05-428Council FIle # OS' 7eZ O
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Green Sheet # 3026367
/D
Committee: Date
2 Whereas, Joseph Moore made application to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals (hereinafter,
3 the "BZA") in BZA file No. 04-213715 for a variance from the strict application of the
4 provisions of the zoning code for property commonly lrnown as 876 Iglehart Avenue and legally
5 described as STONE & ROGER'S ADDITION TO ST. PAiJL, MINN.LOT 4 BLK 4; and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Whereas, The purpose of the application was to vary the zoning code's standards in order
to convert the residential structure at the said address from a single family home into a duplex;
and
Whereas, on January 18, 2005, the BZA conducted a public hearing after having provided
notice to affected property owners and, at the close of the hearing the BZA, in its Resolution No.
04-213715 dated January 18, 2005, decided to deny the application based upon the following
findings and conclusions set forth in the said BZA resolution:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict
provisions of the code.
19 This property is located in an RTl, one- and two- family residential zoning
20 district. The lot is 1,058 square feet below the minimum size requirement
21 and does not meet the width requirement for a duplex conversion without
22 a variance. A duplex is a reasonable use in the area but not permitted on
23 this property under the strict provisions of the code.
24
25 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this
26 property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
The size of the house, its location on the site and the small lot size prevent
the duplex conversion without a variance. This house was given to the
applicant in disrepair and he wants to bring it up to code so it can be a
positive influence on the neighborhood. The additional rental income
would help defer the costs of the improvements. This is a circumstance
that was not created by the applicant.
05- yag
�
2
3 3. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
4 code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare
of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
In 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeals adopted the following guidelines for
those cases where a variance is required to convert a single-family home
into a duplex:
a. Lot size of at least 5,000 squaze feet with a lot width or front footage of
40 feet.
This condition is not met. The property has a lot size of 4,942 feet.
b. Gross living azea, after completion of duplex conversion, of at least
1,500 square feet. The smaller unit of the two shall be no less than 500
square feet.
This condition is not met. The existing building has about 2,200 square
feet of living space. The smaller unit is only 350 square feet.
a Three off-street parking spaces (non-stacked) are prefened; two spaces
aze the required minimum. A site plan showing improved (durable,
permanent, dustless surface) pazlflng spaces must be provided.
This condition is not met. There is one-car garage on the property
although the applicant is proposing to build a three-car garage in the
future.
d. If exteriar changes are proposed, exterior elevation drawings of the
changes must be submitted, and the changes must be architecturally
compatible with the structure and the neighborhood.
This condition is met. The proposed conversion would not require any
exterior modifications to the building.
e. If the unit was converted without a permit prior to the application of the
variance, a code compliance inspection must be conducted and the unit
found to the housing code standards; or the properiy owner must agree to
make necessary improvements to bring it to housing code compliance.
This condition is not met. The building has already been converted. A
building permit for an addition to a single-family home was pulled but the
addition included a second kitchen and a separate entrance to the second
unit. Orders were sent on July 29, 2004 by a Zoning Inspector to file for a
variance to make the second unit legal or remove the kitchen unit from the
addition and operate the property as a legal single-family home by August
29, 2004. This was not done in the time required by the Zoning Inspector.
os- �ag
1 f. Where economic hazdship is clauned as one reason for the variance
2 request, an economic feasibility analysis shall be conducted. The applicant
3 should supply city staff with the necessary informarion.
4
6
�
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
This condition is not met. The applicant is claiining economic hardship
but has not provided an economic feasibility analysis. He stated in the
variance application the conversion "will assist in meeting financial
burden for additional cost of rehabilitafion and new addition".
The requested variance is not keeping with the spirit and intent of the
code.
4. The proposed variance wi11 not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the
surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values
within the surrounding area.
The proposed conversion has required changes to the exterior of the
building but does not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties.
The conversion to a duplex should not affect the character of the RTl
neighborhood but the lack of pazking may have adverse impact on the
surrounding properties.
5. The variance, ifgr-anted, would not permit any use that is not permitted
under the provisions of the code for the property in the distr^ict where the
affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district
classification of the property.
A duplex is permitted use in this zoning district. The requested variance,
if granted, would not change or alter the zoning classification of the
property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the
value or income potential of the parcel of Zand.
The applicant states that his primary desire is to put the property to a
reasonable and permitted use under the exisring zoning classification and
help with the costs incurred in bringing the property into a habitable state
while attempting to add an affordable housing option.
Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 61.702, Joseph Moore, on January
28, 2005, duly filed an appeal from the determivation made by the BZA in its Resolution No. OS-
059072 and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the
acrions taken by the BZA; and
Whereas, Acting pursuant to Leg. Code §§ 61.702 and upon notice to affected parties, a
public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on February 16, 2005, where all
interested parties were given an opportwiity to be heard; and
os- ��.g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Whereas, The City Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the
variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the BZA, does
hereby
Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby vote to uphold the
decision of the BZA in this matter ha�ing found no error in the findings and conclusions of the
BZA in addition to the concerns about available pazking, and the lot being too small for a duplex
use and the building being too close to neighboring properties; and be it
Further Resolved, That the appeal of Joe Moore be and is hereby denied; and, be it
Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Joe Moore,
the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Zoning and Planning Administrators, and the Planning
Commission.
os- ��s
' i � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
:�
�,� . . .� .. ,. .. . � � . ,. .. .
LP — �cense/InspectionBnviron Prot
Contact Person & Phone:
Peter Wamer
266-8710
Must Be on Council Agenda by
Date Initiat
OSMAY-05
�
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Loeations for Signature)
_�7"
Action Requested: ?'r .
