St. Paul Planning Commission Meeting - August 22, 2025 (Note: Agenda indicates September 5, 2025) ## Summary The meeting covered approval of prior minutes, a rezoning item laid over for further review, and two major zoning studies: the Congregate Living Zoning Study and the Traditional Neighborhood District (T) Zoning Study. ### Approval of Minutes - The minutes from the August 22, 2025 meeting were approved by a voice vote with no discussion. ### Chair’s Announcements - Chair announced she will be absent for the next meeting and will arrange coverage. ### Planning Director’s Announcements - Director Newton’s last day with PED was noted; Melanie McNann will serve as interim director. ### Zoning Committee: 1059 Maryland Rezoning - **Item**: Rezone 1059 Maryland Ave from B2 (community business) to T2 (traditional neighborhood). The HRA applied to market the vacant property for development. - **Committee Recommendation**: Approval 5-0. - **Discussion**: Commissioner Riley challenged the staff report’s characterization of surrounding zoning, noting that adjacent parcels are primarily residential (single-family), not commercial. He expressed a preference for H2 zoning to allow more multi-family housing, given weak commercial demand in the area. Commissioner Ortega moved to lay the item over for two weeks to allow staff to correct the findings. The motion passed without objection. - **Outcome**: Item laid over for two weeks for revised findings. ### Comprehensive and Neighborhood Planning Committee: Congregate Living Zoning Study - **Presentation**: Bill Dermody presented draft code amendments addressing sober houses, supportive housing, shelters, minimum separation distances, and the reasonable accommodations process. Issues identified include: state law changes (recovery residences), funding shifts affecting classification, and concerns about large unsupervised sober houses (up to 40 residents). - **Proposed Amendments**: - Reduce minimum separation distances from 1,320 ft to 600 ft (or 300 ft with an arterial street) for supportive housing and similar facilities. - Amend reasonable accommodations process from automatic approval to a registration system aligned with federal law. - Cap sober house residents at 10 in all districts. - Delete automatic approval language and require individual evaluations. - **Discussion**: Commissioners discussed the definition of “arterial,” the appropriateness of separation distances, and conditional use permit requirements for battered person shelters. Commissioner Riley raised concerns about requiring conditional use permits for protected populations and suggested tying thresholds to family definitions. Commissioner Holst noted opportunities for language updates (e.g., outdated references to “mental retardation”). - **Outcome**: Motion to release draft amendments for public review and set a public hearing for October 17, 2025 passed. ### Comprehensive and Neighborhood Planning Committee: Traditional Neighborhood District (T) Zoning Study - **Presentation**: Spencer Miller-Johnson reported on the public hearing held in July 2025. 510 testimonies were received (46 written, 5 verbal); all but one supported the study. Key themes: support for the study, interest in rezoning more land to T, and calls to combine T1 and T2 districts. Staff did not recommend combining T1 and T2 but proposed four tweaks: update intent statements, exempt civic institutional uses from building facade continuity standards, update building materials list, and remove obsolete term “cabaret.” - **Discussion**: Commissioner Riley opposed exempting civic institutional uses, arguing that variances already exist for such cases and that the exemption undermines design standards. Commissioner Ortega noted that some testimony was conditional on affordability, which the city cannot guarantee. Staff clarified that the density bonus for affordable housing is tied to 60% AMI to avoid entering subsidy territory. - **Outcome**: Motion to recommend adoption of the text amendments to the City Council passed. ### Transportation Committee - No meeting held. Next meeting scheduled for September 15, 2025. The committee is seeking new members. ### Key Outcomes - Minutes approved. - 1059 Maryland rezoning laid over for two weeks. - Congregate Living Zoning Study: draft released for public review; public hearing set for October 17, 2025. - Traditional Neighborhood District Zoning Study: recommended to City Council for adoption.

September 5th meeting of the St.

Paul Planning Commission.

Our first order of business is approval of the minutes from August 22nd, 2025.

Do we have a motion for the minutes?

So moved.

Motion by Commissioner Riley.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Hood.

Any discussion on the motion.

Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the minutes pass.

Next up is the chair's announcements.

Just another reminder that I will be out for our next meeting.

And the zoning committee meeting after that.

And I have an email due to the executive committee making sure that they have coverage for me while I am out.

So that is that.

Next up is the planning director announcement.

Sure.

Good morning, everybody.

Just a quick update on some staffing changes.

Today is Director Newton's last day with PED.

She is going to be doing some traveling and trips with her husband.

The interim uh director is Melanie McNann, who is currently a deputy.

Some news on that.

Thank you.

Our next item of business is in committee.

So I'm gonna read the report.

Um and we can go from there.

All right, so that item was the 1059 Maryland rezoning.

It was rezoned from B2 community business to T2 traditional neighborhood at 1059 Maryland, the northwest corner of Maryland Avenue in Earl.

Um the HRA of the City of St.

Paul applied to rezone the parcel located at 1059 Maryland Avenue from B2 community business to T2 traditional neighborhood.

The HRA intends to market the vacant property for development.

Um the zoning committee recommendation was approval five to zero.

Um and the motion coming out of committee was moved to recommend approval to the city council for the rezoning from D2 community business to T2 traditional neighborhood.

Um so we have a motion already coming out of committee.

Um is there any discussion on the motion?

Uh Commissioner Riley.

I have a question.

This is my corner.

So the staff report says that the surrounding zoning is the two.

And based on the map and the uses that are there, that is not necessarily accurate.

The parcel immediately to the north is a single family home.

The parcel immediately to the west is a single family home, and all of those homes on those areas are zoned, I believe.

