�is'procedure is covsistent wifh whae DSI t�as used since the River Corridor was established. Opponents of the varianees interpreted the definition of 6hiff line differently so that tue steeQ stope where the house sits could be counted as a bluff line. " � Reyisions to the River CotYidor xegulations that are cunent(y under consideration woutd allow far multiple �_ bluff liues. But sfafFcontends fhat the cuneut regulafions that have been for over 20 years years define the bluff tine to be the line shown in the River Corridor Maps. Suilding a new detached garage Tlie applicazlt has built a new detached garage on a level part of the site tl�at did not affect airy slopes steeper than 18%. � The Zoning Code says `Accessory buildings �aray be added [to nonconfoYming structures] so long as they conform in all respects to the require»tents of section 63.501, accessory buildirzgs. "(Seetion 62.IOS.b) The detached garage is a separate structure and is not being "added" to the nonconfonning house. Even if iC was attached and was considered an addition, staf£ fouud that the detached garage meets t$e requirements ofSectian b3.501 whicli deal peimarily with setbaoks from the property line. Based on this, DSI issued a permit for the garage. Sgrings and,drainage on sfeep stopes There is an exlsting spring northeast of the house with a sfeady stream of cc�ater. Thc pxevious owner insfalted drain tiles to carry the water south past the east side of the house and then down a steep stope. This caused draittage problems in front of ttte house and to coerect this, the current owner instailed riew. drain tiles so that the water discharges bn the north side of the Ycouse and goes down a steep slope. Rip iap was installed where the pipe daylights on the sfeep slope to prevent erosion. Staff inspected r the pipe and rip rap aftez it was constructed and believe that the changes will nof canse erosion or othec � problems for the slope. �/ �,s"/ No permit rvas issued for the work befare it started because the applicant did not Imow that a peimit was required and staff did not become aware of it unti( the work Fvas underway_ �' � � Impact of grading and springs on fhe we1( aczd water supp�y At the public kearittg the aeighbor to tite north said he was coacenied that grading and rerouting drainage from spriag coadd cont�minate fhe house's we(1 and the ground wa2er. It is nof clear that this issue is relevant to the sIope variance requised for rerouting the spring. This.issue may be better addressed by the State Departinettt of Health. Kowever, staff was able to find some information about wetls a a onnd water: • The wetl at 21Q8 Doagiyniz was 6uilt in the 1°6Q's and probably does not maet cunent ;tandacds for well s. � • The weIl head is located in the basement of the house and so it should uot ha��e been damaged by the grading that took ptace in the yard, Ttie wor[c that was done did not move the we[I ar drainage pipes ctaserto the spring(s}. + The City requires that wells 6e tested foc hacteria and nitrates every two years. The well for 21Q8 Douglynn Lane was tested in December 2005 and did noY pass the test. The applicant says that well. passed a subsequent test in 20�6 prior to the house being sold Yo the applicant. The appticant did not have a copy of the fesf resuits but it is litce(y tfiat tha wetf passed fhe test since banks typically require this before approving a mortgage, • There is no record that tests have been dotte £or any othar coataminaats besides 6acteria and nitrates. These additional tests aze not routinely requixed. It is not clear what conlaminants the neighbor suspects might be caasing a prob[em. Separate tests would be required for" each potentia( confaminant. Septic sysfem DSI staffhas already reviewed the saptic system. They found that it meets the xequired standards and has issued a permit for ffie septic system. However the applicant has not sfazted wozk on tiie system yet. � The system will be installed behind tlie house and down a hiIl. New pipes will be used £or the septic field, But existing pipes wi[( be used to connect the systein to the house in the area immediately behind tlze house where ttie s(opes exceed 18% so this area does not need fo be disturbed. The applicanY submitted a Tree Preservatioa Plan aftet the 7une 7 meeting. Ft shows that Yhe trees in the area of the propdsed septic fieid, There are no trees (uger than 12" in diameter in the uea of the septic system and so no new trees need to be ptanYed. Tfiere ara about 6 trees sinaller than 12" in diamefar near septio sysYem. Tltese do aot have to be repiaced but the appticant says he will avoid most of them anyway. A quesfion was raised at t[ie meeting about wl�ether a number of lrees hava already been removed for tlie septic system. The applicant says vegetafion was removed but it was piimarity Buckfhorn. \�LIEP\VOL3IAMANDAMERG�ZONINGISAVE\I6971524Q07.DOC F� 3Z ��-�a� • 'Tom I3imand 2119 Skyway Drive Saint Paul, � 55119 651-735-6667 .Tune 3, 2007 I2E: 2108 Douglynn Lane 1. Why is work being done before the site placz has been voted on? 2. Why is work being done be�ore the variances have been voted on? 3. Why is the 4� feet bluff setback requixement not being enforced? 4. This is a vacant uninhabitable structure with a nonfunctioning sepric system. It was reported to the vacant buiiding program. Have permits and variances been granted to do the previous t�ork? Is it a legal structure? 5. Why is the b0% destroyed requirement not being enforced? � The proposal needs variances for: a. Excavation b. Entrance addition c. Deck d. Exterior changes to the building e. Garage f. Discharge of water on bluff face 1. 5ec. 60.1U5. Scope of regulations. No building or stxucture, or part theieof, shall hereafter be erecYed, constructed, or aitered and maintained, and no new use or change sha116e made or maintained of any 6uilding, structure, or (and, or part thereaf, excepf in confonnity with the provisions of tius code. Sec. 6t.101. Bui[ding permifs. No buitding permit shall be issued for the erection, alteration, moving or use of any buiiding or sh-ucture or part thereof, or for the use of any land, which erection, alterarion, moving or use is not in accordance with all provisions of this code. No renewal of an expired building permit shall be issued for a use or structure made nonconforming by amendments to this code. Sec. 61.402. Site ptan review (ail districts). (a) Plan to be submitted A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the plannuzg commission before a permit is issued for grading or the erection ar enlargement oY gross floor azea for any development except one- and two-fa+nily dwellings, but includi�g the following; (2j Cn the TP tree preservation districe, any development of one- and twn-family zesidences over one (1} acre (43,560 square feet) in area. (The propevty is 58,000 square feet) .; (8) Any deyelopment on a slope of hvelve (I2) percer.t or greafer. (There is dzvelopneent on 12 percent slopes) �. {4) My development in the river corridor crirical area or in the floodplain dishict except one- and two-family dwellings which do not affect slopes of twe(ve (12) percent or greater. (!t is in the river corr�idor and does affect slopes 12 percent sZapes} � �� Sec. 6I.Z01. Zoning administrafor. (b) The zoning adminisfrafor shatl enfotce [fie provisions of this zoniag wde and any amendment thereto and shall have the power to certify zoning coinptiance aad to maka inspections of buildings or premises necessary to enforce thts code. It shaiT he unlawful for the zonine adininisYtafor fo a�tove anv site nlans as reqnired in zrticle IV site �zn review of th�s chapter or issue anY permits for any excavaiion or construction until such nlans have 6een i�ecYed in deTait and foand to conform with this code. Pliree dif ferent provisiot�s r�equiYe a sife pfa�2. Zonirxg Code pro)iibits the issuance of uny permits for excavatiah ar cor�structiah uMtil the site plkn (ias bee� approve�l Why have permifs beest issued? . 2. (d) The zoning administrator shall have no authority to change or to grant variances from the terms of this code � in cazrying out the duties of zoning administratox. Why l:ave permits been issued to clo the drainage and otlzer• work t/iat r•equires variaHCes befare tfze vuriances have been approvect? � 3. The defmition of $tuffiina was esfablished by the Governor`s Executsve Order and approved by the State Legislature. "Bluffline" means a Iine detineating ehe fop o£a stope connecring the � points at which the stope becomes less than 18 percent. More than one bluffline may be encountered proceeding landward from the water. Bluffiine. A line along the top of certain steep slopes facing tha Mississippi River Valley as shown an tfie River Corridor Zoning Maps. In anyparticular case, tha bluff(ine shall mean a line drawn atong the iop of the bluff such that the slope beiow the Ii¢e is steeper than eighteen {l8) percent and the slope aboee is eighteen (18) percent or less. Sec. 60.104. Construction of (anguage. The Following rules of consiruction apply to the text of this code; (a) Thepatticutar shati control tFte generaI. (b) In case of any diffeeence of ineaning or icnpiication between the text of this code and any caption or iliustration, the text shall control. I11�strations in this zoning code are provided for purposes of describing, clazifying or providing examples; such iltustrations are ¢ot to scale an@ do not replace, limit or expand the meaning of the text. Sec, 60.209. Other eity, Incal, regional, sfate and federal regulafions. (a) Conflicting regutarions. Whenever anyprovision of this code conflicts with anv other provisian of 4his code or any other law or ordinance the more zeshictive provision shall op vern, except as otherwise specifically provided. A 40 feet setback zs f•equired from tJze tap of the I S% slopes. Tk ere rs no text anywlzere in City Code or the Comprehensive Plan Limiting 1Fie nunzber of bduffs. Sairzt Paul Zotxing m�ps have more than orce filuff tine sleown. Ira addition, tlze text controls ancl tl:e rrzore restrictive ' provision s12a11 goverrx. The applicaxl has nat applied far variances from tlze 40 feet bluff t setback requirement. 4_ (c) The zoning adininisfrator shalt determine whether lots, struc�res, or uses aze Ieeativ nonconfonnin� � consulring buildine records, city direct�ies and othar pertinent evidence for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of chapter 62. Z �� U7'�d� • Nonccnforming b�{ilding. A lawful building esisting on the effective date o£adoption (October 24, L975) or . amendment of Yhis code but thzt 3oes not r.aw comply with fhe area, width, heignt, yard, percent of IoY coverage, or ottier regulations concern:ng bullc or locafion on fF.e Iot, or spacing requirements from znoYher use, o� street parkL and loading requirements, or other regulations of the district in which iY is located. Sec. 61102. Certifrcate of occupancy. - � Cettfficates of oceupancy as cequired by the Saint PauI Legislative Code sha(1 also consYi[ute certiftcation of zo�ing compiiance as requiredby this zoning code. I�as tlie zor2ing adnzinistrator determiried if ttze structure is legatly nonconforrr�ing? S. (c) W hett a nonconfonning shuctuze is desh oyed by any �neans fo an extent of more than sixty (60) percent of its replacement cost, exctusive of the foundation, at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstrucfed except in conformity with the grovisions of this code. The Zoning code prolaibits reconsfructiori of a noncorafornzing structure desfroyed by a� means if tke exfent is 60% excCusive af tlie founclation. Tk�r is a vacttxt uninhabitab�e sfructure that was repoYte�l to vacant buildings. Tlzere has been extensive destrucfion as a vacarat buzlding ¢nd lack of mainterzance requiring exfensive rehabilitation. l�as tCxe zorxi�sg administrator determireed t/zat tl¢e praposed r-ecor2stYUCtion does nat exceed 6(1 peecerxt � tlareskold foY norzco�aformirig structures. F � Sec. 68.402. Pcotection of shore[ands, floodp3ains, weftands and 6luffs. (3) No residential development shall be pennitted'on slopes greater than eighteen (18) percent. (4) Bluffdevetopment shall take place at teast forty (40) feet landward of all btufflines. The Comprehenszve Plan states "the City will continue to prohibit residential development ott slopes that exceed 18 percent", "the City will pmhibit any additional structurat develapmettt or land alteration on the bluff face" and The City will continue to preserve the btuff impact area (forty feet tandward of the bluff line) in a natural state. Development (river corridor district only}. Tha makine oFanv material chanee in the use or appearance of anv shucture or land includine, but not (imited to: a reconstruction, alteration of the size, or material chan�e in the extemai appeazance, of a structure or the land; a change in the inkensity of use of fhe land; alteratian of a share br bank of a river, stream, lake or pond; a commencement o� drilling (except to obtain soil samples); mining or excavation; demolition of a structure; clearinz of tand as an adiunct to construction; deposit ofrefuse, solid or liquid waste, or fiil on a pazcel of iand; or the dividing of land into two (2) or moxe pazcels. Excavation. Any breakin�ofground, except common household gardening and ground care. (6) Devetopment which takes place near slopes greater than twelve (12) percent shall not result in increased runoff onto those slopes sufficient to damage vegetation or shuctvres thereon. , The Highwood Plan calls for profecting and preserving the bluff. "The City Council agrees that steep slopes, i especiatly within the Mississippi River Critical Area, sl�ould be preseLVed, and that The city's River Coaidor standards axe reasonable and necessary in order to conserve and protect unique natural and scenie resources. The Biver Corridor standards prohibit residential development on slopes greater than 18 percent." Tlxe proposed site plan arxd variarzces are rxot consisterzt witk the Comprelaerzsive P(an ancl 3 � Zoriiiig Cod� '°�' �t:�`°� , , (4) No bui2ding permit shalt o� issued for the consYuction, alteration, expansion or remodeling of any dwelling or cther esfab[ishment served by an individua( sewage Keatment system until the pennit requi�d foc the treatment system has been issued. Occupancy �hali be prohibited until a fmal inspeciion of the system has been conducted. €3jere building per�tnits issued before t/ze permitfor the tre�tmentsystern had been issued? a� � L'! �� , ` - � � -A' . !� � Dan McGuiness � 2166 Ogden Ayenua � � St. Paul, MN �5119 � _ � Sune 5, 2007 City of St. Paul O�fice of LIEP 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200 St. Paul, Mittnesota SS 10I Re:- Fi1e # 07-08��7� Z108 Douglynn Lane — Request for Variances Please submit the following tesfimony to the St. Paul City Planning Cominissiott's Zoning Committee for its aleeting on Thursday, 3une 7, 2007: I am writing as a neighborhood in the Highwood Neighborhood of St. Paul, but also as an individual who has been active in the development of the Highwood 1Veighborhood Plan and, i�ore recentlp, as a member of the Cify Council Task Force to recommend updates fo dle Mississippi IZiver Ct'itzcal Atea zoning regulations. I beijeve there is sound and zeasonable zeasons to seriously object to tt�o issues ielated to this proper[y: � � i. The requesfs for variances should be denied as the strueti�re on this property is curreiitly non- conforming and has been unanhabiYed for several years. There are uo pcudent reasons to graut variances `. to improve the existing sfructure and(or to provide £or additional construction work on the siee and I believe the request does not meet the hardship test for granting varzances under city regulations. Several questions raised in a separate letter to the City by Tom Dimond cieady xaises questzons about the vatidity of approving an}� variances. 2. The string of decisions and communicafions bet6weea'city staff aQd neigt�bozs regaiding this proper[y, as documented by a separate letter by Jolm and Lisa 12ogers, adjacent pzoperLy owners to 2108 Douglynn Lane, eleariy documents a series of confusing if not evasive communications on the part of the city relative to this issue. I do not understand why_ any wozk was allo�ved to be done on fhe 'site in advance of a pub&c hearing regazding this matter. As £ar as I can tel1, there was no sense of urgency involved, The site was purchased with the intent of "renovating and improving" if for re-sale — it is nof a case where an existing property owner needed to bring the structure up to code or take action to enab�e them to continue occupying fhe structure. Now, ln spife of public objecfions from fhe start, there has been excavation, filling, altering qf a natural spring, construction of a retaining wall and a garage on site. None o£this shouId have been aSlowed, • This entire scenario only adds czedence to the claims by skeptics that tlze city is not serious about , supporting the IvTississippi River Critical Area rules and rigorously enPozcing them. I urge the Zoning Committee, the Planning Commission and the Saint Paul City Council to renew your support for the Critical Area designation and to advise the City staff that it trul� has an obligation to follow the proper steps and pzoceduxes in dealing with enforcement of tfie code. It is time to turh the tide and renew our commitment to taking caze of our ziver comdor, one of St. PauPs great natural assets. " i Sincerely, I7an McGu3uess � � � E : Date: 7una 5, 20Q7 To: Saint PauL Ciiy Planning Commission Zoning Commitfee. From: John and Lisa Rogers, 212Q Douglynn Lane CC: City Council President Kathy Lantry; Dishict 1 Council; Rep. Sheldon Jokinson; Mayor Chris Coleman Re; 2108 Dougiynn Lana, Fi1e # 07-080070 Wa abject to the issuance of the pcoposed zoning vaziaaces for 2 T08 Dbuglynn Lane. Oux prbpedy abuts the property omthe east side and overlook§ the site of the garage and house. We have read Tom Dimond's letter to tius board and concur wzttz Yus concenis. We will noY reiterate them here. This Ietter will focus on our concerns for the quality and usability of our drinking water. 4Ve are on a weil and depend on the sa£ety of our water supply. This is our only source of drinking water. We hava concems about the rerouting o£ the natural sprzngs, paz as it impacts tha well head, and the planned new sepfic system installation. We have tived on our property for ovec 17 years and intend to live here for at least another 20 years. We have a vital interest in the long term health and environmental effects o£ the proposed zoniug variaaces. In contrast, the new owners of 2108 Douglynn intend to deeelop the property and reseA it. At the most xecent Distxict I Council meeting they sfated that they have already purchased another primary residence outside of St. Paul. � According to the DNR and tke Minnesota Dept of Health, a perenneally zunnirig spring is considered a naEurai stream. Department of Heatth xegulations state that a wellhead must be 50 feet and a septic system must be 150 feet from a natural water discharge. The springs on tke property qua[ify as a nafura[ stream. Qur concern is that the water fxom the nahzral spring will #low inYo the well head and containinate our dtinking water with pollutants and microbes. TIIe housa at 2108 Doug2ynn was built prior to the above regulatioz�s anc3 the location nf the well head is tmlutown, To the best of our knowledge, the cunent zesidents have rerouted the nafurai springs without a detailed analysis of either the environmental or health impact of these changes. The current well was built to old sfandazds that are known to atiow surface wafer to leak iuto the lower aquifers. This problem is amplified when a well has not been used regutazly. Since fhe house has been vacant for over two yeazs, the welt at 2108 has not been in regular use. We oppose Ehe issuance o£ zoniug variance5 £ar Ehe rip zap fhaE has atready been installed and oppase Yhe issaancQ o£ new varaances for new improvements. We want a defaited independent hydroIogicaI sEudy done on this property to assess any loc�g#errn eavironmental and health consequences of the current rerouting of the natural springs and the impact of any futare planned work, We want to empiiasize that not only shouid a variance hearing been held prior to the installation of the iip rap, spring rerouting, and building of a new garage, but a hydrological study shouid atso have been done. The Highwood area, particuTarly the area on the Mississippi bluff, is is � r C, � �G �� envzronmer:fally sensitive and fragiie. Also, the safeiy of cunent resider.ts' well water � should take �nrecedence over new development. To ensure the safety of our water suppfy, we would like fwice annual well testing for 2148 Douglynn to ertsure early detection of contamination_ We attempted to address these concems with the city prior to the issuing af permits. In mid February, a permit application for a new garage appeared on the LIEP website. We called Tom I3each on February 20` with our concems about the rerouting of the natural springs, that the house was built on construction debris and about the xestrictions on River Coxxidor development. At that time, Tom stated that no zoning vaxiances were needed. According to the LTEP office only 1 bluff line.exists in 5t. Paul and that this propez is in �ront of this biuff line and therefore no restrictions apply. . Now that the garage has been built, the city now deems it necessary to issue a zoriing variance for its coristruction. Also, the online record of the permit appiication disappeared from the website shortly after our conversations and did not reappear until aftex the work was undex�vay. This leads us to infer that the city is being less than transparent about this process. We are concerned that future work on this property will be completed wifhout the required public meetings and believe that the city has done a poor job,of enfozcing the current zoning regulations with regards to this property. We will address our dissatisfaction with the handling of these zoning issues in a separate letter. � Tn conclusion, we have serious concerns regarding the impact nf the completed work and planned future work wil! have on the quality of this area's { drinking wafer. An independent hydrological sruvey is needed to determine the environmental and health impact of the completed aztd proposed work. We agree with the objections and eoncems raised by Tom Dimond. We additionally are concerned about the past and future decisions of the LIEP office in regards to this property. � r � � � � .�� G7imb the Wind Institute 1330 St Paul Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota. 55116 07 7une 2Q07 , City of Saine Pau1• Ptannizig Cofnmission Zozung Committee Re: Oppositioa to Request for Variances and Site Plan Appxoval 2108 Douglpnn �1vez�ue A. The Office of LIEP has inadequately infa�ned rhe public and Zoning Coirnnittee of the illegalities of the komeownets. i The staff teport fails to idenrify the lawlessness of acrions a�eadp taken, Work on the propesty at 2108 Douglpnn Avenue has been completed iri part 'The staff report, however, does not aclmzt tb the illegafiries af the wosk thus fax completed. 'The propertp owner knew ox should have known of the lacation of the pxoperty within the Critical Area. Furthermoxe, the pxoperty ownet knew ox should haoe known of the Yequixed pexmits, variances, and site plan xeview xequixed and flie xequixed obtaining of such�irior ta the"staxt of the work. Buf the Qffice of LIEP fails to mention the violations of the pxoperip ownex of the specific pxovisioris of the City's Zoning Code the pxoperCp owtter now seeks variances and appxoval £or theit pxoject Fuzthermore, LIEP suggests no accountability ox penaltp fox those violarions. u. . LIEP has intema! depasirnental deficiencies regarding Critical Area issues.. In addition, if LIEP allowed tbe pe.tinitting foY anp of the work at 2108 Douglpnn Avenue prios to the pxopex procedural xequixements of the 2oning Code, it continues to xeflecf tlie lack of knowledge and competency of the depastrnent xeg�ding Critical Axea pxojects of any size. This is notthe fitst time LIEP.has failed tp appxeciate the significance of the Critical tlrea zoning xegulations and heightened scrutiny needed. It ceitainlp undennines rhe cxeditability of the depaitciient and the confidence that if the vaxiances and site pIan axe anpxoved, LIEP has the abilitp to oversee the constructton. Anp apptoval nf any variance or site=plan shouid be delayed because of the proven incompetence of LIEP and its xeview of pxojects within the Critical Asea. � � � . v�� U"l�g�'' • Once LIEP can assuxe the public that it can follow, the Compxehensive Plan and Critical tLeea Yegulations xegarding the application process and canstruc�on oversight, then the Dougipnn Avenue issue can be revisited.'I am d;smayed by tre lack of LIEP's lack of cleat coinmunication with John and Lisa Rogers and LIEP's lack of knowledge.i B. The pxoposed pxoject at 2108 T3ouglynn Ayenue implicates a numbex of Crirical flrea xegulauons that ase insuffrcienflp addzessed. i. The ptoperty owners have not pxovided the xequisite 6urden of pxoof under Sec. 68.601 to conclusively demonsttate the project will not cause adverse harm_ The pxopetty owners of 21Q8 Douglynn Avenue have not provic(ed conclurive evidence o£ that the pxoject will not cause advexse harm. rox instance, tl�eze is no tepott on the geology ox hydxology of the pxoject �ea to substantiate no harm wilI come to slopes ox will not advexselp affect the e�sting water supply of the Rogexs well. The staEf report sites no report or other resoucce to reach the threshold tequirement of "conclusive evidence." In fact, rhexe is no evidence. � u. Since the buildsng is a non-confomung structute no new use ox change is allowed unless in confoxmity of Crirical Area , pxovisions. LIEP has idenrified the present structuze as non-confomung. As a non- confoitning sttucture, no building pertnit may be issued fox any alterarion of the building or use of the land unless it conforms eo the provisions of Crirical Axea pxovisions. If LIEP has alxeady issued a perinit, priox to this pxoceeding, Yhen rhe propertp owners have already violated specific code pxexequisites undex Sec. 61.101. In addition; because the pxopertp ownexs knew ox should have known the pxopexty affected includes stopes greater than 12%, "a siee plan shall be submitted to and appxoved by the planning commission befoxe a permit is issued...: ' Excavation appatendp has 6een done and completed within the slope area prior to a site plan approval. Lack of the pxoperty owner's knowledge of zoning code pxovisions and LIEP's lack of knowledge is no excuse to allow the grant of a variance ox approval of the site plan aFter the fact. ' See John and Lisa Rogers letter dated June 5, 2Q07 to the Saint Paul City Planrung _ "� ?, • Commission Zoning Committee. "�'� Z Saint Paul Code Oxdin. (Mn.) § 68.601. ' Saint Paul Code Otdin. (Mn.) § G1.402(a}. 2 �' �t Furthesmoxe, the staff xeport fails to identi£y all bluff lines associated with the � property. The staff report daizns the stcuctuee to be betow a bTuff line, however, current maps refiect moxe than one bluff line in the area of 2108 Douglynn Avenue. If there is a propexly identrf ed bluif iine orher than the one above tlie property, then the pxopexty owners are xequired to obtain anathet variance since a 40 foot set-back is tequixed �om the top of 18% slopes' C. Because rhe applzcation fat variances and si�e plan approval and the staff xeport are deficient, the zequests should be denied. The staff zepart sites no evidence and the pzop€try ownexs pxovide no evidence fio conclusivelp suppoxt a finding to geazit the requested variances and the proposed site plan appxoval the xequests must be denied. To grant the variances and appxove the site plan when thete is no evidence is abuse of discretion. Finally, the pxoperty ownexs have not beeri held accounfable fox theic Iawless actions to date in violation of ehe City's zoning code. Uniess and until the pxopexty owners aYe snbjected ta sanctions, the� application should not be considexed Iet alone apptoved. Sincexely, � John E. GxzybeJi ' Saint Paul Code Oxdin. (Mn.} § 68.402 (4}. :.!' � t � D1-�d�� Appendix A: A non-exhaustive Iist o£relevant statues_ From Chapfez 58. Zoning Code—River Conidor Overlay Districts � Sec. 68.404. Protection of watez quality (lj Constxuct[on shall not be permitted on wef soils, vezy shallow soils, soiTs wifh higTa shrink-swef? ar £rost action pofentiat unless it is shown that appropriate construcfion techniques capable o£overcoming the restrzctive condition will be utilized. (2) Septic tanks....in accordance with the class of pub&c waters as prescribed in Nlinnesota Regulations NR-82: a. On natural envirorunent waters, at least 1S0 feet. (3} Private welis shall be placed in areas nof subject to £looding and ap slope t'rom any source o£ contaminatzon. 'GYells aiready existing in azeas prone fo flooding shall be £toodproofed in accordance with accepted engineering standards as de�ned in the �' i7niform SfaYe Buzlding Code. Sec. 68.601. Variances (a) ....The burden o� proo£ shall resf vvith the applicant to demonstrate conclusively that suck� a variance will ttot result itt a hazard to.ii£e or property and wiil not adversely a£fect the safet�, use or stabzl'zty of a pubTic wap, s7ope ox draznage channel, or the natnral eirvironment: such proof may inclnde soils, geology and hydrology reports which shall be signed by registered professionat engineers.... � � � �� ; T}ist�ict 3. �oa�a�aaaa,xtity Cc�a�xa�i1 � Gommu�itg Council tD�ce Saftle. CreeFs, i'olice Stcsrefxont ... Ceaezai O�ce aad District Y News � ' A Communitp Partaezshi¢ - .2090 Conway Street, Room 126 2107 Oid Hudsoa Road, SunPay Sfiopping Cenfer Saiat Panl, MN 55129 Sainf Pavl, MN SS119 - voice:651.501.6345 fax:65I.501.6346 voice:651.7o2.6T7Q fax:6Sf.7£4.8229 emaiX: disEriettcouncil@aol.corti emaii: disErictlC2C aCio1-com mebsite: wmv.districtZcouucil.ozg Suue 11, 2007 Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Ptanning Commission 3 FouRh St. East, Saite 200 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Re: 2108 Dougtynn Lane (#07-08a�7Q} Dear Zotting Commiitee Members, 6 t The District 1 Community Gouncil Heacing Commiitee snbmitted a ietter to you dated 7une 4, 2007 in which we conveyed our decision to supgort the vaziance request for the akeady diverted slream at 2108 Douglynn Lane_ ��Ve attach here a copy oP our earlier letter, dated Apri125, 2067, requesting a stop-work order for thi's propeFty, Please note that we assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that our eulier letter would atso become a pazt of the record, aud that you would be awaze of our concerns with the process follawed at this property. We woukd l�e to clarify our mast recent vote to approve the variance request on the stream diversion. Qur vote to approve was not an endorsement bf the varianae reqnest Kather, it was our attemgt to mi8gate future damage caused 6y the apparent Iack pf procedural enforcement fo2lowed dwing ttce pracess'with this pmperty. In making our deeision, we were acknowledging tliat dur priority was preventing any fiirfhar damage to sensirive slopes. We assumed fhat the use of ripxap would assist in negating any £urther damage. Ouc uhderstand'uig &om Novem6er 20Q6 was ffiaf no work was fo proaeed at #his site cvitho¢t an apprbved site ptan. When we fliscovered tliat work was underway (in fact partially coinpleted} without thhat approva2, we requested a stop-work order. Whett that action resnited in variance requesfs being submitted a$er the fact, we tried to dea! with Yho'se requests hased on the current situatlon, and not on what we believe should have bappened Yo begia with. Had tt�e site plans been submit�ed priar to work being completed an stream diversion, we would have recommended an entirely different solution. ' �J The District I Commwiity Conncii is couunitted to safeguarding tfie river bluffs_ We aze atsa committed to working witii the City and with comntunity membe� to assure that processes aze foIlowed so that laadowners' time and money ace not wasted ttying to build strucflzces tizat aze not permitted by regulations. We are nnclear how work could hava progressed as faz as it did without approved plans, given our November discussions with tha Iandowners and our understanding of City processes. Sincerely, �Bat�� Coznmunity Organizer for the Hearing Committee. Our missivu ts fo ereate opporCieaities for f$e peogle wko live aad wark iu our aeighborhoods to engage with each other an� wiCfi our gaverameat offiiciats ia order to build a more vi6zant aad weEcomiag eommunitp. � 4?