The URL can be used to link to this page

98-484Council � --�� J -- RESOLUTION Green Sheet # CITY QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESQTA Presented By Referred To WI�REAS, the purpose of the application was to vary the standards of the Zoning Code to allow the construction in an RT-2 zoning district of a new carriage house with one dwelling unit and additional parking spaces; and Committee: Date 2 WFIEREAS, Ronald Severson made applicarion to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals for a 3 variance from the strict application of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for a property commonly 4 lrnown as 420 Portland Avenue (See BZA File 48-026 for a complete legal descriprion); and 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 20 21 az 23 2sl 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 t3 4 WHEREAS, the Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on April 13, 1998, after having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Board, by its resolution No. 98- 026 dated April 13, 1998, determined to deny the requested variances based upon the following findings and conclusions: The irregular shape of the lot and the covenant requiring 8 parking spaces for the property at 415 5LUrunit Avenue make it difficult to develop the property. However, the owner has not explored a11 options such as conshucting a smaller house or repositioning the house. In 1995, variances for a similar project were approved but the house currently proposed is a slightly larger than the house proposed in 1995 and has not been significandy repositioned. 2. The size and irregular shape of the lot and the covenant that requires the properiy owner to provide parking spaces for the units at 415 Summit were not created by the present owner. However, the present owner was aware of these circumstances when he bought the property. ��15�. CI� The proposed development would not provide a reasonable amount of green space and therefore the variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The locafion and size of the proposed carriage house would impair an adequate supply of light and air to adj acent properiy. The orientation of the buiiding with the slde facing Portland Avenue wouid unreasonably diminish property values within the surrounding area. 6 5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not permitted under the 7 provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is 3 located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the � property. 98 -y8' 0 R l G1NA , __�___-_-- �_ _ _______ 2 6. The request for variance is based prunarily on a desire to increase the value or 3 income potential of the pazcel of land. 4 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 64.205, Ronald Severson duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determinarion made by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, requesting that a heating be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Board; and 10 WFIEREAS, acting pursuant to Section 64.205 through 64.208 and upon nofice to 11 afFected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 13, 1998, 12 where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the decision of the BZA in this matter based upon the following finclings of the Council: The Council finds that the Board of Zoning Appeais did not error as to its findings, procedures ar conclusions as contained in its resolution #98-026 dated April 13, 1998 and hereby adopts the same as its own. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Ronald Severson be and is hereby denied;and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall maii a copy of ttus resolufion to Ronald Severson, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Requested by Department of: Hy: Form Appro• City Attorney BY: ��.-►�-. S/��/�'� Approved by Mayor fox Submission to Council �, < L By: �ved by Mayor: D e � / �ted by Council: Date��`��ln �_� \9 y� +tion Certi£ied by Counci 5ecretaxy q � • y June 1, 1998 GREEN SHEET Councilmember f�1:.FT37� :1 RWTNIG TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES n�,�,�r owec,ae No 62152 ❑ CRYAiTORIEY ❑ tl1VCliMit � ❑ Ai{IYIIJ.fERVICFtOR ❑ NIYiCU11.fE0.1//I{CLTC a w��.� a (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council action taken May 13, 1998 denying the appeal of Ron Severson to a decision of the Soard of Zoning Appeals denying variances for construction of a carriage house and parking at 420 Portland Avenue. W PLANNING COMM�SSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVtCE COMMISSION IF iles Shr Pe�� rrer worked uMer a con6act tarthis AePanment? VES NO Hasthie o��m e+er been a ary emWavee9 YES NO Does this Pe�rNirm P� a sldll not normatlYP�ESetl bY anY curteM aty emPloY�? YES NO islhis peisoMim a tarpetetl veMoYl , YES NO OTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTION 1NDING SOURCE CASi/REV6NUH BuOGETED (CIRCLE ONq ACTNRY NUMBER YES NO IaNCW, kiWRMATION (ExPWf� OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATT0�3LZEY _._ "eSBtr��no� �—_— CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemme, Mayor May 29, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: BZA File No. 98-026 Appeal of Ronald Severson Council Hearing May 13, 1998 Deaz Ms. Anderson: CivilDiv'uion 400 Ciry Hall li 6YutKelloggBlvd. Saint Paul, Minnesola 55702 Telephone: 6Z2 266-8170 Facrimile: b12 298-56I9 Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly youts, '/� �1��.--\ Peter W. Warner Assistaut City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure Caunes! Re�earch Ce�re� � .: � � '�. - f [3a. # OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSYECTIONS A L � _��-- HNVII2QN2�AL'Fh�.-PRO�'ECTTOI�� S , ` _ . _ - vt - - - � — -- Roben Kesaler, D'uector ____ � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Narm Coleman, Mayor Apri121, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: B 77II. D I N G I N S P E CI7 O N A ND DESIGN 350 St Pete� Saeet Suiie 310 S�nrPaui, M"vuresota 55102-ISID Telephone: 672-266-9001 FacsimiTe: 6I2-266-9099 I would like to confirm that a gublic hearing before the Ciry Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 13, 1998 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Ron Severson FIle Number: 98-109 ' .. - Location: Appeal of a decision by the Baazd of Zoning Appeals to deny variances for construction of a carriage house and parking. 420 Portland Avenue I am sending a copy of this letter to the office of Councilmember Blakey to confirm this date with him. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eariiest convenience and that you will pubiish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul I,egal Ledger. Plesse call me at 266-4086 if you have any qaestions. Sincerely, � � Tom Beach Zoning Section ��u�n�� ;., h , A . . �l'nk.A1 f°0i irv�e� � .e ..' �� 9� cc: GerryMcInerney .Fmsrxurr• M014CE OF-PDSLtC HEARBiG 'Rie Salnt Pavl City Council will conduct a piablic hear3ng on Wednesday. Aday 13. 1998 at 5:30-p.m. in the City Cauncil Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-Court House, to consder the appeal of i2on 5everson to a decision af the Board of Zonins Appeals to deny varian¢es for mnstruction of a carriage house and parMng at 420 Portland Avenue. Dated: Ap[il 22. 199& � - � NANCYANDERSON - Assistant City Coundl Secretary - [Aprll 24. 1998) OFFICE OF LICENSE, L`ISPECTfONS AND ENV — — — - ------ — � � � Roben Kesrler, Directa� - - �t �- -` ��-j CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor LOFJRY PROPESSIONAL BUQ.DING Saue 3D0 350 St. Peter Street SainrPaut, Minnesora 55102-7510 Teleptwne: 672-266-9090 Faaimile: 612-2669099 6I2-2669124 May S, 1998 Ms. Nancy Mderson Secretary to the City Councit Room 310 City Hall Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals File 9&109 (Ron Severson at 420 Portland Avenue) City Council Hearing date: May 13,1998 PURPQSE: To consider an appeai of a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals to deny vaziances. BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL,� ACTION: Deny (7-0) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve SUPPORT: Four people spoke in support at the public hearing. OPPOSITION: Fonr people spoke in opposition at the public hearing. The Summit University Planning Council sent a letter in opposition. Dear Ms. Anderson: Ron Severson has appealed a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals to deny zoning variances for property he owns at 420 Portland. The variances are to reduce the required setbacks from the front and side property lines. Mr. Severson wants to construct a carriage house with one dwelling unit on the second floor. His proposal also calls for providang 4 gazage stalis on the first floor of the carriage house, 3 outside pazking spaces and 2 parking spaces in an existing gazage for a total of 9 parking spaces. One of these parking spaces would be for the carriage house unit and the other 8 parking spaces would be for the owners of 4 condominiums immediately to the south at 415 Summit. Mr. Severson must provide these spaces under an agreement that was made in 1990 when this ]ot was split off from the ]ot at 415 Summit. The proposal is expiained in more detail in the attached plans and documents. The Board of Zoning Appeals held a public heazing on March 23, 199&. The applicant and other interested parties addressed the Board. At the close of the public hearing, the Board voted 7-0 to deny the vaziances. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on May 13, 1448. Please call me at 266-9086 if any member of the City Coancil wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, Tom Beach Attachments cc: CiTy Councilmembers ATTACHII�NTS Site ptan, etevations and azea maps t � Appeai �' � Boazd of Zoning Appeals Heazing (Mazch 1998) Resolution Minutes Staff Report Letters Application Pazking EasemenT �, g Resolutions from previous City Actions f s. � 1 1998 (City Council upholds approval by Heritage Preservation Commission) t 1995 (Boazd of Zoning Appeals denies variances) 1992 (Board of Zoning Appeals approves vaziances) 1991 (City Council upholds approval of vaziances by Board of Zoning Appeals) � � � �`' —�- ----- — - - -- �.or- -- -- -� a oZ�s �� n�,.� p� � - - �� °° �o �� _� � - ___ � � __ ! � -- � � �Q - - -' g �� - - s o�' i � g�o I 0. aU �a ___, ---� � << , _ - _ � o c . .. y Y U v an a o- N x �+ 3rQy�J�tl �`1E/�(�Od �^ < a s g atMATltOB ° n � � _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _. xn�ms s � .e r+oai� ;�' �� , W =<� � �oQQ� 4 > � o �; ��5 � .6 I .SZ � i .Y , 6 � rt � �N a � � � ��a p o . '� s " _ �� - _ « V i � , � �� , g I om 3 i �� o w �' V= f W� �� _- �� oa },w � �g � �na � �. � I � �` � �aJ � P a /' t> l q � �� j � '---�'----� =ap= '� �V �� iuU o s � HSYtll � � � � � � pE�`� o / ��2. VR � T� �r \ \ \�, � d &� o . e . .. � — _ �,r — — — � �.� °f�' ��1�`{ � � � � _ � _ S � � -.y � � � � d 6 � � '}� v/ b �, y N y V � � , � i �` �� 1[ -� .{.1 � � V s�� ' ` �A Q N Q c'�1 >, e�l � i � �l ' � \ , � , , � � �� \, _ �. �- , . . ,� < �- / �� ,' .O6 � // / \ / / � �: A o a� �r 1.,1 � a. 0 n` , p d . E 9� 1 u /t� ¢ � � < > 's � om Z D � � Q � v� - 4 a o � �� us n v 3 f - \ N " 1 �K o&- 0�+5 �R, � iu BD !SE5 �N. scH�.�,�t �,�- �,�:� a�._�e CCNi[P W9�( M01RD '� WE57 ELEVA7ION A�QW� MP� �P�OV1� �� EA57 ELEVATION ''C�EI✓I� 1X �, ,�,�-.,:-w ,� � , ,_ i3 : :a ❑ a a �� NORTH EL'cVATiON :r.t�:�.'.+� :82B mu uz. zc:. SiONG k it+iu f0 WiCX M0�5[ sc��ti�t .�c 3� \ nu::'_�._ �'� SHUU^.SS \ mtc. WGC: � �9 � .J � +aze � 2&a I i82!'. � ^ � I � � � � ��i � � 20'ta 24^a i� 2G:a j . ' L s,OVUG a *xv � te uara �:sc r�� SCr._I:"_ „'C � SOUTH ECEYATI�N � -�°"'��•, •� � i :B�f ! � � � '��W�H •xe WnC�+4 0U4P-pliT O Y�SCH[q oi� -y ��-{ 0 ,. �. �-�- r-t'�-� �� ; �ou.� ti— AV E- � � ��oa�`�`=� -a 0 � o � q o 0 oio�o�o 'o��}ND AVE. � , o z � of�o Q-� m o � x � � c� � o � Q � � � o o, ¢ � SuMM+T O �O � ¢ � ♦ O M _ i v 0 i F � � Q � �� O O p O O O� p O O� � O ///'''�� O Z CIILL SUNMIT O `O � � r fG' O� o �� ! ` p �. . /� O O `` � �nn , o n �� z � o a o � � i i :. ` ; V ; � � � .y t6 i � O t � Q d � ` �� STd: F OFftCfS � Yii��il a o 0 t Sec� S i � ' E._1_!_�___!_ Z V V \' V ' \. �22 � \� � � l � � O . O ' n� " � V � o '�. o ° !Rj-�'j � � t ; 'Y �/L L ! G �% ! � / 1� ' HARRISQN JEFfERSQN �- � C� SCH00� � ` `_� � � _ r . - APPLiCANZ END PURPOSE �� zoningdisfrictboundary _ FILE # r� DATE 3 •' Z 3 ��. _ � subject property n�' orth�"- e PLNG. DIST a MAP # 2 � � t� o one family� - •� � commerc � SCALE 1" = 400'- - �-- . � tu�o famity , � .... industriai �'., - ,_ _ �-�('� multiplefamity V vacant � - �"" � �� 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. iD. il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGH W OOD HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST WEST SIDE AAYTON'S BLUFF PAI'NE-P�EN NORTH END THO,dAS•DAi.F. SUMMIT-U2�ItVERSTI'Y WEST SEVENI�I COMO I�AMLINE-MIDVJAY ST. ANTfiONY PARK MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMi.INE-SNELLING HAMLINE MACALESTER GROVELAND . FiIGHLAND SUMMIT HILL Dowrrrowrr 9 g_,�2 6 l ZOi�jNG FILE �°_ � � ° -- CITIZEN PART'ICIPATION PLANNIi�IG DISTRICTS APPLICATiON FOR APPEAL Deparinrent oj Pl�nrtin� mrd T:cnnomic Development Zoning Section ' "_ - . v 1100 Cit}• Hall Anner ' ' - - � 2S IT'est Fai�fk Slreet Saint Paul, ALV SS101 Z66-6589 APPElLAN7 � 2ip SS"/u�. Daytime phone�37�-D177 PROPERTY Zonir�g File LOGATION Address/Lo TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to ihe: ❑ 8oard of Zorting Appeals �City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section �a> , Paragraph �l of fhe Zoning Code, to , n � a eal a decision made by the _�'�' � o" �"��'ti� �"�^� %��=. PA 0� /ll�uu� ;-��. (dafe of decision) 19�. File number: � - D7(� - GROUhlOS FOR APPEAL: Exp(ain why you teel there has been an eROr in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative ofFcial, or an eROr in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. Sec. . a��cL ,:;.��isa�,,��_;� ��fR`; _ i�� Vit.�it{�i`? i[iJl., �y�.vr; .�" Rttach additiona� sheet rf Date -3-� City agent AppticanYs l^ ORIGlNAL � �-�Z - 598023 - Sidewalk reconstruction on both sides Winslow Ave from W Isabel St to Prospect Blvd_ *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstxuction (replacement of old sidewalk) - S�•65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $9.18 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide wa1k. A11 other widths wi11 be prorated accordingly. New aanstruction (where no walk existed) - 100g of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.42 per square foot. All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property_ MIJLTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RA.TES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 106% of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.62 per square foot. under Preliminary order � O —�" \ 1 approved 5!� �� `� � The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the City Charter: and WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City officers sha11 calculate a11 e�enses incurred therein and sha11 report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays � '�Blakey Bostrom — �bs �oleman �tarris ✓�antry �iter � In Favor O Against � ��sc�� Adopted by Council: Date��,�$' . Certified Passed by Council Secretary By Mayor Public Hearing PARTMENT/OFFICF,(COUNCIL iblic Works Sidewalks �NTAC7 PERSON 8 PHONE «rv H. Lueth - 26B=609 in Date - June 3> 1998 RE 3-27-98 � � -G�� 3-598 w�D GREEN SHEET� o _ ATIAENT DIRECTOR ATTORNEY erroa�� 4-15-q8 p �auocEroiaECma 3 il Research Office �MpVOR(ORnSSISTANTj > _ 1 _(CL1P ALL 40CAilONS FOH SIGNATUR� � ASSOC�ATE COUNCII _ CIERfC 3 MGT. SERVICES Reconsiruct Sidewalk in Ward 2 jSee attached list) STpFF 7� t� PERSONAL S� COHTRACTS NU3T ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. _ CNiL SEPVICE COMMiS510N 1. Has this EY S � NOer worked under a convact fa this dePa�ent? 2. Has ihis RersorVfvm ever 6een a city emR�oyee? — YES NO 3. Dces mis persoNfirm possess a skiil not normaly passessed by arry current ciry — employee? YES NO ,_— Explain all yes answers on saparata sAeet and attach to green sheet RIRTING PROBLEM, ISSUE.OPPORTUNITY (WN�, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH�'j: The problem "defective sidewalk" was created Uecause of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating freeRhaw cycles, service I'rfe limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variatio�s, etc. These pro6lems occur on a citywide �evef and must be addressed and corrected on an annuaf basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worssn to a state where it would be rende�ed unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible i@igations. The community wili benefk from this project becausa fl will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are crealed as a result of this activity. Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of consbuction procedure and assessment. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despfte the fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial, �� P1AR 2 7 1998 This option would allow the irrfrastructure of sidewafk stock io deteriorata, which in turn, will generate more persona� injury suits, uRimately resulting in the expenditure ot farger dollar amounts in eventual repairs andlor�gplacerr�eM, as well as claim payouts. lOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSp `�/�L COS7/HEVENUEBUDGETEDjCIRCLEONE) FUNDINGSOURCE 4 , = x. �a ACRYITYNUMBEB C98-2T75�- FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) � ° � C. Ct6 98 = 50,000 NO �-- wara z PROJECT• RECONSTFtUCT SIDE9VAi.B B.S. BIDWELL ST. from W. Winifred St. to W. Delos St. ��44 IlVITIATING ACTION: T4ris order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as pub7ic T necessity on the basis of an inspection of the wallc E%ISTIING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, scaled, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECOAISTRUCT SIDL+°WALB B.S. W. CONGRESS ST. from Bellows St. to Bidwell St. �� Il�iITIATIl�iG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of four (4) complaints and an inspection of the walk. EIIISTING CONDITIONIS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECON&TRUCT SIDEWALK B.S. W. CONGRESS ST. from Bidwell St. to Winslow Ave. 5Qt(/�� INITIATIl�iG AC'ITON: This order was initiated hy the Director of Public Works as public � �W necessity on the basis of five (5) complaints, a petition with one (1) signer and an inspection of the walk. EXISTII�TG CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, disintegrated and scaled panels. PROJECT: RECOi�SSTRUCT SIDEWALH B.S. W. CONGRESS ST. from Ohio St. to Bellows SY. �Q� INITIATII`II�TTG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public � � necessity on the basis of seven ('n complaints and an inspection of the walk. EIIISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK B.S. W. CONGRESS ST. from Winslow Ave. to Stryker Ave. �V) V INITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete wlth tree heaves, asphalt patches and settled panels. ..................................... PROJECT• RF.CONSTRUCT 3IDEWALB B.S. W, DEiAS ST. from Bellows St. to Winslow Ave. �, i INITIATIl�iG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of four i4) complaints and an inspection of the waik. -2- --- disln��rated, scaled, settled and �yBZ >ured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, panels. � B.S. W. DEIAS ST: from Winslow Ave. to Hall Ave. S Q�p�'� INPfIATIlVG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public � YV necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EIIISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, offgrade, settled and eracked panels. .......................... PRO.7ECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWAT,S E.S. HAI.LAVE. from W Delos St. to Prospect Bivd. & W.S. FiALL AVE. from W. Delos St. to W. Colorado St. i I vV'� INIT7ATING ACTION: This order was 9nitiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EffiSTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with scaled, settled and cracked paneis. .......................................................................................... PROJECT: RECO1vSTRUCT SIDEWAI.K B.S. HALLAVE. from W. Winifred St, to W. Congress St. �{� IIVITfATII�iG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as puhlic necessity on the basLs of an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with offgrade and multi-cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK B.S. MANOMIN AVE. from W. George St. to Chemkee Ave. �a;/ INIT7ATING ACITON: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. This walk is poured concrete with scaled, settied and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALS B.S. ORLEANS ST. from W. George St. to Cherokee Ave. D) � IlHITIATIl�IG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessriy on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, offgrade, asphalt patches, scaled, setUed and cracked panels. ............................ � PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWAI.K B.S. W. ROBIE ST. from Manomin Ave. to Ohio St. INTIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as puhlic necessity on the basis of one (1) complaint and an inspection of the walk. -3- EXI STIlVG COlYDI-T-IOPiS: �'his walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, settled and cracked — - -- panels. .......................................................................................... PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWAL% N.S. W. RQBIE ST. from Ohio St. to Bellows St. & S.S_ W. ROBIE 51: from Waseca St. F�ctended to Bellows St. INIT7ATIlHG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of the Public Works as public 5�� necessity on the basis of seven (7) complaints and an inspection of the walk_ EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, offgrade, asphalt patches, settied and cracked panels. PRO.7ECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWAI.B B. S. W. ROBIE ST, from Winslow Ave. to Stryker Ave. INITIATIlITG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public �pI � necessity on the basis of four (4) complaints and an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT• RECONSTRIICT SIDEWALK B.S. SIRI'l�RAVE. from W. Colorado St. to Prospect Blvd. I O� INITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public � necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This wa]k is poured concrete with heaves, scaled, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK B.S. S1RI'I�RAVE. from W. Isabel St. to W. Colorado St. �go� TNITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis af three (3) complaints and an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, scaled, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK W.S. WINSLOW AVE. from W. George St. to W. Robie St. YO(i(i INITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. This walk is poured concrete with scaled paneis. �� PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALB B.S. WINSIAW AVE, from W. Isabel St. to Prospect Blvd. � IPTITIATIlITG ACTION:- Tk3is order was 'srritiated by the Director of Public Works as public , -- ---neces"si�n fihe basis of three (3) complaints and an inspection of the walk. 5 ��3 EXISTING CONDITIONS: This waik is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphait patches, scated, settled and cracked panels. 2 _ GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: � �--�� The staff of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals studied the request in great detail and found that I met all six of the stated conditions needed to be granted a variance on this properiy but these finding were overtumed by the Board on four of the required conditions. I disagree with the findings and recommendations of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals for the reasons stated below but not necessarily only these reasons: 1. The property in question can be put to a reasonabie use under the strict provision of the code. Response: This lot is a legally buiidable lat, however, the lot has easement requirements to provide a total of eight off-street parking spaces for the Nathan Hale Condominium Association and must meet the design requirements of the HPC. Reasonable use would require that an adequate single or two family house can be build on it without a variance. The house being proposed has a total of 1,OQ0 square feet. A smaller structure would not provide adequate living space and wouid not be practical considering the design requirement of the HPC. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property which were not created by the land owner. Response: The size and inegulaz shape of the tot, lack of alley access and the easements assigned to lot �vere not created by the present owner. 3. The proposed development is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and is not consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the city of St. Paul. Response: The proposzd structure is approved by the HPC for this site. The plan provides for a 12 foot front yard set-back vvhile the anly other building on the south side of this biock of Portiand Ave. has a one foot set-back. The proposed house is bordered on the east by Nathan Hale Park. The one thousand square foot carriage house covers 19% of the lot �vhile 30% coverage is allowed. This plan will repiace a gravel parking lot with a landscaped lot including four new trees, shrubs, flowezs and a 12 foot front yazd where none currently exists . 4. The proposed variance �vill impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property and unreasonably diminish established properry values within the sunounding area. �.�dr� Respons�T�e proposed building is located 17 feet from the gre�e�ty to the south and 40 feet from the�epe�Ey to the west. I propose to build a azchitecturally designed, historically accurate carriage house inciuding a four-car garage. I have presented a designed landscape plan and have committed $5,000 to insure that this plan will be compieted. 7 CITY OF SATNT PAUL BOA.RD OF ZOI�IING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZOI�TING FILE NUMBER 98-026 DATE Apri113,1998 WHEREAS, ltonald Severson has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisioas of Sections 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code pertaining to the construction of a new carriage house with one dwelting unit and additionat parking spaces in the RT-2 zoning districc at 420 Portland Avenue; and WHEREAS, tiie Saint Paal Board of Zoning Appeals condacted a Qubtic hearing on March 23, 199&, pursuant to said appeal in accordance wich the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legisiative Code; and WHEREAS, the Sainc Paui Boatd of Zoning Appeais based upan evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially refiected in the minutes, made the foliowing fmdings of facr. I. The property in quesfion can be put to a reasonable tcce under the strict provisions of the code. 'I'he irregular shape of the lot and the covenant requiring 8 parking spaces for the property at 415 Summit Avenue make it difficult to develop the property. Iiowever, the owner has not expiored all options such as constructing a smaiter house or reposifioning the house. In 1995 variances for a similar project were denied but the house currently proposed is slightly larger than the house proposed in 199� and has not been significanfly repositioned. 2. The plight of the land owner is not due io circumstances unique to this property which were not created by the land oxmer. The size and irregulaz shape of the Iot and to the covenant that requires tfie property owner to provide pazking spaces for the units at 4I5 Summit were not created by the pzesent owner. However, the present otimer was awaze of these circumstances when he bought the property. 3. The proposed va»ance is not in keeping with the spirit and intenl ofthe code, and is not consistent lvith 1he health, safery, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Pnul. � The proposed development �vould not provide a reasonable amount of green space and thezefore the variances are not in keeping with the spirii intent of the code. 4. 7he proposed variance will impair an adeqxate szrpply of light and air to adjacent property and unreasonably din:inish established property values within the s:rrrounding area. The location and size of the propnsed carriage house would impair an adequaYe supply of light and air to adjacent properiy. The orieatarion of the building with the side facing Portiand Avenue would unreasonably diminish property values within the surcounding area. � � File �98-026 Page Two 5. The variance, :fgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitled under tJ:e provisions of the code for the property in ihe district where the affected land is located, nor wouid it alter or change the zoning d'utrict class:fication of the property. 6. The reguest for variance is based prirnarily an a desire to increase the value or income potential of theparcel ofland. NO�V, THEREFOI2E, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonin; Appeais that the application to grant variances from provisions of Secdons 61.101 to allow a 12-foot front yard setback for the carriage house, a 20-fooi front yard setback for the surface parking, and a 1.2-foot side yard setback for the carriave house on property located at 420 Potdand Avenue and legally described as (See Actachment); in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator is hereby denied. MOVED $Y: hiorton SECONDED BY Bogen IN FAVOR: � AGAINST: o h1AILED: Agril 14, 1998 APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council �}ithin 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buildiag permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued beFore an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of tHe apQeal. CERTIFICATIO�': I, the undersigned Secretary to ihe Board of Zoning Appeais for the City oE' Saint Paul, Niinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared tfie foregoing copy �vith the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true aad correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on hiarch 23, 1998, and on record in the OfFce of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter StreeY, �aint Paul, Minnesota. SAIVT PAUL BOARD OF ZONIIVG APPEALS / L� Sue Spnstegaard Secretary to the Board � MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, MARCH 23, 1998 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen and Morton; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Scherman and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Mr, Beach and Ms. Synstegaard of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. A EN ; None The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. RONALD SEVERSON (#98-0261 - 4�0 PORTLAND AVENUE: Thcee variances in order to construct a single-famiiy home with 4 tuck-under garage spaces and 2 surface parking spaces. A front yard setback of 25 feet is tequired and a setback of I2 feet is proposed, for a variance of I3 feet. A side yard setback of 4 feet is required and a setback of I.2 feet from tfie east properry line is proposed, for a vaziance of 2.8 feet. Surface parking spaces may not be located within a required front yard and the applicant is proposing one parking space 20 feet from the front property line. The appiicant was present. There was opposition present at the heazing. Mr. Beach showed siides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendarion for approval. Mr. Aiton asked if the proposed project needs a lot coverage variance. Mr. Beach replied no, this plan has been scaled dawn since the 1492 ptan. Ronald Severson, 415 Summit, #2, stated his condominium overtooks the proposed lot and he has tived there for over seven years and is familiar with the various attempts to deve2op the lot. Mr. Severson stated he purchased the lot two years ago afrer several attempts had been made to devetop the lot. He staced that it is a buildabie lot and two of the attempts had been approved by ttte Boazd but had not moved forward due to fmancial problems. He stated that he is aware o€ the easement for pazking on the lot because he too lives in the condominium. He stated that his attempt to develop the lot in 1995 was denied and the primary teasons were that tee didn'L have architecturai drawings, the position of the baiiding on the lot and that he didn't have a detailed landscaped plan. Mr. Severson stated that he met with Aaron Rnbenstein and went over ail the federal and city guidelines that are required to be mei in a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) disirict. He stated that he met five times with the HPC and they were helpfizl in making him aware of what is needed in developing a building that would not only be appropriate under HPC Guidelines but appropriate to this sice as it stood in relationshig to the main house, the home in the back and the gark. The HPC agproved their glan, although it has since been changed slighdy and needs to be reapproved by ihe HPC. IC - ---- -- °1� �`� �`-� File lf98-026 Page Two Mr. Severson stated that he wili ptovide eight parkins spaces for the tenanu in the candominium and there are nine spaces proposed. He stated that unit one in the condominium has two parking spaces provided in the existing garage and that was built on the properry after his original request for a variance. FIe stated that there are three outdoor parking spaces and the fourth parking space will be one ofthe parking spaces within the carriage house. Mr. Severson stated ffiat under their declazation requirements these parking spaces have to 6e provided withouc cost to the owners of the condominium uniu. He stated that the remaining two parking spaces within the carriage house will be made available to whoever buys his condominium unit and the fourth parkin� space will be for himself. Mr. Severson stated that at first there was a dirt parking lot on the site and he had three truckloads of gravei hauled in. He stated that he would ]ike to see the area become visually consistent with the HPC requirements and pleasing to the neighborhood. He stated that in meecing with the neighbors who had concerns about the landscaping, there were three proposals given to him. One of the requests was that he establish an escrow fund of $5,000 before he begins construction to ensure thatthere would be money available for landscaping and put the fund in the hands of a neighborhood committee. Mr. Mervyn Hughes who lives in the first floor of the condominium unit has agreed to chair this landscape committee. Mr. Severson stated that he has had a lot of help in developing the proposed plan from several of the neigh6ors who support the development. Lou Sudheimer, 439 Portland Avenue, stated he lives across the street and one lot to the west of the condominium building. Mr. Sudheimer submitted a computer generated photograph to show how the properry will look when standing in the park, a photographic montage of the site and a tracing from the photographic montage that superimposes Mr. Severson's elevation at the correct position. There is about forry feet between the four-story condominium and the proposed structure. Many of the neighborhood residents believe that Mr. Sevetson has done an excellent job of putting together a well thought through project dealing with a site that is very visibie and an important part of the City. Even though a parcel has split off the rear of what was originally ihe 415 Summit Avenue lot, in rea]iry this has always been the back yard of the Governor's Mansion. Mr. Sudheimer stated that the difference between the plan that was denied before and this pian is ffiat the grevious plan asked that the carriage house be regositioned and that is what Mr. Severson has done. The building would now address Portland Avenue instead of the mansion. In addition, the proposed plan would provide greater setbacks off of Portland Avenue, greater setbacks from the side yard and one additional garage srall. Mr. Sudheimer stated that since the previous denied pian was tumed down, the Ciark's �vho live in the condominium unit now have a two-car garage and this had to be taken into consideration with ihe proposed plan. Mr. Sudheimer passed around photograghs that show the difference of the setback from the condominium. He stated that the front porch of the condominium has an 18-inch setback off of che sidewaik and the steps overiap the sidewalk. Mr. Severson has addressed the previous complaint of the front yard parking space even though it is actuaily in the back yard so it will not be so visibie. He stated that there are far more neighbors in suppon of this proposal than the smal( number of people who attended the Ramsey Hilt Association (RHA) meeting. The number of signarures on the petition in support are more than tripie of those who attended the RHA meeting. �� File #98-026 Page Three Mervyn Hugh, 436 PortIand Avenue, stated that he lives on the first floor of the condominium unit and he is visualty the most affected neighbor. He staced that with the proposed plan he will loose his view of rhe park and two yeazs ago he was before the Board in opposition to the 1995 plan. He stated that today he is present in support and ffie reason is that the proposed ptan is vasHy different, In 1995 he was concemed about the parking obligations for the condoeninium being addressed and the landscaping. Mr. Severson has met with the neighbors and in doing this, his landscaping plan and building plans have become better than the 1995 ptan. Mr. Hugh stated that after living nextao the undeveIoped Iot for 25 years he looks forward to the completion of the project. Mr. Hugh submitted a petition in support to the Board with 38 signatures and stated that the APC is in support of the ptoject. Charlotte Kraemer-Prentice, 436 Holly Avenue, #6, stated that she represents the condominium associaaon of thirteen famiiies. She stated tfiat their buIIding was buiit before many people owned vehicles and therefore many of them do not have garages. 5he stated that when the Universiry Ctub has events there is a parking problem for the thirteen families. She stated that she is in favor of how Mr. Severson has treated the tot like a front lot with the beautiful landscaping pians. She stated that originatly there had been a carriage house on this same lot in 1888. She snbmitted a map to the Board showing where the former carriage house was. Marlo Hugh, 436 Portland Avenue, stated that she is tired of the mess, the mud and the garbage from the proposed lot and she is in favor of the proposed plan. Mark Vaught, Suite 700, 6 West Fifth Street, an attomey represendng Greg and Carol Clazk, and Tricia Leonard, who are also owners of units in the condominium unit. Mr. Vaugh[ passed out a Ietter dated March 23 and a four-page document that is incorporated in the Mareh 181etter that includes a copy of the Board's 1995 Resolution which denied the plan submitted at that time, and a site plan from 1995 and 1998. The individuals he represents, along wich Mr. Sudheimer and one other individuai, have various easement righcs to parking, vehicular and pedestrian access to 42Q Portland that flow from the day when the two parcels were actualIy one parceI. He stated that he also represenu Laurel Frost and Susan Bergen who are residents and owners of condominium uniu at 43b Pordand which is adjacent to the properry to the west. Mr. Vaught stated that if he had an overarching statement to say it wostd be that this parcet of land is a size 8 shoe and the proposal is a size 12 foot. The 1995 Resolution acknowledges that and there is very little differeat between this proposal and che 1995 proposal. The carriage house proposed is virtually the same size and might be even larger. The lot coverage by both building and asphali is esseadally the same as it was in 1995 and to cail cocking a building at a little bit of an angle reposirioning really strains the defmition. Throughout the HPC approval of this project, his clients attempted to interject a number of issues that they were repeatedly told by the HPC and the applicant that they refused to consider their issues. T'he HPC purely concemed itself with design and did not concem themselves with the issues that are before the Board today. Mr. Vaughi stated that the HPC's approval is irrelevant to what the Board has before them today. The HPC is an entirely sepazate body with a different set of rutes and the Board ough[ to apply those rules in tke way they see fit to do them. The facc that the HPC approved ihe proposed plan should maybe not play a part in the Board's Qecision today. Although the HPC's approvaI was uphetd by the Ciry Council, one of the two councilmembers who would have vo[ed to overcum this, in whose ward the proposed ptan is in, was not present. 12 �� File #98-026 Page Four Mr. Vaught stated that he doesn't believe Mr. Sudheimer's statement made about there being three times as many signatures on the petition in support as there were members at the RHA meeting is a factual one. He stated that one of clienu will speak to the fact that there was a lot more than a third of the people that are on the pedtion. Mr. Vaught also stated that everyone has had petitions presented to them to be signed and sometimes you consider them more suongly than others. A petition is not the same as a discussion, nor is it a discussion of all of the issues. The RHA's issues meeting which led to the vote not to support this particular project went on for one and one-half hours and resuited in a full discussion of all of the issues that relate to this project. The petition process, al[hough certainly being an expression of how a person feels, doesn't lend itself to that same kind of discussion. Mr. Vaught s[aced that he has seen the computer generated graphic two times and the problem with computer generated graphics is that they don't show you reality, and this graphic doesn't show the Board the issues they need to consider. The graphic doesn't show the re]ationship between ihe proposed building and the front pioperty line, it doesn't show the relationship between the proposed building and the rest of the lot, but merety shows how the proposed building will look from Nathan Hale Park. The graphic doesn't show, what his clients know, which is when they s[and on their back porch they see this carria;e house less than 20 feet from their home. The 1998 site pian shows that there is noc 20 feet from the back of the proposed building to the next property line. The graphic also doesn't show you what you wouid see if you stood on Portland Avenue viewing the proposed site. The buildin� that the proposed project is next to faces PorUand Avenue and the setbacks would not be different, but the proposed building does not face Portiand Avenue. The view of the proposed building from Portland Avenue is the side of the building. He stated that the positioning of the proposed buildin� is inappropriate when loaking at the orientation of the other homes on the block. Mr. Vaught stated that the slight cocking of che proposed building puts the comer of ihe building 1.2 feet away from Nathan Hale Park. He stated that he believes it is policy issue of putting a building 1.2 feet from a park and in this respect, this proposal is even worse than the proposal before the Board in 1995. He stated his letter dated March 23 attempts to analyze in terms of the six characteristics ihat Mr. Beach sited that the Board must find in doing this consideration. Mr. Vaught commended the Board for their logic in 1995 because he believes it applies equally as well today as it did in 1995. The first finding states that the properry cannot be put to a reasonable use undez the strict provisions of the code. In 1995 the Board also had before them a staff report recommending approval but found that in finding I that the irregularly shaped loc and the covenant requiring six parking sgaces for the condominiums make it difficult to develop the lot without vaziances, however, the applicant had not explored all options such as consuuctin; a smaller house or repositioning the house an the lot. Mr. Vaught staced that that statement is just as true today as it was in 1995. The peopie who spoke before the Board today would like to believe that cocking the building at a slight an�le is repositioning it, but there has been no consideration of a smailer house. The proposed house is the same size, if not larger than the one that was before the Board in 1995. In the second findin; the Board must make, Mr. Vaught stated that he would concede that Mr. 3everson didn'[ estabiish the parking and pedestrian easements and didn't own the land when it was split off, but Mr. Severson did know about these issues when he purchased the properry and before he concocted the plan before you because he was in fact the applicant the applicant before the Board in 1995. � Fi1e t{98-026 Page Five Mr. Vaught stated that Mr. Severson knew exacdy what he was deaIing with and knew exactly what the rules and requiremenu were. In 1995 the Boazd stated that the size and shape of the lot and the covenants were circumstances that were not directly created by the present owner, although the applieant was aware of the circumstances prior to purchasing the property. This was true in 1995 and is true in 1998, tnere is no change from what the Board previously found. In finding 3 the Board stated in 1995 that the lot split that hapgened in 1990 ideally should not have happened. Mr. Vaught stated that the lot split may well have been illegal. He noted that a couple of issnes that relate to provisions to zhe Code on lot splitting that he doesn't believe were mei. The Citations of the I,egislative Code ue Section b7.0304(4)(6) which prohibit 2ot splits which cause a remaining part of the lot to fail to meet minimam zoning staadards or where such divisions result in the creation of a nonconforming use or strucmre. The very fact that Mr. Severson is here before the Board today requesting that various condi[ions be altered is evidence at the dme the lot was sptit. This dcesn't meet the minimum standards al[hou;h it may with a smaller house but Mr. Severson has never considered a smaller house. This lot split was questionable from the day it happened and it probably should not have happened which was the Board's conclusion in 1995 and he urged that same conclusion upon the Board today. Mr. Vaught stated that the covenant requiring parking is much more than a contract but a legally enforceable document. A covenant is transferable from one owner to the next and runs with the land. In the 1995 resolution it was staced that the covenant requiring parking for Lhe condominium will leave very little green space on this lot. That was true in 2995 and it is also tzue in 1998. The coverage of 8ze lot is just as great if not greater, a12 be it with the building ai a stighdy different angle than it was in 1998. Mr. Vaught stated that the Code also states that there shouid be adequate drainage and he has not seen anything in the plan that addresses drainage from the paved propetty. This issue is not covered by this application. blr. Vaughc scated that the landscaping money is wonderful but ihat doesn't change the situation from two scandpoints. One, variances ought not co be for sale and two, it still doesn't change the fact that the green space that is available to put the landscaping on is just as restricted in the 1998 proposa] as it was in the 1995 proposal. In addition, the cocking of the building requires it to be 1.2 feet, rather than 4 feet in the 1995 plan, from Nathan Hale Park. This also brings the 6uilding tess than 20 feet from the neighboring house. There is also an exterior ceilar door from 415 Summit ihat goes afl the way to the property line which wo¢Id make it questionabte as to how it would function if in fact these two parking spaces that are there are full. Mr. Vaught stated that if you look behind the existing garage that is the Clark's, although there has hardly been a day that they have been able to pazk in it because of the grading, of the lot, there is a trash dumpster. If every parking space is full, the rubbish conuacfor will not be able to get to ffie trash dumpster. There is not enough room on this lot to put ali the things that aze there and have it operate at any kind of efficiency. �� -` l��{ Fite #98-026 Page Six Mr. Vaught stated that he believes this request for a variance is incomplete. In his reading of the parking code as he cited in the particular Section of the Zoning Code, is ihat the entrance and exist from a parking area like this must be at least 25 feet from the adjoining property. According to the site plan ihis is ciearly 12 feet from 436 Portland Avenue. This dces noc make it a lega] entrance or exit and ihere is no variance request before the Board