Minutes 12/18/2006 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 18, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Joyce Maddox Rachel Gunderson City Attorney
Gloria Bogen John Hardwick LIEP
Vincent Courtney Debbie Crippen LIEP
Richard Faricy RECEIVED
Gladys Morton JAN 3
Daniel Ward 1 2007
Buzz Wilson CITY CLERK
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by Ms. Morton seconded by Mr. Faricy, the minutes of the meeting of December 4, 2006 were
unanimously approved on a voice vote.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
FILE# NAME MOVED SECONDED VOTE ACTION
Old Business
New Business
06-276316 Rick Lesch Continued 2 weeks until 1/2/07
06-277209 James W. Cox- Afton Architects & Planners Ward Courtney 7-0 Approved
06-277973 Thomas Dunn Laid over 2-weeks at applicant's request.
06-278080 Jo Anne Hodapp Courtney Bogen 7-0 Approved
06-278107 Marina Liberman - Moscow on the Hill Bogen Ward 6-0 Approved
Sulimittd by: " 71 Approved by:
r `
7,..1 ..„ 2— ' ---
J n Har dwick Gloria Bogen, Secretary
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
'MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST PAUL, MINNESOTA, DECEMBER 18, 2006
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Farley, Ward, and Wilson of the
Board of Zoning Appeals; Ms. Gunderson, City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen
of the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection.
ABSENT: None
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair.
Rick Lesch (#06-276316) 1589 Christie Place: A variance of the setback requirements for attached
garages. Section 63.110(f) of the zoning code requires attached garages to be setback at least five (5)
feet behind the principal front facade of the building and be consistent with the neighborhood. The
applicant is proposing to place the garages no more than 10 feet in front of the homes to be built along
Christie Place and to place the garages in line with the homes to be built on the lots along Prosperity
Avenue.
Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for denial.
No correspondence was received opposing the variance request.
No correspondence was received from District 2 regarding the variance request.
The applicant RICK LESCH, Promised Land - 14009 Flagstone Trail, Apple Valley, MN was present.
Mr. Lesch submitted handouts to the Board. One was a plat to show where the lots are and pictures
showing some of the houses that are in the area, to show the Board the type of houses he would like to
build. The reason for the variance request is that in looking at the neighborhood there are some pictures
of some houses there that are directly across Prosperity from the site where he plans to build. He
explained that they are lots 1-6 on the plat map. The houses and garages are even if you look at the
pictures that say Prosperity on the bottom. So he is proposing that he build homes the same as those
across Prosperity. Noting that they did have a District 2 Council Meeting and they requested some
compromises. Mr. Lesch continued that the initial application stated that he wanted to build the garages
10 feet in front of the houses. The compromise the District made is that lots 1-7 are built like the homes
on Prosperity currently with the garages even with the front of the home. On the other side on Christie
Place there is only one house that really fronts on Christie Place and that lot is 125 feet wide, they are
able to put a detached garage on that. The other houses that are shown in the slides the garages are
facing Christie Place not the homes, the fronts of the houses face Idaho. Mr. Lesch contended that he is
not able to build detached garages on these lots because most of them are 50-feet in width and the
setbacks on the sides are 6 feet so that only leaves him 38 feet to build on and he would not be able to put
a detached garage on it and still be able to fit a house. So he is applying to build attached garages on lots
1-7 where the houses and the garages are even. Than the compromise we made on lots 8-15 was that the
garage would be no more than 6-feet in front of the front door. Then we would put a front porch on that
would bring the roof lines even with the garage roof line. The photos of houses on Arlington he took
because he was told that the District was involved with building those houses. Those were built about
five years ago. Two of those houses have garages that are even with the front porch and one other that
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #06-276316
Minutes December 18, 2006
Page Two
has the garage that does stick out in front by about 7-8 feet. Which is the reason he included the houses
on Arlington that are about a mile away from this site. Because we are building attached garages looking
at lot 6 on the plat map it looks like the largest lots in the development. That is one of the first lots he
intends to build on so he asked his architect to draw some plans for him. If we put the garage,(a normal
22 by 20-foot) even with the front of the house it does not fit on that lot. Because of the front and rear
setbacks we have to make the garage smaller. His initial idea was to have the garage be a side load
garage but that does not work because of the steep hills there, so we have to do a front loading garage
and we have to make the garage smaller on that lot. In looking at the lot you would think that there is
plenty of room to build a house and garage there, but if we were to try and move it back behind five feet
we would not be able to build a house with a garage attached because it does not fit on the lot. That is
not true with all the lots but it is true with lot 6. People at the District meeting questioned why we could
not do side load garages and that is one of the reasons we cannot. The other reason is because of the
typography of the site. All the lots along Christie Place, lots 7-15 are going to be either walk-out or look
out lots. Then the lots on Prosperity and the one lot on Larpenteur are on flat lots. What he is asking is
to be able to build houses that are similar to or like the houses directly across the street from the houses
he is going to be building on Prosperity.
