HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 07152025CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday July 15, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person.
I. Call To Order
II. Pledge Of Allegiance
III. Roll Call
IV. Approval Of Agenda
V. Approval Of Minutes
A. Approval Of PC Meeting Minutes
Documents:
PC 06-17-2025 REG.PDF
VI. Public Hearing
VII. General Business
A. EV Charging Update
Stephen Grittman, City Planner, presenting.
Documents:
COVER MEMO - EV CHARGING.PDF
EV CHARGING ORDINANCE FORM 06-17-25.PDF
B. Short Term Rental Update
Stephen Grittman, City Planner, presenting.
Documents:
COVER MEMO - SHORT-TERM RENTAL UPDATE.PDF
RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE FORM 07-15-25 REDLINE.PDF
Vill. Commission & Staff Reports
IX. Community Forum
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any City business item not included on
the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and
address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk's record, and
limit their remarks to three minutes. Generally, the Planning Commission will not take official
action on items discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future
report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. Those unable to attend the
meeting in person may submit comments via the City's PUBLIC COMMENTS FORM.
X. Information And Announcments
XI. Adjournment
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City
Clerk at 612-782-3313 or email city(a savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can
contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our mission is to promote a high quality of life to those we serve through
outstanding city services.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 17, 2025
7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER.
Chair Socha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
Chair Socha invited the Commission and the audience to join her in the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL.
Commissioners Present: Chair Socha, Commissioners Corneille, Erickson, and Mayne.
Absent: Commissioners Anderson, Hark, and Morita.
Also Present: City Planner Stephen Grittman and Assistant City Manager Ashley
Morello.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Motion by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Corneille, to approve the
June 17, 2025, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented.
Motion carried 4-0.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Motion by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Corneille, to approve the
April 15, 2025, Work Session and Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as
presented.
Motion carried 4-0.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
A. Ordinance 2025-Ox: Draft — EV Charging.
Chair Socha opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.
City Planner Stephen Grittman reviewed that the City has been considering amendments to the
zoning ordinance that would create a baseline requirement for electric vehicle charging in new
residential projects. The directions included background from the City Council work session
discussions and input from the Parks and Environment Commission. Mr. Grittman provided an
ordinance proposal that relies on regulations currently in place in the adjoining communities of
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 2
1 Roseville and New Brighton, with some modification to those regulations based on feedback from the
2 Council and PEC.
4 The City's Goal Setting activities over the past few years have included specific emphasis on
5 Sustainability measures, including accommodation of electric vehicle infrastructure. For private
6 development, there is no current requirement for electric vehicle charging, nor are there any
7 incentives identified in the Code. To further the City's Sustainability objectives in this regard, the
8 ordinance proposed is designed to set a basic minimum requirement for charging infrastructure for
9 new parking lots and any existing parking lots that are undergoing significant renovation.
10
11 Parking areas that are subject to maintenance projects, including sealcoating and/or mill -and -overlay
12 projects, would be exempt from the requirements.
13
14 The proposed ordinance would be added to the existing Parking section of the Code (§ 154.179). The
15 language in the proposed ordinance closely mirrors the standards used by both Roseville and New
16 Brighton, with one addition based on feedback from the PEC. That addition is to lower the threshold
17 for Level 1 charger installation to parking lots of 10-29 spaces. In New Brighton and Roseville, no
18 requirement is made for projects of less than 29 spaces under their current code. Level 1 charging is
19 accomplished with an inline charging unit and cable from a common 110 Volt/15 Amp "household"
20 circuit. Installed costs are generally $500 - $1,000.
21
22 For comparison, Level 2 chargers require an additional power supply, and installed costs are
23 generally in the $5,000 range. Level 3 chargers ("Fast" or "Superchargers") will commonly cost more
24 than $100,000 to install and usually require additional transformer infrastructure. It is common,
25 although not required, for these chargers to be constructed in pairs.
26
27 Parking lots with 10 spaces for residential projects would typically accommodate 4-5 clustered units.
28 For commercial parking, a 10-space parking lot would be required for a 2,500-square-foot building.
29 Parking lots of 30 spaces would correlate to a residential project of approximately 20 units, or a
30 commercial project of approximately 8,000 square feet.
31
32 Based on a previous recommendation from the PEC, the proposed ordinance includes a timing waiver
33 of up to two years if an applicant installs infrastructure that can support Level 3 charging at the time
34 of parking lot construction. The waiver would apply to the facilities charger and could be deferred for
35 two years by the development contract.
36
37 The proposed ordinance creates a baseline for EV charging and generally reflects the requirements
38 currently in place in neighboring communities. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance to reflect
39 a portion of the City's Sustainability goals.
40
41 The Planning Commission may choose to recommend adoption of the ordinance as proposed, make
42 changes as a part of a recommendation, or recommend denial. If there are specific questions or
43 additional research that staff can provide answers for, the Commission may consider tabling the
44 action to a future meeting.
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 3
1 Also provided for Commission consideration were the Public Hearing Notice and the Draft
2 Ordinance.
4 Commissioner Erickson asked if customers pay to charge their vehicles. Mr. Grittman stated that
5 most commercial installations do require payment electronically. There are some businesses that have
6 installed these and provided them to their employees for a lesser cost or no cost. Commissioner
7 Erickson asked if the cost charged is enough to offset the expense. Mr. Grittman stated that it is up to
8 the owner of the unit how much they charge.