Uh now each one.

So I just want to note that the surrounding parcels are not all B2.

The parcel across the street at the northwest corner is and the to the end to the southeast is and the church, I believe, is zoned H1.

So I just want to be clear that this is not surrounded by a whole bunch of commercial properties.

It's surrounded by a whole bunch of residential properties.

That does not mean that I would do not support the rezoning.

Um, although I think I would prefer a rezoning in something like H2 that would allow for more homes for people to live in, um, and perhaps in a multi-family structure, um, especially given that we have struggled to have um sufficient business interest that are successful and long-tenured in the neighborhood.

And that's true for the commercial streets of Payne Avenue and Arcade as well.

LEBC has several they could buildings released all over the city um in this part of the town.

So just that's just my comment and verifying statement, I guess.

All right.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Riley.

Any other questions or comments?

Well, so if one of us recognizes that there may be an error in the information that we've been given, is there is there's no correction to that?

Is that we don't inquire why there's one thing in maybe something else.

Bill, so Bill is not the staff member on the packet, but he has I would say the most important thing is that the findings are correct.

So if the findings and the resolution are uh agreeable and accurate, then move forward with that because that's what you're really passing forward in the city council.

But if there's a question that needs to be made in transolution, please do that.

Thanks, Beth.

And I think I wanted to go back to the packet where the reference was made with slipping through.

Yeah, so yeah, sorry.

Yeah, um, I think that finding number three uh is curate, other than the fact that it should maybe the last sentence should say something like zone B2, T2, and um H1, if that's accurate.

I suppose it's possible that they're all P2 to the north.

It's hard to tell without a color zoning map, what the actual zoning is.

Um, and I wasn't able to read the plan.

Um, but I just want to make sure that finding three is accurate and reflects the actual nature of the neighborhood as we move forward with this.

Okay.

Um so is it possible to amend the motion with a change to that finding that adds more about the surrounding blocks rather than just the surrounding parcels.

My only question is without having the map and all the things in front of us with like the specifics, um editing on the fly, we do have time to lay it over.

Do we um so if that's something that we were interested in and for the correction?

Um, because I was looking at the last sentence, which was like a little more open in finding three, but if the you know the the second to the last, if that's something we want to take.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, I suppose we could just eliminate that sentence and needed area being resumed without left.

That's weird.

Yeah, without Stefan here, I'm a little um I want to be cautious about editing his report without sort of having the background info um and without the map in front of it.

I just want to make sure we do this correctly.

Um, so if somebody was interested in making a motion to lay the item over for two weeks, um commissioner Ortega moves to lay the item over for two weeks.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Riley.

Is there any discussion on that motion?

All right, this will come back to you in two weeks with a little more uh colour and clarification.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

I appreciate appreciate your support here today.

We have a new motion.

It was made by Commissioner Ortega.

It was seconded by Commissioner Riley.

There was no discussion on the motion.

We'll move forward with the vote.

Um, all those in favor?

Okay.

All those opposed.

Any of sessions.

Okay, the item moves forward.

Um and we will get updates on the upcoming meeting um to the folks on the two folks via email.

Um, because Commissioner Sayed and Tanky F are out.

I am sort of pinch hitting here today.

So we'll have more details out about uh the rest of the voting committee.

Um next up is comprehensive and neighborhood planning committee.

Uh good morning, everyone.

Uh we had uh we met uh the last two Wednesdays in a row.

Uh we covered two different issues congregate living building study and traditional neighborhoods district.

And I believe uh Bill will give us a little presentation on the congregate living zoning study.

So yes, those okay.

Good morning everybody.

Um this is a new item um that addresses an issue identified by the city council and uh board of zoning appeals with regard to variances that was kind of uh would push us to the to the front.

Um like to go over the those recent issues as well as uh some other aspects of this zoning study in the end were asking you uh not to initiate because city council has initiated this one, but to release the draft set of code amendments for public review of set of public hearing for October 17.

So these are some categories of cognizant living in St.

Paul.

Just to give me the broad overview, there are more than these two.

There are you know dormitories and a few other categories, but uh one is sober house.

It's financially self-supporting, there are no services on site, and it's described as being like a family.

So that's a sober house, no services, no staff, nothing like that.

Supportive housing facility is another type.

As for those recovering from chemical competencies, it's got that similarity to with mental illness or handicaps.

Usually these receive government funds.

Shelter and then has staffing and uh you know supports and on site.

Shelter for battered persons is another types, uh, self-explanatory, I think, as a title.

Uh there's a licensed collectional community residential facility.

Um there are overnight shelters and emergency housing, um, which are two types that deal deal with uh people who have been homeless.

An overnight shelter is the kind that empties every morning, it has new people, potentially new people every night.

Emergency housing is a little more stable now.

People have their own room, they're there for weeks.

Um, they keep coming back then, although it is also temporary.

Well, they find more from that.

And the rooming house is another kind, um, which is individually rented bedrooms with community living space, and is not any of the above.

Um, does not include any of the other definitions and code.

So that would be just renting to anybody, renting by the birthdays.

So minimum separation distances are in code for uh the general reason of um providing a normal community environment for these.

So since the 1960s, um, there's been a movement towards de-institutionalization, people moving out of big state hospitals for these sorts of issues and into community environments where they can live more normally while also receiving some sort of support or services.

Um, and we have minimum separation distances to ensure we maintain a normal community environment.

Uh would not be a normal community environment if you had eight uh community facilities in a row that were all staffed for sure.

Um, so sober house, even though it doesn't have staffing, does have a minimum separation requirement code today of 330 feet, um, only from other sober houses.

