08-742Council File # rIg '�
Green Sheet # QS
� RESOLUTION
Presented by
PAUL, MINNESOTA
��
1 WHEREAS, William�: Edrington made application to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals (hereinafter, the
2"BZA") in BZA File No. 0&-043819 for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Leg.
3 Code § 66.231 pertaining to the minimum required lot area an order to legalize a triplex in a RTl zoning
4 district for property commonly laiown as 180 George Street West and legally described as NELSON
5 STEVENS AND KING'S ADDITION TO WEST ST PAUL LOT 2 BLK 5; and
6
7 WHEREAS, the BZA, pursuant to Leg. Code § 64.203 duly conducted a public hearing on Apri17, 2008
8 where ali persons present were given an opportwuty to be heard and, at the close of the hearing, moved to
9 deny the application for the following reasons as set forth in BZA resolution No. 08-043819, adopted on
10 April 21, 2008, and incorporated herein by reference:
11
12 1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The property in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
The applicant purchased this property about a year ago. He states that when he purchased the property
it was a three-unit building. However, the Truth in Housing report and the Rental Registration both
state that the building was a duplex. In 2002 the house was fire damaged and a building permit was
issued to repair the fire damage to a duplex. This property was zoned RTl when the applicant
purchased it and a duplex was a conforming use. Of the twelve parcels on this block, nine are single
family homes, one is a duplex and two are nonconforming triplexes. This building was conshucted in
1907 as a duplex and has been used as such since then. A duplex is a reasonable and permitted use of
this property. Establishing a triplex on a nonconforming lot surrounded primarily with single-family
homes is not a reasonable use of the property.
24 2. The plight of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to this property and these
25 circumstances were created by the land owner.
26
27 The records and histary of this propexty clearly stated that this property was legal as a duplex only. It
28 is incumbent upon a prospective purchaser to check with the City Zoning Office if there is any question
29 regazding the use of the property. There is nothing unique about this property that would justify the
30 requested variance. Any hazdship incurred at this point is self imposed by the applicant.
31
32 3
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The proposed varzance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is not consistent with
the health, safety, comfort, mor-als and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
The proposed variance wouid allow a multi-family building on an undersized lot in an area of
predominately one- and two-family homes. The Board of Zoning Appeals has adopted guidelines for
variance requests to convert duplexes to triplexes. The guidelines state that staff shall recommend
denial unless all of the guidelines are met. This proposal meets ail of the guidelines except for the
following:
A. Lot size of at least 10, 000 square feet.
.'�T
Od'7 �a--
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
54
51
52
53
54
55 4.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67 S.
68
69
70
71
72
73
This guideline is not met. This criterion is based on an earlier version of the zoning code that required
a minimum lot azea of 10,000 squaze feet for multiple family uses. The current zoning code
requirement is 9,000 squaze feet. However the lot area of tlus pazcel is only 7,500 square feet.
The West Side Community Plan adopted by the City Council in 2001 states in part "Multi family/multi-
unit housing deveZopments should be located along major thoroughfares. " The subject property is
located along a local street and is not consistent with this Plan. The requested variance is not in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the code.
Establishing a multi-family building at this location could increase the traffic on this local street which
could affect the health and welfare of area residents.
The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, but
will alter the essential character of the surrounding area and may unreasonably diminish established
property values within the surrounding area.
The applicant is not proposing and additions to the building. The proposed variance would not affect
the supply of light or air to adjacent properties.
The surrounding area is zoned for one- and two-family homes and is predominately single family
residences. There are already rivo other nonconforming triplexes on the block. Establishing another
nonconforming hiplex would change the character of this one- and two-family neighborhood and could
have an adverse impact on surrounding property values.
The variance, if granted, would not permit any use thttt is not permittetl under the provisions of the
code for the properry in the district where the affected land is located, nor wauld it alter or change the
zoning district classification of the property.
A triplex is a permitted use in a RT2 zoning district. The proposed variance, if granted, would not
change or alter the zoning classification of the property.
74 6. The request for variance is not based primarity on a desire to increase the value or income potential of
75 the parcel of land.
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
The applicant has not provided any reasons why he wants to have the building as a triplex rather than a
duplex. He states that he was looking for a duplex or triplex that was distanced from his work. He
fiirtlier states that he has friends who live in the area. However, these statements do not specifically
address the question of duplex versus triplex usage. Without any evidence to the contrary, we must
assume that the applicanYs primary desire is to increase the value or income potential of the property.
WHEREAS, p�suant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 61.702(a), William C. Edrington, on
May 2, 2008, duly filed with the City Cierk an appeal (File No. 08-069680} from the determination made
by the BZA and requested a hearing befare the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions
taken by the BZA; and
D$ �? ��
88 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing
89 was duly conducted by the City Councii on June 4, 200&, where all interested parties were given an
90 opporiunity to be heard; and
91
92 WF�REAS, the City Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance
93 application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the BZA, does hereby
94
95 RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paui, based upon all the records in this matter as well as
96 the testunony from the public hearing on the said appeal, hereby reverses the decision of the BZA in this
97 matter as the BZA erred in its findings No's 1, 2, 3, and 4 as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 08-043819;
.; . �
.
100 BE IT FT_JRTHER RESOLVED that findings No's 1, 2, 3, and 4, in BZA Resolution No. 08-043819, are
101 hereby modified in support of this decision to read as follows:
102
103 1.
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119 2.
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130 3.
131
132
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under zhe strict provisions of the code.
The applicant purchased the property about a year ago. The applicant states that when he
purchased the property it was a three unit building. In 2002, the property was damaged by fire. A
building permit was issued to repair the fire damage that noted that the building was a duplex. As
the buildings stands now, it is configured as a triplex although the building was listed for sale and
purchased as a duplex. The building has been a triplex far at least 3 years. The applicant did not
create the third unit. The applicant has repeatedly stated that he l�ew the property was non-
conforming when he purchased it and realized that with the condition of the building as a triplex
was the best use of the properiy and, therefore, initiated the process to legalize the use as a triplex.
Although the BZA found that establishing a triplex on a non-conforming lot surrounded by single
family homes was not a reasonable use of the property, the BZA failed to aclrnowledge that there
were other duplexes, tripiexes and multi-unit buildings in the neighborhood around this particular
building. Given the nearness of other multi-unit buildings, it would be unreasonable to refuse to
allow this building to remain as a triplex.
Tke plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to this property and these
circumstances were not created by the landowner.
The applicant's building is on a lot zoned RT-2 which is the proper zoning for a triplex. The
applicant wishes to have a triplex on tlus lot because the lot is properiy zoned for a triplex. Other
landowners in the vicinity have triplexes and other multi-family unit buildings on lots that are
zoned for single family ar dupiexes. The applicanYs situation where he has zoning approval for a
triplex but cannot realize that use is unique. This situation was not created by the applicant and the
denial of the variance prevents the applicant from using his property as other property in the
viciniry is used.
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.
ag����
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143 4.
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
The application meets all the guidelines for a triplex conversion except the BZA's minimum lot
size guideline. Under these conversion guidelines, a lot must have a muumum of 10,000 sq. ft.
The appiicanYs lot area is ortly 7,500 sq. ft. However, the parcel has now been zoned to permit a
triplex. Although the BZA's guidelines require the staff to recommend a denial in the event a
conversion application does not meet the guidelines there is little in the facts to suggest that
converting this building into a triplex will either be an inconvenience or will be inconsistent with
the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the citizens of the City given that there are
already other mulri-unit residential structures in the vicinity of the applicanYs building. In addition,
the West Side Community Council had also recommended approval of the conversion application.