9
10 Commissioner Corneille asked if the proposed ordinance requires single-family homes, and Mr.
11 Grittman stated it is only required for multi -family units that have more than 10 parking spaces.
12 Commissioner Corneille asked if that is required for government -owned facilities. Mr. Grittman
13 stated it would apply at the time the parking lot was redone. Commissioner Corneille stated that if
14 this were a commercial business, there would be people requesting permits to install chargers to make
15 money. The requirement will be approximately 2.5% of parking spaces. Commissioner Corneille
16 asked if this is solving a problem today or in the future.
17
18 Commissioner Mayne stated he has driven an EV vehicle for 7 years. He wonders why this includes
19 commercial facilities. He is more interested in the residential component. He asked how often
20 ordinances come before the Commission that are soon to be superseded by the State. Mr. Grittman
21 stated the City's approach to this is to dip their toe in the water. If the State implements something,
22 the City will follow. We do not know for sure if the State is headed in this direction. The ordinance
23 will become obsolete when the demand increases. Assistant City Manager stated this also included in
24 the Climate Action Plan.
25
26 Chair Socha stated she finds it interesting that this is coming before the State Legislature.
27 Commissioner Mayne stated it passed through the State Legislature two years ago and is now under
28 review by the Department of Labor and Industry. Commissioner Mayne noted that St. Paul passed a
29 parking lot ordinance like this. Minneapolis passed a building code ordinance that was overruled
30 because it conflicted with the MN Code.
31
32 Chair Socha commented that she is also an EV owner, and she is generally in favor of encouraging
33 EV driving as it is good for the environment and overall. By having charging stations available, they
34 are encouraging EV ownership. Commissioner Mayne noted it is MN Statute 326B.106.1) 16, passed
35 in 2013. He is most hung up on the commercial requirement. He does not believe EV owners would
36 charge in the parking lot of a store they are shopping at. Chair Socha read the Statute and noted that
37 the Statute pertains to commercial and multi -family residential.
38
39 Commissioner Erickson stated he would be in favor of anything encouraging adoption. A statewide
40 adoption would level the playing field, and there would be no disadvantage for St. Anthony requiring
41 this for commercial properties. He is not sure if this would help attract businesses to St. Anthony as it
42 is an additional expense. He would support the residential requirements, but has some questions and
43 concerns about commercial.
44
45 Chair Socha stated they can require more than the State Code but not less than the State Code. She
46 asked if there was consistency between the building code and this code. EV technology is changing,
47
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 4
1 and there is not yet a standard. She noted the EV charging stations need to be proportionate to which
2 EV vehicles are actually being driven.
3
4 Commissioner Mayne stated that the State Building Code is written in a good way in EV Ready and
5 EV Capable. The focus should be on multi -family has the capability rather than commercial.
6
7 Commissioner Corneille stated he also has an EV. He has never charged outside his Level 1 home
8 charger. He is concerned this would be like the hitching post code that is still in the books. If
9 impractical requirements are set, we are adding cost to the City. This is contrary to the goal of
10 affordable housing. He feels this is impractical and contrary to the affordable housing goal we are
11 getting from the Council.
12
13 Chair Socha summarized that the Commission has reservations. She feels they need to pause to find
14 out what's happening on the State level. The 10-29 spaces with 1 charger at Level 1 or greater were
15 not included in Roseville or New Brighton's code. She would like to know more about EV Ready and
16 EV Capable. The 10-29 spaces portion gives her pause.
17
18 Commissioner Erickson stated he would support there being some sort of requirement for residential
19 properties, excluding the 10-29 spaces requirement based on comments by Commissioner Corneille
20 about it not being practical, along with no requirement for Commercial properties.
21
22 Mr. Paul White, 3201 32" d Avenue NE, stated he has experience with EV chargers. There is a study
23 looking at Commercial properties that have put in Level 2 and 3 chargers and the payback. The report
24 shows a 10-fold payback for the Commercial businesses that funded the chargers. He also has an EV.
25 Mr. White will send the link to the report to Mr. Grittman.
26
27 Commissioner Mayne stated he struggles with going forward at all. The Ruby did voluntarily put EV
28 Chargers in their parking garage for their residents. Level 1 and 2 chargers are useful in homes. He
29 would support an EV-ready requirement for multi -family dwellings. He does not believe this has a
30 place for non-residential. The State's requirement is only for new construction.
31
32 Commissioner Corneille stated that a building may not have efficient electricity to provide a charger,
33 and the cost for upgrading would be substantial. There are a lot of unintended consequences that
34 could occur.
35
36 Chair Socha stated they had to upgrade their electricity for their Level 2 charger. She asked if a multi-
37 family building could request a hardship waiver when upgrading its parking lot. Mr. Grittman stated
38 that it would be a difficult variance to prove. A conditional use permit threshold could be
39 implemented.
40
41 Commissioner Corneille stated he put electrical service to a parking lot of a business he owns, and the
42 cost was $35,000 to provide 100 amp service to the parking lot without the receptacles. This does not
43 address a need; it is an amenity that is the responsibility of the building owner. This would put a
44 bunch of infrastructure that will be obsolete in the next 5 years. We do not know how EVs will look
45 over the next decade. There are cost implications when upgrading parking lots. If we want to
46 encourage this, we should require level 2 chargers in any new single-family construction. The focus
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 5
1 on multi -family and commercial is not as effective. We should be looking at all residential. Other
2 alternatives need to be researched.