Approval of a resolurion memorializing pxevious City Council action on Febrnary 16, 2005 which upbield a decision of the Board of
Zoning Appeals (BZA) which denied Joseph Moore pernussion to convert the property at 876 Iglehart into a duplex.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Rejed (R):
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
._. Civil Service Commission
Personal Service Contracts Must Answer
�. Has this person/firm ever worked under a cont[act for this department?
Yes No -
2. Has ihis person/firtn ever been a city employe�?
Yes No s �
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not nortrYally passessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
On January 18, 2005 the BZA conducted a public hearing wlrich denied Mr. Moore's applicarion to converf the property at 876 Iglehart
from a single family dwelling to a duplex. Mr. Moore appealed the decision and on Febrnary 16, 2005 the Ciry Council conducted a
public hearing which upheld the decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals.
Advantapes If Approved:
RECEIVED
Disadvantages If Approved:
MAY•°.1'0 20�5
Green Sheet NO: 3026367
0 icenseJlns e�tioo/Emiron Pro
1 icense/Ins ectiov/Environ Pro De artment Director
2 ' Attorn
3 a or'3 O�ce Ma or/Assistaot
4 o ncil
5 i Clerk Ci Clerk
MAYOR'S OFFICE
DisadvanWges If Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Financiallnformation:
(Explain)
CosURevenue Budgeted:
ActiviN Number:
��fsA?£� �`,a�4.p
�.��.:t�. ��: ���, ..�f�.
os-�ag
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIl20NIvIEN'1'AL PROTECTION
Janeen B Rosas; D'v'ector
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. Kelly, Mayor
February 1, 2005
Ms. Mary Erickson
Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN. 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
LOWRYPROFESSIONALBUILD7NG Telephone: 651-266-9090
350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 Facrimile: 65I-266-9124
SaintPau{Minnesota55702-I570 Web: www.ci.slpaul.mn.us/liep
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
Febniu•y 16, 2005 for the following zoning case:
Appellant:
Zoning File #:
Purpose:
Location:
Staff:
District :
Board:
Joe Moore, 665 Fuller Ave.
04-213715
Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying several
variances in order to convert the single family at 876 Iglehart Ave. Into a
duplex.
876 Iglehart Ave.
Recommended denial.
No recommendation from District 8.
Denied on a 7- 0 vote.
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Debbie Montgomery. My
understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council at
your earliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the he_aring in the Saint Paul Legal
Ledger. Thanks ! xo�ricE os rusrYc �n�rc
:re � ' �
�
Hazdwick, Zoning Specialist
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
The Saint Favl GSt,y Council will con-'
duct a publie hearing on Wednesday,-Feb
ruary- 16, 2Q05, at 5:30 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers;Thad PRoo; G�ty F7a11,
to consider the appeat of Jce Moore, 665
FullerAvenue to a decision dithe Board of
zonmgArr� de.nying several..arianoes
�in order to oonvert,the single family home
at 876 Iglehart Avenue intoa duplea.
Dated: Febrvary 1, 2005 � - _ '
MARY� ERLCKSON, - " .
Assis6aztt City Cormcil Secretary . �
= - EFebnva?9 3�� " ` �
s'CrAUE�I866LIE�f�R �
22U�2241
02/15/2005 09 56 FAX 6512669099
02/14/200��1�„�04 FAS�'6516897031
�•
C FED� &X RTNROS ����002/002
�1� b � � -
���
c�t� otst: ra�
Office ofLIBP .
350 St; Peter St:, Suite 300
St Paul; MN 55]02 .
RE; File #l04-213715
876 Iglehatt Avenue
Heatin� Date: Wed., Peb_ 16. 2005
Honorable Counci] Ivfembers.
T[�is latter pertains to the application for a zoni��; change at 876 Iglzhart Aveirue.
I h�ve major coiuerns regardiag the creatioA oF s duplcx at tUat addrzss.
1�Iy-coitcerns anclud� tht ov��rcro,'wding oftl�e a�_u,a,nd t1K loss o{'pnrking spac�s.
"Z'he b14ck, on TglO}iatt Victoriaand,�l�tilFon cuireritiy has'six(6j duplei.-es.
Four(4) ofth� six(6) aie Iocated in the same half of the block" as d�e purposed new
duplex.
Moie specifically my home sits between twp(�f duplcxes. The puiposed new duplex is
di�ectlg across the street.
I, find the expansion of 876 to be less than desir: i ble.
Respectfully, .
Semic��
879 iglehart Avenue
_: �VIARY ERICKSON
-- — a COUNCIL RESEARCH
310 CITY HALL
— c,t l"Y UF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. Kelly, Mayor
���
Febniary 1, 2005
Ms. Mary Erickson
Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hail
Saint Paul, MN. 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
i `
,.
FFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTiONS AND
WIRONMF.M�.N'I'AL PROTECTiON
meen E. Rosas; Director
LOi�RYPROFESSIONALBUILDING Telephone: 657-266-9090
350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 Facrimile: 657-266-9124
SaintPaul,�nnesota55102-I570 Web: www.ci.atp¢ulmn.us/Iiep
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled far Wednesday,
Februaiy 16, 2005 for the following zoning case:
Appellant:
Zoning File #:
Joe Moore, 665 Fuller Ave.
04-213715
Purpose: Appeal a decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denying several
vaziances in order to convert the single family at 876 Iglehart Ave. Into a
duplex.
