97-833Council File # °l�t -833
Green Sheet # � �� 7 �
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
JRI�I�!A�.
Presented By
Referred To
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Whereas, Mendota Homes, Inc. made application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance
from the strict application of the provisions of the Saint Paui Zoning Code for property located at 496
Laurel Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and legally described as I,ots 13, 14, & 15, Block 9, Woodland
Park Addirion; and
Whereas, the purpose of the application was to vary the standards of the Saint Paul Zoning Code
[§§ 61.101 and 63.107(d)] so as to provide for several setback vaziances as well as a variance of the
separation requirement betcveen buildings, in order to conshuct an 8 unit townhouse development; and
Whereas, The Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearin$ on Apri17, 1997, after
having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, by its Resolution
97-041, adopted Apri17, 1997, granted the variance application based upon the following fmdings and
conclusions:
L The proposed townhouse development, three hvo-unit and two single-unit structures
with a total of 32 zoning rooms, is under the density allowed (38 rooms) for this site. A
low densiry development of one-unit and two-unit buildings that is in keeping with the
Heritage Preservation guidelines and the chazacter of the surrounding neighborhood has
created the need for the variances.
2. The inclusion of this property in a Heritage Preservation Dish and the character of
the surrounding neighborhood are circumstances that were not created by the applicant.
3. A low density development of one-unit and two-unit buildings as opposed to a single,
two or three story structure with as many as 19 apartment units which would be allowed
on this site given the RM-2 zoning and lot size, is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
4. This parcel has street frontage on two sides and abuts an alley on another side. The
setback vaziances for these three sides will not affect the supply of light or air to the
adjacent properties. The variances xequested for the East side of the properiy are
relatively minor and can be further mitigated through landscaping or fencing. The
proposed development, if it meets Heritage Preservation o idelines, wi11 fit in well with
the neighborhood and will not diminish established properiy values.
5. The proposed vaziances, if granted, will not change or alter the zoning classification
of the property.
6. The applicant states that the primary goat of this project is to create a low density
development of one-unit and two-unit structures that is in keeping with the chazacter of
the surrounding area and Heritage Preservation guidelines.
Whereas, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, Judy Beck, Herb
and Marylyn Vogel and Pam Brandt, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination
,.
q1- �33
�
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
made by the Boatd of Zoning Appeals, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the
purpose of considering the actions taken by the Board of Zoning Appeals; and
Whereas, Acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Sections 64205 through 64.208, and
upon notice to afFected parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the Ciry Council on May 7, 1997,
where all interested parties were given an opportuniry to be heazd; and
Whereas, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the vaziance
application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does
hereby
Resolve, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the decision of the Board
of Zoning Appeals in this matter, based upon the following fmdings of the Council:
Having heard the public testimony and considered all the records and files in this matter,
the Council finds no error as to fact, fmding, or procedure on the part of the Board of
Zoning Appeals, and that the Council of the Ciry of Saint Paul hereby adopts and
incorporates as its own, the findings of the Board of Zoning Appeals as set forth above;
and
Be It Further Resolved, based upon the above findings, that the appeal of Judy Beck, Herb and
Marylyn Vogel and Pam Brandt be and is hereby denied; and
Be it Finally Resolved, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Judy Beck, Herb
and Marylyn Vogel, Pam Brandt and Mendota Hames, Inc., the Zoning Administrator, the Planning
Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Adopted by Covncil: Date t�yy� l l�
1
Adoption Certified by Counci � Sec ary
HY: a �
Approved by a o. D�te � 1�
By:
6
Form Approved by City Attorney
B ���<•/w.vr�- t "rP''j'y
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
Byc
c��y co,���
6-18-97 f GREEN SHEET
p � O DEPARiMEM DIREGTOR
��W lO NUMaER FOR � C4TY ATTORPlEY
pp�� �HUDGETOIRECTOR
ORUEF � MpYOR (OR ASSISTAN7J
TOTAL # OF 31GNATURE PAGES (CUF ALL LOCATIONS FOH SIGNATURE)
���4U
� � ��� �
iNR1AUDATE —
cm couwca
CRYCLERK
FIN. 8 MGT. SERYICES OIR.
Finalizing City Coimcil action taken May 7, 1997, denying the appeat of Judy Beck, Her & Marilyn Vogel and Pam Brandt
to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting variances to construct an eight unit towahouse development at 496
Laurel Avenue.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) a pejeC[ (R)
_ PLANNiNG COMMISSION __ CML SERYICE COMMISSION
�. Ci8 COMMRiEE � .
_ STAFF� _ "
_ DISTRICTCOURT _'
SUPPOHTS WMICH COUNCIL O&lECT7VE7
TOTAL AMOUNT OF SRANSACTION S
PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS NUST ANSWER TNE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS:
1. Has Mis pe�soMirm ever worked untler a conmct tor Mis departrneM?
YES NO
2. Has this personfittn ever been a ciy BmPloyee? '-
YES NO
3. Does this personfirm possess a skifl not rro'ma�ly possessed by any cunent city emplqee?
YES NO
Explaln all yes answen on sepatate shae[ sntl ettA¢� to gresn ahee[
COSTlREVENU£ BUDGETED (CIRCIE ONE) YES NO
FUNRIHG SOUHCE ACTIVttY NUMBER
FINANCIAI 1NFDAbSAT10N: �EXPoAIN)
OFFICE OF TF� CITY ATTORNEY �./� �
PegBir7� CityAttorney /lI� �� �a
'l
CIfiY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
civit Divrsion
400 Ciry Hat!
I S West Kellogg Blvd
SainrPaul, Mimlesota SS102
Tetephone: 612 26b$710
Facsimile: 612 298-5614
June 18, 1447
HAND DELIVERED
Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Saint Paul City Hall
RE: Appeal of Mendota Homes, Inc., 496 Laurel Avenue
BZA File No. 97-041
Dear Nancy:
Attached please fmd a signed resolution formalizing the decision of the Saint Paul City
Ccouncil in the above enfided matter. The resolution should be set on the Council's Consent
Agenda at your eaziiest convenience. If you haue any questions please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Very truly yours,
������
Peter W. Wamer
Assistant City Attorney.
OFFtCE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND t�`^� 1��' v ' 1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE(."LION
Robert Kess[er, Direttar
OF SAINT PAUL
Coleman, Mayor
w�r
Aprii 24, 1497
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Keseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
7AWRY PROF£SSIONAL
BUIIDING
Suite 300
350 St. Peter Streei
Saint Paut, Minnesota 55102-IS70
��.�33
Telephone, 612-26G9090
Facsimile: 612-2664049
612-26b9124
I would like to confum that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
May ?, 1997 for the following appeal of a Boazd of Zoning Appeals decision:
Appellant: Tudy Beck, Her & Maryilyn Vogal, Pam Brandt
File Number: 9?-IDO
Purpose: Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting several
variances in order to const�vct an 8 unit townhouse
Address:
development.
496 Laurel Ave
Legal Description of Property: Lots 13,14, & 15, Block 9, Woodland Pazk Add.
Previous Action:
The 9ummit University Planning Council and Raznsey Hill
Association held a joint community issues meeting and
unanimously recommended approval.
Staff recommended approval.
Boazd of Zoning Appeais; Granterl the request on a vote
of ?-0.
My understanding is that this public heazing request wiil appear on the agenda for the
May Y, 1941 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 qbestions.
' cerely,
lohn Hazdwick
Zoning Technician
ec: Cauneil Member Blakey
� NO�CE OF PUBLIC HEARINQ - -
The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, May
7, 1997. iri the City CouncIl Chambers. Third Floor City Hall-6ourt Aouse, to eonsider
the appeal of Judy Beck, Aer & Mazilyn Vogei. and Pam Brandt to a decision of the
Board ofZoning P;ppeals grantingseveraTvariances in order to constnicf an eight unit
townhouse development at 496_Laurel Avenue. -
Dated: April 30, 1997 : - ,
NANCY ANDERSON - � � - - �
Assistant City Ctiuncil Secretary �. -
- ' (May 3, 1997}
Zoning File #:
Project Name:
Applicant c
Telephone:
Representative:
Telephone:
Location:
Legal Description:
Purpose:
Date Received:
Notification Sent:
Aearing Date:
Land Use Map:
Tax Map:
Present Zoning:
District:
District Planner:
xistory:
Notes:
INFORMATION CUVER SHEET
97-160 Zoning Type: Appeal
Appeal File #:
VOGEL APP FflT•
HERB VQGEL
471 ASHLAND AVE
ST PAUL, MN 55102-OODO
(612)224-2053
q�-�33
{612)�00-0000
496 Laurel Ave
Lots 13, 14, & 15, Block 9, Woodland Park Add.
An appeal of a Board af Zoning Appeals deciaion granting several
variances in order to construct an 8-unit townhouse development.
�4/22/97
04�23�97 : .-
Sj719?
20
10
RM-2
8
96-283, 9�-041
�
�3
APPLICATION POR APPEAL
Department af Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
IZ00 City Hall Ann�z
ZS West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
Zip �S I t7 LDaytime phone ZZ - 2 S3
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Zoning File Name �� — 0 � � �I
Address/Locetion � � � Lc� u �y-QQ ��
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeaf to the:
O Board of Zoning Appeais ,�i City Council
under the provisions ofi Chapter 64, Section ' , Paragraph
appeal a decision made by
of the Zoning Code, to
on � �nv-i Q� , 18� F�ife number: J q'I ^0� I
(date o�
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board ofi Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
5 e�. �- � �. � �R-
tYs!21197oaooa1D:31Aif
�CDBO VAR2Ah,CE
G#ECK
Attach additiona! sheet if necessary)
��9
ApplicanYs signature t ?'�4�C� U aR� Date� City agen�� /
al'1- 8'��
Apri120, 1997
City of Saint Paul
City Council
Re: APPEAL OF BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECISION OF APRIL 7,1997
MAILED APRIL 8,1997 ZOIVING FTLE NO. 97-041
We the undersigned do hereby appeal the waivers (approoal of variances) granted by the
Boazd of Zoning Appeals on April 7, 199? for the property at 496 Laurel Avenue for
development by Mendota Homes, also identifying themselves as Pineview Homes.
This appeal is being taken because of enors in the fmdings of facts and procedural errors.
The waiver of the provisions of 61.141 was not in accordance with the requirements
defined in 64.203, The granting of the waiver has a grave negafive impact on the
undersigned and other surrounding property owners of which we are representative and
has an adverse affect on the safety and the public welfare of the neighborhood.
Whereas this appeal is requested by property owners in accordance with the
Notice provisions described in 64.208. This request for appeal is filed, along
with required payment, within fifteen days of the mailing on April 8, 1497.
Erroneous Finding of Facts include but are not limited to numbers 1, 2, 4, and 6.
Fanding #1: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under strict
provisions of the code.
Response: This property can be put to reasonable use and kept within the
requirements of the code. This is a very desirable property comprised of
three adjacent vacant lots, inciuding a corner lot. The terrain is essentially
flat, there are no encumbrances or problems with the land either on the site
or caused by any adjacent property. A similaz development could be
accomplished without the variances or with only minimal variances, with
fewer buildings. An example is attached.
Finding # 2: The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this
property and these circumstances were not created by the landowner.
Response: There is no plight. The applicant has volunteered to develop tlus site.
Inclusion of the properry in the Historical Preservation District is not
}ustification for a variance. None of the variances requested originate
with, or are related to meeting any of the District Guidelines, nor are the
requested variances caused by any of the District Guidelines.
al� - 83�
City Council re: Appeal of Zoning Board file 97-041
Page 2
Finding # 4: The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the
surrounding area and unreasonably diminish the property values within
the surrounding area.
Response: (a). The Laurel Avenue setback variance is not in keeping with the zoning
provisions, street scape or District guidelines. The average setback on the
block is 21 feet. This variance has a significant impact on Laurel, as 150
feet of this pazcel are on Laurel Avenue. There is no reason why these
three vacant lots can not be developed with the same set backs required
and foilowed on this block.
(b). The rear setback variance from 25 feet ta 5 feet significantly impacts
the alley and property across the alley. A safety issue is created with
vehicles (including an increased number of vehicles from this
development) entering and leaving the alley at Mackubin with limited
visibility. Pazking restrictions on Mackubin will be necessary. This
variance atso eliminates light from the reaz windows in the church
condominiums at 114 Mackubin, This is partacularly problematic due to
the height of the buildings. This is a significant negative impact on this
property and would not be allowed without the variance.
(c). The proposed development overcrowds the parcels; the main purpose
of the variances is to put more buildings on the parceL The RM-2 zoning
of the property permits a macimum density, but does not require massive
setback variances to achieve any density.
Finding # 6: The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the
value or income potential of the pazcel of land.
Response: This finding is most glaringly contrary to the Code Provisions.
The applicants propose to fill the parcel with mulYipie buildings. The
number of buildings is only driven by the desire to achieve a higher profit
return. A similar development could be achieved without variances, be in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood and provide for an
adequate return on investment. Councilman Blakey has received a letter
outlining a significant profit mazgin for such a development, based on
industry srandazd figures.
�i'1-8�3
City Council re: Appeal of Zoning Boazd file 97-041
Page 3
Specific Requests:
We urge the Council to reverse and deny the 2 variances granted by the Zoning Board for
the front and reaz yard setbacks. First, the I,aurel setback should be in accordance with
the 61.101 requirements. The average setback for Laurel is 21 feet; we ask that the Laurel
setback variance to I S feet be denied. This is significant'due to the I50 foot frontage on
Laurel. A 21 foot setback is consistent for this block.
Second, the rear yazd setback should be at 25 feet; not 5 feet.
Third, there are at least two code requirements that were not addressed by the variance
hearing and the proposed development is not in compliance with Sections 61.101 ( c)
and 61.101 ( h). For these reasons, the development and site plan must be reviewed in
the context of distances required between all the buildings and open space requirements
for townhomes. •
In conclusions:
There is no hazdship or piight. This is vacant parcel-- (three lots including a
corner lot).
2. When the council overturned the HPC recommendations, the direction from
the council included compromise design discussions. The Laurel Avenue
setback, however, has not been addressed by the detailed design discussions.
The Laurel Avenue setback is a significant design issue, pertinent to both the
Historic Preservation District and to Zoning Code Provisions.
3. There has not been review hy either the city or neighbors of a specific site
pian. This is of particular importance due to the intense lot coverage as it
relates to the water run-off and drainage, snow removal, rubbish removal, and
usability of gazages with the narrow internal driveway. This is pertinent due
to numerous recent design changes.
4. This is an important site and development, worthy of cazeful city planning.
We urge that the development go forward within the intent of the Code.
City Council re: Appeal of Zoning Board file 9?-041
Page 4
Submitted byr,
d� Y = J -��`'
k, 487 Ashland
�,►�, 1� �y�2 �.. ,�t. d,►; 'i„�,. �v�.2-
Henvard & Marilyn Vogel, 471 Ashland
�..��.�.�.�._�-
Pam Brandt, 99 Mackubin
q� -f33
_' -.. wm nrcemaMenal
Grom:OOndtlE.Chue,Jr. Apr20.499T 632.:Op.m.
°1� -8�� 3
litlackubin Avenue
i4�
—�--�--�--�-- -- -- -- --� — �
�29 �� �
� � I°a-ch f'arch I �
I � �� � � � �
,
1 m �� ^ � I
� O 0� '� �� �' T 1
� � e
v c
I g �� � Q� � a�� � 9 �
� F <
� � � � 1 �' � �1
i � --�- 9 -�-- � �, . �
i I� � I �
Q �.� I F � (�
0�� �� a � � , � � �
�� � � � <
� o� � o� � o� a °-�� � ��
I o� � o� � o� � o � a -� � � �
s F
V � � S � I
I � 1
�
f N z I_
I ' � I �` �
i �
I N -� � -� N -� � -� -� S I
� o�� o�a o�� °�, � �
i o�� o o�� � ��� s �
I._.__.�_ __._-. � �_._�
� --- �— -- --'_�. �21—�—
�I-r,� �lan i�ropos�l #�
�{-J� Laurel Av�. S�, paul. MN
°I't-�33
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
1. APPLICANT: MENDOTA HOMES INC.
2. CLASSIFICAT'ION: Major Variance
3. LOCATION: 496 LAUREL AVENUE
FILE # 97-041
DATE OF HEARING: 04/07J9?
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 13, 14, & 15, Block 9, Woodland Park Add.
5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
6. PRESENT ZONING: RM-2 ZONING CODE REFEI2ENCE: 61.1Q1, 63.107 (d)
7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 3l20/97 BY: 3ohn Hardwick
8. DATE RECEIVED: 03/07197 DEADLINE FOR ACTTON: OS/06197
A. PURPOSE: Severai setback variances and a variance of the separation required between
buildings in order to construct an 8-unit townhouse development.
B. ACTION REQUESTED:
1. A front setback of 21 feet from Laurel Avenue is required and a setback of 15 feet is
proposed, for a variance of 6 feet.
2. A rear yard setback of 25 feet is required and a setback of 5 feet is proposed, for a
variance of 20 feet.
3. A side yard setback of 9 feet is required and a setback of 7 feet from the east property line
is proposed for the easternmost townhouse, and a setback of 4 feet from the east property
line is proposed for detached garages for variances of 2 feet and 5 feet respectively.
4. The maximum projection into a required yard for a fireplace is 1 foot and the proposed
projection for all fireplaces is two feet, for a variance of 1 foot.
5. An 18-foot separation between buildings is required and a 10-foot separation is progosed
between units B& C and units D& E and a separation of 14.4 feet between units E& H,
for a variances of 8 feet and 3.8 feet respectivety.
C. STTE AND AREA CONDTTIONS: This is a 141 by 154 foot parcel located at the southeast
comer of Laurel and Mackubin. There is ailey access to the rear of the property. The
property is located within a Heritage Preservation District.
Surrounding Land Use: A miarture of single- and multi-family housing.
�� r F ✓'�
File #97-041
Page Two
D. BACKGROUNU: This parcel was formerly occupied by a one-story commercial structure
that was demolished in 1992. In 1988, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted several variances
to allow construction of a 10-unit townhouse with 28 underground parking spaces on this site.
Atthough the Herita�e Preservation Commission granted approval for the project and the
BZA granted a one year extension, the praject was never started. Tn December of 199b, the
BZA heard a proposal for a variance request to construct a 7-unit rowhouse structure and 2
carriage houses on this site. The matter was continued due to possible changes in the plan.
The developer, Mendota Homes INC., is now proposing this latest plan.
E. FfNDINGS:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of
the code. '
The proposed townhouse development, three two-unit and two single-unit structures with
a total of 32 zoning rooms, is under the density allowed (38 rooms) for this site. A low
density development of one- and two-unit buildings that is in keeping with Heritage
Preservation guidelines and the character of the surrounding neighborhood has created the
need for the variances.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
ciraumstances were not created by the land owner.
The inclusion of this property in a Heritage Preservation District and the character of the
surroundinJ neighborhood 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 welfare of the inha6itants of the City of St.
Paul.
A low density development of one- and two-unit buildings, as opposed to a single, two or
three-story structure with as many as 19 apartment units which would be allowed on this
site given the RM-2 zoning and lot size, is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
4. The praposed variance wilt not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor wilt it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding area or unreasonably
diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
cl rl - p� 3�
File #197-041
Page Three
This parcel has street fronta�e on two sides and abuts an alley on another side. The
setback variances for these three sides will not affect the supply of light or air to the
ad}acent properties. The variances requested for the east side of the property are
relatively minor and can be further mitigated through landscaping or fencing.
The proposed development, if it meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, will fit in well
with the nei�hborhood and will not diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not pemtitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located,
nor would it a(ter or change the zoning district classification of the properry.
The proposed variances, if granted, will not change ot alter the zoning classification of the
property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to iricrease the vatue or income
potential of the parcei of land.
The applicant states that the primary goal of this project is to create a low density
development of one- and two-unit structures that is in keeping with the character of the
surrounding area and Heritage Preservatson guidelines.
F. DISTRICT CO[3NCII. RECOMMENDAT'ION: The Summit University Planning Council
and the Ramsey Hill Association have unanimously recommended approvai of the variances
requested.
G. STAFF I2ECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staffrecommends
approval of the variances subject to the condition that appropriate landscaping or fencing is
added along the east property line.
4�
ZONING BOAflD
/l�l �1�0(�
`° ' �97--oy/
:. ��
APPLICATION FOR Z�NING ORDIfVANCE VARIANCE
iere appropriate. �(` � �
l � YPssc.�`' { �
7 7 �, ��!� �
7
. / �D r
� CITY OF� PAUL /b"� [� 2�'J 3 �
( { J l , ��
A VARIANCE OF ZONiNG CODE CHAPTER r� �, SECTION�_ PARAGRAPH
IS REQUESTED IN CON�ORMITY WVTH THE POWERS VESTED {N THE BOAflD OF ZONING AP-
PEALS TO PERMIT THE �� ���`� � ON PROPERTY
DESCRIBEDBEIOW. T(JLyJf(LYYlGS ,
A. Applicant; NAME:
DAYiIME?ELEPHONE NQ. � jO�a'�7� r 1�i i ZIP CODE �as
t. Property interest of applicant: (owner, contract purchaser, etc.)\ � Z( � Q� sC
y9 ! 2o tJ
2. Name of ow�er (if different) Q�vIQ �� ����� ��� /-
C-
B. Property Description:
7. Legal descriptio
/�,
2. Lot size: �
ADDRESS W�CY�- �C!%-�Z7L I"RL.�...'G�S11.I
1 /�IJS k'c�t,�� ,0.42�
LOT SLOCK�_ ADD. Rd�J f77t�
1 X �o . Z31u�`�
ti/F�ca.vt-- /1 l�1 �
3. Present Use �r Present Zoning Dist. r �" `
G. ReasonsforRequesC
t. Pro use �dGS9If '�b(,til'I t{DuS�= �//*�J��T -- 3 {2(rYf / (
a�Lt G� ���/r��� �Q'C�'7 GU`t� L�CG�r��w Cbn� { tZ -WI
2. Wfiat pFrysicaf charaEteristics f�'he roperty prevent its being used for any af the permitted
uses in your zone? (topography, soil conditions, size and shape of lot, etc.
