09-638Council File # 09-638
Green Sheet # D /
RESOLUTION
�
Presented by
PAUL, MINNESOTA
/d
1 WHEREAS, Holbrook Properties LLC (the "ApplicanY'), on or about March 16, 2009, made application to
2 the Board of Zoning Appeals (the "BZA"), in DSI Zoning File No. 09-043799, for two variances from the
3 strict application of the zoning code for the purpose of legalizing a duplex use on property zoned RTl,
4 commonly known as1069 Edmund Avenue (PIN No. 3 52923 23 01 14) and legally described as KELLY'S
5 RE-AR.RANGEMENT OF BLOCK 1, OXFORD ADDITION LOT 9 BLKl; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant sought two variances: 1) 50-foot lot width required, 36-feet proposed for a
variance of 14-feet; and 2) Minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet required, 4,831 square feet proposed for
a variance of 1,169 square feet; and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
WHEI2EAS, On Apri16, 2009, in accordance with the requirements of Leg. Code § 61303, the BZA
conducted a public hearing on the variance applications where all persons present were afforded an
opportunity to be heard: and
WHEREAS, The BZA, at the conclusion of the public hearing and based upon the all the files, testimony,
and the report of staff, moved to deny the requested variances finding that while the Applicant's variance
application met 3 of the six findings required for granting variances, the Applicant failed to meet variance
requirements under Leg. Code §§ 61.101(1), (2), and (3), as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 09-043799,
which is incorQorated herein by reference and set forth below:
21 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 2
36
37
38
39
40
41
The property in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
The applicant recently purchased this property assuming that it was a legal duplex only to find out
that is legal only as a single-family home. He states that he was led to believe that the home was a
duplex by the MLS listing and the County taY records.
He fiu•ther states that the house has two gas meters, electric meters, water heaters and heating
plants. However, the Truth in Housing reports going back as far as 2002 all list the property as a
single-famIly home. All of the building permiYs issued for this property are also far a single-family
home. This home was constructed in 1923 as a single-family home and although this properiy is
located in a zoning district that permits two family dwellings, it does not meet the minimum lot
size, width or off-street parking requirements for a duplex and is more appropriately used as a
single-family home.
The plight 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 the prospective purchaser to check with the appropriate city authorities to
determine the legal use before buying the property. There is nothing unique about this property that
would justify the requested variances.
1' � :
42 3.
43
44
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
The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code or consistent with the _
health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Saint Paul. -
In 2001, the Board of Zoning Appeals adopted the following guidelines for variance cases where a
single-family home was being converted to a duplex:
For proposed conversions of existing single-family homes to duplexes, staff will recommend denial
unless, in addirion to the required findings for variances contained in Section 61.601 of the zoning
code, the following guidelines are also met:
A. Lot size of at least 5,000 square feet with a lot width or front
footage of 40 feet.
This condition is not met. The lot size is 4,831 squaze feet.
B. Gross living area, after completion of duplex conversion, of at least
1,500 square feet.
This condition is met. The smaller unit of the two shall be no less
than 500 square feet.
C. Three off-street parking spaces (non-stacked) are preferred; two spaces are the required
minimum. A site plan showing improved (durable, permanent, dustless surface) parking
spaces must be provided.
This condition is met. The applicant has two off-street parking
spaces.
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 in the
neighborhood.
This condition is met. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building.
E. If the unit was converted without a permit prior to the application of a variance, a code
compliance inspection must be conducted and the unit found to the housing code standards;
or the property owner must agree to make necessary improvements to bring it to housing
code compliance.
This condition is not met. This building was converted to a duplex without first
obtaining the required permits and a code compliance inspection has not been done.
F. Where economic hardship is claimed as one reason for the variance request, an economic
feasibility analysis shall be conducted. Applicants should supply city staff with the
necessary information.
:s
09-638
88
89
90
91
92
93 4.
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104 5.
105
106
107
108
109
110
This condirion is not met. The applicant has not submitted an economic feasibility
analysis or claimed economic hazdship as a reason for the variance request. This
proposal does not meet all the guidelines and is not in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the code.
The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent properiy, but
will alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established
property values within the surrounding area.
The applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building. The requested variances
should not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties.
There are other duplexes on similaz sized lots within the immediate area. The applicant has
submitted a letter from a neighboring property owner in support of this proposal. The proposed
variances would not change the character of the neighborhood.
The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the
code for the propeYty in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change
the zoning district classification of the property.
A duplex is a permitted use in this zoning district. The requested variances would not change or
alter the zoning classification of the property.
111 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to incYease the value or income
112 potential of the parcel of land.
113
114 The applicanYs primazy desire is to put the property to the use he thought it was legal for when he
ll 5 purchased it.
116
117 WHEREAS, On or about April 15, 2009 and pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(a), Holbrook Properties LLC,
118 under DSI Zoning File No. 09-057392, duly filed an appeal form the BZA's decision and requested a
119 public hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the BZA's decision; and
120
121 WHEREAS, On May 6, 2009, the City Council, upon notice to affected parties, conducted a public hearing
122 pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(b), where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
WHEREAS, The City Council, having heard the statements made and having considered the BZA's
variance application, report of staff, hearing record, minutes and resolution: DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, That the BZA erred in its findings No. 1, 2, and 3, and the City Council, pursuant to
Leg. Code § 61.704, hereby reverses the decision of the BZA in this matter and grants the appeal of
Holbrook Properties LLC of this matter: AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Council, consistent with its decision to reverse the BZA, hereby
amends BZA Resolution No. 09-043799 findings No's 1, 2, and 3 to read as follows:
I' � :
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
The applicant recently purchased this property. He states that he was led to believe that the home
was a duplex by the MLS listing and the County ta�s records.
The home on the property was constructed in 1923 as a single-family home. Although the property
is located in a zoning district that permits two family dwellings, the property does not meet
minimum lot size, width or off-street parking requirements. However, it appeazs that the property
has been used as a duplex for some time. The applicant states that the house has two gas meters,
two electric meters, two water heaters and two heating plants. There are several of the other homes
in the area that aze used as duplexes despite the fact that it appears that these duplex homes aze also
located on lots that do not meet the present requirements for minimum lot size, lot width and off-
street parking. Given the character of actual uses in this neighborhood, on lots that otherwise
appeaz to be undersized for duplex purposes, the proposed duplex on this particular lot is an
otherwise reasonable use that would not be permitted under strict application of the zoning code.
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 applicant is not responsible for the dimension of the lot in question nor is he responsible for the
MLS listing or Ramsey County Tax classification of the property.
The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and is consistent with the
health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
In 2001, the Board of Zoning Appeals adopted the following guidelines for variances cases where a
single-family home was being converted to a duplex:
For purposed conversions of existing single-family homes to duplexes, staff will recommend denial
unless, in addition to the required findings for variances contained in §61.601 of the Zoning Code,
the following guidelines are also met:
Q
Lot size of at least 5,000 squue feet with a lot width or front footage of 40 feet.
The lot size if 4,831 square feet. Although the application does not meet this
guideline, the deviation from the guideline is minimal when taking into account that
the subject lot was original platted before the adoption of these guidelines and that
duplexes are a permitted use in the underlining zoning district.
�
Gross living area, after completion of duplex conversion, of at least 1,500 square feet.
This condition is met. The smaller unit of the two shall be no less than 500 square
feet.
09-638
C. Three off-street parking spaces (non-stacked) are prefened; two spaces are the re4uired
minimuxn. A site plan showing improved (durable, permanent, dustless surface) parking
spaces must be provided.
This condition is met. The applicant has two off-street parking spaces.
�
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. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building.
E. If the unit is converted without a permit prior to the application of a variance, a code
compliance inspection must be conducted and the unit found to the housing code standazds;
or the property owner must agree to make the necessary improvements to bring it to housing
code compliance.
This condition can be met provided that the applicant applies for and obtains the
building permits (and pays any double fee) that would have been required for
converting the home into a duplex at the time the duplex conversion took place and
further provided that the applicant obtains a code compliance inspection for the
duplex and abide by its findings. The permits and inspections must be applied for
within ten (10) days of the approval of these variances.
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 information.
This condition is met. The applicant has submitted an economic feasibility analysis
or claimed economic hardship as a reason far the variance request. The applicant
had not provided this inforxnation to the BZA.
210 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Council, consistent with its decision in this matter and the
211 amendments to findings 1, 2, and 3 asset forth abova, hereby adopts BZA Resolution No. 09-043744
212 findings No's 4, 5, and 6, as its own; AND
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the variances requested by Holbrooks Properties, LLC, are hereby
approved, subject to the following conditions as set forth above: 1) within ten days of the approval of the
requested variances, obtain the required building permits for converting the property into a duplex and pay
any fees associated with these permits; and, 2) apply far a code compliance inspection of the duplex and
abide by the findings of the inspection; AND
I' � :
223 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Holbrook Properties,
�- 224 LLC, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the BZA.
225
sted epar[ment of: L,�"� �
f�
Approved by the Office of Financial Services
By:
Approved b City Attorney
By: 1✓� S-(y-0
Appro e y Ma or f r ubmi � n o
By:
Adopted by Council: Date __�� ��� i'p �
T �—
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Greeri �h
��
._..... _... � ---�- --�
cA CityAttomey 05-JUN-09 , Green Sheet N: 3071
- - - - - - -- - - - r - -- --- -- ----- - -- ------
Confad Person & Phone:
Peter Wamer
266-8710
,..� °
I
1
Assi9n I 2
Number
For � 3
Routing � 4
Ofdef ! 5
� ��
Must Be on
by
Doc. 7ype: RESOLUTION
E-Uacument Required: Y
Document Contact: Julie Kraus
Conhad Phone: 26GS776
Total # of Signature Pages _(Cfip All Locations for Signature)
Memorializing City Commcil's May 6, 2009 motion to reverse the decision of the BZA in this matter under findings 1, 2 and 3 and
approve the variances requested by Holbrook Properties, LLC for the purpose of legalizing a duplex use on proper[y zoned RTI
commonly lmow as 1069 Edmund Avenue in Saint Paul.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R):
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Commission
Personal Servite Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions:
1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract forthis departmenl?
Yes No
2. Has this person(firm ever been a ciry employee?
Yes No
3. Does this persoNflrm passess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet.
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
The Council is required pursuant to City Charter to have its actions reduced to writing either in the form of a resolution or an
ordinance dependent upon the nature of the matter before it. The decision of Council in this matter required a written resolution in
order to comply with the Charter. Approving the attached resolurion fulfills the Council's duTy under the Charter.
AdvanW ges If Approved:
Disadvantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Financiai Information:
(Explain)
June 5, 2009 4:35 PM
CostlRevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number.
Page 1
� � 1 �
DEPARTMENT OFSAFETY ANDINSPECTIONS
Bob Kessler, Drrector
�,,,�.; �
�
IIAAA
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
ChristopherB Caleman, Mayor
April 16, 2009
Counci] Research
310 City Hall
St Paul MN 55102
Dear Mary Erickson:
COMMERCEBU/LDING Telephone: 651-266-9090
8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200 Facsim:le: 6�7-2b6-9124
St Paul, Minnesota i510Ll024 Web wz�nv smaul rov/du
I would like to confirm that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, May 6, 2009, for the following zoning case:
Appellant: Holbrook Properties Llc
Zoning File #: 09 057392
Purpose:
Location:
StafF.
District:
Boazd:
An appeal of a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denying two variances in
order to legalize the use of 1069 Edmund as a duplex.
1069 Edmund Ave
Staff recommended denial of the vaziances.
District 7 took no position on this matter.
Denied on a 5-2 vote
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Melvin Carter. 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.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
John Hardwick
Zoning Specialist
PI0ISCE.OF PUBIdC AFARLNG
The Saint Paul City Council will con-
dnct a public hearing on Wednesday, May
6, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council
Cham6ers, "Chird Floor, City Hall / Court-
house, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St.
Paul, MN, to consider the appeal of E3o1-
brook Properties. LLC to a decision of the
Boazd of Zoning Appeals denying two vari-
ances in order to legali2e the use of 1069
Edmund Avenue as a duplex. [ZF
09-057392] -
Mary Erickson _ .
Assistant CiTy Councff Secretary �
Dated: April 17. 2009
- (April 23) -
ST.PAULiEGALIEDGER
227A1084
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
i' � :
Sn3AT
�rzt i.
��
:���A
�
.
CITY OF SAINT PALTL
Christopher B. Colemun, Mayor
Apri116, 2009
Council Reseazch
310 City Fiall
St Paul MN 55102
Deaz Mary Erickson:
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS
Bob Kessler, Disector
375JACKSONSTXEET,STE220 Te7ephone: 657-266-9090
SAINT'PAUL MN 351-0I I806 - -- Facsirrsitt. - 6if-256-9724
� Web: www siaaul eovldsi
T would like to confum that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, May 6, 2009, for the following zoning case:
Appellant: Holbrook Properties Llc
Zoning File #: 09-057392
Purpose:
Location:
Staff: _
Dish�ict:
Boazd:
An appeal of a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denying two variances in
order to legalize the use of 1069 Edmund as a duplex.
