Title
Memorializing a City Council decision to deny the appeal of Mark Schwartz from a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying two variance requests to establish a 22-resident supportive housing facility on the property at 438 Daly Street.
Body
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2025, Mark Schwartz (“Applicant”), under Zoning File No. 25-020339, for the purpose of establishing a 22-resident supportive housing facility on property commonly known as 438 Daly Street, [PIN No. 112823140131] and legally described as STINSON'S SUB OF B25 STINSON B LOTS 1O AND LOT 11 BLK 25 which is located in a B2 zoning district, applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals (“Board”) for the following two variances from the strict application of the provisions of Section 65.162 of the City of Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the required distance between congregate living facilities and the maximum amount of facility adult residents:
(1) The zoning code states that supportive housing facilities shall be a minimum distance of 1,320 feet from specific congregate living facilities with more than six (6) adult residents; this facility is 1,044 feet from another congregate living facility with more than six (6) adult residents, for a zoning variance of 276 feet,
(2) In B2 zoning districts, the facility must serve sixteen (16) or fewer facility residents; 22 are proposed, for a variance of 6 residents in the B2 zoning district at 438 Daly Street; AND
WHEREAS, the said application was duly noticed for a public hearing before the Board on April 3, 2025; AND
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2025, the Board conducted a public hearing where all persons interested in the 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, Minnesota Statute § 462.357, subd. 6 provides that a city may grant a variance 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, upon the conclusion of the hearing, and following deliberations, the Board was unable to resolve the appeal and laid the appeal over until the next hearing; AND
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2025 the Board continued the matter and considered the application and the staff report dated, April 11, 2025, which is incorporated into this resolution by reference and, following deliberations regarding said application and its accompanying recommendation, the board made the following findings supporting its denial of said application, as set forth in
Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution Zoning File: 25-020339, which is also incorporated herein by reference as follows:
* * * *
Finding one: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code.
This property contains a mixed-use building with ground-floor retail and a 22-room rooming house on the second floor. The applicant is proposing to convert the second floor into a 22-resident supportive housing facility. This proposed facility supports the zoning code's goals of providing for housing choice and affordability. This finding is met.
Finding two: The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The proposed supportive housing facility is consistent with Policy H-15 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, which encourages a diverse range of culturally appropriate housing types to serve residents across all stages of life and abilities. By offering supportive housing, the proposal advances this policy objective. 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 a community residential facility, licensed correctional is not a practical difficulty, but rather due to the owner’s choice to pursue this use at this location;
iii. It is the 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:
There are no unique physical characteristics or site constraints associated with this property that prevent compliance with the separation requirement or support the need for increased occupancy. The ability to house up to six residents without a variance indicates that alternative, compliant use is possible. Other property within 1,320 feet of the same congregate living 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. As such, the condition prompting the request is not due to circumstances unique to the property, but rather the applicant's desired program scale. This finding is not met.
Finding Five: The variance will not permit any use that is not allowed in the zoning district •where the affected land is located.
Supportive housing is a permitted use within the B2 Community Business zoning district. The requested variance pertains only to the separation distance and occupancy limit, not the use itself. Therefore, granting the variance would not permit a use otherwise prohibited in this 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 requested variance could result in a concentration of congregate living facilities within a short distance of one another, potentially replicating an institutional setting for residents within, undermining the goal of community integration which could alter the essential character of the surrounding 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. This finding is not met.
* * * *
AND, WHEREAS, on June 2, 2025, pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(a), the Applicant, under Zoning File No. 25-039863, duly filed an appeal from the Board’s May 27, 2025, decision regarding the denial of the variances from the required distance between congregate living facilities and the maximum amount of facility adult residents based on findings three, four, and six; AND
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the said appeal was noticed on June 10, 2025 and a revised public hearing notice was sent on June 23, 2025, under Council file No. ABZA 25-3 for a hearing before the City Council for July 9, 2025; AND
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2025, the Council conducted a public hearing on the Applicant’s appeal where all persons interested were afforded the opportunity to be heard; AND,
WHEREAS, the Council declined to find in favor of the Applicant, Mark Schwartz for the two variances related to the establishment of 22-resident supportive housing facility on the property at 438 Daly Street; and by this Resolution, the Council hereby memorializes its reasons for this action; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED that the record reflects that the Council of the City of Saint Paul did not find error in the record and could not find grounds to support the appeal; AND
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, 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 and the staff report dated April 11, 2025 as its own. AND,
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Clerk provide a copy of this memorialization resolution to Appellant, Mark Schwartz, the Board of Zoning Appeals, and to zoning administrator Diatta.