Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

now call to order the August 14th meeting of the St. Paul Planning Commission. First order of business is roll call.

Commissioner Grill.

Present.

Commissioner Holst.

Here.

Commissioner Johnson-Becker. Commissioner Martinson.

Here.

Commissioner Presley. Here. Commissioner Riley.

Here.

Commissioner Starling. Commissioner Taguia. Here. Commissioner Taguio?

Oh, it's Taguio, thank you. Taguio? Yes, present.

And Commissioner Thomas. Thank you.

Next up is approval of the July 31st, 2026 planning commission meetings.

So moved. Second.

A motion by Commissioner Martinson, seconded by Commissioner Holst. Is there any discussion on the meeting minutes? All right, seeing no discussion, we'll move forward with the vote. All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed, any abstentions? All right, the minutes pass. The next item up is public hearings. So we have one public hearing for 694 Minnehaha, the CUP. I'm going to read a script now to all of you. This is the public hearing portion of the agenda. Planning Commission decisions on most types of zoning applications, including conditional use permits, non-conforming use permits, site plans and variances are final decisions unless appealed to the City Council. Planning Commission decisions on rezonings and master plan amendments are only recommendations to City Council who will make the final decision. Planning Commission findings must have a rational basis based upon the st. Paul zoning code and applicable state and federal laws today We're holding a public hearing with the following rules and procedures one after I read the item We will hear a staff report and then I will open up the floor for commissioners to ask questions of staff. I The applicant will then be given an opportunity to speak about their request and answer any questions from commissioners. After that, I will open the public hearing on the item. All testimony and questions should be addressed to the chair and relate to the proposal before the commission. If you're a member of the public that would like to comment on a specific item, you may do so by standing between the two center microphones, stating your name and home location for the record. After you complete your testimony, please sign in on the sheet to your right. Testimony will be limited to no more than two minutes. You are allowed to speak only once with the exception of the applicant who will respond to testimony and answer commission questions. And the first application on the agenda is 694 Minnehaha CUP. And Chris Hong is here to present this item.

Good morning everyone I'm here to present a the zoning application for a Conditional use permit for increasing the maximum building height at 694 Minnehaha Avenue These are some maps to kind of get you located, but this is one of the parcels that make up the hands brewery site and it's located in kind of where Dayton's Bluff meets Payne Phelan and right by Sweet Hollow Park. This is the zoning in the area. The parcels that are X'ed out are not included in this zoning application. So you can see that it's a variety of zoning districts from T to business to industrial to residential. And the mix of uses in that area reflects that. A lot of housing, some industrial uses, commercial uses, and some institutional as well. And so the zoning application that's before us is requesting that the maximum building height in this zoning district T3 be increased from 55 feet to 71 feet. This kind of inset map is to orient you to where the proposed building is to be. It's on the east side of the parcel because it's a large, nearly five acre parcel. The building itself is expected to be no taller than 67 feet, but they added a couple more feet just as a buffer in case circumstances make it a bit taller than 67 feet. These are the CUP standards, the standards for every conditional use permit. And I think the one that is most pertinent for this CUP application is that As an opportunity site, the increased building height would allow increased building density, which the comprehensive plan calls for at opportunity sites like this. In terms of impact on the surrounding neighborhood, I'll get to that at the next slide here. So we asked the developer to include a shadow study with their CUP application. And so we compared it to what the building is anticipated to be, proposed to be, versus what would be allowed by right. And as you can see, these are just portions of the shadow study. The full thing is in your packet, but you can see that the difference that it would make is not particularly noticeable. And with that and the findings that are in your staff report, staff does recommend approval for the CUP to increase the level building height from 55 to 71 feet at 694 Minnehaha Avenue. And we did receive a letter recommending approval from the district council. And we did receive another letter in support from the Payne Phelan Community Council yesterday afternoon. And with that, I'll take any questions.

All right. Questions for staff? Commissioner Riley.

I'm going to make a statement, and then I'm going to ask Chris a couple questions that I think she knows are coming. My statement is basically 100% support the additional height, the project, all those things. And... A couple questions. Has PED staff been able to review the full site plan for conformance with the general design standards and the T3 design standards, specifically those in 66.324 and 11D?

Commissioner Riley, I do want to just stay for the record that because we're talking about the CUP, we're talking about the allowable height from the 55 to the 71. I think you can ask the question, but I think just for note for the whole sort of meeting today, we're talking about the CUP specifically. And I think if there's site plan questions, maybe during the site plan questions portion of the meeting, that might be a place to.

Indeed, I think my line of questioning is associated with whether the condition E, the use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located and that the condition is met.

The applicant may not be requesting any variances from the site.