The proposed variance will not impazr an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent propert��,
and will not alter the essential characteY of the surrounding area nor wi11 tt diminish estabZished
property values within the surrounding area.
The existing building will not be expanded so there will be no impact on the supply of light and air
to adjacent property. In addition, I find that adding one additional triplex on a lot that is properly
zoned for a triplex, in an area that already has a number of multi-family dwellings, will also not
have an adverse impact on surrounding property values nor will a triplex, in an area that already has
other multi-family dwelling, alter the essential character of the surrounding azea.
153 AND, BE IT FURTER RESOLVED, that BZA findings 5 and 6, as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 08-
154 043819, shall remain in effect and are hereby incorporated into the said modified resolution as is; and
155
156 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of William C. Edrington is hereby granted based upon the
157 modifications to the findings of BZA Resolution No. 08-043819 set forth herein; and,
158
159 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to William C.
160 Edtington, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the BZA.
161
Yeas
✓
Absent RequestedbyAe ~ ent :
�
ea' By:
Appioved by the Office of Financial Services
✓
Adopted by Council: Date
Adoption Certified by Council SecretaryU
By: r
Approved o. Date � Z� Og
By:
By:
Approved ` C / i�ty? ttorney
By: G✓G/� 7 � � a'
Approved b or or ubmissio ouncil
By:
..�
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
08-7��.
CA —CiryAtromey
08-JUL-08
Green Sheet NO: 3056512
Contact Person & phone:
Peter Wamer
266-87'10
must t�e on
7&JUL-08 /
Doc.Type: RESOLUTION
E-DocumeM Required: Y
Document CoMact; Julie Kraus
Confact Phone: 2668776
�
Assign
Numher
For
Routing
Order
7ota1 # ofi Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for SignaNre)
0 (StyAttornev
1 �7tyAttorneY 1 DepariweotDirector
2 ' Attorn
3 avor's MawdAssistant
4 ooncil
5 ' Clerk (S Clerk
Memorializing Council's June 4, 2008 motion to reverse the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in this mattet as the
BZA errored in its findings No's 1; 2, 3 and 4 set forth in BZA Resolurion No. 08-043819 for the properiy commonly known as 1 SO
George Street West in St. Paul.
Pianning Commission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Commission
1. Has this person�rm ever worked under a cont2ct for this department'?
Yes No
2. Has this person�rm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/flrm possess a skill not normally possessed 6y 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):
The Council is required pursuant to City Charter to have its acrions reduced to a writing dependent upon the nature of the matter
before it. The decision of the Council in this matter required a resolution in order to comply with the Charter. Approval of the
attached resolurion fulfills the Council's duty under the Chaxtez.
Ativantages If Approved:
City Charter requirements will be met.
Disadvantages IfApproved:
Failure to appove the resolution violates the City's Chaster requ'vement.
DisativanW ges If Not Approvetl:
City Charter requirement will not be met.
7rensaction:
Funding Spurce:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
Activity Number:
CosURevenue BudgMed:
July 8, 2008 3:13 PM Page 1
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor
May 5, 20�8
Council Reseaxch
31 � Ciry Hall
St Paul MN 55102
Dear Mary Erickson:
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS
Bob Kessler. Director �� .7 � 1
!�
COMMERCEBUILDING Telephone: 651-266-9090
8 Fouith Sneet East, Suite 200 Facsimile. 651-266-9124
StPaul,Mrnnesota55701-1024 Web: w�vw.sfiauLzav/dsi
I would like to confirm that a public hearing befare the Ciry Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, June 4, 2008, for the following zoning case:
Appellant: William C Edrington
Zoning File #: OS - 069680
Purpose:
Location:
Staff:
District:
Board:
An appeal of a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying a variance of the
minimum lot size required in order to legalize an existing triplax_
180 George St W
Recommended Denial
Recommended Approval
Denied the vaziance on a 4 to 3 vote.
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Dave Thune. 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 pubiish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
John Hardwick
Zoning Specialist
NOTICE OF PUBIdC imar+rnrG
The Saint Paul City Council will con-
duct a public heazing on Wednesday,
June 4, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, Third Floor, City
HalllCourthouse, 15 West Kellog� Boule-
vard, St. Paul, MN, to consider the appeal
ot William C. Eclrington a decision of
the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denying a
variance of the ininitnwn lot size required
in order to Iega7iz� an existing triplex at
180 George Street West. [ZF OS-069680J
Mazy EriCkson
Assistant City CouncIl SeCretary
Dated: May 5, 2008
(May 8)
- =- S7: PAIIL IEGAL 7.EDGER = �_'_
22I67021
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
,�
CITY OF SAINT' PAUL
Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor
May 5, 2008
Council Research
310 City Hall
StPau1MN SS102
Deaz Mary Erickson:
DEPAR'I'MEN"C OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS {� ,
Bob Kessler, Director (/g' �(y�
!
COMM6RCEBUILDING Telephone: 65I-266-9090
8 Fourth St'eet East, Suite 200 Facsimile. 65l-266-9124
St Paul, M"mmesom 55101-1024 Web: wm�w.sroauLeovJdri
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, June 4, 2008, for the following zoning case:
Appellant: William C Edrington
Zoning File #: 08 - 069680
Purpose:
Location:
Staff:
District:
Board:
An appeal of a decision of the $oard of Zoning Appeals denying a variance of fl�e
minimum lot size required in order to legalize an existing triplex.
180 George St W
Recommended Denial
Recommended Approval
Denied the variance on a 4 to 3 vote.
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Dave Thune. My understanding
is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest
Convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
John Hazdwick
Zoning Specialist
AA-ADA-EEO Employex
��9� d
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
DBpa/'tnlB�ft Of Ss?fety alfd /I��� n. ��
commerce aui/ding �{qy 4 �,2008
8 Fourth St E, Suite 200
Saint Pap/, lNN 559G9
659 266-9008
APPLICANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Name �lt,t %��t ` - �-�121�J�
Address ( �O C--a�f}2_E, �
Ciiy ST (��4�+�t�- St.{�Zip i phone(�±S/•zy1�
Name of owner (if different)
Legal description:
additional sheet if
TYPE OF APPEAl: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �IXf City Council
Y\
under the pravisions of Chapter 61, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, fo appeal a decision
made by the
on , 200_ File number:
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.
� �
additrona! sheet if
i .
ApplicanYs signature / ' Date �'Z `��City
St Paul City Council
� 6 g����-
As I understaud the process of this appeal, I am to dispute or, eaplain any findings for denial of the requested
variance. I believe I have done so in the following. Please note that the minutes from the BZA hearing of April
21 �` 2007 were unavailable at the fime this application was due.
The original applicatian for variance was to have bezn processed along with the r�zoning application. It was
due to an unfortunate set of circumstances that they were separated. Had they remained intact, I am confident
they both would have been approved. I am now confident that given review of these findings, the representarive
of my wazd and the other council members will see that this variance should be granted to allow the iriplex to
exist as was the intent of the r�zoning of ffie properry on April 5 2007.
