The URL can be used to link to this page

97-1302Cpuncil File # Q�_ 13O •'�. Green Sheet # �0� � � RESOLUTIOAI Presented By Referred To 2 VJI�REAS, Brigitte Bachmeier, made application to the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning 3 Appeals for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code 4 for property located at 459 Portland Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and legally described as 5 Property Identification Number 012823240260 and Property Identification Number 6 012823240261;and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WHEREAS, the purpose of the applicafion was to vary the standards of the Saint Paul Zoning Code to ailow parking within a required side yazd; and WHEREAS, the Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on Apri121, 1997, after having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, by its Resolution 97-061, adopted May 5, 1997, granting the variance application based upon the following findings and conclusions: The applicant established the driveway and parking space in 1989 pursuant to a permit issued by the Public Works Department. The applicant also received approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission for the driveway. For some reason, the applicant was not directed to consult with Zoning. The driveway is paued and has stone curbs as required for historical confornury. The pazking available in this driveway, as we11 as additional parking, is necessary for the use of the building as a three- family dwelling. 24 25 2. The applicant received approvals from all City agencies except 26 Zoning. There were several times during the various approval 27 processes where the appiicant should have been directed to Zoning. 28 The fact that she was not is a circumstance that she did not create. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 The desire to provide off-street parking that complies with Heritage Preservation guidelines is an keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA a a 4 5 6 7 8 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 5. GQ The surrounding property owners have been norified of the applicant's desire to convert the building to a triplex and have had an opportunity to express any concerns about the parking in question. The only comments received from the neighborhood have been that the e�sting pazking should remain and that additional pazking be provided. Since the driveway meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, there should be no adverse effect on the character of the sunounding area. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change the zoning classificarion of the property. The request for variance is not based prunarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. 9`l -�30�. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, William and Kathryn Babcock, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Board of Zoning Appeals, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the Board of Zoning Appeals; and WI�EREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205 through 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Pau1 City Council on August 25, 1997, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and VJfIEREA5, the Council, hauing heard the statements made, and hauing considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolu6on of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does hereby IZESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in this matter based upon the following fmdings of the Council: Having heard the public testimony and considered all the records and files in this matter, the Council finds no enor as to fact, finding or procedure on the part of the Board of Zoning Appeals, and that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts and incorporates as its own the findings of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals as set forth above; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, that the appeai of William and Kathryn Babcock be and is hereby denied; and °l°'t -13 oa. i 2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolufion to 3 VJilliam and Kathryn Babcock, the Zoning Aduiinistrator, the Plazming Commission and the 4 Boazd of Zoning Appeals. 5 Requested by Department o£: 3y: lppx , By: Form Approved by City Attorney BY: ��d/l��-. /�-1?-�'i7 Approved by Mayor £or Submission to Cossncil By: Adopted by Council: Date �__ �_ �{_9'1 Adoption Certified by Council SecretaYy GREEN SHEET x�oy nna��n October 29�1997 Consent TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES Finalizing City Council aetion taken August 27, 1997 denying ihe appeal of William and Kathryn Babcock to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting a variance to allow parldng within a required side yazd to continue at 459 Portland Avenue. PIANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMI7TEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMIS: �,�,�� U ��.w. _ �,n� ❑ �p.w� swxaa.amvr.�sm� ❑ rtuxw�s�c.a�cero �.wvaeron�ssaawn ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Hes mis aersoMrm ever wnAced under a canVact for fhic departmeM't YES NO .Flas this P��m ever been a d7Y empbyce? YES NO Doestt�is Pe�n�T�m D� e sldU twt namalNP�eessetl bY �Y cwrent ci�l emPbYee? YES NO Is mia pcvsoNfiim a ta.yetea venda� � YES NO �I� -i3oa. No sa74a � �07AL AMOUM OF TRANSACTION t CO37/REVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCIE ONq YE3 NO LNDIN6 SOURGE ACTNRY NlAA86R INMICInL QJFORAaiION (EXPlA1N1 OFFICE OF '['I� CITY ATTORN&Y rega�rk c;ryanomey l l � `�C�- CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colem�m, Mayo> Civil Divisiorz 400 Ciry HaZl I S FPest Kellogg BZvd. Saim Paul, M'uuresota 55702 Tekphoree: 67Z 266-8710 Facsimile: 612 298-5619 October 20, 1997 Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Ha11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal of William and Katku•yi1 Babcock of Board of Zoning Appeals File 47-137 Dear Ms. Anderson: Enclosed please find a signed resolution moralizing the decision of the City Council in the above-entitled matter. Tlus matter should be piaced on the City Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, � G,/�� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney cc: John Hardwick, LIEP �"��.yw ..�vv--._: �.:.., . �� . � _ `e, tvJ� `�t'1- t 3 n a.. �- TO: lir. 3ohn Hardt�rick Board of Zoning Appeals 350 Saint Peter Street Suite 300 Lowry Professional Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 From: Rilliam A. fi Aathrpa K. BaY�cock 453 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 phone: (612) 222�4636 Re: June 24 1997, St. Paul City Council Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting a variance to allow parking within a required side yard Date: Sune 10, 1997 Dear Mr. Hardwick: Jerry McInerny has informed me that it will be possible to' change the date of this appeal to August 27, 1997. He asked me to contact you in writing to make this change. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, - � �. �� CTTY OF SAINT PALIL Norm Colemars, Mayor May 27,1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LiC" �xv[R°N'�rr Nan Anderson Ro6ers Kuskr, l City CounCil Rese3tCh OffiCe Room 310 City Hall 9.� _ ��p � IAARY PRO£ESS{ONAL Tekphone: 6t2-266-4090 BUIIDING Facsimile: 612-266-9094 S'dte.?00 672-2669124 350 St. Paer Street Saint Pnu[, Minnuota SSIO2-I510 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday June 11, 1997 for the following appeal of a Boazd of Zoning Appeals decision: Appellant: File Number: Purpose: Address: I,egal Description: Ptevious Aetion: � William & Kathryn Babcock 97-137 Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting a variance in order to allow puking within a required side yazd to continue. 459 Portland Ave PIN's 012823240260 & 012823240261 Distriet 8 took no position on this matter Staff recommended approval. Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Granted the request on a vote of 5-2. My un rstanding is that this public hearing tequest will appear on the agenda for the 3une , 1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-9082 if you have any questions. S c rely, � � hn Hazdwick - oning Technician cc: Council Member Blakey xarr� oF ru s Lica Enxsrc - �; The Saipt Paut City Cauncff�will conducY a public hearuig ea Wedsesilap. Jvne�25, 1997 (rescheduled from June 11J aG4:30�p.m. in fhe City`�ovne�7 Chambers, Thivd k7oor City Hall-COUrt House, to consider the appeal nf W3fliam�& .Kathryn Babcock to a decisioa o£ theBoazd of Zoning Appeals granUnga-varianse Eo allow pazking within a required side yard to continue at 459 Portland,Aveaue- Dated: May 29, 199? - - - � - �. � . � ' PtANCY fiNDERSON � . . - "., - . - . - - � , - AssisZant C3ty Gouncii Secretary . , " � - - _ _ -t.�ne 7,:1987r . - _- _� � � APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Econo»ric Development Zoning Section II00 City Hall Anne�c 25 West Founh Street Saint Paul, MIV SSIO2 266-6589 APPELIANT PROPERTY LOCATION Name W<<l�am ari.� {.(�-t'Krvr,n �-z-lo.ti-(C Address ' t�oRTURl�P s�ve City S�. St.M� Zip ss�oz Daytime phone Zoning File �'�qa-oc.�t��fsq t'�c�i'land Address(Location �I�q �og.r�.flNS Av� i S� • aAv� Y�l �f TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeai to the: (�Board ofi Zoning Appeais ❑ City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section Z� S, Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the o� Maw S ��1q 1 (date of d isio ) �� File number:__ _ �_►�� I GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. See q f5J21!97aoaa,25:3:rFM 4u8� V�tI�;;Cc Ci;��i; Attach additional sheef if necessary) .�gp i . pt: ApplicanYs signature /. %��:��`*' Date �J�Z�/��Cify agent William A. & Itathrpn h! 453 Portiand Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota phone: (612) 222-4636 May 22, 1937 Babcock 55IO2 Mr. John Hardwick Board of Zoning Appeals 350 5aint Peter Street Suite 300 Lowry-Professional Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Mr. Hardwick: This appiication is to appeal the decision Zoning Appeals to qrant a variance for 459 to allow a parked car in the side yard. of the Board of Portland Avenue We feel that the BZA, in granting this variance, has over- looked the apparent illegality of the driveway itself. The first request in 1988 for a"curb cut" was denied by the £ull HPC (one abstention). Donald Bachmeier never appealed this decision to the City Council. When the "Certificate of Approval for Minor F7ork" was issued a year later (according to HPC records?, circumstances at 459 Portland Avenue were not significantly different than they were in 1988. Overlooking a variance in I989 meant that there was no public meeting held to discuss this alteration to the district -- an alteration that the full HPC had found significant when it denied this curb cut in 1988. It is nat an unreasonable interpretation to say Ehat the driveway does require HPC approval. The staff report in 1988 illustrates that HPC approval is necessary because it is a materiai change to a historic district. A curb cut re- quires a permit from public works and thus from HPC. Further, the May 5 1997 decision of the BZA does not address the negative impact on the neighboring property at 453 Port- 2and Avenue. This includes, water runoff, plowed snow, ex- haust, noise, and the close proximity of parked cars to the neighbor's house. °I� -1� o �--• HARDWICK -- 2 May 21, 1997 As the driveway must also function as the only access for the third floor owners (who are forced to squeeze between the parked cars and the side o£ the house) cars are being parked oloser to the property line than before. Brigitte Bachmeier has told us that her car will be the only vehicle to park in the driveway at 459 Portland Avenue. She has o£fered to put us in touch with a drainage expert, erect a small fence, and plant some low shrubs (hosta}. No details of this were discussed, as such alterations would not significantly change the situation. Foliowing the recent conversion of the third floor into a condominium, there is a plan by the third-floor owners to add parking in the back yard. The owner o£ the third-£loor condo, Nei1 Lagos, has informed us that he has offered to provide a parking space to Mrs. Bachmeier when he adds back- yard parking. This seems to be a prudent and feasible alternative which wili be in keeping with the Historic Dis- trict guidelines and the vote of the fuil HPC in 1988. Additionally, an enlargement to the qarage door on Mrs. Bachmeier's existing garage wauid allow easier access for two cars, in a structure that already houses two automobiles. We request that Mrs. Bachmeier be able to use the driveway oni until the plan of parking in the backyard is realized (sometime next year, or prior to the sale of her house, whichever comes first). Locating all the parking for the 459 structure in the backyard seems a prudent and feasible alternative, which will be in keeping with historic distriat guidelines. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours sincerely, G'!/ ��us�� CJ l�� 1 Recised copy - May 20, 1997 To whom it may concern, The following is in effort to clarify our position regarding the e�sring driveway Iocated at 459 Pordand Ace., St. Paul, M1V. First, we �could like to say that we fully support Brigitta Bachmeie�'s desire to add a third unit to our building. If this reqnires adding additional allep access parking we would not be opposed. Second, in regards to the esisting street access drive�uay, it is our position that although cce �uouid rather not have ic, it was in e�istence when we purchased our unit Our primarp concern is that we ha�e adequate access, especiallp in the winter, to and from our unit entrance located at the side of rhe house. T'hird, Re �vould Iike to clarify our position regarding a possible brick driceway. In preti concersions we have espressed a desire to convert this driveway into a brick a�all� or patio, but not a brick dri�ecvay. F'inally; we �vould like to state that we are friends and neighbors to both the Bachmeier's and the Babcack's and we would like to remain neutral in regards to this issue. However, as previously mentioned, we are concerned �vith the access to and from our unit er.u�ance. If the conversion of the street entrance dricewap to a wall�-way or patio is not to be under taken then a separare �=ralkcvay will need to be added to ensure that we have adequate access l Sincere[y, ` � %/ ` /p1 / �, ✓� � Neal Lagos �nd Susan Hilt (Homeowners, �t�A. Dorsey Condominiums - 457/459 Port]and Ave.) cc: BrigitLa Bachmeier, Biii and Iiathryn Babcock, I.ou Sadheimer �, °11-��oi MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COIJNCIL CHAMBE125, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAi1L, MINNESOTA, APRII, 21, 1997 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Scherman, Tully and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Synstegaazd of the Office of License, Inspecfion, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT None The meeting was chaired by 3oyce Maddox, Chair. BRIGIT"1'E BACHMEIER (#97-061) - 459 PORTLAND AVENLTE: A variance to allow pazking within a required side yard. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation £or approval. Several letters were received in support regazding the variance request. One letter was submitted in opposition. Brigitte Bachmeier, 459 Portland-Avenoe, stated that her neighbor phoned her last night stating that she is not happy with the driveway next to her home. She stated that if she continued the driveway into a garage it would take away more green space. Her driveway was already existing when her neighbor bought her home. Mr. Alton asked if the driveway in question ever went into a gazage in the back yazd. Ms. Baci�meier reQlied no. Lou Sudheimer, 439 Portland Avenue, Acting Consultant for Ms. Bachmeier, stated that at the last public hearing a suggestion was made encowaging Ms. Bachmeier to extend the driveway back into the gazage which would have made it easier for the Board to approve. Kafluyn Babcock, 453 Portland Avenue, passed azound current pichues of the site to the Boazd. She stated that her properry abuts the applicant's. She read a letter to the Boazd that she submitted in opposition stating that they are offering to pay one-half of the cost of dismanding, removal, necessary curb repair and reseeding. She stated that her main concem is the safety of her young child and the envuonmentai effects on her home and the historic neighborhood. She stated that the driveway is only a few feet &om her home and sits on the properry line between the homes. Her daughter's playroom and beclroom abut the driveway and carbon monoxide fumes fiiter into their home. The close proximity of the driveway poses a safety problem should their daughter venture onto the adjouung property. Water drains from the driveway into their yard and basement and no landscaping hides the view of parked cazs and asphalt. It is a detriment to the visual quality of the district. The driveway violates the HPC Guidelines as was noted in 1988 when the case was fust heard. The full HPC Boazd denied this case in 1988 and one yeaz later it was granted by staff only and not File #97-061 Page Two revie�ved by the full HPC Boazd. Parking is an issue but an additionai garage is being planned for the back yazd which will legally meet the need for off-street pazldng. She cited secrions in the Legislative Code wlrich state that the driveway violaYes the design guidelines for their district. She also cited a section from the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. She stated she wonld leke to work something out with Ms. Bachmeier that can be beneficiat for both of them. Mr. Wilson asked Ms. Bachmeier if the driveway was in existence prior to 1984? Ms. Bachmeier replied no, the driveway was constructed in 1989. Mr. Sudheimer stated that the historic curb cut was originatly from across the street even though that block also has an alIey that serves it. He stated that there aze historical precedence for ttus. The new condowinium owner and Ms. Bachmeier have been discussing improving the appearance of the driveway with brick Perhaps Ms. Babcock's offer to split costs might be helpful in resolving to beauti£y the driveway although it would still be a&ont yazd pazking area. Mr. Alton asked what the Babcock's side yazd setback is. Mr. Sadheimer stated he be&eves iY is 8 to 10 feet Mr. Bachmeier stated that the condominium owner has been remodeling the unit and lately many deliveries have been made along with a dumpster that is curtently in the driveway. Mr. Sudheimer stated fhat when the Babcock's chose to buy their home this driveway was already in daily use. Ms. Maddox asked Mr. Aardwick what the HPC's current decision was on the driveway. Mr. Hazdwick stated he spoke with the HPC staff person and the"u understanding is that since the HPC approved the matter back in 2989 there is no recourse for staff or the HPC to review the matter. In 1989 there were different policies regazding the consideration of minor and major changes. In 1989 this driveway was oonsidered a minor request Ms. Bogen pointed out that the HPC approved the driveway buY iL dcesn't say that they approved parking in ihat driveway. Mr. Hardwick replied that the HPC dcesn't have the authority to approve parking. Mr. Alton stated that the applicant obtained a permit from PubIic Works, approval &om HPC sta� consent of fhe neighbor and the driveway plan was not leading to a gazage. In this cucumstance the driveway wasn't going anywhere so the only logical reason was the use for parking. Ms. Bogen quesrioned the legality of the driveway regazding the water runoff onto the Babcock's property. Mr. Hazdwick stated that there aze regulations in the State Building Code about changing the grade for construction purposes. A building permit isn't required for a driveway and a grading pemut is issued only if the grade will change inore than 6 inches so a gading permit was not required. However, there is a section in the building code requirements that states that a grade may not be changed to direct flow onto adjoining property. EIe stated that he assumes that the grade of the driveway was not changed. °l � -�� n �--- File #97-061 Page Three Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Hazdwick if he had spoke to Ms. Babcock. Mr. Hudwick replied that he spoke with Ms. Babcock for the f�st time today and he encouraged her to speak with Ms. Bachmeier to fiarther discuss some possible compromises. He stated that the applicant and Ms. Babcock haven't had an oppomuuty to discuss this thoroughly. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Donohue moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6. Mr. Alton seconded the motion Mr. Wilson added a friendly amendment to the motion that the neighbors continue the'u discussion to resolving the issues. Mr. Donohue stated that possibly continuing the matter may be an option to allow the neighbors to come to an agregment. Mr. Alton stated that the Board has received no indication that the parties would like to continue the matter. Mr. Tully amended the motion to add a condition that the applicant take caze of the slope of the driveway so that water runoff dcesn't occur and obscwe the driveway under the HPC Guidelines. Mr. Donohue stated he accepts Mr. Tully's friendly amendment. Mr. Alton stated that although shrubs cou]d be put in, the fact remains thai the driveway gces right up to the properiy line. Mr. Wamer stated that there are conditions that aze being proposed for the friendly amendment to initiate negotiations to elaninate the alleged drainage problem. The neighbor is free to bring whatever acfion they might choose against the applicant conceming that. There aze a host of legal theories they can groceed on. Although that is a reasonable condition to place on the motion, the problem is how you aze going to structure it? You are asldng them to resolve a drainage problem but you need to be precise regarding the time structure in resolving that. In respect to landscaping, that is also an acceptable condition but he stated he is not familiaz with the regutations regarding site planing, etc. Mr. Hazdwick stated that Mt. Alton made a good point in that the neighbor hasn't voiced any wiliingness to accept the resolution of this matter through compromise. He stated that the he had merely made those suggestions to Ms. Babcock and he hasn't had a chance to discuss those issues with Ms. Bachmeier. If the Boazd wants to put landscaping as a condition upon the apgroval of the variance, since the driveway is paved right up to the properiy line, the landscaping would have to be on the neighboring property. If the Board adds landscaping as a condition and Ms. Babcock dcesn't agree to it that would put Ms. Bachmeier in a predicament. Regazding the �vater runoff, he stated that he dcesn't have any first-hand lmowledge that the drainage problem was caused by the insfallation of the driveway. As Mr. Warner pointed out, there is legal recourse for Ms. Babcock regazding this issue. File #97-061 Page Fow The motion failed on a roll call vote of 3 to 4(Tully, Bogen, Wilson, Maddox). Mr. Wilson questioned the ocvnership of the curb rutming along side of the driveway. He asked if it is part of the historic curb cut that was put in from across the street? Mr. Hazdwick stated he assumes that Ms. Bachmeier owns the curb. Mr. WiIson stated that believing the curbing came from across the street and was installed at the Bachmeier's request, he moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6 subject to the condidon that the curbing ba eYtended the length of the driveway to prevent any runoff onto the neighboring property. Mr. Alton seconded the motion. Mr. Alton stated that extending the curbing may alleviate the concern of chiidren playing in the area and pose as a barrier. Mr. Alton asked if any pazking would have to occur beyond the &ont of the building because t}us is a side yard setback request. Mr. Hazdwick replied yes, this heazing is for parldng in a required side yard �vhich differs from pazt:ing in a required front yard. Mr. Tully asked if that will satisfy the parking requirements for the triplex? Mr. Aazdwick replied that in granting the variances to aIlow a triplex the BZA requ'ued a condition that additional off-street pazking be provided in the back yazd. This could be a garage or a pazldng pad. Mr. Wamer stated it is appropriate to take into consideration the impact in granting a variance would have on adjoining properly owners. The testimoiry heazd today was from the neighboring properiy owner who said that she has drainage problems. As Mr. Hard�rick pointed out, there is no hazd lrnowledge thaY there is a drainage probtem. That is not to diminish what the neighbor said, staff just found oat aboat her ooncem on very short notice so there was no way for staff to investigate that. Staff dcesn't Imow if attaching a condition to the variance that a new curb be aligned to eliminate the drainage problem will solve the alleged problem. Possibty regrading will eliminate it but the difficulty lies in being assured that there is a factual basis for making that condifion and lmowing that condition will solve the anderlying drainage problem He staYe@ that he dcesn't believe staff and the Boazd have enouglt informarion to do that. The adjoining property owner has a separate legal remedy available at their disposal to remedy the drainage problem if it indced exists. ff the idea of the curb is to provide a safety buffer, that wotild be an appropriate consideraUon but to not limit it to solving an alleged drainage problem. Mr. Wilson withdrew his motion. Ms. Bogen moved to deny the variance based on findings 1, 3 and 4. She stated that Finding #1 should be changed to say that the property can be put to a reasonable use. There is no need £or the driveway on the side of the house. Finding #3 should be changed to say that the proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code ..." Finding #4 should be changed to read that the variance will alter the essential chazacter of ihe surrounding azea ..." The tripl� wili have adequate parldng when the garage is built 4n the back. Mr. Tully seconded the motion. Mr. Tnlly asked how long the HPC decisions are in eft'ect Mr. Hazdwick replied that once a project is established the HPC's approval is legal until something is done to change it. R� - ►�o�. Fila #97-061 Page Five Ms. Bogen pointed out that when the HPC approved this, they approved it as a duplex and now it is being converted into a triplex. The Board has made additional conditions in parldng in the back yazd. The only need for pazking in the side yard is for convenience. Mr. Donohue suggested that rather than deny tivs variance the Board should continue the matter and allow the neighbors to come to a compromise. Mr. Donohue moved to continue the matter. Mr. Scherman seconded the motion. Mr. Tully asked if the Boazd would then be beyond the 60-day deadline? Mr. Wamer replied that the Board couid continue the matter until the next meeting and be within the 60-day deadline. Mr. Alton stated that the Board has no indication that it will be beneficial to the parties to continue the matter. The neighbor gave a generous offer to pay for half of the removal of the driveway but he doubts that the neig�bor would pay for letting the driveway stay. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 2(Tully, Bogen). Ms. Maddox stated that the motion to deny the variance request continues until the May 5, 1997, hearing at which time it will be voted on. Ms. Maddox urged Ms. Bachmeier and Ms. Babcock to contact Mr. Hazdwick prior to the May 5 hearing date. 3u 'tted b�� l hn Hardwick , p oved by: n / i 1 v � hn Tully, Secretary CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER: 9�-o6i DATE May 5, 1997 WI�REAS, BRIGETTE BACHMEIER has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 62.104 (11) of Yhe Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the continued use of pazking within a required side yard in the zoning disYrict at 459 PORTLAND AVE; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 04/21/97 and OS/OS/97, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64205 of the Legislative Code; and WE�REAS, the Saint Paui Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the pub&c hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: The property in quesYion cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant established the driveway and parking space in 1989 pursuant to a pernut issued by the Public Works Department. The applicant also received approval fzom the Heritage Preservation Commission for Yhe driveway. For some reason the applicant was not directed to consult with zoning. The driveway is paved aad has stone curbs as requ'ued for historical conformity. The parking available in this driveway, as well as additional parking, is necessary for the use of the building as a three-family dwelling. 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 applicant received approvals from all City agencies except Zoning. There were several times during the various approval processes where the applicant should have been directed to Zoning. The fact that she was not is a circumstance that she did not create. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the heaith, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paut. The desire Yo provide off-street pazldng that complies with Heritage Preservation guideline is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate suppIy of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding area or unreasonabIy diminish established property values within the surrounding azea. q1 — 13 0 �. Ffle #9?-061 Page Two The sunounding property owners have been notified of the applicant's desire to convert the bu�lding to a tri-plex and have had an opportunity to express any concerns about the parking in question. The only comments received from the neighborhood have been that the existing parking should remain and that additional parking be provided. Since the driveway meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, there should be no adverse effect on the character of the surrounding azea. 5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not pemutted 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 class�fication of the property. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change the zoning classification of the property. 6. Th� request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. NOW, TF�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 62.104 (I 1) be hereby waived to allow to allow parking within a required side yard on property located at 459 PORTLA�iD AVENUE and legally described as PINs 012823240260 and 012823240261; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. MOVED BY: ntton SECONDED BY: scherman IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: a MASLED: May 6,1997 TIME LIMIT: � No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erec6on or alteration of a building or off-street parldng facility shali be valid for a period longer than one year, uniess 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 permi� The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an eztension not to eaceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. Fite #97-061 Page Three APPEAL Decisions of tfie Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the �ty Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buitding permifs shall not be issued after an appeat has been filed. If perrtuts have been issued before an appeal has been Fled, theu the permits are suspended and construcfion shall cease untit the City Councit has made a f nal detenvination of the appeal. CERTTFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoaing Appeals for the Gty of Saint Paul, Minnesofa, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and fmd tfie sarae to be a true and conecY copy of said orig'u�,al and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of We Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeYing held on Apri121,1997, and May 5,1997, and on record in the Qffice of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St Peter Street, Saint Paul, ' Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF Z0IVING APPEALS Sue Synstegaard Secretary to the Board 9'1 - 1 � a �-- To: Mr. John 4{ardwick Board of Zoning Appeais 350 Saint Peter Street � Suite 300 � Lowry Professional Building Saint Paul, Minnespta 55102 � From: Wiltiam A. & Kathryn M. Babcock 453 Portland Avenue Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102 phone: (612) 222-4636 Re: May 5 Zoning Board of Appeais Meeting Date: May 2, 1997 We have attached a letter pertinent to the first agenda item on your Monday, May 5, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Also, please find enclosed ten {10) additional copies of this lettier for the members of the 8oard of Zoning Appeals and for the City Attorney. Please let us know if there is any other material that you might need. � Willia�a A. & Katfiryn M. 453 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota phone: (612) 222-4638 May 2, 1997 Babcock 55102 Mr. John Hardwick Board oY Zoning Appeals 350 Saint Peter Street Suite 300 Lowry Professional Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Bear Mr. Hardwick: At the request of the Board of Zoning Appeals, we have Yur- ther discussed the side-yard parking variance with our neighbor, &rigitte Bachmeier. Mrs. Bachmeier has told us that her car will he the onl.v vehicle to park in the driveway at 459 Portland Avenue. She has offereci to put us in touch with a drainage expert, erect a small Yence, and plant some low shrubs (hosta). vo details of fihis were discussed, as it would not significant- ly alter the situation. We suggested that Mrs. Bachmeier be able to use the driveway only until the plan of parking in the backyard is realized (somefime next year, or prior ta the sale of her house). Locating all the parking for the 459 structure in the back- yard seems a prudent and feasible atiernative, which will be in keeping with historic district guidelines. These guidelines will be tested again later this month by the full Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) when it reviews two similar curb-cut requests for Summit Avenue., It is notable that Donald Bachmeier never appealed to the City Council after the HPC denied curb cuts in 1988. Also (aecording to HPC records), when the "Certificate of Ap- proval for Minor Work" was issued a year later, circum- stances at 459 Portland Avenue were not significantly dif- ferent than Yhey wece in 2988. This "Minor 11'ork" certifi- cate did not obviafe fhe need.fo meef zoning codes (specifi- cally parking a car in a small side yard). a� - «o �.. ZONING APPEALS -- 2 i�tay 2, 1997 The public process in Saint Paul's Historic District has been key since the District's inception. Overlooking a var- iance in 1989 meant that there was no public meeting held to discuss this aiteration to the district -- an alteration that the Yull HPC had found significant mhen it denied this curb cut in 1988. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours sincerely, �� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 1. APPLICANT: BRIGITTE BACFIIvIEIER 2. CLASSIFICATION: Minor Variance 3. LOCATION: 459 PORTLAND AVE. F7I.E # 97-061 DATE OF HEARING: OS/OS/97 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIN's 012823240260 and 012823240261 5. PLANNING DLSTRICT: 8 6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2, HPL ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 621Q4 (11) 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 04/03/97 BY: 7ohn Hardwick 8. DATE REC`EIVED: 03/20/97 DEADLINE FOR ACTTON: OS/19/97 A. PURPOSE: A variance to allow pazking within a required side yazd. B. ACTION REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the continued use of a pazking space within the required 15 foot side setback. C. SITE AND AREA CONDTI'IONS: Tlus is a 65 by 144 foot pazcel with alley access to a detached twacar garage in the rear yard. There is also a nonconforming parking space on the east side of the house. Surrounding Land Use: A miYture of single- and multiple-family housing. D. BACKGROUND: The applicant was ganted a tot size and density variance by the BZA in February of this year to convert the building into a three-family dwetling. At the public hearing it was noted that the parking space along side of the house was estabIished without zoning approval. The variances ganted for the conversion to a tri-plex were subject to the condition that the applicant resolve this illegal parking situarion. E. FINDINGS: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict. provisions of the code. ' ° I'? - 1 � o � File #97-061 Page Two The applicant established the driveway and parking space in 1989 pursuant to a pernut issued by the Public Works Department. The applicaut also received approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission for the driveway. For some reason the applicant was not directed to consult with zoning. The driveway is paved and has stone curbs as required for historical confomuty. The parking available in this driveway, as well as additional parking, is necessary for the use of the building as a three-family dwelling. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to ttus property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The applicant received approvals from all City agencies except Zoning. There were several times during the various approvai processes where the applicant should have been directed to Zoning. The fact that she was not is a circumstance that she did not create. 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. The desire to provide off-street parking that complies with Iieritage Preservation guideline 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 chazacter of the surrounding area or unreasonably dimuush established property values within the sunounding area. The surrounding property owners have been notified of the applicanYs desire to convert the building to a tri-plex and have had an oppornxnity to express any concerns about the parking in question. The only comments received from the neighborhood have been that the existing parking should remain and that additional parking be provided. Since the driveway meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, there should be no adverse effect on the character of the surrounding area. 5. The variance, if granted, would not pemut any use that is not pernutted 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, if granted, will not change the zoning classification of the property. F�e #97-06I Page Three 6. The request for variance is not based primariiy on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the pazcet of land. F. DISTRICT COITNCIL ItECOM1VIENDATION: Since District 8 recommended approval of the variance to convert this building to a tri-plex and reviewed the site plan at that time with a recommendation for approval, they decided that a fiuther review of this request would not be necessary. G. STAF'F RECONIlbiENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staffrecommends approval of the variance. a � . . �� ^ � � ,-o�L- APPLICATION FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE °I�-\3o�. �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL � O� Q�� 1 � A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER w�, SECTION /� 7 PARAGRAPH \/� : IS REQUESTED IN CONFORMITY WITH 7HE POWERS VESTED IN THE BOARD OF ZONING AP- �� PEALS 70 PERMiT THE C w� �� 'f o/ f� �/!{� Ci C I I.�( UP��GN PROPERTY l (]FSCRIRFO RFf OW_ �DA�IMCE�fELEPHONENO: Gv� ?�i� ZIPCODE �S� t. ProQerty interest of applica�t (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) C�wNP� '�-� �uNt�vi'N/N/ul� ��/•��Rll� 2. Name ot owner (if different) B. PropertyDescription: ADDRESS `�� U� ��fV` '�� 1. Legal description: LOT . BLOCK ��-�--�-�—�=� ADD. ^� 2. �otsize: loS" x /y3 °.;, U�pitx, r,�,r R7'- Z 3. PresentUse .4nnn�od/��is � presentZoningDist. . G. Reasons for Request: } � , t. Proposed use : ( � -1 E+� CL�/'_"' 2. What physicai characteristics of the property preve�t i[s being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? (topography, soil conditions, size arW shape of lot, etc.) / � / . �°� G lli�'r� (i �p,'/j,E 3. State the specific variation requested, giving distances where appropriate. +`�i s 1`s ar��c�rY��N is�k'r; ]�� v e Ro u�ts ��` �% a rvfr`ssjria .�PPnoc/a/ a� �N� y�� c�Nr�e - wr � 4. Expfain how your case conforms to each of the foUowing: ; a. That the strict appiication of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance wouid result in pecuiiar ; or exceptional practical difficuities, or exceptional undue hardships. � ' .Sr� !��, � �� -�--- �i.�,� � � , b. That the granting of a variance wi11 -�� - rwt be a substantial detriment to �e�i��A' pubiic good or a substantial impair- ��.,�, . ment of the intent and purpose of "�'"�` � the Zoning Ordinance. • 5 �'f lD �� t �,- � �� r7� � � � Signature� ,�n5" F �-� %'�I� c-i 2/95 RS ONLY -. �.- ".. . �••�_ ty3.:�- , t��.? £. R A � 0 �. 5t. Anthony Management, Inc. 439 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Mr. John Hardwick Zoning Technician Building Department G`ity of Saint Pavl 350 St. Peter, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102 March 19th, 1997 Re: 459 Portland Avenue -- Existing FrontJside Yard Driveway Approval Request Deaz Mr. Hardwick: As you most likely recall, Brigitte Bachmeier, is the condomirrium Declarant, and the occupant owner of Condominium unit #2 at 459 Portiand which encompasses the majority of the basement, first and second floors. The third floor condominium is unit #1 and is owned and occupied by another party. The W.A. Dorsey Condominium, at 459 Portland, was recently created as an expandable condominium with the intention of completing the basement rental unit which was begun by a previous owner, Accordingly, a zoning application was submitted to request transition from a duplex, two unit property ta a legal tri-pleg, tbree unit property. This approval was granted by the BZA. During this approval pracess it was discovered that the effisting driveway which was consfixucted in 1989 along the parcel's east property line from PorGland Avenue north through the front yard to between 459 and the house to the east, had somehow not received an o�cial approval from zoning. This is strange since it was thought that all the appropriate G`ity permits and approvals for the driveway had been applied for and obtained. The Building Department, Public Works for the curbcut and the HPC, all tbree did give their blessing ans approvals to Doanald Bachmeier, as has been verified from official G`ity records, (see attachments). Therefore, it is a mystery as to how come the zoning bureaucracy wasn't also informed and involved at that time? At Ms Bachmeier's appearance before the BZA, a11 parties agreed that she should re- apply for a zoning variance for the existing driveway as a separate matter. The purpose of this letter is to fulfill that obligation. Presently, there are 1.5 to two existing garage stall spaces, and two front driveway parl�ng spaces in use. The official Condominium Plat's site plan (enclosed previously) shows future provisions have been made for up to three more aIley-accessed parking stalls to be constructed in the future on the NE corner of the parcel in the back yard, (either garaged or hard-surfaced?. � a'l -13 0 �-- There have been no known complaints from any neighbors regarding the e�sting driveway from 1989 to present. As you know, recently, a substantial number of neighbors provided lettzrs of support to the G�ty endorsing and approving of Ms Bachmeier's request for conversion from a dupleg to a tri-plex, all of them were fully awaze of the e�sting driveway. It is particulazly significant, that the only inquiries received by staff in response to the recent rezoning actions' neighbor notification mailing specifically mentioned neighborhood concems that adequate off-street parl�ng be preserved, not eliminated. With respect to the BZA's 6-24-96 "required yard" parking request conditions: a. Re: Contanuous use since October of 1975? The owner applied to the City for and was granted permission to construct this driveway by Public Works, HPC and the Building Department in 1989. b. The assumed "hardship" in 1989 was apparently topography. The level of the rear yard is nearly 3' above the alley, and is bordered by a cement wall. c. Consent from nearby property owners within 10� feet. Ms Bachmeier just recently provided signatures from her neighbors as part of the recent rezoning process. No compiaints have been received regarding the existing driveway. d. The existang driveway is paved as required. If you require any additional information please feel free to contact me at 648-7718, or Brigitte Bachmeier directly at 225-0880. Sincerely, For: St. Anthony Management, Inc. Project Consultant : Louis C. Sudheimer 648-7718 . . .:...:�..� q �� . � =�-°-- N U C � � .� � N � N � ro .� .-i � .� 3 � �� '�� ' �� t�er�fidg� �'r�s��u�t��n CQmm�ss�or� . , ,,,. �`_`�i��-a� �k,--�.i----�------ -- F,!� � R R r A3'r?SS � s� ! 0 r'I' �CLv�� n,=. �� (E• �`� c:,. . r+ � v.J.. F.ny zFi2raticc3 ir�m t �is !an mus� �:. -- $�lp,'^uV$�� }' i11Q t;2R{ay�g iBS°(vai �t� , � � U � � � .� N N x N N •ri . d . � � U � � � m 3 N 7 •rl N � ro N N O LL O S� f�. Gmcic c�F c��`�.�zwn-,'tu � �O�VZ+[ 1�ti -��.,- r �� jlLC•.��- GVr�I�� '0 � .� reihsiz�ll;-�• i�.a�.� q�in�..do��<l cvrb cvi- �vr 'i�2 Pc�fi(s�•c1. � � � U C � U v .r � Ui U G N x U .� � � � CJC�:-vl ��'L\« � tC 7 �_.; , -b� r�e; _ � -��-- F--_. � .�..�� : � �. �.,�- 4 P�= ��-: � CITY OF SAINT PAUI HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR MlNOR WORK FILE NUMBER: 99s DATE: ADDRESS: HPC SITE/DISTAICT: APPLICANT: PHONE: STAFF: May 16, 1989 FILE „g, -�t� # °1�-170�- 459 Portland Avenue Hill District Donald Bachmeier 222-3298 Allan L. Torstenson � STTE DESCRIPTION: The Boyden-Dorsey house at 459 Portland Avenue is a Neoclassicai style residence constructed in 1901 and categorized as pivotal to the Historic Hili Heritage Preservation District. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to construct a new curb-cut on Porttand and a new driveway along the east side of his house. GUIDELII3E5 CITATIONS: 1. Section C. II. Garages and Parking of the Hill District Guidelines for Design Review states that, "If an alley is adjacent to the property, garages and parking shouid be located off of the alley." Driveway curb-cuts may be acceptable where aileys do not exist. 2. Section C. IX. Landscaping states that, "Granite curbs should be preserved." FINDING5 OF FACT: i. Because of the width and condition of the ailey at the back of the house, and because of the size and topography of the rear yard, providing for adequate off-street parking off of the aliey wouid be difficult and would result in loss of aimost all of the usable back yard open spaco. 2. The applicant will reinstall the historic granite curbing removed for the proposed new curb-cut to an abandoned driveway curb-cut across the street and reuse the curved granite curbing from the abandoned curb-cut aczoss ihe street for the proposed new curb-cut. '.Z d a. 3 � 9 � /�c.-, � 2 �- 2 . Ga c� C7Tj-/c2 �159 Portland Avenue St. Paul, MN 55102 April 17 19a9 Mr. Allan Torstenson, AICP Planner-in-Charge St. Paul Heritage Preservation Conmission 1100 City Hall Armex 25 W. Fourth Street St. Paut, MMt�II 55102 Dear Allen: �closed are drawings i7lustrating the driveway I would like to install at rrty residence located at 459 po�land Avenue. I am aware this installat3on varies fran the HPC guidelines and request your support in varying from the guidelines for the followir� reasons. 1) We wi.11 agr�ee to reinstall historic granite removed from our diveway to an abandoned driveway curb cut across the street. The net lineal footage of granite curb on our block would then be unchanged and an unsightly Lmcurbed boulevard would be enhanced at no expense to the city. 2) Our neighbor to the east most affected by the driveway dces not ob3ect. (see enclosed letter) 3) The driveway provides additonal off street parking. The existing structure of approxiamtely 9600 square feet has only a single car garage. 'Prrice a week we park 3/�+ of a block away and regularly carry groceries fr� a distance of 150 feet. ��-_��-' 4) Installing the drive from the alley would be difficult because of the following. The approximate 3 foot elevation cY�ar�ge from the alley. Zero lot line of structures and slabs beh3nd oi.m hane which restrict turning radius. Position of power pole at east property line. Fr�E � °l� - �30� N�. Allan Torstenson Apri1 17, 198g Page Two Al1ey paving briek has settled like tire ruts whi.ch is ent�nced in the wlnter by normal snow and ice rutting. We are located in middle of bloek which requires longest alley drive. The comb3nation of these issues has cost us thousands of dollars in auto repairs and significantly elevated stress. If there are any further questions please contact me. Sincerely, c �� - �� _ I�nald L. &�chmeier � �53 Partland Avenue St. Paul, 1�I 55103 April 18, 1989 Nm. Allan Torstenson, AICP Planner-3n-Charge St. Paul Heritage Preservation Comnission 1100 City Hall Annex 25 W. Fourth Street St. Paul., MiV 55102 Dear Mr. Torstenson: We have discussed the matter of Mr. Bachmeier's driveway 9nstallation and have decided to not ob�ect to th3.s proposal. Sincerely, Mentor C. Addicks Jr. ` , F� � F �� - � Q'? , I � O �. . . .i++Fa:.... .. .. .. LP. �i � � � '°� .� � m . i- � W S t � � k � S � �' A 0 �; � e � C W > O ti [ :u > �a c aF �a w O� F �� 0 vyH � I�I I�I�OI �t a0 � '1! » � . � Z 1 Q 3 �� o''s � lo� .I� Ju o a�o 1 � �� ; X�� ,. i m F W N 2 j � •fl � ra C�+-� p !t Z'4 �� y �1 I � � i d v �� V v � ti O �� I w ( i �f �� d G. N V a_ z � \/? 1 0 � r. � 0 _ �CZ � {�GI :� , ; ti��Cp ��. . O t�. i- 0� f �n �...� i O ��y.C.C t �, e y I r{s a F 6 W �� I I �" (� � � �� y/2 C++ C � V � . � � � � • � r '� ` � r �� . ti . � i i� \\c �Q . e� z � � i� `� cn '� m «. a 11 Vi o, < 5 �r ' � � `�! � ,.. o � � �v g ��, ` C� $ �� Y '� � E, I -� � M Y ` 1�.. O� � z W 2 J Q � C 0 d p � I' �CI `" � U�y c,' t�• �, '�� . � � 3 �, � I � il , a � „ d �-'- ' � 1 � � � U A I i ��.� A �� 3 i � �� ,��, y, .7 m � I r) !� I r.�if "'"•�w �� `� � O'p �� I �iI !. Ii �� eoys�� '" � :� o -- � d �i I. � �'; j I! � � � � �.;2_�� :a ' �� `�j I ` � �'. o�w:" +, 2�. � i� I '� � Y I II �_. U 23 y�� y XI� � K Q � , �� I (`'�� ]' ( y'� C � •�'� = � CJ � , I �I�a: �� yy�' ^ �t z y � � `� `�i f �!� � �i; C� •= i; ( �' • 5 �$ � `� j �..%. � 1 ! j��l_ - • 1-- � -- • --11 .a y� J ti �? � E �y :i � f I� ; L�� . r O�s4 �, K �. ,�<O C QLL � y V � ilr� � ! r�"�'.y Vy O ' ,,"',� .� /�I II S { W71; Q i } '� �,�'�' �'Y � � � ,�y H F� �� I z i �j � �; � v � � e � ; c F d ; [�{ II f I' . Vi �.5�.��' �. ; i � � � . � . . .:=:�.e��... �.. � _�.___=L� 3�'y^�Z�?'� t €. � ;a i f � � � ( ��i. 31 I i � � , --��}� � � � `'�:��•-:., I I � � i ! I � A I I ! E � � I I ��a I ( � I 1 a� 3+ ; � zi � .s 7 �t /' ✓; E ! . (':. � i �a N - ; ; (�� t /ii + _..� r. � �' i . i � �' i � �. � � ��' � I r� ! i �' I qq � � f � y � { � � 4 � � � � � � � �� Y I ( _ t I `t I I �� c � � �� y f i ` I I I I ._______ I IT�� i�� f' �� y !f!I .; ; � ' i yp � , f` � � ,E r-,_Y; n,l � : � � .� , , ; ,� �---� , � :.: .; ; s ; :� �� ; y �� . � � w � J �� 2A, G7 r, a s s i j i i 7 1 � � � t,� i r lJr JHIIV I YHUL DEPARTMENT � BUILDING INSPECTION 8 DESIGN DIVISION � 75 W. KELLOGG BLVD. � 4l5 GSY HALL � ST. PAUL, MN 55102 � � Permit No. �r Q �� [ �� ; �� 'C'IV2WG�y � Cl� � C�� PLAN NO. I DESC P710 OFPROJECT (� [� : t � Z� OWNER 1_IftN[L� iJ0.�V^Q�12K' � DATE 't — OWNERSADDRESS �� POC'T�A� Ati�_ S�'� PaJ� �SID2 , � ❑ OLD TYPE OF ❑ NEW TYPECONST. OCCUPANCY GRADING STUCCO OR ± ❑ BUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE ; ❑ ADDlTiON ❑ALTER ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WFtECK � NUMBEF S7REET SIPE CROSSSTREETS � �{S`� POrtLatnd� l7�Q, N �ro+�� '� MaLt�J(siv, . WARD LOT BLOCK ADD�TIO OR TRACT WID7H 1.OT W�I STRUC- TURE SI LENG7H 1 :E BUILDING LINE � FRONT REAR j EIGHT STORtES i i TDTALFLOOft AREA � ESTIMATED VALUE BASEMENT � YES ❑ NO DETAILS & REMARKS: fFP�_ �1-PPR6V�l� / C�RT ��[� 50. FT. INCLUDEBASEMENT �� 16 � � f� � ARCHITECT I j CONTRACTOR { i � — MASONRY ' PEflM1T FEE � PLqN CHECK 7 3 f STATE � SURCHARGE � TOTAL FEE _ APP�4CANT CERTtFtES THAT ALL �N- � FORMATION IS CORRECT ANO THAT ALL PERTINENT STA7E REGUlAT10fVS � AND CITY ORDINANCES WIIL BE COM- PL�EDWITH IN PERFORMiNG TH£ WDRK � FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. , x . _ i � ! AUTHOR12EOSIGNATVRE � " "'"'- ' _ ' ADORE55 & ZIP STATE VALVATION TEL. NO. 9�i _}70�.. � � ; i � CASHIER USE ONLY WHEN VALIDATED THIS IS YOUR PERMIT St. Code _ ADDRESS OF JOS_ � ' . . . _ _ ' " " _ . ' " _ " ' " _ � . i fROM : HISTORIC HILL F�MES Inc a�—�— .s ��,� �l��lw�rl� 9 PHONE NQ. : +291 8226 �/ ��r, ��n �� /�A�� 2 � � -,f �� tsl �-r�, N � . �6�i� � YJ w h��s /� �r �l ��.�.e�{�lly �a�a�R�ss � d�tUQ c,,�y �SSI�� ql��' � � N� �� ri�� +� �� d� � � d � cuR�c!��<.�� x�s`�.e�rc.� � � ��7� � q,vc� NO Q�(� �l� d 6 j�+ , �' �-`x �e��u /a C.��tNt�D�s' usP �� , ��v�� C�� '�� 1 Pt �� B��Q�O�'s��rr�.� . �� Nov. 18 1992 09:29PM P1 u,,,o �,,;,,,��.,.�,,,..,........ __ . FROM : HISTORIC HILL FiOMES Inc PFIONE N0. :+291 0226 Nw. 18 1992 09:30PM P2 n+�. �ro�, x�am� Zoning Techniaan Building bepartuient City of Saint Paul 360 St. Peter, Suite 800 St, Paul, MN 66102 Re: Brigitta Bachmeie�'s property at �58 Partland Ave. Doar Mr, Iiarflwick: aate: � �aa � `� � I Aril A�VVO &CD)1307gI]}lOT(8) Uf B11�1tt8'BaCh3'A81.Ox� and li.ve at: ��7 / oRTr.�-r� FJ �Nw. �� 7 / f�+-r c. , 1`�!N J�J'r c�c� I am (We ara) �vriting in suppart of Brigitto's zoning request to complete the renovatian of tlae garden level (basoment? rental unit hegun by her ex•husband. I iWo1 undorstand that Bzigitta's 458 Portland proPo�y is currently zoned RT-2 which allows up to four living units under certazn conditiong, however apparently additional variances are also requixed in order for Brigitt� ta havo more than two living wnita on the property. 9� -l�o�.. The hauso at 459 Portland is a huge 1900 era wood frame exterior building with coneidezabio orx�ate hiatoric dfltailing. It has over 7,OOQ square feet of finiehed interior fo'otage, enough footage for a amall apsrtment building. As such, it is very expensive to maintain, and I(�,ve) believe that tkie granting of the variances Brigitta Bachmeier is requesting in order to allow her to completz and rent her basement living unit is appropriato. Very Truiy Yours, I��. �.L._..� A^- FROM : H7STORIC HIIL FmMES Inc PHONE ND. :+291 0226 Mr. John Hardwick Zoning Techniaan Buflding Degarf,ment City of Saint Paut 360 St� Feter, Suite 3a0 sc. �a�, Mrr �sioa Re: Brigitta Baehmeie�s properG�y at 459 Portland Ave. Doar Mr. Iiardwick: Nw. 18 1992 09:31PM P1 17ate: �•'� � 1 I azn a CWe are) neighbor(s) of Brigitte Bachmeier, and live at: tlz;�l p(N�X t(�!� 1�YE:.. ,�'1�. �i��, 4�j �;In�.- T am (We are) wrlting iu support of Brigif�te's zoning reques� f,o complete the ronovation of the garden level (basament} rontal uxuC begun by her ex-huaband. I(We) understar,d that Brigitte's 458 Portland property is currently zonod RT-2 which allows up to four living vnits under certain conditions, howeve.r apparently addiGionai variances are also required in order for Brigitte to have more than two living units an the progar�y. , Tho housv st 469 Portland is a hugo 19D0 vra wood frarne exteriar buitding with consi.derable ornato laistaric detailiag. It has over 7,000 aquare feet of finished in,terior footage, enough footage for a amall aparttnent building. As such, it is very expensive tR maintain, and I(wo) believe that the granting o4'the variances Sr;gitte Bachmeier, is requeating in order to allow her to complete and rent her basoment living unit is . appropriate. Very Truly ,Y i .�t ( r< ,� i �� FROM : HISTORIC HILL Fwl'ES Inc pFqt� N0, : +291 0226 Fbv. 18 1992 09:32PM P2 q r1 - �'� O }- Mr. John Hazdwlck Zoning Techniciaa Building Depariment City of Saint Paut 350 S� Petar, Suite 390 5t. Paul, MN 65102 Re: Brigitta Bachmeiez's property at 459 Portlaad Ave. DoarMr. Hardwick: Aate: �' � q � I am a f We are) neighbor(s) of Brigitts Bachmeier, and live at» 'f5� �� . I am (t�e are) writing in support of Brigitte's zoning request to complete the ronovation of the gardsn level (basemant) roatal unit bo�sn by her ex-hueband. I(We) underatend that Brigitte's 468 Portland propertyie cuxrent�y zonod RT•2 which ullowe ug � four living uuita �nder cortaia conditions, however npgarantly ndditional variancas aro aleo required in order for Hrigitte to hava more than two living units on the property. Tho house at 459 Portland is a huge 1900 era wood frama exterior building with considerable ornate historic dotailing. It has ovor 7,000 square feeE of finished interior footago, enough footage for a small apartment building. As euch, it is very expensive eu maintain, and I(Nre) 6elieve that tha graaGing o£the variancea Brigitto Bachmoior is requesting in order to allow her to compiete axid rent her basement living uivt is appropriate. Very Truly Youra, �ro•( �"�.�4' �1 r ��-P _ _ _ __ � .a •• �as � /8' 6 A Mr. Jokui Hardwick Zoxiing Technician Building DeparLment City of Saiat Paul 350 St, Peter, Suite 900 SC. Pavl, MN G5302 Ite: I3rigitta Bactimeier's proporty at 469 Portland Ave. Date: , /� / / 9 �� - ll�nr Mr. Iiardwick: ._. � _ Denr Mr. Hardvrick: I am a(We are neighbor{e) of Brigitte B ier, and liva aL: 'y'S.3 /' Y1`la,a1 ��'. .f'7'�ltr.�-/ /yl/I� S�%Dl � am (4Vo aro) writang ia eupport of Brigitte's zonIng request W comploW tho ronovation of f]ie gurdea lovol (basement) rental unit begun by hor ex•husb�nd. I(Wo) understand that Brigitte's 469 PortJand proporty is currontly zoned RT-2 which allowa up to four living units under cerW'ui conditione, however apparently additional variances ere also requirod in order for $rigitte W havo moro Wan two ]iv3ng units on the property. Tho house at 459 Portland ie a huge 1900 era wood frame exterior building with considerabte ornate Iuetoric det '�. It hae uvet' 7,000 equaco foot of Sniehod intorior footage, enough footage for a emall apartment building. A9 euch, it is very expensive to moin�;aia, and I(we) beliavs thnf. tho granting of the variences Brigitfa Bachmeier ie rpquosting in arder i,o allow hor ta completa ¢nd rent har basc,mant living unit is apprupriate. Very Truly Yours, W• �v �i�li•��%! FROM : HISTORIC HILL HOMES Inc pl-I� N0. :+291 0226 No�. 