�6a'� • Dist�ic� 1 co��.u��y cQ,�n�� Coxmm�nity Cauncil Offzce Battle Creek Polzce Sfoxefxonf Genexal O�ce and DZstricE Z News A Community Par{nership - 2�90 Conway StteeY� Room 225 . 2107 Otd Hssdson Boad, SunRay Shopping Cenfer Saint Pau1, i.,SN 55119 � � , Saint Pau1� '.vfIt' S5119 � - Voice:55Y_$�1.6345 fa:c:651.501.6346 doice:651.702.6770 fa>c:651.714.8229 emait: districY'_council aaol.com email: d"zstricElC a� ol.com website: ww°a,distxicticouneff.ozg 7une 4, 2607 Zozung Committee of the Planning �ommissiou Attn: Tom Beach, LIEPfiIS 8 Fourth St. East, Suite 200 Saint Paul, MN 55101 � Re: 2108 Douglynn Lane DearMr. Beach, � The Hearing Committee of tt�e D'zstrict 1 Communzty Council met on May 29 to discuss the variance requests for 2108 Douglynn Laue. The owners of the property and community mem6ecs attended tha meeting. After discussion with a11 parties, the committee voted to approve the vaxiance iequest related to rerouting the natural spring and insta3latzon o£ a draanage pipe thaC flows out onto a slope steeper than 18%. The committee reasoned that, with iustallation of riprap at fhe point where the pipe emerges from the bluff, this solution of£ezed Yhe greafest probability of confrolling erosion on the steep slope. The commiftee voted against approval of the requested variance for installing a new deck on the side of the house. Tlie proposed deck encroaches on steep slopes protected under the River Corridor standards and, as an amenity that i"s not required to live in the house, should not be permitted. Our concem is that blufflands along the River Corridor be protected, and this variance would represent a threat to the.bluffs in this area of District 1. Thank you, 5ir�cerely, � Betsy Leach Commianzty Organizer for the Hearing Committee „�• '(� Our mission is to creaEe opportunities for the peopLe who live and work in ouc neighHorfioads fo engage with e,aeh othez aad - witfi our govemment oft3ciats in ordeE to fiuild a more vibranE and wetcoming community. ��,. District 1 Comrnn Council Comrriunitp Councit Off'ice f�eneral O$'ice and 73Lstrict T News 2090 Goawap StreeE, Ttpom 126 Saint Paul, MN-55219 voice- 651.501.6345 £a4: 651.501.6346 emaiL• distrFcticauaciL Battle Greek Police S�orefron� A Communitp Partaersfiip � ' 2I09 Old Hndson Boad, SunRay Sfiogging Ceater Saint Panl, M21 SS1I4 -' - , voice:651.702.6770 €azc:651.714.8229 emaiL districtiCPC(�,aol.com , - - websiEe: eeww.districElcossncil.nxg Apzi125, 2007 Tom Beach, LTEP City of Saint Paut 8 Fourth 5#. E., Suite 200 Saint Paul, NSN 55101 RE: 2IQ8 DouglynuLane, SaintPau155119 Dear Mr. Beach, The District 1 Comuivaitp Couneii's Heariug Cammittee requesks that a stop-work order be sent to the properiy owners of 2108.Douglynn Lane. We understand that the ownezs have obtained pemiits to construct a septic system and a new garage at this Iocation. We inet with the owners at our Novembex boazd meefing and uridetstood fhat no coust�iiction wouid pxoceed at this site wzthout a site plan approval p�oeess because of issues zelated to steep slopes and the presence of a permanent spttng on tha site. Because this property. eati sfs widun tke Corridor Critical Area, we waut to make sure that city code is sirictly followed and tiiat negati�e impacts on the envizonment aze' avoided. We now understaitd that fhe stream is being diverted and that $iere are unpacts on slopes tltat excecd 18%. CTiven these Circumstauces, we reqnest an immadiate stap to work at the site and.access to site plans for the pmperty in arder to review potential impacts within the River Corridor Critical Area SutcereZy, � �� Betsy Leach Commuuity Qrganizer For tlze District i Hearirig Committee . � l.� i'' 7 � fo creafe appoct�taifiies for tfie people who Iive aad worlc 3a aur ueigkharhodds fo eagage with each otker aad - witfi our goverumeaE offtcials in atder fo build a mor� qibraat aad wetcoxaiag commaaity, � � � � a�-��► Z(�I�iNG COMM(TTEE Si"AF� REP(}RT FILE # G7-074111 1. APPLfCANT: 2. 7YPE O� APPLICAT{ON: Sife Pian Revtiew and Variances 3. LoCATtON: 2108 Doug{ynn Lane HEAR{NG DATE: 6Rf07 4. P[N & IEGAt DESCR(PTiON: 142822430006 Lewiston Heights Seco�d Addition Lof 9 8(k 5 5. PLANNiN6 DiSTRIGT: 1 PRESEtVT ZON(NG: RL and RG3 6_ ZONIt�G COnE REFEftENCE; 61.402.c; 61.6a1; 68.601; 60205.d; 88.402.6.3 7. STAF� REPQRT OATE: 6/1/07 8. OATE RECEtVED: 5(3{07 BY: Tom Beach DEADLiNE FOR ACTION; 7/2/07 A. FURPOS�. The applicanf w(shes to renovate a vacant sfngle-famify house, add a deck fo the house, bui(d a new defached garage and make dramaqe improvemenfs. Some of this work �equires sife plan revi�w and variances because it affecfs slopes steeper than 18°lo in the River Corridor. 8. PARCEL SiZE: 58,454 square feet C. EX(STI[�G l.AND US�: Vacant single-family hause D. SURROUPiRING LAND USE: North: Singie-fiamily (RL) East: Sing4e-family (RL) South: Single-fami[y (RL) Wesf: 5ingle-famify (RL} E. ZONYfdG CODE CiTqTfdN: 61.4�2.c lisfs the cec{uired f+ndings for site p{an review 61.601 tists the generai findings required for a va�iance 68.601 fists thg finding for a variance in ihe River Corridor 60.205.d defines devetopmeat in the Rtver Cnrridor 68.402.b.3 prohibits residenYial development on sfopes greater than 18% in the River Corridor DESCRIPTION dF TliE FROJ�CT • There is currenf(y a sing(e-4ami(y house on the property. it has been vacant for a few years. The house sifs ott slapes greater than 18%. • The applicant recently 6ought the properEy and is in the process of renovafing the house. • The appficanf wanfs fo put on a smali (6' x 8') entry addifion and a 25' x 8` deck. + The applicaat recently fauilt a defached garage on a leve4 parf ot'the site. � A smafl area at the botEom ofi steep slope near fhe garage was distur6ed and the applicant has put in a low (24") refaining walt fo sfabiiize fhe siope. • An existing swimming poo! was fitled in. . There is a spririg on the property. fn the past, water firom fhe spring f(owed dawn a sfeep � � v �� stope on the south side of the house. The appt[canf has reroufed a p[pa sa fhat the water � drains down the sfesp s[ope on the norfh side of the house. Rip rap has beea insEalled where the pipe daylighfs to confro( erosion. � • A new septic system wilt'be put in ta the west and down a hitf from the house. G. V1lR{ANCES hiEEDEQ 7he property is iocated in the River Corridca� (RC3}. Devefopment on slopes greafer than 18%0 is prohibifed in the ftiver Corridor. (Section 68.402.b.3} �evelopment is clefined in the River Corridor as the "making of any mater�a! change in the use or appearance of any.structura or la�d incfuding, but not [imifed fo: a reconsfrucfion, atferation of the size, or maferial change in the externat appearance, ofi a sfructure ar fhe tand; a change in the intensity of use of the land; :.. dernolition of a structure; clearing of 12rd as an adjunct to consfrucfion...:' (Sectian 60245.d} Variances_are needed for the foliowing parts of the project because thay are focated on siopes steeperttian 48%: � Suilding a new deck on the side of Fhe house, Tha deck wii( he above the ground but if wif! be atfached to the ground with iwo posfs in the area where fhe stopes are sfeeper fhan 18°(0. a Grading at the bottam of a slape steeper than 18°/o east of fhe garage and putting in a low refaining wall. � • fnstalfing the pipe and rip rap to reroute water flowing from the spring. Variances are not required for these parts of the projecf: • The existing house is nonconforming because it is focated on s(opes greafer tha� 18%. As t part of the renovation, a small entry addition is p(anned on a fevel parf of the site. The renavation of the house and the smali addition are permitfed without variances 6ecause nonconforming uses may be "enlarged or altered so long as such enlargement-or afteration does nof increase ifs nonconformify:' (Secfion 62.105.h) a The detached garage is perrttifted w+thout variances because is it on a levei area without steep slopes below the blufE Iine. • The new septic system wi(I be buiff on a ftat area. An existing pipe will he used in an area where slopes are steeper than 18% to connect the system,fo the house.' As a resuit, no work on the septic system wili affecE siopes steeper than 18%. G_ DISTR[CT COUNC(L RECOMMEhfbATfON: No recommendation has been received from Disfricf 1. H. FtNDINGS F4R SiT� PLAN REV[EW; Sectian 61.4Q2(c) of the Zonirtg Code says that in "arder to approve the site plan, the plar�nirtg commission shaA consider and find that the site p{an is consistent with" fhe fmdings listed below. 1. The cify's adopfed comprehensive plan and development or project p(ans for sub-areas of the crfy. Renovating an existing Vacant home so fhat it �an be used again is cnnsistent wifh fhe City's Housing Plan. �orcecting an existing drainage prob(em in a way that wil! not harm � sensitive steep slopes ts also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. App(icakle ordinances of the City of Saint Paul. The site plart is consistent �vith all applicabte ord'mances except the regulations on �� U ��' � development on s!opes steeper than 18°!o in tne River Corridoc The appiicant is applying for vatiances for this. 3. Preservation of unique aeologic, gecgrapf�ic or fiisforica{(y significanf characferisf;cs of ffte cify and environmanfal/y sensifrve areas. The work beirg proposed on the sieep siopes vyilf f�ave a minimal impact on the steeo siopes and other environmenia!ly sensitive areas. • The impacf of fhe deck wilf be limifed to #wo posfs in fhe ground. • The 24° high retaining wal! on the steep siope east of the garage wilf help fo sfabilize the gtading that was done by the previous owner. < The new pipe and rip rap to hand[e the water ffoGVing from the spring will be an improvement over the previous situation. 4. Profectron of adjacenf and neighboring praperties fhraugh reasonabie provrsion for such maffers as surface wafer drarnage, sound and srghf buffers, preservafion of views, lighf and air, and fhose aspecfs of design which may have substanfia/ ef(ecfs on neighborrng land uses. The projecfi wiff improve the existing drainage and will not impact neighboring iand uses. 5. The arrangemenf of buildings, uses and facilities of the p�oposed deve(opmenf rn order to assure abutting properfy and/or ifs occupants wiN not be unreasonably affecfed. � The renovation of the existing house and tne associated site improuements wili not unreasonably afFect abutting property. 6. Creation of energy-consen�rng desiqn th�ough (andscaqing and location, orientation and e(evation ofstructures, The renovatian of the ex'ssting house and the associated site improvaments are conssstent wifh current practices for energy conservatfon. 7. Safefy and convenience of both vehicufar and pedesfrian traffic both within the sife and in relation to access streets, inciuding fraffic circulation features, fFre locations and design of entrances and exits and parking areas within fhe site. Renovating the existing house and the associafed site improvemenfs will not have a significant impact on vehicular or pedestrian traffic. 8. 7he satisfactory avarlabrlity and capacity of storrn and sanitary sewers, including solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the developmeRt. Sa�ifary sewer is not available for this property_ However, sepfic sysfems are permiffed in this part of fhe Cify and a netv sysfem is proposed. The ste}�s being taken tn resoute water from fhe spring on the site will improve fhe previous situation. 9. Suffician� landscaping, fences, wa/Is and parking necessary to meet the ebove objectives� The project wili provide enough parking to meet zoning requirements. Limited retaining Walls are proposed. The owner needs to submit a revised Tree Preservation Plan for the �,�/ area where the new septic system wilt be buitt to show the impact on existing trees 6 � i0. Sife accessrbifity in accordance with the orovisions of the Rmericans wifh Disabi(ifies Acf � (ADA), inefudrng parking spaces, passenger Ioading zones and accessi6/e roufes. � The site plan meets ADA standards for singl"e fami[y houses. 19 _ Pravision for erosion and sediment confro! as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion Sediment and Cerrfrol Nandbook." The site ptan complies witfi this condition. i. F(�lDINGS �OR VARtANCES: Section 61.601 lists 6 findings that must be met to grant variartces: 1. The properfy in quesfion cannot 6e put fo a reasonabte use under the strrcf provrsions of the code; 7he variances to permit development on siQpes steeper than '18°/o are needed to ailow reaso�able use of the property: a Tfie cfianges fo fhe exisfing drainage sysfem are needed to correcf probtems ca�sed 6y f(ie exisfing drainage sysfem. • The (imited amoUnt af regrading and the small retaining wall east of the garage aPe needed to stabilize the slope from snrork done by the previous owner. + The house was ctearly set up to have a deck: it has two patio doors on the upper feve{ of the south side. � 2. 7he plight of the tandowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and €hese circumstances were not created by the landowner, The circumsfances are unique fo the properfy and were not creafed by the current tandowner. •� Thera is a spring on the site that ha.s caused drainage probiems that need to be fixed • There is grading work that was dane 6y the previous owner � The exisfing house has doors on the south side that were intended fo iead to a deck. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intenf of the code, and is eonsis#ent wifh the health, safety, comfort, morals and weifare of the inhabitants of the cify; Correcting fhe existing drainage probtems on the sife and renovating the existing house in a way t[�at �vitf nof hurE sensitive sfeep s(ops is consisfenf with fhe intenf of fhe code and the heaith, safety, �omfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of tfie city. 4. 7he proposed variance wiil not impair an adequate sugply of (ighf and air to adjacenf proper(y nor wi(1 if alter fhe essential character of fhe surrounding area or unreasonabiy diminish esfablished prope�y values v✓ithin the surrouading area; The variances wil! not impair the adjacent propetty or surrounding area. The house and area where the improvements will be made are set well away from any nearby property aR� the scope of the improvements requiring the var[ances is timited. 5. The variance, if granfed, would nof permif any use thaE is nof permfffed undar fhe provisions �� of fhe code for fhe properfy in fhe districf wFrere fhe affecfed (and is tacated, nor woutd it a(fer or change the zoning drstrict ctassrfrcafiori of fhe properfy; �� p'►'��'� The use of fhe struc4ure as a single fami(y home is permitfed 6y the current RL zoning. � 6. The requesf for var,�ance is rof based prlmarily on a desire to �rcrease #he va!ue or income potentia( of fhe parcet of fand. Tfia requesf for fhe variances is based primariiy on a desire ta renovate the existing house so it carS be used in a reasonable way and to correcf existing drainage problems. 5ection 68.609 4isfs an additienat finciSng fhat must be me4 fo grant variances in the River Corridor. 7. Applications for variance to the provisions of fhis chaptermay be filed as provrded in section 61.600. The burden of proof shall rest with the applicanf to dernonstrate conclusively that such variance wil! not resulf in a hazard fo life or properFy and wrll not adversely affecf the safefy, use or stabr(rty of a public way, s(ope or drainaga channef, or the nafura! environmenf,• such proof may rnclude sor/s, geology and hydrology reports which shall be signed by registered professional engineers. Variances sha1/ be consistenf with the genera( purposes of the standards contained rn this chapter and state law and the intent of applicable stats and national laws and programs. Although variances may be used to modity permissi6le rnefhods of f(ood profecfion, no variance shall have fhe effecf of a((owing in,any district uses prohibited in that district, permit a fawer degree of flood protection tffan the f�ood protection elevation for the particutar area, or permit a lesser degree of flood protecfion than required by state law. The variances will not adversety affecE the safety, use or stability of a pub(ic way, slope or • drainage channel, or the natura! environment. They are consisfent with fhe general t purposes of fhe standards of the River Corsidor OVeriay District and state law and the intent ' of applicable stafe and nationa! laws and programs J. S7AFF RECOMMEN�AT(4N: Based on the findings above, the staff recommends approval of the site plan and variances of provisions prahibiting devetopment on siopes steeper than 18% in the River Corridor to allow the properfy owner to add a small entry and a deck as part ofi renovating a vacant single-famity house, correct existing grading on steep slopes and make drainage improvemenfs at 2108 Douglynn Lane, subject to fhe following condition: 1. The applicanE sha4t submit a reyised Tree Preser�ation Plan prepared by a qualified � professionai fhaY includes the area that will be impacfed by the new septic sysfem before work can start on fhe septic system. � � , ��. � � ( �. STAEE USE ON�Y. :.." _. APPLICATtON FOR Sl7E PLAN REVlEW sp�i#`<� �=�:� 7�`%�l ! ��'�`;��,�;j� s'�j �.T; � Fee$;_-��_3 °° . ' L.[.E.P. " 2Q0CommerceBuitdin9 (��""`. ::- ..°. 8 Faurth Street. East �'�Y � � �Qa7 - :�. � ? :t# Saint Paul, N1N 5510i-10Z4 �;� 65t-266-90d8 `i :: :,..:,:::.=:_ {`: <�` ' '' • .:..-.:.. Cityagerit�:: . . :. ,��:_:;: � : : �: , e APPLFCANT Address '� 2► a� ��r��'f1�1 �.-�n-Q Gity � `P {3 �� State� ___ Zip �s � Pnone . �SJ "`) `73� �`1S' � Gt� 2rs4 -36fSC'� Email "rn H@, �hq � v n"nl A� . C� `" { QWNER ((f different than appticant) PROJECT �� Name -J �t �+�- Address Fhone Project name / description 2 Project address ! Location Legal description of the property : � Appficanf's signafure Dafe • �� o� • 41VL A� APPL[CAT(ON FOFZ ZONIt�G VARtANCE OFFICE OF LICENSE,INSPECTIONS, AND El!'VIROIY"MENTAL PBOTECTION 8 Faurth 5treet Eas� Suite 20D Saini 3'aul, MN 551 DI 65I-Z66-9�Q8 APPLICANT � Address S O U Af ��hk �� City S� P�� 1 Stafe�itl Zip S�`� 1 Daytime Phone b � Z`� ��36�5 Property interest of applicant (owner, contract purchaser, efa) C7`+�1 h-px Name o4 owne� PROPERTY a \ , Legai dAscription �. �,.W � �"� ��i �v'` 1 S �-� � ��' ev\ �°� � � � 7�.J (aKach additiona! sheet if necessary) � � _ Lot size 5� 5� S� � 1' present Zonin Present Use c`�S i , �An1� �� Proposed Use ° J � � Variance[sjrequesfed: C -{� .flQ�f2`n N�¢�� Or J�t��B QY'4�11-e�' �A�1 1��b _ �� F� �, e h � f -Q y - �QC� �c� J`o�\1l st�� r�sr C1b�5e, Supporting Information: Suppty the necessary infiormation that is applicable to your variance request, provide details regarding the project, explain why a variance is needed. Ouplexftriplex conversions may require a pro forma to be submifted. ABach additional sheets if necessary. — �ct��r��, �-�s R�wa�s �-ee� o�� s��. ��2 �- R�$ �s w�Ce • `�'o c�,tl�ne, � w�s.�f �� -� ��f , 1a��ya,n a� ��,"Cnd� e,rc�s�o�1 � �e�� w�`� �s. o��sr�e �w� �t�Io �bo�S nn�. � �5' � � � or 5��, s a �1�V�• � 1 Attachments as required: Site Plan � AppiicanYssignatuse �� Attachments Pro Forma S \1 �+i D?�d�'� OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIQNS ANQ ENVLRONMk�NTAI, PROTECTION Bob Kesster, Diredor � � CITI' OF SAINT PAUL ChristopherB. Coleman, Mayor April 18, 2007 Micfiael Aeling 4S Dazlene Street St. Paul, MIV SS119 RE: 2108 Douglynn Lane Aear Ivtr_ Aeling COMNLF.RCEBULLBING - : Te[ephor.e: b57-Z66-9P90 - 8 Fourth StreuEart, Suite 200 - Facrimil� - 637-266-97Z4 StPaul,Minnesat�t55701-ID24 " � YPe& �lvrvwdzep.us A recent visit to the referenced property revealed that there has been same grading and excavafion done to ihe site ontside of the scope of work for the garage pemut. f�s you kuow, this property is lacated rvithin the River Carridriz Overlay Dishict. It is also located within the TreePreservation District. Due to the sensitive nature of tliese special disfricts;'• • particutarIy on property with steep slopes; a Sife Plan Review is requiied for any excavalion, grading changes or disturbances o€slopes greater than 12%. You will geed to obtaia a grading �ermif but befoie it can 6e issued, a Sife Plan Revievr is required. Enclosed is ari application and infarmation on the site plan raview piocess. The site pla.0 sliould inolude detailed infarmation ott the existing and pmposed grades of the property as we11 as a detailed etosion conirol glan and defails on how the slopes and any dishubed areas wiIl be stabilized duriug and after conshuctiou. This would include the driveway, the refainino wall, excavafion for drainage systems and the new sepfic sysYem. A tree pieservatiou pian must be subinitted, inct�ding id"entifying any t=ees with a diazneter o£ 6 inches or greater that may be af£ected by any wbrk on t]ie sife, as identified vx ttie atfached handouf. Due to the-sensitive nature o£tlus area and tfie fact that some oftbe work has alreadp commenced, we are reqitiziug you tb sulimit the required per�ut and site pIan Yeview applicafions witUin 10 days of tha date of this Zetter. Failure to do so will result izi ' enforcement action that may iuclude stopping all work ou the site_ If you have any qnastions regardang this uiatter you may contact _ 5incerely, . Dave Nelson Building Inspectnr i AttacTunents: - Sife Plan IZeview hftp:/1ww�v.stpavl.aovldepfs/Ii�p/zozun siteplanre�:ie�v.hfml Tree Preservafion (hftp:/fsezvice.�ovdeliverv.coinldocs!STPATILJSTPALTL De�t.T LF.I'/3TPALTL 527/STPALJL 527 200SLQZQ en.pdf}. � .i� � ,o� AA-ADA EEQ Employer �e6„22 07 ❑5:13p Sarry �rawn �;. � �bd�� D�-8a� �a��'.Jl�'�`tJ��'. �` �r+�a�o��°�'�'°�':`... �a��r � Il-fl-05 / /cf� ti - R.EV.til-3l- ELLEN :4ELI2+tCi b5t-738-9t395 LUf�'�'i�tON: 21US3 �ougty�t T anC, St. �� } fvc�t2=-- �.�y� Z— �Iz�751 �nTIC` v�� l`-�,d21 �/'O USfi Ol� IiU1L�lN[;: Existing 3- t�c�YOOm S,pme. ��1.. '7 ��7� Z� Soii tcsting was retent3y dane on ttus parcet to dctcrmine if thcre is amR4c spacc , for a primary and sccandasy drnin tield Syscem. An �u'ea of aPptoximatcly 10,(tQ�? squac'� fcct was t�sicd. A hand ougct tiva5 c�scd 1'ar ihc sni! Ix�rinb, vr ihc nurih cud and a hydcaalic soii samQtar was used 4n the aouth barin�s bc.cause o� th� rock cvnten�. R total of saven soiF spmg3es wcrz tag&cd with borin� 13-5 end'B-6 v'c commcm tn both Lhe secUndur> und priin�';' �'�� T"�� S��Olation cesu wera done in cach sitc. "Chc �tew soptio systcro svitl bc tacatcd hctow the blufT fine wcst �S the rnuse in a 4% siope. Acecss for thc canszrur.tion enuipment may need to h� made through the neil;hiwi s Yard �,e I did wit@ tho sai4 s�npter. A watcr tnctet is rcquired to bc insta3tcd 1'ar thie systcm. AnS� new pipe� within 104 f'�et af die wcli wit! need to bc Froperty pressurc tostcd t°x t�aka�c. 'i'hc absar�tioR width is desi�ed to be ai leasi SU S'eet fiam chc 1ot line and at lcast 20 feet from thc hou.sc ar any huSlding with fcuscings• it is al.� kept at teas125 feet tmm the greatcr than 25% uphill slopc to thc cast. 1he wcil is loctcted on �tso ois�OSiea side of tfie housc at teast S QU fcct frofn aay pnrt of this system. All wao�tvwuear tr�amxemt sites arC tu be �vsdoned oi'f priat ta tha s�tarc af any canshuctivn aetivity on tha pmpertY. No caastnaction u'aFfic or �ading ixc�tt�cd'n di'ain kield arees. Ali proposed wnstew�atce em.atment s±�cs s�'e � be P��ted vrith a Yi.uai b%�mer to prcvort censtructian trnf�c from en^coachin� into ihe test• ruea and po,.ibly cawdn8 Crreaersibtc sail dumage with respccc to an-site iVnstcwaror �t�aml�`t and ubwrgtion, A scpt[c systcm �FCrmit wi31 not bc issucd until thc tcv[cd xrea i� �arround�c3 ua ith snow or sitt fcacc. This soil tesiinF; vras prep3rad in accord�t fi Minacsots chapicr �08Q and C.sty oI St. Yauf Chaptcr SO rwe� and rtu�t krC p:csantcd ta thc City of St_ t'au! for in�pectian as sc ;,s possihfe. AU si.�lccs shali bc Icn in ptacc until the system is instut�ed. �� HARR BRQW2�' t.1C''r,:NS� #177? � � (/� a � � � . s ._ ' -�--�'"-•- _ '__ . ~ Q s _0y`': ` I :_'-,-�-�-.'-°� � 4 �h:- s� " .,.. _ "-�.'-+�� ' } ' . �"' � -v � :. . __ _ �-� us _.,� � � '��s�Y• . < � s ` �3 °� � 1 {' � - �v e `'x - y�xiescq I � �� . _ � ::;� . - L ��_'�z ��. �8�:9�F'.;t� �°& ` 300�00'4�K � � .��'r'g '" ' - � � 4 , .` z 'a _. . : n -__ __ _ g'� ` '*..:a �t\� a�'r'•'',�. '`�`��d �., * °;�;�,- . aR .t � �;_ � t i � ..��.`� �3�� N m� �i � � , - `0 �� ' � , . `T' $, a: � . h� ( 1'r. : 1 .�` ' . A F . `' i �ti�� e�J r' � � � \� �i . . .. _ �_ � � HS. ,. - _ � G Q ; t '.� o i' � ..� . . r � : <'#`nX' f° .°f a .4. g ��' o -.� sc�'� �z g` i li �''� ,��- :1..' :i:"-�.-'- _..._ q �° p a � j u'y . ' + 1 ': +v i , (l�� ;� :..i,.�w� '�y'- � � �.:�'7.� �sT�a -- . „� g� "��^ "'. so's� � . � � , ei•_ _ L. . - � �3 .- ��4ti ��.\� +, s �.';-e� � o _ ' y { b q , . y , �.,._ . -S °o � ' R>+'� .i- �_.-�- • . �i w a 1 '� _ �x.� .' � t`v�-�,. g 't# �.�. . _..., f J � . �.-� .� � ��_�.. � � �- �~i � i6["'�g '� `' Q _ � ..-=� � , _ . E�Sy � e � �...a.:o vi ...�'-�...,..._`.� . .� � "r . '��_'\ t'.vSz :n r ,.,,�.t�� - . � x t ° .,i t nS�?.ti, .!.3,4g��;�i.�=�«`�-;'--: ��::",-`.�%° %'' . " � �.3^°' `ox' �'�` � ° �P�"` �¢; ��'x - �'� � � �. = '`-��H .. — e � �g { , � t s - > �� 3-��-`______, a -� ` '' ' ` i• .zt- zc �7k < a� � i � { { /� .. � � r "H . ` �`�y ��'`„--' 3 .kr f � � ...-. :e'CES c �`- # s � i X� �..e'�u '�E �>i'rf� M+ � a 5 - 3 +' - � _ .w � . � 6.,.,i �'�l,g5y.�,ra l �y� r•�`�5� . �e�✓'��. ' u x`�' .��'' � x �yp�=�ce . st a � � 4 ...- a '.,� � 4 _ � e � ° ' . ` �? • F � � � '� -��,/ �- ,� � �' � y � �s b"`^..,,t, °I � � � _ ` `•, :' 1 l l t : \ 'c n'/s',� - a . • g8 - f.- ' %'°�. � ; _ ��.. ' _ � 3� '� a �� _a� '.� . O� � t''5F � YY . � �y . M1 . �nS �. � �: a 3 �h 4y �R � . `^ � o ''��-% S� . a�v . � ^ • � �6'Y � m'N��a'� P �. .4 � .`� "�F � $ .i o g u a��.�EZ�� ' . " �� Y � ��e � �� 'ti. ' > ,___ � _�, $ , . . . . ' �'�.��+y•��n�''-.C�L..�i'"'V`�J 1 � ,�.. _ � ~'`- " 6- o r � ' � � '.`�1.�`°+�`-!�"^-'f�"`+`:�."^..�-1 � n� Fa x 1� i - � t �� V 3 " . . . �� .�+��`�-..?`:-�,..'y •e� �i �� ~ .� '. ��{� ' '.� 6 � �' � - t ^ �' �� \ � -' % j�-'�_ "'.. � / �ef � ...�� . �..�._. �^� . a q ��..�4. �. _ 1vr . `�'� �"� � I!..-.�� .��b`±!�� : q� . . T � ` ��' w\ S $� . ": .e �"�� ~,,.. "'^-._exc._�.,..--^-_ .f �./" yp $ � yq'.1��?�.`'"-:?;`'` pr�� "_'---.:__b.�w,�Y--��.i`"0x ____ � f. .. �-�..�. �/ "''� �•�+' '„ �;.� -�'` �:`4-_��_..am q( '`.`� "�.�.._...."T. - .�: _,.-�. e _"�'✓•°'" �" ^ � _..�`�` �� y .r .�,�'` ,p� �' g � w � � __,�. � n ��'T`� .._..'_'„�'_ ' � `�.�---^ . �21"` :' `� / r ,r ng 2` . 9 � :� � '\ \ � f7`� _ �� _ • ..:a El- ri � '�(''._�.,.,,�'\. � �� .._ara-_'; ....- ,µ � � ;._-- - ...p �. f__._' � -r `" . �� ` � -�-�._,____-_.__: +. ' , :3� ^ � =_;r._._. _ ;, � � ,� �n� ._�. �qrc:_e��;� �-�'____�'-'.---�. , . �aa- - . •� z _ ,°. .. � y._ _ � :,..,- .•�+--^ � p� ' '.-.- _ . �. . . ,--^ �-� . N � �z�- tl� Q' V q i "��y� �v� .� e � 4 a R n .'' Y ' Jw .��r✓'tlA a�� Jl�'„'•�'` �� .- } _ � i �� ( ..Y. m �` x '' ��"'.._.... r �: q ^.Y�. � w9v+�� n�� ._` �'{ u . '` � -'. �'�� e v ° s � �s . V �'d ^�'' - ;•� � - .• x . �, U�� '"`~' - 'p �'- r- `�x � � �t-�--��set.�_�:_.-�-,-.�"".E'� --_' i_ . �. .='"` /'' � ' v =�-'� c'�.'Q'�-� � . -..`_.,��__'_' ._._ i � , . fN �m��'_ „` y P ,' ' ' ^ s y _� �,�,�/ Q - Q a Q � ' �-- �' - 'y _� � .... T � � ' F .+,.i"`P�'� �/"._ �.. �.G �. "_ �� y �_ F y �...! � _.-�-^" � . '� .E cM1: f � A _ � 1 1. r � .._,.;_...�r" ✓�..:...... 4. ✓"�..s'" �'�- / � � �' � << ' 1 / / `�, . -��.^' _ ��,i � � ,7 .p . �+'^'.,.- ,� � . �� ! ..,:i' : ��A2a � Q �� . . _ . !� .y . -r-^°�'. '. t- �• � �''�� S .. s , h '� � � _ ..-i" � � .�� F . M p{ ".+. � B ¢_ �� 1 � % '�'�� i �^'i': ' � .�. �.; � � ��' -- . � . � s&�!=`�� ° ; !'°' '. ` ui n . `' a,-��-' : _- — � � �? � �,a-"� 49 _ � 1 .- -- '� '` ; ' f ,,,• /f ` � 8, � - �'�w ` _ . � _ --- ��.. ..-�� ' . �4;. a ;.-=i'° .%= . � � ,. � - . -`� A `�t4.` -n „� �,�,�p. ..' �-� . - - e,� x ia / r, � � ' . Y a - I '_ - _._�,....-� f ok� l- it' i^` / ti�4 �:c Q T_ — � t �� ' � $ �.°=�:' . ;,... �t. : , a,�„w� � f . , P . S — Ax m��,^e'--�-•`:-•U �"�" �if � � �l .21 �w=� / ` 49 lh '.�l:• " J .�+�: ->` , ' / n ,! y ! s _�A� .J-�� I. ' � �,.�t l - A . ��r� r� ��, � �i. - / �� - . � l • • - J,,, ''�.�/ . _ ' � F � i � ' ' �/`� ,f J � / ' � { ; • ,- ?. i ; � '� I .... , �- . '' '.. �"`� `! / ,i� — .-,- "/�l. !'w"`�r LC � \2$`�^'. / "r F p ' — • � ...` � ��,.1� , f�. . .+.� �� 6�� . Y ,. � � .� �� fl .l i j � �. 1�' � .✓`�� ? j / ' l /' T �' l �+ y • �• I � � ! Y \ � /� � ;/ . � . � .+ � . � �_ � �. T' � . �'•�. .� . J ' f' . 1 . � ' � ! 1 ' � � r V . . " , ' � -�� , � �, �..''�''�� . ..+��-� �'f� � �\1��y�, 4 � }�� z / /` � . . � �.. ��.. 4 �� / � f ��$ ' . '�. .�: S � , ' ' - /' �' i � �.� � f i `� . g� . �4 �! __ .. .� ^ � S�� a.� sL'SbF .. . 3':E6,F9.00S . - � . ferua�A `$ 5 �• - Y . ! P1'52�� - , S r� '� S � � � � ��3 �- �- � � � � � 3 �" . v � �-� `� �� ;� � �.� � '' t� � v �� .� r o F '� 3 �� - �� . � � � �n � �� ---- _ __ . . _ - _ _ -- � -- � _ ------'- � --�----_.,__.. - -- - � �-_ _ _ -- -- - --- --- -- - _:-... _. .. _.__.._ -- \. --- --- -� �� _ — - - ___ __- - -- --- =\ � - � : -- � - --- -�- - . l �._ _ ____ __. . I _ ____ . __.__ . . _ z � , _ � � ��, -` � ---_-----.-- ------- - -------- -- �-- ----=1 - -------------- --- -- --- �-- � --- ;-- -- -___ _-___ -� ��--� ;___�-�-_��----- --- .--_ _---- - �_ a � _� � �_____ -1-- - s � �._.: --�'�---- -;� �;- .,� _ -- j _ � ---- a -- � ----- --- - � -- - ---- � -- -� :�- = -� -- --� � --- �-- � . �� 5 �� 7 ; (. i i � _ . • � f _' ' ' �_ -___- _ "' _ _' _"'_ � : i i . : : ; ""__"' ' . � : '____"""_"_ `rr—•-"__`_'_ _'_" ' _ --'_"_'" __ .. ._ : i i : � � , i { + " . . i i . I ! , . . � . ' ' , . � . ' i _ "__' _ _ ___""'_"' ' � ' ' ± ' � , ' "' _ _ _ ' _' ' ' _ _ _' _ " _ , � . . ; , � . �_" "'"..,'" '__ ., -_. _" _ "_ _ " ' _" _" ' � . _ ._ __, - �. -' .