The URL can be used to link to this page

10-332Council File # ��'��i oZ Green sheet # l� ,�j � RESOLUTION CITY OF SAiNT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by � WHEREAS, Davld Brooks, in DSI Zoning File No. 08-083-992, submitted a site plan for the construction of a 6-car pazking lot on property located at 2057 Laurel Ave on May 30, 2008; and 4 WHEREAS, on June 11, 2008, the Zoning Administrator approved the said site plan be under an approval 5 letter of that date. The approval letter detailed the main improvements ��guired under the site plan 6 including paving the lot with asphalt and installing a privacy fence to provide a visual screen. The 7 approval also required a permits "to grade and pave the pazking lot and to construct the fence'; and 9 WHEREAS, sometime during the summer of 2008, Mr. Brooks constructed the parking lot. However, the 10 City has no record showing that the required grading or fence permits were obtained; and 11 12 WHEREAS, in September 2008, City staff inspected the lot and detemuned that the lot was not built in 13 campliance with the approved site plan; and 14 15 WHEREAS, City staff contacted Mr. Brooks about this on a number of occasions: by letter to Mr. Brooks 16 dated September 4, 2008, at a meeting at City offices on September 22, 2008, and on-site meetings on 17 Apri128, 2009, and June 11, 2009; and 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 WHEREAS, following the June 11, 2009 meeting, the pazking lot was still not in compliance with the approved site plan. City staff elected to bring the matter to the attention of the Planning Commission pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.108 which provides for the zoning administrator to notify the planning commission when a development is out of compliance with the conditions imposed on the permit; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2009 and pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.303, the Planning Commission's Zoning Committee conducted a public hearing regarding noncompliance with the approved site plan and, based on the evidence presented at the public hearing as substantially reflected by the evidence, testimony, records and the report of staff submitted during the public hearing, made the following findings of fact regarding the parking lot as approved in the site plan and parking lot as actually constructed by Mr. Brooks: On May 30, 2008, David Brooks, the property owner, submitted a site plan for review for a new pazking 1ot. 2. During the review of the site plan, Mr. Brooks told staff that the parking lot was intended for use by the tenants of the apartment building at 2057 Laurel and not for use by staff or customers of the restaurant at 2057 Laurel. 3. On June 11, 2008, DSI staff approved the submitted site plan that was showed the following: The parking lot would be located next to the side of the building. The parking lot would be paved with `Bituminous". /a-�� 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Stormwater would drain to the alley. The parking lot would be striped to provide 6 parking spaces. A 6' privacy fence was shown on the approved site plan on the east property line to meet zoning requirements to provide a visual screen between the parking lot and the adjacent residential property. This fence was to extend from the rear property line to a point approximately 65 feet south of the rear property line. In addition a 6' high privacy fence was shown on the approved site plan running east to west from the south end of the privacy fence to be built on the east property line to the apartment building. This fence and its location was intended to minimize the visual impact and noise from the pazking lot on the adjacent house while also keeping the lawn south of the parking lot open to view. A lilac hedge would be planted in front of the fence ruiuiing along the south edge of the paxking lot. The area between the east to west fence and the front of the property would not be affected. 4. On September 4, 2008 DSI staff conducted a routine inspection of the parking lot to see if it was built in conformance with the approved site plan. Staff observed a number of areas where the parking lot was not built as shown on the approved site plan and sent a letter informing the property owner of the noncompliance. The areas of concern included: The parking lot was paved with recycled asphalt. Recycled asphalt is not an approved paving material under Sec. 62316 which requires that "All parking spaces, driveways and off-street parking facilities shall be paved with asphalt or other durable, dustless surfacing or ofmaterial comparable to the adjacent street surfacing in accordance with other specifications of the zoning administrator." Where asphalt is used to pave parking lots, the City requires a"hot mix bituminous." The City does not accept recycled asphalt because it breaks up after a year or two. Therefore, it is not a durable material. Recycled asphalt is also not consistent with the submitted site plan that specified "Bituminous." • The parking spaces were not striped as shown on the submitted and ap�roved site plan although the individual spaces were identified by signs that were attached to the side of the aparhnent building. • The privacy fence required by the Zoning Code and shown on the east property line in the submitted and approved site plan had not been built. • The east to west privacy fence shown on the approved site plan had actually been built approximately 35' south of where it was shown on the approved site plan. • The lilacs shown on the approved site plan had not been planted. �4'�� 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 The work was done without City permits. Permits were required for the paving and the fence. City staff talked to Mr. Brooks about the areas of noncompliance at a meeting at City offices on September 22, 2008, and meetings on the site on April 28, 2009, and June 11, 2009. During this period the following construction activity occurred at the parking lot: A privacy fence was installed along the east property line. However, the fence was not built on the property line as shown on the submitted and approved site p1an. Instead, the new privacy fence was constructed approximately 1.5' back from the property line. An existing chain link fence on the property line, which should have been removed had construction of the privacy fence complied with the approved site plan, was not removed. During these discussions, it was not cleaz who owned this chain link fence. However, at the August 27, 2009 public hearing Mr. Brooks stated that the chain link fence was on his property. Finally, the newly constructed privacy fence stopped approximately 25' south of the rear property line instead of extending all the way to the rear property line as was shown on the submitted and approved site plan. Shrubs were planted in front of the south fence as well along the south edge of the parking lot. There was also a discussion about a picnic table and bench was built in the area south of the pazking lot. These were not shown on the original site plan. However, sma11 unprovements like this do not require a City permit and generally do not require City approval. Therefore, the table and bench are not considered to be out of compliance with the approved site plan. The following areas of the parking lot were not in compliance with the approved site plan on August 14, 2009 when DSI staff inspected the site and took photographs far the public hearing: • The parking lot is paved with recycled asphalt and not "hot mix". • The parking spaces are not striped. Spaces are identified by signs on the side of the aparhnent building. • The fence along the south edge of the parking lot is approximately 35' south of where it was shown on the site plan. • The fence along the east property line is set back approximately 1.5' from the property ]ine and an existing chain link fence on the property line was left in place. This resulted in a ship of land between the fences that is difficult to maintain. l�-�3a- 135 7. Cars are sometimes parked in the drive lane on east half of the lot; and 136 137 WHEREAS, on September 4, 2009, the Planning Commission, based upon the findings of its Zoning 138 Committee, as recited above, duly adopted a Resolution finding that the parking lot constructed by Mr. 139 Brooks did not comply with the site plan approved in DSI Zoning File No. 08-083-992 and, accordingly, 140 that Mr. Brooks must therefore take the following actions to bring the parking lot into compliance with the 141 approved site plan as well as modifying the original approval in order to remedy the consequences of the 142 improperly constructed pazking lot: 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 The entire parking lot shall be re-paved using bituminous material as shown on the approved site plan. "Hot mix" bituminous shall be used, as is the material commonly understood in the paving indushy as "bituminous," in order to provide the "durable, dustless" paved surface required for parking lots in Sec. 63316 of the Legislative Code. The parking lot shall be striped to identify the required six parking spaces. To prevent cars from parking in the drive lane, the parking lot must be marked "No Parking in Drive Lane" either by signing the pavement or by installing on the privacy fence at least 3 signs indicating the "no parking" area. The grade of the parking lot after the paving must be such that the lot continues to drain towards the alley and not onto adjacent properties. A 6' high privacy fence must be conshucted just to the south of the pazking lot as shown on the approved site plan. The privacy fence may be located up to 66' south of the rear property line or approximately 8' south of the parking lot to provide room for snow starage. A row of shrubs shall be planted and maintained along the south side of the fence as shown on the approved site plan. The fence that was built approximately 35' south of the pazking lot may be removed or may stay in place or may be relocated to screen mechanical equipment on the east side of the apartment building. 4. The privacy fence that was improperly located near the east property line can remain in is current location. However, the privacy fence must be extended north to the rear property line as shown on the submitted and approved site plan. Tn addition, the entire existing chain link fence on the east property 1ine, including any fence posts and footings must be removed as shown on the submitted and approved site plan. Following removal of the chain link fence any stumps in the area between the privacy fence and the east property line must be removed and the area must be restored with new ground cover of either grass sod or grass seed planting. This ground cover shall thereafter be maintained as long as the parking lot is in existence. 5. � Permits from the Department of Safety and Inspections must be obtained for the paving and fence work before work starts. All Work on the fence, paving and restorative landscaping must be completed no later than October 2, 2009; and �b��a- 181 WHEREAS, Mr. Brooks did not appeal from this decision; and 182 183 184 185 186 187 VJHEREAS, following the orders of the Planning Commission, City staff, on October 13, 2009, once again inspected the parking lot and determined that no work had been done on the fence, paving or restorative landscaping as required by the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on September 4, 2009 such that the parking lot continued to be out of compliance not only with the original site plan approved on June 11, 2008, but also with the modification imposed by the Planning Commission on September 4, 2009; :: . . 189 140 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 WHEREAS. once again, City staff, pursuant to L,eg. Code 61108, determined that the pazking lot was srill noncompliant with the original and modified site plans and that the situation needed to again be addressed by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's Zoning Committee thereafter duly conducted another public hearing on December 10, 2009, puxsuant to the requirements of Leg. Code § 61303, regarding the on- going problems with the said parking lot and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. No work has been done on the fence, paving or restorative landscaping as required by the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on September 4, 2009 and the parking lot continues to be out of compliance with the original site plan approved on June 11, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based upon the finding that the said pazking lot continued to be out of compliance with the original and modified site plans, moved to revoke the site plan and ordered the discontinuance of the said parking lot as follows: The City's original approval of the site plan for the parking lot at 2057 Laurel Avenue issued on June 11, 2008 and the Planning Commission's subsequent approval with conditions of a modified site plan issued on September 4, 2009, is hereby revoked. 