The URL can be used to link to this page

98-485Council File # Green Sheet # � a S J CITY Presented By Referred To 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 RESOLUTION PAUL, MtNNESOTA Committee: Date � WI3EREAS, Peter Keely, in Zoning File No. 98-Oi l, made applicafion to the Planning Commission for a special condition use permit for the purpose of converting a residenfial structure greater than 9,000 squaze feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementialAlzheimer pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul zoning code Section 66.413 for properiy commonly known as 15 Montcalm Place, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and legally described as (see legal description in zoning file No. 48-Q11); and WFIEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on Mazch 5, 1998, and March 19, 1998, after having provided notice to affected properiy owners, and submitted its recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, by its resolution No. 98-22 dated March 27, 1998, decided to grant the application based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. 15 Montcaim Court is a vacant residential skructure of approximately 13,875 squaze feet that has fallen into disrepair. Located in a R-1 zoning disirict, the home was built in 1947 and was used as a single family residence until 1962. It was then converted to a 25 person residence for the Catholic order of the Oblate Fathers. In 1970, it became the "Lubavitch House" and was run by the Upper Midwest Merkos Jewish Education Association as a synagogue and education retreat center. For approximately the last yeaz the house has been vacant. 2. The applicant, who has an oprion to purchase the properiy, proposed to completely renovate the interior and exterior of the house and convert it in to a board and care residence for the frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer. There would be 1 b bedrooms with a maxunum of 21 residents. Services by three full time empioyees would include 24 hour supervision, food service and support acfiviries. The facility wouid be licensed by the state and it would be run by Franciscan Health Care which owns and operates St. Mary's senior residential housing in Highland Pazk. i2 3. Section 60.413(12) of the zoning code states that the Plamiing Commission may S3 pernut the conversion or reuse of residential structures of over nine thousand �4 (9000) square feet if, following a public hearing, the Planning Comrnission makes 5 the following fmdings. 6 1 9g-��S 2 a. The strueture cannot be feasiblel used-fi�r--a earrfonbing use. 3 --� This condition is met. This single family residential shucture, because of its large 5 size, as been used from 1962 to 1997, as either a religious residency facility or 6 retreat/activity center. The properry has been vacant for the last year and on the 7 real estate mazket. b. The proposed use and glans are consistent with the comprehensive plan. This condition is met. The Saint Pau1 Housing Policy for the 1940s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opportunifies for individuals and households with special needs. c. The proposed use and structural alterafions or addirions are comparible with the surrounding neighborhood and land uses. This condition is met. The site is surrounded by singie family uses and the applicant proposes to restore the structure and make it feel and look residential. The proposed use, as a residence facility for frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer, is a quiet unobtrusive land use. The residents, because of their mental/physical limitations, will not drive or be ailowed off the premises. Traffic generated by the facility will be visitors and 3 full tnne and 3 part time employees. d. Parking for the new use shall be proved in accordance with the requirements of section 62.103 for new strnctures. This condition is not met. The required parking for the proposed facility is 13 parking spaces. (21 beds would require 10 spaces and the three full time empioyees would require 3 spaces) The applicant is proposing 7 off street parking spaces and is asking that the planning commission modify this condition for the following reasons. l. Facility residents cannot drive nor are they allowed to have cazs. 2. Parking would only be used by staff and visitors. The maxnnum number of staff at any one time would be 3 leaving 4 proposed spaces for visitors. 3. The more parking that is required will make the facility look institutional and hinder the applicanYs objective of retaining the residential chazacter of the facility. For the reasons above, modification of the condition is reasonable. -2- 2 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 3? 38 39 40 41 42 F3 44 e. Applications for conversion or reuse shall include a notarized petition of two-thirds of the property owners within one hundred (100) feet of the property proposed for the reuse, site plans, building elevations and landscaping plans and other informafion which the planning commission may request. This condition is met. A notarized petition including the signatures of 11 of the 16 properiy owners eligible to sign the perition was submitted along with site and landscaping plans. 4. Section 64300(d) of the zoning code requires that before the platming commission may grant approval of a principle use subject to special conditions, the commission sha11 fmd that: a. The extent, location and intensity of the use will be in substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans which were approved by the City Council. This condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opporhxnities for individuals and households with special needs. b. The use will provide adeqnate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congesrion in the public streets. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to result in less trafFc -- and, therefore, less potential for congestion -- than the religious activityiretreat center that used the structure from 197� to 1997. c. The use will not be detrimental to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety and general welfare. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to contribute to the public health and welfare by providing elderly caze services needed by the surrounding community. d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. '•5 This condition is met. The applicant has committed to restoring this dilapidated 6 vacant structure to a residenfial appeazance that will be compatible to the 7 8 surrounding residential structures. -3- 5 �a s 6 7 8 4 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 e. The use shall, in all respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Tlus condition is met. Insofaz as the planning commission approves the modification of conditions 3{d) above, the proposed use confornis to all the applicable regulations in the R-1 zoning district. 5. Section 64300(fl(1) of the zoning code states the pianning commission, after public hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property or an e�sting structure and would result in exceptional undue hazdship to the owner of such property or structure; provided that such modification will not impair the intent and purpose of such special condition and is consistent with health morals and general welfare of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent properiy. WHEREAS, pursuant to he provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Michael Prichard and Scott and Elisa Knudson duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Planning Commission, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and 27 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Section 64.206 through 64.208, and upon notice to 28 affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 13, 1998, 29 where a11 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 30 31 WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the 32 application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and 33 of the Planning Commission does hereby; 34 3S 36 37 38 39 40 41 �2 �3 IA 5 6 RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul fmds that the Planning Commission committed error in its findings and hereby reverses the decision of the Plaiuiiug Commission in this matter based on the following findings of the Council: The Council finds that the structure can feasiblely be used for a conforming use because similaz large homes in the neighborhood are selling as single family homes and there is interest on the part of one possible buyer who wishes to purchase the properly and rehabilitate it as a single family home. 2. The proposed use is incompatible to the neighborhood because it constitutes a commercial intrusion into a single faxnily neighborhood and given its large scale (21 beds facility) and parking reauirements ( a? space parking lot} make it incompatible to adjoining residential properties. The proposed use will be detrimental to the neighborhood because the -4- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ORIGINAL qg -'�1P5 introduction of this large scale commercial use into the middle of a residential neighbarhood will result in increase visitor and service txaffic. BE TT FURTAER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Michael Prichard and Scott and Elisa Knudson be and is hereby grauted; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Ciry Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Michael Prichard, Scott and Elisa Knudson , Peter Keely, the Zoning Adtninistrator and the Plauuiug Commission. Requested by Department of: By' Form Appro b� City Atto ey BY: ��G��-, s"fz �15� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: >ted by Council: Date �],\,�� L� � tion Certified by Counci ecretaxy council Councilmember Harris TOTAI, # OF SIGNATURE PAGES oFnun�rcwectort g � � y 8'S SHEET No 62153 x,twuor. anwm�a ❑ utrutawrr ❑ arct�snic ❑ nuwUnta�ncESOn. ❑ nu�wutaexv�xcrc ❑wwrttortNasL�xry ❑ {CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council acCion taken May 13, 199& granting the appeal of Michael Prichard & Scott and Elisa Knudson to a decision of the Planning Commission granting a special condition use permit to allow conversion of a residential structure greater thari 9,000 square feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementiaJAlzheimer`s at 15 Montcalm Court. PLANNING COb1MISS10N CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION Has this Pe��m e+erworked u�Mer a corRract tor fhis deUartment? YES NQ Has thia D�� rrer been e cilY emPbYee? YES NO Does this Personfi�m P� a sldil not nonnetlYP�esFed bY enY curterit city emd%'ee? YES NO Is Vue pe�sonM1irtn atarqatatl vendoR YES NO ::.:.. i�r fAL 7UdOtlNT OF TRANSACTON S OIN6 SOURCE COSTRtEVENUE BUDQETEO (GRCLE ONeI LT�iI;PI:.iT.3 �'7��!7 iCINL INFORMP710N (IXPWN) OFFICE OF TF� CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF SAINT PAUL Narnt Colemart, Mayar May 29, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Keliogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Civil Division 400 City Hall IS West KeZZogg BLvd. Sairs7 Paul, Minnesota 55102 Telephone: 6l2 266-87I0 Facsimile: 612 298-56I9 Re: Planning File No. 98-011 Appeal of�c`cly �1 rjce �'•��^c�.0 Y fc a� o- � 1ry� Councii Hearing May 13, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Wou1d you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your eazliest convenience. If you haue any quesrions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly qours, � �� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW(rmb Enclosure Counci! Research G�nter � : ,..i DEPART'MENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPM&NT � - �l �� 53 CPTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor April 20, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Off'ice Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Division ajPlanning 25 West Fou�th Slreet Sa'vet Paul, MNSSIO2 Telephone.•61&266-6565 Facsimile: 6I2-228-3314 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday May 13, 1998 for the following huo appeals of a Planning Commission decision to grant a special condition use permit: Applicant #1: File Number: Applicant #2: File Number: Michael Prichard #98-106 Scott and Elisa Knudson #98-107 Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision to grant a speciai condition use permit to allow cottversion of a residentiai struchue greater than 9,000 square feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementiafAlzheimer. Address: 15 Montcalm Legal Description Lots 4 and 5; Montcalm Court of Properiy: Previous Action: Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, wte: Unanimous March 27, 1998 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval, vote: 5-2 March 19, 1998 My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the April 29, 1998 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 2b6-6559 if you have any questions. Sjncerely � ( t�n„n n ame on City lanner cc: File #98-106, #98-107 • F72STRUN• NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR[NG 'Eae Salnt Pad Ctty Coundl wlll conduct a pvblic heazing on Wednesday, May 13. 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the �ty Council Chambers, Third P7oor Ctty Hall-Court Honse.'ro rnnsider the appeal of Michael Prichazd to a decision of the Plann3ng Commission . granting a special coadition use pertnit to allow cbnversion of a residential structm'e greater than -9.000 square feet to a residence foi frail eSderly and elderly with demen- �fNzheimer at 15 Montcalm Court. ' Dated: Aprfl 20, 199$ _ . NANCY ANIDERSON - _ _ Assisfant City Councll Secretary - _.. . . . . . . . �� - {annt az, 1sss1 DEPARI'MENT OF PLANNJNG & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �SAINT � PAVL � AAAA' CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 5, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota SS 1D2 RE: Zoning File #98-106 Zoning File #48-107 City Council Heazing: Dtvisiorz of Plmming 25 Wesl FOr<rth Street Telephone: 6I2-266-6565 SaintPaul, MN55102 FiusinuZe: 612-22&3314 Michael Prichazd Scott and Elisa Knudson May 13, 1998, 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision approving a special condition use permit at 15 Montcalm to allow conversion of a residential structure greater than 9,��0 squaze feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL vote: Unanimous • �OAIING COMIvIITTEE RECOMMENDATTON: APPROVAL vote: 5 in favor, 2 against. STAFF RECOMMBNDATION: APPROVAL S O T: Two residents spoke in support and one resident submitted a letter conditionally supporting the application. T'he Highland Area Community Council passed a motion in support of the special condition use permit but was not awaze of the need for a pazking vaziance. OPPOSI'ITON: Three residents spoke against and ten residents submitted letters opposing the petmit. Dear Ms. Anderson: , Michael Prichard and Scott and Elisa Knudson are appealing a Planning Commission decision to approve a special condition use permit at I S Montcalm that would allow conversion of a residenYial structure greater than 9,000 square feet to a residence for the frail elderly and elderly with dementialAlzheimer. The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed special condition use permit on Mazch 5 and March 19, 1998. At the close of the public hearing, the committee voted 5-2 ta recommend apgtoval of the special condition use permit. On Mazch 27, 1948, the Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation on an unanimous vote. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on May 13, 1998. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site preserrted at the public hearing. Sincerely, •��9- �-� James Zdo City Pla er Attachments ca City Council members �'"� � � Department ojPlanning and Economic Developmenl Zoning Section 1100 Ciry Hall Annex 15 West Founh Streef Saint Paut, MN 55102 . 266-6589 APPELLANT � Name Mte �ft�l- f;elC ll,{-!�7 Address C I /u D N"rC,a trf/1 .CdtjQ j City 57 . �L}� r� Zip 5311b Daytime PROPERTY Zoning File Name MD�"�T��fLAq �Qt�t/:>�-�J�F' LOCATION Address/Location /S /i' A �M CT�' r� LJ / TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeais �{I City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section6�D�Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appeaf a decision made by the �R �NT �$�+/`� P``� l�,rs�(.S,S'l�itl on l�rt�l�N ,�`] , 19�. File number. �" �1( (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an ettor in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative officiai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. P�c.� s� �� 1�-��-��-� Attach additional AppiicanYs sr��r Datelrn�� agent_.�__,�i 1 � �u..3us3 ❑ APPLICATION FOR APPEAL the following reasons, among others: Appellant is an owner of residential property immediately adjacent to 15 Montcalm Court. Appellant believes that the action of the Plaruling Commission to approve a Special Condition Use Pernut for 15 Montcalm CourE has been in error for (i) Appellant believes that the action was taken pursuant to Section 60.13(12} of the St. Paul Zoning Code, which among other things requires that the Planning Commission shall find that the structure cannot be feasibly used for a conforming use. Applicant believes that the Planning Commission erroneously found that the siructure cannot be feasibly be used for a conforming use among other things. There is evidence in the file of at leasE one offer to the owners to buy the property for single family use, and no evidence to show that the property cannot feasibly be used tor a conforming use. It is merely a question of the owner obtauung the highese price, which may very likely be highest for a business use. To the best of AppellanYs knowledge, the owner of the property gave no testimony before the Planning Commission. (2) Appellant testified before the Planning Commission in favor of the Permit in expectaeion that a satisfactory enforceable agreement could be reached � befween the applicant for the Permit and operators of the proposed business with the immediate neighbors regarding various aspects of the use of the subject property, including among other things a requirement that staff inembers park in off-sireet parking spaces, and that residents of the property not have vehicles. Despite repeated good faiEh efforEs to reach an agreement dating back to December, - 1997, none was reached. Appellant believes thaf the proposed operator of the -`.= business has no intention to enter into an enforceable :agreement with�'immediate `= h 4 -- neig bors unposmg reasonable condihons on the operation of,the busuless.G,s:'°_a; � �' . - - ' ' . ix:�"c...`r.'�L.v%.v'.}:'.'a�'..�"�..'c�-'ff'.C!.is'� -.?,";� (3) The Planning Commission failed to adf the adverse effect on the resideniial nafure.:of the nei persons appearing before�the Planning Coiiimission letters to the Planning Commission. , ; �- � .;<. ; ` ��ti:: ��}� ��r, r�.�/ si�:ufr-r��ccS °iir��- �� I" �FY�C� �/"��'N� � _ �I - � . '' J � i '�y , (J+rUt� � G �'�/�P.o� /N3Tl � : - ""<i.'.=;� . � ^". . _:'{� �,- ;: -" a tion =' • �,='- _•:-�. x .- ; �« ;y -- S •�=>; =' ;: a -_ z . . , r""'.s;.o-.e:r^a- -- � :S:}� a -t y -�`z�.�•v_`.. s t.;�i%vY'y:' r,:.: # •-�� a =:. ". r�r%C�-:�"��°�a`��"�s _. � ��r - � ri ' ' �` i� s �� ,-} � - _ e_ _ 'Y%y�_" , ` ,_ ' : - -3r ai� -�t � FOR APPEAL Departn:ent of Planning and Economic Development Zoming Section 1100 Cin• Hall Ann�r 25 West Fourtlr Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT �/ City ��" �G.tc-( U St._ Zip Ss1IG Daytime phone �o�l b� PROPERTY Zoning File IVame y x�.—� h-9-f �.�—• /y1G�3Klcl�4 �t'�,7d1BhG �i LOCATION Address/Location /� f � � of the Zoning Code, to appeaf a decision made on 31zqr�8 3I3� (date o/ decision) �,�za� , �s 9�. +'�/�i f l;C�taY��t- rl.r��wvnirn� Fiie number: 90 ��' dd/ GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appea{s or the Planning Commission. .� a.��kn��t ` Attach addifiona! sheet if ApplicanYs signature �� +� Date �S `I�City _ �t / A� ; � ��-�� ' t�' )� � ATTACHMENT 1. The Pfanning Commission incorrectly concluded that the structure cannot feasibty be used for a conforming use. The Commission made that finding based on the fiact that the property has not sofd after s�me unspecified period. The structure was built and used many years as a single family residence and can still be used for that purpose. The property has not been priced propsrly or been on the market long enough. 2. The Planning Commission concluded that the use was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, this use is a commerciaf use; and it seems improbabie that the � needs of 21 residents could be met by only one fuil time and one part-time employee per shift. It is more realistic to expect that the care of 21 peopte with dimentiai/alzheimers wilf require significantly more emp{oyees. Consequently, with more empioyee traffic, visitors, and commercial deliveries, there wiil be a much more invasive impact than what the Planning Gommission found. 3. There are inadequate conditions on the proposed speciai condition use permit, to wit, (a) there are no provisions for landscaping around the employee parking to screen its visibility from the north and east; (b) there is no provision tor noise abatement for HVAC to proteot neighbors to the north and east; {c) there is no provision requiring the identification sign to be uniit. � � i city of saint paul plar�ing comrrussion resofution file number 9$-22 �te March 27, 1998 WHEREAS, Peter Keely, file # 48-01 l, has applied for a special condition use permit under the provisions of Section 66.413 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the purpose of converting a residential structure greater than 9000 square feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with demential alzheimer. Applicant is requesting a a special condition use permit to convert the groperry located at 15 Montcalm, legally described as see file; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on 3/5/98 and 3/19l98, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substanually reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: � FINDING5: 1. 15 Montcalm Court is a vacant residential structure of approximately 13,875 square feet that has fallen into disrepair. Located in a R-1 zoning district, the home was built in 1947 and was used as a single family residence until 1962. It was then converted to a 25 person residence for the Catholic order of the Oblate Fathers. In 1970 it became the "Lubavitch House" and was run by the Upper Midwest Merkos 3ewish Education Association as a synagogue and education retreat center. For apgroximately the last year the house has been vacant. 2. The applicant, who has an option to purchase the property, proposes to completely renovate the interior and e�erior of the house and convert it into a boazd and caze residence for the frail elderly and elderly with dementiaJAlzheimer. There would be 16 bedrooms with a maximum of 21 residents. Services by three full tune employees would include 24 hour supervision, food service and support activities. The facility would be licensed by the state and it would be run by Franciscan Health Caze which owns and operates St. Mary's senior residential housing in Highland Pazk. moved by Wencl � seconded by in favor Unanimous against 3. Section 50.413 (12) of the zoning code states that the planning commission may pernut � the conversion or reuse of residential structures of over nine thousand (9000) square feet if, following a public hearing, the planning commission makes the foliowing findings. a The structure cannot be feasibly used for a conforming use. This condition is met. This single family residential structure, because of its large size, as been used from 1962 to 1997 as either a religious residency facility or retreaUactiviry center. The properry has been vacant for the last yeaz and on the real estate market. b. The proposed use and plans are consistent with the comprehensive plan. This condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opportunities for individuals and households with special needs. c. The proposed use and structural alterations or additions are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and land uses. This condition is met. The site is surrounded by single family uses and the applicant proposes to restore the struchue and make it feel and look residential. The proposed use, � as a residence facility for frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer, is a quiet unobtrusive land use. The residents, because of their mental/physical limitations, wi11 not drive or be ailowed offthe premises. Tr�c generated by the facility wilt be visitors and 3 fu11 time and 3 part time employees. d. Parking for the new use sball be provided in accordance with the requirements of section 62.103 for new structnres. This condition is not met. The required pazking for this proposed facility is 13 pazking spaces. (21 beds would require 10 spaces and the three full time employees would require 3 spaces.) The applicant is proposing 7 off street pazking spaces and is asking that the planning commission modify this condition for the following reasons: Facility residents cannot drive nor are they allowed to have cars. 2. Parking would only be used by staff and visitors. The maximum number of staff at any one time would be 3 leaving 4 proposed spaces for visitors. 3. The more pazking that is required will make the facility look institutional and hinder the applicanYs objective of retaining the residential chazacter of the facility. , For the reasons above, modification of the condition is reasonable. � e. Applications for conversion or reuse shall include a notarized petition of two- thirds of the property owners within one hundred (100) feet of the property proposed for the reuse, site p3ans, building elevations and landscaping plans and other informarion which the planning commission may request. This condition is met. A notarized petition including the signatures of 11 of the 16 property owners eligible to sign the petition was submitted along with site and landscaping plans. 4. Section 64300(d) of the zoning code requires that before the planning commission may grant approval of a principle use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find that: a. The extent, locarion and intensity of the use will be in substantiai compiiance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea pans which were approved by the city council. This condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opportunities for individuals and households with special needs. � b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic • congestion in the public streets. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to result in less traffic--and, therefore, less potential for congestion-- than the religious activitylretreat center that used the structure from 1970 to1997. c. The use will not be detrimenta! to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger tbe public health, safety and general welfare. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to contnbute to the public health and welfaze by providing elderly caze services needed by the sunounding community. d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. This condition is met. The applicant has committed to restoring this dilapidated vacant structure to a residential appearance that will be compatible to the surrounding residential structures. e. The use shall, in all respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district � in which it is located. This condition is met. Insofar as the planning commission approves the modification of • conditions 3(d) above, the proposed use conforms to all the applicabie regulafions in the R-1 zoning district. 5. Section 64300 (� (1)of the zoning code states that the planning commission, after public hearing, may modify any or ali special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonabiy limit or prevent otherwise lawfui use of a piece of property or an existing structure and would result in exceprional undue hazdship to the owner of such properry or structure; provided that such modification will not unpair the intent and purpose of such special condition and is consistent with health morals and general welfaze of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff recommends approval of the special condition use permit with the modification of condition 3(d) in the February 25, 1998 staff report, that reflects a variance of six (6) pazking spaces. 2. Additional Conditions. Staff has reviewed the attached site plan and the additional conditions submitted by the developer. Those conditions which staff would recommend as appiicable and enforceable under the special condition use permit are as follows: i a. The special condition use permit is for a State Department of Health licensed Elderly Contract With Services and Board and Lodging With Services, or equivalent license serving elderly residents who have dementia/Alzheimer, of up to 16 bedrooms and a maximum of 21 residents. b. Permission for special condition use applies only as long as the number of facility residents is not increased and its purpose or location do not change and other conditions of the permit are met. c. Commercial deliveries will not occur between 7:30 p.m. and 730 a.m. d. A site plan consisting of the following conditions shall be submitted by April 19, 1998 to the City of Saint PauPs Zoning Administrator to insure conformance with the special condition use permit conditions and city zoning regulations: i. There will be a minimum of seven off street pazking spaces. The existing drive wiil remain in its cunent location with no parking in the front yazd; driveway width shall be sufficient to accommodate two vehicles passing at the front door. ii. There will be no new fencing in the front of the building. Fencing is allowed � around the southerly and easterly sides of the building. iii. Ai1 outdoor air conditioning equipment shall be located in the back yard and/ � • or on the roof of the back (bluf fl side of the building. iv. "Ihe trash receptacle azea shall be fully enclosed with a fence of six feet in height. v. No light shall spill over to adjacent properties from ea�terior lighting sources in excess of one (1) foot candle. vi. The premises may haue one identification sign not to exceed 6 squaze feet in area. � . u . Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West ��- A meefing of the Planning Commission of the City of Saini Paul was held Friday, March 27, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, Maddox, Morton, Treichel and Wencl and Messrs. �eld Jr., Gervais, Kong, Kramer, Mardell, McDonell, Nowiin and Vaught. Ms. *Nordin and Messrs. *Chavez, *Gordon, *Johnson, *Sharpe *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Donna Drummond, Nancy Frick, Tom Hasen, Nancy Homans, Pah James, Gary Pelrier, Roger Ryan, Larry Soderholm, Allan Torstenson and 7im Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff; and Mike Klassen from the Aepartment of Public Works. I. Approval of Minutes of March 13,1998 Ml1TTt)N: Commissioner Kramer moved approval of tl:e minutes ofMarch 13, I998; Commissioner Field seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton announced that at that moming's Steering Committee the position of quadrant liaison was discussed. Mr. Ford has drafted "Expectations for Neighborhood Liaisons" to be used as a guideline. Chair Morton further announced that the Steering Committee has proposed a resolution that states the Planning Commission opposes the refund of appea] fees to applicants when presented by the community councils, in response to a resolution being presented by Councilmember Coleman which states that community councils would be refunded applicarion fees for appeals. The Planning Commission's rationale for opposing Councilmember Coleman's resolution is that no group should be singled out to have a refund of a fee. Commissioner Kramer interjected that he thinks iYs a waiver, not a refund. . Commissioner Vaught commented that he thinks the issue remains the same. If there are appeal fees, they should apply to everyone; if there are not appeal fees, that also should apply to everyone. He sees no logic for exempting a particular category of appellants from the fee, and he is troubled if appeal fees are selectively applied to particular groups or individuals and not to others. The same rules should apply to everybody. Commissioner Field noted that an individua] or group of individuals, who wish to appeal may, S rather appealing on their own accotd, choose to pursue it through the district councii just for the waiving of the fee. Ae cleazly thinks that it would be bad policy to select one group for those fees to be waived. The motion on tke JToor to submit a resolution staring that the Planning Con:mission opposes tlte refund or waiving of fees for appeats by community councils carried unm:imously on a voice votz Chair Morton announced that thete will be another meeting of committees at the close of the meeting to choose different meeting dates for the Comprehensive Planning Cammittee and the Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Ford reported on his inquiry into the reasoning for the CiTy Council finding error on the part of the Planning Commission in upholding an appeal for the Citgo sign at the service station near Snelling Avenue and I-94. They concluded: 1) the site of the proposed sign does not constitute an unusual condition. The fact that the filling starion is located next to the freeway is not so unusual that the extra visibility provided by a higher sign is necessary; and 2) the greater height and greater size of a proposed sign would adversely affect adjacent residential properties. Due to the greater height and size of the proposed sign, it's light • would cast even more glare on surrounding properties. Copies of that resolution are available from Mr. Ford. Mr. Ford continued that at the last City Council meeting, there was an appeal by the applicant of the Planning Commission's denial of a special condition use permit for an auto specialty store on East 7th Street. That appeal also was upheld by the City Councii. They concluded that they could place enough conditions on it, and the servicing of autos was a limited part of what was going on there. It is limited to only one bay and to a very limited type of service. Most of the stare was more like a retail store than an auto servicing. Also before the City Council was the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a determination of similar use permit for the nursery �at the property on Point Douglas Road. That appeal was denied. TV. Zoning Comm,ittee #9R-Ol1 Mon alm Residen�e I P.P_Y,. re Keelv (Laid over from March 5, 1998) - Special condition use permit to allow conversion of residential structure greater than 9,000 sq. ft. As a residence for fraii elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimers. (Jim 7don, 266-6559, Southwest Team) M(1TION: Commissioner Wencl moved approval of the request for a specia! condition use permit to aldow conversion of a residentiat structure greater t)tan 9,000 sq. ft.,to be used as a • residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementiaUAlzhefiners with conditions. ! Commissioner Vaught noted that he voted in opposition at the Zoning Committee but will vote in approvaltoday. Commissioner Faricy stated that she had also voted in opposition at Zoning Committee but will vote in approval today. She researched the history and decided to change her vote because the residence has been vacant for one and a half years and is in disarray. The motion on the floor carried unanimously on a voice vote. #9R-027 Richard F.itel - Rezoning to allow construction and operation of an auto repair facility at the southwest corner of Interstate 35E frontage road between Larpenteur and Wheelock Parkway. (Donna Drummond, 266-6556, Northwest Team) Commissioner Wencl stated that the south portion will be sold to the state of Minnesota after the rezoning occurs. The north portion that fronts on Larpenteur will be used for auto repair. In 1984 the Planning Commission passed a resolution that stated that rezoned properties that also needed a special condition use permit could be decided by staff instead of coming back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kramer said that he voted against this at Committee because this property will be divided into two pieces after the rezoning. The remaining piece of B-3 properiy will belong to the state, so we do not know what the ultimate proposed use of that piece will be. Commissioner Vaught stated that he also voted against it at the committee level and he will vote � against it again today if the Planning Commission will be taking the vote today because it is spotrezoning. Commissioner Nowlin said that he is also concemed about this case. It concems him to put a cotnmercial use so near to a school. He is also concemed that the policy of staff making the decision on a special condition use permit if a rezoned parcel needed it, may be against state ]aw. He feels that iYs very important that a speciai condirion use permit after rezoning, be brought back to the Planning Commission so that the Commission can assure that vegetative treatment is done and that the use is properly buffered, in this case, both from the school and the freeway. ]�OTTON: Cvmmissioner Field moved that this case be laid over and referred back to the Zoning Comminee for furtker action on Apri12, I998. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion which carried unanimnusly on a voice vote. �4R-0'{4Vi& oria NP.C - Nonconforming Use Permit to allow re-establishment of general auto repair at 951 White Bear Avenue. (A1 Torstenson, 266-6579, Northeast Team) Commissioner Wencl reported that there was a great deal af discussion at Zoning Committee as to whether this had actually been an approved use in operation, etc. MOTTON: Commissioner Wencl moved denial of the requested nonconforming use permit to allow re-establishment ofgenerat auto repair at 951 White BearAvenue. The morion carried unanimously on a voice vote. u OF THE ZONING C�MMITTEE Y � 9� �998 = 3:3 p.m. � � — � �S City Council Chambers, 3rd Ftoor • City Hatl and CouR House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: • ❑ ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chavez, Faricy, Gordon, Kramer, Morton, Vaught and Wencl Field (excused) Peter Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Beth Bartz, Donna Drummond, Pattie Kelley, Roger Ryan, AIIan Torstenson and Jim Zdon of the Planning Division. The meeting was chaired by Barbara Wencl, Vice Chair. Montcalm Residence 1 Peter Keely, Zoning Fi(e 98-011 - Specia! condition use permit to allow conversion of residential structure greater than 9,000 square feet as a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementia ! Alzheimer. A parking variance of up to six spaces and a front yard setback variance of approximateiy twenty feet to allow four parking spaces. Jim Zdon gave a brief overview of the Zoning Committee Meeting held March 5th in which the developer's applicatio� had changed considerably from what was then reflected in the staff report. He explained this change was due to negotiations with the developer and some neighborhood residents, as wel4 as the applicant submitting a f+ve page document listing various conditions to attach to the special condition use permit. Mr. Zdon said the Zoning Committee laid this item over in order for staff to review tfie revised site plan and proposed conditions. He referred to seven letters in opposition that staff has received, and one letter from a proposed buyer of the property who would like to make the structure into a single family home. Mr. Zdon said staff has reviewed the site plan and the five pages of conditions, and he presented the staff report and recommendations and explained staff recommends approval of the Special Condition Use Permit wfth a modification of condition 3(d) of the February 25th staff report that reflects a variance of six parking spaces, and with further conditions as follows: 1} The special condition use permit is for a State Department of Heaith licensed Elderly Contract with Services and Board & Lodging with Services, or equivalent license serving elderly resident who have dementia/Alzheimer; of up to 18 bedrooms and a maximum of 21 residents; 2) Permission for speciai condition use applies only as {ong as the number of facility residents is not increased and its purpose or location do not change and other conditions of the permit are met; 3) Commercial deliveries witl not occur between 7:30 pm and 7:30 am.; 4} A site pian consisting of the following conditions shall be submitted by April 19, 1998 to tfie City of Saint Paul's Zoning Administrator to insure conformance with the special condition use permit conditions and c+ty zoning regulations: a) there wiil be a maximum of seven off street parking spaces. The existing drive wil4 remain in its current focation with no parking in the fro�t yard a�d the driveway width shali be sufficient to accommodate two vehicles passing at the front door; b) ihere wili be no new fencing in the fronf of the building. Fencing is ailowed around the southerly and easterly sides of the building; c) all outdoor air conditioning equipment shall be located in the back yard andior on the roof of the back (biuf� side ofi the building; d) the trash receptacle area shall be fully enclosed with a fence of six feet in height; e) no light shall spill over to adjacent properties from exterior Iigfiting sources in excess of one (1) foot candie; and fl the premises may have one identification sign not to exceed six (6} square feet in area. Upon question of Gommissioner Morton, Jim Zdon said the maximum sign size is six square feet. Zoning Committee Minutes March 19, 1998 ---Marttaafm�idence/Peter Keely {98-011) . Page Two At the questions of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Zdon explained there is a limited amount of space on fhe east bluff side of the building, and because the bluff is within approximatefy 30 feet from the back of the building any additional parking spaces would be difficult. He also referred to the revised site plan which indicates seven parking spaces. Mr. Zdon further expiained it will be up to the developer and the neighbors to both reach agreement and determine which legal instrument they will use, and he said they are proceeding to do so. Pete� I<eely, (4648 Oakland Avenue South, Minneapo4is, Minnesota), appeared and stated that since the last Zoning Committee meeting, conditions have been removed from the SCUP and that a letter of agreement wili be recorded addressing those issues, although that document is not finalized because of minor language changes to clarify the true name of the license. Mr. Keely referred to parking in the rear and said it could be done but wouid be difficuit. He explained because this is a residence for seniors who need some access to the outdoors, their idea was to provide that access in that area. Mr. Keely noted this facility has to be run by the terms written into the lease and that part of that is no resident can own a car or keep a car within 1,000 feet of the facility, and that wiil be written into to the contract of each individuai reside�t. Commissioner Gordon spoke to the Ietter of conditions Mr. Keely referred to and requested him, as part of the record, to leave a copy with staff. Mr. Keely expressed some concern with that request as the letter is not a part of the speciai condition use permit, and Commissioner Gordon expiained because it is a part of the recording staff should have a copy of it on records, and Mr. Keely agreed to do so. • Upon questions of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Keely said the instrument between himseifi and the neighbors is enforceable, that three of the seven parking spaces wii! be occupied by fu{I time staff, and he expiained why he wouid prefer not to have additional parking on the south side of the building. At the question of Commissioner Faricy, Peter Keely explained the facility will be operated with three full time staff members who wift be on duty at alf times, and other part time staff includes maintenance workers, deliveries, and administrators. Commissioner Faricy said it is her understanding tfiat the Franciscan Community was up for sale and she questioned how that will affect this residence. Mr. Keely explained the sale is at the board level but not at the functionai levei, and he said if it were to be soid, the obligations would be the same because the agreement is wsitten through the building owner. Mr. Prichard (9 Montcalm Court) appeared and spoke in support of the proposai and confirmed agreement has been reached on the substantive points although it has not yet be signed. He also said he has been advised that Franciscan Homes has seen the current draft and has indicated their willingness to abide by it. Commissioner Vaugfit stated he feeis wfiat the residents have done with the developer is totaily appropriate in terms of the agreement, but he doesn't want anyone to be misled as to which of those issues are enforceable