The URL can be used to link to this page

10-92Council File # G��o�- Green Sheet #_�Q�,�g�(� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUI�. MINNESOTA 2 � 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 Presented by s WHEREAS, Kathryn iQetson (DSI Zoning Fi1e No. 09-305133) made application to the Hoard of Zoning Appeals (the `BZA") for several variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code in order to construct a parking lot behind an existing commercial building located in a B2 zomng district at property commonly known as 665 Snelling Avenue North (PIN No. 3329231100271) and legally described as Hopkins Second Addition To St. Paul With Esmt The E 32 Ft Of S 9 Tnches Of Lot 4 And E 77 711 o Ft Of Lot 5 Blk 2; set forth in the said Zoning File; and WHEREAS, the applicant requested: (1) a variance from the 4-foot visual screen requirement for pazking lots adjoining an alley by installing landscaping (Leg. Code § 63313). (2) variances from the required setbacks: (a) south property line; 7 feet required, 5 feet proposed, (b) west property line; 4 feet required, LS feet proposed ,(c) north properry line; 4 feet requized, 1 foot proposed (Leg. Code § 63312). (S) A variance to allow alley access to the proposed parking lot which abuts residentially used ar zoned property (Leg. Code § 63.310); and WHEREAS, the BZA, on November 30, 2009, having provided notice pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.303, duly conducted a public hearing on the said application and, at the close of the public hearing, moved to 17 deny the vaziance application based upon the files and evidence during the public heazing, as substantially 18 reflected in the minutes, and based upon the following findings of fact as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 14 09-305133: 20 21 1. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 2. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 77ze property in question can be put zo a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant has owned the Snelling Avenue office building since 1978 and purchased the Blair Avenue property in 1996 with the intention of eventually removing the house and constructing a parking 1ot on the site. The existing kouse on the property is in need of extensive repair and is located on a substandard lot. It is not economically feasible to either renovate the e�sting house or construct a new house on the site. There currenYly is no off-street parking available for the office building. The Blair Avenue property is zoned for commercial use and converting the property to parking for the office building is a reasonable and permitted use. However, a smaller parking lot accessed from Blair Ave could be created on the site without the need for variances. The plight of the land owneY is due to etrcurrzstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The substandard size of the Blair Avenue property makes it difficult to develop without the need for a variance. The lot was created in the eazly 1900s and this circumstance was not created by the cunent property owner. (Lines 38 — 41 intentionally left blank) /o-�a-- 42 3. 43 44 45 46 47 48 44 50 51 52 53 S4 55 56 57 5$ 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 4. 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 �� 7b 77 78 ?9 8� S1 32 33 ',4 The pYOposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabifants of the Czty of St. Paul. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow alley access to the new parking lat. The lot would have a left tum only sign which would limit the traffic from the lot to only about 30 feet of the alley betcveen the lot and the street� Aowever, the City Traffic Engineer has determined that this alley is too narrow to supporC any addirional traffic. The applicant is requesring a variance of the provision that requires the lot to be screened from the residential use across the alley. The residential property across the alley is at a higher elevation than the proposed parking lot. A four foot high obscuring fence would be ineffective in screening the house from the lot. Instead, the applicant is proposing to 3nsta1l landscaping along the alley which will be much more effective in screening the lot. The applicant is requesting setback variances from the south and north sides of the proposed lot. On the north side the proposed parking lot will abut a parking lot on the adjacent property and a reduced setback will not affect either property. On the south side the applicant is proposing a 5 foot setback instead of the 7 feet required by code. This variance is needed in order to maintain sufficient maneuvering space in the lot. The proposed five foot setback is sufficient to provide landscaping needed to screen the lot from the street. The requested variances would increase traffic in the alley, which. According to the City Traffic Engineer, would aggravate an unsafe condition. The requested variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and consistent with the health and welfase of area residents. The proposed variunce will not impair an adeguate supply of Zzght and aiY to adjacent pro�erty, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area oY unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed parking and requested variances will not affect the supply of light or air to adj acent properties. There is no off-street parking for the office building and generally a shortage of off-street parking for the businesses along this stretch of North Snelling Avenue. The proposed parking lot will help alleviate the on-street parking demand in the neighborhood. Some area residents have expressed safety concems with cazs exiting from the alley onto Blair Avenue. This is a valid concern however replacing the existing house with a parking lot would improve the sight line on the east side of the ailey. The house on the west has a 3 foot high retaining wall with a hedge on top of that and already restricts the sight line on the west side of the alley. A commercial building addition couid be conshucted right up to the south property line and the proposed parking is a better alternative from a safety standpoint. The new parking lot will become required parking far the office building and the two properties should be combined under a single property identification number. All of the commercial properties along North Snelling Avanue extend to the alley and have alley access Co their parking lots. However this property does have an alternarive to alley aecess available and creating a loY with alley access �� -��- 8� 88 89 90 5. 41 92 93 94 95 96 97 6. 98 99 100 101 102 would alter the character of this mixed neighborhood and may have an adverse impact on adjacent residential properties. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district wheye the affected land is Zocated, nor would it aZter or change the zoning district classification of the proper�y_ Accessory parking lots aze a permitted use in this zoning district. The requested variances would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. The request for variance is not based primar-ily on a desire to increase the vaZue or income potentiad of the pareel of land. The applicant's primary desire is to provide parking far the tenants and customers of the office building. 103 WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code §61.702(a), Kathryn Nelson, on December 9, 2009, 104 duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal (DSI Zoning File No. 09-491395) from the determinarion made by 105 the BZA and requesYed a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken 106 by the said Board; and 107 108 WHEREAS, Pursuant to Leg. Code §61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was 109 duly conducted by the City Council on January 6, 2010, where all interested parties were given an 110 opportunity to be heard; and lll 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 l24 '25 26 27 28 29 30 11 VJHEREAS, The City Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the BZA, does hereby RESOLVE, That the Council of the C3ty af Saint Pau1 does hereby affirms the decision of the BZA in this matter as the Council finds that the long term use of the proposed lot does not favor alley access and, accordingly, the Council finds that the BZA did not err in its facts, findings, or procedures; and (Lines 118 —131 intenrionally left blank) / P -9 a- 132 BE IT FI3I2THER RESOLVED, That the appeal of Kathryn Nelson is therefore denied and the Council 133 hereby adopts as its own, the findings of the BZA, as set forth in $ZA Resolution No. 09-305133, in 134 support of this decision; and 135 136 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to the BZA, 137 appellant Kathryn Nelson, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. Bostrom AdopYed by Council: Date � Absent Requested by Department f: � I n� � � B�'��. ,` j . Approved by the Office of Financial Services Adoption Certified b Council cretary BY� 1�.�.S�i � Appro ed y M y� ate � BY /1.�.(/l/'�.( � By: Approved b rty Attorney gy. �2��G'�ayyn� 1 -/S-/a Apprpved M yor r Submission to Co cil l By: \ � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � j� -� �- DepartmeMlOffice/Council: Date Initiated: � ��,Att°me ' ; Green Sheet NO: 3095856 � CA - V 19 dAN 2Q10 � Contact Person & Phone: Peter Wamer 266-8710 Must Be on Council 27-JAN-10 � Doc. Type: RESOLUTION E•DOCUmeat Required: Y Document Contact: �ulie Kraus ConWct Phone: 266-87�6 _ . __.._._._.__.. ................. � � i 0�ity Attorney I' � i � 1,City Attumey I Deoartment Direckor ! 1 Number � 2 C7tvAttornev �� ' Artorne ��Fr-�t � F� � 3�vIaPar's Of6ce MayoH�t i Routing � 4'�,Coancil � i City� CounN � i Order I 5. C7erk r:f w r�a.e -- 1 Total # of Signature Pages _(Ciip AII Locations for Signature) Memorializing City Council's Tanuary 6, 2010 morion to affirm the decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appaals and deny the appeal of Kathym Neison requesfing several variances in order to construct a pazking lot behind an existing commerical building for the property commonly ]mown as 665 Snelling Avenue in Saint Paul. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R)� Planni� Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contraets Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this personlfirm ever worked under a contracf for this department? Yes No 2. Has this persoNfirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personffirm possess a skill not normally possessetl by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach fo green sheet. Inkiating Probtem, issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): The Counail is required pursuant tp City Charter to have its actions reduced to writing either in the form of a resolurion or an ordinance dependent upon the nature of the matter before it, The decis3on of Council in this matter requ'ued a written resolurion in order to comply with the Charter. Approving the resolution fulfiRs the Council's duty under the Charter. Advantages RApproved: DisadvanYages If Approveq: Disadvantages If Not Approved: ToYal Amount of Transaction: Funding Source: Financial Iriformation: (Expiain) CostlRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: January 19, 2010 10:02 AM Page 1 1�-92 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND W SPECTIONS Bob Kesaler, Direcfar CITY OF SAINT PAUL Chrrstopfier B. Coleman, Mayar December 14, 2004 Council Research 31Q City Hail St Paul MN 55102 Deu Mary Erickson: COMMERCEBUILDING Telephone 651-266-9090 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200 Facs�mde. 651-Z66A724 S1Paul,Mmnesom557D1-1024 Web. www.stpaut.rovldst I would like to conf'urn that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, January 6, 201�, for the following zoning case: Appellant: Kathryn Nelson Zoniug File #: 09 491395 Purpose: Location: Staf£ District: Board: An appeal of a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying several variances in order to establish an off-street parking lot with alley access. 665 Snelling Ave N Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval of the setback variances but denial of the alley access. Denied on a 7-0 vote I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Russ Stark. My understanding is t6at this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest Convenience and that qou will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thank you! Sincerely, NOTICE OF PQBLIC HL°ARtPTG John Hardwick Zoning Specialist The� Saint Paul City� Council will con- duct a public hearing on Wednesday, Jan- uary 6, ZOlO at 5:30 pm, in the City Conncil Chambers, Third Floor, Ciry Hall-Court House, 15 West Kello�g Boule- vard to consider the appeal of I{atUryn Neison to a ctecision of the Baard of Zoning Appeals denying several variances'in ori3er to esta6lish an off-street pazldng lot with � 09 4913951 65 Snelling Avenue Narth. Mazy Er3ckson A,sslstant City Counc#I Secretaty Dated: December 16, 2009 , �(DecemDCr2t1 . .—':ST. PAUL�LSGlIl. LEDGER —_�ae 22227185. .. � AA-ADA-EEO Employer io-9z � Ed"`:� .-. , ;:,..;..,. APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Deparhnent of Safety and Znspections 375 Jackson Stree� Suite 220 Sairst Pau� MN 53101-18d6 65I-266-9Q08 APPLICANT L� r "„ 1fiQC � V� Name of owner (if different) Daytime phone leSl PROPERTY Address__�tQ LOCATION Legaf description: zo-v�Pvio. t�lvtifi � TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: � Board of Zoning Appeafs � City Council under the provisions of Ghapier Fi , Section n Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the � a c�-t� �{ � �•: K� 6-t�� e� on /�� ve�., �e� �� , 200 `�. Fife number: (date of decisiort) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative officiai, or an error in fact, procedure or findi�g made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. -jf �-G+Q� �'R��.c �Y. ��lv W.w�.evL� d� �� ti C.e�.wT �°� �, Date J V ity agent /* ` , � \IV�� f/' y t� �� `��7'� � .� �y3� /��e�� ia92 Attachment to Appeal Applicant: Katluyn M. Nelson Date: December 9, 2009 For I,egal Description See Amended Attachment to Application Applicant believes the Boazd of Zoning Appeals made errors in their facts and findings. Appiicant submitted an Amended Application for Zoning variances wIuch was not attached or provided to the Zoning Boazd of Appeals. Secondly, the department of public works initially made no objecdons to the proposed alley at the staffmeeting and after the meeting Applicant amended its submission and pmvided amended plans to address alI of stafPs concerns. (See attached memo of Tom Beach) (See E�ibit A) At noon on the day of heating, public works submitted to Zoning Staff a report by e-mail indtcating that ailowing more traffic on the alley "could exacerbate traffic safety" with the implication that no additional traffic should be added to this alley. (See E�ibit B) Applicant did not receive notice of this memo until just 30 minutes before she was to leave for the hearing aithough ApplicanYs spouse received it a few minutes earlier after being notified by Mr. Beach that an e-mail had been sent to him forwazding a copy of the memo from public works. AppficanYs spouse tried to contact the traffic engineer and pubhc works but was informed that the traffic engineer was unavailable: Applicant believes that she was given insu�cient time to respond or to inquire as to the reasoning behind the change in the public works decision at the Iast moment and to address those concems. Applicant believes the Boud of Zoning Appeals made an enor in its facts and findings. i. Applicant proposes to conshuct a small 8 caz pazl�ng lot beIund the buiiding at 665 No. SnelIing Avenue to eliminate most of the on street pazking for her tenants and their respective empZoyees. The pmposed parl�ng lot is fo be for tenants onlv and will not be open to the general public. Applicant currently has no off street pazking for her tenants. Since the buiiduig is grand fathered, no parking is currently required. See History of Property provided by Applicant, (See E�ibit C) �: � The commercial office building to wluch the proposed parking lot will be attached sits at the northwest comer of Blair and Snelling Avenue. The building uses most of the properry associated with this pmperry (i.e., the easterly 77.7 fee of Lot 5 and the south 9 inches of the east 30 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, Aopldns Second Addition). Applicant since the original purchase of the office building has acquired the adjacent property consisting of the remainder of I,ot 5(i.e., Lot 5 except the easterly 77.7 feet tkereo fl. TIus property (1591 Blair) contains a singie family home. Thus, there are currently two taY parcels with improvements occupymg one lot each with their separate tax identificafion numbers. Neither parcel flas any off-street parking. Adjacent to the rivo parcels there is curtently some on street pazking on the north side of Bla�r west of Snelling for a distance of appro7cimately 102 feet which provides room for 5 cars (note there is actually 120 feet but wrth the requued parlang setbacks from curb cuts and fire hydrant on Blair just west of Snelling Avenue you lose 18 feet). Applicant curtently rents to a law office (Applicant's spouse and his father have officed in this same location for over 53 years}, two family counselors and their two employees at 1585 Blair and there is one residential aparlment above the commercial space. Total number ofpazking spaces needed by current tenants for their own use is 8 cars exclusive of client and customer parldng. Reqrured parl�ng spaces by azea for the commercial buiiding was calculated to be 11 spaces. The pazkmg on Blazr is used by ApplicanYs tenants, the'u clients, neighboring residents and businesses. Almost 100% of neighboring businesses signed a petirion with the understanding that no off street parlang would be lost (See E�ibit D) Many of the people visiting the law offices aze semor � -1- 10-92 * citizens and by eliminating parking on Blair will force them to pazk fiuther down Blair Avenue in the residential neighborhood. In addition, a smaller parking lot will continue to require current and future tenants to continue to park on Blair Avenue m the neighboring residential azea. The construction of a smaller pazking lot that entezs off of Blair Avenue will not allow the praperty to be put to a practical and reasonable use. The installation of a driveway on Blair will eliminate 3 on street parking spaces and the suggested smaller lot will have pazldng for only 5(with a handicap space) or 6 cars without a handicap space. The construc6on of an entrance off of Blau� will add another dangerous 20 foot wide sidewaLk crossing and curb cut which the city code discourages. It will eliminate 3 precious on street parking spaces so Applicant wiil only be gammg 2 additional spaces (with one handicap space) or possibly 3 additional spaces at a prohibitive cost per space gained. The driveway entrance wili take away valuable on sireet pazking and force more cazs coming to visit ffie businesses into the adjacent residential neighborhood to park. In addirion, the driveway crossing and curb cut will introduce another dangerous conflict area between pedestrians and vehicles. Applicant has been advised that placement of the driveway entrance onto Blair would have to be next to the commercial building that would give very poor site lines for pedestrians, drivers leaving the parking lot and vehicles heading west on Blair Avenue. The addition of only three additional parking spaces does little to solve a pazking deficiency for Applicant's building and wi11 do more to exasperate the current pazking ehminating parking spaces next to the commerciai azea and force more cazs to park in the residenrial neighborhood. Applicant can, without any approval required, provide 3 off street pazking spaces from � the alley and srill save the 3 on street parking spaces under the cunent code at tremendous cost savmgs and without any requirements for landscaping or screening. Applicant can also sell or transfer the property smce it is a sepazate tax pazcel which can be developed separately and the new owner can construct a building on this property right up to the south properry line and within a very short distance of the alley. It would appeaz that the most reasonahle use o£the property is to allow a pazking lot to enter from the alley to provide for most of ApplicanYs tenants needs and to attach the two parcels so the parking lot will stay with the commercial office building and cannot be developed. This will also preserve more green boulevard space. Z. Again, Applicant would like to point out that the concern of public works about the width of the alley was not provided to Applicant until shortly before the hearing and without any detail (i.e., approximately 30 mututes). The finding that the alley could exacerbate traffic safety is unsupported by the facts presented and the traffic study performed by the city. The traffic engmeer adrtutted to Applicant as to having never seen the alley and to not having reviewed or siudied the proposed site plans. She fitrther aclmowledged that she was unaware that the lot will be used by tenants only which results in low turziover before deterniitung the alley was unsafe. Obviously, there was a lack of communication between staff. The engineer based her decision solely on the width of the alley. In St. Paul, Applicant understands that in the Midway area of St. Paui more than half of the alleys aze 15 feet or less). The traffic engineer cited no accidents on the alley to support the unsafe condition nor any neighborhood complaints received prior to Applicant's applicarion. Applicant and Applicant's spouse lived in the apartment above the commercial building for several years and ApplicanYs spouse has been working in the building at 665 N. Sneiling since 1967. ApplicanYs spouse has never been informed of any problems in this alley or experienced any problems during the many times he has driven down the -2- � 10.92 alley. � ApplicanYs office building is generally used during normal hours of 7:00 am, to 5:00 p.m. (i.e. 10 hours a day). The iraffic engineer did a traffic study over two days to determine traffic volume ui the alley and it showed the between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., fraffic was very light and not a factor in her decision according to the traffic engineer. The traffic report showed that during these 10 hours an average of only 37 cars each day traveled north from Blair Avenue past the subject site of the pazking lot and tfiere were only 32 cars each day during these kours traveling south towards Blair past the subject site. Thus, during ttus 10 hour period going north past the subject site there is an auerage of 3.7 cars per hour or 1 caz every 16.21 minutes. Going south by the proposed pazking lot there is onty 1 caz every 18.75 minutes. Taking a closer look at the �raffic counts, between 7:00 am. and 10:00 a.m. on both of the days the study was performed the traf�'ic count averaged 6 cars traveling north by the snbject site and an average of 5 cazs traveling south by this site. Thns, during the hours when most of Applicant's tenants will be arriving, a car went north an average of every 30 minutes and a caz traueling south went by the site an average of every 36 minutes. It is thus obvious why the traffic engineer admitted to Applicant and ApplicanYs spouse that the traffic count is not a concem and the addition of 8 addirional cars in and out of pazldng a traveling on the south 30 feet should be of uunimal impact. The opinion of the trafftc engineer that allowing more traffic could exacerbate traf�ic safety was thus based solely on the width of the alley and no other demonsLrative facts. The a11ey like most alleys in the Midway Area is 15 feet wide. There has never been any accidents reported or cited as having taken place on this alley. There are some azeas nazrower than others and Applicant was being asked to remove an encroaching retaining `� wall and widen the pavement area. There aze several azeas north of the proposed pazking lot site (i.e. just north of the subject site and two buildings up} where the adlacent commercial pmperties have pazkung azeas where people for the past 75 years if ineeting another vehicle, can pull around other veYticles in addihon to the azea where the easflwest ailey "T"s into the north/south alley. Nothiug has been shown or demonstrated to be a safety pmblem on the alley other than a perception that the mere 15 foot width could be a safety concem. Applicant after hearing concerns of the neighbors agreed to piace signs directing a11 cars to exit the lot to the south which wiIl eIiminate any traffic to the north or down the east/west section which is the residential �ea. Thus, traffic to