Saint Paul logo
File #: RES 16-1896    Version: 1
Type: Resolution Status: Passed
In control: City Council
Final action: 10/26/2016
Title: Memorializing City Council action taken September 21, 2016 denying an appeal of the Summit Hill Association of a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances at 210 Victoria Street South subject to the Council's modification of a condition imposed by the BZA pertaining to environmental review.
Sponsors: Rebecca Noecker
Related files: ABZA 16-9
Title

Memorializing City Council action taken September 21, 2016 denying an appeal of the Summit Hill Association of a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances at 210 Victoria Street South subject to the Council's modification of a condition imposed by the BZA pertaining to environmental review.

Body

WHEREAS, on July 11, 2016, Chris Carlson (“Applicant”), in DSI Zoning File No. 16-058086, made application to the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) for two variances from the strict application of the zoning code in order to add a two-car garage to the front of an existing house on property commonly known as 210 Victoria Street South and legally described as Nobles Rearrangement Of lots Lot 5 [PIN no. 022823430144]; and

WHEREAS, the subject property is located within an R4 single-family zoning district and, pursuant to Legislative Code § 63.501(b)(3), garages constructed in R4 districts must be set back from the front lot line at least as far as the building line of principal dwelling and, under the dimensional standards of Leg. Code § 66.231, front-yard setbacks are based upon the average setback along the block face.  Given these requirements, the Applicant proposed a 16-foot setback for the garage for a variance of 14 feet; and

WHEREAS, on August 1, 2016, the BZA, with five members present, duly conducted a public hearing on the Applicant’s requested variances where all interested persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard and, upon the close of public testimony, deliberated on the merits of the variances; and

WHEREAS, a motion to approve the variances was made and seconded following the close of deliberations with three voting for and two against granting the variances and, whereupon being unable to meet the minimum vote required to approve any decision of the BZA as required by Leg. Code § 61.203(b), the BZA duly moved to reconsider the matter on August 15, 2016; and

WHEREAS, on August 15, 2016, again with five member’s pres...

Click here for full text
Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
No records to display.