as a part of a SCUP because many of them are not. � Commissioner Gordon agreed stating they are enforceable but not by requesting the SCUP be revoked. He gave the example that if cars were parked within the 1,000 feet, a lawsuit may have to be filed in District Cou�t against the owner of the prope�ty a�d to obtain an order from the Court for that condition to be compiied with. Zoning Committee Minutes March 19, 1998 r,Y �_ l��'i5 AAe�rtcatm Re�i�1Peter Keely (98-011) � • Page Three Upon questions of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Prichard said the parking variance is acceptabie to him premised on their agreement that the residents wiI{ not have cars, and his strong preference is that there net be off street parking in the front yard. John Kincaid (693 Montcalm) appeared and spoke in opposftion stating this proposal does change the character of the neigfibofiood. He said as ft is right now there is aimost no parking availabie on Montcalm, and this is putting a business in a neighbofiood that had none before which he believes to be a detriment to the area. Robert Albrecht (615 Montcalm) appeared and spoke in opposition to the appfication sfating he has lived in his home for nineteen years. He said he's much less interested in the details that have been discussed today as he is to the substance of the appiication, which is to introduce a commerciai operation in the midst of one of the nicer neighborhoods in Saint Paul, and he urged the Committee to deny the application. Mike Murphy (609 Montcalm) appeared and said he's lived in his home since 1973, and both he and his wife are in opposition to granting this specia! condition use permit. He said this is fundamentally one of the most historic and pristine residentiai and highest paying tax neighborhoods in the City, and it is not a commerciaf area. Mr. Murphy referred to the parking issue and said although the arrangement for no parking within 1,000 feet of the focation may suit other neighbors, parking wiil be pushed up the street to where he lives, and they are opposed to that. At questions brought up by Mr. Murphy, Jim Zdon expiained the intent of this pe�mit is for a residentiat � facility for the frail elderiy with dementia or Aizheimer with a maximum of 21 residents, and this SCUP does not address the issue of a tease. He further expiained this permK is for a particular use only, and if another use is intended, the owner of the property needs to come back to this committee for that request. Peter Keely responded stating elderly people do have a ptace in communities. He refeRed to comments made pertaining to the residentiai character and said they are not changing the look of the building and in order for this venture work for them, they need to make it a residerrtiai buiiding. Commissioner Faricy referred to staff recommendation 2{a) and recommended language be changed to "elderly who have dementia/Aizheime�'. Mr. Keely agreed and said that language wiit be ctarified as well as changing the name of the contract to the correct name of the finro licenses (the first to Elderly Contract with Services, and the second to Board and Lodging with Services). No one else appeared, and the public hearing was ciosed. Commissioner Gordon moved approval of the staff recommendation with language in paragraph 2(a) amended to read "eiderly residents who have Afzheimer or dementia", and the motion was seconded. Commissioner Faricy sa+d although she can't object with the information this Cammittee has, she strongly believes approving the application wil! create a significant parking probiem in this neighborhood, and for ihai reason she will not support the motion. Commissioner Faricy further expressed concern that not enough full time staff are being provided to care for the number of residents. � Commissioner Vaught expressed concem when it is suggested that because someone pays high property taxes that they have a right to greater enJoyment of their property than people who pay lower property taxes. However, he stated he cannot support the motion as he believes this is a wrong use for this particular area. Zoning Committee Minutes March 19, 1998 � ivfontcalm es�lPeter Kee(y (98-011) Page Four Commissioner Gordon stated he moved approvai of the permit because he doesn't see a fundamentai change in the requested use from its previous use. He teferred to concems that parking is troublesome, but said in reviewing correspondence from neighbors they don't want the lawn tom up nor a paved parking lot. Commissioner Gordon stated the neighbors have spent a considerable amount o4 time discussing the application with the developer and are comfortable with the variance, and he therefore believes it should be approved. Commissioner MoRon spoke in agreement with comments made by Commissioner Gordon and said she aiso is impressed with the fact that neigfibors have taken the time and effort to come to agreement wiih the developer, but more thari anything this will be the residence for 21 people who have the opportunity to continue to live in a quiet, peaceful neighborhood. Commissioner Chavez referred to the parking issue and said if there were p�oblems the previous use woufd have indicated so. Upon question of Commissioner Chavez, �ce Chair Wencl reiterated that the motion is to the staff recommendation dated March 11, 1998 which includes the findings. Commissioner Kramer said he will be voting in support of the motion but that there are staff findings that shouid be amended to reflect written testimony received. Commissioner Vaught agreed with Commissioner Kramer pertaining to amending some of the staff • recommendations. He said the Zoning Code specifies conditions under which a SCUP can be granted and if a certain amount of those conditions are not met the SCUP should not be granted. Commissioner Kramer referred to the finding that the property in questions cannot be put to a reasonable use, and stated that finding is not met. Roger Ftyan said this is an altowed use subject to special condition and is permitted in a single famify district. Mr. Ryan further explai�ed that this is neither a permitted use or a special condition use, which is why the applicant is requesting a conversion of a farge residential stnacture. Commissioner Kramer requested that the motion inctude striking language in the findings as foliows: "so far there have been no buyers wil{ing to purchase it and renovate it as a singfe family home", and Commissioner Gordon accepted that as a friendiy amendment. Commissioner Faricy called for the question. Roll call for the debate to end. Adopted Yeas -'7 Nays - 0 Roll call on the motion to approve the staff recommendation with the amended language in paragraph 2(a) changed to "elderly residents who have Aizheimer or dementia°, and to strike language in the findings noted above. . Adopted Yeas - 5 Drafted by: Pattie Kelley Recording Secretary Nays - 2 (FaricyNaught) Submitted by: � , v im Zdon � South�t Quadrant Approved by: �� Barbara Wenci Vice Chair � `� � -� � _- EcEiv�� MICHAEL D. GOLDNER FEB 2 5 j998 ZONING February 24, 199$ � Zoning Committee of the St Paul Planning Commission 25 West Fourth Street 11Q0 City Hall Annex St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: [,oning Fiie No.: y�U l i Zoning File Name: Montcalm Residence/Peter Keely Ladies and Gentlemen: What a wonderful possibilityf Using the prime property at 15 Montcalm Court to further a worthwhile social purpose while, at the same dme, preserving the single family residenaal character and propeny values of the neighborhood wili be a terrific coup if you can pull it off. I sincerely wish you well in that regard. I must say, though, that I have the foliowing concerns: ,_ _ 1. That special care be taken io assure that exterior changes or improvements to the building, changes to the portions of the pmperty not covered by ihe building and parking arrangements � make the properry appear to be commercial; and 2. That the proposed use not merely be a step toward other uses that would have an adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood or propeny values. 1 am particulazly concerned about the appearance of the pazldng airangements as not being compatible with a single family residenaal environment. If my concerns can be sadsfactorily addressed in the special condiaon use pemrit, I would not be opposed to issuance of the permit In that regard, I assume that the pemut wili be conditional upon the property being broughi up to code and that any violafion of any of the conditions set forth in the pemrit wiil resuit in teimination of the pernrit and reversion of the permitted uses of the property to single family residential use. - . � � -�� S � Good luck on this project. Sincerely, � Michael . oldner 1516 Ed cu be Road St. Paul, nnesota SSl lb c: Mike Harris Dan Bostrom Kathy Lantry n �I . 63/19/19:•^, H3:35 612�390267 � • . .... March 1� 1998 n � Hello resident af our neighborhood, LAMPERTS _. __ __ ---- -PA6E— El — I'm a neighbor concemed about the special condition use permit under consideration for 35 Montcaim Couit. My concem is that re-zoning ouz neighborhood to a cominercial use, will change our area from a peaceful, "single family h�me" neighborhood (something we pos�ihiy take for gianted), to a busy, noisy locarion. This letter is to inform you that an Alzheimer care facility it being considered for 15 Montcalm Court. As I understand, the .city requiremenu call for a parS:ing 1ot ta replace a laige porzion of the front and rear lawn. I feei that the traffic increase and the. additianal pazlang lot due to this property being re-zoned, not only tivill affect the uanquility of our neighborlmod, but this Al�eimer Facility wili become an eyesore, depreciating all homes surrounding 15 Montcalm. My other concem is that the proposal states patienu wi11 park not cioser that 1,000 feet of the 15 Montcalm residence. Those of us that live 1,000 feet away could see the new residents storing cars past this 1,000 foot restriction making ow entire neighborhood appear as a used car lot. I quesrion the safety of our children and �randchildcen with the incre�ed uaffic from Alzheimer patients aztd the families of the patients. As you are aware we pay prime tate taxes. I believe I deserve and my neighbors ulike, to continue to enjoy this beautiful, quiet neighborhood. I also am aware ihat there have been sevual offeis made hy families to purchase 15 Montcalm Court (for the use intended, a single family home). Legitimate, compeUdve and fare offers. I believe that the owners of IS Montcalm Court will sell out the neigHlsorhood to the highest bidtler, regerdless of the impact on the surrounding residents. Ouc only pcotecrion is to insure that the St. Paul Zoning Committ�e (and then City Council) dces not change this residential zone into commercial. Protect ynurself by writing to ourcounsel members and sttending this zoning committee meeting. Meeting: Re: Proposal before Zoning Committee Planning Commission March 19, 1998 3:00 pm 3`� floor of City Hall St. Paul City Counsel Chamber I have anclosed copies of two lecters from local residents expressing their concem of fhe possible negative change ta aur neighborhood. P.S If you can not attend the committee meeting, please immediately fax a letter to the Zoning Committee aitention 3im Zdon, Zoning flffice at (612} 228-3314: - Zoning Comcnittee 25 West 4`� St t z�o Ciry Hati Aiinex St. Pau1, MN•55t02 (612}2b6-6559 . Si�eiely, A very concerned neighbor ,�- � j°- . l'`'1 Q- � Dn nJ . . . _ . . .•� . . t � . ..... . . . � .. �� a � � .,._ K�-��N M�•�" ..��'�e� LAUsE OF 1 �k. ►b . .r�x�k ri.�a� � � ►�►2,� f�G*� � ►Jss �7 . � � ► L � S � ►.� C�'� , r MAR-19-98 1.']4o PM DREW_KASqNUK 522 0846 - - P_01 _� � � � �� MARCFI 18TH 1998 RE: ZUNING FILE NUMB$R 9g-011 ZOAiING COMIvII'ITEE 25 WE ST FOURTf I STREET 1100 CITY HAI,I, ANNE}{ ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55 ] 02 I�EAR MFt. JIM ZDON, ZONING OFPICE: PLEASE READ THIS I..ETTER DURING THE SCHEDUL.�D MF,ETII�IG AT 3:00 P.M. MARCI� 19I�I 1498. IF POSS7BE MAICF, COPIES FOR AI.L IN A'I'TF.'NDLNCH. 70 ANY A"T�IETIAII3G'iIIL ME�TING REGARI)TNG li MOUNI'CALM COURT AS MY WIE� AND I REGRET n wE ARE Urt ARi F TO ATTENI) T� Ng;��i�. � PERSON. COI�ICF,RNED NETC3HBORS IN T�3E AREA HAVE ASKED MY WIN� AND T TO LET T'EiE NEIG�iBORS AND Tf CTI'Y OF�ICIALS KNOW THAT WE ARE 1N1'P.RPSTED IN PURCHASING IS MOTJN`ICALM COURT, • MY WI2�'E AND Oi1R POUR DAUGFITERS WOULD OCCUPY AND USE THfi PROPERTY AS TT WAS BUII,T ANT? DESIGNED AS A SINGLE FAMII�Y HOME. R'F: FiAVE MADE SEVERAI. WRTTT'k,N OFFERS TO'I'�lE SELLEI2S AS ITTGH AS 5275,000 HOWEVER THE SELLERS WANiED MORE FOR THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIl��fE.. W1ILN V� MAI)E I�IL OFFER3IT� SELIBRS WERE ASKING 5310,000 F'Olt 7I� PROPERTY. WE RL;ALIZE TI-iAT ANY SEI.LER WOULD WANf AS MUCH AS P053IB1.E FOR A HOME TI ARE Sf ;I,LING SO WE UNDERSTAND Wf3Y Tf HAVE REJ'ECT� oUR SEVERAL WRI1 f�I OFF�:RS. Tf� HOME IS VERX UII.APIDATED IN NTBD OF MAJOR RESTORATIQi�I SO WE FEiLT OUR OFFf�RS HAVE BEEN FAIR. M7' WIFE ANA I HAVE RP.MOI7ELF.D HOMES FqUR TFiE: pAST 15 Yf;ARS MOST IId NE�D OF MAIOR ItEf-iAB SOME READy FOR TI II? RECKTNG BALL. WE HA VE RECYCI.ED THEM INTO SOME THfs MCEST HOMES ]N THE ARI;A TfiUS KEEP7NG Tf�v1 ON TI-IF. TAX ROI..ES AND Il3CREASING SUI2ROUNDII�IG PROPI;RTY VALUES. WE WOULD GREAIZY ENJOY RECYCLING 15 MOUNT CALM COURT. IT MAY BE MORE PROFTI'ABI.E FOR TE-IE INVESTORS CURRIiM TRYING TO CTL#NGE THE . HOME INTO A HF,AVY COMNIERCIAL USAGE HOWEVLR IT IS OL7R OPION TI�AT Tf1L NEIGHBOR HUOD WTLL SUFFk;R AT3D SURROUNDJNG��OMES WOULD LaSE VALL7E IF 15 MUUNTCAI,M COUKT IT IS CHANGE:D FRQM RESID�IAL TO COMMEFtCIAL PROPFj.E27Y. MPR-19T93 1Z:44 P� � DRE41_K4iBFiNUK 522 0846 -- P= B2 � � � t �/ TT IS NOT OUR INT�NTION TO UPSET TFIii SELLERS ORNFIGfiBORS WfiO WANT AN Ai � T�IIdER FACII,II'Y II�T TF�Rf: NEI(sF�ORH04B RA�R OUR INI'EN tIUN IS TO ��RM TI�E COMIvI[JNI'IY AND CTIY OFFICIALS T�FIAT TiiL; OPIION IS STILL OPLZ.t TO KEF:P Tfifs ARL•A AS IT WAS 3N7�ENDED A SINGLE FAMiLy RESIDENI'IAI. NEIGHBORHOOD. . WE ARE S1ILI, INTEP.LSTE.� IN pURCHASING Tf� f�UML I-TOW EVf;R IIi$ SEFLT.F.RS HAVE INl'ORMED US T'F�AT T'HEY WOULD ONLY LOOK AT OUR OFFEFtS IF Tl� CTT'Y DBNIES Tf� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT T111;REFORF CANCELIN'G TF�RFi CURRhyNT PURCT�ASE CONI'I23GbNf CUNTRAC7. WE HOPE TO NEGOTIATE A SIITrABI,E PURCf1ASE AGREEiMP.21T' WIT�i 1IiE SELI.ERS AS SOON AS POSSU3E.E. WE ASK THAT THE CITY REJECT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW US A�EW r.� � TH IF WE ARE�: UNABI� TO RF,ACFI AN AGRF.EMIfiNf '1 FiAN T� PROC;ESS CAN CONTINiJ� WIiL:RE R IS CCJRREN'fLY. WE IiOPE YOIJ �IAVE CAREFUIZY CONSIDERED UUR PROPOSAI. AND F�ECT YOU TO DO WHA'1' IS BEST FOR YOUR rAMILIES ANA YOUR COMMUNITY. TF "IT3I3RE ARE ANY QUF.STiONS P�F,I, IRE:E TO CONTACT US AT O'UR HOML AT 522-0846. SINCERELY ��-�%��.�.� DREW G. KABANUK �; (��__ TERR.I L. KAT3ANUK � � From: To: Date: Subject: � Sonyama <SOnyama�aol.com> STPAUL.SmtpMimel"james.zdon") 3(19(98 1:08pm Special use permi[. for 15 Montcalm Court Dear Mr. Zdon, After our conversation this morning I consolidated my thoughts about the intended use of 15 Montcalm Court. �� 1 �� I chose to live in this neighborhoocl because beauty and the aesthetics of the drive to my home is very important to me - the beauty of old architecture and landscaping - of feelings of security and responsible, caring neighbors. 2 have even complained to a neigribor about a child�s unsightly car parked in front of my house - a fact I wish I could reverse in hindsight - but I mention this point to show you how deeply I feel about my environment's attractiveness. In fact, although our street's residents are never invasive of privacy, they a11 seem to have some element about which they feel sufficienCly strong to make note of it. One neighbor who we call "The Mayor of Montcalm Place" has chastised me for driving too £ast on a street where he and others walk every day. I took seriously his concern for community responsibility and slow down every time I see his house. Not only do we have pride of community, we also feel we have some abiliCy to monitor the security of our environment by calling each other when we see strange aars or people on the street to make sure everything is alright. This is possible with a rather stable population where we know people's cars and faces. When the burglaries were oacuring last summer on Edgecumb, we were quite alert about diPferent cars driving on the street. We all £eel comfortable in walking at any time on the street which mosC of us do with our dogs. BuC, I have been very uncomfortable reaching the south end of the stxeet because strange cars were parked, idling, with unknown people in them. I didn't like the feeling. What were they doing there at 10:00 at night - casing our street? It was enough for me to run home, even with my large dog. In the context of the environment 2've described, I would make the following observations to you. Hopefully they wi11 be considered. 1. The impact of any one property and its use is much wider than the adjacent lOD £eet or even 350 feet; the impact is on the entire Place - Montcalm Place. 2. to � 3. 4. Yet, I don't believe we, the Place, has been informed of what is about happen - by the developers or the city. Nor do we know what the closest neighbors who have apparently been Included are requesting in their reguirements. This is clearly a residential community. Having a religious community ��-�� as part of it is different than having profit-making institution as part of it. Surely the best thing £or the street is to maintain the individual sense of pride, responsibility, and sense of empowerment to maintain our environment. Working with an institution is a very diE£erent situation, especially an institution � with less permanent personnel who have no stake in the immediate community. And, just perhaps this is just the best thing possible. We wouldn't know without being informed. Thank you for your consideration and time. Sonya Anderson 640 MOntcalm PlaCe � U • ��-��s i • � ROHERi H.CFIn\DLER ROD�EY J. Ye50V ' PatiL p. BRO�' SCOTI P.:SOESi �iasx v. sozx d]tY-JO C.VE%SOLn20 OF GOL'T'SEL XATHERI\E VESSEYES' �AL50 AD:ftSTED t0 PRACS[CE I\ wI5G0.\'SI� March 7 9, 7 998 Zoning Committee Attn: James Zdon 25 West Fourth Street 7100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55] 02 Re: 15 Montcalm Court Dear Mr. Zdon: 4700 NoawEST CEN1'EH 90 $OC?8 $EVE`.TH $Tg£ET �LI\'`'FdPOLZS,TIZV_i£S02A 55402 (612) 347-0282 HA1V� DELIVERED i live at 607 Montcalm Place, which is rivo blocks away from 15 Montcalm Court. I am extremely concerned that a special condition use permit may be granted to allow this property to be used as a care facility. The paving of any of this propeny beyond a traditional driveway is totaliy inappropriate for a residential neaghborhood. I am also very concerned that this facility will cause an increase in traffic over the residential streets adjacent to the property. Many young families have moved to this neighborhood to take advantage of the fine schools in the area. Everyone in this neighborhood pays extremely high taxes to live in one of the nicest residential neighborhoods in the City. I am amazed that anyone would seriousiy consider a]lowing this use in this neighborhood which will certainly cause a decrease in property values and cause many of us to consider moving out of the neighborhood. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the committee meeting this afternoon. Please provide copies of this letter to the committee members. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely-yours, � �l� .Paui D. Brown '�: � GHANDLE$ AI\TD MASO�T, LTD. ATTOBFEYS AT LA�V 1GO7 PIOti£E$ BUILDI\G 336 1�'ORTH ROBEHT' STREET S.uvr Paui, bfxv*r�soxa ssioi {612) 228-0497 FAX (612) 228-923> AEPLY TO SdL`ii PAUL OFPSCE cc: Council Member Michael Harris by hand delivery The Honorable Norman Coleman by hand delivery 03/29i98� TAi' C8:19 FetiY 6126A65963 Sue and Say f�0o1 . Jay Johnson and Sue Ditmanson 694 Montcalm Pface St. °aul, MN 55116 Re: fte-aoning of the property at 15 Montcaim Court. Dear Mr. Jim Zdon and fhe Zoning Office: f wouid like to voice my concern and strong opposition to the re-zoning considerations of 15 Montcalm Court. l � ` `�j 1 believe this is a beautiful neighborhood of singie family homes and feel this is the way it shouid stay. ! recently moved in to the area and would not have knowing a4 your re-zoning plans. My property values are going to significantly drop by your re-zoning ofi this property. 1 setiously doubt you are going to lower my property taxes to accommodate this drop. i wonder how many other beaut'rfui, old neighborhoods have started their deteriorafion by having an eye sore home bought up by an uncaring business interest. I can not be4ieve that ths taxes collected on this one property are crucial to the city of St. Paul. • The options of this property becoming a sing{e farni(y hame have not 6een exhausted. The property has been left to run down so that the renovation expense is prohibitive at ifs present price. 1 feel the value of this house is whaf the market wii( bear by single famity buyers. If the price needs to be dropped to meet this value, so be it. The sale of my home had to be dropped to meet the community value. That is the facfs of selling a home. I wouid afso fike to bring up the fact that the use of this home in the past is, seemingly, outside of the definition of single family zoning. Was there no laws to protect this neighborhood or was there just no enforcement of thesa laws. My point is, please give this property back to the neighbofiood. The increased traffic, lawns tumed into parking lots, and the instittstionalizing of the neighborhood are of great concern to me. Piease don't fet the present owners 15 Montcalm Court se�l out the neighborhood, as they have, seemingly, overstepped fhe boundaries af a singie family zoning in the past. i hope the zoning committee and the city councii will protect us from the selfing out of a neighborhaod. � G MRR-18-1998 10�28 H 8 BC MRRKETING 612 951 3465 P.fll _ 1�. ' � ��'�'I �c�o� � �. ��C� a�' -�t �� / Murphy, Mike (MN27) . _^ _ _ __ . . _. __.__ __.—� To: Murphy, Mike (MN27) Subject: 15 Montcaim Court Zoning Gommittee 25 West Fourth Street �'f 00 City Hall Annex St. Pau[, Mn. 55102 Attn: Jim Zdon, Zoning O�ce This memo is in regard to the proposed speciai condition use permit under consideration for 15 Montcalm Court Our home, which is now in my wife Mary Lynn's name, is at 6�9 Montca(m Pface. We have lived on Montcalm since 1973, and highly value its' unique resident�al charm- one ot the nicest in the city! For 25 years we have paid some of the highest residentiai taxes �n St Pau! because we so appreciate the character of th�s htBe area and want to live there, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ALZHEIMER CARE FACILITY AT 15 MONTCALM COURT! The increase in traffic, pask+ng problems, 24 hour a day vendors and support staff coming and �oing, large trash containers in view(probabiy), medical waste di5posai requirements, assisted paiienfs walk�ng in the streets ( there are anly limited sidewalks)... we didn't sign up for this! 7HIS IS A RESIDEN7IAL NEIGNBORNOOD, NOl" COMMERCIAL. Over the last 25 years I would estimate the 25 or so homeowners on Montcalm have paid in excess of S3million in taxes, on a cumulative basis. If this iovely neighborhood deteriorates, it will mean less taxes to the city. Already, one substantiai home adjacent to the proposed care center has gone unsold for over 6 months- I wondered why,now t know! We are not opposed to Alzheimer care. Lord knows we'If all probably be there someday. We are very much opposed to granting a spec+al use permit tor 15 Montcalm CouR and permanently defacing a great oid St Paui neighborhood. • �"�r.cr�c, � �-� ��`'� � `� Edward L(Mike) and Mary Lynn Murphy r/ � 609 Montcaim Piace ��,/ � St Paui. Mn. 55t16 U � � ��: �� 1 3�� . z ��,,-, ��" � �. �-� l �� s � Page 1 Y�� ,"� . �� : g s �, �� G 2 � 1 TOTFiL P.01 POLSKI & POLSKI ID� MAR 18'98 15:41 No.005 P,O1 � PLSKI ffRS7AR CENtER SUITE1�12 l01 EASY FIFTH STREET SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA 551D7 •1808 TELfPHONE: (672)224-1776 FAX (612J22d-0B83 ��_�� OC P ��K� ATfORNEYSAiIAW March 38, 1998 Zoning Committee of the St. Paul Planning Commission RobertJ.Polski 1421-7977 Robert J. PoLSki, Jr. Membar O� the Mlnnstctc and Wiscons�n Bnrs VIA FAX ONLY NO. 228•3314 Attention: Jim Zdon Re: Property address: 15 Montcalm Court - Special Condition llse Permit Dear Mr. Zdon: I represent Monica A. Polski relating to a speciai use permit application af 15 • Montcalm Court for the operafian of an a(zheimer's care facility. Monica resides at 590 Montcalm. We just learned of the zoning committee hearing schedu{ed for Thursday, March 19, 1998. Neither Monica nor myself are able to attend that meeting, therefore, 1 ask that you accept this letter in lieu of our appearance. Monica strongly opposes the proposed special condition use permit in this residential neighborhood. As you know, this neighborhood consists of upper bracket homes in a very desirabie St. Pau1 location. Obviously, a care faci4ity for alzheimer patients is out of character with the neighborhood and its present use. Surely, the present owners of 15 Montcalm Court could sell the property as a residence due to its very desirable location. Why is it necessary to use it as samething other fhan a residential home? i, myseif, would be very interested in purchasing that prope�ty as a residence, if the opportunity presented itself. I am sure fhere are other areas of the city more fitting for a oare facility other than the one proposed ai 15 Montcalm Cou�t. Sincerefy, � �� : Robert J. o{ski, Jr RJPfjth � � almis�polslJ�m�xo�unpmle ��-�SS � February 27, 1498 Zoning Committee Saint Paul Planuina Commission Re: Montcalm ResidencelPeter Keely Unfortunately, I will be out of town at the time of your meeting. Please accept my comments in this form. My concern is that the neighborhood is presenfly a quiet one with not a lot of iraffic. The proposal before you will increase tra�c and change the neighbochood from residenrial. The pazking requirement will make that piece of property resemble a used caz lot. As I understand, fhe city wants space for 12 cars. That will result in the loss of the small front yazd and the small back and side yard will be hard-pressed to pazk these � cazs. If a screen is used, it would help but I doubt it would be effecfive. I quesrion the financial ability to tum this buiiding into what they pxopose and then what? Also, the proposal states patients will pazk not closer than 1,000 feet of the 15 Montcalm residence, I question whether yuu really want alzheimer patients driving anywhere. T$ you, ! Jo Kinkead 6 Montcalm Place Saint Paul, MN 55116 . �� Nfarch 18, 1998 Zoniag CommiEEee Saint Paul Planning Commission Re, i 3 Montcaim Court Unfortunately I will not be at the meeting but want to voice my concems. I moved into the city from the suburbs on the assumption that if I bought in a quiet residential neighborhood it would remain so. Never did I dream that a neighborhood of suhstantial housing investments ( and high taxes), usually a guarantee of neighborhood stability, would be endangered by rezoning! You aze in a very bad situation when the home values are not guazanteed by a zoning thae is strieyly single family residentiai. This is above and beyond the fact that it is quiet, with many walkers, and without leeway for increased parking either on site or in ihe street. Street parking and walkers on that curve would be dangerous and the addit3onal parking needed by �ielivery trucks and service workers wouid defuutely change the residential quiet that r exists now. It is this quiet and serenity that keeps the home values lugh. yVhy would yon want to discredit the stability of one of St. Paul's nicest n€ighborhoods? Certainiy ther� are num�rous sit�s for an Alzheimer facility in this big city4 Karin Eriekson, a ver� eoneerned neighbor / �, /.-' . ` G ' � r /� J �� LjV ��_ ��;�v � lolvS` �oNr`l'�4LM �'G/!N� $T��i4UC ��N <5 �5%/6 . � � 2-25-98 Zoning File Number 98-011 Zoning Committee 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex St. Faul, Minnesota 55102 Attention: Jim Zdon, Zoning Office: ► : \i �� This is in regard to the proposed special condition use permit under consideration for 15 Montcalm Court. My property extends to within a few feet of 15 Montcalm Court. I am convinced that my property and all other property nearby would be significantly depreciated by the developer's proposed establishment of an Alzheimer care facility at this location. Granted, its proposed use sounds benign but it is nonetheless a profit-making venture for its developers. Unlike those of us who live here, the developers � won't have to share the consequences of this monstrosity if it goes forward. This is a prime residential area with equally "prime rate" taxes. If this neighborhood deteriorates, it will mean decreasing t�es to the city. One choice home immediately adjacent to this proposed care center has remained unsold for more than six months. Other nearby home owners who would like to escape the coming neighborhood deterioration will undoubtedly find it equally difficult to find buyers. Xes, it's proposed as a care center for the aged ( of which I am one ) but it will be a permanent eyesore in a great old 5t. Paul neighborhood that deserves better. High, prison-like fences must be erected around the property. Front lawns must give way to institutional parking space; quiet streets to staff and supply vehicie 9;raffic. In 1963, I established a St. Paul-based business that ultimately provided more than 50 well paying jobs. As a businessman, I can appreciate the city's interest in restoring this property to the tax rolls, but I would plead with you to find a more neighborhood-compatible solution. ,' - K.M. str�a 2 Montcalm Hill . St. Paul, Minnesota 55116 � � . ��y�L � Gv-.�- �� is C�.�� -��:� �� ,��- �-� �� r/��,>�� 1�igy� � /� , �� . �� Ed & Connie Mc Cennon S 741 Lexington Pk}c S. Saint Paul, MN 55115-2348 RECEIVED FEB 2 5 199$ ZONING � DEPARTMENT OF PLANiVING � � "N �S & ECONOiYIIC DEYELOP.I�IENT � Pamela Wheelact Diredor Cfii'Y OF SAINT PAUL Norrtt Colemars, Mayar i • 25 West Fourth S�eet Telephonc 611-266-6565 Saint Pau{ MN 55102 Fatsimite: 612-228-3314 To: Planning G'ommission Zoning Committee From: James Zdon Re: 15 Montcalm Special Condition Use Application Date: Mazch 11, 1998 On March 5, 1998 the Zoning Committee held a public hearing regarding the Special Condition Use Application for 15 Montcalm Court. During the course of the public hearing the Zoning Committee leamed that the developer's applicarion, because of ongoing negotiations with adjacent neighbors, had changed in the following manner: 1. The developer was no longer requesting a front yard set back variance for four parking spaces. 2. Because front yard parking was eliminated, the pazking variance request had increased from two to six parking spaces. 3. The developer had submitted, for the Zoning Committee's consideration, additional conditions (copy attached) to the special condition use permit. At the close of the testimony, the zoning committee decided to carty over the public hearing until March 19, 1998 and asked planning staff to review the revised site plan and the additional conditions and report back to the zoning committee with a staff recommendation. Staff Recommendation: 1. Staff recommends approval of the special condition use permit with the modification of condition 3(d) in the February 25, 1998 staff report, that reflects a variance of six (6) parking spaces. 2. Addiflonal Conditions. Staff has reviewed the attached site plan and the addirionai conditions submitted by the developer. Those conditions which staff would recommend as applicable and enforceable under the special condition use permit aze as follows: a. The special condifion use pernut is for a State Deparhnent of Health licensed Elderly Contraet With Services Board and Lodging Facility, or equivalent license serving �� -� �S • elderly and/or Alzheimer residents, of up to 16 bedrooms and a maximum of 21 residents. b. Petmission for special condition use appiies only as long as the number of facility residents is not increased and its purpose or location do not change and other conditions of the pemut aze met. c. Commercial deliveries will not occur between 7:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. d. A site plan consisting of the following conditions shall be submitted by April 19, 1998 to the City of Saint Paul's Zoning Adutinistrator to insure conformance with the special condition use permit conditions and city zoning regulations: i. There will be a minimum of seven off street pazking spaces. The e�sting drive will remain in its current locataon with no pazking in the front yard; driveway width shall be sufficient to accommodate two vehicles passing at the front door. ii. There will be no new fencing in the &ont of the building. Fencing is allowed azound the southerly and easteriy sides of the building. Such fencing shall be green or brown in color, shail not exceed 6'/� feet in height and shall be screened � from the front yard' by shrubbery. iii. All outdoor air conditioning equipment shall be located in the back yazd and! or on the roof of the back (bluf� side of the building. iv. The trash receptacle area shall be fully enclosed with a fence of siY feet in height. v. No light shall spfll over to adjacent properties from exterior lighting sources in excess of one (1} foot candle. � vi. The premises may have one identification sign not to exceed 6 square feet in azea. � • FI.JM GRAY PLAI.T MO�TY MOOTY & HENNETT ��) � i ��K�S (WED) 3. 4' 98 77:06/ST. 77:05/NO. 4261011372 P � Following aze provisions that would be included in a petmit for speciat condition use (ihe "Permit") to be applied for by a Minnesota limited liability compnny (K$ich has not yet 6een formed) to be majority owned and conholled by Peter Keely and Dirk Bordsen (referred to below as `Bnyer°'). , 1. The development consists of a state licensed residence in an existing building at the 15 Montcaim Court premises for up to 16 bedrooms and a ma�cimum of 21 persons who are over age sixty-five, whom aze frai! elderty or elderly whom have been diagnosed with Dementia or Alzheimer's disease, and accompanying assisted-living services to include azound the clock staffing, meal services aud health caze as needed (the "Faci2ity"), provided no persons shall reside in the Facility who require skilled nursing home caze such as a nursing home. The Buyer agrecs to keep records with the 5tate of Minnesota, as required by the licensing agents. The Facility's primary use is for Dementia and Alzheimer's patients, azyd at no time could the Facility be used as a"halfway" house (a facility for Dementza or Alzheimer's patients providing assisted living shall in no eveot be considored a "halfway" house"). 2. IIuxing any time the rcal property is used as described above the fotlowing conditions shall app3y: a• Site improvemenu wi11 conform with the site plan dated Mazch 4, 1998, as attached (the "Site Plan'�, including the pazking revision of March 4, 1998, including the foilowing: (t) There wi11 he a minimum of seven (7) off sfreet pazking spaces. The existing drive is to remain in its current location with no pazking in the &ont yard; driveway width to accommodate two vehicles passing at front door. (ii) There wil! be na new fencing in the�front of ihe building. There will be fencing azound t6e Southerly and Easterly sides of the building. Sueh fencing wi11 be chain link, 12 feet hi�h. co(ored green or brawn, and shall be screened from the tront yazd by shrubbery. �J (iii} All outdoor air conditioning equipment shall continue to be located in its present location in the back yard and/or on the roof on the back (bluf� side of the Building. F-,:OM GRAY PLANT MooTY MoOTY d� HENNETT i�17 fWED) 3. 4' 98 17:07/ST. 17:05/NO. 4261 0 1 1 372 P � . . �� `f �� jiv) Buyer shall instruct its service providers, that, except in the event of an emergency, no cominercial de(iveries shall be made between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. b. The usea6le footprint of the existing building will not be increased &om its present condition, except for a porch at the existing front door. Existing @ecks and porches may be renovated. 1Vo other structures will be built or located on the premises with the exception of a porch at the exisring front door and a trash enclosure in conformity with the Site Plan; and the basic style and natuze of the exterior walis and roof will not be changed. c. Th� Buyer shal! take reasonable measures to assure that no resident leaves the Facility unattended (exccpt in thc fcnced-in yazd), and for such purposes shall install and maintain a secwity system designed to do so. d• The Permit as written cannot be changed or amcnded by Buyer or subsequent ocvners without foliowing the special condition use permit policies and procedures as written in the City of St. Paul zoning code. e. The trash receptacle azea shali be fiiliy enclosed with a fence of six feet in height. • f. No light fixture shall spiil over to adjacent properties from exterior lightiug sources, in excess of 1 foot candLe. g. Water drainage shall fIow as it does currently. h• The premises may have one idcntification sigtt consisting of letters not in excess of 5" in height in white and brown or other natural colors which shall he secured to the building, such sign sha11 not have more than fifty (50) letters; and parking control signs which shall be as unobtrusive as possible. The identification sign itself may be lighted by a light shining on it. i• The care and maintenance of the building and the landscaping shall remain consistent with the cate and maintenance of the neighborhobd and its residential chazacter. ). Additional health and safety systems and procedures wi11 be installed and maintained as tequired by the City ordinances and regulations to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents and community, k. Residents will be required to agree not to keep or pazk vehicles on the public street within 1,000 feet of ihe Facility. � I. Healthy, mature trees will be retained. m. Commezcial deliver3es will not occur between 7:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. F_fioM GRAY PLAN7 MboTY MooTY & BENNETT (ZS) � ��-ti �� 3. The permii for special condition use (the "Permit") shall run with the tcal property. 4. Buyer shait have the right to sell, Iease or otherwise convey the underlying rea! property and Facility and/ot a change in controi may occur and this permit shall survive and benefit such new owners, provided: (i) 7'he purchaser or the new controlling person and operator shall consent in writing to be bound by each and every tecm and condition of this Permit as though such purchaser or other new controIling person and operator was Buyer; (ii) The Buyer shall not be relieved from any obligarion or liability arising out of this Permit by virtue of such sale or change in control and operation whieh occurs prior to sueh sale or change in control ofoperation; and (iii) Written norice of any proposed sale or change in control and operation must be provided to the City together with � �- 'such documentation and information regazding the proposed purchaser and any new controiling person and operator as the City may zeasonably request at least thirty (30) days prior to the proposed sale or change in control and operation. 5. Upon such sale or transfer, Buyer shali automatieally be relieved from any and all obligations arising hereunder after the date of such transfer.. 6. The Pecmit shall automatically terminate upon the Buyer's or operator's breach or failure to compIy with any provision ofthe Permit orthe Buyer's breach or failure to comply with City Ordinances, zoning code, regulation or of the ferms, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Permit which breach or failure continues aRcr thirty (30) days' written notice thereof from the City to the Buyer. In the event that the breach az failure is the type of breach or failure that reasonably takes more than (30) days to cure, Buyer should have such addirional time as is reasonably necessary to cure the breach or failure, provided $uyer is diligently attempting to cure such breach or failure. Failure of the buyer to cure eny such breach or failurc within such time period shall result in the automatic termination of the Permit, whereupon the $uyer shall immediately cease operation of the Facility. The Buyer recognizes and agrees that any resulting cessation of operations may result in financial hazdship, however, the Buyer agrees to waive all agreements, lega] or equitable, based upon such fnancial impact. (WED) 3. 4"96 17 : 0 7/ST.17:05/N0.4261013372 P 4 � FPOM GRAy PI:ANT MOOTY MOOTY & SENNETT (�1) � 7 (WED) 3. 4' 98 17:0')/ST. 17:05/NO. 4261 01 1 372 p 5 ��_ L �� The permit s6aI1 be filed with the County Recordcr or Registrar of Titles of Ramsey Covnty, ivlinnesota. GP_4473a9 v2 247971al7l6S9 � . � c� � � ZODTING COMMITTHS STAFF RSPORT �__�_�____ FILH # 98-011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATE RBCLIVBD: 2/5/98 DEADLINS FOR ACTION: 4/6f98 � A. PIIRPOSS: Special condition use permit to allow conversion of a residential structure greater than 9D00 square feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer. A parking variance o£ up to six spaces and a£ront yard setback varianoe o£ approximately 20 feet to allow four parking spaces. B . L � APPLICANT: Peter Keely DATE OF FiEARING: 3/5/98 CLASSSFICATION: Special Conditional Use LOCATION: 15 Montcalm Court PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 LSGAL DSSCRZPTION: Lots 4 and 5 Montcalm Court PR8S8NT ZONING: R-1 ZONING CODS REFER&NCB: Section 60.413, 64.300, 62.102, 64.203. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: February 25, 1998 BY: James Zdon PARCBL SIZB: This irregular pie shaped parcel consists of approximately 240 feet of side yard along Highland Parkway and 130 feet fronting Montcalm court. Total parcel size is 89,549 square feet. EXISTING LAND IISB: The property is occupied by a vacant 13,875 square foot residential structure. SIIRROUNDING LAND IISIi: North: Single £amily residential uses in a R-2 zoning district. East: Single £amily residential uses in a R-4 2oning district South: Single family residential uses in a R-1 zoning district West: Single family residential uses in a R-1 zoning district. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 60.413 (12) of the zoning code states that the planning commission may permit the conversion or reuse of residential structures of over nine thousand (9000) square feet if, £ollowing a public hearing, the planning commission makes the £indings detailed in #3 of this staff report. Section 64.300(f)(1)of the zoning code states that the planning commission may modify special conditions. � �� ! Section 64.3o�(f)(2) of the zoning code states that the planning commission may act as the board of zoning appeals and granC variances_ Section 62.103 establishes parking requirements for various uses and section 6a.203 provides for the variance of those requirements. F. HISTORY/DISCIISSION: None G DISTRICT COONCIL RECODII68NDATION: On December 4, 1997 the Highland Area Community Council took a position in support of the special condition use permit for 15 Montcalm Ct. The support was dependent on the applicant gaining the required signatures of 2/3 of the property owners within S00 feet. When the District Council took this position it was not aware the applicant would also be asking for a parking variance and a front yard setback variance to allow parking in the front yard. H FINDINGS: 1. 15 Montcalm Court is a vacant residential structure of apgroximately 13,875 square feet that has fallen into disrepais. Located in a R-1 zoning district, the home was built in 1947 and was used as a single family residence until 1962. It was then converted to a 25 person residence for the Catholic order of the Oblate Fathers. In 1970 it became the "LUbavitch House" and was run by the Upper Midwest Merkos Jewish Education Association as a synagogue and education retreat • center. For approximately the last year the house has been vaaant. 