00-43oR����aL
RES�LUTI�N
CITY OF SA]NT PATL, MINNES�TA
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
��
2 WI�REAS, Samuel5. Anderson, in zoning file no. 99-240, made application under the
3 provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.102(i)(1) to the Saint Paul Planning Commission
4 [Planuiug Commission] for a non-conforming use germit to allow a duplex on properiy
5 commonly known as 885 California Avenue West and legally described as noted in the zoning
6 file; and
7
8 WI3EREAS, the Planning Commission's Zoning Committee conducted a public hearing
9 on October 14, 1999, after having provided notice to affected property owners, and submitted its
10 recommendation to the Flanning Com;nission. In resolution no. 99-65 dated October 22, 1999,
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
�2
?3
�
the Planning Cammission approved the non-canfornvng use, subject to the condition that the
subject property was owned and occupied by the applicant or the appIicant's spouse, based upon
the following fmdings and conditions:
The structure at 885 California Avenue West was constructed by Holiday Homes, Inc. in
1984. A buiiding pernut issued on July 17, 1984, indicates that the permit was issued for
the construction of a single family dweiling. Indeed, there aze three notations on the
permit indicating that it is to be used as a single family dwelling only. The plans
accompanying the permit application have been destroyed and are therefare not available
far review.
2. The applicant purchased the home in 1997 and has not altered it since that time. A
neighbor has submitted a letter for the file indicating that the present structure has been in
existence continuously for a period of at least ten years and has not been aitered. On
September 16, 1998, the agpiicant received a notice from a zoning inspector from the
City's Department of License, Inspections and Environmeatal Pratection (ZIEP)
indicafing that a complaint had been received alleging that the property was being used
illegally as a duplex. After an inspecfion on October 6"' (1998) the inspector told the
applicant that while there was no evidence of a second household, the structtxre is
considered an illegal duplex and that (the applicant) would haue to remove a kitchen, a
bathroom or the inside door leading into the lower level in order to comply with the
City's codes. His other option was to appiy far legal non-conforming status as a duplex.
On Febil�ary 14, 1449, the applicant, after having spoken with the home's builder who
indicated that the structure had not been altered�since it was constructed, wrote to the
zoning inspectar indicating that he felt he was in compliance with the City's code since
he was using the structure as a single family home and it had not been altered since its
construction.
�9
Council File # DO —�F3
Gteen Sheet #E Ino 3tro
4. On July 8, 1999, a citation was issued for an°illegal duplex in a single family zoning O o-�l S
district," and the appiicant was ordered to appear in Housing Court on August 27, 1999.
In an agreement with the prosecutor - to avoid potentially being found guilty of a
misdemeanor and fined $700 - the applicant agreed to plead guilry to a petty
misdemeanor, pay $50 of a$200 fine and apply for a non-conforming use percnit within
30 days.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1$
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
i9
FO
2
5. § 621 �2(i)¢) of the Zoning Code provides that the Planning Commission may grant legal
non-confonning status to the use of structures wluch fail to meet the standards of §
62102 $ upon making a serious of nine findings. The findings and the applicanYs ability
to meet them are as follows:
1. The use occurs entirely within an e�cisting structure. This condition is met. No
expansion of the e�sting structure is proposed.
The use is similaz to other uses pernutted within the district. This condition is
met. From all exterior appearances, the structure is a single family home, newer
but similar to all the other homes on the block. The adjacent property to the east
is an olderlegaily non-conforming duplex.
The use has been in existence confinuously for a period of at least ten years prior
to the date of the application. The condition is met. The evidence is that the
shucture was built in 1984 and the builder has indicated that it was built as it is
today. A neighbor has submitted a letter for the record indicating that the present
structure has not been altered and has been in continuous use since at least 1989.
4. The off street parking is adequate to serve the use. This condition is met. The
structure is served by two caz gazage and an off street driveway that could
accommodate an additional two cars. Newly constructed two family homes are
required to provide three spaces.
5. Hazdship would result if the use were discontinued. The applicant purchased the
home as it is today, valuing the second kitchen for entertaining related to his job
as a pastor. The doar between the two levels allows his small household to
conserve heat during those times when the downstairs is not in use. Requiring him
to remove either of these two elements would not only represent a hazdship for
him, but would have no impact on the appearance of the structure or how it relates
to the surrounding neighborhood.
6. Rezoning the property would result in spot zoning or zoning inappropriate to
surrounding land uses. This condirion is met. The shucture is located on a mid
block lot surrounded on all sides by lots zoned R-3, single family. To re-zone this
properiy to RT-1, to accommodate a duplex, would create a spot zone.
The use will not be detrimental to the e�sting character of development in the
imtnediate neighborhood or endanger the public heaith, safety or general welfare.
This condifion is met. The azea is a low density residenrial environment with
lazger lots that characterize standard city blocks. Acknowledging that the
Page 2 of 5
G
0
6
7
8
9
1Q
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2b
27
28
29
30
il
t2
ao-y 3
applicant has no plans to establish a second unit in the structure, the addition of
one unit to the area would not result in significant additional traffic, congestion or
burden on City services. Because the azea is fully deveIoped and nothing about
the ea�teriar of the structure is expected to change, there should be virtually no
impact on the e�sting character of development in the immediate neighborhood.
8. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Tlvs condition is met. The
Saint Paul plan for housing calls for creative mechanisms for adding units to
owner occupied structutes.
4. A notarized petition of two-thirds of the properry owners within 100 feet of the
properry has been submitted stating their support for the use. This condition is
met. Of the eleven owners of the properiy within 100 feet of the applicant's
property, eight, constituting the required two-thirds, signed a consent petition
submitted with the application.
6. The Planning Commission on July 17, 1992, adopted guidelines for staff making
recommendations on applications for non-conforming use permits related to conversions
of single family homes and duplexes. The guidelines and the applicant's ability to meet
them are as foilows:
Lots size of at least 5,000 sq. 8. with a lot width or front footage of 40 ft. This
guideline is met. The lot area is 6,173 sq. ft. with a front footage of 71 ft.
2. Gross living area after complerion of duplex conversion of at least 1,800 sq. ft. for
the two units. The guideline is not met. The square footage of the structure is
1,768 sq. ft., 32 sq. ft. shy of the gtzideiine. Staff has determined that, because of
the unusual circumstances and the narrow difference between the guideline and
the actual square footage, the difference does not represent sufficient grounds to
recommend denial of the applicarion.
Three off street pazking spaces (non-stacked) are prefened; two spaces are the
required minimum. A site plan showing improved parking space must be
provided. The guideline is met. The structure is served by a detached two car
gazage.
4. All remodeling work for the duplex conversion is on the inside of the structure.
This guideline is met. No remodeling work is planned.
>. The proposed duplex structure is located in a mixed density neighborhood, not a
homogeneous single family azea or in an area where duplexes and triplexes aze
already concentrated w the point of congesting neighborhood streets. The
guideline is met. The neighborhood property is a legally non-conforming duplex
and there aze three two-family structures on the north side of the block. They do
not, however, represent a concentration or source of traffic congestion.
§ 62.102(i) pravides, in part, that the Flauning Commission in appraving non-conforming
use permits may ailow a non-conforming use for a specified period of tnne and then
Page 3 of 5
00 -�i 3
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
require its removal by attaching an expiration date to the permit if the commissian makes
three findings. The findings and the commission's ability to make them are as follows:
Termi.nation of the non-conforxning use would cause significant hardship. This
finding is met as indicated in fmding 4.5 above.
2. Pernutting the non-canforming use for a period of time will facilitate the
transition to a confornling use. This finding is met. A1lowing the current ownex
to use the property as he purchased it, requiring that futute owners make the
alterations required by the zoning administrator to insure its future use as a single
family home, wiIl facilitate such a ttansition.
3. Permitting the non-conforming use for a period of time is consistent with the
public health, safety, comfort, morals and weifaze. This fmding is met as
indicated in fmding 4.7 above.
WI�REAS, pursaant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Samuel
S. Anderson duly filed with the Ciry Cierk an appeal from the determination made by the
Plauning Commission, requesting that a hearing ba held before the Ciry Council for the purpose
of considering the actions taken by the said commision; and
23 WI3EREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ b4.20b - 64.208 and
24 upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on
25 December 8, 1999, where a11 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and
2b
27
28
?g
30
31
;2
WI�REAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the
application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the zoning committee and of
the planning commission, does hereby;
RESOLVE, to reverse the decision of the planning commission in this matter based on
the following:
The Councii, is permitted, under authority provided in Saint Paul Legislative Code §
64.207 to make such determinations and orders as are necessary in zoning matters.
2. The Council fmds, based upon its review of the record, that it was unnecessary to make a
non-conforming use permit determination in this matter. The record shows no evidence
that the subject structure was used by the present occupant as a duplex despite the fact
that the structure is configured to allow use of the structure as a duplex. Given that the
structure is presently used, as represented by the present occupant, only in furtherance of
the occupant's pastoral vocations there was no need to legitimize the establishment of
duplex via a non-conforming use permit deternvnation.
3. The Council finds that the subject structure, given its configuration, could be used as a
duplex but notes that the subject properiy is zoned for single family use only and that any
use of the structure as a duplex, by anyone including the applicant, would constitute a
violation of the zoning code and that the City would be able to enforce the zoning code
against any violator.
Page 4 of 5
oo-��
a
0
10
11
12
13
14
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Samuel S. Anderson be and is
hereby granted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the fees to be refunded as determined by the
planniug comtnission should be refunded at this time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shail mail a copy of this resolution
to Samuel S. Anderson, the Zaning Administrator, and the Planning Commission; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shali be kept on file in the
offices of the Plamiiug Administrator and the Zoning Administrator to inform any future
interested party that the subject structure, despite its configuration, is legally zoned for single
family use only.
.dopted by Council: Date ]�T����
doptio Certified by Covnci Secretasy
• _ "'i�� -�— l •
proved by ma Date �.�il Z�( 2��1
Requested by Department of:
Hy:
Form Appr by City At[omey
8 ,. : ��✓��-- I-lo-oo
Approved by Mayor for Submission [o Council
�
GREEN SHEET
���
70TAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
Memorializing the decision of the City Council on December 8, 1999,denying the appeal of
Samuel S. Anderson to a decision o£ the Planning Commission to atCach a condition to a Non-
conforming Use Permit for a duplex at 885 West Cali£ornia Avenue that the permit is valid o
so long as the property is owned and occupied by Samuel S. Anderson or his spouse.
o-v
PLANNING CAMMISSION
C16 COMMLTfEE
CIVIL SERVICE CAMM{S:
ho -4�
No 1 v;;3�0
��
� ❑ �.,,�, ❑ ��
❑..�,�,� ❑..�.,�a
❑wmeroRwtmnwrt� ❑
(CLJP All �OCA'[IONS FOR SIGNANRE)
Has thie pe�soNfirm em varNed under a contraU torMis depaNneM7
YES No
Has Mie pmadfim� evw been n cKY empcv��
VFS NO
DaesUxs PersaNF�n Poaeeas a slall nat � UY �+Y curteM titY �PbY��
YES NO
la tltie pcvaonlfi�m atarpetM vCndaYt
YES NO
7
coarraEVEnue euooertv �aRttB oriq
SOURCE
ACTNI7Y NUMBER
m
YES NO
i nrs.�:n "...�..Lil�r".a��,
OFFICE OF TI� CITY ATTORNEY
Clay[onM Robinson, Jr., CiryAttorney ()O �t{3
CIT`Y OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Civil Division
400 City Hall
IS West KeUogg Blvd
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Te lephane: 651 266-871 Q
F¢csfmile: 651298-5619
J1T1U21}' 11 � Z��Q
Nancy Anderson
Councii Secretary
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
5t. Pau1, MN 55102
Re: Appeal of Samuel S. Anderson
Zoning Resolution 99-240
Public Hearing Date: December 8, 1499
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find the signed original Resolufion memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul
CiTy Council of December S, 1999, to reverse the decision of the Plamiing Commission in the
above-enritled matter.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
� ��w�v�--�
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attorney
PWWfrmb
Enclosure
/���,�..
�-
td o�(•l �� �. K� %Md( ta.� w+ ��n �.r f� c �4{�
iT T^L LOV.�1G� ` �S4V\w� � LalHfC�7� G� y,.�(�„ �.
t �
(� �. o�w P%,�` `�i�
DEPARTMENI' OF PLANNING
& ECONO�LfICDEVELOPMEN7'
Brian Sweeney, Interim D�reclor
CIT'� OF SAIN I' PAUL
Narm Colem¢n, Mayor
November 23, 1999
3vSs. Nancy Anderson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
�
25 West Pounh Srreet Te[ephone: 651-266-6655
Saint Paul, MN 5510? Facs�mlle: 651-228-3314
po-Y3
a•�:;`:y" ;'���".�.. .,. °`�°
�y '� �
i Yi �
, � s ,� � ����
I would like to confirm that a public hearing befare the Caty Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
December 8, 1999, for the fo]lowing appeal of a Planning Commission decision:
Appellant: Samuei S. Anderson
File Number: Appeal of file #99-2A0
Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision to attach a condition to a Nonconformmg
Use Permit for a duplex at 885 West California that the permit is valid only so long as
the property is owned and occupied by Samuel S. Anderson or his spouse.
Address: 885 West California
Legal Description of Property: See file
Previous Action:
Zoning Committee Recommendahon: Approval; vote: unanimous; Octobex 14, 1999
Plannmg Commission Decision: Approval; vote: unanimous, October 22, 1999
My undexstanding is that this pubhc hearing request will appeax on the agenda fox the December l, 1999
City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing m the Saint Paul Legai Ledger.
Please call me at 266-6557 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
������
Nancy Homans
City Planner
cc: File #99116459
Paul Dubruiel, PBD
Carol Martineau, PED
Wendy Lane, LIEP
Samuel S. Anderson
•�msrxuN•
NOTICE OF PUBLIC BF.ARING �
The Saint Faul City Council will conduct
a public hearing on Wedn�esday, December..
8, 1999, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Covncii
Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall-
Courthouse, to consider the appeaY of
Samuel S. Anderson to a decision of the
Planning ,Commission.to attach a
conditton to a Nonconforming Use Permit
for a duplex at 885 West California
Avenue Yhat the permit is valid only so
long as the property is owned and
occupied by Samuel S. Anderson or his
spouse.
Dated:November23;1999 - -
NANCY.tYNDERSON -
AssisTant LYty Councti Secretary
" (Nov.261 '• �
_�=_===ST.PAiII.LEGALLED6ER=�=�=_: `
a
�
`ovember 30, 1999
czr� oF sa�rrr Pauz.
A'o�m Colemnn, bfn}�ar
Ms. I`�ancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minneeota 55102
RE: Zoning File #99116459
City Counci] Hearing:
DEPARTMENT OF PLAt�i iNG
& ECONOMIC DEVELOP�fENT
Brian SweEnfy, Direcfor f� O ���
✓
15 WestFourth Street Telephone: 6/2-?66-6565
SnintPnuf,MN55/02 Fncsimde6l?-2?833l4
SAMUEL S. ANDERSON
December 8, 1999, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal of a planning commission decision to attach a condition to a Nonconforming Use Permit for
a duplex at S85 West Califomia that the permit is valid only so long as the property is owned and occupied by
Samuel S. Anderson orhis spouse.
PLANNING COMMISSIOi�` ACTION: Approval with conditions; Unanimous
ZONING COMMITTEE ACTION: Approval with conditions; 6-0
� STAFF RECOMMENDATIO�: Approval
SUPPORT: One person spoke in support of the non-conforming use permii, but did noi address the condition.
OPPOSITION: No one spoke in opposition to the non-conformmg use permit.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
•
SAMUEL S. ANDERSON has appealed the decision of the Saint Pau] Planning Commission to attach a
condition to the non-conforming use permit they granted him for his property at 885 �Vest Califomia. The
zonm� committee held a public heanng on the application on October 14, 1999. The applicant addressed the
committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted unanimously to grant him the nonconforming
use permit to allow him to use his structure as a duplex, but added a condition that the permit would be vatid only
so long as the property is o�vned and occupied by Samuel S. Anderson or his spouse. The Saint Paul Plannmg
Commiss�on upheld the committee's recommendation on a unanimous vote on October 22, 1999. The applicant
is appealmg to have the condition either removed from the permit or modified to require that the structure be
owmer-occupied if it is used as a duplex.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 8, 1999. Please notify me if any member
of the City Councll wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sin rely,
Lawzence Soderho]m
Planning Administrator
Attachments
cc: City Council members
APPL[CATION FOR APPEAL
� ,( 1'l �{ D¢partment aJPlanning and Economic Dev¢Iopmenr
�n��� Zoning Sectior:
6w�i
- - 1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
, _. �c?-�-13
Zaning c� .iis a ty
Fite na._ � i 1 i�,�. � L
�$e I S!J —
'Ier�tative.#�earing BatQ: °
� � �. � e� �e,�
Name h;e-�` .S'Frrriv�. S 1-�i✓-��Rsc�L�
Address ��' J �' A-� t t0 f. !L� � A R o'_. . ay/
City-�7� �A4'+- St.11 �Zip �� �� 7 Daytime phone�'�':�-7/ 77 ',
PROPERTY Zoning File Nan
LOCAT{ON Address/Locatio
•
/�
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
` Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section�, Paragreph � of the 2oning Code, to
�
appeal a decision made by the�'/Cc1��1)hrt C�}ry-�r'
on �/t?7!�{3�/" o�oZ � Fife number:
(date of decisionJ
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error i� any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
S« c� -t�-�, �. h e� i� f f�.,^
����
�5
` � Attach additionat sheet if
Applicant's
Date ' � �� `�`J City agent i_�__�
�tZ°���
Rev. Sam & Lor� Anderson
885 Califom�a Ave-, W.
$ Pau1.MN 5571J
• November 12, 1999
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
1100 Ciry Hali Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ciry Councii:
Thank you for taking the time to consider my piight. My wife and 1 purchased our home a little over iwo
years ago and as you can see by the fiie that accompanies this appeal, much of that time has been
spent dealing with a"problem" that we were not aware of when we moved in nor contributed to since
that time.
A brief summary of the events;
1 We received a Ietter stating that there had been a comptaint and that we wouid be
inspected.
2. A city inspector visited our home and informed us that it was an illegai duplex in spite of
the fact that we had never used it as a dupiex nor had any plans to do so.
• 3. We were initialiy told we would have to remove the basement bathroom or remove the
door at the bottom of ihe staircase to bring the home into compliance. Later we were told
we would be allowed to remove the door and frame only if we signed something t beiieve
was referred to as a"deed restriction" document stating that it wouid never be used as a
duplex.
4. I informed the inspector that the removal of the door wouid be unaccaptab{e because it
wouid make the basement so cold in the winter that we wouldn't even be abie to sit
downstairs and entertain or watch N.
5. i was toid about the option to appiy for a"non-conforming use" permit. To begin the
process i traced my Torrents back to the original ow�erlbuilder and asked how the home
was constructed. i described its current condition and was told that this was the way the
home had been built and approved.
6. After d'+scovering that the home had been approved this way, we wrote a letter to the
inspector asserting these facts along with the already estabiished knowledge that we had
not used the home illegally.
7. Severaf months later we received a citation from the city inspector in the maii asserting
that we were guilty of a misdemeanor for having a dupiex in a single-family zoned part of
the city and ordered to appear in housing court
8. 1 appeared in court in argued my case to the prosecutor. He informed me that if i was
unwilling to remove the door that I would have to apply for the permit. Ultimately he
pieaded my citation down to a petty misdemeanor, was fined 550.00 and ordered to appiy
for the permit within 30 days.
�o -'��
• Page 2
November 12, 1999
9. We gathered the signatures, fiiled out the forms, wrote out our check, and submitted our
application for the "non�onforming use" permit.
10. My neighborhood planning
supported our application.
office, after considering <
recommended its passage.
committee, as well as our district 10 councii, approved and
My neighbors af( s�pported our appiicatio� and the zoning
I of the options along with council from a city attomey,
11. At the hearing of the Zoning Commission several of the committee members expressed
concems that made a great deal of sense. Their primary concem seemed to be tfie fact
that this permit wouid appiy not only to my wife and myself, but also to any future owners
of fhe property. And whife we may have no intention of uti(izing our home as a dupiex, fhis
could open the door for the home to be purchased by an investor who would not live in the
home and who may or may not care for the property. As a resu(t of this discussion the
decision was made to approve the permit, but oNy as long as Lori and i remained the
owners. The permit would expire as soon as we sold the home.
12. This has had an unfortunate and perhaps unforesean consequence. We are now faced
with a siYUalion where, upon the sa(e of our fiome and the subsequent expiration of
the "nonconfortning use" permit, 885 California Avenue West wiU not be legal
eiYher as a single family home or as a dupiex. No one in his or her right mind would
ever purchase such a property.
We believe that there may be a better solution to an already very confusing and frustrating situation. If
conditions can be attached to "non-conforming use" permits such as iYs termination �pon the safe of
the home, then why not require fhat tf�e home must be owner-occupied in order for fhe it to 6e used as
a Iegal duplex, I have spoken to several of my neighbors and they have expressed their ful! support of
this proposal as tfiey were of it becoming an unconditiona( dupiex. This wouid:
1. Aqow the home to be used as a Iegal singie-family home without placing undue hardship
upon the owners.
2. Insure that if the home would not be purchased merely as an invesfinenf as we(! as protect
the neighbors and neigh6orhood from possibie problems sometimes associated with non-
owner occupied properties
3. Enabie my wife and myseff to eventuafiy seli tfie home without it becoming immediately
iilegal upon its sale.
4. Protect any future owners from similar comp(ications
5. Bring an end to this whole situation,
Please forgive me for appealing the decision of the Zoning/Pianning Commissions end bothering ihe
City Council with this issue, b�t as you can see, this matter has caused considerable anxiety and
frustration over the past 14 months for two first fime homeow�ers who simpiy want to own and be able
to se1! a tegai properry in the city of Saint Paui.
Sincerely,
r l%' �r (�
Rev. Samuei S. Anderson
Owner, 885 Caiifornia Avenue West
•
•
-
�r� -��
� city of saint paut
planning commission resolution
�Ie number 99-65
date October 22 , 1949
WHEREAS, SAMUEL S. ANDERSON, file # 99-240, has appiied for a Nonconforming Use
Permit under the provisions of Section 62.102O(1) of the Saint Paui Legislative Code, to allow
far a duplex on property located at 885 CALIFORNIA AVE W, legal{y described in the file; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on Qctober 14, 1999, heid a
public hearing at which ail persons prssent were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to
said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Pau!
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Pianning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its
Zoning Committee at the public hearing, as substantialiy reflected in the minutes, made the
foliowing findings of fact:
1. The structure at 885 Cafifomia Avenue, West was constructed by Holiday Homes, Inc. in
1984. A buiiding permit issued on Juiy 17, 19&4 indicates that the permit was issued for
• the construction of a"Single Family Dweiling". indeed, there are three notations on the
permit indicating that it is to be used as a"sing{e family dwelling oniy."
The plans accompanying the permit application have been destroyed and are, therefore,
not avaiia6le for review.
2. The applicant purchased the home in 1997 and has not aitered ii since that time A
�eighbor has submitted a letter for the file indicating that the present structure has been in
existence continuously for a period of at least ten years and has not been altered.
3. Qn September 16, 1998, the applicant received a notice from a zoning inspector from the
City's Department of License, inspections and Environmentaf Protection (LIEP) indicating
that a complaint had been received alleging that the property was being used iilegally as a
duplex. After an inspection on October 6, the inspector tofd the applicant that, whiie there
was no evidence of a second househoid, the structure is considered an iAegal duplex and
that he woufd have to remove a kitchen, a bathroom or the inside door leading into the
lower Ievel in order to compiy with the City's codes. His other option was to apply for fegal
nonconforming status as a duplex.
maved by Gervais
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
Zoning File #99-240
Page Two of Resolution
On February 94, 999g, the appiicant, after having spoken with the home's builder who
indicated that the structure had not been altered since it was constructed, wrote to the
zoning inspector indicating that he felt he was in compliance with tF�e City's code since he
was using the structure as a single family home and it had not been alfered since its
construction.
On July 8, 1999 a cifafion was issued for an "iliegai duplex in a singte family zoning
district," and the applicant was ordered fo appear in Housing Couft on August 27, 1999, in
an agreement with the prosecutor--to avoid potentialty being found guiity of a misdemeanor
and fined S700--the applicant agreed to plead guilty to a petfy misdemeanor, pay $50 of a
$200 fine and appiy for a Non-conforming Use Permit within 30 days.
4. Sec. 62.102(i)(1) of the zoning code provides tF�at the Planning Commission may grant
(egal nonco�forming status to the use of structures which faif to meet the standards of
section 62.102(b) upon making a series of nine findings. The findings and the applicant's
ability to meef them are as follows:
The use occurs entirely wrthin an existing structure.
This condifion is met. No expansion af the existing structure is proposed.
•
Z. The use is similar to other uses permitted within the district. .
This condition is met. �rom aii e�erior appearances, this structure is a single family
home, newer but simiiar to a!I the other homes on the block. The adjacent property
to the east is an older legaliy non-conforming dup(ex.
3. The use has been in existence contirruousty for a period of at least ten {10) years
prior to the dafe of fhe application.
This condition is met. The evidence is that the structure was built in 1984 and the
builder has indicafed thaf it was built as it is today. A neighbor has submitted a latter
for the record indicating that the present structure has not been aitered and has been
in continuous use since at least 1989.
4. The o(f-street parking is adequafe to serve the use.
This condition is met. The structure is served by a fwo-car garage and an off-street
driveway that could accommodate an additional two cars. Newly constructed two-
family homes are required to provide three spaces.
5. Nardship would result if the use �vere drscantinued.
The applicant purchased the home as it is today, valuing the sscond kitch2n for
entertaining related to his jab as a pastor. The door 6etween the two levels a(lows his
smaii household to conserve heat aur(ng those times wnen the downsiairs is noi in
use. R=quiring him to remove either of those two elements would not only represent
a hardship for him, but would have no impact on the appearance of the s'r�cture or
how it relates to the surrounding neighborhood.
�O —`��
• Zoning File #99-240
Page Three of Resolution
fi. Rezoning the property wou/d result in °spoY' zoning or a zo�ing i�app�opriate to
surrounding land uses.
This condition is met. The structure is �ocated on a mid-block !ot surrounded o� a�(
sides by lots zoned R-3, Single Family. To rezone this property to RT-1, which would
accommodate a duplex, would create a"spot zone."
7. The use will nof be detrimenfal to fhe exisfing characte� of development rn the
immediafe neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety o� genera/ welfare.
l"his condition is met. The area is a low density residential environment with larger
lots than characterize standard city blocks. Acknowledging that the applicant has no
plans to establish a second unit in the structure, the addition of one unit to the area
wouid not result in signifcant additional traffic, congestion, or burden on City
services. Because the area is fuliy developed and nothing about the exterior of the
structure is expected to change, there should be virtualiy no impact on the exisfing
character of development in the immediate neighborhood.
8. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
This condition is met. The Sarnt Pau! Plan for Housing calis for creative mechanisms
� for adding units to owner occupied structures.
9. A notarized pefition of two-thirds of the property owners withrn one hundred (100 feet)
of the property has been submrtted stating their support for the use.
This condition is met Of the eleven owners with property within 100 feet of the
applicant's property, eight, constituting the required two thirds, signed a consent
petition submitted with the appiication and attached to this report.
5. The Pianning Commission on July 17, 1992, adopted guidelines for staff making
recommendations on app{ications for nonconforming use permits refated to conversions of
single family homes to dupfexes. The guidelines and the applicanYs ability to meet them
are as foilows:
Lot size of at /east 5000 square feet with a/ot widfh or front footage of 40 feet.
The guideline is met. The lot area is 6173 square feet with a front footage of 7'f feet.
2. Grass living area, after complefion of duplex conversron of af least 9800 square feet
for fhe two units.
The guideiine is not met. The square footage of the structure is 1768 square feet, 32
square ieet shy of the guid2line. Stafr has d2termined iha't, bzcaus2 of ine unusual
circumstances and the nasrow difierence 6etween the guideU�e and the actual
, square footage the difrerence does not represent sufricient gro�nds to recommend
denial o` t�e application
Zoning File #99-240
Page Four of Resolution
3. Three o(f streef parking spaces (non-stacked) are preferred; two spaces are the
requrred minimum. A site p/an showing improved parking spaces must be provided.
The guideiine is met. The structure is served by a detached two-car garage.
4. A!1 remodeling work for the duplex conversion is on the inside of the structure.
The guideline is met. No remodeling work is planned.
5. The proposed duplex structure rs located in a mixed density neighborhood, not a
homogenous single famrly area orin an area tivhere duplexes and triplexes are
already concentrated to the point of congesting neighborhood streets.
The guideline is met. The neighboring property is a tegaliy nonconforming duplex
and there are three two-family structures on the north side of the block. They do not,
however, represent a concentration or source of traffic congestion.
6. Section 62.iQ2(i) provides, in part, that the pianning commission in approving non-
conforming use permits may allow a nonconforming use for a specified period of time and
then require its removai by attaching an expiration date to the permit if the commission
makes fhree findings. The findings and the commission's ability fo make them are as
iollows:
Termi�ation of the nonconforming use...would cause significanf hardship.
2.
3.
This finding is met as indicated in finding 4.5. above.
Permifting fhe nonconforming use for a period of time will facilitate fhe transition to a
conforming use.
This finding is met. AIlowing the current owner to use the prop=rty as he purchased
it, but requiring that future o�vners make the alterations required by the zoning
administrator to ensure its future use as a single famify home, wi(f faci(itate sucfi a
transition.
Permit[ing fhe non-conforming use for a period of time is consistent with the public
heatth, safety, comfort, morals and welfare.
This finding is met as indicated in finding 4.7, above.
fVOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RE50LVED, by the Saint Pau( Planning Commission, that under
the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the appiication for a Nonconforming Use Permit to
allow a dupiex at 885 CALIFORNIA AVE WEST is hereby approved and shall be valid so long
as the property is owned and occupied by the applicant, Samu21 S. And=rson, or his spouse;
a �d
�
r1
�J
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Saint Paul should r2`und to Samuel S. Anderson -
his permit application iee oi S28D.00.
00 -`��
•
Saint Paul PIanning Commissian
Cify Ha11 Conference Cenfer
1� Ke]logg Boulevard West
A meeting of che Pla�nin� Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, October 22, 1949, at
830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Duarte, Faricy, Geisser, Morton and Nordin and Messrs.
Present: Corbey, Dandrea, Fotsch, Gervais, Csordon, Kong, Kramer, Mardelt and Shakir.
Commissioners Mmes. *Engh and *McCall and Messrs. *Field, *Johnson, *Margulies, *No�vlin
Absent:
*Excused
�
IJ
Afso Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Tom Harren, Donna Drummond,
Iv'ancy Frick, Nancy Homans, Allen Lovejoy, Larry Soderholm, Joel Spoonheim,
Ailan Torstenson and James Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic
Deve(opment staff; Tom Beach, Office of License, Inspections and Environmental
Protection; and Mike Klassen, Department of Public Works.
I.
II.
III.
IV
Approcal of NIinutes of October 8, 1999
MOTION: Conrn:issioner Gorrlon nroved approva! of tke n:inutes ojOctober 8, I999;
Contnrissioner Martle!! secondetl tl�e molior¢ whiclt carrietl «narzimously on a voice vote.
Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton announced that the semi�ar for next Friday, October 29, 1999 wilf be�in at 830
a.m. in Room 4Q of the Cih� Hall Conference Center.
Commissioner Dandrea invitzd Commission members to fonvard questions about thz upcomin�
seminar to him. Interestin� speakers have been lined-up.
Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Ford pointed out that a pro�ram for the seminar is at each commissioner's place this
momine. A si�n-up sheet �vill be circulated a�ain.
Community Foram on Light Rail Transit in the Central Corridor
Chair Morton read an introduction to thz forum.
Mr. Ford stated that reQionally, there is some momentum for a tisht rail s}'stem a ith some
fundin!� in place for 1nd acti� e plannine and eneineerin; �cork to consvuct the Hia�catha Lin:.
Thz Legi;lature asked the \letropolitan Couacil to produce earl} next tiear a ne« plan for
capacity. Also, city and county roads are going to cost behveen $200-$300 million to �
espand behveen now and 2002. We have to keep those kinds of cost in mind:vhen we arz
thinking about �vhedier �ae want to build lighi rail, busva}�s; whether we want to make
major e�cpenditures is alternatives to the car. From havina tearned about and ridden light
rai! i�� a number of cities around the country, she beGeves that the Central Corridor project
has the potential to be one of the most successfu( light rail lines in the coantry. It is alr�ady
a major transportation corridor with very successfuf bus service, atthough it's very slow.
This tine cvitt connect t�co major downtowns, and there is no other s}stem in the country
t(�at does that. In addition, it will connect a major universiry�. Because of chose reasons is
also have wonderful economic development potential.
Ron �Villiams, 779 Clayland Street, addressed the Commission o� behalf of the Sierra Ctub.
He has a dream that his SuperSaver bus card will turn into a SuperSa��er LRT card. He
thinks that what he reads in the newspapers about LR"[' being an e�periment is ludicrous.
LRT has been in use for up to fifty years in cities in this country and al! over the warld.
However, it's not automatic tl�at if an LRT line is put down, it will «ork for the best, aad we
are here today to help make it worh for the best for the City of Saint Pau1. The Centrai
Corridor is the prioriry over die airport or downtown afternaiives foc Saiat Paul today, and
Uni��ersity Ave��ue should be given the edee over the I-94 option. Project plannin„ design
and construction schedulin� must proceed �vith a goal of preservine the vitatity ofthe
hlidway as a nei�hborhood and a marketplace and not turn into a deserted transic corridor.
Tltis means protecting and preserving local bi�sinesses by providing for parking, continuing
frequent local bus service, and desi�nin� freqirent feeder buslines at close intenals. LRT is
for local as well as for interurban traffic. Major considerations in dzcerminina the best Saint
Pauf LRT al[ernaiives are: I) the altemative that promises the most ridership, the one thaT �
gets people out of their cars the most; and 2} the alternative that iend> itse(f to more dense
development iz� the urban corridor thi�s diminishing izrban spra��L One part ofthe Sierra
Club's North Star c6apter of poticy on LRT in 1998 says
��'ork to zdlieve more sustainable gro��th patterns «ith an emphasis on a more compact
urban forum b} promotina infill development and decelopment alonQ Itiah, quatity
public transit corridors. �
Chair Morton thanked everyorte for their inpt�t It ��il! be considered b� t(ie Committee and
Canmission and sent on to the City Council.
