98-174Council File # �
ORIGINAI.
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
2
0
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
36
37
38
39
40
WI�REAS, Mary Lou Law, pursuant to Saint Paul Legisiative Code § 64.300(a)(2),
applied for a non-conforming use permit governed pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul
Legislative Code § 62.102, for the purpose of establishing a duplex as a legal non-conforming
use at the property commonly known as 1354 Birniingham Street, said property being legally
described as: subj to st; ex S 5 ft; N 67 ft& W 165 ft of Lot 13, Block 6; Rogers and Hendricks
Aere Lots No. 2, Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission conducted a
pub]ic hearing on the application on October 30, 1997, at which all persons present were given
an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with requirements of Saint
Paul Legislative Code § 64.300; and
WHBREAS, the Saint Paul Plamung Commission, based upon the evidence presented to
its Zoning Committee at the said public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes thereof,
made the following fmdings of fact:
The s1ructure is currently used as a duplex. It is located on the western
half of the lot, which is zoned A-3. The garage is located on the eastern
part of the lot, which is zoned RT-1.
2. The area and frontage of the lot (67 feet (Winchell) x 270.7 feet x 121 feet
(Birmingham) = 27,047 square feet) exceed the minimum standards for a
duplex under the Schedule of Regulations of the Zoning Code (6,000 sq.
ft. azea and 50 feet frontage).
3. The Plauving Commission may grant a non-confornung use permit when
there is conformance with code requirements:
a. The use occurs entirely within an eaisting structure. This
condition is met. The two units are entirely within the main
structure.
Green Sheet #
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNES07A
�s
b. The use is similar to other uses permitted within the district.
This condition is met. The duplex use is snnilaz to the single
family uses to the west and the single fanuly and duplex uses to the
east. If the structure were located on the eastem half of the lot, it
would be in conformance with the zoning code requirements for 2-
family residential.
� 0$55
9� ��y
2 c. The use has been in esistence continuously for a period of at
3 least ten years prior to the date of the application. This
4 condition is met. The applicant has submitted lease agreements
S dating back to June, 1983. Other leases were signed in 1486, 1987,
6 1988, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1995, and 1996. City directories for these
7 years do not list two households at this address.
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
d. The off-street parlung is adequate to serve the use. This
condition is met. There is a 2-car on the lot as well as a blacktop
pazking pad off the dtiveway from Birnvugham that will
accommodate at least 1 car. The zoning code requires three spaces
for new construcrion.
e. Hardship would result if the use were discontinued. This
condition is met. The applicant has submitted figures showing that
the total rental income from the properiy is currently insufficient to
cover expenses, and that the shortage would be worse if the
structure were converted to only one unit. The first floor unit rents
far $700 per month, while the upstairs rents for $450, for a total
income of $1,150. Monthly expenses, including mortgage
payment, tases, utilities, insurance and maintenance, total
$1433.15.
f. Rezoning the property would result in "spot" zoning or a
zoning inappropriate to surrounding land uses. This condition
is met. Rezoning would result in the RT-1 district extending
beyond the back lot lines between Winchell and Biruiingham into
the R-3 district along Birmingham.
g. The nse will not be detrimental to the existing character of
development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the
public health, safety, or general welfare. This condition is met.
The existing neighborhood character includes both single family
and duplex dwellings.
h. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This
condifion is met. The Housing Policy Plan recommends
decreasing density in areas where residential density is too �eat.
The size of the lot is such that this area is not overly dense. The
plan also calls for exploring the feasibiliiy of code compliance
inspections to duplex rental units.
I. A notarized petition of 2!3 of the property owners within
one hundred feet has been submitted stating their support for
the use. This condition is met. The applicant has submitted a
petition. Nineteen pxoperties are eligible; thirteen signatures are
needed. Applicant's petition has thirteen signatures.
2
98-i�y
2 4. In addition to the zoning code requirements, the Planning Commission
3 approved guidelines for nonconfonning use pernuts for duplexes in
4 residential districts. These guidelines call for staff recommendation of
5 denial unless all of the following conditions aze met:
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
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
A. Lot size of at least 5,000 square feet with a lot width or
front footage of 40 feet. ApplicanY s lot has 121 feet of frontage
on Binningham (front yazd) and 67 feet of frontage on VJinchell
and a lot azea of 27,047 square feet, meetiug this guideline.
B. Gross living area, after completion of duplex conversion, of
at least 1,8U0 sqnare feet for the two nnits. This guideline is not
met. According to the applicanY s floor plans, the azea of the first
floor unit is 1,222.5 square feet; the area of the second floor unit is
479 square feet. The total is 1,701.5 square feet, or 98.5 squaze
feet short of the requirement. If the units were certified as code
compliant, concerns about overcrowding would be addressed.
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 guideline is met.
applicant submitted a site drawing (not to scale) for the rezoning
request that shows a 2-car garage and two bituminous parking
pads.
D. All remodeling work for the dupleg conversion is on the
inside of the structure. This guideline is met. The structure is
currently a duplex, no remodeling work is needed to complete a
conversion.
E. The proposed duplex structure is located in a miaed density
neighborhood, not a homogeneous single-family area or in an
area where duplexes and tripleaes are already concentrated to
the point of congesting neighborhood streets. This guideline is
met. The neighborhood is mixed density and not overly congested.
F. A code compliance inspection has been conducted and the
unit is found to be up to the housing code standards; or the
property owner has agreed to make the necessary
improvements to bring it to housing code compliance. This
guideline is not met. No inspection has been made by the Health
Department. Fire and Safety Services (which inspects shuctures
with three or more units) verified the e�stence of a basement unit
whereupon the applicant submitted the rezoning petition that was
denied by ihe CiTy Council. Approval of legal nonconforming
status should be contingent on meeting housing code requirements.
3
� 1
i�
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
r� ,
G. An economic feasibility analysis has been conducted for
those cases where economic hardship is claimed as one reason
for the variance request. This guideline is not met. The
informafion provided by the applicant is insufficient to support a
detenuination that complying with the Zoning Code is not feasible;
and
VJHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission duly resolved in Planuiug
Commission Resolution File No. 97-77 dated November 7,1997, to deny the application for a
Non-conformiug Use Petmit to allow the establishment of the subject duplex as a legal non-
confonniug use of the property at 1354 Binningham Street based upon findings 4B, 4F, and 4G
noted above; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 1997, the appellant, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislafive
Code § 64.206, filed an appeal of the Saint Paul Plaruiing Comxnission decision as contained in
Plamiing Commission Resolution File No. 97-77; and
V1f�REAS, on December 10, 1997, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Council
of the City of Saint Paul at which time the Council considered the petition, the report of staff, the
record, the minutes and resolution of the Saint Paul Planning Commission as well as the
testimony submitted and thereafter made the following findings with respect to the appeal of
Mary Lou Law:
Based upon all the evidence submitted, there are no enors in any fact, procedure,
or finding on the part of the Planning Commission in this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Saint Paul, that
the appeal by Mary Lou Law of the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission denying her
application for a non-conforming use pernut for the properiy commonly laiown as 1354
Birminghaan Street, St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, as contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 97-77, dated November 7, 1997, is in all things denied; and
L!
�
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
98-�7y
BE IT FURTI�R RESOLVED, that based upon the decision of the City Council finding
no enor in fact, finding, or procedure on the part of the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that the
findings in the aforesaid Planning Commission resolution are hereby adopted and incorporated
herein by reference as the findings of the Saint Paui City Councii; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
Mary Lou Law, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, and the Saint Paul Zoning Administratar.
ORIGINAL
Requested by Department of:
Certified by Council Secretary
By: _�_
Approved by
By:
Form Appro by City Attorney
BY: �, ���
Approved by Mayox for Submission to Council
ey:
Adopted by Council: Date �q�c�n \\ `�CI`C��
98 �7v
Council
DAh �NRa7E0
March 3, 1948
GREEN SHEET
No 60855
ov,u,�r o�ara�
March 11, 1998
xuwsae wrt
noururo
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
❑ arv�noufv ❑ arvmK
❑ rwxcuo.seavicrsun ❑ wuxcu�a
❑ Wl'dtWMYi�TAM) �
(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Finalizing City Council action taken December 10, 1997 denying the appeal of Mary Lou Law
to a decision of the Planning Commission denying a non-conforming use permit to establish
that a duplex is a legal non-conforming use of property at 1354 Birmingham Avenue.
PIANP7ING CAMMiS410N
CIB COMMITfEE
GVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION
1��I4 7
Has this pe�soMirm eu� w�etl uMer a coriUact Tor fhie depertmeni?
vES nro
Hes tMe ve�✓firm a,er teen a city empwyee9
YES NO
Dces ihis PeisoMim G� a slall Iwt �alma��YP� by anY anent city emGloYee?
YES NO
Is Mis PerswJfirtn a tergHetl vendoYT
YF9 NO
OF TRANBACT{ON
SOURCE
COSTIREVENUE BU06ETED (CIRCLE ON67
ACTNITY NUMBEF[
�
i^'�'f�'�f�]
�iB-r7�
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
PegBirlr, CiryAnorney
CITY OF 5AINT PAUL
Norm Colemax, Mayor
Civi1 Division
400 Ciry H¢!!
IS �estKelloggBlvd
Sain1 Paut Mbmesola SSIO2
Zelephone: 612 266E710
Fac.rimile: 612 298-5619
March 3, 1998
Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Saint Paul City Hall
RE: Appeal of Mary Lou Law, Zoning Resolurion No. 97-77, Public Hearing Date December 10,
1997.
Deaz Ms. Anderson,
Attached please find the signed as to form original of a council resolurion memorializing the decision
of the Saint Paul City Council in the above entitled matter. Please place this matter on the consent
agenda at your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
����
Peter W. Warner
9�- ���
CITY OF SAIN'f PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
November 24, 1997
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Councii Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
DEPARTMETIT OF PLANNING �
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Pamela Y�heelock, Direcior ,
25R'estFourthStreet Telephone:612-266-66�5
SaintPaul,MN55702 Facsimile:612-228-3261
C�?s:# Atr�af�s! �ti�
fi•�=; V 2 = i�37
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
December 10, 1997, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a
nonconforming use permit:
Appellant: IvIARY LOU LAW
File Number: #97-304
Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision denying a nonconforming use permit to
establish that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of properiy
Address: 1354 Birmingham Ave.
Legal Description
of Property: subject to street; except South 5 feet; North 67 feet and West 165 feet of Lot 13,
Block 6; Rogers and Hendricks Acre Lots No. 2
Previous Action:
Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial; vote: Unanimous, November 7, 1997
Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 5-0, Octobet 30, 1997
My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the December 10,
1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish any required notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul
Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6639 if you have any quesfions.
-�i
� �,;�., �
Patricla James
City Planner
xoxic� oF roarac �annvG - -
Cc: Fi10 #97-3�4 The Saint Paul CiTy Covncil wil9 conduct a public heazing on Wednesday, December
Mi1C0 KI'a0m0r 10. 1897, at 4:30 p.m. in the City Councii Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall-COUrt-HOUSe,
to consider the appeal of Mary Lou Law to a decision of the Planning Commission denying
Donna SandeCS a non-conforming use pemilt to establish that a duples is a legal non-rnnforming use
of property at 1354 BiYmingham Avenue.
Dated: November 24, 1997
NANCY ANDERSON - . - " -
Assistant City Council Secreta�y , '
� - � (Novembei' 26. 1997)
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
� � CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coteman, Maynr
November 24, 1997
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Division of P/mmrng
25 West Fourth Stree[
Saint Paui, MN 55702
�8-I � �-
TeZepiwne: 6I2-266-6565
Facsimi(e: 6I2-228-3314
RE: Zoning Fi(e #97-304: MARY LOU LAW
City Council Hearing: December 10, 1997 430 p.m. City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision denying a nonconforming use permit establishing
that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of property. -
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: DENIAL IInanimous
ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 5-0
• STAFF RECOMMENAATION: DENIAL.
SUPPORT: The app]icant was present and spoke.
OPPOSITION: No one spoke in opposition. Two letters were received.
Council voted to oppose the nonconforming use permit.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
The District 2 Community
MARY LOU LAW has appealed the decision of the Saint Paui Planning Commission to deny a
nonconforming use permit to establish a duplex as a legal nonconforming use of property located at 1354
Birzningham Street. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the request on October 30, 1997. The applicant addressed the committee. At the close of the
public hearing the committee voted 5-0 to recommend denial of the permit. The Planning Commission
upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for derrial on a unanimous vote on November 7, 1997.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 10, 1997. Please notify me if any
member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sin iy, _ <\��
Patricia N. James
C3ty Planner
• Attachments
cc: City Council members
m
APPUCAT(ON FOR APPEAI.
. `�) Department of Planning and Economic Development
�� Zonine Section
— - - - IZ00 City Hall Annex
23 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
166-6589
APPELLANT � Name Mary Lou i.aw
Add�ess 2050 Pathwavs DrivP
City St. Paul St.MNZip55119 Daytimephone 776-9b38
PROPERTY
LOCATION
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
C' Board of Zoning Appeals L�1 City Council
•
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 206 , Paragraph a of the Zoning Code, to
appeal a decision made by the Saint Paul Planning Commission
on November 7 , 19 47 , File number: 97-244
(date of decision)
Zoning File Name Mary Lou Law
Address/Location 1354 Birmingham St.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
5ee Attached.
. l Atfach addrtional sheet if necessary)
Applicant's
Dennis K.�ICispert
Attorney for Applicant
Date/�o;,�_ 2/ 1�� TCity agent.
��'
�8-t��
q�'-r��
� GROUNDS FOlt APPEAL:
The Saint Paul Planning Commission made errors in facts,
requirements and findings in denying the i3onconforming Use permit
to establish a duplex as a permitted nonconforming use of the
property at 1354 Birmingham St. in Saint Paul.
1. Findinq 4B is in error. The Commission failed to consider the
square footage of the basement area as part of the total
square footage of the duplex. This would increase the square
footage well beyond the 18�0 sq. ft. requirement for a duplex.
2. Finding 4F is in error. Appelant attempted on numerous
occasions to schedule a compliance inspection on the property
both before and since the planning commission hearinq. She
was informed by Fire and 5afety Services that because the
building had less than three units, Fire and Safety has no
jurisdiction to do an inspection. The health department was
contacted to schedule an inspection. To date, they have
refused to schedule an inspection. Appelant is presently
contracting for an independent compliance inspection of the
groperty.
Appelant previously agreed, on the record, at the planning
commission hearing to make all neoessary improvements, if any,
to bring the dwelling into code compliance. The staff report
• indicates that approval of the nonconforminq use should be
contingent on meeting the code requirements, acknowledging
that a commitment by the property owner to make the necessary
improvements is sufficient to meet the inspection requirement.
3. Finding 4G is in error. The Commission erred in finding that
this guideline has not been meet. The staff reports found
that an economic hardship exists at this property. Staff
found that there is currently insufficient income to aover the
expenses of the property and that the shortfall would be worse
if the structure were converted to a single unit. Staff
Findinq 3e Additionally, there would be significant
additional expenses incurred in converting the property to a
single unit. Costs which would need to be financed by the
owner, thereby increasing the shortfall and the economic
hardship after any conversion. Finally, the staff report
found that guideline 4G had been met. Staff Report Findin� 4G.
,
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& £CONOMIC DEVELOP,UfENT
� ' CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norrn Coleman, Mayar
r.w.
November 7, 1997
Ms. Mary Lou Law
2050 Pathways Drive
Saint Paul, MN 55119
Divisiors ofPlarmirsg
25 Wett Fourth Street
Saint Pau(, MN55102
9�-�°��
Telephone: 612-266-6565
Facsimile; 6I2-22&3314
RE: Nonconforming Use Permit to establish that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of the
properly at 1354 Birmingham Street
Zoning File #97-244
I?ear Ms. L.aw:
The Saint Paul Planning Commission voted on November 7, 1997, to deny your request for a
nonoon£orming use permit to allow you to continue to use the property at 1354 Birmingham Street as a
� duplex. Enclosed is the Planning Commission's resolution stating its findings.
You may appeal the decision of the Pianning Commission to the City Council by filing an application
and fee for appeal within fifteen days of the date of this letter. An appeal should be based on what you
believe to be an error in any fact, finding, or procedure of the P(anning Commission. Enclosed is an
appeal application.
Please call me at 266-6639 if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance to you.
" �/,� /7�' �
_ �. '•-
Patricia James
City Planner
Enclosures
cc: File #97-244
Zoning Administrator
License Inspector
District 2 Community Council
' Mail Date: November 7,1997
�r�--t � �
� city of saint paui
planning commission resolution
file number 97-?�
�te Novemi�er 7, 1997
WFIEREAS, MARY LOU LAW, file #97-244, has applied for a Nonconforming Use Permit
under the provisions of Section 62102 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code, for the purpose of a
Nonconforming use permit to establish that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of the
property, on property located at 1354 BIRMINGHAM ST., legally 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; and
VIHEREAS, the Zoning Commitiee of the Plazming Commission on 10130/97, held a public
heazing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said
application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 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 heazing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following
findings of fact:
• 1. The structure is currently used as a duplex. It is located on the western half of the lot,
which is zoned R-3. The garage is located on the eastern part of the 1ot, which is zoned
RT-1.
2. The area and frontage of the lot (67 feet (Winchell)x 270.7 feet x 12l feet {Bnmingham)
= 27,047 squaze feet) exceed the mnumum standards for a duplex under the Schedule of
Regulations of the Zoning Code (6,060 sq. ft. area and 50 feet frontage).
3. The Planning Commission may grant a non-conforming use permit when there is
conforxnance with code requirements:
a. The use occurs entirely within an existing structure. This condition is met. The two
units are entirely within the main shucture.
b. The use is similar to other uses permitted within the district. This condition is met.
The duplex residential use is similaz to the single family uses to the west and the single
family and duplex uses to the east. If the structure were located on the eastem half of the
lot, it would be in confarmance with the zoning code requirements far 2-family
residential.
moved by �'ield
seconded by
in favor U�i��
against
9�-r��
� c. Tlze use has been in ezistence confinuously for n period of at least ten years prior to
ilse date oft{:e applicafion. This condition is met. The applicant has submitted lease
agreements dating back to June, 1483. Other leases were signed in 1986, 1987, 1988,
1989, 1991, 1994, 1995, and 1996. City directories for these yeazs do not list two
households atthis address.
d. The off-street parking is adequate to serve the use. This condition is met. There is a
2-caz gazage on the lot as weli as a blacktop pazking pad off the driveway from
Birmingham that will accommodate at least 1 caz. The zoning code requires three spaces
for new construction.
e. Hards{zip would result if tlae use were discontinued. This condition is met. The
appiicant has submitted figures showing that the total rental income from the property is
currently insufficient to cover expenses, and that the shortage would be worse if the
structure were converted to only one unit. The first floor unit rents for $700 per month,
while the upstairs rents for $450, for a total income of $1150. Monthly expenses,
including mortgage payment, taxes, utilities, insurance, and maintenance, total $1433.15.
,f. Rezoning the prnperfy would result in "spot' zoning or a zoning inappropriate to
surrounding land uses. This condition is met. Rezoning would result in the RT-1 district
extending beyond the back lot lines between Winchell and Birmingham into the R-3
• district along Birnungham.
g. 7&e use wiU not be detrimental to the e.xisting character of development zn the
immediafe neighborhood or endanger the public heallh, safety, or general welfare.
This conditian is met. The existing neighborhood chazacter includes both single fanuly
and duplex dwellings.
h. The use is consistent with the compre{zensive plan. This condition is met. The
Housing Policy Plan recommends decreasing density in areas where resi@ential density is
too great. The size of the lot is such that this azea is not overly dense. The plan also calls
for exploring the feasibility of code compliance inspections to duplex rental units.
Z. A notarized petition of 2t3 of the property owners within one Izundred feet has been
submitted stating their support for tl:e use. This condition is met. The applicant has
submitted a petition. Nineteen properties are eligibie; thirteen signatures are needed.
ApplicanYs petition has thirteen signatutes.
. 4. In addition to the zoning code requirements, the Planning Commission approved
guidelines for nonconforming use permits for duplexes in residential disiricts. These
guidelines call for staff recommendation of denial unless all of the following conditions
aze met:
� A. Lot size of at least 5,000 square feet with a lot width or fronf footage of 40 fee�
ApplicanYs lot has 121 feet of &ontage on Birmingham (front yazd) and 67 feet of
��-���
� frontage on Wincheil and a lot azea of 27,047 square feet, meeting this guideline.
B. Gross [iving area, after completion of duplex conversion, of at leasf I,800 square
feet for the 2wo units. This guideline is not met. According to the applicant's floor plans,
the area of the first floor unit is 1,222.5 squaze feet; the area of the second floor unit is
479 squaze feet. The total is 1,701.5 square feet, or 98.5 squaze feet short of the
requirement, If the units were certified as code compliant, concems about overcrowding
wouid be addressed.
C. Three off-street parking spaces (non-siacked) are preferred; two spaces are the
required minimum. A site plan sfzowing improved (durable, permanent, dustless
surface) parking spaces must be provided. This guideline is met. Applicant submitted a
site drawing (not to scale) for the rezoning request that shows a 2-caz garage and two
bituminous pazking pads.
D. All remodeling work for tfie �iuplex conversion is on the inside of the structure...
This guideline is met. The structure is currently a duplex, no remodeling work is needed
to complete a conversion.
E. T'he proposed dup[ex structure is located in a mixed density neighborhood, not a
hotnogeneous singte famity area or in an area where duplexes and triple.zes are
atready concentrated to the point of congesting neighborhood streeu. This guideline is
� met. The neighborhood is mixed density and not overly congested.
.F: A cade compliance inspection has been conducted and the unit is found to be up to
the housing code standards; or the property owner has agreed to make the necessary
improvements to bring it to housing code comptiance. This guideline is not met. No
insgection has been made by the Health Department. Fire and Safety Services (which
inspects structures with three or more units) verified the existence of a basement unit
whereupon the applicant submitted the rezoning petition that was denied by the City
Council. Approval of legal nonconforming status should be contingent on meeting
housing code requirements.
G. An economic feasibility analysis has been conducled for those cases where
economic hardship is claimed as one reason for the variance reyuest This guideline is
not met. The information provided by the applicant is insu�cient to support a
determination that compiying with the Zoning Code is not feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commissian, that under
the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a Nonconfornung Use Fernut to
allow Nonconformine use permit to establish that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of the
property at 1354 BII2,�r1INGHAM ST is hereby denied, based on findings 4B. 4F, and 4G.
9� f 7�
� Saint Paul Planning Commission
City I�Iall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 7, 1997, at
8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Maddox, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl, and
Present: Messrs. Field Jr., Kramer, McDonell, Nowlsn, Vaught and Wilson.
Commissioners Ms. *Geisser and Messrs. *Chavez, Gordon, Gumey, *Johnson, *Kong, *Mazdell,
and *Sharpe.
Absent:
*Excused
Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Roger Ryan, and Larry
Soderhotm, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff.
I. Approval of Minutes of October 10 and October 24,1997
! MOTION: Commissioner Kranzer movect to approve the minutes of October IO and 24, I997;
Commissioner Nordin secon�fed tlze motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote.
II. Chair's Announcements
Chair McDonell announced that Commissioner Maddox has resigned from the Planning
Commission. Her resignation �vill be effective when the Mayor replaces her.
The Steering Committee met today before the Planning Commission meeting. They reviewed
the 1998 meeting calendar, A copy of it wiil be sent in the nexY mailing.
Chair McDonell announced that he will be leaving at 4 a.m. at which time Commissioner
Vaught will take over as Chair.
ITI. Planning Administrator`s Announcements
Mr. Ford announced that PED staff that participated and the members of the leadership team
who were there were most appreciative of the workshop last Friday, and felt that it was very
valuable communication. They �vere very impressed with the Commission members'
engagement, and grateful for your willingness to take part in it.
Mr. Ford announced that at 1 p.m. on Thursday, November 13, there is a presentation on the
Learning From Series that Minneapolis City Planning is sponsoring. IYs at the Library on
Nicollet Mall in downtown Minneapolis. The forum is on some ofthe particularly successful
experience in the country in building highly economically integrated new housing in intercities.
��-1 ��
• The Comprehensive Planning and Land ilse Committee will meet at 4 p.m. in the aftemoon of
Wednesday, November 12, 1997, Gvhere there wil( be further discussion of the CAAPB
Comprehensive Plan.
IV. Zon'sng Committee
#97-207 Mendota Homes - Special condition use permit to allow a 10 unit cluster development
at the southwesf quadrant of Lexina on and 5t_ Claic (Beth Bartz, South���est team)
Commissioner Field stated that the zoning cammittee and land use committee of the Summit
HiII Association had recommended deniai. No one spoke in support. After extensive testimony
from the neighborhood and discussion with the applicant, the Zoning Committee agreed, and on
a vote of 6- 0 laid the matter over hoping to bring the neighborhood and the developer together
to try to find appropriate compromises to some of the issues involved in the project.
#97-244 Mary Lou LaFV - Nonconforming use permit to establish a duplex as a legal
nonconforming use of the property at 1354 Birmingham Street. (Patricia James, Northeast
team)
Commissioner Field explained that previously the Zoning Committee had denied a request to
make this a triplex. Additionally, the City Council denied the applicanPs request, Based upon
these facts, among other things, the gross living area afrer completion of the duplex was under
the prescribed number of square feet. In addition, code compliance inspections had not been
made.
• MOTION: Commissioner Fie1r1 n:ovec! clenirr! of a requeslecl nonconforming use permit to
establislt a �Luplex as a legal nonconforming iise of the property at 1354 BirnzingJaana Street
which carried unanrmousty on a voice vote.
#9�-257 Java Drive Inc - Enlargement of a nonconforming use to allow a coffee kiosk on this
site with an existing nonconforming auto specialty store at iQ94 Randoiph Avenue. (Jim Zdon,
Southwest team)
Commissioner Field stated that in approximately 1945-46, a Java Dtive Irtc �vas approved at the
intersection of approximately Snelling and West Seventh Street. It is the applicant's intention
to move that facility to 1094 Randolph Avenue. He added that staff provided some interesting
traffic flow information at that intersection.
The Highiand Area Community Council did not take a position. No one spoke in support or
opposition.
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved denfal of the requested entargement af n
noncnnforming use to allow n coffee kiosk nt I094 Randolph Avenue.
A concern expressed at the Zoning Committee was regarding this methodology and was it the
appropriate way to facilitate the placement of this facility at that corner. There �vas less a
concern about whether it would he an appropriate use to have there.
2
q� i7�
• Commissioner Vaught noted that he had two concems: 1) traffic flow; and 2) accident data.
Specifically, he was looking for was some way to compare this location wiih the other hvo
locations: I) Marshall and Snelling; and 2) tiVest Seventh near Snelling Hill. He noted that Mr.
Ryan did a very good job of putting together those statistics which convinced him that this
location is nat materially different from the other t4vo locations in terms of the flow of traffic
pattern or accident data_ If anything, ihe data put this location in the middie of the ot0er rivo.
So his concems were put to rest,
The question that he had led him to make the motion to deny was the wording ofthe code with
respect to expansion of a nonconforming use. He reads the code that when you talk about
expansion of a nonconforming use, you are talking about the existin� use on the Iot you are
expanding. He found it difficult to understand how a coffee kiosk could be an expansion of an
auto specia(ty store. Since then, he has thought about it and althou�h he nould prefer that be
considered a change in noncooforming use from an auto specialty store to an auto specialty
store and a coffee kiosk, he can't see that it makes a lot of difference. He does not think that the
code addresses this situation perfectly.
He went on to say that he thinks this is a good use; it provides a service. Upon reading and re-
readinQ the code, he can caff this an expansion of a nonconforming use, although just barely.
MOTION: Comn:issione� [jauglrt moved, ns r� substitute motion, to approve tlre request fvr
an enlargement of n nonconjnrn:ing use to allow a coffee kiosk on tlris site witk an exisiing
nonconforming auto specinity store af 1 D94 Randolph; ilse motion was secon�led by
Commissioner Mnddox.
� CommissionerField stated that he had come prepared to vote in opposition to this in accordance
with the staff recommendation untit he saw Mr. Ryan's data. Having seen ihat data, he could
convince himself that this is not goino to create an overwhelming hazard.
Tlze motion of the substitute motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Mr. Ford clarified the information. The staff recommendation was for denial. Staff does not
think that the change in nonconforming use was intended to cover this situation, and staff thinks
that it's appropriate that it doesa't.
Commissioner Treichel asked for a ctarification on the reason for denial.
Mr. Ryan stated that the reason for denial was the traffic situation, not the procedures.
Commissioner Vaught interjected that is why he speciftcally asked for the traffic and accident
data. On the basis of that data, he is able to conctude that there is essentially no difference
between this location and the location of Marshali and 5nellin�. If anything, this use is less
intense.
Commissioner Field clarified, that he believed, at the time af the Zoning Committee vote, there
�vas a great deal of discussion as to the procedure as opposed to the traffic flow as the purpose
and reason for denial.
��-i��
• Commissioner Vaught stated that it is clear to him that Commissioner Gordon's vote to deny
Gvas based on the traffic situation.
The motian on the floor 10 npprove ihe enlargemeni of a nonconforming use to allow a caf,f'ee
kiosk on tlris site with an existine nonconforming auto specialty stare ai I Q94 Randolpli
Avenue ca�ried ununimously on a voice vote.
#97-258 IIS West Communications - Special condition use perrnit to allow a 90' cellular
telephone antenna at 426 Fairvie�v Avenue North. (Nancy Homans, Northwest team)
Commissioner Field reported that this item was laid over until November 13, 7997.
#97-259 US West Communications - Special condition use permit to allo�v a 90' cellular
telephone antenna at 1b69 Arcade Street. (Patriciz James, Northeast team)
Commissioner Field stated that this item was also laid over until November 13, 1497. He read
the agenda for the next Zoning Committee meeting, Thursday, November 13.
Commissioner Treichel asked what the slope of Ramsey Hill is. Mr. Soderholm responded that
it is 1 I per cent.
V, Comprehensive Planning and Economic Development Committee
Commissioner Maddox announced an upcoming meeting with Neighborhood Planning and
� Land Use Committee next Wednesday, November I2, at A p.m., in the 14th floor Conference
Room in the City Hall Annex.
VL 1�Teighborhood Planning and Land Use Committee
Commissioner Treichel announced the next meeting, Monday, November 17, at 3:30 p.m. in the
14th floor Conference Room in the City Hali Annex.
VII. Communicafions Committee
No report.
�TIII. Task Force Reports
Commissioner Treichel announced that the Housing Task Force wilt begin to have focus
meetings on Tuesday mornings beginning November 18 and continuin$ through December 4,
1991, from 8-930 a.m. People �vilt be speaking on specific issues of housing; affordable
housing being the topic on the I Sth. She invited Commissioners to attend.
Chair McDonell left the meeting. Commissioner Vaught took over as Chair.
0
��' i7�
� �. oia Bus;n�s
Cammissioner Treichel, on behalf of Cammissioner Gordon and herself, said that they
appreciated the good attendance at the Planning Commissioner workshop last Friday.
Commissioner Treichel commented that in the future the Commission should take more
initiative to invite the people the Commission needs to communicate with about issues.
Mr. Ford said that a few staff people met shortly after the �vorkshop last Friday to discuss what
needed to be done tight away to be sure that some of the issues broueht up at the workshop were
followed through on. Three sug�estions were brought to the Steerin� Committee this morning:
Conan:issioner Review of Neighborhood Planning. As you have seen from the
presentations, a good deal of the p(anning and development work underway in
neighborhoods is not taking ptace with the formal "small area plan" designation which
would prescribe a clear role for the Commission. This is creating a communication gap. Ft is
important that the Commission have an opportunity to idantify issues of importance from its
policy perspective ear(y on, and an effort on the pad of PED to keep the Commission up to
date on the neighborhood efforts should help to make that possible.
2. Establish an Appropriate Certifrcation Framework for Neighborhood Plans. It's obvious
that the relationship of neighborhood plans to the City Plan is a significant issue. It's an
issue that is difficult to resolve Gvhen we do not have the means to keep aIl neighborhood-
level plans up-to-date. Several ideas have been suggested, and some models are available
M from other cities. We are proceeding to work out and describe the most promising
alternatives and will bring these to the Commission for discussion.
3, Quadrant Liaison. The Commission has already made a decision to identify members for
liaison roles 4vith each of the four quadrants within which PED organizes its work. We
support this idea. Exactly how the liaison role might evolve we're not su�e, but we believe
it �vould be useful naw for each of the quadrants to knoGV that they have one Commissioner
willing to be a contact point and keep informed about what is going on in their portion of
Saint Paul.
Commissioner Treichel noted that there's a point of tension between neighborhood plans
(District Plans and SAPs) and the Comprehensive Plan. In the process of doing SAPs over a
number of years it became c(ear that we needed an overarching structure (Land Use Plan) into
which each one of the SAPs would fit. Now the Comp Plan update is mandated by the State.
Neighborhoods are looking at us suspecting that this may minimize the neighborhood plans.
Another concem is that in previous years the small area plans were done with PED staff
guidance; more and more now, small area plans are being done independently. So, we Iose the
ongoing liaison with neighborhoods that we used to have which creates another point of tension.
Mr. Soderholm noted that staff is working on models for solutions. He stated that at the last
Nelghborhood Planning and Land Ilse Committee meeting, Commissioner Kramer suggested
that we try to abstract from existing district and small area plaas one or two pages of land use
policy that could be added to the back of the Land Use Plan as appendices so that we would
9�-���
• have a way to keep poiicy for each part of the City clear and knosv whaPs in the Comp Plan and
�vhaYs not in the Comp P1an. We should have some dialogue with each neighborhood about
their appendix. Commissioner Nowlin suggested that we try to designate �vhich plans should be
in the Comp Plan and Gvhich ones should just be guidelines, and would not have the legal force
of the Comp Plan. Ken Ford suggested that we reatly need to ]ook at models used in other
cities. Mr. Soderholm continued to say that the goals for the new modei should: account for
existing adopted plans in some �vay; account for the kind of neighborhood plannin� we see
being done in the future, which �vill include more of the independent plans; be clear legaliy; and
be administratively realistic about what can be accomplished.
Commissioner Engh asked who is the principle audience for the Comp Plan? Who are we
�vriting it for---developers, neighborhood groups, or the general citizenry?
Mr. Ford responded by saying that iPs an important question; one that staff asks itself often. He
replied that the answer is all of the above, if it's going to do its job. The Comprehensive Plan is
not just an operational plan for City government. If it does its job, it provides a vision and a
focus that affects a whole lot of actors in the City-- in the private sector, nonprofit sector, public
sector, and a iot of organizations. It's a very broad audience and if it doesn't Gvork for
bureaucrats, the directors of departments in the City who are putting budgets together for what
their department is going to do, it's not going to be very well implemented. If it doesn't work
for a mayor and a city council, people who have political interest but need to be able to talk
about vision and direction in a clear and �vay, it's not going to do its job very effectively.
� CommissionerNordin commented that she worked on the Midway Parkway Small Area Plan. It
seemed to be very money oriented and time-frame oriented. At the time, she said that she
wasn't aware of a City Comprehensive Plan or she would have had to consider it in working on
the neighborhood p1an. She feels that the Comp Plan and neighborhood pfans are in two
different worlds.
Commissioner Nowlin noted that there is al�vays a tension with comprehensive p]ans and that
comprehensive ptans in big cities are tough to do. Now that comprehensive plans have more
power than zoning codes, they have the potential to be very strong documents. The questions is
how do you want to change land development in the City? A developer can use a comp plan to
force a change in, for instance, housing density, if the comp plan says we ought to have more
housing density in an area. It can be a stimulant and it can have great power if people are
wi(ling to put that kind of power into a comp plan. He stated that it is really the Planning
Commission's opportunity to make a statement about what we think makes sense for the overall
City.
He continued to say that from what the Commission has heazd, the quadrants in PED are doing
action oriented project development planning, bottom up, the way (ife normally works, but that
PED isn't looking at the overall picture of the City. The Planning Commission has an
opportunity with the Comprehensive Plan to make its statement about vazious areas of the City,
vazious corridors, various needs, etc. IYs a coordinated statement of how �ve would like to see
the City change.
He added that it was great to hear what the quadrants are doing. What he finds frustrating on
LJ
��-i��
• the Plannin� Commission is that it doesn't have the opportunity to speak to the quadrant people
wl�at its wishes and concerns are. Is there a way the Commission can communicate its
thoughts?
Commissioner Treichel responded that in discussion earlier this morning, the Commission
talked about having on-going presentations by the four quadrants throu�hout the year, at which
time the Commission can ask our questions and make su� estions.
In addition, she noted that Commissioners, possibly rivo, would become the liaisons to each one
of the four quadrants. This structure �vould provided an on-going dialogue and a vehicle for the
Commission to express itself more fully.
Mr. Ford underscored what Commissioner Nowlin said and is requesting. He pointed out that a
couple of years ago Mayor Coleman asked the Commission how he couid get more information
from it. In other words, ho�v can the Commission do a better job of letting him know the things
that it's concerned about and the things it sees going on in the City that he ought to be aware of?
One thing that concerns staff is that where there really is effective communication going on is
where the Commission has a decision to make, where there is action to take. Although
communicating information is good because it sometimes generates good discussion, iYs not
always c(ear that is doing anything to affect the system. There seems to be a need for something
to be clear in the structure where the Planning Commission has a decision and everyone knows
that something is going to have to measure up to some policies. There has to be an agreement
that the Planning Commission has a clear role and a clear voice.
� Commissioner Nowlin asked if any thought has been given to the idea doing capital budget
improvements which combines STAR on a quadrant basis?
Mr. Ford replied that he has not heard of such a discussion, but iYs an interesting idea.
Commissioner Nowlin commented that there seems to be a disconnect behveen STAR and
project ideas.
Mr. Ford stated that Saint Pau] has had whaYs been regarded in the country as a model of what
Capital Improvements Programs did for a long time, an innovative one thaYs broadty
participative with our Capital Improvements Committee structure and the review of all those
projects, programs by tHe Planning Commission. Perhaps iYs gotten a little stale. There's been
a lot of interest in streamlining it because it probably doesn't work as well as it did because staff
cannot put the kind of time and effort into processes as they used to. It's something ripe for
looking at. He added that in the Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan, they are making a strong
effort to ensure that there's a strong link beriveen the comprehensive plan and the capital
improvement budgeting process and the operating department budgeting process.
Commissioner Nordin suggested that not only the Mayor wants to be more informed, but
perhaps the community also wants and needs to be more informed. She suggested having
Planning Commission meetings on cable TV as City Council meetings are, and putting the
Planning Commission agendas and minutes on the Internet.
•
��� »�
• Commissioner Nowlin suggested having a series about the Comprehensive Plan on cable TV.
Commissioner Treichet asked Mr. Soderholm about the West Side Plan. To make the plan
official, they do have to brin� it before the Planning Commission and the City CounciL There
may be things in that plan that are not consistent with another plan. How is the Commission
goino to evaluate those plans, and is the Planning Commission setting itself up for serious
confrontations?