2. 3. The lot must be restored to the condition it was in before work on the parking lot began no later than 12/31/09. Vehicles must immediately cease from parking in the lot_ A fence or similar barrier to keep cars from parking in the lot must be erected along the alley and maintained until the lot is restored to its previous condition. 220 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 61.702(a), Mr. Brooks duly filed an appeal (DSI 221 Zoning File No. 09-521-914) from the determination made by the Commission and requested a hearing 222 before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and 223 224 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(b), and upon notice to affected parties, a public 225 hearing was set before City Council for February 3, 2010. However, on that date, at the request of Mr. 226 Brooks, the mattex was laid over to February 17, 2010; and �a��a- 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 WHEREAS, on February 17, 2010, the public hearing was fmally conducted where all persons interested were afforded an opportunity to be heard and, at the close of the public hearing, based upon the testimony and at the suggestion of the Mr. Brooks representative and the City, a final decision on the matter was continued to March 3, 2010, in order to give Mr. Brooks and the City additional time to work through various issues including the locarion of a border fence as well as the nature of the asphalt paving; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2010, the Council again took up the matter and, upon a report that Mr. Brooks and City staff had met during the interim period, the Council was informed that little progress had been made to resolve the issues; NOW, THEREFORE 237 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the 238 application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and recommendation of the Zoning Committee and the 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 Commission's resolution, does hereby deny the appeal by Mr. Brooks, there being no showing that the Commission had erred in its facts, findings or procedures; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council, pursuant to Leg. Code §61.704, does hereby affirm the December 18, 2009 decision of the Planning Commission in this matter far the reasons stated by the Commission, which the Council hereby adopts as its own and denies the appeal by Mr. Brooks; and [Lines 245 — 272 intentionally left blank] lo-� � �- 273 274 275 276 277 Z�s 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 BE IT FLTRTHER RESOLVED, not withstanding the CounciPs decision to affirm the revocation of the said site plan and the requirement to restore the lot, the Council, pursuant to its authority provided under Leg. Code § 61.704, hereby stays the revocation of the site plan in order to give Mr. Brooks additional time to bring the parking lot into compliance with the site plan and conditions approved by the Commission on September 4, 2009. In the alternative, if Mr. Brooks does not want to bring the parking lot into compliance with that site plan, then he must remove and restore the area of the parking lot with suitable ground cover as required under the exterior property maintenance code [Sec. 34.08(3)] also no later than June 1, 2010. Finally, the record demonstrates that Mr. Brook's has failed to pay permit fees for work that was done under the 2008 site plan. Mr. Brooks must therefore pay any permit fee not yet paid to the City at the rate required under the Code. These fees must be paid no later than April 1, 2010; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to David Brooks, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. Bostrom Carter Harris ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Absent Requeste � nent _ `—✓ ' � By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: Adopted by Councll: Date � Adoption Certified By: � Secretary Approved by ity Attorney BY ��l✓�tivr�--- �- <d'— 2 � ! v Approve by or for missi o Copncil r //. By: 'c/� ,i � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � ' DepadmenUOfficelCounciL ��, Date Initiated: ' /D'�3� cA-��Att��ey '� ,9MARZO,o Green Sheet NO: 3103456 , Contact Person & Phone: , Peter Wamer 266-8710 Must Be on Councii Agenda by (Dat ' 07-APR-10 C�,� M � I � Dac. Type: RESOLUTION '� �, E-Document Required: Y � Document Contact: �ulie Kraus I ConWctPhone: 2658776 ■�1 Assign Number For Routing Order Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip Ail Locations for Signature) 0 i 2 3 4 5 Citv Clerk � Memorializing City CounciCs March 3, 2010, motion to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter and deny the appeal of David BTOOks for the property located at 2057 Lawel Avenue in Saint Paul. Recommentlations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Commiflee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this person�rm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personffirm possess a skil{ not normafly possessed by any wrrent city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet, Initiating Problem, issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): The Council is required pursuant to the City Charter to have its acrions reduced to writing either in the fomi of a resolurion or an ordinance dependent on the nature of the matte before it. The decision of the Counci] in this matter required a written resolution in order to comply with the Charter. AdvanWgeslfApproved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Trensaction: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explafn) Cost/Revenue Budgeted; Activity Number: � March '19, 2010 3:33 PM Page 1 10-332 DEPARIMENT OF PLA�NING & HCONOMIC DEVELOP+�EM Ced7e Bedor, Direclor CTTY OF SAINT PAUL ChnseopF.e� B Coleman, �Nayor 15 Wut Founh Sneet Sain� Paul, MN55102 January 7, 2010 Ms, Mary Erickson City Cou�cil Research O�ce Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: � Telephone 651-Zbb-6700 Facumue 651-228-3220 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, February 3, 2010 for the following zoning case: Zoning File Number: File Name: Address: Appelfant: Purpose: Previous Action: 09-521914 Lauret Apartments parking lot 2057 Laurel David Brooks Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to revoke site plan approval for a parking Vot because the 1ot was not paved and screening fences were not installed as shown on the approved site plan. The Zoning Committee recommended that the original 2008 approval of the site plan for a 6-car parking lot be revoked, that use of the lot stop immediately and that the lot be restored to its preconstruction condition on a vote of 7-0 on December 10, 2009. The Planning Commission adopted the recommendations of the Zoning Committee on a unanimous vote on December 18, 2009. I have confirmed this day with the office of Councilmember Stark. My understanding is that this pu6lic hearing request will appear on the Council agenda on or before January 27, 2010. City Council meeting and that you wi�l publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please cali me at 651-266- 9086 if you have any questions. Slnc b � ` � Tom Beach I Zoning and Site Plan Review cc: File #: 09-521914 Appellant: David Brooks Paul DubruieL Wendy Lane, Samantha Langer, Altan Torstenson AN AFFIRMATNE ACIION EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HF•ARING The Saint Paul City Council will con- duct a public hear3ng on Wednesday, Feb- ruary 3, 2010 in the LYty Council Cham- bers, Tlvrd Floor, City Hall-Court House; 15 West Kello Buulevard, to consida the appeal of Davi� Srooks to a decision of the Planning Commissiori to revoke site plan approval for the Laurel Apartments pazking lot at 2057 Lavrel Avenue because the lot was not paved and screening fences. were not installed as shown on the ap- proved site plan. [ZF 09-521914] Mary Erickgon tLsslstanf City Councll SeGretazy Dated: Januazy 8, 2016 - ' ' (January 14) _'_'_ 51: PAUL IEGAL LEDQEB �'-- 2`1229282 . DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND I1�SPECTIONS Bob Kessteq Director � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor Date: To: From: RE: Appellant: David Brooks (properry owner} Zoning File #: 09-521914 Purpose: Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to revoke approval of a site plan for a 6-car parking lot based on failure of the property owner to construct the parking lot as shown on the approved site plan. Location: Staff: District: Zoning Committee Planning Commission 2057 Laurel Avenue Recommended revoking approval of the site plan and requiring applicant to remove the parking lot. No comments were received Revoke approval of the site plan and require applicant to remove the parking lot. Revoke approval of the site plan and require applicant to remove the parking lot. DSI staff approved a site plan for a 6 car parking lot at 2057 Laurel in June 2008. The parking lot was for tenants of the apartment at this location. When staff did a follow-up inspection in September 2008, they found that the lot had not been built as shown on the approved site p1an. The lot had been paved using recycled asphalt and a fence that was needed to screen the parking lot from the neighbors had not been built. � Staff contacted the property owner, David Brooks, and a fence was installed. However, an existing fence along the property li�e was not removed and the lot was not paved to City standards. An Equal Opportuniry Employer 10-332 375Jacl's'on Street, Suite 220 Telepbane: 651-266-8989 St Paul, Minnesota 55l01-1806 Facsimile: 651-266-9124 i'✓eb: vrww,stpauLgovtdsi January 25, 2010 City Councilmembers Tom Beach � Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to revoke site plan approval for a parking lot at 2057 Laurel for failure to compfy with conditions of site plan approval 10-332 The site plan was brought to the Pfanning Commission for fhe first time in September 2009. They passed a resolution instructing the property owner to re-pave the lot using "hot mix° � asphalt, stripe the parking spaces, complete the fence all the way to the alley, and remove the existing fence. Atl of this work was to be done by Ocfober 1, 2009. (See attached reso�ution 09-57) Staff did an inspection on October 13, 2009., and found that none of the required improvements had been done. The case went back to the Planning Commission and on December 18, 2009, they passed a resolution. (See attached resolution 09-073). This resolution said said: 1. The City's original approva� of the site plan for the parking fot at 2057 Lauret Avenue issued on June 11, 2008 and the Planning Commission's subsequent approval with conditions of a modified site plan issued on September 4, 2009, is hereby revoked. 2. The lot must be restored to the condition it was in before work on the parking lot began no later than 12131/09. 3. Vehicles must immediately cease from parking in the lot. A fence or similar barrier to keep cars from parking i� the lot must be erected along the alley and maintained until the lot is restored to its previous condition. --- - The property ownerfi(ed arrappeaf of tt�e Planning ComrrTissior�'s decision on December-28,--- 2009. � ATTACHMENTS 1 Appeal filed by property owner 3 Material associated with December 18, 2009, Pfanning Commission decision o Planning Commission resolution o Zoning Committee minutes o Informafion submitted by property owner about iocation of property line o Staff report for Zoning Committee 20 Material associated with September 4, 2009 Planning Commission decision o Ptanning Commission resolution o Zoning Committee minutes 27 Enforcement letter from September 2008 sent by DSI staff to property owner 28 Approved site plan and letter from DSI staff 31 Plan showing how lot was built 32 Photos of site � _., _�..s... _.-�,... ,---- � ---,._.,--�,_.::��,��-�-�, _,..