and from the lot will be lnnited to tke southerly 30 feet of the north/south alley. Most people will naturaily exit the proposed lot south anyway because of the short distance and the ability to be able to tum left onto Snelling Avenue. Applicant's proposed parking lot entrance from the alley will start approatimately 15 feet in from the pubhc sidewalk and then gentlq curve into fhe Iot. The entrance will extend to approximately 40 feet from the sidewalk and will be 20 feet wide. Assuming a car is on the a11ey for 30 feet before the veIucle is completely off the public alley right of way, a vehicie traveling at 5 mph will be on the a11ey a total of 4 seconds. If you aze exiting and stop at the sidewalk and look both directions that will resuit in maybe 8 to 10 seconds totallrip be£ore you aze on Blair Avenue. If 8 cars enter and exit the lot an aveYage of 1.5 times per day, that wouid mean 12 cazs enter and 12 cazs eacit the pazking lot each day. The total time these cazs will be on the a11ey {assuming 10 seconds per caz is oniy 240 seconds or 4 minutes a day. This use can hazdly be deemed to add significant traffic to the 3� £eet of the alley wluch would exacerbate traffic. The removal of the house at I591 Blair Avenue will increase the site lines up and down the a11ey for cars approaching on Blair from the east and provide significant unprovement and provide added safety for those few cars entering and exiting the ailey. Any person leavmg the proposed pazking lot will have better site lines to both the west and the east on � -3- r � 10-92 � Blair Avenue. If a car is coming, it will be easy for any car exiting the pazking lot to wait w1uIe any car tuming into the alley off of Blair completes its turn and passes by the pazking lot entrance. The traffic on Blair from Snelling Avenue heading west between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. averages 322 cazs during this 16 hour period and going east the average during this same time period was onIy 180 cars. Thus, visibility and site line to the west is more important. As Applicant mentioned above, Applicant never had a chance prior to the hearing to really reflect on the impact of the letter by the traffic engineer or to consider options to address the engineer's concems. After the hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals and giving some thought to the traffic engineer's concern about the width of the alley, Apglicant proposed to redesign the pazking lot and to give the city an additional 5 foot right of way on ApplicanYs properiy to widen the entrance of the alley onto Blair to 20 feet (see Exlubit E). This extra 5 feet will allow two cazs the opportunity to pass each other in the first 50 feet. Since all cazs from ApplicanYs pazking lot exiting south will be traveling in this space, there will be no safety issue with the width. The traffic engineer felt that this will eliminate her concern about safety but asserted that entering and exiting from a driveway onto Blair will stili be the pre£ened method despite one additional sidewalk crossing by the driveway, poorer sife line to the west, and 4 other entrances onto Blair within 50 feet of the Blair entrance plus the regulaz traffic going up and down Blair to and from Snelling Avenue. If a caz was exiting or entering a lot off of Blair from the east, any car coming off of Snelling is more than likely to back other cars up into Snelling Avenue traffic than it would at the alley. Applicant asserts that an entrance from the proposed pazking lot into the alley and then onto Blair will be a safer � way from a design standpoint than having an exit with poor site lines and 5 conflicting entrances with one at more than 90 degrees plus regular traffic. It was also ApplicanYs opinion that it will be safer for pedeshians because it will eliminate one conflicting zone and give better site line for people walking west on the sidewalk. Construction of a sma118 caz pazking tot with an entrance on the alley wiil not alter the chazacter of the neighborhood and there was no evidence submitted that there will be any adverse nnpact on the neighborhood. As noted above, traffic in and out of the parking lot will be limited to the south 30 feet of this alley. The current commercial side of the aliey will not change except for applicanYs lot. The parking lot at 667 No. Snelling Avenue has no screening or landscaping and the cazs enter right off the alley directly mto the parking spaces. The property immediately to the north has a building that occupies the entire lot from the sidewallc nght back to the aliey. Applicant has made changes to the landscape design to catch and keep more water on site and any drainage issues are pre-existing and are the City's issue to address. The view of the other commercial areas from the adjacent residences wili not change. The proposed landscaping plan for the parking lot has some very nice screening through landscaping. The lot will be re graded so that the grade will be lowered down to close to the level of the sidewallc and will be similar to the grade on the property to the north. The lot will thus be just above the grade of the edge of ihe alley and gradually sloping up to the east towards the rear of ApplicanYs commercial building. Substantial landscapmg is being proposed to screen the parking lot from the street (i.e. south) and to the west. Adjustments have been made to the design to allow some of the storm water runoff to enter into the landscape azeas thus muumizing the water runof£ Appficant has further been advised that there are alternative sources for the surface of the maneuvering lane of ` the lot which could also help reduce water runof£ Applicant, if appxoved, will � investigate those oprions and the funding that is supposedly available to help defer the extra cost to see if said surface wouid be fmancially affordable and the cost of maintenance. � �� 10-92 Screening on the west side of fhe property {i.e. a11ey side) with a fence is possible but not � practical and will not serve the purpose for which it is intended. The reason being is that _ the elevation of the property (i 1595 Blair) unmediately to the west of the proposed • parldng lot sits about 30 to 36 mches above the grade of the alley. The first floor of the house sits up another 36 inches higher so that the fisst floor of the house starts at 6 feet or more above the alley. A person looking out the 2 windows on ffie fust floor of the house - facing east (i.e. towards the proposed parking lot} of normal fieight will have their eyes at over 11 feet above the alley. The home at 1595 Blair is within abaut 4 to 5 feet of the alley right of way so thaf any screening fence (4.5 feet) as reguired by the code or even 6 feet will do little to screen the view of the parking lot from the neighboriag property and a taller 6 foot fence will create site line and safery issues for drivers entering and e�titing the , alley. (Note - The safety and site line issues would also be present for a fence along the �. bouadary for a pazking lot entering off of Blair plus cars parking in the lot wouid be pulling in facing the property to the west so that there Iights would sfiine towazds said properiy). Proposed visual Iandscaping once matured v�nll be taller, provide better screening and be less offensive and haue httle impact on site line fior pedestrians and drivers. The owner at 1595 Blair had even initiatiy requested that Applicaztt not install a fence upon which our local hooligans could tag and paint graffiti which so often occurs in our neighborhood. Applicant instead was requested by the owner to install a decorative metal fence like the one proposed along Blair Avenue. The variance for the setback from the south (i.e. Blair Avenue} is for 5 feet in lieu of the required 7 feet Applicant intends to instail significant iandscapmg and a metal decorative fence in tlus azea to compensate for the loss of 2 feet. It is also the one azea facing the adjacent residencas and trafbc on Blair. Contrary to the Zoning boazd report, there is no request for a variance of setback from the west or the alley. There is a request � for waiver af the 4 feet setback from the north line for both the existing pazking Iot on 667 No, Snelling Avenue and the proposed parking Iot. Tfris boundary line pzimarily impacts the commercial neighbor to the north and he has consented and agrees fo such a reduction. In fact, Applicant will be removing a concrete wall previously mstalied by ApplicanYs predecessor in title on the neighboruig property which currently interferes with cazs pazking along the south boundary line from swmgmg their doors ande open. The current view from the house to the west of the alley will improve by removing the current retaining wa11, installing landscape screening and the cazs will actually be fiirther back fi the lot line than tlie exisring house. None of the other houses on the nozth side of Blair have a view of the proposed parking lot because of the home on 1595 Blair blocks their view. Also, au enhance from the alley will aliow the current grass and the established tree on the boulevard to be preserved wiuch would otherwise have to be removed for construction of a driveway if the entrance to the patldng lot were to come off of Blair thus preserving more green space. Applicant is also requesting a variance for the pazking lot to enter onto the alley. Applicant or a future purckaser can, as noted above, pazk 3 cazs on the subject properLy coming off the alley withont any requirement for screening or landscaping and preserve the 3 pazking spaces oa Blair. Applicant or a future owner can also install a btuiding closer than the 5 foot proposed setback from the sidewalk (i.e. right up to the sidewalk) and closer to the alley t12en the proposed alley setback. Applicant believes that the proposed pazking 1ot will have a more positive impact on the suizounduig neighborhood than other possible developments and wi]I not aiter the current utixed use of the neighborhood or adversely vnpact the neighborhood. If anything, it will improve the look of the neighborhood and help the residences by freeing up pazking for residents and other bnsinesses. As ageed, it would eliminate future development af - the westem portion of the lot for additional consiruction. � -5- io-sz � Appiicant respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the Boazd of Zoning Appeals' Decision and approve the variances finding that the use of the property for construction of an 8 car pazking lot with an entrance &om the alley is a reasonable use of the property, that the alley is not unsafe and that the addition of the limited traffic on a very small segment of the commercial azea for Appiicant's proposed pazking lot for ApplicanYs tenants will not have an adverse unpact on the safety in the alley or aggravate an existmg unsafe condition, and that the parking lot will not alter or adversely impact the surrounding rtuxed use neighborhood. � � � � 10-92 « Applicant: Applicant is the current owner of I,ot 5 and the South 9 inches of the East 32.00 feet of L,ot 4, all in B1ock 2, Hopldns Second Addition to St. PauI, Ramsey County, Minnesota (i.e. 665 N. SneIling Ave. & 1591 Blair Ave.}. Applicant has entered into a purchase a�eement with the owner of 667 N. Snelling Ave, to purchase a small portion of Lot 4 deseribed as the South 4.00 feet of the West 55.00 feet and the South 9 inches lying between the West 55.00 feet and the East 32.00 feet of I.ot 4, all in Block 2, Hopldns Second Addition to Saint Paul. ApplicanYs property will be Revised Pazcel B below. History: Applicant pwchased the building after it bad been constructecl. The commercial building at 665 No. Snelling Ave. occupies almost the entire parcel of land and there is no off street pazking for any tenants. Applicant and her spouse after purchase completely remodeled the building but did not add any additional space. Applicant since purchasing the properfy has always had tenants express concern over the lack of parking which at rimes has made it difficult to rent the properry. Applicant has unsuccessfully tried to provide tenant with off street parking through arrangements with neighboring busmesses that appeared to possibly have extra pazking spaces availabie. Apphcant desires to constnzct a pazking lot of sufficient size to bring the building close to being in compliance with fhe current pazking reqairements under the zoning regulations. Subject: Variances to constnzct a small 8 car pazking lot. Several variances are needed including a variance for the 7.00 foot side Iine setback of proposed parlang lot from soutk boundary line (i. e. Blair Avenue), a variance as to the 4.00 foot setback for both the proposed parkiug lot and the existing parking lot on 667 No. Snelling from the new common boundazy Iine created after the approvai for an Adjusted Common Boundary Line, entrance to the parking lot from the alley for a park�ng lot with greater than 7 cazs, and the required screening fence on the West side of the properiy. I,egal: Revised Parcel A: 667 N. Snelling Ave., legally describe@ as follows: Lot 4, Block 2, Hopkins Second Addition to St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Except the South 9 inches lying East o£the West 55.00 feet of said Lot 4. Also except the South 4.00 feet of the West 55.00 feet of said I.ot 4. Subject to an easement to attach roof fiashing and caulking to the Easterly 32 feet of the southerly wall of the building on I.ot 4, Block 2, HoplQns Second Addirion to St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota Revised Parcel B: 665 N. Snelling Ave., legally described as folIows: Lot 5, and the South 9 inches of Lot 4 lying Fast of the West 55.00 feet of Lot 4 and the Sonth 4.00 feet of the West 55.00 feet of Lot 4, all in Block 2, Hopkias Second Addition to St. Paul, Ramsey Couniy, Minnesota. Together with an easement to attach roof flashing and caulking to the Easterly 32 feet of the southerly wall of fhe building on L.ot 4, Block 2, Hopkins Second Addition to St Paul, Ramsey Counry, Minnesota -1- � � � (' 10-92 u (Note - above legai description for Revised Parcel B(i.e. 665 N. Snelling Ave.) includes properiy which Applicant has under purchase agreement with James P. Seim, owner of 667 No. Snelling Ave. Likewise, the legal descnption for Revised Parcel A(i.e. James P. Seim's property at 667 N. Snelling Ave.) excludes the small portion of his property that he has agreed to sell to Applicant. Lot Size: 665 N. Snelling Ave.'s Lot after Split is Approved: Approximately 7,009 s.f. 665 N. Snelling Ave.'s Lot before Lot Split: Approxunately 6,764 s.f. 667 N. Snelling Ave.'s Lot after Split is Approved: Approximately 5,731 s.f. 667 N. Snelling Ave.'s Lot before Lot Split: Approximately 5,976 s.f. Variances: l. Applicant is applying for a variance for the requued 7 feet setback on the south property line of 665 N. Snelling Ave. from the existing sidewalk under City Code Section 63.314a. Applicant is proposing a 5 foot setback with significant landscaping and the required fencing (See ApplicanY s Landscaping Plan). Applicant will also be placing a sign in front of parking spaces to mazk them as "CompacY' spaces only. � 2. Applicant per the request of city Staff has deleted one parking stall on both the North and South sides and has increased the island by the aliey to 6 feet in width from the edge of the alley right of way to provide additional screening per the attached landscape plan. Current code requires only 4 feet. Applicant will also be extending the ornamental fence along the alley and installing shrubs and two smaller growth trees beYund the fence. Applicant is requeshng a waiver of the screening fence requirement between the pazking lot and the alley under City Code Section 63.313. A screening fence will be a safety issue because it will block and/or severely restrict the view a driver will have of the alley when leaving the pazking lot. The owner of the residence (1595 Blair Ave.) that is directly across the alley from the parking lot had previously requested Applicant to install a smaller fence where vandals and/or gang members would not have a surface to tag or write upon. Also, the topography of the lot at 1595 Blair Avenue is such that the house sits considerably higher than the proposed parking lot so a screening fence will be of little benefit. The reason is that the topography of the lot places the elevation of the first floor of the home at 1595 Blair Avenue approximately 6 to 7 feet or more above the grade of the proposed pazking lot. Thus, if a fence is required to be installed, the fence will do little to screen the view from the two first floor windows of the house facing the alley and will do little to screen the view of someone walking on the east side of the lot because of the difference in elevation. The property at 1595 Blair Avenue currently has significant mature vegetation (i.e. bushes and trees) between the house and its lot line abutting the alley and facing the proposed pazking lot. It should be noted that there is no screening for adjacent pazldng lot immediately to the north of Applicant's proposed parking lot which currently stretches across the entire westerly portion of I,ot 4(i.e. 50 feet in width). � 3. Applicant is also asking for a variance to the required 4 foot setback for the proposed parldng lot from the north boundary (i.e. adjacent to the existing pazking on I.ot 4) and for a variance from the 4 foot setback requirement for the existing pazking lot on 667 N. 5nelling Ave. to the coxnxnon property line with ApplicanYs (� _. ` -2- 10-92 property. The City Code asks for a 4 foot setback from the pmperty Iine under City Code Section 63.312. The proposed space between the two pazlang lots along the westerly 32 feet of the common boundary will be approximately 1.4 feet. � The azea between the two parking lots will have some landscape rock and will be used to install such si�s as are n�essary for ApplicanY s pazlang lot. Owner of the property to the North has consented to the design and construction of the parlang lot. 4. A variance to allow the entrance for the pmposed 8 space parking lot to be from the North/Sontfi alley. The Cily Code Section 63.320(fl currently allows only pazking lots with 7 or fewer pazking stalls to enter from the alley except under certain conditions which Apghcant believes applies in ttris situahon. The proposed entrance to the parldng lot will be on the North/South alley located approximately 21 feet north of the EastlWest public sidewalk that runs along the North side of Blair Avenue. Entering and exiting ApplicanYs proposed pazking lot directly from Blair Avenue instead of through the alley is a safety issue and not practical. Crossing a sidewalk creates a potentially dangerous situation and would create two such dangerous conditions m close proxunity to each other. For drivers, an entrance into the pazldng lot from Blair Avenue would be a safety issue because (i) there would be three private entrances in close proxucuty to each other (i.e. ApplicanYs enttance right across Blair from the reaz entrance to Eiamline Cleaners and approximately 80' from the other entrance to one of the main enttances to Hawline Cleaners); (2) the entrance would be within 22 feet from the two North/South alleys that enter onto Blair Avenue; and (3) the traffic volume coming off of busy Snelling Avenue and traveling to Snelling Avenue. At times you will ha�e several cazs backed up waiting to tum onto Snelling Avenue. In this stretch of Snelling Avenue, left hand . turns aze permitted every other block and Blair and Snelling is one intersection where left hand tums aze pemutted. The allowance of left hand tums onto Blair Averiue left from Snelling Avenue makes this street a more heavily traveled street used by the neighbors living in the community and those members of the public traveling to the businesses than the neighboring streets of Lafond or Van$uren. Cazs heading north on Snelling Avenue and hirning left often accelerate to cross the oncoming traffic. Creation of another traffic access (i.e. pazldng lot entrance) so close to Snelling Avenue will be an added safaty hazazd. Entrance from the alley will move the access further away from the intersection and to an existing kaowu entrance which will make it safer. The more crossings you have on a sidewalk the more dangemus it is for pedestrians. Also, if the entrance to the parking lot is on Blair Avenue, the surface water runoff from the pazlflng lot will cross the sidewalk within 22 feet of the A11ey where water also currently crosses the sidewalk. In winter, water will cross the sidewalk and form ice on the sidewalk. Ttus creates a dangerous condition for pedeshians, especiatly senior citizens. Entrance to the pazlflng lot from the alley will elimivate a driveway that would be 20+ feet wide and the associated water crossing the sidewalk. Thus, water crossing the sidewalk would be limited or confined to the width of the exisfing alley entrance which is currenfly only 14 feet wide and thus eliminate one dangerous condition. (Note - the alley right of way is actually 15 feet wide but the retaining wa11 on the property on the west side of the alley is currently encroaching on the alley right of way by appro�cimately 1 foot.) Since the lot has room for only 8 cazs for only Applicant's tenants and the beginning of the entrance to the parking lot is going to start about 16 feet north of the Blair sidewalk, there will be a min;mal amount of additional traffic on the first 1� -3- F� L 10-92 � 25 feet of the Alley. In view of the location of the entrance and the new design of the entrance, pemutted users of the pazking lot will primarily enter from Blau so that there will be min;mal 'unpact on the alley to the north of the entrance and the connecting east/west alley. Most users of the pazking lot will only go in and out maybe once or twice a day. People authorized to use the pazking lot will find it easier to enter from the South since Applicant has redesigned the parking lot entrance to make it easier to tum into the pazking lot coming from the South and more difficult to turn into the lot coming from the North. Likewise, in view of the design change it will be more easier to exit the parking lot to the left and more difficult than trying to tum right and Applicant has agreed to install a sign that says "Left Hand Turn Onl}�' for cazs exiting the parking lot. In view of the design changes, the closeness of the exit to Blair Avenue and the proposed sign, users of the pazking lot will travel to and from the parking lot to Biair Avenue thus m;n;mizing impact to the alley. In addition to the above safety issues outlined above, entrance to the parking lot from Blair will essentialiy eluninate the entire purpose of creating a pazking lot wluch is to try and remove current pazking from the street and to mauitain street parking for the general public visiting the azea businesses and residents. Requiring an entrance from Blair Avenue will defeat the purpose of building a pazking lot because it will eliminate three current parking spaces on Blair Avenue east of the North/South Alley (i.e. alongside the subj ect property) and the configuration of the parking lot will reduce the maacimum number of pazking spaces in the lot to 5 or 6 spaces without a designated handicap space. The net gain in a pazking so designed would only be 2 or 3 pazking spaces after deducting � the 3 spaces lost on the street. This will leave Applicant wrth insufficient parking spaces for her tenants, her tenanYs employees, and the general public who aze visiting the azea which will result in pazking fiuther down Blair Avenue by those wishing to park neaz Snelling Avenue. This does not benefit any of the neighbors (residences or businesses) and does not solve ApplicanYs parking probiems wluch have existed since the property was constructed 53 years ago. BlaidAttachment to Applicalion for Zon Variance 665Amended-Nov 5, 2009 • � �� 10-92 Page 1 of 4 Stephen L. Nelson From: Tom Beach [fom.Beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 11:18 AM To: Stephen L. Nelson Cc: AI Czaia; Anca Sima; Angie Wiese; Bill McDonald; Corinne Tilley; Don Stein; Jerry Strauss; Jim Brewer, Jody Martinea; Linda Murphy; Margot Fehrenbacher, Phil Belfiori; Richelle Nicosia; Terri Vasquez; Tom Beach; Jun-Li Wang Subject: Site plan for parking lot at 1511 Blair � On 11/4 you met with Cify staff to discuss the site plan you submiifed for a 10-car parking lot witfi access from the alley. The comments from that meeting are summarized below. Variances The site plan that you submitted needs to get variances #rom the Board of Zoning Appeais for setbacks, ailey access and screening. A public hearing is currently scheduled for 11/16/09. Alley Linda Murphy of Public Works (651-266-G205) said the retaining wall for the house that you want to tear down extends into the alley right of way. A note must be added to the plan that says "The area in the alley right of way where the existing retaining wall and steps witi be removed must be paved wifh asphalt to match the rest of the alley. Contact Pete Ga!lagher of Public Works (651-266-6185) for information about permits for this work.