96-110Presented By
� Referred�To
CITY
Council File # ���
Green Sheet # v� 3 � y
RESOLUTION
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
- — - - - --- — - -
Committee: Date
1
2 WHEREAS, Mary Lou Trumble, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 462357 and Saint
3 Paul Legislative Code § 64.400, duly petitioned to rezone the properiy commonly known as
4 1354 BII2MINGI-IAM STREET (east side between ivy & Arlina on Streets), and being legally
5 described as subj to st; ex S 5 ft; N 67 ft& W 165 ft of Lot 13, Block 6; Rogers and
6 Hendricks Acre Lots No. 2, Saint Paul, Ramsey County Minnesota, from R-3 and RT-1 to
7 RT-2 for the purpose of permitting reuse of the subject properiy as a triplex; and
8
9 WIIEREAS, on October 5, 1995 the Planning Division certified the petition of Mary
10 Lou Trumble as having been consented to by at least two-thirds of the owners of the azea of
11 the property to be rezoned, and further having been consented to by at least 67% of the
12 owners of the propearty situated within 100 feet of the total contiguous property within one
13 yeaz preceding the date of the perition; and
14
15 WHEREAS, on November 20, 1995 the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning
16 Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of considering Mary Lou Truxnble's
17 rezoning petition and at the conclusion thereof and pursuant to Saint Paul Administrative
18 Code § 107.03, moved to recommend that the Saint Paul Planning Commission deny the
19 petition; and
20
21 WHEREAS, on December 1, 1995 the Saint Paul Planning Coxnmission considered the
22 rezoning petition of Mary Lou Tnunble and in Planning Commission Resolution No. 95-86,
23 moved to recommend that the Saint Paul City Council deny the petition; and
24
25 WHEREAS, notice of public hearing before the Saint Paul City Council on the said
26 rezoning petition was duly published in the official newspaper of the City of Saint Paul and
27 notices were duly mailed to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or
28 partly within 350 feet of the property sought to be rezoned; and
29
30 WHEREAS, A public heazing before the City Council was scheduled for December
31 20, 1995 but, at the request of the petitioner, the public hearing was laid over for hearing
32 until December 27, 1995 at which time all interested parties were heard; and
33
34 WHEREAS, at the December 27, 1995 public hearing, the City Council considered the
35 petition, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Plam�ing Commission as
36 well as the records and testimony submitted during the public hearing;
37
38 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon a11 the files, testimony and
39 records produced herein pertaining to the petition of Mary Lou Truxnble, the Council of the
40 City of Saint Paul make the following findings of fact and resolution:
41
42 1. The rezoning is not in conformance with the City's comprehensive plan.
43 One of the Physical Objectives of the District 2 Plan, #5 p.6, is, °to
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
control density of use". In addition, one of the Land Use concerns cited
in the plan is high density/low density conflicts, #2 p.6.
2. The Housing Policy for the 1990s and the Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy encourage owner-occupied single family homes and
duplexes. The applicanPs property is not owner occupied.
q(.- l�o
- - -3. - -The-rewniag-is-not-consisteat aud�:oa�patible with-Yk�e-�ua3�-the-sxbject ----
azea has developed. The properiy is in an azea used primarily for one
and two-family homes and is appropriately zoned for those uses. The
applicant's request would result in "spot" zoning in a zone inappropriate
to the azea as there is no other similazly zoned property withiu the azea.
The rezoning would allow a higher density residential use than is
desirable for the azea and is not in keeping with the existing character of
the azea. In addition, current zoning allows reasonable use of the
properry.
3. City zoning staff concluded that the proposed rezoning does not meet
the triplex conversion guidelines approved by the Saint Paul Planning
Commission for applications to rezone to a RT-2. The conclusions and
recoxnmendations of City Staff are contained in Saint Paul Planning
Commission Resolution No. 95-86 which shall be attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as a finding by this Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon these findings, that the petition of Mary
Lou Trumble contained in Saint Paul Planning Commission file #95-232 to rezone the
property commonly known as 1354 BIRMINGHAM STREET (east side between ivy &
Arlington Streets), and more particularly described as subj to st; ex S 5 ft; N 67 ft& W 165
ft of Lot 13, Block 6; Rogers and Hendricks Acre Lots No. 2, Saint Paul, Ramsey County
Minnesota, from R-3 and RT-1 to RT-2, in order to establish a triplex is, for the reasons set
forth and incorparated herein, in all things DENIED; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolufion
to Mary Lou Trumbie, the Saint Paul Zoning Administrator and the Saint Paul Planning
Commission.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Appr
By:
by City Attorney
-�i/ _
Approved by Mayor for Submission to
Co 1
B,��N� `I�: .iGr`�'•
Adopted by Council: Date
Adoption Certified by Counci Secretary
q�-��o
NUOFFlCFJCOUNCIL DATE INIT7ATED •
-��onin c.A.o __ GREEN SHEE N 23664
'EflSON & PHONE - - INRIAVDATE , INRIAUDATE -
, , i . Q DEPAp'iMENT DIPE � CffY COUNdL
�, ' '- ' ' _ A$$IGN � CT'ATTORNFV � CITV CLEFK
NUYBER FOH O BUDGET DIFECTOR � FlN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR.
iN CAUNCiL AGENOA BY (DA7� pp�JTING
� , — n � ' OflDEH � MpYOR (Ofl ASSI5TANT) �
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Resolution denying rezoning application of Mary Lou Trumble.
Introduced under suspension.
RECOMMENDAT10N5: Approve (A) o� Re]ec1
_ 7LANNINGCAMMISSION _ (
_ CIH CAMMITfEE _ _
_ $TAFF _ _
_ DISTRICTCOURT _ _
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL O&IECi7VE?
PERSONAL SERVICE CONTfiACTS MUST ANSWER TNE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
1. Has this person/firm ever worked untler a���1 tor this departrnent?
YES NO
2. Has ihis person/flrm ever been a ciry employee?
YES NO
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee?
YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attech to green sheet
ITtATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Wlro, What, When. Where, Why�:
Minn. Stat. 15.99 requires home rule charter cities to state in writing
the reasons for denying a rezoning application.
Assures compliance with state law.
DISADVANTAGES IF APPAOVED:
None anticipated.
Failure to state reasons for denying zoning application in writing could
result in the unintended approval of the application by operation of law
TO7AL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ —� COST/NEVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
n/a r�/a
FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER
FINANC�AL INFORMATION. (EXPLAIN)
al G-C�o
city of=saint paui
pia►�ning commission resolution
file n�mber 95-86
- -- -
,�^ -- ---- -
(iClte December 1, 1995
R'HEREAS, MARY LOU TRUMBLE, file f{95-232 has petitioned to rezone 1354
BIRMINGHAM STREET (east side between ivy & Arlington Streeu) from R-3 and RT-1 to
RT-2 to establish a triplex; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
November 20, 1995, at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard
pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.400 of the
Saint Paul Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its
Zoning Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the
following fmdings of fact:
1. On balance, the rezoning is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The L,and
Use Plan states that the City will establish criteria to ailow sensitive reuse and
conversion of existing housing structures. The criteria will address density, lot
characteristics, structural chazacteristics, parking, and open space and neighborhood
impact. These criteria were developed and approved by both the planning commission
and the board of zoning appeals as the Duplez and Triplex Conversion Guidelines. The
applicant's ability to meet these guidelines is detailed in �f3 below.