�___ _ �� APPLICATION FOR APPEAI. ,._., " _ i�u° Deparfinent of Safety and tnspections = �. ^ i �-, 375 Jackson Street, Suite 220 � y Sainf Paul, MA! 55101 - 659-266-9008 APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION 10 Zoning o�ce use only File no. �52�� Fee �3� " Tentative hearing date: � 2�3�� Address Jackson Street City: St. Paul. MN ZiQ: 55101 Daytime phone:651-270-3198 Name of owner (if different): David A. Brooks Enterprises Inc. Address: 2057 Laurel Avenue, St. Paul, MN. Legal description: West 10 feet of Lot 9 and ail of Lot 8 Merriam Park Second Addition TYPE OF APPEAL• Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals X Gity Council under the provisions of Chapter 61.702, subdivision (a) and (b) of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the Saint Paul Planning Commission's Zoning Committee on December 10, 2009. File number: 08-083-992. (date of decisionJ GROUNDS FOR APPEAL Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals orthe Planning Commission. David A. Brooks ("Brooks"), the sole owner of David A. Brooks Enterprises, ina, submitted and was , approved for a site plan regatding the improvement and construction o4 a smaN, six (6) car parking lot behind � his building located at 2057 Laurel (the "Property"). The Property consists of a smali apartment building and a small restaurant all located in the same building. After the site plan was approved, Brooks had meetings at the Property with Tom Seach ("Beach"), an agent ofthe city of St. Paul, employed +n the Zoning and Site Plan Review department of the City of St. Paul. At those meetings, Tom Beach approved the foliowing changes to � the site plan: 1) Brooks has utilized recycled asphalt for the ground cover which is a stab2 and viable alternative to regular asphalt. Beach approved this change. ia33a 2) Brooks moved the fence on the Laurel Avenue side of the Property cioser to LaureiAvenue on condition he plant additional shrubs along the fence. Beach approved this change andthe shrubs were planted. � 3) 8rooks constructed a first ciass, aesthet+cally pleas+ng fence along theeast property line which is located on his properry. There is an old chain link fence on the adjacenYproperty'owner's land which is attached fo the propertyowners house. Beach wanted this chain link fence removed by Brooks even though Brooks does not own the property on which the fence is located. This requirement was never discussed with 8rooks and is an unreasonable request. 4) The original site plan had the fence along the east property line extending to the alley. It made more sense to stop the fence at the edge of fhe garage located on the adjacent property. Beach approved this change. 5) The resolut+on calls for restoration of the site toits originai condition by12/31/09. In the event the appeal is unsuccessful, this deadline is unreasonable. The opposition to this site plan is from one neighbor who opposesa� parking lot and the adjacent neighbor who complains of light issues but does not even reside in tte home on the adjoining property. f -{n figh# of #he tremendejus parking issues-faeed by tlae ci4y in that a�ea, i# is-approp�iate to allow plan as approved by Beach to remain in place and overturn the committee's resolution to revoke the plan. addrtional sheet if Applicant's Attomey ZS�• � 9 City i 2 10-332 City of Saint Paul ! Pfanning Commission Resoiution File Number 09-73 � . �- -...- �• W HEREAS, David Brooks, File # 08 083992, submitted a site plan for review for a 6-car parking lot on property located af 2057 Laurel Ave on May 30, 2008, under the provisions of Sec. 61.400 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator approved the site plan in a letter to Mr. Brooks dated June 11, 2008. This letter lists the main improvements shown on the approved site plan; including paving the lot with asphalt and instaliing a privacy fence to provide a visual screen. This letter also explains that a permit from the Saint Paul Department of Safety and Inspections is required "to grade and pave the parking lot and to construct the fence"; and WHEREAS Mr. Brooks constructed the lot during the summer of 2008 but the City has no record showing that the required permits were obtained; and WHEREAS, City staff inspected the lot in September 2008 and determined that it was not built in compliance with the approved site plan; and WHEREAS, City staff contacted Mr. Brooks about this on a number of occasions: 6y letter to Mr. Brooks dated September 4, 2008, at a meeting at City offices on September 22, 2008, and on-site meetings on April 28, 2009, and June 11, 2009; and � WHEREAS, after the meeting on June 11, 2009 the parking lot was still not in compliance, City staff decided to bring the matter to the attention of the Planning Commission as specified in Sec. 61.105 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code which states "The zoning administrator shall notify the planning commission when a development covered by a permit or other matter is not in compliance with any of the conditions imposed upon such use permit. The commission may, at a public hearing, following notice to the owner of subject property and other adjacent property owners as specified in section 61.303(c), and upon determination that the conditions imposed by such approvai are not being complied with, revoke the authorization for such approval and require that such use be discontinued. The commission, in lieu of revoking the permission, may impose additional conditions, modify existing conditions, or delete conditions which are deemed by the commission to be unnecessary, unreasonable or impossible of compiiance."; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing at the Zoning Committee of the Pianning Commission was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of 2057 Laurel as required by Section 61.303 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code' and moved by M�rt�n seconded bv in favor Unanimous against r� U � � 10-332 Zoning File #0&083-992 Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, fhe Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on August 27, 2009, heid a public hearing at which all persans present were given an opportunity to 6e heard pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 61,303 of the Saint Paul Legisfative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the pubiic hearing as substantiaAy reflected in the minutes, marle the following findings of fact: 1. On May 30, 2008, David Brooks, the property owner, submifted a site plan for review for a new parking lot. 2. During the review of the site plan, Mr. Brooks told staff thaf fhe parking lot was intended for use by the tenanfs of the apartment buildtng at 2057 Laurel and not for use by staff or customers of the restaurant at 2057 Laurel. 3. On June 11, 2008, DSI staff approved the submitted site plan that was showed the following: • The parking lot would be located next to the side of fhe building. • The parking lot would be paved with "Bituminous". • Stormwater would drain to the alley. • The parking lot would be striped to provide 6 parking spaces. _�..A.6'.privacy fence rmas shown on the a�proved site plan on.t_he eastproperty line, to meet zoning requiremenfs fo provide a visuat screen befween fhe parking (o{and fhe adjacent residential property. This fence was to extend from the rear property line to a point approximately 65 feet south of the rear property line. In addition a 6' high privacy fence was shown on the approved site plan running east to west from the south end of the privacy fence to be built on the east property Iine to the apartment building. This fence and its location was intended to minimize the visual impact and noise from the parking Iot on the adjacent house while also keeping the lawn south of the parking lot open to view. • A lilac hedge would be planfed in front of the fence running along the south edge of the parking lot. • The area between fhe easf to west fence and the front of the property wouid nof be affected. 4. On September 4, 2008 DSI staff conducted a routine inspection of the parking lot to see if it was built in conformance with the approved site plan. Staff observed a number of areas where the parking lot was not built as shown on the approved site plan and sent a letter informing the property owner of fhe noncompliance. The areas of concem included: • The parking lot was paved with recycled asphalt. Recycled asphalt is not an approved paving materiai under Sec. 62.316 which requires that "All parking spaces, driveways and off-street parking facitities shall be paved wifh aspha(f or ofher durable, dusttess surfacing or of material comparabte to the adjacent street surfacing in accordance with other specifications of the zoning administrator.° Where asphalt is used to pave parking lots, the City requires a"hot mix bituminous " The City does not accept recycled asphalt because it breaks up after a year or two. Therefore, it is not a durable material. Recycled asphalt is also not consistent wifh the submitted site plan that specified "Bituminous." • The parking spaces were not striped as shown on the submitted and approved site plan although the individual spaces were identified by signs that were attached to the side of the aparfment building, • The privacy fence required by ffie Zoning Code and shown on fhe east property line in fhe submitted and approved site plan had not been built. s �� i "I 10-332 Zoning File #08-083-992 Page 3 of 5 � • The easf to west privacy fence shown on the approved site plan had actually been built approximately 35' south of where it was shown on the approved site plan. • The lilacs shown on the approved site plan had not been planted. . The work was done without City permits. Permits were required for fhe paving and the fence. 5. City staff talked to Mr. Brooks about the areas of noncompliance at a meeting at City ofFices on September 22, 2005, and meetings on the site on April 2S, 2009, and June 11, 2009. During this period the following construction activity occurred at the parking lot: . A privacy fence was installed along the east property line. However, the fence was not built on the property line as shov✓n on the submitted and approved site plan. Instead, the new privacy fence was constructed approximately 1.5' back from the property line. An existing chain fink feRCe on the property line, which should have been removed had construction of the privacy fence complied with the approved site plan, was not removed. During these discussions, it was not clear who owned this chain fink fence. tiowever, at the August 27, 2009 public hearing Mr. Brooks stated that the chain link fence was on his property. Finaily, the newfy constructed privacy fence stopped approximately 25' south of the rear property line instead of extending all the way to the rear property line as was shown on the submitted and approved site plan. • Shrubs were planted in front of the south fence as well along the south edge of the parking lot. • There was also a discussion about a picnic table and bench were built in the area south of � the parking lot. These were not shown on the original site plan. However, small improvements like this do not require a City permit and generally do not require City approval. Therefore, the table and bench are not considered to be out of compliance with the approved site plan. 6. The following areas of the parking tot were not in compYiance with the approved site plan on August 14, 2009 when DSI staff inspected the site and took photographs for the pubiic hearing: • The parking lot is paved with recycled asphalt and not "hot mix". • The parking spaces are not striped. Spaces are identified by signs on the side of the apartment building. • The fence along the south edge of the parking lot is approximately 35' south of where it was shown on the site plan. . The fence along the east property line is set back approximately 1.5' from the property line and an existing chain link fence on the property �ine was left in place. This resulted in a strip of land beiween the fences that is difficult to maintain. 