However, there are design guidelines that do not appear to be followed in the one drawing that we have. And I would like to confirm that indeed, when we make this motion, The use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The use itself is a multifamily building in a T3 district. The CUP for height still talks about use, unfortunately, even though the height and the use are not necessarily aligned.

And to ensure that we were meeting that finding, the development team has been meeting with city staff, both in PED and Department of Safety and Inspections to ensure they wouldn't need any other additional zoning permits. And so far, we have not found the need for additional.

Thank you.

That's my question.

Thank you.

Other questions for staff? Commissioner Tegg, yeah.

To save me looking it up, will you perhaps explain the regulation in question? Exactly what the provision is that you're referencing? Oh, yes. I'm so sorry. Thank you.

I do have that as well. So just so that, yes, for the rest of the commission. The... This is about the pedestrian orientation of the first floor and the amount of glazing in the first floor. I recognize that the first floor is parking. However, I still think that the people using that site, whether in this building or around it on the other sites, should have the ability to make sure that that's a safe and pedestrian-friendly environment as stated in the code. Let me pull up the code, though.

Sorry.

I had it pulled up, it went away. I guess for context, I'm trying to set up the opportunity for the site plan to come before this body so that everyone involved has an opportunity to review the full impact of the site on the rest of the site and that the design guidelines meet, are met, or that we know why they won't be met. and that's not clear from what we have in front of us. So if other people have questions, I'll pull up the meeting code thing here and then we can go.

If I may, I think you're right in terms of we do require T3 buildings or T buildings generally to maintain those standards and when they don't, they should, that's what the code says. So I'd certainly be in favor of pulling the site plan review to ensure that that happens and that can be done, I believe, by motion by this body.

I think everybody knows this, but just to state for the record, it's pretty typical when we have a conditional use permit for height that we don't have final site plan approval before that. In fact, it can't be finally approved until the CUP. So typically the site plan review will happen afterwards and this one happens to be in the course of being reviewed. But the Department of Safety Inspections zoning team is charged with reviewing all provisions of the zoning code, including this. to require conformance. There may be illustrations in here about what the building looks like. The building could change completely from what we see in here. That's not really part of the review. It's there as a courtesy, any illustrations of the building. part of the review, as I think you all know, is the height. And the shadow study and the requested height are the directly relevant portions of the application with regard to that.

I'd agree with you, Mr. Dermody. I suppose one thing I'm seeing is in both less support, there's identical wording, which essentially does talk about the fact that the CEPs are requested as being directly linked to the building's footprint and other aspects of the design of the building. So if those are related in some way, they would be germane. And it's very hard to ignore a courtesy diagram in front of us, which doesn't appear to conform. So I think I'm... I respect that I'm not asking for us to make a decision based on a prospective site plan, but I do think Commissioner Riley's suggestion that potentially we would look at the site plan review at that stage may be a reasonable one, even if it becomes a matter of waving it through.

Are there other questions for staff at this point? Can we share it? OK.

I got it. Sorry. Somewhere in here. OK. four so i actually wrote the citation down wrong so i apologize it's section six six point three four three traditional neighborhood district design standards b four frontage elements the base 30 feet of building sides facing a budding public streets must include elements that relate to the human scale at grade elements include doors windows projections awnings canopies porches stoops etc and then number seven door and window openings um window shape and patterns must emphasize the intended organization of the facade and the definition of the building. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the height. I don't have a problem with the building. concerns that we if we say it's going to meet all of the other applicable regulations of the district and it has I mean I get it we need to do the height so they can do the design and I want to make sure that when it comes back to us that it can come back to us and we can make sure that it does indeed meet all of those conditions given that they have not yet completed that that process There's also information in 11, structured parking location and entrance design that new above-grade parking structures fronting on arterial and collector streets must be lined with active commercial retail uses at street level with direct access to the sidewalk. This is not a standalone parking structure, but the way the code is written, it does not suggest that it has to be. and this doesn't have those, I think that's fine. And therefore the design we see in front of us does not apply to applicable regulations of the zoning code. So again, I just wanna make sure that we as the planning commission are doing our due diligence when we are making this, what I hope to be an approval, recommendation of approval for an increase in the height that the rest of the zoning code can and will be met.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Riley. If there are no other questions, I'll call up the applicant if they'd like to add anything to the record or answer any questions from the commissioners.

Just one quick comment, I guess. The shadow studies for 67 feet, we're doing a cup for 71. I just think, generally speaking, if we're asking for a cup of 71, we should have a shadow study for 71. So just a note to staff to maybe, you know, and I realize this is all based off of a design that's here that's based off of 67 feet, so I realize there's a challenge there, but if we're asking for 71, then the study should be around 71 instead of 67, so.

