Title
Memorializing the City Council’s decision to deny the appeal of the Minnesota Department of Administration from the Board of Zoning Appeals decision denying a zoning variance to permit the installation of a 10-foot-tall fence between the surface parking facility and Phalen Boulevard and Barclay Street.
Body
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Administration (“Applicant”), applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) in BZA File No. DSIBZA-000226-2025 for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 63.314 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code for the purpose of installing a 10 foot tall security fence at the property commonly known as 1430 Maryland Avenue East (PIN No. 272922210045) and legally described as GOFFIN'S ADDITION VAC AVE & ALLEY ADJ LOTS 1 THRU 10 BLK 2 MARYLAND ...GOFFINS ADD LOTS 1 AND 2 BLK 1 (the “Property”); AND
WHEREAS, a perimeter security fence at a height of up to 4.5 feet may be designed, constructed, renovated, equipped, and furnished “by right” under Section 63.314 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code of the City of Saint Paul (“City”) at 1430 Maryland Avenue East subject to certain design standards; AND
WHEREAS, the Property is located in a T2 traditional neighborhood zoning district; AND
WHEREAS, the height of fences constructed between off-street parking facilities and the public right-of-way is limited to 4.5 feet; AND
WHEREAS, Applicant proposed to construct a new 10’ fence around the Property and requested a variance of 5.5’ on each side in the T2 zoning district; AND
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute § 462.357, subd. 6, authorizes the City to grant variances from the requirements of the zoning ordinance; AND
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute § 462. 357, subd. 6(2) provides that variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan; AND
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute § 462. 357, subd. 6(2) also provides that a variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; AND
WHEREAS, on December 23, 2025, the application was duly noticed for a public hearing before the BZA; AND
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2026, 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 January 2, 2026, which contained a recommendation to approve Applicant’s variance request, 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 January 2, 2026, as substantially reflected in the minutes, duly moved to:
1) Deny Applicant’s variance request is based upon the following reasons as set forth in BZA Resolution No. DSIBZA-000226-2025, which is incorporated herein by reference, and which reads, in part, in part follows:
“finding one, that the variance was not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code, finding two, that the variance was not consistent with the comprehensive plan, and finding six, that granting the request would alter the essential character of the surrounding area”
2) Approve Applicants variance request based upon the findings presented for approval in the BZA staff report dated January 2, 2026; AND
WHEREAS, said motions to deny and approve Applicant’s variance request both failed pursuant to Section 63.203 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, which states that no action may be taken unless at least four members vote in favor of such action; AND
WHEREAS, the failure to approve Applicant’s variance request is considered a denial of said request pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 15.99; AND
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2026, the Applicant, pursuant to Saint Paul Leg. Code § 61.702(a), filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the BZA’s determination under BZA File No. DSIBZA-000226-2025 and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the BZA; AND
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2026, a public hearing on the said appeal was noticed under Council file ABZA 26-1 and set on for hearing before the City Council (“Council”) on February 11, 2026; AND
WHEREAS, on February 11, 2026, the City Council, pursuant to Saint Paul Leg. Code § 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, duly conducted a public hearing on the said appeal where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; AND
WHEREAS, upon conclusion of the public testimony, the City Council voted to lay the matter over until February 18, 2026; AND
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2026, the City Council, having heard the statements made and having considered the Applicant’s variance application, the report of staff, and all the records, minutes, and the resolution of the BZA presented during the public hearing, denied the Applicant’s appeal; AND
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby upholds the decision of the BZA in this matter and finds that the applicant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the BZA erred in its facts, findings or procedure in this matter in denying the Applicant’s request for a variance from the fence height requirement between off-street parking facilities and the public right-of-way for the following reasons:
Finding 1. The variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new fence around this property located in the T2 traditional neighborhood zoning district. The zoning code limits the height of fences constructed between off-street parking facilities and the public right-of-way to 4.5 feet, but they propose a 10-foot-tall fence along Phalen Boulevard and Barclay Street. This is a substantial variance request for an additional 5 ½ feet in height, which is more than twice the height than what is currently permitted under the code. It would not promote or protect the aesthetics of the surrounding community or promote economic viability and general welfare of the neighborhood.
Finding 2. The variance is not consistent with the 2040 comprehensive plan.
The proposed fence would be inconsistent with Land Use Policy 9 (LU-9) under the comprehensive plan, which calls for high-quality urban design that supports pedestrian friendliness and a healthy environment, and enhances the public realm. This fence will not achieve that goal. On the contrary, the fence would create an imposing fortress-like presence that detracts from these intended goals.
The fence would also be inconsistent with Land Use Policy 24 (LU-24), which calls for the prioritization of public and private investments in infrastructure that maintains and improves the public realm to encourage street-level pedestrian activity, and supports parks, green space and recreation. Putting up an imposing fence in this neighborhood will have the opposite effect on these investments. It is not welcoming and does not encourage development, promote the walkability of the neighborhood, or support parks, green space, and recreation.
Finding 6. The variance will alter the essential character of the surrounding area.
The fence that the Applicant wants to install is 10-feet tall with trident shaped blades curving out towards the community. It is not decorative. It is threatening. It is intended to send a message that this is not a welcoming location despite it being public property in a residential neighborhood. There is no question that the proposed security fence will negatively alter the essential character of the surrounding area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the finding above that the Applicant failed to show any error on the part of the BZA in reaching its decision, the Council hereby denies the Applicant’s appeal and further, in support of this decision, the Council hereby adopts as its own the BZA’s facts and findings as set forth above and in BZA Resolution No. DSIBZA-000226-2025, especially findings 1, 2 and 6; AND
FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to the Applicant, the Zoning Administrator, and the BZA.