Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. I'm gonna call the May 15 meeting of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to order. It is my pleasure to be your chair. This is the b team, so please be gentle. So we will start with a roll call. Commissioner Grill?

Commissioner Hackney? Commissioner Holtz?

Here.

Commissioner Johnson Becker?

Here.

Commissioner Martinson?

Here.

Commissioner Presley? Commissioner Riley? Here. Commissioner Starling? Here. Commissioner Tegeoff? Here. Commissioner Thomas?

Thank you. With that we do have quorum. Alright. Next up is the approval of the May 1 planning commission meeting minutes.

So

moved. Second. Second.

Moved by commissioner Martinson, seconded by commissioner Tagiaf. Is there any discussion of the minutes? Seeing none, all those in favor of approving the minutes? Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. Alright. Next up, this is the public hearing portion of the agenda. Planning commission decisions on most types of zoning applications including conditional use permits, nonconforming use permits, site plans, and variances are final decisions unless appeal to the city council. Planning commission decisions on rezonings in master plan applications are only recommendations to city council who will make the final decision.

Planning commission findings must have a rational basis based upon the Saint Paul zoning code and applicable state and federal laws. Today, we are holding two public hearings with the following rules and procedures. After I read the item, we'll read a here a staff report and then I will open up the floor for commissioners to ask questions of staff. The applicant will then be given the opportunity to speak about their request and answer any questions from commissioners. After that, I will open the public hearing on the item.

All testimony and questions should be addressed to the chair and relate to the proposal before the commission. If you are a member of the public that would like to comment on a specific item, you may do so by standing between the two center microphones, stating your name and home location for the record. After you complete your testimony, please sign in on the sheet to your right. Testimony will be limited to no more than two minutes. You are allowed to speak only once with the exception of the applicant who will be given the opportunity to respond to testimony and answer commission questions.

The first application on the agenda is zoning application number. Finding the number. 62. And miss Hong is here to present the item.

Good

morning. The zoning application is located at 62 Winifred Street. It's at the Southeast corner of Stryker and Winifred on the West Side. This

is

the zoning in the area with it's primarily residential with some corners of Stryker having been rezoned because of a previous zoning study. The application before us is a change of nonconforming use permit from auto repair to auto specialty store. The proposed use is an auto window tinting business. The zoning administrator issued a statement of clarification stating that because auto window tinting is not a use that's specifically named in the zoning code, it's the closest to auto specialty. And so reviewing the standards for a change of nonconforming use permit, the proposed use is more or less similar

to auto repair without a lot of the noise and

visual impact of auto repair. The traffic is expected to be the same or less. And because it doesn't have a lot of the negative externalities of, say, an auto repair station, it's not expected to negatively impact the neighborhood. And it is consistent with the comprehensive plan in that it's commercial use on a corner. So staff recommends approval of a change of nonconforming use permit from auto repair to auto specialty, at 62 Winifred Street West.

And the district council stated that they oppose this application, but don't specifically approve of it, and we haven't received any neighborhood letters. So with that, I'd be happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. Hong? Alright. Seeing no questions, I will now call up the applicant if they'd like to add anything to the record or answer any questions from the commissioners.

Hello, Matt Kenevan, owner of 62 Winterfred. Only thing I have to add is that's an old picture. It looks much nicer now. That's it.

Any questions for the applicant? Alright, thank you. If there are no other questions I will open the public hearing. If you'd like to speak on this zoning application, please approach the microphones. Is there anyone here to testify?

Anyone here to testify? Anyone here for testify? Alright, seeing no speakers I'm looking for a motion to close the public hearing. I'd

like to move to close the public hearing and approve the staff recommendation on the change of nonconforming use for auto repair to auto specialty store. Two motions in one.

Is there a second?

Second.

Alright, we have a motion and a second to close the public hearing and approve the staff recommendation. Is there any discussion on the motion before us?

Just as a point of order, we've had two commissioners arrive in the meantime. So we should probably note their arrival on the record before Ashley voting.

Let the record note that commissioner Presley and commissioner Thomas have arrived. Any discussion on the motion? Alright, seeing none, all in favor of the motion to close the public hearing and accept the staff recommendation?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Alright. This brings us to our second public hearing. So the second item is the two thirteen Bates rezoning. Mister George Green is here.

