96-307LL
�-.. '--- i� ..
ORDINANCE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Presented By
Council File # � ��
Ordinance #
An ordinance amending Chapters 60 and 64 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code pertaining to zoning.
The Council of the City of Saint Paul does ordain:
Section 1
That section 60.214. N. of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended so as to read as follows:
Sec. 60.214. N.
� i � - - - -
. . . �, .
- - - - _ _ �:,.
. -.,�.:,.w :. :.. �,.,....,.a. t�'
�ii�lrn�t�f �iftTsis;c�d�'�rizf
Section 2
That Chapter 60 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by adding new section 60305.
More or less restrictive districts. as follows:
-- , _.
�� 5�.�1� ��r� rest��€.z�� �r l�� re�tr�€�etiv� d�s��s;
Green Sheet # �� 1 � V
. . . . .
. •� � . , . �
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
Section 3
That section 62102 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
q �_3a.�
Sec. 62.102. Nonconforming lots, nonconforming uses of land, nonconforming structures;; and
nonconforming uses of structures and �e�ises �a�€�.
. ..... ........ ...:. .. .... .
<< >,
��r� _rr�+�� or e purposes o t s sechon, use means t e prmcipal purpose
for which land or a building is being occupied. A use will be presumed legally nonconforming if it can be
demonstrated by cleaz and convincing evidence that prior to October 25, 1975, the use was established,
converted, or enlarged and occupied pursuant to building permits issued by the City of Saint Paul; or if it
can be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the particular use had been in existence
continuously for twenty (20) years prior to December 13, 1976. The burden of proof shall be on the
pxoDertv owner. �`h�."tkY'�t113iY1� �i.f�?�fY]SSS1�311 �Y �!)�CL�1'�'� 33�Y�tiTtS� �1i1��:Y3.(5L1�tF11���?1ti��'tt3� Sta.ttl5�:ttS
�enef �!te� rs!ee�!re� �e!ss!ee�af �s!cs �.;� nr!rf s�rese�.s se:!r.r�e!�!re!�
�
. . -
93 . . "Y�i �'S � �
94 ,
95 ' ; ' ,
96 � ,e.:,... ,.r.�... �...:,a:..� :.._ ..,..,.a
97
98 {��� Nonconforming lots In any district in which single-fanuly dwellings aze permitted,
99 notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this code, a single-family dwelling and
100 customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record at the effective date of adoption
101 or amendment of this code. This provision shall appiy even though such lot fails to meet the requirements
102 for area or width, or both, that aze applicable in the district; provided, that yazd dunensions and other
103 requirements not involving area or width, or both, of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the
104 district in which such lot is located. Yard requirement variances may be obtained through approval of the
105 boazd of zoning appeals.
106
107 If three (3) or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous street frontage
108 in single ownership aze of record on the effective date of this code or amendments thereto, and if all or
109 part of the lots do not meet the requirements for lot width and area as established by this code, the lands
110 involved shall be considered to be an undivided pazcel for the purpose of this code, and no portion of said
111 pazcel shall be used or occupied which does not meet lot width and area requirements established by this
112 code, nor shall any division of the parcel be made which leaves remaining any lot with width or area
113 below the requirements stated in this code.
114
115 ,
116 ,
117 , , ,
118 �..w;o,., .,. .�.,. r ii,.••,. .
119
120 �d� ��x��a�,�`�?rzn�ng ii�� �,�Iu�r�: 1�Ic�i����rm� u��9 �� ta�iti � Sut�j� it�:tb� ��I1�iiuiz�g
, .. .....
121 pra�visi€i�s:
122 ... ..
123 ...: .:
' ,_ :: : t�1€�is�ts a�g i�a�: �aa� _��iz�ue.
............ ....:....:::.. ,.
124
125 (�(2� �Ie-s�k � nonconforming use shall ��it be enlazged it�: a g�at�r �Ig11f � nor
126 extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption
127 or amendment of this code;
128
129 (-�}�3� ?�Fe-stt�k fk nonconforming use shall fiist be moved in whole ar in part to any other portion
130 of the lOt �r n�re�i ` .. ^a w. .,..�?: .,.,. �. `,.�:� �F :.^'u.. u��. �: w a,. ,'.,,. .,a ...... .''..::. .� ��
r __ . :: » ..�' ..j��. ca.ica.
131 �s-sede;
132
133 (��� If such nonconforming use of land ceases for any reason for a period of ninety (90) days or
134 more, any subsequent use of such land shali conforxn to the regulations specified by this
135 code for the district in which such land is located. This is not intended for those uses which
136 remain on the land but whose activity may cease for a period longer than ninety (90) days ,
137 due to reasons associated with the customary operations of such use.
138
139 {4-3��� Any land on which a nonconforming use is superseded by a perxnitted use shail thereafter
140 conform to the regulation for the district in which such land is located and the
141 nonconforming use may not thereafter be resumed.
142
3
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
- - -- - -- - - - - -- �.. - .
- - � . . . ', -
- - -- � - - - - - - - -- -- - -
- -- - --- - ' - --- - -
�- - -- --- - -
•:,: .:.,:.:.,. ,...
��iifcQ�f`t�r�ti�s� st��tr�r�s:�::cQi�fari�i€ig
� ��':. ::.: �s;ria�ci�xz��zii�u� sfi�u�ture xna� �fl�ti�ue�:
:........ .. ..
(-1-}��) &�k t�`rian�iii�°a�ri� structure may be enlarged or altered so long as such enlargement or
.. .....:........:.:.:......
alteration does not increase its nonconformity. Accessory buildings may be added so long as
they conform in all respects to the requirements of C::�~`�~ �, e,.u„a..i,. ,.r n,,,_,.i,,.:,...,.
,... . .. . . . . . .. . .
�
����iz:fi��Y.l;fl�; :�1�e�;ssc�z�;lit�%l�gs.
..:
structure �e i5 destro ed b an means to an extent of
',:_..�r�`� uua�., s��� Y Y Y
more than sixty (60) percent of its replacement cost, exclusive of the foundation, at the time
of deshuction, it shall not be reconstructed except in confornuty with the provisions of this
code.
, ,..
(3j��) �ketd�-s�k �a��>�`i��i��ripat� structure �e �� moved for any reason for any distance
whatever, it shall fhereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which it is located
after it is moved.
: -- - - - -
:. - -- -- - - - -
: - - - -
::
: ' - - - - -
'1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
•
.
�
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
q,�.3o�
r ., ,. .t„ R +..�1, ..a .. ,:it t,e ,-ae,t ie....i ,.s ,....:..,. ,+,.
w a�� r� y �b " 5
�
.
.
- - - •
- -- - - - - - " -- --
. ._
._
- �-
- - � -
- - - - - -- ..
_, .
,.... .. _.
_:: ::.... :. .,.:
���?: �; �i�t�"iarir�iug?;us€.;rna� �€ixz��i��:
��).:
3�
��;�};:: '
����.:
7
�fi� .; � �� i�ta,��g a;�n���r�� � s�� � � �a�� �� ��c�t�er Icaca€i4� �� �� lr�t;
l.tl i�r� �tc���t�ia�crrnv
� .; ) .. � � s��s : apph�s tu � I��t€1c�iii� �r1 �aric� �n e�ssnbzz�at�an,; re�n�s� �r
9`-�oZ
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
•- - - - -
- - � - -
Nothing in this code sha11 be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of
any �xil�g �{�u�t� or part thereof declared to be unsafe by any official charged with protecting the
public safety upon order of such official.
(g}�h� Change of tenancy or ownership. There may be a change of tenancy, ownership or
management of any existing nonconforming uses of land, structures, and premises and nonconforming
structures with conforming uses provided there is no change in the nature or character of such
nonconforming use or shucture.