Thanks for Charles. I will still call up the applicant if they'd like to add anything to the record or answer any questions from the commissioners.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Ashley Bissner. I'm with J.P. Vang. Our address is 1335 Pierce Butler Route. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our proposed development this morning. J.P. Vang was selected as tentative developer in January 2023 for the HRA-owned parcels of the former Hams Brewery site, which is approximately five acres in size. A high-level overview, our development proposes new construction and historic renovation to create 180 units of family-friendly affordable housing to create additional parking amenities like community rooms, fitness, and play areas for children. It will also provide pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Bruce Vento Regional Trail and Sweet Hollow Park, as well as outdoor green space and gathering areas for the community. Since receiving the tentative developer status, we've completed much of the required due diligence and significant community engagement. As Chris noted in the staff report, we are here today to request a conditional use permit for additional height for the east end apartments. The additional height is necessary to allow for a more dense urban development on a smaller footprint, which is consistent with the 2040 comprehensive plan. Also, the proposed building fits within the context of the surrounding area with taller existing buildings to the west, just to the west of the building, along with a bluff directly behind. Also, as noted in the staff report, mixed-use opportunity sites like this one have been identified to have potential for higher density redevelopment, which supports the additional height. I am here today with a few of our project team members, both from the design and construction side, in case there are any specific questions related to the building height. And thank you again for your review of this application.

Thank you. Are there questions for the applicant? Commissioner Martins and then Commissioner Teg, yeah. Commissioner Teg, yeah.

Sorry, just one. I've seen it stated in both the letters and in your verbal testimony that there's a relationship between height and footprint. It seems to me from the plan that the building takes up much of the available footprint as designed. So I'm curious about, just to tie up that loose end.

Just what was the last part?

Just to tie up that loose end and to understand why the additional height is actually shrinking the footprint when it does appear that the building is designed so as to maximize the available space on the site.

Correct. So when we, commissioners apologies, when we had initially looked at this project, we had taken up really what the East End building, what majority of that site just initially in 2024, we were kind of looking at a backwards C-shaped building kind of in between that with listening to the community and talking through kind of what's important from our neighbors and things like that. We redesigned the building to make it smaller and put it further to the east of the property side. which allowed us to include a surface or, I guess, pull out a surface parking lot in that location. So when I mentioned, you know, we're trying to put it on a smaller footprint, we are doing that. And that does require additional height or is necessary for that additional height, but also is accommodating or trying to assist with the parking for existing businesses as well.

Okay, so we should sort of assume that those parking spaces that you can just about see in the blow-up there are the area of the site that's being left essentially unbuilt to allow for surface parking. That's the trade. Correct. Okay, thank you. Yep.

Mr. Barton.

Thank you, Chair. So my question is not directly related to the height, but I'm wondering, there is non-trivial grade change in two different directions on the site. And I'm looking at the diagrams provided and I'm saying this looks very similar to a grade change situation that we saw down on the Highland Bridge site where the developers required multiple variances in order to accommodate that. Are we anticipating that you will be coming back to us with variance requests in order to accommodate the grade changes?

Thank you for the question, Commissioners. So we are not planning to, as Chris mentioned, we have been meeting with Site Plan Review through the city for several months to try to make sure that the design that we have is applicable to code and confirm if there's any additional variances required. And we have gotten to the determination that the height is the only one that is needed for a variance.

So I guess I'm with Commissioner Riley on this, that I think I would like to see the site plan review then. So thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Commissioner Holtz.

Just for clarification, the parking that is left over, you said for additional businesses, so that would not be parking that would be exclusive to the apartment building, but that would be generally usable by businesses in the apartment building that are in that area?

Sure. So, Commissioners, from a parking perspective, the East End building does have two levels of underground parking included. One of those levels is dedicated to the residents that will live in the East End building. One of those levels will be dedicated to residents that will live in the West End building, which is not part of the CUP discussion here today, but the historic buildings of the site. The intent for the commercial parking is to be available or to be used by the existing businesses. We still have to have communication with them on how that works.

Okay. Very good.

Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, I will open the public hearing. If you would like to speak on the zoning application, please come up. If you'd like to speak on the zoning application, please come up. if you'd like to speak on this zoning application. All right, I am seeing no speakers, so I'll look for a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved. Second.

Motion by Commissioner Holt, seconded by Commissioner Martinson. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, then we'll move forward with the vote. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Any abstentions? All right, motion passes and the public hearing is closed. there was no discussion in the public hearing so normally we would invite the applicant back up but i don't think we need to do that in this scenario since there's nothing to discuss at that point i'll open it up to the commissioners well i'll commissioner yeah thank you chair um

So I think I'd like to, let's try this first. Move to amend condition E to state that the condition may or can be met as determined, which is appropriate by the city attorney, subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission.