° Traffic The amount of trafFc generated by this lot should low because of the limited number of parking spaces an because it is intended for tenant parking only. The site plan must show that signs wiil be installed to restrict parking to tenants only. To further minimize the impact of traffc from the lot, a LEFT TURN ONLY sign must be insfalled at the exit for the parking lot. A note must be added to the plan stating "Signs regulating parking and/or traffic on private property shall be instailed by the property owner or contracfor outside of the public right-of-way." Because the parking is reserved for tenants only, you are not required to provide an accessible parking space unless a tenanf requests one. The site plan shows an area where you can provide an accessible space if it becomes required. Until it is needed as an accessible space, the 8' area where the accessible maneuvering would be provided must be striped to ensure that nobody tries to park fhere. Sidewalks AI Czaia of Public Works Sidewalks (651-266-6108) said suggested that you video record the adjacent pubiic sidewalk and alley before starting demolition of fhe house in case there are questions after the demolifion about any damage to the sidewalk. Landscaping and screening You cannot put landscaping in the alley right of way as the current plan shows. You said that you do not want to put up a screening fence along the alley because it will get graffiti painted on it. A tall fence couid also block the view drivers leaving the parking lot. Tom Beach said staff will not recommend approval of the variances for screening and setback along the a� based on the current plan. Staff recommended that you revised the site plan to eliminate a parking space in each row so that the landscaped area can be widened. The minimum width for landscaping along the ailey is 4'. However, if a visual screen is not proposed, staff recommends that the landscaped areas be at Ieast 6' wide to provide room for additionai landscaping. `� �- Y � � � :`�- i � � a _ i'�r�- � � 10-92 Page 2 of 4 � Tom recommended planting a tree on each side of the driveway. If there are overhead power lines, an ornamental tree like a Crab tree can be used. Additional ground cover such as shrubs or omamental grassed must be planted in these areas foo. You should also extend the omamental fence along the atley as currently shown on the site plan. For the landscaped area along Blair, the zoning code requires a hedge behind the ornamental fence. So shrubs must be pianted in the area where the current landscape plan shows Salvia. � Drainage The grades on the survey for your property and the adjacent alley shows that storm water from your proposed parking lot wouid drain toward Blair. The lot is smail enough that you do not need to restrict the rate that storm water comes off the site and onto the alley. However, Tom Beach suggested that if you revise the plan to provide more room for landscaping along the alley that you use breaks in the curb around each of these landscaped areas so that some storm water can flow into the islands and water the plants. Tom said the site can be graded to direct water to the landscaping without flooding the areas. If you are interested in creating a rain garden as part of the landscaping, you can get more information and possibiy some help from the Capitol Region Watershed. Contact Anna at 651-644-8888 if you have questions. Lighting You must include information on the site plan about how the lot will be lit. The zoning code requires that parking lots be lit to a safe level in a way that does not cause excessive glare or spiil over light to nearby properties. We discussed options including down-lighting on the back of the building and using a light on the Xcel power pole near the northwest corner of the parking lot. Demolition Existing sewer and water services to the existing house will have to be properly abandoned at the time the house is demolished. Address Terri Vasquez of Public Works Technical Services (651-266-6128) said there are some questions about the address for your building on Sneiling, in particular the apartment upstairs. You should contact Corinne Karstens of Public Works at 651-266-6156. Parkland Dedication As a part of this project, the property owner wi�l need to dedicate land (to be used as park land) or contribute a fee in lieu of land (to be used by the City for acquiring park land or other capitoi improvements). Staff estimates the dedication will be approximately $153.33 or 48 square feet. These figures are calculated based on a number of factors, including the number of new parking spaces being provided and the value of the property. The City prefers that land be dedicated, but typically requires the fee rather than the land dedication because the size and/or location of the land that wouid be dedicated often makes it unsuitable for park land. If the land is of a suitable size and location, acceptance of land by the City wouid need to be approved by the City Council. You can contact Jody Martinez (651-266-6424) if you have questions about fhis. This dedication is due at the time building permits are approved and paid for. Survey Monuments A note must be added to the plan stating "Care must be taken during construction and excavation to profect any survey monuments and/or property irons. Call Sam Gibson of Public Works Surveying (651-266-6075) if you have any questions." Right of Way t;.Y,�t �b� t � — �� ' � 10-92 Pa$e 3 of 4 Bill McDonald of Public Works Right of Way (651-485-Q419) said the following notes must be included on the revision of your plan. INSPECTION CONTACT: The developer sha(I contact the Right of Way inspector Dick Rohland, 651-485-5 1688 one weeek prior to beginning work) to discuss traffic control, pedestrian safety and coordination of all work in the public right of way. SAFE WORK SITE REQUIREMENTS: The Contractor shail provide a confinuous, accessible and safe pedestrian walkway that meets ADA and MN MUTCD standards if working in a sidewalk area, and traffic confrol per MN MUTCD requirements for work in the public right of way. NO PRIVATE FACILITIES IN THE RtGHT OF WAY: The developer is strictly prohibited from installing private electrical wiring, conduit, receptacles and/or ligfiting in fhe Cify's Right of Way_ This includes stubbing conduit or cable into the public right of way to accommodate utility feeds to the site. Coordinate with each utility prior to construction to determine feed points into the property_ Utilities are responsible for securing excavation permits to run their service into a site, and (where required) submitting plans for Yeview by the Public Works Utility Review Committee. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Please include street names on plan sheets. Work conducfed on Sfate Roadways, Trunk Highways or Right of Way may also require permitting through MnDof. MnDot contact is Buck Craig (651- 2347911). State and City approval is required on MnDot roadways maintained by the City. Access to signal controller and lighting cabinets must be maintained at all times — If fencing is required for� job site, a key or other means of access must be provided to the City of St. Paul's Traffic Maintenance Department. Contact John McNamara, General Forman Signals and Lighting at 651-487-7209. CITY OF ST. PAUL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS: ORDERING OBSTRUCTION AND EXCAVATION PERMITS: Contact Public Works Right of Way Service Desk at (651) 487-7250. It is strongly recommended fhat contractors call for cost estimates prior to bidding to obtain accurate cost estimates. OBSTRUCTlON PERMlTS: The contractor must obtain an Obstruction Permit if construction (including silt fences) will block City streets, sidewalks or alieys, or if driving over curbs. EXCAVATION PERMITS: All digging in the public right of way requires an Excavation Permit. If the proposed building is close to the right of way, and excavafing into the right of way is needed fo facilitate construction, contact the utility inspector. FAILURE TO SECURE PERMITS: Failure to secure Obstruction Permits or Excavation Permits will result in a double-permit fee and other fees required under City of St. Paul Legislative Codes. REQUIREMENTS TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: All utilities and contractors working in the public right of way musf fo be registered, insured and bonded, as recognized by the Public Works Service Desk. (651} 487-7250) Revised Plans � You must send me 7 sefs of the site plan revised to reflect the comments in this email Site Plan Approvai To get this site pfan approved, you must submit revised plans that meet the condifions in the email and get approval for the required variances. `!\ \ "� �xh.ti��;t � ` ��-`� � � Tom Beach � DSI 375 Jackson Street Suite 220 Saint Paui, MN 55101-1806 651-266-9086 (phone) 651-266-91Z4 (fax) tom.beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us (email) ❑ � �xGutir�- � - �a��f 10-92 Page 4 of 4 t� Stephen L. Nelson From: Tom Beach [fom.Beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 12:17 PM To: Stephen L. Nelson Subject: Fwd: 1591 Biair Parking Lot See attached Ietter from Public Works Traffic. Tom Beach DSI 375 Jackson Street Suite 2Z0 Saint Paul, MN 55101-1806 651-266-9086 (phone) 651-266-9124 (fax) tom.beach@ci.stpaut.mn.us (email) »> Linda Murphy 11/16/2009 12:01 PM »> See attacfied Linda Murphy Saint Pnul Public Works Traffic Engineering 25 W 4th St, Ste 800 St. Paul, MN 55102 ph# 651-266-6205 fax# 651-298-4559 linda murRhy@ci stpaul mn.us 10-92 Page 1 of 1 � � � i�nnino l� � ��b�� ,�� c a � �� \� 10-92 � To: 7ohn Hazdwick DSI, 375 7ackson St. From: Linda Murphy 800 City Hall Annex Re: 1591 Blair Pazking L,ot Construction Date: November 16, 2009 Traffic Engineering has reviewed their plan for a parking lot with access off the alley. Typically a very small parking lot with low tumover having access on the alley would not create a traffic concern. In this instance the alley right-of-way is only 15 feet wide with the pauement width even less at various points. Our current alley standards for lwo-way traffic is 20 feet wide. The narrow width of this ailey makes it difficult for opposing traffic to pass. Because of this, approval of any � design that would allow more traffic on this narrow alley could exacerbate traffic safety in the alley. We looked at possible designs for their parking lot with an entrance off of Blair. We would ha�e no objecfions to hauing the driveway off of Blair provided 1) The pazking stall closest to Blair would have to be set back faz enough from the street so vehicles would not be backing over the sidewalk to maneuver in and out of the space, 2) The most northerly parking stall would haue to have a small backing/maneuvering area to get out of the space, 3) The curb cut on Blair should be pulled away from the alley entrance so there's a separate alley entrance and a sepazate pazking lot entrance. . � ��`�«��. � ` \� �11�L �P C�/ 10-92 HISTORY OF 665 N SNELLING AVENUE 1890s to 1956: Since the early 1900s, L.ot 5, Block 2, FIopldns 2° addition has been divided into two separate pazcels (i.e., the East 77.7' and the West 423'). On each of these two pazcels there has been a separate 2 story home. The home at 1591 Blair was constructed in 1904. The home portion of 665 N. Snelling was built in the late 1890s, but the taa� records show 1906. 1956 to 1978: In 1956, ApplicanYs father-in-law and several other individuaLs purchased the east 77.7 feet of Lot 5 together with the 2 story home. In 1956 the group conshucted a one story block building wrapped around the old house. The south 9" of the east 32' of Lot 4(i.e. the azea between the building at 667 No. Snelling and the north lot line of Lot 5) was acquired so that the buildings would abut each other attd there would be no space between. The one story block building was divided into 5 rental spaces and used primarily as store front office rental space and the comer unit was originally a laundromat. The lower two levels of the old house were connected to the office space and used as additional office area and the second floor of the house was converted into a sepazate apartment. There was no requirement for off street pazldng at the time of construction. ApplicanY s father-in-law, Laurence M. Nelsott, moved lus law practice into a portion of the building in 1956. ApplicanYs husband, Stephen L. Nelson, joined his father in the practice of law in 1972. Stephen L. Nelson and his father have run their respective law offices continuously in this location since 1956. 1978 to Present: In 1978 Laurence M. Nelson, who had previously retired from the practice of law sold the property to Applicant and her husband. In 1980-81, Applicant through a city program completely rehabilitated the commercial part of the building by gutting it to the baze walls, replacing all of the mechanicals, redoing the exterior and 95% of the interior. The number of rental units was reduced from 5 down to 2. The remodeling was partially funded through a city financing program. The exterior was tastefully redone with new windows, an attractive brick eacterior and a cedar pazapet azound the entire block building to hide the new roof top mechanicals. However, no off slreet pazking was added to the building. In 1980-81 before and during the remodeling, Applicant and her husband attempted several times to purchase 1591 Blair which is the westerly portion of Lot S lying west of the easterly 77.7 feet in order to construct a pazlang lot for Applicant's tenants. Applicant and her spouse were unable to reach an agreement with the family who owned the property. In 1996, Applicant was able to purchase the properiy from the sazne family after they had hied for many years on and off to sell the house and properiy at 1591 Blair Avenue, The pmblems the former owners encountered in selling 1591 Blair was (1) the very small size of the Iot (i.e., 423 feet by 56 feef), (2) the location of the small house in relation to the busy alley, (3) no off street pazlang, and (4) the need of substantial updating. However, the primary reason the properiy had not sold was due to the substandard size of the lot which prevented the properiy from qualifying for any type of traditional finaucing. Applicant purchased 1591 Blair with the intent of eventually trying to provide off street pazking -1- r� ., E � t_��+- "(' ` a � � � �� 10-92 • for her tenants at 665 N. Snelling. As part of the agreement to purchase 1591 Biair, Applicant was asked to continue renting to a family member of the seller. The family member remained in the house and eventually moved out. Applicant has maintained the interior of the home on 1591 Blair and has performed such work on the exterior as needed with full knowledge of her intent to someday tum the property into a pazldng lot for 665 N. Snelling. The property has always been zoned B-2 which will allow the properry to be used for a pazking lot. Applicant had also deteru�ined that reselling 1591 Blair would be very difficult if not impossible for the same reasons the former owners encountered when they tried to sell 1591 Blair. _ 3�M<^t" `"''��`a`z� .. �f �`w� a �` ;� �r.1 _ �-� �; ��.,,��.,`:.� 5'llIIlDlai'V' � As long as Applicant has been involved with 665 N. Snelling Avenue, pazking has always been a concem for prospective tenants. Over the years, the neighbors (several of whom have been clients) have graciously tolerated our on street pazking. Applicant has tried over the yeus to rent pazking space from neighbors (Hamline Cleaners) for her tenants. Applicant also tried to encourage some neighboring businesses to purchase Lot 3, Block 2, Hopkins Second Addition to St. Paul which is occupied currently by Metro Auto for an indoor parking azea without success. Several times in the past, Applicant attempted to start work on planning for the construction of a parking lot but was discouraged by city employees from doing so for various reasons. Applicant only recently was able to reach an agreement with the owner of the property immediately north of � Applicant's property (i.e. 667 N. Snelling) to purchase some additional land to give Applicant enough room to build a parking lot of a suffacient size to come very close to meeting the required code parking spaces. According to the City Inspector the home at 1591 Blair needs significant exterior repairs. Applicant has investigated the cost to repair and it is prohibitive to spend the kind of money that would be needed to bring this property completely up to code. Thus, it makes economic sense to remove the building at this time. Applicant desires to alleviate the pazking on Blair Avenue by constructing a parking lot for her tenants which will then free up street parking for residents to the west of the alley and provide more on street parking for customers of the tenants at 665 N. Snelling Avenue and neighboring businesses. Although the lot will not bring the building totally up to current code requirements for pazking, it will bring the property very close to meeting the required pazking spaces. Based on the proposed parking lot with 10 spaces, all of AppiicanYs current tenants, their respective employees and the tenant in the apartment above 665 N. Snelling will be able to park in the parking lot. This will eliminate all the hassles of on street parking for the residential neighborhood and for Appiicant's tenants during inclement weather. Applicant believes she has one of the more attractive buildings on North Snelling and desires to make the pazking lot similazly attractive. Applicant further believes that the off street parking lot which she proposes to construct wiil blend into the neighborhood and will better serve the � neighborhood and her tenants. -2- l� 10-92 P.S. As a side note, Applicant's spouse after completion of the remodelzng of 665 N. Snelling Avenue subsequently purchased 1595 Blair Avenue (i.e., the house directly on the west side of the alley) with lus then law partners with the grand plan of creating a pazking lot to serve ApplicanYs building tenants and the neighboring businesses: ApplicanYs spouse tried to interest many of the local businesses to participate in the construction of a parldng lot but could not develop sufficient interest to pursue such a plan. Applicant had even purchased a vacant lot in the Midway azea where he was going to move the house. After hying on and off for several yeazs without success to gamer interest, the property at 1595 Blair Avenue was sold by Applicant's spouse. sln\users\blair\pazkinghistory � � � -3- V� � � � S �"f� � • wINI�iOi�°I°°I�'I°�I`^I Y � � i '� i � ��':� �J . v j3`a � � :4� I� �ii� \ � � �`� �3 � a �' i � � � � � � � o � c� `� � � I ' � c� o m � � (�1 � � C � "C Q ,� � � �^ � n ` � { = �/1 =.. C� � — , � • C i �, 6`• 6' � W �i � . � Z r � � � � . % Z L � . � � t�� SS (� ` ��-7 � � � S � v d F [ �� 1 � � � l�l r `� � � z � a I � � � � �D `� �' � � IH T \ � � s � 10-92 �. �o� �-�� x� �� o � <� � �. � ��. �b �� o 'a o °' b v- `�1 � � rn " � � o � �,�'� � � ' a c�o '�O o � � � < � � � �� o � � ,� o � � ,n�' � z o � o c� ti M � ,��o�� . �� ti o b7 �a o��. n � �, o '.�' N �"''• � �•" O � � x � �° o � P. r' " � •� � � N � N O `+ c� O � O v� ° a a r^ ny o a .�'c' � �: � � � o 00 � � � o 0 a � � �:ro� o � ��n �. � z �� x� w � � ., � �� H n � � � N �7 p P? C� � a. � p '�-a ao � � w � c,.�u �� i..... �_ ' �_ r'�. .� � ;t ��080vvOVO�� c y a I� s � � � �: �^ K n _ � T � h �[tj . y � �b � � C � � � a � � ;��d �m 10A2 ... c�o o � �� x a � �w � � � o � <' � �. :° � � � y �• �'�"� �. �� o� ��•�� ro �� o � � � � � �• c�c � m � �� c��o ,.� o � � o � : �� `� � o � �° �� oa � � � y � o td'� o � ° � �-s � o' � � N �. ��.�o � P.x�, � � y � N O � � �O O .�. G. A- o a'� o �x � �: �• �, � � � a^-'O �:ro� � �� ,., z � �� C Va �• � � � � H Z' N � p . v � C��C � � � °' �• a � .- �� . �� --� 10-92 � l_.J � November 13, 2009 To whom it may concern: I am currently a co-owner of our Cleaners, which is located at the Snelling Avenue. Our location is from Kathryn M. Nelson's property for 30 years. Without supporting out some observations I have made this corner. longtime family business, Hamline Southwest corner of Blair and directly south across Blair Avenue We have been here on this corner ei�her side I would like to point over the many years of working on 1. Parkinq has been an issue at times over the years. I have observed that parking needs for tenants of 665 N. Snelling have varied depending upon the tenants. There have been'parking problems in the past due to heavy traffic caused by people stopping to visit the commercial tenants renting from the Nelson Property. Anything that can be done to imgrove parkinq without reducing on street parking will be appreciated. 2. Steve Nelson, Rathryn's husband, and other tenants of 665 No. Snelling have over the years approached us to rent some off street parking space from us. We were never able to accommodate any of their requests because we did not feel we could afford to give up any of our parking areas especially during the winter months when parking becomes a premium. Al1 commercial businesses need parking. Thank you for considering my observations and concerns. Hamline Cleaners ��2 �� Joe Mike1 �� 10-92 � � ., o � � � � � � Q- �' cc �; x � � � � �- aa a w. �' .co, H � p � q � � C C � co a °� � o � � N n � � � C � a � � O w W `.� ' w u ' � � � '� � C � y rn � Y � m `� `c1 � � �. � O � .C. � � '�'h N '�' O i--� O Cp r' ` b � y � � � � � � � x �• a N� � � o' d � � n �t � w N C/] � 'U n 'i? "��i � � � � a � ° a �' � � � 0 0 � � o *d � w °i � � � N �z �� . � �� a �. < ., � � �� ..�i � H � G � � � H � � � �� 10-92 � November 16, 2009 To Whom it May Concern - I live in the neighborhood in the 1700 block of Blair. I have been a mail man for many years and walk the residential and commercial neighborhood streets daily and also this community. I cross many driveways which aze always a concem to me. A driveway entrance close to a building would also restrict the ability to see vehicles exiring the parking lot until they stazt to cross the sidewalk. I would agree with the Nelson proposal that a parking lot with access from the alley would eliminate a driveway crossing onto Blair Avenue and would be safer for pedestrians like myself who walk on the sidewalk. Also, the areas where driveways cross sidewalks can get very slippery during the winter when snow melts, runs across the sidewalk and then freezes. As a pedestrian every day on the sidewalks of these streets I prefer to have fewer driveway crossings. • Greg Krejce �� ? � �� a--� 10-92 \_ � Z(d i/�� e �a��nd � `i' .I J n� '] s� � � K E � � s r v � � � � = o \ � 3 J H \ J � � �:.Xhih��" l` �. >J � 10-92 � � BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT TYPE OF APPLICATION: APPLICANT: HEARING DATE: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Major Variance KATHRY23 NELSON November 16, 2009 665 SNELLING AVENUE NORTH FILE #09-305133 HOPKINS SECOND ADDTTION TO ST. PAUL WIT`H ESMT TI� E 32 FT OF S 9 INCHES OF LOT 4 AND E 77 7/l O FT OF LOT 5 BLK 2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 PRESENT ZOIVING: B2 ZOIVING CODE REFERENCE: 63.310, REPORT DATE: DEADLINE FOR ACTION: Hamline-Midway Sign District November 10, 2009 December 5, 2009 63.312, & 63313 BY: 7ohn Hardwick DATE RECEIVED: October 26, 2009 A. PURPOSE: Several variances of the off street pazking regulations in order to establish a parking lot to be constructed behind this commercial building. 1) The applicant is requesting a variance of Section 63.313 which requires a visual screen to be provided for a pazldng lot which adjoins an alley. 2) Variances for setbacks as proposed: from the south property line - 7 feet required, 5 feet proposed for a side yazd variance of 2 feet; from the west (a11ey) property line - 4 feet required, 1.5 feet pmposed for a reaz yard variance of 2.5 feet; from the north property line - 4 feet required, 1 foot proposed for a side yard variance of 3 feet. 3) A variance of Secfion 63.310 in order to provide alley access for a parking lot which abuts a residenrial property. B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This is a 120 by 56-foot parcel located on the northwest corner of North Snelling Avenue and Blair Street. The pazcel at 1591 Blair is a 43 by 56-foot lot with alley access on the west side. The Blair parcel is relatively level but is about 3 feet above the gade of the adjacent street and alley. Surrounding Land Use: Commercial uses along Snelling and residential along Blair. n � C. