All right, the February 6th meeting of the St.

Paul Planning Commission will now come to order.

The first order of business is approval of the minutes from the January 9th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Do I have a motion on the minutes?

Move by Commissioner Styling.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Presley.

Is there any discussion on the minute?

All right.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

Commissioner Ortegains, uh, the minutes pass.

Next up is chair's announcements.

Um this is our last meeting here together in the basement.

Um, so there are donuts in the back.

Um, and then we have two resolutions.

Um honorary resolutions for uh two commissioners who have rolled off now.

Um Commissioner Sayed and Commissioner Hood.

Uh Commissioner Hood is here, so I will read uh resolution now.

I think we should have come on up.

Stand wherever you'd like.

Uh so whereas resolution and appreciation of Commissioner Hood.

Whereas the City of St.

Paul Planning Commission is charged with advising the mayor, city council, and city departments on matters relating to land use, zoning, comprehensive planning, and the orderly growth and development of the city.

And whereas Commissioner Hood has faithfully served as a member of the St.

Paul Planning Commission, dedicating his time, insight, and creativity to the review of planning, zoning, and development matters.

And whereas, as a local comedian, Commissioner Hood brought comic relief, the commission, helping to foster congeniality, and whereas Commissioner Hood served on the zoning committee, where he provided thoughtful analysis and practical recommendations on zoning matters affecting neighborhoods across the city.

And whereas Commissioner Hood was a strong voice for the missing middle housing, helping to elevate the importance of diverse housing types that support affordability, neighborhood stability, and growth in St.

Paul.

And now therefore be it resolved that the St.

Paul Planning Commission hereby expresses its sincere appreciation and gratitude to Commissioner Hood for his dedicated service and meaningful contributions to the planning commission and the city of St.

Paul.

Uh do I have a motion on the resolution?

Motion by Commissioner Starling.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

All right, seeing none, uh all those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstain?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

And then Commissioner Sayed, uh, couldn't be here today, but I want to make sure we recognize him as well.

Um, I also want to know at zoning committee, we had our own little uh little discussion.

Um, so I I hope that he feels celebrated.

Um so this is a resolution appreciating the service of Commissioner Sayed.

Um, whereas the City of St.

Paul Planning Commission is charged with advising the mayor, city council, and city departments on matters related to land use zoning, comparatives of planning, and the orderly growth and development of the city.

And whereas Commissioner Sayed has faithfully served as a member of the St.

Paul Planning Commission for three terms, contributing his time, insight, and dedication to the careful review of planning, zoning, and development matters.

And whereas throughout his tenure, Commissioner Sayed brought a thoughtful, balanced and community focused perspective to the commission's work, including the valuable viewpoints of a small business owner, which helped ensure that policies and decisions considered the real world impacts on local entrepreneurs and neighborhood businesses, and whereas Commissioner Sayed's service and it advanced the goals of transparency, equity, and responsible growth for the city of St.

Paul.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the St.

Paul Planning Commission hereby expresses its sincere appreciation and gratitude to Commissioner Sayed for his dedicated service and valuable contributions to the planning commission and the city of St.

Paul.

Do I have a motion on the resolution for Commissioner Sayed?

So uh Commissioner Hackney made the motion.

I'll second second by Commissioner Home.

Uh is there any discussion on this motion?

All right.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the motion passes, and we'll make sure that the copies of both of these are making their way um to the former commissioners.

All right.

Uh that is it for announcements today from me.

Um director?

All right, we're gonna move the director's announcements um to the end if that's okay with both.

All right.

The next step would be the zoning committee.

Thank you, Chair.

And we have three items on our agenda today.

Um so firstly we spoke about three two by commercial rezoning.

That's file number uh 000242 2025.

That is rezoning one parcel from H1 residential to I1 light industrial.

Um the motion at committee is to approve the resolution recommending approval to read to rezone from H1 to LIME.

All right.

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

Uh is there any discussion on this item?

All right.

Uh now we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

Hi.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the item passes.

All right.

Uh item number two is 1645, energy prompt drive, CUP and variance.

So that's PICUP 00262, 2025 and FedBar, uh 00263, 2025.

