09-562CITY
Presented by
Council File # 09-562
Green Sheet # 3 � '] �
RESOLUTION
41NT PAW�, MINNESOTA ��
1 WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, JeffNicholson, d/b/a Quartersawn Design Build, on behalf of property
2 owner Jeff D. Babineau, duty made an application to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals (the `BZA"), under DSI
3 Zoning File No. 09-025229, for three variances from the strict application of the zoning code in order to
4 split an existing lot for the purpose of building a single-family dwelling with a detached garage which
5 would be located in the required front yard, on property commonly known as: 2376 Carter Avenue (PIN:
6 202923340099) and legally described as ST ANTHONY PARK NORTH LOT 28 BLK 41; and
7
8 WHEREAS, the said application sought the following variances: 1) 33-foot front yard required, 4-feet
9 proposed from the detached garage located in front yard for a variance of 29-feet; 2) 6-foot side-yard
10 setback required for garage, 3-feet proposed for a variance of 6-feet; and 3) 50-foot lot width at building
11 line required, 40-feet proposed for a variance of 10-feet; and
12
13 WHEREAS, on February 23, 2009, in accordance with the requirements of Leg. Code § 61.303, the BZA
14 conducted a public hearing on the application where all persons present were afforded an opportunity to be
15 heard;and
16
17 WHEREAS, at the condusion of the public hearing, the BZA, based upon all the files and the testimony
18 presented at the public hearing, moved to deny the requested variances finding that the application failed to
19 meet the requirements far granting variances under Leg. Code §§ 61.601(1), (4}, and (6), as set forth in
20 BZA Resolution No. 09-025229, which is incorporated herein by reference and reproduced below:
21
22 1.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 2.
36
37
38
39
40
41
The property in question can be put to a Yeasonable use under the strzct pPOVisions of the code.
The property owners currently live in the existing house on the western half of this parceL The
existing parcel is about twice the size of the adjacent lots and each of the proposed new lots would
exceed the minimum lot size requiremenYs for the dishict. They would like to split the parcel and
build a retirement home on the vacant lot. At the front lot line the new 1ot would exceed the
required 50 foot minimum lot width. However, because the lot narrows towards the rear, at the
front setback line of the new house the lot is only 40 feet wide. Due to the slope of the property the
owners are proposing to construct a garage in the front yard that would be attached to the house
through an underground tunnel. Most of the garage would be below grade and it will have a grass
roof that will blend in with the yard between the house and gazage. Tl�is property has been in its
present condition since the existing house was built and is a reasonable use of the property.
The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property and these
eiYCUmstances were noz created by the land owner.
The steep slope and irregular shape of this parcel limit the practical options for developing the
property. These are circumstances that were not created by the property owner.
09-562
42 3.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54 4.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68 5.
69
70
71
72
73
74
75 6.
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
The proposed var-iance is in keeping with the spiPit and intent of the code, and is consistent with
the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Faul.
The proposed new lot will be similaz in size to adjacent lots. The applicant has submitted an
application for Site Plan Review and has received preliminary approval pending completion of a
few items. Based on this it appears that the proposed new lot is buildable without adverse impact
on the surrounding properties. The applicant has submitted a petition signed by several neighbors
in support of this proposal and we have received three individual letters of support from nearby
property owners. Provided that subdivision approval is obtained &om the Planning Administrator,
the requested variances aze in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and will not adversely
affectthe health or welfare of area residents.
The proposed variance will impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, but
will not alter the essential characteY of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established
property values within the surrounding area.
The proposed new house will meet all of the setback and other dimensional standards for the
district however the reduced setback of the garage will affect the supply of light or air to adjacent
properties.
There are several other homes with detached garages in the immediate area. The new home has
received preliminary design approval, again subject to some conditions. This should ensure that the
house will be compatible with other homes in the area. Provided that final site plan and design
approval is obtained, requested variances will not change the character of the neighborhood ar have
an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
The variance, zf granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the
code foY the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change
the zoning district class�cation of the property.
A single-family home is a permitted use in this district. The requested variances would not change
or alter the zoning classification of the property.
The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
It appears that the primary desire oFthe applicant is to increase the value of the property by
snbdividing the pazcel.
WHEREAS, On or about March 31, 2009, pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(a), Jeff D. Babineau duly filed
an appeal from the BZA's decision, under DSI Zoning File No. 09-051883, and requested a public hearing
before the City Council for the purpose of considering the BZA's decision; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2009, the City Council, with notice to the affected parties, conducted a public
hearing on the said appeal pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(b), where all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard; and
09-562
88 WfIEREAS, The City Council, having heard the statements made and having considered the variance
89 application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and the resolution of the BZA: DOES,
90
91 HEREBY RESOLVE, That the BZA erred in its findings No's 1, 4, and 6, and the Council, pursuant to
92 Leg. Code § 61.704, hereby reverses the decision of the BZA in this matter and grants the appeal of Mr.
93 Babineau; AND,
94
95 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Council, consistent with its decision to reverse the BZA, hereby
96 amends BZA Resolution No. 09-025229, findings Nds 1, 4, and 6, to read as Follows:
97
98 1.
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
ill
112 4.
113
114
115
ll6
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126 6.
127
128
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
The existing lot is about twice the size of adjacent lots. The propeRy owners currently live in the
existing house on the westem half of the lot. The owners would like to split the existing lot and
build a retirement home on the newly created easterly lot. Each of the resulting lots would exceed
minimum lot size requirements for the district. The front lot line of the new lot would exceed the
required 50-foot minimum lot width. However, because the existing lot is irregular in shape as it
narrows towards the reaz, the front setback line for the new house on the new lot is only 40 feet
wide. Due to the slope of the property, the owners propose to construct a garage in the front yard
that would be attached to the house through an underground tunnel. Most of the garage will be
below grade and it will have a grass roof that wi11 blend in with the yard between the house and
garage. The proposed lot split is reasonable and the new house is a permitted use of this property
that cannot be accomplished under the strict provisions of the code.
The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property,
nor wall not alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish
established property values within the surrounding area.
The proposed new house meets all of the setback and other dimensional standards for the district.
The majority of the proposed garage will be below grade. The requested setback variances will not
significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties.
There are several other homes with detached garages in the immediate area. The new home has
received preliminary design approval, subj ect to conditions. These conditions should ensure that
the new house will be compatible with existing homes in the area. Provided that final site plan and
design approval is obtained, the requested variances will not change the charactex of the
neighborhood or have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
The request for variance ds not based primaYily on a desiYe to increase tlae value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
129 AND, BE IT FURIITER RESOLVED, That the Council, consistent with its decision in this matter, adopts
130 BZA Resolution No. 09-025229 findings No's 2, 3, and 5, as its own; AND,
131
132 BE IT F[.7RTHER RESOLVED, That the variances requested by Jeffrey D. Babineau are hereby approved;
133 AND,
09-562
134 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to appellant 7effrey
135 D. Babineau, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the BZA.
136
Requested epa entoE G�'D
By:
Apprwed by the Office of Financial Services
By:
Ado
Ado
By:
App
By:
Approved b City Attorney
BY � ..� Yvl.• (.T 2 00�
pted by Council: Date 5 ��'��Q�/ Approv d y Mayc for bmis ' r� o C� mcil .
ption Certified by Council Secretary gy
_--___ e'�'LGL�J� f
roved Date ,.3
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Gree nShee�
( DepartmeMlOffice/COUncil: I Datelnitiated: ,
ca _���^�meY �,�-MAY-09 ' Green Sheet NO: 3070498
�; Confact Person & Phone:
Peter Wamer
, 266-8710
Must Be on Cour
27-MAY-09
Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
E-Document Required: Y
DocumentContact: JulieKraus
Contact Phone: 266-8776
�
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
��
0 City Attornev
] C� Attornev Depar�ent INector i S-�Y� �,
z �itvAttorney �!�� �
3 � avor's Office � � Mayor/Assisqnt .
4 ,Connc�l
5 �C� Clerk Gttv Clerk
Action Requested:
Memorializing City Council's May 6, 2009, morion to reverse the decision of the BZA in this matter under findings No's 1, 4& 6
and approve the variances requested by Jeffrey D. Babineau in order to spli[ an exiting lot for the purpose of building a single-family
home with a deta.ched gazage on the properry commonly known as 2376 Carter Avenue in Saint Paul.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personai Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
C1B Committee Yes No
Givil Service Commission 2. Has this persoNfirrn ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/frm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
5cpiain all yes answers on separate sheet and aHach to green sheet.
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
The Council is required pursuant to City Charter to have its acfions reduced to writing either in the form of a resolutlon of an
otdinance dependent upon the nature of the matter before it. The decision of Council in this matter required a written resolution in
order to comply with the Chartet. Approving the attached resolution fulfills the Council's duty under the Charter.
Advanpges If Approved:
None
DisadvanWges If Approved:
Failure to appxove the resolurion violates the City's Charter zequirement.
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Totai Amount of
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
CostlRevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
May 18, 2009 10:52 AM Page 1
CITY OF SAINT PATJL
Chrrstopher B. Coleman, Mayor
Apri16,2009
Council Research
310 City Hall
St Paul MN 55102
Dear Mary Erickson:
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the Ciry Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, May b, 2009, for the following zoning case:
Appellant: 7effrey D. Babineau
Zoning File #: 09-051883
Purpose:
Location:
Staff:
District:
Board:
An appeal of a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals denying variances in
order to subdivide a parcel and construct a new single family home.
2376 Carter Avenue
Staff recommended approval with conditions
Recommended approval of the lot split but took no position on the variances.
Denied on a 6-0 vote.
I have confirmed this date with the o£fice of Council Member Russ Stark My understanding
is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Councal at your
earliest
Convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Thank youl
Sincerely,
John Hardwick
Zoning Specialist
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
09-562 '
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS �
Bob Kess[er, D�rector
COM�JERCEBUlLDING Telephone� 651-266-9090
8 Fourth Street Eas{ Suue 200 Facs�mile 6i1-266-9124
SI Paul, M�nnesota >>I01-l024 Web w�»v smaul eovlds�
PIO'tSCE OF PUBidC FIEARIDTG
The Saint Pavi City Council will con-
duct a public hearing on Wednesday. May
6, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. iri the City Counql
Chambers, 1Aird Floor. City HaII ( Court-
house, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St.
Paul, MN, to consider the appea1 of Jeffrey
D. Babineau to�a decision oP the Board of
Zoning Appeals daiytng vartances in order
to suUdivide a parcel and consiruM a new
single-family home, at 2376 Carter Ave-
nue. [ZF 09-0518831
Mary �1�ickson
Assis#ant City Council Secietary .
Dated: Apr118, 2009
. (Apr1I13)
31:� PAI7E fEOXti iFd]Gffit
22199825 '
09-562
DEPARTMENTOFSAFETY ANDINSPECTIONS
Bob Kessler, Drrector
.��I C� O�r B. C� anA �or
Apri16, 2009
Council Research
310 City Hall
St Paul MN 55102
Dear Mary Erickson:
COMMERCEBUILDING Telephone: bil-26b-9090
8 Fourth Street East, Suite 100 Facsamile 65l-266-9124
St P¢ul, Minnesam 55701-1024 Web: wxav sroau! rov/dsi
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, May 6, 2009, for the following zoning case:
Appellant: Jeffrey D. Babineau
Zoning File #: 09-051883
Purpose:
i
Location:
Staff:
District:
Boazd:
�
An appeal of a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals denying variances in order
to subdivide a parcel and construct a new single family home.
2376 Carter Avenue
Staff recommended approval with conditions
Recommended approval of the lot split but took no position on the vaziances.
Denied on a 6-0 vote.
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Russ Stark. My understanding
is that this public heazing request wiil 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 Lega] Ledger.
Zoning Specialist
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
Thank you!
����
Mareh 31, 2009
City Councit Memhers
Sant Pnul City Counei4
Denr Councit members,
My name is 7eff Babinenu aod I nm the property owner nt 2376 Cnrter Avenue. I have lived in
my home for the pnst 22 years with my wife 7uti¢ cnd our three ehildren. 7ut+e nnd I are
empty nesters as our children are presently away nttending eotlege. We are seeking to split our
property in order to build a smnl(er hane that meets our needs now and into the future while
atlowing us to remuin io the Saint R�thocy pnrk (SAP) neighborhood. We are askis�g the Snint
Paut City Council to approve our r¢qu¢st for a lot sptit with variances for the following reasons:
1. The eommunity, through the ComQr¢hensive District 12 Plan, suppoets the ndditio� of empty
nester housing. See attached lett¢r from 7on Sehumacher dated February 10, 2009.
2. We have worked with the District Council and they support the lot split.
�
3. 3he Board of Zoning Appeals Sfiaff Report fa+nd our variaoces to be reasonnbl¢ and
eor�sistent with requests approved in the post. An examQle of this would be the house ct 2369
Cnrter directly ncross the street. o
4. After the lot sptit, both th¢ n¢w lots will be larger thnn the two tots to the east: 2366 a�sd
2362 Carter Avenue.
5. The Zoning Appeals Board denied our request to allow the District Ca�ncil to come up with n
eompromise on varianee (garug¢ location) only affer Tom Gilt nnd Kelli 7ohnson expressed a
grudging wi6lingn¢ss to conseder thnt option. That witlingness is not evidenfi in aesything else
prasented or written by them.
5. The District Councii does not feei they have the legat authority required to decide on fihe
vnriances and thgrefors do not feel they are the proper body to mediate a compromis�.
