The URL can be used to link to this page

88-828 ` � � ��} �) ��'v��c� � �� :� ��" r, E2,,�'�- �'.�,C� WMITE - CITV GLERK � a��E _M„ oR � �ITY OF AINT PAUL Council (j , � CANARV -DEPARTMENT File NO.�L, t - Ordi c�nce Ordinance N 0. Presented By ' � Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date �� Rn interim ordinan e restricting the establishment or e largement of community residential facili ies, , residential ,correc ions facilities and unlicensed communi y residential facilities and residential hu an services facilities, pending completion of studies of possible amendments to the ity' s Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Regulations , which interim ordinance s enacted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462. 355 , Subdivision 4. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: --- ��-_ Sect 'on 1 . The Saint Paul Planning C mmission has initiated a study of local and state land use reg lations of community residential facil.ities , which study is inte ded to recommend possible amend- ments to either the City' s C mprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Regulations. The study incl des residential human service facilities , adult foster care arrangements , foster care for children, residential corrections facilities , unlicensed community residential facil.ities , transiti nal housing, emergency housing, shelters for battered persons an missions. The purpose of this interim ordinance is to prevent the establishment or enlargement of any such facilities until such time as the Council has determined the proper land use r gulations relating to such uses. This ordinance recognizes the fact that the Legislature has restricted the City' s authorit to regulate the location of licensed residential facilities, as set forth in Minnesota COUNCIL MEMBERS ��/ Yeas Nays / ,�`` Requested by Department of: � Dimond �'�'�.- �� Q7'�""� In or Goswitz Rettman s�ne�ne► Against BY Sonaen �� 'V'�Ison ��/�` � � j �� Form Appr d by Ci t r Adopted by Council: Date � � CertiEied Passed by Council Secretary �� BY By Approved by Mayor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By By � �. . ��a�- &' '1:i'.. ` •t ,�o�lt'- `� .� '� rF?n�� • Q � 3rd � Adopted �r°`'7� � ^� _�� 3�, �'8 Yeas Nays DIM ND �^ p-��' C�- ��° GOSWI Z LON RETT IAN t SONN ;J . � WIL , �. PR�SIDEI�T SCHEIBEL . � = � �� Statutes, Sections 245A. 11 , 245A. 14 and 462. 356, and the fact that this interim ordinance ay not prevent the establishment of such facilities which are m ndated by the legislature as per- mitted uses in either single-fa ily or multi-family districts. Sec ion 2. Pending the completion of the studies and the recommenda- tions of the Planning Commi sion, and the adoption of the necessary amendments by the C ty Council to the City' s Compre- hensive Plan and Zoning Regula ions, for the period of time not to exceed six months from the d te of the adoption of this interim ordinance, no permit for the establishment or enlargement of any community residential fac ' lity, residential human service facility, residential correcti ns facility, unlicensed community residential facility, includi g special condition use permits or building permits , shall be issued or granted by the Planning Commission, or any other City fficial , within any zoning classi- fication district in the City o Saint Paul . Sec ion 3 . The restrictions containe herein shall not apply to any licensed residential facility serving six or fewer persons to be located within a residenti lly zoned district, nor to any licensed facility serving 16 or fewer persons to be located within a multi-family zoned district, as these licensed residential facilities are deemed by the Legislature as permitted uses in such residential districts and which land uses the City is pre- vented from restricting pursuan to its local zoning regulations. Sec ion 4. The restrictions enacted h rein may be extended by resolution of the City Council for addi ional periods not to exceed an additional 18 months in the eve t the studies and recommendations of the Planning Commission an the deliberations by the City Council should require such ext nsions of time. ` . . _ _ � WHITE - CITV GLERK PINK - FINANCE GITY OF AINT PAUL Council CANARV - DEPARTMENT � BIUE -MAVOR File NO.�� Ord ndnce Ordinance N0. Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Se tion 5 . This ordinance shall tak effect thirty days from and after its passage, approval and pu lication; provided, however, that it is the intent of this C uncil that the restrictions con- tained herein shall be retro ctive and made applicable to any and all permit applications ertaining to all such uses which have been received but not issued or approved prior to the date that this interim ordinance was adopted by this Council . COUNCIL MEMBERS Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Dimond �ng In Favor Gosw;tz Rettman sche;be� A gai ns t BY Sonnen Wilson Form Appr y Cit tt r Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by Mayor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By BY �H1911uT�R , � - �- •�„+c.` w►.e wru�teo o�,,e corr�a,� �± i/� '"� �� ` Gouncilmember T�om. D.imond , v1 R E�� EE� N0.�Q Q g 1,�. coMr�cr v!#�oM o�r�ar�r ox�ECra+ �vaA con i�sr,wn Sue Vannelli : au�FOn ' ��ea�rr s�ow�cra+ crtr q.�c . �rq�wo. ROU71N0 — euobET o�aECma i C�t Counc 1- �298-550b onoEn: —cmA„ow� This ordinance would establish a moratorium r one year on e�tablishment of co�unity ; residential faci�ities until the Plannin� C ission and City `Councfl consider amend- men�s to present zoning requirements. - � 71011�(Mpow(A}a R�(p�) c�p�qL REPOltT: -� PlAN�10O0M�BI0N CML$I�RVICE COhMI$SION� � DA7E IN �� .�-� DATE OIJT ANALVBT " � , . � PHdlE NO. . . � . � .. mNlq WhM16810N . - IBD 625 BCNOOL BW WD . . . . . . ., . . � .ETAFF . . � .. GIARIER OOIIAMB�ICN - .- COAIPI;CsTE 13 ADDL.M'E^0.IIDDED� � . Rfl'fD TOOONiA�T � C4�18[f11lC�1T � . . . - . . _ _ � � _.FOR AOOL 11�1r'O. _f�00ApC ADOED• � � . . ��T�� A Councilmember *�ex�„a�,: sixaoms w�ra�ooui«�oe.�crnEV _ • �ousing Plan _ ,�m►rws��,o�nonruMrr twno.wn�.wh.,.wrw..wn�: : The Planning Commission, after considering it taak �foree report on this aubjeet, sent the . matter back to ccm�ittee. �ven when finished some possible zoain� text amendmetits f�om the tas� forc� stu�y �eguire state legislatio `, and wi11 not be iiaplemented until at Ieast 8 it will' be some time until desired chaages � afte� the 1�89 le talative session. Tlzerefor , can be �implemented. - :, �7MIQ��t10N�+M�.�arorwqes.��usl: :.. The Planning Comm9.ssion and the City Council peatedly have had- to deal with ger�its or other matters pertafning to community residen al_ facilities which do not fit .the pre.sent �zoaiag vrd�nance.� �: ooNa�ou�{�.�An�.n,.a Tc wNomy: , :. , . . , . „� � ,. �.- - Adopting this ordinance will limit additional acilities during the moratoriun period. Failure to enact a moratorium could result in grandfathering" facilities established ' duri�g this period hut whfc� do not conform �o eventual zoning amendments. ��ur+►n�r� was co�is Do nothing Le s conf,�lict with Possibifiitq �f tn��eseed ' . h n ser�ices and avereoncentrafion in co reetions programs city neighborhoods. �ronrivn�cEO�rs: A .moratorium on establishment of adult uses wa enacted while the Planning Co�nlssion itn.d . the City Council eonsidered zoning �tnendments. �sa�.�s; State law puts some limitations on municigal op iona fQr zoning Human Services-lice�sed faeilities . ,_ . ; � ., — � ,� .��-�a--.=„r .�.:. _ , - ` . WHITE � -CITY'CLERK ' COW1C11 �� p� ' � PINK � FINANGE-_: -. . � .�� , . � � � CANARV -DEPARiIiAENT't . ' �GITY OF SA�NT PA`UL ewe _M��od File NO.,_ �i� .�`'1� { + . y .:��.,. �� ,.,�;� - Ordinance N0. � ;r� .,:' -�'��-:��=.- , . , . , ^ > , � r t: . .::, . ,. .;._ . Presented By �''� ,� :. - .� Referred To -��`" ''� ,�" � Y '^'.' �-� �'��, Committee: Date - � - 1��: Out of Committee By Date 1� interis o�dt�rs� tari�ir� th� lstablis�- �t ot ea:la�r�MeM�t �itp r�,sideet�ai "fa�itliti�s. tra�ltl t�ve�i�g. s�el-i�rra' �'iar ba�*�sd per�ae�t. ic�s,� a�d rsr+�� oi�si�, ��ilitf�a., p� ls�tie�t � sttadi� !�E �aihl�aE #��t�t �wa �i�'s �'iiM�e�ri�t Ft.a� a�lor � stie�ms, �i� i�srfi e�tf�a ia e�a�! t t+�► �tit�ssoEa S#�tt�tt�s, it+�3+�t �!5 �3:#S, st,�dif3,s1� #� T� �Qt�ZL t�' Tl�E CZlY i� �� !3 �s ton �.. '�e saiat P�1 P t�o�rluimE � i�itirt�d t atady isf' lo�cral a�d s�at�► lae�t na re�lati�mit a� �■�it� �sf��f.�2 . ia�tilittls. �Ala� s� is to r�c.� �1�3+�► aw�l- . Mnt� to ;lrit�ts` tt�t C!�• C�e�Ma�itre ll.rin a�A,/O�' � l�tlati�s. Z'!ae s� l�s r�sYd�ti�i '4� �i�s , tae�ilil.i+�s, ad�lt fost�r arr�a;t:, tostwc tt� t+o�r � abild�t� ra��ntial +am� ta�riliti�t, unlic�a�d �iit� l�esid�en�ial !`aail#.'�f�s,� itltx�tl �s�p, �� ianq, , s�lt�rrs i'ir bst� �d wiulae�. '!'!�e p�rp�►s� ot ` ttiia i�t�riw or�di�t is �o �s artablis�t +�r i�a�-� a�a� � tacl.li�i �t#.l ss� ti� as '�► C�i�. h+�st d�et�s�d �t p��e la�d �we r�sti+�s r�li�ix� t� � so� �ta� 2l►is r�#.sis� tA� fa�t t� t'!� L+�gi�- � : 7.a�! �as �s�rict�� l�jp►*s �Oe'it� t� tnr�tlits �t�er � lar�rattia� � 3#�� +esi �ial �arQl.li�Ei�„ �t � �'� � 1ti�qrvta �is�r�ars, s�at �t�17�, ��l�+t �d •i+�.'3!�►, a�d tbe taest �at t�#s 3� o� �r � �t t� , est►abllst� oz � ! 1#�ti+�s +�i� are �s�d b�r fi� ' � is�Qi�late�rat ss pfr�d.tt�rd ia ett�r sis�ls-tari,Xy o�r �atl�i- ta.i�y distri,ets. � 6 � COUNCtL, MEMBERS ; ' . Y� N� Requested by Department of: Dimond �os In Favor c�� , Rettman �;�� Against BY sonnen - VV'�son Adopted by Council• Date Form Ap�oved by City Attorney - Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By Approv�d by Mayor: Date �:,Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � By BY _ , . 1 , � : , . ' . '. �. �-��I��' Sect on 2. Pending the completion f the studies and the recom- mendations of the Planning C mmission, and the adoption of the necessary amendments by he City Council to the City' s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations , for the period of time not to exceed one year rom the date of the adoption of this interim ordinance , no ermit for the establishment or enlargement of any community esidential facility, residential human service facility, adult foster care arrangements , foster care for children, residential corrections facility, unlicensed community residential facility, transitional housing, emergency housing, shelter for battered persons and missions , including special condition use permit or building permits , shall be issued or granted by the P anning Commission, or any other City official , within any z ning classification district in the City of Saint Paul . Se tion 3 . The restrictions contain d herein shall not apply to any licensed residential facilit serving six or fewer persons to be located within a res dentially zoned district , nor to any licensed facility serving 16 or fewer persons to be located within a multi-family zoned district, as these licensed resi- dential facilities are deeme by the Legislature as permitted uses in such residential d stricts and which land uses the City is prevented from restricting pursuant to its local zoning regulations . Se tion 4. The restrictions enacted herein may be extended by resolution of the City Council for ad itional periods not to exceed an additional 18 months in the vent the studies and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the deliberations by the City Council should require such e tensions of time. 2. , . . , , ' • ' , ' , -�Z , WMITE - CITY CLERK PINK - FINANGE CITY OF � AINT PAiTL Council //��.q . CANARV - DEPARTMENT r. A JD BIUE -MAVOR File NO., � Q 0C� • O� n�nce Ordinance N0. Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Sect on 5. This ordinance shall tak effect thirty days from and after its passage, approval an publication; provided, however, that it is the intent of thi Council that the restrictions contained herein shall be ret oactive and made applicable to any and all permit applicatio s pertaining to all such uses which have been received but ot issued or approved prior to the date that this interim ordin nce was adopted by this Council . 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Dimond ��g In Favor Goswitz Rettman Scheibel A gai ns t BY Sonnen Wilson Form Ap ro ed by City At rney Adopted by Council: Date ,�s.� Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by Mayor: Date Approve y Mayor for Submission to Council I By j BY WMITE - CITV CLERK t PINK - FINANCE COl1flC11 ^/ CANARV -OEPARTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAUL OC BLVE - MAVOR File NO. � • r n�nce Ordinance N 0. Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Dat Se tion 5. This ordinance shall t ke effect t rty days from and after its passage, approval nd publicati ; provided, however, that it is the intent of t is Council that the restrictions contained herein shall be r troactive and made applicable to any and all permit applicat ons per aining to all such uses received by the City from d aft the date this ordinance was first introduced and read efore he City Council . 3. COUNCIL MEMBERS Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Dimond �ng In Favor Goswitz Rettman Sc6eibel Against By Sonnen Wilson Form Approve b City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by Mayor: Date Approved b ayor for Submission to Council By BY ' , (RETURN, 'FO J��ROME, 5 GAL AFTER ADOPTION) - WMITE - CITV CLERK � . , , � / P�NR� ' �fINI.NCE , � � COLIIICII ry BIUERr-M�ypRTMENT �GITY OF' SAINT PAUL File NO.��'�U Or anance Ordinance N0. Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date An interim ordinance estricting the e�stablish- ment or enlargement o community residential facilities , transition 1 housing, shelters for battered persons, miss ' ons , and emergency housing facilities , pending co pletion of studies of possible amendments to the City' s Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Reg lations , which interim ordinance is enacted p rsuant to Minnesota • Statutes, section 362. 55, subdivision 4. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAI T PAUL DOES ORDAIN: Se tion 1 . The Saint Paul Planning Commission has initiated a study of local and state land use r gulations of community residential facilities , which study is in ended to recommend possible amend- ments to either the City' s Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Regulatioris . The study in ludes ' residential himan service facilities , adult foster car arrangements , foster care for children , residential correctio s facilities , unlicensed community, . . residential facilities, transi ional housing, emergency housing, shelters for battered persons and missions . The purpose of this inte��ir►i ordinance is to pr vent the establishment or enlarge- . , ment of any such facilities until such time as the Council has detei,mined the proper 1 nd use regulations relating to '. . , �uch uses . This ordinance re ognizes the fact that the Legis- . �l�ature h3s restricted the C ' ty ' s authori�y to regulate the � � ' , .location of licensed resident al facilities , as set forth in Minnesota Statutes , sections 245A. 11 , 245A. 14 and 462 . 357 , and the fact that this inter 'm ordinance may . not prevent the establishrnent of such facilit ' es which are mandated by the legislature as permitted uses n either sir��.e-family or multi- family districts. COUNCIL MEMBERS � Yeas Nays Requested by Department of; Dimond ��g In Favor Goswicz Rettman ' Scheibel Against BY — Sonnen R''ilson ' Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date � Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY — By A�proved by Mayor: Date Approved by biayor for Submission to Council By BY ` L° - •w ' • i •� � , • • ' - // /r�(y��(fC,� . ' , . �V' S C'tlOI7 2. Pending the completion of the studies and the recom- mendations of the Planning Commission, and the adoption of the necessary amendments b the City Council to the City' s Comprehensive Plan and Zoni g Regulatior.s , for the period of time not to exceed one year from the date of the adoption of this interim ordinance, no permit for the establishment or enlargement of any communit residential facility, residential human service facility, adult foster care arrangements , foster care for children, residenti 1 corrections facility, unlicensed community residential facili y, transitional housing, emergency housing, shelter for batter d persons and missions , including special condition use permi s or building permits , shall be issued or granted by the lanning. Commission, or any other City official , within any oning classification district in the City of Saint Paul . � Se tion 3 . The restrictions contai ed herein shall not apply to any licensed residential facilit 5erving six or fewer persons to be located within a res ' deritially zoned district , nor to any licensed facility serving 16 or fewer persons to be located within a multi-family zoned district , as these licensed resi- dential facilities are deeme by the Legislature as permitted • uses in such residential d stricts and which lar_d ases the City is prevented from restri ting pursuant to its local zoning � regulations . � Se ticn 4. The restrictions enacted erein mav be extended by resolution • ' of the City Council for ad itional periods not to exceed an ' additional .l8 months in the e ent tY�e studies and r�commendations of the Planning Commission a d the deliberations by the City Council should require such ex ensions of tim� . . 