Um it's a conditional use permit to increase the number maximum number of parking spaces for 526 and variance to another parking to extend over the west line, not meeting the required for setback.

Um, I'll give a um obviously there's the motion coming out committee with unanimous approval.

Um, I will give um one note here, which is essentially that this is a um an office park and they want to consolidate their um their operations here um at this site, they would be allowed as parking by right, but for bird's eye view proximity to a light rail um or or or um or transit, however, um given the configuration of railways and major roads, in fact walking to one of these soft be about a half mile plus.

So um, and the other note is that although this is about allowing sending over a lot line, they have secured an easement and the West Lock line is city property.

Um so that so that that may be explained some of the slights um usual the things which which seem like huh, not things we see every day here.

So um, but we felt this was again a um a strong recommend.

So sorry, motion coming out committee is to approve.

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

Is there any discussion on the motion?

All right, seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

All those opposed?

Any abstentions?

All right, motion passes.

Okay.

The last item is um one three two one pain rezoning.

Um that is rezoning from B1 to RM2.

Um that they intend to uh reuse the existing building to add residential accommodation, so several units within the existing uh frame that sits on the site.

Um reuse project.

Um and again, motion coming out to committee was unanimous approved.

All right, is there any discussion on this motion?

All right, seeing none, all those in favor?

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the item passes.

The next meeting of the zoning committee is only chosen.

We are we're done.

Absolutely.

Uh well, thank you, Commissioner Tag, for all of your time leading the zoning committee.

Um, and we appreciate it.

And I am sad that I will be taking this part over.

Thank you for everybody.

Uh wonderful.

So next up is comprehensive and neighborhood planning committee.

Um is not here.

Um, but I'm not sure, Commissioner Presley.

Yes.

Uh so I think there are two items.

We bet this pass would stay, and I believe our staff is gonna give the presentation.

We would two items before us as hunger getting delivering living zoning study in the green of incentive drivers air.

So we're gonna Mr.

Mr.

Derby.

On the first item.

Thank you, Commissioner Father.

And we'll let Bill settle in the donut like words from the get there.

Well, this room is perfect.

Um good morning everyone.

Um welcome and talking about happy about this, but glad to uh congregate but being done for the rather large member.

Um the uh we'll we'll talk about not everything that it does, but the recommendation on the key policy questions coming out of committee.

Um show a few maps, and then you can have a discussion and recommendation obvious.

The uh full resolution is in your package as well as the staff level.

Um these were the key policy questions asked to the public for the public hearing.

They are how many adult residents should be committed in the silver house, and related to that, how far should silver houses be separated from each other?

How far should supported housing?

That would be the kind with outside funding and with services, and other certain other staffed congregate living services be separated from the children.

So that would be not only supportive housing, but it's had to be separated from shelter for battery persons, uh, emergency housing and a few other categories.

And finally, um, this was a question basically fill the operators.

Will these definitions make it easier for fulfill the operators know which category of congratulatory to fall out there?

There had been some confusion.

MIS overhouse or MI supported housing, especially those two categories.

So on first of those four questions, how many adult residents should be allowed in the silver house?

Recommendations is 10.

But there were exceptions to that.

You could go higher.

A couple of main exceptions, you could go uh up to 16 with conditional use permit, but effectively there was no limit because you could also ask for reasonable accommodation.

Um that language is being cleaned up to be more aligned with the law.

Reasonable accommodation is meant to be uh for an individual with a disability, help them enjoy the right of housing or other rights.

Um it's currently in the code says reasonable accommodation requests shall be granted.

Uh and because of that language, the department of safety and inspections effectively granted all reasonable accommodations.

Um that became a particular concern when we had an operator coming in wanted to do 30 or more uh people in that sober house, and sober houses are not staffed, um, they may have an on-site manager, but they have no services, and so that's the and stretch the definition or the intent of the definition of be family like this.

It's meant to be like a family type of setting.

Uh, that's what silver house is meant to be.

So bring it more aligned with the civic sense.

Um reasonable accommodation language is cleaned up and the effective cap is um there are exceptions to that.

There could still be reasonable accommodations, but rather than them shall be granted, they will be evaluated as all reasonable accommodations should be evaluated.

Um the language on how they will be evaluated is only partially in code.

