The URL can be used to link to this page

99-122ORIGI�IAL Presented By Council FIle # ` \ �`a�'- Green Sheet # �0�� Referred To Commiuee: Date 1 2 WHEREAS, Mendota Homes, Inc., in Board of Zoning Appeals [Board] file 98-307, 3 made application for a variance from the strict applacation of the subdivision requirements of the 4 Saint Paul Legislative Code for the purposes of splitting off a portion of properiy cotnmonly 5 known as 5 Crocus Hill bearing property identification number 012823320111 (see BZA file for 6 the complete legal description); and 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 WfIEREAS, the Boazd conducted a public heazing on December 14, 1998, after having provided notice to affected properiy owners and the Board, in its resolution 98-307 approved the variance based upon the following findings and conclusions: 2. Splitting this pazcel along the existing zoning line, which approximately corresponds with the bluff line, is the most logical way to proceed with the subdivision. However, doing this would leave the existing house on the property with a nonconforming rear setback. Alternatives, such as splitting the parcel to maintain a 25 foot rear setback far the house, wouid result in split zorung on the parcel containing the house. Also, the additional land gained for the rear yard would mostly be unusable due to the steep slope. The existing split zoning classification of the parcel and the steep slope of the eastern half of the property are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. 25 3. When the eastern half of this pazcei was rezoned to RM-2, the obvious 26 intent was to have the property developed for multiple-family dwellings, at 27 some future point in time. The applicants have stated their intent to grant 28 an easement to the homeowners of the remaining pazcel to ensure that no 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 development will occur within 15 feet of the house. However, that easement could be changed to prohibit development within the required 25 feet without affecting the proposed townhouse development. Provided that an easement is granted to ensure that no development occurs within 25 feet of the e�sting house, the proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 � 5. Provided the easement is granted as stated above, the proposed lot split and variance will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The steep slope of this properiy presents several unique development problems. However, these issues will be addressed through site plan review, prior to any construction on the proposed new parcel. There are two existing utility easements that run through the parcel that serve the homes on Crocus Hill, and they will have to be redrafted to provide continued service through the new parcels. The e�sting zoning line of the proposed lot split follows the current use of the adjacent properties. 5ubdividing the parcel along the e�sting zoning line will not change the chazacter of the surrounding area. The proposed variance, while resulting in a structure with a nonconforming setback, will not change the zoning classification of the properiy. 6. The proposed variance request is a result of subdividing the property along the e�sting zoning lines, and is not desired to increase the development potenrial of the parcel. WHEI2EAS, the variance was approved subject to the following conditions: 2. That an easement is granted to the remaining parcel at 5 Crocus Hiil to insure that no development will occur within 25 feet of the exiting structure;and That revised utility easements are provided prior to recording the subdivision, providing continued service to the properties affected by the subdivision; and That site plan review approval is obtained prior to any construction activity on the resulting new parcel. a9 -t a �- WHEREAS, on December 21, 1998, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, James and Bonnie D'Aquila duly filed an appeal from the determination of the Board and requested a hearing before the Council of the City of Saint Paul for the purpose of considering the action of the Board; and 13 W�IEREAS, on 7anuary JE( 1999, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.205 - 64.208, the Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal of James and Bonnie D'Aquila after giving notice to affected parties and where all persons interested where given an opportunity to be heard; and WFIEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the variance applicafion, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Boazd does hereby a9-ti a� 2 RESOLVE, to uphold the decision of the board in this matter. The Council, based upon 3 a11 the evidence in the record finds thax the appeltants have not shown that there was any enor on 4 the part of the board with respect to any fact, fmding or procedure in this matter. Accordingly, 5 the Council adopts the findings of the said Board in resolution 98-307 as its own; and 6 7 BE IT FiTI2TI�R RESOLVED, that the appeal of James and Bonnie D'Aquila is in all 8 things denied;and 9 10 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution should be mailed to the 11 Appellants, Mendota Homes, Inc., the Saint Paul Planuiug Commission and the Saint Paul 12 Zoning Admiuistrator. Requested by Department of: Hy: Form Appr d by City Attorney BY: .�l (-2� s� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY� � l7 . � By: \ � Approved by 't�or: Date � 17 ��g / By: Adopted by Council: Date ,p �\�„�q Adoption Certified by Council Secretary aq _��'�— DFPARTMENT/OFFICNCOUNCIL DnTE WRWTED City Council Offices zizi99 GREEN SHEET No 63508 COMAC7 PER�N 8 PHONE �nitlaWate � Inwallnafe Chris Coleman, 266-8620 oe.unra,ran¢cro, a,rcaa�. MUS7 BE ON CQUNCILAGENDA BY (DPSE) AESIGM IIIIIIBBtiOR n�YAnoP�EY ❑uil'CtERK RWiW6 �� FfIa��C1n1.�FRVICESCOL ❑AlstiC1111.sERVi4ttrC ❑MVOR�ORABffiTAIIT� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (GLlP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C710N RE�UESTm Finalizing City Council action taken on January 13, 1999, denying the appeal of James and Bonnie D'Aquila for a variance aY 5 Crocus Hill. RECOMMENDATION Apprwe (A) a 2J2GS (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONiRACIS MUST ANSWERiXE FOLLOWIN6 QUES710NSi 1. Has this persoMim everworked under a contrad forthis tlepartment� PLANNING CAMMISSION vES No CIB CAMMITTEE 2. Flas this peisonRrtn ever been a city employee7 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION YES NO 3. Dces this persoNfirm possess a skill not rwrmallypossessetl by any cu�reM city employee? YES Np a. Is mia persoNfirm a tarpeteC venaofT YES � Evplain all y� answers on separate shee[ an0 attach to reen she� INI7IATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNI7Y(WM, What When, Where, Why) .,� �-,�cc�d�.°� ��jiP.i �ks��ry ��`�1� ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED - DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED 70TAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION f COST/REVENUE BUDQETED (qRCLE ON4 �S NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTMTV NUMBER FiWWCWLINFORMAiION(EXPWt� _ CITY OP SAIN'T PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY q Q� I� y Clayton M Robinson, Jc, Ciry Attorney CivilDivision 400CiryHaZ[ Zelephone:65I266-8710 ISWestKel7oggBlvd Facsimile:651298-5679 Saint Paul, Minnesota J5702 January 28, 1999 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 Ciry Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, NIN 55102 ��r��sy� Re: Appeal of 3ames and Bonnie D'Aquila BZA File: 98-326 Public Hearing Date: January 6, 1999 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Please place this matter on the Council's Consent Agenda at your convenience. If you haue any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, �.-�� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure OPPICE OF LICENSE, INSPHCTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION Roben Kessfer. Director n e _ � w �� _ r CITY OF SAII�iT PAUL Norm Co[eman, Mayor December 21, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Mi�mesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: I would like to confirm tUat a public hearing be January 13, 1999 for the following appeal of a] Appellant: File Number: Purpose: Address: Legal Description: LOWRY PROFESSIONAL BUILIJ7NG Snire 300 350 SG Peter Street Saint Paut, M'umesota 55102-I510 Telephone: 612-266-9090 Facsimiie: 672-266-9099 6I2-2669I24 ..:> ,.a. �; � r N �`Y � �� ,t^�,6.. •y3" � k °t�� , �' !��' C =� � , �' �� t �� A � o I �ed fcr Wednesday fo � �vr;s�n: � James and Bonnie D'Aquila 98-326 Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting a lot split variance in order to subdivide the properh� at 5 Crocus Hill into two parcels along the existing zoning line. 5 Crocus Hi1S PIN 012823329111, see file for complete legal description. Previous Action: Summit Hitl Association ! District 16 Planning Council recommended denial of the variance due to lack ef information regarding future development of the property. Staff recommended approval. Board of Zoning Appeals; Granted the varianc �, subject to conditions, on a vote of 7- 0. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the 7anuary 6, 1999 City Council meeting and that you wiil publish notice of the hearirig in the Saint Paul Legal Ledgec Please cal! me at 266-9082 if you have any questions. Sin r ly, t � � � ��.,� � � , • �as1 • ,-Jq m Hardwick _. '-. -' - xmxcE oF rosuc seARn�tG � ��017i1tg TCCImiCialt � Saint P,aul City Council will cortduc4 a public hearipg� oa Wednesday. � January 13. 1999, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Third Floor Oity Ha11- ea Council Member Coleman Court Hovse fo con'sider the appeal of James and Bonnie D'Aquita to a decision of fhe Board of Zoning Lppeals grantinga lot split variance in order to subdivide properry at ' 5 Crocus Hilk in4o two pazcels alnng the esisting zoning line. . . _ Dated: T3ecember 23, 1598 ` � - " . � - LdADF(:Y �NDEFL40�k� _ _ - - _ - Assistant f.5ty Covncil Seeretasy . , � @ ecember30, k998j '" . ' - qq- �ati- APPLICATION FOR APPEAL. Deparlmenf of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section • ' i g 3�� II00 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paut, MNSSIO2 266-6589 APAELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION NarT7e James and Bonnie D'Aquila Address 6 crocus Hill City saint Pau1 gf, riN Z�p 55102 Daytime phone Zoni�g File Name File rro. 98-307 Address/Location 5 crocus xiil TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appea! to the: � Board of Zoning Appea{s ❑ City Council under the provisions ofi Chapter 64, Section 2� , Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the Board of zoning Appeais on ➢ecember 14, , 19 9$ . File number: 9$-3Q7 (dafe of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative offcial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. See attached letter. 1� �21IRBaoao� i D � i33r3'r+ 4�63 V{afiIFikiCE �I�RTit �}�C�}: �fi�fi� ��'�� Attach addifional Applicant's Robert G. H2[Cs1ey Counsel for Appellants Date 12Ilsl9s City ag 2 .G� . CiLi . �F} P� DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFFSSIOCdL ASSOCIATIO] Attomeys at Caw Decemher 17, 1498 City Council City of Saint Paul City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55 ]02 �9-1��- ? \Lnnew:z l`bdd 7:ade Ce�'er �2 Evt Seccr:n S;re.t s� r��i. ��-�z�:� s:: Te:ev^o. [65ll 7h5-+�'C:' e�x «� � ze� s9oa t\r¢e: > drec! dfal oum^e. (651)265-4309 e-mail: henslr�drblaw.com Re: File No. 98-307, Variance and Lot Split Request of Mendota Homes, Inc. Dear Council Members: We have been retained by James and Bonnie D'Aquila who reside at 6 Crocus Hill with regard to a variance and lot split which has been requested by Mendota Homes, Inc., for property located at 5 Crocus Hill. Mendota Homes, Inc., has indicated a desire to construct a 10-unit townhouse development on a newly constructed lot. The purpose of this letter is to submit an appeal of the decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals and to.provide a brief legal analysis concerning the pzoposed variance, lot split, and development, along with an explanation why each request should be denied. The Proposed Lot Sptit Section 67.304 of the Zoning Code provides for the splitting of a lot if six conditions are satisfied. Mendota Homes cannot meet these conditions and the Board of Zoning Appeals did not have the authority to grant the requested variance. Specifically, Section 67.304, condition (4) states that "the division ofthe lots shall not cause a remaining part of a lot to become a separately described tract which does not meet the minimum standards of the zoning district in which it is located or which does not have street frontage and access to municipal services" (Emphasis added). Mendota Homes admits in its application that the remaining parcel located at 5 Crocus Hill will not meet the setback requirements in an R-2 zone, and thus have requested a variance from the requirements of Section 67304, condition (4). However, Section 67306 (b) of the Zoning Code only gives the following authoriry to grant a variance: "Where condition (3) or (6) of section 67.304 is not met, the board ofzoning appeals shall hold a public hearing to consider the variance form the required condition." (Emphasis added.) Here, a variance is requested for condition (4). Thus, although the board in certain instances would ha�e the authority to grant an appropriate variance relating to conditions (3) or (6) for the portion of the lot on which the townhouses would be located, the board does not have the authority to permit a lot split and grant a variance from condition (4) which relates to the SLPmd • M�nnenpaiis • �e�¢�er • Smi Ranwn • 4Vnshmgtm�, D C DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSiO�":�L ASSOQ�TIO] City Council Members City of Saint Paul December 17, 1998 Page 2 °Iq - �2a- nunimum standazds for the remaining lot on 5 Crocus Hill, The Zoning Code is clear on this point, and the board was without authority to take the requested action. Because the lot split requires a variance from Section 67304 of the Zoning Code, the only way in which to attempt to divide the lot is to replat the lot. This is the only logical reading of Section 67304, which states that lot splits are permitCed "without platting" only if the conditions are met, and that the zoning board only has the power to grant variances from conditions (3) or (6). The Board of Zoning Appeals cieady did not have the authority to grant a variance from condition (4) and replatting is the only potential course of action. The Request is a Defacto Rezoning and Not a Variance If the lot is subdivided, the home currently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz will be located on the remauring property and will be six feet from the newly created property line. The new property line essentially eliminates the backyard for the house, and it is virtually impossible to walk out of the house and not cross the properiy line and fall down the bluff. Appazently realizing that the city would not allow a split zoning classification on an existing lot, the developer has instead agreed to grant a diamond-shaped easement across the RM-2 zoning line in order to provide Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz with a backyazd. The effect is that the townhouse development is essentially using land zoned R-2 in order to meet setback requirements in an RM-2 zone, The effect is a defacto rezoning and a blatant effort to juatapose the use of each lot. This type of defacto rezoning should be strongly opposed by the city and is simply an effort to circumvent the city's Zoning Code. The Prnposed Variance for 5 Crocus Hill As indicated above, the board does not have the authority to grant a variance from the lot split requirements of Section 67.304. However, even if the board did have the authority to grant a variance, the request by Mendota Homes does not meet the criteria for granting a variance. The criteria for granting a variance aze set forth in Section 64.203 and are as follows: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these`circumstances were not created by the landowner; D�HERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PAOF£5510\dL ASSOCi4710\ Ciry Council Members City of Saint Paul December 17, 1948 Page 3 a°I -1a a- 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 Saint Paul; 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character oFthe sunounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area; 5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning classification of the property; and 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Upon proper consideration, it is clear that the current request does not meet most, if not all, of the criteria set forth above. It is our opinion that the staff has misconstrued the first criteria relating to the reasonable use of the property. Cunently, the "property" consists of one lot with a single family residence. There is no question that for the past severai decades the property has been put to a reasonable use. The vaziance criteria are meant to apply to situations in which the property is not currently in use or would not continue with the existing use. It is certainly not unusual for separate azeas of a parcei to have two or more zoning classifications. The law and sensible land use planning have never recognized that the landowner has an absolute right to make multiple uses of a single parcel if the uses conflict with setback requirements and other land use constraints. The staff and the developer are erroneously concluding that a landowner is entitled to make full use of each separately zoned area. That is not the law. Instead, the property, which is currently the single lot, is in fact being put to a"seasonable use" and the applicant fails to meet even this threshold criteria. In addition, the landowner fails to meet many of the other criteria for granting a variance. For example, there is no "plight of the landowner." Our understanding is that this process is being driven by a developer, and not by 1Vfr. and Mrs. Bisanz, who are in fact the "landowners." In fact, it appears that Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz do not really support the lot split and townhouse proposal. Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz have no "plight" and are currently living in the house located on 5 Crocus Hill. Similarly, correspondence has already been submitted to the board regarding traffic and safety DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER rxoFESSio�ac rssoct+Tia� City Council Members City of Saint Paul December 17, 1998 Page 4 a�°1-�aa- concems oFthe proposed development, along with serious concems regarding property values and changing the character of the neighborhood. Finally, it is clear that the primary reason for requestutg the variance is to increase the value or income potential for the lot located at 5 Crocus Hill. Because there is already an existing home on the property and no current intention to demolish the home, the only reason to sell the bottom portion of the lot and bu$d townhomes is to produce income. The entire spirit behind the current request is contrary to the rationale behind granting variances. This is simply a way to make money, and not an effort to make a reasonable use of a lot which for years has been used as a single famity residence. The Townhouse Development At the public hearing, the zoning board refused to hear any testimony about the townhouse development and myopically focused only on the lot split. This was a mistake by the zoning board. First, the application which was submitted for the lot split contained drawings and plats indicating the number of units and the location on the property. Questions and comments by citizens about what has been submitted by the applicant should not be ruled out of order. Second, if the city grants the requested variance without considering the development already requested by the developer on the new lot, the city will lose most of its control over the newly created lot. Because the lot will be in an RM-2 zone, if the city grants the variance, the developer will then claim that the city's action gives him an absolute right to build townhomes on the new lot. The city will haue much less leverage in reviewing the plan and will have much less opportunitp to provide input and make changes in any plan. It is a mistake to grant a variance and create a new lot without considering and reviewing a detailed plan for future construction. The developer has not supplied a site plan and ofher details regarding the projecC, but has simply indicated an intent to cram ten townhouses on the property. Serious issues remain regazding traffic on Grand Avenue, the number of units involved, parking, the location and e�ent of what will undoubtedly be a massive and potentially unsightly retaining wall, fences, landscaping, and screening. The city should not even consider the current plan without a more detailed site plan and proposaL The city owes iis citizens a more thoughtful review of the complete package. In addition, Section 6L 101 of the Zoning Code provides that townhouse developments must have a minimum 25 foot yard setback and that the stiucture cannot occupy more than 30% of the lot. The developer has already made it ciear that he will seek further variances from these criteria. The proposed development would be on an ezctremely steep slope, but no plan has been submitted regarding how the site will be developed. Development within the Zoning Code is improbable given °1q,Iz�-- DOHERTY RUMBLE 8� BUTLER PnOFE5510].l1 d550C14i10] City Council Members City of Saint Paui December 17, 1998 Page 5 the 40-foot setback requirement from the bluff. In other words, nottung about this project meets the current Zoning Code. In addition, if the lot split is approved, under Section 61.101 the developer may choose to submit a revised plan for a 5 story structure, 50 feet in height. Once the variance for the lot split is granting, the city loses control. The city should require the developer to seek all necessary variances at one time in order to avoid piecemeal review that unduly constrains the rights and obligations of the city. For these reasons and for the reasons contained in previous correspondence from my clients to the city, Mr. and Mrs. D' Aquila request that the city deny the cunent application. Yo mce ly, Ro ert� RGHfrma cc: 7ames and Bonnie D'Aquila Robert Bisanz Richard Bisanz Mendota Homes, Inc. Arew Backstrand 979297 �. °1°1 � 113- SUBDNISION REVIE6�l APNLICATION Department of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 City Ha!! Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saini Paul, MN 55102 2b6-6589 APPLICANT � PROPERTY AddresslLocation�5 G�oU k4il�— u�"I� �U.VU,I 2-otie.Lf_. "K�7� LOCATION 1 "` Legai description: 0. � /A (attach additional sheef if necessary) ""` TYPE OF SUBD ❑ ❑ AppiicanYs sig � N: _. .._ Spiit �,Lot Split with Variance ❑ Reg. Land Survey imin Plat ❑ Final Plat ❑ Combined Plat � Date City agent ,,; , �:�, Name of owner (if different) o✓ �- �'�^i (�"'� "� � wcs Contact person (if different �t� ��'�t-� Yv�v�clo Phone�$�-(03�-2 °1 `i � t'��- ME1�DqTA HOMES, INC. P.O. BOX d16 FORESx LAKE, MN 55025 (651)688-6342 (651) 6883291 �AX November 10, 1998 City of St. Paut JJepartment of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section 1 t00 Ciry I-TaII Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 To Whom Tt May Concem: � � �' 'f ''��.. Atl•ached, you will find an agplication for Subdivision Review for a lat split with variance for a garcel of land located at #5 Crocus Hill in St. Paul. The pazcel of land cutrently holds two zoniag districts —12-2 and R-M2. A singlc family home exists on 1he portion of the property zoned R-2. Mendota �Tomes, 3nc. has entered into a purchase agreement for the remaining portion of the properry zoned R-M2 in an effort to construct nine townhomes. We wish to spiit this pzoperty along the existing zoning line. This spiit conforms with five of the six conditioas for lou splits outlined in Zoning Code. The sixth condition, that the division does not result in the creation af a noncoafozzning struciure or use, is, however, more diffcult. The exisring single family home on the R-2 parcet was constructed a numt�er of yeazs ago. When ihe lot split to divide the R-2 parcei from the R-M2 parcel occurs, the rear yard setback for the exisring single family home wiii not meet the required minimum distance of 25 feet from the nerv pzoperty line. V�le are requesting that this lot split be accompanied by a variance to allow a rear ya setback af less than ten feet for the existing home. The ovmers of the existing hom� Robert and �ynda Bisanz, have indicated no objection to this acrion. A letcer from accompanics this appliealion. Mendota Homes, Ine. atso agrees to an easeraent for a gortion of the netiv parcei, in a private action, to aItow Mr. and Mcs. $isanz su�ci privaoy in their back yard. The only other option to divide this property and utili2e its R-M2 2oning would be i maintain a 25 foot rear yard setback for the existing home and divide the pazcei alo� line not consistent with the current zoning division. This proposai is eqnaily, if not di�cult, as it results in a split zoning classi�cation on a single lot. � a�-�a�-- �-- �� - 30'7 We do not believe a variancs to allow a rear yard setback that does not meet minimum requirements would result in inconvenience for anyone involved. The only affected neighbors would be Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz, wfio have agreed to the actioa We feel this lot split and variance is the Ieast offensive way to utili2e property in the manner far which it is zoned. Plezse review this application aad contact us with any quesrions ot concems. Sincerely, l�"� �. Erin E. Mathem for Mendota TTomes, Inc. Y ' v , ��. ' '- ' ,' . w ��„ � S . ' � �. ��'�^ .._ � _. e . . � _ , ._ ... .v_ Y .f_. , � t_. � P. 4'-� '.f Y.Y '. z�: f- � � �� , _ : , � � = `��'� . ��, �� "- :..�i''2�:.v-_ - " Novemher 2, 149& Robcrt and Y.ynda $isana #5 Ctocus Htll St. Paul, I47'�iT City o£St. �'aul Depanment of Planning and Economic Devciapment Zoiiiti� Scctio� 1 I00 City $ail Annex 2S West �ourth Street St Paui, MN' SS102 To Whorz, Iz 2v1ay Concorn � s � � � •G � � �qg-la Mendota Homes, 7na. is applying with your office for Subdivision Rev�ie�v far a lot split �•rith variance for a parce] of land at #5 Crocus liilt in St. pau}. We are the owncrs of a single family home currentiy located on the property in qucstion. Our home sits on the poc�ion of the properry zoned R-2, for siagie family ase. When Iliis lo[ sglit accurs, the rear yard setback for our home vn11 be Iess than the ininimum requiremem foc St. Paui of 15 feet. The variance request that accompanies h4cndata Homer' applicatipa iS to sllcnv s[ear yard setback of less thatt ten feet for our existing.home. we understand that Iv�endota � tne. is requosting this action and have no objection t� th�s'variance. X � �a M : ''' ��.. ~ -�n. ' ��4� .. - wif�S�. . .c i �yY, .; } � `I�''^ V� f"�.. fa. _ .5.. .�t�x '` y . _ _ -t�? e-_.k. - ,.ei. j.. ! �� h . ! .: ,� !!tio " , Lynda �i3ant " ' - � . . � � _ � _,� `�=r''. _ .. - � .; � z, s s s � � .. -..