4 Chair Socha asked Mr. Grittman about the process to date. Assistant Morello stated the conversation
5 started in a City Council workshop in the Fall of 2024. This was an action for the Climate Plan. Staff
6 received directions to pursue the requirements for EV chargers. There has not been any outreach to
7 the community regarding this. It would be more feasible on new parking lots rather than while
8 upgrading existing parking lots. She suggested a work session with the PEC and the Council to
9 discuss this further.
10
11 Commissioner Corneille noted Richfield has an ordinance that allows for EV Charging to be
12 permitted within public rights -of -way and municipally owned parking lots. This would be a great
13 thing to look at. Ms. Morello stated that this touches on another one of the Climate Plan actions. It is
14 better to start with encouragement rather than unfunded mandates.
15
16 Commissioner Mayne does not want to see the level of charge required. This would match what St.
17 Paul is doing. He is not comfortable with anything non-residential. He would be comfortable with
18 EV-ready. This would provide a spot to plug in rather than installing a charger.
19
20 Commissioner Corneille suggested an option for new construction, as the cost of retrofitting existing
21 construction would be high.
22
23 Chair Socha asked if all commissioners would be in favor of adding new construction single-family
24 homes. Commissioner Erickson stated that it would be an incentive for a buyer to purchase the
25 property.
26
27 Commissioner Mayne stated this would apply to all new residential construction. Mr. Grittman asked
28 if a new parking lot is being built; would that be considered new construction? If a new parking lot
29 were built, it would be a new construction. Commissioner Corneille stated they want to constrain this
30 just to ground -up builds. He asked how that could be defined. Construction requires a new
31 foundation. Mr. Grittman stated it will take some time to come up with a definition for this.
32
33 Commissioner Corneille stated the City does not understand the electrical capabilities of existing
34 buildings. Economic hardship is not considered for variances. Commissioner Mayne stated it would
35 be no more of a burden than neighboring communities require.
36
37 Chair Socha stated her biggest reservation is requiring it for reconstructions. It could affect businesses
38 from wanting to be in St. Anthony. She likes to make informed decisions, and we don't know what
39 the State is doing or what the community thinks about it. She suggests going forward with this by
40 limiting it to new construction.
41
42 Commissioner Corneille stated the Diamond Eight has 144 units with one surface lot space allocated
43 per unit. Under the proposed ordinance, a substantial amount of electricity would need to be brought
44 in.
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 6
1 Motion by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Chair Socha, to recommend a work session be held
2 between the City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks and Environmental Commission to
3 discuss this further and obtain information from Roseville and New Brighton on how their ordinance
4 is working, and information on the State level.
6 Motion failed 2-2 (Corneille, Mayne).
7
8 Motion by Chair Socha, seconded by Commissioner Corneille, to recommend a work session be held
9 between the City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks and Environmental Commission to
10 discuss this further and obtain information from Roseville and New Brighton on how their ordinance
11 is working, and information on the State level.
12
13 Motion carried 4-0.
14
15 Chair Socha closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m.
16
17 B. Ordinance 2025-Ox: DRAFT —Rental.
18
19 Chair Socha opened the public hearing at 8:24 p.m.
20
21 Mr. Grittman reviewed that the City has been working toward policy and regulatory efforts related to
22 a series of housing goals over the past few years. These goals include seeking methods to support
23 affordable housing development and preservation of existing single-family housing, including the
24 concept of "Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing" — NOAH, which relies on the availability of
25 older housing stock, often at more affordable prices, allowing younger and/or more modest income
26 families to attain single-family housing ownership in the community.
27
28 Two ordinance drafts are to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. One builds standards for rental
29 single-family housing as land use. The second establishes additional licensing and process
30 requirements for license applicants and the ongoing operation of rental housing. The Planning
31 Commission's review will primarily focus on the first ordinance, with the second informal ordinance
32 language provided for additional context.
33
34 Mr. Grittman continued and noted that the first ordinance illustrates proposed redlined changes to
35 Chapters 152, 154, and 157. To help maintain single-family preservation, the City Council has
36 directed research into options for limiting the loss of ownership of housing. Three strategies have
37 been identified as apart of this objective. These are the following:
38
39
1. Limit Corporate Ownership of Rental Units. This strategy is designed to ensure that
40
large-scale corporate purchases of existing single-family housing stock cannot happen
41
in the Village. While this phenomenon has not been an issue to date, corporate
42
ownership (and the conversion of owner -occupied single-family homes to rental units)
43
has been seen in communities around the Twin Cities area. The ordinance amendment
44
is designed to restrict "Corporate" ownership to no more than 4 rental units per person
45
or organization. The language is adapted from draft legislation that the State
46
Legislature has considered over the past few years (although not enacted).
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 7
1
Applications for a rental license would include a declaration of financial interest in
2
other St. Anthony Village single-family housing.
3
4
2. Prohibit Single -Family Housing. The City considered a variety of approaches to short-
5
term rental regulation during previous work sessions (including adaptations of
6
neighboring community regulations). The Council directed staff to prohibit this aspect
7
of transient rentals. Under current ordinance definitions, short-term rentals are not
8
residential dwelling units, and therefore, are not allowed in any residential zoning
9
district. Several such rentals have been discovered, including several that have raised a
10
variety of neighborhood compatibility and maintenance concerns. The amendment
11
related to short-term rentals is aimed at defining the use and explicitly prohibiting
12
them in residential districts. Short-term rental is essentially a "hotel" use that would
13
otherwise be eligible only for commercial zoning districts.
