06-291Council File # ��
Resolution #
�
OF
Presented By
Referred To
Green Sheet
PAUL, MINNESOTA
�3
Committee: Date
1 WFIEREAS, In a letter dated November 8, 2005 and submitted on behalf of JPI Development Services, L.P.
2 (Hereinafter, "JPP'), Eric H. Galatz, Esq. requested the Zoning Administrator to review a proposal to
3 construct what JPI described as a"Student-Oriented Housing Development" at property commonly known as
4 2669 Territorial Road; and
WI3EREAS, "5tudent - Oriented Housing" is not a use that is defined or otherwise mentioned in the City's
zoning code; and
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
WHEREAS, I.egislative Code § 61.106 provides a method for determining whether a use not listed in the
zoning code, as is the case with "student oriented housing" may or may not be substantially similaz in
character and impact to a use that is listed, and thereby subject to regulations and standards specified in the
zoning code; and
WHEREAS, L.egislative Code § 61106 also provides that the Zoning Administrator shall issue a statement
regarding its "siznilaz use" deternunation which shall include the Administrator's findings supporting its
detemrination whether the subject use is or is not substantially similaz in character and impact to a use that is
listed and regulated under the zoning code; and
WHEREAS, In the November 8, 2005 letter, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit No. 1, the Zoning Administrator was requested to determine whether its proposed
"student oriented housing development" was a"multi-family dwelling" and whether each set of rooms within
the proposed development constituted an "apartmenY' as well as a"dweiling uniY' under the applicable
sections of the zoning code; and
WHEREAS, in a letter dated November 29, 2005, a copy of wkrich is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference as Exhibit No. 2, the Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed "student oriented
housing developmenY' met the definition of a"rooming house" which is a use specifically listed in the zoning
code under I.eg. Code § 65.171; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to L,eg. Code § 61.701(d), Mr. Lance Hanna, on behalf of JPI Development, duly filed
an appeal from the Zoning Administrator's determinaUOn on or about December 1, 2005, whereupon the
matter was set on for a public hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals (hereinafter, the `BZA"); and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2005, having provided notice to all interested parties, a public hearing was
held before the BZA where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, at the close of the public hearing and based upon the file, the public hearing testimony and the
report of staff, the BZA, on a 4-3 vote, held that the Zoning Administrator's deternunation that JPPs
proposed student oriented housing development met the zoning code's definition of a"rooming house" was
in error as the proposed use was more similar to a"multi-family apartment building" and whereupon the
BZA directed staff to prepare a resolution consistent with this determination for the reasons discussed at the
hearing; and
� ��
��,,.
WI�REAS, on January 3, 2006, the BZA received the resolution prepared by staff and, in its Resolutio� ���
No. OS-207033, the BZA duly memorialized its reasons for finding that the Zoning Administrator's
November 8, 2005 similaz use determination was in enor based upon the following:
l. The appellant is proposing to construct a residential development consisting of seven multi-
unit buildings of student-oriented housing and requested that the Zoning Administrator
deternrine that the use is similar to standazd multi-fanuly apartment buildings. The appellant
alleges that the student oriented housing is a multi-fanuly dwelling within the meaning of the
code because each suite of rooms is an independent unit with sleeping, cooking, and sanitation
facilities for use by a group of individuals that meet the definition of a family.
The appellant further alleges that the proposal is not a rooming house because the premises
that aze covered by each lease include possessory interests in ldtchen facilities that aze
available exclusively for the use of the family that occupies a suite of rooms that include
sleeping, cooking, and sanitation facilities.
2. The Zoning Administrator, after reviewing the information supplied by the appellant,
deternuned that the proposed use meets the definition of a rooming house, which is a use that
is specifically listed in the zoning code.
3. The City's definition of a rooming house was changed in 1992, following a 40-Acre Study,
in order to clarify the Code and make it consistent with State and Federal standards. The
proposed housing has characteristics of both a dwelling unit and a rooming house. The
appellant states that this housing project has been tailored for student housing, with the units
and leasing program designed to facilitate apartrnent sharing by college students.
4. The appellant states that this proposal is similar to recent student housing developments in
Minneapolis and that they were treated as multi-family dwelling urrits, although he also
acknowledges that Minneapolis does not have a specific use definition for this type of
housing. If this type of student housing is to become a growing trend in college towns, then it
is incumbent upon those towns to develop a specific definition and standards for this type of
project. Until such time as specific regulations aze developed for this type of housing, it
appears that the proposed housing falls within the definition of a multi-family apartment
building.
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2006, the Saint Anthony Park Community Council, pursuant to I.eg. Code §
61.702(a), duly filed an appeal from the BZA's decision and, pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(b), the matter
was set for a public hearing on February l, 2006, before the Saint Paul City Council; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2006, the matter was laid over to February 15, 2006; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2006, the Saint Paul City Council, having given notice to all interested parties,
duly conducted a public hearing on the appeal by the Saint Anthony Pazk Community Council where all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the administrative
detercninations of the Zoning Administrator, the report of staff, the record, minutes and the resolution of the
BZA; DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, that the City Council, pursuant to its authority under I.eg. Code § 61.704 to reverse or affirm,
wholly or partly, or to modify the deternunations of the BZA and to make such orders, requirements,
A �,� �.
o � Page 2 of 5
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
decisions or detemunations that can be made under the circumstances, finds that both the Zoning b�p' �,9I
Administrator as well as the BZA ened in their respective deternunations regazding the proposed
development by JPI based upon the following reasons:
i. The record is cleaz that the use proposed by JPI has attributes of a"rooming house," as that
use is defined under I.eg. Code § 65171 and noted in the Zoning Administrator's November
29, 2005 findings, as well as a multiple-family dwelling, as that use is defined under I.eg.
Code § 65.116 and noted in the findings of the BZA's resolution adopted on January 3, 2006.
2. The similarities in uses noted above notwithstanding, the proposed use is intended for
residential occupancy, in housekeeping units designed within the meaning of a"family" as
that term is defined under the zoning code.
3. The housekeeping units in the proposed development are intended to be marketed to
individual persons who may primarily be post secondary students although there is no
prolubition against leasing the units to persons who aze not students.
4. The leased unit is, primarily, an individual sepazate bedroom and bathroom arrangement
within a four-bedroom suite or an individual separate bedroom and shared bathroom
arrangement within in a two-bedroom suite. All suite occupants have equal access to
communal kitchen and dining facilities and living room space exclusive to each bedroom suite
arrangement. This occupancy arrangement is similar to a"rooming house" where each
resident has an individual lease from the landlord for exclusive occupancy of one bedroom.
However, unlike a rooming house, the use of the communal kitchen, dining and living room
space directly attached to the bedroom suite is only for the joint and exclusive use of the
individuals who lease one of the separate bedrooms within that particulaz suite of bedrooms.
This aspect of the living arrangement is similaz to a multi-family dwelling.
5. The nature of the proposed leasehold arrangement within a bedroom suite is unique.
Therefore, it cannot be said under the present provisions of the zoning code that the proposed
leasehold arrangement exacfly comports with the use definitions for either a dwelling unit or a
multiple-family dwelling unit intended to house, for zoning purposes, a single, residential
"family." Similarly, it also cannot be said that the leasehold arrangement within a bedroom
suite comports with the use definitions for residential congregate living arrangements which
includes a "rooming house."
6. Because the proposed use has attributes of a multiple-family dwelling as well as a
"rooming house" congregate living azrangement, each of which is a use permitted under the
City's zoning code, it was an error on the part of the Zoning Administrator to treat the
proposed use exclusively as a rooming house. On the other hand, it was an error on the part of
the BZA to treat the proposed use exclusively as a"multiple-family dwelling."
7. The Saint Anthony Pazk Neighborhood District Council filed its appeal from the BZA's
decision to treat the proposed use as a multi-family apartment building. The District Council
supported the Zoning Administrator's determination that the proposed use was a"rooming
house." The District CounciPs concerns are primarily with the pazking and density standards
for multi-family housing. These concerns are legitimate and the District Council was right in
bringing its concerns forward through this appeal.
8. Given the unique nature of the proposed use, it is reasonable to deternune that the attributes
of the proposed use make it similar to both a"rooming house" and a multiple-family dwelling.
a
Page 3 of 5
,�� ..
�
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
Each of these uses are permitted uses. A rooming house is pernritted as a conditional use in Z�
RMl, RM2 and RM3 zoning districts. A multiple-family dwelling is pernutted in RMl, RM2 ��
and RM3 zoning districts. In the City's TN zoning districts, a rooming house is permitted as a
conditional use in the TNl and TI33 zoning districts but treated as a permitted use in TN2
districts. Multiple-family dwellings aze a pernutted use in TNl, TN2 and TN3 districts.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that the traffic generated by the proposed use would
be different from the tr�c generated by a similazly sized rooming house or multi family
dwelling. The type of housing proposed is consistent with the housing goals of the
comprehensive plan. The site is located near the University of Minnesota's transit way as well
as University Avenue, a"high service" bus route. The site is presently zoned Il which does
not permit a rooming house or multiple-family dwellings although rooming houses aze
permitted as conditional uses in the I2 district. In order for this site to be used as proposed by
7PI, the site requires rezoning regardless of whether the use is described as a multiple-family
dwelling, a rooming house, or a combination of each use.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, because the proposed use has attributes of a multi-family residential
dwelling as well as attributes of congregate residential living arrangements like a"rooming house," each of
which is a use pernutted under the City's zoning code, the proposed use should not be treated exclusively as a
rooming house as the Zoning Administrator deternuned nor should it be treated exclusively as multiple-
family housing as the BZA determined. Accordingly, the Council grants the appeal of the St. Anthony Park
District Council;
AND, BE IT F'URTHER RESOLVED, notwithstanding the Council's decision with respect to the appeal
by the St. Anthony Park Community Council, the Council also finds that it would be desirable to pernvt and
regulate the proposed use under the City's zoning regulations;
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, given the size of the proposed use, it can be said to be similar to
multiple-family housing permitted in RM2 and TN2 and TN3 districts. Likewise, given the nature of the
proposed use, it can also be said that the use is similar to a"rooming house" permitted as a conditional use in
RM2 and TN3 districts;
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, pursuant to the Council's authority under I.eg. Code § 61.704 to
reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or to modify the determinations of the BZA and to make such orders,
requirements, decisions or determinations that can be made under the circumstances far the purpose of
addressing the concems of the Zoning Administrator as well as the BZA, the Council hereby deternunes that
the use proposed by JPI is similar to multiple-family housing operaring under a leasehold arrangement
similar to a rooming house;
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this determination shall pernut the Zoning and Planning
Administrators to process any application related to zoning for the project proposed by JPI as a pernutted use
subject to the following conditions which shall be imposed pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 61.107:
1. That the project obtains a condiUonal use permit as is required for a rooming house in RM2 or TN3
zoning districts. Notwithstanding the proposed lease arrangements and consistent with the findings noted
above, JPI need not obtain a rooming house license provided that the development is approved, constructed,
operated and maintained in accordance with this resolution and the following:
(A). The use receives a conditional use pernut from the planning commission.
Page 4 of 5
�•�
3
196
197
19g
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
(B). That the planning commission considers imposing the following conditions on the special
condition use pemut for the project:
ot�`2.�L
1. Depending on the number of bedrooms within each suite arrangement, no bedroom
suite within the project is occupied by more than two (2) or four (4) unrelated persons.
2. The landlord for the completed development shall maintain and inform tenants that
it shall enforce rules of conduct on its tenants that will provide the landlord with the
right to evict tenants who engage in loud or obnoxious conduct disturbing or
threatening the rights, comfort, health, safety or convenience of others in or neaz the
development, or who violate any ordinance or law relating to such behavior.
3. The landlord for the completed project shall provide professional on-site
management in a permanent, on-site management office.
4. The landlord shall provide the neighborhood district council with the telephone
number of the on-site management office and the name(s) of the on-site managers who
will answer and respond to neighborhood complaints about tenant behavior or property
conditions.
5. The landlord shall install and maintain secured landlord and/or tenant controlled
access to all buildings within the development.
2. That the project obtains a site plan approved by the planning commission following a public hearing
thereon. During site plan review, dimensional standards for the zoning classification sought by the developer
under a rezoning application for the site should be applied to the project. Pazldng standards and conditions
shall be determined by the planning commission in accordance with Leg. Code § 63.208
224 3. That the project obtains any variances based upon the specific site plan as required by the zoning code.
225
226 4. That the project obtains the necessary zoning reclassification for the subject land.
227
228 AND, BE IT F'INALLY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to JPI, the
229 Saint Anthony Park Community Council, the Zoning and Planning Administrators, the Planning Commission
230 and the BZA.
231
Req¢ested by
By:
Approved by Financial Serrices
B
Form Approved by City Attomey
Adopfion Ceitified by Council Secrehary /��
ay: �n�, �irii/lsa� s 'Y.�.Z 6✓/..�aw+,�, 3-�^o t
Approved by Mayor: Date � d� Approved by Mayor f. Su ion to unci]
By:
a
Page 5 of 5
'(�`
Adopted by Council: Date �/ i1��/f�_��, �{'�Olo
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
CA - CityAttomey
Contact Person ffi Phone:
Peter Wamer
266-8770
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date):
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip AII Locafions for Signature) �
Action Requested: -
Resolution memoriali�ino the City Council action of Febmary 22, 2006 granting the appeal of the Saint Anthony Pazk Comwuuity
Council and modifying the decisions of the Zoning Administrator and Boazd of Zoning Appeals regazding a student oriented housing
development at 2669 Temtorial Road.
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Commission
Initiating problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Wh�:
AdvantaAes If Approved:
The Council is required pursuant to the Ciry Cl�zrter to have its acrions reduced to a writing either in the form of a resolution or
ordinance dependern upon ffie nature of ffie matter before it. The decision of the Council in this matter requires a written resolution in
order to comply with the Charter. Approving the attached resolufion fulfills the Council's duty under the Cl�arter.
Disadvantages If Approved:
None
Dafe Initiated: `"`"� � •'
0��-06 Green Sheet NO: 3029994
� Deoartment Senf To Person
0 i Attome
ASSigO 1 Attorne De artmentDirector
Number 2 Attome
For
Roufing 3 a or•s Office Ma or/Assistant
Order 4 onncil
5 Clerk G5 Clerk
Personal Service Contracts Must Mswer the Following Questions:
1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this departmenY?
Yes No
2. Has this person/firtn ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firtn passess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
MAR 0 9 2006
MAYOR'S OFFICE
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
otal Amount of
Transaction:
Fundinp Source:
CosURevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
� �iu°.$$�f�'�'P �+.�,7^�.;,
Financial Information:
(Explain)
�{F�R 1 � LU�
,-,
i
��_,�
(`
LE�NARD
SI'REET
I�NI7
DEINARD
November 8, 2005
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Wendy C. Lane
Zoning Admiuistration
City of SainY Paul
Office of License, Inspections &
Environmental Protection
8 Fourth Street E., Suite 200
Saint Paul, MN 55101 °
�
;� � �
� - -� �,'
_ �
Eiuc H. Gnian
612-335-1509 Du�cr
eric.galatz@leonazd.com
Z 50 SOU2II FIE2A 522tEET SUCLE 23pp
MfNLIEAPOLIS� MIITNE502.1$$402
6x2-335'=Sao n�uN
6ii'335-Z � .
Re: Request for Similaz Use betenninarion
JPI Development Services, Inc. Studettt Hoizssing Development
Dear Ms. Lane:
Please accept this letter on behalf of 7PI Development Services, L.P. ("JPI") as a Request for
Sitnilaz Use Determination, pursuant to Section 61.106 of the Saint Paul City Code (the "Code;"
all Secrion references are to the Code unless noted otherwise). Specifically, we request a
determinarion that the student-oriented housing development JPI proposes to develop in St. Paul
is a"multiple-family dwelling" as defined by Section 65.116 and each suite of rooms within the
project is an "apartmenY' as defined by Section 60.202 and a"dwelling uniY' as defined in
Secfion 60.205.
EXECUTIVE SUNIlVIARY
r
The student-oriented housing project JPI proposes to deveIop is a"mutti-family dwe[Iing"
within the meaning of the Code because each suite of rooms is an independent unit with
sleeping, cooking, and sanitation facilities for icse by a graup of individuals fhat ineet Uxe -
definition of "family."
The JPI proposal is not a"roominghouse" 6ecause fhe "premises" that are covered by each
lease includes possessary interests ut Idtchen facilities that �e available exclusively for the
use of the fawily that occupies a snite of rooms that includes sleeping, cooking, and
sanitation facilities.
exyiBir `l
2686331v2 •
LAW OEFICES 7N MINNEqPOLIS. SAINT PAVL� d �
� HINGSON�.D.C. APrOfedsioII¢I1L4SOGtafioII
3 W W W.LEONARD.COM
�
r�
Wendy C. Lane
November 8, 2005
Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(�,
Q� �'��`
'S � � � y
� _ '3' ��� �
r
3PI proposes to develop a mutti-family rental pro}ect on a 4.27 acre af the western boundary of
St. Paul, befween Territorial Road and the University Tzansitcvay and between the Minneapolis-
3t. Paul border and vacated Serry Sireet. For the current project, JPI proposes a mix of 2 and 4
bedroom uxtifs, with an average of 3 bedrooms per unif. At fhe proposed densities, tlus Lranslates
to approximately 150 unifs and 522 bedrooms, with one occupant per bedroom.
Although JPI does not disciivunate in its leasing, the proposed project is designed as a student
commnnity, with University of Minnesota and other college students as its intended market. The
project is similaz to fhe Tefferson Commons project on Huron Boulevard in IYiinneapolis, which
3PI developed in 20d1. The project is also similar ta several other student-oriented housing
projects other developers haue conslructed around the 1Viumeapolis campus of the Uttiversity of
Mivnesota, including Grandmazc at Seven Corners, University Viilage, and Diimakan House.
For a11 these developers, the protntype fcsr "student housing" is market rate or lusury mulriple-
family housing, tailored for a sfudent population. Specifically, the units, and the leasing
program, aze designed to facilitate aparhnent-sharing by college students. Although the
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances does not haue a 5pecific use definifion for this prototype,
Iviinneapolis has treated each of these projects as a multiple family dwelling, rather than any of
its altemafive "congregate living" categories. To our knowtedge, Ykere are no similaz projects in
St. Paul.
As is typical for multiple-fasnily dwellings, the proj ect contains several individual aparhuents,
arranged along corridors. Each corridor is controlled by the landlord and is open and available
for use by all tenants of Yhe buiiding and their guests. Each apartment is separated &om the
common corridor by a locked door. Only the tenants of a specific aparhuent haue keys to that
door (the landlord has a master key but is allowed access to a leased apartment only in
emergencies or with the consent of the tenants). Each apartment is an independent living unit,
with kitchen, bath, living room, and bedrooms. We enclose IIoor plans for prototypical
apartment units.
The following features accommodate apartment-sharing, and may or may not be found in other
multiple-family dwellings:
(1) In multiple bedroom units, each bedroom has a lock on its door to provide privacy
and security for each occupant of the unit.
(2) In four bedroom and some two-bedroom units, each bedroom has a private
bathroom attached to it. In other two hedroom units, the occupauts will share a
single batluoom.
(3) Each bedroom has receptacles for telephone and cabte service. Each occupant
can elect to obtain service to the receptacles. The landlord does not supply .
telephone, television, or compufer equipment.
2686331W1
t�
�
�'
�
�
(�
Wendy C. Lane
November 8, 2005
Page 3 .
(4}
(5)
(6)
��)
(_.
0�-e.��.
�-� �
�--=� >
��
•
Each tenant has a sepuate lease with the landlord for the bedroom the tenant will
occupy: Tlus feature makes it possible for each tenant of the apartment to share
an apartment without becoming fiable far rent payable by the other tenant or
tenants in the apariment.
Fach tenant of the apartment rcnts an undivided shue of the ldtchen and living
room that is part of Yhe apartment and each Yenant of the apazt�nent is jointly and
severally liable for damages to the kitcken and living room.
The landlord will lease a multiple bedroom unit to tenants who apply for an
apartment 4ogether. If a tenant who does not have suite-mates wants to lease a
bedroom witbin a multiple-bedroom unit, the landlord will help match suit�
mates, subject Yo approval by all suite-mates. If one of the tenants of a multiple
bedroom apartment moves out for any reason, the landlord wili have the right to
re-lease the vacant bedroom and its proportional shaze of the kitchen and living
room to another tenant, subject to the reasonable approval of the existing tenants
of the apazhnent unit.
The tenants wiio skare a mulriple bedroom apartment unit have the righY to
exclude,others, including the landlord (subject to exceptions for emergencies and
repairs); from the apartmettt.
USE DESCRIPTIONS UNDER THE ST. PAUL CODE
The student-oriented housing 7PI pmposes to development is most appropriately classified as a
"miiltir�iP-fat�jj}r Llwel�ino' composed of "dwelling units" ar"apartments" not as a"rooming
house" composed of `Yooming units: '
MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLING
De�nitions
�,
Section 65.216 defines "cnultiple-family dwel&ng" as "(a] buitding, ar portion thereof, designed
exclusively for occupancy by three (3) or more faxnilies living independently of each other in
individual dwelling units."
Secfion 60.205 defines a dwelling unit as"[a] 6uilding, or portion thereof, designed for
occupancy by one (i) faxnily for residential purposes used or intended to be used for &ving,
sleeping and cooking or eating purposes; '
Section 60.207 defines a,"family" as: "One (1) or two (2) persons or pazents, with their direct
lineal descendants and adopted or legally cared for children (and 'mcluding the domestic
empIoyees thereo� togetFter witii not more tlian iwo (2) persons not so relafed, living together in
the whole or part of a dwelling comprising a single housekeeping unit. Every additional group of
four (4) or fewer persons living in such housekeeping unit shall be considered a separate family
for the ptupose of this code."
2686331v2
�3
��
� o���i�
Wendy C. Lane � � -
November 8, 2005 (
Page 4 � ,�,G � ���
Secfion 60.2d2 of the Code defines an "apaxtment" as "[a] suite ofrooms or a room in a
multiple-family dwelling arranged and intended for a place of residence of a single family."
Analysis
The JPI proposal consists of several suites of rooms arrauged along common corridors. Each
suite is sepazated from the common corridor by a door with a lock Htat is accessible only to the
tenanfs of that suite. Each suite of rooms is a"dwelling. uniY' and an"agarluienY' and each
building 7PI proposes to develop is a"multiple-family dwellin�' as those terms are defined in
the Code..
:4 "dwelling uniY' is a building or a portion of a building designed for use by one (i) family "for
living, sleeping, and cooking or eating purposes." Each suite of rooms within the project will be
a"dwelling uniY' because each suite will (1) be intended for occupancy by one family, consisting
of four (4) or fewer persons, related or not, and (2} have a kitchen and living room with space for
eating, at least one bedroom for sleeping, and at least one bathroom.
A multiple-family dwelling is a building that is designed for occupancy by three or moxe families
in independent dwelling units. 3PI proposes to develop three or more buildings with fift:y (50) or
more suites in each building. Each suite is an independent dwelling unit, with its own living,
sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. (
�.
Each suite of rooms will also be an "apartmenY' because each suite is "arranged and intended for
a ptace of residence of a single farnily."
ROONIINGHOUSE
The JPI proposal is not properly classified as a"roominghouse" because the suites of rooms ue
"dwellings" not "rooming units: '
Definitions
Section 65.171 defines a"roominghouse" as follows:
"(1) Any residential structure or dwelling unit, supervised or not, which provides
living and sieeping atTangements for more than four (4) unrelated individuals for periods
of one (I) week or longer; or
(2} Any residential structure or dwelling unit which provides single room occupancy
(SRO) housing as defined in [24] CFR secrion 882.102 to more than four (4) unrelated
individuals; or
(3) Any building housing more than four (4) unrelated individuals which 1{as any of
the following characteristics shall be considered and regulated as a roominghouse:
a. Rental arrangements aze by the rooming unit rather than the dwelling unit.
b. Rooming unit doors aze equipped with outer door locks or chains wluch require
different keys to gain entrance. �
2686331v2 �
(
�.