7. We feel we fiave dealt in good faith and with trar�parency nbout our pfans. Y first spoke to
Tan in Oetober 2008. Bfis position then was thnt he was selling his Fause, so he had �o
objecfions to a proposed tot split. Any delays in further information sharing w¢r¢ inndvertentiy
caused by a lack of anders4nnding on our part as to the timeline and presentntion requirements
of the proeess. Much of this was due to cha�g¢ in requirements initiated by City Councit. Zoning
Soard Staff, Dishict Couneil staff and District Council hava afl indieated these new
requirements were not welt understood and inadequatefy commuriicuted to us.
8. Tan and Kelii have not acted in good faith, initia!!y omitting their moving plans when
app¢aring at the Land Use eommittee meeting o� prravviding misieading infmmntion in the
language used on their petition. See ntfinched letter fran Ms. Hnns¢rr. They have pres¢nted
themselves as concerned by the potential for emironmental degradation, when in faet their
muin reasort for opposing our request has to da with argueble perceptiwu of temporary loss of •
prop¢rty vQlue. They have publicly misrepresented the projeets impnct, neighborhood opposition
and air aetions and intant. �
APPL(CATION FOR APPEAL
�
DeparLmentof Safe[y and Inspeciions
375Jac1Fson Street, Suite 220
SaintPaul, MNSSIOI-1806
65I-26�9008
APPLICANT
PROPERTY
LOCA710N
Gity S 1- �[Zt) � St.� Zip �jl�b Daytime
Name of owner (if different)
Address ,�3�17 ���,C' '{��`�Y�V�
Legal descrip6on: _ j� . Q� ��i�l,� Q(L�`� �Ot t� �t? ��� ��. `� �
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeal to the:
� Board of Zoning Appeals (� City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 61, Sectionld3.S0i, Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision
made by the �fit .��' Zv V,:�c ���D.��.�5
on
�—
200 � . File number: O� — �o���-a-
GROUNDS FOR APPEAi.: Exptain why you feel there fias been an error in any requiremenf, 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.
Q1�-�. Se e �,�i�c(�. \��er
additionalsheetif
�--�-_
. Applicant's s+gnature
Cityagent
09-562
09�562
� 9. W¢ huve the support of most neighbors nearby who aetually would hnve fiheir sightlines
impaeted by our new hause. Sinee the outtine of the praposed haue woutd be shorter than our
current home, nny neighbors to the east woutd not have their views affected.
10. Fnalty, Tom and K¢Ili's rensons for denying the request due to att¢ring essential
neighborhood cfiaraet� ure simpty unfamded. There ar¢ marry euamples of lot sizes the same
or smaller than our Qroposed sptifi aad varinnees for gnrage tocation up ns�d down Cnrter
Avenue. Concerns of dnmage to their foundntion, trees, vegefetion, water drainage, loss of light,
ventilation, views ete. are euaggerated at best. We wil[ be protecting our own trees, which lie
cioser in proximifiy fio the new haue, while ineorporating th¢ (atest building technology to
improve wnter drainage a� minimize em+irommentul impnct by utit'rcing recycinbte, sustannble
and earth-friendly materials.
In tonclusion, wa are asking the Saint Paul Cty Couneil members to approve our request for a
lot sptit with requested variances. Thank you for your tim¢ and car�siderution.
5 neerel��
� ,
� , ����
eff and 7u1ie Babineau
2376 Carter Ave.nu¢
5t. Pnul, MN 55108
Rt4achment
�
�j
Feb 23 QS Q9:58a 3eff NichoIson 952 929 II57 p.4
Fe6t�t 10, �
,
_ ,,,.
•� «. -
Dearco�ea a�s,
i am w�Hhg r�9 dre c�st � t� sp58�ng � vaa� s��ed 6y Je� utd Juie
� (qrt�'spropea(y2t2378C,a�0erAv�mm.
F� :
Eevebe�en�fo�glysarsaaQiiaW�t��9�utbrtg.t�agtl�kUnelheyt� :
�edtluee�atldds��en�y6a�din.a��grea�arrar�4l��r -
a��d�_TFkyatBVaprodt�3of91.AnthanyPxkaMif�ela�da� '
peopla�st+adAagw�d���+�aig. -
�Y ���'�4��edis�tltieiardt#�de�eaRedfot� '
Se�OnV <
�m�eslhede�e(apeadROfnair,�i�AR...�t�etlfeaeWSOT�i�. = �
e�I�and�qtler�e�e�_'Tlrsgwliak�tlrersuvnaieainB�etbmo203QPFart�me ;
dihe5vart�aiaa������sfioloex I1ddf�ng�sQ�atr.a�'�yapy :
kss�s, e�t� t�s ��ias �d8�at'nuez�se�rande otaRO�i � Bee
r�o�roed•`
Th�r.9�e'¢tiv�ei�eGpraposN�ccp�rea�+F�w�A6�esmle�dgmli+he�+t�oP :
�v:oa�dals��6aeafssa��r�dandQia�Ta9�r�orit�gprope�r '.
ana prapoud bt9�akistage� @renamny �tl�e�fnc�apldaae�eas�a� irt St
A� Park asawnde ;
Fi�M. e�eae� �e�a2ffi's'sa nei�oodr�&n'led sps�eara�hle f�ad�g
� ��B �. ��R�t�eesa� � WAe 9re 81so aWaretlrat
�g shwe ne�Ots 1� a��m aR� 1� �9i �� M1f �.9�
�eg ofdot� to¢ � a�eotfieio�t 6epaetapboesa�e b as m teanxse�
hend. ! Ip� Yquwiapprmve � �eqeeMA�p�stior� BaL�eal's �Eas are�rtp�� ottt�e
samd. i��d'�9 �! �df� � C[OUr [�gi�OdlOOd pim►-
th�d� for your �ne aad �oo,
Ja�9chum�
2183Com�sWEau�IA Avenue -
f
[ .� �
�
90Pl9Q4� 4006:IS 7atpD �z7�tOR SI£88yE6 8xe 4C�8 Oss;6Q08l6L/80
09�62
• March 26, 2009
To Whom It May Concern:
Severai weeks ago, at the encouragement of an unknown neighbor, I signed a
petition against a building project down the street Since then F have learned more about
the project for which Jeff Babineau is requesring a variance and I have no objections.
Sincerely,
Brenda G. Hansen
2334 Carter Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
651-644-2561
�
� �/
� � l 9��
APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARiANCE
Depm(ment ofSafe[y and Inspec(ions
375Tackson Sireet
Suite 220
Saint Pau� MN55101-1806
G�eral: 651-266-9008
F¢c (651) 266-9099
APPLICANT
C'ity�QlA�.� St��Zip DaytrmePht
Property Iaterest of Applicant �owner, contract parcLaser, efc} ��L
Name of Owner (if differenY) ,�'�e� A��,��
AddresslTaratiou��� ('}}e'f��/ .�L�
PROPERTY �Sal Descript[on �.Q3' �]� j?� ['�f.'( Si"`}y��f�N�l ���}�
IlYFORN7ATION (atfaehod�tionalsheetifnecessmy)
T.oY Size Present Zoning � Present Use GE.CQ.4L'�� Lt,(n. ��
Proposed Use ���.����
Yariaace[s] requeste@:
Snpporting Iuformation: Supply the necessary information that is applicabt8�cagour vaziance request, provide detaiLs regarding the
project, and esplain why a variance is needed. Duplex/4iplex conversions may iequire a pro forma to be submitted. Atlzch additional
sheets if necessary.
Attachments as required: - Site Plan - Attachments - Pro Poima
S 6P1 Zfln� LL'
I
�
- �---_
I I
�
i
!
, �
i
f
I
i
--- ___.�,.,�
I _ �___��
A
I�' .tb. fY t �.1.._ .:.�. I ' I ....' . � .. ..". I�.r .' �i. '
�
�
.__ ` S. .
� �
i I �
.`
�.�
�
�
�
�
� �..
� � � --
I .. � i i i
3 � I N N ` � ' j � I
N �v N iv I
I I � 3 �� J� (.J W N� IV� N NI N i.7V �.
_'' C i N � � �p � V� W� W W 1 W W � y c7
� N I � � O Ol� � Ol Ul' .A -P � i O a
� � ' � I ' I ; �N �, ; ��
� I I I 1 I � � � T
f I4] I I 1 I ' ' N
? � � � � j I � �,
' S � W I I I i I j ! i i � i � i
���,_, i � � � I ' � i ! I i I ! �` .
� �� � I I � X-� � C4;
,� �N p� IV � i N N Q � , i , ; , I . g,
iQ' 11 � wl O] W LA O� v, .NI 6li �f Vi w�, j�i
'�
O cri . i...,.
�n ? F-.� � .� 1 l. _I � _I � { � i nl
I � �o n tj 9 �-+ I� i I O, -
- u � „ � � I �i
�� W I � � �'�' I I I I � --
� I I � �i
�' - � � i i � 1, i J; `�`'
" � :,� �,. i � , , � N
�; �
� I , � , �., , .
I �, � �,
I� .
� � � � � i + m, `f'
� �Ivli1 � �`�
� � � �
�� � �
.'_____ � __ � I �
��--�� ��- �.l ..,�.., i._ ,��', t.. i . � -.� _' I I N �
- - . � r .: �-!,��, I j r - � ,D
Feb il 09 03:36p Jeff hicholson
952 9Z9 1157 p.2
Variance Request for Continuance
Board af Zoning Appeals
GO John Eiazd,�ick .
47$4ce of L.LS.P.
City of SaiatPaul
CommerceBwld'mg
8 East 4th Street, Suate 2DU
Saint Patil, MN. 55101
Re: ZoningFile# � " �Z��
� �: i I .� 1 wll � �
� �
� �
,,.�
_� __
� .i
I request Yhat the pt�blichearing scheduied f� . r ou therefesencedZoraing File be
coFrtinaed for aperiod not to exceed K days. I am ware of the requiremeut that the City
mt�st make a final decisionon this matfa withm sixty (60) days of zeceipt ofan applibation £or a
zomng varlance ar an adxnimstrative review as stated in M'ina. Stat, 25.99 (199� aad hereby
waive myrights to a fcnat decisianwithin the sixty (60} day pegod.
Sincerely,
*,���i////
,.C;ii��. • �. ... �
�.�'... -.:. �.�
1
_.������� �N� �. �, ��t
Pffited name ofApplicanY DaEe ofrequesi ,
or z�.prese�ntative
C�
n
U
� �
�-�
!
�b� �--��� otia
9
Variance Request & Lot Split Application for:
Jeff and Julie Babineau
2376 Carter Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
The homeowners at 2376 Carter Avenue, Jeff and Julie Babineau, aze seeking a lot split
of their properiy. Their desire is to split their present lot, and construct a new home for
themselves adjacent to their present home. They have lived in their present home in St.
Anthony Pazk for twenty one years. Their present home was constructed in 1411 and
requires a considerable amount of maintenance and upkeep. The Bahineau's three adult
children have all recently gone off to college, leaving them in a terrific home perfectly
suited for an active fanuly, but one unsuited to meet their present needs.
The lot as it presently stands is 100 feet across as it borders Carter Avenue on the north
and narrows to 50 feet, 250 feet to the south, where the lot abuts au utumproved a11ey. In
dividing the lot, each parcel was given 50 feet of frontage on Carter Avenue. The
e�sting lot, Parcel A, maintains its 50 feet of width to the front fa�ade of the existing
� home, thereby narrowing the new lot Parcel B to 40 feet in width at this point. The new
properiy line then angles back the additiona1201 feet, at an angle pernritting the present
home to maintain a 6 foot setback from the new properly line.
The home the Babineau's wish to construct on Parcel B is one that takes advanCages of
the outstanding features of the lot. The lot rises up from street to a cluster of mature oak
trees, gathered on the hill top. Locating the uiain living areas of their home on the upper
level, the Babineaus will be able to step out of their kitchen and into a new patio tucked
into the oak cluster. By locating the living areas on the upper level, the Babineau's will
aiso get to enjoy tremendous evening sun and sunsets with their view to the West.
With an uiumproved alley behind the properry,locating the gazage to the front is its only
viable location. The Babineaus wish to build, what many on their street and in their
neighborhood have already done, a gazage tucked into the hillside, very close to the front
property line. Where most of the garages in the neighborhood appear in this manner to
be detached, with the advantages of modern con.shucfion techniques, the Babineau's seek
to connect their gazage to their home by means of an underground tunnel to the basement
level of their home. This tunnel would be completely underground and invisible to
anyone outside the home.
Not only will the tunnel to the home be invisible, but also much of the garage. In an
effort to m;n;m;ze water run off and erosion from the properiy, the garage will feature an
earthen roof covered in grass. The garage roof will not only reduce rain runoff from the �
• properiy, it will aiso reduce the visual effect of locating the gazage in front of the home.
�``�`
_�y �
With the garage appearing detached from the home, the Babineau's ask the city to allow �
the gazage tke 3 foot sideyard setback mandated for detached garages rathez then the 6
feet required €or attached ones.
The new lot, Parcel B, slopes from back to front, and diagonally from southeast to
northwest. Measuriug the slope diagonally thraugh the house yields a slope of 21%,
however if ineasured along either the east or west facades or the home, the slope is at
16% or 14% respecfively. The present slope of the site has created basement moishue
problems in the �isring home. Water runs down the hillside directly into the south east
corner of the existing home placing great hydrostatic pressure on centuty old basement
walls. A small retaining wall and gra�el pit was constructed to m;nim;�e these effects
with some small success. The new home will include a substantial retaining watl fhat
will redirect water to west and further away from the home.
The consiruction of the new home will also allow iegrading of the ground direcfly to the
east of the existing home and direct it to the north. The Babineaus propose con.structing a
small rain garden to collect not only the runoff from grade, but also collect nmoff from
the mof, and around and along the new retaiuing wall. This rain garden will minim��e
the watar making its way to the city's sewers, and instead ailow tl�e water to be
reabsorbed into the ground naturally.