14
15
3. Long Term Rentals. As a measure to ward off potential issues, the third strategy
16
establishes a cap on the amount of single-family rental housing in the community. The
17
existing licensed single-family rental percentage in St. Anthony is around 4% and
18
appears to have remained relatively stable over the past several years. Staff found that
19
other communities in the area have adopted rental caps, usually in the range of the
20
percentage of total single-family housing. The ordinance incorporates that threshold
21
city-wide and breaks the City into four subareas (north of 371h, 33rd to 37th, 29th to 33rd,
22
and south of 29th). This would ensure that no one neighborhood would be subject to an
23
oversupply of rental housing beyond that available in other areas.
24
25
4. An additional sign amendment for rental property is included in Chapter 157. This
26
addition is intended to accommodate the notice of rental or for -sale real estate signs,
27
which are common but otherwise prohibited by sign regulations.
28
29 Mr. Grittman explained that the second ordinance updates Chapter 152 related to Rental Housing.
30 Various amendments are proposed to clarify licensing application and processing policies, as well as
31 ongoing enforcement and operation practices. Also included are specifics related to those exempt
32 from the licensing requirements, and a revocation process for rental property owners who fail to
33 reapply for licensing under the existing process.
34
35 The various Sections of 152 are included with redlined additions/changes. This is presented as an
36 informal text document (rather than an Ordinance form) to assist in review. An ordinance form of the
37 recommended text will be prepared for Council consideration to accompany this text format. There
38 are several definitions that are proposed that are drawn from the Building Code and Property
39 Maintenance Code — these have not been detailed in this draft, as they are taken from other adopted
40 sources.
41
42 Mr. Grittman concluded and provided the Staff s recommendation. Staff has prepared two ordinance
43 sets for Planning Commission consideration. The first presents regulations related to corporate
44 ownership of single-family rental housing, prohibition on short-term rentals, and a cap on the total
45 number of single-family rentals in the community.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 8
1 The second presents modifications and updates to Chapter 152, which is the City's existing Rental
2 Housing ordinance section.
3
4 Staff request comments from the Planning Commission, and a recommendation to the City Council
5 on adoption as presented, or with modifications as directed. The Planning Commission may
6 recommend approval of the rental housing ordinances as presented, with modifications, or denial as
7 preferred.
8
9 Also provided to the Commission for consideration were the Public hearing notice, draft ordinance,
10 and draft informal ordinance.
11
12 Chair Socha asked for a recap of the discussion at the work session that she was unable to attend. Mr.
13 Grittman stated that there were concerns expressed about how this would be monitored and managed.
14 Any corporate or limited liability company would need to register with the State. Applicants would
15 be requested to identify their ownership interest, and falsification of an application would result in
16 denial. The intent is to limit large corporate ownership of single-family homes. This would ward off a
17 situation before it becomes a problem.
18
19 Commissioner Corneille stated he does not recall a discussion on capping corporate ownership. Mr.
20 Grittman stated that the materials dealt with that as an issue brought forward by the Staff.
21 Commissioner Corneille stated there was a discussion of the percentage.
22
23 Chair Socha asked for comments about capping ownership at 4 units. Commissioner Erickson stated
24 that it would prevent, but he is not sure how that would be compared to the 10% rule, which may
25 satisfy some of those concerns as well. It would avoid any mass ownership of rental properties by any
26 one entity. Chair Socha referred to the goals, including affordable housing.
27
28 Commissioner Erickson stated that the goal is to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing.
29 There has also been discussion about the character of communities and neighborhoods. He has heard
30 about preserving generational wealth.
31
32 Chair Socha noted that not having unintended consequences for overall affordable housing is
33 included in rentals.
34
35 Commissioner Corneille stated that with a restrictive ordinance such as this, what would be the cost?
36 At what cost are we willing to meet those goals? We would like to preserve naturally occurring
37 affordable single-family housing for those who can afford to put down payment and purchase a home.
38 We would exclude those who must rent. Ms. Morello stated that it has been discussed to put
39 protection in place for large corporate ownership.
40
41 Chair Socha asked if there are any owners with more than 4 properties. Commissioner Corneille
42 stated he would be over that cap. Commissioner Mayne stated that Commissioner Corneille may be
43 the only one. Commissioner Corneille stated it is unknown, as there is no reporting requirement.
44
45 Commissioner Mayne asked Mr. Grittman if there are others, and He stated that a couple of years
46 ago, there was only one. Commissioner Corneille stated that he is under different LLCs.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 9
2 Mr. Paul White, 3201 32nd Avenue NE, stated that the State required an affidavit showing who the
3 ultimate owners were.
4
5 Chair Socha stated there should be a grandfathered exception for this. It would be unduly infringing
6 on the owner's property rights. Commissioner Corneille stated there has been a big focus on density in
7 rental properties. Corporate ownership has not been discussed previously. He asked what is
8 dangerous if someone owns 5 properties. If the purpose is to preserve affordable housing for those
9 who can afford it and there is a licensing enforcement in place, is there anything bad about 100% of
10 all single-family rentals being owned by one corporation? Chair Socha stated that if one person
11 owned all rentals, that would be a monopoly. The solution is high density. Mr. Grittman stated that
12 historically, ownership housing has contributed to more stable and long-term occupancies than
13 rentals. Owners are typically more involved in the community.
14
15 Commissioner Erickson stated he does not know if it is necessary, along with the 10%, and he does
16 not know if a fifth or sixth property owned by a single entity would be an issue.