1069 Edmund Avenue
Staffrecommended denial ofthe variances.
District 7 took no position on this matter.
Denied on a 5-2 vote
I have conf'umed this date with the office of Council Member Melvin Carter. My understanding
is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at yow eazliest
Convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Thank you!
inc ely, �
t
�
7 Har 'ck
ning Specialist
AA ADA EEO Employet
I
�9�638 :
Q_9-6.5 �731�
MINUTES OF TI� MEETING OF THE BOARD QF ZONIrICT_APEEALS -
— CTI'Y COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CPi'Y HALL
ST PAUL, MINNESOTA, APRIL 6, 2009
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, Linden, and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, VJazd, and Wilson of the
Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Ms. Tiemey, City Attorney; Mr. Hazdwick and Ms. Crippen of
the Departrnent of Safety and Inspections.
ABSENT: Richard Faricy*
*Excused
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair.
Hoibrook Pronerties LLC (#09-043799) 1069 Edmund Avenue : A variance of the lot size
regulations in order to legalize an elcisting duplex. 1) A lot width of 50 feet is required, 36 feet is
proposed for a variance of 14 feet. 2) A minimum of 6,000 square feet of land is requiced, 4,831 square
feet is proposed for a vaziance of 1,169 squaze feet.
Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for denial.
One letter was received opposing the variance request and one letter supporting, as well as one phone call in
opposition.
One letter was received from District 7 taking no position on the vaziance request.
� The applicant CHRIS HOLBROOK - HOLBROOK PROPERTiES LLC, 1302 V an Buren Avenue, was present.
Mr. Holbrook stated that this was set up as a duplex whether it was legally zoned as that by the ciry. He azgued
that they may not have done their due diligence; however, they feel it is unique as it is set up as a two family, it has
three enh�ances, two kitchens, it has two off-street pazking and two sets of uffiities. It did include in the original
applicarion a letter from X-cel stating that there were two meters right from the date of purchase, which was the
last week of December.
Ms. Maddox asked if there were anything else Mr. Hoibrook wanted to point oui from his letter as it was not in the
packet and the Boazd members have not all had a chance to read it. Mr. Holbrook stated that it can be put to use as
either a single-family or a two-family home. Upstairs there aze two bedrooms and a living room and kitchen, [he
living room and kitchen can obviously be two additional6edrooms in that case it would be a six bedroom house. It
would accommodate six adults, they do not think thaz any parldng concems with having two small faznilies
compared [o having one lazge family would be any different. The lot size is undersized as Mr. Hazdwick
mentioned some of ihe properties on Uus bIock aze. This was the situation when they purchased the property they
did not create it. He feels keeping with ffie spirit and intent of the code is a little subjective he does not feel that
there is anything detrimental by having a two family building. They ue willing to make any changes,
improvements, upgrades, that Zoning and Code Compliance would ask.
Mr. Courtney questioned did the Truth-in-housing have single-family marked on it? Mr. Holbrook stated yes, the
Truth-in-housing does hove single-family mazked on it. Mr. Courmey questioned the he saw someplace that Mr.
Holbook purchased the house for $45,000, is the loan $45,000 plus the $25,OOQ icnprovements? Mr. Holbrook
replied yes. Mr. Courtney further quesfloned whether there were six other duplexes on the black, aze they 36 feet
in width also? Mr. Aolbrook replied yes, there was a plat of the block included when he went to the office where
it shows that all of the lots aze basically 36 feet. He measured from fence to fence and they aze 39 feet apart.
• There was no opposition present at the hearing. ��
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #04-043799
Minutes Apri16, 2009
Page 1�vo
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
09-638 _ ��
, �__�
, �.x�.�
_ a �/ D ���
•
Mr. Couriney questioned Mr. Hazdwick whether the applicanYs submitting this financial informauon
changed the stafPs decision at all? Mr. Hazdwick replied that when the Boazd adopted these guidelines
for the conversion of single-famity homes to duplexes die gaidelines stated specifically that if those
guidelines aze not met, staff would recommend denial. Even with the economic feasibility study that he
submitted and the fact that he has agreed to get a Code Compliance that woutd take caze of two of the
issues but we still have the issue of lot size, it dces not meet the min;,T,um size required under the
guidelines. So staff is still forced to recommend denial based on that. Mr. Courtney stated that usually
he votes against these, the fact that the applicant at least admitted that fie should have known and that it
was on the truth-in-housing, he is moving to approve the variance.
Mr. FIardwick stated that if it is the Board's intention to approve diis variance he would request that they
put a condition on there that the applicant obtains Code Compliance inspecfion and brings the house up to
�e minim„m housing code standards. Ms. Maddox stated she does not have a second yet, but would that
be a friendly amendment to the moflon? Mr. Courtney stated he would take it as a&iendIy. Ms.
Maddox questioned whether there was a second for this. Ms. Linden seconded the motion.
The Board discussed whether they needed to state their reasons for approving the variance. Mr.
Hardwick stated t�at the Boazd needed to come up with a finding. Ms. Tiemey stated that the Boazd �
needs to is come up with where it is that staff erred and what you be&eve their findings should have been.
For the most part staff is recommending approval so you just need to find the parts where staff formed
their basis for recommending denial and exp]ain what you think those findings shouid have been.
Mr. Courtney stated that he can state his three reasons. Reasonable use would be to use it as a duplex,
He agrees with the applicant that the property is unique, he fias received it and it is already to be a
duplex. Third he thinks that 69 feet is minimal and we should not deny it on only 69 feet that he is short.
Mr. WiLson siated (something about the code compliance, conld not heazJ
Mr. Courtney moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings i, 2, & 3.
Ms. Linden seconded the motion, which failed on a roll call vote of 2-5(Morton, Linden, Bogen, Wazd,
Maddox).
Ms. Bogen moved to deny the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6.
Mr. Wazd seconded the modon, which passed on a roll call vote of 5-2(Courtney, Wilson).
S�bmitted by:
Approved by:
Iohn Hardwick Gloria Bogen, Secretary �� `
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
�;`�:=_.- -----�
�9= GS73��
File #09-043799
— • Resolution
This proposal does not meet all of the guidelines and is not in keeping with the spirit and
intent ofthe code.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properry, nor will it alter the essential character of the surr-ounding area or unreasonably
diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
The applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building. The requested
variances would not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties.
There aze other duplexes on sunilaz sized lots within the immediate azea. The applicant has
submitted a letter from a neighboring property owner in support of this proposal. The
proposed variances would not change the character of the neighborhood.
5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is notpermitted 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 property.
� A duplex is a permitted use in this zoning district. The requested variances would not change
or alter the zoning classificarion 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 applicanYs primary desire is to put the property to the use he thought it was legal for
when he purchased it.
NOW, TI�REFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals that the
request to waive the provisions of Section 66.231 to allow: 1) A lot width of 36 feet is proposed;
2) a lot area of 4,831 square feet is proposed. In order to legalize the existing duplex on properry
located at 1069 Edmund Avenue; and legally described as Kelly's Re-Arrangement Of Block 1,
Oxford Addition Lot 9 Blk 1; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on
file with the Zoning Administrator.
IS HEREBYDENIED.
MOVED BY : Bogen
SECONDED BY: ware
�
Page 3 of 4
���
File #09-043799
Resolution
IN FAVOR: s
AGAINST: z
MAILED; Apri17, 2009
TIME LIMIT: No decision of the zoning orplanning administrator, planning commission,
board of wning appeals ur city conncil approving a sife plan, permit,
variance, or other wning approval shall be valid for a period longer than two
(2) years, unless a bnilding permit is obtained within snch period and the
erection or altera6on of a bnilding is proceeding nnder the terms of the
decision, or the nse is established within snch period by actual operation
pnrsnant to the applicable conditions and reqnirements of the approval,
naless the zoning or planning adnunistrator grants an extension not to exceed
one (1) year.
�p��.: Decisions of the Board of Zoning AppeaLS are finai subject to appeal to the
City Conncil within 10 days by anyone affected by the decision. Bnilding
permits shall not be issned after an appeai has been filed. If permits have
been issned before an appeal has been filed, then the permits aze snspended
and constraction shaIl cease nntil the City Conncil has made a final
determination of the appeal.
CERTIFTCATION: I, the nndersigned Secretary to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals for the City of
Saint Panl, Minnesota, do hereby cerfify that I have compared the foregoing
copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a trne and
conect copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved
minutes of the Saint Paul Boatd of Zoning Appeals meeting held on Apri16,
2009 and on record in the Deparhnent of Safety and Inspectiona, 375 Jackson
Stteet, Saint Panl, Minnesota.
. _��
�'�-- _ _-�---;�
�°-S?-��
�
n
U
SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
� �
6 A�u�,
Debbie M. Crippen
Secretary to the Board
Page 4 of 4
�1 "
�
��
�
CITY- OF SA�NT PAUL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMBER: 09-043799
DATE: April b, 2009
09�6� ,--�,
;�; _- . :�,�
d 56 S_2,���
WI3EEREAS, Holbrook Properties LLC has applied for a variance from the shict application of
the provisions of Section 66.231 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to two variances in
order to legalize an existing duplex. 1) A lot width of 50 feet is required; 2) A miuimum lot area
of 6,000 square feet is required; in the RTl zoning district at 1069 Edmund Avenue PIN:
352923230114;and
Wf�REAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on Apri16,
2009 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the
public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
1. The property in quesrion can be put to a reasonabte use under the strict provisions of the
code.
The applicant recently purchased this proper[y assuming that it was a legal duplex only to
find out that it is legal only as a single-fanuly home. He states that he was led to believe that
the home was a duplex by the MLS listing and the County tax records.
He further states that the house has two gas meters, electric meters, water heaters and
heating plants. However, the Truth in Housing reports going back as faz as 2002 all list the
properry as a single-family home. All of the building pernuts issued for this property are also
for a single-family home. 'I`his home was constructed in 1923 as a single-family home and
although tlus property is located in a zoning district that pemuts two family dwellings, it does
not meet the uunimum lot size, width or off-street pazking requirements for a duplex and is
more appropriately used as a single family home.
2. The pZight of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were created by the land owner. _
It is inctunbent upon a prospective purchaser to check with the appropriate city authorities to
detemiine the legal use before buying property. There is nothing unique about this property
that would justify the requested variances.
3. The proposed variance is not in keeping witk the spint and intent of the code or consistent
� with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Ciry of St. Paul. �
Page 1 of 4 '�
09-638
File #09-043799
Resolution
,--_.-s - -,,
;a�' _ _
o�oS����
�
In 2001, the Board of Zoning Appeals adopted the following guidelines for variance cases
where a single-family home was being converted to a duplex:
For proposed conversions of existing single-family homes to duplexes, staff will recommend
deniai unless, in addition to the required findings for vaziances contained in §61.601 of the
Zoning Code, the following guidelines aze also met:
A. Lot size of at least 5,000 square feet with a lot width or front footage of 40 feet.
This condition is not met. The lot size is 4,831 square feet.
B. Gross living azea, after completion of duplex conversion, of at least 1,500 squaze feet.
This condition is met The smaller unit of the two shall be no less than 500 square feet.
C. Three off-street pazldng spaces (non-stacked) are preferred; two spaces are the required
m;n;*num. A site plan showing improved (durable, permanent, dusfless surface) pazking
spaces must be provided.
Tlus condition is met. The applicant has two off-street parldng spaces.
D. If exterior changes are pmposed, exterior elevation drawings of the changes must be
submitted, and the changes must be azchitechually compatible with the structure and the
neighborhood
This conditioa is meY. There will be no changes to the exterior ofthe building.
E. If the unit was converted without a permit prior to the application of a variance, a code
compliance inspeciion must be conducfed and the unit found to the housing code
standards; or the property owner must agree to make necessary improvements to bring it
to housing code compliance.
This condition is not met. This building was converted to a duplex without first obtaining
the required permits and a code compliance inspection has not been done.
F. Where economic hardship is claimed as one reason for the variance request, an economic
feasibility analysis shall be conducted. Applicant should supply cily staff with the
necessary informarion.
This condition is not met. Tfie applicant has not submitted an economic feasibility
analysis or claimed economic hardslup as a reason for the variance request.