2. , . � , .. '_ . . . .,. , .. _ . , : _ wr.1�E� �-C�TV CLEAK � '�� / P�� - F�NANCE � � CANARY - DEPARTMENT GITY OF AINT PAUL FlecilNO. �/�_ � �,, BLUE - MAVOR� Q . . ' Or nance Ordinance N0. Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Se tion 5. This ordinance shall t ke effect thirty days from and after its passage , approval nd publication; provided, however, that it is the intent of his Council that the restrictions contained herein shall be etroactive and made applicable to any and all permit applica ions pertaining to all such uses received by the City from nd after the date this ordinance was first introduced and read efore the City Council . y 3. COUNCIL MEMBERS Ye�s Nays Requested by Department of: Dimond �� In Favor Goswitz Rettman B scne;bei Against Y Sonnen Wilson " Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by Mayor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council .�.. Rv . � , . . . • • . ; ,�� . , ��-� M E M O R A N D U M - IN LIEU OF ORAL TESTIMONY T THE APRIL 22, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REPORT BY THE S .PAUI PLANNING COMMISSION TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY RES DENTIAL FACILITIES SUBMITTED BY: Familystyle of t. Paul , Incorporated 712 Fifth Avenu Northwest New Brighton, M nnesota 55112 (612) 636-1086 DRAFTED BY: Steven Anderson JANECEK & WRIGH Stony Lake Offi e Park 2451 Fifteenth treet Northwest New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 (612) 631-2108 DATED: May 9, 1988 � ------------------------------ ---------------------------------- Familystyle is a Rul 36 provider of residential care programs for mentally ill adults with facilities located in the Jefferson/West Seventh area of t. Paul and operating under all applicable licenses. As a result, Familystyle has a vested as well as professional interest i all recommendations proposed in the Task Force Report altering oning requirements for residential care facilities. Although the Task For e recommendations raise a variety of inental health issues for a n mber of care providers serving different needs in the communit , this memorandum offers comment on only three portions of the T sk �orce Report that specifically affect Rule 36 providers: 1 ) th concentration restriction prohibiting licensing of new fa ilities in planning distriets where more than 1!K of the plann ng district population lives in � . � . . � . � .� � . � � , G��-��' residential facilities licen ed by the Minnesota Deptartment of Human Services and the Minne ota Department of Corrections; �2) the distance requirements incorp rating additional location restrictions for Rule 36 fac lities in relation to a variety of licensed and unlicensed facilities; and, 3) the process requiring a review of special use permits for residential care facilities with six or fewer residents u on receipt of complaints by member5 of the neighborhood. Analysis of these p rtions of the Report demonstrate that the recommendations cann t be implemented by the City of St. Paul because the recommendati ns are more restrictive than existing State law. In addition , the City of St. Paul should not encourage the State Legislatur to incorporate the recommendations into applicable State Statutes and Rules because implementing such zoning restrictions would have enormous financial impact on County and State costs associated wit providing care mandated by State Law; would remove individuals ith unique financial , medical , recreation, and transportation needs from neighborhoods capable of providing for these needs; and would potentially violate the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Con titutions. • A. THE TASK FORCE RECOMM NDATIONS ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN EXISTING APPLICABLE S ATE LAW AND, THEREFORE, WOULD FAIL LEGAI CHAILfNGE BASED ON PREEMPTION IF IMPLEMENTED. 1 . The Role Of And P licy Behind State t�aw.* The Minnesota State L gislature has repeatediy passed * This memorandum reflects and supports the conclusions reached in the Memorandum of Ramsey County Attorney 's Office, dated January 29, 1988, submitted to t e Ramsey County Commissioners. 2. � . � . . ,� , � _ � . _ � ��.�' � legislation regulating resid ntial care facilities based on a primary policy concern that " ersons shall not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances o other, land use regulations from the benefits of normal residentia surroundings. " Minn. Stat. Sec. 245A. 11 ( 1 ) . The Attorney Gen ral and Minnesota Appellate Courts have consistently held the mu icipalities cannot impose restrictions on residential c re facilities that are more restrictive than State law, O . Att. Gen. 477b-34, April 26 � 1982; and that " local regulation th t forbids what the State expressly permits cannot stand, " Northw st Residential Inc, v . Cit of Brooklvn Center, 352 N.W. 2d 76 � 774 (Minn."Ct. App. 1984) . Furthermore, a city annot redefine residential facilities. Cos le v. Caromi House Inc. , 313 N.W. 2d 21 (Minn. 1981 ) . Although a City can im ose special or conditional use permits on multifamily residen ial facilities to "assure proper maintenance and operation" of he program, the conditions cannot be more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property "unless the additional conditions are necessar to r tect the health and safet of the ersons bein served b the ro ram. " (emphasis added) Minn. Stat. Sec. 245A. 11 (3) . As a result of the ab ve policies and principles, a municipality has no inherent ower to enact zoning legislation and only receives power to zone by leg,islative grant of authority. Costlev, 313 N.W.2d 21 , 27 (Min . Ct. App. 1981 ) . In short, state law preempts local regula ion in the area of ensuring an 3. � . � , . .� . � . � - 1,��a�' appropriate living environment n residential facilities for •the mentally ill . Northwest Residen ial , 352 N.W. 2d 764, 773 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) . 2. Current State Conc ntration And Distance Reauirements. The Task Force recomm ndations rely heavily on legislative ehanges to the exis ing Human Services Licensing Act. Task Force Report, January 1988 p. 14-15 . However, a bill before the House of Representatives de igned to incorporate the major recommendations of the Task For e Report did not pass during the past legislative session and wa referred to the Committee on Health and Human Services. (Hou e File # 2656 , Introduced by Representative Pappas) . Consequently, Minnesota Statute Section 245A. 11 currently regulates bo h concentration and distance requirements of residential fa ilities for the mentally ill . a. Current Conc ntration Restrictions. Minnesota Statute 24 A requires that counties implement dispersal plans for districts ith "highly concentrated" residen- tial facility population. The statute then defines highly concen- trated as "having a population in residential programs serving seven or more persons that exc eds one-half of one percent of the population of a recognized pla ning district. . . (emphasis added) . " Minn. Stat. Sec. 245A. 11 (5) . * Consequently, only residents of programs licensed under the Hu an Services Licensing Act that ------------------------------ ---- * The Task Force Report correc ly questions the importance of the concentration requirement in 2 5A to date. However , 245A. 11 (5) (b) has resulted in the Ramsey Cou ty Plan, Overconcentration and Dispersal of Residential Treat ent Programs , Drafted April , 1985 , . Revised, February, 1986. The ounty Plan illustrates the in- creased importance the .05A► fi ure will play in the future. 4 . � � � . . � . � _ � � � - ��a� reside in facilities serving s ven or more persons are calculated into the .05% figure. b. Current Dist nce Restrictions. Minnesota Statute Se tion 245A. 11 ( Subd.4) controls and only requires that a license c nnot be granted to a residential program facility that will be ithin 1 , 320 feet of an existing residential facility unless th municipality grants the program a conditional or special use per it. The distance requirement contained in 245A. 11 (4) applie only to facilities licensed under the Human Services Licensing A t. 3. Task Force Recomm ndations. The more prominent a d significan� differences between the Task Force recommendations and existing law as it relates to Rule 36 residential care provi ers appear largely the result the Task Force's concerns that: 1 . A new spectrum of residential services for vulnerable population has emegered. . , [and] 2 . Saint Paul is hom to a disproportionate share of those persons living in community residential facilities for the mentally ill s well as in halfway houses for adult offenders. The imbalance is more between the central cities and th ir surrounding suburbs than with greater Minnesota. . . Task Force Report, p. 7 , "Major Conclusions" 1 and 2. See also Exhibit A Attached ( "Scenario A alysis" and "DHS Report" ) . In short, the Task Force Report ap ears primarily concerned with � trying to disperse Rule 36 faci ity residents throughout the County based on St. Paul 's comp rative percentage of Ramsey County's general population to ther cities and municipalities in the County while at the same ti e dealing with new types of 5. . • ' , � , CT OU (�a�0 facilities. These concerns are, of course , clearly evidenced in the Task Force Recommendati ns. a. Recommend d Concentration Restrictions. The Task Force rec mmends establishing a concentration level of 1� rather than the 05� utilized in Section 245A. The Task Force� however, further recommends including additional populations in the calculati n. Specifically, the Task Force recommends basing concentrati n levels on the number of individuals residing in: ( 1 ) 11 residential facilities licensed under the Human Services l.ice sing Act (except "foster care" for adults or children with three or less residents) whether the facility is a single family ( " ix or fewer" residents) or a � multifamily ( "seven or more" r sidents) ; and, ( 2) all residential facilities licensed by the Min esota Department of Corrections . Even though the Task Force actually recommends raising the concentration percentage to 1% rather than .05%, the effect of the recommendation is obviously more restrictive than existing law for at least three reasons. Fi st, the plan calls for increasing the number of residential care opulations that are counted and therefore capped. Put in terms of preemptive caselaw, the plan attempts to forbid what the Stat Legislature has clearly deemed permissible. Second, because th two additional groups are added to the formula, the potential ex sts for declaring a planning zone "highly concentrated" without ev r reaching a .05% concentration level of residents living in Rul 36 facilities housing seven or more individuals which is clearly beyond the mandate of Section 245A. 6. � � � � . . � � � � ��-�� Finally, by includ ng Rule 36 facilities serving six or fewer residents in the conce tration formula, the recommendations arguably has the net effect f redefining the meaning of "residential facility" under the State' s statutory scheme by eliminating one key element f the definition. Specifically, a "state licensed residential f cility serving six or fewer persons. . .shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of property f r the purposes of zoning. " Minn. Stat. Sec. 462. 357(Subd. 7 ) . b. Recotmnended Distance Restri_ctions. The Task Force reco mendations relevant to distance requirements are clearly more restrictive than the controlling law found in Minnesota Statute Se tion 245A. 'T'�ie recommendations define and add a variety of f cilities serving a wide range of community needs that are cons dered in the 1 ,320 foot distance requirement. Under the Task orce Plan, all facilities to be licensed by the Department of Human Services (except foster care for children) must be at leas 1 , 320 feet from all residential facilities licensed by the De artment of Corrections and unlicensed facilities for eme gency and transitional housing including shelters for the ho less, shelters for battered women, and missions. The result of i cluding the additional facilities is to decrease the amount of r al estate within any given planning zone that will be available fo residential facilities above and beyond the limjts created by t e concentration requirements and, therefore, is clearly more res rictive than the current distance requirements under Section 245 and certainly in conflict with the general policy directives. 7, ' �� 8 c. Recommended Review Process. - The Task Force reco mendations above will likely produce an increased need for request for special or conditional use permits given the additional oncentration and distance restrictions placed on reside tial facility care providers for the mentally ill . The increase i requests for special or conditional use permits has the potential for producing a greater number of residential facilities operat 'ng under special or conditional use permits. Although the potent 'al increased need to request such permits in itself would have egal significance as evidence of the recommendation's improperly a tering current statutory definitions of permitted single and multi amily uses, t�he improper effect of the increased restrictions ar amplified by the Task Force recommendation that, "Permits issued for facilities of six or fewer residents should be rev 'ewed upon the receipt of neighbor- hood complaints. " Task Force eport, p. 17 , "Recommendation. " The Task Force does not specifically define what constitutes a "complaint" suf icient to trigger review nor does the Report define the type of review that should be implemented. However, merely establishing n additional mechanism for triggering review of special se permits held by residential facilities that will not exis for other special use permits issued by the City creates th need to discuss whether such an additional restriction is "necessary to protect the health and safety of the [persons] being served by the program" as mandated by Minn. Stat. Sec. 245A. 11 ( ) . Nothi�ng in the Task Force report suggests such a review mecha ism is for the safety of the 8. . . : �� individuals living in the facilit 'es. In fact, the review process seems solely intended to the allo the neighborhoods more control over the special or conditional se permits. * B. THE TASK FORCE RECO MENDATION, IF IMPLEMENTED, WOULD HAVE AN ADVER E EFFECT ON THE NEEDS OF THE MENTALLY ILL AND AN ADVERSE FINANCIAL IMPACT ON RAMSEY COUNTY AND T E STATE. The above discussion d monstrates that any attempt by the City of St. Paul to impleme t the concentration, distanc�, and review recommendations containe in the Task Report will fail on preemptive grounds if implement d under the existing language of Minnesota Statute Section 245A. 1 . The Task Force Report, however, recommends or at least implies continued efforts to persuade the State Legislature to amend 245A to mirror the basic � principles and policy focus co tained in the Report. Consequently, a substantive an lysis beyond preemption is necessary and demonstrates tha the recommendations should not be incorporated into 245A or adopted by the City of St. Paul . 1 . The Recomm ndations Fai_1 To AdequatelY Account For The Un ue Needs Of The Mentall I11 . Amending Minnesota tatute Section 245A. 11 to incorporate the Report's reco mendations would constitute a radical shift in the current pproach taken by the State Legislature in the care of t e mentally ill . Specifically, the current statutory scheme use statewide guidelines implemented on a countywide basis to ensure that adequate care is provided while ---------------------------- ------ * It is important to note th t desiring neighborhood input into zoning decisions is not, in itself, a bad policy. Removing neighbor complaints as a triggering mechanisms for review while retaining some formal role or considering the complaints in the standard review process pro ably overcomes the 245A constraints. 