2. The applicant, who has an option to purchase the property, proposes to completely renovate trie interior and exterior of the house and convert it into a board and care residence for the frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer. There would be 16 bedrooms with a maximum of 21 residents. Services by three fu11 time employees would include 24 hour supervision, food service and support activities. The facility would be licensed by the state and it would be run by Franciscan Health Care which owns and operates St. Mary�s senior residential housing in Highland Park. 3. Section 60.413 (12) o£ the zoning code states that the planning commission may permit the conversion or reuse of residential structures of over nine thousand (9000) square feet if, following a public hearing, the planning commission makes the following findings. a The structure cannot be feasibly used for a conforming use. This condition is met. This single family residential structure, because of its large size, has been used from 1962 to 1597 as either a religious residency facility or retreat/activity cenCer. The property has been vacant for the last year and on the real estate market. So far there have been no buyers willing to purchase it and renovate it as a single family home. i � �- ��s • b. The propoeed use and plans are coasisteat with the comprehensive plan. Triis condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opportunities for individuals and households with special needs. c. The proposed uae aad etructural alteratione or additions are co�atible with the surrounding aeighborhood and land uses. This condition is met. The site is surrounded by single £amily uses and the applicant proposes to restore the structure and make it feel and look residential. The proposed use, as a residence facility £or £rail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer, is a quiet unobtrusive land use. The residents, because of their mental/physical limitations, will not drive or be allowed off the premises. Traffic generated by the facility will be visitors and 3 full time and 3 gart time employees. d. Parking for the new use ehall be provided in accordance with the requirements of section 62.103 for new structures. This condition is not met. The required parking for this proposed facility is 13 parking spaces. (21 beds would require 10 spaces and the three full time employees would require 3 spaces.) The applicant is proposing 11 0££ street parking spaces and is asking that the planning • commission modify this condition for the following reasons: 1. Facility residents cannot drive nor are they allowed to riave cars. 2. Parking would only be used by staff and visitors. The maximum number of staEf at any one time would be 6 leaving 5 proposed spaces for visitors. 3. The more parking that is required will make the facility look institutional and hinder the applicant's objective of retaining the residential character of the facility. For the reasons above, modification of the condition is reasonable. e. Applications for conversion or reuse shall include a notarizad petition of two-thirds of the property owners within one hundred (100) feet o£ the property proposed for the reuse, site glans, building elevations and landscaping plans and other infoxmation which the planning commission may request. This condition is met. A notarized petition including the signatures of 11 of the 16 property owners eligible to sign the petition was submitted along with site and landscaping plans. � 4. Section 64.300(d) of the zoning code requires that be£ore the planning commission may grant approval of a principle use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find that: �� -� �� • a. Tha exteaC, location aad intenaity of the use will be ia substaatial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and aay applicable subarea pana which were approved by the city council. This condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy £or the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansiori of supportive housing opportunities for individuals and houseriolds with special needs. b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize tra£fic congeation in the public streets. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to result in less traffic--and, therefore, less potential £or congestion-- than the religious activity/retreat center that used the structure from 1970 to 1997. c. The use will not be detrimental to the existing charaoter of the development in the immediate aeighborhood or endaager the public health, safety and general wel£are. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to contribute to the public health and welfare by providing elderly care services needed by the surrounding community. d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and � improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. This condition is met. The applicant has committed to restoring this dilapidated vacant structure to a residential appearance that will be compatible to the surrounding residential structures. e. The use shall, in all reapecta, coaform to the applicable regulations o£ the district in which it is located. This condition is met. Insofar as the planning commission approves the modifica'tion of conditions 3(d) above and the front yard setback requirements to permit 4 parking spaces in front,#6 below, the propased use conforms to all the appliaable regulations in the R-1 zoning district. 5. Section 64.300 (f) (1)of the zoning code states that the planning commission, after pvblic hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use o£ a piece of property or an existing structure and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner of such property or structure; provided that such modification will not impair the inCent and purpose of sucfi special oondition and is consistent with health morals and general welfare of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent • property. 6. The applicant is also requesting a front yard set back variance of approximately 20 feet to permit 4 parking spaaes to be developed in (., ��v�� * front of the structure on Montcalm Court. These parking spaces would be designated £or visitors. The applicant believes that if the visitor stalls are in the back of the site it is unlikely they will be used because they would be so far removed from the front door_ Instead, it is likely visitors would tend to park on the gublic street. To mitigate this impact and meet neighborhood concerns, the applicant believes visitor parking would be best served by front yard parking. Section 64.203 0£ the zoning code provides that the planning commission shall have the power to grant variances from strict enforcement of the provisions of the code upon making the following findings. a. The property ia question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provision of the code; This finding is met. The size of this structure, 13,875 square feet, make it unlikely that it will ever be used as a single family home. The fact that for the last 35 years it has been used for functions other than a single family home supports this conclusion. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. This finding is met. The property is an irregular pie shaped lot that fronts on a circular court drive shared with three other properties. � The properties' con£iguration leaves little room £or eacpansion or the provision of parking other than in the front or back of the structure. c. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, eafety, comfort, morals, welfare of the iahabitaats of tha City of Saiat Paul. This finding is met. The intent of the code setback provisions is to ensure there is a uniform appearance and character within a district. This property is unique in that it's £ront yard is on a circular court drive where the distance between the front of the structure and the circular drive varies between 47 feet to 80 feet. Second, because of the narrow charaater o£ the circular court driveway, adjacent neighbors would prefer that visitor parking be placed in the front yard rather than have visitors use the court drive for parking. d. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply o£ light and air to adjacant property, nor wi11 it alter tha essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding areas. To the extent that the variance would allow the applicant to restore this vacant dilapidated structure to its residential appearance, the essential character of the suzrounding area and its property values would not be diminished. , e. The variance, if granted, would not permit any usa that ie not permitted vnder the provisions of the code for the property in the district were the affected land ia located, not would it alter or change _l �� + the zoning district classification of the property. This finding is met. Nothing about this variance or the related special condition use permit would change the classification of the property as being in a R-1 zoning district. f. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to inorease the value or the income potential of the property. This finding is met. The applicant's variance request is based on a need to meet the code parking requirements and the desire to mitigate any potential impact of visitor parking on the public right of way. I. STAFF RSCOMDSSNDATION Staff recommends approval of the special condition use permit with the modification of condition 3(d) that allows a parking variance of 2 parking spaces. Further, staff recommends approval of a front yard setback variance that will allow 4 parking spaces. � � k •r %�a.. .f... _____--- � ' � �� , �- - 8 ( ��) �--- --� `� 7 � �� _._ �-Q' >> i � I � U1 �G3. -_ � �: � v, , � /'�� 3 �o� :. _:•��acm-...-.. `� _^ 5 ��.0._9 "_"-�._._....,..�._..._, �.� , �'� / �r, ti :� ,�,`"; _. � " --- w`� """'M r zoning district bou�dary .FlLE# "Q �� DATE ��j��7� � subjectproperty /\ �..,_ n� orthi �LNG. DIST____� �_ MAP # � S � 0 one family •• � commercial SCALE 1" = 400' �" � rivo family "�' � �..,igdusfriai r�� t¢ Q muftiple f8mify V vacant �� _ _ 2 '1 . l U Y �� ,, �� G! � �_ � �z � �3 i4� � 03/1] � � � � �. '; .. . ��...': .. t I ` , l • , : ' '��'. •�� , � v .: . � . w _ .. � �� '., . .. �. k' V�' ' ~ . J�� 'L " '` ' ; '' r _= .'>,�.��.:♦.'� � �� u O.� � '. E s e •. } � . , � .�. .• � � � e .• .�. �: � . . � � <. � � . �. � z ...� . ..'<. . ��S a � . o = '. � o �. : %� : � . ' ;. . .� . � : ... � � �: < ' :b �. ° .�'° : . . �' . .. I '+ ' � ' V y J J . f. � . ' � .. �.'•. U4 � . . �' ..��. � �. �' . �.. � . :� � � q�: : � � � � �� : r ` :,... , � �. ��'.. . , „ �� -'� . � � . :: �. ,: :.� . � W � W . ti z a �� _ W � W W Y WED 12:22 FAS 6123J95382 N ' , A ' /� h/ � , � ' ' . �� O/ , �• SI . ro � A •� � � s. � � :�_ : � < ;��.:` ::� : . ^;' z ��'� �.--`--`�-.-"- . .• t'� v _ _ _ _. .; , .. . z ' .�AVAI3AQIG .. r l • .�; � . S(qNIlliliR• ' • : ' . • - � _�. �:.� � ��'�, \S ��O / � 1 3 '�U 3�� _ �p�� 3��p� , Q � S � fh�r�°�o y! �� QDi .o� ��p,��W 1 � \ � � '� O ��,'� �� -� .: • ., � ��.'�6 '�v •. \ �� ; j�. `�� . /J :� �_'. _ , � � U .v i. � . : .. . , V �• 5 � �� ' � � W ' O � aw s � Z � � W Q ~� ' F ' F- � � . d � = r m � 9 �� m r K�NOd ,. .�:.�.� � j. � . . ^ ` . 8 M� .� O � y - 1 '� ra��. J S �a- : �� .� 2 0�= b =� Q �� v�z3 � � �. Q y �' 6 � , < �� . � � ��> �t� � � �� =z�� ._ . / / �yO V � V raj � � a ] �� g � , . � 4��'� •'' �" .' �� ' . ' t. ,�; g•.C�, : ./: �� ' ��4j•,';. �:. .•,�.�'.:. �� .. � r �� t z � / \ .. ._ � ... ..�� . : � /�� am ; �--. OS/11198 91ED 12:22 FA% 8129395582 �� •� I � t � J�ie � I ! 4 ' F i a' " �i � O i CJ � �� - N z S�9 � J b � 9 } � � w ,�q � Qd i 4 � Sp 0 R� „j'J'o..- N� o� 6 � »:: `�. �,, � , • a ' ;� ;;:;:' d� F: :' r';_i_'• �' % � . = ��Q�,.i � C!] t�. ;:;i�.,_. a � �iP . a� <°� `u. . _. z:: , ;,.� ,. `=� o ':�.' ��. '�,;.'•=::r gs <�'•�'�' � :��..:.. , , ... i S ?,P.a. • � , � - }:" .;: : �� . : ' e' : ;i� `;::, .. � . .: �n_,;_ �; . .P� �: �• •. * . � s O J ^ti4 � �. � �� i �� 3 _ �� , ESG A3tCHITECTS �� # � •b y 40 � � � � / / I i / / � � A� y kl 8 �� 4 U z S� >,.: ��; .,-_. C p.'� ._. G� ; c � 1!. s 1�� 'v t� / �� • d. O g rdoos l � y � f � a � •. Y t � i� 1 E �a�� 11� � r x- 1 l '�. a 0 U M J � � W � a � �§ �� g � a 6 a G � O 4 s�i� H � . � G=. F a _ U� 4 _ �. � PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a complete renovation of 15 Montcalm into a residence for frail elderl}• and elderly �vith dementia/Alzheimer, over a�e sixt}�-five. There would be 16 bedrooms and a maximum number of 21 residents. Services �vould be provided at the home includine 24 hour supervision, food service and support �activities. The overall concept of this style of assisted living is to provide a. residential setting for those who othen��ise may have to go to a nursin� home. Residents have a rooiu that may or may not be shared, and use of common space such as kitchen, livino rooms, lounges, and activity spaces. This ��ould not be a mirsing home in that it ��ould be licensed through ihe city and state as a board and care home, and would not be a skilled nursing facility. The building is currently suited very well for this type of function, and the renovation ��ould basically refinish all of the interior fi�ishes, as well as update the house mechanically, electrically and for use by the elderly, including an elevator and sufficient sizin� for battuooms. Ne�� rooms �vould be added and life-safety features would be installed. The exterior will be re-furbished with new windows, stucco in lieu of plywood sidin�, roof repairs, and complete renovation of the existing porches. The project is to be owned � by a limited liability corporation{to be nazned) comprised of the applicants. The house would be run by Fransican Health Care which owns and operates St. Mary's senior residential housin� in Higl�land Park. EXISTING L3SE , The latest use for the house �vas as the "Lubavitch House'. The house was run as an activity and retreat center for people of ail ages. Gatherings for ceremonies would take place, as well as �veekend retreats for teena�ers and adults. Due to this use, the house has been transformed to contain a large number of people. There were eleven bedroom �vhich contained t�vo to four beds each, laundry and a commercial Kitchen. Significant amounts of plumbing and bathrooms ha��e been added to accommodate the large groups of people. The house has been mostly vacant for the last yeaz and one hal£ The house has fallen into disrepair, and is badly in need of maintenence. CO\FORMiNG USES The house is approximately 14,000 square feet on three levels. It is solid concrete and masonry construction. Due to the overall size of the building and the construction type, it would be difficult and costly to renovate the home for single family use. There is very little character to the building that would make it desirable to maintain as a single family residence. The buildin� looks very institutional. The developers objective is to make the building look and feel residential. The building � although not necessarily attractive, and certainly not designated historical does have some historical significance. The home built in 1947, «�as built by famed St. Paul banker Otto Bremer, and any attempt to demolish the building would remove any historical impact the home may have in the future. � � � � G� �-� �� iJNITS Thz project �vill consist of a 16 bedrooms with some double occupancy bedrooms for a maaimum of 21 persons. BUILDING SIZE The footprint of the existing buildin� will not be increased from the currznt size. One exterior open porch will be added at the front door which remains behind the front yard setback, and one trash enclosure will be added. T�vo existin� storage sheds at the back of the property will be removed. The existin� character of the exterior will be maintained. PARKING The project proposes incorporating I i parking stalls. This is based on the nursing home requirement of one stall for three beds for a total of seven stalls, plus pazking azea for staff and visitors. The residents of this facility do not drive cars and will not bz storing cars at this location. Although the total parking provided is less than the total aniount that could be required under city ordinance we believe this to be more . than adequate. The agreement with the neighbors notes that we will add additional parkin� stalls off site if parking issues arise in the neighborhood. Through discussions with the neighborhood, it was understood that nobody would want to remove trees and green space for parking that is not used. The developers will add the extra stalls up to the city ordinance upon neighbor, or the City of Saint Paul's request. Proof of parking is noted on the site plan. The pazking as proposed extends over the required yazd space. The reason for includin� parking in the front yard is due to the fact that most of the visitors will park by the front door. If we do not provide for off street pazking, the visitors will park on street. Discussions with neighbors have indicated that they would prefer visitor parking by the frot�t door, and a�ain �ve do not want to overbuild parking stalls. Three of the side yard stalls aze existing in front of the gazage, and back into Montcalm. EXTERIOR LANDSCAPING C J The site has many trees and landscaping currently, many of the trees and the landscaping by the house are over�ro�vn and unhealthy. The developer proposes to retain healthy mature trees, and repla�e any trees or landscaping removed. Additional parking at the back of the lot-would require removing existin� healthy trees. ( t� 02/23'98 MON 10:06 FAS 6123395382 ESG ARCHITECTS `r.� � � �� - "l �� February 20, 1998 City of Saint Paul Zoning and Planning Department RE:15 Montcalm 5pecial nse permit application The applicant is requesting that the enclosed pazking plan be used foz the new assisted living development at 15 Montcalm. 1'he plan re-uses the existing curb cuu, with na new curb cuts oz extensiorzs necessazy. I'he existing front drive will be retained, and the existing sideyazd garage drive would be retained. All tzaffic would have back-up azea on site so that traffic entering the street wouid be moving fozward. 11vo pazking variances are be requested with this plan. 1) The total number of stalls proposed is 11 stalls. This is less than the required numbez. We believe this request is appzopriate due to the character of the facility. Because the residents here cannot dtive. Due to physical concems, they do not own cars, and would not be using the pazking stalls_ The stalls would be used by staff and visitors. � The maximum number of staff at any time would be six. This would still allow five parldng stalls £or visitors. Unfortunately, ihis rype of resident does not zeceive many visiton. Ofren the family will come to pick up the resident W take them off-site. The intent of the pro,}ect is to maintain the most residential character as possible. The more parking that is built the more institutional the building will look, not only for nur residents, but the neighborhood as well. To this extent we would be willing to reduce the aumber of stalls to nine if the city and neighborhood believes this to be a better solution. 2) The proposed pian includes five pazking stalls within the front yazd setback. These stalls are designated for visitors. Tf we did not include the stalls by the front door, visitor stalls would be accommodated in the back of the site. Since the back pazking stalls are so far reznoved from the front door, the visitors wo�ld tend to pazk on the public street. In order to accomtnodate the visitors, and to keep the pazking off-street due to neighboihood concems, the £rontyard parking is the most appropriate. We believe the proposed plan addresses most pazldng concems, we would be willing to amend ihe plan if other solutions aze deemed more appropriate. � � 02/23'98 MON 10:07 FA% 6123395382 � � � �� _ z �. ��. ��, � � :. ��. `:a . . J . j� :�, Y .\ � JY • • . . .�'• r x �� C. r y U ' .. • � J "� .� . .$ ' E v _ .. s � H + $ '. . L l' i ' L�� ';.. � p� ��. � �: b ' , � o i ' . � • y v �� ? . .�-�� Y • �, Js . .�v:..� .. � � �; _ � N Y �'.' . ' ' ,_ ' , \ `� i . . \� � ��I O ,o, ,�;�, ��, ,�ia% - � .v n�,^ �. � N'�'t'."e -ti: �-.j.�,:�; . ��_... : ��r�. : t�. a ,�, -.. � %`. -{�": S ; . . . �� J �� z � � . __ , a�� ' � � W ' � � <W = V � �`' : ? � �� ' Q � � � �h . � o Z � � � �� J � m , c �' y i Q �� O $� O J Cdoos ��—�{�/ � 0 � � a � � Q � � � ESG ARCBITECTS � ..A ..; . ', f..' . - ��`.s �- � � ��: .�� . •' �' •'. , C-� O 0 0 ^9•Y , �'� � „ o �� ' Od . K . ' \•. t..' �•. . ` .�.j�;.. � .. �,�'• ,_ � �N: 4 ` ��.�� :: Lr \ � �./ � G . � 5 �� i;�a ��s��,`�> 9 O� �, s�+;'�` . � � � � — `a S .,ti O �� •o� � y3 rr\ .�0 � . � c � � 3ir4d � :� .'._.. ' ": .....`..�'�...'`' :" y � � g° � � b �� //� �a1..•Q�..... , . a'Sr � p . �'y � ��' .' : : '� . " �. L . � 3 \ � ,:'ec g• 6Q` x. / •' �a -• � � �V i�. 0 cj •. ': . : s�: . :' �, j � . uo u� � m - /� ��.�, '� ,� : � z : . � y' � � � ` V ff..: �v ii \ � ��., � . .' �s � , .``. .�''. . . � �r�,� . .�. � /L 02/23i98 MON FA% � � � _ �� , . z�. �� . �� . �:� }� . s � �z � 3 .. aJ. . : `, � "�: �, , . :.� . , � ;; � ' ' r ':LS . � � E - 6 � � v 'o�•.'' e '��' ' � �3 ,"�., a I�'< ., , a� � ' � . : � A�Y • � .6i r� g J'6 f Q . � . V � v . J.� �. '. Y q. . , ,_ ' M1� ., ��++ r ' II�� ." Y__ .' �. U` � ti � �. Y .. ,,, . . v ;. � ,;: .. � ��. . '.�� . 3 ,� ` ��. . ° ` , . . ��- , � � ,.' . '�, .. �,�' , \� � � ��I O 395382 ESG ARCHITECTS �� ..o,�, r : . ,. .��. � e r !/ � �� 7�� . � r Y'JW � � / - Y �r J - ;:JV(Iy�I�WO � /..• ' . ^ . 000 � � a ' � � aw � V r� 2 z W � � U a �a � F � . Q � zn . � � � �' J .- ro , � • .�_y el d °-&�/ „ r i � � �� {��¢'�� ! 43 „O i lf7 ° � y� � ' � .: •::•: _ . �: y� � \ � � � 0 � �` Z�3 �� i�,`n> �'{ 90 `' + � � g � _ tro e, S o a,yo �0 �' - \ �� o ~ �� ' � ' . -. . . . : � . : , . . . :. '� \ °�� - �',�`' .'�`. : • po ,� : ,: �. , . .: :: .. '. . . y �: .�3 Q l \ 1 , 60 .:: ..^ . �: .: `:' '' � . � yz, ' \ �.� � . 7c. 0 Gj •._ �: . :. ', � �•'. . `: � j - . u w � ` � / /�. � �� . . .,� i : . ` � � .. ` `y --.. V �'� ..V �� .�..'! .. .' z ' ��.��•�. `^ ' �7�' vz � e . �., :. . . \ �G�i '�'. : ' { ' : � �.� :;�it ;._ •.;..+ � , �.','�.. x n� :: �� : �,:y.;� :, �'<' � � �� :. O�� z � p Yi a O �ooa � �-�� ? �� t � J Z V� � � � � �3 °�� „=u„�,��R.�9�,a 1� � CITY OF SAINT PAUL CONSENT OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A SPECIAL CONDITION USE PER1l�IT °( $ �`{ �� We, the undersigned, owners ofthe property within ]00 feet ofthe total contiguous description of real estate owned, purchased, or sold by THE APPLICANT within one year preceding the date of this petition acknowledge that we have been presented with the following: A copy of the application of (name of applicant) to establish a T75 f�7�j G///�iy� (proposed use) located ar._ �S �7oy G,t,lG.� CT � (address of property) ' requiring a special condition use permit, along with any relevant site plans, diagrams, or other documencacion. We consent fo the approval of this application as it was explained to us by the applicant or his/her representative. / �� ..---.:.. ..............o� o.. auc uyper pon�on oi [nts appltCation ust be completed prior to obtaining eligible signatures on this petition. �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL � CONSENT OF ADJOII�IING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT We, the undecsigned, owners of the property within 100 feet of the total contiguous description of real estate owned, purchased, or sold by TI�� APPLICANT within one year preceding the date of this petition acknowledge that we have been presented with the following: � A copy of the application of applicant) to establish a (proposed use) � located at: �'s yloyj"G.4`/!iJ C�; (address of property) tequiring a special condition use permit, along with any relevant site plans, diagrams, or other documentation. - We consent to the approval of this application as it was explained to us by the applicant or his/her representative. � i% , � eligible signatures on this petition. �l, CITY OF SAINT PAUL �� J� � • CONSENT OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A SPECIA� CONDITION USE PERMIT We, the undersi�ed, owners of the property within 100 feet oFthe total contiguous description of real estate owned, purchased, or sold by THE APPLICANT within one year precedino the date of this petition acknowledge :hat we have been presented with the following: A copy of the application of (name of applicant) to establish a located at: � /yf (address of property) requiring a special condition use permit, along with any relevant site plans, diagrams, or other flocumentat[on. We consent to the approval of this application as it was explained tc us by tre applicant or 1::�/her representative. � � � � �� (� 1VOTE: All information on the upper portion of this application must be completed prior to obtaining eligible signatures on this petition. °� � "� � i STATE OF MINNESOTA) Ol� PERSON CIItCULATING THE CONSENT PETITION � COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) AFFIDAVIT' SS Peter Keely , being first duly sworn, deposes and states that he/she is the person who circulated the consent petition consisting of 1 pages; that a�ant represents that the parties described on the consent petition aze all the respective owners of the properties placed immediately before each name; that affiant is informed and believes that each of the parties described on the consent petition is an owner of the properiy which is within 100 feet of any property owned, purchased, or sold by petitioner within one (1) yeaz preceding the date of this petition which is contiguous to the property described in the petition; that none of the parties described in the consent petition has purchased or is purchasing property from the petitioner that is contiguous to the property described on the consent petition within one (1) year of the date of the petition; that this consent was signed by each of said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures aze the true and conect signatures of each and all of the parties so described. Peter K NAME 4648 Oaklan ADDRESS 612-827-5788 MN 55407 612-373-4681(day) TELEPHONE NUMBER • Subscribed and swom to before me this �� day of �� , 19�_ � • v_ �. _ ► « v� � � � ,. . � � � •o PAMELA J. STENZEL 1'' aouvvruwc•euHr�sorw q�� µYCOMMISSIONIXPIRES .,..� SANUARY 31, 20�Q Page_�of � 1/31�I'7 �� HACC DIST 15 TEL�612- Jan 14'98 14�14 No.001 P.02 �� • i • HIGHLAND AREA COMMUNITY COI3NCIL 1978 FORD PARKWAY, ST. PALTL MN 55116 298-5138 FAX 29&5139 15 Mt C�Im Place 'i'he Highland Area Community Council supports the request for speciel condition use permit for structures over 9,000 square feet requested for 15 Mt Cafm. 7fie sapport is depeadent un the developers gaining the required signatures of 2!3 of the property owners within 100 fee� December 4, 1997 �G ��-`-E�� . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. SL3NRAY-BATTLECREBK-HIGHW OOD HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERTTY HII:LCREST WEST SIDE DAYTON'S BLUFF PAYNE-PAALEN 6. NORTH END 7. THOMAS-DALE 8. SUMMTT-UNIVERSITY 9. WEST SEVEN1�i 10. COMO 11. HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12. 13. 14. � 17. ST. ANTFTONY PARK MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE MACALESTER GROVELAND HIGfiI.AND SUMMIT HII.L DOWN`fOWN zoNiN� F��E �� CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS ��-� �S � HIGk{LAND • DISTRICT 15 �N � ° �, --- _ � j Z�� '�� j �� J r SCOTT and ELISA KNUDSON 1430 Edgcumbe Road Saint Paul, MN SS I 16 Saint Paul City Councii Re: Our Appeal to the Proposed Special Conditioual Use Permit for 15 Montcalm Court . Dear Council Member: a�-u�� Along with other people in our neighborhood, we have appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a special conditional use permit to allow what was built as a single family home to be converted into a care facility for 21 residents who have Alzheimer's/dementia. We oppose that decision and ask that the Council reject it. You should be aware that we do not oppose the proposed special use permit because of the affliction of Alzheimer's. We simply believe that the proposed commercial use is for many reasons incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. We believe that the Plannzng Commission erred in several respects. There is insuff cient evidence that the property cannot be used for a single � family resideuce. We object to this finding because we believe the properry has not been marketed adequately. The prior users, very simply, were hard on the house and left it in need of substantial repair. But the owner should not be allowed to profit from this misuse by selling to someone who will convert the properiy to what is a commercial use. Moreover, we understand the properiy has been tied up with an option for many months, which deterred buyers who would have put the property to a compatible use. We also understand that an offer was made to purchase for single family use and that next door neighbors are ready to purchase the property. Finally, there are two examptes in the neighborhood of a major renovation of a Iarge home or a new single family home being built. 938329.1 ..< r �J � �� ( �S Putting a commercial-type use will be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which is made np exclusively of single family homes. The Planning Commission erred in its finding that the shucture, after alterations, would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It is physically impossible to make a property look residential when it has a six square foot sign, seven cars on the (and most on the street) and all the staff necessary to provide food, services and personal care. The developer claims that 24-hour supervision, food service and support activities for 21 Alzheimer/dementia patients would be provided by only three full-time and three part- time employees. We feel that this is a very low estimate of the number of employees that would in fact be needed. Consequently, with the staff, deliveries and health care and family visits, traffic will be higher than the Planning Commission assumed. In a neighborhood where the neighbors (by silent agreement) do not park on the street to allow kids to play, this would be a drastic change. The Planning Commission should be aware that of the 11 people who consented in writing to the permit, eight live on Le�ngton at the bottom of a steep, heavily wooded hill which has no access to Montcalm without traveling either (1) north to Randolph, west on Randolph, south on Edgcumbe to Montcalm, or (2) south on Lexington to Montreal, west on Montreal, north on Edgcumbe befare they can even get to Montcalm. Those property owners have no involvement in this neighborhood whatsoever. Of the seven people in the neighborhood within 100 feet of the project, three gave their consent and four did not. To conclude, we respectfully request the Council overturn the decision of the Planning commission to grant a special conditional use permit to allow the conversion of 15 Montcalm Court into a care facility for up to 21 patients. Sincerely i ic�` ti "� � �� Scott and Elisa Knudson � 938329.1 Council File # Green Sheet # � a S J CITY Presented By Referred To 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 RESOLUTION PAUL, MtNNESOTA Committee: Date � WI3EREAS, Peter Keely, in Zoning File No. 98-Oi l, made applicafion to the Planning Commission for a special condition use permit for the purpose of converting a residenfial structure greater than 9,000 squaze feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementialAlzheimer pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul zoning code Section 66.413 for properiy commonly known as 15 Montcalm Place, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and legally described as (see legal description in zoning file No. 48-Q11); and WFIEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on Mazch 5, 1998, and March 19, 1998, after having provided notice to affected properiy owners, and submitted its recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, by its resolution No. 98-22 dated March 27, 1998, decided to grant the application based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. 15 Montcaim Court is a vacant residential skructure of approximately 13,875 squaze feet that has fallen into disrepair. Located in a R-1 zoning disirict, the home was built in 1947 and was used as a single family residence until 1962. It was then converted to a 25 person residence for the Catholic order of the Oblate Fathers. In 1970, it became the "Lubavitch House" and was run by the Upper Midwest Merkos Jewish Education Association as a synagogue and education retreat center. For approximately the last yeaz the house has been vacant. 2. The applicant, who has an oprion to purchase the properiy, proposed to completely renovate the interior and exterior of the house and convert it in to a board and care residence for the frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer. There would be 1 b bedrooms with a maxunum of 21 residents. Services by three full time empioyees would include 24 hour supervision, food service and support acfiviries. The facility wouid be licensed by the state and it would be run by Franciscan Health Care which owns and operates St. Mary's senior residential housing in Highland Pazk. i2 3. Section 60.413(12) of the zoning code states that the Plamiing Commission may S3 pernut the conversion or reuse of residential structures of over nine thousand �4 (9000) square feet if, following a public hearing, the Planning Comrnission makes 5 the following fmdings. 6 1 9g-��S 2 a. The strueture cannot be feasiblel used-fi�r--a earrfonbing use. 3 --� This condition is met. This single family residential shucture, because of its large 5 size, as been used from 1962 to 1997, as either a religious residency facility or 6 retreat/activity center. The properry has been vacant for the last year and on the 7 real estate mazket. b. The proposed use and glans are consistent with the comprehensive plan. This condition is met. The Saint Pau1 Housing Policy for the 1940s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opportunifies for individuals and households with special needs. c. The proposed use and structural alterafions or addirions are comparible with the surrounding neighborhood and land uses. This condition is met. The site is surrounded by singie family uses and the applicant proposes to restore the structure and make it feel and look residential. The proposed use, as a residence facility for frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer, is a quiet unobtrusive land use. The residents, because of their mental/physical limitations, will not drive or be ailowed off the premises. Traffic generated by the facility will be visitors and 3 full tnne and 3 part time employees. d. Parking for the new use shall be proved in accordance with the requirements of section 62.103 for new strnctures. This condition is not met. The required parking for the proposed facility is 13 parking spaces. (21 beds would require 10 spaces and the three full time empioyees would require 3 spaces) The applicant is proposing 7 off street parking spaces and is asking that the planning commission modify this condition for the following reasons. l. Facility residents cannot drive nor are they allowed to have cazs. 2. Parking would only be used by staff and visitors. The maxnnum number of staff at any one time would be 3 leaving 4 proposed spaces for visitors. 3. The more parking that is required will make the facility look institutional and hinder the applicanYs objective of retaining the residential chazacter of the facility. For the reasons above, modification of the condition is reasonable. -2- 2 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 3? 38 39 40 41 42 F3 44 e. Applications for conversion or reuse shall include a notarized petition of two-thirds of the property owners within one hundred (100) feet of the property proposed for the reuse, site plans, building elevations and landscaping plans and other informafion which the planning commission may request. This condition is met. A notarized petition including the signatures of 11 of the 16 properiy owners eligible to sign the perition was submitted along with site and landscaping plans. 4. Section 64300(d) of the zoning code requires that before the platming commission may grant approval of a principle use subject to special conditions, the commission sha11 fmd that: a. The extent, location and intensity of the use will be in substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans which were approved by the City Council. This condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opporhxnities for individuals and households with special needs. b. The use will provide adeqnate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congesrion in the public streets. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to result in less trafFc -- and, therefore, less potential for congestion -- than the religious activityiretreat center that used the structure from 197� to 1997. c. The use will not be detrimental to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety and general welfare. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to contribute to the public health and welfare by providing elderly caze services needed by the surrounding community. d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. '•5 This condition is met. The applicant has committed to restoring this dilapidated 6 vacant structure to a residenfial appeazance that will be compatible to the 7 8 surrounding residential structures. -3- 5 �a s 6 7 8 4 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 e. The use shall, in all respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Tlus condition is met. Insofaz as the planning commission approves the modification of conditions 3{d) above, the proposed use confornis to all the applicable regulations in the R-1 zoning district. 5. Section 64300(fl(1) of the zoning code states the pianning commission, after public hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property or an e�sting structure and would result in exceptional undue hazdship to the owner of such property or structure; provided that such modification will not impair the intent and purpose of such special condition and is consistent with health morals and general welfare of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent properiy. WHEREAS, pursuant to he provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Michael Prichard and Scott and Elisa Knudson duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Planning Commission, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and 27 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Section 64.206 through 64.208, and upon notice to 28 affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 13, 1998, 29 where a11 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 30 31 WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the 32 application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and 33 of the Planning Commission does hereby; 34 3S 36 37 38 39 40 41 �2 �3 IA 5 6 RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul fmds that the Planning Commission committed error in its findings and hereby reverses the decision of the Plaiuiiug Commission in this matter based on the following findings of the Council: The Council finds that the structure can feasiblely be used for a conforming use because similaz large homes in the neighborhood are selling as single family homes and there is interest on the part of one possible buyer who wishes to purchase the properly and rehabilitate it as a single family home. 2. The proposed use is incompatible to the neighborhood because it constitutes a commercial intrusion into a single faxnily neighborhood and given its large scale (21 beds facility) and parking reauirements ( a? space parking lot} make it incompatible to adjoining residential properties. The proposed use will be detrimental to the neighborhood because the -4- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ORIGINAL qg -'�1P5 introduction of this large scale commercial use into the middle of a residential neighbarhood will result in increase visitor and service txaffic. BE TT FURTAER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Michael Prichard and Scott and Elisa Knudson be and is hereby grauted; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Ciry Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Michael Prichard, Scott and Elisa Knudson , Peter Keely, the Zoning Adtninistrator and the Plauuiug Commission. Requested by Department of: By' Form Appro b� City Atto ey BY: ��G��-, s"fz �15� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: >ted by Council: Date �],\,�� L� � tion Certified by Counci ecretaxy council Councilmember Harris TOTAI, # OF SIGNATURE PAGES oFnun�rcwectort g � � y 8'S SHEET No 62153 x,twuor. anwm�a ❑ utrutawrr ❑ arct�snic ❑ nuwUnta�ncESOn. ❑ nu�wutaexv�xcrc ❑wwrttortNasL�xry ❑ {CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council acCion taken May 13, 199& granting the appeal of Michael Prichard & Scott and Elisa Knudson to a decision of the Planning Commission granting a special condition use permit to allow conversion of a residential structure greater thari 9,000 square feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementiaJAlzheimer`s at 15 Montcalm Court. PLANNING COb1MISS10N CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION Has this Pe��m e+erworked u�Mer a corRract tor fhis deUartment? YES NQ Has thia D�� rrer been e cilY emPbYee? YES NO Does this Personfi�m P� a sldil not nonnetlYP�esFed bY enY curterit city emd%'ee? YES NO Is Vue pe�sonM1irtn atarqatatl vendoR YES NO ::.:.. i�r fAL 7UdOtlNT OF TRANSACTON S OIN6 SOURCE COSTRtEVENUE BUDQETEO (GRCLE ONeI LT�iI;PI:.iT.3 �'7��!7 iCINL INFORMP710N (IXPWN) OFFICE OF TF� CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF SAINT PAUL Narnt Colemart, Mayar May 29, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Keliogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Civil Division 400 City Hall IS West KeZZogg BLvd. Sairs7 Paul, Minnesota 55102 Telephone: 6l2 266-87I0 Facsimile: 612 298-56I9 Re: Planning File No. 98-011 Appeal of�c`cly �1 rjce �'•��^c�.0 Y fc a� o- � 1ry� Councii Hearing May 13, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Wou1d you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your eazliest convenience. If you haue any quesrions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly qours, � �� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW(rmb Enclosure Counci! Research G�nter � : ,..i DEPART'MENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPM&NT � - �l �� 53 CPTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor April 20, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Off'ice Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Division ajPlanning 25 West Fou�th Slreet Sa'vet Paul, MNSSIO2 Telephone.•61&266-6565 Facsimile: 6I2-228-3314 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday May 13, 1998 for the following huo appeals of a Planning Commission decision to grant a special condition use permit: Applicant #1: File Number: Applicant #2: File Number: Michael Prichard #98-106 Scott and Elisa Knudson #98-107 Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision to grant a speciai condition use permit to allow cottversion of a residentiai struchue greater than 9,000 square feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementiafAlzheimer. Address: 15 Montcalm Legal Description Lots 4 and 5; Montcalm Court of Properiy: Previous Action: Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, wte: Unanimous March 27, 1998 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval, vote: 5-2 March 19, 1998 My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the April 29, 1998 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 2b6-6559 if you have any questions. Sjncerely � ( t�n„n n ame on City lanner cc: File #98-106, #98-107 • F72STRUN• NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR[NG 'Eae Salnt Pad Ctty Coundl wlll conduct a pvblic heazing on Wednesday, May 13. 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the �ty Council Chambers, Third P7oor Ctty Hall-Court Honse.'ro rnnsider the appeal of Michael Prichazd to a decision of the Plann3ng Commission . granting a special coadition use pertnit to allow cbnversion of a residential structm'e greater than -9.000 square feet to a residence foi frail eSderly and elderly with demen- �fNzheimer at 15 Montcalm Court. ' Dated: Aprfl 20, 199$ _ . NANCY ANIDERSON - _ _ Assisfant City Councll Secretary - _.. . . . . . . . �� - {annt az, 1sss1 DEPARI'MENT OF PLANNJNG & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �SAINT � PAVL � AAAA' CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 5, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota SS 1D2 RE: Zoning File #98-106 Zoning File #48-107 City Council Heazing: Dtvisiorz of Plmming 25 Wesl FOr<rth Street Telephone: 6I2-266-6565 SaintPaul, MN55102 FiusinuZe: 612-22&3314 Michael Prichazd Scott and Elisa Knudson May 13, 1998, 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision approving a special condition use permit at 15 Montcalm to allow conversion of a residential structure greater than 9,��0 squaze feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL vote: Unanimous • �OAIING COMIvIITTEE RECOMMENDATTON: APPROVAL vote: 5 in favor, 2 against. STAFF RECOMMBNDATION: APPROVAL S O T: Two residents spoke in support and one resident submitted a letter conditionally supporting the application. T'he Highland Area Community Council passed a motion in support of the special condition use permit but was not awaze of the need for a pazking vaziance. OPPOSI'ITON: Three residents spoke against and ten residents submitted letters opposing the petmit. Dear Ms. Anderson: , Michael Prichard and Scott and Elisa Knudson are appealing a Planning Commission decision to approve a special condition use permit at I S Montcalm that would allow conversion of a residenYial structure greater than 9,000 square feet to a residence for the frail elderly and elderly with dementialAlzheimer. The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed special condition use permit on Mazch 5 and March 19, 1998. At the close of the public hearing, the committee voted 5-2 ta recommend apgtoval of the special condition use permit. On Mazch 27, 1948, the Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation on an unanimous vote. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on May 13, 1998. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site preserrted at the public hearing. Sincerely, •��9- �-� James Zdo City Pla er Attachments ca City Council members �'"� � � Department ojPlanning and Economic Developmenl Zoning Section 1100 Ciry Hall Annex 15 West Founh Streef Saint Paut, MN 55102 . 266-6589 APPELLANT � Name Mte �ft�l- f;elC ll,{-!�7 Address C I /u D N"rC,a trf/1 .CdtjQ j City 57 . �L}� r� Zip 5311b Daytime PROPERTY Zoning File Name MD�"�T��fLAq �Qt�t/:>�-�J�F' LOCATION Address/Location /S /i' A �M CT�' r� LJ / TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeais �{I City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section6�D�Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appeaf a decision made by the �R �NT �$�+/`� P``� l�,rs�(.S,S'l�itl on l�rt�l�N ,�`] , 19�. File number. �" �1( (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an ettor in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative officiai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. P�c.� s� �� 1�-��-��-� Attach additional AppiicanYs sr��r Datelrn�� agent_.�__,�i 1 � �u..3us3 ❑ APPLICATION FOR APPEAL the following reasons, among others: Appellant is an owner of residential property immediately adjacent to 15 Montcalm Court. Appellant believes that the action of the Plaruling Commission to approve a Special Condition Use Pernut for 15 Montcalm CourE has been in error for (i) Appellant believes that the action was taken pursuant to Section 60.13(12} of the St. Paul Zoning Code, which among other things requires that the Planning Commission shall find that the structure cannot be feasibly used for a conforming use. Applicant believes that the Planning Commission erroneously found that the siructure cannot be feasibly be used for a conforming use among other things. There is evidence in the file of at leasE one offer to the owners to buy the property for single family use, and no evidence to show that the property cannot feasibly be used tor a conforming use. It is merely a question of the owner obtauung the highese price, which may very likely be highest for a business use. To the best of AppellanYs knowledge, the owner of the property gave no testimony before the Planning Commission. (2) Appellant testified before the Planning Commission in favor of the Permit in expectaeion that a satisfactory enforceable agreement could be reached � befween the applicant for the Permit and operators of the proposed business with the immediate neighbors regarding various aspects of the use of the subject property, including among other things a requirement that staff inembers park in off-sireet parking spaces, and that residents of the property not have vehicles. Despite repeated good faiEh efforEs to reach an agreement dating back to December, - 1997, none was reached. Appellant believes thaf the proposed operator of the -`.= business has no intention to enter into an enforceable :agreement with�'immediate `= h 4 -- neig bors unposmg reasonable condihons on the operation of,the busuless.G,s:'°_a; � �' . - - ' ' . ix:�"c...`r.'�L.v%.v'.}:'.'a�'..�"�..'c�-'ff'.C!.is'� -.?,";� (3) The Planning Commission failed to adf the adverse effect on the resideniial nafure.:of the nei persons appearing before�the Planning Coiiimission letters to the Planning Commission. , ; �- � .;<. ; ` ��ti:: ��}� ��r, r�.�/ si�:ufr-r��ccS °iir��- �� I" �FY�C� �/"��'N� � _ �I - � . '' J � i '�y , (J+rUt� � G �'�/�P.o� /N3Tl � : - ""<i.'.=;� . � ^". . _:'{� �,- ;: -" a tion =' • �,='- _•:-�. x .- ; �« ;y -- S •�=>; =' ;: a -_ z . . , r""'.s;.o-.e:r^a- -- � :S:}� a -t y -�`z�.�•v_`.. s t.;�i%vY'y:' r,:.: # •-�� a =:. ". r�r%C�-:�"��°�a`��"�s _. � ��r - � ri ' ' �` i� s �� ,-} � - _ e_ _ 'Y%y�_" , ` ,_ ' : - -3r ai� -�t � FOR APPEAL Departn:ent of Planning and Economic Development Zoming Section 1100 Cin• Hall Ann�r 25 West Fourtlr Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT �/ City ��" �G.tc-( U St._ Zip Ss1IG Daytime phone �o�l b� PROPERTY Zoning File IVame y x�.—� h-9-f �.�—• /y1G�3Klcl�4 �t'�,7d1BhG �i LOCATION Address/Location /� f � � of the Zoning Code, to appeaf a decision made on 31zqr�8 3I3� (date o/ decision) �,�za� , �s 9�. +'�/�i f l;C�taY��t- rl.r��wvnirn� Fiie number: 90 ��' dd/ GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appea{s or the Planning Commission. .� a.��kn��t ` Attach addifiona! sheet if ApplicanYs signature �� +� Date �S `I�City _ �t / A� ; � ��-�� ' t�' )� � ATTACHMENT 1. The Pfanning Commission incorrectly concluded that the structure cannot feasibty be used for a conforming use. The Commission made that finding based on the fiact that the property has not sofd after s�me unspecified period. The structure was built and used many years as a single family residence and can still be used for that purpose. The property has not been priced propsrly or been on the market long enough. 2. The Planning Commission concluded that the use was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, this use is a commerciaf use; and it seems improbabie that the � needs of 21 residents could be met by only one fuil time and one part-time employee per shift. It is more realistic to expect that the care of 21 peopte with dimentiai/alzheimers wilf require significantly more emp{oyees. Consequently, with more empioyee traffic, visitors, and commercial deliveries, there wiil be a much more invasive impact than what the Planning Gommission found. 3. There are inadequate conditions on the proposed speciai condition use permit, to wit, (a) there are no provisions for landscaping around the employee parking to screen its visibility from the north and east; (b) there is no provision tor noise abatement for HVAC to proteot neighbors to the north and east; {c) there is no provision requiring the identification sign to be uniit. � � i city of saint paul plar�ing comrrussion resofution file number 9$-22 �te March 27, 1998 WHEREAS, Peter Keely, file # 48-01 l, has applied for a special condition use permit under the provisions of Section 66.413 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the purpose of converting a residential structure greater than 9000 square feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with demential alzheimer. Applicant is requesting a a special condition use permit to convert the groperry located at 15 Montcalm, legally described as see file; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on 3/5/98 and 3/19l98, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substanually reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: � FINDING5: 1. 15 Montcalm Court is a vacant residential structure of approximately 13,875 square feet that has fallen into disrepair. Located in a R-1 zoning district, the home was built in 1947 and was used as a single family residence until 1962. It was then converted to a 25 person residence for the Catholic order of the Oblate Fathers. In 1970 it became the "Lubavitch House" and was run by the Upper Midwest Merkos 3ewish Education Association as a synagogue and education retreat center. For apgroximately the last year the house has been vacant. 2. The applicant, who has an option to purchase the property, proposes to completely renovate the interior and e�erior of the house and convert it into a boazd and caze residence for the frail elderly and elderly with dementiaJAlzheimer. There would be 16 bedrooms with a maximum of 21 residents. Services by three full tune employees would include 24 hour supervision, food service and support activities. The facility would be licensed by the state and it would be run by Franciscan Health Caze which owns and operates St. Mary's senior residential housing in Highland Pazk. moved by Wencl � seconded by in favor Unanimous against 3. Section 50.413 (12) of the zoning code states that the planning commission may pernut � the conversion or reuse of residential structures of over nine thousand (9000) square feet if, following a public hearing, the planning commission makes the foliowing findings. a The structure cannot be feasibly used for a conforming use. This condition is met. This single family residential structure, because of its large size, as been used from 1962 to 1997 as either a religious residency facility or retreaUactiviry center. The properry has been vacant for the last yeaz and on the real estate market. b. The proposed use and plans are consistent with the comprehensive plan. This condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opportunities for individuals and households with special needs. c. The proposed use and structural alterations or additions are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and land uses. This condition is met. The site is surrounded by single family uses and the applicant proposes to restore the struchue and make it feel and look residential. The proposed use, � as a residence facility for frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer, is a quiet unobtrusive land use. The residents, because of their mental/physical limitations, wi11 not drive or be ailowed offthe premises. Tr�c generated by the facility wilt be visitors and 3 fu11 time and 3 part time employees. d. Parking for the new use sball be provided in accordance with the requirements of section 62.103 for new structnres. This condition is not met. The required pazking for this proposed facility is 13 pazking spaces. (21 beds would require 10 spaces and the three full time employees would require 3 spaces.) The applicant is proposing 7 off street pazking spaces and is asking that the planning commission modify this condition for the following reasons: Facility residents cannot drive nor are they allowed to have cars. 2. Parking would only be used by staff and visitors. The maximum number of staff at any one time would be 3 leaving 4 proposed spaces for visitors. 3. The more pazking that is required will make the facility look institutional and hinder the applicanYs objective of retaining the residential chazacter of the facility. , For the reasons above, modification of the condition is reasonable. � e. Applications for conversion or reuse shall include a notarized petition of two- thirds of the property owners within one hundred (100) feet of the property proposed for the reuse, site p3ans, building elevations and landscaping plans and other informarion which the planning commission may request. This condition is met. A notarized petition including the signatures of 11 of the 16 property owners eligible to sign the petition was submitted along with site and landscaping plans. 4. Section 64300(d) of the zoning code requires that before the planning commission may grant approval of a principle use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find that: a. The extent, locarion and intensity of the use will be in substantiai compiiance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea pans which were approved by the city council. This condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opportunities for individuals and households with special needs. � b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic • congestion in the public streets. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to result in less traffic--and, therefore, less potential for congestion-- than the religious activitylretreat center that used the structure from 1970 to1997. c. The use will not be detrimenta! to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger tbe public health, safety and general welfare. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to contnbute to the public health and welfaze by providing elderly caze services needed by the sunounding community. d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. This condition is met. The applicant has committed to restoring this dilapidated vacant structure to a residential appearance that will be compatible to the surrounding residential structures. e. The use shall, in all respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district � in which it is located. This condition is met. Insofar as the planning commission approves the modification of • conditions 3(d) above, the proposed use conforms to all the applicabie regulafions in the R-1 zoning district. 5. Section 64300 (� (1)of the zoning code states that the planning commission, after public hearing, may modify any or ali special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonabiy limit or prevent otherwise lawfui use of a piece of property or an existing structure and would result in exceprional undue hazdship to the owner of such properry or structure; provided that such modification will not unpair the intent and purpose of such special condition and is consistent with health morals and general welfaze of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff recommends approval of the special condition use permit with the modification of condition 3(d) in the February 25, 1998 staff report, that reflects a variance of six (6) pazking spaces. 2. Additional Conditions. Staff has reviewed the attached site plan and the additional conditions submitted by the developer. Those conditions which staff would recommend as appiicable and enforceable under the special condition use permit are as follows: i a. The special condition use permit is for a State Department of Health licensed Elderly Contract With Services and Board and Lodging With Services, or equivalent license serving elderly residents who have dementia/Alzheimer, of up to 16 bedrooms and a maximum of 21 residents. b. Permission for special condition use applies only as long as the number of facility residents is not increased and its purpose or location do not change and other conditions of the permit are met. c. Commercial deliveries will not occur between 7:30 p.m. and 730 a.m. d. A site plan consisting of the following conditions shall be submitted by April 19, 1998 to the City of Saint PauPs Zoning Administrator to insure conformance with the special condition use permit conditions and city zoning regulations: i. There will be a minimum of seven off street pazking spaces. The existing drive wiil remain in its cunent location with no parking in the front yazd; driveway width shall be sufficient to accommodate two vehicles passing at the front door. ii. There will be no new fencing in the front of the building. Fencing is allowed � around the southerly and easterly sides of the building. iii. Ai1 outdoor air conditioning equipment shall be located in the back yard and/ � • or on the roof of the back (bluf fl side of the building. iv. "Ihe trash receptacle azea shall be fully enclosed with a fence of six feet in height. v. No light shall spill over to adjacent properties from ea�terior lighting sources in excess of one (1) foot candle. vi. The premises may haue one identification sign not to exceed 6 squaze feet in area. � . u . Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West ��- A meefing of the Planning Commission of the City of Saini Paul was held Friday, March 27, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, Maddox, Morton, Treichel and Wencl and Messrs. �eld Jr., Gervais, Kong, Kramer, Mardell, McDonell, Nowiin and Vaught. Ms. *Nordin and Messrs. *Chavez, *Gordon, *Johnson, *Sharpe *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Donna Drummond, Nancy Frick, Tom Hasen, Nancy Homans, Pah James, Gary Pelrier, Roger Ryan, Larry Soderholm, Allan Torstenson and 7im Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff; and Mike Klassen from the Aepartment of Public Works. I. Approval of Minutes of March 13,1998 Ml1TTt)N: Commissioner Kramer moved approval of tl:e minutes ofMarch 13, I998; Commissioner Field seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton announced that at that moming's Steering Committee the position of quadrant liaison was discussed. Mr. Ford has drafted "Expectations for Neighborhood Liaisons" to be used as a guideline. Chair Morton further announced that the Steering Committee has proposed a resolution that states the Planning Commission opposes the refund of appea] fees to applicants when presented by the community councils, in response to a resolution being presented by Councilmember Coleman which states that community councils would be refunded applicarion fees for appeals. The Planning Commission's rationale for opposing Councilmember Coleman's resolution is that no group should be singled out to have a refund of a fee. Commissioner Kramer interjected that he thinks iYs a waiver, not a refund. . Commissioner Vaught commented that he thinks the issue remains the same. If there are appeal fees, they should apply to everyone; if there are not appeal fees, that also should apply to everyone. He sees no logic for exempting a particular category of appellants from the fee, and he is troubled if appeal fees are selectively applied to particular groups or individuals and not to others. The same rules should apply to everybody. Commissioner Field noted that an individua] or group of individuals, who wish to appeal may, S rather appealing on their own accotd, choose to pursue it through the district councii just for the waiving of the fee. Ae cleazly thinks that it would be bad policy to select one group for those fees to be waived. The motion on tke JToor to submit a resolution staring that the Planning Con:mission opposes tlte refund or waiving of fees for appeats by community councils carried unm:imously on a voice votz Chair Morton announced that thete will be another meeting of committees at the close of the meeting to choose different meeting dates for the Comprehensive Planning Cammittee and the Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Ford reported on his inquiry into the reasoning for the CiTy Council finding error on the part of the Planning Commission in upholding an appeal for the Citgo sign at the service station near Snelling Avenue and I-94. They concluded: 1) the site of the proposed sign does not constitute an unusual condition. The fact that the filling starion is located next to the freeway is not so unusual that the extra visibility provided by a higher sign is necessary; and 2) the greater height and greater size of a proposed sign would adversely affect adjacent residential properties. Due to the greater height and size of the proposed sign, it's light • would cast even more glare on surrounding properties. Copies of that resolution are available from Mr. Ford. Mr. Ford continued that at the last City Council meeting, there was an appeal by the applicant of the Planning Commission's denial of a special condition use permit for an auto specialty store on East 7th Street. That appeal also was upheld by the City Councii. They concluded that they could place enough conditions on it, and the servicing of autos was a limited part of what was going on there. It is limited to only one bay and to a very limited type of service. Most of the stare was more like a retail store than an auto servicing. Also before the City Council was the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a determination of similar use permit for the nursery �at the property on Point Douglas Road. That appeal was denied. TV. Zoning Comm,ittee #9R-Ol1 Mon alm Residen�e I P.P_Y,. re Keelv (Laid over from March 5, 1998) - Special condition use permit to allow conversion of residential structure greater than 9,000 sq. ft. As a residence for fraii elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimers. (Jim 7don, 266-6559, Southwest Team) M(1TION: Commissioner Wencl moved approval of the request for a specia! condition use permit to aldow conversion of a residentiat structure greater t)tan 9,000 sq. ft.,to be used as a • residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementiaUAlzhefiners with conditions. ! Commissioner Vaught noted that he voted in opposition at the Zoning Committee but will vote in approvaltoday. Commissioner Faricy stated that she had also voted in opposition at Zoning Committee but will vote in approval today. She researched the history and decided to change her vote because the residence has been vacant for one and a half years and is in disarray. The motion on the floor carried unanimously on a voice vote. #9R-027 Richard F.itel - Rezoning to allow construction and operation of an auto repair facility at the southwest corner of Interstate 35E frontage road between Larpenteur and Wheelock Parkway. (Donna Drummond, 266-6556, Northwest Team) Commissioner Wencl stated that the south portion will be sold to the state of Minnesota after the rezoning occurs. The north portion that fronts on Larpenteur will be used for auto repair. In 1984 the Planning Commission passed a resolution that stated that rezoned properties that also needed a special condition use permit could be decided by staff instead of coming back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kramer said that he voted against this at Committee because this property will be divided into two pieces after the rezoning. The remaining piece of B-3 properiy will belong to the state, so we do not know what the ultimate proposed use of that piece will be. Commissioner Vaught stated that he also voted against it at the committee level and he will vote � against it again today if the Planning Commission will be taking the vote today because it is spotrezoning. Commissioner Nowlin said that he is also concemed about this case. It concems him to put a cotnmercial use so near to a school. He is also concemed that the policy of staff making the decision on a special condition use permit if a rezoned parcel needed it, may be against state ]aw. He feels that iYs very important that a speciai condirion use permit after rezoning, be brought back to the Planning Commission so that the Commission can assure that vegetative treatment is done and that the use is properly buffered, in this case, both from the school and the freeway. ]�OTTON: Cvmmissioner Field moved that this case be laid over and referred back to the Zoning Comminee for furtker action on Apri12, I998. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion which carried unanimnusly on a voice vote. �4R-0'{4Vi& oria NP.C - Nonconforming Use Permit to allow re-establishment of general auto repair at 951 White Bear Avenue. (A1 Torstenson, 266-6579, Northeast Team) Commissioner Wencl reported that there was a great deal af discussion at Zoning Committee as to whether this had actually been an approved use in operation, etc. MOTTON: Commissioner Wencl moved denial of the requested nonconforming use permit to allow re-establishment ofgenerat auto repair at 951 White BearAvenue. The morion carried unanimously on a voice vote. u OF THE ZONING C�MMITTEE Y � 9� �998 = 3:3 p.m. � � — � �S City Council Chambers, 3rd Ftoor • City Hatl and CouR House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: • ❑ ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chavez, Faricy, Gordon, Kramer, Morton, Vaught and Wencl Field (excused) Peter Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Beth Bartz, Donna Drummond, Pattie Kelley, Roger Ryan, AIIan Torstenson and Jim Zdon of the Planning Division. The meeting was chaired by Barbara Wencl, Vice Chair. Montcalm Residence 1 Peter Keely, Zoning Fi(e 98-011 - Specia! condition use permit to allow conversion of residential structure greater than 9,000 square feet as a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementia ! Alzheimer. A parking variance of up to six spaces and a front yard setback variance of approximateiy twenty feet to allow four parking spaces. Jim Zdon gave a brief overview of the Zoning Committee Meeting held March 5th in which the developer's applicatio� had changed considerably from what was then reflected in the staff report. He explained this change was due to negotiations with the developer and some neighborhood residents, as wel4 as the applicant submitting a f+ve page document listing various conditions to attach to the special condition use permit. Mr. Zdon said the Zoning Committee laid this item over in order for staff to review tfie revised site plan and proposed conditions. He referred to seven letters in opposition that staff has received, and one letter from a proposed buyer of the property who would like to make the structure into a single family home. Mr. Zdon said staff has reviewed the site plan and the five pages of conditions, and he presented the staff report and recommendations and explained staff recommends approval of the Special Condition Use Permit wfth a modification of condition 3(d) of the February 25th staff report that reflects a variance of six parking spaces, and with further conditions as follows: 1} The special condition use permit is for a State Department of Heaith licensed Elderly Contract with Services and Board & Lodging with Services, or equivalent license serving elderly resident who have dementia/Alzheimer; of up to 18 bedrooms and a maximum of 21 residents; 2) Permission for speciai condition use applies only as {ong as the number of facility residents is not increased and its purpose or location do not change and other conditions of the permit are met; 3) Commercial deliveries witl not occur between 7:30 pm and 7:30 am.; 4} A site pian consisting of the following conditions shall be submitted by April 19, 1998 to tfie City of Saint Paul's Zoning Administrator to insure conformance with the special condition use permit conditions and c+ty zoning regulations: a) there wiil be a maximum of seven off street parking spaces. The existing drive wil4 remain in its current focation with no parking in the fro�t yard a�d the driveway width shali be sufficient to accommodate two vehicles passing at the front door; b) ihere wili be no new fencing in the fronf of the building. Fencing is ailowed around the southerly and easterly sides of the building; c) all outdoor air conditioning equipment shall be located in the back yard andior on the roof of the back (biuf� side ofi the building; d) the trash receptacle area shall be fully enclosed with a fence of six feet in height; e) no light shall spill over to adjacent properties from exterior Iigfiting sources in excess of one (1) foot candie; and fl the premises may have one identification sign not to exceed six (6} square feet in area. Upon question of Gommissioner Morton, Jim Zdon said the maximum sign size is six square feet. Zoning Committee Minutes March 19, 1998 ---Marttaafm�idence/Peter Keely {98-011) . Page Two At the questions of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Zdon explained there is a limited amount of space on fhe east bluff side of the building, and because the bluff is within approximatefy 30 feet from the back of the building any additional parking spaces would be difficult. He also referred to the revised site plan which indicates seven parking spaces. Mr. Zdon further expiained it will be up to the developer and the neighbors to both reach agreement and determine which legal instrument they will use, and he said they are proceeding to do so. Pete� I<eely, (4648 Oakland Avenue South, Minneapo4is, Minnesota), appeared and stated that since the last Zoning Committee meeting, conditions have been removed from the SCUP and that a letter of agreement wili be recorded addressing those issues, although that document is not finalized because of minor language changes to clarify the true name of the license. Mr. Keely referred to parking in the rear and said it could be done but wouid be difficuit. He explained because this is a residence for seniors who need some access to the outdoors, their idea was to provide that access in that area. Mr. Keely noted this facility has to be run by the terms written into the lease and that part of that is no resident can own a car or keep a car within 1,000 feet of the facility, and that wiil be written into to the contract of each individuai reside�t. Commissioner Gordon spoke to the Ietter of conditions Mr. Keely referred to and requested him, as part of the record, to leave a copy with staff. Mr. Keely expressed some concern with that request as the letter is not a part of the speciai condition use permit, and Commissioner Gordon expiained because it is a part of the recording staff should have a copy of it on records, and Mr. Keely agreed to do so. • Upon questions of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Keely said the instrument between himseifi and the neighbors is enforceable, that three of the seven parking spaces wii! be occupied by fu{I time staff, and he expiained why he wouid prefer not to have additional parking on the south side of the building. At the question of Commissioner Faricy, Peter Keely explained the facility will be operated with three full time staff members who wift be on duty at alf times, and other part time staff includes maintenance workers, deliveries, and administrators. Commissioner Faricy said it is her understanding tfiat the Franciscan Community was up for sale and she questioned how that will affect this residence. Mr. Keely explained the sale is at the board level but not at the functionai levei, and he said if it were to be soid, the obligations would be the same because the agreement is wsitten through the building owner. Mr. Prichard (9 Montcalm Court) appeared and spoke in support of the proposai and confirmed agreement has been reached on the substantive points although it has not yet be signed. He also said he has been advised that Franciscan Homes has seen the current draft and has indicated their willingness to abide by it. Commissioner Vaugfit stated he feeis wfiat the residents have done with the developer is totaily appropriate in terms of the agreement, but he doesn't want anyone to be misled as to which of those issues are enforceable as a part of a SCUP because many of them are not. � Commissioner Gordon agreed stating they are enforceable but not by requesting the SCUP be revoked. He gave the example that if cars were parked within the 1,000 feet, a lawsuit may have to be filed in District Cou�t against the owner of the prope�ty a�d to obtain an order from the Court for that condition to be compiied with. Zoning Committee Minutes March 19, 1998 r,Y �_ l��'i5 AAe�rtcatm Re�i�1Peter Keely (98-011) � • Page Three Upon questions of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Prichard said the parking variance is acceptabie to him premised on their agreement that the residents wiI{ not have cars, and his strong preference is that there net be off street parking in the front yard. John Kincaid (693 Montcalm) appeared and spoke in opposftion stating this proposal does change the character of the neigfibofiood. He said as ft is right now there is aimost no parking availabie on Montcalm, and this is putting a business in a neighbofiood that had none before which he believes to be a detriment to the area. Robert Albrecht (615 Montcalm) appeared and spoke in opposition to the appfication sfating he has lived in his home for nineteen years. He said he's much less interested in the details that have been discussed today as he is to the substance of the appiication, which is to introduce a commerciai operation in the midst of one of the nicer neighborhoods in Saint Paul, and he urged the Committee to deny the application. Mike Murphy (609 Montcalm) appeared and said he's lived in his home since 1973, and both he and his wife are in opposition to granting this specia! condition use permit. He said this is fundamentally one of the most historic and pristine residentiai and highest paying tax neighborhoods in the City, and it is not a commerciaf area. Mr. Murphy referred to the parking issue and said although the arrangement for no parking within 1,000 feet of the focation may suit other neighbors, parking wiil be pushed up the street to where he lives, and they are opposed to that. At questions brought up by Mr. Murphy, Jim Zdon expiained the intent of this pe�mit is for a residentiat � facility for the frail elderiy with dementia or Aizheimer with a maximum of 21 residents, and this SCUP does not address the issue of a tease. He further expiained this permK is for a particular use only, and if another use is intended, the owner of the property needs to come back to this committee for that request. Peter Keely responded stating elderly people do have a ptace in communities. He refeRed to comments made pertaining to the residentiai character and said they are not changing the look of the building and in order for this venture work for them, they need to make it a residerrtiai buiiding. Commissioner Faricy referred to staff recommendation 2{a) and recommended language be changed to "elderly who have dementia/Aizheime�'. Mr. Keely agreed and said that language wiit be ctarified as well as changing the name of the contract to the correct name of the finro licenses (the first to Elderly Contract with Services, and the second to Board and Lodging with Services). No one else appeared, and the public hearing was ciosed. Commissioner Gordon moved approval of the staff recommendation with language in paragraph 2(a) amended to read "eiderly residents who have Afzheimer or dementia", and the motion was seconded. Commissioner Faricy sa+d although she can't object with the information this Cammittee has, she strongly believes approving the application wil! create a significant parking probiem in this neighborhood, and for ihai reason she will not support the motion. Commissioner Faricy further expressed concern that not enough full time staff are being provided to care for the number of residents. � Commissioner Vaught expressed concem when it is suggested that because someone pays high property taxes that they have a right to greater enJoyment of their property than people who pay lower property taxes. However, he stated he cannot support the motion as he believes this is a wrong use for this particular area. Zoning Committee Minutes March 19, 1998 � ivfontcalm es�lPeter Kee(y (98-011) Page Four Commissioner Gordon stated he moved approvai of the permit because he doesn't see a fundamentai change in the requested use from its previous use. He teferred to concems that parking is troublesome, but said in reviewing correspondence from neighbors they don't want the lawn tom up nor a paved parking lot. Commissioner Gordon stated the neighbors have spent a considerable amount o4 time discussing the application with the developer and are comfortable with the variance, and he therefore believes it should be approved. Commissioner MoRon spoke in agreement with comments made by Commissioner Gordon and said she aiso is impressed with the fact that neigfibors have taken the time and effort to come to agreement wiih the developer, but more thari anything this will be the residence for 21 people who have the opportunity to continue to live in a quiet, peaceful neighborhood. Commissioner Chavez referred to the parking issue and said if there were p�oblems the previous use woufd have indicated so. Upon question of Commissioner Chavez, �ce Chair Wencl reiterated that the motion is to the staff recommendation dated March 11, 1998 which includes the findings. Commissioner Kramer said he will be voting in support of the motion but that there are staff findings that shouid be amended to reflect written testimony received. Commissioner Vaught agreed with Commissioner Kramer pertaining to amending some of the staff • recommendations. He said the Zoning Code specifies conditions under which a SCUP can be granted and if a certain amount of those conditions are not met the SCUP should not be granted. Commissioner Kramer referred to the finding that the property in questions cannot be put to a reasonable use, and stated that finding is not met. Roger Ftyan said this is an altowed use subject to special condition and is permitted in a single famify district. Mr. Ryan further explai�ed that this is neither a permitted use or a special condition use, which is why the applicant is requesting a conversion of a farge residential stnacture. Commissioner Kramer requested that the motion inctude striking language in the findings as foliows: "so far there have been no buyers wil{ing to purchase it and renovate it as a singfe family home", and Commissioner Gordon accepted that as a friendiy amendment. Commissioner Faricy called for the question. Roll call for the debate to end. Adopted Yeas -'7 Nays - 0 Roll call on the motion to approve the staff recommendation with the amended language in paragraph 2(a) changed to "elderly residents who have Aizheimer or dementia°, and to strike language in the findings noted above. . Adopted Yeas - 5 Drafted by: Pattie Kelley Recording Secretary Nays - 2 (FaricyNaught) Submitted by: � , v im Zdon � South�t Quadrant Approved by: �� Barbara Wenci Vice Chair � `� � -� � _- EcEiv�� MICHAEL D. GOLDNER FEB 2 5 j998 ZONING February 24, 199$ � Zoning Committee of the St Paul Planning Commission 25 West Fourth Street 11Q0 City Hall Annex St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: [,oning Fiie No.: y�U l i Zoning File Name: Montcalm Residence/Peter Keely Ladies and Gentlemen: What a wonderful possibilityf Using the prime property at 15 Montcalm Court to further a worthwhile social purpose while, at the same dme, preserving the single family residenaal character and propeny values of the neighborhood wili be a terrific coup if you can pull it off. I sincerely wish you well in that regard. I must say, though, that I have the foliowing concerns: ,_ _ 1. That special care be taken io assure that exterior changes or improvements to the building, changes to the portions of the pmperty not covered by ihe building and parking arrangements � make the properry appear to be commercial; and 2. That the proposed use not merely be a step toward other uses that would have an adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood or propeny values. 1 am particulazly concerned about the appearance of the pazldng airangements as not being compatible with a single family residenaal environment. If my concerns can be sadsfactorily addressed in the special condiaon use pemrit, I would not be opposed to issuance of the permit In that regard, I assume that the pemut wili be conditional upon the property being broughi up to code and that any violafion of any of the conditions set forth in the pemrit wiil resuit in teimination of the pernrit and reversion of the permitted uses of the property to single family residential use. - . � � -�� S � Good luck on this project. Sincerely, � Michael . oldner 1516 Ed cu be Road St. Paul, nnesota SSl lb c: Mike Harris Dan Bostrom Kathy Lantry n �I . 63/19/19:•^, H3:35 612�390267 � • . .... March 1� 1998 n � Hello resident af our neighborhood, LAMPERTS _. __ __ ---- -PA6E— El — I'm a neighbor concemed about the special condition use permit under consideration for 35 Montcaim Couit. My concem is that re-zoning ouz neighborhood to a cominercial use, will change our area from a peaceful, "single family h�me" neighborhood (something we pos�ihiy take for gianted), to a busy, noisy locarion. This letter is to inform you that an Alzheimer care facility it being considered for 15 Montcalm Court. As I understand, the .city requiremenu call for a parS:ing 1ot ta replace a laige porzion of the front and rear lawn. I feei that the traffic increase and the. additianal pazlang lot due to this property being re-zoned, not only tivill affect the uanquility of our neighborlmod, but this Al�eimer Facility wili become an eyesore, depreciating all homes surrounding 15 Montcalm. My other concem is that the proposal states patienu wi11 park not cioser that 1,000 feet of the 15 Montcalm residence. Those of us that live 1,000 feet away could see the new residents storing cars past this 1,000 foot restriction making ow entire neighborhood appear as a used car lot. I quesrion the safety of our children and �randchildcen with the incre�ed uaffic from Alzheimer patients aztd the families of the patients. As you are aware we pay prime tate taxes. I believe I deserve and my neighbors ulike, to continue to enjoy this beautiful, quiet neighborhood. I also am aware ihat there have been sevual offeis made hy families to purchase 15 Montcalm Court (for the use intended, a single family home). Legitimate, compeUdve and fare offers. I believe that the owners of IS Montcalm Court will sell out the neigHlsorhood to the highest bidtler, regerdless of the impact on the surrounding residents. Ouc only pcotecrion is to insure that the St. Paul Zoning Committ�e (and then City Council) dces not change this residential zone into commercial. Protect ynurself by writing to ourcounsel members and sttending this zoning committee meeting. Meeting: Re: Proposal before Zoning Committee Planning Commission March 19, 1998 3:00 pm 3`� floor of City Hall St. Paul City Counsel Chamber I have anclosed copies of two lecters from local residents expressing their concem of fhe possible negative change ta aur neighborhood. P.S If you can not attend the committee meeting, please immediately fax a letter to the Zoning Committee aitention 3im Zdon, Zoning flffice at (612} 228-3314: - Zoning Comcnittee 25 West 4`� St t z�o Ciry Hati Aiinex St. Pau1, MN•55t02 (612}2b6-6559 . Si�eiely, A very concerned neighbor ,�- � j°- . l'`'1 Q- � Dn nJ . . . _ . . .•� . . t � . ..... . . . � .. �� a � � .,._ K�-��N M�•�" ..��'�e� LAUsE OF 1 �k. ►b . .r�x�k ri.�a� � � ►�►2,� f�G*� � ►Jss �7 . � � ► L � S � ►.� C�'� , r MAR-19-98 1.']4o PM DREW_KASqNUK 522 0846 - - P_01 _� � � � �� MARCFI 18TH 1998 RE: ZUNING FILE NUMB$R 9g-011 ZOAiING COMIvII'ITEE 25 WE ST FOURTf I STREET 1100 CITY HAI,I, ANNE}{ ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55 ] 02 I�EAR MFt. JIM ZDON, ZONING OFPICE: PLEASE READ THIS I..ETTER DURING THE SCHEDUL.�D MF,ETII�IG AT 3:00 P.M. MARCI� 19I�I 1498. IF POSS7BE MAICF, COPIES FOR AI.L IN A'I'TF.'NDLNCH. 70 ANY A"T�IETIAII3G'iIIL ME�TING REGARI)TNG li MOUNI'CALM COURT AS MY WIE� AND I REGRET n wE ARE Urt ARi F TO ATTENI) T� Ng;��i�. � PERSON. COI�ICF,RNED NETC3HBORS IN T�3E AREA HAVE ASKED MY WIN� AND T TO LET T'EiE NEIG�iBORS AND Tf CTI'Y OF�ICIALS KNOW THAT WE ARE 1N1'P.RPSTED IN PURCHASING IS MOTJN`ICALM COURT, • MY WI2�'E AND Oi1R POUR DAUGFITERS WOULD OCCUPY AND USE THfi PROPERTY AS TT WAS BUII,T ANT? DESIGNED AS A SINGLE FAMII�Y HOME. R'F: FiAVE MADE SEVERAI. WRTTT'k,N OFFERS TO'I'�lE SELLEI2S AS ITTGH AS 5275,000 HOWEVER THE SELLERS WANiED MORE FOR THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIl��fE.. W1ILN V� MAI)E I�IL OFFER3IT� SELIBRS WERE ASKING 5310,000 F'Olt 7I� PROPERTY. WE RL;ALIZE TI-iAT ANY SEI.LER WOULD WANf AS MUCH AS P053IB1.E FOR A HOME TI ARE Sf ;I,LING SO WE UNDERSTAND Wf3Y Tf HAVE REJ'ECT� oUR SEVERAL WRI1 f�I OFF�:RS. Tf� HOME IS VERX UII.APIDATED IN NTBD OF MAJOR RESTORATIQi�I SO WE FEiLT OUR OFFf�RS HAVE BEEN FAIR. M7' WIFE ANA I HAVE RP.MOI7ELF.D HOMES FqUR TFiE: pAST 15 Yf;ARS MOST IId NE�D OF MAIOR ItEf-iAB SOME READy FOR TI II? RECKTNG BALL. WE HA VE RECYCI.ED THEM INTO SOME THfs MCEST HOMES ]N THE ARI;A TfiUS KEEP7NG Tf�v1 ON TI-IF. TAX ROI..ES AND Il3CREASING SUI2ROUNDII�IG PROPI;RTY VALUES. WE WOULD GREAIZY ENJOY RECYCLING 15 MOUNT CALM COURT. IT MAY BE MORE PROFTI'ABI.E FOR TE-IE INVESTORS CURRIiM TRYING TO CTL#NGE THE . HOME INTO A HF,AVY COMNIERCIAL USAGE HOWEVLR IT IS OL7R OPION TI�AT Tf1L NEIGHBOR HUOD WTLL SUFFk;R AT3D SURROUNDJNG��OMES WOULD LaSE VALL7E IF 15 MUUNTCAI,M COUKT IT IS CHANGE:D FRQM RESID�IAL TO COMMEFtCIAL PROPFj.E27Y. MPR-19T93 1Z:44 P� � DRE41_K4iBFiNUK 522 0846 -- P= B2 � � � t �/ TT IS NOT OUR INT�NTION TO UPSET TFIii SELLERS ORNFIGfiBORS WfiO WANT AN Ai � T�IIdER FACII,II'Y II�T TF�Rf: NEI(sF�ORH04B RA�R OUR INI'EN tIUN IS TO ��RM TI�E COMIvI[JNI'IY AND CTIY OFFICIALS T�FIAT TiiL; OPIION IS STILL OPLZ.t TO KEF:P Tfifs ARL•A AS IT WAS 3N7�ENDED A SINGLE FAMiLy RESIDENI'IAI. NEIGHBORHOOD. . WE ARE S1ILI, INTEP.LSTE.� IN pURCHASING Tf� f�UML I-TOW EVf;R IIi$ SEFLT.F.RS HAVE INl'ORMED US T'F�AT T'HEY WOULD ONLY LOOK AT OUR OFFEFtS IF Tl� CTT'Y DBNIES Tf� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT T111;REFORF CANCELIN'G TF�RFi CURRhyNT PURCT�ASE CONI'I23GbNf CUNTRAC7. WE HOPE TO NEGOTIATE A SIITrABI,E PURCf1ASE AGREEiMP.21T' WIT�i 1IiE SELI.ERS AS SOON AS POSSU3E.E. WE ASK THAT THE CITY REJECT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW US A�EW r.� � TH IF WE ARE�: UNABI� TO RF,ACFI AN AGRF.EMIfiNf '1 FiAN T� PROC;ESS CAN CONTINiJ� WIiL:RE R IS CCJRREN'fLY. WE IiOPE YOIJ �IAVE CAREFUIZY CONSIDERED UUR PROPOSAI. AND F�ECT YOU TO DO WHA'1' IS BEST FOR YOUR rAMILIES ANA YOUR COMMUNITY. TF "IT3I3RE ARE ANY QUF.STiONS P�F,I, IRE:E TO CONTACT US AT O'UR HOML AT 522-0846. SINCERELY ��-�%��.�.