��)::'_
��
�
::.....:.:... ...:..<.:::..:::,::..... .........,::..........:..:_.: .:........:_...,.;...:... �� `
�a,� t�ie u� ��u�s ez�fa��;T� �1�� a�? �;zs��i� ��az��: � �
.:.............. .......�_.,,,...,.:.................._.<..:.,....,..:;.,....:. .__.... ......
(�S� #� �-� si�n��r tp� a� u�s �€#�'ed ��m:thc dxstsie;�,;
���� �-�€z�e��g �s ad�q�� �c? s�� � �>;:
�e� �d�� �a�d �� � f�xe � ��r� �isc�u���; :
��1,;;:::
��� �e ps�r��g:i�� zs #�,sez�e a�ut�ng r�?a��r�xa�y ar zndu��aa�� z�ied p�c�i+ezt�y .
.
��� � par�tng'�a€ �s_c�ii�s�S€�n� �t� t�� �ts�iprehens�u� p?�'�zit�
�
9� �ao�
�� ������
,... . . .. . ..
��) �i`� ;zYSS�: is: �aii��eiit,:�� tlie;:�a�ii�ie�ie:i��e �1�: ;
,. . � . ..... ... .. . ...
�he gi�iiig.��t�i�.si��'� f��ti�i�s r�ay �� � gesterai �zle c�r �S�r�g�;� a�p�crfi� �a��;
,. _
�a�: �kz: esilarg�i���� �ll tt€�t r��i1t �r� an �ncr�ase i� .ti�: �rz�€r zsf d�r��lrng uriits;
�c� �li� �pearaz�c� �af t�e en��ai�a�zt �1_ b� ��t�p��le w�� #l�e �lja��nt prv�y a�iii
���ghl�rh€s�id; ;
�d} a� stxe�t p�iI€�ng as pr���c�ert f�i� €h�: �1a�g�n�nt t�ax �� tF�� ��ur�ii��ifs c�f ���aii
... ,... _.....:.
��.1 ��:: f�?i; it��u: �#rz��fii�r��;
(�� �<�tani�ig #he p�gerty wczuuid �u�t � �a r<s�at" 'zaxung �r a �a�r??x� u�ppr����te tei
��u�tds�rr� t�i u��:, �nd
10
���'d� � z� ca�sten� w�k� �,e cazz�r�i��ve pla�as �zl
495
496
497
498
499
500 _ _: . .
��� f� st�€€3e€�z�� �r sf�uc�z� �zd: ����tf�t� ���'.��Zy ar e��a�%�ea�7
_.. . _ - _ -...
501 €�d �r a �t�??r��r�; ����;
__..-..:......
502
, ,.: .:.
503 �} � �rrra�r�d � �� �u�t� ��c�sr�� �r rn�r� a�r��ate �€s ��:€t���ct �� �
.. -_ ...
504 prev�a�s �ne�si���� us�,..;
505
506 �e� � sed �€s� �rili �k be �tr�e�T fi� fi�e ;` '
�� ��sfi�� c�z�tact� z�f t�e�e�p�nt � €.
507 ��im�#��� �e��1��r�id-�r �g�t��ixb���;�iea��, �a��y � gener� ��
__ _ . ....
508
_...._....:....,�:._.:::::._::.::,::: :.....:. ._ ... ...: .. . ..: .
509 �d� �ia� �z� wse �.s cai�st�a�t uFat� tk� �a�ngxe�ie�ve g1a�s, �r� ;;
510
r�
511 �
�e) a;�afi�z�d`pet�t�a�_srf �wo-t�irda a�fi��:p€aPezt3; c�az� �u�dz�d.�lOf?� fe.e# �f
_
512 t1�� g�tspert� �s be�n sii��� sf�r�� tfieir �p€x� ��r ttie`��,
513
514 The �pl��a�tr�� �r Yhe p�xrn� Sli�li ��url� �z� pet�f�nn, � s�te g7an tt�eet�n� �lie;'r��uet��ts
515 c�f �et��xt �a� 1Q�� fl�ia�;pl�, arid ��er �zif�rmat�s�i� as re€�ired ta suti��afi�. fhe ��izt;
516
517 Section 4
518
519 That Chapter 64 of the saint Paul legislative Code is hereby amended by adding new section 64.402.
520 Amendments effect on pending uses and structures. as follows:
521
522 �ec � 4(� ���n�m�t�:�f�e� �� p�nci�€ng �r.s�s a�� struetiai�:,
.� ....: . . ... .: ... .... ,. : ... .. .: , .
523
524 �s�s th� x�� �i�r�t� �a 1�: estab�sh�d and strit�tur�� tha� �er�:�r�it�d t�i l�e ��rristru�c�
.
525 befca� a�tz�danei�Es tc� �kt�,s �
nx�g �cacJ� b� axe:�� Ie+n,�ex p��fl�d'by �tze �ex�cl���t� ma� be �lisb�t�
526 i�r ��nsiz�€t�ted, pr�iy�r�� th�t t��� �e�t t�� f��I�n� �ndf�a�ss;
527
528 (�) :�ses c���' ��r�s t�€ �e� 1��d�� p�xmit� �� �e ��C�b�i�1 c�� cc�n�u�d rs��� f3e
529 ests'��€s��e� ar �cs�slructed, prc��a�ed tbat t��<�e �S� �t'��t��re dat�;c�f #lze an��ndin�xits; ,
530
531 (�):fi�e uses �sr stru€�fiu��s lzave �er��eel a�I r��uxre� �sn�� :
� �aerm�€ts frar� ti�� �lann�ug cAan�iss�
532 f�e b�a�d �f zQ .
.; ��?geals �?r the �ia?x�g p�zz�u�s ar� apge�aled� tti� �zty �viiu��l� am�3
533
ffY
534 ���:ua1�� buil�z�zg p�t agg�lzcatz�n� �Sau� b�n zi��e � vata� 1?u�� pez�� ha�� �reesaz rssizecT; £c�i
...
535 ��. es��6l�sttris� �zf°tl�� vs�s �r fcrr tlie canstr��ia�n c�f ���st�c�tares':;
.. .: . . .... .... . . . ..
536
537 If #�e r,����r� ?n�d�ct �a �sfskilisktt� �.nr t�t� ��i�[��t�issi n# t� st�u�r�_lias �i�t �€Iiiit
, ;_ ��'�; :. _ .•,.,
538 �x ��� �smh� c�� tl�e ass�� �� 1� I�z�€irt�g �trnzts the use� �� strc�cfu��� ma,y i�t t£���a�ter �
. ;
539 �1�ed qi c���etl F�r � pi;�pcas� a�`;� se��i�n r�er�a�zt��� ���at�r� tn �c����u�.ir�� �i��1 �?e
...: _. . ... _
540 ctrns�t�re€�,�a�;sl�i�t�a�;
�....:..::-.._ _. ....._ ....:.:...:........
541
542 (t�j `�s� n�t n�i�g, ts�e��.�er�sixs irit�st �e �l��i�� `6��r�� � �'fe�v� d�e �� ��;:
>,.- ....
543 �rzeaac�aezi�;_
544 _........
11
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
Section 5
-30 �
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage, approval and
publication.
A F�� �°��@�/�" E
� �� � �..' � !, u f ". >.-�.
PU9peu�n
lNAY �,119g6
Requested by Department of:
_ ./5 . . ��. _:.