9 . � . . . , . . . G��`"�a at the same time allowing mu icipalities to make zoning decisions based on concentration and d stance requirements. The Task Force Report recommendations shift the focus of implementation of the statewide guidelines away fr m a solely countywide perspective to a more municipality and neig borhood based approach seeking an even distribution of residen ial facilities throughout the County based on demographic and pop lation statistics. As a result of this shift, the recommendati ns seem to ignore the unique needs of the mentally ill that are primarily the result of the general economic condition of the me tally ill as a whole which are best served by residing in urban reas. See e• q_ Beiser, Shore, Peters & Tatum, "Does Community Car for the Mentally I11 Make a Differe�ce? A Tale of Two Cities, " 142 : 9 Am. J . Psychiatry 1047 , 1049 , Table 1 (Sept. 1985 ) (s owing that 50% of the study population received welfare enefits as their major source of income) . a. Tran ortation Needs. The need for affordable and readily available transpor- tation for residents of Rule 36 facilities cannot be under- estimated. The goal of such acilities is, in part, to acquaint the patient with and prepare the patient for entry into normal community living arrangements. See e.4. Minn. Rules 9520.0620 "Program Services. " See also act Sheet #3 - Continuum Of Services, League of Women Vot rs Study , 1987-1989. Public transportation in St. Paul is particularly affordable, available at all times, and used by a wide segment of the total community population. Outlying areas o the County simply cannot provide 10. � . � . . � _ � � . J �_�as' . � this type of public transport tion , b. Proxi itv To Medical Care. Mentally ill indivi uals often need prompt medical assistance based, in part, on their increased vulnerability to health related risks. The ur an areas of St. Paul have a variety of inedical facilities within lose physical proximity that are financial accessible to the m ntally ill population. While medical care is obviously ava ' lable in the out-county portions of Ramsey County, the facilities are generally more widely dispersed and less financially accessib e to the mentally ill population as a whole. c. Proxi it To Recreational Facilities. A variety of indoor and outdoor r'�creational facilities are readily available in the ity of St. Paul to residents of Rule 36 facilities� often within w lking distance and at little or no cost. The importance of acce sible recreational facilities cannot be underestimated given the r le such facilities play in acquainting the residents wit normal community living. See Licensing Of Residential Faci ities For Adult Mentally I11 Persons, Minn. Rules 9520.051 (Subp. 24) , "Recreation and leisure time services" ( "An objective of these services is the integration of residents into the recreat 'onal mainstream of the community" ) . Recreational opportunities ou side the City of St. Paul , just as transportation opportunities, are less varied and more widely dispersed and, , therefore, mor difficult for the mentally ill to use. 11. . . . � � - ��a� d. Abtlit o Locate In Communit� After - Re 1 ease. �"" Most patients treated or mental illness relocate within blocks of their last treating fa ility. The reasons for this appear relatively simple. For e ample, the individual may continue to need periodic contact with the care provider and, therefore, it is convenient to emain in the area. However, the basic reason may simply be that the resident is already familiar with the neighborhood, feels co fortable there, and to a great extent, can avoid the need to a ter basic living patterns by remaining in the neighborhood. Because of the underlying financial condition of many of the mentally ill , low cost hou ing is a very important consid- eration. See nerally Fact Sh et #t3, League of Women Voters Study, 1987-1988. Unfortunate y, low cost housing is becoming less available on the average nd certainly is less likely to be available in suburban Ramsey C unty (North Oaks, Shoreview, etc. ) than in the more urban portio s of St. Paul . This, combined with the inconvenience outlying ar as can cause to the mentally ill because of the problems state above, suggests that the released individual will have to leave the neighborhood that he or she is accustomed to and relocate to less expensive portions of St. Paul . 2 . The Reco ndations Conflict With The Mandates Contained n The Minnesota Comprehensive Mental Health Act. " In 1987 , the State Legislature passed the Minnesota Comprehensive Mental Health ct. Minn. Stat. Sec. 245.461 et al . The bulk of provisions appli able to County Boards and their rol� in mental health care become effective from June, 1988 to January, 12 . . , , . : . , .. . . ��' � I 1990. Basically, the Act r quires that County Boards: - 1 . develop a d coordinate a system of affordable and locally avail ble mental health services. . . 3. provide f r screening of persons. . . upon ad- mission to a resi ential treatment facility. . . 4. prudentiv administer. . . purchase-of-service contracts that th county board determines are necessary to fulfill its re ponsibilties. . . (emphasis added) Minn. Stat. Sec. 245.465 . n addition , Counties must provide a full range of educational a d preventative , 24-hour emergency, and outpatient services as well as a variety of other services designed to upgrade the men al health care system in Minnesota. Minn. Stat. Sec. 245.466(2) et s�. Although the task assigned to County Boards will be � financed in part by other g vernmental sources, the Act promises to be expensive for both th State and Counties and, thus, the general public because of t e new services that must be provided. As a result, the cost of pr viding mental health care becomes even more a priority now than it has been in the past and the State and Counties are conscious of th need to keep costs of each program under control so that all ma dated programs can be carried out. The Task Force Report is sil nt on the ultimate costs associated with implementing the recomm ndations. a. The R co�nnendations Fail To Ade uatel Accou t For The Cost Of Locatin Facilities n 0u -Count Areas. Starting up a resi ential ; care facility obviously requires an initial purchase or lease of residential property. Property is generally less e pensive to obtain in urban portions of St. Paul than in municipa ities in the outlying areas. Keeping 13. . 1��a� start up costs as low as po sible will help produce affordable care as mandated by the Com rehensive Mental Health Care Act. The same can be said for costs ssociated with relocating existing facilities and upgrading mu icipality services to meet transpor- tation, medical and recreational needs of the mentally ill . In short, the Task Force recom endations are very expensive and yet offer no plan for off-setti g or incentives designed to reduce these additional costs. C. THE RECOMMEND TIONS, IF IMPLEMENTED AS PROPOSED, POTENTIALLY VIOLATE THE MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AND THE E UAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES AND MI NESOTA CONSTITUTIONS. Discussion surrou ding legislative creation of treatment facilities for the mentally ill has long in�cluded recognition of potential civil rights issu s. See e• q• Ramsey County Plan , Revised February, 1986 , p.5 . The Task Force recommendations are particularly susceptible to attack on state and federal constitutional and human ri hts grounds . 1 . Potential Violations Of The Minnesota Human Ri hts Ac . � � The Minnesota Hum n Rights Act forbids discrimination against "any person or grou af persons because of. . . [disability] . . . in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental or lease of any real property r in the furnishina of facilities or services in connection ther with. . . (emphasis added) , " Minn. Stat. Sec. 363.03(Subd.2) ( 1 ) (b) . "Disability" under" the Human Rights Act includes "mental impair ent which substantially limits one or more major life activities, ' and further allows discrimination actions to be brought again t political subdivisions. Minn. Stat. Sec. 363.01 (Subd. 7 ) and (S bd. 25 ) . Because the concentration, 14. . . . . ��a� � , . distance and review restrictions proposed by the Task Force � potentially limits real property and housing choices and facilities available to a disabl d individual or groups of individuals with a disability, he City of St. Paul could be exposed to Human Rights Act litigation. 2 . Potential Co stitutional Violations. The United States and Minnesota Constitutions forbid legislative and administrative lassifications based on characteristics of persons or g oups of persons unless the classification is rationally r lated to a legitimate government interest. U.S. Const. amend. X V sec. 1 : Minn. Const. Art. 1 sec. 2 . See also Cit of Clebu ne v. Cle burne Livin Center, � U.S , 105 S.Ct. 3249 ( 1 85 ) ; Nort.hwest Colleqe v. Citv of Arden Hills, 281 N.W. 2d 865 (M 'nn. 1979 ) ; Price v .Amdal , 256 N.W. 2d 461 (Minn. 1977 ) (purpos of Minnesota equal protection clause is to ensure that all ersons are free from arbitrary and intentional discriminatiorr) a d 42 U.S.C. 1983. "Legitimate government interests" do not nclude irrational prejudice, negative attitudes, or unfoun ed fears of any group of persons. Cleburne, U. S. , 105 S.Ct. 3249 , 3259-60 ( 1985 ) .* As discussed above, the Task Force recommendations ---------------------------- ------ * Under the United States C nstitution, the "minimum rationality" standard is undoubtedly cont olling in any constitutional challenge of a zoning classi ication based on mental illness given dicta found in .Cleburne, 105 S.Ct. 3249 , 3258 ( 1985) : "One need mention in this respect. . .th mentally i11 . . .We are reluctant to set out on that course, and e decline to do so. " The Minnesota Appellate Courts have not sp cifically ruled on the matter and strong arguments exist for allowing the mentally ill a heightened standard of review under the Minnesota Equal Protection clause. 15. - , . . , _ . ' ' U'��9�"' utilize a city and neighborho d perspective and attempt to disperse Rule 36 facilities t roughout the entire County. At the same time, the recommendation would allow neighborhood complaints to trigger a review of specia and conditional use permits. In short, the Task Force recomme dation$ appear to reflect concerns from factions within the comm nity that simply do not want any more residential facilities o any type coming into their neighborhood. The oral testi ony offered at the April 22 , 1988 public hearing from members o the community included references to safety of the residents ef ect on the safety of the neighborhood in general . Neighborhood safety concerns are understandable and should, in fact, play a role n determining'' zoning standards if the community or facility res dents are actually in danger. However, the Task Force Repor does not include reference to any study, report, or collection f factual data to substantiate the existence of an actual safety issue. Rather, at this point in � time; the Task Force Report s 'mply recognizes that the neighborhoods often perceive he problem to exist and, therefore, the recommendations appear ir ationally based on unfounded fears at best, and at worst, raises the issue of whether prejudice is involved. CONC USION " For all the above r asons , the Task Force recommen- dations cannot be implemented by the City at this time and the State Legislature should not e encouraged to amend Minnesota Statute Section 245A to incor orate the changes recommended by the 16. _ , . . �.��.z� . � ( S ction 2. Pending the completio of the studies and the recom- mendations of the Planning Commission, and the adoption of the necessary amendments b the City Council to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zon'ng Regulations, for the period of time � not to exceed one yea from the date of the adoption of th�a.s interim ordinance, no permit f tablishment or � enlargement of any communit residential facilit , residential � human service facili ''}�; � , residenti 1 corrections facility, unlicensed community residential facili y, transitional housing, emergency housing, shelter for batter d persons and missions , including j special condition use perm'ts or building permits, shall be issued or granted by the lanning Commission, or any other City official , within any zoning classification district in the City of Saint Paul. � ��L S ction 3. � �' '-' ' � � The restrictions contai ed�erein shall not apply to any licensed residential facili y� �' serving six or fewer persons � to be located within a re identially zoned district, nor to any licensed facility servin 16 or fewer persons to be located within a multi-family zoned district, as these licensed resi- dential facilities are deeme by the Legislature as permitted uses in' such residential d stricts and which land uses the City is prev ted from restr'ctin pursuant its local zoning r e gu 1 a t i on s. '��. ,�,Qa�.;,�,,,��c �_ �,� ,�,..�,� �.,,,, � �'�aa��., N�� 0 � Se ti n 4 The restrictions enacted erein may be extended by resolution of the City Council for ad itional periods not to exceed an additional 18 months in the e ent the studies and recommendations of the Planning Commission nd the deliberations by the City Council should require such ex ensions of time. _- __ _ � � , - --_--- ____ �� . � �� 1 �` �� .� c��.a�., ��.1 \ �. ��e,,, ,,,,,, -�, �1,� c� . . � �� .�,�..�. .�,.�:�. G ..�,,.�..� �,-� ��-, w �. � �� ' c�0 �� .�,. e�.�.vv--, -� �. ,�.�� „� . �. . . -. . WHITE ' - CITY CIERK � � � PINK � FINAN�E GITY OF SAINT PALTL Council �{n' /�(� .CSIVE�M-MAYpqTMENT File NO. �� v �v , Or 'nc�nce Ordinance N0. Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Sec ion �.� This ordinance shall ta e effect thirty days from and . after its passage, approval a d publication; provided, however, that it is the intent of th s Council that the restrictions ontained herein shall be re roactive and made applicable to ny and all permit applicati ns pertaining to all such uses w ich have been received but not issued or approved prior to th date that this interim ordi ance was adopted by this Council. --- � �i ��• K�.`�� C-c��r�� -��c-- � � ��-c�Q.�. � �.�� J �� l �V�- .}l�r��f�- dl �,�SJ.� � �� 4�. /lSU�-G�.� � -�. • n '�G�� \ �a- \ ��. � ` Sl�,� �*""'°�� J� C-c;v-s� V v\ � • � �� ;� �1 v , �� .. �,�.<;.� � .�,�.�..�. - ��.�;� �.�.�� . �.�.�. 6� c, nsva��S.�C c, a�c.�-�..cti,�:;-�.. �G� .�.,�.,�.a.�;. �►.�. v , Q Y' C��.� -�,�s _ � .�a c� , �`" �► i��sU.�,�o c�- �-�c:�s�� a� ��+c`c.,�-c�. 3. ,{.�1 e �6��.5� ��i�••��• COUNCIL NIEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Dimond ��g [n Favor cosW;u Rettman B s�ne;n�� Against Y Sonnen ' �Ison Form Ap ro ed by City At rney �,_.,pted by Council: Date C � .�l'� Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By App�oved by Mayor: Date Approve y Mayor for Submission to Council Bv � BY .;� , 11 . /Qi._.(',��l��j f1� (/F�d0 ��o�0 � �. �� - _ �. -� _ -_ __ _: _ p _ _ ==�s�ocra��on_ for etarded Citizens - 65 E. Kellogg, Sui� 437 • SL 1, MN 55101 • I612) 224-3301 _ _ 3une 22 , 1:98-8 __ - _ _. - , : RECEIVED : - : _ _ _ :-, - Mr. Jim Scheibel , Chair JUN 23 �988 St. Paul City Council 386 City Hall C�� C�ERK St . Paul , MN 55102 Dear Mr. Scheibel :. � My name is Thomas Schulta , I a representing the As�ociation for _ Retarded Citizens of St. Paul nd I am here todap to represent our membership of approximatel 900 people who are family members, individuals with ment 1 retaxdation or . interested - - = - -- =-P-e r�o�sz---_— - — --- . _ _ Our organization is dedicated o improving the lfves of people with mental retardation and th ir families. The ARC is a private non-profit organization compos d of inembers who represent a cross section of the eo-mmunitq. _ �I� _ ssist p_eople who live in St. Paul and the 16 suburbs of Ramsey C unty. There are approximately 1 ,400 peo.ple_._�y�.ng, in this -�o nty who are considered developmentally disabled. Dur ng 1987 we assisted over 300 _ fami-lies through counsel.ing_ an _ _suppo_rt_ services_, _held __._ _._ ____.educational meetings and provi ed information and. referral -- , -- -- - _ __ _ - - serv3ZE-s--to--individuals arid .ag ncies. Th�o�g�- the various - - - services- that we provide we are keenlp .aw�re,__gf :the_.issues_that -- _--- �� - ��° ��'- . �3��s of -children a d -aduJ�ts_with_ dtsabilities._ _ : --- -_:__ �ecaus� of"`that- we are 'here to�a�e-�pr�ss o-�r- concerns about _. - �.�- - - - _.._:.�_ _r_,�,...--tfir�i : ,. ei��-p po-�"��'-'b�-,�he---�t.--Pais�'"C�tq _Council - A—, _ .. . � _.d�....��.; � _.