�
t� �
09�562
2376 Carter
Design Review and Site Plan Review
•. Tom Beach
2J23109
Design Review
Findings
The house conforms to the Cit�s Design Standards except for iwo things:
• Garage is in the front yard. Whether they can do this wdl depend on whether they can
get a zoning variance.
• Width of garage doors appears to be just over 60% of width of main house. However,
given that this is a detached garage, this seems unavoidab{e. Staff has the authority to
approve things like this if they are based on circumstances unique to the property and
staff will approve this.
Staff rscommendaUon
Sfaff approves the design with two conditions:
t. A variance for the garage setback must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
2. Secause the garage door wi11 be visuatly prominent and close to the sidewalk, f
recommend that they "upgrade" from the standard two-car garage door:
• Use two single-stall garage doors (rather than one two-stall door) to visuatly break up
the door.
• Use a door with some detailinglcharacter. Idealiy the garage door coufd re{ate to
some design detail of the house. Windows for the garage doors shoutd be
considered too (unless windows are a security concern).
Site plan review
� Findings
Here is a list of issues raised by the site and how the site pian addresses these issues:
Grading Site has steep sfopes. Grading plan addresses these concerns.
Drainage Drainage between proposed house and 2376 Carter looks like it will work.
But it may need to be adjusted in the field. Otherwise drainage looks OK.
Pian calis for a rain garden in the front yard.
Setbacks �Detached garage needs setback variances for front and side setbacks. The
setbacks for the house meets zaning standards
Vegetation A few large trees must be removed to construct the house. The plan shows
iwo existing oak trees near the house that witf be saved. {t is not ctear ff
these trees, will survive because thy are so close to the new house and new
retaining walis, The appiicant shouid hire a tree expert to evaluate the trees
and make recommendations on measures to protect the trees during
�nstruetion.
Sediment control No information is shown on the plan. Sediment control measures must be
shown on the plan. These should inGude silt fenCes, information on how
disturbed areas wiil be stabilized.
Staff recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject fo these condftions
1. �ariances for sefback and /ot with musf be approved
2 An erosion/sediment contro! pfan must be submitted and approved by sife plan review
staff.
3. The applicant must hire a tree expert to evaluate the trees on site, especially the two
trees closest to the proposed house and make recommendations on measures to protect
the trees during construction. These recommendations must be incorporated into the site
� pfan. �\
4. Stormwater must be handled in a way that does not increase run-off to adjacent
properties. This may require some in-the-field adjustments not shown on the cument site
plan.
St Anthoay Pazk Community Council/Distria iz
Sgo CmmweIl Avenue, Saint Paul, a�ar 55u4
6 5 1 � 6 49 - 599z Tec 6 5 1 � 6 49 - 5993 F^g �'w sapcc.or�
February 17, 2008
John Hazdwick
375 Jackson St
Suite 220
St Paul, MN 55101
Dear Mr. Hazdwick,
i� � �v, .
� � r'�
, ....
-.�a saa�
ST. ANTHO��
�� � :
�, D �ti`�
I am writing to express the support of the St. Anthony Park Community Council for the
proposed lot split at 2375 Carter Ave. While the issue was controversial, the majority of
the Boazd of Directors passed the following resolu6on on February 12th:
SAPCC recommends that the request for a Iot split at 2376 Carter be approved
On behalf of the SAPCC, I send thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
� ��'`�
e�
Renee Lepreau
Community Organizer
:_ : ., � a �: '.�.ay�._: e
Cc: Panl Dubruiel
_ ._ , :: ,•;:�.- . �
'
�
�
1�2/24%20� John Hardwick - variances 09-025229 �� ����� � ��'—� �� � �' Page 1 '
� From: John Hawkins yofinhawkins1026Qyahoo.com>
To: yohn.hardwidc�a.stpauf.mn.us>
Date: 2Y24/20091246 PM "
Subjed variances 09-025229
Jofin HarclwiGc
I have re�ived a letter notiying me of a hearing regarding 3 variances for 2376 Carter Ave. I Gve at 2390 Carter Ave. 2 houses
away from the Babineau's ProP�� Prol�
Jeff Babineau has shown me his proposed pian. I think his pian would fit well in the St Mthony park neighborhood. I ihink our
neighborhood will feel the push fw population density increases, especiaily with the pending light-rail consfruction. I would prefer to
see a lot split by someone who fias lived in ffis neighborhood fw years and wili move into the new home rafher than by a profit
focused developec .
I wholeheartedly suPPo� �e P�aPased Prol�
John Hawkins
2390 Cartet Avenue
St Paul
•
� } �
Fe6 19 �9 03:58a Jeff hichoIson
s�, ^� c�aR �
s90 cxoa�rd[ Aemnc. �F�ul, aut 5�x{.
�5��5�wT� ��475993�uc wvavsapccocg
Felxuary 17, 2008
John Hardwidc
375 dac�;,pn St
Suitc 2'LO
5tPaut, MA� 551�1
I�r �: iiar�vvick,
�� a� �; � : 4 �
�5 �aa� �
;
S'r ANTHOI���AR$
a`�� ` y r
� -j,2
° 3•'a�` c
I azu wuting to express the support afthe Sc Ant�saay Park Commuoity Ca�mci! for �e
PTaP�ed lot split at 2396 Catier Ave. While the issae uas con�a�e�sisl, tLe majority of
the Hoazd of D'sredors passed the foUowing iesolution am Febmary 12th:
S�FCC recommeruls that rhe request for a lor split ot �376 Carter be anproved
t?n behatfoFihe SAPCC, i send thaaks for yaur considerazioa
Siacereiy,
Rence Lepieau �
Communiry Orgauizer
: � . , - . - .. . �-�.: .. . _.. , ., . �
... . . .., .;_t.:.. • , . �=. . ... ... . ;'. . „ . .s�. ., . ..- .
{..'C: �ffll� �tIbNIC�
952 9�9 1157 p.Z
N
I
N
.
�� �
eaclzaQ� � 'iCqeag �ayt6� m4'�zaa�et0� 5SE98oE6 aaa E4�8 naa,6Q0al6TlZO
�eb 19 09 09:59a 3eff Nicholson
•
�
952 929 1157 � p.3
,. :-`�, z _,
F�-� a 4 �_'
�
5�
We do nat have stiy oh�ections to the lot spht and variance requests of Jeffand Julie
Habineau, 2316 Carter Aveaue. We understandtttey are seeking ttr split their present
1ot and consh�uet s new home far Ehhemselves ecljacent to thea presart home. Zhey�are
saeicing wariances ta allow far the constructian of the new home wt�re the width a€
tl►e lot is oniy 4d'-0" at t6e from fagade of the hom�. They axe also seeking variaaces
to allow the consh�uctian af an attachee3 tvto car gardge, 4'-0" frem the fro�nt propetty
7'ure and 3'-Q" from the side property iine_
#
Signatfae '
�us�mr w�a��-� Gsr6�171y3b
l/3/
�
�15i
�
1
96C! 60�J n00HD9 'fiii0y 1!p't7839N0`t SiE889EQ �[B E4'8 tixxi6datt6i/LO
Feb 19 09 �9:59a Jeff Nicholson 952 9Z9 1157 p.4
� •
Fe�u�yr 1q 20U9
Board �BirecEws
ais�ict 12 Comttumry Cou�
$9I1 Crornwel!
Sk P�I, MN 55974
DearCnu�a me�nhers,
! azn wr�rg re9ard'�rt8 tlie te¢uest inr ont spfitteg with variaxes sWrrteced 6y Jeff and .tu5e
���u i�H�r MopeAy at 2376 Carter Avanue.
F'ast, i wau� I�e toofrer my Personaf support�rg�n as bng-fnne rr�ghbors ar� frrends. They
t�ve deen �idenls for 22 years a�ni �ds f�abrqstQret bn9. U�g tliaFtune Grey t�ve
raised tluee �kids aad been very involved n. m+d suppoetive oE. a variet�t ofaanmuoily
agartiza�eus and'm�iives_ TF�ey are ve(ued rttembers of SL AsCio�ryt Pa[k aM �e lwd W
people we aF�ld a11waM�2tain aa r�hbors.
`�l1. ��ttlxir request h�e ais exact�r Nre tdnd of rt� density called 5cr in
Se�On V, d. #a+r OGSU'ct 12Canprei�sive Pla(t wt�e itst�es'ihecpmaaneyr slso
�coore9es uie aerelopment o! �r, welFdeslgneQ �...b meazfie neetls otvarious ineanes. : .
ebaily tev�s and Gf�-cyde �._' 7'tas s�� rs fuNrerwDP��4 n 6�e Como?A36 Plan � or� =
d tlre frvt main aeas ofinle;teyt � e�d ss foBars�,,: k�kl haus�9 � tlart ca�r to yoarcg
la�niAes� pmPtY �aters aM seaicrs antl that e�asethe range of afford�T�lyln fl�e
��
rn�a�y. �evx�-��a cmvosai is eanple�y eomp�tewm, tl� �d go� e� bon, p�ans ef :
env:onmerdal � andereates a smadu�o�riref andpro5►e tfian naigh6oring proper6es `
� a proposed IW �atffi �r tt�n many otthealread9��01ots rn 9�eir sf�l and irt St
Mthm�y Park as a w�ol�
Feelh. we area9 aware 6ntmis is a crighhal,p� with &�ed sp�e ava�te tar �ag
���9 �9 �. esPecr��Y tor em�Aqatesteesand senias. We ate �so xaarC �2l
���ighbors hes a �e�ive �mPect an our cammuru'tr in maryr ways. ln my mir�Q, tAe
spYhing oteouDteaited b1s's oneof �ebwe�t QrtpaetePti�nsa� b t�s !o reu�rse 6ds
trend. I hcp� YW wdl apprcve tt�is reques! not justf� Ihe Ba�fS �+! as a�e�fsmatinn a�lhe
sounC, tortvartl�&+� � ca�ee�sussYiven panaplesafar nei�hood P�
Thanksforyour�neand�eratioo,
Jon Sdwmachei
2183 Canm�ltl� Aveeue
; �� �
89Gl96Q� ....^ 'IQON�S 'WilQa m(Yl[•i88�Np7 SSE964£b g'ta 9p:8 n6,L;60QZl6ilZO
Feb 19 09 09;59a Jeff Nicholson
�
Febmary 12,2oa9
To The Ss. Anthony Park Commuairy COUncil:
4- ; 3�Jyi�
'�r{J -_ M ±4';^
��a5aa9
;
Il�is is a ta�e €o letyou know dmt d haue semthe glaos aad tay4ws oFthe �rew home desigi for �
t6e plot awned hp 7ulie a� Ieff Bsbitmav, my IIeXt door neighbprs,
Aad I a�rove afhow we1l they have thought tl�rough the whola look af ti�r
new house and gerage, on theis other haif of the plot It wilt fit in 6eautifulEy.
So, beavse of the nead for a small vsriance, dsis is som�hing rhat needs m be approved by the
city of St. Pau3, itseems.
[ undeascaad that there's heen some eoncem ezprcsseA ahoat the plans, one being e�ressed by
thels ather next daor nesgAboe who has tis8 his home up for saRe for several mar,chs now.
Over $�e last ten Ye�, �Y home ieapmvemc�, landscape end desigo efFoct th� has been
e�cnted by the &ebinesu.s has oniy helped tp i�7t�aove the vatueand look ofour neigltbo�haad,
'1'6eY 1ea�e u[9uisiM taste, aod I em �re wi[t execarte wiShthe sazrn 54p1e on tttis ne,� house and
garage• In f�t, I love the idea tha� the top af she garage wit! 6e
covered with grass, And st,ey don't plan m mke down a large and v¢ry hapPY �
. Fm me. the Babineaus repres�t the kind ofaeighbor yoo always waru [o have [iving next door.
1Y�ey ]rava 6een so �a,d a,ui ��, ��.�ave welcomed me w
St, Anthcmy Patkwith open aims. 1 woutd just hate eo lose chan as ct,erished n«�bnrs
d�[e to what seems to me ro be zriviat concems. Cn �ct, if they mQ�e, I wouW
saiously consider moving myself.
They wi0 cominue to improve rhe neigh6orhaed md oon[slbtue, by tlse way, with their
coc+muniry voluMeet efforts, a� Seff has done over tl� years icing the hockey rink in y$Rg�OC�
Patk
I do appreciate the St Anthuny Park Cammuairi Council and how you are looking out to iceep
the spirit and ffie a�the5c cha� of w�r neigh6orbood in tact You've doue sudi a nice job wah
geeping downtown St Antheny Park as chazming as it is Eoday, sh�m�gtwut much ahange and
devdopment, But in this psrtic¢Iar case, I cannot understand tlie basis of tne coneenc and emty
bope you will a�law iho Beyineaus 4o proceed with their pluns,
Al! af my nedghbors herq who are stayiag in thc acighiwrhood, ac far as I lmow. are in fuil
suppoR of their plans.
3hank you fox your consdaation.
Sint�ety,
Mne Queenan (owner and next door aei�6or)
2380 Carter Avenuc
St. Pnut, MAI SSt08
�
952 929 1157 �� p.5
��
9aa/560� � zODe�9 ���:HdO �a0z�aa3�02 5iE96P£6 xva 9��H �naa �6pOZl6ilz0
� `- �� , � a
��
Deparhner�t of Safety and inspections
Attre John Hardwick
375 Jackson St, Suite 220
SaiM Paul, Minnesota 55101-1806
February 5, �
Dear John Hardwick:
Jeff Nichotson, of Quarfersawn, is our representative and has our petmission to work directly writh ihe
aty as it concems our application fa a bt spNt and zoning variances ro our property at 2376 Carter Ave.