today regarding that requirement. Uniess this is requested, the driveway is unusable because it is not a proper egress/ingress to the property. Mr. Vaught stated that there is the number of the parking spaces that are provided. Mr. Severson has stated he will make one parking space in the carriage house available to a condominium owner but it would he inceresting to see who would obtain that in terms of who woutd have to park on the outdoor lot. The question though is, are the six parking spaces legal? One of the parking spaces is clear]y labeled a compact parking space and the other space is only 18 feet as opposed to 21 feet which is what the Zoning Code requires. This particular parking space is floating in ffie middle of the driveway which would make it impossible for the Clark's to get in and out of their garage. While Mr. Severson has the obligation to provide parking, he has no authority to regulate the type of vehicle the tenants drive. Mr. Vaught argued that the normal parking requirement that you can take half of your parking spaces and make them compact spaces ought not to apply in this case because if the tenants wish to, they could own six Lincoin Town cars and then they ciearly wouldn't be able to park in the spaces that are availabie to them. There is not enough room an this lot for all of the parking that is suppose to be provided. Mr. Vaught referred the Board to the 1995 staff report where the Board clearly found that the request foc the variance is based primarily an the desire to increase the value and income potential of the parcel of land. This is the same project that the Board had before them in 1995 and that same statement is true in 1998. Mr. Vaught stated that his clients don't want someone to not be able to use their land 6ut this is an inappropriate use of ffiis particular land. He stated that this an incomplete request in his view and doesn't differ materially from the 1995 requestthatthe Board wisely denied. Mr. Donohue asked when the condominium association was formed. Mr. Clark replied that it was in 1990. Mr. Donohue asked if the association sold off the lot. Mr. Vaught replied ffiat it really wasn't sold off by the association. He stated that there were bankruptcy proceedings involving ffie original owner and developer of the lot and about the same time that ihis happened, as a part of those proceedings, this lot was split off. The lot was not soid by the association or by the members but was split off by the original developer of the condominium. Mr. Vaught stated that his clients are perfecdy wiiling to sit down and discuss purchasing this property and reincorporating it in the original parcel of land. �S File #48-026 Page Seven Mazk Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, Chair of the RHA Landuse Committee, stated that tast yeaz the Associa[ion held a public meeting regarding this properry. The proposal chat ihey reviewed is no[ exacdy the same as the one that is before the Board today, however, the Association didn't feel it had changed enough to warrant another pubtic meeting, nor a change in position. At the meedng tttere were 17 people who voted in opposition to the proposal and 9 in favor and it was a well attended �neeting. Mr. Voerding stated that this property has been a groblem foz 10+ years. Many of ttte issues regardin� the use of this property 6ave never been resoived in respect to the easement rights, etc. He stated that this cannot be a back yard in orQer to try and design a building that the HPC might think tooks Iike a caniage house to the property at 415 Summit. At the same time, it can't be a front yard towards 420 Portland. This is as proposed, a single lot with a Portland address structure. It wonld be considered the primary residentiai structure as proposed. The staff report indicates that the property owner cannot put this property to reasonable use w3thout the variances. The fact is that the owner can put ihis to use, especiaily wichin the perimeters of the easement document granring certain rights to the adjoining properry owners. He stated that his understanding is that the owners of the property at 415 Summi[ have the right to use this properry for parking and for access. The easement document give away any construction or air rights to the current owner. As such, one could assume that people could park anywhere they want on that site, in any of the garage spaces they so choose, and if they wanted to they could waik through the living room of the cazriage house to get to their parkin� space. The apglicant was fully aware of the limitations on this property when ii was acquired. Mr. Voerding stated Yhat he is noubled by The process. He referred to the 1995 proposal and asked how a back yard of a singIe famiiy residential Iot can be cut off at the base of t[ie back steps to create a new lot? How can a lot be split to make an existing home not comply with the existing Zoning Code? He asked how the Ciry can eIiminate setback and lot coverage requirements for an existing property by choppin� off the portion of the properry that actually keeps it in compliance? He stated that he believes thac it can't be done. He stated that his understanding of the situation is that no public hearing was held regarding the lot split, the Boazd never made a decision about the lot split, and ihe Ciry Charter and the Zoning Code requires that. The staff person who put the red rubber stamp on the tot split had no authority to do so. He stated that his interpretation is that the lot split has not legally occurred. He asked the Board to deny vaziances and inform the Ciry staff that they wilt not considet any further development of this site unless a developer demonsuates proof of ownership and full site control. Mr. Alton asked Mr. Voerding to elaborate on his statement that the property can be put to a reasonable use under ihe suict provisions of the Code. Mr. Voerding replied that ihe property owner could put a garage on the site and a sma11 home and stiil meet the requirements of the Code. The problem that is created with Lhe site are the easemeni righu of the other owners. Carol and Gregory Clark, majoriry owners of 415 Summit Avenue, the property frotn which 420 Portiand was split. Ms. Clark stated that the Nathan HaIe Association has asked Mr, Severson on thzee occasions to sell the property back to ihe condominium associaLion. Mr. Severson has re€used and stated that he would seIt the property to Louis Sudheuner first before them, and that he wants to buiId a strucmre to live in. Ms. Clark stated ihey would 3ike to see another garage on ihe property with appropriate landscaping. � �. a �- -� �y File #9$-026 Page Eight Ms. Clark stated that she is concemed about the green space and the east side of IvIr. Severson's project abutting Nathan Hale Park. She stated that one neighbor noted that the project would look like a sea of asphalt. On the site plan Mr. Severson has made improvements to 415 Summit and they have not agreed to make any of those imgrovements. One being the concrete sidewalk going from the back porch onto his propetry. She stated that her and her husband are the owners of the garage and to date they have not been able to use it and they have lived in the unit for two years. Her understanding of the agreement to build rhe garage was to provide paving and that has not happened. She believes that is in violation of the permit for that construction. She has stated that she has heard concerns expressed today regarding the condition of the property. She stated that the properry belongs to Mr. Severson and doesn't belong to ihe owners of 415 Summit. One neighbor noted Ihe mud, mess and garbage and that they would like to see it cleaned up. She noted that the mud, mess and the garbage belong to Mt. Severson. Mr. Clark noted that the reason they currently park on Summit Avenue is because of the mud on the driveway. He siated that he would be concerned of the closeness of the building to their condominiums as far as hidden spaces for the safety of the tenants. He stated that there was not a carriage house on the property in the late 1800's but rather a stable. Mr. Alton asked if the garage was on the properry when they purchased their unit. Ms. Clark replied no, it was part of the purchase agreement that there would be a two-car garage available to them. She stated the drawing of the garage had shown asphalt in the driveway. They were told the reason at was not paved was because the weather had gotten too cold and she has been told by severaf city staff members that there was a mistake made and that there should have been a bond put on the properry to ensure that the asphalt was put in. Mr. Alton asked whose responsibility it was to put in the asphait? Ms. Clark replied that their undersianding was that ffie original property owner sold the property to Ivlr. Severson. The original properry owner advised her that the property was sold to Mr. Severson at a reduced rate because ihere was an agreement between the two to have Mr. Severson put in the asphalt. When speaking to city staff she was told that Mr. Severson had assured them that he would do something so that they would be able to use their garage. Ms. Clark stated that the two properties were owned by different individuals. Tricia Leonard, 415 Summit Avenue lf4, stated that in terms of the parking a]legation, she was offered the free garage space with the condition that when she sold her unit that she give it back to Mr. Severson. She stated that she was aiso approached about buying the garage but that she would not be interested in that if she did not have ownership of the property. Mr. Severson stated that when he purchased the properry there was no discussion of a prior commitment to pave the lot. What was committed to was that the nvo-car garage be built for the Clark's. He stated that if his project is approved many of the concems will be resolved because of the Iandscaping and paving. He stated that he will meet all the requirements of the easement agreement by providing the parking spaces including one within his catria,e house. He stated that there is 17 feet between his proposed carriage house and the back of the condominium. The Code requirement is only 10 feet. �7 , File {{98-026 Page Nine Mr. Severson stated he requested a site review of his parking plan and it dces meet the Code, He stated that the home wi21 only be 2,000 sq. ft. which is not large. He stated that you woutd have exactly the same foot print on the lot with garages as you would with his proposed carriage home. His atchitecturally designed carriage home wiIt be more pleasing to view from the park. FIe again stated that he hauled in truck loads of gravel and that he could easily drive into the two-caz garage. He stated that regarding the drainage, that has already been addressed by city staff and should not be part of the discussion today. T-Iearing no further testunony, Ms. MadQox closed the public poraon of rhe meeting. Ms. Bogen stated that two years ago the Board mentioned in their ResoIution that Mr. Severson look at building a smailer structure or reposiuoning it on the lot, Ms. Bogen stated that as far as repositioning it she wanted it repositioned so that it faced the sueet and not side-wise. The new plan is larger than the old plan, tttey aze both 40 feet long and the new plan is 2 feet wider than the 1995 plan. Raiher than ]ooking at rhe Resolu6on and putting in a plan that the Board could possibly accept, she believes this is a worse pian and she witi not be able to support it. Ms. Morton stated that she is also not in support and feels there would be no green space left and if the driveway is smaller than it shouId be there may be some legal problems. She believes the owners of the condominium unit do not believe ihe ptoposed plan will unprove their home. Mr. Wilson asked how much green space there would be as he sees very little on the proposed plan. Mr. Beach compared the 1995 and 1997 plan and stated that the current plan has 12 feet of green space in between the building and ihe sidewatk and on the other side of the Qriveway there is 20 feet between the sidewalk and the driveway. There is also a triangie of green space by the park. The 1995 plan there was a uiangIe of green space in front of the building, 8 feet at the smatIest point to 25 feet. What has changed is that the 1995 had no green space on ihe west side of the driveway. He stated that he thinks the arrangement of the parking space is more preferable. Mr. Wiison stated that regarding parking, can staff require a designated pazking size? Mr. Beach replied that the Code states that the siandard parking size is 9 x 18 and all of the spaces meet that except one next to the existing gazage which is 8 x 17. A compact space only needs to be 8 x 16. Staff and the Board members continued to discuss the parking requirements. Mr. Warner asked Mr. Beach if he looks at parking Tequirements in terms of site plan review or is thzt something that is set forth in the Zoning Code as opposed to the normal site plan review? Mr. Beach questioned if Mr. Waraer was speaking of ihe number of spaces or the tocation of them. Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach to tett him where in the Zoning Code i[ refers [o the langaage of compact parking size. Mr. Beach repIied Section 62.I03 which states that 1/2 of the parking spaces can be compact. Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach if he makes that determination and approves it? Mr. Beach replied that typically someone will come in with a site plan and he will evaluate it to see if there are too many compact spaces and to make sure tf�at the location makes sense. Iv -- -- --- - �-L[� File #98-02b Page Ten Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach how he would tnake a determinafion that ffiere are too many compact parking spaces. Mr. Beach replied that he gces by the Code which states that you can have half of the parking spaces designated as compact. He stated that sometimes he dcesn't feel that it is the ideal solution for a given use but generaliy he gces along with it. Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach if he knows the Code section that specifically addresses compact spaces. Mr. Warner asked Mr. Beach if this is an accessory parking facility. Mr. Beach replied that this is considered an accessory parking facility as opposed to a pay ramp. Mr. Alton stated that he dcesn't fmd that the proposal today is hardly different from the 1945 proposai and he agrees with Ms. Bogen that the building is even larger. Mr. Alton moved to deny the variance based on the fmdings contained in the 1995 Resolution approved by the Board. Ms. Morton seconded the motion, which passed on a rall cail vote of 6 to 1(Scherman). Submitted hy: _,�j!? �� Tom Beach Approved by: �� Glori o n, Secretary iq BOARD OF Z0IYING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 1. APPLICANT: RbNALD SEVERSON 2. CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance 3. LOCATION: 420 PORTLAND AVE FTLE # 98-026 DATE OF HEARING: 03/23/98 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIN # 012823240240 (See file for complete ]egal description) 5. PLANNING DISTRICI': 8 6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 ZOlYING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101 1. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 3/17/98 BY: Tom Beach 8. DEADLINE FOR ACPIOIV: 6/3/98 DATE RECEIVED: 2/3/48 A. PURPOSE: The applicani is pmposing to construct a new cazriage house cvith one dwelling unit. In addition, a Wtai of 9 pazking space aze proposed: 4 spaces in ihe carriage house below the dwelling unit, 3 surface spaces, and 2 spaces in an existing gazage. One of these pazking spaces would be for the carriage house unit and 8 would be for an existing 4-unit condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit}. B. ACfION REQUESTED: Three variances for minimum setbacks: - A&ont yazd setback of 12 feet is proposed for the carriage house. A setback of 2� feet is required for a variance of 13 feet� - Surface pazking spaces may not be located within a required &onY yard. One of ihe surface garking spaces on the wesi side of the lot would be set back 20 feet from the front property line. A front yud setback of 25 feet is required for a variance of 5 feet - A side yazd setback of 1.2 feet from the eastproperty line is proposed for the carriage house. A setback of 4 feet is required for a variance of 2.8 feet. C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is aa uregular shaped pazcel with an azea of 5,428 squaze feet. It is currenfly used for pazking by the 4-unit condominium at 415 Summit (the properry immediately south of 420 Portland). Two cazs park in an elcisting garage at the reaz of the site and approximately 6 cazs pazk outside on graveUdirt. The siYe is located in the Historic Hill Preservation Distric� Surrounding Land Use: No:th: Single-family and duplex (RT-2) East: Nathan Hale Pazk (f2T-2} South: Four-unit condominium (RT-2) West: Multi-family condomini� (RM-2) C. BACKGROUND: There have been a number of proposals for using this property since 1990: Za - In 1990 the City approved a lot split that split dus pazcei from north end of the pazcel at 415 Summit. - Later in 1990 the Boazd of Zoning Appeais approved variances to construct a new carriage house unit with a 5 caz gazage beneath the unit subject to conditions. This �vas appealed to the City Council by the Parks Department. 'ihe Council upheld the variance but modified the conditions. - In 1992 the Boazd of Zoning Appeals granted variaaces to construct a hvo-unit carriage house cvith a 14-caz underground garage. - In 1993 the Boazd of Zoning Appeal granted a one yeaz extension of the 1992 variances. - In 199�} there was a pzoposal to build a two-unit carriage house with a total of 9 gazage stalls under the cazriage house and in detached garages. Varianczs nere applied for but application was withdra«�n before the Boazd of Zoning Appeals took any action. - In 1995 the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a carriage house unit with 3 pazking spaces beneath the unit and 6 surface pazking spaces. - In 1996 the applicant purchased the property. - In 1997 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a plan similaz to the cucrent proposal. The City Council upheld this approval on appeal in February 1998. (The current plan is slighdy different from the plan approved by the HPC. The HPC approced plan had a pazking space in the front yazd setback between the carriage house and the public sidewalk on Portland. The current plan moves this pazking space behind the carriage house so that it is not visible from the sidewalk and moves the carriage house 9 feet cioser to the street. This change was made in response to comments from some neighbors and zoning staff: If the Boazd of Zoning Appeals approves the current plan, the applicant will have to go back to the HPC to have them approve the changes.) D. FINDINGS: The Board of Zoning Appeals may grant a variance if it meets the following findings: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonabte use under the strict provisions of the cade. The variances aze being requested in order to provide a totai of 9 off-street pazking for the catriage house dwelling unit and the 4 dwelling units in the condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit). The applicant is required to provide 8 pazking spaces for the uniu at 415 Summit under the terms of a private agreement daung back to when the property was split in 1990. This agreement says that each condominium unit at 415 Summit is entitled to 2 pazking spaces on the property at 420 Portland. (See attached agreement.) The properry owner cannot build a carriage house and provide the pazking required by this agreement under the strict provisions of the code. Even if the cazriage house was not built, it is not possible to provide 2 parking spaces for each eacisting condo unit without a variance. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this propert}; and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The plight of the land o�vner is due to the size and inegulaz shape of the ]ot, lack of alley access, and to the private agreement that requires the property own�r to provide pazking spaces for the units at 415 Summit. None of these circumstance were created by the land owner. 3. The proposed varia»ce is in keeping with ihe spirii and intent of ihe code, and is consiste»t with the heatth, safety, comfort, morats and welfare of ihe inhabitants of the City ofSt. Paut. Z� The variances for front yard setback meet this finding. The intent of the code in requiring minimum front yazd setbacks is ta ensure that there is some consistency in setbacks and to provide green space. The proposed front yazd setback is consistent with (and actually slightly lazger than) the front yazd setback for the lazge condominium building to the west which is the only other buildina on the block face. There would be adequate green space in the front yard of the properry and additional green space is provided for the block by Nattian Hale Pazk which is adjacenx The variance for side yazd setback also meeu this &nding. The iatent of the requirements for side yazd setbacks is to minimize crowding between buiidings. The property to the east is Nathan Hale Pazk and does not fiave any buildings. In addition, the cazriage house sits ai an angle to the east property line and the vaziance is only needed for the from comer of the house. The back comer of the hovse will be set back almost 20 feet from the progerty liae. 4. The proposed va»ance will not impair an adequate supply ofGght and air to adjacent pmperty, nar will it or unreasonably diminish established property values wirhin the surrounding area. The variances for front yazd setback meet this finding. Granting ihe variances for front yazd setback wilI not alter the essentiai chazacter of the surrounding area because the carriage house and surface pazking space will be set back further from the &ont properry line than the only other building on the block face. The vatiance for side yazd setback also meets tlus finding. 5, The variance, ifgranfed, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the prm�isions of the code for the property in the district where the affected Zand is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification ofthe property. The variance meets this finding. The zoning code permits a single-family house with parking. 6. The nquest for varianc¢ is not based prrmarily on a desire to increase the value or income potenria! of the parcel ofland. The variance meeis flris 5ndiag. The request for vaziance is based primarily oa the aeed to provide pazking for the dwe2liug units at 425 Summit as well as the proposed carriage fiouse unit. E. DISTRICT COiT1�CIL RECOMMENDATION: District 8 Community Council recommends that the variance be denied. F. STA�'F RECOMNLENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, stat�recommends approval of the variances. elevations Letter�rol� District S 2Z ��-� �tarie�eterson lerome P Filla Daniel 0.'itt Fram Glenn A. 8ergman loho M�chael Miller hiichael T. Obede Kenneth A. Amdahi Ste�en H. 6mns' Paul W Fahning Timo[hy P. Russelt Esther E. McGinnis FRAM , v BERGIVIAN . ?;�i'r ._.:,':a ��'_"- - = ' - - . Su�te ;n0 50 East Fitth Sveet St PaUI. i�iR i5101-I I��; 161?I NI-fi�55 lol?I ??A-1754 facsSmiie Melvin 1 Sih-er, Of Counsel DiieCt Dial R290-fi909 e-mail: jmmiller6pfb-pa.coa March 23, 1998 3oyce Maddox, Chair, Members of Board of Suite 300 and Zoning Appeals 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 RE: Application of Ronald Severson Major Variaace 420 Portland Avenue Zoning File 98-026 Our Fi1e No.: 11127/950001 Dear Chair Maddox and Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: I represent Ronald Severson, the Applicant in Che above- referred to application. This morning, I was faxed a copy of Mr. Vaught's letter of March 18, 1998. I have been asked to prepare a brief response to the legal issues touched upon in Sections 1 and 6 of Mr. Vaught's letter. � + * * * The Private Agreement - Role of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Despite the fact that the ��private agreement'� referred to in Mr. Vaught's letter is of public record, it is, nonetheless, in the nature of a contractual agreement between private parties. (The "private agreement" is actually a section of the Declaration of the adjacent property.) Neither the City, nor agency thereof, is a party to the agreement. Essentially, Mr. Vaught is requesting is that the Board of Zoning Appeals adjudicate the rights of the parties which are subject to the agreeement. It is respectfully submitted that this is beyond the scope of the duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals. This is strictly a � • �i ,o �omnin :� � iu ��cn Celebrating VL � �ur � V ��' V �� LLLVL l�ir ..r..i:'. Joyce Maddox, Chair, and March 23, 1998 Page 2 disagreement between private parties, which, in all likelihood wou2d have to be resoZved through litigation. Mr. Vaught and his clients have had months to commence a lawsuit in order to obtain a judicial determination of the parties' respective rights. The Board of Zoning Appeals should not be placed in a position of becoming an arbitration board to pass its judgment on this issue. In this regard, it should also be noted that the City Council has already looked at the current plan on an appeal from the Heritage Preservation Commission. The Staff Report on the appeal made re£erence to the private dispute referred to in Mr. Vaught's letter and noted that it was not the role of the HPC to be addressing that particular issue. At the hearing on the appeal, which took place on Wednesday, February 25, 1998, the Council effectively agreed_ The Soard of Zoning Appeals should take the same position as the HPC and decide that it is not going to "take sides" in a dispute between private parties over the interpretation of a private agreement. Moreover, event the Ramsey Hill Association (whose letter is attached to Mr. Vaught's in support of his general position) recognized this, when Ms. McLaughlin correctly pointed out ". .. These matters are best resolved in a more appropiate forum. . . �� 2. The Private Aqreement - Nature of the Dispute. For the reasons stated in Section 1, the Applicant does not believe that the Board of Zoning Appea2s should be involved in the interpretation of private agreements. Neverthe2ess, since this has been brought up on other occasions by Mr. Vaught or his clients, he felt it was important that the Board have the opportunity to briefly review the agreement which is at issue. The Board can then see for itself that, at Ieast, there is a serious issue with respect to Mr. Vaught's position. Specifically, the °private agreeement° is Section 4 of Article 4 of the Declaration. A copy of that section is enclosed with this letter. (The °North Parcel° is the parcel which is the subject of this Application.) While there may be something in the nature of a"blanket" easement on the property at the present time, clearly, the Applicant has the ability to °. .. limit the boundaries of these easement areas by executing an easement grant or declaration, setting £orth the legal description of the easement areas, and recording the same in the Of£ice of Ramsey County Recorder. ..." This is 2y �t� Joyce Maddox, Chair, and March 23, 1998 Page 3 what will be done once the current application receives final approval. * * * * * Thank you for your attention to this matter. JMM:bap enc. cc: Ron Severson Tom Beach S. Mark Vaught, Esq. ZS /` �� hael Miller �, 2555404 foregoing. 3. Easements Through Watis Within t'Palis. Easements are hereby declared and granted to install, lay, maintain, repair and replace any wires, pipes, ducts, coaduite, publio ntility linea or atructural components running through the walls of #he units, whether or not such walls lie in whole or in part wit�in the unit boundaries. 4. Easement for Offstreet Parkin� and Yehicuiar aad Pedestrian Aeeess to Portland Avenne. A blanket easement for pedeatrian acceas from Porttaad Avenue to the Property, and vice verea, for vehicular affetreet parking spaces (two (Z) for each unit), and for vehicular accesa to the offstreet parking spacea from Portland Avenue and vice versa is hereby establiahed aver and across tke eatirety of the northerly of the two t2) Additioaal Real Estate psrcela (the "NortIi Parcel"). Declarant, or his auccessora or assigns, shall hsve the optioa Lo delimit the boundaries of theae easement areas by ezecuting an easement grant or declaration, set#iaig fort7a the legal deacriptione of the easement areaa, and recording the eama in tfle office of ttte R.amaeq County ftecorder. At auch time as Declaraat adda the North Psrcel to the Condominium, the easement(s) shall disappear (the amendment hereto ahall contain a provision teraiinating the easement(s)), the offstreet parking sgaces shatl become Iimited cammon elemeata of the units in the Condominium, and the n�uaber of offatreeL parl�ng spaces allocable to each unit ahall be reduced from two (2) ta one (1). Each uait owner in the Ccndominium, however, shall have the right of Srst refusal ta purchase from Declaraat one (1) garage unit if Declaraat coustructs garage unita an the North Parcel. ri. Easements to Run With Land. All eaaements rights and obliga�ioas created ia this Article are sffirmative and negative eaaements, ruaning witti the tand, perpetusl2y in futl force and effect, and at a11 times shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon DecTarant, its aucceasors and sssig�s, and say unit owaer, purchaser, mortgugee and other person havixig any interest in the Condominium or any part or portion thereof. �ARTICLE V. ; w,. .,. . . ; . . . . . � _ : . . . •�- . : . . , 1. Membership ia Associatiom A unit owner ahall by virtue of snch interest be a member of the Association and shall remsiu a member of said Assoastion uatit auch time as his interest in the Condominium ceases for any reason, at which time his membership in said Association shali automaticalty cease. When one or tuore persons hold an iaterest in a unit, alt such persona shalt be members. 2 Comp2isnce with DeclsraEion, Bylaws and Rutes and Rsgulations of Assodation, Each unit owner and occugant of a unit shall comply with aII ll 'L G ..�x..---- - ---- w�r , z++ar�� ----- •° — _ .. ` , :y, - :, ! � � + � � ,. t � -- � i � — -q� -- — -- - --- -- - �S. 1G�ARK AUGHT - ` ° ( - � AttorneyAtLaw Saite 700 Six West Fifch Saeec Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1420 (612)297-6400 _ FAX (612J 224-8328 � March 23, 1998 Joyce Maddox, Chair, and Members Board of Zoning Appeals Suite 300 ' 350 Saint Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 RB: Application of Ronald Severson Major Variance 420 Portland Avenue Zoning File 98-026 Dear Chair Maddox and Members of the Board o£ Zoning Appeals: As I indicated I would wjen I corresponded with the membe=�s af the Board of Zoning Appeals on March 18, 1998 about the above- refezenced project, I of£er the £ollowing as additional reasons £or my client's opposition ot rganting of the requested variances. 1. First, in order to grant the requested variances, the BZA is required to find that the property in question cannot be put tv a reasonable use uncler the strict provisions of the code. Stafs concludes that the applicant cannot build a carriage house and provide the right (8) parking spaces required by the restr=ctive covenant under the strict provisions of the code. Of course, this statement is true if, and only if, the only reasonable u�2 of the property is for the carriage house exactly as proposei'_ by the applicant. The reasbning was explicitly rejected by the BZA in 1995, in its resolution denying an essentially identical proposal by the same applicant. In 1995, the BZA found: "The i=regular shaped lot and the covenant reguiring six (actuallv the covenant reauires eight) parking spaces for the condominiums make it difficult to develop - this lot without variances. However, the applicant has not explored all options such as constructing a smaller house or repositioning the house on the lot." Parenthetical note added. Nothing really has changed about this development sinee 1995. The proposed carriage house is exactly the same size. And the repositioning of the building has been minimal and has actually resulted in it being closer to the property line wi.th 23athan Hale Z� Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 1998 Page Two Zoning File No. 98-026 Park than was the 1995 propos,al---1.2 feet versus 4 feet. The reason strict enforcement of the code prohibits this develapment is because the applicant refuses to consider a smaller or repositioned carriage house. Is that refusal reasonable? Zn light of the conclusion in the 1995 BZA resolution, my clients would submit that it is riot. The applicant has not reaYly moved beyond his 1995 proposal, He's simpZy dressed it up in different clothing and presented it anew. Additionally, there is no basis £or the implicit conclusion in the �taff report that no other reasonable use for the property exists. In fact, mp clients, acting corporately as a condominium �association, are prepared to negotiate purchase of the property upon mutually agreeable terms for parking alone, the purpose for which it was intended at the time the original, unsplit lot and building was converted to condominium usage. 2. Second, the BZA is required to find that the plig�t of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. Staff concludes the plight of the land owner is due to the size and shape of the parcel and the parking covenant and further concludes that none oP those circumstances were created by the land owner. Hos�ever, the BZA in its 1995 resolution found that while the circumstances were not directiv created k�y the applicant, he was aware of them prior to purchasing the property. That finding from 1995 remains as true today as it was then. Additionally, it is possible to conclude hased on the other £indings in the 1995 BZA resolution that the current circumstances in which the applicant finds himself are at least partially of his own creation because he has refused to modify the proposal by reducing the size of the propose8 carriage house. Nor has he repositioned the building on the lot in any substantial way. He simply, resubmitted the proposal that was turned down three years ago. 3. Third, the BZA is required to find that the proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants o£ the City of Saint Paul. in finding that the 1995 proposal did not meet any of th'ese requirements, the BZA said: "The proposed variance is not in keeping with the 2� Board o£ Zoning Appeals March 23, 1998 Page Two Zoning File No. 90-026 spirit and intent of the, code, and is not consistent with the health, safety, comfort.� morals and welfare of the inhabitants o£ the City of Saint Paul." In arriving at that conclusion, the BZA noted and oriticized a 1990 lot split which created this parcel as a separate lot. In fact, a strong argument exists that the lot split was not legal given the requirements of Section 67.304(4) and (6) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Those provisions prohibit lot splits where such divisions cause a remaining part of a lot to fail to meet minimum,zoning standards or where such divisions result in the creation of a nonconforming use or structure. . Clearly, here the proposal is £or a structure, which but £or the requested variances, does no conform. Further, at the time of � the split, the parking Covenant affecting the parcel created a use which was not conforming in that it provided parking for an unrelated parcel of land not under oommon ownership. The split such not have happened and was, arguably, illegal. The BZA, on this point in its 1995 resolution, stated that the proposal left very little green space on the parcel. The current proposal leaves no more green space and it similarly flawed. There is no reason for that conclusion to have changed. Staf£ in its current report focusses on the fact that the front,yard setback of the current proposal exceeds the set back of other buildings on Portland. xowever, what sta££ ignores is that the other buildings on Portland face the street, while the orientation of the proposed carriage house is such that the side of the building faces Portland. Staff goes on to assert that the back corner of the proposed carriage house is twenty feet from the property line. However, e cursory review of the site plan indicates this statement to be incorrect. The back corner of the proposed building is at most ten (10) feet £rom the property line at 415 Summit and is substantially less than twenty (20) feet from the structure containing the condominium units. Further, two of the proposed parking spots appear to be four (4) to five (5) Peet form the property line. In its 1995 resolutionf the BZA also found that the proposed variances may alter the general character of the surrounding area � or unreasonably diminish established property values with the surrounding area. in arriving at that conclusion, the 82A stated that �ailure of the�aPPlicant to provide architectural plans made it impassible to determine the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. That fact has not changed with this.proposal. ' 29 „ Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 1998 Page Four Zoning File No. 98-026 Clearly, all five of my clients, each of whom resides in property immediately adjacent to the parcel in this proposal, believe the proposed development will alter the essential character of the surrounding area, unreasonably diminish property values, and be inconsistent with their reasonable enjoyment of their property. In that regard consider the following: A. The proposed parking spaces at the back of the Portland lot are unduly close to the property line and residence o£ three of my clients and may well impair the functioning of an existing cellar door shown on the site plan. B. Each of the residents of 415 Summit Avenue has an enforceable right to pedestrian access to and from Portland Avenue over this lot. Yet, nowhere in the site plan is there a sidewalk which 2eads from the porch of their property to Portland Avenue: And if all of the proposed parking spots were in use, there is no way on the proposed pavement or sidewalks for my clients at 415 Summit to get from their property to Portland Avenue or back on foot. C. The site plan shows a trash dumpster behind the existing garage. However, if all of the parking spaces on the lot are in use, there would be no manner in which a trash pick up vehicle could access the dumpster. Similarly, there is absolute2y no space on the lot for even the smallest amount of snow storage. D. The 1995 BZA resolution notes that the parking covenant iri favor of residents o£ 415 Summit leaves little green space. That fact has not changed; it,has only been aggravated because the required number of spaces to be provided is eight, not six as thought in the 1995 staff report and resolution. Actually, the situation is even worse than shown on the current site plan. The applicant owns a un3t at 415 Summit and could presumably waive his two space requirement, leaving six more sgaces to be provided. Yet, the current site plan provides only five parking spaces, even if the two in the existing garage are counted. No agreement has been reached between the applicant and the owners of units at 415 Summit to provide parking from among the spaces located in the proposed carriage house to the residents o£ 415 Summit. And unless and until such an,agreement is reached, the applicant must provide at least six additional spaces outside the carriage house. The proposed site plan provides a maximum of five spaces. And issues arise as to whether the groposed spaces meet code requirements_as outlined in Section 62.104 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. It appears the size of all three outside proposed spaces is not up to code. Further, as a legal and practical matter, since the 3a Board o£ Zoning Appeals March 23, 1998 Page Five Zooning File No. 98-026 applicant must provide the�spaces and has absolutely no power to limit the type of vehicles owned by the parkers, the provisions of the code allowing compact spaces ought not to be applied here. Finally, with respect to parking, the proposed site plan is in direct violation of Section 62.104(9)(e) which requires the exit from the parking lot be twenty five (25} £rom any adjoining property; in fact, it is only twelve (12) feet from the property line at 436 Portland Avenue. The proposed clearly also fails to deal with the lot dra3nage requirements of Section 61.104. 4. Fourth, the BZA must find that the request for variance is not based primarily on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. In 1995, the BZA said simply "The request for variance is based rpimarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the� parcel of land." That the conclusion is as true of this proposal in 1998 as well is so clear as to need for further amplification. For the reasons stated above as well as those in my letter of March 18, 1998, my clients urge a denial of the request for variances on this project. Ve truly yours, �� GC �" , S. Mark Vaught /� Attorney at Law cc Greg and Carol Clark Tricia Leonard � Laurel FrOSt Susan Bergen 3� MAR-03-98 TUE 04:12 �UMMIT-UNTVERSITY PLANNXNG COU'NCIL aaxs_isss Monday, March 2, 199s Tom Beech LIEP Dear Tom, T'he RHA and SUPC's 1Qeigteborhood Dcvelopment Committce (�T.1C) deaded that the variance recentty requested by Ron Sicverson regarding 420 Porttand did aot deviate far anoagh from the requesY some months prior to wanrant yet anothcr Community Issues Meeting. The final recommendation was tbat the city not suppozt the xequested variance. The SUPC Board o£ Ilirectors concucced with this recommendaflon when tkiey adopted the NDC committee report at the Febmary 24 b0ard meeting. Piease calt me with any questions. Thaaks yoa Sinceraly, �� `�� Peggy Byrne Executive Airectar P.61 3 2- - � _. -- ..;-�.. .-,:.�._ � __ �_ 2555404 � foregoing. 3. Easements Through WaIls Within. WalIs. Easementa are hereby declared and granted to install, lay, maintain, repair and 7eplace any wires, pipes, ducts, conduits, public utility iinea or atsuctural components running thmugh Lhe walls of the unita, whether or not such walls Iie in whole or in part within the unit boundaries. 4 Easement for Qffstaeet Par�in� and Vehicular and Pedestrian Access to Portiand Avanue. A b2anket easement for pedestrian acceas from Portiand Aveaue to the Property, and vice verea, for vehicular offstreet par}.dng spaces (two (2) for each unit), and for vehicular acce:s to the offstreet parking epaces from Portland Avenue and vice versa is hereby eatabliahed over and acrose Lhe entirety of the northeriy of the two i2} Additional Real Eetate psrcela (the "North Parcel"). Declarant, or his successors or assigns, shall have the option to deIimit the boundaries of these easement aresa bp ezecuting an esaement grant or deciaration, setting farth the legal desrsiptions of the easement areas, and recording the same in the office of Lhe Ramsey County Recorder. At such time as DecIarant adda the North Parcel ta the Condominium, the easement(s) ehall disappear (the amendment hereto ahali contain a provision terminating the esaement(s)),'the offatreet parking apacee shall become limited common elements of the units in the Condomiiuum, and the number of offatreet paridng spaces allocable to each unit�ehall be reduced from two (2) to one (1). Each unit owner in the Ccndominium, however, ahall have the right of first refusal to purchase from Declarant one (1) � garage nnit if Derlazant canstrurts garage unita on the North Pa: cel. b. Easements to Rna With Land. All easements rights and ob2igationa created in this Article are affirmative and negative easements, sunning with the land, perpetually in full force and efFect, and at all times ahall inure to the banefit of and be binding upon Declarant, ita succeasors and_assigns, and any unit owner, purcbasei; inoztgagee arid �other person `baving any interest in the Condominium or any part or portioa thereof. axfircr� v ...: ... ....:.. . ..:..: 1. Membership in Asaocistioa A unit owner ehall by virtue of such interest be a member oFthe Associativn and shaIl remain a rnemner of said Assodation until such time as hia intereet in the Condominium ceases for any reason, at which time hia memberahip in said Association shall automsticaliy cease. When one or more persons hoid an interest in a unit, alt such persons shall be members. 2 Complianc� �ith Declaxation, Byiaws an3 Rules ansi Regula�ons of Associat3on. Each unit owner sad accupant of a unit ahall compiy with all 11 � . � `` � i _. F � �� \ ! , I � � ♦ APPLtCATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE OFFICEOFLICENSE,IA'SPECTIO , ENVIRONMEN'TAL PROTEC N 7 j�; � 4 3�0 SG Peter Street, Suite 30 Saint Paul, MN55102-I�10 j � � 266-9008 , �lLi J RPPLICANT Zorting o�ee use.itinly °_..' ._ '__ Fitennmber' .` :� , �p Fee: . _ $ .�'�= , TentaWe hearing date -'. ° ::`_ Name x;a �d �f (�(Y.Sr�v Company Address 7/5 ��,r/La � e�-- c�y Jf �au�, Stat�Zip .5�� aytimePhone 3��-��77 Property interest of applicant (owner, contrect purchaser, etc.) �3W /3 e f'� Name of owner (if different) PROPER7Y Address/Location Lf,ZU �✓-f/� d ,�tre�- �Sl'- /�; l, /�ilJ Legal description s � 2 � ��c � (atfach addrtronal sheet rfnecessaryj Lotsize 3�Od s1• t+ . Present Zoning PresentUse �i�/",T„ ProposedUse S�✓f �� f�vn. � �loi?5t_.. � O�rlC�.� � 1. Variance(s) requested� 2. What physical charecteristics of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? (topogrephy, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) 3. Explain how the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would resutt in peculiar or exceptional practical drfficulties or exceptional undue hardships. CASHIERS USE ONLY 4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial deViment to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. add'Nonal Applicant's 'a,'48aa�oz31�1o%�i C�}�: 4'�E�S VAfiIS;,CE � �`a.i� �H�LY, *�?�,� Date '�-� 9 � � _ �� Mazch 16, 1998 Tom Beach: The site plan which I dropped off last week does not designate the third off-street pazking space just south of the of the proposed fountain. I'm replacing those plans to insure that the designated pazking spaces are cleatly mazked. The major change, of course, is moving the &ont yazd pazking space to reaz yazd. In summary, the primary reasons for requesting the three variances aze: 1. The unusual co�guration of this lot with a 50' border on Portland and a 90' border on the south border and that it is not provided with alley access. 2. Although this is a legal building lot, it is also the primary parking for the Nathan House condominium and has been used as such in its entirety for seven years. The only other structure on the South side of Portland has a set-back of approximately one foot. 4. This site plan provides for greater green space and landscaping than either of two previous plans that were approved for this site. The overall effect of this p1an is to change a gravei pazking lot into a fuushed space with an appropriate building and a visually pleasing landscaped lot with ampie greenspace, trees, bushes and flowering plants that will camouflage the pazking azea. `�gt" �,��.�22v �5 4X� 420 Porttand Avenue lot: The iot af 420 Portland Avemie �vas detached from 415 Summit as a separate buildable tot in 1990. Consln�ction on the lot can be either single or multiple housing. The lot is located �vithin the Heritage Presen�ation Area and construction must meet the HPC design requirements. Construction an ihis lot must alm meet city code requirements for both buildings and pazking and provide for tiie off-street parking easement requirements as stated in Nathan House and Mews Dedai�ation. nn original 32' by 32' structure stood on approximately this same siie at the turn of tlie century but no pictures or prints of the building survive. Tl�e developer 1vl�o ow�ied tl�e lot in 1990 gained approvai from the HPC and BZA to construct a single fami(y carriage 6ouse wiiich inctuded five garage stails. This project which inctuded a tluee foot fro�it yard set-back �vas iiot bailt due to the developers financial problems. In 1992, the HPC and BZn appro��ed modifications to this plan to expand to two residentia( units with underground parking. Tliis proposai which required seven variances was also financially unfeasible. I purchased the lot in 1996 with the intent of building a single family house on the property as a residence for my �vife and mysetf. The site plan for this project �vas submitted to the St. Paul Zoning Department (Mr. Tom Beach} on Marcli 17, 1997 to insure that the parking space design would meet eity code requirements. The site plan was approved pending action by the zoning board on a request for a front yard variance and front yard parking.. The request for a zoning board hearings has not been ftled at this time. Proposal to Construct a Four-car Garage and Carriage $ouse: I am proposing to build a four-car garage/carriage house with additional off-street parking as sho�vn on the site plan. Tl»s carriage house plan, designed by Todd Bradley of Brad[ey Renditions, is the cuimination of several meetings with the HPC staff person, Aaron Rubenstein; HPC Uoard members and suggestions by other interested persons. The HPC board members were aware of the prominence oCthis tot bordering on Nathan Hale Park and the importance of the design in re)ation !o the mai� house. The final version of the carriage house plan was approved by the Eleritage Preservation Committee on March 27, 1997 by a vote of 11 to 0. This carriage house is 40' in length, 27' deep and 28' high at its geak. Tttis design allows four single garage doors a� the �vest facing elevation which is visua[ly preferable to two double doors but requires a 5.5 foot frrntt }'ard variance piacing ii 19.5 feet from the Portland sidetvalk. Five of the nine houses on tifis block have a shorter front yard set-back than 19.5 feet while the only building on the same side of Poriland is 1.5 feet from the sidewalk. G� Ronald and Marie Severson 415 Summit Ave. -rt�esc h-+� Conceming �20 Portland Ave.lot C. Reasons for Request: 1. Proposed use. Single fanuly cazriage house with four garages. 