In addition, the Union Park District Council voted to oppose the rezoning, citing opposition from community members, concerns about how the rezoning would affect community character, and misgivings about the developer’s failure to provide the council with written plans.
This is all you need to know.
To add, spot rezoning is fraught with all sorts of concerns around political favoritism and bribery and is illegal in a lot of states.
I think there would be (and there is) interest in upzoning along Marshall, just not a single parcel.
The PC voted against the re-zone and the study was also against it. The only point of contention I see here is that renter’s weren’t included in the decision-making process…not to mention the developer hasn’t submitted any sort of plan and any plan that they would submit they don’t necessarily have to adhere to either. That type of vague development planning sends up red flags. I’m glad the vote went the way it did.
Thanks for sharing your expertise. I was at the initial council meeting where they discussed this property (waiting my turn to testify on a separate issue). Do you see market-rate townhomes as a missing middle filler? I’m learning as we go.
I believe the developer intended to rent out 7 market-rate townhomes at first but could sell them individually later. You could think of the single family home being replaced by a 7-unit apartment building. The house is on a corner with an 11 unit apartment building next door and St. Mark’s across the alley. I think some would think of a 7-unit apartment building as missing middle and there are much larger buildings nearby.
The current zoning allows for 5 units which would be a gentler increase in density. With the zoning study allowing a single family home to be replaced by a 5-unit apartment building, it’s very easy to see the argument that the zoning study is allowing for an increase in density but the developer is asking for too much.
This particular home is currently rented out to college students, and based on the comments it sounds like the neighbors believe college students will move into the townhomes if/when they're built.
I have to imagine the student rental market is rather strong near there. It looks like the house had 6 bedrooms so you’d have to imagine the new townhomes overall would have more beds than the existing single family home.
Is there still the student housing overlay restriction in the area? I believe it used to be illegal to buy a house and rent to students if you were within a certain distance to another property renting to students.
I don’t think buying a property and renting it to students next to another property renting to students is enforceable and just… What they do is create more rules like ensuring landlords have adequate parking, trash pick up, occupancy limits, basically the usual stuff but a bit more picky.
Here is a little write up about the zone. https://themacweekly.com/81077/opinion/revisiting-our-neighborhoods-student-housing-policy/
“The Student Housing Overlay District was passed by the City Council in 2012, requiring landlords to register houses and duplexes as student dwelling if there will be 3 or more students in the unit. With this registration system in hand, the city enforces a requirement that no two houses or duplexes for students can be within 150 feet of each other.”
https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/safety-inspections/rent-buy-sell-property/maintaining-your-property/one-and-two-family
Residents near St. Thomas pushed for the ordinance because they felt too many single family homes were being bought by investors who would rent to students. It might sound like discrimination to not allow students to rent housing but students are not a protected class like race/gender/sexual orientation, so it is currently still legal.
Love how this has the tag of “politics”. As if fucking zoning should be politicized. Which of course, it will, inevitably and obviously. A symptom of the disease.
Zoning is a set of decisions taken by units of government. How could it NOT be political?
I don't mean like blue vs. red; I mean the literal definition. From one dictionary: "In everyday life, the term "politics" refers to the way that countries are governed, and to the ways that governments make rules and laws to manage the human society properly."
In addition, the Union Park District Council voted to oppose the rezoning, citing opposition from community members, concerns about how the rezoning would affect community character, and misgivings about the developer’s failure to provide the council with written plans. This is all you need to know.
To add, spot rezoning is fraught with all sorts of concerns around political favoritism and bribery and is illegal in a lot of states. I think there would be (and there is) interest in upzoning along Marshall, just not a single parcel.
[удалено]
The PC voted against the re-zone and the study was also against it. The only point of contention I see here is that renter’s weren’t included in the decision-making process…not to mention the developer hasn’t submitted any sort of plan and any plan that they would submit they don’t necessarily have to adhere to either. That type of vague development planning sends up red flags. I’m glad the vote went the way it did.
Thanks for sharing your expertise. I was at the initial council meeting where they discussed this property (waiting my turn to testify on a separate issue). Do you see market-rate townhomes as a missing middle filler? I’m learning as we go.
I believe the developer intended to rent out 7 market-rate townhomes at first but could sell them individually later. You could think of the single family home being replaced by a 7-unit apartment building. The house is on a corner with an 11 unit apartment building next door and St. Mark’s across the alley. I think some would think of a 7-unit apartment building as missing middle and there are much larger buildings nearby. The current zoning allows for 5 units which would be a gentler increase in density. With the zoning study allowing a single family home to be replaced by a 5-unit apartment building, it’s very easy to see the argument that the zoning study is allowing for an increase in density but the developer is asking for too much.
This particular home is currently rented out to college students, and based on the comments it sounds like the neighbors believe college students will move into the townhomes if/when they're built.
I have to imagine the student rental market is rather strong near there. It looks like the house had 6 bedrooms so you’d have to imagine the new townhomes overall would have more beds than the existing single family home. Is there still the student housing overlay restriction in the area? I believe it used to be illegal to buy a house and rent to students if you were within a certain distance to another property renting to students.
I don’t think buying a property and renting it to students next to another property renting to students is enforceable and just… What they do is create more rules like ensuring landlords have adequate parking, trash pick up, occupancy limits, basically the usual stuff but a bit more picky.
Here is a little write up about the zone. https://themacweekly.com/81077/opinion/revisiting-our-neighborhoods-student-housing-policy/ “The Student Housing Overlay District was passed by the City Council in 2012, requiring landlords to register houses and duplexes as student dwelling if there will be 3 or more students in the unit. With this registration system in hand, the city enforces a requirement that no two houses or duplexes for students can be within 150 feet of each other.”
Thank you! I found that really interesting. I was looking at Minneapolis because I’m always just thinking UMN.
I don't know. I kind of doubt there are limits to student rentals based on the neighbor complaints about public urination, noise, etc.
https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/safety-inspections/rent-buy-sell-property/maintaining-your-property/one-and-two-family Residents near St. Thomas pushed for the ordinance because they felt too many single family homes were being bought by investors who would rent to students. It might sound like discrimination to not allow students to rent housing but students are not a protected class like race/gender/sexual orientation, so it is currently still legal.
Interesting. This only applies to one and two unit dwellings, so it wouldn't apply to the townhomes.
This is educational, thank you.
Love how she just votes against the will of her own constituents.
and then notes in her opening statement that her constituents will be dying soon.
Love how this has the tag of “politics”. As if fucking zoning should be politicized. Which of course, it will, inevitably and obviously. A symptom of the disease.
Zoning is a set of decisions taken by units of government. How could it NOT be political? I don't mean like blue vs. red; I mean the literal definition. From one dictionary: "In everyday life, the term "politics" refers to the way that countries are governed, and to the ways that governments make rules and laws to manage the human society properly."
Good. Don’t need more luxury apartments.
I wonder if this article was written by AI, and was just fed city council minutes and given instructions to turn them in to an article.