18 1992 09:33PM P3 9'� -13oa. Mr. John I3ardwick Zoning Technician Building Depart�nent City of Saint Paul 3G0 St. Pot;er, Suite 3Q0 St.l�aul, MN 56102 Ro; Brigitl.a 13achmeiez's proporty at 459 Portland Ave, riear Mr, Hardwick: Aate: 2 � ] Am a(We ara) neighb�r(s) of Brigii�to Bachmoier, and live at: �/y9 �eti:i�r�� /�rf Sr`, ��. m�� 'ia z- --- --- � I am (We arc�) writang in suppori� of Bz�gitto's zoning request to construeL and x•anovato hor garden ]evei (basamont) as a third living unit. I(Wo) understand thai� �irigitto's 4�8 Portland propex�i.q is cuxxently zonod RT•2 wluch allowg up to four living units under certain conditiona, howavor apparently nddiLionul variances are also requirsd in ordor fnr $rigitte to have more t�an two living units on the progvxty. The house at 459 Portland ie a huge 1900 era woad frame extexior building wi�Ii congiderable ornato historic detailing. It has ovor 7,000 �quars feet of finished inCerior footxige, enou�h fnotago for a smrxll aparCment lauilding. Aa such, it is very expensiva to znain,tain, und Y(we) belie�ve Lhat the granting of ths variances Brigitte Bachmeier is requoating ai order to allow hor to coniplete and rent hor basomant living unit is appropriu�e. Very'!'ruly Xours, / , /� . . � �.�....► �, 1 �, ��. �" r� FROM : HISTORIC HILL HOMES Inc Mr. Jokui Hardwick Zoning Technician Building Dopartmont City of Snint Paul 360 St. Peter, Suite 800 St. Paul, MN 55102 Ii�e: Brigitta Bachmeier's propsrty at 459 Portland Ave. I�ear Mr. Hardwick; Datz: � � 7 I am a(We aro) neighbor(s) of Brigitte BAChmoier, end live aL: ,` J1Cl � I am (We are) writing in suppor� of Brigitte'e zoning request to complotv the renovation of the garden lovel (baeement) mntal unit begun by har ex-husband, J{We) understand thut Brigitte's 459 Portland properLy is currontly zoned RT•2 w�ich allows up to faur living units undor certain conditiona, however apparently additionul variances are aIsa raquired in ordor for Brigitte to havo moro than two living uiuts on the proporty. The housa at 459 Portland is a huge 1900 era wood fxamo axterior building with considerable ornato Iiietoric detailing. It has over 7,fl00 square feet of finishod interior footag�s, enough footage for a small apartment buiiding, Ae such, it is vory expensivo to maintain, and I(we} believe that the grAnting of the variances Brigittc+ Bachmeier is requesi�ing in order to allow her to comploto �►nd rent her baseraent living unit i s apprapriate. �� PHONE N0. �+291 0226 No�. 18 1992 09:33PM P4 �Tnrv Trnlv Ynnr�t FROM : HISTORIC HILL F�MES Inc PHONE N0. :+291 0226 Nov. 18 1992 09:34PM PS 9'7-�303.. Mr. John xardwick Zoning Technician Building Deparhnent City of Saint Paul 350 St. Petor, Suite 800 St. PAUl, MN 55102 Re: Brigitta Bachmeiex's property at 459 Portland Ave. Daar Mr. Hardwick: Date: /'2�'- ° I axn n(We are) neighbor(s) of Brigitte Bachmeier, and live at: ��vz/ �i�G4rFi-ar✓�•?" /'�^�. T�Tn (We are) writing in support of Brigi.tte's zoning request to completca the rexiovation oF the garden level (basement) rental unit begun by her eu-husband, I(We) understand that Brigitte's 469 PorCland property zs currentiy zoned RT-2 wluch'allows up to four living tuui•s under certain conditions, however apparently additional variances are also roquired in order for Brigi�te to hava moro tlian two living unite on the properEy. The house at 459 Portland is a huge 1900 era wood frame exterior bui.lding with considexablo ornate historic detfailing. It has over 7,0110 squsra feet a£finished interior foot�ge, enough footage for a sma1� apartment building. t1s such, it is very oxpensive to maintair�, and I(we) believe �na� the granting af i;he variances Brigitte $achmeier is requesting in order to atlow her to complete and rent hear basement living unit is Ap�x•opriate. • Very Truly'Youre, 19 .. 29, „ 21 J --------------- --------- ----- ----- ------- -------------------------- ii i ---------- --'�---------- �S�1 r� 1� APPIiCANT �lQ� � c�Qp}1fr1�P� PURPOSE Mi nr� v�tpse FILE R_ i� � DATE LI'ZI•9� � PLNG. DIS?� MAP ti I SCALE 1" = 400'- LEGEND L � ��._ --�� _- � �� -__ � �, i �� i ;� i �; . i ,� - i '� � i � � �,�_ i�� - ;� , c� � _ i � �� 1 I �� ' jl (241) �i' �l !SB i � �� v i � �f i I � � I� 7 � __LJ. ------- �=�i ------- �' — -- E -� ------ � �� i I� � 1 �' i cise-zio) till i � ��i i � ��i '4' � .�.�. zoning disirict boundary �!�� • -r • •�•• 0 one tamity ¢ two famity , �-�Q multiple family nL orih� • � ^ tOmmercial ♦ .... industriat V vacant a q�- I�o�- BRIGITTE R. BACHMEIER May 1, 1997 Board of Zoning Appeals Building Department City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter Street Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Attention: Mr. John Hardwick, Zoning Technician Re: Applicant: BRIGIT'fE BACHMEIER File No.: 97-061 Location: 459 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Zoning: RT-2, HPL Purpose: MINOR VARIANCE to Allow Parking within a Required Side Yard Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: I respectfutly request thatyou grant approval of the above-captioned minor variance request for the purpose of allowing me to preserve intact a driveway which has existed on my property at 459 Portland Avenue since 1989. That your approval of this request was statled on April 21st because of the objections of my neighbors, the Babcocks, is a deja vu experience for me because it took Don, my ex-husband, two arduous years (involving many meetings, hearings and negotiations) to get the installation of that driveway approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). That application process began in 1987 with Don's submission of an application to construct the driveway to the Building Inspection and Design Division (BIDD) and ended up in the office of the Department of Public Works (DPW) on May 11, 1989 with the issuance of permit, we rightfully thought, to install the driveway. We installed the driveway in the Summer of 1989. It cost two years' time and aggravation and $5,000 to install. A(lan Torstenson, who back then was Planner-in-Charge of the HPC, distinctly remembers the Bachmeier driveway matter before the HPC as a"long and drawn out application process". It was so protracted, in fact, that one of tne HaC members sent Con a ietter afrer it was over apotogizing to us for the length of time it took the HPC to finally approve our application. I wanted to give you this brief background so that you did not think that Don and I simply installed the driveway in the middle of the night. On the contrary, we jumped through all of the hoops the City asked us to starting with the application to BIDD, then to HPC and finally to DPW. We did exactly what we were told to do. No one from BIDD, HPC or DPW told us that further approval needed to be obtained from the BZA. In going through the HPC approval process, we obtained consents from surrounding neighbors induding the previous owner of the 8abcocks' house (an attorney). After you postponed your decision on April 21st, I started to explore the labyrinth of city departments to find out why we were not required--in 1987-9--to seek zoning approval of this simple project. I first called BIDD and was informed that it did not issue permits for driveways and that I should talk to DPW. When I told A[lan Torstenson of this comment, his 459 Portland Avenue • St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 •(612) 225-0880 � Letter to BZA May 1, 1997 response was: "If a building permit is not required, then zoning approval is not needed". I then called DPW and talked with Cindy Wood, an official in that department. She and her superior were surprised to hear that a driveway applicant needs to get approval not only from HPC but also from BZA. She said that DPW's procedure for curb-cut/driveway projects in the Historic Hill DistricC is first to check to see if the HPC has approved it; and if the HPC has, to issue the permit. The consensus of the city officials I talked to, thus, is that zoning approval is and has not been required in circumstances of this sort; that is, there is no procedure for sending an applicant who has run the HPC gauntlet to get the HPC's approval, and then gotten a permit from DPW, to the BZA for variance approval. If in fact zoning approval is necessary, there seems to be no mechanism for communicating that requirement to unwitting applicants such as us. No one told us back in i989 that we needed io getyour approval of the variance being sought today, nor, it seems, would anyone applying nowadays be given that direction. I talked about this matter to Jim Lynden, the attorney who drafted the condominiuin documents for my conversion of 459 Portland Avenue to a condominium. He used to live on the next block of Portland Avenue, helped draft the legislation creating the Historic Hill District and the HPC regulations, was a city attorney for 16 years, and was the first President of the Ramsey Hill Association and President of Old Town Restorations, Inc.. He was surprised that I was being required to obtain a variance where clearly some city official or department failed to apprise Don that we needed to get zoning approval--if, in fact, we really did need to get such additional approval. Jim told me about a case where the Minnesota Supreme Court or Court of Appeals held that a city could not require an owner to tear down a structure built pursuant to a permit where the city--after the issuance of the permit and consfi of the structure---discovered that the structure violated the zoning ordinance of the city. This letter is accompanied by letters supporting my variance request by many of the surrounding neighbors except for the Babcocks. It also includes a letter from Roger Hankey-- a certified member of the American Society of Home Inspectors--which rePudiates Mrs. Babcock's drainage contentions. Please take time to read them. The Babcocks moved into the house next door--453 Portland Avenue--six years ago. The driveway which so offends them now was there then. The previous owner of their house-- Mentor Addicks--consented to the instatlation of the driveway. I am an Austrian immigrant and, as such, a compulsive gardener. I am proud of the grounds of my house. My yard is immaculate. Neighbors have commented about how nice it always looks. In fact, right after the Babcocks moved in, Bill Babcock told me that one of the prime reasons they bought their house was my beautiful yard. Every summer since, the Babcocks have complimented me on it. To have Mrs. Babcock suggest to you otherwise, and to show you an unrepresentative photo (i.e., the vans of the remodelers of the third floor were parked on the driveway at the time she took the shot, a once in 20-30 years occurrence), thus is quite upsetting to me. In opposing my variance request, Mrs. Babcock is being opportunistic. Neither she nor her husband raised objection to the driveway in the earlier proceeding in which you 9� - �3 0�- Leiter to BZA May 1, 1997 approved conversion of my duplex to a triplex (Zoning File No. 97-0OS) nor did they appear in opposition to my application at the District 8 level. In fact, they gave their rvritten consent to it. With respect to Mrs. Babcock's concerns for the safety her child, I have the following comments and solution: If her 3 year old child is wandering around in her front yard, PorEland Avenue is much more dangerous than the Iitt(e driveway in question. A betEer place for the chiid to play is in the back yard. That is where my children played when they were younger. With that in mind, I propose to pay to the Babcocks one-half--not to exceed $1,000--of the cost of fencing or high shrubs along the eastern perimeter of my property or else one-half--not to exceed $1,000--of the cost of the erection of a fence running east-west from my property to the Babcock's house so that their child can safely play in an enclosed backyard. Mrs. Babcock has rejected all such proposals up to this point. She perhaps senses she can prevail with you and, therefore, need not compromise with me. She has been totally uncaoperative, insisting that the law must be upheld above all other things. I have tried my best to resolve this matter with her to no avail. In regard to Mrs. Babcock's contention that the driveway is causing water to drain into the basement of her house, I had Roger Hankey--a certified member of the American Society of Home Inspectors--inspect the driveway and surroundings today. His report accompanies this letter. It thoroughly refutes Mrs. Babcock's contention. In it, Mr. Hankey indicates that, in fact, the Babcocks' drainage problems are caused by the lack of gutters on the roof of their house (at least on the west side thereo�. He proposes solutions for each of us to implement to improve drainage. I am not a rich developer. I am a single mother fighting to stay in a beautiful house that costs alot to finance, maintain and repair. I want to stay here as long as I can. I have lived here with my family for 12 years. I converted the property to a condominium as the solution to a financial problem that arose during the dissolution of my marriage to Don and as a means to save the properly as a place to live for me and my children. I need to be able to create a third unit (the purpose of the previous variance application you granted) and to sell or rent it in order to reduce my debt load or make it more easy to handle. Parking, unfortunately, is the tail that wags the dog. It is critical. If I lose one parking space on the driveway because of your denial of the requested variance and my having to remove the driveway, I will be forced to construct an unnecessary garage along the alley to the rear of my residence. My backyard will become a solid wall of garages. The costs I would have to incur would be monumental for me--i.e., $6,000 to $8,000 for the demolition of the driveway and re-landscaping and $8,000 to $10,000 for the construc of a new garage. Those costs, of course, would be in addition to the $5,000 Don and I invested in the driveway backin 1989. For all of the reasons stated above, I would appreciate your granfing my variance request. Sincerely yours, ''p ��Z1��`�`�� Brigitte R. Bachmeier HANKEY 8� BROWN 11833 Thomhiil Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3274 612 - 829 - 0044 Fax: 612 - 94i - 8023 Certified Members of the American Society of Home Inspectorsm CONSULTRTION MEMO Property: Date: Client: Address: Inspector. RE: 459 Portland, St. Paui, MN 55102 1997-05-01 Brigitte Bachmeier 459 Portland, St. Paui MN 55102 Certified Member of ASHI O Roger Hankey Driveway drainage consuit. I have today examined the east side of the subject property including the driveway. The purpose of this visual examination was to determine if the driveway contributed to any,significant drainage toward the adjoining property to the east. The driveway drainage was fested using water from the hose connection at the SE comer of the house. The majority of water piaced near the house, and at a point 2 feet east of the house flowed to Portland Ave. A smail quantity of water did flow to the adjoining property to the east. However, this water does NOT flow to the area ne� to the foundation of 453 Portland. Any water from 459 that flows to 453 is diverted toward the street by a low ridge of soil between 453 and the east edge of the driveway at 459. The drainage at 453 is poor. The roof of 453 (at least on the W. side) has no rain gatters. Roofi runoff fands alortg the foundation and can't flow away due to setiled walks and low areas of soil near the house. One option that would improve the drainage at BOTH properties would be to create a swale (a shallow vailey) in the west yard of 453 about 2 to 3 feet from the east edge of the 459 driveway. Another option that would capture water from the 459 driveway would be to cut out a smali strip of fhe 459 driveway (say &8'� and replace the cut out portion with a concrete curb & gutter. This gutter wouid drain to the street. The curb would ensure that vehicies using the 459 driveway wouid not encroach on the 453 yard. This curb and gutter system would NOT aid in reducing the primary drainage problem near the foundation of 453, however it could serve as the high sidz oi a swale in the yard of 453, if BOTN of these options are implemented. i suggest that both options be adopted, with each property owner taking responsibitity for improvements on their own property. These recommendations do not constitute an assurance that the basement of either property will remain dry. Water controi issues must also include proper use and maintenance of gufters & downspouts. Limestone foundations are we2 not intended to be waterproof. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. q1- \3oa- 467 Portland Avenue St Paul, MN 55102 April 30, 1997 3ohn Hardwick LIEP St. Paul City Council Dear Mr. Hardwick, Re: Drivewav at 459 Portland Avenue I am writing this letter to support Brigitte Bachmeiez's request for zoning pezmission for the driveway which is in situ at the above address. The driveway was apparently built nine years ago and, for the five years during which we have owned and occupied 467 Portland Avenue, we have not experienced any problems with it - nor have we ever heard of any other neighbors having a problem with it. With the esception of the last few months when there has been a remodeling project in progress on the third floor of 459 Portland Avenue, the driveway has always been well maintained and kept clean and, as soon as that remodeling project is completed, we would expect her driveway to return to its normal standard of cleanliness. The alternatives, presumably, would be for Mrs. Bachmeier to park on the street or build a new garage behind her property. The former is always a touchy situation in a neighborhood such as ours where street parking is somewhat limited, and, from the point of view of someone who curren�ly looks at 46 feet of garage roof shingles courtesy of a new garage built on Holly Avenue, I would prefer to maintain as much qreen space in the neighborhood as possible. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to express my opinion on the above issue and I should be happy to discuss this further at any time should you think it necessary. Sincerely, �� Lynda Salway May 2, 1997 To Whom It May Concem: We live at 449 Portland Avenue in St. Paul. � A 3 m � €'or#land Av�. Our house is 6 feet to the east of Mr. and Mrs. Babcock's residence. Neither their house nor ours have down spouts or gutters. About three years ago and couple of times since then, we have suggested to Mr. and Mrs. Babcock that we create a proper drainage system between our houses (estimated cost $500.00 total). Each time they have responded by saying that they have a dry basement. Needless to say we were snrprised to heaz that the Babcock's claim that Mrs. Bachmeier's driveway was causing them to have a wet basement. Also we found their offer to split the cost to remove the driveway unbelievable. 'I'heir home including the front porch need massive amount of money to restore its structurat integrity. In the s'vi yeazs that we have lived at 449 Portland, tfiey haue never fully repaired anything. Tlus leads us to believe that they either do not care or can not afford to repair their home. In addidon their house sheds shingles like dandruff, creating safety concem for our two children. Our children aze not even ,cafe on their own properry. The Babcocks haue shown no concem about these safety issues. We strongly support the necessary approvals for Mrs. Bacluneier's driveway. We feel that our view represents the overwh ' g majority ofMrs. Bachmeiere's neighbors. �� Khalid EI. Effendi Faezeh O. Effendi Cpuncil File # Q�_ 13O •'�. Green Sheet # �0� � � RESOLUTIOAI Presented By Referred To 2 VJI�REAS, Brigitte Bachmeier, made application to the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning 3 Appeals for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code 4 for property located at 459 Portland Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and legally described as 5 Property Identification Number 012823240260 and Property Identification Number 6 012823240261;and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WHEREAS, the purpose of the applicafion was to vary the standards of the Saint Paul Zoning Code to ailow parking within a required side yazd; and WHEREAS, the Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on Apri121, 1997, after having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, by its Resolution 97-061, adopted May 5, 1997, granting the variance application based upon the following findings and conclusions: The applicant established the driveway and parking space in 1989 pursuant to a permit issued by the Public Works Department. The applicant also received approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission for the driveway. For some reason, the applicant was not directed to consult with Zoning. The driveway is paued and has stone curbs as required for historical confornury. The pazking available in this driveway, as we11 as additional parking, is necessary for the use of the building as a three- family dwelling. 24 25 2. The applicant received approvals from all City agencies except 26 Zoning. There were several times during the various approval 27 processes where the appiicant should have been directed to Zoning. 28 The fact that she was not is a circumstance that she did not create. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 The desire to provide off-street parking that complies with Heritage Preservation guidelines is an keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA a a 4 5 6 7 8 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 5. GQ The surrounding property owners have been norified of the applicant's desire to convert the building to a triplex and have had an opportunity to express any concerns about the parking in question. The only comments received from the neighborhood have been that the e�sting pazking should remain and that additional pazking be provided. Since the driveway meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, there should be no adverse effect on the character of the sunounding area. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change the zoning classificarion of the property. The request for variance is not based prunarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. 9`l -�30�. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, William and Kathryn Babcock, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Board of Zoning Appeals, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the Board of Zoning Appeals; and WI�EREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205 through 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Pau1 City Council on August 25, 1997, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and VJfIEREA5, the Council, hauing heard the statements made, and hauing considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolu6on of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does hereby IZESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in this matter based upon the following fmdings of the Council: Having heard the public testimony and considered all the records and files in this matter, the Council finds no enor as to fact, finding or procedure on the part of the Board of Zoning Appeals, and that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts and incorporates as its own the findings of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals as set forth above; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, that the appeai of William and Kathryn Babcock be and is hereby denied; and °l°'t -13 oa. i 2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolufion to 3 VJilliam and Kathryn Babcock, the Zoning Aduiinistrator, the Plazming Commission and the 4 Boazd of Zoning Appeals. 5 Requested by Department o£: 3y: lppx , By: Form Approved by City Attorney BY: ��d/l��-. /�-1?-�'i7 Approved by Mayor £or Submission to Cossncil By: Adopted by Council: Date �__ �_ �{_9'1 Adoption Certified by Council SecretaYy GREEN SHEET x�oy nna��n October 29�1997 Consent TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES Finalizing City Council aetion taken August 27, 1997 denying ihe appeal of William and Kathryn Babcock to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting a variance to allow parldng within a required side yazd to continue at 459 Portland Avenue. PIANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMI7TEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMIS: �,�,�� U ��.w. _ �,n� ❑ �p.w� swxaa.amvr.�sm� ❑ rtuxw�s�c.a�cero �.wvaeron�ssaawn ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Hes mis aersoMrm ever wnAced under a canVact for fhic departmeM't YES NO .Flas this P��m ever been a d7Y empbyce? YES NO Doestt�is Pe�n�T�m D� e sldU twt namalNP�eessetl bY �Y cwrent ci�l emPbYee? YES NO Is mia pcvsoNfiim a ta.yetea venda� � YES NO �I� -i3oa. No sa74a � �07AL AMOUM OF TRANSACTION t CO37/REVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCIE ONq YE3 NO LNDIN6 SOURGE ACTNRY NlAA86R INMICInL QJFORAaiION (EXPlA1N1 OFFICE OF '['I� CITY ATTORN&Y rega�rk c;ryanomey l l � `�C�- CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colem�m, Mayo> Civil Divisiorz 400 Ciry HaZl I S FPest Kellogg BZvd. Saim Paul, M'uuresota 55702 Tekphoree: 67Z 266-8710 Facsimile: 612 298-5619 October 20, 1997 Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Ha11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal of William and Katku•yi1 Babcock of Board of Zoning Appeals File 47-137 Dear Ms. Anderson: Enclosed please find a signed resolution moralizing the decision of the City Council in the above-entitled matter. Tlus matter should be piaced on the City Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, � G,/�� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney cc: John Hardwick, LIEP �"��.yw ..�vv--._: �.:.., . �� . � _ `e, tvJ� `�t'1- t 3 n a.. �- TO: lir. 3ohn Hardt�rick Board of Zoning Appeals 350 Saint Peter Street Suite 300 Lowry Professional Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 From: Rilliam A. fi Aathrpa K. BaY�cock 453 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 phone: (612) 222�4636 Re: June 24 1997, St. Paul City Council Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting a variance to allow parking within a required side yard Date: Sune 10, 1997 Dear Mr. Hardwick: Jerry McInerny has informed me that it will be possible to' change the date of this appeal to August 27, 1997. He asked me to contact you in writing to make this change. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, - � �. �� CTTY OF SAINT PALIL Norm Colemars, Mayor May 27,1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LiC" �xv[R°N'�rr Nan Anderson Ro6ers Kuskr, l City CounCil Rese3tCh OffiCe Room 310 City Hall 9.� _ ��p � IAARY PRO£ESS{ONAL Tekphone: 6t2-266-4090 BUIIDING Facsimile: 612-266-9094 S'dte.?00 672-2669124 350 St. Paer Street Saint Pnu[, Minnuota SSIO2-I510 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday June 11, 1997 for the following appeal of a Boazd of Zoning Appeals decision: Appellant: File Number: Purpose: Address: I,egal Description: Ptevious Aetion: � William & Kathryn Babcock 97-137 Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting a variance in order to allow puking within a required side yazd to continue. 459 Portland Ave PIN's 012823240260 & 012823240261 Distriet 8 took no position on this matter Staff recommended approval. Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Granted the request on a vote of 5-2. My un rstanding is that this public hearing tequest will appear on the agenda for the 3une , 1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-9082 if you have any questions. S c rely, � � hn Hazdwick - oning Technician cc: Council Member Blakey xarr� oF ru s Lica Enxsrc - �; The Saipt Paut City Cauncff�will conducY a public hearuig ea Wedsesilap. Jvne�25, 1997 (rescheduled from June 11J aG4:30�p.m. in fhe City`�ovne�7 Chambers, Thivd k7oor City Hall-COUrt House, to consider the appeal nf W3fliam�& .Kathryn Babcock to a decisioa o£ theBoazd of Zoning Appeals granUnga-varianse Eo allow pazking within a required side yard to continue at 459 Portland,Aveaue- Dated: May 29, 199? - - - � - �. � . � ' PtANCY fiNDERSON � . . - "., - . - . - - � , - AssisZant C3ty Gouncii Secretary . , " � - - _ _ -t.�ne 7,:1987r . - _- _� � � APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Econo»ric Development Zoning Section II00 City Hall Anne�c 25 West Founh Street Saint Paul, MIV SSIO2 266-6589 APPELIANT PROPERTY LOCATION Name W<<l�am ari.� {.(�-t'Krvr,n �-z-lo.ti-(C Address ' t�oRTURl�P s�ve City S�. St.M� Zip ss�oz Daytime phone Zoning File �'�qa-oc.�t��fsq t'�c�i'land Address(Location �I�q �og.r�.flNS Av� i S� • aAv� Y�l �f TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeai to the: (�Board ofi Zoning Appeais ❑ City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section Z� S, Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the o� Maw S ��1q 1 (date of d isio ) �� File number:__ _ �_►�� I GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. See q f5J21!97aoaa,25:3:rFM 4u8� V�tI�;;Cc Ci;��i; Attach additional sheef if necessary) .