-...,�r;�.,-�.a�._>_._�.a:3 �� Y . :ti�� Si � a1 ��'''� � �. � ��t1!'�, ��e�.�, '�: o :�, �. 2� � SUMMfT e ; � ,.,>> Sq f � f O. `n. •. . � 60. 60. ' ¢/O. A To . r ro. S° Jo. . . . ^ ; . 9 4 590 � , �_ ' t I t7£ G14" { � Ue fio-311 ii: I �L1 � � �e i O � : � 4 w!S Dro �i 1 � I�� i � � I n� ,x� Y rt �� ^�i ,�j' �;2� ✓ i 9� 3 Z� / m 9 8 i 7 6� ;J � 3 z C� � pi ra�3umu on z�c�j "�� i ; 7o p � Svrrvn� 'S � /O 8 .f 4' 3 Z ! , �..,,, > — r>.r tp (�1 ♦ � i i.f Nla7 (u a o a�.cs) (z:9-ne� �°,e8 ( (�) C�) (nc) r:s N — n f �'.�a d� zzo. I. �� ..re o , --�- --�.;�.....:_ : ---- - - SUMM/T LANE: pm i�=I [xa> c� �. (z'1) e (2't1 O 9e. L � .. zo �y1 `1� sv 3cs i w t� ,m "'.1 +*-s�) m a 7 �� •� o > �' i t t'ul i f'(ta} (v) �`. I I ! �j � (ml �(3s) "� t Cal N+) 14x) (�3) o (ss)e o �C' r U .Si .S'� I S�r{• ; ( \� ::: ` i:cc� tzv ��irol l ��,', G'>"' � g�a _' _� Z 6 '3� �f 3 �I z �i B I 9 �'� /o // �/ z/ �9�� .5 i/6 /� � ` { � E `.' (4> ` C (n) � � .`;• ( I I p /Z /3 /h� I/ /D' /7 18 i/� � 2f � o Sb I(w! I ' � 8 �� i�o 2L � �� k 4, 5f3 489 I 1 i s85 s � � i ��is�i �� ^ ^ - � rv. sa. sa. � , So. ,�. 6e7 _ , . .r'o. 6J' ♦ i' _ _ _ " ' � 1 ' . � r . F____ �'��""__�,. i i .ao s�L� :` .�1 m .,,� GAAND AV� � °` � � . ,,..,, e to ... `� >�,s sb i . ;.rer .00 � (acl ^' z Sm � 4s � � ro o .,�. ,�� o. � > .e'n. . . ., se. . 1 ; �' E H R'S -! � ° oe � �,•' ° �;� s8o (:°> , c�ss= ��E �yl � fr 6 S i�f 3 �.ir) �: .YO ^ s�a I nt>• `= S ,a,. a� es Y� � � � e � � `` os e . ' f \ .'xi� � �I'� .l�' � 4 1 ten/3 w �/ �0 9 8 T 6 S' ''r ' ��'f'� ��' ? (nt �� 9 �,� , L ' ,Z �� 3 (� � a (co) �"I' S . y r 2 .• ..� S B P '1` � izs.ss '� ! Z�¢ ([c� � 5 � 1�4� I �6S �) 50. )26 6 ze e�' � S 9 M�// � 0 N y : i t � �� w � �� 6925� �/: . �>.Y 0� ae�'"( Ca� ' r N .6 4 CtpWaf.�ii.a ��) �8�) �DS) �64) �BT� �98) �tJ� �� /SR4 � a \ (c'») Q ^ j� � S f �.� 0. �119� � 6R �yo �p. k (� � q o 26 8 4 t � � �„� , .�`' pLAt � y � ' . n� . os �6 'os i . d �V < �"�_ Q �° e; o i r j { , iB iB zo zi z2 Zs r4 p y '. k �` �`,` "' `r ° �' ' 8 �9 , � � l c 1 061 .e � �'�i � $ v � , i � � G �� \ 601 3l9 /� e GP) {w� � A \ Q F � . . I�� . �' »s . iro. :o so. . . sa sse \ °z � a °' 6 Q (m 5 b >�. �ef' (nx� °� � ) �` � S°.� : n , t �p �1 0 Q o&+ff s � 5qi ♦` ,, F , 6 �6 b LlNCQLN . � " a` �a �" .;'� � RAC � .P (¢jl � lro. s9z s76 v � v � o(111) \` � ; i.m.� 6� � '. zz i i , 3 `. �'>e � � i � 5p ,, o , < ...,. _ . z�a a� . �� 23i 2'F Z5 z6 27 z� �9 90 3/ ��.�. "^.,,___ __• . I 32 �i SS � �� (` . 20 1 � � � .ra (g' fzl ($) (sH f�) � Y �Y 4 (vzl ( r , O � 1 ' e: G.f.,� '`��, �I 8 � W .� c�i c� a�� "° c�e«� 3 o�i " ' �`".< .—._ •,> �.. a i?� V � � i (wd 0� .(IOB),'I� •\ ae6> cr Fo 9 h, la (ro9> � �+ �j ��i � � I ! � N `;''.�� S l'Y-� L Q !9 i8 i7� i4 is �4! i3 iz i� ioy 9 d` T; 6 ' 9� �° a'q : �y� Ls as ` � � . i , Jo � ,� � j s (� . �! � $� /� i/ �.+ � � 0 84 M �� ! ¢D. SO. � SB. � SD. - ' . . � _ � � _ _ 43_B.TB � _ _ 4�' /�` i � �'. _ � _ _• _ - � : , oi+si. ' .e-_ /Y _ :il _C \ D3J ` ' x .F' � � � � .. �` ...:.................y -�- --`--',. , p,...., � " v�. e ...�... �u VALAT£D 9ee.. 240'(3t4 � ( 3f ` 4rlLCy'� ♦iu T+.1� ] . i�z.f .... 2{L69... . .. �I y JJ3..V /�/ � '�, f �� • I r, _ rA. � I �S �nl ��}� g 60l m {,.' :l na.,,e � ��r) �� 6 � -� / P AtE ° i �t _� 9 - �zaw�•' ZY; �� e r s !4 .{3':�'�/- � � a.ax:'�Y A n . ~ � e 'i \ �s � .(� `� { �J '' ""�AtU7 t O � 'S 3. 'xS�,f-�3. N0.33 ��'J�;� �,'� fl .a;_ ;. Q'o k o . s s� an R �„ S 9 � i � y �. R �� , � ( t V' f .ita I '� 9F b s) Y isf.e. �. �TU✓ p _ ; '� (k� °� � a �� e' eY ��:��/ f 6 6 �'1� ,.+"'3. it � � e 7 ((e) .' '.� s .� � y r� { � ; er f �� 1 K . z.ro � . � A � � •. � ,�, 9a y �n > , � �y�+' , - 8:4 r.� � - � (cl , .< „� . d � A' r �' �{ ... e (94J ) / � !]' r � ' A l� o �� 6 0. �. ' }I tre • ro� '` � � "F; ,:: — ��a. ,.' +;r��o � ,p � . e .� � . .�,i " �� . '6 �i 6 �` n' � � �,.f*` ' � '4 ♦ r h d � oe o � � c . ; ./¢ �/.3 / ? lwl � ( a, : �9 ` `'' �,° .' 1 ' a . z ' . (si) ,� <dl (� ts. (N�l i ' � r \ " � sa �, i� /'� �° �, �\ °''P ' '�� ' I" ou � 1� . : �u � a f' OCI( lal�l L �� _ /° s � f r 4 a1� ' 4 v` h; s%o.o^� ( � y ` �� ?' lniti\. '� .t:� F �L°f.` s�� .;'. ' �4# `' S�t� .. _ ' ti � f .� S.�_ .. }, 99.}�.'�- BOARD OF ZQNING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 1. APPLICAI�T: MENDOTA HOMES INC 2. CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance 3. LOCATION: 5 CROCUS HILL FILE # 98-347 DATE QF AEARING: 12/14(98 4. LEGAL AESCRIPTION: PIN 012823320111, see file for compiete legal 5. PLANNING DTSTRICT: 16 6. PRESENT ZONING: RM-2, R-2, HPN ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 67304 (6) 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT DATE: 12/02148 BY: 7ohn Hardwick 8. DEADLINE FOR ACTION: O1/23(99 DATE RECEIVED: 11(23l98 A. PURPOSE: A variance of the subdivision requirements in order to split-off a portion of this properry. B. ACTION ItEQUESTED: The proposed lot split would create a nonconforming rear setback for the existing home on the remaining lot. A 25 foot setback is required and a 6 foot setback is proposed, for a variance of 19 feet. C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This is an irregulaz shaped parcel of about 57,730 square feet. The parcel has frontage on Grand Avenue and on Crocus Hill. The eastem half of the parcel slopes steeply down to Grand Avenue, with a difference in elevation of about 30 feet. The property also has a split zoning classificataon, with the eastern half being Zoned RM-2 and the western haif being zoned R-2. The existing house sits on the western half at the same elevation as Crocus Hiil. Surrounding Land Use: Primarily single family homes with multi-family residential uses to the north. D. BACKGROUND: Some time ago, the eastern half of this property was rezoned to RM-2 in anticipation of being split off and developed for multiple family dwellings. The applicants have entered into a purchase agreement with the current property owners to develop ten townhouse units on the propezty and have applied for a lot split and this variance. q9 -i? �- File # 98-307 SYaff Report Page Two E. FINDINGS: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Splitting this pazcel along the existing zoning line, which approximately conesponds with the bluff line, is the most logical way to proceed with the subdivision. However, doing this would leave the existing house on the property with a nonconforming reaz setback. Alternatives, such as splitting the parcel to maintain a 25 foot rear setback for the house, would result in split zoning on the parcel containing the house. Also, the additional land gained for the rear yard would mostly be unusable due to the steep slope. 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 existing split zoning classification of the parcel and the steep slope of the eastem half of the property are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. 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. When the eastern half of this parcel was rezoned to RM-2, the obvious intent was to have the property developed for multiple-family dwellings at some future point in time. The applicants have stated their intent to grant an easement to the homeowners of the remaining parcel to ensure that no development will occur within 15 feet of the house. However, that easement could be changed to prohibit development within the required 25 feet without affecting the proposed townhouse development. Provided that an easement is granted to ensure that no development occurs within 25 feet of the existing house, the proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding azea or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding azea. Provided the easement is granted as stated above, the proposed lot split and variance will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The steep slope of this property presents several unique development problems. However, these issues will be addressed prior to any construction on the proposed new parcel. There are two existing utility easements that run through the parcel that serve the qq_�ar File # 98-307 Staff Report Page Three homes on Crocus Hill and they will have to be redrafted to provide continued service through the new parcels. The existing zoning line of the proposed lot spiit follows the current use of the adjacent properties. Subdividing the parcel along the existing zoning line will not change the character of the surrounding azea. 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 Iand is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning disri classificarion of the property. The proposed variance, while resulting in a structure with a nonconforming setback, will not change the zoning ciassification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income poCential of the parcel of land. The proposed variance request is a result of subdividing the property along the existing zoning lines and is not desired to increase the development potential of the parcel. F. DTSTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from District 16. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the following conditions; 1. That an easement is granted to the remaining parcel at 5 Crocus Hill to ensure that no development will occur within 25 feet of the existing house and; 2. That revised utility easements are provided prior to recording the subdivision, providing continued service to the properties affected by the subdivision. °I9 -l�'+r CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER # 98-307 DATE 12/14/98 WHEREAS, MENDOTA HOMES, INC. has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 67304 (6) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to a lot-split on a portion of this property in the RM-2, R-2, HPN zoning district at 5 CROCUS HILL; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on December 14, 1998, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Pau1 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 cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Splitting this parcel along the existing zoning line, which approximately corresponds with the bluff line, is the most logical way to proceed with the subdivision. However, doing this would leave the existing house on the property with a nonconforming rear setback. Alternatives, such as splittin� the parcel to maintain a 25 foot rear setback for the house, would result in split zoning on the parcel containing the house. Also, the additional land gained for the rear yard would mostly be unusable due to the steep slope. 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 existing split zoning classification of the parcel and the steep slope of the eastem half of the property are circumstances that weze not created by the applicants. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and 'as consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. When the eastern half of this parcel was rezoned to RM-2, the obvious intent was to have the property developed for multiple-family dwellings, at some future point in time. The applicants have stated their intent to grant an easement to the homeowners of the remaining parcel to ensure that no development will occur within 15 feet of the house. However, that easement could be chan�ed to prohibit development within the required 25 feet without affecting the proposed townhouse development. Provided that an easement is granted to ensure that no development occurs within 25 feet of the existing house, the proposed variance is in keepin� with the spirit and intent of the code. File � 98-307 Resolution Pa�e Two qq-la�- 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding azea. Provided the easement is granted as stated above, the proposed lot split and variance will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The steep slope of this property presents several unique development problems. However, these issues will be addressed through site plan review, prior to any construction on the proposed new parcel. There are two existing utility easements that run through the pazcel that serve the homes on Crocus Hill, and they will have to be redrafted to provide continued service through the new parcels. The existing zoning line of the proposed lot split follows the current use of the adjacent properties. Subdividing the parcel along the existing zoning line will not change the chuacter of the surrounding area. 5. The variance, if a anted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. The proposed variance, while resultin� in a structure with a nonconformin� setback, will not change the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The proposed variance request is a result of subdividing the properiy along the existing zonino lines, and is not desired to increase the development potential of the parcel. NOW, THSREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 67304 (6) be hereby waived to a11ow a lot split on a portion of the property subject to the following conditions: 1. That an easement is granted to the remaining parcel at 5 Crocus Hill to ensure that no development will occur within 25 £eet of the existing house and; 2. That revised utility easements aze provided prior to recording the subdivision, providing continued seroice to the properties affected by the subdivision and; 3. That site plan review approval is obtained prior to any construction activity on the resulting new parcel; on property located at 5 CROCUS HILL; and le�ally described as Tenace Pazk Add. Ex beg at most wly cor of Lot 4 th E Par with S Line of Lot S for 128.25 Ft, the S 15 Ft mol to Lin 170.06 Ft, N of & Par with S Line of Lot 5; th W on Sd Paz Line to Wly Line of Lot 4, Th Nwly to Be,;; Part of Lot 4 N of Sd Par Line & All of Lot 3 Blk 6; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. File # 98-307 Resolution Pa�e Three MOVED BY: Morton SECONDED BY : Scherman IN FAVOR: � AG��.INST: o MAILED: December 15, 1998 �q-Il�- TIVIE LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been fited, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my of£ce; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes oT the Sain4 Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on December 14, 1998 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS s- � , �I I Noel Diedrich Secretary to the Board c�q-ta�- ' o a1 � 6 / � .- „ � � e- e I-� � �� " � ,�� I „° v� � � .o � � ! j � � , 0 � � � oi / 3�� `° '' /` y / /� �� i S � � � � YE/ , p1 y{�� /a � , / i e �, � L O � $/ � �•,� � �� /� tv , / � 8 /� / j �� ey � "'0 °'% � � � � i � � � � � �� e�-��, � d � f / ° �� 9 �� ,�'/ / ,, f �-;% � , �� c ;� � i � � �; / ��/ �;. i r ;'� � � �`i � �; �� I ''� i; !;� i �: -�� I nI SITBPLeN I� � IIy. i- .,w. Neae�.e '��-�.,� i �11 � tlI.^.iwrvt.MEN�OT6H0lo�as i 6/�D��D I �j%i=�'ri�rmvaE.�^�+��.. II—` ��IJ _ i -�ono ioii�, � i a l °`�` i�� ni v�_�s,�r v �!.X:F/` �2 aiq -1��- Summit Hill Association District'16 Planning Council 860 Saint Clair Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 Telephone 651-222-1222 Fax 651-222-1558 e-mail summit.hill�stpauf.gov December 8, 1998 John Hardwick Board of Zoning Appea4s 350 Saint Peter Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File Number 98-307 Dear Mr. Hardwick and Members of the BZA: The Executive Committee of the Summit Hill Association/District 16 Planning Council met on December 1, 1998 to discuss Mendota Homes' request for a variance of the subdivision requirements in order to split-off a portion of 5 Crocus Hill creating a nonconforming rear setback on the remaining lot. It is our understanding that a twenty five foot setback is required and a six foot setback is proposed, for a variance of 19 feet. The SHA Executive Committee recognizes that this request for a lot split variance is an attempt to solve an existing zoning problem, since the parcel of land currently holds two zoning designations and Mendota_Homes_wishes to create the lot split along the existing zoning lines. However, the Executive Committee is concerned that the division does result in a nonconforming structure, and as yet, the SHA does not have enough infiormation about the structures proposed for the newly created lot to determine if there could be problems that arise as a result of this variance. At this time, the SHA has been provided with a preliminary site plan which does not include elevations and which is subject to change as the city completes its site plan review process. Support for this variance is premature until the SHA and the BZA can fook at a full proposai for the project which includes other variances that might become necessary. Therefore, the Summit Hitl AssociationlDistrict 16 Pfanning Council recommends denial of the variance until it can be examined in conjunction with more specific plans for the newly created lot. If you have any questions about the discussion or recommendation, you may contact me or Ellen Biales, SHA Executive Director, at 222-1222. Sincerely, - � � � l f �� U� � . Molly Coskran President �, cc: Erin Mathern, M_endota Homes � � � - � � � � .. a:'t.�: a� +tu� 12: 49 g;1S Ba%"`Q61850 Via T`elecopY and F�rst Class n�a42 Deccmbcr 14, 1998 City of St. Paul $OA-RD �F �ONING APP�AL..$ 3CQ 7„owty guiIding St. Paul, MN 55102 BT\KO�S WE5T ST p"tiL Ite: F31e I+To. 98-307 December 7.4, ],99$. �adi�s �� ,e�tlemen: �9 - aa'`�- �1UD; mrie undersigned 3re aIi neighY,Qrs who lfre in the neighborhq��s aff'ect�d �'Y t�� p�'oPerly subject to a reQuest bf Mendpta Homes, tnc, to obt�in a 1a`-Split zonin� chan� �,d a set-back vaxiance. The request involves r�sidenCial propertv iecated at 5 �rocus Hlll zon�� n-2 �d 12M-2 and an adja.cent lot zoned kR�1-2, aii awned by Richard and Ly�da Bisanz, We understand that certain land i� subject to an option agreernent held by Ri�h�.d F� and a Purchas� Agreem�nt from l�fr, p�.��o to Mendota FIomes, Ix�c. The tinder�igr��d four horzz�o�,�� hav� liv�d on the bloek for znany years, anr� several of ttie petitioz� sigrierS ?lav� lived 9n t1�e n�j�borhpod for ten to i�venty ye�rs or rr�ore, Au are supparcer� of St. Faul and taxp�p�� CP�,t� netghbors are life-long citizens of 5t. Paul. The praposed zoai�g �y�ang�s have been initi,ated to increa�e tha dec>elapment pptential2nd pzofitability of a t�n unit muIti-famqly project of Menc�ota Hei�Y��s, Inc. to be constrticted upon a portian of the Bisc-tnz rCSidential Iot and adjoining 2ot. Both tots have fronta�e oz1 the portion of Grand Avenue th�t slapes and curves dow� fro�ri Lincoln Avanue ta�vard dotivnto�vn St. Pa�tl and the entrance rarnp to HighWay 3g E South. A,s we understand the real estate tr�nsaction involvec�, a portion of the 14t on which the S Crocus Hf11 residence i:, Ioraterl uripi be resplit along the e�istan� zonirig line cstahlished by �1� Council or othcr action in 1975 zn return for aa easement �ranted to the �iisa�z's foT their back yard. This results in a seT bac�C vialation for Che rezon�d r�sidentiat 1Qt, reqiiiz�ng a set back va,r��.nce of 19 feet for t�3at �nt as resplit. We �i'e gti°an�ly opposeri to the proposed ten unit, nvp building townhorne develppment and The �rant of the requested set-back and lot-split v��ces. W� �e qpposed because of t2ie follovring concems. �i. �`his is $ T;zZp�qn� not a Varlaa�a. These proposed zoning �h�-, b i,��nce and Yhs other variances that «*iIl be reqtiired to approve the townhpme develapment �e a rezai�ing of.R 2 �rQ��r�Y to RM-2 #o inerease the density q£ townhpmas in the project. This should not be dotte by � varianCe procedure, Any reqYtest to rezone the lots shouid iuclude a study of traffic arzd safety canccrns, the effeet or1 th� adjpinin� Pr4perry vaiues, thc suAply of iighg an� �, thC quiet enjoyrnent of those Properties �nd the �aalogicai stability of the bluff. I� addition, thP propased develapment land_ locks a p4�on ofad,j�cent prpper{y, 4wnec� by,Jim �nd Bor,nie D'Aquila. Z0'd T6Z£S89 Z£Wb"Z$9£9£9 Wd Z£:Z0 NOW 86—c�T—�3Q ,. � 9 -1�.�--- �UO3 1 . No Sit$ PIa� for 2 `� + leu$o�a FIa�es Pr�,p ��eIop�� x�E �ning Code requires pre��a�an of a site 1an �Apxoval oP a�y varianceg. The Z4ning offl�� has informed us that a site pla.�1 is �zot needed at this tizne, an p �� =D requirement of the gt, p� l d ane has zlot been submitted. Tl�ig is contr� Zan4ng Board ofA u Zor,ing Code Sections 64.102 and 64.2Q3. T t12e ]etter n>ithout a si e plan.canxiot re�]ly address the issues w� h�ve raised in t2iis tlnder the Coda he Paul Zazv � Code � ra.nts he �o bie Fza the po�ver to a rov v g p� Use pP e ariances fram the gtrict enforce�enao�{ i e�on ng � s tipon finding, arno�g other requir�ments, that "the prop�m, in question can� be put Xo a reasoai�eble use nt6det t}le s'�siot prOV3siotts of th� �ode." 'fhe sole reasar2 for this varianae re r Thc current 1 4uest is tq inerease the number of townhAme urits. - ��1 could be put to an alternative reast�nable rzse as it a,�sts, a parhaps a les$ prc�ftab2e use. �nhanCU,� pragtiabilily is not a vaic� �� f°r the zonin� cqde. When the prior Q�er aF 5 Crocus kiill � �'�'anto, wanted to develop this laztd in X99z he a �rQCUS Hz11 about it to disclose hig ideas � p� his neighboasCOn Construction strch as thay nQw prflposed. 3`he overH,h� �� neighbors was thaz they did r�ot war�t it develop�a x� such a fdshiqnse of the Menr�ot Hpm�s, Tnc. a,��o states in its appiication thaC it does not meet one of the six requi��t t� o�t� a Iot-s 1it v Code Section 67.304 (Sttbw��io 6 of the lot splix ordi s St � Fau �� one of the lQt_split require�e�t is nat rnet, the lot-split CaI] only be don ��{ a� se �� by subdivir�ing ant( repiat�;ng che nub Zots under the prat�isio�s of Chapt�r 5 ps bf the Minnesota Statutes. 3 • N�Yic� o�' � � A�e�ng anly eler•en days a,f'ter xhe no(ice �vas mailed and n�ne or ten days aftex receip� by gn� ��t�� h��eo�vners durin� ttie busy hn�lday season �s not adequat� notice of the proposed action to a11ow us time to sYudy ghe p�.p �d �.�Spond to it„ St. Paul 2oning �p�j� �CCtic�n fi4.2C18. A�•�y-ro �u�:� iz:�8 FAI BSlr`�II1856 t;i�tto s ti+ssT sr px�. ------- St. kaut �oard o£ZUning• ynpea�s Pag� 2 $. x`}te �g$�'�Ye�ts to GraaP a Variaua� H�Ve N'ot B�e� Met �• �t� �e�sort. We believ� tfze staff report is inadequ��E �� fa;Zs to address the fnllcnvi�g concerns: 1. V$t i'�i#� ��'�t� �,9fiS Rezoxtiap; Char►ge �f Yhe l�rtsPe� to RM-2 firana M�y of the Crocus Hill neighbors �vho have si ed �� homes in 19T5, anci dicl not receive a.r� � t�s ietter lived in theix abqut the 1975 zQning ��ange t� �t�e p 6 pe�tic notice or opportunit� tn comnie�t �y a�on� �r�� Avenue fram Tt-2 to �0•d S6Z�'$89� L£Wb'Z89£9£9 Wd cg;ZO H9W 86-trT-II3Q 1.�1.t;9S SfUr 12:.t9 F?,Y v' St. �'aui $o�� o£ZoningApp��,S �age 3 ----------------- - °I°I-tZ�-- - --------------- -�--- ---�- RT.'rTiO'S {S'EST S��LL �} �-2. The Zoning Cade also prohibits lot zonintr ��zlle lot, sp tvhy tuas the lot zoned th#s t��ay in I�75? it is aiso n b �ith two cIassificatLqn$ in ihe Construct de��e m�jtzpie unit tow�7omes on t��t ro Zcars later in � o longer safe xo �ht of the tr�ffie �ongestion on Gran A e� �most tc��enty fxve because of t$e res,�rg�� of tlevelopment of retai2 S ho �S nue� xhaX has res;�lted �r�a A��nue and the cor�struction af Highwa3' 35E s �restaurants alang e-�it ramps at tll� battqm of Grantl Avet2tle. th it3 arlYra,nce and �• TZ �C .�`8,f6�+' The $oard must address the ti�2ffic sttfe i Traf�c study. �Ve are c�nc�rned abo�t the traffic safety issues raiseci proposed det�elo rn �S' ssue v;ith a such tzaffic Sa�'�� T �� ade requires zonin� c to p urnate ��Public safe;}' (ta bej securaed� S��malang. St. Paul Zaning Code Section fi4.201 proposed dev�ta�ment sIo es J � h � s �� 0 � °F �e road at (',ra�d Avenue l;y tfie aot�town S#. Pau�. T p dowr�wasd and curnes to the ng�� tQwa�.d Aarking for the de t > elopment�ciosest o the noei-ta part of the tra t, beXc�re�� he hvo toti�vr�nvme b�ildings, W�th � front set-baclt va�anc� for th� dev�lopment, it �vili be d�ngerous beeaus� the �sventy or so ca.rs e�tz � entering ttlis developme�t sEVer�l tix�es a day will be unable Tv see oncoznin� k�ic• This street 22so c.�n f�e v��,. x� qn fhe winter. We ate con�erned about our oivn sa,{ety as a result of suGh dens� development. Some farr�ilies use this rr,ute ta carpoQl their ehi3dren to schoo2 �Z t �� e � m � y U$ � it to �ry to wark in t�atimtown St. pa�l, to go to �nd from evEnts docuntown, aTld tb W�1k in the neighbarIaaod. �. Air ��i L3ghE, ��aY��ut aa$ Va'�.u�, of Ad aiat the homes in the Gr�d �qu and Crocus Hill neighbo hoo� �v� gi t 4�C� �` af $�ific�ce; hoYh nei�hborhoods �re yezY 4uiet. Crocus FiiIl is A dead end with Timited a1ley aCCess from �,;neoIn to Crocus �ill to the �vest bf the 5 CrQCUS Hill �roperty, Graad p-IiLt is a one-way fQr a block teading oui to tkte cqrtaEr of ��kland and Gr:�d qy��Ue� which rec��c�s tr�f'fzc leveIs and no(se there, Buj��u�g Yhis rnt�ZUpi �n�t to�vnhpuse develapment YviIl �ist�irb the quist � ��I �' ietivs dawn tfie hill af severat property owners otk�er than th� Bfsanz's, It.svill alsb affect the property values artd quiet enjapment of ttxese historie homes. The ox*nexs who �e p�q�ul�rTy conce�y��a b�cause they are immedi�ately adjacent or etose to the p�oposed developrnent, ar� G� � Bonziie ]3lpdget[, cvho resqrle ar I er��us Hitl, �na �;y� and I3annie D'Aquita, wiio reside at � Crocus Hi11, immediateIy south nf ihe develpgmez�Y. 1 VonetheIess, staff concluded that only �he property dt � Crocue Hzll was afi'ected. `�. N� F'rovls�o� far Gues� !'sr7�ing, The propased parking for the cievelopment does not addresses gu�st �arl�� j�rhen Mr. Parranto pro�os�d devel4px��ht oF this parcel to the neighborhpa� � iggl �� ara�wings included a cv��ay up to the aliey betvcreen LincolxL p,venue and �rocus Hill to provide additional on-sYreet parldng Lp guests an@ visitors on Cracus H�Ii. �je believe ne di� this because he realized th� prflpo�� had in�d�quate on-site parking, � dozi't linaiv u this developer is propc�sing t�is or n� f, Re�� of whether ihis developer gropqs�s a Lvalltway, ho�vever, the existing ap��ertt i+6'd 16ZF8&'9 L£W4' 8949£9 Wd £Y:ZO NOW S6-eT-�3Q M�► • ►z�-- _��_ _ - . ____... ----------------------------------------------------------- l:�li/J8 rIQV 12:5fi F.�LT 83�.Yj016S0 $ItiRO'S R'EST ST �-u1L I.'�,OpS St. Paul $uaxd oi Zonit�g �PP�aIs Page 4 buiIding on tn� �orner of Lzncoln �d �Fand Av�nues atready has a�l access stainc'ay We are cancerned that once developed, visitors of the�e ten homeo�mers wi�l naturatIy Paz'k on �r�ocug I-iill or �ranci Hili and walk down the �valkway or across the street because there is in�dequaCe sp�,�z to p�k ar., Grand Avenue or on_site far visitors and gnesTS. We already ��p��nce on-strest �arkang pr�ssures on Crocus Hill and �rrand Hilt because many tenants �f ap��e�t �uildings on Qrand and LinCOln Avenues gark on Che streets in front af our ]�omes, T1�zs deveippment t,vill acld to thase parldng pr��l�� ecause af inadequate on-site paci�g for guests. S. �'�ie ProPm� Ga� h� Fut t4 Reasaaable YTSe Wiichout the Ch�:nge. Th, residential propez�j, ifself is being put to a reaspnable tise rzpw, The other Rlvt-2 prop4rty either is not right for the dense deve2apment as propased nr may be impraved iri some alternative way that does not include housing. o. The Pliglft af th� Laa�owaer May Wgli Be Aue to Circumsta�.ces Created by'�`kem, If M�'• p��'r�.tlto ow�led this Iand in 1g75� �� certalnly couid have obj�cted t° �� WaY �n wnich the rezonir�g �S }� at that time. '7. The Proposed `Variauce its Not iti $cepiag whth tha Spirit �and Inteut of the 4"od�. The Adjaitxiag Pxoperty is 11Sog� Certainiy Affected, ThP staff has not provz�� any factual data or infoitnation �bout the trafftc ��d S�f@tY Cox�cerns, the effect on adjoiniz�� p�pe�, �azuzs axrd use, �� the steep �1Qpe probtems R�th the proposed devalo�ment, pther than its eonclusr�ry remarks that n� effect exists, �d ��t the slo�e issue wll1 be resolvec2later, �. Tlte �tequest fox $ Varia�rlce �i� Most Certaia.