Mr. Ward questioned who selected the foot prints and the design of the homes he is proposing to build?
Mr. Lesch replied that he has not designed the homes yet. He stated that his architect will be doing those
as we go. Or as we sell the lots, than the people buying those lots will be designing their own home.
Mr. Ward further questioned that Mr. Lesch was stating that this development was an open build? It is
not closed? Mr. Lesch replied closed to him as the builder, but open to have a custom home built, they
are not all going to be spec homes. For example lot 15 already has a buyer and we have designed their
home. Mr. Ward questioned for lot 15, these lots given your typical zoning in the City of R1, R2, or R3
you have a minimum of 5,000 square feet. Mr. Lesch replied it is actually 6,000 square feet. Mr. Ward
continued so actually you have more. With a different sized foot print you could conceivably build a two
story home and a detached two car garage, noting that Mr. Lesch stated that his two-car garage was 22
by 20, which dimension are you going by. Mr. Lesch replied 22 feet wide and 20 feet in deep. Mr.
Ward continued if you take a full sized pick-up and try to put it in a 20-foot deep garage you will have
inches if you can get that door to close. Given the location of the foot print on the plat that was
submitted on page 20 of the packet and given the size of that foot print, if you were to decrease the size
of that foot print and locate the building so it is in line with the typical setback from the property line,
from the street, and including an alley you can achieve everything that you want without a variance. Mr.
Lesch questioned where he would include an alley. Mr. Ward stated just looking at the plat coming off
of Germain and going behind. Mr. Lesch responded that Germain has been vacated there is no Germain.
That was a proposed right of way but the City has vacated it. Mr. Ward noted that the houses on
Prosperity were individual homes rather than a project where you are doing 15 homes. Mr. Lesch
replied he does not know, he would assume that is correct. Mr. Ward stated that is one of the provisions
in the code, addressing Mr. Hardwick, if he is correct. That a larger project is scrutinized much
differently than an individual project. Mr. Lesch replied that is his understanding also. Mr. Ward
continued as far as the review of a garage as far as setbacks it is not looked at the same way as an impact
of this magnitude that will have on the whole neighborhood. So again he is back to his same question.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #06-276316
Minutes December 18, 2006
Page Three
"Why do you want to build such a large house on a lot this size with no access from an alley?" Mr.
Lesch stated there is no alley on the site. They will all enter off of Christie Place, Prosperity, and one
house will enter off of Larpenteur. Mr. Ward further questioned whether Mr. Lesch would agree with
him that if the house foot print were smaller he could actually get a garage on there. Mr. Lesch replied
that is not correct. For instance lot 6 looks like a pretty good sized lot a 22 by 20 foot garage does not
fit. Mr. Ward questioned at all? Mr. Lesch responded not unless he moves it forward. Mr. Ward
questioned what about lots 7-14 and 2-6? Mr. Lesch replied yes the garages will fit on those but he
cannot do a detached garage because there is not room to do it. Mr. Ward questioned on any of these?
Mr. Lesch replied he has not looked at it that closely but in his opinion a detached garage is not the best
use of the land. Because he does not think that anybody wants driveways and parking areas for garages
as opposed to back yards full of grass. Mr. Lesch continued if he did detached garages, he only has 50
feet to work with he has 6 feet on either side for setbacks. That brings him back to 38 feet then he has to
bring a driveway back to the back in order to put a garage back there. So the whole back yard would be
asphalt and that would take away from the appeal of the home. Not having the ability to put an alley in
the development he does not think that there is another way to do anything other than detached garages in
his opinion.
Mr. Courtney questioned Mr. Lesch whether he had the approval of the District Council? Mr. Lesch
replied he has the approval of the District Council but with some changes. The changes that they
proposed were that lots 1-7 would have the house and the garage even the garage would not stick out in
front of the house. Mr. Courtney questioned whether we had that in writing somewhere as part of our
packet? Ms. Maddox replied Mr. Repke has it. Mr. Courtney stated we are going to hear it then. He
further questioned whether Mr. Lesch is telling the Board that the garages need to be in the front because
there is not enough room in the back in several cases. Mr. Lesch replied in some cases that is true. That
the garages would not be able to be big enough to house a car if they were not moved out even with the
front of the house. Those are generally the lots on Prosperity, the lots on Christie Place what he was
looking to be able to do was to build houses that were a little bit different than the ones on Prosperity.