��— ---_. _ on,_.Co.mmun�y�si�ential Faci it�es: - - As a representative of the AR I must say that philosophically we _ -- -- -==agr�e--�ait�=��a-_hasic tenets o �.hi=s-c�-r�i3nance and thos-e are the following: 1 ) That people should no- .be : group�d together in _ - . - -neigh�orl�o-ods aeeordi: g to a specifi� disability - or accordin� to a: pro_ ram which thep maq be _ __ ._ participating in. _ - _ ; 2) That neighborhoods ha e integrity and that they should be comfortable places for individuals -- ----- - and families to live. Effort needs to - - be invested in mainta ning that integrity. - `t�K-�N�u'(• _.. . _ . . .. . � _ . _ . . . . . . . . �� s s a Y/�� i 9 c ,�i E 1�, � . {.If11Eetl VMay �o•�r Go� United Way Agency • � �y 1�� Mr. Jim Scheibel , Chair Page 2 �� St . Paul City Council Initially, when the propose ordimance was brought to our attention the ARC was '�think ng that this particular issue was not germane to our agency and t e concerns of our members . But after reviewing this particular p oposal , it is our feeling that there is an anticipation of _probl ms related to people with disabilities. There are s udies that have shown over a period of qears that there is no n gative impact on the neighborhood when persons with mental re ardation and other related conditions move into neighborhoods. B cause of the level of support that is provided to individuals wit mental retardation there have been fewer problems than would t pically occur in ordinary - neighborhoods. The term "L censed Community Residential Facility" is used throughou the report and this term does not accuratelp describe the liv ng arrangements that our people are involved in or will be movi g into . The homes are individually selected typical neighborho d houses sometimes with modifications made for specific individua s and their needs. I must underline the fact that these are hom s; these are not facilities. With the proposal as stated the burden is put on persons with mental retardation and othe related conditions to find affordable housing in areas that are not concentrated. This requirement is not imposed n people without disabilities. The proposed ordinance as s ated discriminates against persons with mental retardation. W question if this would withstand the rational pe-rson test that w s determined in the Supreme Court case involving the City of leburne , Texas. If these recommendations were determ ned to be discriminatory, the City and County would be in 3eop rdy of losing federal dollars. The Association for Retarde Citizens of St. Paul strongly ._,,. __��__�_o_ppos_es_the_ recommendations to--_�e.�n-ir.e_ spacial use �ermits for -- -- ___..__ . - famiiq size lining arrang�a, -_,_ ___�1-e-�fe:e1 that thQSe. _ - _= — - � - --- recommendations woufd deny gp��tri-ties f�ar-a�wi:d��uariety-:of living arrangements for peo le with mental retardation. I appreciate this opportuni y to present our concerns regarding - the zoning proposal . I wou d b_�_._ h.�.ppy to grovide further information if questions ar generated from this statement . Thank you, Thomas M. Schu z Advocacy Direc ' TMS/lcm :,, � -�oZ� �� st. au� p � Association f r Retarded Citizens - 6'S E. Kellogg, Suite 437 • S . Paul, MN 55101 • (612) 224�1 June 22, 1988 -- � RECEIVED Mr. Jim Scheibel , Ghair JUN 23 �988 St. Paul City Council 3 s 6 c i t y x 8 i i CITY CLERK St . Paul , MN 55102 Dear Mr. Scheibel : � My name is Thomas Schultz , I am representing the As�ociation for Retarded Citizens of St. Pau and I am here todag to represent our membership of approximat lq 900 people who are family members, individuals with me tal retardation or interested persons. Our organization is dedicated to improving the lines of people with mental retardation and their families. The ARC is a private non—profit organization composed of inembers who represent a cross _ _ section of the community. We assist people who live in St. Paul and the .16 suburbs of Ramsey ounty. There are approximatelq 1 ,400 people living in this c unty who are considered developmentally disabled. Du ing 1987 we assisted over 300 families through counseling a d support services , held educational meetings and prov ded information and referral services to individuals and a encies. Through the various - services that we provide we a e keenly aware of the issues that affect the lives of children nd adults with disabilities . Because of that we are here t daq to express our concerns about the interim ordinance being p oposed by the St. Paul City Council on Community Residential Faci ities. As a representative of the AR I must sap that philosophicallq we agree with the basic tenets o this ordinance and those are the following: 1 ) That people should no be grouped together in neighborhoods accordi g to a specific disability or according to a pro ram which theq may be participating in.� 2) That neighborhoods ha e integrity and that they should be comfortable places for individuals and families to live. Effort needs to be invested in mainta ning that integrity. �K AN� t�' �� s W .,. � Yj�� _ � ; f ��i ��°, . � UnitedWay �o•AM 40� Uniled Way Agency ., -, �,.�z� Mr. Jim Scheibel Chair � , Page 2 St . Paul City Council Initially; when the proposed ordinance was brought to our . attention the ARC was thinki g that this particular issue was not germane to our agency and th concerns of our members. But after � reviewing this p�rticular pr posal, it is our feeling that there is an anticipation of proble s related to people with disabilities. There are st dies that have shown over a period of years that there is no ne ative impact on the neighborhood when persons with mental ret rdation and other related conditions move into neighborhoods. Be ause of the level of support that is provided to individuals with mental retardation there have been fewer problems than would ty ically occur in ordinary neighborhoods. The• term "Li ensed Community Residential Facility" is used throughout the report and this term does not accurately describe the livi g arrangements that our people are involved in or will be movin into. The homes are individually selected typical neighborhoo houses sometimes with modifications made for specific individual and their needs. I must underline the fact that these are home ; these are not facilities. With the proposal as stated , the burden is put on persons with mental retardation and other related conditions to find affordable housing in areas that are not concentrated . This requirement is not imposed o people without disabilities. The proposed ordinance as stated discriminates against persons with mental retardation. We question if this would withstand the rational person test that was determined in the Supreme Court case involving the City of leburne , Texas. If these recommendations were determined to be discriminatory, the City and County would be in 3eop rdy of losing federal dollars. The Association for Retarde Citizens of St . Paul stronglq opposes the recommendations -to- -r-equire special use permits for _ family size living arrangem nts. We feel that these . . recommendations would deny pportunities for a wide variety of living arrangements for peo le with mental retardation. I appreciate this opportuni y to present our concerns regarding the zoning proposal. I wou d be happq to provide further information if questions ar generated from this statement. Thank you, � Thomas M. Schu z Advocacy Direc ' TMS/lcm �tst o � �� T R'` ':,1 CITY OF SAINT PAUL � �� DEPART ENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT . � �ii�i�niu ;� �� o DIVISION OF PLANNING 25 West Fourfh Street�Sainf hul.Minnewfa 55102 ,�.• . 612-22&3270 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR DATE: June 14, �988 `�-rsd � � Co�.��-�I �5�,"� T0: Council President James cheibel and �CEWED �30 Members of the City Cou il �xoM: Peggy A. Reichert,_ � �� JUN 15 �988 , �: �ity �cs�a+�a�l g flities CITY CLERK The purpose of this memo is to u date you as to the status of the Planning Commission's initiative to amend the zo�ing code's provisions relative to com- munity residential facilities. is is important background to two ma�or proposals being discussed this w ek: 1) Proposed ordinance 88-86 establishing a moratorium on the estab- lishment or enlargement f community residential facilities, transi- tional housing, shelters for battered persons, missions and emergency housing facilities pendi g completion of studies of possible amend- ments to the City's Comp ehensive Plan and/or zoning regulations. 2) The staff recommendatio to the Planning Commission's Zoning Com- mittee that an applicati n by Re-entry Services, Inc. for a special condition use permit be laid over indefinitely while the 40-acre study on community resi ntial facilities is completed and zoning amendments can be adopte . History The following is a brief chronic e of events leading up to this point: - A six member ad hoc co ittee of the Planning Commission was ap- . pointed by chairperson vid Lanegran in February, 1987 and asked to explore a range of issues surrounding residential facilities for per- sons with disabilities, orrectional clients and the homeless. - During March-May 1987, mmunity leaders, neighborhood residents and service providers were vited to four information gathering sessions where presentations were made by various resource people. (Attachment 1) - On June 12, 1987, the C ission formally established a 15-member representative task for e and charged it, in part, with developing appropriate amendments o the zoning code. (Attachment 2) A back- ground paper was prepar d by Planning Division staff posing a range of issues for task forc discussion. (Attachment 3) . . -- � � ��a�' Council President James Scheibel and Members of the City Council June 14, 1988 Page Two - In January, 1988, the ta k force forwarded its report to the Planning Commission proposing zon ng code text amendments which would do the following: - Define nine different types of facilities. - Assign .facilities to ppropriate zoning districts and establish distance requirements for each facility type. - Outline additional co ditions for each facility type related to parking, lot area, an health standards. (Attachment 4) - On February 12, 1988, the Planning Commission accepted the report, initiated a 40 Acre Study for the purpose of making text amendments and scheduled a public he ring. (Attachment 5) - On April 22, 1988, the P1 nning Commission held a public hearing on the task force report and then commended the report and the public testimony to the Neighbor oods Committee for appropriate action. (Attachments 6 and 7) - The Neighborhoods Committ e discussed those portions of the task force report relating to acilities not licensed by the State of Minnesota. (State law co strains the authority of local government to impose controls on lic nsed facilities and task force recommenda- tions to amend the law we e not enacted during the 1988 legislative session.) Based on the p blic testimony, the committee re-shaped some of the task force pr posals into its own recommendations which will be fashioned into zo ing code text amendments. (Attachment 8) Current Status At this point, the Neighborhoods C mmittee has asked for the opportunity to discuss its report with the approp iate City Council committee for the purpose of reaching policy consensus befor text amendments are drafted and released ' for public review. We expect that meeting to take place within the next 3-4 weeks. PAR:rm Attachments cc: Mayor George Latimer Ken Johnson . ATTACHMENT 1 ��-Oa --�o�d ,� - � 4�.�'T' °•:, CITY OF SAINT PAUL . . CITY PLANNING COMMISSION O y �/�.{.ifll�is�1i1�1Tia�1 �� e 25 VMest Fourth Sd�eet,S�int Pwl,Min�sota 5510Z ,... 612-29�-1577 GEORGE UTIMER MAYOR March 10, 1987 Dear Community Leader, This is an invitation to participat in a Planning Commission examination of the issues which surround community residential facilities and other non- traditional housing such as emergen y shelters, transitional housing or similar group living arrangements. To��spearhead this effort, Commissio chair David Lanegran has appointed us to chair a six member ad hoc committee which 'intends to work its way through a two-stage process. In the first st ge, the committee will host four public information gathering sessions to w ich you are invited. The schedule of meetings to be held from • 0 m each evening at the West Seventh un e te 65 eida S reet is as follows: March 23 History and philosop y of community based care. Legislative history nd intent April 6 Regulatory environm t: State/county/city _ April 20 Inventory in St. Pa 1. Ramsey County Decon entration Plan May 4 Community experienc s: Local and national Once all of us are equipped with a common understanding of the context within which these issues emerge, the co ittee will outline the issues requiring more detailed work and determine what p oducts should result from this process. At this point, we will also assess ho best to include a balanced representation of interests in one or more workin groups responsible for developing these products. We hope that you or someone in you organization can join us for this important examination of a complex, but crit'cal, system. If you know of any other interested persons, please extend his invitation to them. If you have any questions, feel free to call Nancy Homans of the Planning Division staff at 228-3372. Sincerely, ; j.'.�(��-�.{�.,J ''1�.i�� r;�.. !.;�,;�;- %`.�;< L./...... `�harles Repke� Imogeae Treichel ��'��" Co-chair Co-chair ATTACNMENT 2 ', r 4 � ��(r�� V% city of saint paul -- planning comr�ussion resolu ion , � file number 87-65 • �te -TnnP 1 9 1 QR7 ESTABLISHMENT OF CO?iMUNITY AE ZDEFTIAL FACILITIES TASR FORCE WHEREAS , a significant number of issues involving community residential facilities have c me before the Planning Commission during the past year ; and �.'HEREAS � the Zoning Code has ot provided the Commission suffi- cient guidance in those cases and k'HEREAS � significant decision relative to community residential facilities are made by the st te and county governments without the participation of local go ernment or neighborhood residents ; and -' WHEREAS , there is a general 1 ck of information as to how com- munity residential facilities are established, regulated and evaluated in the City of Sain Paul ; WHEREAS � after hosting fiv.e p blic iaformation meetings on the issues surrounding cosmunity esidential facilities , the five ' Planning Commission members c arged with making appropriate recommendations to the Commis ion have determined that a broadly representative task force sho ld be established ; NO�.', THEREFORE , BE IT P,ESOLVE , that the Saint Paul Planning Com- mission establishes Lhe Commu ity Residential Facilities Task � � Force to help and advise the lanning Commission in the prepara- tion of amendments to the Zon ng Code and recommendations for changes in state and county p licies and procedures ; and � BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the t e Planning Commission appoiats the following people to be m�ember of the Task Force : • 1 . Maureen Heap �. 2 . Mary Beth Faimon � 3 . Alan Knaeble 4 . Kay Wcitas (continued) moved by �.�'EGR�� 5econded by T � � in favor Unanimous . against- � . � � t _� �� r � S . Betty Mozan 6 . Susan Smith 7 . Skip Sajevic 8 . Bruce Clendenen 9 . Jean Thompson 10 . Ruth Mueller 11 . Jeff Levy (Planniag Commission) 12 . Gladys Morton (Plan ing Commission) 13 . Nancy Tracy (Planni g Commission) 14 . Imogene Treichel (P anning Commission) 15 . Charles Repke (Plan ing Commission) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that harles Repke and Imogene Treichel shall be appointed co-chairs of the Task Force . � . ,'..s , � ATTACHMENT 3 ' PLANNING CO2i ISSZON TASK FORCE ��a �°�� ON COKKDNITY R SIDENTIAL FACILITIES Backg onnd Paper INTRODIICTION The Planning Commission Task F rce on Community Residential Facilities has completed a ser es of four information gathering sessions and has reached 8 aum er of conclusions about the system of residential services for vu nerable populations in the city . These conclusions � in turn� fr me several issues which the task force is committed to resolvin over the next six months . The Commission last looked at hese issues when adopting amend- ments to the Zoning Code in 19 0 - - amendments which defined and regulated community residentia facilities in a manner consistent with state law. It was a time in which significant numbers of mentally retarded and mentally ill persons were being moved from state hospitals to community b sed facilities of various sizes around the state . Now, almost a decade later � th system of providing care continues to evolve , requiring a re-exam nation of the Zoning Code . This process is underway at the sam time that the state Department of • Human Services is reviewing an renewing its licensing standards and Ramsey County is wozking t ward more systematic program evalustion. So , although the lanning Commission has a unique responsibility for land use co trols , it welcomes the opportunity to address the issues raised i an inter-governmental context . 2iAJOR CONCLUSIONS 1 . A new spectrum of residential services for vulnerable populations has emerged , reflecting a clear trend - - sparked by legislation and judicial decisions - • toward smaller and less restrictive residential environments . � They fall into three eneral categories : (a) Living arrangemen s for four or fewer persons - - ' usually persons with ental retardation , but increas - ingly the mentally il - - which function as family households without re triction under the� present zoning � code and are not yet overed by appropriate licensing provisions . � � (b) Second- step type rrangements for persons who have completed treatment f r chemical dependency or various programs designed for offenders and who need to live with modest over the houlder supervision in order to complete their transi ion into mainstresm society . . These are typically s all and operate as family � households . 1 . : . . ��=�a� (c) Emergency and transitional housing for the homeless _ - - particularly homeless women and families . 