Mr. Sodedtolm replied that PED staff kneGV that the p(an was 6eing done, but have not had a
role in its development. He thinks there may be issues in that plan that need to be reconciled
with city-wide policy. Plans that are initiated by neighborhoods without Planning Commission
or PED participation are more difficult to inte�rate with city-wide policy.
Commissioner Duarte asked how the priorities are set for both the Comprehensive Plan and
neighborhood plans.
Commissioner Treichel responded that her idea is that the priorities of the neighborhood plans
need to be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan and other appropriate plans. Neighborhood
plans always need to be negotiated with the Parks Plan, the Transportation Plan, regional plans,
etc. It's not an easily defined list of priorities.
Commissioner Engh is concerned about tryin� to keep the inte�rity of the neighborhood but
have a document that gives consistent direction. She asked if part of the role of the Planning
Commission is to resolve disputes?
� Mr. Ford replied that resolving disputes is a critical part of the Commissiods role. He stated
that was what he was getting at when he said there is something beyond sharing information that
helps the Commission reach a decision; some clarity about roles. He said that the Planning
Commission used to have a process in adopting district plans that included "boxed comments"
where the Commission would adopt a district plan, but sometimes in that plan there would be a
box around a particular recommendation and a statement that said, "The Plaaning Commission
does not endorse this particular policy." It didn't resolve anything though.
Commissioner Nordin thinks that the neighborhood plans are a vehicle to get their opinions and
insights to the Planning Gommission. The Commission is the city-wide body that evaluates
through the lens of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Treichel responded that when the district plans were set up, it was her
impression, that in the citizen participation process, if a district could agree on things, the pian
was thought of as public policy, rather than a wish list.
Mr. Soderholm stated that he thinks it's wron� to think of neighborhood planning as wish lists.
In the neighborhood planning process, citizens are engaged with the City departments and other
public agencies or whoever contro(s resources to try to Fvork towards something thaYs realistic
and can be done. Maybe it starts otit with a wish list, but as the process continues, a realistic
outcome emerges.
•
��-J��
• Commissioner Treichel added that the Commission's concem is that ivith the elimination of
staff, the Commission no longer has that capacity to take the wish list, to sit down with the
neighborhood for a year and come up with a realistic plan. She stated that her concern is that
more and more of these independent plans will come in and we wiil have serious confrontation.
In the past, staff and the commissioner did a good job of negotiating a realistic plan.
Commissioner Duarte feels that the Commission needs to help neighborhoods improve their
plans if they don't meet the standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Treichel added that there is also a political dimension that plays into these plans
that cannot be ignored. The Planning Commission does not have the Fnal say; City Council
does.
X. New Business
No new business.
XI. Adjournment
MOTION: Commissioner Treiche! moved adjournment of today's meeting; Commissioner
Eng secohded tke motion w1:ic1: crrrried unanimously on a voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 a.m.
•
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Ford
Planning Administrator
Approved �/ ' �i�' � �_
(date)
Carole Faricy
Secretary of e lanni ommission
•
q� >��
MINUTES OF TAE ZONING COMMITTEE
� CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON OCTOBER 30, 1997
PRESENT: Mme. Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gordon, Kramer and Vaught of the
Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorrey; Mmes. Bartz,
Homans, Sames and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of PED.
ABSENT: Faricy, excused
Time: 6:30 - 7:20 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson.
MARY LOU LAW• 1354 Birminaham Street• eastside between Iw and Arling on•
#97-244: NonconforminQ Use Permit. To establish that a duplex is a legal
nonconforming use of the property.
Patricia James, PED, Northeast Quadrant, reviewed the staff report and
presented slides. Staff recommended denial of the nonconforming use permit
based on findings 4B and 4F of the sCaff report.
The District 2 Community Council voted in opposition of the nonconforming use
permit and requested that the portion of the lot zoned RT-1 be changed to R-3.
District 2 submitted a listing of complaints from the Mayor's Information and
Complaint Office as we11 as documentation of three phone calls in opposition.
. Three letters were received in opposition.
Commissioner Vaught reviewed with staff that in 1995/1996 the property owner
sought a rezoning to RT-2 to establish three units in the structure. The
rezoning had been initiated at that time as a result of the Fire Department
determining that it was not a proper conversion. That request was denied.
Vaught asked if at that time it was a single family residence. Ms. James
responded that the building had been used as a duplex, that they were
converting the basement to anoCher unit, and as a result the applicant was
notified that they needed to establish a non-conforming status £or the duplex.
Commissioner Vaught hypothesized that presuming a code compliance inspection
were conducted and that it was up to housing code; and that this particular
legislaCion requires a negative staff recommendation when one of the
conditions is not met; and the only condition not met was the 98.5 square
foot deficiency in the total square footage; he asked whether if not for that
whether the staff recommendation might be different. Ms. James responded that
if there were a code inspection that said that the upstairs unit met code and
that it was safe, that she might still recommend denial because of the
guidelines, but wasn't certain the 100 square feet was a major drawback.
Commissioner Kramer asked to review the signed petition, as it was not
included with the staff zeport. Ms. James presented this for review.
Commissioner Kramer asked what the law was in regards to the timeliness of the
collection of signatures. Ms. James said that this must be Cimely, that
• signatures would be valid for one year.
9�'-1��
� Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, said he was not aware that the code
sets a timeline for how long signatures remain valid. He asked staf£ to
address the process which is followed regarding such. Mr. Ryan responded that
Ms. Law was given a deadline, which she met, for having the signatures in on
time.
Chair Field said he wished to see the above issue discussed as a part of
future minor zoning text amendments.
Ms. James reviewed that final action on the previous rezoninc request was
taken on January 31, 1996. (2oning Commi[tee denial 8 to 0; Planning
Commission denial 14 to 0; CiCy Council denial 7 to 0.
Mary Lou Law, the applicant, spoke. Ms. Law said that she had submitted two
difEerent petitions to the City over time which were both found acceptable by
staff. When she converted her house into a duplex she said sne was not aware
that a duplex was not allowed because other duplexes were located throughout
the neighborhood. The Fire Department advised her at that time on second
story exits. She noted that she rented the second story apartment first as an
efficiency, then later converted it to a one bedroom unit with a dormer and
was not aware it was illegal until she pursued creating a triplex by creating
a third unit in her walk-out basement.
Ms. Law reviewed that her mother, Mrs. Widing, who resides next door, fias
acted as the landlord for the past 6 years. She reviewed that a number of
improvements have been recently made including: landscaping, the stucco and
. trim repainted, and new boaxds put on both the front and back porches, and the
interior of the house has been completely renovated. If required to convert
it back to a single family home, Ms. Law said it would be very costly, and
would be an 8 bedroom home.
Commissioner Kramer asked what year the house was first used as a duplex, with
Ms. Law responding that the efficiency apartment was created in 1981.
Commissioner Chavez referenced the Information and Complaint Office's record
of complaints for the property, asking for clarification of which complaints
applied to her property. Ms. Law responded that most recently when the City
checked on complaints that they could not see a valid reason for the
complaint. She said when problems have occurred that she has taken care of
them within the required period of time.
Commissioner Chavez asked Ms. Law to address the lengthy list of police ca11s
for this residence. Ms. Law briefly reviewed the list. She indicated that
some of the complaints pertained to tenants who were no longer living at the
residence.
Commissioner Gordon determined from Ms. Law that she lives aoproximately 3
miles from the property. Gordon asked whether in 1996 when she applied for
the rezoning to a triplex whether she was told that it was zoned for a single
family residence. Ms. Law responded that she was denied the rezoning to allow
a triplex as it was zoned for single family, and triat within a very short
period of time following the denial, she was notified she would need to
� proceed with a nonconforming use permit for tke duplex, and that she then
. 2
q� 1��
•
proceeded with that.
Commissioner Gordon asked Eor an explanation of the four phone calls received
by District 2 Council that were in opposition and requested anonymity for fear
of retaliation. Ms. Law responded that this was related to a dispute between
herself and one of the neighbors, and that others were draor*m in by this
neighbor, and she dismissed any intention of any retaliation.
Commissioner Chavez questioned the ability within the process for layover to
allow Ms. Law an opportunity to have the property inspected. Zt was
determined that action could take place up to November 22, 1997, which is 60
days from the date received. Chavez asked the applicant wfiether she would be
agreeable and would take care of the details in that time period. He noted
the 100 square feet deficiency would need to be addressed. Ms. Law responded
that she believed the drawings were off as she met a11 of the requirements the
first time when she was requesting a triplex and said she would be agreeable
to layover.
Mr. Warner said that it would be possible for Ms. Law to make arrangements
with the Fire Department in this period of time for the certificate of
occupancy; further noting triat the Health Department does code compliance
inspections, which are similar in naCUre to C of O with Fire. He noted that
the Health Department does one and two-family dwelling units, and Fire does
three-family dwelling units, but suggested that Fire would be the appropriate
agency as there were comments from Barb Cummings, Fire, in the staff report.
Commissioner Kramer asked what the assessed value of the property is, with
� Ms. James responding that the 1997 market value at $71,800, and that the
property is listed as homesteaded. Ms. Law said that it qualifies as
homestead because her daughter resides in the home.
Commissioner Kramer asked when the house was refinanced, with Ms. Law
responding that it was refinanced approximately 8-9 months ago.
Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Gordon moved denial oE the nonconforming use permit.
Commissioner Vaught seconded the motion.
Commissioner Kramer said he would support the motion for denial. He suggested
that the economic feasibility analysis was incomplete and did not provide
proper information to determine that the house could not be self-supporting
and suggested that he believes a great demand exists on the Eastside for large
houses.
Commissioner Gordon accepted the above comment as criteria for denial.
The motion Eor denial carried on a voice vote of 5 to 0.
Commissioner Wencl was not present for the vote.
Drafted by:
! �°,»�- Sa.�`'.+.o�—"
Donna Sanders
Recording Secretary
S itted by[� A�,pmve �
�
Patricia James on Fiel
Northeast Quadrant Chairperso �
3
9�1��
ZONING COMMITTES STAFB REPORT
� ____________________�________
FIL'S # 97-244
1. APPLZCANT- MARY LOU LAW DATE OF FiEARING: 10/30/97
2. CLASSSFICATION: Nonconforming Use Permit
3. LOCATION: 1354 BIRMSNGHAM STREET
4. PLANNING DI$TRICT: 2
5. LEGAL DSSCRSPTION: 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. PRESENT ZONING: R-4 20NING COD& REFERENCfi: 62.102
7. 5TAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 10-22-97 BY; Patricia James
8. DATE RECBI{TED: 09/22/97 DEADLINE FOR ACTION:
A. PVRPOSE: Nonconforming use permit to establish that a duplex is a legal
nonconEorming use of the property.
. B. PARCEL SIZE: Flag-shaped parcel with frontage on 2 streets; 67 feet
(Winchell}x 270.7 Eeet x 121 £eet (Birmingham) = 27,047 square feet, or
.62 acres
C. SXISTING LAND VSE: 2-family residential (split zoning R-3; RT-1)
D. SIIRROUNDING LAND USE:
North: single Pamily and duplex residential (R-3; RT-1)
East: single family and duplex residential (RT-1)
South: single family, 3-family residential (R-3; RT-1)
West: single family residential (R-3)
E. ZONING CODfi CITATION: Section 62.102(I)(1) authorizes the planning
commission to establish legal nonconforming use status to the use of
structures which fail to meet the standards of section 62.102(b) if the
commission makes the findings listed under section H of this staff report.
F. HISTORY/DISCII55IOI�: In 1996 the City Council denied a request to rezone
this lot to RT-2 to establish three units in the structure. iZoning File
#95-232)
G. DI5TRICT COUNCZL RECO�NDATION: At the time this 5taff report was
prepared, no district council recommendation had been received.
r
I�a
q�-�7�
• H. FINDINGS:
1. The structure is currently used as a duplex. It is located on the
western half of the lot, which is zoned R-3. The garage is located on
the eastem part of the lot, which is zoned RT-1.
2. The area and frontage of the lot (67 feet (Winchell)x 270.7 feet x 121
feet (Birmingham) = 27,047 square Eeet) exceed the minimum standards
for a duplex under the Schedule�of Regulations of the Zoning Code
(6,000 sq. ft. area and 50 feet frontage).
3. The Planning Commission may grant a non-conforming use permit when
there is conformance with code requirements:
a. Tke use occurs eatirely within an existing stzucture. This
condition is met. The two units are entirely within the main
structure .
b. The use is simiSar to other uses permitted within the district.
This condition is met. The duplex residential use is similar to the
single family uses to the west and the single family and duplex uses
to the east, If the structure were located on the eastern half of the
lot, it would be in conformance with the zoning code requirements for
2-family residential.
c. The use has been in existence continuously for a period of at least
• ten years prior to the date of the application. This condition is
met. The applicant has submitted lease agreements dating back to Jvne,
1983. Other leases were signed in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1994,
1995, and 1996. City directories for these years do not ].ist two
households at this address.
d. The off-street pazking is adequate to serve the use. This
condition is met. There is a 2-car garage on the lot as well as a
blacktop parking pad off the driveway from Birmingham that will
accommodate at least 1 car. The zoning code requires three spaces for
new construction.
e. Hardship wou2d result if the use were discontinued. This condition
is met. The applicant has submitted figures showing that the total
rental income from the property is currently insuf£icient to cover
expenses, and that the shortage would be worse if the structure were
converted to only one unit. The first floor unit rents for $700 per
month, while the upstairs rents for $450, for a total income of $1150.
Monthly expenses, including mortgage payment, taxes, utilities,
insurance, and maintenance, total $1433.15.
f. Rezoniag the property would result in °spot' zoaing or a zoning
inappropriate to surrounding Iand uses. This condition is met.
Rezoning would result in [.he RT-1 district extending beyond the back
lot lines between Winchell and Birmingham into the R-3 district along
Sirmingham.
• g. The use mi11 not be detrimental to tfie existing character of
'1
9�'�»�
develapmeat in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the pub2ic
� healtk, sa£ety, or geaeraZ weSfare, This condition is met. The
existing neighborhood character includes both single family and duplex
dwellings.
h. The use is coasisteat with the compreheasive pZaa. This condition
is met. The Housing Policy Plan recommends decreasing density in areas
where residential density is too great. The size of the lot is such
that this area is not overly dense. The plan also ca11s for exploring
the Eeasibility o£ code compliance inspections to duplex rental units.
i. A notarized petition of 2/3 of the property owners withia one
hundred feet has been submitted stating their suppost for the use.
This condition is met. The applicant has submitted a petition.
Nineteen properties are eligible; thirteen signatures are needed.
Applicant's petition has thirteen signatures.
4. In addition to the zoning code requirements, the Planning Commission
approved guidelines for nonconforming use permits for duplexes in
residential districts. These guidelines call for staff recommendation
of denial unless all of the following conditions are met:
A. Lot size of at 2east 5,000 square feet with a lot width or front
foota9e of 40 feet. Applicant's lot has 121 feet of frontage on
Birmingham (front yard) and 67 feet of frontage on Winchell and a lot
area of 27,047 square feet, meeting this guideline.
• B. Gross living area, after oompletion of dupZex coaversion, of at
least 1,800 square feet for the two units. This guideline is not met.
According to the applicant's floor plans, the area of the first floor
unit is 1,222.5 square feet; the area of the second floor unit is 479
square feet. The total is 1,701.5 square £eet, or 98.5 square feet
short oE the requirement. If the units were certified as code
compliant, concerns about overcrowding would be addressed.
C. Three off-street parking spaces lnon-stacked) are preferred; two
spaces are the required minimum. A site plan showing improved
(durable, permanent, dustless sur£ace) parking spaces must be
provided. This guideline is met. Applicant submitted a site drawing
(not to scale) for the rezoning request that shows a 2-car garage and
two bituminous parking pads.
D. AZS sesnodeSing work for the duplex conversioa is on the inside of
the structure... This guideline is met. The structure is currently a
duplex, no remodeling work is needed to complete a conversion.
E. The proposed duplex structure is located in a mixed density
neighborhood, aot a homogeneous single-family area or in an area where
dupSexes and triplexes are already concentrated to the point of
congesting neigkboshood streets. This guideline is met. The
neighborhood is mixed density and not overly congested.
F. A code compliaace inspection has been conducted and the unit is
• fouad to be up to the housing code standazds; or the property owner
has agreed to make tke necessary improvemeats to bring it to kousiag
u
�g i7�
code compZiaace. This guideline is not met. No inspection has been
• made by the Health Department. Fire and Safety Services (which
inspects structures with three or more units) verified the existence
of a basement unit whereupon the applicant submitted the rezoning
petition thaC was denied by [he City Council. Approval of legal
nonconforming status should be contingent on meeting housing code
requirements.
G. Aa economic feasibility analysis has been conducted for those oases
where ecoaomic hardsfiip is cZaimed as one reason for tlze variaace
request. 2his guideline is met. Given the shortfall in income, it
does not appear £easi.ble to rent the house as one unit. It is not
clear that the home is marketable to a homeowner who would use the
entire house.
I. STAFF RECON4TENDATION: Based on staff findings 4B and 4F, staff recommends
denial of the nonconforming use permit.
�
�
•
rl
� � I 7`�
NONCONFORMING USE PER1iA1T APP�ICATION
• '� ,�' Depanment of Planning and Econnmic Development
M *�� Zoning Section
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPLICANT
Zip��_Daytime Phone_ ��% /�j,�
PRQPERTY
LOCATION
•
TYPE OF PERMfT: Application is hereby made for a Nonconforming Use Permit under provisions ofi
Chapter 62, Section 102, subsection i, Paragraph�_ of the Zoning Code.
The permit is for:
� Change from one nonconforming use to another (para. 3 in Zoning Code)
O Re-establishment of a nonconforming use vacant for more than one year (para. 5)
� Legal establishment of a nonconforming use in existence at least 10 years (para. 1)
❑ Enlargement of a nonconforming use (para. 4)
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: supply the information that is applicable to your type of permit.
CHANGE IN USE; PresenUPast
or
RE-ESTABLISHMENT: Proposed usi
Additionai information for all appiications (attach additional sheets if necessary):
! I Required site plan is attached ❑
p �/ �� �
AppficanYs signature � ril.c�����C� `�� Date /'fJ i/ City agent
5�
Name of owner (if different)
Contact person (if different) ���D����p, �j�i}rt�Phone ° jfp,�
J�� r��v1 L� � a/ S �u.s
�s al u� l�e x —
• �OC(r� D l'� �"1Dcl S�
L�, f � �`s
%axes � f�
or1 �IOuS� �5
�i�:�.`c/ {�yinerr��
� ,� 5 a o�� . �
y� 1��
�� �o
� ���o - � a ��,
��;� ��,`es cL �e ��oo -
�,,� ��
T .� h��se
i��j��� .
�LLf�ef 1�5
_—�-
� ha�e
�vo -�° ��- %�i�y cc��
l%�c� �-� a�� o���s o u7�
,��se t�' 1�us �"G�e a tQl
.L� �`S ��'a �f�.
� aoo � � � � ���
�� ���
���,o���a�
�C� �f� �`P.1'�C�1C Gk.l./Zt`�2 � /v O . a v m � ,
� us �' a %d ��c�o � 8� .�r �a�cv��
��� a ��� r' °
_--, � ,�S ..�UO • o o � f 0 �-u �
�� 1� t�cnc e
n� �-��.��-� �-�`� I�-�� � .%
�c�-�°�'� s�� � ��,
�-{-ruc �e� as
��"" �l�SU°
p��I� �
���� o 0
���e ccs �s .
re�l�� ��
/���• �� ��`
��;�-�
�A� v er� �'cc �c,
i,uou.t� �� ��733�
��s (0 ee v� r�-� rnarn �e� - +v ( vc.e� e cf�
��CCS e
-��,( r,uer�� � g�� od
i �C.S � 1 S � r'`C��ce� 1 Y �t�u 1�(1(,C�C ���`Z�-J�.
�S�- -� C��v1 Uer�
.=L� ��v�Ver i�'
�OU.��c�q �JcCSe�Ylev� �
J
�ac k c.c.Jau � cl
t,r)oc� (c/ � e
{�Y�CC � N � lOU F °�
� 1��-a�
��e�
�e i ✓� �� � vlduSar��S -
cc h 8���rc� ryr h o�,Gs� �
c�-.psfu � �s,
Sfi
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
CONSENT OF ADJOINTNG PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A ,
NONCONFORMING USE PERMIT
�Ve, tlie undersigned, o�vners of the property within 100 feet of the total contiguous description of real estate
owned, purchased, or sotd by THE APPLICANT within one year precedin� the date of this petition
acknowiedge that we have been presented with the followin;:
A copy of the application of
(name of applicant)
to es[ablish a
(proposed use)
located at:
(address of property)
requiring a nonconforming use permit, along �vith any relevant _site plans, diagrams, or other
aocun,entacio�. We consent to the approval of this application as it was explained
fo us by the applicant or his/her representative.
•
�
NdTE: Atl information on the upper portion of this apptication ust e comptefed prior to obtainina
etigibte signatures on tfiis pefition.
I•
rl i7L1C:41i}l�Y\'� �
C f � 17`��
SZTUATZON 2 PRO PORHA INFORMATION SHEET
REOUZRED I;IFOR'i.ATZON
` Aousin � Unit Breakdown
Number of bedrooms '
Square foot size of
unit
Contract rent
Est. Amount'o£ tenant
paid utilities
Income from stzucture
other than rent
OneYatine Exnenses
Maintenance
f j
1._J
Insurance
Utilitj.es
Other
Taxes
Existine Vacancv
Debt Breakdown
Initial principal
amount
Interest rate
SZNATION WITH
CONTZNUATION OF EX1RA
UNZTS ZN STRUCTURE
�
��G tJ • � `y'•
J
$
�,�DO � �
,�/�q''J,- ..��Ca. pD �
l/��7�'�. .IL' eo
� /�00 • �
�-'32r�Zzci
SINATION WZTH
CONVERSION OF STRUGTURE
TO LEGAL Iv'UMBER Oc �E.*iZTS
/
� /,/,SU , o-r� L( fS�r-�%�.�
�
�
7 �
F�
Amortization term
Balloon (maturity)
term
Monthly payment
Balance amount on
debt
Sources o£ loans
Debt service'coverage
ratio requirements
For rehabilitation
projects•
Type of improvements
(provide detail)
Cost of improvements
(provide detail)
..�%�� ; �-�'
/ / ��
�
-- _ -7 _.- . .
��
��. � � �� � � �
--- ----- - , . -- ------
--
! � —=----- p. ' z. �.
-i �----------------- }-_ `- ��- fi , f =
--- -- - -
- - �, � �,
--- ---- � ----------- ----------- - -- - - -
) � �, I S `
-- ------�, `�- _ ---------•------ - ---=-- -- �- - --
�1 '{� ' /
_ j J� _
1 \��� �
I
� 3 � � ., i - ; ; ,
----- -- — — - - -----t--,�-- ---- — --- k -- -- -- -- —
''� V 1 '�� --��ti=�� - - -
_ a ..
'-- —� '- ^
� Y � i'
1: . 1
------ ---�-- ---- - ------- -------- ` - -- - ` -- - - l � �
--- --- — --- -------- - -- --- --- -_l — -- '
-{ � --� �-- -
4 �� i� _
-------- — — ---- -- --- -- --� --------- ---
--- - -- -
— -- -- -----��--�------------------� � ---� - -----�
�-- � -
_._----_.�°�_�.! _____
--1�1'�� t''�----_
- - - - --
— __.-.- _
�,,;,.
yr� v �_
"__'_' __"'_"'_"_'___y��pv- Y'_-.____.-._
. N -
_l_..
� �
--_. _.t°_ ��-_
13 Z ��
_�3�2�i
_ �..�. _ � _
/ � _
_
�------- n -� �pL
J____.�"__.
_ ��
1!� !�
�
� _
t�—__
� �` J
--_--- ---- �-- ----- -- -- -- - ---_ - —�=
�-- -
� ti �� � �. ,
----- r� �c�`: — ------ — --- — _— — — — — ---- — --
�
__------- -- —_
, , , Z , ,;�
� ' '` �—� Y�"h3 � —
— — —._._— --- -- _ � ;'__
— -- — — — — — — �—s— — --- ,�----- -- -------- — — --
------- - -_ 1 _- ---
-- -- --------- _.. -----
� ---
- - - -- - - -- - - - - -- ------- - ------
�,-,._:,�_.�.�.
� � ��l � ( � (9 �/
��
y�-� �
-�= ---__.
T �,
�+
- -�� h �,
--��- ---
— _
� �.
�
----- ------- ---- -- ------
� J l>
------� S� �-��- -- --- - --- ��
�-
------ ----,�---- -- - - -------
H
��
----------- - _ _- ---
_- -- --�� __------- -- __ ---------
-�! ` � , z 9�
---- -... - -- -- --- '-. . --- -- ---------
�-
I
----------- --_----- -
--------_----.
�- �, £,g
--- - - - -- `_ ------- -------
1 =� __�-__i __
--� --- --- ---
- - 1---- ------ _
S' � a "-
, 6r( __
t �
- --- - - _- -- -- -
- - -. � - - -----
: � ��
- ____ _.-- ___ - , --- _-- �.-
- -
--- --- --- --I-g`�--- ---,��-_- -- -} -..
- - - ---- - -
--- - --- ---
-- -
_ --- -
--- - - ' �s' y -
-----�-
� - -- --- -- - ---
.. . ��� �.�AYIi_.
��
��-�7�
•
AFFIDAVIT
OF PERSON CIRCULATING THE CONSENT PETITION
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
SS
u
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
�1 7�/�O.r �� , being first duly swom, deposes and states that he/she is
the perso�i wh� circulated the consent petition consisting of � pages; that affiant represents that
the parties described on the consent petition are all the respective owners of ihe properties placed
immediately before each name; that affiant is informed and believes that each of the parties
described on the consent petition is an owner of the property which is within 100 feet of any properry
owned, purchased, or sold by petitioner within one (1) year preceding the date of this petition which
is contiguous to the property described in the petition; that none of the parties described in the
consent petition has purchased or is purchasing property from the petitioner that is contiguous to the
property described on the consent petition within one (1) year of the date of the petition; that this
consent was signed by each of said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures are
the true and correct signatures of each and a1t of the parties so described.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this �� day of � , 19�
� , ' �u.�.�- /l,. . � , , ,,� ��� .
►..�. • s � �:
•^^^.�,, .
• ur�ophuwte wunr.wNo
P10TARY PUBLIC•MINNESOTA �
RAMSEY COUNTY
. - Mrcomm.Eq�Irea.lan.stz000
/
� a_.� .s/L• � / �
� �
�� � / .!�
.��, -
'I3o -(o3/�Z
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Page � of �
1/31r`97
q� 1��
��6-�a�s
• CONSENT OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
� �
We, the undersigned, owners of the groperty within 100 feet of ' �i—.✓
and the total contiguous desciption of real estate owned, purchaced, or sold y
petitioner within one year preceding the date of this peti�t3'-�n, acknowledge that,
we have been £urnished with a cop of the a lication of// ,� �au. �Tr�'u�r�l �`�..�/
£or special condition use permi noncon£orming use permi (cir�le one) along with
any relevant site plans, diagrams, or ot er ocumen ation; and consent to the
approval of this application as it was explained to us by the applicant or
his/her representative.
( -�.
C� �3� :z����,., '-�
�
�g . � � J
�y�
� �T/ ,
�1 / ��/ /3.L JY � � . -
�
� � �
� , ` � . � � (1+ T
�� , � n �� � / . tL� G
• l� ` ��"� 'm'L' �
,��� > . ,
�� �
' - _. , ,_' r � �
� ` 22/, ` �e ��
� l3�1 Q re.rt, ��.��wt S� `3t R�<
��.�,�,� �;.�.�-zs - —
y,,, ,�. > � ,° � - ..
���� � !� � r rr
� '
- ��� �� � �� li
� i�
ID � L,�r,� � tti,.�
��� � -' ! � � � r�-�tiR�i A
i �y 3� w; ,�.f 1
_�,;
G �3��� �.�„���� -= ;;,
�
,�.
O
a
9
,
��
- �� ! �
,�,��` 3
� +.
' 3
��cr, ��
� .,
,� ; �_
�' ' 9L-
-
_-�>�;
,��
L / Y
`�- J�..
�l/v —%�
4-- i4-'�
_ ; ,..
� i�
�
8 q � �I
���
�i�-��
•
•
11JZqJ1357 15:41
pisfiri�t 2
f,127315134
Gaunci�
UIST T4!0 COUhICIL
PAaE c'L
�� / 7�
T.1ir1 StAlvafs� Av►nua $uka �o�
October 27, 1997
Patricia James
l lth Ftoot, City Ha(1 Annex
25 Wrst Fourth Suaet
St. Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. James,
5t.9w1. Mrt 55n7-35o8
(ytz)Ti�_4s�l2 fAX(�+1.)79�_ot1�
I am writing to yau on behalf of the District 2 Community Council regarding the proposed
nonconforming nse permit at 1354 Bumingham Ave.
At the October 15'" District 2$oard of Directors meeting, tha following resolution was
unanimously adopted:
To oppose the nonconforming use permit for 1354 Birmingham and request the
poRion of the lot zoned RT-1 be changed to R-3.
u
Prior to the passage of this resolution, theYe was a public hearing at the Dis2rict 2 Physical and
Neighborhood Issues Committee. Flyers were distributed to neighborhood residents and several
phone calls were received. Significantly, I believe, all residents who responded asked that they
remain anonymous because o££ear or reprisals. A sheet with phone calls received is attached. At
tha meeting itself, only two neigh6ors attended and both spoke in opposition to the perntit
because "thece have been problesns with that house fat years."
'�he reasons for our opposition to this appl'tcation are primarily based on section Chapter 52,
Section 101, sub9ection i, paragraph 1 g of ihe zoning code: "The use wiil not be detrimental to
tha existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public
health, safety and general welfare."
The comments of neighborhood residents, the �re departmeat inspector, a faur-page list of
Citizen Setvice complaints (attached) and a summary of the police calis (attached) all lead us to
concCude thai this property is already an endangerment of the pubiic health, safety and general
welfare of the suttounding nexghborhood and so this permit shpuid not be granted and the use
discomir�ued.
In addition, white acknowledging that we are not experts in home 6nance, it does strike us as
odd that a hquse which has been a duplex for 17 years still requires this kind of income per
month just to meet expenses. The economic hardship arguments are not convincing as presented
and seem incomplete.
��
Finally, while it is not strictly speaking one of the criteria that must be met for a nonconforming
use permit to be issued, thera is clearly a theme of deception and disregard for the tules that runs
thFoughout the app]icanYs participation in this process. In addition to the whole itlegal triplex
matter, the neighbors' responses to the current app]ication, the comments of the fire inspector
and the continual problems with upkeep of the property, there is also the fact that the applicant
has heen regiatered as the owner and homesteader since 1386 when the property is clearly not
11l24/1597 15:41 5127315194 DIST TW� CdUWCZL VfiGE 53
. . q�'"���
• being homesteaded. There is no evidence that the pattern of behavior by this landlord will change
ifthis permit is granted.
For these reasoris, we urge the members of the Zoning Gammittee to appose this appFication for
a nonconforming use pernut. We thank you for this apportunity to raise these issues with you
and for your consideration of them as you determine your response.
Sincerely,
�`-�` ( "�
Tim Dornfeld
Executive Director
�
•
•
�
•
FP.OM : ST MAP,K
PHOFIE h10. : 2240223
Oct. 39 1997 03:2�Ft9 F'1
q� ���
�o���f ��
�w���� �
�� 1 c� �A �.(�� �-f �5- �-��/�r� f= r�d�U
�/l��Tff � ftST ��-A � ' �'/t��It'�-�f/t� G�ce �
r
�� �1 �I=— �rt110 �— j�UcILI� �/,��
`��� :� X�lC�SS f� U I/� 5 f��w� ���0��0�
•� (� �f.�- �� 2-�xi�- r t%6 G� / 3 S ��.��isU��,t�
�jl-�A/L� �--C� � �5� � D� 7��� �,��J�'G.�-�� s
�-� �-- �,�v� ��C r S /?'.=-�� U� �avG�.% ��C r s % .
f��� �OS�'��'1.� �pa� '��X/.6�r�/`S ,�S
.��,u .�'� `T/�;� �.� S % � � �'�-
��� � _ ��i .��1� �x1�7` S �1�/ �Trf--
�,�,c� �� �
,��',�-trr� � _ ��
���� t�� � � �
�,� ��� � ��s ���� ��� s
��.� � ��� �' �-�� ���� � �vY� �'��
�-� Si�'��T � � �� � �--�y/���/
��r�
�U�%(/I L� f��= r71�< S S �G S Q ���
l Q� �i�-��� o,�- D�� �� ����� �
�,�Gr� S /��
6�'L� �ru1C� ��� � �
��,1-�r�� Gt S
s� � ��� DU`' ���� ��
O�G/ - /� `���.G/!; U� /'�.� � _
�����--��
�-
`�3 ���,� �-�� S�
����� ��
�
;;, :
�:-
:-.�i' _;:`:
;- ._
��-s�,._,; ..Y.> �t:,. .;;,..; ;;{ 3 _ ,�..,. ,: .. . � j �; 17`�
(i'�� - _ C i�� !I. F �+.Ff23.. r�=;�_� , -�� . ..,.1_. .<r--:.cr-;
� :.•. � ; •;�.,..a.:!' . ��:.;•_ _ _ .
A . . _ _ .:,'� � - :.a . ,`{,_`�� ai } . t . , . . . ��.. _ . , , j� :.
� r ,�t...s.� ? ,. �s' S:' :.7;;` -- .i�l.' a ` '<=
��' ' ��~ �.;�. . '.'' . �i;�' Post-It'"brand so�ae6��! _;" i.;�s
}Fi3:�.� . : � � � � - . . � . T° PIG4� m . r. r • , �; ° �%3
.•_.; ... . .. �e. Ne.� ►.ibr - � €
:��� Octobe�3, 1997 c � � �- -
� t ' ' � - Phone If
- . - � oept. - � � - �
_ '
' . , Feal/� FaxA . _ .
" D f Id E f D'e f
Tim om e, xecu ive tr c or •.
pistrict 2 Communiy Council _
2169 St+4lwater Ave. #2�'( . '. ; � < �
St. !'aui, MN 55119 ' `
, .,,�.j
FZE: 1354 Birmingham Duplex ��^�� ��" ' • ' ` `�
; �
• ;:;:�
pear Mr. Dornfefd: � ,'`` `° ;`�
,v
i- ' �:_. .
;'".' s �
;'%�r`=i�' ['�'" :� *_�-i•�
�: :::. �-; fi;.' This letter is fo express some of my concerns about the duplex at 1354 Birmingham: .I .:' �: }
. ;�;.
i' `��:.: ,::. �; would rathar have this house converted back to a singie family home_ I have been in '.
� `t'�->a "�,�� the neighborhood for over 5 years.; Of those 5 years, I have 6een exposed to a numher :. ',
' of pr'oblerns concerning this properky. '
My thought of the owner (iandlord) is not good. I fee{ she is a slumlord. This property is
in bad shape outsida 1 could just imagine what the inside iooks like. The peopie she
rents to are not the best neighbors to have. On numerous occasions this past summer
the poiice have been called to this address for domestics, b-b guns being shot by
children, just to name a few.
�
.
i have 6een woken up numerous times by kids running around in their yard at all hours
of the night and also adult parties or get-togethers. I have experienced bad language
quite often by adults as well as kids.
i don't feef that this home shoufd be Multi-femily. 1f { need to deal with a siunllotd and
bad renters, i woufd much rather deal with only one family instead of two.
I live reaf close to this prope�ty and have had nothing but pro6lems with the renters.
Pfease review their Petiti�n that was su6mitted tfl you. ( was approached about 5-6
times requesting my signature, I would not sign. i don`t think they received enough
legitimate signatutes.
Thank you for your tirne. Piease consider not approving this permit.
`7� � t� wk� �t D v42M^+av�-., C�,Y.au�n�o�.c�, �-�.2� --�-a-�e F�-c
(rha.` �.�x,�:�`�
t
� /��.
.��r� !��' �fL�„ �°"'j_ 2��„
��
9����`�
�
Phone comments received for 1354 Birmingham:
Ail callers requested that their names and addresses not be used because of concern about retaliation,
but they all live in the immediate vicinity:
1. It has always had lots of problems. Continued to operate as a triplex unril recently. They aze not
good landlords. Doesn't want the permit approved.
2. Doesn't like having a duplex there. IYs been okay this past year, but before it has been very
noisy.
3. It's been a triplex since the last meeting. Permit should not be approved because they will do
whatever they want without concem for the neighborhood. They still don't keep up the yard at
all.
4. Sent letter: on back.
Also, Fire Inspector Bazb Cummings left the following message in response to our request for more
information on the properry and its history of inspections:
• We got it from zoning to enforce and from what I understand, they were putting in an illegal
basement unit. It already had two units in the building and its not zoned for two even. They
were dickering with zoning for well over a year, being very, very difficult and not doing what
they needed to do and so they dumped it in our lap to enforce. I had to tell her on the phone
that she get this straightened out or I take it to court and she could tell it to the judge. �Ier and
her daughter have been playing the ownership game, putting it back and forth, and I told her I
didn't care who was going to be the owner, I was going to take them both and let the judge
decide who was going to take the punishment for whatever they were not going to be doing
legally. From what I understand they are very difficult to work with.
�
OC�. -03' 9':FRI1 14 09
�
�
Octoher 3. 1997
SiA�E OF �1�'i-?IPEL1hE S1FE�` 'EL 6i.?°695�4i Y.uO:
�jg 17`�
Tim Dosnfeld, Execu;ive Qirector
pistrict 2 Ccmmunity Councit
2�E9 St�(f��,�ater Ave. #26'I
S? Faul, AdN 55 �19
RE: 1354 6irmir,gham Duplex
Gear N7'. Dcrnf°id�
This ietrer is to express some of my concerrs about tne duplex at 1354 B:rmingham. I
wouid rather have this house conveRed tack to a singie family hame. I have besn in
fhe neighborhood for over 5 y°crs• Of those 5 years, I have bean exposed to a numoer
of prablems concerning this propecfy.
My thought of the owner (landiord) is not good. I feei she is a siumtord. This property is
in bad shape outside ! cou(d just imagine what ?he inside looks like- The peopte she
rents to are nilt the best neighbo�s tc have. On nu,r°raus oc�asions this past summer
the poEice have ksee� cafted to this address for domestics, b-b gu�s b°ing shot by
chiid�en, just to name a few.
I have besn waken up numerous tima� by k+ds running around in thzir yard at afl hours
of the night and aisc aciuit parties or get togethers. i have experienoed bad language
quite often by adufts as e�reit as kids.
! dcn't feel that th+s home should be k7ulti-famiiy. 1f i need to deaf with a s!umlosd a�d
bad renters, I wnuld muctr rather deai with oniy one famiiy instead of r.ua.