2. Physical chazacteristics that prevent pernvtted use. a�-��-� a. The irregulaz shape of the lot with a 50' frontage and 55.7' east boundary, 85' west boundary and 90' south boundary. b. The lot has no aliey thereby requiring automobile access from Portiand Avenue. c. The lot is located in the heritage preservation area. d. The need to provide parking for the owners of condominiums at 415 Portland � 3. Variations requested. �E�� s��a. � t•�. E yev:<.1 p ti. a. Request for a front yard buiiding set back from the required 25' to 19.5'. b. Request for approval of a 9' front yazd pazking space as shown on the site pian. 4. Explanation. a. This lot must meet the both the guidelines of the HPC and the Zoning commission. The HPC has approved the design of this carriage house with a length of 40'. This allows the use of four single garage doors facing to the west. This is a design requirement of HPC but cannot be accompiished without the 5.5' variance requested here-in. The HPC also requires that the front entrance elevation be parallei to Portland Avenue. The lot is zoned for either multiple or single fanuly housing but must also provide pazking spaces for this house and the owners of the condominium at 415 Summit Avenue. Although ciTy ordinance requires oniy seven pazking spaces, providing a total of nine reduces the need for street pazking. b. The only other buiiding on this side of Portland is a four story brick condominium which has a front yard set-back of about one foot. The opposite side of the street has eight houses. Only two meet the 25' front yard set-back while three have less than the 14.5' which we are requesting. � ILE Landscaping: This ►ot is now a gravel parking area used by Nathan House Condominium otivners as a parking site. A two-car garage �vas bui(t on the southwest comer in 1996 for the owners of Nathan I Io�ESe Co�ido, unit one. Wl�en the carriage house is buitt, the Portland Avenue set-back will be my front yard. It is my intent [o develop tiiis site into an attractive setting by using a well designed landscape plan iucluding appropriate use of trees, hedges, flowering plants and gardening pieces. The proposed site ptan includes a detaited landscape plan developed cooperatively by thc designer with suggestions and advice from interested neighbors. The drive�vay and the parking stali wilt be �vell screened from Portland Avenue by hedges runnictg full leugdi along tlte parking lot borders with new trees and other plantings in the front yard. The landscape plan iucludes the use of flower boxes on the west elevation of the carriage house and Ilower urns on the driveway in response to a suggestion by a neighbor. This is a proposed landscape plan and 1 invite farther suggestions for improvements. As pari of this development project, I have offered to transfer ownership of the parking ]ot area inctuding tlie garages to ttle persons who have easement rights to park on this lot either by transferring otivnersUip to the NaUian House Association or by establishing a separate association if that is required. ��his proposai cvas not accepted and therefore, I will retain ownership of the parking area. .� ��-,�" � - r��r-oa-is3s iz:ai � - �Rf GINAL . 4reseated $y Referred To Locuseil .0z�e6 °tt -�t �� -� S �C ! -- - Green SheeL # ,�`� RESOLUTION �INT PAUL, MlNN�SOTA �� CITY 2 WHEREAS, Itoaald Seversoa made application to the Heritage Preservauon 3 Commission (the commission) pursuant to Saint Paul LegisIative Cade Chapter 73 for a building 4 permit to coustruct a caxriago-house-like shvcture at 420 Portland Avenue within the Historic 5 Hill Heritagc Preservauon District; and 10 ii 12 13 14 ,5 i6 1� '.8 14 zo 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 9 38 39 tip WHEREAS, on Februaiy 27,1997, the coaunission cobducted a pablic hearing on the proposal. After discussion, the mauer was laid over ead the project was again reviewed on iviazeh 13,1997, and fmally approved on Mazch 27, ] 997. However, the commission, inadvertently, did not formaliypass a tesolutian approving the project until January 8, 1998; and 'W�IEREA5, on April 8,1997, Gregory Ciark, Carol Clark and Patricia Leonard appeaied tiie Mazoh 27, i997, commission decision but elected to enter inio ne�otiatiotts with the applicant in the hope ihat the applicsnt and the apgellants might reso2ve their differences; and R'fiEREAS, the negariations between the parties failed to reach an acceptable compromise and the appellants requested that their appeal be heazd by the Saint Pau1 City Councii; and WHEREAS, the commission in iu Rosolution No. 2884 granted approvaI ofthe building permit based up�n revised plans inctuding only the east elevation marked 3C-1, And subject to the condition that an appmpriate croKn malding be added above the transom windows in Iight of the Historic Hill Heritage Pteservation guide2ines. Tn particulaz, based upon the evidence presented at the Mazch 2�, i 947, public hearing, the commission made the following findings of fact: i. The proposed building site is a pivotal and diffiCUlt site. It is visibie from Summit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenve sad a public park, and there are lazge builrlings to the south and west that are close to the property lines. This lot can 6e Construed as both the rear yard of the VJinter House at 415 Sununit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed cazriagc housc conccpt (sad "front yard" pazidng adjacent to Portiand) is a reasonab2e approach tn daveloping the pazcel for the follow'rng reasons: a) the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street parking for residents of the ��nter House; b) ihe pazoel has historically been a reaz yazd it is used as a reaz yazd, and it appears as a reaz yazd due to iu relafions}sip io the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story cazriaga hause on tha site; �ad d) it provides a dcsi�n solurion for a buitding that is very close to the Winter House in proximity and that is zelated to it in terms of form, materials, details, ttc. 2'he Winter House 39 MrIY-Q4-1998 12�41 P.03i06 2 v t\ t V{ 1 Y��}uilt on a through-lot wiih Summit and Ponlaad gontages; the rccent 3 subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the 4 Winter House to surrounding land nor ffie }ristorical aature of the site. 5 6 7 8 9 iQ ii 12 13 !4 15 !6 17 18 14 20 Z1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 R6 47 4& 49 2. The proposed suucture conforms to the dishict guidclines: a It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, hcigkt, rhy'thm, setback, color, tnaterial, buitding eIements, site design, and chazacter of surrouttding sttuctures aad the area" b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and character wouid be reIated to, bvt do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integatcd for a batanced and eomplete design. c. Though the side elevation would not be paratlel to thac af the Winter House, the street-facing etevation would be perpendicular to the street lika those of other stroctures on this block of Partiand. d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given ffie rear yard nature of the site, and the caaiage house nature of the progosed building, the fact that the historic carriage house on the site was located up io ihe norih ptoperty line, and the fact thst thc onty other sauctura on the biock face (the south side of Pordand between Western and Arundef) is locaied closet to the street tixan would be the proposed structure. _ c, A ftant porch wouid not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building. f. Pazking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by 2andscaping. Singfe garage doors would awid the horizontai orientation of double doors. Thc unusual natuze of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lat. These sorts of anomalies in desi�n and development add richness, intcrest, and deIight to the histaric district and its character. 3. Itt adctition, the proposed struchue and site development conform io the federal &ecretazy of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design and materials are related to and compadbie with the prisnary, adjactat, histaric buitding, i.e., the VJinter House; tha design distinguishes between what is new and whai is historic rather than mimlcs the historic structure and confases the tw�; and the deveiopment would not fiave an adverse imgact on the character- defining features of Yhe site and ihe azea, The building's desiga is sinular to the reaz addirion of the Winter House w�th simplified detaiIing, which is appropriata for a new secondary structure. A new bvilding of unrelated design and materials would detract from the historic integrity of the site; and 2 �� MRY-04-1993 12�41 P.D4i06 r i ,..'.i i _ --- — ----� R�� Q-�-�--- --- ---- c �� t�`� � 2 3 WHEREAS, pursaaat ta the provisions of Saint Paul Lcgislative Code § 73,46(h}, Tricia 4 Leonard, Greg Clark, and Cazol Ciazk duly 51cd with the Council au appea� from the 5 determiaation made by the commission and requested that a hearing be heid before She City 6 Councll for the ptupose of considering the actians taken by ihe said comm}ssion; and 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2Q 21 22 '3 14 25 :6 W�REAS, acting gursuaat to §?3.06, a public hearing was set on for Januazy 2g, 1998, but, at the request of appellaztu' attomey, the matter was postpened to February 25,1998; and WFTEREAS, ob Febntazy 25,1998, a public heazing was duly conducted by the City Council, where &11 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and ti�REAS, having heazd the statements made attd Haviug considered the application, tha report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of th� oommission, the Cotuicil does hereby; RESOLVE, to deny the appesl of Patricia Leonard, Gregoty CIazk and Carol Clazk on the basis that their has been no showing that the cammission made any error in fact finding or procedure in this matter, and BE TT FTJRTAER RES OLVED, that tbe City Clerk shaIl mail a copy of this resoluGon to Patricia Leonazd, Cnegory Clazk and Caxol Glark, the Zoning Administrator and the Heritage Preservation Comtttission. Rnq�eeted Ly 2lepastfieat oi: %y: Fesm Appiovefl by Gity lt;torr.ey HY: �,tl�� Uwr�� i Z '�' � .� ai:yeioa cestiiiad by Councii ser_eta_ry A-•• ey; .eve8 bY Na»r: Dase Apyzoved Ly Mnyoz fos 9ubmisalon to towsCil 9y: �) A3oyted by Ceuncil: Date f ` V • � • t �' � � � `,, ,CITY O�' SAINT PAUL J BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER 95-209 DATE: a�� , �99s �� J IJ z2 �I;�I'9� :, � `�_ :. ,' �a ?�� . � � .-� � WHEREAS, ROiVALD SEVERSON has applied for a variance from the smct application of the provisions of S2ction 61.101 & 62.106 (2) of the Saint Pau[ Le�islacive Code pet[ainin� to chz conscniction of single family home and detached garage in che RT-2 zonins dismct a[ 4l6 PORTLA�D AVE: and WHEREAS, the Sainc Pau[ Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public heazing on 06/19/9i, pcsssuant to said appeat in accur@znce �»th �he requiremenss of Szccion 6�.305 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS. che Saint Paul Board of Zonins AppeaIs based upon evidence presenced ac the pubtic hearine, as subszancia!!y reflected in [he minutes, made che following findings of facc; 1. ? 3. The pcoperty in question can be put to a reasonabte use undzr the s[rict provisians of the code. The irrewiar shaped lot and the covenanc requiring sic parking spaces for the condominiums make it difficult to develop this loc �vithout cariances. Ho�vever, the appticanc has noc espiored ali oQtions such as construccing a smaller house or reposicioning the house on the loc. The plish[ of the land owner is due to circumstances unique m his properry, and [hese circumstances were no[ created by the land o��'ner_ The size and shape of the loc and the covenanu are circumstances thac were not direccty creaced by the present owner although che appiicant was aware of these circumscances prior to purchasine the properry. The proposed variance is not in keeping wich the spiric and intent of the code, and is not consistent with che heatth, safery, comfor4 morals and �velfare of the inhabitar,ts of the City of St. Paul. Ideally, this lot should not ha�•e been split from the propem at 41� Summic Ave. The proposed sin�le family horrte is more appropriate for this site than the previously appro�•ed duples. Ho�vever, the covenant requirin2 parking for the condominiums at 415 Summic Ave witl leave vary little green space on the lot. � 4. The proposed vaziance �vi[I not imQair an adequate suppiy of light and air co adjacent propezty and it may alcer the essencial chawcter of the surroundin� area or unreasonably diminish estabiished property values within the surrounding area. The ptoposed project wiil be pro�iding patking for the building to the south. There is patk land to the east and sufficierct open space to the rvest. Wi[hout arehitectura! plara oT the proposed house it is impossible to determine the impact on the neighbornood. ,ttt n 1`fNV G The variance, if �ranted, would noc permic any use that is not permitted nnder the provisions of the �� p (.� code for the propem in the district whece the aKecced land is iocaced, nor �coald it alter or change ° the zonin_ discrict ciassification of the property. ' �`�� A S1R� famity home and detached garage are permitted uses in this district. ' copy :ials �=D 6. by/biU j y - < < ��` 'it3 . t..�� }t :�s iX The request for variance is based primarily on a dtsire to inczease the ��alue or income potential of the paccet of tand. n� �isiT e � 2 Zoning File No. 98-026 ` File : 95-109 2888590 ` Pa�e Two NOW, THEREF�RE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonine Appeals that the applicacion to waive the requirements of seccion 61.10I to alto�v an 8 foot fronc set6ack for a single family home ac �xr f Pottland Avenue and le�aily described u eec�t the southeast i32.8 fee�, lot 6, Auditor's Suh Division r38;.in �` accordance with the application for variance and the sice ptan on fite �vich the Zoning Administntor is hereby � �- denied. MOVED BY : Bogen � SECONDED BY Tully IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: t (�vitso�) MAILED: Ttl�IE LIMIT No order of the Board ot Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a buildina or off-street parkinn facility shall be vaiid for a period loneer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained wichin such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding punuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an estension not tu exceed one year, tn nranting such extension> the Board o[ Zoning Appeals may decide to hofd a public he�rina. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoninn Appeals are finai subject to ap¢eal to the City Councii within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permiYs shali not be issued aRer an appe�l has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been fiied, then the permits are svspended and construciion shatl cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATIOY: I, the undersisned Secretary to the Baard of Zonins AQpeais for ihe City of Saint Paul, llinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the forego'rns copy with the oriDiaal record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original �nd of tfie whole thereof, as based on approved minutes oY the Saint Paut Board of Zoning AQpe�ls meeting held on June 19,,1995.and on record in fhe Office of License Inspeztion and Enviranmentat Protectian;�S�,SttPeter Street, . � �. Saint Paui, Minnesota. _ :;� : . : C � . SAIYT PAUL BOARD OF ZO\'ING APPEALS , �; 'k �"• _, . . Laura Dufeck Secretary to the Board " % r Zoning Fi1e No. 98-Q26 � a , e � ; o " ' � PLAIJh(tNG 8� �.'��_ �_ : � RON SEYERSON �� DESiG1V, INC, 612-636-&889 3 � ,. c � � � i 0 RECORDED ON t'?' CD �-i � � LD � . CfTY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONfNG APPEALS RESOLUTION ZON{NG FILE NUMBER 92-216 DATE: octobei 5, ��z NflV 171992 ✓ WHEREAS, DENNIS BROSE has applied for a variance from the strid application of the provisions of Section 61.1D1 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pedaining to the construction oE a two-unit carriage house with a fourteen car undezgzound gazage (tan cars if the gazage does not extend under the "mansion IoC) in the RT-2 wning distriU; and WHEREAS, the Saiat Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 09j08/92 and 10/OSf92, pursuanc to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 62204 of the Legislative Code; and WFiEREAS, the Saint Yaul Boud of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the pub]ic hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followiag fmdings of fact: .. � :� �'- 0 0 0 6 }"L �. cn � n a 1. 2. � The property in questioa cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The parcel has a very unusual shape, has no alley access, has a double front yud euposure with no real rear yazd and a very visible pub&c location immediately adjacent to Nathan Ha1e Fazk. According to the applican[ this properry cannot be reasonably be put to use for a tzaditionally designed and sited carriage house within the constraints mandated by the Zoning Code. The plight of ihe land owner is due to circumstances unique to his properry, and these circumstances were not aeated by the land owner. The plight of the landowner is due paztially to the property being located within the boundaries of the � National Historic DistriU. The applicant also pointed out that there is an obvious confliM between the preservation goals of the neighborhood and of the HPC which sometimes aze at cross purposes with some of the limitations imposed by current Zoning Code regulations. In addition, the lack of alley access and the unusual shape of the properry limit the ability of the applicant to fully use the property. These circumstaaces were not created by the landowner. The proposed variances are in keeping with the spirit aad intent of the code, and are consistent with the health, safety, comfoft, moraSs and weffare of tfie inhabitanu of the City of St. Faul. � According to the applicant an altemative design for a cazriage house could result in a taller strvcture in the rear yard wluch could be azciutecturally out of character with surzounding buildings. , Although the agglicanYs progosal for a carriage house with undergrouad parking appeazs to be a rather intensive use for the small rear porTion of this property, the proposed construction of a tastefully designed carriage house with two housing units over an enctosed pazking azea with private gazden space above it is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code. 4. The proposed variances will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properry, nor will they al[er the essential chazader of We surrouading azea or unreasonably diminish established property values within the suaounding area. �5 i��i1 �nstrv � �_/ocr t Filir� iee / Y 1 ftx copy Cer Co�y Initidl� � Pd bY/bill __!_�__._ F�e #42-216 Page Two 2685164 The proposed project may impad the provision oE moraing suniight iato the lower two units oE the adjaceat condo bvitding. On the other hand the provisioa of afteraooa sunlight ro the proposed project may be negatively affected by the tall four story condo building immediately west oE the project. Overall the proposed projea should not impair aa adequate supply of light and a'u to adjaceat properties. The project is anticipated to add to [he essen6al charader oE the surrounding area and should not dimiaish established property values within the surrovading azea. 5. The vaziances, if granted, wauld not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of tbe code for the property in ihe district where the affected land is located, nor woutd they alter or change the zoning district clauification of the property. A large carriage house with hvo housing units and aa undergrouad garage aze allowed in an RT 2 wniag district with appropriate setbacks, appropriate lot azea, appropriate spacing betweea buitding,s and appropriate lot wverage. The proposed development would not alter or change Lhe zoning disTrict classi&cation of the properry. 6. The reqaest for variance is not based primarity on a desire to iacrease the value or income potentia2 of the pazcel of land. The applicant hu indicated tbat to construM townLouses in this style rsquires extra costs for vazious pro{eU items, such as expensive �ctorian detai2ing. The appficant has stated that the quatiry of the carriage house's design plus the conversion of [he planaed manewering azea into a landscaped murtyard will [iuther enhance [he projecPs aesthetic contn'bution to the neighbors and to the pubtic's enjoyment of Nakhan Hale Pazk. , NOW, TfIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Boazd of Zaning Appeals tfiat the provisions of Section 61.101 be hereby waived to allow a lot area of 5,428 square feet, a front yazd setback of 3', a 4' side yard setback along the westerly property line, a?..5' side yard setback a2ong tfie easterly property line, a 6' :ear yazd setback above ground for the carriage house strvc�ue mea5ured from the zear property line of the "additionaI reat estate", a 0' zear yard setback below ground for the undergound gazage, also measured from the rear property line of the "additiona] rea] estate', and stzuctuze coverage of 37% of the total lot azea scbj ;:t tc the foL'a� �ino coaditions: 1. Elimination of tfie balcony on the west end oE t6e proposed cazriage house; 2. Elimination of tfie iarge wiadow and frenc6 doors from tfie west end of the proposed carriage house with windows redesigaed to m�n�*�»P the enrroachment of the privacy ai 436 Pordand Aveaue; 3. Construcfion of the west wall of the carriage house with fire retardaat materials; 4. Coastruction of the proposed carriage house accordiag to the design az approved by the HPC; and 5. The entire development (mansion plus carriage housej must proc§de at least iS parking spaces per dwelling unit and the spaces iu the underground gazage must be made available to the condominium ownezs ia the mansioa. � ¢` Fde #92-216 Page Two �� , on property located at 4L5 SUMMIT AVE and legaily desai'bed as Auditor's Subdivision No. 38 St. Paul, M9nn. Ex the SEIy 132.8 ft, Lot 6; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan ou file with the Saiat Paul Planning Division. MOVED SY: ,vcoo SECONDED BY: scterman IN FAVOR: a AGAfNST: i MAILED: October 7, 1992 TIME LTMIT; No order ot the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or oFf-street parking facility sLall be valid for a pertod tonger than one year, unless a buitding permit for such erection or alteration ls obtained witLin such period sad such erection or alteration is groceeding pursuant to the terms of such permI� The Board of Zoning Appeals or tLe City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appea{s may decide to hold' a public hearing. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoniag Agpeals are t5na1 subject to appeat to the City Councit within 15 days by anyoae affeMed by the decision. Building germits shall not be tssued aEter an appeal has 6ee¢ filed. If permits have been issued beFore an appeal has beea fited, then the permits are suspended ' " and construMion shall cease un6! the City CouncSl has made a final determination oi the appeal. CERI7FICATION: - `��' �` �' � �' �, � C�� ` t l .� � � � � - �� e > < ' , �i•tl�_+ n e`, �� S p Y"�. -. _-=' . ; .;^ , .: , ` i ''. ._� �': : � _ �40>45��'• . :;,} '�: -r `� -,.. . I, tLe undersigned Secrefary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saini Paul, Minnesota, do hemby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy wItL the origina! record in my ofiice; and tnd tLe same to be a true and correct copy of said originat and of the whole t6emof, as based on approved minutes ot tLe SaInt Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on September 8,1992 and Oetober S, 1992 and on tecord in the Saint Paul Planning Division Qftice, 25 West Fourth Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOIQING APPEAL� � ` 0 cr � �fY �� c / ` p Secretary to the Board � '- ; �;, � . �_ ^';,� ..�-�- � � _ .�- � � � + :-'�7 N ! � �D ��n m sY'*� G ��cz-- ;"iNrrr. m,. '� ��G� P��G -- n'. c=.n� n1o:. � `��s (�R�GIN�iL Presented By Referred �COUncil File # q� /d `�` �� Green Sheet � %j `J,j,j RESOLUTION CITYOF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA . Committee: Date Whereas, Dennis Brose, on behatf of Nathan Ha1.e Carriage House, 415 Summit Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, made application to the Boar@ of Zoning�Appeals for a variance Erom the strict application of the provisions of the Saint PauZ 2oning Code for property located at 415 Summit Avenue, legally described as Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision ;38; and Whereas, The purpose of the application was to vary the standards of the Zoning Code so as to to construct a one unit turn of the century appearing carriage house and a five car garage on the rear of the property; and Wheraas, The Board of Zoning Appeals conducted public hearings on August 21, 1990, September 25, 1990 and October 23, 1990, afteY having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Board, by its Resolution 90-173, adopted October 23, 1990, decided to grant the application based oa the Pollowing findings and conclusions: 1. The parceZ has a very unusual shape, has no alley access, has a double front yard exposure with no real rear yard, and a very visible.public location immediately adjacent to Nathan Hale Park. According to the applicant this property cannot reasonably be put to use for a traditionally designed and sited carriage house within the constzaints mandated by the Zoning Cade. 2. The plight of the Iandowner is due partially to the property being located within the boundaries of the National Historic District. The applicant also pointed out that there is an obvious conflict between the preservation goals of the neiqhborhood and of the HPC which sometimes are at cross _ purposes wif.h some o£ the limitations imposed by current Zoning Code regulations. In addition, the lack of alley access and the unusual shape of property limit the ability of the applicant to fu13y nse the property. These.circumstances were not created by the Zandowner. 3. According to the applicar�t an alternative design for a carriage house could result in a taller structure in the rear yard which wauld be architectura2ly out of character with surrounding buildings. ,. Although the applicant's proposal for a carriage house with garages_appears to be a rather intensive use for the small rear K � ._ ; �:.. .��:., . ... -rG1 on of designed�carriage house over enclosed gazages is in th the spirit and intent of the code. keeping 4. The project may impact the provision of morning sunlight into the lower two units of the adjacent condo building. On the other hand the provision of afternoon sunlight to the proposed project may be negatively affected by the tall four story condo building immediately west of the project. • Overall the proposed project should not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The project is anticipated to add to the essential character of the surrounding area and should not diminish established property values within the surrounding area. 5. A larqe carriage house and a five car garage are allowed in an RT-2 zoning district with appropriate setbacks, separation between buildings and density. The proposed development would not alter or change the zoning classification of the property. 6. The applicant has indicated that to construct a turn of the century appearing townhouse requires extra costs for various project items, such as expensive Victorian detailing. The applicant points out that all of this is Being provided without any request for additional units above those normally allowed on the site. Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 64.205, Saint Paul rks Commission, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Board of Zoning Appeals, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose o� considering the actions taken by the said Board; and Whereas, Acting pursuant to Sections 64.205 through 69.208, and upon notice to affected parties public hearings were duly conducted by the City Council on December 13 1990, and January 10, 1991 where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and Whereas, The Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance apglication, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does hereby Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby modify the decision of the Board o£ Zoning Appeals in this matter, and the variances granted shall be as Pollows: A twenty-two foot front yerd setback variance so as to permit a three foot front yard setback; A five foot western side yard setback variance so as"to permit a four foot side yard setback; A six and one-half foot eastern side yard setback variance so as to permit a two and ona-half Poot side yard setback; A twelve foot minimum separation between buildings variance so as to permit a six foot separatiori between the main building and the carriage house; and � 9 �ZONING F1LE `��-Z�o � ___.. CON'DOMIN1iJM NUIYIBER �B � NATHAN HOUSE B- MEWS, A Condominium DECLARATION j � � �f1 � N � � � � -a THIS DECLAFiATION, Made this ��ay of July, 1990, in the City of Saint Paul, County of R,amsey, and State of Minnesota, by DENNIS BftOSE, hereinafter referred to as "Declarant" and .7UDITH BLI'TH, his wife, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 5I5A.1-101 to 5I5A.4-II7, known as the "Uniform Condominium Act" (sometimes hzreir.after referred to as the "Act"7 and Iaws amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, W ITNESSETH: WHEEiEAS, Declarant is the owner in fee simple of certain real estate situated in the City of Saint Paul, County of Ramsey and State of Minnesata, legally described as follows, to-wit: That part of Lot 6, "AUDITOR'S SUBDNISION N0. 38, ST. PAITL, MINN." according to the recorded plat thereof an file in the of�ice of the County ftecorder, Ramsey County, Minnesota, k;�ich lies soathaasterl. of the follo��ng descrited line: Commencing at the most easterly corner of said Lot 6; thence northwesterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 132.80 feet to the pont of beginning of the line to be described; thence southwesterly at a right angle 90.00 feet to the southwesteriy Iine of said Lot 6 and there terminating, excepting therefrom the following described pazcel: Commencing at the most southerly comer of said Lot 6; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 26.11 feet; thence nor�hwesterly deflecting to the left 90 degrees, 7.4 minutes, 23 seconds a distance of 51.40 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing northwesterly along the last described line 18.90 feet (the 2ast described line is hereinafter referred to as "line A"); thence southwesteriy at a right angle 4.1Q feet; thence northwesterly at a right angle 28.60 feet; thence northeasterly at a right angle 7.00 feet; thence northwesterly at a right angle 2420 feet; thence southwesteriy at a right angle 28.50 feet to the 9+ ...... ---_ :,,ty��.'j"'_«res�ss:- _. Council � --�� J -- RESOLUTION Green Sheet # CITY QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESQTA Presented By Referred To WI�REAS, the purpose of the application was to vary the standards of the Zoning Code to allow the construction in an RT-2 zoning district of a new carriage house with one dwelling unit and additional parking spaces; and Committee: Date 2 WFIEREAS, Ronald Severson made applicarion to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals for a 3 variance from the strict application of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for a property commonly 4 lrnown as 420 Portland Avenue (See BZA File 48-026 for a complete legal descriprion); and 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 20 21 az 23 2sl 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 t3 4 WHEREAS, the Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on April 13, 1998, after having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Board, by its resolution No. 98- 026 dated April 13, 1998, determined to deny the requested variances based upon the following findings and conclusions: The irregular shape of the lot and the covenant requiring 8 parking spaces for the property at 415 5LUrunit Avenue make it difficult to develop the property. However, the owner has not explored a11 options such as conshucting a smaller house or repositioning the house. In 1995, variances for a similar project were approved but the house currently proposed is a slightly larger than the house proposed in 1995 and has not been significandy repositioned. 2. The size and irregular shape of the lot and the covenant that requires the properiy owner to provide parking spaces for the units at 415 Summit were not created by the present owner. However, the present owner was aware of these circumstances when he bought the property. ��15�. CI� The proposed development would not provide a reasonable amount of green space and therefore the variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The locafion and size of the proposed carriage house would impair an adequate supply of light and air to adj acent properiy. The orientation of the buiiding with the slde facing Portland Avenue wouid unreasonably diminish property values within the surrounding area. 6 5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not permitted under the 7 provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is 3 located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the � property. 98 -y8' 0 R l G1NA , __�___-_-- �_ _ _______ 2 6. The request for variance is based prunarily on a desire to increase the value or 3 income potential of the pazcel of land. 4 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 64.205, Ronald Severson duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determinarion made by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, requesting that a heating be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Board; and 10 WFIEREAS, acting pursuant to Section 64.205 through 64.208 and upon nofice to 11 afFected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 13, 1998, 12 where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the decision of the BZA in this matter based upon the following finclings of the Council: The Council finds that the Board of Zoning Appeais did not error as to its findings, procedures ar conclusions as contained in its resolution #98-026 dated April 13, 1998 and hereby adopts the same as its own. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Ronald Severson be and is hereby denied;and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall maii a copy of ttus resolufion to Ronald Severson, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Requested by Department of: Hy: Form Appro• City Attorney BY: ��.-►�-. S/��/�'� Approved by Mayor fox Submission to Council �, < L By: �ved by Mayor: D e � / �ted by Council: Date��`��ln �_� \9 y� +tion Certi£ied by Counci 5ecretaxy q � • y June 1, 1998 GREEN SHEET Councilmember f�1:.FT37� :1 RWTNIG TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES n�,�,�r owec,ae No 62152 ❑ CRYAiTORIEY ❑ tl1VCliMit � ❑ Ai{IYIIJ.fERVICFtOR ❑ NIYiCU11.fE0.1//I{CLTC a w��.� a (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council action taken May 13, 1998 denying the appeal of Ron Severson to a decision of the Soard of Zoning Appeals denying variances for construction of a carriage house and parking at 420 Portland Avenue. W PLANNING COMM�SSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVtCE COMMISSION IF iles Shr Pe�� rrer worked uMer a con6act tarthis AePanment? VES NO Hasthie o��m e+er been a ary emWavee9 YES NO Does this Pe�rNirm P� a sldll not normatlYP�ESetl bY anY curteM aty emPloY�? YES NO islhis peisoMim a tarpetetl veMoYl , YES NO OTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTION 1NDING SOURCE CASi/REV6NUH BuOGETED (CIRCLE ONq ACTNRY NUMBER YES NO IaNCW, kiWRMATION (ExPWf� OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATT0�3LZEY _._ "eSBtr��no� �—_— CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemme, Mayor May 29, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: BZA File No. 98-026 Appeal of Ronald Severson Council Hearing May 13, 1998 Deaz Ms. Anderson: CivilDiv'uion 400 Ciry Hall li 6YutKelloggBlvd. Saint Paul, Minnesola 55702 Telephone: 6Z2 266-8170 Facrimile: b12 298-56I9 Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly youts, '/� �1��.--\ Peter W. Warner Assistaut City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure Caunes! Re�earch Ce�re� � .: � � '�. - f [3a. # OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSYECTIONS A L � _��-- HNVII2QN2�AL'Fh�.-PRO�'ECTTOI�� S , ` _ . _ - vt - - - � — -- Roben Kesaler, D'uector ____ � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Narm Coleman, Mayor Apri121, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: B 77II. D I N G I N S P E CI7 O N A ND DESIGN 350 St Pete� Saeet Suiie 310 S�nrPaui, M"vuresota 55102-ISID Telephone: 672-266-9001 FacsimiTe: 6I2-266-9099 I would like to confirm that a gublic hearing before the Ciry Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 13, 1998 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Ron Severson FIle Number: 98-109 ' .. - Location: Appeal of a decision by the Baazd of Zoning Appeals to deny variances for construction of a carriage house and parking. 420 Portland Avenue I am sending a copy of this letter to the office of Councilmember Blakey to confirm this date with him. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eariiest convenience and that you will pubiish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul I,egal Ledger. Plesse call me at 266-4086 if you have any qaestions. Sincerely, � � Tom Beach Zoning Section ��u�n�� ;., h , A . . �l'nk.A1 f°0i irv�e� � .e ..' �� 9� cc: GerryMcInerney .Fmsrxurr• M014CE OF-PDSLtC HEARBiG 'Rie Salnt Pavl City Council will conduct a piablic hear3ng on Wednesday. Aday 13. 1998 at 5:30-p.m. in the City Cauncil Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-Court House, to consder the appeal of i2on 5everson to a decision af the Board of Zonins Appeals to deny varian¢es for mnstruction of a carriage house and parMng at 420 Portland Avenue. Dated: Ap[il 22. 199& � - � NANCYANDERSON - Assistant City Coundl Secretary - [Aprll 24. 1998) OFFICE OF LICENSE, L`ISPECTfONS AND ENV — — — - ------ — � � � Roben Kesrler, Directa� - - �t �- -` ��-j CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor LOFJRY PROPESSIONAL BUQ.DING Saue 3D0 350 St. Peter Street SainrPaut, Minnesora 55102-7510 Teleptwne: 672-266-9090 Faaimile: 612-2669099 6I2-2669124 May S, 1998 Ms. Nancy Mderson Secretary to the City Councit Room 310 City Hall Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals File 9&109 (Ron Severson at 420 Portland Avenue) City Council Hearing date: May 13,1998 PURPQSE: To consider an appeai of a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals to deny vaziances. BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL,� ACTION: Deny (7-0) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve SUPPORT: Four people spoke in support at the public hearing. OPPOSITION: Fonr people spoke in opposition at the public hearing. The Summit University Planning Council sent a letter in opposition. Dear Ms. Anderson: Ron Severson has appealed a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals to deny zoning variances for property he owns at 420 Portland. The variances are to reduce the required setbacks from the front and side property lines. Mr. Severson wants to construct a carriage house with one dwelling unit on the second floor. His proposal also calls for providang 4 gazage stalis on the first floor of the carriage house, 3 outside pazking spaces and 2 parking spaces in an existing gazage for a total of 9 parking spaces. One of these parking spaces would be for the carriage house unit and the other 8 parking spaces would be for the owners of 4 condominiums immediately to the south at 415 Summit. Mr. Severson must provide these spaces under an agreement that was made in 1990 when this ]ot was split off from the ]ot at 415 Summit. The proposal is expiained in more detail in the attached plans and documents. The Board of Zoning Appeals held a public heazing on March 23, 199&. The applicant and other interested parties addressed the Board. At the close of the public hearing, the Board voted 7-0 to deny the vaziances. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on May 13, 1448. Please call me at 266-9086 if any member of the City Coancil wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, Tom Beach Attachments cc: CiTy Councilmembers ATTACHII�NTS Site ptan, etevations and azea maps t � Appeai �' � Boazd of Zoning Appeals Heazing (Mazch 1998) Resolution Minutes Staff Report Letters Application Pazking EasemenT �, g Resolutions from previous City Actions f s. � 1 1998 (City Council upholds approval by Heritage Preservation Commission) t 1995 (Boazd of Zoning Appeals denies variances) 1992 (Board of Zoning Appeals approves vaziances) 1991 (City Council upholds approval of vaziances by Board of Zoning Appeals) � � � �`' —�- ----- — - - -- �.or- -- -- -� a oZ�s �� n�,.� p� � - - �� °° �o �� _� � - ___ � � __ ! � -- � � �Q - - -' g �� - - s o�' i � g�o I 0. aU �a ___, ---� � << , _ - _ � o c . .. y Y U v an a o- N x �+ 3rQy�J�tl �`1E/�(�Od �^ < a s g atMATltOB ° n � � _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _. xn�ms s � .e r+oai� ;�' �� , W =<� � �oQQ� 4 > � o �; ��5 � .6 I .SZ � i .Y , 6 � rt � �N a � � � ��a p o . '� s " _ �� - _ « V i � , � �� , g I om 3 i �� o w �' V= f W� �� _- �� oa },w � �g � �na � �. � I � �` � �aJ � P a /' t> l q � �� j � '---�'----� =ap= '� �V �� iuU o s � HSYtll � � � � � � pE�`� o / ��2. VR � T� �r \ \ \�, � d &� o . e . .. � — _ �,r — — — � �.� °f�' ��1�`{ � � � � _ � _ S � � -.y � � � � d 6 � � '}� v/ b �, y N y V � � , � i �` �� 1[ -� .{.1 � � V s�� ' ` �A Q N Q c'�1 >, e�l � i � �l ' � \ , � , , � � �� \, _ �. �- , . . ,� < �- / �� ,' .O6 � // / \ / / � �: A o a� �r 1.,1 � a. 0 n` , p d . E 9� 1 u /t� ¢ � � < > 's � om Z D � � Q � v� - 4 a o � �� us n v 3 f - \ N " 1 �K o&- 0�+5 �R, � iu BD !SE5 �N. scH�.�,�t �,�- �,�:� a�._�e CCNi[P W9�( M01RD '� WE57 ELEVA7ION A�QW� MP� �P�OV1� �� EA57 ELEVATION ''C�EI✓I� 1X �, ,�,�-.,:-w ,� � , ,_ i3 : :a ❑ a a �� NORTH EL'cVATiON :r.t�:�.'.+� :82B mu uz. zc:. SiONG k it+iu f0 WiCX M0�5[ sc��ti�t .�c 3� \ nu::'_�._ �'� SHUU^.SS \ mtc. WGC: � �9 � .J � +aze � 2&a I i82!'. � ^ � I � � � � ��i � � 20'ta 24^a i� 2G:a j . ' L s,OVUG a *xv � te uara �:sc r�� SCr._I:"_ „'C � SOUTH ECEYATI�N � -�°"'��•, •� � i :B�f ! � � � '��W�H •xe WnC�+4 0U4P-pliT O Y�SCH[q oi� -y ��-{ 0 ,. �. �-�- r-t'�-� �� ; �ou.� ti— AV E- � � ��oa�`�`=� -a 0 � o � q o 0 oio�o�o 'o��}ND AVE. � , o z � of�o Q-� m o � x � � c� � o � Q � � � o o, ¢ � SuMM+T O �O � ¢ � ♦ O M _ i v 0 i F � � Q � �� O O p O O O� p O O� � O ///'''�� O Z CIILL SUNMIT O `O � � r fG' O� o �� ! ` p �. . /� O O `` � �nn , o n �� z � o a o � � i i :. ` ; V ; � � � .y t6 i � O t � Q d � ` �� STd: F OFftCfS � Yii��il a o 0 t Sec� S i � ' E._1_!_�___!_ Z V V \' V ' \. �22 � \� � � l � � O . O ' n� " � V � o '�. o ° !Rj-�'j � � t ; 'Y �/L L ! G �% ! � / 1� ' HARRISQN JEFfERSQN �- � C� SCH00� � ` `_� � � _ r . - APPLiCANZ END PURPOSE �� zoningdisfrictboundary _ FILE # r� DATE 3 •' Z 3 ��. _ � subject property n�' orth�"- e PLNG. DIST a MAP # 2 � � t� o one family� - •� � commerc � SCALE 1" = 400'- - �-- . � tu�o famity , � .... industriai �'., - ,_ _ �-�('� multiplefamity V vacant � - �"" � �� 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. iD. il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGH W OOD HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST WEST SIDE AAYTON'S BLUFF PAI'NE-P�EN NORTH END THO,dAS•DAi.F. SUMMIT-U2�ItVERSTI'Y WEST SEVENI�I COMO I�AMLINE-MIDVJAY ST. ANTfiONY PARK MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMi.INE-SNELLING HAMLINE MACALESTER GROVELAND . FiIGHLAND SUMMIT HILL Dowrrrowrr 9 g_,�2 6 l ZOi�jNG FILE �°_ � � ° -- CITIZEN PART'ICIPATION PLANNIi�IG DISTRICTS APPLICATiON FOR APPEAL Deparinrent oj Pl�nrtin� mrd T:cnnomic Development Zoning Section ' "_ - . v 1100 Cit}• Hall Anner ' ' - - � 2S IT'est Fai�fk Slreet Saint Paul, ALV SS101 Z66-6589 APPElLAN7 � 2ip SS"/u�. Daytime phone�37�-D177 PROPERTY Zonir�g File LOGATION Address/Lo TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to ihe: ❑ 8oard of Zorting Appeals �City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section �a> , Paragraph �l of fhe Zoning Code, to , n � a eal a decision made by the _�'�' � o" �"��'ti� �"�^� %��=. PA 0� /ll�uu� ;-��. (dafe of decision) 19�. File number: � - D7(� - GROUhlOS FOR APPEAL: Exp(ain why you teel there has been an eROr in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative ofFcial, or an eROr in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. Sec. . a��cL ,:;.��isa�,,��_;� ��fR`; _ i�� Vit.�it{�i`? i[iJl., �y�.vr; .�" Rttach additiona� sheet rf Date -3-� City agent AppticanYs l^ ORIGlNAL � �-�Z - 598023 - Sidewalk reconstruction on both sides Winslow Ave from W Isabel St to Prospect Blvd_ *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstxuction (replacement of old sidewalk) - S�•65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $9.18 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide wa1k. A11 other widths wi11 be prorated accordingly. New aanstruction (where no walk existed) - 100g of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.42 per square foot. All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property_ MIJLTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RA.TES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 106% of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.62 per square foot. under Preliminary order � O —�" \ 1 approved 5!� �� `� � The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the City Charter: and WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City officers sha11 calculate a11 e�enses incurred therein and sha11 report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays � '�Blakey Bostrom — �bs �oleman �tarris ✓�antry �iter � In Favor O Against � ��sc�� Adopted by Council: Date��,�$' . Certified Passed by Council Secretary By Mayor Public Hearing PARTMENT/OFFICF,(COUNCIL iblic Works Sidewalks �NTAC7 PERSON 8 PHONE «rv H. Lueth - 26B=609 in Date - June 3> 1998 RE 3-27-98 � � -G�� 3-598 w�D GREEN SHEET� o _ ATIAENT DIRECTOR ATTORNEY erroa�� 4-15-q8 p �auocEroiaECma 3 il Research Office �MpVOR(ORnSSISTANTj > _ 1 _(CL1P ALL 40CAilONS FOH SIGNATUR� � ASSOC�ATE COUNCII _ CIERfC 3 MGT. SERVICES Reconsiruct Sidewalk in Ward 2 jSee attached list) STpFF 7� t� PERSONAL S� COHTRACTS NU3T ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. _ CNiL SEPVICE COMMiS510N 1. Has this EY S � NOer worked under a convact fa this dePa�ent? 2. Has ihis RersorVfvm ever 6een a city emR�oyee? — YES NO 3. Dces mis persoNfirm possess a skiil not normaly passessed by arry current ciry — employee? YES NO ,_— Explain all yes answers on saparata sAeet and attach to green sheet RIRTING PROBLEM, ISSUE.OPPORTUNITY (WN�, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH�'j: The problem "defective sidewalk" was created Uecause of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating freeRhaw cycles, service I'rfe limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variatio�s, etc. These pro6lems occur on a citywide �evef and must be addressed and corrected on an annuaf basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worssn to a state where it would be rende�ed unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible i@igations. The community wili benefk from this project becausa fl will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are crealed as a result of this activity. Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of consbuction procedure and assessment. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despfte the fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial, �� P1AR 2 7 1998 This option would allow the irrfrastructure of sidewafk stock io deteriorata, which in turn, will generate more persona� injury suits, uRimately resulting in the expenditure ot farger dollar amounts in eventual repairs andlor�gplacerr�eM, as well as claim payouts. lOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSp `�/�L COS7/HEVENUEBUDGETEDjCIRCLEONE) FUNDINGSOURCE 4 , = x. �a ACRYITYNUMBEB C98-2T75�- FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) � ° � C. Ct6 98 = 50,000 NO �-- wara z PROJECT• RECONSTFtUCT SIDE9VAi.B B.S. BIDWELL ST. from W. Winifred St. to W. Delos St. ��44 IlVITIATING ACTION: T4ris order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as pub7ic T necessity on the basis of an inspection of the wallc E%ISTIING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, scaled, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECOAISTRUCT SIDL+°WALB B.S. W. CONGRESS ST. from Bellows St. to Bidwell St. �� Il�iITIATIl�iG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of four (4) complaints and an inspection of the walk. EIIISTING CONDITIONIS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECON&TRUCT SIDEWALK B.S. W. CONGRESS ST. from Bidwell St. to Winslow Ave. 5Qt(/�� INITIATIl�iG AC'ITON: This order was initiated hy the Director of Public Works as public � �W necessity on the basis of five (5) complaints, a petition with one (1) signer and an inspection of the walk. EXISTII�TG CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, disintegrated and scaled panels. PROJECT: RECOi�SSTRUCT SIDEWALH B.S. W. CONGRESS ST. from Ohio St. to Bellows SY. �Q� INITIATII`II�TTG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public � � necessity on the basis of seven ('n complaints and an inspection of the walk. EIIISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK B.S. W. CONGRESS ST. from Winslow Ave. to Stryker Ave. �V) V INITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete wlth tree heaves, asphalt patches and settled panels. ..................................... PROJECT• RF.CONSTRUCT 3IDEWALB B.S. W, DEiAS ST. from Bellows St. to Winslow Ave. �, i INITIATIl�iG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of four i4) complaints and an inspection of the waik. -2- --- disln��rated, scaled, settled and �yBZ >ured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, panels. � B.S. W. DEIAS ST: from Winslow Ave. to Hall Ave. S Q�p�'� INPfIATIlVG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public � YV necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EIIISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, offgrade, settled and eracked panels. .......................... PRO.7ECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWAT,S E.S. HAI.LAVE. from W Delos St. to Prospect Bivd. & W.S. FiALL AVE. from W. Delos St. to W. Colorado St. i I vV'� INIT7ATING ACTION: This order was 9nitiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EffiSTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with scaled, settled and cracked paneis. .......................................................................................... PROJECT: RECO1vSTRUCT SIDEWAI.K B.S. HALLAVE. from W. Winifred St, to W. Congress St. �{� IIVITfATII�iG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as puhlic necessity on the basLs of an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with offgrade and multi-cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK B.S. MANOMIN AVE. from W. George St. to Chemkee Ave. �a;/ INIT7ATING ACITON: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. This walk is poured concrete with scaled, settied and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALS B.S. ORLEANS ST. from W. George St. to Cherokee Ave. D) � IlHITIATIl�IG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessriy on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, offgrade, asphalt patches, scaled, setUed and cracked panels. ............................ � PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWAI.K B.S. W. ROBIE ST. from Manomin Ave. to Ohio St. INTIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as puhlic necessity on the basis of one (1) complaint and an inspection of the walk. -3- EXI STIlVG COlYDI-T-IOPiS: �'his walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, settled and cracked — - -- panels. .......................................................................................... PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWAL% N.S. W. RQBIE ST. from Ohio St. to Bellows St. & S.S_ W. ROBIE 51: from Waseca St. F�ctended to Bellows St. INIT7ATIlHG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of the Public Works as public 5�� necessity on the basis of seven (7) complaints and an inspection of the walk_ EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, offgrade, asphalt patches, settied and cracked panels. PRO.7ECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWAI.B B. S. W. ROBIE ST, from Winslow Ave. to Stryker Ave. INITIATIlITG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public �pI � necessity on the basis of four (4) complaints and an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT• RECONSTRIICT SIDEWALK B.S. SIRI'l�RAVE. from W. Colorado St. to Prospect Blvd. I O� INITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public � necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This wa]k is poured concrete with heaves, scaled, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK B.S. S1RI'I�RAVE. from W. Isabel St. to W. Colorado St. �go� TNITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis af three (3) complaints and an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, scaled, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK W.S. WINSLOW AVE. from W. George St. to W. Robie St. YO(i(i INITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. This walk is poured concrete with scaled paneis. �� PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALB B.S. WINSIAW AVE, from W. Isabel St. to Prospect Blvd. � IPTITIATIlITG ACTION:- Tk3is order was 'srritiated by the Director of Public Works as public , -- ---neces"si�n fihe basis of three (3) complaints and an inspection of the walk. 5 ��3 EXISTING CONDITIONS: This waik is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphait patches, scated, settled and cracked panels. 2 _ GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: � �--�� The staff of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals studied the request in great detail and found that I met all six of the stated conditions needed to be granted a variance on this properiy but these finding were overtumed by the Board on four of the required conditions. I disagree with the findings and recommendations of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals for the reasons stated below but not necessarily only these reasons: 1. The property in question can be put to a reasonabie use under the strict provision of the code. Response: This lot is a legally buiidable lat, however, the lot has easement requirements to provide a total of eight off-street parking spaces for the Nathan Hale Condominium Association and must meet the design requirements of the HPC. Reasonable use would require that an adequate single or two family house can be build on it without a variance. The house being proposed has a total of 1,OQ0 square feet. A smaller structure would not provide adequate living space and wouid not be practical considering the design requirement of the HPC. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property which were not created by the land owner. Response: The size and inegulaz shape of the tot, lack of alley access and the easements assigned to lot �vere not created by the present owner. 3. The proposed development is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and is not consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the city of St. Paul. Response: The proposzd structure is approved by the HPC for this site. The plan provides for a 12 foot front yard set-back vvhile the anly other building on the south side of this biock of Portiand Ave. has a one foot set-back. The proposed house is bordered on the east by Nathan Hale Park. The one thousand square foot carriage house covers 19% of the lot �vhile 30% coverage is allowed. This plan will repiace a gravel parking lot with a landscaped lot including four new trees, shrubs, flowezs and a 12 foot front yazd where none currently exists . 4. The proposed variance �vill impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property and unreasonably diminish established properry values within the sunounding area. �.�dr� Respons�T�e proposed building is located 17 feet from the gre�e�ty to the south and 40 feet from the�epe�Ey to the west. I propose to build a azchitecturally designed, historically accurate carriage house inciuding a four-car garage. I have presented a designed landscape plan and have committed $5,000 to insure that this plan will be compieted. 7 CITY OF SATNT PAUL BOA.RD OF ZOI�IING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZOI�TING FILE NUMBER 98-026 DATE Apri113,1998 WHEREAS, ltonald Severson has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisioas of Sections 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code pertaining to the construction of a new carriage house with one dwelting unit and additionat parking spaces in the RT-2 zoning districc at 420 Portland Avenue; and WHEREAS, tiie Saint Paal Board of Zoning Appeals condacted a Qubtic hearing on March 23, 199&, pursuant to said appeal in accordance wich the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legisiative Code; and WHEREAS, the Sainc Paui Boatd of Zoning Appeais based upan evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially refiected in the minutes, made the foliowing fmdings of facr. I. The property in quesfion can be put to a reasonable tcce under the strict provisions of the code. 'I'he irregular shape of the lot and the covenant requiring 8 parking spaces for the property at 415 Summit Avenue make it difficult to develop the property. Iiowever, the owner has not expiored all options such as constructing a smaiter house or reposifioning the house. In 1995 variances for a similar project were denied but the house currently proposed is slightly larger than the house proposed in 199� and has not been significanfly repositioned. 2. The plight of the land owner is not due io circumstances unique to this property which were not created by the land oxmer. The size and irregulaz shape of the Iot and to the covenant that requires tfie property owner to provide pazking spaces for the units at 4I5 Summit were not created by the pzesent owner. However, the present otimer was awaze of these circumstances when he bought the property. 3. The proposed va»ance is not in keeping with the spirit and intenl ofthe code, and is not consistent lvith 1he health, safery, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Pnul. � The proposed development �vould not provide a reasonable amount of green space and thezefore the variances are not in keeping with the spirii intent of the code. 4. 7he proposed variance will impair an adeqxate szrpply of light and air to adjacent property and unreasonably din:inish established property values within the s:rrrounding area. The location and size of the propnsed carriage house would impair an adequaYe supply of light and air to adjacent properiy. The orieatarion of the building with the side facing Portiand Avenue would unreasonably diminish property values within the surcounding area. � � File �98-026 Page Two 5. The variance, :fgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitled under tJ:e provisions of the code for the property in ihe district where the affected land is located, nor wouid it alter or change the zoning d'utrict class:fication of the property. 6. The reguest for variance is based prirnarily an a desire to increase the value or income potential of theparcel ofland. NO�V, THEREFOI2E, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonin; Appeais that the application to grant variances from provisions of Secdons 61.101 to allow a 12-foot front yard setback for the carriage house, a 20-fooi front yard setback for the surface parking, and a 1.2-foot side yard setback for the carriave house on property located at 420 Potdand Avenue and legally described as (See Actachment); in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator is hereby denied. MOVED $Y: hiorton SECONDED BY Bogen IN FAVOR: � AGAINST: o h1AILED: Agril 14, 1998 APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council �}ithin 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buildiag permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued beFore an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of tHe apQeal. CERTIFICATIO�': I, the undersigned Secretary to ihe Board of Zoning Appeais for the City oE' Saint Paul, Niinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared tfie foregoing copy �vith the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true aad correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on hiarch 23, 1998, and on record in the OfFce of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter StreeY, �aint Paul, Minnesota. SAIVT PAUL BOARD OF ZONIIVG APPEALS / L� Sue Spnstegaard Secretary to the Board � MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, MARCH 23, 1998 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen and Morton; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Scherman and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Mr, Beach and Ms. Synstegaard of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. A EN ; None The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. RONALD SEVERSON (#98-0261 - 4�0 PORTLAND AVENUE: Thcee variances in order to construct a single-famiiy home with 4 tuck-under garage spaces and 2 surface parking spaces. A front yard setback of 25 feet is tequired and a setback of I2 feet is proposed, for a variance of I3 feet. A side yard setback of 4 feet is required and a setback of I.2 feet from tfie east properry line is proposed, for a vaziance of 2.8 feet. Surface parking spaces may not be located within a required front yard and the applicant is proposing one parking space 20 feet from the front property line. The appiicant was present. There was opposition present at the heazing. Mr. Beach showed siides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendarion for approval. Mr. Aiton asked if the proposed project needs a lot coverage variance. Mr. Beach replied no, this plan has been scaled dawn since the 1492 ptan. Ronald Severson, 415 Summit, #2, stated his condominium overtooks the proposed lot and he has tived there for over seven years and is familiar with the various attempts to deve2op the lot. Mr. Severson stated he purchased the lot two years ago afrer several attempts had been made to devetop the lot. He staced that it is a buildabie lot and two of the attempts had been approved by ttte Boazd but had not moved forward due to fmancial problems. He stated that he is aware o€ the easement for pazking on the lot because he too lives in the condominium. He stated that his attempt to develop the lot in 1995 was denied and the primary teasons were that tee didn'L have architecturai drawings, the position of the baiiding on the lot and that he didn't have a detailed landscaped plan. Mr. Severson stated that he met with Aaron Rnbenstein and went over ail the federal and city guidelines that are required to be mei in a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) disirict. He stated that he met five times with the HPC and they were helpfizl in making him aware of what is needed in developing a building that would not only be appropriate under HPC Guidelines but appropriate to this sice as it stood in relationshig to the main house, the home in the back and the gark. The HPC agproved their glan, although it has since been changed slighdy and needs to be reapproved by ihe HPC. IC - ---- -- °1� �`� �`-� File lf98-026 Page Two Mr. Severson stated that he wili ptovide eight parkins spaces for the tenanu in the candominium and there are nine spaces proposed. He stated that unit one in the condominium has two parking spaces provided in the existing garage and that was built on the properry after his original request for a variance. FIe stated that there are three outdoor parking spaces and the fourth parking space will be one ofthe parking spaces within the carriage house. Mr. Severson stated ffiat under their declazation requirements these parking spaces have to 6e provided withouc cost to the owners of the condominium uniu. He stated that the remaining two parking spaces within the carriage house will be made available to whoever buys his condominium unit and the fourth parkin� space will be for himself. Mr. Severson stated that at first there was a dirt parking lot on the site and he had three truckloads of gravei hauled in. He stated that he would ]ike to see the area become visually consistent with the HPC requirements and pleasing to the neighborhood. He stated that in meecing with the neighbors who had concerns about the landscaping, there were three proposals given to him. One of the requests was that he establish an escrow fund of $5,000 before he begins construction to ensure thatthere would be money available for landscaping and put the fund in the hands of a neighborhood committee. Mr. Mervyn Hughes who lives in the first floor of the condominium unit has agreed to chair this landscape committee. Mr. Severson stated that he has had a lot of help in developing the proposed plan from several of the neigh6ors who support the development. Lou Sudheimer, 439 Portland Avenue, stated he lives across the street and one lot to the west of the condominium building. Mr. Sudheimer submitted a computer generated photograph to show how the properry will look when standing in the park, a photographic montage of the site and a tracing from the photographic montage that superimposes Mr. Severson's elevation at the correct position. There is about forry feet between the four-story condominium and the proposed structure. Many of the neighborhood residents believe that Mr. Sevetson has done an excellent job of putting together a well thought through project dealing with a site that is very visibie and an important part of the City. Even though a parcel has split off the rear of what was originally ihe 415 Summit Avenue lot, in rea]iry this has always been the back yard of the Governor's Mansion. Mr. Sudheimer stated that the difference between the plan that was denied before and this pian is ffiat the grevious plan asked that the carriage house be regositioned and that is what Mr. Severson has done. The building would now address Portland Avenue instead of the mansion. In addition, the proposed plan would provide greater setbacks off of Portland Avenue, greater setbacks from the side yard and one additional garage srall. Mr. Sudheimer stated that since the previous denied pian was tumed down, the Ciark's �vho live in the condominium unit now have a two-car garage and this had to be taken into consideration with ihe proposed plan. Mr. Sudheimer passed around photograghs that show the difference of the setback from the condominium. He stated that the front porch of the condominium has an 18-inch setback off of che sidewaik and the steps overiap the sidewalk. Mr. Severson has addressed the previous complaint of the front yard parking space even though it is actuaily in the back yard so it will not be so visibie. He stated that there are far more neighbors in suppon of this proposal than the smal( number of people who attended the Ramsey Hilt Association (RHA) meeting. The number of signarures on the petition in support are more than tripie of those who attended the RHA meeting. �� File #98-026 Page Three Mervyn Hugh, 436 PortIand Avenue, stated that he lives on the first floor of the condominium unit and he is visualty the most affected neighbor. He staced that with the proposed plan he will loose his view of rhe park and two yeazs ago he was before the Board in opposition to the 1995 plan. He stated that today he is present in support and ffie reason is that the proposed ptan is vasHy different, In 1995 he was concemed about the parking obligations for the condoeninium being addressed and the landscaping. Mr. Severson has met with the neighbors and in doing this, his landscaping plan and building plans have become better than the 1995 ptan. Mr. Hugh stated that after living nextao the undeveIoped Iot for 25 years he looks forward to the completion of the project. Mr. Hugh submitted a petition in support to the Board with 38 signatures and stated that the APC is in support of the ptoject. Charlotte Kraemer-Prentice, 436 Holly Avenue, #6, stated that she represents the condominium associaaon of thirteen famiiies. She stated tfiat their buIIding was buiit before many people owned vehicles and therefore many of them do not have garages. 5he stated that when the Universiry Ctub has events there is a parking problem for the thirteen families. She stated that she is in favor of how Mr. Severson has treated the tot like a front lot with the beautiful landscaping pians. She stated that originatly there had been a carriage house on this same lot in 1888. She snbmitted a map to the Board showing where the former carriage house was. Marlo Hugh, 436 Portland Avenue, stated that she is tired of the mess, the mud and the garbage from the proposed lot and she is in favor of the proposed plan. Mark Vaught, Suite 700, 6 West Fifth Street, an attomey represendng Greg and Carol Clazk, and Tricia Leonard, who are also owners of units in the condominium unit. Mr. Vaugh[ passed out a Ietter dated March 23 and a four-page document that is incorporated in the Mareh 181etter that includes a copy of the Board's 1995 Resolution which denied the plan submitted at that time, and a site plan from 1995 and 1998. The individuals he represents, along wich Mr. Sudheimer and one other individuai, have various easement righcs to parking, vehicular and pedestrian access to 42Q Portland that flow from the day when the two parcels were actualIy one parceI. He stated that he also represenu Laurel Frost and Susan Bergen who are residents and owners of condominium uniu at 43b Pordand which is adjacent to the properry to the west. Mr. Vaught stated that if he had an overarching statement to say it wostd be that this parcet of land is a size 8 shoe and the proposal is a size 12 foot. The 1995 Resolution acknowledges that and there is very little differeat between this proposal and che 1995 proposal. The carriage house proposed is virtually the same size and might be even larger. The lot coverage by both building and asphali is esseadally the same as it was in 1995 and to cail cocking a building at a little bit of an angle reposirioning really strains the defmition. Throughout the HPC approval of this project, his clients attempted to interject a number of issues that they were repeatedly told by the HPC and the applicant that they refused to consider their issues. T'he HPC purely concemed itself with design and did not concem themselves with the issues that are before the Board today. Mr. Vaughi stated that the HPC's approval is irrelevant to what the Board has before them today. The HPC is an entirely sepazate body with a different set of rutes and the Board ough[ to apply those rules in tke way they see fit to do them. The facc that the HPC approved ihe proposed plan should maybe not play a part in the Board's Qecision today. Although the HPC's approvaI was uphetd by the Ciry Council, one of the two councilmembers who would have vo[ed to overcum this, in whose ward the proposed ptan is in, was not present. 12 �� File #98-026 Page Four Mr. Vaught stated that he doesn't believe Mr. Sudheimer's statement made about there being three times as many signatures on the petition in support as there were members at the RHA meeting is a factual one. He stated that one of clienu will speak to the fact that there was a lot more than a third of the people that are on the pedtion. Mr. Vaught also stated that everyone has had petitions presented to them to be signed and sometimes you consider them more suongly than others. A petition is not the same as a discussion, nor is it a discussion of all of the issues. The RHA's issues meeting which led to the vote not to support this particular project went on for one and one-half hours and resuited in a full discussion of all of the issues that relate to this project. The petition process, al[hough certainly being an expression of how a person feels, doesn't lend itself to that same kind of discussion. Mr. Vaught s[aced that he has seen the computer generated graphic two times and the problem with computer generated graphics is that they don't show you reality, and this graphic doesn't show the Board the issues they need to consider. The graphic doesn't show the re]ationship between ihe proposed building and the front pioperty line, it doesn't show the relationship between the proposed building and the rest of the lot, but merety shows how the proposed building will look from Nathan Hale Park. The graphic doesn't show, what his clients know, which is when they s[and on their back porch they see this carria;e house less than 20 feet from their home. The 1998 site pian shows that there is noc 20 feet from the back of the proposed building to the next property line. The graphic also doesn't show you what you wouid see if you stood on Portland Avenue viewing the proposed site. The buildin� that the proposed project is next to faces PorUand Avenue and the setbacks would not be different, but the proposed building does not face Portiand Avenue. The view of the proposed building from Portland Avenue is the side of the building. He stated that the positioning of the proposed buildin� is inappropriate when loaking at the orientation of the other homes on the block. Mr. Vaught stated that the slight cocking of che proposed building puts the comer of ihe building 1.2 feet away from Nathan Hale Park. He stated that he believes it is policy issue of putting a building 1.2 feet from a park and in this respect, this proposal is even worse than the proposal before the Board in 1995. He stated his letter dated March 23 attempts to analyze in terms of the six characteristics ihat Mr. Beach sited that the Board must find in doing this consideration. Mr. Vaught commended the Board for their logic in 1995 because he believes it applies equally as well today as it did in 1995. The first finding states that the properry cannot be put to a reasonable use undez the strict provisions of the code. In 1995 the Board also had before them a staff report recommending approval but found that in finding I that the irregularly shaped loc and the covenant requiring six parking sgaces for the condominiums make it difficult to develop the lot without vaziances, however, the applicant had not explored all options such as consuuctin; a smaller house or repositioning the house an the lot. Mr. Vaught staced that that statement is just as true today as it was in 1995. The peopie who spoke before the Board today would like to believe that cocking the building at a slight an�le is repositioning it, but there has been no consideration of a smailer house. The proposed house is the same size, if not larger than the one that was before the Board in 1995. In the second findin; the Board must make, Mr. Vaught stated that he would concede that Mr. 3everson didn'[ estabiish the parking and pedestrian easements and didn't own the land when it was split off, but Mr. Severson did know about these issues when he purchased the properry and before he concocted the plan before you because he was in fact the applicant the applicant before the Board in 1995. � Fi1e t{98-026 Page Five Mr. Vaught stated that Mr. Severson knew exacdy what he was deaIing with and knew exactly what the rules and requiremenu were. In 1995 the Boazd stated that the size and shape of the lot and the covenants were circumstances that were not directly created by the present owner, although the applieant was aware of the circumstances prior to purchasing the property. This was true in 1995 and is true in 1998, tnere is no change from what the Board previously found. In finding 3 the Board stated in 1995 that the lot split that hapgened in 1990 ideally should not have happened. Mr. Vaught stated that the lot split may well have been illegal. He noted that a couple of issnes that relate to provisions to zhe Code on lot splitting that he doesn't believe were mei. The Citations of the I,egislative Code ue Section b7.0304(4)(6) which prohibit 2ot splits which cause a remaining part of the lot to fail to meet minimam zoning staadards or where such divisions result in the creation of a nonconforming use or strucmre. The very fact that Mr. Severson is here before the Board today requesting that various condi[ions be altered is evidence at the dme the lot was sptit. This dcesn't meet the minimum standards al[hou;h it may with a smaller house but Mr. Severson has never considered a smaller house. This lot split was questionable from the day it happened and it probably should not have happened which was the Board's conclusion in 1995 and he urged that same conclusion upon the Board today. Mr. Vaught stated that the covenant requiring parking is much more than a contract but a legally enforceable document. A covenant is transferable from one owner to the next and runs with the land. In the 1995 resolution it was staced that the covenant requiring parking for Lhe condominium will leave very little green space on this lot. That was true in 2995 and it is also tzue in 1998. The coverage of 8ze lot is just as great if not greater, a12 be it with the building ai a stighdy different angle than it was in 1998. Mr. Vaught stated that the Code also states that there shouid be adequate drainage and he has not seen anything in the plan that addresses drainage from the paved propetty. This issue is not covered by this application. blr. Vaughc scated that the landscaping money is wonderful but ihat doesn't change the situation from two scandpoints. One, variances ought not co be for sale and two, it still doesn't change the fact that the green space that is available to put the landscaping on is just as restricted in the 1998 proposa] as it was in the 1995 proposal. In addition, the cocking of the building requires it to be 1.2 feet, rather than 4 feet in the 1995 plan, from Nathan Hale Park. This also brings the 6uilding tess than 20 feet from the neighboring house. There is also an exterior ceilar door from 415 Summit ihat goes afl the way to the property line which wo¢Id make it questionabte as to how it would function if in fact these two parking spaces that are there are full. Mr. Vaught stated that if you look behind the existing garage that is the Clark's, although there has hardly been a day that they have been able to pazk in it because of the grading, of the lot, there is a trash dumpster. If every parking space is full, the rubbish conuacfor will not be able to get to ffie trash dumpster. There is not enough room on this lot to put ali the things that aze there and have it operate at any kind of efficiency. �� -` l��{ Fite #98-026 Page Six Mr. Vaught stated that he believes this request for a variance is incomplete. In his reading of the parking code as he cited in the particular Section of the Zoning Code, is ihat the entrance and exist from a parking area like this must be at least 25 feet from the adjoining property. According to the site plan ihis is ciearly 12 feet from 436 Portland Avenue. This dces noc make it a lega] entrance or exit and ihere is no variance request before the Board today regarding that requirement. Uniess this is requested, the driveway is unusable because it is not a proper egress/ingress to the property. Mr. Vaught stated that there is the number of the parking spaces that are provided. Mr. Severson has stated he will make one parking space in the carriage house available to a condominium owner but it would he inceresting to see who would obtain that in terms of who woutd have to park on the outdoor lot. The question though is, are the six parking spaces legal? One of the parking spaces is clear]y labeled a compact parking space and the other space is only 18 feet as opposed to 21 feet which is what the Zoning Code requires. This particular parking space is floating in ffie middle of the driveway which would make it impossible for the Clark's to get in and out of their garage. While Mr. Severson has the obligation to provide parking, he has no authority to regulate the type of vehicle the tenants drive. Mr. Vaught argued that the normal parking requirement that you can take half of your parking spaces and make them compact spaces ought not to apply in this case because if the tenants wish to, they could own six Lincoin Town cars and then they ciearly wouldn't be able to park in the spaces that are availabie to them. There is not enough room an this lot for all of the parking that is suppose to be provided. Mr. Vaught referred the Board to the 1995 staff report where the Board clearly found that the request foc the variance is based primarily an the desire to increase the value and income potential of the parcel of land. This is the same project that the Board had before them in 1995 and that same statement is true in 1998. Mr. Vaught stated that his clients don't want someone to not be able to use their land 6ut this is an inappropriate use of ffiis particular land. He stated that this an incomplete request in his view and doesn't differ materially from the 1995 requestthatthe Board wisely denied. Mr. Donohue asked when the condominium association was formed. Mr. Clark replied that it was in 1990. Mr. Donohue asked if the association sold off the lot. Mr. Vaught replied ffiat it really wasn't sold off by the association. He stated that there were bankruptcy proceedings involving ffie original owner and developer of the lot and about the same time that ihis happened, as a part of those proceedings, this lot was split off. The lot was not soid by the association or by the members but was split off by the original developer of the condominium. Mr. Vaught stated that his clients are perfecdy wiiling to sit down and discuss purchasing this property and reincorporating it in the original parcel of land. �S File #48-026 Page Seven Mazk Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, Chair of the RHA Landuse Committee, stated that tast yeaz the Associa[ion held a public meeting regarding this properry. The proposal chat ihey reviewed is no[ exacdy the same as the one that is before the Board today, however, the Association didn't feel it had changed enough to warrant another pubtic meeting, nor a change in position. At the meedng tttere were 17 people who voted in opposition to the proposal and 9 in favor and it was a well attended �neeting. Mr. Voerding stated that this property has been a groblem foz 10+ years. Many of ttte issues regardin� the use of this property 6ave never been resoived in respect to the easement rights, etc. He stated that this cannot be a back yard in orQer to try and design a building that the HPC might think tooks Iike a caniage house to the property at 415 Summit. At the same time, it can't be a front yard towards 420 Portland. This is as proposed, a single lot with a Portland address structure. It wonld be considered the primary residentiai structure as proposed. The staff report indicates that the property owner cannot put this property to reasonable use w3thout the variances. The fact is that the owner can put ihis to use, especiaily wichin the perimeters of the easement document granring certain rights to the adjoining properry owners. He stated that his understanding is that the owners of the property at 415 Summi[ have the right to use this properry for parking and for access. The easement document give away any construction or air rights to the current owner. As such, one could assume that people could park anywhere they want on that site, in any of the garage spaces they so choose, and if they wanted to they could waik through the living room of the cazriage house to get to their parkin� space. The apglicant was fully aware of the limitations on this property when ii was acquired. Mr. Voerding stated Yhat he is noubled by The process. He referred to the 1995 proposal and asked how a back yard of a singIe famiiy residential Iot can be cut off at the base of t[ie back steps to create a new lot? How can a lot be split to make an existing home not comply with the existing Zoning Code? He asked how the Ciry can eIiminate setback and lot coverage requirements for an existing property by choppin� off the portion of the properry that actually keeps it in compliance? He stated that he believes thac it can't be done. He stated that his understanding of the situation is that no public hearing was held regarding the lot split, the Boazd never made a decision about the lot split, and ihe Ciry Charter and the Zoning Code requires that. The staff person who put the red rubber stamp on the tot split had no authority to do so. He stated that his interpretation is that the lot split has not legally occurred. He asked the Board to deny vaziances and inform the Ciry staff that they wilt not considet any further development of this site unless a developer demonsuates proof of ownership and full site control. Mr. Alton asked Mr. Voerding to elaborate on his statement that the property can be put to a reasonable use under ihe suict provisions of the Code. Mr. Voerding replied that ihe property owner could put a garage on the site and a sma11 home and stiil meet the requirements of the Code. The problem that is created with Lhe site are the easemeni righu of the other owners. Carol and Gregory Clark, majoriry owners of 415 Summit Avenue, the property frotn which 420 Portiand was split. Ms. Clark stated that the Nathan HaIe Association has asked Mr, Severson on thzee occasions to sell the property back to ihe condominium associaLion. Mr. Severson has re€used and stated that he would seIt the property to Louis Sudheuner first before them, and that he wants to buiId a strucmre to live in. Ms. Clark stated ihey would 3ike to see another garage on ihe property with appropriate landscaping. � �. a �- -� �y File #9$-026 Page Eight Ms. Clark stated that she is concemed about the green space and the east side of IvIr. Severson's project abutting Nathan Hale Park. She stated that one neighbor noted that the project would look like a sea of asphalt. On the site plan Mr. Severson has made improvements to 415 Summit and they have not agreed to make any of those imgrovements. One being the concrete sidewalk going from the back porch onto his propetry. She stated that her and her husband are the owners of the garage and to date they have not been able to use it and they have lived in the unit for two years. Her understanding of the agreement to build rhe garage was to provide paving and that has not happened. She believes that is in violation of the permit for that construction. She has stated that she has heard concerns expressed today regarding the condition of the property. She stated that the properry belongs to Mr. Severson and doesn't belong to ihe owners of 415 Summit. One neighbor noted Ihe mud, mess and garbage and that they would like to see it cleaned up. She noted that the mud, mess and the garbage belong to Mt. Severson. Mr. Clark noted that the reason they currently park on Summit Avenue is because of the mud on the driveway. He siated that he would be concerned of the closeness of the building to their condominiums as far as hidden spaces for the safety of the tenants. He stated that there was not a carriage house on the property in the late 1800's but rather a stable. Mr. Alton asked if the garage was on the properry when they purchased their unit. Ms. Clark replied no, it was part of the purchase agreement that there would be a two-car garage available to them. She stated the drawing of the garage had shown asphalt in the driveway. They were told the reason at was not paved was because the weather had gotten too cold and she has been told by severaf city staff members that there was a mistake made and that there should have been a bond put on the properry to ensure that the asphalt was put in. Mr. Alton asked whose responsibility it was to put in the asphait? Ms. Clark replied that their undersianding was that ffie original property owner sold the property to Ivlr. Severson. The original properry owner advised her that the property was sold to Mr. Severson at a reduced rate because ihere was an agreement between the two to have Mr. Severson put in the asphalt. When speaking to city staff she was told that Mr. Severson had assured them that he would do something so that they would be able to use their garage. Ms. Clark stated that the two properties were owned by different individuals. Tricia Leonard, 415 Summit Avenue lf4, stated that in terms of the parking a]legation, she was offered the free garage space with the condition that when she sold her unit that she give it back to Mr. Severson. She stated that she was aiso approached about buying the garage but that she would not be interested in that if she did not have ownership of the property. Mr. Severson stated that when he purchased the properry there was no discussion of a prior commitment to pave the lot. What was committed to was that the nvo-car garage be built for the Clark's. He stated that if his project is approved many of the concems will be resolved because of the Iandscaping and paving. He stated that he will meet all the requirements of the easement agreement by providing the parking spaces including one within his catria,e house. He stated that there is 17 feet between his proposed carriage house and the back of the condominium. The Code requirement is only 10 feet. �7 , File {{98-026 Page Nine Mr. Severson stated he requested a site review of his parking plan and it dces meet the Code, He stated that the home wi21 only be 2,000 sq. ft. which is not large. He stated that you woutd have exactly the same foot print on the lot with garages as you would with his proposed carriage home. His atchitecturally designed carriage home wiIt be more pleasing to view from the park. FIe again stated that he hauled in truck loads of gravel and that he could easily drive into the two-caz garage. He stated that regarding the drainage, that has already been addressed by city staff and should not be part of the discussion today. T-Iearing no further testunony, Ms. MadQox closed the public poraon of rhe meeting. Ms. Bogen stated that two years ago the Board mentioned in their ResoIution that Mr. Severson look at building a smailer structure or reposiuoning it on the lot, Ms. Bogen stated that as far as repositioning it she wanted it repositioned so that it faced the sueet and not side-wise. The new plan is larger than the old plan, tttey aze both 40 feet long and the new plan is 2 feet wider than the 1995 plan. Raiher than ]ooking at rhe Resolu6on and putting in a plan that the Board could possibly accept, she believes this is a worse pian and she witi not be able to support it. Ms. Morton stated that she is also not in support and feels there would be no green space left and if the driveway is smaller than it shouId be there may be some legal problems. She believes the owners of the condominium unit do not believe ihe ptoposed plan will unprove their home. Mr. Wilson asked how much green space there would be as he sees very little on the proposed plan. Mr. Beach compared the 1995 and 1997 plan and stated that the current plan has 12 feet of green space in between the building and ihe sidewatk and on the other side of the Qriveway there is 20 feet between the sidewalk and the driveway. There is also a triangie of green space by the park. The 1995 plan there was a uiangIe of green space in front of the building, 8 feet at the smatIest point to 25 feet. What has changed is that the 1995 had no green space on ihe west side of the driveway. He stated that he thinks the arrangement of the parking space is more preferable. Mr. Wiison stated that regarding parking, can staff require a designated pazking size? Mr. Beach replied that the Code states that the siandard parking size is 9 x 18 and all of the spaces meet that except one next to the existing gazage which is 8 x 17. A compact space only needs to be 8 x 16. Staff and the Board members continued to discuss the parking requirements. Mr. Warner asked Mr. Beach if he looks at parking Tequirements in terms of site plan review or is thzt something that is set forth in the Zoning Code as opposed to the normal site plan review? Mr. Beach questioned if Mr. Waraer was speaking of ihe number of spaces or the tocation of them. Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach to tett him where in the Zoning Code i[ refers [o the langaage of compact parking size. Mr. Beach repIied Section 62.I03 which states that 1/2 of the parking spaces can be compact. Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach if he makes that determination and approves it? Mr. Beach replied that typically someone will come in with a site plan and he will evaluate it to see if there are too many compact spaces and to make sure tf�at the location makes sense. Iv -- -- --- - �-L[� File #98-02b Page Ten Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach how he would tnake a determinafion that ffiere are too many compact parking spaces. Mr. Beach replied that he gces by the Code which states that you can have half of the parking spaces designated as compact. He stated that sometimes he dcesn't feel that it is the ideal solution for a given use but generaliy he gces along with it. Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach if he knows the Code section that specifically addresses compact spaces. Mr. Warner asked Mr. Beach if this is an accessory parking facility. Mr. Beach replied that this is considered an accessory parking facility as opposed to a pay ramp. Mr. Alton stated that he dcesn't fmd that the proposal today is hardly different from the 1945 proposai and he agrees with Ms. Bogen that the building is even larger. Mr. Alton moved to deny the variance based on the fmdings contained in the 1995 Resolution approved by the Board. Ms. Morton seconded the motion, which passed on a rall cail vote of 6 to 1(Scherman). Submitted hy: _,�j!? �� Tom Beach Approved by: �� Glori o n, Secretary iq BOARD OF Z0IYING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 1. APPLICANT: RbNALD SEVERSON 2. CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance 3. LOCATION: 420 PORTLAND AVE FTLE # 98-026 DATE OF HEARING: 03/23/98 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIN # 012823240240 (See file for complete ]egal description) 5. PLANNING DISTRICI': 8 6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 ZOlYING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101 1. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 3/17/98 BY: Tom Beach 8. DEADLINE FOR ACPIOIV: 6/3/98 DATE RECEIVED: 2/3/48 A. PURPOSE: The applicani is pmposing to construct a new cazriage house cvith one dwelling unit. In addition, a Wtai of 9 pazking space aze proposed: 4 spaces in ihe carriage house below the dwelling unit, 3 surface spaces, and 2 spaces in an existing gazage. One of these pazking spaces would be for the carriage house unit and 8 would be for an existing 4-unit condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit}. B. ACfION REQUESTED: Three variances for minimum setbacks: - A&ont yazd setback of 12 feet is proposed for the carriage house. A setback of 2� feet is required for a variance of 13 feet� - Surface pazking spaces may not be located within a required &onY yard. One of ihe surface garking spaces on the wesi side of the lot would be set back 20 feet from the front property line. A front yud setback of 25 feet is required for a variance of 5 feet - A side yazd setback of 1.2 feet from the eastproperty line is proposed for the carriage house. A setback of 4 feet is required for a variance of 2.8 feet. C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is aa uregular shaped pazcel with an azea of 5,428 squaze feet. It is currenfly used for pazking by the 4-unit condominium at 415 Summit (the properry immediately south of 420 Portland). Two cazs park in an elcisting garage at the reaz of the site and approximately 6 cazs pazk outside on graveUdirt. The siYe is located in the Historic Hill Preservation Distric� Surrounding Land Use: No:th: Single-family and duplex (RT-2) East: Nathan Hale Pazk (f2T-2} South: Four-unit condominium (RT-2) West: Multi-family condomini� (RM-2) C. BACKGROUND: There have been a number of proposals for using this property since 1990: Za - In 1990 the City approved a lot split that split dus pazcei from north end of the pazcel at 415 Summit. - Later in 1990 the Boazd of Zoning Appeais approved variances to construct a new carriage house unit with a 5 caz gazage beneath the unit subject to conditions. This �vas appealed to the City Council by the Parks Department. 'ihe Council upheld the variance but modified the conditions. - In 1992 the Boazd of Zoning Appeals granted variaaces to construct a hvo-unit carriage house cvith a 14-caz underground garage. - In 1993 the Boazd of Zoning Appeal granted a one yeaz extension of the 1992 variances. - In 199�} there was a pzoposal to build a two-unit carriage house with a total of 9 gazage stalls under the cazriage house and in detached garages. Varianczs nere applied for but application was withdra«�n before the Boazd of Zoning Appeals took any action. - In 1995 the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a carriage house unit with 3 pazking spaces beneath the unit and 6 surface pazking spaces. - In 1996 the applicant purchased the property. - In 1997 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a plan similaz to the cucrent proposal. The City Council upheld this approval on appeal in February 1998. (The current plan is slighdy different from the plan approved by the HPC. The HPC approced plan had a pazking space in the front yazd setback between the carriage house and the public sidewalk on Portland. The current plan moves this pazking space behind the carriage house so that it is not visible from the sidewalk and moves the carriage house 9 feet cioser to the street. This change was made in response to comments from some neighbors and zoning staff: If the Boazd of Zoning Appeals approves the current plan, the applicant will have to go back to the HPC to have them approve the changes.) D. FINDINGS: The Board of Zoning Appeals may grant a variance if it meets the following findings: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonabte use under the strict provisions of the cade. The variances aze being requested in order to provide a totai of 9 off-street pazking for the catriage house dwelling unit and the 4 dwelling units in the condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit). The applicant is required to provide 8 pazking spaces for the uniu at 415 Summit under the terms of a private agreement daung back to when the property was split in 1990. This agreement says that each condominium unit at 415 Summit is entitled to 2 pazking spaces on the property at 420 Portland. (See attached agreement.) The properry owner cannot build a carriage house and provide the pazking required by this agreement under the strict provisions of the code. Even if the cazriage house was not built, it is not possible to provide 2 parking spaces for each eacisting condo unit without a variance. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this propert}; and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The plight of the land o�vner is due to the size and inegulaz shape of the ]ot, lack of alley access, and to the private agreement that requires the property own�r to provide pazking spaces for the units at 415 Summit. None of these circumstance were created by the land owner. 3. The proposed varia»ce is in keeping with ihe spirii and intent of ihe code, and is consiste»t with the heatth, safety, comfort, morats and welfare of ihe inhabitants of the City ofSt. Paut. Z� The variances for front yard setback meet this finding. The intent of the code in requiring minimum front yazd setbacks is ta ensure that there is some consistency in setbacks and to provide green space. The proposed front yazd setback is consistent with (and actually slightly lazger than) the front yazd setback for the lazge condominium building to the west which is the only other buildina on the block face. There would be adequate green space in the front yard of the properry and additional green space is provided for the block by Nattian Hale Pazk which is adjacenx The variance for side yazd setback also meeu this &nding. The iatent of the requirements for side yazd setbacks is to minimize crowding between buiidings. The property to the east is Nathan Hale Pazk and does not fiave any buildings. In addition, the cazriage house sits ai an angle to the east property line and the vaziance is only needed for the from comer of the house. The back comer of the hovse will be set back almost 20 feet from the progerty liae. 4. The proposed va»ance will not impair an adequate supply ofGght and air to adjacent pmperty, nar will it or unreasonably diminish established property values wirhin the surrounding area. The variances for front yazd setback meet this finding. Granting ihe variances for front yazd setback wilI not alter the essentiai chazacter of the surrounding area because the carriage house and surface pazking space will be set back further from the &ont properry line than the only other building on the block face. The vatiance for side yazd setback also meets tlus finding. 5, The variance, ifgranfed, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the prm�isions of the code for the property in the district where the affected Zand is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification ofthe property. The variance meets this finding. The zoning code permits a single-family house with parking. 6. The nquest for varianc¢ is not based prrmarily on a desire to increase the value or income potenria! of the parcel ofland. The variance meeis flris 5ndiag. The request for vaziance is based primarily oa the aeed to provide pazking for the dwe2liug units at 425 Summit as well as the proposed carriage fiouse unit. E. DISTRICT COiT1�CIL RECOMMENDATION: District 8 Community Council recommends that the variance be denied. F. STA�'F RECOMNLENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, stat�recommends approval of the variances. elevations Letter�rol� District S 2Z ��-� �tarie�eterson lerome P Filla Daniel 0.'itt Fram Glenn A. 8ergman loho M�chael Miller hiichael T. Obede Kenneth A. Amdahi Ste�en H. 6mns' Paul W Fahning Timo[hy P. Russelt Esther E. McGinnis FRAM , v BERGIVIAN . ?;�i'r ._.:,':a ��'_"- - = ' - - . Su�te ;n0 50 East Fitth Sveet St PaUI. i�iR i5101-I I��; 161?I NI-fi�55 lol?I ??A-1754 facsSmiie Melvin 1 Sih-er, Of Counsel DiieCt Dial R290-fi909 e-mail: jmmiller6pfb-pa.coa March 23, 1998 3oyce Maddox, Chair, Members of Board of Suite 300 and Zoning Appeals 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 RE: Application of Ronald Severson Major Variaace 420 Portland Avenue Zoning File 98-026 Our Fi1e No.: 11127/950001 Dear Chair Maddox and Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: I represent Ronald Severson, the Applicant in Che above- referred to application. This morning, I was faxed a copy of Mr. Vaught's letter of March 18, 1998. I have been asked to prepare a brief response to the legal issues touched upon in Sections 1 and 6 of Mr. Vaught's letter. � + * * * The Private Agreement - Role of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Despite the fact that the ��private agreement'� referred to in Mr. Vaught's letter is of public record, it is, nonetheless, in the nature of a contractual agreement between private parties. (The "private agreement" is actually a section of the Declaration of the adjacent property.) Neither the City, nor agency thereof, is a party to the agreement. Essentially, Mr. Vaught is requesting is that the Board of Zoning Appeals adjudicate the rights of the parties which are subject to the agreeement. It is respectfully submitted that this is beyond the scope of the duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals. This is strictly a � • �i ,o �omnin :� � iu ��cn Celebrating VL � �ur � V ��' V �� LLLVL l�ir ..r..i:'. Joyce Maddox, Chair, and March 23, 1998 Page 2 disagreement between private parties, which, in all likelihood wou2d have to be resoZved through litigation. Mr. Vaught and his clients have had months to commence a lawsuit in order to obtain a judicial determination of the parties' respective rights. The Board of Zoning Appeals should not be placed in a position of becoming an arbitration board to pass its judgment on this issue. In this regard, it should also be noted that the City Council has already looked at the current plan on an appeal from the Heritage Preservation Commission. The Staff Report on the appeal made re£erence to the private dispute referred to in Mr. Vaught's letter and noted that it was not the role of the HPC to be addressing that particular issue. At the hearing on the appeal, which took place on Wednesday, February 25, 1998, the Council effectively agreed_ The Soard of Zoning Appeals should take the same position as the HPC and decide that it is not going to "take sides" in a dispute between private parties over the interpretation of a private agreement. Moreover, event the Ramsey Hill Association (whose letter is attached to Mr. Vaught's in support of his general position) recognized this, when Ms. McLaughlin correctly pointed out ". .. These matters are best resolved in a more appropiate forum. . . �� 2. The Private Aqreement - Nature of the Dispute. For the reasons stated in Section 1, the Applicant does not believe that the Board of Zoning Appea2s should be involved in the interpretation of private agreements. Neverthe2ess, since this has been brought up on other occasions by Mr. Vaught or his clients, he felt it was important that the Board have the opportunity to briefly review the agreement which is at issue. The Board can then see for itself that, at Ieast, there is a serious issue with respect to Mr. Vaught's position. Specifically, the °private agreeement° is Section 4 of Article 4 of the Declaration. A copy of that section is enclosed with this letter. (The °North Parcel° is the parcel which is the subject of this Application.) While there may be something in the nature of a"blanket" easement on the property at the present time, clearly, the Applicant has the ability to °. .. limit the boundaries of these easement areas by executing an easement grant or declaration, setting £orth the legal description of the easement areas, and recording the same in the Of£ice of Ramsey County Recorder. ..." This is 2y �t� Joyce Maddox, Chair, and March 23, 1998 Page 3 what will be done once the current application receives final approval. * * * * * Thank you for your attention to this matter. JMM:bap enc. cc: Ron Severson Tom Beach S. Mark Vaught, Esq. ZS /` �� hael Miller �, 2555404 foregoing. 3. Easements Through Watis Within t'Palis. Easements are hereby declared and granted to install, lay, maintain, repair and replace any wires, pipes, ducts, coaduite, publio ntility linea or atructural components running through the walls of #he units, whether or not such walls lie in whole or in part wit�in the unit boundaries. 4. Easement for Offstreet Parkin� and Yehicuiar aad Pedestrian Aeeess to Portland Avenne. A blanket easement for pedeatrian acceas from Porttaad Avenue to the Property, and vice verea, for vehicular affetreet parking spaces (two (Z) for each unit), and for vehicular accesa to the offstreet parking spacea from Portland Avenue and vice versa is hereby establiahed aver and across tke eatirety of the northerly of the two t2) Additioaal Real Estate psrcela (the "NortIi Parcel"). Declarant, or his auccessora or assigns, shall hsve the optioa Lo delimit the boundaries of theae easement areas by ezecuting an easement grant or declaration, set#iaig fort7a the legal deacriptione of the easement areaa, and recording the eama in tfle office of ttte R.amaeq County ftecorder. At auch time as Declaraat adda the North Psrcel to the Condominium, the easement(s) shall disappear (the amendment hereto ahall contain a provision teraiinating the easement(s)), the offstreet parking sgaces shatl become Iimited cammon elemeata of the units in the Condominium, and the n�uaber of offatreeL parl�ng spaces allocable to each unit ahall be reduced from two (2) ta one (1). Each uait owner in the Ccndominium, however, shall have the right of Srst refusal ta purchase from Declaraat one (1) garage unit if Declaraat coustructs garage unita an the North Parcel. ri. Easements to Run With Land. All eaaements rights and obliga�ioas created ia this Article are sffirmative and negative eaaements, ruaning witti the tand, perpetusl2y in futl force and effect, and at a11 times shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon DecTarant, its aucceasors and sssig�s, and say unit owaer, purchaser, mortgugee and other person havixig any interest in the Condominium or any part or portion thereof. �ARTICLE V. ; w,. .,. . . ; . . . . . � _ : . . . •�- . : . . , 1. Membership ia Associatiom A unit owner ahall by virtue of snch interest be a member of the Association and shall remsiu a member of said Assoastion uatit auch time as his interest in the Condominium ceases for any reason, at which time his membership in said Association shali automaticalty cease. When one or tuore persons hold an iaterest in a unit, alt such persona shalt be members. 2 Comp2isnce with DeclsraEion, Bylaws and Rutes and Rsgulations of Assodation, Each unit owner and occugant of a unit shall comply with aII ll 'L G ..�x..---- - ---- w�r , z++ar�� ----- •° — _ .. ` , :y, - :, ! � � + � � ,. t � -- � i � — -q� -- — -- - --- -- - �S. 1G�ARK AUGHT - ` ° ( - � AttorneyAtLaw Saite 700 Six West Fifch Saeec Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1420 (612)297-6400 _ FAX (612J 224-8328 � March 23, 1998 Joyce Maddox, Chair, and Members Board of Zoning Appeals Suite 300 ' 350 Saint Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 RB: Application of Ronald Severson Major Variance 420 Portland Avenue Zoning File 98-026 Dear Chair Maddox and Members of the Board o£ Zoning Appeals: As I indicated I would wjen I corresponded with the membe=�s af the Board of Zoning Appeals on March 18, 1998 about the above- refezenced project, I of£er the £ollowing as additional reasons £or my client's opposition ot rganting of the requested variances. 1. First, in order to grant the requested variances, the BZA is required to find that the property in question cannot be put tv a reasonable use uncler the strict provisions of the code. Stafs concludes that the applicant cannot build a carriage house and provide the right (8) parking spaces required by the restr=ctive covenant under the strict provisions of the code. Of course, this statement is true if, and only if, the only reasonable u�2 of the property is for the carriage house exactly as proposei'_ by the applicant. The reasbning was explicitly rejected by the BZA in 1995, in its resolution denying an essentially identical proposal by the same applicant. In 1995, the BZA found: "The i=regular shaped lot and the covenant reguiring six (actuallv the covenant reauires eight) parking spaces for the condominiums make it difficult to develop - this lot without variances. However, the applicant has not explored all options such as constructing a smaller house or repositioning the house on the lot." Parenthetical note added. Nothing really has changed about this development sinee 1995. The proposed carriage house is exactly the same size. And the repositioning of the building has been minimal and has actually resulted in it being closer to the property line wi.th 23athan Hale Z� Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 1998 Page Two Zoning File No. 98-026 Park than was the 1995 propos,al---1.2 feet versus 4 feet. The reason strict enforcement of the code prohibits this develapment is because the applicant refuses to consider a smaller or repositioned carriage house. Is that refusal reasonable? Zn light of the conclusion in the 1995 BZA resolution, my clients would submit that it is riot. The applicant has not reaYly moved beyond his 1995 proposal, He's simpZy dressed it up in different clothing and presented it anew. Additionally, there is no basis £or the implicit conclusion in the �taff report that no other reasonable use for the property exists. In fact, mp clients, acting corporately as a condominium �association, are prepared to negotiate purchase of the property upon mutually agreeable terms for parking alone, the purpose for which it was intended at the time the original, unsplit lot and building was converted to condominium usage. 2. Second, the BZA is required to find that the plig�t of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. Staff concludes the plight of the land owner is due to the size and shape of the parcel and the parking covenant and further concludes that none oP those circumstances were created by the land owner. Hos�ever, the BZA in its 1995 resolution found that while the circumstances were not directiv created k�y the applicant, he was aware of them prior to purchasing the property. That finding from 1995 remains as true today as it was then. Additionally, it is possible to conclude hased on the other £indings in the 1995 BZA resolution that the current circumstances in which the applicant finds himself are at least partially of his own creation because he has refused to modify the proposal by reducing the size of the propose8 carriage house. Nor has he repositioned the building on the lot in any substantial way. He simply, resubmitted the proposal that was turned down three years ago. 3. Third, the BZA is required to find that the proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants o£ the City of Saint Paul. in finding that the 1995 proposal did not meet any of th'ese requirements, the BZA said: "The proposed variance is not in keeping with the 2� Board o£ Zoning Appeals March 23, 1998 Page Two Zoning File No. 90-026 spirit and intent of the, code, and is not consistent with the health, safety, comfort.� morals and welfare of the inhabitants o£ the City of Saint Paul." In arriving at that conclusion, the BZA noted and oriticized a 1990 lot split which created this parcel as a separate lot. In fact, a strong argument exists that the lot split was not legal given the requirements of Section 67.304(4) and (6) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Those provisions prohibit lot splits where such divisions cause a remaining part of a lot to fail to meet minimum,zoning standards or where such divisions result in the creation of a nonconforming use or structure. . Clearly, here the proposal is £or a structure, which but £or the requested variances, does no conform. Further, at the time of � the split, the parking Covenant affecting the parcel created a use which was not conforming in that it provided parking for an unrelated parcel of land not under oommon ownership. The split such not have happened and was, arguably, illegal. The BZA, on this point in its 1995 resolution, stated that the proposal left very little green space on the parcel. The current proposal leaves no more green space and it similarly flawed. There is no reason for that conclusion to have changed. Staf£ in its current report focusses on the fact that the front,yard setback of the current proposal exceeds the set back of other buildings on Portland. xowever, what sta££ ignores is that the other buildings on Portland face the street, while the orientation of the proposed carriage house is such that the side of the building faces Portland. Staff goes on to assert that the back corner of the proposed carriage house is twenty feet from the property line. However, e cursory review of the site plan indicates this statement to be incorrect. The back corner of the proposed building is at most ten (10) feet £rom the property line at 415 Summit and is substantially less than twenty (20) feet from the structure containing the condominium units. Further, two of the proposed parking spots appear to be four (4) to five (5) Peet form the property line. In its 1995 resolutionf the BZA also found that the proposed variances may alter the general character of the surrounding area � or unreasonably diminish established property values with the surrounding area. in arriving at that conclusion, the 82A stated that �ailure of the�aPPlicant to provide architectural plans made it impassible to determine the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. That fact has not changed with this.proposal. ' 29 „ Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 1998 Page Four Zoning File No. 98-026 Clearly, all five of my clients, each of whom resides in property immediately adjacent to the parcel in this proposal, believe the proposed development will alter the essential character of the surrounding area, unreasonably diminish property values, and be inconsistent with their reasonable enjoyment of their property. In that regard consider the following: A. The proposed parking spaces at the back of the Portland lot are unduly close to the property line and residence o£ three of my clients and may well impair the functioning of an existing cellar door shown on the site plan. B. Each of the residents of 415 Summit Avenue has an enforceable right to pedestrian access to and from Portland Avenue over this lot. Yet, nowhere in the site plan is there a sidewalk which 2eads from the porch of their property to Portland Avenue: And if all of the proposed parking spots were in use, there is no way on the proposed pavement or sidewalks for my clients at 415 Summit to get from their property to Portland Avenue or back on foot. C. The site plan shows a trash dumpster behind the existing garage. However, if all of the parking spaces on the lot are in use, there would be no manner in which a trash pick up vehicle could access the dumpster. Similarly, there is absolute2y no space on the lot for even the smallest amount of snow storage. D. The 1995 BZA resolution notes that the parking covenant iri favor of residents o£ 415 Summit leaves little green space. That fact has not changed; it,has only been aggravated because the required number of spaces to be provided is eight, not six as thought in the 1995 staff report and resolution. Actually, the situation is even worse than shown on the current site plan. The applicant owns a un3t at 415 Summit and could presumably waive his two space requirement, leaving six more sgaces to be provided. Yet, the current site plan provides only five parking spaces, even if the two in the existing garage are counted. No agreement has been reached between the applicant and the owners of units at 415 Summit to provide parking from among the spaces located in the proposed carriage house to the residents o£ 415 Summit. And unless and until such an,agreement is reached, the applicant must provide at least six additional spaces outside the carriage house. The proposed site plan provides a maximum of five spaces. And issues arise as to whether the groposed spaces meet code requirements_as outlined in Section 62.104 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. It appears the size of all three outside proposed spaces is not up to code. Further, as a legal and practical matter, since the 3a Board o£ Zoning Appeals March 23, 1998 Page Five Zooning File No. 98-026 applicant must provide the�spaces and has absolutely no power to limit the type of vehicles owned by the parkers, the provisions of the code allowing compact spaces ought not to be applied here. Finally, with respect to parking, the proposed site plan is in direct violation of Section 62.104(9)(e) which requires the exit from the parking lot be twenty five (25} £rom any adjoining property; in fact, it is only twelve (12) feet from the property line at 436 Portland Avenue. The proposed clearly also fails to deal with the lot dra3nage requirements of Section 61.104. 4. Fourth, the BZA must find that the request for variance is not based primarily on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. In 1995, the BZA said simply "The request for variance is based rpimarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the� parcel of land." That the conclusion is as true of this proposal in 1998 as well is so clear as to need for further amplification. For the reasons stated above as well as those in my letter of March 18, 1998, my clients urge a denial of the request for variances on this project. Ve truly yours, �� GC �" , S. Mark Vaught /� Attorney at Law cc Greg and Carol Clark Tricia Leonard � Laurel FrOSt Susan Bergen 3� MAR-03-98 TUE 04:12 �UMMIT-UNTVERSITY PLANNXNG COU'NCIL aaxs_isss Monday, March 2, 199s Tom Beech LIEP Dear Tom, T'he RHA and SUPC's 1Qeigteborhood Dcvelopment Committce (�T.1C) deaded that the variance recentty requested by Ron Sicverson regarding 420 Porttand did aot deviate far anoagh from the requesY some months prior to wanrant yet anothcr Community Issues Meeting. The final recommendation was tbat the city not suppozt the xequested variance. The SUPC Board o£ Ilirectors concucced with this recommendaflon when tkiey adopted the NDC committee report at the Febmary 24 b0ard meeting. Piease calt me with any questions. Thaaks yoa Sinceraly, �� `�� Peggy Byrne Executive Airectar P.61 3 2- - � _. -- ..;-�.. .-,:.�._ � __ �_ 2555404 � foregoing. 3. Easements Through WaIls Within. WalIs. Easementa are hereby declared and granted to install, lay, maintain, repair and 7eplace any wires, pipes, ducts, conduits, public utility iinea or atsuctural components running thmugh Lhe walls of the unita, whether or not such walls Iie in whole or in part within the unit boundaries. 4 Easement for Qffstaeet Par�in� and Vehicular and Pedestrian Access to Portiand Avanue. A b2anket easement for pedestrian acceas from Portiand Aveaue to the Property, and vice verea, for vehicular offstreet par}.dng spaces (two (2) for each unit), and for vehicular acce:s to the offstreet parking epaces from Portland Avenue and vice versa is hereby eatabliahed over and acrose Lhe entirety of the northeriy of the two i2} Additional Real Eetate psrcela (the "North Parcel"). Declarant, or his successors or assigns, shall have the option to deIimit the boundaries of these easement aresa bp ezecuting an esaement grant or deciaration, setting farth the legal desrsiptions of the easement areas, and recording the same in the office of Lhe Ramsey County Recorder. At such time as DecIarant adda the North Parcel ta the Condominium, the easement(s) ehall disappear (the amendment hereto ahali contain a provision terminating the esaement(s)),'the offatreet parking apacee shall become limited common elements of the units in the Condomiiuum, and the number of offatreet paridng spaces allocable to each unit�ehall be reduced from two (2) to one (1). Each unit owner in the Ccndominium, however, ahall have the right of first refusal to purchase from Declarant one (1) � garage nnit if Derlazant canstrurts garage unita on the North Pa: cel. b. Easements to Rna With Land. All easements rights and ob2igationa created in this Article are affirmative and negative easements, sunning with the land, perpetually in full force and efFect, and at all times ahall inure to the banefit of and be binding upon Declarant, ita succeasors and_assigns, and any unit owner, purcbasei; inoztgagee arid �other person `baving any interest in the Condominium or any part or portioa thereof. axfircr� v ...: ... ....:.. . ..:..: 1. Membership in Asaocistioa A unit owner ehall by virtue of such interest be a member oFthe Associativn and shaIl remain a rnemner of said Assodation until such time as hia intereet in the Condominium ceases for any reason, at which time hia memberahip in said Association shall automsticaliy cease. When one or more persons hoid an interest in a unit, alt such persons shall be members. 2 Complianc� �ith Declaxation, Byiaws an3 Rules ansi Regula�ons of Associat3on. Each unit owner sad accupant of a unit ahall compiy with all 11 � . � `` � i _. F � �� \ ! , I � � ♦ APPLtCATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE OFFICEOFLICENSE,IA'SPECTIO , ENVIRONMEN'TAL PROTEC N 7 j�; � 4 3�0 SG Peter Street, Suite 30 Saint Paul, MN55102-I�10 j � � 266-9008 , �lLi J RPPLICANT Zorting o�ee use.itinly °_..' ._ '__ Fitennmber' .` :� , �p Fee: . _ $ .�'�= , TentaWe hearing date -'. ° ::`_ Name x;a �d �f (�(Y.Sr�v Company Address 7/5 ��,r/La � e�-- c�y Jf �au�, Stat�Zip .5�� aytimePhone 3��-��77 Property interest of applicant (owner, contrect purchaser, etc.) �3W /3 e f'� Name of owner (if different) PROPER7Y Address/Location Lf,ZU �✓-f/� d ,�tre�- �Sl'- /�; l, /�ilJ Legal description s � 2 � ��c � (atfach addrtronal sheet rfnecessaryj Lotsize 3�Od s1• t+ . Present Zoning PresentUse �i�/",T„ ProposedUse S�✓f �� f�vn. � �loi?5t_.. � O�rlC�.� � 1. Variance(s) requested� 2. What physical charecteristics of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? (topogrephy, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) 3. Explain how the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would resutt in peculiar or exceptional practical drfficulties or exceptional undue hardships. CASHIERS USE ONLY 4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial deViment to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. add'Nonal Applicant's 'a,'48aa�oz31�1o%�i C�}�: 4'�E�S VAfiIS;,CE � �`a.i� �H�LY, *�?�,� Date '�-� 9 � � _ �� Mazch 16, 1998 Tom Beach: The site plan which I dropped off last week does not designate the third off-street pazking space just south of the of the proposed fountain. I'm replacing those plans to insure that the designated pazking spaces are cleatly mazked. The major change, of course, is moving the &ont yazd pazking space to reaz yazd. In summary, the primary reasons for requesting the three variances aze: 1. The unusual co�guration of this lot with a 50' border on Portland and a 90' border on the south border and that it is not provided with alley access. 2. Although this is a legal building lot, it is also the primary parking for the Nathan House condominium and has been used as such in its entirety for seven years. The only other structure on the South side of Portland has a set-back of approximately one foot. 4. This site plan provides for greater green space and landscaping than either of two previous plans that were approved for this site. The overall effect of this p1an is to change a gravei pazking lot into a fuushed space with an appropriate building and a visually pleasing landscaped lot with ampie greenspace, trees, bushes and flowering plants that will camouflage the pazking azea. `�gt" �,��.�22v �5 4X� 420 Porttand Avenue lot: The iot af 420 Portland Avemie �vas detached from 415 Summit as a separate buildable tot in 1990. Consln�ction on the lot can be either single or multiple housing. The lot is located �vithin the Heritage Presen�ation Area and construction must meet the HPC design requirements. Construction an ihis lot must alm meet city code requirements for both buildings and pazking and provide for tiie off-street parking easement requirements as stated in Nathan House and Mews Dedai�ation. nn original 32' by 32' structure stood on approximately this same siie at the turn of tlie century but no pictures or prints of the building survive. Tl�e developer 1vl�o ow�ied tl�e lot in 1990 gained approvai from the HPC and BZA to construct a single fami(y carriage 6ouse wiiich inctuded five garage stails. This project which inctuded a tluee foot fro�it yard set-back �vas iiot bailt due to the developers financial problems. In 1992, the HPC and BZn appro��ed modifications to this plan to expand to two residentia( units with underground parking. Tliis proposai which required seven variances was also financially unfeasible. I purchased the lot in 1996 with the intent of building a single family house on the property as a residence for my �vife and mysetf. The site plan for this project �vas submitted to the St. Paul Zoning Department (Mr. Tom Beach} on Marcli 17, 1997 to insure that the parking space design would meet eity code requirements. The site plan was approved pending action by the zoning board on a request for a front yard variance and front yard parking.. The request for a zoning board hearings has not been ftled at this time. Proposal to Construct a Four-car Garage and Carriage $ouse: I am proposing to build a four-car garage/carriage house with additional off-street parking as sho�vn on the site plan. Tl»s carriage house plan, designed by Todd Bradley of Brad[ey Renditions, is the cuimination of several meetings with the HPC staff person, Aaron Rubenstein; HPC Uoard members and suggestions by other interested persons. The HPC board members were aware of the prominence oCthis tot bordering on Nathan Hale Park and the importance of the design in re)ation !o the mai� house. The final version of the carriage house plan was approved by the Eleritage Preservation Committee on March 27, 1997 by a vote of 11 to 0. This carriage house is 40' in length, 27' deep and 28' high at its geak. Tttis design allows four single garage doors a� the �vest facing elevation which is visua[ly preferable to two double doors but requires a 5.5 foot frrntt }'ard variance piacing ii 19.5 feet from the Portland sidetvalk. Five of the nine houses on tifis block have a shorter front yard set-back than 19.5 feet while the only building on the same side of Poriland is 1.5 feet from the sidewalk. G� Ronald and Marie Severson 415 Summit Ave. -rt�esc h-+� Conceming �20 Portland Ave.lot C. Reasons for Request: 1. Proposed use. Single fanuly cazriage house with four garages. 2. Physical chazacteristics that prevent pernvtted use. a�-��-� a. The irregulaz shape of the lot with a 50' frontage and 55.7' east boundary, 85' west boundary and 90' south boundary. b. The lot has no aliey thereby requiring automobile access from Portiand Avenue. c. The lot is located in the heritage preservation area. d. The need to provide parking for the owners of condominiums at 415 Portland � 3. Variations requested. �E�� s��a. � t•�. E yev:<.1 p ti. a. Request for a front yard buiiding set back from the required 25' to 19.5'. b. Request for approval of a 9' front yazd pazking space as shown on the site pian. 4. Explanation. a. This lot must meet the both the guidelines of the HPC and the Zoning commission. The HPC has approved the design of this carriage house with a length of 40'. This allows the use of four single garage doors facing to the west. This is a design requirement of HPC but cannot be accompiished without the 5.5' variance requested here-in. The HPC also requires that the front entrance elevation be parallei to Portland Avenue. The lot is zoned for either multiple or single fanuly housing but must also provide pazking spaces for this house and the owners of the condominium at 415 Summit Avenue. Although ciTy ordinance requires oniy seven pazking spaces, providing a total of nine reduces the need for street pazking. b. The only other buiiding on this side of Portland is a four story brick condominium which has a front yard set-back of about one foot. The opposite side of the street has eight houses. Only two meet the 25' front yard set-back while three have less than the 14.5' which we are requesting. � ILE Landscaping: This ►ot is now a gravel parking area used by Nathan House Condominium otivners as a parking site. A two-car garage �vas bui(t on the southwest comer in 1996 for the owners of Nathan I Io�ESe Co�ido, unit one. Wl�en the carriage house is buitt, the Portland Avenue set-back will be my front yard. It is my intent [o develop tiiis site into an attractive setting by using a well designed landscape plan iucluding appropriate use of trees, hedges, flowering plants and gardening pieces. The proposed site ptan includes a detaited landscape plan developed cooperatively by thc designer with suggestions and advice from interested neighbors. The drive�vay and the parking stali wilt be �vell screened from Portland Avenue by hedges runnictg full leugdi along tlte parking lot borders with new trees and other plantings in the front yard. The landscape plan iucludes the use of flower boxes on the west elevation of the carriage house and Ilower urns on the driveway in response to a suggestion by a neighbor. This is a proposed landscape plan and 1 invite farther suggestions for improvements. As pari of this development project, I have offered to transfer ownership of the parking ]ot area inctuding tlie garages to ttle persons who have easement rights to park on this lot either by transferring otivnersUip to the NaUian House Association or by establishing a separate association if that is required. ��his proposai cvas not accepted and therefore, I will retain ownership of the parking area. .� ��-,�" � - r��r-oa-is3s iz:ai � - �Rf GINAL . 4reseated $y Referred To Locuseil .0z�e6 °tt -�t �� -� S �C ! -- - Green SheeL # ,�`� RESOLUTION �INT PAUL, MlNN�SOTA �� CITY 2 WHEREAS, Itoaald Seversoa made application to the Heritage Preservauon 3 Commission (the commission) pursuant to Saint Paul LegisIative Cade Chapter 73 for a building 4 permit to coustruct a caxriago-house-like shvcture at 420 Portland Avenue within the Historic 5 Hill Heritagc Preservauon District; and 10 ii 12 13 14 ,5 i6 1� '.8 14 zo 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 9 38 39 tip WHEREAS, on Februaiy 27,1997, the coaunission cobducted a pablic hearing on the proposal. After discussion, the mauer was laid over ead the project was again reviewed on iviazeh 13,1997, and fmally approved on Mazch 27, ] 997. However, the commission, inadvertently, did not formaliypass a tesolutian approving the project until January 8, 1998; and 'W�IEREA5, on April 8,1997, Gregory Ciark, Carol Clark and Patricia Leonard appeaied tiie Mazoh 27, i997, commission decision but elected to enter inio ne�otiatiotts with the applicant in the hope ihat the applicsnt and the apgellants might reso2ve their differences; and R'fiEREAS, the negariations between the parties failed to reach an acceptable compromise and the appellants requested that their appeal be heazd by the Saint Pau1 City Councii; and WHEREAS, the commission in iu Rosolution No. 2884 granted approvaI ofthe building permit based up�n revised plans inctuding only the east elevation marked 3C-1, And subject to the condition that an appmpriate croKn malding be added above the transom windows in Iight of the Historic Hill Heritage Pteservation guide2ines. Tn particulaz, based upon the evidence presented at the Mazch 2�, i 947, public hearing, the commission made the following findings of fact: i. The proposed building site is a pivotal and diffiCUlt site. It is visibie from Summit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenve sad a public park, and there are lazge builrlings to the south and west that are close to the property lines. This lot can 6e Construed as both the rear yard of the VJinter House at 415 Sununit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed cazriagc housc conccpt (sad "front yard" pazidng adjacent to Portiand) is a reasonab2e approach tn daveloping the pazcel for the follow'rng reasons: a) the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street parking for residents of the ��nter House; b) ihe pazoel has historically been a reaz yazd it is used as a reaz yazd, and it appears as a reaz yazd due to iu relafions}sip io the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story cazriaga hause on tha site; �ad d) it provides a dcsi�n solurion for a buitding that is very close to the Winter House in proximity and that is zelated to it in terms of form, materials, details, ttc. 2'he Winter House 39 MrIY-Q4-1998 12�41 P.03i06 2 v t\ t V{ 1 Y��}uilt on a through-lot wiih Summit and Ponlaad gontages; the rccent 3 subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the 4 Winter House to surrounding land nor ffie }ristorical aature of the site. 5 6 7 8 9 iQ ii 12 13 !4 15 !6 17 18 14 20 Z1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 R6 47 4& 49 2. The proposed suucture conforms to the dishict guidclines: a It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, hcigkt, rhy'thm, setback, color, tnaterial, buitding eIements, site design, and chazacter of surrouttding sttuctures aad the area" b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and character wouid be reIated to, bvt do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integatcd for a batanced and eomplete design. c. Though the side elevation would not be paratlel to thac af the Winter House, the street-facing etevation would be perpendicular to the street lika those of other stroctures on this block of Partiand. d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given ffie rear yard nature of the site, and the caaiage house nature of the progosed building, the fact that the historic carriage house on the site was located up io ihe norih ptoperty line, and the fact thst thc onty other sauctura on the biock face (the south side of Pordand between Western and Arundef) is locaied closet to the street tixan would be the proposed structure. _ c, A ftant porch wouid not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building. f. Pazking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by 2andscaping. Singfe garage doors would awid the horizontai orientation of double doors. Thc unusual natuze of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lat. These sorts of anomalies in desi�n and development add richness, intcrest, and deIight to the histaric district and its character. 3. Itt adctition, the proposed struchue and site development conform io the federal &ecretazy of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design and materials are related to and compadbie with the prisnary, adjactat, histaric buitding, i.e., the VJinter House; tha design distinguishes between what is new and whai is historic rather than mimlcs the historic structure and confases the tw�; and the deveiopment would not fiave an adverse imgact on the character- defining features of Yhe site and ihe azea, The building's desiga is sinular to the reaz addirion of the Winter House w�th simplified detaiIing, which is appropriata for a new secondary structure. A new bvilding of unrelated design and materials would detract from the historic integrity of the site; and 2 �� MRY-04-1993 12�41 P.D4i06 r i ,..'.i i _ --- — ----� R�� Q-�-�--- --- ---- c �� t�`� � 2 3 WHEREAS, pursaaat ta the provisions of Saint Paul Lcgislative Code § 73,46(h}, Tricia 4 Leonard, Greg Clark, and Cazol Ciazk duly 51cd with the Council au appea� from the 5 determiaation made by the commission and requested that a hearing be heid before She City 6 Councll for the ptupose of considering the actians taken by ihe said comm}ssion; and 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2Q 21 22 '3 14 25 :6 W�REAS, acting gursuaat to §?3.06, a public hearing was set on for Januazy 2g, 1998, but, at the request of appellaztu' attomey, the matter was postpened to February 25,1998; and WFTEREAS, ob Febntazy 25,1998, a public heazing was duly conducted by the City Council, where &11 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and ti�REAS, having heazd the statements made attd Haviug considered the application, tha report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of th� oommission, the Cotuicil does hereby; RESOLVE, to deny the appesl of Patricia Leonard, Gregoty CIazk and Carol Clazk on the basis that their has been no showing that the cammission made any error in fact finding or procedure in this matter, and BE TT FTJRTAER RES OLVED, that tbe City Clerk shaIl mail a copy of this resoluGon to Patricia Leonazd, Cnegory Clazk and Caxol Glark, the Zoning Administrator and the Heritage Preservation Comtttission. Rnq�eeted Ly 2lepastfieat oi: %y: Fesm Appiovefl by Gity lt;torr.ey HY: �,tl�� Uwr�� i Z '�' � .� ai:yeioa cestiiiad by Councii ser_eta_ry A-•• ey; .eve8 bY Na»r: Dase Apyzoved Ly Mnyoz fos 9ubmisalon to towsCil 9y: �) A3oyted by Ceuncil: Date f ` V • � • t �' � � � `,, ,CITY O�' SAINT PAUL J BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER 95-209 DATE: a�� , �99s �� J IJ z2 �I;�I'9� :, � `�_ :. ,' �a ?�� . � � .-� � WHEREAS, ROiVALD SEVERSON has applied for a variance from the smct application of the provisions of S2ction 61.101 & 62.106 (2) of the Saint Pau[ Le�islacive Code pet[ainin� to chz conscniction of single family home and detached garage in che RT-2 zonins dismct a[ 4l6 PORTLA�D AVE: and WHEREAS, the Sainc Pau[ Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public heazing on 06/19/9i, pcsssuant to said appeat in accur@znce �»th �he requiremenss of Szccion 6�.305 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS. che Saint Paul Board of Zonins AppeaIs based upon evidence presenced ac the pubtic hearine, as subszancia!!y reflected in [he minutes, made che following findings of facc; 1. ? 3. The pcoperty in question can be put to a reasonabte use undzr the s[rict provisians of the code. The irrewiar shaped lot and the covenanc requiring sic parking spaces for the condominiums make it difficult to develop this loc �vithout cariances. Ho�vever, the appticanc has noc espiored ali oQtions such as construccing a smaller house or reposicioning the house on the loc. The plish[ of the land owner is due to circumstances unique m his properry, and [hese circumstances were no[ created by the land o��'ner_ The size and shape of the loc and the covenanu are circumstances thac were not direccty creaced by the present owner although che appiicant was aware of these circumscances prior to purchasine the properry. The proposed variance is not in keeping wich the spiric and intent of the code, and is not consistent with che heatth, safery, comfor4 morals and �velfare of the inhabitar,ts of the City of St. Paul. Ideally, this lot should not ha�•e been split from the propem at 41� Summic Ave. The proposed sin�le family horrte is more appropriate for this site than the previously appro�•ed duples. Ho�vever, the covenant requirin2 parking for the condominiums at 415 Summic Ave witl leave vary little green space on the lot. � 4. The proposed vaziance �vi[I not imQair an adequate suppiy of light and air co adjacent propezty and it may alcer the essencial chawcter of the surroundin� area or unreasonably diminish estabiished property values within the surrounding area. The ptoposed project wiil be pro�iding patking for the building to the south. There is patk land to the east and sufficierct open space to the rvest. Wi[hout arehitectura! plara oT the proposed house it is impossible to determine the impact on the neighbornood. ,ttt n 1`fNV G The variance, if �ranted, would noc permic any use that is not permitted nnder the provisions of the �� p (.� code for the propem in the district whece the aKecced land is iocaced, nor �coald it alter or change ° the zonin_ discrict ciassification of the property. ' �`�� A S1R� famity home and detached garage are permitted uses in this district. ' copy :ials �=D 6. by/biU j y - < < ��` 'it3 . t..�� }t :�s iX The request for variance is based primarily on a dtsire to inczease the ��alue or income potential of the paccet of tand. n� �isiT e � 2 Zoning File No. 98-026 ` File : 95-109 2888590 ` Pa�e Two NOW, THEREF�RE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonine Appeals that the applicacion to waive the requirements of seccion 61.10I to alto�v an 8 foot fronc set6ack for a single family home ac �xr f Pottland Avenue and le�aily described u eec�t the southeast i32.8 fee�, lot 6, Auditor's Suh Division r38;.in �` accordance with the application for variance and the sice ptan on fite �vich the Zoning Administntor is hereby � �- denied. MOVED BY : Bogen � SECONDED BY Tully IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: t (�vitso�) MAILED: Ttl�IE LIMIT No order of the Board ot Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a buildina or off-street parkinn facility shall be vaiid for a period loneer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained wichin such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding punuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an estension not tu exceed one year, tn nranting such extension> the Board o[ Zoning Appeals may decide to hofd a public he�rina. