Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commission to order as vice chair. I'll be serving as your chair this morning. So if we can start off with the roll call. Commissioner Holt.

Here.

Commissioner Johnson-Becker.

Here.

Commissioner Martinson.

Here.

Commissioner Starling. Here. Commissioner Tavia.

Here.

And Commissioner Thomas. Commissioner Presley. Commissioner Riley. Here. Commissioner Grew. Vice President. Thank you.

All right, next item on our agenda is approval of the August 14th Planning Commission meeting minutes. Can I get a motion?

So moved. Second.

Any discussion on the April 14th minutes?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I am abstaining because I was not present. All right, this takes us to the public hearing and 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 applications 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 are holding a public hearing with the following rules and procedures. After I read the item, we'll hear a staff report, and then I will open up the floor for commissioners to ask questions of staff. The applicant will then be given an opportunity to speak about the 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 are a member of the public that would like to comment on a specific item, you may do so at the podium. Please state your name and home location for the record. After you complete your testimony, please sign in on the sheet available. 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 be able to respond to testimony and answer commissioner questions. The first hearing item is 2315 Highland Parkway and 706 Mississippi River Site Plan Appeal. Staff is here to present the item.

Good morning, Vice Chair Starling. Tia Anderson. I am a project manager in economic development. Prior to this role, I had been a site plan coordination city planner in the Department of Safety Inspections. coordinating this site plan on behalf of the city and zoning administrator. If I may, being an appeal, we have both an appellant and an applicant for for this particular item, and so I believe we give both of them a chance to speak before opening up for the general public. So I just want to clarify that. Thank you for that. Thank you. Yes, so this is an appeal of an approved site plan. at the corner of Highland Parkway and Mississippi River Boulevard. It is a 1.2 acre parcel. It consists of really two properties today that will be combined. One is on the corner of Mississippi, excuse me, on the corner of Highland Parkway and Mississippi River Boulevard. It's currently vacant land. It had been a former religious institution that had been removed in 2024. And then there's an existing three-story multi-family residential building on the north half of the site that will also be removed to make way for this development. In the comprehensive plan, this area is designated as urban neighborhood. So looking for really trans-oriented infill development in this area. It is zoned RM2 multifamily residential. It is also at the time of application. It was in the Nauka, Mississippi River, whatever area RC4 overlay district, which I'll talk a little bit about later on in the presentation. And then in terms of surrounding land uses, you can see on the map there, it's a mix of other multifamily zoning district and H1 single family zoning district. And land uses are single-family, multi-family, including a 22-story apartment building to the south of this property and parkway to the west as you get to the Mississippi River. So the development, you might hear it referred to as the Celia most recently. Otherwise, in all the materials, I believe it was called Mississippi River Residences. A little bit of an overview of what was approved as part of the site plan. Like I said, it is proposed to be a four-story multi-family building with 87 market rate dwelling units, structured parking below the building and bicycle parking both interior and exterior as well. The development meets the base zoning density and dimensional standards for an R2 area. So in this case, how we determine frame rate setback is a little different than the standard. The standard in an R2 is 10 foot setback, but there's a footnote where we look at the average when you have a joining property that is built up. And so you end up with this sort of odd number of a minimum setback, just over 25 feet, and they are exceeding that setback going back further. Side and rear setback minimums of 9 feet. There's balconies, and so the balconies need to meet that setback. And then if you went to the building facade where the balconies project, it's set back further than that. 50 feet is the building height limit without a conditional use permit for additional height. And something to note. So in the RC4 River corridor overlay district, that was an effect at the time of this application for really land use density dimensional standards. It refers back to the underlying zoning district. So in this case, RM2. Really hard to see this page, I'm sure, but again, just wanted to flash up for everyone. Elevations for the approved site plan. We use floor area ratio as a measure of density on the site. This is a fairly large development site being over an acre, and so the maximum allowed for floor area ratio in the district is 2.25. This development is below that 1.78 FAR. And then other improvements that are are happening with this development or with the approved development plan. The driveway will come from Mississippi River Blvd. It'll be a single lane that will provide for access to the parking as well as trash collection and recycling and access for emergency vehicles. And what's, I guess, important to note here is that if I went back to the existing conditions slide, you would see today there's a horseshoe driveway on Mississippi River Boulevard. And so through the site planning process, we've worked with the Parks Department and with public works to determine how can we start to minimize the amount of impervious within the parkway. And so that horseshoe driveway was then agreed to become a single access point within the parkway to connect to the building and really minimize the impact to the parkway itself. Public sidewalk actually doesn't exist at this corner, and so we'll be doing infill public sidewalk. It might feel like a sidewalk to nowhere because it doesn't connect to other sidewalk, but at least it starts to do that infill. Landscaping and screening requirements are being met, particularly around the perimeter where there's single family adjoining property and of course stormwater management, both the water quality requirements of the watershed district and the rate control for control runoff. These are just some renderings, not the more of an exhibit, not the actual building, Nice to sometimes put a pretty picture with it and indicative of the design standards that are being met in terms of window and door openings, pedestrian access from Haddon Parkway, which is the rendering in the top left corner and other building frontage design elements, particularly along Mississippi River Boulevard, which is the rendering on the top right hand corner where this is a A C-shaped building facing towards the river and then cut out within the sea is where many of the amenities for the building are located. So in terms of the appeal, the appeal was received after the final approval of the site plan back a couple of weeks ago. And the grounds of the appeal, which the appellate, I'm sure we'll talk about as well, but just to summarize what is in your packet, the grounds of the appeal was that the developer password properties did not proceed with a previously approved site plan in 2023. You lost your initial. It just timed out. That's weird.