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to remove the house at 1591 Blair and construct a parking lot for the building at 665 N. Snelling Avenue. Page t of 4 �� 10-92 File #09-305133 StaffReport D. FIlVDINGS: 1. The proper[y in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant has owned the Snelling Avenue office building since 1978 and purchased the Blair Avenue properry in 1996 with the intention of eventually removing the house and constructing a pazking lot on the site. Tha existing house on the properiy is in need o£ eartensive repair and is located on a substandard lot. It is not economically feasible to either renovate the existing house or construct a new house on the site. There currenfly is no off-street parldng available for the office building, The Blair Avenue properiy is zoned for commercial use and converting the pmperty to pazldng -for the office building is a reasonable and permitted use. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. � The substandard size of the Blair Avenue property makes it difficult to develop � without the need for a variance. The lot was created in the early 1900s and this circuwsfance was not created by fhe current property owner. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safet}; comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow alley access to the new parking lot. Creating access from Blair Avenue would eliminate aY least two on-sireet pazlang spaces and would reduce the number of spaces that could be pmvided in the pazldng lot. The lot will have a left turn only sign wluch will limit the traffiic from the lot to only about 30 feet of the alley between the lot and the street. With this provision there will be no increase in f�c in the residential portion of the alley. The applicant is requesting a variance of the provision that requires the lot to be screened from the residential use across tke alley. The residential property across fhe alley is at a higher elevation than the proposed pazldng lot. A four foot ]righ obscuring fence would be ineffective in screening the house from the lot. Instead, the applicant is proposing to install landscaping along t6e alley wIuch will be much more effective in screening the lot. The applicant is requesting setback variances from the south and north sides of the � proposed lot. On the north side the proposed pazldng lot will abut a pazking lot on the Page 2 of 4 � \ 10-92 • File #09-305133 Staff Report adjacent property and a reduced setback will not affect either property. On the south side the applicant is proposing a 5 foot setback instead of the 7 feet required by code. This variance is needed in order to maintain sufficient maneuvering space in the lot. The proposed five foot setback is sufficient to provide landscaping needed to screen the lot from the street. The requested variances will m;n,.,,i�e traffic in the residential portion of the alley, provide adequate screening and landscaping on the lot and maximize the amount of parldug available for the commercial building. This is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and consistent with the health and welfaze of area residents. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properry, nor wi11 it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed pazking and requested variances will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. i There is no off-street parking for the office building and generally a shortage of off- street pazking for the businesses along this stretch of North Snelling Avenue. The pmposed parking lot will help alleviate the on-street paricing demand in the neighborhood. Some azea residents have expressed safety concems with cazs exiting from the alley onto Blair Avenue. This is a valid concern however replacing the existing house with a pazking lot would improve the sight line on the east side of the alley. 'The house on the west has a 3 foot high retaining wall with a hedge on top of that and already restricts the sight line on the west side of the a11ey. A commercial building addirion could be constructed right up to the south property line and the proposed parking is a better altemative from a safety standpoint. The new pazking lot will become required parking for the office building and the two properties should be combined under a single properiy identification number, All of the commercial pmperties along North Snelling Avenue extend to the alley. Establishing a pazking lot behind the building at 665 North Snelling Avenue will not change the character of the neighborhood or have an adverse impact on sucrounding properties. 5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the dish-ict where the a�'ected land is located, nor would it alter or change the aoning district classi, fication of the property. Accessory pazking lots aze a permitted use in this zoning district. The requested . variances would not change or alter the zoning classification of the pmperry. d'� Page 3 of 4 10-92 File #09-305133 Staff Report 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of Zanr1 The applicanYs primary desire is to provide pazldng for the tenants and customers of the office building. E. DISTRICT COUNCII. RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from District 11. F. CORRESPONDENCE: Staffhas received severalletters in opposirion to this pmposal from area residents. �J G. STAFF RECOMMENDAITON: Based on findings 1 through 6, staffis recommending approval of the variances subject to the following conditions: 1) That the two pazcels are combined under a single property identification number; and 2) That final site plan review appmval is obtained for the pazking lot before any work commences on the site. � • �� Page 4 of 4 10-92 � CI'TY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER: 09-305133 DATE: November 30, 2009 WI3EREAS, Kathryu Nelson has applied for a variance from t1�e shict applicarion of the provisions of Section 63310, 63,312, & 63,313 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to several variances in order to establish a pazking lot to be constructed behind the commercial buiiding. 1) A visual screen is requued when a parking lot adjoins an alley. 2) Variances of the required south & west side yard setbacks: a south side yard setback of 7 feet is required, a west side yard setback of 4 feet is required. 3) A variance of Section 63310 in order to provide alley access for a pazking lot that abuts a residenrial properry, in the B2 zoning district at 665 Snelling AvenueNorth. PIN: 332923110027; and WHERLAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on November 30, 2009 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: � 1. The property in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant has owned the Snelling Avenue office building since 1978 and purchased the Blair Avenue property in 1996 with the intention of eventually removing the house and constructing a pazking lot on the site. The existing house on the properiy is in need of extensive repair and is located on a substandazd lot. It is not economically feasible tp either renovate the existing house or construct a new house on the site. There currently is no off- street pazldng available for the office building. The Blair Avenue property is zoned far commercial use and converting the properiy to parking for the office building is a reasonable and permitted use. However, a smaller pazldng loC accessed from Blair Ave could be created on the site without the need for variances. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The substandard size of the Blair Avenue property makes it difficult to develop without the need for a variance. The lot was created in the early 1900s and this circumstance was not created by the current properly owner. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent . with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. Page 1 of4 � � 10-92 File #09-305133 Resolution The applicant is requesting a vaziance to allow alley access to the new pazldng lot. The lot would have a left hun oniy sign which would limit the traffic from the lot to only about 30 feet of the alley between the lot and the street. However, the City Tra�c Engineer has determined that this alley is too narrow to support any additional haffic. The applicant is requesting a variance of the provision that requires the lot to be screened &om the residenfial use across the alley. The residentiai properiy across the alley is at a lugher elevation than the proposed pazking lot. A four foot high obscuring fence would be ineffective in screening the house from the lot. Instead, the applicant is pmposing to install landscaping along the alley which will be much more effective in screening the lot. The applicant is requesting setback variances from the south and north sides of the proposed lot. On the north side fhe proposed parking Iot will abut a pazking Iot on the adjacent properiy and a reduced setback will not affect either pmperty. On the south side the applicant is proposing a 5 foot setback instead of the 7 feet required by code. This variance is needed in order to maintain sufficient maneuvering space in the lot. The pmposed five foot setback is sufficient to provide landscaping needed to screen the lot from the street. � Tiie request� vaziances would increase traffic in the alley, wluch. According to the City � Traffic Engineer, would aggavate an unsafe condition. The requested variances aze not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and consistent with the heatth and welfare of azea residents. 4. The proposed variance wi11 not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essenti¢1 character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed parldng and reqnested variances will not affect tlie supply of light or air to adjacent properties. There is no off-street pazking for Yhe office building and geaerally a shortage of off-street pazldng for the businesses along this stretch of North Snelling Avenue. The pmposed pazldng lot will help alleviate the on-street pazldng demand in the neighborhood. Some azea residents have expressed safety concems with cars exiting from the ailey onto Blair Avenue. This is a valid concem however replacing the existing house with a parldng lot would improve the sight line on the east side of the alley. The house on the west has a 3 foot lugh retaining wall with a hedge on Yop of that and akeady restricts the sight line on the west side of the alley. A commercial building addition could be consiructed right up to the south Page 2 of 4 i `�� 10-92 • File #09-305133 Resolution property line and the proposed pazking is a better alternative from a safety standpoint. The new parking lot will become required parking for the office building and the two properties should be combined under a single property identification number. All of the commercial properties along North Snelling Avenue extend to the alley and have alley access to their pazldng lots. However this property does have an altemative to alley access auailable and creating a lot with alley access would alter the chazacter of this mixed neighborhood and may have an adverse impact on adjacent residential properties. 5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. Accessory parldng lots aze a permitted use in this zoning district. The requested variances would not change or alter the zoning classificarion of flie properiy. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of Zand. • The applicant's primary desire is to provide pazking for the tenants and customers of the office building. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the request to waive the provisions of Section 63.310, 63,312, & 63,313 to allow: 1) Provide landscaping along the alley in place of the 4 foot screening fence. 2) A 5 foot setback from west side of the property, A 1.5 foot setback from the reaz property line, and a 1 foot setback from the north property line. 3) A variance to allow alley access for the pazking lot that abuts a residenrial use, on property located at 665 Snelling Avenue North; and legally described as Hopkins Second Addition To St. Paul With Esmt The E 32 Ft Of S 9 Inches Of Lot 4 And E 77 7/lo Ft Of Lot 5 Blk 2; is HEREBYDENIED. MOVED EY: so SECONDED BY: wara IN FAVOR: � AGAINST: o MAILED: December 1, 2009 • Page 3 of 4 �� 10-92 File #09-305133 Resolution 'iZME I.Il�IIT: No decision of the zoning or planning administrator, planning commission, boazd oF zo Llilg appeals or city coancil approving a site plan, permit, variance, or other zonmg approval shaII be valid for a period longer than two (2) years, Qnless a bailding permit is obfained wifLin sneh period and the erection or alteration of a bnilding is proceeding nnder the terms of the decision, or the nse is established wit6in snch period by actaal operation parsnant to the applicable conditions and reqairements of the appmval, unless the zoning or planning administrator grants an estension not to exceed one (1) year, APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals aze t"inal sabject to appeal to the C�ty Conncil within 10 days 6g anyone affected by the decision. Bw7ding permits shaIl not be issned after an appeal has been 51ed. If permits have been issned before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are snspended and wnstraction shall cease nntil the G�ty Council has made a Snal determination of the appeal. � CERTIFICATION: I, the andersigned Secretar} to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Panl, Urnnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and Snd the same to be a trae and • correct copy of said orlginal and oY the whole thereof, as based oa approved minntes of the Saint Panl Board of Zoning AppeaLc meeting held on November 30, 2009 and on record in the Department of Safety and Inspections, 375 Jackson Street, Saint Paul, NTinnesota. SATNT PAi7L BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS r % f �__�•_. ��a ,�'�,;,�`�;;��__ � ��.f ��_ , ,, Debbie M. Crippen Secretary to the Boazd Page 4 of 4 � • � ��lEi) �2d D.�.I. . APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARTANCE Depminrent cfS�fety and Ir+spec8nru 0 C i 2? 2009 375 Jacksox Street Suite lZ0 SaintPaul, MNSSI01-I806 GeneraL• 651-266-9008 Fax: (651) 266-9099 APPLICANT � See Attached Sheet ! ( Attachmenfs as required: Site Plan PROPERTY INFORMATION 10-92 �� Name Rathrvn M. Nelson Comgany Address 3475 Siems Ct. crt Hills g�,MN Z;p 55112 DaytimePhone 651-636—o414 Property Interest of Applicant (owner, contract purehaser, etc} Owner/Purchaser Name of Owner (if different) Phone address/Locatiou 665 N SnellincT�667 N Snellincr & 1591 Blair LegalDescriptiou See Attached Sheet (¢itach addilional sked �fnecessary) LotSize See AttachedpresentZoning B PresentUse Commer ProposedUse Parkinct Lot and office Buildi�/Agartment Vaziance[s� requested: Supporting Information: Supply the necessary infoxmation that is applicable to yout variance request, provide details regarding the project, and explain why a variance is needed. Duple�triplex conversions may require a pro forma to be submitted. Attach additional sheets ifnecessary. AppGcanPs Signature Attachments Pro Forma � � 10-92 ��I3 Ild �.3.1. STEPHEN L. NELSON MANAGEK BLAIR PROPERTIES 3475 SIEMS COURT ARDEN HILLS, MBVNESOTA SSI I2 . (651) 642-2606 (651) 636-0414 October 20, 2009 Mr. John Hardwick Department of Safety and Inspections 375 7ackson St., Suite 220 St. Paul, IvIlV 55101-1806 >; < . .L. 4'_" l : � � 1�s - , � --- KATFIIiYN M. NELSON �n�p•� re: Application for Site Plan Review for Pazking Lot to be constructed behind 665 No. Snelling Ave., St. Paul, MN Deaz Mr. Hazdvnick, Enclosed herewith please find the following documents: An "Application for Zoning Variance" and an Attachment consisting of 3 pages; 2. 3. � 5. A check in the sum of $680.00 representing the application fee for the requested Variances; Three (3) sets of complete Plans (2 aze 11 "x 17" and one is 8,5" x 14") each containing the following documents: a. Site Plan; b. Grading Plan; c. Details for Grading Plan; d. Demolition Plan; e. Landscape Plan; and f. Survey. (Note - Unfortunately, I did not get enough colored copies of the I,andscape plan but I can procure more copies if you need a colored copy. I have provided Tom Beach with several colored copies because I didn't realize I was supposed to have 16 copies of the documents for the site plan review.) A full size survey of the premises. A copy of a Consent signed by James P. Siem, owner of 667 No. Snelling Ave. • /3� �� J You had also asked about a history of the ownership for the properties. I included a very brief history in the attachment to the Application For Zoning Variance. FIowever, since you seemed to 10-92 � Mr. John Hazdwick October 20, 2009 Page 2 ' ", ti i � : s= a have an interest in more detail of the history, I have also included a more extended version of the history of the property. The extended version of the history is to intended to provide you with the background of ownership and prior use of the property. I understand that the variance from the sideline setback for the parking lot on the property at 667 No. Snelling Avenue to the proposed parldng lot will be handled under ttris one application. Please call me should you have any questions or need any additional documentation. Very huly yours, Blair Properties / ( C � ��.�..�L � � �� I � � • L_J � Encls. Users�Sln�BLair�Zoning�dOl.Ltr �� 10-92 �� z, / ,�� _ � �� Attachment to "Applieation for Zoning Variance" for 665 & 667 N. Snelling Avenue Applicaut_ Applicant is the current owner of Lot 5 and the South 9 inches of the East 32.00 feet of Lot 4, all in Block 2, Hoplans Second Addition to St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota (i.e. 665 N. Snelling Ave. & 1591 Blair Ave.). Applicant has entered into a purchase agreement with the owner of 667 N. Snelling Ave. to purchase a small portion of Lot 4 described as the South 4.00 feet of the West 55.00 feet and the South 9 inches lying between the West 55.00 feet and the East 32.00 feet of L.ot 4, all in Block 2, Hopldns Second Addition to Saint Paul. ApplicanYs property will be Revised Pazcel B below. History: Applicant putchased the building after it had been constructed The commercial building at 665 No. Snelling Ave. occupies almost the entire parcel of land and there is no off street parlang for any tenants. Applicant and her spouse after purchase completely remodeled the building but did not add any additional space. Applicant since purchasing the properry has always had tenants express concern over the lack of pazldng which at times has made it difficult to rent the property. Applicant has unsuccessfully lried to pmvide tenanY with off street pazldng through arrangements wifh neigltboring businesses that appeazed to possibly have extra paridng spaces available. Applicant desires to consiruct a pazlflng lot of sufficient size to bring the building close to being in compliance with the current pazking requirements under the zoning regulations. Subject: Variances for side line setback of proposed pazldng lot from west and south boundary lines, a variance as to the 4.00 foot setback for both the proposed pazlflng lot and the existing pazldug lot on 667 No. Snelling from the new boundary line created after the approval for an Adjusted Common Boundary Line, entrance to the pazking lot from the alley for a pazidng lot with greater than 7 cazs, and the iequired screening fence on the West side of the properiy. Applicant does not believe but may need a m�nor variance for landscape azea. Legal: Revised Parcel A: 667 N. Snelling Ave., legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 2, Hoplans Second Addition to St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Except the South 9 inches lying East of the West 55.00 feet of said Lot 4. Also except the South 4.00 feet of the West 55.00 feet of said I.ot 4. Subj ect to an easement to attach roof flashing and caullang to the southerly wall of the building on I.ot 4, Block 2, Hopldns Second Addition to St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota Revised Pareel B: 665 N. Snelling Ave., legally described as follows: Lot 5, and the South 9 inches of L,ot 4lying . East of the West 55.00 feet of Lot 4 and the South 4.00 feet of the West 55.00 feet of Lot 4, all in Block 2, Hoplans Second Addition to St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Together with an easement to attach roof flashing and caulldng to the southerly wall of the building on Lot 4, Block 2, Hopkins Second Addition to St. Paul, Ratnsey County, Minnesota � � � • � -1= � �= s � d 10-92 � �'� �� .:...,. _aR3os13� � (Note - above legal description for Revised Parcel B(i.e. 665 N. Snelling Ave.) includes property which Applicant has under purchase agreement with 7ames P. Seim, owner of 667 No. Snelling Ave. Likewise, the legal description for Revised Pazcel A(i.e. James P. Seim's property at 667 N. Snelling Ave.) excludes the small portion of his property that he has agreed to sell to Applicant. Lot Size: 6fi5 N. Snelling Ave.'s Lot after Split is AppLOVed: Appro�mately 7,009 s.f. 665 N. Snelling Ave.'s L.ot before Lot Split: Approximately 6,764 s.f. 667 N. Snelling Ave.'s I.ot after Split is Approved: Approximately 5,731 s.f. 667 N. Snelling Ave.'s Lot before L.ot Split: Approximately 5,976 s.f. Variances: 1. Applicant is applying for a variance for the required 7 foot setback on the south property line of 665 N. Snelling Ave. from the existing sidewallc under City Code Section 63.314a. Applicant is proposing a 5 foot setback with significant landscaping and the required fencing (See Applicant's Landscaping Plan). Applicant will also be placing signs in front of pazking spaces to mazk them as "CompacY' spaces oniy and to number the spaces for assigned pazking spaces. 2. Applicant is also asking for a waiver of the 4 foot setback from the west side (i.e. � alley side) of 665 N. Snelling Ave. The proposed setback for the alley is 2.2 feet to the lot line versus 4 feet asked for in the Code Section 63.312. However, the current retaiivng wall wluch will be removed duriug construction currently occupies approximately 1.8 feet to 2+ feet on the public right of way for the alley and Applicant is proposing to include this land in his landscaping plans and plant some smaller hazdy landscape material. (See ApplicanYs Landscape Plan) 3. Applicant is further requesting a waiver of the screening fence requirement between the pazking lot and the alley under City Code Section 63.313. A screening fence will be a safety issue because it will block and/or severely restrict the view a driver will have of the alley when leaving the pazking lot. The residence (1595 Blair Ave.) that has a direct view of the pazlang lot is the lot on the west side of the North/South alley abutting ApplicanYs proposed parking lot. The topography of the lot at 1595 Blair Avenue is such that the house sits considerably higher than the proposed pazking lot . The first floor of the home at 1595 Blair Avenue is such that the first floor is approxunately 6 to 7 feet above the grade of the proposed pazking lot. Thus, if a fence is required to be instalied, the fence will do little to screen the view from the few fust floor windows of the house facing the alley and will do little to screen the view of someone walking on the east side of the lot because of the elevation. The property at 1595 Blair Avenue currently has significant mature vegetation (i.e. bushes and trees) between the house and its lot line abutting the alley and facing the proposed pazldng lot. Applicant is proposing to install landscape material to soften the look of the pazking lot. There is no screening for adjacent parking lot immediately to the north of Applicant's proposed parking lot which currently stretches across the enrire westerly portion of I,ot 4. • Applicant is also proposing to plant some hardy vegetation material along the west end of the pazking lot which will help screen and soften the view. However, Applicant is told that the proposed vegetation will be sufficiently low enough�ud � open to allow drivers to see cazs iraveling down the alley. Extending the open � -2- :.� � � : io-92 bq_3a__J� fence along the west side of the parlang lot will not provide any screening, will be susceptible to damage during snow plowing of the alley, will *nm,mi�e the choices . for plants and will make it more difficult to eacit and enter autos pazked in the westerly most stalls. Applicant is planning on keeping the planting azea on the southwest comer of the lot back so that the sidewalk is more visible to cars appmaclung the sidewalk from the North. 