�gp i . pt: ApplicanYs signature /. %��:��`*' Date �J�Z�/��Cify agent William A. & Itathrpn h! 453 Portiand Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota phone: (612) 222-4636 May 22, 1937 Babcock 55IO2 Mr. John Hardwick Board of Zoning Appeals 350 5aint Peter Street Suite 300 Lowry-Professional Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Mr. Hardwick: This appiication is to appeal the decision Zoning Appeals to qrant a variance for 459 to allow a parked car in the side yard. of the Board of Portland Avenue We feel that the BZA, in granting this variance, has over- looked the apparent illegality of the driveway itself. The first request in 1988 for a"curb cut" was denied by the £ull HPC (one abstention). Donald Bachmeier never appealed this decision to the City Council. When the "Certificate of Approval for Minor F7ork" was issued a year later (according to HPC records?, circumstances at 459 Portland Avenue were not significantly different than they were in 1988. Overlooking a variance in I989 meant that there was no public meeting held to discuss this alteration to the district -- an alteration that the full HPC had found significant when it denied this curb cut in 1988. It is nat an unreasonable interpretation to say Ehat the driveway does require HPC approval. The staff report in 1988 illustrates that HPC approval is necessary because it is a materiai change to a historic district. A curb cut re- quires a permit from public works and thus from HPC. Further, the May 5 1997 decision of the BZA does not address the negative impact on the neighboring property at 453 Port- 2and Avenue. This includes, water runoff, plowed snow, ex- haust, noise, and the close proximity of parked cars to the neighbor's house. °I� -1� o �--• HARDWICK -- 2 May 21, 1997 As the driveway must also function as the only access for the third floor owners (who are forced to squeeze between the parked cars and the side o£ the house) cars are being parked oloser to the property line than before. Brigitte Bachmeier has told us that her car will be the only vehicle to park in the driveway at 459 Portland Avenue. She has o£fered to put us in touch with a drainage expert, erect a small fence, and plant some low shrubs (hosta}. No details of this were discussed, as such alterations would not significantly change the situation. Foliowing the recent conversion of the third floor into a condominium, there is a plan by the third-floor owners to add parking in the back yard. The owner o£ the third-£loor condo, Nei1 Lagos, has informed us that he has offered to provide a parking space to Mrs. Bachmeier when he adds back- yard parking. This seems to be a prudent and feasible alternative which wili be in keeping with the Historic Dis- trict guidelines and the vote of the fuil HPC in 1988. Additionally, an enlargement to the qarage door on Mrs. Bachmeier's existing garage wauid allow easier access for two cars, in a structure that already houses two automobiles. We request that Mrs. Bachmeier be able to use the driveway oni until the plan of parking in the backyard is realized (sometime next year, or prior to the sale of her house, whichever comes first). Locating all the parking for the 459 structure in the backyard seems a prudent and feasible alternative, which will be in keeping with historic distriat guidelines. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours sincerely, G'!/ ��us�� CJ l�� 1 Recised copy - May 20, 1997 To whom it may concern, The following is in effort to clarify our position regarding the e�sring driveway Iocated at 459 Pordand Ace., St. Paul, M1V. First, we �could like to say that we fully support Brigitta Bachmeie�'s desire to add a third unit to our building. If this reqnires adding additional allep access parking we would not be opposed. Second, in regards to the esisting street access drive�uay, it is our position that although cce �uouid rather not have ic, it was in e�istence when we purchased our unit Our primarp concern is that we ha�e adequate access, especiallp in the winter, to and from our unit entrance located at the side of rhe house. T'hird, Re �vould Iike to clarify our position regarding a possible brick driceway. In preti concersions we have espressed a desire to convert this driveway into a brick a�all� or patio, but not a brick dri�ecvay. F'inally; we �vould like to state that we are friends and neighbors to both the Bachmeier's and the Babcack's and we would like to remain neutral in regards to this issue. However, as previously mentioned, we are concerned �vith the access to and from our unit er.u�ance. If the conversion of the street entrance dricewap to a wall�-way or patio is not to be under taken then a separare �=ralkcvay will need to be added to ensure that we have adequate access l Sincere[y, ` � %/ ` /p1 / �, ✓� � Neal Lagos �nd Susan Hilt (Homeowners, �t�A. Dorsey Condominiums - 457/459 Port]and Ave.) cc: BrigitLa Bachmeier, Biii and Iiathryn Babcock, I.ou Sadheimer �, °11-��oi MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COIJNCIL CHAMBE125, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAi1L, MINNESOTA, APRII, 21, 1997 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Scherman, Tully and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Synstegaazd of the Office of License, Inspecfion, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT None The meeting was chaired by 3oyce Maddox, Chair. BRIGIT"1'E BACHMEIER (#97-061) - 459 PORTLAND AVENLTE: A variance to allow pazking within a required side yard. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation £or approval. Several letters were received in support regazding the variance request. One letter was submitted in opposition. Brigitte Bachmeier, 459 Portland-Avenoe, stated that her neighbor phoned her last night stating that she is not happy with the driveway next to her home. She stated that if she continued the driveway into a garage it would take away more green space. Her driveway was already existing when her neighbor bought her home. Mr. Alton asked if the driveway in question ever went into a gazage in the back yazd. Ms. Baci�meier reQlied no. Lou Sudheimer, 439 Portland Avenue, Acting Consultant for Ms. Bachmeier, stated that at the last public hearing a suggestion was made encowaging Ms. Bachmeier to extend the driveway back into the gazage which would have made it easier for the Board to approve. Kafluyn Babcock, 453 Portland Avenue, passed azound current pichues of the site to the Boazd. She stated that her properry abuts the applicant's. She read a letter to the Boazd that she submitted in opposition stating that they are offering to pay one-half of the cost of dismanding, removal, necessary curb repair and reseeding. She stated that her main concem is the safety of her young child and the envuonmentai effects on her home and the historic neighborhood. She stated that the driveway is only a few feet &om her home and sits on the properry line between the homes. Her daughter's playroom and beclroom abut the driveway and carbon monoxide fumes fiiter into their home. The close proximity of the driveway poses a safety problem should their daughter venture onto the adjouung property. Water drains from the driveway into their yard and basement and no landscaping hides the view of parked cazs and asphalt. It is a detriment to the visual quality of the district. The driveway violates the HPC Guidelines as was noted in 1988 when the case was fust heard. The full HPC Boazd denied this case in 1988 and one yeaz later it was granted by staff only and not File #97-061 Page Two revie�ved by the full HPC Boazd. Parking is an issue but an additionai garage is being planned for the back yazd which will legally meet the need for off-street pazldng. She cited secrions in the Legislative Code wlrich state that the driveway violaYes the design guidelines for their district. She also cited a section from the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. She stated she wonld leke to work something out with Ms. Bachmeier that can be beneficiat for both of them. Mr. Wilson asked Ms. Bachmeier if the driveway was in existence prior to 1984? Ms. Bachmeier replied no, the driveway was constructed in 1989. Mr. Sudheimer stated that the historic curb cut was originatly from across the street even though that block also has an alIey that serves it. He stated that there aze historical precedence for ttus. The new condowinium owner and Ms. Bachmeier have been discussing improving the appearance of the driveway with brick Perhaps Ms. Babcock's offer to split costs might be helpful in resolving to beauti£y the driveway although it would still be a&ont yazd pazking area. Mr. Alton asked what the Babcock's side yazd setback is. Mr. Sadheimer stated he be&eves iY is 8 to 10 feet Mr. Bachmeier stated that the condominium owner has been remodeling the unit and lately many deliveries have been made along with a dumpster that is curtently in the driveway. Mr. Sudheimer stated fhat when the Babcock's chose to buy their home this driveway was already in daily use. Ms. Maddox asked Mr. Aardwick what the HPC's current decision was on the driveway. Mr. Hazdwick stated he spoke with the HPC staff person and the"u understanding is that since the HPC approved the matter back in 2989 there is no recourse for staff or the HPC to review the matter. In 1989 there were different policies regazding the consideration of minor and major changes. In 1989 this driveway was oonsidered a minor request Ms. Bogen pointed out that the HPC approved the driveway buY iL dcesn't say that they approved parking in ihat driveway. Mr. Hardwick replied that the HPC dcesn't have the authority to approve parking. Mr. Alton stated that the applicant obtained a permit from PubIic Works, approval &om HPC sta� consent of fhe neighbor and the driveway plan was not leading to a gazage. In this cucumstance the driveway wasn't going anywhere so the only logical reason was the use for parking. Ms. Bogen quesrioned the legality of the driveway regazding the water runoff onto the Babcock's property. Mr. Hazdwick stated that there aze regulations in the State Building Code about changing the grade for construction purposes. A building permit isn't required for a driveway and a grading pemut is issued only if the grade will change inore than 6 inches so a gading permit was not required. However, there is a section in the building code requirements that states that a grade may not be changed to direct flow onto adjoining property. EIe stated that he assumes that the grade of the driveway was not changed. °l � -�� n �--- File #97-061 Page Three Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Hazdwick if he had spoke to Ms. Babcock. Mr. Hudwick replied that he spoke with Ms. Babcock for the f�st time today and he encouraged her to speak with Ms. Bachmeier to fiarther discuss some possible compromises. He stated that the applicant and Ms. Babcock haven't had an oppomuuty to discuss this thoroughly. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Donohue moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6. Mr. Alton seconded the motion Mr. Wilson added a friendly amendment to the motion that the neighbors continue the'u discussion to resolving the issues. Mr. Donohue stated that possibly continuing the matter may be an option to allow the neighbors to come to an agregment. Mr. Alton stated that the Board has received no indication that the parties would like to continue the matter. Mr. Tully amended the motion to add a condition that the applicant take caze of the slope of the driveway so that water runoff dcesn't occur and obscwe the driveway under the HPC Guidelines. Mr. Donohue stated he accepts Mr. Tully's friendly amendment. Mr. Alton stated that although shrubs cou]d be put in, the fact remains thai the driveway gces right up to the properiy line. Mr. Wamer stated that there are conditions that aze being proposed for the friendly amendment to initiate negotiations to elaninate the alleged drainage problem. The neighbor is free to bring whatever acfion they might choose against the applicant conceming that. There aze a host of legal theories they can groceed on. Although that is a reasonable condition to place on the motion, the problem is how you aze going to structure it? You are asldng them to resolve a drainage problem but you need to be precise regarding the time structure in resolving that. In respect to landscaping, that is also an acceptable condition but he stated he is not familiaz with the regutations regarding site planing, etc. Mr. Hazdwick stated that Mt. Alton made a good point in that the neighbor hasn't voiced any wiliingness to accept the resolution of this matter through compromise. He stated that the he had merely made those suggestions to Ms. Babcock and he hasn't had a chance to discuss those issues with Ms. Bachmeier. If the Boazd wants to put landscaping as a condition upon the apgroval of the variance, since the driveway is paved right up to the properiy line, the landscaping would have to be on the neighboring property. If the Board adds landscaping as a condition and Ms. Babcock dcesn't agree to it that would put Ms. Bachmeier in a predicament. Regazding the �vater runoff, he stated that he dcesn't have any first-hand lmowledge that the drainage problem was caused by the insfallation of the driveway. As Mr. Warner pointed out, there is legal recourse for Ms. Babcock regazding this issue. File #97-061 Page Fow The motion failed on a roll call vote of 3 to 4(Tully, Bogen, Wilson, Maddox). Mr. Wilson questioned the ocvnership of the curb rutming along side of the driveway. He asked if it is part of the historic curb cut that was put in from across the street? Mr. Hazdwick stated he assumes that Ms. Bachmeier owns the curb. Mr. WiIson stated that believing the curbing came from across the street and was installed at the Bachmeier's request, he moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6 subject to the condidon that the curbing ba eYtended the length of the driveway to prevent any runoff onto the neighboring property. Mr. Alton seconded the motion. Mr. Alton stated that extending the curbing may alleviate the concern of chiidren playing in the area and pose as a barrier. Mr. Alton asked if any pazking would have to occur beyond the &ont of the building because t}us is a side yard setback request. Mr. Hazdwick replied yes, this heazing is for parldng in a required side yard �vhich differs from pazt:ing in a required front yard. Mr. Tully asked if that will satisfy the parking requirements for the triplex? Mr. Aazdwick replied that in granting the variances to aIlow a triplex the BZA requ'ued a condition that additional off-street pazking be provided in the back yazd. This could be a garage or a pazldng pad. Mr. Wamer stated it is appropriate to take into consideration the impact in granting a variance would have on adjoining properly owners. The testimoiry heazd today was from the neighboring properiy owner who said that she has drainage problems. As Mr. Hard�rick pointed out, there is no hazd lrnowledge thaY there is a drainage probtem. That is not to diminish what the neighbor said, staff just found oat aboat her ooncem on very short notice so there was no way for staff to investigate that. Staff dcesn't Imow if attaching a condition to the variance that a new curb be aligned to eliminate the drainage problem will solve the alleged problem. Possibty regrading will eliminate it but the difficulty lies in being assured that there is a factual basis for making that condifion and lmowing that condition will solve the anderlying drainage problem He staYe@ that he dcesn't believe staff and the Boazd have enouglt informarion to do that. The adjoining property owner has a separate legal remedy available at their disposal to remedy the drainage problem if it indced exists. ff the idea of the curb is to provide a safety buffer, that wotild be an appropriate consideraUon but to not limit it to solving an alleged drainage problem. Mr. Wilson withdrew his motion. Ms. Bogen moved to deny the variance based on findings 1, 3 and 4. She stated that Finding #1 should be changed to say that the property can be put to a reasonable use. There is no need £or the driveway on the side of the house. Finding #3 should be changed to say that the proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code ..." Finding #4 should be changed to read that the variance will alter the essential chazacter of ihe surrounding azea ..." The tripl� wili have adequate parldng when the garage is built 4n the back. Mr. Tully seconded the motion. Mr. Tnlly asked how long the HPC decisions are in eft'ect Mr. Hazdwick replied that once a project is established the HPC's approval is legal until something is done to change it. R� - ►�o�. Fila #97-061 Page Five Ms. Bogen pointed out that when the HPC approved this, they approved it as a duplex and now it is being converted into a triplex. The Board has made additional conditions in parldng in the back yazd. The only need for pazking in the side yard is for convenience. Mr. Donohue suggested that rather than deny tivs variance the Board should continue the matter and allow the neighbors to come to a compromise. Mr. Donohue moved to continue the matter. Mr. Scherman seconded the motion. Mr. Tully asked if the Boazd would then be beyond the 60-day deadline? Mr. Wamer replied that the Board couid continue the matter until the next meeting and be within the 60-day deadline. Mr. Alton stated that the Board has no indication that it will be beneficial to the parties to continue the matter. The neighbor gave a generous offer to pay for half of the removal of the driveway but he doubts that the neig�bor would pay for letting the driveway stay. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 2(Tully, Bogen). Ms. Maddox stated that the motion to deny the variance request continues until the May 5, 1997, hearing at which time it will be voted on. Ms. Maddox urged Ms. Bachmeier and Ms. Babcock to contact Mr. Hazdwick prior to the May 5 hearing date. 3u 'tted b�� l hn Hardwick , p oved by: n / i 1 v � hn Tully, Secretary CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER: 9�-o6i DATE May 5, 1997 WI�REAS, BRIGETTE BACHMEIER has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 62.104 (11) of Yhe Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the continued use of pazking within a required side yard in the zoning disYrict at 459 PORTLAND AVE; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 04/21/97 and OS/OS/97, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64205 of the Legislative Code; and WE�REAS, the Saint Paui Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the pub&c hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: The property in quesYion cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant established the driveway and parking space in 1989 pursuant to a pernut issued by the Public Works Department. The applicant also received approval fzom the Heritage Preservation Commission for Yhe driveway. For some reason the applicant was not directed to consult with zoning. The driveway is paved aad has stone curbs as requ'ued for historical conformity. The parking available in this driveway, as well as additional parking, is necessary for the use of the building as a three-family dwelling. 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 applicant received approvals from all City agencies except Zoning. There were several times during the various approval processes where the applicant should have been directed to Zoning. The fact that she was not is a circumstance that she did not create. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the heaith, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paut. The desire Yo provide off-street pazldng that complies with Heritage Preservation guideline is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate suppIy of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding area or unreasonabIy diminish established property values within the surrounding azea. q1 — 13 0 �. Ffle #9?-061 Page Two The sunounding property owners have been notified of the applicant's desire to convert the bu�lding to a tri-plex and have had an opportunity to express any concerns about the parking in question. The only comments received from the neighborhood have been that the existing parking should remain and that additional parking be provided. Since the driveway meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, there should be no adverse effect on the character of the surrounding azea. 5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not pemutted 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 class�fication of the property. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change the zoning classification of the property. 6. Th� request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. NOW, TF�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 62.104 (I 1) be hereby waived to allow to allow parking within a required side yard on property located at 459 PORTLA�iD AVENUE and legally described as PINs 012823240260 and 012823240261; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. MOVED BY: ntton SECONDED BY: scherman IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: a MASLED: May 6,1997 TIME LIMIT: � No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erec6on or alteration of a building or off-street parldng facility shali be valid for a period longer than one year, uniess 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 permi� The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an eztension not to eaceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. Fite #97-061 Page Three APPEAL Decisions of tfie Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the �ty Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buitding permifs shall not be issued after an appeat has been filed. If perrtuts have been issued before an appeal has been Fled, theu the permits are suspended and construcfion shall cease untit the City Councit has made a f nal detenvination of the appeal. CERTTFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoaing Appeals for the Gty of Saint Paul, Minnesofa, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and fmd tfie sarae to be a true and conecY copy of said orig'u�,al and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of We Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeYing held on Apri121,1997, and May 5,1997, and on record in the Qffice of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St Peter Street, Saint Paul, ' Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF Z0IVING APPEALS Sue Synstegaard Secretary to the Board 9'1 - 1 � a �-- To: Mr. John 4{ardwick Board of Zoning Appeais 350 Saint Peter Street � Suite 300 � Lowry Professional Building Saint Paul, Minnespta 55102 � From: Wiltiam A. & Kathryn M. Babcock 453 Portland Avenue Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102 phone: (612) 222-4636 Re: May 5 Zoning Board of Appeais Meeting Date: May 2, 1997 We have attached a letter pertinent to the first agenda item on your Monday, May 5, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Also, please find enclosed ten {10) additional copies of this lettier for the members of the 8oard of Zoning Appeals and for the City Attorney. Please let us know if there is any other material that you might need. � Willia�a A. & Katfiryn M. 453 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota phone: (612) 222-4638 May 2, 1997 Babcock 55102 Mr. John Hardwick Board oY Zoning Appeals 350 Saint Peter Street Suite 300 Lowry Professional Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Bear Mr. Hardwick: At the request of the Board of Zoning Appeals, we have Yur- ther discussed the side-yard parking variance with our neighbor, &rigitte Bachmeier. Mrs. Bachmeier has told us that her car will he the onl.v vehicle to park in the driveway at 459 Portland Avenue. She has offereci to put us in touch with a drainage expert, erect a small Yence, and plant some low shrubs (hosta). vo details of fihis were discussed, as it would not significant- ly alter the situation. We suggested that Mrs. Bachmeier be able to use the driveway only until the plan of parking in the backyard is realized (somefime next year, or prior ta the sale of her house). Locating all the parking for the 459 structure in the back- yard seems a prudent and feasible atiernative, which will be in keeping with historic district guidelines. These guidelines will be tested again later this month by the full Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) when it reviews two similar curb-cut requests for Summit Avenue., It is notable that Donald Bachmeier never appealed to the City Council after the HPC denied curb cuts in 1988. Also (aecording to HPC records), when the "Certificate of Ap- proval for Minor Work" was issued a year later, circum- stances at 459 Portland Avenue were not significantly dif- ferent than Yhey wece in 2988. This "Minor 11'ork" certifi- cate did not obviafe fhe need.fo meef zoning codes (specifi- cally parking a car in a small side yard). a� - «o �.. ZONING APPEALS -- 2 i�tay 2, 1997 The public process in Saint Paul's Historic District has been key since the District's inception. Overlooking a var- iance in 1989 meant that there was no public meeting held to discuss this aiteration to the district -- an alteration that the Yull HPC had found significant mhen it denied this curb cut in 1988. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours sincerely, �� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 1. APPLICANT: BRIGITTE BACFIIvIEIER 2. CLASSIFICATION: Minor Variance 3. LOCATION: 459 PORTLAND AVE. F7I.E # 97-061 DATE OF HEARING: OS/OS/97 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIN's 012823240260 and 012823240261 5. PLANNING DLSTRICT: 8 6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2, HPL ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 621Q4 (11) 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 04/03/97 BY: 7ohn Hardwick 8. DATE REC`EIVED: 03/20/97 DEADLINE FOR ACTTON: OS/19/97 A. PURPOSE: A variance to allow pazking within a required side yazd. B. ACTION REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the continued use of a pazking space within the required 15 foot side setback. C. SITE AND AREA CONDTI'IONS: Tlus is a 65 by 144 foot pazcel with alley access to a detached twacar garage in the rear yard. There is also a nonconforming parking space on the east side of the house. Surrounding Land Use: A miYture of single- and multiple-family housing. D. BACKGROUND: The applicant was ganted a tot size and density variance by the BZA in February of this year to convert the building into a three-family dwetling. At the public hearing it was noted that the parking space along side of the house was estabIished without zoning approval. The variances ganted for the conversion to a tri-plex were subject to the condition that the applicant resolve this illegal parking situarion. E. FINDINGS: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict. provisions of the code. ' ° I'? - 1 � o � File #97-061 Page Two The applicant established the driveway and parking space in 1989 pursuant to a pernut issued by the Public Works Department. The applicaut also received approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission for the driveway. For some reason the applicant was not directed to consult with zoning. The driveway is paved and has stone curbs as required for historical confomuty. The parking available in this driveway, as well as additional parking, is necessary for the use of the building as a three-family dwelling. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to ttus property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The applicant received approvals from all City agencies except Zoning. There were several times during the various approvai processes where the applicant should have been directed to Zoning. The fact that she was not is a circumstance that she did not create. 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. The desire to provide off-street parking that complies with Iieritage Preservation guideline 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 chazacter of the surrounding area or unreasonably dimuush established property values within the sunounding area. The surrounding property owners have been notified of the applicanYs desire to convert the building to a tri-plex and have had an oppornxnity to express any concerns about the parking in question. The only comments received from the neighborhood have been that the existing parking should remain and that additional parking be provided. Since the driveway meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, there should be no adverse effect on the character of the surrounding area. 5. The variance, if granted, would not pemut any use that is not pernutted 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, if granted, will not change the zoning classification of the property. F�e #97-06I Page Three 6. The request for variance is not based primariiy on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the pazcet of land. F. DISTRICT COITNCIL ItECOM1VIENDATION: Since District 8 recommended approval of the variance to convert this building to a tri-plex and reviewed the site plan at that time with a recommendation for approval, they decided that a fiuther review of this request would not be necessary. G. STAF'F RECONIlbiENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staffrecommends approval of the variance. a � . . �� ^ � � ,-o�L- APPLICATION FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE °I�-\3o�. �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL � O� Q�� 1 � A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER w�, SECTION /� 7 PARAGRAPH \/� : IS REQUESTED IN CONFORMITY WITH 7HE POWERS VESTED IN THE BOARD OF ZONING AP- �� PEALS 70 PERMiT THE C w� �� 'f o/ f� �/!