The following aze the findings from the staff re�ort for BZA hearin�of Apri17�` 2007
D. FINDINGS:
1. The properiy in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
The applicant purchased ttris property about a yeaz ago. He states that when he purchased the property it was
a three-unit building. However, the Truth in Housing report and the Rental Regisiration both state that the
building was a duplex. In 20Q2 the house was fire damaged and a building pernut was issued to repair the
fire damage to a duple�c. T1us property was zoned RTT when the applicant purchased it and a duplex was a
conforming use. Of the twelve parcels on this block, nine are single-family homes, one is a duplex and two
aze nonconfo triplexes. This building was constructed in 1907 as a duplex and has been used as such
since then. A duplex is a reasonable and pernutted use of ttus properiy. Estabiishing a iriplex on a
nonconforming lot sunounded primarily with single-family homes is not a reasonable use of the propexty.
The proper in c�uestion cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict�rovisions �the code.
The structure as it stands now is configured as a h�iplex. To convert it to a duplex woutd require extensive
and costly alterations, and result in a configuration unsuitable for an o�mer-occupier. (I.E. a l floor
apartment with a four ar five bedroom unit above it).
Although the building was listed and purchased as a dupiex, there are and have been 3 separate units in the
building (legal or not) for at leasY 3 years. The applicant has repeatedly stated the he knew the property was
non-conforming when he purchased it, then realized that the existing candition is the best use, and initiated
the process to legalize the current use forthwith. When the BZA states that "Establishing a triplex on a
nonconforming lot surrounded prnnarily with single-family homes is not a reasonable use of the properiy,"
it neglects to acknowledge the many duplexes, triplexes, and multi-unit builclings in the near vicinity.
2. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances
were created by the landowner.
The records and history of this properiy clearly stated that this property was legal as a duplex only. It is
incumbent upon a prospective purchaser to check with the City Zonl„a Office if there is any question regazding
the use of the properry. There is notivng unique about this property thai would justify the requested variance.
Any hardship incurred at this point is self-imposed by the applicant
The pli�o�the landowner is due to circumstances unic�ue to this propertv, and these circumstances were not
created bv the landowner
The applicant has a building that sits on a lot zoned RT2. The applicant wishes to have a triplex on this
lot. The lot is zoned fa: a triplex. flther land owners in the vicinity own triplexes and multi-family unit
buildings on lots zoned for single-family and duplexes only. The applicant's situation where he has zoning
for a triplex but cannot realize that use is unique. This situation is not one created by the land owner. The
denial of the variance prevents the applicant from the same use of the property as others in the vicinity. �,
3. 77xe proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is not consistettt with the
heaZth, safety, comfort, morals and wel, f'are of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
The proposed variance would aIlow a mniti-family building on an undersized lot in an azea of predominately
one- and two-fami2y homes. The Boazd of Zoning Appeais has adopted guidelines for variance requests to
convert duplexes to triplexes. The guidelines state tbat staff shall recommend deniai unless all of the guidelines
are met This pmposal meets all of the guidelines except for the following.
A. Lot size of at least 10, 000 square fee�
This guideline is not met. This criterion is based on an eazlier version of the zoning code that required a
m;nimum lot area of 10,000 square feet for multiple family uses. The current zoning code requirement is
9,000 square feet However the lot azea of this parcei is only 7,500 square feet.
The West Side Community Plan adopted by the City Council in 2001 states in part "Multi-family/muiti-unit
housing developments should be located along major thomughfares." The subject properly is located along a
local street and is not consistent with this Plan. The requested variance is not in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the code. Establishing a multi-family building at this location could increase the traf�ic on a local
street, which could affect the health and welfaze of area residents.
The � posed variance is in keepin,n with the spirit and intent of the code. and is consistent with the health.
safe . comfort. morals and wedfare of the inhabitants of the Citv of St. Paul.
The code as adepted in the mid 1970's established a more strict zoning than at that time existed. The spirit
and intent of the code is to maintain aY a muumum, the consistency of the neighborhood, and includes a
variance procedure to aliow new development consistent with the existing elements. The structure as it
e�sts is consistent with other nearby properties, which aze also on lots of non-confornung size. Denying
the variance will not decrease the number of occupants of the proparry, nor decrease the amount of vehicles
associated with the property. It will not deczease traffic on George Stteet, which is a heavily traveled street
in any case.
4. The proposed variance wilt not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, bui will adter
the essential character of the surrounding area and may urrreasonably diminish established property values
within the surrounding area.
The applicant is not proposing and additions to the buiiding. The proposed variance would not affect the supply
of light or air to adjacent properties.
The surrounding area is zoned for one- and two-family homes and is predominately single-family residences.
There aze already two other nonconforming triplexes on the block. Establishing another nonconforming triplex
woulc3 ohange the ehazacter of this oue- and two-faznily neighborl�ood and could have an adverse im�et on
sunounding properiy values.
The proposed variance will not impair an adec�uate su��l�light and air to adjacen�r�ertv. and will not
alter the essential character of the surrounding area rovild not diminish established proverty values within the
surroundinQ area
Aithough the surrounding area is zoned for one and two-fasniiy homes, the immediate surrounding area has
also many triplexes and multi-unit buildings, hence granting the variance will not change the character of
the neighborhood. Any well-maintained pr�perry in the neighborhood reflects positively on properry values.
Any reference to this property having adverse impact on surrounding properry values is speculative if not
mistaken.
OS�?��-
5. The variance, if grantec� would notpermit arry use that is notpermitted under the provisions of the code for
the properiy in the district where the affected land is locatec� nor would it alter or change the zoning distrzct
class�cation of the property.
A triplex is a permitted use in a R"I`2 zoning district The proposed variance, if granted, would not cbange or
aiter the wning classification of the properiy.
The variance, if Qranted. would not,perm.t anv use ihat is not permitted under the provis�ons of the code for the
pro�erty in the distric< where the affected Zand is located. nor would it alter or change the zaning ciistrict
classifccation o tke prop2�
No response necessary
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value income potential of the
parcel of land
'I'he applicant has not provided any reasons why he wants to haue the building as a hiplex rather than a duplex.
He states that he was looking for a duplex or triplex that was distauced from his work. I3e further states that he
has friends who live in the azea. However, these statements do nat specifically address the question of versus
triplex usage. Without any evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the applicant's primary desire is to
increase the value or income potential of the property.
The repuest for variance is not basedprimarily on a desire to increase the vadue incomepotential ofthe parcel
o land
The applicant has consistently and repetitively provided his reasons far wanting the building to be a legal
triplex, to the Zoning Comtnittee, the Ptanning Commission, the City Council, and specifically ttte Board of
Zoning Appeals. The building is now for all i�tents and purposes a triplex. Before the applicant purchased
the property, it had been in use for years as a triplex. The owner would like to continue this use. To alter
the building into a duplex wonld be difficuit, disruptive, and costly. The owner loves his 3` floor home,
would lose it the conversion to a duplex and would likely not remain on-site as resident owner. Any small
additional income that would result from having 3 units would be helpful, but is certainly not the prunary
reason for the request for variance.
E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMiv1ENDATION: The District 3 Planning Council recommended approval of
the recent rezoning but as of ihe date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from the District
regazding this variance reques�
The WSC(7 recommendation letter has been submitted to the BZA.
F. CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has received one phone call from a neighboring owner in opposition to this
request.
The neighbor who called in opposition to the request is a non-resident landlord. His property, next door to the
applicanY s, is a non-conforming triplex.
G. STAFF RECOMNIENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 4 and finding number 6, staff recommends
denial of the variance.
Variance Request for Continuance
Board of Zoning Appeals
C/O John Hazdwick
Office o£ L.I.E.P.