� �� 0����,��
(
Wendy C. Lane
November 8, 20Q5
Page 5
-
�� .
c. Kitchen facilifies may be provided for joinf or common use by the occupants of
more than one (I) rooming unit.
d. Rooming units aze equipped with telephones having exclusive phone numbers.
e. Rooming units aze equipped with individual intercom security devices.
f. Each rooming unif has a sepazate assigned mailbox or mailbox compartment for
receipt of U.S. mail."
Section 34.07 defines "rooming uniP' as"[a]ny room or group of rooms forming a single
habitable unit used or intended to be used for living and sleeping, but not for cooking or eating
purposes. This definition includes, but is not limited to, guest rooms as defined in this section."
A"guest room" is a"room or a group of rooms in a licensed bed and breakfast facility forming a
single habitable unit which is located within the walls of a residenfial structure and wiuch is used
or intended to be used for sleeping and living, but not for cooldng or eafinQ purposes and which
is Iet individually as a unit"
Analysis
C^l
JPPs proposed studen#-oriented housing development is not a roominghouse because none of the
three definitions of "roomingtiouse" set out in Section 65.171 applies to the JPI proposal:
Secrion 65.171(1) does not apply because 7PI will not house more tfian four individuals in any
one unit. Under Section 65.171(1), a roominghouse is "[a]ny residential siructure or dwelling
unit, supervised or not, which provides living and sleeping arrangements for more than four (4)
"-._7' -*013t� �±+�!+vid��a?s €cr geriods of one �� � lu0 or longer." If Section 65.? 7? �?; is Cnnct�iari tr�
mean any shuciure that houses more than four (4) unrelated persons in any number of units, then
every multiple-familv dwelling in the City of 5t. Paul with more than four units wouid be a
roomin ouse. If Section 65.171(1) is more reasonably construed to apply to individual
dwelling`ts that house more fhan four unrelated individuals, then Secflon 65.171(1) does not
apply to the 7PI proposal because JPI does not propose to house more than four individuais
(related or not) in any one unit.
Seciion 65.171(2) does not apply because 7PI's proposed development does not provide for
single room occupancy (SRO) within the meaning of 24 CFR 882.102, which defines SRO as
"[a] unit that contains no sanitary facilities or food piepazation facilities, or contains either, but
not both, types of facilities: ' The "uniY' JPI intends to rent to each tenant consists of a private
bedroom, a private bathroom ("sanitary facilities"), and an undivided interest in a shazed kitchen
("food preparation facilities"}. If the City siretched the definition of SRO to apply to each of the
176 sepazate suites of rooms within the project (yielding 176 separate SROs) Section 65.171(2)
would still not apply because there aza four or less residents witlrin each suite of rooms. ,
Section 65.171(3) does not apply because all ofthe definitions in Section 65.171(3) refer to
"rooming units" and "guest rooms" and the premises JPI proposes to rent aze not "rooming
units" or "guest rooms: ' Under Section 34.07 a"rooming uniY' is a"room or group of rooms
� forming a single habitable unit used or intended to be used for fiving and sleeping, but not for
cookin� or eating pucposes" and a"guest room" is essentially a rooming unit within a licensed
2fi86331v2 � /
��
Wendy C. Lane
November 8, 2005
Page 6
�
o�-���
��.a�
� 3
bed and breakfast. If Section 34.07 is construed literally, and without reference to other premises
that are included in the lease, then everv bedroom ixf St. Paul would be a"rooming unit." What
distinguishes a rooming unit from every other bedroom in St. Paul is a"roomirig unit" does not
come with rights of possession of coolang and earing facilities. The units JPT proposes to
develop and rent include possession of an undivided interest in ldtchen (and living) facilifies that
are rented exclusively to the tenants of the suite. Because the premises that 7PI intends to rent
aze not "rooming units" the City cannot categorize the suites or the buildings 7PI intends to
develop as "roomingfiouses."
The distinction between the possessory rights ofroominghouse tenants and JPI's tenants is more
than technical. In a rooming house, the "premises" that aze subject fo the lease, and that the
tenant has the right to possess, consisf exclusively of the bedroom and, sometimes, a private
bathroom. The roomiughouse tenant also has a right to use the common kitchen and living
spaces outside the leased premises, but not the right to exciude others from those spaces. The
landlord possesses and controls the kitchen, corridors and any common living spaces. In the 7PI
proposal, ori tlie other hand, the `�remises" consist of the private bedroom and bathroom and the
kitchen and living spaces, which may be shared with up to three other tenants. The tenants of the
suite together have the right of possession of the kitchen and living spaces, including the right to
exclude others, including the landlord, from those spaces. The landlord possesses and conirois
the corridors and spaces that aze common to all tenants, such as recrearion rooms and lobbies.
What matters here is that fhe "premises" each tenant will lease from JPI includes kifchen
facilities and therefore the premises is not a"rooming unit "
With respect to the six specific chazacterisfics of a roominghouse listed in Section 65.171(3),
those chazacteristics do not appiy for the following reasons, even if the City erroneously
construes each bedroom in the TPI proposal to be a"rooming unit:"
a. Rental arrangements are by the rooming unit rather lhan the dweZling unit.
As discussed above, although tfie "rental arrangement" 7PI makes with its tenants allows
individual tenants to enter into separate leases, the "rental arrangement" addresses more
than the individual bedroom and bathroom. Each tenant of a suite obtains possessory
interests in, and joint and several responsibility for, the kitchen and living room within
the suite. Further, unlike a tradirional roominghouse where the tenants have no say as to
who their neighbors and co-tenants may be, each eenant of each JPI unit has the right to
select or approve co-tenants and replacement co-tenants.
b. Rooming unit doors are equipped with outer door locks or chains which require
d�erent keys to gain entrance.
Each JPI suite of rooms will have a separate e,xterior Iock between the suite and the
public corridor. Each resident of each suite will have a key to this exterior lock in
common. Thexe wiIl also be sepazate door locks inside each unit, separating each
bedroom from the shazed living room, which will allow each tenant privacy and security
within the suite.
2686331v2
�
�
��_
�
�_.
�- � 0�-���.
Wendy C. Lane � �
� � November 8, 2005 � U ��
Page 7
c. Kitchen facilities r�ay be provided for joint or common use by the occupants of
more than one (1) rooming unit.
In a traditional rooming house, the landlord provides tenants of more than oue rooming
unit the right to use a comnton idtchen that the landlord controls. 3I'I intends to Iease
shazed possessory interesfs in ldtchens to suite-mates wfio will have the right fo exclude
the Iandlord and others. If the City construes a"rooming uniY' broadly as a bedroom,
then every multiple-fanuly dwelling in St. Faul with more than four units witk two or
more bedrooms is a roominghouse, because every such muliipie-family dwelling will
haue occupanfs of more than one rooming unit sharing a kitchen. The key distinction
between a tradirional aparlment unit arid a traditional roominghouse is the fact that in an
apartment unit, the leased premises includes the kitchen and living facilities, not just the
bedroom and, sometrmes, the bathroom. Because 7PI's tenants will have the right to
exclude the landlord from the ldtchen and living facilities, the JPI proposal is
appropriately chazacterized as a multiple-fanuly dwelling.
d. Rooming units are equipped with telephones having exctusive phone numbers.
Although JPI intends io include telephone jacks in all bedrooms, as is the case in most
�� modem apartments, 7PI does uot intend to provide telephones or telephone numbers.
e. Roorning units are equipped with individual intercom security devices.
3PI does not intend to provide individual intercom security devices to the individual
bedrooms.
f. Each rooming unit has a separate assigned mailbox or mailbox compartment for
receipt of U.S. mail.
JPI does not intend to provide sepazate assigned mailboxes for each bedroom.
Because none of the Code definitions or characteristics of `Yoominghouse" apply, it is not
appropriate to classify the 7PI proposal as a roominghouse. JPI believes its proposal falls
squazely wifhin the definitian of "multiple-family dwelling." Even if the City finds that the
definition of "multiple-family dwelling" does not clearly fit the JPI proposal, 7PI respectfully
asks the Zoning Adminisirator to determine that the JPI proposal is substantially similaz in
chazacter and impact to a"multiple-family dwelling." .
OTHER AUTHORITY
Although Minnesota 5tatutes do not eacpressly define "roominghouse", it is cleaz that the State
� considers roominghouses to be for short texm, temporary tenancies, similaz to hotels, motels and
resorts. For example, for sales ta�c purposes, the 5tate of Mimiesota equates a roominghouse
2686331v2 � �
Wendy C. Lane
November 8, 2005
Page 8
r
� i��-���.
���
7 r -�.
�' �� b t.
with uses such as Iodging and related services by a"hotel, .. _ resort, campground, motel, or
trailer camp and the granting of any sunilar license to use reat property other than the renting or
leasing of it far a continuous period of 30 days ox more". Minn. Stat. 5ec. 279A.6I, subd.
3(g)(2). JPI's standard lease is for a term of 1welve months.
For all of the reasons stated above, JPf respecffully requests that the zoning adnunistrator issue a
detemunafion that the JPI proposal is an multiple-family dwelling, rather than a roominghouse.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINt1RD
PROFESSIONA�, ASSOCIATION
cc: Council Member Jay Benanav
David Gontarek
Tony Schertler
Patricia James
268633tv2
1�
l �
�,
' Nov, 29. 2005 12:42PM
CTTY OF �AINT PAITt.
- Randy G IfeUy, lvlayar
November 29, 2005
Eric �T. Galatz
Leonard, Street and Deinard
150 S, 5�' St., Suste 2300
N(irmeapolig, MI�i 55402
Re: Approximataly 2269 TeaiWrial ktoad
Dtar Mr. Qaiat2:
I I�sve reviawed your Requeat for Similar Use Dotennination under zoning cade Sea 61.1Ob for a
prnpossl to develop a"studenY'miented housing development" hetweon Territorial ltoad and the
Univeraity af Minnesota Transitway, Your letter states that the proposed us� is not listed ia the
znning code but that it is most sunilar W muItiple family housing. We have reviawed the
information you provided. Based upon that infozmation, it is our d�termination that the use
described mcets #he definition of a roomiaghous�, whiah is a nse specifically listod in the zoaing
eade.
Zoning code Sec. &5,171, dafines a znominghorsse as:
(1} Any residentiai structure ar dwelling unit, aupervised or not, which provides living and
slezping arrangements far more than four (4) unrelated itidividuals for periods of ona (lj week
or longer; or
(2) Any residential sisucture or dwelling unit wt�ich provides single rornn occupancy (SRO}
housing as defined in C�Tt seetion $$2.102 to rnare then fourj4) unralated individuals; or
(3) Aay building housizrg ma=e than four (4) unrelated individuals w#iiohhaa any af the fcatlowing
oharacteriatics ghall be crmsidered and regulated as a roaminghouse;
a. Ztental wTangements are by the rooming unit rather than the dwelling uait,
b, Ttooztting unit dwus sre equipped with outer door locks or chains which require
dif£zrent keys ta gain entrance.
c. Kitchen faCi�ities map Bepravifled fat joint ar common uae by the occugants afmnte
thau pae (1) motning unit.
d. Itoorning units aze equippod with telephones having exclusive phone nuenbers.
e. Raaming writs are aquipped with individual intercom security dewices.
f. &ach rooming unit has a segarate aseigued msiibox or mailbox camparnnent for receipt
of U.S. msil.
Hasad upon the infom�ation you providad, we t�ve d�termrued that aach hedroom is a rooming unit
within a larger living area which inclndes a kitchen and living roorn that has sY least Eour aF the
EXHIBIT
�
a 2
�
�
No. 0784
OFFtC6 OF LdCENSS, INSPECTI0N8 AND
ENVrRONMHNTAL PROTECnON —� �)S
Janaen 8. Raaas, btrertar
COMMERCEBUbDA'G �'Tciepkoxe:65l-166-9090
BPourthSk$SulleZPO Frceirnila: 63l-366-9IZ4
ScinlPqu{ Mln�esatuS5101•1424 Wab: 3vww.!len.us
� �°��_
�
'Nov. 24. 20Q5 12:43PM
&ric H. GsIafz
Nov�mber 29, 2005
Fage z
� I '� '
��., -
;�« _°_-
�-�— --
characteristacs of a mominghouse as definedin zoning code 5ec. 65.171(3) as follaws;
a. kenrrxl arrangemenGs are by ¢he roaming unit rather than the dweXling unit.
You state that a tenant enters in4o a leasa for s epecific bedraom. Although the lease
you descn�ed allowe a tenant sccesa ta an "undivSded" sl�are in a kitchen aad living
mom, the infom�ation you pravide makes it clear Ehat the pritnary space leased by the
tenant is a separate bedroom.
b. Rooming unit doars are er�utpped with puter daor lockr ar chains which reguire
dij�erent keys to gatn entrance.
'Y'ou state that each saparately leased hedroam will have a separately keyed lock apart .
from a separately keyed door needed to gain entrance W the larger fiving arta.
c, Kitehen facllities rnay be provided for Joint or common use by tlie oneupants'of more
than nne (1) roaming unit,
You stete that tenants of the rented bedrooms would have an "undivided" share in a
cprrimon kitchcn.
d. Room�ng ur�its are eguipped with tedephones hav�ng exclusive phane numbers.
Althaugh each bedroom would not he equipprd with a telephons, the intent of this
characteristie is met when you etate eaah individually xontcd bedroam is pro�vided with
a receptacle far telephone and eable sen+ice.
Tn addit9ori, we note that Yhis property ie currently zot�ed Il. A roomuighouse is not a penmitted
use in an Il d'tstriCt. A roominghouse is parmitted ia the fotlovving zoning districts; RM1,121�22,
RM3,'TATI,'IN2, TN3 and BC. Therefore, rezaning thie proper�y is neaessary in ordar to
aaaonunodate a rpqminghouse. A conditional use pemut ie required from the Planning
Camxnisaian exeept in the TN2 zone. There ara minimum lot eize and parking standarde identified
in Section 65.171 as well ss density and dimenaional standards in Chapter fi6. A businsss lieense
is alsa required far a mominghouss.
This decisions may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appea]s (SZA) vvithin 10 days. There is a
$43S fiting fee. Attached is the appeal application fwm and the BZA sehedule. Please contact me
at 65I-266-9081 if yon have c(ues4inns.
Sincerely,
W �
Wendy�
Zoning Managez�
oc: 17avid GOntatek
'Tony SCherticr
Patricia 7ames
Disirict 12, St. Anthony Park Community Counoi]
�o
���
� r �
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION � � o � �3 �
Bob Kesslu, Director 6
SA[Ni
PAUL
�
AAAA
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
266-9090
Christopher B Coleman, Mayor
266-9l24
www.liep.us
COMMERCEBUILDING
8 Fourth Streei E¢s; Suite 200
Telephone: 651-
Facsimi[e: 65/-
Sain! Paul, Minnuota 55107 Web:
NOTICE OF POBLIC HEARII�iG
� 1he Samt Pavl �Yty Counc�l wi11 conduct a �
public hearing on Wednesday, February 1, '
2006 at 5:30 p.m. in ihe City Cossncil
ChamUers, 11�ird F'loor City Hall, 15 West
Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN, to con-
JBriU� 1$, 2��6 sider the appeal of St. Anthony Cogimu-
niTy.Council to a decision of the Board of
Zoning Appeals wY�ich determined that a
MS. M21y ET'1CICSOri proposed residential development at 2669
Territorial Road by 3PI Development Ser-
Council Research Office vices meets the deSnition of an apartment
Room 310 City Hall building rather than a rooming house.
Saint Paul, MN. 55102 ��D ed: January 1�832006
MARY ERICKSON
Assistant City Council Secretary I
Dear Ms. Erickson: c�an� z3�
`___ = 81: PAi7L LEGAi, r.v.nr.uu __' = I
22109t84
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, February 1,
20Q6 far the following zoning case:
Appellant: St Anthony Community Council
Zoning File #: OS-207033.
Purpose:
Location:
Staff:
District :
Board:
Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals which determined that a proposed residential
development at 2669 Territorial Road by JPI Development Services meets the definition of an
apartment building rather than a rooming house.
2669 Territorial Road
Recommended denial.
District 12 recommended denial
Approved on a 4- 3 vote.
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Benanav. My understanding is that this public
hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you will
publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks !
Sincerely,
..c r
John Hardwick, Zoning Specialist
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
� i�l Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protectiorr
�J Commerce Building
8 Faurth St E, Suite 200
SaintPau� MN55101
651-266-9008
0�-�;:�
Zoning office use only
File�. � � '" �� 6 g� �
Fee ���, �z,
Tentative hearing date:
�f�/Q�
APPLICANT Name hT. �1N'Ct.�roNv F�'k(UG M� u Ai �ZV CDUNUL
Address _�640 GRo hA W� LL A�11
City_ST A4V _ St.JYII)Zip 5
Name of owner (if differantl
PROPERTY I Address 266Q TEtzRtTOR.tAL Ro��j
LOCATION Legal description: _ r 7F,E /�cT'('A Gi#�D
C�
T'YPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 61, Sectionb5. n1 , Paragraph 3 of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision
madebythe 'B��Rj� �F ZONI�)!r AcPt'�4S
on tL (1 �( , 200.�. File number: D� - �7033
(date of decision)
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit,
decision or refusai made by an administrative o�cial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of
Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
�� �Tra��tEn.
sheet if
•
AppllcanYs signatur��• - ifJ[l/1�_____ Date � 13 0 6 City agent�
\
Q�-�;:�
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EIISTIS' ADDITION TO ST. ANTHONY PARK, RAIvISEY CQ MINN. VAC STS •
ACCRUING & BLK 3; EX PART OF SD BLK 3 DESC AS BEG ON WL OF & 2.02 FT N OF
SW COR LOT 12 BLK 3 TH NLY AT ANGL OF 8 DEG 30 MIN TO RIGHT FOR 160.28 FT
TH WLY 23.98 FT TO PT ON SD WL 162.06 FT N
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
This appeal is brought to the City Council to correct an error in finding by the Boazd of
Zoning Appeals.
The issue arises out of a request by JPI Development Services, LP. JPI is proposing to
construct a residential development consisring of seven muIti-unit buildings of student-oriented
housing located in an industrial azea of the St. Anthony Park community. The St. Anthony Park
Community Council is the designated planning council for this area and works for the betterment
and improvement of the residential, commerciat and industrial uses in the community.
JPI requested that the Zoning Administrator _determine that its proposed use of its
properry for student-oriented housing is similar to a standard multi-family apartment building.
The Zoning Administrator after reviewing the information supplied by JPI correcdy found that
the proposed use falls within the definirion of a rooming house as defined by Section 65.171(3)
of the Saint Paul Zoning Code. The Zoning Administrator based this determinafion on the fact •
that each bedroom will be leased as a separate rooming unit. Each rooming unit has access to
kitchen facilities which aze shared with other rooming units.
JPI appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The
Board of Zoning Appeals voted fo overturn the detemunation of the Zoning Administrator.
The basis for this appeal is that the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals is contrary
to the clear reading of the Saint Paul Zoning Code. The City of Saint Paul has established
specific requiremenfs on density and pazking for rooming houses to protect neighboring
properties and the surrounding community. These include limitarions on density and
requirements for parking.
JPI has incorrectly relied on technical azguments for claiming that its development does
not fit within the definition of a rooming house. The explicit language of the Zoxung Code
requires a finding consistent with that of the Zoning Administrator. To permit this project to
move forwazd without meeting the requirements of the Zoning Code would not only have a-
material adverse effect on the St. Anthony Park community, but would also set an ill-advised
precedent for projects in other neighborhoods of the City.
The St. Anthony Park Community Council requests that the decision of the Board of
Zoning Appeals be overturned and that the City Council uphoid the original decision of the
Zoning Administrator. •
..�
Q�°���t
BOARD OF ZOiVING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
�
'TYPE OF APPLICATION: Administrative Review FILE #: OS - 207033
APPLICANT:
HEARING DATE:
Lance Hanna, 7PI Development Services, LP
December 19, 2005
LOCATION:
C�
►... .. �. . .�.�
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: EUSTIS' ADDTITON TO ST. ANTHONY PARK, RAMSEY
CO, MINN. VAC STS ACCRLJIIQG & BLK 3; EX PART OF
SD BLK 3 DESC AS BEG ON WL OF & 2.02 FT N OF SW
COR LOT 12 BL.K 3 TH NLY AT ANGLE OF 8 DEG 30 MIN
TO RIGHT FOR 160.28 FT TH WLY 23.98 FT TO PT ON SD
WL 162.06 FT N
PLANNING DISTRICT:
PRESENT ZO1vING:
REPORT DATE:
DEADLINE FOR ACTION:
12
I1
Saint Anthony
December 5, 2005
ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.106
BY: John Hazdwick
January 10, 2006 DATE RECEIVED: December 1, 2005
A. PURPOSE: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision determining that a proposed
residential development is a rooming house rather than an apartment building.
B. SITE AND AR�A CONDITIONS: This is a lazge 4.2 acre site located on the northwest
corner of Te�ritorial Road and Berry Street. A portion of the site is developed for off-sireet
pazking.
Sutrounding Land Use: Indushial uses on the Saint Paul side and residential uses on the
Minneapolis side.
•
C. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to construct a student-oriented housing
development on this site, In response to a request to deternune that the development is
most similaz to multiple fanuly housing, the Zoning Administrator has deternvned that the
proposed housing is a rooming house and is specifically listed in the zoning code. The
appellant is appealing that decision.
�
Page 1 of 5
��-�� �
File #OS-207033
StaffReport
D. CODE CITATIONS:
Sec. 61.106. Similar use determination.
When a specific use is not listed in the zoning code, the zoning administrator shall issue
statement of clarification, finding that the use is or is not substanrially similar in character
and impact to a use regulated herein. Such statement of clatifica6on shall include the
firidings that led to such conclusion and shall be filed in the office of the zoning
administrator. If the zoning a.dnunistrator finds that the use is not sufficiently sunilaz to any
other use specifically listed and regulated in the zoning code, any person proposing such
use may file an application for the plamiing commission to determine if a use is or is not
similaz to other uses pzrmitted in each dishict. The zoning aduvnisirator or planning
commission shall make the following findings in determining one (1) use is similaz to
another:
(a) That the use is similaz in character to one (1) or more of the principal uses
permitted.
(b) That the traffic generated on such use is similaz to one (1) or more of the principal
uses permitted.
•
(c) That the use is not first perniitted in a less resirictive zoning dislrict. •
(d) That the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Sec. 61.701. Administrative appeals.
(a) The boazd of zoning appeals shall have the power to heaz and decide appeals where it
is alleged by the appellant tliat there is an error in any order, requirement, permit,
decision or refusal made by the zoning adminisirator in carryiug out or enforcing
any provision of the code.
Sec. 60.205. D.
DweZling unit. A building, or portion thereo� designed for occupancy by one (1) family for
residenfial purposes used or intended to be used for living, sleeping and cooking or eating
purposes.
Sec. 34.07.
Rooming unit. Any room or group of rooms foimnig a single habitable unit used or
intended to be used for living and sleeping, but not for cooking or eating putposes. This
definition includes, but is not limited to, guest rooms as defined in ttris section.
� •
Page 2 of 5
����� :
File #OS-207U33
� StaffReport
Sec. 65.171. Rooming honse.
