01-823�I e,�'o� b.� M crr. A�, a'1, �o. �
R ..�...�:.�.....�.J a. Q) ��, a.. s.�r• s, iao�
�� RESOLUTION
CIT`Y OF SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA
Presented By
Refened To
discontinued and repiaced with another nonconforming use; and
a1
2 WFIEREAS, Buffalo Sober Group, LLC, (hereinafter "BSG") in zoning file no. O1-123-
3 2924 and pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64300(g) and 62.102,
4 made application to the Saint Paul Planning Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") for a
5 determination of similar use permit for properiy commonly known as 97 North Oxford Street and
6 legally described as noted in the said zoning file. The subject property had previously been
7 occupied by a licensed community residential facility serving 32 residents. In the alternative,
8 BSG sought a change of non-conforming use permit [the previous use was a legal non-
9 conforming use] under one of two conditions: (1) the previous non-conforming use was
10 discontinued for fewer than three hundred sixty-five days; or (2) as a reasonable accommodation,
ll extending the three hundred sixty-five-day period during which a nonconfoxxning use can be
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2001 and May 3, 2001, the Commission's Zoning Committee
(hereinafter, the "Committee") conducted a public hearing after having provided notice to parties
affected by the appiicarions including properiy owners pursuant to Saint Paul Leg. Code §
64300(c). The Committee, at the close of the public hearing, moved to reject BSG's non-
conforming use permit application finding that the old use had been discontinued for more than
365 days and that extending the time period represented a fundamental alteration in the nature of
the zoning code. However, the Committee moved to approve BSG's application for a
determination of similar use permit by finding that a sober house for 16 residents was similar to
other uses permitted in an RT-1 zoning district and forwazded that recommendation to the
Commission. On May 11, 2001, the Commission accepted the Committee's recommendation
after moving to modify the recommendation by increasing the number of residents to 24 and
thereafter granted BSG's determination of similar use application based upon the findings set
forth in Commission resolution no. O1-36. The Commission's resolution notes the differences
between the Commission and its Committee by strikeouts and delerions as set forth below:
Committee: Date
The property at 97 Nor[h Oxford has a long zoning history that is detailed in the file. The
key elements of that history are as follows:
April 11, 1986 The Planning Commission granted a special condition use permit
with modifications to Oakland Home, a Minnesota Deparhnent of
Human Services licensed residential facility for 36 residents with
mental illness.
Council File # O� — $a.3
Green Sheet # �\ J� � �
a � - ra3
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
June 27, 1991
August 21, 1998
The zoning code was amended to first allow facilities such as
Oakland Home with 17 or more residents as special condition uses
in the RM-1 Zoning District. Oakland Home, in the RT-1 Zonin�
District, became a legaliy nonconfomring use.
At the conclusion of a downsizing plan for the facility initiated by
Ramsey County, the last resident moved out of Oakland Home.
September 30, 1998 Ramsey County's contract with Oakland Home expired and was
not renewed.
January 20, 2000 Buffalo Sober Group, LLC closed on the purchase of the building
at 97 North Oxford and, by Febnzary 15, 2000, opened to its first
residents.
August 28, 2000 Buffalo Sober Group, LLC applied to the Planning Commission
for a Change in Nonconforming Use Permit. Their application was
denied on October 20, 2000 based prnnarily on the finding that the
previous legally nonconfomung use had been discontinued for
more than 365 days and the shucture at 97 North Oxford,
therefore, should have been used for a conforming use unless an
application for the re-establishment of a nonconforming use, under
the provisions of §62.102(i)(5), was approved by the Planning
Commission.
December 6, 2000 The City Council, on appeal by the applicant, upheld the action of
the Planning Comxnission and denied the appeal.
2. Buffalo Sober House, a residence for 24 persons in recovery from alcohol and dnxg
addiction, was established at 97 North Oxford on February 15, 2000. One resident is the
resident caretaker and lives in one of the two units in the building. The other 23
33 residents live in the balance of the structure. There is a communal kitchen; meal plans
34 (breakfast and dinner) can be purchased for $135 a month over and above the monthly
35 rent. Rents range from $325 to $375 a month in addition to a$30 house supply fee from
36
37
38 3.
39
each resident.
The applicant is requesting that the City make a reasonable accommodation to the
disabilities of the residents of Buffalo Sober House and determine that the 23 residents of
40 the second unit are similar to a family under the provisions of the zomng code. The
41 standard of reasonable accommodation is evoked in the Federai Fair Housing Act
42 Amendments of 1988 and has been discussed in a variety of federal court decisions
43 related to the Act It is against the backdrop created by the federal law that this
44 application is considered.
45
46 The Fair Housing Act declares it unlawful to "discruninate in the sale or rental, or to
47 otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a
48 handicap of ... that buyer or renter." 42 U.S.C. §3604( fl(1)(A).
49
Page 2 of 14
01—�?
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
Discrimination covered by the Act includes "a refusal to make reasonable
accommodations in nxles, policies, practices or services, when such accommodations may
be necessary to afford [handicapped] person[s] equal opporLmiity to use and enjoy a
dwelling." §3604( fl(3)(B).
The U.S. Supreme Court held, in �ford House v. City of Edmonds (1995), that
occupancy limits in a zoning code that cap the number of unrelated people who can live
together in a dwelling unit aze not exempt from the AcYs requirement related to
reasonable accommodations. (Oxford House-Edmonds was a sober house for 10-12
adults that was cited by the CiTy for occupying a single family home despite an ordinance
that limits the number of unrelated persons who may live together in a single family
zoning district to five (5). The City argued that its ordinance was exempt from the Fair
Housing Act's requirements related to reasonable accommodation because it was a
"reasonable local restriction regarding the masimum number of occupants pernutted to
occupy a dwelling." The Court drew a distinction between zoning occupancy limits such
as Saint Paul's requirement that limits the number of unrelated persons that can live
together in a single dwelling unit to four and the housing code's occupancy limit of 150
square feet for the first occupant and at least 100 squaze feet for each occupant thereafter.
The latter is, in the judgement of the Supreme Court, a"reasonable local, State or Federal
restriction regazding the masimum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling"
that is exempt from the Fair Housing AcYs requirements (§3607(b)(1)). The former,
according to the Court, is entitled to no such exemption.
Justice Ginsberg, in writing for the Court, said:
The parties have presented, and we have decided, only a threshold
question: Edmonds' zoning code provision describing who may compose a
"family" is not a maacimum occupancy restriction exempt from the FHA
under §3607(b)(1). It remains for the lower courts to decide whether
Edmonds' actions against Oxford House violate the FHA's prohibitions
against discriminarion set out in §§3604(fl(1)(A) and (fl(3)(B).
34 The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Oxford House v. City of St. Louis, 1996)
35 reviewed a case where two sober houses, each for more than eight persons, located in a
36 single family zoning district where "group homes with eight or fewer unrelated
37 handicapped residents" aze permitted uses. In part because the code allows only three
38 unrelated, nonhandicapped people to reside together, the Court concluded that the eight-
39 person limit is not, on its face, discrnninatory. In over-turning a district court decision far
40 the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals went on to address two issues that bear a relationship
41 to this application:
42
43 Financial hardshiro: "The district court nevertheless found the City's zoning ordinances
44 aze discriminatory because the eight-person limit would destroy the financial viability of
45 many Oxford Houses, and recovering addicts need this kind of group home. Even if the
46 eight-person rule causes some financial hardship for Oxford Houses, however, the rule
47 does not violate the Fair Housing Act if the City had a rational basis for enacting the rule.
48 (Familystyle of St. Paul, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 923 F.2d 91, 94 (8`" Cir. 1991)."
49
Page 3 of 14
e1 -f�1
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
Lunits on the number of unrelated residents permitted to live toQether as a family: "We
conclude the eight-person rule is rational. Cities have a legitimate interest in decreasing
congestion, traffic and noise in residential azea, and ordinances restricting the number of
unrelated people who may occupy a single family residence aze reasonably related to
these legitimate goals. (Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. i, 9 1974) The City
does not need to assert a specific reason for choosing eight as the cut-off point, rather
than ten or twelve. `Every line drawn by a legislature leaves some out that might well
have been included. That exercise of discretion, however, is a legislative, not a judicial
function.' Id. At 8. We conclude the City's eight-person restricrion has a rarional basis
and thus is valid under the Fair Housing Act. (Familystyle, 923 F. 2d at 94)"
It should be noted that the Court, in Oxford House v. City of St. Louis, did not express an
opuuon "about whether the Fair Housing Act would require the City to grant variances
for the Oacford Houses if they apply." Inasmuch as Oxford House did not apply for a
variance of the maximum number of residents allowed and give the City an opportunity
to make a reasonable accommodation, the Court determined that the City did not fail to
accommodate them.
4. In Sea 64300(g) the zoning code provides that, when a specific use is not listed in a
district, the planning commission shall determine if a use is similar to other uses
permitted in each district. In making that determination, the planning commission shall
make four findings. The findings and the applicanYs ability to meet them are as follows:
(1) That the use is similar in character to one (1) or more of the principal uses permitted.
Among the uses permitted in the RT-1 Zoning District are:
• One- and two-family dwellings, located within a single main building.
• Human service-licensed community residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer
facility residents located at least one thousand three hundred twenty (1320) radial feet
from another human service-licensed community residential facility.
• Transitional housing facilities serving four (4) or fewer adult facility residents and
minor children in their care.
• Sheiters for battered persons serving four (4) or fewer adult facility residents and
minor children in their care.
Among the uses permitted subject to special conditions in the RT-1 Zoning District are:
Transitional housing facilities serving five or six adult facility residents and minor
children in their care (subject to a distance requirement).
Shelters for battered persons serving sixteen or fewer adult facility residents and
minor children in their caze (subject to a distance requirement, a percent of population
requirement and a requirement that the facility not be located in a two-family or
multi-family dwelling unless it occupies the entire structure).
Planning staff suggested that the issue of similarity of character could be defined as
hinging on three critical points:
Page 4 of 14
2 (1) how many people are involved,
3 (2) how the residents relate to one another, and
4 (3) how long residents are expected to live in the unit.
5
a�-w��
6 On one end of the spectram of uses pernutted in the RT-1 zoning district are families
7 which tend to have four or fewer persons (although there may be significantly more), tend
8 to operate as a close-l�it unit (preparing meals, eating, socializing and recreating
9 together) and tend live in one place for a longer period of time. On the other end aze
10 shelters for battered persons where there tend to be more people (siacteen adults and their
11 children are allowed), the residents tend to rely on one another for support but may not
12 organize themselves as a single unit (i.e. they may or may not cook or eat together, shaze
13 housekeeping responsibiliries or socialize/recreate as a group), and the residents tend to
14 live in the residence for a very short period of time (a week or a month).
15 A sober house has been described as a place where some number of people live for up to
16 a year in a ciosely-lrnit relationship that provides the support and accountability necessary
17 to maintain sobriety. Karen Mead, Executive Director of Emotions Anonymous and a
18 faculty member at Metro State University reports that relapse prevention depends on five
19 essential ingredients: 1) self knowledge, 2) accountability, 3) responsible behavior, 4) a
20 supportive living environment and 5) regular attendance at support meetings. The sober
21 house format emphasizes each of those values and, is, therefore, promoted by experts in
22 the field as an important dimension of the recovery process. The level of integration
23 among residents and length of residence are both probably somewhere beriveen a family
24 and a shelter for battered persons.
25
26 Number of Family
27 Residents 1- x
28
29 Level of Shelter
30 Integration Low
31
32 Length of Shelter
33 Residence
34
Transitional Housing Shelter
4-6 16
Transitional Housing
Transitional Housing/BSH
I��
BSH
23
Family
High
Family
35 The final issue-and the issue at the heart of the question of reasonable accommodation--
36 relates to the number of residents. The applicants propose that 23 people be allowed in a
3� single unit which is significanfly more than would be allowed for any other use in the
38 RT-1 zoning district except in the highly unlikely case that there are 23 related
39 individuals. They present evidence suggesting that the financial viability of the program
40 depends on there being 24 residents in the two units.
41 .
42 Testimony was presented by the applicant and one of its witnesses that the ideal size for a
43 facility of the same type as Buffalo House is 20 to 30 residents in order to maintain the
44 idealtherapeutic experience.
45
.
,
.;
.
The financial and therapeuric issues, the two issues identified for particular discussion by
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Oxford House v. City of St. Louis, will be
discussed in turn.
Page 5 of 14
2
3
4
5
6
Summary of Financial Informarion Provided
MONTHLY RENTS $ 9,600.00
EXPENSES
Principal mortgage $ 3,560.00
Secondary mortgage (Maturity: 2/18/Ol) 879.71
Capitalization loan to pariner 1,500.00
Insurance (properiy/liability) 332.16
Property tases 545.00
Utilities� ecembez/Ja�� y) 2,900.00
- Incl: Gas/Electncity/ Water/Garbage/Phone/
Internet/Cable
Wages 500.00
Misc Expenses 300.00
• 1 .:
Ot-Q
27 The information provided by the applicants indicates that, with current rents and expenses
28 as they were in January and Febnlary, the program operated at a loss each month. The
29 second mortgage loan, however, was scheduled to be paid off in February. Furthermore,
30 depending on the terms of the "capitalization loan" from one of the partners and whether
31 it can be structured differently, the number of residents required could be somewhat
32 fewer. The appiicant presented evidence that at a level of 24 residents the facilitv breaks
33 even financially. Anv lesser number of residents would require closine the facilit�r
34 increasine the individual rents. The first year and one half of recoverv is a critical time in
35 which recoveringpersons should avoid stress. This usuallv means work but in lower
36 waee occupations. Buffalo Sober House actually�rovides affordabie housine within the
37 ranee of income of its residents.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
The facilitv is dissimilaz to other uses such as a battered woman's shelter with res eU Ct t0
size. The other faciliries are primarilv located in sin�le-family homes and true du lp exes
with a masimum of 3,000 to 6.000 square feet. Buffalo Sober House is located in a
reconfigured four plex with 11.000 square feet. The area available for each of 24
residents exceeds 450 square feet, which is four times the area required bv citv housing
codes and more than rivice the area nrovided per resident in most battered persons
shelters. There is more than enou h�suace to adec�uately and comfortablv accommodate
24 residents.
The applicant has self-limited the number of residents who mav have automobiles at the
buildin� to 9 and does not object to an additional condition limitin¢ the number to that.
There are 12 off street �arki suaces currentl�
52
53 � ,
54
55 e��es
56
57
Page 6 of 14
OI-Y��
�- - - -- -- - -- - - - - -- -- - -- -- - -- - - - ------- -- � - -
.
. � - - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - -- --- - -- --
. - -- - -- - -- - - - ---- - - - - - •-- - -- - ---
E : � :` : . :' ' ;' :� . .� "3 i
1 = � - - = - - -- - _ - -
- - - - - - - - : =
�,.:,.s. -. - - - - - = - - - - - - = - -
14
15
16
17
,.:,�:.�:,�:..�a� -.��:.;..,�.�:�::'zGl! :'�,-�,'.�.-�:.�,-',,',.r,'�
' - - - - - - - - -- • e...�.�n.�eef _
• . - - -- ' ' ' . - ' - '- ' - -" --- -- -- '
1 ' - ' -- - - - - - - -- - - - - ---
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
' - - - - - - -- - - - - - . .�.�����._+..�.s�.«�...«_ . . _
---- - --- -- -- -- - - - ' • - --- - - --- - -- - - - --
- - - - - - - - ` - ` - •• ---- ---
- - - -- - - -- ' - - - - - - - --- - - -
(2) That the traffic generated by such use is similar to one (1) or more of the principal
uses permitted.
44 A sober house for 23 or 24 adults can be expected to generate more traffic than a shelter
45 for 16 battered persons. The traffic generated by some smaller number of sober house
46 residents would be more similar tA the principal uses permitted in the RT-1 zoning
47 district.
48
49
Page 7 of 14
o�_�a3
2 Off-street parking requirements for uses permitted in the district range from 3 spaces for a
3 two-family structure to shelters and h housing for which 1 space for every two
4 beds plus 1 space per day shift employee or fuil-time equivalent aze required. In this
5 case, it is not ciear how many off-street parking spaces wili be available though it seems
6 likely that there will be between 8 and 12. While the asphalt area on the north side of the
7 building has been shiped for parking, a site plan was only recently been submitted and
8 has not yet been approved.
9
10 (3) That the use is not first permitted in a Zess restrictive zoning district.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5.
This condition is met. Sober Houses aze not defined in the zoning code and aze, therefore,
not listed among pernutted uses in a less restrictive zoning district.
(4) That the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
This condition is met. The City's Housing Plan calls for the preservation of existing
rental units and creation of new units providing supportive housing for persons who are
or aze at risk of being homeless.
One of the similar uses in the RT-1 zoning district, a shelter for battered persons, is
required to meet four specific conditions. Were the Buffalo Sober House required to
meet the same conditions, their ability to meet them would be as follows:
(1) A minimum distance of one thousand three hundred twenty (1320) feet from other
shelters, transitional housing facilities, licensed human ser-vice community residential
27 facilities, licensed correctional community residential facilities, emergency housing
28 facilities, health department licensed community residential facilities or overnight
29 shelters.
30
31 This condition would not be met. Ain Dah Yung, a state licensed residential facility for
32 ten young people is located at 1089 Portland Avenue, 460 feet away from the Buffalo
33 Sober House location while the Pineview Residence, serving persons with mental illness
34 at 69 North Milton, is 1,220 feet away.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
(2) It shall not be Zocated in a two family or multifamily dwelling unless the faciliry
occupies the entire structure.
This condition would be met. The applicant proposes to occupied the entire two-family
dwelling.
42 (3) It sha11 not be located in a planning district in which one (1) percent or more of the
43 population lives in licensed human service community residential facilities, licensed
44 correctional community residential facilities, health department licensed community
45 residential facilities, emergency housing facilities, overnight shelters, shelters for
46 battered persons and/or transitional housing facilities.
4�
48
49
Page 8 of 14
ot-8a3
2 This condition wouid be met. The facility is located in the Siumnit University planning
3 district where .81 percent of the residents live in one of the facility types outlined in the
4 code.
6 (4) Permission for special condition use applies only as Zong as the number of facility
7 residents is not increased and its purpose or location do not change and other conditions
8 of the permit are met.
9
10 6. A shelter for battered persons is also required to meet the following general conditions,
11 outlined in Sec. 64300(d) of the zoning code, to locate in the RT-1 Zoning District.
12
13 Were the Buffalo Sober House required to meet the same conditions, their ability to meet
14 them is as follows:
15
16 (1) The extent, Zocation and intensity of the use will be in substantial compliance with the
17 Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans that were approved by
18 the City Council.
19
20 This condition would be met. The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan calls both for an
21 intensification of residential uses throughout the city to accommodate an appropriate
22 shaze of the region's population growth and for intentional efforts to meet the housing
23 needs of those who need supportive living arrangements.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
��
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
(2) The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion in the
public streets.
This condition would be met. The existing struchue is located on an alley at mid-block in
a low- to mid-density fully developed residential environment. Ingress and egress from
the structure do not create any additional congestion.
(3) The use will not be detrimental to the existing character of the development in the
immediate neighborhood or endanger the public heaZth, safety and general welfare.
This condition would be met. There is no evidence that facilities of this type haue any
detrimental impact on property values or on public health, safety or welfare.
(4) The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the
surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
This condition would be met. As a residential use in this fully developed residential
community, it is unlikely to have any impact on the continuing improvement of the
surrounding property.
(S) The use shall, in a11 other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the
district in which it is Zocated.
When the site plan issues related to the off-street parking on the site are resolved, this
condition would be met.
Page 9 of 14
o t..ra�
2 7. In the altemative, the applicant requested that the Plauuing Commission re-evaluate theu
3 previous application for a Change in Nonconfozming Use Pemvt against the back-drop of
4 rivo new considerations: (1) information they believe supports a conclusion that the
5 previous use was not discontinued or ceased to exist for a period of 365 days; and (2)
6 even if the previous nonconforming use was discontinued to ceased to exist for longer
7 than 365 days, the City should make reasonable accommodation to the disabiliries of their
8 clients by waiving the 365 day time lunit and considering an application for a Change of
9 Nonconfornung Use Pemut.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Z1
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
8. The new information related to the previous use includes: (1) a letter from Ramsey
County indicating that the check in the amount of $45,051 for final payment to Oakland
Home for services provided through September 30, 1998 was issued on January 27, 1999
and delivered to Selene Larson at 97 North Oxford; (2) information from the Minnesota
Department of Human Services indicating that the Rule 361icense held by Oakland
Home expired on March 1, 2000; (3) a binding purchase agreement between Buffalo
Sober Group, LLC and Serene Larson executed on November 13, 1999.
The applicant suggested that the Planning Commission could reach one of the following
two conclusions: (1) 365 days did not lapse between, for instance, the time the binding
purchase agreement was signed and the time the final payment was received from
Ramsey County; ar(2) the number of days between, for instance, the date that Ramsey
County's contract was terminated (September 30, 1998) and the date of the purchase
agreement (November 13, 1999), 45 days longer than the 365 day requirement, is
sufficiently small that to extend the 365 day time limit would represent a reasonable
accommodation on the part of the City.
9. The applicant provided a copy of a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, Haefele v. The
City of Eden. Prairie, as a basis for uguing that the Commission is obligated to consider
the intent of the property owner in deterxnining whether a use is "discontinued or ceases
to exist." There are two distinctions between the Haefele case and the applicarion before
the Commission rooted in the distinctions between the two zoning codes.
For reference, the relevant portion of the Eden Prairie City Code is Sec. 11.75 Subd. l.
which states: "This Section is intended to limit the number and extent ofnon-conforming
uses by prohibiting their enlargement, their re-establishment after abandonment, and the
alteration of restoration after deshucrion of the structures they occupy." (Emphasis
added)
From the Saint Paul Legislative Code: Sec. 62.102(fl(7) "When a nonconforming use is
discontinued or ceases to exist for a continuous period of 365 days, the building, or
building and land in combinarion, shall thereafter be used in conformance with the
regulations of the district in which it is located, unless the planning commission approves
a permit to re-establish the nonconforming use as set forth in clause (i)(5)."
l. Abandonment v. Discontinuance. While the Eden Prairie Code speaks to
abandonxnent of a use, the Saint Paul Code relates to when a use is discontinued or
ceases to exist. The common understanding of the rivo concepts- disconrinuance and
abandonxnent-can be argued to be fundamentally distinct inasmuch as abandonxnent
more closely implies some intent or acrion by the properiy owner to abandon a use.
Page 10 of 14
DI-$?
2 2. Ambi u��itv of the Lan¢ua�e. The Eden Prairie Code establishes no pazameters or
3 context for evaluating whether a use is abandoned. The Saint Paul Code speaks
4 specifically to a time period of 365 days.
6 3. Recourse. Eden Prairie virivally prohibits the re-establishment of a non-confotming
7 use once it is abandoned. Saint Paul, on the other hand, recognizes that there will be
8 instances when a new non-confonniiig use is the most appropriate re-use of a building
9 that has not been used for longer than a year and establishes a process for establishing
10 that use.
11
12 10. Relarive to whether the City should accommodate the applicant by extending the period
13 for which a use can be discontinued or cease to exist and stiil be replaced by another
14 nonconforming use under the standazds of Sec. 62102( fl(2), the issue should be
15 considered in the context of two standazds. On the one hand is the requirement that the
16 City make reasonable accommodation. On the other, however, is the standard that the
17 City need not make a"fundamental alteration in the nature of the program." As was
18 previously indicated, the intent of the City's zoning code is that nonconforming uses be
19 replaced, over time, by conforming uses except in cases where the applicant is abie to
20 meet the high standazd of gaining a consent petition of surrounding property owners as
21 well as the approval of the Planning Commission. Allowing nonconforming uses to be
22 re-established without meeting those standards represents a fundamental alteration of the
23 City's zoning code.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Furthermore, the body of case law seems to point toward the requirement that cities make
accommodations related to the disability in question. Persons in recovery, for instance,
need to live in groups larger than zoning codes would ordinarily allow for therapeutic or
financial reasons. Courts have, therefore, required that cities accommodate that need.
The failure of the applicants to establish their use within the 365 days prescribed by the
code is not in any way related to the disability of the residents. Indeed, it has been
variously characterized on several occasions by the applicants to have been a mistake on
the part of the investors or the result of bad information from an appraiser.
WHEREAS, based upon the above findings, the Commission reached the following
conclusions in granting BSH's application for a determination of similar use permit and imposed
the following conditions as set forth Commission resolution no. O1-36:
On the question of whether the previous use was discontinued or ceased to exist for a
period of less than 365 days, the Commission finds that the previous use was
discontinued ar ceased to exist on September 30, 1998 and that the new use was
established upon closing of the sale on January 20, 2000, a period longer than 365
days.
2. On the question of whether the City should make reasonable accommodation by
45 waiving the 365 day time period and extending it to 477 days, the Commission fmds
46 that such an accommodation represents a fundamental alteration in nature of the
47 zoning code which the City is not obligated to make and is, fiuthermore, unrelated to
48 the disability of the residents of the facility.
49
Page 11 of 14
a► -ta3
2 3_ Based on findings 1 through 6, the Planning Commission finds that a sober house for
3 �-6 24 residents is detemuned to be similar to other uses pemutted subject to special
4 condirions in the RT-i zoning district.
6 4. Because the uses to which the sober house is sunilar are pernritted subject to speciai
7 conditions, Buffalo Sober House be granted a special condition use pernut with the
8 following conditions:
9
10 1. The total number of residents in the structure (beriveen the two units) does not
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
exceed � twentv-four.
2. A site plan for off-street parking be submitted to the Deparhnent of License,
Inspections and Environmental Protection and any requirements imposed through the
site plan and/or variance process be adhered to.
3. To minimize additionai traffic congestion in the area, regular group AA meetings
at the house be confined to the i� 24 residents of the house and their sponsors.
4. The special condition use permit would expire upon any change of use.
5. No more than nine residents of the buildine may have automobiles which are kept
at the buildine or in the immediate vicinitv of the buildin�.
25 5. Although the uses to which a sober house is similaz must be found to be 1320 feet from
26 any of a variety of community residential facilities, and there are two facilities within
27 1320 feet of 97 North Oxford, the requirement related to distance is waived as a
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
reasonable accommodation to the disabled residents of Buffalo Sober House.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206 Shannon
O'Keefe, on or about May 24, 2001 duly filed an appeal from the Commission's determination
and requested a hearing before the City Council (hereinafter "Council") far the purposes of
considering the action taken by the Commission; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206 -§ 64.208 and upon
notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Council on June 27, 2001
where all interested parties were afforded an opporhxnity to appear; and
WHEREAS, having heard the statements made, having considered the application, the staff
reports, the resolution of the Zoning Committee and all the records and minutes of the Planning
Commission, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, to grant the appeal of Shannon O'Keefe in that the Commission erred in
allowing 24 residents matter for the following reasons:
1. Allowing BSH to operate a sober house for 24 residents is inconsistent with other uses
permitted in an RT-1 district, the largest of which is a shelter far battered persons which
permits up to 16 adult residents.
Page 12 of 14
1 p� .Y>�
2 2. Pemutting 24 residents begins to strain the limits of the "family" residential setting
3 necessary to provide an ideal therapeutic experience. 24 residents appears more
4 institutional than familial. The staff report indicated that other sober houses operated with
5 8 to 15 residents. This range of residents is consistent with the ideal of replicating a
6 family housekeeping arrangement where residents share in family matters like household
7 responsibilities, meals and have other social interactions.
9 3. Justification of financial viability based upon available space is arbitrary and inconsistent
10 with the intent of the code. Although it is assuxned that financial viability is necessary,
11 this should not mean that sober house operators may place into any building that number
12 of residents needed to make the building financially viable. Permitting 24 residents here
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
could mean that a sober house could place into any lazge building in any residential
district that number of residents needed to break even. This could mean that the number
of residents in a sober house would be based upon the number of residents needed to
break even and not on whether the number was the "therapeutic ideal."
4. At some point, the financial break-even point will surpass the therapeutic ideal. Here,
there is a lack of inforxnation that 24 residents was needed for a therapeutic ideal. 24
residents was selected to insure BSH's break even point.
5. Given the specific circumstances and taking into account the need for sober houses like
BSH and the Commission's determination that BSH's use was similar use to other uses
permitted in an RT-1 district, BSH should operate with no more than 16 residents.
26 AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the reasons finding error as stated above
27 and pursuant to its authority under Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.207, the Council hereby
28 modifies Planning Commission resolution no. O1-36 to allow BSH to operate a sober house at
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
97 North Oxford street under a special condition use permit provided that: (1) the total number of
residents in the structure's two units does not exceed sixteen (16) persons; and (2) the number of
persons attending any AA meetings at the house is also limited to no more than the same sixteen
residents and their sponsors.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that BSH's special condition use permit is subject
to all the other conditions imposed in Planning Commission resolution no. O1-36.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Planning Commission resolution no. O1-36 is
hereby modified to support the CounciPs findings and conclusions in this matter by adopting as
its own the findings, conclusions and recommendations set forth in the Commission's revised
staff report dated Apri126, 2001 together with the Commission's findings and conclusions in
support of BSH's self imposed limitation on the number of residents who may have vehicles at
the building or in the immediate vicinity of the building to no more than nine (9) and the
reasonable accommodation of the separation requirements as set forth in the Commission's said
resolurion.
Page 13 of 14
1 AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this '
2 resolution to Shannon O'Keefe, Buffalo Sober Group, the city's zoning adminis�ator and the d�"p
3 Commission.
4
5
6
7 � � ��
8
9 � �
10
11 Yeas Na s Absent
12 �/`� Benanav
13 Blakey
14 • �� �� � Bos4om ��
15 Coleman ��
16 x�s �
17 L ��, ✓
18 Reiter
19
20 l
�� Adopted by Council: Date p_,__��5�\
23 Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary
24 By: �,� �- — �.�.^^.�
25 'G ' /�
26 ApprovedbyMayor: Date VC�"'e ��i�-rt:.�.���
27 BY .
28
29
Requested by Department of:
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
B ��i �/!�w✓+ti-- P�3/o(
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
4'a1f C�
O
Page 14 of 14
Adopted by Council: Date _ �
�
Adoption Certified by Council Se tary
�u v!
CTTY OF SAII�IT PAUL
Norm Coleman Mayor
a�llgllSt 27, 2.��1
Council President Daniel Bostrom
aud Members of the Saint Paul City Council
310 City Hail
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102
Dear Councilmembers:
I am retuming Council File O1-823 with my veto.
s _-� �� c8��2t
lg�a�
��� � � ���
The Buffalo Sober House provides affordable, safe, sober and supportive housing for
Saint Paul citizens in recovery from chetnical dependency. Historically, the structure located
at 97 North Oxford Street was operated as the Oakland Home, a facility which provided
housing for up to 36 residents.
The operators of Buffalo House have asserted that the City is obliged under the Federal Fair
Housing Act to make reasonable accommodation in enforcing its zoning law to provide
housing for chemically dependent persons. I do not offer a legal opinion on this issue, but I
do believe that we at least haue a moral obligation to accommodate the location of housing
for chemicaliy dependent persons within our community.
Prior to your consideration of this matter, the Saint Paul Planning Commission
recommended that the Buffalo Sober House be allowed to operate with a maximum of 24
residents. In your action you recommended that the house be allowed to operate with a
masimuxn of 16 residents. The operators of the house maintain that they cannot provide
their services at an affordable rate with only 16 residents. At the same time, they have told
me that if allowed to operate with 20 residents, they can fulfill their mission with only a
moderate increase in fees and charges.
I request that you reconsider your previous action on this matter and allow Buffalo Sober
House to operate with a maacimum of 20 residents. If you do so, I will endorse your action
and I am assured by the operators that they will accept your action as a reasonable
compromise and take no further legal action against tlle City.
Si cerely yo ,
�n ,�
Norm Coleman
Mayor
o, _ $� g
����`Sa�
390 Ciry Ha[1 Te[epFone: 651-266-8510
ISWestKelloggBaulevard Facsimile:651-266-8513
Saint Paul, MN 55102
�
o..�a'S
City Council
JTACT PFRSON 8 %10NE
�����
Aug. 7, 2001
GREEN SHEET
N� i 137�9
August 15, 2001 (Consent)
� wn
nanum
owcErt
TOTAI # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
u �.�.�. u d,,,�--
❑ �.,,� ❑ �«�
❑ wuxuu.amucrsow. ❑ wuxa��aanKCro
❑YYORI�A�1M1� ❑
(CIJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Memorializing City Council action taken on June 27, 2001,granting; the appeal of Shannon
0'Reefe and modifying the Planning Commission's decision to allow Buffalo Sober House to
operate at 97 North Oxford Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CIB COMMITTEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
IF APPROVED
rms m� ae�� �wo.x�d �. a�o-aa ro, tn� d�e��v
VES NO
Has thia x�sonrcrm ewr been a ciy' empbyee?
YES NO
Does Mis Ge��rm 0� a eldll rwt nwmaBYC�d bY anY wrreM ap' emPb1��
YES NO
Is tliis personrirm a farp�ed vendoY!
YES NO
Counctt R�search C��tfiB�
AU6 4� �
- :�„�.= _
:
WST/REVENUE BUD6ETED (CIRCLE ON�
,� No
SOURCE __ ACTNITYNUMBER
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Clayton M. Robinsort, Jr., Ciry Attorrsey
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Colemax, Mayor
CivilDivision
400 Ciry Ha[7
IS West KeZlogg Blvd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
��.C
Telephone: 651266-8770
Facsimile: 6il 298-5619
AUguSY J, 2001
Hand Delivered
Nancy Anderson
Council Secretary
Room 310 Ciry Hall
RE: Appeal of Shannon O'Keefe (Buffalo Sober House)
Council Action Date: June 27, 2001
; __
� , .. � ,� � ` - ����: ,.,.,. _ , ;.��, �-� , . ,
�
. ... , :. -
_ � �
r + t , � -._
Deaz Nancy, �� : �. a ,.. , r ..._ - � �.
Attached please f"nd signed original of a Council Resolution memorializing the decision of the
Council to deny"Ms O'Keefe's appeal and modifying the Planning Commission decision to allow
Buffalo Solier House to operate at 97 North Oxford Street. Piease place this matter on the consent
agenda at your earliest convenience. Do not hesitate to call if you have questions. Thanks.
Sincerely,
� � � f ��v1ir'."�
�'eter W. Warner
cc: CM Blakey
CM Coleman
DEPARTiLIETJT OFPLANNING
& ECONOM7C DET�ELOPMENT
BnamSweeney, InterimDirector
CTTY OF SAII�IT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayar
Pvtay 30, 2001
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 Ciry Hall
Saint Paul, Miunesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
25 WestFourth Street
SamtPau;MN55702
O\ -�a�
Telephone:651-26G6655 ��
Facamile: 651-228-3314
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
June 27, 2001, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision:
Appellant: Shannon O'Keefe
File Number: Appeal of file #O1-123-292
Purpose: Appeal a Plam�iug Commission decision to make a detennination of similar use and
grant a special condition use permit with conditions for a sober house with 24 residents.
Address: 97 North O�'ord
Legal Description of Property: North 75 feet of I,ots 2 7 and 28, Block 42, Summit Pazk Addition to
Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota
Previous Action:
Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 5-3; May 3, 2001
Pl annina Commission Decision: Approval; vote: 12-5; May 11, 2001
My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda for the June 6, 2001 Ciry
Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal I,edger. Please call
me at 266-6557 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
�'/�C�n�.. R'�rn.��
Nancy Homans
City Planner
cc: File #01-207-761
Paul Dubruiel, PED
Cazol Martineau, PED
Wendy Lane, LIEP
Walter Dinalko
Mazk Gehan
Shamion O'Keefe
� _.,ffirsrwln�•- ..-� -- _.:
� MOTICE OF PUSLIC HEARI�iG �
The Saint Paul City Council will� con-
duM a public heazing on Wednesday, June
27, ?A01, at 5:30 g:m. in tfie City Councit
Chambers, Tl�ird Floor City Hall-
Courthouse, 15 West KeIlogg Boulevard;
Saint Patil, IvIN, to consider the appeal of
Sl�nnnon O'Keefe �to a decisio=r of the
Plann7ng Commission maldng a deYexa�i-
nation of similar use and granttng a speciai
conditton use permit wlth condittons for a
sober house with 24 residenTs at 97 North
6a1'ozd Sh�eet. � -
Dated: May 30, 2001 � ' - -
- . NANCYANDERSON
" tlssistanE E.Yty Council Seeretary
Wune 4)
91: PADL �IEGAL T-^•••••—••
D202'L886 - _ . . _ - '
�{ST
=4 ` ' 7 aq
4 V
'' mmu
� : ��n �
�
CITY OF SAINT PAiIL
OFFICE OF THE CTI'Y COUNCII,
FACSIMII,E TRANSNIISSION
COVERSHEET
TO:
FROM:
FAX #:
RE:
� v� 1—e�o e,�
9V ��
�� 1
v, .r7�
- ��G� 2 �c�;��
!� Gz,�Lt�
e�� �-� c S�Gc�pf� K-���
.
�. `\ v �
�''�`�/�� f� � ��
_� � `� (//Z�2iF"s�`CA/`-�/-/ �l'�-C�J
� ���,�'2Q�C_l
�� .
� �
DATE: 3 C� ��
>
Note: � Facsimile operator, please deliver this transmission to the above
addressee. If you did not receive all of the pages in good condition,
please advise Janie Lafrenz at (651) 266-8560 at your
earliest convenience.
Thank you.
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE):
� �
CTTY HALL THIRD FLOOR SAII�]T PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
�
pnnfed on recyded paper
a�. pa1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, June 27,
2001, at 530 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall-
Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, MN, to consider the appeal of
Shannon O'Keefe to a decision of the Planning Commission making a
determination of similar use and granting a special condition use permit with
conditions for a sober house with 24 residents at 97 North Oxford Street.
Dated: May 30, 2001
Nancy Anderson
Assistant City Council Secretary
*�aa����rokw�* -COh➢'1.JOURNRL- �*�*�*�wk�xa�***� DRTE MRY-30-2001 **� TIME 16:1� � P.01
M97DE = MEMORY TRRNSMISSION
FILE ND.= 055
N0. CIX1 RB&2/NT44C STRTI�I FKaMEi
l'ElEPF-07NE N0.
�1 CAC <01> LE� LEDGER
5T41RT=MRY-30 16�16 END=MRY-30 16�17
� _-��n".. . i
.."7Z.�.r7
-City of Saint Paui -
�� -City Council - x�x� - 651 266 8574- �k
i �_ '
��
CLTY OF SAINT PAUL
OFF[C� OF THE RTY COUNCIL
FACSIIVIXI.E TRANSNIISSION
COVER SHEET
To: --- � � Le�a �,�
FROM_ �J U ��»
FAX #:
RE:
_t � �{��
8 T� � OT
� 4,\:�, ��r�—
DaxE: 3 � ��-�-
,
Note: Facsimile operator, please deliver this transmission to the above
addressee. If you did uot receive all of tLe pages in good condirion,
please advise Janie Lafrenz at (651) 2665560 at your
earl�est convenience.
Thank you. �
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS YAG�:
��-ta�
CII HALL 'R�p �[-ppg SAA7'f PAUL. NQNNESOTA 55102
�
pnnroROnrecyc�adam�
DEPART.�NT OF PLANNING
& ECANOMIC DEVEIAPMENT
Brian Sweeney, Director
c1•Pa�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
�
June l, 2001
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minuesota 55102
RE: Zoning File #O1-208-085
City Council Hearing:
25 GYUtFourth Street Telephone: 61 2-266 65 65
SaintPw�MN55102 Facsimile:672-12&3314
SHANNON A. O'KEEFE
June 27, 2001, 5:30 p.m. City CouncIl Ct�ambers
PURPOSE: Appeal of a planning commission decision to make a Detercnination of Similaz Use and grant a Special
Condition Use Pemut with conditions to BufFalo Sober Group, LLC to establish a sober house for 24 residents.