4. Applicant is also asking for a variance to the required 4 foot setback for the proposed pazkmg lot from tha north boundary (i.e. adjacent to the existing garldng on I.ot 4) and for a variance from the 4 foot setback requirement for the e�rishng parldng lot on 667 N. Snelling Ave. to the common pmperty line with ApplicanY s properiy. The City Code asks for a 4 foot setback from the properly line under City Code Section 63.312. The proposed space between the two pazlang lots along the westerly 32 feet of the common boundary from the inside top of the curb for ApplicanY s pazking lot will be approximately 1 foot. The azea between the parldng lots will have some landscape rock and will be used to install signs for ApplicanYs pazking lot. 5. A variance to allow the entrance for the proposed 10 space parking lot to be from the North/South alley. The City Code Section 63.310(� currenfly allows only pazking lots with 7 or fewer pazking stalls to enter from the alley. The proposed entrance to the parldng lot will be on the North/South alley located apgroximately 21 feet north of the public sidewalk running along the North side of Blair Avenue. C� Entering ApplicanY s proposed pazldng lot from Blair Ave. instead of through the alley is not practical and creates a potential dangerous situation. The entrance � onto Blair for ApplicanYs pazldng lot will place three private entrances in close proacimity to each other (i.e. ApplicanYs entrance right across Blair from the rear enirance to Hamline Cleaners and approacimately 80' from the other entaance to one of the main entrances to Hamline Cleaners), approximately 25 feet from the two North/South alleys that enter onto Blair Avenue and you have the busy Snelling Avenue intersection where left hand turns aze allowed. Blair Avenue is atso a heavily traueled sireet used by the neighbors living in the community and other Snelling Avenue businesses because left hand huns aze allowed off of Snelling Avenue only every other block. Since the lot is going to be nsed for Tenant only pazking there will be a nominal amount of additionat traffic on the Alley because tenants and their employees usualiy will enter from Blair and then only go in and out maybe once or twice a day. Since Blair will be so close and left hand tums onto Snelling Avenue aze allowed, almost all vehicles will primarily exit to Blair. Finally, requiruig an entrance from Blair Avenue will defeat the purpose of building a pazlang lot because it wi11 eliminate two current paz]�ng spaces on Blair Avenue alongside ApplicanYs properLy and the configuration of the pazking lot will reduce the maacimum number of pazldng spaces in the lot to 5 or possibly 6 without using a space for handicap which results in a net gain of only 3 or 4 pazlflng spaces after deducting the two spaces that would be lost on the street. This will lea�e Applicant with insufficient pazlflng spaces for her tenants in the parking lot and will reduce pazking available for customers of ApplicanYs Yenants and other businesses in the azea, A possible variance may be needed for landscaped azea in City Code Section 63.314(b). However, Applicant believes that depending upon how the azea of squaze footage is calculated the project will be at or just above the 10% requirement. l� Blair/Amuhment to Apptication for Zon Vaziance 665Amended-0ct 17, 2009B • -3- 10-92 .,_ _ _ ��,.. .�:,�� u a 5 : ��s �� I�� 3 S � � �$ $��3 �a�� a�� $�� .0•#�4°''Fnoe� J a �� .,.: \ c `.� •; � � 1 �e ?� �e �a � g � '9 � � e+; � _%� ,�'� - � �� t � � i' " '�� t'- � �a] 9 �5 �E� ' ��a 3a� 3s� ��d �9�� 2%� �778 d9.� �� g 3 S� E� z �e �2 �@ �E =� __—�' t m � m � i i �i i s B � � � � � a i � � 8 1 J� R �IIN`�SA'G �HI`IZ�N$ 10-92 `�� 4� • ',\^_ ��. 0 -3c�S733 HISTORY OF 665 N SNELLING AVENUE 1890s to 1956: Since the early 1900s, I,ot 5, Block 2, Hopldns 2° addition has been divided into two sepazate pazcels (i.e., the East 77.7` and the West 42.3�. On each of these two pazcels there has been a separate 2 story home. The home at 1591 Blair was constructed in 1904. The home portion of 665 N. Snelling was built in the late 1890s, but the tax records show 1906. 1956 to 1978: In i956, ApplicanYs father-in-law and several other individuals purchased the east 77.7 feet of Lot 5 together with the 2 story home. In 1956 the group constructed a one story block building wrapped around the old house. The south 9" of the east 32' of Lot 4(i.e. the azea between the building at 667 No. Snelling and the north lot line of I.ot 5) was acquired so that the buildiugs would abut each other and there would be no space between. The one story block building was divided into 5 rentat spaces and used primarily as store front office rental space and the comer unit was originally a laundromat. The lower two leveis of the old house were connected to the office space and used as additional office area and the second floor of the house was converted into a sepazate apartment. There was no requirement for off street pazldng at the time of conshuction. � U Applicant's father-in-law, Laurence M. Nelson, moved his law practice into a portion of the building in 1956. Applicant's husband, Stephen L. Nelson, joined his father in the practice of law in 1972. Stephen L. Nelson and lus father have ran their respective taw offices continuously , in this location since 1956. 1978 to Present: In 1978 Laurence M. Nelson, who had previously retired from the practice of law sold the property to Applicant and her husband. In 1980-81, Applicant thmugh a city program completely rehabilitated the commercial part of the building by gutting it to the bare walls, replacing all of the mechanicals, redoing the exterior and 95% of the interior. The number of rental units was reduced from 5 down to 2. The remodeling was partially funded through a city financing program. The exterior was tastefiilly redone with new windows, an atiractive brick exterior and a cedar parapet azound the entire bIock building to hide the new roof top mechanicals. However, no off street pazlang was added to the building. In 1980-81 before and during the remodeling, Applicant and her husband attempted several times to purchase 1591 Blair which is the westerly pottion of Lot S lying west of the easterly 77.7 feet in order to consiruct a pazldng lot for Applicant's tenants. Applicant and her spouse were unable to reach an agreement with the family who owned the properry. In 1996, Applicant was able to purchase the pmperty from the same family after tkiey had hied for many years on and off to sell the house and properly at 1591 Blair Avenue. The problems the former owners encountered in selling 1591 Blair was (1) the very small size of the lot (i.e., 423 feet by 56 feet), (2) the location of the small house in relation to the busy alley, (3) no off street pazldng, and (4) the need of substantial updating. However, the primary reason the property had not sold was due to the substandard size of the lot which prevented the property from qualifying for any type of • traditional financing. Applicant purchased 1591 Blair with the intent of eventually hying to provide off street parking �\� -Z- - 10-92 k(� � r: r�:� e ' ` �� 9 .7 ' .c. � for her tenants at 665 N. Snelling. As part of the agreement to purchase 1591 Blair, Applicant was asked to continue renting to a family member of the seller. The family member remained in the house and eventually moved out. Applicant has maintained the interior of the home on 1591 Blair and has performed such work on the exterior as needed with full laiowledge of her intent to someday tum the properiy into a pazking lot for 665 N. Snelling. The property has always been zoned B-2 which will allow the property to be used for a pazlflng lot. Applicant had also determined that reselling 1591 Blair would be very difficult if not impossible for the same reasons the former owners encountered when they tried to sell 1591 Blair. Summarv As long as Applicant has been involved with 665 N. Snelling Avenue, pazking has always been a concem for prospective tenants. Over the years, the neighbors (several of whom have been clients) have graciously tolerated our on street parking. Applicant has tried over the yeazs to rent pazldng space from neighbors (Hamline Cleaners) for her tenants. Applicant also tried to encourage some neighboring businesses to purchase Lot 3, Block 2, Hopkins Second Addifion to St. Paul wluch is occupied currently by Metro Auto for an indoor parking area without success. Several times in the past, Applicant attempted to start work on plamung for the conshuction of a parking lot but was discouraged by city employees from doing so for various reasons. Applicant only recently was able to reach an agreement with the owner of the property immediately north of • Applicant's property (i.e. 667 N. Snelling) to purchase some additional land to give Applicant enough room to build a parking lot of a sufficient size to come very close to meeting the required code pazking spaces. According to the City Inspector the home at 1591 Blair needs significant exterior repairs. Applicant has investigated the cost to repair and it is prohibitive to spend the kind of money that would be needed to bring this properiy completely up to code. Thus, it makes economic sense to remove the building at this time. Applicant desires to alleviate the pazking on Blair Avenue by conshucting a pazking lot for her tenants which will then free up sireet parking for residents to the west of the a11ey and provide more on street parking for customers of the tenants at 665 N. Snelling Avenue and neighboring businesses. Although the lot will not bring the building totally up to current code requirements for parking, it will bring the property very close to meeting the required parking spaces. Based on the proposed parking lot with 10 spaces, all of ApplicanYs cunent tenants, their respective employees and the tenant in the apartment above 665 N. Snelling will be able to park in the parking lot. This will eliminate all the hassles of on street pazking for the residential neighborhood and for ApplicanYs tenants during inclement weather. Applicant believes she has one of the more attractive buildings on North Snelling and desires to make the parldng lot similarly attractive. Applicant fiuther believes that the off stteet pazking lot which she proposes to construct will blend into the neighborhood and will beYter serve the . neighborhood and her tenants. " \� -2- CONSENT TO LOT SPLTT AND 10-92 '�r�� t� ' �\.�_� � �' ' �?s � D ��s�3 �� APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES NEEDED TOR NEW AND F,XISTING PARHING LOT The undersigned, 7ames P. Siem ("Siem'�, hereby aclmowledges the following: The Siem, is the owner of 669-671 North Snelling Aveaue, St. Paul, Minnesota, legally described as follows: Lot 4 except the south 9" of the East 32', Block 2, Hopkins Second Addition to St. Faui, Ramsey County Minnesota PIN # 33.29.23.11.0026 (I'he "Siem Property'�; and Kattuyn M. Nelson ("Nelson'� is the owner of 665 No Snelling Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, legally described as fallows: The Easteriy 77.7' of LoYS and the south 9" of the East 32' of Lot 4, Block 2, Hopkins Second Addition to St Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, PIN # 33.29.23.1 I.d027 and I591 Blair Avenue, St Paul, Minnesota, legally described as follows: The portion of I,ot 3 lying west of the Easterly 77.T, Block 2, Hopldns Second Addition w St Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, P1N # 33.29.23.11.0028 (Collectively the two parcels shall be referred to as the "Nelson PmperLy"); and � Nelson bas enfered into a piu�chase agreement witti Siem fo putchase a portion of Lot 4, Block 2, Hopldns Second Addition to S� Paul, Ramsey Courny, Nfinnesota, legally described as follows: The south 4 feet of the Westerly 55' and the south 9" lying west of the East 32' and lying West of t�e Westerly 55' ("Purchased Propert��, and said legal description of the P�cfiased Property shall be subject to minor changes as may be required by a licensed surveyor hired by Nelson; and � � a'� i�e"� ^r!•^ FC.:.1..3 10-92 � �� 3 05�� . Siem has been informed by Nelson that in order to construct a parking lot on the combined Nelson Property and Purchased Property ("Proposed Parking Lot'�, Nelson will need to procure appmval for a lot split of the Purchased Property from the City of St. Paul and several varia.aces to the Zo nina Code of the City of St Paul in order to construct a parking lot on the combined pmperty_ NOW THEREFORE, SIEM HERESY AGREES AND CONSENTS TO'TFIE FOLLOWING ACITONS OF NELSON: 1. To sign all necessary documents to pmcure the lot split and the necessary code variances to construct the Proposed Parking I.ot pmvided all such costs are paid for by Nelson. The documents shall include but not be limited to the following: a. The application by Nelson for a lot split to remove the Purchased Properiy from Siem's Property and add said Purchased Property to Nelson's Property. b. The application by Nelson for such variances as may be needed to approve Siems' existing parking lot as it now exists including waiver of any setback requirements from the Proposed Pazking Lot. • c. The application by Nelson for such variances as may be needed to approve the Proposed Pazking Lot including setback requirements from their new proposed common lot line and the other CUree sides of the Proposed Parldng Lot. 2. I ag�ee to allow the surveyor to enter upon my pmperiy to determine (i) the ez�act location of the current boundary line, (ii) a description for the Purchased Properiy and (iii) to shoot such elevations on Siems' Pmperty in the vicinity of the Proposed Pazking Lot as may be necessary for the design and engineering of the Proposed Parking Lot. I agree to timely cooperate with Nelson and to make my self available to sign all documents necessary to accomplish the anticipated actions described herein as may be necessary to procure City approval for the Proposed Pazking Lot. � 4. I agree that when the Proposed Pazking Lot is constructed, Nelson shall be authorized to remove any portion of the rem< �n;ng sioped concrete not included as part of the Purchased Property and to replace said concrete with landscape rock. Dated: September �, 2009 J es P. Siem B1air�SiemConsentApplicSplit&Variances v �� . , 4� k�\ � � . ,. �� a � `• � � . �. . � .. , , �•1 f. ; �� — __ L -_ ;.. . _ ,�. , -, ---� f .... _. ��,'l� k" I md asd �$ �uo av� u� � � e� � �5 z9 'e g bi a5 ��o t ��m �o i �� _ b £� �e sx�� n gg$a �� R� � � �o p=�m � �� m_ : a s � r�� ' , F ��'_ ° N � � yv' � ° $ qg �'� v $�$Y z°s N ��p� �� p ° Q� i � tf m m�n: �` z \\ � . . \\ ��. . ., ..;�\� � 5� � �� i � �' � i n § � � d s s f 6 cs �e � �a S � g � � � �� g P^ � �� 6 b 5 � 9� �� 8 g 6 g � q $ � 65 t� m.� `,°� 6 °�� i �� 6 sa6en6s��4 � a � 2 � � = y° � � fi g� � a� ,�E 5 Y�� ,� � s E Sa � 2� �g �' $ ag a� m � $a �i �' gs $?� �tee�� *�� `��ga p # E °`s e s S��6 6 E a �� a3 eg : S 9 s� S a�S 3 i� i �£ g$ �s�$ �€��a� s� E x� 4 °. �� g � .� `: ;�� Y .n<4 (� � • ••�� , � � �� I� `�'� �`' „ ,' $ �u � 3� � � � � $a _ �' i��:�_ �.. - � I 11 �-�� U �. ?, E "I a G � 9� �� 6 �� $ ;� 4 � !� � � a�s � � ;�� ;;; � s ,� � � ��3: � C7 • �� - .s. ,.�kf, .. • � � Q W Q U d = �� N N �O U V¢ 3 W N YU?F J2�fn W O ati¢ �l�Wp U ¢ s Z ¢ � U Z 0 0 � � awaWtn w== F �¢� O��OO Zm�=� o. m � o�L a .4 ai • w n � I I � � 4 • � b � � �^�� • • �� 4 � • � . . .. :{�� . . y v � / \ \\ \� e .v •. •a • II � \. a . 4� � l � 4 ; ,.l d -� 4 . vti . _ ; 4 .�� 2 � `� .r,. 1� .� , � +--. � ��=;'s Q � ) �` a ' J• - ' 1: !�-�� \ � � � � � � 'r\` � Y\• \ \ ` o ' • ' a .11 � �`\' 4 q s p '.. � � • I . _ . � �':I� � �• ��i� �� LL . i• .Z. °� I j �' �. ��Z a M � ��' ° � �� a � � z I •I ;� - � � I� I _� �� „ o j . - z , g t °� � r a II a �_. . .'.•�• a, .: w �- x�a� = (n-�a F -' x ��¢�"'�^ Z W 3a WOm� _ � � Q �"' °-5 `i� � M <1 . P i -- a .i N � � h3 � N � W \ � �E 2 ZO KW f `t'�'� �� 4� �� 0o iz .�t � z c� o - ; �; 1- U �w \ ' Z � W � o '- z o � w � .: .� w �'v io Q a -� � W � �� m ? K �/1 � � 0 = FZ� O J W � � 2u Z W ? O O ° w a�yx w ° ¢" N W Q N� Z �Oga � a ��o� a U 2 W o3K N. O� � ��I� �? �$ �d _ 4 � � �� a m � � U U h 0 z \� 10-92 -- � y . To: John Hardwick DSI, 375 Jackson St. From: Linda Murphy 800 City Hall Annex Re: 1591 Blair Pazldng Lot Construction Date: November 16, 2009 Traffic Engineering has reviewed their plan for a parking lot with access off the alley. Typically a very small parking lot with low turnover having access on the alley would not create a tra�'ic concern. In this instauce the alley right-of-way is only 15 feet wide with the pavement width even less at various points. Our current alley standards for two-way traffic is 20 feet wide. The narrow width of this alley makes it difficult for opposing traffic to pass. Because of this, appmval of any design that would allow more haffic on tlus narrow alley could exacerbate tra�ic safety in the alley. . We looked at possible designs for their pazking lot with an entrance off of Blair. We would have no objections to having the driveway off of Blair provided 1) The parking stall closest to Blair would have to be set back faz enough from the street so velucles would not be bacldng over the sidewalk to maneuver in and out of the space, 2) The most northerly pazldng stall would haue to have a small backing/maneuvering area to get out of the space, 3) The curb cut on Blair should be pulled away from the alley entrance so there's a separate alley entrance and a separate pazking lot entrance. � • �` � � �, Hamline Midway Coalition o�sTwcr» coaemuwrrcouNCa 10-92 �'i`- 3C��/�� 7564LAFONO,ST.PAULMN 55104 • 651.646.7985 • vnvw.hamiinemidWaVCOdIfiOn.Om November 13, 2009 Boazd of Zoning Appeals c/o John Hazdwick Department of Safety & Inspections 375 7ackson Street, Suite 220 St. Paul, MN 55101-1024 Subject: File #09-305133. Several variances of the off street parking regulations in order to establish a parking lot for 665 Snelling Avenue North. To the Board of Zoning Appeals: The Hamline Midway Coalition Land Use Committee met and discussed this issue on the evening Thursday, November 12. The applicant attended the meeting and presented their project. Marjorie Conrad, owner � and resident of 1595 Blair Avenue, immediately adjacent to the proposed parking lot, was also in attendance and voiced opposition to aspects of the plan, particularly the proposed entrance onto the alley. The committee also had copies of lO letters of opposition sent to 7ohn Hardwick by local residents. Members of the committee visited the site prior to the meeting. Based on the findings of the HMC Land Use Committee, the Hamline Midway Coalition: SUPPORTS the creation of a pazldng lot for the building at 665 Snelling Avenue North. 2. SUPPORTS the use of small trees, shrubs, and other vegetation to provide a visual screen beriveen the parking lot and the alley. 3. OPPOSES the variance of Section 63310 in order to provide alley access for the proposed pazking lot. Instead, E�MC recommends an entrance to the parking lot from Blair Avenue. 4. RECOMMENDS that the applicant use a pervious pavement material in the drive lane of the proposed pazking lot and slope the lot into the pervious azea in order to prevent storm water run off. HMC further recommends that the applicant seek financial assistance with this aspect of the project from the Capital Region Watershad District, which has grants available for such projects. � "\� 10-92 �. � - J C� . �j � 5. RECONIMENDS that the applicant pursue a shazed pazking anangement with the owner of 667-71 North Snelling Avenue (the property immediately to the north). There is ample space for a shazed pazking lot and such an arrangement would increase the amount of pazking available to both businesses. HMC further recommends that the City of Saint Paul facilitate such a pazking arrangement by any means possible, including providing financial incentives. 6. RECOMIVVIHNDS that if the variance o£ Section 63310 is granted, allowing for alley access, the City of Saint Paul make that section of the north-south alley between Van Buren and Blair `one-way only' (running from north to south) in order to facilitate traf&c movements. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, �� '�. �� M�ohaet 7on otson Eacecutive Director � v � � � � -� '�'l� 0 10-92 ��> , � � �l � �\ -� � Y��'�� .. . , � � ��. � 1 • � 7 � �, - �� , � .� . � . � � ,� Design Mannal Cfiapter 5 — Roadway Design 10-92 3 �� 5I-8 � Section I — Access Manasement SI-8 Pedestrian Safety Access management is usually promoted as a way to improve the safety of and driving conditions for motorists. Cleaziy, access mana�ement techniques can lead to mads and sireets that are dramatically safer, much easier, and more pleasant for driving. However, reseazch also indicates tbat several key access management techniques aze also just as valuable for pedestrians as for motorists. These include: • Reducing the overall number of driveways (particulazly commercial driveways) per block or mile_ a �rov3ding for greater distanee separa�ton between ihe driveways. Every sidewallc or path tl�zt crosses a driveway represents at least fo�s potenrial pedestrian/velricle conflict paints. Reducing the �r �mber of driveways per black reduces tke nembeL of conflict poiats proportionally. Greater separation of driveways helps pedestrian safety in that the operational azeas of driveways do not overlap as muc1L Drivers (and gedeshians) have a difficult time mentally processing mare tLan one conflict point at a time; greater sepazarion helps them concentrate on one problem at a time. Safety research also shows cleazly that raised medians at s�eet intersections and/or at mid-block locarions are very important design features for pedestrians because they serve as refuges from traffic. As the table below shows, roads with raised medians aze rou„rhly twice as safe for pedeshians. The pedes�ian crash rate is the number of crashes involving pedestrians divided by the millions of vehicle miles of motor vehicle travel on the road. The intersection rate includes crashes that occur af ini�secfion; rfie mid-block figure includes all other cxashes. Roadway Type Median Mid-Block Intersection Pedestrian Crash Pedesfrian Crash Rate Rate On the other hand, two-way left-tum lanes (TWLTL) aze effective in reducing auto crashes on arterial madways cazrying moderate tevels of tcaffic but offer no refuge for crossing pedeshians. The pedeshian safety characteristics of 5-lane TWLTL roads aze just about the same as an undivided four-lane road. Tn order to be effective as a refuge for crossing pedestrians, a median must be at least 6 feet wide. A wide, flush (no raised curb) gtass median will be a somewhat less effective pedestrian refuge than a raised median. � �� Page Revised: 1021/2008 1 io-9z Chapter 5 — Roadway Design � Other corridor design and access manaaement features tl�x can aLso help pedestrians aze to: • Set back sidewallcs several feet from the s�eet by providing a grass, paved, or brick pazldng. This allows pedesh to see and be seen better and sepazates them from the traffic flow. • Provide a clear wne free of visual obstructions such as signs, large trees or bushes, or pazked velucles that prevent pedestrians from being seen by drivers and that prevent pedestrians from seeing velucles. • Provide for a neazly flat cross grade on the sidewalk. This is also necessary to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) design requirements. e Provide signalized mid-block crossings for pedestrians where feasible, especially if the distance between signalized intersecrions is long (1/2 mile). � � � 10/21/2008 Chapter 5. Driveway Crossings - FHWA t�,�, � � �r�` ,� ,� �� E�� , � :�,: • , ' < Previous Eage 1 of 7 � Y_ Z o =: FHWA > HEP > Ernironment ! Confsnfs Next > Chapter 5. Driveway Crossings Driveway crossings permit cars to cross the sidewalk and enter the street They serve the same basic purpose for cars as curb ramps serve for pedestrians. Therefore, they consist of many of the same components found in curb ramps. It is ihe drivers responsibiliiy to yield to the pedestrian at the driveway-sidewalk ir�terface. Unfortunatety, this does not always happen, and pedestrians are put at risk. Minimiang the number of driveway crossings in a sidewalk significanUy improves pedestrian safety. - Driveway crossings shoutd be designed so that both the pedestrians and the drivers are able to use them effecfively. However, a driveway crossing must provide a way for cars to negotiate the elevation change between the street and the sidewalk. This is generally achieved by ramping all or a portion of ihe driveway crossing. When the ramp for ihe motorist crosses the pedestrian's path of travel, signficant cross slopes and changes in cross slope must be negotiated by the pedestrian. The cross slope problem at driveway crossings along with several innovative solutions will be discussed in this chapter. Supplemental infnrmation about good desigh principles and specificatians is contained in Table 5-1. � Figure 5-1. To enhar 5.1 Change in ceoss slops �vef pedestrian zone. A change in aass slope is an abrupt difference between tfie cross slope of iwo adjacent surfaces. ADAAG does oot permit aoss slope to exceed 2 percent (changes in aoss slope are a((owed between 0-2 percenf only}. Changes in cross slope are commonly found at driveway crossings without level cxossings. When considering the needs of pedestrians, change in cross slope is evaluated over a 610 mm (24 in) inferval, which represents the approximate length of a single walking pace and the base of support of assistive devices, such as wheelchairs or walkers. The design recommendations for change of cross slope specify the relationship between two adjacent surfaces, notthe actual cross slope of edher surface. 