7ff/5 /S An1 ALtn05� SQuQ2E P.�ctPbtTy l..�{/7/ f?o405 Gh 3
5/ll�sC�NGU,�a/� ALL�Y} Tf/4T�lc!?�7�5 U,dZ14�vLcs
State the
/��b� �� J�t�
4. Exptain how your
of the following:
r .., � f �-r . — v
����� Q�f"� 1 `.�
!
��-�
� a. Tha6 the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar
' or excepUOnal practical difficulties, or exceptional undue bardsbips, s[�((Q/L� S/T� G�/IX
E Prr�vw,t ac.� scT 84cres oa�s ,vor l�vtJ ,rstZF Ta ,p tfausalb
�F/TTwb 7tf75 N�76/f$a21Yot�
r �J31�7f47c�oo�.�i�:t�.^ti � _'�`: i
i_ b. That the granting of a variance wiH �• ,,,;,,�
' not be a substantial tletriment to � F ��HIERS U5E ONLY � -
� &s �� +t33�.�t
; public good or a substanUal impair• ,. ,
� ment oi the intent and purpose of "��t�'` j�'fl '� -"�-+� �� �.
� theZontngOMinar�ce. CHt��GE �,�(}
�t�ill ft� l�vZa
-rt�c hu, l,�t�-ha
��� Z
un�� ���
z�(4� lht�clGit
cv,l( '�n-���re—
:, a �° ,h4�r(�
� ��� �;
..,� . _ -;. _
�.�
?J95
�t�. F�3
��
�
� ------
Ri 1, y ! 1
f1 �iI �i S.s � i�
� �r
� � E. �i z
; � � � �
` � �
i
: �
�i
��
a
�
�
' 1� 1, t I ( {.
j � t�i �i fu �
Li31t5w9bAN
�
' � _ �_ _ _ _�
�i �_ �; �•
i � k� 4a ki
: t � {
�`
� �� � �
� � � �,
� { i�
<�
�' �
���,��
�'
,.
9� -�33
�
2
'n
�
:
���
��
���
� -_-__
-�- ---
� �
g �� ��
--�
�� � �
� ��
�l
I il
lµ
al'1- ��'J
��� l�:
I
�
A �
S '
� �i
� -�t
� = , ,
�
►;
�
�
��
;t
,�
:
RCGOIL7t �IUM� I�1
;ui�lii ii: .
JERRY BLAKEY
Coundlmember
March 18, 1997
CITY OF SAINfi PAUL
OFFICE OF TI� CITY COUNCII.
Ms. Tracey Baker, Chair
Neritage Preservation Commission
cio 1868 Sargent Avenue
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105
Dear Ms. Baker:
�11-�
1 am writing to express my support for the proposed town home �project on Laurei
Avenue and MacKubin Street.
Frank Greczyna and his staff have done an excellent job in addressing the concerns of
the neighborhood and the Heritage Preservation Commission. In fact, the Summit-
University Planning Council and the Ramsey Hi1f Association unanimously supported
the projeci, incfuding the variances for tha front porch and rear setbacks, at their
community issue meeting on March 13, 1997.
i hope that the heritage Preservation Commission wiil consider the
my o�ce and the neighborhood extend to this pro}ect in considerin
requested.
Sincerely,
Jerry B
City Co cilmember
variances
���� �
n . -�
cc: Frank Greczyna �Y 1'^' "" n J
Aaron Rubenstein �(
Summit-University Ptanning Counci( �f
Ramsey Hill Associatian � � j�� -
� J�"�"
CITY HALL THIRD FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
s .�..<a
PdnRd ou Raycled Paper
t/"" '
)�
U� � ,
� Jf 1 �." � �
� ��� ,
�� " "V �
612J266-86J0
a�_��3
Shaping the future of a historic neighbofiood in Saint Paui
400 Selby Avenue, Sui[e M, St. Paul, MN 55102
March 17, 1997
John Hardwick
LIEP
350 St. Peter St. Suite 300
St. Paul, Mn. 55102-1510
Dear Mr. Hardwick,
On March 13, 1997 the Ramsey Hill Association held a community
issnes meeting concerning the several variances requested by Mendota
Homes for the development at 496 Laurel Ave. - your file #97-041.
The neighborhood was noticed of the meeting and several neighbors
were in attendance.
The Association approved all of the variances requested. We are
impressed with the quality of this project and laok forward to seeing it
built.
S' cer y,
� ��l�.Gu i��
ud McLaughlin, President
sey Hill Association
SUMM�T-17NIVERSIT'Y
�'LAI`�i'NING COUNCIL
°t'1-�'33
i
827 Se{by Avenue --��--�
Saint Paul Minnesote 651Q4 ' ' ' '—'
7'elephone 228-1855
Friday, Maxch 14, 1997
Board of Zoning Appeais
25 West Fowth Street
Saint Paut, M�nnesota 55142
Ii�: zoning Fi1e # 47-041
The Summit University T'lanning Couacil, together with the Ramsey Fii3i Association
casponsored a Community Tssues meeting which was held Thursday, March 33, 3997 to
provida a forum for neighborhood input on Mendota �Tomes Inc.'s request for several
setback varixnces and a variance of the separation required beiween buildings in order to
construct an 8 unit townhouse developmenk.
Project developers made a presernation wktich ineiuded architectural renderings of the
projeot and responded to questions from tl�e community. Pursuam to #his and other
infomiation shared, a rnotion was made and �assed ananimously to approve the varianas
as requested.
Tf you have any questions pr nesd further information, please contact me at Z28-1855.
Sincerely,
7°��.�-
Peggy Byrne
Bxecutive birector
Z0'd 54:00 lki8 t6-ST-21liW
fQ. 90 J1
/
APP�fCAN7 Mc1'1�0"FCA ��'.S _111C_.
PURPOSE MQ�r �af1 nee'
-,�E a 9 or. y•�• 9�7
'LNG. DIST � � ktAP #7 �—
;CAI.E 1' = 400'�
LEGEND
....��, zoning district boundary
� subjed property
0 one famiiy
� N+o famity .
'�¢Q muttipfe famity
<nonhl
• � � commerciai
� �.,. industrial
V vacant
. ,.
o��, f��
1. SUNRAY-BATIT.ECREEK-HIGHWOOD
2. HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERTTY HILLCREST
3. WEST SII7B
4. DAYTON'S BLUFF
5. PAXNE-PHALEN
6. NORTEi END
7, THOMAS-DALE
8. SUMMfT-UIv'IVERSTTY
9. WEST SEVENTH
10. COMO
11. HAMLINE-MIDWAY
12, ST. ADITFiONY PARK
13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE
14. MACALESTER G120VELAND
15. T3IGHI.AN7�
16. SL3MMTT HILL
17. DOWNfOWN
CITIZEN PARTICII'ATION PLANh�Ii�?G DISTRICI'S
Gr� .�'S�
MINUTES OF THE MEETIIdG OF THE SOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COLJNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, APRIL 7,1997
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs. A1tAn, Donohue, Scherman, Tully and WHson of the
Boud of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hardwick and
Ms. Synstegaazd of the O�ce of License, Inspection, and Environmentat Protectioa
ABSENT None
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddo� Chair.
MENDOTA HOMES INC (#97-041) - 496 LAUREL AVEN[JE: Several setback variances and a
variance of the sepazation required betrveen buildings in order to construct an 8-unit townhouse developmenk
The applicant was present. There was no opposition present at the hearing.
Mr. Audwick stated that a revised site plan that changes the requested sepazation from 10' to 7' between the
buildings was submitted by the applicant subsequent to a campromise with the Ramsey Hill Association and
a representative from Councilmember Blakey's office. The Heritage Preservat�on Comtnission reviewed tlils
matter and denied the agplicatiott last week. Their denial was based on: 1) the orientation of the comer
building to MacKubin rather than Laurel is not compatible with the chazacter of the district; 2) the proposed
development is also incompafible with the character of the district because of the unifotmity of design of the
proposed buildings; and 3) the proposed 15' setback from Laurel Avenue conflicts with the districPs
guidelines and is incompatible with the character of the district.
Mr. Hazdwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval
subject to the condition that appropriate landscaping or fencing is added along the east property line.
One letter was received in opposition stating there is no demonstrated hardship and they feel this
development is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Hazdwick asked Mr. Wamer to address the ]egal implications of a revised site pian in regazds to
notification purposes. Mr. Warner stated that the submission of the site plan at this particulaz time doesn't
affect this hearing on the variances requested.
Ms. Bogen stated that number five under acuon requested of the staff report is inconect since the applicant
initially requestetl a 10' variance sepazation and now they aze asldng for a 7' separation She added that where
the buildings aze placed on the property doesn't make any difference as far as the side yazd setbacks, but the
setbacks for the variances between the separation of the buildings is different. Mr. Warner replied that is
correct but the purpose of today's hearing it is to allow people an opporhuiiry to be heard. He stated that it is
his opinion ihat the difference of 3' in a building not yet built and not adjacent to any presently occupied
structure, is not necessarily going to preclude anybaly from tesfifying to that fact taday in what impact that
might have overall on this project. Nevertheless, the Boazd wuld state that they've not had an adequate time
to reviecv the documents and lay the matter over.
a� -�
File #97-041
Page Two
John Mathem, Mendota Homes, Inc., Box 416, Forest Lake, Minnesota, stated that they have a new proposal
resulting from their meeting with the Ramsey Hill Association. The proposal is for eight living units, ttu�ee 2-
unit build'urgs and two detached buildings on the comu of Laurel and MacKubin. He stated that they took
direction that they received from the citizens at the neighborhood meet�ngs. One request was to reduce the
density and that none of the gazages front the alley. They have done that by intemalizing the garages oa the
site plan. In meetings with the community organizer and a siaff inember from Councilmember Blakey's
office, they have come to a conctusion that they could produce the sazne buildings with a front porch and side
views by simply turning one two-unit onto Laurel. In this way they would present two 2-units. He presented
a large site plan drawing to the Boazd and explained them. The side yazds will go from 16' to 7' wluch is why
they need the variances. They don't feel ihis is a significant change, although it would alleviate concerns of
having more units on Laurel and ]ess on MacKubin. The HPC didn't support them but they did receive
neighborhood support and support from Councilmember Blakey's office. They feei this plan is in keeping
with the neighborhood character which is mixed with a commerciai building across the street and townhomes
further down the block. They don't feel the setback on Laurel was a significant issue because of the various
setbacks along the street.
Dick Hidey, HRM Architects, passed azound a graphic drawing that showed th� setbacks more clearly. They
feel their setbacks aze a blend of what you find on the strat.
Mr. Aiton asked if there was a revised elevation drawing of the view from MacKubin. Mr. Mathern replied
no, but explained how it would look on a drawing he passed azound to the Board.
Ms. Bogen asked if one of the buildings on MacKubin would be a side view. Mr. Hidey replied yes and
sho�ved the drawings to the Board. ~•'
Mr. Alton asked if the side yard setback on the two-unit building would be more than 1Q'. Mr. Mathern
replied it would be 18' away from the other 2-unit on the side and they exceed the side yard setbacks on
MacKubin. He stated that ihe reaz yazd is within 7' of the side yard of the next twin home. Mr. Hidey stated
that when they rotated the twin home to front on Laurel they had lazger back yazds then the previous plan,
They were delighted with that change and fee] more positive about this plan than they did with the originai
one. They also increased the width of the driveway from 20' to 24'. This was a concem to some of the
neighborhood residents.
Mr. Alton stated that tlus proposed plan was obviously designed with the consideration of the HPC
Guidelines in mind. Mr. Mathem and Mr. Hidey replied yes. Mr. Alton asked what limitations that presented
to them in terms of fitting the plan onto the site? The limits they found are that the site fronts aspbaIt on
three sides. They felt that by fronting more usuts on Laurel it would be a positive change and that is why
they revised their site plan.
Mr. Alton stated that the developer could build a three-sWry squue brick apartment building with a asphalt
parking lot and meet the zoning requirements. However, the developer chose to try and comply with the HPC
guidelines and designed this current plan.
Mr. Hidey stated that they designed eight units and have tried to make them appeaz as detached as possible.
a�_��3
File #97-041
Page Three
3udy McLaughlin, President of the Ramsey Hill Association, stated that they met with the developer in
conjunction with the Neighborhood Development Committee of District 8 and have made significant headway
in working with the neighborhood to come up with a design and configuration that takes into consideration
the character of the neighborhood and the historic district_ They voted unanimously to approve the variances
that were originalty proposed to the Board. One of the issues the HPC had was the orientation of ihe
buildings. The developers wers willing to change this.
3erry Mcinemey, I.egislative Aide to Councilmember Blakey, stated their office went to the developers and
asked them if there were things they could do hy flipping the buildings. They also asked them to revise their
porch design to include an all wood front. The HPC appeal will come befare the City Council on Apri19.
Mazch 13 was the date of the community meeting where the variances were unanimously approved. Last
Wednesday they met with the developer to come to an agreement. He apologized for the confusion of the site
plan but stated it was an effort to try to get the development moving forward and to come to an agcernent to
hy and satisfy all parties. �
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Alton moved to approve the variance and resolution based on fmdings i through 6 subjut to the
condition that appropriate landscaping or fencing is added along the east property ]ine.
Mr. Scherman seconded tha motion.
Ms. Bogen staeed that she wouldn't be opposed to the variances except she feels that a 7' separation wiU lead
to overcrowding on the block and limited airflow to people in the uniks ihat are affected by the 7' sepazation.
Mr. Alton stated his motion was for the 7' separation variance on the latest revised plans.
Mr. Hazdwick stated that the required separation between buildings is 18' so the revised site plan would
require a variance of 11' between the two units that front on MacKubin, and on the double units that front on
both MacKubin and Laurel. On B. 5. o� the staff report it should state, "An 18-foot sepaza6on is required
between the buildings fronting on MacKubin and the rear of the north comer building on Laurel, and a 7-foot
sepazation is proposed, for a variance of 11 feet " He stated that the 14.4 feet and 3.8 feet can be stricken
because they are no longer required. The applicant has gained the required sepazation between the buildings
that &ont on Laurel.
Mr. Alton moved to amend his motion to comply with the 11-foot variance.
Ms. Bogen stated that she dcesn't understand why there dcesn't need to be a reno�cation for residents who
may be concemed about how close the buildings are.
Mr. Warner stated that the changes as requested are zelatively minor and formal notice of the entire ptoposal
is not necessary.
-..
°l� _ �"� 3
File #97-041
Page Fow
The Boud voted unarumously to approved the amendment to the morion on a vote of 1 to 0.
The motion passed on a roll call vote of 7 to 0.
5 ,�.� ���/C/�
John Hazdwick
John Tully, Secretary
CITY OF SAINT PAUL �� �
BOARD OF ZONING AP'PEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMSER: s7-oai
�I�T�' : Apri17,1997
WHEREAS, MENDOTA HOMES INC. has applied for a variance from the strict application of
the provisions of Section 61.101, 63.107 (d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the
coastruction of an 8-unit townhouse development in the RM-2 zoning district at 496 LAUREL
AVENUE; and
WF�',REAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 04/07/97,
pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64205 of the Legislative
Code; and
WHEREA5, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public
hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the
code.
'The proposed townhouse development, three two-unit and two single-unit structures with a
totai of 32 zoning rooms, is under the density allowed (38 rooms) for this site. A 1ow density
development of one- and two-unit buildings that is in keeping with Heritage Preservation
guidelines and the chazaeter of the surrounding neighborhood has created the need for the
variances.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The inclusion of this property in a Heritage Preservation District and the character of the
sunounding neighborhood 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 welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paui.
A low density development of one- and two-unit buildings, as opposed to a singie, two or
three-story structure with as many as 19 apartment units which would be allowed on this site
given the RM-2 zoning and lot size, is in keeping with the chazacter of the neighborhood.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor will it alter the essential character of the sunounding azea or unreasonably
diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
�� , ���
File #97-041
Page Two
This parce] has street frontage on two sides and abuts an alley on another side. The setback
variances for these three sides will not afFect the supply of light or air to the ad}acent
properties. The variances requested for the east side of the property are relatively minor and
can be further mitigated through landscaping or fencing.
The proposed development, if it meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, will fit in well with
the neighborhood and will not diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not pemutted under the provisions
of the code for the properiy in the district where the afFected land is located, nor would it alter
or change the zoning district classification of the properky.
The proposed variances, 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.
The applicant states that the primary goal of this project is to create a low density
development of one- and two-unit structures that is in keeping with the character of the
surrounding area and Heritage Preservation guidelines.
NOW, TF�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the
provisions of Section 61.101 and 63.10? (d) are hereby waived to allow the foilowing variances in
order to construct an 8-unit townhouse development: 1) A front setback of 15 feet along Laurel
Avenue; 2) A rear yard setback of 5 feet; 3) A side yard setback of 7 feet from the east property
line for the eastern most townhouse, and a side yazd setback af 4 feet from the east property line
for the garages; 4) A variance to allow fireplace chimneys to pro,{ect 2 feet into a required yazd;
and 5) A 7-foot separation between the buildings on the west side of the properiy, subject to the
condition that appropriate landscaping or fencing is added along the east property line on property
located at 496 LAIJREL AVENUE and legally described as Lots 13, 14, & 15, Blk 9, Woodland
Park Add.; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the
Zoning Administrator.
File #97-041
Page Three
MOVED BY: Atton
SECONDED BY : 5cherman
IN FAVOR: �
AGAINST: o
MAILED: Apri18, 199�
�t"1. ���
TIME LIMIT No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration
• of a buiiding or off-street parking facility shall be vatid for a period longer than
one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained
within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the
terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appea]s or the City Council may
grant an extension not to exceed one yeaa In granting such extension, the
Board of Zonsng Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing.
APPEAL Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City
Council withia 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buifding permits
shali not be issued after an appeal has been fled. IEpermits have been issued
before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and
construction shal! cease until the City Cauncil has made a final determination of
the appeal.
CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeais for the City of
5aint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify thak 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 meeting held on
Apri17,1997 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and
Environmental Protection, 350 St. PeYer Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOl�'ING APPEALS
�L�;����.�i'��
Sue Synstegaard
Secretary to the Board
PUBLIC HEARtNG NOTICE
Ciiy Councii
Appeal of Decision
TO
APPLICANT
PURPOSE
LOCATION
OF PROPERTY
TIME OF HEARfNG
PLACE OF HEARING
HOW TO PARTtCIPATE
Property Owners within 350 feet;
Representatives of Planning District 8
a� -���
Judy Beck, Herb & Marilyn Vogel, Pam Brandt
Appeai of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting
several variances in order to construct an 8 unit
townhouse deve{opment.
496 Laurel Avenue
Wednesday, May 7, 1997 at 4:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor Ciiy Hali-Court House
15 West Ke{logg Boulevard, Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102
1. You may attend hearing and testifiy.
2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the O�ce
of LIEP, Attn: John Hardwick, 350 St. Peter Street,
Suite 300, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
3. Participation is not required. This is your notice of
public hearing.
ANY QUESTIONS Caii John Hardwick of the Office of LIEP at 266-9082 or
your District Council Representative at 228-1855 with the
foflowing information:
Zoning Fife Number 97-100
� ;�: �����, ��ra�� Zoning File Name Judy Beck, Herb & Marilyn Vogel, Pam
' Brandt
^ ia�7
e;��;a � �r
_ .w«.�.:::
�( ��
�� 3
May 5,1997 � � �
COUNCILMEMBER JERRY BLAKEY
ST. PAUL CITY COUNCIL
RE: PETITON RELATING TO APPEAL OF ZOI�TING BOARD
DECISION ZONING FILE NO. 97-041(Battle Electric site)
Attached are signatures (received to date) of 28 property owners alarmed at
the magnitude and extent of the variances granted to Mendota
Homes/Pineview Homes for the above project. These multiple variances
produce an over-crowded, overbuilt project which will have a profound
effect on this neighborhood.
We collected support from property owners on all sides of the site,
including the next door neighbor (Dider), the 3 houses across the site on
Laurel, the Firenze Building on Mackubin, the Church Condo across the
alley, the other properties off the alley near the site, as well as other near-by
properties on Laurel, Mackubin, and Ashland. Some people plan to write
their own letters, and some thought the petition too mild. Virtually every
property directly affected is represented on this petition.