Page 2 of 4
��
�
•
099Ef�
MFlR-19-2009 14:36 From:CITY QF ST Pf�IIL-DSI 6512654124 To:%123422231 P.4�4
- ^�
. , _: i
` �` PRO F0(2iV1A IM�OE2MAT10N SHEET ' ` ` �
�Of2 �3ldPLEX ANi3;3�}PtEX CQElYEt�SIt3N GASES _ _ g`.�1=�1 �,�'Z
! � Continuation of Extra tlttits
nl
LJ
�. NoTE 9. EffecFive Gro�s tncome =(Totat renllncome)- (Va6ancy, if there is any) •
' .Z. Operating oxpqnses a� the sum of the next five Iines, ind maintenance,lnsuranco, u[0ities, laxes and others
3, �vet OperaGng Income =(EifectiVe Grass �ncome)- (Oporating Experisesj �
4. Cash Ftow =(Net Operating Income)- (q�nual debt paymentsJ '
� �
• ._..: , /
oconhardtwoxts ' .
. tevixed 7728/U3
BISTRICT 7
� ��N����
� � �Q�����
09�� _._ .. ;-•.�
- z�; :;° = v:��,
ss�nssr ��� 2 �a
estnaaraot �r�
svicnpc�yaeoo.com [e-mmaiq
533 North Uate Slreef .
Sainf Paul, Minnesofa 55f0&7644
Zoning Review
Pro e : 1064 Edmund Avenue
Issue: A variance of the lot regulations in
order to legalize an egisting duplez. 1) A
lot width of 50 feet is reqnired, 36 feet is
proposed for a variance of 14 feet 2) A
minimum of 6,000 sq. ft of Iand is
required, 4,831 sq. ft. is proposed for a
variance of 1,169 sq. ft.
Communitv Resnonse at Meetin�**:
Pros
• None
Cons
■ None
i
Commanitv Resaonse Outside of Meetin�**:
Pros Cons
• None
• There is a huge pazking problem on this
block already. There aze several multi-
fazniIy buildings and no off-street pazking.
* Prior to the meeting atl properties within 350 S of t6e proper[y in qaestion were informed of fhe issue
+ The applicant was notiSed of the commnnity meetiug immediately after DistriM 7 received a copy of tLe application from the City.
`• AR listed responses were grven by individoals living, wor�g or owuing properly in fhe 6ovndaries of District 7 Planniug Coauc�7.
•
.waNv......n� a..vunu...... v�. u . ncuv�� ��a�m�v
6cecutive Director
District 7 Planning Counci!
; . 5 �e2of2
�a
��'_�j S 7.�j�
_ We feel our request is humble. Our intent is to keep the city informed and be a lawful and compliant owner. We
kr�ovti fbat-or�e neighbw-responded-favorably arad or�e responded ati€avo�ably fo Fiaving rentafs-ort the street: We
• have made multiple efforfs to contact every direct neighbor, and have gotfen very Iitt1e feedback. We are
responsible citizens of St Paul and only wish to improve neighborhoods and properties through long term
investment and care. Please forvvard this response to your letter to the rest of your committee and piease
consider granting our variance request I look forward to speaking with you, and meeting you on April 6 at 3 pm.
Thankyou —
Chris and Angie Holbrook
Dba Nolbrook Properties LLC
�
` ��3
file://C:�Documents and Settings�hardwicj�I,ocal Settings\Temp�grpwise\49DSSBD8mail... 4!6(2009
Mf�2-19-2009 14:36 Frnm:C2TY OF Sl' PRl9_-pSi 6512669124 To:%123422231
, � - • 3UM34IP.RY INFORMATIQN SFIEET
FOR DUPLEX ANQ TRIALF�C COY�I2SION CASES
09-638
P.3�4
_ ,_ . .; _..;
.. � � M `
�_ _
�_�
�
6
E�?'�iR�,*�713�
�� �
�ev�i nzeto3
�
�
}�
�'" - `' ��
. � _,.�
, .Q1--6 s����
i
u
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17:
SCINRAY-BATTLECREEK F�ICzH�IOQD _
�TA7.EL PARK HADEN-PROSI�fiRITY HZLLCREST
WEST SIl]E "
DAYTON'S BLUFF
PAYNE-PI3AI,EN - .
NORTH END
TIiOMAS-DALE
SUMMIT-tJNIVERSTTY
WEST SEVENL'H � , �
COMO
HAMLINE-MIDWAY
ST. AN'I'FIONY PARK ,
MERILTAtvI PARK-LEXINGTON FiAMLINE-SNELLTNG HAMLINE
MACALESTER GFtOVELAND
HIGHLANI3
SUMMTT HIF.L n� (
DOWNT'OWN
� ������� ���� 6q-oy37�
CTTIZEN PAI2TTCIPATION PLANNING DISTRICI'S
-:� P e 1 of 2
..`._ g:�:� 09-6�8
`_�sc�_o�������°�- u
John Hardwick - Zoning file 09-043799
From: "Chris Holbrook" <miunesotachris�a,comcastnet>
To: <john.hazdwick(a�cistpaul.mn.us>
Date: 4/3/200912:44 AM
Subject: Zoningfile09-043799
Hello Mr. Hardwick. I am Chris Holbrook. My wife Angie and 1 fortned an LLC called Holbrook Properties, which
has purchased exactly one property in our brief history, at 1069 Edmund Ave. i received your letter today (4-2)
stating your intent to deny.our zoning variance request (at the 4� hearing) for that properiy, to be a legaf duplex
instead of the currently registered 1 family. I woutd ask that yoa reconsider, as weil as ask what more you would
like us to do to gamer approval. Please call me at home 651�44-8413 or cell 612�16-7965 at your convenience
to discuss.
Regarding your opposition points 1-3, which are stated in your Ietter as reasons for denial:
1. The property caNcannot be puf to reasona6le use under the sfricf provisions of the code.
_ a Your sentences about wfiat we state we were fed fo believe are correct, whether you believe we
were Ied to believe #hem or not We aze not asldng for sympathy because of our lack of due
diligence in verifying zoning. We can rent this house to one huge family or a group of college
friends just as weli as to two smaller families, which we'd prefer. Two smal( families is simp(y our
preference because they `keep things up' better.
b. The sentence regarding minimum lot size is also correct This lot does not meet duplex lot size,
� ffias our variance request Nor do the ofher 6 duptexes on fhis bfock (not considering the friplex or
fourvplex lots), which I assume all requested and gained legal approval years ago, when someone
' illegally made our new property into a duplex
c. ( believe in poinf one you misstafed fhat our property does not meet legal off street paved parking •
minimum requirements, which you restate in Item 3 as the `preferred' is ffiree, but the `minimum' is
two. This properiy does have 2 paved parking spots off the alley in back
d. This properly does currently have two full sets of utilities and we feel thus lends to appropriate
usage for two famiry.
2. The plight of the land owner i�s not due to circumstances unique to this properfy, and these
circumstances were not created 6y fhe homeowner.
a. You are correct in your statement that we should have checked with all city authorities on the
assumed legal zoning before our purchase. Again, we acxept our mistake of lack of due diligence if
zoning will not change, and we will deal with it accordingly. However, we disagree that this property
is not unique. It is unique due to its pre-existing condifion, which includes things like dual utilities
and three entrances. Thus we feel the existing uniqaeness warrants our reasonabie variance
request.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirif and intent of fhe code, and is consisfent with the health,
safety, comforf, morals and weffare of fhe inhabihants of the Cify of St. Paul.
a. Spirit and intent can be subjective, and we find no reasonable argument that health, safety, comfort,
morals, or welfare would be compromised with our variance request
b. Re: A Lot size does not meet requirements. This is true that this condfion is not met and thus our
request for a Iegal variance. (4831 sq ft vs 50�0-G000 sq ft)
c. Re: B. Gross Living Area: This requirement is exceeded by 15%+ (1824 sq ft vs 1500 sq ft)
d. Re: C. Off street parking: 3 preferred, 2 minimum. Condition met with 2.
e. Re: D. Exterior changes: None.
f. Re: E. Conversion to duplex without prior permit variance. You are correct, this was obviously done
at some point before our purchase and WE ARE WILLING TO SUBJECT TQ ANY COQE
COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS resulting from such previous action and WE
ARE WILLING TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS to bring it compliant 'a� �
g. Re: F. Economic feasibility study. Pro Forma was submitted Yo Karen Zacho 2+ weeks ago. Is
there something more you'd like to see? Please advise.
file://C:�Documents and Settings�hardwicj�L,ocal Settings\Temp�'grpwise\49DSSBD8mai1... 4/6/2009
. �
i � �.�i,
John Hardwick - re: zoning appeai file # 04-043799 -"` =='�'�'�
ri �i 6 ��
- - - - -
---
-
- - - -- ---
--- --- - ---- -
From: "michael a waldo" <whereiswaldo@comcast.net>
To: <john.hardwick�u,ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 3/23/2009 3:29 PM
Subject: re: zoning appeal file # 09-043799 -
Hello Mr. Hardwick,
I got a notice in the mail today about a board meeEing for3:00 pm on April 6�'.For 1069 Edmund Ave. I'm not quife
sure whatyou're trying to do. is it to widen the lot? Is this going to be owner occupied at 1069 Edmund, orrental?
If it's rental, l wouldn't 6e for it. We've already got one rental on my block at 105Q Edmund &+t's }ust a piece of
junk, no one cares for the place, the people that live there aren't working (surprise) & no one takes care of
anything. There is, of course, the apartment 2 doors down from 1069 at 1077 (I'm not sure of the correct address)
Edmund, no one appears to be working their either. Nothing is kept up as it should be. ThaYs the opinion I've got
about rental property. Let me know it there is anything else I can do for you. Thanks, Mike Waldo
�
� � I
file://C:1Documents and Settingslhardwicj�I.ocal Settings\Tempi�grpwise\49C7AAE3ma... 3J2412009
I�' �,�,��I
- -
-- � �C���11E;I��'}f�`
March 12, 20f 9
HOLBRQOK PftOPERiiES LLG
1302 VANBl7REN AVE
SAINT PAUL MN 55104-2016
n
Li
Dear Halbrook Properties lLC:
a.
��
a _
� �"�� _ ,;
_.. 'rry��'.�=p
��`�� �� ��
Thank you for your inquiry concerning veriiication for the period of time service
has been in your name at the address listed below.
Our records show the following:
Customer Number:
Service Name:
Service Address:
51-9048848-3
HOLBROOK PROPERTiES lLC
FL 21Q69 EDMUND AVE
SAINT PAUL, MN 55104-2627
and
FL 1 1069 EC3MUND,�VE
SAINT PAUL, MN 55104-2627
Both from 1?122/�8 to current
Service Dates:
Xcel Energy is committed to working with you to provide quality customer
senrice. tf you have additiona[ qusstions a6out your account, please ca(i us at 1-
800-895-4999 or visit us a# our website �.�wrw.xc�n�s
Sincerety,
Xcel Energy
Customer Contact Center
� ��
N n
M ��
N
N --- � ----- N -
M _�
"�
M � \~"
b �
M ,ZO'SZI
, Z'9 e
� � �
�
� N �� �.
M �
b �
M
� �
� �1' �°`.. I
� �
`.
�*�1
� O
\.
� � O
M �-
p� M
0
M , Z'9ZN
� ,L6't�Zlo
: � • �-
°° N
�
�
M
� ��6��zo
� M �
�
�
�
O
N
�
� �
� �
\ ��..
�y N
M
N b
^I � M
"�
M N
� `1 ^ M
o b
^I �n•r�r t�
, Z'97�
� � �
h �
'ti h
� � �
��
1 � � �o
M
�
►�1 ` b
M
� b
~ `' M
---- --� - b
M
0 y
ti
� `• M
C� �
, Z'9Z� M
,�L
� �
� ."'. �
-� �
ti � �
� � �
-_. Q ��6��'zj d,
� � . '��, t:
0�
�
^�t
�
�
H
`.
—� �
, �
� f r"�'�
N � h�i
�~�
M
�
,
�
�r
�
�
�
�
�
�
M
�
ti
�
�
�
�
�
� ���
M
�•
N �I'
ti
° 11/4l2008
- 1069 Edmund Ave, St
_ � -
MN 55104
Status: Acfive
List Price: $44,500
Original List Price: 544,500
Map Page: 107 Map Coord: E3
Directions: 94 to Lexington Avenue,
north to Edmund, right on Edmund,
1/4 block on the left
u
u
MLS Area: 742. SP-Ce�ral
Styte: (MF) Two Stories
Const Status: Previously Owned
Faundation Size: 1,040
Above Ground Finished SqFt: 1,820
Belrnv Ground Finished SqFt: 0
Total Finished SqFk 1,820
List Date: 7/31108 Received Bv MLS: 7/31/OS
General Property Information
Legal �esaiption: lengthy - See Tax Records.
