Title
Memorializing a City Council decision to grant the appeal of Brian Pierce from a Planning Commission decision to approve the application of Abel Pliego Burgos for a reestablishment of a nonconforming use permit at 237 Richmond St.
Body
WHEREAS, the property at the NW Corner of Richmond Street and Saint Clair Avenue and commonly known as 237 Richmond Street, [PIN 01-28-23-34-0190] and legally described as 1/3 of S 26 ft of Lot 7 and E1/2 of Lot 8, Block 4, Willes Addition which is located in a T1 zoning district, was previously used as an auto repair station; AND
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute § 462.357 subd. 1 allows nonconformity, existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control, to continue legally; AND
WHEREAS, the building on said property was constructed in 1964; AND
WHEREAS, the use, as an auto repair station, on said property was legally nonconforming since its rezoning to RT2 Two-Family Residential in 1975 as part of a citywide rezoning; AND
WHEREAS, said property was rezoned to T1 Traditional Neighborhood in 2011 as part of the District 9 Residential Zoning Study; AND
WHEREAS, subsequently in 2023, Abel Pliego Burgos (“Applicant”), becomes the new owner of the property; AND
WHEREAS, the previous nonconforming use of an auto repair station was discontinued on December 31, 2023, and thus lost its legal nonconforming status at the end of 2024; AND
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2025, Applicant, under Zoning File No. 25-007-238, for the purpose of acquiring a permit to reestablish a nonconforming use as a “service business with workshop” on said property at 237 Richmond Street, applied to the Planning Commission (“Commission”) for a Reestablishment of Nonconforming Use Permit; AND
WHEREAS, the said application was duly noticed for a public hearing before the Commission’s Zoning Committee (“Committee”) on February 3, 2025; AND
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2025, the Committee 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, upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Committee laid over the matter until its February 27 hearings; AND
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2025, the Committee granted the Applicant’s requested to layover the matter to March 13, 2025; AND
WHEREAS, upon the conclusion of the hearing and based upon all the records and testimony presented including a staff report dated March 6, 2025, and titled “Updated” the Committee duly moved to recommend to the Commission that the Applicant’s permit be approved with conditions; AND
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2025, the Commission took up the recommendations for the Committee and, following deliberations the Commission took the action to approve the Reestablishment of a Nonconforming Use Permit with the conditions recommended in the updated staff report, dated March 6, 2025, as set forth in the Commission Resolution No. 25-13 which is also incorporated herein by reference; AND
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2025, pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(a), Brian Pierce (Appellant), under Zoning File No. 25-007-238, duly filed an appeal from the Commission’s April 4, 2025, decision to approve the permit for the reestablishment of a nonconforming use; AND
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the said appeal was noticed under Council file No. APC 25-4 and set on for hearing before the City Council (“Council”) on May 7, 2025 which was duly published on April, 28, 2025; AND
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2025, the Council conducted a public hearing on the Appellant’s appeal where all persons interested were afforded the opportunity to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing and based upon all the records and testimony presented, the Council, at the close of the public hearing, duly considered the matter and determined the Commission made errors in their findings; AND
WHEREAS, the Commission’s recommendation at Resolution No. 25-13 notwithstanding, the Council declined to find in favor of the Applicant, Abel Pliego Burgos for the reestablishment of a nonconforming use permit; 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 found errors by the Planning Commission in findings one, two and four in its determination to approve the application for the reestablishment of nonconforming use permit, and those errors are as follows:
Planning Commission made an error in finding one. Finding one is that the structure or structures in land or combination cannot reasonable or economically be used for a conforming purpose. The staff report, drafted by the Planning and Economic Development Department, only listed daycare or residents as possible uses. The staff report ignored at least three other possible uses allowed by right in a T1 district included a trade school, a general office or studio, and service business. Those alternate uses and their reasonableness were not meaningfully discussed or considered.
Finding two and finding four are not met: Finding two reads the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the previous legal nonconforming use and finding four reads the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Staff focused on intensity of use and failed to consider whether the proposed use is appropriate and oriented towards the needs of the neighborhood.
This business is in a neighborhood node. The policies in the comprehensive plan about neighborhood nodes consistently emphasis that the appropriate business for those neighborhood nodes are those that serve the immediate neighborhood.
For example, businesses that develop the micro economies of neighborhood nodes, businesses that invest in neighborhood nodes to achieve development that enables people to meet their daily needs within walking distance, or businesses that promote neighborhood serving commercial businesses.
The Planning Commission’s discussion of neighborhood nodes was incomplete, with only one Commissioner briefly mentioning that the business was neighborhood oriented because a neighbor could inquire about getting concrete work done at their home.
If that is the standard, then every use would be neighborhood serving as long as someone was behind a counter and available to be asked for services.
Regardless of the commissioner’s point, the applicant stated in their application, “we do not anticipate any customer visits to our shop. The property will be used only for storage purposes only.” Therefore, the proposed use is not a neighborhood serving business and it is not consistent with the neighborhood node or with the comprehensive plan.
The Planning Commission also erred by focusing on whether conditions like planting trees or repairing the fence or not blocking neighbors driveways could be imposed to make the use more acceptable and less of a nuisance to the neighborhood while failing to ask whether the use was appropriate in the first place.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based upon all the files, reports, and testimony in the matter, the Council hereby finds the errors noted above in the Commission’s facts, and findings with respect to the Commission’s decision to grant the permit for the reestablishment of the nonconforming use with conditions, the Council accordingly hereby grants the appeal; AND
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk provide a copy of this memorialization resolution to Appellant, Brian Pierce, the Applicant, Abel Pliego Burgos, and to the planning administrator Robinson.