One of the Physical Objectives of the District 2 Plan, #5 p.6, is, "to control density of
use". In addition, one of the Iand Use concems cited in the plan is high density/low
density conflicts, #2 p.6.
The F3ousing Policy for ihe 1990s and the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
encourage owner-occupied single family homes and duplexes. The applicant's property
is not owner occupied.
2. The rezoning is not consistent and compatible with the area has developed. The property
is in an area used primarily for one and two-family homes, and appropriately zoned for
those uses. The applicanYs request wouid result in "spot" zoning and a zone
inappropriate to the azea as there is no other similarly zoned properry within the azea.
moved by Marton
seconded by
i n favor Unanimous denial
against
°t(.-��a
Zoning File #95-232
Page Two of Resolution
The rezoning would allow a higher densiry residential use than is desirable for the area
and is not in keeping with the existing character of the area. In addition, current zoning
aIIows reasonable nse ofttse property: --" - -
3. The triplex conversion guidelines approved by the Planning Commission in 1992 state
that staff will recommend denial of applications to rezone to RT-2 unless the following
guidelines are met: .
a. Lot size of at Zeast I0, 000 square feet with a frontage of 50 feet.
This guideline is met. T'he total lot area is 27,000 square feet or .62 acres. The lot
has frontage on two streeu: 121 feet of frontage on Birmingham and 67 feet of
frontage on Winchell Street.
b. In case of existing houses, a gross Ziving area after completion of the conversion of _
at least 2,700 square feet for the three units.
This guideline is not met. The applicant stated that the total living area of the three
units is 2,416 square feet. The basement and first floor units are 988 square feet each
and the second floor unit is 440 square feet.
c. In case of existing houses, four off-street parking spaces (non-stacked) are preferred
and three spaces are a minimum requirement. New triplexes are required to provide
four off-street parking spaces. A site plan showing improved (durable, permanent,
dustless surface) parking spaces must be provided.
This guideline is met. There is ample space on the properry for four off-street
parking spaces. There is a two-car garage on the property and black top pazking pad
for additional cazs.
d. The property is located in a mixed density or mixed use neighborhood and not in a
homogeneous single family area or in an area where duplexes and triplexes are
already concentrated to the point of congesting neighborhood streets.
This guideline is not met. The property is located in an area of predominantly one
and two-family homes.
e. The unit must be inspected by the Fire Marshal's Office as part of the Cerlificale of
Occupancy program required for a11 residential structures with three or more units.
The applicant understands that the Fire Marshai's Office will conduct the certificate of
occupancy inspection if the rezoning is approved.
�
°��. --��o
Zoning File �195-232 ._
Page Three of Resolution
f. An economic feasibility analysis has been conducted for those cases where
economic hardship is claimed as one reason for the rewning request. Applicant
- shouTd provide ei3y sfaff with necessary inforination. -- — - . .
The appiicant states that the primary reason for the rezoning request is to lessen her
financial hardship. She states that she £iled bankruptcy (Chapter 13) on the house and
that rental income is not su�cient to cover the cosu of owning and maintaining the
house. The cost of gas/elecuic is $300 to $400 per month and the cost of water is
�500 every three months. The current loan on the house is $58,000 and the annual
taxes on the house are $1,598.
Staff does not believe that the applicant submitted su�cient information to make a
deter�ination as to whether an economic hardship exists since no information was
provided about the current monthly rent and expenses and how that situation would
change if a third unit were added. The applicant was asked to provide this
information but did not submit it with the appiication.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission that the
petition of MARY LOU TRUMBLE to rezone property at 1354 BIRMINGHAM STREET,
more particularly described as subj to st; ex S 5 ft; N 67 ft& W 165 ft of Lot 13, Block 6;
Rogers and Hendricks Acre Lots No. 2, from an R-3 and an RT-1 zoning classification to an
RT-2 zoning classification is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City and is
hereby recommended for denial.
DEPAR'1'�N'L OF PI.ANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELAPMENT
��� I �� �`
CfI'I' OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Cotem¢n, M¢yor
December 4, 1995
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
Division of Plmveing
25 WestFa.vth Street Telephone: 612-266-6.i63
Saint Pau1, MN 55702 Facsimile: 612-228-3314
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
December 20, 1995 for the following wning case:
Applicant:
File Number:
Purpose:
Address:
Legal Description
of Properiy:
Previous Action:
MARY LOU TRUMBLE
95-232
Rezone properry from R-3 (single family residential) and RT-1 (two-family
residential) to RT-2 (townhouse residential) to establish a triplex.
1354 Birmingham Street (east side between ivy & Arlingtnn)
subj to st; ex S 5 ft; N 67 ft& W 1b5 ft of Lot 13, Block 6; Rogers and
Hendricks Acre Lots No. 2
Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial, vote: 14-0, 12/1{95
Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial, vote: 8-0, 11/20/95
My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the
De�mber 13, 1995 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint
Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions.
Sincerely
Ka� � Q ���
dlez
City Planner
Zoning Section
cc: File #95-232
Mike Kraemer
Donna Sanders
NOTIC$ OF PUBLIC HEY►RING � - .
._ The.Saint Paul" City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, �
� December 20, 1995, at 3:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, City Iiall,
. to consider the application of Mary Lou 2rumble to rezone property fsomt:�IY-3
(single family residential) and RT-1 ([wo-family residential), to RT-2 (townk[a}yse
residential) to establisk a triplex at 1354 Birmingham Street least side betive0n ,
Ivy and Arlingtonj. _ � . _ � - � � � ;
� Date�: Becember 14, 1995 ° � � -- _ . . - - , . .
NANCY ANDERSON - " � -� � �' " ' - - � � ', �
Assistant Gity Gounetic$eczetary `,_ ' � =- � ° - " -
� _ , �eckh�.t�er 1&, 1995r) � ,.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOM{C D6VELOPMEN"I
CTTY OF SAII�T PAUL
Nosm CO[eman, Mayo�
December 11, 1995
Div'uian ofPlanning
15 West Faurlh Street
Satnr Paul, .N.N 55101
��-�lC�
Telephone: 612-266-6565
Facsimrle: 672-218-3374
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Zoning File #95-232: MARY LOU TRLIMBLE
City Council Hearing: December 20, 1995
PURPOSE: To consider rezoning property at 1354 BIRMINGHAM STREET from R-3 and RT-1 to
RT-2 to establish a triplex.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
ZONRQG COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
SUPPORT None.
OPPOSITION: The District 2 Planning Council voted to oppose the rezoning petition. Four letters
were received in opposition.
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
MARY LOU TRiJMBLE submitted a petition to rezone property at 1354 Birmingham Street. The
Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public heazing on the proposed rezoning on
November 20, 1995. The applicant addressed the committee. At the close of the public hearing, the
committee voted 8-0 to recommend denial to rezone to RT-2. The Planning Commission upheld the
Zoning Committee's recommendation for denial on a vote of 14-0 on December 1, 1995.
This proposed rezoning is scheduled to be heazd by the City Cou�cil on December 20, 1995. Please
notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have siides of the site presented at the public
heazing.