These other categories, supportive housing, etc., shelter for bad person, emergency housing, overnight shelter, they all must be a quarter mile from each other right now in our code.

1320, um 1320 feet, unless it's downtown, then it's 600 feet.

Uh, rooming house does not have any separation requirements.

Um, we've had somebody looking into maybe building a rooming house recently, but this is mostly the past.

There are not a lot of rooming houses that get built nowadays.

That's uh decades old.

Uh how many do we have in the city?

Well, we have numbers from 2021, they're almost definitely inaccurate today, but with our systems down, uh couldn't actually do the research on this to update the figures.

But this should give you so don't get fixed idea on the exact numbers, but an order of magnitude of how many we have in the city, 59 silver houses, 59 supported housing facilities a few years ago.

Um, those are certainly the big ones that we have the most of.

We have five, well, certainly six now because we just approved another shelter for battered persons.

Um licensed correctional residential facilities, five, two overnight shelters.

I think that's three now, uh, five emergency housing, and then we don't track rooming houses.

Um, but the the big thing to grab from this is sober house and supportive housing facility are the ones we have the most of it.

So the recent issues that came before the Board of Zoning Appeals, uh, and then some of them got appealed to the city council, are people were converting their sober houses to supportive housing.

And as I mentioned on the previous slide, you only have to be separated from other sober houses if you're a sober house and only by 330 feet.

So when they wanted to switch to supportive housing, um, then they couldn't meet the minimum quarter mile separation, much larger separation.

Their funding stream had changed.

Uh at least in some of these cases, they were receiving funding from a service provider, not directly from the state, and so they thought they were a sober house, even if they technically were not under our definition, and then they went to the state to receive funding and desired to become a supportive house, which what they said were minimal changes for what they would do.

These are some of the distances, just to give you an idea that were proposed separation distances that were proposed to recent variance applications.

But there was one that was only 43 feet.

Just to give you an idea when we're talking about what the minimum separation distances should be, if it's different than 1320.

This is the range of what people have been asking for.

Another issue that was not the one recently at BZA, but has been one that has caught our eye, certainly in PED, is uh we had one potential operator who was looking to have 30 residents in the sober house over 30.

Um, I think in one case they were even looking for 40.

That seemed like a lot for a place that didn't provide services or uh staffing of any kind.

The current zoning regulations and our practices for reasonable accommodations may have allowed it.

Um, because we've got a couple things in the code.

One is the code says that uh under sober houses a request for reasonable accommodation, providing an exception to the maximum number of unrelated persons living together in a dwelling unit shall automatically be granted.

Automatic.

Yeah, certainly pretty easy to uh meet standards on that.

Um also it says the maximum total number of residents permitted in the sober house is specified by the fire certificate of occupancy.

So in effect, people would ask for whatever number, it could have even been more than 40.

Uh, and if fire code allowed it, and they applied for a conditional use permit that doesn't even have to be evaluated by all the normal standards, they'd be approved, which struck us as maybe not serving the people who live there best way that you know.

So the legal context here is important to understand.

Why do we what does our code have to do?

Um, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Fair Housing Amendments Act does impact what we can do.

Um if you are recovering from substance abuse, you are disabled.

Uh, and so you have rights under under these acts.

Um those include the ability to get a reasonable accommodation.

At least two elements in our code today seem to go beyond the read the legal requirement for a reasonable accommodation whatever.

We certainly currently require every sober house to request a reasonable accommodation, even if they are meeting the code.

That is different than the intent of a reasonable accommodation says for when you are seeking an exception to the usual rules and regulations.

So we were kind of we have been using it as a registration system of sorts and uh a way to check to make sure that the silver house is separated by 330 feet from other silver houses, uh, but that's not really one of reasonable accommodations required to do.

And also this term shall automatically be granted.

That is the code language is different than what the law requires, which is individual evaluations, not necessarily for a facility, but for an individual that consider criteria-based federal law, such as reasonableness.

Don't currently really evaluate what is reasonable.

Uh, the need for the accommodation to avoid discrimination, and whether it consists of a fundamental alteration of the zoning regulations.

Um you might argue if the maximum number of people is usually 10 people, and somebody's requesting 30, that that might be a fundamental alteration of the zoning regulations.

Right now, we do not consider that.

At the Board of Zoning Appeals, some of the applicants have mentioned state law changes.

I should emphasize that state law changes have not required uh have not affected these actual variances.

Um, what they have done is a little different, and we should be aware of it.

Sober homes were not defined when we created our sober house definition code in 2008.

The state definition didn't appear until 2023.

That term sober home is already being changed.

The law was just passed and it becomes effective in 2027.

Those will be recovery residences.

So that tells you something about the concern over sober living at the state level that they just passed a law two years ago they are already passing another law because there's concern about uh how these are affecting our communities.

Sober homes are what will be known as recovery residences will have optional certification.

Level one and level two from the state, and level two, which are the staff run facilities, will be eligible for state funding.

So we expect that most of them will go for state funding if they go through the certification process, you become level two.

That would be a reason you would go through the process.

Um, also there's a freestanding room and board program that is being phased out that may have affected uh some of the variances, certainly not most of them.

This was always intended for rural areas and places where there was a facility that provided treatment but nowhere for people to live while they were there.

Uh so this program was meant for that situation, started being used in urban areas, and the state is phasing this out.

Uh, actually not accepting any new applicants right now, and people who are in the program will be faced over out of the next group.

So ones really affecting at least some of the experiences and possibly other facilities in the community was that in April, uh, a couple of service providers, one of them being New Way, and there was another one that I opened the name of.