The rest is guided by legal precedents and federal law.

Um Minneapolis put theirs in the code, but what how we will um evaluate is very similar to what Minneapolis did.

Stars with not appearing code.

There's also opportunities for variances, just like anyone can apply for bonus.

But by and large, we expect silver houses, if this was passed, to get a cap of 10.

And again, the 10th there is to make sure it is a family-like situation.

So, how far should silver houses be separated from each other?

No changes recommended coming out of committee, 330 feet, with the logic that if they truly resemble a family or a household, then they should be lightly regulated in a similar fashion.

So no need to increase that um to any greater distance, 330 feet is that's certainly appropriate.

But what about supportive housing?

Certain other staff congregate living with services.

How far should those be separated from each other?

Right now the code says 1320, 1320 feet, that's a quarter mile of most of the city or 600 feet downtown.

Recommendation coming out in committee is no change.

We ask the public if there should be a smaller number and particular.

Um, we talked about 600 feet, a thousand feet.

The recommendation is to keep it at 1320 uh in the city.

This uh this difficult decision.

This is a tough policy call.

Uh, but let me tell you from the logic on this, and it actually takes a couple of slides here.

But management is the key factor, is what we learned.

We we did hear from the public uh about management to some extent, but also after the public hearing, uh we spoke with personal from the homeless action response team, police department, fire department, get their thoughts and what an appropriate separation distance between these would be.

Would it be 1320?

Would be 600, 300, somewhere in between.

And what we heard from them is that management is the key factor.

How are these facilities managed?

Do they have appropriate staffing levels?

Are those the right kind of staff?

Are the staff there at the right times of day?

Do they cooperate with the city staff?

Most questions are very important, don't have to do with separation this one per se.

So the regulation from the state probably needs improvement on this.

So with management regulation and needed improvement at the state level, that level of regulation.

The thought here is to potentially revisit separation distance in a few years.

So as to avoid flooding certain corridors like university or west end up for now.

And I'll show a map about how university and west end up are concerned in particular.

1320 is the same as Minneapolis has.

If there is a major street like that, and the recommendation is no.

And we heard from district councils, maybe individual residents about this too.

Concentration is the major factor, which is not affecting by streets.

You could have a couple that are you know right across the street from each other.

Um and also over time, we have been in St.

Paul and will be working to improve pedestrian connectivity across the major streets.

So over time, hopefully they will become less and less of barriers as we do things like curb bump outs or um better more crossings across streets or narrowing of streets from four lanes to three lanes, those sorts of things.

Over time, we anticipate the streets to be less and less of barriers.

Um also, you know, the price by area is easier on TSI, they just have one number they have to go by.

And then uh the final policy question here of the key ones will these definitions make it easier for facility operators, know which category to fall under.

Yes, we didn't actually get feedback on this, but I I guess the absence of feedback tells us that operators were more uh concerned about the other issues here, and it seems to have been written fine and put out the public.

Um the key changes is that the uh sober house definition will actually include the term financially self-supporting, like right in a very clear actually the title of it, uh, and then the definition of supportive housing will note that if you are getting funding through um any outside program, you are support showing.

I want to show uh a few maps here.

This this is a map of the last 10 standards requests related to supportive housing that came in in 2025.

The blue dots are the 10.

Um you'll notice none of them are on east side.

Um they're all in certain parts of the city.

Seven out of the 10 are either along Seventh Street or University Albany.

The others are near Marshall, near Grand, near Jackson.

So obviously, that tells you that the recent demand for these are in certain places.

It is not perfectly spread throughout the city.

So perhaps more of a concern about heavy concentration of supported housing, especially with the state regulation and the and the status that it is.

This is an old map, um, but from 10 years ago, the light blue, the royal blue, and the purple are all roughly what we call supportive housing today.

And you can see they're somewhat concentrated, somewhat spread spread throughout the city, not a lot in uh district one or district 14, but you know, a little more in these kind of especially.

Then sober houses from that era, uh, which was an accurate map at the time.

Kind of lost track of some of these over time, but you can see there are definite clusters of these, especially on Marshall and the West 7th neighborhood, a lot of sober houses.