Sincerely,
�
Ken Ford
Planning Administrator
KF:kd
Attachments
cc: Ciry Councilmembers
r
city of saint paul
planning commissiai resolution
file number 95-86
�te December 1, 1995
WHEREAS, MARY LOU TRiJMBLE, file #95-232 has petitioned to rezone 1354
BIRMINGHAM STREET (east side between ivy & Arlington Streeu) from R-3 and RT-1 to
RT-2 to establish a triplex; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
November 20, 1995, at which all persons preseni were given an opportunity to be heard
pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.400 of the
Saint Paul Legistative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint PauI Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its
Zoning Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the
following fmdings of fact:
1. On balance, the rezoning is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The Land
Use Plan states that the City will establish criteria to allow sensitive reuse and
conversion of existing housing structures. The criteria will address density, lot
characteristics, structural chazacteristics, parking, and open space and neighborhood
impact. These criteria were developed and approved by both the planning commission
and the board of zoning appeals as the Duplex and Triplex Conversion Guidelines. The
applicanYs ability to meet these guidelines is detailed in #3 below.
One of the Physical Objectives of the District 2 Plan, #5 p.6, is, "to control density of
use". In addition, one of ihe Iand Use concerns cited in the plan is high density/low
density conflicts, #2 p.6.
The Housing Policy for the 1990s and the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
encourage owner-occupied singie family homes and duplexes. The applicant's property
is not owner occupied.
2. The rezoning is not consistent and compatible with the area has developed. The property
is in an azea used prunarily for one and two-family homes, and appropriately zoned for
those uses. The applicanYs request would result in "spoY' zoning and a zone
inappropriate to the azea as there is no other similarly zoned property within the azea.
moved by Morton
seconded by
i n favor �nanimous aenial
against
�b� �I�
Zoning File #95-232
Page Two of Resolution
The rezoning would allow a higher density residential use than is desirable for the area
and is not in keeping with the existing character of the area. In addition, cusent zoning
aTlows reasonable use o� tfie proparry.
- - -
3. The triplex conversion guidelines approved by the Planning Commission in 1992 state
that staff will recommend denial of applications to rezone to RT-2 unless the foliowing
guidelines are met:
a. Lot size of at least 10,000 square feet with a frontage of 50 feet.
This guideline is met. The total lot area is 27,000 square feet or .62 acres. The lot
has frontage on two streeu: 121 feet of frontage on Birmingham and 67 feet of
frontage on Winchell Street.
b. In case of exisfing houses, a gross living area after completion of the conversion of
at least 2, 700 square feet for the three units.
This guideline is no[ met. The applicant stated that the total living area of the three
units is 2,416 square feet. The basement and first floor units are 988 square feet each
and the second floor unit is 440 square feet.
c. In case of existing houses, four off-street parking spaces (non-stacked) are preferred
and three spaces are a minimum requirement. New triplexes are required to provide
four off-street parking spaces. A site plan showing improved (durable, permanent,
dustless surface) parking spaces must be provided.
This guideline is met. There is ample space on the property for four off-street
parking spaces. There is a two-car garage on the property and black top parking pad
for additional cars.
d. The properry is located in a mixed density or mixed use neighborhood and not in a
homogeneous single family area or in an area where duplexes and triplexes are
already concentrated to the point of congesting neighborhood streets.
This guideline is not met. The property is located in an area of predominantly one
and two-family homes.
e. The unit must be inspected by the Fire Marshal's Offcce as part of the Cerliftcate of
Occupancy program required for all residential structures with three or more units.
The applicant understands that the Fire Marshai's Office will conduct the certificate of
occupancy inspection if the rezoning is approved.
Zoning File #95-232 .:
Page Three of Resolution
f. An economic feasibiliry analysis has been conducted for those cases where
economic hardship is claimed as one reason for the rezoning request. Applicant
should provide city staff with necessary information.
The applicant states that the prunary reason for the rezoning request is to lessen her
fmancial hardship. She states that she filed bankruptcy (Chapter 13) on the honse and
that rental income is not sufficient to cover the cosu of owning and maintaining the
house. The cost of gas/electric is $300 to $400 per month and the cost of water is
$500 every three months. The current loan on the house is $58,000 and the annual
taYes on the house aze $1,59$.
Staff does not believe that the applicant suhmitted sufficient information to make a
determination as to whether an economic hardship exists since no information was
provided about the current monthly rent and expenses and how that situation would
change if a third unit were added. The applicant was asked to provide Yhis
information but did not submit it with the application.
i�TOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission that the
petition of MARY LOU TRUMBLE to rezone property at 1354 BIRMINGHAM STREET,
more particularly described as subj to st; ex S 5 ft; N 67 ft& W 165 ft of Lot 13, Block 6;
Rogers and Hendricks Acre L.ots No. 2, from an R-3 and an RT-i zoning classifrcation to an
RT-2 zoning classification is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City and is
hereby recommended for denial.
�
qb��(0
PLA1�TPiING COMMISSION OF SAINT PAUL
City Hall Conference Center
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, December 1, 199�,
at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners Mmes. Bader, Carter, Geisser, Maddox, Morton, Treichel and Wencl and
Present: Messrs. Chavez, Field Jr., Gordon, Kramer, Mazdell, McDonell,
Schwichtenberg and Vaught.
Commissioners Mmes. *Fazicy, *Lund-Johnson and Messrs. Gurney, *L,ee and Riehle.
Absent:
*Excused
Also Present: Peter Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Ken Ford, Planning Administrator, Jean
Birkholz, Kady Aadlez, and Allen Lovejoy of the Planning Staff.
I. Approval of Minutes of November 17, 1995
IV. Zoning
#95-232 Marv Lou Trumble - Rezone the property from RT-1 and R-3 to RT-2 to
establish a triplex (1354 Birmingham St). District 2 voted to oppose this rezoning.
IuI�'I't£1� ��?iaa�iiission�'�9aa mcived ile�iai af �e i�quested,rezon� wi�IC�
carned un�unous[y an a viizce �e�is
�195-245 CP Rail Svstems - Special condition use permit to allow construction below
the regulatory flood protection elevation (1000 Shop Road - near existing Round
House along Pig's Eye Road; zoned I-2/RC-2). District 1 voted to support this permit.
Some discussion ensued regarding notifying the board of zoning appeals when an
amendment comes up which pertains to its interest. There was also discussion
conceming the coincidental timing of the recycling amendment and the Alter
Corporation case.
.. .
�L3'ITbN: :Ciiin�n�ssiouer �vlcmot� muved :apg€oval vf flie I�s�vemher_ �99 ' .. �nor
. ._. ,.-_:..
ZAning Amanitments iv�sicii eam�i .tii�an��iovs3y sin a vaice vate.
2
November 1995 Minor Zonine Amendments
�
MIN[7TES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995
PRESENT: Mmes, Faricy, Morton and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gurney,
Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Wamer, Assistant
City Attorney; Mmes_ Dadlez, Peabody, and Sanders of the Planning
Divi.sion and Ms. Lane, LZEP.
ABSENT
Time: 3:32 - 4:05 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairperson.
Marv Lou Trumble, 1354 Birminqham Street: east side between IW and Arlinaton;
#95-232, Rezonina. To rezone the propeYty from RT-1 and R-3 to RT-2 to
estab2ish a triplex.
Kady Dadlez, Planning Division staff, reviewed the staff report and presented
slides.