V. Zoning Committee
�� �99-240 Samuel S Anderson - Nonconformin� use permit to a(lotiti a duples at 885 California
`' Avenue tiVest benveen Avon and Victoria (Nancy Homans, 266-6557).
MOTIO\ Conunissioner Ger��r�is ixoved approcal wit/r corzditions of tlte reqrrestetl
nonconfor»:ina use pern:it ta a!/orv a duplex at 835 California Aveetue ii�est berween Avon
and Yictoria_
Commissioner Kramer stated that the Zoning Committee added a condi:ion tliat thi; property
could be used as a duple� as fona as it «ti oe�'ned "and occupied" b}' tl:z current o«nzr. The
-
ao -�t�
� simation is that this property is not really a duples but city regulations require it to be
categorized as a duplex. The o�vner doesn't want it to be a duples, but in order for him to keep
an interior door and a second kitchen, it requires a duples status. Ttie words "and occupied"
should �o benveen the words "owned" aod "by the applicant" in the last sentence of the
resotution. Chair Morton reca{!ed 2hat was discussed by committee and should be part of
resohition.
Commissioner Nordin asked ��fiat happens �vhen the current owner sells the property. Chaic
vlorton rzplied that �vhen he sells the property, it becomes a single family, and the door �vi1!
need to be removed or they can reapply for a permit.
Tlre motion ort tlte floor ta approve with conclitior:s the re�uested nonconformirrg use permit
to a!(ow a duplex nt 88� California Avenue West betwee3: Avaa artd Victoria cmried
tu:anirnously or: a vaice vate.
k94-253 Canadiaa Pacific Railroad - Special condition use permit to allow the removal and
replacement of fill in the river corridor: ercavation and relocation on the site of approximately
2�,000 cubic yards of material and backfill cer[ain areas that have been escavated at 80D Pig's
Eye Lake Road (1�'ancy Frick, 266-6554).
MOTION: Co�r:r�:issioner Gervais moved approva! with coftditiorts of ihe regarested specia!
co�r�li[io�r rrse permit to a!lorv tlre renrovn! and repl�rcenren? of frll in tke river corridor:
excaration �uul relocalion o�t the site of approxintately 20,000 cubic yards oJn�aterial anrt
bacb�ll certtrin areas thnt have been ercavatetl nt 800 Pig's Eye Lal�e Road w/ticG carried
� emanimously o�r a voice vole.
�99-25� Ciri' of St. Paul Parls and Recreation - Special condition use permit to build a
bandstand on Raspberry Island s east end (Larry Soderholm, 266-6575).
NIOTIQI: Conrmissioner Gervais moved approva! with conditions ojthe requested special
condition use perntit to build « baridstarid a! Raspberry Islartd's east eud whiclt carried
tutaieinmusly o�: a voice vote.
#99-356 US �Vest Wireless - Special condition use permit to aHow a cellular teiephone anienna
to be installed in the Oxford Street ri�ht-of-way �4est side bzttveen Concordia and Carroll (Allan
Torstensan, 266-6�79).
Commissioner Gervais stated ihat this item was laid over to the next Zoning Committee
meeti�i;.
#49-260 Auto Care St�stem Tne - Special condition use permit to allo«' for outdoor sales of
used cars at I 176 - i 1 S8 Dale Street North between Maryland and Geranium (Nancy Homans,
266-6557).
�IOTIOti Cornrr:issior:er Gervais mored npprpval with eonditions of tbe reqaest for a
specia! c�irditioir use pe�n:it to alloa� for outrloor safes of uset( cars at 1176-1183 Dale Street
t�'nrtk betweert lbfcrry�laud and Geraairart �rlticli carried on a voice voze (Cor6et).
1
and another meetin� is schedufed for the second �veek in November, 1999. A community forurr� •
w'i(! be lzeld �cithin the next couple of months.
X. Old Business
None.
XT. New Business
Commissioner Gervais brought «p an issue on the East Si@e regarding Arcade and Sisth Street.
Apparent[y, Public Works has blocked off traffic coming from Sisth Street onto Arcade. He
asked staff to look into the matter and repoR back on how that progressed aa@ went into effect.
District �, the Payne Arcade Business Association and the East Side Nei�hborhood
Devetapment Company are trying to estabtish a meetin� �vizh DistricY 4 and KaYhy Lantry. IQo
one seems to know how or why this came about.
Chair Morton asked Commissioner Gervais what the impact has 6een on Arcade.
Commissioner Gervais replied that the result has been less traffic leading into the business
district on Arcade which is not good for economic development. The traffic studies that were
done were done strictly in the IIistrict 4 section; not much attention was paid to Arcade Street.
As a result, the businesses on Arcade Street are suffering because of lack of access.
Mc Ford commented that staff ivill be happy to look into the matter and report back to the
Commission.
XII. Adjournment
The meeting �vas adjourned at 10: i0 a.m.
Recorded and prepared by
Iean Birkholz, Piannia� Commission Secretary
Planning and Economic Developme�t Department,
Citq of Saint Paul
Respectfufly submitted,
�
Kennzth Ford
Plannine Admini;trator
Approved // I ��,/ /
(Date)
� � �.�� v
Je ' er ngh �/
Secretary of the Piannfifg Commission
•
�p(sn�in��.nnnu[ei.f::� 1 � �
•
�
�
MINUTES QF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, October 14, 1999 - 3:30 p.m.
City Councit Chambers, 3"' Floor
City Hall and Gourt House
15 West Keliogg Boulevard
PRESENT; Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, Morton, and Nowiin
EXCCfSED:
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Faricy
Peter Warner, City Attorney
Caro{ Martineau, Afian Torstenson, and Nancy Fiomans of PED
aa -4�
SAMUEL S. AtJDERSON - 99-240 - Nonconforming Use Permit to allow for a duplex at 885
California Avenue West.
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
Nancy Homans showed slides and presented the staff report. Ms. Homans stated the staff
recommends approvaf of the Nonconforming Use Permit.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Homans stated the construction of the buifding has
not changed. Ms, Homans aiso stated the owner had a choice of removing one of the bathrooms
or kitchens or the door downstairs separating the rooms, the inspector woufd have estabiished the
dwe4ling as a single family residence. in lieu of making any of these changes the appiicant chose
to pay a fee of $280.00 to appiy for a Nonconforming Use Permit.
Upon question of Commissianer Gordon, Ms. Homans stated the door is an interior door with no
locks.
Mr. Sam Anderson, the app{icant appeared and stated he was shocked when the inspector came
and stated his home was a duplex. Mr. Anderson exp{ained that they sent a letter to the Cify
stating he was in compliance with the code because his home was being used as a singfe family
dwelling. The City then sent a citat+on stating the dwelling was not in conformance. The Housing
Court prosecutor explained that they had to do reconsfruction or apply for a Nonconforming Use
Permit.
At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Anderson explained they received a letter from the
City in February and the citation in July or August. The status of their property has not changed
since they have purchased their home.
Mr. Schaps, 875 California Avenue West, appeared and stated the appficants use the dweliing for
a single family home and that he was in favor of the Nonconforming Use Permit.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Nowlin recommended approval of the Nonconforming Use Permit and also
recommended the application fee be waived. The motion was seconded.
Responding to Cammissioner Kramer's concerns, Mr. Torstenson explained because this case
went to court the oniy option was to designate this dwei{ing as a duplex.
Zorting Committee Minutes
Qctober 14, 1899
File #: 99-240
Page 2
After further discussion Commissioner Nowlin amended his motion to add the condition that upon
sale of the property, the Nonconforming Use Permit becomes invalid.
Adopted Yeas - 6
Drafted by:
�:'_�14 � f), �� ��, 9 r�,W
Carol Martineau
Recording Secretary
Nays - 0
Submitted by:
., �� � �`n,�ii.o
hfancy Homans
Zoning Section
�
.
-
Approved by:
oo-��
•
1
2
ZONZNG COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
FSLE # 99-25�
APPLICANT: Samuel S. Anderson DATE OF HEARI2IG: 1�/14199
CLASSIFICATIODI: Establishment of a Noncon£orming Use Permit
3. LOCATION: 885 CALSFQR�IA AVE W
9. PLAI3NING DISTRICT: 10
5. I.EGAL DESCRIPTION: see file
6. PRESENT ZONING: R-3 ZONING CODE REFERENCB: 62.102(i)(1}
7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT;1017/99 BY: Nancy Homans
B. DATE RECEIVED: 09/02J99 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 11/1/99
A
B
� C
Pt3RPOSE: To establish legal nonconforming use status £or a duplex
in a single family zoning district.
PARCEL SIZE: Approx. 71 feet x 87 feet = 6,193 square feet
EXISTING LAND USE: Single family home
D. SURROt3NDZN6 LAND USE:
North: Single family home, zoned R-3
East: Legal non-conforming duplex, zoned R-3
South: Single family home, zoned R-3
West: Single far.:ily home, zoned R-3
E. ZONING CODE CSTATION: Sec. 62.102 (i)(1) provides that the
Planning Commission may grant legal non-conforming status to the
use of structures which fail to meet the standards of Section
62.102 (b} if the comrtission makes the £indings detailed in
finding H.4. below.
F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: No zoning history.
G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECODQiENDATION:
2he District 1Q - Como Park Gommunity Council has recommend�d
appraval of the permit.
H. FINDINGS:
1. ine structure at 885 C=_iifornia Avenue, West was construct�d bv
Holiday Homes, Inc, in i984. A building permit issued on �uly 17,
1984 indicates that the permit was issued for the construc=ion of
a"Single Fzmily Dwellinq". Sndeed, there are threz nota�_ons on
Zoning File �99-240
Staff report
Page two
the permit indicating that it is to be used as a"single family
dwelling on1y."
The plans accompanying the permit application have been destroyed
and are, therefore, not available for review,
2. The applicant purchased the home in 1997 and has not altered it
since that time. A neighbor has suhmitted a letter for the file
indicating that the present structure has been in existence
continuously for a period of at least ten years and has not been
altered.
3. On September 16, 1998, the applicant received a notice from a
zoning inspector from the City's Department of License,
Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) zndicating that a
complaint had been received alleging that the property was being
used illegaliy as a duplex, After an inspection on October 6, the
inspector told the applicant that, while there was no evidence of
a second household, the structure is considered an iliegal duplex
and that he wouid have to remove a kitchen, a bathroom or the
�nside door leading into the lower lecel in order to compl�� with
the City's codes. His other option was to agply for legal
nonconforming status as a duplex.
On February 14, 1999, the applicant, after having spoken with the
home's builder who indicated that the structure had not been
altered since it was constructed, wrote to the zoning inspector
indicating that he felt he was in comnliance with the City's code
since he was using the structure as a single £amily home aad it
had not been altered since its construction.
On July 8, 1999 a citation was issued for an °illegal dupiex in a
single family zoning district," and the applicant was ord=red to
appear in Housing Court on August 27, 1999. In an agreement with
the prosecutor--to avoid potentially being found gui�ty of a
misdemeanor and fined 5700--the applicant agreed to plead guilty
to a petty misdemeanor, pay $50 of a$200 fine and apply fcr a
Non-conforming Use Permit within 3� days.
4. Sec. 62.102(i)(1) of the zoning code provides that the Planning
Commission may qrant lega2 noncon£orming status to the use o£
structures which Pail to meet the standards of section 62.102(b}
upon making a series oi nine findings. The findinas and tt,e
appiicant's ability to meet them are as follows:
�
r7
L�
1. Th2 use occurs entir2ly within an existing structure.
This condition is net, ho expansion of the existing s_ructure
is proposed.
Do -�l�
�
2. Tne use is similar to other uses permitted within the district.
This condition is met. From all exte*ior appe�rances, this
structure is a single family home, newer but similar to all the
other homes on the block. The adjacent property to the east is
an older legally non-conforming duplex.
Zoning File �99-240
Staff report
Page three
3
The use has b2en in existence continuously for a period of at
least ten (10) years prior tc the date of the application.
This condition is met. The evidence is that the structure was
built in 1984 and the builder has indicated that it was built
as it is today. A neighbor has submitted a letter for the
record indicating that the present structure has not been
altered and has been in conCinuous use since at least 1989.
�
�l
E
The off-street parking is adequate to serve the use,
This condition is met. The structure is served by a two-car
qarage and an off-street driveway that could accommodate an
additional two cars. Newly constructed two-family homes are
required to provide three spaces.
Hardship would resuZt if the use were discontinuect.
The applicant purchased the home as it is today, valuing the
second kitchen for entertaining related to his job as a pastor.
The door between the two levels allows his sma11 household to
conserve heat during those times when the downstairs is not in
use. Requiring him to remove either of those two elements
would not only represent a hardship for him, but would have no
impact on the appearance of the structure or haca it relates to
the surrounding neighborhood.
6
Rezoning the property would result in "spot° zoning or a zoning
inappropriate to surrounding land uses.
This condition is met. The structure is located on a mid-block
lot surrounded on all sides by lots zoned R-3, Single Family.
To rezone this property to RT-1, which would accommodate z
duplex, would create a"spot zone."
7. Tae use wz11 not be detrimental to the existing character of
development in the inmediate neighborhood or endangez the
public health, saf2ty or general �•elf�re.
_nis conditzon is n.et. The area is a lov. density residential
environment with larger lots than characterize stendarc city
blocY,s. Acknowledging that th= apolicant has no plans �o
establish a second unit in the structure, the addition e* one
unit to the area wc��id not result in sig�aficarc addit_onal
Zoning File �99-240
Staff repart
Paqe four
trafPic, congestion, or burden on City services. Because the
area is fully developed and nothing about the exterior of the
structure is expected to change, there should be virtually no
impact on the existing character of development in the
im�ediate neighborhood.
8. Tne use is coa�sistent with the comprehensive plan.
This condition is met. The Saint Paul P1an for Housing ca11s
£or creative mechanisms for adding units to owner occupied
structures.
9. A notarized petztion of two-thirds of the property owners
within one hundred (100 feet) of the property has been
submitted stating thezr support for the use.
This condition is met. Of the eleven owners with property
within 100 feet of the applicant's property, eight,
constituting the required two thirds, signed a consent petition
submitted with the application and attached to this report.
�
5. Tne Planning Co.mmission on Ju1y 17, 1992, adopted quidelines for
staf£ making recommendations on applications for nonconforming use �
permits related to conversions of single fanily homes to duplexes.
The guidelines and the applicant's ability to meet them are as
foliows:
1. Lot size of at least 5000 square feet with a Iot width or front
iootage of SO feet.
The guidelir.e is met. The lot area is 61�3 square feet with a
�ront footage of 71 feet.
2. Gross living area, after completion of dvplex conversion oi at
least 1800 square feet for the two units.
The guideline is not met. The square footage o= the structure
is 1�68 square feet, 32 square feet shy of the guideline. Staff
has determir.ed that, because of the unusual circumstances and
the narrow difference between the guideline and the actual
square footage, the difference does not represeat sufficient
grounds to recommend denial of the application.
3. Three off street parking spaces (non-stacked) are preferred;
tU�o spaces are the r�quired minimum. A site pla� showing
inproved parking spaces must be provided.
The guideline is met, The structure is served by a detached
two-car garage.
4. AIZ remodeling work for th2 duplen conve-sion is on the i:sid�
e= the structure.
The guideiine is met. No remodeiing work is planned.
do-�4�
� Zoning File �99-240
Staf£ report
Page five
5. Tne proposed draplex structure is located in a znixed density
neignborhood, not a homogenous single family area or in an area
where dupZexes and triplexes are already concentrated to the
point of congesting neighborhood streets.
The guidelire is met. The neighboring property is a legally
nonconforming duplex and there aze three two-farily structures
on the north side of the block. They do not, however, represent
a concentration or source of traffic congestion.
I. STAFF RECONII✓ENDATION:
Based on findings 1-5, staff recommends approval of the
application.
•
o�-�t�
�
NONCONFORMING USE PEf2MiT APPLICAT{ON
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Sectian
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPL{CANT
Name .�` {�F?1VE�
Address g � S
c�tv - ��
Name of owner (if diffe
Contact person (if diffe
�
1
Zip S`s'It"! Daytime Phone Yb'g717
Phone
PROPERTY AddresslLocation ��J �,�c 1l "�n iG (�-<- (,s .
LOCATfON � 1I Ft � ElG:.(o Ff o{ 4 y� , ni �t �hp,
Lega! description n �. � ., . �l� � �1 �- i �
ti.t:s�.� a�vC Tf� r'�°c'tfl� d �" n `�-°^--
r,� coi 3�'�'�-3 G,-mo Current Zoning /` -�
•
TYPE OF PERMIT: Appiication is hereby made for a Nonconforming Use Permit under provisions of
Chapter 62, Section 102, subsection i, Paragraph_ of the Zoning Code.
The permit is for:
❑ Change from one nonconforming use to another (para. 3 in Zoning Code)
❑ Re-establishment of a nonconforming use vacant for more than one year (para. 5)
� Legai estabiishment of a nonconforming use in existence at least 10 years (para. 1)
� Enfargement of a nonconform use (para. 4)
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: supply the information that is appiicabie to your type of permit.
CHANGE IN USE: PresentlPast
or
RE-ESTABLfSHMENT: Proposed usE
Additionai i�farmation for a11 appiications (attach additionai sheets if �ecessary):
�. 4L���c:�4�✓ c-° ° y�-a, Lvr��zc�
L'
site olan is attached ❑
Appiicant's sig
�
���`"""- Date ��> ��i' City agent�
I. The use occurs entirely within an existing structure;
Yes
2. The use is similar to other uses permitted within the district;
Yes, there are other legal duplezes on the sireet and in the neighborhood
3. The use has been inexistence continuously for a period of at least 10 yeazs prior to the
appiication;
Yes, see neighbor's letter
4. Off-stteet parkin� is adequate to serve the use;
Yes, there is a detached double-car garage.
5. Evidence of hazdship
The inspector tivanted us co remove the door at the bottom of the stairway and
build an arch. However, this woa�ld make our family room (and the other rooms)
in the basement uninhabitable in the winter. The heat loss up the stairway would
make it impossible to heat and completely unlivable. There have been times when
we forgot to close the door and it has taken up to a whole day to ivarm that space
back up to a level where tive could enjoy watching TV down there.
6. Rezoning the property would result in "spot" zoning
Yes
7. The use �vill not be detrimental to the existing chazacter of development in the
immediate neighborhood or endanger the pubiic health, safety, or general welfare;
No it ia�ill not be detrimentaL There are existing duplexes in the area and the
house does not appear to be a duplexfrom the street. Entrance ro our lower level
is in the back
8. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and
I believe so
9. That a notarized petition of two-thirds of the property owners within 1 QO feet of the
property has been obtained stating support for the use.
Enclased
�
�
oo-��
• August 27, 1999
Bob & Phyllis Lentsch
878 Califomia Ave., W.
St. Paul, M'iV SS I 17
Zoning Office
1100 City Ha11 Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Zoning Office:
We confirm that the building at 885 Califomia Avenue West has been in existence
continuously for a period of at least ten (10) years prior to the date of this letter and has
not been aitered.
incerely,
�
Phyllis Lentsch
�
�
�
�
�
;
'
>
�,��
c.�
�
�
�
♦.i
V
�
�
� �''\) �..��
� t � �
v �
I \
I
i �
i
�
�,��
.�
1
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
//
{���
�
.�
a o
C°'�
s
�
G—
�
t�a -�{�
�
�
�
�
{
i
�
I
i
�
I
�
I
'
1
e
�
i'
.�
�
��
�
�
Q d p
�
�
�
�.
�
�
�
�
�
�
� �
.�
�� o a
,
�
��
�
��
��
o �.
�
��
�
T
.�
M1�
-�
C',
�
�
�a-4�
� Rev. Sam 8 Lori Anderson
885 California Ave., W.
St. Paul, MN 55i17
Below are the course of events and the communications i've received on the status of our
home at 885 Gatifornia Ave., W., St. Paul, MN 55117
My wife and { received a"Code Enforcement Notice" {etter on 9/16(SS from the City Zoning
Administration.
RE: 885 Cafifornia Avenue West
Dear Homeowners:
We have received a complaint that the referenced property is an iilegal dupiex. This property is
located in an R-3 residential zoning district. Our records indicate that the residence is legal only
as a single family dwelling.
Encfosed are the provisions 60.204 and 60.206 of the St. Pauf Legislative Code which define the
� terms "Family" and "Dweliing UniP'. The definition of "Family' in the zoning ordinance (see
attached) allows a maximum of four unrelated individuals living together in a dwelling unit. Within
the dweliing unit, each individual may have separate sieeping rooms but they must share the
kitchen and remaining living space together.
It is necessary to determine if the use of the premises is compiiant with the City Zoning
Ordinance An inspection of the property is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October 6th at
1130 a.m. Attendance by you or your designated representatfve is necessary at that inspection.
If you have a conf{ict with the scheduled inspection ttime or have any questions and/or concerns
regarding this matter, piease caii me at 266-9085.
Sincerely,
Peg Fufier
Zoning lnspector
enc.
The enclosure read as foilows:
Definition of Family and Dwelling Unit
/
A family is "one or two (2j persons or parents, with their direct lineal descendartts and adopted or �
legaliy cared for chiidren together with not more than two (2) persons not so reiated, living
together in the whole or part of a dweAing comprising a single housekeeping unity. Ever
additional group oP four {4) or fewer persons living in such housekeeping unit shall be considered
a separate family for the purpose of this code." (St. Paut Zoning Code, Section 60-.206f}
A dwelling unit is "a building, or poRion thereof, designed for occupancy by one family for
resideniial purposes used or intended to be used for living, sleeping and eooking or eating
purposes." {St. Paul Zoning Code. Section 60.204.d.)
Lef ine give you some background.
Our house is a raised-ranch, split entry home. The hasement is half out of the ground and
the windows of the tower level are full sized. Both fioors are finishe@. Two bedrooms,
bathroom, kitcfien and tiving room upstairs. Swo bedrooms, bathroom and one large
room which consYitutes an entertainment area. Thatlower entertainment area has a
refrigerator, stove, and nan-functianing dishwasher. It is a walk-out basement and there is
a door at the bottom of the stairs that ieads upstairs.
When we purchaseH the home in 7997 we had my wife`s brother tiving with us for 4
manths. He stayed it one of the rooms downstairs but we shared living space throughout
the home. During the summer of t998 we had a missionary family who were home on
furlough siaying with us on and off as they traveted to different churches throughouf ffie
state to speak. In the month of August, 1998 we had my wife's brother's fianc�e living with
us. This is the extent of the people other than my wife and myseif that we have had living �
with us. In every case we shared common space tfiroughout the home and were in full
campliance with the definitions mentioned in the tetter.
After reading the tetter we thought we had no problem because it appeared we had never
violated the code thaf was quoted to us. The inspector came to our fiouse and 1 willingly
let her in. She walked through and declared that our house is a duplex and that it was
iilegal.
We discussed. She persisted. She told me that 1 would have to remove the kitchen, or
bathroom, or perhaps the door at the bottom of the stairway in order Yo comply with city
code. t insisted that the home had not been altered sirtce it was cottstructed based upon
the fact that the drawings indicated a(I this and because the cupboard, apptiances and
everything were exactly the same on both tloors and must have been insialled at t6e same
time. She sharply responded, "that would mean that the inspector messed up artd OK'd
this as a singfe family home" ----1 waited --- "that wou(d never have happened"
1 asked what my other options would be. She said that just maybe 1 could appiy for a
"nonconforming use permiY' which wouid mean the house woutd be approved to exist as a
dupfex in a single-family zoned part of the cify. To do this I woufd have to get the
signatures of virtuaNy a!I of my neighbors within 100' of my property and find someone
who woutd attest to the fact that the structure had not been altered in over 10 years.
To keep the resf of this short.
She called back with the committee's decision that 1 wouid be "allowed" to remove the
door at the bottom of the stairs as long as t signed a document {I think she called it a deed
restriction} verifying that this property wou(d never be used as a duplex.
_
00 -��
t dec+ded that I didn't want ta aiter the my home and so I decided to go for the
• "nonconforming use permit" I traced back my Torrents to the originai ownertbuilder of
fhe home. (Buiit in 1984) I trecked him down to Arden Hiits and called him and asked if he
wouid write such a letter. We spoke for a while and 1 asked him about the house when it
was constructed. I described its current condition and determined that the house had not
been aitered since the inspector approved tfie home. After my discovery that the
inspector reaily had approved the house "as is:' i decided to write a letter, which foliows...
Rev. Sam E Lori Anderson
885 California Avenue West
Saint Paul, Minnesota SSi17
February 14, 1999
Peg Fu11er
Zoni�g Inspector
350 St. Peter Street
Suite 310
St. Paul, MN 55102-15'10
Thank you for all your time and attention to our zoning situation.
� After thorough review of your letter of September 16, 1998 and a subsequent conversation with
the originai ownerlbuiider, who confirmed that the home has not been altered since its
co�struction, it is clear that we are and have been in full compliance with the city zoning code. We
will consider this matter conciuded. Thank you for your time.
Rev. Sam Anderson
Enciosure
We received a citation from the city on July 10, issued July 8th, for ordinance viotation
"illegal duplex in a single family zoning district. Section 60.412 & 60.411" The citation
was unclear as to what we were to do. "Housing Court" is checked but there is nothing on
the citation informing us how to respond. lt is on a Parking Ticket form.
The citation mentioned that if i didn't respond within 14 days a warrant for my arrest wouid
be issued but that 1 also had to wait at least 7 days unti! the citation was registered. {
calied the oniy number that seemed to appiy on Juiy 21, 1999. They told me tfiat they had
' nothing to do with that and that f needed to cali the Housing Court office. i then caped
them and they said they had no record of my citation but that eventually { woutd receive a
letter in the maii ordering me to appear in Hausing Court. i caited back on August 16 and �
they said it had just 6een mailed. On August 78, 1999 1 received said tetfer and was
ordered to appear on August 27,1999.
Before 1 went to covrt t began collecting the signatures of my neighbors for the Non-
Conforming Use Status Permit so tfiat, if needed, t could show the court that 1 had fhe
support of my neighhors, even though i had never used my home as a dupiex.
i appeared in court with ati my documentation. We were told by a clerk that most of our
cases could be settied with the prosecutor and that in most cases wouidn't even need to
go before the judge. ! met with the prosecutor and explained the whole situation. ! never
did receive a clear answer whether the city code on a duplex had ta do with the structure
or the usage of the sfructure, fn any case he tolti me fbat if I was unwilling to change the
structure of my home then i would have to appiy for the Non-ConForming Use Status
Permit. i asked him what the result wouid be if I went befare Yhe judge. He said that if i
was found guilty of having an ilfegai duplex in a single famity zoned part of the city that t
could be fined $70Q and tre guilty of a misdemeanor. ! asked him whaY my other options
were and he said that he could "suspend judgment" and that this would give me 30 days
to fi(I out the papernork for a Non-Conforming Use Status Permit and get it in but that
court costs for that were S1Q0. Then he said there was one more thing he could probabiy
do and that was to drop the charge to a petty misdemeanar. This would carry a$200 fine
but he coufd stay $150 of fhe fine and f would have to pay $50 and then be given 30 days
to get the Non-Conformirtg Use Status Permit paperwork in to the Zoning office.
This brings us to where we are now. I am being forced to apply for the Non-Conforming
Use Status Permit by order of the court. Neither I nor my neighbors necessarily want my
home to be declared a duplex, but since t am unwilling and really unable to structural(y
attar my home I am left with tto other options. As mentioned in the application the removai �
of the door at the bottom of the stairs woutd make our lower levet extremety tofd and
uninhabitable in the winter,
�
4
OFfICE OF LTCENSE, IN5PECITONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION fl �— ll� �
Raben Kerrter, Director
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coteman, Mayor
ZDMNGADMTMSIRATlON
350 St Petn Srrea
Suise 310
Sai�u Paut, Minncsota 55102-I510
�1 ►1 �: ui \Y ��
September 16, 1998
Samuel S. Anderson
Lori L. Anderson
885 California Avenue West
Saint Paul, MN 55117-3458
RE: 885 California Avenue West
Dear Homeowners:
�
r
Telephane: 6T 2-26G9008
Facsimilc 6I2-266-9099
We have received a complaint that the referenced gropetty is an illegal duplex. This
• property is located in an R3 residential zoning district. Our records indicate that the
residence is legal only as a singie family dwelling.
Enclosed are provisions 60.204 and 60.206 of the St. Paul Legisladve Code which define
the terms "Family" and "Dwelling Unit". The defuution of "Fanuly" in the zoning
ordipance (see attached) aliows a maxunum of four unrelated individuals living together in
a dwelling unit. Within the dwelling unit, each nadividual may have separate sleeping
rooms but they must share the kitchen and remaining living space together.
It is necessary to determine if the use of the premises is compliant with ihe Ciry Zoning
Ordinance. An inspection of the properry is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October
6th at 11:30 a.m. Attendance by you or your designated representative is necessary at that
inspection.
If you have a conflict w9th the scheduled inspection time or have any questions andlor
concerns regazding this matter, piease call me at 266-9085.
Si cerely,
Peg u�
Zoning Inspector
� enc.
i
� n� . � • ►,� r►f�����»�:'���_�lu�elil�l��1
A family is "one or two (2) persons or parents, with their direct lineal descendants and
adopted or legally cared for children together with not more tIian two (2) persons not so
related, living together in the whole or part of a dwelling comprising a single housekeeping
unit. Every additional group of four (4) or fewer persons living in such housekeeping unit
shall be consideied a separate family for ihe purpose of this code." (St. Paul Zoning
Code, Section 60.206.f.) '
A dweiling unit is "a building, or portion thereof, designed for occupancy by one family
for residential purposes used or intended to be used for living, sleeping and coaking or
eating purposes." (St. Paul Zoning Code, Section 60204.d.)
•
_
� ti -�E�
�
u
I�
P
- - - - w -- _-. ..... � - - - .- -- -- - -- - - +
yp�Y � _ Q Z O ey f] .
'm.mc� ei � m o o �S 3 - a "1 ��i
rn�� sx � o �� o° ' em p ..
mE E on 4 t �' m n 4 S I � 't �
�n�j y N �t �`, t e °c , 'i
y �� R �: r p � m �R.$i _.
�mA� ❑ e �� G � 9 p� 't,so �.
°�-� �i m ��,, \� O e'!o 1 I C y .\
��Zm� ` � ` Z . i e Z H + S ?\� o
o ri r" o a o N 1 1 `'[�j ^ ° fo �-�
�-' 3 _�>� h � � r _ o q �_
b
^ 'o o zm{o ❑ y � t [] (- Z o �� � 3 � �
�^ T f o ,�- i- L_€n l
�O Z FAF T� �. �� d t ,�'1, 2 • � 3C
^ � (A m i S `d \ V � � � � K
� � m � ° m � � �
S� O 2 -19s ���� C �-. v _� i
C OCN 0 \^� ��9
'py T ;� � •A � 1 D � � �"� $A
� O 29 \ l; �� ❑% � -1
oN 1 �� O � ��
� � Z m g 4 �^ h 1. SC
b � � \ C `a m �m d
� o � - $ �<' " �
Ho m . � �
i= �'^ mg - t' ' \' > \ �
b � c � c
Ini y � � n � ' � j m N ^ �
�Oy d 1� 1'�. N�} � Q�
lam �{m O 3 \ 0 1'ly lA` v � W
��o � c!/I�n c� � e '� (J No !% � �
N
�C �Z9 fi� �n y '
O �O� w m �
N OSO ❑
m
w �z Z: vx
� 3r.r sa
. `$r'z , u'o
o m jo ` 3
o ` ❑ �
°,
o h a p
_ ��Z \1 �� m
v
� N9 f 9
m
° o ❑
O p x+�
�' -f OT
� � �Q g
ir C 3-
9 n
IA T �^
im m �
= 3� io t � g a
�c o z c.
a m 4 � o
�m � o 0
y C
� Q T+ A ❑
'� o
� �m
� ❑
'o
a �Fix
"a
i�, >
� �
� = N � V `� O -�
` a • � � r i � �
� ��� ��
Mo v�=,��y
\ o � �°� a
�� 3 � ! � I
� ❑��Q�
N T 9 9 9
m � o O
o _ _ 9 9
o � o m
N �
02
I m 2
❑❑ ❑❑
3� =s�
o� ��
�m�sm
S �' w m '
a n r
< n � m
° 0 0
o ''m" a
`" o
�
t
n
I �o �
I '
0
� ��
m o a
( O
S �
o ��`
0
a
<
o�
�
� I
H��
��a �=-
�1����
sev�=_m
_'° � ''s'
�_�� "
°3_� °-
3c._� `�u
3 au
P3 �
33
n� g
�"
�?
v�
_�
�5
�
_�
��
�s
�v
c�`
°�
f
c.r�oco<„-+sc�r,
a`.
aoy gci
S^ o0
� ��� �Qm
���„�� 0
O� Ap➢Z� N O 2
NO320> N�2
=�� N�
a
� ?y
°���g�3 ��
o�Qa°�m �g�
���omR,,�i, o"�
N s
�'mAO-`��
'x"n-..zo+� mm..
ti z ti = i
p��7= N��
5z� o o."e
- ,. o i o� p ,,...,
i °i
� �°,, y� m��
Fzz'�- °
-y9D�i'� a'c�
i n £� ��o
p�3 �'� �o�
o�� - `�O m
^�m °� 3
f t� ��
�� o
��� �a
e�imm vab 02�
� Z V�
0
� � � �
aS�
0,3 m=
� o o � c
o � � � m
m � d r °
y N � O O �
ap��0
o' ��o ay
�=pc�.. -i
� m c � o O
3 p = ? a z
= v c3c `'
� �
v A� m C
'n o p
� m
=�?� ➢
_ � g ^ C
PO' n r
�,oz p
�- � ° CS
�
� � a � -
=a ^ N
oA� O
=f V Z
� ° o � � o N
�'�z�.°
Z Z
w � � � �
� C
O N N T
� N ^
�
W p LL p
` � �
N
m
Z
p0
d=
2n
0�
�
��
D
�Z
D <
S�
O
m
17
N
m�
n
�2
O �
T�
�O
T
r C
v
m�
�O
C 69
S p
Zo
RI p
0
S�
m�
n �
�m
.N
�a
�
� „-,o
a
o��
�g ,
�yo
�20'
��
go
�o
c�
� z
�
��
iz
�?
c �
3
D
z
m
n
S
m
O
�
N
n
<
D
m
r
m
-i
O
G
�
r
A
"{
Q
2
�
�
C
�
m
D
C
V
N
�
CO
r
m
n
v
_v
�
O
.7..