So you think about um the potential where these could go, uh where we have concentration concerns uh that helps helps uh show the importance of whatever number you choose, whether it's 1320 feet or some other minimum separation.

So that's the uh recommendation coming out.

It's many full recommendation is in your staff packet, I'd be glad to take any questions that you have.

Questions for both?

Uh Christian.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr.

Dermani, the sober house self-supporting financially self-supporting components make sense.

My question is about the supportive housing facility, and specifically thinking about the distances, and how are those calculated in what is one?

And I'm thinking about, for example, the Catholic charity is Dorothy Day campus.

And the redevelopment of Mary Hall, are those one?

Are those one point one?

Um, so how is Catholic Catholic charities is perhaps a unique circumstance?

Um, and one thing I will note is we at no point entertained decreasing the 600 feet minimum separation in downtown for a reason because uh we we knew going in that downtown is rather stressed in this area.

Um I believe the Catholic charities and campuses, it's two Catholic charities, and everything that happens on on their campus and Mary Hall.

And uh I I think the Mary Hall had to go for a variance at one point in time in order to locate there.

Um I had one question.

Um we had a lot of for the the folks that came and did public testimony, particularly the operators of the um some of the sober living um homes, because I think that was more of those than supportive.

Um for folks that are currently operating in the city that have had a variance or had something else that they were operating, what would be the next steps after this passes?

Okay, so it kind of depends.

But I I assume you're talking about situation where someone that you had been operating as a sober house, now they want to be supportive out.

I think so, yeah.

If this passes those would have to pursue a variance if they have not already.

Some of those 10 various applications from last year uh have concluded.

Two or three of them are still in process, they're sitting at city council uh because there was an appeal and then the appeal was stayed for this study.

Okay, thank you.

That helps you.

Other question Commissioner Riley.

Um thank you, Chair.

I have a question about the brand etical comment, I guess, in the sober house financially self-supporting it saying no more than six persons, all of whom accept potentially an on-site manager.

Um who decides how that works, I guess.

Okay.

DSI would decide how that worked.

I would note that most sober houses do not have an on-site manager.

But uh according to DSI, it has happened before where somebody wanted to request one is um a lot of times the management's just the people who live there.

They self-manage, maybe the person who'd been there the longest is a little more in charge, that sort of thing.

Um, but this would open the possibility, which we don't see as problematic that there would be an additional person who's just there to manage.

And then we'll follow a slightly different question, file question.

Okay, if we could follow up then, yeah, see my bill about it, yeah.

I guess people who have struggled struggled substance use.

Um I don't know if there are any more here, but how would uh uh you know housing for chronic inequence fit into this definition?

We allowed them they're called locally referred to as wet houses.

But I don't know that we have any operating and they don't seem to come up in this conversation at all.

Um chair, Commissioner Riley.

I believe we have one, unless the lab is on quite a definitive.

Um that would be a zoning administrator call.

Uh uh a wet house is not defined in our code.

I might imagine it could be um determined to be equivalent to supportive housing, even though it wouldn't meet the definition exactly because people are having it recovery substance actively living with it.

Um, but that would be it's the zoning administrator call as a trumps up.

Yeah, that's great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Tanget, tiny tiny question.

Um you you mentioned sort of on-site manager.

Yeah, um, and I wonder if you know you care about whether that person sort of included or excluded that sort of at the six cap if you're like well, you know, is would would six without management be not regulated by this section, I suppose, and six plus house manager would.

So, like, does that does that is that important in any way?

If there's an on-site manager, effectively they could have seven.

Is that that that that doesn't that doesn't, I'm not sure the it's written that does it say plus or included?

It says uh you not complained by more than six persons, all of whom except potentially non-site manager and recovery.

So it it's so it's inclusive of the six is inclusive of the manager, but you're right.

I think I think you're right, you're right.

Uh that's written by correctional, but does sound like it would be six maximum.

So five plus one out of six plus zero, your choice of how to get to six.

True.

I don't think max is what I wanted to call it out.

So significant but minor difference.

If there are, you know, if folks feel like that that that's an item for discussion, we can discuss that as well if that's a concern.

All right, is there any Commissioner Hackney?

I just wanted to say, Chair, that um there was a lot of background research that was required for this and a lot of meeting with different outside groups and Bill's done a lot of research on this and put a lot of thought in.