(y Bas�d SoI+�Ip on �a DBS'SQ t° rnc�easc the Va�ue or Tuca�O Poteat�al of t�e 7`ow�homa AeYreiopaaent, As w� have stated ear2ier, in our view, this whvle variance request is driven by Mendota guilder's desire to maximi,�� tne density ,�nd profitability af the development.. 9, Complat& ��pr. This request shauld praceduraily be a rezon�ng request. The staff g�rson for this request, John Hardwjck, has indic3tefl to certain oF us that pther va.r��s r�ilI be required fgr tlze c�eyelop��nt for fron � �'d rear setback on the rezoned lots and for buildirlg separatiQn, �ode requirem�r,ts, Thera may �e o�er v�anc�s required that are unknow� notv. W� thank you for your time and considerati4n of our con�ern$, 'Utr� respectfully request that the varia,�ces are danicd as r�questet�, �'�'-' Tazsxx�9 L£W4'ZS9£9£9 LJd t£:ZB NOW S6-cS-D3S 1�.1-1:98 3ION 12:51 F.�LY 651J�71650 SC Aaui $o�rtl oi zoning Ap�aeal5 $age 5 � 9q-1z''— ----------------------�- � ---�------,--� RI?�KO"S tPESf ST H�, n ��.��; ��.��,�- Cam and Bonnfe 6lodgeft �.� �.C.+�.rQ� \� �� a j� < d�mss and f3onnie !]'Aquiia f `r� �'�-C.c�:�,,, �.ce.�. . nan �nd �stello 8ell '"`'� -•, '� �` � �, �� • ,�ccc1CS�-c,� �r�ui �a�kstr�n� The Other NeighbQr� y7hO�e Naqgs Ara Sig�ed o:� tke lateae�ed PQ��.ttan ec= T6s tlonorab7.e HayotrHoi� Colemaa Th2 $oaoraD2e Chtis Calem.�n S�mS.e $1x2 Cou�ci.l Zoafng Crnnarietee Mendota �omes, Inc. n `>ra•.a i6ZCg37 L£W4'Z$?�'9£9 Wd 8£=Z� NOW S6—:�T—�3Q . . q° ---------- ------- ------ -_��Y•�= xu�� 1Z:51 t_�1 6�SO1fi30 FiINKO'S r4E5T STr"LrL � 007 Petifian �n opAbsitiQ� to variance requssE o9 NJenc�ota ktomes, (nc. for 5 Crac�s Hr�r �.-!� - �/G�D�v�`<,� �yc,�. �''n.`a�� e�.� �.P C�.�?�-�-�-- � c�.�.. �� '�✓L N �l h� S _�.—�,_,.��_ � $ S 1 c 2" 3 /•�.� �� _ �� y.- ,��--7�is � � s :,��.�� .�� g-�� . � � � tSh ��Q�'+�{' C.v�,_ v tC,��t. ��R�� , � ��-� J.�,��1 � ,,� �� al �� c��.�.� _� � .`Y�,.��,� ,� � �la.� �1;irlr�rr� �-- u �� OCS(�t�n fTf�,, z cYG �S ��,�lr � � i u� /l% G°f�GCNS I�� f) ..�a_s-�y, �'J+ \ A �T Q; +��7 ' "�! ` �vb � 6 ys �- u��r. �� ^� � � /�-�iGi Q � �r4C � 1 L � ot �o �^{— � �{�� `�`S � �.�.�` � ��-�-� 7 � 7 S �C�o �� . `�� -��5� � l�� cetrt�. �� a �� 6 �� 7 Z �`� -- �'�5 j a.Rt �-0�77 �. c, 2. — �-� �,� � �.�tc�cLt5 � �� 2�7 _'�p�;/-� � -- �� - ��i,��rG��T�c�-° �� 1 � . �— �� .�� c.�� /�� —�.�� ca�� L�Z9RR9 L£Wtr'ZS9£9£9 Wd 6<_':Z0 NOW 86^�T °l 9 - I'�') -------------------•-------•------ --•------------- ------------- 1.%1�1%Dy af0� 1�:5? FAS 851��02850 I{I?�FiO'S 8'EST ST P�L �] 00& PeEifian in opAOSiiion fo vari�nc� rg�uest of tvlendota Hornes, �nc. {or & Cfocus x,ri Narne Address �}� Phone I �' �„'� lC.�l.�_, C�� . r� � � �,,,,� �. • l,st 2z g � � "L ��U�� `E�i.-'�z� M`��. ce_. t� 5� -:�.3g � $ ��.3 f �t.l.L � ��S L��•./�c.�.� �53 - z�� 2�� c � ,�� f",��i��i �"'13 � � � � � 7 — �,�— s�� !I!!G 67�/Gf�' � " ,/ �j//��:�' �js�J �'�,�,G...,�L'"��x � � ! s � y !/" �.�/ � z�-7 _ < <� _/ 11'r,�i ��z�.,C,�`J..t„�� /� 'C,�-�..4..�.✓�� s r ��..z� �`is-` ��i� - �� a �-v��r .�:'�� 6S_' �� lJ . 1�.�.. �� r � C..�Cinr.�, .._,�.:,,�, �'��;� ��t� 1 �°—� ��.-(� /- �� '�� >sl - a�"1- �' �! �` a � c�,_�� r� s / � =. z - � »�� i/' ) i:Vw, i`� �� th�..�.t� ��st.R � �``��.?� �5� ��' S� 7� �. �= - 7' 7� c -•------•----- __....----�----------------- � --- ----�---- �. a.� � •c.raai+a""" � ��Wb'Z84£9£9 Wd 6�'Z0 NOW 86-CT-03Q 9°I-1�.s- DOHER'Ti� RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSIOSAL 4SSOCI4TI0[ Attorneys at Law December 14, 1998 City of Saint Paul Board ofZoning Appeals City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Street 5t. Paul, NIlV 55102 Re: File No. 98-307, Variance and lot split request of Mendota Homes, Inc. Dear Board Members: 28W 1li;merotz 4COdd Trade Centec 30 Ea>c Fc�th Sr.ret Smnt Paui. �imnesow i�101-i9`x'i Teleohone 165I� ?5�--4�L'-0 F�x tssi;'-b> >sro LCd:en di:ect d:al numSer- (651)265-4309 e henslr@drblaw.com We have been retained by 7ames and Bonnie D' Aquila who reside at 6 Crocus Hill with regard to a variance and lot split which has been requested by Mendota Homes, Inc. for property located at 5 Crocus Hill. Mendota Homes, Tnc. has indicated a desire to construct a 10 unit townhome development on a newly created lot. The purpose of this letter is to provide a brief legal analysis concerning the proposed variance, lot split, and development, along which an explanation of why each request should be denied. The Proposed Lot Split Section 67304 of the Zoning Code provides for the splitting of a lot if six conditions are satisfied. Mendota Homes cannot meet these conditions and the Board of Zoning Appeals does not have the authority to grant the requested variance. Specifically, Section 67304, subdivision (4) states that "the division of the lots shall not cause a remaining part of a lot to become a separately described tract which does not meet the minimum standards of the zoning district in which it is located or which does not have street frontage and access to municipal services" (Emphasis added). Mendota Homes admits in its application that the remaining parcel located at 5 Crocus Hill will not meeting the setback requirements in an R-2 zone, and thus have requested a variance from the requirements of Section 67304. However, Section 67.306 (b) of the Zoning Code only gives the following authority to grant a variance: "Where condition (3) or (6) of section 67304 is not met, the boazd of zoning appeals shall hold a public hearing to consider the variance form the required condition." Here, a variance is requested for condition (4). Thus, although the board in certain instances does have the authority to grant an appropriate variance (relating to conditions (3) or (6)) for the portion of the ]ot on which the townhouses would be located, the board does not have the authority to pernvt a lot split and grant a variance from the minimum standards for the lot on 5 Crocus Hi11(condition 4). The zoning code is clear on this point, and the board is without authority to take the requested action. St Pnul • Minneapal�s • Dermer • San Rnmon • Wrs;hington, D.0 . DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROF=_SSIOS aL ASSOCIA:!OC City of Saint Paul Boazd ofZoning Appeals December 14, 1998 Page 2 The Proposed Variance for 5 Crocus Hill q9- 1 '' - As indicated above, the board does not have the authority to grant a variance from the lot split requirements of Section 67.304. However, even if the board did have the authority to grant a variance, the request by Mendota Homes does not meet the criteria for granting a variance. The criteria for granting a variance are set forth in Section 64.203 and are as follows: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions ofthe code; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner; 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 Saint Paul; 4. The proposed vaziance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding azea; 5. The variance, if granted, would not pemut any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning classification of the property; and 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Upon proper consideration, it is clear that the cunent request does not meet most, if not all, of the criteria set forth above. It is ow opinion that the staff has misconstrued the first criteria relating to the reasonabie use of the property. Currently, the "property" consists of one lot with a single family residence. There is no question that for the past several decades the property has been put to a reasonable use. The variance criteria aze meant to apply to situations in which the property is not cunently in use or would not continue with the ea-isting use. It is certainly not unusual for separate areas of a parcel to have two or more zoning classifications. The law and sensible land use planning have never recognized that the landowner has an absolute right to make multiple uses of a single parcel if the uses conflict with setback requirements and other land use constraints. The staff and the developer are erroneously DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFE55.0] \L d5iOC14T:0] City of Saint Paul Board ofZoning Appeals December 14, 1998 Page 3 q � - � a' _ concluding that a landowner is entitled to make full use of each separately zoned area. That is not the law. Instead, the property, which is currently the single lot, is in fact being put to a"reasonable use" and the applicant fails to meet even this threshold criteria. In addition, the landowner fails to meet many of the other criteria for granting a variance. For example, there is no "plight of the landowner." Ow understanding is that this process is being driven by a developer, and not by Mr. and Mrs. Bizanz, who aze in fact the "landowners." In fact, it appears that the Bizanz do not really support this proposal but feel bound not to voice opposition. However, the Bizanz have no "plight" and are currendy living in the house located on 5 Crocus Hill. Similarly, correspondence has already been submitted to the board regarding traffic and safety concerns of the proposed development, along with serious concerns regarding property values and changing the character of the neighborhood. The cunent proposal has multiple problems that cannot be addressed in a meeting called upon minimum notice. Finally, it is clear that the primaty reason for requesting the variance is to increase the value or income potential for the lot located at 5 Crocus Hill. Because there is already an existing home on the property and no cunent intention to demolish the home, the only reason to sell the bottom portion ofthe lot and build townhomes is to produce income. The entire spirit behind the current request is contrary to the rationale behind granting variances. This is simply a way to make money, and not an effort to make a reasonable use of a lot which for years has been used as a single family residence. The Townhouse Development If this body grants the requested variance, the city will lose most of its control over the newly created lot. Because the lot will be in an RM-2 zone, if the city grants the variance, the developer will then claim that the city's action gives him an absolute right to build townhomes on the new lot. The city will have much less leverage in reviewing the plan and will have much less opportunity to provide input and make changes in any plan. It is a mistake to grant a variance and create a new lot without considering a detailed plan for future construction. However, the developer has not supplied a site plan and other details regarding the project. Serious issues remain regarding traffic on Grand Avenue, the number of uzuts involved, pazking, the location and extent of what will undoubtedly be a massive and potentially unsightly retaimng wall, fences, landscaping, and screening. The city should not even consider the current plan without a more detailed site plan and proposal. The city owes its citizens a more thoughtfui review. In addition, Section b1.101 of the zoning code provides that townhouse developments must have a nunimum 25 foot yard setback and that the structure cannot occupy more than 30% of the lot. The developer has already made it clear that he will seek further variances from these criteria. The proposed development would be on an extremely steep slope, but no plan has been submitted DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFE55[O\ 4L 4550C�dTIO] City of Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals December 14, 1998 Page 4 °t°I-1� regarding how the site will be developed. In other words, nothing about this project meets the cunent zoning code. In addition, if the lot split is approved, under Section 61.101 the developer may choose to submit a revised plan for a 5 story structure, 50 feet in height. Once the variance for the lot split is granting, the city loses control. The city should require the developer to seek all necessary variances at one time in order to avoid piecemeal review that unduly constrains the rights and obligations of the city. For these reasons and for the reasons contained in previous correspondence from my clients to the city, Mr. and Nlrs. D' Aquila request that the city deny the current application. Yours ' erely, obert�ey RGH/rma cc: James and Bonnie D'Aquila 946402 ,, 17 SAT 08:48 F.�1S 612225�19�11 �; � '-; :%� >': � D'AQUILA 6 Cracus hiill St. Paul, MN 55102 (69 2) 225-1313 December13,1998 Mr. John Hardwick Board of Zaning Appeals 350 Saint Peter Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55902 RE: Zoning File Number 98-307 Dear Mr. Hardwick and Members of the BZA: This letter raises further reasons why the application far Subdivision File No. 98- 30� must be summarily rejected. The proposed action raises serious proceduCal problems and is not consistent with zaning requirements. This application is in effect a rezoning done through the grant of an easement and a variance procedure. ShouEd the City grant the variance and allow the property to be subdivided, a portion af an R-2 (residential} parcel wil( be used through a lot line change and easement for purposes of satisfying the development requirements of a RM-2 (multifamily) parcel. As a resulf ofi this incorrect process, no mechanism or procedure is being foilowed which would protect the rights, welfare, health, safety, marais, comfort and established properfy values of th� adjacent properties. Given the fact that the net result of the easement and the variance is a rezoning, an application for rezoning is the apprapriate procedure. 2. The request for variance is based sale[y on a desire to increase the value of the parcel of land. The variance allows the developer a setback of less than city code, thus increasing the buildable pad and the density of the proposed property. The property can be developed for its intended purpose without the variance but it wou[d not be able to acaommodate the number of townhomes which Mendota Homes has proposed thus decreasing the value of fhe property to Mendota Homes and Mr. Parranto. at9-1Z� r.� � � , i�,�xz: as saT os: as F'.�.z sizzzs.�a.�i � ooz q9 -�a'}- 3. The proposed subdivision and development plan land lo�ks a subdividable and developahle parcel of land whioh we awn. Our properfy could also be subdivided consistent vrith zoning regulations. Howevef, the proposed project on 5 crocus Flill would land lock my sub- dividabie parcel. Who is considering aur rights of access and our righfs to subdivide our praperty? 4. Tha City has not adequately addressed the neighborhaod's safety concems. No s#udy of traffic in the afFected area has been completed so it is impossible to state that the proposad variance (and the possible administrative appraval of the development) is in keeping with the heaith, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of fhe inhabitants of fhe City oF St. Paui. This is especially troublesome since the tfaffiC pattems on Grand and Lincoin Avenues has changed dramaticaify since the parcel was rezoned RM-2 in 9 975. The City is required to adequately study and address these issues prior to any variance and subdivision. 5_ No plan adequately addresses the substantial development prab[ems propased hy the steep s[ope of the praperty. Newly created lots must allow for a minimum setback af forty faet fCOm the top af biuff lines 2nd shali avoid the placement of structures on 18 percant slapes ar sEe2per. This project vi�lates bofh provisions. 6. No analysis as to the appropriateness of the lot split has been estab[ished. Ad-hoc incremental development which relies salely on existing zoning is not in the best interest of the citizens of the City of St. Pauf. Prior to any acfion on the property at 5 Cracus Hill, the City must establish a well thought out development p(an for the Crocus Hiii bluff (including our property and access to such}. The arsa was rezoned nearly 25 years ago and the City must address changes wf�ich have occurred since the original zoning. 7. No analysis has been pertormed to ascerta"sn whether or not the proposed develapment will alter the surrounding area or unreasona6ly diminish the esfablished property va[Ues wlthilt the surzounding area. 8. No site plan has been established. 7he City Zoning Code requires fhat a site plan be reviewed prior to the approval of any variances. Such an approach is logical and consistent with the protectian of the rights of the neighbors adjacent to the property. The Zoning Board of Appeals is nof in a posifion to address all aspects and effects of fhe variance without a site plan review. 9. No anticipated visiEor parking. According to praliminary plans, Mendota Homes has nat leit space for visitor parkirtg within the site boundaries_ ,�i��i2ias SAT 08:49 F:LT 6122254a�11 �oas qq-��- The plans call for 2Q garage stalis each with garage doors. The lack of on-site visitor parking pufs further pressure on an already congested and unsafe area and compiicates the safe€y af ingress and egress fram the property. 10. Contra[ of a singie-family property to block possible objections to multi-family develapment. In selling 5 Crocus Hill ta the Bisanz, Richard Parranto (the option holder on the subject RM-2 parcei) precluded tha Bisanz from objecting to any development on the RM-2 parcel. Thus, Mr. Parranto maintains controf over the single-family parce{ as it relates to this issue. The control of a single famiiy parcel solely to minimize the objecfion of tha deve(opment of an aitemafively zoned adjacent property is nat cansisfent with the procedures established in St. Paul Zoning Codes. Again, due to the facts presented herein as well as under separate cover, we respectfully request that the request for variance and subdivision be rejected. Sincerely, ��Va� aG� �l � �v�-�,�`�i� James and Bonn e D'Aquila cc: 7he Honorabie Mayor Norm Coleman The Hnnorable Councilman Chris Goleman IVlendota Homes Mr. and Mrs. Robert Bisanz ORIGI�IAL Presented By Council FIle # ` \ �`a�'- Green Sheet # �0�� Referred To Commiuee: Date 1 2 WHEREAS, Mendota Homes, Inc., in Board of Zoning Appeals [Board] file 98-307, 3 made application for a variance from the strict applacation of the subdivision requirements of the 4 Saint Paul Legislative Code for the purposes of splitting off a portion of properiy cotnmonly 5 known as 5 Crocus Hill bearing property identification number 012823320111 (see BZA file for 6 the complete legal description); and 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 WfIEREAS, the Boazd conducted a public heazing on December 14, 1998, after having provided notice to affected properiy owners and the Board, in its resolution 98-307 approved the variance based upon the following findings and conclusions: 2. Splitting this pazcel along the existing zoning line, which approximately corresponds with the bluff line, is the most logical way to proceed with the subdivision. However, doing this would leave the existing house on the property with a nonconforming rear setback. Alternatives, such as splitting the parcel to maintain a 25 foot rear setback far the house, wouid result in split zorung on the parcel containing the house. Also, the additional land gained for the rear yard would mostly be unusable due to the steep slope. The existing split zoning classification of the parcel and the steep slope of the eastern half of the property are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. 25 3. When the eastern half of this pazcei was rezoned to RM-2, the obvious 26 intent was to have the property developed for multiple-family dwellings, at 27 some future point in time. The applicants have stated their intent to grant 28 an easement to the homeowners of the remaining pazcel to ensure that no 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 development will occur within 15 feet of the house. However, that easement could be changed to prohibit development within the required 25 feet without affecting the proposed townhouse development. Provided that an easement is granted to ensure that no development occurs within 25 feet of the e�sting house, the proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 � 5. Provided the easement is granted as stated above, the proposed lot split and variance will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The steep slope of this properiy presents several unique development problems. However, these issues will be addressed through site plan review, prior to any construction on the proposed new parcel. There are two existing utility easements that run through the parcel that serve the homes on Crocus Hill, and they will have to be redrafted to provide continued service through the new parcels. The e�sting zoning line of the proposed lot split follows the current use of the adjacent properties. 5ubdividing the parcel along the e�sting zoning line will not change the chazacter of the surrounding area. The proposed variance, while resulting in a structure with a nonconforming setback, will not change the zoning classification of the properiy. 6. The proposed variance request is a result of subdividing the property along the e�sting zoning lines, and is not desired to increase the development potenrial of the parcel. WHEI2EAS, the variance was approved subject to the following conditions: 2. That an easement is granted to the remaining parcel at 5 Crocus Hiil to insure that no development will occur within 25 feet of the exiting structure;and That revised utility easements are provided prior to recording the subdivision, providing continued service to the properties affected by the subdivision; and That site plan review approval is obtained prior to any construction activity on the resulting new parcel. a9 -t a �- WHEREAS, on December 21, 1998, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, James and Bonnie D'Aquila duly filed an appeal from the determination of the Board and requested a hearing before the Council of the City of Saint Paul for the purpose of considering the action of the Board; and 13 W�IEREAS, on 7anuary JE( 1999, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.205 - 64.208, the Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal of James and Bonnie D'Aquila after giving notice to affected parties and where all persons interested where given an opportunity to be heard; and WFIEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the variance applicafion, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Boazd does hereby a9-ti a� 2 RESOLVE, to uphold the decision of the board in this matter. The Council, based upon 3 a11 the evidence in the record finds thax the appeltants have not shown that there was any enor on 4 the part of the board with respect to any fact, fmding or procedure in this matter. Accordingly, 5 the Council adopts the findings of the said Board in resolution 98-307 as its own; and 6 7 BE IT FiTI2TI�R RESOLVED, that the appeal of James and Bonnie D'Aquila is in all 8 things denied;and 9 10 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution should be mailed to the 11 Appellants, Mendota Homes, Inc., the Saint Paul Planuiug Commission and the Saint Paul 12 Zoning Admiuistrator. Requested by Department of: Hy: Form Appr d by City Attorney BY: .�l (-2� s� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY� � l7 . � By: \ � Approved by 't�or: Date � 17 ��g / By: Adopted by Council: Date ,p �\�„�q Adoption Certified by Council Secretary aq _��'�— DFPARTMENT/OFFICNCOUNCIL DnTE WRWTED City Council Offices zizi99 GREEN SHEET No 63508 COMAC7 PER�N 8 PHONE �nitlaWate � Inwallnafe Chris Coleman, 266-8620 oe.unra,ran¢cro, a,rcaa�. MUS7 BE ON CQUNCILAGENDA BY (DPSE) AESIGM IIIIIIBBtiOR n�YAnoP�EY ❑uil'CtERK RWiW6 �� FfIa��C1n1.�FRVICESCOL ❑AlstiC1111.sERVi4ttrC ❑MVOR�ORABffiTAIIT� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (GLlP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C710N RE�UESTm Finalizing City Council action taken on January 13, 1999, denying the appeal of James and Bonnie D'Aquila for a variance aY 5 Crocus Hill. RECOMMENDATION Apprwe (A) a 2J2GS (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONiRACIS MUST ANSWERiXE FOLLOWIN6 QUES710NSi 1. Has this persoMim everworked under a contrad forthis tlepartment� PLANNING CAMMISSION vES No CIB CAMMITTEE 2. Flas this peisonRrtn ever been a city employee7 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION YES NO 3. Dces this persoNfirm possess a skill not rwrmallypossessetl by any cu�reM city employee? YES Np a. Is mia persoNfirm a tarpeteC venaofT YES � Evplain all y� answers on separate shee[ an0 attach to reen she� INI7IATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNI7Y(WM, What When, Where, Why) .,� �-,�cc�d�.°� ��jiP.i �ks��ry ��`�1� ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED - DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED 70TAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION f COST/REVENUE BUDQETED (qRCLE ON4 �S NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTMTV NUMBER FiWWCWLINFORMAiION(EXPWt� _ CITY OP SAIN'T PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY q Q� I� y Clayton M Robinson, Jc, Ciry Attorney CivilDivision 400CiryHaZ[ Zelephone:65I266-8710 ISWestKel7oggBlvd Facsimile:651298-5679 Saint Paul, Minnesota J5702 January 28, 1999 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 Ciry Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, NIN 55102 ��r��sy� Re: Appeal of 3ames and Bonnie D'Aquila BZA File: 98-326 Public Hearing Date: January 6, 1999 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Please place this matter on the Council's Consent Agenda at your convenience. If you haue any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, �.-�� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure OPPICE OF LICENSE, INSPHCTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION Roben Kessfer. Director n e _ � w �� _ r CITY OF SAII�iT PAUL Norm Co[eman, Mayor December 21, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Mi�mesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: I would like to confirm tUat a public hearing be January 13, 1999 for the following appeal of a] Appellant: File Number: Purpose: Address: Legal Description: LOWRY PROFESSIONAL BUILIJ7NG Snire 300 350 SG Peter Street Saint Paut, M'umesota 55102-I510 Telephone: 612-266-9090 Facsimiie: 672-266-9099 6I2-2669I24 ..:> ,.a. �; � r N �`Y � �� ,t^�,6.. •y3" � k °t�� , �' !��' C =� � , �' �� t �� A � o I �ed fcr Wednesday fo � �vr;s�n: � James and Bonnie D'Aquila 98-326 Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting a lot split variance in order to subdivide the properh� at 5 Crocus Hill into two parcels along the existing zoning line. 5 Crocus Hi1S PIN 012823329111, see file for complete legal description. Previous Action: Summit Hitl Association ! District 16 Planning Council recommended denial of the variance due to lack ef information regarding future development of the property. Staff recommended approval. Board of Zoning Appeals; Granted the varianc �, subject to conditions, on a vote of 7- 0. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the 7anuary 6, 1999 City Council meeting and that you wiil publish notice of the hearirig in the Saint Paul Legal Ledgec Please cal! me at 266-9082 if you have any questions. Sin r ly, t � � � ��.,� � � , • �as1 • ,-Jq m Hardwick _. '-. -' - xmxcE oF rosuc seARn�tG � ��017i1tg TCCImiCialt � Saint P,aul City Council will cortduc4 a public hearipg� oa Wednesday. � January 13. 1999, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Third Floor Oity Ha11- ea Council Member Coleman Court Hovse fo con'sider the appeal of James and Bonnie D'Aquita to a decision of fhe Board of Zoning Lppeals grantinga lot split variance in order to subdivide properry at ' 5 Crocus Hilk in4o two pazcels alnng the esisting zoning line. . . _ Dated: T3ecember 23, 1598 ` � - " . � - LdADF(:Y �NDEFL40�k� _ _ - - _ - Assistant f.5ty Covncil Seeretasy . , � @ ecember30, k998j '" . ' - qq- �ati- APPLICATION FOR APPEAL. Deparlmenf of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section • ' i g 3�� II00 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paut, MNSSIO2 266-6589 APAELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION NarT7e James and Bonnie D'Aquila Address 6 crocus Hill City saint Pau1 gf, riN Z�p 55102 Daytime phone Zoni�g File Name File rro. 98-307 Address/Location 5 crocus xiil TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appea! to the: � Board of Zoning Appea{s ❑ City Council under the provisions ofi Chapter 64, Section 2� , Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the Board of zoning Appeais on ➢ecember 14, , 19 9$ . File number: 9$-3Q7 (dafe of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative offcial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. See attached letter. 1� �21IRBaoao� i D � i33r3'r+ 4�63 V{afiIFikiCE �I�RTit �}�C�}: �fi�fi� ��'�� Attach addifional Applicant's Robert G. H2[Cs1ey Counsel for Appellants Date 12Ilsl9s City ag 2 .G� . CiLi . �F} P� DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFFSSIOCdL ASSOCIATIO] Attomeys at Caw Decemher 17, 1498 City Council City of Saint Paul City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55 ]02 �9-1��- ? \Lnnew:z l`bdd 7:ade Ce�'er �2 Evt Seccr:n S;re.t s� r��i. ��-�z�:� s:: Te:ev^o. [65ll 7h5-+�'C:' e�x «� � ze� s9oa t\r¢e: > drec! dfal oum^e. (651)265-4309 e-mail: henslr�drblaw.com Re: File No. 98-307, Variance and Lot Split Request of Mendota Homes, Inc. Dear Council Members: We have been retained by James and Bonnie D'Aquila who reside at 6 Crocus Hill with regard to a variance and lot split which has been requested by Mendota Homes, Inc., for property located at 5 Crocus Hill. Mendota Homes, Inc., has indicated a desire to construct a 10-unit townhouse development on a newly constructed lot. The purpose of this letter is to submit an appeal of the decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals and to.provide a brief legal analysis concerning the pzoposed variance, lot split, and development, along with an explanation why each request should be denied. The Proposed Lot Sptit Section 67.304 of the Zoning Code provides for the splitting of a lot if six conditions are satisfied. Mendota Homes cannot meet these conditions and the Board of Zoning Appeals did not have the authority to grant the requested variance. Specifically, Section 67.304, condition (4) states that "the division ofthe lots shall not cause a remaining part of a lot to become a separately described tract which does not meet the minimum standards of the zoning district in which it is located or which does not have street frontage and access to municipal services" (Emphasis added). Mendota Homes admits in its application that the remaining parcel located at 5 Crocus Hill will not meet the setback requirements in an R-2 zone, and thus have requested a variance from the requirements of Section 67304, condition (4). However, Section 67306 (b) of the Zoning Code only gives the following authoriry to grant a variance: "Where condition (3) or (6) of section 67.304 is not met, the board ofzoning appeals shall hold a public hearing to consider the variance form the required condition." (Emphasis added.) Here, a variance is requested for condition (4). Thus, although the board in certain instances would ha�e the authority to grant an appropriate variance relating to conditions (3) or (6) for the portion of the lot on which the townhouses would be located, the board does not have the authority to permit a lot split and grant a variance from condition (4) which relates to the SLPmd • M�nnenpaiis • �e�¢�er • Smi Ranwn • 4Vnshmgtm�, D C DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSiO�":�L ASSOQ�TIO] City Council Members City of Saint Paul December 17, 1998 Page 2 °Iq - �2a- nunimum standazds for the remaining lot on 5 Crocus Hill, The Zoning Code is clear on this point, and the board was without authority to take the requested action. Because the lot split requires a variance from Section 67304 of the Zoning Code, the only way in which to attempt to divide the lot is to replat the lot. This is the only logical reading of Section 67304, which states that lot splits are permitCed "without platting" only if the conditions are met, and that the zoning board only has the power to grant variances from conditions (3) or (6). The Board of Zoning Appeals cieady did not have the authority to grant a variance from condition (4) and replatting is the only potential course of action. The Request is a Defacto Rezoning and Not a Variance If the lot is subdivided, the home currently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz will be located on the remauring property and will be six feet from the newly created property line. The new property line essentially eliminates the backyard for the house, and it is virtually impossible to walk out of the house and not cross the properiy line and fall down the bluff. Appazently realizing that the city would not allow a split zoning classification on an existing lot, the developer has instead agreed to grant a diamond-shaped easement across the RM-2 zoning line in order to provide Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz with a backyazd. The effect is that the townhouse development is essentially using land zoned R-2 in order to meet setback requirements in an RM-2 zone, The effect is a defacto rezoning and a blatant effort to juatapose the use of each lot. This type of defacto rezoning should be strongly opposed by the city and is simply an effort to circumvent the city's Zoning Code. The Prnposed Variance for 5 Crocus Hill As indicated above, the board does not have the authority to grant a variance from the lot split requirements of Section 67.304. However, even if the board did have the authority to grant a variance, the request by Mendota Homes does not meet the criteria for granting a variance. The criteria for granting a variance aze set forth in Section 64.203 and are as follows: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these`circumstances were not created by the landowner; D�HERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PAOF£5510\dL ASSOCi4710\ Ciry Council Members City of Saint Paul December 17, 1948 Page 3 a°I -1a a- 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 Saint Paul; 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character oFthe sunounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area; 5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning classification of the property; and 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Upon proper consideration, it is clear that the current request does not meet most, if not all, of the criteria set forth above. It is our opinion that the staff has misconstrued the first criteria relating to the reasonable use of the property. Cunently, the "property" consists of one lot with a single family residence. There is no question that for the past severai decades the property has been put to a reasonable use. The vaziance criteria are meant to apply to situations in which the property is not currently in use or would not continue with the existing use. It is certainly not unusual for separate azeas of a parcei to have two or more zoning classifications. The law and sensible land use planning have never recognized that the landowner has an absolute right to make multiple uses of a single parcel if the uses conflict with setback requirements and other land use constraints. The staff and the developer are erroneously concluding that a landowner is entitled to make full use of each separately zoned area. That is not the law. Instead, the property, which is currently the single lot, is in fact being put to a"seasonable use" and the applicant fails to meet even this threshold criteria. In addition, the landowner fails to meet many of the other criteria for granting a variance. For example, there is no "plight of the landowner." Our understanding is that this process is being driven by a developer, and not by 1Vfr. and Mrs. Bisanz, who are in fact the "landowners." In fact, it appears that Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz do not really support the lot split and townhouse proposal. Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz have no "plight" and are currently living in the house located on 5 Crocus Hill. Similarly, correspondence has already been submitted to the board regarding traffic and safety DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER rxoFESSio�ac rssoct+Tia� City Council Members City of Saint Paul December 17, 1998 Page 4 a�°1-�aa- concems oFthe proposed development, along with serious concems regarding property values and changing the character of the neighborhood. Finally, it is clear that the primary reason for requestutg the variance is to increase the value or income potential for the lot located at 5 Crocus Hill. Because there is already an existing home on the property and no current intention to demolish the home, the only reason to sell the bottom portion of the lot and bu$d townhomes is to produce income. The entire spirit behind the current request is contrary to the rationale behind granting variances. This is simply a way to make money, and not an effort to make a reasonable use of a lot which for years has been used as a single famity residence. The Townhouse Development At the public hearing, the zoning board refused to hear any testimony about the townhouse development and myopically focused only on the lot split. This was a mistake by the zoning board. First, the application which was submitted for the lot split contained drawings and plats indicating the number of units and the location on the property. Questions and comments by citizens about what has been submitted by the applicant should not be ruled out of order. Second, if the city grants the requested variance without considering the development already requested by the developer on the new lot, the city will lose most of its control over the newly created lot. Because the lot will be in an RM-2 zone, if the city grants the variance, the developer will then claim that the city's action gives him an absolute right to build townhomes on the new lot. The city will haue much less leverage in reviewing the plan and will have much less opportunitp to provide input and make changes in any plan. It is a mistake to grant a variance and create a new lot without considering and reviewing a detailed plan for future construction. The developer has not supplied a site plan and ofher details regarding the projecC, but has simply indicated an intent to cram ten townhouses on the property. Serious issues remain regazding traffic on Grand Avenue, the number of units involved, parking, the location and e�ent of what will undoubtedly be a massive and potentially unsightly retaining wall, fences, landscaping, and screening. The city should not even consider the current plan without a more detailed site plan and proposaL The city owes iis citizens a more thoughtful review of the complete package. In addition, Section 6L 101 of the Zoning Code provides that townhouse developments must have a minimum 25 foot yard setback and that the stiucture cannot occupy more than 30% of the lot. The developer has already made it ciear that he will seek further variances from these criteria. The proposed development would be on an ezctremely steep slope, but no plan has been submitted regarding how the site will be developed. Development within the Zoning Code is improbable given °1q,Iz�-- DOHERTY RUMBLE 8� BUTLER PnOFE5510].l1 d550C14i10] City Council Members City of Saint Paui December 17, 1998 Page 5 the 40-foot setback requirement from the bluff. In other words, nottung about this project meets the current Zoning Code. In addition, if the lot split is approved, under Section 61.101 the developer may choose to submit a revised plan for a 5 story structure, 50 feet in height. Once the variance for the lot split is granting, the city loses control. The city should require the developer to seek all necessary variances at one time in order to avoid piecemeal review that unduly constrains the rights and obligations of the city. For these reasons and for the reasons contained in previous correspondence from my clients to the city, Mr. and Mrs. D' Aquila request that the city deny the cunent application. Yo mce ly, Ro ert� RGHfrma cc: 7ames and Bonnie D'Aquila Robert Bisanz Richard Bisanz Mendota Homes, Inc. Arew Backstrand 979297 �. °1°1 � 113- SUBDNISION REVIE6�l APNLICATION Department of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 City Ha!! Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saini Paul, MN 55102 2b6-6589 APPLICANT � PROPERTY AddresslLocation�5 G�oU k4il�— u�"I� �U.VU,I 2-otie.Lf_. "K�7� LOCATION 1 "` Legai description: 0. � /A (attach additional sheef if necessary) ""` TYPE OF SUBD ❑ ❑ AppiicanYs sig � N: _. .._ Spiit �,Lot Split with Variance ❑ Reg. Land Survey imin Plat ❑ Final Plat ❑ Combined Plat � Date City agent ,,; , �:�, Name of owner (if different) o✓ �- �'�^i (�"'� "� � wcs Contact person (if different �t� ��'�t-� Yv�v�clo Phone�$�-(03�-2 °1 `i � t'��- ME1�DqTA HOMES, INC. P.O. BOX d16 FORESx LAKE, MN 55025 (651)688-6342 (651) 6883291 �AX November 10, 1998 City of St. Paut JJepartment of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section 1 t00 Ciry I-TaII Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 To Whom Tt May Concem: � � �' 'f ''��.. Atl•ached, you will find an agplication for Subdivision Review for a lat split with variance for a garcel of land located at #5 Crocus Hill in St. Paul. The pazcel of land cutrently holds two zoniag districts —12-2 and R-M2. A singlc family home exists on 1he portion of the property zoned R-2. Mendota �Tomes, 3nc. has entered into a purchase agreement for the remaining portion of the properry zoned R-M2 in an effort to construct nine townhomes. We wish to spiit this pzoperty along the existing zoning line. This spiit conforms with five of the six conditioas for lou splits outlined in Zoning Code. The sixth condition, that the division does not result in the creation af a noncoafozzning struciure or use, is, however, more diffcult. The exisring single family home on the R-2 parcet was constructed a numt�er of yeazs ago. When ihe lot split to divide the R-2 parcei from the R-M2 parcel occurs, the rear yard setback for the exisring single family home wiii not meet the required minimum distance of 25 feet from the nerv pzoperty line. V�le are requesting that this lot split be accompanied by a variance to allow a rear ya setback af less than ten feet for the existing home. The ovmers of the existing hom� Robert and �ynda Bisanz, have indicated no objection to this acrion. A letcer from accompanics this appliealion. Mendota Homes, Ine. atso agrees to an easeraent for a gortion of the netiv parcei, in a private action, to aItow Mr. and Mcs. $isanz su�ci privaoy in their back yard. The only other option to divide this property and utili2e its R-M2 2oning would be i maintain a 25 foot rear yard setback for the existing home and divide the pazcei alo� line not consistent with the current zoning division. This proposai is eqnaily, if not di�cult, as it results in a split zoning classi�cation on a single lot. � a�-�a�-- �-- �� - 30'7 We do not believe a variancs to allow a rear yard setback that does not meet minimum requirements would result in inconvenience for anyone involved. The only affected neighbors would be Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz, wfio have agreed to the actioa We feel this lot split and variance is the Ieast offensive way to utili2e property in the manner far which it is zoned. Plezse review this application aad contact us with any quesrions ot concems. Sincerely, l�"� �. Erin E. Mathem for Mendota TTomes, Inc. Y ' v , ��. ' '- ' ,' . w ��„ � S . ' � �. ��'�^ .._ � _. e . . � _ , ._ ... .v_ Y .f_. , � t_. � P. 4'-� '.f Y.Y '. z�: f- � � �� , _ : , � � = `��'� . ��, �� "- :..�i''2�:.v-_ - " Novemher 2, 149& Robcrt and Y.ynda $isana #5 Ctocus Htll St. Paul, I47'�iT City o£St. �'aul Depanment of Planning and Economic Devciapment Zoiiiti� Scctio� 1 I00 City $ail Annex 2S West �ourth Street St Paui, MN' SS102 To Whorz, Iz 2v1ay Concorn � s � � � •G � � �qg-la Mendota Homes, 7na. is applying with your office for Subdivision Rev�ie�v far a lot split �•rith variance for a parce] of land at #5 Crocus liilt in St. pau}. We are the owncrs of a single family home currentiy located on the property in qucstion. Our home sits on the poc�ion of the properry zoned R-2, for siagie family ase. When Iliis lo[ sglit accurs, the rear yard setback for our home vn11 be Iess than the ininimum requiremem foc St. Paui of 15 feet. The variance request that accompanies h4cndata Homer' applicatipa iS to sllcnv s[ear yard setback of less thatt ten feet for our existing.home. we understand that Iv�endota � tne. is requosting this action and have no objection t� th�s'variance. X � �a M : ''' ��.. ~ -�n. ' ��4� .. - wif�S�. . .c i �yY, .; } � `I�''^ V� f"�.. fa. _ .5.. .�t�x '` y . _ _ -t�? e-_.k. - ,.ei. j.. ! �� h . ! .: ,� !!tio " , Lynda �i3ant " ' - � . . � � _ � _,� `�=r''. _ .. - � .; � z, s s s � � .. -..-...,�r;�.,-�.a�._>_._�.a:3 �� Y . :ti�� Si � a1 ��'''� � �. � ��t1!'�, ��e�.�, '�: o :�, �. 2� � SUMMfT e ; � ,.,>> Sq f � f O. `n. •. . � 60. 60. ' ¢/O. A To . r ro. S° Jo. . . . ^ ; . 9 4 590 � , �_ ' t I t7£ G14" { � Ue fio-311 ii: I �L1 � � �e i O � : � 4 w!S Dro �i 1 � I�� i � � I n� ,x� Y rt �� ^�i ,�j' �;2� ✓ i 9� 3 Z� / m 9 8 i 7 6� ;J � 3 z C� � pi ra�3umu on z�c�j "�� i ; 7o p � Svrrvn� 'S � /O 8 .f 4' 3 Z ! , �..,,, > — r>.r tp (�1 ♦ � i i.f Nla7 (u a o a�.cs) (z:9-ne� �°,e8 ( (�) C�) (nc) r:s N — n f �'.�a d� zzo. I. �� ..re o , --�- --�.;�.....:_ : ---- - - SUMM/T LANE: pm i�=I [xa> c� �. (z'1) e (2't1 O 9e. L � .. zo �y1 `1� sv 3cs i w t� ,m "'.1 +*-s�) m a 7 �� •� o > �' i t t'ul i f'(ta} (v) �`. I I ! �j � (ml �(3s) "� t Cal N+) 14x) (�3) o (ss)e o �C' r U .Si .S'� I S�r{• ; ( \� ::: ` i:cc� tzv ��irol l ��,', G'>"' � g�a _' _� Z 6 '3� �f 3 �I z �i B I 9 �'� /o // �/ z/ �9�� .5 i/6 /� � ` { � E `.' (4> ` C (n) � � .`;• ( I I p /Z /3 /h� I/ /D' /7 18 i/� � 2f � o Sb I(w! I ' � 8 �� i�o 2L � �� k 4, 5f3 489 I 1 i s85 s � � i ��is�i �� ^ ^ - � rv. sa. sa. � , So. ,�. 6e7 _ , . .r'o. 6J' ♦ i' _ _ _ " ' � 1 ' . � r . F____ �'��""__�,. i i .ao s�L� :` .�1 m .,,� GAAND AV� � °` � � . ,,..,, e to ... `� >�,s sb i . ;.rer .00 � (acl ^' z Sm � 4s � � ro o .,�. ,�� o. � > .e'n. . . ., se. . 1 ; �' E H R'S -! � ° oe � �,•' ° �;� s8o (:°> , c�ss= ��E �yl � fr 6 S i�f 3 �.ir) �: .YO ^ s�a I nt>• `= S ,a,. a� es Y� � � � e � � `` os e . ' f \ .'xi� � �I'� .l�' � 4 1 ten/3 w �/ �0 9 8 T 6 S' ''r ' ��'f'� ��' ? (nt �� 9 �,� , L ' ,Z �� 3 (� � a (co) �"I' S . y r 2 .• ..� S B P '1` � izs.ss '� ! Z�¢ ([c� � 5 � 1�4� I �6S �) 50. )26 6 ze e�' � S 9 M�// � 0 N y : i t � �� w � �� 6925� �/: . �>.Y 0� ae�'"( Ca� ' r N .6 4 CtpWaf.�ii.a ��) �8�) �DS) �64) �BT� �98) �tJ� �� /SR4 � a \ (c'») Q ^ j� � S f �.� 0. �119� � 6R �yo �p. k (� � q o 26 8 4 t � � �„� , .�`' pLAt � y � ' . n� . os �6 'os i . d �V < �"�_ Q �° e; o i r j { , iB iB zo zi z2 Zs r4 p y '. k �` �`,` "' `r ° �' ' 8 �9 , � � l c 1 061 .e � �'�i � $ v � , i � � G �� \ 601 3l9 /� e GP) {w� � A \ Q F � . . I�� . �' »s . iro. :o so. . . sa sse \ °z � a °' 6 Q (m 5 b >�. �ef' (nx� °� � ) �` � S°.� : n , t �p �1 0 Q o&+ff s � 5qi ♦` ,, F , 6 �6 b LlNCQLN . � " a` �a �" .;'� � RAC � .P (¢jl � lro. s9z s76 v � v � o(111) \` � ; i.m.� 6� � '. zz i i , 3 `. �'>e � � i � 5p ,, o , < ...,. _ . z�a a� . �� 23i 2'F Z5 z6 27 z� �9 90 3/ ��.�. "^.,,___ __• . I 32 �i SS � �� (` . 20 1 � � � .ra (g' fzl ($) (sH f�) � Y �Y 4 (vzl ( r , O � 1 ' e: G.f.,� '`��, �I 8 � W .� c�i c� a�� "° c�e«� 3 o�i " ' �`".< .—._ •,> �.. a i?� V � � i (wd 0� .(IOB),'I� •\ ae6> cr Fo 9 h, la (ro9> � �+ �j ��i � � I ! � N `;''.�� S l'Y-� L Q !9 i8 i7� i4 is �4! i3 iz i� ioy 9 d` T; 6 ' 9� �° a'q : �y� Ls as ` � � . i , Jo � ,� � j s (� . �! � $� /� i/ �.+ � � 0 84 M �� ! ¢D. SO. � SB. � SD. - ' . . � _ � � _ _ 43_B.TB � _ _ 4�' /�` i � �'. _ � _ _• _ - � : , oi+si. ' .e-_ /Y _ :il _C \ D3J ` ' x .F' � � � � .. �` ...:.................y -�- --`--',. , p,...., � " v�. e ...�... �u VALAT£D 9ee.. 240'(3t4 � ( 3f ` 4rlLCy'� ♦iu T+.1� ] . i�z.f .... 2{L69... . .. �I y JJ3..V /�/ � '�, f �� • I r, _ rA. � I �S �nl ��}� g 60l m {,.' :l na.,,e � ��r) �� 6 � -� / P AtE ° i �t _� 9 - �zaw�•' ZY; �� e r s !4 .{3':�'�/- � � a.ax:'�Y A n . ~ � e 'i \ �s � .(� `� { �J '' ""�AtU7 t O � 'S 3. 'xS�,f-�3. N0.33 ��'J�;� �,'� fl .a;_ ;. Q'o k o . s s� an R �„ S 9 � i � y �. R �� , � ( t V' f .ita I '� 9F b s) Y isf.e. �. �TU✓ p _ ; '� (k� °� � a �� e' eY ��:��/ f 6 6 �'1� ,.+"'3. it � � e 7 ((e) .' '.� s .� � y r� { � ; er f �� 1 K . z.ro � . � A � � •. � ,�, 9a y �n > , � �y�+' , - 8:4 r.� � - � (cl , .< „� . d � A' r �' �{ ... e (94J ) / � !]' r � ' A l� o �� 6 0. �. ' }I tre • ro� '` � � "F; ,:: — ��a. ,.' +;r��o � ,p � . e .� � . .�,i " �� . '6 �i 6 �` n' � � �,.f*` ' � '4 ♦ r h d � oe o � � c . ; ./¢ �/.3 / ? lwl � ( a, : �9 ` `'' �,° .' 1 ' a . z ' . (si) ,� <dl (� ts. (N�l i ' � r \ " � sa �, i� /'� �° �, �\ °''P ' '�� ' I" ou � 1� . : �u � a f' OCI( lal�l L �� _ /° s � f r 4 a1� ' 4 v` h; s%o.o^� ( � y ` �� ?' lniti\. '� .t:� F �L°f.` s�� .;'. ' �4# `' S�t� .. _ ' ti � f .� S.�_ .. }, 99.}�.'�- BOARD OF ZQNING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 1. APPLICAI�T: MENDOTA HOMES INC 2. CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance 3. LOCATION: 5 CROCUS HILL FILE # 98-347 DATE QF AEARING: 12/14(98 4. LEGAL AESCRIPTION: PIN 012823320111, see file for compiete legal 5. PLANNING DTSTRICT: 16 6. PRESENT ZONING: RM-2, R-2, HPN ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 67304 (6) 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT DATE: 12/02148 BY: 7ohn Hardwick 8. DEADLINE FOR ACTION: O1/23(99 DATE RECEIVED: 11(23l98 A. PURPOSE: A variance of the subdivision requirements in order to split-off a portion of this properry. B. ACTION ItEQUESTED: The proposed lot split would create a nonconforming rear setback for the existing home on the remaining lot. A 25 foot setback is required and a 6 foot setback is proposed, for a variance of 19 feet. C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This is an irregulaz shaped parcel of about 57,730 square feet. The parcel has frontage on Grand Avenue and on Crocus Hill. The eastem half of the parcel slopes steeply down to Grand Avenue, with a difference in elevation of about 30 feet. The property also has a split zoning classificataon, with the eastern half being Zoned RM-2 and the western haif being zoned R-2. The existing house sits on the western half at the same elevation as Crocus Hiil. Surrounding Land Use: Primarily single family homes with multi-family residential uses to the north. D. BACKGROUND: Some time ago, the eastern half of this property was rezoned to RM-2 in anticipation of being split off and developed for multiple family dwellings. The applicants have entered into a purchase agreement with the current property owners to develop ten townhouse units on the propezty and have applied for a lot split and this variance. q9 -i? �- File # 98-307 SYaff Report Page Two E. FINDINGS: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Splitting this pazcel along the existing zoning line, which approximately conesponds with the bluff line, is the most logical way to proceed with the subdivision. However, doing this would leave the existing house on the property with a nonconforming reaz setback. Alternatives, such as splitting the parcel to maintain a 25 foot rear setback for the house, would result in split zoning on the parcel containing the house. Also, the additional land gained for the rear yard would mostly be unusable due to the steep slope. 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 existing split zoning classification of the parcel and the steep slope of the eastem half of the property are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. 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. When the eastern half of this parcel was rezoned to RM-2, the obvious intent was to have the property developed for multiple-family dwellings at some future point in time. The applicants have stated their intent to grant an easement to the homeowners of the remaining parcel to ensure that no development will occur within 15 feet of the house. However, that easement could be changed to prohibit development within the required 25 feet without affecting the proposed townhouse development. Provided that an easement is granted to ensure that no development occurs within 25 feet of the existing house, the proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding azea or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding azea. Provided the easement is granted as stated above, the proposed lot split and variance will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The steep slope of this property presents several unique development problems. However, these issues will be addressed prior to any construction on the proposed new parcel. There are two existing utility easements that run through the parcel that serve the qq_�ar File # 98-307 Staff Report Page Three homes on Crocus Hill and they will have to be redrafted to provide continued service through the new parcels. The existing zoning line of the proposed lot spiit follows the current use of the adjacent properties. Subdividing the parcel along the existing zoning line will not change the character of the surrounding azea. 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 Iand is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning disri classificarion of the property. The proposed variance, while resulting in a structure with a nonconforming setback, will not change the zoning ciassification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income poCential of the parcel of land. The proposed variance request is a result of subdividing the property along the existing zoning lines and is not desired to increase the development potential of the parcel. F. DTSTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from District 16. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the following conditions; 1. That an easement is granted to the remaining parcel at 5 Crocus Hill to ensure that no development will occur within 25 feet of the existing house and; 2. That revised utility easements are provided prior to recording the subdivision, providing continued service to the properties affected by the subdivision. °I9 -l�'+r CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER # 98-307 DATE 12/14/98 WHEREAS, MENDOTA HOMES, INC. has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 67304 (6) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to a lot-split on a portion of this property in the RM-2, R-2, HPN zoning district at 5 CROCUS HILL; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on December 14, 1998, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Pau1 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 cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Splitting this parcel along the existing zoning line, which approximately corresponds with the bluff line, is the most logical way to proceed with the subdivision. However, doing this would leave the existing house on the property with a nonconforming rear setback. Alternatives, such as splittin� the parcel to maintain a 25 foot rear setback for the house, would result in split zoning on the parcel containing the house. Also, the additional land gained for the rear yard would mostly be unusable due to the steep slope. 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 existing split zoning classification of the parcel and the steep slope of the eastem half of the property are circumstances that weze not created by the applicants. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and 'as consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. When the eastern half of this parcel was rezoned to RM-2, the obvious intent was to have the property developed for multiple-family dwellings, at some future point in time. The applicants have stated their intent to grant an easement to the homeowners of the remaining parcel to ensure that no development will occur within 15 feet of the house. However, that easement could be chan�ed to prohibit development within the required 25 feet without affecting the proposed townhouse development. Provided that an easement is granted to ensure that no development occurs within 25 feet of the existing house, the proposed variance is in keepin� with the spirit and intent of the code. File � 98-307 Resolution Pa�e Two qq-la�- 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding azea. Provided the easement is granted as stated above, the proposed lot split and variance will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The steep slope of this property presents several unique development problems. However, these issues will be addressed through site plan review, prior to any construction on the proposed new parcel. There are two existing utility easements that run through the pazcel that serve the homes on Crocus Hill, and they will have to be redrafted to provide continued service through the new parcels. The existing zoning line of the proposed lot split follows the current use of the adjacent properties. Subdividing the parcel along the existing zoning line will not change the chuacter of the surrounding area. 5. The variance, if a anted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. The proposed variance, while resultin� in a structure with a nonconformin� setback, will not change the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The proposed variance request is a result of subdividing the properiy along the existing zonino lines, and is not desired to increase the development potential of the parcel. NOW, THSREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 67304 (6) be hereby waived to a11ow a lot split on a portion of the property subject to the following conditions: 1. That an easement is granted to the remaining parcel at 5 Crocus Hill to ensure that no development will occur within 25 £eet of the existing house and; 2. That revised utility easements aze provided prior to recording the subdivision, providing continued seroice to the properties affected by the subdivision and; 3. That site plan review approval is obtained prior to any construction activity on the resulting new parcel; on property located at 5 CROCUS HILL; and le�ally described as Tenace Pazk Add. Ex beg at most wly cor of Lot 4 th E Par with S Line of Lot S for 128.25 Ft, the S 15 Ft mol to Lin 170.06 Ft, N of & Par with S Line of Lot 5; th W on Sd Paz Line to Wly Line of Lot 4, Th Nwly to Be,;; Part of Lot 4 N of Sd Par Line & All of Lot 3 Blk 6; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. File # 98-307 Resolution Pa�e Three MOVED BY: Morton SECONDED BY : Scherman IN FAVOR: � AG��.INST: o MAILED: December 15, 1998 �q-Il�- TIVIE LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been fited, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my of£ce; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes oT the Sain4 Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on December 14, 1998 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS s- � , �I I Noel Diedrich Secretary to the Board c�q-ta�- ' o a1 � 6 / � .- „ � � e- e I-� � �� " � ,�� I „° v� � � .o � � ! j � � , 0 � � � oi / 3�� `° '' /` y / /� �� i S � � � � YE/ , p1 y{�� /a � , / i e �, � L O � $/ � �•,� � �� /� tv , / � 8 /� / j �� ey � "'0 °'% � � � � i � � � � � �� e�-��, � d � f / ° �� 9 �� ,�'/ / ,, f �-;% � , �� c ;� � i � � �; / ��/ �;. i r ;'� � � �`i � �; �� I ''� i; !;� i �: -�� I nI SITBPLeN I� � IIy. i- .,w. Neae�.e '��-�.,� i �11 � tlI.^.iwrvt.MEN�OT6H0lo�as i 6/�D��D I �j%i=�'ri�rmvaE.�^�+��.. II—` ��IJ _ i -�ono ioii�, � i a l °`�` i�� ni v�_�s,�r v �!.X:F/` �2 aiq -1��- Summit Hill Association District'16 Planning Council 860 Saint Clair Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 Telephone 651-222-1222 Fax 651-222-1558 e-mail summit.hill�stpauf.gov December 8, 1998 John Hardwick Board of Zoning Appea4s 350 Saint Peter Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File Number 98-307 Dear Mr. Hardwick and Members of the BZA: The Executive Committee of the Summit Hill Association/District 16 Planning Council met on December 1, 1998 to discuss Mendota Homes' request for a variance of the subdivision requirements in order to split-off a portion of 5 Crocus Hill creating a nonconforming rear setback on the remaining lot. It is our understanding that a twenty five foot setback is required and a six foot setback is proposed, for a variance of 19 feet. The SHA Executive Committee recognizes that this request for a lot split variance is an attempt to solve an existing zoning problem, since the parcel of land currently holds two zoning designations and Mendota_Homes_wishes to create the lot split along the existing zoning lines. However, the Executive Committee is concerned that the division does result in a nonconforming structure, and as yet, the SHA does not have enough infiormation about the structures proposed for the newly created lot to determine if there could be problems that arise as a result of this variance. At this time, the SHA has been provided with a preliminary site plan which does not include elevations and which is subject to change as the city completes its site plan review process. Support for this variance is premature until the SHA and the BZA can fook at a full proposai for the project which includes other variances that might become necessary. Therefore, the Summit Hitl AssociationlDistrict 16 Pfanning Council recommends denial of the variance until it can be examined in conjunction with more specific plans for the newly created lot. If you have any questions about the discussion or recommendation, you may contact me or Ellen Biales, SHA Executive Director, at 222-1222. Sincerely, - � � � l f �� U� � . Molly Coskran President �, cc: Erin Mathern, M_endota Homes � � � - � � � � .. a:'t.�: a� +tu� 12: 49 g;1S Ba%"`Q61850 Via T`elecopY and F�rst Class n�a42 Deccmbcr 14, 1998 City of St. Paul $OA-RD �F �ONING APP�AL..$ 3CQ 7„owty guiIding St. Paul, MN 55102 BT\KO�S WE5T ST p"tiL Ite: F31e I+To. 98-307 December 7.4, ],99$. �adi�s �� ,e�tlemen: �9 - aa'`�- �1UD; mrie undersigned 3re aIi neighY,Qrs who lfre in the neighborhq��s aff'ect�d �'Y t�� p�'oPerly subject to a reQuest bf Mendpta Homes, tnc, to obt�in a 1a`-Split zonin� chan� �,d a set-back vaxiance. The request involves r�sidenCial propertv iecated at 5 �rocus Hlll zon�� n-2 �d 12M-2 and an adja.cent lot zoned kR�1-2, aii awned by Richard and Ly�da Bisanz, We understand that certain land i� subject to an option agreernent held by Ri�h�.d F� and a Purchas� Agreem�nt from l�fr, p�.��o to Mendota FIomes, Ix�c. The tinder�igr��d four horzz�o�,�� hav� liv�d on the bloek for znany years, anr� several of ttie petitioz� sigrierS ?lav� lived 9n t1�e n�j�borhpod for ten to i�venty ye�rs or rr�ore, Au are supparcer� of St. Faul and taxp�p�� CP�,t� netghbors are life-long citizens of 5t. Paul. The praposed zoai�g �y�ang�s have been initi,ated to increa�e tha dec>elapment pptential2nd pzofitability of a t�n unit muIti-famqly project of Menc�ota Hei�Y��s, Inc. to be constrticted upon a portian of the Bisc-tnz rCSidential Iot and adjoining 2ot. Both tots have fronta�e oz1 the portion of Grand Avenue th�t slapes and curves dow� fro�ri Lincoln Avanue ta�vard dotivnto�vn St. Pa�tl and the entrance rarnp to HighWay 3g E South. A,s we understand the real estate tr�nsaction involvec�, a portion of the 14t on which the S Crocus Hf11 residence i:, Ioraterl uripi be resplit along the e�istan� zonirig line cstahlished by �1� Council or othcr action in 1975 zn return for aa easement �ranted to the �iisa�z's foT their back yard. This results in a seT bac�C vialation for Che rezon�d r�sidentiat 1Qt, reqiiiz�ng a set back va,r��.nce of 19 feet for t�3at �nt as resplit. We �i'e gti°an�ly opposeri to the proposed ten unit, nvp building townhorne develppment and The �rant of the requested set-back and lot-split v��ces. W� �e qpposed because of t2ie follovring concems. �i. �`his is $ T;zZp�qn� not a Varlaa�a. These proposed zoning �h�-, b i,��nce and Yhs other variances that «*iIl be reqtiired to approve the townhpme develapment �e a rezai�ing of.R 2 �rQ��r�Y to RM-2 #o inerease the density q£ townhpmas in the project. This should not be dotte by � varianCe procedure, Any reqYtest to rezone the lots shouid iuclude a study of traffic arzd safety canccrns, the effeet or1 th� adjpinin� Pr4perry vaiues, thc suAply of iighg an� �, thC quiet enjoyrnent of those Properties �nd the �aalogicai stability of the bluff. I� addition, thP propased develapment land_ locks a p4�on ofad,j�cent prpper{y, 4wnec� by,Jim �nd Bor,nie D'Aquila. Z0'd T6Z£S89 Z£Wb"Z$9£9£9 Wd Z£:Z0 NOW 86—c�T—�3Q ,. � 9 -1�.�--- �UO3 1 . No Sit$ PIa� for 2 `� + leu$o�a FIa�es Pr�,p ��eIop�� x�E �ning Code requires pre��a�an of a site 1an �Apxoval oP a�y varianceg. The Z4ning offl�� has informed us that a site pla.�1 is �zot needed at this tizne, an p �� =D requirement of the gt, p� l d ane has zlot been submitted. Tl�ig is contr� Zan4ng Board ofA u Zor,ing Code Sections 64.102 and 64.2Q3. T t12e ]etter n>ithout a si e plan.canxiot re�]ly address the issues w� h�ve raised in t2iis tlnder the Coda he Paul Zazv � Code � ra.nts he �o bie Fza the po�ver to a rov v g p� Use pP e ariances fram the gtrict enforce�enao�{ i e�on ng � s tipon finding, arno�g other requir�ments, that "the prop�m, in question can� be put Xo a reasoai�eble use nt6det t}le s'�siot prOV3siotts of th� �ode." 'fhe sole reasar2 for this varianae re r Thc current 1 4uest is tq inerease the number of townhAme urits. - ��1 could be put to an alternative reast�nable rzse as it a,�sts, a parhaps a les$ prc�ftab2e use. �nhanCU,� pragtiabilily is not a vaic� �� f°r the zonin� cqde. When the prior Q�er aF 5 Crocus kiill � �'�'anto, wanted to develop this laztd in X99z he a �rQCUS Hz11 about it to disclose hig ideas � p� his neighboasCOn Construction strch as thay nQw prflposed. 3`he overH,h� �� neighbors was thaz they did r�ot war�t it develop�a x� such a fdshiqnse of the Menr�ot Hpm�s, Tnc. a,��o states in its appiication thaC it does not meet one of the six requi��t t� o�t� a Iot-s 1it v Code Section 67.304 (Sttbw��io 6 of the lot splix ordi s St � Fau �� one of the lQt_split require�e�t is nat rnet, the lot-split CaI] only be don ��{ a� se �� by subdivir�ing ant( repiat�;ng che nub Zots under the prat�isio�s of Chapt�r 5 ps bf the Minnesota Statutes. 3 • N�Yic� o�' � � A�e�ng anly eler•en days a,f'ter xhe no(ice �vas mailed and n�ne or ten days aftex receip� by gn� ��t�� h��eo�vners durin� ttie busy hn�lday season �s not adequat� notice of the proposed action to a11ow us time to sYudy ghe p�.p �d �.�Spond to it„ St. Paul 2oning �p�j� �CCtic�n fi4.2C18. A�•�y-ro �u�:� iz:�8 FAI BSlr`�II1856 t;i�tto s ti+ssT sr px�. ------- St. kaut �oard o£ZUning• ynpea�s Pag� 2 $. x`}te �g$�'�Ye�ts to GraaP a Variaua� H�Ve N'ot B�e� Met �• �t� �e�sort. We believ� tfze staff report is inadequ��E �� fa;Zs to address the fnllcnvi�g concerns: 1. V$t i'�i#� ��'�t� �,9fiS Rezoxtiap; Char►ge �f Yhe l�rtsPe� to RM-2 firana M�y of the Crocus Hill neighbors �vho have si ed �� homes in 19T5, anci dicl not receive a.r� � t�s ietter lived in theix abqut the 1975 zQning ��ange t� �t�e p 6 pe�tic notice or opportunit� tn comnie�t �y a�on� �r�� Avenue fram Tt-2 to �0•d S6Z�'$89� L£Wb'Z89£9£9 Wd cg;ZO H9W 86-trT-II3Q 1.�1.t;9S SfUr 12:.t9 F?,Y v' St. �'aui $o�� o£ZoningApp��,S �age 3 ----------------- - °I°I-tZ�-- - --------------- -�--- ---�- RT.'rTiO'S {S'EST S��LL �} �-2. The Zoning Cade also prohibits lot zonintr ��zlle lot, sp tvhy tuas the lot zoned th#s t��ay in I�75? it is aiso n b �ith two cIassificatLqn$ in ihe Construct de��e m�jtzpie unit tow�7omes on t��t ro Zcars later in � o longer safe xo �ht of the tr�ffie �ongestion on Gran A e� �most tc��enty fxve because of t$e res,�rg�� of tlevelopment of retai2 S ho �S nue� xhaX has res;�lted �r�a A��nue and the cor�struction af Highwa3' 35E s �restaurants alang e-�it ramps at tll� battqm of Grantl Avet2tle. th it3 arlYra,nce and �• TZ �C .�`8,f6�+' The $oard must address the ti�2ffic sttfe i Traf�c study. �Ve are c�nc�rned abo�t the traffic safety issues raiseci proposed det�elo rn �S' ssue v;ith a such tzaffic Sa�'�� T �� ade requires zonin� c to p urnate ��Public safe;}' (ta bej securaed� S��malang. St. Paul Zaning Code Section fi4.201 proposed dev�ta�ment sIo es J � h � s �� 0 � °F �e road at (',ra�d Avenue l;y tfie aot�town S#. Pau�. T p dowr�wasd and curnes to the ng�� tQwa�.d Aarking for the de t > elopment�ciosest o the noei-ta part of the tra t, beXc�re�� he hvo toti�vr�nvme b�ildings, W�th � front set-baclt va�anc� for th� dev�lopment, it �vili be d�ngerous beeaus� the �sventy or so ca.rs e�tz � entering ttlis developme�t sEVer�l tix�es a day will be unable Tv see oncoznin� k�ic• This street 22so c.�n f�e v��,. x� qn fhe winter. We ate con�erned about our oivn sa,{ety as a result of suGh dens� development. Some farr�ilies use this rr,ute ta carpoQl their ehi3dren to schoo2 �Z t �� e � m � y U$ � it to �ry to wark in t�atimtown St. pa�l, to go to �nd from evEnts docuntown, aTld tb W�1k in the neighbarIaaod. �. Air ��i L3ghE, ��aY��ut aa$ Va'�.u�, of Ad aiat the homes in the Gr�d �qu and Crocus Hill neighbo hoo� �v� gi t 4�C� �` af $�ific�ce; hoYh nei�hborhoods �re yezY 4uiet. Crocus FiiIl is A dead end with Timited a1ley aCCess from �,;neoIn to Crocus �ill to the �vest bf the 5 CrQCUS Hill �roperty, Graad p-IiLt is a one-way fQr a block teading oui to tkte cqrtaEr of ��kland and Gr:�d qy��Ue� which rec��c�s tr�f'fzc leveIs and no(se there, Buj��u�g Yhis rnt�ZUpi �n�t to�vnhpuse develapment YviIl �ist�irb the quist � ��I �' ietivs dawn tfie hill af severat property owners otk�er than th� Bfsanz's, It.svill alsb affect the property values artd quiet enjapment of ttxese historie homes. The ox*nexs who �e p�q�ul�rTy conce�y��a b�cause they are immedi�ately adjacent or etose to the p�oposed developrnent, ar� G� � Bonziie ]3lpdget[, cvho resqrle ar I er��us Hitl, �na �;y� and I3annie D'Aquita, wiio reside at � Crocus Hi11, immediateIy south nf ihe develpgmez�Y. 1 VonetheIess, staff concluded that only �he property dt � Crocue Hzll was afi'ected. `�. N� F'rovls�o� far Gues� !'sr7�ing, The propased parking for the cievelopment does not addresses gu�st �arl�� j�rhen Mr. Parranto pro�os�d devel4px��ht oF this parcel to the neighborhpa� � iggl �� ara�wings included a cv��ay up to the aliey betvcreen LincolxL p,venue and �rocus Hill to provide additional on-sYreet parldng Lp guests an@ visitors on Cracus H�Ii. �je believe ne di� this because he realized th� prflpo�� had in�d�quate on-site parking, � dozi't linaiv u this developer is propc�sing t�is or n� f, Re�� of whether ihis developer gropqs�s a Lvalltway, ho�vever, the existing ap��ertt i+6'd 16ZF8&'9 L£W4' 8949£9 Wd £Y:ZO NOW S6-eT-�3Q M�► • ►z�-- _��_ _ - . ____... ----------------------------------------------------------- l:�li/J8 rIQV 12:5fi F.�LT 83�.Yj016S0 $ItiRO'S R'EST ST �-u1L I.'�,OpS St. Paul $uaxd oi Zonit�g �PP�aIs Page 4 buiIding on tn� �orner of Lzncoln �d �Fand Av�nues atready has a�l access stainc'ay We are cancerned that once developed, visitors of the�e ten homeo�mers wi�l naturatIy Paz'k on �r�ocug I-iill or �ranci Hili and walk down the �valkway or across the street because there is in�dequaCe sp�,�z to p�k ar., Grand Avenue or on_site far visitors and gnesTS. We already ��p��nce on-strest �arkang pr�ssures on Crocus Hill and �rrand Hilt because many tenants �f ap��e�t �uildings on Qrand and LinCOln Avenues gark on Che streets in front af our ]�omes, T1�zs deveippment t,vill acld to thase parldng pr��l�� ecause af inadequate on-site paci�g for guests. S. �'�ie ProPm� Ga� h� Fut t4 Reasaaable YTSe Wiichout the Ch�:nge. Th, residential propez�j, ifself is being put to a reaspnable tise rzpw, The other Rlvt-2 prop4rty either is not right for the dense deve2apment as propased nr may be impraved iri some alternative way that does not include housing. o. The Pliglft af th� Laa�owaer May Wgli Be Aue to Circumsta�.ces Created by'�`kem, If M�'• p��'r�.tlto ow�led this Iand in 1g75� �� certalnly couid have obj�cted t° �� WaY �n wnich the rezonir�g �S }� at that time. '7. The Proposed `Variauce its Not iti $cepiag whth tha Spirit �and Inteut of the 4"od�. The Adjaitxiag Pxoperty is 11Sog� Certainiy Affected, ThP staff has not provz�� any factual data or infoitnation �bout the trafftc ��d S�f@tY Cox�cerns, the effect on adjoiniz�� p�pe�, �azuzs axrd use, �� the steep �1Qpe probtems R�th the proposed devalo�ment, pther than its eonclusr�ry remarks that n� effect exists, �d ��t the slo�e issue wll1 be resolvec2later, �. Tlte �tequest fox $ Varia�rlce �i� Most Certaia.(y Bas�d SoI+�Ip on �a DBS'SQ t° rnc�easc the Va�ue or Tuca�O Poteat�al of t�e 7`ow�homa AeYreiopaaent, As w� have stated ear2ier, in our view, this whvle variance request is driven by Mendota guilder's desire to maximi,�� tne density ,�nd profitability af the development.. 9, Complat& ��pr. This request shauld praceduraily be a rezon�ng request. The staff g�rson for this request, John Hardwjck, has indic3tefl to certain oF us that pther va.r��s r�ilI be required fgr tlze c�eyelop��nt for fron � �'d rear setback on the rezoned lots and for buildirlg separatiQn, �ode requirem�r,ts, Thera may �e o�er v�anc�s required that are unknow� notv. W� thank you for your time and considerati4n of our con�ern$, 'Utr� respectfully request that the varia,�ces are danicd as r�questet�, �'�'-' Tazsxx�9 L£W4'ZS9£9£9 LJd t£:ZB NOW S6-cS-D3S 1�.1-1:98 3ION 12:51 F.�LY 651J�71650 SC Aaui $o�rtl oi zoning Ap�aeal5 $age 5 � 9q-1z''— ----------------------�- � ---�------,--� RI?�KO"S tPESf ST H�, n ��.��; ��.��,�- Cam and Bonnfe 6lodgeft �.� �.C.+�.rQ� \� �� a j� < d�mss and f3onnie !]'Aquiia f `r� �'�-C.c�:�,,, �.ce.�. . nan �nd �stello 8ell '"`'� -•, '� �` � �, �� • ,�ccc1CS�-c,� �r�ui �a�kstr�n� The Other NeighbQr� y7hO�e Naqgs Ara Sig�ed o:� tke lateae�ed PQ��.ttan ec= T6s tlonorab7.e HayotrHoi� Colemaa Th2 $oaoraD2e Chtis Calem.�n S�mS.e $1x2 Cou�ci.l Zoafng Crnnarietee Mendota �omes, Inc. n `>ra•.a i6ZCg37 L£W4'Z$?�'9£9 Wd 8£=Z� NOW S6—:�T—�3Q . . q° ---------- ------- ------ -_��Y•�= xu�� 1Z:51 t_�1 6�SO1fi30 FiINKO'S r4E5T STr"LrL � 007 Petifian �n opAbsitiQ� to variance requssE o9 NJenc�ota ktomes, (nc. for 5 Crac�s Hr�r �.-!� - �/G�D�v�`<,� �yc,�. �''n.`a�� e�.� �.P C�.�?�-�-�-- � c�.�.. �� '�✓L N �l h� S _�.—�,_,.��_ � $ S 1 c 2" 3 /•�.� �� _ �� y.- ,��--7�is � � s :,��.�� .�� g-�� . � � � tSh ��Q�'+�{' C.v�,_ v tC,��t. ��R�� , � ��-� J.�,��1 � ,,� �� al �� c��.�.� _� � .`Y�,.��,� ,� � �la.� �1;irlr�rr� �-- u �� OCS(�t�n fTf�,, z cYG �S ��,�lr � � i u� /l% G°f�GCNS I�� f) ..�a_s-�y, �'J+ \ A �T Q; +��7 ' "�! ` �vb � 6 ys �- u��r. �� ^� � � /�-�iGi Q � �r4C � 1 L � ot �o �^{— � �{�� `�`S � �.�.�` � ��-�-� 7 � 7 S �C�o �� . `�� -��5� � l�� cetrt�. �� a �� 6 �� 7 Z �`� -- �'�5 j a.Rt �-0�77 �. c, 2. — �-� �,� � �.�tc�cLt5 � �� 2�7 _'�p�;/-� � -- �� - ��i,��rG��T�c�-° �� 1 � . �— �� .�� c.�� /�� —�.�� ca�� L�Z9RR9 L£Wtr'ZS9£9£9 Wd 6<_':Z0 NOW 86^�T °l 9 - I'�') -------------------•-------•------ --•------------- ------------- 1.%1�1%Dy af0� 1�:5? FAS 851��02850 I{I?�FiO'S 8'EST ST P�L �] 00& PeEifian in opAOSiiion fo vari�nc� rg�uest of tvlendota Hornes, �nc. {or & Cfocus x,ri Narne Address �}� Phone I �' �„'� lC.�l.�_, C�� . r� � � �,,,,� �. • l,st 2z g � � "L ��U�� `E�i.-'�z� M`��. ce_. t� 5� -:�.3g � $ ��.3 f �t.l.L � ��S L��•./�c.�.� �53 - z�� 2�� c � ,�� f",��i��i �"'13 � � � � � 7 — �,�— s�� !I!!G 67�/Gf�' � " ,/ �j//��:�' �js�J �'�,�,G...,�L'"��x � � ! s � y !/" �.�/ � z�-7 _ < <� _/ 11'r,�i ��z�.,C,�`J..t„�� /� 'C,�-�..4..�.✓�� s r ��..z� �`is-` ��i� - �� a �-v��r .�:'�� 6S_' �� lJ . 1�.�.. �� r � C..�Cinr.�, .._,�.:,,�, �'��;� ��t� 1 �°—� ��.-(� /- �� '�� >sl - a�"1- �' �! �` a � c�,_�� r� s / � =. z - � »�� i/' ) i:Vw, i`� �� th�..�.t� ��st.R � �``��.?� �5� ��' S� 7� �. �= - 7' 7� c -•------•----- __....----�----------------- � --- ----�---- �. a.� � •c.raai+a""" � ��Wb'Z84£9£9 Wd 6�'Z0 NOW 86-CT-03Q 9°I-1�.s- DOHER'Ti� RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSIOSAL 4SSOCI4TI0[ Attorneys at Law December 14, 1998 City of Saint Paul Board ofZoning Appeals City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Street 5t. Paul, NIlV 55102 Re: File No. 98-307, Variance and lot split request of Mendota Homes, Inc. Dear Board Members: 28W 1li;merotz 4COdd Trade Centec 30 Ea>c Fc�th Sr.ret Smnt Paui. �imnesow i�101-i9`x'i Teleohone 165I� ?5�--4�L'-0 F�x tssi;'-b> >sro LCd:en di:ect d:al numSer- (651)265-4309 e henslr@drblaw.com We have been retained by 7ames and Bonnie D' Aquila who reside at 6 Crocus Hill with regard to a variance and lot split which has been requested by Mendota Homes, Inc. for property located at 5 Crocus Hill. Mendota Homes, Tnc. has indicated a desire to construct a 10 unit townhome development on a newly created lot. The purpose of this letter is to provide a brief legal analysis concerning the proposed variance, lot split, and development, along which an explanation of why each request should be denied. The Proposed Lot Split Section 67304 of the Zoning Code provides for the splitting of a lot if six conditions are satisfied. Mendota Homes cannot meet these conditions and the Board of Zoning Appeals does not have the authority to grant the requested variance. Specifically, Section 67304, subdivision (4) states that "the division of the lots shall not cause a remaining part of a lot to become a separately described tract which does not meet the minimum standards of the zoning district in which it is located or which does not have street frontage and access to municipal services" (Emphasis added). Mendota Homes admits in its application that the remaining parcel located at 5 Crocus Hill will not meeting the setback requirements in an R-2 zone, and thus have requested a variance from the requirements of Section 67304. However, Section 67.306 (b) of the Zoning Code only gives the following authority to grant a variance: "Where condition (3) or (6) of section 67304 is not met, the boazd of zoning appeals shall hold a public hearing to consider the variance form the required condition." Here, a variance is requested for condition (4). Thus, although the board in certain instances does have the authority to grant an appropriate variance (relating to conditions (3) or (6)) for the portion of the ]ot on which the townhouses would be located, the board does not have the authority to pernvt a lot split and grant a variance from the minimum standards for the lot on 5 Crocus Hi11(condition 4). The zoning code is clear on this point, and the board is without authority to take the requested action. St Pnul • Minneapal�s • Dermer • San Rnmon • Wrs;hington, D.0 . DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROF=_SSIOS aL ASSOCIA:!OC City of Saint Paul Boazd ofZoning Appeals December 14, 1998 Page 2 The Proposed Variance for 5 Crocus Hill q9- 1 '' - As indicated above, the board does not have the authority to grant a variance from the lot split requirements of Section 67.304. However, even if the board did have the authority to grant a variance, the request by Mendota Homes does not meet the criteria for granting a variance. The criteria for granting a variance are set forth in Section 64.203 and are as follows: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions ofthe code; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner; 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 Saint Paul; 4. The proposed vaziance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding azea; 5. The variance, if granted, would not pemut any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning classification of the property; and 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Upon proper consideration, it is clear that the cunent request does not meet most, if not all, of the criteria set forth above. It is ow opinion that the staff has misconstrued the first criteria relating to the reasonabie use of the property. Currently, the "property" consists of one lot with a single family residence. There is no question that for the past several decades the property has been put to a reasonable use. The variance criteria aze meant to apply to situations in which the property is not cunently in use or would not continue with the ea-isting use. It is certainly not unusual for separate areas of a parcel to have two or more zoning classifications. The law and sensible land use planning have never recognized that the landowner has an absolute right to make multiple uses of a single parcel if the uses conflict with setback requirements and other land use constraints. The staff and the developer are erroneously DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFE55.0] \L d5iOC14T:0] City of Saint Paul Board ofZoning Appeals December 14, 1998 Page 3 q � - � a' _ concluding that a landowner is entitled to make full use of each separately zoned area. That is not the law. Instead, the property, which is currently the single lot, is in fact being put to a"reasonable use" and the applicant fails to meet even this threshold criteria. In addition, the landowner fails to meet many of the other criteria for granting a variance. For example, there is no "plight of the landowner." Ow understanding is that this process is being driven by a developer, and not by Mr. and Mrs. Bizanz, who aze in fact the "landowners." In fact, it appears that the Bizanz do not really support this proposal but feel bound not to voice opposition. However, the Bizanz have no "plight" and are currendy living in the house located on 5 Crocus Hill. Similarly, correspondence has already been submitted to the board regarding traffic and safety concerns of the proposed development, along with serious concerns regarding property values and changing the character of the neighborhood. The cunent proposal has multiple problems that cannot be addressed in a meeting called upon minimum notice. Finally, it is clear that the primaty reason for requesting the variance is to increase the value or income potential for the lot located at 5 Crocus Hill. Because there is already an existing home on the property and no cunent intention to demolish the home, the only reason to sell the bottom portion ofthe lot and build townhomes is to produce income. The entire spirit behind the current request is contrary to the rationale behind granting variances. This is simply a way to make money, and not an effort to make a reasonable use of a lot which for years has been used as a single family residence. The Townhouse Development If this body grants the requested variance, the city will lose most of its control over the newly created lot. Because the lot will be in an RM-2 zone, if the city grants the variance, the developer will then claim that the city's action gives him an absolute right to build townhomes on the new lot. The city will have much less leverage in reviewing the plan and will have much less opportunity to provide input and make changes in any plan. It is a mistake to grant a variance and create a new lot without considering a detailed plan for future construction. However, the developer has not supplied a site plan and other details regarding the project. Serious issues remain regarding traffic on Grand Avenue, the number of uzuts involved, pazking, the location and extent of what will undoubtedly be a massive and potentially unsightly retaimng wall, fences, landscaping, and screening. The city should not even consider the current plan without a more detailed site plan and proposal. The city owes its citizens a more thoughtfui review. In addition, Section b1.101 of the zoning code provides that townhouse developments must have a nunimum 25 foot yard setback and that the structure cannot occupy more than 30% of the lot. The developer has already made it clear that he will seek further variances from these criteria. The proposed development would be on an extremely steep slope, but no plan has been submitted DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFE55[O\ 4L 4550C�dTIO] City of Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals December 14, 1998 Page 4 °t°I-1� regarding how the site will be developed. In other words, nothing about this project meets the cunent zoning code. In addition, if the lot split is approved, under Section 61.101 the developer may choose to submit a revised plan for a 5 story structure, 50 feet in height. Once the variance for the lot split is granting, the city loses control. The city should require the developer to seek all necessary variances at one time in order to avoid piecemeal review that unduly constrains the rights and obligations of the city. For these reasons and for the reasons contained in previous correspondence from my clients to the city, Mr. and Nlrs. D' Aquila request that the city deny the current application. Yours ' erely, obert�ey RGH/rma cc: James and Bonnie D'Aquila 946402 ,, 17 SAT 08:48 F.