-- - . . . , , i � i = ' ! ' • � , . , : ' . _ ' . ' � ' �� __ "_ _' ' , {�- ; : � � " � _ _ _ _ ' . . : _"_"""_.," : : � ' ; i I ' "' '"_"" \�_�"' '_' " "' ' _' _ ' _ ' ��. . '_ �. . . . _ , , � � - .' _"'_' _' ,- ' �- • �__'"•"_ _�+'. . _. � . � - t �.' '_'_'_ � __ • . � j . � , . �V: t " ' " _ ' __ "_ , : �1 ..� , ' t � _ "" _ ' ' " -�_ __ �,�, "__', '._ . ._- _.' _ . Yc , .� _.. .�..�_ -�!- - __�'," _'_ -_ .�� ' � . t i � t ; _ - - . ; � ,,� . . � -- - - - . .. . . _ .- - . _ - _ P-`� - - - - __ — - - .----- - - - — � ,�; . . . , . , {� . ; � j i ` _ — , y � ` � - -� -- - _ " r - ' _. __ _ �,J� .� _L _� � _ " � _ r __ \ _� � 4 1 1 . � i�: . i ' ' i ' � ` ` . ' �). � _ ... .. . _ . ..! . '�__ ..�� , { ' i ` _ _ - ' _!_ ' _' ""'_'" i. � �-� f { {-- � c __ _ _ __ _ ___- . .,. ._`.� � __ — _., . . : ; ; - ,� ' � �: � --�--_ ��:� �� - - - ._ .. - ... ------,-�--=-. __ , , �.:.. _ i , i . " . �. � i� - : - ' 1� ' . . ; S: 11 � , +r. � � ' a � _ _ . " "_ ' _ _' _ �_ . _. __ . . ._ ,. `. �. i i ' ' "" —' ` ' � � . _ . ... . ' _""' ' _ ''_'s�b �; ' - _ � ' Y — j l� �... �...- � � '� � I i i ; . , � - �E ; � � � - - - ; L�. -� _ ' :_. _:.--- -°- -- ---.-:-: ' - -- . . _ _-- `-' - � � [- o-. . . cy,.. . r. i { - , t � _ . . .,,�` � . _ , ., , � ; �� _ f � ; . � � ' , . : , i , � . � . : � _ : : � � __ __ _ _ . > . __.'_ '_"_ ' i -.-� �- _�Y_ .-_ _ _.. — =-... E - _ ; —�----- - -- . .. ' , , , r . ; � . � . , ; � , . . ., . a �y . . : i . �``�. f � � . . � qt a�,, _ . � � � , , . � . - -' - . . . - ' -' - ' - - . i : � --- - . .-_-. . ._. ;.-c_LJ _. _..>.__ � ; . - . . - � �. i .. ,.._ ... .- � � . . . , ' ' �J �c1.... ` _ :� : : � i t ' ' . ' ; ; i ' - . . . _ " - - -.. ._ _.... - - - -- --- ' -- �- - _ -- --'� ,- , -- �--.. _. ��.__. ._ — � � � p; . ; . i , �. .. _ _: . : : : ; '� . , � : � `s _ .__ _. - ' � ° � ` ---— —_� _ ----- — — — -— --._,. — — °.�� - —.— _. ��,.— _ ._.. .. _ . —- -- — , u � � ° ' '. � �; , `�: ; =3: � � — .� : . : , �i � -°-a � . ; . .� \_ ' - - - �- -- -� - - � =�' - - - - - - "- , ; � ; . , , .: ..�.._ . � ... .. , _.. ;--; -- -:� , , •. _ .. . . . � , , , . ; .. _, � �� `` ; i . . t�; ' ' _.. ._�_..--1`- '--' .!.._ - - - -- -- '- '-'- -., , ti� � � ` � ' _ � t ' y � � - - � � -- -- =3�?. � � ... .-- - - '..� • �{ ' i3- . ± 'L ; ��. ,� ,� ;'�r. � i t , . ! .. _. � i . . � : . f ' - - v-� -'- �' ' ". - - - � -- -' � . � . , ......_. ___'.__ _" __- - - . > > � . . ' ' _' � i � � � . i �.; � . ; : ' . � � . . o � cy f , i t _ ' _'. _. ._ '� . 5% ' ' ' __" " _"' '_ ' _' � .. .- �_ . .: — .. "' __' _ v-" ' , ' . � , i : � � ! r ! , � . . : . � O � . . . i • x �' .l .-..._____.. __ . � .._.� 1 - - ' 4 . _... . . ` � �. � � i � ' . . . . � : �� . , , 4; �,�_ _ _ ,�__ :- ;` _-.._; .....�. �. ; ' .:�_ ' ' , ..:., ..__._. ...._ _ _ __ �� ; ' , , . .�. _. .. , . , , . � - 1 . , ., � , i � . f . ; ; ; f _ •' I . .�; ' . . i �, �� , :... _ .t.__�... .�. . __ ..�_q.._ .�. . -- 1. - --.._._._�._[_ .. ..'+R - -� --�-_'.' ----- - '- � � � � ` . t ` ' � i t t �. �l :. 1 : �Q s . . .. �. nJ . . -- L' _ _ � " _ � - �� - -• : _".1 '.' '' � ' ;�- � ; ,�., � . ; i ; . , f .. � _ � � ' ; '. .'_'_�_'*__.� .'� � '; - "t" �_'b _ __.'_"_ . t � ' . t ' � � . . i � i � ' � ! . _ ' _._."�.1�.."`.,." '.'_. .. - - __ _' _' _ _ _ '."_ _. _.. _-. . . � � i ( ; � i � � ia� � � � � � . _� i � � . . ' _ ` ' . , . i � ?, '� . ' . ;S: `�—� ; i � .. . �.. ._ .. - - . , +� , - �--._� _'_ � : �, . . ' , ; -- - -` �� 4;` __ �`"1 . _. � ' � � . . � . . . i— . _. ' �-- --- -- - -- :-� � ,� :.� . _ __ _.. .... . .- _. _--_-_--' � . � _ .- � e"b� ` `. i � t ! --, . .•.�. ... ' � � � ' ' : . : ' _ _ - — � -�n . . : � ' _ _ _ "' ' . . . - . _. . _ . _ . _ ._. . . .- . __ ..:.:_ ' � . " ' j �.. v •. } : . '- � � � � ' �- � �`P' ' `�� ! ��-� - - -- - - �... y.:-'�' �� — . - - . -,- � __ _ _ n � i- ��, -� 1 ^: ; � � � i �y' ��' Y� � _. � . _. . : : ,; ; . : . . . _ -------- '-- - -- -�- -`--�- - - --- - � ' . . --- : - y,. , � � . - : . , : , � ; ± � ; �-� , � � � ` , - - - - - -. .. _ . ..- -- - : - - - -- - �`t-. ; , - �-- �- =- - �--... ..._._.. . _' . , : . � ' �. : -�, � ' i ` � ;,' �, � . . . � , ;.-, ,; _ --- -Z. �- : a - _z__.; .:.. __ - -- -- ----- --. , `� � �'` f1 ° _ ,`�' _ '._ � ; .. .- � : . ; � . � .... ` �.-. ._ _ . : � � , . . � � ; ; • , : : � � - -- ... - ----- -- - - �>- - r s- --� : • _. _ _ _. . . � - r -.-- - -- �-, .� - - �'.:- � � s � �--- --. , S! i ' . ' ; ` . i " � - ' . -- - ,�} ' ' . �. � ------ - - ---- --- _. ' _ . �w �� '" _"'. . . _ - .. _ . ' _' a � �� _ _' ! ": �,..' _ � _ _ ' �' ' - � . . � _ 'T� vI ; _' ' " . �� ' i , ' •�. . . _ _ ' _' __"_' " _ � � ' : : ' 8. - ! " .: � .. . ._ ! �_ . . _ _ . _ _ _ " ' ' _ " _"_ �. . _ _ . . _ — --- ' , � �� ' ` . F _� .. , � _ . ' -.' ._ '__ ' . _ _ ____ �`�� - aro� j � _ �'• w . i ' � _ _'j __".�"'.. . .__._. '" _ '"_" " '- - , • " , ` . . ' . . � � . . � � � . ' . i : 1 : '. � . . . _ ;. . � . � _ _ __ _ _ ' . . . � . _ • i _ t . � _ _ . _ . . _ "'�r' - . .. . .. . . �. ` .__` _ _ .� �.._. � - ` . 1� v: : . ' " e . . a • _ _ _ . . _. . . . .�.� ' . ; ' .. � .... . . t . �___ . . �-. � . ' ' . . _ � � � : . f ��-� , . . . : � �: -� -- _"" "',. _ �_..!. . i ._ ._ :'' �' . . .' ' " ' r_ ' ; . ,.. ........_..."" . '- � _ .� � i y . - - : -.� ' m��' :�: . . � � . . . . ' �i. _ ' . . . . . ""�. .ci .i � . _�_ .._... _.. . .. . . . .. . „i+•� -' - FEH-01-2007 I2:52 Fram.CITY �F �7.PR1�-LIEP 5512565�24 7a.6514i519I7 P.1�2 f:IIY �?N 5°£ �A`c1L �� 1��?�I� P��'!� I�L'1''LI�I 3 OHice of L'�a+�.s, Pr�#'.cslarc� and EnvaiyE'mienral Proi�al � � . . � � . . � � � k �' . .� BFauRhSVa6tFask�SU�e2Q0 . ' . ;�iSi[T)llC�IC$��sil'C�f�'V4FiF�i£Dl7S ^. � � '-S{ pauf. NlinnasPta 55S6t-TOZS� . . � . - _ . . TSum�rr $te#kxms � S6R,e.S1vd.F.�. � '.�75EW ` Su�11W � Bt�itdingVame � � ��12�� . 1�RU1EC�' � . Rae�� 21�J$ Qvv�`�lh L'Y3i�2. _�..r.,.�.,..c�...,«> � 4Pax`utwiHIIcne,�atathcCmamc[aisRcld,w�1 7'SO[ic \ �..� ��, �'�2.. F t'�1 �Cnntrarior {} .. Pr.r,. .ASt�.3S— r-)Q�� Addrcss C�ty Sl'v:c.YiPa4 " ' � 7 � .4dd�n5 � � " " � 5 � P�� S4�Y,LiF "t4 Aaah� J �f �f' t� ssi► �� 65t-��-�n 5 &G.) � ..dJ ?k' .__ p�c.:.,�.w..'o� [;onyam�Qal ReEidGti3s1 Ad3"itiun Rmtodd3A�cr itep�ir � 6ntsRaf . � � � . � UniLS }� ¢� 'fr` ima� ESftSf�+�tE.i�. y'.'.S�II18��8�II.L'O� �LYZE{I�TaJC� . sm�t�em�. �.a�,nnare�r �S �i�O �cSCI'fj]EioAUf�IC>x.f-i f �sPPiiutnt�'ertifiCstBaattinfrurM1adon4cnrtectm�3th¢tulCFecLn:Qtxtalire�vFali'wi�auRCitVOrdinuunxvilt' �� ..�}- � ��{�� be�za.p�iplwiIIi:npufoetning wad:'cwhi ihispcmutixisrova[ LK-Ce�-�. � /� � ^ � p( / { �� > �(��_J�.,,,�_// r� � ' ��{�Q-�-�C ^i'cr-c+�'" �" �Jh-z�- l.(i� � A i�aYS ' a�e PLFAS&IXiEiPLIILYi}'ItESSGCTl0.4Dh�7.PFORNEi4`57S:L'C['UFEOS D1I2(TF Shvctuee 73imenSinns {In Fectj Ts aF'sc Suppicssion §yscrm Avaitabt� � �.e. - sc�anxte�7 q[�idQi I.angtL Heigfit Tc�YaISkuHCcr Bascmcn[ KalS�aucs - � _ (icclvdcbascmmt) , - Ye� I� No {Ct . . � � � v ! � ! � CJ t./ Yrs No ` � . t.otl)'srenxlomacBitTee[1 ' setu9a7c�:rr6mrropertyLSrtes. LntWidth� GRI}c,_nth Frant &urk _ Sidal' $idc2 t7s 3 � �2 asg a3 a 6 Fot E1�'i[e tlse C!n!y ' CLangelExpan,vmi�d[i.c? Ycs t i�o '" SU[�M14ARYQFEEPS ' — a Era+it+839i�Y Ra � Q+-r�p�n:.'}P.mily7 � l . . / � � � lJ s�a�t*a�uFx S �fj. S.c�� ' — �Z C �'i Yt PmtirkeA i nu„ty ; V - .e � CumtmctivaYyFe�� . .5, !/_� �ct,t�n �-�' 3 tw�,.ea�acF�r s uum,FUi�asa , t\ c^ J vhat:�.,,a,� 1 O I% _ _ SnacSurc)�ar�c $ � �j � I� P14NR[iC�tYILEMALtK'S � . 5?aC $ - OtG '(� �l��i - - Tar��r� � a73 o.� S`.eLC� 2tevixx+sd b � lk�ir:' Wum7�F�frkrB ' iYwOffxtElscU�11) - Il � / �q �� ca c�n ; ai`I z /�a7 �� V � �� i W��utniag_Faae.•� s�� v�uilt�a� :� 5 l o0 t '��„ : ,L7 A�m�rican]Sxpress Q Uisrover CI Ma�ferCxcd_ C-1 �'i�a momvtreu r. F. G'nterAccuun! '. 'Y... -'— � TZnmk� M t SSgnxturcn€Cardholtler: ,. � t � � . V � (r � � � � Q� M � � �: �t � �� -r== =.-� �- �} � �i `•..�a {h .J tt � `'i.4 �i V O �� `�� tl.� �. � �� c� � x � �. ': S N� N' 0 4� � � � =°;; �� N � � � �� o O D hU' � v �; �� e �� 8 g � €��S a�#�� a � `�� -N� � � � � e �� ti�� N � � M `� � �� M O � � m — ��h� o �. �� . Z 2 V � , � o� h �o n� �a Q � � � ay 3 � � �_= _ � �_� t � '.k 5 O ` � a "s = 'e �� _E;c � � v€z� Ss � E i�d`a he � 5 g � 8 £ �S a , £��g �s � '�c� sa ; ' � ° aS ° u 63 � � _� �.� n �ea � � k � � � � 4 m � � � � � �� 0 3 ¢�a�� =H� "e � o @ � "e� ee 0 o k e o o�o" .o�, a }:�S 5 � I � F — ti�k�� R O Z : .. :: -- � ------ � z-�� s;�',� � . � � � v�, N . 6� . �g ' = a—U�� : - ` i � 'V �(� <s �E a � a V �� ,. , � . '_—� v r� (n � v �� a a ,�jC in �� ° - = t j ;aF� LI " c �p � _oEo_ l� o € e � a � h ° s � � : ��E a`6 Y `t � s ��. _ � ° s . ` < �. �� .�. A�l � � � � 3 �� )7�2�� - � � � � � �� ; � � River Corridor Overlay Zoning District � �� U � � � � `- ° .G� N � U V (] . S� � N � . S. +�+ j3 (] ;� $ --�� . h N , � � � = y � \ 't` � 6� y >, C p_ ' > ' �e w � � . Q � O o y r' V '°� 3 � � r' O _ N O ('7 � t}' � r�.�+ , �� C� o U: o U'�' C? 'n ► •� s� u.. , � � cc � a � : � � � � � � , ,� ��,__ .' �- :�: M �� ; .�' : ��: ,� � .,,� ac �r ':l �? � `� �► J r � . � �'.. � . " ! � 6 �� .� , • V A � 1 5..:..y� _:-- ".:)�ar�`��.c:�--?� ' . .. l•,'— V_ r«1 _. r - � ,. p�: 1 �iK.'_�""�1 � � � �, � _ � ��. :.� �; ` j ` __.. �� ^ V � V � � � : ` ' �: � �-�- - . � t ,, _ 'i= . 1- � . ' __' '�: _ ' __' Li. � IS 1 •• ' 'f � � • ,J _i , . �� f �� -- --- —�.�:i �,� . l � l : ,l . _ ' � _ . ::.. l - - � - �lr. - �w�_ ::3: �� '.�'�` ,'� I �' /'� ._:�; :, :: ;�.; � _ { ''• :^: . . . , .`�� e -�\,;� �, • r � `:� 2, . , ' i'j.t. � � r i P e �'.��: �.: : • .: . � pa r. � .',� � ' l . + ' --c�.��''� ' � i • ( ,;�'•�� r�,. :d.�� . • .r '� � � y ( �I :- � , b � t ` , � �' � ' � �.;%,:. -`r , ; ; _c� L . "_ • 'r��' ' — - �.- rk= " �'`'` _�� ___, — «" ' .�i.:_ - _� / � \ �. ✓:.,Y� . , � _ : � � U ' � � � � � � � � _ t .... . � �:. �t -- ='`� _ . � � `N �� T �� 7 �Iap Page 1 of 2 L� �" f ,�'!� �� t . •_ 1'Vi��in I t� I Page 1 of 2 Ma� � 1V�ap � � o��ga� � r �, � � � � � 2108 douglynrz Iane, saint paul, rrui - Google Maps Page 1 of I � F � Y� � � �� Address 21Q8 pougtynn Ln =�� ' . • � 5t Paui, NIN 55149 - y �� n � .:=1s.ct�� . . . • • • CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christcpher B. Colemam, Mayor July 10, 2007 Ms. Mary Erickson Council Research O�ce Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Beaz Ms. Erickson: o� �� DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND MSPEC710NS Bob Kessler, Direcfor COMMERCE BUILDlA'G Te(zphone: 657-266-909D 8 Fm�rth Slreet Eas; Suite 200 Patsrnnle: 651-266-912d St Faut, Minnesota 55701-1024 4Peb: u�vw slJiau( zoaJdsi I would like to confarm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, August 1, 2007, for the following zoning case: Appeliant: John J. Rogers Zoning File #: 07-I 13295 Purpose: An appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission (PC) approving the site plari and variance to develop on slopes steeper than 12% in the River Conidor. Location: Staff: District: 2108 Douglynn Lane Recommended Approval. No recommendation from District i. Boazd: Approved on a 15 - 1 vote. I have confirmed this date with the office of Council President Kathy Lantry. My understanding is that this public hearing request wi11 appear on the agenda of the City Councii at your earliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thank you! Sincerely, , Co�� a A. Till �� Zoning Specialist AA-ADA EEO Employee �_ APPLICATION FOR APPEAL • '�f Department of Planning and Economic Develapment 1I �1 Zoniag Section «r��'�� Z400 Ciiy Hall Annex rw�i 25 �Gest Fourth Street Saint Pau1, MN SSIO2-I634 {651) 266-6589 APPLfCANT PROPERTY LOCATION �� City `'JT ��cz�, t St, P✓1t�Zip ,-�`,� l C�1 Daytime PhoneC¢SI 733 OS�� I zoning File Name f3� -��.� � 1 1 Address / Location � l O�' o e�� f.��2 TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is here6y made for an appeal to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council Under the provision of Chapter 64, Section Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a • I decision made by the on J t�e�,..t '(� ]�' , 20�'�_. File Number: (3�� - f7� �,r t� (date of decision) 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 Planning Commission. �e�. G.. �"f�.c�ne.e� c�.o �,us�,ew� e� 3 �� 3 �� (attach additionaf sheet if necessary) ApplicanY's Signat�re `�- `�� 1��%i � Dat�� City � �� a?-g 2�� rotm T. Rogers Matecials Eagmeer Specialist � Process Laboratory . 3M Corporate Research Laboratu SM� nter, Bwlding 0218 -02-B-p; ry ,� ` '�1 MNSSI44-I000 651 733 pgg4 p�� t 65I 737 qp55 Far. " 1lrogeis0l@timm.com " t —� ___ c ___. 7 __ s � • � • \ � o� o� a �� 7 a � � 0 ;.1 a D ��o 0 � r�rv��noa ;� C 0 A { � ;. � ofl � � � 0 ❑ l �� Q �9�; E k' f � F� c1 st � i., �.. �r�a�o • ° � � �,,- a �. _fl D�-S � ! �� 7- 7 � 2 = is CO 0 Crrounds for appeat • File #: 07-074ll 1 Location: 2108 Douglynn Lane Executive Summary We feei that all pernuts and variances for the property at 2108 Douglynn Lane should be denied for several reasons. The River Corridor Overlay Districts, designated ia Chapter 68 of the zoning code is one of fhe most unique environments wittrin the state of Muuiesota. The city of Saint Paul recognized this over 20 yeaxs ago with a speciat zoning designation for this azea of stcep bluffs along the Mississippi River. Sec 68.101 clearly states tJzis zoning code is to protecf and preserve fhe M'usissippi River Corridor as a unique and valuable resource for the benefit of the health, safery and we[fare of the citizens of the city and the sfatz To prevent and mitigate irrwersible damage to the Mississippi River Corridor;... We believe that city staff has taken the least reshictive view of the city codes as applied in greater Saint Paul rather than the more sh interpretation that this unique area in Minnesota requires. 1) The site pIan that was submitted to the wnino committee was incomplete in a way that served the interests of the current owners. Many omissions were made to the site plan that made it. nnpossible for the Zoning Committee to make accurate decisions. 2) The site plan should have included a locafion for the existing well head. The site plan should have included details about the location of the well, year it was built, depth, and any other pertinent information. See Figurel and Figure Z. 3) The well head must be flood proofed because of how close it is to the nahual springs. Sec. 68.404,b 3 Ptivate we[ls shall be placed in areas r:ot subject to flooding and up slope from any source of contattdnation. R'ells already existing in areas subjeet to floading s/tall be floodpraofed in accordance with accepted engineering standards. The owner has testifred that water entering the basement has been a problem with this property. Doesn't the city want to take the most proactive approach to protecting ground waters in the Stale of MN? The water in the well may test fine today buY what will happen in 10 years? These extensive changes to the natural spring and grading of the property could cause problems. This is especia(ly of concem since there were no engineering studies to deternrine the best and safest way to make these changes to the nalural spring and the contour of the land. 4) The front entry way should be denied. The front entry way that is proposed will be sitting direcfly on top of the weil head. This is not allowed by the Nfinnesota State Code Chapter 4725. The current owners purposely left off the location of the well head in the sife plan they submitted to the Zoning Committee. 5) The site plan st�uld_have included previous and new grading shown in two foot contour intervals. The grade of the land priar to the work done by the current owners was neve� included. 'Fhe ea�tensive grading that was done was only partialiy shown. � o �- g�� • � Such other inforsnation concerning fhe zoning tot or adjoining lots as may be determ[ned by the Zoning �rlministrator as essentia[for determining whetlxer tlze provisiotxs of this code are being observed Relevant to this properiy is a nat�ual spring that flows all year. Naturai springs aze a unique feaxure that should be considered essential to adnuiustration of the zoning code. The flow of the existing spring should have been documented before it was diamatically changed. The spring had several openings that should have been documented. 7) Er.osion control measures Erosion control is vital on steep slopes. There was no detailed analysis of erosion control measures that will be implemented on this property. The only erosion conhrol that was mention was the exit of the new pipe that was installed on the north side of the house. The site plan does not include the new drain pipe installed on the south side ofthe house. 8) We agree with the Zoning Comxnittee that the deck should be denied since it is to be built over the 18% slope of the biuff line. 9) Parking or installing off-street parking spaces in the front yard is not permitted. It can be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the parking space has been in e�stence and used contu►uousiy since October 25,1975. The burden of proof shail be on the property owner. Adding a gazage to the front yard is installing off sireet pazking spaces in the front yazd. In the 17 years we have lived next door the location of the new gazage was • never used as a pazking space. 10) The garage should be denied because sec. 68.404, bl, Development sl:all not be permitted on wet soils, very shallow soils, soils wit/a high shrink-swell or frost action poteretial unless it is shown that appropriate corutruction techniques capable of overcorning the restrictive condition will be utilized Since the current owners had the properry freshly graded before any work was done it was impossible for city officials to determine whether there were any problems with the soil. The current owners have claimed that it was the previous owner who graded the property the day before settlement when the swimming pool was fi11ed in. We believe that the new owners requested the grading because the builderlcontractor who fi11ed in the swimining pool was the exact same builder who did a vast majority of the work far the new owners. 11) The garage was built within 40 feet of the bluff line on the property. Section 68.103, (c) of the clty code would take priority over the blufF line. This section states no structures or ot/zer object shall hereafter be [ocated, used, constructed, extended, converted or altered wit/:in the dzstrict wUhout full compliance with thzs chapter. City stafFseems to always ignore this part of the city code. Section 6$.402 (4) Bluff development shall take place at least forly (40) feet landward of a1l bluf}1'ines. City staff is not interpreting the zoning code as it is currently written. Briefly the city staff interprets chapter 60 and does not consider Chapter 68. In chapter 60, city staff interprets the sentence a line along the tap as meaning that only one blu$line is possible. Throughout the city codes the words a property line, a sireet, a sewer line..etc are interpreted based on the piot of Iand being discussed. Obviously the city staff • aclrnowledges many properiy lines, s�eets, sewer lines ...etc yet they insist that there can be only one bluffline. This wili be discussed in detail later. � � > , � �� w ��,.'_- �' ' �s.�" � �. w ��_ � ,�a i. Figure 1: Site plan submitted to Zoning Committee Hearing 7une 7 and June 21, � � � � 3 • � • � ,�-. � �. � w .� � 3 <a`r � � � � s s`a �` .� .� _ w O r�i �igure 2: Site plan submitted for septic system from eazly 2007. a�-�� . , , � �� 4 C O � t� U O J "CS t6 N _ � � � . � � �� .}; ♦.-- C � 3•� � �� ,� - -- ' E �� - -� � � , �J , � ° �u�n o <=r �,� ri £ � s � � a ' - T + �t, c \h"7 . Deta�ed Report � Items i to 4 1) Sec. 68.404 Frotection of water Quatity a} GeneralIy. Development shait occur so that surface and subsudace water is not adversely affected by contaminants. 4Vater qua[ity shoutd meet or exceed state standards. b) Contamination. 1) Development sha[I no be pernutted on wet soiLs, very shallow soils, soils with high shiink-swell or frost action potenfiai untess it is shown that appropriate construction techniques capable of overcoming the restrictive condition wi11 be utilized. 2) Septic tanks and soil absorption systems shall not be pemutted where pubHc sewer systems are available. In areas where public sewers aze not available, system shall be set back from the normal high water mark in accordance with the class of public waters as prescribed in lbinuiesota Regulations NR-82: a) On natural environmental waters, at least one hundred &fty (150) feet 3) Private wells shall be placed in areas not subject to flooding and up slope from and source of contanvnation. Wells aiready existing in areas subject to flooding shall be floodproofed in accordance with accepted engineering standards as defined in the Uniform State Suilding Code. 6) Development which takes place neaz slopes greater than twelve (12) percent shall not result in increased zunoff onto those slopes sufficient to damage vegetation or shuctures thereon. . Sec. 68.601. Variances (a) ....The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to demonstrate conclusively that such a variance will not resnit in a hazard fo life or property and will not adversely affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the natural environment: such proof may include soiis, geology and hydrolog,y reports which shall be signed by registered professional engineers.... The applicant never submitted a complete site plan. Information was intentionally left off The plan submitted to the zoning committee. Figure 1 shows the site plan submitted to the zoning committee tiiat does not even indicate a wefl is presenY on the pmperty. T'he exact ]ocation of the well head is purposely left off the glan. It also does not show any of the details of the natural springs as they existed before any work was done on the properiy. The site plan also does not show the natural springs as thep have now been diverted on the proper[y. Figure Z is a copy of the site plan for the proposed septic system that is to be iiutalled on the property. Figure 2 was submitted by the applicant and is in the city plumbing records. This figure cieazly shows the well head is located abouY 3 feet in front of the front doar to the property. At the zoning committee hearing the applicant testified that the well head is located in the basement and has not been affected by tlte grading that was done ar the new construction that is proposed. The wetl head is actualty located i�a basemanY offset which was ailowed prior to 1974. White the applicant might not have overtly tied, he certainly did not provide fixll disclosure about the location of the weli head to the zoning committee. �thout full disclosure the zoning committee woutd not have been able to rule that the entzy way was • not allowed because of the State of Mimiesota rules regazding welts. � 5 o�-S�� Minnesota Rules chapter 4725 which relates to wells, borings, and underground uses. Section 4725.2175 Subpart 1. Location in a building. A well or boring must not be located within a building unless the building is constructed according to this part over the well or boring exclusively to protect the well, boring, pump, and water treahnent equipment... According to Tom Alvazez (651) 201-4581..., State Department of Health, Well Office, To build a building or enhy way over a well head would require a variance to be issued by the State of Minnesota. See Figures 3 and 4 for the location of the well head. There is no question the well head is located in azea that is subject to flooding. Even the owner testified to this fact, in an indirect way, that water has entered the lowest floar of the properiy. Once again there was less than full disclosure of the information about the ground water issues on the pxoper[y. This well should be moved to a safer azea and brought up 10 current standards or the existing well head should be flood proofed. Flood proofing a well is required in the ciTy code. Why isn't this being recommended far this property? According to the DNR and the Minnesota Dept of Health, a perennially running spring is considered natural waters. Deparhnent of Health regulations state that a wellhead must be 50 feet . and a septic system must be 150 feet from a natural water discharge. Our concern is that the water from the natural spring will flow into the well head and contacninate our diivking water with pollutants and microbes. The house and well at 2108 Douglynn Lane were built prior to the new well regulations. The new well regulations were ins6tuted to prevent surface ground water from infiltrating into the lower aquifers. The natural spring's route was about 6 feet from the well head. T'he extensive grading of the land with large equipment could have easily caused changes to the flow of the ground water. Figure 5 shows some of the extensive grading of the properiy. The figures 8 to 10 how the condition of the properry when it was purchased in November 2006. As disclosed at the zoning committee hearing meeting, the current owners have rerouted the natural springs without a detailed analysis of either the environmental or health impact of these changes. The current well was built to old standards that are known to allow surface water to leaic into the lower aquifers. This problem is amplified when a well has not been used regulazly, Since the house has been vacant for over two years, the well at 2108 has not been in regular use. During the zoning committee meeting, there was discussion about the high cost of a geologicaUhydrological study to the properiy owners. We are concemed about the high wst af replacing the dr3nidng and househoid water source for the residents of Douglynn Lane. We are demanding that a hydrology study of the area where the wark was done be completed to insure that the work was done correctly. During the discussion by the zoning committee, committee members seem concerned about the scope of and the high cost oF such a study. The scope of the study would be lunited to the azea where the spring was rerouted, the garage area and the azeas associated • with zoning variances. The cost of a hydrology should not be considered when granting variances. If the developer/owners cannot afford to have the study done to ensure residents' water quality, then the developer cannot afford to do the new conshuction. If long-term harm is done to the dtinldug and � household water of area residents, it coutd cost each resident $50,000. This will mean a cost to the • area of at least $1,000,000 to Saint Paul residents/voters. The zoning committee members thought that our concem about the quality of tYte cl�inidng watec meant the current quality that could be answered by a single water quality test These changes may not containuiate the ground water for 5 or more years. The developer/owners will have alt�eady sold the properiy and then who will be responsibie for the contanvnation? It has been documented that the old code for wells ailowed ground water to penehate into the lower aquifers and contaminate the water supply. Why is the city staff so reluctant to insist on a hydrology study? It will cost the city a great deal more money if the ground «ater becomes contuninated in several yeazs because of the low cost work that was done this year. • • (� 7 o� -ga� • • Figure 3: Front Entry to 2108 Douglynn Lane showing well head and location of new drain pipe. � �l 0 � x �: � � �. �:�„ � .� � � � ...�+•�� 5 . M,�3k'�'�°_ :'`'�. `:.n.'��' �. � � � � ��: � 7: ;' �-.� `� r.�� =� ��-��a= � _ k, b�-S2-� • • Figure 5: Photo showing extensive grading and leveling of property. The retaining wall is 3�0 4 feet tall. � � �� 10 Items 5,6 and 7 No detaited plans were submitted to demonsirate that the changes to the nahual spring would not affect soil erosion. At the zoning committee hearings the owner testified that the new zouting of the natural spring fixec3 the pmbiems of water infilh�afion into the first floor of the house and the erosion problems. As can be seen in the following figures there are still erosion problems an this site. This year has had very little rain. This is considered a moderate drought yeaz. Even in this unusually dry year the spring on the properiy has continued to flow. In tUis dry year i£there aze still erosion problems, what does this mean for erosion issues in a yeaz with above average rainfall? If the site plan is appmved as it is currenUy subttutted than no further erosion protection will be required to be unplemented. Without an engineering study of the changes to the natural springs how will the city enst¢e that adequate designs were implemented to prevent fixrther erosion of the bluff line and into neighboring yards. I+�gure 6: Area over old swiinming pool showing current erosion issues. � • � - --- + �j 1� 11 ��-Sa� � i Figure 7: Area over swimming pool area showing exits for natural springs and erosion concerns Items 8,9, & 10 Section 63.202 Site plan required A site plan approved by the planning commission shall be required far the establistunent of a new off street parking facility, for the paving of an unimproved off street parking facility and far the repaving of an off street ... etc. No site plan was approved prior to the grading and installarion of a gravel driveway/parking area and const�ction of a garage. Section 62104 of the Zoning Code: Nonconforming uses of land. fl An existing off street pazking space for one and two family dwellings in a required front or side • yard shall be considered a legal nonconforming use provided the pazking space was established pursuant to a curb cut pernut issued by the department of public works prior to October 15, 1975, and the parking space has been con6nuous since the permit was issued or it can be demonstrated by clear �� 72 and convincing evidence that the parking space has been in existence and used continuously since • October I5, 1975. The burden of proof shall be on Yhe property owner. Section 63.501. Accessory Buildings b) Accessory buildings, slructures or uses shall not be erected in or established in a required yard except a rear yard. Passenger vehicles may be pazked in front yards ptoviding thep aze located on an approved driveway that leads to a legal pazking space. Section 68.404. Protection of Water Quality (b) 1) Development shall no be pemutted on wet soils, very shallow soIls, soits with high sluink- sweil or frost action potenfial unless it is shown that appropriate construction techniques capable of overcoming the restrictive condition will be udlized The azea that the garage was built on has not been used as a parking azea for at least 17 years. The land was too undulated to pazk a car. There were one to two foot undulating Iand masses that made it impossible to park a vehicIe. Land unduiates for iwo possible reasons: The area has ground water problems or the area is made from poor fiil. This properiy has both issues. The following aeriai photos from the infernet cleazly show the automobile tire tracks stop in front of the house and do not continue to where the gazage is now built. The sales brochvre that is attached clearly shows that the area that tha new gu•age was built was not a pu�Ciug area. It wouid have been impossible for city inspectors to have seen the topography because the current • owner had the front yard completely graded and fiIled before the sale of the house was completed. The cvrrent ownez has continually claimed that the grading of the yard the responsibility of the previous owner thaY was selling the properiy. This is untrue. The ciu�rent owner claims no Imowledge of why the yazd was graded but the yard was graded and excavation was s�tarted exactly where the garage is now built. This complaint was recorded by Dave Nelson and is in the city records. The contractor that filled in the swimming pool for the seller is the same contractor who has done all of the subsequent excavating work, grading, and filling for the current owner. If the current owner had to restore the land after it was graded why would the current owner continue to use the same contactor? Why would the owner continue to use an irresponsible contractor that caused the owner to plant grass seed and apply erosion protection netling in December? • � � 73 � �'��kcsrs� Cctl�ns+ ��4^�r�d�r�c��ras �<$zYu L�ca��€na �ah�„g• PnnC� • Figure 9: Approxunate outline of new garage and drain pipe. � t5 / C�de csi C�n�ue� L�qai 3'r��:n3rks �e�r�.oGers �kouz I!