The URL can be used to link to this page

08-932Council File # !/b — Green Sheet # aa 1 RESOLUTION Presented by 1 WHEREAS, Steven R. Lehr has applied for a variance (File #08-091858) from the strict 2 application of the provisions of Section 66.231 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to; a variance 3 of ihe side yazd setback in order to construct a 23.5 foot azbor along the north side of the properry. A side 4 yard setback of 8 feet is required, 3 feet is proposed for a side yard setback variance of 5 feet in the R2 5 zoning district at 67 Otis Ave legally described as SHADOW FALLS PARK ADDITION TO ST. PAUL, 6 MINN., LOT 12 BLK 4; and 8 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on June 30, 2008 9 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the Legislative Code; 10 and 11 12 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public 13 heazing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 14 15 1. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 The pr•operty in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicanPs house and the neighboring house to the north are only about 12 feet apart. Both homes have outdoor patios that are across from each other. In order to allow for some privacy, the applicant is proposing to construct a 10 foot high arbor about 17 feet in length between the two homes. The land between the two homes slopes downward and a 6 foot high fence would be allowed without the need for any variances. This is a reasonable solution to provide some privacy between the two homes. The plight of the Zand owner is not due to circumstances unigue to this properry, and these circumstances were created by the Zand owner. The slope of this property and location of the two homes in relation to each other were apparent when the applicant purchased the property in 2004. Any hardship incurred at this point is seif imposed by the current property owners. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is not consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City ofSt. Paul. The applicant has considered providing the desired privacy by planting a thick hedge such as arborvitae but there aze mature trees between the homes that would retard the growth of any thing planted under them. He also states that a 6.5 foot fence would not provide the desired privacy. However, the adjoining property owners have voiced the concem that the proposed 10 food high arbor would restrict the supply of light and air to their home wluch is located only 4 feet from the side property line. A 10 by 23 foot structure located three feet from the property could have a significant impact on the neighboring property and is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. �� 43 4. 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 5. 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 6. 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Si 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The 10 food high structure will extend 23 feet along the property line and may have a significant affect on the supply of light ar air to the adjacent property. The face of the proposed arbor will be constructed of decorative wrought iron salvaged from a historic home and will match the wrought iron door on the house. The rest of the arbor has been designed to match the existing azchitectural style and scale of the house. Although well designed and made of quality materials, it would be a unique structure in the neighborhood and would not fit in with the character of the area. 7Tte variance, ifgranted, would noa permit any use that is not permitted undeP the provisfons of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. The proposed arbor is a permitted accessory use in this zoning district. The requested variance if granted would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the purcel of land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Pau1 Board of Zoning Appeals that the request to waive the provisions of §66.231 to allow a side yard setback of 3 feet in order to construct a 23.5 foot arbor along the north side of the property located at 67 Otis Avenue, and legaliy described as Shadow Falls Park Addirion To St. Paul, Minn. L,ot 12 Blk 4; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on fi1e with the Zoning Administrator is Hereby Denied. WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code §61.702(a), Steven R. Lehr on July 10, 2008 duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal (File #08-113446) from the determination made by the BZA, requesting a hearing to be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Board; and WHEREAS, Acting pursuant to Leg. Code §6L702(b), and upon notice to affected parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on August b, 2008, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, The City Council, having heard the statements made, and hauing considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution #08-091858 of the BZA, does hereby RESOLVE, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the decision of the BZA in this matter, based upon the following findings of the City Council: The property owner has other options to create privacy that do not require a variance. Vb�� ,� 91 FLJRTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of Steven R. Lehr be and is hereby denied; and, be it 92 93 FINALLY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Steven R. Lehr, 94 the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the BZA. 95 96 of: � d By: v Approved by the Office of Financial Services Sy: App, by City Att`ey BY: � l �� Approved y ay�s for Submissi Council Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary gy BY- �/ /i9AL� il.�/�Sai7 Approve d� r: Date � (7 By: � / � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � _,. _ r- -- CA �iry Attomey 13-AUGA8 Green Sheet NO: 3058221 Conbct Person & Phone: Rachel �Semey 266-87f0 Must tse on 27-AUG-08 Doc.Type: RESOLUTION � Assign Number For Routing Order E-Document Required: Y I I oocumentGonWCt: JulieKreus Contad Phone: 266-8776 Total # of 5ignature Pages,(Clip All Locations for Signature) 0 i Attoru 1 " Attoru De artmentDirector 2 '��r�. att v 3 vor's Okiicz Ma or/ASSistant A ouncil 5 ' Clerk Gti C1erk Action Requested: � eals in this matter and deny the appeal for a Memorializing City Council's mo&on to uphold the decision of the Board of Zoning App variance from 5teven R. Lehr for the property commonly known as 67 Otis Avenue in Saint Paul. idations: Approve (A) or R Plan�ing Cortvnission Ci8 Committee Civil Service Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2, Has this personlfirm ever been a c+ty employee7 Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skili not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No F�cplain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity �SNho, VNhat, When, Where, Why): The City Council is required pursuant to City Charter to have its actions reduced to a writing dependent upon the nature of the matter before it. The decision of the Council in this matter required a resolurion in oxder to compty with the Charter. Approval of the atUached resolution fulfills the Council's duty under the Charter. AdvanWges If Approved: City Charter xequttements will be met. Disadvantages If Approved: None. Disadvantages If Not Approved: Failure to approve the resolution violates the City's Charter iequirement. Trensadion: Fund'+ng Source: Financialinformalion: (Explain) CosURevenue Budgeted: Aetivity Number: August 13, 2008 1:52 PM Page 1 � _ . .E,� �,'c,:��;, DEPARTMENT OFSAFETY AND INSPECTIONS � ^� � Bob Kessler, Director i �� BFourlhSVeetEas�Surte200 Facsrmde: 651-266-9124 StPau7,Mmnesota5�l07-l024 Web. www.stnaul.zav/dri Jll�y 11� 2��g Council Research 310 City Hall St Paul MN 55102 Deaz Mary Erickson: I would like to aonfirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, August 6, 20Q8, for the following zoning case: Appellant: Steven R Lehr Zoning File #: 08 113446 Purpose: Location: Staff: District: Board: An appeal of a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denying a variance to construct an abor in a required side yard setback. 67 Otis Ave Staff recommended approval District 13 recommended approval only if the neighbors approved. Denied on a 4-3 vote I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Russ Stark. My understanding is that thls public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest Convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thank you! Sincerely, John Hardwick Zoning Specialist NOTICE OR pUBIdC HEARING The Saint Paul City Council will con- duct a public he arinb on Wednesday, Au- �ust 6, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floof, City Hall/Courthouse, 15 West Kello� Boule- vazd, St. Paul, MN, Ro consider the appeal of Steven R. Lehr to a decision of the Boazd of Zotung Appeals denyuig a vari- �ance to conshuct an arbor in a reqvu'ed side-yazd setback at 67 OYis Avenue. [ZF 08-ll3446] " . . Mary Erickson . Assistant City Council Secretary Dated: July 14, 2005 � � � (:July 17) ' —_= ST. PAUL ILGhL IEAGER —___ 22178QS1 � � AA-ADA-EEO Empl DEPARTMQ�T OF SAFETY ANB INSPECI'IONS �� Bob Kesrler, Direclor i 8 Fourth Street F.as; S�dte 200 Facsimile: 657-2669724 StPaul,Minnesota55101-IOZ4 Web: wxnv..s2tzn12ov/dri 3uly 11, 2008 Council Research 310 City Hall St Paul MN 55102 Deaz Mary Erickson: I would like to cm�f"um that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, August 6, 2008, for the following zoning case: Appellaut: Steven R Lehr Zoning File #: 68 113446 Purpose: • Location: Staff: District: Boazd: An appeal of a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals denying a variance to construct an abor in a required side yard setback. 