17
18 Commissioner Corneille stated that if community ownership were used rather than corporate
19 ownership, that would be better. We would be making the rental of single-family homes less
20 affordable by doing this. It's a question of it being restricted to the few that can afford it.
21
22 Commissioner Erickson stated that doing any sort of restriction makes everything less affordable. He
23 is guessing it is cheaper to rent a house rather than purchase a house. This would restrict a person's
24 ability to live affordably in St. Anthony.
25
26 Chair Socha stated she is still forming her opinion on corporate/community rental ownership. The
27 downside, if there is a limit, what happens if the owner needs to leave temporarily for various
28 reasons, and the other rentals in the area are owned 9% by corporate/community owners, it may not
29 be possible to retain their home for their return.
30
31 Commissioner Mayne stated he would not call corporate ownership community ownership.
32 Commissioner Corneille stated that LLCs are personal ownership with liability protection.
33 Commissioner Mayne is not a fan of any of the languages here. He is supportive of limiting the
34 number of properties by owner, and the declarations required are protection against large corporate
35 ownership.
36
37 Commissioner Corneille stated he would be in favor of the 10% but not with any of the corporate
38 language. In the work session, there was a concern that a corporation would come in a buy several
39 properties. For people who owned before 2000, their generational wealth is on the other side of the
40 coin from new homeowners. Each rental license is registered and enforced on every single property.
41
42 Chair Socha said she still has reservations about moving forward on this. This needs to be as sensible
43 as possible. She believes there needs to be a grandfather clause. She was happy to see there is an
44 exception for 12 months but believes it may need to be longer and be under 10%. She asked why the
45 exception is under the number of properties owned and not under Section C. Mr. Grittman stated that
46 it was his error, and it should be under Section C.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 10
2 Commissioner Corneille asked if there are any restrictions on corporate -owned multi -family housing.
3 Mr. Grittman stated there are no restrictions. Chair Socha stated that the consequences are different.
4 Mr. Grittman stated that there are some ordinances in other cities for corporate ownership of single-
5 family houses.
6
7 Chair Socha asked how the number of 4 properties was reached, and Mr. Grittman stated from a
8 listing of individual owners.
10 Commissioner Mayne stated that Minneapolis proposed a cap of 10 properties, but it did not pass.
11
12 Commissioner Corneille proposed that 25% of the rental licenses not allowed to be issued to a single
13 ownership group through an affidavit. Chair Socha noted that it would address some concerns better.
14 Commissioner Erickson agreed it would address some concerns.
15
16 Commissioner Erickson suggested keeping the four and offering a grandfather clause.
17
18 Chair Socha asked what percentage is reasonable to the Commissioners. Commissioner Corneille
19 suggested 20-50%.
20
21 Commissioner Erickson noted there are 2200 single-family homes in St. Anthony, and if there is a
22 10% cap, that would be 220 homes, and if 25% of those could be owned by one entity, that would be
23 55 properties.
24
25 Chair Socha suggested 15-20%.
26
27 Commissioner Mayne asked Mr. Grittman if an affidavit is required for applications for a license.
28
29 Commissioner Corneille suggested 10% with 25% for a single -owner, and the cap is enforced through
30 rental conversion. An affidavit is also required to confirm that the owner complies with the ordinance.
31
32 Commissioner Mayne noted that the 25% would allow a single owner to own 60 properties.
33
34 Chair Socha stated she would be comfortable with 15%. She believes there are many examples of
35 hardship, and she would like to see that raised to 36 months for hardship. The goals would not be
36 affected by raising it to 36 months for hardship. They would apply for a homestead exemption. She
37 asked if a person lived in a home for 1 1/2 years, would they be eligible for an exemption?
38
39 Mr. Paul White, 3201 32nd Avenue NE, asked if local ownership has been distinguished from "out of
40 area" ownership. He has seen rental properties look bad. Rentals owned by local owners tend not to
41 look as bad.
42
43 Mr. Grittman noted that if the City has met the 10% cap, anyone who has a homestead exemption can
44 qualify for a rental license conversion regardless of the cap. This would not be very limiting. Chair
45 Socha asked when reviewing the goals if one of the other goals is to provide hardship, which would
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 11
1 not be very limiting. There could be a generous period for that. If it could be limited to 10 years, or if
2 a homestead is held elsewhere, the license is lost.
4 Commissioner Corneille restated his proposal, saying a 10% cap on total units, 15% ownership, and a
5 cap enforced on new licenses, and there would be an affidavit signed in compliance with the
6 ordinance, and there would be some sort of trigger on homestead.
7
8 Chair Socha stated she still has concerns about the time frame for hardship exemption. If tied to a
9 homestead exemption, it is black and white versus discretionary. Rental licenses do not travel with
10 the property to other owners. Hardship requests would go to the City Council for approval. Another
11 option would be for the owner to have to apply for a hardship every year. If a rental license is denied,
12 an appeal would go to the City Council. Commissioner Erickson stated the hardship verbiage is
13 acceptable. Chair Socha stated that one of her concerns was if St. Anthony doesn't allow and
14 Roseville or another community does allow exceptions, it would make St. Anthony less attractive.
15
16 Commissioner Mayne stated that another unintended benefit would be if Minnesota allows for
17 accessory dwelling units, which would not prevent single-family owners from renting out an
18 accessory dwelling unit on their property.