We are presenting this petition because we are concerned that you may have
been led to believe that this project has widespread support from the
surrounding community. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Respeetfully,
� � � ��
Herb & Marilyn Vogel
Attachments: 3 pages of petition and original signatures
1 list of names & addresses arranged in order around the site
; cc. John Hardwick, Board of Zoning Appeals
PETITION
Date 3 0 � 7
To: Councilmember Jerry Blakey
Re: Zoning Fite No: 97-041
Laurel-Mackubin project by Mendota Homes, also known
as Pineview Homes.
�
We the undersigned urge the City Councii to honor the spirit
and intent of theCity Zoning Code as well as the HPC
Guidelines by requiring the above developers to reduce
the number of units to 7 instead of 8.
STREET ADDRESS
�
�
�.I� � ��(� ���w C� � �-v; ,��?
�g3
�5� ���-� �-�-
f� . /'�2 � �� �/7 � I,���
� �: -�
�� p-- ��.,.��1�1ti`'��.�.� ��l ��<�� '�E. ,-�vv3
� ���� ' �-i�l ��� n�..
�1
� ` ``��'
� �� � ���- ��
� ��
�� ...�� ��
PETITIQN
Date � 30 9 7
To: Councilmember Jerry Blakey �, ��3
Re: Zoning File No: 97-041 �
Laurel-Mackubin project by Mendota Homes, a{so known
as Pineview Homes.
We the undersigned urge the City Councii to honor the spirit
and intent of theCity Zoning Code as well as the HPC
Guidelines by requiring the above developers to reduce
the number of units to 7 instead of 8.
STREET ADDRESS
i� �� �k�.l�,�� �a
�r i ����-�� r h. �7
� a � M�,� �.G �� �, �
`��� ,��� ��� s
�� r�,.�.�...
��� ����
� �- �-�-���-
��z �� �-
`f7Z L�c���� Av'�
SIGNATURE
PETITION
Date�����c•t 27, (q . I
To: Councilmember Jerry Blakey �
Re: Zoning File No: 97-Q41
Laurel-Mackubin project by Mendota Nomes, a(so known
as Pineview Homes.
We the undersigned urge the City Council to honor the spirit
and intent of theCity Zoning Code as well as the HPC
Guidelines by requiring the above developers to reduce
the number of units to 7 instead of 8.
STREET ADDRESS
s
�4� �1r�. `,� �P� � =Y�t� SS 1v2
�
��s� � � ��
�`J � +��.rc.LC..u�., � 3-03G9
�f5� �cuci. ��� ��.
`f7l �.��e�-�� � ��-a�ss` ; .
�f�/ ,�-,1��..�
`t �i ��(� �
�i , �, ,, � -
SIGNATURE
Petition to Jerry Blakey May 5, 1997
File no 97.041
PETITION SIGNERS t1RRANGED BY ADDRESS:
1. 482 Laurei Avenue
2. 482 Laurel Avenue
3. 472 Laurel Avenue
4. 472 Laurel Avenue
5. 458 Laurel Avenue
6. 493 Laurel
7. 491 Laurel Avenue
8. 491 Laurel Avenue
9. 487 Lattrel Avenue
10. 481 Laurel Avenue
' 11. 475 Laurel Avenue
12. 117 Maakubin # 2
13. 117 Mackubin # 7
14. l l7 Mackubin # 6
15. 114 Mackubin
16. 99 Mackubin
17. 89 Mackubin
l8. 491 Ashland Avenue
19. A91 Ashland Avenue
20. 487 Ashland Avenue
21. 483 Ashland Avenue
22 4&3 Ashland Avenue
23. 471 Ashland Avenue
24. 471 Ash3and Avenue
25. 4b4 Ashland Avenue
26. 451 Ashland Avenue
27. 453 Ashland Avenue
28. 448 Ashland Avenue
Sue Didier
Chazles Didier
Kate McGu'ue
Ray Hofhnann
Paula Moliin
Sherrill Gannon
Dawn Ellerd
Jeff Ellerd
Robert C. Sordan
Richard McDermott
Mary Morris
Mary E. Pound
Parker Fiery (sp??)
Martin Zeger(sp??)
William Conley
Pamela J. Brandt
Harvey Sherman
Dayton Gilbert
Brenda Gilbert
Judith A. Beck
Dan Mueller
Diane Mueller
Marilyn Vogel
Herb Vogel
Tom Davis
Elis Ljungkuil
Gene Nelson
Len Jackson
fy/�. ���
�.�
l C �
95 Mackubin
St. Paul, MN 55102-2021
Apri130, 1997
Mr. John Hardwick
Office of LIEP
350 St. Peter Street
Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55102
RE: Zoning File Number: 9?-100
Zoning File Name: Judy Beck, Herb and Marilyn Vogel
Dear Mr. Hardwick:
I am unable to attend the Wednesday, May 7 appeal meeting for the above case.
However, I object to the decision made by the Boazd of Zoning and the St. Paul City
Council related to the property at 496 Laurel Avenue. My reasons follow.
/ �� � �
�,�.Y��
i. The plan proposes massive buildings and limited green space. This space is
zoned for far less dense construction. If it weren't, a variance wouldn't be necessary.
Why not construct a building that is in keeping with the zoning ordinances? The
surrounding buildings to the west and south of 496 Lawel Avenue are all very lazge
multiple dwellingslmultiple organization offices. The overall concentration of massive
buildings along Mackubin from Holiy to Laurel is ea-tremely high.
2. This plan is presented by people who don't currently live in the neighborhood
and, most likely, will not live here in the future. Insteati, they are developers who will
never have to live with the overly dense housing they propose.
3. I was distressed to read that this proposal had been supported by my council
reprasentative, Jerry Blakey. Ifthis is correct, this decision seems to have been made
against the eapress desires of the nearest neighbors. It was certainly made without my
input. Why didn't I receive a cali from my council representative or his staff prior to this
decision? How can an informed and reflective decision be made without seeking this
input? How is it that my council representatives can always locate me at election time
and never seek my opinions when changes are to be made in the neighborhood?
4. In principle, I am against variances. Variances require a citizen to enforce the
zoning codes, rather than govemment officiais enforcing the laws they are sworn to
uphold. In the 20 plus years I have lived in this neighborhood, I have been asked
numerous times to police my neighbors through granting or not granting variances. In
every incidence I can think of, I have later come to regret agreeing to the variance.
While in theory legislation-by-variance might seem wise, what happens i;� practiee is that
generalty citizens agree to a variance rather than f ght a neighbor and create ili feeling
within their mutual tiving space. Prior to the construction, one simply cannot know how
helshe will be afFected by the ftnished construction. Once the construction is finish, there
is no way to reverse the variance.
Two such variances stand out in my mind One involves the garages which are along the
ailey just south of my home. Because those garages where built into the private alley
behind my house, my access to tha4 space (on which I pay Yaxes) is reduced. Another is
the ]oading dock at the St. Paul Church Home across Mackubin at which semi-trucks
regularly untoad eariy in the moming, causing noise and disturbing my sleep.
Zoning ordinances and codes were put in place for specific reasons—supposedly for the
greater good of the majoriry of the peopie. Why then is one person or one gmup of
peopie aliowed to manipulate those zoning ordinances, through the variance process, to
gain a specific favor at the majority's eazpense? Once a variance is granted, all people
foHpwing must live with that special concession granted to a singie person/singte group
of peopie. This is bad policy. Instead of finding ways around them, why not require
people to live within the zoning ordinances?
In summary . . .
• I urge you to reject this proposa! anc! the variances it reqnires.
• I urge you to uphold the zoning ordinances.
• I urge you to consider the wishes of cunent tax-paying residents of Yhis neighborhood.
• I urge you to maintain the atmosphere of our neighborhood.
• I urge you Yo consider the wotk that many of the current residents have put into this
neighborhood over the past 3Q plus years to preserve an important part of St. Paui's
lustory.
Please work with us to continue to pteserve Ramsey Hill and this beaurifui city. Please
reptesent the residents of your city.
Sincerety,
�
Margazet Ann Aennen
Ramsey I3i11 Resident
CC: Jerry Blakey
F
��- � ���
' Row Detached
House House q'1-P
Base sq. ft. cost {above grade)
Sq, ft. refinements:
HUAC
Basement (unfnished)
Fireplace (2 story)
Garage (2 car)
Adjnsted sq. ft. cost
Arealshape multiplier
Refined per sq. ft. cost
$39.99
+3.65
+5.91
+1.5G
+z•ss
$53.96
�
$53.15
$4G.10
+3.G5
+5.91
+1.56
+2.$
$60.07
1.063
$63.85
Current cost multiplier
Local multiplier (St. Paul)
�inal�sq. ft.�cost � _ � �1��`!31 �''� $73.CiC�=
1.03
1.12
1.03
1.12
Source: Marshall and Swift Cost Service
� Cost Summary — 8 Units
��-���
Base construction cost of buildings:
Row House C$G1.311sf x 1600 sf x 6=
Detached Home C� $73.G6/sf x 1600 sf x 2=
Total base cost of buildings
Site improvement costs
Indirect costs (not included in base costs)
Land acquisition
Total estimated development cost
Total cost per square foot of building area
$588,576
235,712
8 Unit Development
Gross proceeds � $200,000 per unit
Less: Sales commission @ 7%
Less: Development costs
Net Profit
Discounted C� 12% for 6 month sellout
Discounted C� 12% for 2 mo. develapment
$425,3501$1,600,000 = 26.58%
$824,288
50,000
10,000
1 4 00
$1,038,788
$81.1G
$1,G00,000
112,U00
1,038,788
$449,212
$433,900
$425,350
$425,350/$1,038,788 = 40.95%
O�� �. ��
' Cost 5ummary — 7 Units
Base construction cost of b.uildings:
Row House C$61.31Isf x 160d sf x 6=
Detached Home C� $73.66Jsf x 1600 =
Total base cost of builrlings
Site improvement costs
Indirect costs (not included in base costs)
Land acquisition
Total estimated development cost
Total cost per square foot of building area
7 Unit
$588,57G
117,856
$70G,432
50,000
10,000
1 4 00
$920,932
$82.23
Gross proceeds C$200,000 per unit
Less: Sales commission � 7%
Less: Development costs
Net Profit
Discounted C 12�10 for 6 month sellout
Discounted C� 12°lo for 2 mo. development
$360,8251$1,400,000 = 25.77%
$1,400,000
9$,000
29 0,932
$381,068
$3f 8,078
$3G0,825 -
�3Ga,s25/$920,932 = 39.i8��o
` Cost Summary - 6 Units
Base construction cost of buildings:
Row House C� $61.311sf g 1600 sf x 6=
Total base cost of buildings
Site improvement costs
Indirect costs (not included in base costs)
Land acquisition
Total estimated development cost
Total cost per squaze foot of building area
$588,57G
6 Unit Development
Gross proceeds C$200,000 per unit
Less: Sales commission C� 7°l0
Less: Development costs
Net Profit
Discounted @ 12% for 6 month sellout
Discounted C� 12°lo for 2 mo. development
$297,3211$1,200,000 = 24.78%
� � .. �33
$588,57G
50,000
: 11!
1 54,500
$801,076
$83.45
$1,200,000
84,000
801 •076
$314,000
$303,297
$297,321
$297,3211$801,076 = 37.12%
5�����
��t-��3
May 7, 1997
John Hardwick! St. Paul Office of LIEP
350 St. Peter St., Suite 300
St. Paul, MIV 55102
fte : Development of 496 Lauref Ave Site
Dear Mr. Hardwick:
The proposed devlopment site is directly across the street from our
residence, and we see it every day from our front porch.
My wife(Dianne) and I have recently studied the proposed plan for
deve{opment by Pineview Homes, carefully considered this new design,
and thoughtfully discussed the issues raised by the requested variances.
We strongly oppose this development. Over the long term it will
significantly degrade the value of this neighborhood as well as our own
personat property investment.
The particular legai and architectura! reasons for our objection are
ciearly articulated '+n the "Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals Decision of
Aprii 7, 1997lMailed Apr+l 8; Zoning Flle No. 97-041" (J. Beck, H&M Vogel,
P. Brandt) , as well as the HPC recommendations. The excessive set-back
variances on Laurel & the rear alley are the most egregious parts of the
current pfan.
However , dwelling on the specific legal points of the above ruling
deflects attention from a major point: these zoning rules and
architectural guidetines play a fundamental role in maintining the long -
term health, viability, economic vatue, and continuing
investmenUrehabilitation of this neighborhood and those immediately
surrounding . For example ihe HPC and zoning guidelines support the
architectural and aesthetic value of this area, keeping the "historic"
ambiance as a major component of our real-estate va{ue. If we do not
pay attention to the intent of the guidelines we will see degradation of
value and living standards in this neighborhood.
''r
k
,a _��3
�
Dianne and I have invested many tens of thousands ofi dollars in renovation
costs in our home since 1592. We bought the house in an uninhabitable
state while the Battie Electric building still occupied the 496 Laurel site.
This was a major financial risk for us. We painstakingly worked to obtain
approva{ of the HPC , foliowed aii zoning rules, embraced the spirit and
intent of the "Historic Dlstrict", and sincerely believed we had an
obligation to improve the aesthetic appearance ofi this area.
Why should the developer not be heid to the same standards?
in consideration of this appeal please consider this: as residents we have
a long-term financial and personaf stake in this neighborhood; the
developer only has a short-term financial one. The developer is not a
resident, enabling him to "get the money and run" without accountability
far the long-term wel{-being of the area. To continue improving the
precarious heaith of this lovely old part of St. Paul, a process started
more than 20 years ago by committed residents, demands thai we do the
right thing for the community.
Respectfully
G '��c G S�
Robert C. Jordan
487 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN
ph: 290-0213
�.
�M
�
°I�-��3
TO
APPLICANT
PUBLiC HEARING NOTICE
City Council
Appeat of Decision
Property Owners within 350 feet;
Representatives of Planning District 8
.ludy Beck, Herb 8� Marilyn Vogei, Pam Brandt
PURPOSE Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting
several variances in order to construct an 8 unit
townhouse devefopmerrt.
�dCATiON
OF PROPERTY
TIME OF HEARING
PLACE OF HEARING
HOW TO PART{CIPATE
496 Laurel Avenue
Wednesday, May 7, 1997 at 430 p.m.
City Counci{ Chambers, 3rd Ffoor City Haii-Court House
15 West Keilogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
1. You may attend hearing and testify.
2. You may send a fetter before the hearing to the Office
of L1EP, Attn: John fiardwick, 350 St. Peter Street,
Suite 300, Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102
3. Participation is not required. This is your notice of
pubiic hearing.
ANY QUESTlONS Call John Hardwick of the Office of LiEP af 266-9082 or
your District Councii Representative at 228-1855 with the
following information:
Zoning File Number 97-100
- Zoning File Name Judy Beck, Herb & Marilyn Vogel, Pam
Brandt
.._ :. ti ��;�i
�
U
�
Council File # °l�t -833
Green Sheet # � �� 7 �
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
JRI�I�!A�.
Presented By
Referred To
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Whereas, Mendota Homes, Inc. made application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance
from the strict application of the provisions of the Saint Paui Zoning Code for property located at 496
Laurel Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and legally described as I,ots 13, 14, & 15, Block 9, Woodland
Park Addirion; and
Whereas, the purpose of the application was to vary the standards of the Saint Paul Zoning Code
[§§ 61.101 and 63.107(d)] so as to provide for several setback vaziances as well as a variance of the
separation requirement betcveen buildings, in order to conshuct an 8 unit townhouse development; and
Whereas, The Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearin$ on Apri17, 1997, after
having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, by its Resolution
97-041, adopted Apri17, 1997, granted the variance application based upon the following fmdings and
conclusions:
L The proposed townhouse development, three hvo-unit and two single-unit structures
with a total of 32 zoning rooms, is under the density allowed (38 rooms) for this site. A
low densiry development of one-unit and two-unit buildings that is in keeping with the
Heritage Preservation guidelines and the chazacter of the surrounding neighborhood has
created the need for the variances.
2. The inclusion of this property in a Heritage Preservation Dish and the character of
the surrounding neighborhood are circumstances that were not created by the applicant.
3. A low density development of one-unit and two-unit buildings as opposed to a single,
two or three story structure with as many as 19 apartment units which would be allowed
on this site given the RM-2 zoning and lot size, is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
4. This parcel has street frontage on two sides and abuts an alley on another side. The
setback vaziances for these three sides will not affect the supply of light or air to the
adjacent properties. The variances xequested for the East side of the properiy are
relatively minor and can be further mitigated through landscaping or fencing. The
proposed development, if it meets Heritage Preservation o idelines, wi11 fit in well with
the neighborhood and will not diminish established properiy values.
5. The proposed vaziances, if granted, will not change or alter the zoning classification
of the property.
6. The applicant states that the primary goat of this project is to create a low density
development of one-unit and two-unit structures that is in keeping with the chazacter of
the surrounding area and Heritage Preservation guidelines.
Whereas, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, Judy Beck, Herb
and Marylyn Vogel and Pam Brandt, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination
,.
q1- �33
�
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
made by the Boatd of Zoning Appeals, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the
purpose of considering the actions taken by the Board of Zoning Appeals; and
Whereas, Acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Sections 64205 through 64.208, and
upon notice to afFected parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the Ciry Council on May 7, 1997,
where all interested parties were given an opportuniry to be heazd; and
Whereas, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the vaziance
application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does
hereby
Resolve, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the decision of the Board
of Zoning Appeals in this matter, based upon the following fmdings of the Council:
Having heard the public testimony and considered all the records and files in this matter,
the Council finds no error as to fact, fmding, or procedure on the part of the Board of
Zoning Appeals, and that the Council of the Ciry of Saint Paul hereby adopts and
incorporates as its own, the findings of the Board of Zoning Appeals as set forth above;
and
Be It Further Resolved, based upon the above findings, that the appeal of Judy Beck, Herb and
Marylyn Vogel and Pam Brandt be and is hereby denied; and
Be it Finally Resolved, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Judy Beck, Herb
and Marylyn Vogel, Pam Brandt and Mendota Hames, Inc., the Zoning Administrator, the Planning
Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Adopted by Covncil: Date t�yy� l l�
1
Adoption Certified by Counci � Sec ary
HY: a �
Approved by a o. D�te � 1�
By:
6
Form Approved by City Attorney
B ���<•/w.vr�- t "rP''j'y
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
Byc
c��y co,���
6-18-97 f GREEN SHEET
p � O DEPARiMEM DIREGTOR
��W lO NUMaER FOR � C4TY ATTORPlEY
pp�� �HUDGETOIRECTOR
ORUEF � MpYOR (OR ASSISTAN7J
TOTAL # OF 31GNATURE PAGES (CUF ALL LOCATIONS FOH SIGNATURE)
���4U
� � ��� �
iNR1AUDATE —
cm couwca
CRYCLERK
FIN. 8 MGT. SERYICES OIR.
Finalizing City Coimcil action taken May 7, 1997, denying the appeat of Judy Beck, Her & Marilyn Vogel and Pam Brandt
to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting variances to construct an eight unit towahouse development at 496
Laurel Avenue.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) a pejeC[ (R)
_ PLANNiNG COMMISSION __ CML SERYICE COMMISSION
�. Ci8 COMMRiEE � .
_ STAFF� _ "
_ DISTRICTCOURT _'
SUPPOHTS WMICH COUNCIL O&lECT7VE7
TOTAL AMOUNT OF SRANSACTION S
PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS NUST ANSWER TNE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS:
1. Has Mis pe�soMirm ever worked untler a conmct tor Mis departrneM?
YES NO
2. Has this personfittn ever been a ciy BmPloyee? '-
YES NO
3. Does this personfirm possess a skifl not rro'ma�ly possessed by any cunent city emplqee?
YES NO
Explaln all yes answen on sepatate shae[ sntl ettA¢� to gresn ahee[
COSTlREVENU£ BUDGETED (CIRCIE ONE) YES NO
FUNRIHG SOUHCE ACTIVttY NUMBER
FINANCIAI 1NFDAbSAT10N: �EXPoAIN)
OFFICE OF TF� CITY ATTORNEY �./� �
PegBir7� CityAttorney /lI� �� �a
'l
CIfiY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
civit Divrsion
400 Ciry Hat!
I S West Kellogg Blvd
SainrPaul, Mimlesota SS102
Tetephone: 612 26b$710
Facsimile: 612 298-5614
June 18, 1447
HAND DELIVERED
Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Saint Paul City Hall
RE: Appeal of Mendota Homes, Inc., 496 Laurel Avenue
BZA File No. 97-041
Dear Nancy:
Attached please fmd a signed resolution formalizing the decision of the Saint Paul City
Ccouncil in the above enfided matter. The resolution should be set on the Council's Consent
Agenda at your eaziiest convenience. If you haue any questions please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Very truly yours,
������
Peter W. Wamer
Assistant City Attorney.
OFFtCE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND t�`^� 1��' v ' 1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE(."LION
Robert Kess[er, Direttar
OF SAINT PAUL
Coleman, Mayor
w�r
Aprii 24, 1497
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Keseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
7AWRY PROF£SSIONAL
BUIIDING
Suite 300
350 St. Peter Streei
Saint Paut, Minnesota 55102-IS70
��.�33
Telephone, 612-26G9090
Facsimile: 612-2664049
612-26b9124
I would like to confum that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
May ?, 1997 for the following appeal of a Boazd of Zoning Appeals decision:
Appellant: Tudy Beck, Her & Maryilyn Vogal, Pam Brandt
File Number: 9?-IDO
Purpose: Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting several
variances in order to const�vct an 8 unit townhouse
Address:
development.
