Seven meeting of the St.

Paul Planning Commission.

Our first order of business is approval of the minutes from January 10th, 2025.

Do you have a motion?

So moved by Commissioner Thomas.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Brisburg.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, uh, we'll now vote.

All those in favor.

Hi.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

Staining as I wasn't present.

All right.

Uh, Commissioner Starling is abstaining.

Uh all right, those minutes pass.

Um, and we're gonna move on quickly um through announcements.

Um, none from me today, uh, Commissioner, uh director, uh, and none for the director.

With that, we're going to move quickly to the zoning committee.

Uh Commissioner Tag, thank you.

So we have three items on the agenda today.

Um, but first, let's see which is the first one the uh 435.

Is that something for first?

Yes, no.

First one of these is um 435 university C UP.

That is a conditional use permits to expand an emergency housing facility from 138 beds to 110 beds.

Um, this was approved at committee.

Um I have some thoughts on this one, but um others are welcome to like.

All right, um, so we have a motion coming out of committee.

Um, is there any discussion on this particular motion for a 435 university?

Yeah, I have something.

So on this one, I mean I I struggled with this before committee.

Um, and I also reached out to staff to try and see if there was a better answer or the comment question.

Essentially, um 65154 of the donning code establishes various standards.

These buildings have cap to meet.

Um one of those is that in this district, um, a facility must serve 16 or fewer residents.

And um obviously this doesn't meet that um because it's the request is for 210, I believe, um, instead of 16.

And so um the set off report accepts that this is not true and uh or it's not met, and therefore um looks at modification.

Um and mod the modification standard, we have to we can modify these conditions if we find that strict application would unreasonably limit or not otherwise lawful use and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner.

Um, and also that the modification count impair the intent and purpose of the special condition in the first place.

And I'm finding it really tough to find that um exceptional and new hardship.

Um the staff report says that there's undue hardship because um the applicant would be forced to relocate or build a new facility.

Um I asked staff at the um at zoning committee whether whether if we denied the CUP, they would be forced to close.

And they said no, they can keep operating with 138.

This this facility predates the 16 requirement.

They they would be operating at 138, they just couldn't expand 210.

Um so I found it hard to square that with a with a with a required finding of exceptional undue hardship.

Um the second thing I found difficult was um the idea that um the the a modification from 16 to 210 would still stay within the intent and purpose of that original restriction.

Um we heard testimony from staff that um it was supposed to the the point of that restriction was to avoid creating an institutional setting.

Um the reason we have 16 is we don't want that those those um facilities to feel like institutions and the staff reports the logic was well, it's already an institutional setting.

Um and I I thought about that, but to me that that sort of by taking a facility from 138 to 210, we we are we are if anything deepening or perpetuating a more institutional setting, it it seems to be taking us even further away from the intent on the code, even if you're looking at kind of a relative thing, but I don't know if we're required to do that.

I think even looking going from six the 16 allows 210 clearly makes an institutional setting.

So I found it really difficult to square the rationale in the staff report with those two required findings that we're supposed to make.

So um I'll be voting against this today, but um but yeah, it's it's up to everybody else.

Uh Commissioner Rad.

Oh I can appreciate Commissioner Tag's thought process.

However, just because we have a process or a rule doesn't mean it's fair or accurate.