� DREW G. KABANUK �; (��__ TERR.I L. KAT3ANUK � � From: To: Date: Subject: � Sonyama <SOnyama�aol.com> STPAUL.SmtpMimel"james.zdon") 3(19(98 1:08pm Special use permi[. for 15 Montcalm Court Dear Mr. Zdon, After our conversation this morning I consolidated my thoughts about the intended use of 15 Montcalm Court. �� 1 �� I chose to live in this neighborhoocl because beauty and the aesthetics of the drive to my home is very important to me - the beauty of old architecture and landscaping - of feelings of security and responsible, caring neighbors. 2 have even complained to a neigribor about a child�s unsightly car parked in front of my house - a fact I wish I could reverse in hindsight - but I mention this point to show you how deeply I feel about my environment's attractiveness. In fact, although our street's residents are never invasive of privacy, they a11 seem to have some element about which they feel sufficienCly strong to make note of it. One neighbor who we call "The Mayor of Montcalm Place" has chastised me for driving too £ast on a street where he and others walk every day. I took seriously his concern for community responsibility and slow down every time I see his house. Not only do we have pride of community, we also feel we have some abiliCy to monitor the security of our environment by calling each other when we see strange aars or people on the street to make sure everything is alright. This is possible with a rather stable population where we know people's cars and faces. When the burglaries were oacuring last summer on Edgecumb, we were quite alert about diPferent cars driving on the street. We all £eel comfortable in walking at any time on the street which mosC of us do with our dogs. BuC, I have been very uncomfortable reaching the south end of the stxeet because strange cars were parked, idling, with unknown people in them. I didn't like the feeling. What were they doing there at 10:00 at night - casing our street? It was enough for me to run home, even with my large dog. In the context of the environment 2've described, I would make the following observations to you. Hopefully they wi11 be considered. 1. The impact of any one property and its use is much wider than the adjacent lOD £eet or even 350 feet; the impact is on the entire Place - Montcalm Place. 2. to � 3. 4. Yet, I don't believe we, the Place, has been informed of what is about happen - by the developers or the city. Nor do we know what the closest neighbors who have apparently been Included are requesting in their reguirements. This is clearly a residential community. Having a religious community ��-�� as part of it is different than having profit-making institution as part of it. Surely the best thing £or the street is to maintain the individual sense of pride, responsibility, and sense of empowerment to maintain our environment. Working with an institution is a very diE£erent situation, especially an institution � with less permanent personnel who have no stake in the immediate community. And, just perhaps this is just the best thing possible. We wouldn't know without being informed. Thank you for your consideration and time. Sonya Anderson 640 MOntcalm PlaCe � U • ��-��s i • � ROHERi H.CFIn\DLER ROD�EY J. Ye50V ' PatiL p. BRO�' SCOTI P.:SOESi �iasx v. sozx d]tY-JO C.VE%SOLn20 OF GOL'T'SEL XATHERI\E VESSEYES' �AL50 AD:ftSTED t0 PRACS[CE I\ wI5G0.\'SI� March 7 9, 7 998 Zoning Committee Attn: James Zdon 25 West Fourth Street 7100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55] 02 Re: 15 Montcalm Court Dear Mr. Zdon: 4700 NoawEST CEN1'EH 90 $OC?8 $EVE`.TH $Tg£ET �LI\'`'FdPOLZS,TIZV_i£S02A 55402 (612) 347-0282 HA1V� DELIVERED i live at 607 Montcalm Place, which is rivo blocks away from 15 Montcalm Court. I am extremely concerned that a special condition use permit may be granted to allow this property to be used as a care facility. The paving of any of this propeny beyond a traditional driveway is totaliy inappropriate for a residential neaghborhood. I am also very concerned that this facility will cause an increase in traffic over the residential streets adjacent to the property. Many young families have moved to this neighborhood to take advantage of the fine schools in the area. Everyone in this neighborhood pays extremely high taxes to live in one of the nicest residential neighborhoods in the City. I am amazed that anyone would seriousiy consider a]lowing this use in this neighborhood which will certainly cause a decrease in property values and cause many of us to consider moving out of the neighborhood. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the committee meeting this afternoon. Please provide copies of this letter to the committee members. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely-yours, � �l� .Paui D. Brown '�: � GHANDLE$ AI\TD MASO�T, LTD. ATTOBFEYS AT LA�V 1GO7 PIOti£E$ BUILDI\G 336 1�'ORTH ROBEHT' STREET S.uvr Paui, bfxv*r�soxa ssioi {612) 228-0497 FAX (612) 228-923> AEPLY TO SdL`ii PAUL OFPSCE cc: Council Member Michael Harris by hand delivery The Honorable Norman Coleman by hand delivery 03/29i98� TAi' C8:19 FetiY 6126A65963 Sue and Say f�0o1 . Jay Johnson and Sue Ditmanson 694 Montcalm Pface St. °aul, MN 55116 Re: fte-aoning of the property at 15 Montcaim Court. Dear Mr. Jim Zdon and fhe Zoning Office: f wouid like to voice my concern and strong opposition to the re-zoning considerations of 15 Montcalm Court. l � ` `�j 1 believe this is a beautiful neighborhood of singie family homes and feel this is the way it shouid stay. ! recently moved in to the area and would not have knowing a4 your re-zoning plans. My property values are going to significantly drop by your re-zoning ofi this property. 1 setiously doubt you are going to lower my property taxes to accommodate this drop. i wonder how many other beaut'rfui, old neighborhoods have started their deteriorafion by having an eye sore home bought up by an uncaring business interest. I can not be4ieve that ths taxes collected on this one property are crucial to the city of St. Paul. • The options of this property becoming a sing{e farni(y hame have not 6een exhausted. The property has been left to run down so that the renovation expense is prohibitive at ifs present price. 1 feel the value of this house is whaf the market wii( bear by single famity buyers. If the price needs to be dropped to meet this value, so be it. The sale of my home had to be dropped to meet the community value. That is the facfs of selling a home. I wouid afso fike to bring up the fact that the use of this home in the past is, seemingly, outside of the definition of single family zoning. Was there no laws to protect this neighborhood or was there just no enforcement of thesa laws. My point is, please give this property back to the neighbofiood. The increased traffic, lawns tumed into parking lots, and the instittstionalizing of the neighborhood are of great concern to me. Piease don't fet the present owners 15 Montcalm Court se�l out the neighborhood, as they have, seemingly, overstepped fhe boundaries af a singie family zoning in the past. i hope the zoning committee and the city councii will protect us from the selfing out of a neighborhaod. � G MRR-18-1998 10�28 H 8 BC MRRKETING 612 951 3465 P.fll _ 1�. ' � ��'�'I �c�o� � �. ��C� a�' -�t �� / Murphy, Mike (MN27) . _^ _ _ __ . . _. __.__ __.—� To: Murphy, Mike (MN27) Subject: 15 Montcaim Court Zoning Gommittee 25 West Fourth Street �'f 00 City Hall Annex St. Pau[, Mn. 55102 Attn: Jim Zdon, Zoning O�ce This memo is in regard to the proposed speciai condition use permit under consideration for 15 Montcalm Court Our home, which is now in my wife Mary Lynn's name, is at 6�9 Montca(m Pface. We have lived on Montcalm since 1973, and highly value its' unique resident�al charm- one ot the nicest in the city! For 25 years we have paid some of the highest residentiai taxes �n St Pau! because we so appreciate the character of th�s htBe area and want to live there, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ALZHEIMER CARE FACILITY AT 15 MONTCALM COURT! The increase in traffic, pask+ng problems, 24 hour a day vendors and support staff coming and �oing, large trash containers in view(probabiy), medical waste di5posai requirements, assisted paiienfs walk�ng in the streets ( there are anly limited sidewalks)... we didn't sign up for this! 7HIS IS A RESIDEN7IAL NEIGNBORNOOD, NOl" COMMERCIAL. Over the last 25 years I would estimate the 25 or so homeowners on Montcalm have paid in excess of S3million in taxes, on a cumulative basis. If this iovely neighborhood deteriorates, it will mean less taxes to the city. Already, one substantiai home adjacent to the proposed care center has gone unsold for over 6 months- I wondered why,now t know! We are not opposed to Alzheimer care. Lord knows we'If all probably be there someday. We are very much opposed to granting a spec+al use permit tor 15 Montcalm CouR and permanently defacing a great oid St Paui neighborhood. • �"�r.cr�c, � �-� ��`'� � `� Edward L(Mike) and Mary Lynn Murphy r/ � 609 Montcaim Piace ��,/ � St Paui. Mn. 55t16 U � � ��: �� 1 3�� . z ��,,-, ��" � �. �-� l �� s � Page 1 Y�� ,"� . �� : g s �, �� G 2 � 1 TOTFiL P.01 POLSKI & POLSKI ID� MAR 18'98 15:41 No.005 P,O1 � PLSKI ffRS7AR CENtER SUITE1�12 l01 EASY FIFTH STREET SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA 551D7 •1808 TELfPHONE: (672)224-1776 FAX (612J22d-0B83 ��_�� OC P ��K� ATfORNEYSAiIAW March 38, 1998 Zoning Committee of the St. Paul Planning Commission RobertJ.Polski 1421-7977 Robert J. PoLSki, Jr. Membar O� the Mlnnstctc and Wiscons�n Bnrs VIA FAX ONLY NO. 228•3314 Attention: Jim Zdon Re: Property address: 15 Montcalm Court - Special Condition llse Permit Dear Mr. Zdon: I represent Monica A. Polski relating to a speciai use permit application af 15 • Montcalm Court for the operafian of an a(zheimer's care facility. Monica resides at 590 Montcalm. We just learned of the zoning committee hearing schedu{ed for Thursday, March 19, 1998. Neither Monica nor myself are able to attend that meeting, therefore, 1 ask that you accept this letter in lieu of our appearance. Monica strongly opposes the proposed special condition use permit in this residential neighborhood. As you know, this neighborhood consists of upper bracket homes in a very desirabie St. Pau1 location. Obviously, a care faci4ity for alzheimer patients is out of character with the neighborhood and its present use. Surely, the present owners of 15 Montcalm Court could sell the property as a residence due to its very desirable location. Why is it necessary to use it as samething other fhan a residential home? i, myseif, would be very interested in purchasing that prope�ty as a residence, if the opportunity presented itself. I am sure fhere are other areas of the city more fitting for a oare facility other than the one proposed ai 15 Montcalm Cou�t. Sincerefy, � �� : Robert J. o{ski, Jr RJPfjth � � almis�polslJ�m�xo�unpmle ��-�SS � February 27, 1498 Zoning Committee Saint Paul Planuina Commission Re: Montcalm ResidencelPeter Keely Unfortunately, I will be out of town at the time of your meeting. Please accept my comments in this form. My concern is that the neighborhood is presenfly a quiet one with not a lot of iraffic. The proposal before you will increase tra�c and change the neighbochood from residenrial. The pazking requirement will make that piece of property resemble a used caz lot. As I understand, fhe city wants space for 12 cars. That will result in the loss of the small front yazd and the small back and side yard will be hard-pressed to pazk these � cazs. If a screen is used, it would help but I doubt it would be effecfive. I quesrion the financial ability to tum this buiiding into what they pxopose and then what? Also, the proposal states patients will pazk not closer than 1,000 feet of the 15 Montcalm residence, I question whether yuu really want alzheimer patients driving anywhere. T$ you, ! Jo Kinkead 6 Montcalm Place Saint Paul, MN 55116 . �� Nfarch 18, 1998 Zoniag CommiEEee Saint Paul Planning Commission Re, i 3 Montcaim Court Unfortunately I will not be at the meeting but want to voice my concems. I moved into the city from the suburbs on the assumption that if I bought in a quiet residential neighborhood it would remain so. Never did I dream that a neighborhood of suhstantial housing investments ( and high taxes), usually a guarantee of neighborhood stability, would be endangered by rezoning! You aze in a very bad situation when the home values are not guazanteed by a zoning thae is strieyly single family residentiai. This is above and beyond the fact that it is quiet, with many walkers, and without leeway for increased parking either on site or in ihe street. Street parking and walkers on that curve would be dangerous and the addit3onal parking needed by �ielivery trucks and service workers wouid defuutely change the residential quiet that r exists now. It is this quiet and serenity that keeps the home values lugh. yVhy would yon want to discredit the stability of one of St. Paul's nicest n€ighborhoods? Certainiy ther� are num�rous sit�s for an Alzheimer facility in this big city4 Karin Eriekson, a ver� eoneerned neighbor / �, /.-' . ` G ' � r /� J �� LjV ��_ ��;�v � lolvS` �oNr`l'�4LM �'G/!N� $T��i4UC ��N <5 �5%/6 . � � 2-25-98 Zoning File Number 98-011 Zoning Committee 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex St. Faul, Minnesota 55102 Attention: Jim Zdon, Zoning Office: ► : \i �� This is in regard to the proposed special condition use permit under consideration for 15 Montcalm Court. My property extends to within a few feet of 15 Montcalm Court. I am convinced that my property and all other property nearby would be significantly depreciated by the developer's proposed establishment of an Alzheimer care facility at this location. Granted, its proposed use sounds benign but it is nonetheless a profit-making venture for its developers. Unlike those of us who live here, the developers � won't have to share the consequences of this monstrosity if it goes forward. This is a prime residential area with equally "prime rate" taxes. If this neighborhood deteriorates, it will mean decreasing t�es to the city. One choice home immediately adjacent to this proposed care center has remained unsold for more than six months. Other nearby home owners who would like to escape the coming neighborhood deterioration will undoubtedly find it equally difficult to find buyers. Xes, it's proposed as a care center for the aged ( of which I am one ) but it will be a permanent eyesore in a great old 5t. Paul neighborhood that deserves better. High, prison-like fences must be erected around the property. Front lawns must give way to institutional parking space; quiet streets to staff and supply vehicie 9;raffic. In 1963, I established a St. Paul-based business that ultimately provided more than 50 well paying jobs. As a businessman, I can appreciate the city's interest in restoring this property to the tax rolls, but I would plead with you to find a more neighborhood-compatible solution. ,' - K.M. str�a 2 Montcalm Hill . St. Paul, Minnesota 55116 � � . ��y�L � Gv-.�- �� is C�.�� -��:� �� ,��- �-� �� r/��,>�� 1�igy� � /� , �� . �� Ed & Connie Mc Cennon S 741 Lexington Pk}c S. Saint Paul, MN 55115-2348 RECEIVED FEB 2 5 199$ ZONING � DEPARTMENT OF PLANiVING � � "N �S & ECONOiYIIC DEYELOP.I�IENT � Pamela Wheelact Diredor Cfii'Y OF SAINT PAUL Norrtt Colemars, Mayar i • 25 West Fourth S�eet Telephonc 611-266-6565 Saint Pau{ MN 55102 Fatsimite: 612-228-3314 To: Planning G'ommission Zoning Committee From: James Zdon Re: 15 Montcalm Special Condition Use Application Date: Mazch 11, 1998 On March 5, 1998 the Zoning Committee held a public hearing regarding the Special Condition Use Application for 15 Montcalm Court. During the course of the public hearing the Zoning Committee leamed that the developer's applicarion, because of ongoing negotiations with adjacent neighbors, had changed in the following manner: 1. The developer was no longer requesting a front yard set back variance for four parking spaces. 2. Because front yard parking was eliminated, the pazking variance request had increased from two to six parking spaces. 3. The developer had submitted, for the Zoning Committee's consideration, additional conditions (copy attached) to the special condition use permit. At the close of the testimony, the zoning committee decided to carty over the public hearing until March 19, 1998 and asked planning staff to review the revised site plan and the additional conditions and report back to the zoning committee with a staff recommendation. Staff Recommendation: 1. Staff recommends approval of the special condition use permit with the modification of condition 3(d) in the February 25, 1998 staff report, that reflects a variance of six (6) parking spaces. 2. Addiflonal Conditions. Staff has reviewed the attached site plan and the addirionai conditions submitted by the developer. Those conditions which staff would recommend as applicable and enforceable under the special condition use permit aze as follows: a. The special condifion use pernut is for a State Deparhnent of Health licensed Elderly Contraet With Services Board and Lodging Facility, or equivalent license serving �� -� �S • elderly and/or Alzheimer residents, of up to 16 bedrooms and a maximum of 21 residents. b. Petmission for special condition use appiies only as long as the number of facility residents is not increased and its purpose or location do not change and other conditions of the pemut aze met. c. Commercial deliveries will not occur between 7:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. d. A site plan consisting of the following conditions shall be submitted by April 19, 1998 to the City of Saint Paul's Zoning Adutinistrator to insure conformance with the special condition use permit conditions and city zoning regulations: i. There will be a minimum of seven off street pazking spaces. The e�sting drive will remain in its current locataon with no pazking in the front yard; driveway width shall be sufficient to accommodate two vehicles passing at the front door. ii. There will be no new fencing in the &ont of the building. Fencing is allowed azound the southerly and easteriy sides of the building. Such fencing shall be green or brown in color, shail not exceed 6'/� feet in height and shall be screened � from the front yard' by shrubbery. iii. All outdoor air conditioning equipment shall be located in the back yazd and! or on the roof of the back (bluf� side of the building. iv. The trash receptacle area shall be fully enclosed with a fence of siY feet in height. v. No light shall spfll over to adjacent properties from exterior lighting sources in excess of one (1} foot candle. � vi. The premises may have one identification sign not to exceed 6 square feet in azea. � • FI.JM GRAY PLAI.T MO�TY MOOTY & HENNETT ��) � i ��K�S (WED) 3. 4' 98 77:06/ST. 77:05/NO. 4261011372 P � Following aze provisions that would be included in a petmit for speciat condition use (ihe "Permit") to be applied for by a Minnesota limited liability compnny (K$ich has not yet 6een formed) to be majority owned and conholled by Peter Keely and Dirk Bordsen (referred to below as `Bnyer°'). , 1. The development consists of a state licensed residence in an existing building at the 15 Montcaim Court premises for up to 16 bedrooms and a ma�cimum of 21 persons who are over age sixty-five, whom aze frai! elderty or elderly whom have been diagnosed with Dementia or Alzheimer's disease, and accompanying assisted-living services to include azound the clock staffing, meal services aud health caze as needed (the "Faci2ity"), provided no persons shall reside in the Facility who require skilled nursing home caze such as a nursing home. The Buyer agrecs to keep records with the 5tate of Minnesota, as required by the licensing agents. The Facility's primary use is for Dementia and Alzheimer's patients, azyd at no time could the Facility be used as a"halfway" house (a facility for Dementza or Alzheimer's patients providing assisted living shall in no eveot be considored a "halfway" house"). 2. IIuxing any time the rcal property is used as described above the fotlowing conditions shall app3y: a• Site improvemenu wi11 conform with the site plan dated Mazch 4, 1998, as attached (the "Site Plan'�, including the pazking revision of March 4, 1998, including the foilowing: (t) There wi11 he a minimum of seven (7) off sfreet pazking spaces. The existing drive is to remain in its current location with no pazking in the &ont yard; driveway width to accommodate two vehicles passing at front door. (ii) There wil! be na new fencing in the�front of ihe building. There will be fencing azound t6e Southerly and Easterly sides of the building. Sueh fencing wi11 be chain link, 12 feet hi�h. co(ored green or brawn, and shall be screened from the tront yazd by shrubbery. �J (iii} All outdoor air conditioning equipment shall continue to be located in its present location in the back yard and/or on the roof on the back (bluf� side of the Building. F-,:OM GRAY PLANT MooTY MoOTY d� HENNETT i�17 fWED) 3. 4' 98 17:07/ST. 17:05/NO. 4261 0 1 1 372 P � . . �� `f �� jiv) Buyer shall instruct its service providers, that, except in the event of an emergency, no cominercial de(iveries shall be made between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. b. The usea6le footprint of the existing building will not be increased &om its present condition, except for a porch at the existing front door. Existing @ecks and porches may be renovated. 1Vo other structures will be built or located on the premises with the exception of a porch at the exisring front door and a trash enclosure in conformity with the Site Plan; and the basic style and natuze of the exterior walis and roof will not be changed. c. Th� Buyer shal! take reasonable measures to assure that no resident leaves the Facility unattended (exccpt in thc fcnced-in yazd), and for such purposes shall install and maintain a secwity system designed to do so. d• The Permit as written cannot be changed or amcnded by Buyer or subsequent ocvners without foliowing the special condition use permit policies and procedures as written in the City of St. Paul zoning code. e. The trash receptacle azea shali be fiiliy enclosed with a fence of six feet in height. • f. No light fixture shall spiil over to adjacent properties from exterior lightiug sources, in excess of 1 foot candLe. g. Water drainage shall fIow as it does currently. h• The premises may have one idcntification sigtt consisting of letters not in excess of 5" in height in white and brown or other natural colors which shall he secured to the building, such sign sha11 not have more than fifty (50) letters; and parking control signs which shall be as unobtrusive as possible. The identification sign itself may be lighted by a light shining on it. i• The care and maintenance of the building and the landscaping shall remain consistent with the cate and maintenance of the neighborhobd and its residential chazacter. ). Additional health and safety systems and procedures wi11 be installed and maintained as tequired by the City ordinances and regulations to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents and community, k. Residents will be required to agree not to keep or pazk vehicles on the public street within 1,000 feet of ihe Facility. � I. Healthy, mature trees will be retained. m. Commezcial deliver3es will not occur between 7:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. F_fioM GRAY PLAN7 MboTY MooTY & BENNETT (ZS) � ��-ti �� 3. The permii for special condition use (the "Permit") shall run with the tcal property. 4. Buyer shait have the right to sell, Iease or otherwise convey the underlying rea! property and Facility and/ot a change in controi may occur and this permit shall survive and benefit such new owners, provided: (i) 7'he purchaser or the new controlling person and operator shall consent in writing to be bound by each and every tecm and condition of this Permit as though such purchaser or other new controIling person and operator was Buyer; (ii) The Buyer shall not be relieved from any obligarion or liability arising out of this Permit by virtue of such sale or change in control and operation whieh occurs prior to sueh sale or change in control ofoperation; and (iii) Written norice of any proposed sale or change in control and operation must be provided to the City together with � �- 'such documentation and information regazding the proposed purchaser and any new controiling person and operator as the City may zeasonably request at least thirty (30) days prior to the proposed sale or change in control and operation. 5. Upon such sale or transfer, Buyer shali automatieally be relieved from any and all obligations arising hereunder after the date of such transfer.. 6. The Pecmit shall automatically terminate upon the Buyer's or operator's breach or failure to compIy with any provision ofthe Permit orthe Buyer's breach or failure to comply with City Ordinances, zoning code, regulation or of the ferms, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Permit which breach or failure continues aRcr thirty (30) days' written notice thereof from the City to the Buyer. In the event that the breach az failure is the type of breach or failure that reasonably takes more than (30) days to cure, Buyer should have such addirional time as is reasonably necessary to cure the breach or failure, provided $uyer is diligently attempting to cure such breach or failure. Failure of the buyer to cure eny such breach or failurc within such time period shall result in the automatic termination of the Permit, whereupon the $uyer shall immediately cease operation of the Facility. The Buyer recognizes and agrees that any resulting cessation of operations may result in financial hazdship, however, the Buyer agrees to waive all agreements, lega] or equitable, based upon such fnancial impact. (WED) 3. 4"96 17 : 0 7/ST.17:05/N0.4261013372 P 4 � FPOM GRAy PI:ANT MOOTY MOOTY & SENNETT (�1) � 7 (WED) 3. 4' 98 17:0')/ST. 17:05/NO. 4261 01 1 372 p 5 ��_ L �� The permit s6aI1 be filed with the County Recordcr or Registrar of Titles of Ramsey Covnty, ivlinnesota. GP_4473a9 v2 247971al7l6S9 � . � c� � � ZODTING COMMITTHS STAFF RSPORT �__�_�____ FILH # 98-011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATE RBCLIVBD: 2/5/98 DEADLINS FOR ACTION: 4/6f98 � A. PIIRPOSS: Special condition use permit to allow conversion of a residential structure greater than 9D00 square feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer. A parking variance o£ up to six spaces and a£ront yard setback varianoe o£ approximately 20 feet to allow four parking spaces. B . L � APPLICANT: Peter Keely DATE OF FiEARING: 3/5/98 CLASSSFICATION: Special Conditional Use LOCATION: 15 Montcalm Court PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 LSGAL DSSCRZPTION: Lots 4 and 5 Montcalm Court PR8S8NT ZONING: R-1 ZONING CODS REFER&NCB: Section 60.413, 64.300, 62.102, 64.203. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: February 25, 1998 BY: James Zdon PARCBL SIZB: This irregular pie shaped parcel consists of approximately 240 feet of side yard along Highland Parkway and 130 feet fronting Montcalm court. Total parcel size is 89,549 square feet. EXISTING LAND IISB: The property is occupied by a vacant 13,875 square foot residential structure. SIIRROUNDING LAND IISIi: North: Single £amily residential uses in a R-2 zoning district. East: Single £amily residential uses in a R-4 2oning district South: Single family residential uses in a R-1 zoning district West: Single family residential uses in a R-1 zoning district. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 60.413 (12) of the zoning code states that the planning commission may permit the conversion or reuse of residential structures of over nine thousand (9000) square feet if, £ollowing a public hearing, the planning commission makes the £indings detailed in #3 of this staff report. Section 64.300(f)(1)of the zoning code states that the planning commission may modify special conditions. � �� ! Section 64.3o�(f)(2) of the zoning code states that the planning commission may act as the board of zoning appeals and granC variances_ Section 62.103 establishes parking requirements for various uses and section 6a.203 provides for the variance of those requirements. F. HISTORY/DISCIISSION: None G DISTRICT COONCIL RECODII68NDATION: On December 4, 1997 the Highland Area Community Council took a position in support of the special condition use permit for 15 Montcalm Ct. The support was dependent on the applicant gaining the required signatures of 2/3 of the property owners within S00 feet. When the District Council took this position it was not aware the applicant would also be asking for a parking variance and a front yard setback variance to allow parking in the front yard. H FINDINGS: 1. 15 Montcalm Court is a vacant residential structure of apgroximately 13,875 square feet that has fallen into disrepais. Located in a R-1 zoning district, the home was built in 1947 and was used as a single family residence until 1962. It was then converted to a 25 person residence for the Catholic order of the Oblate Fathers. In 1970 it became the "LUbavitch House" and was run by the Upper Midwest Merkos Jewish Education Association as a synagogue and education retreat • center. For approximately the last year the house has been vaaant. 2. The applicant, who has an option to purchase the property, proposes to completely renovate trie interior and exterior of the house and convert it into a board and care residence for the frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer. There would be 16 bedrooms with a maximum of 21 residents. Services by three fu11 time employees would include 24 hour supervision, food service and support activities. The facility would be licensed by the state and it would be run by Franciscan Health Care which owns and operates St. Mary�s senior residential housing in Highland Park. 3. Section 60.413 (12) o£ the zoning code states that the planning commission may permit the conversion or reuse of residential structures of over nine thousand (9000) square feet if, following a public hearing, the planning commission makes the following findings. a The structure cannot be feasibly used for a conforming use. This condition is met. This single family residential structure, because of its large size, has been used from 1962 to 1597 as either a religious residency facility or retreat/activity cenCer. The property has been vacant for the last year and on the real estate market. So far there have been no buyers willing to purchase it and renovate it as a single family home. i � �- ��s • b. The propoeed use and plans are coasisteat with the comprehensive plan. Triis condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opportunities for individuals and households with special needs. c. The proposed uae aad etructural alteratione or additions are co�atible with the surrounding aeighborhood and land uses. This condition is met. The site is surrounded by single £amily uses and the applicant proposes to restore the structure and make it feel and look residential. The proposed use, as a residence facility £or £rail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer, is a quiet unobtrusive land use. The residents, because of their mental/physical limitations, will not drive or be allowed off the premises. Traffic generated by the facility will be visitors and 3 full time and 3 gart time employees. d. Parking for the new use ehall be provided in accordance with the requirements of section 62.103 for new structures. This condition is not met. The required parking for this proposed facility is 13 parking spaces. (21 beds would require 10 spaces and the three full time employees would require 3 spaces.) The applicant is proposing 11 0££ street parking spaces and is asking that the planning • commission modify this condition for the following reasons: 1. Facility residents cannot drive nor are they allowed to riave cars. 2. Parking would only be used by staff and visitors. The maximum number of staEf at any one time would be 6 leaving 5 proposed spaces for visitors. 3. The more parking that is required will make the facility look institutional and hinder the applicant's objective of retaining the residential character of the facility. For the reasons above, modification of the condition is reasonable. e. Applications for conversion or reuse shall include a notarizad petition of two-thirds of the property owners within one hundred (100) feet o£ the property proposed for the reuse, site glans, building elevations and landscaping plans and other infoxmation which the planning commission may request. This condition is met. A notarized petition including the signatures of 11 of the 16 property owners eligible to sign the petition was submitted along with site and landscaping plans. � 4. Section 64.300(d) of the zoning code requires that be£ore the planning commission may grant approval of a principle use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find that: �� -� �� • a. Tha exteaC, location aad intenaity of the use will be ia substaatial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and aay applicable subarea pana which were approved by the city council. This condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy £or the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansiori of supportive housing opportunities for individuals and houseriolds with special needs. b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize tra£fic congeation in the public streets. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to result in less traffic--and, therefore, less potential £or congestion-- than the religious activity/retreat center that used the structure from 1970 to 1997. c. The use will not be detrimental to the existing charaoter of the development in the immediate aeighborhood or endaager the public health, safety and general wel£are. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to contribute to the public health and welfare by providing elderly care services needed by the surrounding community. d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and � improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. This condition is met. The applicant has committed to restoring this dilapidated vacant structure to a residential appearance that will be compatible to the surrounding residential structures. e. The use shall, in all reapecta, coaform to the applicable regulations o£ the district in which it is located. This condition is met. Insofar as the planning commission approves the modifica'tion of conditions 3(d) above and the front yard setback requirements to permit 4 parking spaces in front,#6 below, the propased use conforms to all the appliaable regulations in the R-1 zoning district. 5. Section 64.300 (f) (1)of the zoning code states that the planning commission, after pvblic hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use o£ a piece of property or an existing structure and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner of such property or structure; provided that such modification will not impair the inCent and purpose of sucfi special oondition and is consistent with health morals and general welfare of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent • property. 6. The applicant is also requesting a front yard set back variance of approximately 20 feet to permit 4 parking spaaes to be developed in (., ��v�� * front of the structure on Montcalm Court. These parking spaces would be designated £or visitors. The applicant believes that if the visitor stalls are in the back of the site it is unlikely they will be used because they would be so far removed from the front door_ Instead, it is likely visitors would tend to park on the gublic street. To mitigate this impact and meet neighborhood concerns, the applicant believes visitor parking would be best served by front yard parking. Section 64.203 0£ the zoning code provides that the planning commission shall have the power to grant variances from strict enforcement of the provisions of the code upon making the following findings. a. The property ia question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provision of the code; This finding is met. The size of this structure, 13,875 square feet, make it unlikely that it will ever be used as a single family home. The fact that for the last 35 years it has been used for functions other than a single family home supports this conclusion. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. This finding is met. The property is an irregular pie shaped lot that fronts on a circular court drive shared with three other properties. � The properties' con£iguration leaves little room £or eacpansion or the provision of parking other than in the front or back of the structure. c. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, eafety, comfort, morals, welfare of the iahabitaats of tha City of Saiat Paul. This finding is met. The intent of the code setback provisions is to ensure there is a uniform appearance and character within a district. This property is unique in that it's £ront yard is on a circular court drive where the distance between the front of the structure and the circular drive varies between 47 feet to 80 feet. Second, because of the narrow charaater o£ the circular court driveway, adjacent neighbors would prefer that visitor parking be placed in the front yard rather than have visitors use the court drive for parking. d. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply o£ light and air to adjacant property, nor wi11 it alter tha essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding areas. To the extent that the variance would allow the applicant to restore this vacant dilapidated structure to its residential appearance, the essential character of the suzrounding area and its property values would not be diminished. , e. The variance, if granted, would not permit any usa that ie not permitted vnder the provisions of the code for the property in the district were the affected land ia located, not would it alter or change _l �� + the zoning district classification of the property. This finding is met. Nothing about this variance or the related special condition use permit would change the classification of the property as being in a R-1 zoning district. f. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to inorease the value or the income potential of the property. This finding is met. The applicant's variance request is based on a need to meet the code parking requirements and the desire to mitigate any potential impact of visitor parking on the public right of way. I. STAFF RSCOMDSSNDATION Staff recommends approval of the special condition use permit with the modification of condition 3(d) that allows a parking variance of 2 parking spaces. Further, staff recommends approval of a front yard setback variance that will allow 4 parking spaces. � � k •r %�a.. .f... _____--- � ' � �� , �- - 8 ( ��) �--- --� `� 7 � �� _._ �-Q' >> i � I � U1 �G3. -_ � �: � v, , � /'�� 3 �o� :. _:•��acm-...-.. `� _^ 5 ��.0._9 "_"-�._._....,..�._..._, �.� , �'� / �r, ti :� ,�,`"; _. � " --- w`� """'M r zoning district bou�dary .FlLE# "Q �� DATE ��j��7� � subjectproperty /\ �..,_ n� orthi �LNG. DIST____� �_ MAP # � S � 0 one family •• � commercial SCALE 1" = 400' �" � rivo family "�' � �..,igdusfriai r�� t¢ Q muftiple f8mify V vacant �� _ _ 2 '1 . l U Y �� ,, �� G! � �_ � �z � �3 i4� � 03/1] � � � � �. '; .. . ��...': .. t I ` , l • , : ' '��'. •�� , � v .: . � . w _ .. � �� '., . .. �. k' V�' ' ~ . J�� 'L " '` ' ; '' r _= .'>,�.��.:♦.'� � �� u O.� � '. E s e •. } � . , � .�. .• � � � e .• .�. �: � . . � � <. � � . �. � z ...� . ..'<. . ��S a � . o = '. � o �. : %� : � . ' ;. . .� . � : ... � � �: < ' :b �. ° .�'° : . . �' . .. I '+ ' � ' V y J J . f. � . ' � .. �.'•. U4 � . . �' ..��. � �. �' . �.. � . :� � � q�: : � � � � �� : r ` :,... , � �. ��'.. . , „ �� -'� . � � . :: �. ,: :.� . � W � W . ti z a �� _ W � W W Y WED 12:22 FAS 6123J95382 N ' , A ' /� h/ � , � ' ' . �� O/ , �• SI . ro � A •� � � s. � � :�_ : � < ;��.:` ::� : . ^;' z ��'� �.--`--`�-.-"- . .• t'� v _ _ _ _. .; , .. . z ' .�AVAI3AQIG .. r l • .�; � . S(qNIlliliR• ' • : ' . • - � _�. �:.� � ��'�, \S ��O / � 1 3 '�U 3�� _ �p�� 3��p� , Q � S � fh�r�°�o y! �� QDi .o� ��p,��W 1 � \ � � '� O ��,'� �� -� .: • ., � ��.'�6 '�v •. \ �� ; j�. `�� . /J :� �_'. _ , � � U .v i. � . : .. . , V �• 5 � �� ' � � W ' O � aw s � Z � � W Q ~� ' F ' F- � � . d � = r m � 9 �� m r K�NOd ,. .�:.�.� � j. � . . ^ ` . 8 M� .� O � y - 1 '� ra��. J S �a- : �� .� 2 0�= b =� Q �� v�z3 � � �. Q y �' 6 � , < �� . � � ��> �t� � � �� =z�� ._ . / / �yO V � V raj � � a ] �� g � , . � 4��'� •'' �" .' �� ' . ' t. ,�; g•.C�, : ./: �� ' ��4j•,';. �:. .•,�.�'.:. �� .. � r �� t z � / \ .. ._ � ... ..�� . : � /�� am ; �--. OS/11198 91ED 12:22 FA% 8129395582 �� •� I � t � J�ie � I ! 4 ' F i a' " �i � O i CJ � �� - N z S�9 � J b � 9 } � � w ,�q � Qd i 4 � Sp 0 R� „j'J'o..- N� o� 6 � »:: `�. �,, � , • a ' ;� ;;:;:' d� F: :' r';_i_'• �' % � . = ��Q�,.i � C!] t�. ;:;i�.,_. a � �iP . a� <°� `u. . _. z:: , ;,.� ,. `=� o ':�.' ��. '�,;.'•=::r gs <�'•�'�' � :��..:.. , , ... i S ?,P.a. • � , � - }:" .;: : �� . : ' e' : ;i� `;::, .. � . .: �n_,;_ �; . .P� �: �• •. * . � s O J ^ti4 � �. � �� i �� 3 _ �� , ESG A3tCHITECTS �� # � •b y 40 � � � � / / I i / / � � A� y kl 8 �� 4 U z S� >,.: ��; .,-_. C p.'� ._. G� ; c � 1!. s 1�� 'v t� / �� • d. O g rdoos l � y � f � a � •. Y t � i� 1 E �a�� 11� � r x- 1 l '�. a 0 U M J � � W � a � �§ �� g � a 6 a G � O 4 s�i� H � . � G=. F a _ U� 4 _ �. � PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a complete renovation of 15 Montcalm into a residence for frail elderl}• and elderly �vith dementia/Alzheimer, over a�e sixt}�-five. There would be 16 bedrooms and a maximum number of 21 residents. Services �vould be provided at the home includine 24 hour supervision, food service and support �activities. The overall concept of this style of assisted living is to provide a. residential setting for those who othen��ise may have to go to a nursin� home. Residents have a rooiu that may or may not be shared, and use of common space such as kitchen, livino rooms, lounges, and activity spaces. This ��ould not be a mirsing home in that it ��ould be licensed through ihe city and state as a board and care home, and would not be a skilled nursing facility. The building is currently suited very well for this type of function, and the renovation ��ould basically refinish all of the interior fi�ishes, as well as update the house mechanically, electrically and for use by the elderly, including an elevator and sufficient sizin� for battuooms. Ne�� rooms �vould be added and life-safety features would be installed. The exterior will be re-furbished with new windows, stucco in lieu of plywood sidin�, roof repairs, and complete renovation of the existing porches. The project is to be owned � by a limited liability corporation{to be nazned) comprised of the applicants. The house would be run by Fransican Health Care which owns and operates St. Mary's senior residential housin� in Higl�land Park. EXISTING L3SE , The latest use for the house �vas as the "Lubavitch House'. The house was run as an activity and retreat center for people of ail ages. Gatherings for ceremonies would take place, as well as �veekend retreats for teena�ers and adults. Due to this use, the house has been transformed to contain a large number of people. There were eleven bedroom �vhich contained t�vo to four beds each, laundry and a commercial Kitchen. Significant amounts of plumbing and bathrooms ha��e been added to accommodate the large groups of people. The house has been mostly vacant for the last yeaz and one hal£ The house has fallen into disrepair, and is badly in need of maintenence. CO\FORMiNG USES The house is approximately 14,000 square feet on three levels. It is solid concrete and masonry construction. Due to the overall size of the building and the construction type, it would be difficult and costly to renovate the home for single family use. There is very little character to the building that would make it desirable to maintain as a single family residence. The buildin� looks very institutional. The developers objective is to make the building look and feel residential. The building � although not necessarily attractive, and certainly not designated historical does have some historical significance. The home built in 1947, «�as built by famed St. Paul banker Otto Bremer, and any attempt to demolish the building would remove any historical impact the home may have in the future. � � � � G� �-� �� iJNITS Thz project �vill consist of a 16 bedrooms with some double occupancy bedrooms for a maaimum of 21 persons. BUILDING SIZE The footprint of the existing buildin� will not be increased from the currznt size. One exterior open porch will be added at the front door which remains behind the front yard setback, and one trash enclosure will be added. T�vo existin� storage sheds at the back of the property will be removed. The existin� character of the exterior will be maintained. PARKING The project proposes incorporating I i parking stalls. This is based on the nursing home requirement of one stall for three beds for a total of seven stalls, plus pazking azea for staff and visitors. The residents of this facility do not drive cars and will not bz storing cars at this location. Although the total parking provided is less than the total aniount that could be required under city ordinance we believe this to be more . than adequate. The agreement with the neighbors notes that we will add additional parkin� stalls off site if parking issues arise in the neighborhood. Through discussions with the neighborhood, it was understood that nobody would want to remove trees and green space for parking that is not used. The developers will add the extra stalls up to the city ordinance upon neighbor, or the City of Saint Paul's request. Proof of parking is noted on the site plan. The pazking as proposed extends over the required yazd space. The reason for includin� parking in the front yard is due to the fact that most of the visitors will park by the front door. If we do not provide for off street pazking, the visitors will park on street. Discussions with neighbors have indicated that they would prefer visitor parking by the frot�t door, and a�ain �ve do not want to overbuild parking stalls. Three of the side yard stalls aze existing in front of the gazage, and back into Montcalm. EXTERIOR LANDSCAPING C J The site has many trees and landscaping currently, many of the trees and the landscaping by the house are over�ro�vn and unhealthy. The developer proposes to retain healthy mature trees, and repla�e any trees or landscaping removed. Additional parking at the back of the lot-would require removing existin� healthy trees. ( t� 02/23'98 MON 10:06 FAS 6123395382 ESG ARCHITECTS `r.