Title
Memorializing a City Council decision to grant the appeal of Ruben A Benegas on behalf of Benegas Properties, LLC, from a Board of Zoning Appeals decision to deny the applicants request for variances at 1963 Grand Ave related to a multiunit development in an RM2 zoning district.
Body
WHEREAS, October 4, 2024, Ruben A. Benegas, on behalf of Benegas Properties (Applicant), under Zoning File No. 24 - 086457 for the purpose of developing a multiple-family dwelling on property commonly known as 1963 Grand Ave, [PIN: 042823320178], and commonly described as ROSEDALE PARK LOTS 46 47 48 BLK 2 which is located in a RM2 zoning district, applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for the two following variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 66.231 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the floor area ratio and maximum and height maximum:
(1) to increase the building height maximum to 50’ for a variance ’10, AND
(2) to increase the floor area ration to 2.26 for a variance of 0.02; AND
WHEREAS, the said application was duly noticed for a public hearing before the BZA on October 18, 2024; AND
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2024, the BZA conducted the public hearing where all persons interested in the said application were afforded the opportunity to present testimony either in-person at the hearing or by the prior submission of written testimony for the record; AND
WHEREAS, upon conclusion of the hearing and based upon all the records and testimony presented including a staff report dated October 25, 2024, which recommended denial of the application and is also incorporated and adopted herein by reference, the BZA, for the reasons set forth in the staff report, duly moved to deny Applicant’s variance requests; AND
AND, WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(a), the Applicant, under Appeal File No. 24-092718 duly filed an appeal from the October 28, 2024, decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to deny the requested variances and requested a public hearing before the City Council (“Council”); AND
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the said appeal was noticed under Appeal File No. 24-092718 and set on for a hearing before the Council on December 11, 2024 and,
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2024, the Council conducted a public hearing on the Applicant’s appeal where all persons interested were afforded the opportunity to be heard and thereafter the conclusion of the public hearing, City Council voted to lay the matter over one week; AND,
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2024, after laying the matter over one week, and considering all the records and testimony presented, the Council voted to grant the appeal by a vote of six (6) to one (1) of Ruben A Benegas (Applicant) thereby granting variance one (1) and two (2) and finding that there were errors in fact, procedure or findings; and by this Resolution, the Council hereby memorializes its reasons for this action; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED that the record reflects that the Council of the City of Saint Paul’s reasons to grant the appeal of regarding variances one (1) and two (2), were as follows:
1. The Board of Zoning Appeals, following the recommendation of the Department of Safety and Inspection, made procedural errors when considering finding 3 and 4 of the practical difficulties:
a. Under finding 3, The applicant for a variance must established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provision, that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the provision. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
2. The staff report merely says “that public alleyways and streets are a type of permanent easement and are dedicated. The setback is always taken from the edge of the dedicated alley. Zoning code Section 63.101 states that half of the alleyway is included as part of the lot for density purposes, so there is no plight for the FAR requirement.” It continues, that “the public alley easement is not a new condition and was opened in 1888.”
a. The Department of Safety and Inspections highlighted those historical details, but failed to consider whether the applicant’s proposed use was reasonable.
b. The applicant explained that if the lot was larger, parking could be added without a 5th story. And, without adding parking, the project would exacerbating the current traffic and parking problem.
c. Staff did not evaluate under finding 3, in error, whether the applicant experienced practical difficulties when it explained that the alleyways are included as part of the lot for density purposes and that the public easement was from 1888.
3. Under finding 4, the Staff report says the finding is not met because “[t]he dedicated alleyway was opened in 1888 and was present when the applicant purchased the property in 2022.”
a. Under this finding, the applicant for a variance must establish the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner.
b. Similarly to the error in finding 3, staff did not evaluate whether the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner.
c. That was an error in procedure. Staff should have evaluated the question at hand. Instead, it provided historical facts and made an unsupported conclusion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based upon all files, reports, and testimony in the matter, the Council hereby finds the errors noted above in the Board of Zoning Appeals facts, findings, and procedure with respect to the BZA’s decision to deny the appeal of Ruben A Benegas on behalf of Benegas Properties, LLC for the requested variances, the Council accordingly hereby grants the appeal. AND,
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk provide a copy of this memorialization resolution to Appellant, Ruben A Benegas and zoning administrator Diatta.