St. Paul to consider easing development of narrow lots, mother-in-law apartments

Nov. 22—For years, St. Paul officials faced with growing housing demand have puzzled over how to situate new homes on narrow, oddly-shaped lots, given the widths dictated by the city zoning codes. They've struggled with setback requirements that push housing back from the street. And they've debated whether to allow non-owner occupied properties to add "mother-in-law apartments," or accessory dwelling units, such as carriage houses and living areas built over a backyard garage.

All of those restrictions form impediments to new starter-homes and "infill" housing, such as real estate development on small, long-vacant lots between existing residences.

Solutions could be at hand. At the request of the St. Paul City Council, city staff have recommended a series of zoning changes to the St. Paul Planning Commission, which has spent weeks debating the particulars. On Nov. 12, the Planning Commission voted 12-2 to forward about a dozen zoning amendments to the city council, which will consider the "1-4 Unit Infill Housing Zoning Study" in coming weeks. It's a precursor of sorts to much bigger policy discussions likely to unfold next fall.

"I think the city of St. Paul is facing a housing crisis, and a piece of the solution is allowing more flexibility for housing choices," said Rich Holst, chair of the Planning Commission's Comprehensive Neighborhood Committee, which debated the details at length.

ZONING AMENDMENTS

Among the recommended zoning amendments:

— An existing zoning restriction mandating 22-foot minimum widths for single-family and two-family homes in residential districts would end.

— A property would no longer need to be owner-occupied in order to establish a mother-in-law apartment or accessory dwelling unit.

— Restrictions limiting accessory dwelling units to properties spanning at least 5,000 square feet would be thrown out. Instead of a maximum size of 800 square feet, an accessory dwelling unit could be up to 75 percent of the floor area of the principal dwelling unit, though all accessory buildings can occupy no more than 35 percent of a rear yard and no more than 1,200 square feet of the lot area. That's an increase from the previous limit of 1,000 square feet.

— In single-family and duplex districts the number of principal homes permitted on a lot could be increased if the required additional minimum lot area for each new home is met.

— A minimum distance of 12 feet between buildings on a single lot would be reduced to the minimum fire separation required between buildings under the Minnesota Residential Code, which varies based upon the fire rating of the exterior wall of each building.

— The formula to calculate front yard setbacks would be simplified.

— A clarification that a registered student dwelling may have six students, rather than four, living together in a unit, in keeping with the city's new definition of a household.

"I would describe a lot of these changes as things that staff, internally, has discussed for a very long time, that wouldn't really be large policy changes," said St. Paul Planning Director Luis Pereira, addressing the Planning Commission during a public hearing last month.

INFILL HOUSING STUDY

A second phase of the "Infill Housing" study likely will be ready for discussion by next fall, and that's likely to tackle more "significant change," Pereira said, such as potentially opening up all single-family districts for new duplexes, triplexes and more mother-in-law apartments.

That study also would re-examine duplex-specific and townhome-specific districts, known in the zoning code as RT-1 and RT-2.

"If we change one thing, it sort of reverberates throughout the code, and (there's) a lot of things we need to amend to make it work," Pereira said. "Staff needs time to do that work."

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DISCUSSION

On Nov. 12, Planning Commissioners Stephen Moore and Jake Reilly cast the sole dissenting votes against the amendments.

Moore expressed concern at the time that removing an owner-occupancy requirement from properties with accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, would open the door to unsavory landlords. Some commissioners wanted to delay that amendment for consideration next fall, but they were overruled.

"ADUs are one of the arrows in the quiver that we have to increase the housing stock in St. Paul," Moore acknowledged. "My concern is if we remove the language around occupancy, we run the risk — let me just speak plainly — we run the risk of having slumlords ... groups that do not serve our local areas to the best of their ability. They don't do anything to increase the visual appeal of the neighborhood. When we take away the restrictions, we open it up for people who have the capital to build these ADUs but do it in a manner that's not a positive for the community."

In letters to the city, developers and housing advocates said even with the proposed changes, height limits and other restrictions would still make it difficult for many homeowners to install mother-in-law apartments. They noted that Minneapolis does not require owner-occupancy in its ADUs.

"It's long been that way for mansions on Summit Avenue with their carriage houses," said Highland Park resident Kevin Gallatin, addressing the Planning Commission during an Oct. 15 public hearing. "This has been a legal thing within cities for millennia."

LOW-HANGING FRUIT

Some housing advocates have called the proposed changes in the Phase I study a positive step, if not overdue or even a bit tepid. "These changes grab some of that really low-hanging fruit," Gallatin said. "I understand the strategy of splitting up all of these many changes into a couple different phases. This does certainly feel like the easy part to me."

Developing "long-vacant odd-sized lots ... will increase the value of this land, which I think is important for city revenue," he added. "It will allow creative housing types, like 'cluster housing' that have long been affordable options but have been outlawed for many years."

Other speakers urged the Planning Commission to allow non-owner occupancy in mother-in-law apartments, which the Planning Commission later adopted, and move more boldly and more quickly.

"We urge you to go much further in Phase II," said Luke Hanson, chair of the housing and zoning reform advocacy coalition Sustain St. Paul, during the same hearing.

Added former Planning Commissioner Terri Thao, "Please do not let perfect be the enemy of good."

___

(c)2021 the Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.)

Visit the Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.) at www.twincities.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.