D
r
V
m
Z
A
y
m
�
•
mOZj
�pm�
9�D(n
< j
-{N��
Zo�"'�
O 31
Z 2�
� Dn
0
N �
0 7J
u -{
ZNj� .
y2
m��
n f
ya°'o�
m� _
Dnc� o
�m�o
c� `
c,� :
oa-'cc :
oQ�: i
N S
�
=a'o� o '
Oy£F-9
znN' a
° m s " c: �
rm�n5 Z
00 n
� �HO �
�ao� o
S A
Z o -1
' Q �^ N Z •
O-�'n N
a�°c
"�`^ c o
Np�
c
<�j < j
t»om
��
I
i9 p m : .
D l
C �
O �
SI
ZT� C I :
�0=1 �
m ��
2 . D -1'n
�o�
Dzn
r-
�ptn
O
+9t
NOO
� o
a ��19
iv n
NQ$ r
A D I
`o T Cl m
ZS 9
�a° o
_ -(
u m y
o9C O
�mmz
2 0�- tn
3 ~ 4
1om
' ao
�' a
cy>
� �O
Ny
A2
, t D
Nr
M'� nS'_>T-jt
-_�.�' yo^
tij c 'o-�'� ' `�
�.c D o� n � n
m °c'
Z O z 1 � n
-1 coc �y
y �-`' RZ
S }y0
c 0=' o m�
r' s o � m
O �3 �cq
p o_;';� mrt
<
g oa__om
0
�po2i� O
m ��-. �
�?;5i� a
z o'��` O
S H� � fl N
m • '"�
Y o4£ p
� �=� a
D -5 � X
n o�., rn
S ="'a D
m m?a �
a ..
m �<_ 1
� y _ o �
m ='= Z
� °�° >
m c' 'n D
� 'c_ <
� - �'
�=% K
n j �
. �' �
53= S
�
�
u
•
��
�
�a.�
�
�i`�
�
L'-_
O
\�
�
° n
�
m
�7
t
--J
�
C
0
�
m
0
m
�
z
0
z
-�
x
z
0
m
0
O
0
m
�
-
o I
37
D
m
O
<
0
4
N
W
❑a�
o�=
� a o
.��
� ;� Q
N � �%
� , m
m :
o :
C ;
� i i
O [
a:
A v in
���
m ? m
o m o
� ��
�� �
� n a a
o @'
z
m � � N
� � m m
c � �
o .
o ;
a
���
N � N
(�i� N �
m � m
m��
o - o
0
m
T
m
2
N
m
�
C
m
�"�
O
'�
�
m
�
�
m
N
C
�
D
D
77
�
-
�'tl
�
-G
G
�
�
�
�
-i
D
�
�
c
m
O
D ��}- �
r- (_J.Y. �
c .�
� �
mc� �
O
�� � � S C
�o
0
m
T
m
z
°
z
-i
�
�`
o�
�tl
<
0
�
Z
��� m �
C � t
' '�7 SJ m �, D
� --a � O
l � � � � �
i mD C D �-
n � -� N D �
�_� � � o -
�?t" � m �
cno� r' o m I
z� o
n
�zC)n� � �
71
�o�nm m
�� �� �
v
� m U' z 7mo
�-„pWm � m
OC� jN � C3
�m� � O
c � D '
o � n �
D _. m
� n� S �
nm� � Z
�OQm �
�rN
� m �
� �
� 1
�
�
m
z
0
�
Clv
� �
o }
���
m,_�
z.
o�
Z!
�
�i
�i �
I�
�1" � � �
� �� C� � �
� ��� cv
L 1 � � � �
� �. � I
���� ��
� o �, �
Z �,
�� � C �
a-.. � �' � r. -
l �
� ���0
'�.r � �„J —
�
> � �.-. �
� �
C �+o
�. �
� �
o,
m
T =
m y
Z Z
A O
Z m
� �
O
�
m
�
W
�
n�
0
�
D
r
m
v
W
�
0
m
m
O
m
T
z
N
m
�
0
z
<
a
O
Z
m
Z
0
❑�❑
a�cn
�� �
o��
mSo
� � c
o � 3
� S C
� . m
m;
o '
C :
a: `
o :
3 : .
A V (T
� � �
m � m
o � o
� � �
W � Q
aDo.
m :
���
m �
'0 � 'O
���
o:
Q:
��;
N (�D N
��;
� V m
W��
o � o
a
r
C
m
--!
�
�
'0
m
�
a
�
�
m
N
C
�
�
�
�
�
Z
"i
�
�
�C
C
�
a
�
�
m
�
-i
��
a ��
C
T C°
m�� .�
c�m�
�
m
r
mm"O
-G�C�
D�COf��'Iym, m
o�DO�
m m 'm°, .D O
O ' �
����, �
�_���� _
c�=z� �.
c� � QN`
� _�
-cni `c � ° K. ``
z �� v�.�� o
(� G O a O O
N ? � o
�v C o0 0
m �
{ U U
O � Q
Q <
�' <
� Z
c ��z
�TOmm i
�Dt �
zc--+z �
�m�
o�mp�o
O
�D
� � � r
DmzO
SJja�T
m
OO
� m 3
� I -�
�O
C
.9 ..�
s m ��
A
�
O
<
�
Z
A
�
m
v
0
m
�
m
Z
v
D
�
D T
N�
l��
O
�
�
m
�
�
v
Z
III
m
z
D
�
n
� -r,
D
ti
z
�2
c
Zr
�T
��
m
KZ
T �"�
Z�
0
� rnC
_� O �
� �
�� �
� �
�
�
° z
n
v�
rt�
c—
�
��C
C
s ��
s ��
c� r
�
-
aa -��
�
�
�ZO��G
FIRST SL3BNIITTED
DATE PETITION SUBYIIITED: � 'J'
DATE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED: � - �
PARCELS ELIGIBLE:
PARCELS REQUIRED
PARCELS SIGNED:
l� ,
�
�
SC�
rC�
RESt3BMITTED
DATE PETITION RESUB�IITTED:
DATH OFFICIALLY RECEIVED:
PARCEIS ELIGIBLE:
PARCELS REQUIRED:
PARCELS SIGNED:
� Q �Q qYZ-5�(
CHECKED BY: �CN•^' �� - \ DATE:
zac��N� ��L� (
!
CITY O� SAYIYT PAUL
AFFIDAVIT OF PERSON CTRCULATING PETITION
�
STATE OF MIititiTi�1ESOTA)
COUNTY OF RA.�15EY )
SS
S(�✓ri uC�,� S- �`�U /) , being first duly swom, deposes and states that helshe is the
person who circulated ihe withia petition and consent, consisting of _ pages; that affiant is
informed and betieves that the parties described are the o�vners resoectively of the lots placed
unmediately before ezch name, that affiant is informed and believes that each of the parties described
above is ihe owner of the property tvhich is within 100 feet from any property owned or purchased
by petitioner or sold by petitioner within one (t) year preceding the date of this petition which is
conciguous to ihe property described in the peticion; that except for
;/'` n ov �'' none of the parties described
above has purchased or is purchasing property from the petitioner contigvous to the above described
property within one (1) year of ihe dace of the petition; that tttis coaseat was si�ned by each of said
ow�ners in the presences of this affiant, and that the signatures are the true and correct signatures of
ezch and aI1 of the parties so described.
�S'����y •
� �1m � �.�. S _ ���rz.s��
_ x�� �
�85 � f�.�-h �G �--��.
ADDRESS
�e �I ���'"
TELEPHO\'E i�'UMBER
Subs be swo o before me
this G daY o � vs7` 19 ��
1 / /
� � -
rG'�77 ",'� / ��1"'� t/' i'���'
NOTARY PUBLIC
�NvV ='.AN i :�.f: f_ : .. . •: .� ., . �. ^.1\"AMsb
,./y L....��F.�h:1.GMi `.dSi�N
�"1�. - 1
�� hQ7AAYPUEUG�S:S�cSOTA
AAMSEY CACti'7Y �
idy Cor,r,rssiat Ezpcas Jan.St.2�00
t i
�
�tNERAL BU1LDfNG PERMIT
. CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DEPARTP,tENT �
DlVIStONOFH6USI{VGANDSUILDING � �� ��
CODEENFDRCEMENT �
445 CfTY HALL �
ST, PqUL, h1N 55702 I p R �
i Permit �.0 y � � S
- � � �� P�AN NO. ✓ �- YW
' OESCftiPT10N OF9ROJECT
DATE 04VNEF��,�',\ 11 � C� 11\ !�l'�"c
OWNERSADDR
>� -
c<
❑ OLD � � i i �'`f TYPE OF
�NELV TYPE CONST. �s(� �`� OCCUPRNCY �
GRADING STUCCO OR !
�UILD ❑ AND EXC. �PE,4SfER-----(�r,ov . L� .'Q'
•
❑ ADDiTION ❑A�TER �
NUM�=q STREET�
�� � ��t 1��
WARD pT. 8 OC1�
3
W�D7H 'cPTM'
LOT `-^ n��� `�
/ 5;`i3
STP,UG W�ofH
TU R E � r ,,,�
ESTIhiAT VAWE
�ETAILS & Reb1ARK5' �'7 n
;•7__ -
Q REPAIR
� SID
1 =(':� i .
\,�-�1�" '7:.
' ' ADD
r�
"' SIDE �pT CLEA'.
c _ .�5±.=. : _ : !
LE�
6 _ i
YES O NO
� � 7/�.�
\TE �
LVAT�ON
STOP,I�S
4 1
TEI. NO
PERMITFEE
PLAN tH�CK j/}��f i �
� �
STAT'c +��
SUR�H.aRG:�, / -7.�!
LINE
TOTAL FEE �I J 1 • �' 1 7�
�f% I
APP�ICA+�T CERTIPIES THAT A�L I
� FQR��IATIOV IS CORRECT ANp_T AT
A! L QE?TI?:E\T ST;,TE REGI;L" GP1S
AND CiTY ORDNANCES 4'JIL COM-
PLiED:SfTri1N Pc'RFORM1IING Tric'470RK
FOR Nir:C�. THIS Pc.°..�IIT 15 ISSUED
� ^-� �l4 - I�ti'�t
�t J
AVTHO�.Cc_ SIGNATUR_
.YYA __ FENCE
/E ❑ WRECK
CROSS.STREETS
�L> �/ Q� r � �j�G.
Ofl TRACT ;
y;-- �o : : ,
CE
�-
HEIGHT " �
� ��TOTALFLOOF
sn.Fr.- r1/„'�
/ ' _ _' "
- I
.^`-�Si�E9 �95 O.VL� �
WHENVAL'7Ai_p-...:StjYOUR?eRM1t'- I
s.. �odz � � 4�0 —
AD�RESS �� C� �LL t i r
OF ,103 _ '
�- � � ' � IIVSF'�l. ! lUI�LI ■ I I � . . i
., .. _ - - - -- .-_ :--_ .;- �
�:�;�• ,. . ; Y� / t •
ns ctor �'' �?t �A-� .l �•1J.+ _ !: / :.. , --.. �, �.
.�_ _'__'-__.�_ __.._ v . '-° ^"' \ �, } . . . ,
Fotindation � �^ � �• --� �
r ��� �/
'=*x'�� ���� .!/ ) - . ... ' _ - . '_ _ _ ._ ._....� .
�.:a .- V ;' � . '� ' ' _ " _ ' ._ _
v b : , .- :. .` -_ : . _ ..
,... _ . . ' " ".
i . ._. . -. �:.�. 't �: `��1� . - -- - . .
Frame . �
�� ��. �- :f v _. . _ ' � -
:��--. 1/ �� �•
�� v •- . s ' _' . , _ _ . i
�; 'i -- � ° - �_- � --- - - - i
�_ _ �
€ -` -- - - -- . - -
1 '!`atFi and/or Watlboard ' `�� -� ��� ' �
�'__.-._ s.. ' i
'_� _ --- - �- . - — _ ,� '_ � _ _ _ .T.. T �, ...r).. ��C. ;� : _.s +
� _ ` . _ •I . , � . ,
. � _
""._'._ __ _'___ _ '_ _ ___' _ _'_ _ ____ — _ _
' '___—=r'_ �: _
zI't'J�, _./:/p� __ _ _' _' _. ____ " ' _-''�.,\;i
f% � -
_---�-- ��----- �------ -- - -
-- - - � .�` '� _'f` .. ' . .� - i ---- _;;--- - ,
r
�
--- ----- - ----------------------- �•; ____
� tes: '--- -- ---- ---- -------- '------- I
` F� = ?- 1 =r..�= - -.__ ' i . �.? _,__.. _�--_"__-°___'°'`�_y:;-_ _-°____,___ _-._ �
,i � - .�._-:� •. c : \`•� t .�_._, � I
---^4`_�,., '-' ���`�lt'� � f �i.�� -l qi) �/✓. �- !=t�11--- - i �U
' ii� �,?.Y�' �r^ F � I L -- ' - /,-:�� - � - '- - 1 � �-" i: -� � ,-� , i /�Tl.l . J 1` Z��
"_ � }f/a , v�i;�:,j_ �"I�� Jj�_%l'/,y'E=" .\:"a :�" � , l %
,e,�.` 1. -:l -_ . _.1 " . ��� '� ;
s . � _ � / �/', /Ji
�.." �,� - ^ _ ' _-_' _'__'_�'_'__'< _'_�_ "": ; __ fv _: i =_'"- !/ `J`�y'_'"
� ,�._ _ �.
t � " "_�i �! '" �n�PS ���� �
�i _ - .. .�`� %: � _ �:r,vi�ui .,ri- �'.f,L±.�-�' � _.. , r�=%� ------ , D-� fL''�
�� - _= r �--= ° ,Fi;' - � - �=1- - - - - �--�-- �-- � �
- , � v � t � . .t. _ '--- j"' �__ =_ ; °_°:°-.== t . : ��.tl�.
} �=-
� °�'"�� •-�- -_---_ -- --- - -_ - -° = -- _- "_-°v
' - -°- - _ -, _ =- - <<. � > ,
'r .._ - `'; ._ - - -��
r `
� " =_= - - -._ �.� . ' -'- - -- --- -- - - - _- '- �
_ -
-- --- -- �---•�_- --'--- -�-°--- -- --- - ------
, . . _ ....: - , .- . - _, . .
. - , _ . . • .:� - .,,� : -- � , ' .
�..
� -- - - -` - -- - -�.`- .. . . � , ' .
'-='-_=- ---- ---=-_=----- =--- - -- = -'-_- - --- - - - -----
- - ' -'- ----, -'- . - ... .� .° -- - -
-- � , - - :.� a.�=.=-._ ' - - ---.��
`. <= - _. , . .
. _ , . - t ' _
..;., .. .. . : `, _
-. -'_- - �
-' -�---'--- -�-- '_=--_------ -� -' -- =- =_ - �
- - - ---- --- - " ----- - - - - - -
- ----- -- --��'--.-- -----' --
.._ . _ _ ' _ '4 _ _
. _. ` ' . _ � . � . � _
. � _ � � �
_ � a�.� ...- ' � —�.� . .�.�1 . y ✓��.
� ' ' / — � � �. ' _
- ^✓
�. ___
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
� CONSENT OF ADJOIi�'II4'G PROPERTY O�VNERS �'OR A D D
NONCONFORMING USE PERrYIIT
We, the undersigned, owners of the property within 100 feet of the total conti�uous description of real esiate
otivned, purcha;ed, or sold by THE APPLICAIr`T within onz y�ear preceding the date of this petition
ackno���ledge that �ve have been presented with the follotivin�:
Acopyoftheapplicztionof �Q,�` `�" �D�� �C/������
(name of applicant)
to e;'1b! i>h a �_� l� �� 2
(proposed use)
located at: �� � l. Cc � L��n �u �-v`e. �-
(address of property)
requirin� a nonconformin� u;e permit, along with any relevant site plans, diagrams, or other
documenca�ion. ��'e eonsent to the approval of this appiication as it was esplained
to us by the applicant or his/her representative.
�
�
�OTE: Ail information on the upper portion of this application must be completed prior to obtainine
efigible signatures on this pe[ition.
na -�t�
•
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
s.
10.
12.
13.
24.
IS.
16.
17.
SUN RAX-BATTLECREEK•HTGHW OOD
�L4ZEL PARK Hfll�EN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
`VEST SIDE
DAYTON'S BLLTFF
PAI'i�iE-PHALEN
NORTH END
THO�l4AS•AALE.
SUMMIT-UI�IIVERSITY �
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE•MIDWAY �
ST. A?r'THOi3Y PARK
MERRIAM PARK-LEXIIr`GTON HA�iLINE-SNELLIhG H.aMLINE
hiACALESTER GTtOVELS.h'D
HIGHLAND
SU�,iMTT HiZd-
DOS�'TO�
CITTZ�N PAR7ICIPATION pLANNING DISZ Klc:ls
L_J
�
� ������� �����=5� 'Zy�
�
C0�10 DISTRIC7 70 P1 x° � ;�� „ ,��
� .
>- . . ,
-. .. .. . ....
- ...,. _-
� �_
_ -___.:_
_ = : ; `—
- - "�-- _ _-
Q'...._ .. _.. Q::- :::0`. O O '�_. .,' :Q =-:<0�.-�0- =0- . ' O ,: :
-,
_ _ _
_ ; Oi._ i :.... . ;. . . �; . .
�❑
;I:�". °.:.. ! ( :
� i � i
, .: . ;;: _ :; .:� ; ...; :;; �= _ : :_ ; '._.
� � .�== _.' :.:,
o o, o a�_ o. o o; o o i.o
� � �{, =q ,.
.
C'w\i Ol'�iA-!�-_�>" _
�io a o 0 0, ���.� o oko�a �o o�e
.��.� �I�IIt� ;!}
-- s�. - --:�
�
�
0
H �
�_ O
v
��oo�oo�000 L
� ' ?�
':
,�o�00000 J
�
�
�
�
i � ' � �
O O�Q�(� O O C)i
t .
i �
O,O O O�O O O ��
�
i �' ( i f
�i.�}OO�OO
�
po -y�
OfG1C
���H � s
Q
� • o ��O[�7
,�o�o �01� ���o�o�c
A _.
�o 'c� c� n � �? �
� o c�� o�o 0 0 0 0 °� (o�o��a���oio
n a�
APr LtCF,^:T�ef S�� SR��"` "`+ � LEG=ND
-�---
............--�, zoniny dis'ri��i Lroun�ay
PURPOSE. —
'� UATE � � � GiiTT/TT/�l subj=_C P:c�ery
iLE � ,' �
P\
YL��G. D'�S7 / tJ 1�1AP � � � O�B 12T;'j'
�� Q tu0 t2r1i:,
5� � j�'�*Q RUlliQl? f2 ^.ii'i
r- _"'_:
.
. . � co�: - -
g >.-. in:�_:' ��
:, v � y _.
•
.
�����
�� __ �� - - - -
Q� -��
" SeP p(y Ga.-0�'+t)i.�ricr �;r�' -
lli.trict 70 - C'vmc? Park Commn:�ily C��unCil
��_ – -- - — - -
_..—� _ , __ .. __.. .---- _ .. . .
Sept. 28, 1 y99
�
Planning Commission cio Nancy Homans
Department of PEll
1100 City Hail An�ex, 25 W. 4th St.
St. Paul, MPv 55102
Dear Ms. Homans and Commissioners:
Qn Oc�ober 14, 1999 the 7..oning Committee of the St. Paul
Planning Commission is scheduled to review a rezoning request for
885 W. California. The ownerc are Reverend Sam xnd Lori Anderson.
Reverend Anderson is rcyuetting a Special Conditional Use i'ermit for
this property. Although this house was built, and has been used, as a
singfe family dwelling, apparently the detign is such that it is
considered a duplex.
The Andersons' bought this housc in good faith as a single
family dwelling. They fiave paid a$S0. fine to Code Enfoccement and
5280. to apply for thi5 zoning change. The Andersons' prefer nat to
make the structural changes necded to bring their home into single
family compliancc. The neighbors around the homc have signed a
petition in fav�r of this change. The District 10 C�mmunity Council
has voted to recommend approval fot Rev. Andersons' request for a
SC�TP.
Sincerely,
�- y 1 ('" U
� `
Mar[y Crep
Communiry Dcvelopment Chair
Distric[ 10
LJ
f 5,5n Com« A�enae • S;. r'aul. blinc�etiot� SS I08 • Yho�c: 'r4d - 3SK9 • Pax� : - 6b:5
cNlaiJ. C'umulIXo�:i[if.COm
Tony Schaps 875 California Ave W D O_ ��
Saint Paui MN 55117
Ph: 651/ 488-1389
Tony@Schaps.com
November 12, 1999
To Saint Paul City Council
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing in support of Rev. Sam and I.ori Andersons' request to have the zoning
status of their home modified. I understand that they are requesting that their home be
granted duplex status with the stipulation that the property must be owner-occupied in
order for it to be used as a duplex. I further understand that they are requesting that this
zoning change be permanent and not terminate upon the sale of their home. I
support the Andersons in their request.
In addition, I would like to express my disappointment at the amount of trouble the City
and its inspector have given the Andersons. The Reverend and his wife are exactly the
kind of upstanding people that Saint Paul needs to attract to our neighborhoods, not
drive away with ridiculous bureaucracy, £'ines, and retaliation for possible errors made by
inspectors and buffders long prior to the Andersons' acquisition of the house. The City's
inspector created a problem here where none existed, and now this seems to me the only
fair solution.
Regards,
��� ��----
O b � �i,�
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CI'I`Y OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: January 19, 2000 (11:09ANI)
TO: Council President Bostrom, Council Members Blakey, Coleman, Harris, Benanav,
Reiter, Lantry
FROM: Peter Warner, CAO
RE: Consent Agenda Item No. 14, Resolution No. 00-43, Memorializing the
CounciPs decision to deny the nppeal of S. A. Anderson for a non-conforming
nse duplex located at 885 Californin.
Council members:
The purpose of this memo is to advise you that flie reasons stated in the above referenced resolution
overtuiziing the Planning Commission's decision to grant a non-conforming use permit aze slightly
different from those stated as the Council's basis for overtuming the decision. The stated reasons
in the resolution aze based upon the same facts but deal with a different legal analysis.
It is my advice that you adopt the reasons stated in resolution no. 00-43. Adopting its language has
exactly the same outcome as ariginally moved by the Council. However, the reasons stated in the
resolution make better legal sense when the facts before the Council cleazly demonstrated that the
dwelling had not been used as a duplex despite being configured in such a way that it could be so
used. The resolution notes that the dwelling cannot be used as a duplex and that the City can
continued to enforce the zoning code to insure that the dwelling will remain as a single family
dwelling.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. PW W
cc: I3ancy Homans, PED
oR����aL
RES�LUTI�N
CITY OF SA]NT PATL, MINNES�TA
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
��
2 WI�REAS, Samuel5. Anderson, in zoning file no. 99-240, made application under the
3 provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.102(i)(1) to the Saint Paul Planning Commission
4 [Planuiug Commission] for a non-conforming use germit to allow a duplex on properiy
5 commonly known as 885 California Avenue West and legally described as noted in the zoning
6 file; and
7
8 WI3EREAS, the Planning Commission's Zoning Committee conducted a public hearing
9 on October 14, 1999, after having provided notice to affected property owners, and submitted its
10 recommendation to the Flanning Com;nission. In resolution no. 99-65 dated October 22, 1999,
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
�2
?3
�
the Planning Cammission approved the non-canfornvng use, subject to the condition that the
subject property was owned and occupied by the applicant or the appIicant's spouse, based upon
the following fmdings and conditions:
The structure at 885 California Avenue West was constructed by Holiday Homes, Inc. in
1984. A buiiding pernut issued on July 17, 1984, indicates that the permit was issued for
the construction of a single family dweiling. Indeed, there aze three notations on the
permit indicating that it is to be used as a single family dwelling only. The plans
accompanying the permit application have been destroyed and are therefare not available
far review.
2. The applicant purchased the home in 1997 and has not altered it since that time. A
neighbor has submitted a letter for the file indicating that the present structure has been in
existence continuously for a period of at least ten years and has not been aitered. On
September 16, 1998, the agpiicant received a notice from a zoning inspector from the
City's Department of License, Inspections and Environmeatal Pratection (ZIEP)
indicafing that a complaint had been received alleging that the property was being used
illegally as a duplex. After an inspecfion on October 6"' (1998) the inspector told the
applicant that while there was no evidence of a second household, the structtxre is
considered an illegal duplex and that (the applicant) would haue to remove a kitchen, a
bathroom or the inside door leading into the lower level in order to comply with the
City's codes. His other option was to appiy far legal non-conforming status as a duplex.
On Febil�ary 14, 1449, the applicant, after having spoken with the home's builder who
indicated that the structure had not been altered�since it was constructed, wrote to the
zoning inspectar indicating that he felt he was in compliance with the City's code since
he was using the structure as a single family home and it had not been altered since its
construction.
�9
Council File # DO —�F3
Gteen Sheet #E Ino 3tro
4. On July 8, 1999, a citation was issued for an°illegal duplex in a single family zoning O o-�l S
district," and the appiicant was ordered to appear in Housing Court on August 27, 1999.
In an agreement with the prosecutor - to avoid potentially being found guilty of a
misdemeanor and fined $700 - the applicant agreed to plead guilry to a petty
misdemeanor, pay $50 of a$200 fine and apply for a non-conforming use percnit within
30 days.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1$
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
i9
FO
2
5. § 621 �2(i)¢) of the Zoning Code provides that the Planning Commission may grant legal
non-confonning status to the use of structures wluch fail to meet the standards of §
62102 $ upon making a serious of nine findings. The findings and the applicanYs ability
to meet them are as follows:
1. The use occurs entirely within an e�cisting structure. This condition is met. No
expansion of the e�sting structure is proposed.
The use is similaz to other uses pernutted within the district. This condition is
met. From all exterior appearances, the structure is a single family home, newer
but similar to all the other homes on the block. The adjacent property to the east
is an olderlegaily non-conforming duplex.
The use has been in existence confinuously for a period of at least ten years prior
to the date of the application. The condition is met. The evidence is that the
shucture was built in 1984 and the builder has indicated that it was built as it is
today. A neighbor has submitted a letter for the record indicating that the present
structure has not been altered and has been in continuous use since at least 1989.
4. The off street parking is adequate to serve the use. This condition is met. The
structure is served by two caz gazage and an off street driveway that could
accommodate an additional two cars. Newly constructed two family homes are
required to provide three spaces.
5. Hazdship would result if the use were discontinued. The applicant purchased the
home as it is today, valuing the second kitchen for entertaining related to his job
as a pastor. The doar between the two levels allows his small household to
conserve heat during those times when the downstairs is not in use. Requiring him
to remove either of these two elements would not only represent a hazdship for
him, but would have no impact on the appearance of the structure or how it relates
to the surrounding neighborhood.
6. Rezoning the property would result in spot zoning or zoning inappropriate to
surrounding land uses. This condirion is met. The shucture is located on a mid
block lot surrounded on all sides by lots zoned R-3, single family. To re-zone this
properiy to RT-1, to accommodate a duplex, would create a spot zone.
The use will not be detrimental to the e�sting character of development in the
imtnediate neighborhood or endanger the public heaith, safety or general welfare.
This condifion is met. The azea is a low density residenrial environment with
lazger lots that characterize standard city blocks. Acknowledging that the
Page 2 of 5
G
0
6
7
8
9
1Q
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2b
27
28
29
30
il
t2
ao-y 3
applicant has no plans to establish a second unit in the structure, the addition of
one unit to the area would not result in significant additional traffic, congestion or
burden on City services. Because the azea is fully deveIoped and nothing about
the ea�teriar of the structure is expected to change, there should be virtually no
impact on the e�sting character of development in the immediate neighborhood.
8. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Tlvs condition is met. The
Saint Paul plan for housing calls for creative mechanisms for adding units to
owner occupied structutes.
4. A notarized petition of two-thirds of the properry owners within 100 feet of the
properry has been submitted stating their support for the use. This condition is
met. Of the eleven owners of the properiy within 100 feet of the applicant's
property, eight, constituting the required two-thirds, signed a consent petition
submitted with the application.
6. The Planning Commission on July 17, 1992, adopted guidelines for staff making
recommendations on applications for non-conforming use permits related to conversions
of single family homes and duplexes. The guidelines and the applicant's ability to meet
them are as foilows:
Lots size of at least 5,000 sq. 8. with a lot width or front footage of 40 ft. This
guideline is met. The lot area is 6,173 sq. ft. with a front footage of 71 ft.
2. Gross living area after complerion of duplex conversion of at least 1,800 sq. ft. for
the two units. The guideline is not met. The square footage of the structure is
1,768 sq. ft., 32 sq. ft. shy of the gtzideiine. Staff has determined that, because of
the unusual circumstances and the narrow difference between the guideline and
the actual square footage, the difference does not represent sufficient grounds to
recommend denial of the applicarion.
Three off street pazking spaces (non-stacked) are prefened; two spaces are the
required minimum. A site plan showing improved parking space must be
provided. The guideline is met. The structure is served by a detached two car
gazage.
4. All remodeling work for the duplex conversion is on the inside of the structure.
This guideline is met. No remodeling work is planned.
>. The proposed duplex structure is located in a mixed density neighborhood, not a
homogeneous single family azea or in an area where duplexes and triplexes aze
already concentrated w the point of congesting neighborhood streets. The
guideline is met. The neighborhood property is a legally non-conforming duplex
and there aze three two-family structures on the north side of the block. They do
not, however, represent a concentration or source of traffic congestion.
§ 62.102(i) pravides, in part, that the Flauning Commission in appraving non-conforming
use permits may ailow a non-conforming use for a specified period of tnne and then
Page 3 of 5
00 -�i 3
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
require its removal by attaching an expiration date to the permit if the commissian makes
three findings. The findings and the commission's ability to make them are as follows:
Termi.nation of the non-conforxning use would cause significant hardship. This
finding is met as indicated in fmding 4.5 above.
2. Pernutting the non-canforming use for a period of time will facilitate the
transition to a confornling use. This finding is met. A1lowing the current ownex
to use the property as he purchased it, requiring that futute owners make the
alterations required by the zoning administrator to insure its future use as a single
family home, wiIl facilitate such a ttansition.
3. Permitting the non-conforming use for a period of time is consistent with the
public health, safety, comfort, morals and weifaze. This fmding is met as
indicated in fmding 4.7 above.
WI�REAS, pursaant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Samuel
S. Anderson duly filed with the Ciry Cierk an appeal from the determination made by the
Plauning Commission, requesting that a hearing ba held before the Ciry Council for the purpose
of considering the actions taken by the said commision; and
23 WI3EREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ b4.20b - 64.208 and
24 upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on
25 December 8, 1999, where a11 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and
2b
27
28
?g
30
31
;2
WI�REAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the
application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the zoning committee and of
the planning commission, does hereby;
RESOLVE, to reverse the decision of the planning commission in this matter based on
the following:
The Councii, is permitted, under authority provided in Saint Paul Legislative Code §
64.207 to make such determinations and orders as are necessary in zoning matters.
2. The Council fmds, based upon its review of the record, that it was unnecessary to make a
non-conforming use permit determination in this matter. The record shows no evidence
that the subject structure was used by the present occupant as a duplex despite the fact
that the structure is configured to allow use of the structure as a duplex. Given that the
structure is presently used, as represented by the present occupant, only in furtherance of
the occupant's pastoral vocations there was no need to legitimize the establishment of
duplex via a non-conforming use permit deternvnation.
3. The Council finds that the subject structure, given its configuration, could be used as a
duplex but notes that the subject properiy is zoned for single family use only and that any
use of the structure as a duplex, by anyone including the applicant, would constitute a
violation of the zoning code and that the City would be able to enforce the zoning code
against any violator.
Page 4 of 5
oo-��
a
0
10
11
12
13
14
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Samuel S. Anderson be and is
hereby granted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the fees to be refunded as determined by the
planniug comtnission should be refunded at this time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shail mail a copy of this resolution
to Samuel S. Anderson, the Zaning Administrator, and the Planning Commission; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shali be kept on file in the
offices of the Plamiiug Administrator and the Zoning Administrator to inform any future
interested party that the subject structure, despite its configuration, is legally zoned for single
family use only.
.dopted by Council: Date ]�T����
doptio Certified by Covnci Secretasy
• _ "'i�� -�— l •
proved by ma Date �.�il Z�( 2��1
Requested by Department of:
Hy:
Form Appr by City At[omey
8 ,. : ��✓��-- I-lo-oo
Approved by Mayor for Submission [o Council
�
GREEN SHEET
���
70TAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
Memorializing the decision of the City Council on December 8, 1999,denying the appeal of
Samuel S. Anderson to a decision o£ the Planning Commission to atCach a condition to a Non-
conforming Use Permit for a duplex at 885 West Cali£ornia Avenue that the permit is valid o
so long as the property is owned and occupied by Samuel S. Anderson or his spouse.
o-v
PLANNING CAMMISSION
C16 COMMLTfEE
CIVIL SERVICE CAMM{S:
ho -4�
No 1 v;;3�0
��
� ❑ �.,,�, ❑ ��
❑..�,�,� ❑..�.,�a
❑wmeroRwtmnwrt� ❑
(CLJP All �OCA'[IONS FOR SIGNANRE)
Has thie pe�soNfirm em varNed under a contraU torMis depaNneM7
YES No
Has Mie pmadfim� evw been n cKY empcv��
VFS NO
DaesUxs PersaNF�n Poaeeas a slall nat � UY �+Y curteM titY �PbY��
YES NO
la tltie pcvaonlfi�m atarpetM vCndaYt
YES NO
7
coarraEVEnue euooertv �aRttB oriq
SOURCE
ACTNI7Y NUMBER
m
YES NO
i nrs.�:n "...�..Lil�r".a��,
OFFICE OF TI� CITY ATTORNEY
Clay[onM Robinson, Jr., CiryAttorney ()O �t{3
CIT`Y OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Civil Division
400 City Hall
IS West KeUogg Blvd
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Te lephane: 651 266-871 Q
F¢csfmile: 651298-5619
J1T1U21}' 11 � Z��Q
Nancy Anderson
Councii Secretary
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
5t. Pau1, MN 55102
Re: Appeal of Samuel S. Anderson
Zoning Resolution 99-240
Public Hearing Date: December 8, 1499
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find the signed original Resolufion memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul
CiTy Council of December S, 1999, to reverse the decision of the Plamiing Commission in the
above-enritled matter.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
� ��w�v�--�
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attorney
PWWfrmb
Enclosure
/���,�..