New way stopped redistributing state funds to third parties to fund sober residency.

So New Way provides um treatment services, but not a place to live.

So they would take state money, give it to other facilities who just gave these people a busy.

They stopped doing that.

Um these residential providers needed a new funding stream because they've been cut off by these service provider organizations.

These residences, some of them have sought state funds through the housing supports program, and that has a requirement for provision of services and meals on site.

That's that was not a change in the housing supports program.

It was that people chose to go to the housing supports program.

No state law change required somebody to start serving meals.

I should emphasize because we did hear that at BCA.

Um residences that had received funds from service providers were already not sober homes under our code because they were not financially self-supporting, although they may not have known it.

They were not getting governed.

Initially, Department of Safety Inspections had identified meal provision as an additional trigger for these facilities not being sober houses, uh, but later clarified that nutritional services are not just providing meals, it's more than that, and something more structured.

Um, so that's that's cleaning up something that we heard a lot at BZA.

But these facilities were not sober houses anyway because of where they were seeing their funding from.

It was not financially self-supporting, they were not just asking people who live there to provide rent, they were they had all sites of sources of fund.

So there are uh a number of proposed amendments to address some of these issues, at least at a draft level, going into the public hearing.

One is to reduce the minimum separation distances between supportive housing facilities and the other ones that it must be separated from a quarter mile to 600 feet, or only 300 feet if there's an arterial street in between.

Um, with the idea that that provides something of a barrier, makes it feel a little more like a separate neighborhood.

No changes proposed in downtown that would stay at 600 feet of these draft amendments, just a recognition of the state of our downtown at the moment is pretty well saturated with um services for people who live in these facilities.

We wouldn't want to oversaturate at this point.

The reasonable accommodations process is proposed to be amended.

That is pretty significant.

Um changing it from automatic approval to a different process that is more aligned with federal law, and actually very similar to what the city of Minneapolis had just passed a couple of months ago.

Instead of requiring every sober house to go through reasonable accommodations process, introducing a registration, just uh if you want to be a sober house, submit a registration form, not a reasonable accommodation registration, so we know that you're there, and we can make sure that you were separated by 330 feet from other ones.

The idea there is that if you have more than 10, you are not like a family, and you need to have services for the benefit of the people who live there.

Um 30 people in a residence without services is probably not acting like a family, and probably not definitely.

They need to be in another situation.

Um, the sober house versus supported housing facility definitions.

You'll see some changes in the code about that.

Requiring a conditional use permit in fewer districts for shelter for battery persons.

This was not the main point of the study, but it was uh noticed that it was overly restrictive compared to other types of uh congregate living in our code right now, and perhaps unnecessarily restrictive.

Um, for instance, in the RM districts, which are multi-family, requiring a uh a cap for this type of facility, but then next door there could be an apartment with 40 units, did not seem to make sense.

Um, but the the uh the conditional use permit requirement in smaller scale zoning districts would would be uh would stay in place, like the H1, H2 districts, which have more single family duplex, multi-family up to six units, usually.

Then there are other minor updates and clarification.

So the full set is in your packet, but those are the main ones, and then uh I'll I'll go through some examples of that after this, but I want to put up the uh potential questions from the public.

These are ones for you to think about too, but that the uh the committee had identified as ones that they want to put out the public.

There is actually a more in-depth version of these and the packet, which is what we would actually send out to the uh it's the last page from the congregate driven part of the packet.

Um these maybe I'll just send these around or as we're talking about this, and as I go through a few more slides here, think about are these the questions that you want to put out to the public.

We've had some success with other zoning studies with getting certain feedback to people that we direct where we where we want the help.

Um so hopefully this will help do that.

So some of these changes in code, I just want to go through a couple in more detail.

Sober house would be proposed to be called sober house comma financially self-supporting.

So it actually says that in the in the description, this vague set of texts, but people have been missing that.

So perhaps if we uh you know put it right in the title, that would be helpful because there is a popular definition for sober home that's not as restrictive as our sober house definition.

So all of this that might reduce some of the confusion that we've had.

Um, some minor change here that there could be an on-site manager who is who is not um chemically that doesn't come up very often, but that was something that DSI requested because it has come up once or twice because the confusion over food provision.

I mean, we have a declaration that giving food to people does not make them not a sober house, doesn't the definition that's different than nutritional services, but it isn't really essential to your definition.

So the idea is just strike that so there's less confusion.

There are other elements of this definition that help us understand what is a sober house and what isn't.

We don't really need that.

These are the standards and conditions for sober house.

So this is where a lot of the changes are happening, lots of lots of rat here.

Um the whole part about automatically be granted and requiring that somebody submit a form for reasonable accommodation that is struck.

So we still have reasonable accommodations in the code generally that say that you can apply for it and state what the point of a reasonable accommodation is.

Um taking that sober house so that's not standard part of procedure and it's not automatically granted, is it's important.

And the ability to go over 10 residents, it's another very significant change in what's proposed here.

It had been a maximum of 10 only in the RL through H1 zoning districts, so very few.

It's proposed to be all zoning districts, maximum of 10.

Again, with the idea that more than 10 really ought to move to a supportive housing model, not to this family like solar house situation.

So that is one significant change.

And then I want to go a little more in depth on separation distances too, unless there was a question first.

Bill, there's a question from Commissioner Ortega and then Commissioner Hood.

Can you go back one?

Yes.

I'm just trying to understand the last a building containing one or more sober.

Can you give me an example of what that might look must be minimum of 300?

So in uh plain language, this is the separation requirement of a sober house being 330 feet from another silver house 330 feet.