I just want to say I really appreciate it.

And thank you for what you produced.

All right.

Um there's no other question.

Uh Commissioner President.

Coming in of our committee, we approved uh the resolution recommending approval of the voting amendment.

Amendments related to the congregate living.

All right, so you're making a motion to approve the resolution recommending approval of the zoning code amendments related to congregate living.

Yes.

All right, so motion by Commissioner Presley.

Second.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Martinson.

Uh is there any discussion on the motion?

All right, seeing no discussion, we'll board the vote.

All those in favor, all those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the item passes.

And then the next one, President Petro, the director was um can make uh some evidence as well.

That's helpful for you for the next item.

Uh okay, for the green rule of consent, there was an error in writing the zoning code um in there.

They had put percent when the code actually says 10 percent in the master plan.

So it's just a minor um, I guess, uh clerical error, but um since the um document had to be amended, then it needs to go to a public hearing.

So it's very minor, you'll see we didn't uh your package there they have five percent instead of 10 percent.

Uh the green roof incentive was to give developers at the board site um an incentive to increase the footprint of their building by 10 percent if they would do a green roof.

So um that's basically um what um motion will I be presenting today is were there any questions or further comments from the folk that were at our meeting.

No other questions or comments.

All right, um, so Commissioner Presley, are you gonna make the motion?

Yes.

Uh motion is to approve the release of the amendments to zoning called section 66.931 F for public review and set a public hearing date of March 20th, 2026.

All right, motion by Commissioner Presley.

Is there a second?

Second by Commissioner Riley.

Um discussion on the motion.

All right, seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

All right, the item passes.

Um and then I guess the same note for you.

Yes, but there'll be any thing.

Uh the comprehensive neighborhood planning committee has sunset as well, so all that business will now be conducted in the fall plan.

We thank Commissioner Holt and Commissioner Presley for their time uh serving as co-chairs of CMPC.

All right.

Let me move my paper around and then we'll keep moving through the agenda.

All right, next up is transportation committee.

Uh Commissioner.

Yeah, so we met um last Monday.

And we went over we had a presentation from Matt Brenda on Bronze Line.

Um headline uh regarding uh section going on uh boulevard.

Um button project itself is due to me to break round uh 2020 2030 2031, and um to move it on.

Uh we also um uh provided a recommendation out of transportation um or on Earl Street project or uh with the preference of shared fight value rather than our next meeting is March 2nd.

Awesome, thank you.

Um so transportation committee um communications and nominations, there's nothing, no task force and liaisons.

Um before we and old business, I'm gonna maybe insert the director's announcements between old business and new business if folks are comfortable.

Yeah.

All right.

Nothing too crazy today, but just wanted to give you an update on implementing ordinance 2579, the planning commission changes.

So since the previous meeting was canceled, we're backed up a little bit because I wanted to get all these cases done.

So at the next meeting, which will be the 20th, that meeting will be in council chambers.

So don't come back to room 40.

And I'm going to be bringing a lot of kind of housekeeping items.

We'll be doing the annual meeting, we'll be doing election, we'll be doing some trainings because that's when everyone will be making quasi-judicial decisions together.

So want to make sure that everyone's getting like the basics.

Um so I'll be bringing a bunch of uh different things and um there's an updated meeting calendar in your packet.

Um we also put that online.

Um I'll be sending out a poll at some point about um potential meeting dates and times uh just to see you know, interest and where everybody's at with that.

Um so yeah, so a lot of things coming.

Obviously, January was a really hard month for everybody.

Um, you know, we also had a new administration come in and you know, trying to get up to speed in it, you know, normal circumstances is difficult, but adding this on top, you know, is uh you know, it's pretty unthinkable for me.

Like I've seen a few uh mayoral transitions in my career, and none of them have you know had to deal with something like this.

So um we're all at the staff level, we're doing the best we can to you know be as quick as we can with items and bringing things, but a lot of um a lot of energy of city employees has been diverted to dealing with you know the federal issues going on.

So if you have any questions or concerns, just reach out to me.

Um get some time on the calendar.

All right, thank you.

Um and then any new business?

All right, and we are done.