�e:a t��bac€c D7-ga-7 • Welconze to 21II8 Douglynn Lane in {South Eastj 5aint PauS, MN 551I9 Presente�3 to you by: Heather Erb (formerl.y Heather ColdwelZ Sanker Burnet ReaZty, office (652) 399-3790 Ce1Z �1 (653) 738-7060 Fax # iii+i�iiliii BURNL•T � Ciarkson) Woodbury This private, heavily wooded lot is over one acre tucked way away, yet in the heart of the city! Privacy and convenience with beanty and nature as weil�as winter views pf the Mississippi River! Sring your own builder, what possibilities await for your beautiful new dream home! Figure 10 : Original sales brochure. The top two photos show the area where the new garage is now located. The cat tails behind the fence are the location of the old pool. The te�t at the bottom of the brochure was false . advertising information. At least 4 different neighbors contacted the real estate agent and informed her that there are many zestrictions in the River Corridor District. �� 76 Item 11 According to Chapter 68, Zoning Code — River Corridor Overlay Dislricts, Article N. 68.400 River Corridor Standard and Criteria Sec. 68.401. Objectives The objective of standards and criteria is to maultain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the river corridor in conformance to the St. Paul Mississippi Corridor Plan by reducing the efFects of poorly planned shoreline and bluffiine development; pmviding sufficient setback for sanitary facilities; preventing pollurion of surface and groundwater; minimi�ing flood damage; preventing soil erosion; and implementing metropolitan plans, policies and standards. Section 68.I03 (c} Comptiance of Structures, frll, etc. No siruchzce, fill, material or object shall hereafter be placed on or removed from the lands within the River Corridor District, and no shvctures or other object shall hereafter be located, used, conshvcted, extended, converted or altered within the dishict without fiill cAmpliance with this chapter and other applicable laws. � Secfion 68.402 Protection of shorelines, floodplains, weflands and bluffs. (b)Placement of structures (3) No residential development shall be pemiitted on slopes greater than eighteen percent (4) BIuff deveIopment shail take place at least forty feet landward of all bluff Iines � Section 60.203 B. Zoning Code — General provisions and defuurions; Zoning Districts and Map Bluffline. A line along the top of certain steep slopes faczng the Mississippi River Valley as shown on the I2iver Cortidor Zoning Maps. In any particular case, The blufIline shall mean a line drawn along the top of the bluff such that the slope below the line is steeper than eighteen{l8) percent and the slope above is eighteen (18) percent or less. According to the city staff reports the bluff is one and only one line and that the code clearly states that only one line is allowed. If the code was meant to be interpreted as only one line for the bluffthan the statements in the code would have more clearly stated that. If the code really meant one bluff line than the co�te wouid read, "a singie bluff Iine", `bnIy one bluff line ", "there is only a single bluff line for each lot"..etc. Instead the code uses the excat sama wording as when describing a property line, a street, a sewer iine, an intersection...etc. Since the city wning staff interprets the zoning code to mean many property lines or streets than why does it insist on a single bluff line? In section 60.203 B t12e code uses the words in any particular case, in other words the bluff line is dependent on the particular lot. This lot at 2108 Douglynn Lane is very cleazly in the middle of the bluff leading to the Mississippi River. How was the city staff able to deternune that the new garage is in front of the bluff Iine when there are at least two bluf�lines on this propert� Why wasn't the garage subject to the 4fl foot setback requirements for blufIlines? The city staff seems to always ignore Section 68.103 and Section 68.402 of the zoning code. Section 68.103 clearly states fulI compliance with tkris chapter (68) over the rest of the codes in the city. Chapter 68.402 clearly acknowledges that development Iandward of ALL BLIJFFLINES. Not just a single btuff - tine hut a11 btufflines. Just because the city staff has been using a map with a single blufFline for a • number of years does not mean they are interpreting the zoning code correctly. �� 77 67-g�-q • Precedence set by allowing variances to avoid following zoning regulations Zoning regulations aze developed and enforced by the City of Saint Paul to guarantee the health, safety and property values of its citizens. These proposed variances stand to risk the health of the residents of Douglynn Lane through possible contaniinarion of their well (drinking) water. The property values of the residents will be negatively affected if developers are allowed to build without concem for the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood. If these variances are issued, not only is precedence set for this properiy, but for all other progerties in the Highwood area This is not a case of a city resident needing to bring their home up to code, but of deve]opers wanting to increase the desirability and value of a property they are selling. Variances should not be granted for the profit of developers or be used to circumvent inconvenient city zoning codes. . The cost of complying with city zoning codes should not be considered by the planning commission. The burden of cost should be bome by the developer. If the developer cannot afford the costs of correctly installing proposed variances, then the developer should not expect the city to waive the requirements. Lack of response by the city to area residents concerns, disappearance of permit information from the public domain and arbitrary waiving of city zoning regulations � The city has done a poor j ob of enforcing the current zoning regulations with regards to this properiy. One of the variances being discussed is in regards to a permit already issued far conshucrion of a garage. The garage was completed prior to the variance hearing. Despite over seven phone conversations between azea residents and Tom Beach and Wendy Lane regarding the work and its possible violation of current zoning regulafions, a hearing was never called prior to issuing the pemut. Now that the wark is completed, the city deems it necessary to issue a zoning variance. Also, the online record of the pernut applicarion disappeared from the website shortly after our conversations and did not reappeaz until after the work was completed. This leads us to infer that the city is being less than up front about this process. We are concerned that future work on this properiy will be completed without the required public meetings. Lack of oversight and enforcement of perntits by the city and lack of adherence to permits by the property's developers Immediately following the sale of the property, a permit was issued to fill in the pooi. This permit was exceeded in two ways. The properiy was graded and the top of the steep slope was dug into by construction equipment. Grading of the properiy has allowed the owners to claim that the gazage was conshucted on level land. The LIEP office was called by multiple residents regarding this. LIEP did not respond to residents concerns unfil Kathy Lanhy's office became involved. At this time, the o�vners were required to restore the area by planting gass seed. A pemvt was issued for a garage only, however two retaining walls were conshucted on steep slopes. While the developers may claim that this stabilized the slopes, this does not preclude Yhe need for a correct permit. Again, LIEP was informed. A channel was • cut into the bluff to allow water to run off prior ta the garage constnzction. The required silt fence was never installed during gazaae constzuction. Area residents expect adequate vigilance over this properiy due to the environmentally sensitive nature of the properiy, the existence of multiple levels of zoning code and � 18 the exceeding of multiple permit limits by the property owners. Instead, azea residents have been met � with hostility and inaction from the LIEP office. Violatioq of the pending River Corridor Plan The proposed zoning variances aze in direcf violafion of the proposed Mississippi Corridor Plan. The Mississippi Corridor Plan was developed to protect the natural area overlooking the Mississippi and to provide a21 citizens with an aesthefic view that enhances their use of the river. A building moratorium was issued to grotect this community resource while the plan was finalized, Additionally, apart from the development of Yhe Mississippi Corridor Plan, thera is a long history of protection for ttxis area. Current residents willingly accept the resaictions as part of living in this special area. The proposed zoning variances are in clear opposition to this long held view of protection. � • �� 19 FEE-�1-�07 22:SZ From:CITY OF ST.PFlL�-LIF3' 6512653124 Ta�55241519f7 P.1�2 CT11' OT'+ S°P PAUL t=1+'NERAi. �lUil�ItdG $E$fi�� 1�PPLI�A'��tSN � � otfice uF i.+�se, Irspecxloraanti r�+vco�xnenral Protec�ion "� �- ft� • r �' . - HFowthSbeelFZSt9u¢e�0 . . -,�i5iE�fVVC�fS1YCdYiYSYA* �IS . - �r Pnti}, ��6sPta 554 07-7 62k �"^ I 7�*umbc $mylvsmc ` S�.A.z_Bh3E� NSEW ' SvirlF.pt Ru�inqVamr �� i<nt)kF.cc L� �r� �'ttV F� �Yh �"'A� _� . �; ��F1e.� ��.\� Addrcss �3' StalqYap.d � � 8� �� 5 � Pa�� Sutc.Lp t�l Adc�ess � �{ � � New5ln�e � tAmmexaat x�3euezu�� En�'Rof � Umte ► ► �d3mstcd Esti[1�Ated Siurt 7�te s s Fiuisri Date s' Dcscrip6ano t, � APPhGln�czrti�t.thataliin �� wrG[X(,,.�/�y„n e,'2�rJC�a be�z�nq�}ialwidr:��Fx:rtbem �QiLE<-C .�22� �' � � r` �� FIFASE CqMPL ¢Il3 T(uS SE4'llD1V DA7. S/ ]R D N S5 il � 65/-�3� 5 i?�onc S C✓' ��c . . � t iY !_S'� A83riion RtmobrllAHCS Repnir d Q � �.sFLnxted�slncof TotalPmject Ihispermit ix istivat � �� SkvcG+n llimeniinns (In Feet} Is a F"uc Suppression Sys(rm Avs;(able? S{'id{]I J.angtL HeighY 7�ttd Ss�uN� �'� Bascmcnt #of Sturics �'�' - '�f� dn k lc � ) {inetudc6asr.mcntl � res �1 xo �Ct a� 30 la 7gc� � Y� "� j t,otl}IDteuyioss(tngeeE) - Setl3sclv:tromPropertylines. ' � Lnd W.dtl, LntDcpth Frnnf Bnck �_ Sidel � gidc 2 !7s ��y �2 ass a3 a 6 For Qfll'ice I:ae Onty C6augclF,}cpxnvnn�d[i�c? Yca ! No SU.l3L4'IARYOFFFES � c— Firsting Pri II,c � C��pant� Cxn�jl V �« �. $� � c saS rtc�xx,.edrri,,,atytl,e •- --- eunasnc6oa � S S �� ' �3 Flunt'Ireel'�F��e �-� a�4 Zan7ngoism�t /")�� // �J v}ae?:unrht � i \ C_-, � �Q � _._ SlaceSumhar�c � 7! O (.�' PLANRG�W REMARKS '� 01G � �tt�u9 �-'�c 5 Tb��m„�t�� a 73. os" .S.A,��: Rc/itFrd B � !h(n: We[ni�.Pulcitr$ SYwOCteccUxUnl)) c c�ass n � � al/ 2 l°7 rEx� � ✓ � � "1 �✓ � YacantRWgFOIderS Siate Valuution :$ t s� �� `�,�i�., . �L7 � Discavec G�erCacd Ct Y'isa nwns�+rr�u > t. I'ntcr Acenunt { i _ ._.. .— . I. ✓ Numhr>r F� ► p. Sf�nut+ercnft:ardholdeC: .. . . /. � 1 $ � - i � :.�. Q # A � i � Qe _ rz � °�` ? � R H'3.mo � � � �� ' 2 � «'H y ��, c�� N$Op i�� z°� p p >3;x �y?� ° ; s � 6 . u_ - %� ' '� q � � 9�g§� ��Lb . � s Ams � � � � � �.. .� . � 7 a"��' a ��g 3 _ g # g � e = a � � , � . �� - S� � � 5 O \ 'V ;.:. e � ��W�� = i y� � (� . N � `a � \ � N_ � � ----- � ` . : _: °��: � sa 3��. � a a;;�,F �3 E�a� °s e '-y °��g s e �F �' ° ° I(P �s %a- 3 � e �s� 3 i ss'� j �, -_- � � E �O F %� gp �o � 5 ` - . .. � � � � v "� �p � � � O �'' t?� '� h �h�� w�� °�K � � _ �. a �y� � "', � � m =� O �. � � � . � • � �� - "= -=-- — � � B �� ::� a ��e �� 3� � g ¢� s � � : . 6 :� � � �.�o `�� , p�aNOvia �:�,� � �. �N- s t � 0� � �` � S , . oCJ 4 ��lX .�� ` � �� .� �� ./V ; � " � ,.� '� ° `� � . u " W �., � q Q � ..� �. �� _ � ��'� n ?C . .�-� � �� W � Q � � � � � � '� � � � Feb, 2� �7 �SS13p Barry aroWn �� d�-g�� s�l�� i t-r �-os R.EV. Ul-3 t -Q7 � EL,[ ED( AE,LIN(i �� 1 �P�� s�� Z 651-738-9093 iUCJ1'fiUN: 2108 Dougtycut Lane. St. USE Ul� $U1LllING: ,�� Z- 7 sr' �Art�.�f �rau,�v Gs�-73s- 7� z� Soii tcsiing �v� recentlY done on this parccI to dctcrminc if thrre is amplc spacc for n primacY usd sccondary druia 4isid system. An ac'eu of aFptoximatcly 10.000 squarc fcct was ccstcd. A hand augcr war iucd for thc cnil !x>rinbs vn ihe north end and a hydraulic soii sampiec was use3 on the south barin�s bccause o'I'th� cock ccmtent A totsi of snven soiE sampies wcre to�ed with borinss S-5 and•B-Cs aro commcm �� th Lhe �w �d prii ��y. Two percolstio�x tests were donc in caeh siYc. 'l'hc new septic sysiem cvitt hc locatcd hetow the blufl Nne we,t of the house in a 4% slope. Acccss tor thc construr.tion equipment may need to be made il:rough th� neigktboi s yarcl as t did with the s��it s3tnplec. A watcr mctcr is rcqnircd to bc in�tallcd foz this systcm. Any new pipe� within 1Q4 Y�wt ofthe weil wili need to be praperly pressuze tcst�d f'or leakage. 'i'hc sbsorptionwidth zs desi�ed to i�a al least !0 teet #iom rhe lut Iine and at least 20 feet from the hou.sc or tu�y huilding �shtSt foatirfgs. It is alsn kepC at lens�t 25 feet fsom thc b�atcr than 25% upbill slepc to thc aas[. The weil ia lpcttted on il+e+ oPlwsica side of �t+e house at Seavt 1Q0 fcet fcotn uny pnst af this systcm. AIl ++v:�stvu'utar tr�atttaent siies are W be uxdoaed off priar to the statt of anY constnaction activity on tF.e }srapercY- NQ consuu°u°n u'afFc or graQing Feml�tted :n dFain Eield arcas. Ail proposcd wnstewatcr trcattncnt sitCS are to be protected. with a vi,uat bactier to prevact esn.�tntotion t�a�o from cncroaching inta the tese nrea and possibly causing irrevrrs:blc'soi] damage with respect to on-sitc tiUnstcwater treatment aitd ubwrption, F� scptic systcm permit will noi bc issucd until thc lcstcd arca is sunouncied with snow or silt tcQCC. This soil testing was preparcd in occordanec to Minnasota chapicr 7080 and C.ity 02 St. Yanl Chaptcr SO rwes ��d must bc p:cscnted to tlie Chy of St Yaul for inspcc2ian as sc�on as possihtr. Ait stskos shall bc lcri in piace until the system is instutleci. ��Ga, � �sd3tl"t^. BARR SRC3WI�T 1.IC''r,'NS� #1772 • �� --- - - -- --- - - ___ ------- — � �— `d�- - - -- ---- --- - - -� � �Ej-- - - - ___ ... - - _ _ ----- -- - � q� - _ - - - -- --- � � �� - - - --- � - q� --- � - -� - ., y s — �— -- --� - � i _"__ ""�_"_ ' _ _'_ __ _ a y � .� � � 1 ""_'___"__-' "'_ __'_-__ �_-'_'__'"____ !P � � __-__-{_ _ ______-_ __.___, ______.__'__-_ - __- "__�'_- �_'_'_"__�""'___ '____ ___-'_'_'__-__ � — � � —�--�-Q- �----- — J ----- ; --- — --- - ----- - --� - --- _ -- ; -� -- - - - --- - --s -- : �; ------------ - �-'�— -- ---- .�� — ,ti -------- - - - - �-- s --- ---- -- ------ -- g---q -- _ --- - -- - ---- - • - - - --- - - --- � -- - - - -- -- -� .�--- � — --,--�o � � _� �. � �� ' � i i I ! ; � � i ; ; ; ' . � . . :- . � . ' ' _ __ '--'_ _ _ __ -_ __ __'_ .. " _ -_-""_ —' �__�_-�_ -_ _ __" _'-____' _'_ " '_ � . �� __ : , : ' ; ' . . .._ ..._-__ _ i _, I . � .: : t : � . . , � � - ----'-"'- , - _ . . : . : • -� - -- ---- -'---- ---' -- � , .'+..-' �v.- - ---'-�-----' ----- --- - -- --- -- -�--- �--- - --- - t . _ , . . ` , �: � . � ' � � - -� � -- � - - - _ , � i , . ., : . : : . • ' _ __" _ _' " : - � c�--,- � - - - : --__._ .—.-- - . ; ' " � 6 _ �� - - - --� ..: ; - ;� --- -_ - t ! �� ;�- ,' ; � ; ; ' �- --- - �-T ` - --- , - � `3 ; . . ; i . i • . _ ' . : l. `. : I � E , .. Z � � i._. .� -_. _' .5 _. ' �- " l_ _ __ _: __ _ _' _ _ __ _ _ _'_ �,�`.3�" __.'_..__ �,,..__'__"'_ ` "_" "" ' � . � ' ' . �; ! , i � `� ' ' clo _'J >'� �--- � � �• L ' ' ". _ � � -- -._ - p-., '-- -•.•- --- :;�: -.------,---- -- ��,_ � , . ' ` � �- - --- - -- - - ---- - - ' -- - - - -' _ . --- - -- - `' , ; f ;. ' " '_ �'� '_�`_'_.'�' .� !� " �{�, ty� - . r ' '` ":� __ _" ' ;; ' i �i � i , i �"; a; ; ; . i -.------; -'� - - - -'�• �r � � �. _ -- _ - - - . .- - = �, z��_ f i_j = : - . - - �t- �� `:- : i �` c�� _ ;_ ' . - ' _ � �' -O _.s� � i ! �_ , . ; - - - . ... _ - ---- - � x _ . - — - . . � . £:q _; �y - i i ! � - -- ' - � . � ' � � � i � � � S.� _ _ ! .� .: . ' ' _ _' °" ' "__ _- _ - •-" _ • _ � ' v .�{ ' _'"_ '" _'_" `.'_ " "" O '. . C.�.. , � { , i , :. , � _ ii i Y' _.�,. � _ {.. , i ' ' _ _ " ' � �._ ". f _'_ ' "_' `, i � � � . t " . : . ' � _' ' ...y. : . � ....___- _ "'_' __ . . ' !" '_"'_____ " ".-_' ' _ ' � ' ! ` �; , . � � ; � . i .i y . - � � .5 ' . 1 . - � . . . . . ' . � � . � f . . . � ..� - � __ _ _ _ �. '� \ • � ._ � . �--1 . �.��G� �-_ �� ' i . ` } �!—'_ � V� . _ . _ _ _ __ . � _ � . ... : ( � • �Cl� � � I � . �1 • . . f 1 • � 1 . 1 � . . � ' � ' 1 .� __ ,___ _ __ _ . r ' . . . . . .�. ' � ' . _ _ __ . a �. . , . � � � ^ � e f , � , : A? �; � • � � ' 4 : i�� F . _.. . . ��.� .. a�. :. . .� . . � . . . ._. . ' �..1.\ � � � � + • �� . f � � . � " rl`� ° � fj� � , . <i ' "'° ! ° ' � �� ' ` �_ -- --'- '..- �----��_'�- - �-- ��_ .- : . . -.:: ... ._ C .. . . -. .- '-. : -; - _ . � :" . . � ' !lU i f : � . j. : , eb , i . . . � � . � i � _ ' ' " ' _ " . . . "' " ..! :' "' _ '_. '_' ' ' '_'_"_'__-_ __ '__ _' _ ' . i '�_ . . , . � �� , ,� �� ; � : : �• � ' � . - , _.._ _. i � : �i__ ?s - - - � � . _. , _ . . .. ,- - - -- - -- -- - � , . , . ��, a � N - _".____ _'_� -L �.. _ . ...._�. t . - 1,-• �� ' _ . . ___.: ___'_ ' __ � , , ' ' ... �_. .: " ' ' : i . � � . o t ' i _ ' . _ � ._ � . . � __ � _ _ ; _ .. . , . . . : . .4 .__ �" "_ ' __M .. � ,� _' ._ ... __.. . _ _.. . _ . , 4 !� � � .�.L^ . ' ! r . , �� -- . , „r� � . _ - - - -- - - '- - . --- - . - � - -._. . --�_ _. __...- .`_- -'- -- ="C.`�- � : � , i , . , � , , , z � -- . . j ' � f — . � . . . . . �� . . . . . . • . � ` � _. . � ; ^� ' � �_ _._ _ ._\l __ _ _ _ _.__ . " : ___ _. _ . . . _ _ . , . � � � i �- - --- --'---;- : . .� ' � 1 � �. _' _: � � --- -- - - t , , � � _ _ --- - - �-- - o - s �, ;� ; _�� , , ; . , . : . _ .... . . - - = - '-�=-�-- - -- 1- - -- - ---- --- --- -- . ; , � a� , , ; e � ; ��: . . ; ; � _ .._n..l: . . . ' - - - - -- �` - - --- --- - - -- . . ' + � ; � i _ ._._.... .:._-.. .• : _ .:_._.,� . _ , �. S . i � Q� i� . � �� . � �� ` ; . ; ' ' � .i'.. ;. ... ._ _� ._ . . ' __ __ _" _ '"" ; _ ' : � .. „t , ; ' : y� �-i..i . ' � : j � . i T" � ` `�- � y� �S . , : : . , . ;_ __.... . -- -- • - -; -- --- ------- ; � t � � ' -� �. .. _�� _. f . .. , - ��----- --- '; _..: ' , ' ; ' . � - - - r �_ - - � ,,,��, ��i, - - �_ �- ; - � � �� , ,'_ � , �; - ;- - -- -- - � - � �� ` --.----------- �--- � ' ,� i � .�j"t •� � `' -- - - - - - f� ' .. ' --•- - - - - � - , _. - _ : .. . � -- --�-- -�- - ----- - ` ` � � : . � 1 ' '- ?— . ' i . i $ � . i . _.__ ' __;_ ' �? --- - --� � � a `� �t: , , � _ ._ .. . . - �-�.- :- - . . ---�- �- -- - - - _ - ---. - - -�- — . _: i7 �° � : �' � � � , . . : v . ' '� ' � ' -- -'-- --- --- - --f � #-L{`�"'�. � - -- 1 �-' - - '- - . . _ . -. - `- -s-- - .�. _ 's s ; s ; •a� . : " , e. � � . : . � S ' __ _ �� _. . ___._ ._____ __ _ . _ - � � ' � .' �' , � _ _ _�_ _._ .. �_ : .. . � .. t S i ' . . -..,_... _�� e �1� i GY � �' " CfQ ' i � � �_____— ___..____ '___' _ _ ' _ _ ' - ` �,,, �"' � �r ____.. : .. . .. _. . - -- . - . _ : . ,�� : , . , . � : � _ _._.;.- = - - - -.. . _ : .;. � -� � � - �. . -.-- - _ - - - - _ - - . - - - � - -�;�{--�``o� � �. - .: 4 � r , . __ ___ .. .. -- - - � � - - --_.._ ��-�<< �- - - - ------- . . i .. f - - - - ; CJ : : . � .. - - - - - � ; � �� i _ _; ` __'. - s -- - �;.� . f � ' _ . -- .. � -�; - -- --..-_ _ - - -- - � , � ' � � � . . . . - �. : . . . . . _ : : : . . . _ . .. -...�_ _ . . - ---- - - - ----- __- - • � : N --- : . ; = � � . : � , _. -�--- --� _ : . ; .. .. . . -- - ---- - -- - -- -,- - � . ; �:� � � -� i : .. . . . _. .: -- : . . . -- � : . : - : °�-� _ . . . . - - - -- _ .. . _�__--- - .. ; � : . : �: �� _:_ __ _. . _. , . _ _ Page 1 of 1 � � �• � http:lfargo.ci.stpaul.mn.us/gis(fusion/cgi-binlfusion.pl?size=640%20480&layers=%2C200... 2127/2007 LOOZ/ZUZ "'�?�?��Z%=sja�Ei'808bOZ%Ob9=azis�,id�uorsn��?q • • i f X,��.,.� � , � p�- i � -..�. i . � . 5 � C.� ..�... ' f_' ��.Jt� ,h ,( 5 � } , �. � �. S'�� " '; ��` t , � .%4 """"3'7 i'"�:n u .1a� r 'c:. � "' ' t � � f ` < � . i !"' . i` .� �u _ !�',; �{ I % . R�. 6 . �. � �: �. � i € �.E � i ' : r-=— : -� :� : ,�°` ` - ^ iT — �'- . . � . »,��'. �`�+ ' "_ . ` ` ``, —=-4 � i € S •C ��--'Y ; � </ �Q ' y�� •� " .y s. _ �Si ^' .` y -�..,___ �r %� O �� ••r ' x�`'.. . a ' . . ��'��•"'__ . ;e �` � • �_ � � 5 ', , �.0 . `'e ..'e� � �-Y�.a ,.�3 F Q� �l •, .�: y� • ( �'s ''` ' �{ i: b , — l i o�-g�-'l ��Q ... .F. _ � y + . � r --s �i, l � ,' � . ... - t ;- i.f ¢ r - �_ s i? � t' y r i r t�'- �`..' u 3 � ' y 4'- 5 , ;p - - � 1 ..� •�i y ti�. _ t � � � --�T'__, _ 5 t . 5� �:�.i > 'rn�,> � � �t ti•' `'�r'3"' : t � F ,` g E ...�._ -.` �� s• � _ �-� � "� �� p ^ —�—_�.— 5 5 � . i ', t � �� ..:� . . 't - ,'� ... ac.' ' ; `.d . . + � �,t.:. � � t 5 �' g < :. r , , z�y—�.� _r' :�_ro: r....<v..<.- .. 7 ` � y Y t � .;. u. a,�, �.1 t t � r- 'J p �. � �u `';�� ; , j i' .� _ 1 5 �kt .. � .....'" _n-c_ ... ^--� ,•'' �. .� " 1 y : w u �a . e. `�ti ,�T !-'. `� , 5 4 ' � ;' � .i2i ry -� L. � ' �. e� � -,,. _ � �� f � 5 ` 1.� - � ^ � . . a ____ .+i -' �5 . � J a �� _� , �.`�� Y e � .h -�yu.� i � r � ` 1 ��' � � � ��(�'.��ra. i:�w�m, �.n1�(^f�un.N L�-- � ' 1 f, fY� 1S'_ e �ri�. ' uu .i � I:t'MF.i�t�� •, ; . � o {� N V �r V— 2 . S� ��r , � . : . R ' � .� � , � ; � � � ='y{' � � 4� -�- _ N �" ' : _ ,.ue�� ' _at �:— � ' �r � •� � _ y- . .�.,. � � �� i r . �.�. �� - _.�� j s ,,,.� �: e u � � : , � ., I-1--.-a� Y ': I ,. � x r� -�-, e-- . , _ ^ . � ( :v � - ,:� .. ^-�� a � � �3� ( � � , � f . —nr- 6 � ,�.._ '+ , i . � r.. ') � .. a l.. r+ a M3 � � .- � 4 1 1 _ K: 1 `� � � � y �� t � �� !N E ._ .:_ --,.._..�: �� . ? . 'r�, ..F <: ,,. ��S �, R. -- '.s : _ lJ ��-`.� . .r ,- 5'� �- S . 5 � " 4 ti ` � : :$ , . S 5 •� t '., 5 V � .-. ��, �� , {. :: � t, i' - _ "� _ _._�_ } '� . 5 . � _ � �� t � 1 I 3o I a�ed �LL CONSTRUCTION MITST MEET THE REQUIItEMENTS OF THE ZOOQ IRC. (See below} Reco�nmended Block Detail �� \ : a -Asphalt Shingles - 151b. AsphaIt Impregnated Roofing Felt '/:" CDX Exterior Grade Plywood Roof Sheathing with H-Clips Wood T:usses at 24" o.c. Pre- ' engineered by Manufacturer Underiayment for prevention of Ice- Damming required to a point 2' iaside the exterior wall line. Siding or SheatUing min %z" thiclmess. Min, 2x4 studs at 16" o.c, with corner bmcing. 3%i' concrete slab with thickened slab edge — minimum dimensions as shown. Treated sill plates see note b, �" dia. �Anchor bolts at 72" o.c. — embedded 7" into slab edge. Required tninitnum of one No. 4 baz at the top and bottom of footing. Clean compacted fill or undisturbed soil, with all organic materials removed. Tvuical Slab-On-Grade Detached Gara�e Garaee boor Headers: (For 16'-0" Door Opening) No Roof I.oad = (2)-2x12's Hip Roof= (2)-Zx14's Fu11 Roof Load = (3)- 2x14's (#1 Douglas Fir or Engineered Beam) Note: 18'-0" or larger garage door openings requ'ue special design. Narrow Wall Desien: Walls adjacent to gazage door openings that aze less than 48" in width require considenfion to bracing. Walls adjacent to gazage door openings that aze 24" or tess in widt[� requue considerarion to bracing and hold downs. � �. :� .` � . GARAGES ADJACENT i0 ALLEYS ARE REQUlRED TO NAVE CONTRASTING HQUSE NUMBEB$ POSTED, CLEARlY Vt5lBLE FROM THE ALLEY; Other Notes to Gara�e Construction: a- New "curb cuts" in the public way require a permit &om Public Works. Public Works: (651) 266-6120. b-Wood on conciete or masonry in d'uect contact with the eartfi shall be treated or decay resistant, as well as sills or plates less than 8" from exposed ground, and siding, sheathing or wall fiaming less than 6" from grade. c- Garages adjacent to alleys aze required to have contrasting house numbers posted, clearly visible from the alley. ' d- Alterations to existing topography shall pfovide drainage on-site to the pubiic way. e- ContracYorsJowners are responsible for controIling erosion and run-off during construction and unril landscaping is stabilized. � �� f- Roof eave/overhangs must be at least 2 feet from adjacent private property. Roof run-off shall be controlled wi� the owner's property. ' . � ;.�, __r_:� ; ; :, _ , ; :. 8 I 21�7 ' 42 J G3 % !84 ft ) `. ( :. i � . . i � _ � - i �� i - . � , ` ` z ; - � - °' � .�� . ;�� i c � i �� - - �� i ! -� �. !_}- '_ "-i ` �, _� Z �. ` t _ �\ ; / ' ' _ � t _ -,,,� -�. `+� ti. I � _ � t r - _ �� -_- �. — � � '. � � - ` 1 4 i t E € �{ k = i � � t , irt J / c� '',, t { t Z !} 3 ` t - � � ��'- �!£ r.:t.-1,' `� �f 't .( i i �( i f'if�� ,.i t.;= �j '3 i � � t��'+� S 1 l fJ,� Is`.':- j \�t� 1 �`t i : � ' f � r��i'r;,:;;1 k, .—" � j � 3 j��'! : f l;' < <f! - . ,. , ;, S �1 r x � i F�`;'i', , �, • r ,; t �? , • c; 4 �. : `; ; _ t, i i�-,at 7 ; ,*�z'r_r ? j,£ ; . j . : i '' l : ( !. � ir� f,r' . t,t: �,� . .; � t ', i _r �1 ,1 : � ��'e ; � i _ { � ; .7�; i� r'�3`i�trtl;: : e J` �: � : � ( 4 �;{ �/ �"� f�; ( � . 1 ! +, i t' �� " o . '� � �r,:�z j � � (( i 44.'I- j, j `:c.t' ��'.: 'j : t c E � 4 1 t t' `'1 � f�.�.r�k.Slt��,i.'-�1 4�}` 5..`a �} I �:s � tt :"i` �..�"t.•.» � � t� �. ` t 1. � � t�: ��.�St.jSi�S ' i.5..t ; � � �ty1 r' . . �i . � s .'�l� f �i � �� t�:�R•�r�ii ��,� i �i 1 . :�'\'. ` �.�'• s =': �.\�, � -•~ `y ti '-. ; �� Page 1 of 1 b7 �a-� � n __�� .��_�i �,s�� -- — '''�:':�}'=� v� --- `,- , ,V � _ ��, .�- ' M1": �.. ��• - -�- _�.0 m . - . �� J � , i .^ . J G1lGTel -�_" �-i' " (� / f �s_ �....._. �'�SL_� „� -fT�,' � � 1 k `�� •-- �� l _ ' � , `":� � "�=,��' � �, � W , r 1 , �\ • �> � http://argo.ci.stpaul.mn.us/gis/fusion/cgi-bin/fusion.pl?size=640%20480&layers=%2CCities... 2/7/2007 ti � � � M U' � x °d �° � � o , U� t, � �� U�C � � � �/ � � � `� �X � 5 d� M� u s N.�-�� 0 Vl O � 4� S J �o � �h� \ �S � � a n� � k C $ � � � � � � fi�f � v � . 2 : 8 . e C E F p ° Y i C ' E E i � s � s° E Ee £ �F € ¢� � �a ° o G� ��£ � $a° ��$ $; �� '� � � � ¢ o A � o ` Mv `o S s � � a� m c aF „" � � e � k �� e o aoaa��a .e� ,; � : � 5 I E �I � --- � � -- � � - � N ` p _ p`�, � � Vl� a �; ;� _� _ 0 £g3.�E : .�av�� y =ao �.a�° r � :?.o; � � . � z8va° � s °a€o_ 5W o � 4 e I( � � � � � A V_ � 0 � �� wb Q � � � �l o� � �W�m � v ��a ; a � WqR q __ �� O �. �� jj[ � z � Z 2 U I� � 1 " j �V / r � � CTTY OF SAIlVT PAUL ChristopherB. Coleman, Mayor Apri118,2007 Michael Aeling 48 Darlene Street St. Paul, MN 55119 RE: 2108 Douglynn Lane Dear 1VIr. Aeling: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION b� -8a� BobKessler, D"veclor COMA�RCEBUILDING Telephone: 65I-266-9090 8 Fowih Siree[ East, Sui1e 200 Facsimi7e: 657866-9124 St Paul, Minnerota 55707-7024 " Y�eb: www_$ep,vs A recent visit to the referenced property reveaJed that there has been some grading and excavation done to the site outside of the scope of work for the garage permit. As you lazow, this property is located within the River Corridor Overlay Dishict. It is also located within the TreePreservation District. Due to the sensitive nature of these special distri�ts, particularly on property with steep slopes, a Site Plan Review is required for any excavafion, grading changes or disturbances of slopes greater than 12%. You will need to obtain a gcading pemut but before it can be issued, a Site Pian Review is required. Enclosed is an application and information on the site plan review process. The site plan should inciude detailed informafion on the existing and proposed grades of the property as well as a detailed erosion control plan and details on how the slopes and any disturbed areas will be stabilized during and after conshuction. This would include the driveway, the retaiiung wa11, excavation for drainage systems and the new septic system. A tree preservafion plan must be submitted, including identifying any trees with a diameter of 6 inches or greater that may be affected by any work on the site, as identified in the attached handout. Due to the sensitive nature of this area and the fact that some of the wark has already commenced, we are requiring you to subtnit the required pemut and site plan review applicafions within 10 days of the date of this lefter. Failure to do so will result in enforceme�t acfion that may include stopping a11 work on the site. If you have any questions regarding this matter you may contact Sincerely, Dave Nelson Building Inspector • Attachments: Site Plan Review http•//tivww sfpaul �o�/depts/liep(zonin�/siteulanrevie�v html Tree Preservation ,..�.� ant r. � � �, ��1 � (http•//sezvice Qovdeliverv cou�fdocs/STPALTL,/STPALTI. De�tLIEP(STPAUL 527/STPAIJL — 527 20051020 en.pdfl. AA-ADA-EEO Employer District 1 Council. Communify Cowncii Office Battle Creek Police Storefront General Office and Disirict Y Neros A Commuaity Partne:ship 2090 Coasaap Sfreef, Room I26 210T Old Hndson Road, SuaRay Sfiogpiag Ceater Saint Panl, MN 55119 6aint Panl, MN'"5$119 voice: 651.501.6345 � 651.501.6346 voice: 651.702.677q Fazc 651.714.5229 emu"L• districticonncil@aoi.com email: dis�ietlCPC@aoLeoffi we6site: www.districticonncil.org April 25, 2007 Tom Beach, LLEP City of Saint Paui 8 Fourth St E,, Suite 200 Saint Pau1, MN 55101 RE: 2108 Douglynn Lane, Saint Paul SSI 19 Deaz Mr. Beach, The District 1 Community Council's Hearing Commiftee requests that a stop-work order be sent to the property owners of 2108 Douglynn Lane. We imderstand that the owners have obtaitted pezmits to construct a sepiic system and a new gazage at tius Iocation. We met witlt the owners at our November board meeting and understood that no eoustruclion would proceed at ttus site without a site plan approval process because of issues related to steep slopes and the presence of a permanent spring on the site. Because this properiy exists within the River Cortidor Critical Area, we want to make sure that city code is sErictly foIlowed and that negative unpacts on the environment aze avoided. We now undersfiaud tbat the stream is being diverted and that there are impacts on slopes that exceed 18%. Given these circumstances, we request an immediate stap to work at the site and access to site plans for ihe properiy in order to review potential impacts within the River Corridor Critical Area Sincerely, // / � Betsy Leach Community Organizer For fhe Disfrict 1 Aearin� Committee � 1 LJ �c�� Our suissina is to create oppoxtnniHes For the people who live aad work in oar neigLborhoods to eagage mith eacL other aad mith our governmeat officials 3xt oxder to bwid a more obraat.and welcoming communitp. � `�'" b�-8�� : . STAFF USE ONlY � APPLICATfON FOR SfTE P�AN REVtEW SPR# r?7 --�7�/�/ L.t.E.P. 200 Commerce Building 8 Fourth Street. East Saint Paul, MN 551�1-1Q24 651-266-9008 APPLICANT � Name M � v n�Yn A�, . • OWNER I Name � 4�+-�-- pfdiffereMthan AddfesS applicant) PROJECT � Fee $ � �: a ° (au��'� , , . . ., . ; _g date:. 