{ live real dose te this pruperty and have had natning but problems v�ith the rerrters.
Piease review their Fetition that was suhmitted to ycu. I uras approached abouf 5-B
times requesting my signature. f r+roufd no; sign. I don't think they -eceived enough
legif,rtate signatutes.
Thank you for your time. P{ease consider not approving this permit.
.
�
�
�
�JCT-�6-1997 lc 13
N
i
c
F
<
Z s
V W
6 �
� V
° c�
� t QM
m
� y C Q
N O
W I� Y
S. � P Y
o �pn
F Y A 1
w � E O j
Y O 4 6 �
� � �
'g _
y
¢ 1 4
A .
c i
�=ITIZ=N ScRVi��� 7�=ICe
u r
u � ou i
• O� � � 6 .2y J � 6 N
3 > W � V � � � r � Y p
>� K P� 2 O W N Y W
K� S Y�C � N r� W � 6
�z a Ni LI i S
� +� W
� J 5 u � � � � u � � �
LL: � � S OC (1 V. S '.�K
`- 9 W y W ux
N W V W_ N Y W 1' W
Y�.� OC��r�y.N}
o � .�iy�jn V
� y ✓ GY� �
Ni6 NZ Y�
4ip {Y�NrH
„ 1q - ��3' W ..
tf w� Y W w w N U y w
u JY V U �NI $ --�Wis v VJ
���ii'
4W 21�1Y41���Q�
W � �4•n��C 0
Y S S.. N�� W� W W 2¢ w
l+tiF�JO� u3SOC46�
S
: K
• 1
X
r z
L �.
V L m
c� m
� c .s
V �' y J M
!l �/1 K r
P
F
p (] ( G lu N
O � O O
G
� Z
Y Z
Y N
�
wi � Z O
• a
. �
. h
0
c �
�
2 U
W m
� L
a[ 1 O
T..- U
W 4 C
�E g
s�na
y O \ A
C t
m y o N
� S
O •
� a � n
W N O O
ygu`>
�
�
n C U
O V���
m u
J � qr'
N � d
Y/ � P
� b D
A
o �
•J
�- V
� 4
�
G y
�� y
Y.
w
F £
O
m V
W og
� T
N �
� Y
Y �
��
o�
W O U
1�CM
N
K
�
�
r
P
O
O
0
S m 4
O i
6' S O
� ` L
P � �
w a ry 5
6w9
r aN z $
y v p a
Aa �
V P V a
��g�
�+ O Y
E m.
O y e �
N U
C
N C S,
.n p
K j y ]
Y `
m m
a u
� �
� W
t m
G W
� �
i Y
� C
t
m K
O W
W iG
r �
H N
� C
9
Z C
�°
O�
� _
S (Y
Ya
N
<
a
N
�
a
C
O
O O
Y K Y
W `
w
U V
s W
W W
H N
m rv
Y O
N N
�
W
2 r
Z �
C W �
6 � N
w
o s w •
� 4
ao��j
W � �
� � � C
�C�E m
o u m
� PVy
a o � ✓ g
N\U �.
= o u .°- �
e �a C e
O G c = o
1p y�
K c � V
, d O
O � C.
• X
. �
Y Q
� M G
¢
4 Y K
i a y
� Z 1
:ve�tz
� O
W
J
m Y i
W � �
K��
h J
���G
C1 3 p
� � U
� < K
° w �
W � ;
F
Y � �
�-s
N
f
2
�
n
�+
�
P
O
D
012 25o c639
2 O +
S �
H S
�C 7 u
W i.i b
om �.
< Y
u�t
,P�
m c�am
u m
�T. �
n�°�'�
N \ S L
2P Y O��
�O ' -� C
O � Y O 9
� V 6
K c c b
O 4
o � G
.y
.
w
�
v-
J
6 4t
m
41 W
5 S
✓ �
O .�.
W 1V
K w
N U
v
N �
Zw�
j' h �
Q �
J W
J
W =�
f V �
N
4
�
s
v
M
A
P
�
G
Y
.�,.
� N
V V
� �
W W
^ a
N
n �n
N N
N ry
0 .�2
9�-17`�
_/
•
•
�
�s:7-75-19?7 1��13
N
z
v
�
z
m
n
11
C
S
O
W
K
w
z
S
�
U
h
�
�
�
W
�
d�
n r_
H L �
x .-
� c ° e °
< F�. �
u s� u -°
° � e °
cs
W F
O O
.a -"
my o`
o" 'e
f P J y 6 N
V ` \ Q [.
it��lF�i CY�
zd� zw..
r p 9
D y L V V V
u.u � u
~ 66 c C
w � � � U �.G
` V
� m N S L C 1
r � O � V>
e m C o m
06NV i
K
a
s
�
N �
� °
W Q
a u
C
r
=x
�
� m
�
O�
W S n L
?
Y 0
b Y y p
�4Y�
r �J
O. N G
�
J
L �
K � <
U U a
}�t
yJ
L ¢
�'G
O
Y
S
K
m
M
J
a
M
m
a
�IT LEV Sc�VICc JP=I_c
F Y
� a
w ��
6 J � t
WY ��
S � � o
i c ' 'p
Ol N � L
G c.
�v�NT2
V ti\
6M` �
0
=� a
a
o � � u
� e�� �(� J
J G 1 - p
� N 1 d
w c c u «
W �. r .. H
¢ m L 3 i
�
D O N V
o++uw
c m
��� m:
'�zuc
-
�
S�
K�� W 4t N
nwu 0�=
V'-G Q
�m� G�i
_� _
> OC = O 1/� Y W Y
m,c�iu`aq�.�,r
r ti d g\ i Y N
` � V u 1�1 u W
fA �N Y
Y��(=Wp�
Y G S' J
V 1 W W✓� O �
xavW�s-.
� c
CIY2J
J U U G Y p G J
LL�'�o�2��`w
vi�ac�plt,
�29�G4�CL�3
N �L
�m m
4 � S
c
Ol ^ O
G S L Y
o r � =
f 2 � �
D � U N
M r ✓ W
r 'L � K
� � �
a � x w
H Y2r p
q G 61 6 [ p
C ff Of C U Z
•m 1 , W �OS
� 5��� - �<
Q � � U
1
av�o �
d\ W Z d\ G
L�OS�LQj
Y
C M�Y W L O K
< C 6 L K O N
4
V
Y
m
!n
P
n
N
0
6
O G
c a
H r
W �
6i �+
S S
W W
M �
G J
� �
512 250 �5�3
g -�
� Y p
W < V m �
r> �e
�a �i
W V �. m
O � � Q
T W
� O Q OU
}. 2 u H
� t - /ty � g�<o
_OP V NiL'K
W � � L 3 Y
3N� y {tY
O� O� O � �
O Y 0 ` O J
��� Q�O
���ie..�'+w
° +4 ° .`.00
o a� i a i
w
' d m u. z �s
:i y �u, �
x r= � r a = � � a
t�� c fY�3Y
�w� � z
� G � u � W Y F�
W� L�j N�. � ` W V�
S N r
� ¢ w �
� u &a u
m 4 °
p szm a-
IL � v -¢ J Z N> r
a� :.�s�' ��.�.,
t SH G ~ u'� •
rn �i�0 ° tiu"cy
U � r j ...
sUx opK`
��1'�.1U
O C W Np b�p � N K
V. W�1 W W t.n \{7 � J
r�-acw mC
W
�'
N
�
Y
C
m
M
�
7
O
O
i
{1
W
V
W
VI
�
0
?.�7'
q a J'7�
>
�
� 8
2� Y
i . i
� V
L E �
W C "
c c e
v g
W �
w i >
o r
0 C
: Y � � N o
U \ \�
fYYM C
Z�CY��
O O
«
a8� tJ — jy`}'
J � [16'
N C C 4
W � � O
°�
opV
: y �
�°z
��n0
zwc
i Z
� F � i
c-�p
6
N 1
Y x N
ra
m x •
z � G
u
KSt�O[
` = W N
OZ
3 � � W
O � 0 F
O � z
W O �
����
>
�
a
i a
r
�u
� m
w C
a L
W ID
W a
T G
��
O
F P P
� N N
y O C
O C
=E�
1 9. 6
� _ C
¢ L U
�j
�
>
.j
S y
s z
< 4
�
� O
4: J
��
>r
��
` r
� s
N e�
� 4
O
s c .
N ¢
� 6 Y
� V W
W �! �
f �?
tl
S
S
Y
m
T
P
N
v
O
W
w
V
W
d
�
N
�
�
m
M
�
A
�
H
N
Y
6
F
U
i
W
�
�
1 , 1 I
u
•
•
JCi^_75-1`a-3! 1?�:4
N
�
v
�
S
K
m
J
�
�
tl
N
Y
s
�
W
G
�
K
N
J
�
�
N
6
s
�
w
2
�
0 K
N�
��
V y
O �
u y
g b s
t �- W
~ � G O
Y G
V �
r
¢ n,
N C
4 a W
u « °�
L�2
N
U 9 �
u
a s
� 0
� W �y
F
>i
� mw�
d W K
t ro
� � � �
i � S
w�
O � `�
N
W �
A r W
y 2 K
m 6 r
� 'c _` s
O
L N Y
L \W i
0 10 N
4 O K J
�
N
L �
�d L
O �- $
V
LNY,
ti
V n�u
Y�
O U G
>E
Y 3
'v n
aC p
O
�.ITIZ=.�1 5=R'JICc OF=ICc
°' s i
°' .�v`ix
( N 'E H W O
� x 4 � G F �
sw 4
w� G�q..�}O
x = W V
° i z ` N z
W
.�� w�YY�
"� (nrn
mC �c�NZ
3
x ¢ s m P
O�
Y?PK� Y'-
V\\ O N J� K
W{� 1f1 S K .T �C
N\\�
�00��2'��
na H F W m � ! ^ N
O LY� u:<GJ
�i.u x�u
J�
V=iCL �vr = .Y�P
� � � r� 2 w �<
N W � W N
CO��4NZOo
; a
=
2 W W
4_C
�3
F � W Y
W
Y w m � y 1
� H S C
O = i F
1
�w�c�
yYNUt
YJl.�
N pj
J ti W
��ia
..! N
u Wm.2
� � �
m
a
V
a
W
�
N
0
W
}
V
K
W
O
4
N
�
A
t.�.
Z
z
2
N
�
0
+n
0
�
,
Y
O
�
�
F
2 Y
� V L V
a a u �
w �� C Y
o�- u e
�c
6
W O 6 O
L �
` e c --'
� O O
U��Y}
W N N O
N�\}
�oo
v t
O m� n A
N U U D OI
� 88�°a
�,ceo�u
y{r� q
� V y 0 m �
m n � O
oo�'v u
N
m
Q i
� � F
F T p
K • � <
Q � � NU
a � � aLL
F
V C L J�
Y: S V �( O
M � �O � �
T 1� � W
� � G W
W � � SO
N W�Y. Cm 6' W
ya.��Ca��d
a �y cF. • aic��.
V W W 2�'+1
��g& �&: �a..
�Na[ ti
J< 2 v10p�
Y6� �-Pz
1�L�
Jp�wry4JOG
tilJ3� O\N W� 6
r 3 N K C 1 W J t
A
K
:9
2
C
m
�
H
�
J
N
�
N
H
�
t9
J
�
W
y
M1
g
M O � Z�
�y r �
� L
6 y Y 'r
Q L �
W :_°
S y
W � �
Y �1 9
sL
V
W���
N \ \ �
�eO�
a x£
Dy�w�
w
����
W �+� � G
� Y m C +
OCS �0
.y
��3
S 0 N
� K �
g K
VK3
��
O �
� 3 s
4 W N
N �>
U' O O
s C
�J � } N
J
J fC
W � �
¢U�
S W L <
r o �. *
N
6
Y
�
Y
�
m
�
r
0
O
I�t
3
O
W
�
w
U
W
h
C
612 250 �o�? ?.J4
q�'-17�
r u �
2 J O
� J
� Y Qu.
4:
6 � �
G > A w .
� a�ev
W P + P �
W � L Jn'
r C m
m L e,4�
� r �O �p Y V U
ij \ \� ^ y H G
6 O O L V Z
N\\� �`
�OO EC
o��
N C� U��O
�BK���
w ��m�i�
� TO
T.' 9 R 0 �
OGVa[h
•N
��
C
� W
Q
G
K q
b
Y � N
t �
m�a
! � 6
Y W
wN�
W
W
2 3 i
�ag
pl�9d
LL
W��
i � r
r
N
S
Y
V
S
C
m
N
�
N
O
O
.�
o •-
Z� E b L
W� =Y�
�L � ti C�
C N O b V
W B � C L �n
O b 9 Y �
d
s" c
W � �
0 = q G V �
����� 4H
U�\ONS�O
wV d—�e P
y�-�L 4 m\
N\�
� O O m 4 �t
9 � � � V C 6
��iga��``r
�j \
A C C U� G
W � � a 3 N
` o o � = a �
6CU' ���
O
.<� i
W N �+ 2 r •
aa O 4W,++
�W G:SQq
Z �C4IN
Z Y W W���� S 4 M
<� � iili SJ2r'jC
..j3 ¢rzu+co❑ +r
�z�o
V r q K� Y H 6 m r � S
�W.. Zc6� Nre.
5- J Y L' O�I N J 2 S� 2
YK KZ�4'O�Or V G
mU FCO
yw�6LLOV y CJ ffi 4'o
xz.+4 �V2c�
K�yiKOm � �GiYG
��L W ��'j W f� NZQ
� W�'.2i2�
4I/'!H� J�S ~
=2 N'A<-+'.Y3NrW
W
�6�6a
JTN3YC%F WS . .
� y� n '�y N K N V 2� S
¢� W Z
I��SGSSJ.�• h
r
N
�
V
C
b
N
P
n
a
O
O O
W W
�
x W
V tt
W
J W W
O �
�
� �
_ m
_. i
•
�
u
��CT-d6-135" 12�15
�
2
O
U
N
=
N
N
Z
V
v
�
6
Y
N
l
1 N
6 J
K W
pi O
u
W
a
c
W
K
N
t
3
i
6
�
?
Y A
� .. z
g u m
O
l
L Y
6. %
_l
J 6 W
r
� <
caa
L
Y �
'r Y
Y 6
Y C
O
�I7IZE�l �c�UI�:c 'J�=I:�
N
�
'�C. w3�
C G 6 �
Y � O � K
�. 26WY
Y +
� OG�3
4 S�3J
� �
� I�i.N UC
r VL =Q�i
3 6
e iOFW
t LLQO..
� CL+2
� �u
Q Y � 2 W <
6 O O £ Y
�Od�K
V��4�tL
f�! OC w Y
p\ � } J`�2�
� �J � N � �
1
m
FO 4� �
z m 'p �
r `> S �
°�� � ��o
e � > 4 3 a
Q d ; O \
W V Y 0 J
W L ` Y �
} Q p �� �ii
a
m C M�. 9 O b
� � L � �
�a�Q NH C P `
V �\ 4
O V
6� N� O M� Y
N1�0�+6
200 L� �
t � � o a
� E a a a >
O � � W _
��.�S��aa �$
�.cc oc- , _m
�.... a mo
Y � 3 C�. � O i
aa
b b
�Y O W Y m 1
W �
�3 'O m N U L 2
� � z m � T a��� L N W
s v Kou. y a �-
q .p r LL • LL'J N V 4Y � � 4
' PNO w ��CNU W V
� \= W 6 � W 3 i� � O W
�FOrc�a� w:z..a � x
m��o� n �� pK p �'
w6 z<m OY j UN
wN CU 3 • �-
4� W W� Y� N 2 6 Y O N W
I62 b O �0'l SC
F-YONOZy O G M WW
N � 6� v 7 Y m Z y
.NiK�Ou�i�! C�O�[SS� t[[�'l
pasu..� w Oc�
Or9fV.JF-�r Y.O[Q�WOr 4.�
� K b O� Z S i 0 f N` O W^ m
� W
Ji YYl/)L '
n>$��-••u� �a
W <y W W✓ Ny W W V W � N {Zy.
4[ YY O\y J QY� >
H� p U Y��^ U V y C 3 O< O U C M
N
4
C
S
m
N
r
r
P
P
a
O
Y
�
LL
O
�
Slc 250 ooa9
N
�
�- d �
Z � w
S' 9 � Y�
a� -�
W �
G L `
wi iw
W �V
u �
Y6 U�
e L � �
o����
W � � Y
� \ \ 3
. b
d
o - 't�. 8+ s
���i�m
s �u+
9 O c n
a a � ❑
oaov
S
u
�
ta
X
�
W
4
N
� �
n
i `
Y U
O �
O t�
1�H
H
4
:'!
2
£
Y
a
r
�
�
T
a
N
0
n
N
�
V
r
W
i
O
N
�
�.�5
g8 �,�
O
�
TJT � P.�'
�
�
OC?-9c-?7 OS:e° PM 57 FaIIL ° B FQRCE UNIT 2?2c591
;n/n�/ 57. F��,UL. F'C_1CF �:�V'�tE lf!'"DCNT ''Rf3CK2�vG SYSTEM
{')G��R - � PIJ�L?C !-: i STuRY C]F 1:�`��4 Fi F.M? UR1-{air. ST
,:1�_��� SrC"fC�R: 3 GRID: �7
� ? �. ; �: j�q�. .. :C:i _ic,
:N
°i?..1:1�9:,�
4,-iial-v� °
97-�054-4� 2 "c-?
u> _�J u y'TLC , J
97...� t a
5'_7; :7!:;_
o'r._lt( )�3'�'�C+74
56^179 6E?
Sb^1`.'�+ 'S.:E�
_ -;:;� ��
^c. ii" Si�7
`.E-J17 '73a
DfaTc
f.>7! 1 B/°.?
c.
O6lc �i S7
�'�. f:::>/�;7
OS/�!i57
i�l;;i:3;'?;
:.`.! /� i /97
11/2:./36
;Ce�06/96
1 i)l�J6 �'7{�
ViJ;!�_:4C.
tJ;::�c.�k�lyc
OND�t cc�mplvtF� findinr.� ic r=corc]=
• L�.''06/�? ST
I�RD� .. fF'l�I}l.it
'_ 1 :210 �
CN i
4r—LSi H,�J
y7—I14 417
97—i�34 155
37-U96 165
9?-tJ7E-}456
9,-u13�131
9 � �Oq9 'S7�
9E-:79 E6'7
9 � - i 59 :i.iE
3t-:59 319
36-: 17-� 11 n
96-Cj 1 7-1714
•
rApR
DRTE
c.�s ir�: �a:
O7!1H/°J7
C'£ : :�,:i / 77
C�E�'w:.;/97
1 ��(
i31 /:'_�y: 97
tll/?1:�}�
17 /,"�/96
lp: O6: �SL
14: !�EJ9E
C�&ItJI T9E.
p�/OE.�/��6
TIi�lE
7 9c:,
1 �.i�r
tS1�:'4
� i�4.i
1737
1cCI�
i �i ��S
c:� ��;4
ci �c:? 4
_ ��1'1
<.+G 1 C.
1 Vti�
P?SF� AG•7
RCV
r'cC 9
ALV
il:•Y
[:JR
F�JV �Q4.N
GUa
�oa
rlD�
C=1N D:7NN
(:Ur+
RDV Rc_qR
�'RUL F'OIICE �IN3L_c LhtC;IIENT -RGCN.INL' SYSTEM
HiST:JR`! G}= 1�3� L�?RMItS_�7-lFiM ST
3F..f]TpR: .. GF?TE?: �7
!O/!�1/�oS� — 10iJ6r5?
T.ME
z ;:�.::
. �- ��
0134
1�c4:>
i7��
I Ei�;.,
1 8 =�;,
pi+54
vic��i
14�4
:7p16
i C)�� J
� r��: i � %�. r.�r
f" ft.aU:>
�YL"f0 THE
1![ih1E 57 �ES
DOMEST ; r;:::
UuME; t 'I i:..
PDMGJ; I�_d
DOt*IESI': C :
P'ci!5 ? S 1 �==;1_f_`_,
D'JM i_ �� 1 1 r' £;
w:�i����r�. r R!i!?E:3T
'u"IIICfi :7Gx tJr:'::G
La(':UL'L'I'?D f:Lt��l•IR
[ IvC; I t�r N f
Fr2PUG
AU'Tv FFiEFT
DQMESTICS
DOMES'P t Cti
DOME�TIi:a
UU�1E8'P?C5
D6ME9I"I�;t�
AS'.:�'IST CqLLS
DtlMLBTI �S
waRftRNr nKF<F�3T
OT+-;E?s SE:X Gr�FSc
t,.F;NC�Li1fiD t�ci �4E
1};IptpC1 find:ng 12 records
JTf-.'F' RF'7
RCV
RCV
r�!� v
n�x
�OF.
��L'V L�Uwn
GGa
ADV
ADV
CR'V DOWN
Gt�7
ADU F2ERR
°.01
9����`�
i;�:: 5:07
1S:�E:C>''
✓
/
J
�
�
� c40`1' : ST f9RR� =-'��`tE ^I0. :�2�J?33 7ct. 3� 1997 33:18?h =+_
�
��
�
� j �
�� rr'�=� }
�`D� �G��'/ �
�� } //t,�l ���.- ft u/f/1 --�- j�'Jr"JV LY' �/ ��
—�`�v �X yl'!�-�5S �UG� S 1.�1t��/6 or/'����r4�
_._.�-� ��-� ��-��frr�- r v/� G,� ! 3 � � ���isv�/f��
� � j ��� � � �" ^ � �. �rf,�" ,o ,�,��L�s� s
� � l'���.� � i S�-.--���' �O�L� ,�x � S �S
����/ �p�s/�I.�.. J�a<'� ��s��-,�� S
�- ��� �''� ` �. ��� _ �-�S � ��
I`� 5 � ,� .��1'� .---�f7` � O
��-���-- � �' �' � . ;
, �� �� c� � � -�%`������ h''� � v7 s
1.�./��' �- �s ��� l
��� ��=� `7��_..-��'L- r�`
�-�S � t�/� t.�' t� K11 �%Uc�li�i' �� �� ���
�"�- - �-���=
--- s �-� ���-- � r `'
�U1 %� �/��� �� S / S f`� S � �T`�
���-�� �� j � �_
�� F� � ��
��w� a� D�u� ��� ��.�
f� N .�lli��`� , �
S',i' � �iUl� Q�
DX/=- �.��jtr�� t'�,g- r�l _
, ���`�-
� - - .�.__
�� ;�"��,�` I�LC �r—�-
�� c��� f�
f.�y� ��'r� t�f.�L C
�'�.{�rrt1'J �S
17
9� r7�
6. NORTH END
7. THOMAS-I?ALE
8. St3MMIT-LTNIVERSTTY
4. WEST SEVENTH
10. COMO
il. HAMLINE-MIDWAY
12. ST. ANTHONX PARK
13. MERRIAM PARK-LE�IGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE
14. MACALESTER GROVELAND
15. HIGHI.AND
16. SUMMTT I-1T[.T.
1�. Dowrrrowrr g �, 3 �-
ZCJNfNG FILE 9 �' 2 �`�
��
CITIZEN PARTTCIPATION PLANNING DISTRICI'S
4. DAYTON'S BLiJFF
5. PAYNE-PHALEN
qa—���
!7' Z !�
�����'�� ���� 9 ��
�
� �a
� ,�a � —�QOO_— .� �
GREATER EAST STDE DiSTRICT 2�N -���rr�� S s �� �E�
HYL. '@ �
`�'__� ' I j i _� , 1 ` T
__ o 040;0 0 0 0 -0- = -� -� o; o�oyO- � o ;o o-o
-- - -o ( .i , � :_--� - o� � = - �
" --_ _—�—` ± ' f .—� ---- - _ ° , v —�� -
=- O : t � -- p 0-- p z O _G- O
- -- p ! � O � Q O� Q � _ .
� _-0' �L- _� � _ _ � " -O- O
p --
O O p O�_ p �- -p- O ; � �� f e
� _ -- � �_�._��..�--� -- - � O a-�- _ ,�
�� �
_-'__" 0 "_' _'Q O O Q p �-"� /
- -- -- — - •
----- ------- - � , r.
� Q - - O .; O � O O s<�, ��,
O -� - - - -- -- - - O O p �p - ',� � '
-- - -- ` '' - O' � ' ~ '�i�
C F 0 � O p p' ,� � _ G1, 0
N � � � � ��, � � �
O
p v _ O O =J- O p :.}�. �
_ o o - p- Q p � � o ��-�.�
_ p � -_- ---
G _ . O O. .E;�'
O O p �• O � � p �,
� -0 ---- j t � � O - O- O '-- -
�_ v -O- � p - -
� � O _�_ _ i
O � O - o- O O ���
i p O ¢� O �• � O
, � ,� - �---�
O ;
�.p p O� � 0000 OO;U OiaQ{O.O p' �-��G�O;UC�' C
- r - --
o i'JY AVE.
O O � r O . PRQSPEAlTY• �
O O F- O :� }- NEIGHTS O O O O¢ Q
� O � cn "-- � � - - j -.-� _._ " r"�tY�_
, � . � , � � �
:}
/ O n Q p _ � �� � � . fi`��
,`9y ` � �� C, O � O_ � � � y ,>
� G � • � � " s
rJ ____ O :
� p � O �� � i �
� � � � `_'----------7 � � � � ,
� � O � � �" �' � . / Q� � i3'� , .hx�
_ �z o �, �, o ( � �, - o ; � � � � j-,.,
�,
. �
i �� o � w° °�-� ° �� v � ����—�-�
a � — i�- t � . _ . . .
� � o =— _ o o�.,� ° I "� �- - - - -
PPLICANT ���� �"" �� LEGEND
f.bt1GON#�oy�M��o 11SE �tW+� ��l��iM+� zoning district houndary
JRPOSE _� �\
_E # _!�' � 7 ��TE � ' �'� � � subject property �"' orth'�
NG. DIST. y MAP # e o one family •• � commercial
� � iwo family ♦ � � industriaf
ALE 1" = 400' '� multiple family V vacant
.�,4.,�.,,.�., �'Q ,._
Council File # �
ORIGINAI.
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
2
0
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
36
37
38
39
40
WI�REAS, Mary Lou Law, pursuant to Saint Paul Legisiative Code § 64.300(a)(2),
applied for a non-conforming use permit governed pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul
Legislative Code § 62.102, for the purpose of establishing a duplex as a legal non-conforming
use at the property commonly known as 1354 Birniingham Street, said property being legally
described as: subj to st; ex S 5 ft; N 67 ft& W 165 ft of Lot 13, Block 6; Rogers and Hendricks
Aere Lots No. 2, Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission conducted a
pub]ic hearing on the application on October 30, 1997, at which all persons present were given
an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with requirements of Saint
Paul Legislative Code § 64.300; and
WHBREAS, the Saint Paul Plamung Commission, based upon the evidence presented to
its Zoning Committee at the said public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes thereof,
made the following fmdings of fact:
The s1ructure is currently used as a duplex. It is located on the western
half of the lot, which is zoned A-3. The garage is located on the eastern
part of the lot, which is zoned RT-1.
2. The area and frontage of the lot (67 feet (Winchell) x 270.7 feet x 121 feet
(Birmingham) = 27,047 square feet) exceed the minimum standards for a
duplex under the Schedule of Regulations of the Zoning Code (6,000 sq.
ft. azea and 50 feet frontage).
3. The Plauving Commission may grant a non-confornung use permit when
there is conformance with code requirements:
a. The use occurs entirely within an eaisting structure. This
condition is met. The two units are entirely within the main
structure.
Green Sheet #
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNES07A
�s
b. The use is similar to other uses permitted within the district.
This condition is met. The duplex use is snnilaz to the single
family uses to the west and the single fanuly and duplex uses to the
east. If the structure were located on the eastem half of the lot, it
would be in conformance with the zoning code requirements for 2-
family residential.
� 0$55
9� ��y
2 c. The use has been in esistence continuously for a period of at
3 least ten years prior to the date of the application. This
4 condition is met. The applicant has submitted lease agreements
S dating back to June, 1983. Other leases were signed in 1486, 1987,
6 1988, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1995, and 1996. City directories for these
7 years do not list two households at this address.
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
d. The off-street parlung is adequate to serve the use. This
condition is met. There is a 2-car on the lot as well as a blacktop
pazking pad off the dtiveway from Birnvugham that will
accommodate at least 1 car. The zoning code requires three spaces
for new construcrion.
e. Hardship would result if the use were discontinued. This
condition is met. The applicant has submitted figures showing that
the total rental income from the properiy is currently insufficient to
cover expenses, and that the shortage would be worse if the
structure were converted to only one unit. The first floor unit rents
far $700 per month, while the upstairs rents for $450, for a total
income of $1,150. Monthly expenses, including mortgage
payment, tases, utilities, insurance and maintenance, total
$1433.15.
f. Rezoning the property would result in "spot" zoning or a
zoning inappropriate to surrounding land uses. This condition
is met. Rezoning would result in the RT-1 district extending
beyond the back lot lines between Winchell and Biruiingham into
the R-3 district along Birmingham.
g. The nse will not be detrimental to the existing character of
development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the
public health, safety, or general welfare. This condition is met.
The existing neighborhood character includes both single family
and duplex dwellings.
h. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This
condifion is met. The Housing Policy Plan recommends
decreasing density in areas where residential density is too �eat.
The size of the lot is such that this area is not overly dense. The
plan also calls for exploring the feasibiliiy of code compliance
inspections to duplex rental units.
I. A notarized petition of 2!3 of the property owners within
one hundred feet has been submitted stating their support for
the use. This condition is met. The applicant has submitted a
petition. Nineteen pxoperties are eligible; thirteen signatures are
needed. Applicant's petition has thirteen signatures.
2
98-i�y
2 4. In addition to the zoning code requirements, the Planning Commission
3 approved guidelines for nonconfonning use pernuts for duplexes in
4 residential districts. These guidelines call for staff recommendation of
5 denial unless all of the following conditions aze met:
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
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
A. Lot size of at least 5,000 square feet with a lot width or
front footage of 40 feet. ApplicanY s lot has 121 feet of frontage
on Binningham (front yazd) and 67 feet of frontage on VJinchell
and a lot azea of 27,047 square feet, meetiug this guideline.
B. Gross living area, after completion of duplex conversion, of
at least 1,8U0 sqnare feet for the two nnits. This guideline is not
met. According to the applicanY s floor plans, the azea of the first
floor unit is 1,222.5 square feet; the area of the second floor unit is
479 square feet. The total is 1,701.5 square feet, or 98.5 squaze
feet short of the requirement. If the units were certified as code
compliant, concerns about overcrowding would be addressed.
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 guideline is met.
applicant submitted a site drawing (not to scale) for the rezoning
request that shows a 2-car garage and two bituminous parking
pads.
D. All remodeling work for the dupleg conversion is on the
inside of the structure. This guideline is met. The structure is
currently a duplex, no remodeling work is needed to complete a
conversion.
E. The proposed duplex structure is located in a miaed density
neighborhood, not a homogeneous single-family area or in an
area where duplexes and tripleaes are already concentrated to
the point of congesting neighborhood streets. This guideline is
met. The neighborhood is mixed density and not overly congested.
F. A code compliance inspection has been conducted and the
unit is found to be up to the housing code standards; or the
property owner has agreed to make the necessary
improvements to bring it to housing code compliance. This
guideline is not met. No inspection has been made by the Health
Department. Fire and Safety Services (which inspects shuctures
with three or more units) verified the e�stence of a basement unit
whereupon the applicant submitted the rezoning petition that was
denied by ihe CiTy Council. Approval of legal nonconforming
status should be contingent on meeting housing code requirements.
3
� 1
i�
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
r� ,
G. An economic feasibility analysis has been conducted for
those cases where economic hardship is claimed as one reason
for the variance request. This guideline is not met. The
informafion provided by the applicant is insufficient to support a
detenuination that complying with the Zoning Code is not feasible;
and
VJHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission duly resolved in Planuiug
Commission Resolution File No. 97-77 dated November 7,1997, to deny the application for a
Non-conformiug Use Petmit to allow the establishment of the subject duplex as a legal non-
confonniug use of the property at 1354 Binningham Street based upon findings 4B, 4F, and 4G
noted above; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 1997, the appellant, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislafive
Code § 64.206, filed an appeal of the Saint Paul Plaruiing Comxnission decision as contained in
Plamiing Commission Resolution File No. 97-77; and
V1f�REAS, on December 10, 1997, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Council
of the City of Saint Paul at which time the Council considered the petition, the report of staff, the
record, the minutes and resolution of the Saint Paul Planning Commission as well as the
testimony submitted and thereafter made the following findings with respect to the appeal of
Mary Lou Law:
Based upon all the evidence submitted, there are no enors in any fact, procedure,
or finding on the part of the Planning Commission in this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Saint Paul, that
the appeal by Mary Lou Law of the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission denying her
application for a non-conforming use pernut for the properiy commonly laiown as 1354
Birminghaan Street, St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, as contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 97-77, dated November 7, 1997, is in all things denied; and
L!
�
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
98-�7y
BE IT FURTI�R RESOLVED, that based upon the decision of the City Council finding
no enor in fact, finding, or procedure on the part of the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that the
findings in the aforesaid Planning Commission resolution are hereby adopted and incorporated
herein by reference as the findings of the Saint Paui City Councii; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
Mary Lou Law, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, and the Saint Paul Zoning Administratar.
ORIGINAL
Requested by Department of:
Certified by Council Secretary
By: _�_
Approved by
By:
Form Appro by City Attorney
BY: �, ���
Approved by Mayox for Submission to Council
ey:
Adopted by Council: Date �q�c�n \\ `�CI`C��
98 �7v
Council
DAh �NRa7E0
March 3, 1948
GREEN SHEET
No 60855
ov,u,�r o�ara�
March 11, 1998
xuwsae wrt
noururo
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
❑ arv�noufv ❑ arvmK
❑ rwxcuo.seavicrsun ❑ wuxcu�a
❑ Wl'dtWMYi�TAM) �
(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Finalizing City Council action taken December 10, 1997 denying the appeal of Mary Lou Law
to a decision of the Planning Commission denying a non-conforming use permit to establish
that a duplex is a legal non-conforming use of property at 1354 Birmingham Avenue.
PIANP7ING CAMMiS410N
CIB COMMITfEE
GVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION
1��I4 7
Has this pe�soMirm eu� w�etl uMer a coriUact Tor fhie depertmeni?
vES nro
Hes tMe ve�✓firm a,er teen a city empwyee9
YES NO
Dces ihis PeisoMim G� a slall Iwt �alma��YP� by anY anent city emGloYee?
YES NO
Is Mis PerswJfirtn a tergHetl vendoYT
YF9 NO
OF TRANBACT{ON
SOURCE
COSTIREVENUE BU06ETED (CIRCLE ON67
ACTNITY NUMBEF[
�
i^'�'f�'�f�]
�iB-r7�
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
PegBirlr, CiryAnorney
CITY OF 5AINT PAUL
Norm Colemax, Mayor
Civi1 Division
400 Ciry H¢!!
IS �estKelloggBlvd
Sain1 Paut Mbmesola SSIO2
Zelephone: 612 266E710
Fac.rimile: 612 298-5619
March 3, 1998
Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Saint Paul City Hall
RE: Appeal of Mary Lou Law, Zoning Resolurion No. 97-77, Public Hearing Date December 10,
1997.
Deaz Ms. Anderson,
Attached please find the signed as to form original of a council resolurion memorializing the decision
of the Saint Paul City Council in the above entitled matter. Please place this matter on the consent
agenda at your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
����
Peter W. Warner
9�- ���
CITY OF SAIN'f PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
November 24, 1997
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Councii Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
DEPARTMETIT OF PLANNING �
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Pamela Y�heelock, Direcior ,
25R'estFourthStreet Telephone:612-266-66�5
SaintPaul,MN55702 Facsimile:612-228-3261
C�?s:# Atr�af�s! �ti�
fi•�=; V 2 = i�37
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
December 10, 1997, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a
nonconforming use permit:
Appellant: IvIARY LOU LAW
File Number: #97-304
Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision denying a nonconforming use permit to
establish that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of properiy
Address: 1354 Birmingham Ave.
Legal Description
of Property: subject to street; except South 5 feet; North 67 feet and West 165 feet of Lot 13,
Block 6; Rogers and Hendricks Acre Lots No. 2
Previous Action:
Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial; vote: Unanimous, November 7, 1997
Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 5-0, Octobet 30, 1997
My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the December 10,
1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish any required notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul
Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6639 if you have any quesfions.
-�i
� �,;�., �
Patricla James
City Planner
xoxic� oF roarac �annvG - -
Cc: Fi10 #97-3�4 The Saint Paul CiTy Covncil wil9 conduct a public heazing on Wednesday, December
Mi1C0 KI'a0m0r 10. 1897, at 4:30 p.m. in the City Councii Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall-COUrt-HOUSe,
to consider the appeal of Mary Lou Law to a decision of the Planning Commission denying
Donna SandeCS a non-conforming use pemilt to establish that a duples is a legal non-rnnforming use
of property at 1354 BiYmingham Avenue.
Dated: November 24, 1997
NANCY ANDERSON - . - " -
Assistant City Council Secreta�y , '
� - � (Novembei' 26. 1997)
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
� � CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coteman, Maynr
November 24, 1997
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Division of P/mmrng
25 West Fourth Stree[
Saint Paui, MN 55702
�8-I � �-
TeZepiwne: 6I2-266-6565
Facsimi(e: 6I2-228-3314
RE: Zoning Fi(e #97-304: MARY LOU LAW
City Council Hearing: December 10, 1997 430 p.m. City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision denying a nonconforming use permit establishing
that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of property. -
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: DENIAL IInanimous
ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 5-0
• STAFF RECOMMENAATION: DENIAL.
SUPPORT: The app]icant was present and spoke.
OPPOSITION: No one spoke in opposition. Two letters were received.
Council voted to oppose the nonconforming use permit.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
The District 2 Community
MARY LOU LAW has appealed the decision of the Saint Paui Planning Commission to deny a
nonconforming use permit to establish a duplex as a legal nonconforming use of property located at 1354
Birzningham Street. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the request on October 30, 1997. The applicant addressed the committee. At the close of the
public hearing the committee voted 5-0 to recommend denial of the permit. The Planning Commission
upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for derrial on a unanimous vote on November 7, 1997.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 10, 1997. Please notify me if any
member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sin iy, _ <\��
Patricia N. James
C3ty Planner
• Attachments
cc: City Council members
m
APPUCAT(ON FOR APPEAI.
. `�) Department of Planning and Economic Development
�� Zonine Section
— - - - IZ00 City Hall Annex
23 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
166-6589
APPELLANT � Name Mary Lou i.aw
Add�ess 2050 Pathwavs DrivP
City St. Paul St.MNZip55119 Daytimephone 776-9b38
PROPERTY
LOCATION
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
C' Board of Zoning Appeals L�1 City Council
•
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 206 , Paragraph a of the Zoning Code, to
appeal a decision made by the Saint Paul Planning Commission
on November 7 , 19 47 , File number: 97-244
(date of decision)
Zoning File Name Mary Lou Law
Address/Location 1354 Birmingham St.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
5ee Attached.