SincereN,
� ���
�
Jeff and Julie Babi�au
CI
'\
MINOR SUB�INSION OF
• LOT 28, B�OCK 47, ST. ANTHONY PARK NORTH
2376 CARTER AVSNUB —*--�{
CI1Y OP Sf. PAQL, RAMSEY CoUNTY. 1�INgSOTA � �
.
�
�� �R����{I ���
���
..� �
� �
�j ' i �.l , .
7 ,E�� �:
- �i�� .
��ii�
� �
��
1�° a
� �``.��
�r;�i` \
KEMPFR & ASSOCIATES INC.
CERTIF[CATE QF SURVEY
�
�����
` �o-.�
j T.
� ^ u ���
I/9-oasaa�
°]
F�
t ���
M1 � e'm � m
D6TNtlFr.v. tFStli@m!
enwMR � Me xG x�
PA�4Y�U IEEM RSL�1166
�e�n� a� n�„atl1
m��iM1+ s
�'�����
.m:^�: �..o
�� ���r...
�� �
��� M �� � m�
_,..,,��'"���...
� � R ,�,°m a
memic wauwu�ons
�"°'� � w
�¢no
=o �
� ��
�a
: �_ ;�
�:�:�_�
�:��
�::�°- °` �°�:��_
� .o
��
.t1���x
�
�
1
i� i �
�
���
!�U
�.� il
� ��
iii iii '
��
i����
z
�
w
�
w
�
z
3
�
�J
u
�
c�
N
�� •
.
.
�
tr
(�;, --,,s.
Z
�
Q
�
W
J
W
� II
L `�
� "
� �
O�
� N
Z
�
Q
>
w
J
w
K
O
�
w
u�
�`; -��
;`-"� `�'=�
0 9-�a5aay
b
u
�
w
V
N
� �
r�;
-oas�y
•
•
�
�
�
��
w -
� n
;o
���
09-562 ��.���
9- aSaa�
•
�
•
z
O
G
>
w
J
W
�
� �
� _
� u
�
� �
Q U
W N
�3
PROPERTY WITHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: 2376 CARTER AVENUE
�
2$85
�
�
:o
� `
�
�
0
�
-�
`: \ � _, '' .
��
p
N
W
S
CREATED BY DSI
�
`��
�
�
��
[)'; - .Cyi
�
�
�
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
�.
s.
9.
iQ.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
15.
17:
SUNI2P.Y-73t1TTI.ECREEK-HICrHkTJOOD
HAZEL PARK IIt#DEN-PIiOSE�ERTTY.T3ILLCREST .
WEST SIDE '
1]AYTON'S BLiJFF
PA'iFNE-PLiAI.EN , . ,
NORTH END �
THOMAS-3�ALE
su��zrr-urnvEtt�rrx
VJEST SEVEN"I'H � .
COIvIO �
I�.4MLINE-Iv1II}WAY '
ST. ANTIIOIV PARTC ,
MERRIr�ivi PARIC-LEXII�GTQN HP.MLINE-SNELIINC's T�AIvILINE
MACALESTER GROVBL.ANll
HIGH7.ArII3 � /
SUIvfMTT HIL'L „ /;
DOWN"t'OWN ���� ,
� ������ ���.� 09-�asa�;
---�
CI'CIZEN PAl2T[CIPATCO�i PI..ANNtNCr DTS"FRIC�'S
��
6�--6aSa�i
l��rett �, ?8� ��
Zoning Boazd of Appeals
Zoning Adminislration
3'#5 3ae�sa� �#r�zt, S�te ?2{#
St. Paul, MN 55101-1&06
It�. Variaace Applicat3c�n€or 237G Carter Avenii�
Your File No. 09-025229
Is..:, >,s, s ..fT�^"sa_�
I am writing as the ne�-door neighbor of 7eff and 7ulie Babineau at 2376 Carter Avenue and as
the co-owner of the house at 2366 Carter Avenue. As yau l�ow, tke Babineavs are curtenfly
�ng a Iot�lit aud t�eesepaaate variaacestn huiitd a f�o�se audgaragek�etwe� thetr
existing home and the home I currentiy own with Tom Gill. The Babineaus ]�ave been good
neighbors. As teachers for Minneapolis Public Schools, T believe Jeff, 7utie and I shaze many of
#�e sa�e c�re val�es. i� �s t�e�z:for� �itd3geat reg�t�at3 must oppuse�hair 1et sp� asd
variance applications at this time.
'�e �3ahiueaus cfitrre��}�roPasa�, i£appro��, wfluld resuk� � a�-sto� �nie �vluc� exe�ds
city requirements for tot width by a factor of 20%. Its garage entrance would be located four feet •
from the sidewalk, wluch we feel wouid negatively impact pedestrian safety, and reduce on street
PaTkiag � an aiea�vitk� li�nited par3�g- �ri�g fi}�ecoast�uctio��etiod, �ve, or fi�e �ed�ate
neighbors, could anticipate the obvious disruption such a project would create ia terms of noise,
dust and debris from cons�truction and excavalion of the buitding site, as we1l as reduced
e�3Fme��fl€� bac� y�t� vu�i+�Yta��s##�e�posed s�e�ae: �e�gt�vo-s�Eoryhoa�
would reduce the light available to our home, back yazd, and to our estensive garden and
landscaping. These things all add to the pleasure of our home and its ultimate market value and
�i�ty'•
The projecYs damaging effects on the value and salability of our properiy would be immediately
appazent, as the home I own with Mr. Gill is currenfly on the markek We are legally and
�y obligatec� tc�s�aze is€a�+at€c�a re1a� tc�€t�l�eeonstr+rction oniheaci3aeent icaEwitl; any
interested buyer. We are reasonably concerned that the appeal of our home wouid be dimiaished
by the prospect of close-proximity, long term consh�uction, and by the largely unl�own
outcomes of ilraY const�on. Arth 1 it; 9 haa.� x�w s#a�di�gvazant�ian�ly, �ii�
housing market in the Twin Cities reflecting tlus hend, the sale of any home is obviously
challenging. With so many homes auailable, iYs diffecuit to imagine tbat anyone wouid choose a
praperty knowing tt�ai a�jo� �er�a �n�jeef, ca€�owatde Q�� fs
�n�t on fhe other side of the property line. Given the choice as a home buyer, I know I would
opt for a home where no such conshuctioa was planned, where I could make an informed
decisio� about mY P�P�Y aud tl�e stc�sctu�es az+ound it As you know, tha� ��Y �Y�
many choices. This makes the consfiruction of a ne►v home, with special permission by variance, ��
seem pacticulazlg frivolous and ineoasistent vKith tt�e aims af the eity aonung code. �
�i
• The Babineaus' proposed project depends on the approval of a lot split and three separate
vaziances, three separate exceptions to St Paul wning code reo These regulations exist
to protect ttia interests of neighbors and communities against projects that maX detrimentaily
aff'ect their properry values, safety, and comfort, while benefiting an individual homeowner. We
live in neighborhoods. The things we do affect our neighbors. When exceptions aze granted to
zoning regulations, their resutting projects should do no barm
In the packet you have received, you will note that Mr. Gill and I are not alone in our objection
to the Babineaus' proposed lot split and related variances. Attached you will find a petition
signedbg neighbors whosa concerns range from ogposi#� #4 �eediess �g in a giutted real
estate market, to concerns that such wnstruction would alter the character of the neighborhood,
to comments that the Babineaus' circumstances are not unique and do not warrant a variance and
�ewconstruot�c� �tters se�i � fi3�e S�, A�t�on3� �ark �3is2rict�unci� a�d �,a�dUse Cammmi'�ee
expressed similar concerns. Note that the Babineans' application for a lot split was denied by the
Land Use Committee on 2!5l2009. Minutes from that meeting should be approved on 3/5/2009,
and u�i� be a�ailable ta the Board o€�flni�g Appea�s at the i�e a�fi� �eazi�g c� �re� 9t1�.
Your cazeful consideration of these concerns, and of the information contained in this packet is
greatly appreciated. I feel confident tbat you will uphold the City V ariance Provisions as it
pertai�s.ta fi�s�atEer_
� �e ��,
C i ��� ' � �_
Kelli 3Q3ttnson
� (1 �
C7
Thomas E. Gill �
March 2, 2009
Zoning Board of Appeals
Zoning Administration
375 Jackson Street, Suite 220
St. Paul, MN 55101-1806
RE: Variance Application for 2376 Carter Avenue
Your File No. 09-025229
Dear Board Members:
If my understanding is correct, the zoning code is designed to serve the public interest, while variances
have been created to relieve individuals of hardship or plight that the provisions might cause — but only
if that relief does no harm to a neighbor or a neighborhood. fn this (etter I propose to make the wse
that the Babineaus' "hardship" is trivial, at best, while the potential damage posed bygraniing the
variances is immense and irrepareble.
In this case, what "plighY' do the Babineaus suffer?
The couple has expressed a need to "downsize" by wedging a large home and garage into a small lot
(hence the necessity of three variances) with the advantage of realizing financial savings —or even profit �
—when they ultimately self their existing fibme and move into the proposed dwelling. Even if i set aside
the possible violation af 61.601(�("The request for variartce is not based primarily on a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land"), close inspection of the architectural plan
reveals that the supposedly "downsized" house is, in fact, nearly identical, in square feet, to the existing
house, and far more damaging to the neighbors' quality of life: it cuts deeply into the IoYs south side,
obstruding western sightlines for 2366 Carter, 2362 Carter, and pro6ably 2356 Carter as welf.
The Babineaus further acknowledge that the impetus for their plan was the departure of their coilege-
aged children, and the resulting need "to have a home that'works' for us". Buttens ofthousands of
"empty-nesters" face the same predicament annuaf(y; a�d solve tfie problem respeclfully—by
remodeling, or simply buying another home. !t is a solation that realtors and city planners endorse, with
11% of houses currently lying vacant— and 14 houses for sale in Saint Anthony Park alone. Instead, the
eabineaus propose to create ariother invasive footprint that damages the property value of both their
neigfibor and their neigfiborhood.
In stark contrast to this trnrial need or "plighY' is the irreparable and possibly catastrophic damage that
the Babineaus' plan would cause in at least four areas:
i) The construction of a dweiling on the proposed site would destroy the iast undevetoped
green space between Gordon Place and #280, and, with it, a treasured asset that contributes
immeasurably to propertyvalue and quality of life in the community as a whole. Neighbors might argue
about the importance of losing the site's ancient oaks— a Saint Anthony Park trademark that is fast
disappearing— but there is tittie disagreement fhat a farge-sca(e dwelling wedged into the modest fot �
available would be a visual eyesore no maYter how se�sitive the design mighY strive to be. A short walk �
down Carter Avenue from Doswell to Gordon reveals that "breathing space" is a core element of the
p;� :�y�
� neighborhood's character; the proposed project, with its major variances, would violate that norm.
Many area residents emphatically agree with my position, and several have been willing to risk
alienating their neighbor by signing the enclosed petition that states as much: "we believe that any
dwelling wedged into the smal{ but treasured space in question wouid be aesthetically injurious to
neighborhood charecter, property value, and quality of life:' Significantly, five of the neighbors most
affected by the proposai have recorded their opposition: Crowley, Swartz, and Crawshaw, who face the
site from the northeast, and Currie and Canright, whose sightlines are afFected from due east;
2) The construction of a dweiling and garage on the proposed site would cause great risk of
damage to my home, to its landscaping, and to its drainage. The set-back psoposed for the gasage — a
50% variance, from six feet to an imprudent three — combined with the momentous earth-moving
associated with excavating a garage and an 1100+ square foot house, will surely threaten the ancient
spruce in my front yard, as well as an oak in my 6ack yard, and 5� feet of yews 6etween. Most
concerning, in view of the questionable set-backs, is the threat to my foundation, whose most
vulnerable section is the west wall facing the Babineaus' proposed dweiling. Previous owners soived
drainage problems by instatling a drain tile system on that perimeter; woufd it be overwhelmed by the
effects of my neighbor's new dwelling, which amounts to an 1100 square foot dom?;
3� The construction of a dwelling on the proposed site wouid cause disastrous injury to the
enjoyment and financial worth of my home, whose property value resides largely in the open setting
that it enjoys. indeed, Ms. Johnson and I expressfy chose this property for the expansiveness and
sightlines it offers, which are remarkable by urban standards; records indicate that previous owners
� were similarly moved —and Ms. Johnson and I speculated that future buyers would be, as well, when we
first invested in our home. That expectation seemed reasonable, given that our neighbors could not
impose a large dwelling upon us without substantial variances, and, according to 61.601(d), variances
would not be granted if they altered "the essential charecter of the surrounding area".
Construction on any terms wouid do grievous and irreversibie damage to our sightlines, and the
variances sought could only exacerbate the harm; in the words of a neighbor, "your dwelling would
become a townhouse, not a house:' Most tragic would be the loss of western light and sightlines, whose
beauty moved us to invest thousands of dollars in the living room, master 6edroom, and other west-
exposed portions of our home. Tonight, as I enjoyed watching the sun set behind the IDS Tower, I
reflected that i share that heritage with the woman who first occupied our house in 1922 — before the
Foshay Tower, let alone the IDS, was an element of tfie skyline. We have no idea what financial or
emotional value can be placed on the loss of a su�set, but we challenge the right of any property owner
to casually sever that 86-year skein for nothing more than a Fnancially advantageous "downsizing"
scheme.
