07-285coua�u �e # 01= Z�SS
Green Sheet # 3�l
2
4
5
6
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
WIIEREAS, Travis Mead, on January 8, 2007, made application to the Board of Zoning
Appeais (hereinafter, the `BZA") in BZA File No. 07-006234, for a variance from the strict
application of the provisions of the zoning code for the property located at 315 Aurora Avenue,
and legally described as ELFELT, BERNf�IlV1ER & ARNOLDS ADDITTON TO ST. PAIJL
LOT 20 BLK 3; and
WHEREAS, The purpose of the application was to vary the zoning code standards so as to
legally pernut an establish third unit in an existing duplex in the RT2 zoning district; and
WHEREAS, The BZA duly conducted a public hearing on January 29, 2007, after having
provided notice to affected property owners, and the BZA, by its Resolution No. 07-006234,
adopted January 29, 2007, moved to deny the said application based upon the following findings
and conclusions:
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the
strict provisions of the code.
The applicant represents his parents who purchased this property last year.
After assuming ownership, the applicant proceeded to convert the
basement into a third dwelling unit. He states that he thought all he
needed to do was install egress windows in order to create a third unit. He
subsequently learned that the property does not meet the minium lot size
requirements for a tri-plex. He states that when his pazents parchased the
building they did so with the intent of adding a third unit and that they
need the income for the three units in order to make the purchase
economically feasible. A three-unit building is a reasonable and pernutted
use far this zoning district that cannot be accomplished under the strict
application of the code.
2. The plight of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to this
property, and the current circumstances were created by the land owner.
It is incumbent upon a prospective property owner to determine the legal
use of the property befare it is purchased. The economic hardship
incurred through operating the building as a duplex is a self imposed
hardship.
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ��
o� Z.�S
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
3. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
code, and is not consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and
welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Saint Paul.
In 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Commission
adopted b idelines for duplex and tri-plex conversions. The guidelines
state that staff will recommend denial unless all of the following conditions are met:
A. L.ot size of at least 8,000 square feet with a lot width or front
footage of 50 feet. This condition is not met. The proposed lot
size is 6,300 square feet.
B. Gross living area, after completion of duplex conversion, of at
least 2,700 squaze feet. The smallest unit of the three shall be no
less than 500 squaze feet.
This condition is met.
C. Four off-street parking spaces (non-stacked) are prefened; three
spaces are the required minimum. A site plan showing improved
(durable, permanent, dustless surface) parking spaces must be
provided. This condition is partially met. There is room to
provide four parking spaces in the rear yard but the area is not
paved.
D. If exterior 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 only exterior changes are egress
windows.
E. If the unit was converted without a pernut prior to the application .
of the variance, the units must be inspected by the Fire MarshaPs
Office as a part of the Certifacate of Occupancy program required
for a11 residenAal structares with three or mare units. This
condition is met. The building has been inspected pursuant to the
Certificate of Occupancy program, however, the building has not
been brought up to code yet.
F. Where economic hardship is claimed as one reasons for the
variance request, an economic feasibility analysis shall be
conducted. Applicant should supply city staff with the necessary
information. This condition is met.
G. The proposed tri-plex structure is located within a mixed density
neighborhood, not in a homogeneous single-family area or in an
area where duplexes and tri-plexes aze already concentrated to the
point of congesting neighborhood streets. This condition is met.
This block contains a mixture of single-family homes, duplexes
and one multi-unit building.
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
ll7
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
This proposal does not meet Guideline "A" or "C" and therefore is not in keeping h Z�S
the spirit and intent of the code. It should be noted that Planning Staff is working on
revising these guidelines to reflect the zoning code changes that went into effect since
they were developed. Some of these requirements may be reduced or eliminated but a
final version has not been presented to the Board or the Planning Commission yet.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the
surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values
within the surrounding area.
The proposed conversion wili not involve any changes to the exterior of
the building other than window wells for egress. The requested variance
will not affect the supply of light oz air to adjacent property.
This is a mixed density neighborhood adjacent to a major bus route and
commercial area. Converting this building to a tri-plex would not change
the character of the neighborhood. The Fire Safety inspection indicated
that there are several building and housing code issues that need to be
resolved in the building. The applicant obtained a building permit for
installing an egress window in the basement but did not indicate that he
was creating a new dwelling urrit. If this variance is approved, he will
need to obtain a new building permit to bring the structure into
compliance with the code. This property has a long history of complaints
about poor maintenance and unruly tenants. Most of those probiems were
before the cunent owners purchased the property. Adding another
apartment would aggravate the disruption to the neighborhood unless the
current property owners break this pattern and carefully screen
prospective tenants and take good care of the property. Assuming the
current owner does this, the third dwelling unit should not have an adverse
impact on sunounding property values.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted
under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the
affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the Zoning district
classifzcation of the property.
A tri-plex is a 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 pr on a desire to increase the
value or dncome potentiad of the parcel of land.
The applicant states that the revenue from the third dwelling unit is needed
in order to renovate and maintain this property.
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
O
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code §61.702(a), Travis Mead, on February 8,
2007, in BZA File No. 07-021306, duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the BZA
and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken
by the BZA; and
WHEREAS, Acting pursuant to Leg. Code §61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, a
public hearin� was duly conducted by the City Council on March 7, 2007, where all interested
parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, The City Council, having heazd the statements made, and having considered the
variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolurion of the BZA, DOES
HEREBY
RESOLVE, That the City Council hereby reverses the decision of the BZA in this matter as the
Council finds that the BZA erred in its findings Nos. 2 and 3, as set forth above, based upon the
revised finding No. 2 and revised findings Nos. 3(A) and 3(B), as set forth below, which aze
hereby adopted and incorporated so as to revise and amend BZA Resolution No. Q7-OQ6234:
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this properry,
and the current circumstances were created by the land owraer.
The subject building is located on a 6300 square foot lot (SOx119). The appellant
purchased the lot as configured. The appellant did not create the circumstance
with respect to the square foot area of the subject lot.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code,
and can be made consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and
welfttre of the inhabitants of the City of Saint Paul.
A. The City's 1992 adopted triplex conversion guidelines are
presently in the process of being revised. It is anticipated
that the lot size requirement set forth in the guidelines will
be reduced from 8000 sq. feet. Although the lot size of the
subject property does not meet the current guideline, the
subject property met five of the sevett triplex conversion
guidelines and partially met the guideline with respect to
parking. On balance, and with no objection to the
requested lot size variance, varying the lot size guideline is
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning code.
C. There is room to provide four parking spaces in the rear
yard. However, this azea is not paved. The triplex
conversion guidelines prefer four off-street parking spaces.
Provided that the appellant, subject to a site plan separately
submitted and approved by the City, provides four off-
street parking spaces, the triplex can be made consistent
with the health, safefy, comfort, morals and welfare of the
inhabitants of the City. It is a condition of the approval of
this variance that these parking spaces shall be paved and
maintained with, minimally, an asphalt or better grade
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
O
durable, permanent, dustless surface material. Crushed
rock or similaz material will not be pernutted.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of Travis Mead is hereby granted,
subject to the revised conditions noted above and, further, that all the other findings of the BZA,
as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 07-006234, are adopted by the City Council as its own; AND
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
Travis Mead, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the BZA.
Requested by Deparenen[oF
G� o
Adopfion Certified by Council Sec
BY: / / //!D/.! / o�lYSd/!
Approved by Mayoc Date �°?� °20 A�
B �4.� P ��
BY .
Fonn App�ro by Ciry Attomey
By: �y��G'�AiVNf-- ��-��-0 %
Form Approved by� a for Subaussion to Couuc�
/
:
By:
AdoptedbyCouncil: Da[e Pi/aF',?L�Lo�.'.�iaf+'�y
m
�� Z�
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
CA �i aumney
CoMad Person 8 Phone:
Peter Wamer
266-8710
Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
E-Document Required: Y
DocumeM CoMacY. Jufie Kraus
CoMact Phone: 266-8776
13-MAR-07
�
Assign
Number
For
Roufmg
Order
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations Por Signature)
Green Sheet NO: 3037731
0 'tyAttoruev I
1 i Attorne De arhnent Director
2 ' Attorne
3 a or`s Office Ma odAssistaut
4 onnN
5 ' C7e�k Ci C1erk
Memoriatizing City Council's Mazch 7, 2007, motion to reverse the decision of the Baard of Zoning Appeals and gant fhe appeal of
Travis Mead to vary the zoning code standards so as to legally permit an established third unit in an existing duplex at the pLOpezty
located at 315 Aurora Avenue in Saint Paul.
iaauons: approve �N� or rt
Planning Commission
CIB Commiitee
Civil Service Commission
1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this department?