PLAI3NING COMMISSION ACTION: Approval; 12-5
ZONING COMMITTEE ACT'ION: Denial [6-2] of Change of Nonconfomvng Use Pemut; Approval [5-3] of a
Detecmination of Similar Use and Special Condition Use Pernut with conditions for 16 residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of a Determinauon of Similaz Use and a Special Condition Use Pemrit
for 16 residents.
SUPPORT At two public hearings, three people spoke in support. Five letters were received.
OPPOSITION At two public hearings, seven people spoke in opposition.
DISTRICT COUNCIL: The Summit University Planning Council adopted a motion to "accept staff
recommendation except replace 16 residents with 15 or whatever appropriate number can be legally documented."
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
SHANNON A. O'KEEFE has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to make a
Detennination of Similaz Use and grant a Special Condition Use Permit to Buffalo Sober Group, LLC for a sober
house for 24 residents on property located at 97 North O�ord, between Laurel and Ashland. The zoning
committee held two public hearings on the applicltion on Apri15, 2001 and May 3, 2001. The applicant addressed
the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 5-3 to make a Detemvnation of Similaz Use
and grant a Special Condition Use Pernut with conditions for a sober house for 16 residents. The Plannino
Commission revised the zoning committee's findings and recommendation to make a Detem�ination of Similaz Use
and grant a Special Condition Use Pemut with condirions for 24 residents.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 27, 2001. Please notify me if any member of the
City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing.
Sincerely,
� (J�f_ i� �/Y�f�/
. Nancy Ho�ans
City Planner
Attachments
cc: Ciry Council members
6t•ta�
•,
APPi.lCAT[ON FOR APPFAL
Departneext of Plan�ring cnd Eronomic Aevelnpment
Zoning Saylon
�DO Cir}� Ha17.inea
23 tiest Fnurtk Strnt
Saiat Paul, MN SSJ01
�ISb638+➢—
zr.b -�Sfr3 �
APPELLANT
2ip `�o Daytime
PROPERTY Zoning File
LOCATION ... ..
� J
TYPE OF APPEAl: Apptication is hereby made for an appeal to the:
C Board of Zoning Appeais �Q City Counul
under the provisians of Chapter 64, Section�, Paregraph Q• of the 2onirtg Code, to
appeat a tlecision made by the l''lal'1�'ll I^
on � 1 j � 2001 , 4G�:
(date of - 8 edsion)
Fi�e numbet D I-! 23 ' Z�i Z
GROUNbS fOR APPEAL: Exp4ain why yau feel there fias been an error in any requirement,
permit, deeision or refusa! made by an administrative offiaaf, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of 2oning Appeals or the Ptanning Commission.
...
�,� �, �;.�'�"'� �
G�
� Attach addi[;ane! shaet il
Applicant's
�_��p� Date � a'�1� � Gity agent
G'
....,-. ., .-..,.,�.�,.,-.� -�nu� ic A�:bL T002-TL-AtlW
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
1. That tbe Planning Commission erred in findings and facts in inteipreting Sec.
64.300(g) Determination of Similaz Use.
2. That the Planning Commission erred in its findings and facts in intetpreting The
Fair Hoasing Act 42 USC 36Q4, in determining "Reasonable Accommodations."
3. That the Planning Commission erred in procedures by putting to much
significance on the financial impact on the service provider in determiming
"Reasonable Accommodations," of the handicapped persons.
4. That the Planning Commission erred in finding and procedure when it waived the
requirements of Sec. 60.413.6 {a).
�
�
�
o��a�
, city of saint pau!
planning commission resolution
file number O1-36
date May 11 2oo�
WHEREAS, Buffalo Sober Group, LLC , File #01-123-292, has applied for a Determination of
Similar Use, under the provisions of §64.300(g) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, that a
Sober House for 24 residents is similar to a family, a permitted use in the RT-1 zoning district,
on property located at 97 North Oxford, legally described as North 75 Feet of Lots 27 and 28,
Block 42, Summit Park Addition to Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Buffalo Sober Group, LLC, in the alternative, has applied for a Change in
Nonconforming Use Permit, under the provisions of §62.102(i)(3), relying on two alternative
positions: (1) that fewer than 365 days lapsed between the time the previous legalty •
nonconforming use was discontinued or ceased to exist and the time the sober house was
established; or (2) that the City shouid make reasonabie accommodation in extending the time
period for which a nonconforming use can be discontinued or cease to exist and still be
replaced by another nonconforming use under the provisions of §62.102(i)(3); and
� WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of fhe Planning Commission, on April 5, 2001 and May 3,
2001, held pubiic hearings at which ali persons present were given an opportunity to be heard
pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of §64.300 of the Saint Paui
Legis(ative Gode; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its
Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the
foliowing findings of fact:
The property at 97 NoRh Oxford has a long zoning history that is detailed in the file.
The key elements of that history are as fol{ows:
April 11, 1986 7he Planning Commission granted a speciai condition use permit
with modification5 to Oakland Home, a Minnesota Department of
tiuman Ser'vices l'+censed residential facility for 36 residents with
mental iilness.
June 27, 1991 The zoning code was amended to first aliow facilities such as
Oakland Home with 17 or more residents as special condition
uses in the RM-1 Zoning District. Oakland Home, in the R7-1
Zoning District, became a legally nonconforming use.
C
moved by Field
seconded by _
in favor
against
�Z
5(Kramer, McCall, Donnelly-Cohen, �ordon, A1ton)
Zoning File #01-123-292
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 2
August 21, 1998 At the conclusion of a downsizing plan for the facility initiated by
Ramsey County, the Iast resident moved out of Oakland Home.
September 30, 1998 Ramsey County's contract with Oaklartd Home expired and was
not renewed. _-
January 20, 2000 Buffalo Sober Group, LLC closed on the purchase of the building
at 97 NoRh Oxford and, by February 15, 2000, opened to its first
residents.
August 28, 2000 Buffalo Sober Group, LLC applied to the Pianning Commission
for a Change in Nonconforming Use Permit. Their application
was denied on October 20, 2000 based primarily on the finding
that the previous legally nonconforming use had been
discontinued for more than 365 days and the structure at 97
Nofth Oxford, therefore, should have been used for a confortning
use unless an application for the re-estabiishment of a
nonconforming use, under the provisions of §62.102(i)(5), was
approved by the Planning Commission.
December 6, 2000 The City Councii, on appeal by the appiicant, upheld the action of
the Pianning Commission and denied the appeal.
!f
2. Buffalo Sober House, a residence for 24 persons in recovery from aicohoi and drug �
addiction, was estabiished at 97 North Oxford on February 15, 2000. One resident is
the resident caretaker and lives in one of the two units in the buifding. The other 23
residents live in the balance of the structure. There is a communal kitchen; meal plans
{breakfast and dinner) can be purchased for $135 a month over and above the monthiy
rent. Rents range from $325 to $375 a month in addition to a$30 house supply fee
from each resident.
3. The applicant is requesting that the City make a reasonabie accommodation to the
disabilities of the residents of Buffalo Sober House and determine that the 23 residents
....rn�_„�,�+ �rP ���,,;iar to a familv under the provisions of the zoning code. The
standard of reasonable accommodation is evoked in ine reaera� rair nous,r,y ���
Amendments of 1988 and has been discussed in a variety of federai court decisions
related to the Act. It is against the backdrop created by the federal law that this
application is considered.
The Fair Housing Act deciares it unla�rrful to "discriminate in the sale or rental, or to
otherv✓ise make unavailable or der�y, a dweiling to any buyer or renter because of a
handicap of...that buyer or renter." 42 USC §3604(�(1)(A)
Discrimination covered try the Acf includes "a refusal to make reasonable
accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, when such accommodations
may be necessary to afford [handicapped) person[sJ equal opportunity to use and enjoy
a dwelling." §3604(f�(3)(B)
The U.S. Supreme Court held, in Oxford House v. City of Edmonds (1995), that
occupancy limits in a zoning code that cap the number of unrelated people who can live
together in a dweiling unit are not exempt from the Act's requirement related to
❑
�\ -Y?�
� Zoning File #01-123-292
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 3
reasonable accommodations. (Oxford House-Edmonds was a sober house for 10-12
adults that was cited by the City for occupying a singie fami{y home despite an
ordinance that limits the number of unrelated persons who may live together in a single
family zoning district to five (5). The City argued that its ordinance was exempt from
the Fair Housing Act's requirements related to reasonabie accommodation because it
was a"reasonable iocal restriction regarding the maximum numher of occupants
permitted to occupy a dwelling.'� The Court drew a distinction between zoning
occupancy limits such as Saint Paul's requisement that limits the number of unrelated
persons that can live together in a single dwelling unit to four and the housing code's
occupancy limit of 150 square feet for the first occupant and at least 100 square feet
for each occupant thereafter. The latter is, in the judgement of the Supreme Court, a
"reasonab{e local, State or Federa( restriction regarding the maximum number of
occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling" that is exempt from the Fair Housing Act's
requirements (§3607(b)(1)). The former, according to the Court, is entitied to no such
exemption.
Justice Ginsberg, in writing for the Court, said:
The parties have presented, and we have decided, only a threshold question:
Edmonds' zoning code provision describing who may compose a"famii}�' is not a
� maximum occupancy restriction exempt from the FHA under §3607(b)(1). It remains for
the lower courts fo decide whether Edmonds' acfions against Oxford House vio(afe the
FHA's prohibitions against discrimination set ouf in §§3604(�(1)(A) and (�(3)(8).
The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeais (Oxford House v. City of St. Louis, 1996)
reviewed a case where two sober houses, each for more than eight persons, located in
a single family zoning district where "group homes with eight or fewer unrelated
handicapped residents" are permitted uses. In part because the code a4lows only three
unrelated, nonhandicapped peopie to reside together, the Court concluded that the
eight-person limit is not, on its face, discriminatory. In ovec-turning a district court
decision for the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals went on to address two issues that bear
a relationship to ttus application:
Financiai hardshiq: "The district court nevertheless found the City's zoning ordinances
are discriminatory because the eight-person limit would destroy the financial viability of
many Oxford Houses, and recovering addicts need this kind of group home. Even if
the eight-person rule causes some financial hardship for Oxford Houses, however, the
su{e does not viotate the Fair Housing Act if the City had a rational basis for enacting
the rule. (Familystyle of St. Paul, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 923 F.2d 91, 94 (8 Cir. 1991) °
L�mits on the number of unrelated residents qermitted to live toqether as a familv: ° We
conclude the eight-person rule is rationai. Cities have a legitimate interest m aecreasing
congestion, traffic and noise in residential area, and ordinances resiricting the number
of unrelated people ti�ho may occupy a single family residence are reasonably related
� to these legitimate goals. (Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, A16 U.S. 1, 91974) The City
does not need to assert a specific reason for choosing eight as the cut-off point, rather
Zoning Fife #01-123-292
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 4
fhan fen or tweive. 'Every line drawn by a legislature leaves some out that might well
have been included. That exercise of discretion, however, is a legislative, not a judicial
function.' Id. At 8. We conclude the City's eight-person restriction has a rational basis
and thus is valid under the Fair Housing Act. (Familystyle, 923 F. 2d at 94)"
It should be noted that the Court, in Oxford House v. City of St. Louis, did not express
an opinion "abouf whether the Fair Housing Act would require the City to grant
variances for the Oxford Houses if they apply." Inasmuch as Oxford House did not
apply for a variance of the maximum number of residents aliowed and give the City an
opportunity to make a reasonable accommodation, the Gourt determined that the City
did not fail to accommodate them.
4. In Sec. 64.300(g) the zoning code provides thaf, when a specific use is not I+sted in a
district, the pianning commission shali determine if a use is similar to other uses
permitted in each district. In making that determination, fhe planning commission shall
make four findings. The findings and the applicant's ability to meet them are as foilows:
(1J That the use is similarin characterto one (1) ormore of fhe principal uses
permitfed.
Among the uses permitted in the RT-1 Zoning District are:
• One- and two-family dweliings, located within a singie main building.
• Human service-licensed community residentiai facitities serving six (6) or fewer
facility residents iocated at leasf one thousand three hundred twenty (1320) radial
feet from another human service-licensed community residential facility.
• Transitional housing facilities serving four (4) or fewer adult facility residents and
minor children in their care.
• Sheiters for battered persons serving four (4) or fewer adult facility residents and
minor children in their care.
Among the uses permitted subject to specral conditions in the RT-1 Zoning District are:
• Transitional housing facilities serving five or six adult facility residents and minor
children in their care {subject to a distance requirement).
• Sheiters for battered persons serving sixteen or fewer aduit facility residents and
minor chiidren in their care (subject to a distance requirement, a percent of
population requirement and a requirement that the facility not be located in a two-
famity or multi-family dwetling unless it occupies the entire structure).
Planning staff suggested that the issue of similarity of character couid be defined as
hinging on three critical points:
(1) how many people are involved,
(2) how the residents relate to one another, and
(3) how long residents are expected to live in the unit.
�
�
�
d�-P��
� J
�
Zoning File #0'i-123-292
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 5
On one end ofi the spectrum of uses permitted in the RT-1 zoning district are families
which tend to have four or fewer persons (although there may be significantly more),
tend to operate as a close-knit unit (preparing meals, eating, socializing and recreating
together) and tend Iive in one piace for a longer period of time. On the other end are
shelters for batfered persons where there tend to be more people (sixteen adults and
their children are ailowed), the residents tend to rely on one another for support but
may not organize themselves as a single unit (i.e. they may or may not cook or eat
together, share housekeeping responsibilities or socializelrecreate as a group), and the
residents tend to live in the residence for a very short period of time (a week or a
month).
A sober house has been described as a place where some number of peopie live for up
to a year in a ciosely-knit relationsfiip that provides the support and accountability
necessary to maintain sobriety. Karen Mead, Executive Director of Emotions
Anonymous and a faculty member at Metro State University reports that relapse
prevention depends on five essential ingredients: 1) self knowiedge, 2) accountability,
3) responsible behavior, 4) a supportive living environment and 5) regular attendance at
support meetings. The sober house format emphasizes each of those vatues and, is,
therefore, promoted by experts in the field as an important dimension of the recovery
process. The {evel of integsation among residents and length of residence are both
probably somewhere between a family and a shelter for battered persons.
Number of Family Transitionai Housing Shelter BSH
Residents 1- x 4-6
Level of
Integration
Shelter
16
23
Length of Sheiter Transitional HousinglBSH Family
Residence
.
The final issue—and the issue at the heart of the question of reasonabie
accommodation-- relates to the number of residents. The appiicants propose that 23
peopie be allowed in a singie unit which is significantly more than would be ailowed for
any other use in the RT-1 zoning district except in the highly uniikely case that there are
23 related individuals. They present evidence suggesting that the financiat viability of .
the program depends on there being 24 residents in the two units. �+�ey-de-Ret
��- Testimonv was presented bv the applicant and one of its witnesses that
the ideal size for a fac+l+t of the same t e as Buffalo House is 20 to 30 residents in
order to maintain the ideal therapeutic experience.
Zoning File #01-123-292
Planning Commission Resofution
Page 6
The financial and therapeutic issues, the two issues identified for particular discussion
by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeais in Oxford House v. City of St. Louis, will be
discussed in turn.
Summary of Financial Information Provided
MONTHLY RENTS $9,600.00
EXPENSES
Principal moRgage $3560.00
Secondary mortgage (Maturity: 2/18/09) $79•��
Capitalization loan to partner 1500.00
Insurance (property/liability) 332.16
Propetty taxes 545.00
Utilities (DecembedJanuary) 2900.00
- Incl: Gas/ElectricitylWater/Garbage/Phone/
InterneUCabfe
Wages 500.00
Misc Expenses 300.00
TOTAL $10,516.87
The information provided by the applicants indicates that, with current rents and
expenses as they were in January and February, the program operated af a loss each
month. The second mortgage loan, however, was scheduled to be paid off in February.
Furthermore, depending on the terms of ffie "capitalization loan" from one of the
partners and whether it can be structured differently, the number of residents required
coutd be somewhat fewer. The applicant presented evidence that at a level of 24 �
�eJtuelllJ Uic Iaann� ��..u�........�.....�..._.�.. . . _. - _. _
require closinq the faciliN or increasinq the individual rents. The first�vear and one half
provides affordable housin4 within the ranae of income of ifs residents.
The facilitv is dissimilar to other uses such as a battered woman's shelter with respect
Yo size The other facilities are primarilv located in sinale-famdv homes_ and true
' ' _ '_.. . .. ...... __"__' c"a o..u.,ln CnY.cr 1-In� �ec iC
i
u
IVI�QIGU 111 Gl IV w��+� .�� ' .-. .
each of 24 residents exceeds 450 square feef which is four times the area required �
city housinq codes and more than iwice the area qrovided per resident in most battered
persons shetters There is more than enouqh space to adequafelV and comfortably
accommodate 24 residents.
The applicanf has se�f fimited the number of residents who mav have automobiles at �
the bui idinq to 9 and does not obiect to an additional condition l i mi tinq the num ber to
that There are 12 off street parkinq spaces currently.
O � -Pa�
� Zoning File #01-123-292
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 7
- - - - - - -- - --- - -- -- . -
-- ----- --- -- ---- - -- - ,- - - - - -- -- - -- - - _ -
-- - - --- ---- -- - ,--
- - - - - - - - -- :.- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - --
o - - --- - - - -- - - -- - -- -- ---
-- -- - - -- � - - -- -- -- --- - -- - - - -
(2} Thaf fhe traffic generafed by such use is similar to one (1) or more of the principal
• uses permitted.
A sober house for 23 or 24 aduits can be expected to generate more traffic than a
shelter for 16 battered persons. The traffic generated by some smalier number ofi
�
Zoning File #01-123-292
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 8
5.
sober house residents would be more similar to the principal uses permitted in.the RT-1
zoning district.
Off-str�et parking requirements for uses permitted in the district range from 3 spaces
for a two-fami(y structure to shetters and transitional housing for which 1 space for
every two beds plus 1 space per day shift empioyee or fuli-time equivalent are required.
In this case, it is not clear how many off-street parking spaces will be available though it
seems likely that there will be befinreen 8 and 12. While fhe asphaif area on the north
side of the building has been stnped for parking, a site plan was only recentiy been
submitted and has not yet besn approved.
(3) That the use is not first permitted in a less restrictive zoning districf.
This condition is met. Sober Houses are not defined in fhe zoning code and are,
therefore, not Iisted among permitted uses in a Iess restrictive zoning district.
�
(4) That the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
This condition is met. The City's Housing Plan calls for the preservation of existing
rental units and creation of new units providing supportive housing for persons who are
or are at risk of being homeless.
One of the simitar uses in the RT-4 zoning district, a shelter for battered persons, is �
required to meet four specific conditions. Were the Buffalo Sober House required to
meet the same conditions, their ability to meet them would be as follows:
(1) A minimum disfance of one thousand three hundred fwenty (1320} feet from ofher
shefters, transitional housing facitities, ficensed human service communify residenfial
facilities, licensed correcfiona! community residential facilities, emergency housing
facilities, health departmenf licensed community residenfial facilities or overnight
shelfers.
This condition would not be met. Ain Dah Yung, a state licensed residential facility for
ten young peopie is Iocated at 1089 Portland Avenue, 460 feet away from the Buffalo
gT"fTf?ttS2 VV�'It�� plflP "' R°�'dence se�vin persons with mental
iliness at 69 North Milton, is 1,220 feet away. -
(2) If shall not be locafed in a fwo-family or multifamily dwelling unless the facilify
occupies the entire structure.
This condition wouid be met. The facility is located in the Summit University planning �
district where .81 percent of the residents live in one of the facility types outlined in the
code.
This condition would be met. The appiicant proposes to occupied the entire fwo-fami(y
dwelling.
(3) !t shall not be located in a planning districf in which one (1) per�ent or more of the
populafion lives in licensed human service community residenfial facilities, licensed
correctional community residential fac�lities, health deparlmeirt licensed community
residential facilities, emergency housing facilities, ovemight shelters, shelters for
battered persons and/ortransitional housing facilities.
81 • ty�
•
�
�
Zoning File #01-123-292
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 9
C%Q
►/
(4) Permission for special condition use applies onfy as long as the number of facility
residents is not increased and its purpose or focation do nof change and ofher
conditions of the permif are met.
A shelter for battered persons is also required to meet the following general conditions,
outlined in Sec. 64.300(d) of the zoning code, to locafe in the RT-1 Zoning District.
Were the Buffalo Sober House required to meet the same conditions, their ability to
meet them is as follows:
(1) 7he extent, location and intensity of the use will be in substantial compliance with
the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans thaf were
approved by the City Council.
This condition would be met. The Saint Paul Comprehensive Pian calls both for an
intensification of residential uses throughout the city to accommodate an appropriate
share of the region's population growth and for intentionai efforts to meet the housing �
needs of those who need supportive living arrangements.
(2) The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize tra�c congestion in
the public streets.
This condition wouid be met. The existing structure is located on an aliey at mid-block
in a low- to mid-density fully developed residential environment. Ingress and egress
from the structure do not create any additionai congestion.
(3) The use will not be detrimental to the exisfing characfer of fhe devefopmenf in fhe
immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safefy and general welfart.
"fhis condition would be met. Thete is no evidence that facilities of this type have any
detrimental impact on property values or on public health, safety or welfare.
(4) The use will nof impede fhe norma/ and orrJeriy development and improvement of
the surrounding property for uses permitfed in the district.
This condition would be met. As a residentiai use in this ful4y developed residential
community, it is unlikely to have any impact on the continuing improvement of the
surrounding property. _
(5) The use shalf, in all other respecfs, conform to the applicable regulations of the
district in which it is located.
When the site plan issues related to the off-street parking on the site are resolved, this
condition would be met.
In the aiternative, the applicant requested that the Pianning Commission re-evaluate
their previous application for a Change in Nonconforming Use Permit against the back-
drop of two new considerations: (1) information they believe supports a conclusion fhat
the previous use was not discontinued or ceased to exist for a period of 365 days; and
(2) even if the previous nonconforming use was discontinued to ceased to exist for
longer than 365 days, the City shouid make reasonable accommodation to the
disabilities of their clients by waiving the 365 day time limit and considering an
appfication for a Change of Nonconforming Use Permit.
Zoning File #01-123-292
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 10
:�
Q
Tfie new information related to the previous use inciudes: (9) a letter from F2amsey
County indicating that the check in the amount of $45,051 for final payment to Oakland
Home for services provided through September 30, 1998 was issued on January 27,
1999 arid delivered to Selene Larson at 97 North Oxford; (2} information from the
Minnesota DepaRment of Human Services indicating that the Rule 36 license held by
Oakland Home expired on Marcfi 1, Z000; (3) a binding purchase agreement between
Buffalo Sober Group, �LC and Serene Larson executed on November 13, 1999.
The app(icant suggested that the Pianning Commission could reach o�e of the
foilowing two conclusions: (1) 365 days did not lapse between, for instance, the time
the binding purchase agreement was signed and the time the final payment was
received from Ramsey County; or (2) the number of days between, for instance, the
date that Ramsey County's contract was terminated (Sepfember 30, 1998) and the date
of the purchase agreemenf (tVovember 13, 1999), 45 days longer than the 365 day ,
requirement, is sufficiently smali that to extend the 365 day time limit would represent a
reasonable accommodation on the part of the City.
The applicant provided a copy of a Minnesota Court of Appeals decisian, Haefele v.
The City of Eden Prairie, as a basis for arguing that the Commission is obligated to
consider the intent of the propeRy owner in determining whether a use is "discontinued
or ceases to exist " There are two distinctions between the Haefele case and the
application before the Commission rooted in the distinctions befween the two zoning
codes.
For reference, the relevant portion of the Eden Prairie City Code is Sec. 11.75 Subd. 1.
which states: "This Section is intended to limit the number and extent of non-
conforming uses by prohibitiRg their enlargement, theirre-establishment after
abandonment, and the alteration of restoration after destruction of the structures they
occupy." (Emphasis added)
From the Saint Paui Legislative Code: Sec. 62.102(fl(7) "When a nonconforming use is
discontinued or ceases to exist for a continuous period of 365 days, the buiiding, or
�' � ' combination, shall thereafter be �sed in conformance with the
regulations of the disttict in which it is locate , un ess e p �
approves a permit to re-establish the nonconforming use as set forth in clause (i)(5):"
2.
3.
Abandonment v. Discontinuance. While the Eden Prairie Code speaks to
abandonment of a use, the Saint Paul Code relates to when a use is discontinued
or ceases to exist. The common understanding of the two concepts—
discontinuance and abandonment—can be argued to be fundamentaliy distinct
inasmuch as abandonment more closely impiies some intenf or action by the
properry owner to abandon a use.
Ambi4uitv of the Lanquaue. The Eden Prairie Code estahlishes no. parameters or
context for evaluating whether a use is abandoned. The Saint Paul Code speaks
specificaify to a time period of 365 days.
Recourse Eden Prairie virtually prohibits the re-establishment of a non-conforming
use once it is abandoned. Sairtt Paul, on the other hand, recognizes that there will
be instances when a new non-conforming use is the most appropriate re-use of a
�
�
S
D \ -tfi�
�
�
•
Zoning File #01-123-292
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 11
10.
buiiding that has not been used for longer than a year and establishes a process for
establishing that use.
Relative to whether the City should accommodate the applicant by extending the period
for which a use can be disconfinued or cease to exist and still be replaced by another
nonconforming use under the standards of Sec. 62.102(�(2), the issue should be
considered in the context of two standards. On the one hand is the requirement that
the City make reasonable accommodation. On the other, however, is the standard that
the City need not make a"fundamentai aiteration in the nature of the program" As was
previously indicated, the intent of the City's zoning code is that nonconforming uses be
replaced, over time, by conforming uses except in cases where the applicant is abie to
meet the high standard of gaining a consent petition of sucrounding prope�ty owners as
well as the approval of the Planning Commission. Allowing nonconforming uses to be
re-estab{ished without meeting those standards represents a fundamental alteration of ,
the City's zoning code.
�urthermore, the body of case law seems to point toward the requirement that cities
make accommodations related to the disability in question. Persons in recovery, for
insta�ce, need to live in groups larger than zoning codes would ordinarily allow for
therapeutic or financial reasons. Courts have, therefore, required that cities
accommodate that need. The failure of the appiicants to establish their use within the
365 days prescribed by the code is not in any way related to the disability of the
residents. indeed, it has been variously characterized on several occasions by the
applicants to have been a mistake on the part of the investors or the result of bad
information from an appraiser.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paui Planning Commission, under the
authority of the City's Legislative Code, that:
1. On the question of whether the previous use was discontinued or ceased to exist for a
period of less than 365 days, the Commission finds that the previous use was
discontinued or ceased to exist on September 30, 1998 and that the new use was
established upon ciosing of the sale on January 20, 2000, a period longer than 365
days.
2. On the question of whether the Cfty should make reasonable accommodation by
waiving the 365 day time period and extending it to 477 days, the Commission finds
that such an accommodation represents a fundamental alteration in nature of the
zoning code which the City is not obligated to make and is, furthermore, unrelated to
the disability of the residents of the facility.
3. Based on findings 1 througfi 6, the Planning Gommission finds that a sober house for
� 6 24 residents is determined to be similar to other uses permitted subject to special
conditions in the RT-1 zoning district.
4, Because the uses to which the sober house is similar are permitted subject to special
conditions, Buffalo Sober House be granted a speciai contiition use permit with the
foilowing conditions:
1. The total number of residents in the structure (between the two units) does not
exceed stxteerl twentv-four.
Zoning Fiie #01-123-292
Pianning Commission Resolution
Page 12
2. A site plan for off-street parking be submitted to the Department of License,
tnspections and Environmentai Protection and any requirements imposed fhrough .
the site pian and/or variance process be adhered to.
3. To minimize additional traffic congestion in the area, regu(ar group AA meetings at
the house be confined to the 4G24 residents of the house and their sponsors.
4. The special condition use permit would expire upon any change of use.
5. No more than nine residents of the buildina maY have automobiles which are kept
at the buildinq or in the immediate viciniN of the bwldmq.
4. Although the uses to which a sober house is similar must be found to be 1320 feet from
any of a variety of community residential facilities, and there are iwo facilities within
1320 feet of 97 North Oxford, the requirement related to distartce is waived as a
reasonable accommodation to the disabled residents of Buffalo Sober House. .
�
�
•
a�.ra�
• Saint Paul Planning Cummission
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
Minutes of May 11, 2001
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, May 11, 2001, at
830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hal4
Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Duarte, Faricy, McCall, Morton, and Shortridge;
Present: and Messrs. Alton, Anfang, Dandrea, Field, Fotsch, Galles, Gordon, Johnson,
Kramer, Mardell, and Mejia.
Commissioners Mmes. *Zimmer Lonetti; and Messrs. *Gervais, and *Kong.
Absent:
*Excused
�
�
Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Allan Torstenson, Donna Drummond,
Yang Zhang, Nancy Homans, Margot Feh�enbacher, and Mary Bruton, Department
of Planning and Economic Development staff.
I. Approval of Minutes of Apri113, 2001
MOTION Commissioner Field approval of the minutes of Apri113, 2001. Commissioner
Donnelly-Cohen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
II.
III.
Chair's Announcements
planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Soderholm talked about the Miltard Fillmore dinner which was held on May 10�` . He said
how enjoyable and how very well attended it was. Chair Morton stated the annual dinner
started out with 100 people and has grown to 1,600 attendees.
Mr. Soderholm talked about the Tra�c Calming Summit on May 17 to 19, 2001. He
mentioned the Heritage Preservation Awards on Tuesday, May 15, 2001, at the Hill House. He
also reported that the deadiine for the STAR applications is July 18, 2001, with an orientation
program on May 22"".
Mr. Soderholm stated that a week ago he and Commissioner Shortridge were at a very
interesting game about regional growth using a planning technique developed by Peter
Calthorpe, a New Urbanist consultant from Califomia, and the Metropolitan Council. A similar
local exercise was conducted two weeks ago for Hillcrest Shopping Center, and another exercise
will be happening for the District Del Sol (Concord and Robert Streets) on May 23`a
Ciry Council news this week:
The new fees system for biilboards was adopted this week.
Bradley Street industrial rezoning in the Railroad Island neighborhood was adopted.
City Council items next week:
The policy session on traffic calming
Gun Shop Zoning Study is received by the Council.
�
Neighborhood and Ceu�rent Planv2ng Committee
SEMI Plan - Southeast Minneapolis Industrial (SEMn Bridal Veil Master Plan - Informational
presentation by 7im Forsyth, Minneapolis Communiry Development Agency and Michael
Orange, Minneapolis Planning Department.
Mr. Forsyth, Project Manager for the southeast Minneapolis Industrial SEMI Area and he works
for the Minneapolis Community Development Agency. Mr. Forsyth showed aerial view
overheads of the SEMI Plan. The SEMI area is 700 acres in size of which 175 acres are in
Saint Paul. Mr. Forsyth stated that after three years of planning they have an approved AUAR.
There will be new roadways that will allow for connection of neighborhoods and disuibution of
the traffic generated in SF.NtI to freeways or dispersed uniformly through the area. There will
be two large regional storm water management ponds that will be designed to take caze of storm
water management needs generated by the redevelopment of the entire project. Two bridges,
one at the east and one at the west, are in the Plan.
Mr. Forsyth stated the Southeast Economic Development Committee approved the AUAR and
Master Plan. Mr. Forsyth stated they are making final revisions to the Plan and it will be going
to the City's Planning Commission and the City Council in the next month.
Mr. Mike Orange, Minneapolis Planning Department. Mr. Orange has worked with
Mr. Forsyth on this project. Mr. Orange showed overheads of the roadways and talked about
what block sizes that would be appcopciate for light industrial, mixed use development and the
- - - • --- "°,.__.,
v._,..���.�y � ..,.�.,..........-°• --
stating that it was an easy connectionio 35W and to the St. Anihony area-of Minneapolis. _ e
new roa@ways will be an accommodafion for bicycle, trucks, pedesuians, and general vehicles.
This project will bring in 6,000 new jobs.
Franklin Emerald Area Plan Snmmarv and Redeveloument Plan - adopt resolutions.
(Donna Drummond, 651/266-6556)
MOTION: Commissioner Faricy moved approval of the Franklin-Emerald Area Plan as an
addendum to the Sdint Pau1 Comprehensive Plaa. The motion carried.unanimously on a
voice vote.
MOTION: Cotn�nissiorier Faricy rnoved approval of the Fraiiklin-Erieerald Redevelopmer�t
2
•
.
�
o�-ra-�
•
�
V.
pjnaz. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Commissioner Faricy reported the next Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee meeting
wili be on Tuesday, May 22, 2001.
Zoning Committee
OLD BUSINESS
#O1-123-292 Buffalo Sober Group LLC - Public hearing re-opened to receive testimony relative
to whether the previous nonconforming use had been discontinued or ceased to exist for more
than 365 days �vhen the new use was established; or whether the City shouid accommodate a
period greater than 365 days. 97 N. Oxford Street, between Laurel and Ashland.
(Nancy �Iomans, 651/266-6557}
Commissioner Field stated the District S Summit University Planning Council voted to
accept the staff recommendation which was for 16 residents, except that they wish to
replace the 16 residents with 15 residents or whatever appropriate number can be legally �
documented. Two parties spoke in support and seven spoke in opposition. '1'he public
hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recommends a determination that a sober
house for 16 residents is similaz to other uses permitted subject to special conditions in the
RT-1 zoning district, and approval of a Special Condition Use Permit with conditions.
AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION: Commissioner Faricy moved tl:efollowing
amendment to tlte findings and recommendations:
Finding 3.
Remove: "Tltey do not present any evidence...throug/t..for the therapeutic
environment."
Add: "Tesfimony was presente�l 6y the app[icant and one of its witnesses that t/:e
ideal size for a facility of the same type as Buffalo Hotcse is 20 to 30 residents in
order to maintain the idea[ therapeutic experience."
Remove: "Wl:ile suggesting ren:t increases...throug/t....purposes of zoning and
otl:er land use regulations."
Add: "The applicant presenterl evidence that at a leve[ of 24 residents tlte facitity
breaks even fznancially. Any lesser number of residents would require closing the
faci[ity or increasing the individua! rents. T/te ftrst year and one l:aljof recovery js
a critical tin:e in w/:ich recovering persons s{:ould avoitl stress. This usua[ly means
work but in lower wage occupntions. Bteffalo Sober I-fouse actually provides
nffordnble {zousing witltin tke rage of income of its residents.
•
The facility is dissimilar to other �cses such as a battered woman's shelter with
respect to size. The otlier facilities are primarily located in single family homes
and frue duplexes witl� a maxim�im of 3,000 to 6,000 square feet. Buffalo Sober
House is located in a re-configured four plex with 11,000 squarefeeL The area
availab[e for eacl: of 24 residents exceeds 450 square feet, w{:ic/: is four times the
area required by cily /:ousing codes and more than iwice tlte area provided per
resident in n:osf battered persons s/zelters. There is niore than enough space to
adequalely and comfortably accommodate 24 residexts.
The applicant has se/j-limited the number of residents who may have aufomobiles
at tF:e building to 9 and does not object to an additiot:a! condition Limiting the
number fo tl:at. T{:ere are IZ off street parking spaces currently."
Beginning wit& BE IT HEREBYRESOLVED:
Chan e a[I references from I6 to 24 residents.
Add a fiftl: conrlition as follows:
► No more t{:an 9 residents of tl:e bui[ding may have automobi[es whic/t are kept
at the building or in the immediate vicinity of the building.
Commissioner Fotsch seconded tl:e motion.
Commissioner Gordon opposed the amendment for four reasons: (1) Not much, if any,
evidence was presented relative to the ideal size of a facility being 20-30 residents. There
was evidence that facilities of 8 had successfully operated. (2) The committee never
received the kind of evidence that would enable an accurate detemunation that 24
residents are required to make the facility financially viable. He is concemed about the
extent to which financial viability in this kind of case should be alIowed to become the
driving factor. If an applicant needed 50 or 60 to break even, should that be allowed? (3)
A majority of the zoning committee agreed that the most similar use in the RT-1 zoning
_ . . .. . , _, _ ,..- --�:,.._ _,....,,:,+o,�
use wonld justify 24 residents: (4) Puttiflg 24-people_into the facility would riave an
impact on the surrounding area. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to support
the original Zoning Committee motion to permit 16 residents.
Commissioner Field asked Ms. Homans to discuss the process of deteimining that the use
was similar to the women's shelter.
Ms. Nancy Homans stated that the Zoning Code provides that when a use is not listed
among the uses permitted anywhere in the Zoning Cod"e; tfie Ptazuung Comritzssiott-has the
right to consider whaYs called a"Determination of Similaz Use" to deterxnine whether the
use that's being proposed is similar in cIiaracter to other uses permitted in a given zoning
0
�
�
•
�
o�.ra�
� district. In this case, other uses permitted in the RT-1 zoning district include families,
transitional housing for up to 5 residents and shelters for up to 16 battered persons. Staff
suggested that there were three components relative to similarity of chazacter: (1} The
relationship between the residents of the facility. Staff suggested that the sober house is
somewhere between a family and a battered women's sheiter and, there£ore, was similar in
chazacter in that way. (2) The length of residence. Inasmuch as a family lives in one place
for a very long time and those in a shelter typically live there 1-6 months, staff proposed
that a sober house, in terms of length of residence, would be somewhere between those
uses, and, therefore, similaz in characfer. (3) Number of residents. Where a family is
typicaliy 1-4 people, transitional housing is 4-6 people and a sheitez houses 16 people,
what was being proposed was 23 people. Staff believed that, relative to number of
residents, a sober house for 23 is not similar in character to other uses permitted in the RT-
1 Zoning District. Staffrecommended, however, that at 16 residents it would be judged to
be similar and therefore recommended the limit at 16 residents.
Commissioner Fazicy informed the Commission that she voted against the motion in ,
Zoning Committee for three reasons: (1) When comparing the facility with a battered
women's shelter, it should be noted that the Zoning Code does not count children in the
shelter. The Commission previously approved a transitional housing application in a
house on Selby and Arundel with 8 or 9 bedrooms for 18-24 women and their children.
There could be significantly more people in that facility without the space that the sober
house has. (2) Although they made some mistakes along the way, at the time of purchase,
� the owners thought that their use was grandfathered in. They have the backing of
Hazeldon and a number of outstanding groups. (3) With the space that is available, the
fact that they are limiting the cars, and the fact that they have done significant work on the
building, they would be great neighbors.
Commissioner Kramer explained that he voted against the motion in Zoning Committee
for two different reasons: (1) He said that he had a difficult tizne in making a
determination that 16 — or 24-- unrelated adult is similar to a family. (2) If he was able to
determine that a sober house with 16 or 24 is similaz to a shelter, he feit that the distance
requirement imposed on shelter should also be imposed on this use. In this case, there are
two facilities within the distance established in the code to prevent concentration of
facilities.
Commissioner Alton reviewed two issues; (1) There was testimony from the neighbors
that 24 residents would have a significant impact on the neighborhood. The staff
recommendation of 16 was a recognition of what would be reasonable for the property.
(2) There was not enough detail in the financial information provided to the committee to
determine that expenses were as low as they could be or income as high as it could be to
make the business a profitable one.
Commissioner Dandrea spoke in favor ofthe amendment for four reasais: (1)While the
� 5
question of financial viability is an important one, the Commission doesn't normally get -
into the detaii of evaivating an applicant's assessment of whaY is financially viable. (2) �
While he would probably not support 50 residents, 24 seems to be a compromise position
and a fair number. (3) Restricting the number of vehicles wiil reduce the impact on
neighboring residents. (4) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Anfang asked staff if, when the Zoning Committee voted against the
motion to grant a nonconforming use permit, they were voting against 36 residents.