2 . The measures designed to prevent over-concentration of vulnerable persons in any given neighborhood are in- creasingly impractical. given the growing number of small family• type living arrangements which are not included in official calculations of over-concentration. 3 . Saint Paul is home o a disproportionate share of those persons living in c mmunity residential facilities for the mentally ill as well as in halfway houses for adult offenders . The imb lance is more between the central cities and theiz su rounding suburbs than with greatez Minnesota . The cit ' s share of persons with mental retardation or unde treatment for chemical dependency is consistent with ts share of the state ' s total population. 4 . Neighbor�ood reside ts regard different population groups as more or 1 ss appropriate for community based care . There is , fo example , very little concern that persons with mental retardation or those under treatment for chemical depend acy pose a threat to neighborhood values or individua security . In contrast , there is considerable resist nce to facilities for offenders while there has bee mixed reaction to homes for the mentally ill or the homeless . 5 . While city and stat governments have important roles in the establishment o neighborhood based residential facilities , county overnment , through is purchase of service contracts , xercises the greatest discretion in whether or not a pr gram is funded and serves clients . 6 . There are substanti 1 differences between client popula- tions in the financ ' al resources available to house and provide programmati support for residential clients . Those providing ser ices to persons with mental retarda- tion� for instance , command generally higher contract � rates than those wh operate programs for offenders , for iastance . Indicati ns are that the higher levels of support make possib e the smaller facilities which are more zeadily accept d into communities . PROBLE?S AREAS 1 . on'n The Zoning Code in ' ts regulation of land use in this case holds two obje tives in tension : (1) to protect the opportunities for t ose who require residential care to live in a variety o locations and (2 ) to protect the charactez and value of existing neighborhoods . 2 .� � . z ��-�a�' � There are three issues ied up in that balance : (a) Different�etfon - W ile it seems clear that dif- ferent �lient populatio s are regarded differently bq neighborhood residents he code treats all residential facilities the same . H intaining a single definition discourages any effort o make less restrictive provi- sions for a client population which is generally ac- cepted by the communit . Similarly , it leaves com- munities being asked t accept a residence for less "acceptable" persons w thout the ability to impose con- trols consistent with Y►e perceived risk. The issue , therefore , is one of h w the city avoids unduly restricting some clien groups while responding to com- munity concerns relati e to residential facilities for populations such as ex•offenders who are perceived to be , more threatening . There appear to be le al precedents for being more restrictive - - to the point of exclusion • - of community residential facilitie for population groups judged to be potentially danger us . On the surface � such options seem attractive � even compelling. On the other hand, howevez , is the recog ition that there is a legitimate public purpose to be gained from providing such residen- tial treatment optio s . k'ithout them, persons leaving ' correctional institu ions or other forms of custody im- posed by the court ill locate freely witY►out the sup- port structure provi ed by a residential care facility . Without them , homele s persons will live in parks or in abandoned buildings osing a significant risk to the safety and security f the community . There is , as a result , a case to be made for finding some acceptable middle ground which will allow facilities to be estab- lished with neighbo hood protections consistent with the risk , whether it be real or perceived. Given the history w th othet types of populations � it is � likely that those p otections will include (1) limits on the number of perso s housed , (2) neighborhood par- ticipation in the planning and review of the facility and (3) controls o the diagnoses of the persons in- ' volved. (b) Concentration While the exact poin�t is not easily •� � defined, the conve tionsl wisdom is that there is some point at which a n ighborhood becomes over concentrated � with community residential facilities , thus sig- nificantly changi g the character of the neighborheod and reducing the pportunity for "typical" neighborhood interaction, betwe n those requiring residential care and the balance of th neighborhood . 3 � , ��'�a�' . : . � Current zoning law h s two means of addressing concentration: • A distance zequire ent for new community residential facilities . No two facilites should be closer than one fourth mile apart . - Restrictions agai st aew facilities locating in plan- ning districts wher more than one half of one p.ezcent of the population 1 ve in facilities licensed by the Department of Human Services for more than 6 persons . - In addition , nego iations are underway with owners of large facilities to facil.itate their "down•sizing" - - either by closing o significantly reducing the number of residents they s rve . Neither , however , a dresses the emerging option of small , family-style living arrangements which can locate without restriction The possibility exists that build- ings or neighborboo s may become concentrated with such households . Howeve , because the residents are securing their own housing, nd meet the legal definition of a family � restricting their location raises serious civil rights questions . The issue seems to all for a two pronged response . On the one hand is the need to define when a neighborhood is over concentrate and determine how best to dis- courage additional ettlement in such an area . On the other is the issue f how best to "open-up" other neigh- borhoods . This is less a question of land use restric- tions - - although i creasing use of smaller family•type settings will make •ide dispersal legally less difficult - and more an iss e of society ' s willingness to pay the price for making a ailable housing in all of the city' s neighborhoods . (c) nclus 'on of n w ac ' ' t ' es . There are two major types of housing w ich need to be explicitly categorized in the Zoning Code One is the range of Y►ousing for the homeless which inc udes overnight shelters , emergency housing and transi ional housing . The other includes various unsupervis d and unlicensed living arrangements for persons with d sabilities . These include both Sup- ported Living Arra gements for persons with mental retardation or men al illness and various second-step housing options fo those leaving chemical dependency treatment programs or residentiel treatment programs for ex-offenders . For each of these , it must be decided, within the con- straints of state aw, in which zones they .should be permitted and whet er any special conditions should be attached . 4 . ��-a� . � - . � 2 . e ove me e o Each level of governmen has a significant role in the pzovision and regulatio of residential care . At tbe same time that broad ch nges in the system have led the Planning Commission to ook again at the zoning and land use issues � there are a range of issues being rai�ed and addressed by eacb of the others . There are three relate questions for the city: a) What is the city' s take in the questions being addressed at the count and state levels and how migbt tt►e city' s concerns be appropriately and effectively raised. As is the cas with most policy questions � sig- nificant decisions abo t community residential care are made at the county , state and federal levels with little local participation. Some critical issues include : - Extent of deinstitutionalization. Are people being place in community settings for whom more isolated institutiona care is more appropriate? - Sentencin guidelines . While sentencing guidelines are an important step in protecting constitu- tional rights , there is evidence that some individuals are being released - both into community residential facilities or freely into the community - - who maintain - violent patterns of ehavior . - Performa ce licensing . Present licensing standards emphasize bjective observable standards such as square footage ,. s aff qualifications and the like . There is little information available about a treatment program.' s success i treating various illnesses or con- ditions . Yet , it i those issues about which neighbor- hood residents are ost concerned. b) Are there interg vernmental procedures which can streamline and make more effective the process of estab- � lishing , financing nd regulating community residential facilities . Related to this question is one of how to make the loosely linked system accessible to neighbor- hood residents . � c) Are there ways o regionalize the responsibility for providing resident al care for vulnerable persons . The .' burden of caring f r the most difficult client populs- . tions , specificall the mentally ill , offenders and the � homeless is not evenly shared by the Twin Cities subur- ban communities . It can appropriately be added to the list of challenge faced by the institutions charged with regional gov rnance as the Twin Cities area moves toward the 21st c ntury . June 1987 5 ATTACHMENT 4 �� _ . �� D D D � D D SAZNT P IIL PIANNING CO?RSISSION �. TASK FORCE ON C P4IIINITY RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES T K FORCE REPORT SUMMARY Purpose In February 1987 the Saint Paul Planning Commission convened a representative task force, asking it to review local and state land use regulation of com- munity residential facilities. number of controversial zoning cases before the Commission had demonstrated that (a) new types of facilities are being es- tablished which are not address by present regulations, (b) there are some inconsistencies in state law wh h permit concentrations of facilities� and (c) the public's access to the egulatory system is obstructed by the over- lapping responsibilities of thre levels of government. The task force was asked to recommend appropriate c anges in state law, the Saint Paul Zoning Code and intergovernmental proce ures to address these issues and any others which might emerge during their eliberation. ?Sajor Recommendations 1. Definition of Facility Typ s - The Saint Paul Zoning Code should be amended to include proposed defi itions for residential human service facilities, adult foster care ar angements, foster care for children, residen- tial corrections facilities, unl censed community residential facilities, transitional housing, emergenc� ousing, shelters for battered persons and missions. 2. Zoning Code Designations - The Saint Paul Zoning Code should be amended to assign facility types to zoni g districts on the basis of size/density, state license and level of progr and/or supervision. Specific designations are proposed in the report. 3. .� Special Conditions: Densi y. Parking and Public Health - The number of residents permitted in facilitie located in the RT-1, RT-2 and RM-1 districts should be governed by: the follow ng density standards. In RT-1 and RT-2 districts the minimum lot size for licensed community residential facilities, tr nsitional housing facilities and shelters for battered persons is 5,000 quare feet plus 300 square feet for each facility resident over and above six residents. In addition, facilities serving more than 16 resid nts shall meet the height, yard setback, and maximum percent of lot occ pied by main building set forth in Chapter 61 of the code. 1 DIVISION OF PLANNING•�EPARTMENT OF PLAN ING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•CITY OF SAINT PAUL CITY HALL ANNEX•25 WEST FOURTH STREET, AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA, 55102•TELEPHONE 61Z-292-157T < < �� t '. In RM-1 districts, the mi imum lot size for facilities should be the same as is presently req 'red of rooming houses -- the lot area required for the dwelling unit pl 1,000 square feet for each guest room ir excess of two guest rooms For facilities for seven or mor residents, the parking requirement should remain as it is -- one off-stre t parking space for every two facility resi- dents -- with the understanding that it is modifiable in cases where residents are unlikely to have their own ars. Included among the conditions f r a Special Condition Use Permit for transi- tional and emergency housing fa ilities, should be a supervised rooming or su- pervised rooming and boarding 1 cense from the City of Saint Paul. 4. Distance Requirements - Human Services Licensing Act should be amended to require that Adult F ster Care Facilities with licensed capacity of four facility residents not rece've a license if they are within 300 feet of another similar facility, anothe type of facility licensed by the Department of Human Services or Department f Corrections, or an unlicensed residenti8l facility such as an emergency or transitional housing program for the home- � less, shelter for battered perso s, mission or board and lodging residence which has a county contract unle s a Special Condition Use Permit is is�ued by the local suthority. (245A.11 Se 12 Subd 4) The Human Services Licensing Act should be amended to allow cities to require .. that all other facilities licen ed by the Minnesota Department of Human Serv- ices, except foster care for chi dren, be 300 feet from adult foster care facilities and 1,320 feet from t ose licensed by the Minnesota Department of Corrections or unlicensed facili ies to include emergency and transitional housing for the homeless, shelte s for battered persons, missions and various board and lodging residences whi h hold county contracts. (245A.11 Sec 12) 5. Concentration Requirements - The Human Services Licensing Act should be amended to prohibit the licensur of new facilities in planning districts where the percentage of the plan ing district population that lives in licensed community residential f cilities exceeds 1.0 percent. (245A Sec 12 Subd 5) Included in the calculation shoul be all residential facilities licensed by the Minnesota Department of Corre tions and all residential facilities licensed by the Minnesota Departm n� of Human Services except foster care for , children and adult foster care fa ilities for three or fewer persons. (245A Sec 12 Subd 5) . . 6. Community Residential Facil ties and Neighborhoods - The Planning Com- mission should implement a proces whereby Special Condition Use Permits ' �� issued to community residential f cilities� transitional housing facilities� shelters for battered persons or mergency housing facilities for seven or more facility residents would be eviewed annually. Permits issued for facilities with six or fewer resi ents should be reviewed upon the receipt of neighborhood complaints. 2 . ., � . ��a� Ramsey County should explore means of regulating quality of service through its contract provisions and publishin a process whereby people aware of or '.suspecting improper care of facility esidents can contact the appropriate authorities. The City, County and State staffs sho ld collaborate on establishing clear communication channels and a process or receiving and resolving neighborhood concerns and complaints. January 1988 -� • . -_ --- � Copies of the full report are available from the Planning Division . 3 � � ATTACHMENT 5 (��a� c�ty of s�aint paul planning c�omrnission ' � � f�e nur��ber 88-09 . � �te Februarv 12. 1988 WHE&EAS , the Community Resi ential Facilities Task Force � which was established by the Plaa ing Commission� has concluded its work and issued a report ; a d WHEREAS , the Task Force Rep rt recommends certain changes in the Saint Paul Zoning Code pert ining to definitions . zoning district designations and conditions for the purposes of ensuring the • rights of persons in need o supportive residential care and protecting against concentr tioas. of residential facilities ; and S�TIiEREAS � the Planning Commi sion is sutborized under Minnesota Statutes Section 462 . 257 (5) and Section 64 .400 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to initiat a 40-Acre Study for the purpose of amending the text of the Zo ing Code ; NOW, THEREFORE � BE IT RESOL ED . that the Planning Commission of ' the City of Saint Paul init ates a 40-Acre Study for the purpose of considering amendments t Chapters 60 and 61 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to community residential facilities ; and BE IT FIIRTHER RESOLVED, tha the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul sets Friday, pril 22 , 1988 as the date of the public hearing on the recom endations proposed by the Community Residential Facilities Task Force. moved by REPRE s�econded by T�ICHEL � in fav�or Unanimous against- / • ATTACHMENT 6 C�� , � PUNNING ISSION OF SAINT PAUL , • 25 est Fourth Street Saint aul. Minnesota 55102 A meeting of the Plannir►g Commi sion of the City of Saint Paul was held on Friday� April 22� 1988� at 9:00 a.m. in the Department of Planning and Economic Development Confereace Room on the 13th flooz of the City Hall Ar�nex. COt�IIrIISSIONERS Mmes. Hirte� Hadd x, Korton� Tracy� Treichel. and Ziemani �ESENT: Messrs. Anfang� ristenson� Ferderer� Indihar� Lanegzan� Neid� Park, Repke. COMMISSIONERS Mmes. *GeisseZ, * udge; Messrs. *Hozak� Levy� McDonell, Millez, ABSENT: and *Van Hoef. • . *Excused ALSO PRESENT: Jerry Segal� Assi tant City Attorney; Delores Arduser, Ken Ford� Lisa Freese. Nancy Homans Peggy Reichert, Roger Ryan� Larry Soderholm� Lucy Thompson, and Mark Vander chaaf of Planning ataff. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ' Ms. Hirte moved approval of the minutes of April 8, 1988. Motion was seconded by Mr. Neid and carried unanimously. II. CHAIR'S ANNOUNCF.l�IENTS - one III. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S ANNO 'CEMEh'TS Ms. Reichert said the ad lt entertainment matter was moving toward compzomise and commended Larry Soderholm and Mark Vander Schaaf of staff for their handling of a difficult issue. With regard to the discu sion at the last meetirig on whether to accept � new testimony� she distr'buted copies of a resolution adopted ia 1974 which clarified the oper ting policy in this matter. � She also indicated that letter from John Finley describing the Ramsey County position o light rail transit had been distributed foz information purposes. . IV. HOUSING AND NEIGHBORH00 COA4�IITTEE v m Ms. Reichert advised th t the Council had referred this matter to committee, not to the C mmission as anticipated� and it would not be considered at this time. , 1 _ ,., � . ��.. , � . �� V. ZONINC COIfliITTEE � n e o - � - Request for Sigr� Variance to allow a business sign to e placed in a park. (1717 University Ave. • Zoned I-1) Ms. Irlortoa said the comm ttee had laid this matter ovez to May 19, 1988. . Sufler America - �10231 - quest for Special Condition Use Permit to expand existing gasoline ervice station and convenience store. (56 N. Snelling - Zoned B•2) Ms. Morton said the commi tee by a vote of 4-2 recommended approval of the permit subject to con itions contained in the proposed resolution which include having stor staff police the site three times a day to � remove litter� police the block surrounding the store once a week to remove litter generated b the atore� and truck delivezies (except bulk fuel) and pick-up re tricted to the t►ouZS of 6 a.m. and 12 a.m. daily. Ms. Zieman said s e was concerned about traffic at the site and the amount of parking -with 2 spaces probably used for staff and 1 space for handicapped the e vould only be 2 spaces for customers. Ms. Hirte said she was conce ed about the traffic, it was almost � impossible to cross Portl nd. Mr. Repke pointed out there was already a gas station there� this would expand tl�►e site, was the most reasonable use and the lo was already zoned B•2. OM TION Ms. Mozton moved approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Repke and carried by a vo e of 11 to 3 with Mmes. Hirte, Tracy and Zieman voting nay. a d v �ta - # - Request for Special .Condition Use with Modifi ation to establish a billiard hall in fozmer Masonic Lodge building. 627 S. Smith Avenue - Zoned B-2) Ks. Morton reported that he public heariag was continued to l�iay S, at . - ci�t request of the applic ts�_se_:t.bey:can meet with District 3. Geor e e - # - 8equest for Change in � Nonconforming Use to 8110 change of a portion of the lot from auto ' storage to a used car sal s lot. (475 S. Chatsworth/985 Randolph - Zoned Rt�i-2) . , � MOTION: t�s. Morton said e committee recommended denial of the � change in Nonconforming U e based on staff findings, and moved to deny. The motion was sec nded by Mr. Repke and carried unanimously. e ue e s • � 0 0 • Request for Nonconforming Use permit to establish legal status fo a duplex. (1697 Watson Avenue - Zoned R-4) MOTION: Ms. Morton said he committee on a vote of 5-0 recommended approval based on staff f ndings and she moved approval. The motion . was seconded by Hr. Repke and carried by a unanimous voice vote. . 2 ��: . . a�' . . ��-� MQdel Stone Comflany . t�10272 - Request for Special Condition Use . Permit to allow constructio of a temporary batch concrete plant in the Rivez Corridor Flood Fri ge District. (2145 Childs Road - Zoned I-2� RC-2) I�IOTION: Ms. Morton said th committee recommended approval based on staff findings with the add tional conditions that the applicant provide a flood evacuation lan to the Planning Division and prominently display this pl n on the site� and the permit can be renewed for one additional ear by the Planning Division. She moved approval. The motion was s conded by Ms. Zieman and carried unanimously. u s'd n sk o e o - PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Homans said the task fo ce report had been sent out for public review and recommended tha after the hearing the report be referrcd back to the Neighborhood a d Housing Committee for consideration and be sent to City Council fc discussion before attempting to draft smendments to the zoning c de. The Chair opened the publ c hearing. Theresa Lippezt� representing the Association of Retarded Ci izens, said they agreed with basic trends � of this report, but oppose recommendations that facilities with 4 or more individuals with ment 1 retardation be required �to obtain a Special Condition Use Perm t. She said studies have shown no negative impact when handicapped pe ple move into a neighborhood. Bud Selzer, 1285 So. Cleve and, as a parent of a retarded son, said it . was their intent to mainta'n the group home where their son now lives up to neighborhood standar s. Nancy Nagler, representin RAP� 509 Selby� noted that St. Paul has a disproportional share of ommunity residential facilities in Ramsey County, because services� jobs and transportation are centered in the downtown area end these p ople need services. She indicated a number of points in the Task For e report which should be clarified� and said ttie status of a program ich has tzansitional and emergency housing is not clear. She questi ned the appropriateness of an industrial area for a mission servin children and recommended a community review . council contain members o the Planning Commission� advocacy groups and private citizens to r view such proposals if and when they emerge. Jackie Hines, 2018 Todd D ive� Arden Hills, administrator of � � Familystyle Homes� said t ese people have a problem finding a place to live and questioned the p acticality of limiting the licensed capacity of a planning district to 1.08 She said only people who receive ' public assistance are co ted in these categories. Sue �Jatlov Phillips, Min esota Coalition for the Homeless� 668 Broadway NE. Minneapolis, said that in the opinion of Ramsey County attorneys the city may n t impose zoning restrictions in conflict with � , 3 • . � - . .. . . /�� _, - • (�� ths state lav. She said isunce requirements should ba ts■wved in the downtown area. and no ed that Minnesota law prohibits housiag more than 4 people with meatal illness after 1988 vithout a license. Maureen Heap 1841 Dayton. Mezriam Park Community Council� representing the position of the Counc 1's housing committee, which was approved by their executive committee. distributed copies of their comments. She said that ber personal co cern� as a member of the task force� fs that residential facilities be adequately supervised to insure care. She suggested that improving us service would permit moze equitable distribution cf facilitie . Bob Van Slyke� 1548 Dora ne, said he would provide �aritten comments. Rhoda Timble, John Healy, Audrey Schermann, John Hileman� and Craig iJellsley� residents of F ilystyle Homes, spoke against the report . which they felt would re ult in the closing of the Homes. Jeff Matt� a counseloz foz Familyst le Homes, read a letter from Gerald R. Mierze�ewski, a resident of the homes, stating that he did not want to leave. Bruce Jenkin, 412 Duke S reet, said he had lived in the neighborhood for two years and the re 1 problems were not with the Familystyle Homes who were good nei bors. Jan Dahlberg, 704 James, said she had • worked with disabled peo le for 4 years and moved into the area knowing of the housing. Robert Robeson, 704 James, said he had lived in the neighbozhood all is life, felt the handicapped were less likely to cause problems and asked what would happen to the people who live in Familystyle omes. The Chair clarified that it was not proposed to close the ho es and Ms. Homans said there was no recommendation of rezoni g, all ptesent facilities would be grandfathered in. Joe Hollerbach, 1430 E. daho, said fzom 1980-86 he provided staff support for an alcohol a d drug abuse program� and started working with the District 2 task force. He said the Community Residentisl Task Force report seemed to base its recommendation on the zoning code while the Ramsey County lan pzesented an overview of resources and goals, and suggested the task force be expanded to include representatives of the c unty� state and additional community � residents to make change . He said there was no reason to change zoning code to accomplis decentralization. • Cathy Leaf� 1712 Hoyt� member of the District 2 task force� said they feel 1$ of populat n is too high for neighborhoods to absorb; corporate foster care f cilities administered by the same provider should be added togethe for the purposes of calculating concentration ratios; distance requir ment should be greater than 300' or apply to homes of less than 4; t eze should be no loopholes in the law; and a strong zoning ordinance should be adopted. Nancy Iserman� 1754 Hoy , Chair of the District 2 task force� said there is e need for str ng zoning zegulations because of the impact of facilities and foster c re homes; people move out to the suburbs when � 4 . � �� .«. ._.. . _� `� a � . . ��-� too �any facilities are ia an area. She said all types of fscilit�es ahould be included in the oning code. Lyonel Norris. 222 Grain E change Building. l4�1 Mental Law Project, opposed any modifications f the lfcensing act and in particular opposed special and condi ional use permits being reviewed on complaints from neighbors. Morris Manning of the �Til er Foundation said an organization like . Familystyle Homes acquire homes in one azea because there is a value in congregation. He sugg sted removing distance requirements for transitional housing. As a genezal rule, he said, the emphasis for regulation needs to be on behavior zather than characteristics of people. Alexa Bradley� 668 Broadw y NE� Minneapolis� an advocate for the � homeless, supported previ us comments made by advocates for the homeless. • James Janacek, President f Familystyle Homes, said that concentration ratios will result in unm t demand� higher costs and legal challenges. Paul M. Gilliland, 429 Mc affey, as a legally blind person, said he _ was critical of profitee s serving persons with disabilities and most organizations are for-pr fit entities. He said tt►ere should be a differentiation between amily foster care and corporate foster care in the community� and th goal sl�►ould be that the rest of the county should take its share. Phil Hillman, administra or at Hoika House and past administzator of Homestead Homes, which b ca:ae Familystyle Homes, traced the history of the West Seventh Street ampus� asserting that Homestead/Familystyle Homes had stabilized the neighborhood. Mark Orr, 2000 Ford Road said he Would like to see an additional process with the neighbo hood rather than looking at other solutions. l�is. Reichert said they w ze talking about a proposal for changes in the zoning ordinance tha vould affect new proposed types of community facilities--not retroac ive to affect existing situations. PIOTION: There was no f rther testimony and Mr. ,Repke moved that the hearing be closed and t e matter taken up by the Neighborhood and � � Housing Committee. Ms. Zieman seconded the motion and it carried • .. unanimously. Ms. Zieman announced th t the next Neighborhood and Housing Committee meeting would be on May 11 at 12 noon. VI. COLLEGE ZONING COMMITTE e v 't" s d ' a es Pe mitted s B-3. and I-1) S , ' � � ��-�� _� . Mr. Ryan said both ths Co lege Zoning Cosnittee ard the Zoni� • Co�mittee recoa�nd a pub ic t►earing on this aaendiaent on Kay 27. He said that the proposed mo e of l�tetropolitan State Uaiversity to the St. John's hospital site tecipitated going ahead with this amendment at this time. He said th proposed amendment would: permit colleges. universities and seminari s to locate in B•2, B-3, I-1 and I-2 districts; require offstr et parking at a rate of 1 space for each 3 students and staff; allo 10= growth in students and staff vithout providing additional offs reet parking; and prohibit student group housing. MOTION: Mr. Neid moved t the study be sent out for public review and a public hearing be heduled for May 27� 1988. l�s. Hirte seconded the motion vhic carried by unanimous voice vote. VII. OLD BUSINESS W . � Mr. Neid distributed age das for the workshop and reminded everyone j that it would start at 2:00 on April 27th. VIII. NEW BUSINES� - None � IX. AIIJOURNMENT There being no further b iness the Chair declared the meeting adj ourned at 11:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted� Approved (date) Paggy A. �Reicbert Deputy Director for Planning Karl Neid r Secretary of the Planning Commission , 6 - . ATTACHMENT 7 ��°'� ;__,, � . . � SU�II�IARY F MAJOR ISSIIES . Public Hearing on Report of the Task Force on Commuaity esidential Facilities � � Apr 1 22. 1988 �,�ransitional Housing - Sever l groups maintain that transitional hous- ing is "over-regulated" under the t sk force recommendations and cite two reasons for opposing such regulatio : (1} It is the City's policy to encourage and support alternative housing for the homeless which seem inconsistent with strict zoning regulation; and (2) ny transitional housing programs are operated like and are indistinguis able from other multi-fsmily rental build- ings. Others say that to grant transitio al housing the same density levels allowed licensed human service facilities hreatens the character of neighborhoods. � Discussion The task force, in an explicit e fort to encourage and support transitional housing� recommended that it be reated like licensed human service facilities. First Fac 1'tv Residen Permitted Condition . 3 or fewer R-1 None 4-6 R-1 1320 ft. 7 or more RT-1 1320 ft. This allows small facilities to locate with more people (up to six) than would ordinarily be permitted i single family zones and facilities of seven or more to locate in any ther residential zone assuming a large enough structure. In at least ne recent case, it was to the advantage of a transitional housing facility to be determined to be similar to a com- munity residential facility so hat it could locate in a duplex zone. It seems appropriate to tie distan e requirements to that kind of advantage. The confusion emerges in multi- amily zones with the task force recommenda- tion of a 1320 foot distance re uirement. There is no advantage to which a distance requirement can be tie . Were the facility classified a rooming housing or multi-family buildin , for example, there would be no distance requirement. Indeed, in the pa t, the zoning ada►inistrator has found tran- sitional housing or semi-indepe dent living situations in multi-family zones to be akin to rooming hou es or multi-family structures and permitted . them subject to lot area condit ons. Committee Recommendation Retain distance requirements th ough the RT-2 zone, but remove distance requirements beginning in RM-1. A Special Condition Use Permit would still be required -- as it is for roo ing houses -- with conditions related to lot size, parking and City lice ses. � Review o S ecial Cond t on Use Pe its - There was general support of � � 1 ,. �!-'U° �� .