Title
Memorializing a City Council decision to deny the appeal of Dominic Carchedi from the Board of Zoning Appeals decision denying a zoning variance to establish a 24-resident supportive housing facility on the property at 418 Sherburne Avenue.
Body
WHEREAS, On April 21, 2025, Dominic Carchedi (“Applicant”), applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) in BZA File No. 25-028644 for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 65.162 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code for the purpose of establishing a 24-resident supportive housing facility on property commonly known as 418 Sherburne Avenue, (PIN No. 362923240226) and legally described as SMITHS SUB OF STINSNS DIV B9 10 15 16 LOTS 20 & LOT 21 BLK 16; and
WHEREAS, The property could house up to six residents for supportive housing without triggering the need for a variance of the separation requirement of Section 65.162 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code of the City of Saint Paul (“City”) at 418 Sherburne Avenue subject to certain standards and conditions; and
WHEREAS, The property is located in a T2 traditional neighborhood zoning district; and
WHEREAS, Supportive housing facilities must be a minimum distance of one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet from any other of the congregate living facilities listed in Section 65.162 with more than six (6) adult residents, except in B4-B5 business districts where it must be at least six hundred (600) feet from any other such facility; and
WHEREAS, Applicant proposed to establish a 24-resident supportive housing facility at the property and requested a variance of 807 feet from the 1,320 feet minimum distance requirement for specified congregate living facilities; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute § 462.357, subd. 6 authorizes the city to grant variances when the applicant for said variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute § 462.357, subd. 6 defines "Practical difficulties" as the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties; and
WHEREAS, Section 61.601, of the City of Saint Paul’s Legislative Code also requires variance applicants to demonstrate practical difficulties; and
WHEREAS, On May 1, 2025, the application was duly notified for a public hearing before the BZA; and
WHEREAS, On May 27, 2025, the BZA, in accordance with Saint Paul Legislative Code § 61.601, duly conducted a public hearing on the Applicant’s variance request where all persons interested in said application were afforded the opportunity to present testimony either in-person at the hearing or by the prior submission of written testimony for the record; and
WHEREAS, At the said public hearing the BZA considered the application, a staff report dated May 23, 2025, which contained a recommendation to deny Applicant’s variance request and is incorporated into this resolution by reference, and testimony from the Applicant and others who spoke for or against the variance, as set forth in the BZA’s adopted minutes which are incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, The BZA, upon closing the public hearing, and based upon all the records and testimony received, including the report and recommendation of the BZA staff dated May 23, 2025, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings supporting its denial of said application:
Finding one: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code.
The property is approved as a four-unit multiple-family dwelling. The proposed 24-resident supportive housing facility with six residents in each unit is consistent with the purpose and intent of § 60.103 of the zoning code to promote and to protect the public health, safety, morals, aesthetics, economic viability, general welfare of the community, and to provide housing choice and affordability. This finding is met.
Finding two: The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
This facility is in alignment with Policy H-15, which supports accommodating a wide variety of culturally appropriate housing types throughout the city to support residents at all stages of life and levels of ability. This finding is met.
Finding three: The applicant has established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provision, that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the provision. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Finding three is not met for the following reasons:
i. The applicant could house up to six individuals at this property by right without [a variance to] the required separation;
ii. The fact that this property is within 1,320 feet of two other supportive housing facilities is not a practical difficulty, but rather due to the owner's choice to pursue this use at this location;
iii. It is owner's decision to pursue supportive housing rather than other available housing options;
iv. The difficulty is the result of the owner's decision to pursue supportive housing at the proposed resident number;
v. The owner has not demonstrated that there are practical difficulties to open a supportive housing facility at the number allowed by-right by the ordinance;
vi. There are other locations that the applicant could pursue within the City of Saint Paul [to open a supportive housing facility];
vii. There are other available uses for the property that would not require a variance; and
viii. The difficulty is of the applicant's making.
Finding four: The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner.
Finding four is not met:
The property could house up to six residents for supportive housing without triggering the need for a variance of the separation requirement. The requested variance arises not from unique circumstances of the land but from the applicant's desire to exceed the permitted number of residents within the required separation distance. Other properties within 1,320 feet of the same supportive housing facility are in compliance with this standard. Given that the separation requirement affects other properties within the 1,320 feet proximity to the supportive housing facility, the plight is not unique to the landowner, but general to the surrounding area.
Finding Five: The variance will not permit any use that is not allowed in the zoning district where the affected land is located.
This finding is met: A supportive housing facility is a permitted use in the T2 zoning district. Granting the variance would not allow a use otherwise prohibited in this zoning district. This finding is met.
Finding six is as follows: The variance will not alter the essential character of the surrounding area.
This finding is not met.
Granting the variance request would result in the establishment of two supportive housing facilities within close proximity (588 feet), creating a cluster of congregate living environments. This could undermine the goal of community integration and contribute to an institutional character that is inconsistent with the surrounding residential area. The proposed variance is contrary to the ordinance which was implemented by the City Council to protect against such clustering in order to promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the city.
* * * *
WHEREAS, On June 6, 2025, the Applicant, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 61.702(a), filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the BZA’s determination under BZA File No. 25-039863 and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the BZA; and
WHEREAS, On June 10, 2025, a public hearing on the said appeal was noticed; and
WHEREAS, On June 23, 2025, Department of Safety and Inspections sent a revised notice under Council file No. ABZA 25-3 and set on for hearing before the City Council for July 9, 2025; and
WHEREAS, On July 9, 2025, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Applicant’s appeal where all persons interested were afforded the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, During said hearing the Council voted to lay the matter over until August 6, 2025; and
WHEREAS, On August 6, 2025, the Council passed Resolution 25-1242, putting into effect a moratorium on applications for zoning controls for Sober Houses and Supportive Housing Facilities; and
WHEREAS, Said resolution stayed all existing and pending applications for zoning controls for Sober Houses and Supportive Housing Facilities, while City Staff and the Planning Commission study how to best regulate and classify these types of housing; and
WHEREAS, All existing and pending applications for zoning controls for Sober Houses and Supportive Housing Facilities were stayed from the effective date (August 6, 2025) of said Bridge Resolution until end of the effective dates of the related Interim Ordinance (Ordinance 25-47); and
WHEREAS, On August 20, 2026, the Council also passed Ordinance 25-47, initiating a moratorium on applications for zoning controls for Sober Houses and Supportive Housing Facilities; and
WHEREAS, Said moratorium on zoning controls for Sober Houses and Supportive Housing Facilities ran from August 6, 2025, to August 5, 2026; and
WHEREAS, On July 22, 2026, the City Council considered, ABZA 25-3, laid over and stayed from August 6, 2025, by Resolution 25-1242 and Ordinance 25-47; and
WHEREAS, The Council of the City of Saint Paul, upon hearing presentation from staff and public hearing being closed and having considered the Applicant’s variance application, the report of staff, and all the records, minutes, and the resolution of the BZA presented, denied the Applicant’s appeal, not finding error; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That based upon all files, reports, and testimony in the matter, the Council hereby denies applicant’s appeal and hereby adopts the findings and recommendations of the Board of Zoning Appeals and the staff report dated May 23, 2025, as its own; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk provide a copy of this memorialization resolution to Appellant, Dominic Carchedi, the Board of Zoning Appeals, and to zoning administrator Diatta.