Location:
Staff:
District :
Boazd:
876 Igiehart Ave.
Recommended denial.
No recommendation from District 8.
Denied on a 7- 0 vote.
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Debbie Montgomery. My
understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at
your earliest convenience and that you will publish norice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal
Ledger. Thanks !
Sin �rely,
m
!
J Hardwick, Zoning Specialist
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
/
swxxr
PAUL
�
lIORA
APPlICATION FOR APPEAL
Offrce ofLicense, Inspections andEnvironmental Protection
300 Lowry Professinnal Building
350 St Peter SL, Suite 30D
Saint Pau1, MN SSZ02
651-266-9008
APPLICANT
Name of owner (if
Name �e. /// �P
Address_� �g' F ���- ��,.�
City_,5�,���� St /o Daytime Phone�S/ 2f�-8620
PROPERTY Addsess��
LOCATION
Lega! description:
�
TYPE OF APPEAl: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals [9'Eity Council
under the provisions of Chapter 6�, Section �o'L , Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appeal a
decision
made by the
on
�� � File number: p� Z!3 �/.S
of
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in 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 Planning Commission.
�,CE�S� S� .�1T�c�ED
additiona/ sheet if
Appiicant's signature Date agent ZCk?�o �.2�6.��
�—
APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE
OFFICE OFLICENSE, INSPECTION, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT70N
300 Lowry ProfessionatBuilding
350 St Peter Stred
SaintPau� MNSSIO2-ISIO
(651) 266-9008
City �'' (�(�x� St.�ip r�_Daytime Phone�`j�' ��� -��
APPLICANT property Interest of Applicant (owner, conxract purchaser, etc.)_ ���Z- ��O`�r�`�lb 1 I
r
Name of Owner (if different)
PROPERTY Address /
INFORMATION
Legal Description,�a�.P,b�..,.FS �,�fi/'��� S/� I�� �7� �_
(attach additional sheef if necessary)
r � c � /�
Lot Size . ar7 �l��S Zoning ��, I resent Use_ cJ���p /`��c .
Proposed Use 9Al�,c�s�� - /�lcc /h" 7 ��1�
1. Variance(s) requested: �� ,p �,�� ^ �r �� ���^ � ��,� �L� �,�
� ��`de � ��xr.�� �' �i'i� �- �¢ �w� 7'�n�s�or e��sd�aLe �
Jr�s�P a�. f' o��
t �°' f° ° Z � G����
2. �at pl�� ia ristics of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your
zone? (topography, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) �
3. Expiain how the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or
`� ex eptional practical difficulties or exceptionai undue hardships. /�
�� aS5F5� zc2. vYf@2��aeq .� �� f ��r.r� s�-�er dc��
�.S � v -r2 /n�,� '� s2Le 'a cjc� � �o�c._
��� �$''� g � �" � � '�Y t � `""� `° � CASHIERS USE ONLY
.�
c�l'eeea • c��.�.,�.el�.o � - li ��N� / i
4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment ��
to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose
oftheZoningOrdinance. //_���,� � ������ 1
�cJC d%�.Q !d �u/'�r�+.cf,� e°y�".^'C. �� , ✓J � ..�*
�/�,, /
G omt- /—n.,P Ga�U �- .- /p '
_/a.F"-{�/�` _/fi� c`j-L/"tL -'�y •�^.5�� !�1 � f�'� c�. �
r" � /
ApplicanYs Signature //s�(. �///ly/l' _ Date �� b
o5-�a�
- i�k ,
�
3a
���
s.���w,��.k
f
�� � ��e�nar�
t ,
L�_ tl-eSCr:� ;aut.
��i{�4��i �S �� T� a+a �
C�ai� �, La� S'
����1„�� �
��se.-tat � w.4 �'i°.
C WZ��tws� �r,a+r �'`rw �
;ws jpe.c �roK�
Ex:� �: ��
�D,uS�
�pp; ax- ZZz+ta ��
ya'
t:
: w.�.. . ,_ . # - .
�,�. t
�.�� �r�r�,��.:., ; ,-;>�a:;�2�, . . . � , xt
�-�gi f�V1 �
�I�l�l�tlil�3€�#i�l� r
�-- 21G' , (
' ' 1$!
�
6a�^���
�d
f cl°->- ! c
n
C.a a t~ a�� �o �a�
eK`arc �^o
� � ar.
_ _
� - --..._.__�_-----
�a
r �
_ __ ----_ _.__. ....... ���. �_`�' __.._. ...
• .
3DDRE$$:__�
prv: �
BUITDIrT6 CARD I\TFOR;�TIO2d: - '
COIiS_T2UCTi0N DATF: ��� PEkMii:
PERMIIS COli?vTY ASSESSOR'S REC6RDS
�a� -��
����
/�'r�
�`��6
- 19d�°�
��q �
��ag
�= �
v -; �
_ _ �';.:-� /
�XPE_OF.STRUCTURE: . _
LICERS& RECORDS CiTY DIRECTORY
LEGAL DESCR2PTZON:
LOT SIZE:__ � �
CROSS STREETS:
ZONE USE
(C/NC)
X � C
19
Y960
I964 , � � �
�.
,,, _ _ ��.�
�.:---
� ROOTiS e.
UNZTS:'
�
�
UNITS
PERPfITTED
: :; `; _
:, .