City of Saint Paul
Commerce Building
8 East 4th Street, Suite 200
Saint Paul, MN. 55101
Re: Zoning File #
08— oY3�/ 9
Dear Board Members:
I request that the public hearing scheduled for /jl�f y� ��' on tke referenced Zoning File be
continued for a period not to exceed 3o days. I am awaze of the requirement that the City
must make a final decision on this matter within sixty (60) days of receipt of an application for a
zoning variance or an administra6ve review as stated in Mirui. Stat,15.99 (1995) and hereby
waive my rights to a finai decision within the sixty (60) day period.
Sincerely,
J(�,{-�cs � a ��n�r��c1 �
Signature of Applicant or Printe+d name of Applicant
Applicant=s representafiae or representative
5- Z D
Date of request.
APPLTCATION ROR ZONING VARIAPICE
Deparbnent of Safery and Inspec6ons
. 200 Commerce Building
8 Pourth St E
% Saint Pau� MN 55101-1024
� General: 657-Z669008
' Fax: (65Z) 26b9099
APPLICANT
PROPERTY
INFORMATION
Name /it�tl(I Q i�'t � '
aaa��s l �'D C��es
���a�
�
N
U�`�i�
b$ -? ��-
Zo ni�a office ase only �� y�300 �!
File Number "
Fee: $ Q ; 1
�Tentafive-Aearing DaTe: � �
Section(g) //i. 23t - "
Ciry agent
Ciry ST- Yan, � St 11 A/ Zip $510� Daytime Phone (s. s(• �$ '�� t�
Property Interest of Applicant (owner, contract purchaser, etc) _��.tIN�"Q
Name of Owner (if different)
Phone
Address / Locafion �$ d C."7�OQ�t� �
Legal Description
(attach arlditional sheet if necessary) `Q
Lot Size Present Zoning '� Present Use .�f�' �� �
Proposed Use �/c ! f L t' x
Variance[s] requested:
Supportiag Informapon: Supply the necessary information that is applicable to your variance requesi, provide details regarding the
project, and explain why a variance is needed. Duplc�/tripl� conversions may require a pro forma to be submitted. Attach additional
sheets if necessary.
Attachments as required:
Site Plan
/achments
/
Pro Forma
Applicant's Signature� Date � ' �� � D�
` _a�_.
�; ,
WSCO:
Neighbors:
Zoning Committee:
Planning Co�+micQion:
Firc Marshall:
City Conncii
18Q Geor�e Street West
Recommendation: Approval and letter of suppart sent to City
Signahues gathered in support of the tri-plc� (in your packet)
Recommendation Agprovai (unanimous)
Recommendation: Approval
Recommendation: Apply for legai Triplex
Unanimous approvai rezon'ng from Rtl-Rt2
Tlvs building burned Yo the foundation some 6+ years ago and was built from the foundation up with 3 fiill
units. It was not `converted' from a standing dupie�c.
Since September, when this pmcess began, I have done quite a bit of work with regard to ttris pracess. I was
diligent in visiting many of the immediate neighbors and many outside the 100-foot radius. I was originally
adviseci to seek a conditional use permit so I gathered many signatures from neazby neighbors. (They are in this
packet) I visited and participated in WSCO meetings and was successful in acquiring a letter of support from
their boazd back in October of 2007.
The agent from the Fire IvFarshall's office after touring the property was very impressed and encouraged me to
go forward with re-wning requesf. He e�tpressed that most of these cases (dupl� to iri-piex) aze often not built
as well with regazd to safety and b�zilding code. The issues of squaze footage and fue safety are well addressed
here with 3 exits from the 3'� IIoor unit, 2 from the 2� and 2 from the 1�`. I have completed all requesGs from
the fire marshal regarding building and fire safety to satisfy all duplex level codes. There are only a few tivngs
I will be requ¢ed to do ai the tri-plex level and these have been arranged and will be completed once tais
process is completed. With the new codes this will ineiude a complete fire alarm system at a cost of mughly
$Sk.
There aze petsonal reasons tbat I am seeking the tri-plex as well. I lived itt a one-bedroom apar�ment on Gtand
Ave for neazly 8 years. When I was able to buy a house for myself, I looked for this type of property for the
nearly 18 months. I wanted a duplex or triplex b�ause I am still single and live aione. My ptau was to live in a
properiy like this for 5 years or so or until my lifestyle changes or I get married and start a family. This house
will serve me perfectly for several years or until life changes for me in that way. I chose to buy on the West
Side because I Iike that part of St Paul, I have friends who live in the azea, and I wanted some separation or
distance from my work. I work with men and women in early recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction
who Iive in sober living houses here in S�. Paui. I wotk closely wifh our residents and within the sober
community every day, more thau 50 hours per week. I have been sober for nearly 10 years and I am very
involved with tfie locai AA community as well. I have enjoyed a very healthy sepazaiion from my work and a
strong sense of `my own space' since moving to this new house. I actually sense tlus separarion as I drive over
the Smith Bridge on my way home. It's a great place, it was de�igaed very welt, the layout of the units, the
qualiiy of the construction, even the garage which my truck actually fits in works very well for me and my
lifestyle.
`� �
6$ • 7��' '�-�------�-
If I am forced to convert this building back to a duplex, I will have limited choices. I wiIl either have to s,
which will be difFicult for obvious reasons, or so come creative construction to convert 2 of the units to one
huge 4-bedroom unit This plan will be quite expensive and the 4 bedroom unit will be mnch more difficult to
rent than the typical 2 bedroom will. Most likely, the possible renters will be large families or college groups
and I would much prefer to rent to 2 or 3 tenants. I would be abie to rent to the graduates from the sober house
but clearly thax would completely undo the separation I explained above. I would not likely remain there if that
were to be the case.
,�
-� x
=<=-�-� .= .� - �
E ,
a
�
r
?�ibf- _.r.'.� . .� .
_. � .
�:
_ � ��
$ __�'
� �C
�-� - ��--�
1. , �
�- .
U�viT #3
TOP FLR
�
� -�- � � ���
�'� �''� ` � .
� ,
� , ��?i���.
'% � �
'�
_ �.
U NIT #2 .
.
I
z �
� �
si
i'
fi.
��
!
�✓.�^
. _
� `„�
_ " Uwr #3
TOP FLR
� ,.
��_.__���,� _ _. �
�-.
�
�� 4 Y, i ��{
'�1 Y�'" � `'� - h'
T :�".+ .�� �!4
�I Y � I�IMI,
�� ��
�' .�,�':?�'`�� k�k;i
� ��: ,
�'-*�� �`�
`� .
aeunrt#[ � FuRro�cs �
� FoRUrvrtu2 .
Ea
�
�
- v�:,� e : . . .. .
�
..�
.
WEST SIDf C1TIZfNS 08GA�(lAi1ll�
December 11, 2007
Pairi.cia. James
Depazimee�t of pianniIlg ana Economic Development
Zo�ing Seofion
1400 CitpHallAimex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, M'innesota 55I Q2-1 S34
Re: Rezone from RTl to RTZ for 180 George Street West
Zoaing Fi1e#: 07-179I79 '
To Whom It May Concera
��,
�� ���
,��
�-�u�-
327 Wesi Win�+red St.
St-Paui, MN 551Q7
Phone: (651) 293-9708
�ax: {651) 293-01'15
www.�vsco.org
The West Side� Citizens Qrganizaiian's Btulding and I.and Use Com�ss.#ee met on Tuesday
November 13 . The rezoAing ofthe property ioc.ated �# � gq ��ge Street West was on the
Agenda. Neighbors were flyered and some were ia attendance.