Yes No
2. Has this person/Flrm ever been a city empioyee?
Yes No
3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee�
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantages If Approved:
The Council is required pursuant to the Ciry Charter to have its actions reduced to writing eiffier in the form of a resolution or
ordinance dependent upon the nature of the matter before it. The decision of Council in this matter required a wcitten Lesolution in
order to comply with the Charter. Approving the attached resolution fulfills the Council's dury under the Charter.
Disadvantages if Approved:
None.
DisadvarMages if Not Approved:
Failure to approve the resolution violates the City's Charter requuement.
Transaction:
Funtling Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
CosURevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
�"vv £'"' . h �'.,,�
."��� ;. .�, ' ��.t.
March 13, 2007 4:49 PM Page 7
o�-Z�ss
OFFICE OF LICBNSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Bab Kessler. Dirutor
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Chnstopher B. Co[em¢n, Mayor
February 12, 2007
Ms. Mary Erickson
Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN. 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
COMMERCE BUILDING
8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200
St Paul, Minnuota 55101-l024
Tetephone: 651-2 66909D
F¢csimile: 651-26G9I24
WeG.� www.liep.us
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, March 7, 2007 for the following zoning case:
Appellant: Travis Mead
Zoning File #: 07-021306
Purpose:
Location:
Staff.
District :
Board:
Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying a minimum lot size
variance in order to convert a duplex into a triplex.
315 Aurara Ave
Recommended denial.
No recommendation from District 8.
Denied on a 4- 3 vote.
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member 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 notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Thanks !
Sincerely,
John Hardwick, Zoning Specialist
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
PiOTICE OF PIIBLIC I�ARING
The Saint Paul City Councii will con
duct a pub2ic hearing on Wednesday,
March 7, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in tkie Ctity
Council ChaIIS6ers, Third Floor, City Hall'-
Court Aouse, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard,
St. Paul. MN, to consider the appeal of
TYavis Mead to a decision of the Board of
Zo nine Appeals denying a minimum lot
size variance in order to comert a duplerc
into a triples at 315 Aurora Avenue. (Zon-
in� F71e No. 07-021306J
TSated: February 12, 2007 �
MARY ERICKS,ON. ,
Assistant City Covncil Secretaxy
' (February k5), -
— —= ST. PAUL L&GAL LEDGER =��
22132339 ` - .
��; ,
; � ;
L_ _'�!
APPLiCAT10N FOR APPEAL
� O�ce of License, lnspections and Environmental
Profecfion
"--� Commerce Building
8 Fourffr S! E, Suife 200
Saint Pau/, MN 55909
651-266-9008
APPLICANT
"iL'�
PROPERTY
LOCATION
city t��nr�e a�o `�S St.�t� �p SS�o � Da�ytime phone lolal-3�,3'�'
Name of owner (if different) � � �,��� ���
Address 3I 5 flt,�C� Ir'0.. -RV2� S� .� c,..e,.� , Nl N
Legai description:
additional sheet
�PE OF APPEAL: Appfication is hereby made for an appeal to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �` City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 61, Section�Q �, Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision
made by the �7 D
on I��U f�
200_. Fite number: fl 7 ��/
GRQUNQS FOR APPEAL: Explain wh�t 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,
�� ���
addifional sheet if
ApplicanYs
� Dateo� • $ • �� City ageRt ��� �
�c� �tf 3� - a�ra�� y�
❑
I am filing Uus appeal based on a multitude of reasons why this variance should have
been passed and to provide clarification of what the actual circumstances of the purchase
oftlus property were. When my parents purchased this property, there were already
tenants living in the lower level moms. Both rooms were rented out at four hundred
dollars each per month, for a totai of eight hundred dollars. When we bought the
property, we determined the income of the property with that eight hundred doliazs
included. When we bought ttris properly, we were aware t6at this properiy had some
pzoblems in the past, but not to the e�rtent that it did. Since I was new to real estate and
the managsng of the pmperties I began to work with Andy Dawkins, who was the
Director of Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement for St. Paui at that time.
Our intemion was to improve its status withthe authoriiies of St. Paul and the residents
that lived nearby. The first thing Mr. Dawldns recommended was to evict the tenants that
had been causing all of the trouble. We did this on October 10, 2005, which was only a
month and a hatf after purchasing the property. This unit remained vacant till
February 1, 2006 until we weie able to find a tenant that was going to live and act the �
way the peopla of the neighborhood expected. Shortty aftes evicting the tenants in
October, I learued from a friend I was working with that egress windows were needed to
insure that the rooms in the basement were legal. After learning this information, I gave
the tenants in the basement notice to vacate the property and made plans to do the work
in the swnmer. When I went in and applied for the permit and not lzauing ever appfied for
a building permit before, I asked the individnal at the counter for help. I explained that
my parents owned a duplex aad there were rooms in the basement that needed egress
wittdows to make them legal. She helped me fill out the application and I proceeded and
completed the work. I strongly believe that we have proved our commitatent to makin�
this property better and have showed that we can screen tenants and monitor our property
so tkat it is in keeping with the health and safety of the neigkborkood. Considering the
Boarct of Plauning Commissioa is in the process of reducing or eliminating the tot size
requitements for a triple� and this pmperty meets a11 othez requirements, I believe that a
variance could provide an apportunity for vs to skow that reducing the requirements for
lot sizes can be successful white pmviding affordable housing.
Sincere ,
Travis Mead
�
�
v
�
�
A. PURPOSE: A lot size variance in order to establish a third unit in this existing duplex.
A lot size of 9,000 squaze feet is required, 6,300 square feet is proposed for a variance of
2,700 squaze feet.
B. SITE AND AREA CONDITTONS: This is a 50 by 119-foot parcel with alley access at
the rear to a surface parking azea.
Surrounding Land Use: Mixed residenCial uses along Aurora Avenue with commercial
uses to the north on University Avenue.
C. BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking to legalize the conversion of this duplex into
a tri-plex.
D. FINDINGS:
1. The pt in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions
of the code.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
APPLICANT:
AEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
�
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PLANNING DISTRICT:
PRESENT ZONING:
REPORT DATE:
DEADLINE FOR ACTION:
Major Variance
TRAVIS MEAD
January 29, 2007
315 AURORA AVENi TE
ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 66.231
ELFELT, BERNFIL�IMER & ARNOLDS ADDTI'ION TO ST.
PAUL LOT 20 BLK 3
RT2
January 17, 2007
February 19, 2007
FILE #07-006234
BY: John Hardwick
DATE RECEIVED: January 10, 2007
�
The applicant represents his pazents who purchased this property last yeaz. After
assuuiing ownership, the applicant proceeded to convert the basement into a third
dweliing unit. He states that he thought all he needed to do was install egress
windows in order to create a third unit. He subsequently leamed that the property
Page 1 of 4
�
File #07-006234
StaffReport
does not meet the minunum lot size requirements for a tri-plex. He states that wlzen
his pazents purchased the building they did so with the intent of adding a third »n*1
and that they need the income from three units in order to make the purchase
economicaliy feasibie. A three-unit building is a reasonable and pernutted use for this
zotting dishict that cannat he accomplished under the strict application of the code.
2. The pZigDat of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to this property, and
these circumstances were created by the land owner.
It is incumbent upon a prospective properiy owner to detennine the legal use of the
property before it is purchased. The economic hazdship incurred through operating
the building as a duplex is a self imposed hardship.
3. The proposed variance is not zn keeping wifh the spirit and intent of the code, and is
not 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 and the PIaitning Commission adopfed
guidelines for duplex and tri-plex conversions. 'I'he guidelines state that staff will �
recommend denial unless all of the following conditions aze met:
A. I.ot size of at least 8,000 square feet with a lot width or front footage of 50 feet.
This conditiott is not met. Tkte proposed lot size is 6,300 square feet.
B. Gross living area, after completion of duptex conversion, of at Ieast 2,700 squaze
feet. The smallest unit of the three shall be no less than 500 square feet.
Tlus condition is met
C. Four off-street pazlang spaces (non-stackec3) are preferred; three spaces are the .
required minimum. A site plan showing improved (durable, permanent, dustless
surface) pazlflng spaces must be provided.
This condi6on is partially met. There is room to provide four parldng spaces in
the reaz yazd but the area is not paved.
D. If exterior changes aze proposed, exterior elevation drawings o£the changes must
be submitted, and the changes must be architecturally compatible with the .
stnxcture and the neighborhood.
This condition is met. T'he only exterior changes aze egress windows.