Good morning. Alright. PD res 0004662026 is an application to rezone property at 213 Bates Avenue from h two residential to t one traditional neighborhood. Property is located at 213 Bates Avenue in the Dayton's Bluff neighborhood and Ward 7. Nearby land use and zoning include multi family buildings, three to six units to the north, east, and south, zoned h two, and a single family residence to the west, zoned h two.

Here's a view of the surrounding properties. Some of those three to six units, and then the single family residence. And again, the application is to rezone 213 Bates Avenue from h two residential to t one traditional neighborhood. There are a few findings. First is that the proposed t one zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The 2040 comprehensive plan designates the parcel as urban neighborhood which calls for primarily residential areas with a range of housing types, and limited neighborhood serving commercial, which the t one traditional neighborhood supports. As well as there are a few specific policies that apply, policy l u six, foster equitable and sustainable economic growth by facilitating business creation, attraction, retention, and expansion. Policy LU seven, use land use and zoning flexibility to respond to social, economic, technological, market, and environmental changes, conditions, and opportunities. Policy l u 36 promote neighborhood serving commercial businesses within urban neighborhoods that are compatible with the character and scale of the existing residential development. And policy HP 15, historic preservation, utilize historic and cultural resources to foster economic development, and prevent or minimize displacement of area residents and businesses.

The rezoning contributes to orderly and predictable development. The T 1 traditional neighborhood zoning district permits a range of residential and low intensity commercial uses, such as barbers and beauty shops, bakeries and coffee shops, and general retail and office that are complementary to the mix of multi family and single family residential in the area, as well as nearby commercial uses. And just to note that more intense commercial uses are not permitted in T 1. Based on the findings, staff recommends approval of the rezoning at 213 Bates Avenue from h two residential to t one traditional neighborhood. The district four planning council didn't actually submit a letter of recommendation on the rezoning, but they did submit a letter of support for the project.

And that should actually say three letters in support and zero letters of concern in opposition. So

with that, I'd be happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Are there questions for staff?

Just a small one. I'm used to seeing a determination of spot on no spot zoning on a staff report and I'm not seeing it here. So I'm just don't think it is, but I'm curious as to whether staff took a view on the spot zoning question.

Sorry, could you repeat the question?

I'm used to seeing a spot zoning determination on just every rezoning staff report. I don't see it here. I don't think it's a problem, but I'm curious as to whether you took a view on that.

Thank you, Chair, commissioner. We've kind of moved away from the spot zone finding because the orderly and predictable development that kinda complimentary uses, we think covers that. And I think mister wants to add something as well.

I can probably give you some more context. We actually changed the staff report on this several cycles ago. There you're not allowed to have spot zoning in Minnesota, but as came up on a previous case, it's not really a determination of a planning commission to make. It's a court determination. We have to avoid it just like we have to avoid other things that are illegal.

We don't we don't have a finding that says we have a quorum today, you know, that sort of thing. So the findings have been more realigned with what's in the law and case law to what findings that the commission should actually make. And as Stephane alluded to, if there were an issue with spot zoning, it would fall under that finding about orderly and predictable development.

Thank you. Thank you,

Bill. Other questions?

Guess, just kind of more thoughts in this area because this is sort of the same thing that I was thinking about earlier when I was looking at this is that when I think about changing zoning in a neighborhood, it seems like we should sort of determine the zoning and then what develops around it. In other words, the order of which things happen I think kind of matters here a little bit, right? In other words, somebody decides to do a project, and I get that we're sometimes going to change zoning because of that, but it seems like this is a case, along others, that are like somebody buys something, somebody wants to change the business or put a business in there, then we change the zoning, as opposed to like, Okay, let's make sure that we have appropriate zoning in appropriate locations and then businesses can select those areas. It feels more random as opposed to sort of what was sort of earlier described as kind of an orderly progression of a build through a neighbourhood. I don't know if I agree or disagree on whether or not we should weigh in on spot zoning.