. l Atfach addrtional sheet if necessary)
Applicant's
Dennis K.�ICispert
Attorney for Applicant
Date/�o;,�_ 2/ 1�� TCity agent.
��'
�8-t��
q�'-r��
� GROUNDS FOlt APPEAL:
The Saint Paul Planning Commission made errors in facts,
requirements and findings in denying the i3onconforming Use permit
to establish a duplex as a permitted nonconforming use of the
property at 1354 Birmingham St. in Saint Paul.
1. Findinq 4B is in error. The Commission failed to consider the
square footage of the basement area as part of the total
square footage of the duplex. This would increase the square
footage well beyond the 18�0 sq. ft. requirement for a duplex.
2. Finding 4F is in error. Appelant attempted on numerous
occasions to schedule a compliance inspection on the property
both before and since the planning commission hearinq. She
was informed by Fire and 5afety Services that because the
building had less than three units, Fire and Safety has no
jurisdiction to do an inspection. The health department was
contacted to schedule an inspection. To date, they have
refused to schedule an inspection. Appelant is presently
contracting for an independent compliance inspection of the
groperty.
Appelant previously agreed, on the record, at the planning
commission hearing to make all neoessary improvements, if any,
to bring the dwelling into code compliance. The staff report
• indicates that approval of the nonconforminq use should be
contingent on meeting the code requirements, acknowledging
that a commitment by the property owner to make the necessary
improvements is sufficient to meet the inspection requirement.
3. Finding 4G is in error. The Commission erred in finding that
this guideline has not been meet. The staff reports found
that an economic hardship exists at this property. Staff
found that there is currently insufficient income to aover the
expenses of the property and that the shortfall would be worse
if the structure were converted to a single unit. Staff
Findinq 3e Additionally, there would be significant
additional expenses incurred in converting the property to a
single unit. Costs which would need to be financed by the
owner, thereby increasing the shortfall and the economic
hardship after any conversion. Finally, the staff report
found that guideline 4G had been met. Staff Report Findin� 4G.
,
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& £CONOMIC DEVELOP,UfENT
� ' CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norrn Coleman, Mayar
r.w.
November 7, 1997
Ms. Mary Lou Law
2050 Pathways Drive
Saint Paul, MN 55119
Divisiors ofPlarmirsg
25 Wett Fourth Street
Saint Pau(, MN55102
9�-�°��
Telephone: 612-266-6565
Facsimile; 6I2-22&3314
RE: Nonconforming Use Permit to establish that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of the
properly at 1354 Birmingham Street
Zoning File #97-244
I?ear Ms. L.aw:
The Saint Paul Planning Commission voted on November 7, 1997, to deny your request for a
nonoon£orming use permit to allow you to continue to use the property at 1354 Birmingham Street as a
� duplex. Enclosed is the Planning Commission's resolution stating its findings.
You may appeal the decision of the Pianning Commission to the City Council by filing an application
and fee for appeal within fifteen days of the date of this letter. An appeal should be based on what you
believe to be an error in any fact, finding, or procedure of the P(anning Commission. Enclosed is an
appeal application.
Please call me at 266-6639 if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance to you.
" �/,� /7�' �
_ �. '•-
Patricia James
City Planner
Enclosures
cc: File #97-244
Zoning Administrator
License Inspector
District 2 Community Council
' Mail Date: November 7,1997
�r�--t � �
� city of saint paui
planning commission resolution
file number 97-?�
�te Novemi�er 7, 1997
WFIEREAS, MARY LOU LAW, file #97-244, has applied for a Nonconforming Use Permit
under the provisions of Section 62102 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code, for the purpose of a
Nonconforming use permit to establish that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of the
property, on property located at 1354 BIRMINGHAM ST., legally 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; and
VIHEREAS, the Zoning Commitiee of the Plazming Commission on 10130/97, held a public
heazing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said
application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 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 heazing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following
findings of fact:
• 1. The structure is currently used as a duplex. It is located on the western half of the lot,
which is zoned R-3. The garage is located on the eastern part of the 1ot, which is zoned
RT-1.
2. The area and frontage of the lot (67 feet (Winchell)x 270.7 feet x 12l feet {Bnmingham)
= 27,047 squaze feet) exceed the mnumum standards for a duplex under the Schedule of
Regulations of the Zoning Code (6,060 sq. ft. area and 50 feet frontage).
3. The Planning Commission may grant a non-conforming use permit when there is
conforxnance with code requirements:
a. The use occurs entirely within an existing structure. This condition is met. The two
units are entirely within the main shucture.
b. The use is similar to other uses permitted within the district. This condition is met.
The duplex residential use is similaz to the single family uses to the west and the single
family and duplex uses to the east. If the structure were located on the eastem half of the
lot, it would be in confarmance with the zoning code requirements far 2-family
residential.
moved by �'ield
seconded by
in favor U�i��
against
9�-r��
� c. Tlze use has been in ezistence confinuously for n period of at least ten years prior to
ilse date oft{:e applicafion. This condition is met. The applicant has submitted lease
agreements dating back to June, 1483. Other leases were signed in 1986, 1987, 1988,
1989, 1991, 1994, 1995, and 1996. City directories for these yeazs do not list two
households atthis address.
d. The off-street parking is adequate to serve the use. This condition is met. There is a
2-caz gazage on the lot as weli as a blacktop pazking pad off the driveway from
Birmingham that will accommodate at least 1 caz. The zoning code requires three spaces
for new construction.
e. Hards{zip would result if tlae use were discontinued. This condition is met. The
appiicant has submitted figures showing that the total rental income from the property is
currently insufficient to cover expenses, and that the shortage would be worse if the
structure were converted to only one unit. The first floor unit rents for $700 per month,
while the upstairs rents for $450, for a total income of $1150. Monthly expenses,
including mortgage payment, taxes, utilities, insurance, and maintenance, total $1433.15.
,f. Rezoning the prnperfy would result in "spot' zoning or a zoning inappropriate to
surrounding land uses. This condition is met. Rezoning would result in the RT-1 district
extending beyond the back lot lines between Winchell and Birmingham into the R-3
• district along Birnungham.
g. 7&e use wiU not be detrimental to the e.xisting character of development zn the
immediafe neighborhood or endanger the public heallh, safety, or general welfare.
This conditian is met. The existing neighborhood chazacter includes both single fanuly
and duplex dwellings.
h. The use is consistent with the compre{zensive plan. This condition is met. The
Housing Policy Plan recommends decreasing density in areas where resi@ential density is
too great. The size of the lot is such that this azea is not overly dense. The plan also calls
for exploring the feasibility of code compliance inspections to duplex rental units.
Z. A notarized petition of 2t3 of the property owners within one Izundred feet has been
submitted stating their support for tl:e use. This condition is met. The applicant has
submitted a petition. Nineteen properties are eligibie; thirteen signatures are needed.
ApplicanYs petition has thirteen signatutes.
. 4. In addition to the zoning code requirements, the Planning Commission approved
guidelines for nonconforming use permits for duplexes in residential disiricts. These
guidelines call for staff recommendation of denial unless all of the following conditions
aze met:
� A. Lot size of at least 5,000 square feet with a lot width or fronf footage of 40 fee�
ApplicanYs lot has 121 feet of &ontage on Birmingham (front yazd) and 67 feet of
��-���
� frontage on Wincheil and a lot azea of 27,047 square feet, meeting this guideline.
B. Gross [iving area, after completion of duplex conversion, of at leasf I,800 square
feet for the 2wo units. This guideline is not met. According to the applicant's floor plans,
the area of the first floor unit is 1,222.5 squaze feet; the area of the second floor unit is
479 squaze feet. The total is 1,701.5 square feet, or 98.5 squaze feet short of the
requirement, If the units were certified as code compliant, concems about overcrowding
wouid be addressed.
C. Three off-street parking spaces (non-siacked) are preferred; two spaces are the
required minimum. A site plan sfzowing improved (durable, permanent, dustless
surface) parking spaces must be provided. This guideline is met. Applicant submitted a
site drawing (not to scale) for the rezoning request that shows a 2-caz garage and two
bituminous pazking pads.
D. All remodeling work for tfie �iuplex conversion is on the inside of the structure...
This guideline is met. The structure is currently a duplex, no remodeling work is needed
to complete a conversion.
E. T'he proposed dup[ex structure is located in a mixed density neighborhood, not a
hotnogeneous singte famity area or in an area where duplexes and triple.zes are
atready concentrated to the point of congesting neighborhood streeu. This guideline is
� met. The neighborhood is mixed density and not overly congested.
.F: A cade compliance inspection has been conducted and the unit is found to be up to
the housing code standards; or the property owner has agreed to make the necessary
improvements to bring it to housing code comptiance. This guideline is not met. No
insgection has been made by the Health Department. Fire and Safety Services (which
inspects structures with three or more units) verified the existence of a basement unit
whereupon the applicant submitted the rezoning petition that was denied by the City
Council. Approval of legal nonconforming status should be contingent on meeting
housing code requirements.
G. An economic feasibility analysis has been conducled for those cases where
economic hardship is claimed as one reason for the variance reyuest This guideline is
not met. The information provided by the applicant is insu�cient to support a
determination that compiying with the Zoning Code is not feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commissian, that under
the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a Nonconfornung Use Fernut to
allow Nonconformine use permit to establish that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of the
property at 1354 BII2,�r1INGHAM ST is hereby denied, based on findings 4B. 4F, and 4G.
9� f 7�
� Saint Paul Planning Commission
City I�Iall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 7, 1997, at
8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Maddox, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl, and
Present: Messrs. Field Jr., Kramer, McDonell, Nowlsn, Vaught and Wilson.
Commissioners Ms. *Geisser and Messrs. *Chavez, Gordon, Gumey, *Johnson, *Kong, *Mazdell,
and *Sharpe.
Absent:
*Excused
Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Roger Ryan, and Larry
Soderhotm, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff.
I. Approval of Minutes of October 10 and October 24,1997
! MOTION: Commissioner Kranzer movect to approve the minutes of October IO and 24, I997;
Commissioner Nordin secon�fed tlze motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote.
II. Chair's Announcements
Chair McDonell announced that Commissioner Maddox has resigned from the Planning
Commission. Her resignation �vill be effective when the Mayor replaces her.
The Steering Committee met today before the Planning Commission meeting. They reviewed
the 1998 meeting calendar, A copy of it wiil be sent in the nexY mailing.
Chair McDonell announced that he will be leaving at 4 a.m. at which time Commissioner
Vaught will take over as Chair.
ITI. Planning Administrator`s Announcements
Mr. Ford announced that PED staff that participated and the members of the leadership team
who were there were most appreciative of the workshop last Friday, and felt that it was very
valuable communication. They �vere very impressed with the Commission members'
engagement, and grateful for your willingness to take part in it.
Mr. Ford announced that at 1 p.m. on Thursday, November 13, there is a presentation on the
Learning From Series that Minneapolis City Planning is sponsoring. IYs at the Library on
Nicollet Mall in downtown Minneapolis. The forum is on some ofthe particularly successful
experience in the country in building highly economically integrated new housing in intercities.
��-1 ��
• The Comprehensive Planning and Land ilse Committee will meet at 4 p.m. in the aftemoon of
Wednesday, November 12, 1997, Gvhere there wil( be further discussion of the CAAPB
Comprehensive Plan.
IV. Zon'sng Committee
#97-207 Mendota Homes - Special condition use permit to allow a 10 unit cluster development
at the southwesf quadrant of Lexina on and 5t_ Claic (Beth Bartz, South���est team)
Commissioner Field stated that the zoning cammittee and land use committee of the Summit
HiII Association had recommended deniai. No one spoke in support. After extensive testimony
from the neighborhood and discussion with the applicant, the Zoning Committee agreed, and on
a vote of 6- 0 laid the matter over hoping to bring the neighborhood and the developer together
to try to find appropriate compromises to some of the issues involved in the project.
#97-244 Mary Lou LaFV - Nonconforming use permit to establish a duplex as a legal
nonconforming use of the property at 1354 Birmingham Street. (Patricia James, Northeast
team)
Commissioner Field explained that previously the Zoning Committee had denied a request to
make this a triplex. Additionally, the City Council denied the applicanPs request, Based upon
these facts, among other things, the gross living area afrer completion of the duplex was under
the prescribed number of square feet. In addition, code compliance inspections had not been
made.
• MOTION: Commissioner Fie1r1 n:ovec! clenirr! of a requeslecl nonconforming use permit to
establislt a �Luplex as a legal nonconforming iise of the property at 1354 BirnzingJaana Street
which carried unanrmousty on a voice vote.
#9�-257 Java Drive Inc - Enlargement of a nonconforming use to allow a coffee kiosk on this
site with an existing nonconforming auto specialty store at iQ94 Randoiph Avenue. (Jim Zdon,
Southwest team)
Commissioner Field stated that in approximately 1945-46, a Java Dtive Irtc �vas approved at the
intersection of approximately Snelling and West Seventh Street. It is the applicant's intention
to move that facility to 1094 Randolph Avenue. He added that staff provided some interesting
traffic flow information at that intersection.
The Highiand Area Community Council did not take a position. No one spoke in support or
opposition.
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved denfal of the requested entargement af n
noncnnforming use to allow n coffee kiosk nt I094 Randolph Avenue.
A concern expressed at the Zoning Committee was regarding this methodology and was it the
appropriate way to facilitate the placement of this facility at that corner. There �vas less a
concern about whether it would he an appropriate use to have there.
2
q� i7�
• Commissioner Vaught noted that he had two concems: 1) traffic flow; and 2) accident data.
Specifically, he was looking for was some way to compare this location wiih the other hvo
locations: I) Marshall and Snelling; and 2) tiVest Seventh near Snelling Hill. He noted that Mr.
Ryan did a very good job of putting together those statistics which convinced him that this
location is nat materially different from the other t4vo locations in terms of the flow of traffic
pattern or accident data_ If anything, ihe data put this location in the middie of the ot0er rivo.
So his concems were put to rest,
The question that he had led him to make the motion to deny was the wording ofthe code with
respect to expansion of a nonconforming use. He reads the code that when you talk about
expansion of a nonconforming use, you are talking about the existin� use on the Iot you are
expanding. He found it difficult to understand how a coffee kiosk could be an expansion of an
auto specia(ty store. Since then, he has thought about it and althou�h he nould prefer that be
considered a change in noncooforming use from an auto specialty store to an auto specialty
store and a coffee kiosk, he can't see that it makes a lot of difference. He does not think that the
code addresses this situation perfectly.
He went on to say that he thinks this is a good use; it provides a service. Upon reading and re-
readinQ the code, he can caff this an expansion of a nonconforming use, although just barely.
MOTION: Comn:issione� [jauglrt moved, ns r� substitute motion, to approve tlre request fvr
an enlargement of n nonconjnrn:ing use to allow a coffee kiosk on tlris site witk an exisiing
nonconforming auto specinity store af 1 D94 Randolph; ilse motion was secon�led by
Commissioner Mnddox.
� CommissionerField stated that he had come prepared to vote in opposition to this in accordance
with the staff recommendation untit he saw Mr. Ryan's data. Having seen ihat data, he could
convince himself that this is not goino to create an overwhelming hazard.
Tlze motion of the substitute motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Mr. Ford clarified the information. The staff recommendation was for denial. Staff does not
think that the change in nonconforming use was intended to cover this situation, and staff thinks
that it's appropriate that it doesa't.
Commissioner Treichel asked for a ctarification on the reason for denial.
Mr. Ryan stated that the reason for denial was the traffic situation, not the procedures.
Commissioner Vaught interjected that is why he speciftcally asked for the traffic and accident
data. On the basis of that data, he is able to conctude that there is essentially no difference
between this location and the location of Marshali and 5nellin�. If anything, this use is less
intense.
Commissioner Field clarified, that he believed, at the time af the Zoning Committee vote, there
�vas a great deal of discussion as to the procedure as opposed to the traffic flow as the purpose
and reason for denial.
��-i��
• Commissioner Vaught stated that it is clear to him that Commissioner Gordon's vote to deny
Gvas based on the traffic situation.
The motian on the floor 10 npprove ihe enlargemeni of a nonconforming use to allow a caf,f'ee
kiosk on tlris site with an existine nonconforming auto specialty stare ai I Q94 Randolpli
Avenue ca�ried ununimously on a voice vote.
#97-258 IIS West Communications - Special condition use perrnit to allow a 90' cellular
telephone antenna at 426 Fairvie�v Avenue North. (Nancy Homans, Northwest team)
Commissioner Field reported that this item was laid over until November 13, 7997.
#97-259 US West Communications - Special condition use permit to allo�v a 90' cellular
telephone antenna at 1b69 Arcade Street. (Patriciz James, Northeast team)
Commissioner Field stated that this item was also laid over until November 13, 1497. He read
the agenda for the next Zoning Committee meeting, Thursday, November 13.
Commissioner Treichel asked what the slope of Ramsey Hill is. Mr. Soderholm responded that
it is 1 I per cent.
V, Comprehensive Planning and Economic Development Committee
Commissioner Maddox announced an upcoming meeting with Neighborhood Planning and
� Land Use Committee next Wednesday, November I2, at A p.m., in the 14th floor Conference
Room in the City Hall Annex.
VL 1�Teighborhood Planning and Land Use Committee
Commissioner Treichel announced the next meeting, Monday, November 17, at 3:30 p.m. in the
14th floor Conference Room in the City Hali Annex.
VII. Communicafions Committee
No report.
�TIII. Task Force Reports
Commissioner Treichel announced that the Housing Task Force wilt begin to have focus
meetings on Tuesday mornings beginning November 18 and continuin$ through December 4,
1991, from 8-930 a.m. People �vilt be speaking on specific issues of housing; affordable
housing being the topic on the I Sth. She invited Commissioners to attend.
Chair McDonell left the meeting. Commissioner Vaught took over as Chair.
0
��' i7�
� �. oia Bus;n�s
Cammissioner Treichel, on behalf of Cammissioner Gordon and herself, said that they
appreciated the good attendance at the Planning Commissioner workshop last Friday.
Commissioner Treichel commented that in the future the Commission should take more
initiative to invite the people the Commission needs to communicate with about issues.
Mr. Ford said that a few staff people met shortly after the �vorkshop last Friday to discuss what
needed to be done tight away to be sure that some of the issues broueht up at the workshop were
followed through on. Three sug�estions were brought to the Steerin� Committee this morning:
Conan:issioner Review of Neighborhood Planning. As you have seen from the
presentations, a good deal of the p(anning and development work underway in
neighborhoods is not taking ptace with the formal "small area plan" designation which
would prescribe a clear role for the Commission. This is creating a communication gap. Ft is
important that the Commission have an opportunity to idantify issues of importance from its
policy perspective ear(y on, and an effort on the pad of PED to keep the Commission up to
date on the neighborhood efforts should help to make that possible.
2. Establish an Appropriate Certifrcation Framework for Neighborhood Plans. It's obvious
that the relationship of neighborhood plans to the City Plan is a significant issue. It's an
issue that is difficult to resolve Gvhen we do not have the means to keep aIl neighborhood-
level plans up-to-date. Several ideas have been suggested, and some models are available
M from other cities. We are proceeding to work out and describe the most promising
alternatives and will bring these to the Commission for discussion.
3, Quadrant Liaison. The Commission has already made a decision to identify members for
liaison roles 4vith each of the four quadrants within which PED organizes its work. We
support this idea. Exactly how the liaison role might evolve we're not su�e, but we believe
it �vould be useful naw for each of the quadrants to knoGV that they have one Commissioner
willing to be a contact point and keep informed about what is going on in their portion of
Saint Paul.
Commissioner Treichel noted that there's a point of tension between neighborhood plans
(District Plans and SAPs) and the Comprehensive Plan. In the process of doing SAPs over a
number of years it became c(ear that we needed an overarching structure (Land Use Plan) into
which each one of the SAPs would fit. Now the Comp Plan update is mandated by the State.
Neighborhoods are looking at us suspecting that this may minimize the neighborhood plans.
Another concem is that in previous years the small area plans were done with PED staff
guidance; more and more now, small area plans are being done independently. So, we Iose the
ongoing liaison with neighborhoods that we used to have which creates another point of tension.
Mr. Soderholm noted that staff is working on models for solutions. He stated that at the last
Nelghborhood Planning and Land Ilse Committee meeting, Commissioner Kramer suggested
that we try to abstract from existing district and small area plaas one or two pages of land use
policy that could be added to the back of the Land Use Plan as appendices so that we would
9�-���
• have a way to keep poiicy for each part of the City clear and knosv whaPs in the Comp Plan and
�vhaYs not in the Comp P1an. We should have some dialogue with each neighborhood about
their appendix. Commissioner Nowlin suggested that we try to designate �vhich plans should be
in the Comp Plan and Gvhich ones should just be guidelines, and would not have the legal force
of the Comp Plan. Ken Ford suggested that we reatly need to ]ook at models used in other
cities. Mr. Soderholm continued to say that the goals for the new modei should: account for
existing adopted plans in some �vay; account for the kind of neighborhood plannin� we see
being done in the future, which �vill include more of the independent plans; be clear legaliy; and
be administratively realistic about what can be accomplished.
Commissioner Engh asked who is the principle audience for the Comp Plan? Who are we
�vriting it for---developers, neighborhood groups, or the general citizenry?
Mr. Ford responded by saying that iPs an important question; one that staff asks itself often. He
replied that the answer is all of the above, if it's going to do its job. The Comprehensive Plan is
not just an operational plan for City government. If it does its job, it provides a vision and a
focus that affects a whole lot of actors in the City-- in the private sector, nonprofit sector, public
sector, and a iot of organizations. It's a very broad audience and if it doesn't Gvork for
bureaucrats, the directors of departments in the City who are putting budgets together for what
their department is going to do, it's not going to be very well implemented. If it doesn't work
for a mayor and a city council, people who have political interest but need to be able to talk
about vision and direction in a clear and �vay, it's not going to do its job very effectively.
� CommissionerNordin commented that she worked on the Midway Parkway Small Area Plan. It
seemed to be very money oriented and time-frame oriented. At the time, she said that she
wasn't aware of a City Comprehensive Plan or she would have had to consider it in working on
the neighborhood p1an. She feels that the Comp Plan and neighborhood pfans are in two
different worlds.
Commissioner Nowlin noted that there is al�vays a tension with comprehensive p]ans and that
comprehensive ptans in big cities are tough to do. Now that comprehensive plans have more
power than zoning codes, they have the potential to be very strong documents. The questions is
how do you want to change land development in the City? A developer can use a comp plan to
force a change in, for instance, housing density, if the comp plan says we ought to have more
housing density in an area. It can be a stimulant and it can have great power if people are
wi(ling to put that kind of power into a comp plan. He stated that it is really the Planning
Commission's opportunity to make a statement about what we think makes sense for the overall
City.
He continued to say that from what the Commission has heazd, the quadrants in PED are doing
action oriented project development planning, bottom up, the way (ife normally works, but that
PED isn't looking at the overall picture of the City. The Planning Commission has an
opportunity with the Comprehensive Plan to make its statement about vazious areas of the City,
vazious corridors, various needs, etc. IYs a coordinated statement of how �ve would like to see
the City change.
He added that it was great to hear what the quadrants are doing. What he finds frustrating on
LJ
��-i��
• the Plannin� Commission is that it doesn't have the opportunity to speak to the quadrant people
wl�at its wishes and concerns are. Is there a way the Commission can communicate its
thoughts?
Commissioner Treichel responded that in discussion earlier this morning, the Commission
talked about having on-going presentations by the four quadrants throu�hout the year, at which
time the Commission can ask our questions and make su� estions.
In addition, she noted that Commissioners, possibly rivo, would become the liaisons to each one
of the four quadrants. This structure �vould provided an on-going dialogue and a vehicle for the
Commission to express itself more fully.
Mr. Ford underscored what Commissioner Nowlin said and is requesting. He pointed out that a
couple of years ago Mayor Coleman asked the Commission how he couid get more information
from it. In other words, ho�v can the Commission do a better job of letting him know the things
that it's concerned about and the things it sees going on in the City that he ought to be aware of?
One thing that concerns staff is that where there really is effective communication going on is
where the Commission has a decision to make, where there is action to take. Although
communicating information is good because it sometimes generates good discussion, iYs not
always c(ear that is doing anything to affect the system. There seems to be a need for something
to be clear in the structure where the Planning Commission has a decision and everyone knows
that something is going to have to measure up to some policies. There has to be an agreement
that the Planning Commission has a clear role and a clear voice.
� Commissioner Nowlin asked if any thought has been given to the idea doing capital budget
improvements which combines STAR on a quadrant basis?
Mr. Ford replied that he has not heard of such a discussion, but iYs an interesting idea.
Commissioner Nowlin commented that there seems to be a disconnect behveen STAR and
project ideas.
Mr. Ford stated that Saint Pau] has had whaYs been regarded in the country as a model of what
Capital Improvements Programs did for a long time, an innovative one thaYs broadty
participative with our Capital Improvements Committee structure and the review of all those
projects, programs by tHe Planning Commission. Perhaps iYs gotten a little stale. There's been
a lot of interest in streamlining it because it probably doesn't work as well as it did because staff
cannot put the kind of time and effort into processes as they used to. It's something ripe for
looking at. He added that in the Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan, they are making a strong
effort to ensure that there's a strong link beriveen the comprehensive plan and the capital
improvement budgeting process and the operating department budgeting process.
Commissioner Nordin suggested that not only the Mayor wants to be more informed, but
perhaps the community also wants and needs to be more informed. She suggested having
Planning Commission meetings on cable TV as City Council meetings are, and putting the
Planning Commission agendas and minutes on the Internet.
•
��� »�
• Commissioner Nowlin suggested having a series about the Comprehensive Plan on cable TV.
Commissioner Treichet asked Mr. Soderholm about the West Side Plan. To make the plan
official, they do have to brin� it before the Planning Commission and the City CounciL There
may be things in that plan that are not consistent with another plan. How is the Commission
goino to evaluate those plans, and is the Planning Commission setting itself up for serious
confrontations?
Mr. Sodedtolm replied that PED staff kneGV that the p(an was 6eing done, but have not had a
role in its development. He thinks there may be issues in that plan that need to be reconciled
with city-wide policy. Plans that are initiated by neighborhoods without Planning Commission
or PED participation are more difficult to inte�rate with city-wide policy.
Commissioner Duarte asked how the priorities are set for both the Comprehensive Plan and
neighborhood plans.
Commissioner Treichel responded that her idea is that the priorities of the neighborhood plans
need to be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan and other appropriate plans. Neighborhood
plans always need to be negotiated with the Parks Plan, the Transportation Plan, regional plans,
etc. It's not an easily defined list of priorities.
Commissioner Engh is concerned about tryin� to keep the inte�rity of the neighborhood but
have a document that gives consistent direction. She asked if part of the role of the Planning
Commission is to resolve disputes?
� Mr. Ford replied that resolving disputes is a critical part of the Commissiods role. He stated
that was what he was getting at when he said there is something beyond sharing information that
helps the Commission reach a decision; some clarity about roles. He said that the Planning
Commission used to have a process in adopting district plans that included "boxed comments"
where the Commission would adopt a district plan, but sometimes in that plan there would be a
box around a particular recommendation and a statement that said, "The Plaaning Commission
does not endorse this particular policy." It didn't resolve anything though.
Commissioner Nordin thinks that the neighborhood plans are a vehicle to get their opinions and
insights to the Planning Gommission. The Commission is the city-wide body that evaluates
through the lens of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Treichel responded that when the district plans were set up, it was her
impression, that in the citizen participation process, if a district could agree on things, the pian
was thought of as public policy, rather than a wish list.
Mr. Soderholm stated that he thinks it's wron� to think of neighborhood planning as wish lists.
In the neighborhood planning process, citizens are engaged with the City departments and other
public agencies or whoever contro(s resources to try to Fvork towards something thaYs realistic
and can be done. Maybe it starts otit with a wish list, but as the process continues, a realistic
outcome emerges.
•
��-J��
• Commissioner Treichel added that the Commission's concem is that ivith the elimination of
staff, the Commission no longer has that capacity to take the wish list, to sit down with the
neighborhood for a year and come up with a realistic plan. She stated that her concern is that
more and more of these independent plans will come in and we wiil have serious confrontation.
In the past, staff and the commissioner did a good job of negotiating a realistic plan.
Commissioner Duarte feels that the Commission needs to help neighborhoods improve their
plans if they don't meet the standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Treichel added that there is also a political dimension that plays into these plans
that cannot be ignored. The Planning Commission does not have the Fnal say; City Council
does.
X. New Business
No new business.
XI. Adjournment
MOTION: Commissioner Treiche! moved adjournment of today's meeting; Commissioner
Eng secohded tke motion w1:ic1: crrrried unanimously on a voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 a.m.
•
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Ford
Planning Administrator
Approved �/ ' �i�' � �_
(date)
Carole Faricy
Secretary of e lanni ommission
•
q� >��
MINUTES OF TAE ZONING COMMITTEE
� CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON OCTOBER 30, 1997
PRESENT: Mme. Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gordon, Kramer and Vaught of the
Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorrey; Mmes. Bartz,
Homans, Sames and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of PED.
ABSENT: Faricy, excused
Time: 6:30 - 7:20 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson.
MARY LOU LAW• 1354 Birminaham Street• eastside between Iw and Arling on•
#97-244: NonconforminQ Use Permit. To establish that a duplex is a legal
nonconforming use of the property.
Patricia James, PED, Northeast Quadrant, reviewed the staff report and
presented slides. Staff recommended denial of the nonconforming use permit
based on findings 4B and 4F of the sCaff report.
The District 2 Community Council voted in opposition of the nonconforming use
permit and requested that the portion of the lot zoned RT-1 be changed to R-3.
District 2 submitted a listing of complaints from the Mayor's Information and
Complaint Office as we11 as documentation of three phone calls in opposition.
. Three letters were received in opposition.
Commissioner Vaught reviewed with staff that in 1995/1996 the property owner
sought a rezoning to RT-2 to establish three units in the structure. The
rezoning had been initiated at that time as a result of the Fire Department
determining that it was not a proper conversion. That request was denied.
Vaught asked if at that time it was a single family residence. Ms. James
responded that the building had been used as a duplex, that they were
converting the basement to anoCher unit, and as a result the applicant was
notified that they needed to establish a non-conforming status £or the duplex.
Commissioner Vaught hypothesized that presuming a code compliance inspection
were conducted and that it was up to housing code; and that this particular
legislaCion requires a negative staff recommendation when one of the
conditions is not met; and the only condition not met was the 98.5 square
foot deficiency in the total square footage; he asked whether if not for that
whether the staff recommendation might be different. Ms. James responded that
if there were a code inspection that said that the upstairs unit met code and
that it was safe, that she might still recommend denial because of the
guidelines, but wasn't certain the 100 square feet was a major drawback.
Commissioner Kramer asked to review the signed petition, as it was not
included with the staff zeport. Ms. James presented this for review.
Commissioner Kramer asked what the law was in regards to the timeliness of the
collection of signatures. Ms. James said that this must be Cimely, that
• signatures would be valid for one year.
9�'-1��
� Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, said he was not aware that the code
sets a timeline for how long signatures remain valid. He asked staf£ to
address the process which is followed regarding such. Mr. Ryan responded that
Ms. Law was given a deadline, which she met, for having the signatures in on
time.
Chair Field said he wished to see the above issue discussed as a part of
future minor zoning text amendments.
Ms. James reviewed that final action on the previous rezoninc request was
taken on January 31, 1996. (2oning Commi[tee denial 8 to 0; Planning
Commission denial 14 to 0; CiCy Council denial 7 to 0.
Mary Lou Law, the applicant, spoke. Ms. Law said that she had submitted two
difEerent petitions to the City over time which were both found acceptable by
staff. When she converted her house into a duplex she said sne was not aware
that a duplex was not allowed because other duplexes were located throughout
the neighborhood. The Fire Department advised her at that time on second
story exits. She noted that she rented the second story apartment first as an
efficiency, then later converted it to a one bedroom unit with a dormer and
was not aware it was illegal until she pursued creating a triplex by creating
a third unit in her walk-out basement.
Ms. Law reviewed that her mother, Mrs. Widing, who resides next door, fias
acted as the landlord for the past 6 years. She reviewed that a number of
improvements have been recently made including: landscaping, the stucco and
. trim repainted, and new boaxds put on both the front and back porches, and the
interior of the house has been completely renovated. If required to convert
it back to a single family home, Ms. Law said it would be very costly, and
would be an 8 bedroom home.
Commissioner Kramer asked what year the house was first used as a duplex, with
Ms. Law responding that the efficiency apartment was created in 1981.
Commissioner Chavez referenced the Information and Complaint Office's record
of complaints for the property, asking for clarification of which complaints
applied to her property. Ms. Law responded that most recently when the City
checked on complaints that they could not see a valid reason for the
complaint. She said when problems have occurred that she has taken care of
them within the required period of time.
Commissioner Chavez asked Ms. Law to address the lengthy list of police ca11s
for this residence. Ms. Law briefly reviewed the list. She indicated that
some of the complaints pertained to tenants who were no longer living at the
residence.
Commissioner Gordon determined from Ms. Law that she lives aoproximately 3
miles from the property. Gordon asked whether in 1996 when she applied for
the rezoning to a triplex whether she was told that it was zoned for a single
family residence. Ms. Law responded that she was denied the rezoning to allow
a triplex as it was zoned for single family, and triat within a very short
period of time following the denial, she was notified she would need to
� proceed with a nonconforming use permit for tke duplex, and that she then
. 2
q� 1��
•
proceeded with that.
Commissioner Gordon asked Eor an explanation of the four phone calls received
by District 2 Council that were in opposition and requested anonymity for fear
of retaliation. Ms. Law responded that this was related to a dispute between
herself and one of the neighbors, and that others were draor*m in by this
neighbor, and she dismissed any intention of any retaliation.
Commissioner Chavez questioned the ability within the process for layover to
allow Ms. Law an opportunity to have the property inspected. Zt was
determined that action could take place up to November 22, 1997, which is 60
days from the date received. Chavez asked the applicant wfiether she would be
agreeable and would take care of the details in that time period. He noted
the 100 square feet deficiency would need to be addressed. Ms. Law responded
that she believed the drawings were off as she met a11 of the requirements the
first time when she was requesting a triplex and said she would be agreeable
to layover.
Mr. Warner said that it would be possible for Ms. Law to make arrangements
with the Fire Department in this period of time for the certificate of
occupancy; further noting triat the Health Department does code compliance
inspections, which are similar in naCUre to C of O with Fire. He noted that
the Health Department does one and two-family dwelling units, and Fire does
three-family dwelling units, but suggested that Fire would be the appropriate
agency as there were comments from Barb Cummings, Fire, in the staff report.
Commissioner Kramer asked what the assessed value of the property is, with
� Ms. James responding that the 1997 market value at $71,800, and that the
property is listed as homesteaded. Ms. Law said that it qualifies as
homestead because her daughter resides in the home.
Commissioner Kramer asked when the house was refinanced, with Ms. Law
responding that it was refinanced approximately 8-9 months ago.
Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Gordon moved denial oE the nonconforming use permit.
Commissioner Vaught seconded the motion.
Commissioner Kramer said he would support the motion for denial. He suggested
that the economic feasibility analysis was incomplete and did not provide
proper information to determine that the house could not be self-supporting
and suggested that he believes a great demand exists on the Eastside for large
houses.
Commissioner Gordon accepted the above comment as criteria for denial.
The motion Eor denial carried on a voice vote of 5 to 0.
Commissioner Wencl was not present for the vote.
Drafted by:
! �°,»�- Sa.�`'.+.o�—"
Donna Sanders
Recording Secretary
S itted by[� A�,pmve �
�
Patricia James on Fiel
Northeast Quadrant Chairperso �
3
9�1��
ZONING COMMITTES STAFB REPORT
� ____________________�________
FIL'S # 97-244
1. APPLZCANT- MARY LOU LAW DATE OF FiEARING: 10/30/97
2. CLASSSFICATION: Nonconforming Use Permit
3. LOCATION: 1354 BIRMSNGHAM STREET
4. PLANNING DI$TRICT: 2
5. LEGAL DSSCRSPTION: 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. PRESENT ZONING: R-4 20NING COD& REFERENCfi: 62.102
7. 5TAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 10-22-97 BY; Patricia James
8. DATE RECBI{TED: 09/22/97 DEADLINE FOR ACTION:
A. PVRPOSE: Nonconforming use permit to establish that a duplex is a legal
nonconEorming use of the property.
. B. PARCEL SIZE: Flag-shaped parcel with frontage on 2 streets; 67 feet
(Winchell}x 270.7 Eeet x 121 £eet (Birmingham) = 27,047 square feet, or
.62 acres
C. SXISTING LAND VSE: 2-family residential (split zoning R-3; RT-1)
D. SIIRROUNDING LAND USE:
North: single Pamily and duplex residential (R-3; RT-1)
East: single family and duplex residential (RT-1)
South: single family, 3-family residential (R-3; RT-1)
West: single family residential (R-3)
E. ZONING CODfi CITATION: Section 62.102(I)(1) authorizes the planning
commission to establish legal nonconforming use status to the use of
structures which fail to meet the standards of section 62.102(b) if the
commission makes the findings listed under section H of this staff report.
F. HISTORY/DISCII55IOI�: In 1996 the City Council denied a request to rezone
this lot to RT-2 to establish three units in the structure. iZoning File
#95-232)
G. DI5TRICT COUNCZL RECO�NDATION: At the time this 5taff report was
prepared, no district council recommendation had been received.
r
I�a
q�-�7�
• H. FINDINGS:
1. The structure is currently used as a duplex. It is located on the
western half of the lot, which is zoned R-3. The garage is located on
the eastem part of the lot, which is zoned RT-1.
2. The area and frontage of the lot (67 feet (Winchell)x 270.7 feet x 121
feet (Birmingham) = 27,047 square Eeet) exceed the minimum standards
for a duplex under the Schedule�of Regulations of the Zoning Code
(6,000 sq. ft. area and 50 feet frontage).
3. The Planning Commission may grant a non-conforming use permit when
there is conformance with code requirements:
a. Tke use occurs eatirely within an existing stzucture. This
condition is met. The two units are entirely within the main
structure .
b. The use is simiSar to other uses permitted within the district.
This condition is met. The duplex residential use is similar to the
single family uses to the west and the single family and duplex uses
to the east, If the structure were located on the eastern half of the
lot, it would be in conformance with the zoning code requirements for
2-family residential.
c. The use has been in existence continuously for a period of at least
• ten years prior to the date of the application. This condition is
met. The applicant has submitted lease agreements dating back to Jvne,
1983. Other leases were signed in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1994,
1995, and 1996. City directories for these years do not ].ist two
households at this address.
d. The off-street pazking is adequate to serve the use. This
condition is met. There is a 2-car garage on the lot as well as a
blacktop parking pad off the driveway from Birmingham that will
accommodate at least 1 car. The zoning code requires three spaces for
new construction.
e. Hardship wou2d result if the use were discontinued. This condition
is met. The applicant has submitted figures showing that the total
rental income from the property is currently insuf£icient to cover
expenses, and that the shortage would be worse if the structure were
converted to only one unit. The first floor unit rents for $700 per
month, while the upstairs rents for $450, for a total income of $1150.