Here the code speaks with absolute clarity, and I implore the board to enforce its requirements:
acCOrding to 61.601(d), "The proposed variance wili not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, nor wili it a(ter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably
diminish estabiished property values within Che surrounding area:' That provision might have been
written with my property as a model;
4) The construction of a dwelling on the proposed site is a chiliing proposition, but even more
disastrous would be the lot spiit and variances that precede construction. No sensible buyer would give
serious consideretion to a house that faced construction next door— at some indeterminate date —
� which would culminate in a house of unknown character and impact. In the opinion of local real estate
expert Steve Townley (document enclosed), " If the variance is approved, any prudent buyer, when �
made fully aware of the situation, would probably not buy your home, at least until such time as the �
new house and garage were completed, all the landscaping was finished, and the effect of the loss of �
light, ventilation and views could be fully determined. The effect of this situation on the salability of your
home is to efFectively render your home not salable until such time as the situation is fuliy resolved one
way or the other." In essence, to grent variances and a Iot split is to issue a death sentence for both the
sale of our fiouse and its vatue: our property would be at the mercy oftfie eabineaus' home-buifding
schedule, which — by Mr. Babineau's own admission—would lie years in the future.
On February 5, 2009, the Saint Anthorty Park Land Use Committee rejected the 8abineaus' petition for a
lot split. I implore the Zoning Board of Appeals to do Iikewise, recognizing that the Babineaus' "plighY' is
frivolous compared to the grievous harm that their proposal would cause, as outlined above. I urge you
to rejeck the three variances— and prevent the damage that they would produce.
Sin erely, /G ���
�� �
Thomas E. Gill
�
� � )�
v
09-562
� Re: Land Split Resolution on 2376 Carter Avenue
Dear Zo nina Soazd Members,
Thank you for soliciting input on this resolution. I request that you deny the variances for the
lot split for the foilowing reasons:
1. The proposed house would considerably block light to my house. My house is on a
hillside, so I ha.ve no view Yo the east. C�ntlp I can see Yhe sunset through mp
wsndows looldng west; the proposed house would entirely block that view. I bought
this house 22 years ago for the open feel of the back azea Given that there were
akeacly 3arge houses on the neigkbortng lvts, I had a reasonab�e expeetatioa that the
open vistas would remain. Removing tlus unique feature would significanfly affect the
value of my house,
Z. Addi�g a}�ouse � the praposed space woutd cha�ge �e cl�ax'acter of the block, w�ich
has lots of open space. There are currentiy two split lots on the block. Adding this split
wouid make four split lots in a row. Higher densiTy housing is not necessarily a bad
idea, buf i� �s to be done tfiro�ig33 a del�erate Taad use p3a�t and not piecemeal.
3. Given the size and appearance of the current house on the lot, it is hazd for me to
envision that the houses would not look cramined in with another house there. The
� current houses are nofi row styte houses; t3�ey were designed to �ave iand around Yhem.
4. The community council approvai, after only 20 minates of discussion, was only for the
loY sp1iL IY was ciearly stated at the meeting that the variance issues were nnt to being
considered by the Council. Thus tbe issues of tbe affect on neighbors house values,
sight lines, and personal space was not addressed_ Neighbors had oniy learned of ttris
proposal9 days before #he Cc>uncil rueetiri� and hcjuse plaus were no# availabie �1 a
few days before the meeting — not enough time to research the impact it would have.
5. The lot split is promoted as a way for the Babineaus to downsize and remain in the
�igh8or�oQd. But t1� pmpasad hovse has the sau� uuiuber �f stori�s and nearly the
same footprint square footage. What is being presented is misleading.
This plan has obviously been in development for a numbex of months. Yet neighbors whose
hotise vaiues and qrxa3ity of 3i�e eouid be affeetzd werenat asked fvr �put �vr aven trrt'o-raterl
unfil two days before the Dishict 12 Land Use Committee meeting, faz short of the required ten
days notice. This pmcess has not gone forwazd in an appropriate manner; certainly not one
w�ich witl buiId community, wtaic3� is aTl we $ave in tough tvmes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
, ���, �
Kit C c- l���
� 236� Garter A�e.
�j �
To Whom Et May Concern:
It bas come to our attention that 7effNicholson of QUARTERSAWN DESIGN
BUII.D, acting for owner Jeffrey D. Babineau, 2376 Carter Avenue, is applying for thr�
variances of the zoniIl� code in order to split a lot for the pmpose of construcfing a new
single-family dwelling and detached garage in the front yazd.
The undersigned strongly oppase granting the three vaziances described in fiIe
#09-Q25229.
Further, we believe that any dwelling wedged into the small but ireasured space in
question would be aesthetically inj�sious fo neighborhood chara,cter, pro vaiue, and
� qualityoflife� / f �L%I n �/������. "� �3GG C�
�.11 - i� a 5 �-�/'
��� C�rf��/���- c����� �`^-- a35c� CG-��'
K.:-���ee� �Qvt►'� �+ a3 �� C car� - �
��� ����
° �,3bS G�r��2C
��,_
0� ���1�
�,� � ,'v�, ►v �- � t ��
23�� Can ler ¢�1e S� � tV\h �
� �
�� �� �i���1 �N ssz�s z�
��c�.� ���4�- ��y`� C�trfer� � �
�'�, z�� �-�,�.4,�� �-P�.(
�
�N S�1 �
��
r,.�, -
�,
_I
� " - ° j � � ' �
,. —, t ':a,s=.
� Y J L���ti t j. : f [:It i.��14��
St MthOny Park: 219Q Como Avenue #100, St Paul, MN 55108 • 651 �-..: :3��7 a Fac: 651�44-0897
Highland Park: 2100 Ford Parkway #201, Sf. Paul, MN 55116 • 65189&1000 • Fax: 651-69&7686
March 2, 2009
Thomas Gifl
Kelli Johnson
2366 CarterAvenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
RE: Proposed Variances for 2376 Carter Avenue
Ms. Johnson and Mr. Gill,
As you may be aware, I am a Realtor a�d a St. Anthony Park real property owner. I have
been in the residential real estate business for nearly 36 years, and have been specializing
in St. Anthony Park for nearly 29 of those years.
I have an office in St. Anthony Park at 2190 Como Avenue, and own other residential
property here in St. Anthony Park. I have sold nearly 400 houses, condominiums,
� townhouses and duplexes in St. Anthony Park since 1980.
You have asked me to comment an the proposed variances and resulting construction of a
new single family home and iwo car garage on the lot immediately to the west of and
adjacent to your property.
You have indicated to me that you some concems about the efiFect that these variances
and the resulting new construction might have on the potential sa{e value of your home
I have seen the survey work done by Kemper and Associates on which the surveyor
showed your property at 2366 Carter, the existing home at 2376 Carter, and the proposed
new two story home and two car garage which may be buiit in between these two existing
structures 'rf the variances requested are approved.
First let me point out, although it shouid be obvious, I am not an attomey and therefore I
must restrict my comments to those issues effecting the value and salability of your home.
Further, 1 have no contract with you with regard to any real estate related activities.
It is my opinion that the proposed variances and subsequent new construction are a
material fact which may affect a new owner's use and enjoyment of your home should you
be successful in selling it. Therefore, it is my opinion that you must disclose the potential
for these variances and subsequent new construction, even though they have not yet been
approved.
� Naturally, you would be obligated to disclose the existence of the variances and potential� �
new construction if the measures were approved by the relevant goveming bodies.
(continued)
March 1, 2009
Thomas Gill and Kelli Johnson
2366 CarterAvenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
RE; Proposed Variance for 2376 Carter Avenue
Page finro
I have not seen specfic plans and specfications for the proposed new construction.
However I have reviewed fhe surveyor's work and it appears that fhe new consfrucfion
woutd be a fairly large two story house wF►ich would be buift within approximafely 10 —15
feet of your current home, and would have the etfect of blocking some light, �entilation and
views that you currently have.
During the construction period, there wouid obviously be a significant amount of noise,
construction debris, dirt and dust emanating from the site. The required excavation is
likety to affect the hea(fh of the trees and plant maferiats on your property that immediately
abut the new canstruction site.
❑
Once the new construction was compiete, there wouid be at least finro fewer on-street
parking spaces available on the street due to the proposed driveway to the proposed new
garage. This may be a fairly significarrt issue because there is already a shortage of on-
street parking due all the e�dsting driveways on the street. �
Unti! the proposed new home and garage are actually buiit, there is no way to accurately
determine the effect this new construction will have on your use and enjoyment of your
home, nor is there a way for any potential buyer to determine the effect this new
construction will have on their use and enjoyment of your home if they purchase it. In my
experience, less light, reduced views and more crowding on the site will decrease the
perceived vafue of your home, but there is no way to determine the extent to which the
vatue is reduced untii the construcfion is compiefe.
If the variance is voted down, then obviously the need for disclosure goes away.
If the variance is approved, any prudent buyer, when made fully aware of the situation,
wou(d probably nof buy your fiome, at least until such time as the new house and garage
were completed, all the landscaping was finished, and the eifiect of the loss of fight,
ventilation and views could be fully determined.
In my opinion, the effect of this situation on the salability of your home is to effectively
render your home not salable until such time as the situation is fully resolved one way or
the other,
Please feel free to caA with comments, questions or concems.
Sincerely,
�] �.lkJ���\_
Steve Townley
Re/Max Results C: 651�08-8827
r� `l �
HELTZER 2'a' BURG
March 4, 2009
Zoning Boazd of Appeals
Zoning Admiuistration
375 Jackson Street, Suite 220
St. Paul, MN 55101-1806
RE: Variance Application for 2376 Carter Avenue
Your File No. 09-025229
Deaz Board Members:
Our fum represents the owners of the real property located at 2366 Carter
Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, Thomas Gill and Kelli Johnson. My clients' properry
adjoins the properiy whose owner is seeking tluee (3) variances to construct a single
family home. The three requested variances would ktave a significant and detrimental
impact on the value, use and enjoyment of Mr. Gill and Ms. Johnson's property as well as
the entire neighborhood.
My clients assert that the applicant fails to meet the standards upon which a
variance can be granted pursuant to Article VIII, Chapter 61.600, 5ection 61.601 of the
St. Paul Zoning Code. In the present case, the standards must be reviewed and applied
sepazately as to each variance requested. As you weli know, Section 61.601 states:
Sec.61.601. Variances.
The board of zoning appeals sha11 haue the power to grant variances from
the strict enforcement of the pxovisions of this code upon a finding that:
(a) The property in quesfion cannot be put to a reasonable use under the
strict provisions of the code;
(b} The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
ptoperiy, and these circusnstances were not created by the landowner;
(c) The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfaze
of the inhabitants of the city;
(d) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the
surrounding azea or unreasonably dixninish established property values
within the surrounding azea; �
�
Heltzer ¢'r Burg, P.L.C. A[torneys at Law
z5o Thitd Avenue North, Suite 650, Minneapolis, MN ggqot Tel. 6iz-333-485$ Fax 6 iz-334-9344
www heltzerandburg.com
Boazd of Zoning Appeals
March 4, 2Q09
Page 2
(e) The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not
pernutted nnder the provisions of the code for the pmperty in tlze dislrict
where the affected land is locatec3, nor would it alter or change the zoning
dishict classification of the property; and
(fl The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
In granting a variance, the boazd sball state the grounds upon which it
justifies the granting of a variance. Hardship as described in the finding set
out in subsection (a) above shaIl include the need for access to direct
sunlight for solaz energy systems.
My clients assert that as to each of these standards, the applicant has failed to
meet his burden. Tracking the language of the ordinance, my clients' voice the
following objections:
(a) The first requirement has not been met in that the property subject to the variance
request can be used. The applicant is seeking to wedge a large structure in a small space.
The only way the applicant can wedge tlus home onto the proposed lot is by seeking
significant deparhires from the zoning code by way of the tiuee requested variances.
(b) The second reqnirement fails zs there aze no unique circumstances of the properly
warranting the requested variances. It is the size and location of the proposed home, not
the lot configuration oz physical chacacteristics of the lot that aze the basis for the
requested variances.
(c) The third requirement fails as the three variances would result in a direct
contradiction of the intent and spirit of the zoning code and actually may jeopazdize the
heaith, safety and comfort of the neighbors. The part of the block on Carter Avenue
where my clients' home is located and the proposed wedged-in house is to be consiructed
currently has a pazk-like setiing. The variances would ailow an unacceptable level of
density. Further, the proposed location of the gazage, a mere four feet from the sidewalk,
inevitably will result in cazs blocldng the driveway forcing pedestrians to scramble
azound a blocked sidewalk onto yards and the street. In addition, building more
impermeable structures will result in additional water run off onto a street that already
suffers from ice buitd up in the winter months.
(d) The three variances would negatively altex the essential character of the surrounding
azea and the property values of the adjoining property which currently enjoys a pazk-like
� Carter Avenue at this location is a hill with the downwazd sIope to the west of the proposed project.
�
�
� ��
�I ' .i �
Board of Zoning Appeals
Mazch 4, 2009
Page 3
�
view to the west. This part of Carter Avenue enjoys lower density housing and attractive
green spaces. My clients believe that the proposed construction of a large house on a
small lot would detrimentally affect the value of their property particulazly in as much as
the close proxnnity of the proposed dwelling and gazage would eliminate existing
sightlines and deprive light to the western side of my clients' home. Further, it would
devalue both the monetary aud aesthetic qualities of the current neighborhood.
(e) Perhaps this is the only requirement where the applicant may meet the staudard. If
the applicant builds a single family home, it would appeaz to be an allowable use under
the zoning code if the three variances were granted, assuming he builds a single family
home.