'�Il _' _ _ � ��1��'
- , f ��
By:
by Ma�J � Date
By:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
Form Approved by City Attorney
°!G-3a?V
DEPA PED P DATEIOZ N� 29716
GREEN SHEET
INfTiA INRIAUDATE
CANTACT PERSON 8 PHONE DEPAFiTMENT DIRECTOR CIT' COUNCIL
Roger Ryan 66574 � �
ASSIGN f2lCITVATTOflNEV '1—,a7 �CRVCLEFK
NUNBER FOR �•y
MUSTBEONCAUNCILAGENDABY(DATE) gOUTING BUDGETDIREGTOP �FIN.B
ONUER btq�'pR(ORASSISTAN'f� Ao
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES Z (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACT10r1REQUESTEO: ' ! _
Adopt January Minor Zoning Amendments -
. t'EL3 2$ 1996
RECAMMEN�ATIONS: Approve (A) ar Reject (R) pEBSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER t{E'F� Y3NESTIONS:
� �G.� d
_ PL.PNNING COMMISSION _ CIVf�SERYICE COMhii$$ION �� Has this persoMirm ever worked under a contract for ihis tlepartment?
_ CIB COMMITfEE _ YES NO
_ STAFF 2. Has this person/firm ever been a ciry employee?
— YES NO
_ oIS7AICT CoURT _ 3. Does this person/irtm possess a skill not no�mally possessetl by any current city employee?
SUPPORTSWHICHCOUNCILO&IECTIVE? YES NO
E:plain all yes answers on separete sheet antl attaeh to green sheet
INITIATING PR08LEM, ISSUE, OPPGIRTUNIN (Who, What, When, Where, WM/).
Needed minor zoning amendments are delayed if only done periodically.
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED
Zoning code is kept up to date, y � ����
��� Z� ����
��TY ATTOR��Y
DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED:
None.
�. ,. - ... . -.� .,
�- �_, ? � �i��
��.�....�. _..,�..�-.�.��
�
DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED:
Needed amendments could face long delay.
TO7AL AMOUNT OF TpANSAC710N $ COST/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIHCLE ONE) VES NO
FUNDItdG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORMATION. (EXPLAIN)
�! �-�a�
SAINT
YAUL
�
AAAA
CTTY OF SAiNT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
390 City Hatl
I S West Kellogg Bouleva�d
Saint Paul, MN SSIO2
Telephone. b12-26b-851D
Facsnrsile: 612-228�513
February 20, 1996
Council President David Thune and
Members of the City Council
3rd Floar City Ha11
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Deaz President Thune and members of the City Council:
Beginning in 1982, the Planning Commission periodically considered and recommended
to the City Council a series of minor zoning amendments contained in 40-acre studies
called Zoning Amendments I, II, eta There have been eight of them. The zoning
amendments made changes needed to bring the code up to date with new living ar
business practices, carry-out newly adopted plans, clarify regulations, conect errors,
and incorporate zoning administrator interpretations and Planning Commission findings.
Since these 40-acre studies were done only periodically, needed zoning amendments
were delayed until staff, the Commission, and City Council had the tnne to work on
them. Tn order to avoid such delays and to keep the code as current as possible, the
Commission will consider and recommend to the City Council several minor zoning
amendments each month.
The most recent Minor Zoning Amendments recommendations concerning
nonconforming uses are attached. The main changes to the nonconforming use
regulations aze:the regulations have been re-phrased and zearranged for easier
comprehension; conditions for sunsetting nonconforming use pernuts have been
incorporated into the code; and the principal uses of nonconforming uses may be
expanded, provided the surrounding property owners have signed a petition supporting
the expansion.
The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held public heazings on the
proposed amendments on January 18 and February 1, 1996. The Commission
recommended their approval on February 9, 1996, as set forth in the attached
resolution.
� �'
I am pleased to transmit these amendments to you for your review and approval.
Sincerely,
�� � ��� ��
Norm Coleman
Mayor
NC:n
� � -�02
city of saint paui
planning commission resolution
file number 96-06
�te February 9, 1996
MINOR ZONING AMENDMENTS
JANUARY 1996
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that considering and
recommending monthly zoning amendments to the Mayor and CiCy Council is the
most desirable way to keep the zoning code as current as possible; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing
on proposed minor zoning amendments concerning nonconforming uses at its
January 18 and February 1, 1996, meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined:
1. That the number of real estate descriptions affected by the amendments
renders the obtaining of written consent impractical;
2. That a survey of an area in excess oE 40 acres has been made;
3. That a determination has been made that the proposed amendments to the
Zoning Code are related to the overall needs of the community, to
existing land use, and to plans for future land use; and
4. That pursuant to State Statutes proper notice of the hearing was given
in the Pioneer Press on December 27, 1995, and January 3 and January 10,
1996.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the zoning code amendments in the "Minor Zoning Amendments January
1996" study as amended by its zoning committee pertaining to nonconformin.g
uses and directs the Planning Administrator to forward the study and this
resolution to the Mayor and City Council for their review and action.
moved by Morton
seconded by
in favor lo
a ('ta��t 7(Schwichtenberg, Geisser, Vaught, Bader, Gurney, Gordon, Wencl)
��-`
q�•�°�
MINOR ZO1vING AMENDMENTS
JANUARY 1996
DIVISION OF PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF PLANIVING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
°l�"3°�
1VIINOR ZONING AMENDMENTS
January 1996
INTRODUCTION
These amendments update, re-phrase and re-arrange the regulations of the nonconforming use
section. The e�sting regulations are a confusing mix of rules and permits. The permits allow
the planning commission to grant exception to the rules. The permits have been put together
in a separate clause (i). Rules for which exceptions may be granted are referenced to the
appropriate clause of (i).
1. MAKE DEFINITIONS MORE SPECIF'IC
Sec. 60.214. N.
. . . - -
. . .
� - -
. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
.
' ' :�asa.���a�..vi ' a � ' " #, 8' i F 7' ` �' " �_. ' 6. , i_b i �.E 9 . 88' 3.4.93' ! 6
DISCU5SION
These definitions are more specific than current ones.
2. DEFINE MORE TO LESS RESTRICTIVE DISTRICTS
4�
. � . • � . - -
. . . �
n � jj] � ' ,y; � /yy � p . � qy � yp � y} � yy F....
�(��T_rtTEE�J�. h�'.RS/1A+ .�rV+SY.�VS��'.'Fl�_�'r�i�CF4�._.F,���S4i.I4F�3v
�I�-�°�
DISCUSSION
More restrictive or less restrictive district is used in several places in the code. This lists the
districts from more to less restrictive.
3. UPDATE INTENT STATEMENT
Sec. 62.102. Nonconforming lots, nonconforiuing uses of land, nonconforming structures�
and nonconforming uses of structures and �r�aises land.
r:r�s:r-:e:srt!ssie _
. .
- - .. .� . �. ., ..� ...:�., .::�r
�b�';:��gtt� :�i�t��an,�'��#�if�g: _us�; For the purposes of this section, "use" means the
principal purpose for wluch land or a building is being occupied. A use will be presumed legally
nonconforming if it can be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that prior to October
25, 1975, the use was established, converted, or enlarged and occupied pursuant to building
permits issued by the City of Saint Paul; or if it can be demonstrated by clear and convincing
evidence that the particular use had been in eacistence continuously for twenty (20) years prior
to December 13, 1976. The burden of proof shall be on the properry owner. �;gk��
�1 �
q (�.'St� �l
�, ,
,
00
[-- d .
. CI 9 r
W "
, ;
o d
, . � �Q
(�(G� Nonconforming Zots. In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted,
notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this code, a single-family dwelling
and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record at the effective
date of adoption or amendment of this code. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails
to meet the requirements for area or width, or both, that are applicable in the district; provided,
that yard dimensions and other requirements not involving area or widCh, or both, of the lot shall
conform to the regulations for the district in which such lot is located. Yard requirement
variances may be obtained through approval of the board of zoning appeals.