7. Cars are sometimes parked in the drive lane on east half of the lot; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, adopted a resolution on September 4, 2009, under the authority of Legislative Code Sec. 61,108 and based upon the evidence, testimony, records and report of staff submitted during the public hearing, that the parking lot constructed at 2057 Laurei Avenue does nat comply with the site plan approved in Fi4e # 0&0H3992 on June 11, 2008 and, that the property owner must therefore take the following actions to bring the said parking lot into compliance with the approved site ptan to the extent that the said site plan is hereby modified by the fotlowing • conditions: s � 10-332 Zoning File #08-083-992 Page 4 of 5 1. The entire parking tot shall be re-paved using bitumi�ous material as shown on the approved . site plan. "Hot mix" bituminous shall be used, as is the materiai commonly understood in the paving industry as "bituminous," in order to provide the "durable, dustless° paved surface required for parking lots in Sec_ 63.316 of the Legislative Code. Z. The parking tot shali be striped fo identify the required six parking spaces. To prevent cars from parking in the drive lane, the parking �ot must be marked "No Parking in Drive Lane" either by signing the pavement or by installing on the privacy fence at least 3 signs indicating the `no parking° area. The grade of the parking lot after the paving must be such that the lot continues to drain towards the alley and not onto adjacent properties. 3_ A 6' high privacy fence must be constructed just to the south of the parking lot as shown on the approved site plan. The privacy fence may be located up to 66' south of the rear property line or approximately 8' south of the parking lot to provide room for snow storage. A row of shrubs shall be planted and maintained along the south side of the fence as shown on the approved site pian. The fence that was built approximately 35' south of the parking lot may be removed or may stay in place or may be relocafed to screen mechanical equipment on the east side of the apartment building. 4, The privacy fence tliat�tivas irop�ope�{y IocaCe� near the ea§f property Ifne can remain in�i"s � current location. However, the privacy fence must be extended north to the rear property line as shown on the submitfed and approved sife ptan. (n addition, ffie entire existing cfiain link fence on the east properly line, including any fence posts and footings must be removed as shown on the submitted and approved site plan. Following removal of the chain link fence any stumps in the area between the privacy fence and the east property I+ne must be removed and the area musf be restored with new ground cover of either grass sod or grass seed planting. This ground cover shall thereafter be maintained as long as the parking lot is in existence. 5. Permits from the Department of Safety and Inspections must be obtained for the paving and fence work before work starts. 6. All Work on the fence, paving and restorative landscaping must be completed no later than Octotrer 2, 2009; and WHEREAS, City staff inspected the parking lot on Ocfober 13, 2009, and determined thaf no work had been done on the fence, paving or restorative landscaping as required by the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on September 4, 2009 and that the parking lot continues to be out of compliance with the original site pian approved on June 14, 2008; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing at the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of 2057 Laurel as required by Section 61.303 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code' and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on December 10, 2009, held a public hearing at which ail persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 61.303 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code; and i � � . `° 10-332 Zoning File #OS-083-992 Page 5 of 5 � WHEREAS, fhe Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the foilowing findings of fact: 1. No work has been done on the fence, paving or restorative landscaping as required by the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on September 4, 2009 and the parking lot continues to be out of compliance with the original site plan approved on June 11, 2008 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, under the authority of the City's Legislative Code: 1. The City's original approval of the site plan for the parking lot at 2057 Laurel Avenue issued on June 11, 2008 and the Planning Commission's subsequent approvai with conditions of a modified site plan issued on September 4, 2009, is hereby revoked. 2. The lot must be restored to the condition it was in before work on the parking lot began no later than 12/31l09. 3. Vehicles must immediately cease from parking in the lot. A fence or similar barrier to keep cars from parking in the lot must be erected along the alley and maintained until the lot is restored to its previous condition. � � � 10-332 MINUTES OF THE ZONING GOMMITTEE Thursday, December 70, 2009 - 3:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESEIVT: I1=�y��i STAFF: Donnelly-Cohen, Goodlow, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer; Margulies and Morton C • ��Z7'iTiiL�ti Tom Beach, Samantha Langer, Patricia James, and Peter Wamer The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton. laurel Apts Parking Lot #2 - 08-083-992 - Public hearing to consider revocation of parking lot sit plan approved June 11, 2008, for failure to meet conditions of approval, 2057 Laurel Ave Tom Beach presented the staif report with a recommendation to revoke approval of the site plan for a parking lot at 2057 Laurel. The recommendation is based on the fact that the lot was not built as shown on the site plan that was approved by DSYstaff on June 11, 2008 and measures were not taken to bring the lot into compliance as required by Planning Commission resolution 09-057 approved on September 4, 2009. Tom Beach also stated District 13 had not responded, and there were 0 letters in support, and 0 letters in opposition. Tom Beach stated that the deadline originaliy set for December 31, 2009, to restore the lot to its preconstruction condfion should be extended unfil the Spring of 2010 and in the mean time the parking lot should not be used and a barrier should be put in place fo keep cars from parking there. Mr. Beach stated that the owner is contesting that the parking lot should be allowed to be left as is. Mr. Beach also stated that the applicant attempted to file an appeal of the Planning Commission's previous action on the site plan, but the appeal was submitted after the deadline for appeals. David Brooks of 366 Jackson Street is the property owner. He stated that he agrees that the contractor did not do the work properly and that the parking facility at the beginning was wrong according to fhe plans. Mr. Brooks stated that he met with the head of Zoning and they agreed on the following points; that recycled asphalt is allowed to surface the parking lot, thaf moving the fence back ten feet to for easier snow plowing be allowed as long as extra shrubs and bushes were planted in frant and that the fence be extended to the south end of the garage not the alley. Mr. Brooks sfates that he did everything fhat was agreed upon Hrith the City and a week later the City contacted him stating that an existing chain link fence needs to be removed. Mr. Brooks showed a photo showing what appeared to be a property iron with the existing chain link fence about 3° away. Steve Wolf, 2052 Selby Avenue, spoke in support of revocation of fhe site plan. Mr. Wolf stafed that when cars pull into the parking lot the lights shine directly into their windows. He also stated that noise is a problem, cars don't park in the right spaces and there isn't proper snow removal in the winter. �i � � � 10-332 � December t0, 2009 ZF #08-083-992 Page 2 of 2 Nick 8uetfner, 291 W 7"' Sfreet, Unit 1704, spoke in support of revocation of the site plan. He stafed his concerns are that Mr. Brooks did not follow the originat site plan. Mr. Buettner explained that the new fence that was consfrucfed is next to an existing chain link fence and this results in a 12 inch wide strip that cannot be mainfained properly. Mr. Buettner also stated the fence does not continue all the way to the alley as the site plan states it should. He sfated because the lot was not completed, as the site pian shows, there are issues with drainage into his garage during months where snow removal is required. Mr. Buettner stated he doesn't know if the chain linked fence is on his property. He stated that someone at the Cify expiained that based on where the fence was located and on what side the chain links hang on, it would indicate that it was on Mr. Brook's property. He also stated that he does not know who put the fence up. No one spoke in opposition of revocation of the site plan. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner George Johnson moved approval of revocation of the parking lot. Commissioner Stephen Gordon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-0. ! Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0 Abstained - 0 Drafted by: Submitted by: Approved by: 7Y,t��i�'��L�'��P C.GU�'�i-F' ��i�l �G�:G� / /�� `''Samantha Langer ° Tom Beach (,� 5 L, Gladys Mo n Recording Secretary Zoning Section � Chair � 0 10-332 chestnut & cambronne,p.a. ��i�\��`�� `n� Dennis B. ]ohnson, Esq. diohnsonCdccesauire.com Office: 651-653-0990 CeIL• 612-860-2514 December 9, 2009 VIA HAND DELNERY AtEn: Tom Beach City of St. Paul 375 Jackson Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 � Dear Tom: First of ail thank you very much for having the prior hearing continued so that I could speak with the surveyor. He did verify that Mr. Brooks' fence is constructed on his property and that the chain link fence is on the adjoining property, which is in fact attached to the adjoining home. The surveyor was unable to give me anything in writing even after the holiday, however I am enclosing several piclures which will hopefully assist us in tomorrows meeting. The first photograph (Exhibit R) shows the properly line as it relates to the chain link fence. By way of reference, David Brooks' fence would be to the right of the pink marker and the chain link fence is to the left of the pink marker as you look firom the alley towards Laurel Avenue. The second photo (6chibit B) is a similar picture and Exhibit C shows where the chain link fence is attached to the adjacent home. Exhibit D simply shows the fence from Laurel Avenue and where it interfaces with the chain link fence next door. As I said in our previous conversations, I'm not sure if we have authority to take down a chain link fence which is located on the adjacent property. I believe our fence is located in the appropriate location and I would ask that you take that into consideration in regard to any action which we will be dealing with at the hearing on Thursday. � � MtNhEAPOLtS 3700 Campbe(I Mithun Tower 222 South Ninth Stre� Minneapolis, MN 5540 T: 6i2339.7300 F: 672.336.2940 SAINT PAIiL Kelly Inn, Suite 820 761 St.AnfhonyAvenue St. Paul, MN 55103 T: 657.297.T900 F: 657.297.6063 WHITE 6EAR LAKE 26? North Star 3ank 4661 Highway67 White Bear Lake, MN 55110 T: 651.653.0990 F: 657.653 a5a7 W ww.chestnutcambronne.com Laurel Avenue Aoartment Parking Lot (David Brooks) Your Fle #08-083-992 Our lien : avid BrooRs —_ _.._ . _ _.. _ _.-_.. _-� _ -. - . _ - - -_ _- _ _ � _. _ _ Properly Address: 2057 Laurel Avenue �� 10-332 � chestnut & cambronne, p.a. December 9, 2009 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact me. David Brooks and I will be present at the hearing. Sincerely, CHESTNUT � CAMBRONNE, P.A. L•� � � DBJisms Enclosures �� ,._� w . _ -,�__. .. _.�� -.��..� - --- � - _.., ___.. -: _ -- , _ . _ —, _. � _. . . _. ..� -. _.-\ .\ ..`..\_. #\ �K � \. d ` �a„ e 1S . - '' �.:y � � � k ` C T �� £ " _� - n `_ '•�.. . ___r .5�� . . 'c _ t� ' ., � _ �a: , , _ ' f � . .�� . , � � ' ! _ —_��_ _ - � �. � '- . _ ,�: _ �, � � = f - - �� _ { �� s e f �. i' . .. � . ^ t =,'� �` . 2 _ = 4 . . . i . . ' � - � • . �.. � \ . / . �C _ . '*.1a s'� . . .. ' � . _ � � - . �..� � ' . - . � � " .e .1 . n '. . ... .J• 3. - .. . . . . � ". s . ' '� ' - _ .- � ' % `�� . ` <�_ . : . _ � _ ^ � i �� t �... a � -- . - �f � . :._ . - ._ : � :� � ��. cT-� . . � � i . _ ' . - . , � 1 . ' ` - ' ..'. � �: 2" IS[}�� _ —. . . .�. �. . , a � _ ' . . _ . , � , . \.:.� e -. a ^ '- • • ....� ..�.� . . - _ . �� -_ -� ....� . .' _.. �_ ":: 6. -. �-.. . ' _ .._ � ..-�.. _. . .- '"'1 � .S .. . ... � }�.�.i .�^"<�� ' �• _.- .'' F'F� _ �� i � . _. y � ;� E � _ � � � �: k ' T .� ��.+ �a; r i �� x . ° Y.. � I . �aF' . 8 �'a' � ,_ _ i - s:_ ' : n� � � y�� !/ e... /J' - � f � e : � ��p� '- _i 1�". .