�-
td o�(•l �� �. K� %Md( ta.� w+ ��n �.r f� c �4{�
iT T^L LOV.�1G� ` �S4V\w� � LalHfC�7� G� y,.�(�„ �.
t �
(� �. o�w P%,�` `�i�
DEPARTMENI' OF PLANNING
& ECONO�LfICDEVELOPMEN7'
Brian Sweeney, Interim D�reclor
CIT'� OF SAIN I' PAUL
Narm Colem¢n, Mayor
November 23, 1999
3vSs. Nancy Anderson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
�
25 West Pounh Srreet Te[ephone: 651-266-6655
Saint Paul, MN 5510? Facs�mlle: 651-228-3314
po-Y3
a•�:;`:y" ;'���".�.. .,. °`�°
�y '� �
i Yi �
, � s ,� � ����
I would like to confirm that a public hearing befare the Caty Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
December 8, 1999, for the fo]lowing appeal of a Planning Commission decision:
Appellant: Samuei S. Anderson
File Number: Appeal of file #99-2A0
Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision to attach a condition to a Nonconformmg
Use Permit for a duplex at 885 West California that the permit is valid only so long as
the property is owned and occupied by Samuel S. Anderson or his spouse.
Address: 885 West California
Legal Description of Property: See file
Previous Action:
Zoning Committee Recommendahon: Approval; vote: unanimous; Octobex 14, 1999
Plannmg Commission Decision: Approval; vote: unanimous, October 22, 1999
My undexstanding is that this pubhc hearing request will appeax on the agenda fox the December l, 1999
City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing m the Saint Paul Legai Ledger.
Please call me at 266-6557 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
������
Nancy Homans
City Planner
cc: File #99116459
Paul Dubruiel, PBD
Carol Martineau, PED
Wendy Lane, LIEP
Samuel S. Anderson
•�msrxuN•
NOTICE OF PUBLIC BF.ARING �
The Saint Faul City Council will conduct
a public hearing on Wedn�esday, December..
8, 1999, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Covncii
Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall-
Courthouse, to consider the appeaY of
Samuel S. Anderson to a decision of the
Planning ,Commission.to attach a
conditton to a Nonconforming Use Permit
for a duplex at 885 West California
Avenue Yhat the permit is valid only so
long as the property is owned and
occupied by Samuel S. Anderson or his
spouse.
Dated:November23;1999 - -
NANCY.tYNDERSON -
AssisTant LYty Councti Secretary
" (Nov.261 '• �
_�=_===ST.PAiII.LEGALLED6ER=�=�=_: `
a
�
`ovember 30, 1999
czr� oF sa�rrr Pauz.
A'o�m Colemnn, bfn}�ar
Ms. I`�ancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minneeota 55102
RE: Zoning File #99116459
City Counci] Hearing:
DEPARTMENT OF PLAt�i iNG
& ECONOMIC DEVELOP�fENT
Brian SweEnfy, Direcfor f� O ���
✓
15 WestFourth Street Telephone: 6/2-?66-6565
SnintPnuf,MN55/02 Fncsimde6l?-2?833l4
SAMUEL S. ANDERSON
December 8, 1999, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal of a planning commission decision to attach a condition to a Nonconforming Use Permit for
a duplex at S85 West Califomia that the permit is valid only so long as the property is owned and occupied by
Samuel S. Anderson orhis spouse.
PLANNING COMMISSIOi�` ACTION: Approval with conditions; Unanimous
ZONING COMMITTEE ACTION: Approval with conditions; 6-0
� STAFF RECOMMENDATIO�: Approval
SUPPORT: One person spoke in support of the non-conforming use permii, but did noi address the condition.
OPPOSITION: No one spoke in opposition to the non-conformmg use permit.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
•
SAMUEL S. ANDERSON has appealed the decision of the Saint Pau] Planning Commission to attach a
condition to the non-conforming use permit they granted him for his property at 885 �Vest Califomia. The
zonm� committee held a public heanng on the application on October 14, 1999. The applicant addressed the
committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted unanimously to grant him the nonconforming
use permit to allow him to use his structure as a duplex, but added a condition that the permit would be vatid only
so long as the property is o�vned and occupied by Samuel S. Anderson or his spouse. The Saint Paul Plannmg
Commiss�on upheld the committee's recommendation on a unanimous vote on October 22, 1999. The applicant
is appealmg to have the condition either removed from the permit or modified to require that the structure be
owmer-occupied if it is used as a duplex.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 8, 1999. Please notify me if any member
of the City Councll wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sin rely,
Lawzence Soderho]m
Planning Administrator
Attachments
cc: City Council members
APPL[CATION FOR APPEAL
� ,( 1'l �{ D¢partment aJPlanning and Economic Dev¢Iopmenr
�n��� Zoning Sectior:
6w�i
- - 1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
, _. �c?-�-13
Zaning c� .iis a ty
Fite na._ � i 1 i�,�. � L
�$e I S!J —
'Ier�tative.#�earing BatQ: °
� � �. � e� �e,�
Name h;e-�` .S'Frrriv�. S 1-�i✓-��Rsc�L�
Address ��' J �' A-� t t0 f. !L� � A R o'_. . ay/
City-�7� �A4'+- St.11 �Zip �� �� 7 Daytime phone�'�':�-7/ 77 ',
PROPERTY Zoning File Nan
LOCAT{ON Address/Locatio
•
/�
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
` Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section�, Paragreph � of the 2oning Code, to
�
appeal a decision made by the�'/Cc1��1)hrt C�}ry-�r'
on �/t?7!�{3�/" o�oZ � Fife number:
(date of decisionJ
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error i� any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
S« c� -t�-�, �. h e� i� f f�.,^
����
�5
` � Attach additionat sheet if
Applicant's
Date ' � �� `�`J City agent i_�__�
�tZ°���
Rev. Sam & Lor� Anderson
885 Califom�a Ave-, W.
$ Pau1.MN 5571J
• November 12, 1999
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
1100 Ciry Hali Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ciry Councii:
Thank you for taking the time to consider my piight. My wife and 1 purchased our home a little over iwo
years ago and as you can see by the fiie that accompanies this appeal, much of that time has been
spent dealing with a"problem" that we were not aware of when we moved in nor contributed to since
that time.
A brief summary of the events;
1 We received a Ietter stating that there had been a comptaint and that we wouid be
inspected.
2. A city inspector visited our home and informed us that it was an illegai duplex in spite of
the fact that we had never used it as a dupiex nor had any plans to do so.
• 3. We were initialiy told we would have to remove the basement bathroom or remove the
door at the bottom of ihe staircase to bring the home into compliance. Later we were told
we would be allowed to remove the door and frame only if we signed something t beiieve
was referred to as a"deed restriction" document stating that it wouid never be used as a
duplex.
4. I informed the inspector that the removal of the door wouid be unaccaptab{e because it
wouid make the basement so cold in the winter that we wouldn't even be abie to sit
downstairs and entertain or watch N.
5. i was toid about the option to appiy for a"non-conforming use" permit. To begin the
process i traced my Torrents back to the original ow�erlbuilder and asked how the home
was constructed. i described its current condition and was told that this was the way the
home had been built and approved.
6. After d'+scovering that the home had been approved this way, we wrote a letter to the
inspector asserting these facts along with the already estabiished knowledge that we had
not used the home illegally.
7. Severaf months later we received a citation from the city inspector in the maii asserting
that we were guilty of a misdemeanor for having a dupiex in a single-family zoned part of
the city and ordered to appear in housing court
8. 1 appeared in court in argued my case to the prosecutor. He informed me that if i was
unwilling to remove the door that I would have to apply for the permit. Ultimately he
pieaded my citation down to a petty misdemeanor, was fined 550.00 and ordered to appiy
for the permit within 30 days.
�o -'��
• Page 2
November 12, 1999
9. We gathered the signatures, fiiled out the forms, wrote out our check, and submitted our
application for the "non�onforming use" permit.
10. My neighborhood planning
supported our application.
office, after considering <
recommended its passage.
committee, as well as our district 10 councii, approved and
My neighbors af( s�pported our appiicatio� and the zoning
I of the options along with council from a city attomey,
11. At the hearing of the Zoning Commission several of the committee members expressed
concems that made a great deal of sense. Their primary concem seemed to be tfie fact
that this permit wouid appiy not only to my wife and myself, but also to any future owners
of fhe property. And whife we may have no intention of uti(izing our home as a dupiex, fhis
could open the door for the home to be purchased by an investor who would not live in the
home and who may or may not care for the property. As a resu(t of this discussion the
decision was made to approve the permit, but oNy as long as Lori and i remained the
owners. The permit would expire as soon as we sold the home.
12. This has had an unfortunate and perhaps unforesean consequence. We are now faced
with a siYUalion where, upon the sa(e of our fiome and the subsequent expiration of
the "nonconfortning use" permit, 885 California Avenue West wiU not be legal
eiYher as a single family home or as a dupiex. No one in his or her right mind would
ever purchase such a property.
We believe that there may be a better solution to an already very confusing and frustrating situation. If
conditions can be attached to "non-conforming use" permits such as iYs termination �pon the safe of
the home, then why not require fhat tf�e home must be owner-occupied in order for fhe it to 6e used as
a Iegal duplex, I have spoken to several of my neighbors and they have expressed their ful! support of
this proposal as tfiey were of it becoming an unconditiona( dupiex. This wouid:
1. Aqow the home to be used as a Iegal singie-family home without placing undue hardship
upon the owners.
2. Insure that if the home would not be purchased merely as an invesfinenf as we(! as protect
the neighbors and neigh6orhood from possibie problems sometimes associated with non-
owner occupied properties
3. Enabie my wife and myseff to eventuafiy seli tfie home without it becoming immediately
iilegal upon its sale.
4. Protect any future owners from similar comp(ications
5. Bring an end to this whole situation,
Please forgive me for appealing the decision of the Zoning/Pianning Commissions end bothering ihe
City Council with this issue, b�t as you can see, this matter has caused considerable anxiety and
frustration over the past 14 months for two first fime homeow�ers who simpiy want to own and be able
to se1! a tegai properry in the city of Saint Paui.
Sincerely,
r l%' �r (�
Rev. Samuei S. Anderson
Owner, 885 Caiifornia Avenue West
•
•
-
�r� -��
� city of saint paut
planning commission resolution
�Ie number 99-65
date October 22 , 1949
WHEREAS, SAMUEL S. ANDERSON, file # 99-240, has appiied for a Nonconforming Use
Permit under the provisions of Section 62.102O(1) of the Saint Paui Legislative Code, to allow
far a duplex on property located at 885 CALIFORNIA AVE W, legal{y described in the file; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on Qctober 14, 1999, heid a
public hearing at which ail persons prssent were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to
said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Pau!
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Pianning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its
Zoning Committee at the public hearing, as substantialiy reflected in the minutes, made the
foliowing findings of fact:
1. The structure at 885 Cafifomia Avenue, West was constructed by Holiday Homes, Inc. in
1984. A buiiding permit issued on Juiy 17, 19&4 indicates that the permit was issued for
• the construction of a"Single Family Dweiling". indeed, there are three notations on the
permit indicating that it is to be used as a"sing{e family dwelling oniy."
The plans accompanying the permit application have been destroyed and are, therefore,
not avaiia6le for review.
2. The applicant purchased the home in 1997 and has not aitered ii since that time A
�eighbor has submitted a letter for the file indicating that the present structure has been in
existence continuously for a period of at least ten years and has not been altered.
3. Qn September 16, 1998, the applicant received a notice from a zoning inspector from the
City's Department of License, inspections and Environmentaf Protection (LIEP) indicating
that a complaint had been received alleging that the property was being used iilegally as a
duplex. After an inspection on October 6, the inspector tofd the applicant that, whiie there
was no evidence of a second househoid, the structure is considered an iAegal duplex and
that he woufd have to remove a kitchen, a bathroom or the inside door leading into the
lower Ievel in order to compiy with the City's codes. His other option was to apply for fegal
nonconforming status as a duplex.
maved by Gervais
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
Zoning File #99-240
Page Two of Resolution
On February 94, 999g, the appiicant, after having spoken with the home's builder who
indicated that the structure had not been altered since it was constructed, wrote to the
zoning inspector indicating that he felt he was in compliance with tF�e City's code since he
was using the structure as a single family home and it had not been alfered since its
construction.
On July 8, 1999 a cifafion was issued for an "iliegai duplex in a singte family zoning
district," and the applicant was ordered fo appear in Housing Couft on August 27, 1999, in
an agreement with the prosecutor--to avoid potentialty being found guiity of a misdemeanor
and fined S700--the applicant agreed to plead guilty to a petfy misdemeanor, pay $50 of a
$200 fine and appiy for a Non-conforming Use Permit within 30 days.
4. Sec. 62.102(i)(1) of the zoning code provides tF�at the Planning Commission may grant
(egal nonco�forming status to the use of structures which faif to meet the standards of
section 62.102(b) upon making a series of nine findings. The findings and the applicant's
ability to meef them are as follows:
The use occurs entirely wrthin an existing structure.
This condifion is met. No expansion af the existing structure is proposed.
•
Z. The use is similar to other uses permitted within the district. .
This condition is met. �rom aii e�erior appearances, this structure is a single family
home, newer but simiiar to a!I the other homes on the block. The adjacent property
to the east is an older legaliy non-conforming dup(ex.
3. The use has been in existence contirruousty for a period of at least ten {10) years
prior to the dafe of fhe application.
This condition is met. The evidence is that the structure was built in 1984 and the
builder has indicafed thaf it was built as it is today. A neighbor has submitted a latter
for the record indicating that the present structure has not been aitered and has been
in continuous use since at least 1989.
4. The o(f-street parking is adequafe to serve the use.
This condition is met. The structure is served by a fwo-car garage and an off-street
driveway that could accommodate an additional two cars. Newly constructed two-
family homes are required to provide three spaces.
5. Nardship would result if the use �vere drscantinued.
The applicant purchased the home as it is today, valuing the sscond kitch2n for
entertaining related to his jab as a pastor. The door 6etween the two levels a(lows his
smaii household to conserve heat aur(ng those times wnen the downsiairs is noi in
use. R=quiring him to remove either of those two elements would not only represent
a hardship for him, but would have no impact on the appearance of the s'r�cture or
how it relates to the surrounding neighborhood.
�O —`��
• Zoning File #99-240
Page Three of Resolution
fi. Rezoning the property wou/d result in °spoY' zoning or a zo�ing i�app�opriate to
surrounding land uses.
This condition is met. The structure is �ocated on a mid-block !ot surrounded o� a�(
sides by lots zoned R-3, Single Family. To rezone this property to RT-1, which would
accommodate a duplex, would create a"spot zone."
7. The use will nof be detrimenfal to fhe exisfing characte� of development rn the
immediafe neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety o� genera/ welfare.
l"his condition is met. The area is a low density residential environment with larger
lots than characterize standard city blocks. Acknowledging that the applicant has no
plans to establish a second unit in the structure, the addition of one unit to the area
wouid not result in signifcant additional traffic, congestion, or burden on City
services. Because the area is fuliy developed and nothing about the exterior of the
structure is expected to change, there should be virtualiy no impact on the exisfing
character of development in the immediate neighborhood.
8. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
This condition is met. The Sarnt Pau! Plan for Housing calis for creative mechanisms
� for adding units to owner occupied structures.
9. A notarized pefition of two-thirds of the property owners withrn one hundred (100 feet)
of the property has been submrtted stating their support for the use.
This condition is met Of the eleven owners with property within 100 feet of the
applicant's property, eight, constituting the required two thirds, signed a consent
petition submitted with the appiication and attached to this report.
5. The Pianning Commission on July 17, 1992, adopted guidelines for staff making
recommendations on app{ications for nonconforming use permits refated to conversions of
single family homes to dupfexes. The guidelines and the applicanYs ability to meet them
are as foilows:
Lot size of at /east 5000 square feet with a/ot widfh or front footage of 40 feet.
The guideline is met. The lot area is 6173 square feet with a front footage of 7'f feet.
2. Grass living area, after complefion of duplex conversron of af least 9800 square feet
for fhe two units.
The guideiine is not met. The square footage of the structure is 1768 square feet, 32
square ieet shy of the guid2line. Stafr has d2termined iha't, bzcaus2 of ine unusual
circumstances and the nasrow difierence 6etween the guideU�e and the actual
, square footage the difrerence does not represent sufricient gro�nds to recommend
denial o` t�e application
Zoning File #99-240
Page Four of Resolution
3. Three o(f streef parking spaces (non-stacked) are preferred; two spaces are the
requrred minimum. A site p/an showing improved parking spaces must be provided.
The guideiine is met. The structure is served by a detached two-car garage.
4. A!1 remodeling work for the duplex conversion is on the inside of the structure.
The guideline is met. No remodeling work is planned.
5. The proposed duplex structure rs located in a mixed density neighborhood, not a
homogenous single famrly area orin an area tivhere duplexes and triplexes are
already concentrated to the point of congesting neighborhood streets.
The guideline is met. The neighboring property is a tegaliy nonconforming duplex
and there are three two-family structures on the north side of the block. They do not,
however, represent a concentration or source of traffic congestion.
6. Section 62.iQ2(i) provides, in part, that the pianning commission in approving non-
conforming use permits may allow a nonconforming use for a specified period of time and
then require its removai by attaching an expiration date to the permit if the commission
makes fhree findings. The findings and the commission's ability fo make them are as
iollows:
Termi�ation of the nonconforming use...would cause significanf hardship.
2.
3.
This finding is met as indicated in finding 4.5. above.
Permifting fhe nonconforming use for a period of time will facilitate fhe transition to a
conforming use.
This finding is met. AIlowing the current owner to use the prop=rty as he purchased
it, but requiring that future o�vners make the alterations required by the zoning
administrator to ensure its future use as a single famify home, wi(f faci(itate sucfi a
transition.
Permit[ing fhe non-conforming use for a period of time is consistent with the public
heatth, safety, comfort, morals and welfare.
This finding is met as indicated in finding 4.7, above.
fVOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RE50LVED, by the Saint Pau( Planning Commission, that under
the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the appiication for a Nonconforming Use Permit to
allow a dupiex at 885 CALIFORNIA AVE WEST is hereby approved and shall be valid so long
as the property is owned and occupied by the applicant, Samu21 S. And=rson, or his spouse;
a �d
�
r1
�J
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Saint Paul should r2`und to Samuel S. Anderson -
his permit application iee oi S28D.00.
00 -`��
•
Saint Paul PIanning Commissian
Cify Ha11 Conference Cenfer
1� Ke]logg Boulevard West
A meeting of che Pla�nin� Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, October 22, 1949, at
830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Duarte, Faricy, Geisser, Morton and Nordin and Messrs.
Present: Corbey, Dandrea, Fotsch, Gervais, Csordon, Kong, Kramer, Mardelt and Shakir.
Commissioners Mmes. *Engh and *McCall and Messrs. *Field, *Johnson, *Margulies, *No�vlin
Absent:
*Excused
�
IJ
Afso Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Tom Harren, Donna Drummond,
Iv'ancy Frick, Nancy Homans, Allen Lovejoy, Larry Soderholm, Joel Spoonheim,
Ailan Torstenson and James Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic
Deve(opment staff; Tom Beach, Office of License, Inspections and Environmental
Protection; and Mike Klassen, Department of Public Works.
I.
II.
III.
IV
Approcal of NIinutes of October 8, 1999
MOTION: Conrn:issioner Gorrlon nroved approva! of tke n:inutes ojOctober 8, I999;
Contnrissioner Martle!! secondetl tl�e molior¢ whiclt carrietl «narzimously on a voice vote.
Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton announced that the semi�ar for next Friday, October 29, 1999 wilf be�in at 830
a.m. in Room 4Q of the Cih� Hall Conference Center.
Commissioner Dandrea invitzd Commission members to fonvard questions about thz upcomin�
seminar to him. Interestin� speakers have been lined-up.
Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Ford pointed out that a pro�ram for the seminar is at each commissioner's place this
momine. A si�n-up sheet �vill be circulated a�ain.
Community Foram on Light Rail Transit in the Central Corridor
Chair Morton read an introduction to thz forum.
Mr. Ford stated that reQionally, there is some momentum for a tisht rail s}'stem a ith some
fundin!� in place for 1nd acti� e plannine and eneineerin; �cork to consvuct the Hia�catha Lin:.
Thz Legi;lature asked the \letropolitan Couacil to produce earl} next tiear a ne« plan for
capacity. Also, city and county roads are going to cost behveen $200-$300 million to �
espand behveen now and 2002. We have to keep those kinds of cost in mind:vhen we arz
thinking about �vhedier �ae want to build lighi rail, busva}�s; whether we want to make
major e�cpenditures is alternatives to the car. From havina tearned about and ridden light
rai! i�� a number of cities around the country, she beGeves that the Central Corridor project
has the potential to be one of the most successfu( light rail lines in the coantry. It is alr�ady
a major transportation corridor with very successfuf bus service, atthough it's very slow.
This tine cvitt connect t�co major downtowns, and there is no other s}stem in the country
t(�at does that. In addition, it will connect a major universiry�. Because of chose reasons is
also have wonderful economic development potential.
Ron �Villiams, 779 Clayland Street, addressed the Commission o� behalf of the Sierra Ctub.
He has a dream that his SuperSaver bus card will turn into a SuperSa��er LRT card. He
thinks that what he reads in the newspapers about LR"[' being an e�periment is ludicrous.
LRT has been in use for up to fifty years in cities in this country and al! over the warld.
However, it's not automatic tl�at if an LRT line is put down, it will «ork for the best, aad we
are here today to help make it worh for the best for the City of Saint Pau1. The Centrai
Corridor is the prioriry over die airport or downtown afternaiives foc Saiat Paul today, and
Uni��ersity Ave��ue should be given the edee over the I-94 option. Project plannin„ design
and construction schedulin� must proceed �vith a goal of preservine the vitatity ofthe
hlidway as a nei�hborhood and a marketplace and not turn into a deserted transic corridor.
Tltis means protecting and preserving local bi�sinesses by providing for parking, continuing
frequent local bus service, and desi�nin� freqirent feeder buslines at close intenals. LRT is
for local as well as for interurban traffic. Major considerations in dzcerminina the best Saint
Pauf LRT al[ernaiives are: I) the altemative that promises the most ridership, the one thaT �
gets people out of their cars the most; and 2} the alternative that iend> itse(f to more dense
development iz� the urban corridor thi�s diminishing izrban spra��L One part ofthe Sierra
Club's North Star c6apter of poticy on LRT in 1998 says
��'ork to zdlieve more sustainable gro��th patterns «ith an emphasis on a more compact
urban forum b} promotina infill development and decelopment alonQ Itiah, quatity
public transit corridors. �
Chair Morton thanked everyorte for their inpt�t It ��il! be considered b� t(ie Committee and
Canmission and sent on to the City Council.
V. Zoning Committee
�� �99-240 Samuel S Anderson - Nonconformin� use permit to a(lotiti a duples at 885 California
`' Avenue tiVest benveen Avon and Victoria (Nancy Homans, 266-6557).
MOTIO\ Conunissioner Ger��r�is ixoved approcal wit/r corzditions of tlte reqrrestetl
nonconfor»:ina use pern:it ta a!/orv a duplex at 835 California Aveetue ii�est berween Avon
and Yictoria_
Commissioner Kramer stated that the Zoning Committee added a condi:ion tliat thi; property
could be used as a duple� as fona as it «ti oe�'ned "and occupied" b}' tl:z current o«nzr. The
-
ao -�t�
� simation is that this property is not really a duples but city regulations require it to be
categorized as a duplex. The o�vner doesn't want it to be a duples, but in order for him to keep
an interior door and a second kitchen, it requires a duples status. Ttie words "and occupied"
should �o benveen the words "owned" aod "by the applicant" in the last sentence of the
resotution. Chair Morton reca{!ed 2hat was discussed by committee and should be part of
resohition.
Commissioner Nordin asked ��fiat happens �vhen the current owner sells the property. Chaic
vlorton rzplied that �vhen he sells the property, it becomes a single family, and the door �vi1!
need to be removed or they can reapply for a permit.
Tlre motion ort tlte floor ta approve with conclitior:s the re�uested nonconformirrg use permit
to a!(ow a duplex nt 88� California Avenue West betwee3: Avaa artd Victoria cmried
tu:anirnously or: a vaice vate.
k94-253 Canadiaa Pacific Railroad - Special condition use permit to allow the removal and
replacement of fill in the river corridor: ercavation and relocation on the site of approximately
2�,000 cubic yards of material and backfill cer[ain areas that have been escavated at 80D Pig's
Eye Lake Road (1�'ancy Frick, 266-6554).
MOTION: Co�r:r�:issioner Gervais moved approva! with coftditiorts of ihe regarested specia!
co�r�li[io�r rrse permit to a!lorv tlre renrovn! and repl�rcenren? of frll in tke river corridor:
excaration �uul relocalion o�t the site of approxintately 20,000 cubic yards oJn�aterial anrt
bacb�ll certtrin areas thnt have been ercavatetl nt 800 Pig's Eye Lal�e Road w/ticG carried
� emanimously o�r a voice vole.
�99-25� Ciri' of St. Paul Parls and Recreation - Special condition use permit to build a
bandstand on Raspberry Island s east end (Larry Soderholm, 266-6575).
NIOTIQI: Conrmissioner Gervais moved approva! with conditions ojthe requested special
condition use perntit to build « baridstarid a! Raspberry Islartd's east eud whiclt carried
tutaieinmusly o�: a voice vote.
#99-356 US �Vest Wireless - Special condition use permit to aHow a cellular teiephone anienna
to be installed in the Oxford Street ri�ht-of-way �4est side bzttveen Concordia and Carroll (Allan
Torstensan, 266-6�79).
Commissioner Gervais stated ihat this item was laid over to the next Zoning Committee
meeti�i;.
#49-260 Auto Care St�stem Tne - Special condition use permit to allo«' for outdoor sales of
used cars at I 176 - i 1 S8 Dale Street North between Maryland and Geranium (Nancy Homans,
266-6557).
�IOTIOti Cornrr:issior:er Gervais mored npprpval with eonditions of tbe reqaest for a
specia! c�irditioir use pe�n:it to alloa� for outrloor safes of uset( cars at 1176-1183 Dale Street
t�'nrtk betweert lbfcrry�laud and Geraairart �rlticli carried on a voice voze (Cor6et).
1
and another meetin� is schedufed for the second �veek in November, 1999. A community forurr� •
w'i(! be lzeld �cithin the next couple of months.
X. Old Business
None.
XT. New Business
Commissioner Gervais brought «p an issue on the East Si@e regarding Arcade and Sisth Street.
Apparent[y, Public Works has blocked off traffic coming from Sisth Street onto Arcade. He
asked staff to look into the matter and repoR back on how that progressed aa@ went into effect.
District �, the Payne Arcade Business Association and the East Side Nei�hborhood
Devetapment Company are trying to estabtish a meetin� �vizh DistricY 4 and KaYhy Lantry. IQo
one seems to know how or why this came about.
Chair Morton asked Commissioner Gervais what the impact has 6een on Arcade.
Commissioner Gervais replied that the result has been less traffic leading into the business
district on Arcade which is not good for economic development. The traffic studies that were
done were done strictly in the IIistrict 4 section; not much attention was paid to Arcade Street.
As a result, the businesses on Arcade Street are suffering because of lack of access.
Mc Ford commented that staff ivill be happy to look into the matter and report back to the
Commission.
XII. Adjournment
The meeting �vas adjourned at 10: i0 a.m.
Recorded and prepared by
Iean Birkholz, Piannia� Commission Secretary
Planning and Economic Developme�t Department,
Citq of Saint Paul
Respectfufly submitted,
�
Kennzth Ford
Plannine Admini;trator
Approved // I ��,/ /
(Date)
� � �.�� v
Je ' er ngh �/
Secretary of the Piannfifg Commission
•
�p(sn�in��.nnnu[ei.f::� 1 � �
•
�
�
MINUTES QF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, October 14, 1999 - 3:30 p.m.
City Councit Chambers, 3"' Floor
City Hall and Gourt House
15 West Keliogg Boulevard
PRESENT; Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, Morton, and Nowiin
EXCCfSED:
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Faricy
Peter Warner, City Attorney
Caro{ Martineau, Afian Torstenson, and Nancy Fiomans of PED
aa -4�
SAMUEL S. AtJDERSON - 99-240 - Nonconforming Use Permit to allow for a duplex at 885
California Avenue West.
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
Nancy Homans showed slides and presented the staff report. Ms. Homans stated the staff
recommends approvaf of the Nonconforming Use Permit.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Homans stated the construction of the buifding has
not changed. Ms, Homans aiso stated the owner had a choice of removing one of the bathrooms
or kitchens or the door downstairs separating the rooms, the inspector woufd have estabiished the
dwe4ling as a single family residence. in lieu of making any of these changes the appiicant chose
to pay a fee of $280.00 to appiy for a Nonconforming Use Permit.
Upon question of Commissianer Gordon, Ms. Homans stated the door is an interior door with no
locks.
Mr. Sam Anderson, the app{icant appeared and stated he was shocked when the inspector came
and stated his home was a duplex. Mr. Anderson exp{ained that they sent a letter to the Cify
stating he was in compliance with the code because his home was being used as a singfe family
dwelling. The City then sent a citat+on stating the dwelling was not in conformance. The Housing
Court prosecutor explained that they had to do reconsfruction or apply for a Nonconforming Use
Permit.
At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Anderson explained they received a letter from the
City in February and the citation in July or August. The status of their property has not changed
since they have purchased their home.
Mr. Schaps, 875 California Avenue West, appeared and stated the appficants use the dweliing for
a single family home and that he was in favor of the Nonconforming Use Permit.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Nowlin recommended approval of the Nonconforming Use Permit and also
recommended the application fee be waived. The motion was seconded.
Responding to Cammissioner Kramer's concerns, Mr. Torstenson explained because this case
went to court the oniy option was to designate this dwei{ing as a duplex.
Zorting Committee Minutes
Qctober 14, 1899
File #: 99-240
Page 2
After further discussion Commissioner Nowlin amended his motion to add the condition that upon
sale of the property, the Nonconforming Use Permit becomes invalid.
Adopted Yeas - 6
Drafted by:
�:'_�14 � f), �� ��, 9 r�,W
Carol Martineau
Recording Secretary
Nays - 0
Submitted by:
., �� � �`n,�ii.o
hfancy Homans
Zoning Section
�
.
-
Approved by:
oo-��
•
1
2
ZONZNG COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
FSLE # 99-25�
APPLICANT: Samuel S. Anderson DATE OF HEARI2IG: 1�/14199
CLASSIFICATIODI: Establishment of a Noncon£orming Use Permit
3. LOCATION: 885 CALSFQR�IA AVE W
9. PLAI3NING DISTRICT: 10
5. I.EGAL DESCRIPTION: see file
6. PRESENT ZONING: R-3 ZONING CODE REFERENCB: 62.102(i)(1}
7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT;1017/99 BY: Nancy Homans
B. DATE RECEIVED: 09/02J99 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 11/1/99
A
B
� C
Pt3RPOSE: To establish legal nonconforming use status £or a duplex
in a single family zoning district.
PARCEL SIZE: Approx. 71 feet x 87 feet = 6,193 square feet
EXISTING LAND USE: Single family home
D. SURROt3NDZN6 LAND USE:
North: Single family home, zoned R-3
East: Legal non-conforming duplex, zoned R-3
South: Single family home, zoned R-3
West: Single far.:ily home, zoned R-3
E. ZONING CODE CSTATION: Sec. 62.102 (i)(1) provides that the
Planning Commission may grant legal non-conforming status to the
use of structures which fail to meet the standards of Section
62.102 (b} if the comrtission makes the £indings detailed in
finding H.4. below.
F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: No zoning history.
G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECODQiENDATION:
2he District 1Q - Como Park Gommunity Council has recommend�d
appraval of the permit.
H. FINDINGS:
1. ine structure at 885 C=_iifornia Avenue, West was construct�d bv
Holiday Homes, Inc, in i984. A building permit issued on �uly 17,
1984 indicates that the permit was issued for the construc=ion of
a"Single Fzmily Dwellinq". Sndeed, there are threz nota�_ons on
Zoning File �99-240
Staff report
Page two
the permit indicating that it is to be used as a"single family
dwelling on1y."
The plans accompanying the permit application have been destroyed
and are, therefore, not available for review,
2. The applicant purchased the home in 1997 and has not altered it
since that time. A neighbor has suhmitted a letter for the file
indicating that the present structure has been in existence
continuously for a period of at least ten years and has not been
altered.
3. On September 16, 1998, the applicant received a notice from a
zoning inspector from the City's Department of License,
Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) zndicating that a
complaint had been received alleging that the property was being
used illegaliy as a duplex, After an inspection on October 6, the
inspector told the applicant that, while there was no evidence of
a second household, the structure is considered an iliegal duplex
and that he wouid have to remove a kitchen, a bathroom or the
�nside door leading into the lower lecel in order to compl�� with
the City's codes. His other option was to agply for legal
nonconforming status as a duplex.
On February 14, 1999, the applicant, after having spoken with the
home's builder who indicated that the structure had not been
altered since it was constructed, wrote to the zoning inspector
indicating that he felt he was in comnliance with the City's code
since he was using the structure as a single £amily home aad it
had not been altered since its construction.
On July 8, 1999 a citation was issued for an °illegal dupiex in a
single family zoning district," and the applicant was ord=red to
appear in Housing Court on August 27, 1999. In an agreement with
the prosecutor--to avoid potentially being found gui�ty of a
misdemeanor and fined 5700--the applicant agreed to plead guilty
to a petty misdemeanor, pay $50 of a$200 fine and apply fcr a
Non-conforming Use Permit within 3� days.
4. Sec. 62.102(i)(1) of the zoning code provides that the Planning
Commission may qrant lega2 noncon£orming status to the use o£
structures which Pail to meet the standards of section 62.102(b}
upon making a series oi nine findings. The findinas and tt,e
appiicant's ability to meet them are as follows:
�
r7
L�
1. Th2 use occurs entir2ly within an existing structure.
This condition is net, ho expansion of the existing s_ructure
is proposed.