E. If the unit was converted without a permit prior to the application of a variance,
the units must be inspected by the Fire Marshal's Office as part of the Certificate � i
Page 2 of 4
C��l—Zis S
File #07-006234
� StaffReport
of Occupancy program required for all residential shuctures with three or more
units.
This condition is met. The building has been inspected pursuant to the
Certificate of Occupancy program, however, the building has not been brought up
to code yet.
F. Where economic hardship is claimed as one reason for the variance request, an
economic feasibility analysis shall be conducted. Applicant should supply city
staff with the necessary infoxmation.
This condition is met.
G. The proposed tri-piex structure is located within a mixed density neighbarhood,
not in a homogeneous single-family area or in an area where duplexes and hi-
plexes are already concentrated to the point of congesting neighborhood streets.
This condition is me� This block contains a mixture of single-family homes,
duplexes and one multi unit building.
This proposal does not meet Guideline "A" or "C" and therefore is not in keeping
� with the spirit and intent of the code. It should be noted that Planning Staff is
working on revasing these guidelines to reflect the zoning code changes that went into
effect since they were developed. Some of these requirements may be reduced or
eliminated but a final version has not been presented to the Board or the Planning
Commission yet.
4. T7xe proposed variance will not impair an adequate suppZy of Zight and air to adjacent
property, nor will it alter the essentiat character of the susrounding area or
unreasonably diminish estabd%shed properZy values within the surrounding area.
The proposed conversion will not invoive any changes to the exterior of the building
other than window wells for egress. The requested variance will not affect the supply
o£ light or air to adjacent property.
This is a mixed density neighborhood adjacent to a major bus route and commercial
azea. Converting this buitding to a tri-plex would not change the character of the
neighborhood. The Fire Safety inspection indicated that there aze several building
and housang code issues that need to be resolved in the building. The applicant
obtained a building permit for installing an egress window in the basement but did not
indicate that he was creating a new dwelling unit. If this variance is approved, he will
need to obtain a new building pernut to bring the structure into compliance with the
code. This properiy has a long history of complaints about poor maintenance and
• uniuly tenants. Most of those problems were be£ore the cunent owners purchased the
�
Page 3 af 4
File #07-006234
Staff Report
proper[y. Adding another apaztment would aggravate the disrupfion to the
neighborkood unless the current property owners break this paffern and cazefully
screen prospective tenants and take good care of the property. Assuining the cutrent
owners do this, the trrird dwalling unit should not have an adverse impact on
surrounding property values.
S. 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 fhe zoning disb^ict cZassification of the properry.
A tri-plex is a permitted use in this zoning district. Ttze requested variattce, if granted,
would not change or alter the zoning classificafion 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 agglicant states"that the revenue from a third dwelling unit is needed in order to
renovate and maintain this property.
E. DISTRICT COiJNCIL RECON�NDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not
received a recom�mendation from Dislarict 8.
F. CORI2ESPONDENCE: Staff has received one letter outliuiug the previous probiems with
the properiy but stating if the new owners maintain the property and screen fhe tenanfs she
would not oppose the variance.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Based on findings 2 and 3, staff recommends denial of
the variance.
Should the Boazd decide fo approve the variance, staff would recommend the following
conditions be added; 1) That the applicant obtains a building pezmit and brings the property
into compliance with all building and housing codes; 2) That the off-street parking area is
paved with asphalt or concrete meeting site plan reqnirements; and 3) Tlzat the applicant
obtains and maintaitts a Certificate of Occupancy for the building.
�
�
� �
Page 4 of 4
APFLiCA i 1013 FOR ZONfNG VAR6�4NCE
� OFFICE OFLfCENSE, INSPBCTIONS, AND
� ---- EIVYIRONME'NTAL PROTECTION j
8 Fourth Street Eas; Suite 200 .�
5aint Pau� MN SSI01
651-266-9008 �����E�
�
APPLICANT
PROPERTY
Zip�� Daytime
�
�\
U
Name 1[ 2�/ IS I�Gq Compa�y
n���,x� Il [ Ain rn � ta �c s��o. �'lQn7
Property interest of applicant (owner, contract purchaser, etc.)
Name of owner (if different) �f1O1M0.S E. 170hM A, �'!� �
Address/Location � 315� Awrora. PtVei
Legal descriQtion �i ,��Q(��J'1 t
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Lot size ( 32 5 Present Zoning�T� Present Use �I1DI_
— -� �--
Proposed Use 7'r ti-� 1e..X
Variance[s} requested:
����,i t��.cQ.
lcr� StZe
' ��
Vosr' iu�G�
��. � _ ,
� � ro
Supporting Information: Suppiy the necessary information that is applicable to your variance request, provide
detaifs regarding the project, expfain why a variance is needed. Dupiex/triplex conversions may require a pro forma
to be submitted. Attach additionaf sheets if necessary.
Attachmenfs as required:
AppticanYs signature
Site Plan Attachments
�
Pro Fo�ma
Date /• g • b7
:! `, I ; �`>;•
. . tut�� pcirex��'s ho►ve- cw»crd -lhis �ro�r�c(
Sth� S�-Q�'-�-r ! Z o°s', i�l e- or i 9i nat t�� p� rc.Y.qs� d
-{�. �ra�x" k�( Uul�+ �e. tn�-n� � rn�-t�e 3he.
�a.s;.�nca� �- a. te.qa,t t,�n i� rY.int, �uL wp.�''e
t,.x�der {�e. assump'�iari -tha.{ atts �.-f was
ne.eded �o mat��-khc. c,ur► tcqa.Ji �aas e,c�ress '
' W�vidows. Th¢.. wc�.l.iS a+nd utliv►c� w�re. e�t�f-trLC�
t..�h�e.�n we . pc,�x�c�lric�e.d -�c bc,titditr►�, tn c�rd¢-�"
,.� hn,a.Kc - 4bK„ bcx.t�dting ct't' 0. evp.� GaSh �lata bY
�a�.t,� J�5"{' �tL i►�,te-�'est { �«.� { �,n-F o,�.
. -�1�e.. wtor�k'9ac,Je� ,wc tn�ed 'this vax'ta.ht�, MY
it��'tn� . wat�ld b� � i�r�t' eat..lr• C`aow�► ow� -For' � 3`�°`
�r r�w�n+ Y�-rc»} t.{ re.c.i�.ve� a�rc�ui.r�d 1
'p�1t7U�. G 0.t.t pCX' WG�- l�- Q5 [Cl h� �bOt�.� �G t.tn 1�S
ih t�. ba5e•w.��f • In�� ��,,,��e,d o,. bu.cldincs �c,rrn�t
�,r �hc e9re.ss windows ,a,�d co�plc.ke.d �.
c.osr+n�-lt'c. Wer� . Whu� � t.a.L(G�l tin � c�c,f c� �o
! W� t�:r� i n-�o .r mcc� _ of tt�ne t c� �" s i�.c t Ss c,c.e..
� �
;�
�
�
�
Pt20 FORMA fN�ORMATI�N SHEET
FOR DtlPLEX AND Ti�IPLEX CONVEI2fiiON CASES
Continua#ion of Extra Units
�:.� zT:,�_�_.�.-4:....�__s�.-��.�'�
♦ :
,� �
;;>� - �+;r:z
r _'�+ -
2. Operating expenses are the sum of the next five lines, incl maintenance, insurance, utilities, taxes and oihers
3. Net Operating Income =(Effective Gross Income) -(Operating Expenses)
4. Cash Flow =(Nef Operating Income) -(Mnual debt payments)
�
econhardhvo.xls
revised 7/28l03
NOTE: 1, Eifective Gross lncome =(7ota1 rent income) -(Vacancy, if there is any)
!