It timed out. Lost it.

oh. yeah. yeah.

There's a bunch of wires down here. Of course.

There you go. Okay, that was weird.

Don't touch that. Don't touch the blue wire.

Don't touch the blue wire. Okay.

Are we on?

Oh, we were. It just disappeared.

Going black.

Watching the blue wire.

Sorry. Oh. OK, yes.

Stay there. OK, other duties as assigned in action.

This is why we like upstairs, right?

OK, I think we're good.

Okay, all right.

Apologies for that. OK, so the appeal, which I'm sure the employer will talk a bit more about, but really kind of three main points that were part of the appeal. One, the developer has the property to not proceed with the previously approved site plan that had been approved back in 2023. Two, acknowledging that the River RC4 reporter overlay district was in effect when the second application was received. And this is important because the zoning code is a living code, and so it does change over time. And we have a part of our ordinance in the zoning code acknowledges that. So there is a section, section 61803, which is about amendments and the effect on pending uses and structures. And so which basically says that the zoning code In fact, at the time of application is what you apply to that application as opposed to future changers changes with application that might be in progress. However, the the appellant asserts that. At the city, our adoption of the burka overlay district and the new amendments was overdue and went into effect in January of this year, which was after. the site plan application and conditional approval, and that the city does not then consider the pending changes when reviewing the site plan. Specifically to the findings of a site plan, so there are 11 required findings of a site plan, which I'll look, I'll share with you all in a moment. And the The appellant is indicating that the development is not appropriate for the site and inconsistent with 3 and findings 3, 4, and 5 for the reasons that are stated here in terms of the characteristics of the area, buffers, lack of buffers that are asserting views and natural light penetration and the effect of those, the driveway, and that will be within the parking land and then the size of the building overall relative to the neighborhood. So as I mentioned, there are 11 findings required for site plan and site plan review from a process perspective is a delegated function from the Planning Commission to the zoning administrator, which ultimately becomes a staff led effort to coordinate across various city departments. When we are reviewing a site plan, you are getting review and sign off from not just the Department of Safety and Inspection Zoning Division and PED Planning, but also fire and water, sewer, plumbing, water resources, traffic engineering, sidewalks and streets. I'm sure I'm missing someone. Forestry. but a number of park departments across the city are reviewing this for consistency with code and policy. So I won't go in depth into all 11 of the findings. That information is in in the packet in the staff report, but just wanted to highlight the three that were mentioned as part of the appeal. 3, 4, and 5. So three named preservation geologic, geographic, or historically significant characteristics of the city and environmentally sensitive areas. Four, protection of adjacent properties through reasonable provisions for such matters as surface water drainage, southern light buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and aspects of design which might have an impact on land uses that are adjoining. And then five, the arrangement or layout of the buildings and the facilities

relative to cloud bedding properties.