Monthly expenses, including mortgage payment, taxes, utilities,
insurance, and maintenance, total $1433.15.
f. Rezoniag the property would result in °spot' zoaing or a zoning
inappropriate to surrounding Iand uses. This condition is met.
Rezoning would result in [.he RT-1 district extending beyond the back
lot lines between Winchell and Birmingham into the R-3 district along
Sirmingham.
• g. The use mi11 not be detrimental to tfie existing character of
'1
9�'�»�
develapmeat in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the pub2ic
� healtk, sa£ety, or geaeraZ weSfare, This condition is met. The
existing neighborhood character includes both single family and duplex
dwellings.
h. The use is coasisteat with the compreheasive pZaa. This condition
is met. The Housing Policy Plan recommends decreasing density in areas
where residential density is too great. The size of the lot is such
that this area is not overly dense. The plan also ca11s for exploring
the Eeasibility o£ code compliance inspections to duplex rental units.
i. A notarized petition of 2/3 of the property owners withia one
hundred feet has been submitted stating their suppost for the use.
This condition is met. The applicant has submitted a petition.
Nineteen properties are eligible; thirteen signatures are needed.
Applicant's petition has thirteen signatures.
4. In addition to the zoning code requirements, the Planning Commission
approved guidelines for nonconforming use permits for duplexes in
residential districts. These guidelines call for staff recommendation
of denial unless all of the following conditions are met:
A. Lot size of at 2east 5,000 square feet with a lot width or front
foota9e of 40 feet. Applicant's lot has 121 feet of frontage on
Birmingham (front yard) and 67 feet of frontage on Winchell and a lot
area of 27,047 square feet, meeting this guideline.
• B. Gross living area, after oompletion of dupZex coaversion, of at
least 1,800 square feet for the two units. This guideline is not met.
According to the applicant's floor plans, the area of the first floor
unit is 1,222.5 square feet; the area of the second floor unit is 479
square feet. The total is 1,701.5 square £eet, or 98.5 square feet
short oE the requirement. If the units were certified as code
compliant, concerns about overcrowding would be addressed.
C. Three off-street parking spaces lnon-stacked) are preferred; two
spaces are the required minimum. A site plan showing improved
(durable, permanent, dustless sur£ace) parking spaces must be
provided. This guideline is met. Applicant submitted a site drawing
(not to scale) for the rezoning request that shows a 2-car garage and
two bituminous parking pads.
D. AZS sesnodeSing work for the duplex conversioa is on the inside of
the structure... This guideline is met. The structure is currently a
duplex, no remodeling work is needed to complete a conversion.
E. The proposed duplex structure is located in a mixed density
neighborhood, aot a homogeneous single-family area or in an area where
dupSexes and triplexes are already concentrated to the point of
congesting neigkboshood streets. This guideline is met. The
neighborhood is mixed density and not overly congested.
F. A code compliaace inspection has been conducted and the unit is
• fouad to be up to the housing code standazds; or the property owner
has agreed to make tke necessary improvemeats to bring it to kousiag
u
�g i7�
code compZiaace. This guideline is not met. No inspection has been
• made by the Health Department. Fire and Safety Services (which
inspects structures with three or more units) verified the existence
of a basement unit whereupon the applicant submitted the rezoning
petition thaC was denied by [he City Council. Approval of legal
nonconforming status should be contingent on meeting housing code
requirements.
G. Aa economic feasibility analysis has been conducted for those oases
where ecoaomic hardsfiip is cZaimed as one reason for tlze variaace
request. 2his guideline is met. Given the shortfall in income, it
does not appear £easi.ble to rent the house as one unit. It is not
clear that the home is marketable to a homeowner who would use the
entire house.
I. STAFF RECON4TENDATION: Based on staff findings 4B and 4F, staff recommends
denial of the nonconforming use permit.
�
�
•
rl
� � I 7`�
NONCONFORMING USE PER1iA1T APP�ICATION
• '� ,�' Depanment of Planning and Econnmic Development
M *�� Zoning Section
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPLICANT
Zip��_Daytime Phone_ ��% /�j,�
PRQPERTY
LOCATION
•
TYPE OF PERMfT: Application is hereby made for a Nonconforming Use Permit under provisions ofi
Chapter 62, Section 102, subsection i, Paragraph�_ of the Zoning Code.
The permit is for:
� Change from one nonconforming use to another (para. 3 in Zoning Code)
O Re-establishment of a nonconforming use vacant for more than one year (para. 5)
� Legal establishment of a nonconforming use in existence at least 10 years (para. 1)
❑ Enlargement of a nonconforming use (para. 4)
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: supply the information that is applicable to your type of permit.
CHANGE IN USE; PresenUPast
or
RE-ESTABLISHMENT: Proposed usi
Additionai information for all appiications (attach additional sheets if necessary):
! I Required site plan is attached ❑
p �/ �� �
AppficanYs signature � ril.c�����C� `�� Date /'fJ i/ City agent
5�
Name of owner (if different)
Contact person (if different) ���D����p, �j�i}rt�Phone ° jfp,�
J�� r��v1 L� � a/ S �u.s
�s al u� l�e x —
• �OC(r� D l'� �"1Dcl S�
L�, f � �`s
%axes � f�
or1 �IOuS� �5
�i�:�.`c/ {�yinerr��
� ,� 5 a o�� . �
y� 1��
�� �o
� ���o - � a ��,
��;� ��,`es cL �e ��oo -
�,,� ��
T .� h��se
i��j��� .
�LLf�ef 1�5
_—�-
� ha�e
�vo -�° ��- %�i�y cc��
l%�c� �-� a�� o���s o u7�
,��se t�' 1�us �"G�e a tQl
.L� �`S ��'a �f�.
� aoo � � � � ���
�� ���
���,o���a�
�C� �f� �`P.1'�C�1C Gk.l./Zt`�2 � /v O . a v m � ,
� us �' a %d ��c�o � 8� .�r �a�cv��
��� a ��� r' °
_--, � ,�S ..�UO • o o � f 0 �-u �
�� 1� t�cnc e
n� �-��.��-� �-�`� I�-�� � .%
�c�-�°�'� s�� � ��,
�-{-ruc �e� as
��"" �l�SU°
p��I� �
���� o 0
���e ccs �s .
re�l�� ��
/���• �� ��`
��;�-�
�A� v er� �'cc �c,
i,uou.t� �� ��733�
��s (0 ee v� r�-� rnarn �e� - +v ( vc.e� e cf�
��CCS e
-��,( r,uer�� � g�� od
i �C.S � 1 S � r'`C��ce� 1 Y �t�u 1�(1(,C�C ���`Z�-J�.
�S�- -� C��v1 Uer�
.=L� ��v�Ver i�'
�OU.��c�q �JcCSe�Ylev� �
J
�ac k c.c.Jau � cl
t,r)oc� (c/ � e
{�Y�CC � N � lOU F °�
� 1��-a�
��e�
�e i ✓� �� � vlduSar��S -
cc h 8���rc� ryr h o�,Gs� �
c�-.psfu � �s,
Sfi
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
CONSENT OF ADJOINTNG PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A ,
NONCONFORMING USE PERMIT
�Ve, tlie undersigned, o�vners of the property within 100 feet of the total contiguous description of real estate
owned, purchased, or sotd by THE APPLICANT within one year precedin� the date of this petition
acknowiedge that we have been presented with the followin;:
A copy of the application of
(name of applicant)
to es[ablish a
(proposed use)
located at:
(address of property)
requiring a nonconforming use permit, along �vith any relevant _site plans, diagrams, or other
aocun,entacio�. We consent to the approval of this application as it was explained
fo us by the applicant or his/her representative.
•
�
NdTE: Atl information on the upper portion of this apptication ust e comptefed prior to obtainina
etigibte signatures on tfiis pefition.
I•
rl i7L1C:41i}l�Y\'� �
C f � 17`��
SZTUATZON 2 PRO PORHA INFORMATION SHEET
REOUZRED I;IFOR'i.ATZON
` Aousin � Unit Breakdown
Number of bedrooms '
Square foot size of
unit
Contract rent
Est. Amount'o£ tenant
paid utilities
Income from stzucture
other than rent
OneYatine Exnenses
Maintenance
f j
1._J
Insurance
Utilitj.es
Other
Taxes
Existine Vacancv
Debt Breakdown
Initial principal
amount
Interest rate
SZNATION WITH
CONTZNUATION OF EX1RA
UNZTS ZN STRUCTURE
�
��G tJ • � `y'•
J
$
�,�DO � �
,�/�q''J,- ..��Ca. pD �
l/��7�'�. .IL' eo
� /�00 • �
�-'32r�Zzci
SINATION WZTH
CONVERSION OF STRUGTURE
TO LEGAL Iv'UMBER Oc �E.*iZTS
/
� /,/,SU , o-r� L( fS�r-�%�.�
�
�
7 �
F�
Amortization term
Balloon (maturity)
term
Monthly payment
Balance amount on
debt
Sources o£ loans
Debt service'coverage
ratio requirements
For rehabilitation
projects•
Type of improvements
(provide detail)
Cost of improvements
(provide detail)
..�%�� ; �-�'
/ / ��
�
-- _ -7 _.- . .
��
��. � � �� � � �
--- ----- - , . -- ------
--
! � —=----- p. ' z. �.
-i �----------------- }-_ `- ��- fi , f =
--- -- - -
- - �, � �,
--- ---- � ----------- ----------- - -- - - -
) � �, I S `
-- ------�, `�- _ ---------•------ - ---=-- -- �- - --
�1 '{� ' /
_ j J� _
1 \��� �
I
� 3 � � ., i - ; ; ,
----- -- — — - - -----t--,�-- ---- — --- k -- -- -- -- —
''� V 1 '�� --��ti=�� - - -
_ a ..
'-- —� '- ^
� Y � i'
1: . 1
------ ---�-- ---- - ------- -------- ` - -- - ` -- - - l � �
--- --- — --- -------- - -- --- --- -_l — -- '
-{ � --� �-- -
4 �� i� _
-------- — — ---- -- --- -- --� --------- ---
--- - -- -
— -- -- -----��--�------------------� � ---� - -----�
�-- � -
_._----_.�°�_�.! _____
--1�1'�� t''�----_
- - - - --
— __.-.- _
�,,;,.
yr� v �_
"__'_' __"'_"'_"_'___y��pv- Y'_-.____.-._
. N -
_l_..
� �
--_. _.t°_ ��-_
13 Z ��
_�3�2�i
_ �..�. _ � _
/ � _
_
�------- n -� �pL
J____.�"__.
_ ��
1!� !�
�
� _
t�—__
� �` J
--_--- ---- �-- ----- -- -- -- - ---_ - —�=
�-- -
� ti �� � �. ,
----- r� �c�`: — ------ — --- — _— — — — — ---- — --
�
__------- -- —_
, , , Z , ,;�
� ' '` �—� Y�"h3 � —
— — —._._— --- -- _ � ;'__
— -- — — — — — — �—s— — --- ,�----- -- -------- — — --
------- - -_ 1 _- ---
-- -- --------- _.. -----
� ---
- - - -- - - -- - - - - -- ------- - ------
�,-,._:,�_.�.�.
� � ��l � ( � (9 �/
��
y�-� �
-�= ---__.
T �,
�+
- -�� h �,
--��- ---
— _
� �.
�
----- ------- ---- -- ------
� J l>
------� S� �-��- -- --- - --- ��
�-
------ ----,�---- -- - - -------
H
��
----------- - _ _- ---
_- -- --�� __------- -- __ ---------
-�! ` � , z 9�
---- -... - -- -- --- '-. . --- -- ---------
�-
I
----------- --_----- -
--------_----.
�- �, £,g
--- - - - -- `_ ------- -------
1 =� __�-__i __
--� --- --- ---
- - 1---- ------ _
S' � a "-
, 6r( __
t �
- --- - - _- -- -- -
- - -. � - - -----
: � ��
- ____ _.-- ___ - , --- _-- �.-
- -
--- --- --- --I-g`�--- ---,��-_- -- -} -..
- - - ---- - -
--- - --- ---
-- -
_ --- -
--- - - ' �s' y -
-----�-
� - -- --- -- - ---
.. . ��� �.�AYIi_.
��
��-�7�
•
AFFIDAVIT
OF PERSON CIRCULATING THE CONSENT PETITION
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
SS
u
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
�1 7�/�O.r �� , being first duly swom, deposes and states that he/she is
the perso�i wh� circulated the consent petition consisting of � pages; that affiant represents that
the parties described on the consent petition are all the respective owners of ihe properties placed
immediately before each name; that affiant is informed and believes that each of the parties
described on the consent petition is an owner of the property which is within 100 feet of any properry
owned, purchased, or sold by petitioner within one (1) year preceding the date of this petition which
is contiguous to the property described in the petition; that none of the parties described in the
consent petition has purchased or is purchasing property from the petitioner that is contiguous to the
property described on the consent petition within one (1) year of the date of the petition; that this
consent was signed by each of said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures are
the true and correct signatures of each and a1t of the parties so described.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this �� day of � , 19�
� , ' �u.�.�- /l,. . � , , ,,� ��� .
►..�. • s � �:
•^^^.�,, .
• ur�ophuwte wunr.wNo
P10TARY PUBLIC•MINNESOTA �
RAMSEY COUNTY
. - Mrcomm.Eq�Irea.lan.stz000
/
� a_.� .s/L• � / �
� �
�� � / .!�
.��, -
'I3o -(o3/�Z
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Page � of �
1/31r`97
q� 1��
��6-�a�s
• CONSENT OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
� �
We, the undersigned, owners of the groperty within 100 feet of ' �i—.✓
and the total contiguous desciption of real estate owned, purchaced, or sold y
petitioner within one year preceding the date of this peti�t3'-�n, acknowledge that,
we have been £urnished with a cop of the a lication of// ,� �au. �Tr�'u�r�l �`�..�/
£or special condition use permi noncon£orming use permi (cir�le one) along with
any relevant site plans, diagrams, or ot er ocumen ation; and consent to the
approval of this application as it was explained to us by the applicant or
his/her representative.
( -�.
C� �3� :z����,., '-�
�
�g . � � J
�y�
� �T/ ,
�1 / ��/ /3.L JY � � . -
�
� � �
� , ` � . � � (1+ T
�� , � n �� � / . tL� G
• l� ` ��"� 'm'L' �
,��� > . ,
�� �
' - _. , ,_' r � �
� ` 22/, ` �e ��
� l3�1 Q re.rt, ��.��wt S� `3t R�<
��.�,�,� �;.�.�-zs - —
y,,, ,�. > � ,° � - ..
���� � !� � r rr
� '
- ��� �� � �� li
� i�
ID � L,�r,� � tti,.�
��� � -' ! � � � r�-�tiR�i A
i �y 3� w; ,�.f 1
_�,;
G �3��� �.�„���� -= ;;,
�
,�.
O
a
9
,
��
- �� ! �
,�,��` 3
� +.
' 3
��cr, ��
� .,
,� ; �_
�' ' 9L-
-
_-�>�;
,��
L / Y
`�- J�..
�l/v —%�
4-- i4-'�
_ ; ,..
� i�
�
8 q � �I
���
�i�-��
•
•
11JZqJ1357 15:41
pisfiri�t 2
f,127315134
Gaunci�
UIST T4!0 COUhICIL
PAaE c'L
�� / 7�
T.1ir1 StAlvafs� Av►nua $uka �o�
October 27, 1997
Patricia James
l lth Ftoot, City Ha(1 Annex
25 Wrst Fourth Suaet
St. Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. James,
5t.9w1. Mrt 55n7-35o8
(ytz)Ti�_4s�l2 fAX(�+1.)79�_ot1�
I am writing to yau on behalf of the District 2 Community Council regarding the proposed
nonconforming nse permit at 1354 Bumingham Ave.
At the October 15'" District 2$oard of Directors meeting, tha following resolution was
unanimously adopted:
To oppose the nonconforming use permit for 1354 Birmingham and request the
poRion of the lot zoned RT-1 be changed to R-3.
u
Prior to the passage of this resolution, theYe was a public hearing at the Dis2rict 2 Physical and
Neighborhood Issues Committee. Flyers were distributed to neighborhood residents and several
phone calls were received. Significantly, I believe, all residents who responded asked that they
remain anonymous because o££ear or reprisals. A sheet with phone calls received is attached. At
tha meeting itself, only two neigh6ors attended and both spoke in opposition to the perntit
because "thece have been problesns with that house fat years."
'�he reasons for our opposition to this appl'tcation are primarily based on section Chapter 52,
Section 101, sub9ection i, paragraph 1 g of ihe zoning code: "The use wiil not be detrimental to
tha existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public
health, safety and general welfare."
The comments of neighborhood residents, the �re departmeat inspector, a faur-page list of
Citizen Setvice complaints (attached) and a summary of the police calis (attached) all lead us to
concCude thai this property is already an endangerment of the pubiic health, safety and general
welfare of the suttounding nexghborhood and so this permit shpuid not be granted and the use
discomir�ued.
In addition, white acknowledging that we are not experts in home 6nance, it does strike us as
odd that a hquse which has been a duplex for 17 years still requires this kind of income per
month just to meet expenses. The economic hardship arguments are not convincing as presented
and seem incomplete.
��
Finally, while it is not strictly speaking one of the criteria that must be met for a nonconforming
use permit to be issued, thera is clearly a theme of deception and disregard for the tules that runs
thFoughout the app]icanYs participation in this process. In addition to the whole itlegal triplex
matter, the neighbors' responses to the current app]ication, the comments of the fire inspector
and the continual problems with upkeep of the property, there is also the fact that the applicant
has heen regiatered as the owner and homesteader since 1386 when the property is clearly not
11l24/1597 15:41 5127315194 DIST TW� CdUWCZL VfiGE 53
. . q�'"���
• being homesteaded. There is no evidence that the pattern of behavior by this landlord will change
ifthis permit is granted.
For these reasoris, we urge the members of the Zoning Gammittee to appose this appFication for
a nonconforming use pernut. We thank you for this apportunity to raise these issues with you
and for your consideration of them as you determine your response.
Sincerely,
�`-�` ( "�
Tim Dornfeld
Executive Director
�
•
•
�
•
FP.OM : ST MAP,K
PHOFIE h10. : 2240223
Oct. 39 1997 03:2�Ft9 F'1
q� ���
�o���f ��
�w���� �
�� 1 c� �A �.(�� �-f �5- �-��/�r� f= r�d�U
�/l��Tff � ftST ��-A � ' �'/t��It'�-�f/t� G�ce �
r
�� �1 �I=— �rt110 �— j�UcILI� �/,��
`��� :� X�lC�SS f� U I/� 5 f��w� ���0��0�
•� (� �f.�- �� 2-�xi�- r t%6 G� / 3 S ��.��isU��,t�
�jl-�A/L� �--C� � �5� � D� 7��� �,��J�'G.�-�� s
�-� �-- �,�v� ��C r S /?'.=-�� U� �avG�.% ��C r s % .
f��� �OS�'��'1.� �pa� '��X/.6�r�/`S ,�S
.��,u .�'� `T/�;� �.� S % � � �'�-
��� � _ ��i .��1� �x1�7` S �1�/ �Trf--
�,�,c� �� �
,��',�-trr� � _ ��
���� t�� � � �
�,� ��� � ��s ���� ��� s
��.� � ��� �' �-�� ���� � �vY� �'��
�-� Si�'��T � � �� � �--�y/���/
��r�
�U�%(/I L� f��= r71�< S S �G S Q ���
l Q� �i�-��� o,�- D�� �� ����� �
�,�Gr� S /��
6�'L� �ru1C� ��� � �
��,1-�r�� Gt S
s� � ��� DU`' ���� ��
O�G/ - /� `���.G/!; U� /'�.� � _
�����--��
�-
`�3 ���,� �-�� S�
����� ��
�
;;, :
�:-
:-.�i' _;:`:
;- ._
��-s�,._,; ..Y.> �t:,. .;;,..; ;;{ 3 _ ,�..,. ,: .. . � j �; 17`�
(i'�� - _ C i�� !I. F �+.Ff23.. r�=;�_� , -�� . ..,.1_. .<r--:.cr-;
� :.•. � ; •;�.,..a.:!' . ��:.;•_ _ _ .
A . . _ _ .:,'� � - :.a . ,`{,_`�� ai } . t . , . . . ��.. _ . , , j� :.
� r ,�t...s.� ? ,. �s' S:' :.7;;` -- .i�l.' a ` '<=
��' ' ��~ �.;�. . '.'' . �i;�' Post-It'"brand so�ae6��! _;" i.;�s
}Fi3:�.� . : � � � � - . . � . T° PIG4� m . r. r • , �; ° �%3
.•_.; ... . .. �e. Ne.� ►.ibr - � €
:��� Octobe�3, 1997 c � � �- -
� t ' ' � - Phone If
- . - � oept. - � � - �
_ '
' . , Feal/� FaxA . _ .
" D f Id E f D'e f
Tim om e, xecu ive tr c or •.
pistrict 2 Communiy Council _
2169 St+4lwater Ave. #2�'( . '. ; � < �
St. !'aui, MN 55119 ' `
, .,,�.j
FZE: 1354 Birmingham Duplex ��^�� ��" ' • ' ` `�
; �
• ;:;:�
pear Mr. Dornfefd: � ,'`` `° ;`�
,v
i- ' �:_. .
;'".' s �
;'%�r`=i�' ['�'" :� *_�-i•�
�: :::. �-; fi;.' This letter is fo express some of my concerns about the duplex at 1354 Birmingham: .I .:' �: }
. ;�;.
i' `��:.: ,::. �; would rathar have this house converted back to a singie family home_ I have been in '.
� `t'�->a "�,�� the neighborhood for over 5 years.; Of those 5 years, I have 6een exposed to a numher :. ',
' of pr'oblerns concerning this properky. '
My thought of the owner (iandlord) is not good. I fee{ she is a slumlord. This property is
in bad shape outsida 1 could just imagine what the inside iooks like. The peopie she
rents to are not the best neighbors to have. On numerous occasions this past summer
the poiice have been called to this address for domestics, b-b guns being shot by
children, just to name a few.
�
.
i have 6een woken up numerous times by kids running around in their yard at all hours
of the night and also adult parties or get-togethers. I have experienced bad language
quite often by adults as well as kids.
i don't feef that this home shoufd be Multi-femily. 1f { need to deal with a siunllotd and
bad renters, i woufd much rather deal with only one family instead of two.
I live reaf close to this prope�ty and have had nothing but pro6lems with the renters.
Pfease review their Petiti�n that was su6mitted tfl you. ( was approached about 5-6
times requesting my signature, I would not sign. i don`t think they received enough
legitimate signatutes.
Thank you for your tirne. Piease consider not approving this permit.
`7� � t� wk� �t D v42M^+av�-., C�,Y.au�n�o�.c�, �-�.2� --�-a-�e F�-c
(rha.` �.�x,�:�`�
t
� /��.
.��r� !��' �fL�„ �°"'j_ 2��„
��
9����`�
�
Phone comments received for 1354 Birmingham:
Ail callers requested that their names and addresses not be used because of concern about retaliation,
but they all live in the immediate vicinity:
1. It has always had lots of problems. Continued to operate as a triplex unril recently. They aze not
good landlords. Doesn't want the permit approved.
2. Doesn't like having a duplex there. IYs been okay this past year, but before it has been very
noisy.
3. It's been a triplex since the last meeting. Permit should not be approved because they will do
whatever they want without concem for the neighborhood. They still don't keep up the yard at
all.
4. Sent letter: on back.
Also, Fire Inspector Bazb Cummings left the following message in response to our request for more
information on the properry and its history of inspections:
• We got it from zoning to enforce and from what I understand, they were putting in an illegal
basement unit. It already had two units in the building and its not zoned for two even. They
were dickering with zoning for well over a year, being very, very difficult and not doing what
they needed to do and so they dumped it in our lap to enforce. I had to tell her on the phone
that she get this straightened out or I take it to court and she could tell it to the judge. �Ier and
her daughter have been playing the ownership game, putting it back and forth, and I told her I
didn't care who was going to be the owner, I was going to take them both and let the judge
decide who was going to take the punishment for whatever they were not going to be doing
legally. From what I understand they are very difficult to work with.
�
OC�. -03' 9':FRI1 14 09
�
�
Octoher 3. 1997
SiA�E OF �1�'i-?IPEL1hE S1FE�` 'EL 6i.?°695�4i Y.uO:
�jg 17`�
Tim Dosnfeld, Execu;ive Qirector
pistrict 2 Ccmmunity Councit
2�E9 St�(f��,�ater Ave. #26'I
S? Faul, AdN 55 �19
RE: 1354 6irmir,gham Duplex
Gear N7'. Dcrnf°id�
This ietrer is to express some of my concerrs about tne duplex at 1354 B:rmingham. I
wouid rather have this house conveRed tack to a singie family hame. I have besn in
fhe neighborhood for over 5 y°crs• Of those 5 years, I have bean exposed to a numoer
of prablems concerning this propecfy.
My thought of the owner (landiord) is not good. I feei she is a siumtord. This property is
in bad shape outside ! cou(d just imagine what ?he inside looks like- The peopte she
rents to are nilt the best neighbo�s tc have. On nu,r°raus oc�asions this past summer
the poEice have ksee� cafted to this address for domestics, b-b gu�s b°ing shot by
chiid�en, just to name a few.
I have besn waken up numerous tima� by k+ds running around in thzir yard at afl hours
of the night and aisc aciuit parties or get togethers. i have experienoed bad language
quite often by adufts as e�reit as kids.
! dcn't feel that th+s home should be k7ulti-famiiy. 1f i need to deaf with a s!umlosd a�d
bad renters, I wnuld muctr rather deai with oniy one famiiy instead of r.ua.
{ live real dose te this pruperty and have had natning but problems v�ith the rerrters.
Piease review their Fetition that was suhmitted to ycu. I uras approached abouf 5-B
times requesting my signature. f r+roufd no; sign. I don't think they -eceived enough
legif,rtate signatutes.
Thank you for your time. P{ease consider not approving this permit.
.
�
�
�
�JCT-�6-1997 lc 13
N
i
c
F
<
Z s
V W
6 �
� V
° c�
� t QM
m
� y C Q
N O
W I� Y
S. � P Y
o �pn
F Y A 1
w � E O j
Y O 4 6 �
� � �
'g _
y
¢ 1 4
A .
c i
�=ITIZ=N ScRVi��� 7�=ICe
u r
u � ou i
• O� � � 6 .2y J � 6 N
3 > W � V � � � r � Y p
>� K P� 2 O W N Y W
K� S Y�C � N r� W � 6
�z a Ni LI i S
� +� W
� J 5 u � � � � u � � �
LL: � � S OC (1 V. S '.�K
`- 9 W y W ux
N W V W_ N Y W 1' W
Y�.� OC��r�y.N}
o � .�iy�jn V
� y ✓ GY� �
Ni6 NZ Y�
4ip {Y�NrH
„ 1q - ��3' W ..
tf w� Y W w w N U y w
u JY V U �NI $ --�Wis v VJ
���ii'
4W 21�1Y41���Q�
W � �4•n��C 0
Y S S.. N�� W� W W 2¢ w
l+tiF�JO� u3SOC46�
S
: K
• 1
X
r z
L �.
V L m
c� m
� c .s
V �' y J M
!l �/1 K r
P
F
p (] ( G lu N
O � O O
G
� Z
Y Z
Y N
�
wi � Z O
• a
. �
. h
0
c �
�
2 U
W m
� L
a[ 1 O
T..- U
W 4 C
�E g
s�na
y O \ A
C t
m y o N
� S
O •
� a � n
W N O O
ygu`>
�
�
n C U
O V���
m u
J � qr'
N � d
Y/ � P
� b D
A
o �
•J
�- V
� 4
�
G y
�� y
Y.
w
F £
O
m V
W og
� T
N �
� Y
Y �
��
o�
W O U
1�CM
N
K
�
�
r
P
O
O
0
S m 4
O i
6' S O
� ` L
P � �
w a ry 5
6w9
r aN z $
y v p a
Aa �
V P V a
��g�
�+ O Y
E m.
O y e �
N U
C
N C S,
.n p
K j y ]
Y `
m m
a u
� �
� W
t m
G W
� �
i Y
� C
t
m K
O W
W iG
r �
H N
� C
9
Z C
�°
O�
� _
S (Y
Ya
N
<
a
N
�
a
C
O
O O
Y K Y
W `
w
U V
s W
W W
H N
m rv
Y O
N N
�
W
2 r
Z �
C W �
6 � N
w
o s w •
� 4
ao��j
W � �
� � � C
�C�E m
o u m
� PVy
a o � ✓ g
N\U �.
= o u .°- �
e �a C e
O G c = o
1p y�
K c � V
, d O
O � C.
• X
. �
Y Q
� M G
¢
4 Y K
i a y
� Z 1
:ve�tz
� O
W
J
m Y i
W � �
K��
h J
���G
C1 3 p
� � U
� < K
° w �
W � ;
F
Y � �
�-s
N
f
2
�
n
�+
�
P
O
D
012 25o c639
2 O +
S �
H S
�C 7 u
W i.i b
om �.
< Y
u�t
,P�
m c�am
u m
�T. �
n�°�'�
N \ S L
2P Y O��
�O ' -� C
O � Y O 9
� V 6
K c c b
O 4
o � G
.y
.
w
�
v-
J
6 4t
m
41 W
5 S
✓ �
O .�.
W 1V
K w
N U
v
N �
Zw�
j' h �
Q �
J W
J
W =�
f V �
N
4
�
s
v
M
A
P
�
G
Y
.�,.
� N
V V
� �
W W
^ a
N
n �n
N N
N ry
0 .�2
9�-17`�
_/
•
•
�
�s:7-75-19?7 1��13
N
z
v
�
z
m
n
11
C
S
O
W
K
w
z
S
�
U
h
�
�
�
W
�
d�
n r_
H L �
x .-
� c ° e °
< F�. �
u s� u -°
° � e °
cs
W F
O O
.a -"
my o`
o" 'e
f P J y 6 N
V ` \ Q [.
it��lF�i CY�
zd� zw..
r p 9
D y L V V V
u.u � u
~ 66 c C
w � � � U �.G
` V
� m N S L C 1
r � O � V>
e m C o m
06NV i
K
a
s
�
N �
� °
W Q
a u
C
r
=x
�
� m
�
O�
W S n L
?
Y 0
b Y y p
�4Y�
r �J
O. N G
�
J
L �
K � <
U U a
}�t
yJ
L ¢
�'G
O
Y
S
K
m
M
J
a
M
m
a
�IT LEV Sc�VICc JP=I_c
F Y
� a
w ��
6 J � t
WY ��
S � � o
i c ' 'p
Ol N � L
G c.
�v�NT2
V ti\
6M` �
0
=� a
a
o � � u
� e�� �(� J
J G 1 - p
� N 1 d
w c c u «
W �. r .. H
¢ m L 3 i
�
D O N V
o++uw
c m
��� m:
'�zuc
-
�
S�
K�� W 4t N
nwu 0�=
V'-G Q
�m� G�i
_� _
> OC = O 1/� Y W Y
m,c�iu`aq�.�,r
r ti d g\ i Y N
` � V u 1�1 u W
fA �N Y
Y��(=Wp�
Y G S' J
V 1 W W✓� O �
xavW�s-.
� c
CIY2J
J U U G Y p G J
LL�'�o�2��`w
vi�ac�plt,
�29�G4�CL�3
N �L
�m m
4 � S
c
Ol ^ O
G S L Y
o r � =
f 2 � �
D � U N
M r ✓ W
r 'L � K
� � �
a � x w
H Y2r p
q G 61 6 [ p
C ff Of C U Z
•m 1 , W �OS
� 5��� - �<
Q � � U
1
av�o �
d\ W Z d\ G
L�OS�LQj
Y
C M�Y W L O K
< C 6 L K O N
4
V
Y
m
!n
P
n
N
0
6
O G
c a
H r
W �
6i �+
S S
W W
M �
G J
� �
512 250 �5�3
g -�
� Y p
W < V m �
r> �e
�a �i
W V �. m
O � � Q
T W
� O Q OU
}. 2 u H
� t - /ty � g�<o
_OP V NiL'K
W � � L 3 Y
3N� y {tY
O� O� O � �
O Y 0 ` O J
��� Q�O
���ie..�'+w
° +4 ° .`.00
o a� i a i
w
' d m u. z �s
:i y �u, �
x r= � r a = � � a
t�� c fY�3Y
�w� � z
� G � u � W Y F�
W� L�j N�. � ` W V�
S N r
� ¢ w �
� u &a u
m 4 °
p szm a-
IL � v -¢ J Z N> r
a� :.�s�' ��.�.,
t SH G ~ u'� •
rn �i�0 ° tiu"cy
U � r j ...
sUx opK`
��1'�.1U
O C W Np b�p � N K
V. W�1 W W t.n \{7 � J
r�-acw mC
W
�'
N
�
Y
C
m
M
�
7
O
O
i
{1
W
V
W
VI
�
0
?.�7'
q a J'7�
>
�
� 8
2� Y
i . i
� V
L E �
W C "
c c e
v g
W �
w i >
o r
0 C
: Y � � N o
U \ \�
fYYM C
Z�CY��
O O
«
a8� tJ — jy`}'
J � [16'
N C C 4
W � � O
°�
opV
: y �
�°z
��n0
zwc
i Z
� F � i
c-�p
6
N 1
Y x N
ra
m x •
z � G
u
KSt�O[
` = W N
OZ
3 � � W
O � 0 F
O � z
W O �
����
>
�
a
i a
r
�u
� m
w C
a L
W ID
W a
T G
��
O
F P P
� N N
y O C
O C
=E�
1 9. 6
� _ C
¢ L U
�j
�
>
.j
S y
s z
< 4
�
� O
4: J
��
>r
��
` r
� s
N e�
� 4
O
s c .
N ¢
� 6 Y
� V W
W �! �
f �?
tl
S
S
Y
m
T
P
N
v
O
W
w
V
W
d
�
N
�
�
m
M
�
A
�
H
N
Y
6
F
U
i
W
�
�
1 , 1 I
u
•
•
JCi^_75-1`a-3! 1?�:4
N
�
v
�
S
K
m
J
�
�
tl
N
Y
s
�
W
G
�
K
N
J
�
�
N
6
s
�
w
2
�
0 K
N�
��
V y
O �
u y
g b s
t �- W
~ � G O
Y G
V �
r
¢ n,
N C
4 a W
u « °�
L�2
N
U 9 �
u
a s
� 0
� W �y
F
>i
� mw�
d W K
t ro
� � � �
i � S
w�
O � `�
N
W �
A r W
y 2 K
m 6 r
� 'c _` s
O
L N Y
L \W i
0 10 N
4 O K J
�
N
L �
�d L
O �- $
V
LNY,
ti
V n�u
Y�
O U G
>E
Y 3
'v n
aC p
O
�.ITIZ=.�1 5=R'JICc OF=ICc
°' s i
°' .�v`ix
( N 'E H W O
� x 4 � G F �
sw 4
w� G�q..�}O
x = W V
° i z ` N z
W
.�� w�YY�
"� (nrn
mC �c�NZ
3
x ¢ s m P
O�
Y?PK� Y'-
V\\ O N J� K
W{� 1f1 S K .T �C
N\\�
�00��2'��
na H F W m � ! ^ N
O LY� u:<GJ
�i.u x�u
J�
V=iCL �vr = .Y�P
� � � r� 2 w �<
N W � W N
CO��4NZOo
; a
=
2 W W
4_C
�3
F � W Y
W
Y w m � y 1
� H S C
O = i F
1
�w�c�
yYNUt
YJl.�
N pj
J ti W
��ia
..! N
u Wm.2
� � �
m
a
V
a
W
�
N
0
W
}
V
K
W
O
4
N
�
A
t.�.
Z
z
2
N
�
0
+n
0
�
,
Y
O
�
�
F
2 Y
� V L V
a a u �
w �� C Y
o�- u e
�c
6
W O 6 O
L �
` e c --'
� O O
U��Y}
W N N O
N�\}
�oo
v t
O m� n A
N U U D OI
� 88�°a
�,ceo�u
y{r� q
� V y 0 m �
m n � O
oo�'v u
N
m
Q i
� � F
F T p
K • � <
Q � � NU
a � � aLL
F
V C L J�
Y: S V �( O
M � �O � �
T 1� � W
� � G W
W � � SO
N W�Y. Cm 6' W
ya.��Ca��d
a �y cF. • aic��.
V W W 2�'+1
��g& �&: �a..
�Na[ ti
J< 2 v10p�
Y6� �-Pz
1�L�
Jp�wry4JOG
tilJ3� O\N W� 6
r 3 N K C 1 W J t
A
K
:9
2
C
m
�
H
�
J
N
�
N
H
�
t9
J
�
W
y
M1
g
M O � Z�
�y r �
� L
6 y Y 'r
Q L �
W :_°
S y
W � �
Y �1 9
sL
V
W���
N \ \ �
�eO�
a x£
Dy�w�
w
����
W �+� � G
� Y m C +
OCS �0
.y
��3
S 0 N
� K �
g K
VK3
��
O �
� 3 s
4 W N
N �>
U' O O
s C
�J � } N
J
J fC
W � �
¢U�
S W L <
r o �. *
N
6
Y
�
Y
�
m
�
r
0
O
I�t
3
O
W
�
w
U
W
h
C
612 250 �o�? ?.J4
q�'-17�
r u �
2 J O
� J
� Y Qu.
4:
6 � �
G > A w .
� a�ev
W P + P �
W � L Jn'
r C m
m L e,4�
� r �O �p Y V U
ij \ \� ^ y H G
6 O O L V Z
N\\� �`
�OO EC
o��
N C� U��O
�BK���
w ��m�i�
� TO
T.' 9 R 0 �
OGVa[h
•N
��
C
� W
Q
G
K q
b
Y � N
t �
m�a
! � 6
Y W
wN�
W
W
2 3 i
�ag
pl�9d
LL
W��
i � r
r
N
S
Y
V
S
C
m
N
�
N
O
O
.�
o •-
Z� E b L
W� =Y�
�L � ti C�
C N O b V
W B � C L �n
O b 9 Y �
d
s" c
W � �
0 = q G V �
����� 4H
U�\ONS�O
wV d—�e P
y�-�L 4 m\
N\�
� O O m 4 �t
9 � � � V C 6
��iga��``r
�j \
A C C U� G
W � � a 3 N
` o o � = a �
6CU' ���
O
.<� i
W N �+ 2 r •
aa O 4W,++
�W G:SQq
Z �C4IN
Z Y W W���� S 4 M
<� � iili SJ2r'jC
..j3 ¢rzu+co❑ +r
�z�o
V r q K� Y H 6 m r � S
�W.. Zc6� Nre.