� - . .- .: .. �. . ..- .� �- .
. .. .. .... . ......• ... .-...- .,
s � rt � t t . - � • ' • - i ' .f r � «' � f . '
� i � • � � .n � . � • ' r u at � o-
� �ar . • a s � t r : ' � � � s � ' � � -
� t • 1 ' • t � ' t 1 . � s '
/� �t R '(i' t. �-'� .Ift� -�
. � �- 1 l ' tl. f )' • f ♦' � f R
Y' - • ' �• ' - wt lt� f1 .
- �IG! .l• i tt� !�'
�s �. • f � .{ t♦ �- ��• "• It
Siacerely,
Dan Adl�ns
p Cazlos Crarcia Velasco
West Side Cztizens Organization �� ���er/ FYecutive D'sxector
we� sza� c;� o���
DEPAR'FMEtdT S,4FETY ATfL3 INSPEGTIONS
Roberl Ke�rler. Director
crrYO� sa�rrr�AVZ,
Cieristopher 8. Coleman, Mayor
SE Four!)tStrce{ Sxite200
SrtintP¢uf. MN55101
-: ,
1 .` Sr
+- ♦ .°.. _ _ . �-�.
7 •
August 7, 200?
Cluis Edrin� on
fi49 GRAND AVE.
ST PALII. MN 55105
RE: FIRE CERT�ICATE OF OCCUPANCX WITH DEFICIEAiC�S
180 GEORGE ST' W
-- - ' —Re�-n-1�Q8334 --- ----- -- - - -- - - - -
Residenriai Class: C
Dear Praperty Representative:
Your buiIding was inspected on Angust 1, 2007 for the renewal of your �ire Certificate of Ocoupancy.
Approval for or.cupancy will be-granted-upon compliance with tI�e foIlowing deficiency list The items on the
list mvst be corrected immediately_ A teinspection will be macte on September I4, 2007 at 930am.
Failure to comply may resuit in a �r�inal ciiation or the revocation of the Fire Certificate of Occupancy. The
Saint Paul E.egisla#ive Code reqaires thaY no buildtttg sha12 be occupied wittiou# a Cerfificate of Occupaucy. The
code also provides for the assessment of additional reinspection fees.
YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NO'TIFYING TENANTS IF ANY OF TFIE FOLLOWING LIST OP
DEFICIENCIES ARE Tf�IR RESPONSIBIIdTY.
DEFICIENCY LIST
-t. AL;.,�7AFF3'=�p12�-= 5��,� 3�.69 (3�r= Pm�ide �d ms�iniain an approv� one-inch throw singie
cylinder deadboli lock. �
2. F.XT`FR TOR - REAR STAiI2CASE - SPLC 34.fl9 (2) 3432 (2) - Pcovide an approved handzaii. The top
of The handrail must be between 34 aa@ 38 inches above the treads aad nm the entire lengtti of the stair.
�3. iF APPR�V ED AS A TRIPLEX - ALL INTERIOR DOORS LEADING TO COMMON AREAS -
MSFC 703 - Provide, regair or replace the fire ratsd door and assenibly. The minimam rating mnst be: 24
minutes-These doors must seifciose and lafch.
� 4. IF APPROVED AS A TRIPLEX - MSFC SOG_1 - Install a keybox per aitached K-i handout.
� 5. IF APPROVED AS A TRiPLEX - MSFC 907.3 - i'rovide an approved fire alaim system_ This work
may a require a permit(s), eall DSI at {651j 265-909Q.
6. SPLC 34_02{c) - Complete and si�a the pmvided smoke detector affidavit and retum it to this office.
Provide the inspectar wifh a comple�ri and signed Residential Occupancy Affidavit.
� � :�
bg �7 ��
�_ SPLC 34.21 (6}, 3434 {3) - Pro service o£heating fac;lity by a license3 ca�tractor wh;ch must
inc]ude a carbon mono�de test_ Submit a completed copy of the Saint Paul Fire Mazshal's Existing Fue3
Buming Equipment Safeiy Test Report #o tfiis office.
9. MSFC 605.5 - Discontinue use of elctension cords used in lien of permanent wiring.
10. SPLC 62.101 - Use of this properly does not conform to zoning ordinance. I}iscontinue unapproved use
or ca11 DSI 2onin� at (65I) 266-9090 to convert to Iegal use. -Immediately file appSication with Zoning for use
as a tripicx, or convert the building baek inYo a 8uplex.
You have the right to appeaI these orders to the Legislative $earing Officer. Applications for appeais may be
obtained at the City Clerks Offrca, Room 310, {551-266-8688) and must be filed within 10 days of the date of
the ori�nal orders.
ff you have any questions, call me at 651-228 _6248 beiween 7:30 am. - 9:04 a,m� PIease.heIp tQ make_Saint ___—
Paul a safer place in which to live and work.
Sincerely,
A.7. Neis
FireInspector
Ref. # 108354
�---
i
CTTY OF 5�11NT PAUL
Chrisfopher B. Colem¢n, Maynr
October 24, 2007
Chris Edrington
649 GRAND AVE.
ST PAUL MI3 55105
DEPAR'1'MENT SAFETY AND INSPECT[ONS
Roben Kessler, Director '
8 E Fovrd� S4ee; Svite 200 Telephone: 651-266-9090
Samt Pwl, MNSSIOI
��f." .__
� �/ �
RE: RE-INSPECTION FIRE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITH DEFICTENCIES
180 GEORGE ST W
Ref. # 108354
Deaz Property Representative:
Your building was re-inspected for the Fire Certificate of Occugancy on October 24, 2007. Approval for
occupancy will be granted upon compiiance with the following deficiency list. The items on the list must be
conected immediately. A reinspection will be made on or after November 26, 2007.
Failure to comply may result in a cTiminal citalion or the revocation of the Fire Certificate of Occupancy. The
Saint Paul Legislative Code requires that no building be occupied without a Fire Certificate of Occupancy. The
code also provides for the assessment of additional reinspection fees. .
DEFICIENCY LTST
1. IF APPROVED AS A TRIPLEX - ALL INTERTOR DOORS LEADING TO CQMMON AREAS -
MSFC 703 - Provide, repair or replace the fire rated door and assembly. The minunum rating must be: 20
minutes -These doors must self close and latch.
2. IF APPROVED AS A TRIPLEX - MSFC 506.1 - Install a keybox per attached K-1 handout.
3. IF APPROVED.AS A TRIPLEX - MSFC 9073 - Provide an approved fire alarm system. .This work
may a require a permit(s); call DSI at (651) 266-9040.
4. SPLC 34.11 (�, 3434 (3) - Provide service of heating facility by a licensed contractoi which must
�.nclude a cazbon monoxide test. Submit a completed copp of the Saint Paul Fire Marshal's Existing Fuel
3urning Equipment Safeiy Test Report to flus office.
�. SPLC 62.101 - Use of this property does not conform to zoning ordinance. Discontinue unappmved use
r call DSI Zoning at (651) 266-9090 to convert to legal use.
'you have any questions, call me at 651-228-6248 between 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Please help to make Saint
aul a safer place in which to live and work
ncerely,
J. Neis
-e Inspector
Housing unit breakdown: ='- . Existing Proposed_
_ . _ . . . : ' . .. . ' _ . . . . . � d �.