(a) Any residential structure or dwelling unit, supervised or not, which provides living
and sleeping arrangements for more than four (4) unrelated individuals for periods of
one (1) week or longer; or
(b} Any residential structure or dwelling unit which provides single room occupancy
(SRO) housing as defined in CFR section 882102 to more than four (4) unrelated
individuais; or
(c) Any building housing more than four (4) unrelated individuals which has any of the
following characteristics sha11 be considered and regulated as a rooming house:
a. Rental arrangements are by the rooming unit rather than the dwelling unit.
b. Rooming unit doors aze equipped with outer door locks or chains which require
different keys to gain entrance.
c. Kitchen facilities may be provided for joint or common use by the occupants of
more than one (1) rooming unit.
d. Rooming units are equipped with telephones having �ciusive phone numbers.
e. Rooming units aze equipped with individual intercom security devices.
• f. Each rooming unit has a sepazate assigned mailbox or mailbox compariment for
receipt ofU.S. mail.
E. FINDINGS:
The appeilant is proposing to construct a residenrial development consisting of seven
multi-unit buiidings of "student-oriented housing" and requested that the Zoning
Adininisirator detenuine that the use is similaz to standard multa-family apartment
buildings. The appellant alieges that the student oriented housing is a multi-family
dweiling within the meaning of the code because each suite of rooms is an independent
unit with sleeping, cooldng, and sanitation facilities for use by a group of individuals
that meet the definition of a family.
The appellant fiirther alleges that the proposal is not a rooming house because the
premises that aze covered by each lease includes possessory interests in kitchen
facilities that are available exclusively for the use of the family that occupies a suite of
rooms that includes sleeping, cooking, and sanitation facilities.
•
5
Page 3 of 5
��-���.
File #OS-207033
Staff Report
2. The Zoning Admiuistrator, after reviewing the infomiation supplied by the appeIlant,
determined that the proposed use meets the de&nition of a moming house, which is a
use that is specifically listed in the zoning code. The Zoning Aduriuistrator based ttus
determination on the fact that each bedroom is a rooming unit within a luger living
area wluch inciudes a ldtchen and living room that has at least four of the
characterisrics of a rooming house as defined in zoning code Sec. 65.171(3) as follows:
a Rental anangements aze by the rooming unit rather than the dwelling unit.
You state that a tenant enters into a lease for a specific bedroom. Although the
lease you described allows a tenant access to an °undivided" share in a ldtchen and
living mom, the information you provide makes it cleaz that the primaty space
Ieased by the -tenanE is a separate bedroom.
b. Rooming unitt doors aze equipped with outer door locks or chains which require
diff'erent keys to gain entrance. You state that each separately leased bedroom
will have a sepazately keyed lock apart from a separately keyed door needed to
gain entrance to the lazger living azea.
•
c. Kitchen facilities may be provided for joint or common use by the occupants of •
more than one (1) rooming unit. You state that tenants of the rented bedrooms
would have an°undivided" share in a common kitchen.
d. Rooming units aze equipped with telephones having exclusive phone numbers.
Although each bedroom would not be equipped with a telephone, the intent of tlus
chazacteristic is met when you state each individually renYed bedroom is provided
with a receptacle for telephone and cable service.
3. The City's definifion of a rooming house was changed in 1992, following a 40-Acre
Study, in order to clarify the Code and make it consistent with State and Federal
standards. Although the proposed housing has characteristics ofboth a dwelling unit
and a rooxning house, it clearly meets the more specific definifion of a rooming house.
The appellant states that this housing project has been tailored for student housing,
with the units and leasing program designed to facilitate apartment shariug by college
students. A particulazly telling point is that the tenant of each bedroom will have a
separate lease and if one of the tenants moves out the landlord has the right to re-lease
the mom. Tlus seems to be contrary to the way a family group would occupy a single
dwelling unit.
� •
Page 4 of 5
�
�J
•
File #OS-207033
Staff Report
F
G.
� ��"�
�
4. The appellant states that this proposal is similar to recent student housing
developments in Minneapolis and that they were treated as mulri-family dwelling
units, although he also aclaiowledges that Minueapolis does not have a specific use
definition for this type of housing. If this type of student housing is to become a
growing trend in college towns, then it is incumbent upon those towns to develop a
specific definirion and standards for this type ofproject. However, unless and until
such time as Saint Paul develops a separate definition and standards for this type of
housing, the buildings in this proposal must be treated as rooming houses.
DISTRICT COLTNCIL RECONIlVf�NDATION: As of the date of this report, we have
not received a recommendation from District 12.
CORRE5PONDENCE: StafFhas not received any conespondence regarding this matter.
H. STAFF' RECOM1V��iVDATION: Based on findings 1 through 4, staff finds that the
Zoning Administrator did not error in his deternunation that the proposed housing
development meets the definition of a rooming house.
�
Page 5 of 5
Nov. 29. 2045 12:43PM
APPL[CATIQN FOF{ p11�PEAL
2��l1> >� I �����
� �
�� .� �:�:
� ,
O,�ice ofLieer�se,.Fnsp�tior+s aiadEnvi�ranmental PratecAtare
Cammeree Butid�g ' .
B.Fourtk S`t14', S'rt�te 200
S�atPaul�DdNSSIbI
bS1 266-9008
APPLICANT � Name.
�`��.��
�Lfrn . 1
�! Z�I �/ t3�
� f
�A `
.,
Address (pOb �.. �5 Co��na5 �oo�@VatJ'o� Su��4 (� 21d .
Citv �rv 1+.ci ��'t.� 77p �SD3Q �aqtime phone �2 - 3 3 3R t't
--- "�—
Name of awner fif different} S� �.reiX �at� n2(�5 .�..�.•G. �
PIidP�127Y � Address�/ �Q
I.00A'1'fON ��al description:
TYp� CF AP Appficatian is hereby made for an appea[ to the:
osrd af Zoning Appeais � G7 City Council /
under the provisions of Chapter fi1, 5ection �� Paragraph ��l�f the Zoning Code, to apgeal a
decisian�
rtade by fhe j B a`
on `I �2`I� 5
d=o+�'-a c� i (Q.A-!d G2_.
200,�� File numbet:
�iROUHDS FQR APP�At�: 6xplain whY you feet there has 6ean an error in any requirement, permit,
deaision or refusai made by an admintstrative cfFicisl, ar sn-error in facY, procedura vr finding made by
th6 8oard of zoning Appea(s or the P€�nning Commissiort.
•
App(iCant's signature � Date I I Z9 0 City agent��� �•
�
��c�
�( � S — ���� I �' S
CiJ — � v t v �.�
No.67S4 P.:4
�
Nov, 29. 2Q05 12:42PM
cr�r aF sa�rr Pauz.
$mxlyC Kelly, Mcyor
November 29, 2605
No. 6784
OFFiCB OF LICENS$ INSPA.CTi0N8 AT4D �
ENVIR6NMENTAL PRQTHCTiON —�
laneerz & Ra.sas btrectar
CDMMERCE9(IbDA'G Tstaphana 637-246-90D0
BFour7h Sk E, 5u17e 200 FrqLuita: 651-266-9I24
SafntPqui,Mlnxesoto55101•1024 Web: wan.ttaa.us
� `';��
Eric H. Galatz
Leonard, Street and Deinard
150 S. 5'" St., Suite 2300
Mint�eapolis, MN 55402
Re: Approximately 2269 Territarial ltoad
Desr Mr. Galatz:
�
I t�ave reviewed your Requeet for Similer Use Determination under zoniag cade 3ec, 61, lOb for a
pmposal to develop a"student-oriented honsing dcvelopmenY' bei.wean Teaitorial Road aad the
Univcrsity af Mnmesota 1Yaasitway, Yaur letter states that the ptoposed use is not listed in the
zoning code but that it ia most similar ta multiple faruity hpusing. We have reviawed the
'vnformation you provided. Based upon that information, it is our deYermination that the use
described meets tha definition of a roominghouse, which is a use apecifically listad in the zoning
code.
Zoning code Sec. 65,171, det"ines a xoaminghovse as:
(1) Any residartisl structure or dwelling unit, supervised Cr nat, which provides living and
sleeping arrangements for more than four (4) unrelated individuals for periods of ona (1) week
ar ]ottger; or � �
(2) Any resideniaal shucture ar dwelling wait whieh provides single room occupancy ($RO)
housing as definad in CFIt section $$2.102 to mare tl�en four(4) unrelatcd'mdividuals; or
{3) Any building houaing mpre than four (4) unrelated individuals which hae any of the following
chasacterisrics ahall be con�idered end regulated as a roominghouse;
a. Xtental arrangemenYs ere hy the rooming unit rather than the dwelling uttit,
b, Tioazning unit dnors are equipped with outer door locks or cksains which require
different kzys tp gain entrance.
a Kit�hen faCilities map be provided for joint or common use by the occupants of more
Cl�an one (1) roonvng unik
d. Rooming units are equipped with telephones having exalueive phone numbers.
e. Rooming units sre aquipped with iadividual intez�com aemuity deviaes.
f. Each moming unit has a separate aaeigned a+ailbox ar xnai]box campartment £or receipt
of U.S, msil.
Bssed upan the infom�atian you provided, we�tu�ve determined that each hedroom is a rooming unit
• within a larger living area which inctudes a kitehen and living room t(�at has at least Four af the �
Nov. 29. 2QQ5 12:43PM
� �^ — � � � No. 6784 P. 3
1` % 1 �,-ti'�
�ria H. Galatz
November Z9, 2005
Page 2
cheracteristics af a raominghouse sa defined iu zaning code 5ec. 65.171(3) aa follows:
a. Renral arrangementa are bp t9iee raoming uni� rather ttsaxi the dwedting ernit.
Yau state that a tenant enters into a lcasa for tt epeciSc bedruam. Althaugh the leaae
yon descriibed allowe a tenaut access to aa "uxidivided" sbaze in a ldtchea and living
roam, the infom�atiosu you pmvide makes it cl�r tbat the pritnaty space leased by the
tenant is a separate bedroom.
b. Roaming unit daors are eqteipped with puter door locks ar chaina which requirs
dijJ'erent keys [o gatn enirance,
Y'ou state that each soparately ]eased bedroom will have a separately loeyed lock apart
from a separately keyed door needed to gein entrmice to the lasger living anea.
c. Kitche�s facilities rnay be provided fnr folnt or common use by the oecupants of more
thare oree (I} rooming unit,
You state that tenante of the rent� hedroams would have an "uadivided" share in a
common kitchen.
d. Rooming units are equipped with tetephones having exclusiveghane numbers.
Atthough each bedraom wouldnot he equipped with a telephone, the mtetent af this
chazaeteristic is met whexi you state eaah individually ranted 6edroom �s pro'vided with
arexptacle for telephone and cable servics.
Tn additzot�, we note that this properiy ie currently zoned Il. A roominghwse is aot a petmitted
use ia sn Ii diehiet. A roominghouse is psrmitted in the following zaning disiriets: RMI, i2N12,
R1VT3,'P1�T3, TN2, TN3 and SC. Therefora, rezoaing this property is neacssary in oxder to
acccmuaodate a roqminghouse. A conditional uae pemut ia required from the Planning
Commiesian except in tha TNZ zone. There are miaimum lot size and parking staadarde identified
ia Section 65.171 as well es density and d'smeneianal standards in Chapter 66. A business licensa
is also iequired far a marninghouse.
This decisione may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals {BZA) within 1� days. There is a
$435 fiIiag fee. Attached is the appeat application'form and the BZA schedule. Ptease contact me
at 65I-266-9081 if yan have questions.
Sinaorely,
V � - �� �
Wendy Lanb`
Zoning Manager
�
�
�: David Gantatek
Tany SChertter r .
Patricia 7maes �
Disirict 12, St Aathony Park Commtmiiy Counci] �
�
•
��°.�� �;
�.
.LEONARD
STREET
AND
DEINARD
November 8, 2005
VIA E-MAII. AND U.S. MAII!
Wendy C. Lane
Zoning Aduzinistrafion
City of Saint Paul
Office of License, Inspections &
Environxnental Protection
8 Fourth S�eet E., Suite 200
Saint Paul, MN 55101
� �S :b:'.
:S ;.'f:ar
a
Is0 S�UY�i F1PTH 5T&EET SVLPE 2,00
hIINNEApOLIS. bSINNE50TA5540Z
6 ta - 335'=SOO auuN
6 xz-335-i 6 57 �
Biuc H. Gnrarz
612-335-1509 omECe
eric.galatz@leonard.com
Re: Request for Sunilaz Use Detenuination
JPI Development Services, Inc. Student Housing Development
Dear Ms. Lane:
Please accept this letter on hehalf of JPI Development Services, L.P. {"7PT") as a Request for
Similaz Use Determination, pursuant to Secrion 61.106 of the Saint Paul City Code (the "Code;"
all Section references aze to the Code unless noted otherwise). Specifically, we request a
determination that the student-oriented housing development 7PI proposes to develop in St. Paul
is a"multiple-faznily dwelling" as defined by Secrion 65.116 and each suite of rooms within the
project is an "apartmenP' as defined by Section 60.202 and a"dwelling uniY' as defined in
Section 60.205.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
�
The student oriented housing project JPI proposes to develop is a"multi-family dwelling"
within the meaning of the Code because each suite of rooms is an independent unit with
sleeping, cooking, and sanitation facilities for use by a gronp of individuals that meet the
definition of "family."
The JPI proposal is not a"roominghouse" because the "premises" that are covered by each
lease includes possessory interests in kitchen facilities that are available exclusively for the
use of the family that occupies a suite of rooms that ineludes sleeping, cooking, and
sanitation facilities.
268633Iv2 � \
LAW OFFICES ZN MINNEAPOLIS� SAINT PAi7L� MAN%At'O� SAIDiT CLOVD AND WASHINGTON� a.C. APmlessionaltSssociation
WwW.LEONARD.CAM
Wendy C. Lane
November 8, 2005
Page 2
PROJECT DESCRTPTION
� .,s-�,-:;; ,�.
,,. ��.
i
JPI proposes to develop a multi-funily rental project on a 4.27 acre at the western boundary of
St. Pau2, hetween Territorial Road and the University Transitway and between the Minneapolis-
St. Paul border and vacated Berry Street. For the currcnt project, JPI proposes a mi�c of 2 and 4
hedroom uxuts, with an average of 3 bedrooms per unit At the proposed densities, ttus translates
to approximately 150 units and 522 bedrooms, with one occupant per bedroom.
Although JPI does not discruninate in its leasing, the proposed project is designed as a student
communiiy, with University of Minnesota and other college students as its intended mazket. The
project is similaz to the Jefferson Commons project on Huron Boulevard in Minueapolis, which
3PI developed in 2Q01. The project is also similaz to several other student-oriented hausing
projects other developers have constructed around the Minneapolis campus of the University of
Minnesota, including Grandmarc at Seven Corners, University Village, and Dinnaken House.
For all these developers, the pmtotype for "student housing" is mazket rate or luxury multiple-
fanuly housing, tailored for a student population. Specifrcally, the units, and the leasing
prograzn, are designed to facilitate apartment-sharing by callege students. Although the
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances does not have a specific use definitiott for this ptrototype,
Minneapolis has treated each of these projects as a multiple family dwelling, rather than any of
its altemative "congregaYe living" categories. To our Imowledge, there aze no similar proj ects in
St. Paul.
As is typical for multiple-family dwellings, the project contains several individual apartments,
arranged atong corridors. Each comdor is controlled by the landlord and is open and available
for use by alI tenants of the building and their guests. Eacfi apartment is separated from the
common corridor by a locked door, Only the tenants of a specific apartment have keys to that
door (the landlord has a master key but is allowed access to a leased apartment only in
emergencies or with the consenf of the fenants}. Each apaztment is an independent living unit,
with ldtchen, bath, living room, and bedrooms. We enciose floor plans for prototypical
apartutent units.
The following features accommodate apartment-sharing, and may or may not be found in other
multiple-family dwellings:
(1) In multiple hedroom units, each bedroom has a lock on its door to provide privacy
and security for each occupant of the unit.
(2) Itt four-bedroom and some two-bedroom uuits, each be8room has a private
bathroom attached to it. In other two bedroom units, the occupants will sliare a
single batbroom.
(3) Eack bedroom has receptacles for telephone and cable service. Each occupant
can elect to obtain service to the receptacles. The landlord does not supply
telephone, television, or computer equipment,
2686331W2
•
l��
�
(5)
(6)
��)
USE DESCRIPTIONS UNDER THE ST. PAUL CODE
� The student-oriented housing JPI proposes to development is most appropriately classified as a
"mulriple-family dwelling" composed of "dwelling units" or "apartments" not as a"rooming
house" composed of "rooming units."
MULTIPLE-FAMILY DV4ELLING
Wendy C. Lane
November 8, 2005
Page 3
Each tenant has a sepazate lease with the landlord for the hedroom the tenant will
occupy. "I'his feature makes it possible for each tenant of the apar[ment to share
an apariment without becoming liable for rent payable by the other tenant or
tenants in the apartment.
Each tenant of the apartment rents an undivided shaze of the kitchen and living
room that is pazt of the apariment and each tenant of the apazhnent is }ointly and
severally liable for damages to the kitchen and living room.
The landlord wiil lease a multiple bedroom unit to tenants who apply for an
apazEment tagether. If a tenant who does not have suite-mates wants to lease a
bedroom within a multiple-bedroom unit, the landlord will help match suite-
mates, subject to approval by ail suite-mates. If one of the tenants of a multiple
bedroom apartment moves out for any reason, the landlord will have the right to
re-lease the vacant bedroom and its pmportional shaze of the kitchen and living
room to another tenant, subject to the reasonable approval of the exisring tenants
of the apartment unit.
The tenants who shaze a muitiple bedroom apartment unit have the right to
exclude others, including the landiord (subject to exceptions for emergencies and
repairs), from the apartment.
(4)
�-�- : T, x :�.,.
-T� <-,.
! 1 �
Definitions
.
Section 65.116 defines "muitiple-family dwelling" as"[a) building, or portion thereof, designed
exclusively for occupancy by three (3) or more families living independently of each other in
individual dwelling units"
Section 60.205 defines a dwelling unit as "[a) building, or portion thereof, designed for
occupancy by one (1) family for residential purposes used or intended to be used for living,
sleeping and cooking or eating purposes: '
Section 60.207 defines a"family" as: "One (1} or two (2) persons or pazents, with their direct
lineal descendants and adopted or legally cared for cluldren (and including the domestic
employees thereof} together with not more than twa (2) persons not so related, living together in
the whole or part of a dwelling comprising a single housekeeping unit. Every additional group of
four (4) or fewer persons living in such housekeeping unit shall be considered a separate family
for the pucpose of ttus code:'
zt,sbs3tvz
l�
��°��� �
Wendy C. Lane
November 8, 2005
Page 4
4 � y s �:
`
� ~ x ...�9'.
�
Section 60.202 of the Code de&nes a� "apartmenY' as "[a] suite ofrooms or a room in a
mulriple-family dwelling arranged and intended for a place of residence of a single family."
AnaIysis
The JPI proposal consists of several suites of rooms ananged along common corridors. Each
suite is separated from the common corridor by a door with a lock that is accessible only to the
tenants of that suite, Each suite of rooms is a"dwelling.unit" and an"apartmenY' and each
building 7PI proposes to develop is a"multiple-family dwellin�' as those terms are de&ned in
the Code..
A"dwelling unit" is a buildittg or a portion of a building designed for use by one (1} family "for
living, sleeping, and cooking or eating purposes: ' Each suite of rooms within the project will be
a"dwelling uniY' because each suite will (1) be intended for occupaucy by one fanvly, consi§ting
of four (4) or fewer persons, related or not, and (2) ha�e a ldtcheu and living room with space for
eating, at least one bedroom for sleeping, and at least one bathroom.
A multiple-family dwelling is a building that is designed for occupancy by three or more families
in independent dwelling units. 7PI proposes to develop three or more buildings with fifty (Sfl) or
more suites in each building. Each suite is an independent dwelling unit, with its own living,
sleeping, cooking and eating facilities.
Each suite of moms will also be an "apartmenY' because each suite is "arranged and intended for
a piace of residence of a single family."
R0011�PiGHOUSE
The 7PI proposal is not pmperly classified as a"roominghouse" because the suites of rooms aze
"dwellings" not "rooming units."
Definitions
Section 65.I71 de5nes a"mominghouse" as foIlows:
"(1) Any residential structure or dwelling unit, supervised or not, wlrich provides
living and sleeping arrangements for more than four (4} unrelated individuals for periods
of one (1) week or longer; or
{2) Any residentiai str¢cture or dwelling unit which pmvides single mom occupancy
(SRO) housing as defined in [24] CFR section 882.102 to more than four (4) unrelated
individuals; or
(3) Any building housing more than four (4) unrelated individuals which has any of
the following characteristics shall be considered and regulated as a roominghouse:
a Rental arrangements aze by the moming unit rather than the dwelling unit�
b. Rooming imit doors aze equipped with outer door locks or chains wluc$ require
different keys to gain entrance.
2686331v2
L�
�� .
�
�
Wendy C. Lane
November 8, 2005
Page 5
��� �, :- �1�_
_ 'S�' F 'p'.
: a -..,
-":�s,,a ::._.
� '
•.._..-. __ ,...
._ _
c. Kitchen facilities may be provided for joint or common use by the occupants of
more than one (i) rooming unit.
d. Roaming units aze equipped with telephones having axclusive phone numbers.
e. Rooming units aze equipped with individual intercom security devices..
f. Each rooming unit has a separate assigned mailbox or mailbox compartment for
receipt of U.S. mail."
Section 34.07 defines "rooming unit" as"[ajny room or group ofrooms forming a single
habitable unit used or intended to be used for living and sleeping, but not for cooking or eatins
rourposes. This definiflon includes, but is not limited to, guest rooms as defined in this section."
A"guest room" is a"room or a group of rooms in a licensed bed and breakfast facility forming a
single habitable unit which is located within the walls of a residential slructure and which is used
or intended to be used for sleeping and living, but not for cookinQ or eatin� putposes and which
is let individually as a unit "
Analysis
JPI's proposed student-oriented housing development is not a roominghouse because none of the
three definitions of "roominghouse" set out in Section 65.171 applies to the JPI proposal:
Section 65.171(1) does not appiy because JPI will not house more than four individuals in any
• one unit. Under Section 65.171(1), a roominghouse is "[a]ny residenfial struchue or dwelling
nni sugervised ar nnt, which provides living and sleeping artangements for more than four (41
unrelated individuals for periods of one (1) week or longer." If Secrion 65.171(1) is construed to
mean any siructure that houses more than four (4) unrelated persons in any number of units, then
every multinIe-familv dwelline in the Citv of St. Paul with more than four curits would be a
roomin ouse. If Section 65.171(1) is more reasonably construed to apply to individual
dwelling units that house more than four unrelated individuals, then Section 65.171(1) does not
apply to the 7PI pmposal because 7PI does not propose to house more than four individuals
(related or not) in any one unit.
�
Section 65.171(2) does not apply because JPI's proposed development does not provide for
single room occupancy (5R0) within the meaning of 24 CFR 882.102, which defines SRO as
"[a] unit that contains no sanitazy facilities or food preparafion facilities, or contains either, hut
not both, types of facilities: ' The "muY' JPI intends to rent to each tenant consists of a private
bedroom, a private bathroom ("sanitary facilities"), and an undivided interest in a shared kitchen
("food preparation facilities'�. If the City stretched the definition of SRO to apply to each of the
176 separate suites of moms within the project (yielding 176 separaYe SROs) Section 65.171(2)
would sfill not apply because there are four or less residents wiUun each suite of rooms.
Section 65.171(3) does not apply because alI ofthe definitions in Section 65.171(3) zefer to '
"rooming units" and "guest rooms" and the premises JPI proposes to rent are not `400ming
nni ts" or "guest rooms." Under Section 34.07 a`Yooming unit" is a"room or group of rooms
fomung a single habitabie unit used or intended to be used for living and sleeping, but not for
cookine or eatine nurposes" and a"guest room" is essentially a rooming unit within a licensed
2686331v2
� �
Wendy C. Lane
November 8, 2005
Page 6
' _ s Z-�.:aa.