�'_ZOItTIATG STATUS FOSt '
x_
RESIDE
� r
� � �7 EG�Z — 0 ARZSZ21'� ' "
' � iEC:� - co?�*�o�.MZnc usE �1�Tx
' {ior zesidenti:�i')
rEGt1L — NOI1=Ca,�'FC}It��S�G'liS8
, - ' .. : ... r'�LT.F,'GAL °
R£QUIRED
LOT SIZE
LOT SIZE
(C(NCj
C9
:� • �
� ,
,�'-
L' �SE, ' � :; E�A.�Thrli��G�,. , .,
AL USE ZO'VI�G FZLE
1 ,
s > " �:-.'' :.NQ',ItECBRD
5° • t.v:, .
�=co�Fox.�izxc LoT szz� ' '"
{ �,
(����::�es �Icz�Ci�k.c�, �at �l� ' :
l�� � , ��,,GG4A.. Y ' . ,
l �.,.,.
-ZONING i,�ORKSHEET
SUMNFARY lNFflRMATION SHEET
F{5R DUPLE3C ANI? TRiPLEX COVERSION CASES
Housing unit breakdown: Existing Proposed
Number of units
Number of bedrooms in each unit
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Size of each unit in square feet
Unit 1 ��-d �
Unit 2 �j' '��j'D
Unit 3
Debt:
Initial principa! amount �g2
Initiaf interest rate . 6^u
Term of mortgage/debt financing , d�
Time remaining on note !'�
Balance on existing debf o.�
Rehabilitation
Ty e of improvements:
• .`
�, �,
�� ) Y
econhardiwo.xfs � revised 7l28/03
f , 1.
PRO FflRMA INFORMATiON Sh1EET
FflR DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX CONVERSION GASEB
Continuation of Extra Units
i •
o.
,. y, y: n v�at
f Y
Required information With Contiwation of Exfra Witfi Comersion of Structure
Units in Structure to Legal Number of Units
tncome
Tofal monfhly rent income for all units
Monthly income from structure other fhan rerrt
Existing vacancy (if any)
Effective gross income (EGI) / month � $ - $
Effective Gross Income / vear $ - $
O eratin Ex enses Annuai 2 $ -$
Maintenance
insurance
Utilities (oniy include amounf paid by landlord)
Other (identify)
Taxes
Net Operatina lncome (AnnuaD s $ _ $ _
Monthly debt / mortgage payment
Annual debt oavment $ - $ _
Rehab ro ecfs
Total cost of impravements
Monthiy rehab debt paymerrt
Annual rehab debt p�vment $ - $
Cash Flow: orofit. (tossl ° $ _ $
NOTE: 'I. Effective Gross Income =(Total rent income) -(Vacancy, if there is any)
2. Operating expznses are the sum of the next fjve fines, incl maintenance, insurance, utiVities, taxes and othe�s
3. Net Operating Income =(Effective Gross Income) -(Operating Expenses)
4. Cash Fiow =(Net Operating income) -(Annual debf payments)
econhardhvo.x(s ' reyised 7/28/03
� ��•
PRO �a12MA INFORlIAAT10N SHEEZ
FflR DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX COVERSlON CASES
Addition of Units to Structure
�„ •:
�; :
t..,
ru
NOTE: 1. Effective Gross Income =(fotal rent income) -(Vacancy, if there is any)
2. Operating expenses are the sum of the next five Iines, incl maintenance, insurance, ufilities, faxes and others
3. Net Operafing Income =(Effective Gross Income) -(Operating F�cpenses)
4. Cash Flow =(tVet Operating Income) -(Annuai debt payment)
econhardtwo.xis
revised 7/28/03
• _•
�,
J.
4.
J.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
19.
'�.
?6.
r �7
�l.
5 tJNP,AY-BATTLEC REEK-HIG H�Y�O OD
HAZE„'. PARK H.ADEN-PIZQSPERIT; HILLCR.EST
1�, EST SIDE
DAYTrJN'S BLUFF
PAYNfi PHALEN
NORT73 END
THOMAS-DA � E
SUTvIh1I'I'-IJNI�kSZTY
�'JEST SEV'ENTH
CGh�IG
HAI�rII,I�IE _�vii���lAY
ST. AI"THONY PAFCK
�RRu.�I P%? F:.�-L�XITIG'I'ON HAn�LLINE-S?`IELLIhIG iI?�;�iLIr�E
;��.^_CALES'I'ER vR04iL��
HIGI3iA�7D
SL � I S � S T l LL
� V t :'Y�i t il 4' Y�
� ������� ���� a��
C?TIZ�N PP.F:TICIFA'I'ION PLANNING DISTAICTS
\���������� r
Is •:
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COiJNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CIT'Y HALL
ST. PAiJL, MINNESOTA, JANUARY 18, 2005
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Faricy, Galles, and Wilson of
the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hawkins and
Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspecrions, and Environmental Protecrion.
ABSENT None
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair.
Josenh Moore (#0421371� 876 Iglehart Ave nue: Several variances in order to convert
a single-family dwelling into a duplex. 1) Side yard setbacks of 9 feet are required with 3 feet
proposed on the west side and 7 feet on the east side for variances of 6 feet and 2 feet respecuvely. 2)
A lot size of 6,000 square feet is required and 4,942 squaze feet is proposed for a variance of 1,058
square feet. 3) A minimum lot width of 50 feet is required and a width of 40 feet is avaIlable for a
variance of 10 feet. 4) Three off street parking spaces aze required and one space is available, for a
vaziance of two spaces.
Mr. Hawkins showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for denial.
One letter was received opposing the vaziance request.
No correspondence was received from District 8 regazding the vaziance request.