It's a good question and it's an interesting observation because it has come at the past. But when I look at this and I look at that second or third slide that you showed, where I mentioned pulling up the map before, that matches exactly what I was going to look at. And it sure kind of seems like it to me. And I guess if we're not doing the determination about spot zoning anymore, I think I'd like to hear more about that and why and have a better understanding of what's really really changed there.

Well, Josh Ladd, city attorney's office. One of the main elements of spot zoning involves a taking of an individual's property. So this body does not evaluate whether someone has experienced a taking. And for them to make a determination on that would be outside of its scope and arbitrary and capricious, be speculative. So you just can't make a determination on it without being speculative and good, there it is right there.

Okay. Because that seems contradictory to what this body's done for, it seems like, at least the last five or six years and time before that. And I understand what you're saying, I also feel that maybe we need to have a discussion as a group or at least have an information session as a group that would sort of cover this particular issue because this seems different than what we've done in the past.

Doctor. Robinson.

Thanks, Vice Chair. Just wanna add a little bit of context here that many of the structures that exist in the city were built pre zoning. So in a lot of those areas, like Thomas Avenue, for example, you go down, you see a lot of what used to be corner stores that have been converted to residential. Over the years, we have a variety of structures that have been converted zoning wise to residential, but they're obviously structure. Stefan, could you bring up the picture of the site?

This is a one story brick building, and has been zoned residential, and I think nobody has bit on, you know, converting that for a variety of reasons. There's a lot of really interesting character on this street, and it is, it's quite normal for people to say, hey, can we come up with a designation that still meets the character of this neighborhood and repurposes an existing building? So, just wanted to put that out there, that I see how it could look like that, but we have to evaluate what's in front of us, and also applicants and property owners have the right to ask for something like this. If we had the staff to look at all of the previous commercial structures, it's definitely something on our list, but until we're able to do that, people are going to come to the Planning Commission asking for a fresh look at what's the best use for this structure, what's

the best

zoning, does the applicant have a viable path to move something like that forward?

Commissioner Hall. Kind of following up on that. You're right, these are scattered throughout the city of St. Paul everywhere. I mean, you probably go three blocks and you can find a building built right up against the sidewalk, right?

And now at some point in time we've zoned them H2 or H1 maybe. And I hear you when you say we don't, but that's probably what we should seriously consider because I think when you buy in a neighborhood in St. Paul you should have some predictability as to what's going to happen around where you're at, right? So that you know that, okay, and I love T1 and I like the idea of this business going in here and I think Eastside Neighbourhood and along 94 could certainly use whatever it can get. But I think it's probably important that we at least look at proactively taking these buildings that are sort of historically commercial buildings and then zoning them appropriately proactively instead of reactively all the time.

Commissioner Reilly. Thank you, Chair Starling. Perhaps, Stefan, you could tell us a little bit about the two lists of uses available to T1 and H1, and that might help folks understand where the overlap is maybe.

Definitely, thanks Chair, Commissioner. So H2 residential primarily allows

I'm sorry.

I misspoke, sorry.

Oh, okay,

I'll just talk about T1. So the intent of T1 is to provide for neighborhood scale, compact, pedestrian oriented mixed use areas with a variety of residential, office, service, civic, and institutional uses. We believe that's a fit here. Some of the commercial uses allowed include coffee shop, tattoo shop, farmer's market, artist studio, service business, general retail, and general office are our lowest intense intensity commercial uses. There's also other commercial uses present in the neighborhood.

There's a home goods store across the street, as well as a a bakery a few blocks away, a market a few blocks away. Additionally T 1 also allows the same essentially the same residential uses as H 2. There's

maybe a

little more density in T 1, but it's it's pretty gentle. So do believe that the range of uses that are allowed in T 1 are complementary to the neighborhood and are not spot zoning. Yeah. So here's the HomeGoods store and there's a vacant commercial building, I believe at the end of this block as well. Here.

Just That's just on this block. And then if we look at the surrounding blocks, there's other commercial uses in the area.

Other questions for staff?

I don't have a question but more of a comment. If we didn't allow changing of the zoning, it seems to me that it would be more prohibitive and restrictive for people to want to come in and do something. And so, you know, clearly, the issues have to do with the process and not the outcome. And I think that if we focus on the outcome, I think we would all, you know, agree that this is a good thing to change it to T1. Any

further questions on this one?