So, Commissioner Riley, I'm going to have you read the full recommended motion out loud.

I'll do it one more time. Okay. Move to amend condition E to state that the condition may be met or can be met, I'm not sure which the city attorney would prefer, subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission.

So, Commissioner Riley, can I clarify just, and I'll look at Josh as well, the city attorney. In this scenario, you want to tie the site plan to the CUP. That's what you're hoping, I just want to clarify the intent.

Yes, because the statement of the condition is that the use not the height of the use, not the dimensions of the use, nothing associated with the dimensional standards in the table, but the use. And based on what we have in front of us, regardless of what has been reviewed for several weeks by DSI, it is not apparent to me that all other applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, T3, are met. Just because there's no request for a variance does not mean that the conditions are met. And I think, I mean, from a professional planning standpoint, this is where it gets really hard in these situations because the statement is the use. And it's a multifamily use that has design standards associated with it. I wish there was a different way to do height increases in the zoning code. I have not yet encountered one, and I've been doing this for 25 years.

Okay, so that is the motion from Commissioner Riley. I would look at the city attorney to make sure that that's an action that we can make, that we can tie something like that to...

I wish I had more notice so we could... and look it over as a team to see if that would work. My concern is none of them are may or could, neither are firm conditions or firm statements. I don't know if the motion would meet 1599, if it would ever be approved, if we're still waiting on the site plan. I don't know if the decision or the action is still lingering when it's worded that way. Do you know what I'm saying?

Mr. Dermody, haven't we had many staff reports where they have can be met in the conditions and with some wording or other?

We have used the phrase can be met in the findings. And so this is a finding that Commissioner Riley is proposing to amend. It's not a condition. So we have done that. And it's usually...

I'm so sorry. That's my fault. Thank you, Bill.

It's a finding. So I haven't heard any proposal to add conditions. Usually... we use the phrase can be met to set up a condition of approval. In this case, that's probably not necessary because site plan review has to happen prior to development, but you could also add it as a condition afterwards. So that'd be my comment on that.

So if I may just repeat back, we have in the past used can be met when we think there's a potential or maybe something about what we're looking at needs tweaking to meet, and then we add the condition at the end to tie the can be to, assuming they do this, we're in favor kind of thing. And so it becomes conditional on that in that way explicitly. Okay.

That's correct, yes. And usually those conditions, they're a little different in that they don't require a separate process. exactly they require trees to be put in in the boulevard or something like that, some change to what's proposed or above and beyond the normal.

Yeah, this would seem to be, so if I hear you right, one potential issue with the motion as stated might be that it merely purports to require a process which is gonna happen anyway, whereas potentially a better motion might be specifically related to changes to the site plan to ensure conformance with a particular measure in the code. In other words, if we've identified a specific thing which we have a problem with in terms of that regulation, potentially the right motion would be to require that specific conformance. I do think maybe if it becomes that complex, a layover is the right path forward to allow for language to be drafted.

I do want to say, just because we're talking specifically about the CUP for the height, there could be two options. There could be reviewing the CUP for the height of the item that's specifically in front of us, and then there could be a request from someone on the commission that wants to pull the site plan, and then the planning commission could review the site plan in its entirety as a separate process. Commissioner.

Yeah, so thank you for setting that up. So this is this is what I'm trying to get to. I am trying to get to a point where we forward this recommend this. We approve this CUP right? Because CUP stops with us.

Right, yes, it's not a reason.

It's not right, but I mean it's not a zoning or variance, so I want to set up an opportunity. I want to set it up so that we approve this conditional use permit for height. subject to so that would be that's my intent is to have this be approved by this group today so that site plan an effective site plan review can take place and so step one i've got a couple different ways to do it one amend and i apologize amend the finding e that the condition can be met subject to site plan review by the planning commission that's my first amendment to the staff report then add a condition that site plan review come to the planning commission and then make a motion to adopt that as amended and then under the site plan review part if determined necessary after that transaction happens, request formally that this come to us for site plan review. Because my understanding, although I did not pull the site plan review agenda for next Tuesday, is that a site plan review of this is coming up following the decision that we make in order to ensure that all those other things happen. So that was my logic. That was the logic that I presented to staff. It is disappointing that staff did not consult with the city attorney.

Staff did not consult with the city attorney.

You said it would have been nice to know this before I brought it up.

The proposed condition.

I see what you're saying. So you were aware that I was going to bring this issue up.

I was aware that someone was planning on bringing a motion to hear the site plan. Okay.