5- J Y L' O�I N J 2 S� 2
YK KZ�4'O�Or V G
mU FCO
yw�6LLOV y CJ ffi 4'o
xz.+4 �V2c�
K�yiKOm � �GiYG
��L W ��'j W f� NZQ
� W�'.2i2�
4I/'!H� J�S ~
=2 N'A<-+'.Y3NrW
W
�6�6a
JTN3YC%F WS . .
� y� n '�y N K N V 2� S
¢� W Z
I��SGSSJ.�• h
r
N
�
V
C
b
N
P
n
a
O
O O
W W
�
x W
V tt
W
J W W
O �
�
� �
_ m
_. i
•
�
u
��CT-d6-135" 12�15
�
2
O
U
N
=
N
N
Z
V
v
�
6
Y
N
l
1 N
6 J
K W
pi O
u
W
a
c
W
K
N
t
3
i
6
�
?
Y A
� .. z
g u m
O
l
L Y
6. %
_l
J 6 W
r
� <
caa
L
Y �
'r Y
Y 6
Y C
O
�I7IZE�l �c�UI�:c 'J�=I:�
N
�
'�C. w3�
C G 6 �
Y � O � K
�. 26WY
Y +
� OG�3
4 S�3J
� �
� I�i.N UC
r VL =Q�i
3 6
e iOFW
t LLQO..
� CL+2
� �u
Q Y � 2 W <
6 O O £ Y
�Od�K
V��4�tL
f�! OC w Y
p\ � } J`�2�
� �J � N � �
1
m
FO 4� �
z m 'p �
r `> S �
°�� � ��o
e � > 4 3 a
Q d ; O \
W V Y 0 J
W L ` Y �
} Q p �� �ii
a
m C M�. 9 O b
� � L � �
�a�Q NH C P `
V �\ 4
O V
6� N� O M� Y
N1�0�+6
200 L� �
t � � o a
� E a a a >
O � � W _
��.�S��aa �$
�.cc oc- , _m
�.... a mo
Y � 3 C�. � O i
aa
b b
�Y O W Y m 1
W �
�3 'O m N U L 2
� � z m � T a��� L N W
s v Kou. y a �-
q .p r LL • LL'J N V 4Y � � 4
' PNO w ��CNU W V
� \= W 6 � W 3 i� � O W
�FOrc�a� w:z..a � x
m��o� n �� pK p �'
w6 z<m OY j UN
wN CU 3 • �-
4� W W� Y� N 2 6 Y O N W
I62 b O �0'l SC
F-YONOZy O G M WW
N � 6� v 7 Y m Z y
.NiK�Ou�i�! C�O�[SS� t[[�'l
pasu..� w Oc�
Or9fV.JF-�r Y.O[Q�WOr 4.�
� K b O� Z S i 0 f N` O W^ m
� W
Ji YYl/)L '
n>$��-••u� �a
W <y W W✓ Ny W W V W � N {Zy.
4[ YY O\y J QY� >
H� p U Y��^ U V y C 3 O< O U C M
N
4
C
S
m
N
r
r
P
P
a
O
Y
�
LL
O
�
Slc 250 ooa9
N
�
�- d �
Z � w
S' 9 � Y�
a� -�
W �
G L `
wi iw
W �V
u �
Y6 U�
e L � �
o����
W � � Y
� \ \ 3
. b
d
o - 't�. 8+ s
���i�m
s �u+
9 O c n
a a � ❑
oaov
S
u
�
ta
X
�
W
4
N
� �
n
i `
Y U
O �
O t�
1�H
H
4
:'!
2
£
Y
a
r
�
�
T
a
N
0
n
N
�
V
r
W
i
O
N
�
�.�5
g8 �,�
O
�
TJT � P.�'
�
�
OC?-9c-?7 OS:e° PM 57 FaIIL ° B FQRCE UNIT 2?2c591
;n/n�/ 57. F��,UL. F'C_1CF �:�V'�tE lf!'"DCNT ''Rf3CK2�vG SYSTEM
{')G��R - � PIJ�L?C !-: i STuRY C]F 1:�`��4 Fi F.M? UR1-{air. ST
,:1�_��� SrC"fC�R: 3 GRID: �7
� ? �. ; �: j�q�. .. :C:i _ic,
:N
°i?..1:1�9:,�
4,-iial-v� °
97-�054-4� 2 "c-?
u> _�J u y'TLC , J
97...� t a
5'_7; :7!:;_
o'r._lt( )�3'�'�C+74
56^179 6E?
Sb^1`.'�+ 'S.:E�
_ -;:;� ��
^c. ii" Si�7
`.E-J17 '73a
DfaTc
f.>7! 1 B/°.?
c.
O6lc �i S7
�'�. f:::>/�;7
OS/�!i57
i�l;;i:3;'?;
:.`.! /� i /97
11/2:./36
;Ce�06/96
1 i)l�J6 �'7{�
ViJ;!�_:4C.
tJ;::�c.�k�lyc
OND�t cc�mplvtF� findinr.� ic r=corc]=
• L�.''06/�? ST
I�RD� .. fF'l�I}l.it
'_ 1 :210 �
CN i
4r—LSi H,�J
y7—I14 417
97—i�34 155
37-U96 165
9?-tJ7E-}456
9,-u13�131
9 � �Oq9 'S7�
9E-:79 E6'7
9 � - i 59 :i.iE
3t-:59 319
36-: 17-� 11 n
96-Cj 1 7-1714
•
rApR
DRTE
c.�s ir�: �a:
O7!1H/°J7
C'£ : :�,:i / 77
C�E�'w:.;/97
1 ��(
i31 /:'_�y: 97
tll/?1:�}�
17 /,"�/96
lp: O6: �SL
14: !�EJ9E
C�&ItJI T9E.
p�/OE.�/��6
TIi�lE
7 9c:,
1 �.i�r
tS1�:'4
� i�4.i
1737
1cCI�
i �i ��S
c:� ��;4
ci �c:? 4
_ ��1'1
<.+G 1 C.
1 Vti�
P?SF� AG•7
RCV
r'cC 9
ALV
il:•Y
[:JR
F�JV �Q4.N
GUa
�oa
rlD�
C=1N D:7NN
(:Ur+
RDV Rc_qR
�'RUL F'OIICE �IN3L_c LhtC;IIENT -RGCN.INL' SYSTEM
HiST:JR`! G}= 1�3� L�?RMItS_�7-lFiM ST
3F..f]TpR: .. GF?TE?: �7
!O/!�1/�oS� — 10iJ6r5?
T.ME
z ;:�.::
. �- ��
0134
1�c4:>
i7��
I Ei�;.,
1 8 =�;,
pi+54
vic��i
14�4
:7p16
i C)�� J
� r��: i � %�. r.�r
f" ft.aU:>
�YL"f0 THE
1![ih1E 57 �ES
DOMEST ; r;:::
UuME; t 'I i:..
PDMGJ; I�_d
DOt*IESI': C :
P'ci!5 ? S 1 �==;1_f_`_,
D'JM i_ �� 1 1 r' £;
w:�i����r�. r R!i!?E:3T
'u"IIICfi :7Gx tJr:'::G
La(':UL'L'I'?D f:Lt��l•IR
[ IvC; I t�r N f
Fr2PUG
AU'Tv FFiEFT
DQMESTICS
DOMES'P t Cti
DOME�TIi:a
UU�1E8'P?C5
D6ME9I"I�;t�
AS'.:�'IST CqLLS
DtlMLBTI �S
waRftRNr nKF<F�3T
OT+-;E?s SE:X Gr�FSc
t,.F;NC�Li1fiD t�ci �4E
1};IptpC1 find:ng 12 records
JTf-.'F' RF'7
RCV
RCV
r�!� v
n�x
�OF.
��L'V L�Uwn
GGa
ADV
ADV
CR'V DOWN
Gt�7
ADU F2ERR
°.01
9����`�
i;�:: 5:07
1S:�E:C>''
✓
/
J
�
�
� c40`1' : ST f9RR� =-'��`tE ^I0. :�2�J?33 7ct. 3� 1997 33:18?h =+_
�
��
�
� j �
�� rr'�=� }
�`D� �G��'/ �
�� } //t,�l ���.- ft u/f/1 --�- j�'Jr"JV LY' �/ ��
—�`�v �X yl'!�-�5S �UG� S 1.�1t��/6 or/'����r4�
_._.�-� ��-� ��-��frr�- r v/� G,� ! 3 � � ���isv�/f��
� � j ��� � � �" ^ � �. �rf,�" ,o ,�,��L�s� s
� � l'���.� � i S�-.--���' �O�L� ,�x � S �S
����/ �p�s/�I.�.. J�a<'� ��s��-,�� S
�- ��� �''� ` �. ��� _ �-�S � ��
I`� 5 � ,� .��1'� .---�f7` � O
��-���-- � �' �' � . ;
, �� �� c� � � -�%`������ h''� � v7 s
1.�./��' �- �s ��� l
��� ��=� `7��_..-��'L- r�`
�-�S � t�/� t.�' t� K11 �%Uc�li�i' �� �� ���
�"�- - �-���=
--- s �-� ���-- � r `'
�U1 %� �/��� �� S / S f`� S � �T`�
���-�� �� j � �_
�� F� � ��
��w� a� D�u� ��� ��.�
f� N .�lli��`� , �
S',i' � �iUl� Q�
DX/=- �.��jtr�� t'�,g- r�l _
, ���`�-
� - - .�.__
�� ;�"��,�` I�LC �r—�-
�� c��� f�
f.�y� ��'r� t�f.�L C
�'�.{�rrt1'J �S
17
9� r7�
6. NORTH END
7. THOMAS-I?ALE
8. St3MMIT-LTNIVERSTTY
4. WEST SEVENTH
10. COMO
il. HAMLINE-MIDWAY
12. ST. ANTHONX PARK
13. MERRIAM PARK-LE�IGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE
14. MACALESTER GROVELAND
15. HIGHI.AND
16. SUMMTT I-1T[.T.
1�. Dowrrrowrr g �, 3 �-
ZCJNfNG FILE 9 �' 2 �`�
��
CITIZEN PARTTCIPATION PLANNING DISTRICI'S
4. DAYTON'S BLiJFF
5. PAYNE-PHALEN
qa—���
!7' Z !�
�����'�� ���� 9 ��
�
� �a
� ,�a � —�QOO_— .� �
GREATER EAST STDE DiSTRICT 2�N -���rr�� S s �� �E�
HYL. '@ �
`�'__� ' I j i _� , 1 ` T
__ o 040;0 0 0 0 -0- = -� -� o; o�oyO- � o ;o o-o
-- - -o ( .i , � :_--� - o� � = - �
" --_ _—�—` ± ' f .—� ---- - _ ° , v —�� -
=- O : t � -- p 0-- p z O _G- O
- -- p ! � O � Q O� Q � _ .
� _-0' �L- _� � _ _ � " -O- O
p --
O O p O�_ p �- -p- O ; � �� f e
� _ -- � �_�._��..�--� -- - � O a-�- _ ,�
�� �
_-'__" 0 "_' _'Q O O Q p �-"� /
- -- -- — - •
----- ------- - � , r.
� Q - - O .; O � O O s<�, ��,
O -� - - - -- -- - - O O p �p - ',� � '
-- - -- ` '' - O' � ' ~ '�i�
C F 0 � O p p' ,� � _ G1, 0
N � � � � ��, � � �
O
p v _ O O =J- O p :.}�. �
_ o o - p- Q p � � o ��-�.�
_ p � -_- ---
G _ . O O. .E;�'
O O p �• O � � p �,
� -0 ---- j t � � O - O- O '-- -
�_ v -O- � p - -
� � O _�_ _ i
O � O - o- O O ���
i p O ¢� O �• � O
, � ,� - �---�
O ;
�.p p O� � 0000 OO;U OiaQ{O.O p' �-��G�O;UC�' C
- r - --
o i'JY AVE.
O O � r O . PRQSPEAlTY• �
O O F- O :� }- NEIGHTS O O O O¢ Q
� O � cn "-- � � - - j -.-� _._ " r"�tY�_
, � . � , � � �
:}
/ O n Q p _ � �� � � . fi`��
,`9y ` � �� C, O � O_ � � � y ,>
� G � • � � " s
rJ ____ O :
� p � O �� � i �
� � � � `_'----------7 � � � � ,
� � O � � �" �' � . / Q� � i3'� , .hx�
_ �z o �, �, o ( � �, - o ; � � � � j-,.,
�,
. �
i �� o � w° °�-� ° �� v � ����—�-�
a � — i�- t � . _ . . .
� � o =— _ o o�.,� ° I "� �- - - - -
PPLICANT ���� �"" �� LEGEND
f.bt1GON#�oy�M��o 11SE �tW+� ��l��iM+� zoning district houndary
JRPOSE _� �\
_E # _!�' � 7 ��TE � ' �'� � � subject property �"' orth'�
NG. DIST. y MAP # e o one family •• � commercial
� � iwo family ♦ � � industriaf
ALE 1" = 400' '� multiple family V vacant
.�,4.,�.,,.�., �'Q ,._
Council File # �
ORIGINAI.
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
2
0
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
36
37
38
39
40
WI�REAS, Mary Lou Law, pursuant to Saint Paul Legisiative Code § 64.300(a)(2),
applied for a non-conforming use permit governed pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul
Legislative Code § 62.102, for the purpose of establishing a duplex as a legal non-conforming
use at the property commonly known as 1354 Birniingham Street, said property being legally
described as: subj to st; ex S 5 ft; N 67 ft& W 165 ft of Lot 13, Block 6; Rogers and Hendricks
Aere Lots No. 2, Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission conducted a
pub]ic hearing on the application on October 30, 1997, at which all persons present were given
an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with requirements of Saint
Paul Legislative Code § 64.300; and
WHBREAS, the Saint Paul Plamung Commission, based upon the evidence presented to
its Zoning Committee at the said public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes thereof,
made the following fmdings of fact:
The s1ructure is currently used as a duplex. It is located on the western
half of the lot, which is zoned A-3. The garage is located on the eastern
part of the lot, which is zoned RT-1.
2. The area and frontage of the lot (67 feet (Winchell) x 270.7 feet x 121 feet
(Birmingham) = 27,047 square feet) exceed the minimum standards for a
duplex under the Schedule of Regulations of the Zoning Code (6,000 sq.
ft. azea and 50 feet frontage).
3. The Plauving Commission may grant a non-confornung use permit when
there is conformance with code requirements:
a. The use occurs entirely within an eaisting structure. This
condition is met. The two units are entirely within the main
structure.
Green Sheet #
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNES07A
�s
b. The use is similar to other uses permitted within the district.
This condition is met. The duplex use is snnilaz to the single
family uses to the west and the single fanuly and duplex uses to the
east. If the structure were located on the eastem half of the lot, it
would be in conformance with the zoning code requirements for 2-
family residential.
� 0$55
9� ��y
2 c. The use has been in esistence continuously for a period of at
3 least ten years prior to the date of the application. This
4 condition is met. The applicant has submitted lease agreements
S dating back to June, 1983. Other leases were signed in 1486, 1987,
6 1988, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1995, and 1996. City directories for these
7 years do not list two households at this address.
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
d. The off-street parlung is adequate to serve the use. This
condition is met. There is a 2-car on the lot as well as a blacktop
pazking pad off the dtiveway from Birnvugham that will
accommodate at least 1 car. The zoning code requires three spaces
for new construcrion.
e. Hardship would result if the use were discontinued. This
condition is met. The applicant has submitted figures showing that
the total rental income from the properiy is currently insufficient to
cover expenses, and that the shortage would be worse if the
structure were converted to only one unit. The first floor unit rents
far $700 per month, while the upstairs rents for $450, for a total
income of $1,150. Monthly expenses, including mortgage
payment, tases, utilities, insurance and maintenance, total
$1433.15.
f. Rezoning the property would result in "spot" zoning or a
zoning inappropriate to surrounding land uses. This condition
is met. Rezoning would result in the RT-1 district extending
beyond the back lot lines between Winchell and Biruiingham into
the R-3 district along Birmingham.
g. The nse will not be detrimental to the existing character of
development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the
public health, safety, or general welfare. This condition is met.
The existing neighborhood character includes both single family
and duplex dwellings.
h. The use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This
condifion is met. The Housing Policy Plan recommends
decreasing density in areas where residential density is too �eat.
The size of the lot is such that this area is not overly dense. The
plan also calls for exploring the feasibiliiy of code compliance
inspections to duplex rental units.
I. A notarized petition of 2!3 of the property owners within
one hundred feet has been submitted stating their support for
the use. This condition is met. The applicant has submitted a
petition. Nineteen pxoperties are eligible; thirteen signatures are
needed. Applicant's petition has thirteen signatures.
2
98-i�y
2 4. In addition to the zoning code requirements, the Planning Commission
3 approved guidelines for nonconfonning use pernuts for duplexes in
4 residential districts. These guidelines call for staff recommendation of
5 denial unless all of the following conditions aze met:
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
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
A. Lot size of at least 5,000 square feet with a lot width or
front footage of 40 feet. ApplicanY s lot has 121 feet of frontage
on Binningham (front yazd) and 67 feet of frontage on VJinchell
and a lot azea of 27,047 square feet, meetiug this guideline.
B. Gross living area, after completion of duplex conversion, of
at least 1,8U0 sqnare feet for the two nnits. This guideline is not
met. According to the applicanY s floor plans, the azea of the first
floor unit is 1,222.5 square feet; the area of the second floor unit is
479 square feet. The total is 1,701.5 square feet, or 98.5 squaze
feet short of the requirement. If the units were certified as code
compliant, concerns about overcrowding would be addressed.
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 guideline is met.
applicant submitted a site drawing (not to scale) for the rezoning
request that shows a 2-car garage and two bituminous parking
pads.
D. All remodeling work for the dupleg conversion is on the
inside of the structure. This guideline is met. The structure is
currently a duplex, no remodeling work is needed to complete a
conversion.
E. The proposed duplex structure is located in a miaed density
neighborhood, not a homogeneous single-family area or in an
area where duplexes and tripleaes are already concentrated to
the point of congesting neighborhood streets. This guideline is
met. The neighborhood is mixed density and not overly congested.
F. A code compliance inspection has been conducted and the
unit is found to be up to the housing code standards; or the
property owner has agreed to make the necessary
improvements to bring it to housing code compliance. This
guideline is not met. No inspection has been made by the Health
Department. Fire and Safety Services (which inspects shuctures
with three or more units) verified the e�stence of a basement unit
whereupon the applicant submitted the rezoning petition that was
denied by ihe CiTy Council. Approval of legal nonconforming
status should be contingent on meeting housing code requirements.
3
� 1
i�
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
r� ,
G. An economic feasibility analysis has been conducted for
those cases where economic hardship is claimed as one reason
for the variance request. This guideline is not met. The
informafion provided by the applicant is insufficient to support a
detenuination that complying with the Zoning Code is not feasible;
and
VJHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission duly resolved in Planuiug
Commission Resolution File No. 97-77 dated November 7,1997, to deny the application for a
Non-conformiug Use Petmit to allow the establishment of the subject duplex as a legal non-
confonniug use of the property at 1354 Binningham Street based upon findings 4B, 4F, and 4G
noted above; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 1997, the appellant, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislafive
Code § 64.206, filed an appeal of the Saint Paul Plaruiing Comxnission decision as contained in
Plamiing Commission Resolution File No. 97-77; and
V1f�REAS, on December 10, 1997, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Council
of the City of Saint Paul at which time the Council considered the petition, the report of staff, the
record, the minutes and resolution of the Saint Paul Planning Commission as well as the
testimony submitted and thereafter made the following findings with respect to the appeal of
Mary Lou Law:
Based upon all the evidence submitted, there are no enors in any fact, procedure,
or finding on the part of the Planning Commission in this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Saint Paul, that
the appeal by Mary Lou Law of the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission denying her
application for a non-conforming use pernut for the properiy commonly laiown as 1354
Birminghaan Street, St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, as contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 97-77, dated November 7, 1997, is in all things denied; and
L!
�
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
98-�7y
BE IT FURTI�R RESOLVED, that based upon the decision of the City Council finding
no enor in fact, finding, or procedure on the part of the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that the
findings in the aforesaid Planning Commission resolution are hereby adopted and incorporated
herein by reference as the findings of the Saint Paui City Councii; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
Mary Lou Law, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, and the Saint Paul Zoning Administratar.
ORIGINAL
Requested by Department of:
Certified by Council Secretary
By: _�_
Approved by
By:
Form Appro by City Attorney
BY: �, ���
Approved by Mayox for Submission to Council
ey:
Adopted by Council: Date �q�c�n \\ `�CI`C��
98 �7v
Council
DAh �NRa7E0
March 3, 1948
GREEN SHEET
No 60855
ov,u,�r o�ara�
March 11, 1998
xuwsae wrt
noururo
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
❑ arv�noufv ❑ arvmK
❑ rwxcuo.seavicrsun ❑ wuxcu�a
❑ Wl'dtWMYi�TAM) �
(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Finalizing City Council action taken December 10, 1997 denying the appeal of Mary Lou Law
to a decision of the Planning Commission denying a non-conforming use permit to establish
that a duplex is a legal non-conforming use of property at 1354 Birmingham Avenue.
PIANP7ING CAMMiS410N
CIB COMMITfEE
GVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION
1��I4 7
Has this pe�soMirm eu� w�etl uMer a coriUact Tor fhie depertmeni?
vES nro
Hes tMe ve�✓firm a,er teen a city empwyee9
YES NO
Dces ihis PeisoMim G� a slall Iwt �alma��YP� by anY anent city emGloYee?
YES NO
Is Mis PerswJfirtn a tergHetl vendoYT
YF9 NO
OF TRANBACT{ON
SOURCE
COSTIREVENUE BU06ETED (CIRCLE ON67
ACTNITY NUMBEF[
�
i^'�'f�'�f�]
�iB-r7�
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
PegBirlr, CiryAnorney
CITY OF 5AINT PAUL
Norm Colemax, Mayor
Civi1 Division
400 Ciry H¢!!
IS �estKelloggBlvd
Sain1 Paut Mbmesola SSIO2
Zelephone: 612 266E710
Fac.rimile: 612 298-5619
March 3, 1998
Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Saint Paul City Hall
RE: Appeal of Mary Lou Law, Zoning Resolurion No. 97-77, Public Hearing Date December 10,
1997.
Deaz Ms. Anderson,
Attached please find the signed as to form original of a council resolurion memorializing the decision
of the Saint Paul City Council in the above entitled matter. Please place this matter on the consent
agenda at your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
����
Peter W. Warner
9�- ���
CITY OF SAIN'f PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
November 24, 1997
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Councii Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
DEPARTMETIT OF PLANNING �
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Pamela Y�heelock, Direcior ,
25R'estFourthStreet Telephone:612-266-66�5
SaintPaul,MN55702 Facsimile:612-228-3261
C�?s:# Atr�af�s! �ti�
fi•�=; V 2 = i�37
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
December 10, 1997, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a
nonconforming use permit:
Appellant: IvIARY LOU LAW
File Number: #97-304
Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision denying a nonconforming use permit to
establish that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of properiy
Address: 1354 Birmingham Ave.
Legal Description
of Property: subject to street; except South 5 feet; North 67 feet and West 165 feet of Lot 13,
Block 6; Rogers and Hendricks Acre Lots No. 2
Previous Action:
Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial; vote: Unanimous, November 7, 1997
Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 5-0, Octobet 30, 1997
My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the December 10,
1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish any required notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul
Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6639 if you have any quesfions.
-�i
� �,;�., �
Patricla James
City Planner
xoxic� oF roarac �annvG - -
Cc: Fi10 #97-3�4 The Saint Paul CiTy Covncil wil9 conduct a public heazing on Wednesday, December
Mi1C0 KI'a0m0r 10. 1897, at 4:30 p.m. in the City Councii Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall-COUrt-HOUSe,
to consider the appeal of Mary Lou Law to a decision of the Planning Commission denying
Donna SandeCS a non-conforming use pemilt to establish that a duples is a legal non-rnnforming use
of property at 1354 BiYmingham Avenue.
Dated: November 24, 1997
NANCY ANDERSON - . - " -
Assistant City Council Secreta�y , '
� - � (Novembei' 26. 1997)
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
� � CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coteman, Maynr
November 24, 1997
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Division of P/mmrng
25 West Fourth Stree[
Saint Paui, MN 55702
�8-I � �-
TeZepiwne: 6I2-266-6565
Facsimi(e: 6I2-228-3314
RE: Zoning Fi(e #97-304: MARY LOU LAW
City Council Hearing: December 10, 1997 430 p.m. City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision denying a nonconforming use permit establishing
that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of property. -
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: DENIAL IInanimous
ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 5-0
• STAFF RECOMMENAATION: DENIAL.
SUPPORT: The app]icant was present and spoke.
OPPOSITION: No one spoke in opposition. Two letters were received.
Council voted to oppose the nonconforming use permit.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
The District 2 Community
MARY LOU LAW has appealed the decision of the Saint Paui Planning Commission to deny a
nonconforming use permit to establish a duplex as a legal nonconforming use of property located at 1354
Birzningham Street. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the request on October 30, 1997. The applicant addressed the committee. At the close of the
public hearing the committee voted 5-0 to recommend denial of the permit. The Planning Commission
upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for derrial on a unanimous vote on November 7, 1997.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 10, 1997. Please notify me if any
member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sin iy, _ <\��
Patricia N. James
C3ty Planner
• Attachments
cc: City Council members
m
APPUCAT(ON FOR APPEAI.
. `�) Department of Planning and Economic Development
�� Zonine Section
— - - - IZ00 City Hall Annex
23 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
166-6589
APPELLANT � Name Mary Lou i.aw
Add�ess 2050 Pathwavs DrivP
City St. Paul St.MNZip55119 Daytimephone 776-9b38
PROPERTY
LOCATION
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
C' Board of Zoning Appeals L�1 City Council
•
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 206 , Paragraph a of the Zoning Code, to
appeal a decision made by the Saint Paul Planning Commission
on November 7 , 19 47 , File number: 97-244
(date of decision)
Zoning File Name Mary Lou Law
Address/Location 1354 Birmingham St.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
5ee Attached.
. l Atfach addrtional sheet if necessary)
Applicant's
Dennis K.�ICispert
Attorney for Applicant
Date/�o;,�_ 2/ 1�� TCity agent.
��'
�8-t��
q�'-r��
� GROUNDS FOlt APPEAL:
The Saint Paul Planning Commission made errors in facts,
requirements and findings in denying the i3onconforming Use permit
to establish a duplex as a permitted nonconforming use of the
property at 1354 Birmingham St. in Saint Paul.
1. Findinq 4B is in error. The Commission failed to consider the
square footage of the basement area as part of the total
square footage of the duplex. This would increase the square
footage well beyond the 18�0 sq. ft. requirement for a duplex.
2. Finding 4F is in error. Appelant attempted on numerous
occasions to schedule a compliance inspection on the property
both before and since the planning commission hearinq. She
was informed by Fire and 5afety Services that because the
building had less than three units, Fire and Safety has no
jurisdiction to do an inspection. The health department was
contacted to schedule an inspection. To date, they have
refused to schedule an inspection. Appelant is presently
contracting for an independent compliance inspection of the
groperty.
Appelant previously agreed, on the record, at the planning
commission hearing to make all neoessary improvements, if any,
to bring the dwelling into code compliance. The staff report
• indicates that approval of the nonconforminq use should be
contingent on meeting the code requirements, acknowledging
that a commitment by the property owner to make the necessary
improvements is sufficient to meet the inspection requirement.
3. Finding 4G is in error. The Commission erred in finding that
this guideline has not been meet. The staff reports found
that an economic hardship exists at this property. Staff
found that there is currently insufficient income to aover the
expenses of the property and that the shortfall would be worse
if the structure were converted to a single unit. Staff
Findinq 3e Additionally, there would be significant
additional expenses incurred in converting the property to a
single unit. Costs which would need to be financed by the
owner, thereby increasing the shortfall and the economic
hardship after any conversion. Finally, the staff report
found that guideline 4G had been met. Staff Report Findin� 4G.
,
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& £CONOMIC DEVELOP,UfENT
� ' CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norrn Coleman, Mayar
r.w.
November 7, 1997
Ms. Mary Lou Law
2050 Pathways Drive
Saint Paul, MN 55119
Divisiors ofPlarmirsg
25 Wett Fourth Street
Saint Pau(, MN55102
9�-�°��
Telephone: 612-266-6565
Facsimile; 6I2-22&3314
RE: Nonconforming Use Permit to establish that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of the
properly at 1354 Birmingham Street
Zoning File #97-244
I?ear Ms. L.aw:
The Saint Paul Planning Commission voted on November 7, 1997, to deny your request for a
nonoon£orming use permit to allow you to continue to use the property at 1354 Birmingham Street as a
� duplex. Enclosed is the Planning Commission's resolution stating its findings.
You may appeal the decision of the Pianning Commission to the City Council by filing an application
and fee for appeal within fifteen days of the date of this letter. An appeal should be based on what you
believe to be an error in any fact, finding, or procedure of the P(anning Commission. Enclosed is an
appeal application.
Please call me at 266-6639 if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance to you.
" �/,� /7�' �
_ �. '•-
Patricia James
City Planner
Enclosures
cc: File #97-244
Zoning Administrator
License Inspector
District 2 Community Council
' Mail Date: November 7,1997
�r�--t � �
� city of saint paui
planning commission resolution
file number 97-?�
�te Novemi�er 7, 1997
WFIEREAS, MARY LOU LAW, file #97-244, has applied for a Nonconforming Use Permit
under the provisions of Section 62102 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code, for the purpose of a
Nonconforming use permit to establish that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of the
property, on property located at 1354 BIRMINGHAM ST., legally 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; and
VIHEREAS, the Zoning Commitiee of the Plazming Commission on 10130/97, held a public
heazing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said
application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 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 heazing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following
findings of fact:
• 1. The structure is currently used as a duplex. It is located on the western half of the lot,
which is zoned R-3. The garage is located on the eastern part of the 1ot, which is zoned
RT-1.
2. The area and frontage of the lot (67 feet (Winchell)x 270.7 feet x 12l feet {Bnmingham)
= 27,047 squaze feet) exceed the mnumum standards for a duplex under the Schedule of
Regulations of the Zoning Code (6,060 sq. ft. area and 50 feet frontage).
3. The Planning Commission may grant a non-conforming use permit when there is
conforxnance with code requirements:
a. The use occurs entirely within an existing structure. This condition is met. The two
units are entirely within the main shucture.
b. The use is similar to other uses permitted within the district. This condition is met.
The duplex residential use is similaz to the single family uses to the west and the single
family and duplex uses to the east. If the structure were located on the eastem half of the
lot, it would be in confarmance with the zoning code requirements far 2-family
residential.
moved by �'ield
seconded by
in favor U�i��
against
9�-r��
� c. Tlze use has been in ezistence confinuously for n period of at least ten years prior to
ilse date oft{:e applicafion. This condition is met. The applicant has submitted lease
agreements dating back to June, 1483. Other leases were signed in 1986, 1987, 1988,
1989, 1991, 1994, 1995, and 1996. City directories for these yeazs do not list two
households atthis address.
d. The off-street parking is adequate to serve the use. This condition is met. There is a
2-caz gazage on the lot as weli as a blacktop pazking pad off the driveway from
Birmingham that will accommodate at least 1 caz. The zoning code requires three spaces
for new construction.
e. Hards{zip would result if tlae use were discontinued. This condition is met. The
appiicant has submitted figures showing that the total rental income from the property is
currently insufficient to cover expenses, and that the shortage would be worse if the
structure were converted to only one unit. The first floor unit rents for $700 per month,
while the upstairs rents for $450, for a total income of $1150. Monthly expenses,
including mortgage payment, taxes, utilities, insurance, and maintenance, total $1433.15.
,f. Rezoning the prnperfy would result in "spot' zoning or a zoning inappropriate to
surrounding land uses. This condition is met. Rezoning would result in the RT-1 district
extending beyond the back lot lines between Winchell and Birmingham into the R-3
• district along Birnungham.
g. 7&e use wiU not be detrimental to the e.xisting character of development zn the
immediafe neighborhood or endanger the public heallh, safety, or general welfare.
This conditian is met. The existing neighborhood chazacter includes both single fanuly
and duplex dwellings.
h. The use is consistent with the compre{zensive plan. This condition is met. The
Housing Policy Plan recommends decreasing density in areas where resi@ential density is
too great. The size of the lot is such that this azea is not overly dense. The plan also calls
for exploring the feasibility of code compliance inspections to duplex rental units.
Z. A notarized petition of 2t3 of the property owners within one Izundred feet has been
submitted stating their support for tl:e use. This condition is met. The applicant has
submitted a petition. Nineteen properties are eligibie; thirteen signatures are needed.
ApplicanYs petition has thirteen signatutes.
. 4. In addition to the zoning code requirements, the Planning Commission approved
guidelines for nonconforming use permits for duplexes in residential disiricts. These
guidelines call for staff recommendation of denial unless all of the following conditions
aze met:
� A. Lot size of at least 5,000 square feet with a lot width or fronf footage of 40 fee�
ApplicanYs lot has 121 feet of &ontage on Birmingham (front yazd) and 67 feet of
��-���
� frontage on Wincheil and a lot azea of 27,047 square feet, meeting this guideline.
B. Gross [iving area, after completion of duplex conversion, of at leasf I,800 square
feet for the 2wo units. This guideline is not met. According to the applicant's floor plans,
the area of the first floor unit is 1,222.5 squaze feet; the area of the second floor unit is
479 squaze feet. The total is 1,701.5 square feet, or 98.5 squaze feet short of the
requirement, If the units were certified as code compliant, concems about overcrowding
wouid be addressed.
C. Three off-street parking spaces (non-siacked) are preferred; two spaces are the
required minimum. A site plan sfzowing improved (durable, permanent, dustless
surface) parking spaces must be provided. This guideline is met. Applicant submitted a
site drawing (not to scale) for the rezoning request that shows a 2-caz garage and two
bituminous pazking pads.
D. All remodeling work for tfie �iuplex conversion is on the inside of the structure...
This guideline is met. The structure is currently a duplex, no remodeling work is needed
to complete a conversion.
E. T'he proposed dup[ex structure is located in a mixed density neighborhood, not a
hotnogeneous singte famity area or in an area where duplexes and triple.zes are
atready concentrated to the point of congesting neighborhood streeu. This guideline is
� met. The neighborhood is mixed density and not overly congested.
.F: A cade compliance inspection has been conducted and the unit is found to be up to
the housing code standards; or the property owner has agreed to make the necessary
improvements to bring it to housing code comptiance. This guideline is not met. No
insgection has been made by the Health Department. Fire and Safety Services (which
inspects structures with three or more units) verified the existence of a basement unit
whereupon the applicant submitted the rezoning petition that was denied by the City
Council. Approval of legal nonconforming status should be contingent on meeting
housing code requirements.
G. An economic feasibility analysis has been conducled for those cases where
economic hardship is claimed as one reason for the variance reyuest This guideline is
not met. The information provided by the applicant is insu�cient to support a
determination that compiying with the Zoning Code is not feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commissian, that under
the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a Nonconfornung Use Fernut to
allow Nonconformine use permit to establish that a duplex is a legal nonconforming use of the
property at 1354 BII2,�r1INGHAM ST is hereby denied, based on findings 4B. 4F, and 4G.
9� f 7�
� Saint Paul Planning Commission
City I�Iall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 7, 1997, at
8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Maddox, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl, and
Present: Messrs. Field Jr., Kramer, McDonell, Nowlsn, Vaught and Wilson.
Commissioners Ms. *Geisser and Messrs. *Chavez, Gordon, Gumey, *Johnson, *Kong, *Mazdell,
and *Sharpe.
Absent:
*Excused
Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Roger Ryan, and Larry
Soderhotm, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff.
I. Approval of Minutes of October 10 and October 24,1997
! MOTION: Commissioner Kranzer movect to approve the minutes of October IO and 24, I997;
Commissioner Nordin secon�fed tlze motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote.
II. Chair's Announcements
Chair McDonell announced that Commissioner Maddox has resigned from the Planning
Commission. Her resignation �vill be effective when the Mayor replaces her.
The Steering Committee met today before the Planning Commission meeting. They reviewed
the 1998 meeting calendar, A copy of it wiil be sent in the nexY mailing.
Chair McDonell announced that he will be leaving at 4 a.m. at which time Commissioner
Vaught will take over as Chair.
ITI. Planning Administrator`s Announcements
Mr. Ford announced that PED staff that participated and the members of the leadership team
who were there were most appreciative of the workshop last Friday, and felt that it was very
valuable communication. They �vere very impressed with the Commission members'
engagement, and grateful for your willingness to take part in it.
Mr. Ford announced that at 1 p.m. on Thursday, November 13, there is a presentation on the
Learning From Series that Minneapolis City Planning is sponsoring. IYs at the Library on
Nicollet Mall in downtown Minneapolis. The forum is on some ofthe particularly successful
experience in the country in building highly economically integrated new housing in intercities.
��-1 ��
• The Comprehensive Planning and Land ilse Committee will meet at 4 p.m. in the aftemoon of
Wednesday, November 12, 1997, Gvhere there wil( be further discussion of the CAAPB
Comprehensive Plan.
IV. Zon'sng Committee
#97-207 Mendota Homes - Special condition use permit to allow a 10 unit cluster development
at the southwesf quadrant of Lexina on and 5t_ Claic (Beth Bartz, South���est team)
Commissioner Field stated that the zoning cammittee and land use committee of the Summit
HiII Association had recommended deniai. No one spoke in support. After extensive testimony
from the neighborhood and discussion with the applicant, the Zoning Committee agreed, and on
a vote of 6- 0 laid the matter over hoping to bring the neighborhood and the developer together
to try to find appropriate compromises to some of the issues involved in the project.
#97-244 Mary Lou LaFV - Nonconforming use permit to establish a duplex as a legal
nonconforming use of the property at 1354 Birmingham Street. (Patricia James, Northeast
team)
Commissioner Field explained that previously the Zoning Committee had denied a request to
make this a triplex. Additionally, the City Council denied the applicanPs request, Based upon
these facts, among other things, the gross living area afrer completion of the duplex was under
the prescribed number of square feet. In addition, code compliance inspections had not been
made.
• MOTION: Commissioner Fie1r1 n:ovec! clenirr! of a requeslecl nonconforming use permit to
establislt a �Luplex as a legal nonconforming iise of the property at 1354 BirnzingJaana Street
which carried unanrmousty on a voice vote.
#9�-257 Java Drive Inc - Enlargement of a nonconforming use to allow a coffee kiosk on this
site with an existing nonconforming auto specialty store at iQ94 Randoiph Avenue. (Jim Zdon,
Southwest team)
Commissioner Field stated that in approximately 1945-46, a Java Dtive Irtc �vas approved at the
intersection of approximately Snelling and West Seventh Street. It is the applicant's intention
to move that facility to 1094 Randolph Avenue. He added that staff provided some interesting
traffic flow information at that intersection.