Not a question or comment, just to say that I think we are all reading the room, think there's not really people objecting necessarily in this case. And I think when I look at rezoning, spots, etcetera, I look at complementarity of uses, I think Commissioner Reilly was pointing out, just are the uses compatible not as the zoning code literally the same. But I do take the point, which is that in general, when we're looking at an application before us to do a certitude project, we are essentially stuck with the zoning designation the applicant has applied for, whether or not we might otherwise choose that. And so I do take the point of getting to a place where we have where we can say, we've looked at this already, here's what we think, probably would create more certainty for applicants in the city, which I believe is an imperative if we want to attract investment to St. Paul.

So definitely understand and want to thank the applicants for their patience with our discussion.

Just to sort of follow-up, I'd echo what you said and agree with everything you said. And when we do these, if we ever get to a point where hopefully we can start being proactive on this stuff, I think that makes a more business friendly and entrepreneur friendly and small person friendly environment, right? Because when you go through this process, you're taking a winger. To a large degree you don't know what's going to happen and if you've got a couple of people on the planning commission or city council that are finding some reason to be opposed and you're six months into us, that could be a big deal for you. It might be a real big commitment for you to do something like this.

I love it. I think it should be there. I agree. But I just I don't like the process, and I don't like that we have to do this reactively all the time. My biggest concern was the spot thing, which we certainly weighed in last time we had one of these, but apparently I'm relieved of that burden.

So I will be supporting this personally. But I do think that we want to encourage small business in the city of St. Paul. And part of that is make it so you don't have to convert your place from H2 to T1 all the time.

I'm sorry, one more chair. Just on the spot zoning piece, I think we're relieved of making a legal determination of spot zoning. I think it's still open to us to make a legislative decision or a legislative recommendation on whether there's compatibility, which is a similar sort of it's a similar sort of evaluation, just not making a legal determination on it, as to how I read the direct sorry, the Mr. Dermody's comments.

Right. And through the chair, I hope that we hear something more about spot zoning in the future. Some more about it.

All right. I think that concludes questions and comments. So I'll now call up the applicant if they would like to add anything to the record or answer any questions from commissioners.

I'm not sure they were able to make

it today. Do we have an applicant in the room? Alright. Seeing no applicant. I will open the public hearing. If you would like to speak on this zoning application, please approach the podium. Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.

Good morning, Chair and members of the St. Paul Planning Commission. My name is Andy Joy. I live at 2002 And 57 Maryland Avenue in St. Paul.

I think it's wonderful that we have this opportunity to discuss adaptive reuse of buildings that sit vacant, a commercial building that's now zoned for housing that we want to change. So I'm here today to express my support for the proposed rezoning of 213 Bates Avenue from H2 to T1. This project aligns with the goals of a collaborative effort launched in 2025 by the Eastside Neighborhood Development Company, the Latino Economic Development Center, and the Eastside Funders Group. That effort is called the Eastside Commercial Real Estate Development Initiative. It promotes community centered property acquisition as a strategy to address disinvestment and to promote local ownership.

The adaptive reuse of 213 Bates Avenue brings a vacant property back into productive use. It will support an emerging developer in Almer Development Group and a local business from the Roots Salon in the Dayton's Bluff neighborhood. It will preserve an historic building through one of the most sustainable forms of development, And it will restore an active storefront, improve public safety, and build on the investments that the neighbors have already made along Bates Avenue. For these reasons, I encourage the Planning Commission to approve the rezoning request. Thank you.

Thank you. Well timed. Are there other speakers? Are there other speakers? Are there other speakers?

With that, seeing no additional speakers, I'm looking for a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved. Second.

The motion is moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion to close the public hearing? Seeing none, all those in favor of closing the public hearing? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. With that we have a staff recommendation before us. Commissioner Reilly.

I'd like to move the staff recommendation and thank Ms. DeJoy for her comments. I think that that initiative may show up here with some other projects and it's exciting to see that kind of work and that kind of collaborative work take place in our city. So that's my motion. I'll second.

Alright, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing nothing, I'd like the record to note that I will not be voting on this particular item. All those in favor of the motion?