.,°„-� �_..�
�' -
.�
bed and breakfast. If Section 34.07 is construed literally, and without reference to other prexnises
that are included in the lease, then everv bedroom in St. Paul would be a"rooming unit " What
distinguishes a rooming unit from every other bedroom in St. Paul is a"rooming uniY' does not
come with rights of possession of cooldng and eaYing facilities. The units JPI propases to
develop and rent include possession of an undivided interest in kitchen (and living) faeilities that
are rented exclusively to the tenants of the suite, Because fhe premises that JPI intends to rent
are not "rooming units" the City cannot categorize fhe suifes or fhe buildings JPI intends to
develop as "roominghouses."
The distinction between the possessory rights of roominghouse tenants and 7PI's tenants is more
than technical. In a rooming house, tha "premises" that aze subject to the lease, and tbat the
tenant has the right to possess, consist �clusively of the bedroom and, sometimes, a private
bathroom. The roominghouse tenant also has a right to use the cammon latchen and living
spaces outside the leased premises, but not the right to exclude others from those spaces. The
landlord possesses and contcols ihe ldtchen, corridors and any common living sgaces. In the JPI
proposai, on the other hand, the "premises" consist of tiie private bedroom and bathroom and the
kitchen and living spaces, wIuch may be shared with up to three other tenants. The tenants of the
suite togetfier have the right of possession of fhe kitchen and living spaces, including tfie right to
exclude others, including the landloid, from those spaces. The landlord possesses and controls
the corridors and spaces that aze common to all tenants, such as recreation rooms and lobbies.
What matters here is that the "premises" each tenant will lease from JPI includes ldtchen
facilities and therefore the premises is not a"rooming unit: '
With respect to the six specific chazacteristics of a roominghouse listed in Section 65.171(3),
those characteristics do not apply for the following reasons, even if the City erroneously
construes each bedroom in the JPI pmposal to be a"rooming nnit "
a. Rental arrangements are by the rooming unit rather than the dwelling unit.
As discussed above, although the "rental arraugemenP' JPI makes with its tenants allows
individual tenants to enter into separate leases, the "rental arrangemenY' addresses more
than the individual bedroom and bathroom. Each tenanf of a suite obtains possessory
interests in, and joint apd several responsibility for, the latchen and living room within
the suite. Further, unlike a trtraditional roominghouse where the tenants have no say as to
who tfieir neighbors and co-tenants may be, each tenant of each JPI unit has the right to
select or approve co-tenants and replacement co-tenants.
b. Rooming unit doors are equipped with outer door locks or chains which require
different keys to gain entrance.
Each JPI suite of rooms will haue a sepazate e7cterior lock between the suite and the
public corridor. Each resident of each suite will have a key to tlus exteriar lock in
common. Thexe will also be sepazate door locks inside each unit, separating each
bedroom from the shazed living room, which will allow each tenant privacy and security
within the suite.
2686331v2
•
s
1� �
l
Wendy C. Lane 0�' 2��
November 8, 2005 ' ,� U ;�
� Page 7
c. Kitchen facilities may be provided for joint or common use by the occupants of
more than one (1) rooming unit.
In a traditional rooming house, the landlord provides tenants of more thau one rooming �
unit the right to use a common idtchen that the landlord controis. JPI intends to lease
shared possessory interests in ]atchens to suite-mates who will have the right to exclude
the laudiord and others. If the Cify conshues a"rooming uniY' broadly as a bedroom,
then every multiple-family dwelling in St. Paul with more than Four units with two or
more bedrooms is a roominghouse, because every such mulriple-family dwelling will
have occupants of more than one rootning unit sharing a kitchen. The key distinction
between a traditional apariment unit and a tradifional roominghouse is the fact that in an
apaztment unit, the leased prexnises includes the kitchen and liviug facilities, not just the
bedroom and, sometimes, the bathroom. Because 7PPs tenants will have the right to
exclude the landlord from the kitchen and living" facili4ies, the 7PI proposal is
appropriately chazacterized as a multipie-family dwelling.
d. Rooming units are equipped with telephones having exclusive phone numbers.
Atthough IpI intends to include telephone }acks in all bedrooms, as is the case in most
modem apariments, JPI does not intend to provide telephones or telephone numbers.
, e. Rooming unifs are equipped with individual intercom security devices.
7PI does not intend to provide individual intercom security devices to the individual
bedrooms.
f. Each rooming unit has a separate assigned mailbox or mailbox compartment for
receipt of U.S. mail.
JPI does not intend to provide sepazate assigned mailboxes for each bedroom. .
Because none of the Code definifions or characteristics of "roominghouse" apply, it is not
appropriate to ciassify the JPI proposai as a roominghouse. 7PI believes its proposai falls
squazely within the definition of "multipie-faxnily dwelling." Even if the City finds that the
definirion of "muttiple-family dwelling" does not clearly fit the JPI proposal, JPI respectfully
asks the Zoning Administrator to determine that the JPI proposal is substantially sunilar in
chazacter and impact to a"multiple-family dwelling:'
OTHER AUTHORITY
Although Miimesota Statutes do not exgressly define "roomingl�ouse", it is clear that the State
considers roomingl�ouses to be for short term, temporary tenancies, sunilaz to hotels, motels and
• resorts. For example, for sales tax purposes, the 3tate of Minnesota equates a roominghouse
2686331J2 1 �
l
Wendy C. Lane
November 8, 2005
Page 8
� yr'- `2� :+ c -��
>•,�: � :a �_.
;m�:,w�".
wit1� uses such as Iodging and related services by a"hotel, ... resort, campground, motel, or
trailer camp and the granting of any sunilar Iicense to use real property other than the renting or
leasing of it for a continuous period of 30 days or more". Minn. Stat. 5ec. 279A.61, subd.
3(g)(2). JPI's standard lease is for a term af twelve months.
For all of the reasons stated above, 7PI respectfully requests that the zoning administrator issue a
detennination that tfie JPI proposal is an multiple-family dwelling, rather than a roominghouse.
Very #ruly yours,
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
ASSOCIATION
«+�
Council Member 7ay Benanav
David Gontarek
Tony Schertler
Patricia James
2686331v2
l�
.
•
n
r
u
\ �
� �
� � o
� �
� 1 s o
S"�
1
� _\
lv
�
V
�
T� � -
�r
-. -_'_�_..°'
� �,_- y
N `In
4 �:{-'
.
� �
$ �
�; �
P �
� �
� �
9
ii � � �
� � ��
��
�
�,
�
����
R R R �
6 tl q L
� ���
����
44'e@
����
$�s��
$ 6 S a
+`emw
�. 4 F
r- CM �
; ��
�� "s
� ���
� ,�
����-�� '
��� � `
a
��
.+�xfv.r>'V
'ffi1G4J��� 8 -
w
� �� � '
���
� � r
a
��
��i
u
� � �
�
� � �
� �
�
� �
V
�
� A��. � � �4 �.�—
�I � � �
i �"
� � �
$ CIPFh(A�tiPF+.Y �
ev
3 9q�
e "� � 2 2� 2 M
'pl v s,� � �
~ �������
4�4IIV�?�C�
�������
�§��}��
���N��
v ui o n
� � �� �
��
PROPERTY WITHIN 350 FEET aF PARCEL: 2669 TERITORIAL
�
-- - -----_i
---`
�7.��\ �� 5 " .
4 t A:�"�"� �
�'� � o ��. _-.-'.
i � -t'j `�, �-.-!� _� ,
f - C7 � f`t�� �'
�`�� � Y�
i � Q � � ��
��YL�SS ✓� I '
— �
_ I
� � i
s
� : ��/�;
-"�o� ` .
2 G `' p I
� ��
� '
� �:
I o ``` 4
:�
I �. ��
N
_ I
d�°�� ° �
�
, -w �; � �,�;�� � �
a L �
j � :�- ,�� <<,i �
; o� � -��r "�� ;
° y; 'T
J�� �� ��; 4 .
��' i , �, ". ,
-���a,� � �;"'-
o .,.:,
o � ���'���_� �
,. !'� .`P
� ��° � t �,
� L� . in
�
0
r � _ � - , � . �
�
/ �
�. ��° ' =
�����
.����� :
_ r �-�r�=
�.�
,, ,,, ,�,�.�.
_
_' s. ..-s�ti � ___
_____"___'_'_"____'_'_
A �
S
E
�v- .
�
1.
�.
3.
4.
5.
S.
7.
3.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
ia.
A�.
1�.
�;.
O � �'.,�i � � � .�i
S iJ P7 Rr11' -B ATTLE C RE E IC-HI G H W U O D
HAZ,E, PARK HADEN-PROSPBRI'T'Y HILLCREST
tT�'EST SIAE
I7AYTt>N'S BLIJFF
PA1`I�tE-P�IALEN
I�IORTI-I END
THOMAS•DALB
S U?vI I�iIT-IINI VE kS IT`�'
�NES1 SEVENT�T
COMQ
H.9brtl,ItYE-NIID uIAY
ST'. ANTHOlV PARI{
tvfERR:.A;vi PAP.K-LEiINGTON H.4h�II.IVE-51`di�LLING gL4tviLIi�(E
hL�Ct1LESTER GRO�LA�tD
HIGHi_AND \
St�,yih�3T HILL �
�O���Tfl �Vi��
� �������� � �
� _ ��0 - 4 �133 �
CITIZLIV PAFTiCIPATION PLANiVING DTSTfuCT �
/
�
�7 � �
, �w
L `S.'`c`"�"" -
_ .
�3
I
.
��
�
�
.
� .
0�-�� � ��
t i>��"v�iv7
�
�
�
��
�
1
ir
e
�
.►
� �
�
1.
= � � ,.��
� � -��';�
a +
�� .
�
�
�
�i
�
►
�
�
�� �
Page 1 of 1
John Hardwick - JPI Development Services Request for Similar Use Determina{f'on —���
� From: Amy Spazks <amy@sapcc.org>
To: John Hardwick <Tohn.Hardwick@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 12l19/2005 1:50:29 PM
Subject: JPI Development Services Request for Similaz Use Determination
Dearlotm:
7Le District 12 Community Council adopted two resotufions pertaining the proposed 7PI pmjeci:
1, The St. Anthony Park Canmunity Council is in ¢greement with the City Zoning Adminisfrator's duignation of Ihe JPl Sirutent Hovsing
project ns a raaming hause with its larger p¢rking requiremeat. We are concernetl that ihe parinng requirements for ¢ rooming house ¢re
not even suffcient forlhis project.
1. The St. Antfiony Park CommuniTy Council requests the City p[ate a moratorium os development ofstudent housing irt District 12 to a11ow
the Planning Commission time to review aad determiae ihe amount ofparking and oiher amenities required for student housing.
Thank you for taking these positions inio consideration and for infoiming members of the Board of Zoning Appeals of our posiuon.
Please call with ury questions.
Amy Sparks, Ezecurive Director
SL Anthony Park Community Council
Ca Say Benanav
. 7aneen Rosas
Fsic Galatz
Lance Aanna
.,�
• ��
fila•//('•\T�nrnmPnte anA Cettinve\HarAwici\T.�cal SPttin¢c\Temn\CTWl000n1 HTM 12/19/20(15
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECPLON$ AND
ENVI20NMEEN'CAL PROTECPION
Bob Kesskr, Director
CITY OF SA1NT pAUI.
Chnstopher B. Coleman, bfayor
Sanuary 13,2006
Lance Hanna .
JPI Development Services, L.P. ,
600 E. Ias Colinas Boulevard, Suite 1800
fi•ving, Texas 75039
COMIl�RCEBUILDING
BFourth Street Eas; Suite 200
StPaul M'mnesota55101-1024
Q�-���
Telepkone: 651-266-9090
Facsimile: 651-266-9724
Web: www.liep,us
RE: Administrative Review of a'deteruiivation by fhe Zoning Adminisirator regazding a proposed
Residential development at 2269 territorial Road, Zoning File # OS-207033
Dear Mr. Fiauua;
Pursuant to Miunesota Statute 15.99 we aze hereby extending the sixty (60) day deadline for action on
the referenced zoning appficatiosan additional siYly (60) days in order to allow the City Council time
to consider an appeal of the decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals in this matter. If you have any
questions concerning this matter you may contact me at 651-266-90&2.
S" C e�'�',
// `
/ ,�,
ohn Hardwick, Zoning Specialist
cc: Eric H. Cralatz, t�eonard, Street and Deinazd
��
�
•
•
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
John Hardwick��- GPDOCS1-#1889856-v1-C� of St Paul_Letter.DpC �� _� �� � � � Pag'_e 1�
06-2���.
RepZy to MinneapaZis
Peter K Beck
612 632-3001
peter.beck@gpmlaw.cam
December 16, 2005
Boazd of Zoning Appeals
City of St. Paul
c/o Office of LIEP
$'" Fourth Street East
Suite 200
St. Paul, MN 55101-1024
Re: JPIDevelopmentServices, LP
RequestforDetermination ofSimilar Use
Dear Boazd Members:
This letter is written on behalf of our client, Colder Products Company
("Eolder"). Colder is located at 1001 Westgate Drive, immediately East of the property
located at approxunately 2269 Territorial Road (the "Property'� which is the subject of
the above identified appeal.
This letter is to advise the Boazd of Zoning Appeals ("the Boazd") that Colder is
opposed to any residential use of the Property. The Property is located in an area which is
zoned and guided for indushial uses. Colder will resist any effort to allow residential
uses in this industrial azea.
Colder has also retained this Firm to analyze the legal issues presented by the
Request for Detemunafion of Similaz Use. W e have reviewed the materials submiited on
behalf of 7PI Development Services, the determination of the zoning administrator, and
the relevant sections of the St. Paul zoning code. We concui with the zoning
administrator's detennination that the use described in the request meets the definifion of
a rooming house.
��
�
.
tJohnHardwick-GPDOCS1-#1889856-v1-Ci of St Paul_Letter.DOC� _ . �age2
� s, ` ,
Boazd of Zoning Appeals
City of St. Paul
Page 2
December 16, 2005
Accordingly, Colder Products Company requests that the Boazd of Zoning
Appeals deny the appeal.
Ver9 �Y 3'��,
Peter K. Beck
PKB/slb
cc: Brian Tumer
Colder Products Company
GP:1615651 �2
��
�
�
U
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMBER: OS-207033
DATE: January 3, 2006
��-���
WI�REAS, Lance Hanna, 7PI Development Services, LP has applied for a variance from the
sttict application of the provisions of Section 61.1Q6 of the Saint Paul I.egslative Code
pertaining to an appeal of a decision of the Zoning Admi�istrator deteixuiniug thaf a proposed
residenfial development is a rooming house rather than an apartment building in the Il zoning
district at 2669 Territorial Road; and
WI�REAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on
December 19, 2006 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of
Section 64.203 ofthe Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the
public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of facte
The appellant is proposing to construct a residential development consisting of seven multi-
unit buildings of "shxdent-oriented housing" and requested that the Zoning Aduuui.stratar
determine that the use is similar to standard multi-family apartment buildings. The appellant
alleges that the student oriented housing is a multi-fanuly dwelling within the meaning of the
code because each suite of rooms is au independent unit with sleeping, cooldng, and sanitarion
facilifies for use by a group of individuais that meet the definition of a family.
The appellant further alieges that the proposal is not a rooming house because the premises
that are covered by each lease includes possessory interests in kitchen facilities that are
available exclusively for the use of the family that occupies a suite of rooms that includes
sleeping, cooking, and sanitation facilities.
2. The Zoning Adiuinisixator, after reviewing the inf'ormarion supplied by the appellant,
deternuned that the proposed use meets the definition of a rooming house, which is a use that
is specifically listed in the zoning code. The Zoning Aduiiuistrator based this detezmination
on the fact that each bedroom is a rooming unit within a larger living azea which inciudes a
kitchen and livang room that has at least four of the characteristics of a rooming house as
defined in zoning code Sec. 65.171(3) as follows:
a. Rental arrangements are by the rooming unit rather than the dwelling unit.
You state that a tenant enters into a lease for a specific bedroom. Aithough the lease you
described allows a tenant access to an"undivided" share in a kitchen and living room,
the information you provide makes it cleaz that the primary space leased by the tenant is
a sepazate bedroom.
� Page 1 of 3 ��
File #OS-207033
Resolution
;1, ; ` .
�
b. Rooming unit dooxs are equipped with outer door locks or chains which require different
keys to gain enirance. You state that each separately leased bedroom will have a
sepazately keyed lock apart from a separately keyed door needed to gain enfrance to the
lazger living atea.
c. Kitchen facilities may be provided for joint or common use by the occupants of more that
one (1) rooming unit. You state that tenants of the rented bedrooms would have an
"undivided" share in a common kitchen.
d. Rooming units aze equipped with telephones having exclusive phone numbers. Although
each bedroom would not be equipped with a telephone, the intent of this characteristic is
met when you state each individually renfed bedroom is provided with a receptacle for
telephone and cable service.
3. The Cit�s definition of a moming house was changed in 1992, following a 40-Acre Study, in
order to clarify the Code and make it consistent with State and Federal standards. The
proposed housing has characteristics of both a dwelling unit and a rooming house. The
agpellant states tkat this housing project has been tailored for shzdent housing, with the units
and leasing program designed to facilitate apartment sharing by college students.
4. The appellant states that Uiis proposal is similar to recent student housing develapments in •
Minneapolis and that they were treated as multi-family dwelling units, although he also
acknowledges that Minneapolis does not have a specific use definition for this type of
housing. If this type of student housing is to becoine a growing trend in coIlege towns, then it
is incumbent upon those towns to develop a specific definition and standards for this type of
' project. Until such time as specific regulations are developed for this type of housing, it
appears that the proposed housing falls within the definition of a multi-family apartment
building.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the
Zoning Adminisirator erred in Iris deteiminarion that the proposed housing development meets
the definition of a rooming house according to the proviaions of Section 61.106, and that the
proposed development meets the definition of a multi-family apartment building, on property
located at 2669 Territoriai Road; and legaIly described as Eustis' Addition To St. Anthony Pazk,
Ramsey Co, Minn. Vac Sts Accruing & Blk 3; Ex Part Of Sd Blk 3 Desc As Beg On Wl Of &
2.02 Ft N Of Sw Cor Lot 12 BIk 3 Tl� Nly At Angle Of 8 Deg 30 Min To Right For 160.28 Ft Th
W1y 23.98 Ft,To Pt On Sd Wl 162.06 Ft N; in accordance with the application for variance and
the site plan on file with the Zoning Admiuistrator.
Page 2 of 3
�� •
•
.
File #: OS - 207033
Resolution
M��� By: Morton
S�C��ED B�: Galles
� �E�vo�: 7
AGAINST: o
MAI�ED: Januazy 4, 2006
t ^. _ �
�a��g
TIl1� LIMIT: No decision of the zoning or planning administrator, planning commission,
board of zoning appeals or city conncil approving a site plan, permit,
variance, or other zoning approval shall be valid for a period longer than
two (2) years, unless a building permit is obtained within such period and the
erection or atteration of a building is proeeeding under the terms of fhe
decision, or the use is established within such period by actual operation
pursuant to the applicable conditions and requirements af the approval,
nnless the zoning or planning administrator grants an extension not to egceed
one (1) year.
�pE�•: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are fmal subject to appeal to the
City Council within 10 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building
perwits shall not be issned after an appeal has been t"iled. If permits have
been issued before an appeal has been t'iled, then the permits are snspended
and construetion shall cease unt31 the City Council has made a fina!
determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICAITON: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of
Saint Panl, Minnesota, do hereby certify fhat I have compared the foregoing
copy with the original record in my office; and Find the same to be a true and
correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved
minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on
January 3, 2006 and on record in the Office of License Tnspection and
Environmental Protection, 8 Fourth St E, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
SATNT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Debbie Crippen
Secretary to the Board
• Page 3 of 3 � `
0 °' v
�_���
MII��TI7TES OF THE MEETING OF TI� BOARD OF ZONII�IG APPEALS
CITY COLINCIL CIIAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, DECEMBER 19, 2005
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Morton; Messrs. Courhiey, Faricy, Galles, and Wilson of the
Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Ms. Rachel Gunderson, City Attomey; Mr. Hazdwick and
Ms. Crippen of the Of&ee of License, Inspections, and Environxnenfal Protection.
ABSENT' None
The meeting was chaued by Joyce Maddox, Chair.
Jpi Develonment Services. LP (#OS-2070331 2669 Territorial Road• An appeal of the Zoning
A@mmisirator's decision determiuing that a proposed residenfial deveIopment is a rooxning house rather
than an apartcctent building.
Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation to support
the Zoning Administrator.
No correspondence was received opposing the variance request.
No correspondence was received from Distdct 11 regarding the variance request.
The applicant ERIC GALATZ, Attomey at Leonazd Street and Deinard, 150 South 5'� Street, MPLS,
and Lance Hanua, Development Associate with JPI DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LP, 600 E. Las
Colinas $Ivd, Irvin, TX, were present. Mr. Galatz stated that staff has presented a technical reading of
the code and we intend to present an even more technical view of the code with practical implications,
Mr. Cour�ey stated ttiat he cannot be the only one who does not understand the sigoificance of this and
why it matters to the applicants, he requested that they explain the end result and why people caze.
Mr. Galatz stated tl�at the reason they caze is that we aze at the stage where we aze ready to submit an
application to rezone the property. In order to start that pmcess we need to come to some agreemenf vvit$
staff and the quesrion is what aze we? The two issues for us aze density and licensing. Tn order to be a
boarding house there is a licensing review and an inspection of what should be public ldtchens. We do
not have public ldtchens. The otfier impact on us is the pazking requirements. The TN3 would require
one pazking space per unit the rooming house designarion would require one pa$dng space for three
bedrooms, per unit, We t�ave an average of three bedrooms per unit. So we would be providing 2.5 per
unit which is higher thatt an apazlment building. We aze proposing to pazk at 40%. The final issue and
the biggest issde to us is the density. The code defines density in tern�s of squaze foot of site per unit.
The density requirement for a rooming house is about three times the bedrooms on this site. In terms of
what he thinks i� ir,teresting to thi� goap beyc,n�i ihe specific site is that trus is a building Type in a city
that has eight colleges and substantial problems in at least one of yois wards, without any of this in your
ci4y. There aze dormitory's on the campuses that aze inadequate to serve the number of students that you
have. We all have a picture in our head of what a moming house is and there aze thirty-three of them in
the City of St, Paul. All of them look like rooming houses we aze going to present in our practical
azgument underlying the technical azgurrient. �
� •
�
C�
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
�
File #,45-207033
Minutes December 19, 2005
Page Two
� �-.���.
d °'
Mr. Iianna stated that there are two components to our appeal one is a legal rational that what is being
cailed a rooming unit in our apartment building but than gets classified as a rooming house. We say it is
a bedroom in an aparfinent building. Mr. Galatz will walk through the definitions of rooming unit and
dwelling unit and why we just consider these to be bedrooms within an apartment building. Secondly
after our legal ra4ional as common business practice rarional there are precedents within }he twin ciries as
well as within the state of Minnesota, as well as narion wide for exacfly the same type of development
that we aze proposing and in none of those instances, and none of those municipaliries has such a
development been designated as a rooming house, including some that aze in Saint Cloud and Mankato.
So we submit as a ldnd of common business practice rafional that this is an apartment building not a
rooining house. As Mr. Galatz stated a'I`N3 would require one space per unit so 150 spaces at our
development and a rooming house would requue one for three occupants. That would be about 1.8
spaces per unit, 184 spaces total and we are providing 224 spaces which is more than either designarion.
That is not the scope of our appeal but it has been mentioned in our documentarion as an aside. We are
providing parking that is consistent with what these properties aze being parked as in Minneapolis. Mr.
Aanna stated he would ailow Mr. Galatz to present their legal appeal and then he would speak about the
common business practice rational for our designation as an aparhnent.