496 Laurel Ave
Legal Description of Property: Lots 13,14, & 15, Block 9, Woodland Pazk Add.
Previous Action:
The 9ummit University Planning Council and Raznsey Hill
Association held a joint community issues meeting and
unanimously recommended approval.
Staff recommended approval.
Boazd of Zoning Appeais; Granterl the request on a vote
of ?-0.
My understanding is that this public heazing request wiil appear on the agenda for the
May Y, 1941 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 qbestions.
' cerely,
lohn Hazdwick
Zoning Technician
ec: Cauneil Member Blakey
� NO�CE OF PUBLIC HEARINQ - -
The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, May
7, 1997. iri the City CouncIl Chambers. Third Floor City Hall-6ourt Aouse, to eonsider
the appeal of Judy Beck, Aer & Mazilyn Vogei. and Pam Brandt to a decision of the
Board ofZoning P;ppeals grantingseveraTvariances in order to constnicf an eight unit
townhouse development at 496_Laurel Avenue. -
Dated: April 30, 1997 : - ,
NANCY ANDERSON - � � - - �
Assistant City Ctiuncil Secretary �. -
- ' (May 3, 1997}
Zoning File #:
Project Name:
Applicant c
Telephone:
Representative:
Telephone:
Location:
Legal Description:
Purpose:
Date Received:
Notification Sent:
Aearing Date:
Land Use Map:
Tax Map:
Present Zoning:
District:
District Planner:
xistory:
Notes:
INFORMATION CUVER SHEET
97-160 Zoning Type: Appeal
Appeal File #:
VOGEL APP FflT•
HERB VQGEL
471 ASHLAND AVE
ST PAUL, MN 55102-OODO
(612)224-2053
q�-�33
{612)�00-0000
496 Laurel Ave
Lots 13, 14, & 15, Block 9, Woodland Park Add.
An appeal of a Board af Zoning Appeals deciaion granting several
variances in order to construct an 8-unit townhouse development.
�4/22/97
04�23�97 : .-
Sj719?
20
10
RM-2
8
96-283, 9�-041
�
�3
APPLICATION POR APPEAL
Department af Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
IZ00 City Hall Ann�z
ZS West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
Zip �S I t7 LDaytime phone ZZ - 2 S3
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Zoning File Name �� — 0 � � �I
Address/Locetion � � � Lc� u �y-QQ ��
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeaf to the:
O Board of Zoning Appeais ,�i City Council
under the provisions ofi Chapter 64, Section ' , Paragraph
appeal a decision made by
of the Zoning Code, to
on � �nv-i Q� , 18� F�ife number: J q'I ^0� I
(date o�
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board ofi Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
5 e�. �- � �. � �R-
tYs!21197oaooa1D:31Aif
�CDBO VAR2Ah,CE
G#ECK
Attach additiona! sheet if necessary)
��9
ApplicanYs signature t ?'�4�C� U aR� Date� City agen�� /
al'1- 8'��
Apri120, 1997
City of Saint Paul
City Council
Re: APPEAL OF BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECISION OF APRIL 7,1997
MAILED APRIL 8,1997 ZOIVING FTLE NO. 97-041
We the undersigned do hereby appeal the waivers (approoal of variances) granted by the
Boazd of Zoning Appeals on April 7, 199? for the property at 496 Laurel Avenue for
development by Mendota Homes, also identifying themselves as Pineview Homes.
This appeal is being taken because of enors in the fmdings of facts and procedural errors.
The waiver of the provisions of 61.141 was not in accordance with the requirements
defined in 64.203, The granting of the waiver has a grave negafive impact on the
undersigned and other surrounding property owners of which we are representative and
has an adverse affect on the safety and the public welfare of the neighborhood.
Whereas this appeal is requested by property owners in accordance with the
Notice provisions described in 64.208. This request for appeal is filed, along
with required payment, within fifteen days of the mailing on April 8, 1497.
Erroneous Finding of Facts include but are not limited to numbers 1, 2, 4, and 6.
Fanding #1: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under strict
provisions of the code.
Response: This property can be put to reasonable use and kept within the
requirements of the code. This is a very desirable property comprised of
three adjacent vacant lots, inciuding a corner lot. The terrain is essentially
flat, there are no encumbrances or problems with the land either on the site
or caused by any adjacent property. A similaz development could be
accomplished without the variances or with only minimal variances, with
fewer buildings. An example is attached.
Finding # 2: The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this
property and these circumstances were not created by the landowner.
Response: There is no plight. The applicant has volunteered to develop tlus site.
Inclusion of the properry in the Historical Preservation District is not
}ustification for a variance. None of the variances requested originate
with, or are related to meeting any of the District Guidelines, nor are the
requested variances caused by any of the District Guidelines.
al� - 83�
City Council re: Appeal of Zoning Board file 97-041
Page 2
Finding # 4: The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the
surrounding area and unreasonably diminish the property values within
the surrounding area.
Response: (a). The Laurel Avenue setback variance is not in keeping with the zoning
provisions, street scape or District guidelines. The average setback on the
block is 21 feet. This variance has a significant impact on Laurel, as 150
feet of this pazcel are on Laurel Avenue. There is no reason why these
three vacant lots can not be developed with the same set backs required
and foilowed on this block.
(b). The rear setback variance from 25 feet ta 5 feet significantly impacts
the alley and property across the alley. A safety issue is created with
vehicles (including an increased number of vehicles from this
development) entering and leaving the alley at Mackubin with limited
visibility. Pazking restrictions on Mackubin will be necessary. This
variance atso eliminates light from the reaz windows in the church
condominiums at 114 Mackubin, This is partacularly problematic due to
the height of the buildings. This is a significant negative impact on this
property and would not be allowed without the variance.
(c). The proposed development overcrowds the parcels; the main purpose
of the variances is to put more buildings on the parceL The RM-2 zoning
of the property permits a macimum density, but does not require massive
setback variances to achieve any density.
Finding # 6: The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the
value or income potential of the pazcel of land.
Response: This finding is most glaringly contrary to the Code Provisions.
The applicants propose to fill the parcel with mulYipie buildings. The
number of buildings is only driven by the desire to achieve a higher profit
return. A similar development could be achieved without variances, be in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood and provide for an
adequate return on investment. Councilman Blakey has received a letter
outlining a significant profit mazgin for such a development, based on
industry srandazd figures.
City Council re: Appeal of Zoning Board file 9?-041
Page 4
Submitted byr,
d� Y = J -��`'
k, 487 Ashland
�,►�, 1� �y�2 �.. ,�t. d,►; 'i„�,. �v�.2-
Henvard & Marilyn Vogel, 471 Ashland
�..��.�.�.�._�-
Pam Brandt, 99 Mackubin
q� -f33
_' -.. wm nrcemaMenal
Grom:OOndtlE.Chue,Jr. Apr20.499T 632.:Op.m.
°1� -8�� 3
litlackubin Avenue
i4�
—�--�--�--�-- -- -- -- --� — �
�29 �� �
� � I°a-ch f'arch I �
I � �� � � � �
,
1 m �� ^ � I
� O 0� '� �� �' T 1
� � e
v c
I g �� � Q� � a�� � 9 �
� F <
� � � � 1 �' � �1
i � --�- 9 -�-- � �, . �
i I� � I �
Q �.� I F � (�
0�� �� a � � , � � �
�� � � � <
� o� � o� � o� a °-�� � ��
I o� � o� � o� � o � a -� � � �
s F
V � � S � I
I � 1
�
f N z I_
I ' � I �` �
i �
I N -� � -� N -� � -� -� S I
� o�� o�a o�� °�, � �
i o�� o o�� � ��� s �
I._.__.�_ __._-. � �_._�
� --- �— -- --'_�. �21—�—
�I-r,� �lan i�ropos�l #�
�{-J� Laurel Av�. S�, paul. MN
°I't-�33
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
1. APPLICANT: MENDOTA HOMES INC.
2. CLASSIFICAT'ION: Major Variance
3. LOCATION: 496 LAUREL AVENUE
FILE # 97-041
DATE OF HEARING: 04/07J9?
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 13, 14, & 15, Block 9, Woodland Park Add.
5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
6. PRESENT ZONING: RM-2 ZONING CODE REFEI2ENCE: 61.1Q1, 63.107 (d)
7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 3l20/97 BY: 3ohn Hardwick
8. DATE RECEIVED: 03/07197 DEADLINE FOR ACTTON: OS/06197
A. PURPOSE: Severai setback variances and a variance of the separation required between
buildings in order to construct an 8-unit townhouse development.
B. ACTION REQUESTED:
1. A front setback of 21 feet from Laurel Avenue is required and a setback of 15 feet is
proposed, for a variance of 6 feet.
2. A rear yard setback of 25 feet is required and a setback of 5 feet is proposed, for a
variance of 20 feet.
3. A side yard setback of 9 feet is required and a setback of 7 feet from the east property line
is proposed for the easternmost townhouse, and a setback of 4 feet from the east property
line is proposed for detached garages for variances of 2 feet and 5 feet respectively.
4. The maximum projection into a required yard for a fireplace is 1 foot and the proposed
projection for all fireplaces is two feet, for a variance of 1 foot.
5. An 18-foot separation between buildings is required and a 10-foot separation is progosed
between units B& C and units D& E and a separation of 14.4 feet between units E& H,
for a variances of 8 feet and 3.8 feet respectivety.
C. STTE AND AREA CONDTTIONS: This is a 141 by 154 foot parcel located at the southeast
comer of Laurel and Mackubin. There is ailey access to the rear of the property. The
property is located within a Heritage Preservation District.
Surrounding Land Use: A miarture of single- and multi-family housing.
�� r F ✓'�
File #97-041
Page Two
D. BACKGROUNU: This parcel was formerly occupied by a one-story commercial structure
that was demolished in 1992. In 1988, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted several variances
to allow construction of a 10-unit townhouse with 28 underground parking spaces on this site.
Atthough the Herita�e Preservation Commission granted approval for the project and the
BZA granted a one year extension, the praject was never started. Tn December of 199b, the
BZA heard a proposal for a variance request to construct a 7-unit rowhouse structure and 2
carriage houses on this site. The matter was continued due to possible changes in the plan.
The developer, Mendota Homes INC., is now proposing this latest plan.
E. FfNDINGS:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of
the code. '
The proposed townhouse development, three two-unit and two single-unit structures with
a total of 32 zoning rooms, is under the density allowed (38 rooms) for this site. A low
density development of one- and two-unit buildings that is in keeping with Heritage
Preservation guidelines and the character of the surrounding neighborhood has created the
need for the variances.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
ciraumstances were not created by the land owner.
The inclusion of this property in a Heritage Preservation District and the character of the
surroundinJ neighborhood 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 welfare of the inha6itants of the City of St.
Paul.
A low density development of one- and two-unit buildings, as opposed to a single, two or
three-story structure with as many as 19 apartment units which would be allowed on this
site given the RM-2 zoning and lot size, is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
4. The praposed variance wilt not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor wilt it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding area or unreasonably
diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
cl rl - p� 3�
File #197-041
Page Three
This parcel has street fronta�e on two sides and abuts an alley on another side. The
setback variances for these three sides will not affect the supply of light or air to the
ad}acent properties. The variances requested for the east side of the property are
relatively minor and can be further mitigated through landscaping or fencing.
The proposed development, if it meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, will fit in well
with the nei�hborhood and will not diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not pemtitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located,
nor would it a(ter or change the zoning district classification of the properry.
The proposed variances, if granted, will not change ot alter the zoning classification of the
property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to iricrease the vatue or income
potential of the parcei of land.
The applicant states that the primary goal of this project is to create a low density
development of one- and two-unit structures that is in keeping with the character of the
surrounding area and Heritage Preservatson guidelines.
F. DISTRICT CO[3NCII. RECOMMENDAT'ION: The Summit University Planning Council
and the Ramsey Hill Association have unanimously recommended approvai of the variances
requested.
G. STAFF I2ECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staffrecommends
approval of the variances subject to the condition that appropriate landscaping or fencing is
added along the east property line.
4�
ZONING BOAflD
/l�l �1�0(�
`° ' �97--oy/
:. ��
APPLICATION FOR Z�NING ORDIfVANCE VARIANCE
iere appropriate. �(` � �
l � YPssc.�`' { �
7 7 �, ��!� �
7
. / �D r
� CITY OF� PAUL /b"� [� 2�'J 3 �
( { J l , ��
A VARIANCE OF ZONiNG CODE CHAPTER r� �, SECTION�_ PARAGRAPH
IS REQUESTED IN CON�ORMITY WVTH THE POWERS VESTED {N THE BOAflD OF ZONING AP-
PEALS TO PERMIT THE �� ���`� � ON PROPERTY
DESCRIBEDBEIOW. T(JLyJf(LYYlGS ,
A. Applicant; NAME:
DAYiIME?ELEPHONE NQ. � jO�a'�7� r 1�i i ZIP CODE �as
t. Property interest of applicant: (owner, contract purchaser, etc.)\ � Z( � Q� sC
y9 ! 2o tJ
2. Name of ow�er (if different) Q�vIQ �� ����� ��� /-
C-
B. Property Description:
7. Legal descriptio
/�,
2. Lot size: �
ADDRESS W�CY�- �C!%-�Z7L I"RL.�...'G�S11.I
1 /�IJS k'c�t,�� ,0.42�
LOT SLOCK�_ ADD. Rd�J f77t�
1 X �o . Z31u�`�
ti/F�ca.vt-- /1 l�1 �
3. Present Use �r Present Zoning Dist. r �" `
G. ReasonsforRequesC
t. Pro use �dGS9If '�b(,til'I t{DuS�= �//*�J��T -- 3 {2(rYf / (
a�Lt G� ���/r��� �Q'C�'7 GU`t� L�CG�r��w Cbn� { tZ -WI
2. Wfiat pFrysicaf charaEteristics f�'he roperty prevent its being used for any af the permitted
uses in your zone? (topography, soil conditions, size and shape of lot, etc.
7ff/5 /S An1 ALtn05� SQuQ2E P.�ctPbtTy l..�{/7/ f?o405 Gh 3
5/ll�sC�NGU,�a/� ALL�Y} Tf/4T�lc!?�7�5 U,dZ14�vLcs
State the
/��b� �� J�t�
4. Exptain how your
of the following:
r .., � f �-r . — v
����� Q�f"� 1 `.�
!
��-�
� a. Tha6 the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar
' or excepUOnal practical difficulties, or exceptional undue bardsbips, s[�((Q/L� S/T� G�/IX
E Prr�vw,t ac.� scT 84cres oa�s ,vor l�vtJ ,rstZF Ta ,p tfausalb
�F/TTwb 7tf75 N�76/f$a21Yot�
r �J31�7f47c�oo�.�i�:t�.^ti � _'�`: i
i_ b. That the granting of a variance wiH �• ,,,;,,�
' not be a substantial tletriment to � F ��HIERS U5E ONLY � -
� &s �� +t33�.�t
; public good or a substanUal impair• ,. ,
� ment oi the intent and purpose of "��t�'` j�'fl '� -"�-+� �� �.
� theZontngOMinar�ce. CHt��GE �,�(}
�t�ill ft� l�vZa
-rt�c hu, l,�t�-ha
��� Z
un�� ���
z�(4� lht�clGit
cv,l( '�n-���re—
:, a �° ,h4�r(�
� ��� �;
..,� . _ -;. _
�.�
?J95
�t�. F�3
��
�
� ------
Ri 1, y ! 1
f1 �iI �i S.s � i�
� �r
� � E. �i z
; � � � �
` � �
i
: �
�i
��
a
�
�
' 1� 1, t I ( {.
j � t�i �i fu �
Li31t5w9bAN
�
' � _ �_ _ _ _�
�i �_ �; �•
i � k� 4a ki
: t � {
�`
� �� � �
� � � �,
� { i�
<�
�' �
���,��
�'
,.
9� -�33
�
2
'n
�
:
���
��
���
� -_-__
-�- ---
� �
g �� ��
--�
�� � �
� ��
�l
I il
lµ
al'1- ��'J
��� l�:
I
�
A �
S '
� �i
� -�t
� = , ,
�
►;
�
�
��
;t
,�
:
RCGOIL7t �IUM� I�1
;ui�lii ii: .
JERRY BLAKEY
Coundlmember
March 18, 1997
CITY OF SAINfi PAUL
OFFICE OF TI� CITY COUNCII.
Ms. Tracey Baker, Chair
Neritage Preservation Commission
cio 1868 Sargent Avenue
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105
Dear Ms. Baker:
�11-�
1 am writing to express my support for the proposed town home �project on Laurei
Avenue and MacKubin Street.
Frank Greczyna and his staff have done an excellent job in addressing the concerns of
the neighborhood and the Heritage Preservation Commission. In fact, the Summit-
University Planning Council and the Ramsey Hi1f Association unanimously supported
the projeci, incfuding the variances for tha front porch and rear setbacks, at their
community issue meeting on March 13, 1997.
i hope that the heritage Preservation Commission wiil consider the
my o�ce and the neighborhood extend to this pro}ect in considerin
requested.
Sincerely,
Jerry B
City Co cilmember
variances
���� �
n . -�
cc: Frank Greczyna �Y 1'^' "" n J
Aaron Rubenstein �(
Summit-University Ptanning Counci( �f
Ramsey Hill Associatian � � j�� -
� J�"�"
CITY HALL THIRD FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
s .�..<a
PdnRd ou Raycled Paper
t/"" '
)�
U� � ,
� Jf 1 �." � �
� ��� ,
�� " "V �
612J266-86J0
a�_��3
Shaping the future of a historic neighbofiood in Saint Paui
400 Selby Avenue, Sui[e M, St. Paul, MN 55102
March 17, 1997
John Hardwick
LIEP
350 St. Peter St. Suite 300
St. Paul, Mn. 55102-1510
Dear Mr. Hardwick,
On March 13, 1997 the Ramsey Hill Association held a community
issnes meeting concerning the several variances requested by Mendota
Homes for the development at 496 Laurel Ave. - your file #97-041.
The neighborhood was noticed of the meeting and several neighbors
were in attendance.
The Association approved all of the variances requested. We are
impressed with the quality of this project and laok forward to seeing it
built.
S' cer y,
� ��l�.Gu i��
ud McLaughlin, President
sey Hill Association
SUMM�T-17NIVERSIT'Y
�'LAI`�i'NING COUNCIL
°t'1-�'33
i
827 Se{by Avenue --��--�
Saint Paul Minnesote 651Q4 ' ' ' '—'
7'elephone 228-1855
Friday, Maxch 14, 1997
Board of Zoning Appeais
25 West Fowth Street
Saint Paut, M�nnesota 55142
Ii�: zoning Fi1e # 47-041
The Summit University T'lanning Couacil, together with the Ramsey Fii3i Association
casponsored a Community Tssues meeting which was held Thursday, March 33, 3997 to
provida a forum for neighborhood input on Mendota �Tomes Inc.'s request for several
setback varixnces and a variance of the separation required beiween buildings in order to
construct an 8 unit townhouse developmenk.
Project developers made a presernation wktich ineiuded architectural renderings of the
projeot and responded to questions from tl�e community. Pursuam to #his and other
infomiation shared, a rnotion was made and �assed ananimously to approve the varianas
as requested.
Tf you have any questions pr nesd further information, please contact me at Z28-1855.
Sincerely,
7°��.�-
Peggy Byrne
Bxecutive birector
Z0'd 54:00 lki8 t6-ST-21liW
fQ. 90 J1
/
APP�fCAN7 Mc1'1�0"FCA ��'.S _111C_.
PURPOSE MQ�r �af1 nee'
-,�E a 9 or. y•�• 9�7
'LNG. DIST � � ktAP #7 �—
;CAI.E 1' = 400'�
LEGEND
....��, zoning district boundary
� subjed property
0 one famiiy
� N+o famity .
'�¢Q muttipfe famity
<nonhl
• � � commerciai
� �.,. industrial
V vacant
. ,.
o��, f��
1. SUNRAY-BATIT.ECREEK-HIGHWOOD
2. HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERTTY HILLCREST
3. WEST SII7B
4. DAYTON'S BLUFF
5. PAXNE-PHALEN
6. NORTEi END
7, THOMAS-DALE
8. SUMMfT-UIv'IVERSTTY
9. WEST SEVENTH
10. COMO
11. HAMLINE-MIDWAY
12, ST. ADITFiONY PARK
13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE
14. MACALESTER G120VELAND
15. T3IGHI.AN7�
16. SL3MMTT HILL
17. DOWNfOWN
CITIZEN PARTICII'ATION PLANh�Ii�?G DISTRICI'S
Gr� .�'S�
MINUTES OF THE MEETIIdG OF THE SOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COLJNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, APRIL 7,1997
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs. A1tAn, Donohue, Scherman, Tully and WHson of the
Boud of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hardwick and
Ms. Synstegaazd of the O�ce of License, Inspection, and Environmentat Protectioa
ABSENT None
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddo� Chair.
MENDOTA HOMES INC (#97-041) - 496 LAUREL AVEN[JE: Several setback variances and a
variance of the sepazation required betrveen buildings in order to construct an 8-unit townhouse developmenk
The applicant was present. There was no opposition present at the hearing.
