97-856��
Council File # �— D S �
Green Sheet # 35 bb�t
�_
Q�E����
crrv,
RESOLUTION
PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented sy
Referred To
Committee: Date
1 WHEREAS, 7ohn Kratz, applied for a Special Condition Use Permit under the
2 provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code Sections 6Q.413(13) and 64300(d), to allow a cluster
3 development with eight (8) single family dwellings, on property located at XXX Juliet Avenue
4 (East of I.exington Parkway between Juliet & Palace) legally described as:
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
That part of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 19, Ridgewood Pazk Addition to
the City of St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with the easterly and
southeasterly half of the North - South alley in said Block 19, vacated, lying
between the southerly line of said Lot 6 extended west across said alley and the
northerly line of said Lot 1 extended west across said alley; all of which lies
west of a line drawn from the northwest corner of said I,ot 1 to a point on the
south line of said Lot 6 distant 117.41 feet easterly of the southwest comer of
said I,ot 6 togther with the northerly half of Palace Avenue, to be vacated, lying
easterly of a line drawn south at right angles to the south line of said Lot 6 from
a point on said south line distant 32.5 feet east of the southwest corner of said
Lot 6 and lying westerly of a line, and its extension southerly, drawn from the
northwest corner of said Lot 1 to a point on the south line of said Lot 6 distant
117.41 feet easterly of the southwest corner of said Lot 6; and
Lots 17 and 18, Block 19, Ridgewood Park Addifion to the City of St. Paul,
Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with the northerly half of the East - West
alley in said Block 19, vacated, lying between the westerly line of said Lot 17
extended south across said alley and the southeasterly line of said Lot 18
extended southwesterly across said alley; and together with the northwesterly
half of the North - South alley in said Block 19, vacated, lying between the
centerline of said East - West alley extended east across said North - South alley
and the northerly line of said L,ot 18 extended east across said alley; and
together with the southerly half of adjoining Juliet Avenue, vacated, lying
between the east line of said I,ot 17 extended north across said 3uliet Avenue
and the west right of way line of Interstate Highway No. 35E.
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the applicauon at which all persons present were given
an opportunity to be heard pursuant to the requirements of Saint Paul I,egislative Code Section
64300; and
2
0
6
7
8
9
LQ
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based upon the evidence presented at
the public hearing to its Zoning Committee, as substantially reflected in the minutes which
shall be incorporated herein by reference, made Findings of Fact as set forth in Planning �� ^$ �
Commission Resolution No. 97-22, which is incorporated herein by reference, wherein the
Saint Paul Plancring Commission, under authority of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, denied
the application for a Special Condiuon Use Permit for the above described properry; and
R'HEREAS, on May 9, 1997, the applicant, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code
Section 64.206, filed an appeal of the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission alleging
that the four deficiencies found by the Planniug Commission were factually in error. Said
appeal is incorporated herein by reference and shall become a part of ttris resolution; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Sections 64.206 through
64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the
Council of the City of Saint Paul on June 4, 1997, where all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, having heard the statements made at the public hearing and having
considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolutions of the
Planniug Commission and its Zoning Committee, the Council of the City of Saint Paul, does
hereby
RESOLVE, that there was no enor as to fact, finding, or procedure on the part of the
Planning Commission and its Zoning Committee and aff"ums the decision of the Saint Paul
Plauning Commission in this matter for the reasons contained in Planuing Commission
Resolution No. 97-22, findings 1(c) through 1(fl which aze specifically adopted as the
Council's as follows :
The proposed development does not meet four of the required conditions for a
cluster development under Section 60.413(13) of the Saint Paul Zoning Code.
The conditions which are not met are as follows:
c. The parcel shall meet the lot area required per unit in the Zoning District.
This condition can be met. The lot azea, provided a portion of Palace Avenue is
vacated, is 40,586 square feet. This allows eight dwelling units (5,000 square
feet of lot area is required for each unit). The street vacation would contribute
2,786.85 square feet to the development pazcel. The street vacation was
uritiated in March and is expected to take about four months.
d. The parcel shall have a minunum frontage of eighty (80) feet on an improved
street.
This condition is not met. The property has frontage on two streets: 73 feet on
Juliet Avenue and 40 feet on Palace Avenue. If a portion of Palace Avenue is
vacated, there will be 73 feet of frontage at that location as well.
e. The shucture shall conform to the schedule of regulations for height, lot
coverage, setbacks and parking.
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
This condition is not met. As proposed, the cluster development does not meet
the required 25 foot rear setback requirement from the eastem property line.
The plans submitted show the setback at this location to be only 12 feet. �A fl ��S �°
..
f. The design shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
This condirion is not met. As proposed, the development is three stories in
height and each of the buildings contains four units. This height and density is
substantially greater than existing development in the neighborhood and is
therefore incompatible with the surrounding neighbarhood.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of John Kratz is in all things
denied.
AND BE IT FINALLY RFSOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this
resolution to John Kratz, the Zoning Adnunistrator, and the Saint Paul Planning Commission.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Adopted by Council: Date`�\}���� l\�
Adoption Certified by Counci Secr ary
By:
Approved by�M e � l /
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
B ���/l../�,� �-3�-57
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
�1, rl, — 8'S 6
oE C'ry E Council0ffices June 1997 GREEN SHEE N°_ _35659
CONTACf PER N& PHONE MRIAVDATE MITIAVOATE
��EPAflTMENTDIRE OCfiYCOUNCIL
ASSIGN � CITY ATTOANEY O CIIY CLERK
MU5T BE ON CpUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) NUYBER GOR ❑ BUDGET DIRECTOR O FIN. & MCaT. SERVICES Dlfl.
ROUTING
OflOEq � MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT) �
TOTAL # OF SI6NATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
�F p inal�izing ��ity CouncIl action taken on 7une 4,1997, denying ffie appeal of 7ohn Kratz to a decision of the Saint
Paul Planning Commission pertaining to a cluster development on properry located at �Y Juliet Avenue (east
of Le�ngton Pazkway between 7uliet & Palace).
RECOMMENDA7lONS: App�ove (A) or Reject (R) pERSONAL SERYICE CONTHACTS NUST ANSW ER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_ PLANNMCa COMMISSION _ CIVIL SEflVICE COMMISSION �� Has this person/firtn ever worketl untler a contract for t�is department? -
_ CIB COMMITTEE _ YES NO
_ STAFF _ 2. Has this persoNfirm ever begn a city employee?
YES NO
_ DISTRICT CAURT _ 3. Does this persoNfirm posses5 a skill ppt normal Y c.ity ploye¢?
ty pussessetl by an current am
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE4 YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet antl attech to g�esn sheet
INRIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE.OPPOfiTUNITV (Who. NTat. When, Where, W�y):
ADVANTACaE51FAPPROVED: �
DISADVANTAGES IFAPPflOVED:
�Lli?C� ... ��t
���$ a� � ����
���.. �._,...�__��:�- ��
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVEO:
TOTAL AMOUNT OF THANSAC710N S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDIWG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBEFi
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN)
OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY
PegBir$ CityAttorney
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norne Coleman, Mayor
Civil Division
400 City Hall
IS WesrKel[ogg Blvd
Sain[ Paul, Minnesow 55102
� f ����
Tekphone: 612 266-8770
Facrimik: 6I2 298-5679
June 30, 1997
I�AND DELIVERED
Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Saint Paul City Hall
RE: Appeal of John Kratz from Saint Paul Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-22
Dear Nancy:
Attached please find the original resolution, signed as to form, finalizing the decision of the City
Council in the above entitled matter. 'I`his matter should be placed on the Consent Agenda at
your eazliest cconvenience.
Very tntly yours,
�����
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attomey
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
May 13, 1997
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Aall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
���bS�o
51
Telephone: 6I2-266-6565
Facsimile: 672-228-3374
I would like to co�rm that a public heazing before the CiTy Council is scheduled for Wednesday June 4,
1997 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a specia] condition use
permit:
Appellant: JOHN KRATZ
File Number: #97-050
Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision denying a special condition use permit to
allow cluster development with eight (8) dwelling units.
Address: East of Lexington Parkway between Juliet and Palace
L,egal Description of Property: See Survey in File
Previous Action:
Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial; vote: Unanimous, April 25, 1997
Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 6-Q April 17, 1997
My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the May 21, 1997 CiTy
Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please
call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions.
Sincerel ,
I�� W�
Kad DadIez
Y
City Planner
cc: File #97-050
Mike Kraemer
Donna Sanders
Division ajPlmv�ing
25 West Fourth Street
Sornf Pau[, MN55102
i��u _._ = , _ .,,-
I,.,.E ° � };���;"
NOTICE OF PUBLTC HEARING
TheSaint Paul City Coiatcil will conduct-a pnblic hearing�on Wedn6stlay,
June 4, 1997, in the City Council Chambers, Th'ad Floor C#y Hall-Qour; I;Iou'se,
to consider th"e appeal.of John Kratz to a decision of tiie-Planning Commission
denyidg aspeciai condiGOn use permit to ailow cluster development with eigktt (8)
dweliing'rinits east of Lexington Parkway between Juliet and Palace Avenues.
I7ated:�May14.�1991- -,. � - . . .�
Nz1NCY ANDERSON ' - -� _ , � _
Assistazit City Council Secretary . , _ - - , ,
.. . . , . . .. , lMay 16. 1997) � � .
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNAG
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�� � gS�O
CITY OF 5AINT PAUL
Nvrm Coleman, Mayor
W�
May 21, 1997
Divisiors ofPlanning
25 West Fowth SYreet
SaiuPaul, MN55702
?elephone: 612-26665Q5
Fatsimile: 6I2-228-3374
Ms. Nancy Mderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Zoning File #97-118: JOHN KRATZ
City Council Hearing: June 4, 1997 430 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLJRPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision denying a special condition use permit to allow a
cluster development with eight (8) dwelling units on property located east of Lexington Pazkway
between Juliet and Palace Avenues.
• PLANNING COMMI5SION ACTION: DENIAL Unanimous
ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 6-0
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
�UPPORT: No persons spoke.
OPPOSITION: Seven persons spoke. Three letters were received. The Macalester-Groveland
Community Council voted to oppose the special condition use permit.
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
JOHN KRATZ has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to deny a special
condition use permit to allow a cluster development with eight (8) dwelling units on property located east
of Lexington Parkway between 7uliet and Palace Avenues. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul
Planning Commission held a public heazing on the request on April 17, 1997. The applicant addressed
the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the
permit. The Planning Commission upheid the Zoning Committee's recommendation for denial on a
unanimous vote on Apri125, 1997.
This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on June 4, 1997. Please notify me if any
member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sincerely,
��� Ken Ford
Planning Administrator
Attachments cc: Ciry Council members
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Depa�t»ient of Plnnning nnd Economic Development
Zoniirp Sectio�e
IIOU Cih� Ha!l Annez
25 {t es� Foratlt Street
Sainr Paul, M.'�' S5101
26b-6c89
APPELLANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Zaning oifis u�s n[y
Fiie no. . {' I i I�
Fee �
Teniative heatiitg; � te:
fLQ.
Name To�� x,-at�
Address 1424 Edacumbe Road
Cify st, raul S1z�h Zip 55116 Daytime phone 69o-5s6o
Zoning File Name John icratz ciuster Develooment
Address/Location XXX Juliet Avenue (East of Lexiaqton between
Juliet and Palace)
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the:
= Board of Zoning Appeals uC City Councii
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 206 , Paragraph a of the Zoning Code, to
appeai a decision made by the G Pa �l Al anniny M.}+mi avinn
on April 25 , 19�. File number: a�_��
(date of decis
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative officia(, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or the Pianning Commission.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT
•
•
�
Attach addi!ional sheet if
ApplicanYs
i
Date sia_, � City
��•q � 97
c��1-�s�
• RE: Application for Appeal filed by John Kratz
Zoning File #97-050
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
7
The Planning Commission based its denial of the application for Special Condition Use
Petmit, File No. 97-450, on its findings and conclusions that the applicant failed to meet four of
the eight special conditions required to be met in order to allow this proposed cluster
development as pemritted use in the R-4 space. All fow of the deficiencies found by the Planning
Commission are factually in error, are mutually exclusive, or support only an approval of the
application and are inconsistent with the denial rendered by it. Each of the four findings of the
Planning Commission aze discussed as follows.
c. T6e parcel does meet the lot area required per unit in the wning district.
• Both the Division of Pianning staff and the Planning Commission concluded this condition
can be met if a portion of Palace Avenue is vacated. Since this portion of Palace Avenue has
never been improved and has only recently been returned to City controi (when MNDOT sold to
the applicant, as surplus, the 35-E frontage which is about haIf of the land in this application). No
utilities have ever been installed in this right of way. Nor will it ever be improved, beyond what is
necessary for the entrance to the proposed development since, just beyond the eastem end of the
two proposed entrances, the land in the right-of-way slopes steeply downhill towazd the 35-E
freeway to the east.
Ordinarily, there would be nothing controversial about the proposed street vacation. But
the "neighbors" have expressed an intention to oppose the street vacation as a means to stopping
the proposed cluster developmern entirely. They have carried tlris to the extseme of prevailing
upon their one neighbor on Patace Avenue (who would gain approximately 3,000 feet of land at
no cost to himself ) to oppose the vacation as well. If this neighbor truly does noi want additional
property, then he need not keep it for himseif. FIe can deed it to the proposed develapment
• (subject to a covenant prohibiting any construction upon the land) for complete landscaping and
2
perpetual mainienance of the grounds by the Yownhome owner association. Thus, he would have •
the benefit of landscaped open space, without the "cosP' of ownership or maintenance.
The lot area in this proposat is safficient to permit 8 anits regardless of w6ether or
not Palace Avenue is vacsted.
For density purposes, it doesn't matter whether atI or part ofthe Patace Avenue
right-of-way remains unimproved and is owned and maintained by the City or is vacated and then
landscaped and maintained by a homeowners' association. It will remain open space either way.
Even without the vacated property, the zoning lot size is about 37,800 square feet, or
near}y 95% of the 40,000 square feeY required area for an 8-unit cluster developmeat. Tlris is
more than substantial compliance and is easily within the usual range of actions taken by the
Pianning Commission and Staffto "modify any or all special conditeons, when strict application of
such special coa@itions would unreasonably ]imit or preveat otherwise lawful use of a piece of
property ...," as is contemplated by Sec, b4.300(fl of the Code.
Additional factors weigh in favor of "modifying" this special condition:
1. The site is tucked out of the way, on the very edge of the neighborhood and is
open along iis entire 340-foot eastem side to acres and acres of 35-E pazkway and Ayd NFill Road
open space spreading out below it. The real impact npon the neighbors is unusually small for an
infill developmem, and the backdrop of open space and eacpansive Ciry views to the east removes
any hint of "crowding" by the eight homes proposed.
2. The development must be given "credit" in the lot azea calculation for abutting this
open space and freeway, similar to the way that the area of ono-half the width of an adjoining
alley is included in the "zoning lot area" in certain other distrids.
3. Since each unit has two pazking spaces within tfie building structure, the lot area
figure must be viewed more liberally. A formula comparable to that used in RM mning districts
woutd yietd a 4,800 square foot "crediP' to be added to the actaat 1ot area for unit ooum purposes
(300 sqaaze feet times the 16 tuckunder parking spaces included).
2
C�
C�
3
�1�1-8s�
• The lot area requirement is met by t}ris application. The Planning Commission agreed that
the lot area requirement "can be met " Bs finding does noY support and is inconsistent with its
denial ofthis SCUP.
d. The parcel does meet the requirement of a minimum frontage of eighty (SO) feet
on an improved street,
The Planning Commission concluded that this condition is not met, yet it cites findings
that are only consistent with an approval. The property has fromage of 73 feet "on an improved
street" (Juliet Avenue) and frontage of 40 feet to 73 feet "on an improved street" (Palace Avenue)
which totals well in excess of the required 80 feet. Nothing in the Zoning Code requ'ues that the
frontage be continuous, contiguous, or on the same street. Adding such a requirement to the
plain language of the Code is not warranted and, in fact, runs conuary to the obvious purpose
betrind this requirement: to provide for adequate ingess and egress from the site to the public
• streets. This goal is better served by direct access to two streets than a single access to one
street, even if that access were to be 80 feet wide (which would be prohibited by street
consiruction and traffic concerns anyway).
Furthermore, if this application is heid strictly to a narrow and restrictive interpretation of
the Code provision, the 80-foot requirement can easily be met. A minor revision to the plans,
incoiporating an offset radius, semi-circulaz cul-de-sac design at the end of Juliet Avenue, would
provide approximately 90 feet of frontage, if necessary.
e. The structure does conform to the schedule of regulations for height,
iot coverage, setbacks and parking.
The Planning Commission is plainty wrong in finding that the cluster development must
meet a 25-foot "rear" setback from the eastem property. This is contrary to the determinarion of
the Plamung Division staff, which was made both ai preliminary meetings with them and
confirmed in the StaffRecommendation to the Planniag Commission.
• 3
�
In its cliscussion of specia] condition d. above, the Planning Commission found: "the •
property has frontage on two streecs," which aze parallel to each other. Under the Code,
therefore, the parcel is a"through lot," having two front lot lines (Sec. 6Q212.L.). S'snce a"rear
lot line" is defined as: "the lot Iine opposite the front line," it can only be concluded that a
"through IoY' has no rear lot Iines. Therefore, everything but the two front tot Isnes on this parcel
are "side loY liaes" as ihat term is defined in the Code. '£he setback ret�ired from the side lot line
in this mning district (R-4) is four feet. Tfris setback is exc�eeded by a wide margin in the
proposed site plan.
It is difficult to see what public interest the Planning Commission was seeking to protect in
6nding the eastern 1ot line required a 25-foot rear setback, since the "eastem property" consists
only of acres and acres of MNDOT right-of-way used for the 35-E parkway. The effect of
requiring a 25-foot rear yard on the east side would only be to move the buiidings closer to the
neighbors on the west. This would have a negarive imgact on the developmem, but also and more
importantIy, on the neighborhood as a whole. No one wants that.
Bat even if, by some convoluted reasoniag, the eastetn side of the zoning 2ot is fovnd to •
require a 25-foot rear setback, the development as proposed can still meet all of the conditions set
out by the Code with onty minor revisions to the site plan. For if the eastetn side is the `Year
yard," then, by definition, the westem side is the front lot line. That wouid logically require a
finding that the proposed private drive on the west side is the "streeY' for zoning purposes. Then
it must be concluded that the parcef has `Y'rornage" of approadmately 275 feet on an improved
streeE, thus exceeding the requirement of condition d. discussed previously. The north cluster of
the two buiidings proposed can easity be moved one or two feet west to meet the 25-foot rear
setback requirement. But the Planning Commission is wrong in applying the rear setback in the
case of the south building. The eastem property Iine is not tfie same as the `fear lot iine" as it is
defined by Sec. 60212.L. of the Zoning Code:
" 2) Rear Lot Lina The lot line opposite the front lot line. Ia the case of a lot
pointed at the rear (as here), the rear lot line shall be an imaginary line parallel to the
front lot line, not less than ten (10) feet long, lying farthest from the from liae and
wholly within the lot "
0
�
5
�� - 8s�
• If this Code definition is accurately applied to this proposed site plan, the result is a rear
setback which measures about 50 feet for the south building.
It, therefore, must be found that the proposed shuctures do rnnform to the schedule of
regulations for setbacks. And since no finding to the contrary was made by the Planning
Commission, it must be taken as ganted that the stiuctures conform to the schedule of
regutarions for hei t(30 feet, 3-story buildings aze permitted); lot coveraee (16% actuai
coverage compared with 30% allowable); and pazlang (four (4) spaces per dwelling unit
provided).
f. The design is compatible wit6 the surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Commission's denial of design "compatibility," based on the "height and
density" pf the proposed development, is in error on the facts, both ignores and misapplies Zoning
Code provisions, and is self-contradictory. II will not support a denial of this SCUP application.
The surrounding neighborhood already includes a variety of housing types and uses.
About 400 feet to the north, there is a 3-story lw�ury apartment complex. Across the street from
• that, the Wilder complex contains four-unit townhouse clusters, many of which present 3-story
elevations to the public. A mere 500 feet or so south of the proposed development site, runs a
multi-family district with mazry examples of tall two and three-story residential buildings. The fact
that these three examples may be buiIt in different zoning districts does not weight in favor of the
Planning Commission's denial: it only Qroves that the surrounding neighborhood is aiready one of
mixed housing types and uses.
Even the immediate neighbors show examples of similar height houses. The house
abutting this site on the north has a full thre�story eastem side, just about exactiy as tall as (and
also half as wide as) the proposed townhome buildings. And on the west, a very tall twastory,
situated high on its lot, rises well in excess of 30 feet above its front lot line on Lexington.
The Planning Commission's finding that the proposed development's "density" is too
great will also not withstand scrutiny. Density, in a zoning context such as ttris, can only have one
meaning: i. e., a ratio of the number of dwelling units to the mning lot area. As was discussed
earlier, this R-4 zoning disirict pemrits a density of one home per 5,000 square feet of lot area.
r1
\ J
�
Much of the surrounding azea is buik neariy exactly to that standazd, which results in the typicai •
40' x 125' lot which is found so commonly in this uea and throughout much of the residential
districts of the City.
Beyond the fact that the Planning Commission was wrong in its factual findings regarding
design compatibility, however, it was further in error in using the three cited criteria C.e., 4unit
buildings, 3-story structures, and density) in its design compaU'bility anatysis at all. Each of these
three conditions cited by the Planning Coaunission is specifically addressed by other provisions of
Code Sec. 60.4I3.(13), which permits cluster developments in the R-4 Zone:
1. The Code requ'ves that clusters have a minimum oftwo units and that they
be attached, common wall, single-family (pazagraphs a and b.). If two units aze
the minimum pernrissibie, four units cannot exceed the ma�mum, absent language
specifying clusters of only `Ywo or threE units." No such limii is contained in
the Code.
2. The three-story height of this development is specifically aathorized by
Sec. 60.413.(13xe), which sub}ects the cluster structures to the same schedule •
of regulations controlling height, lot caverage, setbacks and pazking that pertain
throughout the zoning district. This is the usual way the size of a building, on a
specific lot, is comrolled by the Zoning Code. Furthermore, three-story or
30.foot tall structures are permitted in every residemial district throughout the
City, and it is the smallest maY;m,,,,, height permitted in any mne. Only very
specific language in the Code can override this general presumption in favor of the
permissibility of three-story or 30-foot tall buildings. Had the City Council urtended
to limit cluster developments to some shorter maximum height, or some "average
neighborhood height," it would have had to say so, rather than specifically re-
stating the same ma�mum height applicable to the zoning district.
3. Just as whh "height" above, the specific Code provision regarding density
must take precedence over a general finding that the developmem is too dense. 'Fhe
Planning Commission previously deternuned that the density requiremern "can be
met" (see the discussion of finding c, above). It cannoi now impose a more •
F
7
��l-�ls�
• stringent standard under the general guise of "design compatibility." The Planning
Commission must be held to the task of approving cluster development, if the
specific perfonnance standazds aze met and not be allowed to re-examine the
appropriateness of clusters in general with each applicarion. Otherwise, as in this
case, the very elements wtuch make a development a"cluster" could always be
used to disallow that development, as being "incompau'ble" in the single-faznily
zones. But it is clear that cluster developments, subject to certain specific con-
ditions, are a"principai use permitted" in an R-4 zone. Sec. 60.413.(13).
What, then, does "design ... compatible with the surrounding neighborhood" mean?
Since seven of the eight special conditions required for the cluster development deal with some
individual element of "design" of the development, it only makes sense to interpret "design" in
condition f. to mean something other than what is specifically addressed in the other conditions.
In this case, design must refer to the architectural style (and materials) of the structures. This
meaning of "design" might allow the denial of a cluster development of a braslily post-modern
• style (or a perfect cube building with bright stainless steel skin) in an all Georgian colonial
neighborhood, for one eacamgle, or geodesic domes among the Victorians for another. But
nothing about the design actually proposed, a Prairie-style adaptation, using lots of brick and
wood siding or stucco, provide a basis for denying this SCUP application.
The immediate neighbors to the development are an eclectic goup of houses, having no
unifying design or style. The houses range from a California contemporary style of the 50's, to
"modem" and Colonial adaptations from the 30's and 40's, and include eacamples of the "builder"
genre of the 60's and 90's. So virtually anything would be compatible with at least some of the
neighbors. Additionally, the proposed design incorporates many design elemerrts which can be
found on a great number of existing shuctures in the surrounding Macalester-Groveland
neighborhood.
• �
i
� ��
The deniat of this Special Condition Use Permit is contrary to public policy.
All levels of local govemment have recognized the need to adapt housing policy to better
serve the changing needs of our popu[ation and to heip stem the flow of urban dwelters who go to
the suburbs in search of the modem housing alternatives the cities are lacldng.
The District 14 Macalester-Groveland Plan recognizes as goals and objectives of its
housing plan the need "to meet the diverse housing needs of its residems" and "to provide a
variety of housing types wittun the district (apartments, condominiums, cooperarives), while
retaining the single-family character and residential quality of the distric�t."
The City of Saint Paul's Land Use Plan acknowledges that ". .. in most neighborhoods,
the construction of a certain amount of new housing at somewhat Irigher densities would not be
out of keeping with the area. Certain types of moderaYe density housing, like townhouses, can
contribute to neighborhood aesthetics and stability, by adding to the visual quality and attracting
reinvestment that otherwise might not occur." It is the City's policy to encowage such new
•
devetopment on scattered vacant sites in e�risting neighborhoods. •
While the focus of the City's housing policy was somewhat shifted with the adoption of
the "Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 90's," the suitabHity of, and the City's support for, infill
townhome development is stronger than ever. Objective 14 notes that demographic, social and
econornie trends have created many differeat kousehold groups "that may beae&t substamially
from new forms of housing designed to meet particulu needs." (p. 28) While the opportunities
for new construction are not lazge,
". .. the inIIuence of new consriuction, however, will be greater than the number
of units might suggest because of the strong visual impact that such investment
can fiave on a neighborhood.
New housing construction ... is an apportunity to affect directly the suitability
of the housing supply to various segments of the market. Therefore, it is the
City's objective through the following poficies to:
Support changes in t6e hoasing sapplp t6at represent
clear market opportunity and that meet new household
rteeds effectively." (p. 29)
E3
C J
�
ol� -�S�
• In "Policy 54. Market-Rate Development Opportunities," new housing developments are
found to be
`timportant for what they can contribute to 1) balance in the City's housing
supply with new oprions for underserved market segments; 2) new im�estmeni
... where land is underused ... and 3) increase in the taz base .... Therefore,"
the City commits itselfto:
"support development ... opportunities that exist with lot size, setback and
other land use regulations appropriate to higher-cost market potential and
provide the services that will support such development." (p. 29)
The City even supports housing subsidies for
"c. Housing that complements e�risting supply by addressing unmet needs:
-- higher cost houses that meet trade-up market e�cpectations
and create more oppommiues for growing fatnilies to remain
in the City;' (p. 29)
The proposed eight-unit cluster development meets these City objectives and polieies dead
• on. These are higher cost, move-up market, owner-occupied, saphisticated single-family
townhomes to be built on an underutilized parcel of freeway frontags that has lost its value as a
site for traditional, detached single-family homes because of the traffic noise from the &eeway.
The townhomes will provide a buffer between the freeway and the houses to the west. The site
retains a commanding view of the City, including the Capitoi, dowrnown, and the river bluffs. It
will appeal strongty to households of urban owners who do not wam, or no longer want, the
responsibilities of exterior home maintenance. Suburban and urban markets both are currently
seeing unprecedented growth in the demand for this type of housing and no small part of this
demand in the suburbs is due to the shortage of supply of these units, offering modern, upscale
amenities, in the cities. Several small infill developments such as this have been approved in the
City of Saim Paul in recent months. No one can doubt the City's commitment to encouraging
new housing options, especially in view of ihe recem decisions regarding the River Bluff project,
which was approved at some cost to other City policy priorities and requires a substantial public
expenditure for the development of marketable sites.
• 4
�
This proposed cluster development requires no such public financiat support yet it will •
undoubtedly contribute to the health and vitality of the City by providing new housing options for
underserved market segments, by adding new investment where land is underutitized, and by
increasing the tax base. Denying this new development, and foregoing the Lai�es and fees
associated with it, would amount to a subsidy to the neighbors to preserve tlris land as their
"private park" at the eacpense of all Saint Pau] taxpayers.
The cluster townhomes are a principal use pemvtted in the existing R-4 zoning district,
subject to special condirions, all of which aze met by this proposal or can be met with only minor
and routine modification of the conditions to account for the unique features of the site. The
Planning Division staff, who are the professional highly traiaed evaluators ofthe techeical merits
of development projects and implementers of the City policy, had no uouble whatsoever in
recommending that this SCUP be approved.
It is, therefore, respectfutly requested that the City Council find that this application meets
all the special conditions required hy Sec. 60.413.(13) as modiSed, if necessary; that the decision
of the Planning Commission be reversed, and that the Special Condirion Use Permit be approved, �
subject to the requirement of a wood privacy €ence as contained in StaffRecommendation 2.
IU
•
N
�>
• city of saint paul
pianning commission resolution
fiie number 97-22
�te April 25, 1�97
�'1- $S6
VJHEREAS, JOHN KRATZ, file # 97-050, has applied for a Special Condition Use Permit under
the provisions of Section 60.413(13) and 64.300(d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to allow a
cluster development with eight (8) single family d��+elling units, on property located at XXX
NLIET AVE:�TUE (east of Lexin�ton Park�ti�ay between Juliet & Palace}, legally described in the
file; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April
17, 1997, at ��, hich all persons present were =iven an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said
application in accordance ���ith the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning
• Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following
findin=s of fact:
The proposed development does not meet four of the required conditions for a cluster
decelopment under Section 60.413(13) of the Saint Paul Zoning Code. The conditions which
are not met are as fol]ow�s:
c. T/te parcel slral! meet tGe !ot area reqirired per tutit in tlae zo�si�:g distrrct.
This condition can be met. The lot area, provided a portion of Palace Avenue is vacated,
is 40,586 square feet. This allows eight dwelling units (5,000 square feet of lot area is
required for each unit). The street vacation �vould contribute 2,786.85 square feet to the
development parcel. The street ��acation was initiated in Mazch and is expected to take
about four months.
d. Tlre parce/ sha!! l:ave a n:inrnuanfrontnge of eiglrty (80) feet on an ii�rproved street.
Tl�is condition is not met. The property has fronta�e on t�vo streets: 73 feet on Juliet
Avenue and 40 feet on Palace A�•enue. If a portion of Palace Avenue is ��acated, there
« be 73 feet of frontage at that location as w•ell.
moved by Field
� seconded by
i n favor unanimous
- against
iz
.� .
Zoning File =97-050
Page T��o of Resolution
e. The strucfure slrall corrform to tlre schedule of regulafio�:s for heigkt, (ot coverage,
setbncks ar:d pnrki�rg.
This condition is not met. As proposed, the cluster development does not meet the
required 25 foot rear setback requirement from the eastern property. The plans submitted
show the setback at this location to be only 12 feet.
f. T/re design sl:afl be compatible ivit/: tke surrounrling neigl:borl:ood
This condition is not met. As proposed, the development is three stories in height and
each of the buildings contains four units. This height and density is substantially greater
than existing development in the nei�hborhood and is therefore incompatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
�
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under
the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a Special Condition Use Permit to
allow a cluster de��elopment with eight (8) singie family dwelling units at XA!'Y NLIET
AVEI�TUE is hereby denied. •
•
�3
��-�s�
�
Saint Paul Plannin� Commission
Cih Hali Conference Centcr
1� ICclloge Boule�•ard �ticst
A meeting of tLe Plannin, Commis;ion ofthe City of Saint Pauf «as hetd Frida}•, April 25, 1997, at 5:30
a.m. in the Conference Center of Cit� Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
hfines. Duartz, Faric}, Geisser, Maddox, Treichel and �1'encl, and bfessrs.
Field Jr., Gordon, Gurnz}, Kramer. rfardell, h4cDonell, Nordin, Sharpe and Vauglit.
Alzssr,. *Cha�ezand *No��lin
*E�cused
L_J
•
Also Present:
I�
" I'
Ken Ford, Plannins Administrator: Donna Slnders, Kady Dadlez, Roger R}'an and
Larr}' Sodzrliolm of the Plannina Staff.
Zoning Committce
k97-03� AIichlcl Allen Sulli�•�n - Special condition use permit to aliow auto repair at
1229 Pavnc Acenuc.
ATOTIO\: Conrmissioner Field »rored npprovnl ofthe requested specin( cw��frtion :rse
peri�ru ro allotir nuto repair nt 1229 Pay�rz Aren:re sritlt concfitiars includi�rg hotrrs of
oper�uio�r, a Ifnrit oir the �rtvnber of cros, ni:d cerlai�t Inr7dscapitrg nn:ei7ities.
Commissioner Field noted that the Cih Ahorney did admonish the committee that the prior
aciions of the applicant should not be the basis for the Plannin� Commission's decision on
the speciat condition use permit.
Commissioner Kramer eaplained that he could not, in good conscience, vote in favor ofthis.
He noted that e�•ery proposed condition iisted on the special condition use permit has
alread�• been violated by the applicant. He espressed his infiiriation each time he drives by
tliis site at ���hat he considers violations. He said he had no faith.that this applicant �vill
abide by those conditions. Iie suggested that it might be a good idea to appro�•e this for
ont}� 1 year durins ��fiich the conditions are monitored, and if no violations occur, then grant
it. As is, he cannot vote in fa�•or. • ,
Commissioner Vaught recognized that e�•ep7hin� Commission Kramer said is true. He,
ho��'e�•er, also recoonized the City Attorne}�'s advice, and will vote in favor of the permit.
Tlie real problem here, he pointed out, is enforcement.
The �»otion on the,Jloor cnrried on n roice vote (Kramer, iYenc!).
�97-050 John Kratz - Special condition use permit to alto�v a cluster development «'ith eight
d�velling units at xxx Jutiet Avenue.
IOTION: Conunissioner Field n:orecl tlenial of 1he rer/uested special ca�dilion use pernrit
!o a!lotir n cluster developnrent irith ei,qht cl�rel/ing :a�i[s at xxr Juliet Arenue.
�4
Alr. Ford commented that the staff report had recommended approvaL The market and the •
� interest in to�cnhouse development is strone no« in the cit}� in a«�ap that it has not been
before. And in meetin� some of our rein� e;tment and population dicenit}• objectices and
pro� iding for a greater di�•ersit}� of housins st}•les, �ee think it s a very imponant interest for
the cit�, and somethin� that probably �ce in the Plannin� Commission need to dirzct some
lttention to: �chether our policies need adjustmeM to make sure that ��e can encouraQe a
combination of different forms of housine as part of our neighborhoods «�hich are largel,�
sin�le family. �
The motio�i orr thelloor to cleny� the re�aestecf special conditiorr use pernrit to nllou� a ckrster
�'erelopn�er7t tirith eight direllfig s�rrits at xs.r Juliet Acenue carried urrnnimouslr on a voice
i•otB.
#97-0� I CommurZitv Ootions - Special condition use permit to allow a licensed human
service communit}' residential facility for fourteen persons with psychiatric disabilities at
153� Rice Street.
1�IOTIO\: Cwmnissioner Field mored approra/ for the re�trested special condition use
pernrit to nlloir n lice�rsed hionmr serrice conurttmih• residerttiaT faciliry for fotrrteen persoi7s
witl: psyehintric clisabilities at l�8� Rice Street u•{rich earriecl:atmrinro:rsly aJ a voiee vole.
�97-0�4 Ward D Jefferson - Special condition use permit to allow general auto repair at
8�9 Universit�� Avenue. •
DIOTION: Commissioner Field moved apprarnl of the re9erest for n specinl co�rciition a�se
pern7it to nllou� geuera! nuto repair nt 8.i9 UniversityAreuue x•hich carried m7arrimotuly on
n roice vote.
£97-049 Universa! Outdoor inc - Appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a
permit application for an adeeRisino sien at 2100 Gilbert Avenue.
Commissioner Fie1d stated that committee heard considerable testimony and ultimately
��oted 5-0, with one abstention to la}• the matter over until May l, 1997.
�97-053 Jim Campbell - Modification of ricer corridor standards to allow constructiaa of a
single family home �vithin 40' ofthe bluff line at 20x.1 Oakridge Street.
I TI�V: Conrnrissioner Fiefd nravecl approti•al of the nrodifreatio�r of river eorriclor
stm:clarcls to crllotiv constrt�ctiort oJa single fmnily ha�ee tivithir: 40 oJthe bk �lirre nt 20x.r
Oaln�idge Street, ticith hvo eondilions.
Commissioner Vaught stated that the resolution before the Commission does not reflect
«fiat the committee did. He said there �� a motian offered to approve the paRicutar
application limiting to a rivo-car gara�e, but that faifed on a vote of 3-3. There «as then a
subsequent motion �vhich «�as passed to reduce the size of the overall bui(dine by the square
footage of a third statl, which is approximatel}• a third of the garage, some 250-2�5 square
feet. Commissioner Vaught feels that the applicant has created his own hards6ip becaase of •
!J
o�� -�S�
• MINUTES OF TAE ZONZNG COMMITTEE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAITL, MINNESOTA ON APRZL 17, 1997
PRESENT: Mme. Faricy; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gordon, Kramer and Vaught of
the 2oning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes.
Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Planning DivisiOn.
ABSENT: Wencl, excused
Gurney
Time: 3:55 to 5:45 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson.
�OHN K aT T.R D V.•OPM �NT� xxx �1: Av.n� : aa o •.x�ng$on b w n
,'li . and Pa�a :# 7-050: ng,�ial ondi 'on P mit. To allow a Clu�ster
development with eight (8) dwelling units.
Kady Dadlez, Zoning Office of PED staff, reviewed the staff report and
presented slides. Sta£f recommended approval of the special condition use
• permit and modification of the lot frontage requirement, based on findings 1
through 4 and subject to the two conditions outlined in the staff report.
The Macalester-Groveland Community Council voted to oppose the SCUP. In
addition, they requested that planning commission consideration of the
application be delayed until after the city council has made a decision on the
street vacation, and a land dispute between the applicant and the property
owner to the west is resolved. A letter was distributed stating their
position.
Four letters were received in opposition.
Commissioner Vaught spoke to a Quit Claim Deed referenced in the staff report,
a copy of which was submitted by an adjoining property owner, and asked
whether the committee could consider the issue of control of the site by the
applicant in determining whether or not an application is complete for
consideration by the committee.
Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney, responded that in this case site contz'ol
could be considered to the extent that there are the specific conditions and
the general conditions that the applicant has to meet. The code also states
in 64.300(d) that the planning commission can atCach other reasonable
conditions in making a determination of whether or not to grant a SCUP. If
the committee were to conclude that site control is something that warrants a
particular consideration or condition to the extent that fee control shall be
established by a given date, that would be a reasonable condition to attach,
• as long as there is a rational basis for it.
�b
Commissioner vaught verified that the committee's approval of the SCUP could •
be directly contingent upon the applicant securing site control and/or
securing site control by a specific date. Mr. Warner confirmed that.
Mr. Warner, referenced finding 2c, that °7f the street vacation is not
approved, staff recommends that the nvmber of dwel2ing vnits in the cluster
development be reduced to seven.°
Commissioner Vaught referenced correspondence submitted by interested parties
that speaks to the Pailure of the proposal to meet setback requirements in the
R-4 zone and questioned staff finding 2c, that this condition was met.
Tom Beach, LIEP site plan review staff, responded that the question of
comp2iance has much to do with interpretation of the code, as it was not a
typical lot that has clearly-defined front, back and side yards. The code
states that in a case where a lot has frontage on two streets that both of
those require front yard setbacks and remaining yards become side yards. It
was staff's interpretation that the property £ronted on both Palace and
Suliet. He referenced the definition of a"through lot", in Section 60.212.
Commissioner Vaught addressed finding 2f relative to compatibility of the
surrounding area structures, particularly questioning staff's finding as it
related to the proposal's mass and height. In addition to the language in
finding 2f, Mr. Beach responded that one factor also supporting the finding
was that the proposed units are somewhat removed from the rest of the
neighborhood. .
Commissioner Gordon asked staff to elaborate on: 1) who owns the alley; 2) how
close the proposed structure comes to the house located at 1083 Palace; and 3)
the impact and the basis for staff's recommendation for closing Palace as sucri
action would not be significant and yet if closing Palace weren't to happen,
the proposal would only be reduced by one unit, asking wriy that is?
Ms. Dadlez responded that without the vacated street Mr. Kratz has only 37,799
square feet which is 2,000 square feet less than the 40,000 square feet
required. Vacating Palace doesn't add a significant amount, but does add
enough to meet the 40,000 square foot requirement.
Regarding ownership, Ms. Dadlez said that the applicant has submitted a copy
of the certificate of title indicating that he owns one-half of the alley.