The applicant JOSEPH MOORE, 665 Fuller Avenue, was present. Mr. Moore stated that he believed
that the kitchen was grandfathered-in because it was already existing. Mr. Diatta was out to take
pictures of the inside of the house. The second Idtchen has been a part of the property as long as he
has owned the property and he has owned the property for over 20 years. The porch was in disrepair
and instead of just putting back a porch he added a couple of feet to enhance the building from the back
yard. All they did was tear down the porch and build a new three season porch.
Ms. Maddox questioned that Mr. Mooxe has had the property as rental property? Mr. Moore stated
that he is renting it out to his brother now. Ms. Maddox questioned prior to his brother renting the
property. Mr. Moore stated his grandmother lived there before, it was just her home. The kitchen was
there. His grandmother lived in the home and her son lived in upstairs, which already had a bathroom
and Idtchen, the porch was a one season porch so he couldn't use that in the winter. There was a stove
and refrigerator up there so he could cook his food.
Mr. Wilson questioned whether the building had two separate entrances? Mr. Moore stated it does
now. Mr. Wilson questioned before? Mr. Moore stated yes, it had three entrances actually. The steps
in the picture have replaced steps that were there before going up to the porch. The existing house had
a front and back door also. Mr. Wilson questioned whether the entrance could be accessed without
entering the lower unit. Mr. Moore replied that is right, eniry was available without accessing the
main unit downstairs. Mr. WIlson questioned whether the entry lead to a hallway to the upstairs or if
the downstairs was completely separate from the upstairs. Mr. Moore stated that the hallway had two
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
� ,.
separate locldng doors and his grandmother kept the downstairs door locked.
File #04-213715
Minutes January 18, 2005
Page Two
Mr. Courtney questioned why this is not grandfathered-in and what the rnles aze. Mr. Hawkins stated
that if the applicant were applying for legal non-conforming status it would be before the Planning
Commission not the Boud of Zoning Appeals. From the enforcement history, which is why he
believes they aze before the Boazd, it was used as a single-family home. Whether it was a mother-m-
law apartment or what ever designauon would have been put on it twenty years ago, it was not used as
a duplex, a separate rental unit. They were ordered to get rid of that. As the applicant has stated the
legal non-confoiming status, was never brought up and they didn't try to go that way because the lot
was zoned RTl. They wanted to get the vaziances that way instead of grandfathering it in. That way it
would be a legal duplex. Mr. Courmey questioned what would they have to do to make it a legal non-
confomung duplex. Mr. Hawldns stated that the applicant would have to show that ffie unit had been
rented out continuously since before 1975. That would be Administratively. Or they could apply to
the Planning Commission, then they would have to prove rental for the past ten years. Mr. Hawkins
stated he does not think there was proof of that.
There was no opposition present at the hearing.
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox ciosed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Courtney moved to deny the variance and resolution based on fmdings 3 and 4. Noting that he
does not think there is anything before this Board that would allow them to approve this variance. If
there is a question as to its prior use that is for the Planning Commission to decide.
Ms. Morton seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 7-0.
Submitted by:
Approved by:
JefF Hawkins Gloria Bogen, Secretary
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
. � �
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
APPLICANT:
HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PLANNING DISTRICT:
PRESENT ZOIVING:
REPORT DATE:
DEADLINE FOR ACTION:
Major Variance
JOSEPH MOORE
January 18, 2005
876 IGLEIIART AVENUE
ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 66.231
STONE & ROGER'S ADDITION TO ST. PAUL, MINN. LOT
4 BLK 4
f.l�fl l
January 7, 2005
January 31, 2005
FII.E #04-213715
BY: Jeff Hawkins
DATE RECEIVED: December 22, 2004
A. PURPOSE: Several variances in order to convert a single-family dwelling into a duplex. 1)
Side yard setbacks of 9 feet are required with 3 feet available on the west side and 7 feet on
the east side for variances of 6 feet and 2 feet respectively. 2) A lot size of 6,000 squaze feet
is required and 4,942 square feet is available for a variance of 1,058 squaze feet. 3) A
xninimum lot width of 50 feet is required and a width of 40 feet is available for a variance of
10 feet. 4) Three off street parking spaces are required and one space is auailable, for a
variance of two spaces.
B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This is a 40 foot by 117.56-foot lot with alley access at
the reaz. The exisring single-family home has a detached one stall gazage at the reaz of the
property accessed by the alley.
Surrounding Land Use: Primarily one- and two-family homes.
C. BACKGROi.TND: The applicant obtained the property at the bequest of his deceased
g�andmother. In May 2004 a building permit for an addition for a single family-home was
applied for and then withdrawn. Three days later a compiaint was filed with the City about
an illegal duplex at this location. A building pernut for a single-family addition was applied
for again in July and orders were sent to the properiy owner to remove the illegal duplex or
apply far the variances needed to make this a legal duplex. The applicant has now applied for
the variances.
Page I of 4
+ � i
F�e #04-213715
Sta£f Report
D. FINDINGS:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of
the code.
This properiy is located in an RTl, one- and two-faxnily residential zoning district. The
lot is 1,058 square feet below the min;mum size requirement and does not meet the width
requirement for a duplex conversion without a variance. A duplex is a reasonable use in
the area but not permitted on this property under the strict provisions of the code.
2. The plight of the Zand owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The size of the house, its location on the site and the small lot size prevent the duplex
conversion without a variance. This house was given to the applicant in disrepair and he
wants to bring it up to code so it can be a positive influence on the neighborhood. The
additional rental income would help defer the costs of the improvements. Tkris is a
circumstance that was not created by the applicant.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the
City of St. Paul.