There are not any to compare it to other than the one house on Christie Place, on a 125 foot lot. He
contended that he is building houses right around the corner from these on Hazelwood Street, he has five
lots he is building. Those did not come under site plan review because they were not on more than 2
acres. Those houses are well excepted, before he gets them finished they sell. They are selling for an
excess of$300,000 so he figured that if they were acceptable on Hazelwood they would also be
acceptable on Christie Place. Mr. Courtney questioned the garage size of 20 by 22 feet. Mr. Lesch
replied that is a number is gave his architect to design a garage, and the 20 foot depth when it was placed
on the lot because of the configuration of the lot and because of the setbacks the lot has to have, 5 feet on
the back and 25 feet on the front and 6 feet on either side, he was not able to get the garage to fit. There
was nothing built behind the garage it was simply the garage. Ms. Maddox questioned what would
happen if he removed one of these lots and gave everyone more room. What would that do for fitting in
the garages? Mr. Lesch replied make the lots wider than they need to be here. Other than cost him a lot
of money. Ms. Maddox replied it would work? Mr. Lesch replied he does not know he would have to
have an engineer look at it and tell him what works.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #06-276316
Minutes December 18, 2006
Page Four
Mr. Chuck Repke, 1961 Sherwood, District 2 Community Council. Mr. Repke stated that he is in
attendance to support the applicant on this project. He submitted handouts to the Board. Stating that the
first handout highlighted in orange shows homes in the area that already have attached garages. Mr.
Repke read his suggestions for the findings. That would fit in with what the neighborhood believes
should be the situation. First the properties cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provision of
the codes. The properties on Prosperity and Christie Place cannot be put to a reasonable use without the
requested variances. Though it may be possible to build houses on the site without the requested variance
it is doubtful that marketable houses would be able to be built on the site. The site is on the broad end of
a triangular shaped block where it is impossible to build an alley. Since there cannot be an alley to enter
the property from the rear of the property than all the garages must be entered from the front. Forcing
the garages to be placed five feet behind the front doors of the building on 50 foot lots eliminated the
potential of building attached garages using most modern floor plans. Where the garage is adjacent to the
front room, this would then force the development to be one of narrow houses with detached garages.
With the costs associated with acquiring the property, site preparations and building the new homes it is
questionable whether the narrow homes would be marketable at a price able to sustain the development.
The plight of the land owner is due to the unique circumstances and was not created by the applicant.
The triangular shaped block was not a condition created by the applicant. The site also slopes
dramatically from the south to the north. Noting the photo presented by staff of the Bronco at ground
level and it is severely down to Larpenteur Avenue. At least four of the properties on Christie Place
have a sever enough slope that the homes will have walk out basements and detached garages built behind
the houses would be impractical on those lots with those sever slopes. These conditions add to the
complications of developing the block and were not created by the applicant. The proposed variance is in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and consistent with the health, safety, and comfort, morals,
and welfare. The clear intent of section 63.110(f) is to allow attached garages to be built in
neighborhoods where attached garages already exist. All but one house directly across the street on
Prosperity have attached garages and four of them have garages set at or in front of the houses front
door. Continuing south on Prosperity and Hazelwood this pattern of development continues with most of
the houses having attached garages even with their front doors. Directly across on Christie Place the first
two houses you saw there actually face Idaho and only the garages face Christie Place. To the east the
townhouse development that was built with the attached tuck-under garages. Those garages all face
Larpenteur Avenue so it is not like Larpenteur Avenue does not see them. The applicant after meeting
with the neighborhood has agreed to amend the variance request building the garages even with the front
doors on the lots that touch Prosperity and no more than six feet nearer the street than the front doors on
Christie Place. Building attached garage houses would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the
code. The proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjacent property
nor would it alter the essential character of the surrounding area. Nor would it diminish established
property values within the surrounding area. The proposed development is consistent with the
development patterns in the immediate neighborhood. Due to the cost of development the prices of these
new homes will be significantly higher than those in the immediate area. The higher prices of these
homes will have a positive effect on neighborhood property values. The proposed variance would be
consistent with the essential character of the surrounding area and would not diminish property values.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #06-276316
Minutes December 18, 2006
Page Five
Mr. Ward questioned Mr. Repke whether he had seen some proposed plans of the homes Mr. Lesch
wants to build. Mr. Repke stated he has one of his two-story's if the Board would like to see it. He
submitted the floor plan for a two-story home proposed by Mr. Lesch. Mr. Repke stated that the District
has seen three houses that Mr. Lesch has built on Hazelwood, which is real close. Those are going for
over $300,000 in an area where there are still plenty of houses that go from the $160,000 to $170,000
range. Many of the houses in the area are small 1950 cottages with detached garages on those other
blocks. Along Prosperity has been the significant houses, those have been the ones that have been built
with attached garages, a larger floor plan, many of those with walk-out basements. So from a
neighborhood standpoint given the alternative of building suddenly in the midst of a neighborhood that
was built in the 40s and 50s, building a cluster of Victorians there would not be consistent. It would be
inconsistent to build that style of house there. It would make much more sense to stay with the character
of what is generally in the area and do attached garage homes, walk-out garages. It may be a little more
suburban but the Hillcrest/Frost Lake neighborhood is considerably more suburban than most other areas.