That being the case, he would be about 2,000 square feet short, and vacating
Palace would allow him to meet the required square foot requirement.
Mr. Beach responded that the townhouses at their closest point, would be
45 feet from the house at 1093 Palace and the driveway serving the townhouses
would be 15 feet away from the house.
Commissioner Vaught disagreed with staff's interpretation o£ orientation of
the proposal and said what he considered to be the front of the proposed
building faces the side; the back faces the side; and the side of the proposed
building £aces the front. He reviewed with staff that the required setback
for a front lot line is 25 feet and for a side lot line is 4 feet. •
�
�7
c��-�s�
• Mr. Beach at Vaught's request reviewed that the building is 25 feet £rom
Palace and approximately 35-40 feet from Juliet, both considered by staff to
be front lot lines. From the side lot line facing 35-E he said it appears to
be about 12 feet; and the side closest to Lexington varies from 40-90 £eet, as
there is a jog in that property line, with the northern building for the most
part being 80-90 feet from the western property line, and the south building
about 40 Peet from the western property line.
Commissioner Vaught in summary, noted that if in fact the correct orientation
was as he saw it, that the building would be 12 feet from what he considered
to be the £ront or back lot line, and does not meet the setback requirements.
John Kratz, the applicant, spoke. Mr. Kratz said that he has opted to do a
SCUP rather than doing existing lot arrangements at that location because: 1)
The site is an unusual shape which doesn't readily permit streets and access
into it; and 2) Because the traffic on 35-E has made that site inhospitable to
outdoor uses, he has chosen to appeal to a group of buyers who are less
interested in being out in their yards.
Mr. Kratz addressed two issues from the staff report:
1. 80 feet of frontage requirement on an improved stx'eet. He claimed the
ordinance doesn�t specify that it must be 80 contiguous feet or that it needs
to be 80 feet on the same street. He said that a conservative interpretation
has been made so that approval can be based on the most restrictive
interpretation of that ordinance. He said that this is especially true when
• the probable reason is considered for the 80 foot requirement which is
adequate ingress and egress for the traffic of the occupants. He suggested
that access to two streets is an improvement over access Co one, whether it's
85 feet or two sections of 40 feet. Mr. Kratz suggested that a modification
on the 80 foot requirement is not necessary but since the result is the same
he would not take issue with it.
2. The zoning lot size for the eight units requested. He requested that the
project be approved for all 8 units regardless of the outcome of the street
issue.
Mr. Kratz addressed the issue relative to his ownership of the property and
noted that all of the development improvements proposed avoids the vacated
alley dispute. He reported that he possesses a deed from the State of
Minnesota who sold him the property which does not include the alley, but said
he has all the rights that the state had to the property and one oE those
rights is the accretion of the alley to the rest of their lots. He said that
the State went through a Proceeding Subsequent as part of their certi£icate of
title on the property as recently as 1991 and concluded that the alley was
part of the State's property, and therefore was passed to him_ Nevertheless
he said he does not wish to take the strip of alley away from Ms. Tenter, and
the only reason it has become part of the discussion was to get around the
minimum lot size. Additionally, he spoke of a 15 foot street vacation needed
on Palace which would bring the lot line to the west 16 feet to meet the
40,000 square feet requested.
C �
3
�
Mr. Kratz said that without the street vacation and without the alley, they •
still have about 92°s of the property needed under the ordinance and asked the
committee to grant a modification along with the SCUP.
Mr. Kratz said other arguments in support included:
- Zoning lot size is not necessarily the same as the legal lot size in
other zoning categories. In Lhe townhouse zoning categories you may
consider half of an alley adjoining property as being square footage
included in the lot to be built on for purposes of unit count, and rie
said that this would be a similar situation;
- This property is wide open behind it, with no one to the east affected
by its development;
- He claimed moderate hardships associated with not permitting the 8
units, saying the 8 units are a tidy, architecturally balanced package,
with two buildings of four units and suggested it would be a
disadvantage to the development, the city and the community to have one
building of four and one building of three. It's an expensive site to
develop with water and sewer needing to be brought into the site at the
developer's expense. The cost of the land is the same whether 7 or 8
units are built and if those costs were spread over 7 units as compared
with 8, it would drive the cost of the 7 units up considerably and
would create a hardship.
- In response to the issues raised by Macalester-Groveland Community •
Council, Mr. Kratz reiterated the 80 foot frontage and stated he felt
the setbacks are very adequate and a lot or even a double lot between
where the buildings are proposed to go and where the neighbor's
property begins.
Mr. Kratz addressed the issue of the changes in the natural features of the
topography. He said that there is a small strip of fill that would be
required that is 7 feet tall at the maximum and will quickly go back down to 4
feet. He claimed that it is a balanced site in terms of fill and that all
fill necessary to go under the southern building will come from other places
on the site. He said very minimal change in the topography would take place
and that both buildings would be built with their front sides on existing
grade. Natural features would be preserved, with lot 17 remaining entirely
vacant, which contains a lot of big cottonwood trees, and ash trees and a lot
of brush. Their intention is to clean it up, debrush it and if it gets enough
sun to sod that will be done, if not it will be left as a nature area.
Mr. Kratz said the cluster development provisions state that if he meets
certain requirements that he may build and then it °requires" that those
buildings be attached. It also reiterates that those attached buildings are
sti12 subject to the same height and setback requirements as pertain to the
zone in general. He said that since those provisions of the ordinance require
that they be attached, and also reiterated the 30 feet height, he didn't see
how later that it can be re-evaluated, saying that because they are attached
and because they are 30 feet tall, that they violate the size provision on a •
massing argument. He said the massing argument goes away when considering
4
�9
�t `1- �s �
• that a single £amily home of exactly this size could easily be built on that
site. One of the issues he spoke to in terms of design were the garage doors
all facing to the neighbors' property. He said that of the 11 residents that
either share Palace or Juliet Avenue, 8 of those garages face the front with
access to the street. His development will not orient them to the street, but
to what has historically been an alley.
Mr. Kratz spoke of the impact of the cluster development on the light and the
air in the new developed area. He said that one advantage of the cluster
concept is that by putting the housing units together open space is preserved,
which allows light and air to get in and around it. He said that the cluster
development occupies only about 16% of the lot with its main building, where
the zoning in general, allows for 30°a in addition to having outbuildings like
detached garages.
Mr. Kratz acknowledged the impact [hat the development will have on the
neighbor at 1083 Palace, which will significantly impact her view, however he
said that her view would be just as impacted by a single family home being
built nearer to her property line, but in the same location that a typical
home would be built on that lot.
Mr. Kratz addressed the recommendation that the street vacation be done first
before action on the SCUP is taken, and felt that option to be at odds with
what the City requires in the vacation.
Commissioner Chavez asked how fire trucks would service the development. Mr.
• Kratz responded that the proposal was reviewed by the Fire Department for
safety and that they recommended that the driveway width be increased from 16
to 20 feet to allow the Fire Department to extend their outriggers to raise a
tall ladder to get at the buildings. He said that fire rigs can drive
straight through, with no backing up required. Commissioner Chavez asked
whether a fire truck could come in on Juliet and exit out on Palace through
the development property, with Mr. Kratz responding affirmatively.
Commissioner Faricy asked Mr. Kratz to elaborate on the retaining walls. Mr.
Kratz said that on the treeway side there is a two-section retaining wall with
a total of about 7 feet in height, with 3 feet in one section and 4 feet in
the other. There is also a low retaining wall between the property at 1083
which starts at about one foot out of the street and for most of the way back
is less than two feet tall. It does go to a maximum of 6 feet in the middle
as there is a need to cut the roadway into the natural existing elevation
change.
Commissioner Faricy asked what the dimension of the access road would be. Mr.
Kratz said it was 16 feet in the plan, and he was fairly certain it would be
expanded to 20 feet as a result of the Fire Department's review.
Commissioner Faricy asked if any consideration was given to making this a two
story development, with the garages located in another place. Mr. Krat2
responded that consideration was given to many other plans, however there was
difficulty with getting the driveways in with adequate parking in front of
them, especially on the south building site.
•
5
2a
Mr. Beach referenced a written report from the Fire Department that they had •
no problems with the proposed development.
Karen Tenter, 1083 Palace, owner of the property adjacent to the south
building of the proposal, spoke in opposition. Ms. Tenter addressed the
dispute with Mr. Kratz regarding ownership of the vacated east half of the
vacated north south alley. Copies of documents from the Minnesota Department
of Transportation were distributed, including a copy o£ the Quit Claim Deed
and a map that the DOT initially put out for bid, which she said show that
none of the vacated north/south alley is included in the subject property
because the DOT reconveyed their half of the vacated alley to Dr. C.C. Wood.
The property was then deeded to her when she purchased her lot from Dr. Wood.
Ms. Tenter said that the DOT informed Mr. Kratz about this deed when he asked
them to quit claim their half to him, and that Mr. Kratz went ahead with his
proposal maintaining that he, in fact, owned that half of the alley. She said
she informed City staff and the community council before their recommendations
were made, and that only the Macalester Groveland Community Council felt that
proper ownership should be determined before the proposal was presented to the
zoning committee.
Ms. Tenter referenced chapter 64.300 of the zoning code which states that
^granting of the SCUP is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent
property" noting that if the proposal is granted that her family's living
enjoyment would be drastically reduced, and she elaborated on the loss of
privacy, the loss of the existing views, and the loss of nature which would
result. •
Ronald Hachey, 1080 Palace Avenue, abutting the applicant's property, spoke in
opposition. Mr. Hachey said he does not need nor want any part of Palace
Avenue and is opposed to the action of vacating it. He said he believed the
petition to vacate Palace Avenue would fail as the petitioner lacks the
support of the majority of the abutting property owners. However, Mr. Hachey
reviewed that Mr, Kratz needs the vacation of Palace Avenue to comply with the
minimum requirement of 40,000 square feet, as well as he needs the alley in
dispute that Ms. Tenter claims to own. Mr. Hachey spoke of the loss of the
natural environment the neighborhood has enjoyed, and said the proposal would
be a disruption. However, he stated that the neighborhood would not object to
3 or 4 r.ice looking homes built there.
Irvin Rubbelke, 380 South Lexington Parkway, a former St. Paul Firefighter who
serviced the area for many years, spoke in opposition. Mr. Rubbelke noted
that as a resident in the area he has witnessed on three occasions fires start
along the freeway and come raging up that hill. He expressed concern over the
inability for a fire rig to turn around in a 20 foot alley, and he reviewed
inefficiencies that would result in a fire emergency.
Dick Sorenson, 408 South Lexington, landscape architect, spoke in opposition.
Mr. Sorenson referenced the site plans and said he believed the site to be too
small for the proposed development and that he didn't believe the development
to be appropriate for the neighborhood. He expressed concern that if the
alley has not been vacated and is found to belong to Ms. Tenter, that would
affect the amount of setback on the 35-E side because the whole development •
may have to be moved to the east, and said the neighbors would like to see
�
��
q�l --�56
• what it would look like if the vacated street is not vacated. He does not see
the development as compatible with trie neighborhood as there are no 3-story
buildings nearby and no townhouses on the block, and indicated that the
development would more than double the number of units on the block and that
such an increase in density concerns the neighbors.
Mr. Sorenson expressed concern regarding detention basins originally proposed
by the applicant, however it was learned that the detention basins are no
longer part of the plan.
Mr. Sorenson questioned the quality of the road design. Ae was aware of the
attempt to minimize the amount of grading, but pointed out a distance of about
50 feet where the rise in elevation is about 12°s slope on a curve, and
questioned whether the turning radius was sufficient to handle moving vans and
other such veriicles. With respect to the road's designation as a fire lane,
he noted that it would have to be marked a fire lane with no parking allowed,
and suggested that guests would not want to park on Juliet and Palace but
would indeed park in the fire lane, and if a fire occurred may prevent trucks
from getting through. He also questioned whether the road would be wide
enough, and that the retaining wall would obstruct the view for backing up
around the curve.
Mr. Sorenson expressed concern that the proposed ground cover is to be highway
grass noting that no fire breaks are mentioned around the buildings, and was
concerned that a fire could come up the hill right up to the building. He
questioned where snow would be placed, acknowledging a plan to put snow
• between the buildings, however noting that there is a very steep slope between
the buildings and questioning that. He also expressed concern over loss of
the natural environment and of increased traffic.
A1 Edwall, 422 S. Lexington Pkwy., his entrance on Palace, spoke in
opposition. Mr. Edwall suggested the project is incompatible with the
neighborhood as it's too massive and creates too much density in the
neighborhood. He expressed concern over the increase in traffic that the
development would generate.
Kate Schultz, 398 South Lexington Parkway, spoke in opposition. Ms. Schultz
submitted the letter distributed to commissioners from the neighborhood and
addressed the following issues not yet addressed:
Land fill. It's the neighborhood's understanding that a very large portion of
the base of the proposed south building would require 12 feet high of land-
fill to support it on a steep slope, however Mr. Kratz said in his testimony
it would be 4-7 feet. She said this would mean that almost all of the
southern edifice, with a base of about 3,400 square feet, would be sitting on
loose dirt with three stories of weight on top of it. She said according to
the code ^... a mini.mum alteration in topography.^, but neighbors see this as
a giant change in the natural features and questioned what would keep the
edifice from slipping into the Randolph exit ramp from Interstate 35-E.
u
7
22
Utilities. Ms. Schultz said the plans they have reviewed did not indicate •
utilities, utility easements, or drainage; they don't clearly show the
driveway connections to the side streets; the fire lane is not indicated on
the plan nor are the fire hydrants proposed by the Fire Department.
Assessments. Ms. Schultz said it was unclear whether there would be
assessments to neighboring residents to cover damage to Palece and Juliet from
trucks carrying landfill and heavy building materials and from proposed
changes in water, sewage, and electricity conduits.
Pauline Hanson, 372 South Lexington, across LexingLon and kitty-corner from
the north building proposed, spoke in opposition. Ms. Hanson expressed dismay
over the Zoss of her river view, and said she believes the safety of all of
those residents pulling out onto Lexington Parkway would be an issue, based on
the [raffic vo2ume on Lexington Parkway, as we21 as the accident statistics in
the last 6 years in that four block neighborhood which has exceeded 200
repor[ed accidents.
Mr. Kratz provided a rebuttle. Ae reviewed the issue of the title on the
alley. When MN DOT first offered the property for sale they didn't show that
alley on there but they showed two other streets and two ather vacated a2leys.
Mr. Kratz inquired about the vacated alley on the south and they asked if it
was on his offer sheet, which it wasn't and they said that maybe they didn't
own it, but Mr. Kratz said it was on their certificate of title that they do
own it, and they said that maybe they did own it and if so he couid have it.
He said that on that basis he bid on it, and after he was a successful bidder •
spoke to NIN DOT a second time about it and said he'd like to make sure that
his deed includes the alley, with MN DOT responding that if they own it he
gets it, but that he doesn't get a closing with the state, but was to send in
his money and then two weeks later they send the deed. After the money had
been submitted he heard from NIN DOT that they had deeded the alley to somebody
else, but that deed had never been recorded. In summary, the vacated alley is
on MN DOT's certificate of title and was never recorded on property records of
the neighbor to the west. Kratz said he thought it was fair for him to assume
triat he owned it. However, he said he doesn't want to keep the alley but
return it to Ms. Tenter, and said he felt it should not be an issue which
enters into the decision of the SCUP.
Regarding the vacation of Palace Avenue, Mr. Kratz said if Mr. Aachey does not
want any part of Palace Avenue that it could be contributed to the homeowners
association who would landscape and perpetually maintain it.
Mr. Kratz clarified that the cluster proposal is for single Eamily homes that
are attached. Regarding the detention pond shown on the original plan, he
noted that it was removed by the city review process as there is no need for
it. He spoke to the big grade difference between the two buildings, with 12
or more percent grade, but Mr. Kratz said he sees that acting as somewhat of a
barrier from keeping people from traveling straight through those sites
unnecessarily, as they need not travel that way but may exit off the street
that they come in on.
The public hearing was closed.
8
•
23
al� -�s�
• Commissionez Vaught moved amendiag the sta£f report as follows:
Finding 2e. Replace the pazagraph indicating that the conditioa is met and
replace the following: This condition is not met. As proposed, the
develogment does not meet the requ3rements £or setbacks in the zoning
district. The setback zequirement for the lot line closest to 8ighway
Interstate 35-E, which is the rear lot liae, is 25 feet and the proposed
developmeat as proposed will be setback only 12 feet from the lot line.
Finding 2f. Replace the first sentence indicating: This condition is not
met. The remainder of the paragraph to be left 3n place. An additional
sentence to be added to follow paragraph: "The proposed development is three-
stories high and the proposed buildings thereon each contain four units. This
mass is substantially greater than the mass of buildings in the surrounding
neighborhood and the height of the proposed development is incompatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.°
Commissioner Vaught moved denial of the special condition use permit and
modification of the lot frontage requirement, based on findings H2c, H2d, 82e,
and H2f as stated and amended above in the staff report. Commissioner Gordon
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Vaught said that voting for the motion required two assumptions.
vaught disagreed with the assumption that the sides of the buildings become
the front of the building and the front of the building becomes the side and
the rear becomes the side. After thorough review of the plans he found it to
• be the case that the front doors are in the front of the building which are
not the side of the building but the front of the building, as are most of the
windows. Looking at the schematics of the development he said if staff's
recommendation was followed that the committee would be required to conclude
that the front of the building on both ends of each building has what appears
to be a single window which is in the stairway on the way from the second to
the third floor and no other openings.
Having arrived at that conclusion, Vaught concluded Chat the setbacks become
relevant with respect to the front and rear yards, and he noted what he
considered to be the rear of the building also has doors and windows and the
decks which are characteristically found in rear yards, not necessarily in
sideyards. Another reason he rejected staff's interpretation was that it
seems to be a tortuous way to fit what is otherwise a building that is totally
out of sinc in terms of its orientation, with the surrounding buildings on to
that particular lot. He suggested that the usual view of what is a front and
a back and a side of a building ought to prevail in this case.
Secondly, Vaught said that the conditions regarding compatibility are not met.
He rejected the notion that because this particular building mass would be
otherwise allowed in a cluster development, in an R-4 zone that they must of
necessity conclude then that that mass is compatible with the surrounding
property as he felt it clearly is not, and that the code does not mandate that
particular conclusion. He said that the buildings, though otherwise
attractive on another site, are not compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
C J
9
2�}
Commissioner Gordon said he would support the motion because of his concerns
about the lot area, the setbacks, the frontage, and the compatibility.
The motion carried for deaial on a voice vote of 6 to 0.
Drafted by:
��s�
Donna Sanders
Submitted h��•
i��
Kady Dad]
nnnrnt�oA hv•
C�
C J
•
10
L5
��-�5�
• ZONING CO2R2ITTE8 STAFF RSPORT
__�__�____________�__________
FILS # 97-050
1. APPLZCANT: SOHN KF2ATZ DATB OF HBARIDTG: 04/17(97
2. CLAS52FICATION: Special Condition IIse
3. LOCATION: XXX JULZET AVENUE (east of Lexington between Juliet & Palace)
4. PLAIiN2NG DISTRICT: 14
5. LBGAL DBSCRIPTION: see file
6. PRBSSNT ZONING: R-A ZONING CODB R8F8R8NC8: §60.413(13) &§6A.300(d)
7. STAFF INVBSTIGATION AND RHPORT: DATB; 4/10/97 SY: Kady Dadlez
8. DATE RBCEIVSD: 03/12/97 DBADLINB FOR ACTION: OS/10/97
A. PIIRPOSE: Special condition use permit to allow a cluster development with
eight (8) dwelling units.
• S. PARCEL SIZE: The development parcel has 73 feet of frontage on Juliet
Avenue and 40 feet of frontage on Palace Avenue for a total lot area of
40,586 square feet, provided a portion of Palace Avenue is vacated. The
lot area is 37,799.15 square feet without vacated Palace.
C. s7t2sTlxc LaND IISE: The propezty is currently vacant. The development
parcels is being assembled from vacant lots and remnant right-of-way from
Interstate 35E construction.
D. SIIRROVNDING LAND IISE: The property is surrounded on the north, south, and
west by single family homes and by Interstate 35E on the east.
E. ZONIN� CODE CITATION: Sections 60.413(13) and 64.300(d) of the zoning code
permit cluster developments subject to the conditions detailed in findings
#2 and #3 of this report.
F. �ISTORY/DISCIISSION: There are no previous zoning cases concerning this
property. There is a current site plan review application for the proposed
development.
G. DSSTRiCT CODNCIL RECOD4�ffiNDATION: The Macalester-Groveland Community
Council voted to oppose the sgecial condition use permit. In addition,
they request that planning commission consideration of the application be
delayed until after the city council has made a decision on the street
vacation and a land dispute between the applicant and the property owner to
� the west is resolved.
�
Zoning File #97-050
Page Two
�#3+t�
1. The applicant owns all of the property proposed for development. Eight
dwel2ing units are proposed, two buildings of four units each. The
applicant plans to vacate a portion of Palace Avenue to assemble the
necessary lot area for the number of dwelling units proposed. The
street vacation process was initiated in March and will take about four
months.
2. Section 60.413(13) of the zoning code permits cluster developments
subject to the following conditions:
a. There shall be a miai.mvm of two (2) uatts.
This condition is met. Eight units are planned.
b. The units shaZZ be attached, commoa wa1Z, siag2e fami2y, with uo uait
intzuding on the vertical airspace of any other uait.
This condition met. The units are side-by-side, with no unit
intruding on the vertical air space of any other unit.
c. The parcel shall meet the lot area required per uait ia the zontng
district.
This ccndition can be met. The lot area, provided a portion of
Palace Avenue is vacated, is 40,586 square feet. This allows eight
dwelling units (S,DOD square feet o£ lot area is required for each
unit). The street vacation would contribute 2,786.85 square feet to
the development parcel. The street vacation was initiated in March
and is expected to take about four months. If the street vacation is
not approved, staff recommends that the number of units in the
cluster development be reduced to seven.
d. The parcel shall have s av.nimvm frontage of eighty (80) feet oa an
improved atreet.
This condition is not met. The property has frontage on two streets:
73 feet on Juliet Avenue and a0 feet on Palace Avenue. If a portion
of Palace Avenue is vacated, there will be 13 feet of frontage at
that location as well.
Staff recommends that this condition be modified. Although the
applicant does not have 80 feet of frontage at a single location, the
development parcel currently has a total of 113 feet of frontage and
would have 146 feet of frontage if a portion of Palace Avenue is
vacated. The 73 feet of frontage on Juliet approaches the minimum
requirement of 80 feet, and with access from both Juliet and Palace,
adequate ingress and egress wi11 be provided.
•
�
•
27
°1`� - �S�
• Zoning File #97-050
Page Three
e. Tke structure shalZ coafozm to tfie schedule of regu2atioas for
fieight, Iot coverage, aetbacks and parkiag.
This condition is met. As proposed, the development meets the
requirements for height, lot coverage, setbacks, and parking
prescribed by the zoning district. Since the lot is double £ronted,
25 foot setbacks from both Juliet and Palace are required; everything
else is a side yard which requires a 4 foot setback.
f. The design shaZl be compatible with tbe surroundiag aeighborhood.
This condition is met. The immediate neighborhood is characterized
by a variety of housing styles and sizes. There are one and two-
story homes on Lexington Parkway; the house on the north side of
Palace immediately to the west of the development site is a full two
story.
g. Individual lota, buildiags, street aad pasking sreas ahall be
designed and situated to minimize alteration of the natursl features
and topography.
This condition is met. While the applicant will need to bring in
• some fill during construction, the development has been designed to
minimize disruption to natural features and topography. In an
attempt to preserve the existing topography, groposed development at
the northern portion of the site will be at an elevation that is
about 12 feet higher than the development at the southern half.
h. Applications for cluster deveZopment sha11 include site pZans,
including landscaping and elevatioaa aad other information the
planaing commi.ssion may request.
This condition is met. The applicant submitted a site plan,
landscape plan, and building elevations along with a written
description detailing the specifics of the development.
3. Section 64.300(d) of the zoning code requires that before the planning
commission may grant approval of a principal use subject to special
conditions, the commission shall find that:
a. The exteat, location and iateasity of the use will be ia aubstantial
compliance with the Saiat Paul Comprehenaive Plaa aad any applicable
subarea pZana rkich cvere approved by the city couaciZ.
This condition is met. One of the problems and issues identified in
the District 14 Plan states, "potential increase oE higher density
apartment buildings which could change the single-family character of
the neighborhood." Goals of the District 14 Plan state: 1) "to
• retain and improve the residential quality of the community;" 2)
"maintain the single family character of the district;" 3) "to meet
the diverse housing needs of residents;" and 4) "to provide a
28
Zoning File #97-050
Page Four
variety of housing types within the district (apartment,
condominiums, cooperatives) whiZe retaining the sing2e-family
character and residential quality of the district".
b. The use wtI2 provide adequate iagress aad egress to minimize traffic
coagestioa in the public atreets.
This condition is met. Access to the site will be from both Palace
and Juliet Avenues. There will be a two-car garage for each of the
dwelling units.
c. The use will aot be detrimmtal to the exiatiag cbaracter of
developmeat �n the i�ediate neighbozhood or endaager the public
health, safety aad general welfare.
This condition is met. The modest number of new dwelling units can
be accommodated by existing facilities and services provided by the
city. Lexington Parkway currently carries about 19,000 vehicZes near
this location.
�
d. The use will aot impede tbe normal and orderly development aad
improvemeat of the surrouading pzoperty for usea permitted in tbe
district. •
This condition is met. The surrounding property is fully developed.
The new housing will serve as a buffer between the interstate and
single family homes to the west.
e. The use sha21, ia a21 other respects, coafazm to tlxe app2icable
regulatioas of tfie diatract ia which it is located.
F.�ccept for the condition relating to lot frontage, this condition is
met.
4. Section 64.300(f) of the zoning code states, "The planning commission,
after public hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when
strict application of such special coaditions wonZd unreasonably limit
or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property or an e�cisting
structure aad would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner of
such property or structure; provided, that such modification will not
impair the intent and purpose of such special condition and is
consistent with health, morals and general welfare of the community and
is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property."
Z. STAFF RBCOHI�NDATION: Based on findings 1 through 4 staff recommends
approval of the special condition use permit and modification of the lot
frontage requirement, subject to the following conditions:
1. The approval of this special condition use permit to allow the cluster •
development with eight (8) dwelling units is subject to the final
approval by the City CounciZ of the required street vacation of Palace
29
0 1 �1 - � s �
• Zoning File #97-050
Page Five
Avenue. The number o£ dwelling units in the cluster development shall
not exceed seven (7), if the vacation of Palace Avenue is not approved.
2. A wood privacy fence, six feet in height, shall be installed near the
southwestern property line. The western side of the fence (applicant's
property) shall be landscaped to provide a buffer between the house to
the west and the new access drive and dwelling units. The exact
location of the fence and species to be planted will be determined
through site plan review.
•
C �
�
SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Deparlment of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
1700 Ciry Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Sainr Paul, MN SSIO2
266-6589
APPLICANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Zmm�g r�ce iise unly .
�ite no. : ° •ty5f? •
Fee. ��;�;?�' �.�::
T��a#iue: #�ear+� .�e -
�� � ��1 �1`��(�
� . ,..
Name John Kratz
Address 1424 Edqcumbe Road
City St. Paul gt.MN Z�p 55116 Daytime phone 690-5360
Name of owner (if different)
East of
between Juliet & PalacelAVes
�ta ncaa. ii�aa�.ayc vi .'.+ +.+
Legal description:Lots 17 & 18 & parts of lots 1-6, all in
19, Ridgewood Park Addition, Current Zoning R-4
(a a h a itional s eet " necessary) C+YPP'FC
TYPE OF PERMIT: Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter ,
Section 60. / 3 , Paragraph� of the Zoning Code for a:
.� Speciai Condition Use Permit
D River Corridor Conditional Use Permit
❑ Mod�cation of River Corridor Standards
•
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: in the space betow suppiy information that is appticable to your type of
permit (attach additional sheets if necessary)
• SPECIAL CONDITION USE: Explain how the use will meet each of the special conditions.
• RtVER CORf2tDOR CONDITIONAL USE: Describe how the use witl meet the applicable cond+tions.
• MODIFICATION OF RIVER CORRIDOR STANDARDS: Explain why modifications are needed.
�4 E�FSe S�
Required site pian is attached
ApplicanYs
A�T'it-�t� � �
City
3►
��l - �S �
• The special conditions required in Paragraph 13 for cluster developments are met by this
use as follows:
a. The eight units proposed exceed the minimum (two) required.
b. The units are attached, common wall, single family, with no unit intzud'sng
on the vertical airspace of any other unit.
c. The site is zoned R-4, wluch requires a minimum lot of 5,000 square feet.
This site contains 40,587 square feet, allowing the eight units proposed.
d. The requirement that the pazcel have a minimum frontage of SO feet on an
improved street is eacceeded here by the cul-de-sac frontages on both Palace
and Juliet Avenues. A 40-foot frontage on the side of Palace Avenue is
shown on the site plan, with the rest of Palace east of that point to be vacated.
This will match what was done when Juliet Avemie was partially vacated in
1968. If, however, the 80-foot minimum frontage requirement can be met by
including the frontages on the ends of Palace and 7uliet Avenues, then more of
Palace could be vacated, more of the driveway would be private, and the extra
square footage for the lot azea could accrue to the benefit of the owner adjoining
to the west on Palace Avenue. The site plan avoids use of the east half of the
• vacated alley extending north from Juliet Avenue. If it weren't for the need of
this lot azea for unit count purposes, it would be possible to grant the owner to
the West on Palace the permanent use and enjoyment of this strip of land.
e. This structure will conform to the 30-foot maximum building height, aithough
doing so necessitates the retaining walls east of the south building site. The lot
coverage proposed, at 16%, is considerably less than the 30% permissible for the
main structures. There are no accessory buildings proposed. Setbacks aze easily
maintained. Each unit has four pazking places, two in each attached garage and
two spaces in front of each garage.
f. The "surrounding neighborhood" is a mixture of many design styles. T'he design
proposed is comparible with a great number of existing structures in the
Macalester/Groveland neighborhood.
g. Every effort has been made to mini*++;,a aiteration of the nahuai features and
topography of the site.
h. Supporting documentation, including site plan, landscape plan, and elevations aze
attached.
�
ZON1�G FILE ��°--�- �
32
, En
----- � � i �
,
i �� ; � ,,; ��
----- -� .s� oz� � '� � F'
.,.._=i . < <s' . . ' "_'_ j . � :r '
..�.�._ � :� .
------- —,�; � , � �
�-- � I
p — - -- -- -, o : J � , ,
s �3� ; , _����€;s��t
— ,; � � _----- e $� `g4� �.
� 'rpi� � ' �B� gp �» ��
e
{ h Y = l • l'a � ie }
�` � _ ,`, °? � s'-f � ° I�"E $ e @` �
�
i
r ._>
�
t� �
�
� � i � F
] r �€�
` � _ �.,.
�, i i�::
_ I
� I
I.
i�
( �� ^ �£!
-�
i i ' �
— � _ ;
_ , €;
� `� ' °==�
I -_. F
� I' ��3
, i! � s 3
i .'
: . k
ti ` s
__ _ ' ` __— [ a
/
/
/ .
� ,Y: �.. � �
;' — — -- 8 - �
f� �
E �
`J 1 �.
e Y
' x f
� �.
� ----------
;€ '
� /
F �'
.C— _ — —'_. — __
G —_
`' F !
P iF. •
8 "�: .
f •
;,-- F� ---,
.
; /:
t i---
: a_ ,...--..
.'_ �_3
� !;c
I: ��
k _. �
�
_��� . = 0 �
� ��\ (
�
�
� � 1
S '
�
�i
� ��
� : ��i
�V
�� f
o a �I
,
�a
�
W �
:1
�
�
� ��
/
�
�'
/
%
i
/
/
,
i
J
�
������� ���E °��°sc5 �
LU/QTG➢E PLN
,qnx xp.rz
.«.....e :�i.: _no
HEDLUND
: �..`�n.c .`-.n
.�« mz .�-':r
�
•
•
�
�
�t`1- ls�
� � � i
• -----� 1 �{ ' ----- I g; i
I � I
�� _ i i
-- �„_�Er - o. � ------� -`�� °��s —.—•—�—�—
ob_tc' -„E-
— _---_ _ _—_---_ --___ Y.`; ----,__
�—_ . ____ —_, —Y � -y p . _ } � y � ' �% i
t ? '�a � ' • p�j _ - '
'�� � <� - i ' � r � 5 1 -i a � "-
_ L — _ f ; _"'`.,�r i � ,, t
— g 9' . _ _ `�, [ (5 . S
. � -�� j�:= i
. �, � 6 / . : t
" ` a� %" ``
� d _ F�,' .
I ' � � � � .�/ �������� '
8 — �
•
•
i � � � �
£p — 5 '.l�i — �
I �} � 1 p �� F �it . <' s
, ,i ./^� '. .
— ---- - :� ., ! � E �s.
— - — -- -- � , ' — — - T � ' � E ° ,
----- ?' ---"— � '��-=
-c . k . �a - .,.-J`.
/ " . :. '�� � i
- E3 ' ;- � r
P �
I � / –� t � ` r•,g ��� L ,
� L � , � ,-J ; ' '' ",,�-,.; �^, ` _;
I �. �' , _ � ���.i �� �F � �, i Ei,'_
I d' 3% € t u ea`2
� � i i \ h � �i ` gJ' F ¢� .
� t � i z .' E
� i�g ;' .�"^,,:
� ' i a l � `f�` � � ��� �
� t r
F j
` { _ yT�. € � � . k `
_ oa — I i — _ _ _ _ _ _ i, � _/� :� - . �: .i
.� --_ 1__ _. �e� i_ —"_ j 1f e Y Y- ��.�
. A'1E. f i o � I _ � / �!— Y—£ --I � �
rr' i: � x I =}I . _. _. � i� \\r.�� , i . ,
�'y - � e I .
------- -----� --------,— � —,I
I i '; !
i °. � �,� s
t
=a €e�°
N� ' f I � E° Qz P �? �
x � y
11 ° `� �g��
s€: s
'€i�?�
�^ e �S�s;€
– I 9 '�M�
_ 1� � � '
E
u a
N
O S
`S ��������Y �Y�ta�. �� �
' i'PR[L(Y/.V�HY GA�DIS6 � L'SILIJY iGS ���•��� — " • �--��" - �— �
. ai � f : ; �._.s a.� .�.,_ - - - - � �`trEnlunro ,�, ..:_. _ .....: z:.. _ _---:_ ,
,
�, ,
: ._...�...__ ._... .. .. � _
, . . :.�_ , - --
:� � ......__ - - _ =__-
� ---- — — - -
O�'/)7G3fi�
/
%
i
/
�
/
�
^
F �
i�
- :.«:`;��
t�id ANLVihqlYd
e�F • `
_ - �
�g��__l• (i p
e <
�.s:7�a�s': r
: n
s .�zf`-S.1 m P o
$�itt3�i� °
�ji:�� � ��,
?`E'' c _
SFL'sii_{Y N �
�ii€���Fi;� � o
�.ikl:fgf ° m �n
.} }�L'��`� o
' .s }si��� ^ �
:3E.1 t.
'jf ;;..��. p �
i>e$. ?:� y �
=S�fij�_ f• <
a tiS
"SE�'s3'.:.'.:: �
�--- - -�----------
� - ` I- °3 '3,4V 3�V�Vd
Y
� — —c=---
, �--_'
/
/
� ([
�
1
...__ _"— _— �{
� `__'—_— _—
� .
� ' _�
i .
� .
/
/
i--: ` I I
.� '' �. � i
< ' I
_ e � _ �
i
` � -- t..� — -- -- ,f ,' a>
. ,� E�
: w.. a
� ta { 3 �._>/ i I
•� 3 ' --' �{ ' j� ���
� / ��
�
b� t �
�— _ _ _
{ �
/ %E...
. . /� � ( e �g
�
_ �i e
8 -<..a�a/A � �� 4
S / � _ .. � _. � �
i i � __� _
^ 1
� � S "' !
• � e
ti " � ��
f
����r'�� ���:� ��
�
�
o .so.�..�
a_ i
io '�/�: l.jll(li _—
� `—,_--
L___,—
35
•
•
�
� !-0 ��o
•
•
•
c
0
m
>
m
W
`m
d
¢
Z0�6�i� ��� � q7�os� I
��
"" J
� -
� j
♦ �.,
v
�
^ 'L
i
C ^
^ v
� �
� �
�
Ci J
�
� �
N �
r
��
u
rn
C
.�
1
o � V
�� �
� T
V � I M �
y C O �
� �c Y o o N
0
�— — —
• 4
L � �
_
�
a
d�
>o
d�
��
L M
Q1 fD
C
a
�
C J
� F
a �o LL
jOr
d��
�o
� m N
' �O
A
� �
c(� - �5�
/
Macalester-Groveland
Community Council
320 South Griggs Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota SS10S-2800
Telephone: (612) 698-7973
Fa�c� (612) 69S-4�i65
Apri! 10. t997
Litto� Fieid, Chair
Zoning Committee
Saint Pa�d Planning Commission
110Q Ciry Hall Pnnex
Sairtt Paul, MN 55t02
Dear Mr. Fieid,
RECEIVED
APR i l 1997
ZON(NG
The Macalester-Groveland Community Council does not support the appiicffiion by John Kratz for a Special
Condition Use Permft to allow the dustering of eight townhomes on the 1�5E blutf between JWiet and
Patace.
We betieve that Mr.Kretz' proposed deveiopmeM dces not meet the c�ndkions necessary for a duster
devetopment.
r The parcel dces not have 80 feet oF frontage on an improved street.
* The proposed development dces not conform to the setback requiremeMS of the R-4
district. The rear side of the building is not set back 25 feet from the property line.
t The proposed deveiopmeru does not confortn to the requiremeM that alteretion of the
natural topography be minimized. 12 feet of fili is a significaM alteration.
+ The bu7ding mass (iwo buDdings each 96' by 36'), height (3 stories), and buAding
orientation (dominance of garages on front tacade) are not simlar to or compatiWe with the
surrounding neighborhood. The project would Wxk air and tigtrt from atijaceM homes,
detracting from the r�sonade en)oymera of the neighbors' property
We also believe that this matter should not be acted on by the P(anning Commission urrt� the parcel is
assembied. Mr. Kratz' PraWsal is dased on the parcei being 40.000 s4uare feet We request tF�at the
Pianntng Commission table the matter unL'i the City Cour� acts on the application for the vacation of
Palace and ur�til ownership of the vacated aliey on the �st side of the parcel has been determined.
Thank you for your consideraCwn of our posftion on this matter.
Sincerely.
C..�.t,E"�-Q Gt�,ZJ c�" `c.��n.lS7s��
Kstherine Tamowski
Commut�r Organizer
��
�
•
39
C�
Saint Paul Zoning Committee
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
RECEIVED
APR 0 9 �997
ZONfNG
�� -�s �
Apri18, 1997
Zoning Committee:
Shis letter is in regard to the proposed construction of S townhomes on the I-35E bluf£
t�etween Juliet and Palace (Zoning File Number 97-050 - John Kratz Cluster
Development). I live on the corner of I,exington and Palace, just west of the proposed
site.
I am astounded that anyone would wish to build on such an inappropriate site and I
find it difficult to believe that any construction in this constricted area could be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. T'he fact that it would currently be
iliegal for this development to be constructed underscores the inadvisability of the
project. I see no good reason to grant a special use pennit. The reason the zoning
laws exist are to prevent inappropriate pro}ects such as t4us.
• Sincere]y, .
` �i /:'�>�ri� �f ,C�t/`�.i�
M. Scott Spencer�
4I5 Lexington Parkway South.
Saint Paul, MN 55105
•
ZO�I�� ���.� q��o5c� �
.�
R�11+ 3NNns
11:28:76 41&87
���
•
1073 Jaznes Avenue
St. Paul, h� 55103
St. Pau] Zocting Comcnittee
25 W'est Fourth Street
St. Paul, IvL� 551t12
Re: Zouing File Number 97-650
Zoning File Name: Jolui Kratz Clustcr Developcncnt
Zoning Committee:
I6 April, 1997
RECEIVED
APR I 7 1997
ZONING
We are sending this letter in 2ieu of being able ta attend the April 17 hearing conceming the
building of townhomes an the I35L bl� bctween 7ulict and Palace Avenues.
We strongly urge you to not grant a�eciat-use permit fnr this groject. Since nw �erty lies
within 35U feet of the proposed project we k�ave a right to voice our opinion. Below aze the
highlighu of our azgumenu against the pmposal.
Dminage and Rimoff
Our property (and others) lies south and belo�c� the proposed site. A substantial sufface area will be
covered aith conaete. Aow careful of a stud}� lias been dene to insure ihat those of ns " dOR'R
ssWam" from the site won'i hat�e problems with escess water? On the face of it it seems that
every•one is assuming ttiat the runoff will onl} affect ihe DOT land between the site and I35E.