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoninn Appeals are finai subject to ap¢eal to the City Councii within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permiYs shali not be issued aRer an appe�l has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been fiied, then the permits are svspended and construciion shatl cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATIOY: I, the undersisned Secretary to the Baard of Zonins AQpeais for ihe City of Saint Paul, llinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the forego'rns copy with the oriDiaal record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original �nd of tfie whole thereof, as based on approved minutes oY the Saint Paut Board of Zoning AQpe�ls meeting held on June 19,,1995.and on record in fhe Office of License Inspeztion and Enviranmentat Protectian;�S�,SttPeter Street, . � �. Saint Paui, Minnesota. _ :;� : . : C � . SAIYT PAUL BOARD OF ZO\'ING APPEALS , �; 'k �"• _, . . Laura Dufeck Secretary to the Board " % r Zoning Fi1e No. 98-Q26 � a , e � ; o " ' � PLAIJh(tNG 8� �.'��_ �_ : � RON SEYERSON �� DESiG1V, INC, 612-636-&889 3 � ,. c � � � i 0 RECORDED ON t'?' CD �-i � � LD � . CfTY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONfNG APPEALS RESOLUTION ZON{NG FILE NUMBER 92-216 DATE: octobei 5, ��z NflV 171992 ✓ WHEREAS, DENNIS BROSE has applied for a variance from the strid application of the provisions of Section 61.1D1 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pedaining to the construction oE a two-unit carriage house with a fourteen car undezgzound gazage (tan cars if the gazage does not extend under the "mansion IoC) in the RT-2 wning distriU; and WHEREAS, the Saiat Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 09j08/92 and 10/OSf92, pursuanc to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 62204 of the Legislative Code; and WFiEREAS, the Saint Yaul Boud of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the pub]ic hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followiag fmdings of fact: .. � :� �'- 0 0 0 6 }"L �. cn � n a 1. 2. � The property in questioa cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The parcel has a very unusual shape, has no alley access, has a double front yud euposure with no real rear yazd and a very visible pub&c location immediately adjacent to Nathan Ha1e Fazk. According to the applican[ this properry cannot be reasonably be put to use for a tzaditionally designed and sited carriage house within the constraints mandated by the Zoning Code. The plight of ihe land owner is due to circumstances unique to his properry, and these circumstances were not aeated by the land owner. The plight of the landowner is due paztially to the property being located within the boundaries of the � National Historic DistriU. The applicant also pointed out that there is an obvious confliM between the preservation goals of the neighborhood and of the HPC which sometimes aze at cross purposes with some of the limitations imposed by current Zoning Code regulations. In addition, the lack of alley access and the unusual shape of the properry limit the ability of the applicant to fully use the property. These circumstaaces were not created by the landowner. The proposed variances are in keeping with the spirit aad intent of the code, and are consistent with the health, safety, comfoft, moraSs and weffare of tfie inhabitanu of the City of St. Faul. � According to the applicant an altemative design for a cazriage house could result in a taller strvcture in the rear yard wluch could be azciutecturally out of character with surzounding buildings. , Although the agglicanYs progosal for a carriage house with undergrouad parking appeazs to be a rather intensive use for the small rear porTion of this property, the proposed construction of a tastefully designed carriage house with two housing units over an enctosed pazking azea with private gazden space above it is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code. 4. The proposed variances will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properry, nor will they al[er the essential chazader of We surrouading azea or unreasonably diminish established property values within the suaounding area. �5 i��i1 �nstrv � �_/ocr t Filir� iee / Y 1 ftx copy Cer Co�y Initidl� � Pd bY/bill __!_�__._ F�e #42-216 Page Two 2685164 The proposed project may impad the provision oE moraing suniight iato the lower two units oE the adjaceat condo bvitding. On the other hand the provisioa of afteraooa sunlight ro the proposed project may be negatively affected by the tall four story condo building immediately west oE the project. Overall the proposed projea should not impair aa adequate supply of light and a'u to adjaceat properties. The project is anticipated to add to [he essen6al charader oE the surrounding area and should not dimiaish established property values within the surrovading azea. 5. The vaziances, if granted, wauld not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of tbe code for the property in ihe district where the affected land is located, nor woutd they alter or change the zoning district clauification of the property. A large carriage house with hvo housing units and aa undergrouad garage aze allowed in an RT 2 wniag district with appropriate setbacks, appropriate lot azea, appropriate spacing betweea buitding,s and appropriate lot wverage. The proposed development would not alter or change Lhe zoning disTrict classi&cation of the properry. 6. The reqaest for variance is not based primarity on a desire to iacrease the value or income potentia2 of the pazcel of land. The applicant hu indicated tbat to construM townLouses in this style rsquires extra costs for vazious pro{eU items, such as expensive �ctorian detai2ing. The appficant has stated that the quatiry of the carriage house's design plus the conversion of [he planaed manewering azea into a landscaped murtyard will [iuther enhance [he projecPs aesthetic contn'bution to the neighbors and to the pubtic's enjoyment of Nakhan Hale Pazk. , NOW, TfIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Boazd of Zaning Appeals tfiat the provisions of Section 61.101 be hereby waived to allow a lot area of 5,428 square feet, a front yazd setback of 3', a 4' side yard setback along the westerly property line, a?..5' side yard setback a2ong tfie easterly property line, a 6' :ear yazd setback above ground for the carriage house strvc�ue mea5ured from the zear property line of the "additionaI reat estate", a 0' zear yard setback below ground for the undergound gazage, also measured from the rear property line of the "additiona] rea] estate', and stzuctuze coverage of 37% of the total lot azea scbj ;:t tc the foL'a� �ino coaditions: 1. Elimination of tfie balcony on the west end oE t6e proposed cazriage house; 2. Elimination of tfie iarge wiadow and frenc6 doors from tfie west end of the proposed carriage house with windows redesigaed to m�n�*�»P the enrroachment of the privacy ai 436 Pordand Aveaue; 3. Construcfion of the west wall of the carriage house with fire retardaat materials; 4. Coastruction of the proposed carriage house accordiag to the design az approved by the HPC; and 5. The entire development (mansion plus carriage housej must proc§de at least iS parking spaces per dwelling unit and the spaces iu the underground gazage must be made available to the condominium ownezs ia the mansioa. � ¢` Fde #92-216 Page Two �� , on property located at 4L5 SUMMIT AVE and legaily desai'bed as Auditor's Subdivision No. 38 St. Paul, M9nn. Ex the SEIy 132.8 ft, Lot 6; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan ou file with the Saiat Paul Planning Division. MOVED SY: ,vcoo SECONDED BY: scterman IN FAVOR: a AGAfNST: i MAILED: October 7, 1992 TIME LTMIT; No order ot the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or oFf-street parking facility sLall be valid for a pertod tonger than one year, unless a buitding permit for such erection or alteration ls obtained witLin such period sad such erection or alteration is groceeding pursuant to the terms of such permI� The Board of Zoning Appeals or tLe City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appea{s may decide to hold' a public hearing. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoniag Agpeals are t5na1 subject to appeat to the City Councit within 15 days by anyoae affeMed by the decision. Building germits shall not be tssued aEter an appeal has 6ee¢ filed. If permits have been issued beFore an appeal has beea fited, then the permits are suspended ' " and construMion shall cease un6! the City CouncSl has made a final determination oi the appeal. CERI7FICATION: - `��' �` �' � �' �, � C�� ` t l .� � � � � - �� e > < ' , �i•tl�_+ n e`, �� S p Y"�. -. _-=' . ; .;^ , .: , ` i ''. ._� �': : � _ �40>45��'• . :;,} '�: -r `� -,.. . I, tLe undersigned Secrefary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saini Paul, Minnesota, do hemby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy wItL the origina! record in my ofiice; and tnd tLe same to be a true and correct copy of said originat and of the whole t6emof, as based on approved minutes ot tLe SaInt Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on September 8,1992 and Oetober S, 1992 and on tecord in the Saint Paul Planning Division Qftice, 25 West Fourth Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOIQING APPEAL� � ` 0 cr � �fY �� c / ` p Secretary to the Board � '- ; �;, � . �_ ^';,� ..�-�- � � _ .�- � � � + :-'�7 N ! � �D ��n m sY'*� G ��cz-- ;"iNrrr. m,. '� ��G� P��G -- n'. c=.n� n1o:. � `��s (�R�GIN�iL Presented By Referred �COUncil File # q� /d `�` �� Green Sheet � %j `J,j,j RESOLUTION CITYOF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA . Committee: Date Whereas, Dennis Brose, on behatf of Nathan Ha1.e Carriage House, 415 Summit Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, made application to the Boar@ of Zoning�Appeals for a variance Erom the strict application of the provisions of the Saint PauZ 2oning Code for property located at 415 Summit Avenue, legally described as Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision ;38; and Whereas, The purpose of the application was to vary the standards of the Zoning Code so as to to construct a one unit turn of the century appearing carriage house and a five car garage on the rear of the property; and Wheraas, The Board of Zoning Appeals conducted public hearings on August 21, 1990, September 25, 1990 and October 23, 1990, afteY having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Board, by its Resolution 90-173, adopted October 23, 1990, decided to grant the application based oa the Pollowing findings and conclusions: 1. The parceZ has a very unusual shape, has no alley access, has a double front yard exposure with no real rear yard, and a very visible.public location immediately adjacent to Nathan Hale Park. According to the applicant this property cannot reasonably be put to use for a traditionally designed and sited carriage house within the constzaints mandated by the Zoning Cade. 2. The plight of the Iandowner is due partially to the property being located within the boundaries of the National Historic District. The applicant also pointed out that there is an obvious conflict between the preservation goals of the neiqhborhood and of the HPC which sometimes are at cross _ purposes wif.h some o£ the limitations imposed by current Zoning Code regulations. In addition, the lack of alley access and the unusual shape of property limit the ability of the applicant to fu13y nse the property. These.circumstances were not created by the Zandowner. 3. According to the applicar�t an alternative design for a carriage house could result in a taller structure in the rear yard which wauld be architectura2ly out of character with surrounding buildings. ,. Although the applicant's proposal for a carriage house with garages_appears to be a rather intensive use for the small rear K � ._ ; �:.. .��:., . ... -rG1 on of designed�carriage house over enclosed gazages is in th the spirit and intent of the code. keeping 4. The project may impact the provision of morning sunlight into the lower two units of the adjacent condo building. On the other hand the provision of afternoon sunlight to the proposed project may be negatively affected by the tall four story condo building immediately west of the project. • Overall the proposed project should not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The project is anticipated to add to the essential character of the surrounding area and should not diminish established property values within the surrounding area. 5. A larqe carriage house and a five car garage are allowed in an RT-2 zoning district with appropriate setbacks, separation between buildings and density. The proposed development would not alter or change the zoning classification of the property. 6. The applicant has indicated that to construct a turn of the century appearing townhouse requires extra costs for various project items, such as expensive Victorian detailing. The applicant points out that all of this is Being provided without any request for additional units above those normally allowed on the site. Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 64.205, Saint Paul rks Commission, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Board of Zoning Appeals, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose o� considering the actions taken by the said Board; and Whereas, Acting pursuant to Sections 64.205 through 69.208, and upon notice to affected parties public hearings were duly conducted by the City Council on December 13 1990, and January 10, 1991 where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and Whereas, The Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance apglication, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does hereby Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby modify the decision of the Board o£ Zoning Appeals in this matter, and the variances granted shall be as Pollows: A twenty-two foot front yerd setback variance so as to permit a three foot front yard setback; A five foot western side yard setback variance so as"to permit a four foot side yard setback; A six and one-half foot eastern side yard setback variance so as to permit a two and ona-half Poot side yard setback; A twelve foot minimum separation between buildings variance so as to permit a six foot separatiori between the main building and the carriage house; and � 9 �ZONING F1LE `��-Z�o � ___.. CON'DOMIN1iJM NUIYIBER �B � NATHAN HOUSE B- MEWS, A Condominium DECLARATION j � � �f1 � N � � � � -a THIS DECLAFiATION, Made this ��ay of July, 1990, in the City of Saint Paul, County of R,amsey, and State of Minnesota, by DENNIS BftOSE, hereinafter referred to as "Declarant" and .7UDITH BLI'TH, his wife, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 5I5A.1-101 to 5I5A.4-II7, known as the "Uniform Condominium Act" (sometimes hzreir.after referred to as the "Act"7 and Iaws amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, W ITNESSETH: WHEEiEAS, Declarant is the owner in fee simple of certain real estate situated in the City of Saint Paul, County of Ramsey and State of Minnesata, legally described as follows, to-wit: That part of Lot 6, "AUDITOR'S SUBDNISION N0. 38, ST. PAITL, MINN." according to the recorded plat thereof an file in the of�ice of the County ftecorder, Ramsey County, Minnesota, k;�ich lies soathaasterl. of the follo��ng descrited line: Commencing at the most easterly corner of said Lot 6; thence northwesterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 132.80 feet to the pont of beginning of the line to be described; thence southwesterly at a right angle 90.00 feet to the southwesteriy Iine of said Lot 6 and there terminating, excepting therefrom the following described pazcel: Commencing at the most southerly comer of said Lot 6; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 26.11 feet; thence nor�hwesterly deflecting to the left 90 degrees, 7.4 minutes, 23 seconds a distance of 51.40 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing northwesterly along the last described line 18.90 feet (the 2ast described line is hereinafter referred to as "line A"); thence southwesteriy at a right angle 4.1Q feet; thence northwesterly at a right angle 28.60 feet; thence northeasterly at a right angle 7.00 feet; thence northwesterly at a right angle 2420 feet; thence southwesteriy at a right angle 28.50 feet to the 9+ ...... ---_ :,,ty��.'j"'_«res�ss:- _. Council � --�� J -- RESOLUTION Green Sheet # CITY QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESQTA Presented By Referred To WI�REAS, the purpose of the application was to vary the standards of the Zoning Code to allow the construction in an RT-2 zoning district of a new carriage house with one dwelling unit and additional parking spaces; and Committee: Date 2 WFIEREAS, Ronald Severson made applicarion to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals for a 3 variance from the strict application of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for a property commonly 4 lrnown as 420 Portland Avenue (See BZA File 48-026 for a complete legal descriprion); and 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 20 21 az 23 2sl 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 t3 4 WHEREAS, the Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on April 13, 1998, after having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Board, by its resolution No. 98- 026 dated April 13, 1998, determined to deny the requested variances based upon the following findings and conclusions: The irregular shape of the lot and the covenant requiring 8 parking spaces for the property at 415 5LUrunit Avenue make it difficult to develop the property. However, the owner has not explored a11 options such as conshucting a smaller house or repositioning the house. In 1995, variances for a similar project were approved but the house currently proposed is a slightly larger than the house proposed in 1995 and has not been significandy repositioned. 2. The size and irregular shape of the lot and the covenant that requires the properiy owner to provide parking spaces for the units at 415 Summit were not created by the present owner. However, the present owner was aware of these circumstances when he bought the property. ��15�. CI� The proposed development would not provide a reasonable amount of green space and therefore the variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The locafion and size of the proposed carriage house would impair an adequate supply of light and air to adj acent properiy. The orientation of the buiiding with the slde facing Portland Avenue wouid unreasonably diminish property values within the surrounding area. 6 5. The variance, if granted, would not pernut any use that is not permitted under the 7 provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is 3 located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the � property. 98 -y8' 0 R l G1NA , __�___-_-- �_ _ _______ 2 6. The request for variance is based prunarily on a desire to increase the value or 3 income potential of the pazcel of land. 4 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 64.205, Ronald Severson duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determinarion made by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals, requesting that a heating be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Board; and 10 WFIEREAS, acting pursuant to Section 64.205 through 64.208 and upon nofice to 11 afFected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 13, 1998, 12 where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the decision of the BZA in this matter based upon the following finclings of the Council: The Council finds that the Board of Zoning Appeais did not error as to its findings, procedures ar conclusions as contained in its resolution #98-026 dated April 13, 1998 and hereby adopts the same as its own. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Ronald Severson be and is hereby denied;and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall maii a copy of ttus resolufion to Ronald Severson, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Requested by Department of: Hy: Form Appro• City Attorney BY: ��.-►�-. S/��/�'� Approved by Mayor fox Submission to Council �, < L By: �ved by Mayor: D e � / �ted by Council: Date��`��ln �_� \9 y� +tion Certi£ied by Counci 5ecretaxy q � • y June 1, 1998 GREEN SHEET Councilmember f�1:.FT37� :1 RWTNIG TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES n�,�,�r owec,ae No 62152 ❑ CRYAiTORIEY ❑ tl1VCliMit � ❑ Ai{IYIIJ.fERVICFtOR ❑ NIYiCU11.fE0.1//I{CLTC a w��.� a (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council action taken May 13, 1998 denying the appeal of Ron Severson to a decision of the Soard of Zoning Appeals denying variances for construction of a carriage house and parking at 420 Portland Avenue. W PLANNING COMM�SSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVtCE COMMISSION IF iles Shr Pe�� rrer worked uMer a con6act tarthis AePanment? VES NO Hasthie o��m e+er been a ary emWavee9 YES NO Does this Pe�rNirm P� a sldll not normatlYP�ESetl bY anY curteM aty emPloY�? YES NO islhis peisoMim a tarpetetl veMoYl , YES NO OTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTION 1NDING SOURCE CASi/REV6NUH BuOGETED (CIRCLE ONq ACTNRY NUMBER YES NO IaNCW, kiWRMATION (ExPWf� OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATT0�3LZEY _._ "eSBtr��no� �—_— CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemme, Mayor May 29, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: BZA File No. 98-026 Appeal of Ronald Severson Council Hearing May 13, 1998 Deaz Ms. Anderson: CivilDiv'uion 400 Ciry Hall li 6YutKelloggBlvd. Saint Paul, Minnesola 55702 Telephone: 6Z2 266-8170 Facrimile: b12 298-56I9 Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly youts, '/� �1��.--\ Peter W. Warner Assistaut City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure Caunes! Re�earch Ce�re� � .: � � '�. - f [3a. # OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSYECTIONS A L � _��-- HNVII2QN2�AL'Fh�.-PRO�'ECTTOI�� S , ` _ . _ - vt - - - � — -- Roben Kesaler, D'uector ____ � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Narm Coleman, Mayor Apri121, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: B 77II. D I N G I N S P E CI7 O N A ND DESIGN 350 St Pete� Saeet Suiie 310 S�nrPaui, M"vuresota 55102-ISID Telephone: 672-266-9001 FacsimiTe: 6I2-266-9099 I would like to confirm that a gublic hearing before the Ciry Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 13, 1998 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Ron Severson FIle Number: 98-109 ' .. - Location: Appeal of a decision by the Baazd of Zoning Appeals to deny variances for construction of a carriage house and parking. 420 Portland Avenue I am sending a copy of this letter to the office of Councilmember Blakey to confirm this date with him. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eariiest convenience and that you will pubiish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul I,egal Ledger. Plesse call me at 266-4086 if you have any qaestions. Sincerely, � � Tom Beach Zoning Section ��u�n�� ;., h , A . . �l'nk.A1 f°0i irv�e� � .e ..' �� 9� cc: GerryMcInerney .Fmsrxurr• M014CE OF-PDSLtC HEARBiG 'Rie Salnt Pavl City Council will conduct a piablic hear3ng on Wednesday. Aday 13. 1998 at 5:30-p.m. in the City Cauncil Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-Court House, to consder the appeal of i2on 5everson to a decision af the Board of Zonins Appeals to deny varian¢es for mnstruction of a carriage house and parMng at 420 Portland Avenue. Dated: Ap[il 22. 199& � - � NANCYANDERSON - Assistant City Coundl Secretary - [Aprll 24. 1998) OFFICE OF LICENSE, L`ISPECTfONS AND ENV — — — - ------ — � � � Roben Kesrler, Directa� - - �t �- -` ��-j CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor LOFJRY PROPESSIONAL BUQ.DING Saue 3D0 350 St. Peter Street SainrPaut, Minnesora 55102-7510 Teleptwne: 672-266-9090 Faaimile: 612-2669099 6I2-2669124 May S, 1998 Ms. Nancy Mderson Secretary to the City Councit Room 310 City Hall Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals File 9&109 (Ron Severson at 420 Portland Avenue) City Council Hearing date: May 13,1998 PURPQSE: To consider an appeai of a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals to deny vaziances. BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL,� ACTION: Deny (7-0) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve SUPPORT: Four people spoke in support at the public hearing. OPPOSITION: Fonr people spoke in opposition at the public hearing. The Summit University Planning Council sent a letter in opposition. Dear Ms. Anderson: Ron Severson has appealed a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals to deny zoning variances for property he owns at 420 Portland. The variances are to reduce the required setbacks from the front and side property lines. Mr. Severson wants to construct a carriage house with one dwelling unit on the second floor. His proposal also calls for providang 4 gazage stalis on the first floor of the carriage house, 3 outside pazking spaces and 2 parking spaces in an existing gazage for a total of 9 parking spaces. One of these parking spaces would be for the carriage house unit and the other 8 parking spaces would be for the owners of 4 condominiums immediately to the south at 415 Summit. Mr. Severson must provide these spaces under an agreement that was made in 1990 when this ]ot was split off from the ]ot at 415 Summit. The proposal is expiained in more detail in the attached plans and documents. The Board of Zoning Appeals held a public heazing on March 23, 199&. The applicant and other interested parties addressed the Board. At the close of the public hearing, the Board voted 7-0 to deny the vaziances. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on May 13, 1448. Please call me at 266-9086 if any member of the City Coancil wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, Tom Beach Attachments cc: CiTy Councilmembers ATTACHII�NTS Site ptan, etevations and azea maps t � Appeai �' � Boazd of Zoning Appeals Heazing (Mazch 1998) Resolution Minutes Staff Report Letters Application Pazking EasemenT �, g Resolutions from previous City Actions f s. � 1 1998 (City Council upholds approval by Heritage Preservation Commission) t 1995 (Boazd of Zoning Appeals denies variances) 1992 (Board of Zoning Appeals approves vaziances) 1991 (City Council upholds approval of vaziances by Board of Zoning Appeals) � � � �`' —�- ----- — - - -- �.or- -- -- -� a oZ�s �� n�,.� p� � - - �� °° �o �� _� � - ___ � � __ ! � -- � � �Q - - -' g �� - - s o�' i � g�o I 0. aU �a ___, ---� � << , _ - _ � o c . .. y Y U v an a o- N x �+ 3rQy�J�tl �`1E/�(�Od �^ < a s g atMATltOB ° n � � _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _. xn�ms s � .e r+oai� ;�' �� , W =<� � �oQQ� 4 > � o �; ��5 � .6 I .SZ � i .Y , 6 � rt � �N a � � � ��a p o . '� s " _ �� - _ « V i � , � �� , g I om 3 i �� o w �' V= f W� �� _- �� oa },w � �g � �na � �. � I � �` � �aJ � P a /' t> l q � �� j � '---�'----� =ap= '� �V �� iuU o s � HSYtll � � � � � � pE�`� o / ��2. VR � T� �r \ \ \�, � d &� o . e . .. � — _ �,r — — — � �.� °f�' ��1�`{ � � � � _ � _ S � � -.y � � � � d 6 � � '}� v/ b �, y N y V � � , � i �` �� 1[ -� .{.1 � � V s�� ' ` �A Q N Q c'�1 >, e�l � i � �l ' � \ , � , , � � �� \, _ �. �- , . . ,� < �- / �� ,' .O6 � // / \ / / � �: A o a� �r 1.,1 � a. 0 n` , p d . E 9� 1 u /t� ¢ � � < > 's � om Z D � � Q � v� - 4 a o � �� us n v 3 f - \ N " 1 �K o&- 0�+5 �R, � iu BD !SE5 �N. scH�.�,�t �,�- �,�:� a�._�e CCNi[P W9�( M01RD '� WE57 ELEVA7ION A�QW� MP� �P�OV1� �� EA57 ELEVATION ''C�EI✓I� 1X �, ,�,�-.,:-w ,� � , ,_ i3 : :a ❑ a a �� NORTH EL'cVATiON :r.t�:�.'.+� :82B mu uz. zc:. SiONG k it+iu f0 WiCX M0�5[ sc��ti�t .�c 3� \ nu::'_�._ �'� SHUU^.SS \ mtc. WGC: � �9 � .J � +aze � 2&a I i82!'. � ^ � I � � � � ��i � � 20'ta 24^a i� 2G:a j . ' L s,OVUG a *xv � te uara �:sc r�� SCr._I:"_ „'C � SOUTH ECEYATI�N � -�°"'��•, •� � i :B�f ! � � � '��W�H •xe WnC�+4 0U4P-pliT O Y�SCH[q oi� -y ��-{ 0 ,. �. �-�- r-t'�-� �� ; �ou.� ti— AV E- � � ��oa�`�`=� -a 0 � o � q o 0 oio�o�o 'o��}ND AVE. � , o z � of�o Q-� m o � x � � c� � o � Q � � � o o, ¢ � SuMM+T O �O � ¢ � ♦ O M _ i v 0 i F � � Q � �� O O p O O O� p O O� � O ///'''�� O Z CIILL SUNMIT O `O � � r fG' O� o �� ! ` p �. . /� O O `` � �nn , o n �� z � o a o � � i i :. ` ; V ; � � � .y t6 i � O t � Q d � ` �� STd: F OFftCfS � Yii��il a o 0 t Sec� S i � ' E._1_!_�___!_ Z V V \' V ' \. �22 � \� � � l � � O . O ' n� " � V � o '�. o ° !Rj-�'j � � t ; 'Y �/L L ! G �% ! � / 1� ' HARRISQN JEFfERSQN �- � C� SCH00� � ` `_� � � _ r . - APPLiCANZ END PURPOSE �� zoningdisfrictboundary _ FILE # r� DATE 3 •' Z 3 ��. _ � subject property n�' orth�"- e PLNG. DIST a MAP # 2 � � t� o one family� - •� � commerc � SCALE 1" = 400'- - �-- . � tu�o famity , � .... industriai �'., - ,_ _ �-�('� multiplefamity V vacant � - �"" � �� 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. iD. il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGH W OOD HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST WEST SIDE AAYTON'S BLUFF PAI'NE-P�EN NORTH END THO,dAS•DAi.F. SUMMIT-U2�ItVERSTI'Y WEST SEVENI�I COMO I�AMLINE-MIDVJAY ST. ANTfiONY PARK MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMi.INE-SNELLING HAMLINE MACALESTER GROVELAND . FiIGHLAND SUMMIT HILL Dowrrrowrr 9 g_,�2 6 l ZOi�jNG FILE �°_ � � ° -- CITIZEN PART'ICIPATION PLANNIi�IG DISTRICTS APPLICATiON FOR APPEAL Deparinrent oj Pl�nrtin� mrd T:cnnomic Development Zoning Section ' "_ - . v 1100 Cit}• Hall Anner ' ' - - � 2S IT'est Fai�fk Slreet Saint Paul, ALV SS101 Z66-6589 APPElLAN7 � 2ip SS"/u�. Daytime phone�37�-D177 PROPERTY Zonir�g File LOGATION Address/Lo TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to ihe: ❑ 8oard of Zorting Appeals �City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section �a> , Paragraph �l of fhe Zoning Code, to , n � a eal a decision made by the _�'�' � o" �"��'ti� �"�^� %��=. PA 0� /ll�uu� ;-��. (dafe of decision) 19�. File number: � - D7(� - GROUhlOS FOR APPEAL: Exp(ain why you teel there has been an eROr in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative ofFcial, or an eROr in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. Sec. . a��cL ,:;.��isa�,,��_;� ��fR`; _ i�� Vit.�it{�i`? i[iJl., �y�.vr; .�" Rttach additiona� sheet rf Date -3-� City agent AppticanYs l^ ORIGlNAL � �-�Z - 598023 - Sidewalk reconstruction on both sides Winslow Ave from W Isabel St to Prospect Blvd_ *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstxuction (replacement of old sidewalk) - S�•65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $9.18 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide wa1k. A11 other widths wi11 be prorated accordingly. New aanstruction (where no walk existed) - 100g of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.42 per square foot. All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property_ MIJLTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RA.TES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 106% of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.62 per square foot. under Preliminary order � O —�" \ 1 approved 5!� �� `� � The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the City Charter: and WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City officers sha11 calculate a11 e�enses incurred therein and sha11 report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays � '�Blakey Bostrom — �bs �oleman �tarris ✓�antry �iter � In Favor O Against � ��sc�� Adopted by Council: Date��,�$' . Certified Passed by Council Secretary By Mayor Public Hearing PARTMENT/OFFICF,(COUNCIL iblic Works Sidewalks �NTAC7 PERSON 8 PHONE «rv H. Lueth - 26B=609 in Date - June 3> 1998 RE 3-27-98 � � -G�� 3-598 w�D GREEN SHEET� o _ ATIAENT DIRECTOR ATTORNEY erroa�� 4-15-q8 p �auocEroiaECma 3 il Research Office �MpVOR(ORnSSISTANTj > _ 1 _(CL1P ALL 40CAilONS FOH SIGNATUR� � ASSOC�ATE COUNCII _ CIERfC 3 MGT. SERVICES Reconsiruct Sidewalk in Ward 2 jSee attached list) STpFF 7� t� PERSONAL S� COHTRACTS NU3T ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. _ CNiL SEPVICE COMMiS510N 1. Has this EY S � NOer worked under a convact fa this dePa�ent? 2. Has ihis RersorVfvm ever 6een a city emR�oyee? — YES NO 3. Dces mis persoNfirm possess a skiil not normaly passessed by arry current ciry — employee? YES NO ,_— Explain all yes answers on saparata sAeet and attach to green sheet RIRTING PROBLEM, ISSUE.OPPORTUNITY (WN�, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH�'j: The problem "defective sidewalk" was created Uecause of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating freeRhaw cycles, service I'rfe limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variatio�s, etc. These pro6lems occur on a citywide �evef and must be addressed and corrected on an annuaf basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worssn to a state where it would be rende�ed unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible i@igations. The community wili benefk from this project becausa fl will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are crealed as a result of this activity. Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of consbuction procedure and assessment. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despfte the fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial, �� P1AR 2 7 1998 This option would allow the irrfrastructure of sidewafk stock io deteriorata, which in turn, will generate more persona� injury suits, uRimately resulting in the expenditure ot farger dollar amounts in eventual repairs andlor�gplacerr�eM, as well as claim payouts. lOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSp `�/�L COS7/HEVENUEBUDGETEDjCIRCLEONE) FUNDINGSOURCE 4 , = x. �a ACRYITYNUMBEB C98-2T75�- FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) � ° � C. Ct6 98 = 50,000 NO �-- wara z PROJECT• RECONSTFtUCT SIDE9VAi.B B.S. BIDWELL ST. from W. Winifred St. to W. Delos St. ��44 IlVITIATING ACTION: T4ris order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as pub7ic T necessity on the basis of an inspection of the wallc E%ISTIING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, scaled, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECOAISTRUCT SIDL+°WALB B.S. W. CONGRESS ST. from Bellows St. to Bidwell St. �� Il�iITIATIl�iG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of four (4) complaints and an inspection of the walk. EIIISTING CONDITIONIS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECON&TRUCT SIDEWALK B.S. W. CONGRESS ST. from Bidwell St. to Winslow Ave. 5Qt(/�� INITIATIl�iG AC'ITON: This order was initiated hy the Director of Public Works as public � �W necessity on the basis of five (5) complaints, a petition with one (1) signer and an inspection of the walk. EXISTII�TG CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, disintegrated and scaled panels. PROJECT: RECOi�SSTRUCT SIDEWALH B.S. W. CONGRESS ST. from Ohio St. to Bellows SY. �Q� INITIATII`II�TTG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public � � necessity on the basis of seven ('n complaints and an inspection of the walk. EIIISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK B.S. W. CONGRESS ST. from Winslow Ave. to Stryker Ave. �V) V INITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete wlth tree heaves, asphalt patches and settled panels. ..................................... PROJECT• RF.CONSTRUCT 3IDEWALB B.S. W, DEiAS ST. from Bellows St. to Winslow Ave. �, i INITIATIl�iG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of four i4) complaints and an inspection of the waik. -2- --- disln��rated, scaled, settled and �yBZ >ured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, panels. � B.S. W. DEIAS ST: from Winslow Ave. to Hall Ave. S Q�p�'� INPfIATIlVG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public � YV necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EIIISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, offgrade, settled and eracked panels. .......................... PRO.7ECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWAT,S E.S. HAI.LAVE. from W Delos St. to Prospect Bivd. & W.S. FiALL AVE. from W. Delos St. to W. Colorado St. i I vV'� INIT7ATING ACTION: This order was 9nitiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EffiSTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with scaled, settled and cracked paneis. .......................................................................................... PROJECT: RECO1vSTRUCT SIDEWAI.K B.S. HALLAVE. from W. Winifred St, to W. Congress St. �{� IIVITfATII�iG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as puhlic necessity on the basLs of an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with offgrade and multi-cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK B.S. MANOMIN AVE. from W. George St. to Chemkee Ave. �a;/ INIT7ATING ACITON: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. This walk is poured concrete with scaled, settied and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALS B.S. ORLEANS ST. from W. George St. to Cherokee Ave. D) � IlHITIATIl�IG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessriy on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, offgrade, asphalt patches, scaled, setUed and cracked panels. ............................ � PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWAI.K B.S. W. ROBIE ST. from Manomin Ave. to Ohio St. INTIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as puhlic necessity on the basis of one (1) complaint and an inspection of the walk. -3- EXI STIlVG COlYDI-T-IOPiS: �'his walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, settled and cracked — - -- panels. .......................................................................................... PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWAL% N.S. W. RQBIE ST. from Ohio St. to Bellows St. & S.S_ W. ROBIE 51: from Waseca St. F�ctended to Bellows St. INIT7ATIlHG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of the Public Works as public 5�� necessity on the basis of seven (7) complaints and an inspection of the walk_ EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, offgrade, asphalt patches, settied and cracked panels. PRO.7ECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWAI.B B. S. W. ROBIE ST, from Winslow Ave. to Stryker Ave. INITIATIlITG ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public �pI � necessity on the basis of four (4) complaints and an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT• RECONSTRIICT SIDEWALK B.S. SIRI'l�RAVE. from W. Colorado St. to Prospect Blvd. I O� INITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public � necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This wa]k is poured concrete with heaves, scaled, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK B.S. S1RI'I�RAVE. from W. Isabel St. to W. Colorado St. �go� TNITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis af three (3) complaints and an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt patches, scaled, settled and cracked panels. PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK W.S. WINSLOW AVE. from W. George St. to W. Robie St. YO(i(i INITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the walk. This walk is poured concrete with scaled paneis. �� PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALB B.S. WINSIAW AVE, from W. Isabel St. to Prospect Blvd. � IPTITIATIlITG ACTION:- Tk3is order was 'srritiated by the Director of Public Works as public , -- ---neces"si�n fihe basis of three (3) complaints and an inspection of the walk. 5 ��3 EXISTING CONDITIONS: This waik is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphait patches, scated, settled and cracked panels. 2 _ GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: � �--�� The staff of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals studied the request in great detail and found that I met all six of the stated conditions needed to be granted a variance on this properiy but these finding were overtumed by the Board on four of the required conditions. I disagree with the findings and recommendations of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals for the reasons stated below but not necessarily only these reasons: 1. The property in question can be put to a reasonabie use under the strict provision of the code. Response: This lot is a legally buiidable lat, however, the lot has easement requirements to provide a total of eight off-street parking spaces for the Nathan Hale Condominium Association and must meet the design requirements of the HPC. Reasonable use would require that an adequate single or two family house can be build on it without a variance. The house being proposed has a total of 1,OQ0 square feet. A smaller structure would not provide adequate living space and wouid not be practical considering the design requirement of the HPC. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property which were not created by the land owner. Response: The size and inegulaz shape of the tot, lack of alley access and the easements assigned to lot �vere not created by the present owner. 3. The proposed development is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and is not consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the city of St. Paul. Response: The proposzd structure is approved by the HPC for this site. The plan provides for a 12 foot front yard set-back vvhile the anly other building on the south side of this biock of Portiand Ave. has a one foot set-back. The proposed house is bordered on the east by Nathan Hale Park. The one thousand square foot carriage house covers 19% of the lot �vhile 30% coverage is allowed. This plan will repiace a gravel parking lot with a landscaped lot including four new trees, shrubs, flowezs and a 12 foot front yazd where none currently exists . 4. The proposed variance �vill impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property and unreasonably diminish established properry values within the sunounding area. �.�dr� Respons�T�e proposed building is located 17 feet from the gre�e�ty to the south and 40 feet from the�epe�Ey to the west. I propose to build a azchitecturally designed, historically accurate carriage house inciuding a four-car garage. I have presented a designed landscape plan and have committed $5,000 to insure that this plan will be compieted. 7 CITY OF SATNT PAUL BOA.RD OF ZOI�IING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZOI�TING FILE NUMBER 98-026 DATE Apri113,1998 WHEREAS, ltonald Severson has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisioas of Sections 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code pertaining to the construction of a new carriage house with one dwelting unit and additionat parking spaces in the RT-2 zoning districc at 420 Portland Avenue; and WHEREAS, tiie Saint Paal Board of Zoning Appeals condacted a Qubtic hearing on March 23, 199&, pursuant to said appeal in accordance wich the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legisiative Code; and WHEREAS, the Sainc Paui Boatd of Zoning Appeais based upan evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially refiected in the minutes, made the foliowing fmdings of facr. I. The property in quesfion can be put to a reasonable tcce under the strict provisions of the code. 'I'he irregular shape of the lot and the covenant requiring 8 parking spaces for the property at 415 Summit Avenue make it difficult to develop the property. Iiowever, the owner has not expiored all options such as constructing a smaiter house or reposifioning the house. In 1995 variances for a similar project were denied but the house currently proposed is slightly larger than the house proposed in 199� and has not been significanfly repositioned. 2. The plight of the land owner is not due io circumstances unique to this property which were not created by the land oxmer. The size and irregulaz shape of the Iot and to the covenant that requires tfie property owner to provide pazking spaces for the units at 4I5 Summit were not created by the pzesent owner. However, the present otimer was awaze of these circumstances when he bought the property. 3. The proposed va»ance is not in keeping with the spirit and intenl ofthe code, and is not consistent lvith 1he health, safery, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Pnul. � The proposed development �vould not provide a reasonable amount of green space and thezefore the variances are not in keeping with the spirii intent of the code. 4. 7he proposed variance will impair an adeqxate szrpply of light and air to adjacent property and unreasonably din:inish established property values within the s:rrrounding area. The location and size of the propnsed carriage house would impair an adequaYe supply of light and air to adjacent properiy. The orieatarion of the building with the side facing Portiand Avenue would unreasonably diminish property values within the surcounding area. � � File �98-026 Page Two 5. The variance, :fgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitled under tJ:e provisions of the code for the property in ihe district where the affected land is located, nor wouid it alter or change the zoning d'utrict class:fication of the property. 