If three (3} or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous
street frontage in single ownership are of record on the effective date of this code or
amendments thereto, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements for lot width and
area as established by this code, the lands involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel
for the purpose of this code, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or occupied which does
not meet lot width and area requirements established by this code, nor shall any division of the
parcel be made which leaves remaining any lot with width or area below the requirements stated
in this code.
The ezcisting intent section (a) has been re-arranged for easier comprehension. The e�sting
intent section includes: (1) intent statements; (2) two rules giving the conditions by which uses
are determined to be legal nonconforming uses and, consequently, not needing a planning
commission nonconforming use permit; and (3) the rules for deciding, after adopuon of a zoning
amendment, whether pending uses may be established or pending buildings may be constructed,
thus gaining vested rights as nonconforming uses or buildings.
y,
°I�,.3o�
�
?
�
�
v
�
v
�
-�o
v
�
ADMINISTRATION.
The proposed intent section (a) includes intent statements only. The two rules giving the
conditions by which uses aze determined to be legal nonconforming uses are in the new
re-lettered section (b) Legal nonconforming use. The rules deciding whether pending uses and
buildings have vested nonconforming rights been moved to a new Section 64.402, in
The existing intent statements emphasize that nonconforming uses should not be encouraged to
survive or be allowed to be replaced or expanded. This reflects the prevaIling view of the time
that nonconforming uses should not be allowed to change so that they will finally wither away.
This can cause hardship to the owners of nonconforming property and to the surrounding
neighborhoods. These intent statements do not reflect the code as originally adopted, previously
amended, or these amendments. The proposed intent statements reflect the view that
nonconfornning uses may remain and be replaced or expanded so long as the nonconforming uses
are improved and the surrounding neighborhood is better off or no worse off after the
improvements.
4. NONCONFORMING USE OF LAND
tf1
�
A �"
W ^
�N
o �,
� -car
; ,:..::,;:,:.::.;:, _:, _,:...s,:.::
.�
Y
- - �� -
��� . _.. . . .. . . :�.�:�,�.f.
n
��
��"�°�
�
.�'�i
�
.� .
��
��
c�d �
��
- .:
..
, -. _ -
. -
"- - • -
(�Z} ,l�cir��� fi�rzr�ang � �t,��nd '�1�nGc�s��� ��s �rf k�:az� s€ib��e[ � f�e f��l#�u�zeg
�zv'ss��zi�_:
.
..
F ::.::.:.::....:-.,
. .... . .... .:.. .... . .
fl� °�. :a��c�r���ang �s� �s€a� �az�tu��e�
���: ::: : ��u�
DISCUSSION
These revisions re-phrases the regulations. The commercial parking nonconformitig use pernut
has been moved to clause (i) nonconforming use pernuts.
5. NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES WTTH CONFORMING USES
.._
��
��-30�
_�
..
..
��� ::;_: A tirnican�`�ar�i� sh��t�r� �ay ��r�e:
��� Suek �_:�Q�ou��r€�i�g structure may be enlarged or aitered so long as such
.. :.:.... : . ...
enlargement or alterarion does not increase its nonconfornuty. Accessory
buildings may be added so long as they conform in all respects to the
requirements of , ��tiezzz:��::1:(�,°:'��°eci�s�?.
. > . :::. .. : ... .....:.::.... ::...
�uil�irigs.
(���) � W�t�� �:zi�inCpiifLa;�ei�t�g structure �e is destroyed by any means to an
extent of more than sixty (60) percent of its replacement cost, exclusive of the
foundauon, at the tnne of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in
conformity with the provisions of this code.
�{�#� �ket�l-sae� �� _a ntisiecsri��rinit�g structure He iS moved for any reason for any
distance whatever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in
which it is located after it is moved.
These revisions re-phrase the regulations and cite Section 62.106 rather than Chapter 61
regarding accessory buildings.
6. NONCONFORMING USES aF STRUCTURES OR STRUCTURES AND LAND IN
COMBINATION
��
�I �-3��
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
�D�
� �
� �
�
- - - _ .
■ - - - - -
�����;� - -• •- -- -• - - • •••- -- --
.
�J:}: .:;: : t�'zu��qafi��iil�g: �i��: #�ay es�i�riu�:::
�2�:::
��3:
�
�3
°Ic,-�°'l
��7: _ ._ :
���>:
�:��;� : `
��f2}
(���:.
�p� �rxt� Iai��'�r � lar�r �rea �;�a��t�d� t�s€ruc��r�:
io
��
������
. .
. - -- - - ----- - - - -- -- - ----� -- . . ._
Nothing in this code shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe
condition of any �g ���iu� or part thereof declared to be unsafe by any official charged
with protecting the public safety upon order of such official.
� j�t.j Change of tenancy or ownership. There may be a change of tenancy, ownership
or management of any existing nonconforming uses of land, structures, and premises and
nonconforming structures with conforming uses provided there is no change in the nature or
character of such nonconforming use or structure.
Eight of the existing regulations have been retained and re-phrased or revised and another three
have been moved to the next section, (i) Nonconfornung use permits.
Here are the main revisions.
Nonconformin�use chante, clause (fl(2). Under the existing code, the zoning adm3nisuator
allows a nonconfomung use to change to a new nonconforming use if the new nonconforming
use is also listed in the same clause of the code as the nonconfornung use. However, a
11
�
qt�-3a�
nonconformuig use permit is needed from the planning commission in order for a nonconforming
use to change to any other new nonconforming use. For example, in a one-family district the
zoning administrator will allow a nonconforming grocery store (first permitted in a B-1 district)
to change to a hardware store (a use listed as a permitted use in the same clause of the B-1
district as are grocery stores). The planning commission, however, would have to grant a
nonconforming use permit in order for the grocery store to change to a TV repair shop since
grocery stores and TV repair shops aze listed as permitted uses in two different clauses of the
B-1 district. Proposed clause (fl(2) allows a nonconfornung use to change to a permitted use
in the district in which the nonconforming use is first allowed without a nonconforming use
permit. Therefore, in the above example, the grocery store could change to the TV repair shop
without the planning commission granting a nonconforming use permit.
The revision also allows nonconforming uses to change to special condition uses pernutted in
the district in which the nonconfornvng use is first allowed provided the planning commission
grants a special condition use permit for the changed use.
Renlacement of destroved buildin¢s, clause (fl(8). Buildings containing nonconforming uses that
are destroyed by more than 60% or more may not be rebuilt unless the building and use meets
the regulations of the dislrict. This is consistent with how nonconforming buildings with
conforming uses are regulated.
Repair of buildin�s containing nonconformine uses, clause (fl(9). For a building devoted to a
nonconforming use, the existing code limits the amount of work that can be done in a years
time to 50% of replacement costs. The revision will allow a building to be gutted and rehabed
to more than 50% of replaceinent costs, as has been done in Ramsey-Hill and other
neighborhoods to restore large residential houses.
Added parkine allowed, clause (fl(11). The revision will explicitly allow off-street parking to
be added to nonconforming use sites. This is allowed now.
ParkinQ for enlar¢ements and reconstructions, clauses (e)(121, (e)(13). and (e)(14). Off-street
parking will require to be provided after enlargement or reconstruction of residential uses in
business or industrial zoning districts, two-family uses in one-family zoning districts, and
greenhouses in residential zoning districts.
7. PLACE ALL NONCONFORMING USE PER1l1ITS IN SEPARATE SECTION
12
�b
� ���
�1:}:_
...,.. :. ... _......,.. . .. ... ...... . ..
{a� the �e �rr,��xs �n�tr��y �v�� aa� ���ag st�tur�;:
�tr� fi�� :use �s ��� t� �t�t�r u�� p�rutx�d{w�1�� �te dtstrt��; :
_. _ _ .. .