�st ��est Oriemation
Consider the area bounded by Randolph ?,��enue on the south and 7efferson Avenue on the north.
At! homes e�cepi those on major streeu run alon� an east-west line. Oniy homes on Le�iugton
aad Edgecombe A�enues in this �icurit5 run along a north-south line. For homes on the top of the
bfuff east of Losington Avcnue, that cast-��est oricntation is cvcn more imporfant bc-,anse it
presv�ves the sight linCS looking rasl. And for tt�al rcascm over all of thcse yems tLal easl-wesl
cxientation has heen honored. That is, unril Mr. Krat�'s proposai was intrnduced.
ComQatibilirv
Don't misundcrstand us. \i'c support urbaa heusing dct�clopmcnt. But why can't ;vlr. Kra� build a
site that fits urto the existuig structural configivation and landscapc. Why can't ho build in azi
east-west orientation? Why does he need 12 feet of fill if indeed lris plan confonns to the
topo�aphg of the area? Perhaps a smaller complex would be more appro�xiate since then it would
fit mare easily into the em�irons of the azea. (Refer to the Teatec's recent buiidin@ on Palace).
Frankly we tttink tlus little cocridor of homas bounded b} tha area outlined ab�e shoulders more
than iu share of urban difficulties. II is carved out on one side by an inteistate trighway, and on
the other by one of the busiest interseetion in all of St Paul {Randolph and Lexington). Thebluff
that exists east of those homes is our oasis amongst these urban realities of lite.
Piease strongly consider thc vie�vs of us that will have to live with your decision for a long time.
Tfiank yau.
Iim Steveas
Ruth Stcvcns
C J
r 1
LJ
�
RECEIVED
�
•
APR 1 7 1997
ZONING
APRIL 17, 1997
TO: ZONING COMMITTEE OF THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JUDGE RON HACHEY, 1080 PALACE
MARY & LOU PfLNEY, 412 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
CHERYL & DENNIS MAHALLA, 420 S. LEXfNGTON
LAVERNE GIEFER, 392 S. LEXtNGTON PKWY.
'JOHN FOX & KAREN TENTER, 1083 PALACE AVENUE
JEANETTE & WAYNE WERMAGER, 1065 JULIEf AVENUE
KATE SCHULTZ, 398 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
TED TUDISCO, 388 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
IRV RUBBELKE, 380 S. LEXii3GTON PKWY.
DICK SORENSEN, 408 S. LEX{NGTON PKWY
JEAN MCMAHON & BOB DECK, 416 SO. LEXINGTON PKWY.
CATHY & AL EDWALI., 422 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
. DEB CAPRON, 435 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
PAULINE & JAIiAES HANSON, 371 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
RE: PUSLIC TESTIMONY REGARDING PROPOSED JOHN KRATZ CLUSTER
DEVELOPMCNT, ZONING FILE NO 97-050
a �-�s�
We ask the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to disapprove
a Speciai Condition Use Permit (SCUP) and frontage modification to allow this ciuster
development with eight aweiling units because the proposal does not meet eleven of
the thirteen requisites of relevant zoning codes and planning goafs.
Here are the facts to support a denial of the SCUP and frontage modification as it
pertains to Section 60.413 (13):
c.The parcei does� not meet the lot area required per unit in the zoning
district.
The required_ parcel is less than 40,000 sq. ft. because
1) John Kratz's parcei does not include, as he claims, the east side of the south-half of
the vacated north-south aliey way. This property is owned by Karen Tenter (Mr. Kratz
ctaims to own the land, but this is ciearly disputed by Karen Tenter.) and
• 2) the vacation of the Palace property — 2,786.85 sq. tt-- will not be approved
because Mr. Kratz's petition dces not foltow the Cftizen's, Guidelines for due prxess
as pubiished by the City, see sec. 1.8.4. The DOT must remain neutral !o aii parties
and Judge Ron Hachey is opposed to the vacation. There is not a majority of owners
�2
n
u
upon which to actuate and, therefore, Mr. Kratz's petition should be denied.
d. The-parcel does not have a minimum of eighty (80) feet on an
improved street. � ,
i) The code�does not permit the addition of tootage °!N° the street .
2) The code does not provide that the 80 feet can be divided and
3) it does not permit approval on a platted (rather than improved) street.
A modification to allow a 3-way digression from the stated code cannot be approved.
Such a modification which would allow two, righf-angle entrances wiih less ihan 73
linear feet on to a narrow, 20-it, fire-lane as the sole access to the eight
dwelling unit complex.. Enforcing the no-parking requirement would be impossibie.
Such a modification which wouid
1} harm purchasers of units in Mr. Kratz's devetopment and
2) endanger.our genera) welfare as we immediately adjoin the development. '•
This modification, or any other, that restricts property owners' rights to adequate
coverage of police, fire and rescue emergency vehictes cannot be approved. We are
alarmed that ai! of us -- including Mr. Kratz's purchasers as well as the DOT -- will not
have adequate protection. There is no way an emergency fire truck can turn
aroand with these sub-siandard entrances and minimal alleyway. A futl, out-of-
control fi►e on the hi!! may not be serviced in time by one fire truck trying to run a hose
across four busy lanes of rush hour Vatfic on Lexington from a hydrant on Palace. One
of us is a veteran with 37 years of service with the Saint Paul Fire Department and he
cfearly points out -- too many homes woutd be at risk at once..
e. Structure does not coniorm to the scheduis of regufations for height,
lot coverage, setbacks artd parking.
1) With the absence of the east-side of the southem haif of the North-South alleyway in
the parcel, the side set-back of the south building of four feet is not met on the east
side and
2) The 25-foot set-back is not met on Palace with the absence of the Patace vacation.
!. The desFgn is r+ot compatibie with the surroanding neighborhood.
Mr. Kratz praposes structures that are completely out of piace in the neighbofiood. •
There are no three-story buifdings within the surrounding neighborhood (much less
any with massive dimensions of 96' by 36'). The two proposed buiidings are 200
percent longer and have 50 percent more stories than the neighborhood dweliings
�
r��
� 7 -�,��
�
C�
and, therefore, are not compatible. We, as existing praperty owners, wouid
clearly suffer from a suburban-type townhouse sitting oddly at uneven heights in the
midst of our existing single-family Macalester-Groveland neighborhood.
g. Individuai
and situated
topography.
lots, buildings, street and parking areas are not designed
to minimize atterations of the naturat features and
1) A ve.ry large portion of the base of the proposed south building will require 12 feet
high of fand-fi11 to support ii on a steep slope.. This meaqs that almost all of the
editice's 3,456 sq. tt. will be sitting on foose dirt with three stories of weight on top of it--
hardiy a minimum afteration in topography but rather a giant change in the natural
features leaving us to wonder what would prevent the edifice from slipping into the
Randoiph exit ramp from Interstate 35-E.
2) The natural features of the property which are aliowing the neighbors to share in
suniight, trees, and wildGte will be highiy diminished with the presence of two massive
buildings, creating a substantial loss of reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property.
(One neighbor, even with the city-mandated, 6' retaining wail and lilac bushes, will
now no longer benefit from direct sunlight before noon each day. The naturai features
she sees now would be replaced by her view of eight garage doors and four sets of
trash cans anchoring an editice rising three stories high within a few feet of her tiving
room windows.)
3)The undeveloped portion of Juliet and Palace wili no longer be abie to absorb the
heavy snow from City plows. The neighbors at each end of these streets wili have to
pay unfairfy to have the "end" snow removed.
4) All of the neighbors' home designs have an east-west orientation while the
proposed development's two buiidings destroy the harmony with their outsized
north-sputh orientation, leaving no area for a lawn (Mr. Kratz plans to provide no
traditionai iawn area but rather to pfant wild, highway-side grass, leaving the majority
of the grounds in cflncrete).
h. Application of this ciuster development includes inadequate site plans,
leaving to question landscaping, elevations and other information the
planning commisslon may request.
Plans do not indicate utilities, utility easements or drainage. Plans do not show
driveway connections ta side streets. The fire lane is not indicated on the plan and
hydrarrts are. not indicated. �
ft is unclear 'rf there are assessments coming to us to cover damage to Palace and
• Jutiet nom trucks carrying landtit! and heavy building materiats and from proposed
changes in water,sewage and electricity conduits.
��
C�
3. a. The extent, tocations and intensity of the use will not be in
substarttial comptiance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Pian and any
applicable subarea plans which were approved by it�e City Council. -
Denial of the SCUP fuliy supports ali five goals of the District 14 plan (cluster homes
are not an option as stated in the staff report.)
b.The use does not provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize
traffic conQestion in !he public streeis. �
Six homes facing Lexington on the block of the proposed site have restricted �
frontage parking and no ailey parking. We owners fuily understand that the Jufiet and
Palace parking is free and open to ail citizens on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Increasing the number of dwetling units by 113 percent on a biock that has only three
traffic sides is going, however, to create stress for alt parties wishing for access.
c. The use will be detrimental to the existing character of development id
the immediate neighborhood or endanger the pubiic heaith, safety and
general welfare.
Piease see our position for disapproving a modification oi the 80-foot frontage •
requirement (see page two of this report item d).
e. Use does not conform to the applicable regulations of the district in
which it is 'located.
As evidenced here.
4. Section 64.300� (f)
The project's subsequent owners and all surrounding neighbors are harmed by
creating a parking enforcement probiem on a fire lane that lessens adequate fire and
emergency yehicte protection.
NEIGHBORS RECOMMENDATION:
We respect Mr. Kratr's right to devetop his property, but we are opposed to this
proposed use of his property which does not meet the letter and certainly not the spirit
of the existing code.
We tully expect that the code for R-4 2one and its speciai subseciion tor cluster homes •
will be strictiy enforced, freeing Mr. Kratz to explore single family homes attematives
which would be compatible with the neighborhood.
We are aware of a strong demand for singte family homes on the site and are
i�
��_�s�
• confident that our City's tax base can be further deve{aped without substantial sacrifice
to those of us who are to become the developmenYs new neighbors.
In the past weeks we have done considerable study and discussion with the various
staffs ofiCity departmenis and with �Mr_ Kratz himself on this matter and conciuded that
the evidence clearly shows harm to the general welfare of the community and
destruction o� reasonabie enjoyment of the adjacent property.
We ask for deniai of the SCUP and the modffication.And, finally, we want you to know
we are looking forvvard to a time soon when we can fully welcome our new neighbors--
living happily in singie, famiiy homes that truly fit in our neighborhood.
#################
•
�
�
Q4i13%97 TGE 21:28 FAS 812 6897031 RINROS SNELLING SO f�j001
Name: � �. �C � � u.. l L � Date: _ i 1 � _ � /
� /•J
om any N (Department � InYi ax odes:
I S�• ��--� �O h l�'7 0��1 C ACCess Coun i C�
SpeciallnstrucEion.s: •
/� �s � �, s -�r � b � ��. � �-- ����- .� � �
} hone:
7`��r rc e. �� s ' `� h,-� e� ,fj � YS G
/� � r
�onl�'7 G-�h-idri � �� /-��-9�MVt :,
�-S Gv �-� j �S %rr� �� c c �,
Name: � !.� r� n �, � z�--Y� � i' Phone� � g � �� f �.1 �
FROM �
Cg�npany Name/Departmert: um r o pages,
�� �c r�� h o �Y � � l� �q y— O5o iru�u�n9 coyer paee:
� a�.� �
' kinko•s
j 58 S�Ifing Avenue S., St. Paul, MN 55105
� Phone: (612) 649-9671 • FAX: (612j 69g703t � �� ��
' rnissrore��aero�+aaa�ere�2anours,�d�ys��k apublicfaxservice
�
•
0
�.�} H i �; a:R{
�� ��V r
4
�olera � �*'r �i#xs to i��
'1M St,st,. af Wsma�ott h+i�K � i� t.e aeM �.t et
for � P�'PeNS aUe � ��'�`,��
sn adl�at�t �+►blis wU�7'� � t�aestNl; `�+[ M�!m. *� ��
a �
Anm�� i�t elak l�� � Par1t A�dl.tle�.iMO �a ,ll�
Qe�istionnr ot � ai ssid l�tb� 1ut�rl�E �aA th� �M'�3+�T ��!o
� /�- SY' � � TSC�� � 110��� �t �O �e �.Cr*' X@Qa_; � �;` � r . ., . ,
~� ' ' ":1�'� �� •
ftox �JNrr!'ort, �►
ii� 1'�lO�Gaa�.9! � �'� �a$��i
ssation 161,W►� �Ffie S�at,� ot lfl�nwa�a, 1� �t�I'� L�taeila� .� • a ��� : ,��'•
tor tM dae►a3duration of Un� �+u� �� ���� Ao�lat�s (�D•00) f�
• to t!a l��t� � af ltimt►�wota tor dopos'�t !tt ti� '�ra�t �Si�+� �� �. ��
ra.a... quit a].aira a�s oaa�s �o c. c. ttada. sra�M► +►L�''!!+1`-l�t�li"t!�'' �
ta t2�� trtal Htab�1 dtw�1 ix llr� Co'eM7 of �rY4, 3ta�c'at �lM�M4�a� i�1Nd
s� �ol'la� t
Al� o! t�s te�lonti�K dererib�d �rae;+ . •
�t psrt of f�h� �1+l�1 a'11q �M ba Iab 4� S�E b
�� �,y� g}�� laeic Addi�i�aa to i1N C�� p � w �
� M � � �asaEiaa �ir 1'f�t
A,r�p�� snd tM �d�rd ��h li�r.nf' ih� ��aN-�
t�sab abrtr Lot 9� �� li, ���
tiec�i�d� t,o tia�����i �!'°�` rNantt�%�,:
oti�s� of � "ae�! �lt�`ad�tee��#tr�IN�f' �+�t'j ,
... .< . 9sa: .;r� . ':, ..rr
::. .4? � �.-'° ., ::2': .'•.r`, `•
rYb�0�1 #'A iru� �OuCAf�b� ��I�I'•.•..•. .. y . .
, ,...:<....: • �•,.:.
�10 i1tON� �tlt� � �0••�. � Ty"
�u�tr�A 3i� i'rad ��d� ru3. �t�l
No �ds�s�i�l.n� da^rtaa itt ar7' tar+l ad� riM ata11 M
ov�trrsttd, tlrwd a�' �tit�d se i� sads�t'r!twd��;w' '
�1� �. �
• Plaeid u���i� �� L�t� ot ��i' �. , .
S�i�v. dt�plq�s and dwl.ai= Mlws'ki��et at�ld4l�tY `. � �.
�oMr`t�tt on tih� �rap7h►; tta rstT�� � i; � '! r � '.
asid a� an ani�aso�sU i� !►+�'d
�.eesr� in a►� rora. 4 �
04i15/97 TCiE 11:27 FA% 612 6997031 RINSOS SNELLING SO f� 002
04/15/97 TL'E 11:28 F9$ 612 6997051 %IIVBOS SNELLIrG SO f�003
> 612 689 4671.=` 3! 6
^�E�"t BY�?�'V!DQT L4\U MAtiAGFME�T; 4-14-97 ,12�43P14i ; ,.,. ,
�. _, ;:,, . .�„�
,� r�;�� -.x.; ''` -':�;• .a:•, .�
. ,, _ . • �� � � a�,,'•7 %�+,i;.. • �r,:. . . .
_ � .. �.:: �.,i". : �..t' t ' `.'G»: �''.3.' i ` :J.:j;lni'7 .a�'; 'f'z•.. . .,
, . . �.w�J .. . :.i '•�� . .
�.i...—.w��r .......--'-- - . , iFn � • 's .+ � -
. . ��.�y��'��. A a ��,.:.�
� . . � . � �:. � a� �..I,iL�tn.li�.+,``�i ir , .
. . : , .Y�::;
. , . . . . �•�' " ';I./��'�':L� lt� y�' ' ' : , ' .,. u
. , . ' :A: -:_ v�",ti \ '�i,.�l A�. :
' u �..�a• `i{ ;j'' :G'i ..�{¢�,� �
.� � y • y� �y�J�'.•�,' �.i� a��E �tkk.�` �. ���,¢� .7J'tl' -
. .... , +�7 •Y vky '�
. ' •^_. ^..a ��. '., } �.a�r"':��," t
� ... . .' �.�t1+n:K Y! r .. �� .°'2(!.°'`7�
. :� a .,. . . .. � ��: . .� . ;l: r: .T��.� l ^'� t � biy ' �:. ',ji u T��t.'�r��.'a'M�N�
. �..� � t , , ` �� , T, ` �
,.y .� � 1 " � ' •. �±:� .. . '.�, �
�i� Ilri� , ,. �. � :. ,•?,�,•':�::��'!� .Kl.�r� .`� . �j'
. . .,�• , ...:`!'. v. .. �." •. : . •;.�. ,
. r,. .. '� ,�"c. • 1 . •, .
' .� a :i' .A•R�...�+ r..� '� 0'E , 't �„ ' ��
.. .,. � . i.� '' t.. : � �� ��
:���
�i i� � SfiwR � tiiw .. . .' : � �.. ... i k h•tC'�pia W,•t +��� '
I .x . rti; '�4a 1 �a i''Ro� �
� . a _:.��•., '�.� «,a.`w�.. .,iW�.�:,.��'. . A. `�?'<',e
�a� ots • ' . ;; ; :;, . ,�.,'��;
'� ; rl� y �y,��
. , . • �' ' . ;i . �4.�+�. �;'?
•`!�!j� . . . . � . ... . .. � t � ` � L , ` , . n' �'� r•.."
�� „i ._�
r � S.i :Y.'�'1. . :::.l.r.,��.y �"+�1.,( �,.. � .
. � . . . ': . ' ..�.Y.p:'.;:i[<• s : ..4i2"+A..' ';:_ , . �`��yn
. � ,: r P•,.: 4 �.. 1 , y ��a
, . . � • y_i!`�.`;�: � '14 ,��h'�4?�.^�.'-:.f:.)�� •t" • �2'
. .• x • . 'Sn•�HI�.,�'.. ' S .�r � 1�•�l� �' ' .T�
� � �� y ��c� ��•
r- r o� � : i
' � d , e�' �t?.: 'i��'�.Yi ti'1Lti:S•,ry �..
. . ., , . .. ,i . r � . : : ,. .a° � �>':o � . � . : ' • V;�.
, • . , :. ., . . .. ' .. •.:. tL.���. >'. '. � •
�i # ` t
. .e �� 4 � f � ��.,: 6i+ lY.1.f ��+V�.
y t4 tC�k�i . , .. . . . � . • . , ,�i���a�!/�-d-'G�'(+��.
� "�
.,'. ',
s ;. .; , .
� � . ' ... �::a,. •. .;• - .._
t ' ' ; ' , r;�'' _ ' . �
�, . � <. , '.�• � �'.. .�. �!'ti' . �
{ f�le i � 1'i� ' . .. ' `�t"',
. � �' '
8TA'Y'� � 1QIt�� � . ' . . , - , : .. � , � � .. �.,: . � _ . • .
f�s. • � . , v:�
� �. • .. ��, �.
� • .. - : ' : •• : `'_ ,,.,,. � , . .
.N'.{ •'�: .+
. � . . �V :t.t. y; z :s"' ".��'� �1 .
0!► � � . � �.�. � A :. . � �`:T ' ' a. , . , , ��� • ,
a ��'�7' • ' � ���{, -.�i'M4R'�if� ^ �:".. " _, .:;:
te' �e�sa�e�t't�w' # � �, ��'{����. � ^�t�+►!�?�!t�,+4�=���,a,�d-,1: � . , ;;.; � .
[ y��—_' �• �� �� �� j ( i 1{
� � 1��'�� � � . � �• Ii � •�I�:W.:.�.r'�"��✓..� .' rS
`�11?'i�.. ,J���<
�. y �; �� � 'r: �'.r a'..:
■�,��1A R ���:: •).,:r.1��:�•Nj�'..::/.'
..,�..N�:+ ,. ,�.,.., ,r.,,
,
.
�i+elt . . • . .,,.,. . . ,. • ,:. . .: �;�.
; �.,•
3b'�,.Ik , . , .. -; ., :.,:: �- �:,
� . � . .�,<:. . -
. �:.�i:1 ::: "r , � �� � . .,
, . . . •,�; - ... � ��..: •''.x�•. •`. . ''� :,';.
' . . . ' - • �� �:.` .� ''� �` v; :. ` r , _, T`` J �r ,,
. . , .^,' :i , �-�. ;y�"'���dK�T.'..
. . . ,j,!- , v ' �'t�J �:�� _ v-"�. �:k.
. , s. - �Y::7�.�.�..:�2�!t: �s,n,...+f:, ..
' • . • . . . � . . t, � ".il ���{.� � � ,�' . . .
�y����"�� . .
�p�e�e�d ati t,o reCiattiial►: • • �.., . M .
;. . ;.z::�-' : .z, �..� ; ;
. ,7 _ . � � 1 . � . . . �x�, �_,�;�y atu �)'.',. , ., . . � •
U
�
�
�� /!. r/ !/,._//
. � , Y . i' � ."r5
`' * ,:iy1 A� t' r.' �'q'�T. .I . .a..
� f �_
��.� R:-�.F�.. .. - , _ �.�� � ;P:'. ,`:, ;-�.
, �y.' r: �'f �j'': :'i;;r�.^:�`?'�al.' n r�i r` l ��:.,,, .
� Y: .: i�.'� .:"S :� •'P' e��Cti�:�'��� $^��f ar..,.�:t;1,.::+,. .��.
. . ' ' .i? :;: l' ....� WF.;� :� . .;.: -
.ii : .q+•.r�,�i...'..;,c ;,, ,� / v;+ :. 'T • ^;sy:'�
�� �� . � •�' "i•rm_ � .�. S I"�+ait�.'i��, .i.•".��•. -
�• � .li '" �� 3ni'H.'r'�_ c t- '�� r _
. � ��"'::� ' '.�'� �.• ��� �{ „�j ic .�.
a t�' ��'� 5 {�r..�o iS �.9)l ��{ <�i���[ A)• 1', _
. y: ��� ,� , = ( a ', l.t` �.* � Cq'�r/>•��5����,''(�� i�•+• �.. . . . .
.� . .. . .�.�.1.T�.' .:.�„� �`�
Extended Pa9e
.�* ( � �'.��,�� .
. � .�.5' '`���. 'l� NI�.
rt'i� �,i:,, . •
.i�; ,,,�; .
. ;c ,
�n`""';�: " ;';�'j�:
:f.1 - . � > � R .
��' _ . - �n�: f.
5 .:� .
�. :.. .�:t ' � ' .. i �
T(` . . ,
. ' . 1 �'.�
�
' �_ .����i
�.*, . ' � jy.,i
.Af �`K'..rse.
DS%15:91 T'GE ii 49 F.iY 61f Q9P7Ul1 BINFri9 S1vELLING 90
�� - , -� � ��� -�:�
. ; _�
h � ��
� � :�:-'-� 3_JEFFER � v - • ..
e
� _ - � � ` � � '.s:
k � D
! �� \° sT. �pau ►. � y a � '
/ ��� N � 4
� � `r ' � � , y IY
�t �
�fs;:� 1�i F �t � I�
�OL ' ��MR V � � O
I � !•_.A uY 0
o _s.' -•- r, � �$ _�
/ • -.---'— •. ..
� r . ca�in�� V
e � wS .�',. �" L e'] p p;
# �rj`� ici ,.� �. � n _ . .�. l._-�
! .:� a ;r:�.t �• ;,u ,�uu� . - �, � �* �� .
f i ' r• '�:
°' " � � . l.: ��
,,- ; �
p c T w+ + n' 0!' i•:�'� ,� .: �n
�� ��bN � � � ��" i .� .
�tl w R L � I � .. 1.t � � �
a ��°� ( j " �
s4'�.'_ev.� � � ` ��
� C O� Ny�� , � I �S'��� . `.�_ . l �J
OLYOCC a3 � ' r
... �. o i n e: ' a 'n ti ,
��`'»L `��� j ��+%
s ��e", •� � j�
m�L� y � � j
�s �_� �_
�o�«yN8 y s PALACE ,:3
^ w�.b w �
00��0 r-�—
�€ Y��� R � °_— ' , # V..r � �Of�
�"d�� �:.:�•„� �, n �
i' � °,". `"' �t a^ C: Vi a�M.;� i�ti ffi77� " _-
�� � C � �... �4�` ' Cj`
�� T9� D^ ♦ ( 'y
Y � • .
� i O V Z � . ._ ' } �`.
y ... c J �
��9�,���v � C �:�7_ ....... ' , UO� •.
I l t °
� x �� � ``'� ` �,��� 1 :` •. J���
�J �
� J��1�� -� ,•-�.o
\ �� � � r .l .�_ _ I � - - ._._�� _
�, JAlAES _ � � l t•> ' i
� _` I �
t 1_..lL� �; �, 1 ; �
• '�'N 1 g �, �'' ° C�'t� • ;� �\� i �n "I �J,ra, � ',�/f
��7c c u>a ��d�ft:cn�x_ �
_ - ��3• cc. +�o .� aw+a
I !-�'
p d �
J
�� U. .!
���
� �r71.
__ �� {
.l`y�
_
t
pVE. ---..
s
e — ; m � !
f�;_ t � ' f �a ° �
. :�
.Y+
' A�' E:;� :
� .' � }� �:
if�
b
!
v �
t. � a
1
C �
�
•
Si
°l� -�'�ra
1. SUNRAY•BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD
2. HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HII.LCREST
3. WEST SIDE
4. DAYTON'S BLUFF
5. PAYNE-PHAI.EN
6. NORTH END
7. THOMAS-DALE
8. SUMMTT-UNTVERSITY
9. WEST SEVENTH
10. COMO
I1. HAMLINE-MIDWAY
12. ST. ANTHONY PARK
N HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE
14. MACALESTER GROVELAN)�
15. HIGHIAP25'
16. SUMMTT HII-L d
• 17. DOWNTOWN 1 • 1p
ZONING FILE 9
�Z
CITTZEN PARTICIPATTON PLANNING AISTRICIS
�
9�•�t8
zo���� ���.� 9�j
53
•
•
� -:; � p ���1
.,'•���=��1.�► . �
� � i
• `\ �"
� . ,�
\
� ���
52 � � �
�"
� � -¢ � O
- - y=- =--`�- -
-- ' - .'- "- - ----� r ' -
�i0�0�00 '0000�00 ip � �
LII�,.i.�Lli�_l_� o. o
1111i��l�i�i1� -=°��-" � -
�I¢I i i°I >- �' o
JULIET'" !
�
v� �
� J �, '
� `�_ � `/ V
�._.- ..�"`:=;.�-.�.�
�\-��. _. ._ . -
��.. - L
�---- F
v � � L
� o ��
> o q r
L
0 0� [
�:
APPLiCANT ���� � IEGEND
PURPOSE �J�� �� zoning district boundary
�E # 1' 6Sv 9�'��� �j -'L� �1 �_ � subject property n��rthi
PLNG. DIST� MAP ri �� o one family ••^ commerciat
� � Mtofamily ♦ �� i�dustriai
SCALE 1" = 400' �
�. _ A-� Q multiple tamily V vacant
�
q �� � o o :
O , f
V � _ �_ - .!
� ���`
� �
��
Council File # �— D S �
Green Sheet # 35 bb�t
�_
Q�E����
crrv,
RESOLUTION
PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented sy
Referred To
Committee: Date
1 WHEREAS, 7ohn Kratz, applied for a Special Condition Use Permit under the
2 provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code Sections 6Q.413(13) and 64300(d), to allow a cluster
3 development with eight (8) single family dwellings, on property located at XXX Juliet Avenue
4 (East of I.exington Parkway between Juliet & Palace) legally described as:
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
That part of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 19, Ridgewood Pazk Addition to
the City of St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with the easterly and
southeasterly half of the North - South alley in said Block 19, vacated, lying
between the southerly line of said Lot 6 extended west across said alley and the
northerly line of said Lot 1 extended west across said alley; all of which lies
west of a line drawn from the northwest corner of said I,ot 1 to a point on the
south line of said Lot 6 distant 117.41 feet easterly of the southwest comer of
said I,ot 6 togther with the northerly half of Palace Avenue, to be vacated, lying
easterly of a line drawn south at right angles to the south line of said Lot 6 from
a point on said south line distant 32.5 feet east of the southwest corner of said
Lot 6 and lying westerly of a line, and its extension southerly, drawn from the
northwest corner of said Lot 1 to a point on the south line of said Lot 6 distant
117.41 feet easterly of the southwest corner of said Lot 6; and
Lots 17 and 18, Block 19, Ridgewood Park Addifion to the City of St. Paul,
Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with the northerly half of the East - West
alley in said Block 19, vacated, lying between the westerly line of said Lot 17
extended south across said alley and the southeasterly line of said Lot 18
extended southwesterly across said alley; and together with the northwesterly
half of the North - South alley in said Block 19, vacated, lying between the
centerline of said East - West alley extended east across said North - South alley
and the northerly line of said L,ot 18 extended east across said alley; and
together with the southerly half of adjoining Juliet Avenue, vacated, lying
between the east line of said I,ot 17 extended north across said 3uliet Avenue
and the west right of way line of Interstate Highway No. 35E.
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the applicauon at which all persons present were given
an opportunity to be heard pursuant to the requirements of Saint Paul I,egislative Code Section
64300; and
2
0
6
7
8
9
LQ
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based upon the evidence presented at
the public hearing to its Zoning Committee, as substantially reflected in the minutes which
shall be incorporated herein by reference, made Findings of Fact as set forth in Planning �� ^$ �
Commission Resolution No. 97-22, which is incorporated herein by reference, wherein the
Saint Paul Plancring Commission, under authority of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, denied
the application for a Special Condiuon Use Permit for the above described properry; and
R'HEREAS, on May 9, 1997, the applicant, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code
Section 64.206, filed an appeal of the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission alleging
that the four deficiencies found by the Planniug Commission were factually in error. Said
appeal is incorporated herein by reference and shall become a part of ttris resolution; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Sections 64.206 through
64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the
Council of the City of Saint Paul on June 4, 1997, where all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, having heard the statements made at the public hearing and having
considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolutions of the
Planniug Commission and its Zoning Committee, the Council of the City of Saint Paul, does
hereby
RESOLVE, that there was no enor as to fact, finding, or procedure on the part of the
Planning Commission and its Zoning Committee and aff"ums the decision of the Saint Paul
Plauning Commission in this matter for the reasons contained in Planuing Commission
Resolution No. 97-22, findings 1(c) through 1(fl which aze specifically adopted as the
Council's as follows :
The proposed development does not meet four of the required conditions for a
cluster development under Section 60.413(13) of the Saint Paul Zoning Code.
The conditions which are not met are as follows:
c. The parcel shall meet the lot area required per unit in the Zoning District.
This condition can be met. The lot azea, provided a portion of Palace Avenue is
vacated, is 40,586 square feet. This allows eight dwelling units (5,000 square
feet of lot area is required for each unit). The street vacation would contribute
2,786.85 square feet to the development pazcel. The street vacation was
uritiated in March and is expected to take about four months.
d. The parcel shall have a minunum frontage of eighty (80) feet on an improved
street.
This condition is not met. The property has frontage on two streets: 73 feet on
Juliet Avenue and 40 feet on Palace Avenue. If a portion of Palace Avenue is
vacated, there will be 73 feet of frontage at that location as well.
e. The shucture shall conform to the schedule of regulations for height, lot
coverage, setbacks and parking.
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
This condition is not met. As proposed, the cluster development does not meet
the required 25 foot rear setback requirement from the eastem property line.
The plans submitted show the setback at this location to be only 12 feet. �A fl ��S �°
..
f. The design shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
This condirion is not met. As proposed, the development is three stories in
height and each of the buildings contains four units. This height and density is
substantially greater than existing development in the neighborhood and is
therefore incompatible with the surrounding neighbarhood.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of John Kratz is in all things
denied.
AND BE IT FINALLY RFSOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this
resolution to John Kratz, the Zoning Adnunistrator, and the Saint Paul Planning Commission.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Adopted by Council: Date`�\}���� l\�
Adoption Certified by Counci Secr ary
By:
Approved by�M e � l /
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
B ���/l../�,� �-3�-57
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
�1, rl, — 8'S 6
oE C'ry E Council0ffices June 1997 GREEN SHEE N°_ _35659
CONTACf PER N& PHONE MRIAVDATE MITIAVOATE
��EPAflTMENTDIRE OCfiYCOUNCIL
ASSIGN � CITY ATTOANEY O CIIY CLERK
MU5T BE ON CpUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) NUYBER GOR ❑ BUDGET DIRECTOR O FIN. & MCaT. SERVICES Dlfl.
ROUTING
OflOEq � MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT) �
TOTAL # OF SI6NATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
�F p inal�izing ��ity CouncIl action taken on 7une 4,1997, denying ffie appeal of 7ohn Kratz to a decision of the Saint
Paul Planning Commission pertaining to a cluster development on properry located at �Y Juliet Avenue (east
of Le�ngton Pazkway between 7uliet & Palace).
RECOMMENDA7lONS: App�ove (A) or Reject (R) pERSONAL SERYICE CONTHACTS NUST ANSW ER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_ PLANNMCa COMMISSION _ CIVIL SEflVICE COMMISSION �� Has this person/firtn ever worketl untler a contract for t�is department? -
_ CIB COMMITTEE _ YES NO
_ STAFF _ 2. Has this persoNfirm ever begn a city employee?
YES NO
_ DISTRICT CAURT _ 3. Does this persoNfirm posses5 a skill ppt normal Y c.ity ploye¢?
ty pussessetl by an current am
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE4 YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet antl attech to g�esn sheet
INRIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE.OPPOfiTUNITV (Who. NTat. When, Where, W�y):
ADVANTACaE51FAPPROVED: �
DISADVANTAGES IFAPPflOVED:
�Lli?C� ... ��t
���$ a� � ����
���.. �._,...�__��:�- ��
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVEO:
TOTAL AMOUNT OF THANSAC710N S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDIWG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBEFi
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN)
OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY
PegBir$ CityAttorney
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norne Coleman, Mayor
Civil Division
400 City Hall
IS WesrKel[ogg Blvd
Sain[ Paul, Minnesow 55102
� f ����
Tekphone: 612 266-8770
Facrimik: 6I2 298-5679
June 30, 1997
I�AND DELIVERED
Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Saint Paul City Hall
RE: Appeal of John Kratz from Saint Paul Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-22
Dear Nancy:
Attached please find the original resolution, signed as to form, finalizing the decision of the City
Council in the above entitled matter. 'I`his matter should be placed on the Consent Agenda at
your eazliest cconvenience.
Very tntly yours,
�����
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attomey
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
May 13, 1997
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Aall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
���bS�o
51
Telephone: 6I2-266-6565
Facsimile: 672-228-3374
I would like to co�rm that a public heazing before the CiTy Council is scheduled for Wednesday June 4,
1997 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a specia] condition use
permit:
Appellant: JOHN KRATZ
File Number: #97-050
Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision denying a special condition use permit to
allow cluster development with eight (8) dwelling units.
Address: East of Lexington Parkway between Juliet and Palace
L,egal Description of Property: See Survey in File
Previous Action:
Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial; vote: Unanimous, April 25, 1997
Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 6-Q April 17, 1997
My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the May 21, 1997 CiTy
Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please
call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions.
Sincerel ,
I�� W�
Kad DadIez
Y
City Planner
cc: File #97-050
Mike Kraemer
Donna Sanders
Division ajPlmv�ing
25 West Fourth Street
Sornf Pau[, MN55102
i��u _._ = , _ .,,-
I,.,.E ° � };���;"
NOTICE OF PUBLTC HEARING
TheSaint Paul City Coiatcil will conduct-a pnblic hearing�on Wedn6stlay,
June 4, 1997, in the City Council Chambers, Th'ad Floor C#y Hall-Qour; I;Iou'se,
to consider th"e appeal.of John Kratz to a decision of tiie-Planning Commission
denyidg aspeciai condiGOn use permit to ailow cluster development with eigktt (8)
dweliing'rinits east of Lexington Parkway between Juliet and Palace Avenues.
I7ated:�May14.�1991- -,. � - . . .�
Nz1NCY ANDERSON ' - -� _ , � _
Assistazit City Council Secretary . , _ - - , ,
.. . . , . . .. , lMay 16. 1997) � � .
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNAG
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�� � gS�O
CITY OF 5AINT PAUL
Nvrm Coleman, Mayor
W�
May 21, 1997
Divisiors ofPlanning
25 West Fowth SYreet
SaiuPaul, MN55702
?elephone: 612-26665Q5
Fatsimile: 6I2-228-3374
Ms. Nancy Mderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Zoning File #97-118: JOHN KRATZ
City Council Hearing: June 4, 1997 430 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLJRPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision denying a special condition use permit to allow a
cluster development with eight (8) dwelling units on property located east of Lexington Pazkway
between Juliet and Palace Avenues.
• PLANNING COMMI5SION ACTION: DENIAL Unanimous
ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 6-0
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
�UPPORT: No persons spoke.
OPPOSITION: Seven persons spoke. Three letters were received. The Macalester-Groveland
Community Council voted to oppose the special condition use permit.
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
JOHN KRATZ has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to deny a special
condition use permit to allow a cluster development with eight (8) dwelling units on property located east
of Lexington Parkway between 7uliet and Palace Avenues. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul
Planning Commission held a public heazing on the request on April 17, 1997. The applicant addressed
the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the
permit. The Planning Commission upheid the Zoning Committee's recommendation for denial on a
unanimous vote on Apri125, 1997.
This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on June 4, 1997. Please notify me if any
member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sincerely,
��� Ken Ford
Planning Administrator
Attachments cc: Ciry Council members
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Depa�t»ient of Plnnning nnd Economic Development
Zoniirp Sectio�e
IIOU Cih� Ha!l Annez
25 {t es� Foratlt Street
Sainr Paul, M.'�' S5101
26b-6c89
APPELLANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Zaning oifis u�s n[y
Fiie no. . {' I i I�
Fee �
Teniative heatiitg; � te:
fLQ.
Name To�� x,-at�
Address 1424 Edacumbe Road
Cify st, raul S1z�h Zip 55116 Daytime phone 69o-5s6o
Zoning File Name John icratz ciuster Develooment
Address/Location XXX Juliet Avenue (East of Lexiaqton between
Juliet and Palace)
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the:
= Board of Zoning Appeals uC City Councii
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 206 , Paragraph a of the Zoning Code, to
appeai a decision made by the G Pa �l Al anniny M.}+mi avinn
on April 25 , 19�. File number: a�_��
(date of decis
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative officia(, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or the Pianning Commission.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT
•
•
�
Attach addi!ional sheet if
ApplicanYs
i
Date sia_, � City
��•q � 97
c��1-�s�
• RE: Application for Appeal filed by John Kratz
Zoning File #97-050
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
7
The Planning Commission based its denial of the application for Special Condition Use
Petmit, File No. 97-450, on its findings and conclusions that the applicant failed to meet four of
the eight special conditions required to be met in order to allow this proposed cluster
development as pemritted use in the R-4 space. All fow of the deficiencies found by the Planning
Commission are factually in error, are mutually exclusive, or support only an approval of the
application and are inconsistent with the denial rendered by it. Each of the four findings of the
Planning Commission aze discussed as follows.
c. T6e parcel does meet the lot area required per unit in the wning district.
• Both the Division of Pianning staff and the Planning Commission concluded this condition
can be met if a portion of Palace Avenue is vacated. Since this portion of Palace Avenue has
never been improved and has only recently been returned to City controi (when MNDOT sold to
the applicant, as surplus, the 35-E frontage which is about haIf of the land in this application). No
utilities have ever been installed in this right of way. Nor will it ever be improved, beyond what is
necessary for the entrance to the proposed development since, just beyond the eastem end of the
two proposed entrances, the land in the right-of-way slopes steeply downhill towazd the 35-E
freeway to the east.
Ordinarily, there would be nothing controversial about the proposed street vacation. But
the "neighbors" have expressed an intention to oppose the street vacation as a means to stopping
the proposed cluster developmern entirely. They have carried tlris to the extseme of prevailing
upon their one neighbor on Patace Avenue (who would gain approximately 3,000 feet of land at
no cost to himself ) to oppose the vacation as well. If this neighbor truly does noi want additional
property, then he need not keep it for himseif. FIe can deed it to the proposed develapment
• (subject to a covenant prohibiting any construction upon the land) for complete landscaping and
2
perpetual mainienance of the grounds by the Yownhome owner association. Thus, he would have •
the benefit of landscaped open space, without the "cosP' of ownership or maintenance.
The lot area in this proposat is safficient to permit 8 anits regardless of w6ether or
not Palace Avenue is vacsted.