Nancy Homans said that the application was for 24 residents. There was an implication
when the motion to grant a change of noncon£orming use permit was introduced in Zoning
Committee that it would have allowed 36 residents since the previous use had 36
residents. If �vhat was granted was a change in nonconforming use, without specification
as to number, 36 would be allowed.
Commissioner Field clarified that the nature of the motion rejected in committee was such
that it wasn't alterable with conditions. It didn't specify number of beds, but allowed for ,
the reestablishment of ihe previous nonconforming use. The amendment before the
Commission deals within a different framework, the determination of similaz use, and
conditions associaTed with it.
Commissioner GorBon raised three issues: (1) The applica6on should be considered in the
conte�ct in which it azose which was the result of an inspection by the Fire Department that
revealed that they were operating in violation of the (2) With respect to �
Commissioner Fazicy's observation that they thought they were grandfathered in, the
purchase agreement showed that the buyers specifccatly reserved the right to check the
licensor requirements before the deal became final. They had the opportunity to find out
whether licensing or code requirements existed and whether they were in compliance
before they began to operate which they either failed to exercise or failed to exercise
diligently. (3) With respect to similazity of use, the use permitted in this district that
generates the highest number of individuals is the shelter that would permit up to 16
people. A family use would involve up to 4 people-not 16 or 24. To go to 24 is half
+ 'a ' d use. That is.not a similar use. It is a dissimilaz use. If it
l and consistent m st thatp be perm'rtted is 16. azgument an be� o
stnzctured that they should not be permitted even that. But, giving them every benefit
possible under the Code as it is written, gives them 16 people. It is not the Commission's
obligation to give them as many people as it takes to make it financialiy viable. That
would not be a reasonable basis on cvhich to make these decisions.
Commissioner Fotsch discussed two issues: (1) The building was originally a four-plex
_ . _ ,._.
which, if six people were allowed in eacli nn'if; woutd inean 24 people. His family had 1.
ckildren with 12 people in their home. He didn't know if the neighbors complained about
the iLnpact that they had, but the}� didn't have 450 square feet per person in their home.
�
al-Pa
� They live across from the University of St. Thomas that has several thousand people and
they don't notice the impact on their neighborhood of those several thousand students.
With the number of squaze feet in the building and the limitation on the number of cazs,
there will be only a minor impact on the neighborhood. (2) The issue is not so much the
impact, but whether this is the right thing to do because of the number of people who need
this service. He noted that President Bush is reported to have said that he is a recovering
alcoholic. Since a member of his family has the same problem, he said that he knows how
crucial it is that there be as many facilities as possible. Rather than argue about
technicalities related to ordinances, tlie question that should be addressed is whether or not
this is the right thing to do. He thinks that it is.
Commissioner Field reviewed that this was a 4-plex, He grew up in St. Luke's parish
where there were many families with more than four people. This structure was converted
to a rooming arrangement that allows 450 squaze foot per person.
MOTION: Commissioner Faricy ca!!ed to end tlte debate. The motion carried on a .
unattirrwus vote.
A roll caU vote was taken on tke amendment ai:d passed on a vote of Il-6.
A roll ca!! vote was taken on the main motion and passed on a vote of 12-5.
� NEW BUSINESS
#O1-185-606 EI Rio Vista Recreational Center - Sign Variance (6'6" sign height permitted;
12'7" height proposed). 179 E. Robie St. (Martha Faust, 651l266-6572)
Commissioner Field stated the West Side Citizens Organization recommends approval of the
height variance. However, they would like to coordinate further with Parks and Recreation staff
on the design of the sign face itsel£ No one spoke in support, no one spoke in opposition. The
public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recommended approval on a vote of 8-0.
Commissioner Anfang questioned the placement of the sign. He stated that after the Zoning
Committee meeting he heard that there may be a new building or major rehabilitation at the site in
a couple of years. Perhaps the sign could be on the new building.
Commissioner Field agreed with Commissioner Anfang.
MOTION Commissioner Field moved to !ay tkis n:atter over and refer it back to the Zoning
Committee meeting on May 17, 200I. Commissioner Anfang seconded tke motion. The motion
ca�ried unanimously on a voice vote.
#O1-185-802 Great Western RecvclinQ - River Corridor Conditional Use Permit for replacement
of a steel baling press and equipment enclosure not elevated on fi(I in the flood fringe. 521 Barge
Channel Road, between vacated Arthur and R'itham. (MaRha Faust, 65ll26b-6572)
�
Commissioner Field stated no district comment was received. No one spoke in support and no
one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recommended �
approval with conditions on a vote of 5-0.
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved t/�e Zoning Comniittee's recommendation to approve
tl�e River Corridor Conditiona! Use Permit with conditions. TJ:e motion carried unanimously
on a voice vofe.
#O1-186-266 Kim Holmen - Special Condition Use Permit for auto detailing, auto repair, and
outdoor sales space for used cars. 1202 N. Dale St., northeast comer Maryland and Dale.
(Yang Zhang, 651/266-6659)
Commissioner Field stated Distric[ b Planning Council voted to recommend approval of a car
detailing and auto repair shop, but denial of the application for auto sales. No one spoke in
support and no one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. The Zoning
Committee recommended approval with conditions on a vote of 5-0.
MOTION Commissioner Field moved the Zoning Committee's recommendation to approve '
the Special Condition Use Permit with conditions. The motiort carried unanimously on a voice
vote.
Commissioner Field announced the agenda for the Zoning Committee meeting on May 17, 2001.
#O1-185-977 New York Bin2o Palace LLC - Rezoning from P-1 Pazking to B-3 Business to allow
expansion of existing bnildiag onto the parking lot, and rezoning from RT-2 Residential to P-1 �
Parking to provide parking for a new restaurant and bingo facility. 899 Payne, SW comer York
and Payne. (Patricia James, 651/266-6639)
#Ol 186-902 Centex Multi-Familv Communities L.P. (Uaner Landinel - Special Condition Use
Permit to allow buildings over 65 feet in height on Biocks I and 2 of the Upper Landing site. xx
Shepherd Rd., beriveen Chestnut and vacated Wilkin. (Lucy Thompson, 651/266-6578)
#O1-186-905 Roberts Furniture Tnc. (Furniture Barn) - Specia( Condition Use Permit to allow
enclosed outdoor furniture storage containers, and a variance to reduce the amount of off-street
par �n . . ' ' , onna Drummoad,
6511266=6556) -
#O1-187-170 Gene Christianson - Establishment of Legal Nonconforming Use status for storage
of materials (engines and other equipment) in a garage related to residential property. 2394
Myrtle, SW corner Glendale and Myrtle. (Donna Drummond, 651/266-6556)
#Ol 186-986 State of Minnesota (Plant Management Divisionl - Special Condition Use Permit
to operate a small composting site for Capitol Complex landscape vegetation. �cx Pennsylvania
Ave W., between Rice and Como. (I'ang Zhang,.651/266-6659) ,__
#O1-187-118 General Nutrition Center - Sign variance for rivo additional signs (60 sq. $. total}.
Oxford Square currently has 369 sq. ft. of signs, already exceeding the 350 sq. ft. maximum
�
o� .ra�
• VI.
altowed. 1055 - A Grand Ave., NW corner Grand and Oxford. (Nancy Homans, 651/266-6557)
RiverCentre Area Projects - Information presentarions:
- RiverCenue (SkywaylTunnel Pedestrian) Connection: Margot Fehrenbacher, Project Manager,
PED
Ms. Fehrenbacher gave a short informational presentation on the RiverCentre Connection,
which is a pedestrian tunnel connecting the convention complex to the downtown hotels and
skyway system. May 11�' is the ground breaking for the pzoject, which originally started in
1992. Ms. Fehrenbacher stated there would be a new stmcture (all glass) built in front of the
ezisting RiverCentre entrance that contains a stairway and elevator that will take you down to
the lower level. The tunnel wili run under Fourth Street to mid-block between Market and St.
Peter Streets where there will be another new structure that will bring you up to grade (street
level) and then up to the skyway system which will be over the loading dock area of Landmark
Towers. There will be subway style stairway entrances at both Market and Fourth Streets, and
at Washington and Fourth Streets. There will also be a tunnel connecdon into the Saint Paul
Public Library. She showed maps and designs of what the tunnel will look like. She stated the'
entire budget of the project was $10.77 million. Construction wili be completed in 15 months
(or August, 2001.)
- Kellogg Blvd Streetscape: Rafic Chehouri, Project Engineer, Public Works
Mr. Chehouri stated that the Public Works Department wil( be closing Kellogg Blvd next week.
� He stated they will be upgrading the streets, lights, and trees to make the downtown look more
pedestrian friendly. He stated it should be finished by October. They will be widening the
intersection of Market Street and Kellogg Blvd. There will be a plaza overlooking the Mississippi
River.
VII. Steering Cominittee
Downtown Develonment StrateQV - Adopt resolution to initiate Planning Task Force.
(Martha Faust, 651/266-6659)
Mr. Soderholm stated the staff cecommends laying over this resolution for two weeks to the next
Planning Commission meeting on May 25, 2001, and this was done.
VIII. Comprehensive Planning Committee
No report.
IX. Communications Comnuttee
Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen called attention to the Planning Commission's Annual Report for
2000, which was passed out at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Soderholm stated that Chair
Morton and he will write a cover letter for the Annual Report and then send out about 750 of
them next week.
�
X. Task Force Reports
No reports, but Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen announced that there will be a meeting of the
East Seventh Street Planning Task Force on Tuesday, May 15'".
XI. Old Business
None. '
XII. New Business
None.
�II. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 10:08 a.m.
Recorded and prepared by
Mary Bruton, Planning Commission Secretary
Planning and Economic Development Departrnent,
City of Saint Paul
•
�
Respectfu((y submitted,
Larry ode holm
Ptanni dministrator
Kathi Donnel(y-Cohen
Secretary ofthe Planning
BnitonUvtin¢tesUninutes 5-11-01 10 •
fl� �ra�
�
� J
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMWIITTEE
Thursday, May 3, 2001 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3` Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
PRESENT:
EXCUSED:
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Anfang, Alton, Faricy, Fietd, Gordon, Kramer, Mejia, and MoRon
Peter Warner
Carol Martineau, Alian Torstenson, Nancy Homans of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Fieid.
BUFFALO SOBER GROUP LLC- 01-123-292 = Determin2tion of Similar Use to estabiish whether
a sober house for 24 residents is similar to a family, and, therefore, permitted in the RT-1 zoning
district. In the alternative, the applicant applied for a Change in Nonconforming Use Permit. Public
hearing was re-opened to receive testimony relative to whether the previous nonconforming use
had been discontinued or ceased to exist for more than 365 days when tfie new use was
established; or whether the City should accommodate a period greater than 365 days.
97 North Oxford Street, between Laurei and Ashland.
� Nancy Homans presenied the staff report. Ms. Homans stated that pianning staff's position is that,
inasmuch as the zoning code defines "use" as the principal purpose for which the land or building
is being occupied, the building was not be+ng used as a community residentiai facility after August
21, 1998 when the last resident moved out. Allowing for a period of closure of the use or shutting
down of the business, staff suggests that the date on which the use was discontinued should be
set as September 30, 1998, the day on which the contract with Ramsey County was terminated.
Staff further suggests that the new use was established upon the close of the sale on January 20,
2000. Staff recommends, finally, that, because the uses to which the sober house is similar are
permitted subject to special conditions, Buffalo Sober House be granted a special condition use
permit with conditions.
In response to a question from Commissioner Morton relative to when the Rufe 36 ticense expired,
Ms. Homans explained that staff from the°Department of Human Services described a process
whereby licenses are typicaily issued every firao years upon the inspection of the facility and are
entered into the data base for two years. There is no relationship between the license being in the
data base and whether there is a permit, a contract, or a person tiving there.
There was some discussion about whether a Ru4e 36 License is similar to the license on a car that
is stili valid whether or not the car is in use or to a City restaurant license. Commissioner Alton
followed up on a question from Commissioner Gordon by stating the use would stop on the date
the restaurant ciosed for purposes of determining 365 days.
in response to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Homans stated if a new provider had
• moved into a building and needed a Rule 36 License, they would have had to apply for a license
and be inspected relative to their staffing ratio, qualifications, and services offered as weli as the
condition of ihe buiiding. The previous license wouid not be transferred.
Zoning File #O1-123-292 = �
May 3 2001
Page: 2
Commissioner Field, noting that the staff report indicated that the City Attorney woutd have some
further advice on the issue of when a use is discontinued, referred the issue to Mr. Warner. Mr.
Warner commented that the code, with respect to regulating nonconforming uses, measures 365
days from the date the use is discontinued or ceases to exist. The committee needs to establish
when that date was. The staff has recommended using the date the contract with Ramsey County
was terminated, September 30, 1998. The date that the last tenant left 97 North Oxford (August
n�the m8dd e Apolbeferences number of ate that could be usedrney presented
The issue of ihe license becomes relevant if there was an intent on the part of the applicants to
become a licensed community residential facility. It is noted in the staff report that one of the
contingencies in the purchase agreement between the seller and the applicants provided that the
sale was subject to the buyer's due diligence regarding licensing issues.
He also addressed the Court decision on an Eden Prairie case, related to the abandonment of a
previous use, submitted by the appiicants. He noted that staff was correct in stating that that case
was different than this case because the Saint Paul Zoning Code establishes a definitive time
period for determining whether or not a use is abandoned or discontinued. He also explained that,
in his reading of the case law, the terms "abandonment" and "discontinuance" are considered one
and the same. Minnesota State Courts have tended to ailow the use of "discontinuance" in place
of "abandonment" in order to remove from Cities the burden of proving that a property owned
intended to abandon a use. However, when Cities use the term "discontinuance" and attach a�
specific time period to it, as Saint Paui does, courts are going to use that period of time to ascertain
the intent of the property owner.
Commissioner Field asked the foliowing hypotheticai question: If this property was not for sale on
January 19, 2000 and was stil( owned by the original owner and they reapplied for their State •
license and got a contract to provide services and brought in people to occupy the facility for its
previous use, would we have this case before us? Mr. Warner stated the previous operato�'s
license did not expire untii March of 2000 so, theoretically, up untii that date, that operator couid
have reestablished this use.
Commissioner Fieid stated it would be fairfor him to conc u, �
- • . h ' been
discontinued because the former owners'couid have reestablished it in February of 2000.
Commissioner Faricy suggested that the 365 days should be measured beginning on January 27,
1999, when the final payment was received from Ramsey County. The 365 days did not lapse
between that date and either the date that the purchase agreement was signed on November 13,
1999 or the ciosing on January 20, 2000.
in response ta a question from Commissioner Kramer, Ms. Homans stated that the Code provides
for a Change of Nonconforming Use. That was the first application ihatv,�as received. An appiicant
is etigible for such a permit when the previous nonconforming use had not been discontinued or
ceased to exist for more than 365 days. At the time of the first application, fhe zoning staff and the
planning commission made the judgement that the previous use had been discontinued for more
than 365 days because the contract with Ramsey County terminated on September 30, 1898 and
the closing of the sale of the property did not happen until January of 2000. She also stated that�
Commissioner Faricy is correct in saying that if different dates are used to mark when the previous
use was discontinued and the new use established, they are eligible to apply for a Change in
Nonconforming Use if that period is less than 365 days. The dates that Commissioner Faricy is
o��ra�
• Zoning File #O1-123-292 -
May 3, 2001
Page: 3
suggesting are the dates when the final check arrived from Ramsey County and the signing ofi the
purchase agreement. {f those two dates are used, there are fewer_than 365 days between them.
The question before the committee is whether a check arriving in the mail from Ramsey County
fior services delivered up unti4 September 30, 1998 estabiishes that the use continued untii that
date.
In response fo a question from Commissioner Anfang, Ms. Homans stated it was ciear for some
time that Oakland Flome was going to close. It was downsized siowiy, there were a few residents
there in August, the last resident moved out August 20, 1998 and payments were continued
through September 30,1998 which was the contract term. There is evidence that the contract was
amended to terminate on September 30, 1998.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gordon related to why are were no staff
recommendations re4ated to the finding that there are two licensed community residentiai facilities
within 1320 feet of 97 North Oxford, Ms. Homans stated that, while the code provides a process
for finding that a given use is similar to other uses in a zoning district, it does not require that the
t as exactly the same. The e are a nu of diffehent Spec a Condttion Uses dan the t RTt
1 Zoning District and they all have different conditions and different consequences. Finding thai
a sober house is simi(ar to one or more of those uses does not necessarily mean that all of the
conditions have to be appiied. On the other hand, a recommendaiion could be made that waiving
� the distance requirement is a reasonable accommodation underthe provisions of the Fair Housing
Act. Ms. Homans also stated she would change page 14 of the staff report to say the use was
"discontinued or ceased to exist" rather than "terminated:'
Gommissioner Morton made the observation that the previous operator, Serene Larson, submitted
a letter stating that she was operating her business oui ofi the Oakland Home untit January 15,
20�0. Commissioner Gordon made the comment that the letter stated she continued to operate
her business, but it was not clear what the business was. Commissioner A{ton stated there was
very cfear evidence that the last residents moved out of the home in August and that there had
been no residents since then.
Mr. Mark Gehan, the applicant's attorney, appeared and stated he agreed with the final clarification
that Buffalo Sober House couid be open 1�fewer than 365 days had gone by since the previous
use was established to have been discontinued or ceased to exist. That was the issue with the
first application and the committee decided that 365 days had gone by. The issue of whether
Buffalo Sober House had obtained a license was not part of that discussion. kie also stated the
issue is what is chosen as the measuring date in resolving the 365 day question. The ordinance
does use the words "discontinue or cease to exisY' but is not he{pful in detining what discontinued
means. The position taken in this application is that, at least while the previous owner was in the
buiiding collecting her bills for a period of four months, it wou{d be unreasonable to say she was
not operating the previous use. He went on to reiterate that he did not suggest to the committee
that the Haefele v. Eden Prairie case was exactly the same as the issue before the commission,
but that it is similar. The interesting thing about the case, he suggested, is that,
� in determining whether a use had been abandoned, the Court fooked to the intention of the parties.
To the extent that the commission has to decide whether a use has been discontinued, there is
no reason why the intentions of the parties shoutdn't be fooked at. The intentions of the parties in
this case were quite clear. The previous owner had it on the market as a licensed group home.
Buffalo Sober Group bought it with the intention of operating a Sober House. It was never used
significantly for any other use. It was not opened for a conforming use. The previous owner
Zoning File #O1-123-292
May 3, 2001
Page: 4
always had the notion that this was a nonconforming use. He went on to suggest that a measuring
date has to be chosen. If September 1,1998 (the date last resident moved outj is chosen, Buffalo
Sober Flouse would lose the case. If, on the other hand, the commission selects January 27,1999
(the date bilis were still being coliected on behaif of the operation), then the 365 days would not
have passed even after Buffalo Sober House closed the sale. in reference to Commissioner
Morton's question, there were no residents residing in this house after September 1, 1998. The
previous owner did continue to pay the bilis and collect receivabies there. She also continued to
operate it as the Oakland Home.
In response to a question from Commissioner Alton about what date was used in the previous
application to establish when the previous use was discontinued or ceased to exist, Mr. Gehan
stated when the previous application was heard in 2000 they just had utility biils as evidence that
Serene Larson was still operating a business at that address. He indicated that they are presenting
new evidence related to the final check from Ramsey County on January 27, 1999, the date of
expiration for the Rule 36 License in 2000, and the date of the binding purchase agreement from
November 1999. He suggested that this is significant evidence.
In response to a question from Commissioner Kramer related to whether the receipt of mail at a
given address establishes a use, Mr. Gehan stated the receipt of mail reflects that the Oakland
Home was a business. Upon further questioning, Mr. Gehan suggested the use of the propetty
was the business of the Oakland Nome. Mr. Gehan stated that if the former owner was stil! there
trying to collect bills and making phone calls trying to wind up the affairs of the business, it would
stiil be a business. Commissioner Kramer stated the permit was issued for a group home not a
business office of a group home. Mr. Gehan suggested that, in addition to peopie living in the
home, the business inctudes ali the other things that are involved in operating the business, and
on operator is not out of that business until all the affairs in order. Commissioner Kramer
suggested that if tfie owner of the group home property had decided she didn't want her office
there, it would be difficult to argue that the group home had moved to wherever she was conducting
the group home's business.
Commissioner Kramer stated that,t�he Spe a a utv� n nt�Paul h d applied for�a� evsed Spe ai
_•
�
u��., r .,....__ --
Condition Use Permit so they coufd add offices to eir aa i .
in response to Commissioner Gordon's question with respect to the clause in the purchase
agreement that provided that the sale was contingent upon the buyers satisfying themselves that
all licensing issues were addressed, Mr. Gardner, one of the partners of Buffalo Sober Group,
asked for the caauge n the pu chas agree becauseghey wa ed to be secuhe that they could
relicense the business.
Mr. Gehan explained that attached to the chronology thatwas presented in the application ar ethi
remarks of the appraiser stating that the property was grandfathered as a facility of this typ
was that report his clients relied upon when they went forward with the project.
tn response to Commissioner Gordon's question about what the appiicants did to satisfy
themselves that there were no licensing issues, Mr. Gardner stated they paid $10,000.00 for a�
business plan which included an appraisai. Commissioner Gordon clarified that the document
o dinance dmin steaed I under the C ty of M nneapol s was part of that�appraisal aer the zoning
o�-ta�
• Zoning File #01-123-292
May 3, 2001
Paee: 5
In response to Commissioner Kramer's question about when they discovered that there was a
Nonconforming Use Permit at that addsess, Mr. Gardner said that they discovered that while
conducting their due diligence research in December 1999. When asked when they were
contacted by City zoning staff, he indicated that there was an inspection after they opened. They
were operating under the �mpression that the fact that property was grandfathered in was indicated
by the fact there was a Certificate of Occupancy on the property.
In response to a question from Commiss+oner Faricy, Mr. Gehan stated that Ms. Larson did not
operate any businesses other than the Oakland Home. Mr. Gardner later indicated that she may
still operate a Rute 36 facility in northern Minnesota. �.
In response to a question from Commissioner Kramer about the property's zoning history, Ms.
Homans stated that licensed community residentiai facilities first were defined in the zoning code
in 1980. A SCUP was applied for and received on April 11,1986 under the provisions of that code.
in 1990 the zoning code was amended to first permit licensed residential facilities with 17 or more
residents in the RM-1 zoning district. Oak4and Home, therefore, became a legally nonconforming
use. Special Condition Use Permits are recorded at the County and purchasers of properties would
have access to them at the County and City offices.
Commissioner Gordon requested that a copy of the full appraisal report be submitted for the
� record.
Commissioner Field raised a number of questions related to the purchase agreement and whth
actions the applicants took to assure themselves that their proposed use would comply
licensing and zoning requirements. He noted that the zoning issue was addressed and aimost
dismissed with a reference to the City of Minneapolis. The appraisal document states the subject
property "appears" to be grandfathered.
S
Mr. Gehan responded by saying that his clients relied on the banker that was going to fiund the
purchase. The wording "subject to the buyer's due diligence" was written prior to their finding a
banker.
In response to Commissioner Gordon's question aboutwhetherthey had ever applied for a license,
Mr. Gehan responded that sober houses tlo not require licensing.
Commissioner Anfang made an observation that the purchase agreement was dated November
3,1999 and everything was based on the appraisal report dated December 16, 2000,13 days after
the 30 day period provided for in the puschase agreement.
it Sthan or ginaily cont act d a d the atltual cios ng dat was Janu 20b2000. � 999,
th e selves adequaiely, the that remainsas that of what marks he 65�days. Protecting
Mr. Gardner stated that there seems to be a concern for the quality of the living environment for
2G residents. He stated that, in the upper unit of the building, there are 19 sleeping rooms and two
sleeping rooms in the lower unitThe front rooms are large traditional three season finished porches
that are used for double rooms.
Zoning File #O1-123-292
May 3, 2001 �
Page: 6
He reiteraied that there is a letter from NSP stating Ms. Larson maintained her utility bilis in the
name of the Oakland Home. The licensing staff from the Department of Human Services stated
that licenses ran the fiscal year from January 1 to December 31 each year. Ms. Larson marketed
the building as a group home. After the sale, when she realized that she didn't need a ficense, she
notified the Department of Human Services.
Ms. Diane Loundeborg, i 039 Ashland Ave, appeared and stated she was a neighbor of the group
home for mentally ill women for 15 years. In July of 1998, she realized that the building was empty
and called Nancy Nomans inquiring about what uses could be established in the building. it was
a burden on the neighborhood to have that group home there because of the traffic and activity.
Tfie groundskeeper stated the group home was ciosed and it was up for sale. She also stated she
toured the group home at the end of August with the reai estate agent and Ms. Larson and it was
compfefe(y empty. They listed it as a boarding home. A year later, she confirmed with Ms.
Homans that the 365 days had expired and the nonconforming use permit had terminated. At that
point there was some activify going on so the real estate agent was contacted by telephone and
was informed that the 365 days had elapsed so there would be no misunderstanding. It is her
perspective that the use was discontinued when the building was vacant.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gordon about the rea( esfate agenYs reaction to her
call, Ms. Loundeborg stated the reai estate agent cut her short and hung up the phone in haste.
She indicated that she could not remember the agenYs name. She also stated she foured the
residence no later ihan the end of August 1998 and that Ms. Larson stated the group home was �
closed.
In response to a question from Commissioner Anfang about whether the real estate name could
have been McHale or Smith, Ms. Loundeborg stated McHale sounded familiar.
In response to a question from Commissioner Field about her familiarity with the zoning code
provisions related to nonconforming uses, Ms. Loundeborg stated her first dealing with the
nonconforming use permit provisions came when she contacted Ms. Homans office to tind out what
the status of the building was. She was informed them that is was a group home aliowed in the
-,,,.,:.,,, ���{rG�c hP�a� �sP rt was established before the zoning code was adopted in 9 974. The status
After the 36 day per odCanother nonconforming �use would require fhe signatures of surrounding
property owners.
Mr. David Quimby,1020 Laurel Avenue, appeared and stated the previous nonconforming use was
a licensed and chartered activity and the total number couid go up to 32 people. The current
activity is not licensed or chartered and is a private activity.
The applicant declined an opportunity to rebut and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Faricy presented ihe followirtg motion:
The Zoning Committee finds that the previous use of the property was maintained at least
until January 27,1999, and thaf, wfien the appticant entered into a purchase agreement on
November 13, 1999 and the subsequent ciosing on that agreement on January 20, 2000,
with the intention of operating a sober house on the property, this represented a�
continuation of the previous nonconforming use with an interval of fewer than 365 days.
Therefore, based on these facts and other relevant facts contained in the sfaff report ,the
Zoning Committee recommends to the Planning Commission that Buffalo 5ober House be
Zoning File #O1-123-292 Ol -r ��
• May 3, 2001
Page: 7
granted a Special Condition Use Permit with the following conditions.
1. The total number of residents in the structure between the 1wo units does not exceed
24.
2. A site ptan for off-street parking be submitted to the Department ofi license Inspection
and Environmentai protection and any requirements imposed to the site plan and/or various
requests be adhered to.
3. To minimize traffic congesfion in the area, regular group AA meeting meetings at the
house be confined to the 24 residents of the house and their sponsors.
4. The Special Condition Use Permit would expire upon any change of use.
Commissioner Morton seconded it.
Commissioner Gordon stated he would vote against the motion because it would be a gross
distortion of the code. He further stated that it ignores reality to conclude that this use was not
discontinued or ceased to exist any fater than August of 1998. The last resident feft'sn August. The
only viable contract was with Ramsey County and that was terminated. There was testimony that
Ms. Larson stated she closed the business. That evidence cannot be ignored to enabfe the BuffaVo
Sober Group to operate. The code is phrased in terms of the previous use being discontinued or
ceasing to exist, not in terms of the previous business being terminated or ceasing to exist. The
use was a group home and it was no longer used as a group home as of August 1998.
� Commissioner Faricy expiained that she ran an art business for several years and it took a year
and a-half to coilect the money that was due. She stated that she was still in the art business until
she closed the books.
Commissioner Morton stated she would support the motion because, using the Rule 36 License,
the business could have been in operation until March 1, 2000 if the owner was in business until
she soid the property. The fact that she didn't fiave Ramsey County residents doesn't mean she
couldn't have residents.
Commissioner Aiton asked if the neighbors wouid have recourse to challenge an action by the
Planning Commission that is essentially a reversal of a decision already made by the City
Council—that the previous use had been discontinued for more than 365 days when the sober
house was established. Mr. Warner explain�d that any party has a right to appeal. The history ot
this case, however, includes the fact that the City Council asked the City Attorney for advice with
respect to whether the City shouid make a reasonable accommodation to allow this use to be
estab(ished. At the time, he made a presentation to the Council outlining the legai history and
indicating that one of the requirements established by the Courts is that appiicants have to indicate
what kind of accommodation they are seeking. In this case, there was no accommodation
specified in the application. The City Council, in their denial of the appeal, left open the option of
the applicants returning to the Planning Commission with an application specifying the
accommodation they sought.
Commissioner Alton foliowed up that the motion before the committee does not make a
reasonable accommodation. It, rather, determines that, as a factual matter, the use had not been
• discontinued for more than 365 days.
Mr. Warner explained Buffalo Sober House made an appiication for a Nonconforming Use Permit
that was denied by the Zoning Committee and the Planning Commission. Buffalo Sober House
appealed that to the City Council. The City Councif uphefd that appeal and one of the findings that
Zoning File #O1-123-292
May 3, 2001 •
Page: 8 =
the Planning Commission had made was that this use had ceased to exist in excess of 365 days.
That is a previous decision that the commission made. In essence, what is before the committee
now is an application for a Determination of Similar Use and ancillary application with respect to
the 365 day issue. The difference is that there is new evidence related to the timeline. What
Buffalo Sober Group has asked for is not precluded procedurally. Adequate notice has been
mailed. There is no procedural deficiency in Commissioner Faricy's motion. The motion, however,
sf�oufd, based on the findings related to 365 clays, granf a Change in Nonconforming Use Permit
rather than a Special Condition Use Permit. Similarly, the conditions that are proposed are not
appropriate to a Nonconforming Use Permit.
Ms. Homans stated that the alternative application for a De#ermination of Similar Use ailowed for
the issuance of a SCUP because some of the uses to which it could have been judged to be similar
require Special Condition Use Permits.
Commissioner Faricy corrected her motion to grant a Change of Nonconforming Use Permitwithout
any conditions. Commissioner Morton seconded it.
Commissioner Anfang explained that in the Legislative Code, Section 60.221, the definition of "use"
is "the principal purpose for which a land or a building is being occupied." !f the last resident moved
out on August 21, 1998, the nonconforming use was discontinued on August 21, 1998.
Commissioner Faricy stated that regard(ess of when the last person moved out, the group home �
manager was not out of business, and so the use was stiti there. Any other county could have
called and she could have had to put people in there.
!n response To Commissioner Field's posing a hypothetical case in which Ms. Larson did not seil
her building, but, instead, chose, after one year, to take additional residents, Commissioner
Gordon made two points f J tf Ms. Larson had decided to continue in her business and Ramsey
County did not terminate the contract the case would not exist. Ms. Larson, however, closed her
business in August of 1998, the contract was terminated and she stated she closed her business.
2) Another licensed facility could have been established. Buffalo Sober House is not a licensed
facility.
Commissioner Kramer made the paint if the group home had-been unoccupied foc_365_days and
the owner decided she wanted to re-establish the use, neighborhood residents could have
appealed, maintaining that the 365 days had passed and a nonconforming use could not be re-
estab(ished.
Commissioner Alton stated he was troubled by the fact they previously found this use did lapse for
365 days and it would be wrong to vote contrary to that at this meeting. He also stated he was
impressed by the testimony of Ms. Loundeborg who was quite convincing as to when this use
disconEinued. !t woe�ld 6e #icfionat to say fhat a_use continues after the business that is the use
ceases operation. He was aiso concemed about the fact that they were seeking to gran# fo fhe
applicant a use thaf would allow them to have 36 people in the residence. There are no conditions
imposed upon the permit. The appiicant did not attempt to get a license from the City of St. Paul
or approval to do their business out of this piace. They just started operating their business and �
now this motion would have the committee find that they don't need to apply, or follow the rules.
They would just be aliowed to operate with up to 36 people and that would be wrong.
Commissioner Morton moved to call the question and end debate. The motion passed. There was
oi.ta-�
Zoning File #O1-123-292
• May 3, 2001 -
Page: 9
a roli caii vote on the Faricy motion. The motion failed by a vote of 2-6 with Kramer, Anfang,
Gordon, Alton, Mejia, and Field voting against.
r�
�
Commissioner Gordon moved to approve the staff recommendation with two changes:
1. That the reference to "terminated" in the third line on page 14 be changed to "discontinued or
ceased to exist"
2. Add as another fiinding or condition that "Aithough the facifity does not compiywith the distancing
requirements of the code, those requirements are being waived as a reasonable accommodation.
Commissioner Alton seconded it.
In response to a question from Commissioner Alton reiative to the distance requirement, Ms.
Fiomans stated the distance requirement was a requisement for the psevious special condition use
and is listed among the conditions for shelters of battered persons. On page 11 of the staff report,
finding number A, sub i, indicates that there is a distance requirement for shelters for battered
persons and, were that applied in this instance, the condition would not be met because of the two
existing facilities within 1320 feet of 97 North Oxford. The question was raised at the last meeting
whether the Planning Commissioner had ever previously modified that condition. 7here were two
instances in the last ten years where it was modified for specific reasons outlined in the additional
information provided to the committee during the week. She suggested that she could create a
third paragraph on page 15 of the staff report saying that, refative to the distance requirement that
is imposed on similar uses in the RT-1 district, the City makes a reasonable accommodation and
waives that distance requirement in this case. She also stated Commissioner Gordon's condition
adequately addresses the finding related to the distance requirement.
The motion passed by a vote of 53 with Kramer, Morton, Faricy voting against.
Adopted Yeas - 5
Drafted by:
Nays - 3 (Kramer, Morton, Faricy)
Submitted by:
Approved by:
C_ -�"'T �f'uM.��e,ec.1U
Carol Martineau
Recording Secretary
�
a� Homans
Zoning Section
Litton Field
Chair
u
o� � r��
•
�
�
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, Apri15, 2001- 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3`� Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
PRESENT:
EXGUSED:
Anfang, Alton, Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, Mejia, and Morton
OTHERS Peter Warner
PRESENT: Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson, Nancy Homans of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
Buffalo Sober Group LLC - 01-123-292 - Determination of Similar Use to establish whether a
sober house for 24 residents is similar to a family, and, therefore, permitted in the RT-i Zoning
District. - 97 N. O�ord Street, between Laurel and Ashland
Nancy Homans showed slides and presented the staff report. She updated information related to
the finding to be made by the Planning Commission for a determination of similar use re4ated to
the amount of traffic generated. The staff report indicated that the applicant had agreed to submit
a required site plan indicating how much off-sireet parking is provided on the site. in the interim,
the site plan has been submitted and shows 13 spaces, three of which may not be allowed because
they are either in the required front yard or stacked in the rear driveway. She concluded by
outlining the staff's recommendation that a sober house for sixteen resident be found to be similar
to other permitted uses in the RT-1 zoning district. Staff further recommendsthat, becausethe use
to which the sober house is most similar—a sheiter for up to 16 battered persons—is permitted
subject to special conditions, the sober house be granted a Special Condition Use Permit with the
conditions outiined in the staff report.
!n response to a question from Commissioner Faricy, Ms. Homans stated thatthere are othersober
houses located in Saint Paul, but many of them may not be legal zoning uses. The requirement
that cities make reasonab4e accommodation for such uses wili require that the circumstances of
each one be looked at individually. At the conclusion of this case, and after review of some of the
other sober houses, it may be appropriate for the Pianning Gommission to recommend text
amendments related to their definition and regulation.
in response to a question from Commissioner Gordon. related to whether the Planning Commission
would be required by the provisions of the �ederaf Fair tiousing Act Amendments to modify a
condition related to distance from other community residential facilities, Mr. Warner indicated that
it would depend on how ihe Commission had treated simiiar cases in the past. Commissioner
Gordon asked Ms. Homans if she had information on previous Planning Commission decisions
related to modification of the distance requirement. She said that, while she had anecdotal
information, she did not have a complete analysis, but that she couid provide it at a subsequent
meeting.
Commissioner Gordon asked Ms. Homans if she had any further information on or ciarification of
the recommendation from the Summit University Planning Council thattheywould "accept the staff
Zoning Committee Minutes
April 5, 2001
File #: 01-123-292
Page 2
recommendation except repiace 16 residents with 15 or whatever appropriate number can be
Iegally documented." Ms. Homans responded that she was not at the meeting and did not have
any additional information about the discussion.
Mr. Mark Gehan, representing the applicant, appeared and made the following points: (1) An
accommodation that ailows only 16 residents is no accommodation at all, because the operation
is not financially viable with 16 residents; (2) Their preference was to ask for a reasonable
accommodation related to extending the time period within wfiich a new nonconforming use can
apply to the Planning Commission for a Change in Nonconforming Use Permit, but that the
application for a Determination of Similar Use was City staff's preference; (3) While the ana(ogy
to a battered women's shelter is not their analogy, it is not a bad analogy inasmuch as a sheiter for
sixteen aduits and their chiidren would involve substantially more than 16 people; (4) They wili
present testimony that 23 people provide a better iherapeuti� environment than do i 6 people; and
(5) This is a worthwhile project. it would be good for the City to provide a reasonable
accommodation to allow tfiem to continue to operate.
In response to a question from Commissioner Alton related to how the Sober House would
compare to a family, Mr. Gehan indicated that the residents are united by a common goal, they
attend meetings together, eat together and counsel each other. Commissioner Alton asked
whether the City should aliow any number of residents in order to reasonably accommodate the
economic conditions of the applicant. Mr. Gehan said that the financial circumstances should not
be ignored.
Commissioner Gordon asked whether, if it took 100 residents to achieve financial viability, the City
woufd be obligafed to accommodate that many. Mr. Gehan said that he was not presenting those
facts. In response to Commissioner Gordon's question as to where the line shouid be, Mr. Gehan
indicated that financial viability should nof be the onfy test. He went on to say that the previous
occupants of the building housed 40 peopie and that the building's renovation now provides for
better accommodations for 24 residents than did the previous permitted nonconforming use.
Commissioner Faricy asked whether the applicants believed that their use was "grandfathered in`
' a. Mr_ Gehan responded that the appraiser's report provided by
Universiry National Bank, who provided the p_r_oject s inancing, in
wouid be "grandfathered in." They discovered ihe error affer closing and after they had made -
substantial renovations when notified by the LIEP that they were not a legal zoning use.
Mr. Gehan referred a question from Commissioner Field related to when the purchase agreement
for the property was executed to Walter Dinalko. Mr. Dinafko reported that the purchase
agreement was executed on December 9, 1999. He went on to say that an original purchase
agreement was prepared, but not dated or signed on October i3, 1999.