County: Ramsey
SchOOI District 625 - St Paul, 651-632-3701
Complex/Dev/Sub;
.ReshietionslCovfs:
Lot Description:
Road Frontage:
Zoni�g: Residential-Muiti-Family
LakeiWaterfront:
Owner IS an Ag0nf7: Ne
_ _ w9 '" :Z; *+ti
Property FuII Report, Multi-Family Residentia������ ;{�T,���
-- --____ _',�-
Total Units: 2
Year Built: 1925
Garage: 1.00
Acres: 0.10
Lot Size: 36X126
Fire #:
On Market: 18
PropertylD:2712335292323017
Tax Year: 2008
Tax Amt: 1,929.00
Assess Bal: 89.00
Tax w/assess: 1,929.00
Assess Pend: Y¢5
Homestead: No
OwnerOccupied: N
Accessibility: None
Lake Name:
Remarks
Agertt Rematics: Corporete owned. Property sold "As-is". Buyer to assume any required repairs. Please fax all
offers to 612.823.2397, must include Offer Highlights (click supplements). Agents to verify all info.
Don't include personal property on the PA.
Public Remarks: Spacious 2 unig 5 bedrnoms 2 bath with dig rooms duplex. Hardwood floors. Two porches.
Needs rehabber vision. Great Investment Opportunityll -
Structure Information
Heat HotWater
Fuel: Naturel Gas
Water. CityWater-COnnected
Sewer. City Sewer Connected
Garage Stalis: 1
Basement F���
Parking Char. Detached Garege
Paoi:
AmenitiesShared: Porch
Sharied Rooms:
No. of Ranges:
No. af Refrig:
Exterior.
Fencing:
Roof:
MetaWirryl
Asphalt Shingles
InfortnaGon Deemed Refiable But Not Guaranteed. � 2008 Regional MLS of Minn., Inc. All Rights Reserved.
�
Page 1 of 3
�
._ ''_'; ..�;. . � .
f �� � "• r�Z�.R
_ ..�
11/4/2008
10fi9 Edmund Ave, St Paul, MN 55104
Unit information
Number of Units Lik This: �
Total Rooms: 5
7ofat Bedrooms: 2
Total Baths: 1 Fuil: 1 3/4: 0 12: 0 1/4: 0
Bath Cfiar. Main Floor Full Batfi
Freplaces:
Frepiace Char.
FlPPGances:
Mnenities: porch
Speciat Search:
Room Levei Dim n Room
Living Rm Main (Groi 13x14 ' Bedroom 1
Dining Rm Main (6ro� i2x13 Bedroom 2
Famity Rm Bedroom 3
Kitchen Main (Groi Bx13 Bedroom 4
Dining Room Desc: SeparatelFormal Dinirtg Room
Family Room Char. -
Number of Un'ds Like This: 7
Tofai Rooms: 4
Totai Bedrooms: 3
Total Baths: 1 Full: 1 3l4:
� ��: Upper Level Bath
Fireplaces:
Freplace Char.
AppGances:
Amenities: Porch
Special Search:
Room Leve Dimen
Living Rm
Dining Rm
Famly Rm
Kitchen UppeY tOz11
Dining Room Desa
Family'Room Char.
Fimancial
C000erafina Broker Comcensation
Property Full Report, Multi-Family Residenfiai,
Monthly Expense:
Monthly Rent
AnnualRent
Fnished Sq Ft
Oth Park Spaces:
Air CondNoning:
Room
Porch
$1
S1
S1
1,020
None
Level Dimen
Main (Groi 11x17
Main(Groi tixtl
0 1/2: 0 1/4: 0
Room Level
Bedroom 1 Upper
Bedroom 2 Upper
Bedroom 3 Upper
Bedroom 4
Level Dimen
Main (Groi 7x12
Monthly Expense: E1
Monthiy RenY. $�
Annuai Rent $�
FnisheU Sq Ft S00
Oth Park Spaces: .
Air Conditioning: None
Di en Roo Level Dimen
73x13 Porch Upper 7x12
12x13
11x12
Buyer Broker Comp; 3.0000 � Sub-Agent Comp: p�� Facilitator Comp: p e�,
Variable Rate: N List Type: ���usive Right To Sell
Fnancial Remarks: Eamest Money Must Be In Yerfied Funds Ontyl
SellersTerms: Cash '
Exisdng.Fn:
Audion: No Auctioneer License #. Auctioo Type:
nses
Owners Expense:
TenantExpense:
Mnual Electric Expense:
Annual Fuel Expense:
Annual Insurance F�cpense:
Annual Maintenance Expense:
7.00
7.00
1.00
1.00
Annual Repair Expense:
Mnual TrasN Expense:
Annual WatedSewer Expense:
Mnual Caretaker Expense:
�.00
7.00
1.00
1.00
� �•
information Deemed Reliable But Not Guaranteed. � 2068 Regional MLS of Minn., Ina All Righk Reserved. Page 2 of 3
� RZII15� COUit{y Web: www.co.ramsep.mn.vs
PropettyRecordtandReeenue Email:F¢u�ertvTa�e€e�ccosan�r_u�n,us
P.O.B�64U97 Phonefi51.26620�
- S�s�£Pmil.MN SSifi4-0M7 Locatedat mWe�E4afoBlad.£vaEPaul,M4i
-F10LSROOK-P-R()PE�laE&L6E -- - -- ---- � --- --
__
- - i3025/ANBUftENAVE
ST PAUL MN 551042016
FactazesPaya� Fm�esaayatr�
m�lA w�
$ 7,92$.ffi 1.
7 �654.66
52at.sa 5.a45.a9
3,358.85 3,710.74
228.13 ZD6.53
1�654.6fi 1,928.8'L
57A.p2 b'�_g5
54.70 56.69
5.19 5.66
0.00 0.00
390.82 498.Sa
0.00 0.00
155.36 17824
417.95 q5q.g9
36.9.9
19.fi3
O.OQ
0.00
� D.00
Y,654.6'6
289.34
47.52
24.13
O.Op
0.00
a.00
1,928.82
89.7 S
PROPERTYADDRESS/
t069 EDMUND AVE
F03.J_Y`S REARR BEK'�.
dQTg$!K1---.. -_..
Z use mis amounttor fhe specral pmpertyta�c re(und on schedufe 7 of Fam M1PR
Yaur propeRy tax and how iE is reduced by tlee State of htinneso£a
I � � i �.����
3. YourP��y �c bafore reduction by sqte-paid aids and credi�
4. Aidpaid by if� Sta� of 4Ainr�soq to re�ce 1��P�KY �
5. Homes�ad arW AgricWhuai credls paid by ihe Spte of Mmnesota to c�ce yourpr�eAy tax
6. Yourpmpertyfaxafterr�uclionbysfatapaidai�andae+£ts
Y�ere y�r propeny pax do96ars go
�.
&
9.
40.
71.
�z
13
14.
RamseY Crnmty
a Regional R2ii Authaity
b. P�fic SaFety Radw Syste�n
c.
QtywTown- ST. PAUL
Sfate General Taz
Schoot 4istrict
a Voter approv� Ievies
b. Ofher lacal levies
Speaal haxing districts
a MetrapoliNan special t�ing d�sficts
b. Other special tazmg districts
aTaxi�crement 0
d Fscal dspaei(y
Noo-sctrod wt� approyed referenda �ries
Total propaily tax before �eaal assessments
spepal assessmenLs/se�vice ct�ges a� ro this pmpeny g�c statement f�r taxes pa�t,ie in zoas
a.��a�T 01000080 62.14
b.REG�SMT 01009996 27.04
c .
d
a
0.00 O.QO Contamina6aa:Car
S 1,944.00 $ 2..018.00 1i, Total Property Tax and Speeial Ass�sments
+ t i • ' O • 0 f • ° . 0 / / •
The 2U08 Estimated Ma�icet Value and Gassifiption shown in the hox below wiil be used fo determine the payaWe 2009 ta�ces. Prior
year cwmparisons are shown for your comrenience. !f you do not believe you couid seli your property for the Esfimafed MSarket
Vatue shown for January 2, 2008/ payable 2009 (tir�e 17), you may appeal this preposed value by attending the Open Book
meeting indicated betow. For tips on how to prepare for this meeGng and other importarrt appeal information see fhe badc of this
statemerrt.
t6.
17.
1&.
19.
20.
21.
22.
xi.
F4.
Assessmeot Datel Tax paya6le year
Estimated PAarket Value
Limi[ed FAffiket Vatus
Vaiue of New Irtg�rovemenls
GreenpcaesValue
PfatDefertnent
This Old House Exclusion
Tazable P�kef Value
Property Classificalion
► Open BooWPreTiminary Bttarket Vafue Revoew rtReeteng
�t��3DD
2-3 UNITS HSTD
184,3D0
[31f. �r�
._, �,�
2-3 UNITS HSTD
RES NON-HST�
��
c�*�is st�ment #os 4r�iportaslc Appeat {etfiorma#'soe and'Elefrnitiosa�
35292323.0114 Oi51
T� & Property Look Up Information - Structure Description
09-6�e 1 of 2
_--��
Home Site �ap
1 ax & Property Look Up Information - Structure
Desc�iption
Home � � Information � � Prope�tv Look UQ � � Record iook Uo � � Contact t!s
i�ew Property Search
Back to Search Results
6uick Info
Property Lnfurtnation
Taxoaver Name and
Address
Value Infortnation
Value Historv
Structure Description
Sale Information
Soecia! Assessments
Prooerlv Tax Pavment
Information
Prooertv Tax Pavment
Hi�
2008 Prooerty Tax
StatemertiNalue Notice
2007 Prapertv Tax
StatementNaiue Notice
2006 Property Tax
StatemenWalue Notice
2005 Procertv Tax
StatemenWalue Notice
Pavment Stubs
Truth in Taxation
Statement
Minnesota State Form
MIPR
> StrucFUre DescrSption
Property Ider:tifccation Num4er (PINS 35.29.23.Z3.0114
Froparly.4ddress I�9EGmurtdAve
St. Paul 55104-2627
Residential Property:
Ye� Bw`Jt 1423
S af Staries 1.SQ
Styla Ckre And 3/4 Story
Enterios WaQ A7uminumjYu�yf
Tota1 Rooms iQ
Toksl Familg Roas�r�s 6
7otat BeBrooms S
WII Sa�6'ts 2
tlalf Batlxs 0
Attic Type
FirtishedSQFeet i538
Foundalion Size 93fi
Basement Area Finished
Finished Rec Area
Garage Tqpe Detached
Area (sq.ft.) 308
Parcel Size .10 Acres
Parcet�dkh 36.dQ Feet
Parcel Depth 126.OD Feet
5`T3y�
Land Use Code 520
Land Use Desaiption R- Two Family 47uvefting, r'vratYed Lot
��
�
r1
��
�
http://rrinfo.co.ramsey.mn.uslpublictcharacteristic/Pazcet.aspx?scrn=Dwelling&pin=35292... 3/11l2009
— � Your Name:
Your Addres;
� ������
Own or Rent, and for how iong? C�Gc�l�l -- ����``S'
�am okay writh 1069 Edmund as a iwaiamily residence.
_ I am not okay wifh 1069 Edmund as a tuvo-family residence.
EExPlanationslObservations/Concems/Other Notes:
�
� �.-\
� Ramsey County Web: tvww.cn.camsep.mnus PROPERSY �SD�RESS /
� Ptopettq Becards and Revmue Email: PcapectyT�info�eo.ramsey.mn.us �� �� A �
SOWestKelloggBlvd,StiteSOU Phone651265.2000
Smnt Paul, MN 551�2
iheresaE Moen � f�lLY'S REAFlR BLK 1+
1069 Echnund Ave � 8%K 1
shoremw wttv ss,oa2s27
35292323.61 i 4
For�esrayall� F«�saapa6k
in�IQ4 m�
$ 7,757.96 �.
7,�420
4,48658
a,�.s�
zis.n
1,�420
395.87
3.97
263_7,�i
55.85
295.71
3825
16.8Q
1,084.Z0
269.�
FdebyA�15. �boxis�edced,f�uowedd�qu�tf�andarenote!
2 Usethisamwntforthe�propertyt�crefiu�dmtscheduletofFamM7PR
Yaar propeRy tu �d how � is reduxd bytlae Sffi� of i�nesoFa
a.a272o 3. Yaapr�tyt�c�rer�luctimbysiate-�daic�ardcre�
3,005.92 4. Aidp%dbyUreSta�aFA9'mt�otatoreck�ceY�P�Yfax
283.32 5. Hanesteadar�dAgiailhualaedispaidbythe�ofMint�toreduceyaupr�tyia�t
1,757.96 & YaQpRpES[yf�c�reducfionbysha�dadsandaedls
VMfereyqur property4�c doltars go
4q027 7.
4.55
3�37 &
9.
70.