The Highiand Area Community Council did not take a position. No one spoke in support or
opposition.
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved denfal of the requested entargement af n
noncnnforming use to allow n coffee kiosk nt I094 Randolph Avenue.
A concern expressed at the Zoning Committee was regarding this methodology and was it the
appropriate way to facilitate the placement of this facility at that corner. There �vas less a
concern about whether it would he an appropriate use to have there.
2
q� i7�
• Commissioner Vaught noted that he had two concems: 1) traffic flow; and 2) accident data.
Specifically, he was looking for was some way to compare this location wiih the other hvo
locations: I) Marshall and Snelling; and 2) tiVest Seventh near Snelling Hill. He noted that Mr.
Ryan did a very good job of putting together those statistics which convinced him that this
location is nat materially different from the other t4vo locations in terms of the flow of traffic
pattern or accident data_ If anything, ihe data put this location in the middie of the ot0er rivo.
So his concems were put to rest,
The question that he had led him to make the motion to deny was the wording ofthe code with
respect to expansion of a nonconforming use. He reads the code that when you talk about
expansion of a nonconforming use, you are talking about the existin� use on the Iot you are
expanding. He found it difficult to understand how a coffee kiosk could be an expansion of an
auto specia(ty store. Since then, he has thought about it and althou�h he nould prefer that be
considered a change in noncooforming use from an auto specialty store to an auto specialty
store and a coffee kiosk, he can't see that it makes a lot of difference. He does not think that the
code addresses this situation perfectly.
He went on to say that he thinks this is a good use; it provides a service. Upon reading and re-
readinQ the code, he can caff this an expansion of a nonconforming use, although just barely.
MOTION: Comn:issione� [jauglrt moved, ns r� substitute motion, to approve tlre request fvr
an enlargement of n nonconjnrn:ing use to allow a coffee kiosk on tlris site witk an exisiing
nonconforming auto specinity store af 1 D94 Randolph; ilse motion was secon�led by
Commissioner Mnddox.
� CommissionerField stated that he had come prepared to vote in opposition to this in accordance
with the staff recommendation untit he saw Mr. Ryan's data. Having seen ihat data, he could
convince himself that this is not goino to create an overwhelming hazard.
Tlze motion of the substitute motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Mr. Ford clarified the information. The staff recommendation was for denial. Staff does not
think that the change in nonconforming use was intended to cover this situation, and staff thinks
that it's appropriate that it doesa't.
Commissioner Treichel asked for a ctarification on the reason for denial.
Mr. Ryan stated that the reason for denial was the traffic situation, not the procedures.
Commissioner Vaught interjected that is why he speciftcally asked for the traffic and accident
data. On the basis of that data, he is able to conctude that there is essentially no difference
between this location and the location of Marshali and 5nellin�. If anything, this use is less
intense.
Commissioner Field clarified, that he believed, at the time af the Zoning Committee vote, there
�vas a great deal of discussion as to the procedure as opposed to the traffic flow as the purpose
and reason for denial.
��-i��
• Commissioner Vaught stated that it is clear to him that Commissioner Gordon's vote to deny
Gvas based on the traffic situation.
The motian on the floor 10 npprove ihe enlargemeni of a nonconforming use to allow a caf,f'ee
kiosk on tlris site with an existine nonconforming auto specialty stare ai I Q94 Randolpli
Avenue ca�ried ununimously on a voice vote.
#97-258 IIS West Communications - Special condition use perrnit to allow a 90' cellular
telephone antenna at 426 Fairvie�v Avenue North. (Nancy Homans, Northwest team)
Commissioner Field reported that this item was laid over until November 13, 7997.
#97-259 US West Communications - Special condition use permit to allo�v a 90' cellular
telephone antenna at 1b69 Arcade Street. (Patriciz James, Northeast team)
Commissioner Field stated that this item was also laid over until November 13, 1497. He read
the agenda for the next Zoning Committee meeting, Thursday, November 13.
Commissioner Treichel asked what the slope of Ramsey Hill is. Mr. Soderholm responded that
it is 1 I per cent.
V, Comprehensive Planning and Economic Development Committee
Commissioner Maddox announced an upcoming meeting with Neighborhood Planning and
� Land Use Committee next Wednesday, November I2, at A p.m., in the 14th floor Conference
Room in the City Hall Annex.
VL 1�Teighborhood Planning and Land Use Committee
Commissioner Treichel announced the next meeting, Monday, November 17, at 3:30 p.m. in the
14th floor Conference Room in the City Hali Annex.
VII. Communicafions Committee
No report.
�TIII. Task Force Reports
Commissioner Treichel announced that the Housing Task Force wilt begin to have focus
meetings on Tuesday mornings beginning November 18 and continuin$ through December 4,
1991, from 8-930 a.m. People �vilt be speaking on specific issues of housing; affordable
housing being the topic on the I Sth. She invited Commissioners to attend.
Chair McDonell left the meeting. Commissioner Vaught took over as Chair.
0
��' i7�
� �. oia Bus;n�s
Cammissioner Treichel, on behalf of Cammissioner Gordon and herself, said that they
appreciated the good attendance at the Planning Commissioner workshop last Friday.
Commissioner Treichel commented that in the future the Commission should take more
initiative to invite the people the Commission needs to communicate with about issues.
Mr. Ford said that a few staff people met shortly after the �vorkshop last Friday to discuss what
needed to be done tight away to be sure that some of the issues broueht up at the workshop were
followed through on. Three sug�estions were brought to the Steerin� Committee this morning:
Conan:issioner Review of Neighborhood Planning. As you have seen from the
presentations, a good deal of the p(anning and development work underway in
neighborhoods is not taking ptace with the formal "small area plan" designation which
would prescribe a clear role for the Commission. This is creating a communication gap. Ft is
important that the Commission have an opportunity to idantify issues of importance from its
policy perspective ear(y on, and an effort on the pad of PED to keep the Commission up to
date on the neighborhood efforts should help to make that possible.
2. Establish an Appropriate Certifrcation Framework for Neighborhood Plans. It's obvious
that the relationship of neighborhood plans to the City Plan is a significant issue. It's an
issue that is difficult to resolve Gvhen we do not have the means to keep aIl neighborhood-
level plans up-to-date. Several ideas have been suggested, and some models are available
M from other cities. We are proceeding to work out and describe the most promising
alternatives and will bring these to the Commission for discussion.
3, Quadrant Liaison. The Commission has already made a decision to identify members for
liaison roles 4vith each of the four quadrants within which PED organizes its work. We
support this idea. Exactly how the liaison role might evolve we're not su�e, but we believe
it �vould be useful naw for each of the quadrants to knoGV that they have one Commissioner
willing to be a contact point and keep informed about what is going on in their portion of
Saint Paul.
Commissioner Treichel noted that there's a point of tension between neighborhood plans
(District Plans and SAPs) and the Comprehensive Plan. In the process of doing SAPs over a
number of years it became c(ear that we needed an overarching structure (Land Use Plan) into
which each one of the SAPs would fit. Now the Comp Plan update is mandated by the State.
Neighborhoods are looking at us suspecting that this may minimize the neighborhood plans.
Another concem is that in previous years the small area plans were done with PED staff
guidance; more and more now, small area plans are being done independently. So, we Iose the
ongoing liaison with neighborhoods that we used to have which creates another point of tension.
Mr. Soderholm noted that staff is working on models for solutions. He stated that at the last
Nelghborhood Planning and Land Ilse Committee meeting, Commissioner Kramer suggested
that we try to abstract from existing district and small area plaas one or two pages of land use
policy that could be added to the back of the Land Use Plan as appendices so that we would
9�-���
• have a way to keep poiicy for each part of the City clear and knosv whaPs in the Comp Plan and
�vhaYs not in the Comp P1an. We should have some dialogue with each neighborhood about
their appendix. Commissioner Nowlin suggested that we try to designate �vhich plans should be
in the Comp Plan and Gvhich ones should just be guidelines, and would not have the legal force
of the Comp Plan. Ken Ford suggested that we reatly need to ]ook at models used in other
cities. Mr. Soderholm continued to say that the goals for the new modei should: account for
existing adopted plans in some �vay; account for the kind of neighborhood plannin� we see
being done in the future, which �vill include more of the independent plans; be clear legaliy; and
be administratively realistic about what can be accomplished.
Commissioner Engh asked who is the principle audience for the Comp Plan? Who are we
�vriting it for---developers, neighborhood groups, or the general citizenry?
Mr. Ford responded by saying that iPs an important question; one that staff asks itself often. He
replied that the answer is all of the above, if it's going to do its job. The Comprehensive Plan is
not just an operational plan for City government. If it does its job, it provides a vision and a
focus that affects a whole lot of actors in the City-- in the private sector, nonprofit sector, public
sector, and a iot of organizations. It's a very broad audience and if it doesn't Gvork for
bureaucrats, the directors of departments in the City who are putting budgets together for what
their department is going to do, it's not going to be very well implemented. If it doesn't work
for a mayor and a city council, people who have political interest but need to be able to talk
about vision and direction in a clear and �vay, it's not going to do its job very effectively.
� CommissionerNordin commented that she worked on the Midway Parkway Small Area Plan. It
seemed to be very money oriented and time-frame oriented. At the time, she said that she
wasn't aware of a City Comprehensive Plan or she would have had to consider it in working on
the neighborhood p1an. She feels that the Comp Plan and neighborhood pfans are in two
different worlds.
Commissioner Nowlin noted that there is al�vays a tension with comprehensive p]ans and that
comprehensive ptans in big cities are tough to do. Now that comprehensive plans have more
power than zoning codes, they have the potential to be very strong documents. The questions is
how do you want to change land development in the City? A developer can use a comp plan to
force a change in, for instance, housing density, if the comp plan says we ought to have more
housing density in an area. It can be a stimulant and it can have great power if people are
wi(ling to put that kind of power into a comp plan. He stated that it is really the Planning
Commission's opportunity to make a statement about what we think makes sense for the overall
City.
He continued to say that from what the Commission has heazd, the quadrants in PED are doing
action oriented project development planning, bottom up, the way (ife normally works, but that
PED isn't looking at the overall picture of the City. The Planning Commission has an
opportunity with the Comprehensive Plan to make its statement about vazious areas of the City,
vazious corridors, various needs, etc. IYs a coordinated statement of how �ve would like to see
the City change.
He added that it was great to hear what the quadrants are doing. What he finds frustrating on
LJ
��-i��
• the Plannin� Commission is that it doesn't have the opportunity to speak to the quadrant people
wl�at its wishes and concerns are. Is there a way the Commission can communicate its
thoughts?
Commissioner Treichel responded that in discussion earlier this morning, the Commission
talked about having on-going presentations by the four quadrants throu�hout the year, at which
time the Commission can ask our questions and make su� estions.
In addition, she noted that Commissioners, possibly rivo, would become the liaisons to each one
of the four quadrants. This structure �vould provided an on-going dialogue and a vehicle for the
Commission to express itself more fully.
Mr. Ford underscored what Commissioner Nowlin said and is requesting. He pointed out that a
couple of years ago Mayor Coleman asked the Commission how he couid get more information
from it. In other words, ho�v can the Commission do a better job of letting him know the things
that it's concerned about and the things it sees going on in the City that he ought to be aware of?
One thing that concerns staff is that where there really is effective communication going on is
where the Commission has a decision to make, where there is action to take. Although
communicating information is good because it sometimes generates good discussion, iYs not
always c(ear that is doing anything to affect the system. There seems to be a need for something
to be clear in the structure where the Planning Commission has a decision and everyone knows
that something is going to have to measure up to some policies. There has to be an agreement
that the Planning Commission has a clear role and a clear voice.
� Commissioner Nowlin asked if any thought has been given to the idea doing capital budget
improvements which combines STAR on a quadrant basis?
Mr. Ford replied that he has not heard of such a discussion, but iYs an interesting idea.
Commissioner Nowlin commented that there seems to be a disconnect behveen STAR and
project ideas.
Mr. Ford stated that Saint Pau] has had whaYs been regarded in the country as a model of what
Capital Improvements Programs did for a long time, an innovative one thaYs broadty
participative with our Capital Improvements Committee structure and the review of all those
projects, programs by tHe Planning Commission. Perhaps iYs gotten a little stale. There's been
a lot of interest in streamlining it because it probably doesn't work as well as it did because staff
cannot put the kind of time and effort into processes as they used to. It's something ripe for
looking at. He added that in the Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan, they are making a strong
effort to ensure that there's a strong link beriveen the comprehensive plan and the capital
improvement budgeting process and the operating department budgeting process.
Commissioner Nordin suggested that not only the Mayor wants to be more informed, but
perhaps the community also wants and needs to be more informed. She suggested having
Planning Commission meetings on cable TV as City Council meetings are, and putting the
Planning Commission agendas and minutes on the Internet.
•
��� »�
• Commissioner Nowlin suggested having a series about the Comprehensive Plan on cable TV.
Commissioner Treichet asked Mr. Soderholm about the West Side Plan. To make the plan
official, they do have to brin� it before the Planning Commission and the City CounciL There
may be things in that plan that are not consistent with another plan. How is the Commission
goino to evaluate those plans, and is the Planning Commission setting itself up for serious
confrontations?
Mr. Sodedtolm replied that PED staff kneGV that the p(an was 6eing done, but have not had a
role in its development. He thinks there may be issues in that plan that need to be reconciled
with city-wide policy. Plans that are initiated by neighborhoods without Planning Commission
or PED participation are more difficult to inte�rate with city-wide policy.
Commissioner Duarte asked how the priorities are set for both the Comprehensive Plan and
neighborhood plans.
Commissioner Treichel responded that her idea is that the priorities of the neighborhood plans
need to be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan and other appropriate plans. Neighborhood
plans always need to be negotiated with the Parks Plan, the Transportation Plan, regional plans,
etc. It's not an easily defined list of priorities.
Commissioner Engh is concerned about tryin� to keep the inte�rity of the neighborhood but
have a document that gives consistent direction. She asked if part of the role of the Planning
Commission is to resolve disputes?
� Mr. Ford replied that resolving disputes is a critical part of the Commissiods role. He stated
that was what he was getting at when he said there is something beyond sharing information that
helps the Commission reach a decision; some clarity about roles. He said that the Planning
Commission used to have a process in adopting district plans that included "boxed comments"
where the Commission would adopt a district plan, but sometimes in that plan there would be a
box around a particular recommendation and a statement that said, "The Plaaning Commission
does not endorse this particular policy." It didn't resolve anything though.
Commissioner Nordin thinks that the neighborhood plans are a vehicle to get their opinions and
insights to the Planning Gommission. The Commission is the city-wide body that evaluates
through the lens of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Treichel responded that when the district plans were set up, it was her
impression, that in the citizen participation process, if a district could agree on things, the pian
was thought of as public policy, rather than a wish list.
Mr. Soderholm stated that he thinks it's wron� to think of neighborhood planning as wish lists.
In the neighborhood planning process, citizens are engaged with the City departments and other
public agencies or whoever contro(s resources to try to Fvork towards something thaYs realistic
and can be done. Maybe it starts otit with a wish list, but as the process continues, a realistic
outcome emerges.
•
��-J��
• Commissioner Treichel added that the Commission's concem is that ivith the elimination of
staff, the Commission no longer has that capacity to take the wish list, to sit down with the
neighborhood for a year and come up with a realistic plan. She stated that her concern is that
more and more of these independent plans will come in and we wiil have serious confrontation.
In the past, staff and the commissioner did a good job of negotiating a realistic plan.
Commissioner Duarte feels that the Commission needs to help neighborhoods improve their
plans if they don't meet the standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Treichel added that there is also a political dimension that plays into these plans
that cannot be ignored. The Planning Commission does not have the Fnal say; City Council
does.
X. New Business
No new business.
XI. Adjournment
MOTION: Commissioner Treiche! moved adjournment of today's meeting; Commissioner
Eng secohded tke motion w1:ic1: crrrried unanimously on a voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 a.m.
•
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Ford
Planning Administrator
Approved �/ ' �i�' � �_
(date)
Carole Faricy
Secretary of e lanni ommission
•
q� >��
MINUTES OF TAE ZONING COMMITTEE
� CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON OCTOBER 30, 1997
PRESENT: Mme. Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gordon, Kramer and Vaught of the
Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorrey; Mmes. Bartz,
Homans, Sames and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of PED.
ABSENT: Faricy, excused
Time: 6:30 - 7:20 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson.
MARY LOU LAW• 1354 Birminaham Street• eastside between Iw and Arling on•
#97-244: NonconforminQ Use Permit. To establish that a duplex is a legal
nonconforming use of the property.
Patricia James, PED, Northeast Quadrant, reviewed the staff report and
presented slides. Staff recommended denial of the nonconforming use permit
based on findings 4B and 4F of the sCaff report.
The District 2 Community Council voted in opposition of the nonconforming use
permit and requested that the portion of the lot zoned RT-1 be changed to R-3.
District 2 submitted a listing of complaints from the Mayor's Information and
Complaint Office as we11 as documentation of three phone calls in opposition.
. Three letters were received in opposition.
Commissioner Vaught reviewed with staff that in 1995/1996 the property owner
sought a rezoning to RT-2 to establish three units in the structure. The
rezoning had been initiated at that time as a result of the Fire Department
determining that it was not a proper conversion. That request was denied.
Vaught asked if at that time it was a single family residence. Ms. James
responded that the building had been used as a duplex, that they were
converting the basement to anoCher unit, and as a result the applicant was
notified that they needed to establish a non-conforming status £or the duplex.
Commissioner Vaught hypothesized that presuming a code compliance inspection
were conducted and that it was up to housing code; and that this particular
legislaCion requires a negative staff recommendation when one of the
conditions is not met; and the only condition not met was the 98.5 square
foot deficiency in the total square footage; he asked whether if not for that
whether the staff recommendation might be different. Ms. James responded that
if there were a code inspection that said that the upstairs unit met code and
that it was safe, that she might still recommend denial because of the
guidelines, but wasn't certain the 100 square feet was a major drawback.
Commissioner Kramer asked to review the signed petition, as it was not
included with the staff zeport. Ms. James presented this for review.
Commissioner Kramer asked what the law was in regards to the timeliness of the
collection of signatures. Ms. James said that this must be Cimely, that
• signatures would be valid for one year.
9�'-1��
� Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, said he was not aware that the code
sets a timeline for how long signatures remain valid. He asked staf£ to
address the process which is followed regarding such. Mr. Ryan responded that
Ms. Law was given a deadline, which she met, for having the signatures in on
time.
Chair Field said he wished to see the above issue discussed as a part of
future minor zoning text amendments.
Ms. James reviewed that final action on the previous rezoninc request was
taken on January 31, 1996. (2oning Commi[tee denial 8 to 0; Planning
Commission denial 14 to 0; CiCy Council denial 7 to 0.
Mary Lou Law, the applicant, spoke. Ms. Law said that she had submitted two
difEerent petitions to the City over time which were both found acceptable by
staff. When she converted her house into a duplex she said sne was not aware
that a duplex was not allowed because other duplexes were located throughout
the neighborhood. The Fire Department advised her at that time on second
story exits. She noted that she rented the second story apartment first as an
efficiency, then later converted it to a one bedroom unit with a dormer and
was not aware it was illegal until she pursued creating a triplex by creating
a third unit in her walk-out basement.
Ms. Law reviewed that her mother, Mrs. Widing, who resides next door, fias
acted as the landlord for the past 6 years. She reviewed that a number of
improvements have been recently made including: landscaping, the stucco and
. trim repainted, and new boaxds put on both the front and back porches, and the
interior of the house has been completely renovated. If required to convert
it back to a single family home, Ms. Law said it would be very costly, and
would be an 8 bedroom home.
Commissioner Kramer asked what year the house was first used as a duplex, with
Ms. Law responding that the efficiency apartment was created in 1981.
Commissioner Chavez referenced the Information and Complaint Office's record
of complaints for the property, asking for clarification of which complaints
applied to her property. Ms. Law responded that most recently when the City
checked on complaints that they could not see a valid reason for the
complaint. She said when problems have occurred that she has taken care of
them within the required period of time.
Commissioner Chavez asked Ms. Law to address the lengthy list of police ca11s
for this residence. Ms. Law briefly reviewed the list. She indicated that
some of the complaints pertained to tenants who were no longer living at the
residence.
Commissioner Gordon determined from Ms. Law that she lives aoproximately 3
miles from the property. Gordon asked whether in 1996 when she applied for
the rezoning to a triplex whether she was told that it was zoned for a single
family residence. Ms. Law responded that she was denied the rezoning to allow
a triplex as it was zoned for single family, and triat within a very short
period of time following the denial, she was notified she would need to
� proceed with a nonconforming use permit for tke duplex, and that she then
. 2
q� 1��
•
proceeded with that.
Commissioner Gordon asked Eor an explanation of the four phone calls received
by District 2 Council that were in opposition and requested anonymity for fear
of retaliation. Ms. Law responded that this was related to a dispute between
herself and one of the neighbors, and that others were draor*m in by this
neighbor, and she dismissed any intention of any retaliation.
Commissioner Chavez questioned the ability within the process for layover to
allow Ms. Law an opportunity to have the property inspected. Zt was
determined that action could take place up to November 22, 1997, which is 60
days from the date received. Chavez asked the applicant wfiether she would be
agreeable and would take care of the details in that time period. He noted
the 100 square feet deficiency would need to be addressed. Ms. Law responded
that she believed the drawings were off as she met a11 of the requirements the
first time when she was requesting a triplex and said she would be agreeable
to layover.
Mr. Warner said that it would be possible for Ms. Law to make arrangements
with the Fire Department in this period of time for the certificate of
occupancy; further noting triat the Health Department does code compliance
inspections, which are similar in naCUre to C of O with Fire. He noted that
the Health Department does one and two-family dwelling units, and Fire does
three-family dwelling units, but suggested that Fire would be the appropriate
agency as there were comments from Barb Cummings, Fire, in the staff report.
Commissioner Kramer asked what the assessed value of the property is, with
� Ms. James responding that the 1997 market value at $71,800, and that the
property is listed as homesteaded. Ms. Law said that it qualifies as
homestead because her daughter resides in the home.
Commissioner Kramer asked when the house was refinanced, with Ms. Law
responding that it was refinanced approximately 8-9 months ago.
Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Gordon moved denial oE the nonconforming use permit.
Commissioner Vaught seconded the motion.
Commissioner Kramer said he would support the motion for denial. He suggested
that the economic feasibility analysis was incomplete and did not provide
proper information to determine that the house could not be self-supporting
and suggested that he believes a great demand exists on the Eastside for large
houses.
Commissioner Gordon accepted the above comment as criteria for denial.
The motion Eor denial carried on a voice vote of 5 to 0.
Commissioner Wencl was not present for the vote.
Drafted by:
! �°,»�- Sa.�`'.+.o�—"
Donna Sanders
Recording Secretary
S itted by[� A�,pmve �
�
Patricia James on Fiel
Northeast Quadrant Chairperso �
3
9�1��
ZONING COMMITTES STAFB REPORT
� ____________________�________
FIL'S # 97-244
1. APPLZCANT- MARY LOU LAW DATE OF FiEARING: 10/30/97
2. CLASSSFICATION: Nonconforming Use Permit
3. LOCATION: 1354 BIRMSNGHAM STREET
4. PLANNING DI$TRICT: 2
5. LEGAL DSSCRSPTION: 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. PRESENT ZONING: R-4 20NING COD& REFERENCfi: 62.102
7. 5TAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 10-22-97 BY; Patricia James
8. DATE RECBI{TED: 09/22/97 DEADLINE FOR ACTION:
A. PVRPOSE: Nonconforming use permit to establish that a duplex is a legal
nonconEorming use of the property.
. B. PARCEL SIZE: Flag-shaped parcel with frontage on 2 streets; 67 feet
(Winchell}x 270.7 Eeet x 121 £eet (Birmingham) = 27,047 square feet, or
.62 acres
C. SXISTING LAND VSE: 2-family residential (split zoning R-3; RT-1)
D. SIIRROUNDING LAND USE:
North: single Pamily and duplex residential (R-3; RT-1)
East: single family and duplex residential (RT-1)
South: single family, 3-family residential (R-3; RT-1)
West: single family residential (R-3)
E. ZONING CODfi CITATION: Section 62.102(I)(1) authorizes the planning
commission to establish legal nonconforming use status to the use of
structures which fail to meet the standards of section 62.102(b) if the
commission makes the findings listed under section H of this staff report.
F. HISTORY/DISCII55IOI�: In 1996 the City Council denied a request to rezone
this lot to RT-2 to establish three units in the structure. iZoning File
#95-232)
G. DI5TRICT COUNCZL RECO�NDATION: At the time this 5taff report was
prepared, no district council recommendation had been received.
r
I�a
q�-�7�
• H. FINDINGS:
1. The structure is currently used as a duplex. It is located on the
western half of the lot, which is zoned R-3. The garage is located on
the eastem part of the lot, which is zoned RT-1.
2. The area and frontage of the lot (67 feet (Winchell)x 270.7 feet x 121
feet (Birmingham) = 27,047 square Eeet) exceed the minimum standards
for a duplex under the Schedule�of Regulations of the Zoning Code
(6,000 sq. ft. area and 50 feet frontage).
3. The Planning Commission may grant a non-conforming use permit when
there is conformance with code requirements:
a. Tke use occurs eatirely within an existing stzucture. This
condition is met. The two units are entirely within the main
structure .
b. The use is simiSar to other uses permitted within the district.
This condition is met. The duplex residential use is similar to the
single family uses to the west and the single family and duplex uses
to the east, If the structure were located on the eastern half of the
lot, it would be in conformance with the zoning code requirements for
2-family residential.
c. The use has been in existence continuously for a period of at least
• ten years prior to the date of the application. This condition is
met. The applicant has submitted lease agreements dating back to Jvne,
1983. Other leases were signed in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1994,
1995, and 1996. City directories for these years do not ].ist two
households at this address.
d. The off-street pazking is adequate to serve the use. This
condition is met. There is a 2-car garage on the lot as well as a
blacktop parking pad off the driveway from Birmingham that will
accommodate at least 1 car. The zoning code requires three spaces for
new construction.
e. Hardship wou2d result if the use were discontinued. This condition
is met. The applicant has submitted figures showing that the total
rental income from the property is currently insuf£icient to cover
expenses, and that the shortage would be worse if the structure were
converted to only one unit. The first floor unit rents for $700 per
month, while the upstairs rents for $450, for a total income of $1150.
Monthly expenses, including mortgage payment, taxes, utilities,
insurance, and maintenance, total $1433.15.
f. Rezoniag the property would result in °spot' zoaing or a zoning
inappropriate to surrounding Iand uses. This condition is met.
Rezoning would result in [.he RT-1 district extending beyond the back
lot lines between Winchell and Birmingham into the R-3 district along
Sirmingham.
• g. The use mi11 not be detrimental to tfie existing character of
'1
9�'�»�
develapmeat in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the pub2ic
� healtk, sa£ety, or geaeraZ weSfare, This condition is met. The
existing neighborhood character includes both single family and duplex
dwellings.
h. The use is coasisteat with the compreheasive pZaa. This condition
is met. The Housing Policy Plan recommends decreasing density in areas
where residential density is too great. The size of the lot is such
that this area is not overly dense. The plan also ca11s for exploring
the Eeasibility o£ code compliance inspections to duplex rental units.
i. A notarized petition of 2/3 of the property owners withia one
hundred feet has been submitted stating their suppost for the use.
This condition is met. The applicant has submitted a petition.
Nineteen properties are eligible; thirteen signatures are needed.
Applicant's petition has thirteen signatures.
4. In addition to the zoning code requirements, the Planning Commission
approved guidelines for nonconforming use permits for duplexes in
residential districts. These guidelines call for staff recommendation
of denial unless all of the following conditions are met:
A. Lot size of at 2east 5,000 square feet with a lot width or front
foota9e of 40 feet. Applicant's lot has 121 feet of frontage on
Birmingham (front yard) and 67 feet of frontage on Winchell and a lot
area of 27,047 square feet, meeting this guideline.
• B. Gross living area, after oompletion of dupZex coaversion, of at
least 1,800 square feet for the two units. This guideline is not met.
According to the applicant's floor plans, the area of the first floor
unit is 1,222.5 square feet; the area of the second floor unit is 479
square feet. The total is 1,701.5 square £eet, or 98.5 square feet
short oE the requirement. If the units were certified as code
compliant, concerns about overcrowding would be addressed.
C. Three off-street parking spaces lnon-stacked) are preferred; two
spaces are the required minimum. A site plan showing improved
(durable, permanent, dustless sur£ace) parking spaces must be
provided. This guideline is met. Applicant submitted a site drawing
(not to scale) for the rezoning request that shows a 2-car garage and
two bituminous parking pads.
D. AZS sesnodeSing work for the duplex conversioa is on the inside of
the structure... This guideline is met. The structure is currently a
duplex, no remodeling work is needed to complete a conversion.
E. The proposed duplex structure is located in a mixed density
neighborhood, aot a homogeneous single-family area or in an area where
dupSexes and triplexes are already concentrated to the point of
congesting neigkboshood streets. This guideline is met. The
neighborhood is mixed density and not overly congested.
F. A code compliaace inspection has been conducted and the unit is
• fouad to be up to the housing code standazds; or the property owner
has agreed to make tke necessary improvemeats to bring it to kousiag
u
�g i7�
code compZiaace. This guideline is not met. No inspection has been
• made by the Health Department. Fire and Safety Services (which
inspects structures with three or more units) verified the existence
of a basement unit whereupon the applicant submitted the rezoning
petition thaC was denied by [he City Council. Approval of legal
nonconforming status should be contingent on meeting housing code
requirements.
G. Aa economic feasibility analysis has been conducted for those oases
where ecoaomic hardsfiip is cZaimed as one reason for tlze variaace
request. 2his guideline is met. Given the shortfall in income, it
does not appear £easi.ble to rent the house as one unit. It is not
clear that the home is marketable to a homeowner who would use the
entire house.
I. STAFF RECON4TENDATION: Based on staff findings 4B and 4F, staff recommends
denial of the nonconforming use permit.
�
�
•
rl
� � I 7`�
NONCONFORMING USE PER1iA1T APP�ICATION
• '� ,�' Depanment of Planning and Econnmic Development
M *�� Zoning Section
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPLICANT
Zip��_Daytime Phone_ ��% /�j,�
PRQPERTY
LOCATION
•
TYPE OF PERMfT: Application is hereby made for a Nonconforming Use Permit under provisions ofi
Chapter 62, Section 102, subsection i, Paragraph�_ of the Zoning Code.
The permit is for:
� Change from one nonconforming use to another (para. 3 in Zoning Code)
O Re-establishment of a nonconforming use vacant for more than one year (para. 5)
� Legal establishment of a nonconforming use in existence at least 10 years (para. 1)
❑ Enlargement of a nonconforming use (para. 4)
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: supply the information that is applicable to your type of permit.
CHANGE IN USE; PresenUPast
or
RE-ESTABLISHMENT: Proposed usi
Additionai information for all appiications (attach additional sheets if necessary):
! I Required site plan is attached ❑
p �/ �� �
AppficanYs signature � ril.c�����C� `�� Date /'fJ i/ City agent
5�
Name of owner (if different)
Contact person (if different) ���D����p, �j�i}rt�Phone ° jfp,�
J�� r��v1 L� � a/ S �u.s
�s al u� l�e x —
• �OC(r� D l'� �"1Dcl S�
L�, f � �`s
%axes � f�
or1 �IOuS� �5
�i�:�.`c/ {�yinerr��
� ,� 5 a o�� . �
y� 1��
�� �o
� ���o - � a ��,
��;� ��,`es cL �e ��oo -
�,,� ��
T .� h��se
i��j��� .
�LLf�ef 1�5
_—�-
� ha�e
�vo -�° ��- %�i�y cc��
l%�c� �-� a�� o���s o u7�
,��se t�' 1�us �"G�e a tQl
.L� �`S ��'a �f�.
� aoo � � � � ���
�� ���
���,o���a�
�C� �f� �`P.1'�C�1C Gk.l./Zt`�2 � /v O . a v m � ,
� us �' a %d ��c�o � 8� .�r �a�cv��
��� a ��� r' °
_--, � ,�S ..�UO • o o � f 0 �-u �
�� 1� t�cnc e
n� �-��.��-� �-�`� I�-�� � .%
�c�-�°�'� s�� � ��,
�-{-ruc �e� as
��"" �l�SU°
p��I� �
���� o 0
���e ccs �s .
re�l�� ��
/���• �� ��`
��;�-�
�A� v er� �'cc �c,
i,uou.t� �� ��733�
��s (0 ee v� r�-� rnarn �e� - +v ( vc.e� e cf�
��CCS e
-��,( r,uer�� � g�� od
i �C.S � 1 S � r'`C��ce� 1 Y �t�u 1�(1(,C�C ���`Z�-J�.
�S�- -� C��v1 Uer�
.=L� ��v�Ver i�'
�OU.��c�q �JcCSe�Ylev� �
J
�ac k c.c.Jau � cl
t,r)oc� (c/ � e
{�Y�CC � N � lOU F °�
� 1��-a�
��e�
�e i ✓� �� � vlduSar��S -
cc h 8���rc� ryr h o�,Gs� �
c�-.psfu � �s,
Sfi
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
CONSENT OF ADJOINTNG PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A ,
NONCONFORMING USE PERMIT
�Ve, tlie undersigned, o�vners of the property within 100 feet of the total contiguous description of real estate
owned, purchased, or sotd by THE APPLICANT within one year precedin� the date of this petition
acknowiedge that we have been presented with the followin;:
A copy of the application of
(name of applicant)
to es[ablish a
(proposed use)
located at:
(address of property)
requiring a nonconforming use permit, along �vith any relevant _site plans, diagrams, or other
aocun,entacio�. We consent to the approval of this application as it was explained
fo us by the applicant or his/her representative.
•
�
NdTE: Atl information on the upper portion of this apptication ust e comptefed prior to obtainina
etigibte signatures on tfiis pefition.
I•
rl i7L1C:41i}l�Y\'� �
C f � 17`��
SZTUATZON 2 PRO PORHA INFORMATION SHEET
REOUZRED I;IFOR'i.ATZON
` Aousin � Unit Breakdown
Number of bedrooms '
Square foot size of
unit
Contract rent
Est. Amount'o£ tenant
paid utilities
Income from stzucture
other than rent
OneYatine Exnenses
Maintenance
f j
1._J
Insurance
Utilitj.es
Other
Taxes
Existine Vacancv
Debt Breakdown
Initial principal
amount
Interest rate
SZNATION WITH
CONTZNUATION OF EX1RA
UNZTS ZN STRUCTURE
�
��G tJ • � `y'•
J
$
�,�DO � �
,�/�q''J,- ..��Ca. pD �
l/��7�'�. .IL' eo
� /�00 • �
�-'32r�Zzci
SINATION WZTH
CONVERSION OF STRUGTURE
TO LEGAL Iv'UMBER Oc �E.*iZTS
/
� /,/,SU , o-r� L( fS�r-�%�.�
�
�
7 �
F�
Amortization term
Balloon (maturity)
term
Monthly payment
Balance amount on
debt
Sources o£ loans
Debt service'coverage
ratio requirements
For rehabilitation
projects•
Type of improvements
(provide detail)
Cost of improvements
(provide detail)
..�%�� ; �-�'
/ / ��
�
-- _ -7 _.- . .
��
��. � � �� � � �
--- ----- - , . -- ------
--
! � —=----- p. ' z. �.
-i �----------------- }-_ `- ��- fi , f =
--- -- - -
- - �, � �,
--- ---- � ----------- ----------- - -- - - -
) � �, I S `
-- ------�, `�- _ ---------•------ - ---=-- -- �- - --
�1 '{� ' /
_ j J� _
1 \��� �
I
� 3 � � ., i - ; ; ,
----- -- — — - - -----t--,�-- ---- — --- k -- -- -- -- —
''� V 1 '�� --��ti=�� - - -
_ a ..
'-- —� '- ^
� Y � i'
1: . 1
------ ---�-- ---- - ------- -------- ` - -- - ` -- - - l � �
--- --- — --- -------- - -- --- --- -_l — -- '
-{ � --� �-- -
4 �� i� _
-------- — — ---- -- --- -- --� --------- ---
--- - -- -
— -- -- -----��--�------------------� � ---� - -----�
�-- � -
_._----_.�°�_�.! _____
--1�1'�� t''�----_
- - - - --
— __.-.- _
�,,;,.
yr� v �_
"__'_' __"'_"'_"_'___y��pv- Y'_-.____.-._
. N -
_l_..
� �
--_. _.t°_ ��-_
13 Z ��
_�3�2�i
_ �..�. _ � _
/ � _
_
�------- n -� �pL
J____.�"__.
_ ��
1!� !�
�
� _
t�—__
� �` J
--_--- ---- �-- ----- -- -- -- - ---_ - —�=
�-- -
� ti �� � �. ,
----- r� �c�`: — ------ — --- — _— — — — — ---- — --
�
__------- -- —_
, , , Z , ,;�
� ' '` �—� Y�"h3 � —
— — —._._— --- -- _ � ;'__
— -- — — — — — — �—s— — --- ,�----- -- -------- — — --
------- - -_ 1 _- ---
-- -- --------- _.. -----
� ---
- - - -- - - -- - - - - -- ------- - ------
�,-,._:,�_.�.�.
� � ��l � ( � (9 �/
��
y�-� �
-�= ---__.
T �,
�+
- -�� h �,
--��- ---
— _
� �.
�
----- ------- ---- -- ------
� J l>
------� S� �-��- -- --- - --- ��
�-
------ ----,�---- -- - - -------
H
��
----------- - _ _- ---
_- -- --�� __------- -- __ ---------
-�! ` � , z 9�
---- -... - -- -- --- '-. . --- -- ---------
�-
I
----------- --_----- -
--------_----.
�- �, £,g
--- - - - -- `_ ------- -------
1 =� __�-__i __
--� --- --- ---
- - 1---- ------ _
S' � a "-
, 6r( __
t �
- --- - - _- -- -- -
- - -. � - - -----
: � ��
- ____ _.-- ___ - , --- _-- �.-
- -
--- --- --- --I-g`�--- ---,��-_- -- -} -..
- - - ---- - -
--- - --- ---
-- -
_ --- -
--- - - ' �s' y -
-----�-
� - -- --- -- - ---
.. . ��� �.�AYIi_.
��
��-�7�
•
AFFIDAVIT
OF PERSON CIRCULATING THE CONSENT PETITION
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
SS
u
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
�1 7�/�O.r �� , being first duly swom, deposes and states that he/she is
the perso�i wh� circulated the consent petition consisting of � pages; that affiant represents that
the parties described on the consent petition are all the respective owners of ihe properties placed
immediately before each name; that affiant is informed and believes that each of the parties
described on the consent petition is an owner of the property which is within 100 feet of any properry
owned, purchased, or sold by petitioner within one (1) year preceding the date of this petition which
is contiguous to the property described in the petition; that none of the parties described in the
consent petition has purchased or is purchasing property from the petitioner that is contiguous to the
property described on the consent petition within one (1) year of the date of the petition; that this
consent was signed by each of said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures are
the true and correct signatures of each and a1t of the parties so described.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this �� day of � , 19�
� , ' �u.�.�- /l,. . � , , ,,� ��� .