And so this is the Mississippi River critical corridor area. It is a unique environmentally sensitive area, but in terms of impacts to it, it was determined that the development is that making adverse impacts to the river corridor. Our water resources coordinator indicated that the project Is that proposing to remove any block visit vegetation? Is that clear cutting vegetation or altering the natural environment that would adversely affect or diminish the river corridor? There is a something that's called public river corridor views and we have them in our comprehensive plan. Minneapolis does really looking at view sheds within the river corridor. There is not a designated public river corridor view at this location. Up and downstream there are. And across the river to Minneapolis, kind of across the way, just upstream, there is a view shed from Minneapolis as well as from the Ford Bridge. You can see the picture on the top left. This is a photo I took from the property hanging out at the river. Obviously it is August, it's dead foliage, but you can see what the view to the river looks like. And then on the right from the Minneapolis overlook and their view shed looking at looking across the river towards St Paul. You can see the 22 story 740 Mississippi River Boulevard building there. and board bridge, but otherwise it does. That's only itch along our Riverbank. And then use into the property itself that isn't that is a subject to our appeal. So this is standing at Mississippi River Boulevard looking into the property from the northwest and then towards the back of the property and looking towards single family homes behind that tree line as as viewed from Highland Parkway. So as we look at findings three, four, and five, staff found that there isn't an impact to the river corridor and that impacts, potential impacts to adjacent properties are really mitigated through staying within our heights, our setbacks, managing our stormwater runoff, the provision of providing landscaping and screening and buffering and those things that are typical to an RM2 multi-family residential development.

And then there are another six findings.

Again, I won't go into the detail on these. They weren't really subject to the appeal and the information is in your packet, but it is just worth knowing that we do look at, as I said, with traffic engineering, with our utility partners, all that are traffic circulation, availability of utilities and resources are all available and appropriate for this development. As of the end of the day yesterday, we had not heard from the head of the district council on this particular application. They had weighed in on previous applications. I spoke about this one. There was one letter of support received and eight letters of concern or opposition received at the end of the day yesterday. And so in summary, staff would just like to remind the zoning application review based on the ordinance that it's in effect at the time of receipt and that the approved staff bound with the approved site plan is consistent with the required site plan findings and that includes compliance with zoning ordinances. that there has not been any error in finding the factored procedure made by the zoning administrator in their review and approval of the site plan. And so therefore, staff recommends denial of the appeal by Mr. Kurt Kusendorf of the zoning administrator's decision to approve the site plan for the new multi-family development at 2315 Highland Parkway and 706 Mississippi River Boulevard. That was a lot.

apologies i'm glad the tech kept working so questions all right thank you for that and then just the record can show that commissioner thomas has joined us are there questions for staff thank you uh through the chance anson um just uh how we understand scope my understanding scope is we should release our review to the um to the ground as alleged in the appeal so if we had a sense that there was some small technical problem with the site plan, that's probably not relevant as it hasn't been alleged. So we should really be focusing on the things the applicant, the appellant is saying. That's my understanding, but I wanted to confirm that perhaps when Mr. Ladd in fact said better.

That's a good question. I think we should limit it to the record.

So the record in terms of because Obviously this is complete site plan review. My question is we are not. I don't understand us be putting ourselves in the shoes of the site plan review team and looking at every potential thing in this. I I understand that the appellant has alleged certain things and we should be looking at whether the those allegations are sustained or not, right? We should be looking at the grounds of the appeal is based on. Send the whole site. You absolutely should refer to that, but.