Mr. Galatz presented a slide show of the packet passed out to the Board. It is accurate to say that our site
backs up on some industrial property inside of St. Paul. It is bacldng up, Bedford does not go through to
88�` Street, it backs up to a parldng lot. We have Hubbard Broadcasting to the south and to the west we
• aze right on the Minneapolis-St. Paul boundaries. Mr. Galatz pointed out these feaiures on the overhead
slide, for the Board. North of the site is the 13niversity of Minnesota transit way, which is a very
effective barrier between our site and the industrial property. He argued t1�at this is more of a residenfial
azea thart an industrial azea, this is really a technical quesiion. He described the proposed development as
a cluster of five apartment buildings connected by a clubhouse with party room and front office. The
buildings will be four-story with wood frames. Contending that the units aze composed of four bedrooms
that will be built around a Idtchen and living room or have access to a common corridor. The unit types
aze very much like a tradirional apartment building. In the 80s there was a proto type of what they called
a 7ack & Jill apartment that was a two bedroom apartment equivalent but instead of having a master-
bedroom there would be rivo equal bedrooms so that roommates could share an aparhnent without having
to fight over who got the better bedroom. There aze two types of four-bedrooms and one type of two-
bedroom In the two-bedroom there is a bedroom and a bath for each resident of the apartment. In the
four-bedroom there is a four-bedroom with two baths and there is a four-bedroom with four bathrooms.
All of these have access to a common corridor and they have a lease that states which bedroom they will
have. It is structured that way for the convenience of the market we aze building for. This does make it
possible far four students to come to school together and rent an apartment and for one of them to drop
out without leaving the other three stuck for the rent.
�
Mr. Galatz stated that an aparhnent is a suite of rooms tiiat is a place of residence for a single family.
This definifion is from the Saint Paul Code. The definition of a family is four or fewer unrelated persons
living in a single house or unit and that is in addition to the traditional fanuly which is any number of
people related by marriage or blood. Quo6ng from Sec. 65.171. Rooming House definition. "Any
residential structure or dwelling unit... the common understanding is a unit in wtvich all of the facilities of
a house aze contained within." A rooming house on the other hand there aze three different definitions. /Z
(a) is a residenrial structure with sleeping arraignments for more than four unrelated individuals. n�
J
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
0�-�� �
File #OS-207033
Minutes December 19, 2005
Page Three
There aze tcvo ways of looldng at tlus. If talldng in reference to this containing living units we do not
l�ave more than four people living in each unit If talldng about more than four unrelated people living
together we have a rooming house in every apartu�ent building in the City. The only way for this to make
sense is for this to read mora tt�rart four unrelated people tiving in each living unit and we do not have
that. (b) the definifion is an SRO, as definad as for more tban four individuals. An SRO is a bedroom
with none or one of sanitary food preparation facilities and we aze not that because there aze not more
than four in any of our units. We get trapped by semantics in the third definiYion. (c)Any building
housing more than four unrelated individuals, again it references residentiat structure or dwelling unit, in
the fust definition we-were tatldng abouE a structure and here we aze just faildng about the building. So
again any apartment building in St. Paul would meet step one. It is not just more than fois but any one of
ffiese six characteristics and every one of these six defined in how the rooming unit relates to these
criteria. Our position is that we do not have a rooming unit St. Paul has a definitaon of a rooming unit,
any room or group of rooms forming a single habitable unit used or intended to be used for living and
sleeping buY not for cooking or eating. We are not limited to not cooldng and nof eating. We have a
ldtchen and dining and living room attached to the bedroom and these aze only available to those people
of fhe unit.
.
Mr. Galatz stated that the staff report notes that there have been some revisions to the St. Paul code since
1999. State law has a definirion oPa boazding house is a building that is designed for or used as a one-
fanuly or two-fanuly dwelling where guest rooms for lodging people is provided with or without meals,
for compensation on a daiIy, weekly, or monthly basis. The thirty-three rooming houses you have fall •
under this(?) Lodging taac is charged to rooming houses, hotels, trailer camps they are all lransient and a
temporary type of housing not one yeaz leases.
Ms. Bogen questioned that the applicants agree that they aze developing housing that is for more than
four unrelated individuals, but what you are saying is that you don4 meet any of those a-f? Mr. Galatz
stated what he is saying is that in order to meet a-f we need to be a rooming unit. Ms. Bogen questioned
that you do agree that you aze a building? With more than four unrelated individuals residing in it? As
opposed to the other sections tkat talk about dwelling unifs. Mr. Galatz replied that is right. So here is
my question. Here is Craltier Plaza, it is a building divided up and is multi-family. It l�as units design for
three or more families. I,00lang at the defuution of rooming house under Section 65.171, 3 any building
housing more tti.w four-unrelated individuals. This is a 48 unit grid he would guess it wou2d be hard to
occupy. Taldng ttiat literally and go down to (c) kitchen facilifies may be provided for joint or common
use by the occupants of mare than one rooming unit Ard �ing �f a tuarried couple living in a two
bedroom apartment (did not understand the example broken up on tape). In this proto type you share
responsibility for the kitchen and living space. Why would you have annual inspections of the ldtchens
where they do not have control of the kiYchen or tha sanitary facilities or both?
Mr. Hanna stated that another example is a neighbor just to the south at 808 Berry Place it is a single
building with 267 units with about 432 occupants. It is ttot a rooming house it is an apartment but
because it is one lazge donut shaped'building with a center court yazd and under the same rdtional
because it is in the saxne super structure you l�ave 432 people all living within it. But they are all
individually accessed which is what we are proposing to build as well. �
� �
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #OS-20�033
• Minutes December 19, 2005
Page Four
�
•
����°���
Mr. Couriney stated it seems that you address the issue of the ldtchen inspections, but it is really abaut
the density. VJhy does the City have a different standard for rooming houses as opposed to apariments
and how.does that relate to tlus whole thing? Mr. Galatz stated fie could theorize on it but does not know
for a fact the City's position. F3e thinlcs tUat a rooming house is traditionaliy a transient way of life, it is a
flop house. The other uses that aze addressed under the rooming house in tem�s of their extensions,
fratemiries, another kind of housing and they think that if a fratemity is associated, with the university,
they figure that like domutories the university is going to be responsible and supervise. Maybe it is a
concern that there might be too many of them or a concentration of them Going to the staff finding that
we aclmowledge that Minneapolis does not have any bouding houses, what Minneapolis does is regulate
roam occupancy that is supportiYe. They have facilities that are like your rooming houses but only if
they aze in connection with people that do not Imow each other. With our facility people either come in
as roommates or in terms of filiing unoccupied space they have the opportunity to fill the room
themselves or leave the room unoccupied. Until either they fill it or we have someone come in looking
for an apartment and we don't otherwise have any vacancies. Contending that he thinks that the City
wants the lower occupancy. Of the Thiriy-three rooming houses the average age is 84 yeazs old so
obviously there is a lazge conversion of these structures cutting them up into multiple bedrooms that
increase the density and the nature of the population. Almost half are charitable shelters about another
third are student only or members only, fraternity and sorority houses. The average rooming house in St.
Paul, in the packets handed out, twelve people share a living room. Seventeen people share a ldtchen,
tcvelve people shaze a bathroom and two people share a single bedroom. That is an average rooming
house in St. Paul. What we are proposing it is either a two bedroom or four bedroom unit and each unit
has its own kitchen and each person gets their own bathroom except for some of the four bedroom units.
It is all a private kitchen and private living room for either two of four people. Tkere is no going down
the hall to use a community bath. These aze tradirional apariment units. The value of the rooming .
houses in St. Paul is about $51.00 a square foot compazed to our proposed $195.00 a square foot for our
proposed $33,000,000 development. It seems a more common business practice markedly dissimilaz
from what we tend to see as rooming houses. As well as what some of the snippets, of rooming house
mentioned in state law lumping them in with a motel or hotel, RV Park or camp ground, rather than the
use we aze proposing here.
Mr. Wilson questioned that we start with four people living in one of these units and one moves out. Do
I as one of the remaining tenants have any control over who moves into that fourth unit?
Mr. Galatz stated that is what he just said. The three remaining t�ave the opportunity to bring in their
own roonmiate, These aze managed with the expectation tt�af there will be a five percent vacancy rate.
There will be twelve month leases to take into account someone dropping out. Mr. Wilson questioned
what would happen if the tlu could not get together on the fourth teuant? Mr. Galatz stated they do
some degree of matching, i�Ir, Wilson questioned but the final conh�ol belongs to you? Mr, Galatz stated
that with the 550 bedrooms there are going to be 25-30 empty beds at any given moment, so they will try
to just leave those empty. If J['I has a need for that bedroom at that point they would present the new
person and see if they want to live together. Mr. Hanna stated that angering pre-existing customers
would work against them particularly for the following yeaz when we want to rent the next cycle of
leases. Mr. Galatz stated that one thing that we have not discussed, part of how these things aze managed �
is that we require the pazents to sign an agreement. So they have quite a bit to say about how the
building is being managed. /}
_ rl
J
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
Ob�-���
FIle #OS-207033
Minutes December 19, 2005
Page Five.
Ms. Bogen quesiioned what if the three people living there decide that they want their friend Joe to move
in? Doesn't he have to go through some sort of check on his credit? So the company acluaIly has final
say over his moving in. The three people who live there cannot just bring anyone in and be sure that they
will be living there. Mr. Galatz replied that is true and it would be true m any aparhnent building. Mr.
Hanna stated that they do not resttict who is living in the units but we lmow by the location it is very
tikely tfiat it is going fo be sfudents.
Ms. Bogen questioned what they do with children without pazents and thirty year old students? Nir.
Hanna stated that if they have an income that is suf&cient For the rent wluch is usualty abouf three times
the rent then they meet the credit check Ms. Bogen further quesrioned so a student without a job and no
paz'ents would not tae able to Iive in the building even if they have three hundred friends Tiving in the
building? Mr. Hanua stated no, not with no income unless they hava a hvst fund Ms. Bogen suggested
tt�at they might share one of the rooms and then you would have five people in the unit. Mr. Hanna
replied then they would be breaking both the law and their lease.
�
Mr. Galatz showed slides of their building in Minneapolis and an overview of buildings throughout the
state of Minnesota there aze seven in Minneapolis, two in St. Cloud and two in Maukato. Noting that
they aze operated and built the same way as ttris proposed building for St. Paul and they are not
designated as rooml ro houses either. Ms. Bogen —
aparhnents, she has a friend living in one and the City of Mankafo desiguates them as student housing. •
Every city has its ocvn designation for them.
There was no opposition present at the hearing.
Mr. Wilson questioned that the applicant's were clainung tl�at this program meets the states definition of
whaY an apartment is but not the Ciry definition? Mr. Galatz stated that what we aze clainvng is just the
opposite. We aze saying that it meets the City's definition of a multi-family dwelling, we do not think
that it meets the City's definition of a rooming house because it is not divided up into rooxning units. We
aze showing that the few definitions described by tha state descn'be roomuig houses as h�ansiertt and
temporary housing that is equivalent to a camp ground.
Ms. Bogen inquired how mail is handled at the building in Minneapolis? Mr, Galatz replied at the
dwelling unit Ieve1. Tfiere are otte hundred and sixty-four units providing residents for about five
hundred and sixty occupants and there are about one hundred and sixty mait boxes.
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox ctosed the pubtic porfion of the meeting.
Mr. Hazdwick stated ti�at he had a few comments to make that might cleaz this up a little. The impact
that this decision would have on the project will impact two things. FirsY it will impact the parldng
requirecL Secondly it will impact the minimum lot size required for tfie development. According his
calculations if the project is determined to be a rooming house they would need to provide two fiundred
s'ucty one (261) pazldng spaces and they would need to have a minimum lot size of 513,000 squaze feet
If it were deteruuned to be an apaziment building they would need to provide 225 pazking spaces that is
under the RM2 designation. They would also need to have a minimum lot size of 225,000 square feet. � a
�
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
G q ���
� �- �
File #OS-207033
. Minutes December 19, 2005
Page Six
Under the TN2 zoning district they would have to have one hLmdred and sucty nine parking spaces and
143 units would be allowed. They would need to get a variance for any units over that. In any case, the
property is currently zoned industrial so they cannot have any kind of residenrial development and there
is no guarantee tt�at it is going to be rezoned to anythiug.
Ms. Bogen questioned staff whether LIEP planned to appeal the decision if the Board voted against
them? Mr. Hazdwick replied no. Ms. Gunderson stated tbat she is not sure that LIEP has the power to
appeal it would have to be citizens or a group of citizens. Ms. Bogen questioned that the Zoning
Administrator cannot appeal? Ms. Gunderson replied she does not thuilc so.
Ms. Maddox questioned whether Mr. Hardwick had more to add. Mr. Hardwick replied that he was jusf
handed a note saying that 3 x 261= 784 beds. Stating he did not understand the significance of that. Mr.
Galatz stated that Mr. Hardwick had stated that there were 261 pazking spaces would be required and he
believes that the requirement is 1 for three beds. Mr. Hazdwick replied it is 1 parking space for every 2-
beds. Mr. Galatz stated that is very different from the informarion they have, does it very with the zoning
district? Mr. Hardwick replied yes. Mr. Galatz stated that they would request the rezoning to the dishict
that would require 3 per bed. Mr. Hazdwick stated tl�t he had given the applicants what would be
required for both the RM2 which is the first zoning district that Yhis ldnd of development would be
allowed in. He also gave the requirements for a T'N2 district which would require 169 pazking spaces.
� Those are the two examples that he has given the applicants and had tried to make it cleaz that depending
on how the properry is rezoned those requirements, wiil change. But this determination will be affected
regardless of how the properiy is rezoned.
Ms. Bogen quesrioned whether what the Zoning Admuiislrator had done, if this was a"similar use
deteiniination?" Because this is not like anything we have on the books so it is more similar to a rooming
house than to an aparhnent so we aze going to deal with it as a rooming house. Is that what a similaz use
means, which is how the letter from Ms. Lane sounds? Mr. Hazdwick replied basically you aze right,
however, there is one litfle technicality until recently the detennn�ation of similaz use was decided by the
Planning Commission. The new code says that the Zoning Administrator may determine whether or not a
use is similar to a use that is akeady pernutted in the code. In this case the Zoning Administrator said
this is a rooming house. ff there was nothing in our Zoning Code that fit this definition then it would
have gone back to the Pla.imuig Comtnission to make that deternunarion. But the Zoning Admniistrator
decided that this is a rooming house. Ms. Bogen questioned but it is not similar to one it is one? Ms.
Gunderson stated that is correct, the application was for a similaz use to a multi-family residential and
essentially she denied that similaz use deternunation, because she found it to be a boarding house. So
there has been no similaz use determinafion. Ms. Gunderson stated she wants to make the point to the
Boazd of the importance of a similar use deternunation it is effectively amending the code. So any ldnd
of building of this nature or any building converted to somethimg of this nature would then be considered
mulri-family which is RMl is that correct? Mr. Hardwick replied anything of this density would be
considered RM2, but you are correct a rooming house is first pernutted in a RMl district. Ms.
Gunderson stated that when the Board is considering this they need to consider a pretty strong
precedential value. Everything t]ie Board does have a ptecedenfial value. This is tantamount to almost
amending the code. �
• �
AA-ADA-EEO Emplayer
File #OS-207033
Minutes December 19, 2005
Page Seven
��-���
Ms. Bogen moved to deny (support the Zoning Administrator) the appeal and adopt staffs
recornmendatioa and resolurion based on fmdings 1 tbrough 4. Ms. $ogen confinued tfiat because this
would be almost maldng a change to the Zoning Code she feels that it should go to the City Council
rather than the Board.
1VIr. Galles stated he is going to vote against the motion he £eels that this could go either way and he
azgues that the Zoning Administrator did es in their interruption. He stated he is very familiaz with this
type of arraigument and although he imderstands the impact he has had friends living in this type of
arraignment. Thay aze pretty good at managing this type of building and it is an apartment. He feels ttiat
this is a great devetopment for that site. It is on the hansit way, if will be a block ox fialf a block offwtiat
we hope will take students to the University of Mimiesota, tlris is a transit oriented development and
although he does not lmow what the parldng issues aze or i£ it will come back. Noting that most of the
time he was a student he was on a bike or his feet and he feels this will be a vatuable development with
the type and quantity of tlais ldttd of development that needs to occur to have this take place, it is not
going to be a flop house. When he read this case that is the first thing he thought of with the rooming
house, there is one down on West 7�' Street, he Imows exacfly what it is and how it runs. He would not
want another of those in the City or the State and that is not what this is.
Ms. Morton stated she is also going to vote aa inat this as well. She thinks there is no question what this
is, it is an apartment, it has its own ldtchen and bedrooms it is not a zooming house at all.
Mr. Wilson stated that it is not a question of whether it is good or bad the question is does it meet the
definition of what the Adnvnistrator thinks it does. Ae admits it would be great to have something like
this but the question is if he understands it correcfly is "did the Zoning Administrator inYerpret correcfly
that it fit a rooming house definition?" He said yes it did and that is what we are discussing.
Mr. Faricy stated he is familiaz with this type of building. His office looks out over the lazgest of these
buiIdings on the University Campus. He questioned whether there would be any retail in this building?
Mr. Galatz replied no. Mr. Faricy stated that these aze not rooming houses, to say that these are rooming
houses, becausa that is the only thing we can fit it into the code, it does not fit its self back into a rooming
kouse. He fliiuks that tha Zoning Administrator did err in the determ that this is a rooming house.
Mr. Faricy questioned Ms. Bogen what way she was voting? Ms. Bogen stated she is supporting the
Zoning Adnunistrator. Mr. Faricy state he could not support Ms. Bogen,
Mr. Wilson stated he is renting a room in this building"with Idtchen and living room added to it. So
basicaIIy he is renting a room with added privileges. That is what the Zoning Adnrinistrator is saying.
You aze not renting an apartrnent you are renfang a room that has ldtcheri and living room privileges.
Ms. Bogen stated she agrees wifh Mr. Wilson, she does not see ttris as an apaztment, she sees this as a
dormitory. It has to fit somewhere and it fits more closely to a rooming house than an apariment.
�
•
Mr. Har@wick stated he would tike to remuid the Boazd members flris is not about that site being close to \
transit and the college. It has nothing to do with whether this is going to be a nice proj ect or not. �
Regarclless of whether the Boazd opposes the Zoning Adminislrator it does not mean that this project ^ •
��
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
������
File #OS-207033 —
Minutes December 19, 2005
� Page Eight
does not go forward. It means it goes forwazd under a difFerent set of standards. This is not about the
site. This is not about the project. It is not about Mr. Galles, or JPI. Tlris is a literal interprefation of the
Zoning drdinance. Tt�at is all that this Boazd is considering here. Not whether this is a nice project. Not
whether this a nice locafion. But as Commissioner Bogen and Commissioner Wilson pointed out, we are
talldng about a literal interpretation of the Code. Mr. Hardick stated he wanted to renvnd the Boazd of
Legal Council's advice about the seriousness of the impact you aze going to tnake here.
Ms. Maddox requested that Mr. Hardwick eacplain the control of the kitchen from kus view point. Mr.
Hardwick stated ttiat the Zoning Administrator looks at this through that part that says "if it meeYS any of
the four following conditions it is a rooming house." It meets four of those condirions. The Idtchen does
not have any unpact on this decision. Each bedroom is considered a rooming unit under our definition.
So what you have are 522 rooming units dispersed in 7 buildings. You don't have 150 aparhnents you
have rooming units. Each unit is separate. Each room has a separate lease. Mr. Galztz was fine pointing
out all the various state rules and regulations for licensing, however, he studiously avoided pointing out
the Zoning Code and the Zoning Code is what you aze considering here. He suggested that the Boazd
again review those Zoning Code citations and definirions.
Mr. Coudney questioned if he is a tenaut here how many keys does he need to get to his room? Mr.
Hazdwick replied probably about three. One to get in the building, one to get in the aparhnent and one to
get in the room.
• Mr. Galles stated that none of these things matter, he has been in these things and they are apashnents.
Mr. Galles stated that is what he is going to agree to.
Ms. Bogen stated that she is looldng at the Zoning Code which defines a rooming house and that is what
we are supposed to be looking at, not anything else. Secrion 65.171 says that a rooming house is any
building housing 4 or more people that has one of the following things: Rental arraignment are by the
rooming unit rather than the dwelling unit. Rooming unit doors ue locked and require door locks or
different keys to gain entrance. Rooming units are equipped with telephones having exclusive phone
numbers. They aze offering that you can go on the intemet and have cable so she assumes that each
rooming unit will have its own separate phone number. 11aat is three but only one is needed to make fhis
a rooming house. Ms. Bogen stated that because of that this falls under our code as a rooming house.
There is no definition of student housing yet in our code. Some of the other cifies do and maybe that is
the next step for the City Council to look at if it is a growing h to build this Idnd of units. But right
now it definitely is a rooming house under the definition in our code.
Mr. Faricy questioned the vote and what a"yes" meant. Ms. Gunderson stated that what you aze voting
on is a denial of the appeal. So a"yes" vote is a yes for what Wendy Lane wrote. No means you
disagree with Wendy.
Mr. Wilson seconded the motion, which failed on a roll call vote of 3-4(Faricy, Courtney, Galles,
Morton)_
Ms. Gunderson stated that if the Board intends to gant the appeal then the Board has to make specific ��
• findings about where Wendy was wrong, what is wrong, and why it is wrong. You also have the option
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
0�°�`�' �
File #OS-207033
Minutes December 19, 2005
Page Nine-
under the code of conditioning the approval of the appeal on a rezoning, and it is only effective if they
get the rezoning,
Mr. Galles moved to grant(finding that the Zoning Admiuisirator did error} the appeal and resolution
based an &ndings 1 through 4.
Mr. Cralles questioned Mr. Hardwick about the first fmding requesring clarification of the finding stating
he is not sure wl�at ihe determination was in that finding. 1�Ir. $azdwick pointed out page 33 of the
packet. That is the Zoning Administrators letter determining that this was a rooming house. That
detemunarion was based on the four findings on the next page 34, those chazacteristics define this project
as a rooming house. What the Boazd needs to do is find that those fmdings aze inconect and state why
they are incorrect. Mr. Galles questioned findings 1-4. Mr. Hafdwick replied a,b,c, & d on page 34.
Mr. Courtney stated that he would try a& c, it seexns to him that with regard to "a", what they have here
is a dwelling unit because they have access to the bedroom along with all these othar shares, so he thinks
they aze wrong and it is a dwelling unit. He stated he has not read all of the statutes and he is trying to
stay away from the whole thing. It seexns to him that if the Boazd just looks at finding "a" which is the
difference between a rooming unit and a dwelling unit, it is a dwelling unit. In finding that it is not a
rooming house our position is that it is a dwelling unit because in addifion to the room it gives them full
access Yo these other faciliries that make it a dwelling unit as opposed to a room.
Ms. Bogen stated tfiat all four of the findings have to be found wrong. Mr, Courtney stated he is just
doing one and will now work on "c".
Ms. Mozton ques4oned Ms. Gunderson why the Boazd must fmd tfiat all four fmdings aze wrong. Ms.
Gunderson instructed because the wning code provides that if any of those condifions is met t1�an it is
considered a rooming house. 'I1ie Zoning Administrator found tt�at those wera the four conditions that
were met that made it a rooming house. What the Boazd is doing is overharning the decision of the
Zoning Aduunistrator, so you need to find that the Zoning Administrator erred in each of those ways in
order to find that this is noY a rooming house.
Ms. Bogen stated because if she is right in just one of those findings it is a rooming house.
Mr. Galles questioned whether we could then determine tk�at lus house is a rooming house? Mr.
CourWey stated you don't rent the rooms out. Mr. Galles stated we coutd. He could doubie up the boys
and rent them out. Mr, Courtney stated that your bedrooms aze not rooming units.
