The URL can be used to link to this page

97-188�. ^ � � � � Council File # �� Green Sheet # '�1��`�� RESOLUTION OF,S/�INT PAUL, MINNESOTA 33 Presented By Re£erred To Committee: Date VJHEREAS, Joel and Debra Revzen made application to the Boazd of Zonino Appeals for a variance from the sh applicarion of the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for properiy located at 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road and legally described as all of Lot 86, Lane's Edgcumbe Hills, Rauisey County, Minnesota, and all of Lot 85 except the easterly 67.94 feet thereof, Lane's Edgcuxnbe Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and that part of Lot 87, Lane's Edgcumbe Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies Easterly of a line described as follows: begi nnina at a point on the North line of said Lot 87 distant 33.94 feet West of the Northeast corner of said Lot 87; thence South, assumed bearing, paza11e1 with the East line of Lot 87 a distauce of 34.04 feet; thence East a distance 5.00 feet; thence South a distance of 70.00 feet; thence East a distance of 10.00 feet; thence south a distance of 146.02 feet to the South line of said Lot 87 and said described line there terminating; and WI�REAS, the application sought a front yard setback vaziance for the purposes of constructing a single family home; and WHBREAS, the Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on October 14, 1996, after having provided notice to affected properiy owners, and the Boazd, by its resolution number 96-244 dated October 14, 1996, granted the variance application, with conditions based upon the following findings and conclusions: l. Lower St. Dennis Road is a horseshoe-shaped street. The homes on the interior of the horseshoe are oriented at different angles to the street makiug the deternunation of the front setbacks difficult. However, the Building Inspectar has determined that the auerage setback of the two existing homes on the block is 77 feet as measured to the property line. There is a twenty-one-foot boulevazd between the property line and the curb. Based on this determination, the proposed house could not be constructed and still maintain a rear setback without a variance. 2. The curve of the street and the orientation of the other homes on the street are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. 3. The proposed residence is approximately centered on the lot and is of a similar size and style as the other homes in the area. This is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. q�-«� 4. The other two homes on the same side of the street are setback from the street anywhere from 30 to 116 feet depending on which point of their sireet &ontage you measure from. The homes directly across the street from the proposed residence are setback about 30 feet from the street. There are e�tisting trees and shrubbery on both sides of the properry that will help screen the proposed house from the adjoining homes. The proposed house will not impair the supply of light or air to the adjacent property nor dinunish the surrounding properiy values. 5. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land; and VJHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislafive Code § 64.205, David Sattinger and Ingunn Sachs 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 said Boazd; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code §§ 64.205 - 64.208 and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on November 27, 1996, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and WI�EREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing on November 27, 1996, a motion on the matter of the appeal of David Sattinger and In�unn Sachs was put to a vote before the City Council and the motion on the matter, hauing failed on a tie vote, was laid over to December 11, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Council, reconvened the matter on December 11, 1996 and hauing heard the statements made and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the recozd, minutes and resolution of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul finds the following errors in the decision and fmdings of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals as contained in the Boazds resolution No. 96-244: With respect to fmding No. 1, the Council finds that the properiy in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code in that the proposed house could be conshucted on the property without a variance by moving the proposed structure closer to the rear property line; and With respect to finding No. 2, the Council fmds that the plight of the landowner is a self created hazdslup based upon the design of the house and the swiimning pool and their proposed loca6on on the site; and With respect to finding No. 4, the Council fmds that the proposed reduced front setback is not in keeping with the character of the other homes in the surrounding azea. � z 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 IO 11 g�t -�� AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon this Council's determination that the Boazd of Zo nino Appeals erred in fmdings 1, 2 and 4, the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance to Joel and Debra Revzen is hereby reversed and that the appeal of David Sattanger and Ingunn Sachs contesting the variance is hereby granted; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clezk shall mail a copy of this resoIution to appellants David Sattinger and Ingunn Saclvs, the applicants Joel and Debra Revzen and to the Zoning Aduuvistrator, the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Saint Paul Planning Commission. Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY: o-� � ..va�.. . � —. Approved by Mayor : Date '� �/� �-- By: C L__. ' Requested by Department of: By: Form approved by City Attorney By: � G��/�,,.� / 2�-y� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Adopted by Council: Date �,g, a(„i�°�Q� 9'1 � t �p� OEPY1f�NTAFFICEICOUNC�L DATE INITIATED 3 $ � � � clty ��n�ll 2-4-1997 GREEN SHEE CONTACT PEfiSON & PHONE INITIAVDATE INITIAL/DATE _ O DEPAFTMENT DIRECTOR � GRV CAUNCIL -MI�Ce $8ZT1S�-?.f3{Yg�7-3� ��GN �C1T'ATTORNEY OCITYCLERK NUYBEfl fOH MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) ROUTIXG O BUDGEf DIRECTOR � FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR. Feb 26 1997. "_ _- __� ,. �. oaoee Q'nawa roA nss�srnr+n � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS POR SIGNATURE) AC710N FiE�UESTED: Finalizing City Counc�l action taken on December 11, 1996, granting the appeal of David Sattinger and Ingunn Sachs from a decision of the Saint Paul Board of Zoniug Appeals. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING DUESTIONS: _ PL4NNIN0 COMMISSION _ GIVIL SERVICE CAMM�SSION 1. Has this person/Firtn ever worked untler a contract for this tlepartment? _ CIB COMMITTEE YES NO — �� F 2. Has Mis personHirm ever been a city employee? — YES NO _ DiSTRICT cAUR7 — 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curren[ city employee? SUPPOFiTS WHICN COUNCIL O&IECTIVE4 YES NO Explain all yes answers on separate sheet antl attach to green shaet INITIATING PROBLEM, iSSUE.OPPORTUNI7V (Who. What. When, Where, Why): AWANTAGES IF APPRWED: DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: �s�+3:i� �,1?? �.e�`5s's E.�fB A` �„� � � i�� -- — „-,.: DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED: 70TAL AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION $ COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIWG SOURCE AC7IYITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFOR65ATION: (EXPLAIN) OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E Mar� City Anomey ^� 1' �� .. CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co%man, Mayor Civil Divzrion 400 City Hall IS West Kel[ogg Blvd Saint Paul, �Ytmnesota SSIO2 Te[ephone: 672 266-8710 Facsnnile: 6l2 298-5619 January 28, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Nancy: Attached please find the original, signed Resolution finalizing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council of December 11, 1996, granting the appeal of David Sattinger and Ingunn Sachs from a decision of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals. Please have this matter calendared on the Council's Consent Agenda. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thanks, �� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney Attachment O£FICE OF LICENSE, INSPECT10N5 AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RobertKesslen Director q�t-ld'� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nonrt Colemaq Mayor ZAWRY PROFESSIONAL BUII,UING Srdte 300 350 St. Peter Street SaintPaul,Mirvtesota SSZ02-ISIO Telephone: 6I Z26(r9090 Facsimi[e: 6I2-2669099 612-266-9124 October 30, 1996 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday November 13, 1996 for the following appeal of a Boazd of Zoning Appeals decision: Appellant: File Number: David Sattinger & Ingunn Sachs 96-271 Purpose: Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting a front yazd setback variance in order to construct a new single family home. Address: 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road Legal Description of Property: See file. Previous Action: The Community Development Committee of the Highland Area Community Council voted unanimously to approve the vaziance request. Staff recommended approval. Board of Zoning Appeals, Granted the request on a vote of 5-2. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda for the November 13, 1996 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 ely, � ��Gt1�9� ��;��C'�'3 �� ohn Hardwick Zonin Technician �� ,�� $ _ � NOTICE OF PQBLIC HEAItING CC: C011RCIl M8ri1t)BL 1j2TI15 'The Saint Paul City Council-will coaduct a pµbIic heariIIg on V�edn"esday, November 13, 1996 at 4:30 p.m., City Covncil Chambers, Third Floor. Ci�y"Aalk, to eonsider the� appeal of David Sattinger and� Iagunn Sachs to a decision of'the Boazd of Zoning Appeais graating-a froat yazd seCback vazianc,e_ ia oFder to construct a new slagle family home at 2158 Lower St. Dennis Road. ; Dated: October S0, 1996 � - � - � NANCY ANDERSON ' . � � - Assistaat City Council Secre[ary � � - - � � " � , � (November 1, 1986) - ' ! I//3 SAINT lAUL � 11111►A APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Economic Develapment Zoning Section 1100 City Hall Annex - 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 � .-, APPELLANT Name vL� V\ ci� ��'� �� r Address 21 3�t �`Nev� 'S�• 7f'i�i5 �`(• City S i'�"'� St. �"�ip `��7�� 6 Daytime phone �y�" y�U �Y19u✓�r� d l�n�.fG«„ f-(snkis,>„ 5��, G,s 2r 65 �-ower Sr. t�eh�,s r2�-.� PROPERTY Zoning File Name LOCATION S L� �,v tn., S 3 • ��1 rvr.� I� , Address/Location 215 TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph appeal a decision made by the_ on Uc,{ -_-r�1 ��{ci�� (date of decision) v � 4' t.� , 19 y�. c�/ 4 o n �� File number:_ of the Zoning Code, to /�} ��p�k�S b - i `1-►p� ; I i � GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Exptain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedare or ��' finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. Gt/ E � e � I� v� � k,'�f �✓' �` � r 5 ��f � 6 1M 1 l�� i C C t �� J +� 1�� N �) �1 ��e v �"�-'"�^-c-F . S_eQ, Ct�-J-�c-�a S ��z�- , i{3I2��tpA� 3�F�G$7Fli Aftach additiona( sheet if necessary) cwNr�ct ��, fJ cl,��l �� . }j �� Date �vt2� � � �ity a Appiicant's signature � � (,-._ )�t . ? r f l�( 6 ��L��M1,�-- I r�� CD e�� .�� - l �S`� Re: Board of Zoning Appeals, File 96-244. Appellants: Jonathan and Ingunn Henrikssen Saehs, 2165 I.ower St. Dennis Rd. David and Irene Sattinger, 2139 Lower St. Dennis Rd. We contest the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow a 21 foot setback variance for the property at 2155 Lower St. Dennis Rd. and ask that the St. Paul City Council reject this recommendation. In brie� the StaffReport contains errors of fact: the need for the requested variance has not been demonstrated; and the proposed variance will result in an adverse impact on the homeowners unmediately adjacent to the property. Following is our refutation of the Findings in the Staff Report (Exhibit 1): 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable nse under the strict provisions of the code." ..."The proposed house coutd not be constructed and still maintain a rear setback without a variance." The proposed home, with its adjoining garage, pool, and surrounding patio, as described in the Topography Survey submitted by the landowners (Exhibit 2) can be built on the lot without the variance. The Survey shows a 25 foot distance from the north end of the pario area to the rear property line. No setback is required for a patio, and a five foot setback is required for a pooi; hence the entire complex can be moved 21 feet back and so be within the front setback required by the City, with no rear setback variance required. Documentarion is given in Appendix 1 below. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner." There is no plight. The lot is approximately 135 feet wide at the street and 250 feet deep, and level, except for a small rise from the street. The owners are motivated solely by the desire to maximize the amount of azea in the rear of the home. Without the variance, the backyard will still be approximately 90 feet deep by 150 feet wide. 3. "The proposed residence is approximately centered on the lot and is of a similar size and style as the other homes in the area." The variance, if granted, will allow the protsusion of a three car garage in front of the setback required by the City. A glance at the aerial photo (Exhibit 3) of the block shows that no other garages protrude so drastically from the front of any of the homes. The variance, if granted, will result in a sharp rupture of the setback line from the street. Nowhere else in the azea is there such an enormous protrusion of one home in front of its neighbors. The aeriai photo shows that existing homes in the area face the street and closely match the contour of the street fronts, while remaining in close alig ment with ° �`1-��Y their neighbors. This unifomuty would be broken; whereas the spirit and irnent of the code is to preseroe a degree of unifornuty in residentiat neighborhoods. 4. "The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values with the surrounding areas." The variance, if granted, would result in the obstruction of the view and late aftemoon sun in the sitting room on the west end of the Sattinger's home. (See Topography Survey). It would result in placing the back side of a three car garage in direct view of the Sattinger's sitting room. It would interfere with the supply of light to the Henrikssen Sachs residence on the west side of the lot. It moreover places this same gazage 21 feet closer to Noreen Lannin's home across the street. Due to the rise in the land on the subject property, the garage will tower over Mrs. Lannin's home. In addition, the large circular drive will be directly in front of her home, thereby diminishing the value of her property. We do not dispute the setback requirement of 77 feet from the property line as deternvned by the City, though that would already allow the proposed residence to sit somewhat in front of its immediate neighbors and would result in some interference with views and light. We do, however, dispute the granting of a 21 foot variance to this setback, since that would result in an egregious non-unifomuty and an adverse impact on the immediate neighbors. According to the zoning code, "variances from the strict enforcement of the provisions of the zoning code" shall be done only in circumstances under which all of the six points can be positively supported. In view of the errors in fact in four of these points, we respectfully ask that the St. Paul City Council deny this variance. /: ' ' ►u ►:i� Issue: No variance is needed to construct the home with adjoining garage, pool, and patio as proposed by the Landowners in their site plan submitted to the Board of Zoping Appeals (BZA). The following discussion refers to the Topography Survey, E�ibit 2, submitted to the BZA showing the house located on the lot assuming the granting of the variance. The Survey shows a distance of 25 feet between the north end of the patio and the north properiy line (highlighted in orange). There are no setback requirements for patios, (Uniform Building Code section 106.2-E�ibit 6). Thus the entire complex —house, pool, and patio—may be moved north 21 feet, with the result that no variance, front, rear, or side, would be needed. This would locate the north pool wall approximately 20 feet south of the properiy line, well within the 5 foot zoning requirement for pools (Section 62.114.(1) of the Legislative Code-Exhibit 7). It should also be noted that the distance between the house and poo� the Topography Survey is 20 feet (highlighted in blue). On the blueprint of the actual building �� plans (Ea�hibit 8) the distance between house and pool is listed as appro�mately 8 feet. (See blue highlight). If this design akernative were to be used (and tlris seems most likely, given that it appears in the detailed blueprints), and the house were built without the requested variance, the north outside wall of the pool would be approximately 32 feet south of the rear property line. No variance would be needed for either of these alternatives, and in either case, the Landowners would have a level backyard measuring approximately 150 feet wide by 90 feet deep. • • ►I� ► Landowners, in their applicarion, disputed the method used by the City of St. Paul to detemrine the proper front yard setback and the StaffReport offers other measurements in support of their disputation. We comment on those measurements here: C. SI'IB AND AREA CONDITIONS. "This is a large lot, 92 by 250 feet.°' The Topography Survey, submitted by the Landowners, shows a width of 115.10 measured feet along the property line at the street. The official St. Paul plot survey of Lot 86, parcel B, (Exhibit 4) shows that the actual width is 135.03 feet. E. ITEM 4: "The other two homes on the sazne side of the street are setback 30 feet to 116 feet " We have measured the closest points of the two adjacent homes at 2139 and 2165 to the street and have found that the shortest distance between house and curb is 51 feet, taken at a point considered to be part of the side yard of the home at 2165. Both houses are considered to be sitting on comer lots (see E�ibit 5 for the definition of a comer lot); and side measurements aze irrelevant to the discussion of front set-backs used by the City to determine the setback for the landowner's property. The City has deternuned the front setbacks of the two adjacent homes to be 80 and 116 feet from the curb. This leads to a front yard setback of 98 feet from the front curb (77 feet from the property line) for the subject property. We accept this finding by the City. E: item 4: "The homes directly across the street from the proposed residence are setback about 30 feet from the street" Mrs. Lannin's home, at 2148, according to our measurements, is 57 feet from the curb. It should also be noted that there is a ravine behind Mrs. Lannin's home (see co�our lines on the aeriai photo), maldng it impossible to set the home back any fiuther. � �`1 • �� . ��: , 1. Baazd of Zoning Appeals Staff Report, File 96-244 2. Topography Survey 3. Aerial Photo of surrounding homes 4. Plot Survey 5. Zoning Code, 60.212: Defuution of Comer Lot 6. Uniform Building Code, 1994; Section 106.2, Work exempt from pemuts 7. Legislative Code, 62.114, Private Residential Pools 8. Blueprint of Proposed home at 2155 Lower St. Dennis Rd. � ac P �X�� {�� r�--.�.F - n 7�- 1� BOARD OB ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT i. APPLICANT: JOEL & DEBRA REVZEI3 2. CLASSTF'ICATIOPT: Major Variance 3. LOCATION: 2155 LOWER ST DENNTS FiQAD 4. LEGAL DESCRTPTION: See fi2e 3. PLAN2�TTNG DISTRICT: 15 �` FILE # 96-244 AATE OF HEARING: ld/I4/96 6. PRESENT ZOIVTNG: R-F ZONIl�G CODE REFEREI�TCE: 61.1d1 7. STAFF TNVES'I`ICrAT'ION Al�ll REPORT: DATE: 10/7/96 BX: John Hardwick 8. T)ATE RECEIVED: 9Y14/96 DEADI.INE FOIi AGTTOPI: 12/23/96 A PIJT2pOSE: A front yazd setback variance in order to construct a new single-family hom0. B. ACfION REQIIESTED: A 77-foot front setback is required and a 56-foot front setback is requested for a variance of 21-feet. C. SITE ANID A�A CONDTT1aNS: This is a large lot, 92 by 250-feet, with no ailey access. The ]ot is relatively levet bat is about 6 feet above the grade of the street. Surrounding Land Use: Single famiIy homes D. SACKGROIINA: This pazcet was recently snlit from the adjacent property and was purchased by the applicants in 1995. This is the last vacant pucei in this immediate ar�. E. F'INDIlV'GS: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonaole use under the strict provisions of the code. I.ower St. Dennis Road is a horseshoe-shaped street. The homes on the interior of the horseshoe are oriented a[ different angles to ihe street making the detecminarion of the front setbacks difficult. Howeve�, the Building Inspector has deternuned that the average setback of the two exisring homes on the block is 7'1 feet as measured to the property line. There is a twenty-one-foot bouievazd between the property line and the ccub. Based on this detemunation, the proposed house couId not be constructed and still maintain a resr setback without a varia*�ce, �� w ��.� ��•i rn� �. ur o rnu� ��cr � � � •�� G�C�� 1 � � � File #96-244 Page Two 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 curve of the street and the orientation of Fhe other homes on thc strect are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. \�'l� 3. The groposed vaiiance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consisieat with the hesit}� safety, comfort, morais and we(farc of the inhabitants of ihe City of SE. Paul. The proposad residence is approximately cente�ed on the fot and is of s simitar size and style as the other homes in the area. This is in keeping wiTh the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance wiil not impair an adequate supply of light and sir to adjacent progerty, nor wi[1 it atteC the essential chazacter of the susrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property valnes within the sutrounding area. The other two homes on the same side of the st�eet are setback from the street anywhere from 30 to t F6 feet depending on which point of their street fronYage you measute from. The homes direcciy across the street from the proposed residence are setback about 30 feet from the street. There are existing trees and shrubbery on both sides of the property that wiil help screen the proposed house from the adjoining homes. The proposed house witl not impair the supply of light or air to the adjacent property nor diminish the surrounding properry vaIues. 5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not pernutted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is focated, nor woald it alter or change the zoning district classification of the propercy. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is noY based primarily on a desire to increase the value or incame potential of the parcel of land. F_ DLSTRICT COTSNCII. RECOMl�ATDATIOI�t: As of the date of this report we have not received a recommendation from District 15. G. STAPR RECOlYIl14ENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approva! of ihe variance. � ��-�� MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARb OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COLJNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 14, 1996 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs. Alton, bonohue, Scherman, Tutty and Wilson of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hazdwick and Ms. Synstegaard of the Office of Liceuse, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT None The meeking was chaired by Joyce Maddo�c, Chair. JOEL & DEBRA REVZEN (#96-244) - 2155 LOWER ST. DElVNIS ROAD: A front yard setback variance in order to construct a new single family home. A 77-foot front setback is required and a 56-foot front setback is requested for a variance of 21 feet. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staf'f repod with a recommendation for approval. The Highland Area Community Council sent a letter in support. Mr. Hazdwick pointed out some corrections in the letter received. Two letters were received &om neighbors requesting fiuther information and a chance to discuss the issues with the applicant. Mr. Hardwick stated he has spoken with both neighbors and explained the issues to them. Ms. Bogen asked what the backyazd setback requirement is. Mr. Hardwick replied 25 feet. Ms. Bogen asked why the applicant couldn't move the home back and be within the required setbacks. Mr. Hardwick stated he did ask the applicant that and &om his understanding the main azea of recreation will be the rear yard. If they move the home back, it would reduce the amount of rear yazd and infringe upon the neighbor to the north. There is a 10-foot requirement for a swiuuning pool and the patio part would then go up to the property line and this would not be the best design. Ms. Bogen suggested the applicant could use a different pool design and this would be a more reasonable use for the land. Mr. Hardwick replied he spoke to the applicant about that and their reasons had to do with the line of sight views. He stated he will let the applicant speak to that. Mr. Scherman stated that comparing the other variances along the street, he dcesn t believe a 77-foot setback should be required. Mr. Hazdwick replied that part of the reason for this variance is the way the Zoning Adminisirator has interpreted it. Zoning staff has determined that this block consists of only those three pazcels where the proper[y curves. The azgument could be mada that it should go all the way up the intersection to Upper St. Dennis in which case the two homes on the upper comers would also be inciuded. This would result in the setback being much less. This was one interpretation made. The second interpretation that zoning staff made was that the two homes that are existing adjacent to tlus properry are both oriented to the south rather than to the east and west. If they considered the house to the east, the eastem side of the house as the front yard, then the southem side of the house wouid have been the side yard and wouldn't have been figured into this calcularion. If they considered the house to the west, the westem part of the house as ihe front yazd, again the southern pazt would have been a side yazd and the applicant would have only been required a 30-foot setback. It seems logical to the Zoning Administrator and consistent with their policies in the past to consider these two comer loYs as facing Yhe south and therefore us�hose setbacks in determining the required setback. 9 7 i�� File #96-244 Page Two Debra Revzen, 740 River Drive, passed out an aerial view of the site to the Boazd. She stated it is easier to see from an aerial view of the different setbacks and how they vary. She stated there are strong architectural reasons for the placement of the backyazd shuctured pool. They have taken a year to develop a home that they believe will fit best in the existing neighborhood. She stated that this lot has been vacant for 50 years. The neighborhood consists of mostly ramblers and they wanted to maintain that appeazance aesthetically. They felt it would be improper to put a 2-story design, hence the placement of the gazage because they needed the space for the first floor. Because of this they had to come forwazd and their primary interest was in keeping the residence consistent with the neighborhood. If the house was pushed back, it would disrupt the line. She asked that they not have to conform to the setbacks of which the existing homes didn't have to when they first were built. Mr. Tully asked what the dimensions of the house are. Ms. Revzen replied 90 by 46 and that the porch extends oft'of the home. The front door is in the center and the view [hey wanted was the e�panse of water upon entering the home. Tom Bren, 8224 County Road 6, Maple Plain, representing the builder, stated that the surrounding homes in the area have been built with plans that do not conform with the setback requirements. He further stated that to change the plans at this time would result in hazdship fmancially and in the schedule because it would require a complete redesign. The width of the lot is actually wider than the applicant sta[ed because that is the street ]inear portion of the lot. David Sattinger, 2139 Lower St. Dennis Road, stated he is opposed to the variance request. He stated that their view from their sitting room will be the back of the proposed gazage. The proposed home will also block the moming sun &om the neighbor's sun room. The neighbor's view from their kitchen across the street will be looking at the front of the proposed gazage. He stated he primarily objects to the garage. He doesn't believe there are compelling reasons for granting the variance because the lot is quite large. The variance request is based on the proposed building plans and not due to deficiencies to the lot. The proposed home will be at the expense of the e�tisting neighbors. The variance is necessitated entirely by the orientation of the pool which drives the home forwazd. He suggested another pool design and garage placement. He stated that none of the other homes have a lazge garage protruding in front of them and that he had difficulry getting any information regazding the variance request. Mr. Tully asked Mr. Sattinger how faz he is from his west property line. Mr. Sattinger replied 6.7 feet. He stated he isn't awaze what the variances were when the home was built in 1950. Mr. Schetman asked Mr. Sattinger how he would feel if the garage were moved to the west side of the house. Mr. Sattinger replied that it would then blcek the view of the neighbors on the west side. He suggested that a tuck-under gazage might work and there aze a number of them in the area. Ingunn Henrikssa Sachs, 2165 Lower St. Dennis Road, stated that the gazage will not conform with the rest of the neighborhooct. She stated that if the home were built 21 feet back as allowed by the Zoning Code they would not be in opposition. She stated she objects to the orientation of the pool overriding the neighbor's views. � � IS�� File #96-244 Page Three Jonathan Sachs, 2165 Lower St Dennis Road, stated Yhai every home in the neighborhood is flush and the proposed home woutd have the gazage prohuding out. He stated they were given a poor qualiry document to try and calculate the footage. He stated that the applicant informed him at the District Council meeting that the house plans on which the staff report was based on has changed. He suggested that the design of the pool be changed so the house could be moved back and then ihey wouldn't be in opposition. Ms. Bogen asked when the meeting was at the community center. Ms. Sachs replied on Wednesday. Mr. Sachs stated that at the meeting they were not allowed to ask any questions. He stated they were told at the meeting that the purpose of the meeting was simply to vote on the proposed request. Ms. Sachs stated that the Highland Area Community Council's recommendation was based on the staff report and there aze many inaccuracies. She stated that considering the pool and the patio as being part of the structure of the home is not justifiable in going in opposition to all of the neighbors. Henry Siryder, 2170 Lower St. Dennis Road, stated he lives across the street and to the west of the proposed home. He stated he is in opposition to the variance request. He stated that the Highland Area Communiry Council's recommendation was based on the staff report of which he believes there are a number of mistakes. He stated that the Iot dimensions aze incorrect and the Iot is quite lazge. He stated that the concept of ihe property lines are difficult to see because of Lower St. Dennis Road not being in the middle. He stated that the 21-foot eactension of tfie gazage and the pool laid in a vertical direction rather than a horizonal direction in back is his main objection. He dcesn t believe the applicant has a plight and lmew the zoning restrictions when they purchased the lot The house as proposed is not in chazacter or keeping with the rast of the neighborhoal. The vaziance is unnecessary and will interFere with the neighbors. Ms. Sachs submitted a letter to the Boazd in opposition. Ms. Bogen stated that from the testimony of the opposition at the Highland Area Community Council meeting it was stated today that the existing plan was no longer that which is in the report. She asked Ms. Revzen to elcplain what the existing plan is now. Ms. Aevzen stated that is total incorrect and the existing plan is idendcal to the plan in the packet. She stated there is a sma11 change in a couple of the window sizes in front of the house. She stated that the neighbors were allowed to ask many questions at the district meeting and that she stayed for over an hour after the meeting to discuss house plans and answer any questions of the neighbors. She stated that the issue is that the neighbors would like to purchase the lot and not have anyone build on it and they have been approached by the neighbors for that reason. Ms. Maddox asked Ms. Revzen if they had looked at a tuck-under gazage. Ms. Revzen replied that there isn't enough room to do that on the lot. Mr. Alton asked Ms. Revzen if she had any other responses to the testimony today. Ms. Revzen replied that she believes the measurements done by the City were done by a measuring tape as opposed to being paced off, She believes the city measurements aze accurate. She stated that they had the Zoning Manager on-site and contrary to what the neighbors aze saying, there was no setback established for this lot and there is documentation in the packet to show that. Ms. Revzen stated that the lot size is accurate as stated in the staff report. � 9'� 1�� File #96-244 Page Four Ms. Bogen stated she takes exception to that as one of the applicant's pictures states it is 140 feet and the staff report states differently. Hearing no fiuther testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the pubiic portion of the meeting. Mr. Hardwick stated that the fmdings in the staff report regazding hardship, in no case of any of the findings did he consider the size or the shape of the lot as a basis for making the fmdings. The findings and the hardslup aze based upon the actual curvature of the street, the location of the pavement within the street and the orientation of the other two homes immediately adjacent to this property. There is some hardship incurred in the method that the Zoning Administrator detecmined in what properties aze to be included in averaging the front setback. He stated that the neighbors aze correct where it states site and conditions that it states the lot size is 92 by 250 feet. He stated this is a typographical error. He stated that Ms. Bogen is correct in that the actual size is more like 150 by 250 feet. He stated that the size of the lot has nothing to do with stafFs fmdings. He stated that the plan that is in the packet is the plan that was originally submitted. He stated that the plan is hard to read because it had to be reduced. If the neighbors had requested to view the plan, they would have been welcome to and that everything in the file is of public record. He stated that the applicant referred to a zoning manager being on the site and that it was the building inspector. He stated that the building inspector measures each house to detemune the average &ont setback. Mr. Wilson stated that Ms. Bogen pointed out that if the house was repositioned on the lot no variances would be required. Mr. Hazdwick stated that the applicant would then have to remove part of the patio azound the pool in order to set the house 6ack. Ms. Bogen suggested that the applicant could reduce the size of the pool. Mr. Hardwick replied that the agplicant could change the entire plan but it is staffs opinion, based on the proposed design which is compatible with the other homes, and ihe fact that it is relatively centered on the lot, is the least intrusive to all the neighbors. Mr. Tully asked if it is because of the gazage or the house that the setback is being requested. Mr. Hardwick replied that the house is proposed to be located 97 feet setback from the &ont properry line. He stated the house and two stalls of the gazage could be built without a variance. The two stalls bring the gazage out to the required 77 foot front setback. Eliminating the third stall would bring it close to meeting the front setback. Mr. Donohue asked what is used in calculating the front setback. Mr. Hazdwick replied that the measurements taken aze approximate because it is difficult without actually surveying the lot to get an exact measwement. The house to the east measured 80 feet in a line pazallel with the front of the home. The actual measurement should be in a line pazallel to the front of the lot along Lower St. Dennis Road. The house to the east is actually setback fiuther than 80 feet. The 80-foot line is at an angle and should be straightened. The Zoning Code defines a front yazd setback as a line equal and parallel with the reaz yard setback. In this case, the rear yazd is a 11ne running directly east and west across the back of all of these properties. Therefore, the front yazd setback has to be aligned pazallel to the reaz yard setback. If you made a line pazaliei to the closest point of the street, the setback wouid probably be more than 80 feet. It is not the same on the west side because the front of the house is parallel to the southem portions of I.o�r St. Dennis Road. Mr. Hazdwick further explained the measurements along the street to the Boazd. R�- r �� File #96-244 Page Five Mr. Scherman moved to approve the variance request and resolution based on fmdings 1 through 6. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 2(Bogen, Maddox). ubmitt��y�� John Hazdwick Approved by: Joyce Maddox, Chair 0 `.�`.�'g �-r�� CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER 96-254 DATE October 28,1996 WHEREAS, D'AMICO CATERING INC. has applied for a variance from the strict apQlication of the provisions of Section 62.103 (d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the establishment of a new restaurant in the B-2 zoning district at 975 GRAND AVENi1E; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 10i28/96, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�ving fmdings of fact: l. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. As is the case with most businesses along Grand Avenue, there is a shortage of off-street parking and land available to provide new parking. The proposed restaurant will occupy retail space that has been vacant for nine months, which is identified as Rental Space G, F and E on the attached floor plan. It would be an unreasonable hardship to resirict the occupancy of flils building to just retail or office uses. 2. The piight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The shortage of off-street parking along Grand Avenue, together with the changing market for commercial uses along Grand Avenue, are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 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 welfaze of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The applicant states that he expects a lazge number of the restauranPs customers to be walk-ins. He is also working on a shazed pazking agreement for evening hours with Cherokee State Bank at 985 Grand Avenue, located to the west across Chatsworth, with a 12-space remote pazking lot directly east of the subject property. Off-site parking for this restaurant must be located in a P- I zoning district or in the same or less reshictive zoning district and within 300 feet of the building. The bank parking could be used, but cannot be counted towazd meeting required parking for the restaurant because it is located in the more restrictive B-1 zoning district. However, the availabiliry of additional off-street parking will help alleviate any pazking problems that may be created by a new restaurant. 4. The proposed variance will not unpair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properry, nor will it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding azea or unreasonably diminish estabiished property values within the surrounding azea. � ��-��' File #96-254 Page Two The proposed restaurant well eliminate vacant storefronts and attract customers to the other businesses in the immediate area. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building other than signage. The proposed variance will not affect the supply of light and air to the adjacent properry nor will it change the essenrial chazacter of the surrounding properry. 5. The variance, if granted, woutd not pemut any use that is no[ pemutted under the provisions of the code for the pcoperly in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning disirict classification of the property. A restaurant is a pemutted use in this zoning district. 6. The request for variance is not based primari[y on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the pazcel of tand. The applicant states that his primary goal is to eliminate vacant storefronts and to revitalize this comer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Safnt Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals that the provisians of Section 62.103 (d) be hereby waived to allow a variance of 12 off-street pazking spaces in order to establish a new restaurani, D'Amico, in a foaner retail space subject to the condition that a shared parking a�eement with the Cherokee State Bank is obtained on property located at 975 GRAND AVENiJE and legally described as except the North 40 feet, L,ots 15, 16 & 17, Blcek 27, Summit Pazk Addition; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. MOVED BY : Bogen SECONDED BY: wason I1�-7si�l�l'�i AGAINST: o MAILED: October 30,1996 TIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeats permitting the erection or aiteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a build'eng permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or fhe City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. � �� File #96-254 Page Three APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by fhe decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the unders�gned Secretary to the Board af Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify thaf I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meetina held on Octoher 28, 1996 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOriING APPEALS �? Sue Synstegaard Secretary to the Board � � � . r� . �'.�� xh �, �- 2- • ��IN� e,A"ii ,yfed. . Y/'wf, s zy � a'r.� u • a.rn 1l D. ) !k4 /� A � G i V C.J `�� A M � � y{t v�7`"° � c;/,'i�lfi!' t � N GUl.I//!G �✓ � <i•� • �� ,� � ti�r. r a --- -- r•- -- „�.� . Iti °� ' \ � • . ,_ .. . u y' S ' `• � � \ - �-::;_...�.. ... , s ,�.K„� , � ' �,�e � � � - — .� �� .. : ,,�,�,,, Yt oi.1 - ' � Tg f ,r• �,.�o ,.I. �.. 5..: �� g r �.�': � � : i :�.5 .. � �• . Are�sB�o ��` — ns -p"I � ^ � 4 ��°°\ �-�� e Y p L __. . •.I• ' ••. � S � 7.• �a t} � -v . /� � 17�� ` y -�jr(1o' � "��y � .� f�6 �� .4 . ; . N t � .. ��_Y � � ✓.�. -' � .. \ • R ~ .� � ' � , - r �� . y � f�d 42Yk '� � �r'i<.+ ' �" _' — ',� na s ' 4N1 (�KY _ 4i a�l7 � � •-- � ,- ' .`� . , - `..� xsf.7 � � � �_,. �, � \��/ u i�.e! ✓ '� � q<Zx� 'taa•.. _..�a � . ., "\' � � '»i \ � � ..� � '� Z \: � '��.C— L7,Y4 ; ,� � + .> , ' J � ' � � � _ _H /!Fe� .._..:. �_ .. . �_. _.. w� / .1. _- -� - —< .. ._ ..._... - - � .�,; rt�. �nd �11 at Lot 85 . �\ ' � L'� Is. Wmt�Y CeuntY. Nlnnesata. :v. Mimaou wqicn Iles nt rn che �orth Ii�a of �� of siid lot 87; thmce ` z� • I 2 `�'V to[ 87 a Eisennw of '' — :� � dfsunn oF 70.00 fect� `� \� �'. . :e o! �46.02 feet ta ehe � - � stm[IM• ` �.. ` � �� . � `� ..1 �` � � i � uL1� ' ur/> 28 �t Y.s6• �fXI �fF f _� ��. \ ..•�� .� � f.•.j . .' �lLt ° ` l ', , R=LLo Q \r j �� ` '\�.'�� ,,�-+.�' Q t r a J . M = sl2H LK) Z �y Ti1.4 !� � � :,=e . air. nar; ��F� ' —r� v�� p�—��--�'� �—' T . " sce� - � f' �„ - 11 �O�JER 87t�iDENN1S ROA� Y.k,z:Ro , , lNV. sibo� , . .I�rceroacp . ..... .. ..._.. _ . � . . ... .. d��s�l�(6 BoOK � - I�<fi {-1dM.J� _.... .:..�., .. . 1'OPO.GRAPHY�S.URVEY aROee r� . . � �.s�n�� /� ;i ,� � ,. 'i , , ,. ;� �� i �,: � � , � :�� -, � �� :, „ �, „ �., , ,, , , -; , ,:, ; �, ,., ,� „ , i , ,� ,. ,�, �i� ,, ;� ,�, „ ;�� ,�� ; � APPUCANT� � L�ehra. �11Zt1') PURPOSE M�—{LQrIQA FILE #. �LO - Z�I�I OATE �� ' �`�"9� PLNG. DiST � f� MAP #� r SCALE �' = 400' • LEGEND ..��.. zoning district �ndary � subjedpropeny n� oAh'"` 0 one tamily � two tamiiy , �¢ Q multipte tamily • a � commercial 4 ... � industria� V vacant � '�°�� - rss-�s 9l� Zy�f APPLICATION FOR ZONING �RDINANCE VARIANCE -- � _ � CITY OF SAII�TPAUL ' � � � � T " J A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER�i1_ , SECTION 67 - 7 APqRAGRAPH f a 7 fS FEQUESTED iN CONFORMfTY WITH THE POWERS VESTED tN 7HE BOARD OF ZONtNG AP- PEALS TO PERMIT 7HE Construction of residence (one—fam.il�j� pROPERTY . D BE LOW. � A. Applicant; NAME: 11Pb a R and Toel N RQV�en ADDRESS 740 River Drive, 11—A, St_ Paul, ?IId 55116 DAYTIME TELEPHONE NO. Z23-6524 ZIp CODE 55215 j 1. Property interest of applicant: {owner, contract purchaser, etc.) E Owaer ' 2. Name of owner (if different) ( � o r is i B. PropertyDescription: ADDRESS Attached as Eahibit A t r�� 1. Legal description: LOT S � G � BLOCK ADD. 2. Lot size: � 3. Prese�t Use vacant p resen t Z D ist. # 15 ` k C. f Reasons for Request: , ' t. Proposed use • Construction o£ a one—family reside�ce 2. What physical charaderistics of the properry prevent its being used for any of the permitted � uses irt your zone? (fopography, soi! conditions, size and shape of lot, etc.) � a£tached i � - 3. State the specific variation requested, giving distances where appropriate. attached t i � 4. Explain how your case confortns to each of the following: a. That the strict application of the provtsions of the Zoning Ordinance wouid resuit in peculiar or excepfional practical difficulties, or excepGonal undue hardships. attached b, That the grantlng of a variance will not be a substantial detrimeni to public good or a substantiai impair- ment ot the inient and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 09Jt4.;4,,�eooarg:.�2C�F•. CF.Eti>; 1 i(�b� Ufihi,af°�� *.' � CASHIERS USE ONLY �� • LC� cFS�c�; r.�r *��s.ec� C4A�vGE � , ;R attached �� Sigr 2I95 : � / r • , � / APPLICATION FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARTANCE CITY OF ST. PAUL A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER 61. SECTION 61.1.1. PARAGRAPH (A1 IS REQUE5TED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE POWERS VESTED IN'THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCT'ION OF A ONE-FAMTLY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW. A. Applicant: NAME: Debra K. and Joel N. Revzen ADDRESS: 740 River Drive, 11-A St. Paul, MN 55116 DAYTIMB TELEPHONE NO : 223-6514 1. Property interest of applicant: Owner 2. Name of Owner: Same B. Progerty Description: ADDRESS: 2155 I,ower St. Dennis 1. Legal description: Attached as Eachibit A 2. L.ot size: Approximately 3/4 acre 3. Present Use: None Present Zoning Dist.: #15 C. Reasons for Request: 1. Proposed Use: One-Family Residence 2. What physical characteristics of the properry prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? Response: The size of the lot will not allow the construction of the proposed residence if the City's determined 98' front yard setback is observed. 3. State the specific variation requested, giving distances where appropriate. Response: The City has determined that "Method A" of calculating a front yard setback is applicable. See Eachibit B attached: Notes and measurement of Joe Erchlich Zoning Manager. Method A calculates the front yard setback as follows: Method A: 80' + 116' = 196' (divided by 2) = 98' front yard setback from curb (77' front yard setback fzom the property line). See E�chibit B. The � 3�2409.� �� -�-�s��! longest distances from the curb on the corners of the existing adjacent structures have been used as "averages." The owners propose a 55' front yard setback from the property line which requires a 22'variance based on the Ciry's 77' front yard setback requirement. See Exhibit C, proposed site plan. 4. Explain how your case confotms to each of the following: a. That the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional undue hardships. i. The strict appIication of the provisions wiiI not aIlow the property in question to be put to a reasonable use because the proposed residence cannot be built, causing both a practical difficulty and an exceptional undue hardship. ii. The Zoning Ordinance at issue does not address the situation now before the Board of Zoning. The ordinance states: "Where at least fifty (50) percent of the front footage of any block is built up with principal structures, the front yard setback for new structures shall be equal to the average of the existing structures . . . :' See Eachibit D. i. In this situation, virtually all of the front footage of the lot is on a straight curb line. The adjacent structures are both on curved portions of the "block." See E�chibit E. No other structures are tocated on the front footage of the block. Therefore, zero (0) percent of the block is buiit up with principal structures and averaging is not required. The Schedule of Regulations, § 61.101, which establishes the minimum front yard setback at thircy (30) feet must be applied. 2. Even if the "average" of the existing structures should be used to determine a front yard setback, the ordinance is ambiguous regarding the distances to apply. The ordinance does not define "average" or "front" The distances of the "average" vary on the existing structures on each side of the proposed residences depending on the definition of "front " This is evidenced by the City's various measurements and method's of compuring its required front yard setback. Eachibit B establishes that the City considered an alternative`�Method B" of �zaa9.i 2 � 1_ t- J' / � � determining "average." If Method B is applied, no variance is required. The ordinance leaves open for interpretation the distances to be averaged. Therefore, the shortest distances may also properly be applied in this situation. 3. The ordinance does not define "block." Residences on the other side of the block directly across from the proposed residence's site, as well as other residences located on the block, conform to front yard setbacks measuring between 30' and 40'. b. That the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. i. The granting of the variance will permit the use of the land to conform aesthetically to the existing neighborhood and will permit the utilization of this land. ii. Because of the unique circumstances of this situation, the granting of the variance will allow the land to be adapted and used despite its present unsuitability for its particular use. iii. The granting of the variance will fuc a reasonable standard to which the proposed residential structure can conform. In addition, the following are true: 1) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. 2) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties, nor will it alter the essential character of the surroundang area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding areas; 3) The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property; 4) The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land; and � snaos.i 3 -a '� � ,, �� . � .� 5) The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Saint Paul. / �� `i� " /� L�. � s3zaos.i 4 �.� � .� �� i��' 2>48 .��c c�v,t .�i� .�' - c� .�a�.4 c�1�Y55776 October 10, 1996 Zoning Administraflon Office of LIEP City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter Street, Suite #300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 RE: File 1f96-244 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road Dear Commission: 2�� , �� I have lived at 2148 Lower St. Dennis Road for the past 47 years. My two lots are direcfly across from the above referenced properiy. May I say I will be happy to see a new home addition in ouz immeciiate azea, and appreciate the time and effort Mr. and Mrs. Revzen have put into the design of fheir new home so that it will conform to the surrounding azea. However, T am concerned about the request for a 21 foot front variance. The enormous size of the lot (250 ft. deep) should be able to accommodate any size home including a pool, if desired. After viewing a plari of the home, (specific plans from an architect were not available), the angle at which the garage protrudes seems to obstruct the view of the adjoining home at 2139 Lower St. Dennis Road. I would like the Zoning Administration to consider the requested 21 foot front variance be divided and aliow a 10 1!2 foot front variance and a 10 1!2 foot back variance, thereby allowing the home to placed on the lot so as not to impecle the view from the neighboring homes. Thank yoa for your time in considering this request. I look fonvazd to having Mr. and Mrs. Revzen as neighbors. Sincerely, �. �i'�� Noreen M. Lannin cc: Mr. & Mrs. David Sattinger Mr. & Mrs. 7onathan Sachs � Mr. & Mrs. Revzen HRCC HIGHLAND October 10, 1996 AREA COMMUNITY COUNCIL �� j�7- ( �'� - Z �- Board of Zoning Appeals c/o John Hardwick 300 Lowry Buitding 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul MN 551 d2 To: Members Board of Zoning Appeals 7he Community Development Gommittee of the High{and Area Community Cauncii met October 9 and considered the variance request of Debra and Joel Revzen, 2055 Lower St. Dennis, fite number 96-24Q. The variance is for a front yard setback of 21 feet. The Committee heard from the Revzens and from severai of the neighbors. After discusslon the Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the variance request. Sincerety, � CZ U Bob Siegle Chair, Community Development Committee 1978 FORD PARK�i'AY OCT-10-1996 14�29 612 S2. PAUL MN 98% � 298-5138 P.02 Henry A. Snyder 2170 Lower St. Dennis Road October 3, 1996 Zoning Administration Office of LIEP City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter St., Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 q� �� St. Paul, Minnesota 55116 (612) 699-5362 �t<�-ier� y�—Z�y We live at 2170 Lov�er St. Dennis Road, a�ross the straet from the property at 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road for which a zoning variance has been requested. We do not believe a 56-foot front setback is appropriate in this area, and will be highly likely to detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. A one-foot or two- foot variance is one thing; a 21-foot variance is quite another. We do not believe it is advantageous to the City to permit changes in the zoning on one home if that does so at the expense of the full enjoyment of their property by four or five other owners. This area on Lower St. Dennis has been fully developed and landscaped for over 30 years, and it seems only fair to require any new builder (this is the only piece of vacant land in the area) to conform to the existing zoning. Our objection is not irrevocable. If the owners of the subject property can persuade their direct neighbors on either side of their proposed residence (the Sachs and Sattinger families) and Mrs. Lannin, whose home sits directly across the street from the subject property, to waive their objections to the variance, we would, in spite of our views, be inclined to withdraw our objections, if the plans for the new residence (which we have not seen) seem otherwise appropriate. The hearing notice was delivered to us by mail on Oct. 3rd. We will be out of the city until the day of the hearing, so are taking this opportunity to express our views. Respectfully submitted, /✓� .� `�� Henry A. Sny ed r. cc: Jonathan Sachs David Sattinger Noreen Lamiin Debra Revzen � �Il: .�.� -�~�'� A � � � '�C .��' + , :�� ~::i � � sP z ,,. � � � . Z • ,�';%t �( � ' i � �� t ; 'a !�d.�'� � �°� ' �y�r -.�� t �iy�,.� �:. ° t> :' i..' • ;�r� '.'= � � O ��. � -r - �q� � � e �� . ' �� ` �' ,� '� �� . }., �r.1"- �� r � , � _ " ~ O � �� s � � :.�. -.- -� :.. ? �--� %�.`A� ` ,,., ; . T S„� ,� n"° a" .. , i%s. ' �� ' F ,._:-„� ' . • = , _�"�s� � �'�''�� 1 P° J, .� .� �'1�� ' '�' ' gp � :Y• a�. i %t "�� l� +}��. '� •' � � fi� � ' • � � ��- � .�� .:� , VF / � � �a:. � ,�„+, ... �� "�i'�� ' , � 4 � !. �� i �� 4 . � �3 ": _ � �' �'n. -�� 1� " �`.� �! - / � ' � r� t ?' n.�� 'T.`.,.ts., p � -� � •� � J�� : �� +� � � � ��i_ ..r 3 '.: `�� ' 'r , . ^. :t4»:"R7!x'��•:^w:.:�t,.sr>:�r_., �°e' '. . .. , � . .�rrr��a�� „ :- C �.,� �°��"t'��_ ..� .t. . � �.� ��.c:K:`°� a � e - - •cv �f/��,,.c��:+iYl� ' �: ��,�,,r�. ,.� �.� _ �:�. � �. _-:,.�.,�...:,;�;� .. , ,__ ,. _-, �. � �'��'� � � �= � 11�4' � �``��'� � .. _ �'4�`'�`� � � -_�:_ , �f�`� � � { �� - �� : �'. �' ,�� . �' . � l�-' �� . r•ED PI.RNNING DIV. 7EL�9-228-331A �ct 24'96 13:26 No.009 P.02 , � �o�`� ; - ��w� : f-- ;' _ ? ` �, r j �, � � G, t � 1-� �f � i J � � � --_ 3oa-Oc� ___ �• --� � / S T -' � �.3 3,'�� •� _ . _ _ _ 'G 7. 9 4 -- -__ --- /,Sa, vo --- ~ O � � Q .� _ i � __ '-.� .— 'v ' - �� v �� s � I � � rti � �� r � �N � 1 \ � o� 87 ,,J GO?' 8b � LoT � 85 � t 00 �r �� , � „ ,, � � � � � ��' ,: �, o k f � � �0 I N ? � i � ' - yl� + 3 p j c A5 'A � - r i t ia' 4 � ., , , : � �� ,.�� ,� ,- � �at5 ! . 5.� y ��R'''� � . I —2z — a N � I 0 � � ` , i �9 � _I_ _ G7.gyG_ _-� ; � h � �,�JiE'C�G ,� � ,�L= /v7• 94 f • � � � � Z ' . I ,� � � � S � { � q � � � `� o 'ti , ;�. 4 r ,�� ; �9; � � � � G �� ` ; a :. f � �, �: ` ' t *;}, h �; �� Z � � 1�` a �" ti�� a .b. < l�3 � � ` � �Q � � �- t i ��.:{� ` y �..� -�� . �.. e , . . ,. ,��, s � ;�„�� o .� •. '�- - /35•03-_-' - - �;. . _ , _. � ,E�sr�' �.. ' =:� . . - �Q�; g� - ��;��. Q �K;- .,�. .�/. .Pinr� •'c ^ a: `, :. ��: ' A.55Um.E� .�. "��d�.'..:�:-.. _. ....- ... PE P� IEGA I utst,n'r' �u�E� :9-228-3314 �ct 24' 96 13 � 25 No . bb� �' . ��(� � b i j- y QC� 2 4 1996 4-, Parcet �_A:.'�' '. - • l 1 p)1 of Lot 8S, Lane's Edgcumbe Hiils, Ramsey Caunty, Minnesota, and thaC part af lot &7, tane's Edgcumbs Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lles Westerly of a : line descrjb4dfeetfWestwof [he Ror�heasi cornertofnsa�id Lott87,ithence55 uch�Ca85umed distant ;3.9 k.04 feet; thence bearing, para11e1 with the east line of said Lot 87 a distance of 3 EsSt a distance of 5•0 feet; thence Sou[h a distan }��°02 fee�t f t e the south fane of distance of f0.0� FBgt' Lhence Soutfi a distance of said Lot 3] a�d said described line there iarminating. Par'�el 6= and a11 of Lo[ 8$ AS1 of LaC �b, Lane'S Edgcumbe Nills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, except the easterly b7.94 .feet Lhereof, lane`s Edgcumbe Nilis, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and that part of lat 37. Lane s Edgcumbe Ni11s, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies Easter�y of a line described as foll�ws: Beginning at a pa��t on the nort� then e saFd tot 87 dlstanC 33�g�arallelewith�theccasttline of Lots$ld��disgance of South, as5umed 6ea�ing, p ;4.DU feet; thence East a distance of 5-a0 feet; thence South a d��k6 02 fe tC d� heeC� thence East a dtstance of 10.00 feet; the�ce South a distance o 4 sou[h 1{ne of said Lot 87 aad saiif descrtbed,line there terminating. . Pos4it' F� Note Nc�te � Parcei A �o�tains 35,Z��•�a S4uare Feet. �?arcel 3 eontains 34+9��•a3 Square Feet. Elevations shown hereon are assumed and relative to the Hanho�e R�m a� St. �ennis Aoad a5 a Benchmark oP 10D.00 feet. the centcrline Ccr:��y.�-c:.: - ; - ::3 �estribad bp thia instruR�MK 16 �1C��Y �C�AVfId 8PC 14 �i1K� p iGOOfGK� dnd WDdividir�� ' c�1Y oF SAtti� PAtil F�� 1/� 2_� � � �yj Pbnni�+� Ad�r+inittirsa C•+• •v { hereby'certify that on October 12 t983 this survey, plan or report was prepared by mc or under my direet supervlsion and that 1 am a duly regis�ered l�nd Surveyor under the Laws of the'State of Minnasota. Ex �, b,�- � _ 7 �7-�� ZONLVG CODE I. sewage treatment system. A sewage stem or part thereof ;erving a dwell- establishment or group thereof, that 'ace soil h'eatment and disposal or soil treatment in areas ofhigh water rock or rapidly or slowly permeable ste processirzg f¢cili:y. A site, in- and any structw*es thereon, where ; or pathological waste is accepted, red, handled, treated, decontami- 3 or disposed. Infectious waste pro- does not include the site of a gen- ious waste which is governed by �tment of health, as se± forth in utes, section 116.81, subdivision 2. ste. Waste meeting the definition �aste" under Minnesota Statutes, subdivision 12. 5ty¢rd. Asite or location where ight, including containerized ailers, are transferred between ation modes (such as from rail- ucks or from barges to railroad and/or specialized equipment kers or gantry cranES). 6, 11-21-91; C.F. No. 92-1217, § a 93-906, § 1, 11-4-93) ance No. 17777, adopted Oct. 11, 1990, delefing the definition of junkyazd" to this amendment, § 60.210. J. was § 60.343; and Ord. No. 17039, adopb such as trees, grass rzce• The total area within a at will be disturbed in any on or construction. off-street space, on the same ?' group of buildings, for the § 60212 temporary pazking of a commercial vehicle while loading and unloading merchandise or materials. Z.ot. Apazcel of land occupied, or intended to be occupied, by a main building or a group of main buildings and accessory buildings, or utilized for the principal use and uses accessory thereto, to- gether with such yazds and open spaces as aze required under the provi;ions of this zoning code. A lot may or may not be specifically designated as such on public records. Lot are¢. The total horizontal azea within the lot lines of the lot. Lot, corrzer. A lot where the interior angle of two (2) adjacent sides at the intersection of two (2) streets is less than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees. A lot abutting upon a curved street or streets shall be considered a comer lot for the purposes of this code if the arc is of less radius than one hundred fifty (150) £eet and the tangents to the curve, at the two (2) points where the lot lines meet the curve or the straight street line, extended, form an interior an�le of less than one hundred thirty-five (135) deb ees. Lot coverage. 'I'he part or percent of the lot oc- cupied by the above-grade portion of buildings. Lot depth. The average horizontal distance be- tween the front and reaz lot lines. Lot, irzterior. Any lot other than a corner lot. Lot Iines. The lines bounding a lot as defined herein: (1) Front Lot Line: For an interior lot, the line sepazating said lot from the street. For a corner lot, the line separating said lot from either street. For a through lot, the line separating said lot from both streets. (2) Rear Lot Line: The lot line opposite the front lot line. In the case of a lot pointed at the rear, the rear lot line shall be an imaganary line parallel to the front lot line, not less than ten (10) feet long, lying farthest from the front lot line and wholly within the lot. (3) Side Lot Line: Any lot line other than the front lot line or reaz lot line. A side lot line separating a lot from the street is a side 519 � xh �=�;f � 106-706.3.1 �994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE �t'�z- l�'� SECTION 106 — PERMITS 106.1 Permits Required. Except as specified in Section 106.2 of this section, no buildina or structure regulared by this code shall be erected, constructed, enlareed, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished uniess a separace pecmi[ for each buildin� or strac- mre has fint been obtained from ihe buildin� official. 106.2 Work Exempt from Permit. A building permit shall not be required for the followin�: 1. One-srory de[ached accessory buildin�s used as tool and sioraoe sheds, playhouses and simi- lar uses, provided the projected roof area dces not exceed 120 squaze feet ( I I:1� m'-}. 2 Fences not over 6 feet (1829 mm) high. 3. Oil derricks. 4. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches (17�3 mm) hi�h. 5. Retaining walls which are not over4 feet (1219 mm) in hei�ht measured from ihe bottom of the footine co the rop of the wall, unless suppoaino- a surcharee or impounding Class I, II or III :4 liquids. � 6. Water tanks supported direcdy upon �rade if the capaciry does noi exceed 5,000 ga]]ons ( l8 927 L) and the ratio of hei�ht to diameter or wid[h does not exceed 2 to I. ---777 � 7. Platforms, walks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above grade and noi over � y basement or story below. � 8. Paintine, paperino and similar finesh work. 9. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery. 10. wndow awnin�s supponedby an exterior wall of Group R, Divisio� 3, and Group M Occu- pancies when projecting no[ more than 54 inches (1372 mm). I I. Prefabricared swimmine pools accessory to a Group R, Division 3 Occupancy in which the pool walls aze entirely above the adjacent orade and if the capaciry does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 927 L). Unless otherwise exempred, separare plumbin„ elecirical and mechanical permits will be re- quired for the above-exempted items. Exemption from the permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to arant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. 1063 Application for PermiL 106.3.1 Application. To obtain a penni[, the applicant shall first file an application therefor in writin� on a form fumished by the code enforcement aeency for that purpose. Every such applica- tio� shall: � 1. Identify and describe the work ro be covered by the pennit for which application is made. 2. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done by legal description, street address or similaz descrip[ion that will readily identify and deFnitely locate the proposed building or work. 3. Indieate the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is intended. 4. Be accompanied by plans, diagrams, computations and specifica[ions and other data as re- quired in Section 106.31. 5. State the valuation of any new buildin� or stcucrure or any addition, remodeling or alteration to an existine building. 6. Be siened by the applicant, or the applicanPs authorized agent. �� § 62.109 (5) The owners shall be responsible for main- taining all landscaping in a healthy and growins condition and keeping it free from refuse and debris. Dead plznt materials shall be removed within a reasonable time and replaced duri.ng the normal planting sea- son. (Code 1956, § 62.110; Ord. No. 16799, 5-28-81; Ord. No. 17062, 10-20-83) Sec. 62.110. Exterior Iighfing. (a) All outdoor lighting in all use districts, in- cluding o�-street pazking facilities, shall be shield- ed to reduce glare and shall be so arranged as to reflect lights away from all adjacent residential districts or adjacent residences in such a way as not to exceed three (3) footcandles measured at the residence district boundary. (b) All lighting in all districts used for the ex- ternal illumination of buildings shall be placed and shielded so as not to inferfere wzth the vision of persons on adjacent highways or adjacent prop- erty. (c) Illumination of any other outdoor feature shall be maintairied stationary and constant in intensity and color at all times when in use. (Code 1956, § 62.111; Ord. No. 16799, 5-28-81) Sec. 62.111. Residential entranceway. In all Residential Districts, so-called entrance- way structures, including, but not limited to, walls, columns and gates marking entrances to single- family subdivisions or multiple housing projects, may be permitted and may be located in a re- quired yard, except as provided in section 62.112, below; provided, that such entranceway struc- tures shali comply with all codes of the City of Saint Paui, and all state codes, and shall be ap- proved by the division of housing and building code enforcement and a permit be issued by the zoning administrator. (Code 1956, § 62.112) Sec. 62.112. Corner clearance. No fence, wa11, shrubbery, sign or other obstruc- tion to vision above a height of two (2) feet from the average grade of the property shall be permit- LEGISLATIVE CODE r-� , ��k b��-��7 q �-l��' ted within the triangular azea formed at the in- tersection of any street right-of-way lines by a sfraight line drawn between said right-of-way lines at a distance alona each line equal to the mini- mum setback line> from their point of intersec- tion. (Code 1956, § 62.113; Ord. No. 17525, § 31, 1-6-58) A use may be developed on a zoning lot that has two (2) or more zoning district designations so long as the use is permitted in each of the zoning districts. The minimum zoning requirements of each district shall apply to that part of the zoning lot in each zoning district. (C.F. No. 95-203, § 7, 3-22-95) Sec. 62.113. Zoning lot, more than one zon- ing designation. Sec. 62.114. Private residential pools and hot tubs. Private outdoor residential poois, both above and below ground, and hot tubs are permitted as an accessory use within the reaz yard or nonrequired side yard; escept that, for multiple-family devel- opments, the planning commission may deter- mine the location of the pool or tub. Private out- door pools and hot tubs shall meet the following requirements as applicable: (1) There shall be a distance of not less than ten (1�) feet between the adjoining proper- ty line and the outside of the pool wall for aboveground pools. For in-ground pools, there shall be a distance of not less than five (5) feet between the adjoining property . line and the outside ef the pool wall. (2) There shall be a distance of not less than four (4) feet between the outside pool wall and any building located on the same lot. (3) No s�vimming pool shall be located less than ten (10) feet from any side street or alley right-of-way, or the distance required for side yard by the zoning code, whichever is greater. (4) No swimming pool shall be located in a pub- lic easement. (5) All yards containing swimmina pools shall be enclosed by an obscuring fence not less Supp. ro. 30 616.8 . , � � � e L�I� �b�}� ,� l� ;; ��-l� 1, 97/�� , „ /_. ,,,.. � J i � 0 w 0 � w � Q � ^� - � S �� t a O d � � o � `n � d VI C T L d a 3 �, �' �� UO( .��: ��_�� ARLSON & ARLSON' C � � (nND SUYVFYOSS Survey For: DAVID SATTINGER Survey of the Westerly line of the Easterly G7.94 feet of Lot SS, !anes Edgcumbe Hills � � � i • � 1 I � ; � ltad � � -----�-�_ -. -- -: -:. .. �. _. . � Jl,-1T I ��W �,12 r N D a �� r �� 0� U\ � I i� � � q,. '� �� I hereby certify that this su was mad? by me or under my direct supervision antl that I am a dvly licenseA lar,d sorveyor under the of the Srate of Minnesota. Dated this 72th day of November, � �" ./-'�•''._' bY '�;c�. � . �_ , -"_ �- - /✓ /� _arry . ouWre, an �urveyor �- ` Minnesota license No. 9018 1 ' , — uo�'u �iue .or �"( I - l�G� N��h �/'/'�, �Y� ' `I I ' �YC / � l� �i 14.Z , � I � , _ . ��. �i-� / ; � � ` p 1o'r?u ° � � •`\� 'U 1�J �U`. � � � .\ Ni ,,\ _� � � J� _ �.�� 5��.� - �-��p �'�� i >.9 �- us �. '�_ - - — =- -- - � �._ ' � �--- �' w ; 0� 0_ \ P.I� � " �\\ �� • � ' d 15��.°,iJF� 4 : G Kx-tE ; M : Q i i _' -Q �`� - ' �, '. _" _ _'- i _ _' L4 � � n . ��-.�� ro � — '•� � '� 3.i 3.1 /i � � �.� n.5 J r 10.l.?�'� -z. � I '� ' ' 1, ° :� ° 1.5 � (� � ! I ,� Z.D � ''v ='/a � / ' I �?1� : /.� '.. i . . , i . � � 1 �! _ 1 � �G� G�OI.�� ?./�� tJ°,16> . ; , i . a �z".H�T � , N; � /// , � 3 ; �9 �Y ' ;� is.ro � . i //.�.': T Ib.�R� `�V �. � �\ : . / 4 '\ i ^ :;� l�' 9 A . dv.o � \, ' � n 3 r ��G �, ' � �� I \\ : � � � i u u � Q �, . m �?n� i , a .� — � V / L �'� � � ;� I �\ � I%�YPR _'.tVn+�"� x �' , �I � f Il � O� � M VI `\ �f�..� .��ACCU�nnf'�i c'F-7 , N ic�'e�uJMP� N � . '�, � � -�� e�^' �i-IC�nMF/' � �'��\ � �✓�\ .,� . . , � � �. i ' 0 I.�i� .4i.J� � . \,j ; � � �., �� o f �� Yo/1 �YDA ` `/ � _ ` -_' —_ - 'l�� . o-i-� � ��f"�ti�Gu' Y i -f "� �____------ �—_---:____-_-__----_: H '� ��b '� ' I „ _ �i , lARLSON ,,,� � � � %C7� e II i I r� ,,,.,_ (. _/ � l�. � � � a w 0 .� 4� w • � a, - � �� T N � �- p �9 a � � 'n N 4�� rn � � V W � W �,\ n . O V �V N N � T i N i� N QI � �_ lP � 0 UO( ��!-c - � „_ 20 , ARLSON �NC. ARISON _ lANO SUNVEYORS Survey for: DAVID SATTINGER Survey of the Westerly line of the Easterly G7.94 feet of Lot 85, Lanes Edgcumbe Hills � � � � I' � � 1 1 � ` �m,? . _�y'. � ------�- :.:_� .-.._.::•,..� ... �� Lvw ��2 � N � �� r �', r; /.-�<.� � ��,.-,� i I �: '-= � � �'.�� ..:�.: ��} �\�- I hereby certify that this su was rnade by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed land surveyor under the of the State of Minnesota. Datetl this 12th day of November, \ / ....J � . ' `�� i . ... - / . . � : ....�.� by ..., r �� ,_ �.,. '.�.. ,, �.•. :�./r t,,� , arry ; outure, _an urveyor `--' Minnesota license No. 9018 14. Z . 1 �• ._ m f0'�r"7uL �} I� 'iI.JE '�. � � /` - ` .... � �J , �� .. � �, ��. � a° r� -; ,� �,��. �� \�` . u �„ d �5��,�G .� I 4. � i 1 � ` i tl .'✓ �f(.tl.t:2? -- �.34- 1 � � �z",Ha�'�� 1 � \ �, � 1 � �. �� '�. � � � ,P. 6 / `�I%' i 'do `S� � �� 15� �� M�a• `1-"rq. �� R.�.T� � /: iJ � ,'" 1J01�'1-1 ;,11J� ..Jf rb`I , .._ . IYC�� r l,f r i � , � . ?�. �i� - ; � I Q � rf M / � /� ;;> _ �- I, �_ . __ . ... — . .. ,__. .._. - �" � � , ; ' , � a •, , m ,. m'� , � ;: � �' ' . , 'L , , .�... — ° — ! — - " Z�4 ' �, � , ; � 3 � ; � ' -o i � � I ' 3�� 3,t ' '•`� f�.;'�,x�"..� i - , � ° �i iz / z�n � ', "`° �.w � > i� l �; , . ., � , . , 1� : �' � � ,% � i J; �C� � �OI...1 � �.= F"��'�M� � � l.l ° —'lleay' ; I _.,� -_ �li 'y_._.,._�� _.,_.�.._...�. :,��-_...___, . �__ _"' _ _` � , ' i/'/,j �',i ry�� Ib,�, % zlv, -1 i � �/, , ^ -« / . � . � , .�v.o ' ; i � � � m �'� o �Y t r.�ao�::.r.,�n�� Xa �aAec-wnn��? �.��aa�..w�v�P ; � ; � � , . \ � I � .. I , 0 .�� \\•, ' ��//� � . � �17-1 ,�.I"=�o' _, i0 ,; ,� �-, rt� 6 0 io. � �Y� n , ,� I � _.. __ IS, V ,� w-SY G' ' `�: � i i I `� i ; ;•� I � � m M N N ' „ �Q3-1!v � e� I�' !�� i r7 i � I 7�� ft�l=✓ p I ---. ._.. , Y � -- --_._.—,__�..�I fi��b / ^,i � � lU �� t�}9 d° �N � /rQn l�'� ��t� �, � J �'yti ":�u= .�: lANO SURVFYORS �1' V LAND SURVEVORS �--�_ i.� q�-�� .C � (�autkru. �ua. 8]1J DU>ONT AVENUE $OUTN OLOOMINGTON, MINN. 556'10 868 2086 iVovember 12, 1996 To whom it may concern: Re: Setback requirements in established areas. In the majority of the communities in the seven county area the setback for an empty lot is determined by a line drawn from the closest point to the street from the house on one side to the closest point to the street from the house on the other side. If this method is applied on the empty lot between No. 2165 and No. 2139 Upper Saint Dennis Road the setback to the curb would be approximately 110 feet in the middle of the empty lot or 96 feet to the property line. If you have any questions please cail. Yo s Truly i ` ��Ti� -- ' larr R. Couture, l.S. �Q,N�e� ��cr� 9 �� '�� . ��..��e�. �� . � � ` � � � � � � November 25, 199b Addendum to Snttinger cind Snchs appenl scheduled for the November �, 1996 City Counci I meeting. 27 File #96-271, location: 2155 Lower Sfi. Dennis Roczd. If you hnve any further questions plense cnl) John Hnrdwick, LIEP, 266-9082. � �.� �� `� �� o p q7 i�� 3 BOAILD OF ZONIrIG AYPEALS STAFF REPORT B. ACTIOPi ItEQLTESTED: A 77-foot front setbac!c is reauired and a 56-foot front setbacic is requested for a variance of 21-feet. C_ SITE ANiD A�EA CdNDITTONS: Ttus is a large Iot, 92 by 250-feet; with no aIley access. The lot is reFatively levet hut is about fi feet abave the grade of the street. Surrounding Land Use: Single family homes D. BACKGROt3riD: This pazcel was recentlp sglit from the adjacent properry and was purchased by the agpiicants in 1995. This is the last vacant parcet in this immediate area.. E. FIl�TDINGS: i. The property in question cannot be put to a rrzsonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Lawer St. Dennis Road is a horseshoe-shaped street. The homes on the intesior of the horseshoe are oriented at different angles to the street making the detern�inarion of the front setbacks difficuh. However, the Building Inspector hu determined that the average setback of the two existing homes on the biock is 71 feet as measured to the property line. There is a twenty-one-foot bouIevar� between the property line 2nd the curb. $ased on this detarmination, the vFOposed house could not be constn�cted and still maintain a reu. setback without a variance. i. APPLICANT: IQEL & T}EBRA REVZEI�F 2. CLASSTETCATTOAT: Major Variznce 3. LOCATIOPT: 2155 LQWER ST DENNTS ROAD 4. LECYAI. DESCRIi'TTQN: See fite 5. PLA1V2`IT1�TG DISTRICT: 15 � BILE #1 96-244 DATE OF �EARING: 10/14/96 6. P12ESENT ZONTi�iG: R-2 ZOPtING CODE REFEI2ENCE: 61.301 7. STAFF TNVESTTGATION A1�T111 REPORT: DA'I�: 10/7/96 BY: 7ohn Hardwick 8. DATE RECEIVED: 9(Z4196 DEADLINE FOR ACTTON: i I/23/96 A PTTRPOSE: A front yard setback variance in order to construct a new single-family home. �7- ��'' F'de #96-244 Page Two 2. The plight of the Fand owner is due to circumstances unique ta this properry, and these circumstances were not created by the Iand owner. The curve ofthe street and the orientation of the other homes on the street are circumstances that were not created by tfie applicants. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the heattt� safety, comfott, moraEs and welfarc af the inhabitants of the City of $E. Paui. The proposed residence is approximatety centered on the [ot and is of a similar size and style as the other homes in the ares. This is in keeping with the sgirit and 'uttent of the code. 4. The proposed variance wi31 not impair an adequate suppIy of tight and air to adjacent property, nor witl it a2ier the esseatiai chazacter afthe sunounding area or unreasonabiy diminish established propercy vaIues wit.hin the sucrounding area. The other twa hames on tfie same side of tfie street are setbacfc from the street anywhere from 30 to t t6 feet depending on which point oftheir street frontage you measure from. The komes direcdy acrass the street from the proposed residence are setback about 30 feet from the street_ There ue existing trees and shrubbery on both sides o£the property that wi'1t hetp screen the proposed house from the adjoiniag homes. The proposed house wili not impair the suppIy of light or air to the adjacent property nor diminish the surrounding property va[ues. S. The variance, if granted, wouid not peRnit any use that is not permitted under t6e provisions af the code for the property in the disirict where the affected land is tocated, nor woaid it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. The proposed variance, ifgranted, wi[I not change or alter the zoning classification of the properry. 6. The request for vari2nce is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the pazcel of Fand. F. DLSTRICT COUNCII. RECOMVIENDATIOPi: As of the date of this report we have not received a recommendation from District 15. G. STAk'F RECONIII�ENDATION: Based on findings i through 6, staffrecortmends apgroval of the variance. ��/ MINUTES OF Tf� MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COLTNCII, CHAMBERS, 33Q CITY HALL ST. PAiJL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 14, 1996 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Scherman, Tuily and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Synstegaard of the Office of License, Inspection, and Envuonmental Protectioa ABSENT: None The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. JOEL & DEBR4 REVZEN (#96-244) - 2155 LOWER ST. DENiVIS ROAD: A&ont yazd setback variance in order to construct a new singie family home. A 77-foot front setback is required and a 56-foot front setback is requested for a variance of 21 feet. The applicant was present. There was opposidon present at the hearing. Mr. Hazdwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval. The Highland Area Community Council sent a letter in suppod. Mr. Hazdwick pointed out some corrections in the letter received. Two letters were received from neighbors requesting further information and a chance to discuss the issues with the applicanG Mr. Hardwick stated he has spoken with both neighbors and explained the issues to them. Ms. Bogen asked what the backyazd setback requirement is. Mr. Hardwick replied 25 Feet. Ms. Bov�en askcd why the applicant couldn't move the home back and be within the required setbacks. Mr. Hardwick stated he did ask the applicant that and &om his understanding the main area of recreation will be the rear yard. if they move the home back, it would reduce the amount of rear yard and infringe upon the neighbor to the north. There is a 10-foot requirement for a swimming pool and the patio part would then go up to the property line and this would not be the best desi�. Ms. Bogen suggested the applicant could use a different poo( design and this would be a more reasonable use for the land. Mr. Hardwick replied he spoke to the applicant about chat and their reasons had to do with the line of sight views. He stated he will let the applicant speak to that. Mr. Scherman stated that comparing the other variances along the street, he dcesn't believe a 77-foot setback should be required. Mr. Hazdwick replied that part of the reason for this variance is the way the Zoning Adminis[rator has interpreted it. Zoning staf£has determined that this block consfsts oConl} thosc [hree parcels where the properiy curves. 1'he azgumen[ could be made that it should go all the way up the intersection to Upper St. Dennis in which case the two homes on the upper comers would a]so be included. This wouid result in the setback being much less. 1'his was one interpretation made. The second interpretation that zoning staff made was that the two homes that aze existing adjacent to this property aze both oriented to the south rather than to the east and west. If they considered the house to the east, the eastem side of the house as the front yard, then the southern side of the house would have been the side yazd and wouldn't have been figured into this calculation. If they considered the house to the west, the westem part of the house as the &ont yard, again the southem part would have been a side yazd and the applicant would have only been required a 30-foot setback. It seems logicai to the Zoning Administrator and consistent with their policies in the past to consider these two wmer lots as facing the south and therefore use�ose setbacks in detemuning the required setback. � 47-r�� .;: Ffle #96-244 \ Page Two i Debra Revzen, 740 River Drive, passed out an aerial view of the site�to the Boazd. She stated i[ is easier [o see from an aerial view of the different setbacks and how they varv. She stated there are strong architectural reasons for the placemenl of the backyard structured pooi. They have taken a year to develop a home that they believe wzll fit besY in the existing neighborhood. She s2ated that this lot has been vacant for 50 years. The neighborhood consists of mostiy ramblers and they wanted to maintain that appearance aesthetically. They felt it would be improper to pui a 2-story design, hence the placemeni of the gazage because they needed the space for the first f�oor. Because of this they had to come forward and theu primary interest was in keeping the resideace consistent with the aeighborhood. If the house was pushed back, it cvould disrupt the line. She asked that they not have to confoan to the setbacks of which the e:cisting homes didn't have to when they &rst were bvilt, Mr. Tully asked what the dimensions of the house are. Ms. Revzen replied 90 by 46 and ihat the porch extends off of the home. The firon[ door is in the center and the view they wanted was the espansc oC rvltcr upon entering the home. Tom Bren, 8224 Counry Road 6, Maple Ptain, representing the builder, stated that the surrounding homes ia the azea have been built with pians that do not confornt with the setbacic requirements. He further stated that to change the pians at this time would result in hardship financiatly and in the schedule because it woald requue a comp[ete redesign. The width of the lot is actua[[y wider than the appiicant stated becluse that is the street [inear portion of the IoL David Sattinger, 2139 Lower SL Dennis Road, stated he is opposed to the variance request. He stated that their view from their sitting room will be the back of the proposed gazage. The proposed home wil[ a(so block the moming sun from [he neighbor's sun room. The neighbor's view from their �itchen across the street will be looking at the fron[ of the proposed garage. He sta[ed he primarily ohjects to the garage. He doesn't believe there aze compelling reasons for granting the variance because the Iot is quite [arge. The variance request is based on the proposed building plans and not due to deficiencies to the lot. The proposed home will be at the expense of the existing neighbors. The variance is necessitated entirety by the orientation of the pool which drives the home fonvazd. He suggested anoiher pool desig� and garage placement. He stated that none of the other homes have a lazge gazage protruding in front of them and that he had diffiFul[y getting any information regazding the variance request Mr. Tully asked Mr. Sattinger how far he is from his west property line. Mr. Sattinger replied 6.7 feet. He stated he isn t aware what the variances were when the home was built in 1950. Mr. Scherman asked Mr. Sattinger how he would feel if the gazage were moved to the �vest side oC the house. Mr. Sattinger replied that it would then blxk the view of the neighbors on the west side. He suegested thlt a tuck-under garage might work and there are a number of them in the azea. ingunn Henrikssa Sachs, 2165 L.awer SL Dennis Road, stated that the garage will not conform with the rest of the neighborhood. She statec3 that if the home were built 21 feet back as allowed by the Zoning Code they would noi be in opposiUOn. She stated she objecis to the orienTation of the pool overriding the neighbor s views. � � 97 File �96-244 Page Three Jonathan Sachs, 2165 Lower St Dennis Road, stated that every home in the neighborhood is flush and the proposed home would have the gazage prouuding ouc He stated they were given a poor qualiry document to hy and calculate the footage. He stated that the applicant informed him at the District Council meeting [h1t the house plans on which the staff report was based on has changed. He sug�ested Ihat the design oF the pool be changed so the house could be moved back and then they wouldn't be in opposition. Ms. Bogen asked when the mee[ing was at the community center. Ms. Sachs replied on Wednesday. Mr. Sachs stated tha[ at the meeting they were not allowed to ask any questions. He stated they were told at the meeting that the purpose of the meeting was simply to vote on the proposed request. Ms. Sachs stated that the Highland Area Community Council's recommendation was based on the staff report and there are mazsy % inaccuracies. She stated that considering the pool and the patio as being part of the structure of the home is not justifiable in going in opposition to all of the neighbors. L` Henry Snyder, 2170 Lower St. Dennis Road, stated he lives across the street and co the �west of the proposed., home. He stated he is in opposition to the variance request. He stated that the Highland Area Canmunity Council's recommendation was based on the staff report of which he believas [here are a number of mistakes. He stated that the 1ot dimensions aze incorrect and the lot is quite lazge. He stated that the concepc of the property lines aze diYficult to see because of Lower St. Dennis Road not being in the sniddle. He scated that the 21-foot extension of the gazage and the pool laid in a veRical direction racher than a horizonal direction in back is his main objection. He dcesn't believe the applicant has a piight and Imew che zoning restrictions when they purchased the lot. The house as proposed is not in chazacter or keeping wich the rest of the ` neighborhood. The variance is unnecessary and will intecfere with the neighbors. Ms. Sachs submitted a letter to the Boazd in opposition. Ms. Bogen stated that from the testunony of the opposicion at the Hia,hland Area Communiry Council meeting it was stated today that the e�cisting plan was no (onger that which is in [he report. She asked Ms. Revzen to explain what the existing plan is now. Ms. Revzen stated tha[ is total incorrect and [he existing plan is identical to the plan in the packet. She stated there is a small change in a couple of the window sizes in front of the house. She stated that the neigh6ors were allowed to ask many questions at the district meetin� and that she stayed for over an hour after the meeting to discuss house plans and answer any questions of the neigh6ors. She stated thaf Ihe issne is thaf the neighbo{s would like to purchase the lo[ and not have anyone 6uild'on it and they have been appioached by the neighbors for tha[ reason. Ms. Maddox asked Ms. Revzen if they had looked at a tuck-under gazage. Ms. Revzen replied that there isn't enough room to do that on the lot. iV1r. Alton asked Ms. Revzen if she had any other responses to the testimony today. Ms. Revzen repfied that she beiieves the measurements done by the City wete done by a measuring tape as opposed to being paced off. She believes the ciry measurements ate accurate. She stated [hat they had the Zoning Manager on-site and contrary to what the neighbors are saying, there was no setback established for this lot and there is documentation in the packet [o show that. Ms. Revzen stated that the lot size is accurate as stated in [he staff report. , � 1`�t -1 �� ; i l i File #46-244 Page Four Ms. Bogen stated she takes exception to that as one of the applicant's pic[ures states it is 140 feet and the staffreport states differendy. Hearing no fiirthec testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the pubiic portion of the meeting. Mr. Hardwick stated that the findings in the staEf report regarding hardship, in no case of any of the findings did he considec the size or the shape of the !ot as a basis for making ihe fmdings. The findings an@ the hardship are based upon the actual curvature of the street, the location of the pavement wethin the street and the orientation of the otker two homes immedia[ely adjacent to this property. There is some hardship incurred in the method that the Zoning Administrator determined in what properties are to be included in averaging the front setback. He stated that the neie�bors are coaect wttere it states site and conditions that it staTes the lot size is 92 by 250 feeL He stated zhis is a typogaphicai eaor. He stated that Ms. Bogen is correct in that the actual size is more like 150 by 250 feet. He staied that the size of the lot has nothing to do �vith staFfs findings. He stated that the plan ihat is in the packet is the ptan that was originally submitted. He stated that the plan is hard to read because it had to be reduced. If the neighbors had requested to vietiv the plan, they would have been wetcome to and iha[ everything in the file is of public record. He sta[ed that the applicant referred to a zoning manager being on the site and that it was the building inspector. He stated that the building inspector measures each hoase to determine the average &ont setback. Mr. Wilson stated that Ms. Bogen poinTed out that if the house was repasitioned on the lot no variances would be required. Mr. Hazdwick stated thai the applicant would then have to remove part of the patio around the pool in order to set the hovse back Ms. Bogen suggeszed that the applicant could reduce the size of the pool. Mr. Hardwick replied Ihat the applicant could change the entire plan but it is staffs opinion, based on the proposed desi�an which is compatible with the other homes, and the facT ihat it is relatively centered on the lo[, is the least intrusive to all the neighbors. Mr. Tally asked if it is because of the garage or the house that the setback is oeing requested. Mr. Hardw�ck reQlied that the house is proposed to be tocated 97 feet setback from the &ont property line. He stated the house and iwo stalls of the garage could be built without a variance. The two stalls bring the garage out to the required 77 foot front setback Eliminating the third stall would bring it c]ose to meeting the front setback. Mr. Donohue asked what is used in calculating the &ont setback Mr. Hardwick replied that the measurements tal:en are approxirnate because it is difficult without actually surveying the lot to get an exact measurement. The house to the easi measured 80 feet in a line paratlel with the front oE [he home. The acmal rneasurement shoutd be in a line parallel to the front of the lot along Lower St. Dennis Road. The house to the east is acivally setback further than 80 feet. The 80-foot line is at an angle and should be straightened. The Zoning Code defnes a froat yard setback as a iine equal and parallel with the rear yazd setback. In this case, the rear yard is a line running directly east and west across the back of al] of these properties. Ttterefore, the front yard setback has to be aligned parallel to the rear yard setback. If yoa made a line parallet to tke ctosest paint of the street, the setback would probably be more than 80 feet. It is not the same on the west side because the front of the house is parallel to the southern portions of I:o't��i `'er St. Dennis Road. Mr. Hardwick further explaiaed the cneasurecffents along the street to the Board. �� FIle #96-244 Page Five Mr. Scherman moved to approve the vaziance request and resolution based on findings 1 through 6. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 2(Bogen, Maddox). ubmitt��y: � f // . / � i John Hazdwick Approved by: Joyce Maddox, Chair --� '� 7994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE ` �� t � SECTION 106 — PERMITS 1061 Permits Required. Except u specified in Section 106.2 of this sec[ion, no building or scructure re�ulaced by [his code shall be erected, constructed, enlar�ed. altered, repaired, moved. improved, removed, conveaed or demolished unless a separace permic for each buildia� or sccuc- ture has first been obcained from [he buildins officiat. 106.2 FVork Exempt from Permit. A buildine pecmit shafl not be �equiced for che followins: 1. One-story decached accessop� buildings used as cool and s[orase sheds, ptayhouses and simi- lar uses, provided [he projected roof area dces noc exceed l2� square feec ( I I:IS m=). 2 Fences not over 6 fzet (1829 mm) hieh. 3. Oil derricks. . . 4. Mo�able cues, coun[ers and partitions noe o�er 5 fee� 9 inches (17�3 mm) hieh. �. Rzcaining walts which are not overA feet (13 ] 9 mm) in height measured from che boccom of the fooeing [o the cop of che wall, unless supportin� a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III-.4 fiquids. 6. �ia�er eanks supported direcdy upon �rade if the capacity does not exceed 5.000 sallons ( I S 937 L) and the ratio of heighc ta diamecer or width does nat exceed 2 co 1. 7. Plaefortns. walks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above �rade and no[ over � any basemen[ or scory below. LEGISLAT� CODE Sec. 62.I14. Private residential pools and hot tubs. Private outdoor residential pools, both above and below ground, an� hot tubs are permitted as an accessory use �vithin the reaz yard or nonrequired side yard; except that, for multiple-family devei- opments, the planning commission may deter- mine the tocation of the pool or tub. Private out- door pools and hot tubs sha12 meet the following requirements as appticable: (1) There shalt be a distance of not less than ten (10) feet between the adjoining proper- ty line and the outside of the pool wali for aboveground pools. For in-ground pools, there shall be a distance of not less than five (5) feet between the adjoining property ' line and the outside of the pool wall. (2) There shalt be a distance of not less than four (4) feet between the outside pool wall and any building located on the same lot. rED'PLANNING DIV. TEL:9-228-3314 ( Oct �'96 i3:26 No.009 P.02 � �� % � �4 7 ��0 � -. � , : ! � �,. .� + ' �� ___ �OGJ-OQ --- � �l . � .a 3 9�., ,EAS T ' _ ` _ _ - -- 'G7.94 _ - -. --- /,5'0 , oo --- � o � � � l o �._ ._ � ` ` � l � -',EAST ``� v � � s � f �C �z' � Q Q � � �07' 86 � LOT � � � � c o � �7 � � I � ; � do � �� 1 �. � k I � • " °� � ` � � � �V � } E , ,� ? � � � `� , -�.�sT �r"� ! 3° ! � /a' R5 4 �o�'� . r f e .. � � ��., R � K i ,, , ��1,`� j . 5� � �n ; ' �� _ � s N I 0 � � � � �q � __�__G9•9yt---� � � � �� C�� ,E�, /v7•9 I • , 1 4 I . �� ' , 1 1 0 � q � t G h j � �;. �� 1 t � �; �` � � � � �o.: c � � � � 4 � � � : , 1 F i`� ( �- ti�� a� ; I o3�z` � \� �• � J�,y ' ( � �_ E ( � �- ; ° F� ' � ��y ,%. 9� ' wR� zzo ,-"•. = ''- - /35•D3'--' - �""�� _ , _. ,Ef9ST'� :��. _ .!♦ �� ,. • .�� :/00. �. .�/. .Pinr� •.;: °:.: .. ' ,4_55u�n.E"O ..L� � ��^`-:.. . ...- ... fNx:.. � ,. � 7 /�� § s�.�o� Notes to 61.101 R.esidential Districts: LEGISLATIVE CODE (a) Where at least fifty (50) percent of the front footage of any block is built up with prin- cipal structures, the front yazd setback for new structures shall be equal to the aver- age of the existing structures, except that any structure which is set back twenty (20) percent more or less than the average may be discounted from the formula. ZONING CODE § 60202 Block. The property abutting one side of a street and lying between the two (2) nearest intersecting streets (crossing or terminating); or between the nearest such street and railroad right-of-way, unsubdivided acreage, lake, river or live stream; or between any of the foregoing and any other physical barrier to the continuity of development, or corporate boundary line of the municipality. NOV-27-96 WED 11:06 � 11�? Novembe� 26, 1996 Mrs. Debra Revzen Briggs 8� Morgan St. Paul, MN Dear Mrs_ Revzen, N. UL ��-( �r� �� Mapte 6rova Mater(a�s ComD�ex 8701 Monlicelb Lar18 Maple Grova, Minneecta 56369d550 Tatephona (Bi2} 4931506 My name is Joh� P. lazar, i'm a registered Protessional Electrical Eng+neer and the Leader of the Construction & Material Services Team at Northern Sfates Power. Nty team is responsible for developing our distribufion canstruCtion and snate�ial standards. {n addition, we pravide guidance to our personnel regarding the Nationai EleCfrical Safety Code (NESC). The purpose of the Code (NESC) is to profect the pubfic from the consfruction, operation, and maintena�ce o# electricat facilities. Attached is a copy of NESC table 234-3, that indicafes Clearance of Wires, Condudors, 8rtd Cabfes Passing Over or' Near Swimming pools. I've also added a drawing to the bottom of the t�bte that indicates the zone around�and over a swimming pool that must be free of our overhead cpnductors. � For an open supply conductflr, 8000 volts L-G, like the one along the rear property line of 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road, the conductor must be at least 25' {dimens'son A, Figure 234-2} in any direction from the wafer level, edge of poot, or base of a diving board. Dimension B indicates the same conductos must be at least 1T' from the edge of a diving platform. Service voltage cables and open wire Services that are typically 120/Z40 volfs must be at least 22.5' and 23' respectivefy, in any direction from the water iave{, edge of poo4, or base of a diving board. As long as our conductors and cables are outside of the dotfsd zone on the diagram, our facilities Comply with the Nationat Electrica! Safety Code. The pole on the rear property line of the 2155 Lowe� St. Dennis Road is a 4fl' pole that holds two transformers, labeled T24. 7aking info account the poles' depth vf burial, the conducfors are akQUt 33' above the ground at th� pole. At midspan, the conduCtvr sag would cause the conductors to be about 32' high. p �� ohn P. Lazar, P.E. 7eam Leader Construction � Maferial Services c. J. A�tman NOV-27-96 WED 11�07 234E1 Tab423¢-3. ClearanccofWiics�Conduclure,andCR+bJWpp�is�pUQtorNr.orSwimmingPada C� U4 �� /� 28nEi Table 234-3 � Clearanee of Wixes, Gondnctois, and Cahles Passing Ov¢r or Near Stiv�mming PoolsO (volcagen are phase to ground for etFeccivcp� grounded circuSta and thase vther cireuH,a wher� a11 ground faui� an cteazed by yromptly dc-energiuing the faultcd sectiort, both jniliai�y gnd Iollosving snbsequant breaker opv.ratione. See the deCmitions seccion far voiCages ot othcr aysceias, qearances ar� wirh no wind dieplacemenc � ' 9ce Rules 2�SE;1. 234E2, xnd 234H4J Insulated communicat(on Ung�arded conductora and rJgid live parts, cabkr, messengen; 0 w 760 V- � snrgrDrotection nonuuulate�l SupD7Y cabie� w'vos; gronndetl cwnmunkation over 75p V 6W's; neutral conductors, mecting Itules eonduccors meeting suyply cabkc of 2�OC2 or 290Ci; Oyen sUppfy Rule 2S6E1; su�piy 0 to 760 V open sapg� eonductors, cables meeting meeting Rules conduccors, over 75D V Rule 230C1 230C2 or ZSOC,3 0 W 760 v W gZ ky (ft) CR) (R� Cft) A ClearanceinazrydirecUon hom the water levcl edge oE pool, base of diviag platform, or anchored ralt 8, qearamce in aoy direMlon to the di.it�g platform or towet : 22.0 14.0 22.5" tas 23.0 ES.O 16.0 17.0 V. Vprtical cI¢arante over sc�jacent land '� Clearance sha4 be as requized by Rule 232. NOT,�:� A, B, end V ere sham in F7g 234Z. O The cieatance vaiues shown in tbia table are compu[ed by adding the applicable Mechanfcat and Electrlcal (M&� vatue of Tab1e Ad W the appiieable Refemnee Component ot T'sble A-2b ot Appendiu A t' l6� �.$�-2 Swimnainq Pool Clearamces 104 �° NOV-25-96 MON 15�23 v 1 0 q � N \ �3 �\ -.. ' � � ��L:�..�' �� . q V 4l2 P � N � N N \ I ' ��4 / J / �. N a j.- z�a+ 3� -- _. _..._.___.._. � . / �� I 3 � r.j7 � {� � o '�1 '_3 _ � - —':�.� 2 „z " '.- -.—_..,. � .. ,.... �_" " � . 9 h v ; y� i r -, _..._ � ,� , _��_ I '' n .:' 1 �.. _-. v� \ h q S N .�� j __�. , ..�..�......�....�.., .....—._. „ i a i a � v i ry` N � o N � V 1 7 � � � � V N M N , .Y � `,� I ; Yf � U �i a � � � � :/ � � . � � 3 � �—'- � .i a �� I i s �. i n�p r � 4 , �' �.�(� � l � ,,,p ....r- _-, i.. V4�� .-w�.—:.s7�4 ��„ � ..... . ... _. � T ,, '�/ / T3 � 3, r . p � � �,io � 3 ; � i �� f r l - ! _�. \v ; ��OB y� / i a t I � � r' � µ i i � �I � � I .Y � : a � i p [ \ j \ , J �a w I y i I � ; / R; 9 \ I �'� I 0,� ` i � h:. � h � 7 ' m . _'�-'� N � N...�.� N i N : I I J UPPER ST. DENNIS � _ fi r•. � i � ` r�a � , �' � I 1 � LOWER ST DENN�S " � ' n � m i � P " " 41 �; � � �� , \ , � . - 3 j `�, ; ? � , ' � T 33 i i • �r /dXtt "' �. A: �� I ,. ♦ JJOJ.S � N .9�D ��T3z 1' � � �I tl` �� , ��. ' �, e ( � N ��I � �� . � _.�-� � P. 05 97 �� y ,,0 �^« �/ ':,;. . �. J 'i;, ` �I �� v� 1 / �7- ��'' F'de #96-244 Page Two 2. The plight of the Fand owner is due to circumstances unique ta this properry, and these circumstances were not created by the Iand owner. The curve ofthe street and the orientation of the other homes on the street are circumstances that were not created by tfie applicants. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the heattt� safety, comfott, moraEs and welfarc af the inhabitants of the City of $E. Paui. The proposed residence is approximatety centered on the [ot and is of a similar size and style as the other homes in the ares. This is in keeping with the sgirit and 'uttent of the code. 4. The proposed variance wi31 not impair an adequate suppIy of tight and air to adjacent property, nor witl it a2ier the esseatiai chazacter afthe sunounding area or unreasonabiy diminish established propercy vaIues wit.hin the sucrounding area. The other twa hames on tfie same side of tfie street are setbacfc from the street anywhere from 30 to t t6 feet depending on which point oftheir street frontage you measure from. The komes direcdy acrass the street from the proposed residence are setback about 30 feet from the street_ There ue existing trees and shrubbery on both sides o£the property that wi'1t hetp screen the proposed house from the adjoiniag homes. The proposed house wili not impair the suppIy of light or air to the adjacent property nor diminish the surrounding property va[ues. S. The variance, if granted, wouid not peRnit any use that is not permitted under t6e provisions af the code for the property in the disirict where the affected land is tocated, nor woaid it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. The proposed variance, ifgranted, wi[I not change or alter the zoning classification of the properry. 6. The request for vari2nce is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the pazcel of Fand. F. DLSTRICT COUNCII. RECOMVIENDATIOPi: As of the date of this report we have not received a recommendation from District 15. G. STAk'F RECONIII�ENDATION: Based on findings i through 6, staffrecortmends apgroval of the variance. ��/ MINUTES OF Tf� MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COLTNCII, CHAMBERS, 33Q CITY HALL ST. PAiJL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 14, 1996 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Scherman, Tuily and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Synstegaard of the Office of License, Inspection, and Envuonmental Protectioa ABSENT: None The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. JOEL & DEBR4 REVZEN (#96-244) - 2155 LOWER ST. DENiVIS ROAD: A&ont yazd setback variance in order to construct a new singie family home. A 77-foot front setback is required and a 56-foot front setback is requested for a variance of 21 feet. The applicant was present. There was opposidon present at the hearing. Mr. Hazdwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval. The Highland Area Community Council sent a letter in suppod. Mr. Hazdwick pointed out some corrections in the letter received. Two letters were received from neighbors requesting further information and a chance to discuss the issues with the applicanG Mr. Hardwick stated he has spoken with both neighbors and explained the issues to them. Ms. Bogen asked what the backyazd setback requirement is. Mr. Hardwick replied 25 Feet. Ms. Bov�en askcd why the applicant couldn't move the home back and be within the required setbacks. Mr. Hardwick stated he did ask the applicant that and &om his understanding the main area of recreation will be the rear yard. if they move the home back, it would reduce the amount of rear yard and infringe upon the neighbor to the north. There is a 10-foot requirement for a swimming pool and the patio part would then go up to the property line and this would not be the best desi�. Ms. Bogen suggested the applicant could use a different poo( design and this would be a more reasonable use for the land. Mr. Hardwick replied he spoke to the applicant about chat and their reasons had to do with the line of sight views. He stated he will let the applicant speak to that. Mr. Scherman stated that comparing the other variances along the street, he dcesn't believe a 77-foot setback should be required. Mr. Hazdwick replied that part of the reason for this variance is the way the Zoning Adminis[rator has interpreted it. Zoning staf£has determined that this block consfsts oConl} thosc [hree parcels where the properiy curves. 1'he azgumen[ could be made that it should go all the way up the intersection to Upper St. Dennis in which case the two homes on the upper comers would a]so be included. This wouid result in the setback being much less. 1'his was one interpretation made. The second interpretation that zoning staff made was that the two homes that aze existing adjacent to this property aze both oriented to the south rather than to the east and west. If they considered the house to the east, the eastem side of the house as the front yard, then the southern side of the house would have been the side yazd and wouldn't have been figured into this calculation. If they considered the house to the west, the westem part of the house as the &ont yard, again the southem part would have been a side yazd and the applicant would have only been required a 30-foot setback. It seems logicai to the Zoning Administrator and consistent with their policies in the past to consider these two wmer lots as facing the south and therefore use�ose setbacks in detemuning the required setback. � 47-r�� .;: Ffle #96-244 \ Page Two i Debra Revzen, 740 River Drive, passed out an aerial view of the site�to the Boazd. She stated i[ is easier [o see from an aerial view of the different setbacks and how they varv. She stated there are strong architectural reasons for the placemenl of the backyard structured pooi. They have taken a year to develop a home that they believe wzll fit besY in the existing neighborhood. She s2ated that this lot has been vacant for 50 years. The neighborhood consists of mostiy ramblers and they wanted to maintain that appearance aesthetically. They felt it would be improper to pui a 2-story design, hence the placemeni of the gazage because they needed the space for the first f�oor. Because of this they had to come forward and theu primary interest was in keeping the resideace consistent with the aeighborhood. If the house was pushed back, it cvould disrupt the line. She asked that they not have to confoan to the setbacks of which the e:cisting homes didn't have to when they &rst were bvilt, Mr. Tully asked what the dimensions of the house are. Ms. Revzen replied 90 by 46 and ihat the porch extends off of the home. The firon[ door is in the center and the view they wanted was the espansc oC rvltcr upon entering the home. Tom Bren, 8224 Counry Road 6, Maple Ptain, representing the builder, stated that the surrounding homes ia the azea have been built with pians that do not confornt with the setbacic requirements. He further stated that to change the pians at this time would result in hardship financiatly and in the schedule because it woald requue a comp[ete redesign. The width of the lot is actua[[y wider than the appiicant stated becluse that is the street [inear portion of the IoL David Sattinger, 2139 Lower SL Dennis Road, stated he is opposed to the variance request. He stated that their view from their sitting room will be the back of the proposed gazage. The proposed home wil[ a(so block the moming sun from [he neighbor's sun room. The neighbor's view from their �itchen across the street will be looking at the fron[ of the proposed garage. He sta[ed he primarily ohjects to the garage. He doesn't believe there aze compelling reasons for granting the variance because the Iot is quite [arge. The variance request is based on the proposed building plans and not due to deficiencies to the lot. The proposed home will be at the expense of the existing neighbors. The variance is necessitated entirety by the orientation of the pool which drives the home fonvazd. He suggested anoiher pool desig� and garage placement. He stated that none of the other homes have a lazge gazage protruding in front of them and that he had diffiFul[y getting any information regazding the variance request Mr. Tully asked Mr. Sattinger how far he is from his west property line. Mr. Sattinger replied 6.7 feet. He stated he isn t aware what the variances were when the home was built in 1950. Mr. Scherman asked Mr. Sattinger how he would feel if the gazage were moved to the �vest side oC the house. Mr. Sattinger replied that it would then blxk the view of the neighbors on the west side. He suegested thlt a tuck-under garage might work and there are a number of them in the azea. ingunn Henrikssa Sachs, 2165 L.awer SL Dennis Road, stated that the garage will not conform with the rest of the neighborhood. She statec3 that if the home were built 21 feet back as allowed by the Zoning Code they would noi be in opposiUOn. She stated she objecis to the orienTation of the pool overriding the neighbor s views. � � 97 File �96-244 Page Three Jonathan Sachs, 2165 Lower St Dennis Road, stated that every home in the neighborhood is flush and the proposed home would have the gazage prouuding ouc He stated they were given a poor qualiry document to hy and calculate the footage. He stated that the applicant informed him at the District Council meeting [h1t the house plans on which the staff report was based on has changed. He sug�ested Ihat the design oF the pool be changed so the house could be moved back and then they wouldn't be in opposition. Ms. Bogen asked when the mee[ing was at the community center. Ms. Sachs replied on Wednesday. Mr. Sachs stated tha[ at the meeting they were not allowed to ask any questions. He stated they were told at the meeting that the purpose of the meeting was simply to vote on the proposed request. Ms. Sachs stated that the Highland Area Community Council's recommendation was based on the staff report and there are mazsy % inaccuracies. She stated that considering the pool and the patio as being part of the structure of the home is not justifiable in going in opposition to all of the neighbors. L` Henry Snyder, 2170 Lower St. Dennis Road, stated he lives across the street and co the �west of the proposed., home. He stated he is in opposition to the variance request. He stated that the Highland Area Canmunity Council's recommendation was based on the staff report of which he believas [here are a number of mistakes. He stated that the 1ot dimensions aze incorrect and the lot is quite lazge. He stated that the concepc of the property lines aze diYficult to see because of Lower St. Dennis Road not being in the sniddle. He scated that the 21-foot extension of the gazage and the pool laid in a veRical direction racher than a horizonal direction in back is his main objection. He dcesn't believe the applicant has a piight and Imew che zoning restrictions when they purchased the lot. The house as proposed is not in chazacter or keeping wich the rest of the ` neighborhood. The variance is unnecessary and will intecfere with the neighbors. Ms. Sachs submitted a letter to the Boazd in opposition. Ms. Bogen stated that from the testunony of the opposicion at the Hia,hland Area Communiry Council meeting it was stated today that the e�cisting plan was no (onger that which is in [he report. She asked Ms. Revzen to explain what the existing plan is now. Ms. Revzen stated tha[ is total incorrect and [he existing plan is identical to the plan in the packet. She stated there is a small change in a couple of the window sizes in front of the house. She stated that the neigh6ors were allowed to ask many questions at the district meetin� and that she stayed for over an hour after the meeting to discuss house plans and answer any questions of the neigh6ors. She stated thaf Ihe issne is thaf the neighbo{s would like to purchase the lo[ and not have anyone 6uild'on it and they have been appioached by the neighbors for tha[ reason. Ms. Maddox asked Ms. Revzen if they had looked at a tuck-under gazage. Ms. Revzen replied that there isn't enough room to do that on the lot. iV1r. Alton asked Ms. Revzen if she had any other responses to the testimony today. Ms. Revzen repfied that she beiieves the measurements done by the City wete done by a measuring tape as opposed to being paced off. She believes the ciry measurements ate accurate. She stated [hat they had the Zoning Manager on-site and contrary to what the neighbors are saying, there was no setback established for this lot and there is documentation in the packet [o show that. Ms. Revzen stated that the lot size is accurate as stated in [he staff report. , � 1`�t -1 �� ; i l i File #46-244 Page Four Ms. Bogen stated she takes exception to that as one of the applicant's pic[ures states it is 140 feet and the staffreport states differendy. Hearing no fiirthec testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the pubiic portion of the meeting. Mr. Hardwick stated that the findings in the staEf report regarding hardship, in no case of any of the findings did he considec the size or the shape of the !ot as a basis for making ihe fmdings. The findings an@ the hardship are based upon the actual curvature of the street, the location of the pavement wethin the street and the orientation of the otker two homes immedia[ely adjacent to this property. There is some hardship incurred in the method that the Zoning Administrator determined in what properties are to be included in averaging the front setback. He stated that the neie�bors are coaect wttere it states site and conditions that it staTes the lot size is 92 by 250 feeL He stated zhis is a typogaphicai eaor. He stated that Ms. Bogen is correct in that the actual size is more like 150 by 250 feet. He staied that the size of the lot has nothing to do �vith staFfs findings. He stated that the plan ihat is in the packet is the ptan that was originally submitted. He stated that the plan is hard to read because it had to be reduced. If the neighbors had requested to vietiv the plan, they would have been wetcome to and iha[ everything in the file is of public record. He sta[ed that the applicant referred to a zoning manager being on the site and that it was the building inspector. He stated that the building inspector measures each hoase to determine the average &ont setback. Mr. Wilson stated that Ms. Bogen poinTed out that if the house was repasitioned on the lot no variances would be required. Mr. Hazdwick stated thai the applicant would then have to remove part of the patio around the pool in order to set the hovse back Ms. Bogen suggeszed that the applicant could reduce the size of the pool. Mr. Hardwick replied Ihat the applicant could change the entire plan but it is staffs opinion, based on the proposed desi�an which is compatible with the other homes, and the facT ihat it is relatively centered on the lo[, is the least intrusive to all the neighbors. Mr. Tally asked if it is because of the garage or the house that the setback is oeing requested. Mr. Hardw�ck reQlied that the house is proposed to be tocated 97 feet setback from the &ont property line. He stated the house and iwo stalls of the garage could be built without a variance. The two stalls bring the garage out to the required 77 foot front setback Eliminating the third stall would bring it c]ose to meeting the front setback. Mr. Donohue asked what is used in calculating the &ont setback Mr. Hardwick replied that the measurements tal:en are approxirnate because it is difficult without actually surveying the lot to get an exact measurement. The house to the easi measured 80 feet in a line paratlel with the front oE [he home. The acmal rneasurement shoutd be in a line parallel to the front of the lot along Lower St. Dennis Road. The house to the east is acivally setback further than 80 feet. The 80-foot line is at an angle and should be straightened. The Zoning Code defnes a froat yard setback as a iine equal and parallel with the rear yazd setback. In this case, the rear yard is a line running directly east and west across the back of al] of these properties. Ttterefore, the front yard setback has to be aligned parallel to the rear yard setback. If yoa made a line parallet to tke ctosest paint of the street, the setback would probably be more than 80 feet. It is not the same on the west side because the front of the house is parallel to the southern portions of I:o't��i `'er St. Dennis Road. Mr. Hardwick further explaiaed the cneasurecffents along the street to the Board. �� FIle #96-244 Page Five Mr. Scherman moved to approve the vaziance request and resolution based on findings 1 through 6. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 2(Bogen, Maddox). ubmitt��y: � f // . / � i John Hazdwick Approved by: Joyce Maddox, Chair --� '� 7994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE ` �� t � SECTION 106 — PERMITS 1061 Permits Required. Except u specified in Section 106.2 of this sec[ion, no building or scructure re�ulaced by [his code shall be erected, constructed, enlar�ed. altered, repaired, moved. improved, removed, conveaed or demolished unless a separace permic for each buildia� or sccuc- ture has first been obcained from [he buildins officiat. 106.2 FVork Exempt from Permit. A buildine pecmit shafl not be �equiced for che followins: 1. One-story decached accessop� buildings used as cool and s[orase sheds, ptayhouses and simi- lar uses, provided [he projected roof area dces noc exceed l2� square feec ( I I:IS m=). 2 Fences not over 6 fzet (1829 mm) hieh. 3. Oil derricks. . . 4. Mo�able cues, coun[ers and partitions noe o�er 5 fee� 9 inches (17�3 mm) hieh. �. Rzcaining walts which are not overA feet (13 ] 9 mm) in height measured from che boccom of the fooeing [o the cop of che wall, unless supportin� a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III-.4 fiquids. 6. �ia�er eanks supported direcdy upon �rade if the capacity does not exceed 5.000 sallons ( I S 937 L) and the ratio of heighc ta diamecer or width does nat exceed 2 co 1. 7. Plaefortns. walks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above �rade and no[ over � any basemen[ or scory below. LEGISLAT� CODE Sec. 62.I14. Private residential pools and hot tubs. Private outdoor residential pools, both above and below ground, an� hot tubs are permitted as an accessory use �vithin the reaz yard or nonrequired side yard; except that, for multiple-family devei- opments, the planning commission may deter- mine the tocation of the pool or tub. Private out- door pools and hot tubs sha12 meet the following requirements as appticable: (1) There shalt be a distance of not less than ten (10) feet between the adjoining proper- ty line and the outside of the pool wali for aboveground pools. For in-ground pools, there shall be a distance of not less than five (5) feet between the adjoining property ' line and the outside of the pool wall. (2) There shalt be a distance of not less than four (4) feet between the outside pool wall and any building located on the same lot. rED'PLANNING DIV. TEL:9-228-3314 ( Oct �'96 i3:26 No.009 P.02 � �� % � �4 7 ��0 � -. � , : ! � �,. .� + ' �� ___ �OGJ-OQ --- � �l . � .a 3 9�., ,EAS T ' _ ` _ _ - -- 'G7.94 _ - -. --- /,5'0 , oo --- � o � � � l o �._ ._ � ` ` � l � -',EAST ``� v � � s � f �C �z' � Q Q � � �07' 86 � LOT � � � � c o � �7 � � I � ; � do � �� 1 �. � k I � • " °� � ` � � � �V � } E , ,� ? � � � `� , -�.�sT �r"� ! 3° ! � /a' R5 4 �o�'� . r f e .. � � ��., R � K i ,, , ��1,`� j . 5� � �n ; ' �� _ � s N I 0 � � � � �q � __�__G9•9yt---� � � � �� C�� ,E�, /v7•9 I • , 1 4 I . �� ' , 1 1 0 � q � t G h j � �;. �� 1 t � �; �` � � � � �o.: c � � � � 4 � � � : , 1 F i`� ( �- ti�� a� ; I o3�z` � \� �• � J�,y ' ( � �_ E ( � �- ; ° F� ' � ��y ,%. 9� ' wR� zzo ,-"•. = ''- - /35•D3'--' - �""�� _ , _. ,Ef9ST'� :��. _ .!♦ �� ,. • .�� :/00. �. .�/. .Pinr� •.;: °:.: .. ' ,4_55u�n.E"O ..L� � ��^`-:.. . ...- ... fNx:.. � ,. � 7 /�� § s�.�o� Notes to 61.101 R.esidential Districts: LEGISLATIVE CODE (a) Where at least fifty (50) percent of the front footage of any block is built up with prin- cipal structures, the front yazd setback for new structures shall be equal to the aver- age of the existing structures, except that any structure which is set back twenty (20) percent more or less than the average may be discounted from the formula. ZONING CODE § 60202 Block. The property abutting one side of a street and lying between the two (2) nearest intersecting streets (crossing or terminating); or between the nearest such street and railroad right-of-way, unsubdivided acreage, lake, river or live stream; or between any of the foregoing and any other physical barrier to the continuity of development, or corporate boundary line of the municipality. NOV-27-96 WED 11:06 � 11�? Novembe� 26, 1996 Mrs. Debra Revzen Briggs 8� Morgan St. Paul, MN Dear Mrs_ Revzen, N. UL ��-( �r� �� Mapte 6rova Mater(a�s ComD�ex 8701 Monlicelb Lar18 Maple Grova, Minneecta 56369d550 Tatephona (Bi2} 4931506 My name is Joh� P. lazar, i'm a registered Protessional Electrical Eng+neer and the Leader of the Construction & Material Services Team at Northern Sfates Power. Nty team is responsible for developing our distribufion canstruCtion and snate�ial standards. {n addition, we pravide guidance to our personnel regarding the Nationai EleCfrical Safety Code (NESC). The purpose of the Code (NESC) is to profect the pubfic from the consfruction, operation, and maintena�ce o# electricat facilities. Attached is a copy of NESC table 234-3, that indicafes Clearance of Wires, Condudors, 8rtd Cabfes Passing Over or' Near Swimming pools. I've also added a drawing to the bottom of the t�bte that indicates the zone around�and over a swimming pool that must be free of our overhead cpnductors. � For an open supply conductflr, 8000 volts L-G, like the one along the rear property line of 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road, the conductor must be at least 25' {dimens'son A, Figure 234-2} in any direction from the wafer level, edge of poot, or base of a diving board. Dimension B indicates the same conductos must be at least 1T' from the edge of a diving platform. Service voltage cables and open wire Services that are typically 120/Z40 volfs must be at least 22.5' and 23' respectivefy, in any direction from the water iave{, edge of poo4, or base of a diving board. As long as our conductors and cables are outside of the dotfsd zone on the diagram, our facilities Comply with the Nationat Electrica! Safety Code. The pole on the rear property line of the 2155 Lowe� St. Dennis Road is a 4fl' pole that holds two transformers, labeled T24. 7aking info account the poles' depth vf burial, the conducfors are akQUt 33' above the ground at th� pole. At midspan, the conduCtvr sag would cause the conductors to be about 32' high. p �� ohn P. Lazar, P.E. 7eam Leader Construction � Maferial Services c. J. A�tman NOV-27-96 WED 11�07 234E1 Tab423¢-3. ClearanccofWiics�Conduclure,andCR+bJWpp�is�pUQtorNr.orSwimmingPada C� U4 �� /� 28nEi Table 234-3 � Clearanee of Wixes, Gondnctois, and Cahles Passing Ov¢r or Near Stiv�mming PoolsO (volcagen are phase to ground for etFeccivcp� grounded circuSta and thase vther cireuH,a wher� a11 ground faui� an cteazed by yromptly dc-energiuing the faultcd sectiort, both jniliai�y gnd Iollosving snbsequant breaker opv.ratione. See the deCmitions seccion far voiCages ot othcr aysceias, qearances ar� wirh no wind dieplacemenc � ' 9ce Rules 2�SE;1. 234E2, xnd 234H4J Insulated communicat(on Ung�arded conductora and rJgid live parts, cabkr, messengen; 0 w 760 V- � snrgrDrotection nonuuulate�l SupD7Y cabie� w'vos; gronndetl cwnmunkation over 75p V 6W's; neutral conductors, mecting Itules eonduccors meeting suyply cabkc of 2�OC2 or 290Ci; Oyen sUppfy Rule 2S6E1; su�piy 0 to 760 V open sapg� eonductors, cables meeting meeting Rules conduccors, over 75D V Rule 230C1 230C2 or ZSOC,3 0 W 760 v W gZ ky (ft) CR) (R� Cft) A ClearanceinazrydirecUon hom the water levcl edge oE pool, base of diviag platform, or anchored ralt 8, qearamce in aoy direMlon to the di.it�g platform or towet : 22.0 14.0 22.5" tas 23.0 ES.O 16.0 17.0 V. Vprtical cI¢arante over sc�jacent land '� Clearance sha4 be as requized by Rule 232. NOT,�:� A, B, end V ere sham in F7g 234Z. O The cieatance vaiues shown in tbia table are compu[ed by adding the applicable Mechanfcat and Electrlcal (M&� vatue of Tab1e Ad W the appiieable Refemnee Component ot T'sble A-2b ot Appendiu A t' l6� �.$�-2 Swimnainq Pool Clearamces 104 �° NOV-25-96 MON 15�23 v 1 0 q � N \ �3 �\ -.. ' � � ��L:�..�' �� . q V 4l2 P � N � N N \ I ' ��4 / J / �. N a j.- z�a+ 3� -- _. _..._.___.._. � . / �� I 3 � r.j7 � {� � o '�1 '_3 _ � - —':�.� 2 „z " '.- -.—_..,. � .. ,.... �_" " � . 9 h v ; y� i r -, _..._ � ,� , _��_ I '' n .:' 1 �.. _-. v� \ h q S N .�� j __�. , ..�..�......�....�.., .....—._. „ i a i a � v i ry` N � o N � V 1 7 � � � � V N M N , .Y � `,� I ; Yf � U �i a � � � � :/ � � . � � 3 � �—'- � .i a �� I i s �. i n�p r � 4 , �' �.�(� � l � ,,,p ....r- _-, i.. V4�� .-w�.—:.s7�4 ��„ � ..... . ... _. � T ,, '�/ / T3 � 3, r . p � � �,io � 3 ; � i �� f r l - ! _�. \v ; ��OB y� / i a t I � � r' � µ i i � �I � � I .Y � : a � i p [ \ j \ , J �a w I y i I � ; / R; 9 \ I �'� I 0,� ` i � h:. � h � 7 ' m . _'�-'� N � N...�.� N i N : I I J UPPER ST. DENNIS � _ fi r•. � i � ` r�a � , �' � I 1 � LOWER ST DENN�S " � ' n � m i � P " " 41 �; � � �� , \ , � . - 3 j `�, ; ? � , ' � T 33 i i • �r /dXtt "' �. A: �� I ,. ♦ JJOJ.S � N .9�D ��T3z 1' � � �I tl` �� , ��. ' �, e ( � N ��I � �� . � _.�-� � P. 05 97 �� y ,,0 �^« �/ ':,;. . �. J 'i;, ` �I �� v� 1 / �. ^ � � � � Council File # �� Green Sheet # '�1��`�� RESOLUTION OF,S/�INT PAUL, MINNESOTA 33 Presented By Re£erred To Committee: Date VJHEREAS, Joel and Debra Revzen made application to the Boazd of Zonino Appeals for a variance from the sh applicarion of the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for properiy located at 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road and legally described as all of Lot 86, Lane's Edgcumbe Hills, Rauisey County, Minnesota, and all of Lot 85 except the easterly 67.94 feet thereof, Lane's Edgcuxnbe Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and that part of Lot 87, Lane's Edgcumbe Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies Easterly of a line described as follows: begi nnina at a point on the North line of said Lot 87 distant 33.94 feet West of the Northeast corner of said Lot 87; thence South, assumed bearing, paza11e1 with the East line of Lot 87 a distauce of 34.04 feet; thence East a distance 5.00 feet; thence South a distance of 70.00 feet; thence East a distance of 10.00 feet; thence south a distance of 146.02 feet to the South line of said Lot 87 and said described line there terminating; and WI�REAS, the application sought a front yard setback vaziance for the purposes of constructing a single family home; and WHBREAS, the Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on October 14, 1996, after having provided notice to affected properiy owners, and the Boazd, by its resolution number 96-244 dated October 14, 1996, granted the variance application, with conditions based upon the following findings and conclusions: l. Lower St. Dennis Road is a horseshoe-shaped street. The homes on the interior of the horseshoe are oriented at different angles to the street makiug the deternunation of the front setbacks difficult. However, the Building Inspectar has determined that the auerage setback of the two existing homes on the block is 77 feet as measured to the property line. There is a twenty-one-foot boulevazd between the property line and the curb. Based on this determination, the proposed house could not be constructed and still maintain a rear setback without a variance. 2. The curve of the street and the orientation of the other homes on the street are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. 3. The proposed residence is approximately centered on the lot and is of a similar size and style as the other homes in the area. This is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. q�-«� 4. The other two homes on the same side of the street are setback from the street anywhere from 30 to 116 feet depending on which point of their sireet &ontage you measure from. The homes directly across the street from the proposed residence are setback about 30 feet from the street. There are e�tisting trees and shrubbery on both sides of the properry that will help screen the proposed house from the adjoining homes. The proposed house will not impair the supply of light or air to the adjacent property nor dinunish the surrounding properiy values. 5. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land; and VJHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislafive Code § 64.205, David Sattinger and Ingunn Sachs 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 said Boazd; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code §§ 64.205 - 64.208 and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on November 27, 1996, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and WI�EREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing on November 27, 1996, a motion on the matter of the appeal of David Sattinger and In�unn Sachs was put to a vote before the City Council and the motion on the matter, hauing failed on a tie vote, was laid over to December 11, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Council, reconvened the matter on December 11, 1996 and hauing heard the statements made and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the recozd, minutes and resolution of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul finds the following errors in the decision and fmdings of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals as contained in the Boazds resolution No. 96-244: With respect to fmding No. 1, the Council finds that the properiy in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code in that the proposed house could be conshucted on the property without a variance by moving the proposed structure closer to the rear property line; and With respect to finding No. 2, the Council fmds that the plight of the landowner is a self created hazdslup based upon the design of the house and the swiimning pool and their proposed loca6on on the site; and With respect to finding No. 4, the Council fmds that the proposed reduced front setback is not in keeping with the character of the other homes in the surrounding azea. � z 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 IO 11 g�t -�� AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon this Council's determination that the Boazd of Zo nino Appeals erred in fmdings 1, 2 and 4, the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance to Joel and Debra Revzen is hereby reversed and that the appeal of David Sattanger and Ingunn Sachs contesting the variance is hereby granted; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clezk shall mail a copy of this resoIution to appellants David Sattinger and Ingunn Saclvs, the applicants Joel and Debra Revzen and to the Zoning Aduuvistrator, the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Saint Paul Planning Commission. Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY: o-� � ..va�.. . � —. Approved by Mayor : Date '� �/� �-- By: C L__. ' Requested by Department of: By: Form approved by City Attorney By: � G��/�,,.� / 2�-y� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Adopted by Council: Date �,g, a(„i�°�Q� 9'1 � t �p� OEPY1f�NTAFFICEICOUNC�L DATE INITIATED 3 $ � � � clty ��n�ll 2-4-1997 GREEN SHEE CONTACT PEfiSON & PHONE INITIAVDATE INITIAL/DATE _ O DEPAFTMENT DIRECTOR � GRV CAUNCIL -MI�Ce $8ZT1S�-?.f3{Yg�7-3� ��GN �C1T'ATTORNEY OCITYCLERK NUYBEfl fOH MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) ROUTIXG O BUDGEf DIRECTOR � FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR. Feb 26 1997. "_ _- __� ,. �. oaoee Q'nawa roA nss�srnr+n � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS POR SIGNATURE) AC710N FiE�UESTED: Finalizing City Counc�l action taken on December 11, 1996, granting the appeal of David Sattinger and Ingunn Sachs from a decision of the Saint Paul Board of Zoniug Appeals. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING DUESTIONS: _ PL4NNIN0 COMMISSION _ GIVIL SERVICE CAMM�SSION 1. Has this person/Firtn ever worked untler a contract for this tlepartment? _ CIB COMMITTEE YES NO — �� F 2. Has Mis personHirm ever been a city employee? — YES NO _ DiSTRICT cAUR7 — 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curren[ city employee? SUPPOFiTS WHICN COUNCIL O&IECTIVE4 YES NO Explain all yes answers on separate sheet antl attach to green shaet INITIATING PROBLEM, iSSUE.OPPORTUNI7V (Who. What. When, Where, Why): AWANTAGES IF APPRWED: DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: �s�+3:i� �,1?? �.e�`5s's E.�fB A` �„� � � i�� -- — „-,.: DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED: 70TAL AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION $ COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIWG SOURCE AC7IYITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFOR65ATION: (EXPLAIN) OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E Mar� City Anomey ^� 1' �� .. CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co%man, Mayor Civil Divzrion 400 City Hall IS West Kel[ogg Blvd Saint Paul, �Ytmnesota SSIO2 Te[ephone: 672 266-8710 Facsnnile: 6l2 298-5619 January 28, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Nancy: Attached please find the original, signed Resolution finalizing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council of December 11, 1996, granting the appeal of David Sattinger and Ingunn Sachs from a decision of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals. Please have this matter calendared on the Council's Consent Agenda. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thanks, �� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney Attachment O£FICE OF LICENSE, INSPECT10N5 AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RobertKesslen Director q�t-ld'� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nonrt Colemaq Mayor ZAWRY PROFESSIONAL BUII,UING Srdte 300 350 St. Peter Street SaintPaul,Mirvtesota SSZ02-ISIO Telephone: 6I Z26(r9090 Facsimi[e: 6I2-2669099 612-266-9124 October 30, 1996 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday November 13, 1996 for the following appeal of a Boazd of Zoning Appeals decision: Appellant: File Number: David Sattinger & Ingunn Sachs 96-271 Purpose: Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting a front yazd setback variance in order to construct a new single family home. Address: 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road Legal Description of Property: See file. Previous Action: The Community Development Committee of the Highland Area Community Council voted unanimously to approve the vaziance request. Staff recommended approval. Board of Zoning Appeals, Granted the request on a vote of 5-2. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda for the November 13, 1996 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 ely, � ��Gt1�9� ��;��C'�'3 �� ohn Hardwick Zonin Technician �� ,�� $ _ � NOTICE OF PQBLIC HEAItING CC: C011RCIl M8ri1t)BL 1j2TI15 'The Saint Paul City Council-will coaduct a pµbIic heariIIg on V�edn"esday, November 13, 1996 at 4:30 p.m., City Covncil Chambers, Third Floor. Ci�y"Aalk, to eonsider the� appeal of David Sattinger and� Iagunn Sachs to a decision of'the Boazd of Zoning Appeais graating-a froat yazd seCback vazianc,e_ ia oFder to construct a new slagle family home at 2158 Lower St. Dennis Road. ; Dated: October S0, 1996 � - � - � NANCY ANDERSON ' . � � - Assistaat City Council Secre[ary � � - - � � " � , � (November 1, 1986) - ' ! I//3 SAINT lAUL � 11111►A APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Economic Develapment Zoning Section 1100 City Hall Annex - 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 � .-, APPELLANT Name vL� V\ ci� ��'� �� r Address 21 3�t �`Nev� 'S�• 7f'i�i5 �`(• City S i'�"'� St. �"�ip `��7�� 6 Daytime phone �y�" y�U �Y19u✓�r� d l�n�.fG«„ f-(snkis,>„ 5��, G,s 2r 65 �-ower Sr. t�eh�,s r2�-.� PROPERTY Zoning File Name LOCATION S L� �,v tn., S 3 • ��1 rvr.� I� , Address/Location 215 TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph appeal a decision made by the_ on Uc,{ -_-r�1 ��{ci�� (date of decision) v � 4' t.� , 19 y�. c�/ 4 o n �� File number:_ of the Zoning Code, to /�} ��p�k�S b - i `1-►p� ; I i � GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Exptain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedare or ��' finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. Gt/ E � e � I� v� � k,'�f �✓' �` � r 5 ��f � 6 1M 1 l�� i C C t �� J +� 1�� N �) �1 ��e v �"�-'"�^-c-F . S_eQ, Ct�-J-�c-�a S ��z�- , i{3I2��tpA� 3�F�G$7Fli Aftach additiona( sheet if necessary) cwNr�ct ��, fJ cl,��l �� . }j �� Date �vt2� � � �ity a Appiicant's signature � � (,-._ )�t . ? r f l�( 6 ��L��M1,�-- I r�� CD e�� .�� - l �S`� Re: Board of Zoning Appeals, File 96-244. Appellants: Jonathan and Ingunn Henrikssen Saehs, 2165 I.ower St. Dennis Rd. David and Irene Sattinger, 2139 Lower St. Dennis Rd. We contest the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow a 21 foot setback variance for the property at 2155 Lower St. Dennis Rd. and ask that the St. Paul City Council reject this recommendation. In brie� the StaffReport contains errors of fact: the need for the requested variance has not been demonstrated; and the proposed variance will result in an adverse impact on the homeowners unmediately adjacent to the property. Following is our refutation of the Findings in the Staff Report (Exhibit 1): 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable nse under the strict provisions of the code." ..."The proposed house coutd not be constructed and still maintain a rear setback without a variance." The proposed home, with its adjoining garage, pool, and surrounding patio, as described in the Topography Survey submitted by the landowners (Exhibit 2) can be built on the lot without the variance. The Survey shows a 25 foot distance from the north end of the pario area to the rear property line. No setback is required for a patio, and a five foot setback is required for a pooi; hence the entire complex can be moved 21 feet back and so be within the front setback required by the City, with no rear setback variance required. Documentarion is given in Appendix 1 below. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner." There is no plight. The lot is approximately 135 feet wide at the street and 250 feet deep, and level, except for a small rise from the street. The owners are motivated solely by the desire to maximize the amount of azea in the rear of the home. Without the variance, the backyard will still be approximately 90 feet deep by 150 feet wide. 3. "The proposed residence is approximately centered on the lot and is of a similar size and style as the other homes in the area." The variance, if granted, will allow the protsusion of a three car garage in front of the setback required by the City. A glance at the aerial photo (Exhibit 3) of the block shows that no other garages protrude so drastically from the front of any of the homes. The variance, if granted, will result in a sharp rupture of the setback line from the street. Nowhere else in the azea is there such an enormous protrusion of one home in front of its neighbors. The aeriai photo shows that existing homes in the area face the street and closely match the contour of the street fronts, while remaining in close alig ment with ° �`1-��Y their neighbors. This unifomuty would be broken; whereas the spirit and irnent of the code is to preseroe a degree of unifornuty in residentiat neighborhoods. 4. "The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values with the surrounding areas." The variance, if granted, would result in the obstruction of the view and late aftemoon sun in the sitting room on the west end of the Sattinger's home. (See Topography Survey). It would result in placing the back side of a three car garage in direct view of the Sattinger's sitting room. It would interfere with the supply of light to the Henrikssen Sachs residence on the west side of the lot. It moreover places this same gazage 21 feet closer to Noreen Lannin's home across the street. Due to the rise in the land on the subject property, the garage will tower over Mrs. Lannin's home. In addition, the large circular drive will be directly in front of her home, thereby diminishing the value of her property. We do not dispute the setback requirement of 77 feet from the property line as deternvned by the City, though that would already allow the proposed residence to sit somewhat in front of its immediate neighbors and would result in some interference with views and light. We do, however, dispute the granting of a 21 foot variance to this setback, since that would result in an egregious non-unifomuty and an adverse impact on the immediate neighbors. According to the zoning code, "variances from the strict enforcement of the provisions of the zoning code" shall be done only in circumstances under which all of the six points can be positively supported. In view of the errors in fact in four of these points, we respectfully ask that the St. Paul City Council deny this variance. /: ' ' ►u ►:i� Issue: No variance is needed to construct the home with adjoining garage, pool, and patio as proposed by the Landowners in their site plan submitted to the Board of Zoping Appeals (BZA). The following discussion refers to the Topography Survey, E�ibit 2, submitted to the BZA showing the house located on the lot assuming the granting of the variance. The Survey shows a distance of 25 feet between the north end of the patio and the north properiy line (highlighted in orange). There are no setback requirements for patios, (Uniform Building Code section 106.2-E�ibit 6). Thus the entire complex —house, pool, and patio—may be moved north 21 feet, with the result that no variance, front, rear, or side, would be needed. This would locate the north pool wall approximately 20 feet south of the properiy line, well within the 5 foot zoning requirement for pools (Section 62.114.(1) of the Legislative Code-Exhibit 7). It should also be noted that the distance between the house and poo� the Topography Survey is 20 feet (highlighted in blue). On the blueprint of the actual building �� plans (Ea�hibit 8) the distance between house and pool is listed as appro�mately 8 feet. (See blue highlight). If this design akernative were to be used (and tlris seems most likely, given that it appears in the detailed blueprints), and the house were built without the requested variance, the north outside wall of the pool would be approximately 32 feet south of the rear property line. No variance would be needed for either of these alternatives, and in either case, the Landowners would have a level backyard measuring approximately 150 feet wide by 90 feet deep. • • ►I� ► Landowners, in their applicarion, disputed the method used by the City of St. Paul to detemrine the proper front yard setback and the StaffReport offers other measurements in support of their disputation. We comment on those measurements here: C. SI'IB AND AREA CONDITIONS. "This is a large lot, 92 by 250 feet.°' The Topography Survey, submitted by the Landowners, shows a width of 115.10 measured feet along the property line at the street. The official St. Paul plot survey of Lot 86, parcel B, (Exhibit 4) shows that the actual width is 135.03 feet. E. ITEM 4: "The other two homes on the sazne side of the street are setback 30 feet to 116 feet " We have measured the closest points of the two adjacent homes at 2139 and 2165 to the street and have found that the shortest distance between house and curb is 51 feet, taken at a point considered to be part of the side yard of the home at 2165. Both houses are considered to be sitting on comer lots (see E�ibit 5 for the definition of a comer lot); and side measurements aze irrelevant to the discussion of front set-backs used by the City to determine the setback for the landowner's property. The City has deternuned the front setbacks of the two adjacent homes to be 80 and 116 feet from the curb. This leads to a front yard setback of 98 feet from the front curb (77 feet from the property line) for the subject property. We accept this finding by the City. E: item 4: "The homes directly across the street from the proposed residence are setback about 30 feet from the street" Mrs. Lannin's home, at 2148, according to our measurements, is 57 feet from the curb. It should also be noted that there is a ravine behind Mrs. Lannin's home (see co�our lines on the aeriai photo), maldng it impossible to set the home back any fiuther. � �`1 • �� . ��: , 1. Baazd of Zoning Appeals Staff Report, File 96-244 2. Topography Survey 3. Aerial Photo of surrounding homes 4. Plot Survey 5. Zoning Code, 60.212: Defuution of Comer Lot 6. Uniform Building Code, 1994; Section 106.2, Work exempt from pemuts 7. Legislative Code, 62.114, Private Residential Pools 8. Blueprint of Proposed home at 2155 Lower St. Dennis Rd. � ac P �X�� {�� r�--.�.F - n 7�- 1� BOARD OB ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT i. APPLICANT: JOEL & DEBRA REVZEI3 2. CLASSTF'ICATIOPT: Major Variance 3. LOCATION: 2155 LOWER ST DENNTS FiQAD 4. LEGAL DESCRTPTION: See fi2e 3. PLAN2�TTNG DISTRICT: 15 �` FILE # 96-244 AATE OF HEARING: ld/I4/96 6. PRESENT ZOIVTNG: R-F ZONIl�G CODE REFEREI�TCE: 61.1d1 7. STAFF TNVES'I`ICrAT'ION Al�ll REPORT: DATE: 10/7/96 BX: John Hardwick 8. T)ATE RECEIVED: 9Y14/96 DEADI.INE FOIi AGTTOPI: 12/23/96 A PIJT2pOSE: A front yazd setback variance in order to construct a new single-family hom0. B. ACfION REQIIESTED: A 77-foot front setback is required and a 56-foot front setback is requested for a variance of 21-feet. C. SITE ANID A�A CONDTT1aNS: This is a large lot, 92 by 250-feet, with no ailey access. The ]ot is relatively levet bat is about 6 feet above the grade of the street. Surrounding Land Use: Single famiIy homes D. SACKGROIINA: This pazcet was recently snlit from the adjacent property and was purchased by the applicants in 1995. This is the last vacant pucei in this immediate ar�. E. F'INDIlV'GS: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonaole use under the strict provisions of the code. I.ower St. Dennis Road is a horseshoe-shaped street. The homes on the interior of the horseshoe are oriented a[ different angles to ihe street making the detecminarion of the front setbacks difficult. Howeve�, the Building Inspector has deternuned that the average setback of the two exisring homes on the block is 7'1 feet as measured to the property line. There is a twenty-one-foot bouievazd between the property line and the ccub. Based on this detemunation, the proposed house couId not be constructed and still maintain a resr setback without a varia*�ce, �� w ��.� ��•i rn� �. ur o rnu� ��cr � � � •�� G�C�� 1 � � � File #96-244 Page Two 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 curve of the street and the orientation of Fhe other homes on thc strect are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. \�'l� 3. The groposed vaiiance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consisieat with the hesit}� safety, comfort, morais and we(farc of the inhabitants of ihe City of SE. Paul. The proposad residence is approximately cente�ed on the fot and is of s simitar size and style as the other homes in the area. This is in keeping wiTh the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance wiil not impair an adequate supply of light and sir to adjacent progerty, nor wi[1 it atteC the essential chazacter of the susrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property valnes within the sutrounding area. The other two homes on the same side of the st�eet are setback from the street anywhere from 30 to t F6 feet depending on which point of their street fronYage you measute from. The homes direcciy across the street from the proposed residence are setback about 30 feet from the street. There are existing trees and shrubbery on both sides of the property that wiil help screen the proposed house from the adjoining homes. The proposed house witl not impair the supply of light or air to the adjacent property nor diminish the surrounding properry vaIues. 5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not pernutted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is focated, nor woald it alter or change the zoning district classification of the propercy. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is noY based primarily on a desire to increase the value or incame potential of the parcel of land. F_ DLSTRICT COTSNCII. RECOMl�ATDATIOI�t: As of the date of this report we have not received a recommendation from District 15. G. STAPR RECOlYIl14ENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approva! of ihe variance. � ��-�� MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARb OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COLJNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 14, 1996 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs. Alton, bonohue, Scherman, Tutty and Wilson of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hazdwick and Ms. Synstegaard of the Office of Liceuse, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT None The meeking was chaired by Joyce Maddo�c, Chair. JOEL & DEBRA REVZEN (#96-244) - 2155 LOWER ST. DElVNIS ROAD: A front yard setback variance in order to construct a new single family home. A 77-foot front setback is required and a 56-foot front setback is requested for a variance of 21 feet. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staf'f repod with a recommendation for approval. The Highland Area Community Council sent a letter in support. Mr. Hazdwick pointed out some corrections in the letter received. Two letters were received &om neighbors requesting fiuther information and a chance to discuss the issues with the applicant. Mr. Hardwick stated he has spoken with both neighbors and explained the issues to them. Ms. Bogen asked what the backyazd setback requirement is. Mr. Hardwick replied 25 feet. Ms. Bogen asked why the applicant couldn't move the home back and be within the required setbacks. Mr. Hardwick stated he did ask the applicant that and &om his understanding the main azea of recreation will be the rear yard. If they move the home back, it would reduce the amount of rear yazd and infringe upon the neighbor to the north. There is a 10-foot requirement for a swiuuning pool and the patio part would then go up to the property line and this would not be the best design. Ms. Bogen suggested the applicant could use a different pool design and this would be a more reasonable use for the land. Mr. Hardwick replied he spoke to the applicant about that and their reasons had to do with the line of sight views. He stated he will let the applicant speak to that. Mr. Scherman stated that comparing the other variances along the street, he dcesn t believe a 77-foot setback should be required. Mr. Hazdwick replied that part of the reason for this variance is the way the Zoning Adminisirator has interpreted it. Zoning staff has determined that this block consists of only those three pazcels where the proper[y curves. The azgument could be mada that it should go all the way up the intersection to Upper St. Dennis in which case the two homes on the upper comers would also be inciuded. This would result in the setback being much less. This was one interpretation made. The second interpretation that zoning staff made was that the two homes that are existing adjacent to tlus properry are both oriented to the south rather than to the east and west. If they considered the house to the east, the eastem side of the house as the front yard, then the southem side of the house wouid have been the side yard and wouldn't have been figured into this calcularion. If they considered the house to the west, the westem part of the house as ihe front yazd, again the southern pazt would have been a side yazd and the applicant would have only been required a 30-foot setback. It seems logical to the Zoning Administrator and consistent with their policies in the past to consider these two comer loYs as facing Yhe south and therefore us�hose setbacks in determining the required setback. 