{� Ci C I I.�( UP��GN PROPERTY l (]FSCRIRFO RFf OW_ �DA�IMCE�fELEPHONENO: Gv� ?�i� ZIPCODE �S� t. ProQerty interest of applica�t (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) C�wNP� '�-� �uNt�vi'N/N/ul� ��/•��Rll� 2. Name ot owner (if different) B. PropertyDescription: ADDRESS `�� U� ��fV` '�� 1. Legal description: LOT . BLOCK ��-�--�-�—�=� ADD. ^� 2. �otsize: loS" x /y3 °.;, U�pitx, r,�,r R7'- Z 3. PresentUse .4nnn�od/��is � presentZoningDist. . G. Reasons for Request: } � , t. Proposed use : ( � -1 E+� CL�/'_"' 2. What physicai characteristics of the property preve�t i[s being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? (topography, soil conditions, size arW shape of lot, etc.) / � / . �°� G lli�'r� (i �p,'/j,E 3. State the specific variation requested, giving distances where appropriate. +`�i s 1`s ar��c�rY��N is�k'r; ]�� v e Ro u�ts ��` �% a rvfr`ssjria .�PPnoc/a/ a� �N� y�� c�Nr�e - wr � 4. Expfain how your case conforms to each of the foUowing: ; a. That the strict appiication of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance wouid result in pecuiiar ; or exceptional practical difficuities, or exceptional undue hardships. � ' .Sr� !��, � �� -�--- �i.�,� � � , b. That the granting of a variance wi11 -�� - rwt be a substantial detriment to �e�i��A' pubiic good or a substantial impair- ��.,�, . ment of the intent and purpose of "�'"�` � the Zoning Ordinance. • 5 �'f lD �� t �,- � �� r7� � � � Signature� ,�n5" F �-� %'�I� c-i 2/95 RS ONLY -. �.- ".. . �••�_ ty3.:�- , t��.? £. R A � 0 �. 5t. Anthony Management, Inc. 439 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Mr. John Hardwick Zoning Technician Building Department G`ity of Saint Pavl 350 St. Peter, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102 March 19th, 1997 Re: 459 Portland Avenue -- Existing FrontJside Yard Driveway Approval Request Deaz Mr. Hardwick: As you most likely recall, Brigitte Bachmeier, is the condomirrium Declarant, and the occupant owner of Condominium unit #2 at 459 Portiand which encompasses the majority of the basement, first and second floors. The third floor condominium is unit #1 and is owned and occupied by another party. The W.A. Dorsey Condominium, at 459 Portland, was recently created as an expandable condominium with the intention of completing the basement rental unit which was begun by a previous owner, Accordingly, a zoning application was submitted to request transition from a duplex, two unit property ta a legal tri-pleg, tbree unit property. This approval was granted by the BZA. During this approval pracess it was discovered that the effisting driveway which was consfixucted in 1989 along the parcel's east property line from PorGland Avenue north through the front yard to between 459 and the house to the east, had somehow not received an o�cial approval from zoning. This is strange since it was thought that all the appropriate G`ity permits and approvals for the driveway had been applied for and obtained. The Building Department, Public Works for the curbcut and the HPC, all tbree did give their blessing ans approvals to Doanald Bachmeier, as has been verified from official G`ity records, (see attachments). Therefore, it is a mystery as to how come the zoning bureaucracy wasn't also informed and involved at that time? At Ms Bachmeier's appearance before the BZA, a11 parties agreed that she should re- apply for a zoning variance for the existing driveway as a separate matter. The purpose of this letter is to fulfill that obligation. Presently, there are 1.5 to two existing garage stall spaces, and two front driveway parl�ng spaces in use. The official Condominium Plat's site plan (enclosed previously) shows future provisions have been made for up to three more aIley-accessed parking stalls to be constructed in the future on the NE corner of the parcel in the back yard, (either garaged or hard-surfaced?. � a'l -13 0 �-- There have been no known complaints from any neighbors regarding the e�sting driveway from 1989 to present. As you know, recently, a substantial number of neighbors provided lettzrs of support to the G�ty endorsing and approving of Ms Bachmeier's request for conversion from a dupleg to a tri-plex, all of them were fully awaze of the e�sting driveway. It is particulazly significant, that the only inquiries received by staff in response to the recent rezoning actions' neighbor notification mailing specifically mentioned neighborhood concems that adequate off-street parl�ng be preserved, not eliminated. With respect to the BZA's 6-24-96 "required yard" parking request conditions: a. Re: Contanuous use since October of 1975? The owner applied to the City for and was granted permission to construct this driveway by Public Works, HPC and the Building Department in 1989. b. The assumed "hardship" in 1989 was apparently topography. The level of the rear yard is nearly 3' above the alley, and is bordered by a cement wall. c. Consent from nearby property owners within 10� feet. Ms Bachmeier just recently provided signatures from her neighbors as part of the recent rezoning process. No compiaints have been received regarding the existing driveway. d. The existang driveway is paved as required. If you require any additional information please feel free to contact me at 648-7718, or Brigitte Bachmeier directly at 225-0880. Sincerely, For: St. Anthony Management, Inc. Project Consultant : Louis C. Sudheimer 648-7718 . . .:...:�..� q �� . � =�-°-- N U C � � .� � N � N � ro .� .-i � .� 3 � �� '�� ' �� t�er�fidg� �'r�s��u�t��n CQmm�ss�or� . , ,,,. �`_`�i��-a� �k,--�.i----�------ -- F,!� � R R r A3'r?SS � s� ! 0 r'I' �CLv�� n,=. �� (E• �`� c:,. . r+ � v.J.. F.ny zFi2raticc3 ir�m t �is !an mus� �:. -- $�lp,'^uV$�� }' i11Q t;2R{ay�g iBS°(vai �t� , � � U � � � .� N N x N N •ri . d . � � U � � � m 3 N 7 •rl N � ro N N O LL O S� f�. Gmcic c�F c��`�.�zwn-,'tu � �O�VZ+[ 1�ti -��.,- r �� jlLC•.��- GVr�I�� '0 � .� reihsiz�ll;-�• i�.a�.� q�in�..do��<l cvrb cvi- �vr 'i�2 Pc�fi(s�•c1. � � � U C � U v .r � Ui U G N x U .� � � � CJC�:-vl ��'L\« � tC 7 �_.; , -b� r�e; _ � -��-- F--_. � .�..�� : � �. �.,�- 4 P�= ��-: � CITY OF SAINT PAUI HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR MlNOR WORK FILE NUMBER: 99s DATE: ADDRESS: HPC SITE/DISTAICT: APPLICANT: PHONE: STAFF: May 16, 1989 FILE „g, -�t� # °1�-170�- 459 Portland Avenue Hill District Donald Bachmeier 222-3298 Allan L. Torstenson � STTE DESCRIPTION: The Boyden-Dorsey house at 459 Portland Avenue is a Neoclassicai style residence constructed in 1901 and categorized as pivotal to the Historic Hili Heritage Preservation District. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to construct a new curb-cut on Porttand and a new driveway along the east side of his house. GUIDELII3E5 CITATIONS: 1. Section C. II. Garages and Parking of the Hill District Guidelines for Design Review states that, "If an alley is adjacent to the property, garages and parking shouid be located off of the alley." Driveway curb-cuts may be acceptable where aileys do not exist. 2. Section C. IX. Landscaping states that, "Granite curbs should be preserved." FINDING5 OF FACT: i. Because of the width and condition of the ailey at the back of the house, and because of the size and topography of the rear yard, providing for adequate off-street parking off of the aliey wouid be difficult and would result in loss of aimost all of the usable back yard open spaco. 2. The applicant will reinstall the historic granite curbing removed for the proposed new curb-cut to an abandoned driveway curb-cut across the street and reuse the curved granite curbing from the abandoned curb-cut aczoss ihe street for the proposed new curb-cut. '.Z d a. 3 � 9 � /�c.-, � 2 �- 2 . Ga c� C7Tj-/c2 �159 Portland Avenue St. Paul, MN 55102 April 17 19a9 Mr. Allan Torstenson, AICP Planner-in-Charge St. Paul Heritage Preservation Conmission 1100 City Hall Armex 25 W. Fourth Street St. Paut, MMt�II 55102 Dear Allen: �closed are drawings i7lustrating the driveway I would like to install at rrty residence located at 459 po�land Avenue. I am aware this installat3on varies fran the HPC guidelines and request your support in varying from the guidelines for the followir� reasons. 1) We wi.11 agr�ee to reinstall historic granite removed from our diveway to an abandoned driveway curb cut across the street. The net lineal footage of granite curb on our block would then be unchanged and an unsightly Lmcurbed boulevard would be enhanced at no expense to the city. 2) Our neighbor to the east most affected by the driveway dces not ob3ect. (see enclosed letter) 3) The driveway provides additonal off street parking. The existing structure of approxiamtely 9600 square feet has only a single car garage. 'Prrice a week we park 3/�+ of a block away and regularly carry groceries fr� a distance of 150 feet. ��-_��-' 4) Installing the drive from the alley would be difficult because of the following. The approximate 3 foot elevation cY�ar�ge from the alley. Zero lot line of structures and slabs beh3nd oi.m hane which restrict turning radius. Position of power pole at east property line. Fr�E � °l� - �30� N�. Allan Torstenson Apri1 17, 198g Page Two Al1ey paving briek has settled like tire ruts whi.ch is ent�nced in the wlnter by normal snow and ice rutting. We are located in middle of bloek which requires longest alley drive. The comb3nation of these issues has cost us thousands of dollars in auto repairs and significantly elevated stress. If there are any further questions please contact me. Sincerely, c �� - �� _ I�nald L. &�chmeier � �53 Partland Avenue St. Paul, 1�I 55103 April 18, 1989 Nm. Allan Torstenson, AICP Planner-3n-Charge St. Paul Heritage Preservation Comnission 1100 City Hall Annex 25 W. Fourth Street St. Paul., MiV 55102 Dear Mr. Torstenson: We have discussed the matter of Mr. Bachmeier's driveway 9nstallation and have decided to not ob�ect to th3.s proposal. Sincerely, Mentor C. Addicks Jr. ` , F� � F �� - � Q'? , I � O �. . . .i++Fa:.... .. .. .. LP. �i � � � '°� .� � m . i- � W S t � � k � S � �' A 0 �; � e � C W > O ti [ :u > �a c aF �a w O� F �� 0 vyH � I�I I�I�OI �t a0 � '1! » � . � Z 1 Q 3 �� o''s � lo� .I� Ju o a�o 1 � �� ; X�� ,. i m F W N 2 j � •fl � ra C�+-� p !t Z'4 �� y �1 I � � i d v �� V v � ti O �� I w ( i �f �� d G. N V a_ z � \/? 1 0 � r. � 0 _ �CZ � {�GI :� , ; ti��Cp ��. . O t�. i- 0� f �n �...� i O ��y.C.C t �, e y I r{s a F 6 W �� I I �" (� � � �� y/2 C++ C � V � . � � � � • � r '� ` � r �� . ti . � i i� \\c �Q . e� z � � i� `� cn '� m «. a 11 Vi o, < 5 �r ' � � `�! � ,.. o � � �v g ��, ` C� $ �� Y '� � E, I -� � M Y ` 1�.. O� � z W 2 J Q � C 0 d p � I' �CI `" � U�y c,' t�• �, '�� . � � 3 �, � I � il , a � „ d �-'- ' � 1 � � � U A I i ��.� A �� 3 i � �� ,��, y, .7 m � I r) !� I r.�if "'"•�w �� `� � O'p �� I �iI !. Ii �� eoys�� '" � :� o -- � d �i I. � �'; j I! � � � � �.;2_�� :a ' �� `�j I ` � �'. o�w:" +, 2�. � i� I '� � Y I II �_. U 23 y�� y XI� � K Q � , �� I (`'�� ]' ( y'� C � •�'� = � CJ � , I �I�a: �� yy�' ^ �t z y � � `� `�i f �!� � �i; C� •= i; ( �' • 5 �$ � `� j �..%. � 1 ! j��l_ - • 1-- � -- • --11 .a y� J ti �? � E �y :i � f I� ; L�� . r O�s4 �, K �. ,�<O C QLL � y V � ilr� � ! r�"�'.y Vy O ' ,,"',� .� /�I II S { W71; Q i } '� �,�'�' �'Y � � � ,�y H F� �� I z i �j � �; � v � � e � ; c F d ; [�{ II f I' . Vi �.5�.��' �. ; i � � � . � . . .:=:�.e��... �.. � _�.___=L� 3�'y^�Z�?'� t €. � ;a i f � � � ( ��i. 31 I i � � , --��}� � � � `'�:��•-:., I I � � i ! I � A I I ! E � � I I ��a I ( � I 1 a� 3+ ; � zi � .s 7 �t /' ✓; E ! . (':. � i �a N - ; ; (�� t /ii + _..� r. � �' i . i � �' i � �. � � ��' � I r� ! i �' I qq � � f � y � { � � 4 � � � � � � � �� Y I ( _ t I `t I I �� c � � �� y f i ` I I I I ._______ I IT�� i�� f' �� y !f!I .; ; � ' i yp � , f` � � ,E r-,_Y; n,l � : � � .� , , ; ,� �---� , � :.: .; ; s ; :� �� ; y �� . � � w � J �� 2A, G7 r, a s s i j i i 7 1 � � � t,� i r lJr JHIIV I YHUL DEPARTMENT � BUILDING INSPECTION 8 DESIGN DIVISION � 75 W. KELLOGG BLVD. � 4l5 GSY HALL � ST. PAUL, MN 55102 � � Permit No. �r Q �� [ �� ; �� 'C'IV2WG�y � Cl� � C�� PLAN NO. I DESC P710 OFPROJECT (� [� : t � Z� OWNER 1_IftN[L� iJ0.�V^Q�12K' � DATE 't — OWNERSADDRESS �� POC'T�A� Ati�_ S�'� PaJ� �SID2 , � ❑ OLD TYPE OF ❑ NEW TYPECONST. OCCUPANCY GRADING STUCCO OR ± ❑ BUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE ; ❑ ADDlTiON ❑ALTER ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WFtECK � NUMBEF S7REET SIPE CROSSSTREETS � �{S`� POrtLatnd� l7�Q, N �ro+�� '� MaLt�J(siv, . WARD LOT BLOCK ADD�TIO OR TRACT WID7H 1.OT W�I STRUC- TURE SI LENG7H 1 :E BUILDING LINE � FRONT REAR j EIGHT STORtES i i TDTALFLOOft AREA � ESTIMATED VALUE BASEMENT � YES ❑ NO DETAILS & REMARKS: fFP�_ �1-PPR6V�l� / C�RT ��[� 50. FT. INCLUDEBASEMENT �� 16 � � f� � ARCHITECT I j CONTRACTOR { i � — MASONRY ' PEflM1T FEE � PLqN CHECK 7 3 f STATE � SURCHARGE � TOTAL FEE _ APP�4CANT CERTtFtES THAT ALL �N- � FORMATION IS CORRECT ANO THAT ALL PERTINENT STA7E REGUlAT10fVS � AND CITY ORDINANCES WIIL BE COM- PL�EDWITH IN PERFORMiNG TH£ WDRK � FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. , x . _ i � ! AUTHOR12EOSIGNATVRE � " "'"'- ' _ ' ADORE55 & ZIP STATE VALVATION TEL. NO. 9�i _}70�.. � � ; i � CASHIER USE ONLY WHEN VALIDATED THIS IS YOUR PERMIT St. Code _ ADDRESS OF JOS_ � ' . . . _ _ ' " " _ . ' " _ " ' " _ � . i fROM : HISTORIC HILL F�MES Inc a�—�— .s ��,� �l��lw�rl� 9 PHONE NQ. : +291 8226 �/ ��r, ��n �� /�A�� 2 � � -,f �� tsl �-r�, N � . �6�i� � YJ w h��s /� �r �l ��.�.e�{�lly �a�a�R�ss � d�tUQ c,,�y �SSI�� ql��' � � N� �� ri�� +� �� d� � � d � cuR�c!��<.�� x�s`�.e�rc.� � � ��7� � q,vc� NO Q�(� �l� d 6 j�+ , �' �-`x �e��u /a C.��tNt�D�s' usP �� , ��v�� C�� '�� 1 Pt �� B��Q�O�'s��rr�.� . �� Nov. 18 1992 09:29PM P1 u,,,o �,,;,,,��.,.�,,,..,........ __ . FROM : HISTORIC HILL FiOMES Inc PFIONE N0. :+291 0226 Nw. 18 1992 09:30PM P2 n+�. �ro�, x�am� Zoning Techniaan Building bepartuient City of Saint Paul 360 St. Peter, Suite 800 St, Paul, MN 66102 Re: Brigitta Bachmeie�'s property at �58 Partland Ave. Doar Mr, Iiarflwick: aate: � �aa � `� � I Aril A�VVO &CD)1307gI]}lOT(8) Uf B11�1tt8'BaCh3'A81.Ox� and li.ve at: ��7 / oRTr.�-r� FJ �Nw. �� 7 / f�+-r c. , 1`�!N J�J'r c�c� I am (We ara) �vriting in suppart of Brigitto's zoning request to complete the renovatian of tlae garden level (basoment? rental unit hegun by her ex•husband. I iWo1 undorstand that Bzigitta's 458 Portland proPo�y is currently zoned RT-2 which allows up to four living units under certazn conditiong, however apparently additional variances are also requixed in order for Brigitt� ta havo more than two living wnita on the property. 9� -l�o�.. The hauso at 459 Portland is a huge 1900 era wood frame exterior building with coneidezabio orx�ate hiatoric dfltailing. It has over 7,OOQ square feet of finiehed interior fo'otage, enough footage for a amall apsrtment building. As such, it is very expensive to maintain, and I(�,ve) believe that tkie granting of the variances Brigitta Bachmeier is requesting in order to allow her to completz and rent her basement living unit is appropriato. Very Truiy Yours, I��. �.L._..� A^- FROM : H7STORIC HIIL FmMES Inc PHONE ND. :+291 0226 Mr. John Hardwick Zoning Techniaan Buflding Degarf,ment City of Saint Paut 360 St� Feter, Suite 3a0 sc. �a�, Mrr �sioa Re: Brigitta Baehmeie�s properG�y at 459 Portland Ave. Doar Mr. Iiardwick: Nw. 18 1992 09:31PM P1 17ate: �•'� � 1 I azn a CWe are) neighbor(s) of Brigitte Bachmeier, and live at: tlz;�l p(N�X t(�!� 1�YE:.. ,�'1�. �i��, 4�j �;In�.- T am (We are) wrlting iu support of Brigif�te's zoning reques� f,o complete the ronovation of the garden level (basament} rontal uxuC begun by her ex-huaband. I(We) understar,d that Brigitte's 458 Portland property is currently zonod RT-2 which allows up to four living vnits under certain conditions, howeve.r apparently addiGionai variances are also required in order for Brigitte to have more than two living units an the progar�y. , Tho housv st 469 Portland is a hugo 19D0 vra wood frarne exteriar buitding with consi.derable ornato laistaric detailiag. It has over 7,000 aquare feet of finished in,terior footage, enough footage for a amall aparttnent building. As such, it is very expensive tR maintain, and I(wo) believe that the granting o4'the variances Sr;gitte Bachmeier, is requeating in order to allow her to complete and rent her basoment living unit is . appropriate. Very Truly ,Y i .�t ( r< ,� i �� FROM : HISTORIC HILL Fwl'ES Inc pFqt� N0, : +291 0226 Fbv. 18 1992 09:32PM P2 q r1 - �'� O }- Mr. John Hazdwlck Zoning Techniciaa Building Depariment City of Saint Paut 350 S� Petar, Suite 390 5t. Paul, MN 65102 Re: Brigitta Bachmeiez's property at 459 Portlaad Ave. DoarMr. Hardwick: Aate: �' � q � I am a f We are) neighbor(s) of Brigitts Bachmeier, and live at» 'f5� �� . I am (t�e are) writing in support of Brigitte's zoning request to complete the ronovation of the gardsn level (basemant) roatal unit bo�sn by her ex-hueband. I(We) underatend that Brigitte's 468 Portland propertyie cuxrent�y zonod RT•2 which ullowe ug � four living uuita �nder cortaia conditions, however npgarantly ndditional variancas aro aleo required in order for Hrigitte to hava more than two living units on the property. Tho house at 459 Portland is a huge 1900 era wood frama exterior building with considerable ornate historic dotailing. It has ovor 7,000 square feeE of finished interior footago, enough footage for a small apartment building. As euch, it is very expensive eu maintain, and I(Nre) 6elieve that tha graaGing o£the variancea Brigitto Bachmoior is requesting in order to allow her to compiete axid rent her basement living uivt is appropriate. Very Truly Youra, �ro•( �"�.�4' �1 r ��-P _ _ _ __ � .a •• �as � /8' 6 A Mr. Jokui Hardwick Zoxiing Technician Building DeparLment City of Saiat Paul 350 St, Peter, Suite 900 SC. Pavl, MN G5302 Ite: I3rigitta Bactimeier's proporty at 469 Portland Ave. Date: , /� / / 9 �� - ll�nr Mr. Iiardwick: ._. � _ Denr Mr. Hardvrick: I am a(We are neighbor{e) of Brigitte B ier, and liva aL: 'y'S.3 /' Y1`la,a1 ��'. .f'7'�ltr.�-/ /yl/I� S�%Dl � am (4Vo aro) writang ia eupport of Brigitte's zonIng request W comploW tho ronovation of f]ie gurdea lovol (basement) rental unit begun by hor ex•husb�nd. I(Wo) understand that Brigitte's 469 PortJand proporty is currontly zoned RT-2 which allowa up to four living units under cerW'ui conditione, however apparently additional variances ere also requirod in order for $rigitte W havo moro Wan two ]iv3ng units on the property. Tho house at 459 Portland ie a huge 1900 era wood frame exterior building with considerabte ornate Iuetoric det '�. It hae uvet' 7,000 equaco foot of Sniehod intorior footage, enough footage for a emall apartment building. A9 euch, it is very expensive to moin�;aia, and I(we) beliavs thnf. tho granting of the variences Brigitfa Bachmeier ie rpquosting in arder i,o allow hor ta completa ¢nd rent har basc,mant living unit is apprupriate. Very Truly Yours, W• �v �i�li•��%! FROM : HISTORIC HILL HOMES Inc pl-I� N0. :+291 0226 No�. 18 1992 09:33PM P3 9'� -13oa. Mr. John I3ardwick Zoning Technician Building Depart�nent City of Saint Paul 3G0 St. Pot;er, Suite 3Q0 St.l�aul, MN 56102 Ro; Brigitl.a 13achmeiez's proporty at 459 Portland Ave, riear Mr, Hardwick: Aate: 2 � ] Am a(We ara) neighb�r(s) of Brigii�to Bachmoier, and live at: �/y9 �eti:i�r�� /�rf Sr`, ��. m�� 'ia z- --- --- � I am (We arc�) writang in suppori� of Bz�gitto's zoning request to construeL and x•anovato hor garden ]evei (basamont) as a third living unit. I(Wo) understand thai� �irigitto's 4�8 Portland propex�i.q is cuxxently zonod RT•2 wluch allowg up to four living units under certain conditiona, howavor apparently nddiLionul variances are also requirsd in ordor fnr $rigitte to have more t�an two living units on the progvxty. The house at 459 Portland ie a huge 1900 era woad frame extexior building wi�Ii congiderable ornato historic detailing. It has ovor 7,000 �quars feet of finished inCerior footxige, enou�h fnotago for a smrxll aparCment lauilding. Aa such, it is very expensiva to znain,tain, und Y(we) belie�ve Lhat the granting of ths variances Brigitte Bachmeier is requoating ai order to allow hor to coniplete and rent hor basomant living unit is appropriu�e. Very'!'ruly Xours, / , /� . . � �.�....► �, 1 �, ��. �" r� FROM : HISTORIC HILL HOMES Inc Mr. Jokui Hardwick Zoning Technician Building Dopartmont City of Snint Paul 360 St. Peter, Suite 800 St. Paul, MN 55102 Ii�e: Brigitta Bachmeier's propsrty at 459 Portland Ave. I�ear Mr. Hardwick; Datz: � � 7 I am a(We aro) neighbor(s) of Brigitte BAChmoier, end live aL: ,` J1Cl � I am (We are) writing in suppor� of Brigitte'e zoning request to complotv the renovation of the garden lovel (baeement) mntal unit begun by har ex-husband, J{We) understand thut Brigitte's 459 Portland properLy is currontly zoned RT•2 w�ich allows up to faur living units undor certain conditiona, however apparently additionul variances are aIsa raquired in ordor for Brigitte to havo moro than two living uiuts on the proporty. The housa at 459 Portland is a huge 1900 era wood fxamo axterior building with considerable ornato Iiietoric detailing. It has over 7,fl00 square feet of finishod interior footag�s, enough footage for a small apartment buiiding, Ae such, it is vory expensivo to maintain, and I(we} believe that the grAnting of the variances Brigittc+ Bachmeier is requesi�ing in order to allow her to comploto �►nd rent her baseraent living unit i s apprapriate. �� PHONE N0. �+291 0226 No�. 18 1992 09:33PM P4 �Tnrv Trnlv Ynnr�t FROM : HISTORIC HILL F�MES Inc PHONE N0. :+291 0226 Nov. 18 1992 09:34PM PS 9'7-�303.. Mr. John xardwick Zoning Technician Building Deparhnent City of Saint Paul 350 St. Petor, Suite 800 St. PAUl, MN 55102 Re: Brigitta Bachmeiex's property at 459 Portland Ave. Daar Mr. Hardwick: Date: /'2�'- ° I axn n(We are) neighbor(s) of Brigitte Bachmeier, and live at: ��vz/ �i�G4rFi-ar✓�•?" /'�^�. T�Tn (We are) writing in support of Brigi.tte's zoning request to completca the rexiovation oF the garden level (basement) rental unit begun by her eu-husband, I(We) understand that Brigitte's 469 PorCland property zs currentiy zoned RT-2 wluch'allows up to four living tuui•s under certain conditions, however apparently additional variances are also roquired in order for Brigi�te to hava moro tlian two living unite on the properEy. The house at 459 Portland is a huge 1900 era wood frame exterior bui.lding with considexablo ornate historic detfailing. It has over 7,0110 squsra feet a£finished interior foot�ge, enough footage for a sma1� apartment building. t1s such, it is very oxpensive to maintair�, and I(we) believe �na� the granting af i;he variances Brigitte $achmeier is requesting in order to atlow her to complete and rent hear basement living unit is Ap�x•opriate. • Very Truly'Youre, 19 .. 29, „ 21 J --------------- --------- ----- ----- ------- -------------------------- ii i ---------- --'�---------- �S�1 r� 1� APPIiCANT �lQ� � c�Qp}1fr1�P� PURPOSE Mi nr� v�tpse FILE R_ i� � DATE LI'ZI•9� � PLNG. DIS?� MAP ti I SCALE 1" = 400'- LEGEND L � ��._ --�� _- � �� -__ � �, i �� i ;� i �; . i ,� - i '� � i � � �,�_ i�� - ;� , c� � _ i � �� 1 I �� ' jl (241) �i' �l !SB i � �� v i � �f i I � � I� 7 � __LJ. ------- �=�i ------- �' — -- E -� ------ � �� i I� � 1 �' i cise-zio) till i � ��i i � ��i '4' � .�.�. zoning disirict boundary �!�� • -r • •�•• 0 one tamity ¢ two famity , �-�Q multiple family nL orih� • � ^ tOmmercial ♦ .... industriat V vacant a q�- I�o�- BRIGITTE R. BACHMEIER May 1, 1997 Board of Zoning Appeals Building Department City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter Street Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Attention: Mr. John Hardwick, Zoning Technician Re: Applicant: BRIGIT'fE BACHMEIER File No.: 97-061 Location: 459 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Zoning: RT-2, HPL Purpose: MINOR VARIANCE to Allow Parking within a Required Side Yard Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: I respectfutly request thatyou grant approval of the above-captioned minor variance request for the purpose of allowing me to preserve intact a driveway which has existed on my property at 459 Portland Avenue since 1989. That your approval of this request was statled on April 21st because of the objections of my neighbors, the Babcocks, is a deja vu experience for me because it took Don, my ex-husband, two arduous years (involving many meetings, hearings and negotiations) to get the installation of that driveway approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). That application process began in 1987 with Don's submission of an application to construct the driveway to the Building Inspection and Design Division (BIDD) and ended up in the office of the Department of Public Works (DPW) on May 11, 1989 with the issuance of permit, we rightfully thought, to install the driveway. We installed the driveway in the Summer of 1989. It cost two years' time and aggravation and $5,000 to install. A(lan Torstenson, who back then was Planner-in-Charge of the HPC, distinctly remembers the Bachmeier driveway matter before the HPC as a"long and drawn out application process". It was so protracted, in fact, that one of tne HaC members sent Con a ietter afrer it was over apotogizing to us for the length of time it took the HPC to finally approve our application. I wanted to give you this brief background so that you did not think that Don and I simply installed the driveway in the middle of the night. On the contrary, we jumped through all of the hoops the City asked us to starting with the application to BIDD, then to HPC and finally to DPW. We did exactly what we were told to do. No one from BIDD, HPC or DPW told us that further approval needed to be obtained from the BZA. In going through the HPC approval process, we obtained consents from surrounding neighbors induding the previous owner of the 8abcocks' house (an attorney). After you postponed your decision on April 21st, I started to explore the labyrinth of city departments to find out why we were not required--in 1987-9--to seek zoning approval of this simple project. I first called BIDD and was informed that it did not issue permits for driveways and that I should talk to DPW. When I told A[lan Torstenson of this comment, his 459 Portland Avenue • St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 •(612) 225-0880 � Letter to BZA May 1, 1997 response was: "If a building permit is not required, then zoning approval is not needed". I then called DPW and talked with Cindy Wood, an official in that department. She and her superior were surprised to hear that a driveway applicant needs to get approval not only from HPC but also from BZA. She said that DPW's procedure for curb-cut/driveway projects in the Historic Hill DistricC is first to check to see if the HPC has approved it; and if the HPC has, to issue the permit. The consensus of the city officials I talked to, thus, is that zoning approval is and has not been required in circumstances of this sort; that is, there is no procedure for sending an applicant who has run the HPC gauntlet to get the HPC's approval, and then gotten a permit from DPW, to the BZA for variance approval. If in fact zoning approval is necessary, there seems to be no mechanism for communicating that requirement to unwitting applicants such as us. No one told us back in i989 that we needed io getyour approval of the variance being sought today, nor, it seems, would anyone applying nowadays be given that direction. I talked about this matter to Jim Lynden, the attorney who drafted the condominiuin documents for my conversion of 459 Portland Avenue to a condominium. He used to live on the next block of Portland Avenue, helped draft the legislation creating the Historic Hill District and the HPC regulations, was a city attorney for 16 years, and was the first President of the Ramsey Hill Association and President of Old Town Restorations, Inc.. He was surprised that I was being required to obtain a variance where clearly some city official or department failed to apprise Don that we needed to get zoning approval--if, in fact, we really did need to get such additional approval. Jim told me about a case where the Minnesota Supreme Court or Court of Appeals held that a city could not require an owner to tear down a structure built pursuant to a permit where the city--after the issuance of the permit and consfi of the structure---discovered that the structure violated the zoning ordinance of the city. This letter is accompanied by letters supporting my variance request by many of the surrounding neighbors except for the Babcocks. It also includes a letter from Roger Hankey-- a certified member of the American Society of Home Inspectors--which rePudiates Mrs. Babcock's drainage contentions. Please take time