6.�c�7 City agent��C��-G� - Cify � `�A�� " v State�_ Zip_ Phone �,51 "`�� `� `� a`1 S' ,� 61 � 2oy Phone 6 t5 C'� Project name / description 2�� oUS �Y ti �,� 4 -e Project address / Location Legal description of the properfy ; ApplicanYs � fhis fortn and o� Oecember 10, p006 ormation about site plan review is available on line H:ICOMMONVZONE1Site ptan ha�oNSlsitaylan_review_app.tlac f=' : y1 a?s� P 7n� �.,,�: t�,4Y o 7 2007 on Zonirtg and then _ /.'1 APPLlCATION FOR ZONlNG VARlANCE OFFICS OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS, AND ENYIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 8 Fourth Street Eas� Suite 200 Saint Pau1, MN SSIOI 651-266-9008 APPLICANT � Name �� i c. � S j�� DaytimePhone �`Z `Zti1 ��36�/ Property interest of applicant (owner, confract pumhaser, etc.) C7`r1 �-P�'' - � Name of owner (if d'rfferent) PROPERTY AddresslLocation Z1 a� 9 ' 0vg h� N� Legaldescription �.Q,�d�S�'�"f Tl�.id�� Z (aftach additiona! sheet finecessary) ' Lot size �� l 5� 5� � Y Present Zonin�_ Present Use J i � Ac11� � 1 Proposed Use v � � Variance[s] requested: .9�.te�D �.e�` o+� S�o,�2 �rert�e� �a�f 5$�a — �DQ.�� So� e.��e o� h�iv5.e. Supporting Information: Supply the necessary informa5on that is applirable to your variance request, provide dehails regarding the project, explain why a variance is needed. Duplex/triptex conversions may require a pro forma to be submitted. Attach additional�sheets if necessary. _�c€� ��9s a�w�ays 6-�er o� s��e. 3i�2 �. R�� R��' . w '��@ u �o ch�nh�2V � W�sY �o -�A �D��Q.f � ocA�� I o�n a� �o.. •�,rc�s �oh _ � �k w;1t .��. � 5 � ze $ 1 O��S�'�e �Wo 6Y, .5aul�n s�� fe5iv �obf� °`qdt �9Q 6� �7DV�. � • � Attachments as required: � Site Plan - Attachments a Pro Forma ApplicanYs signature �' � � ��.r� �-�. Date � �1 ��-g�--� u Tom Dimond 2119 Skyway Drive Saznt Paul, MN 55119 b51-735-6667 June 3, 2007 RE: 2108 Douglynn Lane 1. Why is work being done before the site plan has been voted on? 2. Why is work being done before the variances haue been voted on? 3. VJhy is the 40 feet bluff setback requirement not being enforced? 4. This is a vacant i.uiiiiliabitabie structure with a nonfunctioning septic system. It was reported to the vacant building program. Have permits and variances heen granted to do the previous work? Is it a legal structure? 5. Why is the 60% destroyed requirement nat being enforced? The proposal needs variances for: S a. Excavation b. Entrance addition c. Deck d. Exterior changes to the building e. Garage £ Discharge of water on bluff face l. Sec. 60.105. Scope of regulations. No building or shucture, or part thereof, shall hereafter be erected, constructed, or altered and maintained, and no new use or change shall be made or maintained of any building, shucture, or land, or part thereof, except in conformity with the provisions of this code. Sec. 61.101. Buitding permits. ' No building permit shall be issued for the erection, aIteration, moving or use of any building or structure or part thereof, or for the use of any land, which erection, alteration, moving or use is not in accordance with all provisions of this code. No renewal of an expired building permit shall be issued for a use or structure made nonconforming by amendments to this code. , Sec. 61.402. Site plan review (ali disfricts). (a) Plan to be submitted.. A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the planning commission before a perznit is issued for grading or the erection or enlazgement of gross floor azez for any development except one- and two-family dwellings, but includi��g the fr>llowing: � (2) In the TP tree preservation district, any development of one- and two-family residences over one (I) acre (43,560 square feet) in area (The property is 58, 000 square feet) . (8) Any development on a slope of twelve (12) percent or greater, (There is development on 12 percent slopes) (9) Any development in the river corridor crifical azea or in the floodplain district except one- and two-family �j dwellings which do not affect slopes of twelve (12) percent or greater. (It is in the river corridor and does affect � � slopes 12 percent slopesJ � � See. 61201. Zoning administrator. (b) Tfie zoning administrator shall enforce the provisions of this zoning wde and any amendment thereto and shall fiave the power to cerfify wning compliance and to make inspecrions of buildittgs or premises necessary to enforce this code. It shatl be unlawful for the zonin¢ adminishator to approve any site plans as required in articte IV site plan review, of this chapter, or issue any oemuts for anv excavarion or conshuction until such plans have been inspecTed in detail and found to conforrn with this code Three different provisions require a site plan. Zoning Codegrohdbits the issuance af � permits for excavation or consfruction icntit the site plan has been approverZ Why have permits been issued? 2. (d) The zoning administrator shall have no authority to change or to grant vaziances from the terms of this code in curying out the dut#es of wning administrator. �Vhy have permits been issued to do fhe cCraixage axrt other work that requires variances befare the variances kave been approved? • 3. The defuution of Bluffline was established by the Governor's Executive Order and appxoved by the State Legislature. "Bluffline" means a line deiineating the top of a slope connecting the . points at wluch the slope becomes less than 18 percent. More than one bluffline may be encountered proceeding landwazd from the water. Bluffline. A line along the top of certain steep slopes facing the Mississippi River Valley as shown on the River Conidor Zoning Mapa. In anv particulaz case. the bluffiine shall mean a 7ine drawn along the top of the bluff such that the slope below the line is steeper thau eighteen (18) percent and the slope above is eighteen (18) percent or less. Sec. 60.104. Construction of language. The following rules of construction apply to the text of this code: (a) The �articulaz shall con4ol the general. (b) Iri case of aay c4ifference of ineaning or imptication between the text of ihis code and any caption or Iltuslrntion, the text shall control. Illustrations in this zoning code aze provided for purposes of describing, clarifying ot providing examples; such ilIustrafions aze not to sca(e and do not replace, Iimit or expand tfie meaning of the text. Sec. 60.109. Other city, local, regional, state and federal regulafions. (a) Conflicting regulations. Whenever an�provision of this code conflicts with an uYher provision of This code or any other law or ordinance the more restrictive provision shall oQ vem, except as otherwise specifically provided. A 40 feetsetback is requiredfrom the top of the 18% slopes. There is no te_rt anywhere in City Code or the Corrzprehensive Plan limiting #he number of bluffs. .Saiht Paul Zoning maps have more than one bluff rne shown. l'n addifion, the text coritrols and the more restrictive provision skall govern. Tlze rzpplicruzt has not appdaed for varBaixces from the 40 feet bluff setback requiremenL 0 4. (c) The zonin� administrator shall determine whethet lots, structures, or uses aze le�allv nonconforming �� consulrin� buildinQ records. city d'uectoxies and other pertinent evidence for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of chapter 62. 2 ��-ga� • Nonconforming building. A lawful building existing on the effective date of adoption (October 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that does not now comply with the area, width, height, yazd, percent of lot coverage, or other regulations concerning bullc or location on the lot, or spacing requirements from another use, off-street pazking and loading requirements, or other regulations of the dishict in which it is located. Sec. 61.102. Certificate of occupancy. Certificates of occupancy as required by the Saiut Paul Legislative Code shall also constitute certificafion of zoning compliance as required by this zoning code. Has the zoning administratnr cletermined if the stYUCture is legally nonconforming? 5. (c) When a nonconforming structure is destroyed by any means to an extent of more than sixty (60) percent of its replacement cost, exclusive of the foundation, at the time of deshuction, it sha11 not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this code. The zoning code prohibits reconstYUCtion of a nonconforn:ing structure destroyed by � means if the extent is 60% exclusive of the foundation. This is a vacant uninhabilable structccre tkat was reported ta vacanf buildings. There Izas been extensive destruction as a vacant building and lack of maintenance requiring extensave rehabilitrrtion. Has the zo�xing adminzstrator determined that the proposed reconstvuctian does not exceecl 60 percent • threshoCd for norxconformirag struc[ures: Sec. 68.402. Profection of shorelands, floodplains, wetlands and blu£Fs. (3) No residential development shall be permitted on slopes greater than eighteen (18) percent. (4) Bluff development shall take place at least Porry (40) feet landward of ail blufflines. The Comprehensive Plan states "the City will continue to prohibit residenfial development on slopes that exceed 18 percenY', "the City will prohibit any additional struciural development or land alteration on the bluff face" and The City will continue to preserve the bluff impact azea (forty feet landward of the bluff line) in a natural state. Development (river corridor district only). The makine of anV material chanee in the use or appeazance of any strvcture ox land includiue, but not limited to: a reconstcuction, alteration of the size or material chanee in the extemal appearance, of a structure or the land; a change in the intensity of use of the land; alterarion of a shore or baqk of a river, sffeam, lake or pond; a commencement of drilling (except to obtain soil samples); mining or exca�ation; demolition of a structure; cleaxln� of land as an adjunct to construction; deposit of refuse, solid or liquid waste, or fill on a pazcel of land; or the dividing of land into two (2) or more pazcels. Excavation. Anv breakin� of eround, except common household gardening and ground caze. (6) Development which_takes place near slopes greater than twelve (12) pexcent shall not iesult in increased runoff onto those slopes sufficient to damage vegetation or structures thereon. � The Aighwood Plan calls for protecting and preserving the bluff "The City Council agrees that steep slopes, [ especially within the Mississippi River Critical Area, should be preserved, and that the city's River Corridor standards are reasonable and necessary in order to conserve and protecf unique natural and scenic resaurces. The � River Corridor standards prohibit residential development on slopes greater than 18 percent." Phe proposed site ptan and variances are not consistent with tlae Conxprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. 3 (4) No building permit sfiall be issued for the consttucflon, alteration, eacpansion or remndeling of any dwelling or other establishment served by an individual sewage ireatment system uniil the permit requirad for the treatment sysTem has been issued. Occupancy shall tie prohibited uutil a final inspection of the system has been cond�cted. Were building permits issued before the permit for the treatment system harl been issued? � � �+�� 4 D�-ga-� � Dan McGuiness 2160 Ogden Avenue St. Paul, MN 55119 June 5, 2007 City of St. Paul Office of LIEP 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 20Q St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: File # 07-08007� 2108 Douglynn Lane — Request for Variances Piease submit the following testimony to the St. Paul City Planning Cominission's Zoning Committee for its meeting on Thursday, June 7, 2007: I am writing as a neighborhood in the Highwood Neighborhood of St. Paul, but also as an individuat who has been active in the development of the Highwood Neighborhood Plan and, more recently, as a member of the City Council Task Force to recommend updates to fl�e Mississippi River Critical Area zoning regulations. I believe there is sound and reasonable reasons to seriously object to two issues related to this property: 1. The requests for vaziances should be denied as the structure on this property is currently non- � conforming and has been uninhabifed for several years. There are no prudent reasons to grant vaziances to improve the existing shucture andlor'to provide for additionat construction work on the site and I believe the request does not meet the hardship test for granting variancea under city regulations. Several questions xaised in a sepazate letter to the City by Tom Dimond clearly raises guestions about the validity of approving any variances. 2. The string of decisions and communications between city staff and neighbors regarding this properiy, as documented by a sepazate letter by John and Lisa Rogers, adjacent properiy ownersto 2108 Douglynn Lane, clearly documents a series of confusing if not evasive communications on the part of the city relative to this issue. I do not understand why any work was altowed to be done on the site in advance of a public hearing regarding this matter. As far as I can tell, there was no sense of urgency involved. The site was purchased with the intent of "renovating and improving" it for re-sale — it is not a- case where an existing property owner needed to bring the structure up to code or take action to enable them to continue occupying the structure. Now, in spite of public objections from the start, there has been excavation, filling, altering of a natural spring, aonshuction of a retaining wall and a gazage on site. None of this should have been allowed, This entire scenario only adds credence to the claims by skeptics that the city is not serious about supporting the Mississippi River Criticat Area Xules and rigorously enforcing them. I urge the Zoning Committee, the Planning Commission and the Saint Paul City Council to renew your support for the Critical Area designation and to advise fhe City staff that it truly has an obligation to follow the proper steps and procedures in dealing with enforcement of the code. It as time to turn the tide and renew our commitrnent to taking care of our river corridor, one of St. Paul's great natural assets. " � Sincerely, Dan McGuiness � C � Date: June 5, 2007 To: Saint Paul City Planning Commission Zoning Committee. From: John and Lisa Rogezs, 2120 Douglynn Lane CC: City Counci� President Kathy Lantry; District 1 Council; Rep. Sheldon Johnson; Mayor Cbais Coleman Re: 2108 Douglynn Lane, File # 07-080070 We object to #he issuance of tha proposed zoning variances for 2108 Douglynn Lane. Our property abuts #he property on the east. side and overlooks the site of the garage and house. We have read Tom Dimond's letter to this boazd and concur with his concerns. We will not reiterate them here. This letter will focus on our concems for the quality and usability of our drinking water. We aze on a well and depend Qn the safety of our water supply. T1us is our only source of drinking water. We have concems about the rerouting of the natural springs, particulaziy as it impacts the well head, and the planned new septic system installation. We have lived on our property for over 17 qears and intend to live here for at least another 20 yeazs. We have a vital interest in the long texzn health and environmental effects of the proposed zoning variances. In contrast, the new owners of 2108 Douglynn intend to develop the proper[y and resell it. At the most recent Disirict 1 Council meeting they stated that they have already purchased another primary residence outside of St. Paul. According to the DNR and the Minnesota Dept of Health, a perennially running spring is considered a natural stream. Department of Heatth regulations state that a wellhead must be 50 feet and a sepfic system must be 150 feet from a nattual water discharge. The springs on the property qualify as a natural stream. Our concern is that the water from the nahxral spring will flow into the well head and conta.ininate our driiiking water witk pollutants and microbes. The house at 2108 Douglynn was built prior to the above regulations and the location of the well head is uulaiown. To the best of our lmowiedge, the current residents have rerouted the natural springs without a detailed analysis of either the environmental or health impact of fhese changes. The current well was built to old standards that aze known to allow snrface water to leak into the lower aquifers. This problem is amplified when a well has not been used regulazly. Since the house has been vacant for over two years, the well at 2108 has not been in regular use. . We oppose the issuance of zoning variances for the rip rap that has already been installed and oppose the issuance of new variances for new improvements. We want a defailed independent hydrological study doneron this property to assess any loag-term environmental and health consequences of the current reroufing of the natural springs and the impact of any future ptanned work. We want to emphasize that not only should a variance heazing been held prior to the installafion of tha rip rap, spzing rerouting, and building of a new garage, but a hydrological study should also have been dane. The Highwood area, particularly the azea on the Mississippi bluff, is � (� �� -1 D�-ga-�} • environmentally sensitive and fragile. Also, the safety of current residents' well water � should take precedence over new development. To ensure the safety of our water supply, we would like twice annual well testing for 2108 Douglynu to ensnre early defecfion of contamination. � We attempted to address these concerns with the city prior to the issuing of permits. In mid Febmary, a pernut application for a new gazage appeared on the LIEP website. We called Tom Beach on February 20�` with our concerns about the rerouting of the nat�al springs, that the house was built on cflnstnzction debris and about the restrictions on River Corridor development. At that tisne, Tom stated that no zoning �aziances were needed. According to the LIEP office only 1 bluff line exists in St. Paul and that this property is in front of this bluff line and therefore no restrictions apply. Now that the garage has been built, the city now deems it necessary to issue a zoning vaziance for its construction. Also, the online record of the permit application disappeazed from the website shortly a£ter our conversations and did not reappear until after the work was underway. This leads us to infer that the city is being less than transpazent,about this process. We aze concerned that future work on this property will be completed without the required public meetings and believe that the city has done a poar joh of enfoxcing the current zoning regulations with regards to this property. We will address our dissatisfaction with the handling of these zoning issues in a separate letter. In conclusion, we haue serious concerns regarding the impact of the • completed work and planned future work will have on the quality of this area's drinking water. An independent hydrological suxvey is needed fo determine the environmental and health impact of the completed and proposed wozk. We agree with the objections and concems raised by Tom Dimond. We addirionally are concerned about the past and future decisions of the LIEP office in regards to this properfy. � �� Appendix A: A non-exhaustive list of relevant statues. From Chapter 68. Zoning Code—River Corridor Qverlay Districts .. Sec. 68.404. Protection of water quality (1) Construction shall not be permitted on wet soils, very shallow soils, soiis with high shrink-swell or frost action potential unless it is showre that appropriate coastrucfion techniques capable of overcoming the resfrictive condition will be utilized. (2) Septic tauks....in accordance with the class of public waters as prescribed in Minnesota Regulations,NR-82: a. On natural envirotunent waters, at least 150 feet. (3) Private wells shall be placed in areas not subject to flooding and up slope from any source of contamination. Wells already egisting in azeas prone to flooding shall be floodproofed in accordance wifh accepfed engineering sfandards as defined in the Uniform State BuiIding Code. • Sec. 68.601. Variances (a} ....The burden o£proof shalI resf wifh tfie appIicaut to demonstrate conclusively . that such a variance will not result in a hazard to.life or properEy and will not adversely affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the ttatural environment: such proof may include soils, geology and hydroiogy reports which shall be signed by registered professional engineers.... �� • � ��5� � � Climb t�e Wmd Insritute 1330 St Pavl Avenue SaintPaul,1YI'inna,ota SSllfi 07 Jusie 2007 Caty o£Saint Paul Plauniug Gommission Zoning Co�unittee Re: Qpposition m Request fox �3axiauces and Site Plazx Appsoval 21(}8 Dougipzuz rlvenue A. Tfie Office ofLIEP has inadequately infoaned the pubIic and Zonina Comuuttee of the illegalities of the homeowners. The staff teport fails to identify tke lawlessness of actions alceady taken Work on the propettp at 210$ Douglpnn Avenue has been completed in part. The staff xeport, fiowever, does not admit m the illegalities of rlae work thus faz • completed. The pcopetiy ownet knew or should have known of the location of the prapexty within the Gutical t�ea Fumhemzoxe, rhe propestq owner knew or should have knoum of the required pern�its, vauances, and site plan xeaiew required and the required obtaining of such j�ria� ta the start of the work. But the Office of LIEI' fails to mention the viatations of the psopertp owner o£ the specific provisions of the City's Zoning Code the property ownex now seeks vatiances and app�oval for theit ptoject. Fuxthermore, LIEP suggests no accoumtahilitp ox penatty for those violations. ii. I,IEP has internal deparnnenral deficirncies regatding CsidcaF rlrea issues_ In additio� if LIEP allowed the peunitting for anp o€ the wotk ae 2I08 Douglynn Avenue pxior to the praper proced�al requitements of the Zoning Gode, it continues m xeflect the lack oE' knowledge and competrncy of the depaxtment segarding CriticaLAxea pxojects of anp size. This is not the fitst time LIEP has failed to apprecia� the significance of the Crirical Axea zoning teg�tations and heightened sctutiny needed. Ie cettainIp undeunines the cxeditahilitpof the depa.xtuient and the coufidence shat if the vatiances and site plan are appmved, ISEP has the abilitg to ovexsee the consteuction. Anp appxoval of anp variance or site plan should be delaj�ed�ecaus�of fhe pxoven incampetence of LIEP and irs ieview of piojects within the Gritical Atea. � �5 Once LIEP can assure the public that it can faIlotv che Comptehensive Plan and Gtztical Atea iegulations regarding the application pzocess and construction ovetsight, then the Douglpnn Avemie issue can be revisited. I am disivaped bp the lack of LI�P's lack of clear communicatian with Jahn and Lisa Rogers aad LI�.P's Iack of knnwledge? B The proposed pxoject at 210$ Douglynn Avenne implicates a numbes of Critical Area zegvlations that ate insnffidentfy addtesse� i. The propextp ownets have not pxncided the zequisite buiden o£ psoof undet Sec. 68.601 to canclusivelp detnonscrate the project will not cause advetse l�axm. The pmperty ocvness of 2108 Dougipnn Aveaue have not pxocided cnncbaive evidence of d�at she project will not cause advexse liaun z Fai instance, there is no report on the geotogy oz hydtologp of the pfoject area fn substanfrate no hatm will come to slopes or will not advetsely affect the egisting watet supplp of the Rogets weIl. The staff report sites no mport or othet sesoutce to reach the thteshoid tequixecuent of "condusssre evidence " In fact, thexe is no evidena. ii. Since the b�l�'na is a nan-coafonning steoctuFe no uew ¢se or cbange is allowed uaiess iu confoimity af Cxiticai �9�ea pmvisiona i.IEP fias identified the psesent stnicture as nan-con£oaning. As a noa- confoxmit� struct�se, no bivlding pettnit map be issued for any attetation of dze buiiding ox use of the tand uuIess it confonns to t�ze pmvisior,s of Critical Area pmvisions. If LIEP has alxeady issued a pemsit, pxior to this pzoceeding, then the pzopextg owness kave alread� violated speci&c code prerequisites under Sec 61.1 Ql_ In adclition, because the properip ownets knew or skould have Imown the pxoperry affected ind�des slopes greatex than 12%, "a site pian shatl be submittecl to and approved by the p7anning com�nission be£oxe a peunit is issued ." �xcavatian appazentlp has been done affd completed within the slope axea prioT to a site plan approwaL Fack oF rhe propertp ownec s kriowledge of zoning code psovisions and LIEP's lack of knowledge is no eacuse m ailow the gzant of a vatiance ox appsoeal of the sire plan aftet the fact ` See John and Lisa Rogexs letter dated june 5 , 2407 to the Sunt Paul Giry Planning CoFnmission Zoning ComxriitCee. zSaint Paul Code �zdin {Sl�n-) § 68.601. ' Saint Paul Gode Ordin. (Mn-) § G1.402(a). �� D�-g�-� C Futthetmore, the staff zeport fa$s to identify all bluff lines associated cvith the propextp. The staff xeport daims the structute to be belaw a bluff liae, howeve�, cutreat maps reflect more than one bluff line in tiae atea o£ 2108 Douglpnn r7venue. If theYe is a pmpetFy identified bluff �e other tban the one above the pxoperty, then the propetiy ownets aze sequired to ol�tain anothet vatiance since a 40 foot set back is sequii�ed £xom the top of 18% slopes 4 C. Because the appfication for �aziances and site plan approval and the staff tepott ate de9drnt, the requests shouid be denied The staff report sites no evidencz and the pxopertp ownexs provide no evidence To coaclusively support a findiag to gsant the requested variances and the proposed site pIan appioval the requests must be denietl 'I'o gsant the vaziances and appmve the site plan when thexe is �ra evidesace is abuse of discrerion.. �inailp, the property ownets have not been held accountable for their lawless acrions to date in violation of the Citp's zoning code. Unless and untit the ptopettp ownezs aze subjected to sancrioas, their application should not be consideted let alone approved. Sincerelp, • • ' Saint Paul Code Oidin. (Mn.) § 5S 402 (4). Cf � District 1 Commnni�y Council Gommunity Council Office Battle Creek Police Storefront Generai O�ce and District 1 News A Commuaity Partnership � 2090 Conway Sireet, Room 126 , � 2107 Oid Hudson Rnad, SiinIZap Shopping Center Saint Paul, MN SS l l9 _ Saint Paul, 1NN 55119 voice: 651.502,6345 fax: 651.501.6346 voice: 65I.'702.6770 fax 651.714,8229 email: districticouacilrivJaol.com email; districtiCPC@aol.com wehsite: www.districflcouacil.org June 4, 2007 Oui Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission Attn: Tom Beach, LIEP/DIS 8 Fourth St. East, Suite 200 SaintPaul, MN 55101 Re: 2108 DougIynn Laue Dear Mr. Beach, The Heazing Committee of tha District 1 Communify Council met on May 29 to discuss the variance requests for 2108 Dougiynn Lane. The owners of the proper[y and community members attended the meeting. After discussion with a1I parties, the committee voted to approve the vaziance request related to reroutingthe natural spring and instailation of a drainage pipe that flows out onto a slope steeper tkan 18%. The committee reasoned that, with installation of riprap at fhe point where fhe pipe emerges from the bluff, this solution offered the greatest probability af controlling erosion on the steep slope. " The committee voted against approval of the requested aaziance for installing a new deck on the side of the house, The proposed deck encroaches on steep slopes protected under the River Corridor standards and, as an amenity that is not required to live in fhe house, should" not be perxnitted. Our concern is that b1uf2lands along the River Corridor be protected, and this vaziance would represent a threat tb the,bluffs in this area of Disttict 1. Thank you, • Sincerely, Betsy Leach Commiuuty Organizex for the Hearittg Committee /� � � cceate oppoztunities for the pea witfi our government o£ficials ia io live and work in our aeigfiborfiaods to engage wit to bssild a more vibraat and welcoming communitp. aad ZONING COMMITTEE PRESENTATION a �-8a� DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT • • There is currently a singfe famify house on the properly. It has been vacant for a few years. The house sits on slopes greater than 18%. (1 and 2) • The applicant recenUy boughf the property. He taiked to staff about what could be done with ihe site, given that it is in the River Corridor and has steep slopes. Staff told him that the existing house could be renovateci as long at the nonconformity did not increase. • The appiicant wants to put on a small (6' x 8') entry addition. Staff toid the appliqnt that this would be permitted since the entry addition was on level ground. • The applicant recentiy built a detached garage on a-leve� part of the site. LIEP issued a pertnit for the garage since it did not afFect siopes steeper than 18 % 3 • A small area at the bottom of sfeep siope near the garage was disturbed. The applicant said it was disturbed by the previous owner. The applicant put in a low (24") retaining wall to stabilize the sfope. This work has largely been compieted. Staff was not aware of the or we would have told the applicant to get a variance. 3 . The applicant also wants to put a 25' x 8' deck on the house. This work has not been done and staff told him this would need a variance for sfopes. 4 • An existing swimming pooi was fifled in. Staff said this did not require a variance. 5 , . There is a spring on the property. Water is running continuously from the spring. In the past, water firom the spring filowed down a steep slope on the south side of the house. The applicant has rerouted a pipe so that the water drains down the steep slope on the north side of the house. Rip rap has been instalied 4vhere the pipe daylights to control erosion. 6 This work has largely been completed. Staff was not aware of it or we�would have told the applicant to get a variance. • A new septic system will be put in to the west and down a hill from the house. 7 An � existing pipe on a steep slope is being reused. So fhe only work being done on the septic system is on level ground and no variances are needed. However, staff has told the apQlicant that he needs to submit a tree preservation plan for the area where the new wo�k would be done to show how it would affect existing trees. Show the plan and section. G. VARIANCES NEEDED The property is located in the River Corridor (RC3). deve{opment on sfopes greater than 18°!0 is prohibited in the River Corridor. (Section.68.G02.b.3) Staff determined that variances are needed for the following parts of the project because they are located on slopes steeper than 18%: • Building a new deck on the side of the house. The deck wiil be above the ground but it will be aYtached to the ground with two posts in the area where the slopes are steeper than 18%. • Grading at the bottom of a slope steeper than 18°/a east of the garage and putting in a low retaining wall. �� . Installing the pipe and rip rap to reroute water flowing from the spring. Variances are not required for these parts of the project: . The existing house is nonconforming because it is located on slopes greater than 18%. The renovation of the house and the smatl addftion are perm.