Mr. Faricy stated that Mr. Couriney was addressing the idea that starting right at the beginning the word
dwellmg unit makes the entire sentence non applicable because we do not have dwelling units the rental
atrangements are by rooming units. Mr. Courhiey contends that it is a dwelling unit that is why the
Zoning Administrator is wrong.
Ms. Bogen stated that the building houses more than four people.
Mr. Wilson stated you don't rent the dwelling unit you rettt the room and the other is just a benefit.
•
•
� O •
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
File #OS-207033 ' - � ;�; a � �-; �
Mimxtes December 17, 2005 -.
� Page Ten
Mr. Couriney stated it is not like the pool outside it is sometfiing you have an absolute right to.
Mr. Wilson stated it is an amenity that comes with the room. Mr. Courtriey questioned the bathroom too.
Mr. Wilson replied yes. . Mr. Courtney stated thaY the distincrion is that you k�ave an undivided interest
there, locked setting right outside there and no one else is coming in to use it except for these three other
people. That is why this is an apartment and not a rooming house.
Mr. Wilson stated that the applicanPs testimony said that they aze renting you a room with these other
amenities. They aze not renting you the whole unit. Mr. Couriney azgued t1�at it is just like a common
azea that the three of you have the right to. Mr. Wilson stated he bet he could not rent it for less if he did
not want those ameni6es. Mr. Courtney stated no you cannot you have got those amenities and that is
why it is a dwelling unit and not }ust a room. Mr. Wilson stated he is not xenting those amenities, I am
renting the room pursuant to theu testimony, the ameniries come with the room Mr. Courtney contended
that he is following the 7oning Adnvnistrator's rational which is right below her findings. Which is they
have an undivided share in that ldtchen and living room and they will use it with these other three people
and no one else is going to use it with them because no one else can get in that door.
Mr. Courtney stated that with regard to "b", we have two different doors here, it says rooming units are
equipped with outer doors. The unit that is really locked is outside by the hall. Anyone of these four can
get in there. He disagrees with this because the real lock is the one that locks the aparlsnent. Not the
separate room. To him what it looks like is that no one trusts anyone anymore in this world so we have a
• four bedroom apartment that allows you to lock your door so nobody steals anything, But fundamentaliy
the real lock is the one outside the apartment is cominon for the four people.
Mr. Courtney read Idtchen facilities may be provided, he does not lmow what "may" means. They aze
provided so again it is not an option it is, they are provided. You have one fourth of that lcitchen facility.
It is not a"may" it is provided and that is the distinction.
Ms. Bogen quesrioned so you agree that the kitchen facilities are provided for joint or common use for
the occupants? Mr. Courtney replied "of rooming units," but these aze not rooming units.
Mr. Couriney stated it is all one Uig complex. Ms. Maddox clarified you are hying to say for each
dwelling unit. Mr. Courtney agreed with Ms. Maddox.
Mr. Galles stated that he would argue that he thu�ks the Zoning Adminisirator has erred in that each of
these is a dwelling unit not a rooming unit. Continuing, rooming units are equipped with exclusive
numbers, he does not remember any reference to any telephones. Ms. Bogen stated it was in the
applicant's handouts that each bedroom wouid be equipped with internet access. Mr. Couriney stated
again a rooming unit and he believes it is a dweiling unit.
Ms. Bogen stated if it is sepazate access it is four different phone bills, but she supposes that happens in
families as well.
Mr. Courtney stated he would azgue that it is inaccurate because it has been determined that it is a ��
• dwelling unit.
AA-ADA-EEO Employec
File #OS-207033
Minutes December 19, 2005
Page Eleven
� J h" n
�3 "-�y..�',. Y
�fb� c-r a� ,� �
�
Mr. Couriney seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote, (Courtney, Galles, Morton, & Faricy
voted yes for the reasons that it is a dweliing unit not a rooming unit),of 4-3(Bogen, Wilson, Maddox).
Submitted by:
John Hardwick
Approved by:
Gloria Bogen, Secretary
•
��•
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
C-�
•
-� �-
erziflirs$Q�mLity far�mrC�mincrs
December 14, 2005
,_,
� _. v
VIA Hand Delivery to John Hardwick
City of Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals
CrrY OF SAtrrr PAtn,
Department of Licensing, Inspections, and Environmental Protection
8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200
Saint Paul, MN 55101-104
Re: Overview: JPI Development Services AppeaZ of Roominghouse Designation
Case #OS-207033
Deaz Members of the Boazd of Zoning Appeais,
Thank you fot considering our appeat of the "Roominghonse" designation assigned to our proposed
150-unit student-oriented apartment rental development at the intersection of Berry Street and
Territorial Road, between the University of Mannesota Transitway and Hubbazd Broadcasting.
JPI's request for a"Multifamily" designation is based upon both a legal rationale and a common
business practice rationale, as ouflined below:
1. The [egal rariona(e is based upon the assertion that the proposed development does not meet the
definition of roominghouse because:
a.
L:a
No more than four individuals will inhabit a dwelling unit (some dwelling units contain
4 bedrooms, but no more than 4 individuals will occupy that dwelling unit); the
definitions of roominghouse per the code state "more than four (4) unrelated
individuals...", and
While an individual building will contain multiple dwelling units and thus contain
"more than (4) unrelated individuals", so do most apartment buildings in St. Paul.
This legal rationale will be explained graphically during our presentation to you.
•
2. The common business practice rationale is based upon the following assertions:
a. The 33 roominghouses in St. Paul are markediy dissimilaz in several material respects:
The average roominghouse age of construction is 84 years; the proposed
development wiill be new constructian
The average assessed value of the roominghouses is $573,000 ($51 per square
foot); the proposed development AV will be $33 million ($195 per square £oot)
The average bathroom sharing ratio is 5.7 occupants per bathroom; the proposed
development will serve 1.3 occupants per bathroom
The average idtchen and living room sharing is 8.6 occupants per kitchen and living
room; the proposed development will provide private kitchens and living
rooms within every dwelling unit (2-bedroom units and 4-bedroom units)
�
�
City of Saint Paul Board of Zoaing Appeals
December 14, 2005
Q�-��� �-
- .,��. �a
b. Mazket forces dictate leasing the units individually per person — this relieves parental
guazantors of risk if a roommate of their studenY-child cannot pay his or her shaze of the
rent. Thus the risk is shifted from the parent to the znanagemen�
c. Market forces also dictate pxoviding outer door locks on the bedroom doors, as an extra
inner Iayer of security for the residenYs belongings.
d. Within the state of Minnesota, at least 10 student-oriented apartment properties in three
different municipalities (Minneapolis, Mankato, and St. Cloud) praciice the same
leasing and management procedures above yet aze not desienated as rootnin ouses.
e. Nationwide, JPI's 26 student-oriented properties spanning 19 states have all been
designated as multifamily dwellings, not roominghouses.
This common business practice rationale is outlined in the attached handouts.
Thank you for your consideration, and we look forwazd to discussing this appeal with you during our
presentation on Monday, December 19`�.
Sincerely,
7
Lance Hann
Senior Development Associate — JPI Development Services, L.P.
cc: David Jones, General Counsel — Hubbazd Broadcasting
Bmce Hagerty, Directot of Purchasing and Building Services — Hubbazd $roadcasring
Eric Galatz, Shareholder—Leonard, Street, & Deinard P.A,
� `
�
C�
•
�,.
. , � 4M
- ,
r` €
� � � ;
t 77 .
ii � � J ,
� _. 1 ; 4 ;.
i,
_�..___� ..
u ` �
il<� .
. _Re:<_..;�..
���
V }�
l
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
�►
•
`�
d1
�
o psy
a
�
0
�
�
.�,
�
0
�
M
�
�
s�
�
. p.,�
�
�
�
�
�
a�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
°
�
�
O
�"
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
0
�
�
�
"�
�
�
�
•ry
0
0
�
��
�
�
.v
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
4,
�
� .
�
�
-
� �
�
�
� -
T
�
�
�
_ �
•�
.
-
. . ..:
.
.. �
._
_ _
. -
�
_
_:,
, . .
, -
.� , �
'
.
�i -
. -
�- �
. �_
�: '
�
�
.
/ !���1
W
� � .
r
C�
�
�
�
��
.�
�
N
�
�
�� �
�
�
�
�
.�
v
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� , "�'
%�
�- � •
�•r„ �a .cs��.� �s= __ �
' y �'+. _
F . y e, _
�
� � `���'��
��°� _ `
. t ��
��� � ;� :x "�
� ; r j �� ,� '— �
r- ,s��
� ' f�
f � �
��
I.�i " ti;,
�� �..`` �e+���
�
�
� � Y.:
3
i rtye g '
v �I
��' €
t r �, s
��' . ���� � �
� � .
�� �
��
i
a,*' ,LL
� .,
��Y
��
S ;.��� .
-s, .
y :j
���, �
h `
� F '.`�
, �� �, 3r �
� ��`��ste � �, ,,
� "� '° �� r.` `
>�yµ�.:. ..��„ t�
�i
� '� ,.
�
i -
r` �
p � _
�
r � ��
�
. .. ��> �. � �.
1 � `- :.� ;� �'
�`
�
., _. ,�,.,.a.-. . . - . _
�` #`>N,� `' �"���� � � ��"� :���
� » � 'a � . vy .p
Y �f : �:' 1 Y � dj' '�.�£ � f 3��� �:,� ^h
�� ; .�� y .�;�= �� ��- ����
§ a zp:�; �:,ti � �` .,�4;... �.r �_� � '�F. ��
.,�:'� �� �i� � s ' '� :� � 2�' . .
�� �r� - �� . ���.� �
� � �.. �.�+
�,, � -�
�ti �i�' '� r, -'
(� - � a.� >' �>�,.i .� ;.
+y4" "l�.�t���� ;�a,��, `!,+
� �3x� d�� Fi e _ �
� �z : �
�" � ... , �. �.. .
�� � �� �
°`��''� � � ��� � �
'����� -,, �..- F � _
., � � �� � J ��� � �`'
;-4� � 9���
< <.
__ - - ����
� �r� � .�:�:� � =
i ��`��' � �` � �
�� ��� �� .���.�
, I �� �
.
�.;v,�N� �
�_ �� ��
_
��
� '
' � � �. s,�%
¢ � �' . �
. � �� �
� �
,� �,, � � � �� , :
a�� � x 3�� 3 -
�_� ' _� -�
.,=��' -�" ,� -
� ,�,
� � i ��
3� �' F �, �f,� � � .
3 a,°�
S .._ � S .. . .. ..
C. t
I � y� �E l }�.� � �.
� - � J'�' �' Y _� 2�
� _ � •��'� A � .
y 4 ` � j�'
y �" ' �� _
3. �
3
�9 I
9 . � . �� .. . . L ..
i "� ? $ � # "� . - �v'-r . � ���`�`
' p� ��_ s �.,.�"i'^" �l � x Y �' �4 � ��`�=":.
"� �+ �,F � � � '
.'� : xi,
Y.� - �� � � iC ��?� � .� . ..� � k 5 .1� -.1 .��. 3 ,f� -
� � 1 � - .� d i3 i�l l�
;' ^, .E�� � � � ' f':n �J� � .. . �.
-�� s��`Y`"!!� � �
_., , . ,.�,��a. _._ . . ..,�c�i i����'� ... �'.__`T_. „.
s"�`�
� �;� y r�''�� _
{ ,�
i '...,-
�� � g
id �€ �. �{
4 : ;� `� � �i � [
i� �.r+� � r a; ' � �
. -7 } �` ! 1 _r � � .
i ;+.� -... . .
- ,.���-�,-�'
Yr �
�. � r
�
� „ r � l :'` '
��
� a ,��, . �
��
� -cf
: R
Y� �
� � .i• .:
._ .. . ._._. _... _ ._... . .
4 '
y. '
.4' ¢ >
��
� f. �
�
"
�
�
�,� ;
..3 �p i��
� e�i� �
(-: �
l..� )+{ � � � �
LS� ..! . v .
t � ���
' k ��)tl � 1 '� {
-.,'� iii4, �'�. ..ew .. _ ����.1��.
� {
{ � ....r �. a u �,
�:,e��"�'�',''�'i�''�yi�� i!� �ii�
� a
� . � � �
���
=a�
�< .
ia: ,
'
E .
_ .. _... . . . . _
a � � �� —
��` �
� ' �
i � �`
�� ��� ..� _ _ ..._ .
k v''�'h'a.�
�
�•
�
�
�
e
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
N
�
�.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� . �
�
�
�^�
�+
0
�
O
�
�•
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
��
�
0
�
�
t�
�
�
��
�
�
�•
h�+
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
° o
�
�
�
�
v
�
�
�
�
�
�
►r•
�
�•
�
�
��
h�+
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,�+
0
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
1��1.
�
�
�
v�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�•
�D
�
�
V1
�
�
!"'�,
1
O
�•
!'��
�
�
'�
�
�
�
�
�
G b- 2�
,
�
•
���
\
\
\
�
�.
� � :n . . . . . . a
r :r. ° r (� C :C C � ^ . .�z.. _i
• - .; - -
P � P � � � � �
t . �� I• � I I :/�
� � ^ r ,r-, Y r , ,r, r , ' (�:
� � � 'J: . f .f. 'J, - .f` J; I �
e � P � �
.P J � e � V ..V 4� �
mi � �
� � � J _ :
P ,� z � � � Z �
— — � � n n � c'c�
^ r U T, �.� � 'P 'J� � . J.
I 1 - C
� � � �
.J
' <' � < . Z " �'
'E. 9:
� � � �: �� �: C i �i
� � . . . � � c . .'e
�. � ...�. �. .fJ �.� �.fJ
� n .�:i;. -n�:rn�'r. :n�:.0
`.. � - � . � . c-:�
� 1 ��., �. �. �r�-� H a:-ti
;�7 � �-' � .`+ G ❑
_B � ❑ ❑.... ;^J
�(J - l: •�fJ; fJ (J �'�:f.
- 7" � .ly.` :] F� 1'N
� A �.�� � ��.'[7 ^ ��
�
C O O O O
� �
- . .vi � ���.:n: vi ui �ui
. � �.`: v. �-
;v� . I�� I 'I..I I L
✓: Ti _ 47 � �.. "�' � C�"
i � .. . � � � ro = �
.;- =� .?� � ,_ ..
V ^
� .� � r �. N � h
= ❑ ❑ � �• � � �-
P n � n u;� ""�%
� ' � C � SC �
r � R : � � c
� � � �.
c �' T
m � °
❑ ;.
_ _ _ _ _._ _
............'.... :
= s -o- �
� ;; � : _ �' f
,- - = ;�..,,.
� n, � �'l _ � r ' r
1 .. _ ✓� r _ _ � f _
I � _ -. ' I '' _ \.' � � t A� -
C _ } � 1
� J - � � � I J �_ J � � Z �� � `/-.
,••� - = r-� I � -
i � � - - r �� /1
� - t� � l i . � ' ( _ r � n v � ._ '= C :
� - - - J \ = r f' _ �+ �,;; ' � �� � G �'.
- � C C� � • L . ` �
� _ - „ .. � � ~ � � � � �
� = �� n, .n . N � � � i�.. r v �:
- _ r C _ = �.^ r" r r::. ' �- `.
N _ � F� r ��.. ^ aJ
C ��� ~ �.�.1�� N � ���'
_ . r '-_- „ �� �' Y I�I �__. ^ � 1�.�
/� n
' � Q+ :° \ 1 rr` Fr �„? , �i�
� � � �R � ` /v ^ ►r ,l
� HJ
� a � .�.+ ✓i � r ,. V �. `
_ � ~ �. Z � G y R
7 .� � .� ^ �. .�-
� r
� =� �" � � r �, O
_ � ^ Z c ^ ^, p
� • __.:� '' ... ^ r �
� �_ � r. N �: � .r.... � N�
. _ � V I�. � N 1�. �.
. �� � e1 C �y r� r � �
'i v J �^„ � � G �; �^, ~ � ���
� = a � : � � � r i...j n'�' /�.
�� 2 � . tf. nd �[,` `.
^ � �_ 1 'v y � � � � �:. \
!. � � ' • �Cj � ..�, /J �.'.. � er l�
... � ' ` .�' �... � � `
`� .t., � � I j �. v N �.
_ e • o , ^ .,. � ... e + ' f'. ..
� _ `� a � � . y ; � � �. ... rv
\ � _ _ .� a ,,,� �.F; �. �: �" 'v�. �]
�
_ � > _ � .: , s - .,, .� r -� J. " �
l �'+°-_ � � = `�'' ^�'' "�� � � �
i
1� r- �;- � �
i .�� y C � � C �.
� �' ''T. r ^� w. � `Jti - �!
s ■� ���1 � "' ..�. e± �. M "'� . N h
t � �3 � .. ^ �. � O J' � �
f 0 I tl� • � .. � � � `' J 1 �'• �!^ ti� �
F ��' /�. �
_ 0 . 1 7 �.- I `- Y� `V .�� ►
0 � ': �� r�� .✓: r � v �. �
� - _ "�� � .-� � C. r^,,, i/�. �
— • �� �•<.* � .^� � � �n r- . 5
�� �° � C� ' CJ � ^ � �� N
"���^.,....: :.+ :.� �
�� r : � � �': � �u er
�:�'� � ^� �
�`� � � �
�
.................
- -- = <-� - = - --
� _-_-_ = �,
r = � ; � �,:
- J
!. J = .. ^ r- ^�f
� �. _ �- ! /��, `
I ' - � Y �' f d � �%�
� J . 4C -/��
'! � l � � �ll � � Y f"
= � _ � � � r f . >
= r r r �
_ . - � � �� `., '/'
��N O ✓ J
i � W �
r �
� f _
�
i
.
r
- '�
N
i
/ �
�
� .
l�i.
�
I
i �
� [ I
�,
�,:
�
�
i
i�
�
, r
E
o�� � ��
� Y
�-�
'
�
__r
� �/ �
P � ��
�� C�
i` T
. * d , ,s.y _jZ?
_� a
�r
�
�
;
�,
■
.c
C
:
,:
c
.
;;
c
C
;
�
.�
e
�
n`;. �
Q �- �
�
�
�
.: . :�`.-. ��l
V
�-:
� .l�i,. _:;
�
•,��� ��
. - -�-.=gs;
■
. .- � ,n-� '. �'� lr
� ��� f , �
� 3 �\1.�
����� �
_ \ 3 _ �
e ��I
_ � � �� �
�
�, �:� ����.: tp
� � �
�
� �� � �.
� > '� y� � <'0
- �� : �
� - r , � i� �; N �
�. � �
� �``"-
� "
� � �
�
` � s v 1 � � O 4
, v
` � :
�
; � h n�J � n � � �
; � � . v : a ' G� c�'`' �
� y ,� a: o �
- � �,. �. � � � � �
� .; � a � �` R �
� � � � � o � �
� R,; � � �'a '� . � �
�i � fi �o �` �
� � c'+• n �: '�+ �i �.
� � `�" � `� �" �O �
� ; C� �„ � � �
� � N. t`.. N �:. � N :
� �: � � �, e
o � c � o � � c
�
ry, o `+ '� " s � O �
�
A � � �
N c� ~ e��" c'�p � � �
� : . l�j ..
. � . N � � N' �� M �� � �
� .� �I � N O �.. � aa �/ � .. � c
� n �
� � �.
� �. . � O . r � ,�
c� � aQ ('�. ��.+� � � � �, �
�. � � .: nF ,+
(� �� O. � ��. � V � � ' � �
N N N' r �' ( D � c
� aq r. c� S C
h � � � � L ' � �
�.. .c0 � cc�+-�.' � .. r' ,*
� n p `C eC`
N� � � N � � � �
� � c� c�. O �` •s f
� `C `� �' a `'� e
H, n ('p O f'�` Q; �
O
� N p � � N
N c'�J �' N. �' (�O
� � `� a Q o �
�o N C� � N
�.� �. N � �� � .n ✓S � .
� h , �
. �� � . � � � �..�
�
� � - � � �'' � - c: ...
�'/ ^a-s . c �! N .
. C _ �
c
. �� � � �.;� ..�.
�n
� �
N
`
�
�
`�
�
6s
�
.'
�,
�
�
��
►,
�
,:�
�
.
�
�
�
.
.
�
�
��
:�
�
�
�
�
��
�
i.
�
,
.
�
�
C
�
Fds
�
�
!r
�
�
�
l�l •
�
V
�
�
.�
�
.
�
.
.
�
►
�
.
.
�
�
,. �
�
�
.
♦
°:`
�
�
♦
�
��-���
�
�
�
.-.
�
�+��
���
�
.��.
�
•
���
h��� .; _ <:--:.,-� �,�`-z°
� �`£,�. Yl ,. ' � C �
Y / ��x+� �
5b i " �C �!
� r �� ° p � � Y Sl� ^ J
W.` n Rd' "' ' .� �
� � g � q � . �U�
�q�.�y.`f'"-4 .� � k .e
) � 2'} !� �° "
r�� � z ��
d �
� ��S t �a
� � Ss �' .
�������}���
� j A��"� r:2�.F*��* �
., ���J������4��sn��n����'
i ,', '' b
t
�
�
�
�a '
e _ _
�� 1Y"�" �
✓ � �
� I � - �
{-� �
s
..:�,� -�_ .
_ - i { '
q -a t
` _"
,
i
z.._�_ � i===
}
�
�, : n "I ,�s �
e z
F
. . s. . .� r �
-�
- �
�\
;' �
��' ' �_ _
_�
� , , : . -- -
� � �� � ���
�� � � �� ��-
r � k � �
�� � �- y���
��� � �?��,
�� � .�
_ 't
<�
.`t
�
>� ��
� ��
-_�
. � e .-.r�.'
� 5
_ �'
�
YT��?.
��
�.
t ���
��� � ' �
'"`�� 4
� �*'j
�.h�c�
��
�:
� �,
w
_ �
=�
:s =. _
g .
�
R�`
� r
tK » �
��'
�
�; _
T`�+'�
it�
_ :-.
��
i
r`.p
� ,,��
i� �'''
�� � � ��
,� �..r
? � . ;:.
�.
'�
,�.
i
�=; ' , .r: �.
� � q
� [i
}�
�
' I 1 Y f i, �, ( .. f t .
. _ . -g ((( E _a �,
4 �� r
� `,
. -a�� w. , . �� �. r
r`z , ,�"�r � r �" r- � �`t� ' r` - �
. , t5�.A� Y�+"�� � �£ t
$- l f � +YK '�' A,# `� `4' '
�:, '�.� �l � . , �`.�,''L' zt �^ Y.�.. f � � - .
'� . ��« }4 „���" . .
=1 c�4 � � f 4.�, F �". t l � 3'� � f �
� �. � � Y o . . _
� �s�� �. �� ��'� �`' x L a�u .
' n F 2'� t� '� 3 � .
�' � Pk�.x� � y J Z.
' ��S'���d' '�' '� fi�G. ] .
"' S �`r �'�`'��,.� ,+. � f - �xw�'�.�, � r
` x � e �`*�`=+$d+ � " yy . ' � f
. ... ��.� ���.�.�� � ��.� 3-.a �. _ _ ... � . .
�
r �� �� �
^�' �a ��wa
s .�.:4 .
: � r-.,,= w—�-A : . �
4�� .
�� . . ... .. . �.
_ �:�
_.. °: . �
�,,-.
_ ,._
f -
I;�:
�``��.
, .
��'�� � :
3 � ���
�`,�«�� `� � �
.-,� �� �' - _
��; �,�
� y _
�� � � �,
r:.
�f�;- ..;. , �'; ; .
n
LJ
�
�
Y
���
•
�
�.
y � � G . ` � '
5 "�'oi,.,.��. �_5�j4 h
E���� 1I#�"r;_�
;,:
J � ��¢���; �;
I��l�( ����;::
�;'i r "�*'�
� 4
� ���i� }�� ��
�� dy:�
iti'
c "u
' '. } 5
ie:� �
t � � �
� 4 t ' � '
_ ���.:.� , �
c?��.
s ,:_
� x .