SUMR�lARY lNPORlNA7lON StiEET
FQR_DUP1EXAt�tD " R�(��X COVEf2S10�i ,CASES,. .,w� ry //� l/ ��
_ . �°-����&.-,�-�•'�.ti.. : a?� U �M � \
- �v %�.r_.�-..s V
Housing unit breakd'own: Fxisting Proposed
Num6er of units a �
Number of bedrooms in each unit
un�c � 3
Unit 2 T
Unit 3 �
Size of each unit in square feef
Unit 1 � �.>?j
Unit 2 t ( �J�j
Unit 3 .5��
Deht: "
initiai principal amount 3�� y �OO. �
Initial interest rate D• b��
Term of mortgagefdebt financing J� �eOX
Time remaining on nofe �$ • ���
Balance on existing debt 315 + 5�0
Rehabilitation
T pe of improvements:
i
�
l��
econhardiwo.xis � . ' . revised 7128l�3
o
CITY OF ST PAUL GENERAL BUII.DIIVG PE P ATION
O�ce of License, Inspedions and Environmental Protection � �" 3
s Fourtn street easc, suae zoo Visit our Web Site at www.liep.us Qc/-�'� �
' St Paul, Minnesota 55101-7024 _ _ � °'�-�--�-..�
, Num Sveet Name � �� S Ave. Bivd. Eta N S E W SuiteJApt Building Name C D��a[e
ADURFSS ��J AL��Df'�- _ �lY�=. �' b .00O
Eon4ac �([nc Contaf t Person) (Permi[ wiil be mailed to the Conn Addressj Phone �
!/WfhG.s'��ytfts f✓tGGl�J Address
Ciry
State BuOdin Contr. Lic # State, Zi +4
Roperty Owner ([nctude Coniact Person)
Phone
�O/y�Gls �� Addrus �� , - �zl� `�✓�'c./��OcJ� GFYIf t��
sr e�,z� +a °`ootncvic3{otn,MN SS�37 t
' - 3� 6- 303�
Muoury Contractor one
Address
Ci , Sta[e, Zi +4 �
Aschitect Phone
Address
CS , Siate, Zi + 4 -
New Structure Existing 3tructure Commercial Residential Addi6on RemodeUAlter Repair
� Enter#of `�- �
� � Uuits > ► ❑ ❑
Estimated p� ��� Estimated g Fstimated Value of Total Project
Start Date ► ► D �I � Ftinish Date ► ► � • 1 � ' � �' �v o d
�
Description of Pcoject Applicant certifies tha[ ail information is cortec[ and that all per[inen[ state regula[iona and<ity ordinances witl
� / �� / �/// he com ti ��th in erForming Ihe k for which lhis permit is issued.
PIS(�G( [�l?!"�ST u`l/N�LLrJWS
C �{_
� A licant's Signature
� ` , .'�: -����- „':PLF , , �-? " '
Structure D'unensions (In Feet) Is a Fice Suppcession Syscem�Available?
(i.e. - Sprinklers)
Width Length Height Totat Squaze Feet Basement #of Stories
(include basement) Yes ❑ No ❑
Yes No
��t�i� ,. ,.._�,;•, . ,.'�.`, ,..,.,-.-Set$arks,�l`F4��k??�Y�Lmes � "��r � i;' ,� ,�.,:'; ,s r
Lot Width Lot Depth Front Back Side 1 Side 2��
...;�. �\ 3..t�.;.:.0 s. �}pe4 K 3 ."YFt=. .. .�.i Y.....�.�OIOALLC�USC'O�9 ,. -.� -, .
, Y.a £.� f
Chauge(Expansion of Use? Yes f No SUNIlVIARY OF FELS
Existing Primary Use p�cu anc Grou �
� C+ ,� yL P Y P �,^ Building Perntit Fee $ � 7 r�
. s
Proposed Primary U � Construction Type � � �
�(� I� ,� Plan Check Fee $
Zoning Distric[ Plan Number
��� State Surcharge $ r� � O
PLAN REVIEW u�rvrauuc
SAC $
Total Permit Fee $ 7�. 2,J
S.A.C. #: Review Date• Waming Folder # (For Office Use OnIyJ
By. �-//�/ r. /
Char e Credit b � pERMIT #►►.
Vacant Bldg. Folder# � �
te Vatuation : $� 00 0, O C7 �b '" ���
❑ American E ress ❑ Discover ❑ MasterCard ❑ Visa E�pirason
� MontlJYear ►
Enter Account
Number ► ►
) f ' `i5 �'�G- _, o 7 [
Signature of Cardholder : � u� ) � !C? � <�u25�..:.� �a-� �� � !%� � P F. ,/�i ,f(,1" ,0.,,�,��A,�rr,t�
ADDRESS: ✓I�
PI�: �7� ''�
ZO\I\G I:OP.KSHEET
BllILDI:�G CA� I\FOR"iATIOS:
CO\STRUCTZO'V DATE: Q� PERvIT:
PERMITS COLATY ASSESSOA'S RECORDS
��� (
� ��3
l��`�
1���
1 ��1
LEGAL DESCRIPTIO'�:
LOT SIZE:
CROSS-STREETS:
. ZO\E
X
1922
1960
1964
1975
t;SE
(C/?�G)
C
� �- � �,
�� �"�
�
b-
' U!�ITS
PER*fITTED
ROO:;S :
_ :�
� :�y
�
TYPE-OF STROCTUFE:
LICEI�SE"FECORDS CITY DIRECTORY
�5'� �Gc��
G�t
��3
REQLIR£D LOT SIZE •
LOT SIZE (C/NG)
C
>
� ,--�--
,o 00 � �.,,;...V.:�, t— c—
sD � o ro� l�t c_
� CO`^tERCIAL USE: PLP.:�:�I:�G:
ZOSIrG SI'ATUS FOR (�,,,,'''///
��RESIJERTIAL L'SE: ZO\IrG FIL£
LE6AL - CO:vFORPfIb'G KO kECORD
LEGAL - CO\FORN,ItcG USE tiITH NOIi-CO\FOR*SIi�G L�T SIZE �
(for residentizl)
LEGAL - NO?�-CO:�FOeZ*SII�G L'SE � r � _� o
� � i
ILLEGAL
t--'�
�
�
From:
To:
Date:
Subjecf:
Greetings,
� �
Amy Rnderson <asanders@usfamily.net> ���
<john.hardwick@cistpaul.mn.us>, Summit-University Ptanning Council <inf...
1/16l2007 738 PM
315 Aurora Ave
I live at 302 Aurora and am not able to come to either of the iwo meetings
on the 16th and 29th.
I do not think I have a particular objection to the lot size variance, but
wouid like to make a few comments that couid affect any decision that is
made.
1- Our block already has about 30 children who piay out in the vacant lot
and on the street. They range from teens to toddlers, often unaitended. If
we are adding another dwelling, it seems to me that the city ought to do
something to find a better anii safer situation for the kids. One really
good thing fo do would be to make sure that the vacant lot does not get sold
for housing, since then the kids would have nowhere: The lot does not need
playground equipment, since the kids like to play soccer, but it needs to be
made safe from developers. Speed bumps would also be a good idea. I've
seen some pretty ciose calls.
2- The house in question has had undesirable occupants in the recent past.
If the current owner is the same person who owned the house before this
summer I would not want them adding yet another tenant who selis drugs or
practices prostitution, as we have had there before. However, I did notice
that tfie occupants changed for the better this summer, and that someone did
a lot of work on the house. Perhaps there is a new owner who is doing a
more conscientious and effective job. In such a case I would have no
objections.
I appreciate your atten#ion to my concerns.
Sincerely, _
Amy Anderson
Amy Andetson
302 Aurora Ave
St Paul, MN 55103
asanders@usfam ily. net
651-225-0931
612-343-4761 voicemail
--- http:UUSFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25lmo! -- http:!lw�mv.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
� ��
RR A
� � ����
�
315 Aurora
St. Paul, MN
Variance Request
�
� �� •
� �� �
- Travis I�lead . �,�� G�� �_�`��.��,�-(
I�la-38�{ I"=ao`—s��e
315 Au�oK�A �- �'
� �- Ec�reSS wiNDaw
�9�I �eSGriPflofl-pARLEt. Rf ARSTRACT)T{}E Sou�ri-FEt'-t.1k�Y S� FEe'T �� THE
�,a�5'�Et��Y 33%3 FeET op �oT 2c��8Loc.IL3,oF, Z"ELFELT, gE72NHESME1IE
p(1�V6Ll�S" f}DD�TZoSJ To Sr pA6tL_ �
PISPCEL 6"ToRREA/S" 7HEE/iSTEf?Gj� 16a/3 fEE'T OF L6T Zo ANp T��
1VoR7�ERLY 35 FEET oF T1iE WESTERL.Y 33'�q �EET oF WT2o� gLOC.i�3�
E L FE�T� $ERN N E.�,H �/2 t A,QNo�
➢ ; � � ADON 7'O ST. PfF/JG
�
�
0
)"'
�
�
�
�
ti
�
t
i
�
i
�
�
i
i
r
�
s±
m
I
1
I
1
�
i
�
�
�
I
I
I
I
i
1
�
• au�o�A f 5
��ctT � S� U h i i'
Totat s�.ft- 51n�0
tAniir (oca��on-6c�semex,}
�`
� �
1,1
j I _.
f ��
�
�
�
K �f'.