�ted without variances because nonconforming uses may be "eniarged or altered so long as such enlargement or aiteration does not increase its nonconformity." (Section 62.105.b) As part of the renovation, a small entry addition is planned. But the entry is on a level part of the site and rs**_sn!*ssr_c�c_ - _ . . so the nonconformity will not be increased. '�he detached garage �s pertnitt.�d witheut variances because is it en a le�el area without steep siopes below the bluff line. The new septic system wil( be buift on a flat area. An existing pipe will be used in an area • where slopes are steeper than 18% to connect the system to the house. As a resuit, no work on fhe sepfic system wil! affect slopes steeper than 18%. None of this work is landward of the bluff line as shown in the map that is a part of the zoning code. G. DISTRiCT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: �°�, R^^,�:- District 1 sent a letter in support of variance for the drainage woric but nat for tfte deck. You have a copy of their letter. Staff also received 4letters in opposition. One is from an immediate neighbor. H. FtIVDINGS FOR SiTE PLAN REVtEW: There are almost 20 findings in fhe staff report for the site plan review and the variances. I wilt try to summarize. 1. Staff found that renovating the house and the site improvements associated with it area � consisfenf with tfie Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the zoning code. . • Staff feeis that the overall impact of tha project was minimai. • The drainage work should correct some problems with the old drainage system a�d the rip rap should protect the slope from erosion. • The small retaining wa�i is a sma�l. It will not have a big impact on the site and will actually correct an ews6ng problem. • The deck is will oniy impact the slope where iwo posts wili go into the ground. 2. It is consistent with City ordinances including the River Corridor regulations if the variances I � mentioned are approved. I think some people are going fo argue that the building should be tom down. But 4 want to point out that under the River Corridor regulations that tearing down an existing structure on a steep slope is not permitted by zoning and would atso require a variance. 3. The circumstances are unique to the property and were not created by the current landowner: • There is a spring on the site that has caused drainage problems that need to be fixed • The existing house has doors on the south side that were intended to lead to a deck. 4. The proposed variance wiil not impair an adequate suppty of light and air to adjacent properiy, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish estabiished property yaiues within fhe surrounding area. J. STAfF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings above, the staff recommends approval of the site plan and variances of provisions prohibiting development on slopes steeper than 18°!a in the River Corridor to allow the property owner to add a small entry and a deck as part of renovating a vapnt single-family house, correct existing grading on steep siopes and make drainage improvements at 2108 Douglynn Lane, subject to the following condition: 1: The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Preservation Plan prepared try a qualifred � professional that includes ttie area that will be impacted by the new septic system before�� work can start on the septic system. . :- , : P: �� . _�� r m _ : _ � . � ._-; s : `fi ..� .:_. .. , ._._. .� � � , n :, 3\-: �' � � � �- i =, � S' � ,('; _ �u ��=��,�� ' �- �.�� -� n� _.:�-- 3 � �,, �� . � _ : , �'�'�''�r� - '��'� �,�, 2� �;�,ti�� :X _ J� ��,� � z�� _ � �-�; .�> : � � b,. _�'' �= . w ��Y � _ _ - A V _,_ . � , _ ,> � �� , � �. �, � _ � - < , � "� .� � - _ ,� - � � � ^ ;� � t3 r � � .� a �" ""�,.. . � . � �zt'�`�`n . ��L� s t$ �� #^�r�" -- ' � ~ � F r F . �"�� }s- " �. " ; ��c .s.s.. .-°�,�� -.�.'-°�...� � ._ v � . � , - � �� . . Y' Z � . � �r, t� 3 . ...Si S �'o-i . . -� 3 � s1' � ' z ` ' ' '`� _ ' �' �� -�at Kzm_2��`�rF-'°_ '£�PY�' �''�. .: . 4 . t ;� �a_ � �_ � �+t� � � �.� e' . ,_ � -� 'r` ° �'c _`"�—.- "a--x'?�.��. ° =?��, e.a �, � �ti � _ . . _ � ' � �w ,�s,.. .,''�"t'�.- �.-��a�' -�_ •`-�m —'-� �s z5 � �:" ¢: _.. .':. : . �+'� -- \ 4 � ��^ �� 'fi . Y r L � � � � _ e[ty � ��Y� a 3 � .. ,. � - . . � .... ._' +�._ `K_ . � � '.�� . � :, ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT � • � FfLE # 07-074111 1. APPLfCANT: 2. iYPE OF APPLICATION: Site Plan Review and Variances 3. LOCATION: 2108 Douglynn Lane HEARING DATE: 6171�7 4. PIN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 142822430006 Lewiston Heights Second Addition Lot 1 Blk 5 5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 PRESENT ZONING: RL and RC3 6. ZONtNG CODE REFERENCE: 61.402.c; 61.601; 68.601; 60.205.d; 68.402.b.3 7. STAFF REPORT DATE: 6/1/07 8. DATE RECEIVED: 5/3/07 BY: Tom Beach DEADLINE FOR ACT(ON: 7/2/07 A. PURPOSE: The applicant wishes to renovate a vacant singie-family house, add a deck to the house, build a new detached garage and make drainage improvements. Some of this work requires site ptan review and variances because it affects slopes steeper than 18% in the River Corridor. B. PARCEL S1ZE: 58,454 square feet C. EXISTI�4G LAND USE: Vacant single-family house D. SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Single-famity (RL) East: Singie-family (RL) South: Single-famity (RL) Wesf: Single-family (RL) E. ZONING CODE CITATION: 61.402.c lists the required findings for site pian review 61.601 lists the generai findings required for a variance 68.601 lists the finding for a variance in the River Corridor 60.205.d de�nes development in the River Corridor 68.402.b.3 prohibits residential development on siopes greater than 18% in the River Corridor F. DESCRIPTION OF 7HE PROJECT � There is currenfiy a singie-family house on the property. It has been vacant for a few years. The house sits on slopes greater than 18%. � The applicant recentfy bought the property and is in the process of renovafing the house. • The appficant wants to put on a small {6' x 8') entry addition and a 25' x 8' deck. � The applicant recently built a detached garage on a level part of the site. � • A small area at the bottom of steep siope near the garage was disturbed and the applicant � has put in a low (24") retaining wail to stabitize the slope. • An existing swimming pool was filled in. • There is a spring on the property. In the past, water from the spring flowed down a steep slope on the south side of the house. The appticant has rerouted a pipe so that the water drains down the steep slope on the north side of fhe house. Rip rap has been instailed • where the pipe daylights fo control erosion. • A new septic system vwil! be put in to the west and down a hili from the house. G. VARtANCES NEEDED The property is located in the River Corridor (RC3). Development on siopes greafer than 18% is prohibited in the River Corridor. (Section 68.402.b.3� Deve�opment is defined in the River Corridor as the "making of any maferial change in the use or appearance of any structure or �and includir�g, but not limified to: a reconsfruction, alferation of the size, or material change in the external appearance, of a structure or the land; a change in the intensity of use of the (and; .., demolition of a structure; c(earing of land as an adjunct to construcfion...." (Section 60.205.d) Variances are needed for the following parts of the project because they are locafed on slopes steeperthan 18°Io: • Building a new deck on the side of the house. The deck will be above the ground but it wift be atfached fo fhe ground witfi two posfs in the area where fhe slopes are steeper than 18%. • Grading at the 6oifom of a slope steeper than 18% east of the garage and putting in a low retaining wall. • Installing the pipe and rip rap to reroute wate� flowing from the spring. Variahces are not required for these parts of the project: • The existing house is nonconforming because it is (ocated on s(opes greafer fhan 18%. As . part of fhe renovation, a small entry addition is planned on a level part of the site. The renovation of the house artd the sma(I addition �re permitted without variances because nonconforming uses may be "eniarged or altered so fong as such enlargement or aiteration does not increase its nonconformity." (Section 62.105.b) • 7he detachect garage is permifted withouf variances because is if on a(evef area without s±sep slopes below the bluff line. • The new septic system will be built on a flat area. An existing pipe wiI! be used in an area where slopes are steeper than 18% to connect the system to the house. As a result, no work on the septic sysfem will affect slopes steeper than 18%. G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation has been received from District 1. H. FINDtNGS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Section 61.402(c) of the Zoning Code says that in "order to aFprove the sife plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with" the findings listed below. 1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project pians for sub-areas of the city. Renovating an existing uacant home so that it can be used again is consistent with the City's Housing Plan. Correcting an existing drainage probtem in a way that wiil not harm � f sensifive steep slopes is also consistent with fhe Comprehensive Plan. k3. 2. App/icable ordinances of the Cify of Saint Paul. The site plan is consistent with all applicable ordinances except the regulations fln � D�-g��I development on slopes steeper than 18% in ihe River Corridor. Tfie applicant is appiying � for variances for this. 3. Preservation of unique geo/ogic, geographic or historically significanf characteristics of the cify and environmentaily sensifive areas. The work 6eing proposed on the steep siopes wifl have a minimal impact on the sfeep sVopes and other environmentaliy sensitive areas. • The impact of the deck wiil be (imited to two posfs in the ground. • The 24° high retaining wali on the steep slope east of the garage will help to sfabilize the grading that was done by the previous owner. • The new pipe and rip rap to handle the water flowing from the spring wili be an improvemenf over the previous situation. 4. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properfies through reasonable provision for such mafters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, Iight and air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. The project will improve the existing drainage and will not impact neighboring land uses. 5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facrfities of the proposed development in order to assure abutting property and/or ifs occupants will nof 6e unreasonably affected. The renovation of the existing house and the associated site improvements wil{ not . unreasonably affect abutting property. 6. Creation of energy-conserving design fhrough landscaping and location, orientation and elevation of structures. The renovation ofi the existing house and the associated site improvements are consistent with current practices for energy conservation. 7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in relation to access streets, including tra�c circulation features, the (ocations and design of entrances and exits and parking areas wifhin the srte. Renovating the existing house and the associated sife improvements will not have a significant impact on vehicular or pedestrian tra�c. 8. The satisfactory availability and capacity of sforni and sanitary sewers, inc(uding solutions to any drainage problems in the area of fhe deve:opment. Sanitary sewer is not availabie for this property. However, septic systems are permitted in fhis part of the City and a new sysfem is proposed. The steps being taken to reroute water from the spring on the sife will improve fhe previous situation. • 9. Suffcienf landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.5� The project will provide enough parking to meet zoning requirements. Limited retaining walls are proposed. The owner needs to submit a revised Tree Preservation Pian for the area where fhe new septic system wiif be buift to show the impact on existing frees � 10. Site accessibitity in accordance with fhe provisions of the Americans with Disa6rtities Act . (ADA), inc(uding parking spaces, passengerloading zones and accessible roufes. The site plan meets ADA standards for singte famity houses. 11. Provision for erosion and sediment control as specifred in fhe "Ramsey Erosion Sediment and Control Handbook" The site plan complies with this co�dition. I. FINDINGS F(3R VARIANCES: Section 67.601 (ists 6 findings that must be met to grant variances: 1. The propeity in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the sfricf provisions of the code; The variances to permit development on slopes steeper than 18% are needed to allow reasonable use of the property: • The changes to the existing drainage system are needed to correct problems caused by the existing drainage system. • The limited amount of regrading and the small retaining wa11 east of the garage are needed to stabilize the slope from work done by the previous owner. • The house was clearly set up to have a deck: it has two patio doors on the upper level of the south side. 2. The p(ight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to fhe properiy and these • circumstances were nof created by fhe landowner, The circumstances are unique to fhe property and were not creafed by the current landowner: � •- There is a spring on the site that has caused drainage problems that need to be fixed • There is grading work that was done by the previous owner • The existing house has doors on the south side that were intended fo lead to a deck. 3. The ,oroposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of fhe code, and is consistent wifh the health, safety, comfort, morats and welfare of the inhaBitants of fhe cify,• Correcting the existing drainage problems on the site and renovating the existing house in a way that will not hurt sensitive steep siops is consistent with fhe intent of the code and the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the city. 4. 7he proposed variance wifl not impair an adequafe supply of lighf and air to adjacent property, nor will it alfer the essential character of fhe surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established properfy values wifhin the surrounding area; The variances wilf not impair the adjacent property or surrounding area. The house attd area where the improvements will be made are set well away from any nearby properiy and � the scope of the improvements requiring the variances is limited. � 5 The variance, if granfed, would not permif any use that is not permifted under fhe provisions • of the code for the property in the district where the affecfed Jand is located, nor wou(d it alter or change the zoning district dassifcatiorr of the property; , � 0�7 �a-"7 The use of fhe structure as a single family home is permitted by the current RL zoning. • 6. The requesf for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or rncome potential of the parce! of land. The requesf for fhe variances is based primarily on a desire to renovafe fhe existing house so it can be used in a reasana6le way and to cossect existing drainage probtems. Section 68.601 lists an additional finding that must be met fo grant variances in the River Corridor. 7. Applications for variance to the provisions of this chapter may be fled as provided in section 61.600. The Burden of proof shall resf with the applicant fo demonstrate conclusively that sucir variance will not resu/t in a hazard to life or property and wi!! not adversely affect the safefy, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the naPural environmenf; such proof may include soi/s, geology and hydro(ogy reporfs which shall be signed by registered professional engineers. Variances shall be consistent with the genera! purposes of the standards contained in this chapter and state !aw and the intent of applicable state and national taws and programs. Although va�iances may be used to modify permissible methods of flood protection, no variance sha/l have Ehe effect of allowing in any district uses prohibifed in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the fiood protection elevation for the particu/ar area, o� permit a /esser degree of f/ood protection fhan required by sfate law. The variances will not adversely affect the safety, use or stabiiify of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or fhe natural environment. They are consistent with the general . Qurposes of the standards of the River Carridor Overlay District and state law and the intent of applicable state and national laws and programs J. STAFF RECOMMEI3DATiON: Based on the findings above, the staff recommends approval of the site pian and variances of provisions prohibiting development on slopes steeper than 18°/a in the River Corridor to allow the property owner to add a small entry and a deck as part of renovating a vacant single-family house, correct existing grading on steep slopes and make drainage improvements at 2108 Douglynn Lane, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shaii submit a revised Tree Preservation Plan prepared 6y a qualified professional that includes the area that will be impacted by the new septic system before work can start on the septic system. � �� ^r z� _ E � ' `_ �'-�S � x - - ��. , - ' � �4�:��`ti - - '� �' � �� - � "�3 � x _ - , � �+ � � � �� ,��,�.-K��.�w_ ' '��y - .;? . �y � . °r� , . $ . � ` e w� 0 W� . - ' . �c % z � � '�r.e: i ti i�F �° s . . ' c � �m � _ � _ �. `�,^.. %� �,.:".�-�----�.. � �� P �P --�='-_---_.' . � µ _ o `°,�� '`. --��."-�rc _ �+ �� ---.._.__-_. = o [ � �. . :�'�' e . ��",�,.,�� ,.�� _ � °- .�'' q $ '" ��3 (j . _ a F m � �..- - S� ' `� ' O � � T U � Y • A � ~�. �. a ` m I Z jn� ^ ��v'�' ^ > m u� F'g � irS- i� ' w ' � 1- 3 � � __�F4---�-�,�-."�:�'€` � . Y'.� .'��-_ - ._' +' N � +`. �.— "'v..� ' Q G C Lf ��"'��`�.�^+.:i"'" . o � � 0 6d ' . _ . �:F �` �- 4�f � -- __,_,_., . �a�� ,o �" - .-�.--- � w �.� s � A J�-�'" . x ' F _. S ( � :vy�"'r ` =Y�. _� - -.,,.,. z: �! $� � . � ' - _ ^ �. . • '7 _ _ _' . y e_� l ✓ f ��w M !b .�,..% �! � ` `�-•• • /`'3 . Q � ��- Z - t . � � _i'" t �. a � � - ....-T� ` �OH� /' ..---„'"""--^- o� '.—�„�_ . _ � O 9 ' • .,� �- ;.. ..� �� . ., ,; �i�— � �� '� � � s.. _ __._....�-� . -`—�—..-� �.��-,� ,n �;.--. . - . :� �1' � _ .. .r--�`"W�� - . � � 9L'Sbl Rrre sn) � C � . t s � p _i ,Z � 3 � � �K �x� ----�------- F�� _ e� eJ "g io jh"_' i x . � � , � � Z � . ' . L a� � �� S _� . -il % y : ��. .:.- O • . �' � � C � _ �� .� -. a� _ � r � � �`�s — ? �� . . �. ' �. ,� j... � .�_ :� � h , �;�:.. . n 8 " �-' k' : � � vry 4 n ��.� . ; Q � Y � _ la a r n . . °� , _ J `:a� r . . . o: . � � m a /\\ u �a :�� / ( Q `/ � C . �� M Z zoN oUY d m ac � c9 3 zua 4 3 y c' �sw • 6 �-g�-'� � • ! � ..� � � i � o� �; �; � � � � , � � S �� T S Stf �'�-,(} ` � � � ��3 � � �� u �v d � S _S �� 0 -�. cb r- 0 F Q � � �_ •� s �n � � � � � � ��r o�-VI `n e �� District �. Cornmun Cou Community Councii O�ce Battle Creek Police Store£ront General O�ce and District 1 News A Community Partnership � 2090 Conwap Stteet, Room 126 , 2107 Old Hudson Road, SunRay Shopping Center Saint Paul, MN 55119 � Saint Paul� MN 55119 voice:65I.501.6345 fax:651.501.6346 poice: 651.702.6770 fac:652.714.8229 email: districticouncil(�ol.com - email: districtlCPCQaoLcom website: wwcv.districticouncil.org 7une 4, 2007 Zoning Committee of the Plauniug Commission Atin_ Tom Beach, LIEP/DIS 8 Fourth St. East, Suite 200 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Re: 2108 Douglynn Lane Dear Mr. Beach, The Hearing ComFriittee of the District 1 Community CouncH met on May 29 to discuss the variance requests for 2108 Douglynn Lane. The aiuners of the property and communiry members attended the meeting. After discassion with all parties, the committee voted to approve the variaace request related to rerouting the natural spring and installafion of a drainage pipe that flows out onto a slope steeper than 18%. ?'he committee reasoned that, with installafion o£riprap at the poin� where fhe pipe emerges from the bluff, this solution offered the greatest probability oP contiolling erosion on ttie steep slope. ' The committee voted against approval of the requested variance for installing a new deck on the side of the house. Tha proposed deck encroaches on steep. slopes protacted under the River Corridor standards and, as an amenity that is not required to live in the house, should not be permitted. Our concern is that blufflands along the River Corridor be protected, and this variance would represent a threat to the.bluffs in this azea of District 1. Thank you, Sincerely, Betsy Leach Community Organizer far the. Hearing Committee • �� Our mission �is Yo cxeate opportunities for tfie peopl�`wfio live and work in our aeigfiborfioods to engage with each other aad witfi oar govemmeat officials in. arder to build a more vibnnt and weLcoming communify, " a r� D�� • Tom Dimond 2ll 9 Skyway Drive Saint Paul, MN 55119 651-735-6667 June 3, 2007 RE: 2108 Douglynn Lane 1. Why is work being done before the site plan has been voted on? 2. Why is work being done before the vaziances have been voted on? 3. Why is the 40 feet bluff setback requirement not being_enforced? 4. This is a vacant uninhabitable structure with a nonfunctioning sep6c system. �It was reported to the vacant building program. Have permits and variances been granted to do the previous work? Is it a legal structure? 5. Why is the 60% destroyed requirement not being enforced? The proposal needs variances for: • a. Excavation - b. Entrance addifion c. Deck d. Exterior changes to the building e. Garage f. Discharge of water on bluff face 1. Sec. 60.105. Scope of regutations. No building or shucture, or part thereof, shall hereafter be erected, constructed, or altered and maintained, and no new use or change shall be made or maintained of any building, structure, or land, or part thereof, except in confonnity with the provisions of this code. Sec. 61.101. Building permits. No building permit shall be issued for the erection, alteration, moving or use of any building or structure or part thereof, or for the use of any land, which erection, alteration, moving or use is not in accordance with atl pmvisions of this code. No renewal of an expired bui]ding permit shall be issued for a use or structure inade nonconforming by amendments to this code. Sec. 61.402. Site plan review {all districts). (a) Plan to be submittecl A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the planning commission before a permit is issued for grading or ttfe erection or enlazgement of gross floor azea for any development except one- and two-family dwellings, but including the following: � (2) In the TP hee preservation dishict, any development of one- and two-family residences over one (I ) acre (43,560 squaze feet) in azea. (The property is 58, 000 square feet) (8) Any deyelopment on a slope of twelve (12) percent or greater. (There es development on 12 percent slopesJ • (9) Any development in the river corridor critical azea or in the floodplain district except one- and rivo-family dwellings which do not affect slopes of twelve (12) percent or greater. (It is in the river con•idor and does affect slopes 12 percent slopes) � Sec. 6i.201. Zoning administrator. • (b) The zoning admiaistrator shall enforce the provisions of this zoning code and any amendment thereto and shall have the power to certify wning compliance and to make inspections of buildings or premises necessary ta enforce fhis code. It shatl be unIawful for tfie zonina administrafor to approve anv site �tans as required in articIe IV, site �lan review, of this chapter, or issue anypermits for anv excavation or construcfion until such plans have been i�ected in detail and found to conform with this code. Tlzree dzfferent provisions require a site p[an. Zorting Code prohibits the issuance of� permits for ezcavation or construction unfil the site plan has been approved Why have permits been issued? 2. (d) The zoning administrator shall have no authority to change or to grant variances from the temis of this code in carrying out the duties of zoning administrator. Wfiy have permits been issued to do the drainage and other work that requires variances before the variances have been approved? 3. The definition of Bluffline was established by the Governor's Executive Order and approved by the State Legislafure. 'Bluffiine" means a line delineating the fop of a sIope connecfing the . points at which the slope becomes less than 18 percent. More than one bluffline may be encountered proceeding tandward from the wafer. Blufflirre. A line atong the top of certain steep slopes facing the Mississippi River Vailey as shown on the River Corridor Zoning Maps. In anyparticular case, the bluffline shall mean a line drawn along the top of the bluff such that the slope below the line is steeper than eighteen (1$) percent and the slope above is eighteen (18) percent or less. � Sec. 60.104. Construction of language. The following rules of construcrion apply to the text of this code: (a) The narticular shall control the general. (b) In case of any difference of ineaning or implication between the text of this code and any caption or illustration, the text shall conirol. Illusirafions in this zoning code aze provided for purposes of describing, clarifying or providing examples; such illustrations are not to scale and do not replace, limit or expand the meaning of the text. Sec. 60.209. Other city, tocal, regional, state and federa! regulatiorts. (a} Conflicting regularions. Whenever anyprovision of this code conflicts with anv other provision of this code or any other law or ordinance. the more reshictive provision shall�over� except as otherwise specifically provided. A 40 feef setback is required from the top of the 18% slopes. There is no text anywhere in City Code or the Comprehensive PCan limiting the Humber of bluffs. Saint Paul Zoning maps have more than one b[uff [ine shown. In addition, the text eontrols and the more restrictive provision shallgovern. Tfze applicant has not rrpplied for variances from the 40 feet bluff j(( setback requirernent. � �"; �J 4. (c) The zonine adminish�ator shall determine whether lots, structures, or uses aze leeailv nonconforming � consulting buildinQ records, city directories and other pertinent evidence for the purpose of canying o6f the provisions of chapter 62. 2 G � o�-ga� � Nonconfonning buiZding. A lawful building existing on the effective date of adoption (October 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that does not now comply with the azea, width, height, yard, percer.t of Iot coverage, or other regulations conceming buik or location on the lot, or spacing requiremenfs from another use, off-street pazking and loading requirements, or othet regulations of the district in which it is located. Sec. 61.102. Certificafe of occupancy. Certificates of occupancy as required by the Saint Paul Legislative Code shall atso constitute certiftcarion of mning compliance as required by this zoning code. Has tlze zoning adnzinistrator determined if t/ze structure is legally nonconforming? 5. (c) When a nonconforming structure is destroyed by any ineans to an extent of more than sixty (60) percent of its rep]acement cost, exclusive of the foundation, at the time of deshuction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this code. The zoning code prohibits reconstructioiz of a nonconforming structure destroyed by a� means if tlze extent is 60% exclusive of the foundation. Tlzis is a vacant uHinhabitable structure tliat was reported to vacant buildings. There has been exiensive destruction as a vacar2t building and lack of maintenance requiring extensive rehabilitation. Has the Zoni�zg administrator determixed that the proposed reconstruction does not exceed 60 percent threshold for nonconformi�xg structures. � Sec. 68.402. Protection of shorelands, floodplains, wetlands and bluffs. (3) No residential development shall be permitted on slopes greater than eighteen (18) percent. (4) Bluff development sha11 take place at least forty {40) feet landward of all blufflinas. The Comprehensive Plan states "the City will continue to prohibit residential devetopment on slopes that exceed 18 percent", "the City will prohibit any additional struchxral development or land alteration on the bluff face" and The City will continue to preserve the bluff impact area (forty feet landward of the bluff line) in a natural state. Development (river corridor district only). The making of anv material chan�e in the use or apneazance of anv structure or land includine, but not timited to: a reconsh�uction, alteration of the size or material chan e in the external aQ eazance, of a structure or the land; a change in the intensity of use of the Iand; alteration of a shore or bank of a river, stream, lake or pond; a commencement of drilling (except to obtain soil samples); mining or excavation; deinolition of a sRUCture; clearin¢ of land as an adjunct to construction; deposit of refuse, solid or liquid waste, or fill on a pazcel of land; or the dividing of land into two (2) or more parcels. Excavation. Anv breaking of ground, except common household gardening and ground cue. (6) Development which takes place neaz slopes greater than twelve (12) percent shall not result in increased runoff � onto those slopes sufficient to damage vegetation or structures thereon, f The Highwood Plan calls for protecting and preserving the bluff. "The City Council agrees that steep slopes, L� + especially within the Mississippi River Crirical Area, should be preserved, and that the city's River Conidor standazds are reasonable and necessary in order to conserve and protect unique nahual and scenic resources. The River Corcidor standards prohibit residential development on slopes greater than 18 percent." The proposed site ptan and variar�ces are not consistent witla tlte Compreize�zsive Pfan and Zoning Cocle. �� (4} No building permit shall be issued for the construction, aiteration, expansion or remodeling of any dwe(ling or other establishment served by an individual sewage treahnent system until the permit required for the freatment system has been issued. Occupancy shall be prohibited until a fittal inspecrion of the system has been conducted. Were building permits issued before the permit for the treatment system had been usued? � lJ � . 