� � � �� - "l �� February 20, 1998 City of Saint Paul Zoning and Planning Department RE:15 Montcalm 5pecial nse permit application The applicant is requesting that the enclosed pazking plan be used foz the new assisted living development at 15 Montcalm. 1'he plan re-uses the existing curb cuu, with na new curb cuts oz extensiorzs necessazy. I'he existing front drive will be retained, and the existing sideyazd garage drive would be retained. All tzaffic would have back-up azea on site so that traffic entering the street wouid be moving fozward. 11vo pazking variances are be requested with this plan. 1) The total number of stalls proposed is 11 stalls. This is less than the required numbez. We believe this request is appzopriate due to the character of the facility. Because the residents here cannot dtive. Due to physical concems, they do not own cars, and would not be using the pazking stalls_ The stalls would be used by staff and visitors. � The maximum number of staff at any time would be six. This would still allow five parldng stalls £or visitors. Unfortunately, ihis rype of resident does not zeceive many visiton. Ofren the family will come to pick up the resident W take them off-site. The intent of the pro,}ect is to maintain the most residential character as possible. The more parking that is built the more institutional the building will look, not only for nur residents, but the neighborhood as well. To this extent we would be willing to reduce the aumber of stalls to nine if the city and neighborhood believes this to be a better solution. 2) The proposed pian includes five pazking stalls within the front yazd setback. These stalls are designated for visitors. Tf we did not include the stalls by the front door, visitor stalls would be accommodated in the back of the site. Since the back pazking stalls are so far reznoved from the front door, the visitors wo�ld tend to pazk on the public street. In order to accomtnodate the visitors, and to keep the pazking off-street due to neighboihood concems, the £rontyard parking is the most appropriate. We believe the proposed plan addresses most pazldng concems, we would be willing to amend ihe plan if other solutions aze deemed more appropriate. � � 02/23'98 MON 10:07 FA% 6123395382 � � � �� _ z �. ��. ��, � � :. ��. `:a . . J . j� :�, Y .\ � JY • • . . .�'• r x �� C. r y U ' .. • � J "� .� . .$ ' E v _ .. s � H + $ '. . L l' i ' L�� ';.. � p� ��. � �: b ' , � o i ' . � • y v �� ? . .�-�� Y • �, Js . .�v:..� .. � � �; _ � N Y �'.' . ' ' ,_ ' , \ `� i . . \� � ��I O ,o, ,�;�, ��, ,�ia% - � .v n�,^ �. � N'�'t'."e -ti: �-.j.�,:�; . ��_... : ��r�. : t�. a ,�, -.. � %`. -{�": S ; . . . �� J �� z � � . __ , a�� ' � � W ' � � <W = V � �`' : ? � �� ' Q � � � �h . � o Z � � � �� J � m , c �' y i Q �� O $� O J Cdoos ��—�{�/ � 0 � � a � � Q � � � ESG ARCBITECTS � ..A ..; . ', f..' . - ��`.s �- � � ��: .�� . •' �' •'. , C-� O 0 0 ^9•Y , �'� � „ o �� ' Od . K . ' \•. t..' �•. . ` .�.j�;.. � .. �,�'• ,_ � �N: 4 ` ��.�� :: Lr \ � �./ � G . � 5 �� i;�a ��s��,`�> 9 O� �, s�+;'�` . � � � � — `a S .,ti O �� •o� � y3 rr\ .�0 � . � c � � 3ir4d � :� .'._.. ' ": .....`..�'�...'`' :" y � � g° � � b �� //� �a1..•Q�..... , . a'Sr � p . �'y � ��' .' : : '� . " �. L . � 3 \ � ,:'ec g• 6Q` x. / •' �a -• � � �V i�. 0 cj •. ': . : s�: . :' �, j � . uo u� � m - /� ��.�, '� ,� : � z : . � y' � � � ` V ff..: �v ii \ � ��., � . .' �s � , .``. .�''. . . � �r�,� . .�. � /L 02/23i98 MON FA% � � � _ �� , . z�. �� . �� . �:� }� . s � �z � 3 .. aJ. . : `, � "�: �, , . :.� . , � ;; � ' ' r ':LS . � � E - 6 � � v 'o�•.'' e '��' ' � �3 ,"�., a I�'< ., , a� � ' � . : � A�Y • � .6i r� g J'6 f Q . � . V � v . J.� �. '. Y q. . , ,_ ' M1� ., ��++ r ' II�� ." Y__ .' �. U` � ti � �. Y .. ,,, . . v ;. � ,;: .. � ��. . '.�� . 3 ,� ` ��. . ° ` , . . ��- , � � ,.' . '�, .. �,�' , \� � � ��I O 395382 ESG ARCHITECTS �� ..o,�, r : . ,. .��. � e r !/ � �� 7�� . � r Y'JW � � / - Y �r J - ;:JV(Iy�I�WO � /..• ' . ^ . 000 � � a ' � � aw � V r� 2 z W � � U a �a � F � . Q � zn . � � � �' J .- ro , � • .�_y el d °-&�/ „ r i � � �� {��¢'�� ! 43 „O i lf7 ° � y� � ' � .: •::•: _ . �: y� � \ � � � 0 � �` Z�3 �� i�,`n> �'{ 90 `' + � � g � _ tro e, S o a,yo �0 �' - \ �� o ~ �� ' � ' . -. . . . : � . : , . . . :. '� \ °�� - �',�`' .'�`. : • po ,� : ,: �. , . .: :: .. '. . . y �: .�3 Q l \ 1 , 60 .:: ..^ . �: .: `:' '' � . � yz, ' \ �.� � . 7c. 0 Gj •._ �: . :. ', � �•'. . `: � j - . u w � ` � / /�. � �� . . .,� i : . ` � � .. ` `y --.. V �'� ..V �� .�..'! .. .' z ' ��.��•�. `^ ' �7�' vz � e . �., :. . . \ �G�i '�'. : ' { ' : � �.� :;�it ;._ •.;..+ � , �.','�.. x n� :: �� : �,:y.;� :, �'<' � � �� :. O�� z � p Yi a O �ooa � �-�� ? �� t � J Z V� � � � � �3 °�� „=u„�,��R.�9�,a 1� � CITY OF SAINT PAUL CONSENT OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A SPECIAL CONDITION USE PER1l�IT °( $ �`{ �� We, the undersigned, owners ofthe property within ]00 feet ofthe total contiguous description of real estate owned, purchased, or sold by THE APPLICANT within one year preceding the date of this petition acknowledge that we have been presented with the following: A copy of the application of (name of applicant) to establish a T75 f�7�j G///�iy� (proposed use) located ar._ �S �7oy G,t,lG.� CT � (address of property) ' requiring a special condition use permit, along with any relevant site plans, diagrams, or other documencacion. We consent fo the approval of this application as it was explained to us by the applicant or his/her representative. / �� ..---.:.. ..............o� o.. auc uyper pon�on oi [nts appltCation ust be completed prior to obtaining eligible signatures on this petition. �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL � CONSENT OF ADJOII�IING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT We, the undecsigned, owners of the property within 100 feet of the total contiguous description of real estate owned, purchased, or sold by TI�� APPLICANT within one year preceding the date of this petition acknowledge that we have been presented with the following: � A copy of the application of applicant) to establish a (proposed use) � located at: �'s yloyj"G.4`/!iJ C�; (address of property) tequiring a special condition use permit, along with any relevant site plans, diagrams, or other documentation. - We consent to the approval of this application as it was explained to us by the applicant or his/her representative. � i% , � eligible signatures on this petition. �l, CITY OF SAINT PAUL �� J� � • CONSENT OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A SPECIA� CONDITION USE PERMIT We, the undersi�ed, owners of the property within 100 feet oFthe total contiguous description of real estate owned, purchased, or sold by THE APPLICANT within one year precedino the date of this petition acknowledge :hat we have been presented with the following: A copy of the application of (name of applicant) to establish a located at: � /yf (address of property) requiring a special condition use permit, along with any relevant site plans, diagrams, or other flocumentat[on. We consent to the approval of this application as it was explained tc us by tre applicant or 1::�/her representative. � � � � �� (� 1VOTE: All information on the upper portion of this application must be completed prior to obtaining eligible signatures on this petition. °� � "� � i STATE OF MINNESOTA) Ol� PERSON CIItCULATING THE CONSENT PETITION � COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) AFFIDAVIT' SS Peter Keely , being first duly sworn, deposes and states that he/she is the person who circulated the consent petition consisting of 1 pages; that a�ant represents that the parties described on the consent petition aze all the respective owners of the properties placed immediately before each name; that affiant is informed and believes that each of the parties described on the consent petition is an owner of the properiy which is within 100 feet of any property owned, purchased, or sold by petitioner within one (1) yeaz preceding the date of this petition which is contiguous to the property described in the petition; that none of the parties described in the consent petition has purchased or is purchasing property from the petitioner that is contiguous to the property described on the consent petition within one (1) year of the date of the petition; that this consent was signed by each of said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures aze the true and conect signatures of each and all of the parties so described. Peter K NAME 4648 Oaklan ADDRESS 612-827-5788 MN 55407 612-373-4681(day) TELEPHONE NUMBER • Subscribed and swom to before me this �� day of �� , 19�_ � • v_ �. _ ► « v� � � � ,. . � � � •o PAMELA J. STENZEL 1'' aouvvruwc•euHr�sorw q�� µYCOMMISSIONIXPIRES .,..� SANUARY 31, 20�Q Page_�of � 1/31�I'7 �� HACC DIST 15 TEL�612- Jan 14'98 14�14 No.001 P.02 �� • i • HIGHLAND AREA COMMUNITY COI3NCIL 1978 FORD PARKWAY, ST. PALTL MN 55116 298-5138 FAX 29&5139 15 Mt C�Im Place 'i'he Highland Area Community Council supports the request for speciel condition use permit for structures over 9,000 square feet requested for 15 Mt Cafm. 7fie sapport is depeadent un the developers gaining the required signatures of 2!3 of the property owners within 100 fee� December 4, 1997 �G ��-`-E�� . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. SL3NRAY-BATTLECREBK-HIGHW OOD HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERTTY HII:LCREST WEST SIDE DAYTON'S BLUFF PAYNE-PAALEN 6. NORTH END 7. THOMAS-DALE 8. SUMMTT-UNIVERSITY 9. WEST SEVEN1�i 10. COMO 11. HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12. 13. 14. � 17. ST. ANTFTONY PARK MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE MACALESTER GROVELAND HIGfiI.AND SUMMIT HII.L DOWN`fOWN zoNiN� F��E �� CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS ��-� �S � HIGk{LAND • DISTRICT 15 �N � ° �, --- _ � j Z�� '�� j �� J r SCOTT and ELISA KNUDSON 1430 Edgcumbe Road Saint Paul, MN SS I 16 Saint Paul City Councii Re: Our Appeal to the Proposed Special Conditioual Use Permit for 15 Montcalm Court . Dear Council Member: a�-u�� Along with other people in our neighborhood, we have appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a special conditional use permit to allow what was built as a single family home to be converted into a care facility for 21 residents who have Alzheimer's/dementia. We oppose that decision and ask that the Council reject it. You should be aware that we do not oppose the proposed special use permit because of the affliction of Alzheimer's. We simply believe that the proposed commercial use is for many reasons incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. We believe that the Plannzng Commission erred in several respects. There is insuff cient evidence that the property cannot be used for a single � family resideuce. We object to this finding because we believe the properry has not been marketed adequately. The prior users, very simply, were hard on the house and left it in need of substantial repair. But the owner should not be allowed to profit from this misuse by selling to someone who will convert the properiy to what is a commercial use. Moreover, we understand the properiy has been tied up with an option for many months, which deterred buyers who would have put the property to a compatible use. We also understand that an offer was made to purchase for single family use and that next door neighbors are ready to purchase the property. Finally, there are two examptes in the neighborhood of a major renovation of a Iarge home or a new single family home being built. 938329.1 ..< r �J � �� ( �S Putting a commercial-type use will be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which is made np exclusively of single family homes. The Planning Commission erred in its finding that the shucture, after alterations, would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It is physically impossible to make a property look residential when it has a six square foot sign, seven cars on the (and most on the street) and all the staff necessary to provide food, services and personal care. The developer claims that 24-hour supervision, food service and support activities for 21 Alzheimer/dementia patients would be provided by only three full-time and three part- time employees. We feel that this is a very low estimate of the number of employees that would in fact be needed. Consequently, with the staff, deliveries and health care and family visits, traffic will be higher than the Planning Commission assumed. In a neighborhood where the neighbors (by silent agreement) do not park on the street to allow kids to play, this would be a drastic change. The Planning Commission should be aware that of the 11 people who consented in writing to the permit, eight live on Le�ngton at the bottom of a steep, heavily wooded hill which has no access to Montcalm without traveling either (1) north to Randolph, west on Randolph, south on Edgcumbe to Montcalm, or (2) south on Lexington to Montreal, west on Montreal, north on Edgcumbe befare they can even get to Montcalm. Those property owners have no involvement in this neighborhood whatsoever. Of the seven people in the neighborhood within 100 feet of the project, three gave their consent and four did not. To conclude, we respectfully request the Council overturn the decision of the Planning commission to grant a special conditional use permit to allow the conversion of 15 Montcalm Court into a care facility for up to 21 patients. Sincerely i ic�` ti "� � �� Scott and Elisa Knudson � 938329.1 Council File # Green Sheet # � a S J CITY Presented By Referred To 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 RESOLUTION PAUL, MtNNESOTA Committee: Date � WI3EREAS, Peter Keely, in Zoning File No. 98-Oi l, made applicafion to the Planning Commission for a special condition use permit for the purpose of converting a residenfial structure greater than 9,000 squaze feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementialAlzheimer pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul zoning code Section 66.413 for properiy commonly known as 15 Montcalm Place, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and legally described as (see legal description in zoning file No. 48-Q11); and WFIEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on Mazch 5, 1998, and March 19, 1998, after having provided notice to affected properiy owners, and submitted its recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, by its resolution No. 98-22 dated March 27, 1998, decided to grant the application based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. 15 Montcaim Court is a vacant residential skructure of approximately 13,875 squaze feet that has fallen into disrepair. Located in a R-1 zoning disirict, the home was built in 1947 and was used as a single family residence until 1962. It was then converted to a 25 person residence for the Catholic order of the Oblate Fathers. In 1970, it became the "Lubavitch House" and was run by the Upper Midwest Merkos Jewish Education Association as a synagogue and education retreat center. For approximately the last yeaz the house has been vacant. 2. The applicant, who has an oprion to purchase the properiy, proposed to completely renovate the interior and exterior of the house and convert it in to a board and care residence for the frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer. There would be 1 b bedrooms with a maxunum of 21 residents. Services by three full time empioyees would include 24 hour supervision, food service and support acfiviries. The facility wouid be licensed by the state and it would be run by Franciscan Health Care which owns and operates St. Mary's senior residential housing in Highland Pazk. i2 3. Section 60.413(12) of the zoning code states that the Plamiing Commission may S3 pernut the conversion or reuse of residential structures of over nine thousand �4 (9000) square feet if, following a public hearing, the Planning Comrnission makes 5 the following fmdings. 6 1 9g-��S 2 a. The strueture cannot be feasiblel used-fi�r--a earrfonbing use. 3 --� This condition is met. This single family residential shucture, because of its large 5 size, as been used from 1962 to 1997, as either a religious residency facility or 6 retreat/activity center. The properry has been vacant for the last year and on the 7 real estate mazket. b. The proposed use and glans are consistent with the comprehensive plan. This condition is met. The Saint Pau1 Housing Policy for the 1940s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opportunifies for individuals and households with special needs. c. The proposed use and structural alterafions or addirions are comparible with the surrounding neighborhood and land uses. This condition is met. The site is surrounded by singie family uses and the applicant proposes to restore the structure and make it feel and look residential. The proposed use, as a residence facility for frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer, is a quiet unobtrusive land use. The residents, because of their mental/physical limitations, will not drive or be ailowed off the premises. Traffic generated by the facility will be visitors and 3 full tnne and 3 part time employees. d. Parking for the new use shall be proved in accordance with the requirements of section 62.103 for new strnctures. This condition is not met. The required parking for the proposed facility is 13 parking spaces. (21 beds would require 10 spaces and the three full time empioyees would require 3 spaces) The applicant is proposing 7 off street parking spaces and is asking that the planning commission modify this condition for the following reasons. l. Facility residents cannot drive nor are they allowed to have cazs. 2. Parking would only be used by staff and visitors. The maxnnum number of staff at any one time would be 3 leaving 4 proposed spaces for visitors. 3. The more parking that is required will make the facility look institutional and hinder the applicanYs objective of retaining the residential chazacter of the facility. For the reasons above, modification of the condition is reasonable. -2- 2 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 3? 38 39 40 41 42 F3 44 e. Applications for conversion or reuse shall include a notarized petition of two-thirds of the property owners within one hundred (100) feet of the property proposed for the reuse, site plans, building elevations and landscaping plans and other informafion which the planning commission may request. This condition is met. A notarized petition including the signatures of 11 of the 16 properiy owners eligible to sign the perition was submitted along with site and landscaping plans. 4. Section 64300(d) of the zoning code requires that before the platming commission may grant approval of a principle use subject to special conditions, the commission sha11 fmd that: a. The extent, location and intensity of the use will be in substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans which were approved by the City Council. This condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opporhxnities for individuals and households with special needs. b. The use will provide adeqnate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congesrion in the public streets. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to result in less trafFc -- and, therefore, less potential for congestion -- than the religious activityiretreat center that used the structure from 197� to 1997. c. The use will not be detrimental to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety and general welfare. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to contribute to the public health and welfare by providing elderly caze services needed by the surrounding community. d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. '•5 This condition is met. The applicant has committed to restoring this dilapidated 6 vacant structure to a residenfial appeazance that will be compatible to the 7 8 surrounding residential structures. -3- 5 �a s 6 7 8 4 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 e. The use shall, in all respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Tlus condition is met. Insofaz as the planning commission approves the modification of conditions 3{d) above, the proposed use confornis to all the applicable regulations in the R-1 zoning district. 5. Section 64300(fl(1) of the zoning code states the pianning commission, after public hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property or an e�sting structure and would result in exceptional undue hazdship to the owner of such property or structure; provided that such modification will not impair the intent and purpose of such special condition and is consistent with health morals and general welfare of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent properiy. WHEREAS, pursuant to he provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Michael Prichard and Scott and Elisa Knudson duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Planning Commission, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and 27 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Section 64.206 through 64.208, and upon notice to 28 affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 13, 1998, 29 where a11 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 30 31 WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the 32 application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and 33 of the Planning Commission does hereby; 34 3S 36 37 38 39 40 41 �2 �3 IA 5 6 RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul fmds that the Planning Commission committed error in its findings and hereby reverses the decision of the Plaiuiiug Commission in this matter based on the following findings of the Council: The Council finds that the structure can feasiblely be used for a conforming use because similaz large homes in the neighborhood are selling as single family homes and there is interest on the part of one possible buyer who wishes to purchase the properly and rehabilitate it as a single family home. 2. The proposed use is incompatible to the neighborhood because it constitutes a commercial intrusion into a single faxnily neighborhood and given its large scale (21 beds facility) and parking reauirements ( a? space parking lot} make it incompatible to adjoining residential properties. The proposed use will be detrimental to the neighborhood because the -4- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ORIGINAL qg -'�1P5 introduction of this large scale commercial use into the middle of a residential neighbarhood will result in increase visitor and service txaffic. BE TT FURTAER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Michael Prichard and Scott and Elisa Knudson be and is hereby grauted; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Ciry Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Michael Prichard, Scott and Elisa Knudson , Peter Keely, the Zoning Adtninistrator and the Plauuiug Commission. Requested by Department of: By' Form Appro b� City Atto ey BY: ��G��-, s"fz �15� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: >ted by Council: Date �],\,�� L� � tion Certified by Counci ecretaxy council Councilmember Harris TOTAI, # OF SIGNATURE PAGES oFnun�rcwectort g � � y 8'S SHEET No 62153 x,twuor. anwm�a ❑ utrutawrr ❑ arct�snic ❑ nuwUnta�ncESOn. ❑ nu�wutaexv�xcrc ❑wwrttortNasL�xry ❑ {CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council acCion taken May 13, 199& granting the appeal of Michael Prichard & Scott and Elisa Knudson to a decision of the Planning Commission granting a special condition use permit to allow conversion of a residential structure greater thari 9,000 square feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementiaJAlzheimer`s at 15 Montcalm Court. PLANNING COb1MISS10N CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION Has this Pe��m e+erworked u�Mer a corRract tor fhis deUartment? YES NQ Has thia D�� rrer been e cilY emPbYee? YES NO Does this Personfi�m P� a sldil not nonnetlYP�esFed bY enY curterit city emd%'ee? YES NO Is Vue pe�sonM1irtn atarqatatl vendoR YES NO ::.:.. i�r fAL 7UdOtlNT OF TRANSACTON S OIN6 SOURCE COSTRtEVENUE BUDQETEO (GRCLE ONeI LT�iI;PI:.iT.3 �'7��!7 iCINL INFORMP710N (IXPWN) OFFICE OF TF� CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF SAINT PAUL Narnt Colemart, Mayar May 29, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Keliogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Civil Division 400 City Hall IS West KeZZogg BLvd. Sairs7 Paul, Minnesota 55102 Telephone: 6l2 266-87I0 Facsimile: 612 298-56I9 Re: Planning File No. 98-011 Appeal of�c`cly �1 rjce �'•��^c�.0 Y fc a� o- � 1ry� Councii Hearing May 13, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Wou1d you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your eazliest convenience. If you haue any quesrions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly qours, � �� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW(rmb Enclosure Counci! Research G�nter � : ,..i DEPART'MENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPM&NT � - �l �� 53 CPTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor April 20, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Off'ice Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Division ajPlanning 25 West Fou�th Slreet Sa'vet Paul, MNSSIO2 Telephone.•61&266-6565 Facsimile: 6I2-228-3314 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday May 13, 1998 for the following huo appeals of a Planning Commission decision to grant a special condition use permit: Applicant #1: File Number: Applicant #2: File Number: Michael Prichard #98-106 Scott and Elisa Knudson #98-107 Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision to grant a speciai condition use permit to allow cottversion of a residentiai struchue greater than 9,000 square feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementiafAlzheimer. Address: 15 Montcalm Legal Description Lots 4 and 5; Montcalm Court of Properiy: Previous Action: Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, wte: Unanimous March 27, 1998 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval, vote: 5-2 March 19, 1998 My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the April 29, 1998 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 2b6-6559 if you have any questions. Sjncerely � ( t�n„n n ame on City lanner cc: File #98-106, #98-107 • F72STRUN• NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR[NG 'Eae Salnt Pad Ctty Coundl wlll conduct a pvblic heazing on Wednesday, May 13. 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the �ty Council Chambers, Third P7oor Ctty Hall-Court Honse.'ro rnnsider the appeal of Michael Prichazd to a decision of the Plann3ng Commission . granting a special coadition use pertnit to allow cbnversion of a residential structm'e greater than -9.000 square feet to a residence foi frail eSderly and elderly with demen- �fNzheimer at 15 Montcalm Court. ' Dated: Aprfl 20, 199$ _ . NANCY ANIDERSON - _ _ Assisfant City Councll Secretary - _.. . . . . . . . �� - {annt az, 1sss1 DEPARI'MENT OF PLANNJNG & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �SAINT � PAVL � AAAA' CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 5, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota SS 1D2 RE: Zoning File #98-106 Zoning File #48-107 City Council Heazing: Dtvisiorz of Plmming 25 Wesl FOr<rth Street Telephone: 6I2-266-6565 SaintPaul, MN55102 FiusinuZe: 612-22&3314 Michael Prichazd Scott and Elisa Knudson May 13, 1998, 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision approving a special condition use permit at 15 Montcalm to allow conversion of a residential structure greater than 9,��0 squaze feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL vote: Unanimous • �OAIING COMIvIITTEE RECOMMENDATTON: APPROVAL vote: 5 in favor, 2 against. STAFF RECOMMBNDATION: APPROVAL S O T: Two residents spoke in support and one resident submitted a letter conditionally supporting the application. T'he Highland Area Community Council passed a motion in support of the special condition use permit but was not awaze of the need for a pazking vaziance. OPPOSI'ITON: Three residents spoke against and ten residents submitted letters opposing the petmit. Dear Ms. Anderson: , Michael Prichard and Scott and Elisa Knudson are appealing a Planning Commission decision to approve a special condition use permit at I S Montcalm that would allow conversion of a residenYial structure greater than 9,000 square feet to a residence for the frail elderly and elderly with dementialAlzheimer. The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed special condition use permit on Mazch 5 and March 19, 1998. At the close of the public hearing, the committee voted 5-2 ta recommend apgtoval of the special condition use permit. On Mazch 27, 1948, the Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation on an unanimous vote. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on May 13, 1998. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site preserrted at the public hearing. Sincerely, •��9- �-� James Zdo City Pla er Attachments ca City Council members �'"� � � Department ojPlanning and Economic Developmenl Zoning Section 1100 Ciry Hall Annex 15 West Founh Streef Saint Paut, MN 55102 . 266-6589 APPELLANT � Name Mte �ft�l- f;elC ll,{-!�7 Address C I /u D N"rC,a trf/1 .CdtjQ j City 57 . �L}� r� Zip 5311b Daytime PROPERTY Zoning File Name MD�"�T��fLAq �Qt�t/:>�-�J�F' LOCATION Address/Location /S /i' A �M CT�' r� LJ / TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeais �{I City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section6�D�Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appeaf a decision made by the �R �NT �$�+/`� P``� l�,rs�(.S,S'l�itl on l�rt�l�N ,�`] , 19�. File number. �" �1( (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an ettor in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative officiai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. P�c.� s� �� 1�-��-��-� Attach additional AppiicanYs sr��r Datelrn�� agent_.�__,�i 1 � �u..3us3 ❑ APPLICATION FOR APPEAL the following reasons, among others: Appellant is an owner of residential property immediately adjacent to 15 Montcalm Court. Appellant believes that the action of the Plaruling Commission to approve a Special Condition Use Pernut for 15 Montcalm CourE has been in error for (i) Appellant believes that the action was taken pursuant to Section 60.13(12} of the St. Paul Zoning Code, which among other things requires that the Planning Commission shall find that the structure cannot be feasibly used for a conforming use. Applicant believes that the Planning Commission erroneously found that the siructure cannot be feasibly be used for a conforming use among other things. There is evidence in the file of at leasE one offer to the owners to buy the property for single family use, and no evidence to show that the property cannot feasibly be used tor a conforming use. It is merely a question of the owner obtauung the highese price, which may very likely be highest for a business use. To the best of AppellanYs knowledge, the owner of the property gave no testimony before the Planning Commission. (2) Appellant testified before the Planning Commission in favor of the Permit in expectaeion that a satisfactory enforceable agreement could be reached � befween the applicant for the Permit and operators of the proposed business with the immediate neighbors regarding various aspects of the use of the subject property, including among other things a requirement that staff inembers park in off-sireet parking spaces, and that residents of the property not have vehicles. Despite repeated good faiEh efforEs to reach an agreement dating back to December, - 1997, none was reached. Appellant believes thaf the proposed operator of the -`.= business has no intention to enter into an enforceable :agreement with�'immediate `= h 4 -- neig bors unposmg reasonable condihons on the operation of,the busuless.G,s:'°_a; � �' . - - ' ' . ix:�"c...`r.'�L.v%.v'.}:'.'a�'..�"�..'c�-'ff'.C!.is'� -.?,";� (3) The Planning Commission failed to adf the adverse effect on the resideniial nafure.:of the nei persons appearing before�the Planning Coiiimission letters to the Planning Commission. , ; �- � .;<. ; ` ��ti:: ��}� ��r, r�.�/ si�:ufr-r��ccS °iir��- �� I" �FY�C� �/"��'N� � _ �I - � . '' J � i '�y , (J+rUt� � G �'�/�P.o� /N3Tl � : - ""<i.'.=;� . � ^". . _:'{� �,- ;: -" a tion =' • �,='- _•:-�. x .- ; �« ;y -- S •�=>; =' ;: a -_ z . . , r""'.s;.o-.e:r^a- -- � :S:}� a -t y -�`z�.�•v_`.. s t.;�i%vY'y:' r,:.: # •-�� a =:. ". r�r%C�-:�"��°�a`��"�s _. � ��r - � ri ' ' �` i� s �� ,-} � - _ e_ _ 'Y%y�_" , ` ,_ ' : - -3r ai� -�t � FOR APPEAL Departn:ent of Planning and Economic Development Zoming Section 1100 Cin• Hall Ann�r 25 West Fourtlr Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT �/ City ��" �G.tc-( U St._ Zip Ss1IG Daytime phone �o�l b� PROPERTY Zoning File IVame y x�.—� h-9-f �.�—• /y1G�3Klcl�4 �t'�,7d1BhG �i LOCATION Address/Location /� f � � of the Zoning Code, to appeaf a decision made on 31zqr�8 3I3� (date o/ decision) �,�za� , �s 9�. +'�/�i f l;C�taY��t- rl.r��wvnirn� Fiie number: 90 ��' dd/ GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appea{s or the Planning Commission. .� a.��kn��t ` Attach addifiona! sheet if ApplicanYs signature �� +� Date �S `I�City _ �t / A� ; � ��-�� ' t�' )� � ATTACHMENT 1. The Pfanning Commission incorrectly concluded that the structure cannot feasibty be used for a conforming use. The Commission made that finding based on the fiact that the property has not sofd after s�me unspecified period. The structure was built and used many years as a single family residence and can still be used for that purpose. The property has not been priced propsrly or been on the market long enough. 2. The Planning Commission concluded that the use was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, this use is a commerciaf use; and it seems improbabie that the � needs of 21 residents could be met by only one fuil time and one part-time employee per shift. It is more realistic to expect that the care of 21 peopte with dimentiai/alzheimers wilf require significantly more emp{oyees. Consequently, with more empioyee traffic, visitors, and commercial deliveries, there wiil be a much more invasive impact than what the Planning Gommission found. 3. There are inadequate conditions on the proposed speciai condition use permit, to wit, (a) there are no provisions for landscaping around the employee parking to screen its visibility from the north and east; (b) there is no provision tor noise abatement for HVAC to proteot neighbors to the north and east; {c) there is no provision requiring the identification sign to be uniit. � � i city of saint paul plar�ing comrrussion resofution file number 9$-22 �te March 27, 1998 WHEREAS, Peter Keely, file # 48-01 l, has applied for a special condition use permit under the provisions of Section 66.413 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the purpose of converting a residential structure greater than 9000 square feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with demential alzheimer. Applicant is requesting a a special condition use permit to convert the groperry located at 15 Montcalm, legally described as see file; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on 3/5/98 and 3/19l98, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substanually reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: � FINDING5: 1. 15 Montcalm Court is a vacant residential structure of approximately 13,875 square feet that has fallen into disrepair. Located in a R-1 zoning district, the home was built in 1947 and was used as a single family residence until 1962. It was then converted to a 25 person residence for the Catholic order of the Oblate Fathers. In 1970 it became the "Lubavitch House" and was run by the Upper Midwest Merkos 3ewish Education Association as a synagogue and education retreat center. For apgroximately the last year the house has been vacant. 2. The applicant, who has an option to purchase the property, proposes to completely renovate the interior and e�erior of the house and convert it into a boazd and caze residence for the frail elderly and elderly with dementiaJAlzheimer. There would be 16 bedrooms with a maximum of 21 residents. Services by three full tune employees would include 24 hour supervision, food service and support activities. The facility would be licensed by the state and it would be run by Franciscan Health Caze which owns and operates St. Mary's senior residential housing in Highland Pazk. moved by Wencl � seconded by in favor Unanimous against 3. Section 50.413 (12) of the zoning code states that the planning commission may pernut � the conversion or reuse of residential structures of over nine thousand (9000) square feet if, following a public hearing, the planning commission makes the foliowing findings. a The structure cannot be feasibly used for a conforming use. This condition is met. This single family residential structure, because of its large size, as been used from 1962 to 1997 as either a religious residency facility or retreaUactiviry center. The properry has been vacant for the last yeaz and on the real estate market. b. The proposed use and plans are consistent with the comprehensive plan. This condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opportunities for individuals and households with special needs. c. The proposed use and structural alterations or additions are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and land uses. This condition is met. The site is surrounded by single family uses and the applicant proposes to restore the struchue and make it feel and look residential. The proposed use, � as a residence facility for frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer, is a quiet unobtrusive land use. The residents, because of their mental/physical limitations, wi11 not drive or be ailowed offthe premises. Tr�c generated by the facility wilt be visitors and 3 fu11 time and 3 part time employees. d. Parking for the new use sball be provided in accordance with the requirements of section 62.103 for new structnres. This condition is not met. The required pazking for this proposed facility is 13 pazking spaces. (21 beds would require 10 spaces and the three full time employees would require 3 spaces.) The applicant is proposing 7 off street pazking spaces and is asking that the planning commission modify this condition for the following reasons: Facility residents cannot drive nor are they allowed to have cars. 2. Parking would only be used by staff and visitors. The maximum number of staff at any one time would be 3 leaving 4 proposed spaces for visitors. 3. The more pazking that is required will make the facility look institutional and hinder the applicanYs objective of retaining the residential chazacter of the facility. , For the reasons above, modification of the condition is reasonable. � e. Applications for conversion or reuse shall include a notarized petition of two- thirds of the property owners within one hundred (100) feet of the property proposed for the reuse, site p3ans, building elevations and landscaping plans and other informarion which the planning commission may request. This condition is met. A notarized petition including the signatures of 11 of the 16 property owners eligible to sign the petition was submitted along with site and landscaping plans. 4. Section 64300(d) of the zoning code requires that before the planning commission may grant approval of a principle use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find that: a. The extent, locarion and intensity of the use will be in substantiai compiiance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea pans which were approved by the city council. This condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opportunities for individuals and households with special needs. � b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic • congestion in the public streets. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to result in less traffic--and, therefore, less potential for congestion-- than the religious activitylretreat center that used the structure from 1970 to1997. c. The use will not be detrimenta! to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger tbe public health, safety and general welfare. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to contnbute to the public health and welfaze by providing elderly caze services needed by the sunounding community. d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. This condition is met. The applicant has committed to restoring this dilapidated vacant structure to a residential appearance that will be compatible to the surrounding residential structures. e. The use shall, in all respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district � in which it is located. This condition is met. Insofar as the planning commission approves the modification of • conditions 3(d) above, the proposed use conforms to all the applicabie regulafions in the R-1 zoning district. 5. Section 64300 (� (1)of the zoning code states that the planning commission, after public hearing, may modify any or ali special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonabiy limit or prevent otherwise lawfui use of a piece of property or an existing structure and would result in exceprional undue hazdship to the owner of such properry or structure; provided that such modification will not unpair the intent and purpose of such special condition and is consistent with health morals and general welfaze of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff recommends approval of the special condition use permit with the modification of condition 3(d) in the February 25, 1998 staff report, that reflects a variance of six (6) pazking spaces. 2. Additional Conditions. Staff has reviewed the attached site plan and the additional conditions submitted by the developer. Those conditions which staff would recommend as appiicable and enforceable under the special condition use permit are as follows: i a. The special condition use permit is for a State Department of Health licensed Elderly Contract With Services and Board and Lodging With Services, or equivalent license serving elderly residents who have dementia/Alzheimer, of up to 16 bedrooms and a maximum of 21 residents. b. Permission for special condition use applies only as long as the number of facility residents is not increased and its purpose or location do not change and other conditions of the permit are met. c. Commercial deliveries will not occur between 7:30 p.m. and 730 a.m. d. A site plan consisting of the following conditions shall be submitted by April 19, 1998 to the City of Saint PauPs Zoning Administrator to insure conformance with the special condition use permit conditions and city zoning regulations: i. There will be a minimum of seven off street pazking spaces. The existing drive wiil remain in its cunent location with no parking in the front yazd; driveway width shall be sufficient to accommodate two vehicles passing at the front door. ii. There will be no new fencing in the front of the building. Fencing is allowed � around the southerly and easterly sides of the building. iii. Ai1 outdoor air conditioning equipment shall be located in the back yard and/ � • or on the roof of the back (bluf fl side of the building. iv. "Ihe trash receptacle azea shall be fully enclosed with a fence of six feet in height. v. No light shall spill over to adjacent properties from ea�terior lighting sources in excess of one (1) foot candle. vi. The premises may haue one identification sign not to exceed 6 squaze feet in area. � . u . Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West ��- A meefing of the Planning Commission of the City of Saini Paul was held Friday, March 27, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, Maddox, Morton, Treichel and Wencl and Messrs. �eld Jr., Gervais, Kong, Kramer, Mardell, McDonell, Nowiin and Vaught. Ms. *Nordin and Messrs. *Chavez, *Gordon, *Johnson, *Sharpe *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Donna Drummond, Nancy Frick, Tom Hasen, Nancy Homans, Pah James, Gary Pelrier, Roger Ryan, Larry Soderholm, Allan Torstenson and 7im Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff; and Mike Klassen from the Aepartment of Public Works. I. Approval of Minutes of March 13,1998 Ml1TTt)N: Commissioner Kramer moved approval of tl:e minutes ofMarch 13, I998; Commissioner Field seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton announced that at that moming's Steering Committee the position of quadrant liaison was discussed. Mr. Ford has drafted "Expectations for Neighborhood Liaisons" to be used as a guideline. Chair Morton further announced that the Steering Committee has proposed a resolution that states the Planning Commission opposes the refund of appea] fees to applicants when presented by the community councils, in response to a resolution being presented by Councilmember Coleman which states that community councils would be refunded applicarion fees for appeals. The Planning Commission's rationale for opposing Councilmember Coleman's resolution is that no group should be singled out to have a refund of a fee. Commissioner Kramer interjected that he thinks iYs a waiver, not a refund. . Commissioner Vaught commented that he thinks the issue remains the same. If there are appeal fees, they should apply to everyone; if there are not appeal fees, that also should apply to everyone. He sees no logic for exempting a particular category of appellants from the fee, and he is troubled if appeal fees are selectively applied to particular groups or individuals and not to others. The same rules should apply to everybody. Commissioner Field noted that an individua] or group of individuals, who wish to appeal may, S rather appealing on their own accotd, choose to pursue it through the district councii just for the waiving of the fee. Ae cleazly thinks that it would be bad policy to select one group for those fees to be waived. The motion on tke JToor to submit a resolution staring that the Planning Con:mission opposes tlte refund or waiving of fees for appeats by community councils carried unm:imously on a voice votz Chair Morton announced that thete will be another meeting of committees at the close of the meeting to choose different meeting dates for the Comprehensive Planning Cammittee and the Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Ford reported on his inquiry into the reasoning for the CiTy Council finding error on the part of the Planning Commission in upholding an appeal for the Citgo sign at the service station near Snelling Avenue and I-94. They concluded: 1) the site of the proposed sign does not constitute an unusual condition. The fact that the filling starion is located next to the freeway is not so unusual that the extra visibility provided by a higher sign is necessary; and 2) the greater height and greater size of a proposed sign would adversely affect adjacent residential properties. Due to the greater height and size of the proposed sign, it's light • would cast even more glare on surrounding properties. Copies of that resolution are available from Mr. Ford. Mr. Ford continued that at the last City Council meeting, there was an appeal by the applicant of the Planning Commission's denial of a special condition use permit for an auto specialty store on East 7th Street. That appeal also was upheld by the City Councii. They concluded that they could place enough conditions on it, and the servicing of autos was a limited part of what was going on there. It is limited to only one bay and to a very limited type of service. Most of the stare was more like a retail store than an auto servicing. Also before the City Council was the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a determination of similar use permit for the nursery �at the property on Point Douglas Road. That appeal was denied. TV. Zoning Comm,ittee #9R-Ol1 Mon alm Residen�e I P.P_Y,. re Keelv (Laid over from March 5, 1998) - Special condition use permit to allow conversion of residential structure greater than 9,000 sq. ft. As a residence for fraii elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimers. (Jim 7don, 266-6559, Southwest Team) M(1TION: Commissioner Wencl moved approval of the request for a specia! condition use permit to aldow conversion of a residentiat structure greater t)tan 9,000 sq. ft.,to be used as a • residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementiaUAlzhefiners with conditions. ! Commissioner Vaught noted that he voted in opposition at the Zoning Committee but will vote in approvaltoday. Commissioner Faricy stated that she had also voted in opposition at Zoning Committee but will vote in approval today. She researched the history and decided to change her vote because the residence has been vacant for one and a half years and is in disarray. The motion on the floor carried unanimously on a voice vote. #9R-027 Richard F.itel - Rezoning to allow construction and operation of an auto repair facility at the southwest corner of Interstate 35E frontage road between Larpenteur and Wheelock Parkway. (Donna Drummond, 266-6556, Northwest Team) Commissioner Wencl stated that the south portion will be sold to the state of Minnesota after the rezoning occurs. The north portion that fronts on Larpenteur will be used for auto repair. In 1984 the Planning Commission passed a resolution that stated that rezoned properties that also needed a special condition use permit could be decided by staff instead of coming back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kramer said that he voted against this at Committee because this property will be divided into two pieces after the rezoning. The remaining piece of B-3 properiy will belong to the state, so we do not know what the ultimate proposed use of that piece will be. Commissioner Vaught stated that he also voted against it at the committee level and he will vote � against it again today if the Planning Commission will be taking the vote today because it is spotrezoning. Commissioner Nowlin said that he is also concemed about this case. It concems him to put a cotnmercial use so near to a school. He is also concemed that the policy of staff making the decision on a special condition use permit if a rezoned parcel needed it, may be against state ]aw. He feels that iYs very important that a speciai condirion use permit after rezoning, be brought back to the Planning Commission so that the Commission can assure that vegetative treatment is done and that the use is properly buffered, in this case, both from the school and the freeway. ]�OTTON: Cvmmissioner Field moved that this case be laid over and referred back to the Zoning Comminee for furtker action on Apri12, I998. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion which carried unanimnusly on a voice vote. �4R-0'{4Vi& oria NP.C - Nonconforming Use Permit to allow re-establishment of general auto repair at 951 White Bear Avenue. (A1 Torstenson, 266-6579, Northeast Team) Commissioner Wencl reported that there was a great deal af discussion at Zoning Committee as to whether this had actually been an approved use in operation, etc. MOTTON: Commissioner Wencl moved denial of the requested nonconforming use permit to allow re-establishment ofgenerat auto repair at 951 White BearAvenue. The morion carried unanimously on a voice vote. u OF THE ZONING C�MMITTEE Y � 9� �998 = 3:3 p.m. � � — � �S City Council Chambers, 3rd Ftoor • City Hatl and CouR House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: • ❑ ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chavez, Faricy, Gordon, Kramer, Morton, Vaught and Wencl Field (excused) Peter Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Beth Bartz, Donna Drummond, Pattie Kelley, Roger Ryan, AIIan Torstenson and Jim Zdon of the Planning Division. The meeting was chaired by Barbara Wencl, Vice Chair. Montcalm Residence 1 Peter Keely, Zoning Fi(e 98-011 - Specia! condition use permit to allow conversion of residential structure greater than 9,000 square feet as a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementia ! Alzheimer. A parking variance of up to six spaces and a front yard setback variance of approximateiy twenty feet to allow four parking spaces. Jim Zdon gave a brief overview of the Zoning Committee Meeting held March 5th in which the developer's applicatio� had changed considerably from what was then reflected in the staff report. He explained this change was due to negotiations with the developer and some neighborhood residents, as wel4 as the applicant submitting a f+ve page document listing various conditions to attach to the special condition use permit. Mr. Zdon said the Zoning Committee laid this item over in order for staff to review tfie revised site plan and proposed conditions. He referred to seven letters in opposition that staff has received, and one letter from a proposed buyer of the property who would like to make the structure into a single family home. Mr. Zdon said staff has reviewed the site plan and the five pages of conditions, and he presented the staff report and recommendations and explained staff recommends approval of the Special Condition Use Permit wfth a modification of condition 3(d) of the February 25th staff report that reflects a variance of six parking spaces, and with further conditions as follows: 1} The special condition use permit is for a State Department of Heaith licensed Elderly Contract with Services and Board & Lodging with Services, or equivalent license serving elderly resident who have dementia/Alzheimer; of up to 18 bedrooms and a maximum of 21 residents; 2) Permission for speciai condition use applies only as {ong as the number of facility residents is not increased and its purpose or location do not change and other conditions of the permit are met; 3) Commercial deliveries witl not occur between 7:30 pm and 7:30 am.; 4} A site pian consisting of the following conditions shall be submitted by April 19, 1998 to tfie City of Saint Paul's Zoning Administrator to insure conformance with the special condition use permit conditions and c+ty zoning regulations: a) there wiil be a maximum of seven off street parking spaces. The existing drive wil4 remain in its current focation with no parking in the fro�t yard a�d the driveway width shali be sufficient to accommodate two vehicles passing at the front door; b) ihere wili be no new fencing in the fronf of the building. Fencing is ailowed around the southerly and easterly sides of the building; c) all outdoor air conditioning equipment shall be located in the back yard andior on the roof of the back (biuf� side ofi the building; d) the trash receptacle area shall be fully enclosed with a fence of six feet in height; e) no light shall spill over to adjacent properties from exterior Iigfiting sources in excess of one (1) foot candie; and fl the premises may have one identification sign not to exceed six (6} square feet in area. Upon question of Gommissioner Morton, Jim Zdon said the maximum sign size is six square feet. Zoning Committee Minutes March 19, 1998 ---Marttaafm�idence/Peter Keely {98-011) . Page Two At the questions of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Zdon explained there is a limited amount of space on fhe east bluff side of the building, and because the bluff is within approximatefy 30 feet from the back of the building any additional parking spaces would be difficult. He also referred to the revised site plan which indicates seven parking spaces. Mr. Zdon further expiained it will be up to the developer and the neighbors to both reach agreement and determine which legal instrument they will use, and he said they are proceeding to do so. Pete� I<eely, (4648 Oakland Avenue South, Minneapo4is, Minnesota), appeared and stated that since the last Zoning Committee meeting, conditions have been removed from the SCUP and that a letter of agreement wili be recorded addressing those issues, although that document is not finalized because of minor language changes to clarify the true name of the license. Mr. Keely referred to parking in the rear and said it could be done but wouid be difficuit. He explained because this is a residence for seniors who need some access to the outdoors, their idea was to provide that access in that area. Mr. Keely noted this facility has to be run by the terms written into the lease and that part of that is no resident can own a car or keep a car within 1,000 feet of the facility, and that wiil be written into to the contract of each individuai reside�t. Commissioner Gordon spoke to the Ietter of conditions Mr. Keely referred to and requested him, as part of the record, to leave a copy with staff. Mr. Keely expressed some concern with that request as the letter is not a part of the speciai condition use permit, and Commissioner Gordon expiained because it is a part of the recording staff should have a copy of it on records, and Mr. Keely agreed to do so. • Upon questions of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Keely said the instrument between himseifi and the neighbors is enforceable, that three of the seven parking spaces wii! be occupied by fu{I time staff, and he expiained why he wouid prefer not to have additional parking on the south side of the building. At the question of Commissioner Faricy, Peter Keely explained the facility will be operated with three full time staff members who wift be on duty at alf times, and other part time staff includes maintenance workers, deliveries, and administrators. Commissioner Faricy said it is her understanding tfiat the Franciscan Community was up for sale and she questioned how that will affect this residence. Mr. Keely explained the sale is at the board level but not at the functionai levei, and he said if it were to be soid, the obligations would be the same because the agreement is wsitten through the building owner. Mr. Prichard (9 Montcalm Court) appeared and spoke in support of the proposai and confirmed agreement has been reached on the substantive points although it has not yet be signed. He also said he has been advised that Franciscan Homes has seen the current draft and has indicated their willingness to abide by it. Commissioner Vaugfit stated he feeis wfiat the residents have done with the developer is totaily appropriate in terms of the agreement, but he doesn't want anyone to be misled as to which of those issues are enforceable as a part of a SCUP because many of them are not. � Commissioner Gordon agreed stating they are enforceable but not by requesting the SCUP be revoked. He gave the example that if cars were parked within the 1,000 feet, a lawsuit may have to be filed in District Cou�t against the owner of the prope�ty a�d to obtain an order from the Court for that condition to be compiied with. Zoning Committee Minutes March 19, 1998 r,Y �_ l��'i5 AAe�rtcatm Re�i�1Peter Keely (98-011) � • Page Three Upon questions of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Prichard said the parking variance is acceptabie to him premised on their agreement that the residents wiI{ not have cars, and his strong preference is that there net be off street parking in the front yard. John Kincaid (693 Montcalm) appeared and spoke in opposftion stating this proposal does change the character of the neigfibofiood. He said as ft is right now there is aimost no parking availabie on Montcalm, and this is putting a business in a neighbofiood that had none before which he believes to be a detriment to the area. Robert Albrecht (615 Montcalm) appeared and spoke in opposition to the appfication sfating he has lived in his home for nineteen years. He said he's much less interested in the details that have been discussed today as he is to the substance of the appiication, which is to introduce a commerciai operation in the midst of one of the nicer neighborhoods in Saint Paul, and he urged the Committee to deny the application. Mike Murphy (609 Montcalm) appeared and said he's lived in his home since 1973, and both he and his wife are in opposition to granting this specia! condition use permit. He said this is fundamentally one of the most historic and pristine residentiai and highest paying tax neighborhoods in the City, and it is not a commerciaf area. Mr. Murphy referred to the parking issue and said although the arrangement for no parking within 1,000 feet of the focation may suit other neighbors, parking wiil be pushed up the street to where he lives, and they are opposed to that. At questions brought up by Mr. Murphy, Jim Zdon expiained the intent of this pe�mit is for a residentiat � facility for the frail elderiy with dementia or Aizheimer with a maximum of 21 residents, and this SCUP does not address the issue of a tease. He further expiained this permK is for a particular use only, and if another use is intended, the owner of the property needs to come back to this committee for that request. Peter Keely responded stating elderly people do have a ptace in communities. He refeRed to comments made pertaining to the residentiai character and said they are not changing the look of the building and in order for this venture work for them, they need to make it a residerrtiai buiiding. Commissioner Faricy referred to staff recommendation 2{a) and recommended language be changed to "elderly who have dementia/Aizheime�'. Mr. Keely agreed and said that language wiit be ctarified as well as changing the name of the contract to the correct name of the finro licenses (the first to Elderly Contract with Services, and the second to Board and Lodging with Services). No one else appeared, and the public hearing was ciosed. Commissioner Gordon moved approval of the staff recommendation with language in paragraph 2(a) amended to read "eiderly residents who have Afzheimer or dementia", and the motion was seconded. Commissioner Faricy sa+d although she can't object with the information this Cammittee has, she strongly believes approving the application wil! create a significant parking probiem in this neighborhood, and for ihai reason she will not support the motion. Commissioner Faricy further expressed concern that not enough full time staff are being provided to care for the number of residents. � Commissioner Vaught expressed concem when it is suggested that because someone pays high property taxes that they have a right to greater enJoyment of their property than people who pay lower property taxes. However, he stated he cannot support the motion as he believes this is a wrong use for this particular area. Zoning Committee Minutes March 19, 1998 � ivfontcalm es�lPeter Kee(y (98-011) Page Four Commissioner Gordon stated he moved approvai of the permit because he doesn't see a fundamentai change in the requested use from its previous use. He teferred to concems that parking is troublesome, but said in reviewing correspondence from neighbors they don't want the lawn tom up nor a paved parking lot. Commissioner Gordon stated the neighbors have spent a considerable amount o4 time discussing the application with the developer and are comfortable with the variance, and he therefore believes it should be approved. Commissioner MoRon spoke in agreement with comments made by Commissioner Gordon and said she aiso is impressed with the fact that neigfibors have taken the time and effort to come to agreement wiih the developer, but more thari anything this will be the residence for 21 people who have the opportunity to continue to live in a quiet, peaceful neighborhood. Commissioner Chavez referred to the parking issue and said if there were p�oblems the previous use woufd have indicated so. Upon question of Commissioner Chavez, �ce Chair Wencl reiterated that the motion is to the staff recommendation dated March 11, 1998 which includes the findings. Commissioner Kramer said he will be voting in support of the motion but that there are staff findings that shouid be amended to reflect written testimony received. Commissioner Vaught agreed with Commissioner Kramer pertaining to amending some of the staff • recommendations. He said the Zoning Code specifies conditions under which a SCUP can be granted and if a certain amount of those conditions are not met the SCUP should not be granted. Commissioner Kramer referred to the finding that the property in questions cannot be put to a reasonable use, and stated that finding is not met. Roger Ftyan said this is an altowed use subject to special condition and is permitted in a single famify district. Mr. Ryan further explai�ed that this is neither a permitted use or a special condition use, which is why the applicant is requesting a conversion of a farge residential stnacture. Commissioner Kramer requested that the motion inctude striking language in the findings as foliows: "so far there have been no buyers wil{ing to purchase it and renovate it as a singfe family home", and Commissioner Gordon accepted that as a friendiy amendment. Commissioner Faricy called for the question. Roll call for the debate to end. Adopted Yeas -'7 Nays - 0 Roll call on the motion to approve the staff recommendation with the amended language in paragraph 2(a) changed to "elderly residents who have Aizheimer or dementia°, and to strike language in the findings noted above. . Adopted Yeas - 5 Drafted by: Pattie Kelley Recording Secretary Nays - 2 (FaricyNaught) Submitted by: � , v im Zdon � South�t Quadrant Approved by: �� Barbara Wenci Vice Chair � `� � -� � _- EcEiv�� MICHAEL D. GOLDNER FEB 2 5 j998 ZONING February 24, 199$ � Zoning Committee of the St Paul Planning Commission 25 West Fourth Street 11Q0 City Hall Annex St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: [,oning Fiie No.: y�U l i Zoning File Name: Montcalm Residence/Peter Keely Ladies and Gentlemen: What a wonderful possibilityf Using the prime property at 15 Montcalm Court to further a worthwhile social purpose while, at the same dme, preserving the single family residenaal character and propeny values of the neighborhood wili be a terrific coup if you can pull it off. I sincerely wish you well in that regard. I must say, though, that I have the foliowing concerns: ,_ _ 1. That special care be taken io assure that exterior changes or improvements to the building, changes to the portions of the pmperty not covered by ihe building and parking arrangements � make the properry appear to be commercial; and 2. That the proposed use not merely be a step toward other uses that would have an adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood or propeny values. 1 am particulazly concerned about the appearance of the pazldng airangements as not being compatible with a single family residenaal environment. If my concerns can be sadsfactorily addressed in the special condiaon use pemrit, I would not be opposed to issuance of the permit In that regard, I assume that the pemut wili be conditional upon the property being broughi up to code and that any violafion of any of the conditions set forth in the pemrit wiil resuit in teimination of the pernrit and reversion of the permitted uses of the property to single family residential use. - . � � -�� S � Good luck on this project. Sincerely, � Michael . oldner 1516 Ed cu be Road St. Paul, nnesota SSl lb c: Mike Harris Dan Bostrom Kathy Lantry n �I . 63/19/19:•^, H3:35 612�390267 � • . .... March 1� 1998 n � Hello resident af our neighborhood, LAMPERTS _. __ __ ---- -PA6E— El — I'm a neighbor concemed about the special condition use permit under consideration for 35 Montcaim Couit. My concem is that re-zoning ouz neighborhood to a cominercial use, will change our area from a peaceful, "single family h�me" neighborhood (something we pos�ihiy take for gianted), to a busy, noisy locarion. This letter is to inform you that an Alzheimer care facility it being considered for 15 Montcalm Court. As I understand, the .city requiremenu call for a parS:ing 1ot ta replace a laige porzion of the front and rear lawn. I feei that the traffic increase and the. additianal pazlang lot due to this property being re-zoned, not only tivill affect the uanquility of our neighborlmod, but this Al�eimer Facility wili become an eyesore, depreciating all homes surrounding 15 Montcalm. My other concem is that the proposal states patienu wi11 park not cioser that 1,000 feet of the 15 Montcalm residence. Those of us that live 1,000 feet away could see the new residents storing cars past this 1,000 foot restriction making ow entire neighborhood appear as a used car lot. I quesrion the safety of our children and �randchildcen with the incre�ed uaffic from Alzheimer patients aztd the families of the patients. As you are aware we pay prime tate taxes. I believe I deserve and my neighbors ulike, to continue to enjoy this beautiful, quiet neighborhood. I also am aware ihat there have been sevual offeis made hy families to purchase 15 Montcalm Court (for the use intended, a single family home). Legitimate, compeUdve and fare offers. I believe that the owners of IS Montcalm Court will sell out the neigHlsorhood to the highest bidtler, regerdless of the impact on the surrounding residents. Ouc only pcotecrion is to insure that the St. Paul Zoning Committ�e (and then City Council) dces not change this residential zone into commercial. Protect ynurself by writing to ourcounsel members and sttending this zoning committee meeting. Meeting: Re: Proposal before Zoning Committee Planning Commission March 19, 1998 3:00 pm 3`� floor of City Hall St. Paul City Counsel Chamber I have anclosed copies of two lecters from local residents expressing their concem of fhe possible negative change ta aur neighborhood. P.S If you can not attend the committee meeting, please immediately fax a letter to the Zoning Committee aitention 3im Zdon, Zoning flffice at (612} 228-3314: - Zoning Comcnittee 25 West 4`� St t z�o Ciry Hati Aiinex St. Pau1, MN•55t02 (612}2b6-6559 . Si�eiely, A very concerned neighbor ,�- � j°- . l'`'1 Q- � Dn nJ . . . _ . . .•� . . t � . ..... . . . � .. �� a � � .,._ K�-��N M�•�" ..��'�e� LAUsE OF 1 �k. ►b . .r�x�k ri.�a� � � ►�►2,� f�G*� � ►Jss �7 . � � ► L � S � ►.� C�'� , r MAR-19-98 1.']4o PM DREW_KASqNUK 522 0846 - - P_01 _� � � � �� MARCFI 18TH 1998 RE: ZUNING FILE NUMB$R 9g-011 ZOAiING COMIvII'ITEE 25 WE ST FOURTf I STREET 1100 CITY HAI,I, ANNE}{ ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55 ] 02 I�EAR MFt. JIM ZDON, ZONING OFPICE: PLEASE READ THIS I..ETTER DURING THE SCHEDUL.�D MF,ETII�IG AT 3:00 P.M. MARCI� 19I�I 1498. IF POSS7BE MAICF, COPIES FOR AI.L IN A'I'TF.'NDLNCH. 70 ANY A"T�IETIAII3G'iIIL ME�TING REGARI)TNG li MOUNI'CALM COURT AS MY WIE� AND I REGRET n wE ARE Urt ARi F TO ATTENI) T� Ng;��i�. � PERSON. COI�ICF,RNED NETC3HBORS IN T�3E AREA HAVE ASKED MY WIN� AND T TO LET T'EiE NEIG�iBORS AND Tf CTI'Y OF�ICIALS KNOW THAT WE ARE 1N1'P.RPSTED IN PURCHASING IS MOTJN`ICALM COURT, • MY WI2�'E AND Oi1R POUR DAUGFITERS WOULD OCCUPY AND USE THfi PROPERTY AS TT WAS BUII,T ANT? DESIGNED AS A SINGLE FAMII�Y HOME. R'F: FiAVE MADE SEVERAI. WRTTT'k,N OFFERS TO'I'�lE SELLEI2S AS ITTGH AS 5275,000 HOWEVER THE SELLERS WANiED MORE FOR THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIl��fE.. W1ILN V� MAI)E I�IL OFFER3IT� SELIBRS WERE ASKING 5310,000 F'Olt 7I� PROPERTY. WE RL;ALIZE TI-iAT ANY SEI.LER WOULD WANf AS MUCH AS P053IB1.E FOR A HOME TI ARE Sf ;I,LING SO WE UNDERSTAND Wf3Y Tf HAVE REJ'ECT� oUR SEVERAL WRI1 f�I OFF�:RS. Tf� HOME IS VERX UII.APIDATED IN NTBD OF MAJOR RESTORATIQi�I SO WE FEiLT OUR OFFf�RS HAVE BEEN FAIR. M7' WIFE ANA I HAVE RP.MOI7ELF.D HOMES FqUR TFiE: pAST 15 Yf;ARS MOST IId NE�D OF MAIOR ItEf-iAB SOME READy FOR TI II? RECKTNG BALL. WE HA VE RECYCI.ED THEM INTO SOME THfs MCEST HOMES ]N THE ARI;A TfiUS KEEP7NG Tf�v1 ON TI-IF. TAX ROI..ES AND Il3CREASING SUI2ROUNDII�IG PROPI;RTY VALUES. WE WOULD GREAIZY ENJOY RECYCLING 15 MOUNT CALM COURT. IT MAY BE MORE PROFTI'ABI.E FOR TE-IE INVESTORS CURRIiM TRYING TO CTL#NGE THE . HOME INTO A HF,AVY COMNIERCIAL USAGE HOWEVLR IT IS OL7R OPION TI�AT Tf1L NEIGHBOR HUOD WTLL SUFFk;R AT3D SURROUNDJNG��OMES WOULD LaSE VALL7E IF 15 MUUNTCAI,M COUKT IT IS CHANGE:D FRQM RESID�IAL TO COMMEFtCIAL PROPFj.E27Y. MPR-19T93 1Z:44 P� � DRE41_K4iBFiNUK 522 0846 -- P= B2 � � � t �/ TT IS NOT OUR INT�NTION TO UPSET TFIii SELLERS ORNFIGfiBORS WfiO WANT AN Ai � T�IIdER FACII,II'Y II�T TF�Rf: NEI(sF�ORH04B RA�R OUR INI'EN tIUN IS TO ��RM TI�E COMIvI[JNI'IY AND CTIY OFFICIALS T�FIAT TiiL; OPIION IS STILL OPLZ.t TO KEF:P Tfifs ARL•A AS IT WAS 3N7�ENDED A SINGLE FAMiLy RESIDENI'IAI. NEIGHBORHOOD. . WE ARE S1ILI, INTEP.LSTE.� IN pURCHASING Tf� f�UML I-TOW EVf;R IIi$ SEFLT.F.RS HAVE INl'ORMED US T'F�AT T'HEY WOULD ONLY LOOK AT OUR OFFEFtS IF Tl� CTT'Y DBNIES Tf� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT T111;REFORF CANCELIN'G TF�RFi CURRhyNT PURCT�ASE CONI'I23GbNf CUNTRAC7. WE HOPE TO NEGOTIATE A SIITrABI,E PURCf1ASE AGREEiMP.21T' WIT�i 1IiE SELI.ERS AS SOON AS POSSU3E.E. WE ASK THAT THE CITY REJECT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW US A�EW r.� � TH IF WE ARE�: UNABI� TO RF,ACFI AN AGRF.EMIfiNf '1 FiAN T� PROC;ESS CAN CONTINiJ� WIiL:RE R IS CCJRREN'fLY. WE IiOPE YOIJ �IAVE CAREFUIZY CONSIDERED UUR PROPOSAI. AND F�ECT YOU TO DO WHA'1' IS BEST FOR YOUR rAMILIES ANA YOUR COMMUNITY. TF "IT3I3RE ARE ANY QUF.STiONS P�F,I, IRE:E TO CONTACT US AT O'UR HOML AT 522-0846. SINCERELY ��-�%��.�.� DREW G. KABANUK �; (��__ TERR.I L. KAT3ANUK � � From: To: Date: Subject: � Sonyama <SOnyama�aol.com> STPAUL.SmtpMimel"james.zdon") 3(19(98 1:08pm Special use permi[. for 15 Montcalm Court Dear Mr. Zdon, After our conversation this morning I consolidated my thoughts about the intended use of 15 Montcalm Court. �� 1 �� I chose to live in this neighborhoocl because beauty and the aesthetics of the drive to my home is very important to me - the beauty of old architecture and landscaping - of feelings of security and responsible, caring neighbors. 2 have even complained to a neigribor about a child�s unsightly car parked in front of my house - a fact I wish I could reverse in hindsight - but I mention this point to show you how deeply I feel about my environment's attractiveness. In fact, although our street's residents are never invasive of privacy, they a11 seem to have some element about which they feel sufficienCly strong to make note of it. One neighbor who we call "The Mayor of Montcalm Place" has chastised me for driving too £ast on a street where he and others walk every day. I took seriously his concern for community responsibility and slow down every time I see his house. Not only do we have pride of community, we also feel we have some abiliCy to monitor the security of our environment by calling each other when we see strange aars or people on the street to make sure everything is alright. This is possible with a rather stable population where we know people's cars and faces. When the burglaries were oacuring last summer on Edgecumb, we were quite alert about diPferent cars driving on the street. We all £eel comfortable in walking at any time on the street which mosC of us do with our dogs. BuC, I have been very uncomfortable reaching the south end of the stxeet because strange cars were parked, idling, with unknown people in them. I didn't like the feeling. What were they doing there at 10:00 at night - casing our street? It was enough for me to run home, even with my large dog. In the context of the environment 2've described, I would make the following observations to you. Hopefully they wi11 be considered. 1. The impact of any one property and its use is much wider than the adjacent lOD £eet or even 350 feet; the impact is on the entire Place - Montcalm Place. 2. to � 3. 4. Yet, I don't believe we, the Place, has been informed of what is about happen - by the developers or the city. Nor do we know what the closest neighbors who have apparently been Included are requesting in their reguirements. This is clearly a residential community. Having a religious community ��-�� as part of it is different than having profit-making institution as part of it. Surely the best thing £or the street is to maintain the individual sense of pride, responsibility, and sense of empowerment to maintain our environment. Working with an institution is a very diE£erent situation, especially an institution � with less permanent personnel who have no stake in the immediate community. And, just perhaps this is just the best thing possible. We wouldn't know without being informed. Thank you for your consideration and time. Sonya Anderson 640 MOntcalm PlaCe � U • ��-��s i • � ROHERi H.CFIn\DLER ROD�EY J. Ye50V ' PatiL p. BRO�' SCOTI P.:SOESi �iasx v. sozx d]tY-JO C.VE%SOLn20 OF GOL'T'SEL XATHERI\E VESSEYES' �AL50 AD:ftSTED t0 PRACS[CE I\ wI5G0.\'SI� March 7 9, 7 998 Zoning Committee Attn: James Zdon 25 West Fourth Street 7100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55] 02 Re: 15 Montcalm Court Dear Mr. Zdon: 4700 NoawEST CEN1'EH 90 $OC?8 $EVE`.TH $Tg£ET �LI\'`'FdPOLZS,TIZV_i£S02A 55402 (612) 347-0282 HA1V� DELIVERED i live at 607 Montcalm Place, which is rivo blocks away from 15 Montcalm Court. I am extremely concerned that a special condition use permit may be granted to allow this property to be used as a care facility. The paving of any of this propeny beyond a traditional driveway is totaliy inappropriate for a residential neaghborhood. I am also very concerned that this facility will cause an increase in traffic over the residential streets adjacent to the property. Many young families have moved to this neighborhood to take advantage of the fine schools in the area. Everyone in this neighborhood pays extremely high taxes to live in one of the nicest residential neighborhoods in the City. I am amazed that anyone would seriousiy consider a]lowing this use in this neighborhood which will certainly cause a decrease in property values and cause many of us to consider moving out of the neighborhood. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the committee meeting this afternoon. Please provide copies of this letter to the committee members. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely-yours, � �l� .Paui D. Brown '�: � GHANDLE$ AI\TD MASO�T, LTD. ATTOBFEYS AT LA�V 1GO7 PIOti£E$ BUILDI\G 336 1�'ORTH ROBEHT' STREET S.uvr Paui, bfxv*r�soxa ssioi {612) 228-0497 FAX (612) 228-923> AEPLY TO SdL`ii PAUL OFPSCE cc: Council Member Michael Harris by hand delivery The Honorable Norman Coleman by hand delivery 03/29i98� TAi' C8:19 FetiY 6126A65963 Sue and Say f�0o1 . Jay Johnson and Sue Ditmanson 694 Montcalm Pface St. °aul, MN 55116 Re: fte-aoning of the property at 15 Montcaim Court. Dear Mr. Jim Zdon and fhe Zoning Office: f wouid like to voice my concern and strong opposition to the re-zoning considerations of 15 Montcalm Court. l � ` `�j 1 believe this is a beautiful neighborhood of singie family homes and feel this is the way it shouid stay. ! recently moved in to the area and would not have knowing a4 your re-zoning plans. My property values are going to significantly drop by your re-zoning ofi this property. 1 setiously doubt you are going to lower my property taxes to accommodate this drop. i wonder how many other beaut'rfui, old neighborhoods have started their deteriorafion by having an eye sore home bought up by an uncaring business interest. I can not be4ieve that ths taxes collected on this one property are crucial to the city of St. Paul. • The options of this property becoming a sing{e farni(y hame have not 6een exhausted. The property has been left to run down so that the renovation expense is prohibitive at ifs present price. 1 feel the value of this house is whaf the market wii( bear by single famity buyers. If the price needs to be dropped to meet this value, so be it. The sale of my home had to be dropped to meet the community value. That is the facfs of selling a home. I wouid afso fike to bring up the fact that the use of this home in the past is, seemingly, outside of the definition of single family zoning. Was there no laws to protect this neighborhood or was there just no enforcement of thesa laws. My point is, please give this property back to the neighbofiood. The increased traffic, lawns tumed into parking lots, and the instittstionalizing of the neighborhood are of great concern to me. Piease don't fet the present owners 15 Montcalm Court se�l out the neighborhood, as they have, seemingly, overstepped fhe boundaries af a singie family zoning in the past. i hope the zoning committee and the city councii will protect us from the selfing out of a neighborhaod. � G MRR-18-1998 10�28 H 8 BC MRRKETING 612 951 3465 P.fll _ 1�. ' � ��'�'I �c�o� � �. ��C� a�' -�t �� / Murphy, Mike (MN27) . _^ _ _ __ . . _. __.__ __.—� To: Murphy, Mike (MN27) Subject: 15 Montcaim Court Zoning Gommittee 25 West Fourth Street �'f 00 City Hall Annex St. Pau[, Mn. 55102 Attn: Jim Zdon, Zoning O�ce This memo is in regard to the proposed speciai condition use permit under consideration for 15 Montcalm Court Our home, which is now in my wife Mary Lynn's name, is at 6�9 Montca(m Pface. We have lived on Montcalm since 1973, and highly value its' unique resident�al charm- one ot the nicest in the city! For 25 years we have paid some of the highest residentiai taxes �n St Pau! because we so appreciate the character of th�s htBe area and want to live there, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ALZHEIMER CARE FACILITY AT 15 MONTCALM COURT! The increase in traffic, pask+ng problems, 24 hour a day vendors and support staff coming and �oing, large trash containers in view(probabiy), medical waste di5posai requirements, assisted paiienfs walk�ng in the streets ( there are anly limited sidewalks)... we didn't sign up for this! 7HIS IS A RESIDEN7IAL NEIGNBORNOOD, NOl" COMMERCIAL. Over the last 25 years I would estimate the 25 or so homeowners on Montcalm have paid in excess of S3million in taxes, on a cumulative basis. If this iovely neighborhood deteriorates, it will mean less taxes to the city. Already, one substantiai home adjacent to the proposed care center has gone unsold for over 6 months- I wondered why,now t know! We are not opposed to Alzheimer care. Lord knows we'If all probably be there someday. We are very much opposed to granting a spec+al use permit tor 15 Montcalm CouR and permanently defacing a great oid St Paui neighborhood. • �"�r.cr�c, � �-� ��`'� � `� Edward L(Mike) and Mary Lynn Murphy r/ � 609 Montcaim Piace ��,/ � St Paui. Mn. 55t16 U � � ��: �� 1 3�� . z ��,,-, ��" � �. �-� l �� s � Page 1 Y�� ,"� . �� : g s �, �� G 2 � 1 TOTFiL P.01 POLSKI & POLSKI ID� MAR 18'98 15:41 No.005 P,O1 � PLSKI ffRS7AR CENtER SUITE1�12 l01 EASY FIFTH STREET SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA 551D7 •1808 TELfPHONE: (672)224-1776 FAX (612J22d-0B83 ��_�� OC P ��K� ATfORNEYSAiIAW March 38, 1998 Zoning Committee of the St. Paul Planning Commission RobertJ.Polski 1421-7977 Robert J. PoLSki, Jr. Membar O� the Mlnnstctc and Wiscons�n Bnrs VIA FAX ONLY NO. 228•3314 Attention: Jim Zdon Re: Property address: 15 Montcalm Court - Special Condition llse Permit Dear Mr. Zdon: I represent Monica A. Polski relating to a speciai use permit application af 15 • Montcalm Court for the operafian of an a(zheimer's care facility. Monica resides at 590 Montcalm. We just learned of the zoning committee hearing schedu{ed for Thursday, March 19, 1998. Neither Monica nor myself are able to attend that meeting, therefore, 1 ask that you accept this letter in lieu of our appearance. Monica strongly opposes the proposed special condition use permit in this residential neighborhood. As you know, this neighborhood consists of upper bracket homes in a very desirabie St. Pau1 location. Obviously, a care faci4ity for alzheimer patients is out of character with the neighborhood and its present use. Surely, the present owners of 15 Montcalm Court could sell the property as a residence due to its very desirable location. Why is it necessary to use it as samething other fhan a residential home? i, myseif, would be very interested in purchasing that prope�ty as a residence, if the opportunity presented itself. I am sure fhere are other areas of the city more fitting for a oare facility other than the one proposed ai 15 Montcalm Cou�t. Sincerefy, � �� : Robert J. o{ski, Jr RJPfjth � � almis�polslJ�m�xo�unpmle ��-�SS � February 27, 1498 Zoning Committee Saint Paul Planuina Commission Re: Montcalm ResidencelPeter Keely Unfortunately, I will be out of town at the time of your meeting. Please accept my comments in this form. My concern is that the neighborhood is presenfly a quiet one with not a lot of iraffic. The proposal before you will increase tra�c and change the neighbochood from residenrial. The pazking requirement will make that piece of property resemble a used caz lot. As I understand, fhe city wants space for 12 cars. That will result in the loss of the small front yazd and the small back and side yard will be hard-pressed to pazk these � cazs. If a screen is used, it would help but I doubt it would be effecfive. I quesrion the financial ability to tum this buiiding into what they pxopose and then what? Also, the proposal states patients will pazk not closer than 1,000 feet of the 15 Montcalm residence, I question whether yuu really want alzheimer patients driving anywhere. T$ you, ! Jo Kinkead 6 Montcalm Place Saint Paul, MN 55116 . �� Nfarch 18, 1998 Zoniag CommiEEee Saint Paul Planning Commission Re, i 3 Montcaim Court Unfortunately I will not be at the meeting but want to voice my concems. I moved into the city from the suburbs on the assumption that if I bought in a quiet residential neighborhood it would remain so. Never did I dream that a neighborhood of suhstantial housing investments ( and high taxes), usually a guarantee of neighborhood stability, would be endangered by rezoning! You aze in a very bad situation when the home values are not guazanteed by a zoning thae is strieyly single family residentiai. This is above and beyond the fact that it is quiet, with many walkers, and without leeway for increased parking either on site or in ihe street. Street parking and walkers on that curve would be dangerous and the addit3onal parking needed by �ielivery trucks and service workers wouid defuutely change the residential quiet that r exists now. It is this quiet and serenity that keeps the home values lugh. yVhy would yon want to discredit the stability of one of St. Paul's nicest n€ighborhoods? Certainiy ther� are num�rous sit�s for an Alzheimer facility in this big city4 Karin Eriekson, a ver� eoneerned neighbor / �, /.-' . ` G ' � r /� J �� LjV ��_ ��;�v � lolvS` �oNr`l'�4LM �'G/!N� $T��i4UC ��N <5 �5%/6 . � � 2-25-98 Zoning File Number 98-011 Zoning Committee 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex St. Faul, Minnesota 55102 Attention: Jim Zdon, Zoning Office: ► : \i �� This is in regard to the proposed special condition use permit under consideration for 15 Montcalm Court. My property extends to within a few feet of 15 Montcalm Court. I am convinced that my property and all other property nearby would be significantly depreciated by the developer's proposed establishment of an Alzheimer care facility at this location. Granted, its proposed use sounds benign but it is nonetheless a profit-making venture for its developers. Unlike those of us who live here, the developers � won't have to share the consequences of this monstrosity if it goes forward. This is a prime residential area with equally "prime rate" taxes. If this neighborhood deteriorates, it will mean decreasing t�es to the city. One choice home immediately adjacent to this proposed care center has remained unsold for more than six months. Other nearby home owners who would like to escape the coming neighborhood deterioration will undoubtedly find it equally difficult to find buyers. Xes, it's proposed as a care center for the aged ( of which I am one ) but it will be a permanent eyesore in a great old 5t. Paul neighborhood that deserves better. High, prison-like fences must be erected around the property. Front lawns must give way to institutional parking space; quiet streets to staff and supply vehicie 9;raffic. In 1963, I established a St. Paul-based business that ultimately provided more than 50 well paying jobs. As a businessman, I can appreciate the city's interest in restoring this property to the tax rolls, but I would plead with you to find a more neighborhood-compatible solution. ,' - K.M. str�a 2 Montcalm Hill . St. Paul, Minnesota 55116 � � . ��y�L � Gv-.�- �� is C�.