_ --�r- �, . .
�
���y'��„ . .
� .
���� �� -:� . _ - .
� �i � ��t i �-' . . . .
- � § t 3l ;: . . -
.:-.,. � r'�
t i
"i. ���c'� E 3 . � .
t ���� 4
� � �
�
S ., �( � f ' S� .
� '&� t[�s�-ffi . .
i ' � .
= � 'Y �j�
h�� f�
4
� . I i 'k . �'��-Y �'
s
s� St 3"� t
� � �y
� - � � �;�
, �.
° «
� ,x
� .F � �s; �� s Z
, Fe.' + �
� :� .� � '} ''" � �:�
� � F� � �
r
��.
� ��' �,s� �,t
� �� �,�.
� . �~�a` ��� �
z� �§
�h ;!{
� ` r �r' u ' . � �.
�� �'-�`(�
e.� �,-. s r �5 x' �`"'€'�" .
� <. � � �E
�� � { �' a . �vLi � . . .
� - � , ��,� ;
i � �. �
: a �� , �
� � �� °
� ,� ����
�� � ���u
��1 z����F .
� ' �' � ����� . } . .
F � . i '
n1 �# h ���'fi t t . . .
f � Y r �o'd.��,: .5
S . 1v h ��� - .
S
St� ;� �.r�.- -��t a �! , �
�'� � �� �� � � . �
, 3 �Y � r � � _.2 .
�, �i ',�'i u7 .,y� f , . ..
�--' �z"3�a�,x . .. � . . .
x� h5
.y�g �� ��e . . .. . .
F 3 fYi
4d f
� �-�. . . . . _ .
;i
�
4.e �
� � �: . . . , � .
F. � y : . � . . � .
^ a �� �$. ._
f �
t 5 �3:c
� #c
[3��
t 4t��
3 �}3� . . �.� .
it>g . .. . . � .
i �z
� �
� �'.�� � . . .
. 3 3>>�'t _ . ...�
�
�
:.'}
�
j r -
� _ �, '
1 �
�
,
� , ,. : is , r�
�
s�� >, �
-,Y �.�
�s; _a
n • � ,�� �
� ��e
��
:, � '=^a � ;f1� o1sE �
�. �.� �
� �' r�%y
�� � '� ��l<�
� { �.��' � `?� .'
*:�,t, ._�`.,� y�i%j, .
4 �i �✓ i:f,-
e'� ° � �! J - `�(i''�7r�� ;�
dF' f .
;��f � �
r)°'PU :
��S£
� �f
; �?:.^.^u i
x✓ P.
. c , Fi�,'
.., � ,',, �� ":
' � � �5 ...�, � �
g *+ �<
�
�}j �
F 6 { p ' �ty } d
. E� t � v � ' f��
`
�� � � �/
}��� i^J
;r � �
s
; a °i
,�
1 �,'�
� '
y �
�3�; , .� _ . . . �,`�'�� .. . _
,;�
I
. .:�:�.� .fR k - � ..5 ' Sv..:_ ..�-.�:�...�
._ - � .
* ° ' .a.
�_ ��
. � .� . . ' ' � ..m�.....�.�n -� 'i� � �"��h��
i a�$� , %. ma �' a
::'-�-3 . . .._ f-C".-.
' � u � _
�� Y -W � ' ?j
.�¢'rT: . �(�'{-
� t�4
f i
y
� � �
�� �
. . ...... __....�... .� �:1. .
y.�.
`;■
r
>. s � ��� a�:s� d,
g' `4�.5:-t.1 r"�., y'�m„ ��'./,-{
�� { s ���� � �
m. rn '
,
4 i�
/ 4.:
`�,': w- ...r $ :
� �
X
' s ' � �� �" i�.:��
' �, a �..�'�
i , v
:s-."`��h...w".�,.;°�:^ . ,
� ���� �
�' �� `
h � ���
� � €"�r,"n
�,�"���ar�" �' �
� ��� '
' s
���� �
a�; �� ��k � ?t
fi�C�''�W .k` .
�,..kA .. Y ,,. 1 �, .
A � L�a-3�� .
k `� 3 i
(`i���� _:..t'�.a�s.wY �
L�.
.fS�rw 4
• ytA3 ... ` .�".�.%
� -°.,�`�-
,�,.,
� � ;
-. - _ v , 3 � , - _... _..
� :*�� � � � � j � -�
r ����� ,
� ,:� �
�' �� - —_ -- — —�_ _ , ;
^�-- , ,f
,
� i _
�
! lf
: � .. � . -�� f �
f
��1 ... .. � � �� ������$ �(�,
I
� 1<- F
r.�,
{� - F �x j '� � � j
� � � � �rtr , � ,
`�� E `t , ;._l l ° I ' ` 3 .-� p t ; � °
f - f t
_t t � � :1
S � � u�
: ;�.. �3 _ �°�?` .
_ �. ` i .. Y4 :
z
`j i --� i '���ah,��.
i 4
�
�'� � <� ;
1 } � . �--� `� � �
s �� ---� 4
_ �`^- �
��, s �4.�..'o � " _ _
�� � F � : . ' b� �
� .'
. ... . � � ` .. . .. k; .-` ..
� - ,, �� i��� . :, ..,,. tii '�i -' .
_ s N^
_ ' 't 3 i...l .. � . ..�, t.: �. .. 4
��� �} v
t
Y � X ; �
. ��` � ! . �� f j. :
' :
y Rl .. �� � '.
�r.
3 t � �' � � - s � �
�.--� �
. _ �'"'� ._ l 4 _ ": : � . .
�'
_; , a .
4 �i� . . . - : . �.
� ; t 1 � r . i � { " � � ,.^" / _ � � �'
` �� 1 .. . ,.�! . " :. �
. _.,.�... . , , ,.� ` ' �
� t �-� G � '�
. z �` v _ �; t _�
�_ 1 � V � ' _ � f :.
1 �
� -�
� c
. � � � ' � . . '.
� � F
- ! :j �- � i �1 . � .. � � . r �
t
- . y !� r � : : y # ,_ .. !
.. .� . i ' f y. . `+.'�: .
!
� t
� j.� {�-''.. . ry�r i
'�A "
t
. . � � t- 1 � � 4
' 3 . ' -�� 4.�'°
j L t' � 8� `�: . t ✓.�
J s z �
. e.� ; , ), j� i � ' �.�
.�-,.F� � r�5 5 c � r g
�l 1 ,c ���t ! ; � e S _ �� �� ,
� 1 : S �. ' t �f . � -�',`-�, � �
� t��i� '� � ' . `�� �� � :
1 � �
4 .�,� L.cf,v�+ °. .:
. . . - � - .C� S` �'
.. � 3` °. ' . �3 :
�
� . i l}� . . .�- -..
� - .��Y. �z � . k ° �' ,�.
_ 4 v. .:
� � � ��� } . � _ . � � �:
. � . �', . . c,, ,�.
a �
� � � � I��� c �. . ~ �` .i:�
h �rr�.� �
r �. �
� 1 �' . v �4 � ^.� �aY'+ ' l .
� a� � j �ugS^ f t �� 't'�3' �'"} . �� S
J \ 4 �' .1..�..� �� �M� � a��'
_ �+ -�, ��RE�i.���i�^�r�� ,�'.
� .
�
�
e
��m�p��
�
� ` 'x
.�
�
�.
�
�.
�
�
�
�
�
�
t'�
F°'i
�
t-+•
�
A�
�
F--� •
O
h-+
�
�
�
�
F"i')
�
�
�:
�
�
�
A
�
/��i,
� .:
, �/
a
�
O
�
�
n
�
s
�
�
�. � �
�
_
v,!€�,
��� �.
,�
._ -�
�n�
Pi •
� �
£ O
� '
�� :
O �
' ta x , g
s, r
•� � � .� -�. �. j a �.
.... . �� :.�F�., aY
x, � . ""�..?
y b '.. ^�=s��i
$ � �^.; ��B _
3.. .. _.v� J M1�Jv, '
�:
_ = �y'
- - a��
�,_- `
�
{i - -
_�
y'
'r�� �'� G� ::
_ # h
.. . _' � y_. -._. .
rs �
�
�
:`J.� .
� _.
•
�
a y
z
n
n o
� �• c � c� c� �r
; � � � � �� �
;� � � � � � ;
`� � � � � � :
:�� �. ,�
�� � � �':
;. � r ' � �
'1 y �•
i � � � � � � ?
� � � �� � �
� � �= � � i
: � � � ;
5 � °
� � � � 3
1 � �
� *ev_vrmxm�ms.cm�n.m__...cyw ?naP.o.:-iv—ems'..ek
_a
��
c�
E�
o .,
a �
a �
, i. - �. �r c � o
e
�
"` ��-_ s. �e ..:
e. �
�
w
o �
r
� `
¢
Y� �
/ e �
i �
�
�o
�
w �
a
� �
� �
� �
� �
`�A �
� �+�
R�na
� /y ���
� Y �
Ni
�
��
N
W
�
�
�
� � tr •, ^ �
�
�
�
9
�
..,�
�,o
�
�
k
i�
o�-���
�
�J
_ � �-_
��
�a
y
3 {
� �
. O
q0
a
a
a
z
� D�
OA�CINB 8Ei
�" F a i � S ' I �I � 1�y� niwitoas I BUILDMG 7YPE I �
I� I�: F�q� �mr ron �murarc PLAIJ
e u Rcr�r�a 9�8
V
�
C�
C�
.
�� �
N
� O
'A
i �
•C
_ Z
4 -1
5
9
m
O
�
O
O
Y
➢
�
N
�>
e%
.
a
� �
) n
I Z
or
2G �y
�� n0
n \ Z� .
m
A
O
�
W
4
MO
A
< m
� C
_Z
$
p,�: YRICIXB 8
a� a g ' I� v 1/4' SCALE
o a " a (! I y' � l � wronoos ( UNIT PLANS
� =I � gg� _ ," �,o�e.�,,.,� a
�
�i �-�� ^ ,
� ��
m Q �
N .�.
� O �
O j
' o m
m. 3 �
�3d
� o�.
o =^.
3 c m
m m
� � o
m
m M
'm m
m' n
m =
m ��
m m O
0
m m
a m
m �
S �
M
V
pa0
. _. 3
p a �
gm�
�ac
o � �
��n
y o
�
� m
eZ �
0
3F3
m ��'
3
c e �.
,� nm'
c
mmn
' c
n a
m n
�_
o a
6 C
0 m
� m
n
a
��
o �
m ^_
m
.� a
0
S �
mm
� m
o �
3 �
� m
� m
�N
? n
< a
� ° o
f
��3
mm
d ' a �
� O �
> > m
3"�
p. a
m °
m
0 n
0
�
�
cm�
m O O
s '�
5 '�� m �e
�� E
c �
^�'m
n
v �
0 � N
a � A �
m ? T p
go a
7�m0
ID j N N
20 �m
m O N
N d
0
OEm
p � o
3
Zw
n a ^_ o
Z�o
� �'
�
v
ym=a
j O m ^ 9
m �
m
m'agm
3 � 3 �
�c� m
0
< m
w
a� n
� a m ^
a3�-m
m � q y
1 0
m 2
3 m � c
y �m
0
m
So 0
m �m' °'
y�.a.. 3 m
� �o
m c
�
N
0
N
�n
'
3 �a�
0 .� Q m
m m m° 2
Q m y ^
Q ]] m
So�o
ne��
i
m A q �
b��m
f0 j
�
s
0
C y
� m �
5t o �
n m'�
Q
q�=
��n
C' o '°
a�
� �
�
r �
� v
�
� �m
d N T O y�'
�m3
mmo.�
� w 'm ¢
m E
� m
� �
a
�
a
3
�
b
O
0
�
� '
�
L�-�9:�
�
� r
V�
�
F "'�
� •
�
�
h� •
��
�
�+
�
�
F"�i
�
1"� �
�
�
O
� f
C
�.
V
�
�
�
� u
r
r
VJ
�
O
O
�
�•
�
�
O
�
�
\ f
O
�
r / � � �
� •
�
I '
O
�
F"d •
�
�
N •
r r^ f
v`
�
•
� �
�
0�—���.
��
c�•
a�
�
�
0
�
�
�
.,..,
�
0
0
�
�
� �, �
�o
o�
N �� ��
� � aA ° �, o �
p�y � ,� � 4� ^ G �
. � � r�—' ,�, �M.• N �
� � '�
Q� 3 � O �' � rd
, � -� .� ,� �, � �
,—�i Q �° � o � � "" �
CC3 � � � ¢' � .s� .� � �
`J � � � X � ~ �
iri 4--, o a.> >, .,.,, s� �
c�
w � .� bA � � , v� ,� bA
� � � �'' ' � �' Q..i ,—�� � �
�"'� . �. � .� "�� . �Q � � U �
� � � � � � � � �.
�
•
�
_ �
�l�
�
0
�•
�
c � • •.�
a� �
� �
�
0 0
� �
b,A �
� �
. �.,.� N
� ¢�
� -�
� �
CC� �
O
CC3 �
�
C� '�
� �
.�
��-1 �
.� �
� �
� �
�
C11 �
H w
Ob-G��
�
'" � '� �
z� � �� � � � � °' � o
� -� � °� � � � o � �' �
� � � � � � � �� � �
� � � �, a� o
� `� `' V � � �
.-. � � � -� � •�
,.� ...
� x ti 3 � � �
,-, ? O O O
l� � '� � 'n � �
� � �� `}" p .� �
�
U
-�". � � +�-' � O �
o � � o � o �
U a' � �, � «3 ��.,
� � � � � � �
� � .� �
�
� � �
� � o �
., �
�' O � , � 4-r
.,
� V O b: O
� � � � 'i�
� � � � �
a.� .., ..�
` �� � o �
�-�i 4� O � r�i
�
�
C�
�
c�
�
N
� U • •
��
�
�
�
�
CC3
�
�
. r .. {
�
O
O
�
�
�
�
�
�
.�
O
�
.�.-�
�
.�
�
• ,--i
�
N
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
bIJ
.�
�
bJJ
.�
�
�
�) �
b11
�
..-,
�
� O
� �
� �
bA '�
, � v�
> ,�
r-, �
�
�° �
� �
a� �
•� � �
� ° �o �
.� o � '�
� ��
�
a�
� � �
�
0
M
�
O
.�
�
�
•
�
�
O
�
�
�
�
s
•� .
O r
�
�
� �
�
�
�
.,..
'�
�
�
'�
�
�
O
O
�
�
�
0
�
�
.�
�
�
�
�
.�
� � ,�
� .O
Q� U
� �
.-�
� �
• r-, .�.�
��
�
�
�
�
�
• `�
� �
C/�
�
. �
�
�
�
.H
�
�
�
�
O
�
�
. ,..�
S�
-�
O
O
�
�
h
�
�
�
�
�
. -�
�
�
�
�
bA
.�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
° o
0
�
�
.o
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� �
�
�
O
� ;v� � O
� � �
b1J � � �
,��o�
� � .;
o�;�
� � � �
o � �.�
� �
� � �� �
��'��
0 0 � �.'
� � ° o
' , �O ,.� .,�
� � � 3
�•�.��
aA � � �
e� �, • �
.� '� �
� b'° '� �
�
o •N � �
s. ,,� N 'a�
� � � o
o .a � �,
v�
. ,..,
�
,�
�
�
0
�
0
�
�
3
�
�
�
�
,o
�
�
0
U
o�-���.
��
�
.�
. �...�
.�
�
�
CC3
H
4�
C�
�
�
�
�
.
�
O
.
.�:
�
A
�
�
N
r�
.
�
�
�
�
�
�
GC$
�
C'�
�
C/�
•
�
0
't� �
� �
� O
�, • •-�
O •�
� �
� �
� �
� �
N �-'
� .�
� �
.,� �..�
� '._'
,� o
� '.:�
� �
� �
t�
� �
�
� �
� ��—''
� O
_ �
�.�i �
s
.
�^
�
�
�,
�
•,.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.�
O
�
�
� �°
N •� �
*��+ y O
� �-+ bA
N
� O ��
� ��
� �
v � o
�
ti � �
.,� � ,
� O �
O � „�
���
r� U �
� � �
�
�
�
�
U
�
�
�
�
�
'�
�
�
�
�
O
�
O
Ob-29i
�
�
�
�
. ,-,
'C�
�
�
.,.�.�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
M �
�^ � � � �
� ' � � '� .r.�
O ^
� � �
�
� O �
v � U
� � �
� .� U
O �"
� � �
.O
�
O
�
.�
U
4�
N �
� �
c� '�
� O
*�—' O
,� .�
� �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
. r ..�
r --�
.�
•'�
Q.�
�
�
.�
�
U
:�
�
��
v 1
�
.�
�
0
.
�
�
v
�
3
.�
�
�
u
�
�
�
.�
�
0
.^.,
."''w
�
A
�
N
M
r'-�
�
r..�
�
�
C�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
� � �
� � CC3
�N �
M
•� O �
� � .�
�
� N
� �
•� �
� .O
U
't� �
� �
� �
� �
� �
a� �
,.� _
b!J �
� �
�
� .�
N
� �
� �
•
U
�
O
�
�
O
.�
O
�
0
C�
.�
�
.,..,
�
�
�
'�
�
�
O
�
�
�
a�
.�
ti
w
0
�
ti�
W
�
bA
�
N
.�
�v
�
�
�
�
�
�
a�
�� z-s ° o
� � � �
� � � �
,� � V ,►Z�'
� � ¢., O
� � O
�
� '� O O
Ob-29�
U�
CC$
r---�
U
0
�
�
�
.�
�
�
bA
.�
O
�
�
0
O
t-i
�
�'
U
�
.O
�
bA
�
'�
�
�
�
.,.
�
�
0
���
.�
�
�
r--i
O
.�
�
.;
�
�
•
biJ
�
� •�
� �
�
� � �
.� �
�
� � O
� � �
� � �
O �
� O �
O c� �
� � �
� � �
�/J h V1
� �
U
� � �
� �
� O .�,s,�'"
� ��
O
�
i�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.�
U
N
�
U
�
� �
� O
� O �
O `�'
� •� •�
� ,� O
O •� �
� � w
� � O
� � �
�
�
� � w
� �
• �
� `� �
.� ' � �
� � ��
� � '�
O �
� O b�''p '+1
� � � �
� V r-.� . O
N ��,,
'.� �-, p �
� � � �
� �
� �
� O
� �
� U
1.
O
bA
.�
�
�
'--a
O
.�
+.�
�
�
�
�
\�/
O
�
�
�
O
+v
�
° v
+�
.N
O
+v
�
�
O
�
�
0
O
O
.�
�
�
�
.�
U
O
�
.,..i
� �
�
C�
�
Y
C�
�
�
�
C�
-i--�
�
�
�
C�
�
r---�
✓
r1
�
�
�
C'C3
.w.i
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
.�
�
.�
'�
L/�
.
�
�
�
�
CC�
N
V /
.
�
�
�
m
�
r
� �'
�
�
O
b!J
�N
.�
��„d
u
U�°��s
b
�
�
�
3
�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
N
cd '�
�, .� �
� � �
� O �
O � ., 'z3
`+-+ b�A � p U
°� o � o
�
0 0
.�,
�
� N
�
� �
� �
� U
b�A lrj
'� O
� '. �
� U
� �
� �
3 �
O r � - � M
�I �
� i�i
� c�
U
��
o �
o �
.� � �
� �
� � �
v� CC3 .,�
U c� �
�' � O
�
� O �
� � �
� � v
.'� � � ^
.
� ti �
� � � �
,� O ' �..,
`4�
�� �
� •� � �
� �� �
�
�
�E
• • s
�t�, �I (
06-29�
District 6 Planninq Council
Saint Paul, MN 55117
651-488-4485
district6Ca�popp. net
February 15, 2006
To: Council President Kathy Lantry and City Council Members
From: District 6 Planning Council
RE: 2669 Territorial Road
The Land Use Task Force of the District 6 Planning Council met on January 25,
2006 and unanimously decided to support District 12 Planning Council's appeal
of the Board of Zoning Appeals finding that the property located at 2669
Territorial Road is an Apartment Building rather than a Rooming House.
The Zoning Administrator determined that this student orientated housing
development is a rooming house and is specifically listed as such in the zoning
code, Sec. 65.171 Rooming House subparagraph definition (3):
(3) Any building housing more than four (4) unrelated individuals which have any
of the following characteristics shall be considered and regulated as a rooming
house:
• A-Rental Arrangements are by rooming unit rather than dweiling unit.
Individual tenants sign separate leases for each rented room, rafher than
a lease for an apartment of multiple bedrooms. While each tenant is
granted a share in a shared kifchen and living area, the nafure of the
rental is clearly that of a room, sharing common living space with ofher
fenanfs. This is in fact a room �ental with the use of amenities.
. B-Rooming unit doors are equipped with outer door locks or chains which
require different keys to gain entrance. Each rented room has its own lock
for each tenant and an outer lock to access the shared living/kitchen area.
The norm for apartment buildings if secure is to have a key for fhe main
door as well as a key to a specific apartment, normally there is no key
needed for individual bedrooms.
• C-Kitchen facilities may be provided for joint or common use by occupants
of more than one (1) rooming unit. Tenants ofrented bedrooms by the
lease are granted an `undivided share' in a common kitchen. In practical
terms, this c/early constifutes kitchen facilities for common use.
. D-Rooming Units are equipped with telephones with exclusive numbers.
While not provided with a literal telephone, each room is provided with its
! � � _
own receptacle for separate telephone and cable service, meeting the
material intent of the definition.
We would at this point note that while we believe all four of the above conditions
hold true in defining the property as a rooming house, only one is required to
define the property as a rooming house. To be effectively labeled as an
apartment building, all four would have to be demonstrated false. It does not
appear that this was accomplished when the BZA voted to overturn the Zoning
Administrator's findings.
Furthermore, the ability for the owner to lease out a bedroom at will with no
required input from others clearly shows this to be rooming house. Through no
stretch of imagination would an apartment building owner be granted that much
leeway, but the owner of a rooming house, would be allowed to rent rooms as
they saw fit.
Therefore, District 6 asks that the City Council upholds the Zoning
Administrator's original findings and that of the Appeals Staff Report that this
development is a rooming house and is in no way an apartment building.
Thank-you for your consideration of this matter.
���
LEONARD
STREET
AND
DEINARD
February 15, 2006
VIA MESSFNGEA
St. Paul City Council
St. Paul City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
St. Paul, MN 55102
Ij0 SOUTIi FCFiH SiREET SUTTE 2j00
MINNEAPOLIS� MINNESOiA 55¢02
6 xa'335 - =5� M�"�
6 xzg35-s657 �
0 b-29�.
Eiuc H. Gac.nTz
612-;35-li09 Dtt�cr
ERIC.GALATZ a�LEONARD.COM
RE��
FF B 1
C��"�ci s ?pp6
< E
try �
Re: JPI Development 5ervices, L.P.—Jefferson at Berry Street Development
Zoning File No. OS-207033
Dear Councii Members:
We represent JPI Development Services, L.P. ("JPP'), the respondent to an appeal filed by the St.
Anthony Community Council ("S APCC"). SAPCC is appealing a decision by the St. Paul Board
of Zoning Appeals, which determined that JPPs proposed Jefferson at Berry Street Development
at 2669 Territorial Road, meets the definition of an apartrnent building ratlAer than a rooming
house. This appeal is listed as agenda item 41 for the Wednesday, February 15, 2006, meeting of
the St. Paul City Councii.