4 �� 'g�� Date: Iune 5, 2007 'Po: Saint Paul City Planning Commission Zoning Committee. From: John and Lisa Rogers, 2120 Douglynn Lane CC: City Council President Kathy Lanhy; District 1 Council; Rep. Sheldon Johnson; Mayor Chris Coleman Re: 2108 Douglynn Lane, File # 07-080070 We object to the issuance of the proposed zoning variances for 2108 Douglynn Lane. Our property abuts the property on the east side and overlooks the site of the garage and house. We have read Tom Dimond's letter to this board and concur with his concerns. We wiil not reiterate them here. This letter will focus on our concems for the quality and usability of our drinking water. We are on a well and depend on the safety of our water supply. This is our oniy source of drinking water. We have concerns about the rerouting of the natural springs, particulariy as it impacts the well head, and the planned new septic system installation. We have lived on our property for over 17 yeazs and intend to live here for at least another 20 years. We have a vital interest in the long term health and environxnental � effects of the proposed zoning variances. In contrast, the new owners of 2108 Douglynn intend to develop the property and resell it. At the most recent District 1 Council meeting they stated that they have already purchased another primary residence outside of St. Paul. According to the DNR and the Minnesota Dept of Health, a perennially running spring is considered a natural stream. Department of Health regulations state that a wellhead must be 50 feet and a septic system must be I50 feet frocn a natural water discharge. The springs on the property qualify as a natural stream. Our concern is that the water from the naturai spring will flow into the well head and contaminate our drinking water with pollutants and microbes. The house at 2108 Douglynn was buiit prior to the above regulatioris and the location of the weil head is unknown. To the best of our knowledge, the current residents have reroixted the natural springs withouf a detailed analysis of either the environmental or health impact of these changes. The current well was built to old standards that are known to allow surface water to leak into the lower aquifers. This problem is ampiified when a well has not been used regulariy. Since the house has been vacant for over two years, the well at 2108 has not been in regular use. We oppose the issuance of zoning variances for the rip rap that has already been installed and oppose the issuance of ttew variances for new improvements. We want a detailed independent hydrological study done on this property to assess any lo4g-term envfronmental and health consequences of the current rerouting of fhe � nafurai springs and the impact of any future glanned work. We want to emphasize � that not only should a vaziance hearing been held prior to the installation of the rip rap, � spring rerouting, and building of a new garage, but a ji�drological study should also have • been done. The Highwood azea, particularly the area on the Mississippi bluff, is �� environxnentally sensitive and fragile. AIso, the safety of cunent residents' well water • should take precedence over new development. To ensure the safety of our water supply, we would 6ke twice aunuai well testing for 2108 Douglynn to ettsure early defection of contaminafion. We attempted to address these concems with the city prior to the issuing of permits. In mid February, a permit applicaflon for a new garage appeared on the LIEP website. We called Tom Beach on February 20�' with our concerns about the rerouting of the naturat springs, that the house was built on construction debris and about the restrictions on River Corridor development. At that time, Tom stated that no zoning variances were needed. According to the LIEP office only 1 bIuff line exists in St. Paul and that this properiy is in front of this bluff line and therefore no restrictions apply. Now that the garage has been built, the city now deems it necessary to issue a zoning variance fot its conshuction. A1so, the online record of the pernut applicafion disappeazed from the website shortly after our conversations and did not reappeaz until after the work was pnderway. This leads us to infer that the city is being less than transpazent about this process. We aze concerned that future work on this properiy will be completed without the required public meetings and believe that the city has done a poor job of enforcing the current zoning regulafions with regards to this properiy_ We will address our dissatisfaction with the handling of these zoning issues in a sepazate - letter. In conclusion, we have serious concems regarding the impact of fhe comgleted work and pianned future work will have on the quality of this area's � drinking water. An independent hydrologicai svrvey is needed to determine the environmental and health impact of the completed and proposed wark. We agree with the objections and concems zaised by Tom Dimond. We additionally aze concerned about the past and future decisions of the LIEP office in regazds to trus property. � � i 1� �7-�a� u June 5, 2007 City of St. Paul Office of LIEP 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dan McGuiness 2160 Ogden Avenue St. Paul, MN 55119 Re: File # 07-080070 2108 Douglynn Lane — Request for Vaziances Please submit the following testimony to the St. Paul City Planning Commission's Zoning Committee for its meeting on Thuxsday, 7une 7, 2007: I am writing as a neighborhood in the Highwood Neighborhood of St. Paul, but also as an individual who has been active in the development of the Highwood Neighborhood Plan and, more recently, as a member of t(ie CiTy Council Task Force to recommend updates to the Mississippi River Critical Area zoning regulations. I believe there is sound and reasonabie reasons to seriously object to two issues related to this properiy: l. The requests for vaziances should be denied as the structure on this property is currently non- conforming and has been uninhabited for several years. There aze no prudent reasons to grant variances • to improve the existing structure andlor to provide for additional construction work on the site and i believe the request does not meet the hardship test for granting variances under cify regulations. Several questions raised in a separate letter to the City by Tom Dimond clearly raises questions about the validity of approving any variances. 2. The shing of decisions and communications between ciry staff and neighbors regarding this properiy, as documented by a separate letter by John and Lisa Rogers, adjacent proper[y owners to 2108 Douglynn Lane, clearly documents a series of confusing if not evasive communications on the part of the city re(ative to this issue. I do not anderstand why any work was allowed to be done on the site in advance of a public heazing rsgarding this matter. As faz as I can tell, there was no sense of urgency involved. The site was purchased with the intenf of "renovating and improving" it for re-sale — it is not a case where an existing properiy owner needed to bring the structure up to ccde or take action to enable them to continue occupying the structure. Now, in spite of public objections from the start, there has been excavation, filling, altering of a natural spring, conshuction of a retaining wall and a garage on site. None of this should have been allowed, This entire scenazio only adds credence to the claims by skeptics that the city is not serious about supporting the Mississippi River Critical Area rules and rigorous(y enfarcing them. I urge the Zoning Committee, the Planning Commission and the Saint Paul City Council to renew your support for the Critical Area designation and to advise the City staff that it truly has an obligation to follow the proper steps and procedures in dealing with enforcement of the code. It is time to turn the tide and tenew our commitment to taking caze of our river corridor, one of St. Paul's great natural assets. Sincerely, • Dan McGuiness � C � F� Glimb the Wind Institute 1330 St Paul Avenue Saint Paul, Miunesota 55116 07 June 2007 Citp of Saint Paul Plamung Commission Zoning Coimnittee Re: Opposition to Request for Variances and Site Plan Approval 2108 Douglynn Avenue A. The Office of LIEP has inadequately informed the public and Zoning Coirunittee of the illegalities of the homeowners. The staff report fails to identifp the lawlessness of actions already taken. Woxk on the pxoperty at 2108 Douglynn Avenue has been completed in part The staff xeport, however, does not adxriit to the illegalities of the work thus Ear completed. The pxoperty owner knew ox shouid have known of the location of the property within the Cxitical Area. Furthexmore, tkce property owner knew or should have known of the xequixed permits, variances, and site plan teview xequixed and the xequixed obtainuig of suchliriorto the"staxt of the work. But the Office of LIEP fails to menrion the violarions of the propexty ownex of the specific provisions of the City's Zoning Code the pxopertq ownex,now seeks variances and approval for theix project Furthermore, LIEP suggests no accountability ox penalty fox those violarions. ii. LIE�' has inteinal depaxmiental deficiencies zegaxding Critical t�ea issues. In addition, if LIEP allowed the pernutting £or any of the work at 2108 Douglynn Avenue prior to the piopex pxoceduxal xequirements of the Zoning Code, it continues to xeflecf the lack of knowledge and competency of the department xegarding Cxitical Axea ptojects of anp size. This is not the fixst time LIEP has failed to appxeciate the significance of the Cxitical Axea zoning regulations and heightened scrutiny needed. It certainlp undennines the creditabilitp of the deparnnent and the confidence that if the variances and site plan are appxoved, LTEP has the abilitp to ovexsee the construction. Any appxoval of anp variance or site plan should be delaped because of the pxoven incompetence of LIEP and its xeview of pxojects withiu the Critical Area. �� o �7-g� • Once LIEP can assuxe the public that it can follow the Compzehensive Plan and Critical Area regulations regarding the application process and construction oversight, then the Douglpnn Avenue issue can be xevisited. I am dismaped bp the lack of LIEP's lack of cleas communication with John and Lisa Rogexs and LIEP's lack of knowledge.' B. The proposed project at 2108 Dougiynn Avenue implicates a number of Critical Axea regulations that are insufficiendp addressed. i. The pxoperty owners have not pxovided the requisite butden of proof under Sec. 68.6012o conclusively demonstrate the project will not cause advexse harm. T'he propexty owners of 2108 Dougiynn Avenue have not provided conclurive evidence of that the project will not cause advexse hamz.z For instance, there is no report on the geology or hydxology of the pxoject area to substantiate no hann will come to slopes or will not adversely affect the exisring water suppiy of the Rogers well. The staff report sites no report oz other resouxce to reach the threshold xequisement of "conciusive evidence." In fact, there is no evidence. � u. Since the building is a non-confonning structure no new use ox change is allowed uniess in confoxxnity of Critical Area pxovisions. LIEP has identified the present structure as non-confornung. As a non- conforining structure, no building pe�mit may be issued fox any altexation of the buiiding ox use of the land unless it confoxms to the provisions of Crirical Area provisions. If LIEP has akeady issued a pernvt, prior to this pxoceeding, then the pxopexry owners have already violated specific code pxerequisites undex Sec. 61.101. In addition, because the property owners knew or should have known Yhe pxoperty affected includes slopes greater than 12°/o, "a site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the planning coinmission before a pexmit is issued...: ' Excavation appaxently has been done and compieted within the slope axea pxiox to a site plan approval. Lack of the propexty owner's knowledge of zoning code provisions and LIEP's lack of knowledge is no excuse to allow the gxant of a variance ox appxoval of the site plan after the fact. `See John and Lisa Rogers letter dated June 5, 2007 to the Saint Paul City Plauiung � • - Coimnission Zoning Coinnuttee. � z Saint Paul Code Ordin. (Mn.) § 68.601. ' Saint Paul Code Ordin. (Mn.) � 61.402(a). 2 �� Furthexmoxe, the staff ieport fails to identify all blu££ lines associated with the � propertp. The staff xeport clauns the stractute to be below a bIuff line, kowever, cuteent maps xeflect more than one bluff line in the azea of 2108 Douglpnn Avenue. If thete is a pxoperlp identified bluff line othex than the one above the pxopertp, then the propertq ownexs are tequired to obtain anotkex variance since a 40 foot set back is xequixed f�om the top of 18% slopes. C. Because the applicarion fox vaxiances and site plan appxoval and the staff xeport axe deficient, the tequests should be denied. The staff report sites no evidence and the ptoperty ownexs pxovide no evidence to conclusivelq suppoxt a finding to gtant the requested variances and the proposed site plan appxoval the xequests must be denied. To gxant the variances and appxove the site plan when thexe is no evidence is abuse of discretion. Firially, the pxoperty owners have not been held accountable for their lawless actions to daee in violation of the Citp's zoning'code. Unless and until the pxoperiy ownexs ate subjected to sanctions, the� application should not be considexed let alone appxoved. Sincexely, � John E. Gxzpbek � �� `Saint Paul Code Ordin. (Mn.) § 68.402 (4). � o � g�-� ! Appendix A: A non-exhaustive list of relevant statues. From Chapter 68. Zoning Code—River Corridor Overlay Districts Sec. 68.4�4. Protecfion of water quality (1) Conshuction shall not be permitted on wet soils, very shallow soils, soils with high shrink-swell or frost action potential unless it is shown that appropriate construction techniques capable of overcoming the restricfive condition will be utilized. (Z) Septic tanks....in accordance with fhe class of public waters as prescribed in Minnesota Regula[ions NR-82: a. On natural environment waters, at least 150 feet. (3) Private wells shall be placed in azeas not subject to flooding and up slope from any source of contamination. Wells already existing in areas prone to flooding shall be floodproofed in accordance with accepted engineering standards as defined in the � Uniform State Building Code. Sec. 68.601. Variances (a) ....The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to demonstrate conclusively that such a variance will not result in a hazard�to life or property and will not adversely affect the safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the natural env'ironment: such proof may include soils, geology and hydrology reports which shall be signed by registered p�ofessional engineers.... � �� t� _ � ��..� �..4 �� ' . � '+�j£. 1 ;•� �� " ry� �-�S �£'.L` `Y-4' -�� ' �a� x'u^l.-� �-�7. �+ .: ,.,�� '. a ' e_ �' . %*,�.. �4 v p ry i v � P � I� e � ' e4 a$ o- ' �� ti t �� ^ ,4 }�� . �'�,�'-� � �. .: -.s " � . - z' �� '- - ' ..= ,.c � > r� `�,'g,�� ,;' ��=�: - �� r� �� i � River Corridor Overlay Zoning District o�'g ^ • �� _ U T � - ` _ �° � -� � N U U Q l � .� '� • � , U N .'"-� � S . ` N .. Q- s. $ � � . U . y Q N a� v � 0 � C w' _ �a, t � � � C a ; � � y 3 � �y . � ❑ o r \ � � ! r r O N O � � a ro .-s . �� i � � � � �q tL Ll � CL 41. �� tL � � � � T' � .ti--.. --- . . ; � _ � c I e , . . ❑ . _' p � + S ` � . I : , � ..� �: � - , �—_= - . --- --`�-_ _ � t}� " li ;;; -�----- . , . : � �- _ `%�.>,.::. • ' . ' ` , 1 �� _ -- - � ,O " , � ' . �` � �—•---'--- �� G I ay�.. o . , i�,'.��• � � � � ' I , � '� � _ � � _ �� V � . � , .__ V � .� ; .: !r -`:::i_`.'-� :��. � � �„( ;� . � -''.'_ � � ,,' ` ?��.,�`•' ,,: :%•�, ^ . : l ''') � / � , �. . -- j--..._ . _.-?�:+� ,-.... . � . � ;� . ' '� � '° : U A . "�' '',? ,< - P � p, � �::� �� : ; , I - : . • • `-;•• �`�,' � ^ , �t`�� P s�,\` t ` v"'�r"�` . ' "' � C _ `,} � `�. �[ � f t "' • . \ ', : „,`e' �', i t ` -• . � , �. . 1 . , � .i�,' �J".:�' . :. µ J�4��; �::::. . ... �iir`�`rr � ` :.-. , ti_ � �•�' ,• • �' •, i ti.�. •`..��^� llP(� .,7��7...•� � �t �/� �� y �� .4� ..� -..lA��..,. � .._ � � � _ �� . { �S .•� � ��. �_�y''.� '�_ �.�� .. i ( ��M � •' ' :� ' ' • �'�� . ;"�1. ; ..J� ��l ; r:..:Y.� i � � � i � .� --- '` =-- :�'=•= � �:}�• t _ ' -- — - b . : �\ �, l��y�— ��' r�.��li, - --�. • ,pq „ y,. �:.��.��. •_—�%...o�..r... � � ,.� :.,,;`,. ..{ '�` %�� _-'_--- ----- - - - ��-'�.��-"`�-. _ , - � -- - - ::✓.: �- � ' . _�.._. . ,s- � -, , ', ^� ��' N _ f : -. �� f ,- � , ,� - - ,,-; ! v : - `._. � � �.i. •.'� :� i i \i "' • - � : ' ----- •e_—.—.__.—. ..—.... � �, :,= � � � �, : ; Cj " i , ; . � � _ � � � . � t- C3 t�C� ?� Map Page 1 of 2 • • (� . 2 �{ hftp:/1gis.ci.stpaulmn.us/gis/�ruuiplcgi-bin/grump.pI?titIe=Map&size=640+80Q&lavers=L... 6/I3%2007 M'a 7l l � � � � �. � Map 1V�ap , Qr�� Page I of 2 I 7 �� http://gis.cistpaul.mn.uslgis/grump/cgi-binlgrump.pl3title=Map&size=640+800&tapers=L... 6/13/2007 210& douglynn 1ane, saint paul, rrin - Google Maps Page 1 of 1 � � � � e 2� http://maps..google.com/maps?€q&h1=en&q 5/3 i /?..(i07 � Address 2,1d8 Dougiynn Ln � _ _ �� . � St Paul, MN 55119 >�3�� MINU7ES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 3:30 p.m. City Councii Chambers, 3rd Ftoor Cify Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: STAFF: 6�-8�-� Alton, Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, Morton and Rosemark Tom Beach, Rachel Gunderson, Patricia James and Caroi Martineau, The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton. Tom Beach presented the staTf report with a recommendation of approvai of fhe site plan (07- 07411) and variances (�7-080070) with conditions. Fle said that fina{ action would have to be delayed until the next meeting since notice of the hearing was not included in the Legai Ledger. He afso stated Districf 1 supports the variance for the drainage system on the steep sfope but opposes the variance to allow the deck on steep slopes. Upon the question of the Commissioners, Mr. Beach stated that when staff is dealing with nonconforming uses, the poticy for single-fami{y houses is that a house does not lose its nonconforming status because the house has been vacant. He explained that the applicant was not aware that he shouid have applied for variances for the drainage work and the grading done on the slope east of the garage. . Mike Aeling, The applicant gave a history of the property. He said the garage is on flat ground, and the iow retaining waU east of the garage was put in to protect for erosion. He said that they rerouted the spring to where it was originaliy. He would like to put a deck up because that is what the house is designed for. At the requesf of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Aeling stated he would try to get proof of the history of the property. Commissioner Johnson said he was concemed about the deck being built over steep siopes and suggested that it could be redesigned and made smalier so that it would avoid the slopes. No one else spoke in support. John Rogers, 2120 Douglyn Lane spoke in opposition and raised concerns about how the site grading could affect the well and ground water. (See John and Lisa Rogers attached letter.) At the questions of the Commissio�ers, Mr. Beach explained staff's position that fhere is just one bluff line on the property and that it is located east of the proposed improvements. He stated that the location of the well is in front af the house and is not related to the variance. Tom Diamond, 2119 Skyway Drive spoke in opposition and submitted photos of fhe properfy fa the record. (See Tom Dimond's attached document.) � � Dan McGuiness, 2160 Ogden Ave spoke in opposition. (See Dan McGuiness' attached letter.) • Ne aiso stated fie does not agree with District 1 counciPs recommendation in regards to the va�iance for the drainage work on sfeep slopes. Mike Aeiing File #07-074111 June T, 200T, Zoning Case Page 2 of 2 Upon the questions of the Commissioners, Mr. Beach stated the use of the existing house is a conforming use but fhe sfrucfure is no�conforming because it is on steep slopes. He said that the deck increases fhe nonconformity of the structure so it needs a variance.. Patricia James talked about whether the deck woutd need a variance or an expahsion of a nonconforming use The hearing remained opeFl. Commissioner Johnson stafed he (�ad some issues that raised serious concerns pertaining to public health and safety. He went on to say he was goirtg to investigate the environmentai issues perfaining to tfiis case. He afso stated any additional evidence from the appiicant and history of the property wouid be helpfui. it was also suggested the staff work with the Cify Attomey's office: C , J After further discirssion pertai�ing to the site plan review, variances, and permits that may be needed. Commissioner Kramer moved to fay over fo June 21, 2007, Commissioner Gordon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0-0. • Adopted Yeas - 8 Nays - 0 Abstained - 0 Drafted by: Submitted by: �x�, Approved by: �-- •--� u0�� t ! ��r , C � v ,�- Carol Martineau Tom each Gla s Morton Recording Secretary Zoning Secfion Chair �� • D� Date: June 5, 2007 To: 5aint Paul City PIanning Commission Zoning Committee. F'rom; John and Lisa Rogers, 2120 Douglynn Lane CC: City Couneil President.Kathy Lantry; District 1 Council; Rep. Sheldon Johnson; Mayor Chris Coleman Re: 2108 Douglynn Lane, File # 07-08�070 We obj ect to the issuance of the proposed zoning variances for 2108 Douglynn Lane. Our property abuts the property ori the east s3de and overlooks the site of the garage and house. We have read Tom Dimond's leiter to this boazd and concur with his concerns. We will not reiterate them here. This letter will focus on our concems for the quality and usability of our drinking wafer." We aze on a well and depend on the safety of our water supply. This is our only source of drinking water. We have conceins about the remufing of the natural springs, particulazly as it impacts the well head, and the planned new sep'tic system installation. We have lived on our property for over 17 yeazs and intend to live here for at least another 20 years. We have a vital interest in the long term health and environmental • effects of the proposed zoning variances. In contrast, the new ownera of 2108 Douglynn intend to develop the property and resell it. At the most recent Disttict 1 Councit meeting they stated that they have already purchased another primary residence outside of St. Paul. According to the DNR and the Minnesota Dept of Health, a perennialiy rnnning spring is considered a natural stream. Department o£Health regulations state that a wellhead must be 50 feet arid a septic system must be 150 feet from a natural water discharge. The springs on fhe property qualify as a natnral stream. Our concem is that the water from the ttatural spring will flow into the well head and containinate our drinking water with pollutants and microbes. The house at 2108 Douglynn was built prior to fhe above regulations and the location ofthe weli head is uuknown, To the best of our knawledge, the current residents have rerouted the natural springs without a detailed analysis of either the environmental or health impact of these changes. The current well was huilt to old standards fhat aze known to allow surface water to leak into fhe lower aquifers. This problem is amplifie.d when a well has not been used regulazly. S ince the house has been vacant for over two years, the well at 2108 has not been in regular use. We oppose the issuance of zoning variances for fhe rip rap that has already • been installed and oppose Ehe issuance of new variances for new improvements. We want a defailed independent hydrological study d»ne on this praperty fo assess any lot�g-term envaronmental and health consequences of the current reroufing of the ti7 natural springs and the impact of any future pIanned work. We want to emphasize � that not only should a variance hearing been field prior fo the instaliation of the rip rap, �� • spring rerouting, and building of a new garage, but a hydrological study should also haue • been done. The Highwood azea, particularly the area on the Vlississippi bluff, is environmentally sensitive and fragile. Also, fhe safety of current residents' well water • should take precedence over new development. To ensure fhe safetp af our water snpp�y, we would like twice annuaI weIi festing for 2108 Douglynn fo ensure early. detection of confamination. ' ' We attempted to address these concerns witfi the city priar to the issuing � of permits. .In mid Febmary, a permit application for a new gazage appeared on the LIEP website_ We called Tom Beach on February 20�` with our concems about the rerouting of the nafural springs, that the house was built on conshuction debris and about the resirictions on River Corridor development. At that tirrie, Tom stated that no zbning vaziances were needed. According to the LIEP office only 1 blufF line e�sts in St. Paul and that this property is in front of this bluff line and therefore no restrictions appiy. Now that the garage has been built, the city now deems it necessary to issue a zoning variance for its construcfion. Also, the online rewxd of the permit application disappeazed from the website shorfly after oiir conversations and did not reappear unfil after the work was underway. This leads us to infer that the city is being less than transparent about this ptocess. We aze concerned thatfuture woik on this property will be completed without the required public meetings and believe that the city has done a poor job of enforcing the current zoning regulations with regards to this properiy. We will address our dissatisfaction with the handling of these zoning issues in a separate letter. In conclusion, we haue serious concerns regarding the impact of the completed work and planned future work will have on the quality of this area's . drinking water. An independent hydrological suLVey is needed to determine the environmental and health impact of the completed and proposed work. We agree with the objections and concems raised by �'om Dimond. We add'ttionally aze concemed about the past and future decisions of fhe LIEP office in regazds to this properiy. �� • D7-Sa`7 C Appendi�c A: A non-exhaustive list of relevant statues. From Chapter 68. Zoning Code—River Corridor Overlay Districts .. Sec. 68.404. Protection of water quality (lj Constzuction shall not be pernutted on wet soils, very shaIlow soils, soils with high shrink-swell or frost action potential unless it is shown that appropriate construc#ion techniques capable of overcoming the restrictive condirion will be utilized. (2) Sepfic tanks....in accordance with the ciass of public waters as prescribed in Minnesota Regulations NR-82: a. On naturai environment waters, at least 150 feet. (3) Private wells shall be placed in areas not subject to fiooding and ug slope from any source o£ contamination. WeIls already existing.in areas prone to flooding shall be floodgroofed in accordance with accepted engineering standards as defined in the • Uniform Stafe Building Code. Sec. 68.601. Vaziances (a) ....The burden o� �roof shall rest with the applicant to demonstrate conclusively that such a variance will not result in a hazard to.tife or property and will not adversely affect fhe safety, use or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the natural environment: such proofmay include soils, geology and hydrology reports which shall be signed by registered professional engineers.... • l) � Tom Dimond 2119 Skyway Drive Saint Paul, MN 55119 651-735-6667 June 3, 2007 RE: 2108 Douglynn Lane 1. Why is work being done before the sife plan has been voted oa? 2_ Why is work being done before the vaziances have been voted on? 3. Why is the 40 feet bluff setback requirement not being enforced? 4. This is a vacant uninhabitable structure with a nonfuncrioniug septic system. It was reported to the vacanf building program. Have permits and variances been granted to do the previous work? Is it a legal strdcture? 5. Why is the 60% destroyed requirement not being enforced? The proposal needs vaziances for: a. Excavation b. Entrance addition c. Deck d. Exterior changes to the building e. Garage f. Discharge of water on biuff face l. Sec. 60.105. Scope of regulations. � ' No building or structure, or part thereof, shall hereafter be erected, conshucted, or aitered and maintained, and no new use or change shall be made or mainfained of any buiLding, structure, or land, or part th�reof, except in confomuty.with the provisions of this code. Sec. 61.101. Bnilding permits. ' No buiIding permit shall be issued for the erecEion, altera�ion, moving or use of any building or siructure or pazt thereof or for the tise of any land, which erection, alteration, moving or use is not in accorciance with ali provisions of this code. No renewal of an expired building permit shall be iss¢ed for a use or sfructure made nonconforming by amendments to this code. • •_ Sec 61.402. Site plan review (aIl districts). (a) Plan to be submitred. A site plan sFiall be submitted to and approved by the pl2nning commission before a permit is issued for grading or the erecrion or enlazgement of gross floor azea for any development except one- and two-family dwellings, but inciuding the following:_ � ' � (2) In tfie TP tree preservation disirict, any development of one- and two-famity residences over one (1) acre � (43,560 squaze feet) in azea. (The property is 58, 000 square feet) °' {8) Any deyelopment on a slope of tcvelve (12) percent or greater. (There is dwelopment on 12 pereeru slopes) • (9) Any development in the river corridor critical azea or in the floodplain district except one- and two-family dwellings which do not affect slopes oftwelve.(12) percent or greater. (It is in the river corridor anil does afject slopes I2 percent slapes) 1- D � -$�-� • Sec. 61201. Zoning administrator. (b) The zonin� administrator shall enforce the provisions of this zoning wde and any amendment therefo and shall have the power to certify zoning compliance and to make inspections of buildings or premises necessary to enforce this code. It shall be unlawful for the zonine administrator to anorove anv site plans as required in art cle N site plan review, of flus chanter or tssue anv permits for any excavafion or constiucrion unfil such �lans fiave been �nspected in detail and found to conform wiYh this code Three dzfferext pr requir�e a site plan. Zoning Code prohibits the usuance of � permits fov ezcavation or consfruction until the site plan has been approved YVhy have permits been issued? 