67 Otis Ave Staff recommended approval Distriet 13 recommended approval anly if the neighbors approved. Denied on a 43 vote I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Russ Stark. My understanding is that this public hearing request wi11 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 yw! S ,� �; � ,, i ,�ohn Hardwick �Zoning Specialist • AA-ADA-EEO Employer Department of Safety and Inspeciions 200 Commerce Building 8 Fourth St E, Suite 200 Saint Pau� MN SSIOZ-IO24 651-266-9008 APPLICANT �� \ � Z� 7� .____ b�-93a o ��_ �;�-�j��` iiive hearirig date: G O�. - . phone G',�.��5'�PQ6, Name of owner (if differentj PROPERTY I Address � LOCATfON Legal description: � TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: �] Board of Zo�ing Appeals [� Gily Council under the provisions of Chapter 61, Section �, Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by thE on .Ja File number, D�� /�� GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative officiat, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning C . (�� ,,�� ;t • ApplicanYs Date � �� City agent ?Lr � ' CiTY OF SAINT PAUL APPLICATION FOR AFP FAi. OF BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FII,E NUMBER: 08-091858 , : � )�!i �' ti"-: The Boazd of 7aning Appeats made the following errors in iis findings of fact: � 1. Tfie BZA found that a 6.5 foot higii €ence, allowed by code wifhout any variances would be a reasonable solulion to provide privacy. The BZA ignored the evidence preseMed regarding the e�sling topography shown in Cerkificate of Survey and Partial Topograghic Survey. The Topographic __. Svrvey shows that the elevatian between the patios where the pmposed arbor veould be located is 157 feet, at grade where a 6.5 foot high fence could be constructed. The adjoining-patios are at least 2 higher on the eastem end of the proposed atbor and aY least 6 fcet on the westem end of tfie proposed arbor, so thai a 6.5 high fence as allowed by code would provide oniy .5 foot to 4 feet of privacy between the patios_ Evidence was also presented showing the Norttt Elevation of the home with the image of a su� faot person well below the patio floor. There was also ueighborhood opposition to haviag a fence in the side yard, � even though permitted by code, would not be a reasonable sotution. 2. The BZA found that "the slope ofthe properly and the Iocation ofthe two homes in relation to each other were apparent when the applicant purchased the property in 2004. Any hardstup incurred at this point is self imposed by Yhe current pmperty owners." The BZA erred in its application of this requirement for a variance_ "The plight ofthe landowner is due to circumstances uaique to this ProPartp, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner" relates to the circ�stances of the "propert�' not the decision to purcbase a property. Evidence was presented by way of the Topographic Survey that the "�mperty" has a slope and mature tcees. The homes were constructed at the e�sting gcades in the 1920s not by the current owners. The "plight" af the landowner in tkis iastance is the inability to provide a reasonable solution to provide privacy, given the cucuFnstances of the pmperty. 3. The BZA found that the praposed arbor "would restrict the supply of air and light to tke (adjo progerty owners) home." The BZA erred whea it ignored evidence presented tbat the screen of az�imr conshucted of wmught iron pmposed by the aggficant would have a s�face area of 57 fcet A similar length of fence at a height of 6.5 feet would have a s�face area of 585 feet_ Therefore, the feace allowed by code wouid restrict more air aad �ight Yhau the azbor proposed by the variance. EiIso, the fence couid be constntcfed on fhe properiy line as opposea to the 3 foot setback proposed by applicant • � DS-93.� was within the intent and spirit of the code. 4. The BZA erred in finding that the proposed variance would impair the adequate s�pply of air and Iight by ignoring t�e Facts presented by applicant in #3 above. There was no evidence presented as to how air and light would affect the neighboring property other than an assertion that "at least one of {the neighbors) iiving room windows will he effe�tively cut off from any sunlight." The BZA ignored facts that a fence, as pemutted by code, would cut off exacfly one half the light on at Ieast twa living room windows. The BZA also ignored the fact that tfie wrought iron arbor allowed 90°/Q more air and light than a fence woutd allow The BZA aLso ignored the fact that a fence allowed by code could be placed on the property line appmximately 3 feet from the neighbors living room wiadows whereas the azbor proposed by the applicant would be placed 6 feet from the neighbaring house or iwice as fat as the allowed fence. The BZA ignored evidence that the doors to the pmposed azbor wlrich meas►Be 6 foot by 6 foot tall are operable and could be opened to allow even more air and light. The arbor pmgosed by the apglicant for the vasiance would cleazly allow more air and lighY than a feace allowed by code. The BZA ignored the facts presented at the hearing and eaed in its application of the requirements for a variance. The BZA ignored the eity staff report zecommending � approval of the eariance. The City Council should reverse the decision of the BZA, accept the findings and recommendations of city staff and approve the variance. � � k� #,3 I S`7 APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE Department af Sajety and Inspections 200 Cornmerce Building 8 Fourth S� E Saint Pauy MN SSIOI-Z024 � � �.�. c��r: �sl-a�-vons JUN 0 9 200$ Fax: (65I) 266-9099 APPLICANT r � Name ��r _L�� Company s Address � �- ('J,r'7� �� Daytime City Zip PROPERTY INFORMATION Property Interest of Applicant (owner, rnntract parchaser, etc) (�f�i��.�' Name of Owner (if different) Phone Address / Location (nX El CIG,r_�'� Legal Descriptiou (attnch addidonal shed if necessary) Lot Size Yresent Zoning i�/� Present Use ��9't-�. [��' Proposed Use /11�/�J�C��Lk�i'��✓3`' Variancejs] reqaested:�� iv,� a.(��tJp �� j(� `�`p P�MO'p�'t� ��NA.,�c�fE f�R-�OtL �T�RVavR-E • Supporting Information: Supply the necessary information that is applicable to your variance request, provide details regazding the project, a¢d explain wh a variance is needed. Duplexkripl�� onversions may require a pro fotma to be submitted. Attach additional sheets if necessary. s�� a } , �� J� Attachments as required: .� Site Plan ApplicanYs / � Attachments � Pro Forma �' � od� � o$' � �" ,.- The landowner reasonably desires privacy from the adjoinino properiy in the backyard between the respective outdoor patios. The adjoin;na home is sited appro�cimately 12 feet from the property in question. (See Picture 1 and Certificate of Survey) The strict provisions of the code would allow for a sis foot high fettce on the properiy line. Because of a severe dtop in grade, a siY foot high fence would be below eye level even when seated_ (See attached Certificate of Survey and Partial Topographic Survey, Pictiue lA and I3orth Elevation) The respective patios are at an elevation of approximately 157 feet whereas the grade drops to an elevation of 149 feet A suc foot lugh fence installed at grade would provide no privacy and the mature trees prevent and plantings to grow. 2. . The plight of the landowner is due to circumstauces unique to lus pmperty, and these circumstances were not created by landowner. The change in grade is naturally occurring and is unique w the properiy and was not created by landowner. The elevafions of the escisting homes were created in 1924 by previous landowners. (See Survey and E�sting Site Flan) The proposed variance represents an amicably agreed upon compmmise in part to a lot line overlap dispute which has resuited in the adjo'ning property owner ha�ing constructed a sidewalk � upon the pmperty in question. (See Certificate of Survey and 14lain Floor Plan) The mature trees wiuch prevent the gtowth of a more desirable level of privacy e�dst lustorically or were planted by previous landowners. 3. The pr6posed variance is in keeping wifh the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the City of Saint Paul. The proposed variance is in keeping with the intent of the code wluch is to allow for a variance where there is change in grade. Furthermore, a six foot lugh fence constructed on the lot line which would be an altemative as a matter of right under the code wouid make it more difficult for fire fighters to naviga#e in the event of a fire and therefore the variance would improve the ability for firefighters to pmvide fire safety to the adjoining pmperty. 4. The pmposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the suaoimding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding azeas. The proposed variance is for the construction of an arbor as a landscape eIement. The wmught iron face of the arbor is constructed of 5/8" decorative wrought iron spaced appm�umately four inches apart to allow air and light to the adjacent property. (See i I�hr Trellis and Piciures 2 and 3) The decArative element of the wrought iron is a S pattem repeated on the wrought iron door of the existing home. (See Pictuces 4 and � 5) Furthermore the face of the arbor has doors approicimately 6 feet ta11 and 6 feet wide which can be open from time to time to allow more light and air. (See Pictiu�e 2) The face of the arbor is a reuse of an antique wroughf iron fence from a historicat home. The historic character of the facz of the azbor is in keeping with the lustoric character of the neighborhood. The beams of the arbor will be cut to match the e�sdng btaces on f�he back of the existing stmcture in keeping with the arcfiitecdttat eIement aad scale of the kome. (See Picture 6 aad West Elevation) Furthe�ore, altematives to the pmposed variance would be to plam arbor vitae or other trees which the growth of which wouid be impaued by the e�ustiag mature trees. Cutting down the trees to promote a more desiiable height of privacy would alter the charac.