In 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeals adopted the following guidelines for those cases
where a variance is required to convert a singie-family home into a duplex:
a. Lot size of at least 5,000 square feet with a lot width or front footage of 40 feet.
This condition is not met. The property has a lot size of 4,942 squaze feet.
b. Crross living area, after completion of duplex conversion, of at least 1,500 square feet.
The smaller unit of the two sha11 be no less than 500 squaze feet.
This condition is not met. The existing building has about 2,200 squaze feet of living
space. The smaller unit is only 350 square feet.
c. Three off-street parking spaces (non-stacked) are prefened; two spaces are the
required m;n;mum. A site plan showing improved (durabie, permanent, dustiess
surface) parking spaces must be provided.
Page 2 of 4
1�s . �
File #04-213715
Staff Report
This condition is not met. There is a one-car garage on the property although the
applicant is proposing to build a three-car gazage in the future.
d. If exterior chattges aze proposed, exterior elevation drawings of the changes must be
submitted, and the changes must be azchitecturally compatible with the structure and
the neighborhood.
This condifion is met. The proposed conversion would not require any exterior
modifications to the building.
e. If the unit was converted without a pernut prior to the application of a variance, a
code compliance inspection must be conducted and the unit found to the housing code
standards; or the properiy owner must agree to make necessary improvements to bring
it to housing code compliance.
This condition is not met. The building has already been converted. A building
permit for an addition to a single-fanuly home was pulled but the addition included a
second kitchen and a separate entrance to the second unit. Orders were sent on July
29�', 2004 by a Zoning Inspector to file for a variance to make the second unit legal
or remove the kitchen unit from the addition and operate the property as a legal
single-faxnily home by August 29�', 2004. This was not done in the time required by
the Zoning Inspector.
f. Where economic hazdship is claimed as one reason for the variance request, an
economic feasibility analysis shall be conducted. The applicant should supply city
staff with the necessary information.
This condition is not met. The applicant is ciaiming economic hardship but has not
provided an economic feasibility analysis. He stated in the variance application the
conversion "will assist in meeting financial burden for additional cost of rehabilitation
and new addition."
The requested variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor wi11 it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably
diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
The proposed conversion has required changes to the exteriar of the building but does not
affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties.
Page 3 of 4
n5-��8
File #04-213715
Staff Report
The conversion to a duplex should not affect the chazacter of the RTl neighborhood but
the lack of pazking may have adverse impact on the surrounding properties.
5. The variance, ifgranted, would notpermit any use that is not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the properry in the district where the affected land is located,
nor wouZd it alter or change the zoning district class�cation of the property.
A duplex is a pernutted use in this zoning district. The requested variance, if granted,
would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
The applicant states tha4 his prunary desire is to put the properry to a reasonable and
permitted use under the existing zoning classification and help with the costs incurred in
bringing the properiy into a habitable state while attempting to add an affordable housing
option.
E. DISTRICT COiTNCIL RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of this report, staff has
received no recommendation from District 19.
F. CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has not received any correspondence regarding this matter.
G. STAFF RECOMNIENDATION: Based on fmdings 3 and 4, staff recommends denial of
the variances requested for the conversion of this single-family home to a duplex.
Page 4 of 4
os-�a �
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMBER: #04-213715
DATE: January 18, 2005
WHEREAS, Joseph Moore has applied for a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of Section 66.231 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaiuiug: 1) the m;n;mum
required side yard setbacks, 2) the minimum required lot size, 3) the min;mum required lot
width, and 4) the min;mum required off-street pazking spaces, in order to convert a single-family
dwelling into a duplex in the RTl zoning district at 876 Iglehart Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public heating on January 18,
2005 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the
public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the
code.
This property is located in an RTl, one- and two-family residential zoning district. The lot is
1,058 square feet below the minimum size requirement and does not meet the width
requirement for a duplex conversion without a variance. A duplex is a reasonable use in the
area but not permitted on this property under the strict provisions of the code.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The size of the house, its location on the site and the small lot size prevent the duplex
conversion without a variance. This house was given to the applicant in disrepair and he
wants to bring it up to code so it can be a positive influence on the neighborhood. The
additional rental income would help defer the costs of the improvements. This is a
circumstance that was not created by the applicant.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent
with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
In 1992 the Boazd of Zoning Appeals adopted the following guidelines for those cases where
a variance is required to convert a single-family home into a duplex:
Page 1 of 4
os-�a�
File #04-213715
Resolution
a. Lot size of at least 5,000 square feet with a lot width or front footage of 40 feet.
This condition is not met. The properry has a lot size of 4,942 square feet.
b. Gross living azea, after completion of duplex conversion, of at least 1,500 square feet.
The smaller unit of the two shall be no less than 500 square feet.
This condition is not met. The existing building has about 2,200 square feet of living
space. The smaller unit is only 350 square feet.
a Three off-street parking spaces (non-stacked) are preferred; two spaces aze the required
minimum. A site plan showing improved (durable, permanent, dustless surface) pazking
spaces must be provided.
This condition is not met. There is a one-car gazage on the property although the
applicant is proposing to build a three-car garage in the future.
d. If exteriar changes are proposed, exterior elevation drawings of the changes must be
submitted, and the changes must be architecturally compatible with the structure and the
neighborhood.