Mc Dinalko and Mr. Jeff Gardner; Partners in`Btiffato Sober �roup;-LLG, appeaceti before.t_e
committee. Mr. Dinalko said that ihey did not have a!ot more to add except that they had asked
for a reasonable accommodation from "day one," but that it had been overlooked or ignored. He
said that they were not asking to be compared to a battered women's shelYer; that comparison is
being made by the City Attorney and Nancy Homans. A battered women's shelter for sixteen
women, however, would include at least sixteen children for a totai of 32 residents. He said that
the buiiding is configured the way is was when they bought it with 21 separate rooms and one large
kitchen and dining area. The building, he said, can't be used for anything e(se. They fiave scaled
•
�
u
ot .ga�
. Zoning Committee Minutes
April 5, 2001
File #: 01-123-292
Page 3
back the occupancy from 42 residents of the previous use to 23. W ith 23 residents paying $400
a month, they are bringing in $9600 a month. They cannot charge higher rents without defeating
the therapeutic value of the facility. In the first year of a person's sobriety, it is important fior them
to ho4d the least stressful'}ob they can. Those tend to be low-paying jobs. The current rents are
pushing the limit for many of the residents. Commissioner Field noted that they had been provided
an income and expense statement, but not a balance sheet. Mr. Dina�ko responded that fhey
could provide a balance sheet. When asked about the nature of the LLC, Mr. Dinalko reported that
it was a partnership involving himself and Jeff Gardner. Commissioner Gordon asked them if they
were seeking a reasonable accommodation related to ihe Determination of Similar Use and an
accommodation of the distance requirement from othes residential facilities. Mr. Dinalko replied
that their request is spelled out in their application. Mr. Gardner indicated that they are requesting
any accommodation the committee is wifling to give them. Commissioner Gordon asked them how
the use came to the attention of City. Mr. Dinalko replied that responding to that question would
take a long time. Ms. Homans indicated that a complaint had been registered with LIEP statf who
then visited the facility.
Mr. John Curtis,1258 Goodrich Avenue, indicated that hewas appearing in support of the applicant
in three capacities: (1) as a neighbor, (2) as a professional in the field of recovery with 24 years of
experience with Hazelden and 3 at the Retreat; and (3) as President of a national haifway house
� association. When working with Fellowship Club, a 55 bed facility off of West Seventh Street, he
reported that he had been told by St. Paul police officers that they didn't have to worry about
activity around the facility since the residents tended to raise the social norms of the surrounding
area by their commitment to responsibility, a work ethic, sobriety and taking care of one another.
On the question of the most appropriate size for a facility such as this from a therapeutic
standpoint, he reported that Hazelden is a 200 bed facility. Their experience has been that the
ideai size is between 20 and 24 residents inasmuch as it is small enough to create a sense of
community and large enough to promote safety in numbers. Most haifway houses around the
country have between 20 and 30 beds. He indicated that Buffalo Sober House is trying to do an
honorable task. They are people totaliy committed to providing a community service. He himself
went through treatment and benefitted from a setting such as is provided by Buffalo Sober House.
W hen evaluating facilities such as this, one should determine whether it provides enough square
feet per person to create a dignified and safe environment. The A00 sq ft per person at Buffalo
Sober House exceeds the Housing Code standards. The buiiding can easiiy house 23-24 peopfe
and promote dignity and respect. Commissioner Field asked if 24 residents is better than 16
residents from a therapeutic perspective. Mr. Curtis responded that, by and large, mosi programs
have found that 20-30 residents is an ideal size.
The Reverend Darry4 Spence, representing ihe Board of Directors of the Summit University
Planning Council, said that he was at the meeting at which the SUPC made its recommendation.
Afier a discussion on the difference between 15, 16 or 23 residents—except on the financiai
statement—the representative of Buffalo Sober House reported that the preference stated by the
Oxford House organization for 8-i 5 residents was based on the square footage of most Oxford
House facilities and that they wouid bring documentation of that fact to the zoning committee .
� meeting. He went on to say that of the nine pofice calls attributabfe to 97 North Oxford, eight
originated from inside the building. 7hat indicates, he said, that the sober house polices itself and
is not a nuisance.
Mr. Thomas Meier, on-site caretaker for Buffalo Sober House at 97 North Oxford, reported that he
Zoning Committee Minutes
Apri15, 2001
File #: 01-123-292
Page 4
has no financial interest in Buffalo Sober Group. It has been his responsibility to determine the
appropriate number of residents. �hey began at 32, though there were up to 40 women in the
previous use, and have reduced the total to 24 because that has proven to be more reasonable and
comfortable for everyone. His second point was ffiat the bui(ding had been vacant for a long time
before the sober house moved in because there are not many uses for such a building. The only
other use he could think of is a coilege dormitory. If the sober house is not a(lowed to remain, the
truilding will be vacant and stay vacant. Part of their goal has been to make things better. The
committee should focus on the farsightedness of the venture rather than the technical aspects of
the law.
�
Ms. Anne Hinrichs,1060 Lauret Avenue, appeared in opposition. She said that there is no question
about the need for such a facility, 6ut that it should be required to operate under the law. She was
concerned that, even after they became aware that they were not a legal zoning use, they
continued to spend money on the renovation of the building. The financial viability of the program
is not the community's problem. if they are now operating at a loss, what wilf happen to the strict
application of the house rules (e.g. random drug tests)? There is no one on staff providing therapy.
If they are considered to be similar to a family, who is the leader or advisor playing the role a parent
woutd piay in a family? The property is zoned for a duplex which would allow up to 8 residents.
Sixteen is double that and is too many. The facility should be aliowed to accommodate only 10
residents and the conditions recommended by staff related to AA meetings and the expiration of
the permit upon sale of the property should be enforced. �
Mr. David Quimby, 1020 Laurei Avenue, discussed the importance of identifying objective and
documented criteria related to the appropriate number of residents so thaf it wifl not be judged
discriminatory. Ne introduced the language in the Summit University Planning Council's
recommendation because he beiieved that 15 was a defensible number but he acknowledged that
some other evidence might be presented to justify an alternative size. He read several statements
from the nationai Oxford House website indicating that 8-15 residents works well, and that fewer
than six residents is difficult to maintain because of the fact that any vacancy causes a disruption
to the financial welfare of the house.
Ms. Mary Rea,1056 Laurel Avenue,_indicated that_she is person � ��
of residents currently in the sober house, but is in support of the reooVery of the persons who tive
there. The issue is the zoning and the number of peopie living in a residential neighborhood zoned
RT-1. She said she believed that they are an open and diverse neighborhood that is willing to
make reasonable accommodations. Most believe, however, that 23-24 people is too many. She
noted that this decision will set a precedent for the future and consideration should be given to how
this will affect future cases. If more than 16 persons are a0owed in this facility, the case could be
made by battered women's shelters—which carefully controi the total number of residents to the
_, pQU�t o# turnin�away_women at risk—that they should be al(owed to have more residents. it is an
issue of fairness. Commissioner Morton asked`iftFie previous R�{e36 fiaciliiy had presented,any
problems to the neighborhood. Ms. Rea indicated that those residents were generalfy medicated,
were not often outside their home and did not create traffic or noise. �
Ms. Sfiannon O'Keefe,1051 Ashiand Avenue, said that the Buffalo Sober House moved in without �
appropriate license or certificate of occupancy and with disregard for the effect it would have on
the neighborhood. She noted that some of the concerns the facility brings to the neighborhood
zoned RT-1 are parking, traffic and noise. There are 2 other community residential facilities within
d�.���
Zoning Committee Minutes
� Aprii 5, 2001
File #: 01-123-292
Page 5
the required 1320 feet of this buiiding, 3 other apartment buildings (with no off-street parking), a
church across the street and a school one block away. The sober house only adds to the traffic
and parking congestion. In the winter, the off-street parking problems are exacerbated by the
snow. She passed out photographs that, she said, indicated that the snow had not been removed
over the winter, there were 3 dumpsters in the off-street parking lot and residents were parking on
the street. The impact is equivalent to that of a commercial business. She asked how fhe City wilf
regulate the number of cars related to the residents of the facility.
Mr. Bruce McMahn, 1026 Portiand Avenue, indicated that he was at the Summit University
Planning Council meeting and that it was not his impression thai most people there supported
allowing 24 residents. His concerns related to the fact that Buffalo Sober House is affiliated with
no organization and no license is required. He was concernedthatthere are no "ru{es" estabiished
by a licensing organization and no recourse for the neighborhood if there are problems. He also
raised the issue of transiency. While one might imagine that there are 24 people living there
continuously over the course of a year, he said he asked Mr. Gardner about the length of time
peopte stay and was told thatthere have been 1 i-i 2 people there for the whole year that they have
been in operation and 50-60 total residents forsome period during the year. The moving in and out,
he beiieves, creates further disturbances and more tratfic.
Mr. ,fan Carr,1000 Portiand Avenue, ind'+cated that the neighborhood is concerned that there are
� too many residential facilities in the neighborhood and that there is no recourse if this facility should
become a nuisance. Fie asked the committee to use good common sense.
Mr. Gehan appeared in rebuttal and acknowledged the neighbors' concern about their
neighborhood, but felt that it reflected some Not-In-My-Back-Yard sentiment. He further
emphasized that the sober house is exceeding the pubfic health standards for such a facility. Each
resident has 415 square feet of living quarters. He said that the Oxford House line of cases
referred to in the staff report have arisen because those sober houses have moved into singie
family homes which are smalier and, therefore, can accommodate fewer residents. In this case,
the Buffalo Sober House is a successor facility in a building that was previously used as an
institution. The building, he said, is perfect for 24 residents.
Commissioner Morton asked Mr. Dinalko about the average length of stay for a resident. He
indicated that it was 8 months to 1 year and that 17 of the original 23 residents still live in the
house. That represents, he said, an outstanding record of longevity and sobriety. He said that a
site plan with 14 parking spaces was submitted to the City, but that they are self-limiting the
number of residents who can have cars to 8. He went on to explain that the snow had not been
shoveled because of damage to the exterior of the building that is now being repaired. He
concluded by saying that they were always aware of the 365 day requirement and that ihey made
the assumption that they were "weli within" the 365 days for a change in nonconforming use.
The public hearing was closed.
� Commissioner Faricy, saying she was troubled by the lack of information related to prior Planning
Commission decisions on modifying distance requirements for community residential facilities,
moved to lay the case over until April 19, 2001 to give staff time to provide that information. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Morton.
Zoning Committee Minutes
Aprii 5, 2001
File #: 01-123-292
Page 6
Commissioner Gordon, in saying that he supported the motion for a lay over, listed several
concerns in addition to the need for information about modifications to the distance requirement
from two facilities; (1) A residence for 24 people is not similar to a 16-person shelter for battered
women. It is dissimilar because it is 50 percent more peopie; and (2) The financial considerations
cannot drive this decisions because there wouid be no determination of where to draw the line.
According to the staff report, the experience of Oxford House has shown that 8-15 residents works
well.
The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
���--_.�ti� �
Carol Martineau
Recording Secretary
; �-, t���
Nancy H mans
Zoning Section
�
u
i
e �.ra'�
�
Materials Produced and
Received
After the Zoning Committee
Packet was Prepared
�
�
_.. _ . ...: ..... :.. ....... _ ,........ _._ .....,.,. _._.._� _ ,� . : �.._.�.�.. : .._�..,, ....:...,,._.,_..,.....,................ .................:,,. _...:..�._.. _....__......_...._ ,....,,.,..: P ,...:,...:..
Nancy_Homans - Zonin Committtee LettecDOC _ e 1>
�Dfl�vlc., �II�
J �d � '
BUFFALO SOBER GROUP LLC
97North Oxford Siree[
Saint Pau� Minnesota 55104
TO: Litton E.S. Field, Jr.
Brian Alton
Matt Anf�g
Cazole Murphy Faricy
Stephen D. Gordon
Richazd J.F. Kramer
Matt Mejia
Gladys Morton
FROM:
!7�
lfieldg@tcfield.com
brian a�cclay-alton.com
m_anfang a�otmail.com
(651) 699-0432 (fax)
wloppet@visi.com
RJFKramer@aol.com
(651) 298-0920
gladysmort@aol.com
Waker Dinalko and Jeffrey Gazdner
a�
1Z3- Z�Z
Application of Buffalo Sober House for a Determination of Similaz Use
Before the Zoning Committee of the Samt Paul Planning Commission
Deaz Chair Field and Members of the Zoning Committee:
The Buffalo Sober House has been open for business for one yeaz at 97 North
Oxford Street. In spite of many difficult obstacles, it continues to operate as one of the
premier, successful sober houses in the nation.
Our purpose in writing is to attempt to pezsuade you that the optimum and
necessazy number of residents for Buffalo House to operate is twenty four (24) residents.
In determining the optimum number of residents we used a four-part analysss:
1. Cost;
2. Density, eacpressed in terms of livable squaze-footage per resident;
3. Affordability; and
4. Therapeutic value.
The costs associated with maint 3inina the Buffalo House aze set forth in the table
below. These costs do not include legal fees of $31,000.00 incurred over this past yeaz in
seeking the determination that is presently before the Zoning Committee. It is worth
noting that the house budget is tight it has been necessary for us to amortize those fees
over the neact forty-eight months in order to balance our income and costs.
As you can see our monthly budget has very little room for vaziance and is
essentially fixed. We would be defeating the purpose of providing affordable, safe, and
___. m. .,__ .,_..__... ,�_ __ __ ,... . _ -- -
_ _ ___ ,�.__._� .
Nancy Hqmans - Zonin� Committtee Lefter DOC , Page 2_�
supportive housing for those in eazly recovery from chemical dependency if we charged
any more than $400.00 per month that is currently in place. Therefore, if we aze ]imited to
the sixteen (16) residents proposed in the staff recommendation raYher than the twenty-
four (24) residents were seek to serve we would be, quite simply, unable Yo operate.
We consider ourselves to be on the front ]ine of the waz on drugs in this country.
The important distinction between what we do in the field of recovery and what the
government does in the fieid of prevention is that we aze successfui. Staristicaity we have a
sustained recovery rate of over 65% measured during the year of our operarion. We aze
provid'mg an environment where individuals desire and take pride in becoming producrive
healthy citizens. Please beaz in muid that these aze men who othenvise at worst would be
engaged 'm crimival activity, and at best would be a drain on society. Merely thea� des'se
and willingness have proven tmie and tmie again to not be enough to sustain thea
recovery. If this desire and willuigness is combined with a strong twelve-step program
and safe, stable, affordable housmg far some period of time, the chances for successfiil,
sustained recovery increase dramatically. We operate in3ependent of azry governmental
funding. We aze not in the business of wazehousing alcoholics; we aze in the business of
providing a safe, sober, supportive environment as a step in a journey of a new life.
In her report, Nancy Homans compazes us to a business of rumiuig shekers for
battered persons with children. There is an miportant distinction. Most such shelteis aze
undenvritten by state programs and supported with ta�cpayer dollars. Given that Buffalo
House operates without direct govemmental funding, it would be financially impossble to
sustain the venture with less than twenty four (24) residents and still keep the cost
at£ordable to the individual resident. We have arade a conscious decision, which we
believe is the only rational one under the circumstances, to spend out time, effort and
limited funds on creating a therapeutic environment, rather than chasing a constantly
diminishing pot of govemmental dollazs avadable to enterprises such as Buffalo House.
In speaking to the issue of density Ms. Homans bases her azgument for a maximum
of sixteen (16) residents individuals on what we believe aze a number of faulty premises.
In her analysis, Ms. Homans speaks of our building as if it was a single family home or a
smail duplex
number of residenfs u ten (10) fo thuteeri (13). We agree that is the substance of the
federal court rulmgs. However, those ten (10) to thirteen (13) residents are fioused in
smgle-family housmg units of no more than 3000 total squaze-feet of living space.
Please consider the Oxford House on Grand Avenue. T'hat builduig is a duplex
with azound 2,300 squaze feet of living space per side. The total of 4,600 squaze feet of
living space is apportioned among eighteen (18) residents, provid'mg only 255 squaze feet
of living space per resident.
_:
Please compaze Buffalo House also to the sober house located at the corner of
Summit Avenue and Victoria Street, That structure, another duplex, has less that 3,500
squaze feet, yet houses fourteen (14) residents, provid'mg only 250 squaze feet of living
space per resident.
2
»..H., _...._.�_......._....�_.:..__._.......�_.._..:....�.�__..:.._ ..�_��.._�... .:.:.�.....:..._._.�..._..._.....� .............H__..� _. ..._���._...._...._ . ,:. ._..___.....,...: :,: ��..__....:.:.:
Nancy Homans__ Zonin�,Committtee LettecDOC . Page 3
0\ -�
Finally please compaze Buffalo House to the sober house located on Oneida Street
in Saint Paul, which houses thuteen (13) residents m a total of 2,200 squaze feet, less than
170 square feet of livmg space per resident.
By compazison, Buffalo House has over 10,000 square feet of living space located
not in a smgle family home or a duplex but m an apartment build"mg located at 97 North
O�ord Street.
The prior non-confomung use at the location allowed for up to forty-two (42)
residents. We seek to serve only riventy-four (24) residents. The structure is solidly
partitioned 'm to twenry-rivo (22) individual rooms with a single large kitchen, dinmg azea,
and seven (7) full baths. In contrast to the other faciliries mentioned ui Ms. Homans'
report and which we discussed above, Buffalo House provides an average of over 415
squaze feet in livmg space per resident.
If Buffalo House was restricted to sixteen (16) residents, each resident would have
625 squaze feet of living space. At the same time, Ms. Homans concedes that the Saint
Paul housing code requires only 150 square feet for the Srst resident and an additional 100
square-feet for each addirional resident. Put another way, at twenty-four (24) residents,
Buffalo House has four times the amount of space required by the housing code. If
limited to sixteen (16) residents, Suffalo House would have over six times the required
square feet of living space per resident.
With respect to traffic and pazking issues Buffalo House limits the number of
resident vehicles to eight even though the building has off-street parking for twelve
vehicles.
Most people suffering from the disease of alcohot or drug addiction who have
reached the point in their lives where they have suffered enough from the disease that they
want to seek help, statistically are more successful at sustaining their sobriety if they spend
that first yeaz to yeaz and half concentrating on recovery as their number one priority.
Even for those from high-paying cazeers like doctors, lawyers and airline pdots aze
encouraged to work a low paying job with little or no stress. There aze also a great
number who have literally lost all of their material goods to this horrifyuig disease. It is
absolutely crucial that we be allowed to sustain an affordable rent. Again we did not pick
the number out of the air. It is a well_thought out number that compazes to sober houses
across the nation. It fits in to a minimum wage pay scale. Agam we would be defeating
the purpose of safe supportive, affordable housing if we were to place the added stress of
increased rents on these already wlnerable adults.
We will have IvI�. John Curtis, former president of the National Association of
Halfway azid 3ober Houses speaking to the therapeutic value to the individuals in our
facility. Suffice it to say that we aze self- limiting out of respect and deference to the issue
of density in the neighborhood. Therapeutically the proof is in the remazkable number of
individuats we have had in residence on a continuous basis for past yeaz.
That number is eighteen (18), an unheard of sustained recovery rate for such a period.
This is absolutely remazkable. These gentlemen love their home and the newfound lease on
life it has afforded them! Thank you for time, attention and consideration.
_.___,_. , .___ ..___.__ ..,,,. . r___w___ .,, __ .__ - _. ___..., ._ -- __
Nancy Homans - Zoning Committtee LettecDOC , Page 4;
BUFFALO SOBER GROUPLLC
97Nor[h Oxford Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104
Monthlv Emensu bv CateQOrv
December. 2000
349.39
545.00
879.71
Properry Insurance
Property Tas Escrow
Total P.LT.I.
Cras & Electric
Trash Removal
Cable & Intemet
Total IItili6es _ _ _
Waees. House Manaeer
Total
$
�
.47
Januarv. 20001
$ 3_560.
349.39
5
a
FROM � RSRFEHRUEN)) ]�LINOIS PHONE N0. = 7739777601 qpr. 03 2091 03�42PM P3
The Assaciation of Halfway House Alcoholism Programs of �` _r}7
S�pNOF//q�E, North America,.Inc.
` �oG�,MS DfNp9y7,J,oG
���s" 5 Ridgeview Road, P.O. Box 6I0
�°r�v�'= Kechonksoq NY 12446-Ob10
3 �� � (914) 626-2684
� ST, pAJ� • Fax: (914) 626-2685
k+MnESb�* '
e-mail: AHHAPQa AOL.com
Aptil2, 2001 "
Jef&ey Gamer
42$ Dayton Avenue
St. Pau1, MN 55102
Dear Jeffrey:
Thanlc you for your inquiry wncerning city housing codes, �herapeutic environments and
building capacity for residents in Sober Huusing.
One of the qucstions your neighbors have presented is "Is having 24 residents in u
housing wrnplex therapeutic?" You bet it is. On a national level Haif Way
� HouseslRecovery Hoaxs usually nverage abom 20-30 residems and with Sobec Housin�
the average is anywherc from 25-80 resideirts, based on thc sue of the housing complex.
As long as the complex is following city codes, housing residents with substance abuse
issues would be the same us housing any other citizen in that Iocality. Furthermore, it is
cost effective azui rehabilitative to residents who reside there.
If any of the community legislators or residents should have questions, please fee! free to
give them my number uul address. They should be giving you an accommodation for
providing a worthwhile service to peopk who reside in the area. These lwuses stabilize
communities.
Sincerely,
��:c.`'�n l_�)��'"��
Allen (Skip) Land
1'reside�rt
AI-IfIAP
SUpI
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Co7eman, Mayar
w+�
DAT'E: April 12, 2001
�
�
FROM:
�
Zoning Committee
Nancy Homans'�}�'
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
&ECANOMICDEVEIAPMENT � �'�
Brian Sweeney, Directar � 1
25WestFwrU+Street Telephone:651-2666655
$aintPaul,MN55102 Facsimi1e:651-22&3314
Zoning File # 01-I23-292: Buffalo Sober Group, LLC
The purpose of this memo is to inform the committee of new developments related to the Buffalo
Sober House case and to recommend a course of action for the committee's consideration.
Current Status
On Aprii 5, 2001, the zoning committee heid a public hearing on the application of Buffalo Sober
Group, LLC for a Aetermination of Similar Use that a sober house for 24 adults is similar to a
family, a permitted use in the RT-1 zoning district. The public hearing was closed and the
committee began its discussion of the case.
Commissioner Faricy moved a two-week lay over to allow staff to gather information on previous
Planning Commission decisions relative to the modification of distance requirements for
community residential facilities. I am still in the process of gathering that information and will
fonvazd it to members of the committee as soon as it is compiled.
New Information Received by Staff
On Monday, April 9, 2001, Mark Vaught, a representative of the applicant, called me with
information related to the temunation of the previous use which he believes establishes that the
use had not be discontinued for more than 365 days when Buffalo Sober Crroup, LLC purchased
the properry. At the same time, I received a copy of a letter from Mark Gehan to Litton Field, 7r.
indicating that additional information would be provided to the committee. I believe that the
information referred to by Mr. Gehan is that provided over the phone by Mr. Vaught. I have,
however, not yet received the written material.
On the phone, Mr. Vaught relayed the following:
1. A binding purchase agreement for the property was executed on or about November 15,
1999.
� 2. The Mitmesota Department ofHuman Services' Rule 36 License for Oakland Home, the
residential facility for women with mental illness that previously occupied the building, did
not expire until March 2000.
Zoning Committee
April 12, 2001
Pagetwo
3. The final payment from Ramsey County for services delivered by Oakland Home before
September 30, 1998 was sent and received in January 1999.
Change in Nunconforming Use Permits
This new informarion relates to the issue of whether the Ptanning Commission should grant
Buffalo Sober House a Change in Nonconforming Use Pernut.
Zoning committee members will recall that the Zoning Code "recognizes that in some
circumstances allowing nonconfornring uses to b� changed to less intense nonconforming uses, or
allowing nonconfocming uses to be reestablisked in vacant buildings, may benefit the city and
surrounding neighborhood." It goes on to establish a process for each of two different
circumstances:
If the structure had been used for some other non-conforming use, and the previous use
had not been discontinued for more than 365 days, the Plannin$ Commission may consider
an application for a Change in Nonconforming Use. The findings relate to con£ormance
with the comprehensive plan, neighborhood impact and differences in traffic impacts.
!
2. If the previous use had been "discontinued or ceased to exist" for more than 365 days, the •
Zoning Code provides that an applicant may apply for a permit to Re-establish a
Nonconfomung Use. Among the findings that the Planning Commission must make is that
there is a consent petition of 2/3 of the property owners within 150 feet.
A Brief History
On August 28, 2000, Buffalo Sober Group applied for a Change in Nonconfomvng Use Pernrit.
The Planning Commission found that the last resident of the previous nonconfornvng use,
Oakland Home (a Rule 36 Licensed Community Residential Facility for persons with mental
expired on September 30, 1998 and was not renewed. They found�-further, Yhat_Buffalo Sober_
Group closed on the purchase of the structure on 7anuary 15, 2000. They concluded, therefore,
that, inasmuch as the previous nonconfomung use had been discontinued for more than 365 days,
the application for a Change in Nonconforming Use was not consistent with either the intent or
specific provisions of the Code. The Commission denied the application. The applicants appeated
to the City Council.
W1ule the City Council denied the appeal, individual council members, citing the City's obligation
under the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments to make reasonable accommodations to meet
the housing needs of persons with disabilities, suggested to Buffalo Sober Group that they re-
apply to the Planning Commission and specify what reasonable accammodation they were
requesting of the City. •
The application now before the Committee requests a reasonable accommodation in the form of a
detemunation that a Sober House for 24 residents is similar to a family, which is a permitted use
of properiy in the RT-1 (Two Family) zoning district.
o�-ra�
�
�
Zoning Committee
April 12, 2001
Pagethree
In the Altemative
The current apglication does include, however, an alternarive request for a reasonable
accommodation that relates to a Change in Nonconforming Use Permit. Essentially, it asks the
Planning Commission to accommodate the applicants by waiving the 365 day time limit within
which an applicant must apply for a change from one non-conforming use to another.
In its review of the current application, staff elected to respond to the principal request—an
accommodation related to a determination of similar use. The submission of new information,
however, indicates the applicant wishes to place more emphasis on the alternative request.
Unresolved Issue
It is not clear, however, whether the applicant is now:
1. Requesting that the Planning Commission make a reasonable accommodation by
waiving the 365 day time limit and accepting and re-considering an application for a
Change in Nonconfornung Use; or
2. Withdrawing their request for a reasonable accommodation, asserting that the new
information indicates that the previous nonconforming use was not discontinued for
more than 365 days, and re-applying for a Change in I3onconforming Use Permit.
Staff Recommendation
In consultation with the City Attorney, planning staff recommends that the committee do the
following:
i.
�
Request a clarification on the issue outlined above if such clarification is not
forthcoming in the interim; and
Schedule a public hearing, with appropriate public notice, on either:
a. A request for a reasonable accommodation related to the 365 day time period
and the Change in Nonconforming Use Pemut; or
b. The re-application for a Change in Nonconfornung Use Pemut on the basis of
new information.
As aiways, please feel free to call me (651-266-6557) if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Enc: Letter from Mark Gehan
cc: Mark Gehan
Mark Vaught
Walter Dinalko
�
DEPARTMENT OF PLAh'h"I\G
& ECONOMIC DEVELOP.VIENT
BrianS�rairy, D"oeuor
0►.Y�
CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Co[eman, Mayor
�
DATE: May 2, 2001
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Members. of the Zoning Committee
Nancy Homans, Planning Staff �
25 West Fowtb Stre� TPlephonc 651-266-6655
SaintPaul,MN55102 Faaimilc651-228-3314
Zoning File #01-123-292: Buffalo Sober Group
At the conclusion of your Apri15 meeting, staff was asked to supply a history of zoning cases
related to community residential facilities and, specifically, any cases in which the Planning
Commission has modified conditions related to the distance between facilities. __
Attached is a table of applications considered since the most recent revisions to the zoning code
were adopted on 7une 27, 1991. As is indicated, there were two cases in which distance
conditions were modified:
1. Women's Advocates, a Shelter for Battered Persons, at 584 Grand Avenue. The
application was for a revised SCUP so that the existing facility could add space for offices.
The distance condition was modified because both the Women's Advocates facility and
the two residential facilities within 1320 feet eacisted prior to the adoption of zoning code
provisions related to distance for Shelters for Battered Persons.
2. Naomi Family Shelter, Emergency Housing, at 77 East 9"' Street. The appiication was
for a SCUP for 12 units of Emergency Housing in the same building as 60 units of
Transitional Housing. The distance condition was modified because the two programs
shared a single building.
Please feel free to call me (651-266-6557) if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Attachment
cc:
Walter DinalkolJeff Gardner
Mark Gehan
Mark Vaught
Peter Warner
�
C
N
N �'
� S
��
= �
� N
�4:
o
a°
�'���
U a� oU�
d
LL
��� Mtnt�
� � r � � ti
'� O O � � �
O �c� �<-r
N6)� O) O� �
.-.
0
c
�
R
m
_
N
N
V V N
� a N
� C N
� O �
a'�•
� U �
N �' 'rn
[�
�
N
C
N
�
�
�
N
L
C
0` �` �
�i:;
U C�Id 0, IUIF`-
z z»
U
C
U � � �'Ql � �J V U
�U�QU� a� �
�
O l�tq<Y�V'� �
� �IN � � V � �
(pIM N�Cfl
�i0 O O
�
�
�� Vj V V� C i
� C = � � C y Q
� � C � � � = N
�. � @ � � � � �
��f �.+�� C
O O � � � O � O
Z Z � � � Z I-Z
LL LL C O
UUF�- �
�
0 0 0 �
U
C
�
�
cD r ¢7 uJ � �
� � �
r W �
� � M
� r M I� �
� � � � �
O O � � r
OO�� 6�0
� � � W O
•
�.W�
Collins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, �
West 1100 Frst National Bank Building
332 Minnesrota $treet
Saint Paui, Minnesota 55101-1379
Te�eptnne: 651-227-0611
Fac 651-227-0753
vxnv.Cb�.net
June 15, 2001
o
wiQ,an,EHa�t+..fr.
x M� d.saiamy
���
nrama�zr�r
zt *Tiwrtas J. GertrsGieid
*,Idm RSchulz
eThanas RO'ConneA
o Dan O..oruiel�
Chrisune LStroemer
^Tiwmas E McEOfstrem
Jennaer A Jameson
Lisa R Hamner
pf Cwlnsei
it:t Theotlae J. Cdlins
Mary L Daridson
1932-7999
Eu9ene D. Buckley
.
Peter Warner
.`�SSisi£il7i i�,lty liitOaia£� � �
City of St. Paul
15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Buffalo Sober House
My File No. I 1780-1
Dear Mr. Warner:
1 encluse a photocopy of the appeal filed by Shannon O'Keefe relative to the Buffalo Sober
House.
As }'ou can see, the Grounds for Appeal are entirely conclusory. In this respect, the appeal faiis
to meet the requirement of Section 64.206(a) which requires an appeliant to "specify the
grounds" for such an appeal.
On behalf of my client, I want to make it clear for the record that I will object at the hearing to
any eifort to amend or supplement this appeal, or to introduce evidence or materials which
should have been incorporated into the appeal itself.
Yours truly,
MARK W. GEFiAN
?�4��JG/mjc
• cc: Walter Dinalko
Mark Vau�ht /
Nancy Homans °
•Also Atlrrvtled m Wiscawn '
iCrvil Tnai Soeoalist Cerufied by ihe Cml LID9aiqn Sec�wn of Ine Mw�esWa State BarASSOCiatan.
SCeroM_d by Rie Nafimal Boartl d Tnai AWOCacyas a Crril Trial Ativoca�e
oCPA,CerthedbytheMimesota9ate9oartlMFCwunWncy oMBAmFu+ance.
� !
Adreh eddd;onel sheet if
ApPiicanYs
�
.. '. . r
� Date s �v 1 �rt �n �_
�
9Ti2@'d bTt'S'R7?tco
GRQUMnS FOR APPEAL: E�cpl��r� µ you feet thete has basn an error in any requ;r�ment,
permit, decision or ��sa! mada by an admintstr�tnre o{�;Ga��_oc an err
findin -rnade v .,e. --
- e annin8 Comm;asion. .
- - - -- - - - - - 1
_£0'd 1tl101
o1 _ra�
GROUNDS FpR AppFar"
i• T1�af the Piacuiing Commission erred in findings and facts in intetpreting gec,
64.30Q(g) De#ermination of Similar Use.
2. Thai the P2anning Cotnmissian eixed ia qts findings and facts in inte�reting'I'he
Fair Haasing Ac# 42 USC 3604, in determining "Reasonable Accommodzhons."
3. That the Ptanning Commission erred in proced,�res by putting to much
significance oa the financial impact on the service provider in de2ermining
"Reasonable Accommodations," ofthe handicap�3 pe:=cn�.
¢. That the Planning Commission erred in finding and procedure when it waived the
requirements of Sec. b4.413.6 {a).
\ J
�
•
1.
2.
3.
�
�
��-Pa�
ZOlVING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
��
FILE # O1-123-292
APPLICANT: Buffalo Sober Group, LLC HEARING DATE: 5/3J01
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Determination of Similar Use/Change of Nonconforming Use Permit
LOCATION: 97 North Oxford (west side between Ashland and Laurel)
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: North 75 feet of I,ots 27 and 28, Block 42, Summit Pazk Addirion to
Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota
5. PLAN�RNG DISTRICT:
6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 64300(g), 62.102
7. STAFF REPORT DATE: 4/26/01
8. DATE RECEIVED: January 30, 2001
PRESENT ZONING:RT-1
BY: Nancy Homans
DEADLINE FOR ACTION:Waived by applicant
Gl
�
�
PARCEL 5IZE: 75x100 = 7500 squaze feet
EXISTING LAND USE: Sober House of 24 men in early sobriety (established with out zoning
pernuts on Febmary 15, 2000)
D. SURROUNDING LAND USE:
North: One and two-family residential, zoned RT-1
East: Single family residentiaUchurch, zoned RT-1
South: �our-family residential (a twin building to 97 N. Oaford), zoned RT-1
West: One and two-family residential, zoned RT-1
E. ZONIP�G CODE CITATION: Sec. 64300(g) of the Zoning Code outlines a process
whereby the Planning Commission can determine if a_ use not listed in the Code_is similar
to other uses pemutted in each distnct ��� Cr2 I0�_ a�zt�s pr�[sians;�lated-.tQ
�zosxcoiifmz���:;��es;
F. HTSTORY/DISCUSSION: 1960s: Oakland Home, a licensed community residential
facility for persons with mental illness, was established at 97 N. O�cford in about 1968.
PURPOSE: Determination of Sunilaz Use to establish whether a Sober House of 24 residents is
similaz to a family, and, therefore, pemutted in the RT-1 zoning district.
Zoning File #01-123-292
Pagetwo
1980s: On September 25, 1980, the City CounciI adopted amendments to the zoning
code defining community residential facilities and regulating them as special condirion uses
consistent with the provisions of State law included in the Human Services Licensing Act.
The amendments allowed community residential facilities for 7 or more facility residents in
the RT-1 (Two- family) zoning district as special condition uses.
On April l l, 1986, a Planning Commission resolution (#86-28) was adopted establishing
legal status for the Oakland Home as an existing community residential facility licensed by
the 1VTinnesota Deparfinent of Human Services for 36 residents with mental illness in an
RT-1 zoning district. In granring the special condition use permit, the Commission
modified the following conditions:
a. Number of residents served. The code limited the number of residents to 16. The
condition was modified to allow 36 residents.
b. 1VI'inimum distance between community residential facilities. The code required
that residential facitities be a minimum of 1320 feet apart. Two facilities were
within the required distance (Turning Point at 1089 Portland and Pineview
Residence at 69 N. Milton). The condition was modified.
c. Off-street pazking. The code required that there be one parking space for every
two facility residents- or 18 spaces for the facility. At the time there was parking
for 2 vehicles available on the properiy. Because no residents owned or operated
their own vehicles, the Commission modified the requirement.
�
�
1990s: The zoning code was subsequently amended on 7une 27, 1991, to define Licensed
Human Service Community Residential Facilities and to first allow such facilities for 17 or
more persons in the RM-1 Multiple Famiiy zoning district as special condirion uses. As a
- cz� z �r��� npA�Qnformin,g,use
,
Changes in health care financing provisions and State policy, resulted in the generai
downsizing of residential facilities for persons with mental illness throughout Minnesota
begimiing in the mid-1990s. Ramsey County initiated a down-sizing pian for Oakland
Home and the last resident moved out on August 21, 1998. The county's contract with
Oakland Home expired on September 30, 1998, and was not renewed.
2000:. On January 15, 2000, four members of Buffalo Sober Group, LLC purchased the
property at 97 North Oxford and, on February 15, 2000, BuffaIo Sober House was
opened, providing permanent housing and supportive services to 24 men in the early
stages of sobriety.
A subsequent inspection by City staff from the Department of License, Inspection and
Environmental Protection (LIEP) concluded that the use of the larger of the structure's
r
two
•
Zoning File #01-123-292
Pagethree
units—a rooming house--was inconsistent with the zoning code. Rooming houses aze first
pemutted as special condition uses in the RM-1 (Multiple Family) zoning district.
An application for a Change in Nonconforming Use Pemut was submitted on Mazch 21,
2000.
Evidence submitted in support of the applicant's contenrion that the use had not been
discontinued were:
a. A statement from the buildinglbusiness owner, Serene Larson, that she had
operated her business out of the structure until 7anuary 15, 2000.
b. Electric bill indicating that electrical and gas service to the building was not
interrupted over the period.
c. A statement from US West indicating that the building owner was responsibie for
the phone bill associated with her business in the building over the period.
�
On April 1 l, 2000, planning staffwrote a letter to the applicant detailing its conclusion
that the previous use, a Rule 361icensed residential facility for up to 32 persons with
mental illness, had, indeed, been discontinued and that pernussion to continue to use the
property as a rooming house would require a pemut to re-establish a nonconforming use.
The applicants were given the option of withdrawing their application for a Change in
Nonconforming Use Pernut and applying, instead, for a pernut to re-establish a non-
conforming use. Their application fee would be applied toward a new application.
al -���
In a subsequent phone conversation on April 14, 2000, the attorney representing the
applicant agreed with the planning stai� s interpretation of the code and asked that the
zoning committee's consideration of the case be delayed for 30 days so that they could
review their options and begin work on obtaining the consent petition required for an
application to re-establish a non-confornung use. He further indicated that his clients were
led to believe by the building's owner and/or realtor that the building's use as a residential
facility had somehow been "grandfathered in." L.ater that aftemoon, he faxed a formal
Request for Continuance, waiving the statutory requirements for a decision on the
application within 60 days of its being filed.
On May 22, 2000, a request for an additiona160-day continuance—until the August 17,
2000 zoning committee meeting--was fa�ced to the zoning committee by the applicanYs
attomey, again waiving the requirement for a decision within 60 days.
On August, 28, 2000, unable to obtain a sufficient number of signatures on a consent
petition, the applicants resubmitted an application for a Change in Nonconfomung Use
Pemut. The substantial additions to the application—beyond those submitted in
March—were:
� a.
[Q
A copy of the Coldwell Banker Burnet listing (list date: February 25, 1999) for
the property indicating that the building was a"fully functional group home-32
person brick structure."
A copy of the lodger agreement.
Zoning File #O1-123-292
Page four
The Planning Comcnission, on October 20, 2000, denied the apglicarion. The denial was
based primarily on the fact that the previous use had been discontinued for more than 365
days following the closure of Oakland Home and, therefore, should have been used for a
conforming use unless an application for the re-establishment of a nonconforming use was
approved by the Planning Commission. Inasmuch as the application for a Change in
Nonconforming Use Permit was not in order, it was denied.
The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council.
On December 6, 2000, the City Council upheld the action of the Planning Commission and
denied the appeal for the following reasons:
a. The Planning Commission did not err in its facts, findings or procedures. The
traffic from the proposed non-confornung use is more intensive than the prior non-
conforming use. The application did not meet the requirements of Legislative Code
C�7
c.
Q
§62.102(i)(3)(b).