Do -�l�
�
2. Tne use is similar to other uses permitted within the district.
This condition is met. From all exte*ior appe�rances, this
structure is a single family home, newer but similar to all the
other homes on the block. The adjacent property to the east is
an older legally non-conforming duplex.
Zoning File �99-240
Staff report
Page three
3
The use has b2en in existence continuously for a period of at
least ten (10) years prior tc the date of the application.
This condition is met. The evidence is that the structure was
built in 1984 and the builder has indicated that it was built
as it is today. A neighbor has submitted a letter for the
record indicating that the present structure has not been
altered and has been in conCinuous use since at least 1989.
�
�l
E
The off-street parking is adequate to serve the use,
This condition is met. The structure is served by a two-car
qarage and an off-street driveway that could accommodate an
additional two cars. Newly constructed two-family homes are
required to provide three spaces.
Hardship would resuZt if the use were discontinuect.
The applicant purchased the home as it is today, valuing the
second kitchen for entertaining related to his job as a pastor.
The door between the two levels allows his sma11 household to
conserve heat during those times when the downstairs is not in
use. Requiring him to remove either of those two elements
would not only represent a hardship for him, but would have no
impact on the appearance of the structure or haca it relates to
the surrounding neighborhood.
6
Rezoning the property would result in "spot° zoning or a zoning
inappropriate to surrounding land uses.
This condition is met. The structure is located on a mid-block
lot surrounded on all sides by lots zoned R-3, Single Family.
To rezone this property to RT-1, which would accommodate z
duplex, would create a"spot zone."
7. Tae use wz11 not be detrimental to the existing character of
development in the inmediate neighborhood or endangez the
public health, saf2ty or general �•elf�re.
_nis conditzon is n.et. The area is a lov. density residential
environment with larger lots than characterize stendarc city
blocY,s. Acknowledging that th= apolicant has no plans �o
establish a second unit in the structure, the addition e* one
unit to the area wc��id not result in sig�aficarc addit_onal
Zoning File �99-240
Staff repart
Paqe four
trafPic, congestion, or burden on City services. Because the
area is fully developed and nothing about the exterior of the
structure is expected to change, there should be virtually no
impact on the existing character of development in the
im�ediate neighborhood.
8. Tne use is coa�sistent with the comprehensive plan.
This condition is met. The Saint Paul P1an for Housing ca11s
£or creative mechanisms for adding units to owner occupied
structures.
9. A notarized petztion of two-thirds of the property owners
within one hundred (100 feet) of the property has been
submitted stating thezr support for the use.
This condition is met. Of the eleven owners with property
within 100 feet of the applicant's property, eight,
constituting the required two thirds, signed a consent petition
submitted with the application and attached to this report.
�
5. Tne Planning Co.mmission on Ju1y 17, 1992, adopted quidelines for
staf£ making recommendations on applications for nonconforming use �
permits related to conversions of single fanily homes to duplexes.
The guidelines and the applicant's ability to meet them are as
foliows:
1. Lot size of at least 5000 square feet with a Iot width or front
iootage of SO feet.
The guidelir.e is met. The lot area is 61�3 square feet with a
�ront footage of 71 feet.
2. Gross living area, after completion of dvplex conversion oi at
least 1800 square feet for the two units.
The guideline is not met. The square footage o= the structure
is 1�68 square feet, 32 square feet shy of the guideline. Staff
has determir.ed that, because of the unusual circumstances and
the narrow difference between the guideline and the actual
square footage, the difference does not represeat sufficient
grounds to recommend denial of the application.
3. Three off street parking spaces (non-stacked) are preferred;
tU�o spaces are the r�quired minimum. A site pla� showing
inproved parking spaces must be provided.
The guideline is met, The structure is served by a detached
two-car garage.
4. AIZ remodeling work for th2 duplen conve-sion is on the i:sid�
e= the structure.
The guideiine is met. No remodeiing work is planned.
do-�4�
� Zoning File �99-240
Staf£ report
Page five
5. Tne proposed draplex structure is located in a znixed density
neignborhood, not a homogenous single family area or in an area
where dupZexes and triplexes are already concentrated to the
point of congesting neighborhood streets.
The guidelire is met. The neighboring property is a legally
nonconforming duplex and there aze three two-farily structures
on the north side of the block. They do not, however, represent
a concentration or source of traffic congestion.
I. STAFF RECONII✓ENDATION:
Based on findings 1-5, staff recommends approval of the
application.
•
o�-�t�
�
NONCONFORMING USE PEf2MiT APPLICAT{ON
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Sectian
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPL{CANT
Name .�` {�F?1VE�
Address g � S
c�tv - ��
Name of owner (if diffe
Contact person (if diffe
�
1
Zip S`s'It"! Daytime Phone Yb'g717
Phone
PROPERTY AddresslLocation ��J �,�c 1l "�n iG (�-<- (,s .
LOCATfON � 1I Ft � ElG:.(o Ff o{ 4 y� , ni �t �hp,
Lega! description n �. � ., . �l� � �1 �- i �
ti.t:s�.� a�vC Tf� r'�°c'tfl� d �" n `�-°^--
r,� coi 3�'�'�-3 G,-mo Current Zoning /` -�
•
TYPE OF PERMIT: Appiication is hereby made for a Nonconforming Use Permit under provisions of
Chapter 62, Section 102, subsection i, Paragraph_ of the Zoning Code.
The permit is for:
❑ Change from one nonconforming use to another (para. 3 in Zoning Code)
❑ Re-establishment of a nonconforming use vacant for more than one year (para. 5)
� Legai estabiishment of a nonconforming use in existence at least 10 years (para. 1)
� Enfargement of a nonconform use (para. 4)
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: supply the information that is appiicabie to your type of permit.
CHANGE IN USE: PresentlPast
or
RE-ESTABLfSHMENT: Proposed usE
Additionai i�farmation for a11 appiications (attach additionai sheets if �ecessary):
�. 4L���c:�4�✓ c-° ° y�-a, Lvr��zc�
L'
site olan is attached ❑
Appiicant's sig
�
���`"""- Date ��> ��i' City agent�
I. The use occurs entirely within an existing structure;
Yes
2. The use is similar to other uses permitted within the district;
Yes, there are other legal duplezes on the sireet and in the neighborhood
3. The use has been inexistence continuously for a period of at least 10 yeazs prior to the
appiication;
Yes, see neighbor's letter
4. Off-stteet parkin� is adequate to serve the use;
Yes, there is a detached double-car garage.
5. Evidence of hazdship
The inspector tivanted us co remove the door at the bottom of the stairway and
build an arch. However, this woa�ld make our family room (and the other rooms)
in the basement uninhabitable in the winter. The heat loss up the stairway would
make it impossible to heat and completely unlivable. There have been times when
we forgot to close the door and it has taken up to a whole day to ivarm that space
back up to a level where tive could enjoy watching TV down there.
6. Rezoning the property would result in "spot" zoning
Yes
7. The use �vill not be detrimental to the existing chazacter of development in the
immediate neighborhood or endanger the pubiic health, safety, or general welfare;
No it ia�ill not be detrimentaL There are existing duplexes in the area and the
house does not appear to be a duplexfrom the street. Entrance ro our lower level
is in the back
8. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and
I believe so
9. That a notarized petition of two-thirds of the property owners within 1 QO feet of the
property has been obtained stating support for the use.
Enclased
�
�
oo-��
• August 27, 1999
Bob & Phyllis Lentsch
878 Califomia Ave., W.
St. Paul, M'iV SS I 17
Zoning Office
1100 City Ha11 Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Zoning Office:
We confirm that the building at 885 Califomia Avenue West has been in existence
continuously for a period of at least ten (10) years prior to the date of this letter and has
not been aitered.
incerely,
�
Phyllis Lentsch
�
�
�
�
�
;
'
>
�,��
c.�
�
�
�
♦.i
V
�
�
� �''\) �..��
� t � �
v �
I \
I
i �
i
�
�,��
.�
1
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
//
{���
�
.�
a o
C°'�
s
�
G—
�
t�a -�{�
�
�
�
�
{
i
�
I
i
�
I
�
I
'
1
e
�
i'
.�
�
��
�
�
Q d p
�
�
�
�.
�
�
�
�
�
�
� �
.�
�� o a
,
�
��
�
��
��
o �.
�
��
�
T
.�
M1�
-�
C',
�
�
�a-4�
� Rev. Sam 8 Lori Anderson
885 California Ave., W.
St. Paul, MN 55i17
Below are the course of events and the communications i've received on the status of our
home at 885 Gatifornia Ave., W., St. Paul, MN 55117
My wife and { received a"Code Enforcement Notice" {etter on 9/16(SS from the City Zoning
Administration.
RE: 885 Cafifornia Avenue West
Dear Homeowners:
We have received a complaint that the referenced property is an iilegal dupiex. This property is
located in an R-3 residential zoning district. Our records indicate that the residence is legal only
as a single family dwelling.
Encfosed are the provisions 60.204 and 60.206 of the St. Pauf Legislative Code which define the
� terms "Family" and "Dweliing UniP'. The definition of "Family' in the zoning ordinance (see
attached) allows a maximum of four unrelated individuals living together in a dwelling unit. Within
the dweliing unit, each individual may have separate sieeping rooms but they must share the
kitchen and remaining living space together.
It is necessary to determine if the use of the premises is compiiant with the City Zoning
Ordinance An inspection of the property is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October 6th at
1130 a.m. Attendance by you or your designated representatfve is necessary at that inspection.
If you have a conf{ict with the scheduled inspection ttime or have any questions and/or concerns
regarding this matter, piease caii me at 266-9085.
Sincerely,
Peg Fufier
Zoning lnspector
enc.
The enclosure read as foilows:
Definition of Family and Dwelling Unit
/
A family is "one or two (2j persons or parents, with their direct lineal descendartts and adopted or �
legaliy cared for chiidren together with not more than two (2) persons not so reiated, living
together in the whole or part of a dweAing comprising a single housekeeping unity. Ever
additional group oP four {4) or fewer persons living in such housekeeping unit shall be considered
a separate family for the purpose of this code." (St. Paut Zoning Code, Section 60-.206f}
A dwelling unit is "a building, or poRion thereof, designed for occupancy by one family for
resideniial purposes used or intended to be used for living, sleeping and eooking or eating
purposes." {St. Paul Zoning Code. Section 60.204.d.)
Lef ine give you some background.
Our house is a raised-ranch, split entry home. The hasement is half out of the ground and
the windows of the tower level are full sized. Both fioors are finishe@. Two bedrooms,
bathroom, kitcfien and tiving room upstairs. Swo bedrooms, bathroom and one large
room which consYitutes an entertainment area. Thatlower entertainment area has a
refrigerator, stove, and nan-functianing dishwasher. It is a walk-out basement and there is
a door at the bottom of the stairs that ieads upstairs.
When we purchaseH the home in 7997 we had my wife`s brother tiving with us for 4
manths. He stayed it one of the rooms downstairs but we shared living space throughout
the home. During the summer of t998 we had a missionary family who were home on
furlough siaying with us on and off as they traveted to different churches throughouf ffie
state to speak. In the month of August, 1998 we had my wife's brother's fianc�e living with
us. This is the extent of the people other than my wife and myseif that we have had living �
with us. In every case we shared common space tfiroughout the home and were in full
campliance with the definitions mentioned in the tetter.
After reading the tetter we thought we had no problem because it appeared we had never
violated the code thaf was quoted to us. The inspector came to our fiouse and 1 willingly
let her in. She walked through and declared that our house is a duplex and that it was
iilegal.
We discussed. She persisted. She told me that 1 would have to remove the kitchen, or
bathroom, or perhaps the door at the bottom of the stairway in order Yo comply with city
code. t insisted that the home had not been altered sirtce it was cottstructed based upon
the fact that the drawings indicated a(I this and because the cupboard, apptiances and
everything were exactly the same on both tloors and must have been insialled at t6e same
time. She sharply responded, "that would mean that the inspector messed up artd OK'd
this as a singfe family home" ----1 waited --- "that wou(d never have happened"
1 asked what my other options would be. She said that just maybe 1 could appiy for a
"nonconforming use permiY' which wouid mean the house woutd be approved to exist as a
dupfex in a single-family zoned part of the cify. To do this I woufd have to get the
signatures of virtuaNy a!I of my neighbors within 100' of my property and find someone
who woutd attest to the fact that the structure had not been altered in over 10 years.
To keep the resf of this short.
She called back with the committee's decision that 1 wouid be "allowed" to remove the
door at the bottom of the stairs as long as t signed a document {I think she called it a deed
restriction} verifying that this property wou(d never be used as a duplex.
_
00 -��
t dec+ded that I didn't want ta aiter the my home and so I decided to go for the
• "nonconforming use permit" I traced back my Torrents to the originai ownertbuilder of
fhe home. (Buiit in 1984) I trecked him down to Arden Hiits and called him and asked if he
wouid write such a letter. We spoke for a while and 1 asked him about the house when it
was constructed. I described its current condition and determined that the house had not
been aitered since the inspector approved tfie home. After my discovery that the
inspector reaily had approved the house "as is:' i decided to write a letter, which foliows...
Rev. Sam E Lori Anderson
885 California Avenue West
Saint Paul, Minnesota SSi17
February 14, 1999
Peg Fu11er
Zoni�g Inspector
350 St. Peter Street
Suite 310
St. Paul, MN 55102-15'10
Thank you for all your time and attention to our zoning situation.
� After thorough review of your letter of September 16, 1998 and a subsequent conversation with
the originai ownerlbuiider, who confirmed that the home has not been altered since its
co�struction, it is clear that we are and have been in full compliance with the city zoning code. We
will consider this matter conciuded. Thank you for your time.
Rev. Sam Anderson
Enciosure
We received a citation from the city on July 10, issued July 8th, for ordinance viotation
"illegal duplex in a single family zoning district. Section 60.412 & 60.411" The citation
was unclear as to what we were to do. "Housing Court" is checked but there is nothing on
the citation informing us how to respond. lt is on a Parking Ticket form.
The citation mentioned that if i didn't respond within 14 days a warrant for my arrest wouid
be issued but that 1 also had to wait at least 7 days unti! the citation was registered. {
calied the oniy number that seemed to appiy on Juiy 21, 1999. They told me tfiat they had
' nothing to do with that and that f needed to cali the Housing Court office. i then caped
them and they said they had no record of my citation but that eventually { woutd receive a
letter in the maii ordering me to appear in Hausing Court. i caited back on August 16 and �
they said it had just 6een mailed. On August 78, 1999 1 received said tetfer and was
ordered to appear on August 27,1999.
Before 1 went to covrt t began collecting the signatures of my neighbors for the Non-
Conforming Use Status Permit so tfiat, if needed, t could show the court that 1 had fhe
support of my neighhors, even though i had never used my home as a dupiex.
i appeared in court with ati my documentation. We were told by a clerk that most of our
cases could be settied with the prosecutor and that in most cases wouidn't even need to
go before the judge. ! met with the prosecutor and explained the whole situation. ! never
did receive a clear answer whether the city code on a duplex had ta do with the structure
or the usage of the sfructure, fn any case he tolti me fbat if I was unwilling to change the
structure of my home then i would have to appiy for the Non-ConForming Use Status
Permit. i asked him what the result wouid be if I went befare Yhe judge. He said that if i
was found guilty of having an ilfegai duplex in a single famity zoned part of the city that t
could be fined $70Q and tre guilty of a misdemeanor. ! asked him whaY my other options
were and he said that he could "suspend judgment" and that this would give me 30 days
to fi(I out the papernork for a Non-Conforming Use Status Permit and get it in but that
court costs for that were S1Q0. Then he said there was one more thing he could probabiy
do and that was to drop the charge to a petty misdemeanar. This would carry a$200 fine
but he coufd stay $150 of fhe fine and f would have to pay $50 and then be given 30 days
to get the Non-Conformirtg Use Status Permit paperwork in to the Zoning office.
This brings us to where we are now. I am being forced to apply for the Non-Conforming
Use Status Permit by order of the court. Neither I nor my neighbors necessarily want my
home to be declared a duplex, but since t am unwilling and really unable to structural(y
attar my home I am left with tto other options. As mentioned in the application the removai �
of the door at the bottom of the stairs woutd make our lower levet extremety tofd and
uninhabitable in the winter,
�
4
OFfICE OF LTCENSE, IN5PECITONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION fl �— ll� �
Raben Kerrter, Director
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coteman, Mayor
ZDMNGADMTMSIRATlON
350 St Petn Srrea
Suise 310
Sai�u Paut, Minncsota 55102-I510
�1 ►1 �: ui \Y ��
September 16, 1998
Samuel S. Anderson
Lori L. Anderson
885 California Avenue West
Saint Paul, MN 55117-3458
RE: 885 California Avenue West
Dear Homeowners:
�
r
Telephane: 6T 2-26G9008
Facsimilc 6I2-266-9099
We have received a complaint that the referenced gropetty is an illegal duplex. This
• property is located in an R3 residential zoning district. Our records indicate that the
residence is legal only as a singie family dwelling.
Enclosed are provisions 60.204 and 60.206 of the St. Paul Legisladve Code which define
the terms "Family" and "Dwelling Unit". The defuution of "Fanuly" in the zoning
ordipance (see attached) aliows a maxunum of four unrelated individuals living together in
a dwelling unit. Within the dwelling unit, each nadividual may have separate sleeping
rooms but they must share the kitchen and remaining living space together.
It is necessary to determine if the use of the premises is compliant with ihe Ciry Zoning
Ordinance. An inspection of the properry is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October
6th at 11:30 a.m. Attendance by you or your designated representative is necessary at that
inspection.
If you have a conflict w9th the scheduled inspection time or have any questions andlor
concerns regazding this matter, piease call me at 266-9085.
Si cerely,
Peg u�
Zoning Inspector
� enc.
i
� n� . � • ►,� r►f�����»�:'���_�lu�elil�l��1
A family is "one or two (2) persons or parents, with their direct lineal descendants and
adopted or legally cared for children together with not more tIian two (2) persons not so
related, living together in the whole or part of a dwelling comprising a single housekeeping
unit. Every additional group of four (4) or fewer persons living in such housekeeping unit
shall be consideied a separate family for ihe purpose of this code." (St. Paul Zoning
Code, Section 60.206.f.) '
A dweiling unit is "a building, or portion thereof, designed for occupancy by one family
for residential purposes used or intended to be used for living, sleeping and coaking or
eating purposes." (St. Paul Zoning Code, Section 60204.d.)
•
_
� ti -�E�
�
u
I�
P
- - - - w -- _-. ..... � - - - .- -- -- - -- - - +
yp�Y � _ Q Z O ey f] .
'm.mc� ei � m o o �S 3 - a "1 ��i
rn�� sx � o �� o° ' em p ..
mE E on 4 t �' m n 4 S I � 't �
�n�j y N �t �`, t e °c , 'i
y �� R �: r p � m �R.$i _.
�mA� ❑ e �� G � 9 p� 't,so �.
°�-� �i m ��,, \� O e'!o 1 I C y .\
��Zm� ` � ` Z . i e Z H + S ?\� o
o ri r" o a o N 1 1 `'[�j ^ ° fo �-�
�-' 3 _�>� h � � r _ o q �_
b
^ 'o o zm{o ❑ y � t [] (- Z o �� � 3 � �
�^ T f o ,�- i- L_€n l
�O Z FAF T� �. �� d t ,�'1, 2 • � 3C
^ � (A m i S `d \ V � � � � K
� � m � ° m � � �
S� O 2 -19s ���� C �-. v _� i
C OCN 0 \^� ��9
'py T ;� � •A � 1 D � � �"� $A
� O 29 \ l; �� ❑% � -1
oN 1 �� O � ��
� � Z m g 4 �^ h 1. SC
b � � \ C `a m �m d
� o � - $ �<' " �
Ho m . � �
i= �'^ mg - t' ' \' > \ �
b � c � c
Ini y � � n � ' � j m N ^ �
�Oy d 1� 1'�. N�} � Q�
lam �{m O 3 \ 0 1'ly lA` v � W
��o � c!/I�n c� � e '� (J No !% � �
N
�C �Z9 fi� �n y '
O �O� w m �
N OSO ❑
m
w �z Z: vx
� 3r.r sa
. `$r'z , u'o
o m jo ` 3
o ` ❑ �
°,
o h a p
_ ��Z \1 �� m
v
� N9 f 9
m
° o ❑
O p x+�
�' -f OT
� � �Q g
ir C 3-
9 n
IA T �^
im m �
= 3� io t � g a
�c o z c.
a m 4 � o
�m � o 0
y C
� Q T+ A ❑
'� o
� �m
� ❑
'o
a �Fix
"a
i�, >
� �
� = N � V `� O -�
` a • � � r i � �
� ��� ��
Mo v�=,��y
\ o � �°� a
�� 3 � ! � I
� ❑��Q�
N T 9 9 9
m � o O
o _ _ 9 9
o � o m
N �
02
I m 2
❑❑ ❑❑
3� =s�
o� ��
�m�sm
S �' w m '
a n r
< n � m
° 0 0
o ''m" a
`" o
�
t
n
I �o �
I '
0
� ��
m o a
( O
S �
o ��`
0
a
<
o�
�
� I
H��
��a �=-
�1����
sev�=_m
_'° � ''s'
�_�� "
°3_� °-
3c._� `�u
3 au
P3 �
33
n� g
�"
�?
v�
_�
�5
�
_�
��
�s
�v
c�`
°�
f
c.r�oco<„-+sc�r,
a`.
aoy gci
S^ o0
� ��� �Qm
���„�� 0
O� Ap➢Z� N O 2
NO320> N�2
=�� N�
a
� ?y
°���g�3 ��
o�Qa°�m �g�
���omR,,�i, o"�
N s
�'mAO-`��
'x"n-..zo+� mm..
ti z ti = i
p��7= N��
5z� o o."e
- ,. o i o� p ,,...,
i °i
� �°,, y� m��
Fzz'�- °
-y9D�i'� a'c�
i n £� ��o
p�3 �'� �o�
o�� - `�O m
^�m °� 3
f t� ��
�� o
��� �a
e�imm vab 02�
� Z V�
0
� � � �
aS�
0,3 m=
� o o � c
o � � � m
m � d r °
y N � O O �
ap��0
o' ��o ay
�=pc�.. -i
� m c � o O
3 p = ? a z
= v c3c `'
� �
v A� m C
'n o p
� m
=�?� ➢
_ � g ^ C
PO' n r
�,oz p
�- � ° CS
�
� � a � -
=a ^ N
oA� O
=f V Z
� ° o � � o N
�'�z�.°
Z Z
w � � � �
� C
O N N T
� N ^
�
W p LL p
` � �
N
m
Z
p0
d=
2n
0�
�
��
D
�Z
D <
S�
O
m
17
N
m�
n
�2
O �
T�
�O
T
r C
v
m�
�O
C 69
S p
Zo
RI p
0
S�
m�
n �
�m
.N
�a
�
� „-,o
a
o��
�g ,
�yo
�20'
��
go
�o
c�
� z
�
��
iz
�?
c �
3
D
z
m
n
S
m
O
�
N
n
<
D
m
r
m
-i
O
G
�
r
A
"{
Q
2
�
�
C
�
m
D
C
V
N
�
CO
r
m
n
v
_v
�
O
.7..
D
r
V
m
Z
A
y
m
�
•
mOZj
�pm�
9�D(n
< j
-{N��
Zo�"'�
O 31
Z 2�
� Dn
0
N �
0 7J
u -{
ZNj� .
y2
m��
n f
ya°'o�
m� _
Dnc� o
�m�o
c� `
c,� :
oa-'cc :
oQ�: i
N S
�
=a'o� o '
Oy£F-9
znN' a
° m s " c: �
rm�n5 Z
00 n
� �HO �
�ao� o
S A
Z o -1
' Q �^ N Z •
O-�'n N
a�°c
"�`^ c o
Np�
c
<�j < j
t»om
��
I
i9 p m : .
D l
C �
O �
SI
ZT� C I :
�0=1 �
m ��
2 . D -1'n
�o�
Dzn
r-
�ptn
O
+9t
NOO
� o
a ��19
iv n
NQ$ r
A D I
`o T Cl m
ZS 9
�a° o
_ -(
u m y
o9C O
�mmz
2 0�- tn
3 ~ 4
1om
' ao
�' a
cy>
� �O
Ny
A2
, t D
Nr
M'� nS'_>T-jt
-_�.�' yo^
tij c 'o-�'� ' `�
�.c D o� n � n
m °c'
Z O z 1 � n
-1 coc �y
y �-`' RZ
S }y0
c 0=' o m�
r' s o � m
O �3 �cq
p o_;';� mrt
<
g oa__om
0
�po2i� O
m ��-. �
�?;5i� a
z o'��` O
S H� � fl N
m • '"�
Y o4£ p
� �=� a
D -5 � X
n o�., rn
S ="'a D
m m?a �
a ..
m �<_ 1
� y _ o �
m ='= Z
� °�° >
m c' 'n D
� 'c_ <
� - �'
�=% K
n j �
. �' �
53= S
�
�
u
•
��
�
�a.�
�
�i`�
�
L'-_
O
\�
�
° n
�
m
�7
t
--J
�
C
0
�
m
0
m
�
z
0
z
-�
x
z
0
m
0
O
0
m
�
-
o I
37
D
m
O
<
0
4
N
W
❑a�
o�=
� a o
.��
� ;� Q
N � �%
� , m
m :
o :
C ;
� i i
O [
a:
A v in
���
m ? m
o m o
� ��
�� �
� n a a
o @'
z
m � � N
� � m m
c � �
o .
o ;
a
���
N � N
(�i� N �
m � m
m��
o - o
0
m
T
m
2
N
m
�
C
m
�"�
O
'�
�
m
�
�
m
N
C
�
D
D
77
�
-
�'tl
�
-G
G
�
�
�
�
-i
D
�
�
c
m
O
D ��}- �
r- (_J.Y. �
c .�
� �
mc� �
O
�� � � S C
�o
0
m
T
m
z
°
z
-i
�
�`
o�
�tl
<
0
�
Z
��� m �
C � t
' '�7 SJ m �, D
� --a � O
l � � � � �
i mD C D �-
n � -� N D �
�_� � � o -
�?t" � m �
cno� r' o m I
z� o
n
�zC)n� � �
71
�o�nm m
�� �� �
v
� m U' z 7mo
�-„pWm � m
OC� jN � C3
�m� � O
c � D '
o � n �
D _. m
� n� S �
nm� � Z
�OQm �
�rN
� m �
� �
� 1
�
�
m
z
0
�
Clv
� �
o }
���
m,_�
z.
o�
Z!
�
�i
�i �
I�
�1" � � �
� �� C� � �
� ��� cv
L 1 � � � �
� �. � I
���� ��
� o �, �
Z �,
�� � C �
a-.. � �' � r. -
l �
� ���0
'�.r � �„J —
�
> � �.-. �
� �
C �+o
�. �
� �
o,
m
T =
m y
Z Z
A O
Z m
� �
O
�
m
�
W
�
n�
0
�
D
r
m
v
W
�
0
m
m
O
m
T
z
N
m
�
0
z
<
a
O
Z
m
Z
0
❑�❑
a�cn
�� �
o��
mSo
� � c
o � 3
� S C
� . m
m;
o '
C :
a: `
o :
3 : .
A V (T
� � �
m � m
o � o
� � �
W � Q
aDo.
m :
���
m �
'0 � 'O
���
o:
Q:
��;
N (�D N
��;
� V m
W��
o � o
a
r
C
m
--!
�
�
'0
m
�
a
�
�
m
N
C
�
�
�
�
�
Z
"i
�
�
�C
C
�
a
�
�
m
�
-i
��
a ��
C
T C°
m�� .�
c�m�
�
m
r
mm"O
-G�C�
D�COf��'Iym, m
o�DO�
m m 'm°, .D O
O ' �
����, �
�_���� _
c�=z� �.
c� � QN`
� _�
-cni `c � ° K. ``
z �� v�.�� o
(� G O a O O
N ? � o
�v C o0 0
m �
{ U U
O � Q
Q <
�' <
� Z
c ��z
�TOmm i
�Dt �
zc--+z �
�m�
o�mp�o
O
�D
� � � r
DmzO
SJja�T
m
OO
� m 3
� I -�
�O
C
.9 ..�
s m ��
A
�
O
<
�
Z
A
�
m
v
0
m
�
m
Z
v
D
�
D T
N�
l��
O
�
�
m
�
�
v
Z
III
m
z
D
�
n
� -r,
D
ti
z
�2
c
Zr
�T
��
m
KZ
T �"�
Z�
0
� rnC
_� O �
� �
�� �
� �
�
�
° z
n
v�
rt�
c—
�
��C
C
s ��
s ��
c� r
�
-
aa -��
�
�
�ZO��G
FIRST SL3BNIITTED
DATE PETITION SUBYIIITED: � 'J'
DATE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED: � - �
PARCELS ELIGIBLE:
PARCELS REQUIRED
PARCELS SIGNED:
l� ,
�
�
SC�
rC�
RESt3BMITTED
DATE PETITION RESUB�IITTED:
DATH OFFICIALLY RECEIVED:
PARCEIS ELIGIBLE:
PARCELS REQUIRED:
PARCELS SIGNED:
� Q �Q qYZ-5�(
CHECKED BY: �CN•^' �� - \ DATE:
zac��N� ��L� (
!
CITY O� SAYIYT PAUL
AFFIDAVIT OF PERSON CTRCULATING PETITION
�
STATE OF MIititiTi�1ESOTA)
COUNTY OF RA.�15EY )
SS
S(�✓ri uC�,� S- �`�U /) , being first duly swom, deposes and states that helshe is the
person who circulated ihe withia petition and consent, consisting of _ pages; that affiant is
informed and betieves that the parties described are the o�vners resoectively of the lots placed
unmediately before ezch name, that affiant is informed and believes that each of the parties described
above is ihe owner of the property tvhich is within 100 feet from any property owned or purchased
by petitioner or sold by petitioner within one (t) year preceding the date of this petition which is
conciguous to ihe property described in the peticion; that except for
;/'` n ov �'' none of the parties described
above has purchased or is purchasing property from the petitioner contigvous to the above described
property within one (1) year of ihe dace of the petition; that tttis coaseat was si�ned by each of said
ow�ners in the presences of this affiant, and that the signatures are the true and correct signatures of
ezch and aI1 of the parties so described.
�S'����y •
� �1m � �.�. S _ ���rz.s��
_ x�� �
�85 � f�.�-h �G �--��.
ADDRESS
�e �I ���'"
TELEPHO\'E i�'UMBER
Subs be swo o before me
this G daY o � vs7` 19 ��
1 / /
� � -
rG'�77 ",'� / ��1"'� t/' i'���'
NOTARY PUBLIC
�NvV ='.AN i :�.f: f_ : .. . •: .� ., . �. ^.1\"AMsb
,./y L....��F.�h:1.GMi `.dSi�N
�"1�. - 1
�� hQ7AAYPUEUG�S:S�cSOTA
AAMSEY CACti'7Y �
idy Cor,r,rssiat Ezpcas Jan.St.2�00
t i
�
�tNERAL BU1LDfNG PERMIT
. CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DEPARTP,tENT �
DlVIStONOFH6USI{VGANDSUILDING � �� ��
CODEENFDRCEMENT �
445 CfTY HALL �
ST, PqUL, h1N 55702 I p R �
i Permit �.0 y � � S
- � � �� P�AN NO. ✓ �- YW
' OESCftiPT10N OF9ROJECT
DATE 04VNEF��,�',\ 11 � C� 11\ !�l'�"c
OWNERSADDR
>� -
c<
❑ OLD � � i i �'`f TYPE OF
�NELV TYPE CONST. �s(� �`� OCCUPRNCY �
GRADING STUCCO OR !
�UILD ❑ AND EXC. �PE,4SfER-----(�r,ov . L� .'Q'
•
❑ ADDiTION ❑A�TER �
NUM�=q STREET�
�� � ��t 1��
WARD pT. 8 OC1�
3
W�D7H 'cPTM'
LOT `-^ n��� `�
/ 5;`i3
STP,UG W�ofH
TU R E � r ,,,�
ESTIhiAT VAWE
�ETAILS & Reb1ARK5' �'7 n
;•7__ -
Q REPAIR
� SID
1 =(':� i .
\,�-�1�" '7:.
' ' ADD
r�
"' SIDE �pT CLEA'.
c _ .�5±.=. : _ : !
LE�
6 _ i
YES O NO
� � 7/�.�
\TE �
LVAT�ON
STOP,I�S
4 1
TEI. NO
PERMITFEE
PLAN tH�CK j/}��f i �
� �
STAT'c +��
SUR�H.aRG:�, / -7.�!
LINE
TOTAL FEE �I J 1 • �' 1 7�
�f% I
APP�ICA+�T CERTIPIES THAT A�L I
� FQR��IATIOV IS CORRECT ANp_T AT
A! L QE?TI?:E\T ST;,TE REGI;L" GP1S
AND CiTY ORDNANCES 4'JIL COM-
PLiED:SfTri1N Pc'RFORM1IING Tric'470RK
FOR Nir:C�. THIS Pc.°..�IIT 15 ISSUED
� ^-� �l4 - I�ti'�t
�t J
AVTHO�.Cc_ SIGNATUR_
.YYA __ FENCE
/E ❑ WRECK
CROSS.STREETS
�L> �/ Q� r � �j�G.
Ofl TRACT ;
y;-- �o : : ,
CE
�-
HEIGHT " �
� ��TOTALFLOOF
sn.Fr.- r1/„'�
/ ' _ _' "
- I
.^`-�Si�E9 �95 O.VL� �
WHENVAL'7Ai_p-...:StjYOUR?eRM1t'- I
s.. �odz � � 4�0 —
AD�RESS �� C� �LL t i r
OF ,103 _ '
�- � � ' � IIVSF'�l. ! lUI�LI ■ I I � . . i
., .. _ - - - -- .-_ :--_ .;- �
�:�;�• ,. . ; Y� / t •
ns ctor �'' �?t �A-� .l �•1J.+ _ !: / :.. , --.. �, �.
.�_ _'__'-__.�_ __.._ v . '-° ^"' \ �, } . . . ,
Fotindation � �^ � �• --� �
r ��� �/
'=*x'�� ���� .!/ ) - . ... ' _ - . '_ _ _ ._ ._....� .