5 `� � http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/sidewalks205.htm 11/14/2009 10-92 � � • � ��'� _�,i�;�;= . .`z::.'',��: -. c�. iy'� � . c.' �.�b M l�_ \. ` ? l .: f .} 4 " S� 4 S .,r c4<s; ' . . s k _ r � � �� ' �� . a;e:" . . � �. F .v� . � > . .� . _ � � - ; y . � ; n - _ :' : y_}:_ _ ,,- � ' _ .,3e z i '1 - "^ �'j,, - -- r;� ; , r rv <' �� ' y , � _ , ��.' x .r° � � . � V.•�.` r x� n e� . . : _'..... ,. . .. . . ..... ,, i . ... _ . .. . .. � �� CIN OF LQS ANGElES DEFARThfiEN'f OF CVN PEANf31NG Walkability Checklist Guidance for EnBUement Rev'iEnr 10-92 � OFF�STREEi PARKt(rIG AIeFD D(2iVEWRYS GOALS 10-92 CIN QF LOS ANGElES �EPARTMENS OE CIN PLANNING �Nalkabii"rty Checkfist Guidance for Enti[lement Review � OFF=STk2EEf PARFCING AN� QREVEVd�6aYS IMPLEMENTAT(QN STRATEGY CHECKLIST m " � U a � C'1' m �6 �n N �� U ip � C � U � a' O � z�� , � � y ^ � �� a_; 1 Maintain continuity of the sidewalk. � r�E <;� �;:�w �� % � 2 Locate parking behind buiidings rather than directiy exposed to the adjacent major street �_.�: e=='; ., ,�£ z=� .;:'4'S' �ti„::\ ' �»�4 3 Use aileys to access the parking behind the huitding. If no ailey is availabie, create access to parking from a side sf2et, wherever possible. ; : yr �,, �:,:�T :�t,� � ..�., .-_,. .`�:�.� .�..:� 4 5 Accommodate vehide access to and from the site with as few driveways as possi6le. Limit the widEh of each driveway to the minimum required. _z�t. ��;:�� ., �:� € .y�� _'a �f=. � `z�," :;�.°, b;'' g:.� i"<v •�::i i�%Ei, �� 6 Mcarporate archiiectural features on parking structure facades that respond to the neighhorhood ,,;�:, z ,�., ;.,,; . � contextandthatmntributeto"placemaking". 'i`'3:": "_';.; `�n" 4;�� %:��> .$�:i T'n''':! � �S'J2 7 Limitparkinginthefrontsetbackofthe6uiidingtowithin aikoweddriveways. `;':�,?� .z; �,.� �;..,? ,�,�.;,?; 8 Mitigate the impact of parking visible to the street wifh the use of planting and landscape _��x;� -_„ t:,a � Q± ;. walfs tall enough to screen headlights. "� ' `°a �'' •= : t: ,� � . 9 Ik€uminate a!I arkin areas and estrian walkwa s. ^=• "`� P 9 P� Y ,:• zi � = �c x�'v,� i ec�?i i�=. ?0 Reconstruct abandoned dr:vevdays as sidewaiks. :y F „' �' , 11 Reconstruct sub-standard driveways to meet current A�A reqairements. �,�;� �-� `:°� ,�� ?�;{�t ic•:a �_'Y„ :�'i. :F.:,s .. 12 Use architecturai features to provide continuity at the street whese openings occur due to driveways or.ofher breaks in the sidewaik and building wall. .:.. r.. _ ..... � � � CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CFTY PL4NNMG 'vYalkabil"rty Cfiecklist Guidance for EntiBement Review 10-92 � OFF�STREET PARKING AND DE2iVEYVAYS Maintain continuity of the sidewaik. � Locate parking behind 6uiidings rather than directly exposed to the adjacent major streel Recommanded Not Remmmanded Recommended Not Recommended 10-92 CITY OF LOS ANGELES OEPARTMENT OF CITY PIANNING W.alkab0iry Checklist Guidance for Entitlement Review � OFF°STl2EE'� PAE2KiNG AND DR[VEYt+AYS Use alleys to access fhe parking behind the 6uilding. If no alley is available, create access to parking from a side street, wherever possibie. � Accommodate vehicle access to and frem the site with as few driveways as possi6le. �ga e ° , � Recommznded Not Recommzn6ed Rewmmended Not Recommended 10-92 CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEFARSMENT OF qTY PLANNING Walkability Checldst Guidance for Entitiement Review � OFF�STE2EEf PARKING AND D[iNEtM16AYS Limit the widtfi of each driveway to the minirnum reguired. � Incorporate architectural features on packing sGucture faeades that respond to fhe neigfi6orhood context and tfiat contribufe to °placemaking Rewmmended Not Recommended RecammerMed Not Recommended 10-92 qN OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMEM OF CffY PLANNMG 1Kalkability Checklist Guidancz for EnfiHement Review � dEF�SYE2EEf PA(2KING AND €SF2iVEi�AYS Limitparkinginthefrontsetbackofthebuildingtowithin alloweddriveways. � Mitigate the impact of parking visible to the sfreet with the use of pianting and landscape walls tall enough to screen headlights. N � v p . � G . �7dS7i1nFa'iCC�: Not Recommended Recommended PJot Recommendc-d CITY OF l05 ANGELES �EPARTMEM OF CffY PL4NNING Walkabiiiiy Checkfist Guidance for Entitlement Review 10-92 � CSFFaSTREET PARKING APlD D€2[VE�FAYS Illuminate aIl parldng areas and pedestrian walkways. � > Reconstruct abandoned driveways as sidewalks. Recommznded Not Recommended Racommzndad Not Recommended 10-92 CITY OP LOS ANGELES DEPART�dENT OF CIN PL4NNING lNalka6ility Checkfist Guidance for Entitlement Review • OF�°S7"REET PARKIP7G AWD DRIVEVt�AYS Reconstruct sub-sYandard driveways to meet currentADA requirements. Rcll O� � Use architectural features to provide continuity at the street where openings occur due to driveways or oiher breaks in the sidewalk and buiiding walt. � a • -'- r1 �� Not Recommended Recommentled 10-92 x��a � �� cc y c�o �oa rn cu .. � ra' N v � m � �p •- � ((q � '�U' C c�o a Gs' � � � K O .�s' P� C � � � � �� . o � � � � � �� '. � � ,� o � o�� °° �� a � o .°� �cs � N �otd� o � �. � x� N � N '�"'• ` � '�' .'y �N. o �• a � � (!Q 'O y T5 � "t � � � ' O C n c� p � � � ° a ca �-. .� o a �" � � � ` o av � ,� o 0 � � . �ro� � � � � �z �. �� - �� xbyy a,�a �. � � C � w � o C c �` v "'3 O � ER. .y+ w �• a �, -, � � w .-. ry � � �-Y� ' � \:� � � � io-92 �o�' �� C ^�+ N � '�', � c�c ,�',"'_, W (D N � ' � O � a rn ��'� � � � .o CD c�o 0 0 0 � ro � � � � � � � � � � � �o c�o ^�o � o � � � N �' � � � � `� � � � �' O � � � o�� o c o cro ,..,, N ��o� ti � � � y ti � �� ,. � O `o o�� (�o �. N "�''. �S� x � �` � O R �� q m "U N O � � �O O r� o. a � � o a�''. �` � r: � � � � p o � � � �.ro� � � U �� z a �� • � �- w a �< «�a �. � � � � c�i � � �.�i O � N � � �. � ^- �. � �. �� ., � � m a �'s � �� 10-92 November 13, 2009 To whom it may concern: I am currently a co-owner of our longtime family business, Hamline Cleane=s, which is located at the Southwest corner of Blair and Snelling Avenue. Our location is directly south across Blair Avenue fxom Kathryn M. Nelson's pxoperty. We have been here on this corner for 30 years. Without supportinq either side I would like to point out some observations I have made over the many years of working on this corner. 1. Parking has been an issue at times over the years. I have observed that parking needs for tenants of 665 N. Snelling have varied depending upon the tenants. There have been parking problems in the past due to heavy tra£fic caused by people stopping to visit the commercial tenants renting from the Nelson Property. Anything that can be done to improve parking without reducing on street parking will be appxeciated. � 2. Steve Nelson, Kathryn's husband, and othex tenants of 665 No. Snelling have over the years approached us to rent some off street parking space from us. We were never able to accommodate any of their requests because we did not feel we could afford to give up any of our parking areas especially during the winter months when parking becomes a premium. • A17. commercial businesses need parking. Thank you for considerinq my observations and concerns. Ham�ine Cleaners V Gt �� Joe Mikel �� lJ �� \.� � 10-92 � � � � o � � � � b � � x � `�° �. � x av a A' o � ., '+ � �� c�o � a �y- � o � a � o � Uo, � p � � a � �� O CC `� � � < � y N 3� � �+ � � � `� h3 � O � C � � � M � .-� ,-�y o O � r' "� .� U y 'CS � 'O O N 'X �. P. N p 'c3 " x � 0 � O � � N N V1 � �-s � O � 9 a o a w ;Y �S � tro 0 0 � � M :* o ro a, G � � � �z �� -- � �. `� a M• < � a� �� + H �.�./ � Y-i (�y � y �o a � � 10-92 � November 16, 2009 To Whom it May Concem - I live in the neighborhood in the 1700 block of Blair. I have been a mail man for many years and walk the residential and commercial neighborhood streets daily and also this community. I cross many driveways which aze always a concern to me. A driveway entrance close to a building would also restrict the ability to see vehicles exiting the pazking lot until they start to cross the sidewalk. I would agree with the Nelson proposal that a parldng lot with access from the a11ey would eliminate a driveway crossing onto Blair Avenue and would be safer for pedestrians like myself who walk on the sidewalk. Also, the azeas where driveways cross sidewalks can get very slippery during the winter when snow melts, runs across the sidewalk and then freezes. As a pedestrian every day on the sidewalks of these streets I prefer to have fewer driveway crossings. Crreg I�ejce � `- �' �� , 10-92 � ti:, ��3] • File # 09-305133 1591 Blair parking lot John Hazdwick Depazbnent of Safety and Inspections 375 Jackson St. Suite 220 St. Paul, MN 55101 �� My major concern is the South entrance to the alley, because I drive a motorcycle and often the cazs cannot see me. There is an increased amount of kids that live in ihe neighborhood that use the alley. Increasing the nuxnber of potential accidents as a result of additional regulaz tr�c, makes the azea unsafe. My next concern is the amount of setback decreased in the request. There needs to be a buffer between the a11ey and cars parked and room for absorption for storm water run-off. In the bufFer zone I would like to see trees as a visual screening to appease the neighboring property values and neighborhood. � Th You, oT az m�K r e ° l 2` Y 1609 Blair 651-269-2617 � � � 10-92 � r c.�;� �: : � _J-_,�.3C s`�3 November 3, 2009 John Hardwick Zoning Administration Department of Safety and Inspection 375 Jackson St #220 St. Paul, MN 55101-1806 RE: File # 09 - 305133 Steve and Kathy Nelson's Variance request for pazking lot 1591 Blair and 665 Snelling Ave. N Dear John, Per the variance requests hearing notice dated October 29: I am apposed to all three requests. The alley is an extension of my driveway to access Blair. As a one-Iane drive, it can only accommodate one caz at a time. The alley is already too congested and this will only create 10 times more congestion. Traffic jams presentlq back up onto Blair while cazs wait on Blair for other vetucles to e�t the alley. Blair then becomes congested. Cars waiting to turn onto Blair have had to wait as well. Winter conditions already create tremendous icing due to water run-off. More groundwver facing the alley would perpetuate treachemus driving and increase congesrion. There aze many pedestdans including neighbors and many children that use the alley for access. Added congestion makes an unsafe pedestrian hazard and hopefully not a catastrophe. . Visual screening does ttuee things. One, it creates a safety border between the cars traveling in a slippery aliey and pazking lot cars. Two, it separates the residential and commercial. Three, and more to the point of this ordinance, it is appropriate to protect the neighboring home from glare and heat from the cazs and blacktop; screens the home from having to view a full parking lot, and creates a noise barrier caused by pazking cars (horns, starting engines, doors slamxuing, alarms, and cl�atter). Set backs required by zoning are appropriate to absorb water run offand they creafe a neat and orderly lot instead of just another vast groundcover of pavement. The lot should be sloped towazds Blair for previous reasons stated I recommend a Blair access. It complies with zoning requirements and adds value to both the neighborhood and to his business. It also remedies all the traffic and ruuoff issues created by au alley access. I fa�or the wisdom of the zoning regulations and I hope that zoning and the applicant both see the wisdom in the zoning regulations. Sincerely, � ��- Richard and Melanie Moore 1618 Van Buren St Paul, MN 55104 � � V� � 11/2/2009 John Hardwick - Variance A lication 09 - 305133 � 10A2 age 1 � - � �a j�� • From: lisa&Brian <quinnco@comcast.net> ��'�' To: <john.hardwickQa ci.stpaul.mn.us> CC: <michaefjon@hamlinemidway.org> Date: 11l2/20091225 PM Subjezt: Variance Appiip8on 09 - 305533 Good attemoon — We are Lisa Clark & Brian Quinn, owoecs of 16211t623 Btair Ave. We have been owners and residents of this property for 17 years. We are una6le to attend the pubtic fiearing regarding a variance application on November 16th; and are therefore submitfing this letfer detailing our concems. We ere writing in regards to the variances requested as part of a plan to build a parking lot for the business on 665 Snelling Ave. The fiIe number with the Depar6nent of Safety and Inspections is 09 -305133. The appGrants are Kathryn & Lawrence Nelson. We are not opposed to the creation of a parking lok However, we have some objedions about the variances requested. Afthough the business is on Snelling, the parking Iotwill be on Biair Ave. A house that has been owned and rented out by the Nelsons will be tom down in order to open the lot: The variances requested primarily relate to easing the requirements for setbacks, visual screen and access parameters. We would prefer that all the zoning requirements be enforced, but there are Lwo in particular we feel most strongly about. First, we object to the variance that would put the entrance to the lot on the alley. We feel the entrance should be on BlairAve. One problem with the proposed design is the Iack of maneuverable space to tum in � and out of the parking lot fram the alley. A second, and more significant problem is that the ailey that provides access to the Snelling Ave. businesses is already heavily trafficked. Due to le@ tum limitations on Snelling, many patrons of the grocery store on the SW comer of Van Buren 8 Snelling and the Valvoline Oil Change on the NW comer use the alley to connect to thase businesses. There is also an automotive repair shop that uses the �a{tey to exit their garage. Like most alleys, vehiGes cannot pass each other, and there have been numerous times that one car has been required to badcup in order to allow for traffic. It is worth noting that the ally is primariiy residential, and there is alsa significant foot traffic, including many children. In effect, the ailey is on the verge of becoming an access road. Adding the parking lot will add to the traffic and the hazards to the residents. Secondly, there has been a Iong standing drainage problem on the aliey behind the Snelling businesses. The pooling and standing water are significant during rain, and the ice during winter months can become dangerous. The proposed plan for the parking lot with the variances would exacerbate the watet runoff into the alfey. The other existing requirements of setbacks and screens are reasonable considering that the parking lot will extend the commercial property faRher into ths residenfial paR uf the neighborhood by replacing an ebsting house. We would Iike to add that we are, in this case, in agreement with some residents along the alley who are very vocal in their interaction and problems with the Snelling Ave Business belween Van Buren and Blair. We da not always share theif concems, but in this case we do. Also, our e�erience with the Nelsons as neighbors is limited, but we do know that their maintenance on the property that is to be tom down has � been minimal. There was often garbage overFlowing behind the house, and I understand that the city has made numerous requests to have chang�mprovements to the property with Iimded success. Becauss their previous sfewardship of the property has not been exemplary, we � l \ wouM Ike M see the ciEy hold them accountable to the existing requiremeMs. 1n short, the mning in pface wrould senre tlre purpose that theywere created for and fhe variances would onty benefit the Nelsons to the detriment to the other nearby property owners. Than(cs fnr your aftention fo tfifs and if you have any quesf(ons, feef free to confact us by phone or email, Lisa Clark 8 Brian Quinn 1621/1623 Blair Ave 651.647.5273 quinnco@comcastnet . u �� • —� �� D � O � �__ ____-_._� � � i �-�„ � ` e !. « a 0 10-92 ' ` s13� � . �� ^ rf'( c� rnf � d " o ( / (Q " - i � S-Ft�licf Ye� �� . Q ftc�„� 'zd� T _� -- i -' File No. 09-305133 Pazking Lot Proposal November 6, 2009 John Hardwick Department of Safety and Inspections 375 Jackson St. 220 St Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Hardwick, io-9z � ��::;� � .:, F� ,J }j�'-�� J � Thank you for giving me the opportuniiy ta sit in on the planniug meeting eazlier this week. I gained a few insights that I would like to bring to your attention, A few weeks ago when I learued about the plan to raze 1591 Blair to build a parking lot, I discovered the land is zoned B2 and a pazldng lot is an approgriate ase. However, I fear that lot restrictions aze not being appreciated in the design. In flus plan, zoning is being pushed to the limit and safety and funcrion compromised. I appreciate the idea of putting in a parldng lot to improve this bUSiness space. The intent of zoning regulation, however, is much broader ttian just benefiting the applicant Designed properly, it will bene&t both the neighborhood aad the business. My ultimate concem is safely, wluch should be the No.l design priority for a proposal ne�rt to a residential neighborhood. Blair access would attain ttris goal. Older parking lots had a different set of staudards. Alley access is the least safe option conforming to those old standards. Zoning evolves to advance prior code deficiencies thaY fail to meet present and future commuuity needs. The expectation of safety is core to these advancements. This plan may not meet all regulation precisely, but neighborhood safety should never be compromised. Rather than forgoing safety to save money or a few (street or lot) spaces, the goai should be to maintain and improve safety by not granting alley access. Blair access would net more pazking spaces than what is available presenfly. Mr. Nelson planned on putting in a two hour pazking restdction in front of this lot so the neighborhood would not be losing spaces on Blair Ave to make an entrance either way. Blair access alleviates all of the problems created by alley access. Regazdless of car count, at issue aze multiple cars at that access point at the same time. Less cars maneuvering there will reduce safety risks and 4affc problems. Water run-off can run directly onto Blair and straight to the drain. A visual screen has plenty of room to e�st. Smaller setbacks make sense with less pazking spaces allowing for more grass area next to the building. Cazs can enter and e�t the lot with ease without interferiag with residenfial access. �► Regulation 63310 Section (F�, denies alley access with the exception of an application of a two-pmnged tesk It is important to note, that above all else, the regulators deny alley access. It is an overall unsafe practice. � After the regulators offer the exception, the first prong of the test requires safety to be the No.l � priority. It is core to both the rule and the exception It is vital. It is not option 1-4, such as the second prong. �( � t.� � 10-92 .' .��-�`: ��a A� �I J��J� � The variance request for alley access should be denied. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should. Whether there are ten, seven or five spaces, the same safety problems atise, thus disallowing alley access. Additionally, this location does not require an exceprion because the a11ey is not the only auailable access point. Thete is a safe alternative on Blair. As neighbors to the business, we can pxovide insight into the alley traffic problems we confront daily. Alley Access Problems: Visual Danger: It is at the end or at the intersection of the alley. a. Evidenced by drivers honking homs to waru of their presence. i. Drivers can't see around other cars. ii. More hom honking is a nuisance. b. Drivers are unawaze of oncoming cazs into alley as they exit. c. Pedestrians aze unawaze of oncoming cazs entering or leaving alley. d. Drivers are unaware of pede'strians in the alley. e. Plows dump snow on both corners of the alley entrance making it slippery and narrow. i. There is limited maneuvering space. ii. A fallen pedestrian or caz unable to stop is at even at greater risk. � f. Several lazge vehicles use the alley for deliveries daily. No-one can see azound them. i. Seven gazbage trucks per week, some more than once. ii. UP5, FED-EX, Auto Parts, School buses, small buses, tow-trucks, delivery of a11 kinds, etc. g. Cazs pazking on Blair will extend beyond the driveway opening. 2. Slippery Danger: Snow buildup in the winter, water in the spring. a. VJhen ice builds up this access is impossible. I have to go azound myself and I drive a four-wheel drive huck. b. Build-up of either condition is already exacerbated from the other old lots that are right on the alley. Everytlung runs into the alley and sits. Visual Danger: a. It is dark at both rush hours of the day 6 months of the year. b. Even with pole and neighboring lighting, pedestrians aze ixnpossible to see. c. Cleaniug the alley, trimming trees, bushes and the goundcover along the alley is dangerous as well for me. (Trees and bushes run entire first half length of alley) d. Dangerous for anyone working in the alley. i. The electrical pole is accessed regularly for phone and cable, so that truck will get in the way of the parking lot. � 4. At Risk Civilians: Children walking and on bikes, seniors, and physically challenged individuals use the alley. � � 10-92 5. � 7 law office, his tenants, etc. b. When Snelling is busy this alley becomes a short-cut. i. Especially during rnsh hour. ii. Drivers drive the entire length of the alley to i7nivexsity. � ,_� � � - ��:> ��:.� � :;, :�__��.._ Tra�c Risks: _.��/ _J �� a. No left turn from Snelling to businesses and residential i. Drivers use Blair alley to Van Buren. ii. Kim's Grocery, Valvoline, Cras Station, Dance studio, 669/671, Nelson's b. Cazs back up on Blair heading into alley. i. Cars back up on Blair heading both directions. Although it is a two way street most people drive down the middle to avoid getting too close to Maneuvering Danger: It is a one-lane alley only. a. Cazs are forced to wait for cars to eafit or enter. pazked cars. a Cars have fo pull into neighboring parking lot to let other cars pass. d. Drivers have to wait for pedesirians and bikers to pass. There will be a power pole sticking out into the alley. �► 63313, allows for visual screening. A screen serves a sound purpose for neighboring properties. We cannot predict how nearby properties aze going to stand in five or fifty years, business or residential. The screen sepazates the properties in a fashion that is professional. This will be a collection of cars congested into one azea. Those cars aze going to make noises in a congested azea, reflect light and attract attention. The screea will: relieve neighboring houses (1595,1594, 1603, etc.) from viewing it in its entirety; create a sound bazrier from caz noises (caz alarms, beepers, engines, stereos, squeaky parts, horns, etc.); block reflections off caz surfaces and heat reflected off the blacktop; protect parked cazs from being hit bq straying alley drivers on a slippery surface; reshict other drivers from driving there while waiting for other cars to pass in the alley; keep pedestrians out of the lot reducing a potential for vandalism. The visual screen is invalvabie and a request for variance should be denied �► 63312, allows for setbacks. 42' X 56' lot, plus 4' on VJ side of office bldg, and ea�ira purcl�ased land. The paz�ng lot to the N. will lose its setback on it South side if that land is purchased. Do they need a variance now too? (669 Snelling). With Blair access there will be plenty of room for setbacks. 5' pmposed for a variance of 2' from South property ]ine (Blair), 7 feet iequired, assuming 4' from sidewalk plus 3' for cars to overhang. This will not allow proper space for growing trees, mom for the fence and required bushes. 2. 1.5' proposed for a variance of 2.5' from West property line (aLley and 1595 Blair home), 4 feet required. There is no mom for a visual barrier, no room for drainage, no room for cars to maneuver, and pazked cars would be vulnerable to cazs coming around the corner. With access from Blair there will be room for greater setback. � � 1' pmposed for a variance of 3' from North properly line (rental apartments w/ drive � in pazking), 4 feet required. The cazs parked in both lots will be perpendicular to each r � fn 10-92 ';• °�':' `-==� � �! . �`°' .