But a more complicated language here is addressing a situation that I don't think ever happens, but it could, or you could have two silver houses in a single building.

So it's um addressing that situation.

Perhaps you have a three-floor um residence and each floor operated as its own sober house.

It wouldn't need to be 330 feet from the south, you know, from these three silver houses.

This building would have to be 330 feet from another one that's got a silver house in it.

And that 330 feet is so old language that might look to be.

That's correct.

If it's in black, it's already in our code.

So there's no proposal to change that, although there is a question about it, um, whether that's the right answer.

Um, Commissioner Hood, thank you, Commissioner Riley.

Thank you, Jerry.

Hey, Bill, quick question on the um to go to the uh the licensed correctional facility.

We have language that says that it may be 300 300 or 330 feet away if it's on an arterial roadway, like there's an arterial road lane.

How are we defining that?

Because you know, I'm I'm only really familiar with the Met Council's functional classification system.

And there's some roads that just by the nature of how they function, it might be smaller roads in the city, but are technically considered arterial roads.

I think like Selby is considered another real, but I think that Selby in most parts is slow enough where you definitely would probably want that additional space in an area like that.

Whereas if you look at like a principal arterial, like 94, 35D, I'd mill, certainly there's enough barrier right there.

But I just want to make sure that if we when we are doing this, we're shortening this and we're talking arterials, we're very like explicit on what we mean in a road like maybe Montreal or Fairview, for example, wouldn't although Met Council technically does because it connects up with certain roadways, that we weren't including those within that definition.

Right now they're all included.

So that's that's a good point to bring up.

Uh, if we want to get in the uh the complexity of um transportation planning, uh we would use the Met Councils, the MINDAT um classification, which really comes from us too.

We all share the same thing.

So uh, but that would include multiple types of arterial the way it's written right now.

Um so arterial is principal arterial like highways, it's a minor arterial, which is like the big streets, yeah.

And it would still also include if we've got any B minor arterials, which are some of the situations you're talking about.

So you might want to think about if there are some of those B miners that don't want to treat like a barrier.

Um you might want to do that.

And part of the discussion too at um at committee was we are changing the nature of our materials.

Maybe we don't even want to have uh set special separation because we're trying to make them less of a barrier over time.

Sure.

Uh you know, University Avenue's got a LRT going through it.

Um, but a lot of other places were narrowing the streets from four to three lanes, having curved bump outs and trying to uh reduce how much they are a barrier.

Ultimately, the committee decided to leave it in because it's better to get feedback on something you have rather than try to allow people to imagine what it could be.

Um, but that was the point of discussion too.

Yeah.

Commissioner follow up on that.

I have Commissioner Riley, Commissioner Ortega, and then you but if you want to hear um if it's feedback for following a fine.

So this definitely was discussing during during committee, and and I think there certainly are some members of the committee that you know to to Bill's point or this like you're not sure that this really makes any sense anymore.

But but it's changes in some of the streets.

Right street's a really good example of this, right?

Where it's gotten four down to two, you know, lanes in some places.

So uh we definitely have some interest in just striking that part all together.

And then when you think of the big ones like I-94, well, they're that's it's already 330 feet, no matter how you slice it up.

Sure.

Um, Commissioner Riley.

So I had a follow-up question to Commissioner Ortega's question and a follow-up question statement to Commissioner Hoods.

And so now instead I have a point of order question, which is do we would we rather let Bill finish his presentation and then have the discussion?

Or is now the appropriate time to have these questions?

Because it sounds like we've only got a couple slides left, and we all seem to be thinking about the same kinds of things.

Yeah, if it's not a question about what's sort of currently up on the board, I would say let's keep rolling.

Um it is, but I'm also happy to hold it.

And that's it, you you know at the pleasure.

Bill, Bill, do you have a preference?

If it's up here, let's talk about it.

Okay.

So my first I'll start with the transportation question, uh, which is one, what happened to the debt to the term that had been used in St.

Paul previously called transit street.

That was part of system statements, I think.

At some point, maybe so and my thought, and here's my thought process, right?

I agree with this arterial thing being maybe not helpful.

And I think that what is helpful for humans is ways to get the things like jobs, therapy, etc.

And so perhaps we should be thinking about how close some of these facilities should be to transit opportunities or roads that get you places to things to and from places to live to places to work, eat, whatever.

And so that's sort of that's sort of the spirit of my inquiry around our curiosity.

Um, especially to the point that we are trying to make roads easier to traverse, and it seems sort of like an art of this to say just because the road's bigger, things can be closer together.

Um, that's so that's about transit part, which is more of a comment.

Um so it like it'll be for example, seems like a great place to have congregational living congregate living facilities because it is a transit road, it's got high frequency transit and is very close to other even higher frequency transit.

Maryland Avenue, same thing.

My corner has two buses, etc.

So that's that's one thing.

Um, and then the other thing is I had a question about conditional use permits, which was on one of the very most recent slides, which is it seems weird to me that we are still requiring conditional more conditional use permits for battered person shelters, people who must be protected by law, then we are for other resources who are also similarly protected but in a different way from a in a different legal framework.

So um, I just had a question about whether that came up at all about having the requirement for conditional use permit be actually tied to the number of residents and not the type of resident, because you're talking about we have a definition of family, and if all of these are supposed to be family size, then perhaps the number that's associated with the definition of family, if there is one, should be considered here, and if there isn't one, then that's a different that's a conversation too.

Um seems sort of weird to have to come and register yourself when you're trying to protect people from other people who might actually be living in other kinds of congregate facilities if you think about human behavior.

