Review of Rental License denial at 217 East Spring Street for the addition of two bedrooms to one of the units.

Per Section 5.03, Subd. 2. a written notice of appeal has been received, and the Council is to review the decision to determine whether the action was correct. The Council may, in connection with its review of the action, either affirm, reverse or modify the actions. 

This is a unique situation in that there is a current rental license (00889) on the property located at 217 East Spring Street that was originally approved over 38 years ago for four one-bedroom units and is considered a legal non-conforming grandfathered license. The notes in the system indicate that two additional rooms in one of the units must not be used as bedrooms as they do not meet the egress window requirements. The owner has submitted a NEW application requesting the approval of the two additional rooms which changes the density of the license, making it for four units: three one-bedroom and one three-bedroom.
 
The inspection sheets on file from 2009, 2013, and 2016, which were signed by both the inspector and the owner, reflect the license being for four one-bedroom units. There are also no records of any building permits being obtained for any work on the property, including an egress window. Attached are copies of the before and after photos relating to the installation of the egress window.

Per City Code, Section 5.42, Subd. 4.D.: Changes or alterations to the dwelling unit are prohibited that would increase the potential occupancy of the dwelling from what was approved when the rental license was issued. Such prohibited changes to the dwelling unit include expanding or adding bedrooms or any other changes that, under Chapter 13 of the Mankato City Code or Minnesota State Building Code, would result in allowing additional occupants from what was approved at the time the rental license was issued.

The property has four one-bedroom units and is considered a legal non-conforming use in the R-2 Zoning District. The property is “grandfathered” as far as rental licensing; thus, if the license were to be canceled or lapse, a new license would need to be applied for and, based on our review, it would not be eligible for a rental license as under the current code the following would apply:
 

• Since the property is located in the R-2 One- and Two-Family Dwelling District, rentals in the R-2 Zoning District are allowed to be rented/leased to occupancy associated with a family or two unrelated (Family-traditional or Family-functional).

See the definitions below:

• Family-traditional. A traditional family means one or more persons related by blood or marriage residing in a single dwelling unit.
• Family Functional. A functional family means a collective group of unrelated persons residing in a single dwelling unit, limited to not more than two adult persons, together with their traditional family members of any age.

 

• Non-conformity-According to Mankato City Code Section 10.14, Subd. 4, properties in the R-2 zoning district must have a minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet to allow for two-family dwelling units. As such, a four-plex, which consists of more than two dwelling units, would not be permitted in the R-2 district, as it exceeds the density allowed for this zoning. Therefore, a four-plex would not be allowed within the subject zoning district.

• Mankato City Code Section 13.18 states that rentals in the R-2 zoning district require 2, hard surfaced, off-street parking be provided for each dwelling unit. The subject property does not have any off-street parking stalls that the city is aware of.

 
On a side note, relating to the reference to County records, in recent contact with Blue Earth County it appears that the property has not been inspected by the County and that the listing of “6 bedrooms” was an estimate based on the structure, etc. since they have not physically inspected the property. Also, attached is a copy of the sketch of the property from the Beacon that notes: 4 UNITS; BD COUNT UNKNOWN.
 
In summary, it is not known when the egress window was installed as there was no permit obtained; however, the two additional rooms were being used as bedrooms per our inspection for renewal this year and the information received by the owner.
Currently, the owner is in the process of selling the property and claims that this is when the occupancy issue came to light, even though the city records have always reflected four units with one-bedroom in each unit.
 
Per Section 5.03, Subd. 2. a written notice of appeal has been received related to the denial of the occupancy of the two additional bedrooms (based on the current code), and the Council is to review the decision to determine whether the action was correct. The Council may, in connection with its review of the action, either affirm, reverse or modify the actions.