`� " � ' the notion of Special Condition Us Permit review although one group raised the possibility that the review of small facilities upon request opens the Way ' for harassaient. . Discussion The point is well taken. The t sk force was trying to reduce the ad- ministrative burden of the revi as well as protect the privacy of smallet facilities. Committee Recommendation Add a guideline to the Special ondition Use Permit Review process for facilities with six or fewer re idents which states that general complaints will be reviewed no earlier tha the first anniversary of the first day of operation and no more frequentl than once every 12 months. Evidence of violation of specific condition for any size facility may be brought to the Zoning Committee at any tim . III• Missions - The possibility hat missions (overnight facilities) may be �established which serve children as raised with the concern that industrial areas would not be appropriate fo them: A second issue raised was whethe or not an overnight shelter would be allowed in a church basement if providin that shelter were part of the program of the congregation. . Discussion It would be very difficult to efine missions which serve children in a way that distinguishes them from t ose who serve the traditional population of single men. Such a definitio would have to be more restrietive than that the facility permits children. Yet establishing a definition which requires that the residents h ve children would be so restrictive that the facility would probably not b economically viable. Committee Recommendation The difficulty in defining su h a facility coupled with the aggressive ef- forts to ensure an adequate n ber of emergency shelter beds for families with children lead to a reco endation that the task force recommendation to confine missions to the B- , I-1 and I-2 zones not be changed. Relative to the issue of chur h basements, it would be up to the zoning ad- ministrator to review the fa ts of a specific case to determine whether the , activity is accessory to the church and, therefore, permitted. IV. Corrections facilities - suggestion was made that there should be a • differentiation between facili ies for violent and no�n-violent offenders. � Discussion The idea is a good one. The task force recognized that correctional facilities have a different mpact on neighborhoods than do those licensed by the Department of Human S rvices and, therefore, recommended slight2y more restrictive zoning for hem. Being able to distinguish between programs which serve violen and non-violent offenders would indeed allow the City to more specifical y address the concern. However, there are no objec ive or effective means of differentiating be- " tween the two types of faci ities. Most facilities accept both types of of- � Z � ._ �, � �� fenders. There i� only one typ of license issued by the State. Plea bar- gaining allows persons suspecte of violent crimes to plead guilty to les- _ ser offenses� making the offici 1 record on an individual resident �osewhat misleading. Finally� facilitie �erving correctional clients �say avoid restrictive zoning by being lic ed by the Department of Human Services as a Rule 35 Chemical Dependency T eatment Program. If the City were to try and imp se its own conditions about the type of of- fenders a facility might serve, it runs the risk of improperly assuring neighborhood residents that fac lity residents have non-violent histories when there are no mechanisms to support that assurance. Committee Recommendation No change in task force recomme dation. V,,_Distance reauirements downtown Some suggested that distance requirements should be reduced or eliminated in the B-4 and B-5 downtown zones. � Discussion Distance requirements of 1320 f et al•low very few facilities in the downtown area. The greatest dem nd for large downtown buildings seem to be for transitional and emergency ousing facilities and, secondarily� for correctional and chemical depen ency facilities. There are a number of options: . 1) Maintain distance requi ments subject to modification by the Plan- ning Commission. 2) Reduce or eliminate dis ance requirements for transitional/ emer- gency housing only. 3) Reduce or eliminate dis ance requirements for all community residen- tial facilities. Committee Recommendation Eliminate distance requirem nts for transitional and emergency housing for the reasons discussed p eviously and reduce the distance requirement for licensed facilities to 00 feet. � 3 � --- � • ATTACHMENT 8 �� RECO?QiE ATIONS OF THE • NEIGHBO OODS CO�SITTEE Community Re idential Facilities 1988 T zt Amendments I. PROPOSED DEFINITIONS es'de um n e a ' - One main building on one zoning lot where one or more (i) children o (ii) persons with mental retardation, mental illness or chemical depen ency reside on a 24 hour per day basis un- der the care and supervision of residential program lfcensed by the Department of Human Services. is definition does not include facilities licensed as foster care homes, b t does include Group Family Foster Care for six or more children. Residential Corrections Facility - One main building on one zoning lot where one or more persons who ar placed there by a court, caurt services � department, parole authority or ther correctional agency having disposi- tional power over persons charge with or :.onvicted of a crime or adjudi- cated delinquent reside on a 24 our per day basis under the care and cu- pervision of a residential progr licensed by the Minnesota Department of Corrections. This definition do s not include Group Foster Care Facilities serving persons 18 years of age r under if the total number of children in the home does not exceed five. Adult Foster Care Arran ement - e main building on one zoning lot where four or fewer adult facility residents reside on a 24 hour per day basis under care and supervision lice sed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services under the Adult Foster Care Rule. Foster Care for Children - One main building on one zoning lot where per- sons under 18 years of age resi e on a 24 hour per day basis on care and supervision licensed by the Mi esota Department of Human Services under Rule 1. (Child Foster Care) or t e Minnesota Department of Corrections under Rule (Group Foster Care Facili ies) . The total number of persons under 18 years of age, including the pro ider's own children, may not exceed five. U licensed Communi Residentia Fac'1't - One main building on one zoning lot which serves as a rooming a d/or boarding house and is under contract with the Ramsey County Departme t of Human Services or other county d�part- ment to provide residential se ices to persons with mental retardation, � mental illness or chemical depe dency. . , Transitional Housin¢ Facility - One main building on one zoning lot where persons who may or may not have access to traditional or permanent housing � but are capable of living indep ndently within a reasonable period of time generally about 18 months resid on a 24 hour a day basis for at least 30 days and participate in appropr ate program activities designed to facilitate independent living. Emer¢ency Housin� Facility - On main building on one zoning lot where per- sons who do not have housing li e on a 24 hour a day basis until more per- manent arrangements can be made� but generally for not longer than 30 days. Shelter for Battered Persons - ne main building on one zoning lot where . 1 , , � . ��!+� • , . � • adults and childrer► who have suf red physical or psychological abuse live on a 24 hour per day basis for a eriod of time not geaerally to exceed 30 . days and are served by a program certified by the Minnesota Departaant of Corrections. � Miss3on - One main building on o e zoning lot where persons receive over- night shelter� but are not expec ed or permitted to remain on a 24 houz per day basis. . II. PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATIONS R-1 through R-4 - Single Familv Foster Care for Children " 5 or fewer children Adult Foster Care Arrangements 4 or fewer facility residents Residential Human Service Faciliti s 6 or fewer facility residents* Residential Corrections Facilities 3 or fewer facility residents* Transitional Housing 6 or fewer facility residents� Shelters for Battered Persons 6 or fewer facility residents* RT-1 - Duvlex As permitted in R-4* Residential Human Service Faciliti s 7 or more facility residents* Residential Corrections Facilities 4-6 facility residents* . Transitional Housing Facilities 7 or more facility residents* Shelters for Battered Persons 7 or more facility residents* R�-2 - Three-Four Family As permitted in RT-1* Residential Corrections Facilities 7 or more facility residents* RM-1 - RM-3 Multi -Fami�g As permitted in RT-2* Emergency Housing Facilities* Unlicensed Community Residential F cilities* OS-1 Office None B-1 through B-4 Business and B-2C As permitted in RM-3 B-S Downtown As permitted in B-4* � ' Missions* • • �_� Industrial Uses permitted in B-5* . 2 _ � �� I-2 Industrial • Missions* I-3 Industrial None � * Uses permitted subject to specia conditions III. PARRING AND DENSITY CONDITIO S The number of residents permitted n facilities located in the RT-1, RT-2 and RM-1 - RM-3 districts should be go erned by the following density standards. In RT-1 and RT-2 districts, the inimum lot size for licensed community residential facilities, transiti nal housing facilities and shelters for battered persons is 5,000 square feet plus 300 square feet for each • facility resident over and above six residents. In addition, facilities serving more than 16 residents s 11 meet the height� yard setback, and maximum percent of lot occupied y main building set forth in Chapter 61. In RM-1 • RM-3 districts� the mi imum lot size for facilities should be the same as is presently required o rooming houses -- 5,000 square feet plus 1,000 square feet for each gues room in excess of two guest rooms. For facilities for seven or more r sidents in any zoning district, the parking . requirement should remain as it is -- one off street parking space for every two facility residents -- with the understanding that it is modifiable in cases where residents are unlikely to have their own cars. The Saint Paul Zoning Code should e amended to include the distance require- . ments outlined on the accompanying table. . , . � - � ► ' . , i�� l�f` o +� o +� o o +� o +-+ o +� o .� o ++ N GJ N d N � N C7 N a7 N aJ N aJ N a! �"� p� fh d c�f GJ M 07 � GJ � C! e") CJ !�f a! ...r t� .�r t�- .�-� .--i w .-a 4- .�-i 4- �4- .�� uotss� ` o +� o +-+ o +� o +� o }► o +� o .� o +� n��<<�p� N GJ N Gl N GJ N C1 N � N Cl N � N a7 �ec�uap�saa �"� � ''"� � �"� � � � � d � a e�, c, M d � �- .-�W .•.� ..r y- .., .� ...��- .� � .•.r- asua�� u ��-8 0 +� o +� o +� o +� o +� o +� o +� o.� i y 6 n oa�u�S O)u N G1 N d N GJ N d N G7 N C1 N a! N d e'7 aJ �'•1 GJ ch GJ er'� d M a7 erf a1 e�'f d M � r� .-� w �4- .-1 4- .--�4- .-� 4- .-�� .-�4- .-v�- � �t�uab.�a � +-► o +-� o +� o+� o +� o +� o +� o � h s uo s.a ad O � N G1 N Gl N CJ N O1 N Cl N Cl N d O 47 M Q7 N9 Cl M GJ � 47 Cr1 G1 �! �1 N9 d � pa.�a��e8 �o w .-�r- .�� ..-�� .-, w- .�v- �-.� .�w. � .�o s.�a a W (Z-lb • � y6no.�y� I-a) ,�, o a,,, .,., o +-� o +� o +-� o +� o +� O Ol N � d N Cl N d N d N Gl N � O C1 t+9 OJ C7 M � M 4! ch C) c'f GJ eh OJ o, 6u}snoH �o v- r, �- 4- .� w r.. 4- ...�... .-� w .�a- � puo< <suea W . t1� � � t.f') t..� � y.� y 4- +� ct {.� +.� +� ct +� +� � O +� O •�+�- i +�v- 1 O +�4- I � 1 p +�� 4- � 1 4. 4- � �,a„ ��L��E� N OJ N � 0� N d � O � c�"� CJ ptl O O m O O m �n (QUOl��8a.�0� � w �4-0 �o � �°o c� o � ... 4-o� cv o c cv o c �p• �p . � , � lp •r �� M �O •r C'7 t0 •r- o p� ua �sa `. � v � v �. � �.. /f�t��e j � o +�� a��naas uewnH o n � o m �E�Zuap�say "' `� '" � � . � � i '° .�, c � .. r b �T ' O � U � y� �r L .r. � r— L L � V�i A � A �A G C w d � A � N p�r O � � � C d N � i�► Cf L d C C� C C � � L Qf� d (� V r r C a! L d C 0� 41'r' d C� � r 47 � N r � � Q►'r' C�1�� r r �j i, r C N ^ �► L N r r r 1-► t� � V1 L L t� A 3 Cl +� d '7 � N i.� +�' 1� a �N G� 4. HS NCC W S �C1� ' . X W _ _ � . 4`0 � IV. OTIiER CONDITIONS . The Ylanning Commission should iapleaent a proce�s whereby Special Conditio Use Permits issued to residential humaa service facilities. residential co rections facilities, unlicensed community residential facilities� transitio �1 housing facilities, shelters for battered persons� emergency housing facilit es and missions for seven or more persons would be reviewed annually. Permi s issued for facilities with six or fewer residents should be reviewed upon eceipt of neighborhood complaints. Com- plaints of a general nature should not be reviewed earlier than one year after the facility begin operation or mo e frequently that once every twelve months. Any evidence of violatioa of speci ic conditions, however, may be filcd with the Planning Commission at any tim . Program License. Included among t e conditions for Special Condition Use Per- mits for residential human service facilities and residential corrections facilities should be evidence of a positive preliminary licensing review from the Minnesota Department of Human ervices or the Minnesota Department of Cor- rections. " Rooming and Boarding License. Inc uded among the conditions for a Special Condition Use Permit for transitio 1 and emergency housing facilities should be a supervised rooming or supervi ed rooming and boarding license from the City of Saint Paul. May 1988 � � , � 5 � L�`G�l �� '�'��y� CITY OF SAINT PAUL . �.�` ��Tt ��4$ � _•'� '='�- OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK �, y i s• ' •BL ;,+� ,.•� /1LBERT B. OLSON, CITY CLERK "''o,,, �... � �T�`��' 386 City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 . 612-298-4231 GEORGE UITIMER MAYOR O�T TICE The Saint Paul City Counci will hold a public hearing on the enclosed ordinance at 9: 0 a.m. on Thursday, June 16, 1988 in the Ci Council Chambers Third Floor Ci y Hall and Court House wM�Tt �.LITr CLfAK . ^___--_* —�� - •�~K -•�»•~�� CITY OF AIr►T PALTL `'°�f"�°"� � c�K�wr�ot�wwws�• � �IYE �M�YOR � Fi�a NO• 1 � r nance �N o. _ \ �.� Pcesenced By _ � 3� . � ' ' Referred To � ,,:.._ _ . Committee: Date S � � �� Out of Committee By Date An interim ordinance r stricting the establish- � ment or enlargement of community residential facilities, transition 1 housing, shelters for battered persons, miss ons , and emergency housing facilities, pending co pletion of studies of possible amendments to the City' s Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Re lations, which interim ordinance is enacted p rsuant to Minnesota � Statutes, section 362. 55, subdivision 4. - THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAI T PAUL DOES ORDAIN: . Se tion 1. The Saint Paul Planning Commission has initiated a study , of local and state land use egulations of community residential facilities, which study is i ended to recommend possible smend- ments to either the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Regulations. The study i cludes resic!ential human service facilities, adult foster ca e arrangements , foster care for children, residential correcti ns facilities, unlicensed community residential facilities, trans tional. housing, emergency housing, shelters for , battered perso s and missions. The purpose of , this interim ordinance is to p event the establishment or enlarge- ment of any such facilitie until such time as the Council has determined the proper and use regulations relating to such uses. This ordinance ecognizes the fact that the Legis- � lature has restricted the ity's authority to regulate the location of licensed reside tial facilities, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.11 , 245A.14 and 462.357, ar�d the fact that this int rim ordinance may not prevent the establishment of such facil 'ties which are mandated by the legislature as permitted use in either single-family or multi- family districts. . COUNCIL MEMBERS '� Y� N� Requested by Department of: Dimond ��e In Favor coswitz Rettman ' ��,�;� Against BY Sonnen . V�ilson , Form Approv City Attomey Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By , Approved by Mayor• Date Approved Mayor for Submission to Council ' Section 2. ' Pending the completion of the studies and the recom- mendations of the Planning Commission, and the adoption of the necessary amendments by the City Council to the City•s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations, for the period of time not to exceed one year from the date of the adoption of this interim ordinance, no permit ,for the establishment or enlargement of any community residential facility, residential human service facility, adult foster care arrangements, foster care for children, residential corrections facility, unlicensed corimunity residential facility, transitional housing, emergency housing, shelter for battered persons and missions, including special condition use permits or building permits, shall be issued or granted by the Planning Commission, or any other City official , within any zoning classification district in the City of Saint Paul. Section 3. � � The restrictions contained herein shall not apply to any � ' licensed residential facility serving six or fewer persons to be located within a residentially zoned district , nor to azy licensed facility serving 16 or fewer persons to be located within a multi-family zoned district, as these licensed resi- dential facilities are deemed by the Legislature as permitted uses in such residential districts and which land uses the City is prevented from restricting pursuant to its local zoning regulations. Section 4. The restrictions enacted hereir, may be extended by resolution o� the City Council for additior.al periods not to exceed an additional 18 months in the event the studies and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the deliberations by the City Council should require such extensions of time. � '• � Section 5. �� . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days from and after its passage, approval and publication; provided, however, that it is the intent of this Council that the restrictions contained herein shall be retroactive and made applicable to any and all permit applications pertaining to all such uses which have been received but not issued or approved prior to. the date that this interim ordinance was adopted by this Council.' t - - `J�.e G�c.v►e�c 7Z�tc� �Pc�.G-�� F��° � a� P v-Q� �a.