�.:a .- V ;' � . '� ' ' _ " _ ' ._ _
v b : , .- :. .` -_ : . _ ..
,... _ . . ' " ".
i . ._. . -. �:.�. 't �: `��1� . - -- - . .
Frame . �
�� ��. �- :f v _. . _ ' � -
:��--. 1/ �� �•
�� v •- . s ' _' . , _ _ . i
�; 'i -- � ° - �_- � --- - - - i
�_ _ �
€ -` -- - - -- . - -
1 '!`atFi and/or Watlboard ' `�� -� ��� ' �
�'__.-._ s.. ' i
'_� _ --- - �- . - — _ ,� '_ � _ _ _ .T.. T �, ...r).. ��C. ;� : _.s +
� _ ` . _ •I . , � . ,
. � _
""._'._ __ _'___ _ '_ _ ___' _ _'_ _ ____ — _ _
' '___—=r'_ �: _
zI't'J�, _./:/p� __ _ _' _' _. ____ " ' _-''�.,\;i
f% � -
_---�-- ��----- �------ -- - -
-- - - � .�` '� _'f` .. ' . .� - i ---- _;;--- - ,
r
�
--- ----- - ----------------------- �•; ____
� tes: '--- -- ---- ---- -------- '------- I
` F� = ?- 1 =r..�= - -.__ ' i . �.? _,__.. _�--_"__-°___'°'`�_y:;-_ _-°____,___ _-._ �
,i � - .�._-:� •. c : \`•� t .�_._, � I
---^4`_�,., '-' ���`�lt'� � f �i.�� -l qi) �/✓. �- !=t�11--- - i �U
' ii� �,?.Y�' �r^ F � I L -- ' - /,-:�� - � - '- - 1 � �-" i: -� � ,-� , i /�Tl.l . J 1` Z��
"_ � }f/a , v�i;�:,j_ �"I�� Jj�_%l'/,y'E=" .\:"a :�" � , l %
,e,�.` 1. -:l -_ . _.1 " . ��� '� ;
s . � _ � / �/', /Ji
�.." �,� - ^ _ ' _-_' _'__'_�'_'__'< _'_�_ "": ; __ fv _: i =_'"- !/ `J`�y'_'"
� ,�._ _ �.
t � " "_�i �! '" �n�PS ���� �
�i _ - .. .�`� %: � _ �:r,vi�ui .,ri- �'.f,L±.�-�' � _.. , r�=%� ------ , D-� fL''�
�� - _= r �--= ° ,Fi;' - � - �=1- - - - - �--�-- �-- � �
- , � v � t � . .t. _ '--- j"' �__ =_ ; °_°:°-.== t . : ��.tl�.
} �=-
� °�'"�� •-�- -_---_ -- --- - -_ - -° = -- _- "_-°v
' - -°- - _ -, _ =- - <<. � > ,
'r .._ - `'; ._ - - -��
r `
� " =_= - - -._ �.� . ' -'- - -- --- -- - - - _- '- �
_ -
-- --- -- �---•�_- --'--- -�-°--- -- --- - ------
, . . _ ....: - , .- . - _, . .
. - , _ . . • .:� - .,,� : -- � , ' .
�..
� -- - - -` - -- - -�.`- .. . . � , ' .
'-='-_=- ---- ---=-_=----- =--- - -- = -'-_- - --- - - - -----
- - ' -'- ----, -'- . - ... .� .° -- - -
-- � , - - :.� a.�=.=-._ ' - - ---.��
`. <= - _. , . .
. _ , . - t ' _
..;., .. .. . : `, _
-. -'_- - �
-' -�---'--- -�-- '_=--_------ -� -' -- =- =_ - �
- - - ---- --- - " ----- - - - - - -
- ----- -- --��'--.-- -----' --
.._ . _ _ ' _ '4 _ _
. _. ` ' . _ � . � . � _
. � _ � � �
_ � a�.� ...- ' � —�.� . .�.�1 . y ✓��.
� ' ' / — � � �. ' _
- ^✓
�. ___
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
� CONSENT OF ADJOIi�'II4'G PROPERTY O�VNERS �'OR A D D
NONCONFORMING USE PERrYIIT
We, the undersigned, owners of the property within 100 feet of the total conti�uous description of real esiate
otivned, purcha;ed, or sold by THE APPLICAIr`T within onz y�ear preceding the date of this petition
ackno���ledge that �ve have been presented with the follotivin�:
Acopyoftheapplicztionof �Q,�` `�" �D�� �C/������
(name of applicant)
to e;'1b! i>h a �_� l� �� 2
(proposed use)
located at: �� � l. Cc � L��n �u �-v`e. �-
(address of property)
requirin� a nonconformin� u;e permit, along with any relevant site plans, diagrams, or other
documenca�ion. ��'e eonsent to the approval of this appiication as it was esplained
to us by the applicant or his/her representative.
�
�
�OTE: Ail information on the upper portion of this application must be completed prior to obtainine
efigible signatures on this pe[ition.
na -�t�
•
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
s.
10.
12.
13.
24.
IS.
16.
17.
SUN RAX-BATTLECREEK•HTGHW OOD
�L4ZEL PARK Hfll�EN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
`VEST SIDE
DAYTON'S BLLTFF
PAI'i�iE-PHALEN
NORTH END
THO�l4AS•AALE.
SUMMIT-UI�IIVERSITY �
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE•MIDWAY �
ST. A?r'THOi3Y PARK
MERRIAM PARK-LEXIIr`GTON HA�iLINE-SNELLIhG H.aMLINE
hiACALESTER GTtOVELS.h'D
HIGHLAND
SU�,iMTT HiZd-
DOS�'TO�
CITTZ�N PAR7ICIPATION pLANNING DISZ Klc:ls
L_J
�
� ������� �����=5� 'Zy�
�
C0�10 DISTRIC7 70 P1 x° � ;�� „ ,��
� .
>- . . ,
-. .. .. . ....
- ...,. _-
� �_
_ -___.:_
_ = : ; `—
- - "�-- _ _-
Q'...._ .. _.. Q::- :::0`. O O '�_. .,' :Q =-:<0�.-�0- =0- . ' O ,: :
-,
_ _ _
_ ; Oi._ i :.... . ;. . . �; . .
�❑
;I:�". °.:.. ! ( :
� i � i
, .: . ;;: _ :; .:� ; ...; :;; �= _ : :_ ; '._.
� � .�== _.' :.:,
o o, o a�_ o. o o; o o i.o
� � �{, =q ,.
.
C'w\i Ol'�iA-!�-_�>" _
�io a o 0 0, ���.� o oko�a �o o�e
.��.� �I�IIt� ;!}
-- s�. - --:�
�
�
0
H �
�_ O
v
��oo�oo�000 L
� ' ?�
':
,�o�00000 J
�
�
�
�
i � ' � �
O O�Q�(� O O C)i
t .
i �
O,O O O�O O O ��
�
i �' ( i f
�i.�}OO�OO
�
po -y�
OfG1C
���H � s
Q
� • o ��O[�7
,�o�o �01� ���o�o�c
A _.
�o 'c� c� n � �? �
� o c�� o�o 0 0 0 0 °� (o�o��a���oio
n a�
APr LtCF,^:T�ef S�� SR��"` "`+ � LEG=ND
-�---
............--�, zoniny dis'ri��i Lroun�ay
PURPOSE. —
'� UATE � � � GiiTT/TT/�l subj=_C P:c�ery
iLE � ,' �
P\
YL��G. D'�S7 / tJ 1�1AP � � � O�B 12T;'j'
�� Q tu0 t2r1i:,
5� � j�'�*Q RUlliQl? f2 ^.ii'i
r- _"'_:
.
. . � co�: - -
g >.-. in:�_:' ��
:, v � y _.
•
.
�����
�� __ �� - - - -
Q� -��
" SeP p(y Ga.-0�'+t)i.�ricr �;r�' -
lli.trict 70 - C'vmc? Park Commn:�ily C��unCil
��_ – -- - — - -
_..—� _ , __ .. __.. .---- _ .. . .
Sept. 28, 1 y99
�
Planning Commission cio Nancy Homans
Department of PEll
1100 City Hail An�ex, 25 W. 4th St.
St. Paul, MPv 55102
Dear Ms. Homans and Commissioners:
Qn Oc�ober 14, 1999 the 7..oning Committee of the St. Paul
Planning Commission is scheduled to review a rezoning request for
885 W. California. The ownerc are Reverend Sam xnd Lori Anderson.
Reverend Anderson is rcyuetting a Special Conditional Use i'ermit for
this property. Although this house was built, and has been used, as a
singfe family dwelling, apparently the detign is such that it is
considered a duplex.
The Andersons' bought this housc in good faith as a single
family dwelling. They fiave paid a$S0. fine to Code Enfoccement and
5280. to apply for thi5 zoning change. The Andersons' prefer nat to
make the structural changes necded to bring their home into single
family compliancc. The neighbors around the homc have signed a
petition in fav�r of this change. The District 10 C�mmunity Council
has voted to recommend approval fot Rev. Andersons' request for a
SC�TP.
Sincerely,
�- y 1 ('" U
� `
Mar[y Crep
Communiry Dcvelopment Chair
Distric[ 10
LJ
f 5,5n Com« A�enae • S;. r'aul. blinc�etiot� SS I08 • Yho�c: 'r4d - 3SK9 • Pax� : - 6b:5
cNlaiJ. C'umulIXo�:i[if.COm
Tony Schaps 875 California Ave W D O_ ��
Saint Paui MN 55117
Ph: 651/ 488-1389
Tony@Schaps.com
November 12, 1999
To Saint Paul City Council
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing in support of Rev. Sam and I.ori Andersons' request to have the zoning
status of their home modified. I understand that they are requesting that their home be
granted duplex status with the stipulation that the property must be owner-occupied in
order for it to be used as a duplex. I further understand that they are requesting that this
zoning change be permanent and not terminate upon the sale of their home. I
support the Andersons in their request.
In addition, I would like to express my disappointment at the amount of trouble the City
and its inspector have given the Andersons. The Reverend and his wife are exactly the
kind of upstanding people that Saint Paul needs to attract to our neighborhoods, not
drive away with ridiculous bureaucracy, £'ines, and retaliation for possible errors made by
inspectors and buffders long prior to the Andersons' acquisition of the house. The City's
inspector created a problem here where none existed, and now this seems to me the only
fair solution.
Regards,
��� ��----
O b � �i,�
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CI'I`Y OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: January 19, 2000 (11:09ANI)
TO: Council President Bostrom, Council Members Blakey, Coleman, Harris, Benanav,
Reiter, Lantry
FROM: Peter Warner, CAO
RE: Consent Agenda Item No. 14, Resolution No. 00-43, Memorializing the
CounciPs decision to deny the nppeal of S. A. Anderson for a non-conforming
nse duplex located at 885 Californin.
Council members:
The purpose of this memo is to advise you that flie reasons stated in the above referenced resolution
overtuiziing the Planning Commission's decision to grant a non-conforming use permit aze slightly
different from those stated as the Council's basis for overtuming the decision. The stated reasons
in the resolution aze based upon the same facts but deal with a different legal analysis.
It is my advice that you adopt the reasons stated in resolution no. 00-43. Adopting its language has
exactly the same outcome as ariginally moved by the Council. However, the reasons stated in the
resolution make better legal sense when the facts before the Council cleazly demonstrated that the
dwelling had not been used as a duplex despite being configured in such a way that it could be so
used. The resolution notes that the dwelling cannot be used as a duplex and that the City can
continued to enforce the zoning code to insure that the dwelling will remain as a single family
dwelling.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. PW W
cc: I3ancy Homans, PED
oR����aL
RES�LUTI�N
CITY OF SA]NT PATL, MINNES�TA
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
��
2 WI�REAS, Samuel5. Anderson, in zoning file no. 99-240, made application under the
3 provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.102(i)(1) to the Saint Paul Planning Commission
4 [Planuiug Commission] for a non-conforming use germit to allow a duplex on properiy
5 commonly known as 885 California Avenue West and legally described as noted in the zoning
6 file; and
7
8 WI3EREAS, the Planning Commission's Zoning Committee conducted a public hearing
9 on October 14, 1999, after having provided notice to affected property owners, and submitted its
10 recommendation to the Flanning Com;nission. In resolution no. 99-65 dated October 22, 1999,
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
�2
?3
�
the Planning Cammission approved the non-canfornvng use, subject to the condition that the
subject property was owned and occupied by the applicant or the appIicant's spouse, based upon
the following fmdings and conditions:
The structure at 885 California Avenue West was constructed by Holiday Homes, Inc. in
1984. A buiiding pernut issued on July 17, 1984, indicates that the permit was issued for
the construction of a single family dweiling. Indeed, there aze three notations on the
permit indicating that it is to be used as a single family dwelling only. The plans
accompanying the permit application have been destroyed and are therefare not available
far review.
2. The applicant purchased the home in 1997 and has not altered it since that time. A
neighbor has submitted a letter for the file indicating that the present structure has been in
existence continuously for a period of at least ten years and has not been aitered. On
September 16, 1998, the agpiicant received a notice from a zoning inspector from the
City's Department of License, Inspections and Environmeatal Pratection (ZIEP)
indicafing that a complaint had been received alleging that the property was being used
illegally as a duplex. After an inspecfion on October 6"' (1998) the inspector told the
applicant that while there was no evidence of a second household, the structtxre is
considered an illegal duplex and that (the applicant) would haue to remove a kitchen, a
bathroom or the inside door leading into the lower level in order to comply with the
City's codes. His other option was to appiy far legal non-conforming status as a duplex.
On Febil�ary 14, 1449, the applicant, after having spoken with the home's builder who
indicated that the structure had not been altered�since it was constructed, wrote to the
zoning inspectar indicating that he felt he was in compliance with the City's code since
he was using the structure as a single family home and it had not been altered since its
construction.
�9
Council File # DO —�F3
Gteen Sheet #E Ino 3tro
4. On July 8, 1999, a citation was issued for an°illegal duplex in a single family zoning O o-�l S
district," and the appiicant was ordered to appear in Housing Court on August 27, 1999.
In an agreement with the prosecutor - to avoid potentially being found guilty of a
misdemeanor and fined $700 - the applicant agreed to plead guilry to a petty
misdemeanor, pay $50 of a$200 fine and apply for a non-conforming use percnit within
30 days.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1$
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
i9
FO
2
5. § 621 �2(i)¢) of the Zoning Code provides that the Planning Commission may grant legal
non-confonning status to the use of structures wluch fail to meet the standards of §
62102 $ upon making a serious of nine findings. The findings and the applicanYs ability
to meet them are as follows:
1. The use occurs entirely within an e�cisting structure. This condition is met. No
expansion of the e�sting structure is proposed.
The use is similaz to other uses pernutted within the district. This condition is
met. From all exterior appearances, the structure is a single family home, newer
but similar to all the other homes on the block. The adjacent property to the east
is an olderlegaily non-conforming duplex.
The use has been in existence confinuously for a period of at least ten years prior
to the date of the application. The condition is met. The evidence is that the
shucture was built in 1984 and the builder has indicated that it was built as it is
today. A neighbor has submitted a letter for the record indicating that the present
structure has not been altered and has been in continuous use since at least 1989.
4. The off street parking is adequate to serve the use. This condition is met. The
structure is served by two caz gazage and an off street driveway that could
accommodate an additional two cars. Newly constructed two family homes are
required to provide three spaces.
5. Hazdship would result if the use were discontinued. The applicant purchased the
home as it is today, valuing the second kitchen for entertaining related to his job
as a pastor. The doar between the two levels allows his small household to
conserve heat during those times when the downstairs is not in use. Requiring him
to remove either of these two elements would not only represent a hazdship for
him, but would have no impact on the appearance of the structure or how it relates
to the surrounding neighborhood.
6. Rezoning the property would result in spot zoning or zoning inappropriate to
surrounding land uses. This condirion is met. The shucture is located on a mid
block lot surrounded on all sides by lots zoned R-3, single family. To re-zone this
properiy to RT-1, to accommodate a duplex, would create a spot zone.
The use will not be detrimental to the e�sting character of development in the
imtnediate neighborhood or endanger the public heaith, safety or general welfare.
This condifion is met. The azea is a low density residenrial environment with
lazger lots that characterize standard city blocks. Acknowledging that the
Page 2 of 5
G
0
6
7
8
9
1Q
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2b
27
28
29
30
il
t2
ao-y 3
applicant has no plans to establish a second unit in the structure, the addition of
one unit to the area would not result in significant additional traffic, congestion or
burden on City services. Because the azea is fully deveIoped and nothing about
the ea�teriar of the structure is expected to change, there should be virtually no
impact on the e�sting character of development in the immediate neighborhood.
8. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Tlvs condition is met. The
Saint Paul plan for housing calls for creative mechanisms for adding units to
owner occupied structutes.
4. A notarized petition of two-thirds of the properry owners within 100 feet of the
properry has been submitted stating their support for the use. This condition is
met. Of the eleven owners of the properiy within 100 feet of the applicant's
property, eight, constituting the required two-thirds, signed a consent petition
submitted with the application.
6. The Planning Commission on July 17, 1992, adopted guidelines for staff making
recommendations on applications for non-conforming use permits related to conversions
of single family homes and duplexes. The guidelines and the applicant's ability to meet
them are as foilows:
Lots size of at least 5,000 sq. 8. with a lot width or front footage of 40 ft. This
guideline is met. The lot area is 6,173 sq. ft. with a front footage of 71 ft.
2. Gross living area after complerion of duplex conversion of at least 1,800 sq. ft. for
the two units. The guideline is not met. The square footage of the structure is
1,768 sq. ft., 32 sq. ft. shy of the gtzideiine. Staff has determined that, because of
the unusual circumstances and the narrow difference between the guideline and
the actual square footage, the difference does not represent sufficient grounds to
recommend denial of the applicarion.
Three off street pazking spaces (non-stacked) are prefened; two spaces are the
required minimum. A site plan showing improved parking space must be
provided. The guideline is met. The structure is served by a detached two car
gazage.
4. All remodeling work for the duplex conversion is on the inside of the structure.
This guideline is met. No remodeling work is planned.
>. The proposed duplex structure is located in a mixed density neighborhood, not a
homogeneous single family azea or in an area where duplexes and triplexes aze
already concentrated w the point of congesting neighborhood streets. The
guideline is met. The neighborhood property is a legally non-conforming duplex
and there aze three two-family structures on the north side of the block. They do
not, however, represent a concentration or source of traffic congestion.
§ 62.102(i) pravides, in part, that the Flauning Commission in appraving non-conforming
use permits may ailow a non-conforming use for a specified period of tnne and then
Page 3 of 5
00 -�i 3
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
require its removal by attaching an expiration date to the permit if the commissian makes
three findings. The findings and the commission's ability to make them are as follows:
Termi.nation of the non-conforxning use would cause significant hardship. This
finding is met as indicated in fmding 4.5 above.
2. Pernutting the non-canforming use for a period of time will facilitate the
transition to a confornling use. This finding is met. A1lowing the current ownex
to use the property as he purchased it, requiring that futute owners make the
alterations required by the zoning administrator to insure its future use as a single
family home, wiIl facilitate such a ttansition.
3. Permitting the non-conforming use for a period of time is consistent with the
public health, safety, comfort, morals and weifaze. This fmding is met as
indicated in fmding 4.7 above.
WI�REAS, pursaant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Samuel
S. Anderson duly filed with the Ciry Cierk an appeal from the determination made by the
Plauning Commission, requesting that a hearing ba held before the Ciry Council for the purpose
of considering the actions taken by the said commision; and
23 WI3EREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ b4.20b - 64.208 and
24 upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on
25 December 8, 1999, where a11 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and
2b
27
28
?g
30
31
;2
WI�REAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the
application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the zoning committee and of
the planning commission, does hereby;
RESOLVE, to reverse the decision of the planning commission in this matter based on
the following:
The Councii, is permitted, under authority provided in Saint Paul Legislative Code §
64.207 to make such determinations and orders as are necessary in zoning matters.
2. The Council fmds, based upon its review of the record, that it was unnecessary to make a
non-conforming use permit determination in this matter. The record shows no evidence
that the subject structure was used by the present occupant as a duplex despite the fact
that the structure is configured to allow use of the structure as a duplex. Given that the
structure is presently used, as represented by the present occupant, only in furtherance of
the occupant's pastoral vocations there was no need to legitimize the establishment of
duplex via a non-conforming use permit deternvnation.
3. The Council finds that the subject structure, given its configuration, could be used as a
duplex but notes that the subject properiy is zoned for single family use only and that any
use of the structure as a duplex, by anyone including the applicant, would constitute a
violation of the zoning code and that the City would be able to enforce the zoning code
against any violator.
Page 4 of 5
oo-��
a
0
10
11
12
13
14
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Samuel S. Anderson be and is
hereby granted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the fees to be refunded as determined by the
planniug comtnission should be refunded at this time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shail mail a copy of this resolution
to Samuel S. Anderson, the Zaning Administrator, and the Planning Commission; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shali be kept on file in the
offices of the Plamiiug Administrator and the Zoning Administrator to inform any future
interested party that the subject structure, despite its configuration, is legally zoned for single
family use only.
.dopted by Council: Date ]�T����
doptio Certified by Covnci Secretasy
• _ "'i�� -�— l •
proved by ma Date �.�il Z�( 2��1
Requested by Department of:
Hy:
Form Appr by City At[omey
8 ,. : ��✓��-- I-lo-oo
Approved by Mayor for Submission [o Council
�
GREEN SHEET
���
70TAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
Memorializing the decision of the City Council on December 8, 1999,denying the appeal of
Samuel S. Anderson to a decision o£ the Planning Commission to atCach a condition to a Non-
conforming Use Permit for a duplex at 885 West Cali£ornia Avenue that the permit is valid o
so long as the property is owned and occupied by Samuel S. Anderson or his spouse.
o-v
PLANNING CAMMISSION
C16 COMMLTfEE
CIVIL SERVICE CAMM{S:
ho -4�
No 1 v;;3�0
��
� ❑ �.,,�, ❑ ��
❑..�,�,� ❑..�.,�a
❑wmeroRwtmnwrt� ❑
(CLJP All �OCA'[IONS FOR SIGNANRE)
Has thie pe�soNfirm em varNed under a contraU torMis depaNneM7
YES No
Has Mie pmadfim� evw been n cKY empcv��
VFS NO
DaesUxs PersaNF�n Poaeeas a slall nat � UY �+Y curteM titY �PbY��
YES NO
la tltie pcvaonlfi�m atarpetM vCndaYt
YES NO
7
coarraEVEnue euooertv �aRttB oriq
SOURCE
ACTNI7Y NUMBER
m
YES NO
i nrs.�:n "...�..Lil�r".a��,
OFFICE OF TI� CITY ATTORNEY
Clay[onM Robinson, Jr., CiryAttorney ()O �t{3
CIT`Y OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Civil Division
400 City Hall
IS West KeUogg Blvd
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Te lephane: 651 266-871 Q
F¢csfmile: 651298-5619
J1T1U21}' 11 � Z��Q
Nancy Anderson
Councii Secretary
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
5t. Pau1, MN 55102
Re: Appeal of Samuel S. Anderson
Zoning Resolution 99-240
Public Hearing Date: December 8, 1499
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find the signed original Resolufion memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul
CiTy Council of December S, 1999, to reverse the decision of the Plamiing Commission in the
above-enritled matter.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
� ��w�v�--�
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attorney
PWWfrmb
Enclosure
/���,�..
�-
td o�(•l �� �. K� %Md( ta.� w+ ��n �.r f� c �4{�
iT T^L LOV.�1G� ` �S4V\w� � LalHfC�7� G� y,.�(�„ �.
t �
(� �. o�w P%,�` `�i�
DEPARTMENI' OF PLANNING
& ECONO�LfICDEVELOPMEN7'
Brian Sweeney, Interim D�reclor
CIT'� OF SAIN I' PAUL
Narm Colem¢n, Mayor
November 23, 1999
3vSs. Nancy Anderson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
�
25 West Pounh Srreet Te[ephone: 651-266-6655
Saint Paul, MN 5510? Facs�mlle: 651-228-3314
po-Y3
a•�:;`:y" ;'���".�.. .,. °`�°
�y '� �
i Yi �
, � s ,� � ����
I would like to confirm that a public hearing befare the Caty Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
December 8, 1999, for the fo]lowing appeal of a Planning Commission decision:
Appellant: Samuei S. Anderson
File Number: Appeal of file #99-2A0
Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision to attach a condition to a Nonconformmg
Use Permit for a duplex at 885 West California that the permit is valid only so long as
the property is owned and occupied by Samuel S. Anderson or his spouse.
Address: 885 West California
Legal Description of Property: See file
Previous Action:
Zoning Committee Recommendahon: Approval; vote: unanimous; Octobex 14, 1999
Plannmg Commission Decision: Approval; vote: unanimous, October 22, 1999
My undexstanding is that this pubhc hearing request will appeax on the agenda fox the December l, 1999
City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing m the Saint Paul Legai Ledger.
Please call me at 266-6557 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
������
Nancy Homans
City Planner
cc: File #99116459
Paul Dubruiel, PBD
Carol Martineau, PED
Wendy Lane, LIEP
Samuel S. Anderson
•�msrxuN•
NOTICE OF PUBLIC BF.ARING �
The Saint Faul City Council will conduct
a public hearing on Wedn�esday, December..
8, 1999, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Covncii
Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall-
Courthouse, to consider the appeaY of
Samuel S. Anderson to a decision of the
Planning ,Commission.to attach a
conditton to a Nonconforming Use Permit
for a duplex at 885 West California
Avenue Yhat the permit is valid only so
long as the property is owned and
occupied by Samuel S. Anderson or his
spouse.
Dated:November23;1999 - -
NANCY.tYNDERSON -
AssisTant LYty Councti Secretary
" (Nov.261 '• �
_�=_===ST.PAiII.LEGALLED6ER=�=�=_: `
a
�
`ovember 30, 1999
czr� oF sa�rrr Pauz.
A'o�m Colemnn, bfn}�ar
Ms. I`�ancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minneeota 55102
RE: Zoning File #99116459
City Counci] Hearing:
DEPARTMENT OF PLAt�i iNG
& ECONOMIC DEVELOP�fENT
Brian SweEnfy, Direcfor f� O ���
✓
15 WestFourth Street Telephone: 6/2-?66-6565
SnintPnuf,MN55/02 Fncsimde6l?-2?833l4
SAMUEL S. ANDERSON
December 8, 1999, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal of a planning commission decision to attach a condition to a Nonconforming Use Permit for
a duplex at S85 West Califomia that the permit is valid only so long as the property is owned and occupied by
Samuel S. Anderson orhis spouse.
PLANNING COMMISSIOi�` ACTION: Approval with conditions; Unanimous
ZONING COMMITTEE ACTION: Approval with conditions; 6-0
� STAFF RECOMMENDATIO�: Approval
SUPPORT: One person spoke in support of the non-conforming use permii, but did noi address the condition.
OPPOSITION: No one spoke in opposition to the non-conformmg use permit.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
•
SAMUEL S. ANDERSON has appealed the decision of the Saint Pau] Planning Commission to attach a
condition to the non-conforming use permit they granted him for his property at 885 �Vest Califomia. The
zonm� committee held a public heanng on the application on October 14, 1999. The applicant addressed the
committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted unanimously to grant him the nonconforming
use permit to allow him to use his structure as a duplex, but added a condition that the permit would be vatid only
so long as the property is o�vned and occupied by Samuel S. Anderson or his spouse. The Saint Paul Plannmg
Commiss�on upheld the committee's recommendation on a unanimous vote on October 22, 1999. The applicant
is appealmg to have the condition either removed from the permit or modified to require that the structure be
owmer-occupied if it is used as a duplex.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 8, 1999. Please notify me if any member
of the City Councll wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sin rely,
Lawzence Soderho]m
Planning Administrator
Attachments
cc: City Council members
APPL[CATION FOR APPEAL
� ,( 1'l �{ D¢partment aJPlanning and Economic Dev¢Iopmenr
�n��� Zoning Sectior:
6w�i
- - 1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
, _. �c?-�-13
Zaning c� .iis a ty
Fite na._ � i 1 i�,�. � L
�$e I S!J —
'Ier�tative.#�earing BatQ: °
� � �. � e� �e,�
Name h;e-�` .S'Frrriv�. S 1-�i✓-��Rsc�L�
Address ��' J �' A-� t t0 f. !L� � A R o'_. . ay/
City-�7� �A4'+- St.11 �Zip �� �� 7 Daytime phone�'�':�-7/ 77 ',
PROPERTY Zoning File Nan
LOCAT{ON Address/Locatio
•
/�
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
` Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section�, Paragreph � of the 2oning Code, to
�
appeal a decision made by the�'/Cc1��1)hrt C�}ry-�r'
on �/t?7!�{3�/" o�oZ � Fife number:
(date of decisionJ
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error i� any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
S« c� -t�-�, �. h e� i� f f�.,^
����
�5
` � Attach additionat sheet if
Applicant's
Date ' � �� `�`J City agent i_�__�
�tZ°���
Rev. Sam & Lor� Anderson
885 Califom�a Ave-, W.
$ Pau1.MN 5571J
• November 12, 1999
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
1100 Ciry Hali Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ciry Councii:
Thank you for taking the time to consider my piight. My wife and 1 purchased our home a little over iwo
years ago and as you can see by the fiie that accompanies this appeal, much of that time has been
spent dealing with a"problem" that we were not aware of when we moved in nor contributed to since
that time.
A brief summary of the events;
1 We received a Ietter stating that there had been a comptaint and that we wouid be
inspected.
2. A city inspector visited our home and informed us that it was an illegai duplex in spite of
the fact that we had never used it as a dupiex nor had any plans to do so.
• 3. We were initialiy told we would have to remove the basement bathroom or remove the
door at the bottom of ihe staircase to bring the home into compliance. Later we were told
we would be allowed to remove the door and frame only if we signed something t beiieve
was referred to as a"deed restriction" document stating that it wouid never be used as a
duplex.
4. I informed the inspector that the removal of the door wouid be unaccaptab{e because it
wouid make the basement so cold in the winter that we wouldn't even be abie to sit
downstairs and entertain or watch N.
5. i was toid about the option to appiy for a"non-conforming use" permit. To begin the
process i traced my Torrents back to the original ow�erlbuilder and asked how the home
was constructed. i described its current condition and was told that this was the way the
home had been built and approved.
6. After d'+scovering that the home had been approved this way, we wrote a letter to the
inspector asserting these facts along with the already estabiished knowledge that we had
not used the home illegally.
7. Severaf months later we received a citation from the city inspector in the maii asserting
that we were guilty of a misdemeanor for having a dupiex in a single-family zoned part of
the city and ordered to appear in housing court
8. 1 appeared in court in argued my case to the prosecutor. He informed me that if i was
unwilling to remove the door that I would have to apply for the permit. Ultimately he
pieaded my citation down to a petty misdemeanor, was fined 550.00 and ordered to appiy
for the permit within 30 days.
�o -'��
• Page 2
November 12, 1999
9. We gathered the signatures, fiiled out the forms, wrote out our check, and submitted our
application for the "non�onforming use" permit.
10. My neighborhood planning
supported our application.
office, after considering <
recommended its passage.
committee, as well as our district 10 councii, approved and
My neighbors af( s�pported our appiicatio� and the zoning
I of the options along with council from a city attomey,
11. At the hearing of the Zoning Commission several of the committee members expressed
concems that made a great deal of sense. Their primary concem seemed to be tfie fact
that this permit wouid appiy not only to my wife and myself, but also to any future owners
of fhe property. And whife we may have no intention of uti(izing our home as a dupiex, fhis
could open the door for the home to be purchased by an investor who would not live in the
home and who may or may not care for the property. As a resu(t of this discussion the
decision was made to approve the permit, but oNy as long as Lori and i remained the
owners. The permit would expire as soon as we sold the home.
12. This has had an unfortunate and perhaps unforesean consequence. We are now faced
with a siYUalion where, upon the sa(e of our fiome and the subsequent expiration of
the "nonconfortning use" permit, 885 California Avenue West wiU not be legal
eiYher as a single family home or as a dupiex. No one in his or her right mind would
ever purchase such a property.
We believe that there may be a better solution to an already very confusing and frustrating situation. If
conditions can be attached to "non-conforming use" permits such as iYs termination �pon the safe of
the home, then why not require fhat tf�e home must be owner-occupied in order for fhe it to 6e used as
a Iegal duplex, I have spoken to several of my neighbors and they have expressed their ful! support of
this proposal as tfiey were of it becoming an unconditiona( dupiex. This wouid:
1. Aqow the home to be used as a Iegal singie-family home without placing undue hardship
upon the owners.
2. Insure that if the home would not be purchased merely as an invesfinenf as we(! as protect
the neighbors and neigh6orhood from possibie problems sometimes associated with non-
owner occupied properties
3. Enabie my wife and myseff to eventuafiy seli tfie home without it becoming immediately
iilegal upon its sale.
4. Protect any future owners from similar comp(ications
5. Bring an end to this whole situation,
Please forgive me for appealing the decision of the Zoning/Pianning Commissions end bothering ihe
City Council with this issue, b�t as you can see, this matter has caused considerable anxiety and
frustration over the past 14 months for two first fime homeow�ers who simpiy want to own and be able
to se1! a tegai properry in the city of Saint Paui.
Sincerely,
r l%' �r (�
Rev. Samuei S. Anderson
Owner, 885 Caiifornia Avenue West
•
•
-
�r� -��
� city of saint paut
planning commission resolution
�Ie number 99-65
date October 22 , 1949
WHEREAS, SAMUEL S. ANDERSON, file # 99-240, has appiied for a Nonconforming Use
Permit under the provisions of Section 62.102O(1) of the Saint Paui Legislative Code, to allow
far a duplex on property located at 885 CALIFORNIA AVE W, legal{y described in the file; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on Qctober 14, 1999, heid a
public hearing at which ail persons prssent were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to
said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Pau!
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Pianning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its
Zoning Committee at the public hearing, as substantialiy reflected in the minutes, made the
foliowing findings of fact:
1. The structure at 885 Cafifomia Avenue, West was constructed by Holiday Homes, Inc. in
1984. A buiiding permit issued on Juiy 17, 19&4 indicates that the permit was issued for
• the construction of a"Single Family Dweiling". indeed, there are three notations on the
permit indicating that it is to be used as a"sing{e family dwelling oniy."