This condition is met. The proposed conversion would not require any exterior
modifications to the building.
e. If the unit was converted without a permit prior to the applicafion of a variance, a code
compliance inspection must be conducted and the unit found to the housing code
standazds; or the properiy owner must agree to make necessary improvements to bring it
to housing code compliance.
This condition is not met. The building has already been converted. A building permit
for an addition to a single-family home was pulled but the addition included a second
kitchen and a separate entrance to the second unit. Orders were sent on July 29�', 2004 by
a Zoning Inspector to file for a variance to make the second unit legal or remove the
latchen unit from the addition and operate the property as a legal single-familq home by
August 29�`, 2004. This was not done in the time required by the Zoning Inspector.
f. Where economic hardship is ciauned as one reason for the variance request, an economic
feasibility analysis shall be conducted. The applicant should supply ciTy staff with the
necessary information.
Page 2 of 4
05-���
File #04-213715
Resolution
This condition is not met. The applicant is claiming economic hardship but has not
provided an economic feasibility analysis. Ae stated in the variance application the
conversion "will assist in meeting financiai burden for additional cost of rehabi]itation
and new addition."
The requested variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent
property, nor wiZ1 it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably
diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
The proposed conversion has required changes to the e�terior of the building but does not
affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties.
The conversion to a duplex should not afFect the character of the RTl neighborhood but the
lack of pazking may have adverse impact on the surrounding properties.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions
of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is Zocated, nor would it
alter or change the zoning district classification of the property.
A dupiex is a pernutted use in this zoning district. The requested variance, if granted, would
not change or alter the zoning classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
The applicant states that his primary desire is to put the property to a reasonable and
permitted use under the existing zoning classification and help with the costs incurred in
bringing the properiy into a habitable state while attempting to add an affordable housing
option.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals that the
provisions of Section 66.231 aze hereby waived to allow 1) a west side yazd setback of 3 feet and
an east side yard setback of 7 feet; 2) a minimum lot size of 4,942 square feet; 3) a minimum lot
width of 40 feet; and 4) one off=street parking space. In order to convert a single-family home
into a duplex on property located at 876 Iglehart Avenue; and legally described as Stone &
Roger's Addition To St. Paul, Mimi. Lot 4 Bllc 4; in accordance with the application for vaziance
and the site plan on file with the Zoning Admnustrator. ISHEREBYDENIED
Page 3 of 4
�s , �
File #04-213715
Resolution
MOVED BY : Courtney
SECONDED BY: Mortan
IN FAVOR: �
AGAINST: o
MAILED: January 19, 2005
TIlVI� LIMIT: No decision of the zoning or planning administrator, planning commission,
board oF zoning appeals or city council approving a site plan, permit,
variance, or other zoning approval shall be valid for a period longer than two
(2) years, unless a building permit is obtained within such period and the
erection or alteration of a building is proceeding uuder the terms of the
decision, or the use is established within such period by actual operation
pursuant to the applicable conditions and requirements of the approval,
unless the zoning or planning administrator grants an extension not to exceed
one (1) year.
APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the
City Council within 10 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building
permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been Sled. If permits have
been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended
and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final
determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of
Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing
copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and
correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved
minutes of the Sa'snt Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on January
18, 2005 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and
Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOlVING APPEALS
Debbie Crippen
Secretary to the Board
Page 4 of 4
a5-�a�
..
GROLINDS FOR APPEAL:
First, I would like to apologize to this fonun for not understanding the magnitude of this
undertaking. I was under the unpression that decisions made for variance applicarions
were informal and in turn, I mistakenly led the homeowner to this cavalier notion. T'hus,
he was not properly prepared for the initial hearing of this matter.
Second, I think there are some misunderstandings that should be addressed concerning
this property:
- This properry has never been used as a duplex.
- The owner does not live at the property. T'he owner's brother and sister-in-
law reside there.
- The dwelling has always had two kitchens, upper and lower. The owner
lrnows this to be tnxe for the previous owners were his grandpazents.
- There was a separate entrance to the upper level of the dwelling leading to a
small dilapidated upper porch, where a door was located granting access to
rest of the house. There was no separate unit.
- The upper porch was not in use, in disrepair and pigeons living in it.
- Owner has removed the eyesore upper porch and has constructed a two room
addirion in its place. (With proper permits)
- Owner merely wishes to have the properiy deemed a duplex given the fact of
an already exisfing kitchen and bathroom adjacent to the new addition.
- After many conversations with LIEP officials, we came to the conclusion that
given the existence of the second kitchen the dwelling would probably be
grandfathered �n as a duplex.
- Zoning Inspector, YaYa Diatta came to the properiy and inspected in May of
2004. I have spoken to him since the variance application has been denied
and he has assured me that he would make himself available to corroborate
the existence ofthe very old kitchen — atleast 50-60 years old.
I hope this gives the Board a better feel of whaYs going on with the property.
Now I would like to address the specifics of the variance application and the Board's
Resolution, file #04-213715:
1. The properry in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under tlze strict
provisions of the code.
The lot is undersized under the strict application of the code, however, a
duplex is a reasonable use for this property and consistent with the existing
character and use of properiys in the neighborhood with the same lot
dimensions.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to this property,
and these circumstances were not created by the Zandowner.