►..�. • s � �:
•^^^.�,, .
• ur�ophuwte wunr.wNo
P10TARY PUBLIC•MINNESOTA �
RAMSEY COUNTY
. - Mrcomm.Eq�Irea.lan.stz000
/
� a_.� .s/L• � / �
� �
�� � / .!�
.��, -
'I3o -(o3/�Z
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Page � of �
1/31r`97
q� 1��
��6-�a�s
• CONSENT OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
� �
We, the undersigned, owners of the groperty within 100 feet of ' �i—.✓
and the total contiguous desciption of real estate owned, purchaced, or sold y
petitioner within one year preceding the date of this peti�t3'-�n, acknowledge that,
we have been £urnished with a cop of the a lication of// ,� �au. �Tr�'u�r�l �`�..�/
£or special condition use permi noncon£orming use permi (cir�le one) along with
any relevant site plans, diagrams, or ot er ocumen ation; and consent to the
approval of this application as it was explained to us by the applicant or
his/her representative.
( -�.
C� �3� :z����,., '-�
�
�g . � � J
�y�
� �T/ ,
�1 / ��/ /3.L JY � � . -
�
� � �
� , ` � . � � (1+ T
�� , � n �� � / . tL� G
• l� ` ��"� 'm'L' �
,��� > . ,
�� �
' - _. , ,_' r � �
� ` 22/, ` �e ��
� l3�1 Q re.rt, ��.��wt S� `3t R�<
��.�,�,� �;.�.�-zs - —
y,,, ,�. > � ,° � - ..
���� � !� � r rr
� '
- ��� �� � �� li
� i�
ID � L,�r,� � tti,.�
��� � -' ! � � � r�-�tiR�i A
i �y 3� w; ,�.f 1
_�,;
G �3��� �.�„���� -= ;;,
�
,�.
O
a
9
,
��
- �� ! �
,�,��` 3
� +.
' 3
��cr, ��
� .,
,� ; �_
�' ' 9L-
-
_-�>�;
,��
L / Y
`�- J�..
�l/v —%�
4-- i4-'�
_ ; ,..
� i�
�
8 q � �I
���
�i�-��
•
•
11JZqJ1357 15:41
pisfiri�t 2
f,127315134
Gaunci�
UIST T4!0 COUhICIL
PAaE c'L
�� / 7�
T.1ir1 StAlvafs� Av►nua $uka �o�
October 27, 1997
Patricia James
l lth Ftoot, City Ha(1 Annex
25 Wrst Fourth Suaet
St. Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. James,
5t.9w1. Mrt 55n7-35o8
(ytz)Ti�_4s�l2 fAX(�+1.)79�_ot1�
I am writing to yau on behalf of the District 2 Community Council regarding the proposed
nonconforming nse permit at 1354 Bumingham Ave.
At the October 15'" District 2$oard of Directors meeting, tha following resolution was
unanimously adopted:
To oppose the nonconforming use permit for 1354 Birmingham and request the
poRion of the lot zoned RT-1 be changed to R-3.
u
Prior to the passage of this resolution, theYe was a public hearing at the Dis2rict 2 Physical and
Neighborhood Issues Committee. Flyers were distributed to neighborhood residents and several
phone calls were received. Significantly, I believe, all residents who responded asked that they
remain anonymous because o££ear or reprisals. A sheet with phone calls received is attached. At
tha meeting itself, only two neigh6ors attended and both spoke in opposition to the perntit
because "thece have been problesns with that house fat years."
'�he reasons for our opposition to this appl'tcation are primarily based on section Chapter 52,
Section 101, sub9ection i, paragraph 1 g of ihe zoning code: "The use wiil not be detrimental to
tha existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public
health, safety and general welfare."
The comments of neighborhood residents, the �re departmeat inspector, a faur-page list of
Citizen Setvice complaints (attached) and a summary of the police calis (attached) all lead us to
concCude thai this property is already an endangerment of the pubiic health, safety and general
welfare of the suttounding nexghborhood and so this permit shpuid not be granted and the use
discomir�ued.
In addition, white acknowledging that we are not experts in home 6nance, it does strike us as
odd that a hquse which has been a duplex for 17 years still requires this kind of income per
month just to meet expenses. The economic hardship arguments are not convincing as presented
and seem incomplete.
��
Finally, while it is not strictly speaking one of the criteria that must be met for a nonconforming
use permit to be issued, thera is clearly a theme of deception and disregard for the tules that runs
thFoughout the app]icanYs participation in this process. In addition to the whole itlegal triplex
matter, the neighbors' responses to the current app]ication, the comments of the fire inspector
and the continual problems with upkeep of the property, there is also the fact that the applicant
has heen regiatered as the owner and homesteader since 1386 when the property is clearly not
11l24/1597 15:41 5127315194 DIST TW� CdUWCZL VfiGE 53
. . q�'"���
• being homesteaded. There is no evidence that the pattern of behavior by this landlord will change
ifthis permit is granted.
For these reasoris, we urge the members of the Zoning Gammittee to appose this appFication for
a nonconforming use pernut. We thank you for this apportunity to raise these issues with you
and for your consideration of them as you determine your response.
Sincerely,
�`-�` ( "�
Tim Dornfeld
Executive Director
�
•
•
�
•
FP.OM : ST MAP,K
PHOFIE h10. : 2240223
Oct. 39 1997 03:2�Ft9 F'1
q� ���
�o���f ��
�w���� �
�� 1 c� �A �.(�� �-f �5- �-��/�r� f= r�d�U
�/l��Tff � ftST ��-A � ' �'/t��It'�-�f/t� G�ce �
r
�� �1 �I=— �rt110 �— j�UcILI� �/,��
`��� :� X�lC�SS f� U I/� 5 f��w� ���0��0�
•� (� �f.�- �� 2-�xi�- r t%6 G� / 3 S ��.��isU��,t�
�jl-�A/L� �--C� � �5� � D� 7��� �,��J�'G.�-�� s
�-� �-- �,�v� ��C r S /?'.=-�� U� �avG�.% ��C r s % .
f��� �OS�'��'1.� �pa� '��X/.6�r�/`S ,�S
.��,u .�'� `T/�;� �.� S % � � �'�-
��� � _ ��i .��1� �x1�7` S �1�/ �Trf--
�,�,c� �� �
,��',�-trr� � _ ��
���� t�� � � �
�,� ��� � ��s ���� ��� s
��.� � ��� �' �-�� ���� � �vY� �'��
�-� Si�'��T � � �� � �--�y/���/
��r�
�U�%(/I L� f��= r71�< S S �G S Q ���
l Q� �i�-��� o,�- D�� �� ����� �
�,�Gr� S /��
6�'L� �ru1C� ��� � �
��,1-�r�� Gt S
s� � ��� DU`' ���� ��
O�G/ - /� `���.G/!; U� /'�.� � _
�����--��
�-
`�3 ���,� �-�� S�
����� ��
�
;;, :
�:-
:-.�i' _;:`:
;- ._
��-s�,._,; ..Y.> �t:,. .;;,..; ;;{ 3 _ ,�..,. ,: .. . � j �; 17`�
(i'�� - _ C i�� !I. F �+.Ff23.. r�=;�_� , -�� . ..,.1_. .<r--:.cr-;
� :.•. � ; •;�.,..a.:!' . ��:.;•_ _ _ .
A . . _ _ .:,'� � - :.a . ,`{,_`�� ai } . t . , . . . ��.. _ . , , j� :.
� r ,�t...s.� ? ,. �s' S:' :.7;;` -- .i�l.' a ` '<=
��' ' ��~ �.;�. . '.'' . �i;�' Post-It'"brand so�ae6��! _;" i.;�s
}Fi3:�.� . : � � � � - . . � . T° PIG4� m . r. r • , �; ° �%3
.•_.; ... . .. �e. Ne.� ►.ibr - � €
:��� Octobe�3, 1997 c � � �- -
� t ' ' � - Phone If
- . - � oept. - � � - �
_ '
' . , Feal/� FaxA . _ .
" D f Id E f D'e f
Tim om e, xecu ive tr c or •.
pistrict 2 Communiy Council _
2169 St+4lwater Ave. #2�'( . '. ; � < �
St. !'aui, MN 55119 ' `
, .,,�.j
FZE: 1354 Birmingham Duplex ��^�� ��" ' • ' ` `�
; �
• ;:;:�
pear Mr. Dornfefd: � ,'`` `° ;`�
,v
i- ' �:_. .
;'".' s �
;'%�r`=i�' ['�'" :� *_�-i•�
�: :::. �-; fi;.' This letter is fo express some of my concerns about the duplex at 1354 Birmingham: .I .:' �: }
. ;�;.
i' `��:.: ,::. �; would rathar have this house converted back to a singie family home_ I have been in '.
� `t'�->a "�,�� the neighborhood for over 5 years.; Of those 5 years, I have 6een exposed to a numher :. ',
' of pr'oblerns concerning this properky. '
My thought of the owner (iandlord) is not good. I fee{ she is a slumlord. This property is
in bad shape outsida 1 could just imagine what the inside iooks like. The peopie she
rents to are not the best neighbors to have. On numerous occasions this past summer
the poiice have been called to this address for domestics, b-b guns being shot by
children, just to name a few.
�
.
i have 6een woken up numerous times by kids running around in their yard at all hours
of the night and also adult parties or get-togethers. I have experienced bad language
quite often by adults as well as kids.
i don't feef that this home shoufd be Multi-femily. 1f { need to deal with a siunllotd and
bad renters, i woufd much rather deal with only one family instead of two.
I live reaf close to this prope�ty and have had nothing but pro6lems with the renters.
Pfease review their Petiti�n that was su6mitted tfl you. ( was approached about 5-6
times requesting my signature, I would not sign. i don`t think they received enough
legitimate signatutes.
Thank you for your tirne. Piease consider not approving this permit.
`7� � t� wk� �t D v42M^+av�-., C�,Y.au�n�o�.c�, �-�.2� --�-a-�e F�-c
(rha.` �.�x,�:�`�
t
� /��.
.��r� !��' �fL�„ �°"'j_ 2��„
��
9����`�
�
Phone comments received for 1354 Birmingham:
Ail callers requested that their names and addresses not be used because of concern about retaliation,
but they all live in the immediate vicinity:
1. It has always had lots of problems. Continued to operate as a triplex unril recently. They aze not
good landlords. Doesn't want the permit approved.
2. Doesn't like having a duplex there. IYs been okay this past year, but before it has been very
noisy.
3. It's been a triplex since the last meeting. Permit should not be approved because they will do
whatever they want without concem for the neighborhood. They still don't keep up the yard at
all.
4. Sent letter: on back.
Also, Fire Inspector Bazb Cummings left the following message in response to our request for more
information on the properry and its history of inspections:
• We got it from zoning to enforce and from what I understand, they were putting in an illegal
basement unit. It already had two units in the building and its not zoned for two even. They
were dickering with zoning for well over a year, being very, very difficult and not doing what
they needed to do and so they dumped it in our lap to enforce. I had to tell her on the phone
that she get this straightened out or I take it to court and she could tell it to the judge. �Ier and
her daughter have been playing the ownership game, putting it back and forth, and I told her I
didn't care who was going to be the owner, I was going to take them both and let the judge
decide who was going to take the punishment for whatever they were not going to be doing
legally. From what I understand they are very difficult to work with.
�
OC�. -03' 9':FRI1 14 09
�
�
Octoher 3. 1997
SiA�E OF �1�'i-?IPEL1hE S1FE�` 'EL 6i.?°695�4i Y.uO:
�jg 17`�
Tim Dosnfeld, Execu;ive Qirector
pistrict 2 Ccmmunity Councit
2�E9 St�(f��,�ater Ave. #26'I
S? Faul, AdN 55 �19
RE: 1354 6irmir,gham Duplex
Gear N7'. Dcrnf°id�
This ietrer is to express some of my concerrs about tne duplex at 1354 B:rmingham. I
wouid rather have this house conveRed tack to a singie family hame. I have besn in
fhe neighborhood for over 5 y°crs• Of those 5 years, I have bean exposed to a numoer
of prablems concerning this propecfy.
My thought of the owner (landiord) is not good. I feei she is a siumtord. This property is
in bad shape outside ! cou(d just imagine what ?he inside looks like- The peopte she
rents to are nilt the best neighbo�s tc have. On nu,r°raus oc�asions this past summer
the poEice have ksee� cafted to this address for domestics, b-b gu�s b°ing shot by
chiid�en, just to name a few.
I have besn waken up numerous tima� by k+ds running around in thzir yard at afl hours
of the night and aisc aciuit parties or get togethers. i have experienoed bad language
quite often by adufts as e�reit as kids.
! dcn't feel that th+s home should be k7ulti-famiiy. 1f i need to deaf with a s!umlosd a�d
bad renters, I wnuld muctr rather deai with oniy one famiiy instead of r.ua.
{ live real dose te this pruperty and have had natning but problems v�ith the rerrters.
Piease review their Fetition that was suhmitted to ycu. I uras approached abouf 5-B
times requesting my signature. f r+roufd no; sign. I don't think they -eceived enough
legif,rtate signatutes.
Thank you for your time. P{ease consider not approving this permit.
.
�
�
�
�JCT-�6-1997 lc 13
N
i
c
F
<
Z s
V W
6 �
� V
° c�
� t QM
m
� y C Q
N O
W I� Y
S. � P Y
o �pn
F Y A 1
w � E O j
Y O 4 6 �
� � �
'g _
y
¢ 1 4
A .
c i
�=ITIZ=N ScRVi��� 7�=ICe
u r
u � ou i
• O� � � 6 .2y J � 6 N
3 > W � V � � � r � Y p
>� K P� 2 O W N Y W
K� S Y�C � N r� W � 6
�z a Ni LI i S
� +� W
� J 5 u � � � � u � � �
LL: � � S OC (1 V. S '.�K
`- 9 W y W ux
N W V W_ N Y W 1' W
Y�.� OC��r�y.N}
o � .�iy�jn V
� y ✓ GY� �
Ni6 NZ Y�
4ip {Y�NrH
„ 1q - ��3' W ..
tf w� Y W w w N U y w
u JY V U �NI $ --�Wis v VJ
���ii'
4W 21�1Y41���Q�
W � �4•n��C 0
Y S S.. N�� W� W W 2¢ w
l+tiF�JO� u3SOC46�
S
: K
• 1
X
r z
L �.
V L m
c� m
� c .s
V �' y J M
!l �/1 K r
P
F
p (] ( G lu N
O � O O
G
� Z
Y Z
Y N
�
wi � Z O
• a
. �
. h
0
c �
�
2 U
W m
� L
a[ 1 O
T..- U
W 4 C
�E g
s�na
y O \ A
C t
m y o N
� S
O •
� a � n
W N O O
ygu`>
�
�
n C U
O V���
m u
J � qr'
N � d
Y/ � P
� b D
A
o �
•J
�- V
� 4
�
G y
�� y
Y.
w
F £
O
m V
W og
� T
N �
� Y
Y �
��
o�
W O U
1�CM
N
K
�
�
r
P
O
O
0
S m 4
O i
6' S O
� ` L
P � �
w a ry 5
6w9
r aN z $
y v p a
Aa �
V P V a
��g�
�+ O Y
E m.
O y e �
N U
C
N C S,
.n p
K j y ]
Y `
m m
a u
� �
� W
t m
G W
� �
i Y
� C
t
m K
O W
W iG
r �
H N
� C
9
Z C
�°
O�
� _
S (Y
Ya
N
<
a
N
�
a
C
O
O O
Y K Y
W `
w
U V
s W
W W
H N
m rv
Y O
N N
�
W
2 r
Z �
C W �
6 � N
w
o s w •
� 4
ao��j
W � �
� � � C
�C�E m
o u m
� PVy
a o � ✓ g
N\U �.
= o u .°- �
e �a C e
O G c = o
1p y�
K c � V
, d O
O � C.
• X
. �
Y Q
� M G
¢
4 Y K
i a y
� Z 1
:ve�tz
� O
W
J
m Y i
W � �
K��
h J
���G
C1 3 p
� � U
� < K
° w �
W � ;
F
Y � �
�-s
N
f
2
�
n
�+
�
P
O
D
012 25o c639
2 O +
S �
H S
�C 7 u
W i.i b
om �.
< Y
u�t
,P�
m c�am
u m
�T. �
n�°�'�
N \ S L
2P Y O��
�O ' -� C
O � Y O 9
� V 6
K c c b
O 4
o � G
.y
.
w
�
v-
J
6 4t
m
41 W
5 S
✓ �
O .�.
W 1V
K w
N U
v
N �
Zw�
j' h �
Q �
J W
J
W =�
f V �
N
4
�
s
v
M
A
P
�
G
Y
.�,.
� N
V V
� �
W W
^ a
N
n �n
N N
N ry
0 .�2
9�-17`�
_/
•
•
�
�s:7-75-19?7 1��13
N
z
v
�
z
m
n
11
C
S
O
W
K
w
z
S
�
U
h
�
�
�
W
�
d�
n r_
H L �
x .-
� c ° e °
< F�. �
u s� u -°
° � e °
cs
W F
O O
.a -"
my o`
o" 'e
f P J y 6 N
V ` \ Q [.
it��lF�i CY�
zd� zw..
r p 9
D y L V V V
u.u � u
~ 66 c C
w � � � U �.G
` V
� m N S L C 1
r � O � V>
e m C o m
06NV i
K
a
s
�
N �
� °
W Q
a u
C
r
=x
�
� m
�
O�
W S n L
?
Y 0
b Y y p
�4Y�
r �J
O. N G
�
J
L �
K � <
U U a
}�t
yJ
L ¢
�'G
O
Y
S
K
m
M
J
a
M
m
a
�IT LEV Sc�VICc JP=I_c
F Y
� a
w ��
6 J � t
WY ��
S � � o
i c ' 'p
Ol N � L
G c.
�v�NT2
V ti\
6M` �
0
=� a
a
o � � u
� e�� �(� J
J G 1 - p
� N 1 d
w c c u «
W �. r .. H
¢ m L 3 i
�
D O N V
o++uw
c m
��� m:
'�zuc
-
�
S�
K�� W 4t N
nwu 0�=
V'-G Q
�m� G�i
_� _
> OC = O 1/� Y W Y
m,c�iu`aq�.�,r
r ti d g\ i Y N
` � V u 1�1 u W
fA �N Y
Y��(=Wp�
Y G S' J
V 1 W W✓� O �
xavW�s-.
� c
CIY2J
J U U G Y p G J
LL�'�o�2��`w
vi�ac�plt,
�29�G4�CL�3
N �L
�m m
4 � S
c
Ol ^ O
G S L Y
o r � =
f 2 � �
D � U N
M r ✓ W
r 'L � K
� � �
a � x w
H Y2r p
q G 61 6 [ p
C ff Of C U Z
•m 1 , W �OS
� 5��� - �<
Q � � U
1
av�o �
d\ W Z d\ G
L�OS�LQj
Y
C M�Y W L O K
< C 6 L K O N
4
V
Y
m
!n
P
n
N
0
6
O G
c a
H r
W �
6i �+
S S
W W
M �
G J
� �
512 250 �5�3
g -�
� Y p
W < V m �
r> �e
�a �i
W V �. m
O � � Q
T W
� O Q OU
}. 2 u H
� t - /ty � g�<o
_OP V NiL'K
W � � L 3 Y
3N� y {tY
O� O� O � �
O Y 0 ` O J
��� Q�O
���ie..�'+w
° +4 ° .`.00
o a� i a i
w
' d m u. z �s
:i y �u, �
x r= � r a = � � a
t�� c fY�3Y
�w� � z
� G � u � W Y F�
W� L�j N�. � ` W V�
S N r
� ¢ w �
� u &a u
m 4 °
p szm a-
IL � v -¢ J Z N> r
a� :.�s�' ��.�.,
t SH G ~ u'� •
rn �i�0 ° tiu"cy
U � r j ...
sUx opK`
��1'�.1U
O C W Np b�p � N K
V. W�1 W W t.n \{7 � J
r�-acw mC
W
�'
N
�
Y
C
m
M
�
7
O
O
i
{1
W
V
W
VI
�
0
?.�7'
q a J'7�
>
�
� 8
2� Y
i . i
� V
L E �
W C "
c c e
v g
W �
w i >
o r
0 C
: Y � � N o
U \ \�
fYYM C
Z�CY��
O O
«
a8� tJ — jy`}'
J � [16'
N C C 4
W � � O
°�
opV
: y �
�°z
��n0
zwc
i Z
� F � i
c-�p
6
N 1
Y x N
ra
m x •
z � G
u
KSt�O[
` = W N
OZ
3 � � W
O � 0 F
O � z
W O �
����
>
�
a
i a
r
�u
� m
w C
a L
W ID
W a
T G
��
O
F P P
� N N
y O C
O C
=E�
1 9. 6
� _ C
¢ L U
�j
�
>
.j
S y
s z
< 4
�
� O
4: J
��
>r
��
` r
� s
N e�
� 4
O
s c .
N ¢
� 6 Y
� V W
W �! �
f �?
tl
S
S
Y
m
T
P
N
v
O
W
w
V
W
d
�
N
�
�
m
M
�
A
�
H
N
Y
6
F
U
i
W
�
�
1 , 1 I
u
•
•
JCi^_75-1`a-3! 1?�:4
N
�
v
�
S
K
m
J
�
�
tl
N
Y
s
�
W
G
�
K
N
J
�
�
N
6
s
�
w
2
�
0 K
N�
��
V y
O �
u y
g b s
t �- W
~ � G O
Y G
V �
r
¢ n,
N C
4 a W
u « °�
L�2
N
U 9 �
u
a s
� 0
� W �y
F
>i
� mw�
d W K
t ro
� � � �
i � S
w�
O � `�
N
W �
A r W
y 2 K
m 6 r
� 'c _` s
O
L N Y
L \W i
0 10 N
4 O K J
�
N
L �
�d L
O �- $
V
LNY,
ti
V n�u
Y�
O U G
>E
Y 3
'v n
aC p
O
�.ITIZ=.�1 5=R'JICc OF=ICc
°' s i
°' .�v`ix
( N 'E H W O
� x 4 � G F �
sw 4
w� G�q..�}O
x = W V
° i z ` N z
W
.�� w�YY�
"� (nrn
mC �c�NZ
3
x ¢ s m P
O�
Y?PK� Y'-
V\\ O N J� K
W{� 1f1 S K .T �C
N\\�
�00��2'��
na H F W m � ! ^ N
O LY� u:<GJ
�i.u x�u
J�
V=iCL �vr = .Y�P
� � � r� 2 w �<
N W � W N
CO��4NZOo
; a
=
2 W W
4_C
�3
F � W Y
W
Y w m � y 1
� H S C
O = i F
1
�w�c�
yYNUt
YJl.�
N pj
J ti W
��ia
..! N
u Wm.2
� � �
m
a
V
a
W
�
N
0
W
}
V
K
W
O
4
N
�
A
t.�.
Z
z
2
N
�
0
+n
0
�
,
Y
O
�
�
F
2 Y
� V L V
a a u �
w �� C Y
o�- u e
�c
6
W O 6 O
L �
` e c --'
� O O
U��Y}
W N N O
N�\}
�oo
v t
O m� n A
N U U D OI
� 88�°a
�,ceo�u
y{r� q
� V y 0 m �
m n � O
oo�'v u
N
m
Q i
� � F
F T p
K • � <
Q � � NU
a � � aLL
F
V C L J�
Y: S V �( O
M � �O � �
T 1� � W
� � G W
W � � SO
N W�Y. Cm 6' W
ya.��Ca��d
a �y cF. • aic��.
V W W 2�'+1
��g& �&: �a..
�Na[ ti
J< 2 v10p�
Y6� �-Pz
1�L�
Jp�wry4JOG
tilJ3� O\N W� 6
r 3 N K C 1 W J t
A
K
:9
2
C
m
�
H
�
J
N
�
N
H
�
t9
J
�
W
y
M1
g
M O � Z�
�y r �
� L
6 y Y 'r
Q L �
W :_°
S y
W � �
Y �1 9
sL
V
W���
N \ \ �
�eO�
a x£
Dy�w�
w
����
W �+� � G
� Y m C +
OCS �0
.y
��3
S 0 N
� K �
g K
VK3
��
O �
� 3 s
4 W N
N �>
U' O O
s C
�J � } N
J
J fC
W � �
¢U�
S W L <
r o �. *
N
6
Y
�
Y
�
m
�
r
0
O
I�t
3
O
W
�
w
U
W
h
C
612 250 �o�? ?.J4
q�'-17�
r u �
2 J O
� J
� Y Qu.
4:
6 � �
G > A w .
� a�ev
W P + P �
W � L Jn'
r C m
m L e,4�
� r �O �p Y V U
ij \ \� ^ y H G
6 O O L V Z
N\\� �`
�OO EC
o��
N C� U��O
�BK���
w ��m�i�
� TO
T.' 9 R 0 �
OGVa[h
•N
��
C
� W
Q
G
K q
b
Y � N
t �
m�a
! � 6
Y W
wN�
W
W
2 3 i
�ag
pl�9d
LL
W��
i � r
r
N
S
Y
V
S
C
m
N
�
N
O
O
.�
o •-
Z� E b L
W� =Y�
�L � ti C�
C N O b V
W B � C L �n
O b 9 Y �
d
s" c
W � �
0 = q G V �
����� 4H
U�\ONS�O
wV d—�e P
y�-�L 4 m\
N\�
� O O m 4 �t
9 � � � V C 6
��iga��``r
�j \
A C C U� G
W � � a 3 N
` o o � = a �
6CU' ���
O
.<� i
W N �+ 2 r •
aa O 4W,++
�W G:SQq
Z �C4IN
Z Y W W���� S 4 M
<� � iili SJ2r'jC
..j3 ¢rzu+co❑ +r
�z�o
V r q K� Y H 6 m r � S
�W.. Zc6� Nre.
5- J Y L' O�I N J 2 S� 2
YK KZ�4'O�Or V G
mU FCO
yw�6LLOV y CJ ffi 4'o
xz.+4 �V2c�
K�yiKOm � �GiYG
��L W ��'j W f� NZQ
� W�'.2i2�
4I/'!H� J�S ~
=2 N'A<-+'.Y3NrW
W
�6�6a
JTN3YC%F WS . .
� y� n '�y N K N V 2� S
¢� W Z
I��SGSSJ.�• h
r
N
�
V
C
b
N
P
n
a
O
O O
W W
�
x W
V tt
W
J W W
O �
�
� �
_ m
_. i
•
�
u
��CT-d6-135" 12�15
�
2
O
U
N
=
N
N
Z
V
v
�
6
Y
N
l
1 N
6 J
K W
pi O
u
W
a
c
W
K
N
t
3
i
6
�
?
Y A
� .. z
g u m
O
l
L Y
6. %
_l
J 6 W
r
� <
caa
L
Y �
'r Y
Y 6
Y C
O
�I7IZE�l �c�UI�:c 'J�=I:�
N
�
'�C. w3�
C G 6 �
Y � O � K
�. 26WY
Y +
� OG�3
4 S�3J
� �
� I�i.N UC
r VL =Q�i
3 6
e iOFW
t LLQO..
� CL+2
� �u
Q Y � 2 W <
6 O O £ Y
�Od�K
V��4�tL
f�! OC w Y
p\ � } J`�2�
� �J � N � �
1
m
FO 4� �
z m 'p �
r `> S �
°�� � ��o
e � > 4 3 a
Q d ; O \
W V Y 0 J
W L ` Y �
} Q p �� �ii
a
m C M�. 9 O b
� � L � �
�a�Q NH C P `
V �\ 4
O V
6� N� O M� Y
N1�0�+6
200 L� �
t � � o a
� E a a a >
O � � W _
��.�S��aa �$
�.cc oc- , _m
�.... a mo
Y � 3 C�. � O i
aa
b b
�Y O W Y m 1
W �
�3 'O m N U L 2
� � z m � T a��� L N W
s v Kou. y a �-
q .p r LL • LL'J N V 4Y � � 4
' PNO w ��CNU W V
� \= W 6 � W 3 i� � O W
�FOrc�a� w:z..a � x
m��o� n �� pK p �'
w6 z<m OY j UN
wN CU 3 • �-
4� W W� Y� N 2 6 Y O N W
I62 b O �0'l SC
F-YONOZy O G M WW
N � 6� v 7 Y m Z y
.NiK�Ou�i�! C�O�[SS� t[[�'l
pasu..� w Oc�
Or9fV.JF-�r Y.O[Q�WOr 4.�
� K b O� Z S i 0 f N` O W^ m
� W
Ji YYl/)L '
n>$��-••u� �a
W <y W W✓ Ny W W V W � N {Zy.
4[ YY O\y J QY� >
H� p U Y��^ U V y C 3 O< O U C M
N
4
C
S
m
N
r
r
P
P
a
O
Y
�
LL
O
�
Slc 250 ooa9
N
�
�- d �
Z � w
S' 9 � Y�
a� -�
W �
G L `
wi iw
W �V
u �
Y6 U�
e L � �
o����
W � � Y
� \ \ 3
. b
d
o - 't�. 8+ s
���i�m
s �u+
9 O c n
a a � ❑
oaov
S
u
�
ta
X
�
W
4
N
� �
n
i `
Y U
O �
O t�
1�H
H
4
:'!
2
£
Y
a
r
�
�
T
a
N
0
n
N
�
V
r
W
i
O
N
�
�.�5
g8 �,�
O
�
TJT � P.�'
�
�
OC?-9c-?7 OS:e° PM 57 FaIIL ° B FQRCE UNIT 2?2c591
;n/n�/ 57. F��,UL. F'C_1CF �:�V'�tE lf!'"DCNT ''Rf3CK2�vG SYSTEM
{')G��R - � PIJ�L?C !-: i STuRY C]F 1:�`��4 Fi F.M? UR1-{air. ST
,:1�_��� SrC"fC�R: 3 GRID: �7
� ? �. ; �: j�q�. .. :C:i _ic,
:N
°i?..1:1�9:,�
4,-iial-v� °
97-�054-4� 2 "c-?
u> _�J u y'TLC , J
97...� t a
5'_7; :7!:;_
o'r._lt( )�3'�'�C+74
56^179 6E?
Sb^1`.'�+ 'S.:E�
_ -;:;� ��
^c. ii" Si�7
`.E-J17 '73a
DfaTc
f.>7! 1 B/°.?
c.
O6lc �i S7
�'�. f:::>/�;7
OS/�!i57
i�l;;i:3;'?;
:.`.! /� i /97
11/2:./36
;Ce�06/96
1 i)l�J6 �'7{�
ViJ;!�_:4C.
tJ;::�c.�k�lyc
OND�t cc�mplvtF� findinr.� ic r=corc]=
• L�.''06/�? ST
I�RD� .. fF'l�I}l.it
'_ 1 :210 �
CN i
4r—LSi H,�J
y7—I14 417
97—i�34 155
37-U96 165
9?-tJ7E-}456
9,-u13�131
9 � �Oq9 'S7�
9E-:79 E6'7
9 � - i 59 :i.iE
3t-:59 319
36-: 17-� 11 n
96-Cj 1 7-1714
•
rApR
DRTE
c.�s ir�: �a:
O7!1H/°J7
C'£ : :�,:i / 77
C�E�'w:.;/97
1 ��(
i31 /:'_�y: 97
tll/?1:�}�
17 /,"�/96
lp: O6: �SL
14: !�EJ9E
C�&ItJI T9E.
p�/OE.�/��6
TIi�lE
7 9c:,
1 �.i�r
tS1�:'4
� i�4.i
1737
1cCI�
i �i ��S
c:� ��;4
ci �c:? 4
_ ��1'1
<.+G 1 C.
1 Vti�
P?SF� AG•7
RCV
r'cC 9
ALV
il:•Y
[:JR
F�JV �Q4.N
GUa
�oa
rlD�
C=1N D:7NN
(:Ur+
RDV Rc_qR
�'RUL F'OIICE �IN3L_c LhtC;IIENT -RGCN.INL' SYSTEM
HiST:JR`! G}= 1�3� L�?RMItS_�7-lFiM ST
3F..f]TpR: .. GF?TE?: �7
!O/!�1/�oS� — 10iJ6r5?
T.ME
z ;:�.::
. �- ��
0134
1�c4:>
i7��
I Ei�;.,
1 8 =�;,
pi+54
vic��i
14�4
:7p16
i C)�� J
� r��: i � %�. r.�r
f" ft.aU:>
�YL"f0 THE
1![ih1E 57 �ES
DOMEST ; r;:::
UuME; t 'I i:..
PDMGJ; I�_d
DOt*IESI': C :
P'ci!5 ? S 1 �==;1_f_`_,
D'JM i_ �� 1 1 r' £;
w:�i����r�. r R!i!?E:3T
'u"IIICfi :7Gx tJr:'::G
La(':UL'L'I'?D f:Lt��l•IR
[ IvC; I t�r N f
Fr2PUG
AU'Tv FFiEFT
DQMESTICS
DOMES'P t Cti
DOME�TIi:a
UU�1E8'P?C5
D6ME9I"I�;t�
AS'.:�'IST CqLLS
DtlMLBTI �S
waRftRNr nKF<F�3T
OT+-;E?s SE:X Gr�FSc
t,.F;NC�Li1fiD t�ci �4E
1};IptpC1 find:ng 12 records
JTf-.'F' RF'7
RCV
RCV
r�!� v
n�x
�OF.
��L'V L�Uwn
GGa
ADV
ADV
CR'V DOWN
Gt�7
ADU F2ERR
°.01
9����`�
i;�:: 5:07
1S:�E:C>''
✓
/
J
�
�
� c40`1' : ST f9RR� =-'��`tE ^I0. :�2�J?33 7ct. 3� 1997 33:18?h =+_
�
��
�
� j �
�� rr'�=� }
�`D� �G��'/ �
�� } //t,�l ���.- ft u/f/1 --�- j�'Jr"JV LY' �/ ��
—�`�v �X yl'!�-�5S �UG� S 1.�1t��/6 or/'����r4�
_._.�-� ��-� ��-��frr�- r v/� G,� ! 3 � � ���isv�/f��
� � j ��� � � �" ^ � �. �rf,�" ,o ,�,��L�s� s
� � l'���.� � i S�-.--���' �O�L� ,�x � S �S
����/ �p�s/�I.�.. J�a<'� ��s��-,�� S
�- ��� �''� ` �. ��� _ �-�S � ��
I`� 5 � ,� .��1'� .---�f7` � O
��-���-- � �' �' � . ;
, �� �� c� � � -�%`������ h''� � v7 s
1.�./��' �- �s ��� l
��� ��=� `7��_..-��'L- r�`
�-�S � t�/� t.�' t� K11 �%Uc�li�i' �� �� ���
�"�- - �-���=
--- s �-� ���-- � r `'
�U1 %� �/��� �� S / S f`� S � �T`�
���-�� �� j � �_
�� F� � ��
��w� a� D�u� ��� ��.�
f� N .�lli��`� , �
S',i' � �iUl� Q�
DX/=- �.��jtr�� t'�,g- r�l _
, ���`�-
� - - .�.__
�� ;�"��,�` I�LC �r—�-
�� c��� f�
f.�y� ��'r� t�f.�L C
�'�.{�rrt1'J �S
17
9� r7�
6. NORTH END
7. THOMAS-I?ALE
8. St3MMIT-LTNIVERSTTY
4. WEST SEVENTH
10. COMO
il. HAMLINE-MIDWAY
12. ST. ANTHONX PARK
13. MERRIAM PARK-LE�IGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE
14. MACALESTER GROVELAND
15. HIGHI.AND
16. SUMMTT I-1T[.T.
1�. Dowrrrowrr g �, 3 �-
ZCJNfNG FILE 9 �' 2 �`�
��
CITIZEN PARTTCIPATION PLANNING DISTRICI'S
4. DAYTON'S BLiJFF
5. PAYNE-PHALEN
qa—���
!7' Z !�
�����'�� ���� 9 ��
�
� �a
� ,�a � —�QOO_— .� �
GREATER EAST STDE DiSTRICT 2�N -���rr�� S s �� �E�
HYL. '@ �
`�'__� ' I j i _� , 1 ` T
__ o 040;0 0 0 0 -0- = -� -� o; o�oyO- � o ;o o-o
-- - -o ( .i , � :_--� - o� � = - �
" --_ _—�—` ± ' f .—� ---- - _ ° , v —�� -
=- O : t � -- p 0-- p z O _G- O
- -- p ! � O � Q O� Q � _ .
� _-0' �L- _� � _ _ � " -O- O
p --
O O p O�_ p �- -p- O ; � �� f e
� _ -- � �_�._��..�--� -- - � O a-�- _ ,�
�� �
_-'__" 0 "_' _'Q O O Q p �-"� /
- -- -- — - •
----- ------- - � , r.
� Q - - O .; O � O O s<�, ��,
O -� - - - -- -- - - O O p �p - ',� � '
-- - -- ` '' - O' � ' ~ '�i�
C F 0 � O p p' ,� � _ G1, 0
N � � � � ��, � � �
O
p v _ O O =J- O p :.}�. �
_ o o - p- Q p � � o ��-�.�
_ p � -_- ---
G _ . O O. .E;�'
O O p �• O � � p �,
� -0 ---- j t � � O - O- O '-- -
�_ v -O- � p - -
� � O _�_ _ i
O � O - o- O O ���
i p O ¢� O �• � O
, � ,� - �---�
O ;
�.p p O� � 0000 OO;U OiaQ{O.O p' �-��G�O;UC�' C
- r - --
o i'JY AVE.
O O � r O . PRQSPEAlTY• �
O O F- O :� }- NEIGHTS O O O O¢ Q
� O � cn "-- � � - - j -.-� _._ " r"�tY�_
, � . � , � � �
:}
/ O n Q p _ � �� � � . fi`��
,`9y ` � �� C, O � O_ � � � y ,>
� G � • � � " s
rJ ____ O :
� p � O �� � i �
� � � � `_'----------7 � � � � ,
� � O � � �" �' � . / Q� � i3'� , .hx�
_ �z o �, �, o ( � �, - o ; � � � � j-,.,
�,
. �
i �� o � w° °�-� ° �� v � ����—�-�
a � — i�- t � . _ . . .
� � o =— _ o o�.,� ° I "� �- - - - -
PPLICANT ���� �"" �� LEGEND
f.bt1GON#�oy�M��o 11SE �tW+� ��l��iM+� zoning district houndary
JRPOSE _� �\
_E # _!�' � 7 ��TE � ' �'� � � subject property �"' orth'�
NG. DIST. y MAP # e o one family •• � commercial
� � iwo family ♦ � � industriaf
ALE 1" = 400' '� multiple family V vacant
.�,4.,�.,,.�., �'Q ,._