The District 2 Community Council voted to oppose the rezoning.
Three letters of opposition were received.
Staff recommended denial of �the rezoning petition to rezone the property to
RT-2 to establish a triplex, based on findings 2, 3, 4b, 4d, and 4f of the
staff report.
Commissioner Vaught asked whether the building was currently being used as a
triplex.
Ms. Dadlez responded that the applicanC has indicated that the current use is
a duplex and that she is seeking approval to add a third unit, however she
pointed out that a building permit application was submitted earlier this year
and listed the building as a single family home.
Mary Lou Law, z050 Pathways Drive, the applicant, spoke. Ms. Law reported of
a duplex Iocated nearby her property that is currently being used as a
triplex, and intimated that such a use might justify her proposal. She
briefly reviewed details related to the property inc2uding its size; its past
tenant history; her past efforts at selling the property; and details related
to financial hardship of maintaining the property, including the costs o£
various water and utility bills, property ta�ces, homeowners insurance, which
she said the rent alone does not cover, and she disclosed that she has filed a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Ms. Law addressed the issue of the building being a
single family home and said it was converted to a duplex sixteen (16) years
ago when a building contractor pulled a building permit.
Ms. Law reported that she was informed at a district council meeting that if
the residents of three units of a home are from one extended family that one's
home can be used as a legal triplex. In the case that the re2oning request
was not granted, Ms. Law said that she intended to rent to her children so as
to utilize the property as a legal triplex. She spoke of the neighbors'
support indicated by the signed petition and said they were concerned that she
would demolish the building to build a townhome on the property, which she
said she would not do. If denied the xezoning and unable to convert to a
triplex, Ms. Law said she would build another duplex on her vacant lot on
Birmingham.
�
Qb� I��
complete dwelling
f the tenants of the
place which makes
Ms. Lane, responding to an inquiry from Commissioner Gurney, reported that the
building has been assessed as a single family dwelling unit since it was built
- sn 3944. S3ie pointed out t3zat the eastern half of tiie 2ot is zoned for--
duplexes and the western half is zoned for single family, and that the duplex
appears to fall at about where the line is. More discussion needs to take
place with the applicant to make a proper determination of the building's
status.
Tim Dornfeld, Executive Director of the District 2 Community Council, spoke in
opposition. Mr. Dornfeld said that he had misunderstood the related persons
issue and had incorrectly advised Ms. Law. He said that the staff report
parallels the recommendations of the district council. -He pointed out that
despite the signatures of the neighbors on the petition, that those who
attended the district council meeting or spoke to them were opposed to the
rezoning to a triplex. Mr. Dornfeld spoke of neighbors' concems regar�ling
behavior of past and current tenants, the excessive number of police calls to
this residence, and noted that seven (71 ca11s have been made to Saint Paul's
Citizen's Services Office regarding the property in 1995, including one call
regarding this property being used as an illegal triplex, and stated that
three families were living there are one time in 1995. �
Mr. Dornfeld also expressed neighborhood concern that because of the large
size of the lot, that either this owner or a subsequent owner would be able to
sell this property and use it for a use that is more dense than its current
use.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vaught moved the staff recommendation for denial of the rezoning
petition Co rezone the property to RT-2 to establish a triplex. Commissioner
Guraey seconded the motion. The motion carried a unanimous voice vote of
8 to 0.
Submitted by: Approved by: -.
I�d��a��.z- �
Kady Pad1 z ���s orton
Chairperson
„ Wendy Lane, LIEP, eacplained that provided there are three
units that it does not matter what the relationship is o
three units, but indicated that there is no provision in
concessions for occupancy of related individuals.
1�
.�
ZONING COMMITTBE STAFF R$PORT
_____________________________
_____________________________
FILE # 95-232
1. APPLICANr: MAF2Y LOU TRUMHLE DATB OF HHARING: 11/20/95
2. CLASSIFICATION: Rezoning
3. LOCATZON: 1354 BIRMINGHAM STREET (east side between ivy � Arlington)
4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
5. LHGAL DSSCRIPTION: subj to st; ex S 5 ft; N 67 ft & W 165 ft of Lot 13,
Block 6; Rogers and Hendricks Acre Lots No. 2
6. PRSSENT ZONING: RT-1 ZONING CODH RSFBRHNCS: §64.400
7. STAFF INVSSTIGATION AND RSPORT: DATE: 11/15/95 $Y: Xady Dadlez
8. DATS RHCEIVSD: DHADLINS FOR ACTION:
_________________�___________ =_______________________=====0===°=__ � ____ ______
_________°________________________________________________________________°__
A. PIIRPOSE: Rezone property from R-3 and RT-1 to RS-2 to establish a
triplex.
B. PARCEL SIZE: This irregularly shaped parcel has frontage on two streets:
67 feet of frontage on Winchell Street and 121 feet of frontage on
Birmingham Street. The total lot area is 27,000 square feet or .62
acres.
C_ HXISTING LAND IISE: The property is occupied by a home with two dwelling
units and a two-car garage. There is also a black topped area for off-
street parking.
D. SIIRROIINDSNG LAND IISE: The property is surrounded by one and two-family
homes in R-3 and RT-1 zoning districts.
E. ZONING COD% CITATION: Section 64_400(a) of the zoning code states in
part, "the council may, from time to time, amend, supplement or change
the district boundaries or the regulations herein, or subsequently
established herein pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
Section 462.357 and amendments thereto as may be made from time to time.
The planning commission may, from time to time, review district boundary
lines to determine if, pursuant to state laws, such district boundary
lines should be changed."
Section 64.400(b) of the zoning code states in part, "an amendment to the
zoning code may be initiated by the council, the planning commission or
by petition of the owners of sixty-seven (67) percent of the area of the
property to be rezoned."
F. HISTORY/DISCIISSION: There are no previous zoning cases concerning this
property.
G. DSSTRICT COIINCIL RSCOF4SSNDATSON: The District 2 Community Council will
make a recommendation on the rezoning petition on Wednesday November 15,
1995 at the district council's monthly board meeting.
�Cn-`l (fl
Zoning File N95-232
Page Two
H. FINDINGS:
1. The applicant owns the property but does not reside there. She
- ------- -- - -
— � -- intexids to add - extsting two-unit home� Currently,
there is a unit on the first floor of the building and a unit in the
finished attic space. The applicant intends to convert the basement
for the third unit. For financial reasons, the applicant is
interested in adding a third unit to increase the income from the
property. The applicant states that there is a triplex two doors down
from her property and that she did not think that there would be a
problem with her plans for the property since there was already a
triplex in the area.
On balance, the rezoning is not in conformance with the comprehensive
plan. The Land Use Plan states that the City will establish criteria
to allow sensitive reuse and conversion of existing housing �
structures. The criteria will address density, lot characteristics,
structural characteristics, parking, and open space and neighborhood
impact. These criteria were developed and approved by both the
planning commission and the board o£ zoning appeals as the Duplex and
Triplex Conversi.on Guidelines. The applicant's ability to meet theses
guidelines is detailed in finding #4 of this report.
One of the Physical Objectives of the District 2 Plan, #5 p.6, is, "to
eontrol density of use". In addition, one of the Land Use concerns
cited in the plan is high density/1ow density conflicts, #2 p.6.