57.04
�.19
it.
�.�
24.04
t2
�,tsr.ss ta
z�e.oa �a
8 t,asa.00 S 7,�as.� 13.
o s?3y�
6�57
Ram�Y �amlY
a P�b Safery R�wsystem
CityarTrnWi- SCPaJI
Sta� Gener� T�c
Sdrool �shict
a Vo��rovedlems
b.Otlrei I�al Ieries
S� �.dng d�strids
a M�tropoli�an � t�c6g dsvicLs
b. OC�r speaal tmdng �strids
c. Tax�
d. Fscal �5sperily
Non-scimal v��oved ref� levies
To�l poperly faxbefae speaal asses�enis
���e dwges �a m uas poperry ia�c s�nentsat�es pay'able m 2005
a RegASmt 07000032 8&90
b. Re9Aant 01000� 57.45
c. RegAsmt 6100�80 109.30
d RegASrtd 010� 24.36
e.
Caihan'v�6at Taz
rma� a.o�y r�cana sP�a�ssme�
U
�� . . . - .. - ��.
The foilowing section is ycxiu 2005 Valuation Nofice which is the estimated market value of this ProPeKY and the basis used for
determinaig yow property taxes pay�le in 2U06. Priw year �mparisons are shov�m for your �nvenienc�. if you do not believe y<w
could seti your properEy for fhe Estimafed Mar[cef Yalue shown for January 2, Z005 / payable 2006 (iuie in, you may appeal this
proposed value by attending tl�e Open Book meeting indieated below For tips on how to prepare for this meeting and other
importarrt appeal irrfom�ion see the back of this sNatemeM.
1G
17.
SS.
19.
�1.
21.
71.
21
za
AssessnentDa�/T�cp�year d
fst�Wetl AAmk�tlafue
lim+tedMarketVah� �
V� aF Ner Impmvem�ts 8 E�ired E�xlusais
bteen Aac�s V�e
Plat D�ent
ittis Old liouse E�xkx�]on
Ta�lc A�mk�,V�ue
�y t�a�n
► Open BaoWPreiittimary Market Value Review Meeting
904.1 W
23 UnR t(s81
121,2W
121,2W
&3 una ii�i
139,400
139,400
2 3 Unit H�d
�-� �
Project Name_
� v
��
�
�
� (9vl -O�j'!, 7�
3�. �zq , z3 . Z�, d 119
K�11y's Req�c `�lk 1 t�,��d �dd -
�t��Ikl
_ fi �� �� Nf N �5 � �`�- �
' �t��� ° o
,
�� 39 � o =� �` �
a� o�
��
0
�
�v
0
5
�
0
,
4
M
I
:�
�
�
O
� �
i l(�
g , o ,.
.
0
_�
:
� �
0
r �.
r �
'�e��horS �'lave '�cehu+��
C OT Y�ftOUS � dpS /
r�r:�r� zvc��re r 1e,��-h
o-� �co�er'�^/ of� eaC�siA(.
�ew����
S1�C'� `PL�1�
�'tf _ 2C7��� 1) �
NaR'f t�
Sv�l� e�j � :
C���S �; ���,e ���ib�a��
Cdb�. k�llo����C �c��Zffies ��e
�'�2 �c� ��cev� ��2 -
`� _ i��.,� �M�1 5510 §
�51- ��}�4
� ` l
��` :�_��
Project Name ��t c> � �
Location_ (�� / �dMUN� �� , Rep ��� � , , ate 3- �� - �
� � I
lz=b" 12'-6" • I
- ' -
` B�ctK PoRCkV �' atltk Pe7ct!
�
� co�N � wLOk> p � �
oN
13'-0" �
vY :
� KYfci�l�1., 1>N � - � DPc"Ck� olt a
11' Io , 'o �� �_ 1v_
B�`b ' 9 Kl'fG��i Q�Eb �s
- o ptidiNl� ° ;� =
� —
N ',—
f � 'i � b° 8`-
� B�C..-�� `o o `o
� r` �
�
o L1VlNC� ' � LtVI}.1L1 P' _o �
� 1�D _ ,
� o � c�
�.
i 3rto�,: i1'-o" �, �,_
'QoRct� �
�22i� `b� .
� ` — -.
�.ow� R L'�v� �- : ��t'1'FR ��v��.
�-���5�„� �-�� ���5-� ��a � �
�oa� "�'�i'c� �Lo �LPsN
C I'�eAs�t¢r+`2v� ` s �eu�� , o�,re ' t+r�ec�or ��rc�e,ns',T3nS � Sc°t�e �/g — 1'
�
BCI� JOISTS • BC RIM BOARD � VERSA-LAM� LVL � VERSA-STUD� • VERSA-COLUMN`�' • BO1SE GLULAM'"
�� •
a!"�' z a .
_ _ '_ _ -'`�.. �_�. _�'�
v q�s �3g�
—
- __
- -
- __
- ----
— File #09-043999
StaffReport
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
located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district class�cation of the property.
A duplex is a permitted use in this zoning dishict. The requested variances would not
change or alter the zoning classification of the properry.
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 applicanYs primary desire is to puYtlie property to the use he thought it was legal
for when he purchased it. ' �
E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECONIlVI�NDATION: As of the date of this report, we have
not received a recommendatiQn from Aistrict 7.
� F. CORRESPONDENCE: StafFhas received one letter from a neighboring property
owner opposed to rental property in the azea. �
G. STAFF RECOMIV�NDATION: Based on findings 1 through 3, staff is recommending
demal of the variances.
�
��
Page 4 oF4
f�
� ( � b o9-(�� �i: .
G �j--� 5'73��
APPLICAITON FOR ZtSPiIliTG VARiANeE
��'�afe!!' aad Insp�ions
375Tircksors S(reet
Srt�e 22@
S��rtP� MNSSI01-180b
C�'aL 651-26�9008
F¢r (651) 266-9D99
Name C�H+'�5 "'� !1"'�i�Z '�Il�a� ComP�Y_llv �� �/b,�c�'�J4S LLL
Address l�lo �` � f
� V� Wf2y� �JQ . -
APPLICANT �'� St M(� Zip 551� DaytimePho� �05�-6�¢-$�13
� OWYIQ/�
1�IeIDe Of OvaffiY (if d�'fe.l+mt) Phnm
Aaldress!
rxo�� ��Descrtptio�'33.29.23.230114) Kztl-�s �� �Ik I Dzc-(arol f�ol �t`� Bllc I
INF'ORMA7ZON
(aXmehad�mtals�if' .
L � r�
Zaf/YSYL2 ��"J � 7 � p1YSElit�g �_� PC25Citfu3C 5� ` `
wtFwi er��[c�e as Y�o.z'�s3G' . . �`t �mi`T�
c i
Propesed Use � �aml`Y
�
Variance[s) reqnested;
3nppurting Informa8on: SuppYy ihe necessary i�'ormaEionihat is applicabie to yoiu vari�ce xeques� provide detffiIs regarding the
Prol�, and explam why a vaziance is needed Duplex/lriplex coavecsioas may re4�urz a Pro fwmafo be submitted. Attach additional
sheefsifnecessary. � K`�5e��nd� p � 4 �y
o.��et� S�IMoC'�'Z� d�wM�¢�T�w� ��n�vd.lnq Si','� ��M . �'Clw%!' ��5
,2{!cc � � �
-.�in.v� n i '2�3-� "�� Su'MO�'ieS � Sfr'�ce dcXc��cw� � MLS 1i5tM� �..� Xczt �r{�ar.
{` l W� yJ��1CA likt �}.' t'2� '��� pn�p - �o ( '��W . O - ` N ' ++ulieS aS � � Y�4� ouY
�✓:Ciu7z0 {� �� �RS t�4SSl�i� � �� �t'Nl�fCV�T' � I �J'"f �.i.^ \n�'\l i5 'C�R�� '�I�L
�-°'�tn� �� ��Yi�-�tt� ws �+aso .tm,i,i��xr� n;� 2 r�re�r�� ^'�e�el5 � 2<ja� „nc(u-� rt
- Pr Z boc�rs wv.� Z ula�.r �'ke p C qtP 2�i��'k�^'� `��'S ���� o� CaJPt�'{'Jd�`r-P!l' �R7.
� ,^ls{ � � S v�U W�f � � �
r � �` `� r'"�ed� 'i'Y�c P12��� w I(� C SnW �� ���,�,�;«e e:� �� a�a ��
s��� c ��..�y? �v�le ��J ��'�dd�� o�.,�� � �7� �b�.��w,, d � �lo� ; cM�S
�
� Ml5 abY� -�i a� � �-� �1�4 a11�.,,� �S �o ��r�f it -t� �� �1
PF.�.�' i� `h> - �w� �.x.�liet. IYYT��Yp3. .
l
�'��¢ � 1 e4��� Site P(an Attac6meu7s Pta Forrna
�
A�uc��sS;�amre t /I v�/l�( D � ?,-(�_`�
1:':i.4;�'
- - F�le #89-843�99
— � StaffReport
�
- �n
�_ _ • =� =�°�
- - t ��2��-
He further states that the house has two gas meters, eleciric meters, water heaters
and heating plants. However, the Truth in Housing reports going back as far as 2002
all list the properiy as a single-family home. All of the building permits issued for
this properly aze also for a single-family home. This home was constructed in 1923 as
a single-family home and although this�roperiy is located in a zoning district that
permits two family dwellings, it does not meet the min;,,,� lot size, width or off-
street parking requirements for a duplex and is more appropriately used as a single
family home.
2. The plight of the Zand owner is not due to circumstances unique to this property, and
these circumstances were created by the Zand owner.
It is incumbent upon a prospective purchaser to check with the appropriate city
authoriries to determine the legal use before buying property. There is nothing unique
about this property that would justify the requested variances.
3. The proposed variance is not in I�eeping with the spirit and intent of the code or
consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of
the City of St. Paul.
In 2001, the Boazd of Zoning Appeals adopted the following guidelines for variance
cases where a single-family home was being converted to a duplex:
For proposed conversions of existing single-family homes to duplexes, staff will
recommend denial unless, in addition to the required findings for variances contained
in §61.601 of the Zoning Code, the following guidelines are aiso met:
A. L,ot size of at least 5,000 square feet with a lot width or front footage of 40 feet.
This condition is not met. The lot size is 4,831 square feet.
\J
B. Gross living azea, after complerion of duplex conversion, of at least 1,500 squaze
feet.
This condition is met. The smaller unit of the two shall be no less than 500 square
feet.
C. Three off-street pazking spaces (non-stacked) are preferred; two spaces aze the
required mu�unum. A site plan showing improved (durable, permanent, dustless
surface) pazking spaces must be provided.
��
Page 2 of 4
09-6�8 � �,
�a � -�,.
��.°'���"=
_� �
Q� �sr�a
File #09-043799
StaffReport
This condition is met. The applicant has two off-sh�eet parlflng spaces.
D. If exterior changes aze proposed, eacterior elevation drawings of the changes must
be submitted, and the changes must be architecturally compatible with the
shucture aad the neighbarhood.
This condition is met There will be no changes to the exterior of the building.
E. If the unit was converted without a pernut prior to the application of a variance, a
code wmpliaztce inspectiori must be conducted and the unit found to the housing
code standards; or the pmperty owner must agree to make necessary
impravements to bring it to housing code compliance.
Tfiis condition is not met. This building was converted to a duplex without first
obtaining the required permits and a code compliance inspection has not been
done.
�
F. Where economic hardship is ctaimed as one reason for the variance request, an
economic feasibility anatysis shall be conducted. Applicant should supply city i
staff with the necessary information
This conditiott is not met. The applicant has not submitted an economic
feasibility analysis or claimed economic hardslup as a reason for the variance
request.
This proposal does not meet all of the guidelines, and is not in keeping with the spirit
and intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance wi11 not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor. wi11 it aZter the essential character of the surrounding area or
unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area.
The applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building. The
requested variances would not sigaifican8y aff�t the supply of light or air to adj acent
pmperties.
There aze other duplexes on similaz sized lots within the immediate azea. The
applicant has submitted a letter from a neighboring property owner in support of this
proposal. The proposed variances would not change the chazacter of the
neighborhood. ; � �
Page 3 of 4
P
i
N 'S
m
�
_ �
c
i
W
a
U
j O w
) � �
��.�.