C�`t ���� :
:� ,� :
U . -OC a3��
u
•
SMALL
APPRAlSALREPORT
� � ��n [] Sunmban � Rvrel �edaminarrc Singt�e�la.�ii;
BW�� � � Stng�aFamity PRII'k�
❑ 25-75% ❑ �nEerZS% Occupanry - g (dpp
Grmv,h ate ❑ Rapitl � $table ❑ $IVx
Pmpertyvalues � Inc ast^9 ❑ StaMe � Ormer 68 lox
o�r O s��� p n� O o,� � r"�°` �so k n
�� �� 4 iPY � U� t4�53a PreEoml
Untiv3m�. 38mos. Wrbm�, v�. 192
Typical2-9/amiiy bttl9.Type DU IPac No. stafes 2 Nu imits 2 Age 99
Typiralrentsf 500ro5 2.000 t�easieg (�$ypie ❑Dec�rvng
Est neigM1boRpoa a vacanry -� 6 Q Increasing � Stable ❑ p¢�liring
Rentcontrols �Yes �NoU�ketj IfyesorGkety.Oesmbe N/A
ana cha2cLeristi6:
are nat appraisallactors,
'SmiiY PR'ICE
'Pan�]I $ I000) (yrs)
� 124 tn,v 9p
Tenant 537 tG M1 12fi
Vzm @9Y� PmAOmNarrt
'� � Y50 gg
landuse% I,antlusechanga
Y �% � Na Ikey ❑ Lkelj
20% ❑Inprocesstq:
that affec[ IM1e marketabiliry of the propertles in the neigM1borhoop (pmximity to employmen[ antl ameNOes, emptoyment s[abllity, appeal [a markeq
t is Ioca(ed close to downtown SLPauI ann [a Mo�o.,�e.,. «. �..._..._.. _._.__ _,
�a�bvn�g availabie Ilstings represrnttfie most curteN, sim�ar, anU piwcunate competiGVe poperues ta the sub ec[
retethetn J proP.ertyintM1¢yvbjec[neigM1borYpodThisanalysisktmentlea
�Y �reNly on Ne maiket mmpeWgvnNthesuY�eR pmpeRy �� We subJect neigFyarlmotl anC rererrtprice aM marke[ing Ume venES aRectlm ihe suEMn nmm.
inp5UN5i�¢�hESIlEletlnaitAFvFrv.�e.n....r..._..:�_.�.___.._ �..� �. _ .
lislingsm subjers pmperty;
` �
mnaiIIans @at aRect 2-0 family pmperties In t�e su�ject neighborhooG (inclutling the above neighbarM1OOa Intlicators of growth tate, pmperty val
'huppiy, anE markNing tlme) antl tne prevalence ana Impac[ In tM1e subJec[ market area regaNing Iwn eiscoun[s, tnterest buyGOwns ana concessians.
atlon of venes In Iis[ing prices. averege days on market antl any cM1ange over the past year, etc: Th2fC 8B no adwrm farMrc �we..e:....
Ml�iliA.{A..i... � r_ ___ . .� .. _ .
--- Cartwllc¢ �No LfYes Size TwiCalfotarea
mnugaassincauonanaaesmption Residential snape Recfanaular
nmqlanre Q Legal ❑ tgjy�urmnyy(C�m�zytn,yux) In al
e9 Nazoning Dralnage Appea��epU
&�stus¢asimprovetl: �Pm.s¢MUSe QOCn¢ruxe(expialn)
N� IYDIC21fOta�ea
s q �� � � �aMSmpfg TYPiCaI
mprwen nts TYPe Publk RAate DMeway CAflaelE
Y � 100Am CB Sveet ASphalt � O Apparenteasemmts NoneAc
� CuMguaer Concrete
� SWe�velk Concrete � � FEMASpeaalFlooGHa>a'ppf¢y
sewer Sveetllghis Ye5 � ❑ FEh7A2one X
" 1ef � Ni Cancrete � Q FEMA Ma Na 275248 000'.
Rs (apparent adverse eazemenis, encroachments, special assessments, sIIEe areas, nlegal or legal nonconlarmNg mning, use, etc.):
iprovements and IarMscaninn aw w��,.�i F.,�,,...�_ .�_ _._.. .
Mac Fwm R
PNGE10F4
Ref'moMpMaw�irye WIN BRiv�nxMep:v�
Yes IXI No
� s�
1025 10.99
� ��
6 � �-�
i
•
� ��
�
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND SAFETY SERVICES
Doug[as A. Holton, Fire Chiej �� �� �
SAINT
PAUL
�
AAAA
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Christopher 8. Co[eman, Mayor
DIVISION OF FIRE PREVENTION
!00 E. Eleventh Street Telephone: 65l-228-6230
Saint Pnul, MN5510! Facsimile: 651-228-6241
December 6, 2006
TRAVIS MEAD
111 MARQITETTE AVE APT 2802
MPLS MN 55401
RE: INSPECTION OF REFERRAI.
315 AURORA AVE
Dear Property Representative:
A re-inspection was made on your building on December 4, 2006, in response to a referral. You are hereby
notified that the following deficiencies must be corrected immediately. A reinspection will be made on
January 12, 2007 at 11:00 A.M..
Failure to comply may result in a cruninal citation or the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy. The Saint
Paul Legislative Code requires that no building shall be occupied without a Certificate of Occupancy. The code
` also provides for the assessment of additional reinspection fees.
�FICIENCY LIST
1. EXTERIOR - SPLC 71.01 - The address posted is not visible from street. (HN-1)
Front address hard to read.
Provide reflective numbers or background or illuminate at night. FRONT AND REAR
Provide address numbers that contrast with the background. FRONT AND REAR
2. EXTERIOR - SPLC 34.09 (3), 34.32 (3) - Repair and maintain the door in good condition.
Repair defective storm door and closure.
�
EXTERIOR - SPLC 34.09 (1) b,c, 3432 (1) b,c - Provide and maintain all exterior walls free from holes
and deteriorarion.
All exterior unprotected surfaces must t5e paiiited ar protected from the elements and maintained in a
professional manner free from chipped or peeling paint by June 1. 2007.
Repair defective lattice work under front porch.
4. EXTERIOR - SPLC 35.01 Post the current owner information including: name, address, phone number
in an approved location.
Post in a location easily seen and read from exterior.
� � EXTERIOR - SPLC 34.08 (9) - Provide and maintain an average of 1 foot candle at the pauement of
garages and parking areas. This work may require a pernut(s). Call LIEP at (651) 266-9090. � Gj
��1 EXTERIOR - SPLC 34.14 (2) f- Provide and maintain an mnumum of 1 foot candle at the g�ade level
of exterior exits and entryways for security. This work may require a permit(s). Call LIEP at (651) 266-9090.
�
,
� �-
��. �� r
�' �� ��,
# :�'�'�p]I1
EXTERIOR - SPLC 34.08 (3) - Provide and maintain suitable ground cover on all exterior areas to
control erosion.
� EXTERIOR - MSFC 506.1- Install a keybox per attached K-1 handout.
•
�� INTERIOR - SPLC 34.14 (2), 3434 (5) - Provide an approved electrical service adequate to meet the
biuldings needs. This work may require a pemut(s), call LIEP at (651) 266-9090. �
Two meters for 3 uniYs. ?�`�`� �be�3�n _ a-PQt'°ve.c`
Provide service as per attzched schedute by a licensed contractor under permit.
� INTERIOR - SPLC 34.11 (6), 3434 (3) - Provide service of heating facility by a licensed contractor
which must include a carbon monoxide test.
Submit a completed copy of the Saint Paul Fire Marshal's Existing Fuel Btuving Equipment Safety Test Report
to this office.
INTERIOR - SPLC 39.02(c) - Complete and sign the pmvided smoke detector affidavit and retnrn it to
�s office. �
� INTERIOR - Provide the inspector with a completed and signed Residential Occupaucy Affidavit.
� INTERIOR $ASEMENT - MSFC 703 - Provide and ma.intaiu fire rated floor and/or ceiling construction
th approved materials and methods. T`his work may require a permit(s). Call LIEP at (651) 266-9090.
The minimum rating must be:ONE HOUR. �
Provide one hour fire rated basement ceiling common areas.
� IIVTERIOR BASEMENT - MSFC 7051 - Provide a required occupancy separafion with approved
matenals and methods. This work may require a pemut(s). Call LIEP at (651) 266-9090. The m;nimum
rating must be: ONE HOUR.
Provide one hour separation walls azound fumace azea separating off &om unit.
� INTERIOR BASEMENT - ITMC 1346.703 - Provide 30 inches clearance azound all mechanical
equipment. �
Remove all storage by fiunace, water heater.
� INTERIOR STAIRWELIS/HALLWAYS - MSFC 1010.5, SPLC 34.14 (2) d, SPLC 3434 (5) b-
Provide and maintain ilhiwination in all portions of the e�t system.