Mr. Audwick stated that a revised site plan that changes the requested sepazation from 10' to 7' between the
buildings was submitted by the applicant subsequent to a campromise with the Ramsey Hill Association and
a representative from Councilmember Blakey's office. The Heritage Preservat�on Comtnission reviewed tlils
matter and denied the agplicatiott last week. Their denial was based on: 1) the orientation of the comer
building to MacKubin rather than Laurel is not compatible with the chazacter of the district; 2) the proposed
development is also incompafible with the character of the district because of the unifotmity of design of the
proposed buildings; and 3) the proposed 15' setback from Laurel Avenue conflicts with the districPs
guidelines and is incompatible with the character of the district.
Mr. Hazdwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval
subject to the condition that appropriate landscaping or fencing is added along the east property line.
One letter was received in opposition stating there is no demonstrated hardship and they feel this
development is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Hazdwick asked Mr. Wamer to address the ]egal implications of a revised site pian in regazds to
notification purposes. Mr. Warner stated that the submission of the site plan at this particulaz time doesn't
affect this hearing on the variances requested.
Ms. Bogen stated that number five under acuon requested of the staff report is inconect since the applicant
initially requestetl a 10' variance sepazation and now they aze asldng for a 7' separation She added that where
the buildings aze placed on the property doesn't make any difference as far as the side yazd setbacks, but the
setbacks for the variances between the separation of the buildings is different. Mr. Warner replied that is
correct but the purpose of today's hearing it is to allow people an opporhuiiry to be heard. He stated that it is
his opinion ihat the difference of 3' in a building not yet built and not adjacent to any presently occupied
structure, is not necessarily going to preclude anybaly from tesfifying to that fact taday in what impact that
might have overall on this project. Nevertheless, the Boazd wuld state that they've not had an adequate time
to reviecv the documents and lay the matter over.
a� -�
File #97-041
Page Two
John Mathem, Mendota Homes, Inc., Box 416, Forest Lake, Minnesota, stated that they have a new proposal
resulting from their meeting with the Ramsey Hill Association. The proposal is for eight living units, ttu�ee 2-
unit build'urgs and two detached buildings on the comu of Laurel and MacKubin. He stated that they took
direction that they received from the citizens at the neighborhood meet�ngs. One request was to reduce the
density and that none of the gazages front the alley. They have done that by intemalizing the garages oa the
site plan. In meetings with the community organizer and a siaff inember from Councilmember Blakey's
office, they have come to a conctusion that they could produce the sazne buildings with a front porch and side
views by simply turning one two-unit onto Laurel. In this way they would present two 2-units. He presented
a large site plan drawing to the Boazd and explained them. The side yazds will go from 16' to 7' wluch is why
they need the variances. They don't feel ihis is a significant change, although it would alleviate concerns of
having more units on Laurel and ]ess on MacKubin. The HPC didn't support them but they did receive
neighborhood support and support from Councilmember Blakey's office. They feei this plan is in keeping
with the neighborhood character which is mixed with a commerciai building across the street and townhomes
further down the block. They don't feel the setback on Laurel was a significant issue because of the various
setbacks along the street.
Dick Hidey, HRM Architects, passed azound a graphic drawing that showed th� setbacks more clearly. They
feel their setbacks aze a blend of what you find on the strat.
Mr. Aiton asked if there was a revised elevation drawing of the view from MacKubin. Mr. Mathern replied
no, but explained how it would look on a drawing he passed azound to the Board.
Ms. Bogen asked if one of the buildings on MacKubin would be a side view. Mr. Hidey replied yes and
sho�ved the drawings to the Board. ~•'
Mr. Alton asked if the side yard setback on the two-unit building would be more than 1Q'. Mr. Mathern
replied it would be 18' away from the other 2-unit on the side and they exceed the side yard setbacks on
MacKubin. He stated that ihe reaz yazd is within 7' of the side yard of the next twin home. Mr. Hidey stated
that when they rotated the twin home to front on Laurel they had lazger back yazds then the previous plan,
They were delighted with that change and fee] more positive about this plan than they did with the originai
one. They also increased the width of the driveway from 20' to 24'. This was a concem to some of the
neighborhood residents.
Mr. Alton stated that tlus proposed plan was obviously designed with the consideration of the HPC
Guidelines in mind. Mr. Mathem and Mr. Hidey replied yes. Mr. Alton asked what limitations that presented
to them in terms of fitting the plan onto the site? The limits they found are that the site fronts aspbaIt on
three sides. They felt that by fronting more usuts on Laurel it would be a positive change and that is why
they revised their site plan.
Mr. Alton stated that the developer could build a three-sWry squue brick apartment building with a asphalt
parking lot and meet the zoning requirements. However, the developer chose to try and comply with the HPC
guidelines and designed this current plan.
Mr. Hidey stated that they designed eight units and have tried to make them appeaz as detached as possible.
a�_��3
File #97-041
Page Three
3udy McLaughlin, President of the Ramsey Hill Association, stated that they met with the developer in
conjunction with the Neighborhood Development Committee of District 8 and have made significant headway
in working with the neighborhood to come up with a design and configuration that takes into consideration
the character of the neighborhood and the historic district_ They voted unanimously to approve the variances
that were originalty proposed to the Board. One of the issues the HPC had was the orientation of ihe
buildings. The developers wers willing to change this.
3erry Mcinemey, I.egislative Aide to Councilmember Blakey, stated their office went to the developers and
asked them if there were things they could do hy flipping the buildings. They also asked them to revise their
porch design to include an all wood front. The HPC appeal will come befare the City Council on Apri19.
Mazch 13 was the date of the community meeting where the variances were unanimously approved. Last
Wednesday they met with the developer to come to an agreement. He apologized for the confusion of the site
plan but stated it was an effort to try to get the development moving forward and to come to an agcernent to
hy and satisfy all parties. �
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Alton moved to approve the variance and resolution based on fmdings i through 6 subjut to the
condition that appropriate landscaping or fencing is added along the east property ]ine.
Mr. Scherman seconded tha motion.
Ms. Bogen staeed that she wouldn't be opposed to the variances except she feels that a 7' separation wiU lead
to overcrowding on the block and limited airflow to people in the uniks ihat are affected by the 7' sepazation.
Mr. Alton stated his motion was for the 7' separation variance on the latest revised plans.
Mr. Hazdwick stated that the required separation between buildings is 18' so the revised site plan would
require a variance of 11' between the two units that front on MacKubin, and on the double units that front on
both MacKubin and Laurel. On B. 5. o� the staff report it should state, "An 18-foot sepaza6on is required
between the buildings fronting on MacKubin and the rear of the north comer building on Laurel, and a 7-foot
sepazation is proposed, for a variance of 11 feet " He stated that the 14.4 feet and 3.8 feet can be stricken
because they are no longer required. The applicant has gained the required sepazation between the buildings
that &ont on Laurel.
Mr. Alton moved to amend his motion to comply with the 11-foot variance.
Ms. Bogen stated that she dcesn't understand why there dcesn't need to be a reno�cation for residents who
may be concemed about how close the buildings are.
Mr. Warner stated that the changes as requested are zelatively minor and formal notice of the entire ptoposal
is not necessary.
-..
°l� _ �"� 3
File #97-041
Page Fow
The Boud voted unarumously to approved the amendment to the morion on a vote of 1 to 0.
The motion passed on a roll call vote of 7 to 0.
5 ,�.� ���/C/�
John Hazdwick
John Tully, Secretary
CITY OF SAINT PAUL �� �
BOARD OF ZONING AP'PEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMSER: s7-oai
�I�T�' : Apri17,1997
WHEREAS, MENDOTA HOMES INC. has applied for a variance from the strict application of
the provisions of Section 61.101, 63.107 (d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the
coastruction of an 8-unit townhouse development in the RM-2 zoning district at 496 LAUREL
AVENUE; and
WF�',REAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 04/07/97,
pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64205 of the Legislative
Code; and
WHEREA5, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public
hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the
code.
'The proposed townhouse development, three two-unit and two single-unit structures with a
totai of 32 zoning rooms, is under the density allowed (38 rooms) for this site. A 1ow density
development of one- and two-unit buildings that is in keeping with Heritage Preservation
guidelines and the chazaeter of the surrounding neighborhood has created the need for the
variances.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The inclusion of this property in a Heritage Preservation District and the character of the
sunounding neighborhood 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 welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paui.
A low density development of one- and two-unit buildings, as opposed to a singie, two or
three-story structure with as many as 19 apartment units which would be allowed on this site
given the RM-2 zoning and lot size, is in keeping with the chazacter of the neighborhood.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor will it alter the essential character of the sunounding azea or unreasonably
diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
�� , ���
File #97-041
Page Two
This parce] has street frontage on two sides and abuts an alley on another side. The setback
variances for these three sides will not afFect the supply of light or air to the ad}acent
properties. The variances requested for the east side of the property are relatively minor and
can be further mitigated through landscaping or fencing.
The proposed development, if it meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, will fit in well with
the neighborhood and will not diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not pemutted under the provisions
of the code for the properiy in the district where the afFected land is located, nor would it alter
or change the zoning district classification of the properky.
The proposed variances, 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.
The applicant states that the primary goal of this project is to create a low density
development of one- and two-unit structures that is in keeping with the character of the
surrounding area and Heritage Preservation guidelines.
NOW, TF�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the
provisions of Section 61.101 and 63.10? (d) are hereby waived to allow the foilowing variances in
order to construct an 8-unit townhouse development: 1) A front setback of 15 feet along Laurel
Avenue; 2) A rear yard setback of 5 feet; 3) A side yard setback of 7 feet from the east property
line for the eastern most townhouse, and a side yazd setback af 4 feet from the east property line
for the garages; 4) A variance to allow fireplace chimneys to pro,{ect 2 feet into a required yazd;
and 5) A 7-foot separation between the buildings on the west side of the properiy, subject to the
condition that appropriate landscaping or fencing is added along the east property line on property
located at 496 LAIJREL AVENUE and legally described as Lots 13, 14, & 15, Blk 9, Woodland
Park Add.; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the
Zoning Administrator.
File #97-041
Page Three
MOVED BY: Atton
SECONDED BY : 5cherman
IN FAVOR: �
AGAINST: o
MAILED: Apri18, 199�
�t"1. ���
TIME LIMIT No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration
• of a buiiding or off-street parking facility shall be vatid for a period longer than
one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained
within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the
terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appea]s or the City Council may
grant an extension not to exceed one yeaa In granting such extension, the
Board of Zonsng Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing.
APPEAL Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City
Council withia 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buifding permits
shali not be issued after an appeal has been fled. IEpermits have been issued
before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and
construction shal! cease until the City Cauncil has made a final determination of
the appeal.
CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeais for the City of
5aint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify thak 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 meeting held on
Apri17,1997 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and
Environmental Protection, 350 St. PeYer Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOl�'ING APPEALS
�L�;����.�i'��
Sue Synstegaard
Secretary to the Board
PUBLIC HEARtNG NOTICE
Ciiy Councii
Appeal of Decision
TO
APPLICANT
PURPOSE
LOCATION
OF PROPERTY
TIME OF HEARfNG
PLACE OF HEARING
HOW TO PARTtCIPATE
Property Owners within 350 feet;
Representatives of Planning District 8
a� -���
Judy Beck, Herb & Marilyn Vogel, Pam Brandt
Appeai of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting
several variances in order to construct an 8 unit
townhouse deve{opment.
496 Laurel Avenue
Wednesday, May 7, 1997 at 4:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor Ciiy Hali-Court House
15 West Ke{logg Boulevard, Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102
1. You may attend hearing and testifiy.
2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the O�ce
of LIEP, Attn: John Hardwick, 350 St. Peter Street,
Suite 300, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
3. Participation is not required. This is your notice of
public hearing.
ANY QUESTIONS Caii John Hardwick of the Office of LIEP at 266-9082 or
your District Council Representative at 228-1855 with the
foflowing information:
Zoning Fife Number 97-100
� ;�: �����, ��ra�� Zoning File Name Judy Beck, Herb & Marilyn Vogel, Pam
' Brandt
^ ia�7
e;��;a � �r
_ .w«.�.:::
�( ��
�� 3
May 5,1997 � � �
COUNCILMEMBER JERRY BLAKEY
ST. PAUL CITY COUNCIL
RE: PETITON RELATING TO APPEAL OF ZOI�TING BOARD
DECISION ZONING FILE NO. 97-041(Battle Electric site)
Attached are signatures (received to date) of 28 property owners alarmed at
the magnitude and extent of the variances granted to Mendota
Homes/Pineview Homes for the above project. These multiple variances
produce an over-crowded, overbuilt project which will have a profound
effect on this neighborhood.
We collected support from property owners on all sides of the site,
including the next door neighbor (Dider), the 3 houses across the site on
Laurel, the Firenze Building on Mackubin, the Church Condo across the
alley, the other properties off the alley near the site, as well as other near-by
properties on Laurel, Mackubin, and Ashland. Some people plan to write
their own letters, and some thought the petition too mild. Virtually every
property directly affected is represented on this petition.
We are presenting this petition because we are concerned that you may have
been led to believe that this project has widespread support from the
surrounding community. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Respeetfully,
� � � ��
Herb & Marilyn Vogel
Attachments: 3 pages of petition and original signatures
1 list of names & addresses arranged in order around the site
; cc. John Hardwick, Board of Zoning Appeals
PETITION
Date 3 0 � 7
To: Councilmember Jerry Blakey
Re: Zoning Fite No: 97-041
Laurel-Mackubin project by Mendota Homes, also known
as Pineview Homes.
�
We the undersigned urge the City Councii to honor the spirit
and intent of theCity Zoning Code as well as the HPC
Guidelines by requiring the above developers to reduce
the number of units to 7 instead of 8.
STREET ADDRESS
�
�
�.I� � ��(� ���w C� � �-v; ,��?
�g3
�5� ���-� �-�-
f� . /'�2 � �� �/7 � I,���
� �: -�
�� p-- ��.,.��1�1ti`'��.�.� ��l ��<�� '�E. ,-�vv3
� ���� ' �-i�l ��� n�..
�1
� ` ``��'
� �� � ���- ��
� ��
�� ...�� ��
PETITIQN
Date � 30 9 7
To: Councilmember Jerry Blakey �, ��3
Re: Zoning File No: 97-041 �
Laurel-Mackubin project by Mendota Homes, a{so known
as Pineview Homes.
We the undersigned urge the City Councii to honor the spirit
and intent of theCity Zoning Code as well as the HPC
Guidelines by requiring the above developers to reduce
the number of units to 7 instead of 8.
STREET ADDRESS
i� �� �k�.l�,�� �a
�r i ����-�� r h. �7
� a � M�,� �.G �� �, �
`��� ,��� ��� s
�� r�,.�.�...
��� ����
� �- �-�-���-
��z �� �-
`f7Z L�c���� Av'�
SIGNATURE
PETITION
Date�����c•t 27, (q . I
To: Councilmember Jerry Blakey �
Re: Zoning File No: 97-Q41
Laurel-Mackubin project by Mendota Nomes, a(so known
as Pineview Homes.
We the undersigned urge the City Council to honor the spirit
and intent of theCity Zoning Code as well as the HPC
Guidelines by requiring the above developers to reduce
the number of units to 7 instead of 8.
STREET ADDRESS
s
�4� �1r�. `,� �P� � =Y�t� SS 1v2
�
��s� � � ��
�`J � +��.rc.LC..u�., � 3-03G9
�f5� �cuci. ��� ��.
`f7l �.��e�-�� � ��-a�ss` ; .
�f�/ ,�-,1��..�
`t �i ��(� �
�i , �, ,, � -
SIGNATURE
Petition to Jerry Blakey May 5, 1997
File no 97.041
PETITION SIGNERS t1RRANGED BY ADDRESS:
1. 482 Laurei Avenue
2. 482 Laurel Avenue
3. 472 Laurel Avenue
4. 472 Laurel Avenue
5. 458 Laurel Avenue
6. 493 Laurel
7. 491 Laurel Avenue
8. 491 Laurel Avenue
9. 487 Lattrel Avenue
10. 481 Laurel Avenue
' 11. 475 Laurel Avenue
12. 117 Maakubin # 2
13. 117 Mackubin # 7
14. l l7 Mackubin # 6
15. 114 Mackubin
16. 99 Mackubin
17. 89 Mackubin
l8. 491 Ashland Avenue
19. A91 Ashland Avenue
20. 487 Ashland Avenue
21. 483 Ashland Avenue
22 4&3 Ashland Avenue
23. 471 Ashland Avenue
24. 471 Ash3and Avenue
25. 4b4 Ashland Avenue
26. 451 Ashland Avenue
27. 453 Ashland Avenue
28. 448 Ashland Avenue
Sue Didier
Chazles Didier
Kate McGu'ue
Ray Hofhnann
Paula Moliin
Sherrill Gannon
Dawn Ellerd
Jeff Ellerd
Robert C. Sordan
Richard McDermott
Mary Morris
Mary E. Pound
Parker Fiery (sp??)
Martin Zeger(sp??)
William Conley
Pamela J. Brandt
Harvey Sherman
Dayton Gilbert
Brenda Gilbert
Judith A. Beck
Dan Mueller
Diane Mueller
Marilyn Vogel
Herb Vogel
Tom Davis
Elis Ljungkuil
Gene Nelson
Len Jackson
fy/�. ���
�.�
l C �
95 Mackubin
St. Paul, MN 55102-2021
Apri130, 1997
Mr. John Hardwick
Office of LIEP
350 St. Peter Street
Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55102
RE: Zoning File Number: 9?-100
Zoning File Name: Judy Beck, Herb and Marilyn Vogel
Dear Mr. Hardwick:
I am unable to attend the Wednesday, May 7 appeal meeting for the above case.
However, I object to the decision made by the Boazd of Zoning and the St. Paul City
Council related to the property at 496 Laurel Avenue. My reasons follow.
/ �� � �
�,�.Y��
i. The plan proposes massive buildings and limited green space. This space is
zoned for far less dense construction. If it weren't, a variance wouldn't be necessary.
Why not construct a building that is in keeping with the zoning ordinances? The
surrounding buildings to the west and south of 496 Lawel Avenue are all very lazge
multiple dwellingslmultiple organization offices. The overall concentration of massive
buildings along Mackubin from Holiy to Laurel is ea-tremely high.
2. This plan is presented by people who don't currently live in the neighborhood
and, most likely, will not live here in the future. Insteati, they are developers who will
never have to live with the overly dense housing they propose.
3. I was distressed to read that this proposal had been supported by my council
reprasentative, Jerry Blakey. Ifthis is correct, this decision seems to have been made
against the eapress desires of the nearest neighbors. It was certainly made without my
input. Why didn't I receive a cali from my council representative or his staff prior to this
decision? How can an informed and reflective decision be made without seeking this
input? How is it that my council representatives can always locate me at election time
and never seek my opinions when changes are to be made in the neighborhood?
4. In principle, I am against variances. Variances require a citizen to enforce the
zoning codes, rather than govemment officiais enforcing the laws they are sworn to
uphold. In the 20 plus years I have lived in this neighborhood, I have been asked
numerous times to police my neighbors through granting or not granting variances. In
every incidence I can think of, I have later come to regret agreeing to the variance.
While in theory legislation-by-variance might seem wise, what happens i;� practiee is that
generalty citizens agree to a variance rather than f ght a neighbor and create ili feeling
within their mutual tiving space. Prior to the construction, one simply cannot know how
helshe will be afFected by the ftnished construction. Once the construction is finish, there
is no way to reverse the variance.
Two such variances stand out in my mind One involves the garages which are along the
ailey just south of my home. Because those garages where built into the private alley
behind my house, my access to tha4 space (on which I pay Yaxes) is reduced. Another is
the ]oading dock at the St. Paul Church Home across Mackubin at which semi-trucks
regularly untoad eariy in the moming, causing noise and disturbing my sleep.
Zoning ordinances and codes were put in place for specific reasons—supposedly for the
greater good of the majoriry of the peopie. Why then is one person or one gmup of
peopie aliowed to manipulate those zoning ordinances, through the variance process, to
gain a specific favor at the majority's eazpense? Once a variance is granted, all people
foHpwing must live with that special concession granted to a singie person/singte group
of peopie. This is bad policy. Instead of finding ways around them, why not require
people to live within the zoning ordinances?
In summary . . .
• I urge you to reject this proposa! anc! the variances it reqnires.
• I urge you to uphold the zoning ordinances.
• I urge you to consider the wishes of cunent tax-paying residents of Yhis neighborhood.
• I urge you to maintain the atmosphere of our neighborhood.
• I urge you Yo consider the wotk that many of the current residents have put into this
neighborhood over the past 3Q plus years to preserve an important part of St. Paui's
lustory.
Please work with us to continue to pteserve Ramsey Hill and this beaurifui city. Please
reptesent the residents of your city.