19
20 Chair Socha summarized the consensus of the Commission that if you qualify for a homestead
21 exemption, you can get an exception to the 10% cap and if you don't qualify for the homestead
22 exemption and you have a hardship you can apply for a hardship license, appealable to the City
23 Council to be determined on a case by case basis by the City Council.
24
25 Motion by Commissioner Corneille, seconded by Commissioner Mayne, to recommend approval and
26 edit modifications to the proposed ordinance stating a 10% cap on total single-family rentals, a 15%
27 cap on all available licenses for a single owner, that the ownership group is addressed via affidavit
28 during the rental license process and that the cap is enforced on the issuance of new licenses with the
29 only exception being if you are a homesteaded property owner you do not qualify for the cap. Those
30 who don't qualify for a homestead can use the existing appeals process through the City Council.
31
32 Motion carried 4-0.
33
34 Mr. Grittman reviewed the short-term rental and noted the consensus of the Council to bring forward
35 was to clarify the code to specify that short-term rental is not an allowable use of single-family home
36 residential properties. Any rental in a single-family area would be required to have a license and
37 require a 30-day rental period or more. The proposed changes clarify that in the existing code. Chair
38 Socha stated that it has never been clarified or enforced.
39
40 Mr. Paul White, 3201 32" d Avenue NE, owns a one -bedroom neighborhood guest house next door to
41 his home. This furnished guest house has been operated by his family for over 10 years, including
42 short-term rental as a family guest space. He supports St. Anthony's goals of supporting affordable
43 family housing, maintaining the residential character of neighborhoods, and building community. He
44 urged a balanced approach that either grandfather's long-standing, well -managed, short-term rentals
45 like theirs or establishes a limited cap system so a few guest homes can continue under clear rules.
46 They have never had any neighbor complaints. Many neighbors were not even aware it was a rental.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 12
1 The primary use of the guest house has been as an overflow home for friends, family, and neighbors'
2 relatives. This is a community amenity. When available, they have offered the home to carefully
3 selected outside guests to help pay for expenses. This is not a profit center. This is not a high -turnover
4 business. They live next door and monitor the guest house daily. There have been no major issues
5 over the past 10 years. Every potential guest is vetted. Unsuitable applicants tend to withdraw. The
6 selective approach works. They require every guest to sign the list of rules. They have never had to
7 evict a guest. They keep the property in top condition. They have all required rental licenses from the
8 City and pass any inspections every year. They had a legal review before purchasing the property.
9 There is no enforceable rule on the books in St. Anthony against this short-term rental. The home has
10 served many families. This house is not being removed from the city's housing stock. He has seen the
11 short-term rentals in Minneapolis occur. He encouraged the Commission to look at the Harvard
12 Business Review study. Their guest house looks and functions like any other home on the block.
13 There is no commercial activity. Thoughtfully run short-term rentals can enhance the residential
14 community. He challenged the label that short-term rentals are hotels. The generalization that any
15 rental of less than 30 days is like a hotel/motel that does not belong in a neighborhood. Their guest
16 house is not a hotel or motel. It is a home that is available for the short term. Poorly managed short-
17 term rentals can be problems, but their house is not causing any problems. They only own this one
18 house. If they decide to sell the house, it would most likely be purchased by a corporation. He urged
19 the City to consider other solutions. Grandfathering the short-term rentals in St. Anthony as legal
20 non -conforming units. Another idea would be to establish a cap on short-term rentals. The short-term
21 rentals should be owned by residents of St. Anthony. Mandatory licensing and inspections could be
22 carried out as with other rentals. Strict operational rules from the City could include a minimum stay
23 and local management contact. This would show that St. Anthony values their long-time residents.
24 Their family -run guest house is different and has co -existed in the neighborhood for many years. Mr.
25 White will send his written document to Staff to be distributed to the Commission.
26
27 Commissioner Corneille stated he agrees with several Mr. White's comments. There should be some
28 sort of middle ground. He suggested there be 5 short-term rentals per quadrant and the possibility of
29 allowing STR's owned by the contiguous property owner that would mitigate some of the concerns.
30
31 Commissioner Mayne asked if this would fall under the existing rental process.
32
33 Commissioner Erickson thanked Mr. White for coming to the meeting. He asked Mr. Grittman how
34 many short-term rentals there are in the community and Mr. Grittman stated most likely less than 10.
35 He is not sure how many have received licenses.
36
37 Commissioner Mayne asked Mr. White what is put on the application as to how many renters and Mr.
38 White stated he does not know.
39
40 Commissioner Corneille noted there has been no community opposition to short-term rentals. Ms.
41 Morello stated there were none that she could speak to. Commissioner Corneille asked if there is a
42 problem. Mr. Grittman stated that there have been code compliance comments about noise, general
43 activity, and property maintenance for short-term rentals. Commissioner Corneille stated there is a
44 great compliance process for rentals in St. Anthony. The license can be revoked if there are continued
45 violations. He asked if the community is against short-term rentals. The big question is whether this
46 policy is necessary. Is this something that should be banned or regulated?
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 13
1
2 Chair Socha asked about grandfathering short-term rentals. Some people have put a lot of money into
3 their property to list it on VRBO. She wants to be able to grandfather houses in, but she does not
4 know how that process would work. How would those properties be identified? Short-term rentals
5 should be licensed. She feels it should be allowed at a small percentage. It would amount to 10% of
6 rentals within the City. She suggested that the topic of whether there are operational rules that should
7 apply to short-term licenses be discussed further. That would make the grandfathering moot. Mr.
8 Grittman stated he does not believe the Code is unclear. A short-term rental is not a residence and is
9 not allowed in the Code. If a short-term rental should be allowed, the Code needs to be written so
10 there is no confusion about what the Code says.