Aye.

Any opposed? Alright. The motion carries. So that concludes the public hearings portion of our agenda. We have no old business. We do have new business and informational presentation. Conveniently a presentation on T District's implementation study. Ms. Quarles. I

am so excited to talk about proactive rezoning

given the freezing One moment. Commissioner Taghaff.

Sorry to be a sick. Commissioner chair, would you

say your reason for abstention? I think we're required to do that by the rules.

Oh. Sorry. I am abstaining on the previous motion because I have a conflict of interest with an organization described in the staff report.

Thanks.

Hello commissioners, my name is Valerie Quarles, I'm a senior planner here with the city and I'm here to talk about some proactive rezoning along some transit corridors here in the city. I don't need to tell you all what T districts are, but for the record, they were created in 2004. They allow all of the things that were just discussed within the previous presentation, scaling all the way up to some of the larger redevelopments along University Avenue. We already see them placed along a lot of corridors throughout the city, Rice, Robert, University, Snelling, in a few master planned areas, as well as quite a few of one off projects. Obviously we have a lot of developers that come in front of the planning commission and say, I think T makes sense for my district, or for my parcel, and then we have this conversation kind of over and over.

In 2025, planning staff led by my esteemed colleague Spencer Miller Johnson, updated the t district code language along with the planning commission to do things like update the uses, promote affordable housing development through some density bonuses, and generally increase the quality of design in new buildings. The follow-up from that is that city council pretty enthusiastically approved those changes at the end of twenty twenty five, and then turned right around and said, okay, where are these two districts going? We want to see more of them throughout the city. So, we've identified six corridors, and we've decided to align them with future bus rapid transit routes, along with recent bus rapid transit routes. These are corridors both that are earning transit investment in this way because they have high transit ridership already, but also because they have a strong mix of business and residential zoning as is.

Doing this work fulfills the comp plan policies around transit supportive density, around high quality urban design. Both of those policies are very redevelopment focused, but also in line with the presentation that we just went through, it does add more uses and options for our existing buildings, which provides a lot more opportunities for local business to succeed through building reuse and preserving some of our existing historic character throughout town. But then also encouraging high quality redevelopment where it is needed, including both affordable and market rate housing whenever possible. That being said, these are the six corridors. They are Rice Street, Maryland, plus the Como Front Dale Intersection, White Bear Avenue, Selby, West 7th with a little bit of Randolph thrown in, and Robert Street.

This is a lot. I am excited that we're going to be able to say, you know, every BRT line proposed for the next five to seven years is covered within this, as well as the B line, which had not been studied for rezoning previously because there were efforts going on within the Rondo neighborhood for their own land use plans. We wanted to wait for that to finish up. But yeah, all of these align with G, H, Bronze, B, J, all of the alphabet soup of BRT that's coming down the pipeline. It's really exciting.

This group already knows that all of these districts are very different from one another, but the thing that they have in common is a large mix of zoning districts. You know, this section of Selby for instance has of b district zoning, some community business, a lot of multi family, some parking, the occasional t district project thrown in. And as conveniently teed up for me, again in the last presentation, this provides some unpredictability for people who want to do business in St. Paul, whether that's redevelopment, whether that's using an existing building. So part of this is to introduce some uniformity along a lot of these districts, but we are going to be taking a pretty intensive look, or at least I have been already, about the suitability of each of these parcels for different types of T districts.

The primary focus is parcels that front the corridor directly, and then from there, we'll sort of come out into the neighborhood a little bit more, depending on the results of community engagement. Our baseline assumption is at the bare minimum, looking at all of the B districts along these corridors, because B districts are as wonderful as they are, they're definitely a relic of our nineteen seventy's zoning code, and deserve a little bit of love in the form of T districts. But then from there, going, okay, what residential districts could support small scale or medium scale or large scale T district development, and what does that look like? Part of that is because if we took every B district and replaced it with a T district, we talk about T districts in a mixed use way, but they don't necessarily have to be mixed use. They don't mandate retail, or commercial, or office in the way that the B districts do.