The Housing Policy for the 1990s and the Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy encourage owner-occupied single family homes
and duplexes. The applicant's property is not owner occupied.
The rezoning is not consistent and compatible with the area has
developed. The property is in an asea used primarily for one and two-
family homes, and appropriately zoned for those uses. The applicant's
request would result in "spot" zoning and a zone inappropriate to the
area as theze is no other similarly zoned property within the area.
The rezoning would allow a higher density residential use than is
desizable for the area and is not in keeping with the existing
character of the area. Sn addition, current zoning allows reasonable
use of the property.
The triplex conversion guidelines approved by the Planning Commission
in 1992 state that staff wi11 recommend denial of applications to
rezone to RT-2 unless the following guidelines are met:
Lot size of at least 10,000 square feet with a frontage of 50
feet.
This guideline is met. The total lot area is 27,000 square feet
or .62 acres. The lot has frontage on two streets: 121 feet of
frontage on Birmingham and 67 feet of frontage on Winchell Street.
b. In case of existing houses, a groas Siving area after completion
of the conversion of at least 2,700 square feeC foz the three
rin its.
This guideline is not met. At the time the staff report was
drafted the applicant had not provided staff with figures on the
square footage of the living area in the home although floor plans
of the three units were submitted.
` {
Zoning File #95-232
Page Three
Lacking any other information, staff consulted the Ramsey County
tax records which indicate that the house is a single story with
986 sguare feet of total living area.
c. In case of existing houses, four off-sEreet parking apaces (noa-
atacked) are preferred and three spaces are a minimum requirement.
New triplexes are reqvired to provide four off-street parkinq
spaces. A site plan showing improved (durable, permaaent,
dust2ess surfaceJ parking spaces must be provided.
This guideline is met. There is ample space on the property for
four of£-street parking spaces. There is a two-car garage on the
property and black top parking pad for additional cars.
d. The property is located in a mixed density or mixed use •
aeighborhood and not in a homogeneous single-family area or ia an
area where duplexes aad Eriplexes are already couceaEraEed to the
poiat of congesting neighborkood streets.
This guideline is not met. The property is located in an area of
predominantly one family homes with several duplexes within the
area.
e. The uait must be inspected by the Fire MarshaZ's Off.ice as part of
the Certificate of Occupancy program required for a11 residential
structures with three or more units.
The applicant understands that the Fire Marshall's Office will
conduct the certificate of occupancy inspection if the rezoning is
approved.
f. An economic feasibility aaalysis has been conducted for those
cases where ecoaomic hardship is cZaimed as one reasoa for the
rezoning request_ Applicant should provide city staff with
necessary information.
The applicant states that the primary reason for the rezoning
request is to lessen her financial hardship. She states that she
filed bankruptcy (Chapter 13) on the house and that rental income
is not sufficient to cover the costs of owning and maintaining the
house. The cost of gas/electric is $300 to $400 per month and the
cost of water is $17 per month. The current loan on the house is
$58,000 and the annua2 taxes on the house are $2,598.
Staff does not believe that the applicant submitted sufficient
information to make a determination as to whether an economic
hardship exists since no information was provided about the
current monthly rent and expenses and how that situation would
change if a third unit were added. The applicant was asked to
provide this information but did not submit it with the
application.
5. The applicant submitted a sufficient petition signed by two-thirds of
the property owners within one hundred (100) feet of the property to
be rezoned consenting to the rezoning (19 parcels eligible, 13 needed,
and 13 signed).
6. The applicant states in this application that the home is an existing
duplex which she would like to convert to a triplex, However, records
in the Office of LZEP show that the use of the property is a single
family home, Zn fact, the applicant applied for a building permit�on
- - = q b= ►��D
Zoning File k95-232
Page Four
August 31, 1995 citing the use of the property as a single family
home. Two complaints were received in August about the property. Tne
complaints alleged that three families were living in the building. _
7. The applicant should be aware of the fact that the taxes on the
property will increase with the addition of the third unit.
I, STAFF RSCOHIdSNDATION: Based on findings 2, 3, 4b, 4d, and 4f sta_`E
recommends denial of the rezoning petition to rezone the property to RT-2
to establish a triplex.
PETITION TO AMEND TliE ZONING CODE
Department of Plannfng and Economic Development
Zoning Section
II00 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Pt�ul, bIN 55102
266-6589
APPLlCANT
Property
Address
Zoning office use bn[y
Fi[e no. t ✓' L Z
-Fse ��'
' �'gn{ative hearing cfate
; ���.°�
S�
phone �7'/(a`�I�O3�'
PROPERTY
LOCATION
5%
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCII:
Pursuant to Section 64 4 0 of tt} Saint Paui Zoning Ordinance and to Section 462.357(5) of
Minnesota Statues, �Qr A� v�Y� �M �nl , the owner of all the land proposed
for rezoning, hereby petition u to rezone the above described property from a
�-3��'� zoning district to a 2T- 2 zoning district, for the purpose of:
�� s h o.. �- � Pt-e..�c
(attach additional sheet(s) if necessary) _ /
Attachmenis: Required site plan ❑ Consent petition � Affidavit C�
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this .� ""` day BY� .�.Se�
of (�1���"'=, 19 95 Fee owne of property
� q �, Title:
� ///p�C.�[rf.-r..i^sr..:r-•.�•.n�.. �.r+r.V.�
( �� v < ^'.. '1CCT >
<!'�`; R�__.:C.=%f FRE��E77E
;-�" ° ;
Notary Public ' )) "c' :-".`"�", ,
< 'LS.'``� oq.f=i� ,.':':T� >
� MjCOm'm i+>�r<zla-.31.2]OC �
a Vvtn�W',n^: rI� /..w ....�.. . ...'. � :. . , v.
Contact person (if
Page 1 of
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
0
��~���
SUFF CY CHEGK SHEET
ZONZNG SGUP FGUP
PETITIONS .
FZRST SUBHITTED RESUBMITicD
DATE PETITION SUB:fITTED: _ IO' ?7'� DATE SUB:fITTED: �O' S•/S
DATE OFFICZALLY REGEIVED: _ DATE RECEIVED: �d '�y �/
PARCELS ELIGIBLE: ��
PARCELS IIEEDED: � I '
PARCEL SIGV�.D: ! �
a
PARCELS ELIGFBLE; � _
pA.�ZCELS NEEDED: � �
PARCELS SIGNED: �I�
CHECKED BY: /����'�l.G ��7
DATE: ��' �• / �
Z4NING �ILE °5
e
!