Noting that he jokingly refers to going from Hazelwood on the south of district 2 to Hillcrest on the north
is a walk through time. I start in the 1860s and end in the 1990s. Some of these homes, this whole
section of the neighborhood, did not have a house on it until the 1940s and 1950s. Mr. Ward questioned
Mr. Repke that the plans he has are what you think he is going to build, but nothing has been submitted
as these are the actual plans? Mr. Repke replied no, he has not seen this lot gets this house, and this lot
gets this house. But we have seen him build three houses in the neighborhood and he has been very open
with us on those meetings. He has discussed those developments and he has been very good with the
community and meeting on this one. Noting that he has a certain amount of faith in that and the other
end of course is that is the reason why we are asking for the restrictions we are. It still has to be built
flush and that the ones are no more than 6 feet forward on the other side, we are still looking to meet the
pattern of the housing development that is already exists there on Prosperity. So to have that spin off on
Christie Place as you go from single family homes with detached garages to townhouses would seem
rather consistent as well. The protections in the code, you wouldn't want this three blocks east where
you have cottage style homes with the small garage in the rear, but this is consistent with what is on
Prosperity. So from a visual standpoint of the neighborhood this would be a consistent development in
the area. Mr. Ward asked whether the previous homes constructed were in partnership with the District
Council. Mr. Repke stated that they all had neighborhood meetings. We are not in any kind of
contractual, or financial or any of those kinds of relationships between any NVCs(?) or District 2, or
him. This is an independent person. We just happened to call neighborhood meetings as he came in.
When he came in to do that they had to put in a new street. It was platted but it had to be built and there
was the potential of making things very difficult for him to be able to get that street. So he came in early
on, met with all the abutting property owners, had a neighborhood meeting talked about designs, talked
about the price range he was trying to put in the house. Folks are pleased to be getting houses a little bit
higher in the price range. Clearly when you were talking about the size of garages and the size of a
home that can be built, he knows that can be built on 50 foot lots because they happen all over his
district. He does not doubt that could be imposed, but the development that we have would not be of the
same caliber and it would not fit in with what we are doing on Prosperity. If we impose the code in the
strictest sense, sure it can happen but it is not consistent with what the development patterns are. If you
read again Section 63.110(f) it makes that suggestion that attached garages should happen near other
attached garages. If this was not as large as it is, if it was under 2 acres, and we were just going through
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #06-276316
Minutes December 18, 2006
Page Six
and building attached garages no one would have said a word, they would have thought that they all
would fit in. So this is the review process that we think is appropriate for it. We think with the irregular
shaped lots, with the slope that it has and the housing patterns that are on Prosperity, this makes sense. It
is an opportunity for us to get some houses that are on the upper end, with no City money in it.
Mr. Ward commented that you just had to throw that in there. Mr. Repke replied that he has done many
NVCs so he is used to having to do a lot to get subsidies. So we have been very impressed by Mr.
Lesch's ability to work with the neighborhood, his communication with the neighborhood. Yes we could
make them all 65 foot lots, would they all fit then, yes, but he does not know whether his numbers work
then. Yes we want to work with a developer in the neighborhood that works with the neighborhood.
Somebody that is in private development that is trying to do positive things for the community we try to
do what we can to make things work for them.