�-c.� �1° `�P>-8 S . Chuck Repke Morris Manning 165 Mc Boal Wilder Foundation St. Paul, MN 55102 919 Lafond St. Paul, MN 55104 Imogene Treichel Anne McDiarmi Bur ski 1277 Dayton Avenue Re-entry Metr Divis of Licensing St. Paul, MN 55104 444 Lynnhurst 444 aye St. Paul, MN 55104 St. aul, MN 5101 Nancy Tracy Ruth Mueller Ch ' P 934 Portland Avenue Alliance for he Mentally I11 Bette eighborhoods St. Paul, MN 55104 265 Fort Road 365 it all St. Paul, MN 55102 S . Paul, 55102 Jeff Levy Skip Sajevic Marge Adkisson Metro State University 276 North Sne ling 71 South Kipling St. 121 Metro Square Bldg St. Paul, MN 55104 St. Paul, I�I 55119 St. Paul, MN 55101 Gladys Morton Sue Smith Steve Rice 1618 Wilson Ramsey County Human Services Housing Information Office St. Paul, MN 55106 160 East Kell gg St. Paul, MN 55101 Jean Thompson Toni Baker porothy Skarnulis YWCA 316 Court Hou e ARC- St. Paul 65 East Kellogg St. Paul, MN 55102 65 E. Kellogg, #437 St. Paul, MN 55101 St. Paul, I�IN 55101 Kenneth Peterson Nancy Larimor � � 292 Ryan 1377 Lincoln �� G ��Z. �t�, St. Paul, MN 55102 St. Paul, MN 55105 �,M�v�.�,� Maureen Heap Paul Williams 1841 Dayton Avenue 569 Grand St. Paul, MN 55104 St. Paul, MN 55102 Alan Knaeble Terry Lindek 1751 Englewood Avenue County Execu ive's Office St. Paul, MN 55104 356 Court Ho se St. Paul, MN 55102 - ��-�� John T. Finley , Board of Ramsey County Commissioners 316 Court House Marv Grunke Ruby Hunt Lutheran Social Services Board of Ram ey County 1201 Payne Avenue Commissioner St. Paul, MN 55101 316 Court Ho se Tom Kingston Hal Norgard Wilder Foundation Board of Ram ey County 919 Lafond Commissioner St. Paul, MN 55104 316 Court Ho se Myra Halpin Duane McCart American Red Cross Board of Ram ey County 100 South Robert Commissioner St. Paul, MN 55107 316 Court Ho se Roger Toogood Donald Salve a Children's Home Society Board of Rams y County 2230 Como Avenue Commissioners St. Paul, I�IN 55108 316 Court Ho e David Dalberg Warren Schabe Salvation Army Board of Rams y County 401 West Seventh Commissioners St. Paul, MN 55102 316 Court Hou e George Meirick Sue Watlov-Ph"llips Catholic Charities MN Coalition or the Homeless 215 Old Sixth Street 668 Broadway, NE St. Paul, l�i 55102 Minneapolis, 55413 James Janecek Nancy Iserman Family Style of St. Paul 1754 E. Hoyt 280 North Smith, #740 St. Paul, MN 5106 St. Paul, MN 55102 � � ��-�`�` John Curran A1 Hester Maggie Demco 3101 West 69th Public Housi g Agency Sarah Family Programs Edina, MN 55435 413 Wacouta 771 Randolph Avenue St. Paul, I�i 55101 St. Paul, MN 55102 William Nelson Pat Banks Lynn Nelson Volunteers of America Women's Advo ates Mustard Seed 5905 Golden Valley Rd. 584 Grand 43 West 9th Mpls, MN 55422 St. Paul, NIld 55102 St. Paul, MN 55102 Timothy Madden Nancy Nagler Juel Fairbanks Transitional 1876 Gluek Lane Ramsey Actio Programs Housing Roseville, MN 55113 509 Sibley 806 North Albert St. Paul, MN 55101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Ellen Hart-Shegos Julie Manworr n Saint Paul YWCA Family Servic s of St. Paul 65 East Kellogg 333 Sibley 00 St. Paul, MN 55101 St. Paul, MN 55101 Captain Carol Bacon Rita Jirik, S ND Salvation Army Emergency Lodge Theresa Livin Center 1471 Como Avenue West 917 East Jess ine St. Paul, MN 55108 St. Paul, MN 55106 Pamela Zeller porothy Day C nter Casa de Esperanza 183 Old 6th S reet PO Box 75177 St. Paul, MN 55102 St. Paul, MN 55175 George Verley Ain Dah Yung Union Gospel Mission 1089 Portland Avenue 435 East University St. Paul, MN 55104 St. Paul, MN 55101 Ron Smith Nancy Stracho a St. Paul Coalition for the The Carpenter s Ministries Homeless 484 North Rob rt Street 65 E. Kellogg St. Paul, MN 55101 St. Paul, MN 55101 � �� Neighborhood Coasunity Organis�ra 2/9/88 District 1 Comm. Council District 2 Co ity Council West Side Citizen's Organiza Ms. Ann Cieslak, C.O. Sue Girling, .0. Ms. Judy Brown� Acting C.O. 2121 North Park Drive 2169 Stillwat r Avenue 209 West Page St. Paul, � 55119 St. Paul, I�IIJ 55119 St. Paul, l�i 55107 Dayton's Bluff Comm. Council District 5 P1 nning Council District 6 Planning Council Mr. Ron Wagner, C.O. Ms. Patricia ife, C.O. Ms. Sharon Voyda, C.O. 750 E. Seventh Street 1075 Arcade 1021 Marion St. St. Paul, MN 55106 St. Paul, MN 55106 St. Paul, MN 55117 Thomas-Dale/Dist 7 Ping. Coun. Summit-Univer ity Ping. Council West 7th Street Federation Ms. Dawn Goldschmitz, C.O. l�r. Greg Finz 11, C.O. Ms. Betty Moran, C.O. 379 University Avenue, #210 627 Selby Ave ue 265 Oneida St. Paul, MN 55103 St. Paul, IrIlJ 55104 St. Paul, I�T 55102 District 10 Como Comm.Council District 11 P anning Coalition District 12 Community Counci Ms. Kay Woitas, C.O. Ms. Susan Mar chalk, C.O. Ms. Roberta Megard, C.O. 1298 No. Pascal Ave. , Room 232 1558 W. Minne aha Ave. 890 Cromwell Avenue St. Paul, 1�1 55108 �St. Paul, 1�1 55104 Saint Paul, MN 55114 Lex-Hamline Co�. Council Merriam Park o�unity Council Snelling-Hamline Comm. Counc Mr. Paul Sherburne, C.O. Ms. Jo Habe n, C.O. Mr. Ed Bower� C.O. 1385 Selby Avenue 2000 St. Ant ny Avenue 176 No. Snelling, Room 303 St. Paul, I�IIJ 55104 St. Paul� MN 55104 St. Paul, MN 55104 District 14 Community Council Southwest Are District Council Summit Hill Association Ms. Kathie Taraowski, C.O. Ms. Miehelle ichtig, C.O. Ms. Ruth Armstrong, C.O. 324 So. GriEga St. 790 S. Cleve nd, Suite 208B 745 Grand, Suite 101 St. Pau1, 1�IIQ 55105 St. Paul, l�i 55116 St. Paul, 1�1 55105 � ' �� _ � � �;: � � ,�� , y� uf �au Setvice� Case-Papne Co�a. Coun. Louiss Elattert � � ; 950 Sdasrton ; ��" � ..ft:` !�, � SS1Q6 St. Paul. MN 55101 �� .r� r�- � . � .� .� � �� . � � .. .�,- Co��..Y Coun. �alli� Q. Br D�Iores Acciari Charlotta Rh s, C.O. � 529 Mirniehaha Ave. E. 100 North Ox ord St. Paul, 1�1 55101 St. Paul, l�T 55104 ' � � � _ i �� , MAR,ILYN LANTRY � Senator 67th District � Room 328 State Capitol St.Paul,Minnesota 55155 Phone:(612)296-8017 and Senate 2169 Beech Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55119 Phone:735-0139 State of Minnesota June 14, 1988 Councilman Tom Dimond City Hall St. Paul , MN 55102 Dear Tom: Because I will be unable to attend the meeting on Thursday morning when your moratorium proposal is d scussed, I wanted to write this letter of support for the moratori m. I needn't tell you that the Re-Entry project has met with oppo ition from the neighbors near the Greenbriar facility. It is imperat ve that Greenbriar not be re-used to house ex-felons. It may be tha the only way to stop the project is to declare a moratorium. You and I have discussed residenti 1 facilities and the need for a plan to house some of these people During this last year I have worked � with the city, the county, and the state to develop legislation addressing zoning for community residential f cilities. With the change in focus from large facilities to more home like settings for people with mental retardation, mental illness, etc. , it is important that we not concentrate them in any one part of our commun ty. Obviously, your moratorium will be adopted by the Council and allow us some breathing room to do some lanning in this area. I am sure that other members of the City Cou cil will be faced with the same type of proposal as is being put f rth in your district. Sincerely, � � ,'. G�� ` MARILYN LANTRY '`� _ ,✓ � State Senator ;�• �A `�; ' �'�, .r'J-, _t{ii ;_._, i;- .-� 9, , f-:z { l l ��N " ��!� Y � l z r`�'•, C;��..� �r.�q� r�x f ML:sc �;;..1 ;,`�� u � ,:�,r �� ?^� �°�,c, ;�. /� '� / k�''1 . :� �\`ti '/ %rJj_T1 f 1 COMMITTEES� Chair, General Legislation a Public Gaming� Chair, Income Maintenance and �1'elfare Reform Division� Rules&Administration�Fina ce�Health&Human Services�Transportation �° �;. . . , � ��.z�' ( Sec ion 2. Pending the completion f the studies and the recom- mendations of the Planning ommission, and the adoption of the necessary amendments by the City Council to the City' s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations, for the period of time � not to exceed one year rom the date of the adoption of th�j.s interim ordinance, no ermit f tablishment or � erilargement of any community esidential facilit , residential l� human service facili �' , �� , residential corrections facility, unlicensed community residential facility transitional housing, emergency housing, shelter for battered persons and missions , including j special condition use permit or building permits , shall be issued or granted by the P1 nning Commission, or any other City official , within any z ning classification district in the City of Saint Paul. ,� ��n. Sec ion 3. � �` ' � The restrictions containe erein shall not apply to any /h . licensed residential facility� { serving six or fewer persons to be located within a resi entially zoned district, nor to � any licensed facility serving 6 or fewer persons to be located within a multi-family zoned d' strict, as these licensed resi- dential facilities are deemed by the Legislature as permitted uses in such residential di tricts and which land uses the City is prevg�ted from restr'c in pursuant its local zoning regulations. '��R. ,,��'�,�,,,��c �_ �� .� � � �'c�d��o,.� �"' U Sec i n 4 The restrictions enacted h rein may be extended by resolution of the City Council for addi ional periods not to exceed an additional 18 months in the ev nt the studies and recommendations of the Planning Commission an the deliberations by the City Council should require such ext nsions of time. ---__ __ __--- _._ � � � g �- �, �.� � � 1 a` �� o��; � 9��.�, �� .-� �. '�,� �.��`�.,�., �.�.�►..�.,�,� � �. ��., � � � . . �:� ��`' �,�. .��.�.:�. � ...,.,.�:..� -�� , w �. � �� c�0 �.� ��-� e�-^-�w� `� �. �.c.�c:.�.c�, �..�.,�,�„ � s .wV� . WHITE - CITY CLERK . . PINK - FINANCE COUIICll p f� BLUERr-MAVORTMENT . GITY OF � AINT PAUL File NO. �� u �U O��Z �nce Ordinance N0. Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Secti n �.� This ordinance shall take effect thirty days from and , after its passage, approval and publication; provided, however, that it is the intent of thi Council that the restrictions ontained herein shall be ret oactive and made applicable to ny and all permit applicatio s pertaining to all such uses w ich have been received but ot issued or approved prior to th date that this interim ordina ce was adopted by this Council . --- � �� :��J�r(� �-e^�r�� '`r" � , � ��1�-� J � �1a��.. � � ��`.�`�`� "�.o ,�.��-c9 `� ,�.�- � �,�, � ` �,,s,,,"�- 9,.c�eti��' ��-e.. c-��,.�,..�- 0� � �;�,, � 0�.3..��,- e..�-. -��'�� c.a�� ti� ��,�,�,,� � ��. �►��v�-ti-�;�.�:�. �.:.��l <n. c�.,.�. 6� �. ��` -� c�\ �.-�.ti,� -.�-c� .�.,�.�.�.�.,,,�;. �. v Qv C...,c�c� �.j.s ---c� ' - - , c�-(�c �- � �- �i ��,'v�v`"'� � �� a� ��/�;c�..�:�s�1. �.,.1.�' ,.�R�. �A..cdS:� �� COUNCIL NIEMBERS ' Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Dimond �ng In Favor Goswitz Rettman B s�he;bei Against Y Sonnen ' �Ison Form Ap ro ed by City At rney A....pted by rouncil: Date C � .�3' Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by Mayor: Date Approve y Mayor for Submission to Council Rv � BY , � F w� � :<�-3- Wj� ,w � l^ `�. O '4 WARREN W. SCHABER C RMAN BOARD OF RAMSEY OUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONER ISTRICT 6 - EASTSIDE TONI BAKER 316 COURT HOUSE ASSISTANT TO COMMISSIONER S'T.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55102 612•298-0145 June 23 , 1988 ,7ames Scheibel , President St. Paul City Council 716 City Hall St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 Dear President Scheibel and Membe s of the St. Paul City Council : The Ramsey County Board of C mmissioners and our Department of Human Services staff have reviewed he City of St. Paul' s proposed interim ordinance restricting the esta lishment or enlargement of community residential facilities. We h ve several concerns relating to the proposed ordinance . We are all aware that the develo ment of residential living arrangements in the community is the direc result of state and federal trends and legal mandates toward deinstitu ionalization, community based services, the "normalization" of disabled p rsons, down-sizing of large facilities, needs of the homeless, licensing requirements, funding requirements, and a general overall move toward s aller living arrangements. As a result of these occurrences we have a reat need for a variety of programs and living arrangements to meet o r citizens' needs and to fulfill our responsibilities as County Commis ioners. The following is a partial 1 ' st of the range and types of facilities that would be either directly or indirectly affected by such a proposed ordinance: - Rule 5 facilities for emotionally disturbed children - Rule S facilities providi g professional group home services - Emergency shelters for fa ilies, single women and single men - Short term transitional h using (Mary Hall/Emma Norton) - Shelters for battered per ons - Boarding care ICF-II - Boarding care facilities - Supervised rooming and bo rding homes - Board and lodging facilit' es for adults - Rule 35 facilities for ch mical dependency treatment - C.D. board and lodging fa ilities - DeTox - Corrections facilities (a ult, juvenile , group homes ) «.�. f /y� �yy�� + ��/V - ICF-MR facilities for those with mental retardation - Rule 36 facilities for the entally ill - Non-Rule 36 facilities for he mentally ill - McKinney Homeless Assistanc Act programs and facilities While the ordinance does exclude " icensed residential facilities serving six ( 6 ) or fewer in a reside tially zoned district" and "licensed facilities serving sixteen ( 16 ) or fewer in a multi-family zoned district, " we believe such a moratorium on the establishment or enlargement of any of the abo e , including a "freeze on special condition use permits or buildin ermits, would have a se ous impact on our department' s ability to meet i s responsibilities. This proposed ordinance is mor all inclusive than any discussions on this subject that have taken lace in the past. It is proposing a moratorium of children' s as well as adult homes/facilities and includes any and all types of "human servic s" programs/facilities. In our opinion a "moratorium" such as this interim ordinance, which could be in effect for betwee 1 to 2 1/2 years, is not necessary and would severely restrict our a ility to find adequate and appropriate housing for our clients. it could prevent the development or expansion of needed treatment programs/facil ' ties, decrease the amount and type of housing available to the disab ed, and the development of badly needed facilities for the homeless i the City of St. Paul . We have a major concern that this ordinance would also hinder the City and the County, as well as other public and non profit organizations, from developing service programs, emergency sh lter, and transitional housing for the homeless under the Stewart B. McK nney Homeless Assistance Act. We also believe this ordinanc will increase the housing problems for Ramsey County residents who e en now lack adequate housing resources. Locating housing for clients ho are in need of even minimal care and supervision will be increasingly ifficult. In summary, we believe the p ssage of this ordinance will cause a hardship to the citizens we serve through County services, to the County departments that must administer those services, and to the taxpayers of Ramsey County. We urge the City Council not to p ss this ordinance . Sincerely, �`��-i-4�-� Warren W. Schaber, Chairman Board of Ramsey County Commissio ers WWS/clm Members: � Bill Wilson, chair �` � ; ::; � j �� ": , ': (i��l"� ��' ►:"'� . Iie7'I` ��.UI:� Tom Dimond G�� : , ' t . � , � , �, ._ . � , Kiki Sonnen �'6 � x.� ��rc r vz I�i �� cz2� couzcir. � � Date: June 8, 1988 � � ,; x `v'VILLIA?vt L. \��fLSC>N M��K vo�RDfN� �_ Commi �ee Report I��.:�,,�:,t�,��i:�� Councilman � � �� ,�,Ta: Saint Paul Ci�t� Council � � � Fror� : 1-lousing and Eeono �c Development Gommittee € � . Bill �lilso�, Chair �. � � � r a ; l. Resolution advptinf the Lower Cath dral fl.i.11 Pl�in as part of the City " Comprehensive P]_ati (CF �'c3-7�i9) COrIiiITTEE RECO�iPIEI��llEll T�JO WEEK LAY VER 2. An interim ordinance restricting t e establishmen�. or enlargement o: � community residential facilities, ransitional tiousing, shelters for battered persons, missions and eme �;ency housing facilities, pending completion of stucties of possib]_e mendments to the City's Compre- fiensive P1�'tr and/or 7,oning Regulat ons, "which #nterium ordinance is enacted pursuant to Minnesota 5�atites, Section 362.355, subd. 4. 46F ..88�R.g28) BAG�� TO COUNCIi.. FROM GUMMI£TE; WT_THOUT R�CO�"IENDATION ; 3. Kesolution <pproving Ldestgat� Offi e-Industrial Center $1.0,000,000 Tax-Exempt Qualified Redevelopment Bonds C01`i�il:iTEE RECOMt�iENDED APPROVAL 4. l�iemo oci �conomic Development Strat gy • COP�SIT'iEE RECO�Q•iENDFD TWO WEEK I�AY VER 1 CITY HAI.L SEVENTH f�LOUR � SATNT PAUI., �TINNES01�'A 55102 f�121293-46:6 c .�i .4G