�
�
,
�
�'/�
° _-_ ;��
�
�,
��
�
; �,;
�
�
�
-1;
,��
h �
`'_i
CONSENT OF ADJOTNING PROPERTY OWNERS TO REZONING
We, the undersigned, ownezs of the property within 100 feet of the total
contiguous description of real estate o•aned, purchased, or sold by petitioner
within one year preceding the date of this petition, acknoc:ledge that we have
been furnished with the following: �
1. A copy of the Petition of Nla�y �°u T�u�b1�
� (name of petitioner)
2. A copy of Sections l� through /1� `�3� , inclusive of the
Saint Paul Zoning Code; and
acknowledge tfiat we are aware of alI of the uses permitted under a
District zoning classification and we are aware that any of these uses can be
established upon City CounciJ. approval of the rezoning; and we hereby consent to
the rezoning of the property described in the
Petition of ����' kJ� ��`vI KJtiCi to a
(na e of petitioner)
/36
f5
i p �
Petition ed as �og�iEia ly f� d�til e of se' e 1 ( �
working days after a petition is received by the Planning Division. Any signator
of any petition may withdraw his/her name therefrom by written request �:ithin
that time. page _ of `
L������ ���.� �•232
� �—Z' District
�
q b ��
CONSENT OF AD70INING PROPERTY OWNERS TO REZONING
We, the undersigned, o•.mers of the property within 100 feet of the total
contiguous description of real estate owned, purchased, or sold by petitioner
within one year preceding the date of this petition, ackno�ledge that we have
been £urnished with the folloaing: •
- � �
-- -- --- — —
— - �.'Ic� V�, (,t�l� � VV 1�., l��C—_
1. A copy of the Petition of
/�� �� (n me of pet'tioner)
2, A copy of Sections i1/ � through �L�•� 3� , inclusive of the
Saint Pau1 Zoning Code; and
acknowledge that we are aware o£ all of the uses permitted under a
District zoning classification and we are aware that any of these uses can be
established upon City Council approval of the rezoning; and we hereby consent to
the rezoning of the property described in the
� �
I� tA Y�"' � � 4�V �1�1.�J to a � �— Z Disxrict
Petition of
(nam of petitioner)
��
� ;,' i
Petition shall not be considered as officially filed until the lapse of seven (7)
working days after a petition is received by the Planning Division. Any signator
of any petition may withdraa his/her name therefrom by written request within
that time. f
�ZC�l����° �.�.� Q5•�
f
,
r
�_ � Y
: 55
COU�iiY Oe R'_`:SEY ) !,"
� �J , being zirst dul}' s::orn, ceposes z.^.c
sta es c he/she is the pzrson s+ho circulaCed tne �ithin p°tition �nc
consen�, consisting oi ` p�€zS; that �fziant is infor�ec and believes th=�
tne oarties cescribed are tne o:rners xespectively or tne lo�s pl2ced
gr��=_diztely before each r,=�z, tnat a�fiant is insorned z�r�.albnlis~�i.�nir.`1COc,
of th_ pz=�=es described a3ove is the o:�er of proaerty
zti.tione: o: soZd by peCitic:er
feet z"ron �^y prooerty o'..:tec or purchased b� P Pztitio� �; ich i.s conti��o-` �°
witnin or.e (1) year przcedi: � the date o` zn:.s
tne prope=t}' described in the petition; th�[ e:ccep[ fo:
�*chssed or is percnasin� pro�zrc;
none o� thz parcies describzc above has p�
froci oecitio�er contigLOt_ to cne �.bove cescr:bed p=opz=�} �itnin on_ (1) }�'-�=
' the petitien' tnat this consent t�as si��=_c by e�ch of s�ic
of tne c�te oi � , �=�_
okTe:s 1r. tite presence o� tnis zfiianC, znd tna� the sig:�atures are t•'•a
znd correct si�naturzs o� e�ch �n3 all o: the pzrties so eT=_scribed.
STPTE OF N.I��±cSOTA)
Suoscribed and s�orn to e=ore rie�
th; 5 1 /t cay o� �-°�
`/ / �i1�/ /��C� �✓��G/
Nan_
��5� ,QU �
zacress
� �/� -�iG a �'
Tele�hoae Nt=oer •
t�q/VJJ�AAA/�MM/V�AA�INMA� .
��� ROSEMARY FREDETTE
- 5�y�� NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA
5 �1� RAMSEY COURTY
Z My Comm. Ezpires ian.31.20
1MlVWWW`/����� • vwvwv... � , ,, �� �
� L V � ��i
j�p �Zy� PllD11C .
Eaproved �s to �orci -?an• 1, 1991
Planning D_pzzt�ent .
������ ���� �' �
PaSe _- °f ----
� ' " Ll-5=
... :=i_�';rr-J
_ " _ _ ___"" _ _" __ " _ _ ' _
_ _'_ _"_' __ '-'--__ _"__"__ ""_ -" _ "'" "
-- � --T� � - -- -n- `.-�°'��,',!�'-
- -- - `
---�,-- ,��--- �--- �,� �- - -s �
, v �•_; ., - �.
„-�=� -r �,.� �=�`'' __ T �"�_y)r - �7-i =3� - -/ _ _�^'`-�__--_ -! _ _� _
' / __ _ _ � _ �� x_4..�r �,. .7"�T j l, � v l j
�'�- � � -� ,�'"-=>�-��� ��- .�-.��-- �.�' ��,
.. �J -- J j _ � �. - i
;/ �
��r�+�•- _ -.—_� _ _ __ —,---_ :-'-�� "- _�..<°l ._.- f�
' � -�'�` -=� , _.�- :-� �� / � � �
- -� :.�-- � � :.-. r-- ;- —,-_.-= �- — - ` 1 � --- ---
� >-�� rP� - j� � �7 i�t :.�"�;� �
- -- --- ---- . �. . .
� - - - --� -��: �- - - �---�'- --- -- r-; �� - --
, � � � c'�'�"-'o'...T �--- j � _Z ;,�(: f i . • - �' i . % S J r
,;
-- ---- -- - -- ------- - - --�'.
r.
��� f � � ��z�$+/ �
- :_ .: .= �'.��•'�. _„�"`, a'�
�� t
�rt ' ~�_�
Y � /�. i�
-�i .� "
'J.� - .
.�
r ✓ . � k�: j
�
'_'_— __-� -___'__ �
- __-_--___
-------- ------ � - j ----_ - - --
� / °" �• v ,�
f � r• �`,'
/"."Ji'-'T�.;;?�' r!r.r;'��_-____:,'z=�-C=�"J',��!�—__`___—__,—.___
.. A e C'�./d� � :,.r i�a� �r ..
;i
� �J:=?'y} �'"�^F.�� '�/� �•,i C
— — / � � :�-�.�i�✓• � � � • l F" % ' �i'.'}7� �� v -------�) .� �� j/}-- � � �.N; ��- y --'-
_ t � � �� :/ � J � � ` - J r�
—_—_ _'^—__ __ __—'_—__"--'
� ri ___- —_ _ a
�/�.J/". ,"f.-y t � �J ✓a /F/G„�� ��7 r' 4'` ' / ` '7'' f _-_ _
�(� / -�- . ..... v � -� ---� l � . -;\ - --�-
� 9 ° i`
____ f':_:j��) n, � _� _____
/'�7�i'"7 ? --`�:�— �� � �G'V -__�„`=.'-___:i� '{���
t / w
_—___ �� �ri' .��;�: %1 �%f.-_�� _ p _ ! �� Y � �( _.__ _ y- i: J� _—___ _
— - r �r.� ! :�� ' `�) - �..r ' - _<�
f �_ ] _—� d''y ,�� 7 ' f , d,� .:- ,� �-,> . --
' �__-- �� �. ` ,� �I� !'` �"
• � ;y � - � ) i ''
�� /..�, � �-'y'.-s-. �, r.i'e s .t .%. s �/_ 1 �� /
r � L G f-� `�, " ;
� -- O�� �---; ��r�� �S' .