(�tj ai�m:str�et'pa�k�ii�:is, ai�eqt�a��:t�;�erve rti� :�se,::
_.
��� : i���i� ��i�� z�:i��h� ix��;:x�e� ��.s�o�t�n�,;
(1�) :��:use:_�s::ea�is�ri#��i�,ti tI?e: �i�ipi�e�e�ite�;�s1ana: a�
13
��
��,.�o�
{�� �� par�€iig ;3cst �s ta; ��e a��� ��imercx.�li� ar �n�3ustri�I1� z��
F���n�
���
14
5�
C��. the; �Sarf�ug f� is �;u�s�ste�a€ wit�i th� ��T��v� �#aa; �
I�e'�
,
(�) � :� � �r��ce�t v��t� �e ��p�e€�si� p� :
.:z7r"a.': �ii�ig
,. _ . , , -
{g) ;tfi� ;� ;is :ciinsist��sti, �?irTt tli�: ��ii�i��es�s��:plari;: ar�
15
�9
���,t�� �xx���e�ren� ��IT ncri ��It �i a� ��a� zt� 1�� u�a�ex `�f dx�e���ig u�k�>:
o��,-�o?
f�) �:prsa�� i�s� � �oissYSt��t �� t�e �ornpr�fietrsiv� ��a�, �d:
DISCUSSION
The plavning commission will be explicitly allowed to attach conditions to nonconforming use
permits to ensure that the uses fit in with the surrounding neighborhood.
The planning commission now sunsets nonconforming use permits when appropriate. The
revision sets forth the conditions for sunsetting.
The fmdings the planning commission needs to make in order to grant nonconforming use
permits have been standardized and given common language.
The existing code only allows the ezcpansion of accessory uses of nonconforming uses. Section
(i)(4) allows expansions of the principal use and structure if the expansion results in an
improvement to the site and the neighborhood, and the surrounding properry owners sign a
petition supporting the expansion.
In order to re-establish a nonconforming use in a vacant building, clause (i)(5), the surrounding
property owners will have to sign a petition supporting the re-establishment. This is consistent
with requiring petitions showing sunounding owner's support for other nonconforming use
permits.
16
{pD
�j�-�o�
8. AMENDMENTS EFFECT ON PENDING USE5 AND BUII�DINGS
DISCUSSION
This section gives the conditions by which a pending use may be established or a pending
building may be constructed after the adoption of a zoning amendment that no longer allows the
use or building to be established or built. This will give a vested right as a nonconforming use
or building. Under the existing code, actual construction (including demolition) must have
begun before the effective date of the amendment in order to gain a vested right. This
amendment requires that all zoning permits must have been granted and applications for building
permits must have been made before the effective date of the amendment. Construction,
including demolition, must begin within 6 months of the issuance of the permit, the time period
a building pernut is valid.
17
t� I
�� ���'; ������� e���� �c�g�s a�d ��e,��
q�_3o�i
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: February 1, 1996
TO: Member of the Saint Paul Planning Commission's Zoning
Committee
FROM: Peter Warner, CAO
RE: Informal response to the questions raised at the last
meeting of the Zoning Committee by Commissioner Kramer on
the topic of nonconforming use permits.
Commissioner Kramer inquired whether or not "non-controversial"
petitions to change a nonconforming use could be done without first
requiring a public hearing.
If I understand Commissioners Kramer's question correctly, I read
the zoning code to presently disallow any approval of any change in
an existing nonconforming use permit by the zoning administrator.
The following underscored language from Saint Paul Legislative Code
� 64.300(b) indicates that the approval of any change in a
nonconforming use permit must be approved by the Planning
Commission notwithstanding whether or not the change is
controversial or non-controversial.
(b) Planning commission review; delegation to
administrator. The planning commission shall
review and approve all principal uses
permitted subject to special conditions, site
plans, determinations of similar use, and
other matters and cases as may by law be
provided. The planning commission shall have
the authority to modify or revoke any special
condition use permit, nonconforming use
permit, change in nonconforming use permit or
sign variance. The nlanning commission mav, bv
rule, deleaate to the plannina administrator
� L�
permit, any sign variance or special condition
use permit or modify special conditions
imposed upon any principal uses permitted
subject to such special conditions.
It would not be difficult to amend Saint Paul Legislative Code §
64.300 to provide the zoning administrator with authority to act on
so-called non-controversial nonconforming use permit applications
by providing a grant of authority to do the same from the Planning
Commission. I imagine that the format would be similar to site
plan reviews. If the committee would like me to undertake the
research and drafting on this topic [it would constitute an
amendment to the zoning code] please direct me accordingly.
DEPAR7'MEN'T OF PLANNTNG
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CTIY OF SAII�'f PAUL
Norm Coleman. Mayor
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
February 1, 1996
Zoning Committee
From: Roger Ryan �
Re: Amendment of change of nonconforming uses
Divirion of Plmening
25 Wesi Founh Sireei
Saint Paul, MN 55702
a
Telepho»e: b12-26b-b5b5
Facsimile: 617-228-3314
At the raeeting of January 18th, the committee expressed concern with the proposal to allow
nonconforming uses to change (1) to a use permitted in the district in which the nonconforming use is
first allowed or (2) to a use permitted in a district that is more restrictive than the district in which the
nonconforming use is first allowed without a public hearing or issuance of a permit by the planning
commission. The committees concerns were that for some zoning cases in the past the changes were
significant and it was important to hold public hearings, condirions were added to some permits, and
there were only 7 cases in 4 years so eliminating the permit would not mean much more efficiency.
I have redra8ed the sections concerning changes in nonconforming use to reflect present practice.
A nonconforming use may change to a new nonconforxning use if the use is also listed in the
same clause of the code as the nonconforming use.
All other changes in nonconforming use will require a permit from the commission.
Changes in nonconforming use must meet specified conditions in order to be made.
Below, (fl (2) is a redraft of the section on page 9 and (i) (3) is a redraft o£ the section on page 14 of
the January 1996 Minor Zoning Amendments report.
(fl Nonconforming uses of siructures, or structzrt•es and land in combination.
��':':::
� �, -3��
(i) Nonconforming use permits.
�
�d} the;tii�e as �tnissstsn� �tii:ffte cQriipretxensiue<p�anw
'I'h� �l�sng �miutss��'s=fincl?ngs ir�a� 3se 2�eneral nil�;or_ fxitlin� �n a�p�,ci�'i�
�e� ,.
DEPART'�NT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMENT
- 1`' 30 !
C ll 1 �l' JLi11V 1 PAVL Divuion ofPlanning
Nwm Coleman, Mayos 25 West Fourth Sbeef Telephone: 6I2-2b6-b565
Saim Paul, MN 55102 F¢csimile: 672-228-3314
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 2, 1996
To: Planning Commission
From: Roger Ryan �,+.
Re: Zoning Committee amendment of definitions
The zoning committee amended the definitions of nonconforming buildings and nonconforming uses
by signifying the effective date of the adoption of the zoning code so that the definitions read as
follows:
�vonconformzng use.
atiiei�ilinerit'.af �ii� €
�16-�
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
MINUTES OF THE ZONING CONIMITTEE
CITY COUNCZL CHP.NIBERS, SAINT PAUS.,, MINNESOTA ON JANLJARY 18, 1996
Mmes. Morton and Wenc1; Messrs. Chavez, Fie1d, Kramer and Vaught of
the Zoning Committee; Mr. WarneY, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes.
Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryaa of the Planning Division
Faricy, excused
Gurney, excused
Time: 4:05 to 4:30 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairperson.