�� -��:� �� ,��- �-� �� r/��,>�� 1�igy� � /� , �� . �� Ed & Connie Mc Cennon S 741 Lexington Pk}c S. Saint Paul, MN 55115-2348 RECEIVED FEB 2 5 199$ ZONING � DEPARTMENT OF PLANiVING � � "N �S & ECONOiYIIC DEYELOP.I�IENT � Pamela Wheelact Diredor Cfii'Y OF SAINT PAUL Norrtt Colemars, Mayar i • 25 West Fourth S�eet Telephonc 611-266-6565 Saint Pau{ MN 55102 Fatsimite: 612-228-3314 To: Planning G'ommission Zoning Committee From: James Zdon Re: 15 Montcalm Special Condition Use Application Date: Mazch 11, 1998 On March 5, 1998 the Zoning Committee held a public hearing regarding the Special Condition Use Application for 15 Montcalm Court. During the course of the public hearing the Zoning Committee leamed that the developer's applicarion, because of ongoing negotiations with adjacent neighbors, had changed in the following manner: 1. The developer was no longer requesting a front yard set back variance for four parking spaces. 2. Because front yard parking was eliminated, the pazking variance request had increased from two to six parking spaces. 3. The developer had submitted, for the Zoning Committee's consideration, additional conditions (copy attached) to the special condition use permit. At the close of the testimony, the zoning committee decided to carty over the public hearing until March 19, 1998 and asked planning staff to review the revised site plan and the additional conditions and report back to the zoning committee with a staff recommendation. Staff Recommendation: 1. Staff recommends approval of the special condition use permit with the modification of condition 3(d) in the February 25, 1998 staff report, that reflects a variance of six (6) parking spaces. 2. Addiflonal Conditions. Staff has reviewed the attached site plan and the addirionai conditions submitted by the developer. Those conditions which staff would recommend as applicable and enforceable under the special condition use permit aze as follows: a. The special condifion use pernut is for a State Deparhnent of Health licensed Elderly Contraet With Services Board and Lodging Facility, or equivalent license serving �� -� �S • elderly and/or Alzheimer residents, of up to 16 bedrooms and a maximum of 21 residents. b. Petmission for special condition use appiies only as long as the number of facility residents is not increased and its purpose or location do not change and other conditions of the pemut aze met. c. Commercial deliveries will not occur between 7:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. d. A site plan consisting of the following conditions shall be submitted by April 19, 1998 to the City of Saint Paul's Zoning Adutinistrator to insure conformance with the special condition use permit conditions and city zoning regulations: i. There will be a minimum of seven off street pazking spaces. The e�sting drive will remain in its current locataon with no pazking in the front yard; driveway width shall be sufficient to accommodate two vehicles passing at the front door. ii. There will be no new fencing in the &ont of the building. Fencing is allowed azound the southerly and easteriy sides of the building. Such fencing shall be green or brown in color, shail not exceed 6'/� feet in height and shall be screened � from the front yard' by shrubbery. iii. All outdoor air conditioning equipment shall be located in the back yazd and! or on the roof of the back (bluf� side of the building. iv. The trash receptacle area shall be fully enclosed with a fence of siY feet in height. v. No light shall spfll over to adjacent properties from exterior lighting sources in excess of one (1} foot candle. � vi. The premises may have one identification sign not to exceed 6 square feet in azea. � • FI.JM GRAY PLAI.T MO�TY MOOTY & HENNETT ��) � i ��K�S (WED) 3. 4' 98 77:06/ST. 77:05/NO. 4261011372 P � Following aze provisions that would be included in a petmit for speciat condition use (ihe "Permit") to be applied for by a Minnesota limited liability compnny (K$ich has not yet 6een formed) to be majority owned and conholled by Peter Keely and Dirk Bordsen (referred to below as `Bnyer°'). , 1. The development consists of a state licensed residence in an existing building at the 15 Montcaim Court premises for up to 16 bedrooms and a ma�cimum of 21 persons who are over age sixty-five, whom aze frai! elderty or elderly whom have been diagnosed with Dementia or Alzheimer's disease, and accompanying assisted-living services to include azound the clock staffing, meal services aud health caze as needed (the "Faci2ity"), provided no persons shall reside in the Facility who require skilled nursing home caze such as a nursing home. The Buyer agrecs to keep records with the 5tate of Minnesota, as required by the licensing agents. The Facility's primary use is for Dementia and Alzheimer's patients, azyd at no time could the Facility be used as a"halfway" house (a facility for Dementza or Alzheimer's patients providing assisted living shall in no eveot be considored a "halfway" house"). 2. IIuxing any time the rcal property is used as described above the fotlowing conditions shall app3y: a• Site improvemenu wi11 conform with the site plan dated Mazch 4, 1998, as attached (the "Site Plan'�, including the pazking revision of March 4, 1998, including the foilowing: (t) There wi11 he a minimum of seven (7) off sfreet pazking spaces. The existing drive is to remain in its current location with no pazking in the &ont yard; driveway width to accommodate two vehicles passing at front door. (ii) There wil! be na new fencing in the�front of ihe building. There will be fencing azound t6e Southerly and Easterly sides of the building. Sueh fencing wi11 be chain link, 12 feet hi�h. co(ored green or brawn, and shall be screened from the tront yazd by shrubbery. �J (iii} All outdoor air conditioning equipment shall continue to be located in its present location in the back yard and/or on the roof on the back (bluf� side of the Building. F-,:OM GRAY PLANT MooTY MoOTY d� HENNETT i�17 fWED) 3. 4' 98 17:07/ST. 17:05/NO. 4261 0 1 1 372 P � . . �� `f �� jiv) Buyer shall instruct its service providers, that, except in the event of an emergency, no cominercial de(iveries shall be made between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. b. The usea6le footprint of the existing building will not be increased &om its present condition, except for a porch at the existing front door. Existing @ecks and porches may be renovated. 1Vo other structures will be built or located on the premises with the exception of a porch at the exisring front door and a trash enclosure in conformity with the Site Plan; and the basic style and natuze of the exterior walis and roof will not be changed. c. Th� Buyer shal! take reasonable measures to assure that no resident leaves the Facility unattended (exccpt in thc fcnced-in yazd), and for such purposes shall install and maintain a secwity system designed to do so. d• The Permit as written cannot be changed or amcnded by Buyer or subsequent ocvners without foliowing the special condition use permit policies and procedures as written in the City of St. Paul zoning code. e. The trash receptacle azea shali be fiiliy enclosed with a fence of six feet in height. • f. No light fixture shall spiil over to adjacent properties from exterior lightiug sources, in excess of 1 foot candLe. g. Water drainage shall fIow as it does currently. h• The premises may have one idcntification sigtt consisting of letters not in excess of 5" in height in white and brown or other natural colors which shall he secured to the building, such sign sha11 not have more than fifty (50) letters; and parking control signs which shall be as unobtrusive as possible. The identification sign itself may be lighted by a light shining on it. i• The care and maintenance of the building and the landscaping shall remain consistent with the cate and maintenance of the neighborhobd and its residential chazacter. ). Additional health and safety systems and procedures wi11 be installed and maintained as tequired by the City ordinances and regulations to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents and community, k. Residents will be required to agree not to keep or pazk vehicles on the public street within 1,000 feet of ihe Facility. � I. Healthy, mature trees will be retained. m. Commezcial deliver3es will not occur between 7:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. F_fioM GRAY PLAN7 MboTY MooTY & BENNETT (ZS) � ��-ti �� 3. The permii for special condition use (the "Permit") shall run with the tcal property. 4. Buyer shait have the right to sell, Iease or otherwise convey the underlying rea! property and Facility and/ot a change in controi may occur and this permit shall survive and benefit such new owners, provided: (i) 7'he purchaser or the new controlling person and operator shall consent in writing to be bound by each and every tecm and condition of this Permit as though such purchaser or other new controIling person and operator was Buyer; (ii) The Buyer shall not be relieved from any obligarion or liability arising out of this Permit by virtue of such sale or change in control and operation whieh occurs prior to sueh sale or change in control ofoperation; and (iii) Written norice of any proposed sale or change in control and operation must be provided to the City together with � �- 'such documentation and information regazding the proposed purchaser and any new controiling person and operator as the City may zeasonably request at least thirty (30) days prior to the proposed sale or change in control and operation. 5. Upon such sale or transfer, Buyer shali automatieally be relieved from any and all obligations arising hereunder after the date of such transfer.. 6. The Pecmit shall automatically terminate upon the Buyer's or operator's breach or failure to compIy with any provision ofthe Permit orthe Buyer's breach or failure to comply with City Ordinances, zoning code, regulation or of the ferms, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Permit which breach or failure continues aRcr thirty (30) days' written notice thereof from the City to the Buyer. In the event that the breach az failure is the type of breach or failure that reasonably takes more than (30) days to cure, Buyer should have such addirional time as is reasonably necessary to cure the breach or failure, provided $uyer is diligently attempting to cure such breach or failure. Failure of the buyer to cure eny such breach or failurc within such time period shall result in the automatic termination of the Permit, whereupon the $uyer shall immediately cease operation of the Facility. The Buyer recognizes and agrees that any resulting cessation of operations may result in financial hazdship, however, the Buyer agrees to waive all agreements, lega] or equitable, based upon such fnancial impact. (WED) 3. 4"96 17 : 0 7/ST.17:05/N0.4261013372 P 4 � FPOM GRAy PI:ANT MOOTY MOOTY & SENNETT (�1) � 7 (WED) 3. 4' 98 17:0')/ST. 17:05/NO. 4261 01 1 372 p 5 ��_ L �� The permit s6aI1 be filed with the County Recordcr or Registrar of Titles of Ramsey Covnty, ivlinnesota. GP_4473a9 v2 247971al7l6S9 � . � c� � � ZODTING COMMITTHS STAFF RSPORT �__�_�____ FILH # 98-011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATE RBCLIVBD: 2/5/98 DEADLINS FOR ACTION: 4/6f98 � A. PIIRPOSS: Special condition use permit to allow conversion of a residential structure greater than 9D00 square feet to a residence for frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer. A parking variance o£ up to six spaces and a£ront yard setback varianoe o£ approximately 20 feet to allow four parking spaces. B . L � APPLICANT: Peter Keely DATE OF FiEARING: 3/5/98 CLASSSFICATION: Special Conditional Use LOCATION: 15 Montcalm Court PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 LSGAL DSSCRZPTION: Lots 4 and 5 Montcalm Court PR8S8NT ZONING: R-1 ZONING CODS REFER&NCB: Section 60.413, 64.300, 62.102, 64.203. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: February 25, 1998 BY: James Zdon PARCBL SIZB: This irregular pie shaped parcel consists of approximately 240 feet of side yard along Highland Parkway and 130 feet fronting Montcalm court. Total parcel size is 89,549 square feet. EXISTING LAND IISB: The property is occupied by a vacant 13,875 square foot residential structure. SIIRROUNDING LAND IISIi: North: Single £amily residential uses in a R-2 zoning district. East: Single £amily residential uses in a R-4 2oning district South: Single family residential uses in a R-1 zoning district West: Single family residential uses in a R-1 zoning district. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 60.413 (12) of the zoning code states that the planning commission may permit the conversion or reuse of residential structures of over nine thousand (9000) square feet if, £ollowing a public hearing, the planning commission makes the £indings detailed in #3 of this staff report. Section 64.300(f)(1)of the zoning code states that the planning commission may modify special conditions. � �� ! Section 64.3o�(f)(2) of the zoning code states that the planning commission may act as the board of zoning appeals and granC variances_ Section 62.103 establishes parking requirements for various uses and section 6a.203 provides for the variance of those requirements. F. HISTORY/DISCIISSION: None G DISTRICT COONCIL RECODII68NDATION: On December 4, 1997 the Highland Area Community Council took a position in support of the special condition use permit for 15 Montcalm Ct. The support was dependent on the applicant gaining the required signatures of 2/3 of the property owners within S00 feet. When the District Council took this position it was not aware the applicant would also be asking for a parking variance and a front yard setback variance to allow parking in the front yard. H FINDINGS: 1. 15 Montcalm Court is a vacant residential structure of apgroximately 13,875 square feet that has fallen into disrepais. Located in a R-1 zoning district, the home was built in 1947 and was used as a single family residence until 1962. It was then converted to a 25 person residence for the Catholic order of the Oblate Fathers. In 1970 it became the "LUbavitch House" and was run by the Upper Midwest Merkos Jewish Education Association as a synagogue and education retreat • center. For approximately the last year the house has been vaaant. 2. The applicant, who has an option to purchase the property, proposes to completely renovate trie interior and exterior of the house and convert it into a board and care residence for the frail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer. There would be 16 bedrooms with a maximum of 21 residents. Services by three fu11 time employees would include 24 hour supervision, food service and support activities. The facility would be licensed by the state and it would be run by Franciscan Health Care which owns and operates St. Mary�s senior residential housing in Highland Park. 3. Section 60.413 (12) o£ the zoning code states that the planning commission may permit the conversion or reuse of residential structures of over nine thousand (9000) square feet if, following a public hearing, the planning commission makes the following findings. a The structure cannot be feasibly used for a conforming use. This condition is met. This single family residential structure, because of its large size, has been used from 1962 to 1597 as either a religious residency facility or retreat/activity cenCer. The property has been vacant for the last year and on the real estate market. So far there have been no buyers willing to purchase it and renovate it as a single family home. i � �- ��s • b. The propoeed use and plans are coasisteat with the comprehensive plan. Triis condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansion of supportive housing opportunities for individuals and households with special needs. c. The proposed uae aad etructural alteratione or additions are co�atible with the surrounding aeighborhood and land uses. This condition is met. The site is surrounded by single £amily uses and the applicant proposes to restore the structure and make it feel and look residential. The proposed use, as a residence facility £or £rail elderly and elderly with dementia/Alzheimer, is a quiet unobtrusive land use. The residents, because of their mental/physical limitations, will not drive or be allowed off the premises. Traffic generated by the facility will be visitors and 3 full time and 3 gart time employees. d. Parking for the new use ehall be provided in accordance with the requirements of section 62.103 for new structures. This condition is not met. The required parking for this proposed facility is 13 parking spaces. (21 beds would require 10 spaces and the three full time employees would require 3 spaces.) The applicant is proposing 11 0££ street parking spaces and is asking that the planning • commission modify this condition for the following reasons: 1. Facility residents cannot drive nor are they allowed to riave cars. 2. Parking would only be used by staff and visitors. The maximum number of staEf at any one time would be 6 leaving 5 proposed spaces for visitors. 3. The more parking that is required will make the facility look institutional and hinder the applicant's objective of retaining the residential character of the facility. For the reasons above, modification of the condition is reasonable. e. Applications for conversion or reuse shall include a notarizad petition of two-thirds of the property owners within one hundred (100) feet o£ the property proposed for the reuse, site glans, building elevations and landscaping plans and other infoxmation which the planning commission may request. This condition is met. A notarized petition including the signatures of 11 of the 16 property owners eligible to sign the petition was submitted along with site and landscaping plans. � 4. Section 64.300(d) of the zoning code requires that be£ore the planning commission may grant approval of a principle use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find that: �� -� �� • a. Tha exteaC, location aad intenaity of the use will be ia substaatial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and aay applicable subarea pana which were approved by the city council. This condition is met. The Saint Paul Housing Policy £or the 1990s includes a policy encouraging expansiori of supportive housing opportunities for individuals and houseriolds with special needs. b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize tra£fic congeation in the public streets. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to result in less traffic--and, therefore, less potential £or congestion-- than the religious activity/retreat center that used the structure from 1970 to 1997. c. The use will not be detrimental to the existing charaoter of the development in the immediate aeighborhood or endaager the public health, safety and general wel£are. This condition is met. The proposed use is expected to contribute to the public health and welfare by providing elderly care services needed by the surrounding community. d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and � improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. This condition is met. The applicant has committed to restoring this dilapidated vacant structure to a residential appearance that will be compatible to the surrounding residential structures. e. The use shall, in all reapecta, coaform to the applicable regulations o£ the district in which it is located. This condition is met. Insofar as the planning commission approves the modifica'tion of conditions 3(d) above and the front yard setback requirements to permit 4 parking spaces in front,#6 below, the propased use conforms to all the appliaable regulations in the R-1 zoning district. 5. Section 64.300 (f) (1)of the zoning code states that the planning commission, after pvblic hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use o£ a piece of property or an existing structure and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner of such property or structure; provided that such modification will not impair the inCent and purpose of sucfi special oondition and is consistent with health morals and general welfare of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent • property. 6. The applicant is also requesting a front yard set back variance of approximately 20 feet to permit 4 parking spaaes to be developed in (., ��v�� * front of the structure on Montcalm Court. These parking spaces would be designated £or visitors. The applicant believes that if the visitor stalls are in the back of the site it is unlikely they will be used because they would be so far removed from the front door_ Instead, it is likely visitors would tend to park on the gublic street. To mitigate this impact and meet neighborhood concerns, the applicant believes visitor parking would be best served by front yard parking. Section 64.203 0£ the zoning code provides that the planning commission shall have the power to grant variances from strict enforcement of the provisions of the code upon making the following findings. a. The property ia question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provision of the code; This finding is met. The size of this structure, 13,875 square feet, make it unlikely that it will ever be used as a single family home. The fact that for the last 35 years it has been used for functions other than a single family home supports this conclusion. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. This finding is met. The property is an irregular pie shaped lot that fronts on a circular court drive shared with three other properties. � The properties' con£iguration leaves little room £or eacpansion or the provision of parking other than in the front or back of the structure. c. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, eafety, comfort, morals, welfare of the iahabitaats of tha City of Saiat Paul. This finding is met. The intent of the code setback provisions is to ensure there is a uniform appearance and character within a district. This property is unique in that it's £ront yard is on a circular court drive where the distance between the front of the structure and the circular drive varies between 47 feet to 80 feet. Second, because of the narrow charaater o£ the circular court driveway, adjacent neighbors would prefer that visitor parking be placed in the front yard rather than have visitors use the court drive for parking. d. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply o£ light and air to adjacant property, nor wi11 it alter tha essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding areas. To the extent that the variance would allow the applicant to restore this vacant dilapidated structure to its residential appearance, the essential character of the suzrounding area and its property values would not be diminished. , e. The variance, if granted, would not permit any usa that ie not permitted vnder the provisions of the code for the property in the district were the affected land ia located, not would it alter or change _l �� + the zoning district classification of the property. This finding is met. Nothing about this variance or the related special condition use permit would change the classification of the property as being in a R-1 zoning district. f. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to inorease the value or the income potential of the property. This finding is met. The applicant's variance request is based on a need to meet the code parking requirements and the desire to mitigate any potential impact of visitor parking on the public right of way. I. STAFF RSCOMDSSNDATION Staff recommends approval of the special condition use permit with the modification of condition 3(d) that allows a parking variance of 2 parking spaces. Further, staff recommends approval of a front yard setback variance that will allow 4 parking spaces. � � k •r %�a.. .f... _____--- � ' � �� , �- - 8 ( ��) �--- --� `� 7 � �� _._ �-Q' >> i � I � U1 �G3. -_ � �: � v, , � /'�� 3 �o� :. _:•��acm-...-.. `� _^ 5 ��.0._9 "_"-�._._....,..�._..._, �.� , �'� / �r, ti :� ,�,`"; _. � " --- w`� """'M r zoning district bou�dary .FlLE# "Q �� DATE ��j��7� � subjectproperty /\ �..,_ n� orthi �LNG. DIST____� �_ MAP # � S � 0 one family •• � commercial SCALE 1" = 400' �" � rivo family "�' � �..,igdusfriai r�� t¢ Q muftiple f8mify V vacant �� _ _ 2 '1 . l U Y �� ,, �� G! � �_ � �z � �3 i4� � 03/1] � � � � �. '; .. . ��...': .. t I ` , l • , : ' '��'. •�� , � v .: . � . w _ .. � �� '., . .. �. k' V�' ' ~ . J�� 'L " '` ' ; '' r _= .'>,�.��.:♦.'� � �� u O.� � '. E s e •. } � . , � .�. .• � � � e .• .�. �: � . . � � <. � � . �. � z ...� . ..'<. . ��S a � . o = '. � o �. : %� : � . ' ;. . .� . � : ... � � �: < ' :b �. ° .�'° : . . �' . .. I '+ ' � ' V y J J . f. � . ' � .. �.'•. U4 � . . �' ..��. � �. �' . �.. � . :� � � q�: : � � � � �� : r ` :,... , � �. ��'.. . , „ �� -'� . � � . :: �. ,: :.� . � W � W . ti z a �� _ W � W W Y WED 12:22 FAS 6123J95382 N ' , A ' /� h/ � , � ' ' . �� O/ , �• SI . ro � A •� � � s. � � :�_ : � < ;��.:` ::� : . ^;' z ��'� �.--`--`�-.-"- . .• t'� v _ _ _ _. .; , .. . z ' .�AVAI3AQIG .. r l • .�; � . S(qNIlliliR• ' • : ' . • - � _�. �:.� � ��'�, \S ��O / � 1 3 '�U 3�� _ �p�� 3��p� , Q � S � fh�r�°�o y! �� QDi .o� ��p,��W 1 � \ � � '� O ��,'� �� -� .: • ., � ��.'�6 '�v •. \ �� ; j�. `�� . /J :� �_'. _ , � � U .v i. � . : .. . , V �• 5 � �� ' � � W ' O � aw s � Z � � W Q ~� ' F ' F- � � . d � = r m � 9 �� m r K�NOd ,. .�:.�.� � j. � . . ^ ` . 8 M� .� O � y - 1 '� ra��. J S �a- : �� .� 2 0�= b =� Q �� v�z3 � � �. Q y �' 6 � , < �� . � � ��> �t� � � �� =z�� ._ . / / �yO V � V raj � � a ] �� g � , . � 4��'� •'' �" .' �� ' . ' t. ,�; g•.C�, : ./: �� ' ��4j•,';. �:. .•,�.�'.:. �� .. � r �� t z � / \ .. ._ � ... ..�� . : � /�� am ; �--. OS/11198 91ED 12:22 FA% 8129395582 �� •� I � t � J�ie � I ! 4 ' F i a' " �i � O i CJ � �� - N z S�9 � J b � 9 } � � w ,�q � Qd i 4 � Sp 0 R� „j'J'o..- N� o� 6 � »:: `�. �,, � , • a ' ;� ;;:;:' d� F: :' r';_i_'• �' % � . = ��Q�,.i � C!] t�. ;:;i�.,_. a � �iP . a� <°� `u. . _. z:: , ;,.� ,. `=� o ':�.' ��. '�,;.'•=::r gs <�'•�'�' � :��..:.. , , ... i S ?,P.a. • � , � - }:" .;: : �� . : ' e' : ;i� `;::, .. � . .: �n_,;_ �; . .P� �: �• •. * . � s O J ^ti4 � �. � �� i �� 3 _ �� , ESG A3tCHITECTS �� # � •b y 40 � � � � / / I i / / � � A� y kl 8 �� 4 U z S� >,.: ��; .,-_. C p.'� ._. G� ; c � 1!. s 1�� 'v t� / �� • d. O g rdoos l � y � f � a � •. Y t � i� 1 E �a�� 11� � r x- 1 l '�. a 0 U M J � � W � a � �§ �� g � a 6 a G � O 4 s�i� H � . � G=. F a _ U� 4 _ �. � PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a complete renovation of 15 Montcalm into a residence for frail elderl}• and elderly �vith dementia/Alzheimer, over a�e sixt}�-five. There would be 16 bedrooms and a maximum number of 21 residents. Services �vould be provided at the home includine 24 hour supervision, food service and support �activities. The overall concept of this style of assisted living is to provide a. residential setting for those who othen��ise may have to go to a nursin� home. Residents have a rooiu that may or may not be shared, and use of common space such as kitchen, livino rooms, lounges, and activity spaces. This ��ould not be a mirsing home in that it ��ould be licensed through ihe city and state as a board and care home, and would not be a skilled nursing facility. The building is currently suited very well for this type of function, and the renovation ��ould basically refinish all of the interior fi�ishes, as well as update the house mechanically, electrically and for use by the elderly, including an elevator and sufficient sizin� for battuooms. Ne�� rooms �vould be added and life-safety features would be installed. The exterior will be re-furbished with new windows, stucco in lieu of plywood sidin�, roof repairs, and complete renovation of the existing porches. The project is to be owned � by a limited liability corporation{to be nazned) comprised of the applicants. The house would be run by Fransican Health Care which owns and operates St. Mary's senior residential housin� in Higl�land Park. EXISTING L3SE , The latest use for the house �vas as the "Lubavitch House'. The house was run as an activity and retreat center for people of ail ages. Gatherings for ceremonies would take place, as well as �veekend retreats for teena�ers and adults. Due to this use, the house has been transformed to contain a large number of people. There were eleven bedroom �vhich contained t�vo to four beds each, laundry and a commercial Kitchen. Significant amounts of plumbing and bathrooms ha��e been added to accommodate the large groups of people. The house has been mostly vacant for the last yeaz and one hal£ The house has fallen into disrepair, and is badly in need of maintenence. CO\FORMiNG USES The house is approximately 14,000 square feet on three levels. It is solid concrete and masonry construction. Due to the overall size of the building and the construction type, it would be difficult and costly to renovate the home for single family use. There is very little character to the building that would make it desirable to maintain as a single family residence. The buildin� looks very institutional. The developers objective is to make the building look and feel residential. The building � although not necessarily attractive, and certainly not designated historical does have some historical significance. The home built in 1947, «�as built by famed St. Paul banker Otto Bremer, and any attempt to demolish the building would remove any historical impact the home may have in the future. � � � � G� �-� �� iJNITS Thz project �vill consist of a 16 bedrooms with some double occupancy bedrooms for a maaimum of 21 persons. BUILDING SIZE The footprint of the existing buildin� will not be increased from the currznt size. One exterior open porch will be added at the front door which remains behind the front yard setback, and one trash enclosure will be added. T�vo existin� storage sheds at the back of the property will be removed. The existin� character of the exterior will be maintained. PARKING The project proposes incorporating I i parking stalls. This is based on the nursing home requirement of one stall for three beds for a total of seven stalls, plus pazking azea for staff and visitors. The residents of this facility do not drive cars and will not bz storing cars at this location. Although the total parking provided is less than the total aniount that could be required under city ordinance we believe this to be more . than adequate. The agreement with the neighbors notes that we will add additional parkin� stalls off site if parking issues arise in the neighborhood. Through discussions with the neighborhood, it was understood that nobody would want to remove trees and green space for parking that is not used. The developers will add the extra stalls up to the city ordinance upon neighbor, or the City of Saint Paul's request. Proof of parking is noted on the site plan. The pazking as proposed extends over the required yazd space. The reason for includin� parking in the front yard is due to the fact that most of the visitors will park by the front door. If we do not provide for off street pazking, the visitors will park on street. Discussions with neighbors have indicated that they would prefer visitor parking by the frot�t door, and a�ain �ve do not want to overbuild parking stalls. Three of the side yard stalls aze existing in front of the gazage, and back into Montcalm. EXTERIOR LANDSCAPING C J The site has many trees and landscaping currently, many of the trees and the landscaping by the house are over�ro�vn and unhealthy. The developer proposes to retain healthy mature trees, and repla�e any trees or landscaping removed. Additional parking at the back of the lot-would require removing existin� healthy trees. ( t� 02/23'98 MON 10:06 FAS 6123395382 ESG ARCHITECTS `r.� � � �� - "l �� February 20, 1998 City of Saint Paul Zoning and Planning Department RE:15 Montcalm 5pecial nse permit application The applicant is requesting that the enclosed pazking plan be used foz the new assisted living development at 15 Montcalm. 1'he plan re-uses the existing curb cuu, with na new curb cuts oz extensiorzs necessazy. I'he existing front drive will be retained, and the existing sideyazd garage drive would be retained. All tzaffic would have back-up azea on site so that traffic entering the street wouid be moving fozward. 11vo pazking variances are be requested with this plan. 1) The total number of stalls proposed is 11 stalls. This is less than the required numbez. We believe this request is appzopriate due to the character of the facility. Because the residents here cannot dtive. Due to physical concems, they do not own cars, and would not be using the pazking stalls_ The stalls would be used by staff and visitors. � The maximum number of staff at any time would be six. This would still allow five parldng stalls £or visitors. Unfortunately, ihis rype of resident does not zeceive many visiton. Ofren the family will come to pick up the resident W take them off-site. The intent of the pro,}ect is to maintain the most residential character as possible. The more parking that is built the more institutional the building will look, not only for nur residents, but the neighborhood as well. To this extent we would be willing to reduce the aumber of stalls to nine if the city and neighborhood believes this to be a better solution. 2) The proposed pian includes five pazking stalls within the front yazd setback. These stalls are designated for visitors. Tf we did not include the stalls by the front door, visitor stalls would be accommodated in the back of the site. Since the back pazking stalls are so far reznoved from the front door, the visitors wo�ld tend to pazk on the public street. In order to accomtnodate the visitors, and to keep the pazking off-street due to neighboihood concems, the £rontyard parking is the most appropriate. We believe the proposed plan addresses most pazldng concems, we would be willing to amend ihe plan if other solutions aze deemed more appropriate. � � 02/23'98 MON 10:07 FA% 6123395382 � � � �� _ z �. ��. ��, � � :. ��. `:a . . J . j� :�, Y .\ � JY • • . . .�'• r x �� C. r y U ' .. • � J "� .� . .$ ' E v _ .. s � H + $ '. . L l' i ' L�� ';.. � p� ��. � �: b ' , � o i ' . � • y v �� ? . .�-�� Y • �, Js . .�v:..� .. � � �; _ � N Y �'.' . ' ' ,_ ' , \ `� i . . \� � ��I O ,o, ,�;�, ��, ,�ia% - � .v n�,^ �. � N'�'t'."e -ti: �-.j.�,:�; . ��_... : ��r�. : t�. a ,�, -.. � %`. -{�": S ; . . . �� J �� z � � . __ , a�� ' � � W ' � � <W = V � �`' : ? � �� ' Q � � � �h . � o Z � � � �� J � m , c �' y i Q �� O $� O J Cdoos ��—�{�/ � 0 � � a � � Q � � � ESG ARCBITECTS � ..A ..; . ', f..' . - ��`.s �- � � ��: .�� . •' �' •'. , C-� O 0 0 ^9•Y , �'� � „ o �� ' Od . K . ' \•. t..' �•. . ` .�.j�;.. � .. �,�'• ,_ � �N: 4 ` ��.�� :: Lr \ � �./ � G . � 5 �� i;�a ��s��,`�> 9 O� �, s�+;'�` . � � � � — `a S .,ti O �� •o� � y3 rr\ .�0 � . � c � � 3ir4d � :� .'._.. ' ": .....`..�'�...'`' :" y � � g° � � b �� //� �a1..•Q�..... , . a'Sr � p . �'y � ��' .' : : '� . " �. L . � 3 \ � ,:'ec g• 6Q` x. / •' �a -• � � �V i�. 0 cj •. ': . : s�: . :' �, j � . uo u� � m - /� ��.�, '� ,� : � z : . � y' � � � ` V ff..: �v ii \ � ��., � . .' �s � , .``. .�''. . . � �r�,� . .�. � /L 02/23i98 MON FA% � � � _ �� , . z�. �� . �� . �:� }� . s � �z � 3 .. aJ. . : `, � "�: �, , . :.� . , � ;; � ' ' r ':LS . � � E - 6 � � v 'o�•.'' e '��' ' � �3 ,"�., a I�'< ., , a� � ' � . : � A�Y • � .6i r� g J'6 f Q . � . V � v . J.� �. '. Y q. . , ,_ ' M1� ., ��++ r ' II�� ." Y__ .' �. U` � ti � �. Y .. ,,, . . v ;. � ,;: .. � ��. . '.�� . 3 ,� ` ��. . ° ` , . . ��- , � � ,.' . '�, .. �,�' , \� � � ��I O 395382 ESG ARCHITECTS �� ..o,�, r : . ,. .��. � e r !/ � �� 7�� . � r Y'JW � � / - Y �r J - ;:JV(Iy�I�WO � /..• ' . ^ . 000 � � a ' � � aw � V r� 2 z W � � U a �a � F � . Q � zn . � � � �' J .- ro , � • .�_y el d °-&�/ „ r i � � �� {��¢'�� ! 43 „O i lf7 ° � y� � ' � .: •::•: _ . �: y� � \ � � � 0 � �` Z�3 �� i�,`n> �'{ 90 `' + � � g � _ tro e, S o a,yo �0 �' - \ �� o ~ �� ' � ' . -. . . . : � . : , . . . :. '� \ °�� - �',�`' .'�`. : • po ,� : ,: �. , . .: :: .. '. . . y �: .�3 Q l \ 1 , 60 .:: ..^ . �: .: `:' '' � . � yz, ' \ �.� � . 7c. 0 Gj •._ �: . :. ', � �•'. . `: � j - . u w � ` � / /�. � �� . . .,� i : . ` � � .. ` `y --.. V �'� ..V �� .�..'! .. .' z ' ��.��•�. `^ ' �7�' vz � e . �., :. . . \ �G�i '�'. : ' { ' : � �.� :;�it ;._ •.;..+ � , �.','�.. x n� :: �� : �,:y.;� :, �'<' � � �� :. O�� z � p Yi a O �ooa � �-�� ? �� t � J Z V� � � � � �3 °�� „=u„�,��R.�9�,a 1� � CITY OF SAINT PAUL CONSENT OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A SPECIAL CONDITION USE PER1l�IT °( $ �`{ �� We, the undersigned, owners ofthe property within ]00 feet ofthe total contiguous description of real estate owned, purchased, or sold by THE APPLICANT within one year preceding the date of this petition acknowledge that we have been presented with the following: A copy of the application of (name of applicant) to establish a T75 f�7�j G///�iy� (proposed use) located ar._ �S �7oy G,t,lG.� CT � (address of property) ' requiring a special condition use permit, along with any relevant site plans, diagrams, or other documencacion. We consent fo the approval of this application as it was explained to us by the applicant or his/her representative. / �� ..---.:.. ..............o� o.. auc uyper pon�on oi [nts appltCation ust be completed prior to obtaining eligible signatures on this petition. �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL � CONSENT OF ADJOII�IING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT We, the undecsigned, owners of the property within 100 feet of the total contiguous description of real estate owned, purchased, or sold by TI�� APPLICANT within one year preceding the date of this petition acknowledge that we have been presented with the following: � A copy of the application of applicant) to establish a (proposed use) � located at: �'s yloyj"G.4`/!iJ C�; (address of property) tequiring a special condition use permit, along with any relevant site plans, diagrams, or other documentation. - We consent to the approval of this application as it was explained to us by the applicant or his/her representative. � i% , � eligible signatures on this petition. �l, CITY OF SAINT PAUL �� J� � • CONSENT OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A SPECIA� CONDITION USE PERMIT We, the undersi�ed, owners of the property within 100 feet oFthe total contiguous description of real estate owned, purchased, or sold by THE APPLICANT within one year precedino the date of this petition acknowledge :hat we have been presented with the following: A copy of the application of (name of applicant) to establish a located at: � /yf (address of property) requiring a special condition use permit, along with any relevant site plans, diagrams, or other flocumentat[on. We consent to the approval of this application as it was explained tc us by tre applicant or 1::�/her representative. � � � � �� (� 1VOTE: All information on the upper portion of this application must be completed prior to obtaining eligible signatures on this petition. °� � "� � i STATE OF MINNESOTA) Ol� PERSON CIItCULATING THE CONSENT PETITION � COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) AFFIDAVIT' SS Peter Keely , being first duly sworn, deposes and states that he/she is the person who circulated the consent petition consisting of 1 pages; that a�ant represents that the parties described on the consent petition aze all the respective owners of the properties placed immediately before each name; that affiant is informed and believes that each of the parties described on the consent petition is an owner of the properiy which is within 100 feet of any property owned, purchased, or sold by petitioner within one (1) yeaz preceding the date of this petition which is contiguous to the property described in the petition; that none of the parties described in the consent petition has purchased or is purchasing property from the petitioner that is contiguous to the property described on the consent petition within one (1) year of the date of the petition; that this consent was signed by each of said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures aze the true and conect signatures of each and all of the parties so described. Peter K NAME 4648 Oaklan ADDRESS 612-827-5788 MN 55407 612-373-4681(day) TELEPHONE NUMBER • Subscribed and swom to before me this �� day of �� , 19�_ � • v_ �. _ ► « v� � � � ,. . � � � •o PAMELA J. STENZEL 1'' aouvvruwc•euHr�sorw q�� µYCOMMISSIONIXPIRES .,..� SANUARY 31, 20�Q Page_�of � 1/31�I'7 �� HACC DIST 15 TEL�612- Jan 14'98 14�14 No.001 P.02 �� • i • HIGHLAND AREA COMMUNITY COI3NCIL 1978 FORD PARKWAY, ST. PALTL MN 55116 298-5138 FAX 29&5139 15 Mt C�Im Place 'i'he Highland Area Community Council supports the request for speciel condition use permit for structures over 9,000 square feet requested for 15 Mt Cafm. 7fie sapport is depeadent un the developers gaining the required signatures of 2!3 of the property owners within 100 fee� December 4, 1997 �G ��-`-E�� . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. SL3NRAY-BATTLECREBK-HIGHW OOD HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERTTY HII:LCREST WEST SIDE DAYTON'S BLUFF PAYNE-PAALEN 6. NORTH END 7. THOMAS-DALE 8. SUMMTT-UNIVERSITY 9. WEST SEVEN1�i 10. COMO 11. HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12. 13. 14. � 17. ST. ANTFTONY PARK MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE MACALESTER GROVELAND HIGfiI.AND SUMMIT HII.L DOWN`fOWN zoNiN� F��E �� CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS ��-� �S � HIGk{LAND • DISTRICT 15 �N � ° �, --- _ � j Z�� '�� j �� J r SCOTT and ELISA KNUDSON 1430 Edgcumbe Road Saint Paul, MN SS I 16 Saint Paul City Councii Re: Our Appeal to the Proposed Special Conditioual Use Permit for 15 Montcalm Court . Dear Council Member: a�-u�� Along with other people in our neighborhood, we have appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a special conditional use permit to allow what was built as a single family home to be converted into a care facility for 21 residents who have Alzheimer's/dementia. We oppose that decision and ask that the Council reject it. You should be aware that we do not oppose the proposed special use permit because of the affliction of Alzheimer's. We simply believe that the proposed commercial use is for many reasons incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. We believe that the Plannzng Commission erred in several respects. There is insuff cient evidence that the property cannot be used for a single � family resideuce. We object to this finding because we believe the properry has not been marketed adequately. The prior users, very simply, were hard on the house and left it in need of substantial repair. But the owner should not be allowed to profit from this misuse by selling to someone who will convert the properiy to what is a commercial use. Moreover, we understand the properiy has been tied up with an option for many months, which deterred buyers who would have put the property to a compatible use. We also understand that an offer was made to purchase for single family use and that next door neighbors are ready to purchase the property. Finally, there are two examptes in the neighborhood of a major renovation of a Iarge home or a new single family home being built. 938329.1 ..< r �J � �� ( �S Putting a commercial-type use will be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which is made np exclusively of single family homes. The Planning Commission erred in its finding that the shucture, after alterations, would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It is physically impossible to make a property look residential when it has a six square foot sign, seven cars on the (and most on the street) and all the staff necessary to provide food, services and personal care. The developer claims that 24-hour supervision, food service and support activities for 21 Alzheimer/dementia patients would be provided by only three full-time and three part- time employees. We feel that this is a very low estimate of the number of employees that would in fact be needed. Consequently, with the staff, deliveries and health care and family visits, traffic will be higher than the Planning Commission assumed. In a neighborhood where the neighbors (by silent agreement) do not park on the street to allow kids to play, this would be a drastic change. The Planning Commission should be aware that of the 11 people who consented in writing to the permit, eight live on Le�ngton at the bottom of a steep, heavily wooded hill which has no access to Montcalm without traveling either (1) north to Randolph, west on Randolph, south on Edgcumbe to Montcalm, or (2) south on Lexington to Montreal, west on Montreal, north on Edgcumbe befare they can even get to Montcalm. Those property owners have no involvement in this neighborhood whatsoever. Of the seven people in the neighborhood within 100 feet of the project, three gave their consent and four did not. To conclude, we respectfully request the Council overturn the decision of the Planning commission to grant a special conditional use permit to allow the conversion of 15 Montcalm Court into a care facility for up to 21 patients. Sincerely i ic�` ti "� � �� Scott and Elisa Knudson � 938329.1