� ,G�-��.,-� --�;:�� y---.,��>�- --
' /_
—L`-� %G;C;�l��x _�: j ��-�; _�Y� =j���J�,lJ ��� :"'%- f�
t f , � ----
�__ �ir 1`-- --n---- --,—
---.»_ _- `: . � - �� � �� :- � j : r-, ; _ j� � _ -r- ; - --
------�- �:-�; ,� : ;, ��:,-,.- �- 1 �- --,� -- --
�' J ' � /
�
_______ �
--�- . . . . . __ ..
�� � ~' � �
Sb
i
-�--'------ `— ----
____"—_'____' � ` _�'__ '_,
/�
� c.�
..,)r .._'7
�`/ i �
-- `r-- -- —
�
- �.------
�
=� -
�
� �—
r
�
-� � -
':t �..:
� � �
t
�—ti--
� � ti.__
, .�
_�
i
� �� _'
_� '� _'
� �
--�� �� —
`: J � ..,
— —�, -_
—�;,
r . � �x
�, .
-- � � ;�
`t � � '�
-- — , �/ -- — --- y ---
T __�
T� y i ` � l '�;
------=— �=--=---- — — ----� --
, ,.;
� ' " \ ---- - 1 =--- -
�1
� � �`' \�
v � :� x \
�
, .
_.-- -----'"_- - � - - - ---- - - -
T -J
a . � ,
--{-'-- ��. --
� �_ SJ � '`
,
S - r -
_-"<.-=-�----------�---------�---: T---
_� '� `
� �� . _ _ _` "_' /i " _ - _ _ __ _ -. -� _' � �"
'_ I
i
- - -l.
i
I
' - "�", J � � . C_ �'"��._
_' �'-' '_ r 1'_ ""� '� _ [3 ' _ - - __ _- - _ V
� � � � '� '�- i - �� ,_ v
"7 ,-- L' � -�/. � - — • - - — --- - -'-,
-- -- - : _ _ _ - -- ---- ._
/�-�` � ' - --- i �'\--��-- ---sn._ -.� -- --
—/ i „—� — �- -r -- � -- i - �, � ,�, £
- - ---- �--- -'� - �-- - - --------- --�-----^v _
� _ ._
� - , C i ;
� 1 i �' ' � =
�
,
ii
-�- ' -- --��----- -_- ---= -- --�--��
i --�- -5=- C� _� ��-.. ._ � n --�;-
; - � - ...-4.....,. � � �,
_� .
I , �` ' ^ �- '`�- - - _ — = - -- - _ �. _. C
�
- �--`� � �---l�i `` _�` � ,�,_ `�. �.,_i
� ` ��--�-r� ' _ y _ J �� __ . ___ _-t _""__— \�
` / ' ���
__-"_'___ ___ _'—_-___'___-__ __-__ _'- �� t � �
_ '_"_ __-____- l
� n
--- - -- - ---=% - - ---4-------
�H `
_ L. _-
__ -
.. _:,�_�...,.:,.
� ` �' � )� ° r+-' , S �— �°� -� bt/�/.,3zJ[
_ V � ,� - � � !
hf � � -
_ � -
.�
�
Or
�
�� _-�
-�'-� �
j�� C
---
��s'?�t –
ooa
�''.� 7
��' �d �
0
� �{- �
� C-�'
�
�
--- � - -
�—
�
,
� �
z� �
� �
� � �
---�--
�
��
�%
-_-��',�' _y
—�,.� j .
1--- � -�-
� s
3-_ � �
0 �.�. /
Y S -� � y
--�--- ; o �
_.�_
. J p __
-'- ` _�-._ �` 1 � l 4
�
_� � �_f -
_ _ t _.—� � �o
L 4 � �
— ' � ,
� , °�
-�"– 3 ,
GF'-1�u5. , ; �
�
45 � 23�
�
--� . ---
:;'63l � . !" - ' ` '.
°' � -
������ V J� ���L" ll.l' Y`l/ �Y � 1L V V`V 1 V V��
November 16. 1995
RECEIVED
Kady Dadlez
11th Fioor, City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
St. Paul. MN 55102
Dear Ms. Dadlez,
NOV 17 1995
Y
� a
2169 S[illwarer Avenue, S�i[e 201
Saint Paul, MN 551 I9-3508
Phone:(612)731-68d'_
Fax:(61.'.) i3t-Ot91
ZONIN�
� `°c`_ t.� ? t i'�_ r c. o' ; ' `F' lij �� � !
3 �°-%' �� $:: � : `: �;� a � - • :' _' ��,_ �
� ; ....
°-°---�--�_....� �
I am writing to you on behalf of the District 2 Community Council to inform you of a decision
made by the Board of Directors at its November 15, 1995 meeting.
At that meeting, a public meeting was neld regarding the rezoning of ihe properiy at 1354
Birmingham from R-3 and RT-1 to RT-2 for the purpose of establishing a triplex. The
neighborhood surrounding that property received flyers advertising the meeting; we received
seven phone calls prior to the meeting and 11 neighborhood residents attended the meeting—
as well as the applicant.
After reviewing the application, listening to the testimony of the applicant and the testimony of
the neighborhood residents in attendance, the Board passed the fol(owing resofution:
MOTtON: That the District 2 Community Council recommends denial of the
application to rezone the property at 1354 Birmingham from R-3 and RT-1
to RT-2.
There are several reasons for this decision. The major ones are:
It is in direct opposition to the Phalen Village Small Area Plan, which calls for downzoning in
the area. This request increases the density of the zoning.
2. It is in direct opposition of the wishes of the neighborhood, which is seeking to maintain the
residentiai character of their neighborhood. There is also a justified concern about the
quality of tenants that have rented from the current owner and the condition of the property.
(Please see the attached sheet--which was included in the Boardmembers' packet--for a
summary of the phone calls received and a summary of the police and Citizen Service
records for this property. The thoughts expressed by the phone calis were reiterated in the
comments made by the neighbors in attendance.)
3. it is a spot rezoning, creating a higher density "island" in the middle of R-3 and RT-1 zoning.
4. The economic hardship arguments are not convincing and fhis is a permanent so(ution to a
temporary situation.
5. Because of the large size of the lot, there is the possibility of constructing other units_that
wou(d meet the zoning requirements but vary significantly from the single-family and two-
EQL'AL OPPORTUNlI'}' EMPLOYLR / CONTRAC/�OR
r'
- _ q�-�10 -� r
family homes of the neighborhood. For example, if the property were rezoned, the current
owner coufd seii it to a devefoper who couid construct townhouses on the site.
It is for these reasons that the Board came to its decision and urges the Zoning Committee to
deny the applicant's request for rezoning.
tf you have any questions regarding this reso{ution or the reasons fos it, please feei free to
contact me at 731-6842. Thank you for your time and consideration of the neighborhood's input
into this issue.
Sincerely,
�_ /�
�—
Tim Dornfeld
Executive Director
�- r �
�"""���� �; �� _ �. � � g5 z3z.
� i.,,�, n �, �-� � « ... r., ,��
s
' _
The following comments were received regarding the rezoning of 1354 Birmingham:
1. Kay Holstrom, 1380 Birmingham. Concemed about iY being turned into too much rental.
Don't want rental in the neighborhood.
Virginia Banen, in neighborhood. They're not very good tenants there. Don't mind if they
have good tenants, but concerned about the quality of tenants. Also, parking.