For density purposes, it doesn't matter whether atI or part ofthe Patace Avenue
right-of-way remains unimproved and is owned and maintained by the City or is vacated and then
landscaped and maintained by a homeowners' association. It will remain open space either way.
Even without the vacated property, the zoning lot size is about 37,800 square feet, or
near}y 95% of the 40,000 square feeY required area for an 8-unit cluster developmeat. Tlris is
more than substantial compliance and is easily within the usual range of actions taken by the
Pianning Commission and Staffto "modify any or all special conditeons, when strict application of
such special coa@itions would unreasonably ]imit or preveat otherwise lawful use of a piece of
property ...," as is contemplated by Sec, b4.300(fl of the Code.
Additional factors weigh in favor of "modifying" this special condition:
1. The site is tucked out of the way, on the very edge of the neighborhood and is
open along iis entire 340-foot eastem side to acres and acres of 35-E pazkway and Ayd NFill Road
open space spreading out below it. The real impact npon the neighbors is unusually small for an
infill developmem, and the backdrop of open space and eacpansive Ciry views to the east removes
any hint of "crowding" by the eight homes proposed.
2. The development must be given "credit" in the lot azea calculation for abutting this
open space and freeway, similar to the way that the area of ono-half the width of an adjoining
alley is included in the "zoning lot area" in certain other distrids.
3. Since each unit has two pazking spaces within tfie building structure, the lot area
figure must be viewed more liberally. A formula comparable to that used in RM mning districts
woutd yietd a 4,800 square foot "crediP' to be added to the actaat 1ot area for unit ooum purposes
(300 sqaaze feet times the 16 tuckunder parking spaces included).
2
C�
C�
3
�1�1-8s�
• The lot area requirement is met by t}ris application. The Planning Commission agreed that
the lot area requirement "can be met " Bs finding does noY support and is inconsistent with its
denial ofthis SCUP.
d. The parcel does meet the requirement of a minimum frontage of eighty (SO) feet
on an improved street,
The Planning Commission concluded that this condition is not met, yet it cites findings
that are only consistent with an approval. The property has fromage of 73 feet "on an improved
street" (Juliet Avenue) and frontage of 40 feet to 73 feet "on an improved street" (Palace Avenue)
which totals well in excess of the required 80 feet. Nothing in the Zoning Code requ'ues that the
frontage be continuous, contiguous, or on the same street. Adding such a requirement to the
plain language of the Code is not warranted and, in fact, runs conuary to the obvious purpose
betrind this requirement: to provide for adequate ingess and egress from the site to the public
• streets. This goal is better served by direct access to two streets than a single access to one
street, even if that access were to be 80 feet wide (which would be prohibited by street
consiruction and traffic concerns anyway).
Furthermore, if this application is heid strictly to a narrow and restrictive interpretation of
the Code provision, the 80-foot requirement can easily be met. A minor revision to the plans,
incoiporating an offset radius, semi-circulaz cul-de-sac design at the end of Juliet Avenue, would
provide approximately 90 feet of frontage, if necessary.
e. The structure does conform to the schedule of regulations for height,
iot coverage, setbacks and parking.
The Planning Commission is plainty wrong in finding that the cluster development must
meet a 25-foot "rear" setback from the eastem property. This is contrary to the determinarion of
the Plamung Division staff, which was made both ai preliminary meetings with them and
confirmed in the StaffRecommendation to the Planniag Commission.
• 3
�
In its cliscussion of specia] condition d. above, the Planning Commission found: "the •
property has frontage on two streecs," which aze parallel to each other. Under the Code,
therefore, the parcel is a"through lot," having two front lot lines (Sec. 6Q212.L.). S'snce a"rear
lot line" is defined as: "the lot Iine opposite the front line," it can only be concluded that a
"through IoY' has no rear lot Iines. Therefore, everything but the two front tot Isnes on this parcel
are "side loY liaes" as ihat term is defined in the Code. '£he setback ret�ired from the side lot line
in this mning district (R-4) is four feet. Tfris setback is exc�eeded by a wide margin in the
proposed site plan.
It is difficult to see what public interest the Planning Commission was seeking to protect in
6nding the eastern 1ot line required a 25-foot rear setback, since the "eastem property" consists
only of acres and acres of MNDOT right-of-way used for the 35-E parkway. The effect of
requiring a 25-foot rear yard on the east side would only be to move the buiidings closer to the
neighbors on the west. This would have a negarive imgact on the developmem, but also and more
importantIy, on the neighborhood as a whole. No one wants that.
Bat even if, by some convoluted reasoniag, the eastetn side of the zoning 2ot is fovnd to •
require a 25-foot rear setback, the development as proposed can still meet all of the conditions set
out by the Code with onty minor revisions to the site plan. For if the eastetn side is the `Year
yard," then, by definition, the westem side is the front lot line. That wouid logically require a
finding that the proposed private drive on the west side is the "streeY' for zoning purposes. Then
it must be concluded that the parcef has `Y'rornage" of approadmately 275 feet on an improved
streeE, thus exceeding the requirement of condition d. discussed previously. The north cluster of
the two buiidings proposed can easity be moved one or two feet west to meet the 25-foot rear
setback requirement. But the Planning Commission is wrong in applying the rear setback in the
case of the south building. The eastem property Iine is not tfie same as the `fear lot iine" as it is
defined by Sec. 60212.L. of the Zoning Code:
" 2) Rear Lot Lina The lot line opposite the front lot line. Ia the case of a lot
pointed at the rear (as here), the rear lot line shall be an imaginary line parallel to the
front lot line, not less than ten (10) feet long, lying farthest from the from liae and
wholly within the lot "
0
�
5
�� - 8s�
• If this Code definition is accurately applied to this proposed site plan, the result is a rear
setback which measures about 50 feet for the south building.
It, therefore, must be found that the proposed shuctures do rnnform to the schedule of
regulations for setbacks. And since no finding to the contrary was made by the Planning
Commission, it must be taken as ganted that the stiuctures conform to the schedule of
regutarions for hei t(30 feet, 3-story buildings aze permitted); lot coveraee (16% actuai
coverage compared with 30% allowable); and pazlang (four (4) spaces per dwelling unit
provided).
f. The design is compatible wit6 the surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Commission's denial of design "compatibility," based on the "height and
density" pf the proposed development, is in error on the facts, both ignores and misapplies Zoning
Code provisions, and is self-contradictory. II will not support a denial of this SCUP application.
The surrounding neighborhood already includes a variety of housing types and uses.
About 400 feet to the north, there is a 3-story lw�ury apartment complex. Across the street from
• that, the Wilder complex contains four-unit townhouse clusters, many of which present 3-story
elevations to the public. A mere 500 feet or so south of the proposed development site, runs a
multi-family district with mazry examples of tall two and three-story residential buildings. The fact
that these three examples may be buiIt in different zoning districts does not weight in favor of the
Planning Commission's denial: it only Qroves that the surrounding neighborhood is aiready one of
mixed housing types and uses.
Even the immediate neighbors show examples of similar height houses. The house
abutting this site on the north has a full thre�story eastem side, just about exactiy as tall as (and
also half as wide as) the proposed townhome buildings. And on the west, a very tall twastory,
situated high on its lot, rises well in excess of 30 feet above its front lot line on Lexington.
The Planning Commission's finding that the proposed development's "density" is too
great will also not withstand scrutiny. Density, in a zoning context such as ttris, can only have one
meaning: i. e., a ratio of the number of dwelling units to the mning lot area. As was discussed
earlier, this R-4 zoning disirict pemrits a density of one home per 5,000 square feet of lot area.
r1
\ J
�
Much of the surrounding azea is buik neariy exactly to that standazd, which results in the typicai •
40' x 125' lot which is found so commonly in this uea and throughout much of the residential
districts of the City.
Beyond the fact that the Planning Commission was wrong in its factual findings regarding
design compatibility, however, it was further in error in using the three cited criteria C.e., 4unit
buildings, 3-story structures, and density) in its design compaU'bility anatysis at all. Each of these
three conditions cited by the Planning Coaunission is specifically addressed by other provisions of
Code Sec. 60.4I3.(13), which permits cluster developments in the R-4 Zone:
1. The Code requ'ves that clusters have a minimum oftwo units and that they
be attached, common wall, single-family (pazagraphs a and b.). If two units aze
the minimum pernrissibie, four units cannot exceed the ma�mum, absent language
specifying clusters of only `Ywo or threE units." No such limii is contained in
the Code.
2. The three-story height of this development is specifically aathorized by
Sec. 60.413.(13xe), which sub}ects the cluster structures to the same schedule •
of regulations controlling height, lot caverage, setbacks and pazking that pertain
throughout the zoning district. This is the usual way the size of a building, on a
specific lot, is comrolled by the Zoning Code. Furthermore, three-story or
30.foot tall structures are permitted in every residemial district throughout the
City, and it is the smallest maY;m,,,,, height permitted in any mne. Only very
specific language in the Code can override this general presumption in favor of the
permissibility of three-story or 30-foot tall buildings. Had the City Council urtended
to limit cluster developments to some shorter maximum height, or some "average
neighborhood height," it would have had to say so, rather than specifically re-
stating the same ma�mum height applicable to the zoning district.
3. Just as whh "height" above, the specific Code provision regarding density
must take precedence over a general finding that the developmem is too dense. 'Fhe
Planning Commission previously deternuned that the density requiremern "can be
met" (see the discussion of finding c, above). It cannoi now impose a more •
F
7
��l-�ls�
• stringent standard under the general guise of "design compatibility." The Planning
Commission must be held to the task of approving cluster development, if the
specific perfonnance standazds aze met and not be allowed to re-examine the
appropriateness of clusters in general with each applicarion. Otherwise, as in this
case, the very elements wtuch make a development a"cluster" could always be
used to disallow that development, as being "incompau'ble" in the single-faznily
zones. But it is clear that cluster developments, subject to certain specific con-
ditions, are a"principai use permitted" in an R-4 zone. Sec. 60.413.(13).
What, then, does "design ... compatible with the surrounding neighborhood" mean?
Since seven of the eight special conditions required for the cluster development deal with some
individual element of "design" of the development, it only makes sense to interpret "design" in
condition f. to mean something other than what is specifically addressed in the other conditions.
In this case, design must refer to the architectural style (and materials) of the structures. This
meaning of "design" might allow the denial of a cluster development of a braslily post-modern
• style (or a perfect cube building with bright stainless steel skin) in an all Georgian colonial
neighborhood, for one eacamgle, or geodesic domes among the Victorians for another. But
nothing about the design actually proposed, a Prairie-style adaptation, using lots of brick and
wood siding or stucco, provide a basis for denying this SCUP application.
The immediate neighbors to the development are an eclectic goup of houses, having no
unifying design or style. The houses range from a California contemporary style of the 50's, to
"modem" and Colonial adaptations from the 30's and 40's, and include eacamples of the "builder"
genre of the 60's and 90's. So virtually anything would be compatible with at least some of the
neighbors. Additionally, the proposed design incorporates many design elemerrts which can be
found on a great number of existing shuctures in the surrounding Macalester-Groveland
neighborhood.
• �
i
� ��
The deniat of this Special Condition Use Permit is contrary to public policy.
All levels of local govemment have recognized the need to adapt housing policy to better
serve the changing needs of our popu[ation and to heip stem the flow of urban dwelters who go to
the suburbs in search of the modem housing alternatives the cities are lacldng.
The District 14 Macalester-Groveland Plan recognizes as goals and objectives of its
housing plan the need "to meet the diverse housing needs of its residems" and "to provide a
variety of housing types wittun the district (apartments, condominiums, cooperarives), while
retaining the single-family character and residential quality of the distric�t."
The City of Saint Paul's Land Use Plan acknowledges that ". .. in most neighborhoods,
the construction of a certain amount of new housing at somewhat Irigher densities would not be
out of keeping with the area. Certain types of moderaYe density housing, like townhouses, can
contribute to neighborhood aesthetics and stability, by adding to the visual quality and attracting
reinvestment that otherwise might not occur." It is the City's policy to encowage such new
•
devetopment on scattered vacant sites in e�risting neighborhoods. •
While the focus of the City's housing policy was somewhat shifted with the adoption of
the "Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 90's," the suitabHity of, and the City's support for, infill
townhome development is stronger than ever. Objective 14 notes that demographic, social and
econornie trends have created many differeat kousehold groups "that may beae&t substamially
from new forms of housing designed to meet particulu needs." (p. 28) While the opportunities
for new construction are not lazge,
". .. the inIIuence of new consriuction, however, will be greater than the number
of units might suggest because of the strong visual impact that such investment
can fiave on a neighborhood.
New housing construction ... is an apportunity to affect directly the suitability
of the housing supply to various segments of the market. Therefore, it is the
City's objective through the following poficies to:
Support changes in t6e hoasing sapplp t6at represent
clear market opportunity and that meet new household
rteeds effectively." (p. 29)
E3
C J
�
ol� -�S�
• In "Policy 54. Market-Rate Development Opportunities," new housing developments are
found to be
`timportant for what they can contribute to 1) balance in the City's housing
supply with new oprions for underserved market segments; 2) new im�estmeni
... where land is underused ... and 3) increase in the taz base .... Therefore,"
the City commits itselfto:
"support development ... opportunities that exist with lot size, setback and
other land use regulations appropriate to higher-cost market potential and
provide the services that will support such development." (p. 29)
The City even supports housing subsidies for
"c. Housing that complements e�risting supply by addressing unmet needs:
-- higher cost houses that meet trade-up market e�cpectations
and create more oppommiues for growing fatnilies to remain
in the City;' (p. 29)
The proposed eight-unit cluster development meets these City objectives and polieies dead
• on. These are higher cost, move-up market, owner-occupied, saphisticated single-family
townhomes to be built on an underutilized parcel of freeway frontags that has lost its value as a
site for traditional, detached single-family homes because of the traffic noise from the &eeway.
The townhomes will provide a buffer between the freeway and the houses to the west. The site
retains a commanding view of the City, including the Capitoi, dowrnown, and the river bluffs. It
will appeal strongty to households of urban owners who do not wam, or no longer want, the
responsibilities of exterior home maintenance. Suburban and urban markets both are currently
seeing unprecedented growth in the demand for this type of housing and no small part of this
demand in the suburbs is due to the shortage of supply of these units, offering modern, upscale
amenities, in the cities. Several small infill developments such as this have been approved in the
City of Saim Paul in recent months. No one can doubt the City's commitment to encouraging
new housing options, especially in view of ihe recem decisions regarding the River Bluff project,
which was approved at some cost to other City policy priorities and requires a substantial public
expenditure for the development of marketable sites.
• 4
�
This proposed cluster development requires no such public financiat support yet it will •
undoubtedly contribute to the health and vitality of the City by providing new housing options for
underserved market segments, by adding new investment where land is underutitized, and by
increasing the tax base. Denying this new development, and foregoing the Lai�es and fees
associated with it, would amount to a subsidy to the neighbors to preserve tlris land as their
"private park" at the eacpense of all Saint Pau] taxpayers.
The cluster townhomes are a principal use pemvtted in the existing R-4 zoning district,
subject to special condirions, all of which aze met by this proposal or can be met with only minor
and routine modification of the conditions to account for the unique features of the site. The
Planning Division staff, who are the professional highly traiaed evaluators ofthe techeical merits
of development projects and implementers of the City policy, had no uouble whatsoever in
recommending that this SCUP be approved.
It is, therefore, respectfutly requested that the City Council find that this application meets
all the special conditions required hy Sec. 60.413.(13) as modiSed, if necessary; that the decision
of the Planning Commission be reversed, and that the Special Condirion Use Permit be approved, �
subject to the requirement of a wood privacy €ence as contained in StaffRecommendation 2.
IU
•
N
�>
• city of saint paul
pianning commission resolution
fiie number 97-22
�te April 25, 1�97
�'1- $S6
VJHEREAS, JOHN KRATZ, file # 97-050, has applied for a Special Condition Use Permit under
the provisions of Section 60.413(13) and 64.300(d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to allow a
cluster development with eight (8) single family d��+elling units, on property located at XXX
NLIET AVE:�TUE (east of Lexin�ton Park�ti�ay between Juliet & Palace}, legally described in the
file; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April
17, 1997, at ��, hich all persons present were =iven an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said
application in accordance ���ith the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning
• Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following
findin=s of fact:
The proposed development does not meet four of the required conditions for a cluster
decelopment under Section 60.413(13) of the Saint Paul Zoning Code. The conditions which
are not met are as fol]ow�s:
c. T/te parcel slral! meet tGe !ot area reqirired per tutit in tlae zo�si�:g distrrct.
This condition can be met. The lot area, provided a portion of Palace Avenue is vacated,
is 40,586 square feet. This allows eight dwelling units (5,000 square feet of lot area is
required for each unit). The street vacation �vould contribute 2,786.85 square feet to the
development parcel. The street ��acation was initiated in Mazch and is expected to take
about four months.
d. Tlre parce/ sha!! l:ave a n:inrnuanfrontnge of eiglrty (80) feet on an ii�rproved street.
Tl�is condition is not met. The property has fronta�e on t�vo streets: 73 feet on Juliet
Avenue and 40 feet on Palace A�•enue. If a portion of Palace Avenue is ��acated, there
« be 73 feet of frontage at that location as w•ell.
moved by Field
� seconded by
i n favor unanimous
- against
iz
.� .
Zoning File =97-050
Page T��o of Resolution
e. The strucfure slrall corrform to tlre schedule of regulafio�:s for heigkt, (ot coverage,
setbncks ar:d pnrki�rg.
This condition is not met. As proposed, the cluster development does not meet the
required 25 foot rear setback requirement from the eastern property. The plans submitted
show the setback at this location to be only 12 feet.
f. T/re design sl:afl be compatible ivit/: tke surrounrling neigl:borl:ood
This condition is not met. As proposed, the development is three stories in height and
each of the buildings contains four units. This height and density is substantially greater
than existing development in the nei�hborhood and is therefore incompatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
�
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under
the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a Special Condition Use Permit to
allow a cluster de��elopment with eight (8) singie family dwelling units at XA!'Y NLIET
AVEI�TUE is hereby denied. •
•
�3
��-�s�
�
Saint Paul Plannin� Commission
Cih Hali Conference Centcr
1� ICclloge Boule�•ard �ticst
A meeting of tLe Plannin, Commis;ion ofthe City of Saint Pauf «as hetd Frida}•, April 25, 1997, at 5:30
a.m. in the Conference Center of Cit� Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
hfines. Duartz, Faric}, Geisser, Maddox, Treichel and �1'encl, and bfessrs.
Field Jr., Gordon, Gurnz}, Kramer. rfardell, h4cDonell, Nordin, Sharpe and Vauglit.
Alzssr,. *Cha�ezand *No��lin
*E�cused
L_J
•
Also Present:
I�
" I'
Ken Ford, Plannins Administrator: Donna Slnders, Kady Dadlez, Roger R}'an and
Larr}' Sodzrliolm of the Plannina Staff.
Zoning Committce
k97-03� AIichlcl Allen Sulli�•�n - Special condition use permit to aliow auto repair at
1229 Pavnc Acenuc.
ATOTIO\: Conrmissioner Field »rored npprovnl ofthe requested specin( cw��frtion :rse
peri�ru ro allotir nuto repair nt 1229 Pay�rz Aren:re sritlt concfitiars includi�rg hotrrs of
oper�uio�r, a Ifnrit oir the �rtvnber of cros, ni:d cerlai�t Inr7dscapitrg nn:ei7ities.
Commissioner Field noted that the Cih Ahorney did admonish the committee that the prior
aciions of the applicant should not be the basis for the Plannin� Commission's decision on
the speciat condition use permit.
Commissioner Kramer eaplained that he could not, in good conscience, vote in favor ofthis.
He noted that e�•ery proposed condition iisted on the special condition use permit has
alread�• been violated by the applicant. He espressed his infiiriation each time he drives by
tliis site at ���hat he considers violations. He said he had no faith.that this applicant �vill
abide by those conditions. Iie suggested that it might be a good idea to appro�•e this for
ont}� 1 year durins ��fiich the conditions are monitored, and if no violations occur, then grant
it. As is, he cannot vote in fa�•or. • ,
Commissioner Vaught recognized that e�•ep7hin� Commission Kramer said is true. He,
ho��'e�•er, also recoonized the City Attorne}�'s advice, and will vote in favor of the permit.
Tlie real problem here, he pointed out, is enforcement.
The �»otion on the,Jloor cnrried on n roice vote (Kramer, iYenc!).
�97-050 John Kratz - Special condition use permit to alto�v a cluster development «'ith eight
d�velling units at xxx Jutiet Avenue.
IOTION: Conunissioner Field n:orecl tlenial of 1he rer/uested special ca�dilion use pernrit
!o a!lotir n cluster developnrent irith ei,qht cl�rel/ing :a�i[s at xxr Juliet Arenue.
�4
Alr. Ford commented that the staff report had recommended approvaL The market and the •
� interest in to�cnhouse development is strone no« in the cit}� in a«�ap that it has not been
before. And in meetin� some of our rein� e;tment and population dicenit}• objectices and
pro� iding for a greater di�•ersit}� of housins st}•les, �ee think it s a very imponant interest for
the cit�, and somethin� that probably �ce in the Plannin� Commission need to dirzct some
lttention to: �chether our policies need adjustmeM to make sure that ��e can encouraQe a
combination of different forms of housine as part of our neighborhoods «�hich are largel,�
sin�le family. �
The motio�i orr thelloor to cleny� the re�aestecf special conditiorr use pernrit to nllou� a ckrster
�'erelopn�er7t tirith eight direllfig s�rrits at xs.r Juliet Acenue carried urrnnimouslr on a voice
i•otB.
#97-0� I CommurZitv Ootions - Special condition use permit to allow a licensed human
service communit}' residential facility for fourteen persons with psychiatric disabilities at
153� Rice Street.
1�IOTIO\: Cwmnissioner Field mored approra/ for the re�trested special condition use
pernrit to nlloir n lice�rsed hionmr serrice conurttmih• residerttiaT faciliry for fotrrteen persoi7s
witl: psyehintric clisabilities at l�8� Rice Street u•{rich earriecl:atmrinro:rsly aJ a voiee vole.
�97-0�4 Ward D Jefferson - Special condition use permit to allow general auto repair at
8�9 Universit�� Avenue. •
DIOTION: Commissioner Field moved apprarnl of the re9erest for n specinl co�rciition a�se
pern7it to nllou� geuera! nuto repair nt 8.i9 UniversityAreuue x•hich carried m7arrimotuly on
n roice vote.
£97-049 Universa! Outdoor inc - Appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a
permit application for an adeeRisino sien at 2100 Gilbert Avenue.
Commissioner Fie1d stated that committee heard considerable testimony and ultimately
��oted 5-0, with one abstention to la}• the matter over until May l, 1997.
�97-053 Jim Campbell - Modification of ricer corridor standards to allow constructiaa of a
single family home �vithin 40' ofthe bluff line at 20x.1 Oakridge Street.
I TI�V: Conrnrissioner Fiefd nravecl approti•al of the nrodifreatio�r of river eorriclor
stm:clarcls to crllotiv constrt�ctiort oJa single fmnily ha�ee tivithir: 40 oJthe bk �lirre nt 20x.r
Oaln�idge Street, ticith hvo eondilions.
Commissioner Vaught stated that the resolution before the Commission does not reflect
«fiat the committee did. He said there �� a motian offered to approve the paRicutar
application limiting to a rivo-car gara�e, but that faifed on a vote of 3-3. There «as then a
subsequent motion �vhich «�as passed to reduce the size of the overall bui(dine by the square
footage of a third statl, which is approximatel}• a third of the garage, some 250-2�5 square
feet. Commissioner Vaught feels that the applicant has created his own hards6ip becaase of •
!J
o�� -�S�
• MINUTES OF TAE ZONZNG COMMITTEE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAITL, MINNESOTA ON APRZL 17, 1997
PRESENT: Mme. Faricy; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gordon, Kramer and Vaught of
the 2oning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes.
Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Planning DivisiOn.
ABSENT: Wencl, excused
Gurney
Time: 3:55 to 5:45 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson.
�OHN K aT T.R D V.•OPM �NT� xxx �1: Av.n� : aa o •.x�ng$on b w n
,'li . and Pa�a :# 7-050: ng,�ial ondi 'on P mit. To allow a Clu�ster
development with eight (8) dwelling units.
Kady Dadlez, Zoning Office of PED staff, reviewed the staff report and
presented slides. Sta£f recommended approval of the special condition use
• permit and modification of the lot frontage requirement, based on findings 1
through 4 and subject to the two conditions outlined in the staff report.
The Macalester-Groveland Community Council voted to oppose the SCUP. In
addition, they requested that planning commission consideration of the
application be delayed until after the city council has made a decision on the
street vacation, and a land dispute between the applicant and the property
owner to the west is resolved. A letter was distributed stating their
position.
Four letters were received in opposition.
Commissioner Vaught spoke to a Quit Claim Deed referenced in the staff report,
a copy of which was submitted by an adjoining property owner, and asked
whether the committee could consider the issue of control of the site by the
applicant in determining whether or not an application is complete for
consideration by the committee.
Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney, responded that in this case site contz'ol
could be considered to the extent that there are the specific conditions and
the general conditions that the applicant has to meet. The code also states
in 64.300(d) that the planning commission can atCach other reasonable
conditions in making a determination of whether or not to grant a SCUP. If
the committee were to conclude that site control is something that warrants a
particular consideration or condition to the extent that fee control shall be
established by a given date, that would be a reasonable condition to attach,
• as long as there is a rational basis for it.
�b
Commissioner vaught verified that the committee's approval of the SCUP could •
be directly contingent upon the applicant securing site control and/or
securing site control by a specific date. Mr. Warner confirmed that.
Mr. Warner, referenced finding 2c, that °7f the street vacation is not
approved, staff recommends that the nvmber of dwel2ing vnits in the cluster
development be reduced to seven.°
Commissioner Vaught referenced correspondence submitted by interested parties
that speaks to the Pailure of the proposal to meet setback requirements in the
R-4 zone and questioned staff finding 2c, that this condition was met.
Tom Beach, LIEP site plan review staff, responded that the question of
comp2iance has much to do with interpretation of the code, as it was not a
typical lot that has clearly-defined front, back and side yards. The code
states that in a case where a lot has frontage on two streets that both of
those require front yard setbacks and remaining yards become side yards. It
was staff's interpretation that the property £ronted on both Palace and
Suliet. He referenced the definition of a"through lot", in Section 60.212.
Commissioner Vaught addressed finding 2f relative to compatibility of the
surrounding area structures, particularly questioning staff's finding as it
related to the proposal's mass and height. In addition to the language in
finding 2f, Mr. Beach responded that one factor also supporting the finding
was that the proposed units are somewhat removed from the rest of the
neighborhood. .
Commissioner Gordon asked staff to elaborate on: 1) who owns the alley; 2) how
close the proposed structure comes to the house located at 1083 Palace; and 3)
the impact and the basis for staff's recommendation for closing Palace as sucri
action would not be significant and yet if closing Palace weren't to happen,
the proposal would only be reduced by one unit, asking wriy that is?
Ms. Dadlez responded that without the vacated street Mr. Kratz has only 37,799
square feet which is 2,000 square feet less than the 40,000 square feet
required. Vacating Palace doesn't add a significant amount, but does add
enough to meet the 40,000 square foot requirement.
Regarding ownership, Ms. Dadlez said that the applicant has submitted a copy
of the certificate of title indicating that he owns one-half of the alley.
That being the case, he would be about 2,000 square feet short, and vacating
Palace would allow him to meet the required square foot requirement.
Mr. Beach responded that the townhouses at their closest point, would be
45 feet from the house at 1093 Palace and the driveway serving the townhouses
would be 15 feet away from the house.
Commissioner Vaught disagreed with staff's interpretation o£ orientation of
the proposal and said what he considered to be the front of the proposed
building faces the side; the back faces the side; and the side of the proposed
building £aces the front. He reviewed with staff that the required setback
for a front lot line is 25 feet and for a side lot line is 4 feet. •
�
�7
c��-�s�
• Mr. Beach at Vaught's request reviewed that the building is 25 feet £rom
Palace and approximately 35-40 feet from Juliet, both considered by staff to
be front lot lines. From the side lot line facing 35-E he said it appears to
be about 12 feet; and the side closest to Lexington varies from 40-90 £eet, as
there is a jog in that property line, with the northern building for the most
part being 80-90 feet from the western property line, and the south building
about 40 Peet from the western property line.
Commissioner Vaught in summary, noted that if in fact the correct orientation
was as he saw it, that the building would be 12 feet from what he considered
to be the £ront or back lot line, and does not meet the setback requirements.
John Kratz, the applicant, spoke. Mr. Kratz said that he has opted to do a
SCUP rather than doing existing lot arrangements at that location because: 1)
The site is an unusual shape which doesn't readily permit streets and access
into it; and 2) Because the traffic on 35-E has made that site inhospitable to
outdoor uses, he has chosen to appeal to a group of buyers who are less
interested in being out in their yards.
Mr. Kratz addressed two issues from the staff report:
1. 80 feet of frontage requirement on an improved stx'eet. He claimed the
ordinance doesn�t specify that it must be 80 contiguous feet or that it needs
to be 80 feet on the same street. He said that a conservative interpretation
has been made so that approval can be based on the most restrictive
interpretation of that ordinance. He said that this is especially true when
• the probable reason is considered for the 80 foot requirement which is
adequate ingress and egress for the traffic of the occupants. He suggested
that access to two streets is an improvement over access Co one, whether it's
85 feet or two sections of 40 feet. Mr. Kratz suggested that a modification
on the 80 foot requirement is not necessary but since the result is the same
he would not take issue with it.
2. The zoning lot size for the eight units requested. He requested that the
project be approved for all 8 units regardless of the outcome of the street
issue.
Mr. Kratz addressed the issue relative to his ownership of the property and
noted that all of the development improvements proposed avoids the vacated
alley dispute. He reported that he possesses a deed from the State of
Minnesota who sold him the property which does not include the alley, but said
he has all the rights that the state had to the property and one oE those
rights is the accretion of the alley to the rest of their lots. He said that
the State went through a Proceeding Subsequent as part of their certi£icate of
title on the property as recently as 1991 and concluded that the alley was
part of the State's property, and therefore was passed to him_ Nevertheless
he said he does not wish to take the strip of alley away from Ms. Tenter, and
the only reason it has become part of the discussion was to get around the
minimum lot size. Additionally, he spoke of a 15 foot street vacation needed
on Palace which would bring the lot line to the west 16 feet to meet the
40,000 square feet requested.
C �
3
�
Mr. Kratz said that without the street vacation and without the alley, they •
still have about 92°s of the property needed under the ordinance and asked the
committee to grant a modification along with the SCUP.
Mr. Kratz said other arguments in support included:
- Zoning lot size is not necessarily the same as the legal lot size in
other zoning categories. In Lhe townhouse zoning categories you may
consider half of an alley adjoining property as being square footage
included in the lot to be built on for purposes of unit count, and rie
said that this would be a similar situation;
- This property is wide open behind it, with no one to the east affected
by its development;
- He claimed moderate hardships associated with not permitting the 8
units, saying the 8 units are a tidy, architecturally balanced package,
with two buildings of four units and suggested it would be a
disadvantage to the development, the city and the community to have one
building of four and one building of three. It's an expensive site to
develop with water and sewer needing to be brought into the site at the
developer's expense. The cost of the land is the same whether 7 or 8
units are built and if those costs were spread over 7 units as compared
with 8, it would drive the cost of the 7 units up considerably and
would create a hardship.
- In response to the issues raised by Macalester-Groveland Community •
Council, Mr. Kratz reiterated the 80 foot frontage and stated he felt
the setbacks are very adequate and a lot or even a double lot between
where the buildings are proposed to go and where the neighbor's
property begins.
Mr. Kratz addressed the issue of the changes in the natural features of the
topography. He said that there is a small strip of fill that would be
required that is 7 feet tall at the maximum and will quickly go back down to 4
feet. He claimed that it is a balanced site in terms of fill and that all
fill necessary to go under the southern building will come from other places
on the site. He said very minimal change in the topography would take place
and that both buildings would be built with their front sides on existing
grade. Natural features would be preserved, with lot 17 remaining entirely
vacant, which contains a lot of big cottonwood trees, and ash trees and a lot
of brush. Their intention is to clean it up, debrush it and if it gets enough
sun to sod that will be done, if not it will be left as a nature area.
Mr. Kratz said the cluster development provisions state that if he meets
certain requirements that he may build and then it °requires" that those
buildings be attached. It also reiterates that those attached buildings are
sti12 subject to the same height and setback requirements as pertain to the
zone in general. He said that since those provisions of the ordinance require
that they be attached, and also reiterated the 30 feet height, he didn't see
how later that it can be re-evaluated, saying that because they are attached
and because they are 30 feet tall, that they violate the size provision on a •
massing argument. He said the massing argument goes away when considering
4
�9
�t `1- �s �
• that a single £amily home of exactly this size could easily be built on that
site. One of the issues he spoke to in terms of design were the garage doors
all facing to the neighbors' property. He said that of the 11 residents that
either share Palace or Juliet Avenue, 8 of those garages face the front with
access to the street. His development will not orient them to the street, but
to what has historically been an alley.
Mr. Kratz spoke of the impact of the cluster development on the light and the
air in the new developed area. He said that one advantage of the cluster
concept is that by putting the housing units together open space is preserved,
which allows light and air to get in and around it. He said that the cluster
development occupies only about 16% of the lot with its main building, where
the zoning in general, allows for 30°a in addition to having outbuildings like
detached garages.
Mr. Kratz acknowledged the impact [hat the development will have on the
neighbor at 1083 Palace, which will significantly impact her view, however he
said that her view would be just as impacted by a single family home being
built nearer to her property line, but in the same location that a typical
home would be built on that lot.
Mr. Kratz addressed the recommendation that the street vacation be done first
before action on the SCUP is taken, and felt that option to be at odds with
what the City requires in the vacation.
Commissioner Chavez asked how fire trucks would service the development. Mr.
• Kratz responded that the proposal was reviewed by the Fire Department for
safety and that they recommended that the driveway width be increased from 16
to 20 feet to allow the Fire Department to extend their outriggers to raise a
tall ladder to get at the buildings. He said that fire rigs can drive
straight through, with no backing up required. Commissioner Chavez asked
whether a fire truck could come in on Juliet and exit out on Palace through
the development property, with Mr. Kratz responding affirmatively.
Commissioner Faricy asked Mr. Kratz to elaborate on the retaining walls. Mr.
Kratz said that on the treeway side there is a two-section retaining wall with
a total of about 7 feet in height, with 3 feet in one section and 4 feet in
the other. There is also a low retaining wall between the property at 1083
which starts at about one foot out of the street and for most of the way back
is less than two feet tall. It does go to a maximum of 6 feet in the middle
as there is a need to cut the roadway into the natural existing elevation
change.
Commissioner Faricy asked what the dimension of the access road would be. Mr.
Kratz said it was 16 feet in the plan, and he was fairly certain it would be
expanded to 20 feet as a result of the Fire Department's review.
Commissioner Faricy asked if any consideration was given to making this a two
story development, with the garages located in another place. Mr. Krat2
responded that consideration was given to many other plans, however there was
difficulty with getting the driveways in with adequate parking in front of
them, especially on the south building site.
•
5
2a
Mr. Beach referenced a written report from the Fire Department that they had •
no problems with the proposed development.
Karen Tenter, 1083 Palace, owner of the property adjacent to the south
building of the proposal, spoke in opposition. Ms. Tenter addressed the
dispute with Mr. Kratz regarding ownership of the vacated east half of the
vacated north south alley. Copies of documents from the Minnesota Department
of Transportation were distributed, including a copy o£ the Quit Claim Deed
and a map that the DOT initially put out for bid, which she said show that
none of the vacated north/south alley is included in the subject property
because the DOT reconveyed their half of the vacated alley to Dr. C.C. Wood.
The property was then deeded to her when she purchased her lot from Dr. Wood.
Ms. Tenter said that the DOT informed Mr. Kratz about this deed when he asked
them to quit claim their half to him, and that Mr. Kratz went ahead with his
proposal maintaining that he, in fact, owned that half of the alley. She said
she informed City staff and the community council before their recommendations
were made, and that only the Macalester Groveland Community Council felt that
proper ownership should be determined before the proposal was presented to the
zoning committee.
Ms. Tenter referenced chapter 64.300 of the zoning code which states that
^granting of the SCUP is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent
property" noting that if the proposal is granted that her family's living
enjoyment would be drastically reduced, and she elaborated on the loss of
privacy, the loss of the existing views, and the loss of nature which would
result. •
Ronald Hachey, 1080 Palace Avenue, abutting the applicant's property, spoke in
opposition. Mr. Hachey said he does not need nor want any part of Palace
Avenue and is opposed to the action of vacating it. He said he believed the
petition to vacate Palace Avenue would fail as the petitioner lacks the
support of the majority of the abutting property owners. However, Mr. Hachey
reviewed that Mr, Kratz needs the vacation of Palace Avenue to comply with the
minimum requirement of 40,000 square feet, as well as he needs the alley in
dispute that Ms. Tenter claims to own. Mr. Hachey spoke of the loss of the
natural environment the neighborhood has enjoyed, and said the proposal would
be a disruption. However, he stated that the neighborhood would not object to
3 or 4 r.ice looking homes built there.
Irvin Rubbelke, 380 South Lexington Parkway, a former St. Paul Firefighter who
serviced the area for many years, spoke in opposition. Mr. Rubbelke noted
that as a resident in the area he has witnessed on three occasions fires start
along the freeway and come raging up that hill. He expressed concern over the
inability for a fire rig to turn around in a 20 foot alley, and he reviewed
inefficiencies that would result in a fire emergency.
Dick Sorenson, 408 South Lexington, landscape architect, spoke in opposition.
Mr. Sorenson referenced the site plans and said he believed the site to be too
small for the proposed development and that he didn't believe the development
to be appropriate for the neighborhood. He expressed concern that if the
alley has not been vacated and is found to belong to Ms. Tenter, that would
affect the amount of setback on the 35-E side because the whole development •
may have to be moved to the east, and said the neighbors would like to see
�
��
q�l --�56
• what it would look like if the vacated street is not vacated. He does not see
the development as compatible with trie neighborhood as there are no 3-story
buildings nearby and no townhouses on the block, and indicated that the
development would more than double the number of units on the block and that
such an increase in density concerns the neighbors.
Mr. Sorenson expressed concern regarding detention basins originally proposed
by the applicant, however it was learned that the detention basins are no
longer part of the plan.
Mr. Sorenson questioned the quality of the road design. Ae was aware of the
attempt to minimize the amount of grading, but pointed out a distance of about
50 feet where the rise in elevation is about 12°s slope on a curve, and
questioned whether the turning radius was sufficient to handle moving vans and
other such veriicles. With respect to the road's designation as a fire lane,
he noted that it would have to be marked a fire lane with no parking allowed,
and suggested that guests would not want to park on Juliet and Palace but
would indeed park in the fire lane, and if a fire occurred may prevent trucks
from getting through. He also questioned whether the road would be wide
enough, and that the retaining wall would obstruct the view for backing up
around the curve.
Mr. Sorenson expressed concern that the proposed ground cover is to be highway
grass noting that no fire breaks are mentioned around the buildings, and was
concerned that a fire could come up the hill right up to the building. He
questioned where snow would be placed, acknowledging a plan to put snow
• between the buildings, however noting that there is a very steep slope between
the buildings and questioning that. He also expressed concern over loss of
the natural environment and of increased traffic.
A1 Edwall, 422 S. Lexington Pkwy., his entrance on Palace, spoke in
opposition. Mr. Edwall suggested the project is incompatible with the
neighborhood as it's too massive and creates too much density in the
neighborhood. He expressed concern over the increase in traffic that the
development would generate.
Kate Schultz, 398 South Lexington Parkway, spoke in opposition. Ms. Schultz
submitted the letter distributed to commissioners from the neighborhood and
addressed the following issues not yet addressed:
Land fill. It's the neighborhood's understanding that a very large portion of
the base of the proposed south building would require 12 feet high of land-
fill to support it on a steep slope, however Mr. Kratz said in his testimony
it would be 4-7 feet. She said this would mean that almost all of the
southern edifice, with a base of about 3,400 square feet, would be sitting on
loose dirt with three stories of weight on top of it. She said according to
the code ^... a mini.mum alteration in topography.^, but neighbors see this as
a giant change in the natural features and questioned what would keep the
edifice from slipping into the Randolph exit ramp from Interstate 35-E.
u
7
22
Utilities. Ms. Schultz said the plans they have reviewed did not indicate •
utilities, utility easements, or drainage; they don't clearly show the
driveway connections to the side streets; the fire lane is not indicated on
the plan nor are the fire hydrants proposed by the Fire Department.
Assessments. Ms. Schultz said it was unclear whether there would be
assessments to neighboring residents to cover damage to Palece and Juliet from
trucks carrying landfill and heavy building materials and from proposed
changes in water, sewage, and electricity conduits.