Provide stairwell lighting--unable to tum on--switches not working.
�INTERIOR STAIRWELLS/I�ALLWAYS - MSFC 1011.2 - Remove the materials that cause an eaut
o'bstruction. •
Maintain a clear and unobstructed exitway.
Remove all items from exit hallways/stairwells.
18. INTERIOR 3TATRWELLS/HALLWAYS - SPLC 34.10 (3), 34.33(2) - Repair or replace the damaged
guardtail in an approved manner. �
Replace broken/missing balustrades. �
o� zgs
����� �
� ��
� 19.� INTERIOR STAIRWELLS/IIALLWAYS - SPLC 34.10 (7), 34.33 (6) - Repair and maintain the floor in
an approved manner.
Repair or replace the deteriorated caspeting floors of front enhy.
►71a
LJNIT #1 - MSFC 605.6 - Piovide electrical cover plates to all outlefs, switches and junction boxes
where missing.
�.� UNIT #1 - SPLC 34.14 (2) c- Provide duplex convenience outlet with ground fault protection within 3
feet of the basin on an adjacent wall in all bathrooms. This work may require a pemut(s). Call LIEP at (651)
266-9090.
�i�C TJNI'T #1 - MSFC 605.1- All light fixtures shall be maintained with protecfive globes if originally
equipped. WeX'fi} }�'KX'C, Wh2-Yt W� �jp�h�- 4�{-'
LJNiT #1 - SPLC 34.10 (7), 3433 (6) - Repair and maintain the walls in an approved manner.
atch the holes and/or cracks in the walls. �I,.,, �,�„ ? '
Paint the wall. r� ri
�
�
24. ITNIT #1 - SPLC 34.10 (7), 34.33 (6) - Repair and maintain the ceiling in an approved manner.
Patch the holes and/or cracks in the ceiling.
Paint the ceiling. �
LTNIT #1 - SPLC 34.10 (7), 3433 (6) - Repair or replace and maintain the woodwork in an approved
manner. ^i^,^ � � p
Replace damaged bathroom door. U�r��"� �
26. iJNIT #1 - SPLC 3411, SBC 2902.1, SPLC 34.17 - Repair or replace and maintain the pluxnbing fixture
to an operational condition.
Bathroom sink loose on wall.
Secure sink and provide support legs.
each sleeping azea.
Detectors also improperly mounted.
Mount detectors 9 inches from ceiling to center of detector.
27. UIVI'P #1 - MN Stat. 299F362 - Immediately provide and maintain a smoke detector located outsi�ie
LJNIT #1 - SPLC 34.09 (3) i- Provide and maintain an approved one-inch throw single cylinder
deadbolt lock. 7 Wh�(`�
29. LTDIIT #1 - MSFC 1003.3.1.8 - Remove unapproved locks from the unit doors.
The door must be openable from the inside without the use of keys or special knowledge or effort.
Remove double keyed locks.
Remove bolt locks.
AA-ADA-EEOEmployer
��
'.�;, „
�--x` -
� � ,
� iJNIT #1 (FIRST FLOOR) - MSFC 703 - Provide, repair or replace the fire rated door and assembty. •
The minimum rating must be ONE HOUR for stairwell doors.
REAR DOOR TO BASEMENT STAIRWELL.
Repair and maintain the door closer. —?
Repair and maintain the door frame. —?
Repair and maintain the door latch. —�
�. UNPT #2 - MSFC 605.4 - Discontinue use of all multi-plug adapters.
�. UNiT #2 - MSFC 605.5 - Discontinue use of extension cords used in lieu of perxnanent wiring.
�.. UNIT #2 - MSFC 605.5 - Remove elecirical cords that extend through wa11s, ceiling, floors, under
doors, or floors coverings, or aze subjected to environmental or physical damage.
�. _ IJNTf #2 - MSFC 1011.2 - Remove the materials that cause an exit obstruction.
Maintain a clear and unobslructed exitway. �
Remove all iteins blocking bedroom exit window and access to window.
35. iTNIT #2 - SPLC 34.09 (3), 3432 (3) - Repair and mainCain the window in good condition.
Replace missing kitchen window.
� IJNIT #2 - MSFC 703 - Provide, repair or repiace the fire rated door and assembly. �
The m;nimum rating must be one hour.
Replace defective panel exit door: Repair and maintain the door closer.
Repair and maintain the dooz fraxne.
Repair and maintain the door latch.
37. iJNPI' #2 - MSFC 605.1- All light fixtures shall be maintaiued with protective globes if originally
� � tn1ASYlk �lf.�(Q. W� �� �0� '�Yo�'�
38. IJNIT #2 - SPLC 34.10 (7), 3433 (6) - Repair and maintain the walls in an approved manner.
Remove deteriorated caulldng around tub and re-caulk.
39. iJNIT #2 - SPI.0 34.10 (7), 3433 (� - Repair or replace and maintain the woodwork in an approved
mauner.
Provide door for bedroom.
IJNIT #2 - SPLC 34.14 (3) - Provide and inainYain a window or approved venfilation system in all
athrooms. � �� i,�
��� `r
41. LTNIT #2 - MN Stat. 299F362 - Immediately provide and maintain a smoke detector located outside
each sieeping area.
Smoke detectors improperly mounted. �
Mount 9 inches from ceiling to center of detector. � �
42. LTNIT #2 - SPLC 34,09 (3) i- Provide and maintain an approved one-inch throw single cylinder
deadboltlock.
o z.$s
��:� -. �
`�����1
� 43.. i3NIT #2 - MSFC 1a033.1.8 - Remove unapproved locks from the unit doors.
The door must be openable from the inside without the use of keys or special lrnowledge or effort.
Remove padlock brackets.
� iIDIIT #2 (SECOND FLOOR) - MN Stat. 299F362 - Immediately provide and maintain a smoke
detectorlocated outside each sleeping azea.
Provide for 2nd floor unit.
45. iTNIT BASEMENT - MSFC 605.1- Repair or replace damaged electrical fixtures. This work may
require a pexmit(s). Call LIEP at (651) 266-9090.
Ceiling light fixture hanging by wires. Repair.
46. UNI'T BASEMENT - P�ISFC b05.1- All ligltt fixtures shall be maintained with protective globes if
originally equipped. _"� p O r � ,� h �
� LJrTIT BASEMENT - SPLC 34.10 (7), 3433 (6) - Repair or replace and maintain the woodwork in an
approved manner.
Finish installation or woodwork. ? (��� e'
LTNIT BASEMENT - SPLC 34.13 (1) - Provide and maintain all habitable areas with a ceiling height of
feet over 1!2 the floor area. W ��,�
• 49. UNIT BASEMENT - MN Stat. 299F362 - Immediately provide and maintain a smoke detector located
outside each sleeping area.
Smoke detectors improperly mounted.
Mount detectors 4 inches from ceiling to center of detector.
50. ITNITS THROUGHOUT - MN Stat. 299F.362 - Immediately provide and maintain a smoke detector
located outside each sleeping azea.
Smoke detectors fixnctioning on 12/6/06.
It is the owners responsibility to maintain/replace batteries.
Occupants responsibility to not tamper with detectars.and let owner know if they need attention.
Failure to maintain smoke detectors in proper working order at all tnnes will result in enforcement action.
If you have any questions, call me at 651-228-6249 between 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
Please help to make 5aint Paul a safer city in which to live and work.
Sincerely,
Bazb Cnuuuings
Fire Inspector
�
�--
AA-ADA-EFA Employu
>,
<<
� ,<
�
�
t
_ _ ;.,
�
;� �y,.
�� �
„��� �
3 r z. "� y it_ - i I '� I I
���-' s s�, � i
k� � �� -�5��� �� I I
`� �� �� ' � �a=-� ,
-� _� ,� � a � �, �9 i, I
� .t - �-� � � ,, , d
z�
- - _ _. _, .�.._�.. ' ,.� �s
��
� � `e�_
k
Ya . �a✓
t: .,
f _:
" + . -
r s . � - 'f "� � - <�t _
s `�, �' �
A�NuY.i-{ 1 �` � 1
F�.;._C � `. s• <.� �.. . .
o�-
�
�
-,; ::: ..