�ter of the area. Picture 7 represents the archit�al element that will be added to the existing patio fence on Pichtre 1) 5. The variance, if gcanted, would not pemnt any use that is not permiued under the provisions of the code for tfie property in the district where affected land is locafed, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the ProPertY- - - � � - . � � � . n - � � . � a . � ti � � - x n � � •� - � � . � . u - . � .- v . � s. � t � � � � - u . � � . � � � ' u - � 6. The request for variance is not based primazily on a desire to incaease the � va[ue or income pote�ial of the parcel of land. The request for the variance is based on a desire for increased privacy, the desire to amicably resolve a Iot line dispuite and the desire to not severely alter the grade and the desire to save a mature maple tree_ The improvement sought by the variaace should naturally incmase the eajoymem of both properkies. � o� � yt�� `� N1 a=,._� O �DA:a 9 C�4 m'�' A a K�� I��i i C � �i �ya 6Y i o s �. r �Y �r� ��° �� s� � �C � � o� A m � i 5 o a � o= � ;� �� I 9 � m w H r m � E �+ 3 � s S � s sx F O� � E � 4,�q . ��z�a � � � S A � � H N W a O C W I� � y m O e' C y p I f` `� W N TL� 0 ry � m Z � `�' r a a � 5 � � z z � O f ; ----,, �*' -' �";' _� �;/ ,a o Q y � 1 Fy 3 8 � 1 �Y$ 0 � �I� � �� , �, � n� 2 � ^: s I .. o 5� .- I eI P�m � � -1-�� ___ g ��- � _.�._.`� 8et��. � Y41? � Bec�i � y y � `� tn � r L+1 � � �Oy �� z � � � � 0 Y W r a z � —�_ s� � �� m^ ° ab2 > : � �na�oA a x � '��" � ,°, m ° a a ° � � ��°, � � Ub � a �N � � ___r� N �� A�� 0 9 � � 9 4 4 2 _ y � � � ( / / l : / y 0 �° 5� d ► , , �� ---------------- ; ; - : ------- - --- � -- � � � � - -- ,� _�, ;: ��----` , ;.� ;-,i � :,. �� . '� � s .' �„ ;:. � / --�__.-- ----�� 'e� �I � I S � � i , f 1' �� a a m ,�� , � . � � � �, �-��a" � � - - ,- , -'�, jl�j - _ :;._{�__ .- _�� =�1 _- � , I� �I I� .�� I I I k ._ _� ,_' � -� I ( I I ! I - _ --- -� �- -�-�- I I I _ . �• k= -- =1-�i � 'I. I I - -� �-�- _�� -� - -� ` I �, i I I ' I I -- '_' � _I - � � I I I I % I i �i;-= -� -�_.�- � J` I I - -� 'k-_-- _�=I_ _� � I 1 I I I - - _-. - -- - _, , �- -� -�- I i i _ F. - -�1- � _- � � ! � i ; 1 - k-� - -i =.G� � ;� !� il -- = = :_ _-��-�! -_ _� ,� l; �I -- ; � � � l /' � � 0 I i I i i I I 1 I I i � I I 1 I 1 _ __ I I I I i i I Q I $ � i � - I � -_ � I _= /-" 1 � � � � „ .�: � ,:, � __'_____y r ---- I f i i I � ! � � � , �� i 1 � � 9 ___ ---��, , �; � - �� 4' ' ` , � ; ,� ,, � , � r ;� �_— I, { , , �i i i � i�i', ___- ,iu � ,i �i, � � i i� — -- - �r i I' ` ,� � ,� � � ,� � � ,� � o � << � � ' > ,i i w � �� _ '� � ' o �� Z ,, � � � �� u� ' ' c� �� Z �' ' w i i � — --- - -- _i �� I Y ' � __'"____ __ II I ,i i � I i i � � � _ �� w I I � J �� 1 „ �_� --- - ,, , ,� �,, ',�� ; PROPERTY WITHIN 100 FEET OF PROPERTY; 67 OTIS AVENUE �f� i ��--- 0.03 0 0.03 0.06 Miles � W CREATEQ BY DSI � S � /= � ' 6. �� E _� 5 ❑ -�� l)' :Y n� ro r �Y 'S. A � . . . S , 4_ � . �] a . 3 (�' � . a � d.' t� . 4 �ren� -�£ p . � ,� � . � iaa. .� . � �° _'', � �.r.-s ��_.i • 'i .__...�'� . i - �� '.�.�.m..�y f . �< � Cl'1"I�E�T Pl�.RTTCTIs'A,'I'F0�7 �'LATdN��If3r �7I8T12ICTS 1. ` S�FRA�`-�3A`�L.EG�EI�'-:�f�IikVOflD 2. He4��T. P[��'FIATaFI�-PL20SPE�TX T . 3. '4VF.3`�' �I2DL " ` 4. ' I��1IrI'OId'� BT.UF�' • 5. PAYATE PHAT�EN . - . 6. N�RTH EI�ID • � 7. . Tf�O�viAS-DALE .. 8.' 5iJM'�I1T'-t�lV�iZ�ITy 9. W�S'�' S�VSIV�� - ' � � • _ . 30. COT�Ia . . i1. F�AMIdi�TE-1S>IID'1TVA� • . 12. S"£. ANT�iOPi�' 3.'t�i2K . 13. IvfERIdTAivl i'ARI�-I:�XII�IC'r�'OI�I I�IIv�.TI3E-�I�T,EL�1N� HAMLINE � ld: I�4CAT,EST�R GROVEI.ATiD � 15. F�IG� ' . 16. �i.iMIwECT HIF.,�. t � i�: �o�iz'ou�r. : - � ��:�� .� � , �r� � � s�r a - � � g � - - ' �� .� - � � �_.. + � _ = �1 �� _ _ ' � � � $� �` �' i n ' � S � ��i �� : _ , _ � � _. .s* f � _ ' \ _—_ _ . – �� 3 � = .. L �� ( ; _ � _ _ ' � . '�'j � �S .,,^ 6 _ l E _ F 1 �� . .,.. , - �� ` � . . .. , _ _ • ' �.� Ai � C� .� _— � a � �} . 6 ' � _ � L �. _ '-. � I '� �� . � N ` , , f �. 7 � +�� - � � �, "� �� _ � � R�� . . , y �Ta :Gf._��. „ E � . . . . � i . r _ .. . . �p _ ti � ��: . . y • .. � P - _ ; ' -- � - . ; "�� _ _ . . . - c • '- _ - Ai Ij � 4 ��' . �i . � " �`� . . "'�- �. _ �� _ —� t t - � ' _ . '' ". . . ' -- �_ . _ �� `� J � - �" � � : _. ti _ � -. i:; - ^ a� � �i;- -;",_ � - � c. .,- ° � �. �..,_., r � � �� . �t� *� ^� , '�_ e , '�a'-+.� - �,1 ,' - . � �_ ' �" �`` ? -� -r �� :� � � : �� ' �. ,CC•'R ?. �= �� . 1 `��`. .. .n �.± � . . �� > .. . s i +a��r � `' _ ' ,„,,. � S t . "� . t� � �' �� E. i Y�,. � < � . j � k��.i -�� / C ... .5y �'� d },r �-�"'� .. .. .. . 4,`i '_ � � � �- — i 0 ,.?�.`•�' .-.c= _ . . . s :� ': ` ` - 4 �.$�. ' � � ° 3 :: 3 �, : � u' r _ 't - 6 � ��,. %(..m.._ T2. . . . -. - . . ' � � 2 I � . .. S _ . ��^., it "�^ . � �' t• � $" 3 R +`a ;� . kr�' J,� a ' G 3�nr o� . Ei'�� . _—... � � �F � �-[' '-`M � f" 3 ..... _'�f—' �� "� . . j i� .��, .N � . �_i�._� . .. ,. w°a _ . _—.. . . ;� . k n!s . vb ._... . 'I"�� -- . '� - • . _ - " . � . .. (.,��" '�1 .f " _ -y-"'.,..'�.�.„e� �. b: i p y } ha . ��` ''i"� 1 d :. ,� . YM � . �f_ Jf"l � 3 F:� S 1� � � _) ..�.. �a . . �. � s... . � v . � - � _^ - ---� � � � �. _ '- �'� � �� _ � { ' '�'4:' � ► ._•��'.�.. u�' . �� ` - _ . - � I ' i ' ' � a` � ~ � \p' _.. �.�"� 9 i'. . V � � � .�`� �. t ' ' i' 1 � 3 �- , .,,; ,. - �-� �� . �,.� � _ _� _ , �� j� ' j �.�: .��:��,:� � r r�� _'F y 4� y,.;�f:. .,' . �y�: IIII��II� `�� Y - ��'��~ R, � . ' n"�. a�....� l� . a � � � ��`:�� , r__,.__�� k� ��t : � _ _ _ , y 5 _ � � n — 4` x . , F , . , �. . : . i . ' - ! � [ � i � _ �?_ - - � . .. cc-_�:: i , . �: : � :� � . � � � . . . , . . , $^ ? S _- �I ' � , . . . ,_.,, 3 � � . . � � � . n �i; i _ � � ��= v i� � .. � ,. � � ' �3," � .. �^� .x . . . . . . � � ' d� f s3 .� -_•J �� 1� /�`� � 5� 3 _ -__ ... . y . - h_. � ' . 1 � . �. �.� �. � s z F �� _ � � � � � . .. � . ; P. : � -' s' - - - � -=-? r � ` : � � .� l + s c 3 � � > .. � .�� L$ ..._'Ri "° � '1 ' ' _ . ... CTTY OF July 21, 2008 � Steven Lehr 67 Otis Ave. Saint Paui, MN SS104 RE: DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY Bob Kessler, DireMOr ��sa�:�x s�;r�zoo StPaut, Mumesota SSI07-7024 Variance application for 67 Otis Ave. Zoning File # 08-041858 Dear Mr. Lehr: �� i Facsimi7e: 651-26S9F24 l7eb: www.spmd.¢av{dri We have xeceived your application appealing the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying the referenced variance. Therefore pursuant to State 5taiute 15.99 �ue are hereby extending the sixty (60) day deadline for action and additiona160 days in order to a11ow time for the City Council to hear your appeal. T1ie new deadline for action is October 7, 20b8.. If you ha�e any quesrions regarding this matter you may contact me at 651-266-90&2. Hardwick, Zoning Specialist. An Affumative Action Equal Opportunity Employer f� BOARD OF ZOIVING APPEALS STAFF REPOIiT TYPE OF APPLICATION: Minor Variance FILE #: OS 091858 APPLICANT: HEARING DATE: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLANNTNG DISTRICT: PRESENT ZONING: STEVEN R LEHR June 30, 2008 67 OTIS AVENUE SI3ADOW FALLS PARK ADDITION TO ST. PAUL, MINN. LOT 12 BLK 4 13 R2, RC-3 ZONIlVG CODE REFERENCE: 66.231 Merriam Park-Le�tington-Hamtine Sign Disirict REPdRT DATE: _ _ Jnne 20, 2008 BY: John Hardwick DEADLINE FOR ACTIO�i: duly 2i, 2008 DATE RECEIVED: June 11, 2008 � A. PURPOSE: A variance of the side yard setback in order to construct a 23S foot arbor along the� north side of the property. A side yard setback of 8 feet is required, 3 feet is proposed for a side yard setback variance of 5 feet. B. SITE AND AItEA CONDITIONS: This is an irregular shaped parcel located at the intersection of Otis Ave and Otis Lane. The house is located on a hill with the yard sloping down both in the front and the reaz. Surrounding Iand Use: Primarily single family homes. C. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to construct an arbor on the north side of the house. D. FINDINGS: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant's house and the neighboring house to the north aze only about 12 feet apart. Both homes have outdoor patios that are across from each other. In order to allow for some privacy, the applicant is proposing to construct a 10 Foot high arbor about 17 feet in length between the two homes. The land between the two homes slopes downwazd and a 6 foot high fence would not work. The proposed azbor is a reasanable solution and is permitted as an accessory strncture. However, since it is located in a required side yard setback, it cannot be constructed under the ` strict provisions of the code. Page 1 of 3 �� o�� The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The slope of this and the location of the two homes in relafion to each other makes it difficult to provide reasonable privacy between the two homes. These are circumstances that were not created by the current property owners. 3. 7'he proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent wzth the health, safety, comfort, marals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Czty of St. Paul. The applicant has considered providing the desired privacy by planting a thick hedge such as arborvitae but there are mature trees between the homes that would retard the growth of any thing planted under them. The neighbors do not want to remove the mature trees and so have reached a compromise to construct and decided that an arbor between the homes as a landscape element. A well designed shucture will allow the enjoyment of both patios and is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance wzll not impair- an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surraunding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. � The proposed arbor will be located in an area already shaded by mature trees. The 10 foot high structure will extend only 17 feet along the properry line and will not significantly affect the supply of light or air to either properiy. The face of the proposed arbor will be constructed of decorative wrought iron salvaged from a historic home and will match the wrought iron door on the house: The rest of the arbor has been designed to match the existing architectural style and scale of the house. The requested variance wili not change the character of the property or adversely affect surrounding properties, S. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under� the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would zt alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. The proposed azbor is a permitted accessory use in this zoning district. The requested variance if granted would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance zs not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of Zand. � Page 2 of3 i� E. DISTRICT COi7NCIL RECOVIMENDATION; As of the date of this report, we haue not received � recommendafion from District 13. F. CORI2ESPONDENCE: Staff has not received any correspondence regarding tYus matter. G. STAF'F T2ECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through b, staff recommends approval of the variance, i Page 3 of 3 � �� a g,a�� - : o�-Zi-os APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER: 08-091$58 DATE: June 3Q, 2008 WI-�REAS, Steven R. L,ehr has applied for a variance from the shict application of the provisions of Section 66.231 of the Saint Paul Legislarive Code pertaining to; a variance of the side yard setback in order to construct a 23.5 foot atbor along the north side of the property. A side yard setback of 8 feet is required, 3 feet is proposed for a side yazd setback variance of 5 feet in the R2 zoning disfrict at 67 Otis Ave ; and WHEREAS, the 5aint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on June 30, 2008 pursuant to said appiication in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substanrially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of � the code. The applicanYs house and the neighboring house to the north are only about 12 feet apart. Both homes have outdoor patios that aze across from each other. In order to allow for some privacy, the applicant is proposing to consiruct a 10 foot high arbor about 17 feet in length between the two homes. The land between the two homes slopes downward and a 6 foot high fence would not work. The proposed arbor is a reasonable solution and is pernutted as an accessory structure. However, since it is located in a required side yard setback, it cannot be constructed under the strict provisions of the code. 2. The ptight of the Zand owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The slope of this property and the location of the two homes in relation to each other makes it difficult to provide reasonable privacy between the two homes. These are circumstances that were not created by the current property owners. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals ancl welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The applicant has considered providing the desired privacy by planting a thick hedge such as arborvitae but there are mature trees between the homes that would retard the growth of ` any thing planted under them. The neighbors do not want to remove the mature trees and so Page 1 of 3 � � File # 08-09185& Resolution have reached a compromise to conshuct and decided that an azbor between the homes as a landscape element. A well designed structure will allow the enj oyment of both patios and is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed vasiance will not impair an adequate supply of lighi and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish estabZished property valu'es within the surrounding area. The proposed arbar will be located in an area already shaded by mature trees. The 10 foot high structure will extend only 17 feet along the property line and will not significantly affect the supply of light or air to either property. The face of the pmposed arbor will be constrncted of decorative wrought iron salvaged from a historic home and will match the wrought_iron door on the house. The rest of the arbor has been designed to match the existing architeclural style and scale ofthe house The requested variance will not change the chazacter of the properiy or adversely affect sunounding properties. � 5. The variance, if granted, would not permit arry use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the a,�'fected land is located, nor � would it alter or change the zoning district classifieation of the property. The proposed arbor is a permitted accessory use in this zoning district. The requested variance if granted would not change or alter the zoniug classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire td increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Secfion 66.231 are hereby waived to allow a side yard setback of 3 feet in order to construct a 23.5 foot azbor along fhe north side of the located at 6� Otis Avenue; and legally described as Shadow Falls Park Addition To St. PauI, Minn. Lot 12 Bllc 4; in accordance with the applicatzon for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoniug Administrator. MOVED BY: SECONDED BY: IN FAVOR: AGAINST: Page 2 of 3 �-- � U$ `�� a ` ��r-�:� MAII.ED: July i, 2408 TIME LIMIT: No decision of the zoning or planning administrator, planning commission, board of zoning appeals or city council approving a site plan, permit, variance, or other zoning approval shall be valid for a period longer than two (2) years, unless a building permit is obtained within such period and the erecrion or alteration of a building is proceeding under the terms oF the decision, or the use is established wittun snch period by actual operation pursuant to the applicable conditions and requirements of the approval, unless the zoning or planning administrator grants an extension not to exceed one (1) year. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 1� days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. � CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Panl, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and Find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meering held un Tune 30, 2008 and on record in the Department of Safety and Inspections, 8 Fourth St. E, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOlVING APPEALS Carmelia L. Grif�n Secretary to the Board � Page 3 of 3 �� 06/26I2BB8 09:48 6519179991 MPCC ' ��- Union �'ark District Councii Serving the Snetting Hamline, Lexington-Ham(ine, and � Merriam Park Neighborhoods as a,�� zoos Jo�ut Haxdwicic AST - BZA 200 Conamerce Building 8 Fourth 5t E Saint Paui, MN SSlO]-1024 RE; File #0$-p9185$ Dear John: The i7nion Park Dis(aict Council Land Use Committee revicwed Steven R Lehr's applzcation fvz a rainor vaziance at 67 Otis Avenue. The eomz�aittee pa'ssed a resolutioz� Yo recomraend tliat t]�e . iJPDC Executive Committee approve the 5 feet sida yard setback variance, wifh thc condition that the applicant's nei�hbors at 75 Otis Avenue submit a signed letter appzoving the instaIlation of a landscape arbor between the two properCies. The executive committee approved the � recommendation. As sach, int t]ie event a Ietter of support is not secured, U�'DC's recommendation to support the variance faiis, Qlease contact Theresa �Iez�amd 'uo our affice with any questions regarding this matter. Thank you for gour consideration. Sincerely, Glcn�� Vice president Union Park District Council c: Counci]member Russ Stark, VJazd 4 Steven R Lehr, 67 Otis tivcnuc J3arbara arod David Halcy. 75 Ods Avcnuc ^ r `� O � 1570 Cancordia Ave., Suit� LL700, St. Paal, MN 55104 651-645�887 Fax: 657-917-9991 �g,q�d' 75 Otis Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 3une 24, 2008 John Hardwick, DSI Zoning Administration City of Saint Paul Depariment of Safety and Inspections 8 Fotuth St. E. — Suite 200 Saint Paul, MN 55101-1002 Re: FILE NO.: #08-091858 ❑ � Deaz Mr. Hardwick, � �. ' ",�_ '"; -- ___ , Following up on our conversation yesterday, here are my written comments in opposition to the proposed variance of the side yard setback at 67 Otis Avenue. My husband and daughter and I live at 75 Otis Avenue, in the home immediately to the north of 67 Otis Avenue. Mr. Lehr, the owner of 67 Otis Avenue, seeks a side yard variance of 5 feet, in order to construct a 23.5 foot long, 9+ foot tall arbor between our homes. Our homes were built in the 1920's, along with 3 other homes, on a block long hill one block east of the Mississippi River. As with other homes in the city of St. Paul, our homes aze fairly close together. However, due to the slopes in the lots, the way the homes were situated on their lots, and numerous trees on the lots, privacy between the adjacent homes has not been an issue. For almost 90 years, there has not been any privacy fence between any of the homes situated on this lull. A year or two ago, Mr. Lehr conshucted a fairly large dining room as an addirion to the back of his bome, with an adj oining raised patio. The dining room runs along the south side of Mr. Lehr's property. The patio runs along the north side of his pmperty, which is adjacent to our lot. The reaz side windows of our home overlook the patio. Mr. Lehr seeks to construct the 9+ foot tall azbor in order to create privacy for tlus newly constructed patio. We are opposed to granting a 5 foot variance to the side yard setback requirement because of the nacrow space between our homes. By allowing Mr. Lel�r to construct an arbor of this height (9+ feet) only 3 feet from the lot line, at least one of our living room windows will be effectively cut off from any sunlight. �� ;�. , F � ; A= � ; , �• �. Although we respect Mr. I.ehr's request for privacy, we do not believe that we should be � required to compromise in order to accommodate the patio he built neict Yo our lot. Tkere aze altematives, such as constructing the arbor at the required setback, which would allow Mr. Lehr the privacy he seeks. There is sufficient mom on Mr. Lehr's lot to construct the azbor within the required