9 7 i�� File #96-244 Page Two Debra Revzen, 740 River Drive, passed out an aerial view of the site to the Boazd. She stated it is easier to see from an aerial view of the different setbacks and how they vary. She stated there are strong architectural reasons for the placement of the backyazd shuctured pool. They have taken a year to develop a home that they believe will fit best in the existing neighborhood. She stated that this lot has been vacant for 50 years. The neighborhood consists of mostly ramblers and they wanted to maintain that appeazance aesthetically. They felt it would be improper to put a 2-story design, hence the placement of the gazage because they needed the space for the first floor. Because of this they had to come forwazd and their primary interest was in keeping the residence consistent with the neighborhood. If the house was pushed back, it would disrupt the line. She asked that they not have to conform to the setbacks of which the existing homes didn't have to when they first were built. Mr. Tully asked what the dimensions of the house are. Ms. Revzen replied 90 by 46 and that the porch extends oft'of the home. The front door is in the center and the view [hey wanted was the e�panse of water upon entering the home. Tom Bren, 8224 County Road 6, Maple Plain, representing the builder, stated that the surrounding homes in the area have been built with plans that do not conform with the setback requirements. He further stated that to change the plans at this time would result in hazdship fmancially and in the schedule because it would require a complete redesign. The width of the lot is actually wider than the applicant sta[ed because that is the street ]inear portion of the lot. David Sattinger, 2139 Lower St. Dennis Road, stated he is opposed to the variance request. He stated that their view from their sitting room will be the back of the proposed gazage. The proposed home will also block the moming sun &om the neighbor's sun room. The neighbor's view from their kitchen across the street will be looking at the front of the proposed gazage. He stated he primarily objects to the garage. He doesn't believe there are compelling reasons for granting the variance because the lot is quite large. The variance request is based on the proposed building plans and not due to deficiencies to the lot. The proposed home will be at the expense of the e�tisting neighbors. The variance is necessitated entirely by the orientation of the pool which drives the home forwazd. He suggested another pool design and garage placement. He stated that none of the other homes have a lazge garage protruding in front of them and that he had difficulry getting any information regazding the variance request. Mr. Tully asked Mr. Sattinger how faz he is from his west property line. Mr. Sattinger replied 6.7 feet. He stated he isn't awaze what the variances were when the home was built in 1950. Mr. Schetman asked Mr. Sattinger how he would feel if the garage were moved to the west side of the house. Mr. Sattinger replied that it would then blcek the view of the neighbors on the west side. He suggested that a tuck-under gazage might work and there aze a number of them in the area. Ingunn Henrikssa Sachs, 2165 Lower St. Dennis Road, stated that the gazage will not conform with the rest of the neighborhooct. She stated that if the home were built 21 feet back as allowed by the Zoning Code they would not be in opposition. She stated she objects to the orientation of the pool overriding the neighbor's views. � � IS�� File #96-244 Page Three Jonathan Sachs, 2165 Lower St Dennis Road, stated Yhai every home in the neighborhood is flush and the proposed home woutd have the gazage prohuding out. He stated they were given a poor qualiry document to try and calculate the footage. He stated that the applicant informed him at the District Council meeting that the house plans on which the staff report was based on has changed. He suggested that the design of the pool be changed so the house could be moved back and then ihey wouldn't be in opposition. Ms. Bogen asked when the meeting was at the community center. Ms. Sachs replied on Wednesday. Mr. Sachs stated that at the meeting they were not allowed to ask any questions. He stated they were told at the meeting that the purpose of the meeting was simply to vote on the proposed request. Ms. Sachs stated that the Highland Area Community Council's recommendation was based on the staff report and there aze many inaccuracies. She stated that considering the pool and the patio as being part of the structure of the home is not justifiable in going in opposition to all of the neighbors. Henry Siryder, 2170 Lower St. Dennis Road, stated he lives across the street and to the west of the proposed home. He stated he is in opposition to the variance request. He stated that the Highland Area Communiry Council's recommendation was based on the staff report of which he believes there are a number of mistakes. He stated that the Iot dimensions aze incorrect and the Iot is quite lazge. He stated that the concept of ihe property lines are difficult to see because of Lower St. Dennis Road not being in the middle. He stated that the 21-foot eactension of tfie gazage and the pool laid in a vertical direction rather than a horizonal direction in back is his main objection. He dcesn t believe the applicant has a plight and lmew the zoning restrictions when they purchased the lot The house as proposed is not in chazacter or keeping with the rast of the neighborhoal. The vaziance is unnecessary and will interFere with the neighbors. Ms. Sachs submitted a letter to the Boazd in opposition. Ms. Bogen stated that from the testimony of the opposition at the Highland Area Community Council meeting it was stated today that the existing plan was no longer that which is in the report. She asked Ms. Revzen to elcplain what the existing plan is now. Ms. Aevzen stated that is total incorrect and the existing plan is idendcal to the plan in the packet. She stated there is a sma11 change in a couple of the window sizes in front of the house. She stated that the neighbors were allowed to ask many questions at the district meeting and that she stayed for over an hour after the meeting to discuss house plans and answer any questions of the neighbors. She stated that the issue is that the neighbors would like to purchase the lot and not have anyone build on it and they have been approached by the neighbors for that reason. Ms. Maddox asked Ms. Revzen if they had looked at a tuck-under gazage. Ms. Revzen replied that there isn't enough room to do that on the lot. Mr. Alton asked Ms. Revzen if she had any other responses to the testimony today. Ms. Revzen replied that she believes the measurements done by the City were done by a measuring tape as opposed to being paced off, She believes the city measurements aze accurate. She stated that they had the Zoning Manager on-site and contrary to what the neighbors aze saying, there was no setback established for this lot and there is documentation in the packet to show that. Ms. Revzen stated that the lot size is accurate as stated in the staff report. � 9'� 1�� File #96-244 Page Four Ms. Bogen stated she takes exception to that as one of the applicant's pictures states it is 140 feet and the staff report states differently. Hearing no fiuther testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the pubiic portion of the meeting. Mr. Hardwick stated that the fmdings in the staff report regazding hardship, in no case of any of the findings did he consider the size or the shape of the lot as a basis for making the fmdings. The findings and the hardslup aze based upon the actual curvature of the street, the location of the pavement within the street and the orientation of the other two homes immediately adjacent to this property. There is some hardship incurred in the method that the Zoning Administrator detecmined in what properties aze to be included in averaging the front setback. He stated that the neighbors aze correct where it states site and conditions that it states the lot size is 92 by 250 feet. He stated this is a typographical error. He stated that Ms. Bogen is correct in that the actual size is more like 150 by 250 feet. He stated that the size of the lot has nothing to do with stafFs fmdings. He stated that the plan that is in the packet is the plan that was originally submitted. He stated that the plan is hard to read because it had to be reduced. If the neighbors had requested to view the plan, they would have been welcome to and that everything in the file is of public record. He stated that the applicant referred to a zoning manager being on the site and that it was the building inspector. He stated that the building inspector measures each house to detemune the average &ont setback. Mr. Wilson stated that Ms. Bogen pointed out that if the house was repositioned on the lot no variances would be required. Mr. Hazdwick stated that the applicant would then have to remove part of the patio azound the pool in order to set the house 6ack. Ms. Bogen suggested that the applicant could reduce the size of the pool. Mr. Hardwick replied that the agplicant could change the entire plan but it is staffs opinion, based on the proposed design which is compatible with the other homes, and ihe fact that it is relatively centered on the lot, is the least intrusive to all the neighbors. Mr. Tully asked if it is because of the gazage or the house that the setback is being requested. Mr. Hardwick replied that the house is proposed to be located 97 feet setback from the &ont properry line. He stated the house and two stalls of the gazage could be built without a variance. The two stalls bring the gazage out to the required 77 foot front setback. Eliminating the third stall would bring it close to meeting the front setback. Mr. Donohue asked what is used in calculating the front setback. Mr. Hazdwick replied that the measurements taken aze approximate because it is difficult without actually surveying the lot to get an exact measwement. The house to the east measured 80 feet in a line pazallel with the front of the home. The actual measurement should be in a line pazallel to the front of the lot along Lower St. Dennis Road. The house to the east is actually setback fiuther than 80 feet. The 80-foot line is at an angle and should be straightened. The Zoning Code defines a front yazd setback as a line equal and parallel with the reaz yard setback. In this case, the rear yazd is a 11ne running directly east and west across the back of all of these properties. Therefore, the front yazd setback has to be aligned pazallel to the reaz yard setback. If you made a line pazaliei to the closest point of the street, the setback wouid probably be more than 80 feet. It is not the same on the west side because the front of the house is parallel to the southem portions of I.o�r St. Dennis Road. Mr. Hazdwick further explained the measurements along the street to the Boazd. R�- r �� File #96-244 Page Five Mr. Scherman moved to approve the variance request and resolution based on fmdings 1 through 6. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 2(Bogen, Maddox). ubmitt��y�� John Hazdwick Approved by: Joyce Maddox, Chair 0 `.�`.�'g �-r�� CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER 96-254 DATE October 28,1996 WHEREAS, D'AMICO CATERING INC. has applied for a variance from the strict apQlication of the provisions of Section 62.103 (d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the establishment of a new restaurant in the B-2 zoning district at 975 GRAND AVENi1E; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 10i28/96, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�ving fmdings of fact: l. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. As is the case with most businesses along Grand Avenue, there is a shortage of off-street parking and land available to provide new parking. The proposed restaurant will occupy retail space that has been vacant for nine months, which is identified as Rental Space G, F and E on the attached floor plan. It would be an unreasonable hardship to resirict the occupancy of flils building to just retail or office uses. 2. The piight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The shortage of off-street parking along Grand Avenue, together with the changing market for commercial uses along Grand Avenue, are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 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 welfaze of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The applicant states that he expects a lazge number of the restauranPs customers to be walk-ins. He is also working on a shazed pazking agreement for evening hours with Cherokee State Bank at 985 Grand Avenue, located to the west across Chatsworth, with a 12-space remote pazking lot directly east of the subject property. Off-site parking for this restaurant must be located in a P- I zoning district or in the same or less reshictive zoning district and within 300 feet of the building. The bank parking could be used, but cannot be counted towazd meeting required parking for the restaurant because it is located in the more restrictive B-1 zoning district. However, the availabiliry of additional off-street parking will help alleviate any pazking problems that may be created by a new restaurant. 4. The proposed variance will not unpair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properry, nor will it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding azea or unreasonably diminish estabiished property values within the surrounding azea. � ��-��' File #96-254 Page Two The proposed restaurant well eliminate vacant storefronts and attract customers to the other businesses in the immediate area. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building other than signage. The proposed variance will not affect the supply of light and air to the adjacent properry nor will it change the essenrial chazacter of the surrounding properry. 5. The variance, if granted, woutd not pemut any use that is no[ pemutted under the provisions of the code for the pcoperly in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning disirict classification of the property. A restaurant is a pemutted use in this zoning district. 6. The request for variance is not based primari[y on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the pazcel of tand. The applicant states that his primary goal is to eliminate vacant storefronts and to revitalize this comer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Safnt Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals that the provisians of Section 62.103 (d) be hereby waived to allow a variance of 12 off-street pazking spaces in order to establish a new restaurani, D'Amico, in a foaner retail space subject to the condition that a shared parking a�eement with the Cherokee State Bank is obtained on property located at 975 GRAND AVENiJE and legally described as except the North 40 feet, L,ots 15, 16 & 17, Blcek 27, Summit Pazk Addition; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. MOVED BY : Bogen SECONDED BY: wason I1�-7si�l�l'�i AGAINST: o MAILED: October 30,1996 TIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeats permitting the erection or aiteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a build'eng permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or fhe City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. � �� File #96-254 Page Three APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by fhe decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the unders�gned Secretary to the Board af Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify thaf I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meetina held on Octoher 28, 1996 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOriING APPEALS �? Sue Synstegaard Secretary to the Board � � � . r� . �'.�� xh �, �- 2- • ��IN� e,A"ii ,yfed. . Y/'wf, s zy � a'r.� u • a.rn 1l D. ) !k4 /� A � G i V C.J `�� A M � � y{t v�7`"° � c;/,'i�lfi!' t � N GUl.I//!G �✓ � <i•� • �� ,� � ti�r. r a --- -- r•- -- „�.� . Iti °� ' \ � • . ,_ .. . u y' S ' `• � � \ - �-::;_...�.. ... , s ,�.K„� , � ' �,�e � � � - — .� �� .. : ,,�,�,,, Yt oi.1 - ' � Tg f ,r• �,.�o ,.I. �.. 5..: �� g r �.�': � � : i :�.5 .. � �• . Are�sB�o ��` — ns -p"I � ^ � 4 ��°°\ �-�� e Y p L __. . •.I• ' ••. � S � 7.• �a t} � -v . /� � 17�� ` y -�jr(1o' � "��y � .� f�6 �� .4 . ; . N t � .. ��_Y � � ✓.�. -' � .. \ • R ~ .� � ' � , - r �� . y � f�d 42Yk '� � �r'i<.+ ' �" _' — ',� na s ' 4N1 (�KY _ 4i a�l7 � � •-- � ,- ' .`� . , - `..� xsf.7 � � � �_,. �, � \��/ u i�.e! ✓ '� � q<Zx� 'taa•.. _..�a � . ., "\' � � '»i \ � � ..� � '� Z \: � '��.C— L7,Y4 ; ,� � + .> , ' J � ' � � � _ _H /!Fe� .._..:. �_ .. . �_. _.. w� / .1. _- -� - —< .. ._ ..._... - - � .�,; rt�. �nd �11 at Lot 85 . �\ ' � L'� Is. Wmt�Y CeuntY. Nlnnesata. :v. Mimaou wqicn Iles nt rn che �orth Ii�a of �� of siid lot 87; thmce ` z� • I 2 `�'V to[ 87 a Eisennw of '' — :� � dfsunn oF 70.00 fect� `� \� �'. . :e o! �46.02 feet ta ehe � - � stm[IM• ` �.. ` � �� . � `� ..1 �` � � i � uL1� ' ur/> 28 �t Y.s6• �fXI �fF f _� ��. \ ..•�� .� � f.•.j . .' �lLt ° ` l ', , R=LLo Q \r j �� ` '\�.'�� ,,�-+.�' Q t r a J . M = sl2H LK) Z �y Ti1.4 !� � � :,=e . air. nar; ��F� ' —r� v�� p�—��--�'� �—' T . " sce� - � f' �„ - 11 �O�JER 87t�iDENN1S ROA� Y.k,z:Ro , , lNV. sibo� , . .I�rceroacp . ..... .. ..._.. _ . � . . ... .. d��s�l�(6 BoOK � - I�<fi {-1dM.J� _.... .:..�., .. . 1'OPO.GRAPHY�S.URVEY aROee r� . . � �.s�n�� /� ;i ,� � ,. 'i , , ,. ;� �� i �,: � � , � :�� -, � �� :, „ �, „ �., , ,, , , -; , ,:, ; �, ,., ,� „ , i , ,� ,. ,�, �i� ,, ;� ,�, „ ;�� ,�� ; � APPUCANT� � L�ehra. �11Zt1') PURPOSE M�—{LQrIQA FILE #. �LO - Z�I�I OATE �� ' �`�"9� PLNG. DiST � f� MAP #� r SCALE �' = 400' • LEGEND ..��.. zoning district �ndary � subjedpropeny n� oAh'"` 0 one tamily � two tamiiy , �¢ Q multipte tamily • a � commercial 4 ... � industria� V vacant � '�°�� - rss-�s 9l� Zy�f APPLICATION FOR ZONING �RDINANCE VARIANCE -- � _ � CITY OF SAII�TPAUL ' � � � � T " J A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER�i1_ , SECTION 67 - 7 APqRAGRAPH f a 7 fS FEQUESTED iN CONFORMfTY WITH THE POWERS VESTED tN 7HE BOARD OF ZONtNG AP- PEALS TO PERMIT 7HE Construction of residence (one—fam.il�j� pROPERTY . D BE LOW. � A. Applicant; NAME: 11Pb a R and Toel N RQV�en ADDRESS 740 River Drive, 11—A, St_ Paul, ?IId 55116 DAYTIME TELEPHONE NO. Z23-6524 ZIp CODE 55215 j 1. Property interest of applicant: {owner, contract purchaser, etc.) E Owaer ' 2. Name of owner (if different) ( � o r is i B. PropertyDescription: ADDRESS Attached as Eahibit A t r�� 1. Legal description: LOT S � G � BLOCK ADD. 2. Lot size: � 3. Prese�t Use vacant p resen t Z D ist. # 15 ` k C. f Reasons for Request: , ' t. Proposed use • Construction o£ a one—family reside�ce 2. What physical charaderistics of the properry prevent its being used for any of the permitted � uses irt your zone? (fopography, soi! conditions, size and shape of lot, etc.) � a£tached i � - 3. State the specific variation requested, giving distances where appropriate. attached t i � 4. Explain how your case confortns to each of the following: a. That the strict application of the provtsions of the Zoning Ordinance wouid resuit in peculiar or excepfional practical difficulties, or excepGonal undue hardships. attached b, That the grantlng of a variance will not be a substantial detrimeni to public good or a substantiai impair- ment ot the inient and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 09Jt4.;4,,�eooarg:.�2C�F•. CF.Eti>; 1 i(�b� Ufihi,af°�� *.' � CASHIERS USE ONLY �� • LC� cFS�c�; r.�r *��s.ec� C4A�vGE � , ;R attached �� Sigr 2I95 : � / r • , � / APPLICATION FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARTANCE CITY OF ST. PAUL A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER 61. SECTION 61.1.1. PARAGRAPH (A1 IS REQUE5TED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE POWERS VESTED IN'THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCT'ION OF A ONE-FAMTLY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW. A. Applicant: NAME: Debra K. and Joel N. Revzen ADDRESS: 740 River Drive, 11-A St. Paul, MN 55116 DAYTIMB TELEPHONE NO : 223-6514 1. Property interest of applicant: Owner 2. Name of Owner: Same B. Progerty Description: ADDRESS: 2155 I,ower St. Dennis 1. Legal description: Attached as Eachibit A 2. L.ot size: Approximately 3/4 acre 3. Present Use: None Present Zoning Dist.: #15 C. Reasons for Request: 1. Proposed Use: One-Family Residence 2. What physical characteristics of the properry prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? Response: The size of the lot will not allow the construction of the proposed residence if the City's determined 98' front yard setback is observed. 3. State the specific variation requested, giving distances where appropriate. Response: The City has determined that "Method A" of calculating a front yard setback is applicable. See Eachibit B attached: Notes and measurement of Joe Erchlich Zoning Manager. Method A calculates the front yard setback as follows: Method A: 80' + 116' = 196' (divided by 2) = 98' front yard setback from curb (77' front yard setback fzom the property line). See E�chibit B. The � 3�2409.� �� -�-�s��! longest distances from the curb on the corners of the existing adjacent structures have been used as "averages." The owners propose a 55' front yard setback from the property line which requires a 22'variance based on the Ciry's 77' front yard setback requirement. See Exhibit C, proposed site plan. 4. Explain how your case confotms to each of the following: a. That the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional undue hardships. i. The strict appIication of the provisions wiiI not aIlow the property in question to be put to a reasonable use because the proposed residence cannot be built, causing both a practical difficulty and an exceptional undue hardship. ii. The Zoning Ordinance at issue does not address the situation now before the Board of Zoning. The ordinance states: "Where at least fifty (50) percent of the front footage of any block is built up with principal structures, the front yard setback for new structures shall be equal to the average of the existing structures . . . :' See Eachibit D. i. In this situation, virtually all of the front footage of the lot is on a straight curb line. The adjacent structures are both on curved portions of the "block." See E�chibit E. No other structures are tocated on the front footage of the block. Therefore, zero (0) percent of the block is buiit up with principal structures and averaging is not required. The Schedule of Regulations, § 61.101, which establishes the minimum front yard setback at thircy (30) feet must be applied. 2. Even if the "average" of the existing structures should be used to determine a front yard setback, the ordinance is ambiguous regarding the distances to apply. The ordinance does not define "average" or "front" The distances of the "average" vary on the existing structures on each side of the proposed residences depending on the definition of "front " This is evidenced by the City's various measurements and method's of compuring its required front yard setback. Eachibit B establishes that the City considered an alternative`�Method B" of �zaa9.i 2 � 1_ t- J' / � � determining "average." If Method B is applied, no variance is required. The ordinance leaves open for interpretation the distances to be averaged. Therefore, the shortest distances may also properly be applied in this situation. 3. The ordinance does not define "block." Residences on the other side of the block directly across from the proposed residence's site, as well as other residences located on the block, conform to front yard setbacks measuring between 30' and 40'. b. That the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. i. The granting of the variance will permit the use of the land to conform aesthetically to the existing neighborhood and will permit the utilization of this land. ii. Because of the unique circumstances of this situation, the granting of the variance will allow the land to be adapted and used despite its present unsuitability for its particular use. iii. The granting of the variance will fuc a reasonable standard to which the proposed residential structure can conform. In addition, the following are true: 1) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. 2) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties, nor will it alter the essential character of the surroundang area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding areas; 3) The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property; 4) The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land; and � snaos.i 3 -a '� � ,, �� . � .� 5) The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Saint Paul. / �� `i� " /� L�. � s3zaos.i 4 �.� � .� �� i��' 2>48 .��c c�v,t .�i� .�' - c� .�a�.4 c�1�Y55776 October 10, 1996 Zoning Administraflon Office of LIEP City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter Street, Suite #300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 RE: File 1f96-244 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road Dear Commission: 2�� , �� I have lived at 2148 Lower St. Dennis Road for the past 47 years. My two lots are direcfly across from the above referenced properiy. May I say I will be happy to see a new home addition in ouz immeciiate azea, and appreciate the time and effort Mr. and Mrs. Revzen have put into the design of fheir new home so that it will conform to the surrounding azea. However, T am concerned about the request for a 21 foot front variance. The enormous size of the lot (250 ft. deep) should be able to accommodate any size home including a pool, if desired. After viewing a plari of the home, (specific plans from an architect were not available), the angle at which the garage protrudes seems to obstruct the view of the adjoining home at 2139 Lower St. Dennis Road. I would like the Zoning Administration to consider the requested 21 foot front variance be divided and aliow a 10 1!2 foot front variance and a 10 1!2 foot back variance, thereby allowing the home to placed on the lot so as not to impecle the view from the neighboring homes. Thank yoa for your time in considering this request. I look fonvazd to having Mr. and Mrs. Revzen as neighbors. Sincerely, �. �i'�� Noreen M. Lannin cc: Mr. & Mrs. David Sattinger Mr. & Mrs. 7onathan Sachs � Mr. & Mrs. Revzen HRCC HIGHLAND October 10, 1996 AREA COMMUNITY COUNCIL �� j�7- ( �'� - Z �- Board of Zoning Appeals c/o John Hardwick 300 Lowry Buitding 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul MN 551 d2 To: Members Board of Zoning Appeals 7he Community Development Gommittee of the High{and Area Community Cauncii met October 9 and considered the variance request of Debra and Joel Revzen, 2055 Lower St. Dennis, fite number 96-24Q. The variance is for a front yard setback of 21 feet. The Committee heard from the Revzens and from severai of the neighbors. After discusslon the Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the variance request. Sincerety, � CZ U Bob Siegle Chair, Community Development Committee 1978 FORD PARK�i'AY OCT-10-1996 14�29 612 S2. PAUL MN 98% � 298-5138 P.02 Henry A. Snyder 2170 Lower St. Dennis Road October 3, 1996 Zoning Administration Office of LIEP City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter St., Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 q� �� St. Paul, Minnesota 55116 (612) 699-5362 �t<�-ier� y�—Z�y We live at 2170 Lov�er St. Dennis Road, a�ross the straet from the property at 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road for which a zoning variance has been requested. We do not believe a 56-foot front setback is appropriate in this area, and will be highly likely to detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. A one-foot or two- foot variance is one thing; a 21-foot variance is quite another. We do not believe it is advantageous to the City to permit changes in the zoning on one home if that does so at the expense of the full enjoyment of their property by four or five other owners. This area on Lower St. Dennis has been fully developed and landscaped for over 30 years, and it seems only fair to require any new builder (this is the only piece of vacant land in the area) to conform to the existing zoning. Our objection is not irrevocable. If the owners of the subject property can persuade their direct neighbors on either side of their proposed residence (the Sachs and Sattinger families) and Mrs. Lannin, whose home sits directly across the street from the subject property, to waive their objections to the variance, we would, in spite of our views, be inclined to withdraw our objections, if the plans for the new residence (which we have not seen) seem otherwise appropriate. The hearing notice was delivered to us by mail on Oct. 3rd. We will be out of the city until the day of the hearing, so are taking this opportunity to express our views. Respectfully submitted, /✓� .� `�� Henry A. Sny ed r. cc: Jonathan Sachs David Sattinger Noreen Lamiin Debra Revzen � �Il: .�.� -�~�'� A � � � '�C .��' + , :�� ~::i � � sP z ,,. � � � . Z • ,�';%t �( � ' i � �� t ; 'a !�d.�'� � �°� ' �y�r -.�� t �iy�,.� �:. ° t> :' i..' • ;�r� '.'= � � O ��. � -r - �q� � � e �� . ' �� ` �' ,� '� �� . }., �r.1"- �� r � , � _ " ~ O � �� s � � :.�. -.- -� :.. ? �--� %�.`A� ` ,,., ; . T S„� ,� n"° a" .. , i%s. ' �� ' F ,._:-„� ' . • = , _�"�s� � �'�''�� 1 P° J, .� .� �'1�� ' '�' ' gp � :Y• a�. i %t "�� l� +}��. '� •' � � fi� � ' • � � ��- � .�� .:� , VF / � � �a:. � ,�„+, ... �� "�i'�� ' , � 4 � !. �� i �� 4 . � �3 ": _ � �' �'n. -�� 1� " �`.� �! - / � ' � r� t ?' n.�� 'T.`.,.ts., p � -� � •� � J�� : �� +� � � � ��i_ ..r 3 '.: `�� ' 'r , . ^. :t4»:"R7!x'��•:^w:.:�t,.sr>:�r_., �°e' '. . .. , � . .�rrr��a�� „ :- C �.,� �°��"t'��_ ..� .t. . � �.� ��.c:K:`°� a � e - - •cv �f/��,,.c��:+iYl� ' �: ��,�,,r�. ,.� �.� _ �:�. � �. _-:,.�.,�...:,;�;� .. , ,__ ,. _-, �. � �'��'� � � �= � 11�4' � �``��'� � .. _ �'4�`'�`� � � -_�:_ , �f�`� � � { �� - �� : �'. �' ,�� . �' . � l�-' �� . r•ED PI.RNNING DIV. 7EL�9-228-331A �ct 24'96 13:26 No.009 P.02 , � �o�`� ; - ��w� : f-- ;' _ ? ` �, r j �, � � G, t � 1-� �f � i J � � � --_ 3oa-Oc� ___ �• --� � / S T -' � �.3 3,'�� •� _ . _ _ _ 'G 7. 9 4 -- -__ --- /,Sa, vo --- ~ O � � Q .� _ i � __ '-.� .— 'v ' - �� v �� s � I � � rti � �� r � �N � 1 \ � o� 87 ,,J GO?' 8b � LoT � 85 � t 00 �r �� , � „ ,, � � � � � ��' ,: �, o k f � � �0 I N ? � i � ' - yl� + 3 p j c A5 'A � - r i t ia' 4 � ., , , : � �� ,.�� ,� ,- � �at5 ! . 5.� y ��R'''� � . I —2z — a N � I 0 � � ` , i �9 � _I_ _ G7.gyG_ _-� ; � h � �,�JiE'C�G ,� � ,�L= /v7• 94 f • � � � � Z ' . I ,� � � � S � { � q � � � `� o 'ti , ;�. 4 r ,�� ; �9; � � � � G �� ` ; a :. f � �, �: ` ' t *;}, h �; �� Z � � 1�` a �" ti�� a .b. < l�3 � � ` � �Q � � �- t i ��.:{� ` y �..� -�� . �.. e , . . ,. ,��, s � ;�„�� o .� •. '�- - /35•03-_-' - - �;. . _ , _. � ,E�sr�' �.. ' =:� . . - �Q�; g� - ��;��. Q �K;- .,�. .�/. .Pinr� •'c ^ a: `, :. ��: ' A.55Um.E� .�. "��d�.'..:�:-.. _. ....- ... PE P� IEGA I utst,n'r' �u�E� :9-228-3314 �ct 24' 96 13 � 25 No . bb� �' . ��(� � b i j- y QC� 2 4 1996 4-, Parcet �_A:.'�' '. - • l 1 p)1 of Lot 8S, Lane's Edgcumbe Hiils, Ramsey Caunty, Minnesota, and thaC part af lot &7, tane's Edgcumbs Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lles Westerly of a : line descrjb4dfeetfWestwof [he Ror�heasi cornertofnsa�id Lott87,ithence55 uch�Ca85umed distant ;3.9 k.04 feet; thence bearing, para11e1 with the east line of said Lot 87 a distance of 3 EsSt a distance of 5•0 feet; thence Sou[h a distan }��°02 fee�t f t e the south fane of distance of f0.0� FBgt' Lhence Soutfi a distance of said Lot 3] a�d said described line there iarminating. Par'�el 6= and a11 of Lo[ 8$ AS1 of LaC �b, Lane'S Edgcumbe Nills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, except the easterly b7.94 .feet Lhereof, lane`s Edgcumbe Nilis, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and that part of lat 37. Lane s Edgcumbe Ni11s, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies Easter�y of a line described as foll�ws: Beginning at a pa��t on the nort� then e saFd tot 87 dlstanC 33�g�arallelewith�theccasttline of Lots$ld��disgance of South, as5umed 6ea�ing, p ;4.DU feet; thence East a distance of 5-a0 feet; thence South a d��k6 02 fe tC d� heeC� thence East a dtstance of 10.00 feet; the�ce South a distance o 4 sou[h 1{ne of said Lot 87 aad saiif descrtbed,line there terminating. . Pos4it' F� Note Nc�te � Parcei A �o�tains 35,Z��•�a S4uare Feet. �?arcel 3 eontains 34+9��•a3 Square Feet. Elevations shown hereon are assumed and relative to the Hanho�e R�m a� St. �ennis Aoad a5 a Benchmark oP 10D.00 feet. the centcrline Ccr:��y.�-c:.: - ; - ::3 �estribad bp thia instruR�MK 16 �1C��Y �C�AVfId 8PC 14 �i1K� p iGOOfGK� dnd WDdividir�� ' c�1Y oF SAtti� PAtil F�� 1/� 2_� � � �yj Pbnni�+� Ad�r+inittirsa C•+• •v { hereby'certify that on October 12 t983 this survey, plan or report was prepared by mc or under my direet supervlsion and that 1 am a duly regis�ered l�nd Surveyor under the Laws of the'State of Minnasota. Ex �, b,�- � _ 7 �7-�� ZONLVG CODE I. sewage treatment system. A sewage stem or part thereof ;erving a dwell- establishment or group thereof, that 'ace soil h'eatment and disposal or soil treatment in areas ofhigh water rock or rapidly or slowly permeable ste processirzg f¢cili:y. A site, in- and any structw*es thereon, where ; or pathological waste is accepted, red, handled, treated, decontami- 3 or disposed. Infectious waste pro- does not include the site of a gen- ious waste which is governed by �tment of health, as se± forth in utes, section 116.81, subdivision 2. ste. Waste meeting the definition �aste" under Minnesota Statutes, subdivision 12. 5ty¢rd. Asite or location where ight, including containerized ailers, are transferred between ation modes (such as from rail- ucks or from barges to railroad and/or specialized equipment kers or gantry cranES). 6, 11-21-91; C.F. No. 92-1217, § a 93-906, § 1, 11-4-93) ance No. 17777, adopted Oct. 11, 1990, delefing the definition of junkyazd" to this amendment, § 60.210. J. was § 60.343; and Ord. No. 17039, adopb such as trees, grass rzce• The total area within a at will be disturbed in any on or construction. off-street space, on the same ?' group of buildings, for the § 60212 temporary pazking of a commercial vehicle while loading and unloading merchandise or materials. Z.ot. Apazcel of land occupied, or intended to be occupied, by a main building or a group of main buildings and accessory buildings, or utilized for the principal use and uses accessory thereto, to- gether with such yazds and open spaces as aze required under the provi;ions of this zoning code. A lot may or may not be specifically designated as such on public records. Lot are¢. The total horizontal azea within the lot lines of the lot. Lot, corrzer. A lot where the interior angle of two (2) adjacent sides at the intersection of two (2) streets is less than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees. A lot abutting upon a curved street or streets shall be considered a comer lot for the purposes of this code if the arc is of less radius than one hundred fifty (150) £eet and the tangents to the curve, at the two (2) points where the lot lines meet the curve or the straight street line, extended, form an interior an�le of less than one hundred thirty-five (135) deb ees. Lot coverage. 'I'he part or percent of the lot oc- cupied by the above-grade portion of buildings. Lot depth. The average horizontal distance be- tween the front and reaz lot lines. Lot, irzterior. Any lot other than a corner lot. Lot Iines. The lines bounding a lot as defined herein: (1) Front Lot Line: For an interior lot, the line sepazating said lot from the street. For a corner lot, the line separating said lot from either street. For a through lot, the line separating said lot from both streets. (2) Rear Lot Line: The lot line opposite the front lot line. In the case of a lot pointed at the rear, the rear lot line shall be an imaganary line parallel to the front lot line, not less than ten (10) feet long, lying farthest from the front lot line and wholly within the lot. (3) Side Lot Line: Any lot line other than the front lot line or reaz lot line. A side lot line separating a lot from the street is a side 519 � xh �=�;f � 106-706.3.1 �994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE �t'�z- l�'� SECTION 106 — PERMITS 106.1 Permits Required. Except as specified in Section 106.2 of this section, no buildina or structure regulared by this code shall be erected, constructed, enlareed, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished uniess a separace pecmi[ for each buildin� or strac- mre has fint been obtained from ihe buildin� official. 106.2 Work Exempt from Permit. A building permit shall not be required for the followin�: 1. One-srory de[ached accessory buildin�s used as tool and sioraoe sheds, playhouses and simi- lar uses, provided the projected roof area dces not exceed 120 squaze feet ( I I:1� m'-}. 