Pauline Hanson, 372 South Lexington, across LexingLon and kitty-corner from
the north building proposed, spoke in opposition. Ms. Hanson expressed dismay
over the Zoss of her river view, and said she believes the safety of all of
those residents pulling out onto Lexington Parkway would be an issue, based on
the [raffic vo2ume on Lexington Parkway, as we21 as the accident statistics in
the last 6 years in that four block neighborhood which has exceeded 200
repor[ed accidents.
Mr. Kratz provided a rebuttle. Ae reviewed the issue of the title on the
alley. When MN DOT first offered the property for sale they didn't show that
alley on there but they showed two other streets and two ather vacated a2leys.
Mr. Kratz inquired about the vacated alley on the south and they asked if it
was on his offer sheet, which it wasn't and they said that maybe they didn't
own it, but Mr. Kratz said it was on their certificate of title that they do
own it, and they said that maybe they did own it and if so he couid have it.
He said that on that basis he bid on it, and after he was a successful bidder •
spoke to NIN DOT a second time about it and said he'd like to make sure that
his deed includes the alley, with MN DOT responding that if they own it he
gets it, but that he doesn't get a closing with the state, but was to send in
his money and then two weeks later they send the deed. After the money had
been submitted he heard from NIN DOT that they had deeded the alley to somebody
else, but that deed had never been recorded. In summary, the vacated alley is
on MN DOT's certificate of title and was never recorded on property records of
the neighbor to the west. Kratz said he thought it was fair for him to assume
triat he owned it. However, he said he doesn't want to keep the alley but
return it to Ms. Tenter, and said he felt it should not be an issue which
enters into the decision of the SCUP.
Regarding the vacation of Palace Avenue, Mr. Kratz said if Mr. Aachey does not
want any part of Palace Avenue that it could be contributed to the homeowners
association who would landscape and perpetually maintain it.
Mr. Kratz clarified that the cluster proposal is for single Eamily homes that
are attached. Regarding the detention pond shown on the original plan, he
noted that it was removed by the city review process as there is no need for
it. He spoke to the big grade difference between the two buildings, with 12
or more percent grade, but Mr. Kratz said he sees that acting as somewhat of a
barrier from keeping people from traveling straight through those sites
unnecessarily, as they need not travel that way but may exit off the street
that they come in on.
The public hearing was closed.
8
•
23
al� -�s�
• Commissionez Vaught moved amendiag the sta£f report as follows:
Finding 2e. Replace the pazagraph indicating that the conditioa is met and
replace the following: This condition is not met. As proposed, the
develogment does not meet the requ3rements £or setbacks in the zoning
district. The setback zequirement for the lot line closest to 8ighway
Interstate 35-E, which is the rear lot liae, is 25 feet and the proposed
developmeat as proposed will be setback only 12 feet from the lot line.
Finding 2f. Replace the first sentence indicating: This condition is not
met. The remainder of the paragraph to be left 3n place. An additional
sentence to be added to follow paragraph: "The proposed development is three-
stories high and the proposed buildings thereon each contain four units. This
mass is substantially greater than the mass of buildings in the surrounding
neighborhood and the height of the proposed development is incompatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.°
Commissioner Vaught moved denial of the special condition use permit and
modification of the lot frontage requirement, based on findings H2c, H2d, 82e,
and H2f as stated and amended above in the staff report. Commissioner Gordon
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Vaught said that voting for the motion required two assumptions.
vaught disagreed with the assumption that the sides of the buildings become
the front of the building and the front of the building becomes the side and
the rear becomes the side. After thorough review of the plans he found it to
• be the case that the front doors are in the front of the building which are
not the side of the building but the front of the building, as are most of the
windows. Looking at the schematics of the development he said if staff's
recommendation was followed that the committee would be required to conclude
that the front of the building on both ends of each building has what appears
to be a single window which is in the stairway on the way from the second to
the third floor and no other openings.
Having arrived at that conclusion, Vaught concluded Chat the setbacks become
relevant with respect to the front and rear yards, and he noted what he
considered to be the rear of the building also has doors and windows and the
decks which are characteristically found in rear yards, not necessarily in
sideyards. Another reason he rejected staff's interpretation was that it
seems to be a tortuous way to fit what is otherwise a building that is totally
out of sinc in terms of its orientation, with the surrounding buildings on to
that particular lot. He suggested that the usual view of what is a front and
a back and a side of a building ought to prevail in this case.
Secondly, Vaught said that the conditions regarding compatibility are not met.
He rejected the notion that because this particular building mass would be
otherwise allowed in a cluster development, in an R-4 zone that they must of
necessity conclude then that that mass is compatible with the surrounding
property as he felt it clearly is not, and that the code does not mandate that
particular conclusion. He said that the buildings, though otherwise
attractive on another site, are not compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
C J
9
2�}
Commissioner Gordon said he would support the motion because of his concerns
about the lot area, the setbacks, the frontage, and the compatibility.
The motion carried for deaial on a voice vote of 6 to 0.
Drafted by:
��s�
Donna Sanders
Submitted h��•
i��
Kady Dad]
nnnrnt�oA hv•
C�
C J
•
10
L5
��-�5�
• ZONING CO2R2ITTE8 STAFF RSPORT
__�__�____________�__________
FILS # 97-050
1. APPLZCANT: SOHN KF2ATZ DATB OF HBARIDTG: 04/17(97
2. CLAS52FICATION: Special Condition IIse
3. LOCATION: XXX JULZET AVENUE (east of Lexington between Juliet & Palace)
4. PLAIiN2NG DISTRICT: 14
5. LBGAL DBSCRIPTION: see file
6. PRBSSNT ZONING: R-A ZONING CODB R8F8R8NC8: §60.413(13) &§6A.300(d)
7. STAFF INVBSTIGATION AND RHPORT: DATB; 4/10/97 SY: Kady Dadlez
8. DATE RBCEIVSD: 03/12/97 DBADLINB FOR ACTION: OS/10/97
A. PIIRPOSE: Special condition use permit to allow a cluster development with
eight (8) dwelling units.
• S. PARCEL SIZE: The development parcel has 73 feet of frontage on Juliet
Avenue and 40 feet of frontage on Palace Avenue for a total lot area of
40,586 square feet, provided a portion of Palace Avenue is vacated. The
lot area is 37,799.15 square feet without vacated Palace.
C. s7t2sTlxc LaND IISE: The propezty is currently vacant. The development
parcels is being assembled from vacant lots and remnant right-of-way from
Interstate 35E construction.
D. SIIRROVNDING LAND IISE: The property is surrounded on the north, south, and
west by single family homes and by Interstate 35E on the east.
E. ZONIN� CODE CITATION: Sections 60.413(13) and 64.300(d) of the zoning code
permit cluster developments subject to the conditions detailed in findings
#2 and #3 of this report.
F. �ISTORY/DISCIISSION: There are no previous zoning cases concerning this
property. There is a current site plan review application for the proposed
development.
G. DSSTRiCT CODNCIL RECOD4�ffiNDATION: The Macalester-Groveland Community
Council voted to oppose the sgecial condition use permit. In addition,
they request that planning commission consideration of the application be
delayed until after the city council has made a decision on the street
vacation and a land dispute between the applicant and the property owner to
� the west is resolved.
�
Zoning File #97-050
Page Two
�#3+t�
1. The applicant owns all of the property proposed for development. Eight
dwel2ing units are proposed, two buildings of four units each. The
applicant plans to vacate a portion of Palace Avenue to assemble the
necessary lot area for the number of dwelling units proposed. The
street vacation process was initiated in March and will take about four
months.
2. Section 60.413(13) of the zoning code permits cluster developments
subject to the following conditions:
a. There shall be a miai.mvm of two (2) uatts.
This condition is met. Eight units are planned.
b. The units shaZZ be attached, commoa wa1Z, siag2e fami2y, with uo uait
intzuding on the vertical airspace of any other uait.
This condition met. The units are side-by-side, with no unit
intruding on the vertical air space of any other unit.
c. The parcel shall meet the lot area required per uait ia the zontng
district.
This ccndition can be met. The lot area, provided a portion of
Palace Avenue is vacated, is 40,586 square feet. This allows eight
dwelling units (S,DOD square feet o£ lot area is required for each
unit). The street vacation would contribute 2,786.85 square feet to
the development parcel. The street vacation was initiated in March
and is expected to take about four months. If the street vacation is
not approved, staff recommends that the number of units in the
cluster development be reduced to seven.
d. The parcel shall have s av.nimvm frontage of eighty (80) feet oa an
improved atreet.
This condition is not met. The property has frontage on two streets:
73 feet on Juliet Avenue and a0 feet on Palace Avenue. If a portion
of Palace Avenue is vacated, there will be 13 feet of frontage at
that location as well.
Staff recommends that this condition be modified. Although the
applicant does not have 80 feet of frontage at a single location, the
development parcel currently has a total of 113 feet of frontage and
would have 146 feet of frontage if a portion of Palace Avenue is
vacated. The 73 feet of frontage on Juliet approaches the minimum
requirement of 80 feet, and with access from both Juliet and Palace,
adequate ingress and egress wi11 be provided.
•
�
•
27
°1`� - �S�
• Zoning File #97-050
Page Three
e. Tke structure shalZ coafozm to tfie schedule of regu2atioas for
fieight, Iot coverage, aetbacks and parkiag.
This condition is met. As proposed, the development meets the
requirements for height, lot coverage, setbacks, and parking
prescribed by the zoning district. Since the lot is double £ronted,
25 foot setbacks from both Juliet and Palace are required; everything
else is a side yard which requires a 4 foot setback.
f. The design shaZl be compatible with tbe surroundiag aeighborhood.
This condition is met. The immediate neighborhood is characterized
by a variety of housing styles and sizes. There are one and two-
story homes on Lexington Parkway; the house on the north side of
Palace immediately to the west of the development site is a full two
story.
g. Individual lota, buildiags, street aad pasking sreas ahall be
designed and situated to minimize alteration of the natursl features
and topography.
This condition is met. While the applicant will need to bring in
• some fill during construction, the development has been designed to
minimize disruption to natural features and topography. In an
attempt to preserve the existing topography, groposed development at
the northern portion of the site will be at an elevation that is
about 12 feet higher than the development at the southern half.
h. Applications for cluster deveZopment sha11 include site pZans,
including landscaping and elevatioaa aad other information the
planaing commi.ssion may request.
This condition is met. The applicant submitted a site plan,
landscape plan, and building elevations along with a written
description detailing the specifics of the development.
3. Section 64.300(d) of the zoning code requires that before the planning
commission may grant approval of a principal use subject to special
conditions, the commission shall find that:
a. The exteat, location and iateasity of the use will be ia aubstantial
compliance with the Saiat Paul Comprehenaive Plaa aad any applicable
subarea pZana rkich cvere approved by the city couaciZ.
This condition is met. One of the problems and issues identified in
the District 14 Plan states, "potential increase oE higher density
apartment buildings which could change the single-family character of
the neighborhood." Goals of the District 14 Plan state: 1) "to
• retain and improve the residential quality of the community;" 2)
"maintain the single family character of the district;" 3) "to meet
the diverse housing needs of residents;" and 4) "to provide a
28
Zoning File #97-050
Page Four
variety of housing types within the district (apartment,
condominiums, cooperatives) whiZe retaining the sing2e-family
character and residential quality of the district".
b. The use wtI2 provide adequate iagress aad egress to minimize traffic
coagestioa in the public atreets.
This condition is met. Access to the site will be from both Palace
and Juliet Avenues. There will be a two-car garage for each of the
dwelling units.
c. The use will aot be detrimmtal to the exiatiag cbaracter of
developmeat �n the i�ediate neighbozhood or endaager the public
health, safety aad general welfare.
This condition is met. The modest number of new dwelling units can
be accommodated by existing facilities and services provided by the
city. Lexington Parkway currently carries about 19,000 vehicZes near
this location.
�
d. The use will aot impede tbe normal and orderly development aad
improvemeat of the surrouading pzoperty for usea permitted in tbe
district. •
This condition is met. The surrounding property is fully developed.
The new housing will serve as a buffer between the interstate and
single family homes to the west.
e. The use sha21, ia a21 other respects, coafazm to tlxe app2icable
regulatioas of tfie diatract ia which it is located.
F.�ccept for the condition relating to lot frontage, this condition is
met.
4. Section 64.300(f) of the zoning code states, "The planning commission,
after public hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when
strict application of such special coaditions wonZd unreasonably limit
or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property or an e�cisting
structure aad would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner of
such property or structure; provided, that such modification will not
impair the intent and purpose of such special condition and is
consistent with health, morals and general welfare of the community and
is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property."
Z. STAFF RBCOHI�NDATION: Based on findings 1 through 4 staff recommends
approval of the special condition use permit and modification of the lot
frontage requirement, subject to the following conditions:
1. The approval of this special condition use permit to allow the cluster •
development with eight (8) dwelling units is subject to the final
approval by the City CounciZ of the required street vacation of Palace
29
0 1 �1 - � s �
• Zoning File #97-050
Page Five
Avenue. The number o£ dwelling units in the cluster development shall
not exceed seven (7), if the vacation of Palace Avenue is not approved.
2. A wood privacy fence, six feet in height, shall be installed near the
southwestern property line. The western side of the fence (applicant's
property) shall be landscaped to provide a buffer between the house to
the west and the new access drive and dwelling units. The exact
location of the fence and species to be planted will be determined
through site plan review.
•
C �
�
SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Deparlment of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
1700 Ciry Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Sainr Paul, MN SSIO2
266-6589
APPLICANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Zmm�g r�ce iise unly .
�ite no. : ° •ty5f? •
Fee. ��;�;?�' �.�::
T��a#iue: #�ear+� .�e -
�� � ��1 �1`��(�
� . ,..
Name John Kratz
Address 1424 Edqcumbe Road
City St. Paul gt.MN Z�p 55116 Daytime phone 690-5360
Name of owner (if different)
East of
between Juliet & PalacelAVes
�ta ncaa. ii�aa�.ayc vi .'.+ +.+
Legal description:Lots 17 & 18 & parts of lots 1-6, all in
19, Ridgewood Park Addition, Current Zoning R-4
(a a h a itional s eet " necessary) C+YPP'FC
TYPE OF PERMIT: Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter ,
Section 60. / 3 , Paragraph� of the Zoning Code for a:
.� Speciai Condition Use Permit
D River Corridor Conditional Use Permit
❑ Mod�cation of River Corridor Standards
•
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: in the space betow suppiy information that is appticable to your type of
permit (attach additional sheets if necessary)
• SPECIAL CONDITION USE: Explain how the use will meet each of the special conditions.
• RtVER CORf2tDOR CONDITIONAL USE: Describe how the use witl meet the applicable cond+tions.
• MODIFICATION OF RIVER CORRIDOR STANDARDS: Explain why modifications are needed.
�4 E�FSe S�
Required site pian is attached
ApplicanYs
A�T'it-�t� � �
City
3►
��l - �S �
• The special conditions required in Paragraph 13 for cluster developments are met by this
use as follows:
a. The eight units proposed exceed the minimum (two) required.
b. The units are attached, common wall, single family, with no unit intzud'sng
on the vertical airspace of any other unit.
c. The site is zoned R-4, wluch requires a minimum lot of 5,000 square feet.
This site contains 40,587 square feet, allowing the eight units proposed.
d. The requirement that the pazcel have a minimum frontage of SO feet on an
improved street is eacceeded here by the cul-de-sac frontages on both Palace
and Juliet Avenues. A 40-foot frontage on the side of Palace Avenue is
shown on the site plan, with the rest of Palace east of that point to be vacated.
This will match what was done when Juliet Avemie was partially vacated in
1968. If, however, the 80-foot minimum frontage requirement can be met by
including the frontages on the ends of Palace and 7uliet Avenues, then more of
Palace could be vacated, more of the driveway would be private, and the extra
square footage for the lot azea could accrue to the benefit of the owner adjoining
to the west on Palace Avenue. The site plan avoids use of the east half of the
• vacated alley extending north from Juliet Avenue. If it weren't for the need of
this lot azea for unit count purposes, it would be possible to grant the owner to
the West on Palace the permanent use and enjoyment of this strip of land.
e. This structure will conform to the 30-foot maximum building height, aithough
doing so necessitates the retaining walls east of the south building site. The lot
coverage proposed, at 16%, is considerably less than the 30% permissible for the
main structures. There are no accessory buildings proposed. Setbacks aze easily
maintained. Each unit has four pazking places, two in each attached garage and
two spaces in front of each garage.
f. The "surrounding neighborhood" is a mixture of many design styles. T'he design
proposed is comparible with a great number of existing structures in the
Macalester/Groveland neighborhood.
g. Every effort has been made to mini*++;,a aiteration of the nahuai features and
topography of the site.
h. Supporting documentation, including site plan, landscape plan, and elevations aze
attached.
�
ZON1�G FILE ��°--�- �
32
, En
----- � � i �
,
i �� ; � ,,; ��
----- -� .s� oz� � '� � F'
.,.._=i . < <s' . . ' "_'_ j . � :r '
..�.�._ � :� .
------- —,�; � , � �
�-- � I
p — - -- -- -, o : J � , ,
s �3� ; , _����€;s��t
— ,; � � _----- e $� `g4� �.
� 'rpi� � ' �B� gp �» ��
e
{ h Y = l • l'a � ie }
�` � _ ,`, °? � s'-f � ° I�"E $ e @` �
�
i
r ._>
�
t� �
�
� � i � F
] r �€�
` � _ �.,.
�, i i�::
_ I
� I
I.
i�
( �� ^ �£!
-�
i i ' �
— � _ ;
_ , €;
� `� ' °==�
I -_. F
� I' ��3
, i! � s 3
i .'
: . k
ti ` s
__ _ ' ` __— [ a
/
/
/ .
� ,Y: �.. � �
;' — — -- 8 - �
f� �
E �
`J 1 �.
e Y
' x f
� �.
� ----------
;€ '
� /
F �'
.C— _ — —'_. — __
G —_
`' F !
P iF. •
8 "�: .
f •
;,-- F� ---,
.
; /:
t i---
: a_ ,...--..
.'_ �_3
� !;c
I: ��
k _. �
�
_��� . = 0 �
� ��\ (
�
�
� � 1
S '
�
�i
� ��
� : ��i
�V
�� f
o a �I
,
�a
�
W �
:1
�
�
� ��
/
�
�'
/
%
i
/
/
,
i
J
�
������� ���E °��°sc5 �
LU/QTG➢E PLN
,qnx xp.rz
.«.....e :�i.: _no
HEDLUND
: �..`�n.c .`-.n
.�« mz .�-':r
�
•
•
�
�
�t`1- ls�
� � � i
• -----� 1 �{ ' ----- I g; i
I � I
�� _ i i
-- �„_�Er - o. � ------� -`�� °��s —.—•—�—�—
ob_tc' -„E-
— _---_ _ _—_---_ --___ Y.`; ----,__
�—_ . ____ —_, —Y � -y p . _ } � y � ' �% i
t ? '�a � ' • p�j _ - '
'�� � <� - i ' � r � 5 1 -i a � "-
_ L — _ f ; _"'`.,�r i � ,, t
— g 9' . _ _ `�, [ (5 . S
. � -�� j�:= i
. �, � 6 / . : t
" ` a� %" ``
� d _ F�,' .
I ' � � � � .�/ �������� '
8 — �
•
•
i � � � �
£p — 5 '.l�i — �
I �} � 1 p �� F �it . <' s
, ,i ./^� '. .
— ---- - :� ., ! � E �s.
— - — -- -- � , ' — — - T � ' � E ° ,
----- ?' ---"— � '��-=
-c . k . �a - .,.-J`.
/ " . :. '�� � i
- E3 ' ;- � r
P �
I � / –� t � ` r•,g ��� L ,
� L � , � ,-J ; ' '' ",,�-,.; �^, ` _;
I �. �' , _ � ���.i �� �F � �, i Ei,'_
I d' 3% € t u ea`2
� � i i \ h � �i ` gJ' F ¢� .
� t � i z .' E
� i�g ;' .�"^,,:
� ' i a l � `f�` � � ��� �
� t r
F j
` { _ yT�. € � � . k `
_ oa — I i — _ _ _ _ _ _ i, � _/� :� - . �: .i
.� --_ 1__ _. �e� i_ —"_ j 1f e Y Y- ��.�
. A'1E. f i o � I _ � / �!— Y—£ --I � �
rr' i: � x I =}I . _. _. � i� \\r.�� , i . ,
�'y - � e I .
------- -----� --------,— � —,I
I i '; !
i °. � �,� s
t
=a €e�°
N� ' f I � E° Qz P �? �
x � y
11 ° `� �g��
s€: s
'€i�?�
�^ e �S�s;€
– I 9 '�M�
_ 1� � � '
E
u a
N
O S
`S ��������Y �Y�ta�. �� �
' i'PR[L(Y/.V�HY GA�DIS6 � L'SILIJY iGS ���•��� — " • �--��" - �— �
. ai � f : ; �._.s a.� .�.,_ - - - - � �`trEnlunro ,�, ..:_. _ .....: z:.. _ _---:_ ,
,
�, ,
: ._...�...__ ._... .. .. � _
, . . :.�_ , - --
:� � ......__ - - _ =__-
� ---- — — - -
O�'/)7G3fi�
/
%
i
/
�
/
�
^
F �
i�
- :.«:`;��
t�id ANLVihqlYd
e�F • `
_ - �
�g��__l• (i p
e <
�.s:7�a�s': r
: n
s .�zf`-S.1 m P o
$�itt3�i� °
�ji:�� � ��,
?`E'' c _
SFL'sii_{Y N �
�ii€���Fi;� � o
�.ikl:fgf ° m �n
.} }�L'��`� o
' .s }si��� ^ �
:3E.1 t.
'jf ;;..��. p �
i>e$. ?:� y �
=S�fij�_ f• <
a tiS
"SE�'s3'.:.'.:: �
�--- - -�----------
� - ` I- °3 '3,4V 3�V�Vd
Y
� — —c=---
, �--_'
/
/
� ([
�
1
...__ _"— _— �{
� `__'—_— _—
� .
� ' _�
i .
� .
/
/
i--: ` I I
.� '' �. � i
< ' I
_ e � _ �
i
` � -- t..� — -- -- ,f ,' a>
. ,� E�
: w.. a
� ta { 3 �._>/ i I
•� 3 ' --' �{ ' j� ���
� / ��
�
b� t �
�— _ _ _
{ �
/ %E...
. . /� � ( e �g
�
_ �i e
8 -<..a�a/A � �� 4
S / � _ .. � _. � �
i i � __� _
^ 1
� � S "' !
• � e
ti " � ��
f
����r'�� ���:� ��
�
�
o .so.�..�
a_ i
io '�/�: l.jll(li _—
� `—,_--
L___,—
35
•
•
�
� !-0 ��o
•
•
•
c
0
m
>
m
W
`m
d
¢
Z0�6�i� ��� � q7�os� I
��
"" J
� -
� j
♦ �.,
v
�
^ 'L
i
C ^
^ v
� �
� �
�
Ci J
�
� �
N �
r
��
u
rn
C
.�
1
o � V
�� �
� T
V � I M �
y C O �
� �c Y o o N
0
�— — —
• 4
L � �
_
�
a
d�
>o
d�
��
L M
Q1 fD
C
a
�
C J
� F
a �o LL
jOr
d��
�o
� m N
' �O
A
� �
c(� - �5�
/
Macalester-Groveland
Community Council
320 South Griggs Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota SS10S-2800
Telephone: (612) 698-7973
Fa�c� (612) 69S-4�i65
Apri! 10. t997
Litto� Fieid, Chair
Zoning Committee
Saint Pa�d Planning Commission
110Q Ciry Hall Pnnex
Sairtt Paul, MN 55t02
Dear Mr. Fieid,
RECEIVED
APR i l 1997
ZON(NG
The Macalester-Groveland Community Council does not support the appiicffiion by John Kratz for a Special
Condition Use Permft to allow the dustering of eight townhomes on the 1�5E blutf between JWiet and
Patace.
We betieve that Mr.Kretz' proposed deveiopmeM dces not meet the c�ndkions necessary for a duster
devetopment.
r The parcel dces not have 80 feet oF frontage on an improved street.
* The proposed development dces not conform to the setback requiremeMS of the R-4
district. The rear side of the building is not set back 25 feet from the property line.
t The proposed deveiopmeru does not confortn to the requiremeM that alteretion of the
natural topography be minimized. 12 feet of fili is a significaM alteration.
+ The bu7ding mass (iwo buDdings each 96' by 36'), height (3 stories), and buAding
orientation (dominance of garages on front tacade) are not simlar to or compatiWe with the
surrounding neighborhood. The project would Wxk air and tigtrt from atijaceM homes,
detracting from the r�sonade en)oymera of the neighbors' property
We also believe that this matter should not be acted on by the P(anning Commission urrt� the parcel is
assembied. Mr. Kratz' PraWsal is dased on the parcei being 40.000 s4uare feet We request tF�at the
Pianntng Commission table the matter unL'i the City Cour� acts on the application for the vacation of
Palace and ur�til ownership of the vacated aliey on the �st side of the parcel has been determined.
Thank you for your consideraCwn of our posftion on this matter.
Sincerely.
C..�.t,E"�-Q Gt�,ZJ c�" `c.��n.lS7s��
Kstherine Tamowski
Commut�r Organizer
��
�
•
39
C�
Saint Paul Zoning Committee
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
RECEIVED
APR 0 9 �997
ZONfNG
�� -�s �
Apri18, 1997
Zoning Committee:
Shis letter is in regard to the proposed construction of S townhomes on the I-35E bluf£
t�etween Juliet and Palace (Zoning File Number 97-050 - John Kratz Cluster
Development). I live on the corner of I,exington and Palace, just west of the proposed
site.
I am astounded that anyone would wish to build on such an inappropriate site and I
find it difficult to believe that any construction in this constricted area could be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. T'he fact that it would currently be
iliegal for this development to be constructed underscores the inadvisability of the
project. I see no good reason to grant a special use pennit. The reason the zoning
laws exist are to prevent inappropriate pro}ects such as t4us.
• Sincere]y, .
` �i /:'�>�ri� �f ,C�t/`�.i�
M. Scott Spencer�
4I5 Lexington Parkway South.
Saint Paul, MN 55105
•
ZO�I�� ���.� q��o5c� �
.�
R�11+ 3NNns
11:28:76 41&87
���
•
1073 Jaznes Avenue
St. Paul, h� 55103
St. Pau] Zocting Comcnittee
25 W'est Fourth Street
St. Paul, IvL� 551t12
Re: Zouing File Number 97-650
Zoning File Name: Jolui Kratz Clustcr Developcncnt
Zoning Committee:
I6 April, 1997
RECEIVED
APR I 7 1997
ZONING
We are sending this letter in 2ieu of being able ta attend the April 17 hearing conceming the
building of townhomes an the I35L bl� bctween 7ulict and Palace Avenues.
We strongly urge you to not grant a�eciat-use permit fnr this groject. Since nw �erty lies
within 35U feet of the proposed project we k�ave a right to voice our opinion. Below aze the
highlighu of our azgumenu against the pmposal.
Dminage and Rimoff
Our property (and others) lies south and belo�c� the proposed site. A substantial sufface area will be
covered aith conaete. Aow careful of a stud}� lias been dene to insure ihat those of ns " dOR'R
ssWam" from the site won'i hat�e problems with escess water? On the face of it it seems that
every•one is assuming ttiat the runoff will onl} affect ihe DOT land between the site and I35E.
�st ��est Oriemation
Consider the area bounded by Randolph ?,��enue on the south and 7efferson Avenue on the north.
At! homes e�cepi those on major streeu run alon� an east-west line. Oniy homes on Le�iugton
aad Edgecombe A�enues in this �icurit5 run along a north-south line. For homes on the top of the
bfuff east of Losington Avcnue, that cast-��est oricntation is cvcn more imporfant bc-,anse it
presv�ves the sight linCS looking rasl. And for tt�al rcascm over all of thcse yems tLal easl-wesl
cxientation has heen honored. That is, unril Mr. Krat�'s proposai was intrnduced.
ComQatibilirv
Don't misundcrstand us. \i'c support urbaa heusing dct�clopmcnt. But why can't ;vlr. Kra� build a
site that fits urto the existuig structural configivation and landscapc. Why can't ho build in azi
east-west orientation? Why does he need 12 feet of fill if indeed lris plan confonns to the
topo�aphg of the area? Perhaps a smaller complex would be more appro�xiate since then it would
fit mare easily into the em�irons of the azea. (Refer to the Teatec's recent buiidin@ on Palace).
Frankly we tttink tlus little cocridor of homas bounded b} tha area outlined ab�e shoulders more
than iu share of urban difficulties. II is carved out on one side by an inteistate trighway, and on
the other by one of the busiest interseetion in all of St Paul {Randolph and Lexington). Thebluff
that exists east of those homes is our oasis amongst these urban realities of lite.
Piease strongly consider thc vie�vs of us that will have to live with your decision for a long time.
Tfiank yau.
Iim Steveas
Ruth Stcvcns
C J
r 1
LJ
�
RECEIVED
�
•
APR 1 7 1997
ZONING
APRIL 17, 1997
TO: ZONING COMMITTEE OF THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JUDGE RON HACHEY, 1080 PALACE
MARY & LOU PfLNEY, 412 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
CHERYL & DENNIS MAHALLA, 420 S. LEXfNGTON
LAVERNE GIEFER, 392 S. LEXtNGTON PKWY.
'JOHN FOX & KAREN TENTER, 1083 PALACE AVENUE
JEANETTE & WAYNE WERMAGER, 1065 JULIEf AVENUE
KATE SCHULTZ, 398 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
TED TUDISCO, 388 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
IRV RUBBELKE, 380 S. LEXii3GTON PKWY.
DICK SORENSEN, 408 S. LEX{NGTON PKWY
JEAN MCMAHON & BOB DECK, 416 SO. LEXINGTON PKWY.
CATHY & AL EDWALI., 422 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
. DEB CAPRON, 435 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
PAULINE & JAIiAES HANSON, 371 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
RE: PUSLIC TESTIMONY REGARDING PROPOSED JOHN KRATZ CLUSTER
DEVELOPMCNT, ZONING FILE NO 97-050
a �-�s�
We ask the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to disapprove
a Speciai Condition Use Permit (SCUP) and frontage modification to allow this ciuster
development with eight aweiling units because the proposal does not meet eleven of
the thirteen requisites of relevant zoning codes and planning goafs.
Here are the facts to support a denial of the SCUP and frontage modification as it
pertains to Section 60.413 (13):
c.The parcei does� not meet the lot area required per unit in the zoning
district.
The required_ parcel is less than 40,000 sq. ft. because
1) John Kratz's parcei does not include, as he claims, the east side of the south-half of
the vacated north-south aliey way. This property is owned by Karen Tenter (Mr. Kratz
ctaims to own the land, but this is ciearly disputed by Karen Tenter.) and
• 2) the vacation of the Palace property — 2,786.85 sq. tt-- will not be approved
because Mr. Kratz's petition dces not foltow the Cftizen's, Guidelines for due prxess
as pubiished by the City, see sec. 1.8.4. The DOT must remain neutral !o aii parties
and Judge Ron Hachey is opposed to the vacation. There is not a majority of owners
�2
n
u
upon which to actuate and, therefore, Mr. Kratz's petition should be denied.
d. The-parcel does not have a minimum of eighty (80) feet on an
improved street. � ,
i) The code�does not permit the addition of tootage °!N° the street .
2) The code does not provide that the 80 feet can be divided and
3) it does not permit approval on a platted (rather than improved) street.
A modification to allow a 3-way digression from the stated code cannot be approved.
Such a modification which would allow two, righf-angle entrances wiih less ihan 73
linear feet on to a narrow, 20-it, fire-lane as the sole access to the eight
dwelling unit complex.. Enforcing the no-parking requirement would be impossibie.
Such a modification which wouid
1} harm purchasers of units in Mr. Kratz's devetopment and
2) endanger.our genera) welfare as we immediately adjoin the development. '•
This modification, or any other, that restricts property owners' rights to adequate
coverage of police, fire and rescue emergency vehictes cannot be approved. We are
alarmed that ai! of us -- including Mr. Kratz's purchasers as well as the DOT -- will not
have adequate protection. There is no way an emergency fire truck can turn
aroand with these sub-siandard entrances and minimal alleyway. A futl, out-of-
control fi►e on the hi!! may not be serviced in time by one fire truck trying to run a hose
across four busy lanes of rush hour Vatfic on Lexington from a hydrant on Palace. One
of us is a veteran with 37 years of service with the Saint Paul Fire Department and he
cfearly points out -- too many homes woutd be at risk at once..
e. Structure does not coniorm to the scheduis of regufations for height,
lot coverage, setbacks artd parking.
1) With the absence of the east-side of the southem haif of the North-South alleyway in
the parcel, the side set-back of the south building of four feet is not met on the east
side and
2) The 25-foot set-back is not met on Palace with the absence of the Patace vacation.
!. The desFgn is r+ot compatibie with the surroanding neighborhood.
Mr. Kratz praposes structures that are completely out of piace in the neighbofiood. •
There are no three-story buifdings within the surrounding neighborhood (much less
any with massive dimensions of 96' by 36'). The two proposed buiidings are 200
percent longer and have 50 percent more stories than the neighborhood dweliings
�
r��
� 7 -�,��
�
C�
and, therefore, are not compatible. We, as existing praperty owners, wouid
clearly suffer from a suburban-type townhouse sitting oddly at uneven heights in the
midst of our existing single-family Macalester-Groveland neighborhood.
g. Individuai
and situated
topography.
lots, buildings, street and parking areas are not designed
to minimize atterations of the naturat features and
1) A ve.ry large portion of the base of the proposed south building will require 12 feet
high of fand-fi11 to support ii on a steep slope.. This meaqs that almost all of the
editice's 3,456 sq. tt. will be sitting on foose dirt with three stories of weight on top of it--
hardiy a minimum afteration in topography but rather a giant change in the natural
features leaving us to wonder what would prevent the edifice from slipping into the
Randoiph exit ramp from Interstate 35-E.
2) The natural features of the property which are aliowing the neighbors to share in
suniight, trees, and wildGte will be highiy diminished with the presence of two massive
buildings, creating a substantial loss of reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property.
(One neighbor, even with the city-mandated, 6' retaining wail and lilac bushes, will
now no longer benefit from direct sunlight before noon each day. The naturai features
she sees now would be replaced by her view of eight garage doors and four sets of
trash cans anchoring an editice rising three stories high within a few feet of her tiving
room windows.)
3)The undeveloped portion of Juliet and Palace wili no longer be abie to absorb the
heavy snow from City plows. The neighbors at each end of these streets wili have to
pay unfairfy to have the "end" snow removed.
4) All of the neighbors' home designs have an east-west orientation while the
proposed development's two buiidings destroy the harmony with their outsized
north-sputh orientation, leaving no area for a lawn (Mr. Kratz plans to provide no
traditionai iawn area but rather to pfant wild, highway-side grass, leaving the majority
of the grounds in cflncrete).
h. Application of this ciuster development includes inadequate site plans,
leaving to question landscaping, elevations and other information the
planning commisslon may request.
Plans do not indicate utilities, utility easements or drainage. Plans do not show
driveway connections ta side streets. The fire lane is not indicated on the plan and
hydrarrts are. not indicated. �
ft is unclear 'rf there are assessments coming to us to cover damage to Palace and
• Jutiet nom trucks carrying landtit! and heavy building materiats and from proposed
changes in water,sewage and electricity conduits.
��
C�
3. a. The extent, tocations and intensity of the use will not be in
substarttial comptiance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Pian and any
applicable subarea plans which were approved by it�e City Council. -
Denial of the SCUP fuliy supports ali five goals of the District 14 plan (cluster homes
are not an option as stated in the staff report.)
b.The use does not provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize
traffic conQestion in !he public streeis. �
Six homes facing Lexington on the block of the proposed site have restricted �
frontage parking and no ailey parking. We owners fuily understand that the Jufiet and
Palace parking is free and open to ail citizens on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Increasing the number of dwetling units by 113 percent on a biock that has only three
traffic sides is going, however, to create stress for alt parties wishing for access.
c. The use will be detrimental to the existing character of development id
the immediate neighborhood or endanger the pubiic heaith, safety and
general welfare.
Piease see our position for disapproving a modification oi the 80-foot frontage •
requirement (see page two of this report item d).
e. Use does not conform to the applicable regulations of the district in
which it is 'located.
As evidenced here.
4. Section 64.300� (f)
The project's subsequent owners and all surrounding neighbors are harmed by
creating a parking enforcement probiem on a fire lane that lessens adequate fire and
emergency yehicte protection.
NEIGHBORS RECOMMENDATION:
We respect Mr. Kratr's right to devetop his property, but we are opposed to this
proposed use of his property which does not meet the letter and certainly not the spirit
of the existing code.
We tully expect that the code for R-4 2one and its speciai subseciion tor cluster homes •
will be strictiy enforced, freeing Mr. Kratz to explore single family homes attematives
which would be compatible with the neighborhood.
We are aware of a strong demand for singte family homes on the site and are
i�
��_�s�
• confident that our City's tax base can be further deve{aped without substantial sacrifice
to those of us who are to become the developmenYs new neighbors.
In the past weeks we have done considerable study and discussion with the various
staffs ofiCity departmenis and with �Mr_ Kratz himself on this matter and conciuded that
the evidence clearly shows harm to the general welfare of the community and
destruction o� reasonabie enjoyment of the adjacent property.
We ask for deniai of the SCUP and the modffication.And, finally, we want you to know
we are looking forvvard to a time soon when we can fully welcome our new neighbors--
living happily in singie, famiiy homes that truly fit in our neighborhood.
#################
•
�
�
Q4i13%97 TGE 21:28 FAS 812 6897031 RINROS SNELLING SO f�j001
Name: � �. �C � � u.. l L � Date: _ i 1 � _ � /
� /•J
om any N (Department � InYi ax odes:
I S�• ��--� �O h l�'7 0��1 C ACCess Coun i C�
SpeciallnstrucEion.s: •
/� �s � �, s -�r � b � ��. � �-- ����- .� � �
} hone:
7`��r rc e. �� s ' `� h,-� e� ,fj � YS G
/� � r
�onl�'7 G-�h-idri � �� /-��-9�MVt :,
�-S Gv �-� j �S %rr� �� c c �,
Name: � !.� r� n �, � z�--Y� � i' Phone� � g � �� f �.1 �
FROM �
Cg�npany Name/Departmert: um r o pages,
�� �c r�� h o �Y � � l� �q y— O5o iru�u�n9 coyer paee:
� a�.� �
' kinko•s
j 58 S�Ifing Avenue S., St. Paul, MN 55105
� Phone: (612) 649-9671 • FAX: (612j 69g703t � �� ��
' rnissrore��aero�+aaa�ere�2anours,�d�ys��k apublicfaxservice
�
•
0
�.�} H i �; a:R{
�� ��V r
4
�olera � �*'r �i#xs to i��
'1M St,st,. af Wsma�ott h+i�K � i� t.e aeM �.t et
for � P�'PeNS aUe � ��'�`,��
sn adl�at�t �+►blis wU�7'� � t�aestNl; `�+[ M�!m. *� ��
a �
Anm�� i�t elak l�� � Par1t A�dl.tle�.iMO �a ,ll�
Qe�istionnr ot � ai ssid l�tb� 1ut�rl�E �aA th� �M'�3+�T ��!o
� /�- SY' � � TSC�� � 110��� �t �O �e �.Cr*' X@Qa_; � �;` � r . ., . ,
~� ' ' ":1�'� �� •
ftox �JNrr!'ort, �►
ii� 1'�lO�Gaa�.9! � �'� �a$��i
ssation 161,W►� �Ffie S�at,� ot lfl�nwa�a, 1� �t�I'� L�taeila� .� • a ��� : ,��'•
tor tM dae►a3duration of Un� �+u� �� ���� Ao�lat�s (�D•00) f�
• to t!a l��t� � af ltimt►�wota tor dopos'�t !tt ti� '�ra�t �Si�+� �� �. ��
ra.a... quit a].aira a�s oaa�s �o c. c. ttada. sra�M► +►L�''!!+1`-l�t�li"t!�'' �
ta t2�� trtal Htab�1 dtw�1 ix llr� Co'eM7 of �rY4, 3ta�c'at �lM�M4�a� i�1Nd
s� �ol'la� t
Al� o! t�s te�lonti�K dererib�d �rae;+ . •
�t psrt of f�h� �1+l�1 a'11q �M ba Iab 4� S�E b
�� �,y� g}�� laeic Addi�i�aa to i1N C�� p � w �
� M � � �asaEiaa �ir 1'f�t
A,r�p�� snd tM �d�rd ��h li�r.nf' ih� ��aN-�
t�sab abrtr Lot 9� �� li, ���
tiec�i�d� t,o tia�����i �!'°�` rNantt�%�,:
oti�s� of � "ae�! �lt�`ad�tee��#tr�IN�f' �+�t'j ,
... .< . 9sa: .;r� . ':, ..rr
::. .4? � �.-'° ., ::2': .'•.r`, `•
rYb�0�1 #'A iru� �OuCAf�b� ��I�I'•.•..•. .. y . .