The plans accompanying the permit application have been destroyed and are, therefore,
not avaiia6le for review.
2. The applicant purchased the home in 1997 and has not aitered ii since that time A
�eighbor has submitted a letter for the file indicating that the present structure has been in
existence continuously for a period of at least ten years and has not been altered.
3. Qn September 16, 1998, the applicant received a notice from a zoning inspector from the
City's Department of License, inspections and Environmentaf Protection (LIEP) indicating
that a complaint had been received alleging that the property was being used iilegally as a
duplex. After an inspection on October 6, the inspector tofd the applicant that, whiie there
was no evidence of a second househoid, the structure is considered an iAegal duplex and
that he woufd have to remove a kitchen, a bathroom or the inside door leading into the
lower Ievel in order to compiy with the City's codes. His other option was to apply for fegal
nonconforming status as a duplex.
maved by Gervais
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
Zoning File #99-240
Page Two of Resolution
On February 94, 999g, the appiicant, after having spoken with the home's builder who
indicated that the structure had not been altered since it was constructed, wrote to the
zoning inspector indicating that he felt he was in compliance with tF�e City's code since he
was using the structure as a single family home and it had not been alfered since its
construction.
On July 8, 1999 a cifafion was issued for an "iliegai duplex in a singte family zoning
district," and the applicant was ordered fo appear in Housing Couft on August 27, 1999, in
an agreement with the prosecutor--to avoid potentialty being found guiity of a misdemeanor
and fined S700--the applicant agreed to plead guilty to a petfy misdemeanor, pay $50 of a
$200 fine and appiy for a Non-conforming Use Permit within 30 days.
4. Sec. 62.102(i)(1) of the zoning code provides tF�at the Planning Commission may grant
(egal nonco�forming status to the use of structures which faif to meet the standards of
section 62.102(b) upon making a series of nine findings. The findings and the applicant's
ability to meef them are as follows:
The use occurs entirely wrthin an existing structure.
This condifion is met. No expansion af the existing structure is proposed.
•
Z. The use is similar to other uses permitted within the district. .
This condition is met. �rom aii e�erior appearances, this structure is a single family
home, newer but simiiar to a!I the other homes on the block. The adjacent property
to the east is an older legaliy non-conforming dup(ex.
3. The use has been in existence contirruousty for a period of at least ten {10) years
prior to the dafe of fhe application.
This condition is met. The evidence is that the structure was built in 1984 and the
builder has indicafed thaf it was built as it is today. A neighbor has submitted a latter
for the record indicating that the present structure has not been aitered and has been
in continuous use since at least 1989.
4. The o(f-street parking is adequafe to serve the use.
This condition is met. The structure is served by a fwo-car garage and an off-street
driveway that could accommodate an additional two cars. Newly constructed two-
family homes are required to provide three spaces.
5. Nardship would result if the use �vere drscantinued.
The applicant purchased the home as it is today, valuing the sscond kitch2n for
entertaining related to his jab as a pastor. The door 6etween the two levels a(lows his
smaii household to conserve heat aur(ng those times wnen the downsiairs is noi in
use. R=quiring him to remove either of those two elements would not only represent
a hardship for him, but would have no impact on the appearance of the s'r�cture or
how it relates to the surrounding neighborhood.
�O —`��
• Zoning File #99-240
Page Three of Resolution
fi. Rezoning the property wou/d result in °spoY' zoning or a zo�ing i�app�opriate to
surrounding land uses.
This condition is met. The structure is �ocated on a mid-block !ot surrounded o� a�(
sides by lots zoned R-3, Single Family. To rezone this property to RT-1, which would
accommodate a duplex, would create a"spot zone."
7. The use will nof be detrimenfal to fhe exisfing characte� of development rn the
immediafe neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety o� genera/ welfare.
l"his condition is met. The area is a low density residential environment with larger
lots than characterize standard city blocks. Acknowledging that the applicant has no
plans to establish a second unit in the structure, the addition of one unit to the area
wouid not result in signifcant additional traffic, congestion, or burden on City
services. Because the area is fuliy developed and nothing about the exterior of the
structure is expected to change, there should be virtualiy no impact on the exisfing
character of development in the immediate neighborhood.
8. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
This condition is met. The Sarnt Pau! Plan for Housing calis for creative mechanisms
� for adding units to owner occupied structures.
9. A notarized pefition of two-thirds of the property owners withrn one hundred (100 feet)
of the property has been submrtted stating their support for the use.
This condition is met Of the eleven owners with property within 100 feet of the
applicant's property, eight, constituting the required two thirds, signed a consent
petition submitted with the appiication and attached to this report.
5. The Pianning Commission on July 17, 1992, adopted guidelines for staff making
recommendations on app{ications for nonconforming use permits refated to conversions of
single family homes to dupfexes. The guidelines and the applicanYs ability to meet them
are as foilows:
Lot size of at /east 5000 square feet with a/ot widfh or front footage of 40 feet.
The guideline is met. The lot area is 6173 square feet with a front footage of 7'f feet.
2. Grass living area, after complefion of duplex conversron of af least 9800 square feet
for fhe two units.
The guideiine is not met. The square footage of the structure is 1768 square feet, 32
square ieet shy of the guid2line. Stafr has d2termined iha't, bzcaus2 of ine unusual
circumstances and the nasrow difierence 6etween the guideU�e and the actual
, square footage the difrerence does not represent sufricient gro�nds to recommend
denial o` t�e application
Zoning File #99-240
Page Four of Resolution
3. Three o(f streef parking spaces (non-stacked) are preferred; two spaces are the
requrred minimum. A site p/an showing improved parking spaces must be provided.
The guideiine is met. The structure is served by a detached two-car garage.
4. A!1 remodeling work for the duplex conversion is on the inside of the structure.
The guideline is met. No remodeling work is planned.
5. The proposed duplex structure rs located in a mixed density neighborhood, not a
homogenous single famrly area orin an area tivhere duplexes and triplexes are
already concentrated to the point of congesting neighborhood streets.
The guideline is met. The neighboring property is a tegaliy nonconforming duplex
and there are three two-family structures on the north side of the block. They do not,
however, represent a concentration or source of traffic congestion.
6. Section 62.iQ2(i) provides, in part, that the pianning commission in approving non-
conforming use permits may allow a nonconforming use for a specified period of time and
then require its removai by attaching an expiration date to the permit if the commission
makes fhree findings. The findings and the commission's ability fo make them are as
iollows:
Termi�ation of the nonconforming use...would cause significanf hardship.
2.
3.
This finding is met as indicated in finding 4.5. above.
Permifting fhe nonconforming use for a period of time will facilitate fhe transition to a
conforming use.
This finding is met. AIlowing the current owner to use the prop=rty as he purchased
it, but requiring that future o�vners make the alterations required by the zoning
administrator to ensure its future use as a single famify home, wi(f faci(itate sucfi a
transition.
Permit[ing fhe non-conforming use for a period of time is consistent with the public
heatth, safety, comfort, morals and welfare.
This finding is met as indicated in finding 4.7, above.
fVOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RE50LVED, by the Saint Pau( Planning Commission, that under
the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the appiication for a Nonconforming Use Permit to
allow a dupiex at 885 CALIFORNIA AVE WEST is hereby approved and shall be valid so long
as the property is owned and occupied by the applicant, Samu21 S. And=rson, or his spouse;
a �d
�
r1
�J
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Saint Paul should r2`und to Samuel S. Anderson -
his permit application iee oi S28D.00.
00 -`��
•
Saint Paul PIanning Commissian
Cify Ha11 Conference Cenfer
1� Ke]logg Boulevard West
A meeting of che Pla�nin� Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, October 22, 1949, at
830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Duarte, Faricy, Geisser, Morton and Nordin and Messrs.
Present: Corbey, Dandrea, Fotsch, Gervais, Csordon, Kong, Kramer, Mardelt and Shakir.
Commissioners Mmes. *Engh and *McCall and Messrs. *Field, *Johnson, *Margulies, *No�vlin
Absent:
*Excused
�
IJ
Afso Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Tom Harren, Donna Drummond,
Iv'ancy Frick, Nancy Homans, Allen Lovejoy, Larry Soderholm, Joel Spoonheim,
Ailan Torstenson and James Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic
Deve(opment staff; Tom Beach, Office of License, Inspections and Environmental
Protection; and Mike Klassen, Department of Public Works.
I.
II.
III.
IV
Approcal of NIinutes of October 8, 1999
MOTION: Conrn:issioner Gorrlon nroved approva! of tke n:inutes ojOctober 8, I999;
Contnrissioner Martle!! secondetl tl�e molior¢ whiclt carrietl «narzimously on a voice vote.
Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton announced that the semi�ar for next Friday, October 29, 1999 wilf be�in at 830
a.m. in Room 4Q of the Cih� Hall Conference Center.
Commissioner Dandrea invitzd Commission members to fonvard questions about thz upcomin�
seminar to him. Interestin� speakers have been lined-up.
Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Ford pointed out that a pro�ram for the seminar is at each commissioner's place this
momine. A si�n-up sheet �vill be circulated a�ain.
Community Foram on Light Rail Transit in the Central Corridor
Chair Morton read an introduction to thz forum.
Mr. Ford stated that reQionally, there is some momentum for a tisht rail s}'stem a ith some
fundin!� in place for 1nd acti� e plannine and eneineerin; �cork to consvuct the Hia�catha Lin:.
Thz Legi;lature asked the \letropolitan Couacil to produce earl} next tiear a ne« plan for
capacity. Also, city and county roads are going to cost behveen $200-$300 million to �
espand behveen now and 2002. We have to keep those kinds of cost in mind:vhen we arz
thinking about �vhedier �ae want to build lighi rail, busva}�s; whether we want to make
major e�cpenditures is alternatives to the car. From havina tearned about and ridden light
rai! i�� a number of cities around the country, she beGeves that the Central Corridor project
has the potential to be one of the most successfu( light rail lines in the coantry. It is alr�ady
a major transportation corridor with very successfuf bus service, atthough it's very slow.
This tine cvitt connect t�co major downtowns, and there is no other s}stem in the country
t(�at does that. In addition, it will connect a major universiry�. Because of chose reasons is
also have wonderful economic development potential.
Ron �Villiams, 779 Clayland Street, addressed the Commission o� behalf of the Sierra Ctub.
He has a dream that his SuperSaver bus card will turn into a SuperSa��er LRT card. He
thinks that what he reads in the newspapers about LR"[' being an e�periment is ludicrous.
LRT has been in use for up to fifty years in cities in this country and al! over the warld.
However, it's not automatic tl�at if an LRT line is put down, it will «ork for the best, aad we
are here today to help make it worh for the best for the City of Saint Pau1. The Centrai
Corridor is the prioriry over die airport or downtown afternaiives foc Saiat Paul today, and
Uni��ersity Ave��ue should be given the edee over the I-94 option. Project plannin„ design
and construction schedulin� must proceed �vith a goal of preservine the vitatity ofthe
hlidway as a nei�hborhood and a marketplace and not turn into a deserted transic corridor.
Tltis means protecting and preserving local bi�sinesses by providing for parking, continuing
frequent local bus service, and desi�nin� freqirent feeder buslines at close intenals. LRT is
for local as well as for interurban traffic. Major considerations in dzcerminina the best Saint
Pauf LRT al[ernaiives are: I) the altemative that promises the most ridership, the one thaT �
gets people out of their cars the most; and 2} the alternative that iend> itse(f to more dense
development iz� the urban corridor thi�s diminishing izrban spra��L One part ofthe Sierra
Club's North Star c6apter of poticy on LRT in 1998 says
��'ork to zdlieve more sustainable gro��th patterns «ith an emphasis on a more compact
urban forum b} promotina infill development and decelopment alonQ Itiah, quatity
public transit corridors. �
Chair Morton thanked everyorte for their inpt�t It ��il! be considered b� t(ie Committee and
Canmission and sent on to the City Council.
V. Zoning Committee
�� �99-240 Samuel S Anderson - Nonconformin� use permit to a(lotiti a duples at 885 California
`' Avenue tiVest benveen Avon and Victoria (Nancy Homans, 266-6557).
MOTIO\ Conunissioner Ger��r�is ixoved approcal wit/r corzditions of tlte reqrrestetl
nonconfor»:ina use pern:it ta a!/orv a duplex at 835 California Aveetue ii�est berween Avon
and Yictoria_
Commissioner Kramer stated that the Zoning Committee added a condi:ion tliat thi; property
could be used as a duple� as fona as it «ti oe�'ned "and occupied" b}' tl:z current o«nzr. The
-
ao -�t�
� simation is that this property is not really a duples but city regulations require it to be
categorized as a duplex. The o�vner doesn't want it to be a duples, but in order for him to keep
an interior door and a second kitchen, it requires a duples status. Ttie words "and occupied"
should �o benveen the words "owned" aod "by the applicant" in the last sentence of the
resotution. Chair Morton reca{!ed 2hat was discussed by committee and should be part of
resohition.
Commissioner Nordin asked ��fiat happens �vhen the current owner sells the property. Chaic
vlorton rzplied that �vhen he sells the property, it becomes a single family, and the door �vi1!
need to be removed or they can reapply for a permit.
Tlre motion ort tlte floor ta approve with conclitior:s the re�uested nonconformirrg use permit
to a!(ow a duplex nt 88� California Avenue West betwee3: Avaa artd Victoria cmried
tu:anirnously or: a vaice vate.
k94-253 Canadiaa Pacific Railroad - Special condition use permit to allow the removal and
replacement of fill in the river corridor: ercavation and relocation on the site of approximately
2�,000 cubic yards of material and backfill cer[ain areas that have been escavated at 80D Pig's
Eye Lake Road (1�'ancy Frick, 266-6554).
MOTION: Co�r:r�:issioner Gervais moved approva! with coftditiorts of ihe regarested specia!
co�r�li[io�r rrse permit to a!lorv tlre renrovn! and repl�rcenren? of frll in tke river corridor:
excaration �uul relocalion o�t the site of approxintately 20,000 cubic yards oJn�aterial anrt
bacb�ll certtrin areas thnt have been ercavatetl nt 800 Pig's Eye Lal�e Road w/ticG carried
� emanimously o�r a voice vole.
�99-25� Ciri' of St. Paul Parls and Recreation - Special condition use permit to build a
bandstand on Raspberry Island s east end (Larry Soderholm, 266-6575).
NIOTIQI: Conrmissioner Gervais moved approva! with conditions ojthe requested special
condition use perntit to build « baridstarid a! Raspberry Islartd's east eud whiclt carried
tutaieinmusly o�: a voice vote.
#99-356 US �Vest Wireless - Special condition use permit to aHow a cellular teiephone anienna
to be installed in the Oxford Street ri�ht-of-way �4est side bzttveen Concordia and Carroll (Allan
Torstensan, 266-6�79).
Commissioner Gervais stated ihat this item was laid over to the next Zoning Committee
meeti�i;.
#49-260 Auto Care St�stem Tne - Special condition use permit to allo«' for outdoor sales of
used cars at I 176 - i 1 S8 Dale Street North between Maryland and Geranium (Nancy Homans,
266-6557).
�IOTIOti Cornrr:issior:er Gervais mored npprpval with eonditions of tbe reqaest for a
specia! c�irditioir use pe�n:it to alloa� for outrloor safes of uset( cars at 1176-1183 Dale Street
t�'nrtk betweert lbfcrry�laud and Geraairart �rlticli carried on a voice voze (Cor6et).
1
and another meetin� is schedufed for the second �veek in November, 1999. A community forurr� •
w'i(! be lzeld �cithin the next couple of months.
X. Old Business
None.
XT. New Business
Commissioner Gervais brought «p an issue on the East Si@e regarding Arcade and Sisth Street.
Apparent[y, Public Works has blocked off traffic coming from Sisth Street onto Arcade. He
asked staff to look into the matter and repoR back on how that progressed aa@ went into effect.
District �, the Payne Arcade Business Association and the East Side Nei�hborhood
Devetapment Company are trying to estabtish a meetin� �vizh DistricY 4 and KaYhy Lantry. IQo
one seems to know how or why this came about.
Chair Morton asked Commissioner Gervais what the impact has 6een on Arcade.
Commissioner Gervais replied that the result has been less traffic leading into the business
district on Arcade which is not good for economic development. The traffic studies that were
done were done strictly in the IIistrict 4 section; not much attention was paid to Arcade Street.
As a result, the businesses on Arcade Street are suffering because of lack of access.
Mc Ford commented that staff ivill be happy to look into the matter and report back to the
Commission.
XII. Adjournment
The meeting �vas adjourned at 10: i0 a.m.
Recorded and prepared by
Iean Birkholz, Piannia� Commission Secretary
Planning and Economic Developme�t Department,
Citq of Saint Paul
Respectfufly submitted,
�
Kennzth Ford
Plannine Admini;trator
Approved // I ��,/ /
(Date)
� � �.�� v
Je ' er ngh �/
Secretary of the Piannfifg Commission
•
�p(sn�in��.nnnu[ei.f::� 1 � �
•
�
�
MINUTES QF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, October 14, 1999 - 3:30 p.m.
City Councit Chambers, 3"' Floor
City Hall and Gourt House
15 West Keliogg Boulevard
PRESENT; Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, Morton, and Nowiin
EXCCfSED:
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Faricy
Peter Warner, City Attorney
Caro{ Martineau, Afian Torstenson, and Nancy Fiomans of PED
aa -4�
SAMUEL S. AtJDERSON - 99-240 - Nonconforming Use Permit to allow for a duplex at 885
California Avenue West.
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
Nancy Homans showed slides and presented the staff report. Ms. Homans stated the staff
recommends approvaf of the Nonconforming Use Permit.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Homans stated the construction of the buifding has
not changed. Ms, Homans aiso stated the owner had a choice of removing one of the bathrooms
or kitchens or the door downstairs separating the rooms, the inspector woufd have estabiished the
dwe4ling as a single family residence. in lieu of making any of these changes the appiicant chose
to pay a fee of $280.00 to appiy for a Nonconforming Use Permit.
Upon question of Commissianer Gordon, Ms. Homans stated the door is an interior door with no
locks.
Mr. Sam Anderson, the app{icant appeared and stated he was shocked when the inspector came
and stated his home was a duplex. Mr. Anderson exp{ained that they sent a letter to the Cify
stating he was in compliance with the code because his home was being used as a singfe family
dwelling. The City then sent a citat+on stating the dwelling was not in conformance. The Housing
Court prosecutor explained that they had to do reconsfruction or apply for a Nonconforming Use
Permit.
At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Anderson explained they received a letter from the
City in February and the citation in July or August. The status of their property has not changed
since they have purchased their home.
Mr. Schaps, 875 California Avenue West, appeared and stated the appficants use the dweliing for
a single family home and that he was in favor of the Nonconforming Use Permit.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Nowlin recommended approval of the Nonconforming Use Permit and also
recommended the application fee be waived. The motion was seconded.
Responding to Cammissioner Kramer's concerns, Mr. Torstenson explained because this case
went to court the oniy option was to designate this dwei{ing as a duplex.
Zorting Committee Minutes
Qctober 14, 1899
File #: 99-240
Page 2
After further discussion Commissioner Nowlin amended his motion to add the condition that upon
sale of the property, the Nonconforming Use Permit becomes invalid.
Adopted Yeas - 6
Drafted by:
�:'_�14 � f), �� ��, 9 r�,W
Carol Martineau
Recording Secretary
Nays - 0
Submitted by:
., �� � �`n,�ii.o
hfancy Homans
Zoning Section
�
.
-
Approved by:
oo-��
•
1
2
ZONZNG COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
FSLE # 99-25�
APPLICANT: Samuel S. Anderson DATE OF HEARI2IG: 1�/14199
CLASSIFICATIODI: Establishment of a Noncon£orming Use Permit
3. LOCATION: 885 CALSFQR�IA AVE W
9. PLAI3NING DISTRICT: 10
5. I.EGAL DESCRIPTION: see file
6. PRESENT ZONING: R-3 ZONING CODE REFERENCB: 62.102(i)(1}
7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT;1017/99 BY: Nancy Homans
B. DATE RECEIVED: 09/02J99 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 11/1/99
A
B
� C
Pt3RPOSE: To establish legal nonconforming use status £or a duplex
in a single family zoning district.
PARCEL SIZE: Approx. 71 feet x 87 feet = 6,193 square feet
EXISTING LAND USE: Single family home
D. SURROt3NDZN6 LAND USE:
North: Single family home, zoned R-3
East: Legal non-conforming duplex, zoned R-3
South: Single family home, zoned R-3
West: Single far.:ily home, zoned R-3
E. ZONING CODE CSTATION: Sec. 62.102 (i)(1) provides that the
Planning Commission may grant legal non-conforming status to the
use of structures which fail to meet the standards of Section
62.102 (b} if the comrtission makes the £indings detailed in
finding H.4. below.
F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: No zoning history.
G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECODQiENDATION:
2he District 1Q - Como Park Gommunity Council has recommend�d
appraval of the permit.
H. FINDINGS:
1. ine structure at 885 C=_iifornia Avenue, West was construct�d bv
Holiday Homes, Inc, in i984. A building permit issued on �uly 17,
1984 indicates that the permit was issued for the construc=ion of
a"Single Fzmily Dwellinq". Sndeed, there are threz nota�_ons on
Zoning File �99-240
Staff report
Page two
the permit indicating that it is to be used as a"single family
dwelling on1y."
The plans accompanying the permit application have been destroyed
and are, therefore, not available for review,
2. The applicant purchased the home in 1997 and has not altered it
since that time. A neighbor has suhmitted a letter for the file
indicating that the present structure has been in existence
continuously for a period of at least ten years and has not been
altered.
3. On September 16, 1998, the applicant received a notice from a
zoning inspector from the City's Department of License,
Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) zndicating that a
complaint had been received alleging that the property was being
used illegaliy as a duplex, After an inspection on October 6, the
inspector told the applicant that, while there was no evidence of
a second household, the structure is considered an iliegal duplex
and that he wouid have to remove a kitchen, a bathroom or the
�nside door leading into the lower lecel in order to compl�� with
the City's codes. His other option was to agply for legal
nonconforming status as a duplex.
On February 14, 1999, the applicant, after having spoken with the
home's builder who indicated that the structure had not been
altered since it was constructed, wrote to the zoning inspector
indicating that he felt he was in comnliance with the City's code
since he was using the structure as a single £amily home aad it
had not been altered since its construction.
On July 8, 1999 a citation was issued for an °illegal dupiex in a
single family zoning district," and the applicant was ord=red to
appear in Housing Court on August 27, 1999. In an agreement with
the prosecutor--to avoid potentially being found gui�ty of a
misdemeanor and fined 5700--the applicant agreed to plead guilty
to a petty misdemeanor, pay $50 of a$200 fine and apply fcr a
Non-conforming Use Permit within 3� days.
4. Sec. 62.102(i)(1) of the zoning code provides that the Planning
Commission may qrant lega2 noncon£orming status to the use o£
structures which Pail to meet the standards of section 62.102(b}
upon making a series oi nine findings. The findinas and tt,e
appiicant's ability to meet them are as follows:
�
r7
L�
1. Th2 use occurs entir2ly within an existing structure.
This condition is net, ho expansion of the existing s_ructure
is proposed.
Do -�l�
�
2. Tne use is similar to other uses permitted within the district.
This condition is met. From all exte*ior appe�rances, this
structure is a single family home, newer but similar to all the
other homes on the block. The adjacent property to the east is
an older legally non-conforming duplex.
Zoning File �99-240
Staff report
Page three
3
The use has b2en in existence continuously for a period of at
least ten (10) years prior tc the date of the application.
This condition is met. The evidence is that the structure was
built in 1984 and the builder has indicated that it was built
as it is today. A neighbor has submitted a letter for the
record indicating that the present structure has not been
altered and has been in conCinuous use since at least 1989.
�
�l
E
The off-street parking is adequate to serve the use,
This condition is met. The structure is served by a two-car
qarage and an off-street driveway that could accommodate an
additional two cars. Newly constructed two-family homes are
required to provide three spaces.
Hardship would resuZt if the use were discontinuect.
The applicant purchased the home as it is today, valuing the
second kitchen for entertaining related to his job as a pastor.
The door between the two levels allows his sma11 household to
conserve heat during those times when the downstairs is not in
use. Requiring him to remove either of those two elements
would not only represent a hardship for him, but would have no
impact on the appearance of the structure or haca it relates to
the surrounding neighborhood.
6
Rezoning the property would result in "spot° zoning or a zoning
inappropriate to surrounding land uses.
This condition is met. The structure is located on a mid-block
lot surrounded on all sides by lots zoned R-3, Single Family.
To rezone this property to RT-1, which would accommodate z
duplex, would create a"spot zone."
7. Tae use wz11 not be detrimental to the existing character of
development in the inmediate neighborhood or endangez the
public health, saf2ty or general �•elf�re.
_nis conditzon is n.et. The area is a lov. density residential
environment with larger lots than characterize stendarc city
blocY,s. Acknowledging that th= apolicant has no plans �o
establish a second unit in the structure, the addition e* one
unit to the area wc��id not result in sig�aficarc addit_onal
Zoning File �99-240
Staff repart
Paqe four
trafPic, congestion, or burden on City services. Because the
area is fully developed and nothing about the exterior of the
structure is expected to change, there should be virtually no
impact on the existing character of development in the
im�ediate neighborhood.
8. Tne use is coa�sistent with the comprehensive plan.
This condition is met. The Saint Paul P1an for Housing ca11s
£or creative mechanisms for adding units to owner occupied
structures.
9. A notarized petztion of two-thirds of the property owners
within one hundred (100 feet) of the property has been
submitted stating thezr support for the use.
This condition is met. Of the eleven owners with property
within 100 feet of the applicant's property, eight,
constituting the required two thirds, signed a consent petition
submitted with the application and attached to this report.
�
5. Tne Planning Co.mmission on Ju1y 17, 1992, adopted quidelines for
staf£ making recommendations on applications for nonconforming use �
permits related to conversions of single fanily homes to duplexes.
The guidelines and the applicant's ability to meet them are as
foliows:
1. Lot size of at least 5000 square feet with a Iot width or front
iootage of SO feet.
The guidelir.e is met. The lot area is 61�3 square feet with a
�ront footage of 71 feet.
2. Gross living area, after completion of dvplex conversion oi at
least 1800 square feet for the two units.
The guideline is not met. The square footage o= the structure
is 1�68 square feet, 32 square feet shy of the guideline. Staff
has determir.ed that, because of the unusual circumstances and
the narrow difference between the guideline and the actual
square footage, the difference does not represeat sufficient
grounds to recommend denial of the application.
3. Three off street parking spaces (non-stacked) are preferred;
tU�o spaces are the r�quired minimum. A site pla� showing
inproved parking spaces must be provided.
The guideline is met, The structure is served by a detached
two-car garage.
4. AIZ remodeling work for th2 duplen conve-sion is on the i:sid�
e= the structure.
The guideiine is met. No remodeiing work is planned.
do-�4�
� Zoning File �99-240
Staf£ report
Page five
5. Tne proposed draplex structure is located in a znixed density
neignborhood, not a homogenous single family area or in an area
where dupZexes and triplexes are already concentrated to the
point of congesting neighborhood streets.
The guidelire is met. The neighboring property is a legally
nonconforming duplex and there aze three two-farily structures
on the north side of the block. They do not, however, represent
a concentration or source of traffic congestion.
I. STAFF RECONII✓ENDATION:
Based on findings 1-5, staff recommends approval of the
application.
•
o�-�t�
�
NONCONFORMING USE PEf2MiT APPLICAT{ON
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Sectian
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPL{CANT
Name .�` {�F?1VE�
Address g � S
c�tv - ��
Name of owner (if diffe
Contact person (if diffe
�
1
Zip S`s'It"! Daytime Phone Yb'g717
Phone
PROPERTY AddresslLocation ��J �,�c 1l "�n iG (�-<- (,s .
LOCATfON � 1I Ft � ElG:.(o Ff o{ 4 y� , ni �t �hp,
Lega! description n �. � ., . �l� � �1 �- i �
ti.t:s�.� a�vC Tf� r'�°c'tfl� d �" n `�-°^--
r,� coi 3�'�'�-3 G,-mo Current Zoning /` -�
•
TYPE OF PERMIT: Appiication is hereby made for a Nonconforming Use Permit under provisions of
Chapter 62, Section 102, subsection i, Paragraph_ of the Zoning Code.
The permit is for:
❑ Change from one nonconforming use to another (para. 3 in Zoning Code)
❑ Re-establishment of a nonconforming use vacant for more than one year (para. 5)
� Legai estabiishment of a nonconforming use in existence at least 10 years (para. 1)
� Enfargement of a nonconform use (para. 4)
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: supply the information that is appiicabie to your type of permit.
CHANGE IN USE: PresentlPast
or
RE-ESTABLfSHMENT: Proposed usE
Additionai i�farmation for a11 appiications (attach additionai sheets if �ecessary):
�. 4L���c:�4�✓ c-° ° y�-a, Lvr��zc�
L'
site olan is attached ❑
Appiicant's sig
�
���`"""- Date ��> ��i' City agent�
I. The use occurs entirely within an existing structure;
Yes
2. The use is similar to other uses permitted within the district;
Yes, there are other legal duplezes on the sireet and in the neighborhood
3. The use has been inexistence continuously for a period of at least 10 yeazs prior to the
appiication;
Yes, see neighbor's letter
4. Off-stteet parkin� is adequate to serve the use;
Yes, there is a detached double-car garage.
5. Evidence of hazdship
The inspector tivanted us co remove the door at the bottom of the stairway and
build an arch. However, this woa�ld make our family room (and the other rooms)
in the basement uninhabitable in the winter. The heat loss up the stairway would
make it impossible to heat and completely unlivable. There have been times when
we forgot to close the door and it has taken up to a whole day to ivarm that space
back up to a level where tive could enjoy watching TV down there.
6. Rezoning the property would result in "spot" zoning
Yes
7. The use �vill not be detrimental to the existing chazacter of development in the
immediate neighborhood or endanger the pubiic health, safety, or general welfare;
No it ia�ill not be detrimentaL There are existing duplexes in the area and the
house does not appear to be a duplexfrom the street. Entrance ro our lower level
is in the back
8. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and
I believe so
9. That a notarized petition of two-thirds of the property owners within 1 QO feet of the
property has been obtained stating support for the use.
Enclased
�
�
oo-��
• August 27, 1999
Bob & Phyllis Lentsch
878 Califomia Ave., W.
St. Paul, M'iV SS I 17
Zoning Office
1100 City Ha11 Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Zoning Office:
We confirm that the building at 885 Califomia Avenue West has been in existence
continuously for a period of at least ten (10) years prior to the date of this letter and has
not been aitered.
incerely,
�
Phyllis Lentsch
�
�
�
�
�
;
'
>
�,��
c.�
�
�
�
♦.i
V
�
�
� �''\) �..��
� t � �
v �
I \
I
i �
i
�
�,��
.�
1
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
//
{���
�
.�
a o
C°'�
s
�
G—
�
t�a -�{�
�
�
�
�
{
i
�
I
i
�
I
�
I
'
1
e
�
i'
.�
�
��
�
�
Q d p
�
�
�
�.
�
�
�
�
�
�
� �
.�
�� o a
,
�
��
�
��
��
o �.
�
��
�
T
.�
M1�
-�
C',
�
�
�a-4�
� Rev. Sam 8 Lori Anderson
885 California Ave., W.
St. Paul, MN 55i17
Below are the course of events and the communications i've received on the status of our
home at 885 Gatifornia Ave., W., St. Paul, MN 55117
My wife and { received a"Code Enforcement Notice" {etter on 9/16(SS from the City Zoning
Administration.
RE: 885 Cafifornia Avenue West
Dear Homeowners:
We have received a complaint that the referenced property is an iilegal dupiex. This property is
located in an R-3 residential zoning district. Our records indicate that the residence is legal only
as a single family dwelling.
Encfosed are the provisions 60.204 and 60.206 of the St. Pauf Legislative Code which define the
� terms "Family" and "Dweliing UniP'. The definition of "Family' in the zoning ordinance (see
attached) allows a maximum of four unrelated individuals living together in a dwelling unit. Within
the dweliing unit, each individual may have separate sieeping rooms but they must share the
kitchen and remaining living space together.
It is necessary to determine if the use of the premises is compiiant with the City Zoning
Ordinance An inspection of the property is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October 6th at
1130 a.m. Attendance by you or your designated representatfve is necessary at that inspection.
If you have a conf{ict with the scheduled inspection ttime or have any questions and/or concerns
regarding this matter, piease caii me at 266-9085.
Sincerely,
Peg Fufier
Zoning lnspector
enc.
The enclosure read as foilows:
Definition of Family and Dwelling Unit
/
A family is "one or two (2j persons or parents, with their direct lineal descendartts and adopted or �
legaliy cared for chiidren together with not more than two (2) persons not so reiated, living
together in the whole or part of a dweAing comprising a single housekeeping unity. Ever
additional group oP four {4) or fewer persons living in such housekeeping unit shall be considered
a separate family for the purpose of this code." (St. Paut Zoning Code, Section 60-.206f}
A dwelling unit is "a building, or poRion thereof, designed for occupancy by one family for
resideniial purposes used or intended to be used for living, sleeping and eooking or eating
purposes." {St. Paul Zoning Code. Section 60.204.d.)
Lef ine give you some background.
Our house is a raised-ranch, split entry home. The hasement is half out of the ground and
the windows of the tower level are full sized. Both fioors are finishe@. Two bedrooms,
bathroom, kitcfien and tiving room upstairs. Swo bedrooms, bathroom and one large
room which consYitutes an entertainment area. Thatlower entertainment area has a
refrigerator, stove, and nan-functianing dishwasher. It is a walk-out basement and there is
a door at the bottom of the stairs that ieads upstairs.
When we purchaseH the home in 7997 we had my wife`s brother tiving with us for 4
manths. He stayed it one of the rooms downstairs but we shared living space throughout
the home. During the summer of t998 we had a missionary family who were home on
furlough siaying with us on and off as they traveted to different churches throughouf ffie
state to speak. In the month of August, 1998 we had my wife's brother's fianc�e living with
us. This is the extent of the people other than my wife and myseif that we have had living �
with us. In every case we shared common space tfiroughout the home and were in full
campliance with the definitions mentioned in the tetter.
After reading the tetter we thought we had no problem because it appeared we had never
violated the code thaf was quoted to us. The inspector came to our fiouse and 1 willingly
let her in. She walked through and declared that our house is a duplex and that it was
iilegal.