JANi7ARY 1996, MINOR ZONING AMENDMENTS
Roger Ryan, Planning Division staff, reported thaC the Minor Zoning Amendments
for January, 1996 are a revamping of nonconforming use regulations. Eie
advised that these amendments be considered over more than one meeting due to
their complexity, and that no action was requested at this meeting.
Mr. Ryan reviewed the staff report. He said that the nonconforming section is
a mix of regulations and permits and the permits have been put in a separate
section. Although it appears that there is a lot of change, the major change
is to rearrange the regulations and permits. The intent section is also
proposed to be change to reflect the view that nonconforming use may remain
and be replaced or expanded if the nonconforming use is improved and the
surrounding neighborhood is no worse off or better off after the improvement.
Mr. Ryan asked that commissioners give particular consideration to Item
Number 6. NONCONFORMING USES OF STRUCTURES OR STRUCTURE5 AND LAND IN
COMBI23ATION. Eie distributed a matrix: "Change in Noncon£orming L3se 1992-
1995" for discussion purposes. Mr. Ryan pointed out that on one hand the
matrix reflects a pattern oE easy changes which might generate question as to
why an applicant must be required to go through the permitting process.
Iiowever, Mr. Ryan said that he also wishes to guard against an outcome of
unintended results due to eliminating such a process. He pointed out that one
of the values of having the permit process is that it allows for the inclusion
of conditions to be placed on a permit which the committee feels are
warranted. Such an opportunity might be lost if such a process were no longer
required.
Mr. Ryan was asked whether any of the seven
1995 and that are listed on the matrix, wer
that case #92-162 was controversial and was
and that hoth cases #93-40 and #92-130 had
cases which occurred between 1992-
e controversial. Mr. Ryan noted
denied by the Planning Commission,
conditions attached to the germits.
Commissioner Field said that given the case where the request was denied, as
well as those with conditions attached to the two permits by the Planning
Commission that he would have difficulty with Item #6, a proposed amendment to
change the process, as it might allow a use, that given the current process
may in fact not be allowed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Field
further stated that the integrity of the process is important and he does not
wish to deny the district councils and neighborhood residents the opportunity
to comment on such matters as they come forward. He further stated that given
the relatively few nonconforming uses permits considered in four years (7
cases) that he questioned whether a change is warranted.
Commissioner Kramer questioned whether such an amendment could be written in a
way which allows that a change in noncon£orming use permit be approved, vnless
there was an objection to Chem. He suggested perhaps that the public hearing
Zti
�1 i� -� °�
process be followed, with a hearing scheduled only if an objection was made.
Commissioner Kramer made note of the eacpense at which one nonconforming use
becomes another, and eacpressed concern that if the district council nor the
neighbors have any objection why have a public fiearing, particularly if there
is a way to allow the public to object or comment.
Commissioner Field asked Mr. Wamer if he could structure an amendment which
would allow for those cases that are noncontroversial to go through, and which
still allows for controversial nonconforming use permits to be brought before
the commission.
Mr. Warner, Assistant CiCy Attorney, said he did not know, but would confer
with sta££ and would respond to the request.
Commissioner Vaught disagreed with the argument that just because no objection
is raised by the district council or neighbors notified that an action should
be automatically approved.
Commissioner Field questioned what kind of response would be heard from the
neighborhood if a use was automatically permitted by a change in the
nonaonforming use process without a puhlic hearing taking place, and said he
believed it best that noti£ication be done and that a hearing be held.
Commissioner Wencl questioned whether the 1992-1995 sample was adequate, and
said that she believes the committee should maintain its present system.
Mr. Ryan said the other three most important changes are: giving conditions
for sunsetting nonconforming uses; allowing the principle use of a
nonconforming use to expand witli a consent petition; and changing the rules
determining when a proposed use gains a vested right after the adoption of a
zoning amendment.
Coaunissioner Field moved layover of the public hearing to February 1, 1996.
Commission Chavez seconded the motion. The motion carried on a voice vote of
6 to 0.
mitted by:
Rog Ryan
al�,by: G���iGai�
Gladys �t�
Chairperson
2
2.Z
� � .3
MINU'lE5 OF THE ZONTNG CONIMZTTEE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON FEBRUAFtY l, 1996
PRESENT: Mmes. Morton and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gurney, Kramer and
Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City
Attorney; Mmes. Dadlez and Sanders and Messrs. Ford and Ryan of the
Planning Division.
ABSENT: Faricy, excused
Time: 4:40 - 4:58 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairperson.
JANIIARY 1996. MINOR ZONING AMENDMENTS
Mr. Ryan distributed two memorandums dated February 1, 1996 having to do with
the changes of nonconforming use, one from Mr. Ryan and one from Peter Warner,
Assistant CiCy Attorney. Mr. Ryan'S memo responded to committee conoerns
regarding the proposal to allow nonconforming uses to change to other
nonconforming uses with a planning commission permit. Mr. Ryan said he
revised the proposed sections to reflect what we do now: almost all changes
in nonconforming use will need a Planning Commission permit and changes in
nonconforming use need to meet special conditions. Mr. Warner's memo points
out that the code currently states that an existing nonconforming use permit
cannot be modified by the planning administrator, but action could be taken on
noncontroversial nonconforming uses to delegate approval to the Planning
staff, much the same way that staff does site plan reviews. Mr. Ryan said
that this would allow the staff or district councils to call for a public
hearing if they so desired, as well as allows for an appeal process for
someone who disagrees with a staff approval.
Mr. Ryan proposed delegating the granting of permits to staff, which would in
e£fect build in some efficiencies with noncontroversial changes.
Commissioner Gurney asked who would make the determination of whether or not
an issue was controversial.
Mr. Ryan said that staff could determine that a case needs Planning Commission
review and as a result send it to the Planning Commission. As well, notices
would be sent to the district councils that an application had been filed and
they would also have the opportunity to request a public hearing on an
appliaation. It was also noted that ciCizens would have the opportuni[.y as
well, to request a public hearing.
Commissioner Vaught questioned the need to fix something that isn't broken, as
the number of cases are relatively few, he saw no reason to believe the
current process doesn't work.
Commissioner Kramer said that as long as there are numerous amendments needing
attention regarding nonconforming uses that it does seem like an appropriate
time to change the process, if so desired.
Commissioner Chavez supported the staff recommendation and making changes for
the sake of improvement, and was comfortable as long as there is a mechanism
in place to bring petitions to the committee if so desired.
Commissioner Field moved approval of the Minor Zoning Amendments as proposed,
and modified to incorporate the relevant in£ormation from Peter Warner's
memorandum dated February 1, 1996, as well as the amendment of the change of
nonconforming usas outlined by Mr. Ryan in his February 1, 1996 memorandum,
which proposed that the staff treat nonconforming use permits simi.larly to the
site plan review process. Commissioner Chavez secoaded the motion.
Mr. Ryan in addition, propoaed an additional amendment adding the effective
date of zoning code to defi.nitions.
Commissioner Vaught spoke against the motion. He said that he does not like
that all site plan reviews are conducted by staff, and believes that a11 of
the nonconforming use permits are appropriate to be considered by the
committee and the commission, not just by staff.
Commissioner Gurney said he too believed that the petitions should be heard in
a public hearing.
Commissioner Kramer said that as long as the opportunity for being heard by
the committea exists that he supports the change.
The motion Por approval with amendments carried on a voice vote of 4 to 3.
Approv d by: �_
�V ,// i%FrG�-d� v
Gla s Morton
Chairperson
•
2
�Z
PLANNING COMMISSTON OF SAINT PAUL
� ��
City Hall Conference Center
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, February 9, 1996,
at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners Mmes. Bader, Carter, Faricy, Geisser, Maddox, Morton, Treichel and Wencl
Present: and Messrs. Field Jr., Gordon, Gurney, Kramer, Lee, Mardell, McDonell,
Riehle, Schwichtenberg and Vaught.