,;;,>:;>;: >
PROPERTY WITHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: 315 AURORA AVENUE
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 Miles
N
W
E
S r
�`�
CREATED BY LI EP
o� Z�
�
1. SUNRAY-BAZTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD
2. HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
3. WEST SIDE
4. ' DAYTON'S BLUFF
5. PAYNE-PIit1LEN
6. NORTH END
7. THOMAS-DALE
8. SUMMIT-i)NiVERSITY
9. WEST SEVENIT-I
10. COMO
11. HAMLdNE-MIDWAY
12. ST. ANTT30NY PARK
13. MERRTAM PARK-LEXINGTOI�I HAMLINE-SNELLTNG HAMLINE
14. MACALEST'ER GROVET.AND
15. HIGHLAND
16. SUMMTT HII.L
17: DOWNfOWN — ---- – -
Z���NC� ��L� a7- � � �
�-
CITIZEN PARTICIPATT0�3 PLANNING DISTRICI'S
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMBER: 07-006234 �
DATE: Janaary 29, 2007
WF�REAS, Travis. Mead has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions
of Section 66.231 of the Saint Paul I,egislative Code pertaining to a variance of the m;nimum
required lot size in order to establish a tkird unit in an existing duplex in the RT2 zoning disirict
at 315 Aurora Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 7anuary 29,
2007 pursuant to said applicafion in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the
I,egislarive Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boud of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the
public hearing, as substantiaily reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
1. The proper-ty in quesKon cannot be put to a t use under the strict provisions of the
code.
�
The applicant represents his parents who purchased this properiy last year. After assuming •
ownership, the applicant proceeded to convert the basement into a third dwelling unit. He
states that he thought alI he needed to do was install egress windows in order to create a third
unit. He subsequentiy learned that the properiy does not meet the nunimum lot size
requirements for a hi-plex. He states that when lus pazents purchased the building they did
so with the intent of adding a third unit and that they need the income from three units in
order to make the purchase economically feasible. A tUre�unit building is a reasonable and
permiffed use for this zoning dishict that cannot be accomplished under the strict applicafion
of the code.
2. The pZight of the Zand owner is not due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were created by the land owner.
It is incumbent upon a prospective property owner to deternrine the legal use of the property
before it is purchased. The economic hazdship incurred through operating the building as a
duplex is a self ixnposed hazdship.
3. 772e proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is not
consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City
of St. Paul.
Page 1 of 5
�
o�-z�s
File #07-006234
• Resolution
In 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Plamung Commission adopted guidelines for
duplex and tri-plex conversions. The guidelines state that staff will recommend denial unless
all of the following conditions are met:
A. L.ot size of at least 8,000 squaze feet with a lot width ar front footage of 50 feet.
This condition is not met. The proposed lot size is 6,300 squaze feet.
B. Gross living area, after completion of duplex conversion, of at least 2,700 square feet.
The smallest unit of the three shall be no less than 500 square feet.
This condition is met.
C. Four off-street parking spaces (non-stacked) aze preferred; three spaces are the
required minimum. A site plan showing improved (durable, permanent, dustless surface)
parking spaces must be provided.
This condition is partially met. There is room to provide four parking spaces in the rear
yard but the azea is not paved.
D. If exterior changes are proposed, exterior elevation drawings of the changes musY be
• submitted, and the changes must be architecturally compatible with the shucture and the
neighbarhood.
This condition is met. The only exterior changes are egress windows.
E. If the unit was converted without a permit priar to the application of a variance, the units
must be inspected by the Fire Mazshal's Office as part of the Certificate of Occupancy
program required for all residential structures with three or more units.
This condition is met. The buiiding has been inspected pursuant to the Certificate of
Occupancy program, however, the building has not been brought up to code yet.
F. Where economic hazdship is claimed as one reason for the variance request, an economic
feasibility analysis shall be conducted. Applicant should supply city staff with the
necessary 3nformation.
This condition is met.
G. The proposed hi-plex structure is located within a mixed density neighborhood, not in a
homogeneous single-family azea or in an azea where duplexes and tri-plexes are akeady
concentrated to the point of congesting neighborhood streets.
This condition is met. This block contains a mixture of single-family homes, duplexes
and one multi unit building.
� Page 2 of 5 � /
File #07-006234
Resolution
This proposal does not meet Guideline "A" or "C" and therefore is not in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the code. It should be noted that Planuing Sta£f is working on revising
these guidelines to reflect the zoning code changes that went into effect since they were
developed. Some of these reqixirements may be reduced or eliminated but a final version has
not been presented to the Board ar the Planning Commission yet.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent
property, nor will it aZter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonabZy
diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
The praposed conversion will not involve any changes to the exterior of the building other
than window wells for egress. The requested variance wi11 not affect the supply of fight or air
to adjacent property. °
•
This is a mixed density neighborhood adjacent to a major bus route and commercial azea.
Converting this building to a tri plex would not change the character of the neighborhood.
The Fire Safety inspection indicated that there aze several building and housing code issues
that need to be resolved in the building. The applicant obtained a building pamut for
installing an egress window in the basement but did not indicate that he was creating a new •
dwelling unit. If this variance is approved, he will need to obtain a new building permit to
bring the structure into compliance with the code. This property has a long history of
complaints about poor maintenance and unruly tenants. Most of those problems were before
the current owners purchased the pmperiy. Adding another apartment would aggravate the
disruprion to the neighborhood unless the current property owners break this pattem and
cazefully screen prospective tenants and take good caze of the properiy. Assuming the current
owners do this, the third dwelling unit should not have an ad�erse impact on surrounding
property values.
5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions
of the code for the property in the district where the afjected land is located, nor would it
alter or change the zoning district classifzcation of the properly.
A tri-plex is a permitted use in this zoning dishict. The requested variance, if granted, would
not change or alter the zoning classification of the property.
6. The request for variance is not based prirrearily on a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Page 3 of 5� = r'� �/ �
J�
o� z�ss
File #07-006234
• Resolution
The applicant states that the revenue from a third dwelling unit is needed in order to renovate
and maintain this property.
NOW, TF3EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the
request to waive the provisions of Secfion 66.231 to allow a minimum lot size of 6,300 square
feet, #'or a variance of 2,700 square feet, on property located at 315 AurQra Avenue; and legally
described as Elfelt, Bernheimer & Arnolds Addition To St. Paul I,ot 20 Blk 3; in accord,ance with
the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator.
IS HEREBYDENIED.
MOVED BY: so
SECONDED BY: Courtne
IN FAVOR: a
AGAINST: s
• MAILED: January 30, 2007
TIl�� LIMIT: No decision of the zoning or planning administrator, planning commission,
board of zouing appeals or city councit 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 sucL period and the
erection or alteration of a building is proceeding under 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 t"utal 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 filed. If permits have
been issued before an appeal has been Fded, then the permits are suspended
and construction shall cease unfil the City Council has made a final
determination of the appeal.
• Page 4 of 5 , 3�
File #07-006234
Resolution
�
CERTII�TCATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zo nina 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 originat and of the whole fliereof, as based on approved
minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals mee6ng held on January
29, 2007 and on record in the Office of License Inspecflon and Environmental
Protection, 8 Fourth St E, Saint Panl, Minnesota.
SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
r
� ��
a�CJ�� � ) .Ql� �
Debbie Crippen
Secrehary to the Board
•
Page 5 of 5
��
01 z�
MINI7TES OF THE MEETII�TG OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
• CITY COUNCIL CEIAMBBRS, 330 CITY HALL
- SI`PAUL, MiNNESOTA, JANUARY 29, 2007
PRFSENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Mortoa; Messrs. Cour�ey, Faziey, �Vazd, and �/ilson of the
Board of Zoning Appeats; Ms. Gunderson, City.Aftorney; Mr. Hazdwick and Ms. Crippen -
of the Office of License; Inspectioas, and Environmental Protecfion.
ABSENT: None
The meeting was chaiued by Ioyce Maddox, Chair.
1l�avis Mead (#07-0062341 315 Aurora Avenue: A lot size vaziance in ordes to establish a third unit in this
existing duplex. A Iot size of 9,000 square feet is required, 6,300 square feet is proposed for a vaziance of 2,700
squaze feet.
Mr. Hudwick showed slides of 5he site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for denial.
One letter was received ouflining fhe previous problems with the property, but stating that the new owners maintain
the property and screen the tenants she would not oppose the vaziance. Staff also received one phone call from the
properry owner two or thzee houses down from this one again stating that they were opposed because of the
problems with the previous tenants and owners. They were also concemed that the house was not big enough for
thtee units.
No correspondence was �eceived fro� District 8 regazding the vaziance request.