2 Fences not over 6 feet (1829 mm) high. 3. Oil derricks. 4. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches (17�3 mm) hi�h. 5. Retaining walls which are not over4 feet (1219 mm) in hei�ht measured from ihe bottom of the footine co the rop of the wall, unless suppoaino- a surcharee or impounding Class I, II or III :4 liquids. � 6. Water tanks supported direcdy upon �rade if the capaciry does noi exceed 5,000 ga]]ons ( l8 927 L) and the ratio of hei�ht to diameter or wid[h does not exceed 2 to I. ---777 � 7. Platforms, walks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above grade and noi over � y basement or story below. � 8. Paintine, paperino and similar finesh work. 9. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery. 10. wndow awnin�s supponedby an exterior wall of Group R, Divisio� 3, and Group M Occu- pancies when projecting no[ more than 54 inches (1372 mm). I I. Prefabricared swimmine pools accessory to a Group R, Division 3 Occupancy in which the pool walls aze entirely above the adjacent orade and if the capaciry does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 927 L). Unless otherwise exempred, separare plumbin„ elecirical and mechanical permits will be re- quired for the above-exempted items. Exemption from the permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to arant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. 1063 Application for PermiL 106.3.1 Application. To obtain a penni[, the applicant shall first file an application therefor in writin� on a form fumished by the code enforcement aeency for that purpose. Every such applica- tio� shall: � 1. Identify and describe the work ro be covered by the pennit for which application is made. 2. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done by legal description, street address or similaz descrip[ion that will readily identify and deFnitely locate the proposed building or work. 3. Indieate the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is intended. 4. Be accompanied by plans, diagrams, computations and specifica[ions and other data as re- quired in Section 106.31. 5. State the valuation of any new buildin� or stcucrure or any addition, remodeling or alteration to an existine building. 6. Be siened by the applicant, or the applicanPs authorized agent. �� § 62.109 (5) The owners shall be responsible for main- taining all landscaping in a healthy and growins condition and keeping it free from refuse and debris. Dead plznt materials shall be removed within a reasonable time and replaced duri.ng the normal planting sea- son. (Code 1956, § 62.110; Ord. No. 16799, 5-28-81; Ord. No. 17062, 10-20-83) Sec. 62.110. Exterior Iighfing. (a) All outdoor lighting in all use districts, in- cluding o�-street pazking facilities, shall be shield- ed to reduce glare and shall be so arranged as to reflect lights away from all adjacent residential districts or adjacent residences in such a way as not to exceed three (3) footcandles measured at the residence district boundary. (b) All lighting in all districts used for the ex- ternal illumination of buildings shall be placed and shielded so as not to inferfere wzth the vision of persons on adjacent highways or adjacent prop- erty. (c) Illumination of any other outdoor feature shall be maintairied stationary and constant in intensity and color at all times when in use. (Code 1956, § 62.111; Ord. No. 16799, 5-28-81) Sec. 62.111. Residential entranceway. In all Residential Districts, so-called entrance- way structures, including, but not limited to, walls, columns and gates marking entrances to single- family subdivisions or multiple housing projects, may be permitted and may be located in a re- quired yard, except as provided in section 62.112, below; provided, that such entranceway struc- tures shali comply with all codes of the City of Saint Paui, and all state codes, and shall be ap- proved by the division of housing and building code enforcement and a permit be issued by the zoning administrator. (Code 1956, § 62.112) Sec. 62.112. Corner clearance. No fence, wa11, shrubbery, sign or other obstruc- tion to vision above a height of two (2) feet from the average grade of the property shall be permit- LEGISLATIVE CODE r-� , ��k b��-��7 q �-l��' ted within the triangular azea formed at the in- tersection of any street right-of-way lines by a sfraight line drawn between said right-of-way lines at a distance alona each line equal to the mini- mum setback line> from their point of intersec- tion. (Code 1956, § 62.113; Ord. No. 17525, § 31, 1-6-58) A use may be developed on a zoning lot that has two (2) or more zoning district designations so long as the use is permitted in each of the zoning districts. The minimum zoning requirements of each district shall apply to that part of the zoning lot in each zoning district. (C.F. No. 95-203, § 7, 3-22-95) Sec. 62.113. Zoning lot, more than one zon- ing designation. Sec. 62.114. Private residential pools and hot tubs. Private outdoor residential poois, both above and below ground, and hot tubs are permitted as an accessory use within the reaz yard or nonrequired side yard; escept that, for multiple-family devel- opments, the planning commission may deter- mine the location of the pool or tub. Private out- door pools and hot tubs shall meet the following requirements as applicable: (1) There shall be a distance of not less than ten (1�) feet between the adjoining proper- ty line and the outside of the pool wall for aboveground pools. For in-ground pools, there shall be a distance of not less than five (5) feet between the adjoining property . line and the outside ef the pool wall. (2) There shall be a distance of not less than four (4) feet between the outside pool wall and any building located on the same lot. (3) No s�vimming pool shall be located less than ten (10) feet from any side street or alley right-of-way, or the distance required for side yard by the zoning code, whichever is greater. (4) No swimming pool shall be located in a pub- lic easement. (5) All yards containing swimmina pools shall be enclosed by an obscuring fence not less Supp. ro. 30 616.8 . , � � � e L�I� �b�}� ,� l� ;; ��-l� 1, 97/�� , „ /_. ,,,.. � J i � 0 w 0 � w � Q � ^� - � S �� t a O d � � o � `n � d VI C T L d a 3 �, �' �� UO( .��: ��_�� ARLSON & ARLSON' C � � (nND SUYVFYOSS Survey For: DAVID SATTINGER Survey of the Westerly line of the Easterly G7.94 feet of Lot SS, !anes Edgcumbe Hills � � � i • � 1 I � ; � ltad � � -----�-�_ -. -- -: -:. .. �. _. . � Jl,-1T I ��W �,12 r N D a �� r �� 0� U\ � I i� � � q,. '� �� I hereby certify that this su was mad? by me or under my direct supervision antl that I am a dvly licenseA lar,d sorveyor under the of the Srate of Minnesota. Dated this 72th day of November, � �" ./-'�•''._' bY '�;c�. � . �_ , -"_ �- - /✓ /� _arry . ouWre, an �urveyor �- ` Minnesota license No. 9018 1 ' , — uo�'u �iue .or �"( I - l�G� N��h �/'/'�, �Y� ' `I I ' �YC / � l� �i 14.Z , � I � , _ . ��. �i-� / ; � � ` p 1o'r?u ° � � •`\� 'U 1�J �U`. � � � .\ Ni ,,\ _� � � J� _ �.�� 5��.� - �-��p �'�� i >.9 �- us �. '�_ - - — =- -- - � �._ ' � �--- �' w ; 0� 0_ \ P.I� � " �\\ �� • � ' d 15��.°,iJF� 4 : G Kx-tE ; M : Q i i _' -Q �`� - ' �, '. _" _ _'- i _ _' L4 � � n . ��-.�� ro � — '•� � '� 3.i 3.1 /i � � �.� n.5 J r 10.l.?�'� -z. � I '� ' ' 1, ° :� ° 1.5 � (� � ! I ,� Z.D � ''v ='/a � / ' I �?1� : /.� '.. i . . , i . � � 1 �! _ 1 � �G� G�OI.�� ?./�� tJ°,16> . ; , i . a �z".H�T � , N; � /// , � 3 ; �9 �Y ' ;� is.ro � . i //.�.': T Ib.�R� `�V �. � �\ : . / 4 '\ i ^ :;� l�' 9 A . dv.o � \, ' � n 3 r ��G �, ' � �� I \\ : � � � i u u � Q �, . m �?n� i , a .� — � V / L �'� � � ;� I �\ � I%�YPR _'.tVn+�"� x �' , �I � f Il � O� � M VI `\ �f�..� .��ACCU�nnf'�i c'F-7 , N ic�'e�uJMP� N � . '�, � � -�� e�^' �i-IC�nMF/' � �'��\ � �✓�\ .,� . . , � � �. i ' 0 I.�i� .4i.J� � . \,j ; � � �., �� o f �� Yo/1 �YDA ` `/ � _ ` -_' —_ - 'l�� . o-i-� � ��f"�ti�Gu' Y i -f "� �____------ �—_---:____-_-__----_: H '� ��b '� ' I „ _ �i , lARLSON ,,,� � � � %C7� e II i I r� ,,,.,_ (. _/ � l�. � � � a w 0 .� 4� w • � a, - � �� T N � �- p �9 a � � 'n N 4�� rn � � V W � W �,\ n . O V �V N N � T i N i� N QI � �_ lP � 0 UO( ��!-c - � „_ 20 , ARLSON �NC. ARISON _ lANO SUNVEYORS Survey for: DAVID SATTINGER Survey of the Westerly line of the Easterly G7.94 feet of Lot 85, Lanes Edgcumbe Hills � � � � I' � � 1 1 � ` �m,? . _�y'. � ------�- :.:_� .-.._.::•,..� ... �� Lvw ��2 � N � �� r �', r; /.-�<.� � ��,.-,� i I �: '-= � � �'.�� ..:�.: ��} �\�- I hereby certify that this su was rnade by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed land surveyor under the of the State of Minnesota. Datetl this 12th day of November, \ / ....J � . ' `�� i . ... - / . . � : ....�.� by ..., r �� ,_ �.,. '.�.. ,, �.•. :�./r t,,� , arry ; outure, _an urveyor `--' Minnesota license No. 9018 14. Z . 1 �• ._ m f0'�r"7uL �} I� 'iI.JE '�. � � /` - ` .... � �J , �� .. � �, ��. � a° r� -; ,� �,��. �� \�` . u �„ d �5��,�G .� I 4. � i 1 � ` i tl .'✓ �f(.tl.t:2? -- �.34- 1 � � �z",Ha�'�� 1 � \ �, � 1 � �. �� '�. � � � ,P. 6 / `�I%' i 'do `S� � �� 15� �� M�a• `1-"rq. �� R.�.T� � /: iJ � ,'" 1J01�'1-1 ;,11J� ..Jf rb`I , .._ . IYC�� r l,f r i � , � . ?�. �i� - ; � I Q � rf M / � /� ;;> _ �- I, �_ . __ . ... — . .. ,__. .._. - �" � � , ; ' , � a •, , m ,. m'� , � ;: � �' ' . , 'L , , .�... — ° — ! — - " Z�4 ' �, � , ; � 3 � ; � ' -o i � � I ' 3�� 3,t ' '•`� f�.;'�,x�"..� i - , � ° �i iz / z�n � ', "`° �.w � > i� l �; , . ., � , . , 1� : �' � � ,% � i J; �C� � �OI...1 � �.= F"��'�M� � � l.l ° —'lleay' ; I _.,� -_ �li 'y_._.,._�� _.,_.�.._...�. :,��-_...___, . �__ _"' _ _` � , ' i/'/,j �',i ry�� Ib,�, % zlv, -1 i � �/, , ^ -« / . � . � , .�v.o ' ; i � � � m �'� o �Y t r.�ao�::.r.,�n�� Xa �aAec-wnn��? �.��aa�..w�v�P ; � ; � � , . \ � I � .. I , 0 .�� \\•, ' ��//� � . � �17-1 ,�.I"=�o' _, i0 ,; ,� �-, rt� 6 0 io. � �Y� n , ,� I � _.. __ IS, V ,� w-SY G' ' `�: � i i I `� i ; ;•� I � � m M N N ' „ �Q3-1!v � e� I�' !�� i r7 i � I 7�� ft�l=✓ p I ---. ._.. , Y � -- --_._.—,__�..�I fi��b / ^,i � � lU �� t�}9 d° �N � /rQn l�'� ��t� �, � J �'yti ":�u= .�: lANO SURVFYORS �1' V LAND SURVEVORS �--�_ i.� q�-�� .C � (�autkru. �ua. 8]1J DU>ONT AVENUE $OUTN OLOOMINGTON, MINN. 556'10 868 2086 iVovember 12, 1996 To whom it may concern: Re: Setback requirements in established areas. In the majority of the communities in the seven county area the setback for an empty lot is determined by a line drawn from the closest point to the street from the house on one side to the closest point to the street from the house on the other side. If this method is applied on the empty lot between No. 2165 and No. 2139 Upper Saint Dennis Road the setback to the curb would be approximately 110 feet in the middle of the empty lot or 96 feet to the property line. If you have any questions please cail. Yo s Truly i ` ��Ti� -- ' larr R. Couture, l.S. �Q,N�e� ��cr� 9 �� '�� . ��..��e�. �� . � � ` � � � � � � November 25, 199b Addendum to Snttinger cind Snchs appenl scheduled for the November �, 1996 City Counci I meeting. 27 File #96-271, location: 2155 Lower Sfi. Dennis Roczd. If you hnve any further questions plense cnl) John Hnrdwick, LIEP, 266-9082. � �.� �� `� �� o p q7 i�� 3 BOAILD OF ZONIrIG AYPEALS STAFF REPORT B. ACTIOPi ItEQLTESTED: A 77-foot front setbac!c is reauired and a 56-foot front setbacic is requested for a variance of 21-feet. C_ SITE ANiD A�EA CdNDITTONS: Ttus is a large Iot, 92 by 250-feet; with no aIley access. The lot is reFatively levet hut is about fi feet abave the grade of the street. Surrounding Land Use: Single family homes D. BACKGROt3riD: This pazcel was recentlp sglit from the adjacent properry and was purchased by the agpiicants in 1995. This is the last vacant parcet in this immediate area.. E. FIl�TDINGS: i. The property in question cannot be put to a rrzsonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Lawer St. Dennis Road is a horseshoe-shaped street. The homes on the intesior of the horseshoe are oriented at different angles to the street making the detern�inarion of the front setbacks difficuh. However, the Building Inspector hu determined that the average setback of the two existing homes on the biock is 71 feet as measured to the property line. There is a twenty-one-foot bouIevar� between the property line 2nd the curb. $ased on this detarmination, the vFOposed house could not be constn�cted and still maintain a reu. setback without a variance. i. APPLICANT: IQEL & T}EBRA REVZEI�F 2. CLASSTETCATTOAT: Major Variznce 3. LOCATIOPT: 2155 LQWER ST DENNTS ROAD 4. LECYAI. DESCRIi'TTQN: See fite 5. PLA1V2`IT1�TG DISTRICT: 15 � BILE #1 96-244 DATE OF �EARING: 10/14/96 6. P12ESENT ZONTi�iG: R-2 ZOPtING CODE REFEI2ENCE: 61.301 7. STAFF TNVESTTGATION A1�T111 REPORT: DA'I�: 10/7/96 BY: 7ohn Hardwick 8. DATE RECEIVED: 9(Z4196 DEADLINE FOR ACTTON: i I/23/96 A PTTRPOSE: A front yard setback variance in order to construct a new single-family home. �. ^ � � � � Council File # �� Green Sheet # '�1��`�� RESOLUTION OF,S/�INT PAUL, MINNESOTA 33 Presented By Re£erred To Committee: Date VJHEREAS, Joel and Debra Revzen made application to the Boazd of Zonino Appeals for a variance from the sh applicarion of the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for properiy located at 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road and legally described as all of Lot 86, Lane's Edgcumbe Hills, Rauisey County, Minnesota, and all of Lot 85 except the easterly 67.94 feet thereof, Lane's Edgcuxnbe Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and that part of Lot 87, Lane's Edgcumbe Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies Easterly of a line described as follows: begi nnina at a point on the North line of said Lot 87 distant 33.94 feet West of the Northeast corner of said Lot 87; thence South, assumed bearing, paza11e1 with the East line of Lot 87 a distauce of 34.04 feet; thence East a distance 5.00 feet; thence South a distance of 70.00 feet; thence East a distance of 10.00 feet; thence south a distance of 146.02 feet to the South line of said Lot 87 and said described line there terminating; and WI�REAS, the application sought a front yard setback vaziance for the purposes of constructing a single family home; and WHBREAS, the Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on October 14, 1996, after having provided notice to affected properiy owners, and the Boazd, by its resolution number 96-244 dated October 14, 1996, granted the variance application, with conditions based upon the following findings and conclusions: l. Lower St. Dennis Road is a horseshoe-shaped street. The homes on the interior of the horseshoe are oriented at different angles to the street makiug the deternunation of the front setbacks difficult. However, the Building Inspectar has determined that the auerage setback of the two existing homes on the block is 77 feet as measured to the property line. There is a twenty-one-foot boulevazd between the property line and the curb. Based on this determination, the proposed house could not be constructed and still maintain a rear setback without a variance. 2. The curve of the street and the orientation of the other homes on the street are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. 3. The proposed residence is approximately centered on the lot and is of a similar size and style as the other homes in the area. This is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. q�-«� 4. The other two homes on the same side of the street are setback from the street anywhere from 30 to 116 feet depending on which point of their sireet &ontage you measure from. The homes directly across the street from the proposed residence are setback about 30 feet from the street. There are e�tisting trees and shrubbery on both sides of the properry that will help screen the proposed house from the adjoining homes. The proposed house will not impair the supply of light or air to the adjacent property nor dinunish the surrounding properiy values. 5. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land; and VJHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislafive Code § 64.205, David Sattinger and Ingunn Sachs 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 said Boazd; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code §§ 64.205 - 64.208 and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on November 27, 1996, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and WI�EREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing on November 27, 1996, a motion on the matter of the appeal of David Sattinger and In�unn Sachs was put to a vote before the City Council and the motion on the matter, hauing failed on a tie vote, was laid over to December 11, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Council, reconvened the matter on December 11, 1996 and hauing heard the statements made and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the recozd, minutes and resolution of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul finds the following errors in the decision and fmdings of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals as contained in the Boazds resolution No. 96-244: With respect to fmding No. 1, the Council finds that the properiy in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code in that the proposed house could be conshucted on the property without a variance by moving the proposed structure closer to the rear property line; and With respect to finding No. 2, the Council fmds that the plight of the landowner is a self created hazdslup based upon the design of the house and the swiimning pool and their proposed loca6on on the site; and With respect to finding No. 4, the Council fmds that the proposed reduced front setback is not in keeping with the character of the other homes in the surrounding azea. � z 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 IO 11 g�t -�� AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon this Council's determination that the Boazd of Zo nino Appeals erred in fmdings 1, 2 and 4, the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance to Joel and Debra Revzen is hereby reversed and that the appeal of David Sattanger and Ingunn Sachs contesting the variance is hereby granted; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clezk shall mail a copy of this resoIution to appellants David Sattinger and Ingunn Saclvs, the applicants Joel and Debra Revzen and to the Zoning Aduuvistrator, the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Saint Paul Planning Commission. Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY: o-� � ..va�.. . � —. Approved by Mayor : Date '� �/� �-- By: C L__. ' Requested by Department of: By: Form approved by City Attorney By: � G��/�,,.� / 2�-y� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Adopted by Council: Date �,g, a(„i�°�Q� 9'1 � t �p� OEPY1f�NTAFFICEICOUNC�L DATE INITIATED 3 $ � � � clty ��n�ll 2-4-1997 GREEN SHEE CONTACT PEfiSON & PHONE INITIAVDATE INITIAL/DATE _ O DEPAFTMENT DIRECTOR � GRV CAUNCIL -MI�Ce $8ZT1S�-?.f3{Yg�7-3� ��GN �C1T'ATTORNEY OCITYCLERK NUYBEfl fOH MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) ROUTIXG O BUDGEf DIRECTOR � FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR. Feb 26 1997. "_ _- __� ,. �. oaoee Q'nawa roA nss�srnr+n � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS POR SIGNATURE) AC710N FiE�UESTED: Finalizing City Counc�l action taken on December 11, 1996, granting the appeal of David Sattinger and Ingunn Sachs from a decision of the Saint Paul Board of Zoniug Appeals. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING DUESTIONS: _ PL4NNIN0 COMMISSION _ GIVIL SERVICE CAMM�SSION 1. Has this person/Firtn ever worked untler a contract for this tlepartment? _ CIB COMMITTEE YES NO — �� F 2. Has Mis personHirm ever been a city employee? — YES NO _ DiSTRICT cAUR7 — 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curren[ city employee? SUPPOFiTS WHICN COUNCIL O&IECTIVE4 YES NO Explain all yes answers on separate sheet antl attach to green shaet INITIATING PROBLEM, iSSUE.OPPORTUNI7V (Who. What. When, Where, Why): AWANTAGES IF APPRWED: DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: �s�+3:i� �,1?? �.e�`5s's E.�fB A` �„� � � i�� -- — „-,.: DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED: 70TAL AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION $ COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIWG SOURCE AC7IYITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFOR65ATION: (EXPLAIN) OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E Mar� City Anomey ^� 1' �� .. CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co%man, Mayor Civil Divzrion 400 City Hall IS West Kel[ogg Blvd Saint Paul, �Ytmnesota SSIO2 Te[ephone: 672 266-8710 Facsnnile: 6l2 298-5619 January 28, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Nancy: Attached please find the original, signed Resolution finalizing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council of December 11, 1996, granting the appeal of David Sattinger and Ingunn Sachs from a decision of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals. Please have this matter calendared on the Council's Consent Agenda. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thanks, �� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney Attachment O£FICE OF LICENSE, INSPECT10N5 AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RobertKesslen Director q�t-ld'� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nonrt Colemaq Mayor ZAWRY PROFESSIONAL BUII,UING Srdte 300 350 St. Peter Street SaintPaul,Mirvtesota SSZ02-ISIO Telephone: 6I Z26(r9090 Facsimi[e: 6I2-2669099 612-266-9124 October 30, 1996 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday November 13, 1996 for the following appeal of a Boazd of Zoning Appeals decision: Appellant: File Number: David Sattinger & Ingunn Sachs 96-271 Purpose: Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting a front yazd setback variance in order to construct a new single family home. Address: 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road Legal Description of Property: See file. Previous Action: The Community Development Committee of the Highland Area Community Council voted unanimously to approve the vaziance request. Staff recommended approval. Board of Zoning Appeals, Granted the request on a vote of 5-2. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda for the November 13, 1996 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 ely, � ��Gt1�9� ��;��C'�'3 �� ohn Hardwick Zonin Technician �� ,�� $ _ � NOTICE OF PQBLIC HEAItING CC: C011RCIl M8ri1t)BL 1j2TI15 'The Saint Paul City Council-will coaduct a pµbIic heariIIg on V�edn"esday, November 13, 1996 at 4:30 p.m., City Covncil Chambers, Third Floor. Ci�y"Aalk, to eonsider the� appeal of David Sattinger and� Iagunn Sachs to a decision of'the Boazd of Zoning Appeais graating-a froat yazd seCback vazianc,e_ ia oFder to construct a new slagle family home at 2158 Lower St. Dennis Road. ; Dated: October S0, 1996 � - � - � NANCY ANDERSON ' . � � - Assistaat City Council Secre[ary � � - - � � " � , � (November 1, 1986) - ' ! I//3 SAINT lAUL � 11111►A APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Economic Develapment Zoning Section 1100 City Hall Annex - 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 � .-, APPELLANT Name vL� V\ ci� ��'� �� r Address 21 3�t �`Nev� 'S�• 7f'i�i5 �`(• City S i'�"'� St. �"�ip `��7�� 6 Daytime phone �y�" y�U �Y19u✓�r� d l�n�.fG«„ f-(snkis,>„ 5��, G,s 2r 65 �-ower Sr. t�eh�,s r2�-.� PROPERTY Zoning File Name LOCATION S L� �,v tn., S 3 • ��1 rvr.� I� , Address/Location 215 TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph appeal a decision made by the_ on Uc,{ -_-r�1 ��{ci�� (date of decision) v � 4' t.� , 19 y�. c�/ 4 o n �� File number:_ of the Zoning Code, to /�} ��p�k�S b - i `1-►p� ; I i � GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Exptain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedare or ��' finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. Gt/ E � e � I� v� � k,'�f �✓' �` � r 5 ��f � 6 1M 1 l�� i C C t �� J +� 1�� N �) �1 ��e v �"�-'"�^-c-F . S_eQ, Ct�-J-�c-�a S ��z�- , i{3I2��tpA� 3�F�G$7Fli Aftach additiona( sheet if necessary) cwNr�ct ��, fJ cl,��l �� . }j �� Date �vt2� � � �ity a Appiicant's signature � � (,-._ )�t . ? r f l�( 6 ��L��M1,�-- I r�� CD e�� .�� - l �S`� Re: Board of Zoning Appeals, File 96-244. Appellants: Jonathan and Ingunn Henrikssen Saehs, 2165 I.ower St. Dennis Rd. David and Irene Sattinger, 2139 Lower St. Dennis Rd. We contest the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow a 21 foot setback variance for the property at 2155 Lower St. Dennis Rd. and ask that the St. Paul City Council reject this recommendation. In brie� the StaffReport contains errors of fact: the need for the requested variance has not been demonstrated; and the proposed variance will result in an adverse impact on the homeowners unmediately adjacent to the property. Following is our refutation of the Findings in the Staff Report (Exhibit 1): 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable nse under the strict provisions of the code." ..."The proposed house coutd not be constructed and still maintain a rear setback without a variance." The proposed home, with its adjoining garage, pool, and surrounding patio, as described in the Topography Survey submitted by the landowners (Exhibit 2) can be built on the lot without the variance. The Survey shows a 25 foot distance from the north end of the pario area to the rear property line. No setback is required for a patio, and a five foot setback is required for a pooi; hence the entire complex can be moved 21 feet back and so be within the front setback required by the City, with no rear setback variance required. Documentarion is given in Appendix 1 below. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner." There is no plight. The lot is approximately 135 feet wide at the street and 250 feet deep, and level, except for a small rise from the street. The owners are motivated solely by the desire to maximize the amount of azea in the rear of the home. Without the variance, the backyard will still be approximately 90 feet deep by 150 feet wide. 3. "The proposed residence is approximately centered on the lot and is of a similar size and style as the other homes in the area." The variance, if granted, will allow the protsusion of a three car garage in front of the setback required by the City. A glance at the aerial photo (Exhibit 3) of the block shows that no other garages protrude so drastically from the front of any of the homes. The variance, if granted, will result in a sharp rupture of the setback line from the street. Nowhere else in the azea is there such an enormous protrusion of one home in front of its neighbors. The aeriai photo shows that existing homes in the area face the street and closely match the contour of the street fronts, while remaining in close alig ment with ° �`1-��Y their neighbors. This unifomuty would be broken; whereas the spirit and irnent of the code is to preseroe a degree of unifornuty in residentiat neighborhoods. 4. "The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values with the surrounding areas." The variance, if granted, would result in the obstruction of the view and late aftemoon sun in the sitting room on the west end of the Sattinger's home. (See Topography Survey). It would result in placing the back side of a three car garage in direct view of the Sattinger's sitting room. It would interfere with the supply of light to the Henrikssen Sachs residence on the west side of the lot. It moreover places this same gazage 21 feet closer to Noreen Lannin's home across the street. Due to the rise in the land on the subject property, the garage will tower over Mrs. Lannin's home. In addition, the large circular drive will be directly in front of her home, thereby diminishing the value of her property. We do not dispute the setback requirement of 77 feet from the property line as deternvned by the City, though that would already allow the proposed residence to sit somewhat in front of its immediate neighbors and would result in some interference with views and light. We do, however, dispute the granting of a 21 foot variance to this setback, since that would result in an egregious non-unifomuty and an adverse impact on the immediate neighbors. According to the zoning code, "variances from the strict enforcement of the provisions of the zoning code" shall be done only in circumstances under which all of the six points can be positively supported. In view of the errors in fact in four of these points, we respectfully ask that the St. Paul City Council deny this variance. /: ' ' ►u ►:i� Issue: No variance is needed to construct the home with adjoining garage, pool, and patio as proposed by the Landowners in their site plan submitted to the Board of Zoping Appeals (BZA). The following discussion refers to the Topography Survey, E�ibit 2, submitted to the BZA showing the house located on the lot assuming the granting of the variance. The Survey shows a distance of 25 feet between the north end of the patio and the north properiy line (highlighted in orange). There are no setback requirements for patios, (Uniform Building Code section 106.2-E�ibit 6). Thus the entire complex —house, pool, and patio—may be moved north 21 feet, with the result that no variance, front, rear, or side, would be needed. This would locate the north pool wall approximately 20 feet south of the properiy line, well within the 5 foot zoning requirement for pools (Section 62.114.(1) of the Legislative Code-Exhibit 7). It should also be noted that the distance between the house and poo� the Topography Survey is 20 feet (highlighted in blue). On the blueprint of the actual building �� plans (Ea�hibit 8) the distance between house and pool is listed as appro�mately 8 feet. (See blue highlight). If this design akernative were to be used (and tlris seems most likely, given that it appears in the detailed blueprints), and the house were built without the requested variance, the north outside wall of the pool would be approximately 32 feet south of the rear property line. No variance would be needed for either of these alternatives, and in either case, the Landowners would have a level backyard measuring approximately 150 feet wide by 90 feet deep. • • ►I� ► Landowners, in their applicarion, disputed the method used by the City of St. Paul to detemrine the proper front yard setback and the StaffReport offers other measurements in support of their disputation. We comment on those measurements here: C. SI'IB AND AREA CONDITIONS. "This is a large lot, 92 by 250 feet.°' The Topography Survey, submitted by the Landowners, shows a width of 115.10 measured feet along the property line at the street. The official St. Paul plot survey of Lot 86, parcel B, (Exhibit 4) shows that the actual width is 135.03 feet. E. ITEM 4: "The other two homes on the sazne side of the street are setback 30 feet to 116 feet " We have measured the closest points of the two adjacent homes at 2139 and 2165 to the street and have found that the shortest distance between house and curb is 51 feet, taken at a point considered to be part of the side yard of the home at 2165. Both houses are considered to be sitting on comer lots (see E�ibit 5 for the definition of a comer lot); and side measurements aze irrelevant to the discussion of front set-backs used by the City to determine the setback for the landowner's property. The City has deternuned the front setbacks of the two adjacent homes to be 80 and 116 feet from the curb. This leads to a front yard setback of 98 feet from the front curb (77 feet from the property line) for the subject property. We accept this finding by the City. E: item 4: "The homes directly across the street from the proposed residence are setback about 30 feet from the street" Mrs. Lannin's home, at 2148, according to our measurements, is 57 feet from the curb. It should also be noted that there is a ravine behind Mrs. Lannin's home (see co�our lines on the aeriai photo), maldng it impossible to set the home back any fiuther. � �`1 • �� . ��: , 1. Baazd of Zoning Appeals Staff Report, File 96-244 2. Topography Survey 3. Aerial Photo of surrounding homes 4. Plot Survey 5. Zoning Code, 60.212: Defuution of Comer Lot 6. Uniform Building Code, 1994; Section 106.2, Work exempt from pemuts 7. Legislative Code, 62.114, Private Residential Pools 8. Blueprint of Proposed home at 2155 Lower St. Dennis Rd. � ac P �X�� {�� r�--.�.F - n 7�- 1� BOARD OB ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT i. APPLICANT: JOEL & DEBRA REVZEI3 2. CLASSTF'ICATIOPT: Major Variance 3. LOCATION: 2155 LOWER ST DENNTS FiQAD 4. LEGAL DESCRTPTION: See fi2e 3. PLAN2�TTNG DISTRICT: 15 �` FILE # 96-244 AATE OF HEARING: ld/I4/96 6. PRESENT ZOIVTNG: R-F ZONIl�G CODE REFEREI�TCE: 61.1d1 7. STAFF TNVES'I`ICrAT'ION Al�ll REPORT: DATE: 10/7/96 BX: John Hardwick 8. T)ATE RECEIVED: 9Y14/96 DEADI.INE FOIi AGTTOPI: 12/23/96 A PIJT2pOSE: A front yazd setback variance in order to construct a new single-family hom0. B. ACfION REQIIESTED: A 77-foot front setback is required and a 56-foot front setback is requested for a variance of 21-feet. C. SITE ANID A�A CONDTT1aNS: This is a large lot, 92 by 250-feet, with no ailey access. The ]ot is relatively levet bat is about 6 feet above the grade of the street. Surrounding Land Use: Single famiIy homes D. SACKGROIINA: This pazcet was recently snlit from the adjacent property and was purchased by the applicants in 1995. This is the last vacant pucei in this immediate ar�. E. F'INDIlV'GS: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonaole use under the strict provisions of the code. I.ower St. Dennis Road is a horseshoe-shaped street. The homes on the interior of the horseshoe are oriented a[ different angles to ihe street making the detecminarion of the front setbacks difficult. Howeve�, the Building Inspector has deternuned that the average setback of the two exisring homes on the block is 7'1 feet as measured to the property line. There is a twenty-one-foot bouievazd between the property line and the ccub. Based on this detemunation, the proposed house couId not be constructed and still maintain a resr setback without a varia*�ce, �� w ��.� ��•i rn� �. ur o rnu� ��cr � � � •�� G�C�� 1 � � � File #96-244 Page Two 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 curve of the street and the orientation of Fhe other homes on thc strect are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. \�'l� 3. The groposed vaiiance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consisieat with the hesit}� safety, comfort, morais and we(farc of the inhabitants of ihe City of SE. Paul. The proposad residence is approximately cente�ed on the fot and is of s simitar size and style as the other homes in the area. This is in keeping wiTh the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance wiil not impair an adequate supply of light and sir to adjacent progerty, nor wi[1 it atteC the essential chazacter of the susrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property valnes within the sutrounding area. The other two homes on the same side of the st�eet are setback from the street anywhere from 30 to t F6 feet depending on which point of their street fronYage you measute from. The homes direcciy across the street from the proposed residence are setback about 30 feet from the street. There are existing trees and shrubbery on both sides of the property that wiil help screen the proposed house from the adjoining homes. The proposed house witl not impair the supply of light or air to the adjacent property nor diminish the surrounding properry vaIues. 5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not pernutted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is focated, nor woald it alter or change the zoning district classification of the propercy. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is noY based primarily on a desire to increase the value or incame potential of the parcel of land. F_ DLSTRICT COTSNCII. RECOMl�ATDATIOI�t: As of the date of this report we have not received a recommendation from District 15. G. STAPR RECOlYIl14ENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approva! of ihe variance. � ��-�� MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARb OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COLJNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 14, 1996 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs. Alton, bonohue, Scherman, Tutty and Wilson of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hazdwick and Ms. Synstegaard of the Office of Liceuse, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT None The meeking was chaired by Joyce Maddo�c, Chair. JOEL & DEBRA REVZEN (#96-244) - 2155 LOWER ST. DElVNIS ROAD: A front yard setback variance in order to construct a new single family home. A 77-foot front setback is required and a 56-foot front setback is requested for a variance of 21 feet. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staf'f repod with a recommendation for approval. The Highland Area Community Council sent a letter in support. Mr. Hazdwick pointed out some corrections in the letter received. Two letters were received &om neighbors requesting fiuther information and a chance to discuss the issues with the applicant. Mr. Hardwick stated he has spoken with both neighbors and explained the issues to them. Ms. Bogen asked what the backyazd setback requirement is. Mr. Hardwick replied 25 feet. Ms. Bogen asked why the applicant couldn't move the home back and be within the required setbacks. Mr. Hardwick stated he did ask the applicant that and &om his understanding the main azea of recreation will be the rear yard. If they move the home back, it would reduce the amount of rear yazd and infringe upon the neighbor to the north. There is a 10-foot requirement for a swiuuning pool and the patio part would then go up to the property line and this would not be the best design. Ms. Bogen suggested the applicant could use a different pool design and this would be a more reasonable use for the land. Mr. Hardwick replied he spoke to the applicant about that and their reasons had to do with the line of sight views. He stated he will let the applicant speak to that. Mr. Scherman stated that comparing the other variances along the street, he dcesn t believe a 77-foot setback should be required. Mr. Hazdwick replied that part of the reason for this variance is the way the Zoning Adminisirator has interpreted it. Zoning staff has determined that this block consists of only those three pazcels where the proper[y curves. The azgument could be mada that it should go all the way up the intersection to Upper St. Dennis in which case the two homes on the upper comers would also be inciuded. This would result in the setback being much less. This was one interpretation made. The second interpretation that zoning staff made was that the two homes that are existing adjacent to tlus properry are both oriented to the south rather than to the east and west. If they considered the house to the east, the eastem side of the house as the front yard, then the southem side of the house wouid have been the side yard and wouldn't have been figured into this calcularion. If they considered the house to the west, the westem part of the house as ihe front yazd, again the southern pazt would have been a side yazd and the applicant would have only been required a 30-foot setback. It seems logical to the Zoning Administrator and consistent with their policies in the past to consider these two comer loYs as facing Yhe south and therefore us�hose setbacks in determining the required setback. 