setback. St. Panl city ordinance 60.227 expliciUy states that a variance may only be granted when "skdct enforcement of the zoning code would cause undue hardslup owing to circumstances unique to the individual property on which the variance is granted." Mr. Lehr can construct a fence that complies with the required setback without any undue hardship to his property requiring that a variance be granted. Additionally, it has come to my attention that there may have been earlier pmceedings regazding the variance before a district coimcil. We were never notified by the neighborhood district council of any such pmceedings. Mr. Lehr put a note in our box - - clated 7une 16, 2008, advising us of a meeting on 7une 18, 2008. I was out of town, and did not retiuv uutTlate on June 1S 2008: By the time I sawthe note, it was too late for- ---- ----- - me to attend. Accordingly, if the neighborhood district council made some type of determination xegarding the variance, we request that the matter be rescheduled before the neighborhood distdct council to a time when we can attend. Also, we would 1�7ce _ reasonable prior notice of thaY meeting. T understand that Mr. Lehr advised you and possibly others that my husband and I • consented to the variance as a compmmise relating to a sidewalk and retauung wall on our pmperty constructed prior to Mr. Lehr's purchasing 67 Otis. We never discussed or agreed to any compromise relating to the variance that Nir. Lehr seeks. We oppose the variance. We will attend the hearing on Monday. In the meantime, if you have quesiions or would like any further information, please contact me at the e-mail address or phone numbers _ listed below. Sincerely, Barbara Haley bhalevCn�,tra�elers.com (h) 651.646.0074 (c) 651.269.8952 � E7` � _� _ _. _. .� - .-. - _ _ _ _.__ ___._ _____ ; 7/1%2008 John Rardwick Steve Lehr Varian6e Page 1 �__.__._ )_ _.________.._. _ _ - - - / � � � . ' From: Christine < h ' ' >- __-- ----- =�_v --- --_-=_-��" cr.s . n.us> Date: 6/30/2005 2:39 PM Subject: Steve Lehr Variance John - f reai'¢e that this might be too late, as the public hearing is in 30 minutes. I do have a comment on the variance for Steve Lehr, #08-091858. Without seeing the plans, my concem is that the homes on the block that Lehr's property is are so close that it will be an unattractive addition to the neighborhood. Our backyard is across the aliey firom Steve Lehr. Christine Bluhm r1 �..i � �� : , � � � � � . . � . ... __ .__. __.. � Boazd of 7rm'ng Appeals AUn Karen Zacho Depatlment of Safety Inspections 8 East Fou�4h Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Re: Application for Minor Variance 67 Otis Avenue, Saint Pavl, MN To Whom it May Concernc I am a residentiat reattor, licensed by tha State of Minaesota and work for Edina Realty, Hi�hland office. I have sold numerous homes in the Merriam Park/'Fown & Country neighborhoai of St_ Paul, including two houzes on tlte block of 67 Otis Avenue in the past four years. I am very fazniliaz with tfie subject pmperly as I sold it in 2004. I understand thaL a minor variance has been requested for the conshuotioa of an arUorin the side yard between 67 Otis Avenue and 75 Otis Avenue. I have reviewed the architectural plans of the arbor, site plan and pictures of the wrought iron gate. � In my opinion, as a residential reattor tbe historic azchitechual character of the azbor is in kezping with the property and neighborhood; tlre azlwr will provide increased privacy and • aesthe4ics that I believe it wilt eahance property values of both 67 Otis Avemie and 71 Otis Avenue as weII as in the neighborhood in generaL Sincerely, i �Lt`c'/�i� � �� g �"�;� `� - Attn_ Kazen Zacho Depattment of Safefy Inspections 8 East Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Re: Application for l�linor Variance 67 Otis Avenue, Saint Paul, MN To Whom it May Concern: We live at 19 Otis Avenue north of 67 Otis Avenue and we understand that a minor variance has been requested for the construction of an arbor in the side yard between ow property and b7 Otis Avenue. "Che homeowner, Steve Lehr, has showed us the architechual plans of the azbor, site plan and pictures of the wrought iron gate. We like the historic azchitectwrat cbaracter in k�ping with the property and befieve it will enhance properiy values in the neighborhood. We are wriiing Uus letter in support of the variance and hope that the Boazd of Zoning Appeals approve_ the application and does grant the variance. • Sincecely, 1 ` Z _,. Tom and Karen Laird 79 Otis Avenue Saint Paut, MN 55104 � �� MINUT'ES OF Tf� MEETING OF Tf� BOARD OF ZONTNG APPEALS CTfY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CTI'Y HALL ST PAUL, MINNFSOTA, APRII, 21, 2008 PRFSENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Faricy, Ward, and Wilson of The Board of Zoning Apgeals; Mr. Warner, Ciry Attomey; Mr. Hardwick and Ms: Linston of the Deparhnent of Safery and Inspecrions. ABSENT: None The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. Steven R. I.ehr (#(IS-091858) 67 Otis Avenue: A variance of the side yard setback in order to construct a 23.5 foot azbor along the north side of the property. A side yazd setback of 8 feet is required, 3 feet is proposed for a side yazd setback variance of 5 feet. Mr. Hazdwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommenda6on for approval. One letter was received from the neighbor at 75 Otis Street opposing the variance request. Staff also received two lettets of support from neighbors supporting the azbor; one from 79 Otis Avenue, the second letter does not have an address on it. One letter was received from District 13 recommending approval only wiih the condidon that the applicanYs neighbors at 75 Otis Avenue submit a signed Ietter approving the installation of the arbor between the two properties. In the event that the letter is not obtained by the applicant the District Counci�s' decision to support the vaziance fails. Mr. Faricy questioned what materials will be used for the azbor? Mr. Hudwick replied that the applicant is here but he thinks it is a combination of both wood and metal. The applicant STEVEN R. LEHIi, 67 Otis Avenue, was present. Mr. Lehr stated that he wants to --- clarify the record in his application he did indicate that fhey had reached a compromise and he believed that to be true when he said it. Even in Ius conversations with the neighbors they said it was true until they found out he needed a variance, so they have changed their mind over the last couple of weeks. There is a lot line dispute and the neighbors have constructed a retaining wall on his properry as well as a sidewalk and he wants to talk a little about what he has done to try to compromise that This proposal to provide some privacy for us he was linking to the resolution to that lot line dispute and he dces nat know where that is talay either. His whole purpose here is to have some privacy between the two patios. He stated that he has gone a long way to meet all of their objections when he pmpased different soIutions here and the alternative for him is a sie foot sie fence and that would not provide the privacy and he dces not believe ffiat is the right thing for the adjoining property because it puts the fence about a foot and a half from their house. He stated that he has gone to great lengths to find a piece that would provide adequate air and light for chem and still provide that little bit of privacy. Mr. Lehr shated that he actually did a calculation and a six-foot-six fence by fifteen, which is the base of the trellis, would have 585 square feet of surface. This trellis is made of wrought iron and with all the open space in the trellis even at nine and a half feet by fifteen the trellis only constitntes 57 squaze feet of surface. More than that ffiere are two tazge doors �n the trellis that are operable and can remain open. Mr. Lehr passed out the nn-.aDa-�eo �toy� • . � �� bg �g� �- Page Two survey and some photos of the location. Pointing out that the neighborigg sidewalk swings onto his properry and also where the retaining wall is as well as an idea of the etevations of the property. He aiso submitted an elevation from the neighbor's house which he thinks has a six foot peison standing at the bottom of tfie pauo and you get an idea of the severe drop. Mr. Lehr stated that the photos show the architectural detail of the arbor. He asked if that answered Mr. Faricy's question? Mr. Faricy replied yes. Mr. Lehr stated that the frazne would be built out of wood and is fifteen feet by eight and a half feet and in order to make it azchitecturally aesthetic and pleasing another foot was added. It is three feet wide as you look down from the top and there aze two bench seats on either side and one of the things he realiy likes about the piece is the doorway going right over the to the adjoining sidewalk and with the doors open it allows all the possible light and air to gass through there. He pointed out the photo showing how in scale and in keeping with the e�cisting structure and is also shows where the celative elevation of the pario is and the other adjoining patios at the same elevation. There is a good three feet of this uellis that is below the grade of where the house was built in 1924 so only about six and a half feet stick above grade. Mr. Fazicy questioned that the doors were made out of wrought iron and they can actually open and close? Mr. I,ehr replied yes and they are actuatly oak framed wrought iron. He stated that this lot line dispute has been going on since 2004, he has tried to Teach some kind of compromise, he has tried to construct some kind of fence and to get the retaining wall removed and to he has been told repeatedly that they would attempt to get a survey. He has been told that they really think that the � properry is theirs even in showing a registered survey. They promised him in 2005 that they would get a survey. They have said that they wanC to