� U � j
) j �
•a �
�a °
%z c
ia�
0
!�U
�a
.�
❑
�
LL
m
0
9
�
� �
� � 8
x " u�
ffi _ � u �'
a- o a
� m � a
_�o�
__
���s
'� c p ,
�o�' �
o E � �
m � �
$_ w �'
� � o $
m � 5 i
a s ,
w c � o
� m O LL
W v � �
Q O Z fJ
zw ri6
°��-' ���`�� ��
` 09-� S 93��
�
3
\�
E
i�
')
.;
0 �$ . .�,rn=�
= ;��� tx=��
o9-6s���
BOARD OF 7ANING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
APPLICANT:
HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPITON:
PLANIVIIVG DISTRICT:
PRESENT ZONING:
Major Variance
I30LBROOK PROPERTTES LLC
Apri16, 20Q9
1069 EDM[JND AVENUE
F'ILE #09-043799
KELLY'S R�ARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 1, OXFORD
ADDFITON.LOT 9 BLK 1
�11
RTl ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 66.231
Thomas-Dale Sign Dishict
�
REP.ORT DATE: March 31, 2009 BY: 7ofin Hazdwick
DEADLINE FOR ACTION: Apri128, 2009 DATE RECEIVED: March 19, 2009
�
A. PURPOSE: A variance of the lot size regulations in order to lega]ize an existing duplex.
1) A lot width of SU feet is required, 36 feet is proposed for a variance of 14 feet. 2) A
minimum of 6,000 square feet of land is required, 4,831 square feet is proposed for a
variance of 1,164 square feet. .
B. STTE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This is a 39 by 125-foot lot with alley access at the
rear.
Surrounding Land Use: Primarily one- and two-family dwellings.
C. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting variances in order to legalize the use of
this progerty as a duplex.
D. FINDINGS:
1. The properly in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of
the code. �
The applicant recently purchased this property assuming that it was a legal duplex t
only to find out that it is legal only as a single-family home. He states that he was led 4 �
to believe that the home was a dupl� by the MLS lisking and the County tas records.
Page 1 of 4
���iiii�
�d';: -
�_ ----' d a "
? �--.`��.'v_' �� �� .
a�� s�,,�a
--- -- -
Your {�latne:
Your Addres:
� ,�,�.� /Q�
Own or Rent, and for how long? �Gc'!� --��ca f:Yt"S
�am okay with 1069 Edmund as a two-family residence.
� I am not okay wifh 1069 Edmund as a two-family residence.
ExplanationslObservations/Concerns/Other Notes:
v�s
�- ---- -�--- ------ - - --•--- - -
1 understand the Hoibrook situation regarding the property they own at
and support their req�st for a����i,n.�3t variance.
� l .�L �,�
1069 Edmund Ave
�
iVAME (printed) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
j ; (plus phone number optionaij
;��� � � �.� � t D� ��f c��
! ��� SrPQ�I ro�1
� % 1 understand the !-lo4brook situa#ion regarding the propesty they own at 1069 Edmund Ave
and support thetr request for a duplex zoning variance.
NAME (printedj AD�RESS
(plus phone number aptionai)
, .,
'; /.?/r�4 �CiC(r�^€"C�'t ILh % r�•uhu.�Gl /;`v.�'.
SIGNATURE DATE
,�� ''�'"� �:�r Y/3/cci
,. . , �,� �
G
I understand the Holbrook situation regarding the property they own at 'l069 Edmund Ave
and suppart their request for a duplex zoning variance. i
� NAME farinfed� AQDRESS S1GN�TURE DATE `�
�%�9a .er��cc�l�� tplusphonenumberoptlonai) � •lJ- � f
` f��d �Mv,vO �/� ���s�
s °p ^
nE oe
meo t�
�b 2m
m � ^b E
^ _.
_ y '
a y
5 N
W
G
C
O
N
A(��
�j?U
� 2 j
v+ < O
� �
5
v
3
O
« �O
V�t
T, � � �]. C
O yl, . ° P' u
«. � W n
a .�:..' a � .S El T
u -u�: .�o a p � � +
�� 3 � � �� Q � `n � �
I Q - a Q m m � 0.
�� F ,�C ib �u v � � .
�. _
I� � H� �� <
q � � �
. �
� ~ w N O
a.
m �::`� �'�^'o
� a�i 7 ti`" � o
°' '� 'd d v � a
Q� � m � W L
�a W c ° : °�
G M d V F �.
•J' 'y�l� 1'n � W
E w d � m �c:.
W u v� a a
O� C d ""' i O �D
�o ex � o � �p i ^ ,� �
� �i W� L W CO rl
� > m o �°+ ° � p
d' o ro m p y C
o Nd�°'��y
� �
a.: o,�°. c.E i a
A
z
a
v
N
m
c
d
C
E
E
U
0
z
c
£��
o `�C �'
� � v�.
A d w
O y
p, y o
m '� �
a �
0
4 F �
e0
� `O 'O
m N �
m=a
�� � T
� 0 8
: 9 W
e
z
�
��
itlR'
ro
6C �
a3
^ie
E:S
4F�
+.
09 �&;>; �,
� ��� `���
� S? —� "'�
�
O C
O
a
V
Uo�
c
� m c
� �
�oo
oma
o?�
aU�
-m„
°u
a
�
9
2
m
a
z
u
m^x�=�Ee
_��� m,;
I�P��.Oe�-
emo�o:�
a�o_o;
C;�Ee
m �a. e
�m�
�3 a
� n
a �
y
n V J
�—Z—
U zz
�' Z
ha$
�dU
�
�a
Q
V
.�
�
�
�
C
0
N
O
>
'6
C
(Q -F
,a? U
m �
� �
U�
O �
�
vj O
O �
� a�i
�a� E
c �
� o
U
�, �
_
.�
.�
�
ca
a�
d
(6 .r
� oU
� A N
� � � O
W c6 � O
� � O 0
o ���
i-. � O �
( ^ 6 ` � S-' �
W � Q �
� � (6 N
p O � �
� � �
� �= � O
�� ��
�
o � � Q
W O y �
� � F- -a
� O X (0
� � �
C
(6
~ � ❑
VI y W
O � �
N � �
� C) .� otf
� � �
� � � � L
I � � � � �
O � �
� M �
„ � �.. 4-
� '~ � d
d � L
I�- N V
G
c
o "-'
m
�c �.�,
or
L�
� U
>+ �
c
U �U
,O VI
>
O �
� �
o �
o �
��
. �
o �
� O
L �
� �
�
O
�
d
,;
�
�
ti
r
tp
m
�
n
o�
�
�
�
h�
� �
E�
��
c `�
oZ
m�
O'�
C �
g '
a
�
ax
w
�
w
n
4
s
a
0
LL
L
�
m
U
�
0
�
c
�
c
=
e
z
y
1� �
I understand the Holbrook situation regarding the property they own at 1069
and support their request for a duplex zoning variance.
NAME (printed)
— - --- ---
— �-
Chris Holbrook
S
��� c
�,.ZY"2�
,��'�4LwL i.\ Vl
r �^� _
i„i1+`�r.�� 1�Ifs�]1ht�r
@fio�''�� vt� 4Vf' �.�
i
�
�
ADDRESS SIGNATURE
- - ---- ---
(plus phone number optional)
1069 Edmund+1302 Van Buren Ch
651-644-8413 ,�
V-�—
!�'S � c�9t� ;x 6,:nR„ � 3 Z
,, �,
s ���� `� �.��� �.
! v ti ( 1"I AS
��fi' ID�S' � Z y '���5
��� ��iF� //lGIYCt( ,+1✓E '
; �r lUfa6 fhemn� �iV�.
f„ I� o c�n c 5%�1� •
lG , t� '�lo a ,-l- �
� �3 �r-�S '� c�C
s ���- .�.��r
Z
ivb� tiarl - l .,e
,.If- N ('o. �
-T--
; ���� r . ,�,�� ��,
, r � , , �
E�irrau� ve
'�-`��>.- -
0 —oS�7�j�,�
4-10-9
� /
� ��i /�%�'��
u ��l��
z �o 04
��`'
� ��_ c�
�--, — ( P
.--� V �
a // JJ
��) J'
f `�/
_( �i �f�/
�� 1 / (i j /
�� Y
�
W i a �
�
� ��� ��
t�. �( 04
_tl_o`}
-�• //-� �/
�i-1�-n9
Yfi t�
�t—c�r
��/� a�
� �-�
' i-o�
_!� � �
� p,;
,✓_ �/— ��
�=�'1� �' i
�� ,
�7
���!l-69
. ` "�
- _ �, s-. ._.�,
`� y
����
I understand the Holbrook situation regarding the property they own at 1069 E �1ve' '
and support their request for a duplex zoning variance. -� S �'��
NAME (printedl
.
ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
(plus phone number optional)
F�i_Rdd_Rdi'�
� � �
Chris Holbrook 1069 Edmund+1302 Van Buren Chris Holbrook 4-10-9
— �_-
0
�� �,��,
a_y K^.
_0 5-_ os�j�
Even side of Thomas Avenue
7032 Thomas--- --- ---- 1/acant duplex (Natioc�al Realt�r Guild-sigrt 65�-343-�304} -
#1
#2
1042 Thomas
't046 Thomas
1048 ihomas
1054 Thomas
1056 Thomas
1060 Thomas
#1
##2
1064 Thomas
1066 Thomas
#1
#2
1072 Thomas
1078 Thomas
1080 Thomas
#1
#2
#Ki
1090 Thomas
#1
#2
#:i
#4
Yes
hto
Yes
Yes
Yes
n.a.
n.a.
Mark Nelson (o)
Briefly fried speaking to man there who haies rentais, period.
Would not falk to me. Assumed owner i om Jugovich?
Jud'+th Jackson (o)
Tom Pick (r)
Bref Haziett (o)
(dup(ex)
not home 3x LF
not home 3x L�
Yes Tia Yang {o)
---- (dup[ex)
Yes James Cummings (a)
not home 3x LF
Yes Deryck Milier (o)
not home 3x LF
---- (owmer listed as Frank Garrett, Bloomington)
Yes Ureathea Robinson (r}
Yes Sheryi Moody (r)
Yes Earl Dillon (r)
---- (owner iis#ed as LeRoy �IcGowan, Roseviife)
Yes Eugene Smith (r)
Yes Alvin Hopkins (r}
Yes Biil Tager (r)
not home 3x
Odd side of Thomas Avenue
1033 Thomas ---- Universai Sign lVlanufacturing shop
1041 Thomas Yes Pefer Kiritschenko (o)
1045 Thomas Yes Ntohamed Elrasheedy (o)
1047 Thomas not home 3x L�
tOb3 Thomas
1057 Thomas
1061 Thomas
1065 Thomas
9 d69 Thomas
1073 i homas
1081 Tnomas
1085 Thomas
No [+Aan would not talk fo me at ali.
not home 3x LF
Yes Luke Stevens-Royer
Yes Jenna Sfevens-Royer
Yes Josh tNagnuson (o}
not home 3x��F
not home 3x LF
Yes Candy Lord (o)
Yes Thai Cha {r) (PHA}
Assumed owne� Larsy Dunn?
� �
09-638
�� "" � ':-�,
� vw_�
� 9—crs 3y�
EErer� side of Edm€snd A��nu2
it336 Ed;rtund --�-- (d�aplex} {o4vn�a° {is��ci l�avia
#1 °(es 3rane! i`rY (r)
Yes �i€c�:eie it�tan3�ss (rj
#�2 Yes �rair� '�ripiccnia {r)
1Q42 �drnund °fes €�ose Thul {o)
9046 Edmund Yes iCathy �=1�ischhacicer {oj
1050 Edm�snd Yes Gladston� Brown (r)
�054 Edmund Yes �ao Yang {o}
i058 Edmund not iaome 3x LF
1062 Edmund
10&6 Edrnund
147€? Ed�nund
�476 Edmund
i078 Edmund
Yes fliga Perez {o)
--- Vacant {�e�riax s'sgn)
Yes Tim PJiorrow (o)
Yes Nluriai Dunneite (o}
not home 3x LF
Fier�2rna, ��tpis�
Odd side of Edmund Avenue
1033 Edmund Yes Cheryi Flefschhadcer (o)
1043 Edmund ---- {duplex) {owner listed David Herrema, Mpls}
#1 nof home 3x tF
#2 Yes Jennifer Breise (r)
1047 Edmund not home 3x LF
1049 Edmund Yes Yaneque Waiker (o}
iQ55 �dmund Yes Amy Conwett (o)
1057 Edmund Yes Amanda Jacobson (o�
1065 Edmund not home 3x LF (Don't think they like me `cause I outbid them}
5069 Edmund
'1073 Edmund
#1
#2
1077 Edmund
#1
#2
#�i
#4
Yes Chris Holbrook
-- (duplex)
Yes Oscar Cendejas (o) (See prior letter of approvat)
nof home 3x LF
— (owner listed Lieu (nvestments, Oakdale)
Yes Kadee Chang {Kon Vang) {r)
Yes Enrique Gonzalez — Mgr. {r)
Yes Teng Xiong (Nhia Xiong} (r}
nof home 3x LF (Chhadu Chhun)
Even side jpartial) of Lafond Avenue lonly),
1064 Lafond not home 3x LF
10SS Lafond — Vacanf (�ndemned?) {Owner (isfed Pauf Beimoniej
1072 Lafond Yes Ana L. Pena (r}
t076 Lafond not home 3x LF
�
�
�€�
�[F
,i�j
" •':i
3€is
�
� z___ _
F -
i i
��'��
3�
� '�S E
..�
' � '�
t
�
;
�
§ � a_ _S �_ a L` 6� 4Y
,z5:$¢'T.?Io59��i`�k�dl="s 8 Im
\'
'�l _ :
. °; ' �
a
j � � � i
3 N ��� �� � `S $ F ��
_ � "sfra �=o�� . ?: a' ° c:
';� S S'�i€€€{yE ;E� F$'�g i' t --- �
E E$ 3k ��fi3s: •°-:• °`8 "� @ �
w � ' t `� 4 ��`� � �1�'
?. `a f �' ' ° E : `� l
o, s '� . ��3 ' i
� : �t . �J
s �� #
� ��
�
� Ho �����������������������������
c
. , . ,4, �
� o ,� -0 _ - ��
T s �
�6 � 9 <I m
��6 Q
r � �ne Z
o - Y � � _ �ITu ._
„� � N
�
8; _ � 1 n � �,..,, _ = (�
me s � ass � ?T
s . a� ,��� � < ��(�
� - - � 7uti. 5 V'
� r Y p J `
+-.8 a- •N \£� y-
� , � z /`
J - ��
�F F' L O .