Mr. Wilson questioned that the houses with the garage set forward will have a porch? Mr. Repke replied
they are going to stretch a bit of a porch line up there. We had some discussions that would not fit into
what the Board is able to impose, we also discussed that he should try and get some variances on the style
of garage doors and he is in agreement of doing those things. One of the people said no murals of cars
coming out at you, no flat doors, we are looking to get some break-up on the design. So we have been
having those discussions with Mr. Lesch at District 2, on ways to make that a little more interesting.
Maybe some of the doors that have windows in them or pretend windows to give site line kind of looks to
it. But this is consistent with the development that is happening on Prosperity and it makes a natural
transition from Prosperity to the townhouses on Christie Place.
There was no opposition present at the hearing.
Mr. Lesch stated that he has not submitted any plans for permit as of yet because he had to wait until this
hearing was over before he can have his architect draw the blue prints. The plan submitted by Mr.
Repke is a blue print that will be submitted for lot 5 if the variance passes and then he has another house
planned for lot 6. Then there is a house for lot 15 but it will not be started until spring. Mr. Ward
questioned that if he understands what Mr. Lesch has stated. You have one plan that you propose to
submit for a permit and the rest of the plans will be whatever someone brings, or what ever you decide to
build there is nothing to say that any prospective buyers will have a choice for home a, b, c, and that is
it? Mr. Lesch replied no that is not how he builds, he has a billboard up there that shows, stating that the
handout he provided is the billboard that he has out at the site. If somebody come to him and says he
wants to build on lot 3, he would send them to his architect and the architect designs the home that they
want. But on lots 5 and 6 he is building houses that are called "spec houses". He does not have a buyer
for them but he is going to put them up so he can use them as models. So he can get people in to pre-
purchase the other houses. Mr. Ward questioned what those lots were again? Mr. Lesch replied lots 5 &
6 along Prosperity. Mr. Ward rephrased that 5 & 6 are "spec homes," and lot 15 is sold? Mr. Lesch
replied yes, lot 15 is sold. Mr. Ward continued that he is repeating what he thinks he is hearing, so if he
is a home buyer and he says Mr. Lesch he wants lot 10 and we have our dream home and regardless of
whether if fits or not you are going to build it? Mr. Lesch replied no if it does not fit he cannot build it.
Mr. Ward further questioned how he knows that what goes on lot 10 is actually going to be within the
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #06-276316
Minutes December 18, 2006
Page Seven
guidelines of what needs to happen according to the City? Mr. Lesch stated because whatever he builds,
before he can bring it in to submit it for permit he has to have his surveyor put that house on the lot,
stake it out, and show where the house corners are, where the garage corners are, and then they actually
place it on the survey then he actually brings it down to the City and he has to pass their approval
process. So they see that the surveyor has told them that the house will in fact fit on the lot based on the
specifications that we have to meet.
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Courtney moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6.
Ms. Gunderson stated that she understands that Mr. Courtney is suggesting approval in light of Mr.
Repke's suggested alternative findings. She would encourage the Board to come up with what ever
conditions you are conditioning the approval on so that can be stated in the resolution. She offered to
read the findings submitted by Mr. Repke to find the conditions. Ms. Bogen stated she thinks this is what
it was on the lots facing Prosperity the houses would be built with the garages flush with the front of the
houses and the lots on Christie Place the garages would be no more than six feet in front of the front
door.
Mr. Wilson questioned which garages would be extended with the porch in front of the house? Ms.
Bogen stated she does not remember whether that was a requirement that the District Council had. Mr.
Wilson further questioned about the porch (could not hear). Mr. Courtney suggested that if Mr. Wilson
wanted to ask questions he suggested that the public portion of the meeting be reopened and put Mr.
Repke back up there. It sounds to him like they did a lot of work on it and they negotiated a lot and they
are probably going to have a heck of a better idea of what they are talking about then what he can figure
out from here. That is his rational for supporting this, and if he builds bad houses he is not going go sell
them and will get a bad reputation, so it is in the developers' best interest to put up houses that look good
in the neighborhood, Mr. Wilson contended that if he wants to build his dream house and he says he
does not want a porch on the front, would he have to have a porch? Ms. Maddox replied not if you don't
put a condition on it. What she heard the developer say was that they were going to build custom homes
and she thinks everyone has their own idea of what their dream home is. So without that condition she
thinks we are probably fine. Mr. Wilson made a further comment not picked up by the microphone.
Mr. Courtney stated that what ever the District Council was recommending, which he does not see in
writing, that is what his motion was. Not that he does not trust Commissioner Bogen, but whatever it
was and it is on the record since he testified that is really his motion.