(� It would appear as though the variances requested aze indeed based upon a desire to
increase the value of the parcel to be created as it would go from a pazk-like vacant lot to
a high densiry single family residence. The proposed project wouid increase the value of
the applicant's lot at the expense of my clients' investxnent in their home.
In summary, the applicant is seeking significant depamtre from the zoning code in
his three variance requests that are unsupportable. The request of a 29 foot front yard
variance and 3 foot side lot variance so that a garage can be built snug along the
� boundary line with my clients' property, and deviation of ten feet from the 50'
requirement at the building line is simply untenable and not allowable following the
standazds that must be met for a variance. My clients' nnpress upon you the need to
enforce the variance requirements, which in turn should result in a denial of the
applicanYs petition for three variances.
Sincer ly,
Rebecca Heltzer
RJHls
cc: clients
The Honorable Russell Stark
s � �
From: Renee Lepreau <renee@sapcc.org>
To: <john.hardwidc(�,ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 3J9200914:14 AM
Subject: 2376 Carter
Hi John,
The land use committee wanted me fo make R clear in wrTrirg that the
SAPCC did not comment on fhe variances for 2376 Carter - nof bepuse we
are de facFO approving fhem, 6uf because we �d not gef the needed
infortnation in time, due to the snafu with the interim design guidelines.
Thanks,
Renee Lepreau
CommuniFy Organizer
St Anthony Park Commun'dy Council, Distrid 12
890 Cromwelt Ave, Saint Pau155704
651-6495992
w�vw.sapcc.org
��;z
�:
/ n ,',°�-
/_
- � --- - .._..n �
` J
� ��
09�62
i
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Ma}or Variance FiLE #09-025229
APPLICANT:
HEARING DAT'E:
LOCATION:
LEGAL DE5CRIPTION:
PLANNING DISTRICT:
PRESENT ZOIVING:
REPORT DATE:
DEADLINE FOR ACTION:
Jeff Nichoison
Mazch 9, 2009
2376 CARTER AVENUE
ST ANI'HONY PARK NORTH LOT 28 BLK 41
12
R3 ZONIlVG CODE RE�ERENCE: 63.501 & 69304
Saint Anthony Sign Dishict
Febniary 24, 2009
Mazch 22, 2009
BX: John Hardwick
DATE RECEIVED: February 10, 2009
�
A. PURPOSE: Three variances of the zoning code in order to split a lot for the purpose of'
consiructing a new single-family dwelling and detached gazage in the front yard. 1) There
is a 33 foot required front yard, 4 feet is proposed from the garage for a variance of 29
feet. 2) A lot width of 50 feet at the building line is required, 40 feet is proposed for a
variance of 10 feet. 3) A 6-foot side yard setback is required for the garage, 3 feet is
proposed for a variance of 3 feet.
B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This is an irregular shaped parcel of about 18,OOQ
square feet. The properiy slopes down to the street and down to the east. There is no
alley access to the property.
Surrounding Land Use: Primarily singie-family homes.
C. BACKGROUND: The properiy owners aze proposing to spfit this pazcel and consiruct a
new single fanuly home.
D. FINDINGS:
�J
1. The property in question cannot be put to a seasonable use undet- the strict provisions
of the code.
��
Page 7 of 3
F�e #09-025229
Staff Report
The property owners cunently live in tite e2sisting house on the eastern half of this
parceI. The eausting pazcel is about twice the size of the adjacent lots and each of the
proposed new lots would exceed the nrinimum lot size requirements for the district.
They woutd tike to split the pazcel and build a retirement home on the vacant lot. At
the front lot line tke new lot would exceed the required 50 foot miuimum Iot width.
However, because the lot narrows towards tke rear, at the fivnt setback lina of the
new house the lot is only 40 feet wide. Due to the slope of the property the owners
are proposing to construct a garage in the front yard thax wo�zld be attached to the
house through an underground tunnel. Most of the garage would be below grade and
it will have a grass mof that wi11 blend in with the yard between the house and garage.
The proposed lot split and new development is a reasonable and permitted use of the
property that cannot be accomplished under the strict provisions of the code.
2. The plight ofthe Zand owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and
these circumstances were not created by the land owner.
�
The steep slope and inegular shape of this parcel limit the practical options for
developing the property. These are circvmstances that were not created by the
P�P�'h' owner.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is �
consistent with the health, safety, comfon, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of
the City of St. Paul.
The pmposed ttew lot will be simiIaz in size to adjacent lots. The applicant has
subinitted au application for Site Plan Review and has received preliminary approval
pending completion of a few items. Based on ttus it appears that the proposed new lot
is buildable without adverse impact on the surrounding properties. The appficant has
submitted a petition signed by several neigtzbors in support of tlus pmposal and we
have received three individual letters of support from neazby property owners.
Ptovided that subdivision approval is obtained from the Planning Administrator, the
requested variances aze in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and will not
adversely affect the health or welfare of area residents.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor wilT it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or
unreasonably diminish established property va(ues within the suf-rounding area.
The proposed new house will meet all of the setback and other dimensional standards
for the district. The majorify of the proposed garage will be be2ow gade and the
requested setback variances will not sigoificanfly affect the supply of light or air to
adjacentproperties. � n �
V
Page 2 of 3
/� ,.�/
� File #04-025229
Staff Report
There are several other homes with detached gazages in the immediate area. The new
home has received prelimuiary design approval, again subject to some conditions.
This should ensure that the house will be compatible with other homes in the area.
Provided that final site plan and design approval is obta3ned, the requested variances
will not change the character of the neighborhood or have an adverse unpact on
surrounding properties.
S. The variance, ifgi-anted, 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
Zocated, nor would it alter or change the zoning district cZassification of the property.
A single-family home is a pernutted use in this disirict. The requested variances
would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
. E. DISTRICT COT7NCIL RECOMMENDATION: The District 12 Community Council
recommends approvai of the variances.
F. CORRESPONDENCE: Other than the conespondence mentioned above, staff has not
received any coxnments regarding this matter.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends
approval of the variances subject to the following conditions: 1) That Final Site Plan
Review and Design Review are obtained; and 2) That subdivision approvai is obtained
from the Plazmnig Adnunistrator.
�
� �
Page 3 of 3
MINUTES OF TFIE MEETING OF TF� BOARD OF ZON]NG APPEALS �
CITY COUNCII. CHAMBERS, 330 CTTY HALL
SI' PAUL, MINNBSOTA, FEBRUARY 23, 2009
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, and Linden ; Messrs. Couriney, Faricy, VJazd, and Wilson of the Boazd
of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, City Attorney; Mr. Hazdwick and Ms. Crippen of the
. beparhuent of Safery and Inspections.
ABSENT: Gladys Morton*, Gloria Bogen*
*Excused
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair.
Jeff Nicholson for owner Jeff Babubeau (#09-0252291 2376 Carter Avenue: Three variances of the
zonmg code m order to spfit a lot for fhe purpose of constructing a new single-family dwelling and
detacfled gazage in the front yazd. 1) There is a 33 foot required front yazd, 4 feet is proposed from the
garage for a variance oF 29 feet. 2) A lot wi@th of 50 feet at the building line is required, 40 feet is
proposed for a variance of 10 feet. 3) A 6-foot side yard setback is required for the garage, 3 feet is
proposed for a variance of 3 feet.
Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendaflon for
approval, subject to tfie foIlowing conditions: 1) That Final Site Plan Review and Design Review aze
obtained; and 2) That subdivision appmvai is obtained from the Planning Administrator.
Tv✓o letters were received opgosing the variance request.
One letter was ceceived from District 12 supporting the lot split but taking no position on the variance
request.
The applicant JEFF NTC$OLSON, Quartersawn Dasign Build - 5617 Beazd Avenue South, was present
with the owner Jeff Babineau. Mr. $abineau, 2376 Carter Avenue, stated his intent is to build a
retirement home next to his existiug home that is more accessffile and better suited to empfy nesters, that
would better fit their existing needs now.
Ms. Maddox questioned whether Mr. Babineau bad seen the letters in opposition? A1r. Babineau replied
yes, he has seen the letters in support he dces not know weather there aze more, Ms. Maddox replied
that there aze several that aze not in the packet. Staff passed a copy of the letters in opposition to the
applicant. Ms. Maddox questioned whether he wanted to respond to the letters? Mr. Babineau read the
letters. Ms. Maddox stated that he woutd Ytave a cf�ance to speak after the testimony so you can respond
at that time to the letters, at�r he gets a cfiance to read tfiem.
C�
John Schumacker, 2183 CommonweaIth, stated he is not an immediate neighbor but has been a friend of
the Babineaus for over 2A years_ He stated he wrote a letter in snpport. He would like ro reiterate a
couple of points. First of all, these aze great people and have gone about Uus in a very open way and he
feels that the people that aze here in opposition would agree with that. They have spoken with their
neigh6ors and tried to make them awaze of what their wishes aze. They want to stay in the neighborhood
and tiiey are tfie kind of neigfibors that would be great to have staying in our neighborLood. Saint �
Anthony Park dces not have a Iot of options for empty nesters or seniors. We have one complex in 2�
� U
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
09-562
� File #09-025229
Minutes March 9, 2009
Page'I�vo
•
�
North Saint Anthony Pazk and there is really not much more.than that. The District 12 Comprehensive
Plan which has been approved by the City, supported and encouraged the development of new well
designed infill to meet the needs of various incomes and building levels and life cycle needs. It also
encouraged the addition of housing units that catered to young fauulies, empty nesters, and seniors and
that inccease the range of affordability in the neighborhood. This is really a part of a very small impact
of a way to increase that kind of housing and to prevent our neighboLhood from flattening out
generafionally and economically. He ttiuiks this is exacfly the kind of thing needed in the area. Although
he is sympathetic to fhe neighbors that would like to have the empty lot to gaze at he ffiinks that this is
important to the community to have this kind of support and for other neighborhoods that struggle with
these kinds of housing needs.
Tim 7essen, 2369 Cater Avenue, stated he lives across the street from the Ba6ineaus and has lived in his
home for 8 years, he is in support of the right of the land owner who meets the zoning requirements to be
able to do with their property what they will. He feels that the style is consistent with what is e�sting in
the neighborhood. He stated that he would also be supportive of more oprions in their area as he is also
an empty nester.
There was opposition present at the heazing.
Kelli Johnson, 2366 Carter Avenue stated she is a neighbor to the east of the Babineaus. Her objections
to this are that the District Council L,and Use Committee did not give sufficient notice of the initial
meeting to the neighbors most affected by the proposed consiruction, they got two days notice. At the
Land Use Committee at that time, the applicaflon for the lot split was denied. There were several points
made at the end of the meeting that lot splits like this have been approved in the past. Construction had
gone up and now those neighbors were no longer there, their vacant houses aze setting for sale on those
lots, Because it was not a unazilmous vote it went on to the full District Council and the lot split was
opposed by a vote of 8-5 with a lot of those votes being members of the Saint Anthony Park Business
community and not the residential community. Ms. Johnson further objects to the catastrophic unpact
this project would have on the value and salability of her home which is cunenfly on rhe market,
Construction of the Babineaus proposed two story house and detached gazage would result in an
nndefined petiod of noise, dust, debris, and general ciaos to be endured by their immediate neighbors to
the east, which would be us or the gossible tesident of our house. The impact of the full sized siructure
which is not eniirely predictable by us or any interested buyer, It would certainly hlock sight lines from
our yazd and dinunish the light available to our home and extensive landscaping. The view and gazden
contribute enormously to the pazk like feel of our home and these factors were primary in our decision to
buy it. We as the sellers would be obligated to inform any prospecrive buyer fhat this construction was
immiuent on the other side of the pcoperty line and it is kind of unthinkable to her that such a buyer
would not be inIIuenced by flus information. In a glutted real-estate market with a wide array of options
it is hard to believe tfiat a buyez would choose this house over a known quantiiy where no major
conshucdon threatened the enjoyment of their new home. Perhaps the more important quesrion is with
such a surplus of houses on the market what is the logic of building an additional home in the city where
such conshucrion neither benefits the neighborfiood as a whole nor conforms to current zoning
requirements without vaziances. Because they aze requesting three sepazate variances in order to proceed
`1�
AA-ADA-EEO EmpIoyer
Rile #09-025229
Minutes Mazch 9, 2009
Page Three
with this project there must be three separate excepdons to the City Zoning iegtilations. Tfie zoning code
states that the approval of vari2nces by the BZA should be based on strict enforcement of the provisions
which includes pzeserving the comfort and safety of the City's inhabifants, protecting property values in
tha surrounding area, assuring suf&cient fight to adjacant properties and upholding the specific chazacter
of individual neighborhoods. A vaziance should not be approved when the interests of one household aze
injurious to aII tfiose azound tfiem.
�
Mr_ Wazd questioned that Ms. Johnson stated that they ouly received taro days notice of the variance?
Ms. Johnson replied yes, they said it was because the regularions have racenfly been changecl and they
were waiting to get word on how to proceed on this. She stated that they received nodce on Tuesday for
a mealing taking place on Thursday, Mr. Wazd questioned whether she ]�ew what iegulations were
changed and what those regulations were? Ms. Johnson replied she assumed that the Boazd would I�ow
as they came from the Ciry. Mr. Hazdwick stated fhat fle could answer that, the ordinance that the
appficant alluded to was the Inf ll Housing Design Standards, wkich became effective just about the time
the applicant submitted this application orig9nally. Those design stauclards have to do with the design of
the house and in order to ensure that the proposed house was going to meet those design standards it was
prudent of the applicant to provide the City with mote detailed building elevations so we could determine
that befoLe we pLOCeeded wirh the variance hearing. Therefore, the applicant agreed to a continuance of
tha arigmat hearing date for an additional two weeks. So when the District Council zeceived their �
original not9ficadon for the hearing it was scheduled for about three weeks prior to their actual hearing.