We discussed. She persisted. She told me that 1 would have to remove the kitchen, or
bathroom, or perhaps the door at the bottom of the stairway in order Yo comply with city
code. t insisted that the home had not been altered sirtce it was cottstructed based upon
the fact that the drawings indicated a(I this and because the cupboard, apptiances and
everything were exactly the same on both tloors and must have been insialled at t6e same
time. She sharply responded, "that would mean that the inspector messed up artd OK'd
this as a singfe family home" ----1 waited --- "that wou(d never have happened"
1 asked what my other options would be. She said that just maybe 1 could appiy for a
"nonconforming use permiY' which wouid mean the house woutd be approved to exist as a
dupfex in a single-family zoned part of the cify. To do this I woufd have to get the
signatures of virtuaNy a!I of my neighbors within 100' of my property and find someone
who woutd attest to the fact that the structure had not been altered in over 10 years.
To keep the resf of this short.
She called back with the committee's decision that 1 wouid be "allowed" to remove the
door at the bottom of the stairs as long as t signed a document {I think she called it a deed
restriction} verifying that this property wou(d never be used as a duplex.
_
00 -��
t dec+ded that I didn't want ta aiter the my home and so I decided to go for the
• "nonconforming use permit" I traced back my Torrents to the originai ownertbuilder of
fhe home. (Buiit in 1984) I trecked him down to Arden Hiits and called him and asked if he
wouid write such a letter. We spoke for a while and 1 asked him about the house when it
was constructed. I described its current condition and determined that the house had not
been aitered since the inspector approved tfie home. After my discovery that the
inspector reaily had approved the house "as is:' i decided to write a letter, which foliows...
Rev. Sam E Lori Anderson
885 California Avenue West
Saint Paul, Minnesota SSi17
February 14, 1999
Peg Fu11er
Zoni�g Inspector
350 St. Peter Street
Suite 310
St. Paul, MN 55102-15'10
Thank you for all your time and attention to our zoning situation.
� After thorough review of your letter of September 16, 1998 and a subsequent conversation with
the originai ownerlbuiider, who confirmed that the home has not been altered since its
co�struction, it is clear that we are and have been in full compliance with the city zoning code. We
will consider this matter conciuded. Thank you for your time.
Rev. Sam Anderson
Enciosure
We received a citation from the city on July 10, issued July 8th, for ordinance viotation
"illegal duplex in a single family zoning district. Section 60.412 & 60.411" The citation
was unclear as to what we were to do. "Housing Court" is checked but there is nothing on
the citation informing us how to respond. lt is on a Parking Ticket form.
The citation mentioned that if i didn't respond within 14 days a warrant for my arrest wouid
be issued but that 1 also had to wait at least 7 days unti! the citation was registered. {
calied the oniy number that seemed to appiy on Juiy 21, 1999. They told me tfiat they had
' nothing to do with that and that f needed to cali the Housing Court office. i then caped
them and they said they had no record of my citation but that eventually { woutd receive a
letter in the maii ordering me to appear in Hausing Court. i caited back on August 16 and �
they said it had just 6een mailed. On August 78, 1999 1 received said tetfer and was
ordered to appear on August 27,1999.
Before 1 went to covrt t began collecting the signatures of my neighbors for the Non-
Conforming Use Status Permit so tfiat, if needed, t could show the court that 1 had fhe
support of my neighhors, even though i had never used my home as a dupiex.
i appeared in court with ati my documentation. We were told by a clerk that most of our
cases could be settied with the prosecutor and that in most cases wouidn't even need to
go before the judge. ! met with the prosecutor and explained the whole situation. ! never
did receive a clear answer whether the city code on a duplex had ta do with the structure
or the usage of the sfructure, fn any case he tolti me fbat if I was unwilling to change the
structure of my home then i would have to appiy for the Non-ConForming Use Status
Permit. i asked him what the result wouid be if I went befare Yhe judge. He said that if i
was found guilty of having an ilfegai duplex in a single famity zoned part of the city that t
could be fined $70Q and tre guilty of a misdemeanor. ! asked him whaY my other options
were and he said that he could "suspend judgment" and that this would give me 30 days
to fi(I out the papernork for a Non-Conforming Use Status Permit and get it in but that
court costs for that were S1Q0. Then he said there was one more thing he could probabiy
do and that was to drop the charge to a petty misdemeanar. This would carry a$200 fine
but he coufd stay $150 of fhe fine and f would have to pay $50 and then be given 30 days
to get the Non-Conformirtg Use Status Permit paperwork in to the Zoning office.
This brings us to where we are now. I am being forced to apply for the Non-Conforming
Use Status Permit by order of the court. Neither I nor my neighbors necessarily want my
home to be declared a duplex, but since t am unwilling and really unable to structural(y
attar my home I am left with tto other options. As mentioned in the application the removai �
of the door at the bottom of the stairs woutd make our lower levet extremety tofd and
uninhabitable in the winter,
�
4
OFfICE OF LTCENSE, IN5PECITONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION fl �— ll� �
Raben Kerrter, Director
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coteman, Mayor
ZDMNGADMTMSIRATlON
350 St Petn Srrea
Suise 310
Sai�u Paut, Minncsota 55102-I510
�1 ►1 �: ui \Y ��
September 16, 1998
Samuel S. Anderson
Lori L. Anderson
885 California Avenue West
Saint Paul, MN 55117-3458
RE: 885 California Avenue West
Dear Homeowners:
�
r
Telephane: 6T 2-26G9008
Facsimilc 6I2-266-9099
We have received a complaint that the referenced gropetty is an illegal duplex. This
• property is located in an R3 residential zoning district. Our records indicate that the
residence is legal only as a singie family dwelling.
Enclosed are provisions 60.204 and 60.206 of the St. Paul Legisladve Code which define
the terms "Family" and "Dwelling Unit". The defuution of "Fanuly" in the zoning
ordipance (see attached) aliows a maxunum of four unrelated individuals living together in
a dwelling unit. Within the dwelling unit, each nadividual may have separate sleeping
rooms but they must share the kitchen and remaining living space together.
It is necessary to determine if the use of the premises is compliant with ihe Ciry Zoning
Ordinance. An inspection of the properry is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October
6th at 11:30 a.m. Attendance by you or your designated representative is necessary at that
inspection.
If you have a conflict w9th the scheduled inspection time or have any questions andlor
concerns regazding this matter, piease call me at 266-9085.
Si cerely,
Peg u�
Zoning Inspector
� enc.
i
� n� . � • ►,� r►f�����»�:'���_�lu�elil�l��1
A family is "one or two (2) persons or parents, with their direct lineal descendants and
adopted or legally cared for children together with not more tIian two (2) persons not so
related, living together in the whole or part of a dwelling comprising a single housekeeping
unit. Every additional group of four (4) or fewer persons living in such housekeeping unit
shall be consideied a separate family for ihe purpose of this code." (St. Paul Zoning
Code, Section 60.206.f.) '
A dweiling unit is "a building, or portion thereof, designed for occupancy by one family
for residential purposes used or intended to be used for living, sleeping and coaking or
eating purposes." (St. Paul Zoning Code, Section 60204.d.)
•
_
� ti -�E�
�
u
I�
P
- - - - w -- _-. ..... � - - - .- -- -- - -- - - +
yp�Y � _ Q Z O ey f] .
'm.mc� ei � m o o �S 3 - a "1 ��i
rn�� sx � o �� o° ' em p ..
mE E on 4 t �' m n 4 S I � 't �
�n�j y N �t �`, t e °c , 'i
y �� R �: r p � m �R.$i _.
�mA� ❑ e �� G � 9 p� 't,so �.
°�-� �i m ��,, \� O e'!o 1 I C y .\
��Zm� ` � ` Z . i e Z H + S ?\� o
o ri r" o a o N 1 1 `'[�j ^ ° fo �-�
�-' 3 _�>� h � � r _ o q �_
b
^ 'o o zm{o ❑ y � t [] (- Z o �� � 3 � �
�^ T f o ,�- i- L_€n l
�O Z FAF T� �. �� d t ,�'1, 2 • � 3C
^ � (A m i S `d \ V � � � � K
� � m � ° m � � �
S� O 2 -19s ���� C �-. v _� i
C OCN 0 \^� ��9
'py T ;� � •A � 1 D � � �"� $A
� O 29 \ l; �� ❑% � -1
oN 1 �� O � ��
� � Z m g 4 �^ h 1. SC
b � � \ C `a m �m d
� o � - $ �<' " �
Ho m . � �
i= �'^ mg - t' ' \' > \ �
b � c � c
Ini y � � n � ' � j m N ^ �
�Oy d 1� 1'�. N�} � Q�
lam �{m O 3 \ 0 1'ly lA` v � W
��o � c!/I�n c� � e '� (J No !% � �
N
�C �Z9 fi� �n y '
O �O� w m �
N OSO ❑
m
w �z Z: vx
� 3r.r sa
. `$r'z , u'o
o m jo ` 3
o ` ❑ �
°,
o h a p
_ ��Z \1 �� m
v
� N9 f 9
m
° o ❑
O p x+�
�' -f OT
� � �Q g
ir C 3-
9 n
IA T �^
im m �
= 3� io t � g a
�c o z c.
a m 4 � o
�m � o 0
y C
� Q T+ A ❑
'� o
� �m
� ❑
'o
a �Fix
"a
i�, >
� �
� = N � V `� O -�
` a • � � r i � �
� ��� ��
Mo v�=,��y
\ o � �°� a
�� 3 � ! � I
� ❑��Q�
N T 9 9 9
m � o O
o _ _ 9 9
o � o m
N �
02
I m 2
❑❑ ❑❑
3� =s�
o� ��
�m�sm
S �' w m '
a n r
< n � m
° 0 0
o ''m" a
`" o
�
t
n
I �o �
I '
0
� ��
m o a
( O
S �
o ��`
0
a
<
o�
�
� I
H��
��a �=-
�1����
sev�=_m
_'° � ''s'
�_�� "
°3_� °-
3c._� `�u
3 au
P3 �
33
n� g
�"
�?
v�
_�
�5
�
_�
��
�s
�v
c�`
°�
f
c.r�oco<„-+sc�r,
a`.
aoy gci
S^ o0
� ��� �Qm
���„�� 0
O� Ap➢Z� N O 2
NO320> N�2
=�� N�
a
� ?y
°���g�3 ��
o�Qa°�m �g�
���omR,,�i, o"�
N s
�'mAO-`��
'x"n-..zo+� mm..
ti z ti = i
p��7= N��
5z� o o."e
- ,. o i o� p ,,...,
i °i
� �°,, y� m��
Fzz'�- °
-y9D�i'� a'c�
i n £� ��o
p�3 �'� �o�
o�� - `�O m
^�m °� 3
f t� ��
�� o
��� �a
e�imm vab 02�
� Z V�
0
� � � �
aS�
0,3 m=
� o o � c
o � � � m
m � d r °
y N � O O �
ap��0
o' ��o ay
�=pc�.. -i
� m c � o O
3 p = ? a z
= v c3c `'
� �
v A� m C
'n o p
� m
=�?� ➢
_ � g ^ C
PO' n r
�,oz p
�- � ° CS
�
� � a � -
=a ^ N
oA� O
=f V Z
� ° o � � o N
�'�z�.°
Z Z
w � � � �
� C
O N N T
� N ^
�
W p LL p
` � �
N
m
Z
p0
d=
2n
0�
�
��
D
�Z
D <
S�
O
m
17
N
m�
n
�2
O �
T�
�O
T
r C
v
m�
�O
C 69
S p
Zo
RI p
0
S�
m�
n �
�m
.N
�a
�
� „-,o
a
o��
�g ,
�yo
�20'
��
go
�o
c�
� z
�
��
iz
�?
c �
3
D
z
m
n
S
m
O
�
N
n
<
D
m
r
m
-i
O
G
�
r
A
"{
Q
2
�
�
C
�
m
D
C
V
N
�
CO
r
m
n
v
_v
�
O
.7..
D
r
V
m
Z
A
y
m
�
•
mOZj
�pm�
9�D(n
< j
-{N��
Zo�"'�
O 31
Z 2�
� Dn
0
N �
0 7J
u -{
ZNj� .
y2
m��
n f
ya°'o�
m� _
Dnc� o
�m�o
c� `
c,� :
oa-'cc :
oQ�: i
N S
�
=a'o� o '
Oy£F-9
znN' a
° m s " c: �
rm�n5 Z
00 n
� �HO �
�ao� o
S A
Z o -1
' Q �^ N Z •
O-�'n N
a�°c
"�`^ c o
Np�
c
<�j < j
t»om
��
I
i9 p m : .
D l
C �
O �
SI
ZT� C I :
�0=1 �
m ��
2 . D -1'n
�o�
Dzn
r-
�ptn
O
+9t
NOO
� o
a ��19
iv n
NQ$ r
A D I
`o T Cl m
ZS 9
�a° o
_ -(
u m y
o9C O
�mmz
2 0�- tn
3 ~ 4
1om
' ao
�' a
cy>
� �O
Ny
A2
, t D
Nr
M'� nS'_>T-jt
-_�.�' yo^
tij c 'o-�'� ' `�
�.c D o� n � n
m °c'
Z O z 1 � n
-1 coc �y
y �-`' RZ
S }y0
c 0=' o m�
r' s o � m
O �3 �cq
p o_;';� mrt
<
g oa__om
0
�po2i� O
m ��-. �
�?;5i� a
z o'��` O
S H� � fl N
m • '"�
Y o4£ p
� �=� a
D -5 � X
n o�., rn
S ="'a D
m m?a �
a ..
m �<_ 1
� y _ o �
m ='= Z
� °�° >
m c' 'n D
� 'c_ <
� - �'
�=% K
n j �
. �' �
53= S
�
�
u
•
��
�
�a.�
�
�i`�
�
L'-_
O
\�
�
° n
�
m
�7
t
--J
�
C
0
�
m
0
m
�
z
0
z
-�
x
z
0
m
0
O
0
m
�
-
o I
37
D
m
O
<
0
4
N
W
❑a�
o�=
� a o
.��
� ;� Q
N � �%
� , m
m :
o :
C ;
� i i
O [
a:
A v in
���
m ? m
o m o
� ��
�� �
� n a a
o @'
z
m � � N
� � m m
c � �
o .
o ;
a
���
N � N
(�i� N �
m � m
m��
o - o
0
m
T
m
2
N
m
�
C
m
�"�
O
'�
�
m
�
�
m
N
C
�
D
D
77
�
-
�'tl
�
-G
G
�
�
�
�
-i
D
�
�
c
m
O
D ��}- �
r- (_J.Y. �
c .�
� �
mc� �
O
�� � � S C
�o
0
m
T
m
z
°
z
-i
�
�`
o�
�tl
<
0
�
Z
��� m �
C � t
' '�7 SJ m �, D
� --a � O
l � � � � �
i mD C D �-
n � -� N D �
�_� � � o -
�?t" � m �
cno� r' o m I
z� o
n
�zC)n� � �
71
�o�nm m
�� �� �
v
� m U' z 7mo
�-„pWm � m
OC� jN � C3
�m� � O
c � D '
o � n �
D _. m
� n� S �
nm� � Z
�OQm �
�rN
� m �
� �
� 1
�
�
m
z
0
�
Clv
� �
o }
���
m,_�
z.
o�
Z!
�
�i
�i �
I�
�1" � � �
� �� C� � �
� ��� cv
L 1 � � � �
� �. � I
���� ��
� o �, �
Z �,
�� � C �
a-.. � �' � r. -
l �
� ���0
'�.r � �„J —
�
> � �.-. �
� �
C �+o
�. �
� �
o,
m
T =
m y
Z Z
A O
Z m
� �
O
�
m
�
W
�
n�
0
�
D
r
m
v
W
�
0
m
m
O
m
T
z
N
m
�
0
z
<
a
O
Z
m
Z
0
❑�❑
a�cn
�� �
o��
mSo
� � c
o � 3
� S C
� . m
m;
o '
C :
a: `
o :
3 : .
A V (T
� � �
m � m
o � o
� � �
W � Q
aDo.
m :
���
m �
'0 � 'O
���
o:
Q:
��;
N (�D N
��;
� V m
W��
o � o
a
r
C
m
--!
�
�
'0
m
�
a
�
�
m
N
C
�
�
�
�
�
Z
"i
�
�
�C
C
�
a
�
�
m
�
-i
��
a ��
C
T C°
m�� .�
c�m�
�
m
r
mm"O
-G�C�
D�COf��'Iym, m
o�DO�
m m 'm°, .D O
O ' �
����, �
�_���� _
c�=z� �.
c� � QN`
� _�
-cni `c � ° K. ``
z �� v�.�� o
(� G O a O O
N ? � o
�v C o0 0
m �
{ U U
O � Q
Q <
�' <
� Z
c ��z
�TOmm i
�Dt �
zc--+z �
�m�
o�mp�o
O
�D
� � � r
DmzO
SJja�T
m
OO
� m 3
� I -�
�O
C
.9 ..�
s m ��
A
�
O
<
�
Z
A
�
m
v
0
m
�
m
Z
v
D
�
D T
N�
l��
O
�
�
m
�
�
v
Z
III
m
z
D
�
n
� -r,
D
ti
z
�2
c
Zr
�T
��
m
KZ
T �"�
Z�
0
� rnC
_� O �
� �
�� �
� �
�
�
° z
n
v�
rt�
c—
�
��C
C
s ��
s ��
c� r
�
-
aa -��
�
�
�ZO��G
FIRST SL3BNIITTED
DATE PETITION SUBYIIITED: � 'J'
DATE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED: � - �
PARCELS ELIGIBLE:
PARCELS REQUIRED
PARCELS SIGNED:
l� ,
�
�
SC�
rC�
RESt3BMITTED
DATE PETITION RESUB�IITTED:
DATH OFFICIALLY RECEIVED:
PARCEIS ELIGIBLE:
PARCELS REQUIRED:
PARCELS SIGNED:
� Q �Q qYZ-5�(
CHECKED BY: �CN•^' �� - \ DATE:
zac��N� ��L� (
!
CITY O� SAYIYT PAUL
AFFIDAVIT OF PERSON CTRCULATING PETITION
�
STATE OF MIititiTi�1ESOTA)
COUNTY OF RA.�15EY )
SS
S(�✓ri uC�,� S- �`�U /) , being first duly swom, deposes and states that helshe is the
person who circulated ihe withia petition and consent, consisting of _ pages; that affiant is
informed and betieves that the parties described are the o�vners resoectively of the lots placed
unmediately before ezch name, that affiant is informed and believes that each of the parties described
above is ihe owner of the property tvhich is within 100 feet from any property owned or purchased
by petitioner or sold by petitioner within one (t) year preceding the date of this petition which is
conciguous to ihe property described in the peticion; that except for
;/'` n ov �'' none of the parties described
above has purchased or is purchasing property from the petitioner contigvous to the above described
property within one (1) year of ihe dace of the petition; that tttis coaseat was si�ned by each of said
ow�ners in the presences of this affiant, and that the signatures are the true and correct signatures of
ezch and aI1 of the parties so described.
�S'����y •
� �1m � �.�. S _ ���rz.s��
_ x�� �
�85 � f�.�-h �G �--��.
ADDRESS
�e �I ���'"
TELEPHO\'E i�'UMBER
Subs be swo o before me
this G daY o � vs7` 19 ��
1 / /
� � -
rG'�77 ",'� / ��1"'� t/' i'���'
NOTARY PUBLIC
�NvV ='.AN i :�.f: f_ : .. . •: .� ., . �. ^.1\"AMsb
,./y L....��F.�h:1.GMi `.dSi�N
�"1�. - 1
�� hQ7AAYPUEUG�S:S�cSOTA
AAMSEY CACti'7Y �
idy Cor,r,rssiat Ezpcas Jan.St.2�00
t i
�
�tNERAL BU1LDfNG PERMIT
. CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DEPARTP,tENT �
DlVIStONOFH6USI{VGANDSUILDING � �� ��
CODEENFDRCEMENT �
445 CfTY HALL �
ST, PqUL, h1N 55702 I p R �
i Permit �.0 y � � S
- � � �� P�AN NO. ✓ �- YW
' OESCftiPT10N OF9ROJECT
DATE 04VNEF��,�',\ 11 � C� 11\ !�l'�"c
OWNERSADDR
>� -
c<
❑ OLD � � i i �'`f TYPE OF
�NELV TYPE CONST. �s(� �`� OCCUPRNCY �
GRADING STUCCO OR !
�UILD ❑ AND EXC. �PE,4SfER-----(�r,ov . L� .'Q'
•
❑ ADDiTION ❑A�TER �
NUM�=q STREET�
�� � ��t 1��
WARD pT. 8 OC1�
3
W�D7H 'cPTM'
LOT `-^ n��� `�
/ 5;`i3
STP,UG W�ofH
TU R E � r ,,,�
ESTIhiAT VAWE
�ETAILS & Reb1ARK5' �'7 n
;•7__ -
Q REPAIR
� SID
1 =(':� i .
\,�-�1�" '7:.
' ' ADD
r�
"' SIDE �pT CLEA'.
c _ .�5±.=. : _ : !
LE�
6 _ i
YES O NO
� � 7/�.�
\TE �
LVAT�ON
STOP,I�S
4 1
TEI. NO
PERMITFEE
PLAN tH�CK j/}��f i �
� �
STAT'c +��
SUR�H.aRG:�, / -7.�!
LINE
TOTAL FEE �I J 1 • �' 1 7�
�f% I
APP�ICA+�T CERTIPIES THAT A�L I
� FQR��IATIOV IS CORRECT ANp_T AT
A! L QE?TI?:E\T ST;,TE REGI;L" GP1S
AND CiTY ORDNANCES 4'JIL COM-
PLiED:SfTri1N Pc'RFORM1IING Tric'470RK
FOR Nir:C�. THIS Pc.°..�IIT 15 ISSUED
� ^-� �l4 - I�ti'�t
�t J
AVTHO�.Cc_ SIGNATUR_
.YYA __ FENCE
/E ❑ WRECK
CROSS.STREETS
�L> �/ Q� r � �j�G.
Ofl TRACT ;
y;-- �o : : ,
CE
�-
HEIGHT " �
� ��TOTALFLOOF
sn.Fr.- r1/„'�
/ ' _ _' "
- I
.^`-�Si�E9 �95 O.VL� �
WHENVAL'7Ai_p-...:StjYOUR?eRM1t'- I
s.. �odz � � 4�0 —
AD�RESS �� C� �LL t i r
OF ,103 _ '
�- � � ' � IIVSF'�l. ! lUI�LI ■ I I � . . i
., .. _ - - - -- .-_ :--_ .;- �
�:�;�• ,. . ; Y� / t •
ns ctor �'' �?t �A-� .l �•1J.+ _ !: / :.. , --.. �, �.
.�_ _'__'-__.�_ __.._ v . '-° ^"' \ �, } . . . ,
Fotindation � �^ � �• --� �
r ��� �/
'=*x'�� ���� .!/ ) - . ... ' _ - . '_ _ _ ._ ._....� .
�.:a .- V ;' � . '� ' ' _ " _ ' ._ _
v b : , .- :. .` -_ : . _ ..
,... _ . . ' " ".
i . ._. . -. �:.�. 't �: `��1� . - -- - . .
Frame . �
�� ��. �- :f v _. . _ ' � -
:��--. 1/ �� �•
�� v •- . s ' _' . , _ _ . i
�; 'i -- � ° - �_- � --- - - - i
�_ _ �
€ -` -- - - -- . - -
1 '!`atFi and/or Watlboard ' `�� -� ��� ' �
�'__.-._ s.. ' i
'_� _ --- - �- . - — _ ,� '_ � _ _ _ .T.. T �, ...r).. ��C. ;� : _.s +
� _ ` . _ •I . , � . ,
. � _
""._'._ __ _'___ _ '_ _ ___' _ _'_ _ ____ — _ _
' '___—=r'_ �: _
zI't'J�, _./:/p� __ _ _' _' _. ____ " ' _-''�.,\;i
f% � -
_---�-- ��----- �------ -- - -
-- - - � .�` '� _'f` .. ' . .� - i ---- _;;--- - ,
r
�
--- ----- - ----------------------- �•; ____
� tes: '--- -- ---- ---- -------- '------- I
` F� = ?- 1 =r..�= - -.__ ' i . �.? _,__.. _�--_"__-°___'°'`�_y:;-_ _-°____,___ _-._ �
,i � - .�._-:� •. c : \`•� t .�_._, � I
---^4`_�,., '-' ���`�lt'� � f �i.�� -l qi) �/✓. �- !=t�11--- - i �U
' ii� �,?.Y�' �r^ F � I L -- ' - /,-:�� - � - '- - 1 � �-" i: -� � ,-� , i /�Tl.l . J 1` Z��
"_ � }f/a , v�i;�:,j_ �"I�� Jj�_%l'/,y'E=" .\:"a :�" � , l %
,e,�.` 1. -:l -_ . _.1 " . ��� '� ;
s . � _ � / �/', /Ji
�.." �,� - ^ _ ' _-_' _'__'_�'_'__'< _'_�_ "": ; __ fv _: i =_'"- !/ `J`�y'_'"
� ,�._ _ �.
t � " "_�i �! '" �n�PS ���� �
�i _ - .. .�`� %: � _ �:r,vi�ui .,ri- �'.f,L±.�-�' � _.. , r�=%� ------ , D-� fL''�
�� - _= r �--= ° ,Fi;' - � - �=1- - - - - �--�-- �-- � �
- , � v � t � . .t. _ '--- j"' �__ =_ ; °_°:°-.== t . : ��.tl�.
} �=-
� °�'"�� •-�- -_---_ -- --- - -_ - -° = -- _- "_-°v
' - -°- - _ -, _ =- - <<. � > ,
'r .._ - `'; ._ - - -��
r `
� " =_= - - -._ �.� . ' -'- - -- --- -- - - - _- '- �
_ -
-- --- -- �---•�_- --'--- -�-°--- -- --- - ------
, . . _ ....: - , .- . - _, . .
. - , _ . . • .:� - .,,� : -- � , ' .
�..
� -- - - -` - -- - -�.`- .. . . � , ' .
'-='-_=- ---- ---=-_=----- =--- - -- = -'-_- - --- - - - -----
- - ' -'- ----, -'- . - ... .� .° -- - -
-- � , - - :.� a.�=.=-._ ' - - ---.��
`. <= - _. , . .
. _ , . - t ' _
..;., .. .. . : `, _
-. -'_- - �
-' -�---'--- -�-- '_=--_------ -� -' -- =- =_ - �
- - - ---- --- - " ----- - - - - - -
- ----- -- --��'--.-- -----' --
.._ . _ _ ' _ '4 _ _
. _. ` ' . _ � . � . � _
. � _ � � �
_ � a�.� ...- ' � —�.� . .�.�1 . y ✓��.
� ' ' / — � � �. ' _
- ^✓
�. ___
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
� CONSENT OF ADJOIi�'II4'G PROPERTY O�VNERS �'OR A D D
NONCONFORMING USE PERrYIIT
We, the undersigned, owners of the property within 100 feet of the total conti�uous description of real esiate
otivned, purcha;ed, or sold by THE APPLICAIr`T within onz y�ear preceding the date of this petition
ackno���ledge that �ve have been presented with the follotivin�:
Acopyoftheapplicztionof �Q,�` `�" �D�� �C/������
(name of applicant)
to e;'1b! i>h a �_� l� �� 2
(proposed use)
located at: �� � l. Cc � L��n �u �-v`e. �-
(address of property)
requirin� a nonconformin� u;e permit, along with any relevant site plans, diagrams, or other
documenca�ion. ��'e eonsent to the approval of this appiication as it was esplained
to us by the applicant or his/her representative.
�
�
�OTE: Ail information on the upper portion of this application must be completed prior to obtainine
efigible signatures on this pe[ition.
na -�t�
•
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
s.
10.
12.
13.
24.
IS.
16.
17.
SUN RAX-BATTLECREEK•HTGHW OOD
�L4ZEL PARK Hfll�EN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
`VEST SIDE
DAYTON'S BLLTFF
PAI'i�iE-PHALEN
NORTH END
THO�l4AS•AALE.
SUMMIT-UI�IIVERSITY �
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE•MIDWAY �
ST. A?r'THOi3Y PARK
MERRIAM PARK-LEXIIr`GTON HA�iLINE-SNELLIhG H.aMLINE
hiACALESTER GTtOVELS.h'D
HIGHLAND
SU�,iMTT HiZd-
DOS�'TO�
CITTZ�N PAR7ICIPATION pLANNING DISZ Klc:ls
L_J
�
� ������� �����=5� 'Zy�
�
C0�10 DISTRIC7 70 P1 x° � ;�� „ ,��
� .
>- . . ,
-. .. .. . ....
- ...,. _-
� �_
_ -___.:_
_ = : ; `—
- - "�-- _ _-
Q'...._ .. _.. Q::- :::0`. O O '�_. .,' :Q =-:<0�.-�0- =0- . ' O ,: :
-,
_ _ _
_ ; Oi._ i :.... . ;. . . �; . .
�❑
;I:�". °.:.. ! ( :
� i � i
, .: . ;;: _ :; .:� ; ...; :;; �= _ : :_ ; '._.
� � .�== _.' :.:,
o o, o a�_ o. o o; o o i.o
� � �{, =q ,.
.
C'w\i Ol'�iA-!�-_�>" _
�io a o 0 0, ���.� o oko�a �o o�e
.��.� �I�IIt� ;!}
-- s�. - --:�
�
�
0
H �
�_ O
v
��oo�oo�000 L
� ' ?�
':
,�o�00000 J
�
�
�
�
i � ' � �
O O�Q�(� O O C)i
t .
i �
O,O O O�O O O ��
�
i �' ( i f
�i.�}OO�OO
�
po -y�
OfG1C
���H � s
Q
� • o ��O[�7
,�o�o �01� ���o�o�c
A _.
�o 'c� c� n � �? �
� o c�� o�o 0 0 0 0 °� (o�o��a���oio
n a�
APr LtCF,^:T�ef S�� SR��"` "`+ � LEG=ND
-�---
............--�, zoniny dis'ri��i Lroun�ay
PURPOSE. —
'� UATE � � � GiiTT/TT/�l subj=_C P:c�ery
iLE � ,' �
P\
YL��G. D'�S7 / tJ 1�1AP � � � O�B 12T;'j'
�� Q tu0 t2r1i:,
5� � j�'�*Q RUlliQl? f2 ^.ii'i
r- _"'_:
.
. . � co�: - -
g >.-. in:�_:' ��
:, v � y _.
•
.
�����
�� __ �� - - - -
Q� -��
" SeP p(y Ga.-0�'+t)i.�ricr �;r�' -
lli.trict 70 - C'vmc? Park Commn:�ily C��unCil
��_ – -- - — - -
_..—� _ , __ .. __.. .---- _ .. . .
Sept. 28, 1 y99
�
Planning Commission cio Nancy Homans
Department of PEll
1100 City Hail An�ex, 25 W. 4th St.
St. Paul, MPv 55102
Dear Ms. Homans and Commissioners:
Qn Oc�ober 14, 1999 the 7..oning Committee of the St. Paul
Planning Commission is scheduled to review a rezoning request for
885 W. California. The ownerc are Reverend Sam xnd Lori Anderson.
Reverend Anderson is rcyuetting a Special Conditional Use i'ermit for
this property. Although this house was built, and has been used, as a
singfe family dwelling, apparently the detign is such that it is
considered a duplex.
The Andersons' bought this housc in good faith as a single
family dwelling. They fiave paid a$S0. fine to Code Enfoccement and
5280. to apply for thi5 zoning change. The Andersons' prefer nat to
make the structural changes necded to bring their home into single
family compliancc. The neighbors around the homc have signed a
petition in fav�r of this change. The District 10 C�mmunity Council
has voted to recommend approval fot Rev. Andersons' request for a
SC�TP.
Sincerely,
�- y 1 ('" U
� `
Mar[y Crep
Communiry Dcvelopment Chair
Distric[ 10
LJ
f 5,5n Com« A�enae • S;. r'aul. blinc�etiot� SS I08 • Yho�c: 'r4d - 3SK9 • Pax� : - 6b:5
cNlaiJ. C'umulIXo�:i[if.COm
Tony Schaps 875 California Ave W D O_ ��
Saint Paui MN 55117
Ph: 651/ 488-1389
Tony@Schaps.com
November 12, 1999
To Saint Paul City Council
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing in support of Rev. Sam and I.ori Andersons' request to have the zoning
status of their home modified. I understand that they are requesting that their home be
granted duplex status with the stipulation that the property must be owner-occupied in
order for it to be used as a duplex. I further understand that they are requesting that this
zoning change be permanent and not terminate upon the sale of their home. I
support the Andersons in their request.
In addition, I would like to express my disappointment at the amount of trouble the City
and its inspector have given the Andersons. The Reverend and his wife are exactly the
kind of upstanding people that Saint Paul needs to attract to our neighborhoods, not
drive away with ridiculous bureaucracy, £'ines, and retaliation for possible errors made by
inspectors and buffders long prior to the Andersons' acquisition of the house. The City's
inspector created a problem here where none existed, and now this seems to me the only
fair solution.
Regards,
��� ��----
O b � �i,�
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CI'I`Y OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: January 19, 2000 (11:09ANI)
TO: Council President Bostrom, Council Members Blakey, Coleman, Harris, Benanav,
Reiter, Lantry
FROM: Peter Warner, CAO
RE: Consent Agenda Item No. 14, Resolution No. 00-43, Memorializing the
CounciPs decision to deny the nppeal of S. A. Anderson for a non-conforming
nse duplex located at 885 Californin.
Council members:
The purpose of this memo is to advise you that flie reasons stated in the above referenced resolution
overtuiziing the Planning Commission's decision to grant a non-conforming use permit aze slightly
different from those stated as the Council's basis for overtuming the decision. The stated reasons
in the resolution aze based upon the same facts but deal with a different legal analysis.
It is my advice that you adopt the reasons stated in resolution no. 00-43. Adopting its language has
exactly the same outcome as ariginally moved by the Council. However, the reasons stated in the
resolution make better legal sense when the facts before the Council cleazly demonstrated that the
dwelling had not been used as a duplex despite being configured in such a way that it could be so
used. The resolution notes that the dwelling cannot be used as a duplex and that the City can
continued to enforce the zoning code to insure that the dwelling will remain as a single family
dwelling.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. PW W
cc: I3ancy Homans, PED