SUMMARY(NFORMATION `. ' . (j -C`I3 /
., F�R DUPLEX AND 7RtPLEX COVERStON CA$ES _ hfc.,-�iL �
Number of units �- `
Number of bedrooms in each unit � -
Unit t . . . . � , Z"
• . °�
- Unit 2 . .G--
Unit 3' ' � .�. .� .
Slze of each unit in square feet
'. Unit � Z..d`7 C� �P}
URItZ� ' - �pV '_��„v� �
Unif 3 � � �
Debf:
Initial principaf amounf ' �j� TJa�
fnifia( inferest rafe �c.��
Term of mortgageldebt f+nancing (�.. �y' '
Time remaining on note ' (J . 4�
Balance on existin debY (� (��
Rehabilitation
Type of improvemenfs:
� p _ � � F '�� .�� .
�}.y� k•'�°1.oP ' _ �. .
� �P
��
� � �� ".
�.� �
rl��u. : c�C�� `'�"
' � ecotthardtwoxls
- � � v-
revised 7/28/03
I - . . ' . � . .- � . . .
� ' . PRO FORMA tNFORMAT{ON SHEET � �
_ ` - FOR DU.PLEX AND 'fRiPLEX CQNVERSION.CASES.= ' ''�j�
. Continuatiort Eztra.Units . _,: :: . :
,•. Required information, .: ,, Vitith.Centinuafion of Extra �tV'ith Conversion of $tructure
Units in Structure �. to Legai Number of Un"rts .
N07E: t. Effective Gross_ {ncome =(Tofal rent income) -(Vacancy, ff there is any) _
2. Operating expenses are the suin of the next five lines; incl matintenance, insurance,.utilities, taxes and_others .
3. Nef Operafing {ncome =(EfFective Gross Income) -(Operating Expenses)- -.
4. Cash Flow =(Net Operating IncAme} -(Ahnual debf paymenf) .
"econhardtwo.xls � � - - -
revised 7/281D3
1t .,
m
��
��
� S„1
��_
1 ;�;
�� 9 L�
�� .��
��
�'
�
3
��
-------� �
�
� �
.,,s*
�'
r
� PRItfARY
�,. SE�UNURRY
�* GTHER
� UHUfFICIHL flLiRS
� LAMflL4CKED
� ACCESS RF1MY
� GOUNTY Ei�ND
STHTE�tlS HI6NHHY
�INTERSTRTE HIGHHflY
� PRItfATE ROAD
� PHRK RUAU
�� BERVICE DRIVE
,e� RESTRICTEO ACCESS
� LD�CA! RUAD
,�`1,j HflTER TDNERS
,�`V NHTERLINE
,� Qi�HS
,d�` RIRPORTS
� 6RIQGES
/''•.f` STRUCTURE�a
l�,� CURBS
� RHILRUHD
Nfl7ER
1� A
�*��
ii�',� �.';�1t�:��
�
1
� �� ��
�.��� .
�� �
�
2����
� � �
�==--=- 3z
� _z: � .
_ _ f,
���
��
.. � �
� j -
�'! � . .. _� r_ �__ . _ .
�, ..��:� .
��
I �� �
� � � :>` °^�:� � 4:
//' .,
�� ''^ 4
.s i ` t ` ,; i
G�
. . - a, ?�L'W � �'Cr.
< :s
E-- �,g""-_a�
� --
�
Ut
C
�
a�� � � �`l-�
_.___ � g �
' ,T
�laaerJ �
7-': + �
� 4�i�'A'�=�^:�, �ati��`��.=� t --� , "�:J
t�:,�-���_ ''i�%": 3C: !.'� i: t; :'' 7 �1
_v �
_ _,
�N� A�N -- �
z2"�l��-B'l r� `
R�' b, (�t�, .
55'�r� � �133/� s�
��r� b�N
h �� u
� l4 �z$ ���
E'.S �
kr�D. ��rt
- r���z-'
3-0'—� �
3=Q"x 6�
W
O
N
f.I
X
W
�
�-----------
� 3'-0" x 6 =8'
i
�!
�
�a� ��i�
� ...�i.. 7'i!:�.-�� �:�; — _.. '�T.,,-�ti'�Xl'e!!'
� � ��� � r ^.. � I�i t -.� ��.v.� ��� ,� '
�. . , ��. r• .
- i,h�,�C�`� .!. - ^n 1 NiTi 1 :� _
- ��.,..�.a...lP..�... �_. �{!� i
3 . .� . �:::s _ -"3c;=.ii', >$ t���'ii;`::�� ;
.
4
3=0"x S'-8"
k
(A
�
x
�
0
ro
W
h
N
�
N
CJ
X
GI
I@
N
�X
�
�
'<J �
f.�i��
b
�D �
� �
N �
.� �- b�'�
�
�
x
2
T
N
O
�
X
��� O
N
� i � � �r�
2 �-�pX6�-8� e Eoy��-
� s,��kE �e�t��,ces �ecUaut� o�
3.�+it i��'�.'E�S; r•_^JP-.CE't47 iO At'dD X
�
i ;F, ��� s�F_Fir� �oc,g�s �
Y
�? _ ;'^�E'4N t'J;`�y" " '�+j;,f1;:�QU!RES io
d � ��Ri�VJi?�J .w'„ ;tilE2G:�NNcCiE$�
; DE7cCTORS) '�
=�a� ����;� ��r��o� ; ��t,�
5.7 S�:L,AirE Ft� r n� Ydc i�LiaF t
�'lt�.'(�1' �f � �C �'llliYfi 1^�C t =�i
:��':.,rt.? tiT.:;Pti
� � �c cr a �'i��''�- � �
�,�.� ��b� 1 - �-. �
�.,,_
5=0"x 4'-0" 2'-3" x 5=6" I 2'-3" x 5=6"
.
�/�� ��
, 19'-6"--� '�' � g ., 7� 4'-9"—
f� n/.� � � �--
28- kkb b3t�
5 s '��. �'�3 3 ��, _ 3 k,.b � e�o �2.
z8 '{�� aS`,i�.
�-�r� ��N
� Z �s/�� ,�g �
��
��� �
lJL 1��
��
�
k Na, � a.�r ,�`�, AND, n8 tl ,� 3
� 7� x ��'�i� �=X�` � 2s=o� � "��� x a .�t . � : .
'--�'-j-- �—�— 9-1"--- ,��fi=11° . ()n '0;�.381 �°'
�N� 'il$7�
�g°1t�Xz$�
J3 D3rj
/�
' ��L��� J�t
��. k�f�
`le�x'�
.��� �
�
t2���
2' " 3'A"x6'-S
�/ }' t�
\ �` �
� v �
� `gI � �� q/` ��
!^�
J�
x=
�
r _
, �..
w
'ec�
� �. .
� ��•-�_:
� T4� :
,,._ �:,;�
�I CU�"P�.._
3-0"x 6'-8"
k
Lh
01
�
0
x
ia
O
N
t.f
X
U
i �`
iq
N
k
VI
�
N
�'
�
X
�
�
��
���
5-0"x 4=U"
��rn t��e
55 ` 1�,. x �3 3 1 ,
�� �2-3°x8-&"
(o ` � �if�; ��.
� � ��'S1,� � ze',
_" r-�.
...._ .u•��-���..�.��.......�.- _ r
..._. f _ t...:.:C•Af �'�s �. N�
' A
'. _.:. U�s � . . .
�-- . E.�:' ...- bY:T:'1 �^. !
