City planning presents proposed updates to St. Paul 'T' (traditional neighborhood) zoning districts

City planning staff presented a zoning text update for St. Paul’s traditional neighborhood (T) districts, outlining proposals to clarify purpose statements, add affordable-housing incentives, simplify design standards and increase measured development flexibility along nodes and corridors.

Senior city planner Spencer Miller Johnson told the Housing and Redevelopment Authority that T districts—used along corridors such as University and Snelling, West Seventh, Arcade and Rice Street—were first adopted in 2004 and last updated in 2011, and that the current study’s scope is text amendments rather than any proactive rezoning of new geography.

"Not within scope are rezoning or mapping changes," Spencer Miller Johnson said, adding that individuals and developers can still apply to rezone properties to T but the study will not proactively add new T areas. He described six broad proposed changes: clarify intent statements for each T district; increase development flexibility at nodes and corridors (including measured increases to height limits and simplified massing standards); add neighborhood-scaled land-use flexibility for small retail and service uses in T1; create a density bonus to incentivize affordable housing that aligns with bonuses in residential districts; streamline and make design standards more measurable; and modernize code language to reduce jargon.

The presentation noted outreach to district councils and business associations, two informational sessions in mid-May and a Business Review Council briefing on May 7, and that the Planning Commission released the study for public review on May 16. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for July 11; staff said City Council review is expected to begin in early September and typically involves a minimum of three readings.

Commissioners asked questions and offered comments. Commissioner Provotsky asked whether any T districts include building-height minimums; Spencer Miller Johnson responded that staff is focusing on maximums and that some minimums were under review because they could unintentionally restrict development. Provotsky expressed support for firm minimums in higher-intensity T3 and T4 districts, saying low-rise, single-story development on major corridors is inappropriate for those locations.

Commissioner Yang asked about the proposal’s reference to sidewalks and pedestrian "feel safe" language. Spencer Miller Johnson clarified that the proposal does not change sidewalk dimensions—those are public works decisions—but that zoning sets minimum and maximum building setbacks so buildings are often placed close to the street, which staff said can increase street-level activity (outdoor dining, shopfronts) and pedestrian comfort compared with surface parking or highly set-back buildings.

Commissioner Acre asked for the red-lined text and an executive summary; staff said the red-line proposal is posted on the project webpage and can be shared with commissioners. Multiple commissioners, including Naker and Acre, discussed the possibility of a phase 2 that would consider proactive rezonings to expand T zoning along additional corridors, with staff noting the city can initiate rezoning studies when warranted by transit investment or master plans.

Director Newton and planning staff emphasized coordination with other city work, including an upcoming economic development strategy; Director Newton said consultant scopes will be finalized with input after procurement and that planning work cross-references economic development and transit investments.

No formal motion or vote was taken on the zoning text at this HRA meeting. Staff encouraged commissioners and the public to review the red-lined proposal and participate in the Planning Commission review and upcoming public outreach.