So I'm just trying to set that up so that this does not get held up here and it goes... where it needs to go so that an effective site plan review can happen. And I have a concern that, frankly, given the issues that people have had with this, that if we don't do that, this won't get to happen in the time that it needs to happen so that the developer doesn't and the HRA don't suffer as a public body responsible for taxpayer dollars. This project should happen. And it should happen in a way that meets the zoning code. And we should be able to see that that is true. That's what we are appointed to do.

Okay, so Commissioner Riley has made a motion. If that motion were there hasn't been an active second immediately. If that motion were to fail, there is an opportunity to take up just the recommended motion from staff and then there could be additional motions about the site plan potentially when we get into the site plan section. So if...

There's lots of ways to do this.

There's a lot of ways to do this. There might be simpler ways to do it and still sort of meet the same ends. Commissioner Holtz.

I know we're kind of doing the discussion in kind of an odd place because we got a motion and we're technically waiting on a second, but so my understanding is we basically have taken the recommended motion and the changes this condition is met to this condition can be met is that correct. Yes. Okay. And I guess I'm also, as I look at this, I'm also wondering, like, okay, yeah, we want to have the site plan review, but the first statement, this use shall, in all other aspects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Do we have enough information to actually even say that yet, right? It feels like can be might be better language just in a general sense rather than is met. So the site plan is one thing, but there are other aspects too that would be in there. And you know what, I'll second your motion.

Okay, so we have a motion with that amended finding. We have a motion by Commissioner Riley, we have a second by Commissioner Holtz. Is there any other discussion on this?

I don't know if this changes anything or if this And I just wanted to clarify that because we had a DSI inspector review the project site plan, like we felt confident that it wouldn't need additional zoning code permissions. And that's why I stated that it was, that it wouldn't require additional variances. I understand that there are other potential permissions it may need, but that's essentially why it was stated in that way. So it wasn't, it did go through scrutiny in terms of the zoning code and the design guidelines that we have laid out. Thank you.

So we have a motion, we have a second. We'll move forward with a vote. So all those in favor of Commissioner Riley's amended motion.

Aye.

All right, then the motion would pass. Yeah. So that is the amending of the motion for E. So we would still need to move forward with a vote for the full motion with that inclusion.

Chair Girl, I'd like to move approval of the motion recommendation as amended to approve a conditional use permit to increase allowable building height from 55 feet to 71 feet at 694 Minnehaha Avenue.

Okay, so we have a motion from Commissioner Riley. Do we have a second?

Sorry, subject to the condition that it come back for site plan review. Thank you, thank you.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Riley, we have a second from Commissioner Martinson. Is there any discussion on this motion?

Chair, just could I formalize what I think Commissioner Riley's intent would be? There'd be for approval with one condition that the site plan review come to the Planning Commission for approval.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, so we've got that from Commissioner Riley. Do we have a second from Commissioner Martinson? All right, any other discussion? All right, we'll take a vote. All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? All right, item passes. And we move on to the next item in the agenda, which is new business. We have University of Snelling Commercial Development District. Miss Dadless is here.