The Planning Commission should may review any relevant details within the scope of their authority. I completely understand them.

I'm trying to determine what the relevant scope of authority is. So I'm so so for example, the the appellant is saying. I know that there are these three, four, three, four and five. within 61.4 as you see, right? They're making very specific allegations around 3, 4, and 5, right? So if we found something that was out of whack with condition 2, for example, that doesn't sound relevant to this because the general alleging has been an error with 2. They're only alleging errors with 3, 4, and 5.

If you found an error in finding 2, you're within your rights to make that finding.

Okay. Good to know. Thank you.

Questions about the site plan?

There's that one more, sorry.

This is more like so under the current. Ordinance would this be permitted or not?

Sorry, like Commissioner. Yeah, so when the. Updated MRC CIA rules were adopted in January. The overlay districts change the overlay district that this particular site is in changed. I don't have the new code in front of me, but I believe that the height maximum in that district is 35 feet. You can go higher with conditional use permit for height, but whereas when this application is received, the RC four district pointed back to the underlying zoning district for those density and special standards. that is a change. And so in short, no, as reviewed and approved, it would not be able to go forward without a conditional use permit, right?

That makes sense. And so I think then one question I'm going to have, and gently later, is the interaction between the the comp plan and the ordinance that was subsequently passed, and to what extent the comp plan in effect at the time was prescriptive of the final adopted code. So it's less an argument about timing and less the code, it's more an argument about if, did the comp, given that there's a model ordinance, given that there are very strict rules around the existing Merkur regulations, And I imagine our compliance is something like we will implement the MERCA regulations. How much wiggle room is there in the comp plan side to, you know, to commit something like this? In other words, can we infer from the final implemented rules when they got implemented that in fact this was not in compliance with the comp plan at the time?

You see what I'm saying? I believe so. And I think I did maybe write a little bit about this under fighting one, but probably not to great extent since it was not part of the appeal. But yes, so the comp plan, and I am not a comp plan expert. I will defer to my planning administrator on that and others. But the comp plan does include a policy to guide land use and development activities that are consistent with the management purpose of each of the market districts. And then we're good district. That wasn't the fact of the town. Was our seat before and the comp plan does talk to the. Expectation for changes to the market district, but it it it does not. It is not the change of the ordinance pretty well, right? The comp plan is the vision guiding document as opposed to the ordinance, which is controlling.

Well, yeah, I guess I guess if I'm really summarized, that's it. That's really helpful. I think if I'm really summarizing question, it's like. Was what was the was the previous and the new district kind of just within our discretion, and so we can really look at it as an ordinance change? Or was it? Could could you say that essentially the legislation as we had was always obviously consistent with the with the Merkur with the Merkur rules and we were obligated to adopt, say, a lower height or something like that for that particular parcel. So that's kind of... I guess my question is how prescriptive, given this weird state that there were very particular rules and model ordinances already existing, if our comprehensive plan says, you know, it is city policy to adopt these very specific rules, then It's an odd kind of position where you can say, well, the company actually did say that this this is this is the policy. This is, you know, something here is not a minor complex. So that's the thing I'm trying to unpack. And I know sometimes putting on the spot. But so perhaps I'll I'll wait for one of the planning. It's just a big humans.

Yeah, I guess I will just offer a chair, vice chair, senator, commissioner. Yeah. Again, thinking of the comp plan is really our guiding visionary document. At the time of adoption, it does point to, oftentimes it'll point to multiple areas where we need to be updating our ordinances and policies, and that can take time. And sometimes those things don't move as fast as people would like, but it would be really not that different than if we, you know, expected a particular area to let's say going through a zoning study to rezone t3 or something like that right um or to you know protect industrial zoning or something where again the comp plan may lay out that direction and that vision but until the actual ordinance is adopted it's not it is the guy but it is not the the actual code