Ms. Gunderson stated that the motion needs to be clarified so that we understand the conditions that it is
. under. Just from listening to Commissioner Bogen she suggested that the lots have all been numbered
and so to say for example "lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, & 8 the roofline must be flush with the garage and the
house" so that would cover the porch issue. Than with the lots that face Christie she would again list
what numbers we are talking about because lot 7 & 8, do not face Christie and do not face Prosperity.
So she thinks that should be clarified, she does not know whether you want to do it in terms of roofline
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #06-276316
Minutes December 18, 2006
Page Eight
or whatever, but she would be real specific because then when someone comes and wants to build a
house the builders hands are tied because we tied them.
Ms. Bogen suggested reopening the public portion of the hearing and recalling Mr. Repke to tell us what
the conditions were that they placed on them. Mr. Courtney seconded the motion.
Mr. Ward stated that there is a motion on the floor, can we table that first order and then reopen that.
Mr. Ward moved to table the motion.
Mr. Repke stated that lots 1-7 were the ones we hoped would be flush, with the garage no further out
than the front of the house. The rest of the units would be no more than 6 feet and have the porch extend
to the front of the garage. Ms. Gunderson questioned when you are talking about the porch, the porch
would match up with the garage. Mr. Repke replied the porch matches up with the garage. Mr. Lesch
made a comment from the audience. Ms. Maddox instructed that the microphone is not picking-up this
conversation. Mr. Repke stated that no more than six feet in front of the front door is what the garage
was going to be. So the garage is no more than six feet in front of the front door on the other lots. Ms.
Gunderson questioned than just to clarify on lots 1-7 the front door and the garage door are flush. Mr.
Repke stated that his understand is flush on lots 1-7 and six feet in front on Christie Place.
Mr. Courtney further questioned what about the requirements that the porch come up flush with the
garage that does not exist? Mr. Repke stated that his understanding is that the garage is six feet in front.
of the door and we were going to do porches on Christie Place. The houses on Prosperity the garage and
the front door are parallel. Mr. Courtney questioned whether the porch would be flush with the garage
on Christie Place? Mr. Repke replied that is his understanding.
Mr. Ward questioned Mr. Repke that lot 8 faced Christie Place. Mr. Repke stated that the garage is able
to be extended and the porch goes out to it. Mr. Ward further questioned that only lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 &
7 are facing Prosperity? Mr. Repke replied actually lot 7 ends up facing Christie Place but we wanted
the same condition because it is so visible from Prosperity. He is actually going to build on lot 7 facing
Christie Place that was the reason it was slightly different, it is on that point. Lots 1 through 7
Larpenteur and on Prosperity we wanted flush. Mr. Ward further questioned that even though lot 7 faces
Christie Place it is the only house on Christie Place that will be flush? All of the rest that is lots 15, 14,
13, 12, 11, 10, 9, & 8 will have the garage extended and the porch flush on those lots numerically? Mr.
Repke replied yes.
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting again.
Mr. Hardwick stated that from what he hears there seems to be some disagreement about what was
finally understood at the council hearing between the developer and the District. Noting that he would
prefer from his standpoint that the developer get together with District 2 and lay down what ever
conditions they have and put them in writing and submit them to the Board so the Board has a clear
understanding. Noting that he may be the only one confused but he would much prefer to see the
conditions in writing and if the Board agrees with that it is much simpler to adopt a document than to try
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #06-276316
Minutes December 18, 2006
Page Nine
and set through a tape recording. Mr. Courtney stated that he would be willing to withdraw his motion
and concur with Mr. Hardwick's suggestion, because he thinks we should get the conditions in writing so
there is no misunderstanding. Ms. Maddox stated that there is a motion on the floor now so you would
have to withdraw the motion. Mr. Courtney stated that he withdraws his motion. Ms. Maddox stated
Ms. Bogen was the second. Ms. Bogen responded that she supports Mr. Courtney. Ms. Maddox stated
that we would next need a motion for a continuance in order for the district to get together with the
developer to put in writing these conditions so we can come back and vote on this. Mr. Ward moved to
continue the matter. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Mr. Lesch questioned whether if he agreed with
Mr. Repke that would suffice? Mr. Hardwick stated that staff still wants to see something in writing.