�1S 612225�19�11 �; � '-; :%� >': � D'AQUILA 6 Cracus hiill St. Paul, MN 55102 (69 2) 225-1313 December13,1998 Mr. John Hardwick Board of Zaning Appeals 350 Saint Peter Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55902 RE: Zoning File Number 98-307 Dear Mr. Hardwick and Members of the BZA: This letter raises further reasons why the application far Subdivision File No. 98- 30� must be summarily rejected. The proposed action raises serious proceduCal problems and is not consistent with zaning requirements. This application is in effect a rezoning done through the grant of an easement and a variance procedure. ShouEd the City grant the variance and allow the property to be subdivided, a portion af an R-2 (residential} parcel wil( be used through a lot line change and easement for purposes of satisfying the development requirements of a RM-2 (multifamily) parcel. As a resulf ofi this incorrect process, no mechanism or procedure is being foilowed which would protect the rights, welfare, health, safety, marais, comfort and established properfy values of th� adjacent properties. Given the fact that the net result of the easement and the variance is a rezoning, an application for rezoning is the apprapriate procedure. 2. The request for variance is based sale[y on a desire to increase the value of the parcel of land. The variance allows the developer a setback of less than city code, thus increasing the buildable pad and the density of the proposed property. The property can be developed for its intended purpose without the variance but it wou[d not be able to acaommodate the number of townhomes which Mendota Homes has proposed thus decreasing the value of fhe property to Mendota Homes and Mr. Parranto. at9-1Z� r.� � � , i�,�xz: as saT os: as F'.�.z sizzzs.�a.�i � ooz q9 -�a'}- 3. The proposed subdivision and development plan land lo�ks a subdividable and developahle parcel of land whioh we awn. Our properfy could also be subdivided consistent vrith zoning regulations. Howevef, the proposed project on 5 crocus Flill would land lock my sub- dividabie parcel. Who is considering aur rights of access and our righfs to subdivide our praperty? 4. Tha City has not adequately addressed the neighborhaod's safety concems. No s#udy of traffic in the afFected area has been completed so it is impossible to state that the proposad variance (and the possible administrative appraval of the development) is in keeping with the heaith, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of fhe inhabitants of fhe City oF St. Paui. This is especially troublesome since the tfaffiC pattems on Grand and Lincoin Avenues has changed dramaticaify since the parcel was rezoned RM-2 in 9 975. The City is required to adequately study and address these issues prior to any variance and subdivision. 5_ No plan adequately addresses the substantial development prab[ems propased hy the steep s[ope of the praperty. Newly created lots must allow for a minimum setback af forty faet fCOm the top af biuff lines 2nd shali avoid the placement of structures on 18 percant slapes ar sEe2per. This project vi�lates bofh provisions. 6. No analysis as to the appropriateness of the lot split has been estab[ished. Ad-hoc incremental development which relies salely on existing zoning is not in the best interest of the citizens of the City of St. Pauf. Prior to any acfion on the property at 5 Cracus Hill, the City must establish a well thought out development p(an for the Crocus Hiii bluff (including our property and access to such}. The arsa was rezoned nearly 25 years ago and the City must address changes wf�ich have occurred since the original zoning. 7. No analysis has been pertormed to ascerta"sn whether or not the proposed develapment will alter the surrounding area or unreasona6ly diminish the esfablished property va[Ues wlthilt the surzounding area. 8. No site plan has been established. 7he City Zoning Code requires fhat a site plan be reviewed prior to the approval of any variances. Such an approach is logical and consistent with the protectian of the rights of the neighbors adjacent to the property. The Zoning Board of Appeals is nof in a posifion to address all aspects and effects of fhe variance without a site plan review. 9. No anticipated visiEor parking. According to praliminary plans, Mendota Homes has nat leit space for visitor parkirtg within the site boundaries_ ,�i��i2ias SAT 08:49 F:LT 6122254a�11 �oas qq-��- The plans call for 2Q garage stalis each with garage doors. The lack of on-site visitor parking pufs further pressure on an already congested and unsafe area and compiicates the safe€y af ingress and egress fram the property. 10. Contra[ of a singie-family property to block possible objections to multi-family develapment. In selling 5 Crocus Hill ta the Bisanz, Richard Parranto (the option holder on the subject RM-2 parcei) precluded tha Bisanz from objecting to any development on the RM-2 parcel. Thus, Mr. Parranto maintains controf over the single-family parce{ as it relates to this issue. The control of a single famiiy parcel solely to minimize the objecfion of tha deve(opment of an aitemafively zoned adjacent property is nat cansisfent with the procedures established in St. Paul Zoning Codes. Again, due to the facts presented herein as well as under separate cover, we respectfully request that the request for variance and subdivision be rejected. Sincerely, ��Va� aG� �l � �v�-�,�`�i� James and Bonn e D'Aquila cc: 7he Honorabie Mayor Norm Coleman The Hnnorable Councilman Chris Goleman IVlendota Homes Mr. and Mrs. Robert Bisanz ORIGI�IAL Presented By Council FIle # ` \ �`a�'- Green Sheet # �0�� Referred To Commiuee: Date 1 2 WHEREAS, Mendota Homes, Inc., in Board of Zoning Appeals [Board] file 98-307, 3 made application for a variance from the strict applacation of the subdivision requirements of the 4 Saint Paul Legislative Code for the purposes of splitting off a portion of properiy cotnmonly 5 known as 5 Crocus Hill bearing property identification number 012823320111 (see BZA file for 6 the complete legal description); and 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 WfIEREAS, the Boazd conducted a public heazing on December 14, 1998, after having provided notice to affected properiy owners and the Board, in its resolution 98-307 approved the variance based upon the following findings and conclusions: 2. Splitting this pazcel along the existing zoning line, which approximately corresponds with the bluff line, is the most logical way to proceed with the subdivision. However, doing this would leave the existing house on the property with a nonconforming rear setback. Alternatives, such as splitting the parcel to maintain a 25 foot rear setback far the house, wouid result in split zorung on the parcel containing the house. Also, the additional land gained for the rear yard would mostly be unusable due to the steep slope. The existing split zoning classification of the parcel and the steep slope of the eastern half of the property are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. 25 3. When the eastern half of this pazcei was rezoned to RM-2, the obvious 26 intent was to have the property developed for multiple-family dwellings, at 27 some future point in time. The applicants have stated their intent to grant 28 an easement to the homeowners of the remaining pazcel to ensure that no 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 development will occur within 15 feet of the house. However, that easement could be changed to prohibit development within the required 25 feet without affecting the proposed townhouse development. Provided that an easement is granted to ensure that no development occurs within 25 feet of the e�sting house, the proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 � 5. Provided the easement is granted as stated above, the proposed lot split and variance will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The steep slope of this properiy presents several unique development problems. However, these issues will be addressed through site plan review, prior to any construction on the proposed new parcel. There are two existing utility easements that run through the parcel that serve the homes on Crocus Hill, and they will have to be redrafted to provide continued service through the new parcels. The e�sting zoning line of the proposed lot split follows the current use of the adjacent properties. 5ubdividing the parcel along the e�sting zoning line will not change the chazacter of the surrounding area. The proposed variance, while resulting in a structure with a nonconforming setback, will not change the zoning classification of the properiy. 6. The proposed variance request is a result of subdividing the property along the e�sting zoning lines, and is not desired to increase the development potenrial of the parcel. WHEI2EAS, the variance was approved subject to the following conditions: 2. That an easement is granted to the remaining parcel at 5 Crocus Hiil to insure that no development will occur within 25 feet of the exiting structure;and That revised utility easements are provided prior to recording the subdivision, providing continued service to the properties affected by the subdivision; and That site plan review approval is obtained prior to any construction activity on the resulting new parcel. a9 -t a �- WHEREAS, on December 21, 1998, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, James and Bonnie D'Aquila duly filed an appeal from the determination of the Board and requested a hearing before the Council of the City of Saint Paul for the purpose of considering the action of the Board; and 13 W�IEREAS, on 7anuary JE( 1999, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.205 - 64.208, the Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal of James and Bonnie D'Aquila after giving notice to affected parties and where all persons interested where given an opportunity to be heard; and WFIEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the variance applicafion, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Boazd does hereby a9-ti a� 2 RESOLVE, to uphold the decision of the board in this matter. The Council, based upon 3 a11 the evidence in the record finds thax the appeltants have not shown that there was any enor on 4 the part of the board with respect to any fact, fmding or procedure in this matter. Accordingly, 5 the Council adopts the findings of the said Board in resolution 98-307 as its own; and 6 7 BE IT FiTI2TI�R RESOLVED, that the appeal of James and Bonnie D'Aquila is in all 8 things denied;and 9 10 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution should be mailed to the 11 Appellants, Mendota Homes, Inc., the Saint Paul Planuiug Commission and the Saint Paul 12 Zoning Admiuistrator. Requested by Department of: Hy: Form Appr d by City Attorney BY: .�l (-2� s� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY� � l7 . � By: \ � Approved by 't�or: Date � 17 ��g / By: Adopted by Council: Date ,p �\�„�q Adoption Certified by Council Secretary aq _��'�— DFPARTMENT/OFFICNCOUNCIL DnTE WRWTED City Council Offices zizi99 GREEN SHEET No 63508 COMAC7 PER�N 8 PHONE �nitlaWate � Inwallnafe Chris Coleman, 266-8620 oe.unra,ran¢cro, a,rcaa�. MUS7 BE ON CQUNCILAGENDA BY (DPSE) AESIGM IIIIIIBBtiOR n�YAnoP�EY ❑uil'CtERK RWiW6 �� FfIa��C1n1.�FRVICESCOL ❑AlstiC1111.sERVi4ttrC ❑MVOR�ORABffiTAIIT� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (GLlP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C710N RE�UESTm Finalizing City Council action taken on January 13, 1999, denying the appeal of James and Bonnie D'Aquila for a variance aY 5 Crocus Hill. RECOMMENDATION Apprwe (A) a 2J2GS (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONiRACIS MUST ANSWERiXE FOLLOWIN6 QUES710NSi 1. Has this persoMim everworked under a contrad forthis tlepartment� PLANNING CAMMISSION vES No CIB CAMMITTEE 2. Flas this peisonRrtn ever been a city employee7 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION YES NO 3. Dces this persoNfirm possess a skill not rwrmallypossessetl by any cu�reM city employee? YES Np a. Is mia persoNfirm a tarpeteC venaofT YES � Evplain all y� answers on separate shee[ an0 attach to reen she� INI7IATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNI7Y(WM, What When, Where, Why) .,� �-,�cc�d�.°� ��jiP.i �ks��ry ��`�1� ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED - DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED 70TAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION f COST/REVENUE BUDQETED (qRCLE ON4 �S NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTMTV NUMBER FiWWCWLINFORMAiION(EXPWt� _ CITY OP SAIN'T PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY q Q� I� y Clayton M Robinson, Jc, Ciry Attorney CivilDivision 400CiryHaZ[ Zelephone:65I266-8710 ISWestKel7oggBlvd Facsimile:651298-5679 Saint Paul, Minnesota J5702 January 28, 1999 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 Ciry Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, NIN 55102 ��r��sy� Re: Appeal of 3ames and Bonnie D'Aquila BZA File: 98-326 Public Hearing Date: January 6, 1999 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Please place this matter on the Council's Consent Agenda at your convenience. If you haue any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, �.-�� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure OPPICE OF LICENSE, INSPHCTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION Roben Kessfer. Director n e _ � w �� _ r CITY OF SAII�iT PAUL Norm Co[eman, Mayor December 21, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Mi�mesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: I would like to confirm tUat a public hearing be January 13, 1999 for the following appeal of a] Appellant: File Number: Purpose: Address: Legal Description: LOWRY PROFESSIONAL BUILIJ7NG Snire 300 350 SG Peter Street Saint Paut, M'umesota 55102-I510 Telephone: 612-266-9090 Facsimiie: 672-266-9099 6I2-2669I24 ..:> ,.a. �; � r N �`Y � �� ,t^�,6.. •y3" � k °t�� , �' !��' C =� � , �' �� t �� A � o I �ed fcr Wednesday fo � �vr;s�n: � James and Bonnie D'Aquila 98-326 Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting a lot split variance in order to subdivide the properh� at 5 Crocus Hill into two parcels along the existing zoning line. 5 Crocus Hi1S PIN 012823329111, see file for complete legal description. Previous Action: Summit Hitl Association ! District 16 Planning Council recommended denial of the variance due to lack ef information regarding future development of the property. Staff recommended approval. Board of Zoning Appeals; Granted the varianc �, subject to conditions, on a vote of 7- 0. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the 7anuary 6, 1999 City Council meeting and that you wiil publish notice of the hearirig in the Saint Paul Legal Ledgec Please cal! me at 266-9082 if you have any questions. Sin r ly, t � � � ��.,� � � , • �as1 • ,-Jq m Hardwick _. '-. -' - xmxcE oF rosuc seARn�tG � ��017i1tg TCCImiCialt � Saint P,aul City Council will cortduc4 a public hearipg� oa Wednesday. � January 13. 1999, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Third Floor Oity Ha11- ea Council Member Coleman Court Hovse fo con'sider the appeal of James and Bonnie D'Aquita to a decision of fhe Board of Zoning Lppeals grantinga lot split variance in order to subdivide properry at ' 5 Crocus Hilk in4o two pazcels alnng the esisting zoning line. . . _ Dated: T3ecember 23, 1598 ` � - " . � - LdADF(:Y �NDEFL40�k� _ _ - - _ - Assistant f.5ty Covncil Seeretasy . , � @ ecember30, k998j '" . ' - qq- �ati- APPLICATION FOR APPEAL. Deparlmenf of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section • ' i g 3�� II00 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paut, MNSSIO2 266-6589 APAELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION NarT7e James and Bonnie D'Aquila Address 6 crocus Hill City saint Pau1 gf, riN Z�p 55102 Daytime phone Zoni�g File Name File rro. 98-307 Address/Location 5 crocus xiil TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appea! to the: � Board of Zoning Appea{s ❑ City Council under the provisions ofi Chapter 64, Section 2� , Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the Board of zoning Appeais on ➢ecember 14, , 19 9$ . File number: 9$-3Q7 (dafe of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative offcial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. See attached letter. 1� �21IRBaoao� i D � i33r3'r+ 4�63 V{afiIFikiCE �I�RTit �}�C�}: �fi�fi� ��'�� Attach addifional Applicant's Robert G. H2[Cs1ey Counsel for Appellants Date 12Ilsl9s City ag 2 .G� . CiLi . �F} P� DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFFSSIOCdL ASSOCIATIO] Attomeys at Caw Decemher 17, 1498 City Council City of Saint Paul City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55 ]02 �9-1��- ? \Lnnew:z l`bdd 7:ade Ce�'er �2 Evt Seccr:n S;re.t s� r��i. ��-�z�:� s:: Te:ev^o. [65ll 7h5-+�'C:' e�x «� � ze� s9oa t\r¢e: > drec! dfal oum^e. (651)265-4309 e-mail: henslr�drblaw.com Re: File No. 98-307, Variance and Lot Split Request of Mendota Homes, Inc. Dear Council Members: We have been retained by James and Bonnie D'Aquila who reside at 6 Crocus Hill with regard to a variance and lot split which has been requested by Mendota Homes, Inc., for property located at 5 Crocus Hill. Mendota Homes, Inc., has indicated a desire to construct a 10-unit townhouse development on a newly constructed lot. The purpose of this letter is to submit an appeal of the decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals and to.provide a brief legal analysis concerning the pzoposed variance, lot split, and development, along with an explanation why each request should be denied. The Proposed Lot Sptit Section 67.304 of the Zoning Code provides for the splitting of a lot if six conditions are satisfied. Mendota Homes cannot meet these conditions and the Board of Zoning Appeals did not have the authority to grant the requested variance. Specifically, Section 67.304, condition (4) states that "the division ofthe lots shall not cause a remaining part of a lot to become a separately described tract which does not meet the minimum standards of the zoning district in which it is located or which does not have street frontage and access to municipal services" (Emphasis added). Mendota Homes admits in its application that the remaining parcel located at 5 Crocus Hill will not meet the setback requirements in an R-2 zone, and thus have requested a variance from the requirements of Section 67304, condition (4). However, Section 67306 (b) of the Zoning Code only gives the following authoriry to grant a variance: "Where condition (3) or (6) of section 67.304 is not met, the board ofzoning appeals shall hold a public hearing to consider the variance form the required condition." (Emphasis added.) Here, a variance is requested for condition (4). Thus, although the board in certain instances would ha�e the authority to grant an appropriate variance relating to conditions (3) or (6) for the portion of the lot on which the townhouses would be located, the board does not have the authority to permit a lot split and grant a variance from condition (4) which relates to the SLPmd • M�nnenpaiis • �e�¢�er • Smi Ranwn • 4Vnshmgtm�, D C DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSiO�":�L ASSOQ�TIO] City Council Members City of Saint Paul December 17, 1998 Page 2 °Iq - �2a- nunimum standazds for the remaining lot on 5 Crocus Hill, The Zoning Code is clear on this point, and the board was without authority to take the requested action. Because the lot split requires a variance from Section 67304 of the Zoning Code, the only way in which to attempt to divide the lot is to replat the lot. This is the only logical reading of Section 67304, which states that lot splits are permitCed "without platting" only if the conditions are met, and that the zoning board only has the power to grant variances from conditions (3) or (6). The Board of Zoning Appeals cieady did not have the authority to grant a variance from condition (4) and replatting is the only potential course of action. The Request is a Defacto Rezoning and Not a Variance If the lot is subdivided, the home currently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz will be located on the remauring property and will be six feet from the newly created property line. The new property line essentially eliminates the backyard for the house, and it is virtually impossible to walk out of the house and not cross the properiy line and fall down the bluff. Appazently realizing that the city would not allow a split zoning classification on an existing lot, the developer has instead agreed to grant a diamond-shaped easement across the RM-2 zoning line in order to provide Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz with a backyazd. The effect is that the townhouse development is essentially using land zoned R-2 in order to meet setback requirements in an RM-2 zone, The effect is a defacto rezoning and a blatant effort to juatapose the use of each lot. This type of defacto rezoning should be strongly opposed by the city and is simply an effort to circumvent the city's Zoning Code. The Prnposed Variance for 5 Crocus Hill As indicated above, the board does not have the authority to grant a variance from the lot split requirements of Section 67.304. However, even if the board did have the authority to grant a variance, the request by Mendota Homes does not meet the criteria for granting a variance. The criteria for granting a variance aze set forth in Section 64.203 and are as follows: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these`circumstances were not created by the landowner; D�HERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PAOF£5510\dL ASSOCi4710\ Ciry Council Members City of Saint Paul December 17, 1948 Page 3 a°I -1a a- 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 Saint Paul; 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character oFthe sunounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area; 5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning classification of the property; and 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Upon proper consideration, it is clear that the current request does not meet most, if not all, of the criteria set forth above. It is our opinion that the staff has misconstrued the first criteria relating to the reasonable use of the property. Cunently, the "property" consists of one lot with a single family residence. There is no question that for the past severai decades the property has been put to a reasonable use. The vaziance criteria are meant to apply to situations in which the property is not currently in use or would not continue with the existing use. It is certainly not unusual for separate azeas of a parcei to have two or more zoning classifications. The law and sensible land use planning have never recognized that the landowner has an absolute right to make multiple uses of a single parcel if the uses conflict with setback requirements and other land use constraints. The staff and the developer are erroneously concluding that a landowner is entitled to make full use of each separately zoned area. That is not the law. Instead, the property, which is currently the single lot, is in fact being put to a"seasonable use" and the applicant fails to meet even this threshold criteria. In addition, the landowner fails to meet many of the other criteria for granting a variance. For example, there is no "plight of the landowner." Our understanding is that this process is being driven by a developer, and not by 1Vfr. and Mrs. Bisanz, who are in fact the "landowners." In fact, it appears that Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz do not really support the lot split and townhouse proposal. Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz have no "plight" and are currently living in the house located on 5 Crocus Hill. Similarly, correspondence has already been submitted to the board regarding traffic and safety DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER rxoFESSio�ac rssoct+Tia� City Council Members City of Saint Paul December 17, 1998 Page 4 a�°1-�aa- concems oFthe proposed development, along with serious concems regarding property values and changing the character of the neighborhood. Finally, it is clear that the primary reason for requestutg the variance is to increase the value or income potential for the lot located at 5 Crocus Hill. Because there is already an existing home on the property and no current intention to demolish the home, the only reason to sell the bottom portion of the lot and bu$d townhomes is to produce income. The entire spirit behind the current request is contrary to the rationale behind granting variances. This is simply a way to make money, and not an effort to make a reasonable use of a lot which for years has been used as a single famity residence. The Townhouse Development At the public hearing, the zoning board refused to hear any testimony about the townhouse development and myopically focused only on the lot split. This was a mistake by the zoning board. First, the application which was submitted for the lot split contained drawings and plats indicating the number of units and the location on the property. Questions and comments by citizens about what has been submitted by the applicant should not be ruled out of order. Second, if the city grants the requested variance without considering the development already requested by the developer on the new lot, the city will lose most of its control over the newly created lot. Because the lot will be in an RM-2 zone, if the city grants the variance, the developer will then claim that the city's action gives him an absolute right to build townhomes on the new lot. The city will haue much less leverage in reviewing the plan and will have much less opportunitp to provide input and make changes in any plan. It is a mistake to grant a variance and create a new lot without considering and reviewing a detailed plan for future construction. The developer has not supplied a site plan and ofher details regarding the projecC, but has simply indicated an intent to cram ten townhouses on the property. Serious issues remain regazding traffic on Grand Avenue, the number of units involved, parking, the location and e�ent of what will undoubtedly be a massive and potentially unsightly retaining wall, fences, landscaping, and screening. The city should not even consider the current plan without a more detailed site plan and proposaL The city owes iis citizens a more thoughtful review of the complete package. In addition, Section 6L 101 of the Zoning Code provides that townhouse developments must have a minimum 25 foot yard setback and that the stiucture cannot occupy more than 30% of the lot. The developer has already made it ciear that he will seek further variances from these criteria. The proposed development would be on an ezctremely steep slope, but no plan has been submitted regarding how the site will be developed. Development within the Zoning Code is improbable given °1q,Iz�-- DOHERTY RUMBLE 8� BUTLER PnOFE5510].l1 d550C14i10] City Council Members City of Saint Paui December 17, 1998 Page 5 the 40-foot setback requirement from the bluff. In other words, nottung about this project meets the current Zoning Code. In addition, if the lot split is approved, under Section 61.101 the developer may choose to submit a revised plan for a 5 story structure, 50 feet in height. Once the variance for the lot split is granting, the city loses control. The city should require the developer to seek all necessary variances at one time in order to avoid piecemeal review that unduly constrains the rights and obligations of the city. For these reasons and for the reasons contained in previous correspondence from my clients to the city, Mr. and Mrs. D' Aquila request that the city deny the cunent application. Yo mce ly, Ro ert� RGHfrma cc: 7ames and Bonnie D'Aquila Robert Bisanz Richard Bisanz Mendota Homes, Inc. Arew Backstrand 979297 �. °1°1 � 113- SUBDNISION REVIE6�l APNLICATION Department of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 City Ha!! Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saini Paul, MN 55102 2b6-6589 APPLICANT � PROPERTY AddresslLocation�5 G�oU k4il�— u�"I� �U.VU,I 2-otie.Lf_. "K�7� LOCATION 1 "` Legai description: 0. � /A (attach additional sheef if necessary) ""` TYPE OF SUBD ❑ ❑ AppiicanYs sig � N: _. .._ Spiit �,Lot Split with Variance ❑ Reg. Land Survey imin Plat ❑ Final Plat ❑ Combined Plat � Date City agent ,,; , �:�, Name of owner (if different) o✓ �- �'�^i (�"'� "� � wcs Contact person (if different �t� ��'�t-� Yv�v�clo Phone�$�-(03�-2 °1 `i � t'��- ME1�DqTA HOMES, INC. P.O. BOX d16 FORESx LAKE, MN 55025 (651)688-6342 (651) 6883291 �AX November 10, 1998 City of St. Paut JJepartment of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section 1 t00 Ciry I-TaII Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 To Whom Tt May Concem: � � �' 'f ''��.. Atl•ached, you will find an agplication for Subdivision Review for a lat split with variance for a garcel of land located at #5 Crocus Hill in St. Paul. The pazcel of land cutrently holds two zoniag districts —12-2 and R-M2. A singlc family home exists on 1he portion of the property zoned R-2. Mendota �Tomes, 3nc. has entered into a purchase agreement for the remaining portion of the properry zoned R-M2 in an effort to construct nine townhomes. We wish to spiit this pzoperty along the existing zoning line. This spiit conforms with five of the six conditioas for lou splits outlined in Zoning Code. The sixth condition, that the division does not result in the creation af a noncoafozzning struciure or use, is, however, more diffcult. The exisring single family home on the R-2 parcet was constructed a numt�er of yeazs ago. When ihe lot split to divide the R-2 parcei from the R-M2 parcel occurs, the rear yard setback for the exisring single family home wiii not meet the required minimum distance of 25 feet from the nerv pzoperty line. V�le are requesting that this lot split be accompanied by a variance to allow a rear ya setback af less than ten feet for the existing home. The ovmers of the existing hom� Robert and �ynda Bisanz, have indicated no objection to this acrion. A letcer from accompanics this appliealion. Mendota Homes, Ine. atso agrees to an easeraent for a gortion of the netiv parcei, in a private action, to aItow Mr. and Mcs. $isanz su�ci privaoy in their back yard. The only other option to divide this property and utili2e its R-M2 2oning would be i maintain a 25 foot rear yard setback for the existing home and divide the pazcei alo� line not consistent with the current zoning division. This proposai is eqnaily, if not di�cult, as it results in a split zoning classi�cation on a single lot. � a�-�a�-- �-- �� - 30'7 We do not believe a variancs to allow a rear yard setback that does not meet minimum requirements would result in inconvenience for anyone involved. The only affected neighbors would be Mr. and Mrs. Bisanz, wfio have agreed to the actioa We feel this lot split and variance is the Ieast offensive way to utili2e property in the manner far which it is zoned. Plezse review this application aad contact us with any quesrions ot concems. Sincerely, l�"� �. Erin E. Mathem for Mendota TTomes, Inc. Y ' v , ��. ' '- ' ,' . w ��„ � S . ' � �. ��'�^ .._ � _. e . . � _ , ._ ... .v_ Y .f_. , � t_. � P. 4'-� '.f Y.Y '. z�: f- � � �� , _ : , � � = `��'� . ��, �� "- :..�i''2�:.v-_ - " Novemher 2, 149& Robcrt and Y.ynda $isana #5 Ctocus Htll St. Paul, I47'�iT City o£St. �'aul Depanment of Planning and Economic Devciapment Zoiiiti� Scctio� 1 I00 City $ail Annex 2S West �ourth Street St Paui, MN' SS102 To Whorz, Iz 2v1ay Concorn � s � � � •G � � �qg-la Mendota Homes, 7na. is applying with your office for Subdivision Rev�ie�v far a lot split �•rith variance for a parce] of land at #5 Crocus liilt in St. pau}. We are the owncrs of a single family home currentiy located on the property in qucstion. Our home sits on the poc�ion of the properry zoned R-2, for siagie family ase. When Iliis lo[ sglit accurs, the rear yard setback for our home vn11 be Iess than the ininimum requiremem foc St. Paui of 15 feet. The variance request that accompanies h4cndata Homer' applicatipa iS to sllcnv s[ear yard setback of less thatt ten feet for our existing.home. we understand that Iv�endota � tne. is requosting this action and have no objection t� th�s'variance. X � �a M : ''' ��.. ~ -�n. ' ��4� .. - wif�S�. . .c i �yY, .; } � `I�''^ V� f"�.. fa. _ .5.. .�t�x '` y . _ _ -t�? e-_.k. - ,.ei. j.. ! �� h . ! .: ,� !!tio " , Lynda �i3ant " ' - � . . � � _ � _,� `�=r''. _ .. - � .; � z, s s s � � .. -..-...,�r;�.,-�.a�._>_._�.a:3 �� Y . :ti�� Si � a1 ��'''� � �. � ��t1!'�, ��e�.�, '�: o :�, �. 2� � SUMMfT e ; � ,.,>> Sq f � f O. `n. •. . � 60. 60. ' ¢/O. A To . r ro. S° Jo. . . . ^ ; . 9 4 590 � , �_ ' t I t7£ G14" { � Ue fio-311 ii: I �L1 � � �e i O � : � 4 w!S Dro �i 1 � I�� i � � I n� ,x� Y rt �� ^�i ,�j' �;2� ✓ i 9� 3 Z� / m 9 8 i 7 6� ;J � 3 z C� � pi ra�3umu on z�c�j "�� i ; 7o p � Svrrvn� 'S � /O 8 .f 4' 3 Z ! , �..,,, > — r>.r tp (�1 ♦ � i i.f Nla7 (u a o a�.cs) (z:9-ne� �°,e8 ( (�) C�) (nc) r:s N — n f �'.�a d� zzo. I. �� ..re o , --�- --�.;�.....:_ : ---- - - SUMM/T LANE: pm i�=I [xa> c� �. (z'1) e (2't1 O 9e. L � .. zo �y1 `1� sv 3cs i w t� ,m "'.1 +*-s�) m a 7 �� •� o > �' i t t'ul i f'(ta} (v) �`. I I ! �j � (ml �(3s) "� t Cal N+) 14x) (�3) o (ss)e o �C' r U .Si .S'� I S�r{• ; ( \� ::: ` i:cc� tzv ��irol l ��,', G'>"' � g�a _' _� Z 6 '3� �f 3 �I z �i B I 9 �'� /o // �/ z/ �9�� .5 i/6 /� � ` { � E `.' (4> ` C (n) � � .`;• ( I I p /Z /3 /h� I/ /D' /7 18 i/� � 2f � o Sb I(w! I ' � 8 �� i�o 2L � �� k 4, 5f3 489 I 1 i s85 s � � i ��is�i �� ^ ^ - � rv. sa. sa. � , So. ,�. 6e7 _ , . .r'o. 6J' ♦ i' _ _ _ " ' � 1 ' . � r . F____ �'��""__�,. i i .ao s�L� :` .�1 m .,,� GAAND AV� � °` � � . ,,..,, e to ... `� >�,s sb i . ;.rer .00 � (acl ^' z Sm � 4s � � ro o .,�. ,�� o. � > .e'n. . . ., se. . 1 ; �' E H R'S -! � ° oe � �,•' ° �;� s8o (:°> , c�ss= ��E �yl � fr 6 S i�f 3 �.ir) �: .YO ^ s�a I nt>• `= S ,a,. a� es Y� � � � e � � `` os e . ' f \ .'xi� � �I'� .l�' � 4 1 ten/3 w �/ �0 9 8 T 6 S' ''r ' ��'f'� ��' ? (nt �� 9 �,� , L ' ,Z �� 3 (� � a (co) �"I' S . y r 2 .• ..� S B P '1` � izs.ss '� ! Z�¢ ([c� � 5 � 1�4� I �6S �) 50. )26 6 ze e�' � S 9 M�// � 0 N y : i t � �� w � �� 6925� �/: . �>.Y 0� ae�'"( Ca� ' r N .6 4 CtpWaf.�ii.a ��) �8�) �DS) �64) �BT� �98) �tJ� �� /SR4 � a \ (c'») Q ^ j� � S f �.� 0. �119� � 6R �yo �p. k (� � q o 26 8 4 t � � �„� , .�`' pLAt � y � ' . n� . os �6 'os i . d �V < �"�_ Q �° e; o i r j { , iB iB zo zi z2 Zs r4 p y '. k �` �`,` "' `r ° �' ' 8 �9 , � � l c 1 061 .e � �'�i � $ v � , i � � G �� \ 601 3l9 /� e GP) {w� � A \ Q F � . . I�� . �' »s . iro. :o so. . . sa sse \ °z � a °' 6 Q (m 5 b >�. �ef' (nx� °� � ) �` � S°.� : n , t �p �1 0 Q o&+ff s � 5qi ♦` ,, F , 6 �6 b LlNCQLN . � " a` �a �" .;'� � RAC � .P (¢jl � lro. s9z s76 v � v � o(111) \` � ; i.m.� 6� � '. zz i i , 3 `. �'>e � � i � 5p ,, o , < ...,. _ . z�a a� . �� 23i 2'F Z5 z6 27 z� �9 90 3/ ��.�. "^.,,___ __• . I 32 �i SS � �� (` . 20 1 � � � .ra (g' fzl ($) (sH f�) � Y �Y 4 (vzl ( r , O � 1 ' e: G.f.,� '`��, �I 8 � W .� c�i c� a�� "° c�e«� 3 o�i " ' �`".< .—._ •,> �.. a i?� V � � i (wd 0� .(IOB),'I� •\ ae6> cr Fo 9 h, la (ro9> � �+ �j ��i � � I ! � N `;''.�� S l'Y-� L Q !9 i8 i7� i4 is �4! i3 iz i� ioy 9 d` T; 6 ' 9� �° a'q : �y� Ls as ` � � . i , Jo � ,� � j s (� . �! � $� /� i/ �.+ � � 0 84 M �� ! ¢D. SO. � SB. � SD. - ' . . � _ � � _ _ 43_B.TB � _ _ 4�' /�` i � �'. _ � _ _• _ - � : , oi+si. ' .e-_ /Y _ :il _C \ D3J ` ' x .F' � � � � .. �` ...:.................y -�- --`--',. , p,...., � " v�. e ...�... �u VALAT£D 9ee.. 240'(3t4 � ( 3f ` 4rlLCy'� ♦iu T+.1� ] . i�z.f .... 2{L69... . .. �I y JJ3..V /�/ � '�, f �� • I r, _ rA. � I �S �nl ��}� g 60l m {,.' :l na.,,e � ��r) �� 6 � -� / P AtE ° i �t _� 9 - �zaw�•' ZY; �� e r s !4 .{3':�'�/- � � a.ax:'�Y A n . ~ � e 'i \ �s � .(� `� { �J '' ""�AtU7 t O � 'S 3. 'xS�,f-�3. N0.33 ��'J�;� �,'� fl .a;_ ;. Q'o k o . s s� an R �„ S 9 � i � y �. R �� , � ( t V' f .ita I '� 9F b s) Y isf.e. �. �TU✓ p _ ; '� (k� °� � a �� e' eY ��:��/ f 6 6 �'1� ,.+"'3. it � � e 7 ((e) .' '.� s .� � y r� { � ; er f �� 1 K . z.ro � . � A � � •. � ,�, 9a y �n > , � �y�+' , - 8:4 r.� � - � (cl , .< „� . d � A' r �' �{ ... e (94J ) / � !]' r � ' A l� o �� 6 0. �. ' }I tre • ro� '` � � "F; ,:: — ��a. ,.' +;r��o � ,p � . e .� � . .�,i " �� . '6 �i 6 �` n' � � �,.f*` ' � '4 ♦ r h d � oe o � � c . ; ./¢ �/.3 / ? lwl � ( a, : �9 ` `'' �,° .' 1 ' a . z ' . (si) ,� <dl (� ts. (N�l i ' � r \ " � sa �, i� /'� �° �, �\ °''P ' '�� ' I" ou � 1� . : �u � a f' OCI( lal�l L �� _ /° s � f r 4 a1� ' 4 v` h; s%o.o^� ( � y ` �� ?' lniti\. '� .t:� F �L°f.` s�� .;'. ' �4# `' S�t� .. _ ' ti � f .� S.�_ .. }, 99.}�.'�- BOARD OF ZQNING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 1. APPLICAI�T: MENDOTA HOMES INC 2. CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance 3. LOCATION: 5 CROCUS HILL FILE # 98-347 DATE QF AEARING: 12/14(98 4. LEGAL AESCRIPTION: PIN 012823320111, see file for compiete legal 5. PLANNING DTSTRICT: 16 6. PRESENT ZONING: RM-2, R-2, HPN ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 67304 (6) 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT DATE: 12/02148 BY: 7ohn Hardwick 8. DEADLINE FOR ACTION: O1/23(99 DATE RECEIVED: 11(23l98 A. PURPOSE: A variance of the subdivision requirements in order to split-off a portion of this properry. B. ACTION ItEQUESTED: The proposed lot split would create a nonconforming rear setback for the existing home on the remaining lot. A 25 foot setback is required and a 6 foot setback is proposed, for a variance of 19 feet. C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This is an irregulaz shaped parcel of about 57,730 square feet. The parcel has frontage on Grand Avenue and on Crocus Hill. The eastem half of the parcel slopes steeply down to Grand Avenue, with a difference in elevation of about 30 feet. The property also has a split zoning classificataon, with the eastern half being Zoned RM-2 and the western haif being zoned R-2. The existing house sits on the western half at the same elevation as Crocus Hiil. Surrounding Land Use: Primarily single family homes with multi-family residential uses to the north. D. BACKGROUND: Some time ago, the eastern half of this property was rezoned to RM-2 in anticipation of being split off and developed for multiple family dwellings. The applicants have entered into a purchase agreement with the current property owners to develop ten townhouse units on the propezty and have applied for a lot split and this variance. q9 -i? �- File # 98-307 SYaff Report Page Two E. FINDINGS: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Splitting this pazcel along the existing zoning line, which approximately conesponds with the bluff line, is the most logical way to proceed with the subdivision. However, doing this would leave the existing house on the property with a nonconforming reaz setback. Alternatives, such as splitting the parcel to maintain a 25 foot rear setback for the house, would result in split zoning on the parcel containing the house. Also, the additional land gained for the rear yard would mostly be unusable due to the steep slope. 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 existing split zoning classification of the parcel and the steep slope of the eastem half of the property are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. 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. When the eastern half of this parcel was rezoned to RM-2, the obvious intent was to have the property developed for multiple-family dwellings at some future point in time. The applicants have stated their intent to grant an easement to the homeowners of the remaining parcel to ensure that no development will occur within 15 feet of the house. However, that easement could be changed to prohibit development within the required 25 feet without affecting the proposed townhouse development. Provided that an easement is granted to ensure that no development occurs within 25 feet of the existing house, the proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding azea or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding azea. Provided the easement is granted as stated above, the proposed lot split and variance will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The steep slope of this property presents several unique development problems. However, these issues will be addressed prior to any construction on the proposed new parcel. There are two existing utility easements that run through the parcel that serve the qq_�ar File # 98-307 Staff Report Page Three homes on Crocus Hill and they will have to be redrafted to provide continued service through the new parcels. The existing zoning line of the proposed lot spiit follows the current use of the adjacent properties. Subdividing the parcel along the existing zoning line will not change the character of the surrounding azea. 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 Iand is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning disri classificarion of the property. The proposed variance, while resulting in a structure with a nonconforming setback, will not change the zoning ciassification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income poCential of the parcel of land. The proposed variance request is a result of subdividing the property along the existing zoning lines and is not desired to increase the development potential of the parcel. F. DTSTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from District 16. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the following conditions; 1. That an easement is granted to the remaining parcel at 5 Crocus Hill to ensure that no development will occur within 25 feet of the existing house and; 2. That revised utility easements are provided prior to recording the subdivision, providing continued service to the properties affected by the subdivision. °I9 -l�'+r CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER # 98-307 DATE 12/14/98 WHEREAS, MENDOTA HOMES, INC. has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 67304 (6) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to a lot-split on a portion of this property in the RM-2, R-2, HPN zoning district at 5 CROCUS HILL; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on December 14, 1998, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Pau1 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 cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Splitting this parcel along the existing zoning line, which approximately corresponds with the bluff line, is the most logical way to proceed with the subdivision. However, doing this would leave the existing house on the property with a nonconforming rear setback. Alternatives, such as splittin� the parcel to maintain a 25 foot rear setback for the house, would result in split zoning on the parcel containing the house. Also, the additional land gained for the rear yard would mostly be unusable due to the steep slope. 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 existing split zoning classification of the parcel and the steep slope of the eastem half of the property are circumstances that weze not created by the applicants. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and 'as consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. When the eastern half of this parcel was rezoned to RM-2, the obvious intent was to have the property developed for multiple-family dwellings, at some future point in time. The applicants have stated their intent to grant an easement to the homeowners of the remaining parcel to ensure that no development will occur within 15 feet of the house. However, that easement could be chan�ed to prohibit development within the required 25 feet without affecting the proposed townhouse development. Provided that an easement is granted to ensure that no development occurs within 25 feet of the existing house, the proposed variance is in keepin� with the spirit and intent of the code. File � 98-307 Resolution Pa�e Two qq-la�- 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding azea. Provided the easement is granted as stated above, the proposed lot split and variance will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The steep slope of this property presents several unique development problems. However, these issues will be addressed through site plan review, prior to any construction on the proposed new parcel. There are two existing utility easements that run through the pazcel that serve the homes on Crocus Hill, and they will have to be redrafted to provide continued service through the new parcels. The existing zoning line of the proposed lot split follows the current use of the adjacent properties. Subdividing the parcel along the existing zoning line will not change the chuacter of the surrounding area. 5. The variance, if a anted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. The proposed variance, while resultin� in a structure with a nonconformin� setback, will not change the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The proposed variance request is a result of subdividing the properiy along the existing zonino lines, and is not desired to increase the development potential of the parcel. NOW, THSREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 67304 (6) be hereby waived to a11ow a lot split on a portion of the property subject to the following conditions: 1. That an easement is granted to the remaining parcel at 5 Crocus Hill to ensure that no development will occur within 25 £eet of the existing house and; 2. That revised utility easements aze provided prior to recording the subdivision, providing continued seroice to the properties affected by the subdivision and; 3. That site plan review approval is obtained prior to any construction activity on the resulting new parcel; on property located at 5 CROCUS HILL; and le�ally described as Tenace Pazk Add. Ex beg at most wly cor of Lot 4 th E Par with S Line of Lot S for 128.25 Ft, the S 15 Ft mol to Lin 170.06 Ft, N of & Par with S Line of Lot 5; th W on Sd Paz Line to Wly Line of Lot 4, Th Nwly to Be,;; Part of Lot 4 N of Sd Par Line & All of Lot 3 Blk 6; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. File # 98-307 Resolution Pa�e Three MOVED BY: Morton SECONDED BY : Scherman IN FAVOR: � AG��.INST: o MAILED: December 15, 1998 �q-Il�- TIVIE LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been fited, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my of£ce; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes oT the Sain4 Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on December 14, 1998 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS s- � , �I I Noel Diedrich Secretary to the Board c�q-ta�- ' o a1 � 6 / � .- „ � � e- e I-� � �� " � ,�� I „° v� � � .o � � ! j � � , 0 � � � oi / 3�� `° '' /` y / /� �� i S � � � � YE/ , p1 y{�� /a � , / i e �, � L O � $/ � �•,� � �� /� tv , / � 8 /� / j �� ey � "'0 °'% � � � � i � � � � � �� e�-��, � d � f / ° �� 9 �� ,�'/ / ,, f �-;% � , �� c ;� � i � � �; / ��/ �;. i r ;'� � � �`i � �; �� I ''� i; !;� i �: -�� I nI SITBPLeN I� � IIy. i- .,w. Neae�.e '��-�.,� i �11 � tlI.^.iwrvt.MEN�OT6H0lo�as i 6/�D��D I �j%i=�'ri�rmvaE.�^�+��.. II—` ��IJ _ i -�ono ioii�, � i a l °`�` i�� ni v�_�s,�r v �!.X:F/` �2 aiq -1��- Summit Hill Association District'16 Planning Council 860 Saint Clair Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 Telephone 651-222-1222 Fax 651-222-1558 e-mail summit.hill�stpauf.gov December 8, 1998 John Hardwick Board of Zoning Appea4s 350 Saint Peter Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File Number 98-307 Dear Mr. Hardwick and Members of the BZA: The Executive Committee of the Summit Hill Association/District 16 Planning Council met on December 1, 1998 to discuss Mendota Homes' request for a variance of the subdivision requirements in order to split-off a portion of 5 Crocus Hill creating a nonconforming rear setback on the remaining lot. It is our understanding that a twenty five foot setback is required and a six foot setback is proposed, for a variance of 19 feet. The SHA Executive Committee recognizes that this request for a lot split variance is an attempt to solve an existing zoning problem, since the parcel of land currently holds two zoning designations and Mendota_Homes_wishes to create the lot split along the existing zoning lines. However, the Executive Committee is concerned that the division does result in a nonconforming structure, and as yet, the SHA does not have enough infiormation about the structures proposed for the newly created lot to determine if there could be problems that arise as a result of this variance. At this time, the SHA has been provided with a preliminary site plan which does not include elevations and which is subject to change as the city completes its site plan review process. Support for this variance is premature until the SHA and the BZA can fook at a full proposai for the project which includes other variances that might become necessary. Therefore, the Summit Hitl AssociationlDistrict 16 Pfanning Council recommends denial of the variance until it can be examined in conjunction with more specific plans for the newly created lot. If you have any questions about the discussion or recommendation, you may contact me or Ellen Biales, SHA Executive Director, at 222-1222. Sincerely, - � � � l f �� U� � . Molly Coskran President �, cc: Erin Mathern, M_endota Homes � � � - � � � � .. a:'t.�: a� +tu� 12: 49 g;1S Ba%"`Q61850 Via T`elecopY and F�rst Class n�a42 Deccmbcr 14, 1998 City of St. Paul $OA-RD �F �ONING APP�AL..$ 3CQ 7„owty guiIding St. Paul, MN 55102 BT\KO�S WE5T ST p"tiL Ite: F31e I+To. 98-307 December 7.4, ],99$. �adi�s �� ,e�tlemen: �9 - aa'`�- �1UD; mrie undersigned 3re aIi neighY,Qrs who lfre in the neighborhq��s aff'ect�d �'Y t�� p�'oPerly subject to a reQuest bf Mendpta Homes, tnc, to obt�in a 1a`-Split zonin� chan� �,d a set-back vaxiance. The request involves r�sidenCial propertv iecated at 5 �rocus Hlll zon�� n-2 �d 12M-2 and an adja.cent lot zoned kR�1-2, aii awned by Richard and Ly�da Bisanz, We understand that certain land i� subject to an option agreernent held by Ri�h�.d F� and a Purchas� Agreem�nt from l�fr, p�.