p� �r�Y'� C � t J �
y�. �[ �GC�'A
N �� * � �, � a ��� £p
�`Y �� 5" J IP �J �3 �S>o- S
.:�§9 zV r o �s aRTi.'^i
m n � � nll�
�
��� �---. o-.5z1 — ��T - �
}.,H�c{---e..ti�e.�-�o.s�.a.��P,�,} °
� � 4
�N
w'o � A2
"� � ¢ ` -
�Y' � r �
F��j
i�:
�
6
� =;�3 i= �ie ?3 '"
t ' _
sa_,a xFaese ss zassaaa
- :�:� d -• - _
�
a
;
;
i
3
2�
•�p
4
i
�
1'
g e �
4� �
�N
i e''�st?`'-`I: �
F �]� g�� �
� i����
: s �
§ <..-."a""� 'r--
te _' s t /�
.J--
d �
� ' S � �
z O
, �=
� A 6 & o
q �
€ _; r �
€ � � o `
� �
� .�
� � �
� � f �
�
��������f €
-'--.�aa� �
r -}��
� �
v V � R
-� v . �1
'i n �� �=V.
I^ � ` � C
Q 0 e
�j_ZO SIl i ti ,LO SZl
— ----- -- �
� %'\
I � .
dy b >
2 .,� ` �¢
L ^yi j � Z
�o �
6 MC q C ' I w
d E b ^ p
N �°. ^Hi v � V
¢
b ° ti I . 1
�O
n � ` 0 � F
� e ;,� .LL
.r rA .rszP i ti
.L6'02 v .L � �
ti• �
ti
rv N ` ' ' 3
.E6"IlS __ : T
- O �fb'IZ! `` W
M e ? q q .°. �2 � ¢
s ._ �n h �. I a�.� � ..
�
�
� �
- �B3� ? 2 F �§ ?E
j j�ia ;' �'s 9 ! •`e
} - '
i069 Edmund Pefition drive April 1d-14. 2009 Votes Cast Tativ
��� _ �
09��m . -
Q9-"�°���
Yes is suppart for our variance requesf (see accampanying signature on pe�ition)
Signed Yes Votes=62; Verbal No or No Opinion=2
# shown numbers behind address are properties with 2, 3 or 4 units
(o) or {r} behind name is owner or renter who lives fhere, LF is for Left Flier
— is for Vacant buildings or distanf ownership (no vote attainab(e)
Within 350 feet = 72 Prooertv Addresses = 93 Units123 Units Couldn't Be t�eachedl
In addifion are Building ormers i cau)d not reach to attain vote=74
(due tfl being Vacant, and/or i2E0, and/or Gondemned, andJor out-of-cify awner}
Odd side of Charles Avenue (onivl
1043 Charles — Vacant REO (Kimm Pastrana agency sign 6't2-824-2272)
1U45 Charles Yes Vanessa Warbler (o)
1447 Charles Yes Heidi Hartwig (o)
1053 Charles Yes Shukri (?) (r)
1057 Charfes Yes Charlmars Azonwu (o)
1061 Charfes Yes �(liam Johnson (o}
1065 Charles --- Vacant REO (Coldwell Banker sign + St. Paut Condemned sign)
1071 Cha�tes Yes Jared Slvenson (r}
1075 Cha[ies Yes Safvador Sancf�ez (o}
1083 Charles --- Vacant REO (Structural Ingegrity sign 612-331-9003}
Even side of Leacinaton Parkwav North fonlvj
546 Lexington Yes Bruce A. Larson (o)
550 lexingfon not home 3x LF
554 Lexingfon Yes Jahn Purvis (o)
558 Le�ongfon not home 3x LF
562 Lewngton —(owner listed as Corren
#1 not home 3x LF
(nvestments, Eau C(aire)
#2 Yes C, Bush (r}
#3
##4
568 Lexington
#1
#2
#3
#4
576 Lexington
584 le�angtor�
#1
#2
b88 Le�ngton
592 Le�dngton
604 Le�angton
616 lexington
not home 3x LF
Yes fMark Wiberk (r}
--- (awner listed as Francis Vggiano, Mahtomedi)
Yes Rich Wagner {r)
Yes Rich Chutarack (r}
Yes Louis Rogers (r}
Yes Johnathon dordan (r)
Yes Terri Oliver (r)
Yes Sylvia Pryor (r)
Yes Kerri Paften (r)
Yes Sandy Olson
— Vacant duplex (owner �isted as Hassan i'etieh, 8ethesda, i4tQ}
-- n.a. (however, owner of 562 Lex apparently just purchased?)
--- n.a.
Yes John Ntercado {o)
not home 3x �F
noi home 3x LF
Yes David Wamke (o}
�
�
�
�
�c�.ri�.�z.r•�
,.;� :�.a: -.
.}:� ;��
� �,.�
09-os�,�,�
— — - -- - - -- -_ - - -- -- - ---- ---- -
— Heilo Mr. Hardw+ck. 1 am Chris Holbrook. My arife Angie and i formed an LLG cailed Nolfxoo(e?roperties,
which has p�chased exactiy one property in our brief hisfory, at 1069 Edmund Ave. f received your Ietter
today (42) stating your infe�rt to deny our zoning variance request (at the 4-6 hearing) for that property, to
be a legal duptex instead of �e currenfly regisfered 1 family. I wouid ask thaf you reconsider. Piease cail
me at home 651�44-8413 or cell 612-&t6-7965 at your convenience to discuss.
R�arding your oppositiact poinEs 13, which are stated in your letter as reasons for dertial:
1. The pro can/canrrot be put to rea�na6te use under the strict provisions of the c�de.
a. Your sentences about whaf we state we were led to believe are correcL We are not
asking for sympatfiy because of our lack of due diligence in verifying zoning. We can
rent this house fo one huge family o� a group of coltege fiends just as weit as to two
smatter famities, whict� we'd prefer. Two smali families is simpiy ou� prefesence because
they `keep things up' better.
b. The sentence regarding minimum lot size is atso correct. This lof does nof ineet dupiex
lof size, thus our variance requesk Tfiere are several similar situations in this
neighborhood.
a i believe in point one you misstated fhat our property does not meet legal off sVeet paved
parking minimum requirements, which you restate irt (tem 3 as the `preferred' is three, but
fhe 'minimum' is two. This property does have 2 paved parking spots ofif #he alley in
back.
d. This property does curren8y have two fuii sets of utilities and we feei thus lends to
appropriate usage for two family.
2. The pligM of theland owrieri�s not due to circumstances unrque fo fhis property, and these
a�cumstanc2s were nof createU by tHe homeowner.
a. It is unique due to its pre-existing condition, which inGudes fhirigs like duai utilities and
� three entrances. 7hus we feel the existing uniqueness warrants our reasonabie variance
request
3. The proposed variarnx is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with
fhe heatfh, safety, Comfort, morals and we/fare of the inhabitants of fhe Cify of Sf. Paul.
a. Spirit and intent can be subjective, and we find no reasonable argument that health,
safety, comfoR, morais, or wetfare woutd be comp�omised with our v�ia�oe request.
b. Re; A. Lot size does not meet requiremerrts. This is tn�e that tliis crondition is nat met
and thus our request for a legai variance. (4831 sq ft vs 5000-6000 sq ft)
c. Re: B. Gross Living Area: This requirement is exceedecf by 15%+ (1824 sq ft vs 1500 sq
ft)
d. Re: C. Off street parking: 3 prefeRed, 2 minimum. Condition met with 2.
e. Re: D. Exterior changes: None.
f. Re: E. Conversion to dupiex without prior perrrtit variance. You ara correct, tnis was
obviousty done at some poiM severai years ago before our purchase.
g. Fte: F. Economic fieasibility study. Pro Forma was submitted to Karen Zacho 2+ weeks
ago, is ihere something mare yau'd like to see? Pfease advise.
We feei our request is humbie. Our intent is to keep the city irrformed and be a lawfut and compiiant
owrter. We are responsibie cifizens of St Paui and only wish ta improve neighborhoods and properties
through tong term irrvestment and care. Ptease forvvard this response to your letter to the rest af your
committee and please consi�r gra�ting our variance r�uesf. I look forvvaM to speaking with you, and
mee4ing you on Aprii 6 at 3 pm. Thank you –
Chris and Angie Hoibrook
Dba Holbrook Properties lLC
• �
09-638
m
>
0
U '� N
�Q O �
m@m
C �
�mo
� ..
mgm
C C =
R 0 OI
m � >
mt �
Y0�
m� �
r �
ti
_ m m
mma
0 N �
a �a
6
�� �
U
W��
� � G
Y � m
a 0 y
m y 6
y 0 Q
N
y � m
� m m
L O R
m 0 �
N� �
m
C 'N m
Iq 3 �
m « «
w
N �'�.
N 0 r
0 ` m
m C C
m N m
� 0
0t d
� O m
>.
m � o
c
�^�m
N m �
W � 0
'33
O
�
m�c
�N O '�
E � V m
o � N �
u
`o m��
«cmo-
` O « b
m U L �
�Na
o.� o
C p
� o m W
'` N m n
J`_ 3 �
� � O O
N �
- O C R
C
� O>
a � 3
W 0 m 0
���
� � N 3
m'� o a
L ? L n
0
S �C W O
t m m.
W E M �
3 m « �
O C T N
C 0 �,_
7 �
T V t
m 'E o >.
� � � N
W
Q
W
a
W
_
�
�
�
W
3
m
m�
m
3 �
9 Q
m �
L 3
O m
3 �
0 0
� ml,
L
H �' O
c a
� W R
m �
_a
3 3 �
On
m m
s � m
O p W
n^�.
M i 'p
« U j
c o E
�3a
L y LL1
�3�
3 Y�
O 0
N �
W m C
� r m
RR�
aQT
m
L m m
f1
� RL
c ° c
s m �-
m C N
� m c
� N
C L �
Y�y
`m m m`
a m o_
U
C F
� ¢ N
)��
a� m o
C
'C O �
� 0 4
� O
o � ¢
C m (q
� m L
ma ^
� Wo
m L m
t N R � a_ N
O � N �
T`N N m
2 O� d
W m L d
O C a
�DNa`
c m
F'� c
z�
Q C W t
=mm
c��o
� V � O
C.
C m
w� � �
N w m �
a c 3 =
LYm�
� � � U
a m�
. � m U
C!1 m L y
o�av
. �% ` R
U m m y
L Q � �
�moa
� a �
m o
� o � �
tQ O m w
' G N
3 U U �
R
C � W 0
L y
C m
U ti O L
« m � W
> X 3 O
m 0 y �
m m.o m
n3
m . m
3 ^mm
n�`
0 or-
0 m Q U
n o 'o
w m
�ana
�1 O Ri U
ooTeo
>` ' m S
m ° m 3
m �
0 K'0'U
wmo.c
N C m O
ma�
m ? a �
O ti R Y
m L N j
R
m O 3 L
Na��
am�E
C N L: tl
3 C 0 3
��� R
W � J OI
� o y c
[O O._ O
OII�T
m
- a O
m
O .
� �
V
R y
O �
m�
C N
m m
9 �
'o� m
m z
N ;
iN
0 0
v a
m 3
E Zo
� �:
m '
0 N
r
m�
N m
��
N N
m �
a o
3
N �
N 9
C
(�J N
m .-.