So we'd wanna also add T districts into some of the residential zoning, so that we don't have a net loss of commercial space, Which would not be what we're aiming for in St. Paul right now, is a net loss of commercial space. Like I said, so that's sort of the baseline. Our engagement will be, you know, how far do we go into the neighborhood? How do we talk about specific parcels? For instance, auto uses become non conforming under T. And then how do we identify some of those additional opportunities for T. There's two levels of engagement associated with this. There's this like, deep workshop style engagement. We're planning to do in person workshops along at least a few of the corridors right now.

I'm still in discussions with district councils about their capacity for being able to support that kind of thing. But that's where a lot of those deeper conversations will happen that I just mentioned. That'll also be where we get a lot of individual property owner connections. Part of the opportunity that comes with proactively rezoning a lot of these properties is that we can get some idea of property owner intent with some of these key parcels ahead of time, so that we don't have to do project specific rezonings. We can do rezonings that are in line with what the comprehensive plan asks for, and what the study is looking to do.

And then on top of that deep level engagement, there'll also be broader engagement through an online survey. And the point of that is both to be able to get feedback from people who maybe aren't able to participate in that really deep discussion, but also to get some idea of where else people might wanna see t districts throughout town. This is a lot to chew at once, but I'm already hearing from people about, okay, what about this corridor, what about this corridor, what about this parcel? And I'm like, yes, I agree with you, we should do it when we have the capacity. So we're doing this chunk at once, and then seeing what 2027 looks like.

So we're doing our launch right now, engagement will be summer and fall, and then hopefully a public hearing at the very least by the end of the year, on all of these rezonings at once, as one big batch, and then adoption may sort of trail on beyond that, depending on how many times we maybe come back to the planning commission, how many times we need to make changes or rounds and go back and adjust. And then we'll go from there. So that's a lot of information at once, but I'm happy to take questions.

Questions for miss Quarles? Commissioner Reilly.

So many questions. No. I'm just kidding. This is great. Thank you very much. I do have I think it would be helpful to know what's on deck for 2027 because I think one of the most obvious things from my perspective that's missing is something that's been talked about for almost twenty years, which is rezoning Payne Avenue. And so that's a bit to me, that's a big gap in the map because of how long it's been discussed and because of, frankly, the conversation that we just had about the site over in the Dayton's Bluff area. So for it to reduce concern

or

all those questions about what about this, it might be nice to have a list of who's on deck. So that's just one comment. And then as for the engagement, I love that you're calling out district councils. I think that there are some district councils that are in flux. And so they might be adequately served by the neighborhood development corporations that operate in St.

Paul, although those are becoming fewer and further between. But I also think that the partnership mentioned by Ms. DeJoy, especially the work done by LEDC and the quality of the staff that they have there today, could add value in a way that we have not seen in the past on the East Side. And since three of these are essentially on the East Side, I really encourage you to look at those other partnerships, especially in places where district councils don't have capacity. And I'm super excited. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Tatjaf.

That is a good point. It'd be interesting also to think about if you happen to know a staff, if there are sort of hotspots on the map aside from where planned transit exists, that might be something to sort of prioritize. If you know we have a lot of projects along Payne Avenue or something like that in the pipe, then that would potentially be a reason to look at is there anything else to include proactively?

Yeah, I think there's certainly multiple, both looking in terms of actual land use potential to switch to tea. Is on sort of my personal short list, Front Avenue is also on my personal short list. But you're right, that interest is also a key. You know, how can we be proactive and get just ahead of that instead of reactive. Mhmm.

Any other comments or questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you for the update and we wish you luck.

Thank you. I will be back to talk about this more. There will be more updates throughout the study so the next time you hear about this won't be, hello I have 600 parcels I'd like to resell. So thank you.

Thank you, we appreciate that. All right, next on our agenda is what's coming up on next week's site plan review committee. The site plan review committee is meeting on Tuesday, May 19. There is one new item on it which is the new construction at 500 Broadway Street for a mixed use multi family dwelling. And as I recall we approved a Rezoning.

Rezoning on that particular site several weeks or months ago. Alright. As I am the sub in planning commission chair, I have no announcements. Any announcements from the no announcements from the planning director? So with that, I will adjourn the May 19 meeting. Thank you so much.