, ,...:<....: • �•,.:.
�10 i1tON� �tlt� � �0••�. � Ty"
�u�tr�A 3i� i'rad ��d� ru3. �t�l
No �ds�s�i�l.n� da^rtaa itt ar7' tar+l ad� riM ata11 M
ov�trrsttd, tlrwd a�' �tit�d se i� sads�t'r!twd��;w' '
�1� �. �
• Plaeid u���i� �� L�t� ot ��i' �. , .
S�i�v. dt�plq�s and dwl.ai= Mlws'ki��et at�ld4l�tY `. � �.
�oMr`t�tt on tih� �rap7h►; tta rstT�� � i; � '! r � '.
asid a� an ani�aso�sU i� !►+�'d
�.eesr� in a►� rora. 4 �
04i15/97 TCiE 11:27 FA% 612 6997031 RINSOS SNELLING SO f� 002
04/15/97 TL'E 11:28 F9$ 612 6997051 %IIVBOS SNELLIrG SO f�003
> 612 689 4671.=` 3! 6
^�E�"t BY�?�'V!DQT L4\U MAtiAGFME�T; 4-14-97 ,12�43P14i ; ,.,. ,
�. _, ;:,, . .�„�
,� r�;�� -.x.; ''` -':�;• .a:•, .�
. ,, _ . • �� � � a�,,'•7 %�+,i;.. • �r,:. . . .
_ � .. �.:: �.,i". : �..t' t ' `.'G»: �''.3.' i ` :J.:j;lni'7 .a�'; 'f'z•.. . .,
, . . �.w�J .. . :.i '•�� . .
�.i...—.w��r .......--'-- - . , iFn � • 's .+ � -
. . ��.�y��'��. A a ��,.:.�
� . . � . � �:. � a� �..I,iL�tn.li�.+,``�i ir , .
. . : , .Y�::;
. , . . . . �•�' " ';I./��'�':L� lt� y�' ' ' : , ' .,. u
. , . ' :A: -:_ v�",ti \ '�i,.�l A�. :
' u �..�a• `i{ ;j'' :G'i ..�{¢�,� �
.� � y • y� �y�J�'.•�,' �.i� a��E �tkk.�` �. ���,¢� .7J'tl' -
. .... , +�7 •Y vky '�
. ' •^_. ^..a ��. '., } �.a�r"':��," t
� ... . .' �.�t1+n:K Y! r .. �� .°'2(!.°'`7�
. :� a .,. . . .. � ��: . .� . ;l: r: .T��.� l ^'� t � biy ' �:. ',ji u T��t.'�r��.'a'M�N�
. �..� � t , , ` �� , T, ` �
,.y .� � 1 " � ' •. �±:� .. . '.�, �
�i� Ilri� , ,. �. � :. ,•?,�,•':�::��'!� .Kl.�r� .`� . �j'
. . .,�• , ...:`!'. v. .. �." •. : . •;.�. ,
. r,. .. '� ,�"c. • 1 . •, .
' .� a :i' .A•R�...�+ r..� '� 0'E , 't �„ ' ��
.. .,. � . i.� '' t.. : � �� ��
:���
�i i� � SfiwR � tiiw .. . .' : � �.. ... i k h•tC'�pia W,•t +��� '
I .x . rti; '�4a 1 �a i''Ro� �
� . a _:.��•., '�.� «,a.`w�.. .,iW�.�:,.��'. . A. `�?'<',e
�a� ots • ' . ;; ; :;, . ,�.,'��;
'� ; rl� y �y,��
. , . • �' ' . ;i . �4.�+�. �;'?
•`!�!j� . . . . � . ... . .. � t � ` � L , ` , . n' �'� r•.."
�� „i ._�
r � S.i :Y.'�'1. . :::.l.r.,��.y �"+�1.,( �,.. � .
. � . . . ': . ' ..�.Y.p:'.;:i[<• s : ..4i2"+A..' ';:_ , . �`��yn
. � ,: r P•,.: 4 �.. 1 , y ��a
, . . � • y_i!`�.`;�: � '14 ,��h'�4?�.^�.'-:.f:.)�� •t" • �2'
. .• x • . 'Sn•�HI�.,�'.. ' S .�r � 1�•�l� �' ' .T�
� � �� y ��c� ��•
r- r o� � : i
' � d , e�' �t?.: 'i��'�.Yi ti'1Lti:S•,ry �..
. . ., , . .. ,i . r � . : : ,. .a° � �>':o � . � . : ' • V;�.
, • . , :. ., . . .. ' .. •.:. tL.���. >'. '. � •
�i # ` t
. .e �� 4 � f � ��.,: 6i+ lY.1.f ��+V�.
y t4 tC�k�i . , .. . . . � . • . , ,�i���a�!/�-d-'G�'(+��.
� "�
.,'. ',
s ;. .; , .
� � . ' ... �::a,. •. .;• - .._
t ' ' ; ' , r;�'' _ ' . �
�, . � <. , '.�• � �'.. .�. �!'ti' . �
{ f�le i � 1'i� ' . .. ' `�t"',
. � �' '
8TA'Y'� � 1QIt�� � . ' . . , - , : .. � , � � .. �.,: . � _ . • .
f�s. • � . , v:�
� �. • .. ��, �.
� • .. - : ' : •• : `'_ ,,.,,. � , . .
.N'.{ •'�: .+
. � . . �V :t.t. y; z :s"' ".��'� �1 .
0!► � � . � �.�. � A :. . � �`:T ' ' a. , . , , ��� • ,
a ��'�7' • ' � ���{, -.�i'M4R'�if� ^ �:".. " _, .:;:
te' �e�sa�e�t't�w' # � �, ��'{����. � ^�t�+►!�?�!t�,+4�=���,a,�d-,1: � . , ;;.; � .
[ y��—_' �• �� �� �� j ( i 1{
� � 1��'�� � � . � �• Ii � •�I�:W.:.�.r'�"��✓..� .' rS
`�11?'i�.. ,J���<
�. y �; �� � 'r: �'.r a'..:
■�,��1A R ���:: •).,:r.1��:�•Nj�'..::/.'
..,�..N�:+ ,. ,�.,.., ,r.,,
,
.
�i+elt . . • . .,,.,. . . ,. • ,:. . .: �;�.
; �.,•
3b'�,.Ik , . , .. -; ., :.,:: �- �:,
� . � . .�,<:. . -
. �:.�i:1 ::: "r , � �� � . .,
, . . . •,�; - ... � ��..: •''.x�•. •`. . ''� :,';.
' . . . ' - • �� �:.` .� ''� �` v; :. ` r , _, T`` J �r ,,
. . , .^,' :i , �-�. ;y�"'���dK�T.'..
. . . ,j,!- , v ' �'t�J �:�� _ v-"�. �:k.
. , s. - �Y::7�.�.�..:�2�!t: �s,n,...+f:, ..
' • . • . . . � . . t, � ".il ���{.� � � ,�' . . .
�y����"�� . .
�p�e�e�d ati t,o reCiattiial►: • • �.., . M .
;. . ;.z::�-' : .z, �..� ; ;
. ,7 _ . � � 1 . � . . . �x�, �_,�;�y atu �)'.',. , ., . . � •
U
�
�
�� /!. r/ !/,._//
. � , Y . i' � ."r5
`' * ,:iy1 A� t' r.' �'q'�T. .I . .a..
� f �_
��.� R:-�.F�.. .. - , _ �.�� � ;P:'. ,`:, ;-�.
, �y.' r: �'f �j'': :'i;;r�.^:�`?'�al.' n r�i r` l ��:.,,, .
� Y: .: i�.'� .:"S :� •'P' e��Cti�:�'��� $^��f ar..,.�:t;1,.::+,. .��.
. . ' ' .i? :;: l' ....� WF.;� :� . .;.: -
.ii : .q+•.r�,�i...'..;,c ;,, ,� / v;+ :. 'T • ^;sy:'�
�� �� . � •�' "i•rm_ � .�. S I"�+ait�.'i��, .i.•".��•. -
�• � .li '" �� 3ni'H.'r'�_ c t- '�� r _
. � ��"'::� ' '.�'� �.• ��� �{ „�j ic .�.
a t�' ��'� 5 {�r..�o iS �.9)l ��{ <�i���[ A)• 1', _
. y: ��� ,� , = ( a ', l.t` �.* � Cq'�r/>•��5����,''(�� i�•+• �.. . . . .
.� . .. . .�.�.1.T�.' .:.�„� �`�
Extended Pa9e
.�* ( � �'.��,�� .
. � .�.5' '`���. 'l� NI�.
rt'i� �,i:,, . •
.i�; ,,,�; .
. ;c ,
�n`""';�: " ;';�'j�:
:f.1 - . � > � R .
��' _ . - �n�: f.
5 .:� .
�. :.. .�:t ' � ' .. i �
T(` . . ,
. ' . 1 �'.�
�
' �_ .����i
�.*, . ' � jy.,i
.Af �`K'..rse.
DS%15:91 T'GE ii 49 F.iY 61f Q9P7Ul1 BINFri9 S1vELLING 90
�� - , -� � ��� -�:�
. ; _�
h � ��
� � :�:-'-� 3_JEFFER � v - • ..
e
� _ - � � ` � � '.s:
k � D
! �� \° sT. �pau ►. � y a � '
/ ��� N � 4
� � `r ' � � , y IY
�t �
�fs;:� 1�i F �t � I�
�OL ' ��MR V � � O
I � !•_.A uY 0
o _s.' -•- r, � �$ _�
/ • -.---'— •. ..
� r . ca�in�� V
e � wS .�',. �" L e'] p p;
# �rj`� ici ,.� �. � n _ . .�. l._-�
! .:� a ;r:�.t �• ;,u ,�uu� . - �, � �* �� .
f i ' r• '�:
°' " � � . l.: ��
,,- ; �
p c T w+ + n' 0!' i•:�'� ,� .: �n
�� ��bN � � � ��" i .� .
�tl w R L � I � .. 1.t � � �
a ��°� ( j " �
s4'�.'_ev.� � � ` ��
� C O� Ny�� , � I �S'��� . `.�_ . l �J
OLYOCC a3 � ' r
... �. o i n e: ' a 'n ti ,
��`'»L `��� j ��+%
s ��e", •� � j�
m�L� y � � j
�s �_� �_
�o�«yN8 y s PALACE ,:3
^ w�.b w �
00��0 r-�—
�€ Y��� R � °_— ' , # V..r � �Of�
�"d�� �:.:�•„� �, n �
i' � °,". `"' �t a^ C: Vi a�M.;� i�ti ffi77� " _-
�� � C � �... �4�` ' Cj`
�� T9� D^ ♦ ( 'y
Y � • .
� i O V Z � . ._ ' } �`.
y ... c J �
��9�,���v � C �:�7_ ....... ' , UO� •.
I l t °
� x �� � ``'� ` �,��� 1 :` •. J���
�J �
� J��1�� -� ,•-�.o
\ �� � � r .l .�_ _ I � - - ._._�� _
�, JAlAES _ � � l t•> ' i
� _` I �
t 1_..lL� �; �, 1 ; �
• '�'N 1 g �, �'' ° C�'t� • ;� �\� i �n "I �J,ra, � ',�/f
��7c c u>a ��d�ft:cn�x_ �
_ - ��3• cc. +�o .� aw+a
I !-�'
p d �
J
�� U. .!
���
� �r71.
__ �� {
.l`y�
_
t
pVE. ---..
s
e — ; m � !
f�;_ t � ' f �a ° �
. :�
.Y+
' A�' E:;� :
� .' � }� �:
if�
b
!
v �
t. � a
1
C �
�
•
Si
°l� -�'�ra
1. SUNRAY•BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD
2. HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HII.LCREST
3. WEST SIDE
4. DAYTON'S BLUFF
5. PAYNE-PHAI.EN
6. NORTH END
7. THOMAS-DALE
8. SUMMTT-UNTVERSITY
9. WEST SEVENTH
10. COMO
I1. HAMLINE-MIDWAY
12. ST. ANTHONY PARK
N HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE
14. MACALESTER GROVELAN)�
15. HIGHIAP25'
16. SUMMTT HII-L d
• 17. DOWNTOWN 1 • 1p
ZONING FILE 9
�Z
CITTZEN PARTICIPATTON PLANNING AISTRICIS
�
9�•�t8
zo���� ���.� 9�j
53
•
•
� -:; � p ���1
.,'•���=��1.�► . �
� � i
• `\ �"
� . ,�
\
� ���
52 � � �
�"
� � -¢ � O
- - y=- =--`�- -
-- ' - .'- "- - ----� r ' -
�i0�0�00 '0000�00 ip � �
LII�,.i.�Lli�_l_� o. o
1111i��l�i�i1� -=°��-" � -
�I¢I i i°I >- �' o
JULIET'" !
�
v� �
� J �, '
� `�_ � `/ V
�._.- ..�"`:=;.�-.�.�
�\-��. _. ._ . -
��.. - L
�---- F
v � � L
� o ��
> o q r
L
0 0� [
�:
APPLiCANT ���� � IEGEND
PURPOSE �J�� �� zoning district boundary
�E # 1' 6Sv 9�'��� �j -'L� �1 �_ � subject property n��rthi
PLNG. DIST� MAP ri �� o one family ••^ commerciat
� � Mtofamily ♦ �� i�dustriai
SCALE 1" = 400' �
�. _ A-� Q multiple tamily V vacant
�
q �� � o o :
O , f
V � _ �_ - .!
� ���`
� �
��
Council File # �— D S �
Green Sheet # 35 bb�t
�_
Q�E����
crrv,
RESOLUTION
PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented sy
Referred To
Committee: Date
1 WHEREAS, 7ohn Kratz, applied for a Special Condition Use Permit under the
2 provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code Sections 6Q.413(13) and 64300(d), to allow a cluster
3 development with eight (8) single family dwellings, on property located at XXX Juliet Avenue
4 (East of I.exington Parkway between Juliet & Palace) legally described as:
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
That part of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 19, Ridgewood Pazk Addition to
the City of St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with the easterly and
southeasterly half of the North - South alley in said Block 19, vacated, lying
between the southerly line of said Lot 6 extended west across said alley and the
northerly line of said Lot 1 extended west across said alley; all of which lies
west of a line drawn from the northwest corner of said I,ot 1 to a point on the
south line of said Lot 6 distant 117.41 feet easterly of the southwest comer of
said I,ot 6 togther with the northerly half of Palace Avenue, to be vacated, lying
easterly of a line drawn south at right angles to the south line of said Lot 6 from
a point on said south line distant 32.5 feet east of the southwest corner of said
Lot 6 and lying westerly of a line, and its extension southerly, drawn from the
northwest corner of said Lot 1 to a point on the south line of said Lot 6 distant
117.41 feet easterly of the southwest corner of said Lot 6; and
Lots 17 and 18, Block 19, Ridgewood Park Addifion to the City of St. Paul,
Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with the northerly half of the East - West
alley in said Block 19, vacated, lying between the westerly line of said Lot 17
extended south across said alley and the southeasterly line of said Lot 18
extended southwesterly across said alley; and together with the northwesterly
half of the North - South alley in said Block 19, vacated, lying between the
centerline of said East - West alley extended east across said North - South alley
and the northerly line of said L,ot 18 extended east across said alley; and
together with the southerly half of adjoining Juliet Avenue, vacated, lying
between the east line of said I,ot 17 extended north across said 3uliet Avenue
and the west right of way line of Interstate Highway No. 35E.
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the applicauon at which all persons present were given
an opportunity to be heard pursuant to the requirements of Saint Paul I,egislative Code Section
64300; and
2
0
6
7
8
9
LQ
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based upon the evidence presented at
the public hearing to its Zoning Committee, as substantially reflected in the minutes which
shall be incorporated herein by reference, made Findings of Fact as set forth in Planning �� ^$ �
Commission Resolution No. 97-22, which is incorporated herein by reference, wherein the
Saint Paul Plancring Commission, under authority of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, denied
the application for a Special Condiuon Use Permit for the above described properry; and
R'HEREAS, on May 9, 1997, the applicant, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code
Section 64.206, filed an appeal of the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission alleging
that the four deficiencies found by the Planniug Commission were factually in error. Said
appeal is incorporated herein by reference and shall become a part of ttris resolution; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Sections 64.206 through
64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the
Council of the City of Saint Paul on June 4, 1997, where all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, having heard the statements made at the public hearing and having
considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolutions of the
Planniug Commission and its Zoning Committee, the Council of the City of Saint Paul, does
hereby
RESOLVE, that there was no enor as to fact, finding, or procedure on the part of the
Planning Commission and its Zoning Committee and aff"ums the decision of the Saint Paul
Plauning Commission in this matter for the reasons contained in Planuing Commission
Resolution No. 97-22, findings 1(c) through 1(fl which aze specifically adopted as the
Council's as follows :
The proposed development does not meet four of the required conditions for a
cluster development under Section 60.413(13) of the Saint Paul Zoning Code.
The conditions which are not met are as follows:
c. The parcel shall meet the lot area required per unit in the Zoning District.
This condition can be met. The lot azea, provided a portion of Palace Avenue is
vacated, is 40,586 square feet. This allows eight dwelling units (5,000 square
feet of lot area is required for each unit). The street vacation would contribute
2,786.85 square feet to the development pazcel. The street vacation was
uritiated in March and is expected to take about four months.
d. The parcel shall have a minunum frontage of eighty (80) feet on an improved
street.
This condition is not met. The property has frontage on two streets: 73 feet on
Juliet Avenue and 40 feet on Palace Avenue. If a portion of Palace Avenue is
vacated, there will be 73 feet of frontage at that location as well.
e. The shucture shall conform to the schedule of regulations for height, lot
coverage, setbacks and parking.
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
This condition is not met. As proposed, the cluster development does not meet
the required 25 foot rear setback requirement from the eastem property line.
The plans submitted show the setback at this location to be only 12 feet. �A fl ��S �°
..
f. The design shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
This condirion is not met. As proposed, the development is three stories in
height and each of the buildings contains four units. This height and density is
substantially greater than existing development in the neighborhood and is
therefore incompatible with the surrounding neighbarhood.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of John Kratz is in all things
denied.
AND BE IT FINALLY RFSOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this
resolution to John Kratz, the Zoning Adnunistrator, and the Saint Paul Planning Commission.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Adopted by Council: Date`�\}���� l\�
Adoption Certified by Counci Secr ary
By:
Approved by�M e � l /
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
B ���/l../�,� �-3�-57
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
�1, rl, — 8'S 6
oE C'ry E Council0ffices June 1997 GREEN SHEE N°_ _35659
CONTACf PER N& PHONE MRIAVDATE MITIAVOATE
��EPAflTMENTDIRE OCfiYCOUNCIL
ASSIGN � CITY ATTOANEY O CIIY CLERK
MU5T BE ON CpUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) NUYBER GOR ❑ BUDGET DIRECTOR O FIN. & MCaT. SERVICES Dlfl.
ROUTING
OflOEq � MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT) �
TOTAL # OF SI6NATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
�F p inal�izing ��ity CouncIl action taken on 7une 4,1997, denying ffie appeal of 7ohn Kratz to a decision of the Saint
Paul Planning Commission pertaining to a cluster development on properry located at �Y Juliet Avenue (east
of Le�ngton Pazkway between 7uliet & Palace).
RECOMMENDA7lONS: App�ove (A) or Reject (R) pERSONAL SERYICE CONTHACTS NUST ANSW ER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_ PLANNMCa COMMISSION _ CIVIL SEflVICE COMMISSION �� Has this person/firtn ever worketl untler a contract for t�is department? -
_ CIB COMMITTEE _ YES NO
_ STAFF _ 2. Has this persoNfirm ever begn a city employee?
YES NO
_ DISTRICT CAURT _ 3. Does this persoNfirm posses5 a skill ppt normal Y c.ity ploye¢?
ty pussessetl by an current am
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE4 YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet antl attech to g�esn sheet
INRIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE.OPPOfiTUNITV (Who. NTat. When, Where, W�y):
ADVANTACaE51FAPPROVED: �
DISADVANTAGES IFAPPflOVED:
�Lli?C� ... ��t
���$ a� � ����
���.. �._,...�__��:�- ��
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVEO:
TOTAL AMOUNT OF THANSAC710N S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDIWG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBEFi
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN)
OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY
PegBir$ CityAttorney
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norne Coleman, Mayor
Civil Division
400 City Hall
IS WesrKel[ogg Blvd
Sain[ Paul, Minnesow 55102
� f ����
Tekphone: 612 266-8770
Facrimik: 6I2 298-5679
June 30, 1997
I�AND DELIVERED
Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Saint Paul City Hall
RE: Appeal of John Kratz from Saint Paul Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-22
Dear Nancy:
Attached please find the original resolution, signed as to form, finalizing the decision of the City
Council in the above entitled matter. 'I`his matter should be placed on the Consent Agenda at
your eazliest cconvenience.
Very tntly yours,
�����
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attomey
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
May 13, 1997
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Aall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
���bS�o
51
Telephone: 6I2-266-6565
Facsimile: 672-228-3374
I would like to co�rm that a public heazing before the CiTy Council is scheduled for Wednesday June 4,
1997 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a specia] condition use
permit:
Appellant: JOHN KRATZ
File Number: #97-050
Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision denying a special condition use permit to
allow cluster development with eight (8) dwelling units.
Address: East of Lexington Parkway between Juliet and Palace
L,egal Description of Property: See Survey in File
Previous Action:
Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial; vote: Unanimous, April 25, 1997
Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 6-Q April 17, 1997
My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the May 21, 1997 CiTy
Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please
call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions.
Sincerel ,
I�� W�
Kad DadIez
Y
City Planner
cc: File #97-050
Mike Kraemer
Donna Sanders
Division ajPlmv�ing
25 West Fourth Street
Sornf Pau[, MN55102
i��u _._ = , _ .,,-
I,.,.E ° � };���;"
NOTICE OF PUBLTC HEARING
TheSaint Paul City Coiatcil will conduct-a pnblic hearing�on Wedn6stlay,
June 4, 1997, in the City Council Chambers, Th'ad Floor C#y Hall-Qour; I;Iou'se,
to consider th"e appeal.of John Kratz to a decision of tiie-Planning Commission
denyidg aspeciai condiGOn use permit to ailow cluster development with eigktt (8)
dweliing'rinits east of Lexington Parkway between Juliet and Palace Avenues.
I7ated:�May14.�1991- -,. � - . . .�
Nz1NCY ANDERSON ' - -� _ , � _
Assistazit City Council Secretary . , _ - - , ,
.. . . , . . .. , lMay 16. 1997) � � .
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNAG
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�� � gS�O
CITY OF 5AINT PAUL
Nvrm Coleman, Mayor
W�
May 21, 1997
Divisiors ofPlanning
25 West Fowth SYreet
SaiuPaul, MN55702
?elephone: 612-26665Q5
Fatsimile: 6I2-228-3374
Ms. Nancy Mderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Zoning File #97-118: JOHN KRATZ
City Council Hearing: June 4, 1997 430 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLJRPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision denying a special condition use permit to allow a
cluster development with eight (8) dwelling units on property located east of Lexington Pazkway
between Juliet and Palace Avenues.
• PLANNING COMMI5SION ACTION: DENIAL Unanimous
ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 6-0
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
�UPPORT: No persons spoke.
OPPOSITION: Seven persons spoke. Three letters were received. The Macalester-Groveland
Community Council voted to oppose the special condition use permit.
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
JOHN KRATZ has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to deny a special
condition use permit to allow a cluster development with eight (8) dwelling units on property located east
of Lexington Parkway between 7uliet and Palace Avenues. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul
Planning Commission held a public heazing on the request on April 17, 1997. The applicant addressed
the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the
permit. The Planning Commission upheid the Zoning Committee's recommendation for denial on a
unanimous vote on Apri125, 1997.
This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on June 4, 1997. Please notify me if any
member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sincerely,
��� Ken Ford
Planning Administrator
Attachments cc: Ciry Council members
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Depa�t»ient of Plnnning nnd Economic Development
Zoniirp Sectio�e
IIOU Cih� Ha!l Annez
25 {t es� Foratlt Street
Sainr Paul, M.'�' S5101
26b-6c89
APPELLANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Zaning oifis u�s n[y
Fiie no. . {' I i I�
Fee �
Teniative heatiitg; � te:
fLQ.
Name To�� x,-at�
Address 1424 Edacumbe Road
Cify st, raul S1z�h Zip 55116 Daytime phone 69o-5s6o
Zoning File Name John icratz ciuster Develooment
Address/Location XXX Juliet Avenue (East of Lexiaqton between
Juliet and Palace)
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the:
= Board of Zoning Appeals uC City Councii
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 206 , Paragraph a of the Zoning Code, to
appeai a decision made by the G Pa �l Al anniny M.}+mi avinn
on April 25 , 19�. File number: a�_��
(date of decis
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative officia(, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or the Pianning Commission.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT
•
•
�
Attach addi!ional sheet if
ApplicanYs
i
Date sia_, � City
��•q � 97
c��1-�s�
• RE: Application for Appeal filed by John Kratz
Zoning File #97-050
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
7
The Planning Commission based its denial of the application for Special Condition Use
Petmit, File No. 97-450, on its findings and conclusions that the applicant failed to meet four of
the eight special conditions required to be met in order to allow this proposed cluster
development as pemritted use in the R-4 space. All fow of the deficiencies found by the Planning
Commission are factually in error, are mutually exclusive, or support only an approval of the
application and are inconsistent with the denial rendered by it. Each of the four findings of the
Planning Commission aze discussed as follows.
c. T6e parcel does meet the lot area required per unit in the wning district.
• Both the Division of Pianning staff and the Planning Commission concluded this condition
can be met if a portion of Palace Avenue is vacated. Since this portion of Palace Avenue has
never been improved and has only recently been returned to City controi (when MNDOT sold to
the applicant, as surplus, the 35-E frontage which is about haIf of the land in this application). No
utilities have ever been installed in this right of way. Nor will it ever be improved, beyond what is
necessary for the entrance to the proposed development since, just beyond the eastem end of the
two proposed entrances, the land in the right-of-way slopes steeply downhill towazd the 35-E
freeway to the east.
Ordinarily, there would be nothing controversial about the proposed street vacation. But
the "neighbors" have expressed an intention to oppose the street vacation as a means to stopping
the proposed cluster developmern entirely. They have carried tlris to the extseme of prevailing
upon their one neighbor on Patace Avenue (who would gain approximately 3,000 feet of land at
no cost to himself ) to oppose the vacation as well. If this neighbor truly does noi want additional
property, then he need not keep it for himseif. FIe can deed it to the proposed develapment
• (subject to a covenant prohibiting any construction upon the land) for complete landscaping and
2
perpetual mainienance of the grounds by the Yownhome owner association. Thus, he would have •
the benefit of landscaped open space, without the "cosP' of ownership or maintenance.
The lot area in this proposat is safficient to permit 8 anits regardless of w6ether or
not Palace Avenue is vacsted.
For density purposes, it doesn't matter whether atI or part ofthe Patace Avenue
right-of-way remains unimproved and is owned and maintained by the City or is vacated and then
landscaped and maintained by a homeowners' association. It will remain open space either way.
Even without the vacated property, the zoning lot size is about 37,800 square feet, or
near}y 95% of the 40,000 square feeY required area for an 8-unit cluster developmeat. Tlris is
more than substantial compliance and is easily within the usual range of actions taken by the
Pianning Commission and Staffto "modify any or all special conditeons, when strict application of
such special coa@itions would unreasonably ]imit or preveat otherwise lawful use of a piece of
property ...," as is contemplated by Sec, b4.300(fl of the Code.
Additional factors weigh in favor of "modifying" this special condition:
1. The site is tucked out of the way, on the very edge of the neighborhood and is
open along iis entire 340-foot eastem side to acres and acres of 35-E pazkway and Ayd NFill Road
open space spreading out below it. The real impact npon the neighbors is unusually small for an
infill developmem, and the backdrop of open space and eacpansive Ciry views to the east removes
any hint of "crowding" by the eight homes proposed.
2. The development must be given "credit" in the lot azea calculation for abutting this
open space and freeway, similar to the way that the area of ono-half the width of an adjoining
alley is included in the "zoning lot area" in certain other distrids.
3. Since each unit has two pazking spaces within tfie building structure, the lot area
figure must be viewed more liberally. A formula comparable to that used in RM mning districts
woutd yietd a 4,800 square foot "crediP' to be added to the actaat 1ot area for unit ooum purposes
(300 sqaaze feet times the 16 tuckunder parking spaces included).
2
C�
C�
3
�1�1-8s�
• The lot area requirement is met by t}ris application. The Planning Commission agreed that
the lot area requirement "can be met " Bs finding does noY support and is inconsistent with its
denial ofthis SCUP.
d. The parcel does meet the requirement of a minimum frontage of eighty (SO) feet
on an improved street,
The Planning Commission concluded that this condition is not met, yet it cites findings
that are only consistent with an approval. The property has fromage of 73 feet "on an improved
street" (Juliet Avenue) and frontage of 40 feet to 73 feet "on an improved street" (Palace Avenue)
which totals well in excess of the required 80 feet. Nothing in the Zoning Code requ'ues that the
frontage be continuous, contiguous, or on the same street. Adding such a requirement to the
plain language of the Code is not warranted and, in fact, runs conuary to the obvious purpose
betrind this requirement: to provide for adequate ingess and egress from the site to the public
• streets. This goal is better served by direct access to two streets than a single access to one
street, even if that access were to be 80 feet wide (which would be prohibited by street
consiruction and traffic concerns anyway).
Furthermore, if this application is heid strictly to a narrow and restrictive interpretation of
the Code provision, the 80-foot requirement can easily be met. A minor revision to the plans,
incoiporating an offset radius, semi-circulaz cul-de-sac design at the end of Juliet Avenue, would
provide approximately 90 feet of frontage, if necessary.
e. The structure does conform to the schedule of regulations for height,
iot coverage, setbacks and parking.
The Planning Commission is plainty wrong in finding that the cluster development must
meet a 25-foot "rear" setback from the eastem property. This is contrary to the determinarion of
the Plamung Division staff, which was made both ai preliminary meetings with them and
confirmed in the StaffRecommendation to the Planniag Commission.
• 3
�
In its cliscussion of specia] condition d. above, the Planning Commission found: "the •
property has frontage on two streecs," which aze parallel to each other. Under the Code,
therefore, the parcel is a"through lot," having two front lot lines (Sec. 6Q212.L.). S'snce a"rear
lot line" is defined as: "the lot Iine opposite the front line," it can only be concluded that a
"through IoY' has no rear lot Iines. Therefore, everything but the two front tot Isnes on this parcel
are "side loY liaes" as ihat term is defined in the Code. '£he setback ret�ired from the side lot line
in this mning district (R-4) is four feet. Tfris setback is exc�eeded by a wide margin in the
proposed site plan.
It is difficult to see what public interest the Planning Commission was seeking to protect in
6nding the eastern 1ot line required a 25-foot rear setback, since the "eastem property" consists
only of acres and acres of MNDOT right-of-way used for the 35-E parkway. The effect of
requiring a 25-foot rear yard on the east side would only be to move the buiidings closer to the
neighbors on the west. This would have a negarive imgact on the developmem, but also and more
importantIy, on the neighborhood as a whole. No one wants that.
Bat even if, by some convoluted reasoniag, the eastetn side of the zoning 2ot is fovnd to •
require a 25-foot rear setback, the development as proposed can still meet all of the conditions set
out by the Code with onty minor revisions to the site plan. For if the eastetn side is the `Year
yard," then, by definition, the westem side is the front lot line. That wouid logically require a
finding that the proposed private drive on the west side is the "streeY' for zoning purposes. Then
it must be concluded that the parcef has `Y'rornage" of approadmately 275 feet on an improved
streeE, thus exceeding the requirement of condition d. discussed previously. The north cluster of
the two buiidings proposed can easity be moved one or two feet west to meet the 25-foot rear
setback requirement. But the Planning Commission is wrong in applying the rear setback in the
case of the south building. The eastem property Iine is not tfie same as the `fear lot iine" as it is
defined by Sec. 60212.L. of the Zoning Code:
" 2) Rear Lot Lina The lot line opposite the front lot line. Ia the case of a lot
pointed at the rear (as here), the rear lot line shall be an imaginary line parallel to the
front lot line, not less than ten (10) feet long, lying farthest from the from liae and
wholly within the lot "
0
�
5
�� - 8s�
• If this Code definition is accurately applied to this proposed site plan, the result is a rear
setback which measures about 50 feet for the south building.
It, therefore, must be found that the proposed shuctures do rnnform to the schedule of
regulations for setbacks. And since no finding to the contrary was made by the Planning
Commission, it must be taken as ganted that the stiuctures conform to the schedule of
regutarions for hei t(30 feet, 3-story buildings aze permitted); lot coveraee (16% actuai
coverage compared with 30% allowable); and pazlang (four (4) spaces per dwelling unit
provided).
f. The design is compatible wit6 the surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Commission's denial of design "compatibility," based on the "height and
density" pf the proposed development, is in error on the facts, both ignores and misapplies Zoning
Code provisions, and is self-contradictory. II will not support a denial of this SCUP application.
The surrounding neighborhood already includes a variety of housing types and uses.
About 400 feet to the north, there is a 3-story lw�ury apartment complex. Across the street from
• that, the Wilder complex contains four-unit townhouse clusters, many of which present 3-story
elevations to the public. A mere 500 feet or so south of the proposed development site, runs a
multi-family district with mazry examples of tall two and three-story residential buildings. The fact
that these three examples may be buiIt in different zoning districts does not weight in favor of the
Planning Commission's denial: it only Qroves that the surrounding neighborhood is aiready one of
mixed housing types and uses.
Even the immediate neighbors show examples of similar height houses. The house
abutting this site on the north has a full thre�story eastem side, just about exactiy as tall as (and
also half as wide as) the proposed townhome buildings. And on the west, a very tall twastory,
situated high on its lot, rises well in excess of 30 feet above its front lot line on Lexington.
The Planning Commission's finding that the proposed development's "density" is too
great will also not withstand scrutiny. Density, in a zoning context such as ttris, can only have one
meaning: i. e., a ratio of the number of dwelling units to the mning lot area. As was discussed
earlier, this R-4 zoning disirict pemrits a density of one home per 5,000 square feet of lot area.
r1
\ J
�
Much of the surrounding azea is buik neariy exactly to that standazd, which results in the typicai •
40' x 125' lot which is found so commonly in this uea and throughout much of the residential
districts of the City.
Beyond the fact that the Planning Commission was wrong in its factual findings regarding
design compatibility, however, it was further in error in using the three cited criteria C.e., 4unit
buildings, 3-story structures, and density) in its design compaU'bility anatysis at all. Each of these
three conditions cited by the Planning Coaunission is specifically addressed by other provisions of
Code Sec. 60.4I3.(13), which permits cluster developments in the R-4 Zone:
1. The Code requ'ves that clusters have a minimum oftwo units and that they
be attached, common wall, single-family (pazagraphs a and b.). If two units aze
the minimum pernrissibie, four units cannot exceed the ma�mum, absent language
specifying clusters of only `Ywo or threE units." No such limii is contained in
the Code.
2. The three-story height of this development is specifically aathorized by
Sec. 60.413.(13xe), which sub}ects the cluster structures to the same schedule •
of regulations controlling height, lot caverage, setbacks and pazking that pertain
throughout the zoning district. This is the usual way the size of a building, on a
specific lot, is comrolled by the Zoning Code. Furthermore, three-story or
30.foot tall structures are permitted in every residemial district throughout the
City, and it is the smallest maY;m,,,,, height permitted in any mne. Only very
specific language in the Code can override this general presumption in favor of the
permissibility of three-story or 30-foot tall buildings. Had the City Council urtended
to limit cluster developments to some shorter maximum height, or some "average
neighborhood height," it would have had to say so, rather than specifically re-
stating the same ma�mum height applicable to the zoning district.
3. Just as whh "height" above, the specific Code provision regarding density
must take precedence over a general finding that the developmem is too dense. 'Fhe
Planning Commission previously deternuned that the density requiremern "can be
met" (see the discussion of finding c, above). It cannoi now impose a more •
F
7
��l-�ls�
• stringent standard under the general guise of "design compatibility." The Planning
Commission must be held to the task of approving cluster development, if the
specific perfonnance standazds aze met and not be allowed to re-examine the
appropriateness of clusters in general with each applicarion. Otherwise, as in this
case, the very elements wtuch make a development a"cluster" could always be
used to disallow that development, as being "incompau'ble" in the single-faznily
zones. But it is clear that cluster developments, subject to certain specific con-
ditions, are a"principai use permitted" in an R-4 zone. Sec. 60.413.(13).
What, then, does "design ... compatible with the surrounding neighborhood" mean?
Since seven of the eight special conditions required for the cluster development deal with some
individual element of "design" of the development, it only makes sense to interpret "design" in
condition f. to mean something other than what is specifically addressed in the other conditions.
In this case, design must refer to the architectural style (and materials) of the structures. This
meaning of "design" might allow the denial of a cluster development of a braslily post-modern
• style (or a perfect cube building with bright stainless steel skin) in an all Georgian colonial
neighborhood, for one eacamgle, or geodesic domes among the Victorians for another. But
nothing about the design actually proposed, a Prairie-style adaptation, using lots of brick and
wood siding or stucco, provide a basis for denying this SCUP application.
The immediate neighbors to the development are an eclectic goup of houses, having no
unifying design or style. The houses range from a California contemporary style of the 50's, to
"modem" and Colonial adaptations from the 30's and 40's, and include eacamples of the "builder"
genre of the 60's and 90's. So virtually anything would be compatible with at least some of the
neighbors. Additionally, the proposed design incorporates many design elemerrts which can be
found on a great number of existing shuctures in the surrounding Macalester-Groveland
neighborhood.
• �
i
� ��
The deniat of this Special Condition Use Permit is contrary to public policy.
All levels of local govemment have recognized the need to adapt housing policy to better
serve the changing needs of our popu[ation and to heip stem the flow of urban dwelters who go to
the suburbs in search of the modem housing alternatives the cities are lacldng.
The District 14 Macalester-Groveland Plan recognizes as goals and objectives of its
housing plan the need "to meet the diverse housing needs of its residems" and "to provide a
variety of housing types wittun the district (apartments, condominiums, cooperarives), while
retaining the single-family character and residential quality of the distric�t."
The City of Saint Paul's Land Use Plan acknowledges that ". .. in most neighborhoods,
the construction of a certain amount of new housing at somewhat Irigher densities would not be
out of keeping with the area. Certain types of moderaYe density housing, like townhouses, can
contribute to neighborhood aesthetics and stability, by adding to the visual quality and attracting
reinvestment that otherwise might not occur." It is the City's policy to encowage such new
•
devetopment on scattered vacant sites in e�risting neighborhoods. •
While the focus of the City's housing policy was somewhat shifted with the adoption of
the "Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 90's," the suitabHity of, and the City's support for, infill
townhome development is stronger than ever. Objective 14 notes that demographic, social and
econornie trends have created many differeat kousehold groups "that may beae&t substamially
from new forms of housing designed to meet particulu needs." (p. 28) While the opportunities
for new construction are not lazge,
". .. the inIIuence of new consriuction, however, will be greater than the number
of units might suggest because of the strong visual impact that such investment
can fiave on a neighborhood.
New housing construction ... is an apportunity to affect directly the suitability
of the housing supply to various segments of the market. Therefore, it is the
City's objective through the following poficies to:
Support changes in t6e hoasing sapplp t6at represent
clear market opportunity and that meet new household
rteeds effectively." (p. 29)
E3
C J
�
ol� -�S�
• In "Policy 54. Market-Rate Development Opportunities," new housing developments are
found to be
`timportant for what they can contribute to 1) balance in the City's housing
supply with new oprions for underserved market segments; 2) new im�estmeni
... where land is underused ... and 3) increase in the taz base .... Therefore,"
the City commits itselfto:
"support development ... opportunities that exist with lot size, setback and
other land use regulations appropriate to higher-cost market potential and
provide the services that will support such development." (p. 29)
The City even supports housing subsidies for
"c. Housing that complements e�risting supply by addressing unmet needs:
-- higher cost houses that meet trade-up market e�cpectations
and create more oppommiues for growing fatnilies to remain
in the City;' (p. 29)
The proposed eight-unit cluster development meets these City objectives and polieies dead
• on. These are higher cost, move-up market, owner-occupied, saphisticated single-family
townhomes to be built on an underutilized parcel of freeway frontags that has lost its value as a
site for traditional, detached single-family homes because of the traffic noise from the &eeway.