So that's my other comment.

Thank you.

Which is maybe a question.

Do you have any feedback about it?

Or would you like a feeling of the line bill?

I I do, but a whole bit.

Yep.

Um okay.

I saw um Commissioner Ortega.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Martinson, was yours on the slide that we had.

Yeah, it mostly was.

So I just wanted to, it's and this is just a point of clarity.

So you you discussed the two different levels of sober home definite or uh recovery residence definitions that the state is implementing.

And you noted that the level two is the one where services would be required.

And what you didn't say, but I think you implied is that what's being proposed is essentially equivalent to mostly equivalent to the state's level one definition of sober house.

Yeah.

Level one recovery residence more or less equals our sober house, level two recovery residents more or less equals our support of housing.

Thank you.

That was I just wanted to make sure that everybody heard that.

Thank you, Commissioner Martin.

All right.

Bill, we will have you keep rolling.

And I do want folks to keep in mind too that we still have the T neighborhood discussion after this.

Yes, that's the last thing.

So just a couple slides, a few slides about separation distances.

And I want to clarify because I heard it said Ron, uh perhaps that's the only proposed sober houses separated from other sober houses by 330 feet, which is the current separation.

The other one, uh supportive housing and all the other shelter for battered persons, overnight shelter is proposed to go reduce from 1320 to 600 or sometimes 300 if there's an arterial.

So that those are the two we talked about.

Give me an idea what these distances are.

This is a typical black pattern with St.

Paul.

East to west, these blocks are 600 feet.

So to give you an idea of what 600 feet is, that's 600 feet.

The north to south is no ballpark of 260 feet, usually, so a little under 300, the north to south.

Very typical.

It's not the only block pattern we see in the city though.

Um this is one from the west side, it's a little more square like these blocks are north to south 300 feet and east to west, like 360.

So you you do see these shorter blocks more in the neighborhood of 300 feet from time to time.

And uh, you know, to give an example of this arterial question, this is University Avenue, obviously, with the rail going through it.

Um, this is an argument that came up on one of the BZA cases, which is why we wanted to put this idea of our arterial being a barrier out there for for feedback.

Um, this is a situation where the arterial street in between would make a difference under what's proposed.

357 feet here.

Um what's proposed is 600 foot separation unless there's an arterial street in between, because it feels more like a separate neighborhood.

This is the situation 357 feet, so it's between 300 and 600.

That's when it would be allowed if you have that exception for our arterial street and where it changed the difference, and it would not be allowed if you just said flat 600.

Uh, one of the questions out to the public is even is 600 feet or 300 feet are these even the right numbers.

So um what the committee wanted to make sure was clear to the public is there's there could be a range, these are not magic numbers, and I think uh it says anywhere from 300 to a thousand feet.

So I mean, just to make it clear to the public that you all are open-minded, or at least that's what the committee was thinking.

Uh, and then one other example to show you here.

Um this is that 357 feet I showed in the previous slide, and 443 to what you know, potentially another facility with no arterial street in between.

Does this feel more like a neighborhood than this, and therefore they should have different minimal separation quotes.

That's something that's on it.

So that's it for my for my slides.

Um, go ahead and take any other questions that you have.

Okay, thanks, Bill.

Um, I do want to remind folks too.

This is it's been the community, it's going to be released, it will be coming back here for discussion.

This isn't the only time we're going to hear it, we're going to discuss it.

And the next time we discuss it, we will have comments from the public and other things, sort of as as items with it.

So just wanted to add that note because things come and go from here quite a bit, and it can get confusing.

What step in the stage we are.

Um, I saw Commissioner Riley, and then I'll look for other hands.

Uh thank you, Chair.

I just had one question, Bill, and that is the uh along the last time we did the convict limit that you know removable density or like per district council thing, correct?

That is correct.

Uh, just to clarify for others, we used to have a maximum of one percent of household or residences within a planning district being in certain categories.

Um, and we got rid of that in 2016 when we did an overhaul of the code, it was uh very difficult to administer.

It applied to certain types, not others for legal reasons, and we got rid of it and decided that it just the flat separation distance made more sense than a percentage.

Thanks, Bill.

Commissioner Stalin had around up too.

Uh thank you.

Um, Bill, as I'm looking at all of this and looking at um if we're doing housekeeping on some of it, maybe there's more, and then looking at some of the language in 65.162 and seeing some opportunities for what I would call housekeeping because we're making other changes, such as um the reference to regional treatment centers operated by the commissioner of human services, which is part of the DHS breakup.

And then looking at some of the language in 65.162 and seeing some opportunities for what I would call housekeeping because we're making other changes, such as um the reference to regional treatment centers operated by the Commissioner of Human Services, which is part of the DHS breakup.

And then the reference to persons with mental retardation, it might be good to just do some language updates.

Commissioner Pega.

Yeah, so just uh comments are because I tried to uh use this in the committee, but I it seems to me that sometimes words work better than numbers.

And my concern has been like in certain neighborhoods, you might have more of uh more number of sober houses and or uh larger units close to each other because property values are cheaper, blah blah blah blah blah.

And so it would seem to me like if we could use words to say we don't want any one of these structures to be like more than one unit in within a block or something like that, might be a consideration.

So we don't get this this three blocks in a row of silver houses.

Any other comments, questions?

Uh Commissioner West.

Yeah.

Um so uh under sport services, this is a little outside of this.

Is the city planning and getting involved in oversight of the houses that are receiving supportive services as far as the service itself?

No, the state, right?

Um so we would continue relying on the state to um sometimes they work with counties as well, but city uh our role is is different.