Ms. Maddox stated that there is another way we can get moving on this is to approve this contingent on
staff seeing the conditions. That way we would not be delaying this for another two weeks. Mr. Ward
stated he would also add to that that there be some type of guidelines as to the size of the home. Because
the size of the home will determine whether or not it is even going to fit on the lot. Even though he
understands what Mr. Lesch is saying about his architect and surveyor will work that out. So if someone
comes with a floor plan that is larger and they do not know, then being a builder/developer and if you
have someone who wants to buy and all of a sudden you tell them that their plan does not fit. They may
not want to buy, so they need some type of guidelines that can be handed to them that says that the house
needs to be x-number of square feet, this is the building foot print so going into this they already know,
so there is no confusion. Ms. Maddox stated we need a motion. Ms. Gunderson stated that
Commissioner Ward moved a layover.
Ms. Bogen seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 7-0.
submitted by' Approved by:
(t---: _
John Hardwick iat Bogen, Secretary
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST PAUL, MINNESOTA, DECEMBER 18, 2006
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Faricy, Ward, and Wilson of the
Board of Zoning Appeals; Ms. Gunderson, City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen
of the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection.
ABSENT: None
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair.
Tom Dunn (#06-277973) 1922 University Avenue West: A variance of the off-street parking
requirements in order to establish a new business in an existing building. The previous wholesale use
required 19-off street parking spaces, the proposed record store with a performance area will require an
additional 22 off street parking spaces
Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for denial
of the variance for 58 parking spaces but recommends approval of the variance to allow shared off-street
parking to be located more than 300 feet from the property, subject to the condition that a copy of the
parking lease agreement is filed with the Zoning Administrator and also placed as a condition on the
licenses for the proposed businesses. Should the parking agreement be canceled and not replaced with
another agreement in a nearby lot, the applicant shall have to re-apply for a variance of the off-street
parking requirements.
There was opposition present at the hearing that could not attend the next hearing.
Roger Fuerstenberg, 1932 University Avenue West, stated that he has a business within 50 feet of 1922
University West. He stated that he is opposed to any variances of the off-street parking in the area. It is
already a nightmare to accommodate the traffic we now have. Noting that he does have off-street
parking for his business consisting of 15 parking spaces which are for his employees and customers. On
any given day it is not large enough and he has to continually police the lot to get people out of there
even though he has signage suggesting that the parking is for his customers only. But he is continually
having to kick people out of there or put nasty notes on their windows. He certainly opposes any
variance that suggesting that we could have more vehicles in the area. It is physically impossible. The
on-street parking is not much on University Avenue, and is posted as one hour parking between 8-5,
however, it is not enforced. Noting that he has made numerous phone calls to the Police Department
when there have been vehicles parked there for days or weeks on end. Mr. Fuerstenberg stated the he
cannot see how they could have any more vehicles on that block. He continued that it gets taken care of
than goes back to the normal routine again. So the bottom line is that he does not see how they could
have any more vehicles in that area. Mr. Fuerstenberg stated that his biggest issue is that even with the
lease that is being suggested they get from the Goodwill, even if that were to be negotiated, he knows
that this business that is within 50 feet of his business, he knows who's parking lot would be getting used,
that would be his. The parking situation already is at its max.
Mr. Hardwick questioned Mr. Fuerstenberg what his hours of operation were? Mr. Fuerstenberg replied
8-6:30, but he also has tenants upstairs. He has rental property upstairs. Mr. Hardwick questioned
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #06-277973
Minutes December 18, 2006
Page Two
whether it were residential. Mr. Fuerstenberg replied no it is office, but they do not have regular hours,
so he cannot say for them what their business hours are.
Ms. Bogen questioned how many parking spaces he has in his lot? Mr. Fuerstenberg replied 15. Ms.
Bogen further questioned how many employees he has. Mr. Fuerstenberg replied he has 4 employees.
Ms. Maddox noted that this will be acted on in two weeks. Mr. Fuerstenberg questioned whether it
would be acted on at that time? Ms. Maddox responded it should be, but there have been time when it
has been laid over or continued again.
Subs it1 d by: Approved by:
t_ctg..\:,)
oh Hardwick Glori gen, Secretary
,
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST PAUL, MINNESOTA, DECEMBER 18, 2006
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Farley, Ward, and Wilson of the
Board of Zoning Appeals; Ms. Gunderson, City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen
of the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection.
ABSENT: None
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair.
Jo Anne Hodapp (#06-278080) 75 Battle Creek Road: A variance of the front yard setback in order
to construct an attached car port. The required front yard setback for this property is 45 feet and the
proposed setback is 30 feet, for a variance of 15 feet.
Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for
approval, subject to the condition that the carport is removed when the house is sold.
No correspondence was received opposing the variance request.
One letter was received from District 13M supporting the variance request.
Ms. Morton questioned Mr. Hardwick whether the garage its self would not be used? Mr. Hardwick
responded that he believes that the garage will continue to be used, but for parking cars not for the van.
Ms. Morton further questioned whether one end of that car-port will be open so it could be driven
through. Mr. Hardwick suggested asking the applicant.
Ms. Maddox questioned how that condition gets transcribed onto the house? So that when they sell the
house that condition is met? How do they know? Mr. Hardwick responded that he is assuming that the
applicant will remove the car-port before the house is actually sold. Ms. Gunderson stated that she had
this question of Mr. Warner and he stated that these get recorded on the deed. Ms. Gunderson
questioned whether that happens. Mr. Hardwick replied yes, the resolution gets recorded onto to deed so
should anyone do a title search when the house closes they should discover that.
The applicant JO ANNE HODAPP, 75 Battle Creek Road, was present. Ms. Hodapp stated that she
needs a cover during the winter. It could be removed during the summer but she could not remove it so
she would have to pay someone to remove it so she would like to have it as long as she is able to drive
her van.
Ms. Morton questioned whether it would be open on one side? Ms. Hodapp stated it will be open on all
four sides it will just be a cover over the van. Ms. Morton questioned whether she intended to use the
garage for other cars. Ms. Hodapp replied she does not have other cars, but it would be available for
parking.
Mr. Ward questioned Ms. Hodapp whether she had spoken with her neighbors,and they are in
agreement with putting this cover over the van? Mr. Hodapp replied yes, each one that she spoke to
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #06-278080
Minutes December 18, 2006 •
Page Two
has agreed with her. Mr. Ward questioned whether Ms. Hodapp had anything in writing that she wanted
to submit? Ms. Hodapp replied no.
There was no opposition present at the hearing.
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Courtney moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6, subject to the
condition that the carport is removed when the house is sold.
Ms. Bogen seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 7-0.
Subrri tted 4y: .! Approved
pp by:
l f •' r-
1
Ji oh Hardwick G
ogen, Secretary
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST PAUL, MINNESOTA, DECEMBER 18, 2006
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Farley, Ward, and Wilson of the
Board of Zoning Appeals; Ms. Gunderson, City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen
of the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection.
ABSENT: None
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair.
Marina Liberman (#06-278107) 371 Selby Avenue: A variance of the off-street parking
requirements in order to add an additional 1,258 square feet to this existing restaurant as part of the
banquet room project that was approved by variance in April, 2006 and to upgrade their entertainment
license to a Class B license. These changes require 32 off-street parking spaces and no additional spaces
are available, for a variance of 32 spaces.
Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for
approval, subject to the following conditions: 1) That design approval for the addition is obtained from
the Heritage Preservation Commission and, 2) That valet parking is provided during peak restaurant
hours and for special events in the banquet room.
Mr. Courtney recuesed himself.
Three letters were received supporting the variance request.
One letter was received from District 8 supporting the variance request.
Mr. Wilson stated he thought it was May 8th that they wanted to build a banquet room by eliminating the
patio. He further questioned the number of parking spaces for this variance? Mr. Hardwick stated that
this is an additional 33 off-street parking spaces because they also forgot to take into consideration the
entertainment license that they are going to need to allow dancing at the wedding receptions in the
banquet room. That entertainment license increases the number of parking spaces considerably.
The applicant MARINA LIBERMAN, Moscow On The Hill - 371 Selby Avenue, was present. Ms.
Liberman stated that it was her mistake last time she did not count a vestibule and bathroom. She did not
know that this had to be counted as well. So at this time we decided that to have a Russian wedding
without dancing it is not a wedding, so we would like to ask for the variance because of the weddings,
and it requires more parking.
Ms. Maddox questioned whether Ms. Liberman is ok with the valet parking suggested by staff. Ms.
Liberman replied yes.
There was no opposition present at the hearing.
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #06-278107
Minutes December 18, 2006
Page Two
Ms. Bogen moved to approve the.variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6, subject to the
following conditions: 1) That design approval for the addition is obtained from the Heritage Preservation
Commission and, 2) That valet parking is provided during peak restaurant hours and for special events
in the banquet room.
Mr, Ward seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 6-0(1 recuesed- Courtney).
Submit d y: /' Approved by:
1/✓
67115, ardwick Bogen, Secretary
AA-ADA-EEO Employer