Sincerety,
�
Margazet Ann Aennen
Ramsey I3i11 Resident
CC: Jerry Blakey
F
��- � ���
' Row Detached
House House q'1-P
Base sq. ft. cost {above grade)
Sq, ft. refinements:
HUAC
Basement (unfnished)
Fireplace (2 story)
Garage (2 car)
Adjnsted sq. ft. cost
Arealshape multiplier
Refined per sq. ft. cost
$39.99
+3.65
+5.91
+1.5G
+z•ss
$53.96
�
$53.15
$4G.10
+3.G5
+5.91
+1.56
+2.$
$60.07
1.063
$63.85
Current cost multiplier
Local multiplier (St. Paul)
�inal�sq. ft.�cost � _ � �1��`!31 �''� $73.CiC�=
1.03
1.12
1.03
1.12
Source: Marshall and Swift Cost Service
� Cost Summary — 8 Units
��-���
Base construction cost of buildings:
Row House C$G1.311sf x 1600 sf x 6=
Detached Home C� $73.G6/sf x 1600 sf x 2=
Total base cost of buildings
Site improvement costs
Indirect costs (not included in base costs)
Land acquisition
Total estimated development cost
Total cost per square foot of building area
$588,576
235,712
8 Unit Development
Gross proceeds � $200,000 per unit
Less: Sales commission @ 7%
Less: Development costs
Net Profit
Discounted C� 12% for 6 month sellout
Discounted C� 12% for 2 mo. develapment
$425,3501$1,600,000 = 26.58%
$824,288
50,000
10,000
1 4 00
$1,038,788
$81.1G
$1,G00,000
112,U00
1,038,788
$449,212
$433,900
$425,350
$425,350/$1,038,788 = 40.95%
O�� �. ��
' Cost 5ummary — 7 Units
Base construction cost of b.uildings:
Row House C$61.31Isf x 160d sf x 6=
Detached Home C� $73.66Jsf x 1600 =
Total base cost of builrlings
Site improvement costs
Indirect costs (not included in base costs)
Land acquisition
Total estimated development cost
Total cost per square foot of building area
7 Unit
$588,57G
117,856
$70G,432
50,000
10,000
1 4 00
$920,932
$82.23
Gross proceeds C$200,000 per unit
Less: Sales commission � 7%
Less: Development costs
Net Profit
Discounted C 12�10 for 6 month sellout
Discounted C� 12°lo for 2 mo. development
$360,8251$1,400,000 = 25.77%
$1,400,000
9$,000
29 0,932
$381,068
$3f 8,078
$3G0,825 -
�3Ga,s25/$920,932 = 39.i8��o
` Cost Summary - 6 Units
Base construction cost of buildings:
Row House C� $61.311sf g 1600 sf x 6=
Total base cost of buildings
Site improvement costs
Indirect costs (not included in base costs)
Land acquisition
Total estimated development cost
Total cost per squaze foot of building area
$588,57G
6 Unit Development
Gross proceeds C$200,000 per unit
Less: Sales commission C� 7°l0
Less: Development costs
Net Profit
Discounted @ 12% for 6 month sellout
Discounted C� 12°lo for 2 mo. development
$297,3211$1,200,000 = 24.78%
� � .. �33
$588,57G
50,000
: 11!
1 54,500
$801,076
$83.45
$1,200,000
84,000
801 •076
$314,000
$303,297
$297,321
$297,3211$801,076 = 37.12%
5�����
��t-��3
May 7, 1997
John Hardwick! St. Paul Office of LIEP
350 St. Peter St., Suite 300
St. Paul, MIV 55102
fte : Development of 496 Lauref Ave Site
Dear Mr. Hardwick:
The proposed devlopment site is directly across the street from our
residence, and we see it every day from our front porch.
My wife(Dianne) and I have recently studied the proposed plan for
deve{opment by Pineview Homes, carefully considered this new design,
and thoughtfully discussed the issues raised by the requested variances.
We strongly oppose this development. Over the long term it will
significantly degrade the value of this neighborhood as well as our own
personat property investment.
The particular legai and architectura! reasons for our objection are
ciearly articulated '+n the "Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals Decision of
Aprii 7, 1997lMailed Apr+l 8; Zoning Flle No. 97-041" (J. Beck, H&M Vogel,
P. Brandt) , as well as the HPC recommendations. The excessive set-back
variances on Laurel & the rear alley are the most egregious parts of the
current pfan.
However , dwelling on the specific legal points of the above ruling
deflects attention from a major point: these zoning rules and
architectural guidetines play a fundamental role in maintining the long -
term health, viability, economic vatue, and continuing
investmenUrehabilitation of this neighborhood and those immediately
surrounding . For example ihe HPC and zoning guidelines support the
architectural and aesthetic value of this area, keeping the "historic"
ambiance as a major component of our real-estate va{ue. If we do not
pay attention to the intent of the guidelines we will see degradation of
value and living standards in this neighborhood.
''r
k
,a _��3
�
Dianne and I have invested many tens of thousands ofi dollars in renovation
costs in our home since 1592. We bought the house in an uninhabitable
state while the Battie Electric building still occupied the 496 Laurel site.
This was a major financial risk for us. We painstakingly worked to obtain
approva{ of the HPC , foliowed aii zoning rules, embraced the spirit and
intent of the "Historic Dlstrict", and sincerely believed we had an
obligation to improve the aesthetic appearance ofi this area.
Why should the developer not be heid to the same standards?
in consideration of this appeal please consider this: as residents we have
a long-term financial and personaf stake in this neighborhood; the
developer only has a short-term financial one. The developer is not a
resident, enabling him to "get the money and run" without accountability
far the long-term wel{-being of the area. To continue improving the
precarious heaith of this lovely old part of St. Paul, a process started
more than 20 years ago by committed residents, demands thai we do the
right thing for the community.
Respectfully
G '��c G S�
Robert C. Jordan
487 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN
ph: 290-0213
�.
�M
�
°I�-��3
TO
APPLICANT
PUBLiC HEARING NOTICE
City Council
Appeat of Decision
Property Owners within 350 feet;
Representatives of Planning District 8
.ludy Beck, Herb 8� Marilyn Vogei, Pam Brandt
PURPOSE Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting
several variances in order to construct an 8 unit
townhouse devefopmerrt.
�dCATiON
OF PROPERTY
TIME OF HEARING
PLACE OF HEARING
HOW TO PART{CIPATE
496 Laurel Avenue
Wednesday, May 7, 1997 at 430 p.m.
City Counci{ Chambers, 3rd Ffoor City Haii-Court House
15 West Keilogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
1. You may attend hearing and testify.
2. You may send a fetter before the hearing to the Office
of L1EP, Attn: John fiardwick, 350 St. Peter Street,
Suite 300, Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102
3. Participation is not required. This is your notice of
pubiic hearing.
ANY QUESTlONS Call John Hardwick of the Office of LiEP af 266-9082 or
your District Councii Representative at 228-1855 with the
following information:
Zoning File Number 97-100
- Zoning File Name Judy Beck, Herb & Marilyn Vogel, Pam
Brandt
.._ :. ti ��;�i
�
U
�
Council File # °l�t -833
Green Sheet # � �� 7 �
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
JRI�I�!A�.
Presented By
Referred To
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Whereas, Mendota Homes, Inc. made application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance
from the strict application of the provisions of the Saint Paui Zoning Code for property located at 496
Laurel Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and legally described as I,ots 13, 14, & 15, Block 9, Woodland
Park Addirion; and
Whereas, the purpose of the application was to vary the standards of the Saint Paul Zoning Code
[§§ 61.101 and 63.107(d)] so as to provide for several setback vaziances as well as a variance of the
separation requirement betcveen buildings, in order to conshuct an 8 unit townhouse development; and
Whereas, The Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearin$ on Apri17, 1997, after
having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, by its Resolution
97-041, adopted Apri17, 1997, granted the variance application based upon the following fmdings and
conclusions:
L The proposed townhouse development, three hvo-unit and two single-unit structures
with a total of 32 zoning rooms, is under the density allowed (38 rooms) for this site. A
low densiry development of one-unit and two-unit buildings that is in keeping with the
Heritage Preservation guidelines and the chazacter of the surrounding neighborhood has
created the need for the variances.
2. The inclusion of this property in a Heritage Preservation Dish and the character of
the surrounding neighborhood are circumstances that were not created by the applicant.
3. A low density development of one-unit and two-unit buildings as opposed to a single,
two or three story structure with as many as 19 apartment units which would be allowed
on this site given the RM-2 zoning and lot size, is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
4. This parcel has street frontage on two sides and abuts an alley on another side. The
setback vaziances for these three sides will not affect the supply of light or air to the
adjacent properties. The variances xequested for the East side of the properiy are
relatively minor and can be further mitigated through landscaping or fencing. The
proposed development, if it meets Heritage Preservation o idelines, wi11 fit in well with
the neighborhood and will not diminish established properiy values.
5. The proposed vaziances, if granted, will not change or alter the zoning classification
of the property.
6. The applicant states that the primary goat of this project is to create a low density
development of one-unit and two-unit structures that is in keeping with the chazacter of
the surrounding area and Heritage Preservation guidelines.
Whereas, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, Judy Beck, Herb
and Marylyn Vogel and Pam Brandt, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination
,.
q1- �33
�
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
made by the Boatd of Zoning Appeals, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the
purpose of considering the actions taken by the Board of Zoning Appeals; and
Whereas, Acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Sections 64205 through 64.208, and
upon notice to afFected parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the Ciry Council on May 7, 1997,
where all interested parties were given an opportuniry to be heazd; and
Whereas, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the vaziance
application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does
hereby
Resolve, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the decision of the Board
of Zoning Appeals in this matter, based upon the following fmdings of the Council:
Having heard the public testimony and considered all the records and files in this matter,
the Council finds no error as to fact, fmding, or procedure on the part of the Board of
Zoning Appeals, and that the Council of the Ciry of Saint Paul hereby adopts and
incorporates as its own, the findings of the Board of Zoning Appeals as set forth above;
and
Be It Further Resolved, based upon the above findings, that the appeal of Judy Beck, Herb and
Marylyn Vogel and Pam Brandt be and is hereby denied; and
Be it Finally Resolved, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Judy Beck, Herb
and Marylyn Vogel, Pam Brandt and Mendota Hames, Inc., the Zoning Administrator, the Planning
Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Adopted by Covncil: Date t�yy� l l�
1
Adoption Certified by Counci � Sec ary
HY: a �
Approved by a o. D�te � 1�
By:
6
Form Approved by City Attorney
B ���<•/w.vr�- t "rP''j'y
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
Byc
c��y co,���
6-18-97 f GREEN SHEET
p � O DEPARiMEM DIREGTOR
��W lO NUMaER FOR � C4TY ATTORPlEY
pp�� �HUDGETOIRECTOR
ORUEF � MpYOR (OR ASSISTAN7J
TOTAL # OF 31GNATURE PAGES (CUF ALL LOCATIONS FOH SIGNATURE)
���4U
� � ��� �
iNR1AUDATE —
cm couwca
CRYCLERK
FIN. 8 MGT. SERYICES OIR.
Finalizing City Coimcil action taken May 7, 1997, denying the appeat of Judy Beck, Her & Marilyn Vogel and Pam Brandt
to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting variances to construct an eight unit towahouse development at 496
Laurel Avenue.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) a pejeC[ (R)
_ PLANNiNG COMMISSION __ CML SERYICE COMMISSION
�. Ci8 COMMRiEE � .
_ STAFF� _ "
_ DISTRICTCOURT _'
SUPPOHTS WMICH COUNCIL O&lECT7VE7
TOTAL AMOUNT OF SRANSACTION S
PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS NUST ANSWER TNE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS:
1. Has Mis pe�soMirm ever worked untler a conmct tor Mis departrneM?
YES NO
2. Has this personfittn ever been a ciy BmPloyee? '-
YES NO
3. Does this personfirm possess a skifl not rro'ma�ly possessed by any cunent city emplqee?
YES NO
Explaln all yes answen on sepatate shae[ sntl ettA¢� to gresn ahee[
COSTlREVENU£ BUDGETED (CIRCIE ONE) YES NO
FUNRIHG SOUHCE ACTIVttY NUMBER
FINANCIAI 1NFDAbSAT10N: �EXPoAIN)
OFFICE OF TF� CITY ATTORNEY �./� �
PegBir7� CityAttorney /lI� �� �a
'l
CIfiY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
civit Divrsion
400 Ciry Hat!
I S West Kellogg Blvd
SainrPaul, Mimlesota SS102
Tetephone: 612 26b$710
Facsimile: 612 298-5614
June 18, 1447
HAND DELIVERED
Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Saint Paul City Hall
RE: Appeal of Mendota Homes, Inc., 496 Laurel Avenue
BZA File No. 97-041
Dear Nancy:
Attached please fmd a signed resolution formalizing the decision of the Saint Paul City
Ccouncil in the above enfided matter. The resolution should be set on the Council's Consent
Agenda at your eaziiest convenience. If you haue any questions please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Very truly yours,
������
Peter W. Wamer
Assistant City Attorney.
OFFtCE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND t�`^� 1��' v ' 1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE(."LION
Robert Kess[er, Direttar
OF SAINT PAUL
Coleman, Mayor
w�r
Aprii 24, 1497
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Keseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
7AWRY PROF£SSIONAL
BUIIDING
Suite 300
350 St. Peter Streei
Saint Paut, Minnesota 55102-IS70
��.�33
Telephone, 612-26G9090
Facsimile: 612-2664049
612-26b9124
I would like to confum that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
May ?, 1997 for the following appeal of a Boazd of Zoning Appeals decision:
Appellant: Tudy Beck, Her & Maryilyn Vogal, Pam Brandt
File Number: 9?-IDO
Purpose: Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting several
variances in order to const�vct an 8 unit townhouse
Address:
development.
496 Laurel Ave
Legal Description of Property: Lots 13,14, & 15, Block 9, Woodland Pazk Add.
Previous Action:
The 9ummit University Planning Council and Raznsey Hill
Association held a joint community issues meeting and
unanimously recommended approval.
Staff recommended approval.
Boazd of Zoning Appeais; Granterl the request on a vote
of ?-0.
My understanding is that this public heazing request wiil appear on the agenda for the
May Y, 1941 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 qbestions.
' cerely,
lohn Hazdwick
Zoning Technician
ec: Cauneil Member Blakey
� NO�CE OF PUBLIC HEARINQ - -
The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, May
7, 1997. iri the City CouncIl Chambers. Third Floor City Hall-6ourt Aouse, to eonsider
the appeal of Judy Beck, Aer & Mazilyn Vogei. and Pam Brandt to a decision of the
Board ofZoning P;ppeals grantingseveraTvariances in order to constnicf an eight unit
townhouse development at 496_Laurel Avenue. -
Dated: April 30, 1997 : - ,
NANCY ANDERSON - � � - - �
Assistant City Ctiuncil Secretary �. -
- ' (May 3, 1997}
Zoning File #:
Project Name:
Applicant c
Telephone:
Representative:
Telephone:
Location:
Legal Description:
Purpose:
Date Received:
Notification Sent:
Aearing Date:
Land Use Map:
Tax Map:
Present Zoning:
District:
District Planner:
xistory:
Notes:
INFORMATION CUVER SHEET
97-160 Zoning Type: Appeal
Appeal File #:
VOGEL APP FflT•
HERB VQGEL
471 ASHLAND AVE
ST PAUL, MN 55102-OODO
(612)224-2053
q�-�33
{612)�00-0000
496 Laurel Ave
Lots 13, 14, & 15, Block 9, Woodland Park Add.
An appeal of a Board af Zoning Appeals deciaion granting several
variances in order to construct an 8-unit townhouse development.
�4/22/97
04�23�97 : .-
Sj719?
20
10
RM-2
8
96-283, 9�-041
�
�3
APPLICATION POR APPEAL
Department af Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
IZ00 City Hall Ann�z
ZS West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
Zip �S I t7 LDaytime phone ZZ - 2 S3
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Zoning File Name �� — 0 � � �I
Address/Locetion � � � Lc� u �y-QQ ��
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeaf to the:
O Board of Zoning Appeais ,�i City Council
under the provisions ofi Chapter 64, Section ' , Paragraph
appeal a decision made by
of the Zoning Code, to
on � �nv-i Q� , 18� F�ife number: J q'I ^0� I
(date o�
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board ofi Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
5 e�. �- � �. � �R-
tYs!21197oaooa1D:31Aif
�CDBO VAR2Ah,CE
G#ECK
Attach additiona! sheet if necessary)
��9
ApplicanYs signature t ?'�4�C� U aR� Date� City agen�� /
al'1- 8'��
Apri120, 1997
City of Saint Paul
City Council
Re: APPEAL OF BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECISION OF APRIL 7,1997
MAILED APRIL 8,1997 ZOIVING FTLE NO. 97-041
We the undersigned do hereby appeal the waivers (approoal of variances) granted by the
Boazd of Zoning Appeals on April 7, 199? for the property at 496 Laurel Avenue for
development by Mendota Homes, also identifying themselves as Pineview Homes.
This appeal is being taken because of enors in the fmdings of facts and procedural errors.
The waiver of the provisions of 61.141 was not in accordance with the requirements
defined in 64.203, The granting of the waiver has a grave negafive impact on the
undersigned and other surrounding property owners of which we are representative and
has an adverse affect on the safety and the public welfare of the neighborhood.
Whereas this appeal is requested by property owners in accordance with the
Notice provisions described in 64.208. This request for appeal is filed, along
with required payment, within fifteen days of the mailing on April 8, 1497.
Erroneous Finding of Facts include but are not limited to numbers 1, 2, 4, and 6.
Fanding #1: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under strict
provisions of the code.
Response: This property can be put to reasonable use and kept within the
requirements of the code. This is a very desirable property comprised of
three adjacent vacant lots, inciuding a corner lot. The terrain is essentially
flat, there are no encumbrances or problems with the land either on the site
or caused by any adjacent property. A similaz development could be
accomplished without the variances or with only minimal variances, with
fewer buildings. An example is attached.
Finding # 2: The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this
property and these circumstances were not created by the landowner.
Response: There is no plight. The applicant has volunteered to develop tlus site.
Inclusion of the properry in the Historical Preservation District is not
}ustification for a variance. None of the variances requested originate
with, or are related to meeting any of the District Guidelines, nor are the
requested variances caused by any of the District Guidelines.
al� - 83�
City Council re: Appeal of Zoning Board file 97-041
Page 2
Finding # 4: The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the
surrounding area and unreasonably diminish the property values within
the surrounding area.
Response: (a). The Laurel Avenue setback variance is not in keeping with the zoning
provisions, street scape or District guidelines. The average setback on the
block is 21 feet. This variance has a significant impact on Laurel, as 150
feet of this pazcel are on Laurel Avenue. There is no reason why these
three vacant lots can not be developed with the same set backs required
and foilowed on this block.
(b). The rear setback variance from 25 feet ta 5 feet significantly impacts
the alley and property across the alley. A safety issue is created with
vehicles (including an increased number of vehicles from this
development) entering and leaving the alley at Mackubin with limited
visibility. Pazking restrictions on Mackubin will be necessary. This
variance atso eliminates light from the reaz windows in the church
condominiums at 114 Mackubin, This is partacularly problematic due to
the height of the buildings. This is a significant negative impact on this
property and would not be allowed without the variance.
(c). The proposed development overcrowds the parcels; the main purpose
of the variances is to put more buildings on the parceL The RM-2 zoning
of the property permits a macimum density, but does not require massive
setback variances to achieve any density.
Finding # 6: The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the
value or income potential of the pazcel of land.
Response: This finding is most glaringly contrary to the Code Provisions.
The applicants propose to fill the parcel with mulYipie buildings. The
number of buildings is only driven by the desire to achieve a higher profit
return. A similar development could be achieved without variances, be in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood and provide for an
adequate return on investment. Councilman Blakey has received a letter
outlining a significant profit mazgin for such a development, based on
industry srandazd figures.
�i'1-8�3
City Council re: Appeal of Zoning Boazd file 97-041
Page 3
Specific Requests:
We urge the Council to reverse and deny the 2 variances granted by the Zoning Board for
the front and reaz yard setbacks. First, the I,aurel setback should be in accordance with
the 61.101 requirements. The average setback for Laurel is 21 feet; we ask that the Laurel
setback variance to I S feet be denied. This is significant'due to the I50 foot frontage on
Laurel. A 21 foot setback is consistent for this block.
Second, the rear yazd setback should be at 25 feet; not 5 feet.
Third, there are at least two code requirements that were not addressed by the variance
hearing and the proposed development is not in compliance with Sections 61.101 ( c)
and 61.101 ( h). For these reasons, the development and site plan must be reviewed in
the context of distances required between all the buildings and open space requirements
for townhomes. •
In conclusions:
There is no hazdship or piight. This is vacant parcel-- (three lots including a
corner lot).
2. When the council overturned the HPC recommendations, the direction from
the council included compromise design discussions. The Laurel Avenue
setback, however, has not been addressed by the detailed design discussions.
The Laurel Avenue setback is a significant design issue, pertinent to both the
Historic Preservation District and to Zoning Code Provisions.
3. There has not been review hy either the city or neighbors of a specific site
pian. This is of particular importance due to the intense lot coverage as it
relates to the water run-off and drainage, snow removal, rubbish removal, and
usability of gazages with the narrow internal driveway. This is pertinent due
to numerous recent design changes.
4. This is an important site and development, worthy of cazeful city planning.
We urge that the development go forward within the intent of the Code.