� '� __ ;� - _. C��/ -�OSi3� other. There needs to be more room between the lots so that the cazs do not hit. There also needs to be more_room for water run-off. With Blair access, cars in � different lots will be pazallel to each other. The rough dcawing for access on Blair should be proposed. There is room for everythiug. A six foot fence as a visual barrier with trees would be a sufficient barrier. Additional fencing and bushes on both the N and S side of the lot would be appropriate. Y�. � !i`C.fA Marjorie Conrad 1595 Blair 651-230-5113 � i ,� � Cazolyn Cherry 1628 Blair Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 November 8, 2009 John Hazdwick Department of Safety aud Inspections 375 7ackson St. Ste. 220 St. Paul, N1N 55101 Deat Mr. Hardwick, I am writing to you regazding File No. 09-30513 and the pazldng 1ot pmposal off of Blair Ave. Last week I had the opportunity to attend a community meeting where I learned about Stephen Nelson's plan to teaz down an adjacent renta( properiy on Blair Ave. to his law office on Snelling Ave. to build a pazking lot for the law office. After Teviewing the plans shazed by neighbors and others, I have many concerns about this project and am requesting that you, and those who have the authority to do so, delay any decisions to grant Mr. Nelson's request for variances of city ordinances until a plan can be developed that is suitable to both my $lair Ave. neighbors and Mr. Nelson. � After leanvng of the plans, I took the time to drive anto the alley where the parldng lot is planned � and have no idea how Lhe proposed plan is at all safe for residents or those who would visit Mr. Nelson's office. The pmposed access to the pazldng lot from the alley would be much to narrow to be safe for cars entering or e�riting the properly and is a significant safety issue for pedestrians and motorists alike. Currently, Blair. Ave. deals with a good amount of residential and commercial traffic, especially at the end of the street nearest Snelling Ave. Over the ten years I've lived in the neighborhood I ha�e seen an increase in tra�c, becoming more concerned about children's safety in our area and ways traffic can be lessened. The residents on the north side and Snelling end of Blair Ave. have to deal with a significant number of cars, delivery and gazbage tracks, buses, eta Of course, during rush hour traffic and special events such as the MN State Fair and other happenings at the fairgrounds during the yeaz, there is an increase in the use of residential alleys and streets in our neighborhood as wetl. Having a parldug tot entrance off the altey only adds to the safety challenges we have now in the azea. I also e�ect that the proposed changes wouid significandy affect residents' ability to enter and exit the alley in winter. Not only does the pazldng lot end up being another location for snow build up that has to be removed to somewhere, it is likely thai it will be put into_ the alley or street and become an additional nuisance to neighbors. It is uncleaz to me how the issues of snow removal, melt runo� etc. have been adequately addressed in the current proposal to ensure resident and patron safety. Other serious concerns I have aze related to: ,,.( L�, 1. lighting of the lot and alley; � U ia92 �,_ : � ; ,.� : :� Q ._ �. �� , �. �'��33 � 10-92 ' : �� A �iC�.� �-- -� --� �S(�.� 2, visual screening of the lot to mifigate potential noise and congestion for adjacent neighbors; � 3. hidden azeas in the lot where people may hide during the day or night; and 4. the consideration of `greening' the lot perimeter and maintenance of the property. I understand that Mr. Nelson is asking for variances related to the requirement of iustaliing a visual sereen (63313) next to the alley perpendiculaz to Blair Ave. as well as a number of requirements related to setbacks (63312) of neighboring property lines, appazently to be able to build as lazge a parking lot as possible. If the city grants those variances, simply, you will be granting the development of a property that will be unsafe and an inappropriate use of the alley in our neighborhood. By apgroving tbe setbacks as proposed, it appeazs that will leave no room to build both the required and necessary visual screen and have an entrance to the lot from the alley. There would be little to no room for residents to use the alley without increased concem for theu safety; motorists will have little to no room to maneuver in and out o£ the lot safely, also putting residents at further risk. There would also be inadequate room for a fence, sbrubs, and the growth of trees to make the pazking lot fit ptoperly into the curxent landscape of the neighborhood. I am thankfiil to have to opporlunity to give feedback to ciry employees about this situation and to haue the concerns of residents taken seriously related to Mr. Nelson's request. I respect that, as a business owner in 5t. Paul, Mr. Nelson has a right to do with his property as he chooses, within reason, but he does not have the right to do it at at the expense of our neighborhood or residents` safety. I am hoping that, rathex than grandng Mr. Nelson's requests, the city would either 1) deny a11 of Mr. Nelson's requests for variances in the building of the pazking lot or 2) • postpone any decisions related to the parking lot and work with residents and Mr. Nelson to develop a plan that is appropriate to all parties involved. This plan could include, but would not be limited to: having an entrance to the lot from Blair Ave. rather than the alley and designing a lot that includes appropriate noise barriers and green space. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. If I can be of any further support ox assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, Cazolyn Cherry � �� 10-9�age 1 of 1 John Hardwick - Variance 04-305133 Parlang At 1591 Blair From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Deaz 7ohn, <classic_quazters�a,comcast.neV 7ohn hardwick Uohnhardwick(a�ci.stpauLmn.us> 11/8/200912:07 AM Variance 09-305133 Pazking At 1591 Blair <michaeljon(u��kamlinemidway.org>, more thau shelter <more_than_shelter�a,yahoo.com> Regazding the request for multiple variances to facilitate mstallation of a parking lot at 1591 Blair, I have the following recommendations: 1) I reco�end that the requested variance granting access from the proposed lot directly into the alley be denied, and that access be d"uectly onto BIair as required by statute. 1Iie existing alley is often soIid ice in winfer mondis. Sfiort approach distances may lead to accidents. The addition of pazldng lot traffic will definitely lead to increased congestion in the alley. 2) I reco�end that the requested variance to elimmate a screen fence be denied. Pazidng lots are visually unattractive in residential neighborhoods, and create added noise and litter. A screen wall or fence helps tn mitigate ihese negative affects. 3) I recommend that the requested variance reducing setbacks be denied. Setbacks are latgely designed to create consistent sight line and "feeling" wirhin a residential neighborhood Elimination (or reduction) of setbacks visually converts this properiy to a commercial site which will diminish adjacent ptoperty values. Thank you for your consideration, Tom Mor� Owner,1608 Van Buren Ave, and 1619 Van Buren Ave I can be reached at 612-209-8199 � u �� F.lo•!//'•\il.+...�*„o++t� o„i7 Cotfin�.o\l�or`7�:e+�+lT �...ol CP+t;,,rt�lTam..\YPmm.vicn\dAF�AR(`7ma 11 /Q/7(1(1Q 10-92 � RE: File # 09-305133 Proposed pazking lot at 1591 Blair ; _:_ � °, ;,'. , ��Si`3j • November 6, 2009 7ohn Hazdwick Department of Safety and Inspections 375 7ackson St. Suite 220 St. Paul, MN 55101 When I thiuk about business, having respect of compliance, code, rules & regulations aze being upheld and met Cities and community plauning depattrnents aze creating and following ordinance for a reason it is because they want to build stronger communiries circumventing those puts neighborhoods in jeopoazdy of compliance.. In 20 years what ldnd of business is this going to be and what will be able what will we attract to add value to the community. These aze questions that pop into my mind when I tUink of the proposal we are seeing in our neighborhood. A flawed approach it is not something that the neighborhood wants or the city St Paul community needs. Below I have stated my two going concems: 1. SAFETY I�AZARD... Going concem not only in the short term but long term as well. This is a dense neighborhood with apartment buildings, studenu constanfly walking up and down the alleyways, children walking to school bus corners, regulaz people going about their day getting to and from. They live here. It is not pedestrian friendly, a heavily traversed intersection. The officers who updated the zoning could foresee hazards caused by too much traffic. Bike riders don't stand a chance either. By allowing a variance your subjecting om' neighborhoods citizens to danger an appazent hazard that will undoubtedly have a nega6ve impact on iu residents and pedestrians. 2. ESTHETICS If it doesn't look safe or nice it is going to be just another paved black parking lot. The neighborhood and the business community in this neighborhood deserve better than a band aid approach to an "improvemenY' to a commercial property. If the intent of ihis pazking lot is to enhance the businesses and the corridor that it sits on then make it conform to the guidelines that are in place by ensuring that the saFety and the estherics of the proposal fall in line with ihe cities guidelines and neighborl�oods desires. � Best regards, Hector Martinez Resident at 1i96 Blair Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 �� 10-92 November 4, 2009 John Hardwick, DSI 375 Jackson Suite 220 Sk Paul, MN 55101 Regarding. 04 - 305133 Variance for Pazldng Lot Dear John Hardwick, ��'�; �'� �c��E33 � My nzain concern is this parking lot as proposed is not designed for a vibrant neighborhood. This must be done with caze and thoughtEuhless. As it stands, the alley is used by many in the neighboxhood as access to their home or destination from Blair Ave. Adding to the already existing traffic probiem creates new and aggravates an existing unsafe condition. It is not the quaniity of traffic throughout the day as much as it is the quantity of iraffic at a given moment that is the problem. Cars entering and exiiing at the same time is unsafe. Adding an additional element of a car bacldng or en�ring this situation is aggravating. I asked Mr. Nelson to consider a proposal showing an access from Blair. Hamline Qeaners (the bvsiness on the south side of Blair across from Mr. Nelson's office) is a good example that access on Blair is appropriate. Theg use no access on the alley. There are hazazds for drivers from water rvn off and build-up that occurs every winter from ice and snow, and the usual rain accumulation that siis in the alley. Personally I have found it • difficult to drive my four wheel drive car to my garage becavse of these hazards. Lets not compound the probiem. A Blair access with run off at that point would solve this easily. The integrity of our neighborhood is at hand. Frankly I would not like to look over at another esthetically lacking parking lot I want to see a buffer so I feel as though I am in a residential area and not a commercial azea. A fence or visual barrier creates a great transition from commercial to residential. With most neighborhoods of any substance, businesses have placed a privacy fence between the neighborhood and the business. Many notable businesses have done the same with great success. ALso proper and sate lighting is nee@ed to reduce and/ or deter illicit activities. Finally, current zoning codes were created with good caze and sound reason. They evolved from past difficulties with o1d code. Resorfing to old outmoded codes should not be honored with present variance requests. Let s mo�ye�forwazd not backwazds. When this is done it is doneforthefuture. � l , Sincerely, ��j � � The Benjamin, Aug 1603 Blair Ave. St Paul, MN 55104 Lamb Family 651-645-7131 � �� 10-92 � £ ;,' v �' j�_J�tjJ November 3, 2009 � John Hardwick City of St. Paul Zoning RE: 09-305133 Proposed parking lot at 1591 Blaie Blair access solves all safety and structural problems. A visual ba[rier along the alley will eliminate noise created by cars in the lot, and create a proper visual barrier for the neighboring homes. Finally, appropriate setbacks as required by zoning to absorb rain and melting snow. This one car one lane alley serves the entire East-West aliey, Van Buren and area businesses in addition to other traffic cutting through. Using the South entrance several times per day/night, I often have had to wait to enter the ailey because cars are exiting. Cars tend to back up behind me on Blair. if I use Blair instead of the alley I have had to wait for cars backed up on Blair to filter through the alley-Blair intersection before I can move forward to Snelling. There is a lot of congestion already. Cars come in and out unaware of other cars until they reach the intersection. Blair access will eliminate this probiem. With no sidewalk, pedestrians walk on the drive. Children especially. A forward or backward exiting car in the alley cannot see pedestrians over traffic and other cars in the {ot. Slair access creates minimal pedestrian hazards with the obvious sidewalk. Mounds of plowed snow melts and freezes at the South intersection causing more congestion while cars attempt to maneuver through the ice. Adding the water and melting snow from a • parking lot at the intersection creates a hazard. Blair will not have this problem and the water can be sent towards the drain at the street corner. Blair access solves all safety and structural problems. Th2nk u for your attention to this matter, The F{ol en Famify 1631 Blair Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 612-366-4610 • �� 10.92 �,� ti _ =;a=�s%3? John Hardwick Nov 5, 2009 Department of Safety and Inspections 375 Jackson St. Suite 220 St. Paul, MN 55101 RE 09-305133 Parking lot Dear Mr. Hardwick, Safety should be a priority for this project. The access point for this plan is right at the entrance to the alley my family uses several times per day. We don't need any more activity at that place in the alley. I am confident that an entrance on Blair would resolve this problem, be more feasible, and safer. With the snow an ice it would make it more hazardous. Setbacks 3re important to relieve this problem. A visual barrier will lessen noise and will separate the business from the residential. We have zoning laws anc3 they are important. Why does that • plan have to ask for so many variances when the zoning makes it clear that these are necessary codes for practical and safety purposes? Sincerely, � s,�.a 1617 Blair Ave. St. Paul, MN 551�4 � • � � � �,;. � ��, , � � � � ��,. � _ - , � 4 i � s� ��i"'. 1 � i y �n �_ .. f 4 # �, a � �� ?` � `.., . _. I i'�'! : . 1 � � , `: i _ a _ �. \ , �: �� f �. G�'"C" , i��! �t � 1c �_'x� � _ -..� '�Yj. �- 3+ ° R _.`-�. � . -. , �:. �'.il.�,� ,, . i� � ° _ � t � �:. �.. �� -�, � � � "-� _ 1 a Ea c g a �►° : . a� � � � � , _ ��'�� :_ �" � a k � � �� , � ' , � � ��a_,.. °= �� .s �sFawa .._ � , .. ....._. . � a -.��`.:�`o.srW, f'p�_�� ; � .. .� �� . �. � i � J �� , ..�_?_. � n :y , 9 � `. �r � � � �� .�._� ...__ l . ��. . � 3 1� �� . � ti . . . - . . � Yr .. _ _ .. ,� �4�'��, � , +��,�— �� 4 � ,� � ' , .� - z,-�.� � � � a ; , s . - �� _�_ _._ ; z _, � � o � , , `� �� -�:o-a�a . �. � ¢+�" A� i . ; . . ;�� _ ...__ r :< . . _� �y�,; ,l��c:�b. . 't 1.: �s .� � � �, `� � s y , �, .... `s _.� � `r- .„ . ..T'� � � �� r —aa..a '� ,� , ti � . ;. � ; � , " ^:'.., . ��,i�.� � i � r a; a . ° . . `� �.°aa.�� - ' — /a � i , , ._.-� �� F , _ �,y ; . + t �- �{izy � #-�_ . , _ .. _ �'"�- � t ` ° �; -� 'i „ .3 . a � .,i_ . ,. ` '` �� t -'�- _ � t -�'� : : � ; ,. �i4 � _ _ ��; 1 . �., � a� �.n � : , " .:� -.—� - � : . . � � _ -. . �. , , � . , � � C � ' ` . .. � ^� s , �„.,. . � . .� g ,i � � � . .. `4 . . � � _ � �� Y � s �°� �� a �, , � � �� ; � � �� :4 �'�1 ! 4 . M a � tY �. �- �, xcr"<p • �� ,G�p,�t ras,�' � �% t � es�G� y �-G « i � � `� R.s-� .� ,. �.. �'r r..a �.i ��a„>.�1"',�-�', ,�,. .. ... .. ... �.. i _ . =�--¥�-. _ , ��,_ _ �, �.`-- - - � - - - - �;.� _ ; � __. , ,� = _. _ � - �, ��_ �� - �-�� - _ -- �.: - �� _ � _ _ - - _ _� �� _� � ,� - :� �� _- _ �� y � �° � � � � �� `�� _� � _ �� :' � � . �� _ ��,� -� x � -��- .�" � � � � �� ' � � f �' � �T � � � . �� _ # �� '� � _ ' - � '�! * � �. y � _ ... .. -. � � � . � � a .� - .,' . . � . . : � ` '. _ i � ) i __ `�� _ �s � - � �- �� J ' ' c�s _ � � i ". _ � '' � _.%a�_ y C'r_ "��i` : �� -� 1 �#��. .,� � �.� s��1 � ".�a �..a � -y ' ^r � � —. � . � �*,+�� v; ' :' [' � ' ` �.%�l " .. � y � --�ili�'.'��''��1� . -_ . ,�. �, I �� v e '�'—ii v' . � � � ��,« z - v 5 y�y ♦ ,.� � ,� � � , i �� r ��?'��'�°�"'� �.\ *'"'� �� _. z,� �3 — � � se':� _ � � � .3 t�� 6"$� ,.-_ � � . �� '�.:�°r . L sJ r" � A�' L _ � � I� li � � � d� j � t i: - . � 6�., V'� . 4 r, '. �■■ z1 -s f� �.� � � a > a � � i � t. ��q � a �y�� f i �� 1'��1 ��,�"`� s ' �. �i��' �� '"�`�' � . "�. �9�s.�,,.� �. �� -.' �. � . � mr� .. _......_..___. � � . � +� �� 1�� c � "�� k� � < ��,�'� �: ��t� �� `"�� .� � .�r�a ,a": �� x � �� 3 ��r m1a.*l�'�s .'4 i ` �5,� i 3Y3� :� J w. ''.i�'v'� � p d� � � � `^' '�i . 1 y g t '��' S � 4 ,v,es �' --.- .r �.. �� 4�'`3T -�'��T` 3*��^- .�� _ 'w'� �� .;' 2 a � x 4 � rk� iI3 �� ^.'r �' r-"` �" � a � t' � x t � ��.,., � � �.�} ; a . �%- '� g + y, � ^ ¢� - / � �� i� � 4 � � �� a � e � L _:�_ -.. ,.+' g �'+. '. =�.'�?- 3 S '� �✓ --:.. > Y��M$ � �_ 5 _ w � � � 4 '� i . -v.. . � ya. : <a` . 3 ` � '4rr` � � `'T � £ .: a'}�` ." a5 �b`.T $ t � ' c l. � � ":�_� � . - u -,,.. � + rr= € �� -� e c � � � n � ' � � � � t � � � �.�. �� e . , �� . x ; ��=.. � � . �^+ r � �� e _ � °' . s� ! k-�' �� .�. -"'`s.�--�^` � ��+'k �� ^L�� ° fh �� § F�' � C � °� IX�'��p� L=��A�S S '� �"A.. : `„r5M' ,i3 �. .!'+� G�' �u. �}'+"�� €` i � f �' y �.'� � . " `� � y� � 1 .i �� , � ��-'. T � �S . � T � �; t �t;, ��''#".. � r�a� k. '.,�. � � ��. � f t , �� , � �`. � �_.; � h �� 4� �, - �� s � 3 9i`5„�r - � e��-, { i n' '°R`' ^'w*s _ } +�.� '- : , f �' ' .:. rf E 1'b�`[ _�,. ""ist- Z � � 3 z '�s` � -. ° a,, 3a, �. '�� '� �^ � . " . '-t .*�,"P'^° ,f � �sr �'G . �' ' � .;vt �, r r � ' ,; .,` ,:° ` . a `'� `° ,C, ' ,� , :: , . ` `.. �. -: "� -�„ . i �S h. -�y . .. t ��11� X t� �e�u �� "t3�� R _ �� SC.' c� il�q�� .. _ �. ,. � ra � 5 .✓'�- �' � � # . : � + v :'°,.-_"�� ,-r Ri kS`�"X .. , ,y �TG�. • �� .�hy_ V" . n•�••_• �. 1:.::r ^F4� . � . . � . . . . �:. ��u. !��-. � � q, � Zti �� . . � W �,��'�,r` ��"��I � ��a � .. . � .. r y�, - ' '�� `+ �3 € ' � �'k �. ,` � `.� ': . . . . _ - _ .. , LL },�� Y � , �^ �°h' ny � . �.. i� � u � � � s � '^'- 5 :� �� . . ., , " F � �� ' y � " %. . k F F, a y'�a-, . �^. ' .i. � � " : Y "�'6.} } �t� . -! - ' i;�F 'Us� ^�3t` ` � i ,:, '� ' � .,�z'� ;'' ,. � _. � �� _, _._ � - _..-� . � � _ _: �=�n % x: s _. . ` C ._.. . , � ' � a , . ; F� r' i " - '� . � „ S �c �a- § .--� " ^ .. , _. . . ��, C:. . fi :;_.` �'. . _� '..� . . . .^.Y�c ,._ :� . -. ' . : � :.. ... �.. . ♦ �., � - �� , za � N . �. � �r . :_ . � e , ,.urg. �. �, :�,C:. _.- � , . . 4 ,:..: �eia... Y^ 6 'X '3+`a�+'� i , . � 1 � �� y . > . �� ... . '. ' �a, i . . . _ � R � �y � � k � ��v.. � C. . Y ,�{, . . .. " Y � � x � t ' f i y`-S`� . f� h i� i . ' „v� x y �� yATt x f - . q + ^i� � ^( 5 '.� "^ 4 `Y�' �C . x '�';;,+,_. 4 . P� �- . s � "-.-� �a� � - � '* � j�� r e . s.- _.. + { .+.. 'a �tY � - � e x : , g ��?�'�`�° � '� �"' �� F" `°� � � f �- '. -'�k y a r;.. � � �` �� . , '.:. � �� '�; � ,�qr �. �C t 4 � �� tir� � #' � '�-�,-�' " +-�„ fi ,� � �'�' r " ,y . .. _. -.,m^ : 'e i a�, �, a �' � g � c � . �. ' 2� t � },�,�� u f : `'�. � y. `4 1 � I �z'. L � t _ f } �N`�F. � �� >' �� #'� 1' y �S F �} �,�aF , £ ! i � � { ,ys �"3' � } C° f . � '�lr . �r :, '�' - i ,i 2� ��e` r,t . �`"' ,�+ �s. F*�,�''t� '� ��' � ?��' ��.: - 3'�'-., s . 5 .fr' zr� .—s a � � � , � �� . ,. � �,� = ,, r x� � �� a - �, z �� ' F*� y � a § `a . �� s F -e '+` � '��`, ...� C, L. a,} �' . . � �_ '�-� F`'� ... �` � *�`'��u�"' s' f L . . .. � � �'��;' i � �� 'k s '� �;`^z��"s,� . „� r �i � .'' *`n 2�'�_� �' � e a r �:�� a'" .�. �� ,��'� � >w�.�� ap. '�3"S .a '*`-�" `�'' " 3 . . t �.;r"� _" . ";.wr ., .� � 10-92 � � _ � �__ _.�� ,��.�---' ..--,�;- - > P .,�-_� . � x ; -�� / � _,' t �� i• ----�_ -� �--- __ . , � , b <'�,a-� � � , ,w�-%' �� :� a �?;-.,,� ar = - ��_��--- - ._,.-- rF.--. =,- - � �� .< � - � _ r°a`�� ,� ^j � � = !-� :�;'�.��_ :_ _ . r3-;��`�sa.�.,_' � — �. .� _ ,.�,� _ � — ;:�� I`° � : ) �� -.a� s �� ,� , V . . _ ��.a��`�+�� a �s ��.� _ ��.:. �`��` �,;; - .. �� 9 �., ,� a ' �� ,�: �fei�"�_ .';� a� � . , 1 ,; --' j:' . r( i _,; � a f .� � �,� - . I • - I � i � x , �'.. U � bA � '� � J ^ �F� ... •�y i� � � `� � �� N � � V � �3 .. , � }� : :;;;�„- :� :l3';`t=y� , � • 1 �' I �� _ _, � �` PROPERTY W ITHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: 665 SNELLING AVENUE NORTH A � � � ■�- - � `.. � R , y, � � � �� I _ � � N W E S CREATED BY DSI ` 0�� 10-92 m • 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17: SiINRA'Y-BATI'L.EGREBK-HIGHG',rOOD TIA�ET. PARK �IADEN-PROSF�ERTTY HILLCREST 'WEST SY7�E " 'DAYTON'S BLUFF PAYI*IE-PHALEN . . . NORTH END ' TfIOMAS-bAL.E SUIvf�4I'I'-UNiVER�ITI' WEST SEVENT'II � . COIvfO I3AMLINE-MIDWAY ST. ANTfiONY PARK , M$Ft12IAivI PARK-LEXINGTON T3AMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE MACALESTER G120VEI,AND Ii�GHIAND . SUMMTT HILL DOWN'I'OWN - � .�___ � Z�� L� �`�� /3 ---�,r � CI`ITZEN PARTICIPA'I'�ON PT�NNING DISTRICI'S 10-92 CITY OF SAINT PAUL C1u�isstopherB. Coleman, Mayor December 14, 2009 Kathryn Nelson 3475 Siems Ct. Arden Hills, NIlV 55112 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS Bob Kess7er, Director " 375Jackran StreeS Suite 220 Telephane: _ 65Z-266-8989 SaintPmtl M'�+esotaS5Z01-7806 Facsimik: 651-266Al24 Web: www.s(vmdew/dsi RE: Variance application for 665 Snelling Ave N., Zoning file # 09-305133 Deaz Ms. Nelson: VJe have received an appeal of the Boazd of Zoninq Appeals decision denying variances to establish an off-street pazking lot at the referenced address. Therefore pursuant to state statute 15.99,we aFe hereby_ e�tending the deadline for action on the referenced variance application an additional6(l days in order to allow for the City Council to heaz the appeal. The neur _. ... deadline is now Februuy 16, 2016. If you have any questions regazding tlus matter you may contact me at 651-266-9082. �t. • � • An Equal Opportunity Employer � � � 10-92 `J MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CTTY COUNCII. CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST PAUL, MINNESOTA, NOVEMBER 16, 2009 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, Linden and Morton; Messrs. Ward, and VJilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick, Mr. Beach, and Ms. Crippen of the Department of Safety and Inspections. ABSENT: Vincent Courmey* *Excused The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. Kathrvn Nelson (#09-3051331 665 Snelling Avenue North: Several variances of the off street parking regulations in order to establish a parldng lot to be constructed behind this commercial building. 1) The applicant is requesting a variance of Section 63313 which requires a visual screen to be provided for a parking lot which adjoins an alley. 2) Vaziances for setbacks as proposed: from the south properry line - 7 feet required, 5 feet proposed for a side yazd variance of 2 feet; from the west (alley) properry line - 4 feet required, 1.5 feet proposed for a rear yard variance of 2.5 feet; from the north properry line - 4 feet required, 1 foot proposed for a side yard variance of 3 feet. 3) A variance of Section 63.310 in order to provide alley access for a parking lot which abuts a residential properry. . Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval, subject to ffie following conditions: 1) That the two parcels are combined under a single properry identification number; and 2) That final site plan review approval is obtained for the parking lot before any work commences on the site. Six letters were received opposing the variance request and a petition signed by 12 neighbors of this business supporting the variance request. One letter was received from District 11 regarding the vaziance request. • Ms. Bogen quesrioned the letter from Traffic Engineering and she wanted to lmow whether that was looked at with the applicant. Mr. Hardwick stated that it is his understanding that in the preliminary Site Plan Review meetings Public Works had no objections to access through the alley and after the prelitninary meetings he thinks Public Works conducted a trafFic study in the alley and perhaps that is what it was based on, however, he does not think that was relayed to the applicant until just today. Ms. Maddox requested that Mr. Beach could come forwazd and address that. Mr. Beach stated that at their Preliminary Site Plan Review about two weeks ago Public Works was ok with having the access off the alley. There was some talk later on about if they could have a driveway out to Blair instead of the public alley. He asked Public Works to give hun someffiing in writing for the variance heazing. So they went back and looked at it with a little more detail and he thinks some more people were involved and one thing that came up at that meeting was that the alley is narrower than most alleys, it is about 15 feet wide. So given the narrow widffi of the alley they would rather see the driveway out to Blair, which is a little unusual, in most cases they like to see the driveway go out the alley because they like to limit the number of curb cuts. However, in this case they are saying it might be safer to have the driveway out to Blair. The letter came in about noon today. AA-ADA-EEO Employer �5 10-92 File #09-305133 Minutes November 16, 2009 Page T�vo The applicant STEVEN NELSON, 3475 Siems Court, was present. He stated that his wife is technically the applicant but he is the tenant there and has been for over 37 years. They have revised the plan from the inirial plan. There is a six foot gap at the alley, and they have changed the design of the entrance to reflect comments made by ffie neighbors and Ciry staff. We aze talking about using only 15 feet of the alley before turning into our pazking lot. The most people using the pazking lot will be using is 30 feet in lengthof the alley. He stated that they aze trying to provide pazking for their tenants only. They aze not going to open it up to the public, but will assign spots to tenants and their employees. There is one tenant in the residenUal unit above the office in the house. Cazs going in and out will be at a minimum, 8 cars in the morning. They do not even come in at the same time and people leave at different times of the day. He contended that the decision made by Public Works sounds like it was made only on the basis of the narrow alley, he does not think that they had all the information. Mr. Nelson stated that when they started this it was to preserve pazking on the streets in the neighborhood. He stated that if they put a curb cut for his parking lot on Blair they will lose three pazking spaces on the street. He stated that behind the building is only 43 feet so it is very shallow. Coming off the alley allows 8 pazldng spaces and provides for a handicapped spot if required. Mr. Nelson noted that he handed out a bunch of information about parking tots and traffic management and any time you have a drive�vay crossing a sidewalk you have a conflicting azea. He read from the handouts he provided to the Boazd. � Mr. Nelson stated that if a driveway came off of Blair it would be right next two the buildings which • gces right to the properry line. The sight line to the east toward Snelling would be reduced until you pulled out across the sidewalk. With using the alley you will have a much better sight line and you can see both east and west and the other two driveways right across the street. Mr. Wazd questioned Mr. Nelson about some of his comments. He asked about the safety report 51-8 Pedestrian Safery, that was done by Oregon State University. In their report it speaks of three different types of roadways and none of those roadways is part of the condition here. He continued that they have an undivided four lane roadway, a five lane roadway and there isn't a divided four lane roadway. So how would that be relevant to a two way residen6al street that is arterial to a main thoroughfaze which is a four lane divided? Mr. Nelson stated that he ihinks that there is a lot going on and there is a two to one caz count coming from the east going to the west. You have the building there with people wallang and you have cazs coming out of Haniline Cleaners. He thinks it would be very difficult for anyone to observe all the access points and to safely pull out. During the winter every time you have water going across the sidewalk it freezes and creates ice which is a safety issue for pedestrians. He pointed out another study that he thinks came out of Iowa stating that the more crossings you have the more difficult it is. Many of the communifies have a 30 foot minimum spacing between driveways and alleys. This would be within 20 feet of the alley. Mr. Ward asked about the cars coming from the west on Blair going to the east. With the new configured design, if a caz is coming out of the pazking lot and it is waiting in order to tum and if a caz going west wants to get into the alley, dces the person in the alley have to back up to let them in? How would that be better than a driveway? Mr. Nelson stated that one caz waits while the other one pulls out; we see that all the time. Many people trying to enter off Blair have a problem with the retaining wall that • sticks out into the alley. � � AA-ADA-EEO Employer 10-92 • F�e #09-305133 Minutes November 16, 2009 Page Three Mr. Ward quesrioned what would you do with snow removal in this configuration? Mr. Nelson stated that they wili probably use one of the parking spaces for snow and then hire someone to come in and truck it out. There was opposition present at the heazing. Margery Conrad, 1545 Blair Avenue, stated she has ffie house direcfly across from where they are proposing access. Ms. Conrad brought in a site plan, e-mailed to her from Tom Beach, showing access on Blair with 4 feet of setback all around and space for 4 cars and a handicapped space. She contended that this alleviates all the problems. There is ample parking space to get a uuck in there to tow someone if it were necessary and provides a legal handicapped parking space. Their biggest concern is safety. Right now the entrance on Blair is the most congested portion of the alley. If there is a car exiting the alley and a car is trying to get into the alley ehe car on the street needs to wait for the car in the alley to exit and while he is waiting more cars stack up behind hun off Sneiling. Blair is only a two lane street and in the winter everyone drives down the middle and with the snow there is no room for two lanes. Then there are the cars e7citing and entering across Blair into that parking lot and alley. Water runs into the alley and builds up and it just sits there as there is no where for it to go or drain to. She stated that the alley is used as a sidewalk in the neighborhood; people walk up and down it all day long. Ms. � Conrad stated because the alley is only 15 feet wide she is concerned with cars eaciting the parking lot in the winter. Her house is only five feet from the retaining wall and if someone comes sliding out of the parking lot they will hit ffie wall and that will affect her foundation. Ms. Conrad passed out photos of the alley showing the standing water in the alley, trucks that go through the alley and a photo of two kids riding their bikes on the properry. Steve also mentioned to her that he planned to propose two hour parking resuicuon ali the way up to the aliey. This in no way benefits the neighborhood at ali. This helps Steve, it helps hun gain parking spaces. All ffie cars that park in front of our houses will sall be parking in front of our houses because there are people that live on other parts of the alley that park on the street that he cannot do anything about. There are tenants that rent in a building that only has four spaces; the rest of those people park on our street. She contended that Steve has had this properry for a long time and if he wanted to build a parking lot under the old rules he should have done it in the 1970s when those rules were avaIlable to him. This is right next to a neighborhood and we want to have a visual barrier here not only because it is going to look better but it will create a separation from the business to residential units. It is going to create a sound barrier which is not a part of the mle but is important because parking lots have all kinds of noises. She stated that she would like to see a six to eight foot fence along the alley so she does not have to look at it. Other people besides her can see the lot so it is not just her that has to deal with it. Mr. Hector Marteniz, 1586 Blair Avenue, stated that his major concern with the project is a safery concern that Ms. Conrad has already mentioned. Contending that the residents and business owners • should all abide by the zoning codes out of respect for the neighborhood and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. This is a bandaid approach to the issue and will probably manifest itself with some � `I AA-ADA-EEO Employer 10-92 File #09-305133 Minutes November 16, 2009 Page Four acfiviry that is neither wanted or welcome in the neighborhood. His property sits kitty comer from the property in question and he thinks it will remain a concern of the neighbors. Cazolyn Cherry, 1628 Blair Avenue, stated that she is further west of Ms. Conrad's properry and she has some concems after the neighborhood meeting. There aze cazs going into the pazking lot from the alley not only by the residents but also for the patrons of the business. She hoped that the Board could look at the variances and find some kind of soluflon for both the residents and the business owner. � Richazd Moore, 1618 Van Buren Avenue, stated ffiat he is the block captain for the azea. He contended that there is a site distance problem with the proposed situation which brings a liability issue to the properry owner as well as the City of St. Paul. A caz leaving the alley would have blocked vision going to and from the alley. There aze ldds that play in this alley and more aze moving into the neighborhood. When the iraffic studies were being done about half of the people that aze normally in the azea were gone so there were about half the number of pazked cazs in the s�eet than aze normally there. They were also doing leaf removal on that day so people were moving their cazs azound. What they had was probably minimal compazed to what they normally have. lvir. Moore pointed out the photo of the ice in the alley provided by Ms. Conrad and stated that this icing is nothing compazed to fhe icing that occurs during the winter. The alley becomes two ruts during the winter and is very treacherous during the winter even for cazs with 4 wheel drive. He contended that adding more impervious surface to the alley will add to the . problem. Benjamine Lamb, 1603 Blair Avenue, stated that he is against this for aesthetic reasons. The sight tines aze going to be changed here. He lives next door to Ms. Conrad he shares her view of the property in question and he does not want to look down on a pazking lot. He would like to see some barrierput up to screen the parking lot from the neighbors. Grass and plantings aze nice but when winter comes the grasses will be down and there will be no barrier between the neighborhood and the pazking lot. So he would rather see a fence there. Ms. Kathryn Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, stated that she technically owns the properry. She knows that the snow and ice aze a problem but does not think that adding a small pazking lot wIll add that much. She questioned why this has come up now, as no one has complained about it until now. There are college students that live in the neighborhood and walk to school. One lives in the building and he got towed last yeaz because he had no place to pazk his caz. The applicants would like to provide a little pazking for the tenant or any one else who rents the apaztment. It is a multi use neighborhood and has been for 70 yeazs or more, so people moving into the neighborhood know it is a business azea also. She stated that they aze trying to be good stewazds; there aze trees, bushes, a low fence and landscaping. She stated that they aze only asking for three variances and one of those is already agreed upon so it is only two variances. It is for our tenants not for our customers so it is not for people that will be coming in and going out. Mr. Nelson stated that the drainage issue has been addressed; the curbs have been removed from the site plan so the water will run into the landscaped azea. They have increased the landscaping so once it r• grows up it will provide screening. They are only required to put up a 4.5 foot fence. The photos of the � l AA-ADA-EEO F,mployer 10-92 • C� File #09-305133 Minutes November 16, 2009 Page Five ldds in the alley were visiting a neighbor in an apartment next-door. Ms. Conrad questioned why we did not add the pazking lot in the 70s. We tried to purchase the properry but the owner wouid not sell it at the time, but they tried for many yeazs. Finally after the house had been on the market for a number of years the properry owner then asked if we would buy the property. When we purchased the property it was purchased with the understanding that we would have to rent the apartment to the woman's daughter until she no long wanted to live there. So they purchased the property with the intent of making it a parking lot in 1996. After the woman moved out we kept it residential for a few yeazs. One of the neighbors plows the alley in the moming when they arrive for work. If the alley has been plowed it is accessible. Mr. Ward questioned Mr. Beach about the letter from the Traffic Engineering Department, that states that the city's concern is that the alley is smaller than 20 feet which is the standard used by ffie city now. He questioned whether there had been other properties, in doing plan review, along Snelling Avenue or other areas where the Citys recommendation is that parking be allowed from a narrow alley? Is there any condition now that munics this situation? Mr. Beach stated that there are not many parking lots that ask for alley access he does not remember any at the moment. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Ward moved to deny the variance and resolution. Ms. Maddox instructed the Board to note what findings they are voting denial of the variances under. Mr. Warner stated that he assumes that Mr. Wards is basing his denial on finding number 3: that the variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. Mr. Ward replied yes. Ms. Bogen stated also under fmding one, the properry can be put to a reasonable use. There could be access off of Blair instead of the alley. Finding number 4, that it could alter the essenual character of the neighborhood and create too much congestion. Mr. Warner stated that it could also go under finding 3 as weil. For purposes of clazification as he understands the motion is to deny based on failure to meet findings number 1, 3 and 4 as arriculated by Commissioners Ward and Bogen. Mr. Warner stated that as long as you aze going to deny the vaziance and staff's recommendation was to grant approval you have to state your reasons on the record. Ms. Linden seconded the moUOn, which passed on a roll call vote of 6-0, Boardmembers Linden, Wilson, Ward voted against the vaziance quoting findings 1& 3; Boardmebers Bogen, Morton, & Maddox also added finding 4 to fmdings 1& 3. S�bmitted by: Approved by: • John Hardwick Gloria Bogen, Secretary AA-ADA-EEO Employer l� 10-92 Jan 04 Z010 11:21 Stephen Helson and flssoc 651642z619 GENE'S DI�PUSAL SERVICE 5661 - 152" Street North Hago, Minnesota 55038 Deca-aber 29, 2009 �is. Kathryr. tR, Nelson 3475 Siems Ct. Arden Hilis, tIK 55112 r�: Safety o£' North/South A11ey just West o_ Snelling Are�ue between Bla3r Avenue and Snelling Avenua �ear Ms. Nelson and To i�`hom St May Concern, p.3 My harne is Ger.e S4eqleitnex. I am ths evmer and operator of Gene's U'_sposal S6x��rice. As an owner opezator I also dx�ive a truck on seveial o� my zoutes eflch tveek, I haae driaen a large rubbish tnsck for over 20 yesrs. Or.e o�f the xoutes I have dEiven each wesk for the past 20 years izcludss the north/south a11ey just west o£ Snelling that runs between VanBUrea and &lair Avenues anc runs ditectly behind �he businesses on Snelling Avenue. I have never £ounc, this alley to be unsafe and have never ex�erienced s ntoblem whi-e traveling down this a11ey, The tra£fic in my opinion is very light and ue seldom ii e'eer encounter any other cars traveling on this alley. I have never o�served o= seen an accident or othez pxoblem in this alley. Based on my extensive experience drivi.nq a latge txuck down this alley £or 20+ year�, it is my opinion that this alley is safe. I am unawaxe of any unsafe conditions that curzentlp exis= in this alley except maybe the retaining wa11 �n tie west si8e of the a11ey jus� south o£ the east west alley (way north of your proposed pzrking lct} tha= appeass to b: falling into the a_Lep•. i personally do not see hcw =he smali number of cars (8 to 12 a day) entering and exiting yous prcposed parking 1ot on the south 3i] feet o£ th'_a a11ey wi11 create an unsafe condition. SincArely� �X/' _ �x Gene Bieqleitner . _.. -. _ . _.,. .__ . `i. '_ ' ' _ � _ . . 10-92 Jan 04 2D10 11:21 Stephen Nelson and flssoc 6516422619 p.4 Ja� 4- 201d- 9 31�A� ho•8187 P. 2 } �7'LL. 3727' East 25616 Street � Webyyer, {YN 55068 � Phon¢ (952) 44Q-1680 � Fax (952} 461-3308 Janualy 4, 2410 Mr. Stavc Nctson Blair Ympaties, inc. 3a75 $iann C.ourt A?dei� Hilis, MN.55112 Re: Prop,osed site plan rcvisirnis for yon propasod park'tng lot at 665 North S�lling St. Paul, Minncsota � Deat Mr. Nclsan, • I have tiakcd nt the gsnpascd desi�n of the parking lot with thc dxiveway wtruuce to ttao parking 1ot.coming �irectty offcif Blair Avame as propascd byTomBexcG for tha pmPerly al bbS,Nnrth Srielfing It is my pmfessional o}�inion that tlse svggested driveway nnto Blair substantialYy decEeates the Safety of thc paxkius lot uawts as well as the travelingpublic ia the nrca whcn comparcd with the paeking lot aoming off, ofil�e atley. My obxervations and concems abont the pioposed design revision aze as follows: 1. 'Fhc proposed entranee i's very ciosc'to the west eAge of xhe existing 6uilding A wr exiting rhe parking 1ot with a sirivewny outo Ala;r would have a very reM;c.tcd li�e of sigJut to the Eust unkil yc�u elear the baildiqg gnd vice ver:ra a uur traveling on Bleir t'rom the eust will nut bes uble to obsnrve a wr aciting until the �xiting car is pssi the building. For the exi6� vrhicle this wouid ineludb nM only mutur vehicle traffu: hut alsa trai�ie on the sidewxik hr,acling wesl fcom Snelling Av�mue atnng tAe cureent building. A pedestiit�n, sk:rte bttxrJCi or a persoo tm a bic:ycle heuding wed �fmm 3neliiag A�tauc would nat bn abtcs to nbserye an aata�nohiln ]�ving until it pus.��s the snuther]y edgc of the 6uilding and vicz versa a driver s.uuicl }wve a difticult time seeing a��trian u�ul the ftont of his veUicEe w:u acra� the sitlewaik. 2. The pazlcing lot Jrivawuy e,xit wtwld bnparallal to tha miril�lsoulh alley im thz wcst of th� subject p�operty and unly 32' aw:�y. P�rallel raUnfne;as whe�e qie vicw is at or graaten than 90 degreES is very ctiftieutt for either driver to see ¢.e. Alicy W wcst o# suhJect prp�wrty). A c�r eziiing �he propaaad parking ]ot driveway tuming rigfit and a car exiiing the alley !o tl� wes[ by turtiing ]eR arc a patenfiai fur an accidcnt bcarusc ihey are nver 90 degrece linc of sig8t frami cach otl�cr and.drivcrs gcncFellylook only dawii tlie sue�x und scldom look thc fuii �0 dcgccs. An aocidcnt can happen if tfie two are na� payiag ettcntion as thcy accddratc w Icavc thsir respecdve entrs�es onto F31svr. There is, aimost ao xe�tion time if both rars leave at tha saine timc because the dHve�rays are so close to'gethet. !f there liap�e+a to be � ear ira�eting dowu }31air when cacs fr�m 6oth the alley aid the paxking (of are et►tering onm 131air, it is very iilcely thut t6ey wiy attranpt to euter B1air at the samo time becuuse ilu iraffio on E31air wiH cicar bvth drivcways at es,aentially the same time. T'his safe[y coneem is mar�y times greawr ftimi any wnfl ict 10-92 �an 04 2010 11:21 Stephen Helson and flssoc 6516422619 p.5 Jao� 4� 2a10 9:31AM- Mo 8737 P i fr�r�i cars ccrtering a¢to thc alt�y fram a parkivg lot ox from tha u'�rs from the ailey entcring onro I31a�c ' . 3. The padting•lot exit tuuo Blair wil!'creste a$th aursmce tmto Blair w idtin 112 fttt. You ivill lsave baih af the aliey entrances on the swdi uyl nunh cide of Blair 32 feet to the west, two a�hanczs frcim Iiaintinc Cleenus {one direc�;y wxass � ona closer to Sacliing•Avenue) und tlse parkinglbt driveway. Since thern isa�rother anrance ac3ilcd thorc is an additione! loc::wtion for a driver on Sla3r Avenve to vi�w as a potmtiat t:onllict for an oncoming vehi'ele. Alsn', witfi padang e4lowed os� the street it is more difiicvit to sea driveway ini�e azad pedashaat� treffie ihnt is using fhe on strrnt p+rckin�. ' 4 A driveway entrm+ce for the parking lot anto Blair Avenun will Gtiminatc a l�c portion uf tl,n ewrant ix�ulcvard which is now gtasss, thc current boulevazd trcc wi 11 be cut down �d water fram thc parking Jot will u�s tha sielewalk in another place other thnn thc atiny. Alsa, you will onty be able W park a maximum of six cars iu tlie ]ot with�ut r handicap space becausc ihae ace gas m�Yers and a wiodow wcll whick prevent tha twu utmpna statis on il�e ea�t side of thc revised loi frmn filting inW the spuce as twtrcl rna Tasn•s•skctch. Using the pat�+lJel pauking guitlelines sstnblishecl by Uie ciry, 3 un sheet pariring apaccs will be lost on Bluis Avenue. There is no t�ootn for anyone tu p:uk nn the sitcM distance between the driveway and the all'ey. T6is wil[ �ive only a net guin of'3 - cars. It is also my undcrstandiog thut you can pnrk tlttcc cam coming off of the all�y on yaurpropcsty widrout going to tbe c�cpsnat nf buildisig tl�is partii� facility. This witt resuit in a substantia! savings W you. 5. r�ny fcnccor IandscaPingrrWu6'txl f'ac scrsmsingixtwccn the �1ky und uay purkiug iizl t�ccds W 6c pulled back u mimiroum of 1 A' from thc sidowalk'and i 0' a�vay frcxn the a1lcy !n ordec w provide site diatunce so the driver of tlic cac can su part wuy down the sidcwalk W obsuve pedestri:uw mxl particulazly bieycla uaffic beforis entering tha sidewalk. This camiot be Jone veith the driveway broiag d'uecdy onto Sl:rir. Rem�vc�I of il�e cxisRUg rcwining wall end hausc will improve t}x sita linn fur traflic axiting tl�c allcy. G. The c:onyKruction af ihe pazking ]ot entrence gom the alley will gYacc a vchicic direcUy a�;ms3 Yrom the othcs ailcy nnd will place ell other rntrances oato Blair in � Gae of sight,ai�ificantty laas than 75 degreas whic4 witl make vehicles cxi6ng all of the - drivnw•uys mcxe easily secn when 9x dciva loo&s far <�nce�ning stred trat'fic. Lt wi11 olso allqw n drivixhetter line of sight for the sidewaJk and the strext to the cast whct'� ihe greatar vo}ume af trat�ie c6mes excl� day (112 versus 252 on 1 t!4 �xn oa1y, 276 vasus 151 un 71li0, 7 85 versvs 365 ai 11/t 1 and 79 veasw 75 an i t I1 Z am only. Thc pa�icing fot c�itranc;a nnin the alle}+ wi1S alsa raove the tatrnnce fiirther 'sivay from busy Shc) Jiug Avenue to aplace where cars coming down Blair from benh diractiuns eem'rnon; casily spot a vehic�le. Tf cars da mcct at rhe alley rntrance it givns more mom far cats on Blair Auenue to a�tac:k up bchind the vchicies bccuux of thn gr�ter dislancc frnm Saelling Avsxsue. liawe�u�, ha,9cd ou thc traftic couats, tIu probubility of rnectin� of vducks at the entrance nfihc sllcy onto Bleir A�ecriie are quite smail. T da qucstiaa thc traffic arunb bacai��e incoming is ai least SO°.6 greater fhxn autgoing. Pcxtrxps there waa snme ! 10-92 ,lan 04 2010 11:21 Stephen tielson and Rssoc 6516422619 p.6 Ja� 9• 2016- 8 31AW P1o.B191 P• a doubin ctrv�ing fln the 4ncoming (meybe oa thc cwt�+omg ns wellJ due Yo thanaauw alley aud the di fficuhy ir� separating incoming &om outgoio�. Hocvnvar, if Ihe city fias a� co�cern with cunflicts be[ween the incoming azd outgoing tteffic at B1�it; then perhups tfie city alwutd e�ider making die allcjrs onc way haffic w}ie[�r or not uddiGonal tr�c is aik3ad tu the alF�ry. � 7. "F.ach c�r that is pnrked an thc stmct atso cseates a canflia betweea tbe bravnlit,g � public siid the perain that is parked � ihe street Witl� a aet gaia of 8 siulls thera are teaw goc�pl�parking un thc stroct wl�ich opens up the area for better site lines mxl lese potentiai F�r vehicic pcdcsrcian acciddnts, Sach parkiug statl oft"the strart is a aafer optiim far tliose wlia usc chcsc stalls. - [t is my opGrion tYtat coming off ofthe ulley ix a much safcr option for ail wha use ilx atley az►d BYair Avarue au� iorptxYestrian.a and olhers whd usc the sidewalk fhanan exit directty 6nto Blpir. An.ullay.nntrnnce wsll pllow'you to gain 8parking spaces as pmposed and no loas of c�n s�trnet parking 1'nr a n�t gain of 8 parking sPaces, whieh proVides t� g[eater degrets of safety't'i�r thn tcmart.9 of your 6uild'uig. If thac are eny questions, please do not hKSitate u+ txtntact me � Sinbcrcly, � �-� Cuegory R: Ha1lii�g, P.P