� - �- ~� .. s / `'� '1. �c" �1k°.: '1 �. y� �, � i ' �I rr � ` � T � - � � '2, t ^ �: .� � � �?�� .�: � � ^?_ ' � ��Fr Y _ � #= rt � � _ `� ✓ �' �� _ `�; �'t� _ �.'` � �' � -.-.' -F _ . l I ' °� "' � � F � '�i �` 1-x'�ir �, � a. � � )� �v /'S � !f r `j� u5 � Y ` � f �� ' � K4 riF� * t. ''a '^'.'�` T� � - � E _ �'^�� - ?� � x � � �y'� � , .y , l,� o•rr�� °v� F`' �.-- . v �i�. "� � '�� '� I � � ��✓'"'� . ' : . �r'.� • ' �c r 1 � ; ` . '� : � �,� '�-' � ' "'� � a .- .. - _ , � :t" _� _ _-. �x' � �`,..c��' � r� : .�,�_ . �°�� `- '� '' �:� � '� _- �'�.� � � _��°�s` � `� .��' i - ' . � ' ' - t' � . . ..; a.. . . +'.. - , z .! � _ - . . . v . x � `� .. , ' s ---� --.� � ' � '. . ` � . � . � � �. S� . � ;�:�� r � � . -- . i� < v r-� �s . . '.�'s�� " . �'i . ° � � . � ' _ �.. ' r �."@ , � - � _ + ` �� - -rF . . �= �� ` °„� � �� . - � � � a '�' ' - ` . ` '� g �:.'{ � ,'s ' �� V �� n > �� . : R4 e '" - ' . _ �3s . . � � ':'�i 'n ) T v '.*�. � .. �' .4� . - � .�� { - �' .�"�' } vF� �, �" .,R � '� � � � y., ... ,� �..<�};,h � �� .�� '^ w � V .�� Vv.,� �� 5R� . '. ' .: -•�a �, 'fi` � S ' i q �a'Lr6. �. . 1 � �� t � �� \�StK� ..'✓rim ^y `+Y.m:s:, . � .,y. ,: � w a.� \�at4$ '` } � II ` �"� �. � t ��.. � _ "9w' x. L, � �U � @C.. �� . t � ,. � � . . '. .. �. :� � � 4.: � .� . . � . � y .�' � ,�"+_�`'* � h....,,,� R � �� s � � ';'` -�a T � � ' �'" ,:. � �� ,., � ,. m y � �w ` . � a 1'- e, ��• �"�' � � "� s � �°�,. si � y t �r . � / � � .� �� `+.N�".w' n " i ^e p. � � `� �: � �� ' , . , ''�� ;� � ,� �` .. �% : ��. ��. t �, � y �r ,�� : 3�'� m . �. � �T _ : [ .n � . �` .- ' a " _ ,? �. , �� . .. ` : � ... . ., . . � - 'e . r`.' � � t� `",^'J,,+ E � � "k ' `� � n: � 'a► _ , 't: a `� '�. . � '1�� '.s u- 4 r ��' X �'• � `", , � � .. . x ,� . ' ,�±�' �` k� � � # ��'` H :�"x .,a `� � }� � � .�, 1 y �,�� a.� tk�@ y ' ' `', i` ��,� � �� „ _ � � '"� x . �,�� s � r ,� , �, � w � , t � � 5 � j t� �a.� y,.- 2-5e �. 3.. � t� �$ . ' �� .�'3 � k •. � i"�'� '�" . A .� � � � '�. � ! l. '� % % h� ' � � �.: � � s"` 2� �- . "��, r�'.. " _,.,,� ^ ,� "�,� � � .. , T�ae � .�'� , � ' - � , ,� a� � a `' � � ... �a �� a �` a , .� �._ _ � . . ; � ?F � - � ! a� .� �� Y�:� '" s� „ �. � .,� �-_�.: � � 9 �'� : �:z^ �"�'� � �� 4 . . . . � � ", n < a� � ° �' ��' ;� �4 �� x .. N ;�. '� .a� � �^ii. � �::. �,� '� � r .. �R 3 " �,r � �� '� ' � � ' �Y �� r �.r?� �"'"�-"^. y;..; �' r . f- � �_ `x. �� V � �� ` � �. F � � � . �:'f. x ��Z� .� � :ti :� n', ` � rf d "� ) ,} '�,� � : � � � � �; �,� "� i.�.... �_ . 1. ��. �. � . � �p� '✓� � F � �� ;; �\ . �� \ ,-� � � � � .\y 11 ��\ •• Y � F �� .. t L ? �-. yi . . .. � .� :. G �� '\ �\ s, C � � . . � �` � Y � _.. `, f , y L � : . - T { ."� S: � a _ 3 �`..\� �._ �.� ';:l .7 , �`� �C � t~ -, �„S� Y � a.? R � �'•'�, ,,,}�r.. s -. ,�� - '- r. ,'�" � *� rs � _ �� _ . . . .. '?^ � 53' w' .. ` 1 i ;; � i � ' � .. �-"---`��_..._.. .. _. Y� S ` \�' i " ' -.=�`� ..�.. � -. � � , s _�.. r;, � ,.. �' �. ��_ " .�s� �' ' � -. a '" 1-. "� t . �:4' . . -[ . '� ` `�� '..��4 _ . ' � , "3 � � � . 4, i � i r: l� T � �(i. :c �` � ' .. . - ' . . ' ' ; -i -s" " .� . � .. . { . ,..t. : �_ w � ._ v � - t - } A , ?�: , _ _ .,_ �� _ ° s �-1�-,^ ° _ -f' �''' �s `� '.� - , ... ,�. �. �. ' � 3 t . . . . �� f i �.: � T ' .�, s i �: � � � � �' ��': " ' _ _ � ,rr_ �� F' �- � . - m kx- -- , -x�. ,. ; .tL [ !� £ � a �� !9Y . l ...1��.5 � ' L e.. _ �`3�.X �X. �.. ` ` �� _ � .-� M' � . . - p+. .l T _� i�' -° V . '� 4 ' �54�G�fK�� 1: y y � _ � �: 1 `�\ �. } .k t pN � r . � � � 1 � .<.. " tiq � -i r y �- - i�.r y � .�+4 �� . T . _ .. ' t � 4 � �� t �. y �$ ^� x 'Y a ��. � � . ._ �A..- � ��•�� :} ;��•� _ > r,_ ", � _ . . � , - . .. � . ,e:'�;c �,—». � �+.. . � . <. , ".._- . 3-�: '' ". . ��,r - F ' _ _ .. . . .��=� 'r� � ,. ' 1,:'��_ L�Y.', *� s � �- � e � ^� . .r. � • x �y ±�7 � 'y , h� 3^ 2 4 \ � � . \ � � � � . 5 . }y� � � � . a � S ; 'k �i `� � �\� k . � 'h::.i. ��.4F. ,y:^�� t'T i J a� � ` �� ,. C h �, � a" � y?¢ � � � . �e �. � , .n i ...' 4'� ' . � q � . 4 .',. :� }. -' � . . ` � 0 �� :� �� 10-332 ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT 1. PROPERTY OWNER: David Brooks FILE # 08-083992 � HEARING DATE: 11/24l09 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION; Site plan review {Consider revocation of a previous site plan approval due to noncompliance with the conditions of that approval) 3. LOCATION: 2057 Laurel Avenue 4. PIN 8� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 042823220080 and 042823220081 Merriam Park Second Addition Lots 8 and 9 Block 13 5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 13 6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.108 7. STAFF REPORT DATE: 91/12/09 PRESENT ZONING: RT1 BY: Tom Beach A. PURPOSE: Consider revocation of the site plan for a parking lot as approved by the Planning Commission on September 4, 2009. The parking Iot was not constructed as shown on fhe_site plan thatvuas appcovedbX Cit�c staff and in compViance with new, ,. ,_._.,__ ___._ __. conditions added by the Planning Commission on September 4, 2009. B. PARCEL SIZE: 15,000 square feet (100' x 150') The parking Iot under consideration covers an area of approximately 3,000 square feet. C, EXISTING LAND USE: 12-unit apartment building and restaurant D, SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Single family and duplex residential (RT1 } East: Single family and duplex residential (RT1) South: Single family and duplex residential (RT1) West: St. Thomas University (R2) E. ZONtNG CODE CITATtONS; Secfion 61.108. Conditions violafed, permit revocation. The zoning administrator shall notify the planning commission when a development covered by a permit or other matter is not in compliance wifh any of the conditions imposed upon such use permit. The commission mav at a oublic hearinct foilowinq notice to the owner of The commission, in lieu of revoking the permission, may impose addifional conditions, modify existing conditions, or delete conditions which are deemed by the commission to be unnecessary, unreasonable or impossible of compliance. Section 63.313 Visual screening For off-sYreet parking facilities which adjoin or abut across an alley, a residential use or zoning district, a visual screen shall be provided and maintained as required in section 63.114, �sual screens. Section 63.316 Paving All parking spaces, driveways and off-street parking facilities shall be paved with asphalt or � n U �- _-�.-. __ .-..�.�.,: �_ _ --��.-Ya -_ v �_�_.,—��._ �'-- _� - _ - 10-332 other durable, dustless surfacing or of material comparable to the adjacent street surfacing in accordance with other specifications of fhe zoning administrator. The parking area shall � be paved within one (1 } year of the date of the permit. F. PRIOR ZOINING HlSTORY: The building on the site has 12 apartments and a restaurant. The restaurant is a nonconforming use. In 2005 the Planning Commission approved a Change in Noncontorming Use Permit to permit the restaurant to have beer as well as wine on the menu. G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff had not heard from the District Councif at the time the staff �epo[t was mailed out. H. FINDINGS: On May 30, 2008, David Brooks, the property owner, applied for site plan review for a new parking lot. The parking lot is intended for use by the residents of the apartment building on the property. 2. On June 11, 2008, DSI staff approved a site plan that shows the fo�lowing: • The parking lot would be located next to the side of the building. • The parking lot would be paved with bituminous. • Stormwater wou4d drain to the a{ley. • The parking lot would have 6 parking spaces. • A 6' privacy fence would be built on the east property line and along the south edge of the parking lot. The fence was located near the south edge of the parking lot to minimize the impact of the parking lot on the adjacent house by screening the lot and � keeping the lawn south of the parking lot open to view. . A lilac hedge would be planted in front of the fence running along the south edge of the parking lot. • The area between the parking !ot and the iront of the property wou{d not be affected. (See attached approved site plan and approval letter.) 3. On September 4, 2008 DSI staff conducted a routine inspection of the parking lot to see if it was built in conformance with the approved site plan. Staff observed a number of areas where the parking lot was not built as shown on the approved site plan and sent a letter informing the properiy owner of the noncompiiance. (See attached fetter.) The areas of concern included: • The asphalt was paved with recycled asphalt. (Zoning requires "hot mix" asphalt for paving parking Iots.) • The parking spaces were not striped. Spaces were identified by signs on the side of the apartment building. • There was no fence along the easf property line and the south fence was built approximately 35' south of where it was shown on the site plan. (Zoning requires a visuai screen between parking lots and adjacent residential property.) . No filacs had been planted. • The work was done without City permits. Permits should have been obtained for the paving and the fence. 4. Staff talked to the property owner on September 22, 2008, April 28, 2009 and on June � 11, 2009 about the fact that the lot was not built in conformance with the approved site plan. During this period the following changes were made to the parking lot: • A wood privacy fence was installed along the east property line. However the fence �= — _ . - „� »_...4..._ ��— � � = — — ,��-- 10-332 was set back approximately 1' from the property line and an e�osting chain link fence on the property line was not removed. This did not conform to what was shown on the approved sife plan and resulted in a strip of land between the fences that is difficult to maintain. (n addition, the wood privacy fence was not extended all the way , to the alley as shown on the approved site plan. Shrubs were planted in front of the south fence. In addition, shrubs were planted along the south edge of the parking lot in approximately the location shown on the approved site plan. A picnic ta6te and benches were built in the area south of the parking lot. These were not shown on Yhe origina! site plan. However, small improvements like these do not require a City permit and generally do not require City approval.) 5. DS( staff inspecfed the site in August 2009 and found that the following areas of fhe parking lot were not in compliance with the approved site plan: . The parking lot was paved with recycled asphalt and not "hot mix" asphalt. . The parking spaces were not striped. Spaces are identified by signs on the side of the apartment building. . The fence afong the south edge of the parking fot was approximate(y 3Q' south of where +t was shown on the site plan. . The fence along the easY property line was set back approximately 1.5' from the property tine and an existing chain link fence on the property line was left in place. This resulted in a strip of land 6eiween the fences that is difficult to maintain. In addition the fence did not extend all fhe way to fhe alley as shown on fhe approved site plan. _ . _..- — _ � . _ _ . _ 6. DSI brought the situation to the attenfion of the Planning Commission under the provisions of Section 61.108. A public hearing was held at the Zoning Committee on . 8(27/09. On 9/4/09 the Planning Commission passed resolution 09-57 stating that the property owner had not builf the parking !ot in compliance with the approved site plan. However, rather than rescinding the site plan approval, the Planning Commission added condifions necessary to bring the parking lot into compliance. These condifions required the property owner to make the following changes to the parking lot no later than 10/2/09 with permits from the Department of Safety and Inspections. a. The entire parking lot shali be re-paved using bituminous material as shown on the approved site plan. °Hot mix" bituminous shall be used, as is the material commonly understood in the paving industry as "6ifuminous,° in order to provide the "durable, dustless° paved surface required for parking lots in Sec. 63.316 of the legislative Code. b. The parking lot shali be striped to identify the six parking spaces. To prevent cars from parking in the drive lane, the parking lot must be marked "No Paricing in Drive Lane" either by signing the pavement or by installing on the privacy fence at least 3 signs indicating the `no parking" area. The grade of the parking lot after the paving must be such that the lot continues to drain towards the alley and not onto adjacent properties. c. A 6' high privacy fence must be constructed just to the south of the parking lot as shown on the approved site plan. The privacy fence may be located up to 66' south of the rear property line or approximately 8' south of the parking lot to provide room for snow sforage. A row of shrubs shatl be pianted and maintained along the south side of the fence as shown on the approved site plan. � The fence that was buiit approximately 35' south of the parking lot may be removed or may stay in place or may be relocated to screen mechanical equipmenf on the east side of the apartment building. -- ---� � _ - _-.,: _ . _- �= -�•- °, - =- -_ - —� . _ _ i _ _�,..