Commissioners Ms. *Lund-Johnson and Mr. *Cha _
Absent: � �
*Excused � ` ! • �
Aiso Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator, Jean Birkholz, Kady Dadlez, Nancy Frick,
Allen Lovejoy, Roger Ryan, Larry Soderholm and Lucy Thompson of the
Planning Staff.
I. Approval of Minutes of January 12, 1996
.:.....;:.-..,,....:_...:....,.... _..,.... _..,:... _,:.:.,.><,<i....,<::......,- ::..::..::...... :........ ....,:,::-:::_.:.
�'Eie:,��ates;�f 7anu�ry 1� `sv�re rznatt�mou�l�appr4v�d a� � x�Qi�e:'�ate,
II. Chair's Announcements
Steering Committee Report:
- Alter Corporation decision-making process still ahead: the first decision will be made in 7 to
10 days as to whether there is enough information to proceed with the next decision or whether
an environmental impact statement is needed to heip make that decision. Then a hearing will
be held on that decision; and a final decision will come forward at which time the planning
commission will become involved. If however, an environmental impact statement is called
for, then we will need to wait for that process to clear.
Commissioner Gordon asked if it is decided that there is no need for an EIS, will there be a
hearing on that decision?
Chair McDonell responded that then PED will hold a hearing and if it is decided that no EIS is
necessary, then 60 days will begin the process of a special condition use permit application
submitted by Alter.
- 60-day law: at a later date we will discuss guidelines drafted by the zoning committee
regarding the granting of extensions.
- the planning commission appointments were approved by the ciTy counci( on Wednesday,
Febnaary 7, 1996: 1) Lydia Belair from the West Side, and 2) Michael Sharpe from Alliaa
Health Systems. The reappointed members are: 1) Willetha Carter, 2) Joyce Maddozc, 3) Dave
McDonell, 4) Imogene Treichel, 5) Bazbaza Wencl, and 6) Mark Vaught; Patricia Bader was
not appointed.
- Chair McDonell read and presented Patricia Bader with a resolution of appreciation.
III. Planning Administrator's Announcements
- Mr. Ford reminded commissioners of the Cities At Work program; brochures were circulated.
IV. Zoning
#95-270 Catholic Charities - Special Cond'etion Use PermiY to allow a rooming house for 80
single adults (286 Mazshall Ave; zoned RM-2).
Commissioner Morton repoded that this case is (aid over until the February I5, I996 meeting.
#95-278 Frank W. Heers - Change in nonconforming use from a photography studio and o�ce
to a law office (1450 Frankson Ave; zoned R-4). _
#95-281 Sherman-Forbes Housina - Sign vaziance: Two sign variances to allow two new
identification signs (324 West 7th Street; zoned RM-2).
#96-Q02 Steve Scribner - Rezone from B-3 (geaeral business) to R-4 (residentiat single family)
to allow an existing commercially used property to be used as a single family dwelling.
�t?`TI�1�T G�eti���ssi�srse��r€atttsit rn��cT de�ia� o��kce re"r�ne�i;r�vniif�=�i�n �� �ss,,�i=4:Y�i
#95-249 Sundance Properties - Special condition use permit to allow an outdoor market during
the bowling off-season (2245 Hudson Road).
r. . . _. . .: _ :.. . .� ... .:_._. .: ..
�� � ��
alv :;i�a;:5�':iis;::�a�"a;�?[t e<_,u�ii'":z�w�Iliri
�.,,W, �%xc���,. .. ,,,._ Pe?�Y.,,. �. -,.,,. ,. ,,� � ,,, „Y,:. ,<�.
Commissioner Vaught spoke for those who voted in opposition to this motion in the zoning
committee meeting. He stated that this building �vas originally built as a residence and is
certain(y suitable for occupancy as a residence. He also stated that he does not consider this to
be a"spot rezoning" case, nor does he think this case fits the definition of "spot rezoning." It
is immediately adjacent to property which is zoned R-4 and it is not isolated from other
unrelated zones.
Chair McDonell ruled the amendment as not appropriate.
Commissioner Vaught cited point of order: a motion to amend is appropriate at any point and
a motion to amend by substitution is absolutely appropriate. If however, it doesn't get a
second, then is it dead.
Chair McDonell requested clarification.
. �
�Qinmis�aqa�rC'rur�ey s.eeanded Cr}�m�ss�Qtser'�+aug�t i�tot��ti.tts amend:
Commissioner Schwichtenberg clarified the question. He noted that friendly ameadments do
not require a vote. Since this was not asked to be a friendly amendment, we'(l vote on the
amendment first and then we'll vote on which ever version of the motion stands.
. ... .:...:. :..... ..: .::: .. . ....... ....._.:_:...:........:....::
�:4i?}m;5sz�?ne,r�e, �Z�"�v4th.�'r,ewv:the;niat�ari:tQ:a�e#i.::
: � ...: ....:.... .:.......:; :.:,.;;:.,...,...:.......::..._,..: _ ..
Commissioner Gordon spoke in opposition to the motion to deny the requested rezoning on the
floor. He agrees with Coramissioner Vaught. He acknowledges the need to be sensitive to the
guideline referring to spot zoning, however he is concerned when the guidelines takeover and
rule and prevent bodies from doing what othenvise makes sense.
Commissioner Field spoke in support of the motion to deny.
Commissioner Kramer spoke in support of the motion to deny because rezoning may devalue
surrounding properties and would also be inconsistent with the other B-3 zoned property along
Arcade Street. He also noted that although the property does adjoin an R-4 zoning area, that
specific R-4 zoning area is the residential neighborhood behind the property separated by an
alley; a11 the business on Arcade Street are in the B-3 zone.
Commissioner Treichel spoke in opposition of the motion to deny. She has seen no evidence
that rezoning would devalue the property surrounding this properiy.
Commissioner Gurney spoke in opposition of the motion to deny partly because a rezoning to
residential use on Arcade wil( reduce some of the congestion on that street.
Commissioner Vaught stated that the deciding factor for him is that the building is so
manifestly designed as a residence and seems to be a sturdy building with a useful life.
Commissioner Field.addressed the issue of land use here. He said he would feel much better if
they could rezone all the buildings which appeaz to be houses but aze actually commercial to a
residential use. He fears that this may be seen as a regrettable mistake in the future and that it
could a1sA be setting a precedent.
Commissioner Gordon commented that ha could foresee no precedent here; that these particular
issues aze specific to this case. �
Commissioner Schwichtenberg asked staff if residential use of this properly would be
prohibited.
Ms. Dadlez responded that mixed commercial and residential uses are allowed in a B-3 zone,
but then at least 50 percent of the first floor has to be used for commercial and the remainder
of the structure can be used for residentia( purposes.
Commissioner Gordon asked staff if there was any other way To accommodate this requesY other
than a zoning change.
Ms. Dadlez answered that there is not.
Commissioner Schwichtenberg spoke in opposition to the motion to deny. He feels that
holding the property hostage at B-3 does not seem appropriate, and he wonders if B-3 is the
appropriate zoning for Arcade Street to begin with.
Commissioner Geisser calied the question.
Commissioner Mazdell commented that being in the business of commercial valuation and
consu]ting over the last twenly yeazs, he thinks that a change in value on surrounding properties
resulting from this re2oning would be remote at best. He described the property now in its
existent commercial use as being functually obsolete. And he commenYed that the property has
been on the market for 11 months in a very active real estate commercial mazket. He feels that
rezoning this property will be a benefit to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Field added that he would consider rezoning the whole strip there to more
appropriately reflect the design of the buildings as opposed to rezoning just this one.