9 7 i�� File #96-244 Page Two Debra Revzen, 740 River Drive, passed out an aerial view of the site to the Boazd. She stated it is easier to see from an aerial view of the different setbacks and how they vary. She stated there are strong architectural reasons for the placement of the backyazd shuctured pool. They have taken a year to develop a home that they believe will fit best in the existing neighborhood. She stated that this lot has been vacant for 50 years. The neighborhood consists of mostly ramblers and they wanted to maintain that appeazance aesthetically. They felt it would be improper to put a 2-story design, hence the placement of the gazage because they needed the space for the first floor. Because of this they had to come forwazd and their primary interest was in keeping the residence consistent with the neighborhood. If the house was pushed back, it would disrupt the line. She asked that they not have to conform to the setbacks of which the existing homes didn't have to when they first were built. Mr. Tully asked what the dimensions of the house are. Ms. Revzen replied 90 by 46 and that the porch extends oft'of the home. The front door is in the center and the view [hey wanted was the e�panse of water upon entering the home. Tom Bren, 8224 County Road 6, Maple Plain, representing the builder, stated that the surrounding homes in the area have been built with plans that do not conform with the setback requirements. He further stated that to change the plans at this time would result in hazdship fmancially and in the schedule because it would require a complete redesign. The width of the lot is actually wider than the applicant sta[ed because that is the street ]inear portion of the lot. David Sattinger, 2139 Lower St. Dennis Road, stated he is opposed to the variance request. He stated that their view from their sitting room will be the back of the proposed gazage. The proposed home will also block the moming sun &om the neighbor's sun room. The neighbor's view from their kitchen across the street will be looking at the front of the proposed gazage. He stated he primarily objects to the garage. He doesn't believe there are compelling reasons for granting the variance because the lot is quite large. The variance request is based on the proposed building plans and not due to deficiencies to the lot. The proposed home will be at the expense of the e�tisting neighbors. The variance is necessitated entirely by the orientation of the pool which drives the home forwazd. He suggested another pool design and garage placement. He stated that none of the other homes have a lazge garage protruding in front of them and that he had difficulry getting any information regazding the variance request. Mr. Tully asked Mr. Sattinger how faz he is from his west property line. Mr. Sattinger replied 6.7 feet. He stated he isn't awaze what the variances were when the home was built in 1950. Mr. Schetman asked Mr. Sattinger how he would feel if the garage were moved to the west side of the house. Mr. Sattinger replied that it would then blcek the view of the neighbors on the west side. He suggested that a tuck-under gazage might work and there aze a number of them in the area. Ingunn Henrikssa Sachs, 2165 Lower St. Dennis Road, stated that the gazage will not conform with the rest of the neighborhooct. She stated that if the home were built 21 feet back as allowed by the Zoning Code they would not be in opposition. She stated she objects to the orientation of the pool overriding the neighbor's views. � � IS�� File #96-244 Page Three Jonathan Sachs, 2165 Lower St Dennis Road, stated Yhai every home in the neighborhood is flush and the proposed home woutd have the gazage prohuding out. He stated they were given a poor qualiry document to try and calculate the footage. He stated that the applicant informed him at the District Council meeting that the house plans on which the staff report was based on has changed. He suggested that the design of the pool be changed so the house could be moved back and then ihey wouldn't be in opposition. Ms. Bogen asked when the meeting was at the community center. Ms. Sachs replied on Wednesday. Mr. Sachs stated that at the meeting they were not allowed to ask any questions. He stated they were told at the meeting that the purpose of the meeting was simply to vote on the proposed request. Ms. Sachs stated that the Highland Area Community Council's recommendation was based on the staff report and there aze many inaccuracies. She stated that considering the pool and the patio as being part of the structure of the home is not justifiable in going in opposition to all of the neighbors. Henry Siryder, 2170 Lower St. Dennis Road, stated he lives across the street and to the west of the proposed home. He stated he is in opposition to the variance request. He stated that the Highland Area Communiry Council's recommendation was based on the staff report of which he believes there are a number of mistakes. He stated that the Iot dimensions aze incorrect and the Iot is quite lazge. He stated that the concept of ihe property lines are difficult to see because of Lower St. Dennis Road not being in the middle. He stated that the 21-foot eactension of tfie gazage and the pool laid in a vertical direction rather than a horizonal direction in back is his main objection. He dcesn t believe the applicant has a plight and lmew the zoning restrictions when they purchased the lot The house as proposed is not in chazacter or keeping with the rast of the neighborhoal. The vaziance is unnecessary and will interFere with the neighbors. Ms. Sachs submitted a letter to the Boazd in opposition. Ms. Bogen stated that from the testimony of the opposition at the Highland Area Community Council meeting it was stated today that the existing plan was no longer that which is in the report. She asked Ms. Revzen to elcplain what the existing plan is now. Ms. Aevzen stated that is total incorrect and the existing plan is idendcal to the plan in the packet. She stated there is a sma11 change in a couple of the window sizes in front of the house. She stated that the neighbors were allowed to ask many questions at the district meeting and that she stayed for over an hour after the meeting to discuss house plans and answer any questions of the neighbors. She stated that the issue is that the neighbors would like to purchase the lot and not have anyone build on it and they have been approached by the neighbors for that reason. Ms. Maddox asked Ms. Revzen if they had looked at a tuck-under gazage. Ms. Revzen replied that there isn't enough room to do that on the lot. Mr. Alton asked Ms. Revzen if she had any other responses to the testimony today. Ms. Revzen replied that she believes the measurements done by the City were done by a measuring tape as opposed to being paced off, She believes the city measurements aze accurate. She stated that they had the Zoning Manager on-site and contrary to what the neighbors aze saying, there was no setback established for this lot and there is documentation in the packet to show that. Ms. Revzen stated that the lot size is accurate as stated in the staff report. � 9'� 1�� File #96-244 Page Four Ms. Bogen stated she takes exception to that as one of the applicant's pictures states it is 140 feet and the staff report states differently. Hearing no fiuther testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the pubiic portion of the meeting. Mr. Hardwick stated that the fmdings in the staff report regazding hardship, in no case of any of the findings did he consider the size or the shape of the lot as a basis for making the fmdings. The findings and the hardslup aze based upon the actual curvature of the street, the location of the pavement within the street and the orientation of the other two homes immediately adjacent to this property. There is some hardship incurred in the method that the Zoning Administrator detecmined in what properties aze to be included in averaging the front setback. He stated that the neighbors aze correct where it states site and conditions that it states the lot size is 92 by 250 feet. He stated this is a typographical error. He stated that Ms. Bogen is correct in that the actual size is more like 150 by 250 feet. He stated that the size of the lot has nothing to do with stafFs fmdings. He stated that the plan that is in the packet is the plan that was originally submitted. He stated that the plan is hard to read because it had to be reduced. If the neighbors had requested to view the plan, they would have been welcome to and that everything in the file is of public record. He stated that the applicant referred to a zoning manager being on the site and that it was the building inspector. He stated that the building inspector measures each house to detemune the average &ont setback. Mr. Wilson stated that Ms. Bogen pointed out that if the house was repositioned on the lot no variances would be required. Mr. Hazdwick stated that the applicant would then have to remove part of the patio azound the pool in order to set the house 6ack. Ms. Bogen suggested that the applicant could reduce the size of the pool. Mr. Hardwick replied that the agplicant could change the entire plan but it is staffs opinion, based on the proposed design which is compatible with the other homes, and ihe fact that it is relatively centered on the lot, is the least intrusive to all the neighbors. Mr. Tully asked if it is because of the gazage or the house that the setback is being requested. Mr. Hardwick replied that the house is proposed to be located 97 feet setback from the &ont properry line. He stated the house and two stalls of the gazage could be built without a variance. The two stalls bring the gazage out to the required 77 foot front setback. Eliminating the third stall would bring it close to meeting the front setback. Mr. Donohue asked what is used in calculating the front setback. Mr. Hazdwick replied that the measurements taken aze approximate because it is difficult without actually surveying the lot to get an exact measwement. The house to the east measured 80 feet in a line pazallel with the front of the home. The actual measurement should be in a line pazallel to the front of the lot along Lower St. Dennis Road. The house to the east is actually setback fiuther than 80 feet. The 80-foot line is at an angle and should be straightened. The Zoning Code defines a front yazd setback as a line equal and parallel with the reaz yard setback. In this case, the rear yazd is a 11ne running directly east and west across the back of all of these properties. Therefore, the front yazd setback has to be aligned pazallel to the reaz yard setback. If you made a line pazaliei to the closest point of the street, the setback wouid probably be more than 80 feet. It is not the same on the west side because the front of the house is parallel to the southem portions of I.o�r St. Dennis Road. Mr. Hazdwick further explained the measurements along the street to the Boazd. R�- r �� File #96-244 Page Five Mr. Scherman moved to approve the variance request and resolution based on fmdings 1 through 6. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 2(Bogen, Maddox). ubmitt��y�� John Hazdwick Approved by: Joyce Maddox, Chair 0 `.�`.�'g �-r�� CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER 96-254 DATE October 28,1996 WHEREAS, D'AMICO CATERING INC. has applied for a variance from the strict apQlication of the provisions of Section 62.103 (d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the establishment of a new restaurant in the B-2 zoning district at 975 GRAND AVENi1E; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 10i28/96, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�ving fmdings of fact: l. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. As is the case with most businesses along Grand Avenue, there is a shortage of off-street parking and land available to provide new parking. The proposed restaurant will occupy retail space that has been vacant for nine months, which is identified as Rental Space G, F and E on the attached floor plan. It would be an unreasonable hardship to resirict the occupancy of flils building to just retail or office uses. 2. The piight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The shortage of off-street parking along Grand Avenue, together with the changing market for commercial uses along Grand Avenue, are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 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 welfaze of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The applicant states that he expects a lazge number of the restauranPs customers to be walk-ins. He is also working on a shazed pazking agreement for evening hours with Cherokee State Bank at 985 Grand Avenue, located to the west across Chatsworth, with a 12-space remote pazking lot directly east of the subject property. Off-site parking for this restaurant must be located in a P- I zoning district or in the same or less reshictive zoning district and within 300 feet of the building. The bank parking could be used, but cannot be counted towazd meeting required parking for the restaurant because it is located in the more restrictive B-1 zoning district. However, the availabiliry of additional off-street parking will help alleviate any pazking problems that may be created by a new restaurant. 4. The proposed variance will not unpair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properry, nor will it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding azea or unreasonably diminish estabiished property values within the surrounding azea. � ��-��' File #96-254 Page Two The proposed restaurant well eliminate vacant storefronts and attract customers to the other businesses in the immediate area. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building other than signage. The proposed variance will not affect the supply of light and air to the adjacent properry nor will it change the essenrial chazacter of the surrounding properry. 5. The variance, if granted, woutd not pemut any use that is no[ pemutted under the provisions of the code for the pcoperly in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning disirict classification of the property. A restaurant is a pemutted use in this zoning district. 6. The request for variance is not based primari[y on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the pazcel of tand. The applicant states that his primary goal is to eliminate vacant storefronts and to revitalize this comer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Safnt Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals that the provisians of Section 62.103 (d) be hereby waived to allow a variance of 12 off-street pazking spaces in order to establish a new restaurani, D'Amico, in a foaner retail space subject to the condition that a shared parking a�eement with the Cherokee State Bank is obtained on property located at 975 GRAND AVENiJE and legally described as except the North 40 feet, L,ots 15, 16 & 17, Blcek 27, Summit Pazk Addition; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. MOVED BY : Bogen SECONDED BY: wason I1�-7si�l�l'�i AGAINST: o MAILED: October 30,1996 TIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeats permitting the erection or aiteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a build'eng permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or fhe City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. � �� File #96-254 Page Three APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by fhe decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the unders�gned Secretary to the Board af Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify thaf I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meetina held on Octoher 28, 1996 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOriING APPEALS �? Sue Synstegaard Secretary to the Board � � � . r� . �'.�� xh �, �- 2- • ��IN� e,A"ii ,yfed. . Y/'wf, s zy � a'r.� u • a.rn 1l D. ) !k4 /� A � G i V C.J `�� A M � � y{t v�7`"° � c;/,'i�lfi!' t � N GUl.I//!G �✓ � <i•� • �� ,� � ti�r. r a --- -- r•- -- „�.� . Iti °� ' \ � • . ,_ .. . u y' S ' `• � � \ - �-::;_...�.. ... , s ,�.K„� , � ' �,�e � � � - — .� �� .. : ,,�,�,,, Yt oi.1 - ' � Tg f ,r• �,.�o ,.I. �.. 5..: �� g r �.�': � � : i :�.5 .. � �• . Are�sB�o ��` — ns -p"I � ^ � 4 ��°°\ �-�� e Y p L __. . •.I• ' ••. � S � 7.• �a t} � -v . /� � 17�� ` y -�jr(1o' � "��y � .� f�6 �� .4 . ; . N t � .. ��_Y � � ✓.�. -' � .. \ • R ~ .� � ' � , - r �� . y � f�d 42Yk '� � �r'i<.+ ' �" _' — ',� na s ' 4N1 (�KY _ 4i a�l7 � � •-- � ,- ' .`� . , - `..� xsf.7 � � � �_,. �, � \��/ u i�.e! ✓ '� � q<Zx� 'taa•.. _..�a � . ., "\' � � '»i \ � � ..� � '� Z \: � '��.C— L7,Y4 ; ,� � + .> , ' J � ' � � � _ _H /!Fe� .._..:. �_ .. . �_. _.. w� / .1. _- -� - —< .. ._ ..._... - - � .�,; rt�. �nd �11 at Lot 85 . �\ ' � L'� Is. Wmt�Y CeuntY. Nlnnesata. :v. Mimaou wqicn Iles nt rn che �orth Ii�a of �� of siid lot 87; thmce ` z� • I 2 `�'V to[ 87 a Eisennw of '' — :� � dfsunn oF 70.00 fect� `� \� �'. . :e o! �46.02 feet ta ehe � - � stm[IM• ` �.. ` � �� . � `� ..1 �` � � i � uL1� ' ur/> 28 �t Y.s6• �fXI �fF f _� ��. \ ..•�� .� � f.•.j . .' �lLt ° ` l ', , R=LLo Q \r j �� ` '\�.'�� ,,�-+.�' Q t r a J . M = sl2H LK) Z �y Ti1.4 !� � � :,=e . air. nar; ��F� ' —r� v�� p�—��--�'� �—' T . " sce� - � f' �„ - 11 �O�JER 87t�iDENN1S ROA� Y.k,z:Ro , , lNV. sibo� , . .I�rceroacp . ..... .. ..._.. _ . � . . ... .. d��s�l�(6 BoOK � - I�<fi {-1dM.J� _.... .:..�., .. . 1'OPO.GRAPHY�S.URVEY aROee r� . . � �.s�n�� /� ;i ,� � ,. 'i , , ,. ;� �� i �,: � � , � :�� -, � �� :, „ �, „ �., , ,, , , -; , ,:, ; �, ,., ,� „ , i , ,� ,. ,�, �i� ,, ;� ,�, „ ;�� ,�� ; � APPUCANT� � L�ehra. �11Zt1') PURPOSE M�—{LQrIQA FILE #. �LO - Z�I�I OATE �� ' �`�"9� PLNG. DiST � f� MAP #� r SCALE �' = 400' • LEGEND ..��.. zoning district �ndary � subjedpropeny n� oAh'"` 0 one tamily � two tamiiy , �¢ Q multipte tamily • a � commercial 4 ... � industria� V vacant � '�°�� - rss-�s 9l� Zy�f APPLICATION FOR ZONING �RDINANCE VARIANCE -- � _ � CITY OF SAII�TPAUL ' � � � � T " J A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER�i1_ , SECTION 67 - 7 APqRAGRAPH f a 7 fS FEQUESTED iN CONFORMfTY WITH THE POWERS VESTED tN 7HE BOARD OF ZONtNG AP- PEALS TO PERMIT 7HE Construction of residence (one—fam.il�j� pROPERTY . D BE LOW. � A. Applicant; NAME: 11Pb a R and Toel N RQV�en ADDRESS 740 River Drive, 11—A, St_ Paul, ?IId 55116 DAYTIME TELEPHONE NO. Z23-6524 ZIp CODE 55215 j 1. Property interest of applicant: {owner, contract purchaser, etc.) E Owaer ' 2. Name of owner (if different) ( � o r is i B. PropertyDescription: ADDRESS Attached as Eahibit A t r�� 1. Legal description: LOT S � G � BLOCK ADD. 2. Lot size: � 3. Prese�t Use vacant p resen t Z D ist. # 15 ` k C. f Reasons for Request: , ' t. Proposed use • Construction o£ a one—family reside�ce 2. What physical charaderistics of the properry prevent its being used for any of the permitted � uses irt your zone? (fopography, soi! conditions, size and shape of lot, etc.) � a£tached i � - 3. State the specific variation requested, giving distances where appropriate. attached t i � 4. Explain how your case confortns to each of the following: a. That the strict application of the provtsions of the Zoning Ordinance wouid resuit in peculiar or excepfional practical difficulties, or excepGonal undue hardships. attached b, That the grantlng of a variance will not be a substantial detrimeni to public good or a substantiai impair- ment ot the inient and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 09Jt4.;4,,�eooarg:.�2C�F•. CF.Eti>; 1 i(�b� Ufihi,af°�� *.' � CASHIERS USE ONLY �� • LC� cFS�c�; r.�r *��s.ec� C4A�vGE � , ;R attached �� Sigr 2I95 : � / r • , � / APPLICATION FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARTANCE CITY OF ST. PAUL A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER 61. SECTION 61.1.1. PARAGRAPH (A1 IS REQUE5TED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE POWERS VESTED IN'THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCT'ION OF A ONE-FAMTLY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW. A. Applicant: NAME: Debra K. and Joel N. Revzen ADDRESS: 740 River Drive, 11-A St. Paul, MN 55116 DAYTIMB TELEPHONE NO : 223-6514 1. Property interest of applicant: Owner 2. Name of Owner: Same B. Progerty Description: ADDRESS: 2155 I,ower St. Dennis 1. Legal description: Attached as Eachibit A 2. L.ot size: Approximately 3/4 acre 3. Present Use: None Present Zoning Dist.: #15 C. Reasons for Request: 1. Proposed Use: One-Family Residence 2. What physical characteristics of the properry prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? Response: The size of the lot will not allow the construction of the proposed residence if the City's determined 98' front yard setback is observed. 3. State the specific variation requested, giving distances where appropriate. Response: The City has determined that "Method A" of calculating a front yard setback is applicable. See Eachibit B attached: Notes and measurement of Joe Erchlich Zoning Manager. Method A calculates the front yard setback as follows: Method A: 80' + 116' = 196' (divided by 2) = 98' front yard setback from curb (77' front yard setback fzom the property line). See E�chibit B. The � 3�2409.� �� -�-�s��! longest distances from the curb on the corners of the existing adjacent structures have been used as "averages." The owners propose a 55' front yard setback from the property line which requires a 22'variance based on the Ciry's 77' front yard setback requirement. See Exhibit C, proposed site plan. 4. Explain how your case confotms to each of the following: a. That the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional undue hardships. i. The strict appIication of the provisions wiiI not aIlow the property in question to be put to a reasonable use because the proposed residence cannot be built, causing both a practical difficulty and an exceptional undue hardship. ii. The Zoning Ordinance at issue does not address the situation now before the Board of Zoning. The ordinance states: "Where at least fifty (50) percent of the front footage of any block is built up with principal structures, the front yard setback for new structures shall be equal to the average of the existing structures . . . :' See Eachibit D. i. In this situation, virtually all of the front footage of the lot is on a straight curb line. The adjacent structures are both on curved portions of the "block." See E�chibit E. No other structures are tocated on the front footage of the block. Therefore, zero (0) percent of the block is buiit up with principal structures and averaging is not required. The Schedule of Regulations, § 61.101, which establishes the minimum front yard setback at thircy (30) feet must be applied. 2. Even if the "average" of the existing structures should be used to determine a front yard setback, the ordinance is ambiguous regarding the distances to apply. The ordinance does not define "average" or "front" The distances of the "average" vary on the existing structures on each side of the proposed residences depending on the definition of "front " This is evidenced by the City's various measurements and method's of compuring its required front yard setback. Eachibit B establishes that the City considered an alternative`�Method B" of �zaa9.i 2 � 1_ t- J' / � � determining "average." If Method B is applied, no variance is required. The ordinance leaves open for interpretation the distances to be averaged. Therefore, the shortest distances may also properly be applied in this situation. 3. The ordinance does not define "block." Residences on the other side of the block directly across from the proposed residence's site, as well as other residences located on the block, conform to front yard setbacks measuring between 30' and 40'. b. That the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. i. The granting of the variance will permit the use of the land to conform aesthetically to the existing neighborhood and will permit the utilization of this land. ii. Because of the unique circumstances of this situation, the granting of the variance will allow the land to be adapted and used despite its present unsuitability for its particular use. iii. The granting of the variance will fuc a reasonable standard to which the proposed residential structure can conform. In addition, the following are true: 1) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. 2) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties, nor will it alter the essential character of the surroundang area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding areas; 3) The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property; 4) The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land; and � snaos.i 3 -a '� � ,, �� . � .� 5) The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Saint Paul. / �� `i� " /� L�. � s3zaos.i 4 �.� � .� �� i��' 2>48 .��c c�v,t .�i� .�' - c� .�a�.4 c�1�Y55776 October 10, 1996 Zoning Administraflon Office of LIEP City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter Street, Suite #300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 RE: File 1f96-244 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road Dear Commission: 2�� , �� I have lived at 2148 Lower St. Dennis Road for the past 47 years. My two lots are direcfly across from the above referenced properiy. May I say I will be happy to see a new home addition in ouz immeciiate azea, and appreciate the time and effort Mr. and Mrs. Revzen have put into the design of fheir new home so that it will conform to the surrounding azea. However, T am concerned about the request for a 21 foot front variance. The enormous size of the lot (250 ft. deep) should be able to accommodate any size home including a pool, if desired. After viewing a plari of the home, (specific plans from an architect were not available), the angle at which the garage protrudes seems to obstruct the view of the adjoining home at 2139 Lower St. Dennis Road. I would like the Zoning Administration to consider the requested 21 foot front variance be divided and aliow a 10 1!2 foot front variance and a 10 1!2 foot back variance, thereby allowing the home to placed on the lot so as not to impecle the view from the neighboring homes. Thank yoa for your time in considering this request. I look fonvazd to having Mr. and Mrs. Revzen as neighbors. Sincerely, �. �i'�� Noreen M. Lannin cc: Mr. & Mrs. David Sattinger Mr. & Mrs. 7onathan Sachs � Mr. & Mrs. Revzen HRCC HIGHLAND October 10, 1996 AREA COMMUNITY COUNCIL �� j�7- ( �'� - Z �- Board of Zoning Appeals c/o John Hardwick 300 Lowry Buitding 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul MN 551 d2 To: Members Board of Zoning Appeals 7he Community Development Gommittee of the High{and Area Community Cauncii met October 9 and considered the variance request of Debra and Joel Revzen, 2055 Lower St. Dennis, fite number 96-24Q. The variance is for a front yard setback of 21 feet. The Committee heard from the Revzens and from severai of the neighbors. After discusslon the Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the variance request. Sincerety, � CZ U Bob Siegle Chair, Community Development Committee 1978 FORD PARK�i'AY OCT-10-1996 14�29 612 S2. PAUL MN 98% � 298-5138 P.02 Henry A. Snyder 2170 Lower St. Dennis Road October 3, 1996 Zoning Administration Office of LIEP City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter St., Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 q� �� St. Paul, Minnesota 55116 (612) 699-5362 �t<�-ier� y�—Z�y We live at 2170 Lov�er St. Dennis Road, a�ross the straet from the property at 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road for which a zoning variance has been requested. We do not believe a 56-foot front setback is appropriate in this area, and will be highly likely to detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. A one-foot or two- foot variance is one thing; a 21-foot variance is quite another. We do not believe it is advantageous to the City to permit changes in the zoning on one home if that does so at the expense of the full enjoyment of their property by four or five other owners. This area on Lower St. Dennis has been fully developed and landscaped for over 30 years, and it seems only fair to require any new builder (this is the only piece of vacant land in the area) to conform to the existing zoning. Our objection is not irrevocable. If the owners of the subject property can persuade their direct neighbors on either side of their proposed residence (the Sachs and Sattinger families) and Mrs. Lannin, whose home sits directly across the street from the subject property, to waive their objections to the variance, we would, in spite of our views, be inclined to withdraw our objections, if the plans for the new residence (which we have not seen) seem otherwise appropriate. The hearing notice was delivered to us by mail on Oct. 3rd. We will be out of the city until the day of the hearing, so are taking this opportunity to express our views. Respectfully submitted, /✓� .� `�� Henry A. Sny ed r. cc: Jonathan Sachs David Sattinger Noreen Lamiin Debra Revzen � �Il: .�.� -�~�'� A � � � '�C .��' + , :�� ~::i � � sP z ,,. � � � . Z • ,�';%t �( � ' i � �� t ; 'a !�d.�'� � �°� ' �y�r -.�� t �iy�,.� �:. ° t> :' i..' • ;�r� '.'= � � O ��. � -r - �q� � � e �� . ' �� ` �' ,� '� �� . }., �r.1"- �� r � , � _ " ~ O � �� s � � :.�. -.- -� :.. ? �--� %�.`A� ` ,,., ; . T S„� ,� n"° a" .. , i%s. ' �� ' F ,._:-„� ' . • = , _�"�s� � �'�''�� 1 P° J, .� .� �'1�� ' '�' ' gp � :Y• a�. i %t "�� l� +}��. '� •' � � fi� � ' • � � ��- � .�� .:� , VF / � � �a:. � ,�„+, ... �� "�i'�� ' , � 4 � !. �� i �� 4 . � �3 ": _ � �' �'n. -�� 1� " �`.� �! - / � ' � r� t ?' n.�� 'T.`.,.ts., p � -� � •� � J�� : �� +� � � � ��i_ ..r 3 '.: `�� ' 'r , . ^. :t4»:"R7!x'��•:^w:.:�t,.sr>:�r_., �°e' '. . .. , � . .�rrr��a�� „ :- C �.,� �°��"t'��_ ..� .t. . � �.� ��.c:K:`°� a � e - - •cv �f/��,,.c��:+iYl� ' �: ��,�,,r�. ,.� �.� _ �:�. � �. _-:,.�.,�...:,;�;� .. , ,__ ,. _-, �. � �'��'� � � �= � 11�4' � �``��'� � .. _ �'4�`'�`� � � -_�:_ , �f�`� � � { �� - �� : �'. �' ,�� . �' . � l�-' �� . r•ED PI.RNNING DIV. 7EL�9-228-331A �ct 24'96 13:26 No.009 P.02 , � �o�`� ; - ��w� : f-- ;' _ ? ` �, r j �, � � G, t � 1-� �f � i J � � � --_ 3oa-Oc� ___ �• --� � / S T -' � �.3 3,'�� •� _ . _ _ _ 'G 7. 9 4 -- -__ --- /,Sa, vo --- ~ O � � Q .� _ i � __ '-.� .— 'v ' - �� v �� s � I � � rti � �� r � �N � 1 \ � o� 87 ,,J GO?' 8b � LoT � 85 � t 00 �r �� , � „ ,, � � � � � ��' ,: �, o k f � � �0 I N ? � i � ' - yl� + 3 p j c A5 'A � - r i t ia' 4 � ., , , : � �� ,.�� ,� ,- � �at5 ! . 5.� y ��R'''� � . I —2z — a N � I 0 � � ` , i �9 � _I_ _ G7.gyG_ _-� ; � h � �,�JiE'C�G ,� � ,�L= /v7• 94 f • � � � � Z ' . I ,� � � � S � { � q � � � `� o 'ti , ;�. 4 r ,�� ; �9; � � � � G �� ` ; a :. f � �, �: ` ' t *;}, h �; �� Z � � 1�` a �" ti�� a .b. < l�3 � � ` � �Q � � �- t i ��.:{� ` y �..� -�� . �.. e , . . ,. ,��, s � ;�„�� o .� •. '�- - /35•03-_-' - - �;. . _ , _. � ,E�sr�' �.. ' =:� . . - �Q�; g� - ��;��. Q �K;- .,�. .�/. .Pinr� •'c ^ a: `, :. ��: ' A.55Um.E� .�. "��d�.'..:�:-.. _. ....- ... PE P� IEGA I utst,n'r' �u�E� :9-228-3314 �ct 24' 96 13 � 25 No . bb� �' . ��(� � b i j- y QC� 2 4 1996 4-, Parcet �_A:.'�' '. - • l 1 p)1 of Lot 8S, Lane's Edgcumbe Hiils, Ramsey Caunty, Minnesota, and thaC part af lot &7, tane's Edgcumbs Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lles Westerly of a : line descrjb4dfeetfWestwof [he Ror�heasi cornertofnsa�id Lott87,ithence55 uch�Ca85umed distant ;3.9 k.04 feet; thence bearing, para11e1 with the east line of said Lot 87 a distance of 3 EsSt a distance of 5•0 feet; thence Sou[h a distan }��°02 fee�t f t e the south fane of distance of f0.0� FBgt' Lhence Soutfi a distance of said Lot 3] a�d said described line there iarminating. Par'�el 6= and a11 of Lo[ 8$ AS1 of LaC �b, Lane'S Edgcumbe Nills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, except the easterly b7.94 .feet Lhereof, lane`s Edgcumbe Nilis, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and that part of lat 37. Lane s Edgcumbe Ni11s, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies Easter�y of a line described as foll�ws: Beginning at a pa��t on the nort� then e saFd tot 87 dlstanC 33�g�arallelewith�theccasttline of Lots$ld��disgance of South, as5umed 6ea�ing, p ;4.DU feet; thence East a distance of 5-a0 feet; thence South a d��k6 02 fe tC d� heeC� thence East a dtstance of 10.00 feet; the�ce South a distance o 4 sou[h 1{ne of said Lot 87 aad saiif descrtbed,line there terminating. . Pos4it' F� Note Nc�te � Parcei A �o�tains 35,Z��•�a S4uare Feet. �?arcel 3 eontains 34+9��•a3 Square Feet. Elevations shown hereon are assumed and relative to the Hanho�e R�m a� St. �ennis Aoad a5 a Benchmark oP 10D.00 feet. the centcrline Ccr:��y.�-c:.: - ; - ::3 �estribad bp thia instruR�MK 16 �1C��Y �C�AVfId 8PC 14 �i1K� p iGOOfGK� dnd WDdividir�� ' c�1Y oF SAtti� PAtil F�� 1/� 2_� � � �yj Pbnni�+� Ad�r+inittirsa C•+• •v { hereby'certify that on October 12 t983 this survey, plan or report was prepared by mc or under my direet supervlsion and that 1 am a duly regis�ered l�nd Surveyor under the Laws of the'State of Minnasota. Ex �, b,�- � _ 7 �7-�� ZONLVG CODE I. sewage treatment system. A sewage stem or part thereof ;erving a dwell- establishment or group thereof, that 'ace soil h'eatment and disposal or soil treatment in areas ofhigh water rock or rapidly or slowly permeable ste processirzg f¢cili:y. A site, in- and any structw*es thereon, where ; or pathological waste is accepted, red, handled, treated, decontami- 3 or disposed. Infectious waste pro- does not include the site of a gen- ious waste which is governed by �tment of health, as se± forth in utes, section 116.81, subdivision 2. ste. Waste meeting the definition �aste" under Minnesota Statutes, subdivision 12. 5ty¢rd. Asite or location where ight, including containerized ailers, are transferred between ation modes (such as from rail- ucks or from barges to railroad and/or specialized equipment kers or gantry cranES). 6, 11-21-91; C.F. No. 92-1217, § a 93-906, § 1, 11-4-93) ance No. 17777, adopted Oct. 11, 1990, delefing the definition of junkyazd" to this amendment, § 60.210. J. was § 60.343; and Ord. No. 17039, adopb such as trees, grass rzce• The total area within a at will be disturbed in any on or construction. off-street space, on the same ?' group of buildings, for the § 60212 temporary pazking of a commercial vehicle while loading and unloading merchandise or materials. Z.ot. Apazcel of land occupied, or intended to be occupied, by a main building or a group of main buildings and accessory buildings, or utilized for the principal use and uses accessory thereto, to- gether with such yazds and open spaces as aze required under the provi;ions of this zoning code. A lot may or may not be specifically designated as such on public records. Lot are¢. The total horizontal azea within the lot lines of the lot. Lot, corrzer. A lot where the interior angle of two (2) adjacent sides at the intersection of two (2) streets is less than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees. A lot abutting upon a curved street or streets shall be considered a comer lot for the purposes of this code if the arc is of less radius than one hundred fifty (150) £eet and the tangents to the curve, at the two (2) points where the lot lines meet the curve or the straight street line, extended, form an interior an�le of less than one hundred thirty-five (135) deb ees. Lot coverage. 'I'he part or percent of the lot oc- cupied by the above-grade portion of buildings. Lot depth. The average horizontal distance be- tween the front and reaz lot lines. Lot, irzterior. Any lot other than a corner lot. Lot Iines. The lines bounding a lot as defined herein: (1) Front Lot Line: For an interior lot, the line sepazating said lot from the street. For a corner lot, the line separating said lot from either street. For a through lot, the line separating said lot from both streets. (2) Rear Lot Line: The lot line opposite the front lot line. In the case of a lot pointed at the rear, the rear lot line shall be an imaganary line parallel to the front lot line, not less than ten (10) feet long, lying farthest from the front lot line and wholly within the lot. (3) Side Lot Line: Any lot line other than the front lot line or reaz lot line. A side lot line separating a lot from the street is a side 519 � xh �=�;f � 106-706.3.1 �994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE �t'�z- l�'� SECTION 106 — PERMITS 106.1 Permits Required. Except as specified in Section 106.2 of this section, no buildina or structure regulared by this code shall be erected, constructed, enlareed, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished uniess a separace pecmi[ for each buildin� or strac- mre has fint been obtained from ihe buildin� official. 106.2 Work Exempt from Permit. A building permit shall not be required for the followin�: 1. One-srory de[ached accessory buildin�s used as tool and sioraoe sheds, playhouses and simi- lar uses, provided the projected roof area dces not exceed 120 squaze feet ( I I:1� m'-}. 