.. �� ' • `.r =� a` :�F=� �>>r�� s
n
=8 " 2'-3"-.��- � oi 9" _ .
m � N �
,
X ,� a
m � x
, o
N i
�iA�Way � � � N
B o
�
"-8" x 6' 8'
�:RC' �"f�� .'.EG'U{ �_� n e
�{f � c �..; �
,
.i�.'•_ ? SI��:nCY'.V�1 'sQ ;ii�;', �
_—• X
�?�3 n!S ,`.'t��!�IG tZCQPAS ���-,,
t`PaE'vV COt�iS?rU�:siO�`d REviJI"cS N
;,?ft�V,�!?_r � ;ivi�RCCrl,1L
� ��T'cL.TGP,S ) in
��aa�+u�--- X
=�r'�1�� P�E��ii}i �>���d(}� ��1.�}
�.7 SL?!!'1?E �=rT i� �� Ci'__�..rc�
„��;�':.' � +Pl�� !��-,��C;CR L:
.:�:V i. i.�.J�9
2'-fi" x b'-8"
� �t��
�
� , 5�-
U 05
2'-6° X -
�— I, """'_'_
` h'2 , it .
\
\
2'-3"x 5=
11'•-6"—�'-�
28
�. N b t= c. oo K
� N �
� \
w �
, �'-3°X 5�6°
ANp b�d
�.8"J,� x z8 "�r�.
,�,v�, b3N
2.a'I:.x19 `�
kr✓9. d�SN
r� ��
T
,�oVDkS
b3+{
z,9' f,L
Y
zS "/rz
�+DkS D��{ •
, � /r
w S r,
�NbQS piL'
5�'li+.�'f33
�
N
.�
N
t�
�
N
'4'
cn
�
N
�
X
w
�-
�
p ev a n� 1-0'; i �
�'r$� .�`"...�
f}r✓s+ws pgt'e t _ , ,
28'-0" �8' �tb 7�' %�.$`�/1tr
� 9 ,�, ' B ' -7 °� �
.�
0°xfi-8 �.�65�'a' � �"�f�� �
. z`3'K5'lo"
i . - -- . 'r•'_ ._�°'.:...��� y =� ;-.:`�,
_ ,...^•'� � _ _` � „
. .. ; � j (� .:�:�: /^. .
'_ , '{�l'�: ' t.�N4_ N J�p='^,!.,ir r
- ',:���<''tr.^_,r_-y,....,r:��..a
.4� ,..`-��_..._.ev_�. �'±.�1�_,_n__°=
v h,
w
^ ,'-3=0"x fi-8"
�
x
w
�
_
�
0
k
�
,-
0
��
�uhR� D3�( w
zs���,���� �� �,
�-
�
N
%
�
m
N
r
w
X
�
�
�,� R�„
5=0" x 4=0"
�ubAS � �c
il rl
��{S`R�� �
^, j y
`x'?='c'' -- °
---------- ,
.�2'-4^,' ro
�;
x
m�
� �
�a�f�� " �
�
k �
X
i-
N
n
x
0
22+�,I N
H><<tl
3=0" x 6=8" 2=8" x 6'-8"
SiJ�OKE �?r:cCTGRS REQi11,°.E� QN u
;,LL LE�iE15; ADJAC�NT "=.t? ?,vD "
LE i
t?�? AE..! c�Ee�It�IG RCGi�AS ;
� ( �dF'Nl =Gt�.{S7KUC�lL�N °EQL'i��5 c
�? Nat?,.�,'.,+fRf� ?x 1i17c"C��SNc��F.i'r`,�
,: �,, �c?wCTORS) 8
-----s
=�?�_ ��u�.l� w�s�voa�nr �o�
.�. S(:'ii.� . .._�. J!' A1ET iiL�
+r: �;}�� •`?-iZ� Lj!fi; ��S?�'; a�
, �.
,.
.. ,r,�?�;���
z�-s~x s-a^
x 6'-S" � J 3=0' x 6=8"
-� - ----------■
__.___ 6��2u___�__4r
� 1 T �Lao/z
� (it05E.1 � � iV
� �
�-8" , �k����
CIabPJ�' -'.a' ;.�',"�Si'fnst%
Z �E" X 6=H° O
i
,�z=i0^,—I' �0"
/1 �
� U �
- �� ����
��Q��C
� Nb5 7�
� ��'76�
�N�
D�
z�
A
�
_�
CITY C)F SAAYNNT I'�IT�
CONSENI' OF ADJOINING PROPERTY 4�rVNERS
��_
_ - _
f
1
We, the undersigned, owners of the proper[y within 100 feet of the total contiguous desaription of real estate
awned, purchased, or sold by TE� APPLICANT within one yeaz preceding the date of this petition
acknowledge that we have bean presented with the following:
A copy of the appIication of
of applicant)
to establish a
located
2 r� — � � �C
(proposed use)
t� ��-
(address ofproperiy)
tequiring a vaziance along with any relevanf site plans,-diagrams; or othet documentarion. w0 COIlS6ri�
to the approval of this application as it was explained to us by the applicant or
his/her representative.
I
(
�-a'7
�
�TOTE: All informa6on on the upper portion af this applicafiomust be campleted prior to obtaining
+ligible signatvres on this petition. � �i.ai
� �1/�C31/SL S i {R��v risL
:L � !�a �� i7�-t i2�`�? � �w�, � �
PROPERTY WITHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: 180 GEORGE STREET WEST
6$-7�a—
� ; � u .�. ,.
,. T � —e_. �, ��_ � , � � „ .�,
� ;� ,�i 4 ;,- ��r:�-_�_=���1���� -���� - - --- - � =�_=
� 1� ' � 1 F � �
�i �,
T ��, ��� � � � ', __ � ,� �;�'a�c� ���� � :�_ ���=�-
-� �--- ----� --- ----� -� --LL--�---.--�------� -- --, - � - �--- �- -- � - �-- -- -
� � - �--
�,.—_ �---
`�
�
�
0.07 0 0.07 0.14 Miles
W
�- --
} :
�-
, o -
;= -
��.�;�a,. -
w
N
�
�
CREATED BY DSf S
��
r �� �� '
i2 a � ' +
i �
� �
� P --
' z 1 �� � # `�`'—_
ti h." s ,. �.�... .� rt
i
i4
Hi � « �
�
,��
2
� . .�
�n �
t � '
o g $
���° -
iv t 3
�� � �
�
CIT"IZEN PAI2TTCIPATTO�I F'T_.A�NINC3� DISTRICTS
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
�.
�.
8.
9.
10.
il.
12.
13.
14.
I5.
16.
17:
SI3NRAY—BATTT.ECR$EIC HIGHV,rO�D .
IIA�ET. PARK HADEN—PROSI�ER�TY HZLLCREST
WEST SIDB �
DAYTON'S BLUFF .
PAl'NE—PILAI_EN . . .
NORTH END
TI�OMAS-DALE
SUM�vffT—iJI�IVSRSTTY .
WEST SEVENT�I ' :
COI4I0
HAMLI3�IE—IvIIDWAY �
ST. AN`I'FiO�IY PARK .