City Council re: Appeal of Zoning Board file 9?-041
Page 4
Submitted byr,
d� Y = J -��`'
k, 487 Ashland
�,►�, 1� �y�2 �.. ,�t. d,►; 'i„�,. �v�.2-
Henvard & Marilyn Vogel, 471 Ashland
�..��.�.�.�._�-
Pam Brandt, 99 Mackubin
q� -f33
_' -.. wm nrcemaMenal
Grom:OOndtlE.Chue,Jr. Apr20.499T 632.:Op.m.
°1� -8�� 3
litlackubin Avenue
i4�
—�--�--�--�-- -- -- -- --� — �
�29 �� �
� � I°a-ch f'arch I �
I � �� � � � �
,
1 m �� ^ � I
� O 0� '� �� �' T 1
� � e
v c
I g �� � Q� � a�� � 9 �
� F <
� � � � 1 �' � �1
i � --�- 9 -�-- � �, . �
i I� � I �
Q �.� I F � (�
0�� �� a � � , � � �
�� � � � <
� o� � o� � o� a °-�� � ��
I o� � o� � o� � o � a -� � � �
s F
V � � S � I
I � 1
�
f N z I_
I ' � I �` �
i �
I N -� � -� N -� � -� -� S I
� o�� o�a o�� °�, � �
i o�� o o�� � ��� s �
I._.__.�_ __._-. � �_._�
� --- �— -- --'_�. �21—�—
�I-r,� �lan i�ropos�l #�
�{-J� Laurel Av�. S�, paul. MN
°I't-�33
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
1. APPLICANT: MENDOTA HOMES INC.
2. CLASSIFICAT'ION: Major Variance
3. LOCATION: 496 LAUREL AVENUE
FILE # 97-041
DATE OF HEARING: 04/07J9?
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 13, 14, & 15, Block 9, Woodland Park Add.
5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
6. PRESENT ZONING: RM-2 ZONING CODE REFEI2ENCE: 61.1Q1, 63.107 (d)
7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 3l20/97 BY: 3ohn Hardwick
8. DATE RECEIVED: 03/07197 DEADLINE FOR ACTTON: OS/06197
A. PURPOSE: Severai setback variances and a variance of the separation required between
buildings in order to construct an 8-unit townhouse development.
B. ACTION REQUESTED:
1. A front setback of 21 feet from Laurel Avenue is required and a setback of 15 feet is
proposed, for a variance of 6 feet.
2. A rear yard setback of 25 feet is required and a setback of 5 feet is proposed, for a
variance of 20 feet.
3. A side yard setback of 9 feet is required and a setback of 7 feet from the east property line
is proposed for the easternmost townhouse, and a setback of 4 feet from the east property
line is proposed for detached garages for variances of 2 feet and 5 feet respectively.
4. The maximum projection into a required yard for a fireplace is 1 foot and the proposed
projection for all fireplaces is two feet, for a variance of 1 foot.
5. An 18-foot separation between buildings is required and a 10-foot separation is progosed
between units B& C and units D& E and a separation of 14.4 feet between units E& H,
for a variances of 8 feet and 3.8 feet respectivety.
C. STTE AND AREA CONDTTIONS: This is a 141 by 154 foot parcel located at the southeast
comer of Laurel and Mackubin. There is ailey access to the rear of the property. The
property is located within a Heritage Preservation District.
Surrounding Land Use: A miarture of single- and multi-family housing.
�� r F ✓'�
File #97-041
Page Two
D. BACKGROUNU: This parcel was formerly occupied by a one-story commercial structure
that was demolished in 1992. In 1988, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted several variances
to allow construction of a 10-unit townhouse with 28 underground parking spaces on this site.
Atthough the Herita�e Preservation Commission granted approval for the project and the
BZA granted a one year extension, the praject was never started. Tn December of 199b, the
BZA heard a proposal for a variance request to construct a 7-unit rowhouse structure and 2
carriage houses on this site. The matter was continued due to possible changes in the plan.
The developer, Mendota Homes INC., is now proposing this latest plan.
E. FfNDINGS:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of
the code. '
The proposed townhouse development, three two-unit and two single-unit structures with
a total of 32 zoning rooms, is under the density allowed (38 rooms) for this site. A low
density development of one- and two-unit buildings that is in keeping with Heritage
Preservation guidelines and the character of the surrounding neighborhood has created the
need for the variances.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
ciraumstances were not created by the land owner.
The inclusion of this property in a Heritage Preservation District and the character of the
surroundinJ neighborhood 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 welfare of the inha6itants of the City of St.
Paul.
A low density development of one- and two-unit buildings, as opposed to a single, two or
three-story structure with as many as 19 apartment units which would be allowed on this
site given the RM-2 zoning and lot size, is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
4. The praposed variance wilt not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor wilt it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding area or unreasonably
diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
cl rl - p� 3�
File #197-041
Page Three
This parcel has street fronta�e on two sides and abuts an alley on another side. The
setback variances for these three sides will not affect the supply of light or air to the
ad}acent properties. The variances requested for the east side of the property are
relatively minor and can be further mitigated through landscaping or fencing.
The proposed development, if it meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, will fit in well
with the nei�hborhood and will not diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not pemtitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located,
nor would it a(ter or change the zoning district classification of the properry.
The proposed variances, if granted, will not change ot alter the zoning classification of the
property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to iricrease the vatue or income
potential of the parcei of land.
The applicant states that the primary goal of this project is to create a low density
development of one- and two-unit structures that is in keeping with the character of the
surrounding area and Heritage Preservatson guidelines.
F. DISTRICT CO[3NCII. RECOMMENDAT'ION: The Summit University Planning Council
and the Ramsey Hill Association have unanimously recommended approvai of the variances
requested.
G. STAFF I2ECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staffrecommends
approval of the variances subject to the condition that appropriate landscaping or fencing is
added along the east property line.
4�
ZONING BOAflD
/l�l �1�0(�
`° ' �97--oy/
:. ��
APPLICATION FOR Z�NING ORDIfVANCE VARIANCE
iere appropriate. �(` � �
l � YPssc.�`' { �
7 7 �, ��!� �
7
. / �D r
� CITY OF� PAUL /b"� [� 2�'J 3 �
( { J l , ��
A VARIANCE OF ZONiNG CODE CHAPTER r� �, SECTION�_ PARAGRAPH
IS REQUESTED IN CON�ORMITY WVTH THE POWERS VESTED {N THE BOAflD OF ZONING AP-
PEALS TO PERMIT THE �� ���`� � ON PROPERTY
DESCRIBEDBEIOW. T(JLyJf(LYYlGS ,
A. Applicant; NAME:
DAYiIME?ELEPHONE NQ. � jO�a'�7� r 1�i i ZIP CODE �as
t. Property interest of applicant: (owner, contract purchaser, etc.)\ � Z( � Q� sC
y9 ! 2o tJ
2. Name of ow�er (if different) Q�vIQ �� ����� ��� /-
C-
B. Property Description:
7. Legal descriptio
/�,
2. Lot size: �
ADDRESS W�CY�- �C!%-�Z7L I"RL.�...'G�S11.I
1 /�IJS k'c�t,�� ,0.42�
LOT SLOCK�_ ADD. Rd�J f77t�
1 X �o . Z31u�`�
ti/F�ca.vt-- /1 l�1 �
3. Present Use �r Present Zoning Dist. r �" `
G. ReasonsforRequesC
t. Pro use �dGS9If '�b(,til'I t{DuS�= �//*�J��T -- 3 {2(rYf / (
a�Lt G� ���/r��� �Q'C�'7 GU`t� L�CG�r��w Cbn� { tZ -WI
2. Wfiat pFrysicaf charaEteristics f�'he roperty prevent its being used for any af the permitted
uses in your zone? (topography, soil conditions, size and shape of lot, etc.
7ff/5 /S An1 ALtn05� SQuQ2E P.�ctPbtTy l..�{/7/ f?o405 Gh 3
5/ll�sC�NGU,�a/� ALL�Y} Tf/4T�lc!?�7�5 U,dZ14�vLcs
State the
/��b� �� J�t�
4. Exptain how your
of the following:
r .., � f �-r . — v
����� Q�f"� 1 `.�
!
��-�
� a. Tha6 the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar
' or excepUOnal practical difficulties, or exceptional undue bardsbips, s[�((Q/L� S/T� G�/IX
E Prr�vw,t ac.� scT 84cres oa�s ,vor l�vtJ ,rstZF Ta ,p tfausalb
�F/TTwb 7tf75 N�76/f$a21Yot�
r �J31�7f47c�oo�.�i�:t�.^ti � _'�`: i
i_ b. That the granting of a variance wiH �• ,,,;,,�
' not be a substantial tletriment to � F ��HIERS U5E ONLY � -
� &s �� +t33�.�t
; public good or a substanUal impair• ,. ,
� ment oi the intent and purpose of "��t�'` j�'fl '� -"�-+� �� �.
� theZontngOMinar�ce. CHt��GE �,�(}
�t�ill ft� l�vZa
-rt�c hu, l,�t�-ha
��� Z
un�� ���
z�(4� lht�clGit
cv,l( '�n-���re—
:, a �° ,h4�r(�
� ��� �;
..,� . _ -;. _
�.�
?J95
�t�. F�3
��
�
� ------
Ri 1, y ! 1
f1 �iI �i S.s � i�
� �r
� � E. �i z
; � � � �
` � �
i
: �
�i
��
a
�
�
' 1� 1, t I ( {.
j � t�i �i fu �
Li31t5w9bAN
�
' � _ �_ _ _ _�
�i �_ �; �•
i � k� 4a ki
: t � {
�`
� �� � �
� � � �,
� { i�
<�
�' �
���,��
�'
,.
9� -�33
�
2
'n
�
:
���
��
���
� -_-__
-�- ---
� �
g �� ��
--�
�� � �
� ��
�l
I il
lµ
al'1- ��'J
��� l�:
I
�
A �
S '
� �i
� -�t
� = , ,
�
►;
�
�
��
;t
,�
:
RCGOIL7t �IUM� I�1
;ui�lii ii: .
JERRY BLAKEY
Coundlmember
March 18, 1997
CITY OF SAINfi PAUL
OFFICE OF TI� CITY COUNCII.
Ms. Tracey Baker, Chair
Neritage Preservation Commission
cio 1868 Sargent Avenue
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105
Dear Ms. Baker:
�11-�
1 am writing to express my support for the proposed town home �project on Laurei
Avenue and MacKubin Street.
Frank Greczyna and his staff have done an excellent job in addressing the concerns of
the neighborhood and the Heritage Preservation Commission. In fact, the Summit-
University Planning Council and the Ramsey Hi1f Association unanimously supported
the projeci, incfuding the variances for tha front porch and rear setbacks, at their
community issue meeting on March 13, 1997.
i hope that the heritage Preservation Commission wiil consider the
my o�ce and the neighborhood extend to this pro}ect in considerin
requested.
Sincerely,
Jerry B
City Co cilmember
variances
���� �
n . -�
cc: Frank Greczyna �Y 1'^' "" n J
Aaron Rubenstein �(
Summit-University Ptanning Counci( �f
Ramsey Hill Associatian � � j�� -
� J�"�"
CITY HALL THIRD FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
s .�..<a
PdnRd ou Raycled Paper
t/"" '
)�
U� � ,
� Jf 1 �." � �
� ��� ,
�� " "V �
612J266-86J0
a�_��3
Shaping the future of a historic neighbofiood in Saint Paui
400 Selby Avenue, Sui[e M, St. Paul, MN 55102
March 17, 1997
John Hardwick
LIEP
350 St. Peter St. Suite 300
St. Paul, Mn. 55102-1510
Dear Mr. Hardwick,
On March 13, 1997 the Ramsey Hill Association held a community
issnes meeting concerning the several variances requested by Mendota
Homes for the development at 496 Laurel Ave. - your file #97-041.
The neighborhood was noticed of the meeting and several neighbors
were in attendance.
The Association approved all of the variances requested. We are
impressed with the quality of this project and laok forward to seeing it
built.
S' cer y,
� ��l�.Gu i��
ud McLaughlin, President
sey Hill Association
SUMM�T-17NIVERSIT'Y
�'LAI`�i'NING COUNCIL
°t'1-�'33
i
827 Se{by Avenue --��--�
Saint Paul Minnesote 651Q4 ' ' ' '—'
7'elephone 228-1855
Friday, Maxch 14, 1997
Board of Zoning Appeais
25 West Fowth Street
Saint Paut, M�nnesota 55142
Ii�: zoning Fi1e # 47-041
The Summit University T'lanning Couacil, together with the Ramsey Fii3i Association
casponsored a Community Tssues meeting which was held Thursday, March 33, 3997 to
provida a forum for neighborhood input on Mendota �Tomes Inc.'s request for several
setback varixnces and a variance of the separation required beiween buildings in order to
construct an 8 unit townhouse developmenk.
Project developers made a presernation wktich ineiuded architectural renderings of the
projeot and responded to questions from tl�e community. Pursuam to #his and other
infomiation shared, a rnotion was made and �assed ananimously to approve the varianas
as requested.
Tf you have any questions pr nesd further information, please contact me at Z28-1855.
Sincerely,
7°��.�-
Peggy Byrne
Bxecutive birector
Z0'd 54:00 lki8 t6-ST-21liW
fQ. 90 J1
/
APP�fCAN7 Mc1'1�0"FCA ��'.S _111C_.
PURPOSE MQ�r �af1 nee'
-,�E a 9 or. y•�• 9�7
'LNG. DIST � � ktAP #7 �—
;CAI.E 1' = 400'�
LEGEND
....��, zoning district boundary
� subjed property
0 one famiiy
� N+o famity .
'�¢Q muttipfe famity
<nonhl
• � � commerciai
� �.,. industrial
V vacant
. ,.
o��, f��
1. SUNRAY-BATIT.ECREEK-HIGHWOOD
2. HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERTTY HILLCREST
3. WEST SII7B
4. DAYTON'S BLUFF
5. PAXNE-PHALEN
6. NORTEi END
7, THOMAS-DALE
8. SUMMfT-UIv'IVERSTTY
9. WEST SEVENTH
10. COMO
11. HAMLINE-MIDWAY
12, ST. ADITFiONY PARK
13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE
14. MACALESTER G120VELAND
15. T3IGHI.AN7�
16. SL3MMTT HILL
17. DOWNfOWN
CITIZEN PARTICII'ATION PLANh�Ii�?G DISTRICI'S
Gr� .�'S�
MINUTES OF THE MEETIIdG OF THE SOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COLJNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, APRIL 7,1997
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox and Bogen; Messrs. A1tAn, Donohue, Scherman, Tully and WHson of the
Boud of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hardwick and
Ms. Synstegaazd of the O�ce of License, Inspection, and Environmentat Protectioa
ABSENT None
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddo� Chair.
MENDOTA HOMES INC (#97-041) - 496 LAUREL AVEN[JE: Several setback variances and a
variance of the sepazation required betrveen buildings in order to construct an 8-unit townhouse developmenk
The applicant was present. There was no opposition present at the hearing.
Mr. Audwick stated that a revised site plan that changes the requested sepazation from 10' to 7' between the
buildings was submitted by the applicant subsequent to a campromise with the Ramsey Hill Association and
a representative from Councilmember Blakey's office. The Heritage Preservat�on Comtnission reviewed tlils
matter and denied the agplicatiott last week. Their denial was based on: 1) the orientation of the comer
building to MacKubin rather than Laurel is not compatible with the chazacter of the district; 2) the proposed
development is also incompafible with the character of the district because of the unifotmity of design of the
proposed buildings; and 3) the proposed 15' setback from Laurel Avenue conflicts with the districPs
guidelines and is incompatible with the character of the district.
Mr. Hazdwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval
subject to the condition that appropriate landscaping or fencing is added along the east property line.
One letter was received in opposition stating there is no demonstrated hardship and they feel this
development is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Hazdwick asked Mr. Wamer to address the ]egal implications of a revised site pian in regazds to
notification purposes. Mr. Warner stated that the submission of the site plan at this particulaz time doesn't
affect this hearing on the variances requested.
Ms. Bogen stated that number five under acuon requested of the staff report is inconect since the applicant
initially requestetl a 10' variance sepazation and now they aze asldng for a 7' separation She added that where
the buildings aze placed on the property doesn't make any difference as far as the side yazd setbacks, but the
setbacks for the variances between the separation of the buildings is different. Mr. Warner replied that is
correct but the purpose of today's hearing it is to allow people an opporhuiiry to be heard. He stated that it is
his opinion ihat the difference of 3' in a building not yet built and not adjacent to any presently occupied
structure, is not necessarily going to preclude anybaly from tesfifying to that fact taday in what impact that
might have overall on this project. Nevertheless, the Boazd wuld state that they've not had an adequate time
to reviecv the documents and lay the matter over.
a� -�
File #97-041
Page Two
John Mathem, Mendota Homes, Inc., Box 416, Forest Lake, Minnesota, stated that they have a new proposal
resulting from their meeting with the Ramsey Hill Association. The proposal is for eight living units, ttu�ee 2-
unit build'urgs and two detached buildings on the comu of Laurel and MacKubin. He stated that they took
direction that they received from the citizens at the neighborhood meet�ngs. One request was to reduce the
density and that none of the gazages front the alley. They have done that by intemalizing the garages oa the
site plan. In meetings with the community organizer and a siaff inember from Councilmember Blakey's
office, they have come to a conctusion that they could produce the sazne buildings with a front porch and side
views by simply turning one two-unit onto Laurel. In this way they would present two 2-units. He presented
a large site plan drawing to the Boazd and explained them. The side yazds will go from 16' to 7' wluch is why
they need the variances. They don't feel ihis is a significant change, although it would alleviate concerns of
having more units on Laurel and ]ess on MacKubin. The HPC didn't support them but they did receive
neighborhood support and support from Councilmember Blakey's office. They feei this plan is in keeping
with the neighborhood character which is mixed with a commerciai building across the street and townhomes
further down the block. They don't feel the setback on Laurel was a significant issue because of the various
setbacks along the street.
Dick Hidey, HRM Architects, passed azound a graphic drawing that showed th� setbacks more clearly. They
feel their setbacks aze a blend of what you find on the strat.
Mr. Aiton asked if there was a revised elevation drawing of the view from MacKubin. Mr. Mathern replied
no, but explained how it would look on a drawing he passed azound to the Board.
Ms. Bogen asked if one of the buildings on MacKubin would be a side view. Mr. Hidey replied yes and
sho�ved the drawings to the Board. ~•'
Mr. Alton asked if the side yard setback on the two-unit building would be more than 1Q'. Mr. Mathern
replied it would be 18' away from the other 2-unit on the side and they exceed the side yard setbacks on
MacKubin. He stated that ihe reaz yazd is within 7' of the side yard of the next twin home. Mr. Hidey stated
that when they rotated the twin home to front on Laurel they had lazger back yazds then the previous plan,
They were delighted with that change and fee] more positive about this plan than they did with the originai
one. They also increased the width of the driveway from 20' to 24'. This was a concem to some of the
neighborhood residents.
Mr. Alton stated that tlus proposed plan was obviously designed with the consideration of the HPC
Guidelines in mind. Mr. Mathem and Mr. Hidey replied yes. Mr. Alton asked what limitations that presented
to them in terms of fitting the plan onto the site? The limits they found are that the site fronts aspbaIt on
three sides. They felt that by fronting more usuts on Laurel it would be a positive change and that is why
they revised their site plan.
Mr. Alton stated that the developer could build a three-sWry squue brick apartment building with a asphalt
parking lot and meet the zoning requirements. However, the developer chose to try and comply with the HPC
guidelines and designed this current plan.
Mr. Hidey stated that they designed eight units and have tried to make them appeaz as detached as possible.
a�_��3
File #97-041
Page Three
3udy McLaughlin, President of the Ramsey Hill Association, stated that they met with the developer in
conjunction with the Neighborhood Development Committee of District 8 and have made significant headway
in working with the neighborhood to come up with a design and configuration that takes into consideration
the character of the neighborhood and the historic district_ They voted unanimously to approve the variances
that were originalty proposed to the Board. One of the issues the HPC had was the orientation of ihe
buildings. The developers wers willing to change this.
3erry Mcinemey, I.egislative Aide to Councilmember Blakey, stated their office went to the developers and
asked them if there were things they could do hy flipping the buildings. They also asked them to revise their
porch design to include an all wood front. The HPC appeal will come befare the City Council on Apri19.
Mazch 13 was the date of the community meeting where the variances were unanimously approved. Last
Wednesday they met with the developer to come to an agreement. He apologized for the confusion of the site
plan but stated it was an effort to try to get the development moving forward and to come to an agcernent to
hy and satisfy all parties. �
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Alton moved to approve the variance and resolution based on fmdings i through 6 subjut to the
condition that appropriate landscaping or fencing is added along the east property ]ine.
Mr. Scherman seconded tha motion.
Ms. Bogen staeed that she wouldn't be opposed to the variances except she feels that a 7' separation wiU lead
to overcrowding on the block and limited airflow to people in the uniks ihat are affected by the 7' sepazation.
Mr. Alton stated his motion was for the 7' separation variance on the latest revised plans.
Mr. Hazdwick stated that the required separation between buildings is 18' so the revised site plan would
require a variance of 11' between the two units that front on MacKubin, and on the double units that front on
both MacKubin and Laurel. On B. 5. o� the staff report it should state, "An 18-foot sepaza6on is required
between the buildings fronting on MacKubin and the rear of the north comer building on Laurel, and a 7-foot
sepazation is proposed, for a variance of 11 feet " He stated that the 14.4 feet and 3.8 feet can be stricken
because they are no longer required. The applicant has gained the required sepazation between the buildings
that &ont on Laurel.