� . _ - °_— � r ,- , .. 10-332 d, The privacy fence that was improperly locafed near the east property line can remain � in is current location. Fiowever, the privacy fence must be exfended north to the rear property iine as shown on the submitted and approved site plan. In addition, the entire existing chain link fence on the east property Iine, including any fence posts and footings must be removed as shown on the submitted and approved site plan. Following removal of the chain link fence any stumps in the area beiween the privacy fence and the east property li�e must be removed and the area must be restored with new ground cover of either grass sod or grass seed planting. This ground cover shali thereafter be maintained as iong as the parking lot is in existence. 7. DSI inspected fhe parking lot on October 13, 2009. The inspection showed that the no changes had been made to the lot and that the property owner did not comply with the additional conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on September 4, 20Q9. The parking lot continues to be out of compiiance with the original site plan approved on June 11, 2008. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings above, staff recommends: 1. The City's previous approval for the site plan for the parking lot at 2057 Laurel Avenue should be revoked 2. The lot must 6e restored to the condition it was in before work on the parking Iot began no later than 12l31/09. 3. Vehicles must immediately cease from parking in the lot. A fence or similar barrier to keep cars from parking in the lot must be erected along the alley and maintained until the lot is restored to its previous condition. � ATTACHMENTS 1 Planning Commission resolution and Zoning Committee minutes. 8 As-built plan for the parking lot, approved site plan and correspondence 13 Photos and location map � _ --- - �`� .._ - - -- � - - - � - - - � 4 - - � - 10-332 city of saint paul pianning commission resolution file number o9-s� (Z�fC � �,rP.,,t�,�a WHEREAS, David Brooks, File # 08 083992, submitted a site plan for review for a 6-car pazldng lot on pmperty located at 2057 Laurel Ave on May 30, 2008, under the pmvisions of Sec. 61.400 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WfIEREAS, the Zoning Admntistrator approved the site glan in a letter to Mr. Brooks daYed 7une 11, 2008. Tfris letter lists the main improvements shown on the approved site plan; including paving the lot with aspbalt and installing a privacy fence to provide a visual screen. This letter aLso explains that a permit from the Saint Paui Department of Safety and Inspections is required "to grade and pave the pazldng lot and to construct the fence"; and WHEREAS Mr. Bmoks consiructed the lot during the suminer of 2008 but the City has no record showing t1�at the required permits were obtained; and � WI�REAS, City staff inspected the lot in September 2008 and determined that it was not bu�t in _----. __._�comgliance-withthhe.approuedsiteplan;_and....._._- __..---- -,__... __.,._.__ _.._._...___ _-____ _ ... _.._... _ .__._ WHEREAS, City staff contacted Mr. Brooks about tlus on a number of occasions: by letter to Mr. Bmoks dated September 4, 2008, at a meeting at City offices on September 22, 2008, and on site � meetings on Apri128, 2004, and June 11, 2009; and Wf�REAS, after the meeting au June 11, 2004 the parlffng lot was still not iu compliance, City staff decided to bring the matter to the attention of the Planning Commi��ion as specified in Sec. 61.108 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code which states "The zoning administrator shall notify the plazuung commission when a development covered by a permit or other matter is not in compliance with any of the conditions imposed upon such use permit. The commission may, at a public hearing, foIIowing notice to the owner of subject property and other adjacent pmperty owners as specified in section 61.303(c), aud upon determination that the con@iteons imposed by such approval are not being complied with, revoke the authorization for such approval and require that such use be disconrinued_ The commission, in lieu of revoking the permission, may impose additional conditions, modify axisting conditions, or delete conditions which aze deemed by tlie commission to be unnecessary, unreasonable or impossible of compfiance: '; and Vi�HEREAS, notice of a public hearing at Yhe Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission was mailed to pmperty owners withiu 350 feet of 2057 Laurel as required by Section 61.303 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code' and moved by Morton seconded by in favor unan�mous against � .. �. a--� �,� 10-332 Z.F. # 08-083992 Planning Commission Resolution Page 2 of 4 � WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on August 27, 2009, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 61303 of the Saint Paul L,egisiative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: i. Qn May 30, 2008, David Brooks, the property owner, submitted a site pian for review for a uew pazldng lot. 2. During the review of the site plan, Mr. Brooks told staff that the pazking lot was intended for use by the tenants of the apartment building at 205'1 Laurel and not for use by staff or customers of the restaurant at 2057 Laurel. 3. On June 11, 2008, DSI staff approved the submitted site plan that was showed the following: s The parking lot would be located next to the side of the building. • The parldng lot would be paved with `Bituminous". • Stormwater would drain to the alley. • The parking lot would be striped to provide 6 parking spaces. � • A 6' privacy fence was shown on the approved site plan on the east property line to meet zoning requirements to provide a visual screen between the parking lot and the adjacent residential pmperiy. This fence was to extend from the rear properly line to a point approximately 65 feet south of the rear property line. In addition a 6' high privacy fence was shown on the approved site plan ruiming east to west from the south end of the privacy fence to be built on the east property line to the apartment building. This fence and its location was intended to m;nim;ze the visual impact and noise from the parking lot on the adjacent house while also keeping the lawn south of the parking lot open to view. • A lilac hedge would be planted in front of the fence running along the south edge of the parking lot. • The azea between the east to west fence and the front of the property would not be affected. 4. On September 4, 2008 DSI staff conducted a mutine inspecrion of the parking lot to see if it was built in conformance with the appmved site plan. Staff observed a number of areas where the pazking lot was not built as shown on the approved site plan and sent a letter informing the property owner of the noncompliance. The areas of concern included: . The pazking lot was paved with recycled asphalt. Recycled asphalt is not an approved paving material under Sec. 62.316 wluch requires that "All parldng spaces, driveways and off-street pazldng facilities shall be paved with asphalt or other durable, dustless surfacing or of material comparable to the adjacent street surfacing in accordance with other specifications of the zoning admiuistrator." Where asphalt is used to pave parking lots, the City requires a"hot mix bitumiuous." The City does not accept recycled asphalt because it • breaks up after a year or two. Therefore, it is not a durable materiai. Recycled asphalt is also not consistent with the submitted site plan that specified `Bituminous." �f 10-332 ZF. # 0&083992 Planning Commission Resolution Page 3 of 4 • The pazking spaces were not stdped as shown on the submitted and apgroved site plan � although the individual spaces were idenfified by signs that were attached to the side of the aparlment building. • The privacy fence required by the Zoning Code and shown on the east pmperty line in the submitted and approved site plan had not been built • The east to west privacy fence shown on the approved site plan had actually been built approximately 35' south of where it was shown on the appmved sife p1an. • The lilacs shown on the approved site plau had not been planted. • The work was done without City permits. Pernrits were required for the paving and the fence. 5. City staff talked to Mr. Brooks about the azeas of noncompliance at a meeting at City offices on September 22, 20Q8, and meerings on the site on Apri128, 2009, and 7une i l, 2009. During tlus period the following construction activity occumed at the parking tot: • A privacy fence was installed along the east pmperty line. However, the fence was not built on the pmperty line as shown on the submitted and a}�pmved site plan. Instead, the new_privacy fence was constructed appm?�imately 1.5' back from the properly line. An existing chain link fence on the property line, wluch should ha�e been removed Had construction of the privacy fence complied with the appmved site plan, was not removed. During these discussions, it was not cleaz who owned this chain link fence. However, at � the August 27, 2009 pubfic hearing Mr. Bmoks stated that the chain link feace was on his pmperty. Finally, the newly constructec3 privacy fence stopped appm�mately 25' south of the rear pmperty line instead of extending all the way to the reaz pmperty line as was shown on the submitted and approved site plan. • Shrubs were planted in front of the south fence as well along the south edge of the parlffng lot. • There was also a discussion about a picnic table and bench were built in the area south of the pazldng lot. These were not shown on the originat site plan. However, smatl unprovements like this do not require a City pernut aud generally do not require City apprnval. Therefore, the Yable and bench are not considered to be out of conapliance with the appzoved site plan. 6. The following azeas of the parldng lot were not in compliance with the appmved site plan on August 14, 2009 when DSI staff inspected the site and took photograghs for the pubiic fiearing: •'The patking Iot is paved wifh recycled asphait and not "hot mix". . The parking spaces aze not stdped Spaces aze ideniified by signs on the side of the apartment building. • The fence along the south edge of the paridng lot is appmximately 35' south of where it was shown on the site plan. • The fence along the east pmperty line is set back appmximately 1.5' from the pmperty line and an existing chain link fence on the pmperly line was left in place. This resulfed in a strip of land between the fences that is difficutt to maintain. • 7. Cazs are sometimes garked in the drive laae on east half of the lot � 2v - - �---� - - — - 10-332 Z.F. # 08-083992 P jannin�v Comuvssion Resolution � Page 4 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Comurission, under the authority of Legislative Code Sec. 61.108 and based upon the evidence, testimony, records and report of staff submitted during the public hearing, demonstrate that the parking lot constructed at 2057 Laurel Avenue does not comply with the site plan approved in File # d8-083992 on June 11, 2008 and, that the property owner, must therefore take the following actions to bring the said pazking tot into compliance with the approved site plan to the extent that the said site plan is hereby modified by the following condifions: 1. The entire parking lot shall be re-paved using bitumuious material as shown on the approved site plan. "Hot mix" bitwniuous shall be used, as is the material commonly understood in the paving industry as"bitutninous," in order to provide the "durable, dustless" paved surface required for parldng lots in Sec. 63.316 of the Legislative Code. 2. The pazking lot shall be striped to identify the required six pazking spaces. To prevent cars from parking in the drive lane, the pazldng lot must be marked "1Vo Parking in Drive Lane" either by signing the pavement or by installing on the privacy fence at least 3 signs indicating the "no pazldng" area The grade of the parking lot after the paving must be such that the lot continues to drain towards the alley and not onto adjacent pmperties. 