Good morning, Commissioners. I'm here today to talk about creating a new commercial development district for the University and Snelling intersection area in order to allow for the potential for new on sale liquor licenses in the area. Before I get to the details, I just want to provide a little bit of background information on commercial development districts. Commercial development districts are established by city charter and they're needed to allow for some liquor licenses and to regulate the number of liquor licenses for liquor patrol limits. And a new commercial development district is not needed for downtown or where we already have commercial development districts created. nor are commercial development districts required for hotels or for nonprofit colleges or restaurants that are closing by midnight, or for existing establishments that have liquor licenses with a 2 a.m. closing that were created before 1995. Commercial development districts are reviewed by staff in both the Department of Safety and Inspections and in PED, as well as some advice from the Planning Commission, and then ultimately it's the City Council that will make the decision on whether to create a commercial development district. So the interest in creating this particular commercial development district is coming from an existing sports bar on University Avenue as well as from United Village to be able to allow for closings after 12 a.m. The owner of the sports bar has indicated concern that sometimes televised sporting events start later in the evening, aren't completed by midnight, and so they're either losing patrons before the restaurant's closing or people decide not to even show up at that particular venue knowing that the sporting event won't conclude by the time they have to close. The intent of commercial development districts is to support economic development and commercial vitality in and around the University and Snelling intersection and in the United Village area. The proposed commercial development district would create the potential for four new licenses, one in each of the four sub-districts that would be created by the proposed commercial development district, and I'll show that map in just a minute. And in addition, there is a proposal to allow for one license for a restaurant with a 2 a.m. close as well. And once a commercial development district is created, they need to go through a process to apply for and get a liquor license, and DSI manages that process. The Planning Commission's role in this process is to advise on the proposed commercial development district's consistency with the comprehensive plan and with our zoning ordinance. And just so you know, there are public hearings that are required in order to create a commercial development district, and those will be held by the City Council, and a public hearing is required to be held in each of the wards in which this commercial development district IS LOCATED SO THERE WOULD NEED TO BE ONE IN WARD ONE AS WELL AS A PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN WARD FOUR. THIS IS A MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. IN THE CITYWIDE MAP YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF SILLING AND UNIVERSITY AND AGAIN IT'S IN THE HAMLIN MIDWAY NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS IN THE UNION PARK NEIGHBORHOOD. And that you can see that this district is made up of sub-districts. The first is a Northwest district that kind of runs along University and up to Snelling. The Northeast district runs on the East side of University and the North side of Snelling on the East. And then a southeast district that takes in the pitch and the pivot mixed-use developments along Snelling and then heads west to Pierce Street and then the fourth quadrant in the southeast Takes in the entire superblock United Village area That's just a description of those locations So, again, the Planning Commission's role in the Commercial Development District process is to advise on consistency with the comprehensive plan and with the zoning ordinances. The map on the screen here shows the zoning in the area. You can see right at the intersection of University and Snelling that there is T4 zoning and T4M zoning. T4M, again, stands for Master Planned Area. It's in the hashed TAG area. And then there's T2 and T3 zoning as it stretches along Snelling to the north and University Avenue to the east and the west, as well as some H2 and RM zoning a little bit further beyond the intersection. Land uses in the area include an office building, as well as an office building that's currently under construction, some banks, restaurants, bars, apartment buildings, various retail service establishments, including a bookstore, liquor store, and salon. In terms of consistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances, staff finds the proposed commercial development district is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Snelling Station area is an existing neighborhood node, and the future land use designation for the area is for mixed use. There are a number of land use policies cited in the staff report. that support growth and new development in neighborhood nodes and to promote amenities that support those who live and work in neighborhood nodes. There are also policies from the Union Park Plan as well as the Hamlin Midway plan. And then in terms of zoning, staff finds the proposed commercial development district is consistent with the underlying zoning, and as noted, it's traditional neighborhood zoning districts, and those are intended to serve the needs of a consumer population greater than the local business district and allow for commercial uses, including bars. And so based on these findings, staff recommends that the planning commission report to the city council that the proposed commercial development district is consistent with the comprehensive plan and with zoning ordinances.

Thank you. Questions for staff? Commissioner Riley.

Commissioner Martins. You go first. I just have one question. Katie, thank you very much for the presentation. These are... I find these weird and frustrating to navigate and very important. So I just have a question about the sub-districts. I have not seen one of these with sub-districts before. And I'm wondering, is it just to ensure, what is the purpose of the sub-district rather than

Describing sub districts rather than having one chair and commissioner Riley There is I believe one other development district that has sub districts and that's the creative enterprise zone down by Raymond and University and it it's it's sort of a larger area, but it Lends itself to creating sort of zones or districts and in this case given the intersection and the opportunity it's a way of having a district but sort of instead of having like potentially everything clustered in one area you create districts and then the intent is to have at least you know one to start with and in the future there's the potential to allow for more that once the district is created but that the intent initially is to have allow for one one liquor license per district and then have a follow-up

how does the process to have more happen? Once we establish the district, can they just apply and the council determines whether there are enough liquor licenses? I don't want to artificially limit the ability for business owners in those four quadrants to apply, so I'm just curious.

Yeah, Commissioner, Chair and Commissioner, I wish Dan Nijelic were here in the Department of Safety and Inspections. They're really the ones that know more about commercial development districts, so I apologize, I'm not sure. I believe once the district is created, that it's now created, and then there's an opportunity in order to be able to apply for liquor licenses. The intent is one per each. I'm trying to remember. I apologize, I don't know the answer to the question. That's okay, thank you.

Commissioner Martinson.

Thank you, Chair. So thank you for this presentation, Katie. So a couple parts to my question, I guess. So there's a statement in the report materials that in that Northwest quadrant, there is an additional license that is being planned for. Do we have an applicant that's already sort of signaled interest in doing that?

Chair and Commissioner Martinson, as I noted earlier, the Dilla Sports Bar, an Ethiopian restaurant, is the sports bar that's interested in this. And I think the intent of allowing one liquor license plus a 2AM is that it's sort of a first come, first serve in terms of Once the commercial development is created, whoever applies first gets it. And so this way, there's the potential for a restaurant to get one as well as a bar to get one.