to read them. The Babcocks moved into the house next door--453 Portland Avenue--six years ago. The driveway which so offends them now was there then. The previous owner of their house-- Mentor Addicks--consented to the instatlation of the driveway. I am an Austrian immigrant and, as such, a compulsive gardener. I am proud of the grounds of my house. My yard is immaculate. Neighbors have commented about how nice it always looks. In fact, right after the Babcocks moved in, Bill Babcock told me that one of the prime reasons they bought their house was my beautiful yard. Every summer since, the Babcocks have complimented me on it. To have Mrs. Babcock suggest to you otherwise, and to show you an unrepresentative photo (i.e., the vans of the remodelers of the third floor were parked on the driveway at the time she took the shot, a once in 20-30 years occurrence), thus is quite upsetting to me. In opposing my variance request, Mrs. Babcock is being opportunistic. Neither she nor her husband raised objection to the driveway in the earlier proceeding in which you 9� - �3 0�- Leiter to BZA May 1, 1997 approved conversion of my duplex to a triplex (Zoning File No. 97-0OS) nor did they appear in opposition to my application at the District 8 level. In fact, they gave their rvritten consent to it. With respect to Mrs. Babcock's concerns for the safety her child, I have the following comments and solution: If her 3 year old child is wandering around in her front yard, PorEland Avenue is much more dangerous than the Iitt(e driveway in question. A betEer place for the chiid to play is in the back yard. That is where my children played when they were younger. With that in mind, I propose to pay to the Babcocks one-half--not to exceed $1,000--of the cost of fencing or high shrubs along the eastern perimeter of my property or else one-half--not to exceed $1,000--of the cost of the erection of a fence running east-west from my property to the Babcock's house so that their child can safely play in an enclosed backyard. Mrs. Babcock has rejected all such proposals up to this point. She perhaps senses she can prevail with you and, therefore, need not compromise with me. She has been totally uncaoperative, insisting that the law must be upheld above all other things. I have tried my best to resolve this matter with her to no avail. In regard to Mrs. Babcock's contention that the driveway is causing water to drain into the basement of her house, I had Roger Hankey--a certified member of the American Society of Home Inspectors--inspect the driveway and surroundings today. His report accompanies this letter. It thoroughly refutes Mrs. Babcock's contention. In it, Mr. Hankey indicates that, in fact, the Babcocks' drainage problems are caused by the lack of gutters on the roof of their house (at least on the west side thereo�. He proposes solutions for each of us to implement to improve drainage. I am not a rich developer. I am a single mother fighting to stay in a beautiful house that costs alot to finance, maintain and repair. I want to stay here as long as I can. I have lived here with my family for 12 years. I converted the property to a condominium as the solution to a financial problem that arose during the dissolution of my marriage to Don and as a means to save the properly as a place to live for me and my children. I need to be able to create a third unit (the purpose of the previous variance application you granted) and to sell or rent it in order to reduce my debt load or make it more easy to handle. Parking, unfortunately, is the tail that wags the dog. It is critical. If I lose one parking space on the driveway because of your denial of the requested variance and my having to remove the driveway, I will be forced to construct an unnecessary garage along the alley to the rear of my residence. My backyard will become a solid wall of garages. The costs I would have to incur would be monumental for me--i.e., $6,000 to $8,000 for the demolition of the driveway and re-landscaping and $8,000 to $10,000 for the construc of a new garage. Those costs, of course, would be in addition to the $5,000 Don and I invested in the driveway backin 1989. For all of the reasons stated above, I would appreciate your granfing my variance request. Sincerely yours, ''p ��Z1��`�`�� Brigitte R. Bachmeier HANKEY 8� BROWN 11833 Thomhiil Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3274 612 - 829 - 0044 Fax: 612 - 94i - 8023 Certified Members of the American Society of Home Inspectorsm CONSULTRTION MEMO Property: Date: Client: Address: Inspector. RE: 459 Portland, St. Paui, MN 55102 1997-05-01 Brigitte Bachmeier 459 Portland, St. Paui MN 55102 Certified Member of ASHI O Roger Hankey Driveway drainage consuit. I have today examined the east side of the subject property including the driveway. The purpose of this visual examination was to determine if the driveway contributed to any,significant drainage toward the adjoining property to the east. The driveway drainage was fested using water from the hose connection at the SE comer of the house. The majority of water piaced near the house, and at a point 2 feet east of the house flowed to Portland Ave. A smail quantity of water did flow to the adjoining property to the east. However, this water does NOT flow to the area ne� to the foundation of 453 Portland. Any water from 459 that flows to 453 is diverted toward the street by a low ridge of soil between 453 and the east edge of the driveway at 459. The drainage at 453 is poor. The roof of 453 (at least on the W. side) has no rain gatters. Roofi runoff fands alortg the foundation and can't flow away due to setiled walks and low areas of soil near the house. One option that would improve the drainage at BOTH properties would be to create a swale (a shallow vailey) in the west yard of 453 about 2 to 3 feet from the east edge of the 459 driveway. Another option that would capture water from the 459 driveway would be to cut out a smali strip of fhe 459 driveway (say &8'� and replace the cut out portion with a concrete curb & gutter. This gutter wouid drain to the street. The curb would ensure that vehicies using the 459 driveway wouid not encroach on the 453 yard. This curb and gutter system would NOT aid in reducing the primary drainage problem near the foundation of 453, however it could serve as the high sidz oi a swale in the yard of 453, if BOTN of these options are implemented. i suggest that both options be adopted, with each property owner taking responsibitity for improvements on their own property. These recommendations do not constitute an assurance that the basement of either property will remain dry. Water controi issues must also include proper use and maintenance of gufters & downspouts. Limestone foundations are we2 not intended to be waterproof. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. q1- \3oa- 467 Portland Avenue St Paul, MN 55102 April 30, 1997 3ohn Hardwick LIEP St. Paul City Council Dear Mr. Hardwick, Re: Drivewav at 459 Portland Avenue I am writing this letter to support Brigitte Bachmeiez's request for zoning pezmission for the driveway which is in situ at the above address. The driveway was apparently built nine years ago and, for the five years during which we have owned and occupied 467 Portland Avenue, we have not experienced any problems with it - nor have we ever heard of any other neighbors having a problem with it. With the esception of the last few months when there has been a remodeling project in progress on the third floor of 459 Portland Avenue, the driveway has always been well maintained and kept clean and, as soon as that remodeling project is completed, we would expect her driveway to return to its normal standard of cleanliness. The alternatives, presumably, would be for Mrs. Bachmeier to park on the street or build a new garage behind her property. The former is always a touchy situation in a neighborhood such as ours where street parking is somewhat limited, and, from the point of view of someone who curren�ly looks at 46 feet of garage roof shingles courtesy of a new garage built on Holly Avenue, I would prefer to maintain as much qreen space in the neighborhood as possible. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to express my opinion on the above issue and I should be happy to discuss this further at any time should you think it necessary. Sincerely, �� Lynda Salway May 2, 1997 To Whom It May Concem: We live at 449 Portland Avenue in St. Paul. � A 3 m � €'or#land Av�. Our house is 6 feet to the east of Mr. and Mrs. Babcock's residence. Neither their house nor ours have down spouts or gutters. About three years ago and couple of times since then, we have suggested to Mr. and Mrs. Babcock that we create a proper drainage system between our houses (estimated cost $500.00 total). Each time they have responded by saying that they have a dry basement. Needless to say we were snrprised to heaz that the Babcock's claim that Mrs. Bachmeier's driveway was causing them to have a wet basement. Also we found their offer to split the cost to remove the driveway unbelievable. 'I'heir home including the front porch need massive amount of money to restore its structurat integrity. In the s'vi yeazs that we have lived at 449 Portland, tfiey haue never fully repaired anything. Tlus leads us to believe that they either do not care or can not afford to repair their home. In addidon their house sheds shingles like dandruff, creating safety concem for our two children. Our children aze not even ,cafe on their own properry. The Babcocks haue shown no concem about these safety issues. We strongly support the necessary approvals for Mrs. Bacluneier's driveway. We feel that our view represents the overwh ' g majority ofMrs. Bachmeiere's neighbors. �� Khalid EI. Effendi Faezeh O. Effendi Cpuncil File # Q�_ 13O •'�. Green Sheet # �0� � � RESOLUTIOAI Presented By Referred To 2 VJI�REAS, Brigitte Bachmeier, made application to the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning 3 Appeals for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code 4 for property located at 459 Portland Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and legally described as 5 Property Identification Number 012823240260 and Property Identification Number 6 012823240261;and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WHEREAS, the purpose of the applicafion was to vary the standards of the Saint Paul Zoning Code to ailow parking within a required side yazd; and WHEREAS, the Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on Apri121, 1997, after having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, by its Resolution 97-061, adopted May 5, 1997, granting the variance application based upon the following findings and conclusions: The applicant established the driveway and parking space in 1989 pursuant to a permit issued by the Public Works Department. The applicant also received approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission for the driveway. For some reason, the applicant was not directed to consult with Zoning. The driveway is paued and has stone curbs as required for historical confornury. The pazking available in this driveway, as we11 as additional parking, is necessary for the use of the building as a three- family dwelling. 24 25 2. The applicant received approvals from all City agencies except 26 Zoning. There were several times during the various approval 27 processes where the appiicant should have been directed to Zoning. 28 The fact that she was not is a circumstance that she did not create. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 The desire to provide off-street parking that complies with Heritage Preservation guidelines is an keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA a a 4 5 6 7 8 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 5. GQ The surrounding property owners have been norified of the applicant's desire to convert the building to a triplex and have had an opportunity to express any concerns about the parking in question. The only comments received from the neighborhood have been that the e�sting pazking should remain and that additional pazking be provided. Since the driveway meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, there should be no adverse effect on the character of the sunounding area. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change the zoning classificarion of the property. The request for variance is not based prunarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. 9`l -�30�. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, William and Kathryn Babcock, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Board of Zoning Appeals, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the Board of Zoning Appeals; and WI�EREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205 through 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Pau1 City Council on August 25, 1997, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and VJfIEREA5, the Council, hauing heard the statements made, and hauing considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolu6on of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does hereby IZESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in this matter based upon the following fmdings of the Council: Having heard the public testimony and considered all the records and files in this matter, the Council finds no enor as to fact, finding or procedure on the part of the Board of Zoning Appeals, and that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts and incorporates as its own the findings of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals as set forth above; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, that the appeai of William and Kathryn Babcock be and is hereby denied; and °l°'t -13 oa. i 2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolufion to 3 VJilliam and Kathryn Babcock, the Zoning Aduiinistrator, the Plazming Commission and the 4 Boazd of Zoning Appeals. 5 Requested by Department o£: 3y: lppx , By: Form Approved by City Attorney BY: ��d/l��-. /�-1?-�'i7 Approved by Mayor £or Submission to Cossncil By: Adopted by Council: Date �__ �_ �{_9'1 Adoption Certified by Council SecretaYy GREEN SHEET x�oy nna��n October 29�1997 Consent TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES Finalizing City Council aetion taken August 27, 1997 denying ihe appeal of William and Kathryn Babcock to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting a variance to allow parldng within a required side yazd to continue at 459 Portland Avenue. PIANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMI7TEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMIS: �,�,�� U ��.w. _ �,n� ❑ �p.w� swxaa.amvr.�sm� ❑ rtuxw�s�c.a�cero �.wvaeron�ssaawn ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Hes mis aersoMrm ever wnAced under a canVact for fhic departmeM't YES NO .Flas this P��m ever been a d7Y empbyce? YES NO Doestt�is Pe�n�T�m D� e sldU twt namalNP�eessetl bY �Y cwrent ci�l emPbYee? YES NO Is mia pcvsoNfiim a ta.yetea venda� � YES NO �I� -i3oa. No sa74a � �07AL AMOUM OF TRANSACTION t CO37/REVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCIE ONq YE3 NO LNDIN6 SOURGE ACTNRY NlAA86R INMICInL QJFORAaiION (EXPlA1N1 OFFICE OF '['I� CITY ATTORN&Y rega�rk c;ryanomey l l � `�C�- CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colem�m, Mayo> Civil Divisiorz 400 Ciry HaZl I S FPest Kellogg BZvd. Saim Paul, M'uuresota 55702 Tekphoree: 67Z 266-8710 Facsimile: 612 298-5619 October 20, 1997 Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Ha11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal of William and Katku•yi1 Babcock of Board of Zoning Appeals File 47-137 Dear Ms. Anderson: Enclosed please find a signed resolution moralizing the decision of the City Council in the above-entitled matter. Tlus matter should be piaced on the City Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, � G,/�� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney cc: John Hardwick, LIEP �"��.yw ..�vv--._: �.:.., . �� . � _ `e, tvJ� `�t'1- t 3 n a.. �- TO: lir. 3ohn Hardt�rick Board of Zoning Appeals 350 Saint Peter Street Suite 300 Lowry Professional Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 From: Rilliam A. fi Aathrpa K. BaY�cock 453 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 phone: (612) 222�4636 Re: June 24 1997, St. Paul City Council Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting a variance to allow parking within a required side yard Date: Sune 10, 1997 Dear Mr. Hardwick: Jerry McInerny has informed me that it will be possible to' change the date of this appeal to August 27, 1997. He asked me to contact you in writing to make this change. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, - � �. �� CTTY OF SAINT PALIL Norm Colemars, Mayor May 27,1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LiC" �xv[R°N'�rr Nan Anderson Ro6ers Kuskr, l City CounCil Rese3tCh OffiCe Room 310 City Hall 9.� _ ��p � IAARY PRO£ESS{ONAL Tekphone: 6t2-266-4090 BUIIDING Facsimile: 612-266-9094 S'dte.?00 672-2669124 350 St. Paer Street Saint Pnu[, Minnuota SSIO2-I510 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday June 11, 1997 for the following appeal of a Boazd of Zoning Appeals decision: Appellant: File Number: Purpose: Address: I,egal Description: Ptevious Aetion: � William & Kathryn Babcock 97-137 Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting a variance in order to allow puking within a required side yazd to continue. 459 Portland Ave PIN's 012823240260 & 012823240261 Distriet 8 took no position on this matter Staff recommended approval. Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Granted the request on a vote of 5-2. My un rstanding is that this public hearing tequest will appear on the agenda for the 3une , 1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-9082 if you have any questions. S c rely, � � hn Hazdwick - oning Technician cc: Council Member Blakey xarr� oF ru s Lica Enxsrc - �; The Saipt Paut City Cauncff�will conducY a public hearuig ea Wedsesilap. Jvne�25, 1997 (rescheduled from June 11J aG4:30�p.m. in fhe City`�ovne�7 Chambers, Thivd k7oor City Hall-COUrt House, to consider the appeal nf W3fliam�& .Kathryn Babcock to a decisioa o£ theBoazd of Zoning Appeals granUnga-varianse Eo allow pazking within a required side yard to continue at 459 Portland,Aveaue- Dated: May 29, 199? - - - � - �. � . � ' PtANCY fiNDERSON � . . - "., - . - . - - � , - AssisZant C3ty Gouncii Secretary . , " � - - _ _ -t.�ne 7,:1987r . - _- _� � � APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Econo»ric Development Zoning Section II00 City Hall Anne�c 25 West Founh Street Saint Paul, MIV SSIO2 266-6589 APPELIANT PROPERTY LOCATION Name W<<l�am ari.� {.(�-t'Krvr,n �-z-lo.ti-(C Address ' t�oRTURl�P s�ve City S�. St.M� Zip ss�oz Daytime phone Zoning File �'�qa-oc.�t��fsq t'�c�i'land Address(Location �I�q �og.r�.flNS Av� i S� • aAv� Y�l �f TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeai to the: (�Board ofi Zoning Appeais ❑ City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section Z� S, Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the o� Maw S ��1q 1 (date of d isio ) �� File number:__ _ �_►�� I GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. See q f5J21!97aoaa,25:3:rFM 4u8� V�tI�;;Cc Ci;��i; Attach additional sheef if necessary) .�gp i . pt: ApplicanYs signature /. %��:��`*' Date �J�Z�/��Cify agent William A. & Itathrpn h! 453 Portiand Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota phone: (612) 222-4636 May 22, 1937 Babcock 55IO2 Mr. John Hardwick Board of Zoning Appeals 350 5aint Peter Street Suite 300 Lowry-Professional Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Mr. Hardwick: This appiication is to appeal the decision Zoning Appeals to qrant a variance for 459 to allow a parked car in the side yard. of the Board of Portland Avenue We feel that the BZA, in granting this variance, has over- looked the apparent illegality of the driveway itself. The first request in 1988 for a"curb cut" was denied by the £ull HPC (one abstention). Donald Bachmeier never appealed this decision to the City Council. When the "Certificate of Approval for Minor F7ork" was issued a year later (according to HPC records?, circumstances at 459 Portland Avenue were not significantly different than they were in 1988. Overlooking a variance in I989 meant that there was no public meeting held to discuss this alteration to the district -- an alteration that the full HPC had found significant when it denied this curb cut in 1988. It is nat an unreasonable interpretation to say Ehat the driveway does require HPC approval. The staff report in 1988 illustrates that HPC approval is necessary because it is a materiai change to a historic district. A curb cut re- quires a permit from public works and thus from HPC. Further, the May 5 1997 decision of the BZA does not address the negative impact on the neighboring property at 453 Port- 2and Avenue. This includes, water runoff, plowed snow, ex- haust, noise, and the close proximity of parked cars to the neighbor's house. °I� -1� o �--• HARDWICK -- 2 May 21, 1997 As the driveway must also function as the only access for the third floor owners (who are forced to squeeze between the parked cars and the side o£ the house) cars are being parked oloser to the property line than before. Brigitte Bachmeier has told us that her car will be the only vehicle to park in the driveway at 459 Portland Avenue. She has o£fered to put us in touch with a drainage expert, erect a small fence, and plant some low shrubs (hosta}. No details of this were discussed, as such alterations would not significantly change the situation. Foliowing the recent conversion of the third floor into a condominium, there is a plan by the third-floor owners to add parking in the back yard. The owner o£ the third-£loor condo, Nei1 Lagos, has informed us that he has offered to provide a parking space to Mrs. Bachmeier when he adds back- yard parking. This seems to be a prudent and feasible alternative which wili be in keeping with the Historic Dis- trict guidelines and the vote of the fuil HPC in 1988. Additionally, an enlargement to the qarage door on Mrs. Bachmeier's existing garage wauid allow easier access for two cars, in a structure that already houses two automobiles. We request that Mrs. Bachmeier be able to use the driveway oni until the plan of parking in the backyard is realized (sometime next year, or prior to the sale of her house, whichever comes first). Locating all the parking for the 459 structure in the backyard seems a prudent and feasible alternative, which will be in keeping with historic distriat guidelines. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours sincerely, G'!/ ��us�� CJ l�� 1 Recised copy - May 20, 1997 To whom it may concern, The following is in effort to clarify our position regarding the e�sring driveway Iocated at 459 Pordand Ace., St. Paul, M1V. First, we �could like to say that we fully support Brigitta Bachmeie�'s desire to add a third unit to our building. If this reqnires adding additional allep access parking we would not be opposed. Second, in regards to the esisting street access drive�uay, it is our position that although cce �uouid rather not have ic, it was in e�istence when we purchased our unit Our primarp concern is that we ha�e adequate access, especiallp in the winter, to and from our unit entrance located at the side of rhe house. T'hird, Re �vould Iike to clarify our position regarding a possible brick driceway. In preti concersions we have espressed a desire to convert this driveway into a brick a�all� or patio, but not a brick dri�ecvay. F'inally; we �vould like to state that we are friends and neighbors to both the Bachmeier's and the Babcack's and we would like to remain neutral in regards to this issue. However, as previously mentioned, we are concerned �vith the access to and from our unit er.u�ance. If the conversion of the street entrance dricewap to a wall�-way or patio is not to be under taken then a separare �=ralkcvay will need to be added to ensure that we have adequate access l Sincere[y, ` � %/ ` /p1 / �, ✓� � Neal Lagos �nd Susan Hilt (Homeowners, �t�A. Dorsey Condominiums - 457/459 Port]and Ave.) cc: BrigitLa Bachmeier, Biii and Iiathryn Babcock, I.ou Sadheimer �, °11-��oi MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COIJNCIL CHAMBE125, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAi1L, MINNESOTA, APRII, 21, 1997 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Scherman, Tully and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Synstegaazd of the Office of License, Inspecfion, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT None The meeting was chaired by 3oyce Maddox, Chair. BRIGIT"1'E BACHMEIER (#97-061) - 459 PORTLAND AVENLTE: A variance to allow pazking within a required side yard. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation £or approval. Several letters were received in support regazding the variance request. One letter was submitted in opposition. Brigitte Bachmeier, 459 Portland-Avenoe, stated that her neighbor phoned her last night stating that she is not happy with the driveway next to her home. She stated that if she continued the driveway into a garage it would take away more green space. Her driveway was already existing when her neighbor bought her home. Mr. Alton asked if the driveway in question ever went into a gazage in the back yazd. Ms. Baci�meier reQlied no. Lou Sudheimer, 439 Portland Avenue, Acting Consultant for Ms. Bachmeier, stated that at the last public hearing a suggestion was made encowaging Ms. Bachmeier to extend the driveway back into the gazage which would have made it easier for the Board to approve. Kafluyn Babcock, 453 Portland Avenue, passed azound current pichues of the site to the Boazd. She stated that her properry abuts the applicant's. She read a letter to the Boazd that she submitted in opposition stating that they are offering to pay one-half of the cost of dismanding, removal, necessary curb repair and reseeding. She stated that her main concem is the safety of her young child and the envuonmentai effects on her home and the historic neighborhood. She stated that the driveway is only a few feet &om her home and sits on the properry line between the homes. Her daughter's playroom and beclroom abut the driveway and carbon monoxide fumes fiiter into their home. The close proximity of the driveway poses a safety problem should their daughter venture onto the adjouung property. Water drains from the driveway into their yard and basement and no landscaping hides the view of parked cazs and asphalt. It is a detriment to the visual quality of the district. The driveway violates the HPC Guidelines as was noted in 1988 when the case was fust heard. The full HPC Boazd denied this case in 1988 and one yeaz later it was granted by staff only and not File #97-061 Page Two revie�ved by the full HPC Boazd. Parking is an issue but an additionai garage is being planned for the back yazd which will legally meet the need for off-street pazldng. She cited secrions in the Legislative Code wlrich state that the driveway violaYes the design guidelines for their district. She also cited a section from the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. She stated she wonld leke to work something out with Ms. Bachmeier that can be beneficiat for both of them. Mr. Wilson asked Ms. Bachmeier if the driveway was in existence prior to 1984? Ms. Bachmeier replied no, the driveway was constructed in 1989. Mr. Sudheimer stated that the historic curb cut was originatly from across the street even though that block also has an alIey that serves it. He stated that there aze historical precedence for ttus. The new condowinium owner and Ms. Bachmeier have been discussing improving the appearance of the driveway with brick Perhaps Ms. Babcock's offer to split costs might be helpful in resolving to beauti£y the driveway although it would still be a&ont yazd pazking area. Mr. Alton asked what the Babcock's side yazd setback is. Mr. Sadheimer stated he be&eves iY is 8 to 10 feet Mr. Bachmeier stated that the condominium owner has been remodeling the unit and lately many deliveries have been made along with a dumpster that is curtently in the driveway. Mr. Sudheimer stated fhat when the Babcock's chose to buy their home this driveway was already in daily use. Ms. Maddox asked Mr. Aardwick what the HPC's current decision was on the driveway. Mr. Hazdwick stated he spoke with the HPC staff person and the"u understanding is that since the HPC approved the matter back in 2989 there is no recourse for staff or the HPC to review the matter. In 1989 there were different policies regazding the consideration of minor and major changes. In 1989 this driveway was oonsidered a minor request Ms. Bogen pointed out that the HPC approved the driveway buY iL dcesn't say that they approved parking in ihat driveway. Mr. Hardwick replied that the HPC dcesn't have the authority to approve parking. Mr. Alton stated that the applicant obtained a permit from PubIic Works, approval &om HPC sta� consent of fhe neighbor and the driveway plan was not leading to a gazage. In this cucumstance the driveway wasn't going anywhere so the only logical reason was the use for parking. Ms. Bogen quesrioned the legality of the driveway regazding the water runoff onto the Babcock's property. Mr. Hazdwick stated that there aze regulations in the State Building Code about changing the grade for construction purposes. A building permit isn't required for a driveway and a grading pemut is issued only if the grade will change inore than 6 inches so a gading permit was not required. However, there is a section in the building code requirements that states that a grade may not be changed to direct flow onto adjoining property. EIe stated that he assumes that the grade of the driveway was not changed. °l � -�� n �--- File #97-061 Page Three Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Hazdwick if he had spoke to Ms. Babcock. Mr. Hudwick replied that he spoke with Ms. Babcock for the f�st time today and he encouraged her to speak with Ms. Bachmeier to fiarther discuss some possible compromises. He stated that the applicant and Ms. Babcock haven't had an oppomuuty to discuss this thoroughly. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Donohue moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6. Mr. Alton seconded the motion Mr. Wilson added a friendly amendment to the motion that the neighbors continue the'u discussion to resolving the issues. Mr. Donohue stated that possibly continuing the matter may be an option to allow the neighbors to come to an agregment. Mr. Alton stated that the Board has received no indication that the parties would like to continue the matter. Mr. Tully amended the motion to add a condition that the applicant take caze of the slope of the driveway so that water runoff dcesn't occur and obscwe the driveway under the HPC Guidelines. Mr. Donohue stated he accepts Mr. Tully's friendly amendment. Mr. Alton stated that although shrubs cou]d be put in, the fact remains thai the driveway gces right up to the properiy line. Mr. Wamer stated that there are conditions that aze being proposed for the friendly amendment to initiate negotiations to elaninate the alleged drainage problem. The neighbor is free to bring whatever acfion they might choose against the applicant conceming that. There aze a host of legal theories they can groceed on. Although that is a reasonable condition to place on the motion, the problem is how you aze going to structure it? You are asldng them to resolve a drainage problem but you need to be precise regarding the time structure in resolving that. In respect to landscaping, that is also an acceptable condition but he stated he is not familiaz with the regutations regarding site planing, etc. Mr. Hazdwick stated that Mt. Alton made a good point in that the neighbor hasn't voiced any wiliingness to accept the resolution of this matter through compromise. He stated that the he had merely made those suggestions to Ms. Babcock and he hasn't had a chance to discuss those issues with Ms. Bachmeier. If the Boazd wants to put landscaping as a condition upon the apgroval of the variance, since the driveway is paved right up to the properiy line, the landscaping would have to be on the neighboring property. If the Board adds landscaping as a condition and Ms. Babcock dcesn't agree to it that would put Ms. Bachmeier in a predicament. Regazding the �vater runoff, he stated that he dcesn't have any first-hand lmowledge that the drainage problem was caused by the insfallation of the driveway. As Mr. Warner pointed out, there is legal recourse for Ms. Babcock regazding this issue. File #97-061 Page Fow The motion failed on a roll call vote of 3 to 4(Tully, Bogen, Wilson, Maddox). Mr. Wilson questioned the ocvnership of the curb rutming along side of the driveway. He asked if it is part of the historic curb cut that was put in from across the street? Mr. Hazdwick stated he assumes that Ms. Bachmeier owns the curb. Mr. WiIson stated that believing the curbing came from across the street and was installed at the Bachmeier's request, he moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6 subject to the condidon that the curbing ba eYtended the length of the driveway to prevent any runoff onto the neighboring property. Mr. Alton seconded the motion. Mr. Alton stated that extending the curbing may alleviate the concern of chiidren playing in the area and pose as a barrier. Mr. Alton asked if any pazking would have to occur beyond the &ont of the building because t}us is a side yard setback request. Mr. Hazdwick replied yes, this heazing is for parldng in a required side yard �vhich differs from pazt:ing in a required front yard. Mr. Tully asked if that will satisfy the parking requirements for the triplex? Mr. Aazdwick replied that in granting the variances to aIlow a triplex the BZA requ'ued a condition that additional off-street pazking be provided in the back yazd. This could be a garage or a pazldng pad. Mr. Wamer stated it is appropriate to take into consideration the impact in granting a variance would have on adjoining properly owners. The testimoiry heazd today was from the neighboring properiy owner who said that she has drainage problems. As Mr. Hard�rick pointed out, there is no hazd lrnowledge thaY there is a drainage probtem. That is not to diminish what the neighbor said, staff just found oat aboat her ooncem on very short notice so there was no way for staff to investigate that. Staff dcesn't Imow if attaching a condition to the variance that a new curb be aligned to eliminate the drainage problem will solve the alleged problem. Possibty regrading will eliminate it but the difficulty lies in being assured that there is a factual basis for making that condifion and lmowing that condition will solve the anderlying drainage problem He staYe@ that he dcesn't believe staff and the Boazd have enouglt informarion to do that. The adjoining property owner has a separate legal remedy available at their disposal to remedy the drainage problem if it indced exists. ff the idea of the curb is to provide a safety buffer, that wotild be an appropriate consideraUon but to not limit it to solving an alleged drainage problem. Mr. Wilson withdrew his motion. Ms. Bogen moved to deny the variance based on findings 1, 3 and 4. She stated that Finding #1 should be changed to say that the property can be put to a reasonable use. There is no need £or the driveway on the side of the house. Finding #3 should be changed to say that the proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code ..." Finding #4 should be changed to read that the variance will alter the essential chazacter of ihe surrounding azea ..." The tripl� wili have adequate parldng when the garage is built 4n the back. Mr. Tully seconded the motion. Mr. Tnlly asked how long the HPC decisions are in eft'ect Mr. Hazdwick replied that once a project is established the HPC's approval is legal until something is done to change it. R� - ►�o�. Fila #97-061 Page Five Ms. Bogen pointed out that when the HPC approved this, they approved it as a duplex and now it is being converted into a triplex. The Board has made additional conditions in parldng in the back yazd. The only need for pazking in the side yard is for convenience. Mr. Donohue suggested that rather than deny tivs variance the Board should continue the matter and allow the neighbors to come to a compromise. Mr. Donohue moved to continue the matter. Mr. Scherman seconded the motion. Mr. Tully asked if the Boazd would then be beyond the 60-day deadline? Mr. Wamer replied that the Board couid continue the matter until the next meeting and be within the 60-day deadline. Mr. Alton stated that the Board has no indication that it will be beneficial to the parties to continue the matter. The neighbor gave a generous offer to pay for half of the removal of the driveway but he doubts that the neig�bor would pay for letting the driveway stay. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 2(Tully, Bogen). Ms. Maddox stated that the motion to deny the variance request continues until the May 5, 1997, hearing at which time it will be voted on. Ms. Maddox urged Ms. Bachmeier and Ms. Babcock to contact Mr. Hazdwick prior to the May 5 hearing date. 3u 'tted b�� l hn Hardwick , p oved by: n / i 1 v � hn Tully, Secretary CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER: 9�-o6i DATE May 5, 1997 WI�REAS, BRIGETTE BACHMEIER has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 62.104 (11) of Yhe Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the continued use of pazking within a required side yard in the zoning disYrict at 459 PORTLAND AVE; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 04/21/97 and OS/OS/97, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64205 of the Legislative Code; and WE�REAS, the Saint Paui Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the pub&c hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: The property in quesYion cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant established the driveway and parking space in 1989 pursuant to a pernut issued by the Public Works Department. The applicant also received approval fzom the Heritage Preservation Commission for Yhe driveway. For some reason the applicant was not directed to consult with zoning. The driveway is paved aad has stone curbs as requ'ued for historical conformity. The parking available in this driveway, as well as additional parking, is necessary for the use of the building as a three-family dwelling. 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 applicant received approvals from all City agencies except Zoning. There were several times during the various approval processes where the applicant should have been directed to Zoning. The fact that she was not is a circumstance that she did not create. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the heaith, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paut. The desire Yo provide off-street pazldng that complies with Heritage Preservation guideline is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate suppIy of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding area or unreasonabIy diminish established property values within the surrounding azea. q1 — 13 0 �. Ffle #9?-061 Page Two The sunounding property owners have been notified of the applicant's desire to convert the bu�lding to a tri-plex and have had an opportunity to express any concerns about the parking in question. The only comments received from the neighborhood have been that the existing parking should remain and that additional parking be provided. Since the driveway meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, there should be no adverse effect on the character of the surrounding azea. 5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not pemutted 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 class�fication of the property. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change the zoning classification of the property. 6. Th� request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. NOW, TF�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 62.104 (I 1) be hereby waived to allow to allow parking within a required side yard on property located at 459 PORTLA�iD AVENUE and legally described as PINs 012823240260 and 012823240261; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. MOVED BY: ntton SECONDED BY: scherman IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: a MASLED: May 6,1997 TIME LIMIT: � No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erec6on or alteration of a building or off-street parldng facility shali be valid for a period longer than one year, uniess 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 permi� The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an eztension not to eaceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. Fite #97-061 Page Three APPEAL Decisions of tfie Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the �ty Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buitding permifs shall not be issued after an appeat has been filed. If perrtuts have been issued before an appeal has been Fled, theu the permits are suspended and construcfion shall cease untit the City Councit has made a f nal detenvination of the appeal. CERTTFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoaing Appeals for the Gty of Saint Paul, Minnesofa, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and fmd tfie sarae to be a true and conecY copy of said orig'u�,al and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of We Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeYing held on Apri121,1997, and May 5,1997, and on record in the Qffice of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St Peter Street, Saint Paul, ' Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF Z0IVING APPEALS Sue Synstegaard Secretary to the Board 9'1 - 1 � a �-- To: Mr. John 4{ardwick Board of Zoning Appeais 350 Saint Peter Street � Suite 300 � Lowry Professional Building Saint Paul, Minnespta 55102 � From: Wiltiam A. & Kathryn M. Babcock 453 Portland Avenue Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102 phone: (612) 222-4636 Re: May 5 Zoning Board of Appeais Meeting Date: May 2, 1997 We have attached a letter pertinent to the first agenda item on your Monday, May 5, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Also, please find enclosed ten {10) additional copies of this lettier for the members of the 8oard of Zoning Appeals and for the City Attorney. Please let us know if there is any other material that you might need. � Willia�a A. & Katfiryn M. 453 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota phone: (612) 222-4638 May 2, 1997 Babcock 55102 Mr. John Hardwick Board oY Zoning Appeals 350 Saint Peter Street Suite 300 Lowry Professional Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Bear Mr. Hardwick: At the request of the Board of Zoning Appeals, we have Yur- ther discussed the side-yard parking variance with our neighbor, &rigitte Bachmeier. Mrs. Bachmeier has told us that her car will he the onl.v vehicle to park in the driveway at 459 Portland Avenue. She has offereci to put us in touch with a drainage expert, erect a small Yence, and plant some low shrubs (hosta). vo details of fihis were discussed, as it would not significant- ly alter the situation. We suggested that Mrs. Bachmeier be able to use the driveway only until the plan of parking in the backyard is realized (somefime next year, or prior ta the sale of her house). Locating all the parking for the 459 structure in the back- yard seems a prudent and feasible atiernative, which will be in keeping with historic district guidelines. These guidelines will be tested again later this month by the full Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) when it reviews two similar curb-cut requests for Summit Avenue., It is notable that Donald Bachmeier never appealed to the City Council after the HPC denied curb cuts in 1988. Also (aecording to HPC records), when the "Certificate of Ap- proval for Minor Work" was issued a year later, circum- stances at 459 Portland Avenue were not significantly dif- ferent than Yhey wece in 2988. This "Minor 11'ork" certifi- cate did not obviafe fhe need.fo meef zoning codes (specifi- cally parking a car in a small side yard). a� - «o �.. ZONING APPEALS -- 2 i�tay 2, 1997 The public process in Saint Paul's Historic District has been key since the District's inception. Overlooking a var- iance in 1989 meant that there was no public meeting held to discuss this aiteration to the district -- an alteration that the Yull HPC had found significant mhen it denied this curb cut in 1988. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours sincerely, �� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 1. APPLICANT: BRIGITTE BACFIIvIEIER 2. CLASSIFICATION: Minor Variance 3. LOCATION: 459 PORTLAND AVE. F7I.E # 97-061 DATE OF HEARING: OS/OS/97 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIN's 012823240260 and 012823240261 5. PLANNING DLSTRICT: 8 6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2, HPL ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 621Q4 (11) 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 04/03/97 BY: 7ohn Hardwick 8. DATE REC`EIVED: 03/20/97 DEADLINE FOR ACTTON: OS/19/97 A. PURPOSE: A variance to allow pazking within a required side yazd. B. ACTION REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the continued use of a pazking space within the required 15 foot side setback. C. SITE AND AREA CONDTI'IONS: Tlus is a 65 by 144 foot pazcel with alley access to a detached twacar garage in the rear yard. There is also a nonconforming parking space on the east side of the house. Surrounding Land Use: A miYture of single- and multiple-family housing. D. BACKGROUND: The applicant was ganted a tot size and density variance by the BZA in February of this year to convert the building into a three-family dwetling. At the public hearing it was noted that the parking space along side of the house was estabIished without zoning approval. The variances ganted for the conversion to a tri-plex were subject to the condition that the applicant resolve this illegal parking situarion. E. FINDINGS: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict. provisions of the code. ' ° I'? - 1 � o � File #97-061 Page Two The applicant established the driveway and parking space in 1989 pursuant to a pernut issued by the Public Works Department. The applicaut also received approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission for the driveway. For some reason the applicant was not directed to consult with zoning. The driveway is paved and has stone curbs as required for historical confomuty. The parking available in this driveway, as well as additional parking, is necessary for the use of the building as a three-family dwelling. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to ttus property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The applicant received approvals from all City agencies except Zoning. There were several times during the various approvai processes where the applicant should have been directed to Zoning. The fact that she was not is a circumstance that she did not create. 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. The desire to provide off-street parking that complies with Iieritage Preservation guideline 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 chazacter of the surrounding area or unreasonably dimuush established property values within the sunounding area. The surrounding property owners have been notified of the applicanYs desire to convert the building to a tri-plex and have had an oppornxnity to express any concerns about the parking in question. The only comments received from the neighborhood have been that the existing parking should remain and that additional parking be provided. Since the driveway meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, there should be no adverse effect on the character of the surrounding area. 5. The variance, if granted, would not pemut any use that is not pernutted 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, if granted, will not change the zoning classification of the property. F�e #97-06I Page Three 6. The request for variance is not based primariiy on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the pazcet of land. F. DISTRICT COITNCIL ItECOM1VIENDATION: Since District 8 recommended approval of the variance to convert this building to a tri-plex and reviewed the site plan at that time with a recommendation for approval, they decided that a fiuther review of this request would not be necessary. G. STAF'F RECONIlbiENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staffrecommends approval of the variance. a � . . �� ^ � � ,-o�L- APPLICATION FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE °I�-\3o�. �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL � O� Q�� 1 � A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER w�, SECTION /� 7 PARAGRAPH \/� : IS REQUESTED IN CONFORMITY WITH 7HE POWERS VESTED IN THE BOARD OF ZONING AP- �� PEALS 70 PERMiT THE C w� �� 'f o/ f� �/!{� Ci C I I.�( UP��GN PROPERTY l (]FSCRIRFO RFf OW_ �DA�IMCE�fELEPHONENO: Gv� ?�i� ZIPCODE �S� t. ProQerty interest of applica�t (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) C�wNP� '�-� �uNt�vi'N/N/ul� ��/•��Rll� 2. Name ot owner (if different) B. PropertyDescription: ADDRESS `�� U� ��fV` '�� 1. Legal description: LOT . BLOCK ��-�--�-�—�=� ADD. ^� 2. �otsize: loS" x /y3 °.;, U�pitx, r,�,r R7'- Z 3. PresentUse .4nnn�od/��is � presentZoningDist. . G. Reasons for Request: } � , t. Proposed use : ( � -1 E+� CL�/'_"' 2. What physicai characteristics of the property preve�t i[s being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? (topography, soil conditions, size arW shape of lot, etc.) / � / . �°� G lli�'r� (i �p,'/j,E 3. State the specific variation requested, giving distances where appropriate. +`�i s 1`s ar��c�rY��N is�k'r; ]�� v e Ro u�ts ��` �% a rvfr`ssjria .�PPnoc/a/ a� �N� y�� c�Nr�e - wr � 4. Expfain how your case conforms to each of the foUowing: ; a. That the strict appiication of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance wouid result in pecuiiar ; or exceptional practical difficuities, or exceptional undue hardships. � ' .Sr� !��, � �� -�--- �i.�,� � � , b. That the granting of a variance wi11 -�� - rwt be a substantial detriment to �e�i��A' pubiic good or a substantial impair- ��.,�, . ment of the intent and purpose of "�'"�` � the Zoning Ordinance. • 5 �'f lD �� t �,- � �� r7� � � � Signature� ,�n5" F �-� %'�I� c-i 2/95 RS ONLY -. �.- ".. . �••�_ ty3.:�- , t��.? £. R A � 0 �. 5t. Anthony Management, Inc. 439 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Mr. John Hardwick Zoning Technician Building Department G`ity of Saint Pavl 350 St. Peter, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102 March 19th, 1997 Re: 459 Portland Avenue -- Existing FrontJside Yard Driveway Approval Request Deaz Mr. Hardwick: As you most likely recall, Brigitte Bachmeier, is the condomirrium Declarant, and the occupant owner of Condominium unit #2 at 459 Portiand which encompasses the majority of the basement, first and second floors. The third floor condominium is unit #1 and is owned and occupied by another party. The W.A. Dorsey Condominium, at 459 Portland, was recently created as an expandable condominium with the intention of completing the basement rental unit which was begun by a previous owner, Accordingly, a zoning application was submitted to request transition from a duplex, two unit property ta a legal tri-pleg, tbree unit property. This approval was granted by the BZA. During this approval pracess it was discovered that the effisting driveway which was consfixucted in 1989 along the parcel's east property line from PorGland Avenue north through the front yard to between 459 and the house to the east, had somehow not received an o�cial approval from zoning. This is strange since it was thought that all the appropriate G`ity permits and approvals for the driveway had been applied for and obtained. The Building Department, Public Works for the curbcut and the HPC, all tbree did give their blessing ans approvals to Doanald Bachmeier, as has been verified from official G`ity records, (see attachments). Therefore, it is a mystery as to how come the zoning bureaucracy wasn't also informed and involved at that time? At Ms Bachmeier's appearance before the BZA, a11 parties agreed that she should re- apply for a zoning variance for the existing driveway as a separate matter. The purpose of this letter is to fulfill that obligation. Presently, there are 1.5 to two existing garage stall spaces, and two front driveway parl�ng spaces in use. The official Condominium Plat's site plan (enclosed previously) shows future provisions have been made for up to three more aIley-accessed parking stalls to be constructed in the future on the NE corner of the parcel in the back yard, (either garaged or hard-surfaced?. � a'l -13 0 �-- There have been no known complaints from any neighbors regarding the e�sting driveway from 1989 to present. As you know, recently, a substantial number of neighbors provided lettzrs of support to the G�ty endorsing and approving of Ms Bachmeier's request for conversion from a dupleg to a tri-plex, all of them were fully awaze of the e�sting driveway. It is particulazly significant, that the only inquiries received by staff in response to the recent rezoning actions' neighbor notification mailing specifically mentioned neighborhood concems that adequate off-street parl�ng be preserved, not eliminated. With respect to the BZA's 6-24-96 "required yard" parking request conditions: a. Re: Contanuous use since October of 1975? The owner applied to the City for and was granted permission to construct this driveway by Public Works, HPC and the Building Department in 1989. b. The assumed "hardship" in 1989 was apparently topography. The level of the rear yard is nearly 3' above the alley, and is bordered by a cement wall. c. Consent from nearby property owners within 10� feet. Ms Bachmeier just recently provided signatures from her neighbors as part of the recent rezoning process. No compiaints have been received regarding the existing driveway. d. The existang driveway is paved as required. If you require any additional information please feel free to contact me at 648-7718, or Brigitte Bachmeier directly at 225-0880. Sincerely, For: St. Anthony Management, Inc. Project Consultant : Louis C. Sudheimer 648-7718 . . .:...:�..� q �� . � =�-°-- N U C � � .� � N � N � ro .� .-i � .� 3 � �� '�� ' �� t�er�fidg� �'r�s��u�t��n CQmm�ss�or� . , ,,,. �`_`�i��-a� �k,--�.i----�------ -- F,!� � R R r A3'r?SS � s� ! 0 r'I' �CLv�� n,=. �� (E• �`� c:,. . r+ � v.J.. F.ny zFi2raticc3 ir�m t �is !an mus� �:. -- $�lp,'^uV$�� }' i11Q t;2R{ay�g iBS°(vai �t� , � � U � � � .� N N x N N •ri . d . � � U � � � m 3 N 7 •rl N � ro N N O LL O S� f�. Gmcic c�F c��`�.�zwn-,'tu � �O�VZ+[ 1�ti -��.,- r �� jlLC•.��- GVr�I�� '0 � .� reihsiz�ll;-�• i�.a�.� q�in�..do��<l cvrb cvi- �vr 'i�2 Pc�fi(s�•c1. � � � U C � U v .r � Ui U G N x U .� � � � CJC�:-vl ��'L\« � tC 7 �_.; , -b� r�e; _ � -��-- F--_. � .�..�� : � �. �.,�- 4 P�= ��-: � CITY OF SAINT PAUI HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR MlNOR WORK FILE NUMBER: 99s DATE: ADDRESS: HPC SITE/DISTAICT: APPLICANT: PHONE: STAFF: May 16, 1989 FILE „g, -�t� # °1�-170�- 459 Portland Avenue Hill District Donald Bachmeier 222-3298 Allan L. Torstenson � STTE DESCRIPTION: The Boyden-Dorsey house at 459 Portland Avenue is a Neoclassicai style residence constructed in 1901 and categorized as pivotal to the Historic Hili Heritage Preservation District. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to construct a new curb-cut on Porttand and a new driveway along the east side of his house. GUIDELII3E5 CITATIONS: 1. Section C. II. Garages and Parking of the Hill District Guidelines for Design Review states that, "If an alley is adjacent to the property, garages and parking shouid be located off of the alley." Driveway curb-cuts may be acceptable where aileys do not exist. 2. Section C. IX. Landscaping states that, "Granite curbs should be preserved." FINDING5 OF FACT: i. Because of the width and condition of the ailey at the back of the house, and because of the size and topography of the rear yard, providing for adequate off-street parking off of the aliey wouid be difficult and would result in loss of aimost all of the usable back yard open spaco. 2. The applicant will reinstall the historic granite curbing removed for the proposed new curb-cut to an abandoned driveway curb-cut across the street and reuse the curved granite curbing from the abandoned curb-cut aczoss ihe street for the proposed new curb-cut. '.Z d a. 3 � 9 � /�c.-, � 2 �- 2 . Ga c� C7Tj-/c2 �159 Portland Avenue St. Paul, MN 55102 April 17 19a9 Mr. Allan Torstenson, AICP Planner-in-Charge St. Paul Heritage Preservation Conmission 1100 City Hall Armex 25 W. Fourth Street St. Paut, MMt�II 55102 Dear Allen: �closed are drawings i7lustrating the driveway I would like to install at rrty residence located at 459 po�land Avenue. I am aware this installat3on varies fran the HPC guidelines and request your support in varying from the guidelines for the followir� reasons. 1) We wi.11 agr�ee to reinstall historic granite removed from our diveway to an abandoned driveway curb cut across the street. The net lineal footage of granite curb on our block would then be unchanged and an unsightly Lmcurbed boulevard would be enhanced at no expense to the city. 2) Our neighbor to the east most affected by the driveway dces not ob3ect. (see enclosed letter) 3) The driveway provides additonal off street parking. The existing structure of approxiamtely 9600 square feet has only a single car garage. 