leave the mature trees so he tried to come up with a solution that would save the uees. He had offered to allow them to leave the sidewa]k even though he does not think it would not be necessary for him to have to do, but he thonght it was the neighbocly thing to do. He has offered to move the trellis further in but there gets to be a point, because it is the only way back into his back yard is down some steps along the north side and there is only a point at wluch you can move this structure and then you cannot get into the back yard. They have raised the concern that it would devalue their property one of the letters you have is from a very well respected reaItor who has sold two homes in the block and she said it is going to be very valuable to both properties to have some � privacy. Ms. Bogen questioned how long it is going to be? Mr. Lehr stated that the wrought iron itself is about fifteen feet. Pointing out the beatns are eight inch beams and they add about another foot and a half and he thinks the City measured it from 6p to dp at twenry Uuee or seventeen. He stated that he called to object to it, he would accept the Ciry's initial read that it is twenty-three feet from here and seventeen feet at the base. Ms. Bogen further questioned that he said it could be moved back, how much further could it be moved back? Mr. Lehr replied he thinks he could move it back about another foot the main floor plan shows where it is to be located already three feet within the properry line and it can probably move another foot or two otherwise it interferes with the steps into the yard. Ms. Bogen questioned how wide it is? Mr. I.ehr replied three feet. Ms. Bogen questioned why it has to be three feet wide? Mr. Lehr replied to support the wrought iron and have it in azchitectural scale. StaYing that it could probably be a stand alone screen, however, he thinks it would look incomplete, Ms. Bogen stated that there would be other oprions there, move it closer and maybe make it a little narrower. • There was opposition present at the hearing. �` AA-ADA-EEO Employer File OS-091858 Minutes June 30, 2008 Page Three i Ms. Barb Haley, 75 Otis Avenue stated that they are ffie neighbors direcfly affected by this azbor he wants to construct, What he wanu to do, it is ten feet tall according to lus plan and it is approximatety five feet from our Iiving room windows and it would completely biock the light in tfiis one window. He did show us tfie azbor and we did agree that it was preriy but he did not taik about how tall it was or how ciose it would be ta our fiouse and when he started to talk abouk details we did not agree to support the variance for that reason. We have been in our house about a yeaz longec then Steve and these houses were all built in the 1920s and this hill has lots of trees and for some 93 yeazs they have not needed any privacy fences between then. Although we have a porch iti the back it is away from Mr. L.ehr's property. The reason the need for this variance came up is because Mr, Lehr constructed this enormous addition onto the back of his house with, a zaised patio. It is for this raised patio that he built on the properry that he. wants this privacy fence for. Although she understands his reqaest and his want for privacy but she dces not feel that they-should-have the air.and light taken_away from this living room ------ - window because of tlus patio that was built onto the back of his house. The azbor can be moved mnch - closer to the properry, he talks about the stairs but they have been taken away due to pmblems. There is no reason that those stairs cannot go on the other side where he has a lot more room out the back and the azbor could be moved over. There are two bases for granting the variance tliat she dces not think aze satisfied here. One that the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances that were not created by tl�e land owner, she thinks that Mr. Lehr created the circumstances that aze causing the request for ffiis variance. The second factor is that the proposed vaziance will not impair an adequate amount of light •- and air to the adjacent properiy and it dces completely block the light from that one window. Ms. Marion Bean, 83 Otis Avenue stated that she lives north of the house in question. In tke 1920s this was one of the first planned neighborhoods for the Ciry of Saint Paul, these homes have been stepped-in a way that they did pmvide privacy and die front doors are a11 stepped and all the back doors and back porches were also all stepped so you didn't look into other peoples porch or wfiatever. Another asset to the neigfiborhood is that the back yazds are all a contagious piece of lawn, so it is very pazk like. The fiomes are very tigfiUy set to each other on the side and currendy there aze no fences because we have the stepped back and tfie privacy witfi tfie porches, etc. A fence in between Steve's house and Bazb & Dave's house and between Barb & Dave's house and the next house. There are only about twelve feet between each of the houses and she thinks it was the planned design for this area of homes that it be open and in between not get constricted with fences. She will agree with Sazb in finding two that the need for privacy is a direct result of the new addition that went on the building because it is a very high patio. The patio is very visible because there was a screened porch there that was very private. She thinks that ihe ten foot structure between the homes will alter the essential chazacter of how these homes were designed and give a confined feeling. It sounds like a beautiful piece of material, the wrought iron which would normally be an asset but she wouid azgue that she dces not feel that any fence is necessary. Plants could also be used also to screen for privacy. To start putting fences between these homes would really alter that neighborhood. Staring that she kas lived in the neighborhood for a long time and may Lave an old persons appreciation, she requested that the Board carefully consider how this variance will change the character of this old neighborhood, and how we might be able to preserve what we ha've. Both in the architecture and in the landscape. She requested that the Boazd deny the request. AA-ADA-EEO Employec `� • � D b�"! J (/ Minutes 7une 30, 2068 Page Four Mr. Lehr stated that he appreciates his neighbor's opinions and he would not have taken the time to set down with them and listening to their concerns and going through his plans if he didn't. He is not proposing a fence necessazily on ffie properry line. The Code requires him to have a fence if he has a pool, it does not necessarily require him to have a fence if he has a dog, but the neighbors may want him to have a fence. It is an allowable thing, he would prefer a uellis to a fence a fence does not really do anytivng for hina at six and a haif feet if gets below grade. He stated he wanted to speak to the assertion that he somehow created this if you refer back to the survey it shows the eusting site plan as he purchased it. What you will see on the back of the existing site plan on the survey is a pario. It is a structure that is 9.4 by 15.8 feet right off the back of the honse. He stated that he simply replaced that strueture with an open patio it was a partially enclosed strucmre it had windows and was a brick structure a little more similar to the patio that is on the back of 75 Otis. He stated he really did not create that and his area is 15 hy a little bigger than 9.4 so it is true that he added onto the house and the patio area is a targer but when it comes down to how that properry has been histotically used there has always been a patio off the back of the house. It is not true that there are no fences in ffie neighborhood 79 Qtis has fences around the back of its yud, that lot has been built up and it is a nice open rolling azea but the Haley's put up a reTaining wall and changed the grade back there. The neighborhood hasn't, not had any change, he did not create the change in grade, he did not create the grade of the existing house or • how the patio goes off the back. Ms. Haley says he will completely block the light with the structure if the variance were granted and he feels that is the beauty of the piece that there aze 57 squaze feet surface area on the proposed uellis as opposed to 585 square feet on a similar sized of six foot six fence and if that six foot six fence were extended along the length of the house it would double or triple the surface area to hlock light and air, He requested that ffie Boazd approve the vaziance. Ms. Bogen questioned that ivlr. Lehr stated that the patio had been there befote was an enclosed patio with windows and beamed in kind of thing. Mr. I.ehr stated it was very much like the Haley's patio. Ms. Bogen further questioned and it was located on that second level? Mr. I.ehr replied it was located in e�ctly the same location ffiat is not a second level that is the main level of the house. Ms. Bogen stated so it was in the exact same location you did not add anything below it? Mr. Lehr replied he ffiinks it is he does not recall ffie elevation map shows. Ms. Bogen further questioned did you build out on the back part of the house? Mr. Lehr replied no, the length out no, because that was a concern when pulling the pernut and the azchitectural plans not to jut out any further and it may even be smaller than the 15.8. Ms. Bogen continued but you did open up the pafio and in doing that removed the screens. Mr. Lehr replied that he does not lmow that it had screens. The Haleys' pado is a pretty good depiction of our patio. Ms. Bogen stated you took the roof off, how long have you owned the house? Mr. Lehr replied since 2004. Ms Bogen further questioned what is different now that you feel you need some privacy. Mr. Lehr stated that he never lived in the house when the old pafio was on there he is sure his feelings of having privacy