The townhomes will provide a buffer between the freeway and the houses to the west. The site
retains a commanding view of the City, including the Capitoi, dowrnown, and the river bluffs. It
will appeal strongty to households of urban owners who do not wam, or no longer want, the
responsibilities of exterior home maintenance. Suburban and urban markets both are currently
seeing unprecedented growth in the demand for this type of housing and no small part of this
demand in the suburbs is due to the shortage of supply of these units, offering modern, upscale
amenities, in the cities. Several small infill developments such as this have been approved in the
City of Saim Paul in recent months. No one can doubt the City's commitment to encouraging
new housing options, especially in view of ihe recem decisions regarding the River Bluff project,
which was approved at some cost to other City policy priorities and requires a substantial public
expenditure for the development of marketable sites.
• 4
�
This proposed cluster development requires no such public financiat support yet it will •
undoubtedly contribute to the health and vitality of the City by providing new housing options for
underserved market segments, by adding new investment where land is underutitized, and by
increasing the tax base. Denying this new development, and foregoing the Lai�es and fees
associated with it, would amount to a subsidy to the neighbors to preserve tlris land as their
"private park" at the eacpense of all Saint Pau] taxpayers.
The cluster townhomes are a principal use pemvtted in the existing R-4 zoning district,
subject to special condirions, all of which aze met by this proposal or can be met with only minor
and routine modification of the conditions to account for the unique features of the site. The
Planning Division staff, who are the professional highly traiaed evaluators ofthe techeical merits
of development projects and implementers of the City policy, had no uouble whatsoever in
recommending that this SCUP be approved.
It is, therefore, respectfutly requested that the City Council find that this application meets
all the special conditions required hy Sec. 60.413.(13) as modiSed, if necessary; that the decision
of the Planning Commission be reversed, and that the Special Condirion Use Permit be approved, �
subject to the requirement of a wood privacy €ence as contained in StaffRecommendation 2.
IU
•
N
�>
• city of saint paul
pianning commission resolution
fiie number 97-22
�te April 25, 1�97
�'1- $S6
VJHEREAS, JOHN KRATZ, file # 97-050, has applied for a Special Condition Use Permit under
the provisions of Section 60.413(13) and 64.300(d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to allow a
cluster development with eight (8) single family d��+elling units, on property located at XXX
NLIET AVE:�TUE (east of Lexin�ton Park�ti�ay between Juliet & Palace}, legally described in the
file; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April
17, 1997, at ��, hich all persons present were =iven an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said
application in accordance ���ith the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning
• Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following
findin=s of fact:
The proposed development does not meet four of the required conditions for a cluster
decelopment under Section 60.413(13) of the Saint Paul Zoning Code. The conditions which
are not met are as fol]ow�s:
c. T/te parcel slral! meet tGe !ot area reqirired per tutit in tlae zo�si�:g distrrct.
This condition can be met. The lot area, provided a portion of Palace Avenue is vacated,
is 40,586 square feet. This allows eight dwelling units (5,000 square feet of lot area is
required for each unit). The street vacation �vould contribute 2,786.85 square feet to the
development parcel. The street ��acation was initiated in Mazch and is expected to take
about four months.
d. Tlre parce/ sha!! l:ave a n:inrnuanfrontnge of eiglrty (80) feet on an ii�rproved street.
Tl�is condition is not met. The property has fronta�e on t�vo streets: 73 feet on Juliet
Avenue and 40 feet on Palace A�•enue. If a portion of Palace Avenue is ��acated, there
« be 73 feet of frontage at that location as w•ell.
moved by Field
� seconded by
i n favor unanimous
- against
iz
.� .
Zoning File =97-050
Page T��o of Resolution
e. The strucfure slrall corrform to tlre schedule of regulafio�:s for heigkt, (ot coverage,
setbncks ar:d pnrki�rg.
This condition is not met. As proposed, the cluster development does not meet the
required 25 foot rear setback requirement from the eastern property. The plans submitted
show the setback at this location to be only 12 feet.
f. T/re design sl:afl be compatible ivit/: tke surrounrling neigl:borl:ood
This condition is not met. As proposed, the development is three stories in height and
each of the buildings contains four units. This height and density is substantially greater
than existing development in the nei�hborhood and is therefore incompatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
�
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under
the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a Special Condition Use Permit to
allow a cluster de��elopment with eight (8) singie family dwelling units at XA!'Y NLIET
AVEI�TUE is hereby denied. •
•
�3
��-�s�
�
Saint Paul Plannin� Commission
Cih Hali Conference Centcr
1� ICclloge Boule�•ard �ticst
A meeting of tLe Plannin, Commis;ion ofthe City of Saint Pauf «as hetd Frida}•, April 25, 1997, at 5:30
a.m. in the Conference Center of Cit� Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
hfines. Duartz, Faric}, Geisser, Maddox, Treichel and �1'encl, and bfessrs.
Field Jr., Gordon, Gurnz}, Kramer. rfardell, h4cDonell, Nordin, Sharpe and Vauglit.
Alzssr,. *Cha�ezand *No��lin
*E�cused
L_J
•
Also Present:
I�
" I'
Ken Ford, Plannins Administrator: Donna Slnders, Kady Dadlez, Roger R}'an and
Larr}' Sodzrliolm of the Plannina Staff.
Zoning Committce
k97-03� AIichlcl Allen Sulli�•�n - Special condition use permit to aliow auto repair at
1229 Pavnc Acenuc.
ATOTIO\: Conrmissioner Field »rored npprovnl ofthe requested specin( cw��frtion :rse
peri�ru ro allotir nuto repair nt 1229 Pay�rz Aren:re sritlt concfitiars includi�rg hotrrs of
oper�uio�r, a Ifnrit oir the �rtvnber of cros, ni:d cerlai�t Inr7dscapitrg nn:ei7ities.
Commissioner Field noted that the Cih Ahorney did admonish the committee that the prior
aciions of the applicant should not be the basis for the Plannin� Commission's decision on
the speciat condition use permit.
Commissioner Kramer eaplained that he could not, in good conscience, vote in favor ofthis.
He noted that e�•ery proposed condition iisted on the special condition use permit has
alread�• been violated by the applicant. He espressed his infiiriation each time he drives by
tliis site at ���hat he considers violations. He said he had no faith.that this applicant �vill
abide by those conditions. Iie suggested that it might be a good idea to appro�•e this for
ont}� 1 year durins ��fiich the conditions are monitored, and if no violations occur, then grant
it. As is, he cannot vote in fa�•or. • ,
Commissioner Vaught recognized that e�•ep7hin� Commission Kramer said is true. He,
ho��'e�•er, also recoonized the City Attorne}�'s advice, and will vote in favor of the permit.
Tlie real problem here, he pointed out, is enforcement.
The �»otion on the,Jloor cnrried on n roice vote (Kramer, iYenc!).
�97-050 John Kratz - Special condition use permit to alto�v a cluster development «'ith eight
d�velling units at xxx Jutiet Avenue.
IOTION: Conunissioner Field n:orecl tlenial of 1he rer/uested special ca�dilion use pernrit
!o a!lotir n cluster developnrent irith ei,qht cl�rel/ing :a�i[s at xxr Juliet Arenue.
�4
Alr. Ford commented that the staff report had recommended approvaL The market and the •
� interest in to�cnhouse development is strone no« in the cit}� in a«�ap that it has not been
before. And in meetin� some of our rein� e;tment and population dicenit}• objectices and
pro� iding for a greater di�•ersit}� of housins st}•les, �ee think it s a very imponant interest for
the cit�, and somethin� that probably �ce in the Plannin� Commission need to dirzct some
lttention to: �chether our policies need adjustmeM to make sure that ��e can encouraQe a
combination of different forms of housine as part of our neighborhoods «�hich are largel,�
sin�le family. �
The motio�i orr thelloor to cleny� the re�aestecf special conditiorr use pernrit to nllou� a ckrster
�'erelopn�er7t tirith eight direllfig s�rrits at xs.r Juliet Acenue carried urrnnimouslr on a voice
i•otB.
#97-0� I CommurZitv Ootions - Special condition use permit to allow a licensed human
service communit}' residential facility for fourteen persons with psychiatric disabilities at
153� Rice Street.
1�IOTIO\: Cwmnissioner Field mored approra/ for the re�trested special condition use
pernrit to nlloir n lice�rsed hionmr serrice conurttmih• residerttiaT faciliry for fotrrteen persoi7s
witl: psyehintric clisabilities at l�8� Rice Street u•{rich earriecl:atmrinro:rsly aJ a voiee vole.
�97-0�4 Ward D Jefferson - Special condition use permit to allow general auto repair at
8�9 Universit�� Avenue. •
DIOTION: Commissioner Field moved apprarnl of the re9erest for n specinl co�rciition a�se
pern7it to nllou� geuera! nuto repair nt 8.i9 UniversityAreuue x•hich carried m7arrimotuly on
n roice vote.
£97-049 Universa! Outdoor inc - Appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a
permit application for an adeeRisino sien at 2100 Gilbert Avenue.
Commissioner Fie1d stated that committee heard considerable testimony and ultimately
��oted 5-0, with one abstention to la}• the matter over until May l, 1997.
�97-053 Jim Campbell - Modification of ricer corridor standards to allow constructiaa of a
single family home �vithin 40' ofthe bluff line at 20x.1 Oakridge Street.
I TI�V: Conrnrissioner Fiefd nravecl approti•al of the nrodifreatio�r of river eorriclor
stm:clarcls to crllotiv constrt�ctiort oJa single fmnily ha�ee tivithir: 40 oJthe bk �lirre nt 20x.r
Oaln�idge Street, ticith hvo eondilions.
Commissioner Vaught stated that the resolution before the Commission does not reflect
«fiat the committee did. He said there �� a motian offered to approve the paRicutar
application limiting to a rivo-car gara�e, but that faifed on a vote of 3-3. There «as then a
subsequent motion �vhich «�as passed to reduce the size of the overall bui(dine by the square
footage of a third statl, which is approximatel}• a third of the garage, some 250-2�5 square
feet. Commissioner Vaught feels that the applicant has created his own hards6ip becaase of •
!J
o�� -�S�
• MINUTES OF TAE ZONZNG COMMITTEE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAITL, MINNESOTA ON APRZL 17, 1997
PRESENT: Mme. Faricy; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gordon, Kramer and Vaught of
the 2oning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes.
Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Planning DivisiOn.
ABSENT: Wencl, excused
Gurney
Time: 3:55 to 5:45 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson.
�OHN K aT T.R D V.•OPM �NT� xxx �1: Av.n� : aa o •.x�ng$on b w n
,'li . and Pa�a :# 7-050: ng,�ial ondi 'on P mit. To allow a Clu�ster
development with eight (8) dwelling units.
Kady Dadlez, Zoning Office of PED staff, reviewed the staff report and
presented slides. Sta£f recommended approval of the special condition use
• permit and modification of the lot frontage requirement, based on findings 1
through 4 and subject to the two conditions outlined in the staff report.
The Macalester-Groveland Community Council voted to oppose the SCUP. In
addition, they requested that planning commission consideration of the
application be delayed until after the city council has made a decision on the
street vacation, and a land dispute between the applicant and the property
owner to the west is resolved. A letter was distributed stating their
position.
Four letters were received in opposition.
Commissioner Vaught spoke to a Quit Claim Deed referenced in the staff report,
a copy of which was submitted by an adjoining property owner, and asked
whether the committee could consider the issue of control of the site by the
applicant in determining whether or not an application is complete for
consideration by the committee.
Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney, responded that in this case site contz'ol
could be considered to the extent that there are the specific conditions and
the general conditions that the applicant has to meet. The code also states
in 64.300(d) that the planning commission can atCach other reasonable
conditions in making a determination of whether or not to grant a SCUP. If
the committee were to conclude that site control is something that warrants a
particular consideration or condition to the extent that fee control shall be
established by a given date, that would be a reasonable condition to attach,
• as long as there is a rational basis for it.
�b
Commissioner vaught verified that the committee's approval of the SCUP could •
be directly contingent upon the applicant securing site control and/or
securing site control by a specific date. Mr. Warner confirmed that.
Mr. Warner, referenced finding 2c, that °7f the street vacation is not
approved, staff recommends that the nvmber of dwel2ing vnits in the cluster
development be reduced to seven.°
Commissioner Vaught referenced correspondence submitted by interested parties
that speaks to the Pailure of the proposal to meet setback requirements in the
R-4 zone and questioned staff finding 2c, that this condition was met.
Tom Beach, LIEP site plan review staff, responded that the question of
comp2iance has much to do with interpretation of the code, as it was not a
typical lot that has clearly-defined front, back and side yards. The code
states that in a case where a lot has frontage on two streets that both of
those require front yard setbacks and remaining yards become side yards. It
was staff's interpretation that the property £ronted on both Palace and
Suliet. He referenced the definition of a"through lot", in Section 60.212.
Commissioner Vaught addressed finding 2f relative to compatibility of the
surrounding area structures, particularly questioning staff's finding as it
related to the proposal's mass and height. In addition to the language in
finding 2f, Mr. Beach responded that one factor also supporting the finding
was that the proposed units are somewhat removed from the rest of the
neighborhood. .
Commissioner Gordon asked staff to elaborate on: 1) who owns the alley; 2) how
close the proposed structure comes to the house located at 1083 Palace; and 3)
the impact and the basis for staff's recommendation for closing Palace as sucri
action would not be significant and yet if closing Palace weren't to happen,
the proposal would only be reduced by one unit, asking wriy that is?
Ms. Dadlez responded that without the vacated street Mr. Kratz has only 37,799
square feet which is 2,000 square feet less than the 40,000 square feet
required. Vacating Palace doesn't add a significant amount, but does add
enough to meet the 40,000 square foot requirement.
Regarding ownership, Ms. Dadlez said that the applicant has submitted a copy
of the certificate of title indicating that he owns one-half of the alley.
That being the case, he would be about 2,000 square feet short, and vacating
Palace would allow him to meet the required square foot requirement.
Mr. Beach responded that the townhouses at their closest point, would be
45 feet from the house at 1093 Palace and the driveway serving the townhouses
would be 15 feet away from the house.
Commissioner Vaught disagreed with staff's interpretation o£ orientation of
the proposal and said what he considered to be the front of the proposed
building faces the side; the back faces the side; and the side of the proposed
building £aces the front. He reviewed with staff that the required setback
for a front lot line is 25 feet and for a side lot line is 4 feet. •
�
�7
c��-�s�
• Mr. Beach at Vaught's request reviewed that the building is 25 feet £rom
Palace and approximately 35-40 feet from Juliet, both considered by staff to
be front lot lines. From the side lot line facing 35-E he said it appears to
be about 12 feet; and the side closest to Lexington varies from 40-90 £eet, as
there is a jog in that property line, with the northern building for the most
part being 80-90 feet from the western property line, and the south building
about 40 Peet from the western property line.
Commissioner Vaught in summary, noted that if in fact the correct orientation
was as he saw it, that the building would be 12 feet from what he considered
to be the £ront or back lot line, and does not meet the setback requirements.
John Kratz, the applicant, spoke. Mr. Kratz said that he has opted to do a
SCUP rather than doing existing lot arrangements at that location because: 1)
The site is an unusual shape which doesn't readily permit streets and access
into it; and 2) Because the traffic on 35-E has made that site inhospitable to
outdoor uses, he has chosen to appeal to a group of buyers who are less
interested in being out in their yards.
Mr. Kratz addressed two issues from the staff report:
1. 80 feet of frontage requirement on an improved stx'eet. He claimed the
ordinance doesn�t specify that it must be 80 contiguous feet or that it needs
to be 80 feet on the same street. He said that a conservative interpretation
has been made so that approval can be based on the most restrictive
interpretation of that ordinance. He said that this is especially true when
• the probable reason is considered for the 80 foot requirement which is
adequate ingress and egress for the traffic of the occupants. He suggested
that access to two streets is an improvement over access Co one, whether it's
85 feet or two sections of 40 feet. Mr. Kratz suggested that a modification
on the 80 foot requirement is not necessary but since the result is the same
he would not take issue with it.
2. The zoning lot size for the eight units requested. He requested that the
project be approved for all 8 units regardless of the outcome of the street
issue.
Mr. Kratz addressed the issue relative to his ownership of the property and
noted that all of the development improvements proposed avoids the vacated
alley dispute. He reported that he possesses a deed from the State of
Minnesota who sold him the property which does not include the alley, but said
he has all the rights that the state had to the property and one oE those
rights is the accretion of the alley to the rest of their lots. He said that
the State went through a Proceeding Subsequent as part of their certi£icate of
title on the property as recently as 1991 and concluded that the alley was
part of the State's property, and therefore was passed to him_ Nevertheless
he said he does not wish to take the strip of alley away from Ms. Tenter, and
the only reason it has become part of the discussion was to get around the
minimum lot size. Additionally, he spoke of a 15 foot street vacation needed
on Palace which would bring the lot line to the west 16 feet to meet the
40,000 square feet requested.
C �
3
�
Mr. Kratz said that without the street vacation and without the alley, they •
still have about 92°s of the property needed under the ordinance and asked the
committee to grant a modification along with the SCUP.
Mr. Kratz said other arguments in support included:
- Zoning lot size is not necessarily the same as the legal lot size in
other zoning categories. In Lhe townhouse zoning categories you may
consider half of an alley adjoining property as being square footage
included in the lot to be built on for purposes of unit count, and rie
said that this would be a similar situation;
- This property is wide open behind it, with no one to the east affected
by its development;
- He claimed moderate hardships associated with not permitting the 8
units, saying the 8 units are a tidy, architecturally balanced package,
with two buildings of four units and suggested it would be a
disadvantage to the development, the city and the community to have one
building of four and one building of three. It's an expensive site to
develop with water and sewer needing to be brought into the site at the
developer's expense. The cost of the land is the same whether 7 or 8
units are built and if those costs were spread over 7 units as compared
with 8, it would drive the cost of the 7 units up considerably and
would create a hardship.
- In response to the issues raised by Macalester-Groveland Community •
Council, Mr. Kratz reiterated the 80 foot frontage and stated he felt
the setbacks are very adequate and a lot or even a double lot between
where the buildings are proposed to go and where the neighbor's
property begins.
Mr. Kratz addressed the issue of the changes in the natural features of the
topography. He said that there is a small strip of fill that would be
required that is 7 feet tall at the maximum and will quickly go back down to 4
feet. He claimed that it is a balanced site in terms of fill and that all
fill necessary to go under the southern building will come from other places
on the site. He said very minimal change in the topography would take place
and that both buildings would be built with their front sides on existing
grade. Natural features would be preserved, with lot 17 remaining entirely
vacant, which contains a lot of big cottonwood trees, and ash trees and a lot
of brush. Their intention is to clean it up, debrush it and if it gets enough
sun to sod that will be done, if not it will be left as a nature area.
Mr. Kratz said the cluster development provisions state that if he meets
certain requirements that he may build and then it °requires" that those
buildings be attached. It also reiterates that those attached buildings are
sti12 subject to the same height and setback requirements as pertain to the
zone in general. He said that since those provisions of the ordinance require
that they be attached, and also reiterated the 30 feet height, he didn't see
how later that it can be re-evaluated, saying that because they are attached
and because they are 30 feet tall, that they violate the size provision on a •
massing argument. He said the massing argument goes away when considering
4
�9
�t `1- �s �
• that a single £amily home of exactly this size could easily be built on that
site. One of the issues he spoke to in terms of design were the garage doors
all facing to the neighbors' property. He said that of the 11 residents that
either share Palace or Juliet Avenue, 8 of those garages face the front with
access to the street. His development will not orient them to the street, but
to what has historically been an alley.
Mr. Kratz spoke of the impact of the cluster development on the light and the
air in the new developed area. He said that one advantage of the cluster
concept is that by putting the housing units together open space is preserved,
which allows light and air to get in and around it. He said that the cluster
development occupies only about 16% of the lot with its main building, where
the zoning in general, allows for 30°a in addition to having outbuildings like
detached garages.
Mr. Kratz acknowledged the impact [hat the development will have on the
neighbor at 1083 Palace, which will significantly impact her view, however he
said that her view would be just as impacted by a single family home being
built nearer to her property line, but in the same location that a typical
home would be built on that lot.
Mr. Kratz addressed the recommendation that the street vacation be done first
before action on the SCUP is taken, and felt that option to be at odds with
what the City requires in the vacation.
Commissioner Chavez asked how fire trucks would service the development. Mr.
• Kratz responded that the proposal was reviewed by the Fire Department for
safety and that they recommended that the driveway width be increased from 16
to 20 feet to allow the Fire Department to extend their outriggers to raise a
tall ladder to get at the buildings. He said that fire rigs can drive
straight through, with no backing up required. Commissioner Chavez asked
whether a fire truck could come in on Juliet and exit out on Palace through
the development property, with Mr. Kratz responding affirmatively.
Commissioner Faricy asked Mr. Kratz to elaborate on the retaining walls. Mr.
Kratz said that on the treeway side there is a two-section retaining wall with
a total of about 7 feet in height, with 3 feet in one section and 4 feet in
the other. There is also a low retaining wall between the property at 1083
which starts at about one foot out of the street and for most of the way back
is less than two feet tall. It does go to a maximum of 6 feet in the middle
as there is a need to cut the roadway into the natural existing elevation
change.
Commissioner Faricy asked what the dimension of the access road would be. Mr.
Kratz said it was 16 feet in the plan, and he was fairly certain it would be
expanded to 20 feet as a result of the Fire Department's review.
Commissioner Faricy asked if any consideration was given to making this a two
story development, with the garages located in another place. Mr. Krat2
responded that consideration was given to many other plans, however there was
difficulty with getting the driveways in with adequate parking in front of
them, especially on the south building site.
•
5
2a
Mr. Beach referenced a written report from the Fire Department that they had •
no problems with the proposed development.
Karen Tenter, 1083 Palace, owner of the property adjacent to the south
building of the proposal, spoke in opposition. Ms. Tenter addressed the
dispute with Mr. Kratz regarding ownership of the vacated east half of the
vacated north south alley. Copies of documents from the Minnesota Department
of Transportation were distributed, including a copy o£ the Quit Claim Deed
and a map that the DOT initially put out for bid, which she said show that
none of the vacated north/south alley is included in the subject property
because the DOT reconveyed their half of the vacated alley to Dr. C.C. Wood.
The property was then deeded to her when she purchased her lot from Dr. Wood.
Ms. Tenter said that the DOT informed Mr. Kratz about this deed when he asked
them to quit claim their half to him, and that Mr. Kratz went ahead with his
proposal maintaining that he, in fact, owned that half of the alley. She said
she informed City staff and the community council before their recommendations
were made, and that only the Macalester Groveland Community Council felt that
proper ownership should be determined before the proposal was presented to the
zoning committee.
Ms. Tenter referenced chapter 64.300 of the zoning code which states that
^granting of the SCUP is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent
property" noting that if the proposal is granted that her family's living
enjoyment would be drastically reduced, and she elaborated on the loss of
privacy, the loss of the existing views, and the loss of nature which would
result. •
Ronald Hachey, 1080 Palace Avenue, abutting the applicant's property, spoke in
opposition. Mr. Hachey said he does not need nor want any part of Palace
Avenue and is opposed to the action of vacating it. He said he believed the
petition to vacate Palace Avenue would fail as the petitioner lacks the
support of the majority of the abutting property owners. However, Mr. Hachey
reviewed that Mr, Kratz needs the vacation of Palace Avenue to comply with the
minimum requirement of 40,000 square feet, as well as he needs the alley in
dispute that Ms. Tenter claims to own. Mr. Hachey spoke of the loss of the
natural environment the neighborhood has enjoyed, and said the proposal would
be a disruption. However, he stated that the neighborhood would not object to
3 or 4 r.ice looking homes built there.
Irvin Rubbelke, 380 South Lexington Parkway, a former St. Paul Firefighter who
serviced the area for many years, spoke in opposition. Mr. Rubbelke noted
that as a resident in the area he has witnessed on three occasions fires start
along the freeway and come raging up that hill. He expressed concern over the
inability for a fire rig to turn around in a 20 foot alley, and he reviewed
inefficiencies that would result in a fire emergency.
Dick Sorenson, 408 South Lexington, landscape architect, spoke in opposition.
Mr. Sorenson referenced the site plans and said he believed the site to be too
small for the proposed development and that he didn't believe the development
to be appropriate for the neighborhood. He expressed concern that if the
alley has not been vacated and is found to belong to Ms. Tenter, that would
affect the amount of setback on the 35-E side because the whole development •
may have to be moved to the east, and said the neighbors would like to see
�
��
q�l --�56
• what it would look like if the vacated street is not vacated. He does not see
the development as compatible with trie neighborhood as there are no 3-story
buildings nearby and no townhouses on the block, and indicated that the
development would more than double the number of units on the block and that
such an increase in density concerns the neighbors.
Mr. Sorenson expressed concern regarding detention basins originally proposed
by the applicant, however it was learned that the detention basins are no
longer part of the plan.
Mr. Sorenson questioned the quality of the road design. Ae was aware of the
attempt to minimize the amount of grading, but pointed out a distance of about
50 feet where the rise in elevation is about 12°s slope on a curve, and
questioned whether the turning radius was sufficient to handle moving vans and
other such veriicles. With respect to the road's designation as a fire lane,
he noted that it would have to be marked a fire lane with no parking allowed,
and suggested that guests would not want to park on Juliet and Palace but
would indeed park in the fire lane, and if a fire occurred may prevent trucks
from getting through. He also questioned whether the road would be wide
enough, and that the retaining wall would obstruct the view for backing up
around the curve.
Mr. Sorenson expressed concern that the proposed ground cover is to be highway
grass noting that no fire breaks are mentioned around the buildings, and was
concerned that a fire could come up the hill right up to the building. He
questioned where snow would be placed, acknowledging a plan to put snow
• between the buildings, however noting that there is a very steep slope between
the buildings and questioning that. He also expressed concern over loss of
the natural environment and of increased traffic.
A1 Edwall, 422 S. Lexington Pkwy., his entrance on Palace, spoke in
opposition. Mr. Edwall suggested the project is incompatible with the
neighborhood as it's too massive and creates too much density in the
neighborhood. He expressed concern over the increase in traffic that the
development would generate.
Kate Schultz, 398 South Lexington Parkway, spoke in opposition. Ms. Schultz
submitted the letter distributed to commissioners from the neighborhood and
addressed the following issues not yet addressed:
Land fill. It's the neighborhood's understanding that a very large portion of
the base of the proposed south building would require 12 feet high of land-
fill to support it on a steep slope, however Mr. Kratz said in his testimony
it would be 4-7 feet. She said this would mean that almost all of the
southern edifice, with a base of about 3,400 square feet, would be sitting on
loose dirt with three stories of weight on top of it. She said according to
the code ^... a mini.mum alteration in topography.^, but neighbors see this as
a giant change in the natural features and questioned what would keep the
edifice from slipping into the Randolph exit ramp from Interstate 35-E.
u
7
22
Utilities. Ms. Schultz said the plans they have reviewed did not indicate •
utilities, utility easements, or drainage; they don't clearly show the
driveway connections to the side streets; the fire lane is not indicated on
the plan nor are the fire hydrants proposed by the Fire Department.
Assessments. Ms. Schultz said it was unclear whether there would be
assessments to neighboring residents to cover damage to Palece and Juliet from
trucks carrying landfill and heavy building materials and from proposed
changes in water, sewage, and electricity conduits.
Pauline Hanson, 372 South Lexington, across LexingLon and kitty-corner from
the north building proposed, spoke in opposition. Ms. Hanson expressed dismay
over the Zoss of her river view, and said she believes the safety of all of
those residents pulling out onto Lexington Parkway would be an issue, based on
the [raffic vo2ume on Lexington Parkway, as we21 as the accident statistics in
the last 6 years in that four block neighborhood which has exceeded 200
repor[ed accidents.
Mr. Kratz provided a rebuttle. Ae reviewed the issue of the title on the
alley. When MN DOT first offered the property for sale they didn't show that
alley on there but they showed two other streets and two ather vacated a2leys.
Mr. Kratz inquired about the vacated alley on the south and they asked if it
was on his offer sheet, which it wasn't and they said that maybe they didn't
own it, but Mr. Kratz said it was on their certificate of title that they do
own it, and they said that maybe they did own it and if so he couid have it.
He said that on that basis he bid on it, and after he was a successful bidder •
spoke to NIN DOT a second time about it and said he'd like to make sure that
his deed includes the alley, with MN DOT responding that if they own it he
gets it, but that he doesn't get a closing with the state, but was to send in
his money and then two weeks later they send the deed. After the money had
been submitted he heard from NIN DOT that they had deeded the alley to somebody
else, but that deed had never been recorded. In summary, the vacated alley is
on MN DOT's certificate of title and was never recorded on property records of
the neighbor to the west. Kratz said he thought it was fair for him to assume
triat he owned it. However, he said he doesn't want to keep the alley but
return it to Ms. Tenter, and said he felt it should not be an issue which
enters into the decision of the SCUP.
Regarding the vacation of Palace Avenue, Mr. Kratz said if Mr. Aachey does not
want any part of Palace Avenue that it could be contributed to the homeowners
association who would landscape and perpetually maintain it.
Mr. Kratz clarified that the cluster proposal is for single Eamily homes that
are attached. Regarding the detention pond shown on the original plan, he
noted that it was removed by the city review process as there is no need for
it. He spoke to the big grade difference between the two buildings, with 12
or more percent grade, but Mr. Kratz said he sees that acting as somewhat of a
barrier from keeping people from traveling straight through those sites
unnecessarily, as they need not travel that way but may exit off the street
that they come in on.
The public hearing was closed.
8
•
23
al� -�s�
• Commissionez Vaught moved amendiag the sta£f report as follows:
Finding 2e. Replace the pazagraph indicating that the conditioa is met and
replace the following: This condition is not met. As proposed, the
develogment does not meet the requ3rements £or setbacks in the zoning
district. The setback zequirement for the lot line closest to 8ighway
Interstate 35-E, which is the rear lot liae, is 25 feet and the proposed
developmeat as proposed will be setback only 12 feet from the lot line.
Finding 2f. Replace the first sentence indicating: This condition is not
met. The remainder of the paragraph to be left 3n place. An additional
sentence to be added to follow paragraph: "The proposed development is three-
stories high and the proposed buildings thereon each contain four units. This
mass is substantially greater than the mass of buildings in the surrounding
neighborhood and the height of the proposed development is incompatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.°
Commissioner Vaught moved denial of the special condition use permit and
modification of the lot frontage requirement, based on findings H2c, H2d, 82e,
and H2f as stated and amended above in the staff report. Commissioner Gordon
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Vaught said that voting for the motion required two assumptions.
vaught disagreed with the assumption that the sides of the buildings become
the front of the building and the front of the building becomes the side and
the rear becomes the side. After thorough review of the plans he found it to
• be the case that the front doors are in the front of the building which are
not the side of the building but the front of the building, as are most of the
windows. Looking at the schematics of the development he said if staff's
recommendation was followed that the committee would be required to conclude
that the front of the building on both ends of each building has what appears
to be a single window which is in the stairway on the way from the second to
the third floor and no other openings.
Having arrived at that conclusion, Vaught concluded Chat the setbacks become
relevant with respect to the front and rear yards, and he noted what he
considered to be the rear of the building also has doors and windows and the
decks which are characteristically found in rear yards, not necessarily in
sideyards. Another reason he rejected staff's interpretation was that it
seems to be a tortuous way to fit what is otherwise a building that is totally
out of sinc in terms of its orientation, with the surrounding buildings on to
that particular lot. He suggested that the usual view of what is a front and
a back and a side of a building ought to prevail in this case.
Secondly, Vaught said that the conditions regarding compatibility are not met.
He rejected the notion that because this particular building mass would be
otherwise allowed in a cluster development, in an R-4 zone that they must of
necessity conclude then that that mass is compatible with the surrounding
property as he felt it clearly is not, and that the code does not mandate that
particular conclusion. He said that the buildings, though otherwise
attractive on another site, are not compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
C J
9
2�}
Commissioner Gordon said he would support the motion because of his concerns
about the lot area, the setbacks, the frontage, and the compatibility.
The motion carried for deaial on a voice vote of 6 to 0.
Drafted by:
��s�
Donna Sanders
Submitted h��•
i��
Kady Dad]
nnnrnt�oA hv•
C�
C J
•
10
L5
��-�5�
• ZONING CO2R2ITTE8 STAFF RSPORT
__�__�____________�__________
FILS # 97-050
1. APPLZCANT: SOHN KF2ATZ DATB OF HBARIDTG: 04/17(97
2. CLAS52FICATION: Special Condition IIse
3. LOCATION: XXX JULZET AVENUE (east of Lexington between Juliet & Palace)
4. PLAIiN2NG DISTRICT: 14
5. LBGAL DBSCRIPTION: see file
6. PRBSSNT ZONING: R-A ZONING CODB R8F8R8NC8: §60.413(13) &§6A.300(d)
7. STAFF INVBSTIGATION AND RHPORT: DATB; 4/10/97 SY: Kady Dadlez
8. DATE RBCEIVSD: 03/12/97 DBADLINB FOR ACTION: OS/10/97
A. PIIRPOSE: Special condition use permit to allow a cluster development with
eight (8) dwelling units.
• S. PARCEL SIZE: The development parcel has 73 feet of frontage on Juliet
Avenue and 40 feet of frontage on Palace Avenue for a total lot area of
40,586 square feet, provided a portion of Palace Avenue is vacated. The
lot area is 37,799.15 square feet without vacated Palace.
C. s7t2sTlxc LaND IISE: The propezty is currently vacant. The development
parcels is being assembled from vacant lots and remnant right-of-way from
Interstate 35E construction.
D. SIIRROVNDING LAND IISE: The property is surrounded on the north, south, and
west by single family homes and by Interstate 35E on the east.
E. ZONIN� CODE CITATION: Sections 60.413(13) and 64.300(d) of the zoning code
permit cluster developments subject to the conditions detailed in findings
#2 and #3 of this report.
F. �ISTORY/DISCIISSION: There are no previous zoning cases concerning this
property. There is a current site plan review application for the proposed
development.
G. DSSTRiCT CODNCIL RECOD4�ffiNDATION: The Macalester-Groveland Community
Council voted to oppose the sgecial condition use permit. In addition,
they request that planning commission consideration of the application be
delayed until after the city council has made a decision on the street
vacation and a land dispute between the applicant and the property owner to
� the west is resolved.
�
Zoning File #97-050
Page Two
�#3+t�
1. The applicant owns all of the property proposed for development. Eight
dwel2ing units are proposed, two buildings of four units each. The
applicant plans to vacate a portion of Palace Avenue to assemble the
necessary lot area for the number of dwelling units proposed. The
street vacation process was initiated in March and will take about four
months.
2. Section 60.413(13) of the zoning code permits cluster developments
subject to the following conditions:
a. There shall be a miai.mvm of two (2) uatts.
This condition is met. Eight units are planned.
b. The units shaZZ be attached, commoa wa1Z, siag2e fami2y, with uo uait
intzuding on the vertical airspace of any other uait.
This condition met. The units are side-by-side, with no unit
intruding on the vertical air space of any other unit.
c. The parcel shall meet the lot area required per uait ia the zontng
district.
This ccndition can be met. The lot area, provided a portion of
Palace Avenue is vacated, is 40,586 square feet. This allows eight
dwelling units (S,DOD square feet o£ lot area is required for each
unit). The street vacation would contribute 2,786.85 square feet to
the development parcel. The street vacation was initiated in March
and is expected to take about four months. If the street vacation is
not approved, staff recommends that the number of units in the
cluster development be reduced to seven.
d. The parcel shall have s av.nimvm frontage of eighty (80) feet oa an
improved atreet.
This condition is not met. The property has frontage on two streets:
73 feet on Juliet Avenue and a0 feet on Palace Avenue. If a portion
of Palace Avenue is vacated, there will be 13 feet of frontage at
that location as well.
Staff recommends that this condition be modified. Although the
applicant does not have 80 feet of frontage at a single location, the
development parcel currently has a total of 113 feet of frontage and
would have 146 feet of frontage if a portion of Palace Avenue is
vacated. The 73 feet of frontage on Juliet approaches the minimum
requirement of 80 feet, and with access from both Juliet and Palace,
adequate ingress and egress wi11 be provided.
•
�
•
27
°1`� - �S�
• Zoning File #97-050
Page Three
e. Tke structure shalZ coafozm to tfie schedule of regu2atioas for
fieight, Iot coverage, aetbacks and parkiag.
This condition is met. As proposed, the development meets the
requirements for height, lot coverage, setbacks, and parking
prescribed by the zoning district. Since the lot is double £ronted,
25 foot setbacks from both Juliet and Palace are required; everything
else is a side yard which requires a 4 foot setback.
f. The design shaZl be compatible with tbe surroundiag aeighborhood.
This condition is met. The immediate neighborhood is characterized
by a variety of housing styles and sizes. There are one and two-
story homes on Lexington Parkway; the house on the north side of
Palace immediately to the west of the development site is a full two
story.
g. Individual lota, buildiags, street aad pasking sreas ahall be
designed and situated to minimize alteration of the natursl features
and topography.
This condition is met. While the applicant will need to bring in
• some fill during construction, the development has been designed to
minimize disruption to natural features and topography. In an
attempt to preserve the existing topography, groposed development at
the northern portion of the site will be at an elevation that is
about 12 feet higher than the development at the southern half.
h. Applications for cluster deveZopment sha11 include site pZans,
including landscaping and elevatioaa aad other information the
planaing commi.ssion may request.
This condition is met. The applicant submitted a site plan,
landscape plan, and building elevations along with a written
description detailing the specifics of the development.
3. Section 64.300(d) of the zoning code requires that before the planning
commission may grant approval of a principal use subject to special
conditions, the commission shall find that:
a. The exteat, location and iateasity of the use will be ia aubstantial
compliance with the Saiat Paul Comprehenaive Plaa aad any applicable
subarea pZana rkich cvere approved by the city couaciZ.
This condition is met. One of the problems and issues identified in
the District 14 Plan states, "potential increase oE higher density
apartment buildings which could change the single-family character of
the neighborhood." Goals of the District 14 Plan state: 1) "to
• retain and improve the residential quality of the community;" 2)
"maintain the single family character of the district;" 3) "to meet
the diverse housing needs of residents;" and 4) "to provide a
28
Zoning File #97-050
Page Four
variety of housing types within the district (apartment,
condominiums, cooperatives) whiZe retaining the sing2e-family
character and residential quality of the district".
b. The use wtI2 provide adequate iagress aad egress to minimize traffic
coagestioa in the public atreets.
This condition is met. Access to the site will be from both Palace
and Juliet Avenues. There will be a two-car garage for each of the
dwelling units.
c. The use will aot be detrimmtal to the exiatiag cbaracter of
developmeat �n the i�ediate neighbozhood or endaager the public
health, safety aad general welfare.
This condition is met. The modest number of new dwelling units can
be accommodated by existing facilities and services provided by the
city. Lexington Parkway currently carries about 19,000 vehicZes near
this location.
�
d. The use will aot impede tbe normal and orderly development aad
improvemeat of the surrouading pzoperty for usea permitted in tbe
district. •
This condition is met. The surrounding property is fully developed.
The new housing will serve as a buffer between the interstate and
single family homes to the west.
e. The use sha21, ia a21 other respects, coafazm to tlxe app2icable
regulatioas of tfie diatract ia which it is located.
F.�ccept for the condition relating to lot frontage, this condition is
met.
4. Section 64.300(f) of the zoning code states, "The planning commission,
after public hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when
strict application of such special coaditions wonZd unreasonably limit
or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property or an e�cisting
structure aad would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner of
such property or structure; provided, that such modification will not
impair the intent and purpose of such special condition and is
consistent with health, morals and general welfare of the community and
is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property."
Z. STAFF RBCOHI�NDATION: Based on findings 1 through 4 staff recommends
approval of the special condition use permit and modification of the lot
frontage requirement, subject to the following conditions:
1. The approval of this special condition use permit to allow the cluster •
development with eight (8) dwelling units is subject to the final
approval by the City CounciZ of the required street vacation of Palace
29
0 1 �1 - � s �
• Zoning File #97-050
Page Five
Avenue. The number o£ dwelling units in the cluster development shall
not exceed seven (7), if the vacation of Palace Avenue is not approved.
2. A wood privacy fence, six feet in height, shall be installed near the
southwestern property line. The western side of the fence (applicant's
property) shall be landscaped to provide a buffer between the house to
the west and the new access drive and dwelling units. The exact
location of the fence and species to be planted will be determined
through site plan review.
•
C �
�
SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Deparlment of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
1700 Ciry Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Sainr Paul, MN SSIO2
266-6589
APPLICANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Zmm�g r�ce iise unly .
�ite no. : ° •ty5f? •
Fee. ��;�;?�' �.�::
T��a#iue: #�ear+� .�e -
�� � ��1 �1`��(�
� . ,..
