Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
File #: RES 19-1397    Version: 2 Name:
Type: Resolution Status: Passed
In control: City Council
Final action: 8/28/2019
Title: Memorializing the City Council’s denial of an appeal from a Board of Zoning Appeals decision which granted lot size and parking capacity variances in order to construct a 4-unit apartment building at 2150 Grand Avenue.
Sponsors: Mitra Jalali
Title
Memorializing the City Council’s denial of an appeal from a Board of Zoning Appeals decision which granted lot size and parking capacity variances in order to construct a 4-unit apartment building at 2150 Grand Avenue.

Body
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019, MCR Property Holdings LLC, (hereinafter, “Applicant”) under DSI Zoning File No. 19-026-900, duly applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals (hereinafter, “BZA”) for two variances from the strict provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code to build a four-unit multifamily dwelling, with each unit having four (4) bedrooms, on property commonly known as 2150 Grand Avenue, and legally described as Summit Wood Lot 38; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant’s multi-family building as proposed required the following variances from the provisions of the Zoning Code: (1) minimum lot size: 9,000 sq. ft. required and 6,388 sq. ft. proposed for a variance of 2,612 sq. ft. [Leg. Code § 66.231(c)] and (2) off-street parking setbacks, 4 ft. minimum from any lot line required and 0 ft. proposed along the rear-yard setback line for a 4 ft. variance and 2 ft. proposed along the westerly side-yard setback line for a variance of 2 ft. [Leg. Code § 63.312]; and

WHEREAS, on April 22, 2019, the BZA, pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.303, duly conducted a lengthy public hearing on the Applicant’s variance requests where all persons interested were afforded an opportunity to be heard and, following the end of testimony, the BZA duly closed the public hearing and began to deliberate on the matter; and

WHEREAS, following a lengthy discussion of the matter, a motion was made to approve the requested variances, as recommended by BZA staff in its report dated April 12, 2019, but which failed for a lack of a second, whereupon a second motion was duly made to continue the matter for two weeks for BZA staff to meet with the applicant regarding, among other things, the number of bedrooms proposed in each of the proposed units which motion passed on a 5-1 vote...

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