would be the same if that structure were there. Ms. Bogen questioned you never lived in the house when it had the old pado on it. Mr. Lehr replied no he added onto the house before he moved into the house. Ms. Bogen quesrioned when he added onto it? Mr. Lelu replied 2004 2005. Ms. Bogen questioned and did you live in it at that point? Mr. I.etu replied not when the old patio was on the house no. Ms. Bogen stated that it is four yeazs later and now you aze asidng for some privacy, she is . wondering what happened? Mr. T.ehr stated that last fall his insurance company threatened to cancel his AA-ADA-EEO Employer � � File 08-091858 Minutes 7une 30, 2008 Page Five inc�,ra„ce because the neighbors had failed to remove their retaining wa11 from our properry, it is dangemus, all the kids slide down our hill and he canuot stop them when he is at work. Which is a good reason to have a fence back there. The Aaley's have put up a retaining wall that sticks ap at about head level if you aze a kid. He personaIly would not have put that there if it were he that owned 75 Otis but ke certainly would have pulled a permit and gotten a survey before he did, and that is about 2.2 feet on his properry and he would like to have them remove it. He has asked them to remove it for four years and he has allowed them to keep their sidewalk fltat is the same amount over and all he has asked for is this amount of privacy in retiun. Mr. Wazd quesaoned so this purpose of this fence is as he heazd Mr_ Lehr stated is in retaliation? Mr. I.ehr replied no, it was not until a week ago that they decided to oppose this variance. Ae felt that this was a very amicable solufion and it was not in retaliation, at all and he took great pains to find this piece that had the open doors that would meet up with-their sidewalk to allow them to keep the sidewalk on his property. In the spirit of being a good neighbor ffie doors aze very inviting it is not in retaliation at alY, he thinks if he were to put up a fence if that is the only thing that was available to him to provide privacy, he does not feel that is retaliatory it is just probably not the right thing to do, � Ms. Maddox questioned Mc. Lehr whether there would be vines on this? Mr. I.ehr replied there would not have to be, there are a lot of ground vines that might naturally grow up on it, he thinks it would look • nice if it had vines on it. � Heazing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of tfie meeting. Ms. Morton moved to apgrove the variance and resolution based on findings I througfi 6. Mr. Courtney stated that he is going to vo� against the motion it is kind of confusing and you can see that the neighbors are fighting. But the realiry is we should IooK to tite criteria. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use, he does not know it apparendy was a reasottable use before and why it has changed feeds into finding two the plight of the land owner. If anything has chaaged it is because of the applicant, he has changed the patio and the whole back yar@, this is his problem aad he needs W fmd a different way to resolve it. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. We have heard it is inconsistent with the area and he certainly would not be happy if this suvcture was going to be built five feet closer than they have a right to. Lasdy it didn't seem that there was any dispute that this i� going to impair the light coming into the one window. Close call, he does not ttiink that this is a close call, there is a reason why we have these codes, the houses are close to begin with they want to bnIld it five feet closer and he is against it adaznanfly. Mr. Ward stated that he agrees with what Mr. Courtney said that the adjacent home owner said that this will block the light and view from the dining room window and he thinks just that alone makes this something that they need to take a close look at. Noting that he would not want to look out his dining room window and see some big obstiuction and it the windows were open he could not see how it would not block light or air. �� • AA-ADA-EEO Employer p��93� • � Minutes June 30, 2008 Page Six � Ms. Bogen stated that she is also voting against the vaziance based on what Mr. Courtney sited, also the fact that she had asked Mr. Lehr what had changed in the last four yeazs that he all of a sudden needed privacy, and his explanation started with there is a retaining wall that his neighbors have that he does not like. She stated she would have come up with a better answer if she was asking for a variance. Mr. Wilson (could not hear on tape). Ms. Bogen stated if he was going to build a wall he might have it set back properly and that might not affect as much of the light and air. But he is not setting this back and he has a three foot wide monstrosiry here. Mr. Wilson stated that the azbor would allow a lot more light than a wall so he intends to vote for this. , Mr. Fariey seconded the motion, which failed on a roll call vote of 3 Couriney, Wazd, Maddox). Mr. Courtney stated that he would just point out that basically the District Council is opposing it also based on the neighbors are opposidon, if anyone cares about the District Council. Mr. Courtney moved to deny the vaziance and resolution based on findings 1-4. Ms. Bogen seconded the modon, which failed on a roll call vote of 4-3(Wilson, Morton, Fazicy) Submitted by: John Hardwick Approved by: Gloria Bogen, Secretary � � AA-ADA-EEO Employer �g�93a August 1, 2Q08 Zoning Atimi�tistratioa Ctfy Q£ St. Paul De�ent of Safety and Inspe�tians 8 Fourtl� St E Suite 20a St. Paul, MN 55ifl?-lOQ2 Re: File #OS-i �3446 I e�ppose the varianee regues� for 67 Ot�s Ave. (File # 0&113446), I sugport eafarcezaent of tF�e city zoning.aode attd regutakions for the follc�ng reasfln�. The eode rvas recently updated to �eflect ezure.�t lifesiyle and t�e�is: Hauiug re�cTlatiqns that apply to all egually maintains a�d peFpetuates �nutual �speet • and ri�hts. RespectfullY, ,r� 1� r� �� . 88 N. Mississigpi Riuer Boeilevard Si. Pau1,141N 55104 � B - � � • august �, 2oos � 't 3Y�f zo� A��o� Gity �f Sx Paul J3epart�ex# of Safety and 7�spectians $ Fou�kh SY E Suite 2f�J $t Paut, MNSSlfl1-1002 T�e: File #08-1I34�tfi I oppuse the varttauce reqaest for 67 Qtis fkve. (File# (�8-� 1344fi). As a reside�t �f 3hadow Fatls aeighb�zrh�dand for�ter me�ti6eF of.lvferriam Par�C Gu�cit a�3d La�d �Tse Cmm�aitte�, I support enfbrcement af the city zdo�g code-and ��gulations for the £ta�lae�ag �asons. The code u�ts �cet�ly updat�d to reflegt cutrent lifeeshhyle and t€eads ETa�g aega[ations tfiat apply to all eqeaff� Enaintaias and pe�pet�es xnutual respecrt � aaclrigh�s. IiespeatfullY, ��1�`� Psg Rich 88 AT. �ldississiggi River $ouleva�'d St. Paul, MN 55104 � bg � �� - Page 9 Mr. Ward So just to clarify things, what you're saying is, the intent of the filing of the pernut is all that we aze looking at? The intent was that they were all one parcel, the intent was that the permits were all submitted at one tune in order to construct the apartment building and the garages period. Mr. Hardwick Madame Chair, Commission Ward again as Mr. Oslund pointed out, I am not hymg to detemune what the properry owner or developer in 1916 had in mind for these properties, for these lots. What I am saying is what we can go on is what the record shows. And what the record shows is that when he applied for the permits, that permit was issued with Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 on it. The permit for the apartment building listed four lots. The permit for the garages listed four lots. No one is trying to determine the intent other than the fact that is what was issued on the permits. If indeed that is the case, as the Zoning Administrator believes, then at that time they were designated as a single parcel of land for development. This would meet the definition for a"Zoning LoY' today, thaYs what our basis is at the time that when they were developed they were designated as a single tract of land. 11tey had not been under separate ownership until 2007. Mr. Oslund I was slightly confused by your question Mr. Ward and just to clarify. The apartment building permits and the garage permits were not taken out at the same time. Mr. Hardwick and I are in agreement that the apartment building came first in 1916 and one set of garages was built in 1918 with a pernut and then the fmal in 1926. I want to emphasize another point in which Mr. Hardwick and I are in agreement and that is, if we assume for a moment that the de£inition of "Zoning LoY' existed in the early 1900's it is the intent of the owner that controls. I submit to you that it is impossible to make the findings that this owner intended with those building permit applications to develop all of ffiese tracts as one. For two reasons one, we don't know who wrote those lot numbers some of which are added and some that are czossed out on the building permit applications. Today's zoning code requires an expression of intent by the owner not by someone sitting in the zoning department. We can't know and I submit that Mr. Hardwick would answer you if you asked him do you know who wrote those lot numbers on there? He would have to say that he does not know whether it was the owner or someone else. Secondly, how can you bind someone to an expression of intent to make these lots one, which has meaning only under a code as adopted in 1975 and that person is making the decision back in 1916? He or she had no ability to know ffiey would be foreclosed from conveying or separately developing these parcels by what's on an application in 1916 when that code provision did not e�st unti] 1975. I submit that is wrong and unfair. Ms. Bogen You said we can't assume what the owner intended and we can't fmd that the owner intended to develop all of the four tracts as one back in 1916. How can we determine that the owner did not intend to develop all the tracts as one back in 1916 and 1918 