6. The reguest for variance is based prirnarily an a desire to increase the value or income potential of theparcel ofland. NO�V, THEREFOI2E, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonin; Appeais that the application to grant variances from provisions of Secdons 61.101 to allow a 12-foot front yard setback for the carriage house, a 20-fooi front yard setback for the surface parking, and a 1.2-foot side yard setback for the carriave house on property located at 420 Potdand Avenue and legally described as (See Actachment); in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator is hereby denied. MOVED $Y: hiorton SECONDED BY Bogen IN FAVOR: � AGAINST: o h1AILED: Agril 14, 1998 APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council �}ithin 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buildiag permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued beFore an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of tHe apQeal. CERTIFICATIO�': I, the undersigned Secretary to ihe Board of Zoning Appeais for the City oE' Saint Paul, Niinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared tfie foregoing copy �vith the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true aad correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on hiarch 23, 1998, and on record in the OfFce of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter StreeY, �aint Paul, Minnesota. SAIVT PAUL BOARD OF ZONIIVG APPEALS / L� Sue Spnstegaard Secretary to the Board � MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, MARCH 23, 1998 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen and Morton; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Scherman and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Mr, Beach and Ms. Synstegaard of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. A EN ; None The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. RONALD SEVERSON (#98-0261 - 4�0 PORTLAND AVENUE: Thcee variances in order to construct a single-famiiy home with 4 tuck-under garage spaces and 2 surface parking spaces. A front yard setback of 25 feet is tequired and a setback of I2 feet is proposed, for a variance of I3 feet. A side yard setback of 4 feet is required and a setback of I.2 feet from tfie east properry line is proposed, for a vaziance of 2.8 feet. Surface parking spaces may not be located within a required front yard and the applicant is proposing one parking space 20 feet from the front property line. The appiicant was present. There was opposition present at the heazing. Mr. Beach showed siides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendarion for approval. Mr. Aiton asked if the proposed project needs a lot coverage variance. Mr. Beach replied no, this plan has been scaled dawn since the 1492 ptan. Ronald Severson, 415 Summit, #2, stated his condominium overtooks the proposed lot and he has tived there for over seven years and is familiar with the various attempts to deve2op the lot. Mr. Severson stated he purchased the lot two years ago afrer several attempts had been made to devetop the lot. He staced that it is a buildabie lot and two of the attempts had been approved by ttte Boazd but had not moved forward due to fmancial problems. He stated that he is aware o€ the easement for pazking on the lot because he too lives in the condominium. He stated that his attempt to develop the lot in 1995 was denied and the primary teasons were that tee didn'L have architecturai drawings, the position of the baiiding on the lot and that he didn't have a detailed landscaped plan. Mr. Severson stated that he met with Aaron Rnbenstein and went over ail the federal and city guidelines that are required to be mei in a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) disirict. He stated that he met five times with the HPC and they were helpfizl in making him aware of what is needed in developing a building that would not only be appropriate under HPC Guidelines but appropriate to this sice as it stood in relationshig to the main house, the home in the back and the gark. The HPC agproved their glan, although it has since been changed slighdy and needs to be reapproved by ihe HPC. IC - ---- -- °1� �`� �`-� File lf98-026 Page Two Mr. Severson stated that he wili ptovide eight parkins spaces for the tenanu in the candominium and there are nine spaces proposed. He stated that unit one in the condominium has two parking spaces provided in the existing garage and that was built on the properry after his original request for a variance. FIe stated that there are three outdoor parking spaces and the fourth parking space will be one ofthe parking spaces within the carriage house. Mr. Severson stated ffiat under their declazation requirements these parking spaces have to 6e provided withouc cost to the owners of the condominium uniu. He stated that the remaining two parking spaces within the carriage house will be made available to whoever buys his condominium unit and the fourth parkin� space will be for himself. Mr. Severson stated that at first there was a dirt parking lot on the site and he had three truckloads of gravei hauled in. He stated that he would ]ike to see the area become visually consistent with the HPC requirements and pleasing to the neighborhood. He stated that in meecing with the neighbors who had concerns about the landscaping, there were three proposals given to him. One of the requests was that he establish an escrow fund of $5,000 before he begins construction to ensure thatthere would be money available for landscaping and put the fund in the hands of a neighborhood committee. Mr. Mervyn Hughes who lives in the first floor of the condominium unit has agreed to chair this landscape committee. Mr. Severson stated that he has had a lot of help in developing the proposed plan from several of the neigh6ors who support the development. Lou Sudheimer, 439 Portland Avenue, stated he lives across the street and one lot to the west of the condominium building. Mr. Sudheimer submitted a computer generated photograph to show how the properry will look when standing in the park, a photographic montage of the site and a tracing from the photographic montage that superimposes Mr. Severson's elevation at the correct position. There is about forry feet between the four-story condominium and the proposed structure. Many of the neighborhood residents believe that Mr. Sevetson has done an excellent job of putting together a well thought through project dealing with a site that is very visibie and an important part of the City. Even though a parcel has split off the rear of what was originally ihe 415 Summit Avenue lot, in rea]iry this has always been the back yard of the Governor's Mansion. Mr. Sudheimer stated that the difference between the plan that was denied before and this pian is ffiat the grevious plan asked that the carriage house be regositioned and that is what Mr. Severson has done. The building would now address Portland Avenue instead of the mansion. In addition, the proposed plan would provide greater setbacks off of Portland Avenue, greater setbacks from the side yard and one additional garage srall. Mr. Sudheimer stated that since the previous denied pian was tumed down, the Ciark's �vho live in the condominium unit now have a two-car garage and this had to be taken into consideration with ihe proposed plan. Mr. Sudheimer passed around photograghs that show the difference of the setback from the condominium. He stated that the front porch of the condominium has an 18-inch setback off of che sidewaik and the steps overiap the sidewalk. Mr. Severson has addressed the previous complaint of the front yard parking space even though it is actuaily in the back yard so it will not be so visibie. He stated that there are far more neighbors in suppon of this proposal than the smal( number of people who attended the Ramsey Hilt Association (RHA) meeting. The number of signarures on the petition in support are more than tripie of those who attended the RHA meeting. �� File #98-026 Page Three Mervyn Hugh, 436 PortIand Avenue, stated that he lives on the first floor of the condominium unit and he is visualty the most affected neighbor. He staced that with the proposed plan he will loose his view of rhe park and two yeazs ago he was before the Board in opposition to the 1995 plan. He stated that today he is present in support and ffie reason is that the proposed ptan is vasHy different, In 1995 he was concemed about the parking obligations for the condoeninium being addressed and the landscaping. Mr. Severson has met with the neighbors and in doing this, his landscaping plan and building plans have become better than the 1995 ptan. Mr. Hugh stated that after living nextao the undeveIoped Iot for 25 years he looks forward to the completion of the project. Mr. Hugh submitted a petition in support to the Board with 38 signatures and stated that the APC is in support of the ptoject. Charlotte Kraemer-Prentice, 436 Holly Avenue, #6, stated that she represents the condominium associaaon of thirteen famiiies. She stated tfiat their buIIding was buiit before many people owned vehicles and therefore many of them do not have garages. 5he stated that when the Universiry Ctub has events there is a parking problem for the thirteen families. She stated that she is in favor of how Mr. Severson has treated the tot like a front lot with the beautiful landscaping pians. She stated that originatly there had been a carriage house on this same lot in 1888. She snbmitted a map to the Board showing where the former carriage house was. Marlo Hugh, 436 Portland Avenue, stated that she is tired of the mess, the mud and the garbage from the proposed lot and she is in favor of the proposed plan. Mark Vaught, Suite 700, 6 West Fifth Street, an attomey represendng Greg and Carol Clazk, and Tricia Leonard, who are also owners of units in the condominium unit. Mr. Vaugh[ passed out a Ietter dated March 23 and a four-page document that is incorporated in the Mareh 181etter that includes a copy of the Board's 1995 Resolution which denied the plan submitted at that time, and a site plan from 1995 and 1998. The individuals he represents, along wich Mr. Sudheimer and one other individuai, have various easement righcs to parking, vehicular and pedestrian access to 42Q Portland that flow from the day when the two parcels were actualIy one parceI. He stated that he also represenu Laurel Frost and Susan Bergen who are residents and owners of condominium uniu at 43b Pordand which is adjacent to the properry to the west. Mr. Vaught stated that if he had an overarching statement to say it wostd be that this parcet of land is a size 8 shoe and the proposal is a size 12 foot. The 1995 Resolution acknowledges that and there is very little differeat between this proposal and che 1995 proposal. The carriage house proposed is virtually the same size and might be even larger. The lot coverage by both building and asphali is esseadally the same as it was in 1995 and to cail cocking a building at a little bit of an angle reposirioning really strains the defmition. Throughout the HPC approval of this project, his clients attempted to interject a number of issues that they were repeatedly told by the HPC and the applicant that they refused to consider their issues. T'he HPC purely concemed itself with design and did not concem themselves with the issues that are before the Board today. Mr. Vaughi stated that the HPC's approval is irrelevant to what the Board has before them today. The HPC is an entirely sepazate body with a different set of rutes and the Board ough[ to apply those rules in tke way they see fit to do them. The facc that the HPC approved ihe proposed plan should maybe not play a part in the Board's Qecision today. Although the HPC's approvaI was uphetd by the Ciry Council, one of the two councilmembers who would have vo[ed to overcum this, in whose ward the proposed ptan is in, was not present. 12 �� File #98-026 Page Four Mr. Vaught stated that he doesn't believe Mr. Sudheimer's statement made about there being three times as many signatures on the petition in support as there were members at the RHA meeting is a factual one. He stated that one of clienu will speak to the fact that there was a lot more than a third of the people that are on the pedtion. Mr. Vaught also stated that everyone has had petitions presented to them to be signed and sometimes you consider them more suongly than others. A petition is not the same as a discussion, nor is it a discussion of all of the issues. The RHA's issues meeting which led to the vote not to support this particular project went on for one and one-half hours and resuited in a full discussion of all of the issues that relate to this project. The petition process, al[hough certainly being an expression of how a person feels, doesn't lend itself to that same kind of discussion. Mr. Vaught s[aced that he has seen the computer generated graphic two times and the problem with computer generated graphics is that they don't show you reality, and this graphic doesn't show the Board the issues they need to consider. The graphic doesn't show the re]ationship between ihe proposed building and the front pioperty line, it doesn't show the relationship between the proposed building and the rest of the lot, but merety shows how the proposed building will look from Nathan Hale Park. The graphic doesn't show, what his clients know, which is when they s[and on their back porch they see this carria;e house less than 20 feet from their home. The 1998 site pian shows that there is noc 20 feet from the back of the proposed building to the next property line. The graphic also doesn't show you what you wouid see if you stood on Portland Avenue viewing the proposed site. The buildin� that the proposed project is next to faces PorUand Avenue and the setbacks would not be different, but the proposed building does not face Portiand Avenue. The view of the proposed building from Portland Avenue is the side of the building. He stated that the positioning of the proposed buildin� is inappropriate when loaking at the orientation of the other homes on the block. Mr. Vaught stated that the slight cocking of che proposed building puts the comer of ihe building 1.2 feet away from Nathan Hale Park. He stated that he believes it is policy issue of putting a building 1.2 feet from a park and in this respect, this proposal is even worse than the proposal before the Board in 1995. He stated his letter dated March 23 attempts to analyze in terms of the six characteristics ihat Mr. Beach sited that the Board must find in doing this consideration. Mr. Vaught commended the Board for their logic in 1995 because he believes it applies equally as well today as it did in 1995. The first finding states that the properry cannot be put to a reasonable use undez the strict provisions of the code. In 1995 the Board also had before them a staff report recommending approval but found that in finding I that the irregularly shaped loc and the covenant requiring six parking sgaces for the condominiums make it difficult to develop the lot without vaziances, however, the applicant had not explored all options such as consuuctin; a smaller house or repositioning the house an the lot. Mr. Vaught staced that that statement is just as true today as it was in 1995. The peopie who spoke before the Board today would like to believe that cocking the building at a slight an�le is repositioning it, but there has been no consideration of a smailer house. The proposed house is the same size, if not larger than the one that was before the Board in 1995. In the second findin; the Board must make, Mr. Vaught stated that he would concede that Mr. 3everson didn'[ estabiish the parking and pedestrian easements and didn't own the land when it was split off, but Mr. Severson did know about these issues when he purchased the properry and before he concocted the plan before you because he was in fact the applicant the applicant before the Board in 1995. � Fi1e t{98-026 Page Five Mr. Vaught stated that Mr. Severson knew exacdy what he was deaIing with and knew exactly what the rules and requiremenu were. In 1995 the Boazd stated that the size and shape of the lot and the covenants were circumstances that were not directly created by the present owner, although the applieant was aware of the circumstances prior to purchasing the property. This was true in 1995 and is true in 1998, tnere is no change from what the Board previously found. In finding 3 the Board stated in 1995 that the lot split that hapgened in 1990 ideally should not have happened. Mr. Vaught stated that the lot split may well have been illegal. He noted that a couple of issnes that relate to provisions to zhe Code on lot splitting that he doesn't believe were mei. The Citations of the I,egislative Code ue Section b7.0304(4)(6) which prohibit 2ot splits which cause a remaining part of the lot to fail to meet minimam zoning staadards or where such divisions result in the creation of a nonconforming use or strucmre. The very fact that Mr. Severson is here before the Board today requesting that various condi[ions be altered is evidence at the dme the lot was sptit. This dcesn't meet the minimum standards al[hou;h it may with a smaller house but Mr. Severson has never considered a smaller house. This lot split was questionable from the day it happened and it probably should not have happened which was the Board's conclusion in 1995 and he urged that same conclusion upon the Board today. Mr. Vaught stated that the covenant requiring parking is much more than a contract but a legally enforceable document. A covenant is transferable from one owner to the next and runs with the land. In the 1995 resolution it was staced that the covenant requiring parking for Lhe condominium will leave very little green space on this lot. That was true in 2995 and it is also tzue in 1998. The coverage of 8ze lot is just as great if not greater, a12 be it with the building ai a stighdy different angle than it was in 1998. Mr. Vaught stated that the Code also states that there shouid be adequate drainage and he has not seen anything in the plan that addresses drainage from the paved propetty. This issue is not covered by this application. blr. Vaughc scated that the landscaping money is wonderful but ihat doesn't change the situation from two scandpoints. One, variances ought not co be for sale and two, it still doesn't change the fact that the green space that is available to put the landscaping on is just as restricted in the 1998 proposa] as it was in the 1995 proposal. In addition, the cocking of the building requires it to be 1.2 feet, rather than 4 feet in the 1995 plan, from Nathan Hale Park. This also brings the 6uilding tess than 20 feet from the neighboring house. There is also an exterior ceilar door from 415 Summit ihat goes afl the way to the property line which wo¢Id make it questionabte as to how it would function if in fact these two parking spaces that are there are full. Mr. Vaught stated that if you look behind the existing garage that is the Clark's, although there has hardly been a day that they have been able to pazk in it because of the grading, of the lot, there is a trash dumpster. If every parking space is full, the rubbish conuacfor will not be able to get to ffie trash dumpster. There is not enough room on this lot to put ali the things that aze there and have it operate at any kind of efficiency. �� -` l��{ Fite #98-026 Page Six Mr. Vaught stated that he believes this request for a variance is incomplete. In his reading of the parking code as he cited in the particular Section of the Zoning Code, is ihat the entrance and exist from a parking area like this must be at least 25 feet from the adjoining property. According to the site plan ihis is ciearly 12 feet from 436 Portland Avenue. This dces noc make it a lega] entrance or exit and ihere is no variance request before the Board today regarding that requirement. Uniess this is requested, the driveway is unusable because it is not a proper egress/ingress to the property. Mr. Vaught stated that there is the number of the parking spaces that are provided. Mr. Severson has stated he will make one parking space in the carriage house available to a condominium owner but it would he inceresting to see who would obtain that in terms of who woutd have to park on the outdoor lot. The question though is, are the six parking spaces legal? One of the parking spaces is clear]y labeled a compact parking space and the other space is only 18 feet as opposed to 21 feet which is what the Zoning Code requires. This particular parking space is floating in ffie middle of the driveway which would make it impossible for the Clark's to get in and out of their garage. While Mr. Severson has the obligation to provide parking, he has no authority to regulate the type of vehicle the tenants drive. Mr. Vaught argued that the normal parking requirement that you can take half of your parking spaces and make them compact spaces ought not to apply in this case because if the tenants wish to, they could own six Lincoin Town cars and then they ciearly wouldn't be able to park in the spaces that are availabie to them. There is not enough room an this lot for all of the parking that is suppose to be provided. Mr. Vaught referred the Board to the 1995 staff report where the Board clearly found that the request foc the variance is based primarily an the desire to increase the value and income potential of the parcel of land. This is the same project that the Board had before them in 1995 and that same statement is true in 1998. Mr. Vaught stated that his clients don't want someone to not be able to use their land 6ut this is an inappropriate use of ffiis particular land. He stated that this an incomplete request in his view and doesn't differ materially from the 1995 requestthatthe Board wisely denied. Mr. Donohue asked when the condominium association was formed. Mr. Clark replied that it was in 1990. Mr. Donohue asked if the association sold off the lot. Mr. Vaught replied ffiat it really wasn't sold off by the association. He stated that there were bankruptcy proceedings involving ffie original owner and developer of the lot and about the same time that ihis happened, as a part of those proceedings, this lot was split off. The lot was not soid by the association or by the members but was split off by the original developer of the condominium. Mr. Vaught stated that his clients are perfecdy wiiling to sit down and discuss purchasing this property and reincorporating it in the original parcel of land. �S File #48-026 Page Seven Mazk Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, Chair of the RHA Landuse Committee, stated that tast yeaz the Associa[ion held a public meeting regarding this properry. The proposal chat ihey reviewed is no[ exacdy the same as the one that is before the Board today, however, the Association didn't feel it had changed enough to warrant another pubtic meeting, nor a change in position. At the meedng tttere were 17 people who voted in opposition to the proposal and 9 in favor and it was a well attended �neeting. Mr. Voerding stated that this property has been a groblem foz 10+ years. Many of ttte issues regardin� the use of this property 6ave never been resoived in respect to the easement rights, etc. He stated that this cannot be a back yard in orQer to try and design a building that the HPC might think tooks Iike a caniage house to the property at 415 Summit. At the same time, it can't be a front yard towards 420 Portland. This is as proposed, a single lot with a Portland address structure. It wonld be considered the primary residentiai structure as proposed. The staff report indicates that the property owner cannot put this property to reasonable use w3thout the variances. The fact is that the owner can put ihis to use, especiaily wichin the perimeters of the easement document granring certain rights to the adjoining properry owners. He stated that his understanding is that the owners of the property at 415 Summi[ have the right to use this properry for parking and for access. The easement document give away any construction or air rights to the current owner. As such, one could assume that people could park anywhere they want on that site, in any of the garage spaces they so choose, and if they wanted to they could waik through the living room of the cazriage house to get to their parkin� space. The apglicant was fully aware of the limitations on this property when ii was acquired. Mr. Voerding stated Yhat he is noubled by The process. He referred to the 1995 proposal and asked how a back yard of a singIe famiiy residential Iot can be cut off at the base of t[ie back steps to create a new lot? How can a lot be split to make an existing home not comply with the existing Zoning Code? He asked how the Ciry can eIiminate setback and lot coverage requirements for an existing property by choppin� off the portion of the properry that actually keeps it in compliance? He stated that he believes thac it can't be done. He stated that his understanding of the situation is that no public hearing was held regarding the lot split, the Boazd never made a decision about the lot split, and ihe Ciry Charter and the Zoning Code requires that. The staff person who put the red rubber stamp on the tot split had no authority to do so. He stated that his interpretation is that the lot split has not legally occurred. He asked the Board to deny vaziances and inform the Ciry staff that they wilt not considet any further development of this site unless a developer demonsuates proof of ownership and full site control. Mr. Alton asked Mr. Voerding to elaborate on his statement that the property can be put to a reasonable use under ihe suict provisions of the Code. Mr. Voerding replied that ihe property owner could put a garage on the site and a sma11 home and stiil meet the requirements of the Code. The problem that is created with Lhe site are the easemeni righu of the other owners. Carol and Gregory Clark, majoriry owners of 415 Summit Avenue, the property frotn which 420 Portiand was split. Ms. Clark stated that the Nathan HaIe Association has asked Mr, Severson on thzee occasions to sell the property back to ihe condominium associaLion. Mr. Severson has re€used and stated that he would seIt the property to Louis Sudheuner first before them, and that he wants to buiId a strucmre to live in. Ms. Clark stated ihey would 3ike to see another garage on ihe property with appropriate landscaping. � �. a �- -� �y File #9$-026 Page Eight Ms. Clark stated that she is concemed about the green space and the east side of IvIr. Severson's project abutting Nathan Hale Park. She stated that one neighbor noted that the project would look like a sea of asphalt. On the site plan Mr. Severson has made improvements to 415 Summit and they have not agreed to make any of those imgrovements. One being the concrete sidewalk going from the back porch onto his propetry. She stated that her and her husband are the owners of the garage and to date they have not been able to use it and they have lived in the unit for two years. Her understanding of the agreement to build rhe garage was to provide paving and that has not happened. She believes that is in violation of the permit for that construction. She has stated that she has heard concerns expressed today regarding the condition of the property. She stated that the properry belongs to Mr. Severson and doesn't belong to ihe owners of 415 Summit. One neighbor noted Ihe mud, mess and garbage and that they would like to see it cleaned up. She noted that the mud, mess and the garbage belong to Mt. Severson. Mr. Clark noted that the reason they currently park on Summit Avenue is because of the mud on the driveway. He siated that he would be concerned of the closeness of the building to their condominiums as far as hidden spaces for the safety of the tenants. He stated that there was not a carriage house on the property in the late 1800's but rather a stable. Mr. Alton asked if the garage was on the properry when they purchased their unit. Ms. Clark replied no, it was part of the purchase agreement that there would be a two-car garage available to them. She stated the drawing of the garage had shown asphalt in the driveway. They were told the reason at was not paved was because the weather had gotten too cold and she has been told by severaf city staff members that there was a mistake made and that there should have been a bond put on the properry to ensure that the asphalt was put in. Mr. Alton asked whose responsibility it was to put in the asphait? Ms. Clark replied that their undersianding was that ffie original property owner sold the property to Ivlr. Severson. The original properry owner advised her that the property was sold to Mr. Severson at a reduced rate because ihere was an agreement between the two to have Mr. Severson put in the asphalt. When speaking to city staff she was told that Mr. Severson had assured them that he would do something so that they would be able to use their garage. Ms. Clark stated that the two properties were owned by different individuals. Tricia Leonard, 415 Summit Avenue lf4, stated that in terms of the parking a]legation, she was offered the free garage space with the condition that when she sold her unit that she give it back to Mr. Severson. She stated that she was aiso approached about buying the garage but that she would not be interested in that if she did not have ownership of the property. Mr. Severson stated that when he purchased the properry there was no discussion of a prior commitment to pave the lot. What was committed to was that the nvo-car garage be built for the Clark's. He stated that if his project is approved many of the concems will be resolved because of the Iandscaping and paving. He stated that he will meet all the requirements of the easement agreement by providing the parking spaces including one within his catria,e house. He stated that there is 17 feet between his proposed carriage house and the back of the condominium. The Code requirement is only 10 feet. �7 , File {{98-026 Page Nine Mr. Severson stated he requested a site review of his parking plan and it dces meet the Code, He stated that the home wi21 only be 2,000 sq. ft. which is not large. He stated that you woutd have exactly the same foot print on the lot with garages as you would with his proposed carriage home. His atchitecturally designed carriage home wiIt be more pleasing to view from the park. FIe again stated that he hauled in truck loads of gravel and that he could easily drive into the two-caz garage. He stated that regarding the drainage, that has already been addressed by city staff and should not be part of the discussion today. T-Iearing no further testunony, Ms. MadQox closed the public poraon of rhe meeting. Ms. Bogen stated that two years ago the Board mentioned in their ResoIution that Mr. Severson look at building a smailer structure or reposiuoning it on the lot, Ms. Bogen stated that as far as repositioning it she wanted it repositioned so that it faced the sueet and not side-wise. The new plan is larger than the old plan, tttey aze both 40 feet long and the new plan is 2 feet wider than the 1995 plan. Raiher than ]ooking at rhe Resolu6on and putting in a plan that the Board could possibly accept, she believes this is a worse pian and she witi not be able to support it. Ms. Morton stated that she is also not in support and feels there would be no green space left and if the driveway is smaller than it shouId be there may be some legal problems. She believes the owners of the condominium unit do not believe ihe ptoposed plan will unprove their home. Mr. Wilson asked how much green space there would be as he sees very little on the proposed plan. Mr. Beach compared the 1995 and 1997 plan and stated that the current plan has 12 feet of green space in between the building and ihe sidewatk and on the other side of the Qriveway there is 20 feet between the sidewalk and the driveway. There is also a triangie of green space by the park. The 1995 plan there was a uiangIe of green space in front of the building, 8 feet at the smatIest point to 25 feet. What has changed is that the 1995 had no green space on ihe west side of the driveway. He stated that he thinks the arrangement of the parking space is more preferable. Mr. Wiison stated that regarding parking, can staff require a designated pazking size? Mr. Beach replied that the Code states that the siandard parking size is 9 x 18 and all of the spaces meet that except one next to the existing gazage which is 8 x 17. A compact space only needs to be 8 x 16. Staff and the Board members continued to discuss the parking requirements. Mr. Warner asked Mr. Beach if he looks at parking Tequirements in terms of site plan review or is thzt something that is set forth in the Zoning Code as opposed to the normal site plan review? Mr. Beach questioned if Mr. Waraer was speaking of ihe number of spaces or the tocation of them. Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach to tett him where in the Zoning Code i[ refers [o the langaage of compact parking size. Mr. Beach repIied Section 62.I03 which states that 1/2 of the parking spaces can be compact. Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach if he makes that determination and approves it? Mr. Beach replied that typically someone will come in with a site plan and he will evaluate it to see if there are too many compact spaces and to make sure tf�at the location makes sense. Iv -- -- --- - �-L[� File #98-02b Page Ten Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach how he would tnake a determinafion that ffiere are too many compact parking spaces. Mr. Beach replied that he gces by the Code which states that you can have half of the parking spaces designated as compact. He stated that sometimes he dcesn't feel that it is the ideal solution for a given use but generaliy he gces along with it. Mr. Wamer asked Mr. Beach if he knows the Code section that specifically addresses compact spaces. Mr. Warner asked Mr. Beach if this is an accessory parking facility. Mr. Beach replied that this is considered an accessory parking facility as opposed to a pay ramp. Mr. Alton stated that he dcesn't fmd that the proposal today is hardly different from the 1945 proposai and he agrees with Ms. Bogen that the building is even larger. Mr. Alton moved to deny the variance based on the fmdings contained in the 1995 Resolution approved by the Board. Ms. Morton seconded the motion, which passed on a rall cail vote of 6 to 1(Scherman). Submitted hy: _,�j!? �� Tom Beach Approved by: �� Glori o n, Secretary iq BOARD OF Z0IYING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 1. APPLICANT: RbNALD SEVERSON 2. CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance 3. LOCATION: 420 PORTLAND AVE FTLE # 98-026 DATE OF HEARING: 03/23/98 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIN # 012823240240 (See file for complete ]egal description) 5. PLANNING DISTRICI': 8 6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 ZOlYING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101 1. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 3/17/98 BY: Tom Beach 8. DEADLINE FOR ACPIOIV: 6/3/98 DATE RECEIVED: 2/3/48 A. PURPOSE: The applicani is pmposing to construct a new cazriage house cvith one dwelling unit. In addition, a Wtai of 9 pazking space aze proposed: 4 spaces in ihe carriage house below the dwelling unit, 3 surface spaces, and 2 spaces in an existing gazage. One of these pazking spaces would be for the carriage house unit and 8 would be for an existing 4-unit condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit}. B. ACfION REQUESTED: Three variances for minimum setbacks: - A&ont yazd setback of 12 feet is proposed for the carriage house. A setback of 2� feet is required for a variance of 13 feet� - Surface pazking spaces may not be located within a required &onY yard. One of ihe surface garking spaces on the wesi side of the lot would be set back 20 feet from the front property line. A front yud setback of 25 feet is required for a variance of 5 feet - A side yazd setback of 1.2 feet from the eastproperty line is proposed for the carriage house. A setback of 4 feet is required for a variance of 2.8 feet. C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is aa uregular shaped pazcel with an azea of 5,428 squaze feet. It is currenfly used for pazking by the 4-unit condominium at 415 Summit (the properry immediately south of 420 Portland). Two cazs park in an elcisting garage at the reaz of the site and approximately 6 cazs pazk outside on graveUdirt. The siYe is located in the Historic Hill Preservation Distric� Surrounding Land Use: No:th: Single-family and duplex (RT-2) East: Nathan Hale Pazk (f2T-2} South: Four-unit condominium (RT-2) West: Multi-family condomini� (RM-2) C. BACKGROUND: There have been a number of proposals for using this property since 1990: Za - In 1990 the City approved a lot split that split dus pazcei from north end of the pazcel at 415 Summit. - Later in 1990 the Boazd of Zoning Appeais approved variances to construct a new carriage house unit with a 5 caz gazage beneath the unit subject to conditions. This �vas appealed to the City Council by the Parks Department. 'ihe Council upheld the variance but modified the conditions. - In 1992 the Boazd of Zoning Appeals granted variaaces to construct a hvo-unit carriage house cvith a 14-caz underground garage. - In 1993 the Boazd of Zoning Appeal granted a one yeaz extension of the 1992 variances. - In 199�} there was a pzoposal to build a two-unit carriage house with a total of 9 gazage stalls under the cazriage house and in detached garages. Varianczs nere applied for but application was withdra«�n before the Boazd of Zoning Appeals took any action. - In 1995 the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a carriage house unit with 3 pazking spaces beneath the unit and 6 surface pazking spaces. - In 1996 the applicant purchased the property. - In 1997 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a plan similaz to the cucrent proposal. The City Council upheld this approval on appeal in February 1998. (The current plan is slighdy different from the plan approved by the HPC. The HPC approced plan had a pazking space in the front yazd setback between the carriage house and the public sidewalk on Portland. The current plan moves this pazking space behind the carriage house so that it is not visible from the sidewalk and moves the carriage house 9 feet cioser to the street. This change was made in response to comments from some neighbors and zoning staff: If the Boazd of Zoning Appeals approves the current plan, the applicant will have to go back to the HPC to have them approve the changes.) D. FINDINGS: The Board of Zoning Appeals may grant a variance if it meets the following findings: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonabte use under the strict provisions of the cade. The variances aze being requested in order to provide a totai of 9 off-street pazking for the catriage house dwelling unit and the 4 dwelling units in the condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit). The applicant is required to provide 8 pazking spaces for the uniu at 415 Summit under the terms of a private agreement daung back to when the property was split in 1990. This agreement says that each condominium unit at 415 Summit is entitled to 2 pazking spaces on the property at 420 Portland. (See attached agreement.) The properry owner cannot build a carriage house and provide the pazking required by this agreement under the strict provisions of the code. Even if the cazriage house was not built, it is not possible to provide 2 parking spaces for each eacisting condo unit without a variance. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this propert}; and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The plight of the land o�vner is due to the size and inegulaz shape of the ]ot, lack of alley access, and to the private agreement that requires the property own�r to provide pazking spaces for the units at 415 Summit. None of these circumstance were created by the land owner. 3. The proposed varia»ce is in keeping with ihe spirii and intent of ihe code, and is consiste»t with the heatth, safety, comfort, morats and welfare of ihe inhabitants of the City ofSt. Paut. Z� The variances for front yard setback meet this finding. The intent of the code in requiring minimum front yazd setbacks is ta ensure that there is some consistency in setbacks and to provide green space. The proposed front yazd setback is consistent with (and actually slightly lazger than) the front yazd setback for the lazge condominium building to the west which is the only other buildina on the block face. There would be adequate green space in the front yard of the properry and additional green space is provided for the block by Nattian Hale Pazk which is adjacenx The variance for side yazd setback also meeu this &nding. The iatent of the requirements for side yazd setbacks is to minimize crowding between buiidings. The property to the east is Nathan Hale Pazk and does not fiave any buildings. In addition, the cazriage house sits ai an angle to the east property line and the vaziance is only needed for the from comer of the house. The back comer of the hovse will be set back almost 20 feet from the progerty liae. 4. The proposed va»ance will not impair an adequate supply ofGght and air to adjacent pmperty, nar will it or unreasonably diminish established property values wirhin the surrounding area. The variances for front yazd setback meet this finding. Granting ihe variances for front yazd setback wilI not alter the essentiai chazacter of the surrounding area because the carriage house and surface pazking space will be set back further from the &ont properry line than the only other building on the block face. The vatiance for side yazd setback also meets tlus finding. 5, The variance, ifgranfed, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the prm�isions of the code for the property in the district where the affected Zand is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification ofthe property. The variance meets this finding. The zoning code permits a single-family house with parking. 6. The nquest for varianc¢ is not based prrmarily on a desire to increase the value or income potenria! of the parcel ofland. The variance meeis flris 5ndiag. The request for vaziance is based primarily oa the aeed to provide pazking for the dwe2liug units at 425 Summit as well as the proposed carriage fiouse unit. E. DISTRICT COiT1�CIL RECOMMENDATION: District 8 Community Council recommends that the variance be denied. F. STA�'F RECOMNLENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, stat�recommends approval of the variances. elevations Letter�rol� District S 2Z ��-� �tarie�eterson lerome P Filla Daniel 0.'itt Fram Glenn A. 8ergman loho M�chael Miller hiichael T. Obede Kenneth A. Amdahi Ste�en H. 6mns' Paul W Fahning Timo[hy P. Russelt Esther E. McGinnis FRAM , v BERGIVIAN . ?;�i'r ._.:,':a ��'_"- - = ' - - . Su�te ;n0 50 East Fitth Sveet St PaUI. i�iR i5101-I I��; 161?I NI-fi�55 lol?I ??A-1754 facsSmiie Melvin 1 Sih-er, Of Counsel DiieCt Dial R290-fi909 e-mail: jmmiller6pfb-pa.coa March 23, 1998 3oyce Maddox, Chair, Members of Board of Suite 300 and Zoning Appeals 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 RE: Application of Ronald Severson Major Variaace 420 Portland Avenue Zoning File 98-026 Our Fi1e No.: 11127/950001 Dear Chair Maddox and Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: I represent Ronald Severson, the Applicant in Che above- referred to application. This morning, I was faxed a copy of Mr. Vaught's letter of March 18, 1998. I have been asked to prepare a brief response to the legal issues touched upon in Sections 1 and 6 of Mr. Vaught's letter. � + * * * The Private Agreement - Role of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Despite the fact that the ��private agreement'� referred to in Mr. Vaught's letter is of public record, it is, nonetheless, in the nature of a contractual agreement between private parties. (The "private agreement" is actually a section of the Declaration of the adjacent property.) Neither the City, nor agency thereof, is a party to the agreement. Essentially, Mr. Vaught is requesting is that the Board of Zoning Appeals adjudicate the rights of the parties which are subject to the agreeement. It is respectfully submitted that this is beyond the scope of the duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals. This is strictly a � • �i ,o �omnin :� � iu ��cn Celebrating VL � �ur � V ��' V �� LLLVL l�ir ..r..i:'. Joyce Maddox, Chair, and March 23, 1998 Page 2 disagreement between private parties, which, in all likelihood wou2d have to be resoZved through litigation. Mr. Vaught and his clients have had months to commence a lawsuit in order to obtain a judicial determination of the parties' respective rights. The Board of Zoning Appeals should not be placed in a position of becoming an arbitration board to pass its judgment on this issue. In this regard, it should also be noted that the City Council has already looked at the current plan on an appeal from the Heritage Preservation Commission. The Staff Report on the appeal made re£erence to the private dispute referred to in Mr. Vaught's letter and noted that it was not the role of the HPC to be addressing that particular issue. At the hearing on the appeal, which took place on Wednesday, February 25, 1998, the Council effectively agreed_ The Soard of Zoning Appeals should take the same position as the HPC and decide that it is not going to "take sides" in a dispute between private parties over the interpretation of a private agreement. Moreover, event the Ramsey Hill Association (whose letter is attached to Mr. Vaught's in support of his general position) recognized this, when Ms. McLaughlin correctly pointed out ". .. These matters are best resolved in a more appropiate forum. . . �� 2. The Private Aqreement - Nature of the Dispute. For the reasons stated in Section 1, the Applicant does not believe that the Board of Zoning Appea2s should be involved in the interpretation of private agreements. Neverthe2ess, since this has been brought up on other occasions by Mr. Vaught or his clients, he felt it was important that the Board have the opportunity to briefly review the agreement which is at issue. The Board can then see for itself that, at Ieast, there is a serious issue with respect to Mr. Vaught's position. Specifically, the °private agreeement° is Section 4 of Article 4 of the Declaration. A copy of that section is enclosed with this letter. (The °North Parcel° is the parcel which is the subject of this Application.) While there may be something in the nature of a"blanket" easement on the property at the present time, clearly, the Applicant has the ability to °. .. limit the boundaries of these easement areas by executing an easement grant or declaration, setting £orth the legal description of the easement areas, and recording the same in the Of£ice of Ramsey County Recorder. ..." This is 2y �t� Joyce Maddox, Chair, and March 23, 1998 Page 3 what will be done once the current application receives final approval. * * * * * Thank you for your attention to this matter. JMM:bap enc. cc: Ron Severson Tom Beach S. Mark Vaught, Esq. ZS /` �� hael Miller �, 2555404 foregoing. 3. Easements Through Watis Within t'Palis. Easements are hereby declared and granted to install, lay, maintain, repair and replace any wires, pipes, ducts, coaduite, publio ntility linea or atructural components running through the walls of #he units, whether or not such walls lie in whole or in part wit�in the unit boundaries. 4. Easement for Offstreet Parkin� and Yehicuiar aad Pedestrian Aeeess to Portland Avenne. A blanket easement for pedeatrian acceas from Porttaad Avenue to the Property, and vice verea, for vehicular affetreet parking spaces (two (Z) for each unit), and for vehicular accesa to the offstreet parking spacea from Portland Avenue and vice versa is hereby establiahed aver and across tke eatirety of the northerly of the two t2) Additioaal Real Estate psrcela (the "NortIi Parcel"). Declarant, or his auccessora or assigns, shall hsve the optioa Lo delimit the boundaries of theae easement areas by ezecuting an easement grant or declaration, set#iaig fort7a the legal deacriptione of the easement areaa, and recording the eama in tfle office of ttte R.amaeq County ftecorder. At auch time as Declaraat adda the North Psrcel to the Condominium, the easement(s) shall disappear (the amendment hereto ahall contain a provision teraiinating the easement(s)), the offstreet parking sgaces shatl become Iimited cammon elemeata of the units in the Condominium, and the n�uaber of offatreeL parl�ng spaces allocable to each unit ahall be reduced from two (2) ta one (1). Each uait owner in the Ccndominium, however, shall have the right of Srst refusal ta purchase from Declaraat one (1) garage unit if Declaraat coustructs garage unita an the North Parcel. ri. Easements to Run With Land. All eaaements rights and obliga�ioas created ia this Article are sffirmative and negative eaaements, ruaning witti the tand, perpetusl2y in futl force and effect, and at a11 times shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon DecTarant, its aucceasors and sssig�s, and say unit owaer, purchaser, mortgugee and other person havixig any interest in the Condominium or any part or portion thereof. �ARTICLE V. ; w,. .,. . . ; . . . . . � _ : . . . •�- . : . . , 1. Membership ia Associatiom A unit owner ahall by virtue of snch interest be a member of the Association and shall remsiu a member of said Assoastion uatit auch time as his interest in the Condominium ceases for any reason, at which time his membership in said Association shali automaticalty cease. When one or tuore persons hold an iaterest in a unit, alt such persona shalt be members. 2 Comp2isnce with DeclsraEion, Bylaws and Rutes and Rsgulations of Assodation, Each unit owner and occugant of a unit shall comply with aII ll 'L G ..�x..---- - ---- w�r , z++ar�� ----- •° — _ .. ` , :y, - :, ! � � + � � ,. t � -- � i � — -q� -- — -- - --- -- - �S. 1G�ARK AUGHT - ` ° ( - � AttorneyAtLaw Saite 700 Six West Fifch Saeec Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1420 (612)297-6400 _ FAX (612J 224-8328 � March 23, 1998 Joyce Maddox, Chair, and Members Board of Zoning Appeals Suite 300 ' 350 Saint Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 RB: Application of Ronald Severson Major Variance 420 Portland Avenue Zoning File 98-026 Dear Chair Maddox and Members of the Board o£ Zoning Appeals: As I indicated I would wjen I corresponded with the membe=�s af the Board of Zoning Appeals on March 18, 1998 about the above- refezenced project, I of£er the £ollowing as additional reasons £or my client's opposition ot rganting of the requested variances. 1. First, in order to grant the requested variances, the BZA is required to find that the property in question cannot be put tv a reasonable use uncler the strict provisions of the code. Stafs concludes that the applicant cannot build a carriage house and provide the right (8) parking spaces required by the restr=ctive covenant under the strict provisions of the code. Of course, this statement is true if, and only if, the only reasonable u�2 of the property is for the carriage house exactly as proposei'_ by the applicant. The reasbning was explicitly rejected by the BZA in 1995, in its resolution denying an essentially identical proposal by the same applicant. In 1995, the BZA found: "The i=regular shaped lot and the covenant reguiring six (actuallv the covenant reauires eight) parking spaces for the condominiums make it difficult to develop - this lot without variances. However, the applicant has not explored all options such as constructing a smaller house or repositioning the house on the lot." Parenthetical note added. Nothing really has changed about this development sinee 1995. The proposed carriage house is exactly the same size. And the repositioning of the building has been minimal and has actually resulted in it being closer to the property line wi.th 23athan Hale Z� Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 1998 Page Two Zoning File No. 98-026 Park than was the 1995 propos,al---1.2 feet versus 4 feet. The reason strict enforcement of the code prohibits this develapment is because the applicant refuses to consider a smaller or repositioned carriage house. Is that refusal reasonable? Zn light of the conclusion in the 1995 BZA resolution, my clients would submit that it is riot. The applicant has not reaYly moved beyond his 1995 proposal, He's simpZy dressed it up in different clothing and presented it anew. Additionally, there is no basis £or the implicit conclusion in the �taff report that no other reasonable use for the property exists. In fact, mp clients, acting corporately as a condominium �association, are prepared to negotiate purchase of the property upon mutually agreeable terms for parking alone, the purpose for which it was intended at the time the original, unsplit lot and building was converted to condominium usage. 