We uh just zoning and then like fire certificate of occupancy.

That's the the city's problems.

Thank you.

Uh I move to release the congregate living study draft code amendments for public perceiving for the public hearing date for October 17th, 2025.

Second.

Okay, so we had a motion um by Commissioner Halls.

We had a second by Commissioner Martins.

Um, is there any discussion on the motion?

Commissioner Martin.

Just a and again, a point of clarification.

So since we've discussed the state licensure and the different levels of that, just to clarify, we are not requiring in anything that's being proposed here that any of these facilities would necessarily be licensed by the state.

That would be a decision that the operators and owners would have to make depending on if they want the revenue flows from the state, then they would have to be licensed for the state.

That's not our that's not part of our business here.

That's it.

Bill is not yes.

Okay, wonderful.

Um seeing no other hands for discussion, we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

Okay, all those opposed.

I just the date, what October 17th.

I'll total 17.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Um, okay.

So we're gonna just because Caroline maybe got some of that.

We're gonna just do it again verbally quick.

Uh all those in favor.

All right, all those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the item passes.

Next up is the traditional neighborhood district T zoning study.

You should also have tax vote.

Yeah, so the uh teams entrance zoning study proposed and doning tax code amounts to uh increase development and flexibility on horror orders at neighborhoods, uh incentivizes affordable housing and streamline standards and regulations.

Uh we held a uh a public hearing on the zoning study in July of 2025.

Uh and we've probably been working on this for a couple years.

So okay, I don't know, I can't see that screen.

Yeah, we can.

We do have the pop-up where we can also see ourselves a little bit, but we can we can live with that.

Well, let me I know I was supposed to share the screen and we're uh that looks oh okay.

Okay, okay.

So okay, how's that okay?

Good morning everybody.

Let's run through here and talk about Peter's again.

Um Chair Wolst uh mentioned we did have a public hearing in July on this item.

So I'm just back here today to follow up on so the public hearing essential light look.

Um at that public hearing or during the public review period, we received 510 testimony, 46 were provided in writing, five were provided verbally at the hearing.

All but one of those testimonies was in support of the zoning study and the proposed amendments, and many of those also offered some suggestions.

So if you look through the packet that you have today, um there's uh those 46 pieces of written testimony, and a lot of those had some suggestions of kind of ideas for what to do.

The big three themes that were prevalent throughout all of that testimony was uh first of all, just support for the zoning study overall.

There is a lot of interest in rezoning more land to T.

And there was also a lot of interest in combining T1 and T2 into one district.

There were also several other more detailed comments, and we considered and discussed those at the comprehensive name for the planning committee a couple weeks ago.

There were a couple items that staff caught too while we have the amendments open again.

So from all of that, we are proposing just a few tweaks to the method package that you were doing before.

I'll go through those tweaks in a second, but just to close the loop on a couple of those themes.

Um we heard a lot about proactive rezonings, right?

And that's something that I know the commission is interested in.

We've heard of interest in city council as well.

Uh rezoning property to T is not part of the scope that we approved for the zoning study way back in 2022.

So we can't really do anything about it in this text amendment package.

But city staff right now are working on a scope of work for a phase two zoning study that would consider rezoning to property long transit corridors and neighborhood nodes.

So that's something that's actively being drafted, and it'll come before you with a scope of work uh with that in probably the next few months.

But the uh the idea is that we wrap up this text and then in the process first, and then related to combining T1 and T2.

Um, it kind of makes sense when you first look at it, right?

That T1 properties could appear to benefit from a lot of the development flexibility that T2 offers, but uh we're we kind of looked at that again, and we think that that's just because T1's not being fully realized in its potential and how the code is written today.

And what I mean by that is that um T1 has some limitations today that I think aren't playing out as we expected when these districts were drafted for.

So these proposed amendments better differentiate T1 and T2.

They open up land use flexibility in T1, and they just do a better job of making sure that um small-scale mixed use opportunities can exist within urban neighborhoods with uh with more of the dominant T1 usage of the future.

So if we were to combine T1 and T2, we'd just be missing out on that opportunity for a low-intensity land use mix at that kind of within urban neighborhood scale.

And um for all those reasons we think that's worth probably keeping them separate for now to see how this amendments play out and um see if we can uh utilize T1 more effectively going forward.

So we are proposing just uh four changes based off what we heard and a couple things that we caught.

Um so first of all, we're just proposing to update the intent statements.

We had a comment that asked us to take a look at another look at those because they seem to kind of um blend together, and we thought that was a good flag.

We went back through and tried to differentiate the statements better, organize them in a more effective flow, um, and just make sure that they have a clear distinction.

Um we received some comments about exempting civic institutional uses from the building facade continuity design standard.

So remember the T districts have all those design standards that um that are unique to them.

As part of that, we've got a design standard that requires consistent building facade all along the street, but civic institutional uses often have larger front setbacks or more open spaces, so it doesn't really make sense to make those sorts of uses have a consistent side along the street.

So we added an exemption there for that sort of use.

Um we are proposing to update the building materials list in one of those design standards as well.

We've got like this kind of approved, um, it's really general, but approved list of building materials and design features in two districts and a DSI flagged that we have a similar list and actually the industrial transitional zoning district instead of an IT district.

So they kind of do different things because industrial is obviously different than traditional type of it, but they read similarly.

So we want to just go through and do like a quick code cleanup so that the language was uh matching to where it makes sense to match.

So we did that, and then um finally there we're proposing to remove the reference to accessory cabaret and the coffee shop land use standard.

This is just an obsolete term um that was kind of hidden in the land use standard that we got that we don't want.