Name John Kratz
Address 1424 Edqcumbe Road
City St. Paul gt.MN Z�p 55116 Daytime phone 690-5360
Name of owner (if different)
East of
between Juliet & PalacelAVes
�ta ncaa. ii�aa�.ayc vi .'.+ +.+
Legal description:Lots 17 & 18 & parts of lots 1-6, all in
19, Ridgewood Park Addition, Current Zoning R-4
(a a h a itional s eet " necessary) C+YPP'FC
TYPE OF PERMIT: Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter ,
Section 60. / 3 , Paragraph� of the Zoning Code for a:
.� Speciai Condition Use Permit
D River Corridor Conditional Use Permit
❑ Mod�cation of River Corridor Standards
•
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: in the space betow suppiy information that is appticable to your type of
permit (attach additional sheets if necessary)
• SPECIAL CONDITION USE: Explain how the use will meet each of the special conditions.
• RtVER CORf2tDOR CONDITIONAL USE: Describe how the use witl meet the applicable cond+tions.
• MODIFICATION OF RIVER CORRIDOR STANDARDS: Explain why modifications are needed.
�4 E�FSe S�
Required site pian is attached
ApplicanYs
A�T'it-�t� � �
City
3►
��l - �S �
• The special conditions required in Paragraph 13 for cluster developments are met by this
use as follows:
a. The eight units proposed exceed the minimum (two) required.
b. The units are attached, common wall, single family, with no unit intzud'sng
on the vertical airspace of any other unit.
c. The site is zoned R-4, wluch requires a minimum lot of 5,000 square feet.
This site contains 40,587 square feet, allowing the eight units proposed.
d. The requirement that the pazcel have a minimum frontage of SO feet on an
improved street is eacceeded here by the cul-de-sac frontages on both Palace
and Juliet Avenues. A 40-foot frontage on the side of Palace Avenue is
shown on the site plan, with the rest of Palace east of that point to be vacated.
This will match what was done when Juliet Avemie was partially vacated in
1968. If, however, the 80-foot minimum frontage requirement can be met by
including the frontages on the ends of Palace and 7uliet Avenues, then more of
Palace could be vacated, more of the driveway would be private, and the extra
square footage for the lot azea could accrue to the benefit of the owner adjoining
to the west on Palace Avenue. The site plan avoids use of the east half of the
• vacated alley extending north from Juliet Avenue. If it weren't for the need of
this lot azea for unit count purposes, it would be possible to grant the owner to
the West on Palace the permanent use and enjoyment of this strip of land.
e. This structure will conform to the 30-foot maximum building height, aithough
doing so necessitates the retaining walls east of the south building site. The lot
coverage proposed, at 16%, is considerably less than the 30% permissible for the
main structures. There are no accessory buildings proposed. Setbacks aze easily
maintained. Each unit has four pazking places, two in each attached garage and
two spaces in front of each garage.
f. The "surrounding neighborhood" is a mixture of many design styles. T'he design
proposed is comparible with a great number of existing structures in the
Macalester/Groveland neighborhood.
g. Every effort has been made to mini*++;,a aiteration of the nahuai features and
topography of the site.
h. Supporting documentation, including site plan, landscape plan, and elevations aze
attached.
�
ZON1�G FILE ��°--�- �
32
, En
----- � � i �
,
i �� ; � ,,; ��
----- -� .s� oz� � '� � F'
.,.._=i . < <s' . . ' "_'_ j . � :r '
..�.�._ � :� .
------- —,�; � , � �
�-- � I
p — - -- -- -, o : J � , ,
s �3� ; , _����€;s��t
— ,; � � _----- e $� `g4� �.
� 'rpi� � ' �B� gp �» ��
e
{ h Y = l • l'a � ie }
�` � _ ,`, °? � s'-f � ° I�"E $ e @` �
�
i
r ._>
�
t� �
�
� � i � F
] r �€�
` � _ �.,.
�, i i�::
_ I
� I
I.
i�
( �� ^ �£!
-�
i i ' �
— � _ ;
_ , €;
� `� ' °==�
I -_. F
� I' ��3
, i! � s 3
i .'
: . k
ti ` s
__ _ ' ` __— [ a
/
/
/ .
� ,Y: �.. � �
;' — — -- 8 - �
f� �
E �
`J 1 �.
e Y
' x f
� �.
� ----------
;€ '
� /
F �'
.C— _ — —'_. — __
G —_
`' F !
P iF. •
8 "�: .
f •
;,-- F� ---,
.
; /:
t i---
: a_ ,...--..
.'_ �_3
� !;c
I: ��
k _. �
�
_��� . = 0 �
� ��\ (
�
�
� � 1
S '
�
�i
� ��
� : ��i
�V
�� f
o a �I
,
�a
�
W �
:1
�
�
� ��
/
�
�'
/
%
i
/
/
,
i
J
�
������� ���E °��°sc5 �
LU/QTG➢E PLN
,qnx xp.rz
.«.....e :�i.: _no
HEDLUND
: �..`�n.c .`-.n
.�« mz .�-':r
�
•
•
�
�
�t`1- ls�
� � � i
• -----� 1 �{ ' ----- I g; i
I � I
�� _ i i
-- �„_�Er - o. � ------� -`�� °��s —.—•—�—�—
ob_tc' -„E-
— _---_ _ _—_---_ --___ Y.`; ----,__
�—_ . ____ —_, —Y � -y p . _ } � y � ' �% i
t ? '�a � ' • p�j _ - '
'�� � <� - i ' � r � 5 1 -i a � "-
_ L — _ f ; _"'`.,�r i � ,, t
— g 9' . _ _ `�, [ (5 . S
. � -�� j�:= i
. �, � 6 / . : t
" ` a� %" ``
� d _ F�,' .
I ' � � � � .�/ �������� '
8 — �
•
•
i � � � �
£p — 5 '.l�i — �
I �} � 1 p �� F �it . <' s
, ,i ./^� '. .
— ---- - :� ., ! � E �s.
— - — -- -- � , ' — — - T � ' � E ° ,
----- ?' ---"— � '��-=
-c . k . �a - .,.-J`.
/ " . :. '�� � i
- E3 ' ;- � r
P �
I � / –� t � ` r•,g ��� L ,
� L � , � ,-J ; ' '' ",,�-,.; �^, ` _;
I �. �' , _ � ���.i �� �F � �, i Ei,'_
I d' 3% € t u ea`2
� � i i \ h � �i ` gJ' F ¢� .
� t � i z .' E
� i�g ;' .�"^,,:
� ' i a l � `f�` � � ��� �
� t r
F j
` { _ yT�. € � � . k `
_ oa — I i — _ _ _ _ _ _ i, � _/� :� - . �: .i
.� --_ 1__ _. �e� i_ —"_ j 1f e Y Y- ��.�
. A'1E. f i o � I _ � / �!— Y—£ --I � �
rr' i: � x I =}I . _. _. � i� \\r.�� , i . ,
�'y - � e I .
------- -----� --------,— � —,I
I i '; !
i °. � �,� s
t
=a €e�°
N� ' f I � E° Qz P �? �
x � y
11 ° `� �g��
s€: s
'€i�?�
�^ e �S�s;€
– I 9 '�M�
_ 1� � � '
E
u a
N
O S
`S ��������Y �Y�ta�. �� �
' i'PR[L(Y/.V�HY GA�DIS6 � L'SILIJY iGS ���•��� — " • �--��" - �— �
. ai � f : ; �._.s a.� .�.,_ - - - - � �`trEnlunro ,�, ..:_. _ .....: z:.. _ _---:_ ,
,
�, ,
: ._...�...__ ._... .. .. � _
, . . :.�_ , - --
:� � ......__ - - _ =__-
� ---- — — - -
O�'/)7G3fi�
/
%
i
/
�
/
�
^
F �
i�
- :.«:`;��
t�id ANLVihqlYd
e�F • `
_ - �
�g��__l• (i p
e <
�.s:7�a�s': r
: n
s .�zf`-S.1 m P o
$�itt3�i� °
�ji:�� � ��,
?`E'' c _
SFL'sii_{Y N �
�ii€���Fi;� � o
�.ikl:fgf ° m �n
.} }�L'��`� o
' .s }si��� ^ �
:3E.1 t.
'jf ;;..��. p �
i>e$. ?:� y �
=S�fij�_ f• <
a tiS
"SE�'s3'.:.'.:: �
�--- - -�----------
� - ` I- °3 '3,4V 3�V�Vd
Y
� — —c=---
, �--_'
/
/
� ([
�
1
...__ _"— _— �{
� `__'—_— _—
� .
� ' _�
i .
� .
/
/
i--: ` I I
.� '' �. � i
< ' I
_ e � _ �
i
` � -- t..� — -- -- ,f ,' a>
. ,� E�
: w.. a
� ta { 3 �._>/ i I
•� 3 ' --' �{ ' j� ���
� / ��
�
b� t �
�— _ _ _
{ �
/ %E...
. . /� � ( e �g
�
_ �i e
8 -<..a�a/A � �� 4
S / � _ .. � _. � �
i i � __� _
^ 1
� � S "' !
• � e
ti " � ��
f
����r'�� ���:� ��
�
�
o .so.�..�
a_ i
io '�/�: l.jll(li _—
� `—,_--
L___,—
35
•
•
�
� !-0 ��o
•
•
•
c
0
m
>
m
W
`m
d
¢
Z0�6�i� ��� � q7�os� I
��
"" J
� -
� j
♦ �.,
v
�
^ 'L
i
C ^
^ v
� �
� �
�
Ci J
�
� �
N �
r
��
u
rn
C
.�
1
o � V
�� �
� T
V � I M �
y C O �
� �c Y o o N
0
�— — —
• 4
L � �
_
�
a
d�
>o
d�
��
L M
Q1 fD
C
a
�
C J
� F
a �o LL
jOr
d��
�o
� m N
' �O
A
� �
c(� - �5�
/
Macalester-Groveland
Community Council
320 South Griggs Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota SS10S-2800
Telephone: (612) 698-7973
Fa�c� (612) 69S-4�i65
Apri! 10. t997
Litto� Fieid, Chair
Zoning Committee
Saint Pa�d Planning Commission
110Q Ciry Hall Pnnex
Sairtt Paul, MN 55t02
Dear Mr. Fieid,
RECEIVED
APR i l 1997
ZON(NG
The Macalester-Groveland Community Council does not support the appiicffiion by John Kratz for a Special
Condition Use Permft to allow the dustering of eight townhomes on the 1�5E blutf between JWiet and
Patace.
We betieve that Mr.Kretz' proposed deveiopmeM dces not meet the c�ndkions necessary for a duster
devetopment.
r The parcel dces not have 80 feet oF frontage on an improved street.
* The proposed development dces not conform to the setback requiremeMS of the R-4
district. The rear side of the building is not set back 25 feet from the property line.
t The proposed deveiopmeru does not confortn to the requiremeM that alteretion of the
natural topography be minimized. 12 feet of fili is a significaM alteration.
+ The bu7ding mass (iwo buDdings each 96' by 36'), height (3 stories), and buAding
orientation (dominance of garages on front tacade) are not simlar to or compatiWe with the
surrounding neighborhood. The project would Wxk air and tigtrt from atijaceM homes,
detracting from the r�sonade en)oymera of the neighbors' property
We also believe that this matter should not be acted on by the P(anning Commission urrt� the parcel is
assembied. Mr. Kratz' PraWsal is dased on the parcei being 40.000 s4uare feet We request tF�at the
Pianntng Commission table the matter unL'i the City Cour� acts on the application for the vacation of
Palace and ur�til ownership of the vacated aliey on the �st side of the parcel has been determined.
Thank you for your consideraCwn of our posftion on this matter.
Sincerely.
C..�.t,E"�-Q Gt�,ZJ c�" `c.��n.lS7s��
Kstherine Tamowski
Commut�r Organizer
��
�
•
39
C�
Saint Paul Zoning Committee
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
RECEIVED
APR 0 9 �997
ZONfNG
�� -�s �
Apri18, 1997
Zoning Committee:
Shis letter is in regard to the proposed construction of S townhomes on the I-35E bluf£
t�etween Juliet and Palace (Zoning File Number 97-050 - John Kratz Cluster
Development). I live on the corner of I,exington and Palace, just west of the proposed
site.
I am astounded that anyone would wish to build on such an inappropriate site and I
find it difficult to believe that any construction in this constricted area could be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. T'he fact that it would currently be
iliegal for this development to be constructed underscores the inadvisability of the
project. I see no good reason to grant a special use pennit. The reason the zoning
laws exist are to prevent inappropriate pro}ects such as t4us.
• Sincere]y, .
` �i /:'�>�ri� �f ,C�t/`�.i�
M. Scott Spencer�
4I5 Lexington Parkway South.
Saint Paul, MN 55105
•
ZO�I�� ���.� q��o5c� �
.�
R�11+ 3NNns
11:28:76 41&87
���
•
1073 Jaznes Avenue
St. Paul, h� 55103
St. Pau] Zocting Comcnittee
25 W'est Fourth Street
St. Paul, IvL� 551t12
Re: Zouing File Number 97-650
Zoning File Name: Jolui Kratz Clustcr Developcncnt
Zoning Committee:
I6 April, 1997
RECEIVED
APR I 7 1997
ZONING
We are sending this letter in 2ieu of being able ta attend the April 17 hearing conceming the
building of townhomes an the I35L bl� bctween 7ulict and Palace Avenues.
We strongly urge you to not grant a�eciat-use permit fnr this groject. Since nw �erty lies
within 35U feet of the proposed project we k�ave a right to voice our opinion. Below aze the
highlighu of our azgumenu against the pmposal.
Dminage and Rimoff
Our property (and others) lies south and belo�c� the proposed site. A substantial sufface area will be
covered aith conaete. Aow careful of a stud}� lias been dene to insure ihat those of ns " dOR'R
ssWam" from the site won'i hat�e problems with escess water? On the face of it it seems that
every•one is assuming ttiat the runoff will onl} affect ihe DOT land between the site and I35E.
�st ��est Oriemation
Consider the area bounded by Randolph ?,��enue on the south and 7efferson Avenue on the north.
At! homes e�cepi those on major streeu run alon� an east-west line. Oniy homes on Le�iugton
aad Edgecombe A�enues in this �icurit5 run along a north-south line. For homes on the top of the
bfuff east of Losington Avcnue, that cast-��est oricntation is cvcn more imporfant bc-,anse it
presv�ves the sight linCS looking rasl. And for tt�al rcascm over all of thcse yems tLal easl-wesl
cxientation has heen honored. That is, unril Mr. Krat�'s proposai was intrnduced.
ComQatibilirv
Don't misundcrstand us. \i'c support urbaa heusing dct�clopmcnt. But why can't ;vlr. Kra� build a
site that fits urto the existuig structural configivation and landscapc. Why can't ho build in azi
east-west orientation? Why does he need 12 feet of fill if indeed lris plan confonns to the
topo�aphg of the area? Perhaps a smaller complex would be more appro�xiate since then it would
fit mare easily into the em�irons of the azea. (Refer to the Teatec's recent buiidin@ on Palace).
Frankly we tttink tlus little cocridor of homas bounded b} tha area outlined ab�e shoulders more
than iu share of urban difficulties. II is carved out on one side by an inteistate trighway, and on
the other by one of the busiest interseetion in all of St Paul {Randolph and Lexington). Thebluff
that exists east of those homes is our oasis amongst these urban realities of lite.
Piease strongly consider thc vie�vs of us that will have to live with your decision for a long time.
Tfiank yau.
Iim Steveas
Ruth Stcvcns
C J
r 1
LJ
�
RECEIVED
�
•
APR 1 7 1997
ZONING
APRIL 17, 1997
TO: ZONING COMMITTEE OF THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JUDGE RON HACHEY, 1080 PALACE
MARY & LOU PfLNEY, 412 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
CHERYL & DENNIS MAHALLA, 420 S. LEXfNGTON
LAVERNE GIEFER, 392 S. LEXtNGTON PKWY.
'JOHN FOX & KAREN TENTER, 1083 PALACE AVENUE
JEANETTE & WAYNE WERMAGER, 1065 JULIEf AVENUE
KATE SCHULTZ, 398 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
TED TUDISCO, 388 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
IRV RUBBELKE, 380 S. LEXii3GTON PKWY.
DICK SORENSEN, 408 S. LEX{NGTON PKWY
JEAN MCMAHON & BOB DECK, 416 SO. LEXINGTON PKWY.
CATHY & AL EDWALI., 422 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
. DEB CAPRON, 435 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
PAULINE & JAIiAES HANSON, 371 S. LEXINGTON PKWY.
RE: PUSLIC TESTIMONY REGARDING PROPOSED JOHN KRATZ CLUSTER
DEVELOPMCNT, ZONING FILE NO 97-050
a �-�s�
We ask the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to disapprove
a Speciai Condition Use Permit (SCUP) and frontage modification to allow this ciuster
development with eight aweiling units because the proposal does not meet eleven of
the thirteen requisites of relevant zoning codes and planning goafs.
Here are the facts to support a denial of the SCUP and frontage modification as it
pertains to Section 60.413 (13):
c.The parcei does� not meet the lot area required per unit in the zoning
district.
The required_ parcel is less than 40,000 sq. ft. because
1) John Kratz's parcei does not include, as he claims, the east side of the south-half of
the vacated north-south aliey way. This property is owned by Karen Tenter (Mr. Kratz
ctaims to own the land, but this is ciearly disputed by Karen Tenter.) and
• 2) the vacation of the Palace property — 2,786.85 sq. tt-- will not be approved
because Mr. Kratz's petition dces not foltow the Cftizen's, Guidelines for due prxess
as pubiished by the City, see sec. 1.8.4. The DOT must remain neutral !o aii parties
and Judge Ron Hachey is opposed to the vacation. There is not a majority of owners
�2
n
u
upon which to actuate and, therefore, Mr. Kratz's petition should be denied.
d. The-parcel does not have a minimum of eighty (80) feet on an
improved street. � ,
i) The code�does not permit the addition of tootage °!N° the street .
2) The code does not provide that the 80 feet can be divided and
3) it does not permit approval on a platted (rather than improved) street.
A modification to allow a 3-way digression from the stated code cannot be approved.
Such a modification which would allow two, righf-angle entrances wiih less ihan 73
linear feet on to a narrow, 20-it, fire-lane as the sole access to the eight
dwelling unit complex.. Enforcing the no-parking requirement would be impossibie.
Such a modification which wouid
1} harm purchasers of units in Mr. Kratz's devetopment and
2) endanger.our genera) welfare as we immediately adjoin the development. '•
This modification, or any other, that restricts property owners' rights to adequate
coverage of police, fire and rescue emergency vehictes cannot be approved. We are
alarmed that ai! of us -- including Mr. Kratz's purchasers as well as the DOT -- will not
have adequate protection. There is no way an emergency fire truck can turn
aroand with these sub-siandard entrances and minimal alleyway. A futl, out-of-
control fi►e on the hi!! may not be serviced in time by one fire truck trying to run a hose
across four busy lanes of rush hour Vatfic on Lexington from a hydrant on Palace. One
of us is a veteran with 37 years of service with the Saint Paul Fire Department and he
cfearly points out -- too many homes woutd be at risk at once..
e. Structure does not coniorm to the scheduis of regufations for height,
lot coverage, setbacks artd parking.
1) With the absence of the east-side of the southem haif of the North-South alleyway in
the parcel, the side set-back of the south building of four feet is not met on the east
side and
2) The 25-foot set-back is not met on Palace with the absence of the Patace vacation.
!. The desFgn is r+ot compatibie with the surroanding neighborhood.
Mr. Kratz praposes structures that are completely out of piace in the neighbofiood. •
There are no three-story buifdings within the surrounding neighborhood (much less
any with massive dimensions of 96' by 36'). The two proposed buiidings are 200
percent longer and have 50 percent more stories than the neighborhood dweliings
�
r��
� 7 -�,��
�
C�
and, therefore, are not compatible. We, as existing praperty owners, wouid
clearly suffer from a suburban-type townhouse sitting oddly at uneven heights in the
midst of our existing single-family Macalester-Groveland neighborhood.
g. Individuai
and situated
topography.
lots, buildings, street and parking areas are not designed
to minimize atterations of the naturat features and
1) A ve.ry large portion of the base of the proposed south building will require 12 feet
high of fand-fi11 to support ii on a steep slope.. This meaqs that almost all of the
editice's 3,456 sq. tt. will be sitting on foose dirt with three stories of weight on top of it--
hardiy a minimum afteration in topography but rather a giant change in the natural
features leaving us to wonder what would prevent the edifice from slipping into the
Randoiph exit ramp from Interstate 35-E.
2) The natural features of the property which are aliowing the neighbors to share in
suniight, trees, and wildGte will be highiy diminished with the presence of two massive
buildings, creating a substantial loss of reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property.
(One neighbor, even with the city-mandated, 6' retaining wail and lilac bushes, will
now no longer benefit from direct sunlight before noon each day. The naturai features
she sees now would be replaced by her view of eight garage doors and four sets of
trash cans anchoring an editice rising three stories high within a few feet of her tiving
room windows.)
3)The undeveloped portion of Juliet and Palace wili no longer be abie to absorb the
heavy snow from City plows. The neighbors at each end of these streets wili have to
pay unfairfy to have the "end" snow removed.
4) All of the neighbors' home designs have an east-west orientation while the
proposed development's two buiidings destroy the harmony with their outsized
north-sputh orientation, leaving no area for a lawn (Mr. Kratz plans to provide no
traditionai iawn area but rather to pfant wild, highway-side grass, leaving the majority
of the grounds in cflncrete).
h. Application of this ciuster development includes inadequate site plans,
leaving to question landscaping, elevations and other information the
planning commisslon may request.
Plans do not indicate utilities, utility easements or drainage. Plans do not show
driveway connections ta side streets. The fire lane is not indicated on the plan and
hydrarrts are. not indicated. �
ft is unclear 'rf there are assessments coming to us to cover damage to Palace and
• Jutiet nom trucks carrying landtit! and heavy building materiats and from proposed
changes in water,sewage and electricity conduits.
��
C�
3. a. The extent, tocations and intensity of the use will not be in
substarttial comptiance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Pian and any
applicable subarea plans which were approved by it�e City Council. -
Denial of the SCUP fuliy supports ali five goals of the District 14 plan (cluster homes
are not an option as stated in the staff report.)
b.The use does not provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize
traffic conQestion in !he public streeis. �
Six homes facing Lexington on the block of the proposed site have restricted �
frontage parking and no ailey parking. We owners fuily understand that the Jufiet and
Palace parking is free and open to ail citizens on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Increasing the number of dwetling units by 113 percent on a biock that has only three
traffic sides is going, however, to create stress for alt parties wishing for access.
c. The use will be detrimental to the existing character of development id
the immediate neighborhood or endanger the pubiic heaith, safety and
general welfare.
Piease see our position for disapproving a modification oi the 80-foot frontage •
requirement (see page two of this report item d).
e. Use does not conform to the applicable regulations of the district in
which it is 'located.
As evidenced here.
4. Section 64.300� (f)
The project's subsequent owners and all surrounding neighbors are harmed by
creating a parking enforcement probiem on a fire lane that lessens adequate fire and
emergency yehicte protection.
NEIGHBORS RECOMMENDATION:
We respect Mr. Kratr's right to devetop his property, but we are opposed to this
proposed use of his property which does not meet the letter and certainly not the spirit
of the existing code.
We tully expect that the code for R-4 2one and its speciai subseciion tor cluster homes •
will be strictiy enforced, freeing Mr. Kratz to explore single family homes attematives
which would be compatible with the neighborhood.
We are aware of a strong demand for singte family homes on the site and are
i�
��_�s�
• confident that our City's tax base can be further deve{aped without substantial sacrifice
to those of us who are to become the developmenYs new neighbors.
In the past weeks we have done considerable study and discussion with the various
staffs ofiCity departmenis and with �Mr_ Kratz himself on this matter and conciuded that
the evidence clearly shows harm to the general welfare of the community and
destruction o� reasonabie enjoyment of the adjacent property.
We ask for deniai of the SCUP and the modffication.And, finally, we want you to know
we are looking forvvard to a time soon when we can fully welcome our new neighbors--
living happily in singie, famiiy homes that truly fit in our neighborhood.
#################
•
�
�
Q4i13%97 TGE 21:28 FAS 812 6897031 RINROS SNELLING SO f�j001
Name: � �. �C � � u.. l L � Date: _ i 1 � _ � /
� /•J
om any N (Department � InYi ax odes:
I S�• ��--� �O h l�'7 0��1 C ACCess Coun i C�
SpeciallnstrucEion.s: •
/� �s � �, s -�r � b � ��. � �-- ����- .� � �
} hone:
7`��r rc e. �� s ' `� h,-� e� ,fj � YS G
/� � r
�onl�'7 G-�h-idri � �� /-��-9�MVt :,
�-S Gv �-� j �S %rr� �� c c �,
Name: � !.� r� n �, � z�--Y� � i' Phone� � g � �� f �.1 �
FROM �
Cg�npany Name/Departmert: um r o pages,
�� �c r�� h o �Y � � l� �q y— O5o iru�u�n9 coyer paee:
� a�.� �
' kinko•s
j 58 S�Ifing Avenue S., St. Paul, MN 55105
� Phone: (612) 649-9671 • FAX: (612j 69g703t � �� ��
' rnissrore��aero�+aaa�ere�2anours,�d�ys��k apublicfaxservice
�
•
0
�.�} H i �; a:R{
�� ��V r
4
�olera � �*'r �i#xs to i��
'1M St,st,. af Wsma�ott h+i�K � i� t.e aeM �.t et
for � P�'PeNS aUe � ��'�`,��
sn adl�at�t �+►blis wU�7'� � t�aestNl; `�+[ M�!m. *� ��
a �
Anm�� i�t elak l�� � Par1t A�dl.tle�.iMO �a ,ll�
Qe�istionnr ot � ai ssid l�tb� 1ut�rl�E �aA th� �M'�3+�T ��!o
� /�- SY' � � TSC�� � 110��� �t �O �e �.Cr*' X@Qa_; � �;` � r . ., . ,
~� ' ' ":1�'� �� •
ftox �JNrr!'ort, �►
ii� 1'�lO�Gaa�.9! � �'� �a$��i
ssation 161,W►� �Ffie S�at,� ot lfl�nwa�a, 1� �t�I'� L�taeila� .� • a ��� : ,��'•
tor tM dae►a3duration of Un� �+u� �� ���� Ao�lat�s (�D•00) f�
• to t!a l��t� � af ltimt►�wota tor dopos'�t !tt ti� '�ra�t �Si�+� �� �. ��
ra.a... quit a].aira a�s oaa�s �o c. c. ttada. sra�M► +►L�''!!+1`-l�t�li"t!�'' �
ta t2�� trtal Htab�1 dtw�1 ix llr� Co'eM7 of �rY4, 3ta�c'at �lM�M4�a� i�1Nd
s� �ol'la� t
Al� o! t�s te�lonti�K dererib�d �rae;+ . •
�t psrt of f�h� �1+l�1 a'11q �M ba Iab 4� S�E b
�� �,y� g}�� laeic Addi�i�aa to i1N C�� p � w �
� M � � �asaEiaa �ir 1'f�t
A,r�p�� snd tM �d�rd ��h li�r.nf' ih� ��aN-�
t�sab abrtr Lot 9� �� li, ���
tiec�i�d� t,o tia�����i �!'°�` rNantt�%�,:
oti�s� of � "ae�! �lt�`ad�tee��#tr�IN�f' �+�t'j ,
... .< . 9sa: .;r� . ':, ..rr
::. .4? � �.-'° ., ::2': .'•.r`, `•
rYb�0�1 #'A iru� �OuCAf�b� ��I�I'•.•..•. .. y . .
, ,...:<....: • �•,.:.
�10 i1tON� �tlt� � �0••�. � Ty"
�u�tr�A 3i� i'rad ��d� ru3. �t�l
No �ds�s�i�l.n� da^rtaa itt ar7' tar+l ad� riM ata11 M
ov�trrsttd, tlrwd a�' �tit�d se i� sads�t'r!twd��;w' '
�1� �. �
• Plaeid u���i� �� L�t� ot ��i' �. , .
S�i�v. dt�plq�s and dwl.ai= Mlws'ki��et at�ld4l�tY `. � �.
�oMr`t�tt on tih� �rap7h►; tta rstT�� � i; � '! r � '.
asid a� an ani�aso�sU i� !►+�'d
�.eesr� in a►� rora. 4 �
04i15/97 TCiE 11:27 FA% 612 6997031 RINSOS SNELLING SO f� 002
04/15/97 TL'E 11:28 F9$ 612 6997051 %IIVBOS SNELLIrG SO f�003
> 612 689 4671.=` 3! 6
^�E�"t BY�?�'V!DQT L4\U MAtiAGFME�T; 4-14-97 ,12�43P14i ; ,.,. ,
�. _, ;:,, . .�„�
,� r�;�� -.x.; ''` -':�;• .a:•, .�
. ,, _ . • �� � � a�,,'•7 %�+,i;.. • �r,:. . . .
_ � .. �.:: �.,i". : �..t' t ' `.'G»: �''.3.' i ` :J.:j;lni'7 .a�'; 'f'z•.. . .,
, . . �.w�J .. . :.i '•�� . .
�.i...—.w��r .......--'-- - . , iFn � • 's .+ � -
. . ��.�y��'��. A a ��,.:.�
� . . � . � �:. � a� �..I,iL�tn.li�.+,``�i ir , .
. . : , .Y�::;
. , . . . . �•�' " ';I./��'�':L� lt� y�' ' ' : , ' .,. u
. , . ' :A: -:_ v�",ti \ '�i,.�l A�. :
' u �..�a• `i{ ;j'' :G'i ..�{¢�,� �
.� � y • y� �y�J�'.•�,' �.i� a��E �tkk.�` �. ���,¢� .7J'tl' -
. .... , +�7 •Y vky '�
. ' •^_. ^..a ��. '., } �.a�r"':��," t
� ... . .' �.�t1+n:K Y! r .. �� .°'2(!.°'`7�
. :� a .,. . . .. � ��: . .� . ;l: r: .T��.� l ^'� t � biy ' �:. ',ji u T��t.'�r��.'a'M�N�
. �..� � t , , ` �� , T, ` �
,.y .� � 1 " � ' •. �±:� .. . '.�, �
�i� Ilri� , ,. �. � :. ,•?,�,•':�::��'!� .Kl.�r� .`� . �j'
. . .,�• , ...:`!'. v. .. �." •. : . •;.�. ,
. r,. .. '� ,�"c. • 1 . •, .
' .� a :i' .A•R�...�+ r..� '� 0'E , 't �„ ' ��
.. .,. � . i.� '' t.. : � �� ��
:���
�i i� � SfiwR � tiiw .. . .' : � �.. ... i k h•tC'�pia W,•t +��� '
I .x . rti; '�4a 1 �a i''Ro� �
� . a _:.��•., '�.� «,a.`w�.. .,iW�.�:,.��'. . A. `�?'<',e
�a� ots • ' . ;; ; :;, . ,�.,'��;
'� ; rl� y �y,��
. , . • �' ' . ;i . �4.�+�. �;'?
•`!�!j� . . . . � . ... . .. � t � ` � L , ` , . n' �'� r•.."
�� „i ._�
r � S.i :Y.'�'1. . :::.l.r.,��.y �"+�1.,( �,.. � .
. � . . . ': . ' ..�.Y.p:'.;:i[<• s : ..4i2"+A..' ';:_ , . �`��yn
. � ,: r P•,.: 4 �.. 1 , y ��a
, . . � • y_i!`�.`;�: � '14 ,��h'�4?�.^�.'-:.f:.)�� •t" • �2'
. .• x • . 'Sn•�HI�.,�'.. ' S .�r � 1�•�l� �' ' .T�
� � �� y ��c� ��•
r- r o� � : i
' � d , e�' �t?.: 'i��'�.Yi ti'1Lti:S•,ry �..
. . ., , . .. ,i . r � . : : ,. .a° � �>':o � . � . : ' • V;�.
, • . , :. ., . . .. ' .. •.:. tL.���. >'. '. � •
�i # ` t
. .e �� 4 � f � ��.,: 6i+ lY.1.f ��+V�.
y t4 tC�k�i . , .. . . . � . • . , ,�i���a�!/�-d-'G�'(+��.
� "�
.,'. ',
s ;. .; , .
� � . ' ... �::a,. •. .;• - .._
t ' ' ; ' , r;�'' _ ' . �
�, . � <. , '.�• � �'.. .�. �!'ti' . �
{ f�le i � 1'i� ' . .. ' `�t"',
. � �' '
8TA'Y'� � 1QIt�� � . ' . . , - , : .. � , � � .. �.,: . � _ . • .
f�s. • � . , v:�
� �. • .. ��, �.
� • .. - : ' : •• : `'_ ,,.,,. � , . .
.N'.{ •'�: .+
. � . . �V :t.t. y; z :s"' ".��'� �1 .
0!► � � . � �.�. � A :. . � �`:T ' ' a. , . , , ��� • ,
a ��'�7' • ' � ���{, -.�i'M4R'�if� ^ �:".. " _, .:;:
te' �e�sa�e�t't�w' # � �, ��'{����. � ^�t�+►!�?�!t�,+4�=���,a,�d-,1: � . , ;;.; � .
[ y��—_' �• �� �� �� j ( i 1{
� � 1��'�� � � . � �• Ii � •�I�:W.:.�.r'�"��✓..� .' rS
`�11?'i�.. ,J���<
�. y �; �� � 'r: �'.r a'..:
■�,��1A R ���:: •).,:r.1��:�•Nj�'..::/.'
..,�..N�:+ ,. ,�.,.., ,r.,,
,
.
�i+elt . . • . .,,.,. . . ,. • ,:. . .: �;�.
; �.,•
3b'�,.Ik , . , .. -; ., :.,:: �- �:,
� . � . .�,<:. . -
. �:.�i:1 ::: "r , � �� � . .,
, . . . •,�; - ... � ��..: •''.x�•. •`. . ''� :,';.
' . . . ' - • �� �:.` .� ''� �` v; :. ` r , _, T`` J �r ,,
. . , .^,' :i , �-�. ;y�"'���dK�T.'..
. . . ,j,!- , v ' �'t�J �:�� _ v-"�. �:k.
. , s. - �Y::7�.�.�..:�2�!t: �s,n,...+f:, ..
' • . • . . . � . . t, � ".il ���{.� � � ,�' . . .
�y����"�� . .
�p�e�e�d ati t,o reCiattiial►: • • �.., . M .
;. . ;.z::�-' : .z, �..� ; ;
. ,7 _ . � � 1 . � . . . �x�, �_,�;�y atu �)'.',. , ., . . � •
U
�
�
�� /!. r/ !/,._//
. � , Y . i' � ."r5
`' * ,:iy1 A� t' r.' �'q'�T. .I . .a..
� f �_
��.� R:-�.F�.. .. - , _ �.�� � ;P:'. ,`:, ;-�.
, �y.' r: �'f �j'': :'i;;r�.^:�`?'�al.' n r�i r` l ��:.,,, .
� Y: .: i�.'� .:"S :� •'P' e��Cti�:�'��� $^��f ar..,.�:t;1,.::+,. .��.
. . ' ' .i? :;: l' ....� WF.;� :� . .;.: -
.ii : .q+•.r�,�i...'..;,c ;,, ,� / v;+ :. 'T • ^;sy:'�
�� �� . � •�' "i•rm_ � .�. S I"�+ait�.'i��, .i.•".��•. -
�• � .li '" �� 3ni'H.'r'�_ c t- '�� r _
. � ��"'::� ' '.�'� �.• ��� �{ „�j ic .�.
a t�' ��'� 5 {�r..�o iS �.9)l ��{ <�i���[ A)• 1', _
. y: ��� ,� , = ( a ', l.t` �.* � Cq'�r/>•��5����,''(�� i�•+• �.. . . . .
.� . .. . .�.�.1.T�.' .:.�„� �`�
Extended Pa9e
.�* ( � �'.��,�� .
. � .�.5' '`���. 'l� NI�.
rt'i� �,i:,, . •
.i�; ,,,�; .
. ;c ,
�n`""';�: " ;';�'j�:
:f.1 - . � > � R .
��' _ . - �n�: f.
5 .:� .
�. :.. .�:t ' � ' .. i �
T(` . . ,
. ' . 1 �'.�
�
' �_ .����i
�.*, . ' � jy.,i
.Af �`K'..rse.
DS%15:91 T'GE ii 49 F.iY 61f Q9P7Ul1 BINFri9 S1vELLING 90
�� - , -� � ��� -�:�
. ; _�
h � ��
� � :�:-'-� 3_JEFFER � v - • ..
e
� _ - � � ` � � '.s:
k � D
! �� \° sT. �pau ►. � y a � '
/ ��� N � 4
� � `r ' � � , y IY
�t �
�fs;:� 1�i F �t � I�
�OL ' ��MR V � � O
I � !•_.A uY 0
o _s.' -•- r, � �$ _�
/ • -.---'— •. ..
� r . ca�in�� V
e � wS .�',. �" L e'] p p;
# �rj`� ici ,.� �. � n _ . .�. l._-�
! .:� a ;r:�.t �• ;,u ,�uu� . - �, � �* �� .
f i ' r• '�:
°' " � � . l.: ��
,,- ; �
p c T w+ + n' 0!' i•:�'� ,� .: �n
�� ��bN � � � ��" i .� .
�tl w R L � I � .. 1.t � � �
a ��°� ( j " �
s4'�.'_ev.� � � ` ��
� C O� Ny�� , � I �S'��� . `.�_ . l �J
OLYOCC a3 � ' r
... �. o i n e: ' a 'n ti ,
��`'»L `��� j ��+%
s ��e", •� � j�
m�L� y � � j
�s �_� �_
�o�«yN8 y s PALACE ,:3
^ w�.b w �
00��0 r-�—
�€ Y��� R � °_— ' , # V..r � �Of�
�"d�� �:.:�•„� �, n �
i' � °,". `"' �t a^ C: Vi a�M.;� i�ti ffi77� " _-
�� � C � �... �4�` ' Cj`
�� T9� D^ ♦ ( 'y
Y � • .
� i O V Z � . ._ ' } �`.
y ... c J �
��9�,���v � C �:�7_ ....... ' , UO� •.
I l t °
� x �� � ``'� ` �,��� 1 :` •. J���
�J �
� J��1�� -� ,•-�.o
\ �� � � r .l .�_ _ I � - - ._._�� _
�, JAlAES _ � � l t•> ' i
� _` I �
t 1_..lL� �; �, 1 ; �
• '�'N 1 g �, �'' ° C�'t� • ;� �\� i �n "I �J,ra, � ',�/f
��7c c u>a ��d�ft:cn�x_ �
_ - ��3• cc. +�o .� aw+a
I !-�'
p d �
J
�� U. .!
���
� �r71.
__ �� {
.l`y�
_
t
pVE. ---..
s
e — ; m � !
f�;_ t � ' f �a ° �
. :�
.Y+
' A�' E:;� :
� .' � }� �:
if�
b
!
v �
t. � a
1
C �
�
•
Si
°l� -�'�ra
1. SUNRAY•BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD
2. HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HII.LCREST
3. WEST SIDE
4. DAYTON'S BLUFF
5. PAYNE-PHAI.EN
6. NORTH END
7. THOMAS-DALE
8. SUMMTT-UNTVERSITY
9. WEST SEVENTH
10. COMO
I1. HAMLINE-MIDWAY
12. ST. ANTHONY PARK
N HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE
14. MACALESTER GROVELAN)�
15. HIGHIAP25'
16. SUMMTT HII-L d
• 17. DOWNTOWN 1 • 1p
ZONING FILE 9
�Z
CITTZEN PARTICIPATTON PLANNING AISTRICIS
�
9�•�t8
zo���� ���.� 9�j
53
•
•
� -:; � p ���1
.,'•���=��1.�► . �
� � i
• `\ �"
� . ,�
\
� ���
52 � � �
�"
� � -¢ � O
- - y=- =--`�- -
-- ' - .'- "- - ----� r ' -
�i0�0�00 '0000�00 ip � �
LII�,.i.�Lli�_l_� o. o
1111i��l�i�i1� -=°��-" � -
�I¢I i i°I >- �' o
JULIET'" !
�
v� �
� J �, '
� `�_ � `/ V
�._.- ..�"`:=;.�-.�.�
�\-��. _. ._ . -
��.. - L
�---- F
v � � L
� o ��
> o q r
L
0 0� [
�:
APPLiCANT ���� � IEGEND
PURPOSE �J�� �� zoning district boundary
�E # 1' 6Sv 9�'��� �j -'L� �1 �_ � subject property n��rthi
PLNG. DIST� MAP ri �� o one family ••^ commerciat
� � Mtofamily ♦ �� i�dustriai
SCALE 1" = 400' �
�. _ A-� Q multiple tamily V vacant
�
q �� � o o :
O , f
V � _ �_ - .!
� ���`
� �