Title
Memorializing City Council action taken on April 6, 2011, upholding the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and denying the appeal of Tuan J. Pham for a variance of the River Corridor setback standards in order to allow an existing statue structure in the rear yard on the bluff side of the property to remain on the property commonly known as 231 Isabel Street West in Saint Paul.
Body
WHEREAS, Tuan J. Pham (the "Applicant") applied for a variance (DSI Zoning File No. 11-007586) from the strict application of Leg. Code § 68.402(b)(4) pertaining to River Corridor setback standards in order to permit an existing structure (a statue) which the applicant had erected in his rear yard to remain within ten (10) feet of the River Corridor bluffline which, under the Corridor's setback standards, requires forty-foot (40) of setback from the bluffline, for the Applicant's property located in a RT1 zoning district and commonly known as 231 Isabel Street West (PIN: 072822120088) and legally described as: Irvines Addition To W St Paul Subj To St Lots 7 Thru Lot 10 Blk 198; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2011, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals (the "BZA") duly conducted a public hearing on the Applicant's variance request in accordance with the requirements of Leg. Code § 61.601 and, having heard the report of staff, the presentation of the Applicant and having taking additional testimony from persons in favor of granting the requested variance, the BZA closed the public hearing and, following discussion of the matter, moved to lay the matter over for approximately four (4) weeks for the purpose of receiving a recommendation from the affected neighborhood district council; and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2011, the BZA, under matters of "old business," again took up the matter having received a recommendation from the neighborhood district council and, the Applicant, not being in attendance, the BZA, based upon evidence presented at the public hearing and all the records before it, duly moved to deny the Applicant's variance request for the reasons stated in BZA Resolution No. 11-007586 which shall be incorporated herein by reference as follows:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
This condition is not met. The primary use of this property is a single family dwelling. Because a reasonable use of this property has been established consistent with the code, there is no undue hardship here to support a request for a variance.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner.
This condition is not met. The property owner should have contacted the city prior to constructing the structure within the bluff line setback area. The landowner has not demonstrated that the location of the structure is compelled by circumstances unique to this property. In this case, the circumstances were created by the current land owner.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
This condition is not met. Leg. Code § 68.601(a) requires the applicant for River Corridor variances to demonstrate conclusively that the variance will not result in a hazard to life or property and will not adversely affect the safety, use, or stability of a public way, slope or drainage channel or the natural environment. The applicant has not produced any evidence conclusively demonstrating that the structure in question will not violate these conditions.
The property owner has also stated that this is a work in progress and when the project is completed, he would like to allow access to the public free of charge for visitation, prayer or special events. This could create traffic concerns in the neighborhood and would not be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The requested variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and could affect the safety or welfare of the area inhabitants.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
This condition is met. The structure is in the applicant's back yard far away from any adjacent residences. The structure will not affect the supply of light or air to the adjacent properties. The structure does not significantly change the character of the neighborhood.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property.
This condition is met. The requested variance would not change the zoning classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
This condition is met. The requested variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Leg. Code ' 61.702(a), the Applicant, on March 16, 2011, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal (DSI Zoning File No. 11-110338) from the determination made by the BZA, requesting a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the BZA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Leg. Code ' 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on April 6, 2011 where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the BZA; does hereby
RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby upholds the decision of the BZA in this matter there being no showing by the Applicant that there was any error on the part of the BZA in its facts, findings, or procedures in this matter, as set forth in BZA resolution No. 11-007586 and, accordingly, the City Council hereby adopts as its own the reasoning for this decision based upon the BZA's findings set forth in BZA Resolution No. 11-007586; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Tuan J. Pham be and is hereby denied; and, be it
FINALLY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall immediately mail a copy of this resolution to Tuan J. Pham, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the BZA.