3. A 6' high privacy fence must be conshucted just to the south of the pazking lot as shown on the • approved site plan. The privacy fence may be located up to 66' south of the reaz property line or approxunately 8' south of the parking lot to provide room for snow storage. A row of shrubs sha11 be planted and maintained along the south side of the fence as shown on the approved site plan. The fence that was built approxnnately 35' south of the pazking lot may be removed or may stay in place or may be relocated to screen mechanical equipment on the east side of the apartment building. 4, The privacy fence that was improperly located near the east property line can remain in is current location. However, the privacy fence must be extended north to the reaz property line as shown on the submitted and approved site plan. In addition, the entire existing chain link fence on the east property line, including any fence posts and footings must be removed as shown on the submitted and approved site plan. Following removal of the chain link fence any stumps in the area between the privacy fence and the east property line must be removed and the area must be restored with new ground wver of either grass sod or grass seed planting. This ground cover shall thereafter be maintained as long as the parldng lot is in eacistence. 5. Pernuts from the Department of Safety and Inspections must be obtained for the paving and fence work before work starts. 6. All Work on the fence, paving and restorative landscaping must be completed no later than October 2, 2009. � _ .�. . - � � - - ... .. r . 10-332 MINUTES OF THE ZONfRG COMMITTE� Tfiursday, August 27, 2Q09 - 3:30 p.m. City Councif Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall aad Court House 15 WesE Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF: Aiton, Donnefty-Cohen, Faricy, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, and Morton Margulies Tom Beach, Samantha Langer, Patricia James and Peter Wamer The meeting was chaired by Commissioner MorEon. Laurel Apts Parking !ot #2 - 08-083-992 - Public hearing fo consider revocafion or modification of parking lot site plan approved June 11, 2005, for fai)ure to meet conditions of approval, 2057 La�ref Ave. � Tom Beach presented the staff report with a recommendation that the proper[y owner make the changes necessary to bring the parking tot af 2057 Laurel Avenue into compfiance wiffi fhe -. approved sife-plan Tor�Beach etso-stated-Dist€ict 13 had naE responded and t}�ere were a---- -- --- letters in support, and 0 letters in opposition. At the inquiry of the Commissioners, Mr. Beach, confirmed that staff is asking that the chain link fence be removed, but the wood fence can remain where it is located. - At the questions of the Commissioners, Mr. Beach, stated fi�at ffiere were some changes done since fhe City last cor�tacted the appticant. The changes included a fence on the east property line that was built in the wrong place and additional landscaping. Mr. Beach sfated that he woutd Iike compfiance by October 2, 20d9. � David Brooks, the applicarrt, stated that the City Staff approved the fence where it was located and the maferia( used fo pave ffie parking (of; sfating thaf tfie maferiaf was dura6te and dustfess and that the area was small enaugh to allow this material to be useal. Mr. Brooks submitted photas of the property. He stated that he did not follow the original plan, buf he believes this plan suits the ne�qhborhood bet#er because it conceals building equipment. He stated that the contractor did not take out a permit when he started the building. Mr. Brooks also stated he believes his neighbor has animosdy foward him. Upon questions of the Commissioners, Mr: Broo[cs, stated he could comp(y wifh the originat si�e plan, but he stated that the City Staff said the changes he made were agreed upan. Ne stafied ftiat he does not have it in writing that ffie recycled asphalt and the acf af moving the fence from the original site plan was approved by the City StafF. Mr. Brooks also sfated tFiat he cannot stripe the asphalf used and it is his belief that he has complied with the requirement of the - approved site plan. He also reiterated fhat he believed he had the approval to move the privacy ferice from ff�e original site pian. Mr. Brooks stated he would like an exception to leave both the wood and chain link fence in place. He also sfafed that fhe adjoining property owner had not contacted him directfy regarding his concems wifh the chain �ink fence. No one spoke in support. .� �. � i 10-332 • Zoning Committee Minutes File# 0&-083-992 — Laurel Apfs Parking Lot Page 2 of 3 Nick Buettner, 291 W 7"' Sfreet, Unit 1704, Saint Paul, spoke in opposition. He sfated fhaf he has no animosif}r towards Mr. Brooks. He stated his concems are fhat Mr. Brooks did not follow the origirtaf site pian. Mr. Buettner explained he wouid like the current fence, that is parallel with fhe street, moved back because the cacs headtighfs in the parking {ot shine into tfie windows of his property. He afso added that he believes it vvould help wifh the noise. Peter Wamer, the City Attomey, advised Mr. Buettner to show exacfiy which fence he was concemed with on a map. Mr. Wamer aiso stated that the map that was referred to was the originat site ptan, stamped for approval by the City. Qt the inquiry of the Commissioners, Mr. Buettner, reiterated that he objects with the location of the fence due to the noise and the headlights shining into his windows. He further expiained he would fike the chain link fence removed so the area beiween the chain link fence and wood fence can be mainfained. Mr. Buettner aiso stated the fence does not continue all the way to the alley as the site pfan sfates it should. He stafed because it is not compieted, as the sife plan shows, he has issues with drainage into his garage during monfhs where srsow removal is required. Mr. Buettner also stated he would like the parking spaces to be striped. To'm Beach confirmed that in the original site plan the fence was supposed ta go all the way back to the alley, M Cher(y Beaumier, 2052 Seiby Avenue, spoke in opposition. Ms, Beaumier explained her concerns regarding the parking lot including the noise, making sure the par{cing spots are marked correctly so more than six cars are not in the lot, and car headlights shining into their hotase. Ms. Beaumier aiso mentioned she would like to see asphalt used for the lot. She also stated she feels this decreases their property value. She further explained that fhe property is not maintained during the winter and she would like to see the fence removed and hedges added. She submifted photographs for the record. Steve Wolfe, 2052 Selby Avenue, spoke in opposition, Mr. Woffe stated the parking lot does have a huge impact on their property. He reiterated thai more that six cars have been in the lot at one time and that the property was nof maintained in the winter. At the inquiry of the Commissioners, Tom Beach sfated that to his knowledge no one from the restaurant parks in this lot. He also stated that there are signs posted limiting who can use the � parking spaces. Tom Malowe, 2077 Ashland Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Malowe stated his concems with fhe picnic area on the south side of the fence. He also sfated that more than six cars have been parked in the lot at any given time. Mr. Malowe aiso has concems with fhe garbage cans in fhe atley. David Brooks stated that the garbage cans in the alfey were needed during remodeling the property. He atso stated that the additional vehicles in the lot belonged to people remodeling the building. Nfr. Brooks stated that he does have a company hired for snow removal. He � further expfained that has not received any compiaints regacding noise and if neighbors do ha�e � 25 10-332 Zoning Committee MinuEes Fite# 08-083-992 — Laurel Apts Parking !ot Page 3 of 3 complainfs they should confacf fhe pofice. He a(sa stafed no one at the '[28 Cafe par(cs in fhis parking lot because they have vatet parking which they rent from Saint Thomas. He afso stated that he built up the parking !of eight inches and he believes if is sivped right so that there is no run-off ir�to the neighbo�'s yard. The pubfic hearing was c(osed. Upon the inquiry of the Commissioners, Mr. Beach confirmed fhat he verbally approved fhe paving materiaf used in the parking lot due to the small s¢e and the movement of the fance to the south if some other issues were corrected, particularly the fence on the east properiy line, which seemed to cause the most concems, This issue was not addressed by the appficant. Upon further inquiry of the Gommissioners, Mr. Beach confirmed that the approved site plan was submifted by fhe property owneCs arcfiitect. He also sfafed that tf�e fence was builf wifhouf a permit and there has not been a permit applica6on. Mr. Beach stated thaf he recommended six feet high for fhe fence. After discussion Commissioner Brian Altom m�ved.appCOYaI brith conditions to conform to the ._ _. ._ origina{ site plan by October 2, 2009 and obtain afl necessary permits. Commissioner George Johnson seconded the mofion. The motion passed failed by a vote of 7-0-0. Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays -0 drafted by: � � Samantha Lan� Reccsrding Secretary Submiffed by: Abstained - 0 ��`Jy1 �PfzA� Tom Beach Zoning Section !�� t "� - b Approved �: 0 Gladys MoP on Chair • r� 1.r i � - _,- - �_ - _ .�._: - v. _- _� �� a, _ . � -- -= ___ -- -- - _ 10-332 DEPARTML?NT �F SAFETYAI�J ATSPF.CrIO1vS Bob Sesrier, Directnr is; �� ` 1 t» ` -- .� . � . i y �' �_' _ �. _§ ;_::,:'' . � BFmcthSYreelEas� � StParc�d?'vmerota3 . Septembex 4, 2Q08 • '.: . . >;.. .� DavidBrooks <.� ` - -- . , , 366 7acksoa,Steet .=^. �`- -- — StPaulYvIN55101 _ � , RE: . Sit�PIan(File#08=083992�=foUow-upmspection ParI�g Iot foz Laui�eYApatfinenfs'at 2057 Laicrel Ave DearMr.Brooks: ' ;; j: , 4TG,.. . " Telephmr� 651 266-9090 itute200 _ � Facr'nmlc 65126(r9124 � T07102¢;. �'� : FT=b: wv.w..staautwv%dsi ,i.: - - -' . - . . On 7une 11, Z008� the City of Saintpaul appzoved t7ie site plan for the constmction of a new parkm:g lot lobated at 2A57 Laure� Avenue.' A condition of the'appmval of tbe site plan is tUat; • t16' high 'scre�numg fence is'erecfed along the'east and soutfi sides of tfie paz�ing lot • L�1acs are planted a(ang the s6uSli'side qf 6' higli screenmg fence. • Tfie pa"r� lot is paved with aspliat£' '� •_. Tfie'parlffng lot is gradect so tbzt s'tomi watCr is�directe3�.tlie alley. � Tlie dumpsters will be placed on tlie pioperty aud screened. • On Septeviber 4, 2008, I did a foll'ow-up inspection for'compliauce witli the approved site plan. I noticed ttie fnitowingt. � . •. The 6' high scre. EIIIlSg fance along 4ie south'side of the parking lot was bnilt 36' soutfi ofthe parking Iot hm'If: Tfiis fence cras biu7,t without a pe�it On the appmved site pJari, tius fence is located next to Yhe park;no Iot where it ptovides betEer'screening $om the honce nesY door. The fence uuzstbe mbved . to wfleie it is'shotvn ou the appioved site pIa� ,.. . • • L�aos nms�t be planted 'm.'fxnnt of ffiis fence as shown on tlie apgtaved sife plan � • The 6' Iugh scre enin a 'a fence �long the easYSide of tfie parl�g lof that was shbwn on the approve site plan has not been erected: 'This fence is iequired by zoniag regnlaiions to screea the lot •- Tlie parking.lot 3s paved with graveL It myst be paved vai'th asphait �. The parkislg lot appeais to be elevated aboye the neighbormg pmperEy. If is not cleat why tbis vras d bne. . . J ; : . . . ' . . . • The dumpsteis aze in the'allep andnof on the pmperty. '- � Tfie dumpstBrs are not screened; Zoning reqttites tfi�at dmnpsfets be sexeened. • The uea wliere tTie dnmpsters are slio�t on the site glan is not leveL It does not Iook ]�1ce dunipsters cari be pr� hera: If tfiey aze intended fin ga someplice else, this needs to be discnssed. Dne to tiiese disctepancies; the condiiions / iem o£t6e site plan are not Ueing met. Yon �st conect L�1PS0 LSSUES immr.riia4rlY, . . . � . ' . . � If you have any questions regazd'mg tfiis site plan, please contact me at 65I-266-9d85 (phone) or corinne h7leyPa ci stgaal_mn_ns (ema�). Regazds, . � �..:-��. -�: Coririne A. Ti11ey , IISI7ax�ing and Site PIanReview ^^- - k.::.. .. . _ Z7 K;rt�rua��cu�ri�,cjaai£vp�tor5nix"iyEnpldqe� � . fr<,_�; T' 4 a TiF"xA£ci"�r'..ivi t7P SAE%PY Bob Szssler, D'v�ecfar' 10-332 O GTTY OF SAIlVT PAUL � � . co,s�xc�srnt�nlc . ' - r�r�ho,�: 6s1 �cc-vo9a - . - : • � , G7vutopher&.Colemmr,Irl¢yor: �SFavthSimetEartSldre30D . FarsfnuTe:. 