'Prrice a week we park 3/�+ of a block away and regularly carry groceries fr� a distance of 150 feet. ��-_��-' 4) Installing the drive from the alley would be difficult because of the following. The approximate 3 foot elevation cY�ar�ge from the alley. Zero lot line of structures and slabs beh3nd oi.m hane which restrict turning radius. Position of power pole at east property line. Fr�E � °l� - �30� N�. Allan Torstenson Apri1 17, 198g Page Two Al1ey paving briek has settled like tire ruts whi.ch is ent�nced in the wlnter by normal snow and ice rutting. We are located in middle of bloek which requires longest alley drive. The comb3nation of these issues has cost us thousands of dollars in auto repairs and significantly elevated stress. If there are any further questions please contact me. Sincerely, c �� - �� _ I�nald L. &�chmeier � �53 Partland Avenue St. Paul, 1�I 55103 April 18, 1989 Nm. Allan Torstenson, AICP Planner-3n-Charge St. Paul Heritage Preservation Comnission 1100 City Hall Annex 25 W. Fourth Street St. Paul., MiV 55102 Dear Mr. Torstenson: We have discussed the matter of Mr. Bachmeier's driveway 9nstallation and have decided to not ob�ect to th3.s proposal. Sincerely, Mentor C. Addicks Jr. ` , F� � F �� - � Q'? , I � O �. . . .i++Fa:.... .. .. .. LP. �i � � � '°� .� � m . i- � W S t � � k � S � �' A 0 �; � e � C W > O ti [ :u > �a c aF �a w O� F �� 0 vyH � I�I I�I�OI �t a0 � '1! » � . � Z 1 Q 3 �� o''s � lo� .I� Ju o a�o 1 � �� ; X�� ,. i m F W N 2 j � •fl � ra C�+-� p !t Z'4 �� y �1 I � � i d v �� V v � ti O �� I w ( i �f �� d G. N V a_ z � \/? 1 0 � r. � 0 _ �CZ � {�GI :� , ; ti��Cp ��. . O t�. i- 0� f �n �...� i O ��y.C.C t �, e y I r{s a F 6 W �� I I �" (� � � �� y/2 C++ C � V � . � � � � • � r '� ` � r �� . ti . � i i� \\c �Q . e� z � � i� `� cn '� m «. a 11 Vi o, < 5 �r ' � � `�! � ,.. o � � �v g ��, ` C� $ �� Y '� � E, I -� � M Y ` 1�.. O� � z W 2 J Q � C 0 d p � I' �CI `" � U�y c,' t�• �, '�� . � � 3 �, � I � il , a � „ d �-'- ' � 1 � � � U A I i ��.� A �� 3 i � �� ,��, y, .7 m � I r) !� I r.�if "'"•�w �� `� � O'p �� I �iI !. Ii �� eoys�� '" � :� o -- � d �i I. � �'; j I! � � � � �.;2_�� :a ' �� `�j I ` � �'. o�w:" +, 2�. � i� I '� � Y I II �_. U 23 y�� y XI� � K Q � , �� I (`'�� ]' ( y'� C � •�'� = � CJ � , I �I�a: �� yy�' ^ �t z y � � `� `�i f �!� � �i; C� •= i; ( �' • 5 �$ � `� j �..%. � 1 ! j��l_ - • 1-- � -- • --11 .a y� J ti �? � E �y :i � f I� ; L�� . r O�s4 �, K �. ,�<O C QLL � y V � ilr� � ! r�"�'.y Vy O ' ,,"',� .� /�I II S { W71; Q i } '� �,�'�' �'Y � � � ,�y H F� �� I z i �j � �; � v � � e � ; c F d ; [�{ II f I' . Vi �.5�.��' �. ; i � � � . � . . .:=:�.e��... �.. � _�.___=L� 3�'y^�Z�?'� t €. � ;a i f � � � ( ��i. 31 I i � � , --��}� � � � `'�:��•-:., I I � � i ! I � A I I ! E � � I I ��a I ( � I 1 a� 3+ ; � zi � .s 7 �t /' ✓; E ! . (':. � i �a N - ; ; (�� t /ii + _..� r. � �' i . i � �' i � �. � � ��' � I r� ! i �' I qq � � f � y � { � � 4 � � � � � � � �� Y I ( _ t I `t I I �� c � � �� y f i ` I I I I ._______ I IT�� i�� f' �� y !f!I .; ; � ' i yp � , f` � � ,E r-,_Y; n,l � : � � .� , , ; ,� �---� , � :.: .; ; s ; :� �� ; y �� . � � w � J �� 2A, G7 r, a s s i j i i 7 1 � � � t,� i r lJr JHIIV I YHUL DEPARTMENT � BUILDING INSPECTION 8 DESIGN DIVISION � 75 W. KELLOGG BLVD. � 4l5 GSY HALL � ST. PAUL, MN 55102 � � Permit No. �r Q �� [ �� ; �� 'C'IV2WG�y � Cl� � C�� PLAN NO. I DESC P710 OFPROJECT (� [� : t � Z� OWNER 1_IftN[L� iJ0.�V^Q�12K' � DATE 't — OWNERSADDRESS �� POC'T�A� Ati�_ S�'� PaJ� �SID2 , � ❑ OLD TYPE OF ❑ NEW TYPECONST. OCCUPANCY GRADING STUCCO OR ± ❑ BUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE ; ❑ ADDlTiON ❑ALTER ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WFtECK � NUMBEF S7REET SIPE CROSSSTREETS � �{S`� POrtLatnd� l7�Q, N �ro+�� '� MaLt�J(siv, . WARD LOT BLOCK ADD�TIO OR TRACT WID7H 1.OT W�I STRUC- TURE SI LENG7H 1 :E BUILDING LINE � FRONT REAR j EIGHT STORtES i i TDTALFLOOft AREA � ESTIMATED VALUE BASEMENT � YES ❑ NO DETAILS & REMARKS: fFP�_ �1-PPR6V�l� / C�RT ��[� 50. FT. INCLUDEBASEMENT �� 16 � � f� � ARCHITECT I j CONTRACTOR { i � — MASONRY ' PEflM1T FEE � PLqN CHECK 7 3 f STATE � SURCHARGE � TOTAL FEE _ APP�4CANT CERTtFtES THAT ALL �N- � FORMATION IS CORRECT ANO THAT ALL PERTINENT STA7E REGUlAT10fVS � AND CITY ORDINANCES WIIL BE COM- PL�EDWITH IN PERFORMiNG TH£ WDRK � FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. , x . _ i � ! AUTHOR12EOSIGNATVRE � " "'"'- ' _ ' ADORE55 & ZIP STATE VALVATION TEL. NO. 9�i _}70�.. � � ; i � CASHIER USE ONLY WHEN VALIDATED THIS IS YOUR PERMIT St. Code _ ADDRESS OF JOS_ � ' . . . _ _ ' " " _ . ' " _ " ' " _ � . i fROM : HISTORIC HILL F�MES Inc a�—�— .s ��,� �l��lw�rl� 9 PHONE NQ. : +291 8226 �/ ��r, ��n �� /�A�� 2 � � -,f �� tsl �-r�, N � . �6�i� � YJ w h��s /� �r �l ��.�.e�{�lly �a�a�R�ss � d�tUQ c,,�y �SSI�� ql��' � � N� �� ri�� +� �� d� � � d � cuR�c!��<.�� x�s`�.e�rc.� � � ��7� � q,vc� NO Q�(� �l� d 6 j�+ , �' �-`x �e��u /a C.��tNt�D�s' usP �� , ��v�� C�� '�� 1 Pt �� B��Q�O�'s��rr�.� . �� Nov. 18 1992 09:29PM P1 u,,,o �,,;,,,��.,.�,,,..,........ __ . FROM : HISTORIC HILL FiOMES Inc PFIONE N0. :+291 0226 Nw. 18 1992 09:30PM P2 n+�. �ro�, x�am� Zoning Techniaan Building bepartuient City of Saint Paul 360 St. Peter, Suite 800 St, Paul, MN 66102 Re: Brigitta Bachmeie�'s property at �58 Partland Ave. Doar Mr, Iiarflwick: aate: � �aa � `� � I Aril A�VVO &CD)1307gI]}lOT(8) Uf B11�1tt8'BaCh3'A81.Ox� and li.ve at: ��7 / oRTr.�-r� FJ �Nw. �� 7 / f�+-r c. , 1`�!N J�J'r c�c� I am (We ara) �vriting in suppart of Brigitto's zoning request to complete the renovatian of tlae garden level (basoment? rental unit hegun by her ex•husband. I iWo1 undorstand that Bzigitta's 458 Portland proPo�y is currently zoned RT-2 which allows up to four living units under certazn conditiong, however apparently additional variances are also requixed in order for Brigitt� ta havo more than two living wnita on the property. 9� -l�o�.. The hauso at 459 Portland is a huge 1900 era wood frame exterior building with coneidezabio orx�ate hiatoric dfltailing. It has over 7,OOQ square feet of finiehed interior fo'otage, enough footage for a amall apsrtment building. As such, it is very expensive to maintain, and I(�,ve) believe that tkie granting of the variances Brigitta Bachmeier is requesting in order to allow her to completz and rent her basement living unit is appropriato. Very Truiy Yours, I��. �.L._..� A^- FROM : H7STORIC HIIL FmMES Inc PHONE ND. :+291 0226 Mr. John Hardwick Zoning Techniaan Buflding Degarf,ment City of Saint Paut 360 St� Feter, Suite 3a0 sc. �a�, Mrr �sioa Re: Brigitta Baehmeie�s properG�y at 459 Portland Ave. Doar Mr. Iiardwick: Nw. 18 1992 09:31PM P1 17ate: �•'� � 1 I azn a CWe are) neighbor(s) of Brigitte Bachmeier, and live at: tlz;�l p(N�X t(�!� 1�YE:.. ,�'1�. �i��, 4�j �;In�.- T am (We are) wrlting iu support of Brigif�te's zoning reques� f,o complete the ronovation of the garden level (basament} rontal uxuC begun by her ex-huaband. I(We) understar,d that Brigitte's 458 Portland property is currently zonod RT-2 which allows up to four living vnits under certain conditions, howeve.r apparently addiGionai variances are also required in order for Brigitte to have more than two living units an the progar�y. , Tho housv st 469 Portland is a hugo 19D0 vra wood frarne exteriar buitding with consi.derable ornato laistaric detailiag. It has over 7,000 aquare feet of finished in,terior footage, enough footage for a amall aparttnent building. As such, it is very expensive tR maintain, and I(wo) believe that the granting o4'the variances Sr;gitte Bachmeier, is requeating in order to allow her to complete and rent her basoment living unit is . appropriate. Very Truly ,Y i .�t ( r< ,� i �� FROM : HISTORIC HILL Fwl'ES Inc pFqt� N0, : +291 0226 Fbv. 18 1992 09:32PM P2 q r1 - �'� O }- Mr. John Hazdwlck Zoning Techniciaa Building Depariment City of Saint Paut 350 S� Petar, Suite 390 5t. Paul, MN 65102 Re: Brigitta Bachmeiez's property at 459 Portlaad Ave. DoarMr. Hardwick: Aate: �' � q � I am a f We are) neighbor(s) of Brigitts Bachmeier, and live at» 'f5� �� . I am (t�e are) writing in support of Brigitte's zoning request to complete the ronovation of the gardsn level (basemant) roatal unit bo�sn by her ex-hueband. I(We) underatend that Brigitte's 468 Portland propertyie cuxrent�y zonod RT•2 which ullowe ug � four living uuita �nder cortaia conditions, however npgarantly ndditional variancas aro aleo required in order for Hrigitte to hava more than two living units on the property. Tho house at 459 Portland is a huge 1900 era wood frama exterior building with considerable ornate historic dotailing. It has ovor 7,000 square feeE of finished interior footago, enough footage for a small apartment building. As euch, it is very expensive eu maintain, and I(Nre) 6elieve that tha graaGing o£the variancea Brigitto Bachmoior is requesting in order to allow her to compiete axid rent her basement living uivt is appropriate. Very Truly Youra, �ro•( �"�.�4' �1 r ��-P _ _ _ __ � .a •• �as � /8' 6 A Mr. Jokui Hardwick Zoxiing Technician Building DeparLment City of Saiat Paul 350 St, Peter, Suite 900 SC. Pavl, MN G5302 Ite: I3rigitta Bactimeier's proporty at 469 Portland Ave. Date: , /� / / 9 �� - ll�nr Mr. Iiardwick: ._. � _ Denr Mr. Hardvrick: I am a(We are neighbor{e) of Brigitte B ier, and liva aL: 'y'S.3 /' Y1`la,a1 ��'. .f'7'�ltr.�-/ /yl/I� S�%Dl � am (4Vo aro) writang ia eupport of Brigitte's zonIng request W comploW tho ronovation of f]ie gurdea lovol (basement) rental unit begun by hor ex•husb�nd. I(Wo) understand that Brigitte's 469 PortJand proporty is currontly zoned RT-2 which allowa up to four living units under cerW'ui conditione, however apparently additional variances ere also requirod in order for $rigitte W havo moro Wan two ]iv3ng units on the property. Tho house at 459 Portland ie a huge 1900 era wood frame exterior building with considerabte ornate Iuetoric det '�. It hae uvet' 7,000 equaco foot of Sniehod intorior footage, enough footage for a emall apartment building. A9 euch, it is very expensive to moin�;aia, and I(we) beliavs thnf. tho granting of the variences Brigitfa Bachmeier ie rpquosting in arder i,o allow hor ta completa ¢nd rent har basc,mant living unit is apprupriate. Very Truly Yours, W• �v �i�li•��%! FROM : HISTORIC HILL HOMES Inc pl-I� N0. :+291 0226 No�. 18 1992 09:33PM P3 9'� -13oa. Mr. John I3ardwick Zoning Technician Building Depart�nent City of Saint Paul 3G0 St. Pot;er, Suite 3Q0 St.l�aul, MN 56102 Ro; Brigitl.a 13achmeiez's proporty at 459 Portland Ave, riear Mr, Hardwick: Aate: 2 � ] Am a(We ara) neighb�r(s) of Brigii�to Bachmoier, and live at: �/y9 �eti:i�r�� /�rf Sr`, ��. m�� 'ia z- --- --- � I am (We arc�) writang in suppori� of Bz�gitto's zoning request to construeL and x•anovato hor garden ]evei (basamont) as a third living unit. I(Wo) understand thai� �irigitto's 4�8 Portland propex�i.q is cuxxently zonod RT•2 wluch allowg up to four living units under certain conditiona, howavor apparently nddiLionul variances are also requirsd in ordor fnr $rigitte to have more t�an two living units on the progvxty. The house at 459 Portland ie a huge 1900 era woad frame extexior building wi�Ii congiderable ornato historic detailing. It has ovor 7,000 �quars feet of finished inCerior footxige, enou�h fnotago for a smrxll aparCment lauilding. Aa such, it is very expensiva to znain,tain, und Y(we) belie�ve Lhat the granting of ths variances Brigitte Bachmeier is requoating ai order to allow hor to coniplete and rent hor basomant living unit is appropriu�e. Very'!'ruly Xours, / , /� . . � �.�....► �, 1 �, ��. �" r� FROM : HISTORIC HILL HOMES Inc Mr. Jokui Hardwick Zoning Technician Building Dopartmont City of Snint Paul 360 St. Peter, Suite 800 St. Paul, MN 55102 Ii�e: Brigitta Bachmeier's propsrty at 459 Portland Ave. I�ear Mr. Hardwick; Datz: � � 7 I am a(We aro) neighbor(s) of Brigitte BAChmoier, end live aL: ,` J1Cl � I am (We are) writing in suppor� of Brigitte'e zoning request to complotv the renovation of the garden lovel (baeement) mntal unit begun by har ex-husband, J{We) understand thut Brigitte's 459 Portland properLy is currontly zoned RT•2 w�ich allows up to faur living units undor certain conditiona, however apparently additionul variances are aIsa raquired in ordor for Brigitte to havo moro than two living uiuts on the proporty. The housa at 459 Portland is a huge 1900 era wood fxamo axterior building with considerable ornato Iiietoric detailing. It has over 7,fl00 square feet of finishod interior footag�s, enough footage for a small apartment buiiding, Ae such, it is vory expensivo to maintain, and I(we} believe that the grAnting of the variances Brigittc+ Bachmeier is requesi�ing in order to allow her to comploto �►nd rent her baseraent living unit i s apprapriate. �� PHONE N0. �+291 0226 No�. 18 1992 09:33PM P4 �Tnrv Trnlv Ynnr�t FROM : HISTORIC HILL F�MES Inc PHONE N0. :+291 0226 Nov. 18 1992 09:34PM PS 9'7-�303.. Mr. John xardwick Zoning Technician Building Deparhnent City of Saint Paul 350 St. Petor, Suite 800 St. PAUl, MN 55102 Re: Brigitta Bachmeiex's property at 459 Portland Ave. Daar Mr. Hardwick: Date: /'2�'- ° I axn n(We are) neighbor(s) of Brigitte Bachmeier, and live at: ��vz/ �i�G4rFi-ar✓�•?" /'�^�. T�Tn (We are) writing in support of Brigi.tte's zoning request to completca the rexiovation oF the garden level (basement) rental unit begun by her eu-husband, I(We) understand that Brigitte's 469 PorCland property zs currentiy zoned RT-2 wluch'allows up to four living tuui•s under certain conditions, however apparently additional variances are also roquired in order for Brigi�te to hava moro tlian two living unite on the properEy. The house at 459 Portland is a huge 1900 era wood frame exterior bui.lding with considexablo ornate historic detfailing. It has over 7,0110 squsra feet a£finished interior foot�ge, enough footage for a sma1� apartment building. t1s such, it is very oxpensive to maintair�, and I(we) believe �na� the granting af i;he variances Brigitte $achmeier is requesting in order to atlow her to complete and rent hear basement living unit is Ap�x•opriate. • Very Truly'Youre, 19 .. 29, „ 21 J --------------- --------- ----- ----- ------- -------------------------- ii i ---------- --'�---------- �S�1 r� 1� APPIiCANT �lQ� � c�Qp}1fr1�P� PURPOSE Mi nr� v�tpse FILE R_ i� � DATE LI'ZI•9� � PLNG. DIS?� MAP ti I SCALE 1" = 400'- LEGEND L � ��._ --�� _- � �� -__ � �, i �� i ;� i �; . i ,� - i '� � i � � �,�_ i�� - ;� , c� � _ i � �� 1 I �� ' jl (241) �i' �l !SB i � �� v i � �f i I � � I� 7 � __LJ. ------- �=�i ------- �' — -- E -� ------ � �� i I� � 1 �' i cise-zio) till i � ��i i � ��i '4' � .�.�. zoning disirict boundary �!�� • -r • •�•• 0 one tamity ¢ two famity , �-�Q multiple family nL orih� • � ^ tOmmercial ♦ .... industriat V vacant a q�- I�o�- BRIGITTE R. BACHMEIER May 1, 1997 Board of Zoning Appeals Building Department City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter Street Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Attention: Mr. John Hardwick, Zoning Technician Re: Applicant: BRIGIT'fE BACHMEIER File No.: 97-061 Location: 459 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Zoning: RT-2, HPL Purpose: MINOR VARIANCE to Allow Parking within a Required Side Yard Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: I respectfutly request thatyou grant approval of the above-captioned minor variance request for the purpose of allowing me to preserve intact a driveway which has existed on my property at 459 Portland Avenue since 1989. That your approval of this request was statled on April 21st because of the objections of my neighbors, the Babcocks, is a deja vu experience for me because it took Don, my ex-husband, two arduous years (involving many meetings, hearings and negotiations) to get the installation of that driveway approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). That application process began in 1987 with Don's submission of an application to construct the driveway to the Building Inspection and Design Division (BIDD) and ended up in the office of the Department of Public Works (DPW) on May 11, 1989 with the issuance of permit, we rightfully thought, to install the driveway. We installed the driveway in the Summer of 1989. It cost two years' time and aggravation and $5,000 to install. A(lan Torstenson, who back then was Planner-in-Charge of the HPC, distinctly remembers the Bachmeier driveway matter before the HPC as a"long and drawn out application process". It was so protracted, in fact, that one of tne HaC members sent Con a ietter afrer it was over apotogizing to us for the length of time it took the HPC to finally approve our application. I wanted to give you this brief background so that you did not think that Don and I simply installed the driveway in the middle of the night. On the contrary, we jumped through all of the hoops the City asked us to starting with the application to BIDD, then to HPC and finally to DPW. We did exactly what we were told to do. No one from BIDD, HPC or DPW told us that further approval needed to be obtained from the BZA. In going through the HPC approval process, we obtained consents from surrounding neighbors induding the previous owner of the 8abcocks' house (an attorney). After you postponed your decision on April 21st, I started to explore the labyrinth of city departments to find out why we were not required--in 1987-9--to seek zoning approval of this simple project. I first called BIDD and was informed that it did not issue permits for driveways and that I should talk to DPW. When I told A[lan Torstenson of this comment, his 459 Portland Avenue • St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 •(612) 225-0880 � Letter to BZA May 1, 1997 response was: "If a building permit is not required, then zoning approval is not needed". I then called DPW and talked with Cindy Wood, an official in that department. She and her superior were surprised to hear that a driveway applicant needs to get approval not only from HPC but also from BZA. She said that DPW's procedure for curb-cut/driveway projects in the Historic Hill DistricC is first to check to see if the HPC has approved it; and if the HPC has, to issue the permit. The consensus of the city officials I talked to, thus, is that zoning approval is and has not been required in circumstances of this sort; that is, there is no procedure for sending an applicant who has run the HPC gauntlet to get the HPC's approval, and then gotten a permit from DPW, to the BZA for variance approval. If in fact zoning approval is necessary, there seems to be no mechanism for communicating that requirement to unwitting applicants such as us. No one told us back in i989 that we needed io getyour approval of the variance being sought today, nor, it seems, would anyone applying nowadays be given that direction. I talked about this matter to Jim Lynden, the attorney who drafted the condominiuin documents for my conversion of 459 Portland Avenue to a condominium. He used to live on the next block of Portland Avenue, helped draft the legislation creating the Historic Hill District and the HPC regulations, was a city attorney for 16 years, and was the first President of the Ramsey Hill Association and President of Old Town Restorations, Inc.. He was surprised that I was being required to obtain a variance where clearly some city official or department failed to apprise Don that we needed to get zoning approval--if, in fact, we really did need to get such additional approval. Jim told me about a case where the Minnesota Supreme Court or Court of Appeals held that a city could not require an owner to tear down a structure built pursuant to a permit where the city--after the issuance of the permit and consfi of the structure---discovered that the structure violated the zoning ordinance of the city. This letter is accompanied by letters supporting my variance request by many of the surrounding neighbors except for the Babcocks. It also includes a letter from Roger Hankey-- a certified member of the American Society of Home Inspectors--which rePudiates Mrs. Babcock's drainage contentions. Please take time to read them. The Babcocks moved into the house next door--453 Portland Avenue--six years ago. The driveway which so offends them now was there then. The previous owner of their house-- Mentor Addicks--consented to the instatlation of the driveway. I am an Austrian immigrant and, as such, a compulsive gardener. I am proud of the grounds of my house. My yard is immaculate. Neighbors have commented about how nice it always looks. In fact, right after the Babcocks moved in, Bill Babcock told me that one of the prime reasons they bought their house was my beautiful yard. Every summer since, the Babcocks have complimented me on it. To have Mrs. Babcock suggest to you otherwise, and to show you an unrepresentative photo (i.e., the vans of the remodelers of the third floor were parked on the driveway at the time she took the shot, a once in 20-30 years occurrence), thus is quite upsetting to me. In opposing my variance request, Mrs. Babcock is being opportunistic. Neither she nor her husband raised objection to the driveway in the earlier proceeding in which you 9� - �3 0�- Leiter to BZA May 1, 1997 approved conversion of my duplex to a triplex (Zoning File No. 97-0OS) nor did they appear in opposition to my application at the District 8 level. In fact, they gave their rvritten consent to it. With respect to Mrs. Babcock's concerns for the safety her child, I have the following comments and solution: If her 3 year old child is wandering around in her front yard, PorEland Avenue is much more dangerous than the Iitt(e driveway in question. A betEer place for the chiid to play is in the back yard. That is where my children played when they were younger. With that in mind, I propose to pay to the Babcocks one-half--not to exceed $1,000--of the cost of fencing or high shrubs along the eastern perimeter of my property or else one-half--not to exceed $1,000--of the cost of the erection of a fence running east-west from my property to the Babcock's house so that their child can safely play in an enclosed backyard. Mrs. Babcock has rejected all such proposals up to this point. She perhaps senses she can prevail with you and, therefore, need not compromise with me. She has been totally uncaoperative, insisting that the law must be upheld above all other things. I have tried my best to resolve this matter with her to no avail. In regard to Mrs. Babcock's contention that the driveway is causing water to drain into the basement of her house, I had Roger Hankey--a certified member of the American Society of Home Inspectors--inspect the driveway and surroundings today. His report accompanies this letter. It thoroughly refutes Mrs. Babcock's contention. In it, Mr. Hankey indicates that, in fact, the Babcocks' drainage problems are caused by the lack of gutters on the roof of their house (at least on the west side thereo�. He proposes solutions for each of us to implement to improve drainage. I am not a rich developer. I am a single mother fighting to stay in a beautiful house that costs alot to finance, maintain and repair. I want to stay here as long as I can. I have lived here with my family for 12 years. I converted the property to a condominium as the solution to a financial problem that arose during the dissolution of my marriage to Don and as a means to save the properly as a place to live for me and my children. I need to be able to create a third unit (the purpose of the previous variance application you granted) and to sell or rent it in order to reduce my debt load or make it more easy to handle. Parking, unfortunately, is the tail that wags the dog. It is critical. If I lose one parking space on the driveway because of your denial of the requested variance and my having to remove the driveway, I will be forced to construct an unnecessary garage along the alley to the rear of my residence. My backyard will become a solid wall of garages. The costs I would have to incur would be monumental for me--i.e., $6,000 to $8,000 for the demolition of the driveway and re-landscaping and $8,000 to $10,000 for the construc of a new garage. Those costs, of course, would be in addition to the $5,000 Don and I invested in the driveway backin 1989. For all of the reasons stated above, I would appreciate your granfing my variance request. Sincerely yours, ''p ��Z1��`�`�� Brigitte R. Bachmeier HANKEY 8� BROWN 11833 Thomhiil Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3274 612 - 829 - 0044 Fax: 612 - 94i - 8023 Certified Members of the American Society of Home Inspectorsm CONSULTRTION MEMO Property: Date: Client: Address: Inspector. RE: 459 Portland, St. Paui, MN 55102 1997-05-01 Brigitte Bachmeier 459 Portland, St. Paui MN 55102 Certified Member of ASHI O Roger Hankey Driveway drainage consuit. I have today examined the east side of the subject property including the driveway. The purpose of this visual examination was to determine if the driveway contributed to any,significant drainage toward the adjoining property to the east. The driveway drainage was fested using water from the hose connection at the SE comer of the house. The majority of water piaced near the house, and at a point 2 feet east of the house flowed to Portland Ave. A smail quantity of water did flow to the adjoining property to the east. However, this water does NOT flow to the area ne� to the foundation of 453 Portland. Any water from 459 that flows to 453 is diverted toward the street by a low ridge of soil between 453 and the east edge of the driveway at 459. The drainage at 453 is poor. The roof of 453 (at least on the W. side) has no rain gatters. Roofi runoff fands alortg the foundation and can't flow away due to setiled walks and low areas of soil near the house. One option that would improve the drainage at BOTH properties would be to create a swale (a shallow vailey) in the west yard of 453 about 2 to 3 feet from the east edge of the 459 driveway. Another option that would capture water from the 459 driveway would be to cut out a smali strip of fhe 459 driveway (say &8'� and replace the cut out portion with a concrete curb & gutter. This gutter wouid drain to the street. The curb would ensure that vehicies using the 459 driveway wouid not encroach on the 453 yard. This curb and gutter system would NOT aid in reducing the primary drainage problem near the foundation of 453, however it could serve as the high sidz oi a swale in the yard of 453, if BOTN of these options are implemented. i suggest that both options be adopted, with each property owner taking responsibitity for improvements on their own property. These recommendations do not constitute an assurance that the basement of either property will remain dry. Water controi issues must also include proper use and maintenance of gufters & downspouts. Limestone foundations are we2 not intended to be waterproof. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. q1- \3oa- 467 Portland Avenue St Paul, MN 55102 April 30, 1997 3ohn Hardwick LIEP St. Paul City Council Dear Mr. Hardwick, Re: Drivewav at 459 Portland Avenue I am writing this letter to support Brigitte Bachmeiez's request for zoning pezmission for the driveway which is in situ at the above address. The driveway was apparently built nine years ago and, for the five years during which we have owned and occupied 467 Portland Avenue, we have not experienced any problems with it - nor have we ever heard of any other neighbors having a problem with it. With the esception of the last few months when there has been a remodeling project in progress on the third floor of 459 Portland Avenue, the driveway has always been well maintained and kept clean and, as soon as that remodeling project is completed, we would expect her driveway to return to its normal standard of cleanliness. The alternatives, presumably, would be for Mrs. Bachmeier to park on the street or build a new garage behind her property. The former is always a touchy situation in a neighborhood such as ours where street parking is somewhat limited, and, from the point of view of someone who curren�ly looks at 46 feet of garage roof shingles courtesy of a new garage built on Holly Avenue, I would prefer to maintain as much qreen space in the neighborhood as possible. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to express my opinion on the above issue and I should be happy to discuss this further at any time should you think it necessary. Sincerely, �� Lynda Salway May 2, 1997 To Whom It May Concem: We live at 449 Portland Avenue in St. Paul. � A 3 m � €'or#land Av�. Our house is 6 feet to the east of Mr. and Mrs. Babcock's residence. Neither their house nor ours have down spouts or gutters. About three years ago and couple of times since then, we have suggested to Mr. and Mrs. Babcock that we create a proper drainage system between our houses (estimated cost $500.00 total). Each time they have responded by saying that they have a dry basement. Needless to say we were snrprised to heaz that the Babcock's claim that Mrs. Bachmeier's driveway was causing them to have a wet basement. Also we found their offer to split the cost to remove the driveway unbelievable. 'I'heir home including the front porch need massive amount of money to restore its structurat integrity. In the s'vi yeazs that we have lived at 449 Portland, tfiey haue never fully repaired anything. Tlus leads us to believe that they either do not care or can not afford to repair their home. In addidon their house sheds shingles like dandruff, creating safety concem for our two children. Our children aze not even ,cafe on their own properry. The Babcocks haue shown no concem about these safety issues. We strongly support the necessary approvals for Mrs. Bacluneier's driveway. We feel that our view represents the overwh ' g majority ofMrs. Bachmeiere's neighbors. �� Khalid EI. Effendi Faezeh O. Effendi