Although the applicants did not specify what reasonable accommodation they
sought, the proposed use is first permitted in an RM-I zoning district subject to a
special condition use permit. The proposed use is not pemutted in an RT-1 zoning
district. Granting this type of accommodation would constitute a substantial
modification of the City's zoning code and its goal to eliminate non-confomung
uses from neighborhoods. The applicants have not demonstrated why the zoning
restrictions for this building and in this neighborhood need modification.
Granting the application is contrary to the needs of other handicapped persons
who must follow the City's zoning code in order to operate their facilities.
Granting the application will influence future non-conforming use applications and
could negatively impact the City's overall zoning scheme as it applies to
neighborhood housing.
.
�
an analysis
11l Liav vvr�vv �. ' .
by the Ciry Attomey of the issues associated with-the Eederal Fair Housmg_ _ ct
Amendments (FHAA). Assistant City Attorney Peter Wamer told the Council: (1) that
the residents of the facility, as disabled persons, are covered by the Amendments; (2) that
the Amendments prohibit housing discrimination which is defined to include "a refusal to
make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, when such
accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and
enjoy a dwelling;" (3) it is incumbent upon the applicants to specify what reasonable
accommodation(s) they aze asking the City to make, and (4) the original application was
not specific on the issue of accommodation. �Vhile the City Councii denied the appeal,
several members clearly indicated that they believed it would be appropriate for the
applicants to submit another application.
•
a � - ra�
� Zoning File #01-123-292
Page five
�
G.
H. FINDINGS:
i. Buffalo Sober House, a residence for 24 persons in recovery from alcohol and
drug addiction, was established at 97 North O�cford on February 15, 2000 (see
history above). One resident is the resident cazetaker and lives in one of the two
� units in the building. The other 23 residents live in the baiance of the structure.
There is a communal kitchen; meal plans (breakfast and dinner) can be purchased
for $135 a month over and above the monthiy rent. Rents range from $325 to
$375 a month in addition to a$30 house supply fee from each resident.
� � � ' � � � � .,..
�. . � .. . .
.. . .: . .. . . • .. ... . .
�. . . � . � . �� .�• .�� .. ., . . .
Zoning File #O1-123-292
Page six
2. The applicant is requesting that the City make a reasonable accommodation to the
disabilities of the residents of Buffalo Sober House and deternvne that the 23
residents of the second unit aze similar to a family under the provisions of the
zoning code. The standazd of reasonable accommodation is evoked in the Federal
Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 and has been discussed in a variety of
federal court decisions related to the Act. It is against the backdrop created by the
Federallaw that this application is considered.
The Fair Housing Act declares it unlawful to "discriminate in the sale or rental, or
to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because
of a handicap of...that buyer or renter." 42 USC §3604(�(1)(A)
Discrimination covered by the Act includes "a refusal to make reasonable
accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, when such
accommodations may be necessary to afford [handicapped] person[s] equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." §3604(fl(3)(B)
The U.S. Supreme Court held, in Oxford House v. City ofEdmonds (1995), that
occupancy ]imits in a zoning code that cap the number of unrelated people who
can live together in a dwelling unit are not exempt from the Act's requirement
related to reasonable accommodations. (Oxford House-Edmonds was a sober
house for 10-12 adults that was cited by the City for occupying a single family
home despite an ordinance that limits the number of unrelated persons who may
iive together in a single family zoning district to five (5). The City argued that its
ordinance was exempt from the Fair Housing Act's requirements related to
reasonable accommodation because it was a"reasonable local restriction regarding
the maximum number of occupants pemvtted to occupy a dwe]ling.") The Court
drew a distinction between zoning occupancy limits such as Saint Paul's
re uirement that limits the number of unrelated persons that can live together in a
-
single dwelling unit to four and_the housmg co_e s occupancy imi o
feet for the first occupant and at least 100 square feet for each occupant thereafter.
The latter is, in the judgement of the Supreme Court, a"reasonable local, State or
Federal restriction regazding the maximum number of occupants pemutted to
occupy a dwelling" that is exempt from the Fair Housing Act's requirements
(§3607(b)(1)). The former, according to the Cou�t, is entitled to no such
exemption.
�
�
7ustice Ginsberg; in wriYing for the Cotut, said:---
The parties have presented, and we have decided, only a threshold question:
Edmonds' zoning eode provision describing who may compose a`family" is not
a mcrximum oceupaney restrietion exempt from the FHA under �3607(b)(I). It �
remains for the lower courts to decide whether Edmonds' actions against Oxford
House violate the FHA's prohibitions against discrimination set out in
�§3604(fl(1)(A) and (fj(3)(B).
o i .Ya�
� Zoning File #O1-123-292
Page seven
The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (O�ord House v. City of St. Louis,
1996) reviewed a case where two sober houses, each for more than eight persons,
located in a single family zoning district where "group homes with eight or fewer
unrelated handicapped residents" are permitted uses. In part because the code
allows only three unrelated, nonhandicapped people to reside together, the Court
concluded that the eight-person limit is not, on its face, discriminatory. In over-
turning a district court decision for the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals went on to
address two issues that bear a relationship to this application:
Financial hazdshio: "The district court nevertheless found the City's zoning
ordinances are discriminatory because the eight-person limit would destroy the
financial viability of many Oxford Houses, and recovering addicts need this kind of
group home. Even if the eight-person rule causes some financial hardship for
Oxford Houses, however, the rule does not violate the Fair Housing Act if the City
had a rational basis for enacting the nzle. (Familystyle of St. Paul, Inc. v. City of
St. Paul, 923 F.2d 91, 94 (8�' Cir. 1991)."
Limits on the number of unrelated residents Dermitted to live together as a familv:
"We conclude the eight-person rule is rational. Cities have a legitimate interest in
� decreasing congestion, traffic and noise in residential azea, and ordinances
restricting the number of unrelated people who may occupy a single family
residence are reasonably related to these legitimate goals. (Village of Belle Terre v.
Boraas, 416 U. S. 1, 9 1974) The City does not need to assert a specific reason for
cuoosing eight as the cut-off point, rather than ten or tweive. `Every line drawn by
a legislature leaves some out that might well have been included. That exercise of
discretion, however, is a 3egislative, not a judicial function.' Id. At 8. We conclude
� the City's eight-person restriction has a rational basis and thus is valid under the
Fair Housing Act. (Familystyle, 923 F. 2d at 94)"
It should be noted that the Court, in Oxford House v. City of St. Louis, did not
express an opinion "about whether the Fair Housing Act would require the City to
grant variances for the Oacford Houses if they apply." Inasmuch as Oxford House�
did not apply for a variance of the maximum number of residents allowed and give
the City an opporiunity to make a reasonable accommodation, the Court
deternuned that the City did not fail to accommodate them.
3. In Sec. 64300(g) the zoning code provides that, when a specific use is not listed in
a district, the planning commission shall detemune if a use is similaz to other uses
pemritted in each district. In making that deternrination, the planning commission
shall make four findings. The findings and the applicant's ability to meet them are
• as follows:
(1) That the use is similar in character to one (I) or more of the principal uses
pernzitted.
Among the uses permitted in the RT-1 Zoning District are:
• One- and two-family dwellings, located within a single main building.
Zoning File #O1-123-292
Page eight
• Human service-licensed community residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer
facility residents located at least one thousand three hundred twenty (1320)
radial feet from another human service-licensed community residenYial facility.
• Transitional housing facilities serving four (4) or fewer adult facility residents
and minor children in their caze.
• Shelters for battered persons serving four (4) or fewer adult facility residents
and minor children in their care.
Among the uses permitted subject to special conditions in the RT-1 Zoning
District aze:
• Transirional housing facilities serving five or six adult facility residents and
minor children in their caze (subject to a distance requirement).
• Shelters for battered persons serving si�teen or fewer adult facility residents
and minor children in their care (subject to a distance requirement, a percent of
population requirement and a requirement that the facility not be located in a
two-family or multi-family dwelling unless it occupies the entire structure).
Staff suggests that the issue of similarity of character could be defined as hinging
on three critical points:
(I) how many people aze involved,
(2) how the residents relate to one another, and
(3) how long residents aze expected to live in the unit.
On one end of the spectrum of uses permitted in the RT-1 zoning district are
families which tend to have four or fewer persons (a�thongh Yhere may be
significantly more), tend to operate as a close-knit unit (preparing meals, eating,
socializing and recreating together) and tend live in one place for a longer period
- - —
--
be more people (si�;teen adults and tfieir cFu�Idren are allowed), the residents ten
to rely on one another for support but may not organize themselves as a single
unit (i.e. they may or may not cook or eat together, share housekeeping
responsibilities or socialize/recreate as a group), and the residents tend to live in
the residence for a very short period of time (a week or a month).
A sober hause has been described as a place where some number of people live
for up:to_a }�ear,in a closely kmt„relationship that provides the support and
accountability necessary to maintain sobriety. Kazen Meadj Execu�ive Director
of Emotions Anonymous and a faculty member at Metro State University reports
that relapse prevention depends on five essentiai ingredients: 1) self knowledge,
2) accountability, 3) responsible behavior, 4) a supportive living environment and
5) regular attendance at support meetings. The sober house format emphasizes
each of those valnes and, is, therefore, promoted by eaperts in the field as an
important dimension of the recovery process. The level of integration among
residents and length of residence aze both probably somewhere between a family
and a sheiter for battered persons.
•
�
�
0 � _Pb�
�
Zoning File #O1-123-292
Page nine
Number of Family Transitional Housing Shelter BSH
Residents 1- x 4-6 16 23
BSH
Low
Length of Shelter Transitional Housing/BSH Family
Residence
�
�
The final issue—and the issue at the heart of the question of reasonable
accommodation-- relates to the number of residents. The applicants propose that
23 people be allowed in a single unit which is significantly more than would be
allowed for any other use in the RT-1 zoning district except in the highly unlikely
case that there are 23 related individuals. They present evidence suggesting that
the financial viability of the program depends on there being 24 residents in the
two units. They do not present any evidence indicating the ideal number of
residents necessary for the therapeutic environment.
The financial and therapeutic issues, the two issues identified for particular
discussion by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Oxford House v. City of St.
Louis, will be discussed in turn.
Summary of �inancial Information Provided
MONTHI,Y RENTS
EXPENSES
Principal mortgage
Secondary mortgage (Maturity: 2/18/O1)
Capitalization loan to partner
Insurance (property/liability)
Properry taa�es
Utilities (December/7anuary)
- Incl: Gas/Electricity/WaterlGarbage/Phone/
IntemetlCable
Wages
Misc Expenses
TOTAL
$9,600.00
$3560.00
879.71
1500.00
332.16
545.00
2900.00
500.00
300.00
$10,516.87
._,�_:- _::.:::,>,.,,......:...:...:.:.:. ._:,.........._.._._
Furthermore, depending on the terms of the "capitalization loan"
Zoning File #Oi-123-292
Pageten
•
from one of the partners and whether it can be structured differently, the number
of residents required could be somewhat fewer. While suggesting rent increases
or specific cost reductions is outside the scope of the Planning Commission's
review, the Commission can reasonably conclude that the residence can be
financially viable with some different configurarion of rents and expenditures.
On the question of the number of residents required to establish the necessary
therapeutic environment, data gathered by staff indicate the following:
• Oxford House, Inc., a national organization that charters sober houses azound
the nation, reports on its website, in response to the quesrion, "What is the
`ideal' number of individuals to make a self-run, self-supported recovery house
work?" the following:
Experience of Oxford House has shawn that from 8 to IS members works very
weZL A house with fewer than six individuals is difftcult to maintain because of
the small size of the group and the fact that cmy vacancy causes a greater
disruption of the financial welfare of the house. A house musz have six or more
residents in order to be recognized or chartered by Oxford House.
• In various lawsuits azound the country in which Fair Housing claims have been �
decided, and in which the number of facility residents has been an issue, that
number has ranged from 8-12. Those cases include:
In Oxford House v. City of St. Louis, Oaford House's expert witness testified the
Oa�ord Houses with eight residents can provide significant therapeutic benefits
for their members.
In Oxford House-Evergreen v. City of Plainfield, the court deternrined that the
accommodation sought (to allow 8-10 residents instead of the 6 allowed by city
zoning laws) was reasonable.
n mte a es v'�ity�a�ia,rrat, �t���£s�+"�-�s '� � n Mich 19951
deternrined that the City violated the law by refusing to give zoning approval to
increase the number of residents in an adult foster caze home from 6 to 12 persons
in an area zoned for single-famity residents. In O�'ord House v. City of
Edmonds, the sober house argued that it needed 8-12 residents to be financially
and therapeutically viable.
• The Minnesota Human Services Licensing Act (Sec. 245A.11), the purpose o£
which is to implement that policy of the State that "persons shall not be
excluded bq municipat zoning ordinances. or other land use regulations from the
benefits of normal residential surroundings," provides that a" licensed
residential program with a licensed capacity of seven to sixteen persons shall
be considered a permitted multifamily residential use of property for the �
purposes of zoning and other land use regulations."
JOW
�
�
i
Zoning File #O1-123-292
Page eleven
:�
�\
(2) That the traffic generated by such use is sTmilar to one (1) or more of the
principal uses permitted
A sober house for 23 or 24 adults can be eapected to generate more traffic than a
shelter for 16 battered persons. The traffic generated by some smaller number of
sober house residents would be more similaz to the principal uses permitted in the
RT-1 zoning dish
Off-street parking requirements for uses pernutted in the district range from 3
spaces for a two-family st:ucture to shelters and transitional housing for which 1
space for every two beds plus 1 space per day shift employee or full-time
equivalent are required. In this case, it is not cleaz how many off-street parking
spaces will be available though it seems likely that there will be between 8 and 12.
While the asphalt_a;ga.on_the north,side of the building has been stnped for
(3) That the use is not f:rst permitted in a less restrictive zonrng district.
This condition is met. Sober Houses aze not defined in the Zoning Code and are,
therefore, not listed among permitted uses in a less restrictive zoning district.
(4) That the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
This condition is met. The City's Housing Plan calls for the preservation of
existing rental units and creation of new units providing supportive housing for
persons who are or are at risk of being homeless.
One of the similar uses in the RT-1 zoning district, a shelter for battered persons,
is required to meet four specific conditions. Were the Buffalo Sober House
required to meet the same conditions, their ability to meet them would be as
follows:
(1) A minimum distance of one thousand three hundred twenty (1320) feet from
other shelters, transitional housing facilities, Zicensed human service community
residential facilities, licensed correctional community residential facilities,
emergency housing facilities, health department Zicensed community residential
facilities or overnight shelters.
This condition would not be met. Ain Dah Yung, a state licensed residential
facility for ten young people is located at 1089 Portland Avenue, 4b0 feet away
from the Buffalo Sober House location while the Pineview Residence serving
persons with mental iliness at 69 North Milton is 1,220 feet away.
(2) It shatl noi be Zocated in a two family or multifamily dwelling unless the
facility occupies the entire structure.
This condition would be met. The applicant proposes to occupied the entire two-
family dwelling.
(3) It shall not be Zocated in a planning district in which one (I) percent or more
of the population lives in licensed human service community residentia!
facilities, licensed correctional community residential facilities, health
Zoning File #O1-123-292
Page tweive
department licensed cotnmunity residential facilifies, emergency housing
facilities, over�zight sheZters, shelters for battered persons and/or transitional
housing facilities.
This condition would be met. The facility is located in the Summit University
planning district where .81 percent of tke residents live in one of the facility types
outlined in the code.
(4) Permission for special corrdition use appLies only as long as ihe number of
facility residents is not increased and its purpose or location do not change and
other conditions of the permit are met.
5. A shelter for battered persons is also required to meet the following general
conditions, outlined in Sec. 64300(d) of the zoning code, to locate in the RT-1
zoning district. Were the Buffalo Sober House required to meet the same
conditions, their ability to meet them is as follows:
(1) The extent, location and intensity of the use will be in substantial compliance
with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and arry applicable subarea plans that
were approved by the City Council.
This condition would be met. The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan calls both for
an intensification of residential uses throughout the city to accommodate an
appropriate share of the region's population growth and for intentional efforts to
meet the housing needs of those who need supportive living arrangements.
(2) The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize iraffic
congestion in the public streets.
�
�
This condition would be met. The existing structure is located on an alley at mid-
block in a low- to mid-density fulIy developed residenriai environment. Ingress
and egress from the structure do not create any additional congestion.
(3) The use wi11 not be detrimenta to t e extshng c arac er o
in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public 7zealth, safety and general
welfare.
This condition would be met. There is no evidence that facilities of this type have
any detrimental impact on properiy values or on public health, safety or welfare.
(4) The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in Zhe district.
This condition would be met. As a iesidential use in this futly debeloped
residential community, it is unlikely to have any impact on the continuing
improvement of the sunounding properry.
(5) The use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of .
the district in which it is located
When the site plan issues related to the off-street parking on the site are resolved,
this condition would be met.
o�. ri�
• Zoning File #O1-123-292
Page thirteen
,�
�>
�
�
�
Zoning File #O1-123-292
Page fourteen
i_�
2,t
3:
�
�
L J
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: .
On the question of whether the previous use was discontinued or ceased to e�cist for a period
of less than 365 days, staff recommends that the Commission frnd that the previous use was
ternrinated on September 30, 1998 and that the new use was established upon closin' of the
sale on January 20, 2000.
6t-lra�
�
�
Zoning File #O1-123-292
Page fifteen
On the question of whether the City should make reasonable accommodation by waiving the
365 day time period and e�ending it to 477 days, staff recommends that the Commission find
that such an accommodation represents a fundamental alterarion in nature of the zoning code
which the City is not obligated to make and is, furthermore, unrelated to the disability of the
residents of the facility.
Finally, based on findings 1 through 5, staff recommends that a sober house for 16 residents
be determined to be similar to other uses permitted subject to special conditions in the RT-1
zoning district.
Staff further recommends that, because the uses to which the sober house is similar are
pernvtted subject to special conditions, Buffalo Sober House be granted a special condition
use pernut with the following conditions:
1. The total number of residents in the structure (between the two units) does not exceed
si�een.
2. A site plan for off-street pazking be submitted to the Department of License, Inspections
and Environmental Protection and any requirements imposed through the site plan and/or
variance process be adhered to.
3. To minimize additional traffic congestion in the azea, regular group AA meetings at the
house be confined to the 16 residents of the house and their sponsors.
4. The special condition use permit would expire upon any change of use.
�
�.=VM}
��
!IIMItAI
D�7'ERMiNAT1oN OF SiMiWR USE APPLICA710N
DeparJment oJP�anning axd Economic Devefopment .
.Zoning Section '
IIDO Ciry Ha1I.4nnex
15 Wcst Faurt/r Srreet
Saixt Pauf, MN 55102
166-6589
APPLICANT Name�falo Sober Group rrr
Address 400 Se1by A�enue, Apt. 228
City St. Paul g{NAt Zi 55102 Daytime phone 651-602-0226
Name of owner (if diYerent)
Contact person (if
REC�UEST: Appiicafion is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 3Q0,
Paragraph (� of the Zoning Code tor a Determination of Similar Use.
L`�)
additionaJ shaet N
Currentuse �� House for 24 residents (See Attachment ) -
Proposed use S°bex' House for 24 residents
t�
SUPPORTING INFORMATl�N: Provide the foilov+ing information (attach additional sheets if necessary}.
[� Is the use similar in charecter to one or more of the principal uses permittad in the zoning district?
Yes, see attacYmient.
�.
PROPERTY Address/Lo�ation 97 North Oxford Street, St. Paul, rII�7
LOCATION North 75 ft. of Iots 27 and 28, B1ock 42, Scmnv.t
Legaf description:
Park Pciclition to St. Paul, Ramse Count ,�� F2�1
Y Y Currertt Zonina _
Is the traftic ihat the use wiU generate similar to traffic generated by one or more permitted �ses?
Yes, see attach�ent.
is the use already permitted in a less restrictive zoning district?
Required site plan is
AppGcanf's
W
/� Date �� 3 � � � � City agent
Z�ttorney for Applicant
D� �t�
� SUPPORTING INFORMATION ATTACHMENT
The subject property is located at 97 North Oxford Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. Although it was
built as a four-plex, the property was operated as the Oakland Home, a 32-resident community
residentiat facility for mentally ill women from 1968 until 1998. The last resident moved from
the Oakland home on August 21, 1998, and the owner put the building on the market for sale,
advertising it as "fully functional group home." This owner continued to maintain an office in
the structure until Applicant bought it from her, closing in January, 20Q0.
Applicant bought the structure intending to use it as a"sober house," i.e. a residence to provide
permanent living facilities for persons in eazly sobriety. It is recognized that persons in early
sobriety obtain great benefit and assistance in continuing their recovery by residing in an
environment in which others, who aze in similar circumstances, also reside. Through the process
of mutual support and group living, these persons in eazly recovery greatly increase their chance
of success. Such residences have come to be known as "sober houses." In February, 2000, after
extensive renovation, the building was opened as Buffalo Sober House. Attached as Exhibit 1 is
a letter from Walter Dinalko, one of the principals of Buffalo Sober Group, describing the
operation and rules of Buffalo Sober House. Attached as Eachibit 2 is a letter from Brenda Illiff,
Executive Director of the Hazelden Fellowship Club, informing the reader that it makes referrals
io the Buffalo Sober House. Attached as Exhibit 3 is conespondence from Karen Mead,
� Executive Director of Emotions Anonymous. Ms. Mead is a chemical dependency expert, and a
faculty member of Metro State University. She informs the reader that "...our community, and
the neighborhood in which it is located, benefit from Buffalo House." Attached as Exhibit 4 is a
letter from Tenence Troy, Chairman of Real Estate Equities in support of the Buffalo Sober
House.
As noted above, applicant made extensive renovations to the properry. Attached as E�ibit 5 is
additional correspondence from Walter Dinalko describing the investment made in the property,
as well as further description of the success Appiicant has had in providing a stable and
therapeutic environment for those in recovery. Applicant made the investment in Buffalo Sober
House based upon the mistaken assumption that it could continue the non-conforming use
allowed to the previous owner of the structure. At the time of the closing, applicant was unawaze
that the zoning ordinance requires that an application for a continuation of non-conforming use
be made within 365 days of the previous non-conforming use.
Notwithstanding that restriction, the new residents, as persons in recovery from chemical
dependency, are subject to protection under the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988
and as such are entitled to reasonable accommodation in the administration of zoning ordinances
by the City of St. Paul.
As a reasonable accommodation, appiicant asks that the City of St. Paul reconsider the definition
of "family" created by Sec. 60.2Q6F of the Zoning Ordinance, which prohibits more than four
� persons residing together unless they aze related by blood. Such a testriction, which is perhaps
generally appropriate in zoning considerations, operates to prohibit the therapeutic community of
a sober house. The specific accommodation requested, iherefore, is that the therapeutic
community within the Buffalo Sober House be deemed to constitute a"family" for the purpose of �
St. Paul zoning considerations. Under such circumstances, the Buffalo Sober House would be a
similaz use under the meaning of Section 64300(g). The requirements for such a use can be met
if:
(1) That the use is similar in character to one or more of the princival uses nermitted.
Clearly, if the residents of the Buffalo Sober House were related by blood, the
facility would be permitted to exist in its present locarion.
(2) That the tr�c ¢enerated on such a use is similaz to one or more of the nrincinal
uses germitted. Applicant now limits the number of vehicles permitted by the
residence to 12, and on-site parking is avaitable for those residents.
(3) That the use is not vermitted in a less restrictive zonin¢ district. This requirement
does not apply to the facts of this case because members of a family can live
together in any residential zoning district.
(4) That the use is consistent with the comprehensive nlan. The St. Paul Planning
Economic Development Office has previously determined that the Buffalo Sober
House is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
As an alternative reasonable accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing AmendmenYs Act of �
1988, applicant requests that the City of St. Paul waive the 365 day time limit within w�hich an
applicant must apply for a change from one non-conforming use to another. Applicant also
requests, if necessary, reasonable accommodation by the City as may be necessary in order for
applicanYs site plan to meet individual requirements of the St. Paui Zoning Ordinance.
Applicant requests the opportunity to supplement this application with additional information on
this subject.
If the 365 day time limit were to be waived, the property would qualify for a Non-conforming
Use Permit under Section 52.102(1)3 for the following reasotts:
(a) Use of the structure as a sober house for recovering men with healthy_ lifesty es �
and outside employment is equally or more appropriate to the district than the
previous non-conforcning use as a D.H.S. Rule 36 commereuty residential facility,
which continued through September, 1998. The proposed use as a sober house
began in February, 2000, and an application for a change in non-conforming use
permit was first filed in Mazch, 2000.
(6) The„proposed use will not be detrimental to the existing character of development
in the immediate neighborhood, nor will it endanger ttie public health; ety or
general welfare;
(c) The proposed use will have less impact upon neighborhood traffic and pazking •
than the former non-conforming use, since there will be fewer residents (24
opposed to 32). Also, a higher percentage of the residents will use public
� � ta,
S transportation rather than private vehicles, due to past problems with substance
abuse. The facility has available 12 off-street parking spots. No on-site
programming attracting visitors will take place; and
(d) The proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Attached hereto. as additionat Exhibits 6 and 7 are the Buffalo House brochure and the Lodger
Agreement.
Attached as Exhibit 8 is a letter from John Thompson, CPA, which shows the monthly cash flow
of Buffalo Sober House with 23 residents. It can be seen that there is a net monthty loss with
fewer than 24 residents.
Attached as E�ibit 9 is the cover sheet of Applicant's altemative request for reasonable
accommodations through the waiver of the 365 day limit.
u
�
( �HAZELDEN
Fellowship Club� St. Paul
October 10, 2000
To Whom It May Concern:
�s���
Sk PauI, MN 55102-4199
Phone612-509-3900
http:/hmvm.hmeiden.org
Hazelden Fe(fowship Ctub in St. Pauf has been referring to Buffa(o Sober
House at 97 N. Oxford in St. Paul since February, 2000.
Residents who go through Feliowship Ciub generally have cortipieted an
inpatient treatment experience and continue in Fellowship Club to learn daily
living skilis. They are asked to work or attend schooi during the day and
then attend groups in the evenings.
Following their stay at Fellowship Club we generally encourage them to find
a sober living environment. Buffalo House has been in existence since
February 2000 and we have found them a solid placement for men in
recovery. When referring we look at the structure of a house and it appears
that Buffalo House is one with such structure.
We hope to continue referrals to Buffalo House in the future.
Sincerely,
r
���1 � j v 1��
� V�411\/V V• ��� �/
�
•
�
Equal Opportunity Emptoyer
�IIBZT 2
o�• r»
tions �
� ' OI1y1110U.S P.O. Bos 4245 • Saint Paul, Minnesota • 55104
October 12, 2000
To Whom it May Concem:
Statistics show us that one of every ten people is chemically dependent and that one in every five
people is involved with a person who is chemically dependent. Statistics have also shown us that
one of the essential ingredients for recovery is a supportive living environment. Buffalo House and
other sober housing provide such an environment for those in recovery.
I have been involved in the field of chemical dependency for the past twenty years. Five of those
years were as manager of Outpatient Services and Aftercare at what is now known as Fairview
Recovery Services. One of the most important functions of my aftercare staffwas the placement
of newiy recovery people in halfway houses and sober houses. The existence of such homes is
� essential to the field of chemical dependency where Ivfinnesota enjoys the reputation of being a
leader in the treatment of chemical dependency. If this is to continve, it is important that
residences such as Buffalo IIouse eadst.
I am a faculty member of Metro State University where I teach a course on Chemical Dependency
Intervention and Prevention with a special focus on relapse prevention Some of the ingredients
that are essential to relapse preventions are: I) selfknowledge, 2) accountability, 3) responsible
behavior, 4) a supportive living environment, and 5) regular attendance at support meetings.
Buffalo House creates just such a setting.
My experience with Buffalo Iiouse is a personal one. My granddaughter's father has been there
since it opened. In that time he has accumulated more than nine months of continuous sobriety.
He is enrolled in school and has completed an emergency medical technician course and has
passed the nationai registry test. He is now working in that field and continues schooling. He
attends regular AA meetings and works on recovery issues with a therapist. He has a sponsor who
he interacts with on a regular basis. He is an asset to society and his community. Buffalo House is
a big part of his recovery.
The residents at Buffalo are held accountable for taking the right step to insure a good recovery.
If they don't adhere to the rules and regulations, they have to leave. Buffalo House has a zero
tolerance policy. Some of the rules of Buffalo House aze: �) each resident has weekly household
� tasks that must be attended to, 2) each resident must be employed, 3) residents must maintain
sobriety, 4) and agree to a monthly lottery for random urine screens. Residents aze strongly
encouraged to attend weekly meeting and have a sponsot.
Phone: 651/647-9712 • Fax: 651/647-1543
E-mail: eaisc@mtn.org•WebPa�e:htfp//Kticw.EmotionsAnonymous.org
In additional to looldng at this issue from a recovery stand point, I would think it is also important _ �
to the twin cities area from a financial prospective. Peopte come to the twin cities from all over
the world for treatment. Revenues from treatment and recovery are an important part of our
economy. A recent exampie of this is the Intemational AA Convention in Nfinneapolis which was �
attended by more than 65,000 people. The city of St. Paul benefitted from this in terms of hotel
usage, restaurants, shopping, etc. One of the reasons that this convention happened here is the
strong recovery community in our area. Halfway Houses and Sober Houses play a part in that .
conununity.
I believe that our community, and the neighborhood in which it is located, benefit from Buffalo
House. Its residents are hud-worldng members of society that are worldng to insure a better
future for themselves and those who care about them. They should be applauded and supported in
their efforts. With the prevalence of chemical dependency in our society, they could also be your
parent, child or siblings.
Sincerely,
����
Karen Mead
Executive Director
�
�
iJli 110 'bkJ tl1�tJ�rf� rtcr+� coin�c cwJ.�a<n
REAL EST� EQLZTZ�s - O � -���
� REAL ESTA'_ EOI.tTIES.INC • RSwt ES:w`E EOUi'IES BROKEFaG= CO
REwI f STn'E EC V �'�ES DE�E�O�nENT CC
OCLObCi 10� 20�0
To Whom It May Concern:
As a member of the community uho has been professiona�ly commined to expanding
ssffordable housing options in Saint Paul for many yeazs, l wish to voice my suppoR for
thc continued operation of Buffalo House. Sptcifically, I urge you to continue tt:e non-
confoiming i�se privilege granted to the immediate pre�ious owmer of the propertp.
From the information available to me, it appeazs that the owners have made every good
faith efiort co comply with all applicable laws and regulstions including the non-
• conforming use provision currentiy undzr debate.
In addition to providing an important service to a protected class of persons, the
ownership has demonstra[ed that it can harmoniously re-in[egrate the property into the
neighborhood.
Your consideration is appreciated.
�
<00 C�G�oE O° HONORBti�:D�NG • 325 C!DAR 5'F.EE' . ST PnJt M�NN�50:� 6S(O� �:ESI) 227-6525 � FAX (651) 227-9001
October 10, 2000
Walter Dinalko
Managing Director
Buffalo Sober Group L.L.C.
97 North Oxford Sueet
Saint Paul, MN 55104
To Whom it May Concem;
The buiiding located at 97 North Oxford is restructured to a configuration containin� 19
separate rooms with one centrally located kitchen and dining facility, one electrical
hookup and one central heating plant. This restnicturing was accompiished prior to the
City of Saint Paul's adoption of a zoning code in 1975 thereby malang the buitding a
leeal non-conforming structure. The intent of the zoning code is to allow such structures
and their uses to wntinue until they are removed. Generally when fifty percent or more of
the structure is destroyed, that is considered removal.
The Buffalo House meets and exceeds ail the requirements for continuation of a non-
conforming use with the exception of the signatures of two thirds of propem• owners
within 100 feet.
-� _ �.:
LJ
�
The Buffalo Sober Group purchased 97 North Oxford in January 2000 for three hundred
thousand dollazs. The interior of the building was a mess, and one hundred thousand
dollars in up� ades were required. These included paintin�, drop ceilin� removal,
carpetin� throughout, exterior painting and awnings and repair and upgradine of fire
. deteccion systems. We have invested a substantial sum of rnoney (nearly one half a
million doilars). Because of the extensive restructuring of the interior it would cost at
least another five hundred thousand dollars to reconfigure the interior to either a four-
plex or dup ex.
If we are forced to discontinue the use of the property, as it exists we could not afford nor
would it be financially prudent to invest in these renovations.
Our use, as a sober house for twenty-four recovering individuals is a less intense use of
the non-conforming structure then previously existed.
Due mainly to the existence of centers such as the Hazelden treatment facilin�, Hazelden
Fellowship club, Twin-Town Treatment center and the Retreat at Upiand Farms, Saint
Paui has evoived into one of the wortd's best known and most successful sober livin�
em•ironments. Recoverine alcoholics and addicts from around the «•orld com: to this city
and settle in Saint Paul because the support and recoverv community is so w�ell
demonstrated.
�
T.`Y4ITRTT �.�
o�.ty)
�J
j( j u � O
y ._ � c
— rv
� ` N N
Q � � � C
Q O � '� � �
� � Q Q R O
� d �
d � W C L
°G � � � O
'�. .n � q c E o
. �.e u c ai o0
N �
v m ro � � p C
:; ` a v v o
`p u c �
� A .. C � �
N � ` � � N
C O � 1' �y 64 Y
� �
- = C � _
"' p o � u � O
u � � N � ` �o
� � 64 L � C
.� m C „ y _ N
` � o ' � � 0 3
- � o � � � � �
� � _ v `p � rc a�i ,
„ — .. v
o � � � ° �
F- C E tLL —° „ Q � I,
�
=
O
C
L
O O O �
0 0 0 �
�n �i O O
I� N � C
M [�l t�t U
fR l4 V} �
�
N
A
U �
_ �
� � O
c' L' C ..�`, o
C� m (S] M
� � � — �� �
J
U
� �
� �
c
F- v
� >
>
O
0
O
V}
�
.�
�
U
3
�
O
C
�
b
O
O
r
u o
V �
H N
u �
F- - o
.�+ C
r
u� �`
� �
G �
N �
C C
U
E o
! "
�
a -
o �
C
�` O
u -
= U r
. u C
� �` C
� u �
O ,�
O C
� U .
� u �
� � �
u O U
` u �
� " 3
� - �
>, N o0
C
C ' �`
.L y �'- �
v �' u u �
� c ro .n �
O � r' —
L '9 � � O
� • �.�j '� N
� L � � Q
V
E a�i � � " �
O >
GO f L L
'� E U � „ �
'V � a � U• V
�" � f� C �
L '� D `^ � �
N � - J �i "� u
� � „ C C
O � � u � '-
� O - o
� V U � —
_ r. O `� �
O O � q J
" o � '� �
d `
O ri C- `� C c�
� 'q ° °- c ``'
' O � � ,'^,
�^ � u c
� � c� o
J N C V
u �' ti
-� v •g
C � �
U � C
� � c
O f
�' C .j
r� n O C
� � u �
n � _ �
r �' �V R
> � � c
r.
ci � °� O
� c+ •� u
� � u
r. � �
U �
U O v L
h � � �
c u �
O .+ — �
� '� � _.
' 3 W �C
� � O L
� - �
� — = C
_. h
'J ` u .
° � •�
� c "
E � � �
C G' ,`� �
d- o
'^ O
= 'o E
` o
�
m a
o �
c
C • N
� �
� �
N ;
L O
� o
N • C
� O
u _
=� "� V
� p .�
a'
T. b V
O � C
u '
� ` L
t :;
F- . n
�
a � ,� . .. ., , �
c .. a ai �. . „�
Y C 6 N � � � M � � y'C l �0 d ti
w
a�i a� N ti � „ a E » � E ' —^ — w .� a
c a r ° o. � o � c o c�. ° � « � �
R C �I � 0 � L � U' u U C � ` N � A
i° � � O [L G w O C � � b O O �
ti
� � � � > Y w °�° p o ar .e u c d o `
a„ � d°� c o= � o c o a` o`- �
o O � 'a c b b � Z` �' n d � � ` b �
N � O N C � C d
V N � E d .� Q N d 7 Y L � CO L �
N "� � W O C C. >
N � y N d M . C1 L C C S � W N'3 L' C
Q V � 4 ' V ` � U d O > � b C ' U
•.. O c w O C ai L` ' .a v p. 'D p' � V
� ai'i c �n ` a O 3 � � � � °i � �- t v b
�d pC [tl N u� �'y= 11 L O� y �' V C ;
C C C C p L V L N �a ` O a � L W � rv
� p � • C ~ N �O V � d •� q u. a
`d y .id � m uJ i N ' � r O � 3 �i c , o � a+ H °�
a� N 5� O � — a O '>
m L E � b '; o n o � � � � ° � c r � .� �
�' 'C '° V' V t �. t9 _ O �'0 C C � E O O v "
ti a
Q 3 E ° _m �3 v Z m w „°- E -i .'T � � � d � a
{ � � O 'o c �
� m y d C
N � N ia � N
O ,p L
Y
O O n " H V
� C � L v
.✓ v m 'c
C�! � �
N �
V u C
C�l O •C � � U
•C = �.�i � ai O
d � _ � � u
'^ v c
� N ` ` L
� � O O � n
. ` L N
N
•� 3 °� '3 'a E
— u � �C
� C a � A �
� � � � r
U L � � �>
L V Y � 7
� m O � � �
— � o v Z
C • N L � d
� 4 � > a�+ C
— O Y .V. _
v — �
� @ T p o t� ,�y O
C � P N 'e pC (.� W
A � m �O F" � n
.' a� O `S a m O E
L
> 'O � � O C u 'v
Q � = V � L N �
. m � A ` •; � o
� � (L L V i N C'
n
y � a+ rr C ltl C OO
t Q N r u m � Y
3 � � �
`' � o � � Y_ ° .n
Z O � � ttl � � � N
� X y � C y Q. N �d
,p J u i � c � O ro
.O N " OO
O O 4 N _ N C C
3 u m' O . N
n m E 3 � �n I i
'�„ w o F ° o " a; c
N
�a Y W — N � n� � _.
� W p E L ; C�
a= � o F' � T
u
m
u 0
Y O � 'd � O M C!
. L X a n � = c
W
'� n R U a C O- .d n
� �- O C � u 3 d �
3 r.
0 O u � � u n. j >.
L b u
�` �n A tV .� - °�° •� �
p N � � C C �v V
N y N C
�i � K � �O F N E
� P N � •H .
C C L L C � V
N ' E d N e\° p �'
O ¢1
u p L H 0 p � �
� � L
� y `4 a� � _ � p n
� v .a � n
°i � o u+ E'c c c
� C � � � � m
o � � c .v ° ° � u
�
O �^ _l' _� a O cr = "
` ci m .e .° i� � u
-, ai � � o w � m o
� c .� �
� O
" O ._
� � �
O y r' ;
� �^J ` u Q
O N b �
N J�
.,, c, � c �
L
�N u C! Y !S
A � � y O
.�+ c O c� u
� C O C
V v N C
� � d - a
� n C C O
� u N A U
E d
� � �
t
L � " b '�
y L N u �
� � i y m
•L j y L V
� u N � b
a
ai v � � �
= C
u •^ 'y
L'�' � y N �
' Y
R ` C a+ u
�
= n � ea O'
O i W
u
� d N
� c .
] L
•� N � �
C
X
- v c�
L � 7
O O O �
E `
ei u c�i °
2 v �' U
a o °� .
d � R �
d r . � �
��-+ C
'= 3 � o
— >. n
u u u C
� �U �y �N
L N �O V
y o ' � �
a ?
O � ` .�+
O C v �
� O O `
� '; N �
CJ C d N
. u
F- _
� — O C
� '; r �
C
CI �. — J
� � u �
t�. C �
�- a
� • N '-' �
U C C
fa c C
O � O u
Q V V a+
E, i " = ,
� u �' .,
c
._ �' u
K ^ C! rs N
o u > �
m � '� o
� u c c �e
O • j V O u
L V � ��+
n o R � c
H �. V �'�,1 �
z � � � �
N �y �
� C CI „
O '� i .� s.