3. Anne Kramlinger, next door. Against it. Not a good idea. Block is single family home. They
have been trying to sell it Concemed about what could happen. They don't take care of the
property--shovel, cut lawn. She did sign the petition, but didn't know what could happen as a
result ofthe rezoning.
4. Dzan ar,d 5usan Boge:3ing, 1374 Birminghar.i. Really oppased. Don't take care of propei �y.
"It would be nothing but troubles for us." When they brought the peition around it was
presented as: we're going to to put a basement apartment in--would I mind?
Don Eckert, 1384 Birmingham. Don't take care ofwhat they have. Ea�tra lot is used as a
dump. The owners of 1354 own property on Winchell.
6. Jerry House, 1421 Winchell. Vehemently protest. Area's changing; no need for more dense
housing. Doesn't see how doing this improves the neighborhood or makes it more safe. There
are already some duplexes in the neighborhood and this just adds another rental unit in the
area.
7. Cathy Steffan, across the street. Objects to it. Would not add to the neighborhood. There's
been violence, drugs, bad language, poor upkeep. Police have been to the location.
Also, I contacted the Citizen Services Center and there have been 7 comptaints about this address
in 1995. The types of compalints were: snow/ice, garbage/rubbish, grass/weeds, illegal triplex. It
is as a result of this last complaint that the applicant is seeking the rezoning.
I also ebLair.ed the police calls report fo* 1354 Birnlin�h3rn. From 1/1f94 to ? 1/15l95, there were
34 police calls (divided 50/50 between 1994 and 1995). There were 17 domestics, 2 thefts, 3
other assaults, 1 aggravated assault, 3 investigates, 3 landlord neighbors, 1 disturbance call, and 4
other calis. There were no ca1ls recorded after 8/27/95.
7����� ��� � ��-.
ys S
. � � i
� � � � � �
__�ECEI��D
------- pIOV���1995� --
— --- — --- -- —
ZOt�t1VC
--
- ' �� � � �`- `� — �=_� - �.5�.�� --
..�
----- --- � o�_�
_'
Y
j�t.v��, �,�-/� - �s
�� ���� �:�� �
�����-� �
�� �- � = �. � �
��!� � � . ���
� s � ��
;� �.��� � ���-
; �O�j --�--�' c� �--�'s-�' �
_.-�;_---- C� �� —
�� -z. .�� ��` � i
��' �.�e'�-�/ / `�1�� / � Z` �
� ��-���--� �°� ��
�� � � �.`�.�-,�-
�� ��� ��
� � `�?�=�'�O "�'�`" �i--����
�2 .� �/��-�-- -��-�.�
Z�z
�� ��� �
�' � �,.� i ' l-�-
�� � � , �,
�
/� `�6�' 1,����� =�%
����-�-� - �"
� �
�������� ���Y� �=
�
-- �.� ��.� .��.��- ����
�'z-�'j �'�-�-�`�-�-
l/
� ��'" G�/<� ��z.G �f
�f �/'�� �1j„�, s.s-���
, <
qb-l10
�i ��-ss
RECEIVED
NO V 211995
ZONfN�
,
.�G.� �,� ��� .
�� ��
T�I�� ��-u. /��-P� � ��.. j �'-� -� ysa.3,z ,
.��..fe, �.�� ,.��.,-..� � ��,.� . ��, ��,,.��'�<,,.�K� �
.�*.�,( ��. -�� -���✓ �.l r�-�.1�' ���'.�.G ����
-�.�,� .
� ��' �G � � �J-��.� �Ja... <�, �
�
<� �--�,R .�� .��- -��� .-�� ��-`��-�� �'`�
/ d - � �/c�r.� -�-,�.te.e�-=- . ��u,:..t��> �.,4 ��z��T �c.c�� �� -
l
�ti�c/�e�..�� . ��'�ac�7 a- y�le-c� ��t.a-c �
l
GTsc� .,CVi�� ae/ a...l , �..C/�a-cl .�.�_ �'u,;.,-e� .
lvqL �� J .Ya /fs� va,-a� � yN -�'by �il<-.aac�(-<+ �GUD-��c "f
✓ /
.G� P �yrj/-a/tuf�R-- '
�`-"""e�t�/ �
_ Q�lf�
""�inf>J � °VC.cu/�.�2�
l0/ ��oR .�air.rL
�u,e„J..,�//� /��. �s337
,
s
�
�
5
ii
7
14
�11 rt�.
�
3
2
CITIZEN PART'ICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS
'S BLUFF
6. NORTH END
7. THOMAS-DALE
8. SUMMTT-UNIVERSITY
9. WEST SEVENTH
10. COMO
11. HAMLINE-MIDWAX
12. ST. ANfHONY PARK
13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING
14. MACALESTER GROVELAND
I5. HIGHL.AND
16. SUMMIT HILL
17. DOWNI'OWN
ZONiNG FILE �'
HAMLINE
GREATER EAST SIDE
�t� - El�
DISTRICT 2 ON S0° 10°° � a000 +000 emo
SG�E iN FEET
������� ���� �•L�z,
�—Q o o;o o;o o.o'-o-. -o-
. o f j _� ; o .
_ _o i E .-� -
� - - �1_ti � � _.
� - =O O I O
1 _ O i
� O
_� °--�--i-- ' _� °
--
-= O Q O
------- --- ---
- --- � - - o -
- � --- � - -
---- O
p 0 --- --- _-- - -` - � -
-- --- - - O
--- O � -- o �
C F- � !
�" O O
`� O
� v O
-- O
O C�
O �---- � % O
� C p i U
� � O
0 0
t ° o
O
i � � p rJ � OOOC
r --
o IVY
. O
O � �
� o
0
o �
� � O
. J , -
� c
I� c�
W
�,
O O '
� � �
o `�
� o
0
� �, o 0
�G
- � O
C O I
o ,
O Z' o
O
� w °
� o °�
R
.
�
•
•
•
�
0
�
�
�
� •
0
. . • '�� . .
� � � •
• Q
� �
0 �
♦ �
• "�i
�
�
�
•
•
v
�
0
� 0
0
�
�
�
O
4
O
_ �
. p
O
O
�
O
O
7
- T � ; � o .
� ; o : • ' � -�- -
OO;G OI !QiO�! O
AVE.
�
� •
0
�
Q
[�7
�
�,
00 -o
,-
��.
� � - �l
�
i
n
� p �-- --
O
-- i
Q �
.� t -- - � -
OIO�U ¢ O
O PROSP£Ri7Y� � Q Q.O O¢ O�
" F- //E/GNTS O - _ I
(n -_ -�.
o �
o I J� Y �
� . �� � � � � * �
O �
� , � �. � �
y--- ----- ----� ;ri �� �
�
'' , � ' C ;� I o �
O � 2 �% � -
Q '� � C %�- J � d ✓.
� o o � � �� � , - - - -
�
��
�.
APPLICANT ��'� �/� T��r�' LEGEND
PURPOSE ��i�►�(NG �� zoning district boundary ^
FILE # �5 23 L DATE �� '�� � �' � subjed property �`��th"
' PLNG.DIST
� MAP # � o one family ••^ commercial
� � twofamily ♦ r.� industnal
SCALE t' = 400' �� �¢ Q muitipte family V vacant