��o to Mendota FIomes, Ix�c. The tinder�igr��d four horzz�o�,�� hav� liv�d on the bloek for znany years, anr� several of ttie petitioz� sigrierS ?lav� lived 9n t1�e n�j�borhpod for ten to i�venty ye�rs or rr�ore, Au are supparcer� of St. Faul and taxp�p�� CP�,t� netghbors are life-long citizens of 5t. Paul. The praposed zoai�g �y�ang�s have been initi,ated to increa�e tha dec>elapment pptential2nd pzofitability of a t�n unit muIti-famqly project of Menc�ota Hei�Y��s, Inc. to be constrticted upon a portian of the Bisc-tnz rCSidential Iot and adjoining 2ot. Both tots have fronta�e oz1 the portion of Grand Avenue th�t slapes and curves dow� fro�ri Lincoln Avanue ta�vard dotivnto�vn St. Pa�tl and the entrance rarnp to HighWay 3g E South. A,s we understand the real estate tr�nsaction involvec�, a portion of the 14t on which the S Crocus Hf11 residence i:, Ioraterl uripi be resplit along the e�istan� zonirig line cstahlished by �1� Council or othcr action in 1975 zn return for aa easement �ranted to the �iisa�z's foT their back yard. This results in a seT bac�C vialation for Che rezon�d r�sidentiat 1Qt, reqiiiz�ng a set back va,r��.nce of 19 feet for t�3at �nt as resplit. We �i'e gti°an�ly opposeri to the proposed ten unit, nvp building townhorne develppment and The �rant of the requested set-back and lot-split v��ces. W� �e qpposed because of t2ie follovring concems. �i. �`his is $ T;zZp�qn� not a Varlaa�a. These proposed zoning �h�-, b i,��nce and Yhs other variances that «*iIl be reqtiired to approve the townhpme develapment �e a rezai�ing of.R 2 �rQ��r�Y to RM-2 #o inerease the density q£ townhpmas in the project. This should not be dotte by � varianCe procedure, Any reqYtest to rezone the lots shouid iuclude a study of traffic arzd safety canccrns, the effeet or1 th� adjpinin� Pr4perry vaiues, thc suAply of iighg an� �, thC quiet enjoyrnent of those Properties �nd the �aalogicai stability of the bluff. I� addition, thP propased develapment land_ locks a p4�on ofad,j�cent prpper{y, 4wnec� by,Jim �nd Bor,nie D'Aquila. Z0'd T6Z£S89 Z£Wb"Z$9£9£9 Wd Z£:Z0 NOW 86—c�T—�3Q ,. � 9 -1�.�--- �UO3 1 . No Sit$ PIa� for 2 `� + leu$o�a FIa�es Pr�,p ��eIop�� x�E �ning Code requires pre��a�an of a site 1an �Apxoval oP a�y varianceg. The Z4ning offl�� has informed us that a site pla.�1 is �zot needed at this tizne, an p �� =D requirement of the gt, p� l d ane has zlot been submitted. Tl�ig is contr� Zan4ng Board ofA u Zor,ing Code Sections 64.102 and 64.2Q3. T t12e ]etter n>ithout a si e plan.canxiot re�]ly address the issues w� h�ve raised in t2iis tlnder the Coda he Paul Zazv � Code � ra.nts he �o bie Fza the po�ver to a rov v g p� Use pP e ariances fram the gtrict enforce�enao�{ i e�on ng � s tipon finding, arno�g other requir�ments, that "the prop�m, in question can� be put Xo a reasoai�eble use nt6det t}le s'�siot prOV3siotts of th� �ode." 'fhe sole reasar2 for this varianae re r Thc current 1 4uest is tq inerease the number of townhAme urits. - ��1 could be put to an alternative reast�nable rzse as it a,�sts, a parhaps a les$ prc�ftab2e use. �nhanCU,� pragtiabilily is not a vaic� �� f°r the zonin� cqde. When the prior Q�er aF 5 Crocus kiill � �'�'anto, wanted to develop this laztd in X99z he a �rQCUS Hz11 about it to disclose hig ideas � p� his neighboasCOn Construction strch as thay nQw prflposed. 3`he overH,h� �� neighbors was thaz they did r�ot war�t it develop�a x� such a fdshiqnse of the Menr�ot Hpm�s, Tnc. a,��o states in its appiication thaC it does not meet one of the six requi��t t� o�t� a Iot-s 1it v Code Section 67.304 (Sttbw��io 6 of the lot splix ordi s St � Fau �� one of the lQt_split require�e�t is nat rnet, the lot-split CaI] only be don ��{ a� se �� by subdivir�ing ant( repiat�;ng che nub Zots under the prat�isio�s of Chapt�r 5 ps bf the Minnesota Statutes. 3 • N�Yic� o�' � � A�e�ng anly eler•en days a,f'ter xhe no(ice �vas mailed and n�ne or ten days aftex receip� by gn� ��t�� h��eo�vners durin� ttie busy hn�lday season �s not adequat� notice of the proposed action to a11ow us time to sYudy ghe p�.p �d �.�Spond to it„ St. Paul 2oning �p�j� �CCtic�n fi4.2C18. A�•�y-ro �u�:� iz:�8 FAI BSlr`�II1856 t;i�tto s ti+ssT sr px�. ------- St. kaut �oard o£ZUning• ynpea�s Pag� 2 $. x`}te �g$�'�Ye�ts to GraaP a Variaua� H�Ve N'ot B�e� Met �• �t� �e�sort. We believ� tfze staff report is inadequ��E �� fa;Zs to address the fnllcnvi�g concerns: 1. V$t i'�i#� ��'�t� �,9fiS Rezoxtiap; Char►ge �f Yhe l�rtsPe� to RM-2 firana M�y of the Crocus Hill neighbors �vho have si ed �� homes in 19T5, anci dicl not receive a.r� � t�s ietter lived in theix abqut the 1975 zQning ��ange t� �t�e p 6 pe�tic notice or opportunit� tn comnie�t �y a�on� �r�� Avenue fram Tt-2 to �0•d S6Z�'$89� L£Wb'Z89£9£9 Wd cg;ZO H9W 86-trT-II3Q 1.�1.t;9S SfUr 12:.t9 F?,Y v' St. �'aui $o�� o£ZoningApp��,S �age 3 ----------------- - °I°I-tZ�-- - --------------- -�--- ---�- RT.'rTiO'S {S'EST S��LL �} �-2. The Zoning Cade also prohibits lot zonintr ��zlle lot, sp tvhy tuas the lot zoned th#s t��ay in I�75? it is aiso n b �ith two cIassificatLqn$ in ihe Construct de��e m�jtzpie unit tow�7omes on t��t ro Zcars later in � o longer safe xo �ht of the tr�ffie �ongestion on Gran A e� �most tc��enty fxve because of t$e res,�rg�� of tlevelopment of retai2 S ho �S nue� xhaX has res;�lted �r�a A��nue and the cor�struction af Highwa3' 35E s �restaurants alang e-�it ramps at tll� battqm of Grantl Avet2tle. th it3 arlYra,nce and �• TZ �C .�`8,f6�+' The $oard must address the ti�2ffic sttfe i Traf�c study. �Ve are c�nc�rned abo�t the traffic safety issues raiseci proposed det�elo rn �S' ssue v;ith a such tzaffic Sa�'�� T �� ade requires zonin� c to p urnate ��Public safe;}' (ta bej securaed� S��malang. St. Paul Zaning Code Section fi4.201 proposed dev�ta�ment sIo es J � h � s �� 0 � °F �e road at (',ra�d Avenue l;y tfie aot�town S#. Pau�. T p dowr�wasd and curnes to the ng�� tQwa�.d Aarking for the de t > elopment�ciosest o the noei-ta part of the tra t, beXc�re�� he hvo toti�vr�nvme b�ildings, W�th � front set-baclt va�anc� for th� dev�lopment, it �vili be d�ngerous beeaus� the �sventy or so ca.rs e�tz � entering ttlis developme�t sEVer�l tix�es a day will be unable Tv see oncoznin� k�ic• This street 22so c.�n f�e v��,. x� qn fhe winter. We ate con�erned about our oivn sa,{ety as a result of suGh dens� development. Some farr�ilies use this rr,ute ta carpoQl their ehi3dren to schoo2 �Z t �� e � m � y U$ � it to �ry to wark in t�atimtown St. pa�l, to go to �nd from evEnts docuntown, aTld tb W�1k in the neighbarIaaod. �. Air ��i L3ghE, ��aY��ut aa$ Va'�.u�, of Ad aiat the homes in the Gr�d �qu and Crocus Hill neighbo hoo� �v� gi t 4�C� �` af $�ific�ce; hoYh nei�hborhoods �re yezY 4uiet. Crocus FiiIl is A dead end with Timited a1ley aCCess from �,;neoIn to Crocus �ill to the �vest bf the 5 CrQCUS Hill �roperty, Graad p-IiLt is a one-way fQr a block teading oui to tkte cqrtaEr of ��kland and Gr:�d qy��Ue� which rec��c�s tr�f'fzc leveIs and no(se there, Buj��u�g Yhis rnt�ZUpi �n�t to�vnhpuse develapment YviIl �ist�irb the quist � ��I �' ietivs dawn tfie hill af severat property owners otk�er than th� Bfsanz's, It.svill alsb affect the property values artd quiet enjapment of ttxese historie homes. The ox*nexs who �e p�q�ul�rTy conce�y��a b�cause they are immedi�ately adjacent or etose to the p�oposed developrnent, ar� G� � Bonziie ]3lpdget[, cvho resqrle ar I er��us Hitl, �na �;y� and I3annie D'Aquita, wiio reside at � Crocus Hi11, immediateIy south nf ihe develpgmez�Y. 1 VonetheIess, staff concluded that only �he property dt � Crocue Hzll was afi'ected. `�. N� F'rovls�o� far Gues� !'sr7�ing, The propased parking for the cievelopment does not addresses gu�st �arl�� j�rhen Mr. Parranto pro�os�d devel4px��ht oF this parcel to the neighborhpa� � iggl �� ara�wings included a cv��ay up to the aliey betvcreen LincolxL p,venue and �rocus Hill to provide additional on-sYreet parldng Lp guests an@ visitors on Cracus H�Ii. �je believe ne di� this because he realized th� prflpo�� had in�d�quate on-site parking, � dozi't linaiv u this developer is propc�sing t�is or n� f, Re�� of whether ihis developer gropqs�s a Lvalltway, ho�vever, the existing ap��ertt i+6'd 16ZF8&'9 L£W4' 8949£9 Wd £Y:ZO NOW S6-eT-�3Q M�► • ►z�-- _��_ _ - . ____... ----------------------------------------------------------- l:�li/J8 rIQV 12:5fi F.�LT 83�.Yj016S0 $ItiRO'S R'EST ST �-u1L I.'�,OpS St. Paul $uaxd oi Zonit�g �PP�aIs Page 4 buiIding on tn� �orner of Lzncoln �d �Fand Av�nues atready has a�l access stainc'ay We are cancerned that once developed, visitors of the�e ten homeo�mers wi�l naturatIy Paz'k on �r�ocug I-iill or �ranci Hili and walk down the �valkway or across the street because there is in�dequaCe sp�,�z to p�k ar., Grand Avenue or on_site far visitors and gnesTS. We already ��p��nce on-strest �arkang pr�ssures on Crocus Hill and �rrand Hilt because many tenants �f ap��e�t �uildings on Qrand and LinCOln Avenues gark on Che streets in front af our ]�omes, T1�zs deveippment t,vill acld to thase parldng pr��l�� ecause af inadequate on-site paci�g for guests. S. �'�ie ProPm� Ga� h� Fut t4 Reasaaable YTSe Wiichout the Ch�:nge. Th, residential propez�j, ifself is being put to a reaspnable tise rzpw, The other Rlvt-2 prop4rty either is not right for the dense deve2apment as propased nr may be impraved iri some alternative way that does not include housing. o. The Pliglft af th� Laa�owaer May Wgli Be Aue to Circumsta�.ces Created by'�`kem, If M�'• p��'r�.tlto ow�led this Iand in 1g75� �� certalnly couid have obj�cted t° �� WaY �n wnich the rezonir�g �S }� at that time. '7. The Proposed `Variauce its Not iti $cepiag whth tha Spirit �and Inteut of the 4"od�. The Adjaitxiag Pxoperty is 11Sog� Certainiy Affected, ThP staff has not provz�� any factual data or infoitnation �bout the trafftc ��d S�f@tY Cox�cerns, the effect on adjoiniz�� p�pe�, �azuzs axrd use, �� the steep �1Qpe probtems R�th the proposed devalo�ment, pther than its eonclusr�ry remarks that n� effect exists, �d ��t the slo�e issue wll1 be resolvec2later, �. Tlte �tequest fox $ Varia�rlce �i� Most Certaia.(y Bas�d SoI+�Ip on �a DBS'SQ t° rnc�easc the Va�ue or Tuca�O Poteat�al of t�e 7`ow�homa AeYreiopaaent, As w� have stated ear2ier, in our view, this whvle variance request is driven by Mendota guilder's desire to maximi,�� tne density ,�nd profitability af the development.. 9, Complat& ��pr. This request shauld praceduraily be a rezon�ng request. The staff g�rson for this request, John Hardwjck, has indic3tefl to certain oF us that pther va.r��s r�ilI be required fgr tlze c�eyelop��nt for fron � �'d rear setback on the rezoned lots and for buildirlg separatiQn, �ode requirem�r,ts, Thera may �e o�er v�anc�s required that are unknow� notv. W� thank you for your time and considerati4n of our con�ern$, 'Utr� respectfully request that the varia,�ces are danicd as r�questet�, �'�'-' Tazsxx�9 L£W4'ZS9£9£9 LJd t£:ZB NOW S6-cS-D3S 1�.1-1:98 3ION 12:51 F.�LY 651J�71650 SC Aaui $o�rtl oi zoning Ap�aeal5 $age 5 � 9q-1z''— ----------------------�- � ---�------,--� RI?�KO"S tPESf ST H�, n ��.��; ��.��,�- Cam and Bonnfe 6lodgeft �.� �.C.+�.rQ� \� �� a j� < d�mss and f3onnie !]'Aquiia f `r� �'�-C.c�:�,,, �.ce.�. . nan �nd �stello 8ell '"`'� -•, '� �` � �, �� • ,�ccc1CS�-c,� �r�ui �a�kstr�n� The Other NeighbQr� y7hO�e Naqgs Ara Sig�ed o:� tke lateae�ed PQ��.ttan ec= T6s tlonorab7.e HayotrHoi� Colemaa Th2 $oaoraD2e Chtis Calem.�n S�mS.e $1x2 Cou�ci.l Zoafng Crnnarietee Mendota �omes, Inc. n `>ra•.a i6ZCg37 L£W4'Z$?�'9£9 Wd 8£=Z� NOW S6—:�T—�3Q . . q° ---------- ------- ------ -_��Y•�= xu�� 1Z:51 t_�1 6�SO1fi30 FiINKO'S r4E5T STr"LrL � 007 Petifian �n opAbsitiQ� to variance requssE o9 NJenc�ota ktomes, (nc. for 5 Crac�s Hr�r �.-!� - �/G�D�v�`<,� �yc,�. �''n.`a�� e�.� �.P C�.�?�-�-�-- � c�.�.. �� '�✓L N �l h� S _�.—�,_,.��_ � $ S 1 c 2" 3 /•�.� �� _ �� y.- ,��--7�is � � s :,��.�� .�� g-�� . � � � tSh ��Q�'+�{' C.v�,_ v tC,��t. ��R�� , � ��-� J.�,��1 � ,,� �� al �� c��.�.� _� � .`Y�,.��,� ,� � �la.� �1;irlr�rr� �-- u �� OCS(�t�n fTf�,, z cYG �S ��,�lr � � i u� /l% G°f�GCNS I�� f) ..�a_s-�y, �'J+ \ A �T Q; +��7 ' "�! ` �vb � 6 ys �- u��r. �� ^� � � /�-�iGi Q � �r4C � 1 L � ot �o �^{— � �{�� `�`S � �.�.�` � ��-�-� 7 � 7 S �C�o �� . `�� -��5� � l�� cetrt�. �� a �� 6 �� 7 Z �`� -- �'�5 j a.Rt �-0�77 �. c, 2. — �-� �,� � �.�tc�cLt5 � �� 2�7 _'�p�;/-� � -- �� - ��i,��rG��T�c�-° �� 1 � . �— �� .�� c.�� /�� —�.�� ca�� L�Z9RR9 L£Wtr'ZS9£9£9 Wd 6<_':Z0 NOW 86^�T °l 9 - I'�') -------------------•-------•------ --•------------- ------------- 1.%1�1%Dy af0� 1�:5? FAS 851��02850 I{I?�FiO'S 8'EST ST P�L �] 00& PeEifian in opAOSiiion fo vari�nc� rg�uest of tvlendota Hornes, �nc. {or & Cfocus x,ri Narne Address �}� Phone I �' �„'� lC.�l.�_, C�� . r� � � �,,,,� �. • l,st 2z g � � "L ��U�� `E�i.-'�z� M`��. ce_. t� 5� -:�.3g � $ ��.3 f �t.l.L � ��S L��•./�c.�.� �53 - z�� 2�� c � ,�� f",��i��i �"'13 � � � � � 7 — �,�— s�� !I!!G 67�/Gf�' � " ,/ �j//��:�' �js�J �'�,�,G...,�L'"��x � � ! s � y !/" �.�/ � z�-7 _ < <� _/ 11'r,�i ��z�.,C,�`J..t„�� /� 'C,�-�..4..�.✓�� s r ��..z� �`is-` ��i� - �� a �-v��r .�:'�� 6S_' �� lJ . 1�.�.. �� r � C..�Cinr.�, .._,�.:,,�, �'��;� ��t� 1 �°—� ��.-(� /- �� '�� >sl - a�"1- �' �! �` a � c�,_�� r� s / � =. z - � »�� i/' ) i:Vw, i`� �� th�..�.t� ��st.R � �``��.?� �5� ��' S� 7� �. �= - 7' 7� c -•------•----- __....----�----------------- � --- ----�---- �. a.� � •c.raai+a""" � ��Wb'Z84£9£9 Wd 6�'Z0 NOW 86-CT-03Q 9°I-1�.s- DOHER'Ti� RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSIOSAL 4SSOCI4TI0[ Attorneys at Law December 14, 1998 City of Saint Paul Board ofZoning Appeals City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Street 5t. Paul, NIlV 55102 Re: File No. 98-307, Variance and lot split request of Mendota Homes, Inc. Dear Board Members: 28W 1li;merotz 4COdd Trade Centec 30 Ea>c Fc�th Sr.ret Smnt Paui. �imnesow i�101-i9`x'i Teleohone 165I� ?5�--4�L'-0 F�x tssi;'-b> >sro LCd:en di:ect d:al numSer- (651)265-4309 e henslr@drblaw.com We have been retained by 7ames and Bonnie D' Aquila who reside at 6 Crocus Hill with regard to a variance and lot split which has been requested by Mendota Homes, Inc. for property located at 5 Crocus Hill. Mendota Homes, Tnc. has indicated a desire to construct a 10 unit townhome development on a newly created lot. The purpose of this letter is to provide a brief legal analysis concerning the proposed variance, lot split, and development, along which an explanation of why each request should be denied. The Proposed Lot Split Section 67304 of the Zoning Code provides for the splitting of a lot if six conditions are satisfied. Mendota Homes cannot meet these conditions and the Board of Zoning Appeals does not have the authority to grant the requested variance. Specifically, Section 67304, subdivision (4) states that "the division of the lots shall not cause a remaining part of a lot to become a separately described tract which does not meet the minimum standards of the zoning district in which it is located or which does not have street frontage and access to municipal services" (Emphasis added). Mendota Homes admits in its application that the remaining parcel located at 5 Crocus Hill will not meeting the setback requirements in an R-2 zone, and thus have requested a variance from the requirements of Section 67304. However, Section 67.306 (b) of the Zoning Code only gives the following authority to grant a variance: "Where condition (3) or (6) of section 67304 is not met, the boazd of zoning appeals shall hold a public hearing to consider the variance form the required condition." Here, a variance is requested for condition (4). Thus, although the board in certain instances does have the authority to grant an appropriate variance (relating to conditions (3) or (6)) for the portion of the ]ot on which the townhouses would be located, the board does not have the authority to pernvt a lot split and grant a variance from the minimum standards for the lot on 5 Crocus Hi11(condition 4). The zoning code is clear on this point, and the board is without authority to take the requested action. St Pnul • Minneapal�s • Dermer • San Rnmon • Wrs;hington, D.0 . DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROF=_SSIOS aL ASSOCIA:!OC City of Saint Paul Boazd ofZoning Appeals December 14, 1998 Page 2 The Proposed Variance for 5 Crocus Hill q9- 1 '' - As indicated above, the board does not have the authority to grant a variance from the lot split requirements of Section 67.304. However, even if the board did have the authority to grant a variance, the request by Mendota Homes does not meet the criteria for granting a variance. The criteria for granting a variance are set forth in Section 64.203 and are as follows: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions ofthe code; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner; 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 Saint Paul; 4. The proposed vaziance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding azea; 5. The variance, if granted, would not pemut any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning classification of the property; and 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Upon proper consideration, it is clear that the cunent request does not meet most, if not all, of the criteria set forth above. It is ow opinion that the staff has misconstrued the first criteria relating to the reasonabie use of the property. Currently, the "property" consists of one lot with a single family residence. There is no question that for the past several decades the property has been put to a reasonable use. The variance criteria aze meant to apply to situations in which the property is not cunently in use or would not continue with the ea-isting use. It is certainly not unusual for separate areas of a parcel to have two or more zoning classifications. The law and sensible land use planning have never recognized that the landowner has an absolute right to make multiple uses of a single parcel if the uses conflict with setback requirements and other land use constraints. The staff and the developer are erroneously DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFE55.0] \L d5iOC14T:0] City of Saint Paul Board ofZoning Appeals December 14, 1998 Page 3 q � - � a' _ concluding that a landowner is entitled to make full use of each separately zoned area. That is not the law. Instead, the property, which is currently the single lot, is in fact being put to a"reasonable use" and the applicant fails to meet even this threshold criteria. In addition, the landowner fails to meet many of the other criteria for granting a variance. For example, there is no "plight of the landowner." Ow understanding is that this process is being driven by a developer, and not by Mr. and Mrs. Bizanz, who aze in fact the "landowners." In fact, it appears that the Bizanz do not really support this proposal but feel bound not to voice opposition. However, the Bizanz have no "plight" and are currendy living in the house located on 5 Crocus Hill. Similarly, correspondence has already been submitted to the board regarding traffic and safety concerns of the proposed development, along with serious concerns regarding property values and changing the character of the neighborhood. The cunent proposal has multiple problems that cannot be addressed in a meeting called upon minimum notice. Finally, it is clear that the primaty reason for requesting the variance is to increase the value or income potential for the lot located at 5 Crocus Hill. Because there is already an existing home on the property and no cunent intention to demolish the home, the only reason to sell the bottom portion ofthe lot and build townhomes is to produce income. The entire spirit behind the current request is contrary to the rationale behind granting variances. This is simply a way to make money, and not an effort to make a reasonable use of a lot which for years has been used as a single family residence. The Townhouse Development If this body grants the requested variance, the city will lose most of its control over the newly created lot. Because the lot will be in an RM-2 zone, if the city grants the variance, the developer will then claim that the city's action gives him an absolute right to build townhomes on the new lot. The city will have much less leverage in reviewing the plan and will have much less opportunity to provide input and make changes in any plan. It is a mistake to grant a variance and create a new lot without considering a detailed plan for future construction. However, the developer has not supplied a site plan and other details regarding the project. Serious issues remain regarding traffic on Grand Avenue, the number of uzuts involved, pazking, the location and extent of what will undoubtedly be a massive and potentially unsightly retaimng wall, fences, landscaping, and screening. The city should not even consider the current plan without a more detailed site plan and proposal. The city owes its citizens a more thoughtfui review. In addition, Section b1.101 of the zoning code provides that townhouse developments must have a nunimum 25 foot yard setback and that the structure cannot occupy more than 30% of the lot. The developer has already made it clear that he will seek further variances from these criteria. The proposed development would be on an extremely steep slope, but no plan has been submitted DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFE55[O\ 4L 4550C�dTIO] City of Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals December 14, 1998 Page 4 °t°I-1� regarding how the site will be developed. In other words, nothing about this project meets the cunent zoning code. In addition, if the lot split is approved, under Section 61.101 the developer may choose to submit a revised plan for a 5 story structure, 50 feet in height. Once the variance for the lot split is granting, the city loses control. The city should require the developer to seek all necessary variances at one time in order to avoid piecemeal review that unduly constrains the rights and obligations of the city. For these reasons and for the reasons contained in previous correspondence from my clients to the city, Mr. and Nlrs. D' Aquila request that the city deny the current application. Yours ' erely, obert�ey RGH/rma cc: James and Bonnie D'Aquila 946402 ,, 17 SAT 08:48 F.�1S 612225�19�11 �; � '-; :%� >': � D'AQUILA 6 Cracus hiill St. Paul, MN 55102 (69 2) 225-1313 December13,1998 Mr. John Hardwick Board of Zaning Appeals 350 Saint Peter Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55902 RE: Zoning File Number 98-307 Dear Mr. Hardwick and Members of the BZA: This letter raises further reasons why the application far Subdivision File No. 98- 30� must be summarily rejected. The proposed action raises serious proceduCal problems and is not consistent with zaning requirements. This application is in effect a rezoning done through the grant of an easement and a variance procedure. ShouEd the City grant the variance and allow the property to be subdivided, a portion af an R-2 (residential} parcel wil( be used through a lot line change and easement for purposes of satisfying the development requirements of a RM-2 (multifamily) parcel. As a resulf ofi this incorrect process, no mechanism or procedure is being foilowed which would protect the rights, welfare, health, safety, marais, comfort and established properfy values of th� adjacent properties. Given the fact that the net result of the easement and the variance is a rezoning, an application for rezoning is the apprapriate procedure. 2. The request for variance is based sale[y on a desire to increase the value of the parcel of land. The variance allows the developer a setback of less than city code, thus increasing the buildable pad and the density of the proposed property. The property can be developed for its intended purpose without the variance but it wou[d not be able to acaommodate the number of townhomes which Mendota Homes has proposed thus decreasing the value of fhe property to Mendota Homes and Mr. Parranto. at9-1Z� r.� � � , i�,�xz: as saT os: as F'.�.z sizzzs.�a.�i � ooz q9 -�a'}- 3. The proposed subdivision and development plan land lo�ks a subdividable and developahle parcel of land whioh we awn. Our properfy could also be subdivided consistent vrith zoning regulations. Howevef, the proposed project on 5 crocus Flill would land lock my sub- dividabie parcel. Who is considering aur rights of access and our righfs to subdivide our praperty? 4. Tha City has not adequately addressed the neighborhaod's safety concems. No s#udy of traffic in the afFected area has been completed so it is impossible to state that the proposad variance (and the possible administrative appraval of the development) is in keeping with the heaith, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of fhe inhabitants of fhe City oF St. Paui. This is especially troublesome since the tfaffiC pattems on Grand and Lincoin Avenues has changed dramaticaify since the parcel was rezoned RM-2 in 9 975. The City is required to adequately study and address these issues prior to any variance and subdivision. 5_ No plan adequately addresses the substantial development prab[ems propased hy the steep s[ope of the praperty. Newly created lots must allow for a minimum setback af forty faet fCOm the top af biuff lines 2nd shali avoid the placement of structures on 18 percant slapes ar sEe2per. This project vi�lates bofh provisions. 6. No analysis as to the appropriateness of the lot split has been estab[ished. Ad-hoc incremental development which relies salely on existing zoning is not in the best interest of the citizens of the City of St. Pauf. Prior to any acfion on the property at 5 Cracus Hill, the City must establish a well thought out development p(an for the Crocus Hiii bluff (including our property and access to such}. The arsa was rezoned nearly 25 years ago and the City must address changes wf�ich have occurred since the original zoning. 7. No analysis has been pertormed to ascerta"sn whether or not the proposed develapment will alter the surrounding area or unreasona6ly diminish the esfablished property va[Ues wlthilt the surzounding area. 8. No site plan has been established. 7he City Zoning Code requires fhat a site plan be reviewed prior to the approval of any variances. Such an approach is logical and consistent with the protectian of the rights of the neighbors adjacent to the property. The Zoning Board of Appeals is nof in a posifion to address all aspects and effects of fhe variance without a site plan review. 9. No anticipated visiEor parking. According to praliminary plans, Mendota Homes has nat leit space for visitor parkirtg within the site boundaries_ ,�i��i2ias SAT 08:49 F:LT 6122254a�11 �oas qq-��- The plans call for 2Q garage stalis each with garage doors. The lack of on-site visitor parking pufs further pressure on an already congested and unsafe area and compiicates the safe€y af ingress and egress fram the property. 10. Contra[ of a singie-family property to block possible objections to multi-family develapment. In selling 5 Crocus Hill ta the Bisanz, Richard Parranto (the option holder on the subject RM-2 parcei) precluded tha Bisanz from objecting to any development on the RM-2 parcel. Thus, Mr. Parranto maintains controf over the single-family parce{ as it relates to this issue. The control of a single famiiy parcel solely to minimize the objecfion of tha deve(opment of an aitemafively zoned adjacent property is nat cansisfent with the procedures established in St. Paul Zoning Codes. Again, due to the facts presented herein as well as under separate cover, we respectfully request that the request for variance and subdivision be rejected. Sincerely, ��Va� aG� �l � �v�-�,�`�i� James and Bonn e D'Aquila cc: 7he Honorabie Mayor Norm Coleman The Hnnorable Councilman Chris Goleman IVlendota Homes Mr. and Mrs. Robert Bisanz