The Boards findings in this regard, as stated in its Resolution, are on point and
consistent with the intent, objective and purpose of the owners actions.
a5-4�8
,,
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and the intent of the code,
and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of
inhabitants of the City of St. Pau1.
a. With a lot size requirement of 5000 sf., and this lot size being 4942s£,
we simply ask for this diininimus indiscretion to be disregarded.
b. Actual finish square footage of the addirion w/ kitchen and bathroom
is 392. We ask that the 500 sf. Minimum requirement to be
disregarded. The owner wishes to min;mize the number of individuals
to reside in the unit, preferably L While it is not the homeowners
desire, a doorway can be instalie8 to an adjacent bedroom,
approx12x15, to met this requirement.
c. Presently, there is a single car garage that the owner plans to expand to
meet requirement. Also, there is currently space next to the garage,
although not a"dustless surface" that can be used for the time being.
d. Condition is met.
e. The addition has been substantially built, however, the building has
not been converted awai6ng the outcome of these proceedings.
NOTE! The findings in the resolution, 3. e., mistakenly state that the
addition was built and "included a separate kitchen." Once again I
must stress that the kitchen in question is an e�sting kitchen and
where it is situated has not changed. This can be verified by Zoning
Tnspector YaYa Diatta. What we are trying to do is accentuate the
existing layout of the property in a meaningful and seemingly natural
manner, and at the same time, not defy the spirit of the code.
Further, the aforementioned Resolution secrion states that orders were
sent dated 7uly 29, 2004 requiring that a variance be applied for by
August 29, 2004. We received no such conespondence. We did
receive a conespondence dated July 29, 2004, but it only contained an
application for a variance and inshuctions pertaining to it which we
already had since May. We have lrnown all along that a variance
would be required in order to operate the dwelling as a duplex and in
late May we set out to do just that. As you must know the building of
this addition has taken considerable expense and had we lrnown that
this requirement was expected we would have whole-heartedly
responded in a rimely manner. Also, we were under the impression
that the property would be grandfathered in as a duplex, therefore, a
variance may not be necessary.
f. This corresponding section of the Resolution states that applicant has
not provided an economic feasibility analysis. However, LIEP
officials will not even accept a variance application without the
feasibility analysis in situations such as this. Mareover, we believe
that the purpose of the analysis is to determine if the request for the
variance will help to off-set the burden of expense for the addition -
yes it will.
2
� �a�
..
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to
adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding
area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the
surraunding area.
Parking was the concern in this secrion and, as stated earlier, the present
situation is only temporary.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under
the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected
Zand is located, nor will it alter or change the zoning district class�cation of
the property.
Our request is in line with this requirement.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the
value or income potential of the parcel of Zand.
ApplicanYs intentions are properly stated in the Resolufion, "applicant's
primary desire is to put the property to a reasonable and permitted use ... and
help with the cost incurred in bringing the property into a habitable state while
attempting to add an affordable housing option."
I hope these stated grounds for appeal are suffice to this forum for a decision in favor of
applicants variance request.
SUMMftRV lNF012MATION SHEET
rt3R DUPLE:C AND TRIPLEX C0IVERSION CASES
Housing unit breakdown: F�isting Proposed
fVumber of unifs t
Number of bedrooms in each unit �
Unit 1
Unif 2
Unit 3
Size of each unit in square feef
Unit 1 ��-d �
Unit 2 � �'O
Unit 3
Deht
Initial principal amount {g&1
lnitial interest rate o 6�
Term of mortgage/debt financing , t��
Time remaining on note �
Balance on existing debt Q. t`�
Rehabilitation
Ty e of improvements:
� �� �
1 �, :
,«. v �.��,
;��;
�t� _
ewnfiardtwoxis • revised 7l28/03
t
f
. , ,
_ .. , PRO FflRMA INFORMATiON SHEET
FOR DUPLEJC AND T'RIPLEX CONVERSiON GASES
Con#inuation of �tra Units
I '� �
� r�
�� _
Required infarmation 1N�rth Coritirtuation of Extra With Conversion of Structure
Units in Structure to Legai Number of Uni{s
Income
Total morrthiy renf income for all units
Monthiy income from strueture other than rent
E�isEing vacancy (if any)
Effective gross income (EGI) ! manth ' $ - $ _
Effecfive Gross Income / ear $ - $
Operatinq Exoenses lAnnual) 2 $ - $
Maintenance
insurance
Utilities (only inciude amount paid by landiord)
Other (identify)
T�es
Net Operatina Income (Annual) 3 $ _ $
Monthly debt / mortgage payment
Annuai debt qavment $ - $
Rehab ro ects
Total cost of improvements
Monthly rehab debt pa ment
Annual rehab debt a ment $ -$
Cash Flow: profst, (4oss1 ° $ _ $
NOTE: 1. Effective Gross Income =(Total rent income) -(Vacancy, ff there is any)
2. Operating expenses are the sum of the next five lines, incl maintenance, insurance, utlities, taxes and others
3. Nef Operating Income =(Effective Gross Income) -(Operating Expenses)
4. Cash Flow =(Net Operating Income) -(Annual debt payments)
econhardtwo.xis ' reyised 7/28/03
� ..
1
PRO FflRMA lNF�RlUlATiON SHEET
FOR DUPLEX AND TiZIPLE;C C(3VERS10N CASES
Addition of Units to S#ruc#ure
� .
�: .�; •
z
., _:i: �
�
NOTE:1. Effective Gross Income =(Total rent income� -(Vacancy, if there is any)
2. Operating expenses are the sum of the ne�ct five lines, inci maintenance, insurance, ufilities, faxes and others
3. Net Operating Income =(Effective Gross Income) -(Operating Expenses)
4. Cash Flow =(Net Operating Income) -(Mnual debt paymenf)
econhardhvo.xls • revised 7/28/03