� o
0 -
ma
C �+
� o
V
> y
� N
i Q
Q �
a` !?
T
3 � U �
O � C �
N
O T .� R
.n n � o_
rna�o
C � C ti
ti � N Q
0 � N O
mE-
Em;°c
�om
o-°xn
f/1 � 0 N
o � o �
33
m9 W O
y a«
� . C
��N�
O� y-
ammo
� 0.=� O
T3�r
G O 0 {Q m
mmwEY
R � Y �
ma�
O � N ro @
0 m �/1 m
C t � N � �
m ), m O vl
_�3i.+
m m
� � � � 3
�
�j.�Lt
.. � T" Oi
m �L-c
L 00 tCt
sa�e�
m
N r
0 0
co�
o,-.E
a�t
� d
� O �
m m
`00
0
Q a �
>�.�
O
Qo�
�ms
N p U
`a > m
O y N
t6 0
o ¢ ° c
t6 3 d �
o �
O } � y
�
o c � o
C m m p
O � � m
W �
C � 2t0
s- Q�n
R m N R
F B m
O ma�
Z o1 m 3
N p,p
m � 3
Y . dL
`� N (?
ui m � s
F- o .. 3
m G 0
� m N
3
W mQt
Q E m 0
W m�m:=
a3-
N
>
m
�
a
= "
`m
m c
L R
�o E
m �`
r
c a
E°
H a
m R
m
N N
`m�
E �
� O
m �
W =
m
O Q II II
O N
2 m
z 3
U '�
�
N
E�
�
� T
C
T�
� `o
C
0
N
=m'
m
O
p }
W T%
OJ
> �
W �
�
Q
az
� O
¢ W
� F- a
J �
O
�° Wa `oi
� � m
Qa �
�N �
Q�o
� �-- C
Q W �
W ¢ O
Q O m
Z W 'j
�¢ 0
�} 0 a
F�3
CL O `N
5 yr«
W � 0
¢a>
J � N
amm
N � m
� L 6
oa
� C �
(0 'p 3
a m a
�p r _
E
�
_ �,
3 i m
0�3
m R N
`0 3 m
�p R O
L y
° �53
O m
oa�
O � C
N m
� � O.
3 m
m � R
q (J L
� 3 m
O �
�Y .
¢ O =
- i L
a
� � o
Eoa
W `p3
oam
m �
3
N
C
stZ
3 t N
m O �p
3 aa
W
0
}
R C
a m
�
�m
m R
a>
� N
R M
m
N �
E
3 O
O L
T �
m o
N
T i
A m -
3 0 U
� � m
? U �j
C r
h U Q
p 0 N
G p�
m�c
N i/+ �
m U 6
� m �
m
% � R
a
o-= m
a' 3c-
o «.
'033
o'`�
« p ni
U d V
U � ro
m ,.
0 3 m
T m d
amr.
p �L j
�~ �
X R ¢
m3y
m�o
R �
t
R C G
C T0
� S
R 0 «
3es
� dN
mm�
o�m
0
�- m E
L « q
f- R Ol
0
N
N
N
m
C y
N .
� j
U�
N�
c m
m Q
m
� R
O Y
U
a 3
C
m
��
S
0 �
N L
c 0
O�
a
m m
C
� iN
� N
mE
O U
�
(Q W
c �
U N
3 m
0
} r
m.:
N '�
� N
a R
�N £
m
tQ c
m
� o
O �
LL
m C
3 X
m m
O 0-
av
R 0
_ �
�`o
NN
N �
N� O
m3 c
m
a�
r °
0 y
O C
N
na
s a
o m
n
0 0.
= S
� N
O m
. O
i
r O
�, U
m
0
03
m
L
U �
N Y
�
� O
n
m fl-
� N
N -p
o �
m -a
r �
�
m 9
oW
�9 W
��
0
3 �
N C
O
m R�
T 3 �
C =
R N �
C N `-�
s '
m � C
v` a W
R=R
>
Cr W
��- c
R yQ N
C � m
� U �'
3
�,�a
m a "'
� CL
���
mm�n
0
m � Q
a L m
O
0
t
�
�
m
v
m
�
N
ms
O �
ta
m °
N
�
N�
U
N �
3
O �
�
o CJ
� N
M y
C m
0 0]
Ea
m�
> V
c
3 N
�. m
� �
TW
R �
�x
�
s
m
�
O
a
m
C
C
W
J m � N @
C5 y ` � N
mvc� . s
F
,�' _
� ,.
ys �
, � .
ti5 �
0
y a m m ,�
� � 0 i m
��vwan� m j
= N � � � ��
� V � m m �
Z � t N. � �
O rom a`o �
C
m
in ma o„m,'O
Q T y
� � � m "E W
d T � y �
m C y N � �
O i � m
m � O Q
6U 2m
O O O s '
`m `m a'a
E£s�
� 3 6a
C C � �
0 0 m �
U (J U T
N 0 m ^
X X X
W W W Q
O y
° ° `o
N
C C U C
m 3 � �
y � S W
c
m � O �
R�p)U
r��a
� i � R
1 m
O � � �
N C 0 >
c � W �
m m
m�3`°
c := m
Em c�
m
�=a�
w c c ..
� m � m
a
-
C m � N
`°
N m m N
N �' m�
3
C � O r
N m C �
G ' > �
m E
C 0 0 m
ccno
�E
O> O
m c a 3
GJ p p �
LEL%
��9U
O
O
s 0 m m
2 iEct
O
� Y
0 O
_ 9
N
� L
C r
y
vo�
m � o
3 m �
' C -
m
N
o � 3
H m O
m � d
m �
m m O
� t w
m m
Y �
C O �
�m
o c �
a y o
q O O
d � N
U
m m O
. C L
m i L
Em -�
o c m
N 0 �
R
� m
Q 3�
s a '3
m W m
3 �3
�
w � i.
W �
0
C
�=m
0 �
L L >
� a=n
� 0 � m
o � m a
� � p� u
m O C �
C � N �
n
� ' o � m
mQ�
L i � «
m m;�
3N
x n'a m
m 3 �l
n��a
J C > 0
v>=._.
a - C m
�C� Nm
m
E o � m
m 3 � LL
N m °
�
m am ^.�
{ c r �1
Nm�
3 R «"
3
O � 3,p
Q m m m
�an
m � 0 m
- N V d
- c °
3 c Q
a
�R�
N > m N
O t F
N m
m a 3 �
O X -
0 W
�`dN
m � = a
U �
-0 9 �
m w m Q
m c m
L O � r'
y R .�..r
N �� �
w
3 m o
O � 0 �
�` �° " T � h
0 N C y/
6 m N .L
o s y ,,,
a` � m �
�
N
a c�i
n�
�
L t6
•-• ?
� �
C �
3 °' a c
c « c (FS D
m W C � �
3'm m � X� .
j R • C fl.
� m � Q
s E N m B�
a � E � 3 �
N O mt � 6.
€;,oe m o
o ? °- m � +-'
� O 09 Q Q3
o � � 7
o m> c O 6
a a � o = �
R � m � � '�
� 0t � Y
m � 3r C Q
° m fl-� � Q
o m a� m 7
y � C � �
(J l� N � _ �
� f..
�.L U � �Q
y 0
� 0 C m
� R U �
Y ^ 0 m
m � 3 �
a s m
m m
� t 3 m
'mm�
° a ¢ m
Q
D 0 « y
m a ° m
� ro m 3
Ll.�
�
�
�
�
�
� �
�
O
O.
O
♦� .a
Y/ � .
1�1� C w`
� W .
� Q
Q
N
�_
Q
v
N
Q
z
� �
� -�33��
� �3S•
_ _ _ APPLIGATI.ON F_Qft APPEAL_ --
�
Deparhrsent of Safely and Irtspectians
375 Jackson Stree� Suite 220 �� ���
Saint Pau� MN SSIOI-I806
651-26(r9008
APR 1 � 2009
►_���■ra�, �
wc
Address �302 �F,1 ��re,� �.rP _ �
City � St.�� z�P�51 Daytimephone�il'�`�¢
Name of owner (f different) Ck"�r 6IZ-��G�?�fa5 1
VY1�v1u17C��-hN�SO Cc�vJ��0.^.�.. V�c�""C
PROPERTY
LQCATION
�
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
� Board of Zoning Rppeals
under the provisions of Chapter
made try the p7� � t
on �O�r�� rc
�,
� City Couneil
�-
200�. File
�9-638
�ee �f -?�35 � _ � _ - -
TaRtatroe he rmg date
S�� � `� '
of the Zoning Code, to appeai a decision
�--70< <jcc, 41-�eb� `t
: D`i-°43`iR9
GROUNDS FOR /APPEAL: Expiain why you feef there has tseen an error in any requirement, permi4,
dec�sion or refusal made by an administ�aUve official, or an error in fact, procedure r finding made by the
Board af Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission. � Y � ��� �
S-e e e s ee� ,
S��t;►
�
Appiicani's
Date - �5 Cifyagenf
�
Chris Holbrook
From:
Settt:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
elofi
:�.,
�I' 9-6.. ,�'7°Z
Chris Hoibrook [minnesotachris@comcastnet]
Tuesday, April 14, 200310:72 AM
'ward4@cistpaul.mn.us'; 'wardl @ci.stpaui.mn.us'; 'john.hardwick@ci.stpaui.m�.us'
'astric[7pc@yahoo.com`
1069 Edmund Duplex
Attachments: 9069 Flier lefter.doc; 1069 Petition tist.doc; 1069Edmund_ProFortna.pdf; 1069 Apri12 notes.doc
[lear Russ, Samaritha, Mefvin, Acooa, and John (and Tate):
fvly wife and i believe (but are yet undeaded) that we shoWd appeal to a city council meeting the unfavorable zoning
decision made on Aprii 6 for our request for our new prope�ty at 1�9 Edmund Ave. However, we realize without ihe
understarMirtg and support of you all we wiU be unsuccessfu( again and lose another $435 fiting fee, which we really
can'f afford ii we stand no chance at tttis. Couid you tet me know if you are lypically againsf the type of request Pm
maidrig, or if you see our side and we'B have a chance? We must decide and fife by Thursday, Aprif 16.
i'm atiaching a lefter fhaf i wrote and gave #o ail residerrts wiihin 350 radius over ihe last week, in fhe form of a one
page flier. This letter e�lains our story and situation. On the backside of this one page flier to our new neighbors 1
also induded to them our Lot Site Pian, Blodc Site Pian. Neighborhood Site Wan, Flmr Plaris of my 6uii�ng, website
Ramsey County Listing Struc�ure Description (iwo fa[nily), Properly Tax Statemerrts for previous 6 years (property
dassfication 2-3 units on aI! tax statements), and the 2008 MLS lisfing (another piace zoning listed has be� multi-
familyj. These documents are ail on file with the zoning office as welt (part of our original application}.
Pm atso athadiirig fhe resuits of my petition, fior which i have 62 signafures in Support (and 2 verbats againstj.
�
On April 6 the BZA split vote 5-2 to derry our request to allow the lot size variance usage. Primary reasons against �
were lot size guideline, ladc of finar�ciai doa�mertiatiat, and ladc of neighborhood input For some reason fhe
committee had not received the submitted documents on financials and neigh6ofiood input Two men asked about
these things and ended up wting for us {Courhiey and Wilson). The rest of the panel asked no ques6ons that I can
recail and voted against, wfiich was in line with the staff guideli�e recommenda5on given by Mr. Hardwidc.
Pm attaching our Pro Forma financial comparison sheet {scanr�ed into a PDF) on the rerrtai options for estimate for this
house. This was originaliy submitted March 19 fo the zoning office. Please take to heart that we truly do not befieve
we can meef our debt obiigations without this variance.
In addition to the attached neighborhood input resutting from my petition drive, which is brand new irrfortnation, the
committee had also not received the resuftslrecommendation of the Districl7 Piar�ing Council prior to tF1e BZA
meeting. Fhere was a neighborhood meeting fieid that we aifended on March 31 with Tate Castilio. (no one attended
and thus Distrid 7 abstained from arry recommendation}.
We wish the committee had received fhe supporfing iraiorrnation and documentation to review ahead of time, but
perhaps the stwrt time iine caused these misunderstan�ngs. This is my first experience with a zoning variance
process, so I too have been caugM off guard by how this alt warks. We too only got 1 business day notice that we
were uNikely to be approved due to the issues above. i tried fo qcricMy respond fo the concems, arrcl wili also aitach
my rougfi draft notes from the April 2 email I sent to zoning cammissiorrer John Hardwick about it
Your advice, input, and recommendations are requested. Thank you.
Chris and Angie Holbrook
'(302 Van Buren Ave.
651-64�4�413
� �
4/15/2009