551d6(r9124�:.. . - ' . SYPmr� hfamesota 55101-IO24 �' fPeb: -www.slaavL¢ov/dsi `_.,�. - � - " .. _ x'�_: ' . � : ' : e .'� . . . , . �_ . - _ � ' � . . . . r�''S. y`� _' . . ' . - . ;_� _ -_ . . �.`k�_; - . - . ' � � ' . . ;-�:.-. _ - - ' � s.a�r�:. . � - � . _ � � . � - . - ---" � _ � _ -" [;°i .- ;-_ - -. � '°�s�Sr'- `. ". ' ' " - . - ' ' . . ' . ' " . . . .� . . -, _.: .. � ;. ;. .. • . _ . - . . ' . ,_ - = ' . 7ime 1.1, 2008 � , . .. - . :.. . . .. , .... . _ . _ - - . . . �.:::-.:�:;:-:.� .�....�:`.�_ _=_ . - . • v`:;�'a• - - -- _-' �.: ....: .�� - . -. _:.- . •-' . �' . ' . _ '- - . - .`.:-:.:,,. . - _' . - - - - _ ,..�� .. . . . . . ...... _ . . ` , - DayidBmoks.,.}; , •_ :_a;_. : . . . � . . - - ::.,;, ` ' . . 366.7ack'son Sireet. � - • . � � � � � . �- - StPeiilMu 551Q1 � . . - . . ' ' � , . . . . No hghfmg �s show�i on tlie ptan: If tighting i� progased far the 1ot, it iaust be shielded 'and a�ed so.tfiaf it does notprodnce glare oz' egzces'sive lightl�veLs fort$e neig�boffigproperEy. , 2. Permifs andfee., �'Apeffiitfrom this deparEment (651266 90Q� vs required ta grade arid pave the pazlang Iot auclto constmcE the fence. The ctinhactor can agply foF this pemut . ' A parkTand dedica#iori fee is not reqiured for this project (Even thongii aevr spaces are being . , - added, no new}mits aie lieing�added:} . � : 4: 7�nie Iunit aud inspeciion Work cbvezedby this site plzn mustbe'completed no �atez than .. y'.vv . . ' �iiv .l:_. �, .6/11/09�`ti.`siteirispe�tionwitibeschednTedtiasedontfiisdate.: - � ` Ifya� have,anY qdestions, ybu can reach me at 651-266-9086 br tom.tirac�ci.sipani.amns. °; �- Smberely,. � :_ , . _ TomBeacfi��._` • . . Zoning SPecialist . - . . ' RE: APProval of S�Ee Plan 08-083992. .: _ .., ~_...., : - .� _ - . • - ParI�g I,ot for Lanrel Apai-hnenfs at �057 Laurek Ave '`x `' ' � DeazMr.Brooks: - � � ' - . • The site plau refezenced aiiove is approved suIiject to tlie foiioi�mg condifions: � � I. S�te i�provemenfs `- Tlie pioposecl pazkmg lot is with. 6 ga.rkiug'sp`aces and xoom. for' irash dumpsteis andrecyc.ling.. A 6' ?iigTs screening fence is :siiown long 43ie easE and soirtb"sides: _. Lilacs ate shown'on the soutfi'side for �addiiidnai scieening. Tfie Ibfi w�1 be pavedwitis asphait an�. . graded so t5a't stumi vrater is diiecfeil. to f�ie a1I8p: No new saweis aie pzoposed.. • -�� . y�� .m t• 1 � y�� .i� � v�� . ' •� . 2 (� . . �. � -,_ -� _-_ _ _-..�..-�.,: . �: � - . '_ . — AA[i�AEGUEmployer - t � AP� -- Dep� ��:": 200 � 8 Fo . _ Sain - 651=. ; APPL[CAIVT� 10-332 �, r� A , � OW�fER (If diffecent fhan � aPPlicanfJ PROdECT Project name! c Project address ( Location � . Legal descriptian of #he propert�r : . t-.o"�L � ex � !f3` �f �- �3 ' �u�t�c� ��C �� / � � � � . _ ��a _:_:��.-- _ - _ - ^ �� y i .. ��„ �.. , . �3�k_:h:�:t_�`f - :�- . . . �°.�°�a° � :��. � ��I- . � '� �. �..:x-:z., i� `:=-" - _'�' avtao • , m-= m Sd:1S3SH�2t�'.N05�D : . � aa� ` �a � ' ' Ys s,;e- °'i - - = '.�^ - / ; . . _- _ - , . . , � - . � - -_=K�`°,-'` "- -r :. / f}:_ "'.+�.'{.='�'° : � .rh: �. � � � . - . ._-- __ - -- . .. - :� � _ ' �s:: ::�':}� - -=.�. . : :�; ~:�;� ��._�`. , . . x Y:�:°�:�` :�-�.�- . " - _ ��v�.� . -. ' . - • :in's .'t ^ `.�^��i.-`,":s `�'' ' " " • - -4`- =.gln :{: i� _ . . . . . . . _ ',: `' .'; ' _ : �� ,.. • . _ _ y � Q . . -• - • ' . _ ' _ _ . � W I q • ` I a 'v-Z - _ - .. _ -..h _ -, 1'- y ` _- - - .�-F E� . _'�� _ . ''"; I � � � J.1�{�t . - '•` •_ - •-" [ ... gR� � � I/Iv i�'�°' J. � . F ? 4 �»'z::',. r7` �'�i '- °� ?O �. •_•. ' r } = ' � . � . ` �z . o : _ - � : -::��+�-:'`:`'� :_ -': - .w ,xs _ � . �.' �. . . ��ie-.�. - .== s'<=' . � " I " � `.�'i'"=. :'., tr: " _ ...r�.�:_�:�.� � • - r , ".' 1'.'a`iw.� i:.. +' ; � ' ��"O� � o':':� ��ye�_..rr.4«i' _ . > � ��. �, z -; x?�� ¢ ;� _ �;, � - . . :� e . ��H'�f��'%QfIY'J�' : � lil� . •� • J � .. a � . . . �.- .� . , � _. .�. : �J `m - I.u jU ..: Sr - .�' �' '. S • - •', • .:' ' ' 3 _. "� I " < _ �=� L. �O."�.�� :��'.;: �: - W y k , . tp. . ' " -sA "' 1= =,�� . . 't4. " � .. ' , � �< b . • � °0. -�' - - .r• : . ' .m'.: ��: . q c� �ao, �, '? .<- .'' '.' �' v h:--r�' ._'� : 1 j . � �xe j0� P t � �. . . . .c � -•-! .� m� .T'��` .`� Q � ¢ _ _ _`, — `F' � - '•..::.'. °._ ..:� �x.:�`� m � �� - - " • *�?° � ':4�-P°' '..° � � - - -�- l; �.i�. ,'� �ic:-° o � �.� .9-95' . .`_,� 4M- _ . � . � . - � . . . - .�-� . . -: • - _�' .:: .:.��•�..r . -. o t � � .. � - "' •S£ ' 40 t=NOf1YA373 ' � , a 210 . .- z.. o _ m � � -. ' ` • - _ "-' ' 4b ` :. : 1 Y ��::�;:,�.�=�rt �;_�::. . ` i . ' V "�-S£ 3�13AN3 Q110fl 9 NLLSIX3-: � . �' :'�c'.z;': _:i :[: ;'. ; V � "s•�':o x r ' �4 , I . 40l=NO LLVi 13 13,214p - �{ _ � ` " ' '.:� .� s - • .e.? - G � � ..°`�. -�� se e - .: - .r'.�`ee .; . �. J (� !+ e. . _ . _ .y,• �� . oe- •YO 'f2. . , fL$6= ' � .��'- `�=''-�� C '�q, �.. � � .. � °'�� aon� � .<.; � — - g s' <F., � . go. � i.� '- - '=:.,..:3.:' - � ' " . ..: � $ . . 69�� \`'. :^��-=.:: .' � . . ' t- �t �2y':. :rx.�.. �� . BS. . - 2 . . � ,.f- o`'." . .. F's. .. � � ' ' . ' HTjNiy-j � � @e °C i �'ya : �a .. ' ° s _ a � _ . . N0.9 :. �. . " , o ... . ' � . �A'_ ' - �; o � e : - ea , ' s Q ° •�i� < " � � .. ' t 7TVq{ 9MNIb1 9 NlN@'� . � '.�� . • a �� Q� 8L11� ` ° e 3i1. 7 lYM: . . _ �NO�-.` - :. � .� .. . . . o@: ` :'�s _;.. ( �Yjans.snpNtwni�s) . : � "- • :k:`:��`" ` .:: , �: _ . 3 r�ty�hti a�vt�� . � : �:�:$:;::�:: `: - . . . . � . , � • - � � � t `o- �' _ 1 't'^ • - , 'S � � . � ' � �t v .�� _ 1' -1 �� _ s' '. . Q "� ' . " : . _ _� � � .. . " � .. -0. _ . . . �'� WQ'-.. , � f - . " J E�; c: . . � . � _ . , L . ' . - . . �W.?� mE..' ' . . . cs � '¢ ' m ' • . - , . zz '�.�1 •: a.'JC. �' m.a¢:.= . - o a � - �� (j .. - : ' -. -Q,'�!L„�;.. �� c i:' - - - '� ad¢ �.o QDi/�;. E.c.. . ' �.: � - • c °� W H . w ti- g!$� ; -� :.. i � �X . . • ��V n iG' " . -- � "l:'+ ,-' N G.. ' . , , -�`.�i � Q' 'ya�41GlVY`� � . - � �•Q-• .. " - .�:��'.'y� r�¢ O 3.i?;`_ , t p � J`<C�2ZG�iN " 0�, _ q � t_ � " ' " �o .WwC W l @'�._ ,�;:;�::;;• �- a^ aG�o�LL'[�1��..,'�� . �' �O_: ' '_' G. ,p �?`�� - rf:.:..=: • ' . � Q@UQlil4_�1� �I� � , �.; � �aC..'� y �C`< ' - �+��-;', - , � P , _ . ' . _. 3 � C/.}�= e t°. , r `._ - �� }r ;_�i .: : -- . . - - �_.- _ _ _' _ _ ' _ _._ ?�' ... _ `_" < ' '� ' . -. ' . ... _ �. .`- �'�.:4" . 3 i i + � S � S � � � � �� . F . � . � u. 1�1�'� � X � A V� V T� � • � .. -", �.10-332 `�"' ° "' m �� ' �,� � � �. � ��:�' �� C_ �J �. ' �� _ . - - . � . �T � ' . � �: -�.. _�`� � - . : . : , � . . _ . � _- � - s �� -- - - . . . . � . . . � . , ., ii`m � . �• ' � ' . _ ' _ • . . � . . : 4 � � � ; � .. _ . � . ' _ . � � � � � � -O . � _-- �,__�' � F ' �HO � ' ' � � � o JI ppp ' . ,,� ' L .r a '. -. - . ^ ' . S (f � ' �4'-�tx._�°"�\ � . .. ' "' '� O . : `+'? k: y: . o , ts _: y � W } ` _ - ' ' q::i� ., "�"`:;'� ' .. . ' . W,� a . E . J '.c'x:p�� ]:�?:�Y`-�i3'��+''i ; . =s�. I F 'ti y' �.':`:T� :,,>. •,.,�,�-.� , .-��- . ! . y'n.� ' .t�' � sL t� ' . . . .. �rs>.�� -:�,. ,_. �..r: ._: ' ..: . ' � £` � 5 � : �."4,:9.':j ....�':. ab12 1 c . '{:�' .:: q'a:`.- f 4t � 'Y.. i . , t ', ' " . -\:�; ='- � 1 . I Q`N��t \, 2 � . . �y . ._. . .. . J.:1 pS` �:.�!!_.;. �t c �? �? .� ` �L ,'.' "v . � � ::. .: � ' _ n � (� � Ol :..•.. p� ` �' :.l�':. :<� FFIr, I _ . .� � , '�?�:':t�.: . � '9aY .RF' •. _ � •_ -��.: ... � -'D _ .. �. � . . �'' .�'��._ _._.., _ , , � 9 �C .1 � � ' _ 0 , �� v _ . . . : ' �` y ' 2b . . - 'IY ��."'�' � •• . : . . .. ! ' . ��:ti ' �. 4 .��c�Lia_ _ Wv{ :. '�=d� r :•. . � - .. �.'.; � ae �,= ' jf � �z ' xy.u�rc�. '�-�.�.�- . �. �'' . - ;;� x? =. ° � . � ::,.;- . �.. , �� Z- ;; � • `m ¢.a''. . w . !�� .,: S � , fI S- . ... ' .. Y ' . � =q �: � :' - �`� :;.�. a ° � ._. , '�'. � . . ..� �� } -.� � , �.�- . . � a I . �� . . Q ' .� '�< � `�° � CJ -yw ��n::. ��:�:�� ` 3 • . 3 .;��r.. S ."�^' - .'. � 4 s �i. �, '�� ! : .•x: f� '�3. �JJ'� . :3 : . z . •� o �< `o! . . o . . : . � . : , � j . ._ •' 9 (� ' • - ' - �` r ': • •�. � �`b'' � ' �� ,. ¢ � � � . lo � ;. .�1. �`3 b3 ,�:. - '.. . . „' - Fb�. . . Z r �+u —_ _ � .• . p._, �:. . . . I •.'1;, - . .'4,. .• ca. � �f "@1 j � Y ' . �—�� t�� '.. . D O f . O t •• • P @ e �, • � y ; i Z i` - . :�,y, 9S� . _ �_ ,�_�} . . ', {'. , a,, i � :' . r � . . - . ' ' ' ;,'' � � .. . � '_ `a - .. sc�roo�=rvouvn3�3 ao ` - ,. z � i .; f. t'v: ' - • -- —._T _ ._ _ 47j ..,.n- � - � -- 9 m �' Z � 3d0 c' :�° :•�'.. ` �� 4 , 99 OO� �" � £'40{, IypLlV�3l3 a�.�3 671l189 Nl1SIX3' . 2 ' •_�o�'.,� �,� �� d _ s � , � . �� . 7 Z'qa �e eF, V ,^ £OL � ~2` + � � VI '9�, 2 i � £L'66=+VOLLtlA373 a ' � f. �. w. o. r F� `{ ' @a. b �. . � . ss \ o. . �£o`+�' ,• � ,� �'�' F° ee� . c,� . ' •h3bM' aNO�' - - � 9° �e - s � , +. s�, ' �`'ss '-p � � �I s .� . yps�,@.. . . - .b' 9 g.. •;<<s; o @� " m4 � • s. ^'� °'� �►� 0 � a3ll(19 aMa 621fYJ '�NO�. : � 2Fe6 �� .nbM �NIW1Y13a � �. � �' � � `se e � � °� 3 _ ".: . : . . . . . _ .,.- ;s�.,::>'. . ' � 6 � . � � C36Yj�s SAaNt+ . . _ � . . t� :;::'� u __ ;.': .';': ;: ': _ - � ? N . . WRIl81- .� : �. , . -� �• .. - .. . 3 n: nr �n�;Q��r�� : :; _ a ;� : .: :. . . . . --� �..:. � �O. . ' , ' . ' . . � . � . - . . _ . ' � . O�l'}: : 'd . . - :'r �� ' - ly v ��.� . . - . . � • �� _ � ' '�e::. tQ� . _. . . _ - . . .. � � 7 �: ' :;i �t�::f"Q'L., i . . . . _ - ' -' El �- ! .� :.. �: ._ ; f � _ e .. _ _ ' �� .. _':.Y`;F`�4:3s:=.�• � .. :.r;�l�zV~a;;%, , " �_�.. '�' �". ,. _ _ . �� _ _ `'.2u1� 'V... _. . ' . . . r! �.� � ��. . . - ._YZ"p.:,_ '__. .� Fp • � „ _ _ . .. 2 : ��'�tK:'�W��a .I`.ii' . . �.:--- � s B'. . - _.:. �:,adm= .�.:: :-, . . _ ;. . . :.� ii:0.00::�o?_.�-:--'�" - . � - , • • � � -�� '�..' .'.i�:.p N..,. _� Wk.'.��j '_ •. .�._L(., . .. . - " • . � • . : � W _..W�:� ..., 4`� - . .. ... ..:. _ . a `aY¢.•.r- 0-::...' ' . _ a . . . . - ' _ : -.. - >-N'�tiii+ivr4C�� . • , " . . . _ - . �..'. ,. !�EO{2Za+� i1�. • . . . .. � ' � .�`,{.: �.�� wwrc.- �. ..4 0 �o t� u�c�(A ` ` . . _ ' � W _ ` ?�� %tmtfndiii:�1 �. . . . �. - • E . ' y._��_: � . .. . � . . .9 � - . . ,. � ..�� - ^ mc is. _ e 1z-�...� ..—��-rh��v.. .�.-a>-'1^'.. ._+.l' ' �^ .�:-.e_ -� -: �- �w.....e.�� ; .. _� . : _ _ . _ v-_, \ �__.S�p.� 1 y �� _ . � • _:' V h . � • . �lY J . � ' ` A YcYF`�`..'' , � ` � � $, � �,�,� � � ,. �"` � _>� � F :. _,:�'-�� - -�- -�:� "�`� �.�� ;��'� �� ; �� a ' a � �, 4 - �, >. ° , �� t w � ` :� < ; '-� t ;� � � � � R �� Y �'rvrv� , .� ':N�}, . �; �, $ � *F' 0.'c75 � bekk tr � . . ! i.�4�4' .. 3` � '� � � �s'`.+'#(� tA��'v fi� :"tv.t— .�...,..� le' y3y �. y"JiR Y � . .�YW� r: .�..-1tY.J.'.,�'.`. �� 'L �<%P�': �� F 'yJ.` ! • i : C, . �' ^ 'i _ 5 ��-� . .�._.a'i�. . + �' '�_��. � �Glr �cl1a� S�auS ��J =� `: . "'; , �� - - �:�'�: , ,�=« �� q y j � 5 5� � �� ;1`-..,oe"4 t ,z �.."_ . �.. "�.. . . � , � �". . L "-, " s, 4tr� . .f"T�'' £ 50 � � � _<s I j f mi t ; i �• _ K�-.i»._�..d IDBfYNAVE �,�� E � � 10-332 , .a,� v�7 � ? s �,�' .�E —� � ., :,.�'--x�,, " '- L • . "'�cEeo�ifa4 ° � ry �,��`� "*a�FP� i *.. Rs-'_ ..�.,�' r�i °s-. " S4/ �1 `�` ;"_ ,� �^.�' �``"'� i a "'*-_. `° � °.:. � "�NT ^*. . �4 y '^- ". ✓� . �`°°°-... f ��Ny4�.i� � `� r ....� � `.r �, �`�-,. � j ..�z' } `Q. _ : l.�� t e�..�.;g� ;� `°-�..��.,;�-: .--F..._.,_. �6i S� F , . ' 1 } 3 � e j ~ S : e � �� .-s ! E �_� i � � � ; � . _ _ __ _.: .�_ �.�.�"�o� { 7 f �i j �_ : �.�_.° r�4 I �i = � � � � y � � � � ICAP¢OLLAYE� '�! i „�m„� ,�„ ! b � � E S e �i � � � � * � { i 4 � � _� �.__.__.� �.P-_? �.-�� L __s ____.._3 � ^.�--e—. �4EW1RT AlE � � N .�....� F t � ..' �.."�E d � p ', y b i � �'' 4 � .�._t ._ . �--.i ! � �,.�' t '� 35� itNItS�FAC1-AYB � 35 � �� f �„"' ; � p� � � " ��----� � �«.�«k i«_ � � p ...�..r«.^ y l k ��.s € � �- E yS�. , v �� ; - �1��`� � �w^� � L...� � �,�,,,,,_.� SFLBYAVE �a��F � �� ` � � � 6 mcu� « „�„SUM1iMR dVE @ P ��.$ �..._..«Ma� � G�NDAVE y ,� `i � � .�--..�.d. � � `&s.....m.......�..M..� S C� � r � : pRV�CEipNGYE _.._.. .�..m...�.. g � FIRhi]UMLVE � � ! � �.«A...,,� L�.�........,�.�...w :m.�.e.....�--�- ^ �.' � � � � � � �,s�rxneraac� i � �_."__.---°- s � ._ �� T}i1515 IWE — �_.__ ...- $ t � � G9p� CN�E„ � �_ � �� $ . _._._,_.t ._�..i $ • '.�� ptIRM1AIJMR'E � �� '� � � � 5111NTCWRAYE ��.,_�� ..� �--�—v� ��.._,_.� �e� �euaFVnv � Geublaase � 37