2 Fences not over 6 feet (1829 mm) high. 3. Oil derricks. 4. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches (17�3 mm) hi�h. 5. Retaining walls which are not over4 feet (1219 mm) in hei�ht measured from ihe bottom of the footine co the rop of the wall, unless suppoaino- a surcharee or impounding Class I, II or III :4 liquids. � 6. Water tanks supported direcdy upon �rade if the capaciry does noi exceed 5,000 ga]]ons ( l8 927 L) and the ratio of hei�ht to diameter or wid[h does not exceed 2 to I. ---777 � 7. Platforms, walks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above grade and noi over � y basement or story below. � 8. Paintine, paperino and similar finesh work. 9. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery. 10. wndow awnin�s supponedby an exterior wall of Group R, Divisio� 3, and Group M Occu- pancies when projecting no[ more than 54 inches (1372 mm). I I. Prefabricared swimmine pools accessory to a Group R, Division 3 Occupancy in which the pool walls aze entirely above the adjacent orade and if the capaciry does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 927 L). Unless otherwise exempred, separare plumbin„ elecirical and mechanical permits will be re- quired for the above-exempted items. Exemption from the permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to arant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. 1063 Application for PermiL 106.3.1 Application. To obtain a penni[, the applicant shall first file an application therefor in writin� on a form fumished by the code enforcement aeency for that purpose. Every such applica- tio� shall: � 1. Identify and describe the work ro be covered by the pennit for which application is made. 2. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done by legal description, street address or similaz descrip[ion that will readily identify and deFnitely locate the proposed building or work. 3. Indieate the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is intended. 4. Be accompanied by plans, diagrams, computations and specifica[ions and other data as re- quired in Section 106.31. 5. State the valuation of any new buildin� or stcucrure or any addition, remodeling or alteration to an existine building. 6. Be siened by the applicant, or the applicanPs authorized agent. �� § 62.109 (5) The owners shall be responsible for main- taining all landscaping in a healthy and growins condition and keeping it free from refuse and debris. Dead plznt materials shall be removed within a reasonable time and replaced duri.ng the normal planting sea- son. (Code 1956, § 62.110; Ord. No. 16799, 5-28-81; Ord. No. 17062, 10-20-83) Sec. 62.110. Exterior Iighfing. (a) All outdoor lighting in all use districts, in- cluding o�-street pazking facilities, shall be shield- ed to reduce glare and shall be so arranged as to reflect lights away from all adjacent residential districts or adjacent residences in such a way as not to exceed three (3) footcandles measured at the residence district boundary. (b) All lighting in all districts used for the ex- ternal illumination of buildings shall be placed and shielded so as not to inferfere wzth the vision of persons on adjacent highways or adjacent prop- erty. (c) Illumination of any other outdoor feature shall be maintairied stationary and constant in intensity and color at all times when in use. (Code 1956, § 62.111; Ord. No. 16799, 5-28-81) Sec. 62.111. Residential entranceway. In all Residential Districts, so-called entrance- way structures, including, but not limited to, walls, columns and gates marking entrances to single- family subdivisions or multiple housing projects, may be permitted and may be located in a re- quired yard, except as provided in section 62.112, below; provided, that such entranceway struc- tures shali comply with all codes of the City of Saint Paui, and all state codes, and shall be ap- proved by the division of housing and building code enforcement and a permit be issued by the zoning administrator. (Code 1956, § 62.112) Sec. 62.112. Corner clearance. No fence, wa11, shrubbery, sign or other obstruc- tion to vision above a height of two (2) feet from the average grade of the property shall be permit- LEGISLATIVE CODE r-� , ��k b��-��7 q �-l��' ted within the triangular azea formed at the in- tersection of any street right-of-way lines by a sfraight line drawn between said right-of-way lines at a distance alona each line equal to the mini- mum setback line> from their point of intersec- tion. (Code 1956, § 62.113; Ord. No. 17525, § 31, 1-6-58) A use may be developed on a zoning lot that has two (2) or more zoning district designations so long as the use is permitted in each of the zoning districts. The minimum zoning requirements of each district shall apply to that part of the zoning lot in each zoning district. (C.F. No. 95-203, § 7, 3-22-95) Sec. 62.113. Zoning lot, more than one zon- ing designation. Sec. 62.114. Private residential pools and hot tubs. Private outdoor residential poois, both above and below ground, and hot tubs are permitted as an accessory use within the reaz yard or nonrequired side yard; escept that, for multiple-family devel- opments, the planning commission may deter- mine the location of the pool or tub. Private out- door pools and hot tubs shall meet the following requirements as applicable: (1) There shall be a distance of not less than ten (1�) feet between the adjoining proper- ty line and the outside of the pool wall for aboveground pools. For in-ground pools, there shall be a distance of not less than five (5) feet between the adjoining property . line and the outside ef the pool wall. (2) There shall be a distance of not less than four (4) feet between the outside pool wall and any building located on the same lot. (3) No s�vimming pool shall be located less than ten (10) feet from any side street or alley right-of-way, or the distance required for side yard by the zoning code, whichever is greater. (4) No swimming pool shall be located in a pub- lic easement. (5) All yards containing swimmina pools shall be enclosed by an obscuring fence not less Supp. ro. 30 616.8 . , � � � e L�I� �b�}� ,� l� ;; ��-l� 1, 97/�� , „ /_. ,,,.. � J i � 0 w 0 � w � Q � ^� - � S �� t a O d � � o � `n � d VI C T L d a 3 �, �' �� UO( .��: ��_�� ARLSON & ARLSON' C � � (nND SUYVFYOSS Survey For: DAVID SATTINGER Survey of the Westerly line of the Easterly G7.94 feet of Lot SS, !anes Edgcumbe Hills � � � i • � 1 I � ; � ltad � � -----�-�_ -. -- -: -:. .. �. _. . � Jl,-1T I ��W �,12 r N D a �� r �� 0� U\ � I i� � � q,. '� �� I hereby certify that this su was mad? by me or under my direct supervision antl that I am a dvly licenseA lar,d sorveyor under the of the Srate of Minnesota. Dated this 72th day of November, � �" ./-'�•''._' bY '�;c�. � . �_ , -"_ �- - /✓ /� _arry . ouWre, an �urveyor �- ` Minnesota license No. 9018 1 ' , — uo�'u �iue .or �"( I - l�G� N��h �/'/'�, �Y� ' `I I ' �YC / � l� �i 14.Z , � I � , _ . ��. �i-� / ; � � ` p 1o'r?u ° � � •`\� 'U 1�J �U`. � � � .\ Ni ,,\ _� � � J� _ �.�� 5��.� - �-��p �'�� i >.9 �- us �. '�_ - - — =- -- - � �._ ' � �--- �' w ; 0� 0_ \ P.I� � " �\\ �� • � ' d 15��.°,iJF� 4 : G Kx-tE ; M : Q i i _' -Q �`� - ' �, '. _" _ _'- i _ _' L4 � � n . ��-.�� ro � — '•� � '� 3.i 3.1 /i � � �.� n.5 J r 10.l.?�'� -z. � I '� ' ' 1, ° :� ° 1.5 � (� � ! I ,� Z.D � ''v ='/a � / ' I �?1� : /.� '.. i . . , i . � � 1 �! _ 1 � �G� G�OI.�� ?./�� tJ°,16> . ; , i . a �z".H�T � , N; � /// , � 3 ; �9 �Y ' ;� is.ro � . i //.�.': T Ib.�R� `�V �. � �\ : . / 4 '\ i ^ :;� l�' 9 A . dv.o � \, ' � n 3 r ��G �, ' � �� I \\ : � � � i u u � Q �, . m �?n� i , a .� — � V / L �'� � � ;� I �\ � I%�YPR _'.tVn+�"� x �' , �I � f Il � O� � M VI `\ �f�..� .��ACCU�nnf'�i c'F-7 , N ic�'e�uJMP� N � . '�, � � -�� e�^' �i-IC�nMF/' � �'��\ � �✓�\ .,� . . , � � �. i ' 0 I.�i� .4i.J� � . \,j ; � � �., �� o f �� Yo/1 �YDA ` `/ � _ ` -_' —_ - 'l�� . o-i-� � ��f"�ti�Gu' Y i -f "� �____------ �—_---:____-_-__----_: H '� ��b '� ' I „ _ �i , lARLSON ,,,� � � � %C7� e II i I r� ,,,.,_ (. _/ � l�. � � � a w 0 .� 4� w • � a, - � �� T N � �- p �9 a � � 'n N 4�� rn � � V W � W �,\ n . O V �V N N � T i N i� N QI � �_ lP � 0 UO( ��!-c - � „_ 20 , ARLSON �NC. ARISON _ lANO SUNVEYORS Survey for: DAVID SATTINGER Survey of the Westerly line of the Easterly G7.94 feet of Lot 85, Lanes Edgcumbe Hills � � � � I' � � 1 1 � ` �m,? . _�y'. � ------�- :.:_� .-.._.::•,..� ... �� Lvw ��2 � N � �� r �', r; /.-�<.� � ��,.-,� i I �: '-= � � �'.�� ..:�.: ��} �\�- I hereby certify that this su was rnade by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed land surveyor under the of the State of Minnesota. Datetl this 12th day of November, \ / ....J � . ' `�� i . ... - / . . � : ....�.� by ..., r �� ,_ �.,. '.�.. ,, �.•. :�./r t,,� , arry ; outure, _an urveyor `--' Minnesota license No. 9018 14. Z . 1 �• ._ m f0'�r"7uL �} I� 'iI.JE '�. � � /` - ` .... � �J , �� .. � �, ��. � a° r� -; ,� �,��. �� \�` . u �„ d �5��,�G .� I 4. � i 1 � ` i tl .'✓ �f(.tl.t:2? -- �.34- 1 � � �z",Ha�'�� 1 � \ �, � 1 � �. �� '�. � � � ,P. 6 / `�I%' i 'do `S� � �� 15� �� M�a• `1-"rq. �� R.�.T� � /: iJ � ,'" 1J01�'1-1 ;,11J� ..Jf rb`I , .._ . IYC�� r l,f r i � , � . ?�. �i� - ; � I Q � rf M / � /� ;;> _ �- I, �_ . __ . ... — . .. ,__. .._. - �" � � , ; ' , � a •, , m ,. m'� , � ;: � �' ' . , 'L , , .�... — ° — ! — - " Z�4 ' �, � , ; � 3 � ; � ' -o i � � I ' 3�� 3,t ' '•`� f�.;'�,x�"..� i - , � ° �i iz / z�n � ', "`° �.w � > i� l �; , . ., � , . , 1� : �' � � ,% � i J; �C� � �OI...1 � �.= F"��'�M� � � l.l ° —'lleay' ; I _.,� -_ �li 'y_._.,._�� _.,_.�.._...�. :,��-_...___, . �__ _"' _ _` � , ' i/'/,j �',i ry�� Ib,�, % zlv, -1 i � �/, , ^ -« / . � . � , .�v.o ' ; i � � � m �'� o �Y t r.�ao�::.r.,�n�� Xa �aAec-wnn��? �.��aa�..w�v�P ; � ; � � , . \ � I � .. I , 0 .�� \\•, ' ��//� � . � �17-1 ,�.I"=�o' _, i0 ,; ,� �-, rt� 6 0 io. � �Y� n , ,� I � _.. __ IS, V ,� w-SY G' ' `�: � i i I `� i ; ;•� I � � m M N N ' „ �Q3-1!v � e� I�' !�� i r7 i � I 7�� ft�l=✓ p I ---. ._.. , Y � -- --_._.—,__�..�I fi��b / ^,i � � lU �� t�}9 d° �N � /rQn l�'� ��t� �, � J �'yti ":�u= .�: lANO SURVFYORS �1' V LAND SURVEVORS �--�_ i.� q�-�� .C � (�autkru. �ua. 8]1J DU>ONT AVENUE $OUTN OLOOMINGTON, MINN. 556'10 868 2086 iVovember 12, 1996 To whom it may concern: Re: Setback requirements in established areas. In the majority of the communities in the seven county area the setback for an empty lot is determined by a line drawn from the closest point to the street from the house on one side to the closest point to the street from the house on the other side. If this method is applied on the empty lot between No. 2165 and No. 2139 Upper Saint Dennis Road the setback to the curb would be approximately 110 feet in the middle of the empty lot or 96 feet to the property line. If you have any questions please cail. Yo s Truly i ` ��Ti� -- ' larr R. Couture, l.S. �Q,N�e� ��cr� 9 �� '�� . ��..��e�. �� . � � ` � � � � � � November 25, 199b Addendum to Snttinger cind Snchs appenl scheduled for the November �, 1996 City Counci I meeting. 27 File #96-271, location: 2155 Lower Sfi. Dennis Roczd. If you hnve any further questions plense cnl) John Hnrdwick, LIEP, 266-9082. � �.� �� `� �� o p q7 i�� 3 BOAILD OF ZONIrIG AYPEALS STAFF REPORT B. ACTIOPi ItEQLTESTED: A 77-foot front setbac!c is reauired and a 56-foot front setbacic is requested for a variance of 21-feet. C_ SITE ANiD A�EA CdNDITTONS: Ttus is a large Iot, 92 by 250-feet; with no aIley access. The lot is reFatively levet hut is about fi feet abave the grade of the street. Surrounding Land Use: Single family homes D. BACKGROt3riD: This pazcel was recentlp sglit from the adjacent properry and was purchased by the agpiicants in 1995. This is the last vacant parcet in this immediate area.. E. FIl�TDINGS: i. The property in question cannot be put to a rrzsonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Lawer St. Dennis Road is a horseshoe-shaped street. The homes on the intesior of the horseshoe are oriented at different angles to the street making the detern�inarion of the front setbacks difficuh. However, the Building Inspector hu determined that the average setback of the two existing homes on the biock is 71 feet as measured to the property line. There is a twenty-one-foot bouIevar� between the property line 2nd the curb. $ased on this detarmination, the vFOposed house could not be constn�cted and still maintain a reu. setback without a variance. i. APPLICANT: IQEL & T}EBRA REVZEI�F 2. CLASSTETCATTOAT: Major Variznce 3. LOCATIOPT: 2155 LQWER ST DENNTS ROAD 4. LECYAI. DESCRIi'TTQN: See fite 5. PLA1V2`IT1�TG DISTRICT: 15 � BILE #1 96-244 DATE OF �EARING: 10/14/96 6. P12ESENT ZONTi�iG: R-2 ZOPtING CODE REFEI2ENCE: 61.301 7. STAFF TNVESTTGATION A1�T111 REPORT: DA'I�: 10/7/96 BY: 7ohn Hardwick 8. DATE RECEIVED: 9(Z4196 DEADLINE FOR ACTTON: i I/23/96 A PTTRPOSE: A front yard setback variance in order to construct a new single-family home. �7- ��'' F'de #96-244 Page Two 2. The plight of the Fand owner is due to circumstances unique ta this properry, and these circumstances were not created by the Iand owner. The curve ofthe street and the orientation of the other homes on the street are circumstances that were not created by tfie applicants. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the heattt� safety, comfott, moraEs and welfarc af the inhabitants of the City of $E. Paui. The proposed residence is approximatety centered on the [ot and is of a similar size and style as the other homes in the ares. This is in keeping with the sgirit and 'uttent of the code. 4. The proposed variance wi31 not impair an adequate suppIy of tight and air to adjacent property, nor witl it a2ier the esseatiai chazacter afthe sunounding area or unreasonabiy diminish established propercy vaIues wit.hin the sucrounding area. The other twa hames on tfie same side of tfie street are setbacfc from the street anywhere from 30 to t t6 feet depending on which point oftheir street frontage you measure from. The komes direcdy acrass the street from the proposed residence are setback about 30 feet from the street_ There ue existing trees and shrubbery on both sides o£the property that wi'1t hetp screen the proposed house from the adjoiniag homes. The proposed house wili not impair the suppIy of light or air to the adjacent property nor diminish the surrounding property va[ues. S. The variance, if granted, wouid not peRnit any use that is not permitted under t6e provisions af the code for the property in the disirict where the affected land is tocated, nor woaid it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. The proposed variance, ifgranted, wi[I not change or alter the zoning classification of the properry. 6. The request for vari2nce is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the pazcel of Fand. F. DLSTRICT COUNCII. RECOMVIENDATIOPi: As of the date of this report we have not received a recommendation from District 15. G. STAk'F RECONIII�ENDATION: Based on findings i through 6, staffrecortmends apgroval of the variance. ��/ MINUTES OF Tf� MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COLTNCII, CHAMBERS, 33Q CITY HALL ST. PAiJL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 14, 1996 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Scherman, Tuily and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Synstegaard of the Office of License, Inspection, and Envuonmental Protectioa ABSENT: None The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. JOEL & DEBR4 REVZEN (#96-244) - 2155 LOWER ST. DENiVIS ROAD: A&ont yazd setback variance in order to construct a new singie family home. A 77-foot front setback is required and a 56-foot front setback is requested for a variance of 21 feet. The applicant was present. There was opposidon present at the hearing. Mr. Hazdwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval. The Highland Area Community Council sent a letter in suppod. Mr. Hazdwick pointed out some corrections in the letter received. Two letters were received from neighbors requesting further information and a chance to discuss the issues with the applicanG Mr. Hardwick stated he has spoken with both neighbors and explained the issues to them. Ms. Bogen asked what the backyazd setback requirement is. Mr. Hardwick replied 25 Feet. Ms. Bov�en askcd why the applicant couldn't move the home back and be within the required setbacks. Mr. Hardwick stated he did ask the applicant that and &om his understanding the main area of recreation will be the rear yard. if they move the home back, it would reduce the amount of rear yard and infringe upon the neighbor to the north. There is a 10-foot requirement for a swimming pool and the patio part would then go up to the property line and this would not be the best desi�. Ms. Bogen suggested the applicant could use a different poo( design and this would be a more reasonable use for the land. Mr. Hardwick replied he spoke to the applicant about chat and their reasons had to do with the line of sight views. He stated he will let the applicant speak to that. Mr. Scherman stated that comparing the other variances along the street, he dcesn't believe a 77-foot setback should be required. Mr. Hazdwick replied that part of the reason for this variance is the way the Zoning Adminis[rator has interpreted it. Zoning staf£has determined that this block consfsts oConl} thosc [hree parcels where the properiy curves. 1'he azgumen[ could be made that it should go all the way up the intersection to Upper St. Dennis in which case the two homes on the upper comers would a]so be included. This wouid result in the setback being much less. 1'his was one interpretation made. The second interpretation that zoning staff made was that the two homes that aze existing adjacent to this property aze both oriented to the south rather than to the east and west. If they considered the house to the east, the eastem side of the house as the front yard, then the southern side of the house would have been the side yazd and wouldn't have been figured into this calculation. If they considered the house to the west, the westem part of the house as the &ont yard, again the southem part would have been a side yazd and the applicant would have only been required a 30-foot setback. It seems logicai to the Zoning Administrator and consistent with their policies in the past to consider these two wmer lots as facing the south and therefore use�ose setbacks in detemuning the required setback. � 47-r�� .;: Ffle #96-244 \ Page Two i Debra Revzen, 740 River Drive, passed out an aerial view of the site�to the Boazd. She stated i[ is easier [o see from an aerial view of the different setbacks and how they varv. She stated there are strong architectural reasons for the placemenl of the backyard structured pooi. They have taken a year to develop a home that they believe wzll fit besY in the existing neighborhood. She s2ated that this lot has been vacant for 50 years. The neighborhood consists of mostiy ramblers and they wanted to maintain that appearance aesthetically. They felt it would be improper to pui a 2-story design, hence the placemeni of the gazage because they needed the space for the first f�oor. Because of this they had to come forward and theu primary interest was in keeping the resideace consistent with the aeighborhood. If the house was pushed back, it cvould disrupt the line. She asked that they not have to confoan to the setbacks of which the e:cisting homes didn't have to when they &rst were bvilt, Mr. Tully asked what the dimensions of the house are. Ms. Revzen replied 90 by 46 and ihat the porch extends off of the home. The firon[ door is in the center and the view they wanted was the espansc oC rvltcr upon entering the home. Tom Bren, 8224 Counry Road 6, Maple Ptain, representing the builder, stated that the surrounding homes ia the azea have been built with pians that do not confornt with the setbacic requirements. He further stated that to change the pians at this time would result in hardship financiatly and in the schedule because it woald requue a comp[ete redesign. The width of the lot is actua[[y wider than the appiicant stated becluse that is the street [inear portion of the IoL David Sattinger, 2139 Lower SL Dennis Road, stated he is opposed to the variance request. He stated that their view from their sitting room will be the back of the proposed gazage. The proposed home wil[ a(so block the moming sun from [he neighbor's sun room. The neighbor's view from their �itchen across the street will be looking at the fron[ of the proposed garage. He sta[ed he primarily ohjects to the garage. He doesn't believe there aze compelling reasons for granting the variance because the Iot is quite [arge. The variance request is based on the proposed building plans and not due to deficiencies to the lot. The proposed home will be at the expense of the existing neighbors. The variance is necessitated entirety by the orientation of the pool which drives the home fonvazd. He suggested anoiher pool desig� and garage placement. He stated that none of the other homes have a lazge gazage protruding in front of them and that he had diffiFul[y getting any information regazding the variance request Mr. Tully asked Mr. Sattinger how far he is from his west property line. Mr. Sattinger replied 6.7 feet. He stated he isn t aware what the variances were when the home was built in 1950. Mr. Scherman asked Mr. Sattinger how he would feel if the gazage were moved to the �vest side oC the house. Mr. Sattinger replied that it would then blxk the view of the neighbors on the west side. He suegested thlt a tuck-under garage might work and there are a number of them in the azea. ingunn Henrikssa Sachs, 2165 L.awer SL Dennis Road, stated that the garage will not conform with the rest of the neighborhood. She statec3 that if the home were built 21 feet back as allowed by the Zoning Code they would noi be in opposiUOn. She stated she objecis to the orienTation of the pool overriding the neighbor s views. � � 97 File �96-244 Page Three Jonathan Sachs, 2165 Lower St Dennis Road, stated that every home in the neighborhood is flush and the proposed home would have the gazage prouuding ouc He stated they were given a poor qualiry document to hy and calculate the footage. He stated that the applicant informed him at the District Council meeting [h1t the house plans on which the staff report was based on has changed. He sug�ested Ihat the design oF the pool be changed so the house could be moved back and then they wouldn't be in opposition. Ms. Bogen asked when the mee[ing was at the community center. Ms. Sachs replied on Wednesday. Mr. Sachs stated tha[ at the meeting they were not allowed to ask any questions. He stated they were told at the meeting that the purpose of the meeting was simply to vote on the proposed request. Ms. Sachs stated that the Highland Area Community Council's recommendation was based on the staff report and there are mazsy % inaccuracies. She stated that considering the pool and the patio as being part of the structure of the home is not justifiable in going in opposition to all of the neighbors. L` Henry Snyder, 2170 Lower St. Dennis Road, stated he lives across the street and co the �west of the proposed., home. He stated he is in opposition to the variance request. He stated that the Highland Area Canmunity Council's recommendation was based on the staff report of which he believas [here are a number of mistakes. He stated that the 1ot dimensions aze incorrect and the lot is quite lazge. He stated that the concepc of the property lines aze diYficult to see because of Lower St. Dennis Road not being in the sniddle. He scated that the 21-foot extension of the gazage and the pool laid in a veRical direction racher than a horizonal direction in back is his main objection. He dcesn't believe the applicant has a piight and Imew che zoning restrictions when they purchased the lot. The house as proposed is not in chazacter or keeping wich the rest of the ` neighborhood. The variance is unnecessary and will intecfere with the neighbors. Ms. Sachs submitted a letter to the Boazd in opposition. Ms. Bogen stated that from the testunony of the opposicion at the Hia,hland Area Communiry Council meeting it was stated today that the e�cisting plan was no (onger that which is in [he report. She asked Ms. Revzen to explain what the existing plan is now. Ms. Revzen stated tha[ is total incorrect and [he existing plan is identical to the plan in the packet. She stated there is a small change in a couple of the window sizes in front of the house. She stated that the neigh6ors were allowed to ask many questions at the district meetin� and that she stayed for over an hour after the meeting to discuss house plans and answer any questions of the neigh6ors. She stated thaf Ihe issne is thaf the neighbo{s would like to purchase the lo[ and not have anyone 6uild'on it and they have been appioached by the neighbors for tha[ reason. Ms. Maddox asked Ms. Revzen if they had looked at a tuck-under gazage. Ms. Revzen replied that there isn't enough room to do that on the lot. iV1r. Alton asked Ms. Revzen if she had any other responses to the testimony today. Ms. Revzen repfied that she beiieves the measurements done by the City wete done by a measuring tape as opposed to being paced off. She believes the ciry measurements ate accurate. She stated [hat they had the Zoning Manager on-site and contrary to what the neighbors are saying, there was no setback established for this lot and there is documentation in the packet [o show that. Ms. Revzen stated that the lot size is accurate as stated in [he staff report. , � 1`�t -1 �� ; i l i File #46-244 Page Four Ms. Bogen stated she takes exception to that as one of the applicant's pic[ures states it is 140 feet and the staffreport states differendy. Hearing no fiirthec testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the pubiic portion of the meeting. Mr. Hardwick stated that the findings in the staEf report regarding hardship, in no case of any of the findings did he considec the size or the shape of the !ot as a basis for making ihe fmdings. The findings an@ the hardship are based upon the actual curvature of the street, the location of the pavement wethin the street and the orientation of the otker two homes immedia[ely adjacent to this property. There is some hardship incurred in the method that the Zoning Administrator determined in what properties are to be included in averaging the front setback. He stated that the neie�bors are coaect wttere it states site and conditions that it staTes the lot size is 92 by 250 feeL He stated zhis is a typogaphicai eaor. He stated that Ms. Bogen is correct in that the actual size is more like 150 by 250 feet. He staied that the size of the lot has nothing to do �vith staFfs findings. He stated that the plan ihat is in the packet is the ptan that was originally submitted. He stated that the plan is hard to read because it had to be reduced. If the neighbors had requested to vietiv the plan, they would have been wetcome to and iha[ everything in the file is of public record. He sta[ed that the applicant referred to a zoning manager being on the site and that it was the building inspector. He stated that the building inspector measures each hoase to determine the average &ont setback. Mr. Wilson stated that Ms. Bogen poinTed out that if the house was repasitioned on the lot no variances would be required. Mr. Hazdwick stated thai the applicant would then have to remove part of the patio around the pool in order to set the hovse back Ms. Bogen suggeszed that the applicant could reduce the size of the pool. Mr. Hardwick replied Ihat the applicant could change the entire plan but it is staffs opinion, based on the proposed desi�an which is compatible with the other homes, and the facT ihat it is relatively centered on the lo[, is the least intrusive to all the neighbors. Mr. Tally asked if it is because of the garage or the house that the setback is oeing requested. Mr. Hardw�ck reQlied that the house is proposed to be tocated 97 feet setback from the &ont property line. He stated the house and iwo stalls of the garage could be built without a variance. The two stalls bring the garage out to the required 77 foot front setback Eliminating the third stall would bring it c]ose to meeting the front setback. Mr. Donohue asked what is used in calculating the &ont setback Mr. Hardwick replied that the measurements tal:en are approxirnate because it is difficult without actually surveying the lot to get an exact measurement. The house to the easi measured 80 feet in a line paratlel with the front oE [he home. The acmal rneasurement shoutd be in a line parallel to the front of the lot along Lower St. Dennis Road. The house to the east is acivally setback further than 80 feet. The 80-foot line is at an angle and should be straightened. The Zoning Code defnes a froat yard setback as a iine equal and parallel with the rear yazd setback. In this case, the rear yard is a line running directly east and west across the back of al] of these properties. Ttterefore, the front yard setback has to be aligned parallel to the rear yard setback. If yoa made a line parallet to tke ctosest paint of the street, the setback would probably be more than 80 feet. It is not the same on the west side because the front of the house is parallel to the southern portions of I:o't��i `'er St. Dennis Road. Mr. Hardwick further explaiaed the cneasurecffents along the street to the Board. �� FIle #96-244 Page Five Mr. Scherman moved to approve the vaziance request and resolution based on findings 1 through 6. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 2(Bogen, Maddox). ubmitt��y: � f // . / � i John Hazdwick Approved by: Joyce Maddox, Chair --� '� 7994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE ` �� t � SECTION 106 — PERMITS 1061 Permits Required. Except u specified in Section 106.2 of this sec[ion, no building or scructure re�ulaced by [his code shall be erected, constructed, enlar�ed. altered, repaired, moved. improved, removed, conveaed or demolished unless a separace permic for each buildia� or sccuc- ture has first been obcained from [he buildins officiat. 106.2 FVork Exempt from Permit. A buildine pecmit shafl not be �equiced for che followins: 1. One-story decached accessop� buildings used as cool and s[orase sheds, ptayhouses and simi- lar uses, provided [he projected roof area dces noc exceed l2� square feec ( I I:IS m=). 2 Fences not over 6 fzet (1829 mm) hieh. 3. Oil derricks. . . 4. Mo�able cues, coun[ers and partitions noe o�er 5 fee� 9 inches (17�3 mm) hieh. �. Rzcaining walts which are not overA feet (13 ] 9 mm) in height measured from che boccom of the fooeing [o the cop of che wall, unless supportin� a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III-.4 fiquids. 6. �ia�er eanks supported direcdy upon �rade if the capacity does not exceed 5.000 sallons ( I S 937 L) and the ratio of heighc ta diamecer or width does nat exceed 2 co 1. 7. Plaefortns. walks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above �rade and no[ over � any basemen[ or scory below. LEGISLAT� CODE Sec. 62.I14. Private residential pools and hot tubs. Private outdoor residential pools, both above and below ground, an� hot tubs are permitted as an accessory use �vithin the reaz yard or nonrequired side yard; except that, for multiple-family devei- opments, the planning commission may deter- mine the tocation of the pool or tub. Private out- door pools and hot tubs sha12 meet the following requirements as appticable: (1) There shalt be a distance of not less than ten (10) feet between the adjoining proper- ty line and the outside of the pool wali for aboveground pools. For in-ground pools, there shall be a distance of not less than five (5) feet between the adjoining property ' line and the outside of the pool wall. (2) There shalt be a distance of not less than four (4) feet between the outside pool wall and any building located on the same lot. rED'PLANNING DIV. TEL:9-228-3314 ( Oct �'96 i3:26 No.009 P.02 � �� % � �4 7 ��0 � -. � , : ! � �,. .� + ' �� ___ �OGJ-OQ --- � �l . � .a 3 9�., ,EAS T ' _ ` _ _ - -- 'G7.94 _ - -. --- /,5'0 , oo --- � o � � � l o �._ ._ � ` ` � l � -',EAST ``� v � � s � f �C �z' � Q Q � � �07' 86 � LOT � � � � c o � �7 � � I � ; � do � �� 1 �. � k I � • " °� � ` � � � �V � } E , ,� ? � � � `� , -�.�sT �r"� ! 3° ! � /a' R5 4 �o�'� . r f e .. � � ��., R � K i ,, , ��1,`� j . 5� � �n ; ' �� _ � s N I 0 � � � � �q � __�__G9•9yt---� � � � �� C�� ,E�, /v7•9 I • , 1 4 I . �� ' , 1 1 0 � q � t G h j � �;. �� 1 t � �; �` � � � � �o.: c � � � � 4 � � � : , 1 F i`� ( �- ti�� a� ; I o3�z` � \� �• � J�,y ' ( � �_ E ( � �- ; ° F� ' � ��y ,%. 9� ' wR� zzo ,-"•. = ''- - /35•D3'--' - �""�� _ , _. ,Ef9ST'� :��. _ .!♦ �� ,. • .�� :/00. �. .�/. .Pinr� •.;: °:.: .. ' ,4_55u�n.E"O ..L� � ��^`-:.. . ...- ... fNx:.. � ,. � 7 /�� § s�.�o� Notes to 61.101 R.esidential Districts: LEGISLATIVE CODE (a) Where at least fifty (50) percent of the front footage of any block is built up with prin- cipal structures, the front yazd setback for new structures shall be equal to the aver- age of the existing structures, except that any structure which is set back twenty (20) percent more or less than the average may be discounted from the formula. ZONING CODE § 60202 Block. The property abutting one side of a street and lying between the two (2) nearest intersecting streets (crossing or terminating); or between the nearest such street and railroad right-of-way, unsubdivided acreage, lake, river or live stream; or between any of the foregoing and any other physical barrier to the continuity of development, or corporate boundary line of the municipality. NOV-27-96 WED 11:06 � 11�? Novembe� 26, 1996 Mrs. Debra Revzen Briggs 8� Morgan St. Paul, MN Dear Mrs_ Revzen, N. UL ��-( �r� �� Mapte 6rova Mater(a�s ComD�ex 8701 Monlicelb Lar18 Maple Grova, Minneecta 56369d550 Tatephona (Bi2} 4931506 My name is Joh� P. lazar, i'm a registered Protessional Electrical Eng+neer and the Leader of the Construction & Material Services Team at Northern Sfates Power. Nty team is responsible for developing our distribufion canstruCtion and snate�ial standards. {n addition, we pravide guidance to our personnel regarding the Nationai EleCfrical Safety Code (NESC). The purpose of the Code (NESC) is to profect the pubfic from the consfruction, operation, and maintena�ce o# electricat facilities. Attached is a copy of NESC table 234-3, that indicafes Clearance of Wires, Condudors, 8rtd Cabfes Passing Over or' Near Swimming pools. I've also added a drawing to the bottom of the t�bte that indicates the zone around�and over a swimming pool that must be free of our overhead cpnductors. � For an open supply conductflr, 8000 volts L-G, like the one along the rear property line of 2155 Lower St. Dennis Road, the conductor must be at least 25' {dimens'son A, Figure 234-2} in any direction from the wafer level, edge of poot, or base of a diving board. Dimension B indicates the same conductos must be at least 1T' from the edge of a diving platform. Service voltage cables and open wire Services that are typically 120/Z40 volfs must be at least 22.5' and 23' respectivefy, in any direction from the water iave{, edge of poo4, or base of a diving board. As long as our conductors and cables are outside of the dotfsd zone on the diagram, our facilities Comply with the Nationat Electrica! Safety Code. The pole on the rear property line of the 2155 Lowe� St. Dennis Road is a 4fl' pole that holds two transformers, labeled T24. 7aking info account the poles' depth vf burial, the conducfors are akQUt 33' above the ground at th� pole. At midspan, the conduCtvr sag would cause the conductors to be about 32' high. p �� ohn P. Lazar, P.E. 7eam Leader Construction � Maferial Services c. J. A�tman NOV-27-96 WED 11�07 234E1 Tab423¢-3. ClearanccofWiics�Conduclure,andCR+bJWpp�is�pUQtorNr.orSwimmingPada C� U4 �� /� 28nEi Table 234-3 � Clearanee of Wixes, Gondnctois, and Cahles Passing Ov¢r or Near Stiv�mming PoolsO (volcagen are phase to ground for etFeccivcp� grounded circuSta and thase vther cireuH,a wher� a11 ground faui� an cteazed by yromptly dc-energiuing the faultcd sectiort, both jniliai�y gnd Iollosving snbsequant breaker opv.ratione. See the deCmitions seccion far voiCages ot othcr aysceias, qearances ar� wirh no wind dieplacemenc � ' 9ce Rules 2�SE;1. 234E2, xnd 234H4J Insulated communicat(on Ung�arded conductora and rJgid live parts, cabkr, messengen; 0 w 760 V- � snrgrDrotection nonuuulate�l SupD7Y cabie� w'vos; gronndetl cwnmunkation over 75p V 6W's; neutral conductors, mecting Itules eonduccors meeting suyply cabkc of 2�OC2 or 290Ci; Oyen sUppfy Rule 2S6E1; su�piy 0 to 760 V open sapg� eonductors, cables meeting meeting Rules conduccors, over 75D V Rule 230C1 230C2 or ZSOC,3 0 W 760 v W gZ ky (ft) CR) (R� Cft) A ClearanceinazrydirecUon hom the water levcl edge oE pool, base of diviag platform, or anchored ralt 8, qearamce in aoy direMlon to the di.it�g platform or towet : 22.0 14.0 22.5" tas 23.0 ES.O 16.0 17.0 V. Vprtical cI¢arante over sc�jacent land '� Clearance sha4 be as requized by Rule 232. NOT,�:� A, B, end V ere sham in F7g 234Z. O The cieatance vaiues shown in tbia table are compu[ed by adding the applicable Mechanfcat and Electrlcal (M&� vatue of Tab1e Ad W the appiieable Refemnee Component ot T'sble A-2b ot Appendiu A t' l6� �.$�-2 Swimnainq Pool Clearamces 104 �° NOV-25-96 MON 15�23 v 1 0 q � N \ �3 �\ -.. ' � � ��L:�..�' �� . q V 4l2 P � N � N N \ I ' ��4 / J / �. N a j.- z�a+ 3� -- _. _..._.___.._. � . / �� I 3 � r.j7 � {� � o '�1 '_3 _ � - —':�.� 2 „z " '.- -.—_..,. � .. ,.... �_" " � . 9 h v ; y� i r -, _..._ � ,� , _��_ I '' n .:' 1 �.. _-. v� \ h q S N .�� j __�. , ..�..�......�....�.., .....—._. „ i a i a � v i ry` N � o N � V 1 7 � � � � V N M N , .Y � `,� I ; Yf � U �i a � � � � :/ � � . � � 3 � �—'- � .i a �� I i s �. i n�p r � 4 , �' �.�(� � l � ,,,p ....r- _-, i.. V4�� .-w�.—:.s7�4 ��„ � ..... . ... _. � T ,, '�/ / T3 � 3, r . p � � �,io � 3 ; � i �� f r l - ! _�. \v ; ��OB y� / i a t I � � r' � µ i i � �I � � I .Y � : a � i p [ \ j \ , J �a w I y i I � ; / R; 9 \ I �'� I 0,� ` i � h:. � h � 7 ' m . _'�-'� N � N...�.� N i N : I I J UPPER ST. DENNIS � _ fi r•. � i � ` r�a � , �' � I 1 � LOWER ST DENN�S " � ' n � m i � P " " 41 �; � � �� , \ , � . - 3 j `�, ; ? � , ' � T 33 i i • �r /dXtt "' �. A: �� I ,. ♦ JJOJ.S � N .9�D ��T3z 1' � � �I tl` �� , ��. ' �, e ( � N ��I � �� . � _.�-� � P. 05 97 �� y ,,0 �^« �/ ':,;. . �. J 'i;, ` �I �� v� 1 /