So t}�at was extended out at the applicanYs and the City's request in order to complete the complete the
design review of the proposed house. If you look in the packets you will see a memo from Tom Bcech,
who is a Design $eview person, and his findings indicate that the proposed house and this proposed
development is a feasible use of the properly. It was based on those InSll Aouse Design Standards. Mr.
Ward further questioned Ms. 7ohnson tfiat she had said that there is a surplus of housing in the housing in
the City and the applicant should seek out some of those propetties in the Saint Anthony azea. He
questioned, is tfiere a surplus that would &t empty nesters, floor pIan, needs? Ms. Johnson stated that
according to their real-estate agent theie a couple of smaller more modest sized honses available in the
tavo to threz block azea, she thinlcs fluee or four there alone. It is also curious to her that one could not
buy a more modest house tY�at already exists and modify it appropriately and stay in the neighborhood
that way. Mr. Wazd quesfioned if you were property owner and you had a properiy where you had two
lots. Ms. Johnson intert¢pted but they don't, Mr. Wazd continued well ]arge enough, it meets the
guidelines of two lots according Yo the City, and you didn't have to go out and make tfiat expense and
finance and you want to sfay in the neighborhood and you have a design that works wfiat would you do?
Ms. 7ohnson stated that sfie and the co-owner Tom chose Saint Anthony Park to live in because it is pazk
like and when we have talked about putting their house on the mazket in the past before the mazket
became so abysmal they talked about things like wanting a member of the Audubon Society to buy it. No
ske does not see that happening and she cerfainiy dces not see tbat happening when many people in the
neighborhood do noY see it as a good idea.
Mr. Courtney stated he is not unsympathetic to Ms. Johnsons concerns, however, he does not know
whether it fits under any of the Boards criteria. 'I�vo of the variances focus on this gazage he requested' •
tbat she expand on the three feet for the gazage side yazd setback that direcfly affecLS her home. If she
��
AA-ADA-EEO Emptoyer
1. .
• FIle #09-025229
Minutes Mazch 9, 2A09
Page Four
could addtess how this gazage specifically affects the use of her proper[y specifically "I can't see this"
"I can't see thaY' pazking etcetera. Ms. Sohnson stated as faz as sight lines she is thinldng more about
the fact that they will have a two-story house ne�t doot. The gazage is a sepaiate issue that they aze
requesting variances for but she would say that the construcdon of the house in that space is a much
bigger concern for her. Mr. Courtney questioned what won't you be able to see? Ms. Johnson replied
if you set in our back yard right now you can see all the way to downtown Minneapolis through the IDS
Towet you Have a view of beaurifiil oaks and plant life all the way up to the horizon and it is a view that
has been available since 1922 when the house was built and what you saw was the Foshay Tower. Mr.
Courtney quesfioned wfiether Ms. Johnson could point to any way that the gazage might adversely affect
her property? Ms. Johnson stated that the garage will go all the way down to the street, not all the way
down to the street she thinks that the limit is four f�t from the sidewalk. It will be an eyesore from the
street level. The house that is being proposed is going to go deep and wilI go from the front of our yard
all the way to our back yazd so when we are setting outside we will not be looking at gazdens and
greenery we will be looking at somebody else's roof top. The whole issue of salability people aze
looking at these houses and what we have to say in our disclosure statement is that our neighbor is
building a full sized house next door sometime in the future and we l�ow that it is going to be two-
sWries. It is supposed to be downsized and the rest is sort of nebulous. So given all the choices that you
have in this market we hope you don't mind that this is going to be going on. She has no doubt that this
would cause any prospective buyer to stap in their tracks she would be affected by that. It wouid be
� different if it was the old days when people were clamoring to get housing in the cities but that is not the
case.
Ms. Linden requested that the photos be brought back up so the Boazd couid get a look at the property
again. Mr. Hardwick pointed out in the photos if the other gazages on the block down from the
applicant's properry stating that the proposed gazage would be in the same location as these other
gazages. He stated that if it were not foi the steep slopes like aze the case here we would encourage
people to set them back far enough so a car could be parked in front without blocking the sidewalk. But
in this case going back fiuther is going to disturb more of the slopes so we allow exceptions and aliow
people to put gazages closer to the sidewalk simply to preserve the damage to the slopes. The further
back they go the steeper the slopes the more possibiliry of erosion and so fourth is going to occur.
Mr. Gill, 2366 Carter Avenue, stated he is the co-owner of 2366 with Kelli 7ohnson. He stated he is
going to read a lengthy piece to the Boud and they could cut him off if they feit it was necessary. Ms.
Maddox stated that they were reading it so she would ask the Boazd members if they had read through or
if they want him to read it. Boazd members sfated that they had read it. Mr. Gill stated that they have
read nothing that he has brought with him today. He had prepazed a letter to go in the packet last
GVednesday, but that is not what he is prepazed to present today. Ms. Maddox questioned what he is
going to address today? Lf he addresses the variances we are fine with his reading that. Mr. Johnson
stated he thinks he will do so. Regazding the vaziances specifically we no longer have the photo up on
the screen but he would azgue that one of his core groblems is that anyone that would stand in front of
these iwo properties and look at the site in beriveen is that we aze looldng at a extraordinaty modest site
that is going to attempC to accommodate a relarively lazge foot grint of a house. A resulting situadon of
• what he thinks will be an eyesoza. He iealizes tfiat an eyesore is a word that would make an
��
AA-ADA-BEO P.mployer
F�e #09-025229
Minutes March 9, 2009
Page Five
azchitect wince but it is franktp the very word that he has heazd from twenty different people tl�at have
signed a petition to supplement one alrea@y given to the Board. It is a word tiiat he has heard fram
coundess more people who have Iooked at this, all kinds of people, who look at this site and wonder aad
marvel at ffie nofion of somehow shoehoming a groperiy on fha site tLat will have hortibly deleterious
effects on the value of our ptoperty, He thinks that it speaks volumes in that there aze three variances
necessary W some how make this project function and the iruth of this matter is that it would require a
magician and not an azcfiitect fo matce sometfiing physically presentable with a 1,116 square foot fooiprint
on that site. Those are the t3�ings �at he has to say about the variances but he would I�ce to speak to
other issues if he is allowed. Ms. Maddox stated that if he covld jast address the variances and the
findings tUat is what the Boazd is asking him to do, She does not mind what he wants to read as long as
it addresses the Sndings and the variances. Mr. Gill questioned whether it would be ok if he addressed
the Article 661.601 the iss¢e of vatiances and the various pmvisions tfiat were discussed there, would
that be acceptable? Ms. Maddox replied that he should proceed.
•
Mr. Gill stated that he would like to begin that this projece was given the green light by the Saint
Anthony Pazk Community Council on the concept that it was going to be a down sizing. That the
Babineaus were in a si�ation of pfight, being empty nesters with their children in coi2ege and they
somehow suddenly needed to downsize. In point of fact they are downsizing from an existing 2l55
squaze feet to one of 1116 squaze feet. Which is 39 square feet or the size of a closet and is a liberal �
interpretation of the word downsizing. Most importanfly the prceess of downsi�no is going to abut a
very Iarge fiouse on the most valuable asset that we have as home owners. S�iecifically a variance that
will bring this home within 10-IS feef of their westem site line, the site line that Kelly made reference to,
�t ��P��Y ��a8e ���ns of tkousands of dollars the vaiue of out fiouse in tfie estimation of
anY realtor in the twwin cities who you wouId solicit for their opinion, Mr. Gill azgued that die building of
the hovse would block sight lines for several neighbors as well as his home and that their property values
would be gutted, As for building the gazage he thinks it is fool hardy to bring the site of excavadon three
feet &om his pmperty line rather than six feet. Noting that he has a considerable amount of landscaping
and vegetation as everybody in the Saint Anthony Pazk area bas. A large and defining spruce, coungess
other trees that are very sensitive to excavafion and we aze talking about appzoximately 16-18 hundred
cubic feet of axcavation to put both a garage and hoase mto this site.
Mr. Wilson questioned Mr. Gill whethet if a more modest house were built on the site would he object W
that? Mr. Gill stated that given his expectation that certain variances would be needed to build any house
on that site and given that a eritical part of their reason and the only reason that they choose their modest
fittle fiome is the expansive sigfit lines that they had, he would be reluctant but he would certainly would
ba willing ta entertain ffie possibility and wouId I�ave all along. He would like to amend the remark that
they were apprised of everyttting that was going on and was done in a sensitive and appropriate manor.
Wliat ullimatelY occurred was that Mr. Babineau had very generally suggested months ago that he was
thinking of a pipedream passibility of putting a house in fl�at spot it was not literally until the day we went
to the land use committee meeting that he was informed that he was wanting to do it and had plamc to @o
it and he wanted to show him the plans with that in mind. That was the day of the committee meeting
that was addressing tfie issue of his house wluch is an insu�cient amount of time for anyone to pemse �
this. So in answer to your question in general no, but he �(
tQ
AA-ADw-EFA E�Ioyer
09-562
• Fi1e #09-025229
Minutes March 9, 2009
Page Six
absolutely would if someone were taking some modicum of concem about a house, that in his view is
being insensitively being designed with no regazd to the dinunishment and value of his house. He would
be happy to Iook at an alternative. He thinks that the way things have preceded has been inappropriate,
Mr. Wilson (could not heaz comment.) Mr. Gill submitted photos taken from the second floor of his
house showing the sight lines that would be blocked but the construction of the new house.
Mr. Wazd stated "the site plans he is looking at shows that Mr. Gill's house sets higher that the current
house of the Babineau's house. Mr. Gill also spoke of erosion and a tree at the end of his property and
looking at the survey he cannot find the oak tree at the end of the driveway?" Mr. Gill stated that there
is a oak tree he would estimate to be 2A to 30 yeazs old that is neaz the south of where they are building.
Mr. Wazd questioned it is on your properry? Towazd the back of your lot? Mr, Gill repIied not towazd
the very back of his lot bnt towazd where theu intended site would be. Mr. Wazd questioned if he
moved the garage over and didn't need a vaziance, and he apparenUy does not need a vaziance for the
side yazd setback for the house, then what? Mr. Gill replied that he did not come to this meeting with the
e�ectation of entertaiuing alternatives with a new house, a new plan or a revised house. F3e stated that
he is certainly aznenable to looking at other options that he would think would be less tor.ic than dus
particulaz oprion looks. Mr. Wazd questioned whether Mr. Gill would agree that a new home in the azea
wouid help stabilize values bq setting a new standazd rather than going on the existing values of homes
• which have plummeted. Mr. Gill stated he does not he frankly believes that azguing that this is an
appropriate way to downsize is at risk of being impolite he thinks it is a smoke screen. He stated as of
the wtiting of his lettec thece aze 14 properties in Saint Anthony Pazk alone that were on the market. Ae
thinks it is a transpazent fact and part of our daily news that we aze now in a counhy that is overbuilt and
we have an 11 % vacancy rate in housing as a consequence he thinks we have to balance some things
here. He azgued that lot splits have not been an overall positive for Saint AnYhony Pazk.
Ms. Maddox quesfioned whether there were sidewalks in &ont of the houses? Mr. Gill replied yes. Ae
argued that the garage that is in question presents several problems not the least of which is adding more
and more impermeahle structures to the hillside has the effect of complicating drainage and contributing
to, especially on the hillside, ice build up problems that aze already rather serious on that chunk of Carter
Avenue.
Andrew Crowley, 2365 Catter Avenue, stated he owns the tri-plex across the street from the applicant.
He thinks most of the things he has thought about have been covered he was not contacted about this until
he received a letter for the hearing. He tlunks that the demolition of any green space in the twin cities is
unacceptable. He azgued with the over abundance of homes in the city he cannot see why someone
would not consider purchasing one of them and possibly retro fitting them and this is a fantastic time to
do it. Thece are plenty of places that would accommodate and help build the city and community up that
probably be purchased for a lot less.
Mr. Jeff Nicolson, 5617 Beazd Avenue South, stated that Mr. Babineau found them, tfiey had built a
home in the azea a few years ago and that is how the Babineau's found him, they did not go out looking
�
'" l �
an-nDn-�o �,myer
File #09-025224
Minutes March 9, 2009
Page Sevan
i
for him. He stated that Mr. Gill stated thaY we were sqaeezing a new kome onto this lot but this new lot
is the exact same lot that Mr. Gill and Ms. Johnson own, there is no difference in size between ffieir lot
and the proposed lot so the talk about squeezing a home onto a nartow lot seems kind of profoun@. As to
the view to the West Mr. Babineau could build an addition W within 10 feet of the eastem property line if
he so chose. Ae stated that he tells clients all the time that the fact that you have a terrific view from the
side or back of your house at a certain angle, dces not prohibit the neighboring pmperty owner from
cfianging. Certain neighborhoods az8 more prolifillic in the amount of additions and eacpansions that aze
going on, He constantiy warns clients to not fall in love with a view that is not yours, Appazenfly the
tremendous care that Julie and Jeff Babineau have paid tn theit extended yard for the last 21 yeazs the
�ighborhood has conne to love and appreciate. With their kids now gone they not appreciate the extra
maintenance. One of the oaks is in serious fieaFtfi problems, it is hollow and it is a risk to their present
home and needs w be taken down. They see tbis as a great way to stay in the tteighborhood. In terms of
down sizing he dces not know whether they have ever ase,d the teim down sizing but it is going to be a
no maintenancs home, it is going Yo be a home of fabutous features that aze all up to date, there won't
be flaking paint on the outside, there won't be gaIvanized piuutbing, there won't be issaes with
clogging gutters and things for tham worry about in the pears to come. So they can spend their time
visiting tfieir ldds and spending time with their fawily rather than maintaining their home on their
weekends. Mr, Babineau ran out yesterday and took note of 17 gazages that aze detacheQ and are
between 1 to 8 feet of the sidewalk on both Carter Avenue and Bounne Aveaue one block to the north has ,
similaz chatacteristics. The reason for pushing the gazage to the east side of the properiy just a Mr. Gill
spoke the Babineaus would like to maxi,,;i�P their front yazd and the amount of land they can landscape
so by widening that three feet to six feet, that space beriveen the gazage and the side properry Iine
becomes dead space and tfiey want to m;nim;�� �at. Also by moving that garage farther to the east
properry line there is an oak txee on tfie boutevazd tttat hy moving the gazage to the east maintains this
nice old oak. He stated that there is some irony in tkis that Ms. Johnson and Mr. Gill expLess theu love
of this view aad how much it means to them and yet tfiey aze seIling tfleir home and moving. They aze
build'mg this new home so it fits into the cascade of homes down ffie avenue.