2. Second, the BZA is required to find that the plig�t of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. Staff concludes the plight of the land owner is due to the size and shape of the parcel and the parking covenant and further concludes that none oP those circumstances were created by the land owner. Hos�ever, the BZA in its 1995 resolution found that while the circumstances were not directiv created k�y the applicant, he was aware of them prior to purchasing the property. That finding from 1995 remains as true today as it was then. Additionally, it is possible to conclude hased on the other £indings in the 1995 BZA resolution that the current circumstances in which the applicant finds himself are at least partially of his own creation because he has refused to modify the proposal by reducing the size of the propose8 carriage house. Nor has he repositioned the building on the lot in any substantial way. He simply, resubmitted the proposal that was turned down three years ago. 3. Third, the BZA is required to find that the proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants o£ the City of Saint Paul. in finding that the 1995 proposal did not meet any of th'ese requirements, the BZA said: "The proposed variance is not in keeping with the 2� Board o£ Zoning Appeals March 23, 1998 Page Two Zoning File No. 90-026 spirit and intent of the, code, and is not consistent with the health, safety, comfort.� morals and welfare of the inhabitants o£ the City of Saint Paul." In arriving at that conclusion, the BZA noted and oriticized a 1990 lot split which created this parcel as a separate lot. In fact, a strong argument exists that the lot split was not legal given the requirements of Section 67.304(4) and (6) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Those provisions prohibit lot splits where such divisions cause a remaining part of a lot to fail to meet minimum,zoning standards or where such divisions result in the creation of a nonconforming use or structure. . Clearly, here the proposal is £or a structure, which but £or the requested variances, does no conform. Further, at the time of � the split, the parking Covenant affecting the parcel created a use which was not conforming in that it provided parking for an unrelated parcel of land not under oommon ownership. The split such not have happened and was, arguably, illegal. The BZA, on this point in its 1995 resolution, stated that the proposal left very little green space on the parcel. The current proposal leaves no more green space and it similarly flawed. There is no reason for that conclusion to have changed. Staf£ in its current report focusses on the fact that the front,yard setback of the current proposal exceeds the set back of other buildings on Portland. xowever, what sta££ ignores is that the other buildings on Portland face the street, while the orientation of the proposed carriage house is such that the side of the building faces Portland. Staff goes on to assert that the back corner of the proposed carriage house is twenty feet from the property line. However, e cursory review of the site plan indicates this statement to be incorrect. The back corner of the proposed building is at most ten (10) feet £rom the property line at 415 Summit and is substantially less than twenty (20) feet from the structure containing the condominium units. Further, two of the proposed parking spots appear to be four (4) to five (5) Peet form the property line. In its 1995 resolutionf the BZA also found that the proposed variances may alter the general character of the surrounding area � or unreasonably diminish established property values with the surrounding area. in arriving at that conclusion, the 82A stated that �ailure of the�aPPlicant to provide architectural plans made it impassible to determine the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. That fact has not changed with this.proposal. ' 29 „ Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 1998 Page Four Zoning File No. 98-026 Clearly, all five of my clients, each of whom resides in property immediately adjacent to the parcel in this proposal, believe the proposed development will alter the essential character of the surrounding area, unreasonably diminish property values, and be inconsistent with their reasonable enjoyment of their property. In that regard consider the following: A. The proposed parking spaces at the back of the Portland lot are unduly close to the property line and residence o£ three of my clients and may well impair the functioning of an existing cellar door shown on the site plan. B. Each of the residents of 415 Summit Avenue has an enforceable right to pedestrian access to and from Portland Avenue over this lot. Yet, nowhere in the site plan is there a sidewalk which 2eads from the porch of their property to Portland Avenue: And if all of the proposed parking spots were in use, there is no way on the proposed pavement or sidewalks for my clients at 415 Summit to get from their property to Portland Avenue or back on foot. C. The site plan shows a trash dumpster behind the existing garage. However, if all of the parking spaces on the lot are in use, there would be no manner in which a trash pick up vehicle could access the dumpster. Similarly, there is absolute2y no space on the lot for even the smallest amount of snow storage. D. The 1995 BZA resolution notes that the parking covenant iri favor of residents o£ 415 Summit leaves little green space. That fact has not changed; it,has only been aggravated because the required number of spaces to be provided is eight, not six as thought in the 1995 staff report and resolution. Actually, the situation is even worse than shown on the current site plan. The applicant owns a un3t at 415 Summit and could presumably waive his two space requirement, leaving six more sgaces to be provided. Yet, the current site plan provides only five parking spaces, even if the two in the existing garage are counted. No agreement has been reached between the applicant and the owners of units at 415 Summit to provide parking from among the spaces located in the proposed carriage house to the residents o£ 415 Summit. And unless and until such an,agreement is reached, the applicant must provide at least six additional spaces outside the carriage house. The proposed site plan provides a maximum of five spaces. And issues arise as to whether the groposed spaces meet code requirements_as outlined in Section 62.104 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. It appears the size of all three outside proposed spaces is not up to code. Further, as a legal and practical matter, since the 3a Board o£ Zoning Appeals March 23, 1998 Page Five Zooning File No. 98-026 applicant must provide the�spaces and has absolutely no power to limit the type of vehicles owned by the parkers, the provisions of the code allowing compact spaces ought not to be applied here. Finally, with respect to parking, the proposed site plan is in direct violation of Section 62.104(9)(e) which requires the exit from the parking lot be twenty five (25} £rom any adjoining property; in fact, it is only twelve (12) feet from the property line at 436 Portland Avenue. The proposed clearly also fails to deal with the lot dra3nage requirements of Section 61.104. 4. Fourth, the BZA must find that the request for variance is not based primarily on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. In 1995, the BZA said simply "The request for variance is based rpimarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the� parcel of land." That the conclusion is as true of this proposal in 1998 as well is so clear as to need for further amplification. For the reasons stated above as well as those in my letter of March 18, 1998, my clients urge a denial of the request for variances on this project. Ve truly yours, �� GC �" , S. Mark Vaught /� Attorney at Law cc Greg and Carol Clark Tricia Leonard � Laurel FrOSt Susan Bergen 3� MAR-03-98 TUE 04:12 �UMMIT-UNTVERSITY PLANNXNG COU'NCIL aaxs_isss Monday, March 2, 199s Tom Beech LIEP Dear Tom, T'he RHA and SUPC's 1Qeigteborhood Dcvelopment Committce (�T.1C) deaded that the variance recentty requested by Ron Sicverson regarding 420 Porttand did aot deviate far anoagh from the requesY some months prior to wanrant yet anothcr Community Issues Meeting. The final recommendation was tbat the city not suppozt the xequested variance. The SUPC Board o£ Ilirectors concucced with this recommendaflon when tkiey adopted the NDC committee report at the Febmary 24 b0ard meeting. Piease calt me with any questions. Thaaks yoa Sinceraly, �� `�� Peggy Byrne Executive Airectar P.61 3 2- - � _. -- ..;-�.. .-,:.�._ � __ �_ 2555404 � foregoing. 3. Easements Through WaIls Within. WalIs. Easementa are hereby declared and granted to install, lay, maintain, repair and 7eplace any wires, pipes, ducts, conduits, public utility iinea or atsuctural components running thmugh Lhe walls of the unita, whether or not such walls Iie in whole or in part within the unit boundaries. 4 Easement for Qffstaeet Par�in� and Vehicular and Pedestrian Access to Portiand Avanue. A b2anket easement for pedestrian acceas from Portiand Aveaue to the Property, and vice verea, for vehicular offstreet par}.dng spaces (two (2) for each unit), and for vehicular acce:s to the offstreet parking epaces from Portland Avenue and vice versa is hereby eatabliahed over and acrose Lhe entirety of the northeriy of the two i2} Additional Real Eetate psrcela (the "North Parcel"). Declarant, or his successors or assigns, shall have the option to deIimit the boundaries of these easement aresa bp ezecuting an esaement grant or deciaration, setting farth the legal desrsiptions of the easement areas, and recording the same in the office of Lhe Ramsey County Recorder. At such time as DecIarant adda the North Parcel ta the Condominium, the easement(s) ehall disappear (the amendment hereto ahali contain a provision terminating the esaement(s)),'the offatreet parking apacee shall become limited common elements of the units in the Condomiiuum, and the number of offatreet paridng spaces allocable to each unit�ehall be reduced from two (2) to one (1). Each unit owner in the Ccndominium, however, ahall have the right of first refusal to purchase from Declarant one (1) � garage nnit if Derlazant canstrurts garage unita on the North Pa: cel. b. Easements to Rna With Land. All easements rights and ob2igationa created in this Article are affirmative and negative easements, sunning with the land, perpetually in full force and efFect, and at all times ahall inure to the banefit of and be binding upon Declarant, ita succeasors and_assigns, and any unit owner, purcbasei; inoztgagee arid �other person `baving any interest in the Condominium or any part or portioa thereof. axfircr� v ...: ... ....:.. . ..:..: 1. Membership in Asaocistioa A unit owner ehall by virtue of such interest be a member oFthe Associativn and shaIl remain a rnemner of said Assodation until such time as hia intereet in the Condominium ceases for any reason, at which time hia memberahip in said Association shall automsticaliy cease. When one or more persons hoid an interest in a unit, alt such persons shall be members. 2 Complianc� �ith Declaxation, Byiaws an3 Rules ansi Regula�ons of Associat3on. Each unit owner sad accupant of a unit ahall compiy with all 11 � . � `` � i _. F � �� \ ! , I � � ♦ APPLtCATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE OFFICEOFLICENSE,IA'SPECTIO , ENVIRONMEN'TAL PROTEC N 7 j�; � 4 3�0 SG Peter Street, Suite 30 Saint Paul, MN55102-I�10 j � � 266-9008 , �lLi J RPPLICANT Zorting o�ee use.itinly °_..' ._ '__ Fitennmber' .` :� , �p Fee: . _ $ .�'�= , TentaWe hearing date -'. ° ::`_ Name x;a �d �f (�(Y.Sr�v Company Address 7/5 ��,r/La � e�-- c�y Jf �au�, Stat�Zip .5�� aytimePhone 3��-��77 Property interest of applicant (owner, contrect purchaser, etc.) �3W /3 e f'� Name of owner (if different) PROPER7Y Address/Location Lf,ZU �✓-f/� d ,�tre�- �Sl'- /�; l, /�ilJ Legal description s � 2 � ��c � (atfach addrtronal sheet rfnecessaryj Lotsize 3�Od s1• t+ . Present Zoning PresentUse �i�/",T„ ProposedUse S�✓f �� f�vn. � �loi?5t_.. � O�rlC�.� � 1. Variance(s) requested� 2. What physical charecteristics of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? (topogrephy, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) 3. Explain how the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would resutt in peculiar or exceptional practical drfficulties or exceptional undue hardships. CASHIERS USE ONLY 4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial deViment to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. add'Nonal Applicant's 'a,'48aa�oz31�1o%�i C�}�: 4'�E�S VAfiIS;,CE � �`a.i� �H�LY, *�?�,� Date '�-� 9 � � _ �� Mazch 16, 1998 Tom Beach: The site plan which I dropped off last week does not designate the third off-street pazking space just south of the of the proposed fountain. I'm replacing those plans to insure that the designated pazking spaces are cleatly mazked. The major change, of course, is moving the &ont yazd pazking space to reaz yazd. In summary, the primary reasons for requesting the three variances aze: 1. The unusual co�guration of this lot with a 50' border on Portland and a 90' border on the south border and that it is not provided with alley access. 2. Although this is a legal building lot, it is also the primary parking for the Nathan House condominium and has been used as such in its entirety for seven years. The only other structure on the South side of Portland has a set-back of approximately one foot. 4. This site plan provides for greater green space and landscaping than either of two previous plans that were approved for this site. The overall effect of this p1an is to change a gravei pazking lot into a fuushed space with an appropriate building and a visually pleasing landscaped lot with ampie greenspace, trees, bushes and flowering plants that will camouflage the pazking azea. `�gt" �,��.�22v �5 4X� 420 Porttand Avenue lot: The iot af 420 Portland Avemie �vas detached from 415 Summit as a separate buildable tot in 1990. Consln�ction on the lot can be either single or multiple housing. The lot is located �vithin the Heritage Presen�ation Area and construction must meet the HPC design requirements. Construction an ihis lot must alm meet city code requirements for both buildings and pazking and provide for tiie off-street parking easement requirements as stated in Nathan House and Mews Dedai�ation. nn original 32' by 32' structure stood on approximately this same siie at the turn of tlie century but no pictures or prints of the building survive. Tl�e developer 1vl�o ow�ied tl�e lot in 1990 gained approvai from the HPC and BZA to construct a single fami(y carriage 6ouse wiiich inctuded five garage stails. This project which inctuded a tluee foot fro�it yard set-back �vas iiot bailt due to the developers financial problems. In 1992, the HPC and BZn appro��ed modifications to this plan to expand to two residentia( units with underground parking. Tliis proposai which required seven variances was also financially unfeasible. I purchased the lot in 1996 with the intent of building a single family house on the property as a residence for my �vife and mysetf. The site plan for this project �vas submitted to the St. Paul Zoning Department (Mr. Tom Beach} on Marcli 17, 1997 to insure that the parking space design would meet eity code requirements. The site plan was approved pending action by the zoning board on a request for a front yard variance and front yard parking.. The request for a zoning board hearings has not been ftled at this time. Proposal to Construct a Four-car Garage and Carriage $ouse: I am proposing to build a four-car garage/carriage house with additional off-street parking as sho�vn on the site plan. Tl»s carriage house plan, designed by Todd Bradley of Brad[ey Renditions, is the cuimination of several meetings with the HPC staff person, Aaron Rubenstein; HPC Uoard members and suggestions by other interested persons. The HPC board members were aware of the prominence oCthis tot bordering on Nathan Hale Park and the importance of the design in re)ation !o the mai� house. The final version of the carriage house plan was approved by the Eleritage Preservation Committee on March 27, 1997 by a vote of 11 to 0. This carriage house is 40' in length, 27' deep and 28' high at its geak. Tttis design allows four single garage doors a� the �vest facing elevation which is visua[ly preferable to two double doors but requires a 5.5 foot frrntt }'ard variance piacing ii 19.5 feet from the Portland sidetvalk. Five of the nine houses on tifis block have a shorter front yard set-back than 19.5 feet while the only building on the same side of Poriland is 1.5 feet from the sidewalk. G� Ronald and Marie Severson 415 Summit Ave. -rt�esc h-+� Conceming �20 Portland Ave.lot C. Reasons for Request: 1. Proposed use. Single fanuly cazriage house with four garages. 2. Physical chazacteristics that prevent pernvtted use. a�-��-� a. The irregulaz shape of the lot with a 50' frontage and 55.7' east boundary, 85' west boundary and 90' south boundary. b. The lot has no aliey thereby requiring automobile access from Portiand Avenue. c. The lot is located in the heritage preservation area. d. The need to provide parking for the owners of condominiums at 415 Portland � 3. Variations requested. �E�� s��a. � t•�. E yev:<.1 p ti. a. Request for a front yard buiiding set back from the required 25' to 19.5'. b. Request for approval of a 9' front yazd pazking space as shown on the site pian. 4. Explanation. a. This lot must meet the both the guidelines of the HPC and the Zoning commission. The HPC has approved the design of this carriage house with a length of 40'. This allows the use of four single garage doors facing to the west. This is a design requirement of HPC but cannot be accompiished without the 5.5' variance requested here-in. The HPC also requires that the front entrance elevation be parallei to Portland Avenue. The lot is zoned for either multiple or single fanuly housing but must also provide pazking spaces for this house and the owners of the condominium at 415 Summit Avenue. Although ciTy ordinance requires oniy seven pazking spaces, providing a total of nine reduces the need for street pazking. b. The only other buiiding on this side of Portland is a four story brick condominium which has a front yard set-back of about one foot. The opposite side of the street has eight houses. Only two meet the 25' front yard set-back while three have less than the 14.5' which we are requesting. � ILE Landscaping: This ►ot is now a gravel parking area used by Nathan House Condominium otivners as a parking site. A two-car garage �vas bui(t on the southwest comer in 1996 for the owners of Nathan I Io�ESe Co�ido, unit one. Wl�en the carriage house is buitt, the Portland Avenue set-back will be my front yard. It is my intent [o develop tiiis site into an attractive setting by using a well designed landscape plan iucluding appropriate use of trees, hedges, flowering plants and gardening pieces. The proposed site ptan includes a detaited landscape plan developed cooperatively by thc designer with suggestions and advice from interested neighbors. The drive�vay and the parking stali wilt be �vell screened from Portland Avenue by hedges runnictg full leugdi along tlte parking lot borders with new trees and other plantings in the front yard. The landscape plan iucludes the use of flower boxes on the west elevation of the carriage house and Ilower urns on the driveway in response to a suggestion by a neighbor. This is a proposed landscape plan and 1 invite farther suggestions for improvements. As pari of this development project, I have offered to transfer ownership of the parking ]ot area inctuding tlie garages to ttle persons who have easement rights to park on this lot either by transferring otivnersUip to the NaUian House Association or by establishing a separate association if that is required. ��his proposai cvas not accepted and therefore, I will retain ownership of the parking area. .� ��-,�" � - r��r-oa-is3s iz:ai � - �Rf GINAL . 4reseated $y Referred To Locuseil .0z�e6 °tt -�t �� -� S �C ! -- - Green SheeL # ,�`� RESOLUTION �INT PAUL, MlNN�SOTA �� CITY 2 WHEREAS, Itoaald Seversoa made application to the Heritage Preservauon 3 Commission (the commission) pursuant to Saint Paul LegisIative Cade Chapter 73 for a building 4 permit to coustruct a caxriago-house-like shvcture at 420 Portland Avenue within the Historic 5 Hill Heritagc Preservauon District; and 10 ii 12 13 14 ,5 i6 1� '.8 14 zo 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 9 38 39 tip WHEREAS, on Februaiy 27,1997, the coaunission cobducted a pablic hearing on the proposal. After discussion, the mauer was laid over ead the project was again reviewed on iviazeh 13,1997, and fmally approved on Mazch 27, ] 997. However, the commission, inadvertently, did not formaliypass a tesolutian approving the project until January 8, 1998; and 'W�IEREA5, on April 8,1997, Gregory Ciark, Carol Clark and Patricia Leonard appeaied tiie Mazoh 27, i997, commission decision but elected to enter inio ne�otiatiotts with the applicant in the hope ihat the applicsnt and the apgellants might reso2ve their differences; and R'fiEREAS, the negariations between the parties failed to reach an acceptable compromise and the appellants requested that their appeal be heazd by the Saint Pau1 City Councii; and WHEREAS, the commission in iu Rosolution No. 2884 granted approvaI ofthe building permit based up�n revised plans inctuding only the east elevation marked 3C-1, And subject to the condition that an appmpriate croKn malding be added above the transom windows in Iight of the Historic Hill Heritage Pteservation guide2ines. Tn particulaz, based upon the evidence presented at the Mazch 2�, i 947, public hearing, the commission made the following findings of fact: i. The proposed building site is a pivotal and diffiCUlt site. It is visibie from Summit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenve sad a public park, and there are lazge builrlings to the south and west that are close to the property lines. This lot can 6e Construed as both the rear yard of the VJinter House at 415 Sununit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed cazriagc housc conccpt (sad "front yard" pazidng adjacent to Portiand) is a reasonab2e approach tn daveloping the pazcel for the follow'rng reasons: a) the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street parking for residents of the ��nter House; b) ihe pazoel has historically been a reaz yazd it is used as a reaz yazd, and it appears as a reaz yazd due to iu relafions}sip io the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story cazriaga hause on tha site; �ad d) it provides a dcsi�n solurion for a buitding that is very close to the Winter House in proximity and that is zelated to it in terms of form, materials, details, ttc. 2'he Winter House 39 MrIY-Q4-1998 12�41 P.03i06 2 v t\ t V{ 1 Y��}uilt on a through-lot wiih Summit and Ponlaad gontages; the rccent 3 subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the 4 Winter House to surrounding land nor ffie }ristorical aature of the site. 5 6 7 8 9 iQ ii 12 13 !4 15 !6 17 18 14 20 Z1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 R6 47 4& 49 2. The proposed suucture conforms to the dishict guidclines: a It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, hcigkt, rhy'thm, setback, color, tnaterial, buitding eIements, site design, and chazacter of surrouttding sttuctures aad the area" b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and character wouid be reIated to, bvt do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integatcd for a batanced and eomplete design. c. Though the side elevation would not be paratlel to thac af the Winter House, the street-facing etevation would be perpendicular to the street lika those of other stroctures on this block of Partiand. d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given ffie rear yard nature of the site, and the caaiage house nature of the progosed building, the fact that the historic carriage house on the site was located up io ihe norih ptoperty line, and the fact thst thc onty other sauctura on the biock face (the south side of Pordand between Western and Arundef) is locaied closet to the street tixan would be the proposed structure. _ c, A ftant porch wouid not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building. f. Pazking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by 2andscaping. Singfe garage doors would awid the horizontai orientation of double doors. Thc unusual natuze of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lat. These sorts of anomalies in desi�n and development add richness, intcrest, and deIight to the histaric district and its character. 3. Itt adctition, the proposed struchue and site development conform io the federal &ecretazy of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design and materials are related to and compadbie with the prisnary, adjactat, histaric buitding, i.e., the VJinter House; tha design distinguishes between what is new and whai is historic rather than mimlcs the historic structure and confases the tw�; and the deveiopment would not fiave an adverse imgact on the character- defining features of Yhe site and ihe azea, The building's desiga is sinular to the reaz addirion of the Winter House w�th simplified detaiIing, which is appropriata for a new secondary structure. A new bvilding of unrelated design and materials would detract from the historic integrity of the site; and 2 �� MRY-04-1993 12�41 P.D4i06 r i ,..'.i i _ --- — ----� R�� Q-�-�--- --- ---- c �� t�`� � 2 3 WHEREAS, pursaaat ta the provisions of Saint Paul Lcgislative Code § 73,46(h}, Tricia 4 Leonard, Greg Clark, and Cazol Ciazk duly 51cd with the Council au appea� from the 5 determiaation made by the commission and requested that a hearing be heid before She City 6 Councll for the ptupose of considering the actians taken by ihe said comm}ssion; and 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2Q 21 22 '3 14 25 :6 W�REAS, acting gursuaat to §?3.06, a public hearing was set on for Januazy 2g, 1998, but, at the request of appellaztu' attomey, the matter was postpened to February 25,1998; and WFTEREAS, ob Febntazy 25,1998, a public heazing was duly conducted by the City Council, where &11 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and ti�REAS, having heazd the statements made attd Haviug considered the application, tha report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of th� oommission, the Cotuicil does hereby; RESOLVE, to deny the appesl of Patricia Leonard, Gregoty CIazk and Carol Clazk on the basis that their has been no showing that the cammission made any error in fact finding or procedure in this matter, and BE TT FTJRTAER RES OLVED, that tbe City Clerk shaIl mail a copy of this resoluGon to Patricia Leonazd, Cnegory Clazk and Caxol Glark, the Zoning Administrator and the Heritage Preservation Comtttission. Rnq�eeted Ly 2lepastfieat oi: %y: Fesm Appiovefl by Gity lt;torr.ey HY: �,tl�� Uwr�� i Z '�' � .� ai:yeioa cestiiiad by Councii ser_eta_ry A-•• ey; .eve8 bY Na»r: Dase Apyzoved Ly Mnyoz fos 9ubmisalon to towsCil 9y: �) A3oyted by Ceuncil: Date f ` V • � • t �' � � � `,, ,CITY O�' SAINT PAUL J BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER 95-209 DATE: a�� , �99s �� J IJ z2 �I;�I'9� :, � `�_ :. ,' �a ?�� . � � .-� � WHEREAS, ROiVALD SEVERSON has applied for a variance from the smct application of the provisions of S2ction 61.101 & 62.106 (2) of the Saint Pau[ Le�islacive Code pet[ainin� to chz conscniction of single family home and detached garage in che RT-2 zonins dismct a[ 4l6 PORTLA�D AVE: and WHEREAS, the Sainc Pau[ Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public heazing on 06/19/9i, pcsssuant to said appeat in accur@znce �»th �he requiremenss of Szccion 6�.305 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS. che Saint Paul Board of Zonins AppeaIs based upon evidence presenced ac the pubtic hearine, as subszancia!!y reflected in [he minutes, made che following findings of facc; 1. ? 3. The pcoperty in question can be put to a reasonabte use undzr the s[rict provisians of the code. The irrewiar shaped lot and the covenanc requiring sic parking spaces for the condominiums make it difficult to develop this loc �vithout cariances. Ho�vever, the appticanc has noc espiored ali oQtions such as construccing a smaller house or reposicioning the house on the loc. The plish[ of the land owner is due to circumstances unique m his properry, and [hese circumstances were no[ created by the land o��'ner_ The size and shape of the loc and the covenanu are circumstances thac were not direccty creaced by the present owner although che appiicant was aware of these circumscances prior to purchasine the properry. The proposed variance is not in keeping wich the spiric and intent of the code, and is not consistent with che heatth, safery, comfor4 morals and �velfare of the inhabitar,ts of the City of St. Paul. Ideally, this lot should not ha�•e been split from the propem at 41� Summic Ave. The proposed sin�le family horrte is more appropriate for this site than the previously appro�•ed duples. Ho�vever, the covenant requirin2 parking for the condominiums at 415 Summic Ave witl leave vary little green space on the lot. � 4. The proposed vaziance �vi[I not imQair an adequate suppiy of light and air co adjacent propezty and it may alcer the essencial chawcter of the surroundin� area or unreasonably diminish estabiished property values within the surrounding area. The ptoposed project wiil be pro�iding patking for the building to the south. There is patk land to the east and sufficierct open space to the rvest. Wi[hout arehitectura! plara oT the proposed house it is impossible to determine the impact on the neighbornood. ,ttt n 1`fNV G The variance, if �ranted, would noc permic any use that is not permitted nnder the provisions of the �� p (.� code for the propem in the district whece the aKecced land is iocaced, nor �coald it alter or change ° the zonin_ discrict ciassification of the property. ' �`�� A S1R� famity home and detached garage are permitted uses in this district. ' copy :ials �=D 6. by/biU j y - < < ��` 'it3 . t..�� }t :�s iX The request for variance is based primarily on a dtsire to inczease the ��alue or income potential of the paccet of tand. n� �isiT e � 2 Zoning File No. 98-026 ` File : 95-109 2888590 ` Pa�e Two NOW, THEREF�RE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonine Appeals that the applicacion to waive the requirements of seccion 61.10I to alto�v an 8 foot fronc set6ack for a single family home ac �xr f Pottland Avenue and le�aily described u eec�t the southeast i32.8 fee�, lot 6, Auditor's Suh Division r38;.in �` accordance with the application for variance and the sice ptan on fite �vich the Zoning Administntor is hereby � �- denied. MOVED BY : Bogen � SECONDED BY Tully IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: t (�vitso�) MAILED: Ttl�IE LIMIT No order of the Board ot Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a buildina or off-street parkinn facility shall be vaiid for a period loneer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained wichin such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding punuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an estension not tu exceed one year, tn nranting such extension> the Board o[ Zoning Appeals may decide to hofd a public he�rina. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoninn Appeals are finai subject to ap¢eal to the City Councii within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permiYs shali not be issued aRer an appe�l has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been fiied, then the permits are svspended and construciion shatl cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATIOY: I, the undersisned Secretary to the Baard of Zonins AQpeais for ihe City of Saint Paul, llinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the forego'rns copy with the oriDiaal record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original �nd of tfie whole thereof, as based on approved minutes oY the Saint Paut Board of Zoning AQpe�ls meeting held on June 19,,1995.and on record in fhe Office of License Inspeztion and Enviranmentat Protectian;�S�,SttPeter Street, . � �. Saint Paui, Minnesota. _ :;� : . : C � . SAIYT PAUL BOARD OF ZO\'ING APPEALS , �; 'k �"• _, . . Laura Dufeck Secretary to the Board " % r Zoning Fi1e No. 98-Q26 � a , e � ; o " ' � PLAIJh(tNG 8� �.'��_ �_ : � RON SEYERSON �� DESiG1V, INC, 612-636-&889 3 � ,. c � � � i 0 RECORDED ON t'?' CD �-i � � LD � . CfTY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONfNG APPEALS RESOLUTION ZON{NG FILE NUMBER 92-216 DATE: octobei 5, ��z NflV 171992 ✓ WHEREAS, DENNIS BROSE has applied for a variance from the strid application of the provisions of Section 61.1D1 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pedaining to the construction oE a two-unit carriage house with a fourteen car undezgzound gazage (tan cars if the gazage does not extend under the "mansion IoC) in the RT-2 wning distriU; and WHEREAS, the Saiat Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 09j08/92 and 10/OSf92, pursuanc to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 62204 of the Legislative Code; and WFiEREAS, the Saint Yaul Boud of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the pub]ic hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followiag fmdings of fact: .. � :� �'- 0 0 0 6 }"L �. cn � n a 1. 2. � The property in questioa cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The parcel has a very unusual shape, has no alley access, has a double front yud euposure with no real rear yazd and a very visible pub&c location immediately adjacent to Nathan Ha1e Fazk. According to the applican[ this properry cannot be reasonably be put to use for a tzaditionally designed and sited carriage house within the constraints mandated by the Zoning Code. The plight of ihe land owner is due to circumstances unique to his properry, and these circumstances were not aeated by the land owner. The plight of the landowner is due paztially to the property being located within the boundaries of the � National Historic DistriU. The applicant also pointed out that there is an obvious confliM between the preservation goals of the neighborhood and of the HPC which sometimes aze at cross purposes with some of the limitations imposed by current Zoning Code regulations. In addition, the lack of alley access and the unusual shape of the properry limit the ability of the applicant to fully use the property. These circumstaaces were not created by the landowner. The proposed variances are in keeping with the spirit aad intent of the code, and are consistent with the health, safety, comfoft, moraSs and weffare of tfie inhabitanu of the City of St. Faul. � According to the applicant an altemative design for a cazriage house could result in a taller strvcture in the rear yard wluch could be azciutecturally out of character with surzounding buildings. , Although the agglicanYs progosal for a carriage house with undergrouad parking appeazs to be a rather intensive use for the small rear porTion of this property, the proposed construction of a tastefully designed carriage house with two housing units over an enctosed pazking azea with private gazden space above it is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code. 4. The proposed variances will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properry, nor will they al[er the essential chazader of We surrouading azea or unreasonably diminish established property values within the suaounding area. �5 i��i1 �nstrv � �_/ocr t Filir� iee / Y 1 ftx copy Cer Co�y Initidl� � Pd bY/bill __!_�__._ F�e #42-216 Page Two 2685164 The proposed project may impad the provision oE moraing suniight iato the lower two units oE the adjaceat condo bvitding. On the other hand the provisioa of afteraooa sunlight ro the proposed project may be negatively affected by the tall four story condo building immediately west oE the project. Overall the proposed projea should not impair aa adequate supply of light and a'u to adjaceat properties. The project is anticipated to add to [he essen6al charader oE the surrounding area and should not dimiaish established property values within the surrovading azea. 5. The vaziances, if granted, wauld not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of tbe code for the property in ihe district where the affected land is located, nor woutd they alter or change the zoning district clauification of the property. A large carriage house with hvo housing units and aa undergrouad garage aze allowed in an RT 2 wniag district with appropriate setbacks, appropriate lot azea, appropriate spacing betweea buitding,s and appropriate lot wverage. The proposed development would not alter or change Lhe zoning disTrict classi&cation of the properry. 6. The reqaest for variance is not based primarity on a desire to iacrease the value or income potentia2 of the pazcel of land. The applicant hu indicated tbat to construM townLouses in this style rsquires extra costs for vazious pro{eU items, such as expensive �ctorian detai2ing. The appficant has stated that the quatiry of the carriage house's design plus the conversion of [he planaed manewering azea into a landscaped murtyard will [iuther enhance [he projecPs aesthetic contn'bution to the neighbors and to the pubtic's enjoyment of Nakhan Hale Pazk. , NOW, TfIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Boazd of Zaning Appeals tfiat the provisions of Section 61.101 be hereby waived to allow a lot area of 5,428 square feet, a front yazd setback of 3', a 4' side yard setback along the westerly property line, a?..5' side yard setback a2ong tfie easterly property line, a 6' :ear yazd setback above ground for the carriage house strvc�ue mea5ured from the zear property line of the "additionaI reat estate", a 0' zear yard setback below ground for the undergound gazage, also measured from the rear property line of the "additiona] rea] estate', and stzuctuze coverage of 37% of the total lot azea scbj ;:t tc the foL'a� �ino coaditions: 1. Elimination of tfie balcony on the west end oE t6e proposed cazriage house; 2. Elimination of tfie iarge wiadow and frenc6 doors from tfie west end of the proposed carriage house with windows redesigaed to m�n�*�»P the enrroachment of the privacy ai 436 Pordand Aveaue; 3. Construcfion of the west wall of the carriage house with fire retardaat materials; 4. Coastruction of the proposed carriage house accordiag to the design az approved by the HPC; and 5. The entire development (mansion plus carriage housej must proc§de at least iS parking spaces per dwelling unit and the spaces iu the underground gazage must be made available to the condominium ownezs ia the mansioa. � ¢` Fde #92-216 Page Two �� , on property located at 4L5 SUMMIT AVE and legaily desai'bed as Auditor's Subdivision No. 38 St. Paul, M9nn. Ex the SEIy 132.8 ft, Lot 6; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan ou file with the Saiat Paul Planning Division. MOVED SY: ,vcoo SECONDED BY: scterman IN FAVOR: a AGAfNST: i MAILED: October 7, 1992 TIME LTMIT; No order ot the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or oFf-street parking facility sLall be valid for a pertod tonger than one year, unless a buitding permit for such erection or alteration ls obtained witLin such period sad such erection or alteration is groceeding pursuant to the terms of such permI� The Board of Zoning Appeals or tLe City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appea{s may decide to hold' a public hearing. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoniag Agpeals are t5na1 subject to appeat to the City Councit within 15 days by anyoae affeMed by the decision. Building germits shall not be tssued aEter an appeal has 6ee¢ filed. If permits have been issued beFore an appeal has beea fited, then the permits are suspended ' " and construMion shall cease un6! the City CouncSl has made a final determination oi the appeal. CERI7FICATION: - `��' �` �' � �' �, � C�� ` t l .� � � � � - �� e > < ' , �i•tl�_+ n e`, �� S p Y"�. -. _-=' . ; .;^ , .: , ` i ''. ._� �': : � _ �40>45��'• . :;,} '�: -r `� -,.. . I, tLe undersigned Secrefary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saini Paul, Minnesota, do hemby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy wItL the origina! record in my ofiice; and tnd tLe same to be a true and correct copy of said originat and of the whole t6emof, as based on approved minutes ot tLe SaInt Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on September 8,1992 and Oetober S, 1992 and on tecord in the Saint Paul Planning Division Qftice, 25 West Fourth Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOIQING APPEAL� � ` 0 cr � �fY �� c / ` p Secretary to the Board � '- ; �;, � . �_ ^';,� ..�-�- � � _ .�- � � � + :-'�7 N ! � �D ��n m sY'*� G ��cz-- ;"iNrrr. m,. '� ��G� P��G -- n'. c=.n� n1o:. � `��s (�R�GIN�iL Presented By Referred �COUncil File # q� /d `�` �� Green Sheet � %j `J,j,j RESOLUTION CITYOF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA . Committee: Date Whereas, Dennis Brose, on behatf of Nathan Ha1.e Carriage House, 415 Summit Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, made application to the Boar@ of Zoning�Appeals for a variance Erom the strict application of the provisions of the Saint PauZ 2oning Code for property located at 415 Summit Avenue, legally described as Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision ;38; and Whereas, The purpose of the application was to vary the standards of the Zoning Code so as to to construct a one unit turn of the century appearing carriage house and a five car garage on the rear of the property; and Wheraas, The Board of Zoning Appeals conducted public hearings on August 21, 1990, September 25, 1990 and October 23, 1990, afteY having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Board, by its Resolution 90-173, adopted October 23, 1990, decided to grant the application based oa the Pollowing findings and conclusions: 1. The parceZ has a very unusual shape, has no alley access, has a double front yard exposure with no real rear yard, and a very visible.public location immediately adjacent to Nathan Hale Park. According to the applicant this property cannot reasonably be put to use for a traditionally designed and sited carriage house within the constzaints mandated by the Zoning Cade. 2. The plight of the Iandowner is due partially to the property being located within the boundaries of the National Historic District. The applicant also pointed out that there is an obvious conflict between the preservation goals of the neiqhborhood and of the HPC which sometimes are at cross _ purposes wif.h some o£ the limitations imposed by current Zoning Code regulations. In addition, the lack of alley access and the unusual shape of property limit the ability of the applicant to fu13y nse the property. These.circumstances were not created by the Zandowner. 3. According to the applicar�t an alternative design for a carriage house could result in a taller structure in the rear yard which wauld be architectura2ly out of character with surrounding buildings. ,. Although the applicant's proposal for a carriage house with garages_appears to be a rather intensive use for the small rear K � ._ ; �:.. .��:., . ... -rG1 on of designed�carriage house over enclosed gazages is in th the spirit and intent of the code. keeping 4. The project may impact the provision of morning sunlight into the lower two units of the adjacent condo building. On the other hand the provision of afternoon sunlight to the proposed project may be negatively affected by the tall four story condo building immediately west of the project. • Overall the proposed project should not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The project is anticipated to add to the essential character of the surrounding area and should not diminish established property values within the surrounding area. 5. A larqe carriage house and a five car garage are allowed in an RT-2 zoning district with appropriate setbacks, separation between buildings and density. The proposed development would not alter or change the zoning classification of the property. 6. The applicant has indicated that to construct a turn of the century appearing townhouse requires extra costs for various project items, such as expensive Victorian detailing. The applicant points out that all of this is Being provided without any request for additional units above those normally allowed on the site. Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 64.205, Saint Paul rks Commission, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Board of Zoning Appeals, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose o� considering the actions taken by the said Board; and Whereas, Acting pursuant to Sections 64.205 through 69.208, and upon notice to affected parties public hearings were duly conducted by the City Council on December 13 1990, and January 10, 1991 where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and Whereas, The Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance apglication, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does hereby Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby modify the decision of the Board o£ Zoning Appeals in this matter, and the variances granted shall be as Pollows: A twenty-two foot front yerd setback variance so as to permit a three foot front yard setback; A five foot western side yard setback variance so as"to permit a four foot side yard setback; A six and one-half foot eastern side yard setback variance so as to permit a two and ona-half Poot side yard setback; A twelve foot minimum separation between buildings variance so as to permit a six foot separatiori between the main building and the carriage house; and � 9 �ZONING F1LE `��-Z�o � ___.. CON'DOMIN1iJM NUIYIBER �B � NATHAN HOUSE B- MEWS, A Condominium DECLARATION j � � �f1 � N � � � � -a THIS DECLAFiATION, Made this ��ay of July, 1990, in the City of Saint Paul, County of R,amsey, and State of Minnesota, by DENNIS BftOSE, hereinafter referred to as "Declarant" and .7UDITH BLI'TH, his wife, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 5I5A.1-101 to 5I5A.4-II7, known as the "Uniform Condominium Act" (sometimes hzreir.after referred to as the "Act"7 and Iaws amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, W ITNESSETH: WHEEiEAS, Declarant is the owner in fee simple of certain real estate situated in the City of Saint Paul, County of Ramsey and State of Minnesata, legally described as follows, to-wit: That part of Lot 6, "AUDITOR'S SUBDNISION N0. 38, ST. PAITL, MINN." according to the recorded plat thereof an file in the of�ice of the County ftecorder, Ramsey County, Minnesota, k;�ich lies soathaasterl. of the follo��ng descrited line: Commencing at the most easterly corner of said Lot 6; thence northwesterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 132.80 feet to the pont of beginning of the line to be described; thence southwesterly at a right angle 90.00 feet to the southwesteriy Iine of said Lot 6 and there terminating, excepting therefrom the following described pazcel: Commencing at the most southerly comer of said Lot 6; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 26.11 feet; thence nor�hwesterly deflecting to the left 90 degrees, 7.4 minutes, 23 seconds a distance of 51.40 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing northwesterly along the last described line 18.90 feet (the 2ast described line is hereinafter referred to as "line A"); thence southwesteriy at a right angle 4.1Q feet; thence northwesterly at a right angle 28.60 feet; thence northeasterly at a right angle 7.00 feet; thence northwesterly at a right angle 2420 feet; thence southwesteriy at a right angle 28.50 feet to the 9+ ...... ---_ :,,ty��.'j"'_«res�ss:- _.