�vIERRI�Ivf Pt1RK LEXINGTON HAIvILTNE—SNELLING HAMLINE
MACALESTER GROVBLANI)
HIG�TI,ANFj
SiJIv1MTT HILL
DOWN'£OWN.
l ������ ��� � 68-ay
�����!��
a�����ro
���f����,
b�����
BOARD OF ZOiVING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
APPLICANT:
HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PLANIVING DISTRICT:
PRESENT ZONING:
REPORT DATE:
DEADLINE FOR ACTTON
Major Variance
WII.LIAM C. EDRINGTON
April 21, 2008
180 GEORGE STREET WEST
FILE #08-043819
NELSON STEVENS AND KING'S ADDITION TO WEST ST
PAUL LOT 2 BLK 5
RTl ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 66.231
Westside Sign District
March 24, 2008
Apri127, 2008
BY: John Hardwick
DATE RECEIVED: March 18, 2008
A. PURPOSE: A variance of the lot size requirement in order to legalize a triplex. A
minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet is required, 7,500 square feet is proposed for a
variance of 1,500 square feet.
B. SITE AND AI2EA CONDITIONS: This is a 50 by 150-foot parcel with no alley
access. There is a 3-car detached garage in the reaz yard that is accessed from the street.
Surrounding Land Use: Primarily one- and two-family homes.
C. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a lot size variance in order to legalize the
use of this property as a triplex. In February of this year the City Council rezoned this
property from RTl to RT2.
I� �1�l71►[t�.`�
1. The properry in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of
the code.
The applicant purchased this property about a yeaz ago. He states that when he
purchased the property it was a three-unit building. However, the Truth in Housing
report and the Rental Registration both state that the building was a duplex. In 2002
Page 1 of 3
File #08-043819
Staff Report
the house was fire damaged and a building permit was issued to repair the fire damage
to a duplex. This property was zoned RTl when the applicant purchased it and a
duplex was a conforming use. Of the twelve parcels on this block, nine aze single
family homes, one is a duplex and rivo are nonconfomiuig hiplexes. This buildiag
was constructed in 1907 as a duplex and has been used as such since then. A duplex
is a reasonable and permitted use of this property. Establishing a triplex on a
nonconfoiming lot surrounded primarily with single-fanuly homes is not a reasonable
use of the properiy.
2. The plight of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to this property, and
these circumstances were created by the Zand owner.
The records and history of this property cleazly stated that this property was legal as a
duplex only. It is inctunbent upon a prospective purchaser to check with the City
Zoning Office if there is any question regazding the use of the property. There is
nothing unique about this property that would justify the requested variance. Any
hazdship incurred at this point is self imposed by the applicant.
3. The pr-oposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
not consistent with the heatth, safety, comfort; morals and welfare of the inhabitants
of the City of St. Paul.
The proposed variance would allow a multi-family building on an undersized lot in an
area of predominately one- and two-family homes. The Board of Zoning Appeals has
adopted guidelines for variance requests to convert duplexes to triplexes. The
guidelines state that staff shall recommend denial unless all of the guidelines aze met.
This proposal meets all of the guidelines except for the following:
A. Lot size of at Zeast 10, 000 square feet.
This guideline is not met. This criterion is based on an earlier version of the
zoning code that required a minimum lot azea of 10,000 square feet for multiple
family uses. The current zoning code requirement is 9,000 square feet. However
the lot azea of this parcel is only 7,500 squaze feet.
The West Side Community Plan adopted by the City Council in 2001 states in part
"Multi family/multi-unit housing developments should be Zocated along major
thoroughfares. " The subject properiy is located along a local sh�eet and is not
consistent with this Plan. The requested variance is not in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the code.
Establishing a multi-family building at this location could increase the traffic on this
local street which could affect the health and welfaze of azea residents.
Page 2 of 3
b�-���..
File #08-043819
StaffReport
4. The proposed vanance wi11 not impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent
property, but will alter the essential character of the surrounding area and may
unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
The applicant is not proposing and additions to the building. The proposed variance
would not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties.
The surrounding area is zoned for one- and two-family homes and is predominately
single family residences. There are already two other nonconforming triplexes on the
block. Establishing another nonconforming triplex would change the character of this
one- and two-family neighborhood and could have an adverse impact on surrounding
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 classification of the propet^ty.
A triplex is a permitted use in a RT2 zoning district. The proposed 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 has not provided any reasons why he wants to have the building as a
triplex rather than a duplex. He states that he was looking for a duplex or triplax that
was distanced from his work. He fiu-ther states that he has friends who live in the
area. However, these statements do not specifically address the question of duplex
versus triplex usage. Without any evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the
applicant's primary desire is to increase the value or income potential of the property.
E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The District 3 Planning Council
recommended approval of the recent rezoning but as of the date of this report, we have
not received a recommendation from the District regarding this variance request.
F. CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has received one phone call from a neighboring property
owner in opposition to this request.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 4 and fmding number 6,
staff recommends denial of the variance.
Paa 3 of 3
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Deadline for Action: 04-2�-08
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMBER: 08-043819
DATE Apri121, 2008
WHEREAS, William C. Edrington has applied for a variance from the shict�application of the
provisions of Section 66.231 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to a variance of the
min;mum required lot azea in order to legalize a hiplex in the RTl zoning district at 180 George
Street West; and
: : -�
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on Apri17,
2008 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Boazd ofZoning AppBaLs liased upon evidence presented at the
public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
The property in question can be put to a reasonable use under the striet provisions of the
code.
The applicant purchased this properry about a year ago. He states that when he purchased the
properry it was a three-unit building. However, the Truth in Housing report and the Rental
Registration both state that the building was a duplex. In 2002 the house was £ire dasnaged
and a building permit was issued to repair the fire damage to a duplex. This property was
zoned RTl when the applicant purchased it and a duplex was a confomiing use. Of the
rivelve pazcels on ttus block, nine are single family homes, one is a duplex and two are
nonconforming hiplexes. This building was constructed in 1907 as a duplex and has been
used as such since then. A duplex is a reasonable and permitted use of this property.
Establishing a hiplex on a nonconfoiming lot surrounded primarily with single-family homes
is not a reasonable use of the property.
2. The plight of the Zand owner is not due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were created by the land owner.
The records and lustory of this property cleazly stated that this properiy was legal as a duplex
only. It is incumbent upon a prospective purchaser to check with the City Zoning Office if
there is any question regarding the use of the property. There is nothing unique about this
property that would justify the requested variance. Any hardship incurred at this point is seLf
imposed by the applicant.
3. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is not
consistent with the health, safety, comfof morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Ciiy
of St. Paul.
Paa 1 of 4
6g-'t y�2-
File #08-043819
Resolution
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income
potentiat of the parcel of land.
The applicant has not provided any reasons why he wants to have the building as a hiplex
rather than a dupiex. He states that he was lool�ng for a duplex or hiplex that was distanced
from his work. He fiirther states that he has friends who live in the area. However, these
statements do not specifically address the question of duplex versus triplex usage. Without
any evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the applicanYs primary desire is to
increase the value or income potential of the property.
NOW, TF3EREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the
request to waive the provisions of Section 66.231 to allow a minimum lot area of 7,500 squaze
feet, in order to legalize a triplex on property located at 180 George Street West; and legally
described as Nelson Stevens And King's Addition To West St Paul Lot 2 Blk 5; in accordance
with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator.
IS HEREBYDENIED.
MOVED SY : Bogen
SECONDED BY: Morton
IN FAVOR: 3
AGAINST: a
MAILED: Apri122, 2008
TIlVI� LINIIT: 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 under the terms of the
decision, or the use is established within snch period by actnal operation
pursuant to the applicable condifions and requirements of the approval,
unless the zoning or planning adminish grants an egtension not to exceed
one (1) year.
Page 3 of 4