2. (d) The zoning administratar shall have no authority to change or to grant vaziances from The terms of ttus code in cairying out the duGes of zoning administrator. LYhy have permits b-een issued to do the tlYainage and other work that requires variances before the variances have been approve�d? 3. The definition of Bluffline was esfablished by the Governor's Executive Order and approved • by the State Legislature. "Bluffline" means a line delineafing the top of a slope connecting the points at which fhe slope becomes tess than 18 percent. More than orie bluffline rnay be encountered proceeding landward from the water. Blufftine. A line along the top of certain steep slopes facing the Mississippi River Valley as shown on the River Conidor Zoning Maps. In anv oarticulaz case, the bluffline shall mean a line drawn along the top of the bluff such that the slope below the line is steeper than eighteen (18) percent and the slope above is eighteen (18) percent or less. 5ec. 60.104. Construction of language. The following rules of construcfion apply to the text of this code: (a) The particnlaz shall control the general. (b) Tri case of any difference of ineaning or implicaflon beriveen the tezt of this code and aqy caption or illush ation, the text shall control. Illustrarions in this zoning bode aze provided for purposes of describing, clarifying or providing examples; such illustrarions aze not to scate and do not replace, limit oz expand the meaning of the text. Sec. 60.109. Other city, local, regionat, state and federa( regulations. (a) Conflicting regulations. Whenever anv Rrovision of this code conflicts with � other provision of this code or any other law or ordinance. the more restrictive provision shall overn except as otherwise specifically provided. A 40 feet setback is required from the top of the X8% slopes. There is no text anywhere in Cify Code or the Comprehexsive Plan limifixg tl:e number of bluffs. Saint Paul Zoning snaps have moYe than one bluff line shown. ln additian, the text controls and the more restrictive ptavision shall gbvern. The appticant has not applied for variances from the 40 feet bCuff setback requiremeni. � � • . 4. (c) The zonine administratoi shall determine whether lots, shuctures or uses are leeallv nonconformine � consultine building records, city d"uectories and other pertinent evidence for the purpose of cazrying out the provisions of chapter 62. 2 Nonconforming building. A lawful builcling exisring on the effec6ve dafe of adoption (October24, 1975) or . • amandment of this code bnt that does not naw comply wifh the area, width, height yazd, percent of YoY covesage, or other regularions cottcerning bullc or location on the lot; or spacing requirements from another use, off-street pazkiag and loading requiremenfs, or othex regulations of the distrtct in which it is located. Sec. 61.102. Certificate of occupancy. Certificates of occupancy as required by fhe Saint Paul Legislative Code shall also constitute certification of zoning compliance as required by tizis zoning cod8. Has the zoning administrator deterrrxined if the structure u legal[y nonconforrrcing? 5. (c) When a nonconfomung shucture is destroyed bp any means to an extent of more than sixty (60) percent of its teplacement cost, exclusive of the foundation, at tfie time of deshuction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions af tt�is code. The zoning code prohibits recanstruction of a noncorzforming structure destroyed by a� means zf the extent is 60% exctusive of the faundation. This is a vacant uninhabitable siructure that was reported to vacant buildings. ?'here hns been extensive desirucfion as a vacaizt building and lack of maintenance requiring extensive rehabilitation. Has the zoning administrator determined that thegroposed reconsti�uction does not exceed 60 percent threshold for nanconformirzg structures.' • Sec. b8.402. Profection of shorslands, floodplains, wetlands and bluf£s. (3) No residential development shall be permitted on slopes greater thaa eighteen (18) percent. (4) Bluff developmenY shall take place at least forfy (40) feet landwazd of all blufflines. The Comprehensive Plan states "the Cify will.confinue to prohibit residenfiat development on slopes that exceed 18 percenY', "the City will prohibit any addifional structural development or land alteration on the bluff faoe" and The City will continue fo preserve the bluff impact area (forty feet landward of the bluff line) in a natural state. Development (river corridor district onlyf. e�ctemal appeazance of a shucture or the land a chauge in the intensity of use of.the land; alteration of a shore or bank of a ri6er, stream, Iake or pond; a commencement ofdiilling (except to obtain soil samples); mining or excavation� demolition of a structure; clearine of Iarid as an adjunct to constrnction; deposit of refuse, solid or liquid waste, or fiIl on a pazcel of land; or the dividing of land into tcvo (2) or more pazceLs. Excavation. Anv breakine of sound except common household gardening and ground caze. (� Development which takes place neaz slopes greaYer than twelve (12) percent shall not re"sult in iacreased runoff � onto those slopes suffcient to damage vegetarion or sh uctures thereon. _ � The Highwood Plan calls for protecting and preserving the btuff. "The Ciry Council agrees fhat steep slopes, • especially vritfiin the Mississippi River Crirical Area, should be preserved, and that the city's River Corridor standazds are reasonable aad necessary in order ro conserve and protect imique naturat and scenic resources.'I'he River Corridor sfandards prolu'liit residential developinent on slopes greater than 18 percerit." - The proposed site plan and variances are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and ZoningCode. ��ga� ❑ (4) No building permit shall bc iss¢ed for the construcrion, aiterafion, expansion or remodeling of any dwelling or other establishment served by an individual sewage treatmeat system untII the per,-nit requued for the heatment system has been issued. Occupancy shall be prohibited until a final inspection of the system has been conducted Were building permits issued before the pet for the ts�eatment system had been issued? • � � • C! ban Nr�Guiness - 2160 Ogden Ayeuue - St. Paul, �tN 55119 7une 5, 2007 City of St. Paul Office ofLIEP 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: File # 07-080Q70 _ 2108 Douglynn Lane — RequesY for Variances Please submit the following testimony to the St. Paul City Planning Commission's Zoning Committea for its meeting on Th�usday, Jurie 7, 2007: I am writing as a neighborhood in the Highwood Neighborhood of St. Paul, but also as an individual who has been active in tke develogmenY of the IIighwood Neighborfiood Pian and, more recent�y, as a member of the City Council Task Force to recommend updates fo the Mississippi River Critical Area zoning regulations. I believe fhete is sound and reasonable reasons to seriously object to two issues related to this proper[y: . 1. The requests for variances shouId be denied as tfie structure on tfus properry is currently non- conforming and has been uniahabited for several yeazs. There are no prudent reasons to grant vaziances to improve the existing sfracture andJor'to provide for additional construction work.on the site and I believe the request does not meet the hazdship test for granting variances under city regutations. Severai questions raised in a separate fettet to the City by Tom Dimoud cleazly raises questions about the validity of approving any vaziances. 2. The string of decisions and communications between oity staff and neighbors regazding this properry, as documented by a separate letter by John and Lisa Rogers, adjacent groperCy owners to 2108 Douglynn Lane, cleazly documents a series of confusing if not evasive communications on the part of the city relative to this issue. I do aot undersfand Evhy any work was allowed to be done on the site in advance of a public hearing Fegazding fhis rnatfer. As faz as I can tell, there was no sense of urgency involved The site was purckased tuith the.intent of "renovating and improving" it for re-sate — it is not a case where an eXi'sting proper[y owner needed to bring the structure up to code or take action to enable them to continue occupyiag the structure. Now, in spite ofpublic objectioas from the starf, there has been excavation, fillin�, altering of a natural spring, consfructioa of a refaining wa11 aad a garage.on site. None of this should have been ailowed, This entire scenario onIy adds credence Yo the claims by skepfics that the ciiy is not serious about supporling fhe IV&ssissippi Riyer Critical Area rules and rigorousiy enforcing them. I urge the Zoning Committee; the Planning Commission and the Saint Paul City Council to renew your support for the Critical Area designation and to advise tt.e City staff that it huly has an obligation to foliow the pioper steps and procedures in dealing with enforcement of the code. It is time to tum the fide and renew our commitrnent to taking care of our river corridor,. one of St PauPs great natural assets. ' Sincerely, Daa McGuiness � i � V l • �� _ District 1 Coms�.unity Couracil , �Community Council O�ce Battle Creek Police Storefront General Office aad District 1 Neuu A Commuaity Partaezship 2090 Coawap Street, Room 126 210T Old Hadsoa Road, SnaRay Shopping Centez Saint Paul, ffiN 55119 Saiat Paul, DIIi 55119 voice: 651.501.6345 fax: 651.501.6346 ooice: 651.702.6?70 fazc 651.914.5229 eatail: districticonacit�aoLcom email: distriMlCPC(daoi.com website: www.districticonnciLozg 3une 11, 2Q07 Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission 8 Fourth St. East, Suite 200 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Re: 2108 Douglynn Lane (#07-080070) Dear Zoning Committee Members, The District 1 CommuniTy Council Hearing Committee submitted a letter to you dated June 4, 2007 in which we conveyed our decision to support the vaziance request for the already diverted stream at 2108 Douglynn Lane. We attach here a copy of our earlier letter, dated Apri125, 2007, requesting a stop-work order for this property. Please note that we assumed, pezhaps mistakeniy, that our earlier letter would aiso become a part of the record, and that you would be aware of our concerns with the process followed at this property. • We would like to clarify our most recent vote to approve the variance request on the stream diversion. Our vote to approve was not an endorsement of the variance request Rathex, it was our attempt to mitigate future damage caused by the apparent lack of procedural enforcement followed during the process with this property. In making our decision, we were acknowledging that our priority was preventing any fiirther damage to sensitive slopes. We assumed that the use of riprap would assist in negating any further damage. Our understanding from 1Vovember 2006 was that no work was to proceed at this site without an approved site plan. When we discovered that work was underway (in fact partially compteted) without that approval, we requested a stop-work order. 4Vhen that action resulted in vuiance requests being submitted after the fact, we tried to deal with those requests based on the current situation, and not on what we'believe should have bappened to begin with. Had the site plans been submitted prior to work being compieted on stream diversion, we would have recommended an entirely different solution. The Disirict 1 Community Council is committed to safeguarding the river bluffs. We aze also committed to working with the City and with community members to assure that processes are followed so that landowners' rime and money are not wasted irying to build shuctures that are not permitted by regulations. We are uncleaz how work could have progressed as faz as it did withouY approved plans, given our November discussions with the landowners and our understanding of City processes. Sincerely, . Bet Community Organizer for the Heazing Committee � � Our missioa is to create opportnnities for the people who llve and work ia our neighborhoods to engage w3th each other aad - mith our goverambat officiads in order to build a mose vibrant aud wetcomiag Commuaitp. DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS Bob Kessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL ChristopherB. Co%nean, Mayor Date: 6/13/07 To: Zoning Committee From: Tom&each�/�' RE: 2108 Douglynn Lane COMMERCEBUlLDING Fe%phone: 657-266-9090 • 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200 _ Facsimile: 651-266-9I24 St P<ml, Mrnnesot¢ 5510l-102S Web: wwtv stoa:d rav/dsi At the public heazing on June 7, the Zoning Committee as[ced staff to look into some of the issues that came up at the meeting and report back. Renovating the e�sting house The e�sting single-family house is a conforming use in a nonconforrning structure: a single-famiiy house is a permitted use in the RLL district but the structure is nonconforming because sits on slopes greater than 18% in the River Comdor. The house conformed to aIl applicabte zoning regulations that were in effect when the house was built in the 19F0's. The cunent resh on buildingQn slopes greater than 18% went into effect in the eazly 1980's. The Zoning Code says the following about nonconforming structures and uses: • It is the intent of this code to per�nit Zegal nonconforming... ststtctures ... to continue until they are removed. (Sectzon 62.101) •.4 nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. _(Secfion 62.IOS.b) The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing house. This will not increase its nonconformity. He is also proposing to add a small (6' x 8') enclosed entry). The enhy will be built on level ground and will not increase the nonconformity of the existing structure. The applicant is also proposing to add a 29 x 8' deck to fhe side offhe house. The deck is ovet slopes steeper than 18% and will increase the nonconformity of the house and so the applicant has applied for a variance to consiruct the deck. (A quesrian was raised about whether the deck should be considered as an enlargement of a nonconforming use uuder the Section 62.109.d. However, the nonconformity here is with the siructure and not with the use. Therefore Section 62.109.d does not apply and a variance is the correct procedure.) • When a nonconforming use is destroyed by any means to an extent af more than 60% of its replacement cost, exclusive of the foundation, at the time of destruction, if shall not be reconstructed excepf in conformity with the provisions of this code, (Section 62.105. c) � The house was vacant for about 18 months and needs quite a bit of clean up and work but it was not destroyed. The applicant told staff that the cost of the work on the house will be less than 60% of the replacement value of the house. This seems reasonable to staff and we did not ask the appIicant for a more detailed budget and set of costs. ' • When a nonconforming use is c7iscontinued or ceases to exist for a continuous period of 365 days,lhe building ... slurll thereafter be zrsed in conformance with the regulations of the district in which is it tocated (Section 62.106.g} The fact that the house was empty for approximately 18 months was brought up at the hearing. i � � • AA-ADA-EEO $mployer 0 �-8�7 , However, this section applies to nonconfonning uses and not to nonconforming structures. Since tl�e use of the house as a single-family house is conforming, this section does not apply in this case. This is consistent with how DSI has applied this section in the past. Bluff line There were questions raised about tfie bluff line: where is the bluff line on this site; can there be more than one bluff line; and how does this affect what can be done on the site. T4ese questions aze important because the River Corridor Regulations prohibit devetopment on any slope greater than 18% but for a slope that is designated as a bluff line there is an additionai "no build" setback 40' landward of a bluff line. The zoning code defines the bluff line as "a Zine along the top of certain steep slopes facing the �sszssippi River T�all2y as shown on the River Corridor Zoning Maps. In any particular case, the bluff line shall mean a line drawn along the top o�the bluff such that the slope below the line is steeper than eighteen (18) percent and the slope above is eighteen {18) percent or less." (Italics added by staf£) Based on this, DSI staff refened to tlie Map # 19 of the River Corridor Zoning Maps. This map shows a single bluff line neaz the east properiy line at Uie top of the slope. The house, garage or drainage work proposed would not be 40' landwazd of this 61uff line. Tliis proceduee is consistent with what DSI I�as used since the River Comdor was established. Opponents of the variances interpreted the definition of bluff line differently so that the steep s(ope where the house sits could be counted as a bluff line. - °- • Revisions to the River Corridor regulations that are currently under consideration would allow for multiple bluff lines. But staff contends that the current regulations that have been for over 20 years years define the bluff line to be the line shown in the River Corridor Maps. Building a new detached garage The applicant has built a new detached garage on a level part of the site that did not affect any slopes steeper than 18%. The Zoning Code says `Accessory buildings ntay be added [to nonconforming structures) so long as they conform in all respects to the requirements ofsection 63.501, accessory buildings. "(Section 62.IOS.b) The detached garage is a separate sfructure and is not being "added" to the nonconforming house. Even if it was attached and was considered an addition, staff fouud that the detached garage meets the requirements ofSection 63.5�1 which deat primarily with setbacks from the property line. Based on this, D5I issued a permit for the garage. - Springs and drainage on steep slopes There is an e�sting spring northeast of the house with a steady stream of water. The previous owner installed drain tiles to cany the water south past the east side of the house and then down a steep slope. This caused drainage problems in front of the house and to correct this, the current owner installed new. drain tiles so that the water discharges on the north side of the house and goes down a steep slope. Rip Yap was installed where the pipe daylights on the steep slope to prevent erosion. Staff inspected the pipe and rip rap after it was constructed and believe that the changes will not cause erosion or other �� problems for the slope. No permit was issued for the work before it started because the applicant did not know that a permit was required and staff did not become aware of it until the work was underway. Impact of grading and springs on the well and water supply • At the pubtic hearing the neighbor to the noRh said he was concerned that grading and rerouting drainage from spring could contaminate the house's well and the gromid watec It is not clear that this issue is relevant to the slope variance required for rerouting the spring. This issue may be better addressed by the State Department of Health. However, staff was able to Find some information about wells a ground wafer: • The well at 2108 Douglynn was buiit in the 1960's aud probably does not meet cunent standards for wells. • The well head is located in the basement of the house aad so it should not have been damaged by the grading that took place in the yazd. The work that was done did not move the well or drainage pipes closer to the spring(s). • The City requires that wells be tested for bacteria and nitrates every two years. The well for 2108 Douglynn Lane was tested in December 2005 and did not pass the test. The applicant says that well passed a subsequent test in 2006 prior to the house being sold to the applicant. The applicant did not have a copy of the test results but it is likely that the well passed the test since banks typically require this before approv,ing a mortgage. • There is no record that tests have been done for any other contaminants besides bacteria and nitrates. These additional tests aze not routinely required. It is not clear what contaminants the neighbor suspects might be causing a problem. Separate tests would be required for each potentiat contaminant. Septic system DSI staff has already reviewed the septic system. They found that it meets the required standazds and has issued a permit for the septic system. However the applicant has not started work on the system yet. • The system will be installed behind the house and down a hiil. New pipes will be used for the septic field. But e�sting pipes will be used to connect the system to the house in the azea immediately behind the house where the slopes exceed 18% so this azea does not need to be disturbed. The applicant submitted a Tree preservation Plan after the 7une 7 meeting. It shows that the trees in the area of the proposed septic field. There are no trees larger than 12" in diameter in the azea of the septic system and so no new trees need to be planted. There aze about 6 trees smaller than 12" in diameter near septic system. These do not have to be replaced but the applicant says he will avoid most of them anyway. A question was raised at the meeting about whether a number of trees have already been removed for the septic system. The applicant says vegetafion was removed but it was primarily Buckthorn. \�LIEP\VOL3�AMANDAMERG\ZONING\SAVE\16971524007.DOC �� • I ' , , MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Tfiursday, June 21, 2007 - 3:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hail and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: Aifon, Donnetfy-Cohen, Faricy, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, Mofton and Rosemark STAFF_ Tom Beach, Patricia James, Carol Martineau, and Peter Wamer The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton. Mike Aeling- Site Plan Review and Variances, 2108 Douglynn Lane Tom Beach presented the staff report with a recommendation of approval with conditions for the Site Plan Review and Variances. District 1 recommended approval of the drainage improvements and retaining wall but not the deck. — At the question of the Commissioners, Mr. Beach explained the issues of Nonconforming Use versus No�conforming Structure, and why a variance was selected. He also stated he did not have documentation saying the well was not contaminated. He went on to describe the well and also stated the bank would normal�y require proof that the well was taken care of before approving a mortgage. He also explained how the deck would be erected in relationship to the steep slopes. He afso stated DSI siaff had inspected the drainage improvemenls and they were satisfied that with the rip-rap to protect the soil, that slope would not be affected. No one spoke in support. � Lisa Rogers, 2121 Douglynn Lane, see attachment Sec. 63.111 and Sec 62.102. Mike Aeling, the applicant, gave a history of the property. He stated all the appfiances were working and the house was livable and so the house was definitely not destroyed to more than 60% of its value. He also stated the well is in the basement of the house and there was no contamination of the weil now and the bank had it tested before they purchased the property. He also explained what the prior owners did and what they did to the property. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gordon moved to approve the staff recommendation with an additional condition that the applicant submits the resufts of the testing of the wefl. Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion. After some discussion pertaining to the variance and the nonconformance the motion was denied by a vote of 5-3 with Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen, Johnson, Kramer, Rosemark and Chair Morton in opposition. After further discussion Commissioner Alton moved: • Approval of site plan • Approval with the conditions proposed by staTf of the variances for the drai�age impravements and the retaining wall • Denial of the variance for the deck. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0. Adopted Yeas - 8 Nays - 0 Drafted by: 5ubmitted by: Abstained – 0 Approved by: Carol MaAineau Tom Beach Gladys Morton �� • Recording Secretary Zoning Section Chair -. WE�REAS, Michael Aeling;� File # 07-074111, has submitted a site plaa for review � under the provisions of Sec. 61.400 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code; fo develop.on slopes steeper than 12% in the River Corridor (add a deck to an existing liouse, build a retaining wall, instail: drain tile and other work associated with renovating an e�stiug house) on properiy located at 2108 IDouglynn Lane, tegally described as LEWISTON F�IGHTS SECOND ADDTTION LOTl BLKS; and . . ' Ciiy of Saint Paui Planning Commission Resolutxon �le Numlier o�-us Date T,,,,P �9 �nn� " WHEREAS,.the Zoning Committee of the Plaupiug Commission, on July 14 and 21, 2007, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity" :to be heazd pursuant to said application in accordance wiUi the requirements of §61303 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and _ �. ' Wf�REAS, the Saint Paul Planning Cominission, based on the evidence_presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the foIlowing fiudings as required under the pmvisions of §61.402(cj that the site plan_is consistent with: ' ' . 1. The eity's.adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub- areas of the city. . _ -: Rennvating an, e�sting vacant Home so that it catt be used again is consistent with tlie City's.I�ousing Plan.. Correcting an e�stirig drainage problem in. a way that _ wi11 not bann sensitive steep slopes is aLso consistent with the Comprehensive . Plan. � . . ;. _ .. . 2. . t�pplicable ordinanees of the City ofSaint Paul. � � The sife plau is consisterit with atl applicable ordinances"except the regulations on . development on slopes: steeper than I8%o in the River Coriidor.. Variances were approved to constntct poztions of.the project related to ooaectitng e�'stirig '. drainage problems and buil�ing a small retainuig wall to correct and e�sting condirion created by the previous properly owner have been approved, _ However, a variaace that is required for the propo§ed deck was not approved. =. �VlOVed by - . Morton Seconded by � - � - � . In Favor � � zs AgaIIlS� � 1' (Nelsori3 - - � ' � � _ . _ •� �. • Zoriing File 07-074-111 � Juue�21; 2007, PIanning Commission Resolution Page 3 of 3 " _ . . � . .. d� / • The steps beirig faken to remute water from fhe spring on the si#e will improve the prevsous sifuafian 9. Suff cient landscaping, fences, wa�Is and parking necessary to rrzeet the above ob�ectives. The proj ect will provide enough parking to meet zoning requiraaienfs. Limited ' retaining wails aze proposed. The owner rieeds to submit a revised Tree Preservation Elan for the azea where the new septic systemwill be.built to show . the impacf on existing trees 10. Sita accessibilify in accordance with the provisions of the Amaricans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes. The sife plan meets ADA standards for single family houses. 11. Provision for erosion arsd sediment control as spec�ed in the ' Ramsey Erosion Sedi'ment and Contro7 Handbook. " The site plan com�lies with this condition • N04�, TFiEREFORE, BE TI' RESQLVED, by the Saint Paul Platmi.ug Cpminission, under the authority of the City's Legi slafive Code, thaf the application of Michael Aeling for a site plan review fo do work associated with renovating an existing house on slopes steeper than 18% in tlie River Corridor af2108 Douglynn Lane is hereby approved subject to tke following conditions: Work on the proposed deck must be limited to azeas tvhere the grade does not exaeed 18%. � l� � CITY OF: SAINT PAITL . PLANIVING COlYIIVIISSION RESOLUTION FILE NITMBER• . o�-a� �. DATE June 29 ,. Zoo� . � . WET$REAS,' Michael Aeling has applied for a variance from the stiictapplication of the provisions of Secfion 6$.402.b3 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Gode pertaining to development : on slopes greater than 18°Ia in fhe Itiver Comdor on property lpcated at 21d8 I?ouglynn,Lane; and legally described as LEWISTON HEIGHTS SECOND ADDTTION LOTl BLKS; and WI3�REAS, fhe Sainf Paul Zoning Committee conducted a publie hearing on June 7 and 14, 2007 pursuant to said application iu aceordance with fhe requirements of Section 64.203 of the I.e�islative Code; aud WI�EREAS, the Saint Paul $oard of Zoiung Appeals based upon eyidence presented afthe public hearing, as substautially retIected in tke minutes, made the following findings of fact: The standards for variances aze established in Secfion-61.601 of the Zoning Code: 1. The pYOpe'rty in question �annot be put to a reasonable use uxder the strict proviszons of the code; � : Variances for the drainage system and retaiuing wall to permit developmen.t on slopes steeper than 18% are needed to a11ow reasonable use of the properfy: • The changes to the existing drainage system are needed to correct prbblems caased by the existing drainage system. � •. The limited amount of regrading and the small retaining wall easY of the garage" are needed to stabilize the slope from work done by tlie previous Dwner. However, the house ean be put tn a reasonal�le use with a smaller deck that does not i�sipact slopes sYeeperthan 18%. . , 2. The plight of the Iandowner is due to czrcumstances unique to,the property and these .. circumstances were not cseated by the Zandowner, � MOVED BY � MOTtOII' , - SECONDED BY: _ � IN:FAVOR: ... . � : . ia � �AGAINST:� : 2 (Nelson, Smitten) � r U . � � . • �Case # 07-074-111 ' �� a �� June 21, 2007, Planning Commiftee Resol�tion � Page 3 of 3 7. flpplications for- va�^iance to the pr"ovisions of this chapter rnay be fzZed as provided in section 61. 600. The burden ofproof shall rest witR the applicant to_ demonstrate conclvsively that such variance urill not result in a h"azat'd ta life or property and will not adversely affect the safefy, use or stabiliiy of a public way, slope or d channel, or the natural environment,• such proof may include soils, geology and hydrblogy reports which sha11 be signed by registered professional engineers, T�ariances shall be consistent with the general purposes of the standards contained in this chapter and state Zaw and the intent of applicable state and national laws and-prograrns, fllthough variances may be used to modify permissible methods of flood protection, no vnriance shall have the effect of ailowing in any district uses prohibited in fhat district, permit a Zower degree of flood protection than the fZood protection elevation for the particular area, or permit a lesser degree of flood pro#eetion than reguired by state taw. The variances for the drainage sysfem and small retaining wall will not adversely affect the safety, u�e or stabiliry of a public way, slope or drainage channel, or the natural environment. They are consistent wifli the general'purposes of the standards of the River Corridor Overlay District and state law and the intent of applicable state and national iaws and pragrams. The variance for conshuction of the deck could adversely affect the stability of the slope and . is not consistent with the general purposes of the standards of the River Corridor Overlay . District and state law and the intent of applicable state and national laws and programs, . NOW, THEREFORE, BE TI' RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Plauuing Commission that based on findings 1-7 fhe application to waive the prbvisions of Secfion 68.402.ti3 pertazni.ug to development on slopes greater than 18% in the River Conidor on properCy located at 2108 Douglynn I:ane is hereby: • Approved for drainage improvements and a small refaining walI •, Denied for the proposed deck on the south'side of the house in accordance with the application for the variance and the site plan on file �,�iih the Zoniug Adminisfrator. ' . \� .