Mr. Alton moved to amend his motion to comply with the 11-foot variance.
Ms. Bogen stated that she dcesn't understand why there dcesn't need to be a reno�cation for residents who
may be concemed about how close the buildings are.
Mr. Warner stated that the changes as requested are zelatively minor and formal notice of the entire ptoposal
is not necessary.
-..
°l� _ �"� 3
File #97-041
Page Fow
The Boud voted unarumously to approved the amendment to the morion on a vote of 1 to 0.
The motion passed on a roll call vote of 7 to 0.
5 ,�.� ���/C/�
John Hazdwick
John Tully, Secretary
CITY OF SAINT PAUL �� �
BOARD OF ZONING AP'PEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMSER: s7-oai
�I�T�' : Apri17,1997
WHEREAS, MENDOTA HOMES INC. has applied for a variance from the strict application of
the provisions of Section 61.101, 63.107 (d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the
coastruction of an 8-unit townhouse development in the RM-2 zoning district at 496 LAUREL
AVENUE; and
WF�',REAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 04/07/97,
pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64205 of the Legislative
Code; and
WHEREA5, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public
hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the
code.
'The proposed townhouse development, three two-unit and two single-unit structures with a
totai of 32 zoning rooms, is under the density allowed (38 rooms) for this site. A 1ow density
development of one- and two-unit buildings that is in keeping with Heritage Preservation
guidelines and the chazaeter of the surrounding neighborhood has created the need for the
variances.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The inclusion of this property in a Heritage Preservation District and the character of the
sunounding neighborhood 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 welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paui.
A low density development of one- and two-unit buildings, as opposed to a singie, two or
three-story structure with as many as 19 apartment units which would be allowed on this site
given the RM-2 zoning and lot size, is in keeping with the chazacter of the neighborhood.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor will it alter the essential character of the sunounding azea or unreasonably
diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
�� , ���
File #97-041
Page Two
This parce] has street frontage on two sides and abuts an alley on another side. The setback
variances for these three sides will not afFect the supply of light or air to the ad}acent
properties. The variances requested for the east side of the property are relatively minor and
can be further mitigated through landscaping or fencing.
The proposed development, if it meets Heritage Preservation guidelines, will fit in well with
the neighborhood and will not diminish established property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not pemutted under the provisions
of the code for the properiy in the district where the afFected land is located, nor would it alter
or change the zoning district classification of the properky.
The proposed variances, 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.
The applicant states that the primary goal of this project is to create a low density
development of one- and two-unit structures that is in keeping with the character of the
surrounding area and Heritage Preservation guidelines.
NOW, TF�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the
provisions of Section 61.101 and 63.10? (d) are hereby waived to allow the foilowing variances in
order to construct an 8-unit townhouse development: 1) A front setback of 15 feet along Laurel
Avenue; 2) A rear yard setback of 5 feet; 3) A side yard setback of 7 feet from the east property
line for the eastern most townhouse, and a side yazd setback af 4 feet from the east property line
for the garages; 4) A variance to allow fireplace chimneys to pro,{ect 2 feet into a required yazd;
and 5) A 7-foot separation between the buildings on the west side of the properiy, subject to the
condition that appropriate landscaping or fencing is added along the east property line on property
located at 496 LAIJREL AVENUE and legally described as Lots 13, 14, & 15, Blk 9, Woodland
Park Add.; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the
Zoning Administrator.
File #97-041
Page Three
MOVED BY: Atton
SECONDED BY : 5cherman
IN FAVOR: �
AGAINST: o
MAILED: Apri18, 199�
�t"1. ���
TIME LIMIT No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration
• of a buiiding or off-street parking facility shall be vatid for a period longer than
one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained
within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the
terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appea]s or the City Council may
grant an extension not to exceed one yeaa In granting such extension, the
Board of Zonsng Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing.
APPEAL Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City
Council withia 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buifding permits
shali not be issued after an appeal has been fled. IEpermits have been issued
before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and
construction shal! cease until the City Cauncil has made a final determination of
the appeal.
CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeais for the City of
5aint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify thak 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 meeting held on
Apri17,1997 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and
Environmental Protection, 350 St. PeYer Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOl�'ING APPEALS
�L�;����.�i'��
Sue Synstegaard
Secretary to the Board
PUBLIC HEARtNG NOTICE
Ciiy Councii
Appeal of Decision
TO
APPLICANT
PURPOSE
LOCATION
OF PROPERTY
TIME OF HEARfNG
PLACE OF HEARING
HOW TO PARTtCIPATE
Property Owners within 350 feet;
Representatives of Planning District 8
a� -���
Judy Beck, Herb & Marilyn Vogel, Pam Brandt
Appeai of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting
several variances in order to construct an 8 unit
townhouse deve{opment.
496 Laurel Avenue
Wednesday, May 7, 1997 at 4:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor Ciiy Hali-Court House
15 West Ke{logg Boulevard, Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102
1. You may attend hearing and testifiy.
2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the O�ce
of LIEP, Attn: John Hardwick, 350 St. Peter Street,
Suite 300, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
3. Participation is not required. This is your notice of
public hearing.
ANY QUESTIONS Caii John Hardwick of the Office of LIEP at 266-9082 or
your District Council Representative at 228-1855 with the
foflowing information:
Zoning Fife Number 97-100
� ;�: �����, ��ra�� Zoning File Name Judy Beck, Herb & Marilyn Vogel, Pam
' Brandt
^ ia�7
e;��;a � �r
_ .w«.�.:::
�( ��
�� 3
May 5,1997 � � �
COUNCILMEMBER JERRY BLAKEY
ST. PAUL CITY COUNCIL
RE: PETITON RELATING TO APPEAL OF ZOI�TING BOARD
DECISION ZONING FILE NO. 97-041(Battle Electric site)
Attached are signatures (received to date) of 28 property owners alarmed at
the magnitude and extent of the variances granted to Mendota
Homes/Pineview Homes for the above project. These multiple variances
produce an over-crowded, overbuilt project which will have a profound
effect on this neighborhood.
We collected support from property owners on all sides of the site,
including the next door neighbor (Dider), the 3 houses across the site on
Laurel, the Firenze Building on Mackubin, the Church Condo across the
alley, the other properties off the alley near the site, as well as other near-by
properties on Laurel, Mackubin, and Ashland. Some people plan to write
their own letters, and some thought the petition too mild. Virtually every
property directly affected is represented on this petition.
We are presenting this petition because we are concerned that you may have
been led to believe that this project has widespread support from the
surrounding community. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Respeetfully,
� � � ��
Herb & Marilyn Vogel
Attachments: 3 pages of petition and original signatures
1 list of names & addresses arranged in order around the site
; cc. John Hardwick, Board of Zoning Appeals
PETITION
Date 3 0 � 7
To: Councilmember Jerry Blakey
Re: Zoning Fite No: 97-041
Laurel-Mackubin project by Mendota Homes, also known
as Pineview Homes.
�
We the undersigned urge the City Councii to honor the spirit
and intent of theCity Zoning Code as well as the HPC
Guidelines by requiring the above developers to reduce
the number of units to 7 instead of 8.
STREET ADDRESS
�
�
�.I� � ��(� ���w C� � �-v; ,��?
�g3
�5� ���-� �-�-
f� . /'�2 � �� �/7 � I,���
� �: -�
�� p-- ��.,.��1�1ti`'��.�.� ��l ��<�� '�E. ,-�vv3
� ���� ' �-i�l ��� n�..
�1
� ` ``��'
� �� � ���- ��
� ��
�� ...�� ��
PETITIQN
Date � 30 9 7
To: Councilmember Jerry Blakey �, ��3
Re: Zoning File No: 97-041 �
Laurel-Mackubin project by Mendota Homes, a{so known
as Pineview Homes.
We the undersigned urge the City Councii to honor the spirit
and intent of theCity Zoning Code as well as the HPC
Guidelines by requiring the above developers to reduce
the number of units to 7 instead of 8.
STREET ADDRESS
i� �� �k�.l�,�� �a
�r i ����-�� r h. �7
� a � M�,� �.G �� �, �
`��� ,��� ��� s
�� r�,.�.�...
��� ����
� �- �-�-���-
��z �� �-
`f7Z L�c���� Av'�
SIGNATURE
PETITION
Date�����c•t 27, (q . I
To: Councilmember Jerry Blakey �
Re: Zoning File No: 97-Q41
Laurel-Mackubin project by Mendota Nomes, a(so known
as Pineview Homes.
We the undersigned urge the City Council to honor the spirit
and intent of theCity Zoning Code as well as the HPC
Guidelines by requiring the above developers to reduce
the number of units to 7 instead of 8.
STREET ADDRESS
s
�4� �1r�. `,� �P� � =Y�t� SS 1v2
�
��s� � � ��
�`J � +��.rc.LC..u�., � 3-03G9
�f5� �cuci. ��� ��.
`f7l �.��e�-�� � ��-a�ss` ; .
�f�/ ,�-,1��..�
`t �i ��(� �
�i , �, ,, � -
SIGNATURE
Petition to Jerry Blakey May 5, 1997
File no 97.041
PETITION SIGNERS t1RRANGED BY ADDRESS:
1. 482 Laurei Avenue
2. 482 Laurel Avenue
3. 472 Laurel Avenue
4. 472 Laurel Avenue
5. 458 Laurel Avenue
6. 493 Laurel
7. 491 Laurel Avenue
8. 491 Laurel Avenue
9. 487 Lattrel Avenue
10. 481 Laurel Avenue
' 11. 475 Laurel Avenue
12. 117 Maakubin # 2
13. 117 Mackubin # 7
14. l l7 Mackubin # 6
15. 114 Mackubin
16. 99 Mackubin
17. 89 Mackubin
l8. 491 Ashland Avenue
19. A91 Ashland Avenue
20. 487 Ashland Avenue
21. 483 Ashland Avenue
22 4&3 Ashland Avenue
23. 471 Ashland Avenue
24. 471 Ash3and Avenue
25. 4b4 Ashland Avenue
26. 451 Ashland Avenue
27. 453 Ashland Avenue
28. 448 Ashland Avenue
Sue Didier
Chazles Didier
Kate McGu'ue
Ray Hofhnann
Paula Moliin
Sherrill Gannon
Dawn Ellerd
Jeff Ellerd
Robert C. Sordan
Richard McDermott
Mary Morris
Mary E. Pound
Parker Fiery (sp??)
Martin Zeger(sp??)
William Conley
Pamela J. Brandt
Harvey Sherman
Dayton Gilbert
Brenda Gilbert
Judith A. Beck
Dan Mueller
Diane Mueller
Marilyn Vogel
Herb Vogel
Tom Davis
Elis Ljungkuil
Gene Nelson
Len Jackson
fy/�. ���
�.�
l C �
95 Mackubin
St. Paul, MN 55102-2021
Apri130, 1997
Mr. John Hardwick
Office of LIEP
350 St. Peter Street
Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55102
RE: Zoning File Number: 9?-100
Zoning File Name: Judy Beck, Herb and Marilyn Vogel
Dear Mr. Hardwick:
I am unable to attend the Wednesday, May 7 appeal meeting for the above case.
However, I object to the decision made by the Boazd of Zoning and the St. Paul City
Council related to the property at 496 Laurel Avenue. My reasons follow.
/ �� � �
�,�.Y��
i. The plan proposes massive buildings and limited green space. This space is
zoned for far less dense construction. If it weren't, a variance wouldn't be necessary.
Why not construct a building that is in keeping with the zoning ordinances? The
surrounding buildings to the west and south of 496 Lawel Avenue are all very lazge
multiple dwellingslmultiple organization offices. The overall concentration of massive
buildings along Mackubin from Holiy to Laurel is ea-tremely high.
2. This plan is presented by people who don't currently live in the neighborhood
and, most likely, will not live here in the future. Insteati, they are developers who will
never have to live with the overly dense housing they propose.
3. I was distressed to read that this proposal had been supported by my council
reprasentative, Jerry Blakey. Ifthis is correct, this decision seems to have been made
against the eapress desires of the nearest neighbors. It was certainly made without my
input. Why didn't I receive a cali from my council representative or his staff prior to this
decision? How can an informed and reflective decision be made without seeking this
input? How is it that my council representatives can always locate me at election time
and never seek my opinions when changes are to be made in the neighborhood?
4. In principle, I am against variances. Variances require a citizen to enforce the
zoning codes, rather than govemment officiais enforcing the laws they are sworn to
uphold. In the 20 plus years I have lived in this neighborhood, I have been asked
numerous times to police my neighbors through granting or not granting variances. In
every incidence I can think of, I have later come to regret agreeing to the variance.
While in theory legislation-by-variance might seem wise, what happens i;� practiee is that
generalty citizens agree to a variance rather than f ght a neighbor and create ili feeling
within their mutual tiving space. Prior to the construction, one simply cannot know how
helshe will be afFected by the ftnished construction. Once the construction is finish, there
is no way to reverse the variance.
Two such variances stand out in my mind One involves the garages which are along the
ailey just south of my home. Because those garages where built into the private alley
behind my house, my access to tha4 space (on which I pay Yaxes) is reduced. Another is
the ]oading dock at the St. Paul Church Home across Mackubin at which semi-trucks
regularly untoad eariy in the moming, causing noise and disturbing my sleep.
Zoning ordinances and codes were put in place for specific reasons—supposedly for the
greater good of the majoriry of the peopie. Why then is one person or one gmup of
peopie aliowed to manipulate those zoning ordinances, through the variance process, to
gain a specific favor at the majority's eazpense? Once a variance is granted, all people
foHpwing must live with that special concession granted to a singie person/singte group
of peopie. This is bad policy. Instead of finding ways around them, why not require
people to live within the zoning ordinances?
In summary . . .
• I urge you to reject this proposa! anc! the variances it reqnires.
• I urge you to uphold the zoning ordinances.
• I urge you to consider the wishes of cunent tax-paying residents of Yhis neighborhood.
• I urge you to maintain the atmosphere of our neighborhood.
• I urge you Yo consider the wotk that many of the current residents have put into this
neighborhood over the past 3Q plus years to preserve an important part of St. Paui's
lustory.
Please work with us to continue to pteserve Ramsey Hill and this beaurifui city. Please
reptesent the residents of your city.
Sincerety,
�
Margazet Ann Aennen
Ramsey I3i11 Resident
CC: Jerry Blakey
F
��- � ���
' Row Detached
House House q'1-P
Base sq. ft. cost {above grade)
Sq, ft. refinements:
HUAC
Basement (unfnished)
Fireplace (2 story)
Garage (2 car)
Adjnsted sq. ft. cost
Arealshape multiplier
Refined per sq. ft. cost
$39.99
+3.65
+5.91
+1.5G
+z•ss
$53.96
�
$53.15
$4G.10
+3.G5
+5.91
+1.56
+2.$
$60.07
1.063
$63.85
Current cost multiplier
Local multiplier (St. Paul)
�inal�sq. ft.�cost � _ � �1��`!31 �''� $73.CiC�=
1.03
1.12
1.03
1.12
Source: Marshall and Swift Cost Service
� Cost Summary — 8 Units
��-���
Base construction cost of buildings:
Row House C$G1.311sf x 1600 sf x 6=
Detached Home C� $73.G6/sf x 1600 sf x 2=
Total base cost of buildings
Site improvement costs
Indirect costs (not included in base costs)
Land acquisition
Total estimated development cost
Total cost per square foot of building area
$588,576
235,712
8 Unit Development
Gross proceeds � $200,000 per unit
Less: Sales commission @ 7%
Less: Development costs
Net Profit
Discounted C� 12% for 6 month sellout
Discounted C� 12% for 2 mo. develapment
$425,3501$1,600,000 = 26.58%
$824,288
50,000
10,000
1 4 00
$1,038,788
$81.1G
$1,G00,000
112,U00
1,038,788
$449,212
$433,900
$425,350
$425,350/$1,038,788 = 40.95%
O�� �. ��
' Cost 5ummary — 7 Units
Base construction cost of b.uildings:
Row House C$61.31Isf x 160d sf x 6=
Detached Home C� $73.66Jsf x 1600 =
Total base cost of builrlings
Site improvement costs
Indirect costs (not included in base costs)
Land acquisition
Total estimated development cost
Total cost per square foot of building area
7 Unit
$588,57G
117,856
$70G,432
50,000
10,000
1 4 00
$920,932
$82.23
Gross proceeds C$200,000 per unit
Less: Sales commission � 7%
Less: Development costs
Net Profit
Discounted C 12�10 for 6 month sellout
Discounted C� 12°lo for 2 mo. development
$360,8251$1,400,000 = 25.77%
$1,400,000
9$,000
29 0,932
$381,068
$3f 8,078
$3G0,825 -
�3Ga,s25/$920,932 = 39.i8��o
` Cost Summary - 6 Units
Base construction cost of buildings:
Row House C� $61.311sf g 1600 sf x 6=
Total base cost of buildings
Site improvement costs
Indirect costs (not included in base costs)
Land acquisition
Total estimated development cost
Total cost per squaze foot of building area
$588,57G
6 Unit Development
Gross proceeds C$200,000 per unit
Less: Sales commission C� 7°l0
Less: Development costs
Net Profit
Discounted @ 12% for 6 month sellout
Discounted C� 12°lo for 2 mo. development
$297,3211$1,200,000 = 24.78%
� � .. �33
$588,57G
50,000
: 11!
1 54,500
$801,076
$83.45
$1,200,000
84,000
801 •076
$314,000
$303,297
$297,321
$297,3211$801,076 = 37.12%
5�����
��t-��3
May 7, 1997
John Hardwick! St. Paul Office of LIEP
350 St. Peter St., Suite 300
St. Paul, MIV 55102
fte : Development of 496 Lauref Ave Site
Dear Mr. Hardwick:
The proposed devlopment site is directly across the street from our
residence, and we see it every day from our front porch.
My wife(Dianne) and I have recently studied the proposed plan for
deve{opment by Pineview Homes, carefully considered this new design,
and thoughtfully discussed the issues raised by the requested variances.
We strongly oppose this development. Over the long term it will
significantly degrade the value of this neighborhood as well as our own
personat property investment.
The particular legai and architectura! reasons for our objection are
ciearly articulated '+n the "Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals Decision of
Aprii 7, 1997lMailed Apr+l 8; Zoning Flle No. 97-041" (J. Beck, H&M Vogel,
P. Brandt) , as well as the HPC recommendations. The excessive set-back
variances on Laurel & the rear alley are the most egregious parts of the
current pfan.
However , dwelling on the specific legal points of the above ruling
deflects attention from a major point: these zoning rules and
architectural guidetines play a fundamental role in maintining the long -
term health, viability, economic vatue, and continuing
investmenUrehabilitation of this neighborhood and those immediately
surrounding . For example ihe HPC and zoning guidelines support the
architectural and aesthetic value of this area, keeping the "historic"
ambiance as a major component of our real-estate va{ue. If we do not
pay attention to the intent of the guidelines we will see degradation of
value and living standards in this neighborhood.
''r
k
,a _��3
�
Dianne and I have invested many tens of thousands ofi dollars in renovation
costs in our home since 1592. We bought the house in an uninhabitable
state while the Battie Electric building still occupied the 496 Laurel site.
This was a major financial risk for us. We painstakingly worked to obtain
approva{ of the HPC , foliowed aii zoning rules, embraced the spirit and
intent of the "Historic Dlstrict", and sincerely believed we had an
obligation to improve the aesthetic appearance ofi this area.
Why should the developer not be heid to the same standards?
in consideration of this appeal please consider this: as residents we have
a long-term financial and personaf stake in this neighborhood; the
developer only has a short-term financial one. The developer is not a
resident, enabling him to "get the money and run" without accountability
far the long-term wel{-being of the area. To continue improving the
precarious heaith of this lovely old part of St. Paul, a process started
more than 20 years ago by committed residents, demands thai we do the
right thing for the community.
Respectfully
G '��c G S�
Robert C. Jordan
487 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN
ph: 290-0213
�.
�M
�
°I�-��3
TO
APPLICANT
PUBLiC HEARING NOTICE
City Council
Appeat of Decision
Property Owners within 350 feet;
Representatives of Planning District 8
.ludy Beck, Herb 8� Marilyn Vogei, Pam Brandt
PURPOSE Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision granting
several variances in order to construct an 8 unit
townhouse devefopmerrt.
�dCATiON
OF PROPERTY
TIME OF HEARING
PLACE OF HEARING
HOW TO PART{CIPATE
496 Laurel Avenue
Wednesday, May 7, 1997 at 430 p.m.
City Counci{ Chambers, 3rd Ffoor City Haii-Court House
15 West Keilogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
1. You may attend hearing and testify.
2. You may send a fetter before the hearing to the Office
of L1EP, Attn: John fiardwick, 350 St. Peter Street,
Suite 300, Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102
3. Participation is not required. This is your notice of
pubiic hearing.
ANY QUESTlONS Call John Hardwick of the Office of LiEP af 266-9082 or
your District Councii Representative at 228-1855 with the
following information:
Zoning File Number 97-100
- Zoning File Name Judy Beck, Herb & Marilyn Vogel, Pam
Brandt
.._ :. ti ��;�i
�
U