Commissioner Kramer asked if the sale of this property falls through, whether the rezoning is
then cast in stone.
q `-��?
Ms. Dadlez responded that: 1) no conditio b n n ) commission is
just making a recommendation to the city n i '1 in a"' oximately three
weeks and then it takes a coup(e of months ak . e ded t'�a if the seller did
not want the rezoning to go through, it could al�vays be held up at the city council.
Januarv Minor Zoni�e Amendments - Roger Ryan
Commissioner Vaught spoke in opposition. He said that he does not consider this particulaz
part of the zoning code to be broken and in need of fixing. He noted that he recalled bringing
up real issues over the last few yeazs regarding the zoning code that needed fixing, such as
accessoty uses, that have gone unlooked at; instead issues that don't need fixing are addressed.
Commissioner Field supports the motion for approval, but added that there does not seem to be
too much problem with this part of the code. He recommended that staff be encouraged to
work out tliose areas where the code is problematic.
Commissioner Gordon asked staff why this area of the zoning code was picked for fixing; and
he asked Commissioner Vaught if the change makes the matter better or worse than it was.
Mr. Ryan responded that one reason why this group of amendments were chosen was because
nonconforming uses are the most difficult to deal with, especially from staffls point of view,
because this area of the zoning code is very cumbersome to understand; iYs a confusing mix of
regulations and permits making it difficult to sort out. He stated that the purpose of
overhauling this area was to make it more comprehensible and more understandable.
Mr. Ryan pointed out that there have been requests from the zoning committee for additional
amendments having to do with allowing the expansion of nonconforming uses, the principal use
part - allowing that to be expanded; and that's been added. Also, there have been requests to
add conditions for sunsetting nonconforming uses which have been added. So, these requests
have been incotporated into the zoning code.
Commissioner Vaught responded that he thinks that this change may result in it being a
negative change in the long run because it takes the change in use out of the review by the
zoning committee and planning commission; a change in nonconforming use, if delegated to
staff, could automatically be allowed to happen without the commission being aware of it
because the commission will no longer be dealing with a certain type of change.
Commissioner Field commented that he feels streamlining is a positive change, it speeds up the
process and should be done, if possible.
Commissioner Schwichtenberg commented that he likes the language simplification aspect of
the change. He agrees with Commissioner Vaught regarding the reorganizational aspects
having the possibility of being problematic.
Commissioner Morton read the agenda for next Thursday, February 15, 1996.
V. Comprehensive Planning and Economic Development
Commissioner Maddox announced the upcomi
p.m. in the 14th floor conference room. The
will be topics of discussion. She invited meic
committee.
Dual Track Airoort EIS Review -(Allen Lovejoy)
t 4:00
EIS
he
Mr. Lovejoy began by saying that the main committee recommendations to the coccimission are
comprised around the fact that this is not an adequate nor complete environmental impact
statement. There has been a lot of public discussion about whether or not we should build a
new airport. Therefore it is imperative that the region has adequate and accurate information
on which to base a decision.
The 1989 Minnesota Lenislature directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the
Metropolitan Council to examine how best to meet the region's aviation needs 30 years into the
future. The agencies were directed to undertake seven years of planning studies comparing
expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paal Intemational Airport (MSP) with construction of a new
replacement airport.
The seven-yeaz process, known as the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, is nearly complete.
By Juty 1996, MAC and MC aze required to submit a report to the Legislature containing their
recommendations on future major airport development. In the interim, the MAC and MC will
be taking comments on the Draft EIS through February 13th.
Since the beginning of the Dual Track Planning Process, the City of Saint Paul has been
involved and supportive of the planning process. However, what appeazs to be missing arialysis
necessary for making an alternative recommendation, is of great concem. In addition, there are
concems about an apparent lack of commitment to the final stages of the Dual Track Planning
Process; namely an extremely short public review process of the Draft EIS and limited
preparation time for t[ie Final EIS. This Iast point is particuiaziy criticat for development of
necessary remedial actions under al! alteraatives.
Among the most significant recommendations proposed aze:
• Hold to the original timetable for the IIuat Track Airport EIS process, allowing sufficient
time for public review and development of comprehensive remediation measures.
Include and/or expand analysis necessary for adequate understanding of impacts and for
evaluating the differentiation of altematives including:
°
1. CiariFication of air travel forecasts, and resolution among conflicting forecasts.
2. Detailed potential economic impacts on Saint Paul, Minneapolis, Bloomington and
Richfield under all aiternatives.
3. Detailed potential economic impacts on the region under al] alternatives.
4. A risk analysis evaluating the impacts of defening a new airport without some sort of
land reservation/site preservation program.
5. Detailed potential economic impacts on Hoiman Field under all alternatives.
6. Detailed potential economic impacts of the reuse of the MSP site under the New
Airport alternative.
7. Potential economic impacts on likely sprawl associated with a new airport.
8. Documenting the likely impacts on the region's "non-attainment" air quality status.
9. Analysis of the need for site preservation in light of further analysis provided in points
1-4and8above.
10. Complete the Dual Track Planning Process including full public review of the Draft
EIS and sufficient time for preparing adequate mitigation measures for the Final EIS.
• Complete the Dual Track Planning/EIS Process as originally envisioned.
Chair McDonell recommended that the cover letter include that this response comes from the
planning commission and the PED planning staff analysis.
Some discussion ensued. ,
_ ...:. .. . .. .... . :..... ..... . ... :..,: � . . ...:.. _ :..:..,. ..: ... ;.........
,.<._ . . . .,.... .
''�`tie`:'ma�i4n;:pn3tls.'e,�oQt �an?et� :unan'riii�iusl�?:o�:a:vt��ce:; >.,. �
VI. Neighborhood Piannina and Land Use
I3o report.
VII. Task Force Reports
No report.
VIII. Old Business
No report.
IX. New Business
Commissioner Morton read the nominating committee's recommendations: Dave McDonell,
chair; Eileen Lund-Johnson, vice chair; Litton Field, Jr., second vice chair; and Bazbaza Wenct,
secretary.
Chair McDoneli reminded members that there will be another steering committee meeting at
7:45 a.m. on Friday, February 23, 1996.
X. Adjournment
was
Respectfully submitted,
L: �
Ken Ford
Planning Administrator
planninF/minuhs.frm
Approved
(date)
am.
Bazbaza A. Wencl
Secretary of the Planning Commission
g
��S ��W ����.
�Iliom CosgriJf, Chair
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm CoIeman, Maym
LORRY PROF6SSIONd/
BUIIlJING
Suite 300
350 St Pete� Sueet
SuintPau;Minnesot¢ SSIOb1510
Apri14, 1996
Dave Thune, City Council President
City Councilmembers
City Hall and Courthouse
5aint Paul, MN
Dear Council President Thune:
��-307
Te7ephone: 61Y2669090
Facsimile: 612-2669099
672-2669124
Ordinance #96-307, the January Minor Zoning Amendments, is scheduled for a public
hearing before the Ciry Council on April 10, 1996. The Business Review Council (BRC)
voted at its March 7, 1996 meeting to unanimously support the Amendments. When
adopted, the Planning Commission intends to allow changes in nonconfornring uses to be
approved by staff, much like the cunent process for approving site plans. The Planning
Commission could choose to hold a public hearing, if requested, otherwise, staff would
review applications for a change in nonconforming use. The review time for the
establishment of new businesses locating in nonconfornung zoning districts would be
reduced from up to eight weeks to two weeks.
The BRC supports and encourages tivs effort to streaniline the review and approval
grocess for business development within the City of Saint Paul.
Sincerely,
� �
William Cosgriff
Chair of the Business Review Council
c: Mayor Norn Coleman
Planning Commission Chair David McDonell