In addition to those materials contained in the staff report and our letter dafed Fehruary 1, 2006,
we thought you would find the enclosed site pians and "Jefferson at Berry Street FAQ SheeY'
helpful in answering any questions that you may have regarding this project. The underlying
question in the.appeal is whether Jefferson at Berry Street is a rooming house or an apartrnent
building. We are confident that after reviewing the materials the Councii will agree that the
Board of Zoning Appeals conectly determined Jefferson at Berry Street is an apartrnent building.
Very truly yours,
LE ARD, S T DEINt1RD
�–L;
ric H_ ala
EHG/lao
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Lance Aanna
2722264 3
LAW OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS� SAIN2 PAUL� MANRA20, SAINT CLOUD AND WASHINGTON� D.C. A PrOfPSSional ASSoGi¢pOa
W W W.LEONARD.COM
.�
N
�
�
4�
?
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
J �+"
v �'
� � �
�
a' � � '� Ci
�, . � � 04
O � � O �
� � o� �
w � � �
� � � � �
�, � ^
� � v � � �
� � � o 0
•� � � '� � �
� � � � � �
o `�- � � � � a
� � � a�o� �
c� � � � bq b�,p °
� � N
U
ry � U ° ° � W
a
_ � �� _
o �
o s'
_
m ,
. �'" �
'Yic � +� �7 �� -.
i
9
m j
_.- :> -
III 3dAl'JNIOlIO6
r �� ��
!
Y�:� ,
: # x.
�
{���.
��
ss�
�;�� �= _
�
� � � �
� � � � �
.� • � c.� • N �
� �
•� � ^ W
� ,� � � � �
� � � � � �
.N � � � � p
�
`'� ;� y � � �
ti � ti �" � > �
�Y �L � �'��
� � �
.�«�... ..�...�.�.�.��.�}
�
>
C
�� ��� �
F � ��i
_ �� �
n� § �
�§���
: ���
I d�� '
e � 3 3 �F� ��
B§�!£���p�E34
CL . a': G6=`z
N
m
z ..
J a Q
a
r
�
� P �e
� j
� 0 � � �
� . �
�
�
J /
. . . L! . � . . . '
;J j
r �
� �
S J
�
�� - ' �
�
.."�j
J
— — il' _I
�� i
I
a
� �
^ �E
I
� I
O, ��
H
Z
� '
N a a
m pl o
G�����`_
�
z
_
Q
N
� o
6 i ( � �
�
� � $ � W g � � i
�- ����;��<@> ��'� ���;,; 1
m ' ���$�� `i �_ ��� � �� ' I ; �
' ! I
i ¢
� � � G �
��j� �j I g �e Q
��� � a �
��[Lfi�� 1 . F�
GC jG�:�' = i
��–���
�
i
I J
� '
j
:7 �
J J
i
�.�j . , i' ,�'�ei
� < x�
�l �
��
- - -:�
'Jy
� �
H
Z
� VI �
Q
� s l �
� �� o
N
(' "
L ij'r
� � .
1u_'_
:J �
�a
�W
�Y..i__
v � ! �i �� �.-
i =�
� J
–_,
_� � — I
I
– J f �
J" . P �
S �
— r�
�! I
� ,' i
� x '<�s.�. .
J #
_ . � �� ��i. �
, , _ �' , . ..tisk�.� �4.�. `r
''� � i �
..1 \ 1
1 � I �y
J J
A-
I , . � ., . .
I . ... . ', J � � � . ,
i�
t
m
F' �� $ s i: s�ie E I I, ' I I i
/ ��?�€ ; �
$ � j.�� C�� a�^..y� IF� � �� �
� I�g�� �� = g � I �i �.
i � ■< �� � '� � .
� i�. :'; �,.
� _ .I ,
{. ''.
"se=,�
m I
R
0 p
Q 9 Q
a
r
�
Q� �
�
Z
�
m
�
0
�
6
E �
u Z-
�m
a
� ����€
=s
�g°
., R�af^�
W
)
; �sj � $ �I U' � Q
�E3�e��z�.�3 : O
:i� i�a3 m
(��°�'� a
_
�
a
a
rc
0
0
LL
N �e
LL
Q
E �
n
u
� „m
i
� 1�
$` l J
E : � .Y@A \��
- §�� 3�Y �
� $ ` il
$ �
A$-�€
■ s=»T_
� 53
p ���y�
N
I W
Y
i : � 1 Y ;§� , g }� , z � <
' I ��i�e3�€�€&§'_ °
� °°" m
a �° �� �
_
a
a
�
0
o �e LL �
�
¢
c
V �
�m
x �R�
s'��'�����
�-' �Y
'� ,I �3$x il
i ��a �
■ ' ��=� i I p
< g $��� �If
�,
�F a
Y
I �� } �� d I C7 � Q
s �_� F� I t z
a4s3
� � €i'9�e3��4,s'%�§'• o
*i " � : `'eo�.Z"o>c2 ='e'=: ..��
-�—
i�
N
I
i
I
in i
_� i
NI
I
i
I
��
z
a
a
0
o "
Y
��I
� qi
LL s�e
0 � � � � �
0�-2�"�
JEFFERSON AT BERRY STREET—FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What is Jefferson at Berrv Street?
Jefferson at Berry Street is a student-oriented multi-family housing project on a 4.27-acre
site at the northwest intersection of Territoriai Road and Berry Sireet, Saint Paul,
Minnesota, that is bein� developed by JPI Development Services, L.P. JPI is purchasing
the properiy from St_ Croix Partners, L.L.C., which is an affiliate of Hubbazd
Broadcasting. The density and unit mix for the proposed project will be similar to
University Commons (formerly Jefferson Commons) in Minneapolis, which was also
developed by JPI. 7efferson at Berry Street will have 150 aparhnents housing 552
residents at a density of 35.12 units per acre. Jefferson at Berry Street will consist of
four-story wood frame construction with 176 surface pazldng spaces and 49 detached
garages. Weis Consriuction will serve as the General Contractor as they did for
University Commons in Minneapolis. The apartments will be a combination of two and
four bedroom units, with an average occupancy of 3.68 residents per unit. The apartment
units are suites in which each tenant will lease an individual bedroom and an undivided
portion of the ldtchen and living room. Most apartment units will include a private bath
for each resident. Some four bedroom units will have two bathrooms to be shared
amongst the four tenants.
Who is JPI Development Services, Inc.?
JPI Development Services Inc., is a multiple-family residential developer and has built
over $4 billion worth of non-student-oriented communities spanning 26 states and over
$1 billion worth of student-oriented communities spanning 19 states. Within Minnesota,
JPI has built Jefferson at Plymouth (330 units built in 2002) and Jefferson Commons-
Minneapolis (164 units built in 2002). JPI provides two categories of communities
oriented towards either students or non-students, generally, but it never restricts its units
to anv renter tvpe. JPI builds its apartment communities to Iong-term institutional
inveshnent standazds estabiished by its equity partner, GE Capital, as well as the other
insritutional investors that it works with. JPI builds its communities with the intent of
managing and holding them as assets suitable for conservative long-term investors, such
as pension funds and real estate inveshnent trusts (REITs). In some cases, JPI will seil its
completed developments to investors with snnilar objecrives, as it did with University
Commons. JPI sold University Commons to Evergreen Development and the property is
now managed by Real Property Systems, a professional management group that operates
similar properties throughout the counhy. (See www.realpropert l+�e.com).
What is the history of the site where Jefferson at Berrv Street will be located?
The site is located between Territorial Road (south) and the University Transitway
(north) and the Minneapolis-St. Paul city line (west) and Berry Street (east) and totals
4.27 acres in size. This site is the former Schnitzer Metals facility, a formerly heavily
polluted Superfund site. St. Croix Partners, L.L.C., originally acquired the property for
t� �
development of offices and studios for iJnited States Sateilite Broadcasting in 1997 and
cleaned up the land to residential standards, in part with tax increment assistance from
the City of St. Paul. Subsequently, USSB was acquired in 1999 and St. Croix Pariners
did not proceed with its planned development.
In the seven yeazs that St. Crovc Pariners has been mazkering the property, the only
interested purchasers of the site have been residential developers. Despite its best
efforts, St. Croix Partners has been unable to sell the property since it went on the mazket
in 1999. Mazketing efforts include (1) assembling a team headed by real estate broker
GazfieId CIazk that inciuded market reseazchers, planners, architects, and appraisers to
identify potential uses and seek prospecrive purchasers for the site, (2) seeking proposals
to use the site for the University EnteTprise Laboratories, and (3) entering into a purchase
agreement under which McGough Development spent one year hying to develop interest
in the property for development of an office park. During that yeaz, McGough
Development invested about $250,000 in architectural plans, mazketing materials, and
seeldng tenants or purchasers for the proposed development, without success. Over the
years, St. Croix has had discussions with several local industrial, office and housin�
developers. The only parties that have shown interest in the properry, other than
McGough Development, have been residenrial developers.
What is the relationshiu between JPI and Hubbard Broadcastin�?
In April 2005, JPI entered into a purchase agreement with St. Croix Partners, L.L.C. (an
affiliate of Hubbazd Broadcasting), for purchase of the site with the intent to rezone and
develop the property for high-density residentiat use. Under the purchase agreement, JPI
has the right and obligation to proceed with the application far rezoning. Hubbard
Broadcasting owns and wiil continue to operate its television broadcasting business from
the property immediately south of the site. St. Croix Partners owns the property to the
west of the site in Minneapolis. St. Croix Partners intends to conshuct a pazking lot on
approximateIy one acre of that property, to replace the parking lot that is cunently
located on the site JPI intends to develop. JPI has the right to purchase the Minneapolis
portion of the St. Croix Pariners property at a later date and JPI intends to develop the
Minneapolis side of this property with a similar student-oriented residential development.
St Croix Partners also owns (and will continue to own) the southern half of the vacated
right-of-way of Territorial Road and will provide JPI with easements for access to the site
over that portion of vacated Territorial Road.
Why should this site be used for student-oriented housing? This site should be used
for student-oriented housing because: (a) there is a strong market demand for this type of
housing; (b} student-oriented housing is the highest and best use of this formerly polluted
land that has been remediated to residential standards; (c) this site is lazge enough to
accommodate the proposed density; (d) this site is located neaz University Avenue transit,
the University of Minnesota Transitway bicycle path, and existing and planned retail
development along University Avenue.
0 b� �� �
• To meet a strong market demaxd for higher-quality, professionally
managed student-oriented housing. JPI's market research has
determined that there is an average occupancy rate of 98% for rental
properties within ttus trade azea This indicates that housing conditions
are not in equilibrium. The University of Minnesota—Twin Cities
campus continues to attract disproportionately favorable enroliment
demand: over the past decade, freshman applications to the Twin Cities
campus increased by more than 70 percent while the number of high
school �raduates in Minnesota increased by only 20 percent. Yet only
6,400 students live in University-owned or University-leased housing
(13% of totai enrollment, 22% of undergraduates). No new dormitories
aze planned for the Twin Ciries Campus. JPI has targeted the remaining
colleges in St. Paul to mazket to customers for the proposed development,
including St. Thomas University, which is 2.4 miles away from the site
(approx. 3,200 students residing off-campus), Macalester University,
which is 3 miles away from the site (approx. 400 students residing off-
campus), and Hamline University.
A research paper issued by University IINITED in December 2001, titled
"Student Housing Options in the Midwa}�' corroborates JPPs
identification of an underserved student popularion in St. Paul:
"The student housing shortage in the Twin Cities makes it more diff cult
for students to attain a high quality residential experience in close
praximity to campus at an affordable price. As students become less able
to find housing near campus, they tum to locations that are distant from
their college - often less desirable locations. The current housing shorfage
has Zed to a general increase in the cost of all housing, including off-
campus rental housing. This, in tum, increases the likelihood of
overcrowding as students try to keep down their housing costs by bringing
in addifional roommates. "
• The site is ideal for transit- and pedestrian-oriented development for
students of the University of Minnesota and the several private co[leges
within St Paul's University Avenue Corridor. JPI identified the site as
an attractive site for mid- to high-density (40 units per acre) student-
oriented residential development because (1) it is located midway between
the Minneapolis and St. Paul campuses of the University of Minnesota,
adjacent to the University of Minnesota Transitway, which provides off-
street pedeshian and bicycle access to those campuses, (2) it is one block
north of the University Avenue transit corridor, which currently has
excellent bus service to the University of MinnesoTa, Hamline University,
Macalester Coilege, St. Thomas University, both downtowns, and
everything in between, and (3) the transit choices wili be further improved
by light-rail transit in the near future. The location along the University of
���
o b _ �. �.: x.
Minnesota Transiiway also holds out the possibility of express transit
service to both University of Minnesota campuses.
• The site is surrounded by historica[ residential development and recent
residential redevelopment JPI was also attracted to the site by the
existing residential development azound the site, including the successful
residential redevelopment of environmentally contaminated industrial land
two blocks south (below University Avenue), sandwiched between Trunk
Highway 280 and the Minneapolis/St. Paul city line. The $43 million 808
Berry Place Apartments (2671uxury rental units) and $49 million Emerald
Gazdens Condominiums (212 condos selling for between $200,000 and
$419,000 each) reside atop previously polluted industrial land and stili
reside adjacent to active industrial users. Both properties are located 2
blocks south of the site. One block south of the site, the 67-unit Mefro
Lofts Condomuuuxns at University Avenue and Berry Street are selling
between $166,000 and $254,000 each; 40% of its unit types are sold out
and the project is still under construction. On the Minneapolis side of the
border, the site is adjacent to a small enclave of historicai single family
homes, 1960's vintage three story walk-ups, and recently constructed
townhomes in an isolated portion of the Prospect Park neighborhood. The
City of Minneapolis has protected this enclave by closing off 4th Street
(the Minneapolis extension of Territoria7 Road) at Malcolm Avenue and
thereby closing off an otherwise convenient route for commercial vehicles
to and through the site. JPI's proposed residential development on the site
will enlazge and reinforce this otherwise isolated residential azea.
• The redevelopment of this site will provide an economic benefit to the
City of St Paul while encouraging brownfield reuse. This development
opportunity provides economic benefit to the City from currently under-
utilized land. The 552 new residents will provide new demand for the
desired vibrant retail development along the University Avenue corridor
("retail follows rooftops"). The property's undeveloped state currently
yields approximately $30,000 in property tax revenue; JPI's proposed
multifamily development would yield approximately $450,000 in annual
property tax revenue. Residential redevelopment of this site will provide a
logical northwazd extension of the successful residential redevelopment of
the land due south of the site (808 Berry Place, Emerald Gazdens, and
Metro I,ofts).
Whv shouldn't this site be used for industrial purposes?
• The market does not support an industrial use. Although the site has
been idenrified for light indushial and biotech reseazch facilities, the seven
(7) years that the current owner has marketed this property for an
industrial use bears out the fact that there is no current demand—and no
demand for the foreseeabie future—for industrial facilities or a biotech use
:�
Qb-2� �
on this site. The St. Anthony Pazk—Dish 12 Community Plan
recognizes tYris mazket reality:
� "A large amount of industrial space is currently vacant.
With the decline of manufachiring, and the large supply of
industrial land in the area, one could expect future declines
in [the demand for] industrial land [and] values. The
development of new market rate town homes or other
higher density housing, such as loft apartments, provides
an oppoKunity for building higher land values and tax
base in the area."
• Lack ofAccess for Industrial Users, which could lead to an ezpansion of
the Pierce Butler Route. If the site was used for an industrial use, there is
currently no infrash�ucture that would support industrial or commercial
traffic to and from the site from anvwhere. An indusfrial use could lead
to the expansion of the Pierce Butler Route. Residents of St. Anthony
Park have been clear that they do not want an expansion of the Pierce
Butler Route and possible connection to Granary Pazkway in Minneapolis.
This is a necessary and likely outcome if this azea is continued to be
guided for an industrial use. By contrast, Jefferson at Berry Street in and
of itself will not require such an expansion.
• The University of Minnesota Transitrvay. The University of Minnesota
transitway separates the site from all of the now vacated land to the north,
which is guided for industrial and reseazch facility uses.
What are the architectural features of Jefferson at Berrv Street?
Jefferson at Berry Street will be safe, convenient, visually attractive and pedestrian
friendly. It will be arranged in two open couriyard schemes with an additional building
facing the University of Minnesota Transitway. The exterior design scheme of the
proposed improvements bonows from the "Craftsman" style of architecture, using
exposed brackets and extensive detailing of columns and connections. The exterior of the
four-story buildings will be primarily siding, panelized to express a subtle vertical nature,
but also shatified horizontally with trim and differing siding exposure and colors. The
roof will be a"weathered wood" azchitectural composition shingle. The balconies and
patios will be delineated on the elevarion with opposing gables intersecting the hip roof
conditions. Public entry points and vertical circulation will be identified by towers
capped by bracketed hip roofs. The site includes I 10 secured indoor bike racks as well as
outdoor bike racks. JPI has made several changes to the architectural features of the
project based upon input that it has received from city staff and neighbors and will
continue to work with the city staff and neighbors on site design.
�b-��' �
What are the transit choices for residents of Jefferson at Berry Street?
The transit choices for residents of Jefferson at Berry Street will include (a) public
transportation via the University Avenue bus lines, (b) bike paths and pedestrian
wallcways down the University of Minnesota Transitway, (c) vehicular, and (d) light-rail
transit in the future.
What are the phvsical eonstraints to developing this propertV?
• Front Yard Setback. Because the site has as its only frontage half of the
width of vacated Territorial Avenue (33 feet), JPI cannot place a building
within 25 feet of the front property line.
• Front Entrance Design and Parking. The narrow north-south orientation
of the site, and the nature of the adjoining uses, precludes placing all of the
pazking at the rear (west side) of the site. Because the total lot frontage is
only 33 feet wide, JPI cannot piace its enhy drives within 30 percent of
the total lot frontage. Even with the full 66 foot width of vacated
Territorial, 30 percent of the lot frontage would be less than 20 feet. In
order to provide vehicular access to the site at all, 7PI is required to obtain
an easement over the south half of vacated Temtorial Road from St. Croix
Partners, L.L.C. Even with the full 66 foot width of vacated Temtorial, 30
percent of the lot frontage would be less than 20 feet, wluch would not be
sufficient for two-way vehicular and pedestrian access.
• Configuration of Site; Adjacent Properties. The site effectively has four
"rear yards" with no front or side yazds. The south and east boundaries
abut neighboring rear yards, which are surface parking/loading spaces.
The north boundary is a non-public transit right-of-way controlled by the
University of Minnesota. The west yazd is the only technical rear yard
because it is opposite the entry to the site.
• Parking Placement. The site configurarion and
parking and the nature of the adjoining property
parking as the only feasible alternative available.
cost of underground
uses render side yard
WhV did JPI desian Jefferson at Berrv Street the waV that it did? The layout and
design of the project is tailored to the unique characteristics of the site.
Will the Jefferson at Berrv Street Development have enoueh parking? Yes. The
Jefferson at Berry Street Development will haue 225 total pazlang spaces, of which 176
will be surface pazking stalls and 49 will be detached garage spaces, yielding an overali
parking ratio of 1.5 pazking stalls per apartment unit and 1 pazking stall for every 2.5
bedrooms or anticipated resident. This translates to a pazking ratio of 41 %(pazking stalls
to residents).
�
��°��'
JPI is confident that the pazking it proposes to provide at Jefferson at Berry Street will
satisfy the demand for parking for several reasons: (a) JPI is providing more pazking than
is required by the Saint Paul Legislative Code, (b) 7PPs traffic and transportation
consultant, Biko Associates, has prepazed a Traffic Impact Analysis, which indicates that
225 totai pazking spaces is more than sufficient for the 150 apartment units, (c) in JPPs
experience as a student-housing developer, including a student housing development
located in Minneapolis, 1_5 parking stalls per apartment unit is more than sufficient to
meet the resident demands, and (d) flus is a Transit-Oriented Development, which will
reduce reliance on automobiles and the demand for parking.
What amenities will be provided to the residents of Jefferson at BerrV Street?
Ameniries will be oriented toward the preferences of the student resident for this location.
Common area amenities will include a leasing center and clubhouse with computer lab,
fitness center, game room, and a secured spa area Unit amenities will include full
fiuniture packages, fuli kitchens, in-unit washers and dryers, free cable and high-speed
intemet access, free gas heat and water, and free electricity up to the first $15 per
resident.
Does the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan support residential development on this
site? Yes. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan
for the following reasons:
• Land Use Plan Policy 5.4.4 offers guidelines for new housing stating:
"Housing sites along major h�ansportation corridors and neaz commercial
centers should meet the mazket demand for townhouses, condominiums,
and apartments."
• Policy 5.5.2 states: "The City will encourage more housing and jobs to
locate along high-service bus routes. ... This site is near two
transportarion comdors: University Avenue and the University of
Minnesota transitway. This site is within the University Avenue Corridor.
• Policy 63.2 states: "New urUan housing, offices, retail, and industrial
development should all contribute through density and site design to the
ridership base for public transportation on the University Avenue and I-94
bus routes ...." Rezoning this property to TN3 is consistent with this
policy.
• Housing Plan Policy 5.1 encourages "the production of 300-400 housing
units a year than can be sold or rented to smaller households...on sites
throughout the city."
• Policy 5.4 encourages "a diversity of building and unit types to meet the
diversity of the mazket."
��m���
12. Is the Jefferson at Berrv Street Development consistent with the St Anthonv
Park—District 12 Communitv Plan? Yes, for many reasons, including the
foliowing:
• Vision. The "Vision" statement for SAPCC provides that "St. Anthony
Park seeks substanriai land use change in the existing industriai area to
support more intensive use of the land and an increased tas base." This is
exactly what Jefferson at Berry Street Development provides—a more
intensive residential use next to a transit corridor, that will significantly
increase the tax base.
• Transportafion Choices. SAPCC wants to use land redevelopment
opportunities to integrate and balance a wide variety of transportation
choices by emphasizing safe, convenient and visually attractive walking,
bildng, driving and transit choices in circulation systems and pattems.
Again, Jefferson at Berry Street supports these transportation choices by
giving its residents safe, convenient and visually attractive walking,
biking, driving, bus and future light-rail transportation choices.
• Long-term Sustainable Development. The Jefferson at Berry Sh
Development supports SAPCC's desire for long-term sustainable
development because it provides a housing type that is in strong demand
by students of the University of Minnesota, University of Saint Thomas,
Augsburg College, Hamline University and other post-secondary
institutions that have been—and wiil continue to be—institutions of tugher
learning for generations to come.
• Range of Housine Choiees. The Jefferson at Berry Street Development
supports SAPCC's desire to increase the range of housing types and
affordability within Dishict 12 by providing student-oriented residential
housing that is built to a high quality and professionally managed and
maintained.
• Economic Vitality. The Jefferson at Berry Street Development supports
SAPCC's desire to promote the economic vitality of the University
Avenue comdor. As stated in the Community Plan, "significant recent
and ongoing investment in new housing is likely to suppoK future
investment in consumer-oriented commercial services." The Jefferson at
Berry Street Development will support future retail inveshnent along
University Avenue.
What land use approvals are required to build Jefferson at Berry Street? In order to
develop Jefferson at Berry Street, JPI must obtain the following land use approvals from
the City of Saint Paul:
x
� � � � � �
• Rezoning_ The site must be rezoned from I-1 (light industrial) to TN-3
(Traditional Neighborhood). The Saint Paul Zoning staff have
recommended that the Site be rezoned.
• Yariances. Variances of TN3 standards are required for front yard
setback (25 feet to 110 feet), pazking location and entrance desigi, and
building height (45 Feet to 46.5 feet for the north building).
• Site Plan approval. The Saint Paul Zoning staff have recommend
approval of the revised site plan.
How will Jefferson at Berrv Street posifively impact the propertv tax base?
The current property taac revenue for the site toTals approximately $30,000 annually.
Jefferson at Berry Street will add approximately $33 million in value to the site and yield
approximately $450,000 in annual property tax revenue to the site—a net gain of over
$400,000 annually.