Mr. Ward stated that it seems that there aze two points to this issue one is the view, which only Mr.
Babineau owns as he owns the properry and can take filll control of what he puts on that Iot. The otfier
thing is would there be some room for some negotiation, we are only talldug about three feet, If the
garage were pusfied over three feet he does not think it would destroy Fhe intent of the original design and
would still miss the tree and would just encmach the front stairway just a flftle bit. We are here trying to
6nd a ftappy medium here for both the neighbors, the properly owner and ffie City. The City sets
precedance by passing ordinances saying what you can and cannot do and the variances aze set fourth so
tfiey aze not severe, it is up to us to heaz all the information and decide what can be done. Would you
entertam moving it tbree feet. Mr. Nicholson stated he would defer to Mr. Babineau as he draws the
P1ans under his direc6on. He tfiinks that the three feet came from, he requested that Mr. Hardwick
correct hizn if he is wrong, he befieves that a 3 foot setback is required for a detached gatage on a 50 foot
lot? Mr. Hazdwick replied in a reaz yard, Mr. Nicholson stated that this garage is attached through an
undergronnd tannet but no one witl be awaze of that wilt be the home owners since all of it will be
underground. Whether tizere is a compromise there he wouid let Mr. $abineau speak to that, the �
unfortunate thing is that i£ we do move the garage over those six feet become lost space in Saint Anthony �
�
AA-ADA-EEA Employer
�-�
� File #09-025229
Minutes March 9, 7A09
Page Eigfit
Pazk. If you went along these other 17 gazages that the space hetween these gazages and the property
Iine is the least manicured, the least attended space, so it is a tough space to get at access wise so we
would like to m;nin,;�� �at and max;m,�P the amount of green space on the side.
Mr. VJazd continued Mr. Babineau does not have an open check book and there was a comment eazlier
that we do not know how long this construction is going to last, it could be open ended. What is your
conshuction schedule is theie an anticipated beginning point, is there an anticipated ending point? Mr.
Nicholson stated that the house that they built at 925 Cromwell, which was considerably lazget in ovetall
squaze feet took just under seven months from start to finish. In that one, we did a ten foot deep
basement four feet from a right of way alley and we had a permit to close it for one week but we had it
back up with access through it in three days. We aze familiar and capable of handling large excavations
in tight quarters; this is the type of project that we speciaiize in, Seven months give or take, but he
would actually say less than that in a home of this size. Mr. Wazd further questioned whethec there
would be a huge impact of erosion on the site? One of the real benefits of this home is the impact to the
erosion of the current home at 2376 Carter. Currently they have taken some measures to alleviate the
run-off down the hill Chat has nnpacted their home for yeazs. By bu$ding this home and doing a new
retaining wall, drain tile and things, gutters on the new home it should elinunate a lot of the water issues
that has caused havoc on their current home. We aze taking other steps also we have a rain garden in the
. front yard, a grass roof on the gazage for both aesthetic and for zun-off reasons.
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Courtney stated that in the Mazch 9, letter from the District Council, his reading between the lines
the Distiict Council is begging to have input into this and his motion is to delay this until the Board can
get a report back from the District Council.
Mr. Courtney moved to continue Che variance and resolution in order to take this before the Dish�ict
Council and hy to work this out with the neighbors. Mr. Faricy seconded the motion.
Mr. Hardwick stated he would just like tA remind foll;s that took time out of their busy schedule to come
here today, and ihe Board, ffie issue here is not the house. The house that is being proposed to be built
does not require any vaziances, it meets all the City ordinances for setbacks, height, lot coverage
everyfliing else. The house does not need variances, the issue is the garage so if the folks ffiat cazne
down here, and he thinks Mr. Couriney tried to get to that eazlier, need to focus on the gazage. If the
gazage is going to somehow adversely affect theu property that is the issue, it is not the house. Is the
gazage going to affect their sight lines? It is not whether the house is going to affect their sight lines.
The lot split, the properry meets all the required width requirements and can be subdivided with out any
need for variances. The only issue here before you is the gazage and if it does get laid over and goes
back to the District Council you nvght want to focus your attention on the gazage instead of the house.
Mr• Courmey stated that tfiere are three variances and one of the vaziances talks about where this is built,
• he is for the lot splits but it seems if they do vote for the variances they have taken away the negotiating
power of the neighbors here to ultimately give in to the house being built, at least they can have some
��
AA-ADA-EFA Employer
File #09-025229
Minutes Mazcfi 9, 2009
Page Nine
input into what znay actually be built and to the extent that we grant them the variances here today, we
have given carte blanche and taken away theu input and we have not allowed them their day with the
District CounciI. Ms. Linden stated she would like to reiterate that, she thinks that the District Council
and the neighbors need to be able to work together on this.
Ms. Maddox questioned the rimeline here and when it would be brought back. Mr, Hardwick siated tfiat
the deadline for action was e�ended by the applicant for an additiona145 days. He has no idea when die
Saint Anthony Pazk Community Council meets they only meet once a month. (TJnheard comment from
tfie audience about the District Council hearing dates,) Mr_ Warner and Mr. Hazdwick discussed the
timeline. Mr. Warner instructed that tfie timeline is e�xemely critical because if the timeline is missed
the application is approved by operafion of law and you have no say in the matter. Mr. Hardwick
encouraged the Boazd to take into considerarion the applicaaYs scheduiing here also.
Mr. Courtney stated he thinks that they should amend the moflon and deny it and waive the fee the next
time ffiey come back and have them come back once they have talked to the Disirict Council.
�
Mr. Hardwick aske@ for clarification once there is a motion and a second, doesn't the Boazd have to
rule on that before they entertain anq fitrther motion? The original motion was to ]ay the matter over and
it was seconded, doesn't the Boazd have to resolve that before they can entertain a motion W deny. Mr. •
watner stated that is coRect. Mr. Ward stated according to Roberts Rules of order says that once a
motion is on the floor and a second that takes precedence over any other order on the floor. So we need
to move on that originaI motion. Eitfier it succeeds or it dies and another motion can be made. The
amendment Yo the motion is in itseif a moiion. Mr. Courtney stated or he wuid withdraw it. Ms.
Maddox stated that they aze all prepazed to vote on the modon. The motion is to delay until Apri120,
2A09.
Ms, Maddox clarified the motion before the vote. This is a motion to lay this over unffi the 20`� of April
so everyone gets a chance to go back to the District Council and come back here.
Mr. Faricy seconded the motion, which fai2ed on a roll catl vote of 2-4{I,inden, Courtney, Wazd,
Maddox).
Mr. Cour�ey moved to deny the vaziance and when they reapply we waive the fee and all this with tha
uuderstanding �at they get a report from tfie District Council before coming back.
Mr. Wazner reminded the Board fliat staff recommended approval of the variance and 25.99 requires tfiat
�eY state theu reasons on the record, so each person when the vote has to state their af6rmafions of their
reasons and fhey can add additional reasons for the denial. "
Mr. Couctney stated that fie fhinks they can go with findings 1, 4& 6. 1. It is already put to a reasonabla
use; 4. It is going to iutpair the adequate suppty of ligfit to the azea; 6. Desire to increase the income or
value of the pazcel of land.
� �
AA-ADA EEO �loyer
09�562
�
•
C
File #09-025229
Minutes Mazch 9, 2009
Page Ten
Ms. Linden seconded the motion, which passed on a ioll call vote of 5-i(Ward), Board members cited
findings 1, 4, & 6 as their reason to deny the motion.
S�bmi by:
Jo , Hazd ck
J
Approved by:
Glona ogen, 5ecretary
5�
�
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMBER: 09-025229
DATE: March 23, 2009
WFIEREAS, JeffNichotson has applied for a variance from the shict application of the provisians of
Section 63.501 & 69304 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to three variances ia order to split
the lot to build a new single fa�mily dwelling with a detached garage in the frottt yard in the R3 wning
district at 2376 Carter Avenue. PIN: 202923340099; and
WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public heating on March 23, 2009
pursuant to said applicatian in accordance with the requirements of Secrion 64203 of the Leaslative
Code; and
WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing,
as substaniially reflected in the minutes, made the followmg findings of fact:
1. The proper[y in ques�ion can be put to a reasonable use under the strict prouisions of the code.
i
The praperty owners ciurently live in the existing house on the western half of this parcel. The
eusting pazcel is about twice the size of the adjacent lots and each of the proposed new lots would
exceed the minim„m lot size requiremenfs for the dislrict They would like to split the parcel and •
build a retirement home on the vacant lot AY the front loY line the new lot would exceed the required
50 foot m;n;m,,,» lot width. $owever, because the lot nazrows towards the rear, at the front setback
Iine ofthe new house tfie Iot is only 40 feet wide. Due to the slope of the properiy the owners aze
proposing to conshuct a garage in the front yard 8�at would be attached to the house thmugh an
imderground tunnel. Most of the gazage would be below gade and it will have a grass mof that will .
blend in witli the yard between the house and garage. This property has been in its present condition
since Yhe existing house was built and is a reasonable use of the property.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances
were nof created by the land owner.
'The steep slope and 'uregulaz shape of ttris pazcel linnt the practical options for developing the
property. These aze circumstances thaY were not created by the property owner.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and interet of the code, and is consistenf with the
health, safety, comfon, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
Page 1 of 3 5�
04-562
File #09-025229
• Resolution
The proposed new lot will be similar in size to adjacent lots. The applicant has submitted an
application for Site Plan Review and has received preliminary approval pending complerion of a few
items. Based on this it agpears that the proposed new lot is buildable without adverse impact on the
sunouuding properties. The applicant has submitted a petition signed by several neighbors in support
of this proposal and we have received three individual letters of support from nearby property owners.
Provided that subdivision approval is obtained from the Planning Administrator, the requested
variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and will not adversely affect the health or
welfare of azea residents.
4, The proposed variance wi11 impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacenf property, but wi11
not aZter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonabZy diminish estabZished
property values within the surrounding area.
The proposed new house will meet all of the setback and other dimensional standards for the district
however the reduced setback of the garage will affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties.
There aze several other homes with detached garages in the immediate area. The new home has
received preliminary design approval, again subject to some condirions. This should ensure that the
house will be compatible with other homes in the azea. Provided that final site plan and design
approval is obtained, the requested variances will not change the character of the neighborhood or have
an adverse impact on sucrounding properties.
• 5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permifted under the provisions of the
code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alt� or change the
zoning district classification of the property.
A single-family home is a pemutted use in this district. The requested variances would not change or
alter the zoning classification of the properiy.
6. The request for variance is based primarily on a desire to increase the value ar income potential of
the parcel of land.
It appears that the primary desire of the applicant is increase the value of the properiy by subdividing
the pazcei.
NOW, Tf�REFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the request to
waive the provisions of Secrion 63.501 & 69.304 to ailow 1) a front yazd setback of 4 feet, 2) a minimum
lot width of 40 feet; and 3) a 3 foot east side yard setback, in order to split the lot and construct a new
single-family home with an attached garage in the front yard on property located at 2376 Carter Avenue;
and legally described as St Anthony Pazk North I.ot 28 Bik 41; in accordance with the application for
variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Adminis�ator, IS HERESYDENIED.
•
Page 2 of 3
�
09-562
File #09-Q25229
Resoluiion
MOVED BY: so�en
SECONDED BY: w�a
IN FAVOR: 6
AGAINST: o
MAILED: Mazch 24, 2009
TIME LIMiT: No decision of the zoning or planning administrator, planning wmmission,
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) yeats, unless a bnilding permit is obtained within snch period and the
erection or alteration of a bnilding is proeeeding nnder the ferms of the
decision, or the nse is established within sach period by actnal operation
pnrsuant to the agplicable conditions and reqnirements of the approval,
unless the zoning or planning administrator grants an extension not to egceed
one (1) year.
•
APPEAL: Decisions of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals aze fmal snbject to appeal to the •
City Conncil within 10 days by anyone affected by the decision. Bnilding
permits shall not be issned after an appeal has been £iled. If permits have
been issned before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended
and constraction shall cease nntil the City Conncil has made a final
determinafion of the appeal.
CERTIFICATION: I, the nndersigned 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 trae and
correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved
minntes of the Saint Panl Board of Zoning AppeaLs meeting held on March
23, 2009 and on record in the Department of Safety and Inspechions, 375
Jackson Street, Saint Pan1,lVTinnesota.
SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
;� �
, �--�--
Debbie M. Crippen
Secretary to the Board
Page 3 of 3
� ��