• The apglicant TRAVIS MEAD, ll I Mazquette Avenue, Apt 2802, was present. Mr. Mead stated he is the -
building manager for 315 Aurora Avenue. He stated that he is cequesting the variance for the basement and he
apologized for the confusion, he is new co this process. All the work has actually been done on the properiy and he
did get a permit to put in the egress windows and it has been signed off by the Building Inspector. As faz as the
tenants go, when the building was purchased there were a lot of complaints about the then current tenants and they
evicted all the tenants that were in there and now he works with the WIlder Program and they ue the people who
put the current tenants in the buIlding, They meet with the tenants once a week and inspect the building tu make
sure the tenants keep the building clean and aze doing what they are supposed to do. Mr. Mead stated that he does
screen all his tenants closely through the Wilder Foundation. � As faz as the building size he feels tYiat tha two
bedroom efficiency units downstairs aze well sized. Noting that he has gone into other efficiencies' and if feels like
you aze going intp cazdboard box. This could actualIy be a great living space for single individuals; he does get
calls weekly for single individuals that would like to just ient a room. He tells them right now that he is in the
process of getting a variance. Noting tha[ there aze some pictures in the packet that sfiow what the unit actually
looks like. He feeis fhat it is a nice buIlding and can definitely be a good home fot single individuals oc a small
famity to move in tfiere. He does understand that there is some work that still needs to be done, putting in some
sheet rock to make sure tfiere is a sepazafion between the bottom unit and the top unit. Mr. Mead stated he will
also have to install a thud electricat box and some different fue safe doors if the vaziance is approved; he is awaze
of the work he needs to do and has only completed the fire safery stuff and not the addiflonal work until he l�ows
whether he can get the vaziance so he does not spend a lot of money, if he cannot get the vaziance.
•
��
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
FIle #07-006234
Minutes January 29; 2007
Page'I�vo
Ms. Bogen stated that we do have a copy-of your building permit application and on there yon filled out in tbe
space for "enter the number of iesidentiaI units" and you have two and that was because it was a duplex? Mr:
Mead replied he did not realize he had to put thiee because it had not been appioved yef. Ms. Bogen'eontiaued
and you said cfie reason for instaIling egress windov✓s was repair, WeLe there already egress windows there that
you were replacing? Mr. Mead replied no. Ms. Sogen fiu2her questioned what weie you repairing? Theie is
"addition", "iemodel" or "repair" and you just checked xepair so she wondered what he was repairing. Mr. Mead
replied that wopld have been a mistake. WhBn he went there he asked for help as $e did not l�ow" wfiat he was
doing. He stated that he had explained that he had a basement unit and when he bought the ptoperty There were
already the walls dov✓n tfiere, it just did�'t have any tile, carpet there were windows m fhe rooms bui they were not
egre'ss wittdows. So when he asked LIEP he told them he currently has a basement unit and theie aze tcyo
bedrboms down there and lie would Jike to put egress wiudows down there so he could make it legal. Upon
completion of the work and putting the money into it he called the City of Saint Paul tv ask what else he tiad fa do
they informed him that he needed to coatact ike Fire Inspec[or and they needed to do an inspection. They fiad told
him upon completing the inspection to get a C of O, that his lbt size was too smaii and he needed a variance. That
is the process he took. Ms. Bogen quesfioned when he puxchased the duplex, it was a duplex anzl gou were hoping
to change it iuto a triplex? Mr. Mead replied yes. Ms. Bogen questioned whether tfiere was a bafluoom down
there? Mr. Mead replied yes. Ms. Bogea asked if there was a stove there? Mr. Mead xeplied there is no stove
down there, ifie way he works it is, there is an electcic cook plate. �ere is aiready a miciowave down there,
kitchen sink and refrigeiator. Ms. Bogen questioned whether there was access from tfie outside to the unit? Mr,
Mead replied yes,- the access is on tbe side and that is where it goes into the basement. Structutally fhe only thing
he changed was the egress windows. Ms. Bogen questidned whether the side access goes anywhere other than the
basement unit? Mr. Mead replied no.
There was no opposition present at the hearing.
Hearing no fvrther testimony, Ms_ Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. Bogen moved to deny the variance and resolution based on findings 2 and 3.
Mr. Couttney questioned Mr. Hazdwiek had mentioned the zoniag for these triplexes is chan�gittg, do you fiave any
idea where it is going with regud to square footage? Mr. Hazdwick replied that with the adoption of the new
building code about hvo years ago, tfie standazds €or multi-unit apumient buildings, the minimum square footage
was reduc'ed &om 10,Q00 squaze feet to 9,000 square feet. 'I'he draft that he has seen is going to ieduce the �
minimum lot size required for a multi uuit building and the other thing that was going to be changed ivas the unit
size. They were going to eliminate or reduce the nvnimum unit size and the ovetall size of the building, 17iere
were some other minor changes but those aze the two things that he can recall.
Mr. Courtney seconded the motion, which passed on a col� call vote of 43(Wilson, Morton, Faricy).
S�bxr� .: by� l ^ �
� �
: �f
lo . Hardd+fck
�
.�
Approved by:
Gloria Bogen, Secretary
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
•
.
�� .
m
�
�
W
�
O
s
Mar, 6. 2007 2:38PM
N�fp
���
��n
m �
a � `��-
� n�
N d
�
m
��o-�
a
� g � � m
����,'�'
aW�
d � '" m ➢�
�ms �
�� �n
ti y.�� x
m n ° o "
�o`zm
l�i "6 � �
� 0 � ]
� m 0 .
� 7� �
Fvs
m
o
° 3. � m
o � m �
�xm
C �,��
Y ���}
� N ` N
� � � �
�- 3
n �
au��
'� n Q
� m m c
��o
6 �a
,� m �
w
� m
p� a
c�
� � d
m N �'
»Da
m �
� v 3
d � �'
� ry
C �
r'F
� V
Q v
m -
,�3, m
3
f1l N
N�
n�
to n
. �
w�
�� D
�
tb �
D 4S
m w
�
S
N
S
z
No. 3121
�'�-a
C
i�'
P, 2 7 Z 5�
�/��7
��
O �
3
t�D p O
t� �
�
m � �
° 7� 3
� 3 �
�
�
D
0
�
�
O
�
3
z
m
G
rT
A
�
N�
�
N
e
�
N
�
a
�
a
d
<
m
l�
N
D
�
o�-z�s�
���
RE: 315 Aurora Zoning Appeal
Grounds for Appeal
The Board of Zoning Appeals erred in theirfindings offacts and in effecf
denied the minimum lot size va�iance cequest with the oniy grounds used
for denial of the variance being the need for the variance itself.
Errors in Findings of Facts
The BZA's denial was based on two issues:
1. That the property's conditions were caused by the land owner,
(finding of fact 2) and
2. That the lot is not at least 8,000 square feet (finding of fact 3A)
All other conditions were met or could be met to allow the property to be
converted to a legal triplex.
First, the property's only condition of concern is its being less than 9,000
sq feet, the condition necessary to build or convert an existing building into
a triplex in an RT 2 zoning district. The property is only 6,300 sq. feet.
That was the condition that the land was in when it was bought and was
not created by the applicant.
Second, the conversion guidelines require staff to recommend denial of a
variance to the BZA if a property is less than 8,000 sq. feet. It does not
require that the BZA deny the variance. The applicant is requesting a
variance from the 9,000 sq feet requirement to 6,300 sq. feet. It is obvious
that the request is to a figure lower than the 8 000 sq. feet. The BZA
offered no argument and there was no testimony why the 8,000 sq. feet
number should be adhered to. There are many triplexes in Saint Paul that
are on lots much smaller than 50 X 119 the size of the applicanYs lot.
The variance requested was to the minimum lot size requirement. To then
give as the onfy reason for denial that the property didn't meet the
minimum lot size requirement, without any arguments as to why that
minimum should not be varied, strains all sense of logic and fairness.
��-Z�ss
I II. Alternative Findings of Facts
Retain all other findings of facts and determine that the BZA erred in
findings 2 and 3:
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this
property, and these circumstances were not created 6y the land owner.
The condition is met. The property is on a 50x119 foot lot (6,300 sq ft)
and the condition was not created by the land owner
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and
welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Saint Paul.
Keep the listed findings A-G and change the conclusion to:
The condition is met. The proposal does not meet Guideline
requirement A for minimum lot size but there has been no objection raised
to the variance, and it does not meet Guideline requirement C, but can
accomplish that by properly paving the required parking lot.
IV. Council Action
We urge the Council to:
Find that the Board of Zoning Appeals erred in finding of fact #2 and #3;
Adopt the alternative findings of fact presented by the applicant; and
Approve the requested variance from the City's minimum lot size
requirements to convert an existing duplex at 315 Aurora into a triplex.
Respectfully submitted by:
����-�
A ew J. Dawkins
Of Counsel to Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen
1700 US Bank Plaza South
220 S. Si�h St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Te1.651.222.4595
Attorney for Property Owner