So overall, those tweaks don't alter the main kind of trajectory, the main point of the zoning study.

It doesn't alter the six big things that we've discussed a number of times now.

So um all these things still hold true, and um the the point of the selling study remains the same.

So it's just a quick summary of what we heard and what we talked about.

I can go into more detail given questions, but the recommendation coming out of the committee is that the planning commission argument adoption of the amendments contained in the district setting studies for the Mario City Council.

So the next step would be for this to go to the three readings at City Council.

Um, and there's another public hearing at City Council too.

That's all I guess.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks, Spencer.

Um we'll move on to discussion.

Um Commissioner Ranning.

Yeah, sorry, I just I support moving study forward to the council, and I find the rationale for civic and institutional buildings um not having to follow the building facade continuity design standards um confusing and a little worrisome and weird.

So I'll just that's my one opposition for this.

I know we'll have time to see how that plays out in the future, but I I just don't get why that rationale led to why there's that rationale that led to a change when sort of a similar concern is associated, it is addressed by saying um that the maximum front setbacks, like if you already require arguing to be at the side or rear, why wouldn't you then want to have your building facade be along the front of the road like take the Arlington Hills library and rec center, for example?

So I just I don't understand the rationale.

Um and I think it it's a little troublesome that we're gonna exempt civic and institution, like our own buildings from something that we don't exempt others from.

So that's my comment where we are, but I it doesn't seem like make this go away.

I just want to make sure that's it.

Do you have any feedback on that?

Yeah, that's it.

That's a good flag.

I mean, it's actually something we've talked about in a very different way as defining question before a few years ago.

We had a similar thing in the Port Site Zoning Master Plan.

Um we struggled to process the University of St.

Thomas idea on the southern portion of Highland Bridge because they um their complex that they're proposing to build couldn't eat the um max maximum setback standard.

And so this idea came up then.

Um I know it's unrelated to this, but where we process an amendment to um exempt civic institutional from those setback standards in highlighting, and that then allowed UST to move forward.

Um so the idea of that being on small scale, um, we didn't originally flag that when we're doing this on a citywide scale for T districts, but when we received comments about it, but I was like, oh yeah, we did that in Portsite, and it makes sense because that got us into issues before.

So on a citywide scale, would it not make sense when we have like your seminary and other places in the city that are under T zoning to allow flexibility um in that building sub continuity when a lot of times they have a lot of green spaces around their buildings?

Um, but I I understand your concern, and I I like to hold a hard line on maximum setbacks and stuff like that, especially in T districts because it's I mean, these are most blockable fitness reinorienced in the in the city.

So um I completely agree with you.

I just I think that civic institutional um just the way they're playing out in the city serves some flexibility from that one particular sign standard.

And just to follow, I I totally appreciate the rationale, and I think that that is exactly what variances exist for.

That's a practical difficulty not caused by the landowner.

And so I get that that created a problem for the University of St.

Thomas, and I think that that was the right problem for the University of St.

St.

Thomas from uh you know planning and and AICT standpoint and ethics, but I I really appreciate the rationale button.

I I totally see where you come from.

So thank you.

Commissioner Taya.

Yeah, I just uh sort of a comment because I'm not gonna change.

I'm gonna challenge the uh the testimony stats that you put up from when there's only one opposition on at least a couple of notes there.

Uh I I noticed that the they supported it only when tied to affordability.

And so to me, that's not an automatic support because I know we don't control all that.

Um I'm learning.

Uh I've always had an issue with this affordability word that it's really depending on the developers and how they get their money.

It's not about how we can determine whether it's going to be an affordable space.

Um at least two of the testimonies brought that up that it was tied to affordability.

Yeah, um, that's true.

There's a lot of gray, and if you look at all the written testimony, what I I've pulled out, I'm not trying to like tutorial right there.

If that can be better than it is, um, there was only one that I read that that was like I hate this.

Right.

Everything else was like we like it and can you do this?

And there were some that were tried to afford it, you're right.

That like we like it if you do this.

And so yeah, I guess I could have been more detailed.

But um, but that's true.

And that's something we didn't talk about.

We talked about the committee, the idea of um there were some comments that were interested in lowering the A of I threshold because we have density bonus for affordable housing as part of this.

Um, and the way we trigger that just like we do in the residential zoning districts is based off of 60% AMI.

Um, there were some folks that would like that lowered, however, that would take it into the subsidy territory.

So we're afraid of lowering it because that would undermine the point of the density bonus when we're trying to get market-driven affordable housing in the city without having to apply for other external um funding sources.

So yeah, that's all other questions or comments.

All right.

All right, uh move to recommend to the mayor and city council adoption of the zoning code text amendments contained in the e-district zoning study.

So I should say I move.

Okay, so Commissioner Holtz moves uh a motion.

Um second by Commissioner Homes.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

No second.

Yep.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

All right.

Uh seeing none we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

I all those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the item passes.

Uh and then the other further update is that we're actually meeting is the third of uh September on Wednesday.

Thank you.

Uh and then next up is transportation.

Yeah, uh, we did not have a meeting um over Labor Day, of course.

Uh and our next meeting is scheduled for September 15th.

And I'm sure in your package you saw we are looking for folks.

So if you know anybody in your neighborhoods or in your circles that would be interested in going transportation committee, that'd be great.

And they can apply online um potentially contact PED.

The email should be on the website.

Um thank you for that.

Um and then that would uh Commissioner Collis, any updates from communications and knowledge from individuals and nominations.

All right.

Um we have no old business.

Uh any new business.

All right, seeing none, we will adjourn.