11
12 Commissioner Corneille stated that when reading the ordinance, it allows people to do short-term
13 rentals within their dwelling as expense sharing. Mr. Grittman stated that the City allows a
14 homeowner to rent a room in a home to a boarder.
15
16 Mr. White stated they don't get calls from people wanting to attend an event. The key to having it
17 work for St. Anthony is a local manager/owner. He encouraged the Commission to think about
18 Operational Rules. He does not recommend grandfathering anyone who does not have a rental
19 license.
20
21 Commissioner Mayne thanked Mr. White for his comments. This is a different case from what the
22 City is trying to discourage. He would be against a ban. He is not clear on what the options are. There
23 may need to be a short-term ordinance written.
24
25 Chair Socha suggested that an option would be to table this and have the Staff create a draft
26 ordinance for short-term rentals separately.
27
28 Commissioner Mayne suggested adding verbiage to Sections 1 to 9 on short-term rentals.
29
30 There were no comments about the signage section. For Rent signs are allowed for licensed rental
31 properties.
32
33 Commissioner Corneille suggested having a voluntary registration process for short-term rentals
34 within the City.
35
36 Motion by Chair Socha, seconded by Commissioner Mayne, to recommend Sections 10 and 11 of the
37 Ordinance be approved and table action on Sections 1 to 9 and direct Staff to develop some options
38 for language that would allow for short-term rentals in a regulated fashion.
39
40 Motion carried 4-0.
41
42 Chair Socha closed the public hearing at 10:33 p.m.
43
44 VII. STAFF REPORTS - NONE.
45
46 VIII. OTHER BUSINES - NONE.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 14
IX. COMMUNITY FORUM - NONE.
No one appeared to address the Planning Commission.
X. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENT - NONE.
XI. ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Mayne, to adjourn the
meeting at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Wolfe
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Motion carried 4-0.
MEMORANDUM
To: Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date: July 15, 2025
GC Project No. 140.00
Property Location: NA
Request: Electric Vehicle Charging Regulations
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission considered regulations related to Electric Vehicle (EV) charging at a public
hearing in June, 2025. The Commission engaged in a wide-ranging discussion of various aspects of EV
adoption and charging requirements. The discussion included industry issues, market issues, and State
regulatory interests. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted to table action on the ordinance,
pending further consideration and background.
The ordinance developed by staff was based largely on ordinances adopted by New Brighton and
Roseville. This draft was created at the direction of the City Council, which they had discussed at an
earlier work session, with comment also provided by the Parks and Environmental Commission.
The draft ordinance is again before the Planning Commission. It is noted that the State's action is to
adopt a series of regulatory requirements for EV charging with the next version of the State Model
Building Code. That code is due in 2030. While there are myriad other issues that will bear on future
requirements, the City Council has focused on a first -step approach to EV charging requirements in
support of its sustainability goals. It is expected that over time, these other topics (industry changes,
market dynamics, State regulations, etc.) will require an evolution of the City's ordinance standards.
Rather than attempt to forecast these future inputs and create an ordinance that accounts for them, the
proposed ordinance instead looks to coordinate Saint Anthony's code with our nearest neighbors,
understanding that these future inputs will guide changes in the local approach.
CONCLUSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In summary, staff has resubmitted the ordinance for Planning Commission consideration, with the
central question being whether the Commission recommends this as a reasonable first step, or not.
It is further noted that under general zoning law, the City has up to 120 days to consider and finalize its
action on a zoning request. As such, the common expectation is that the Planning Commission shall
forward its recommendation to the City Council within 60 days, to ensure that the Council will have
adequate time to deliberate on the proposal. As such, staff would note that the Commission should
provide its recommendation at its July 15 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
• Draft Ordinance
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
ORDINANCE 2025-OX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 154.179 OF THE CITY CODE TO PROVIDE
FOR REGULATIONS RELATED TO ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
REQUIREMENTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE HEREBY
ORDAINS.
Section 1. Section §154.179 (Parking) is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 154.179 (Parking)
(A)(12) Electric Vehicle Charging.
(a) All developments that require new Commercial Parking Lots as
defined in this Section, and any existing Commercial Parking Lots being
reconstructed that are not exempt under Subp. (b) of this Section, shall
include one or more locations to allow for electric vehicle charging. The
thresholds for adding EV charging spaces to new developments are as
follows in Table (12)(a):
EV Charging Space Thresholds
No. of New Parking
Spaces
Required No. of EV Spaces and Level of
Charger
At least 10 spaces up to
29 spaces
1 charger at Level 1 or greater
30 spaces up to 49 spaces
Residential: 5% of spaces at Level 1 or
greater;
30 spaces up to 49 spaces
Non-residential: 2 spaces at Level 2
50 spaces or more
Residential: 10% at Level 1 or greater, plus
2 spaces at Level 2 or greater
50 spaces or more
Non-residential: 5% at Level 2 or greater
(b) These requirements shall not apply to maintenance of existing parking
areas when that maintenance consists only of restriping, seal -coating,
patching of less than 25% of the total area of the parking lot, or "mill and
overlay" projects.
(c) Spaces designated as EV charging spaces shall be included in meeting
the property's required parking quantities per this code.
(d) EV charging spaces shall be placed in locations easily accessible to
tenants of, or visitors to, the property, and shall be designed so at least one
of the provided EV charging spaces is accessible to vehicles requiring
handicapped access.