OK. Second part of my, I guess this is more of a statement than a question. So in terms of opportunity sites, which weren't mentioned in the report for this, there is a mixed use opportunity site identified not at this quadrant, that intersection, but basically where Allianz Field is, which is part of this CDD. And so it seems like it could be mentioned in the report and for the city council that in fact, this is also an opportunity site for development. And then my question is, because this overlaps two different district councils and we like to respect the 50 year history of our district council's involvement in our decision-making in the city, Um, it sounds like they're going to have an opportunity or they're going to be consulted with in some fashion. Have they been brought into the, so the, that would be the union park district 13 and the Hamlin midway district 11. Have they been apprised of this or we don't have any support materials from them, but have they been in the conversation so far?

Sure. Chair and commissioner. Um, I want to say back in April, maybe there was a meeting at the Dilla sports bar that included. City staff from PED and from DSI, council members were there, council member aides, district council, some of the business people. So it was an opportunity to learn about commercial development districts and kind of understand the process. And there were a number of emails that were sent out to those people as the decision about whether to do districts, sub-districts or not, or how many to allow in each. folks were able to be able to reply to Dan Nijelic to get a feel for what do we want to create here, how many do we want to have. So, yes, there was that involvement. And, again, public hearing will be required, and there will be notice sent to area property owners for that, well, actually both public hearings, one in Ward 1 and one in Ward 4.

Thank you.

There was a question to the city attorney during this process about could we just do one public hearing for both, jokingly having it on the green line. But in the end, the determination was that no, in fact, one needs to be held in each ward.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Commissioner Ryan. I have a question for Commissioner Martinson, if I might. I like what you said about the opportunity site, so I'm wondering if you want to add a finding that it conforms with MAP LU3 opportunity sites.

Okay. So interest, whoever wants to.

I'll just be clear, I don't want to make the motion. I don't live here. I feel often it's important for the folks who live nearest to the places to make the motions whenever possible. But I guess for the sake of discussion, I would support that. I happen to have the number of them in my email. So I brought it up in case you wanted to strengthen the findings, but I mean, I think it's fine either way. I'm in favor of this particular application going, you know, the consideration by the city council. So I'll just, I'll stop babbling, I'm sorry.

So I guess as the ward four representative, I would probably be the one to do that. So I would move approval of this based on staff findings with the addition finding that the CDD is consistent with the comprehensive plan map LU3 opportunity sites in that opportunity site 16 is part of this district.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Martinson including an updated finding. Is there a second for that motion?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Riley. Is there any discussion on the item? All right, seeing no discussion, we'll move forward with the vote. All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? Any abstentions? All right, the item passes.

Thank you.

And then next up is site plan review. So we have site plan review information for multiple meetings. So bear with me as we go through. The August 4th site plan review meeting had one item, 230 Eva Street. In addition, dock covering and pavement expansion. The Tuesday, August 11th site plan review meeting had two items, Highland Bridge 9th edition townhomes block 35 and 36 and 1190 James Avenue addition resort. And then the upcoming meeting on Tuesday, August 18th has two items, 1415 Mississippi River Boulevard South, new construction, Hidden Falls Regional Park Pavilion and Restroom, and 694 Minnehaha Avenue East, new construction, East End Apartments, Ham Brewery Redevelopment.

Commissioner Riley. I would like to I think make a motion that the site plan review for 694 Minnehaha Avenue East come to the Planning Commission at the next available practical time, which I think would either be August 28th or September 16th or something like that, I don't know. 11th. 11th or September 11th.

All right, there's a motion from Commissioner Riley to pull 694 Minnehaha Avenue East. Is there a second for that motion?

Yeah.

Seconded by Commissioner Taggiaff. Is there any discussion on this motion?

I guess I'll just thank everybody for dealing with me and your patience. I'm really excited about the potential for this project and I really wanna make sure that we get it right as a planning commission.

As we're doing this, I would love staff to be ready for that discussion. And so I'll state publicly that I think one of the things that is driving Commissioner Riley's concern is the way the parking structure is currently planned. And as I look at the plan, it seems that the first level of the parking structure is largely above grade or at grade. versus sunken into the grade. And so I think some evaluation of how realistic it is to modify that in some way, like could this be a sunken parking structure? Might be good information to take into that because that would then go to things like reasonableness and practicality and that kind of thing. I think that might be a good... piece to take in and then if the parking has to remain essentially at grade for those reasons options to um allow that to happen while conforming would also be interesting to understand so things like options for glazing or other elements on many parking ramps you know in urban settings do have those elements kind of included, which create the impression of relation to the streets, you know, entrances, that sort of stuff. So that would be, I think, the right pre-work that would allow us to have a fruitful discussion at site plan review as a group.