� '� e, 'o ai
7 � , =
c0 C O a O
� C L
L C G!
� "' c
C � C
U y
. _ �; E
.a O O
N
o m c
P C :=
c ' =b
� � o
U Q y
N
u � n
� �. b
�s > O
I 3 �v - p
CI � C
H � rs
� c ^
� � U
T �p
w �
n � � a
— t
� � i p
V
�
FS
� � �*� ��
�£ j�y,� �
� � t ... <4F
�
Ol N
.O u �' n
� •- .a n' c
O � � O
�p C _
d � � N
� E � .� �
�
� � x ` O
'N N � G
A a
u � �
° � a c
O O ��. �y �
�- O O V
u � 'c _ -
d `u �
C � � �
;; 3 = a
. � � '
� N rv � � '�
u °p �. n
; � C � C 0
O d ,,, �e
^ '� c! v ? v
� L � ' R
u 3 a� u v
� O v .-
S � ° 3 ,�, �
_ ❑ u Y
� � _ C ' N :
� = O p C
.m � u
C •� l M
O V � _ V u
'� �L
.� C O C � ._
� � v � �
U - U �
� � � G O O
� '�' C1 � V
O = � �' r ..� - >.
�
� � u _ a , ,_� i
� � L V 0
� � � � � �
� � V
C > � O V -
� n u � u
�. >. _ O O :.
` `. ... _ �' O
in U
� y n �n �
_ r_ -
U ✓ �
- � � c - -
_N C C1 fi u 0
3- ^ � u O �
O O ^
_' � � O V .T. V
O � C! p �-
` 'n - 'X N
j tw � � O
d C 3 u C w
L�
�
U
>
O
V
�
�
�
u
`o
.0
€
O
0
vl
ay
C1 �
�
C
�
O
C
�
Ru� 2g 00 09:04a B��ffalo SG, LLC � �51-22�-7782 ��'�p�
�
LODGER AGREEMENT
� J
•
THE UNDERSIGriED ACKNOWLEDGES, UNDERSTANDS, AND ACCEPTS THAT BUFFALO
HOUSE�IS AN ALCOHOL AND DRUG FREE SHARED HOUSING PROPERTY fvSANAGED BYA
PROPERN MANqGER. THE UNDERSIGNED ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES, UNDERSTANDS,
AND ACCEPTS THAT RESJDENCY AT BUFFALO HOUSE IS ItJ THE CAPACI7Y OF A
LODGER SHARING A HOUSING UNIT AND NOT AS A TENANT WI7H RIGHTS OR
POSSESStON OF SPACE IXCLl1SIVELY. .
THE UNDERSIGNED FURTHER UNDERSTANDS 7NAT FAI�URE TO COMPLY WITH THE
RULES AND EXpECTATIONS OF BUFFALO HOUSE IS GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIA7E
TERMINATION OF OCCUPANCY. A MANAGEMENT TERMINAT/ON lNlLL RESULT !N THE
FORFElTUR� OF THE UNDERSI6NED'S DEPOSIT AND ANY NOUSING FEES.
1) USE OF ALCOHOL, ILLEGA� DRUGS, OR POSSESSION OF PARAPHcRNEL1A. USE OF ANY
ALCOHOL OR OTHER MOOQALTERING SUBSTANCES (ILLEGAL DRUGS OR
PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS IN ANY MANNER OTFiER THAN PRESCRIBEO), WHETHER iN
POSSESSION OF OR ON THE PERSON OF THE RESIDENT, OR WITHlN THE LIVING SPACE
OCCUPIED BY 7HE RESIDENT, WILL RESULT IN IMMEDIAT'c TERMINATION;
2) TRAFFICKING. ANY SUSPECTED ACTIVITY OF Dr�UG DEALING OR RUNNING WILL RESULT
IN IMMEDIA7E TERMINATION AND WILI BE REFERRED TO lAW ENFORCEMENT;
3) SIGNIFICANT QR WlL�FU� DAMAGE S07HE H011S1NG PROPERTY;
4) THREATS OR POSSESSIOP! Or ANY Wc,4PONS. THREA7S OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE,
SU�CIDE AT7EMPTS AND/OR OTHER ABUSE, OR POSSESStON OF ANl' WFJaPONS BY ANY
RESIDENT OR HIS GUEST{S) lh'!LL RESULT IN IMMEDIATE T�RMINATION AND Bc
REFERRED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT;
5} A8115E. At4Y PHYSICAL OR VER3AL kBUSE Or MANAGEM=NT OR A\'Y OTHER RESIDENT
OR HIS GUcSi(5) WILL RESULT IN IM4IEDIATE 7ERMINATION AND N?,Y Bc ReFERReD TO
�AW ENFORCcMENT;
6) SMOKING Af��YWIiERE ON THc PREMIS:S EXCEPT FOR DESlGNAT�p AR�q(S). SMOKING
(N SLEEPING ARG4S WILL RESULT 11 INMcDI:iTc 7cRMINATION;
7) SEXUAL REtATIONSHIPS. SEXUAL REL4TION5 ARE NOT P�Rr!ITTED WITFi1N THE
BUILDING. ANY S�XUAL SOLICITATION, PROSTITUTION OF2 PROMOTION THER=_Or VJtLL'
RcSULT IN IMMEDIATE TERM(�;ATION. OV�RNIGHT GUeSTS AR� NOT P�RMITTED;
NONCOMPLIA�uCE MAY RcSULT IP1 TERN�IN:,7ION;
S) At�Y ACTION THAT DISRUPTS r". SkFE AND PcSC=FUL P.cCOVc
ENVIRONMENT. NO P�RSON MAY IyTERF=RE Vt�TH ANY RcS�D�NTS QUIET ENJOY�d=NT '�
OF THE PREMIScS. COURTESY ,MD CONSIDcRAT10N 1NILL B� S-OWN WH=N USlNG
TELEVISlON, RADIO, AND PcRSONqL STEREO DEVICES. TFic HOUZS Or �0:00 PM 70
07:�0 Atvt WI�L BE CONSiDERED TIP.-0ES Or SPcCIAL A'TTeNTION AND CONSf0=rZ1 i ION TO
THOSE TRYING TO REST. NONCOMPLtANCc MAY RESUL7 IN TERMtNn i ION;
9) MAIL TAMPERING. ANY t✓:AIL'fANPcRING WILL RcSULT IM IAIMEDIA7E TER[J;INAY{O{� qND
8E REFERREO TO LA�N ENFORCEN,=�T:
10) THEFT, q�vY THEFf OR SUSPcCTED THEFT BY .4NY RESIDct�. WILL R�SULT IN
1f�1McDIATE TERMINATICN AND BE R=FERRED TO LAW EN=ORGEPlc�:7;
Ru6 28 00 09:04a Huffalo SG, LLC 651-227-7782 p.4
11} FAILURE TO ADHERE TO Pi20GRAM EXPECTATIONS. A.L RESIDENTS ARE EXPECTED TO
' 8E ACCOUNTABLE TO EACH OTHER AND MANAGEMENT AS 70 THEIR SOBRIETY STATUS.
EXPECTATIONS lNCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT IIMITEO TO: HOUSE JOBS AND DUTIES AND THE
WEEKLY HOUSE MEE7lNG; KEEPING PERSbNAL ITEMS OU7 OF Pt1BLlC AREAS; KEEPING
BEDS MADE AND ROOMS CLEAN; KEEAING PUBLIC AREAS CLEAN; tvWINTAINING
ACCEPTABLE PERSONA� HYGIENE NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESUIT IN TERMINATION;
72) OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. MANAGEMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT 70 CONSIDER
TERMINATION, CONTINUEO RESIDENCE, OR ACCEPTANCE ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.
MANAGEMENT INTERPRETATION OF THc LODGER AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE SUBJECT
TO DEBATE. MANAGEMENT RESFRVES THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE ANY LODGER
• AGREEMENTATANYTIME;
13) FAILURE TO GIVE WRITTEN NOTlCE OF VOLUNTARY TERMINATION. AT LEAST FOURTEEN
OAYS' ADVaNCE NOTICE OF VOLUMI'ARY TERMINATION IS REQUIREO;
14) FAfLURE TO PROVIDE URlNE OR BREATH SAMPLE. ALL RESIDEtQTS AGREE TO PROVIDE
A URINE OR BREATH SAMPLE 70,8E TESTED FOR TOXICITY AT THEIR [XPENSE
REFUSAL TO DO 50 WILL RESULT IN IMMEOIATE TERMINATION.
I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE LODGER AGREEMENT AND AGREE TO FOLCOW
THE EXPECTATiONS AS STATED HEREtN AND INTERPRETED BY HOUSE MANAGEMENT.
1 UNDER87AND THAT !T IS MY RESAONSI81LtiY TO 8E FAMlLIAR WIFN ALL RULES AND
EXPECTATIONS. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF I DO NOT TERMINATE VOLUNTARILY I WILi.
FORFE(T MY SECURIIY DEPOSIT AND ANY FEES PAID OR OWED.
PRINTED NAME:
APPLICANT SIGNATURE / OATE �
MANAGEMENTSIGNATURE/DATE•
�
�
�
�
�
u
MAIN LEVEL
�
I b ed
� "�
1
�� �
�.a �u� E
13i
2 beds
� beds
���
���
Porch
stafrs
� � Z
B a h 53
R oms
Stairs
Entry
Kitchen
Dining
Room
����
i beds
����_
1 beds
�ol
1 d�
� C 2�
a�-t��
�
� � L i:� ��-%' ' _ 5 1 C�-c �
-�PPER LEVEL �C'��
� - F �.�Ir�-�r•� fiv ( t-� �rG����: �
4i` �y �
Z
1 �I Z t ��
bed 6ed tairs �� ed
�v �
� '� �
. t � .
.�
.1 beds �, � beds
Ba hs
�` y � �'��
�
I beds g� h� S � beds
�
� Lo nge y �
a eas r
�eds beds
t �
�.�, ��
Z beds Z beds
Stairs
. �
Porch Porch
�
BOYUM & BARENSCHEER PLLP
CERTffTED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS AND CONSULTANTS
January 25, 2001
�
Buffalo Sober House
97 Oxford Street North
St. Paul MN 5� 104
Attn: Mr. Walter Dinalko
Dear Walt:
I have looked over the financial information I received from Tom Meier and
based upon the information I have, the foilowin� is a breakdo�vn of the monthly cash in
and out for the House:
MONTHLY RENTS
EXPENDITURES:
Mortga�e and debt payment
Utilities
Wages
Cable
Insurance
Supplies & Maintenance
Telephone
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
If you ha� any other questions, please call.
�
Sincerely,
� I
John F. Thompson. CPA
$ 9,600.00
5,800.00
1,800.00
900.00
185.00
400.00
300.00
SA0.00
$ 9.925.00
7800 Metro Pc=-•:av. Suita 2(1(1 PR�nneanolis MN 55495 �59-R54-4?.44 Fax 952-R54-(1R32
o., �a�
,
)�IMi
�wUL
��
'MII�
NONCONFORA 'G USE PERIVIliT qppLICATION
Department ojPlanning aad Economic Dwelopment
Zoning Section
II00 City Ha11 Axner
2S Wes�t Fourth Street
Saix1 Pau1, MNSSIQI
266-6589
APPLICANT Name Buifalo SobPS Gmup LLC
Add�eSS nnn �1 ��� _,,�. ��Q
City_ Gt_ p St.� 2ip 5510? Daytime Phone 651-602-0226
Name of owner (if different)
Contact person (if different) Waltes
651-248-3387
PROPERTY Address/Location 97 North �ford Street, St. Paul, NIlv
LQCATIOIV
Legaf description n,.,,.,.h �� ft nf TntS �� an,� �R a, U �� c •+
Park.Addi,tion to St_ Paul, Ramsey � ta
�i'r�r���si RT-1
(attach addrtional sheet if necessarv)
7YPE OF PERMfT: Appiication is hereby made for a Nonconfortning Use Pertnit under provisions of
Chapter 62, Section 102, subsection i, Paragraph 3 of the Zoning Code.
The permit is for:
� Change from one nonconforming use to another (pare. 3 in Zoning Code)
❑ Re�stablishment of a nonconfortning use �acant for more than one year (para. 5)
O lega! establishment of a nonconforming use in existence at least 90 years (pa2. 1)
❑ Enlargement of a nonconforming use (para. 4)
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: supply the informatian that is applicable to your type of permit.
CHANGE IN USE: Present/Past
or
cancnanity
RE-ESTABLISHMENT: Proposed use �bPr house for 24 residents.
Additionai information for aii applications (atEach additional sheets 'rf necessary):
See attacYied Su�norEing Znfonnation Sheet.
Required site plan is attached ❑
ApplicanYs signature�l �((�, ��-- Date i G/ City agenf
2�7az� W. Gehan
Attorne� for Buffalo Sober Group, rrr
�
�
EXHIBIT 9
#
+-30-pi: 3 :S�FV:renewai _en:¢r
January 2'!, 2001
To whom it may concern. -�
:BS+
�n t r�
2�3 +552 v ii 2
b1-Y��
-F�� oi-fZ3-z��
I've been asked to provide information on the importance ofi a sober living
situation in early sobriety. As a chemical dependency counselor 1 have
worked with clients leaving the treatment environment for 16 years.
The recovery process is a difficuit one. Each person in recovery represents a
human life as welt as an attached famiiy. The people I work with and who
populate sober housing are peopie like myself. I was a dentist in the St. Paul
area before my own addiction atmost cost me my life some 20 years ago. In
the process 1 lost everyihing I fiad. Thank goodness 1 was biessed with a
sober living environment for 7 months those many years ago. i have been
able io again become a productive member of the community.
i batieva that a stable living environment is the most crucial part of the early
recovery process. It promotes recovery, friendship, and spiritua! values as
welt as a structured setting. An atmosphere such as Buffalo House creates a
higher recovery rate among the patticipants as weli as creating a more stable
neighborhood.
�
The population in sober housing like Buffalo House is not the stereotypical
addicts and alcoholic as portrayed on TV and in the movies. 7hese are
people who desire recovery and are wiliing to change their lives to obtain it.
It's not easy to leave triends and neighbors behind in anoiher city and come
to St. Paul to live in a sober environment with other recovering peopie.
Tfiese are peopfe strongiy dedicated to improving their lives. Individuais who
make a commitment to their recovery that inctudes a stay of 6- 12 months
in a eober house dramatically increase their odds of remaining sober and
developing healthy lifestyles.
Those living in a setting where attendance at 12 Step meetings is
encouraged and group accountability is essential develop a responsible
lifestyle free of alcohof and drug use. Residents are held accountabfe for
taking the next r.ight step to insure a good recovery. Buffalo House has a
zero toterance policy. People who cannot Iive by the standards are simply
asked to leave. Some ot the rules are:
' 3:b+aM:renew�t cence.
:65+ Y�3 •SS2 � yi p
• Residents must maintain sobriety. �
• Each resident must be empioyed.
• Each resident has weekly household tasks to be accountable for.
• Each agrees to random urine screens.
These are peopte who can be fine members of the St. Paul community. They
make_ great neighbors since by definition, they�are weil behaved and chemical
free.
I hope ail will join me in the support of safe sober Iiving environmenis such
as Buffafo House.
Sincerei ,
Allen Tighe MS L C
Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselor
�
�
q
�
�
�r,w o�tcEs
Coliins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, �
West 1100 Frst Nationa! gar�lc guilding
332 Minnesota Street
Saint Paui, Minnespta 5,51011379
Teleptqr�e: 651-227-0617
Far E57-2Z7-0758
wv,nv.cGsh.net
VIA MESSENGER
April 13, 2001
Litten E. S. Field, Jr.
T. C. Field & Co.
530 North Robert Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Brian Alton
McClay-Alton
9�1 Grand Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55105
Matt Anfang
� 1635 Bayard Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55116
Carole Faricy
2211 Saint Clair Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 5510�
Stephen Gordon
492 Holly Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Rid�ard Iiramer
1471 Barclay Street
Saint Paul, MN 55106-140�
Gladys Morton
1600 St. Albans
Saint Paul, MN 55117
Matt Mejia
Family Business Advisors
� 420 Summit Avenue
Saint Paul MN 55102
�Aiso Atlmmetl m Wisr4nsm
7 Cm7 Tria $p¢cial¢t, �¢rp�¢� py ��i LMOa�on ^,�¢�� � y�e Mcv�esota Slate Bu Assoc�ation
SCeRdietl by ihE NaLmal BOar,1 a� Tral AWp�a�. yy a Cml Trial Ativp�a;c_.
oCPA, Cer(di¢y yy p�¢ Minneso;a Svte Bea�C of A�'r,a.ar�,y. o MBA in Finz�c¢
D � . ta�
�'✓�arn EHaugh.Jr.
* Mtihael J. SawN1'
naare w c,ew,
srPatrickiTierney
st�Thanas J. Gert'�sche�d
*.kM RSchWz
oTh«nas R O'ConneO
o �an O'ConreO
Cnristine LStrcemer
°Thanas E McFJlisvem
Jenni(er A Jameson
MichaH J. Rugani
or c«,�
n*Z
Mary L DavidSOn
,siz-�ss�
Eugene D. Buckley
Coliins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, �
Litten E. S. Field, Jr.
April 13, 2001
Page 2
Re: Application of Buffalo Sober Group, L,L.C.
My File No. 11780-1
Deaz Chairman Field and Members of the Zoning Committee of the St. Paui Planning
Commission:
When this matter was before you last on Apri15, 2001, an inquiry was made by Chairman Field
regarding the sequence of events which led up to the purchase of the property at 97 North Oxford
Street by Buffalo Sober Group, LLC, the applicant in this matter.
I gather that the reason for the inquiry lies in the fact that the applicant, in its application, made
alternative requests for reasonable accommodation under the Federa] Fair Housing Act, as
amended in 1988, and that one of tl�ose requests relates to a waiver of the 36� day window to
continue a nonconforming use provided by Section 62.102 ( fl of the Zoning Code. As I stated at
the April Sth hearin„ from applicant's point of view, it seems more strai�htforward to us to seek
a short extension of time under the ordinance as a reasonable accommodation.
s
At the conclusion of your April Sth meeting, the Committee decided to lay the appiication over �
until April 19, 2001, in order to acquire and examine additional information. The following day,
I requested from the Chair of the Committee the opportunity to submit additional informaTion.
I have prepazed a Chronology of Events which I enclose, together with supporting documents. It
is undisputed that Serene Lazson operated the Oakland Home at 97 North Oxford throu�h the
1980s and well into 1998. Nancy Homans has reported to you that the last resident moved from
the facility on Au�ust 21, 1998. Ms. Lazson continued to maintain an office at 97 North Oxford
after the last resident moved out. On January 27, 1999, Ramsey County made its final payment
to the Oakland Home in the amount of $45 0� 1 On Februay �5 1999 M� I�a o 1'+c`ed the
property for sale, describin� it as a"fully functional group home."
On iv'ovember 3, 1999, Walter Dinatko submitted a written Purchase Agreement, i.e. offer to buy
the property. The parties dickered, and on November 13, 1999, Serene Lazson signed the
Purchase A�reement, as modified.
On December 16, 1999, an Appraisal Report ��•as prepared by applicant's lender, University
National Banl; in St. Paul. This Appraisal Report indicated that the property was
"grandfathered."
The closing on the property took place on January 20, 2000, and Buffalo Sober Group, LLC,
immediately be�an renovatina the property with the intention of operating it as a sober house. �
Collins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, �
� Litten E. S. Field, Jr.
April 13, 2001
Page 3
On Mazch 1, 2000, the State License for.the Oakland Home (the Rule 361icense) eapired.
DI.Pa�
One of the obvious questions raised by this chronology is what "measuring event" begins the
runnin� of the 365 day window provided for by the zonina code. If the event is the last resident
moving from the Oakland Home, the 365 days elapsed on August 21, 1999. In such a case, the
Purchase Agreement executed by Mr. Dinalko and Ms. Lazson became legally binding upon
them about 80 days after the limit, and applicant requests a relaxation of that 365 day period as a
reasonable accommodation.
However, other points in time in the chronology aze reasonable starting points. Ms. Lazson
maintained an office in the structure and, in fact, received payments for services rendered until
January 27, 1999. Both the eaecution of the Purchase Agreement and the closing on the property
by app]icant occurred within 365 days of that event.
One could also ]ook to the date of Mazch 1, 2000, the date when Oakland Home's license
expired, as the date when the nonconforming use was discontinued, officially.
� The lan�ua�e of the ordinance provides:
When a nonconfomiing use is discontinued or ceases to exist for a continuous
period of 36-5 (365) days, the buildina, or buildin;; and land in combination, shail
thereafter be used in conformance with the re�ulations of the district in which it is
]ocated, unless the planning commission approves a permit to reestablish the
nonconformin� use as set forth in clause (i}(5}.
This presents the question whether, under the ordinance, a legal nonconformin� use, the Oakland
Home operation, can be said to continue after its residents have mo��ed from the facility, while
the property is being marketed as a legal nonconforming use, while the owner of the facility
maintains an office at the facility, collects receivables at the faciliri� and, in fact, maintains a
license for the facility until after a transfer of o«�nership of the property.
The applicant respectfully submits that it is not an unreasonable construction of the language in
question to conclude that Serene Lazson at least continued the operation of the Oakland Home
through January 27, 1999, while she �i�as collecting her receivables. If such a construction were
adopted, the need for reasonable accommodation would not exist.
The Minnesota Appeals Court recently decided a similar case, Haefele. et al v. City of Eden
Prairie, 2000 WL ] 869�74 (Minn. App., 12126(00). A copy is enclosed. The case involved a
� contention by the City of Eden Prairie that a property owner had abandoned a]egal
nonconforming use, a group home. The City was successful in this contention at the
Collins, Buckiey, Sauntry & Haugh, �P
Litten E. S. Field, Jr.
April 13, 2001
Page 4
administrative level, and the landowner sought an injunction in District Court "preventing the
City from interfering with [the landowner'sJ nonconforming use of the property." The District
Court issued fhe injunction and, on appeal, the injunction was sustained.
The District Court looked to the landowner's intent in deciding whether the nonconforming use
had been abandoned, and conctuded that it had not. This determination was sustained by the
Minnesota Court of Appeals,
�
The facts of this case are similar, although applicant concedes they aze not identical. The Eden
Prairie ordinance refers to a nonconforming use being "abandoned," and the St. Paul ordinance
uses "disconYinued or ceases to exist." It is ciear from the facts ofthe case before the Committee,
however, that neither Serene Lazson nor the applicant intended a discontinuation of the
nonconforming use. Ms. Larson marketed the property as a legal nonconformin� use, and
applicant bou�ht the property believing it to be a legal nonconforming use. No intervening
alternative use was made of the property. It is reasonable, therefore, to conciude that, at least
until Serene Lazson had colIected her receivables, January 27, 1999, she was "objectively"
operatin� a le�al nonconformin� use, and that while the property was on the market, she had no
intention of discontinuing, i.e. forfeiting, that use which gave the propert}= va(ue, and that her �
"subjective" intent was to preserve the nonconforming use.
Yours truly,
MARK W. GEHAN
MWG/mjc
encl.
cc: Walter Dinalko ./
Nancy Homans ✓
Peter Wamer
�
o� -ra�
u
BUFBALO SOBER GROUP
CHROA'OLOGY
�
2.
In the 1980's and 1990's, Serene Larson operated the Oakland Home at 97 North Oxford.
August 21, 1998, the last resident moved from the Oakland Home.
3. 7anuary 27, 1999, Ramsey County makes final payment to Oai:land Home, Inc. in the
amount of $45,051. Check is mailed to 97 North Oxford Street, St. Paul. Serene Larson
continues to maintain o�ces at the property.
Attachment A- Letter of Mary Jo Gaskins dated April 9, 2001, reflecting a finai
payment to Oakland Home on January 27, 1999, mailed to 97 North Oxford Street
Attachment B- Letter dated March l6, 2000, from Serene Lazson indicating that
she maintained offices until January I5, 2000, at the Oakland Home.
Attachment C- Fax dated March 16, 2000, reflecting that the Oakland Home was
responsible for telephone number 651-227-7781 until January 15, 2000.
Attachment D- Gas billing history for the Oal:land Home between March, 1999,
and February, 2000.
Attachment E- Electric billing history between October, 1998, and February,
2000.
�!
Attachment F- Bumet Realtors "Property Information" Sheet reflecting a listing
date (LD) of February 25, 1999.
�
Attachment G - Purchase Agreement.
��
February 25, 1999, Serene Larson lists 97 North Oxford for sale. The listing describes at
"fully functional group home."
November 3, 1999, Walter Dinalko submits a written Purchase Agreement.
November 13, 1999, Serene Larson and Walter Dinalko sign Purchase Agreement.
Attachment G - Purchase Agreement
�
December 16, 1999, appraiser prepares report for University National Bank statine that
the Buffalo Sober House will be orandfathered under existing zoning. r
Attachment H- Cover page of Appraisal Report dated December 16, 1999.
Attachment I- The appraiser's remarks regarding the property being •
"grandfathered."
8. January 20, 2000, closing on the property.
9. March ], 2000, Oal:land Home's Rule 361icense expires.
Attachment J- Correspondence from Department of Human Services (two pa�es)
,. reflecting that the Oakland Home was licensed as a Rule 36 facilit�� until March 1,
2000.
�
�
RC� R0.c7 �:^ti
Communit}' Human Senices Departiment
1CU AFiln�y Bl�'d L
Si !''sL),1Sta 3JIO1'l 7J'I
April 9, 20U1
5ufialo Sober Group
97 North Oxford
St. Paui, MN 55104
To Whom It Concerns:
•
�+FP: CtG _^p;t S:'_�
o- i �v.� —_.�_ . . ,._ __
a�-ra,
Pmzncia}TDP: i::l-�fG-3�50
tir.�;icy:sTPU: L•:+7-?L'G-70i�'2
Gencr:il'.nfo: u51-'l�e-.C:�
Follo�vino G search o' payment records for Oakiand Home, Inc., ii appears the
fi�al payment rnade by Ramsey Coun�y to Oakland Home, Inc. v.+as issued on
January 27, 1°99, in the amount of 545,051, ior the service pariod enoing
Sepiember 30, 1995, and vaas mailed to 97 Norih Oxzord, St. Paul, tJIN.
Sincerely,
V ' 1 "" � r�....._.
h.Qary Jo Gaskins
Con:�act t•��anager
Purchase c� Se�vice
�
;;inneso::'s Fti-st Home P.nle Cocnn'
S Y :r.iu�71�Y
T=�7yL F. =''-
,
March 16, 2000
. �
t
s
_ . F
= opera'ted ny business out oi Oakland 'r.ome, Inc. at
°7 Nor�h Oaio± St. until Januarv 15, 2000.' The nhone
nea�e: was 65 1 - 227 - 7751.
s=nc,erelp,
��.�/� �_ : Li c�%/''�t'�
Serene 2�. Lzr�on, PresiQent
Oakland iiorie, Iac.
�
�
•«ii�
_�
%
�
�
Ur.L��`.:od
�.�� _s, z000
o�
ry�
:'e S3oe ZL Y_�v Cont�=a:
O:i1a.'i3 H,�e I:c. Se2e:.e 7.a=sa:, vas _spoas�i�.2e =o= 55'_-227-77S1 -
•.LtiS Jaatn,f 15, 2COO.
rszs:
Paga 1
�, �
u
ATTAC�Il�IENT C �
!
'� ,
;;
ScMt7ypC Gas ServiceSaWS: Aaivc
Aletct�anYaG UppD5T45Q7 NomAtclerTypc-
��� ��°� �� largc Cemmcresl Rrm (A;N Gax]
❑ Dirylay Can¢�ed Blls
8C qcad Dt Days BiHcd Use Us
8 IIZR9AU 3z �dY Rc.ua
990 3II9
8 U1RBN0 74 590 421
e oin�ua a o
. �i
B 77a30/39 • 3) 8QJ 27.6
3 flR�9 29 � 5�0 78.6
3 10R5179 1D p
3 UW75!?9 )9 p
1 06(28ry9 32 p
i O�Tp_9 2g 37 1.7
I OvtBj49 30 328 7p_g �
i U3(t9/99 2B 7« 26.6
.000
.DU�
.00n
��i
.noo
.DUU
.UUD
.OUO
.aW
.000
.oaa
.ano
PrintRcport U:t Sum...
Servics Options
SDace yeat
Small C d I
.D�OU
AOOU
.OU00
����
.onao
.QDUa
.aoou
.�OOU
.oaon
.0000
.9000
.000n
Detail...
ew.5e8 M p
sae.ete M �
008 S P
a87.68�
360.15H E
38.528 AI
76.CE3 L
2H.90B i,(
t<.399 M
�83.?99 M
4p?.118 E
Closc
�
t
;
'
• ,
�
03/17/2000 14:51:15 — �� l �--���
_ - -
�3IiL- HOME INC
37 OXFO�D 51 N
ST PFL�, NSI S510S-6539
�
ATTAC�II7�Ti' D
�
.
r
Scrvia TypC EIeNiC Scrvice Stalus: , Activc
MeferjConVecl: 0082557807 Noo-Mctcr'fyPC:
Curtent Rate: G74 Gencral Servite �AIN ElccJ
� Disptny Canecied Bilis
02jZSlOU 32
mneNO u
o �
, .��
D9j15(99 79
Oo(Lej99 67
Otj2s(99 22
0�/U6(99 36
03(OIJ99 32
07j28199 29
7173Ury8 36
77R'V98 28
S.BUO
7,680
U
�
1,�00
5,560
200U
:.52U
l,200
5.<BU
S.t80
5.040
iei.z
izn.n
Print Hepart
� u., �
03/17/2000 14:50:57
0_T—��CIAND HO?.E INC
97 OX=0Z7 SP N
17.7
97.7
90.9
97.8
7372
189.0
750.0
160.9
ST FF�ui, I-ih �710�-6539
nzoo
t �.8D9
.O�U
.��
75.50D
6.800
6.800
7.6U0
I�.d00
12.BOU
72.CU0
73.200
Sun._
6 � -ra'
Servicc Options
s,�,.0 c a i
Wecheetl
Singlt Poase ♦
ii. .v000
ii. .uoan
.Q00�
: ����
). .0000
71. .DUDO
71, .0000
12. .9UOU
72. .0900
73. .0000
72. .00DO
13. .0000
Detaii_.
332.35 W M P
118.57 W M P
.DOW 5 P
.,��
333.295 P
185.SBM L
163.SOW M
Zb{ �7W M
28e.98W M
335.77W �
353.OZW �1
327.25 W M
�lose
� « i i�r a
. +
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Walter,
Waiter, Buffalo House LLC
Laura, NSp Customer Service
March 16, 2000
97 Oxford St N St. Paui MN 55104
'%."
This letter is wriften to verify that there was no interruption in the electricai
or gas service from fhe time it was Oakiand Home Inc., to BuffaJo House
LLC. Service was established in the name of Buffaio House LLC on
d1 /14/2000.
If 1 can be of furfher assistance, please contact me back at 65'(/639-4944.
Thank you.
�
�. -
Laura Herbert
NSP Custottler Service
•
�
�
r n •a ,,........
Pro�er�y rnformatiar�
� �n: ,4ckesz
PROPERTY TYPE - 6 INVES7M17EtJ7 - �V
SP:5290,000 OMD:]7/7gK_+g DOM: 26S g�
LP: 529�.000 LD: OZ25I99 XD:
ADDRESS:97 OX�Of.D ST N ' 7AX: 55,0:6
N.UN: $! PFiul 21P: $g10G cr
TWA: _�.375
AR: 7i0 SUB: i DIV: i CpU:FA;.;j A58:50
L07: 75X140 ME: 0 R;; hy.
DIR: N ON LEX FR.SUIJ1v5�T TO ASHLHND(Ej70 OXFOnG (ti)
r'U'_LY FU VCT10NkL GROUP HOt.9E-3Z ?cRSON BRICF: STRUCTUR�,40D0
FSr,�MPcCC��BLE MCCkANICS.FESiDENT1AL IOCnTlON.11✓�?n^ESSIVc
OF�FnTION.S50C1000�* YcARLY GROSS,F�LLY FURNISH=D.
LGL: N 75' OF LOTS 2? R:�`D 2fi BLK <2 ZON: 4+•
�U MOS ANN$ ANN EXP�NSE
� -C''' S0 SOFU: GAS
2 C� SO SG'L• �
o
BUR?�EZ' ,:�,
...._.._.�...._,:
t:a�n..r. G.•+..w �r.ti>'e G.� bw G.re•: a<.
LFG: ct�o
823a SAG: �5345 g�: g��]
TU: 32
I SS I N Mp?: ES 10;
LM1,:,;
ASP: N
h3: Y8L:1907 NwC:N
c, _0 FSZ: i600 PID: 0220232301�0
'� �Q SoWSW: 50 FSF• n000 e
• A.tTG:_0 IN7; 0.000
4 � 50 SOIN:
5 ,n OD: 0
50 SC�TR: 50 AGI: �.25.000 PlN: SO MC2: N NA2: �'
6 � y4 S � M �' � '�GE: �� FR1; CALL LlSTER �OR D=T.'v!LS
�?? SO SOCT: SO AN�: [p FR2: YEAR BUILT UNCEnTA1N
67S: / RP: ;p
T�� SD S�7E: 5� SDN: G25 St. Faui
�GN:S F!CFt�LE/� SAyiTH 63u-'.725
OrC: R�;(:dl�Y, �:�p.L E57A7£ GUIDE SC:2.7
LC: 6�i i
::ssumablc
1C:: n
ascmenl
..:.Ii.C_:
� �;,
F t.,£:�EO 1 L�:=:..i�@/
��i.: I�LiL�IC^4'JLI 1 Jv:S
- cc5l":r.7y0�o.:
::�i:i:ty Fin[in:inC
i::n�_nt:une!
Gsa;n Ezurio:
=;:JI
.__:: G'_
�!ue;
`C: i � nt^"
I�CI_siDnS
:: L��
� I5: TYj�[•
=%'-.._q•:: �i(;
� �.._��:, co:nc:
M1Sist
Pa�� fiw.m.
Hp.�•.•JOC� !
�'a Wral V:'ooav.•o; k
fll� �'a(i�il(it( C�.�i�^.'li
F_n�rtx
, : hnco:: Ar
G.� ��'.�
Fumisne� ����s
1:urnber of Ranur'S
T,or
Num Refrir
i.:: J
Ov:nCr_xUenSec
T2n._
. ._..1:i::_
:KC I, r; Ep;, �.
FI_A::C
Fuel
L:.:nte�a�'e:R^n'�'
J3nt;cr.;: ' '�'
Tr.sn
Jf1Ci:
�Rh'0
C�n=_r
'.'.uLU:%JEIL 5nn:�:Ei; - B! :R;:c"( '
SD P: 632-3 i 3�
SA: 0 NA: N VRQ N
APT: 6t2-6S7•i�Q6
?ar'v,ing
O�tn
17:11°f
Roofina
Flat
Tc:/Ci'2vc�
O:^et
P.ant per Foo:
O:�e.
Sewer
C::y � °�._. . CC.^.nEC:c�
Safc tnclu6es
�:.99G'S
ca:Or^
!r:•e.^.:c:.�
=:r.iu:e� :o:p;.^.ev!
O:9=:
�'+le
` �.i.3nmer.:s/FA:;IIi F�ni:y
6JSiOfSS �:GCOfWOit�
7erms
Cc-venhcral
S�eti�l Fr..�ma
'.'
E5^
TcnantEzpensos
O[r,2•
Current USE
�OIEfltAD:el
5_:i�ess Service
Proi�ssia^a� Service
Ufiiiiies
F2chn Co^:mor.
EieClnt CC.^�r,�Or,
Moi 1'Jat2r Commcn
Y�aier
Q�y Vdp?=_r - CorneC(ed
PhD:o Code
7'eBe �.S:,dr USim,^, P;.cto
?hD;c iektn
Y.Dm:Qs:GS(
ATTACF�7T F
...��.r.r
LV�1�{1.�1
3. RECEIVED OF �J�
4.
5.
_ _yJ C� c i
�-' "'' - -. � %
J i I_ I J.••r.
� n> �w.�� d:vwuc q ur Murwsou �aaeoatan ol
REA�iOasa..l.d, awums .n we'�ty.nsnp an
or �rse rn misuae ol ms tam.
O 1998. Minlesota Associat�on o�EALTORS�, EJ�na, MN
t. Daie I�bv":.yr71X.-r 3 lt��1' 1
2. Page 7 0l _. . Paoes
thesumoi '� ''({�7y� `5C!n'�!� Gyv� ji�'1 ' Y �• w
Dollars(SO�IXJCkri. �
�Y FH� E K'CASH! NOTE as eamest moncy to be deposited upon ecceptance ot Purchase Agreement Gy ali parties, on or
btlore�p�ry business dey erier acqptenee, In Ihe trust eccounl ollisting broker bu! to De retumed to Buyer H Purchase
Agreement Is not aeceptetl b Selier. Saitl eamest m?ney � pan payment tor Ihe purchase ot the propeny Iocatetl at:
9- Streel Adtlress: �� n�c�"v i�,i i 1-p
�o. cr�vor_�1- . ra�r� ,._.._..._. �.. -^' -
.
77. Legallytlescribedas•
72
Minnesota,
73. inWudng Ihe following prpp¢r1y, ii any, owned by Seller antl used antl lowted on said D�openy. garden bulbs, planls, shn�bs, and
7<. lrees; storm sash, slorm tloors, screens antl awnings: win0ow shatles, blinds, lraverse and curtain antl tlrapery rotls; anachetl GaMing
75. lialwesandbulbs;ptumbinq(ixtures.waterneater, heating pfants (with any bumers, tanks, stokers and other equi �y5ep j�
76. connectiontherewith), buiil-in air conditioning equipmeni, electronic airfiller, waier soltener OWNED I AENTED NON� buili•in
77. humitliiier and dehumitlilier, licuid ozs Iank and coMmis il Ihe ro rt ot Seller , sum 'a�c+�o�e7
( P Pe y ) p pump; attached teievision antenna, cable N
18. jacks and wiring; BUILT-INS: dishwashers, aafDage EiSposais, lash compaciors, mens, cook top sfoves, microwave ovens, �ood tans,
19. intercoms; ATTACMED: c.aryeting; mirrors; oarage �oor openers and eli wntrols; smokeldetxtors; �irepiace, screens. dqors and
20. healilarors: AND� the fpllowi� pe�rs property.. r..'��:.F-lc�Y}.1i .9.�'U::�-=r. Y � D�F° 1 �.� !lr
Z7. F AE, V:b� /l� �: Vl �G lC:i:':Sr.'I[e :�. . G:i-r.nng.•.y .a Ul. .1_'� .Y�1-.. _ _ . _,. ..
22.
." 23. all oi
2<.� 11�
to
i ..� .. � �-_ � - ,,.. ,
� n.. " �_ _'
25. whi:h 9uyer aorees to pay in ihe lollowirio mznner Eamest mone}• ot S �:,__
2'0. xnd5"%-"�5`` �._`i � � 4+-V��.�l!i'3i.' �`:. ��.u=�
� . "' _ _.�„_:_ Pi. �. ' . the da�e ot closi�g. and
27. the Calance of S ' -,. �•:: Viv�� c� l�
.�-T-� � " by Lnancing in accortlance wich tne attached adaendum:
2�.,Conventionaf� FHA VA Assumetion,TCont2ctlorDeed Pur�haseMOneyM�qaqe Other;
?2. Tnis Pumlwse Aoreemern I5/i� NOFSU "ect to a Contin �Pf�e su �mc za�y) _
� -(d.ve���.� °�`ry��"^� �O��eof8uyelspmperry. (I;answeris IS,se^ aGacred atld_riCUm)
SJ. Tnis ?urcnxse Aoreement IS JJS N07 su5ject fo csncellation o{ a previousxYytten Purchase horeement dxietl
-L n`e o3b� - .