(e) If EV charging equipment, including charging stations, transformers,
and other above -ground mechanical equipment, is proposed to be located
in the front yard, such equipment shall be screened from view of the
public right-of-way with fencing or landscaping consistent with applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
(f) When electric infrastructure is installed, such infrastructure shall be
designed and installed to accommodate convenient expansion of the
charging system on the property.
(g) The City may grant an applicant for parking lot construction a waiver
by development agreement of up to two years to install the required
charging facilities if the applicant develops infrastructure to install Level 3
chargers rather than Level 2, and installs charging facilities no later than
two years following completion of the parking area.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance
as part of the Official St. Anthony City Code, Title XV, Zoning Ordinance, and to
renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended
effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary
corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process,
provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
as has been adopted.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage
and publication. This ordinance may be published by summary publication,
per a duly adopted resolution of the City Council. The ordinance in its entirety
and any related map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies
of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at St. Anthony
City Hall for examination upon request.
ADOPTED BY the City Council of Saint Anthony Village, Minnesota this day of ,
2025.
ATTEST:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mayor Webster
City Clerk
2
MEMORANDUM
To: Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date: July 15, 2025
GC Project No. 140.00
Property Location: NA
Request: Short Term Rental Ordinance Amendments
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission considered regulations related to rental housing at a public hearing in June,
2025. The Commission discussed the several sections of a draft ordinance related to both short-term
and long-term rental housing in the Village. The Commission expressed any interest in further
discussing short-term rentals, and tabled action on those aspects of the proposed ordinance.
The ordinance developed by staff under consideration was reflective of the City Council's direction,
generated at a prior work session and other meetings, that short-term rental housing should be
prohibited. This direction was again reflected in the Council work session on rental housing on July 8,
2025.
The draft ordinance sections related to short-term rental housing is again before the Planning
Commission. There were a variety of questions and comments made by the Planning Commission on
this aspect of rental housing, which were relayed both through the recording of the Commission's
meeting, and summarized by staff for work session review. Although the Commission raised a number
of items, focused on an allowance for short-term rental and how to regulate it, the City Council
reaffirmed its lack of support.
CONCLUSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In summary, staff has resubmitted the tabled aspects of the rental housing ordinance for Planning
Commission consideration related to short term rentals. The proposed language has the effect of
explicitly prohibiting this land use on residential property.
For short-term rental, the central question is whether the Commission recommends approval or denial
of the proposed ordinance.
It is further noted that under general zoning law, the City has up to 120 days to consider and finalize its
action on a zoning request. As such, the common expectation is that the Planning Commission shall
forward its recommendation to the City Council within 60 days, to ensure that the Council will have
adequate time to deliberate on the proposal. As such, staff would note that the Commission should
provide its recommendation at its July 15 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
• Draft Ordinance
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
ORDINANCE 2025-OX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE, SECTION 152, RELATED TO
LICENSING AND REGULATIONS FOR RENTING OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE HEREBY
ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section §154.007 DEFINITIONS (Zoning) is hereby amended to add the
following:
RESIDENCE OR RESIDENTIAL USE: A dwelling unit that is intended for
occupancy for no less than 30 consecutive days, whether owned or rented.
SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT. A form of transient occupancy, similar to
motels or other such uses, in a residential zoning district for which occupancy of a
residential building, room, or suite of rooms is offered, rented; or used, for periods
of fewer than 30 consecutive dam
MOTEL (Includes "HOTEL"). Premises furnishing sleeping or overnight
stopping accommodations for travelers and other transient guests for stays of
fewer than 30 consecutive days.
Section 2. Section §152.05 DEFINTIONS (Rental Housing) is hereby amended to add
the following:
RESIDENCE OR RESIDENTIAL USE: A dwellinfz unit that is intended for
occupancy for no less than 30 consecutive days, whether owned or rented.
SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT. A form of transient occupancy, similar to
motels or other such uses, in a residential zoning district for which occupancy
residential building, room, or suite of rooms is offered, rented, or used, for periods
of fewer than 30 consecutive dam
Section 3. Section §154.051 (A) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(A) Single-family detached residential dwellings, but not including short term
rentals:
Section 4. Section §154.036 (A) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(A) Single-family detached residential dwellings, but not including short term
rentals:
Section 5. Section §154.066 (B) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(B) Two-family detached residential dwellings, but not including short term
rentals:
Section 6. Section §154.086 (B) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(B) Townhouse buildings containing not less than three residential dwelling units
nor more than eight units, but not including short term rentals;
Section 7. Section §154.088 (C) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(C) Multiple residential dwellings with not more than four residential dwelling
units, but not including short term rentals.
Section 8. Section §154.101 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Within an R-4 District, the only permitted uses are multiple family residential
dwellings, including rental apartment units and condominium apartment units.
Permitted multi -family buildings shall meet the standards and requirements of this
subchapter. Short term rentals shall not be allowed in the R-4 District.
Section 9. Section §154.102 (B) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(B) Townhouses, but not including short term rentals;
Section 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance
as part of the Official St. Anthony City Code, Title XV, Zoning Ordinance, and to
renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended
effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary
corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process,
provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
as has been adopted.
Section 11. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and
publication. This ordinance may be published by summary publication, per a duly
adopted resolution of the City Council. The ordinance in its entirety and any
related map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the
complete Ordinance and map are available online and at St. Anthony City Hall for
examination upon request.
ADOPTED BYthe City Council of Saint Anthony Village, Minnesota this day of ,
2025.
ATTEST:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mayor Webster
City Clerk
14