Thank you.

Yeah, and if I might follow up, I think that's really thoughtful, Commissioner Taggiaff, to set up. I think the other thing I'm concerned about is how traffic and emergency vehicles will access the site, and so showing those turning movements for us, too. I think that's an important aspect of the rest of the zoning code, including the intent and purpose, which is to minimize congestion in the public right-of-way, and it's a I'm sure that we've all been there and it's a tight site. And so I just wanna make sure that we are being people first as we're reviewing this and that people will be safe when they're in and out and that there's no added congestion, especially given what's there, right? There's a police station there, there's a school there, there's a lot going on there and it's a really exciting time for that part of the city and it should be safe for folks. So thank you.

Commissioner Holtz. Just as I think about this, we want more glazing because I think it makes it more pedestrian interesting and you can see people and people can see people. But this is a little bit different case, right? This is a parking garage. So is there a way to keep it interesting that may not be glazing? Because windows looking at parked cars is just like walking past a service parking lot at that point in time, which I would put low on the list of things that I care about. And so having better visibility to park cars Yeah, I don't know. So I would be, and maybe this wasn't really thought about when we talked about like, hey, we wanna have windows you can see or see in or see what's going around. But maybe this particular instance isn't thought about. So I'd be curious to see creative ideas, and let me rephrase. I'd be open to creative ideas that weren't necessarily glazing. because that might not be the right answer in this particular situation, so. Go ahead.

If I may clarify, Commissioner Hulse, I wasn't specifically advocating for glazing, I fully understand.

I wasn't, this was not about you, this was just about the idea in general, right, so, yeah.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second. We also have staff here who might have some comments.

Good morning, apologies for interjecting. I'm Tia Anderson. I'm a project manager in economic development. Prior to this role, though, I coordinated site plan review on behalf of the city and the Department of Safety and Inspection, Chair Grell, commissioners. If I may, as you see on the agenda coming up on August 18th, this East End building is coming before staff for site plan review. In the past, my experience has been for site plans that are called up to Planning Commission, staff still needs to do their job. Site Plan Review Committee is cross-department. We bring in technical experts from Public Works and other technical experts in department safety inspections, such as the fire safety engineer, plumbing inspector, et cetera. And so I would strongly advocate to allow staff to do their job, to review the plan and provide feedback in order to make sure that all of the policy and code requirements are clearly stated by staff. across departments, and that usually comes out of that site plan review committee meeting. In this case, it would be a staff report of all of the various site plan review committee members' comments. And so that takes a little bit of time, and so knowing that that's coming before staff just next week, it'll take a little bit of time to get those staff comments together, and then Certainly when I was in the role of coordinating site plan review, I liked to give that and give the project team a little bit of time to make updates based on staff's feedback so that what does come before the planning commission is a product that maybe isn't 100%, but it's much closer to that 100%. And we have a path forward to know what are the open items in order to come into compliance, not just from a zoning perspective. but from all of those other technical perspectives. So I would respectfully ask if you could, in terms of maybe not setting a hard date for when that application come before you, but something that is certainly timely but reasonable for staff to be able to do their job to bring a good product forward.

Thank you. Commissioner O'Reilly.

Thank you, Ms. Anderson. I think that's helpful. I did not intend to set a hard date. So if adding dates that were within the existing 1599 deadline that's been established and stating them clearly as a problem, then I would take them out and just leave it as as soon as practicable. based on what we have in front of us, there's still time to add an additional 60 to 120 days in order to meet 1599. And I only mentioned the dates because the date here in our packet is the 22nd. So I'm happy to just say as soon as practicable and friendly amend my own motion to remove the mention of the dates.

So you wanna, okay, so Commissioner Riley wants to amend his motion. Commissioner Martinson, or Commissioner Taggett, you have seconded.

Yes, I second the amendment to the motion.

Okay, Commissioner Riley, can you restate your motion?

Yes, my motion is to bring the site plan review for 694 Minnehaha Avenue East to the Planning Commission as soon as is practicable.

Okay, and I'm getting a nod and a thumbs up from the seconder. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any more discussion on this amended motion? All right, seeing no discussion, we'll move forward with the vote. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

All those opposed? All right, the item passes. And then next up is announcements. Announcement from the chair. This is just a note from having done at least one of these in the past for pulling site plan review. It's a long, complicated document with a lot of information in it. Please come to that meeting when it's on the agenda, having read and understood the full packet to be able to discuss it. It is not something that you can easily skim and then come and have a conversation about. And then sitting in for planning director is Mr. Dermody, and I believe he has no announcements.

No announcements today. Okay, and with that, we are adjourned. Thank you.