3s. Suye: nas been mzd_ av.are o: ine avaiizbilii�� cl properry inspections. Bwer.�ects/ry � tttES to have z pmper,y inspxiion peno:metl zt
G� C}-
.._. �u��as Fr.;,=r.ss. Th:< purchzsc:.crz=_mer,t IS TTST.07 suSiECt to an Inspection ACtlendun, (1; z.�s�veris !S, s_e a,:ach=d adCenc�m.)
_ 1:':p� C
::. DcE�lNqgKE7A5LE 71; L_: Upon pedor..znce by ouyer, Sel:er shzli tle6v¢r z
.=. jomac:n py ����s=. i� zm•. ��nveyinp re�+ce;abte titk. suoie� to: 11'a:rtntr De�d
5. (Aj 'ouiidme znc :onina Iaw•s. ordinances, state and feaeral reaulatians; (B) Restriciions relatina to use or improvement ot the pmperh•
5. vr.iho�; etiective fortenure orovisions: (C) Reservztion ot zny minerxi riahts bp ihe State o1 Minnesotx; (D) Utili;y and drainaae
u. easemenis which ao..aol in;enere xd;h exising improvements: ('c) Rights of tenants as follows (unless specifieC, noi whj=�1 1c
56. lenzndesl: pVUt��C
e9. (F) O:hers (MUSt Ce speoified i�ri'ing.��\•:_
�0. BUYEn SHALL PAY' SELLER SHALL PFY on �a�e af closina any tleferced real estate [axes (i.e. Green Acres, etc. o: spenxl
-7. :vu_ssments. �v�n�a��, : )
___.__-__- D2ymenlo4wh¢h�is�reauireNa�o-.e�mF.,te�.e...�,...:.»_�..�:.__.__.""' " " . _. . . .. .. ...... .
+2. BUYER AND SELLER SH0.LL PpORHTc AS OFTHE DA; E OF CLOSING1 SELLER SHALL PAY ON
fame ann
�3. of s�ecial zssessmenls ceeifi���=��h the reat estafe �xxes tlue and payable in the year ol
-=. BUYER SHALL ASSUM1tE !�5'cLt FR SHFLL p Yan date of closino-a4olher special assessmen¢ leviec
(uri-rn.y-��'_._' =G
<�. ZUYcASHALLF55U1dEL5=LLERSHALLPROVID �
ins;atlmen6
as ot the dat_ of ihis Agreement
-. _ _ c FOR PFYMEM OF speual �ssessments p¢ndno as ot the tlz�e of Ihi� Apreement
in2iemei '
t6. for improvemenis tnet have been ordered 6y the C'f,y Council or otfier zssessino authorities. (Sellers provision for pzyment shall be by
<%. pavnen; inio escrow ot two (2) times Ihe eslimated amount ot the xssessmenis, w less 25 required b}' 6uyer'S lender.)
=6. 5•ryer shall pxy zng unpaid special zssessments payabie in Ihe ycar followino closina and Ine:eater, ine payment ol which is not o:hemise
44. here:n providetl.
50. As o: the date of ihis Aoreem_n;, S¢per reD�eserns 1hal5eiler HFS P.�4�T � eived x notice ol hearing for a new pub�ic improvemeM
Ss. pmj=_C from eny covemmen;ai ass_ssin� aulhoriiy, ihe costs �of wnic h,prp�� may De xssessed aaainsl the proper,?c Any such nofice
52 rxevetl bySelbnaiterRheceteoNhiskcreementzndberore closng willbe provideBfo 'eu}'er� I;riotice �ot a pendinc ���
53. special assessmenl is issu_c afte: the Ezta d this Rareemeni an� on o: before the Eale ot ciosirg, Buyer shzli xssume paymen: o`:
5=. FLL fNO�c /DTHER: - ot any such special assessments, and Selle p p yment on �ate of
-I��c�ne.-- rshatl rovidefo: a
55. closino AL�YNQ u'c/�OTY:__R: �^'� •-' of znv such special assessments. It such special xssessments
on. or escrow amounts tor saip soecial assessmenis zs reauiretl by Buyers lende: shall exceed S �� , 74en either
5%. pzrty may aaree in writing or. or betore ihe tlate o` closine to assume, pay or.p�ovitle io: !he paymer.t df such ezcess. In ihe aSSence oi
58. such apre¢ment, eifner par,y may decizre Inis Purchase Fgreenent nuil znC voitl: the panies sha�i immetlialely sign z cznceliafo� ot
53. Pu:chase Aoreement anG ell eames; money paid hereund?r shztl be relundetl to Buyer.
A7\:P:.-7 (9/9S)
`��:`'".•;•�•" In drpmdenth 0 �cned;lndOperatenlBy\F7.Inm���r.��ed. _ `\
�
�
i
����tl 115. A60ress W}'TY _ �.-'�'
` . 1 i6. Paye 3 Oate � ����"� �1 ��'1� .� • �
117• Buyer sAatl pa PHORATED FROM DAY OF CLOSING _72TH5, ALL, NONE real estale taxes tlue anC pzyable fn Ne yaar .�� ,
7 78. Seller shall pay, eRORATED TO DAY OF CLOSIN6, � 2TH5, ALL, NONE reai esla�e Ia:es tlue and payaWe in Ihe year�. If ttie
'�+
�os�ng Oale is change�Q 1he real es�a�e taxes paitl shall �ed. be atljustetl �o Ihe new closing tla�e. Seller warranls taxes due and
yabie in Ne year �"!���'1 wip be FULL ON• 'omesteatl cWssilicaGOn. It part or non-homes�ead c�assificaGon is cirUetl,
7 Seller agrces lo pay Buyer at cios�ng 5 ��T ��
722, towartl itie nom�omuteatl real esfafe taxes. B�yer agrees to pay any remammg Ealance oI mn-�omestead tazes wt�en Ihey 6ecom¢
723, due and payaDle. Buyer shail pay real estate tazes due and payaWe in the year folbwing cbs"ug and Ihereatle4lhe payment ol whith is
124. not othe(wise he�ein provitled. No represmtations are made cOncertting ihe amWnt ot Subsepuent teal e5tate taxes.
�
725. POSSESSION: Seiter �ali deliver possession ot ihe property nol laler Ihan. U� • C I�.i� /1! x� a(ter cbsing.
126. AII inWresi, homeowner assoeialion dues, renis, fuN ol, Gpvitl pevoieum gaz antl all ct+nrges lor ei�y wa�eq city sewer, e�xtricity, ary
72�. naWral gas shaY be proratetl pnween the panies as al Gate ol Uosing. Seller agrces to remwe pLL DEBRIS AND ALL PERSONA�
728. PROPERTY NOT INCLUDED HEREIN irom tne property by possession date.
129. EHVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: TO the be5l of Ihe Sellets knowledge ihere ate no ha2ardous 5ubsta�ces, or untlergfound StOraqe
730. Wnks, except herein noted:
737. _
SELLER WARRANTS THAT THE PROPcRTY IS DIfiECTLY CONNECTED TO: C(TY SEWER �YES O NO /
«„ =e,�,..,�., .,...�___- ___...__....-- -
AGREES TO PROVIDE, IF REOUTAED BY THE TERMS OF THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT OR BY
SYSTEM LOMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE flEGULATIONS. NOTICE: A
'EM MAY SATISFY THIS OBLIGATION. NOTHING IN LINES 13<TO 738
0
OR NOTICE INDICATING
BUYER HAS RECEIVED ;THE WELL OISCLOSURE STATEMEtJT OR A S7ATEMENT THAT NO EXISTS ON �
PtiOPERTY,ANO A SEPTIC SYS7EM DISCLOSURE�STA'iEMENT OR A STATEMENT THAT NO SEPTIC SYSTEM EXISTS ON
SERVES THE PROPERTY, AS REaUIFED BY MINMESOTA STATUTES. �
a[. sc��tH WARRANTS THAT CENTflAL AIR CONDITIONING,HEl.TiNGEPLUMBING'ANp WIRING SYSTEMS USED AND LOCATED;OP
�:3. SAtD PRO?ERN WILL 6E IN WORKING ORD'ea ON D:,TE OF CLOSING, EXCEPT AS NOTED IN THIS AGR'cEMEM
-:. BUYER HAS THE RIGHT TO A WALK•THFOUGH REVIEW OP THE PROPERTY PRIOR 70 CLOSING TO ESTABLISH THAT'THF
45. PROPERTY 15 Ih SUBSTANTiALLY THE SAME CONDITION AS OF THE DATE OF PURCHASE AGREEM�NT. SELLEF AGREE
4S. TO'NOTIFY BUYER IMMEDIATELY IN WpiTING OF pNY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES FROM ANY PRIOq REPRESENTATION;
547. REGAqDING THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE PflOPERTY. -
17:8. SIIYER ACKNOWLEDGES THFT NO OrZFI RcPR_SeNTATiONS HAVE 6EtN MADc RcGhRDiNG POSSIBLE Pq03LEtAS Oi
A�ER IN BASeMcNT, OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY WFTER OR ICt BUIL0.UP ON FOOF OF TN'c PROPERTY AND 6UYER RELIE:
LELY IN 7H REGARD ON 7HE FOLLOWINC� STATEMENT BY SELIER:
i. : . --�--..�.
oELLER HASy-yp5 NOT ,�l,D A Wey-6:� eNTAND HA�_ HA�S N07M�AD ROO�, WALL OR CEILING DAMAGE CAUScD BYlYATeR
r -� -�:nueo'�= m v r (c�ii.i-r.;=
i752. Oa ICE BUILD-U?. 6UY'c HAS /y#�7'ReG'JVE�t PROPcRTY DISCLOSURE STAT'cM'cNT. �
-3. BUYER HAS RECEIV°D'i •• �,•. --
1: $4.
� `i
„ ;s. L-.-�:I14
I � (�L
iise. �-"�
I : ' Ica
m. .:, r:,.. i
lLi:
50. i. � _j.' :
REOUIRcD BY MUNICIPALITY.
is Sellefs AgenVBuyeYS AoenUDuat Aoen NorvApent
R�rcle one}
is 5eller'��vels AoenVDual ApenVNOn-Aaent
�J (arcieone)
75P. THIS NOTICE DOES NOT SATISFY MINNESOTA STATUTORY AGENCY DISCLOSURE REOUIREMENTS.
61. DUA�AGENCY
.Y IN THIS TRANSACTION.
62. gmker represents buth ihe Seller(s) and the Buyer(s) of the property invoWed in this transaction, which creates a dual 29enty. 1
63. means that Broker and its salespersons owe fitluciary duties Io both Seller(s) antl Buyer(s). Berzuse tne pa ;ies may havs conflir
64. interests, Broker and its salespeospns are prohiSited irom advocatinq exGUSiveh� ior either parry. Broker canno: act zs a tlual aoent in
65. �transaction without ihe consent of both Seller(s) antl Buyer(s). Selier(s} antl Buyer(s) acknowletlge that:
66. (7) conlidential informztion communicated to Broker which regards price, tertns, or motivation to buy or sell will remzin coniitler
67. uniess Seller(s) or'ouyer(sJ instructs Broker in writing to disciose this information. Other infortnation wiil be shared;
6S. (2) ��aker and its salespersons �hll not represent tne interest of either party to 1ne demment cf the oihe�nd
89. (3) wi;nin the limits of tlual aoenry, Broker and its salespersons wili work diLOently to taciiitate the mecnanics of tne sale.
)0. With the knowietlge and understanding ot the explanation above, Seller(sj and 6u"yer(sJ,zWhorize and insfmct 6roker and
77. salespersons to act as Eual agents in this trareaction. �� �.,' ��: :
u�
�/; b�! "%'�.a '��' � � j . ° O /�
er . �� -��.
6uver
Sener -�, - 6uyer
1'.. �l'/� '% j � ',
Daie
Date
'.�.N:PA-3 �4l9B)
lndependentlp Onned Md Opented B9 KR7, Incorpora�ed.�
ChN 1(H: (9/9!)
p�_t��
B��T� PUR AGREEME � -
' , �� 775. AtlOress �� �, ( ����''().
176. Page 4 Date �1 V UvG � 3 ���-1-�
77. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE RECEIVED AND MpD THE OPPOqTUNiTY 70 REVIEW THE ARBITRATION DISCLOSURE AND
78. RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.
187.
182.
783.
784.
785.
SEILER(5)
SELI.Ep(S)
C`1"
BUYER(S)
BUYER(S)
IQ
786. Attached are othei aCdenda which are made a part ot�7FUS Purchase Ag�eement (Enter total number of pa es of ihis Purchase `
187. Agreement, includ�ng a0denda, on line 2 of page 7.) ^ . i 1
�rj..xw.�Rn r..cv>> .'-I� "v �v 0.-:�.�. T.il.r�t .'�2.•31✓.cu.�a O.�^ �.wn� 3'J
��� v .�ti....r,. t , .. �JJ.•v r�. as...k'.:..-� O.�" .U�'1.�.�ne �-a2n �✓..air.z��..... .
788.1, the owner of the property,-actept this Agreement and. -_ 1 agree to purchase the property for Ne price and in accortlance
189.authorize the listing 6rokerto withtl2w said property from wiih the terms enC conditions set fort� ebove.
190.ihe markei, unless insiructed otherwise in writing. I have reviewed.all-pages�of 2Ais.PLrc6ase Agreement '
797.1 have reviewed all pages of this Purchase Agreement �� " '
i! , ' l_" . . _ . � c}C _ _ , . • ! �/� '�. , ���
(Date)
793. X�.. n , � % .. -i> A /, / %,
(Sellefs Pnmed Name)' n X_B �/'�iL l�/ /./'/Nf•'L d0 ��
/ ( uyefs Pnmetl Name) / _
' t � /
to<. X �✓7u -...r 9. GSi� S� � X :./ - S '.
(Soaal Securny Number • optional) (tdanial Stztus
} (SoualSecunryNumber-optiorw�/ (tl.arialStatus)
. ' /1 f '1 ' y% � / / l /
795. X � iX ��' / :j ,�/ �' .
(Setiets 9gnaiure) (Date) i (BUyeYS SignaWre) � ' �Date)
79a.
Name)
Number-op;ionai) (Martial
X
(6uyeYS Pnnted Name)
•
�
Status)
196. FINAL qCCEPTANCE DATE �
�° � THIS IS A L�GALLY BIN�ING COtVTRACT 6ETW BUYERS AND SELLERS.
200. IF YOU D'cSiRE I.EGAL OR TAX ADVICe, CONSULT AN hPPFlOPRIFTE PROFESSIONAL
r
MN:PA-4 (9/98)
u
��"i�"+=�����N� � InLependendc0�cned.andOperamdB}��F7.Incorponted.
r
� u....�"i�.��V��w.Vl\II��UL�\�..1/ .
B��T� ADDENDUM �• .
J Tiis fam iyeatl G�• Te Mw�nda.4aori�em d
- 0.EALTORJdr.v.nMbsWmsairyYa�iYry�ns.q ...
Mduuamava�tlCVimn. �
� m 1998. Minnazole hssxiati oi AEA.TORSd� Edn4 MN . ����
� • ? : t. Date 1.1 c�tirk3ir - S ; 19``,`'1
2. Page
THE PROPERTY, IF NOT NEW, CANNOT BE EXPEC7ED TO BE IN NEW CONDITION.
4. . �� ROUTINE MNN7ENANCE ITEMS ARE NOT PART OF THIS ADDENDUM. � • .
n � �}
5. Addendum to Purchase Agreement between parties dated 1\�'11�+�� •� , 1�i 1, pertaining to the �.
'� c�+�.� n-..�
6. purchase and sale ot the propeny at ��' �� ���� � 1 �(C.^{�
7.
8. This Purchase AgreemeM is contingent upon an inspection(s) ot the pmpeRy to determine the co�ition and
9, pertortnancs relative lo lhe iMended tunction oi the following checked'nems: �-
� 0. � Basement - O Electricai System O Plumbing System
77. O Ceilings O Exierior , O Roofs
�2. D central Cooling system O Ploors - •' O walls
13. � Ceni21 Heating System 0 Fou�ation � � � O Windows
14. � Other (speci(y): " �%'
15.
J } _ � ,�
16. '.� ��' �� : i �'�" � .
17. T' 1 • - . �/
78. [�ComPtete'Momeinspection . � /
79. Any inspection shall be done by an inspector of the Buyers choice. The inspector should be quaiified to do the
20. inspeclion as evidenced by a license or professionai designation. Buyer shall satisfy Buyer as to the
:� 27. qualifications of the Inspector(s). •
22. Said inspection(s) shail be at the Buyers sole expense.
23. Seller agrees to make the propeny reasonably available for said inspection(s).
24. Any inspeqion or test done by FHA, VA, or any other govemmenlal unit shall be done and paid tor in accordance
25. with fhe applicable regulations and are no1 part of this Inspeciion Conlinoency.
�or the purposes of this Addendum, ..husin s�� /// days" do not include Saturdays, Sundays, and state and
deral hotidays. �,� VL(��.�
. �
All inspection(s) shail be done wiihin � u-gys�eSSdays of final acceptance of this Purchase Aareement. It Buyer�
29. or anyone representing Buyer discovers any defects in the above specified componenis of the property, Buyer must
30. notify Seller or Sellers aaent in writing, describing such defects, wiihin '� business days after all the inspeciion(s).
1. If the Buyer notifies ihe Selter or Sellers aoent of such defecis, and it within � bus�ness dzys after such notice
"s2. ouyer and Seller have not agreed in wrinng as to whether repairs will be tl_facts waived, or an
.i3. ad�ustment.to ihe purchase price made, the Purchase Agreement wiil automatically become null and void
3». without further notice required, and all deposits of eamest money paid by Buyer wiil be prompily refunded. -
35. Buyer and Selier agree to sion a Cancellation of Purchzse Agreement, and therearier neither par.y will have any
36. further liability to the other. •
37. However, not withstanding any provision to the contrary, or any notice given, the Buyer may unilaterally waive
38. defects, providing ihat ihe Buyer notifies Seiler or Sellers ageni of waiver in writing within the time specified. If
39. 9uye� fails to have the insoection(s) perfortned, or does not notify Seller within the time specified above, then
40. ihis coniingency shall be deemed removed and ihe Purchzse AQreement shall be in fuil force and effect.
41. Notwithstanding any other provision of ihis Agreement, Buyer may, based on ihe inspection(s) deciare this
42. Purchase Aareemeni null and void by so �otifying the Selier or Sellers apent in writing within 7 business
C3. days ot the inspection(s). In the event Buyer declares the Purchase Aoreement nuil and void. 6uyer and Seller
44. shail immediately sian a Cancellation of Purchase Agreement and earnest mon_y shall be refundetl to Buyer..
45. Nothing herein invalidates the warranties agreed to in lines 142-743 of the Minnesota Association of REALTORSa
46. approved Purchase Agreement. _
47. Seller or Sellers Agent HALL / HALL NOT have ihe right lo continue.to offer th= property for ule until this
`_ ��.ue vo« � /
48. contingency is removed. � ` �
� ' r�7�- '} -- / //,
49i �C..'/ : 'i; '' i- �i ?'..i �l'/,: ' i 4 •/�' � ' / � i: ' ' "%`' y
�sdi.r�..- ' (D.�.) (e�..p (-' ' - ,% ' ryn.� � /
(Seuer) (p�u) (bu.�q (Dn.)
5}, . THI515 A LEGALIY a4NDfNG CONTRACT BESVJEcN BUYERS AND SELLERS.
�2. IF Yotl DESIRE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE, CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESStONAL
MN: ICA (9/98)
C00.113i(9/98) lndependently0unedMdOpen�edB}•�RT,Inmryonied.
��
3. Addendum to Purchase Agreement
4. saie ol ihe property at `� 1 N(Y'�rt`1 (/X�'i llf
5.
6. Buyer will appiy tor and secure at Buyets expense a
INSUiiED CONVENTtONAL MORTGAGE
n�s �onn a�wo.ae ry c» enw,.,w k:oa.nm a
REAlTOP56,wt+icn 6sGa�ms aq Wuq mumg
out W va� a�ua� d¢va tam.
2' 7998, i esots sxiatlo�,ol q � T Etlin4 MN
1. Date DvQr.�+'Ihv.C" �
2. Page
� pettaining to the purchase and
nwi
INSUFiED
�Ix.� ��.,,,.,
7. mortgage in the amount stated in the Purchase Agreement amortized monthly over a period of
(FVN.MM
8. rwt more Ihan years wiih an initiai mortgage inierest rate of no more Ihan ,�1�� percent per annum.
9. MORTGAGE APPI,ICATION: The mortgage appiiration IS TO BE MADE WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS aher
10. the acceptance of this Purchase Agreement. Buyer agrees to use besl efforts fo secure a commitment for wch
t t. financing and to execule all documents required to cronsummate said financing. If Bvyer wnnot secure a commitment for
t2. such mortgage, this agreement sha(I become null and void and earnast money paid by B�yer herein shali be refunded to
13. Buyer; Buyer and Seller agree fo sign a Cancellalion of Purchase Agreement.
14. PRIVqTE MORTGAGE INSURANCE (PMI}: PMl may be required by fhe le�ng insldution. 0uyer agreesto pay all subsequent
55. years mortgage insu2nce premiums a. required by the le�ng inslitNion. The said mortgage irvwrance premium will
t6. increase the mortgage amount unlass paid in rash ai closirg. �
17. DISCOUNT POIhiTS: Mortgags dscount points ("PaMS� not to excaed �% of�tha mortoage amoum including PMI, i(
.;:1 B. added to mort� age, shail be paid as follows: � .
19. - ` paid by Buyec : o not eXcee mau mum e er
zo. - �abysei�ar.
contri6ution allowed 6y lender.
'�T. l�he Poirds charaed by the lender are less than the Points agreed to on line �1T. (nitial option 7, 2 or 3)
Z. _L
23. s�y.. sw.
2{.
25.
20.
L7.
28. I
5u..r I S�u.r
OC t
� s.uw
. The Points shall 6e charged firS to the Seller and the balance to tha Buyer.
Buyer is not contributing towards ths Points and the Points aze less than agreed to on Line =20, ihen:
(in@iai - A ot B)
I :.. Selle II pay total amount agreed to in line n20 and Buyer may use it at their discretion
s«., torrards Poi , uy-down fees, or costs of closing.
� `
B. Setler shall pay only Poi
6v}er S.iM�
2. The Points shall be chamed first to the Buyer and the baWnce , =Iler.
3. The Points shall ba paid proporionately by both Seller and 3uyer as aoreed on lines s57•20
�0. LOGKINGIFLOJcTiN6�AF MORTGAGE INTcREST RATE ("RATE") AND pOINTS: Seiler and Buyer aares the Rate and
3t. Poin:s shall ba L�� : ���o on ihe dale oE application. If the Rate and Poirrts are to be floated, it shall bs the sole
32. ciscretion o` ��� � �p % BUYEA t lock in the pate and Points. If the Salier hzs sole discretion to lock Rate and Points,
-KaR+.
:.4. 3uyer aarees to sion iendels Jock-in documents immediately upon notifica;ion from Setler.
_._. ____. . - . .. .._ _ . .
�5. Sellsr will make repairs required bythe Lender commitmeni. However, the Seller agrees to pay up to S �
30". to maka repairs as required 6y the Lender commi;ment. If the �ender commitment is subject to any work order�for which the
37, cost oi making said reoairs shall ezceed this amount, the Seller shall have the foliowina options:
38. (A) Making the necessary repairs; or
'�, (B) Negotiating the cost of making said repairs w�th the 6uyer, or -
'40. (C} Declaring the Purchase Agraement nu{i and void and eamest money paid shall bg refunded to the 6uyer,
<7. 3uyer and Seller apree to sion a Cancellation of the Purchase Aoreemant, uniess the Buyar provides for payment of the
42. co5 of said repairs or escrow amounts related thereto above the amount spxi{ied on line 35 of this Addandum. ,
43, OTHcR:
/ � � / / ! i i
// �
u:=�';J ;i�. ;Y�:.v,� �i-�3- 9� >/� /�� : ;i �- �y
(S.Mr) � (Dsh1 IBu.4r) •� • • � (Jne)
45.
�sIM)
S5. - .
:7.
N.N: fACM (9l98)
WMi14]
fD.�.) (�0 fM�•)
THIS IS A LEGALIY BIN�ING CONTRACT BETWEEN BUYERS AND SELLERS.
�� IF..Y.OU DESIEiE LEGAI OR TAX ADVICE, CONSULT pN APPROPftIATE PROFESSIONAL .
i
�
�
• �+/.r r u �w.
real estate guide
�
4,
S
6.
7.
8.
9.
70.
SELLER'S PROPER7Y
pISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Tt�ii fonn �'JpObC M �M M�rv�ssaU Av�00�iqf1 Df
fl�J.11pfi$�. w'nKlf O�iClaimi �ny YaD�1
,n.:eq ax a w. « mw.. a u�. a�m.
t. Date
2. Page t of 2 _ Paqez
NOTCE 7AIs dizclosufe ia not a wartanty or a 9�+���Y of a�ry kinQ by the Seller(s) or Agen1(s) representing
any party(z) ln STe fnnsactlon. TTe lntortnatlon disefou0 Is fltien lo tAe Dcn of tf+c SNlei s knowledge.
INSTRUCilOHS TO BUYER: Buyers a'c enco��g�L to thoroughty inspecl the property personally or tu�e il
inspcctetl by a thiN party, antl to InQul�e about s`ry specitic a2as of conG�m.
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE SELLER: (1) Complete thts form yoursetl. (2) Consult prior disclowre stateme�t(s)
antl(cr MspecCwn repo�t(a) wtun completing thls to�m. (3) DeuAbe conditbns aHectinq the pmperty lo the best
of your knaw{eEge. (6J AtLCh aCtllllonal paycs with your sipnature it a6tlitlonal speee Is mqu(md. (5j Answer
all qutztions. (6J It any Items do not apply, write "NA" �nol applicable).
;1. Propeny bcateE�y �/ � � .�.
72. City ol �l.�T• .. �.J ' `County W . Sute of_.
r
53. A. GENERA� INFORMA7iON: ,
74. (1) When did you purcAaze or bulld t�e home? 7� ��� 7
15. (2) Type ol Title E�dence: V� /`bstratt �Rl Registered (TOrrens) 0 Unknown �
iG Location ot Abstraa or Owner's Duplicate Certificate of 7itie: Y 9 `n ��a ��y-' _
77. Is there an exisfing Owner'S 7itie Insurance pofity? Yes � No � Unknown 0
1& (3) Ha�e you occupietl this hame tontinuously_lor t�e past 12 monNS? 1'es � No [Tj�
l9. 15 no. el�plain:
20. (4) Is Ne �ome suiuble tor year rounC use? Yes � No �
21. (5) Is the propeny located in a tlesignatetl ilootl D�a��� Yes Q No � Unknown �
22. (6) !ve you in possession of prior setiers diulosure statemenl(s)? (If yes. please anach) Yes � No �
23. Are t�ere: .
2<. (7) Encroachments? � Yes � No � Unknown �
25. ( 8j Co+enanu, Restixtions or Reservations ('wiwo�e�nmen:an aYecting the use ol the propeayl±Yes Q No �] Unknown �
26. (9) Ezsements. ot�er than utlit or drainage easemeni�$? Ves � No ['� Unknown 0
2Z (70) Commerns: �G� - � y_
2&
2?. B. GEN�RAI CONDIT�ON: io vour knowledae have anv of ihe foliowina tondi�ions ore�iously existeE o� do thry cunentiv ezist?
30. (1)
31.
32.
33
)
7.
38. (3J
:o �
=0. (5)
=1. (6)
:2. (7)
� (BJ
Has thece been any damace hy wi�d, ti�e, llooC or othec astner{s) Yes � No �
il yes, cive Oe�ails ol wha� happenetl antl when:
Has ihe smaure(s) Deen alteretl? (.e. atlditions. xirered roof hnes, chanoes to load bearina walis.) Yes � No �
II yes, piease specity what was done, when end Cy whom (owner or coniractorj:
Soil Pro01em5? Yes � No �
Diseased Trees? Yes 0 No
:.nimzl Infestation? Yes � No �
InsecU?est Infestation? Yes �,l No Q
Do you have or hzve you pre�iously haa zm� p^ts? Yes � No � If yes, intl�cate type
Cormenis:
xn0 number _
:�. C. STRUC7URAl SYSTEMS:TO wur knowledae havt am ol the foilowino conditions previouslv existed or do thev euttentiv e:ist?
�o. (Anmers apply ro all sfmaures, such as oaraoe antl out-OUddmes.)
=7. (7) THE BASEMENT, CRAWLSPACE, SLAB
+8. (z) Fou�Mat�on DroDlem Yes (� No �J (e) Drain tile D�o51em Yes � No Q
<9. (�) FlooCinc Yes [� No (�J (Q CrackeC tioo:slwalls Yes � No �
50. (c) Wet Iloors/wails Yes [� No � (5) Sewe� backup Yes � No 0
57. (�) Leakaoe/seepa9e Yes [� No � (hJ Other Yes � No �
52. Give oe�ails to any quest�on answered "yes":
53.
x.
55. (2) THE ROOF
�c. (a) what is ihe age oi ine rooting material? ��
57. (b) Has ihere been interior Eamage from ice Cui10-up? Yes 0 No �
5& (cj Has there been any leakaoe? Yes � No K�
59. (Oj Have there been any rep2�rs or reD�acements mztle to the rool? Yes � No �
60. 6ive tletails to any question answered "yes": �'� �-����� ✓��"�''� � L� y _---
67. � __--
E2.
63. D. PRIVATE SEWER SYSTEM DISCLOSURE: (A Private Sewer System Disclosure is requireE 6y Minn. Statutes}
a:, Cneck appro-jnate Dox
05. � 7he seller tices not know of a pri�ace sewer syr.em on or ser+ing fhe abwe tlescribetl reai prope .ry.
66. � There is a prrvate sewer sys�em on or serving fie above Eescribed real property. See Private Sewer System Disclosure.
RIVATE WELL DISCLOSURE: (A Weli Disdosure Statement and CeCif¢ate are requiretl by Minn. Siatutes) C�eck appmOriate ba<.
The seller cenilies that ihe seller tloes not know of any welis on ine aDOVe tlescribetl real property.
Q T�e seller cenifies tAere are one or more wePs Ioca�e0 on IDe above tlescribed real Ompe ,ry. See Well Disdosu�e Sta�emem.
70. Fre U+ere any welis servinq t�e above deSCriDetl properry I�at are not loca�etl o� Ihe property? Yes � No � Unknown �
77. Date well water Izst testetl for coniaminants: Tes; resu�ts x::ached Yes � No �
i2. Commenss:
Ta 15 t�is prope .ry in x Special Well Cqns.ruaion Arez? Yes � No p'�j Unknown �
7:. Conaninated Well: �s ihere a well on or serving ihe property ton;a3nin5 cornx�inaled wateR Yes � No � Unknown �
7$ r,•wcap<• •cbo OA�G�NA� GOPY TO LISTING BnPCER� COPiES TO SE�' ��. BOYER SEIUNG BAOKER.
o�_r7�
- : �-•
reai estate guide
77. Property kcated at
Dishwasher
Oryer
Feezer
78. F. VAWA710N EXCWSION DISCLOSURE (Required Dy Minn. Sutute ZTiti. Subd. t6) Check anoropriate bo:.
79. 7T�e IS D OS NOt� }� an n�duiM imrt� marke� ralue Iw hWne impN+amenLt on this p�operiy. Mry �aWation eaUuson w01 tertnaute
80. upon sate at ihe prop�M• antl tAe D�operty's estimatetl market value Iw p�openy Wx purposes wili increase. It a valuation a•clusion
81, ezist5, Duyers are enrouraged Io bok inb Ihe resWting Wc contequencea
82. ldeitional Commen�s '
83 G. APPLfANCES, HEaT�NG. PLUME
84. NOTE: This section relers only to t�e vrorking condicion at che id�owing Rems Personal property 1s included in the ule ONIY IF
05. spBCifiWlty relerenced in tne PurCtiase AgreemenL Cross Out only tttose item5 not ptly5ically IoCaletl on tne prop2ny.
8& In Worki'g Order In Working O�tler in Nbrking Ortler
�7, YES NO YES NO YES NO
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
sa
9a.
95.
S6.
97.
"' 9&
OQ.`
101.
102.
103.
704.
105.
100.
707.
708.
�04
MicNw2v2
Ranael0�en
RArigerdor(s)
\/'_
SELLER'S PfiOPEFiTY - -
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
76. Page 2 ot L Pa9es
Washer
Wintlow Air CoMitioner(s)
o;ner
O�her
OIhM
aner
ONer �
Antenna a^• r_Fr
CeiGna Fan
Cen�ai Heaung System
poor Bet4s
p.i n Tle 0.aiac.
Eleariql Systems
��
Fre.Sp���k�er System
Incercom
Plum6ing
Aange Hootl(s)
S ' .:n. c...
Srtwke De�caor (eattery)
Smoke De�eqors (Harewire)
Talet Mechanisms
�ix+m
Waier Heaters(s)
Aented Q Owneo O
Windows
�
Window Treatmems
_ ' _ _ _ - � r
aner ' O O
«�e� o 0
pther � �
pther � Q
�70. H. ENVIRONK7ENTAL CONCERNS: To your knowledge are arry of the toibwing present on the p�opert�
�»• � 0.sCestos?�;:: �� - � Yes � No Cj Unkno.vn {� Leatl? (paint, D�umbing, etc)' Yes 0
112. Fortnaldehyde?.: �-_ Yes �- No � Unknawn � Radon? Yes'Q
7�3. Y.xzartlousSubstances?�Yes 7,_]-NO � Unknown � UnGemround S�oraoe 7anks? Yes Q�
5:4. Hazartlous Wastes? -_Yes � No � Unknown � O;her+ Yes �
115. Give tletails to any question answecetl "yes": -
i16.
S17.
ii8.
No � Unkna++n m
No 0 _Unknown []
No m Unknavn [�
No � ��k�o.�� q
�t9.1. OTHER KNOWN DEFECfS: � "
120. Are mere am other known tlefecss in or on the pmperty? If yes, expiain below: Yes � No �(1 Unknown []
_: ,121.
�22
�
u
72aJ. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
�an
_ i2
126.
127.
128. LISTING BROKER AND AGENTS MAKE NO REPRESEN7RTIONS AMD AAE
129. NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CONDITIONS EXISTING IN THE PROPERiY.
130. K. ScLLER'S STATEMENT; (SO be sioned at time of Iistino) �-
'i31. The Selier(s) hereby sta�es the contlition o1 the pmperty to be as statetl above and authorizes any P.gent(s) representino any party(s)
i32. in tl�is transapion Io A«'�de a copy ot this statement to any person or eniiry in connenion with any aauzl or xntici0ate0 sa�e ot
133. tne p ny. ( � �
6i � -9 °
734. � 7� �in.s�.� a,.., � � w��, �
i35. L. BUYER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT� [(obe signetl at time of purchase agreement)
136. IM1Ne, Me BuyeKs) ol ��e property acknowledae receipt of the Seller's Properry Drsclosure S:atement and ag�ee that no represemations
137, reoardin��g the-pmper[yhave been natle other tAZn those made above. ' �
�/ /' � ' �/` i . _
i
�3& iw.� _. , �.-.� ro�„-i �o.,�
�
739. M. SEILER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (TO be sionetl at time oE purchase agreement)
140. AS OF THE DA7E BELOW, I/We, Ne Seller(s) of tne property, siate that the contlition of the p�opeery is [ne same, except changes
'141, indicafed above which Aave been initiaied and dated.
�42.. �i �l � :+J �/-/� °p �, -.
iw.i �s�.i
1+3. MN:SPDS2 (6'95) ORIGINAL COPY TD LISTING BROKER; COPIES'iD SELIER, BUYER, SELLING BflOKER. . �`� °,u..
�
��
BURI\TET
��
and Lead-Based Pai�t Hazacds � j/
Tn�Irmi��DYa�DytMW�MtaA..x:a4o�o1 �
n.,uw.s.••^�cn a..a„n.. ,..r r. Wuq ,nw.p e�n d �..
d�,.�..o���,,�.�
Dalc -�1k r �, � . \�
Page o
' � ��1 � s P v xm•
datcq }�q1��n1�Tr 5.19 nainin totbc urchauandsaleoCthe ro u
ccion I: Lead �Yarning Statement
:rv purchaser oJmv interts� in residentinl rcnl properrv nn x•hich n �esiAcmin! d�rcl/ing Was buih prior to 1975 is noiJed thaf such
�perlv+++nv presenf rzposurt tn knd from lend-haced pninl thnr ninv pinee wrmg rhHAren af risk oJdevelop�ng lcod paisoning. Ltnd
�saning rn wung ehild�m u+o�+ produee pennnnen! neuroingirni dnnmge, including lcnrning ditnbilirics, redu<ed intNligenCe quoriml.
5oviosu7 pmblrms, and impnired +nemaN. LcnApnimning nL.n pnxs n pnrricvinr �isk m pregnnnt wnmm. The u!!er oj anv +�reres! in
:idenlial rm! properry is requircd ro prm•idc �hc buvc� �.'irh nm• in Jorn�ni�on on lcad-boscd pofnr ha�ords fra» risk usscssmmtt or
:pcuions in the sc7lcr'S pnsstccion nnA notifv 1hc burcr nf nnv known 7cnd•hnscd paint ha.nrds. A risk asscssment or ins/xGion for
�`:�, W1 Prcxna of Icad-b�scd paint anNOr Icid-basW paint hazv05 (chcck onc bcio��•):
� Kno�rn Icad-based pa�m anNor Iead-b.iscd ptint haLVds arc prc5cnt in lhc housing (c<piain).
� Scilcr has no Anoo•icdgc of ic�d-bascd paint and/or Icad-biscd paint harards in tlic housing.
���
� ��
�q (b) Rcmrds and rcpons a�aiiablc m thc uller (chmk one bclo�v):
.— ('1 Sclla has provided the pumhascr o•ith ali a�ailable records and reports pertaining to Irad-based paint and/or Irad-based
_ �J paint ha�ards in thc housing (list documcnts belo�v).'
Sdicr has no rcpons or mcords pcnaininS �o Ir.�d-bascd paint and/or Irad•bascd paint ha>ards in the housing.
urctiaser's Acl:nowled�ment (initial)
`J� (c) Purchascr has raci.•cd copics of alI inforniation lisicd undcr (b) abo�•e. �
��,,�h� (d) Purehascr has reeeired the pamphict Pro�eu Yw�r Fnmilnf om Levd in 1'our Hom¢.
_ � r[e) Putchaset has (ehcck onc bclo���):
� e�� Recei.ed a l0-day opponuniR (oc muwall}• aereed upon period) Io conduct a risk assessment or inspeaion for the preunee
ot iwa-bascd paint anNo� lcad-bascd pxmi ha�ards (If chcckcd, scc Stttion II bdo��'); or
Waived the opponnnin• to conduct a risA assessmenl or inspe^.tion for the presrnce of I`ad•based pa�nt and/or lead-bascd
paint hav2lds. .