and 1920? Mr. Oslund We can't but in order fmd as Mr. Hardwick wants you to, you have to make the finding that he did intend it. Ms. Bogen In order to make that the finding that you want, don't we have to fmd that he didn't intend to? AA-ADA-EEO Employer ��3� Page 10 Mr. Oslund No because I've got four separately plotted lois, with no discemable intent to develop all as one. Application of the code provision he wants enforced requires you to find intent of the owner to designate the lots for development as a unit and that evidence does not eacist. Mr. Courtney I'm starting to focus in on the issue, on page 17 a pernut for the apartment building. Mr. Oslund ThaYs an index card maintained by the building department. Mr. Courtney To your point is that whoever filled this out wasn't your client, or your clienYs predecessor or the predecessor's predecessor? Mr. Oslund Not as far as I know. We got these from the Ramsey County Historical Society. The certification my client got for that one is ffiat it is a permit index card. The original she keeps and if you look at the top of it. It appears to reference Lot 12, Block 9. Then below it somebody in different handwriting has written 12, 13, 14, and 15. I don't know who wrote it and I don't lmow when it was written. Mr. Courtney We don't lrnow what document preceded this one so that they created this document? Mr. Oslund I think if you continue on in the packet there is the application for the permit for the apartment building in 1416. This is the one I was referring to as those lot numbers where 13 appears to be added and we see crossed out and so forth. What I am saying is none of us in this room can discern who wrote what and what they intended by writing those things. Mr. Courtney Down at the bottom is Malloy. Page 28 the application in 1926 for a garage. Doesn't that say the address of Porfland on it right there? Mr. Oslund Here's my point I don't know and we can't lrnow who wrote it or what they intended by that. The only meaning to an expression of intent of a reference to more than one lot occurs after 1975 when your zoning code was invented. You can't say that somebody in 1916 or 26 intended to be bound by a zoning provision that didn't exist until 1975. And if you are going to impose that, then you've got some sort of taking because you are changing the owner's rights. Mr. Courtney But they do that all ffie time. Mr. Oslund And they pay for it. What we have is a nonconfornzing structure on I.ot 12, and your own code says that you can't take that away unless the owner demolishes it and looses his protection for it. Mr. Courtney Okay thanks. Mr. Oslund The code division that they rely upon requires an expression of intent and I am simply saying I certainly can't discern it and I respectfully submit that you can't discem it in order to make the finding that Mr. Hardwick requests of you. AA-ADA-EEO Employer � Minutes 06-30-08 Page 11 Mr. Courtney Okay thanks. Mr. Ward We keep going back to this issue of making ihe owner responsible for something that happened a couple years later. Nothing was done for a period of time and the properry was split back in the 70's. Developers, properry owners commonly buy lazge parcels with, in their own mind thinking that, I'm going to put something here and later on I'm going to put some out buildings further back on the property, but iYs still all one piece of properry and still all under the same ownership. They know that they own it and want to do more with that property. I would challenge your thinking in saying that the owner never intended to put those structures all at the same time. Money contiols how a person develops. You don't have it all at once you build a 5 or 4 unit building obviously the 5 is a typo it is a 4 unit because iYs there, we can ghysically go see it. Mr. Oslund They have some appliances in the basement Somebody would argue it is 5 now. I think that doesn't matter for our purposes today. Mr. Ward What I am getting at is, those structures are there it was under the same ownership and based on our defmition as what was explained by staff, whether it's one piece of properry or individual pieces of properry one building or 10 buildings 100 buildings, it was all under the same ownership and when they were built really doesn't matter. Mr. Oslund And I respectfully disagree with you and I think that Mr. Hardwick agrees that an expression of intent is important for him to have our appeal denied and that expression of intent is unsupported by any evidence thaYs be presented here. There's nothing that would support that an owner intended that all these parcels were to be developed as one tract. We don't know who wrote what but we certainly know that in 1916 your 1975 definition never existed and no can attribute to that owner in 16, 18, or 26 that he intended to create a"zoning loY' as it's now defined in the code. Mr. Courtney Isn't there a taking every time the City passes a law regulating property. Somebody is on the short end of every law. So there is a taking. Sometimes iYs more sometimes it's less. Anytime they make a regulation in regazds to the use of the properry whether it be a liquor license, whether you can have dogs there, whether you can do anyrhing thaPs a taking. Mr. Oslund We can argue the quintessential potential of regulatory taking or the Nolan and Dolan cases and I've litigated all those things. Anytime the Ciry does something by regulation isn't necessarily a taking. It is however, there is established case law that tells us when it is, and sometimes it is. It has to be substantial devolution in the value of the properry and a violation of investment backed expectations and that sort of thing. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion maybe that was inadvisable for me to mention that I am not trying to go there. Heazing no further tes6mony, Ms. Morton closed the public portion of the meeting. AA-ADA-EEO Employer �G/7j �" File #{ OS-090 ---- ------ i4€��s�Fi=38'-SS—` ___ _ —=-___.__— __ � "_— �—_ -- Page 12 Mr. Hardwick Just couple of things to kind of clarify what is going on. Mr. Oslund I put forth to you the intent is expressed through the buflding pernuts when the buildings on that properry were constructed. The intent is expressed through the fact thaz the entire parcel all four lots were all conveyed under a single ownership throughout the years, up until 2007. So to me that is a clear indication that there is intent there. That this is a single parcel of land up until 2007 at which time the aparhnent building was sold off. We will let it go at that point. Mr. Courtney This is fairly complex how is this supposed to get caught? What if this didn't get caught for 20 years? When somebody seils these four pieces of property are the supposed to catch it then? Don't tell me that somebody actually supposed to know all this? Mr. Hardwick Madame Chair, Commissioner Courtney thaYs a good question and we've been struggling with that one for some time. The problem there being is that Ramsey Counry doesn't always agree with the Ciry as to when the Counry has the authority to assign a separate PTN numbei. If they do assign a separate PIN number for tax purposes. The properry owner assumes that they can sell that properry. The City has no record of tracking when a property is sold. We don't do that. We don't track each individual tract of land when it is sold. So yes somerimes that happens. Sometunes you have somebody a single ownership of three or more parcels contiguous, and for some ieason ffiey have separate PIN numbers and they sell one of those lots with a separate PIN number. We many not catch that until somebody comes in and applies for a building permit. If we can establish when that property was sold, and if we can estabiish then that up until that one lot was sold those three lots weie considered as a single parcel in that they were contiguous and under single ownership, ttte same ownership then that sale becomes illegal. They have to go through a subdivision process. We don't have any way of tracking when properry is sold, we don't do that at this point in tune. Maybe sometime in the future we have a computer system that can monitor all that kind of stuff perhaps we will do it. Now we rely on when people come in to develop a property and they apply for permits and we do the research. Ms. Bogen So Mr. Hardwick what you are saying is that they could seek a subdivision of the property and then sell it off and thaYs available to them and whatever they need to do to get that okayed. Who does that, the planning committee, the Ciry? Mn Hardwick Madame Chair, Commissioner Bogen yes they would need to apply for a lot split and depending on how they want to subdivide it. If ffiey wanted to subdivide just Lot 12, that is the lot wiih the apartment building they would have to apply for vaziances for lot size and setbacks. A simple lot split that involves four lots does not require a public hearing. It is done administratively by the planning administrator. So they could subdivide the properiy so that it met all of the requirements without having to go through variances but if they wanted to subdivide it so that it was just Lot 12 with the apartment building on it, then they would need to get variances and those variances would come back to this Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Bogen They can subdivide it by moving lot line over for side yazd variances. They don't have to follow the current lot line for subdividing. Mr. Aardwick That's coxrect. AA-ADA-EEO Employer �� File # 08-090171 Page 12 There was no opposition present at the hearing. Hearing no further testimony Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the hearing. Ms. Bogen moved to deny the appeal and resolution based on findings 1-5. Mr. Courntey second the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 7-0. Submitted by: Approved by: John Hazdwick Gloria Bogen, Secretary AA-ADA-EEO Employer