:zal �Eswte Licensee's Acl:nowled�ment (initizl)
�; i�. ;�p Rcal cstatc litcnsc: has inGorm-d tLc sc��cr of Ihc sclicr's ob6gation5 undcr S2 U.S.C.:35?(d) and is awarc oCliccnsce's
—'� rc5oonsibilm' w ensurc comohancc �
:cnifiwtion of Accurecv /,'
- he follooing panies hm•e ra�iearA the iidormation abo�K and certity. to tlie best ot Iheirkno��•ledge, t�}he irSomiation prwided by the
icnawn� is tmc and auvnu. ' �� /�
_ �
� � _ c„ '. �:. / . /' � _ >L�
,% ., , –•:i "i. !:–/ . i . � - - _ . �
�_���� Da1e Puichaser = �` Date
�elier t : Date
� <.' �
�'ldi,,:�'�. ,�,;;`;��r;�l II-�7� I
ical Estate Li[ensec Da�c �
Purchascr
„
Datc
Rral cstatc
, ' Datc
3ection 11: Contin�ency (Lri�inl nntn {((trsl 'oo� mooerPurdraser'sAtkno��'ledgment letrer �eJ aoove is checked.J
�
�
This tontract is wmin�ent upon a ri5k assess�nent or an inspcclion of the prop��• for thc presence of Ir2d-based paint
aneUor Icad-based painl ha�ards to be condutted at the purchascr's e�pense The assessmrnt or inspxuon shall be
completed «ilhin ten Q�Y_���ndar days afmr atteptanee o(the Purchase Ag�eement. Th�i wntingrn�• shali be
' �� -lrnctraul.
decmed remo��ed, and �he Porchase Aercemem thail be in full force and cffect. unless pumhascr or rwi estate licensee
assisting or acting on bchalf of purdiaser ddi.rrs �o scllcr or ruil cstatc licensce assisting or acting on bchalf of sdler
����ithin ihree (i) ratend�� days after ihe atsessment or inspeaion i5 timd.' rompicted a��'ritten list of the specif�c
dcfinrnciez an0 thc rorrcctions rcquircd. to�cihcr ��'��h a copc of a���� risk asscssmcnt or inspcction rcport. if the 5cller and
„ purchascr ha�ro not agrecd in �vriting ��•ithin tlirec (i) nlendar dacs afmr deli.�en' of the o•riven lisi of rcquired wrmctions
ihaC (A) some or all or ffie required corrcaions ����� be made: or (B) the pu�chaser ��aive5 th: deficicncies; or (C) an
adjut[menl to lhc pm�:hasc pricc n�ill bc madc, thc Purchasc Agrccmcnt shall amomaticalh• b' dccmcd null and �•oid, and
all �arnest moner shall be rcfunded w the purchaser. Ii is understood thal the purchaser ma�� unilatcrally ��aive deGcirnciei
or dcf^..cts, or remo��c Ihis contin�cnc�. p�o�iding that tLc pumliascr or thc rcai cstatc liccnscc assisiing or a�line on bchalt
_of purchascr noii6cs Ihc scllcr or rcal cs�am li�GqSCC assisting or acling on bd�a�f of scllcr of thc ��ai�cr or rcmoval in
�vritingihithin thcumc spccificd. , . , ` .
'LS:SAL%�(S/96� "' ; �^`-�° .
:ax i�si �e�ss� ' Independendg,ff)wned.4nd Operated By NR7, Inmrporzied.
a �-t a��
A
"'�'.� ..'.. �
::i�:.�': . �. . .
. :x. :i.:ti:`.;'�;; , .
. ' ".'.:+:;
f :�:.'.��':..;.•��:.'���� ����'..�..�.•� �.'.' �.. r:'"
• � ' , . -••.::�:�
a
e
�,' WALTER D�HALKO
<00 SELBY AVE.. #'ZLB
� ST. PAUL, MN 55102
PAYTpilf' M
Ofl"J'-.P0.'_ �%/
� � C' r J7O.3
OFTE
a->nvireo
�<�,� Sa
,�'"�� , ..G� a . �
� , .
� �:'...- .�.��
n � F�,."�`�,',��°,... ��.,.
, zr«�,,.. � a �^ ,.%�.� s,.zs �
; "`"°--�?6�i'�.--- .�
..�j �:2960 76 1 5 2�: gt007;5185��' S�03
n
y
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i ,
r
An' APPRA,ISAL REPpRT
OF
A Proposed Group Home
LOCATED AT
97 North Oxford Street
St. Paul, Aqinnesota 55104
as oF
December 16, 1999
FOR
Uni��ersit�� 1�'afional Bank
200 Universit�� Avenue ��'est
St. Paui, Minnesota, 55163
.4ttention: John Bennett Phone• 298-6750
BY
LENDERS APPRAISAL SER�JICES,INC.
F. �� Ger�en, ivIAT
Appraiser
a �.rr�
Fite N: l I256-L
ATTAQ�7T H
�
�
�
�
•
�
•
14
� « i ia�M i
70NING
The subject property is zoned RT-1 (Townhouse District), under the zonin� ordinance
administered bp the City of Minneapolis.
The subject improvements �vere constructed prior to the adoption of the current ordinance
and is non-confo�ming to U�e current ordinance but is allo�ved as a non-conformin� use.
"The RT-1 Residence District is desiened primarily for sing]e fami]y and townhouse use of
various types that are described in the portions of the ordinance.
The subject property appeazs to be "orand fathered" as a result of being constructed prior to
tlie adoption of the current zoning ordinance and is, therefore, considered to be a lega] use.
Furthermore, the subject appears to be non-conforming witl� respect to parking requirements as well
as 1ot, yard and density requirements. Althou�h the subject is non-conforming, its use may continue
so long as no more than �0 percent of it is not destroyed or damased. Given that there is sufficient
hazard insurance to cover potential loss, there does not appear to be a negative impact as a result of
tl�e non-confom�ing use.
.r�-�u'u i<:<: �hJA4 " II.;K$I\'u
�" E512^
:i1CS"u
i
,
! �\4innrso�a Departmenc of Human Servites -
1eff Gardner
Buffalo Sober Group
97 \. O�ord
St. Paul, h'L�I SS104
Dear Mr. Gazdner:
'-[�� 'r 0 JG2 F-155
o,.ra�
12egarding your request for info:mation on Oal:land Home, formerly located at 97 ?��.
Oxford, St. Paul, hII�1551d4� I have enciosed the information from our data base. It
shows Ua�:iand as licensed throueh 3-1-00 as a Rule 36 facilit}�, with a licensed capacity
of "s3. if you have fii; �her questions, piease contact me at 651-29b-b1S0.
�
3an Sai:�•aj
Hum,an Scrvic2s L.icensor
cc h4�rk V.'. Gehan, Ar[o�ey et Law
eazc?c�sure
u
PosS-1t" bran^ ter. transmitt�i ma-r.o 7�1 � F Ot paye� �
To 1� From
. �Cr;S \7'L�0.v� �Cn �„ tn i
G�i! =27
L G,: 227
24
ATTAQ�NT J
-i'v�i L✓.�)::r: :...>_':.,..... :_.... lc:d �..:mr.;+::: Ji?�. i^_ ou^f i. ::o;:t; rn.'•lo;tr
S� �' � 6 �
a
.��....;_ - ' �... - "':..'iL _� *.��:ie4.
' -:...
.....�x.::i.� _,:.-:. ..T ._.._ �S _ ..
'ci- ::3:[._''i.;:y',. " _ . ...' [�-i:..
� :=f`'»: - %'::i...:F.F ' 3.v:: ' �_�^+.'�.: �Y`_
' -:i.:.. . . .
.�_ ..r__.. . .....
�..
.. . . , ... . . _ .. . .,
� �u..:v�:`:::v9f�.._ , -�—R��
3
C � � ~
,. °'� . � � _ -. . ,--
{� .........:'?a.. .: .... �.: �:::� ... .
�,.r .. -:,h., ;:.:._M;L15,51iARt]N•DHS00;
.
,..:.. e_�.;._ :�. ' . ... . . . .:. : .. �
� �� _�- .l
e.: c.: �t:�c°'s::'_ ..:[.r>z
'''_� ., .... . M
�" ' '
i .... .:.e � - c [� :.: _� _ ,.., _ . :.
� . . _ st's'�'�:'�.: ;'_ _ - ��- ' . ..
r _.'� '� " '?:._ . - .::�:-,
} .. ".. � : _ .. �'£G;.... _.._� � ... . .....:. ... . .
_ _ — '."x`-'? _` yka _ _`.
a�r_';.�- _�
- �... ��:� �':'�.
� j::.� _ �-�:;..-.
,`��:.i_€?,.=:�" 2�i:y..r...�; �., .�.".:r>i
i �
: Srt i
.� � f- + M;9 ta^d
�... : � .uY v�::ii? .
_� _ _ SYPauC'.kN
=���.:._ :.4�.-
�` . ,.;.t (S51 � "LL7,7i
,
---, . .--
"i�ir f.... �.�iR;I:
.......: ve __>' . - fii5ttcs6)i
_'_�..� ...:.. _, _� . _. ;
�.!��:.:;'F,'s�3::�z �:.r.:,`.'-�:i
. ....
.__. ._. . ..
. � . ' .:.P-. .�::�....?:i.i2
..��- I..�.._<.`.Y�.:i"��� ._ i[1.lLr..tL:.�
=--- �::�� _• :- -- .��: �:.._ _
_ --_::�: -- _ - -_-
��y _ aj=a- �
��� '�a�.:.:: . .:_��.. � . - 1
y_ '" _�Ta�i����
�.�._: - . ._...,-
.- '--..�:...,.,._<.-^...:� ..-.�:�:-�__
--.% :':" -- '-....
._ .... ..... ... . . "..
- . ::.:::x .. .
�_i.t__'� . ' . _ z. i'" =_�'c
�>. F.':. � 9 �'��eY�!'off�5m�en.Servl;
... ,:..- -- � � � - ��.�-> .>.__.
� � - - �
�, : - ::. �s��:-'
. ::}' .._. _ �.. "
f � ..
=._,. _:�::._.. ____.._ �...
3n' F:f.l�`
. __ .............: . . ..._...... _ _ ' __' ' _
, . o - .,,... . . .. .. ... ......>,. - ' ' ' '" .. . . " _
,. .
. ...,. :_::.
.. . . _ ., .::.: ... _ _.:: ';' ' ' ' ... " _ ' - -.
-.. . .>.:._ . .
. _. [ �' ::�. [
idaict =�� . .. . . ....__ ...: _ _ . . _ _ . �� - ' - -
. . u .. .. .._. �-.:_.�:.,:' : �. ..�.- .�-.._�.
�..- .
: •:,<,-:__. .
__ _
. . ._�P'-� . ._.. ..�..._ .�.... �� . - - _ - - �•• '
,... .
.. a � ,.. ... ._._:r:
_
..... .. .. . :�._; '
-� -_.
. . .... �..,._._ .. . _�:::�......:_ _
, _ _ . . _ ......,... � " - _'
. .. .�.. . ..:.' - _ .. _ _ "
.. .'
, ..:.;. :. .. . � . _ . _ -, ._ . . . . _. _ . .'^ _
. �.� � �d'
! �.._.......� � _. -.e. .. t�.:: �..t:. ._ , s. , . _ o.:. ...:. �.. .r .>'_J. [_�' ' ' - ...ey -
i-'
...5 .._ . . . . ..Y. � :. :... �
a. ' �
�`
- v. . . C.�C: i . �i •�: � .....4. . nE... �
P �1'.P_, �` ^..�;:.(`O`',''°:. '�T_ ,`.�
. . . , . . .. . .. . . . - ' � '
� . „;:: . .... - - -- -- - _
. ... .. ........:. . . -
.
� ...::�
..� . . . . . .... . _. . .. _. -' 3' �
.. t n_ ; ��
.� ..w
+_ v: . . . . ..>1..,.- � .." _ _ " _ .. _
} �.s._'� �..: .i ai. . . :..:y ._�_ — r ' �
'...�.�: '::. e. ' : >c::' :'.:: (.i�'... :.:_�_a.
.:_ : ...� . : .. .
_ _ y .. r ... .... . r
. _ .. ..... �..�>_ -...::... .... y � •� �
� . v. :._...: v l . _ . �F.._...�..�. - ._ ... . � . �.: _:': "; _.
_ �
_
•K-e � .. ..
1
.y.:.:.. j -.... a.._�.����...�:.v _
... .... . . ....... .. �:::'.::. _ . .. : ".:.. . �
_ ..• <
��� _
u�'Y
� ...__ �. . .. _....-. :.. �
.... - :. � .. � . . "' �� .
_ '�
��-..: .
� ;_
. . - .. " {C. . ._._ .�
; ..... .[.� .. �. ' .. _
. _ _
. . . .''. i : d'.�
� ......
: . _
, ._ .. _ .. . . . ...._. ... � .. �� .
r ; -
_'.:..�... :
i...
....oa:�:_::
_
_ �:
��
'.:.. . ., .. .i-. ;'
.
...:.
.
. . . � i . _. .: . . _ . .. .
`.f�::..- . .. . . _. . _ .
... . .dg '.:
� ♦ .:.a- . .v!d i�':i':i°o_�._ . . _ nFC - - _ - .... . '�
. ...... . . ...:... . .;:� : '. . ' _ _
�.. :.. `.. _ _
. _
� Ik
` - '' ...::.
'-'
. .. _ ......_. ..._ .. .... . . ....�� = . . -
_ ",� � .�' ' _
: . . � .r.r:::: ' ,. ..- . . ' ' "_ _ '
. .,: �. ... v .4..:: �..
� _. ._ .. ... . .._ . . . ..._..._. . '�` _ .. ' _
_ _ �.': �
, � :. . .:..csa _ �._ . � ...:... ' � _- _ ' _ � .`:.:'��'.
' . . . •`�• _ . .. . � �`i' � . � :V ' � �` j ':�.���
:
.�'-
: . . .. :.i.: ::..::� � _ . _� ...- .
. .
. . . . . . : ..:: 5 .::a - _ _ . A.
i
.
. :::.� 5.
�.. . ': i s _ _ _
r. . _
_ ... �. .. • _ _
•
; - .. . .. .� ._ _ .�. -�.� . _ _ _ ' _
�":`i��i _ ::t
� :..y' _
� . ' . ' " ^' . _. ... _.. ..... .___.. ' " '__ ' "' _
:. .. ._.._ . .. �� -- --
,
:.
.
_ ;:?`
_ - . _;� ;,;,;; :;, : _;: �_
� - - - - - r ��'
. . _ . , . -- - -
. . __.., �. . _._ . . . .._; , _ - --r-__
. . _ . _ __. - _. �.. .. _- -
,,�„� _:..,,. - _ _. "-- .. - —..----_
, i `_ _ .. .... .
.
:,
-: _._.:,: c.h ..:. ..;- ,. ..::. . � ,_ : _ _ .- .;.
,._ .,_._ �
_ _ ,
.
'_- �} ..-�::..;nr •� . -. �::d�_ � .
- _ � ��
�
v�ua]iLL J. lial.11ll., lt ny.� AFlYtil4lltJ� �J. 1 iic �.ii� v1 a�u�ia a aaun.� i�t>�.�iui,in. � Ia�c t Vi 7
.
This opinion }vill be unpublished and
may nor be cired except as provided by
Minn. Stat. � 480A.08, subd. 3(199&J.
0 � -I'a�
STATE OF MINNESOTA
II�T COURT OF APPEALS
CO-00-S30
Richard J. Haefele, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
The City of Eden Prairie,
Respondent.
Filed December 26, 2000
Affirmed
Toussaint, Chief .Tudge
Hennepin County District Court
Fi]e No. 981�283
� Georae C. Hoff, Scott $. Landsman, Hoff, Barry & Kuderer, P.A., Suite 260, 7901 Flyin�
Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (for respondent City of Eden Prairie)
Caria J. Heyl LeaQue of Minnesota Cities, 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN
��103 (Amicus Curiae)
Kay Nord Hunt, Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Stageber�, P.A., 1800 IDS Center, 80 South
EiQhth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellants)
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judae, Eialitowski, Jud�e, and
Shumaker. JudQe.
UI� OPII\'IO1�T
TOUSSAIl\'T, Chief JudQe
Appellants successfully sought a district court injunction to enjoin respondent City
of Eden Prairie from interFering with their nonconformin� use of a dupiex as a sroup
home. The district court Qranted respondent's motion for summary judgment on
� appellants' claim for dama�es. Appellants now challenae that decision. Respondent, by
hnp://�e��.state.mn.us/courts/library/archive/ctapun/0012l830.htm ]/2/01
- - ---- --
- -----
"__""_ _...
_ _ _ _' ' " " _ _ _ ' _ '
no[ice of review, appeaIs the injunction grant. Because: (1) as a matter of law, vicarious
offcia] immunity protects respondent from appellants' damages claim; and (2) the district�
court did not abuse its discretion by awarding appellants injunctive relief on the basis that
respondeni improperly deemed the nonconforminJ use abandoned, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Richard Haefele owns a duplex in an Eden Prairie city district zoned for
single fami]y dwellings. Haefele has historicalty leased the duplex as a group home -- a
permitted nonconforming use. The tenant operated Lhe �roup home and paid rent untii
January or February of 1996, then vacated the �roperty later that year. Haefele: (1}
attempted to sell ihe duplex, listing the duplex as an investment property and as a single-
family home; and (2) continued to look for a group home tenant. In July 1997, appellant
Jennifer Coughlin expressed an interest in leasin� the duplex for �roup home use. By
letter, an Eden Prairie zozun� administrator advised the Minnesota Department of Human
Services that a residential care facility permit couid be issued based on historical use of the •
duplex. Appellants besan making improvements in anticipation of. opening the Qroup
home. In the meantime, Haefele rented the duplex. `
After neiQhbors raised concerns about the anticipated �roup home, the Eden
Prairie CiTy Attorney concluded �hat Haefete had abandoned the duplex's permitted
nonconforming use. Haefele appealed to the city's Board of Adjustment and Appeals The
Board detertnined that HaefeIe fiad abandoned the duplex's nonconformin� use. Appellanu
sou`ht ciry council review. The city council unanimously affirmed the Board's decision.
Appellanu successfully souRhc a dis�rict coun injunction to enjoin respondent City of Eden
Prairie from interfering with the aroup home but failed to survive summary judgment on
their claim for damaQes. This appeal followed. - -
DECISION
I.
�
http://w�Ri�state.mn.us/courts/library/archive/ctapun/0012(S30.htm I/2/Oi
� - -
- ---- - ----=- -
---r--- - -- ---�- --_-- -..
p�_rY�
Appellanu argue that the district court erred by granting respondent summary
�
judgment on the basis that vicarious official immunity protects the city from appellant's
damages claim. By notice of review, respondent argues that the district court erred by
determinin; that statutory immunity did not protect the city's conduct.
A. Staaidard of Review
Summary judgment is proper -if the pleadin�s, depositions, answers to
�
,interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits show there is no
genuine issue of material fact and either party is entided to judgment as a matter of law.
Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03; Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). On
appeal from a district court's grant of summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether there are any genuine issues
of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law. State by
Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4(Minn. 1990). The applicabiliry of official immunity
is a question of law that this court reviews de novo
45 (Minn. 1996).
B. Vicarious Official Lnrnu�ziry
Johnson v. State, 553 N.W.2d 40,
An assessment of the appiicabiliry of vicarious official immunity requires an initial
determination of whether official immuniry applies. S.W. & J.W. ex re1. A.M.W. v. Spring
I.ake Park Sch. Disr. No. 16, 580 N.W.2d 19, 23-24 (Minn. 1998). Thus, we first
consider whether official immunity applies to the Citp of Eden Prairie's decision
concerninQ Haefele's property.
The common-law doctrine of official immuniry protecu govemment officials from
suit for discretionary actions taken in the course of their duties. Jw�low v, Minnesota Bd.
o,f Examiners for Nursing Home Admrs, 552 N.W.2d 711, 716 (Minn. 1996}. Willful
and malicious conduct is not immunized. Ehvood v. Rice County, 423 I�'.W.2d 671, 677
(Minn. 1988). The doctrine is intended to protect government officials from "the fear of
• .
http://www,state.mn.us/courts/library/archive/ctapunl0012/S30.htm 1!2/OI
personal liability that miaht deter independent action.° Id. at 678.
Only discretionary actions, as opposed to ministerial actions, are immune from �
suit. Id. at 678. "A discretionary decision is_one involving more individual professional
jud?ment that necessarily reflecu the professional �oal and factors of a situation."
Wiederholt v. Ciry of Mi�v:ecpolis, 581 N.W.2d 312, 31� (Minn. 1998} (citation
omitted). A ministeriai duty, on the other hand, Ieaves nothing to discretion; "it is
absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising
from fixed and designated facts." Id. at 315-16 (quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn.
221, 224, 274 N.W. 165, 167 (Minn. 1937)).
The doctrine of vicarious officiai immunity ex[ends an official's protection to his
or her employer. S.W., 580 N.W.2d at 23; Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit
Corrtmn, 553 N.W.2d 406, 414 (Minn. 1996). Courts extend official immuniry to a
government empioyer when the threat of liability a�ainst the empioyer would unduly
dissuade employees from exercisin� independent judgment in pursuit of legitimate public �
policy choices. S.L.D. i>. Kranz , 498 I3.W.2d 47, 51 (Minn. App. 1993).
In this case, the district court reviewed the city council's determination that.
Haefele had abandoned the duplex's nonconformin� use, an@ determined thzt vicarious
official immuniry protected the ciry from appeilants' damaaes ciaim because the ciry
council's decision was "quasi-judicial", and therefore discretionary. Appellant claims the
district court improperly reviewed the city counciPs determination, and arsues that it is the
city stafi s initial determination that is at issue. Appellant further contends that the city
staff's act of applying the doctrine of abandorunent to the facu was not discretionary. We
disa�ree.
"_[Aj parry aQgrie��ed by a decision- of .a- municipaliry's �overning body �nust
e3;haust all administrative remedies before seekin� judicial re��iew" unless doina so would
be futile. Minn. Stat. § 462.361 subd. 2(1998); Medical Servs. v. Cit�� of Savage, 487 •
http://v,���vs�ate.mn.us/courts/library/archive/ccapun/0012/S3 O.htm
1/2/O1
�
p � .tY>
N.W.2d 263, 266 (Minn. App. 1492). A district court's review is from the finai
determination. Chase 1'. Clty of Minneapolis, 401 N.W2d 408, 411 (Minn. App.
1987). The district court properly reviewed the city council's determination.
We agree with the district court's conclusion that the city council's determination
�
was discretionary, and that vicarious official immunity protected the city from appellants
damages claim, "[AJ public officer whose functions are judicial or quasi-judiciai is not
liab]e to persons injured by the honest exercise of his judgment within his jurisdiction,
however erroneous his judgment may be." Brown v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 314
N.W.2d 210, 214 (Minn. 1980) (quotin� Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 533, 8
N.W.2d 800, 807 (1943)). Though official immunity usualiy protects individua]s and not a
board acting in iu joint capacity, under the doctrine of quasi judicial immunity, city council
members are immune from civil liability for acts properly characterized as quasi-judicial
and discretionary. Riedel v. Goodwin, 574 N.W.Zd 753, 758 (Minn. App. 1998), review
denied (Minn. Apr. 30, 1998); De Pahncz v. Rosen, 294 A4inn. 11, 199 N.W.2d �17,
519-20 (1972).
The dis[rict court correctly de[ermined that the city council's decision is quasi-
judicial.
The term "quasi judicial" indicates acu of the city officials
which are presumably the product or result of investigation,
consideration, and deliberate human judgment based upon
evidentiary facts of some sort commanding the exercise of their
discretionary power. It is the performance of an administrative
act «�hich depends upon and requires the existence or
nonexistence of certain facts which must be ascertained, and the
investi�ation and determination of such facts cause the
adminisuative act to be termed quasi judicial.
Ciry of Shorewood v. Metropotiran Waste Control Com�n'n, 533 N.W.2d 402, 404
(Minn. 199�) (quotin� Oakman v. Ciry of Eveleth , 163 Minn. 100, 108-09, 203 N.W.
�14, 517 (192�}).
�_ The city council considered evidence -- the historical use and testimony of
http://w��ryv,state.mn.us/courts/library/archive/ctapun/0012/S30.htm 1/2/O 1
Haefele's property -- in light of the common-law definition of an abandoned nonconforming
use. Because this comports with the definition of "quasi- judicial," official immunity�
protected the city council's decision. In addition, the threat of liability against the City of
Eden Prairie would unduly chill the ciry council's ability to independentiy make
discretionary decisions. Consequently, the district court properly determined that the city
councii's officiai immunity extended vicariously to the City of Eden Prairie. We conclude
that the disuict court did not err by determinin� that vicarious official immunity protects
respondent from appellant's dama�es claim.
C. Statutory Lnmuniry
By notice of review, respondent City of Eden Prairie challenQes the district court's
conclusion that the city was not entitled to statutory immunity under Minn. Stat. § 466.03,
subd. 6(1998), which provides for immunity based on "the performance or the failure to
exercise or perform a discretionary function or dury, whether or not the discretion is
abused." Id. Respondent also argues that, as a matter of law, damaaes are not a form of •
relief available to appellant. Amicus Curiae Leawe of Minnesota Cities joins this
areument. Respondent further asserts that the city is immune from damages under Minn.
Stat. § 466.03, subd. 5(1998) (protecting acts of officiais in the execution of a statute,
chaner, ordinance, resolution, or rule}.
We decline to address these claims. Because we haye determined that the .ci �
council's decision is immune from damages on the basis of vicarious official immunity, we
need not reach the district court's decision to deny summary jud�ment on the basis of
NIinn. Stat. � 466.03, subd. 6. Respondent's other defenses were not raised in the district
court and it is well-settled that reviewin� courts Qenerally will not review new theories on
apgeal if they are not disgositive_ Thiele v. Sric)z 425 I�;:Vd.2d 580; (1Vfinn. I988).
II.
�
http://wN�v.state.mn.us/courts/library/archive/ctapunl0012l830.htm 1 /2/O 1
"""" " _'• " "
a�.h�
Respondent, by notice of review, challenaes the district court's injunction order
� preventing the city from interfering with Haefele's nonconforming use of the property. A
party seekin� a permanent injunction must show that legal remedies are inadequate and that
the injnnction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable harm. Cherne Indus., I12C.,
i�. Grow�ds & Assocs., Inc.,. 278 N.W2d Sl, 92 (Minn. 1979). This court reviews
orders Qranting permanent injunctions accordin� to an abuse of discretion standard. Id.
at 91. We will not set aside a district court's findin�s re�ardin� entiilement to injunctive
relief unless they are clearly erroneous. Upper Midwest Sa1es Co. v. Ecolab, Inc., 577
I�'•W.2d 236, 240 (Minn. App. 1998}.
The Eden Prairie City Code limiu the number and extent of nonconforming uses
"by prohibiting their enlargement [and) their reestablishment after abandonment. " Eden
Prairie Code of Ordinances § 11.75 (1982) (emphasis added). "Abandonment ordinarily
entails two factors: (1) intent to abandon; and (2) an overt act or failure to act indicating the
� owner no lonser ciaims a right to the nonconformin� use." County of Isanti v. Pererson,
469 N.W.2d 467, 470 (Minn. App. 1991) (citation omitted), overruZed orr other gr•ounds by
Tyroll v. Private L,abe1 Chems., Inc., 505 N.W,2d 54 (Minn. 1943). Where a.
nonconformin� use has been dormant for longer [han one year, there is a presumption that
the owner intended to abandon the use. Peterso�i, 469 N.W.2dat 470. That presumption
ehists, however, to relieve a municipality's "severe" burden of having to affirmatively
prove the owner's intent. Id.
In support of its conclusion that Haefele abandoned the nonconformina use of his
duplex, the Eden Prairie Board of Adjustment and Appeals found that (1) the group home
use ceased in 1994; (2) Haefele listed the property as a sin�le family dwellinQ; and (3)
Haefele rented the duplex to a sinQle person in August of 1997. The city council reviewed
earlier determinations and heard from interested parties, and unanimously passed a motion
� affirming the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
http://v✓wlv,state.mn.us/courts/library/archive/ctapunJ40121830.htm 1 /2/O 1
_-___ "__"' _ "__'___"__"_"_
The district court determined that the facu did not support the city council's
determination, and concluded that the council's decision was arbitrary and capricious. �
Respondent does not dispute the district court's findin�s that (1) Haefele believed the group
home operator maintained its license untiI about February 1996; (2) Haefele's realtor
decided to list it as a sin�le-family dweilinJ to attract a group home buyer; and (3) the
temporary tenant agreed to rent the property for a few months for nominal rent in exchanse
for caretaking duties. The district court concluded that the prior group home tenant's
circumstances, the listing on the sin�le-family market and the caretaker's brief tenancy did
not show :hat Haefele intended to abandon the nonconforming use. To the conuary,
Haefele's actions demonstrated his intention to maintain and market the duplex as a jroup
home.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. The evidence supports the: (1) 1996
termination of the Qroup home use; (2) single family listinQ; (3) brief tenancy; and (4)
conclusion that Haefele had not abandoned the duplex's nonconformin� use as a aroup �
home. In addition, a review of the record shows the city council's determination was
based, at least in part, on policy factors unrelated to the leQal definition of abandonment.
At least two city council members considered not only the elements of abandonment, but
also the city's �oal to put nonconforming use back in conformance. While that goai is a
leQitimate policy concern, it has no reIevance Haefele's _intent_to abandon and does not
constitute an oven act indicating Haefele no lonaer claims a riQht to the nonconforminQ
use.
Respondent arQues that Haefele's intention to abandon the nonconformin� group
home use is shown by his purchase of the property in 198� as an invesunent, not as a Qroup
home, and his testimony that he wou3d sell' or ren2 the propert�� for a diffeient use for the
right price. Respondent's arguments, however, also support appellant's position.
Haefele's reasons for purchasing the property in 198� are irre]evant to the question oi •
http:/ht�;u�.state.mn.us/courts/library/archive/ctapun/0012/S30.htm 1/2/Ol
r "
Whether he intended to abandon group home use near]y ten years later, and that he miOt
� sell for another use does not negate his demonstrated preference for finding a group home
buyer or tenant.
We conclude that the district court acted within its discretion by granting
appellants' request for a permanent . injunction; .. thereby enjoinin� .respondent from
interferin� with appeliants' nonconforming use of the duplex as a group home.
Affirmed.
•
�
http://ww1��.state.mn.us/courts/li brary/archive/ctapun/0012/S 30.htm
I/2/O1
�W O�IC6
Collins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, �
West 1100 First National Bank Building
332 Minnesota Street
Sairrt Pauf, Minnesota 55101_1379
Telephone: 657-227-0611
Fax: C57 227-D758
t�vww.cbsh.r�
VIA FACSIMILE
AND U.S. MAILS
651-228-3314
April 18, 2001
St. Paul Department of Plaiming
and Economic bevelopment
Zoning Section
Attention: Nancy Homans
111 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Buffalo Sober House, L:l.C.
My File No. 11780-1
Zoning Fite No. 01-123-292
Deaz Ms. Homans:
LJ
�
I did not receive your letter of April 12, 2001, unril April 17, 2001, From our telephone
conversation this moming (April 18, 2001), T understand that you will send this correspondence
to members of the Zonin� Committee by faa�
Your letter of April 12th can fairly be interpreted as requesting a response from my client.
Please consider this coaespondence as that response.
I believe your letter accurately tracks the history of my cliettt's applications. When Buffalo
Sober Group first appeazed before the Zoning Committee, we did contend that the
nonconforming use had not been discontinued for more than 365 days. At the time, we did not
p which I recently forwarded to you and the ,
ave in our ossession the additional information
members of the Zoning Committee. I beaz ultunate responsibility for this, and to the extent that I
have confused the issues, I apologize to you and the Committee. Even at the first meeting with
the Zoning Coinmittee; howeder, I attempted to persuade the Committee that a reasonable
accommodation under the Fair Housittg Act was appropriate in the case.
By the time the issue got to the City Council, it is fair to say that the reasonable accommodation
issue had come to the forefront. Because of this, we were permitted to submit another
William EHaugh,Jc
* �7icteaeiJ.Sauntry
MaAc W. Getan
ttPatrickiTierney
xt*Thomas J. Gem�scheid
:k,bhn R.Schulz
oihomas RO'Connei(
o Dan O'Connetl
Chrisone LStroemer
°ilmnas E McOhstrem
JernderAJartieson
Michael J. Rugani
orco�,sei
sht Theodwe J. Couirs
Mary L Davidwn
isaaisss
Eugene D.BucMey
�
�akond�,uea �w�m�,
rcm� T�w s�c;arsc cemr�ea ey ma caa ue�,seam �ure nr.�,e� sare earwuoQanm.
ac�ur�ea er me N�eaw mara ar�w aa�. as a a� r,w aa�xaz�
ocPa Ce�ti�iea by ihe hrnres�la Sy(pg�yd N
�1: nhIBA in Firky�.
o�.�
� Coilins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, �
Nancy Homans
Page 2
April 18, 2001
application. This applicarion requested reasonable accommodation through the relasation of the
365 day time limit. After that applicarion was submitted to P:E.D., you and I spoke, and you
informed me that after consulting with peter Warner, the two of you had decided that our request
for accommodation would more appropriately be a determination that a sober house is similaz to
a family. I accepted this suggestion and submitted an amended application, but I retained, as an
altemative request, the initial request for accommodation through relaxation of the 365 day limit.
When we met with the Zoning Committee on Apri15, 2001, Mr. Field asked several questions
regarding the series of events leading up to the listing of the Oakiand Home for sale and the
conversion of the property into a sober house. At the conclusion of that meeting, the matter was
put over until April 19, 2001. I requested permission to submit additional information
responsive to Mr. Field's yuestions, and did, in fact, send that information on to you, the
Committee members and Mr. Warner.
• In your letter of April 12th, you seem to be asking what it is that Buffalo Sober Group wants.
Without intending to be flip, I can oniy respond that my client wants to be able to operate Iegaily
as a sober house with 24 residents.
The additional information now available supports a conclusion that the nonconforming use was
not discontinued for more than 365 days. If the Zoning Committee would be willing to entertain
this additional information, and if, in order to do so, it would require amended notice and a
reopening of the public hearing, my client requests that this be done.
I cannot withdraw the pending request for reasonable accommoda6on, which is contained in the
nending application, because I do not know what effect the new information might have on the
deliberations of the Zoning Committee. In short, I do not know whether my client needs
reasonable accommodation.
In the event that reasonable accommodadon under the Fair Housing Act is necessary, we request
that it be made. If the 365 day time limit for a change in Nonconfornung Use Pernuts were to be
relaxed, it would seem to me that 24 residents at the Buffalo Sober House would be appropriate
because that number is substantially fewer than the previous number of residents in the Oakland
Home. If the Zoning Committee considers this within the "definition of family" framework, it
might also be necessary to request reasonable accommodation with respect to the number of
residents, i.e. 24 versus 16. This depends upon the informafion which you have gathered since
� the last meeting, I suppose. As we stated at the last meeting of the Committee, my client cannot
operate Buffalo Sober House with 16 residents.
Collins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, �
Nancy Homans
Page 3
April 18, 2001
Thank you for your ongoing assistance and courtesy.
truly ours,
�•
MARK W. GE
MWG/mjc
cc: Walter Dinaiko
�
u
u
at-r�7
�'. CITIZEN PARTICIPATIO DIS RI TS
i .SUNRAY - BATTLECREEK-NIGHld00D
2.GREATER EAST SIDE
3.WEST SIDE
4.DAYTON'S BLUFF
5.PAYNE-PHALEN
6.NORTH END
THO�MS-DALE
S. MMIT-UNIVERSITY
. EST SEVENTH
1Q.COMO
11 .HAMLINE-MID4IAY
12.ST. AN7HONY
13.MERRIAM PK.-LEXINGTON HAMLINE
� 14.GROVEIAND-MACALESTER
15. H I GHLAFID
16.SUMMIT HILL
17. DOWPlTOWP1
o, �z3- 25Z--
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DIS7RICTS
�
d
SUM . DISTRICT 8 ON
�����a�� ��� � _,
c, � - �23- Z9 L
,
��
u
z
n
�
�e
�
�
x
�
�W
f [� 11tj
If�� � �{�
p� �
. C � � ¢ F �
� � t
� i 0 E °�,} ` Q ,
i I ;
���������
o ,"��
o � �
A u
, ;
20
�,°_ �-
,�
o �i'o
•* � � �'• e �
• � .-��---�-
a�-�-� �� o .o:o;o�
_ � i � �
� � ? - d
� i
� � � � �
�
� fi
X �
I
` 5 ; '
� �; O O
� + ��____� /�'� p �
i�! s E .(� a /'� /�
�"""_" R_CTBRT �� � �li� � C l_.� 'vl
---� �
` .�.���'� S � _'__'"_'�' ._ ' �'__.__ __._..__ _�_...__—_' __'_" �.__
L ICANT �
�� �� � LC '� LEGEND
a�8r�►�a�1�►v o't' S�n�. i� k� (� SE --�......
zoning disfrict Lroundary
�
��o� I�Q
? o o"�
� �
; � ii..
�, —�
� �
t!}
�— �
<€
� � �
� DATE " �V � � subject property �� orth�.
3. DIST�_ MAP � � � f� �`'
0 one lamily •. � comr,�erci::
�L�si�pQ �_.!1 ¢ twofamily �.. I
:�I � � _
n �i�t:► ��
�
I
� � � � � � � �
� � � � �
,�, � ��
, I �
;
� ■ �i �
� � � ' ; �
� � ; � � � �
� � � � � � � � ' �
�
' ' � ; I
���I,, �' � ,��
--- -- - __- - ' i � � i
- -- - - LAUREL
� ; --_____-
� � � � , - ---
I � ;
,� � ,
� I _� '����
; ,
I! � � I! i i ;
��
�� f �
.� it.
��
_,,�
+j .
_ ;- :
-_- ___ ,
�
�
���_
1
� i
� r�� ;,
�
�
j ��.:�.
flpr 19 O1 12:z�p
_... .. . . . _ ...
627 -�e16y Rve Office (6511 225-1108 p.2
_.. . .... ... - -.. .... . .._. _ ..... .. .. .. ... _ _..__.._ ._ . .... .._... . .
o►. rr�
!
Summit University Planning Council
Buildrng a 11e1tu Conemunity
627 Selby Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104
�
BoardnfDiretla�t
President
Dxvid Singleton
1'ice-Presidcnt
TAOmes Selwold
T'reasurer
e�u can�
SecrCtArJ
Chris Yc�kes
Rev. Dnrtyl Spentt
Hent6er Koop
Donald Speese
Uett Mcjia
Son Ilfarley
Beth Commers
hlark Yoerding,
Rxmcey Hill Assoc.
A�Iison Canty,
M1SodelCi6es
Stevc Nilson,
Hallie Q. Bro��n
sraJj
Ececutivc Directar
Gcri Laymnn
Commimiry Organizer
Ilnrry Oda
� Oftcc Alanagcr
Jean Dogle
,,
April 19, 2001
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Litton Field, Jr., Chair
Zoning Conunittee
David Singleton, President
ri��n�: esi-z±s-isss
Faz: 651-22SI ID8
tl istrlct8@ci.xlpaui.mu.us
FILE # 01-184-249 269/271 Summit Avenue
The Neighborhood Development Committee of the Summit University Planning
Council held a Community Issues Meeting on April 18, 2001 regazding llie
application for Enlnrgement of a.Nonconformir:g Use at 269l271 Summit Avenue to
increase the mimber of zoning rooms on a zoning lot from 24 to 25. Six people
attcnded flie meeting, incIuding Chris Hansen, property owner, one resident, three
SUPC board members (also residents), and two representatives (one also a SUPC
board member) of the Ramsey Hill Association.
There ���ere no objections to the application at the meeting. Therefore, the committee
recommends approval at this time. The decision will be presented to the full board on
Tuesday, Apri124, 2001 for approvai. No objections aze expected from the full
boazd.
If you have any questions, pleasz feel free to call the SUPC office, 651-228-1855.
Sincerely,
;� �
�����,� �'/ S L. �_�T}� ����
� r
David Singleton, Preside t
Smnmit Uni��crsity Planning Coimcil