I completely understand that. And in every other instance, I've been completely on board with this. The piece that I'm struggling with is in this case, we had an existing model ordinance essentially to adopt. And I'm not clear on how much discretion existed in that ordinance, right? Let's say for argument's sake, the ordinance has said that if I beat along the whole river and the compliance said, this is the policy we want to adopt, then I think we have a lot less wiggle room to say, know oh it just came out of the implementation so it's it's a different it's a slightly different argument but i'm i'm curious how much discretion we had in the implementation of those rules and how much of a debate were and i i know it's not that i've lost the answer guys mr starling uh commissioner take up i would say i did not have discretion in applying a rule that was not yet part of our legislative code thank you all right

Seeing no more questions, I would like to move to the appellant. So, if we could call up the appellant. And you have five minutes, sir.

Okay.

We will try to keep it to five.

Beautifully. Thank you. Perfect. All right.

Thank you.

Watch the wires. Don't touch them. Got it. Okay.

Well done. Yeah. Perfect. Yeah, just go down. I'll see what's going on.

Thank you. Great. I'm Kurt Klusendorf. I live at 699 Woodlawn Avenue. So that's directly behind this development. So I've become very aware of what's happening. That's why I'm interested. But it's not. So I appealed this. All these people agree with the appeal as it was filed, as you had it. And so we have a good population of friends and neighbors and other St. Paulites. The more people we ask, the more people kind of sign on to the concerns that we expressed. But I will say we're not against development. We need development. We're taxpayers in the city. It's important. It's just that our concern is already alluded to is that the size of this building is not appropriate for this site. So as we talked about, the new standard that Pasteur got in before is 35 feet, and they want to build it 50 feet.

That's our main concern.

We can look at the, so Pasteur, the developer, has put in two different site plan applications for this. Tia worked on both of them. The old site plan application went in in 2022. It's now expired. It got extended in 2024. And then the new site plan application went in in September, last September. It's very similar to the old site plan application. It has a few fewer units, but really it is hard to discern a big difference between the two. So I'd say almost a duplicate. And one wonders why that went in when it did four months, four, five months after the extension of the old site plan and seven months before the old site plan expired. It appears that it went in because the MRCA changes that have gone into effect now went before the city council within two months, less than two months after they put in the new site plan application. So I think they're just, and it's probably totally legitimate, but they're, what they want to do is extend the site plan under the old rules for another two years. Let's look at St. Paul Merck adoption. I've dug into it and got a few more dates since I filed that. three-page appeal. So the new rules were adopted by the state legislature in 2017. The city can't start working on revisions to the MRCA until the Minnesota DNR, the second line up there, notifies the city to update the MRCA. So that happened on 1-31-2020. And then the city has a deadline to update the MRCA ordinance, a one-year deadline. So that new MRCA ordinance and the 35 foot height limit for this RM2 site should have gone in in 2021. The statement at the bottom, the 2040 comprehensive plan says the city's required to update that within one year of being notified by the Minnesota DNR, we expect it to happen in 2021. So if that had happened, then the site plans would not have gone forward. So that's the question. We've already talked about 61.803 that essentially says the developer got the site plan, completed site plan application in before those MRCA changes happened, five months before the MRCA changes happened. Yes?

One minute.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, so is that piece of the city code more important than what was required by the legislature and signed off by the governor that says you have to have these changes in by 2021. That's what we take our major issue with.

Uh, you're right.

There's a lot of details and things that we also touched on that we, uh, that we won't go into here. but we think that it does not necessarily meet all those criteria. So in summary, I think the Planning Commission must conclude that the values of the state legislature promoted by requiring the city's adoption of the MRCA ordinance should inform the final action on this site plan. This development is clearly incompatible with St. Paul City goals for the area, and it should be denied. The Planning Commission has the authority and the duty to deny this plan. Thank you. Any questions?

Thank you. Any questions for the appellant? Yeah. Commissioner Thomas.

Thank you, Chair. So your issue, your specific issue is that the timing of this developer and letting the old plan go and then doing the new plan. That's your specific issue, correct?

The specific issue is that the MRCA changes should have been adopted earlier. And while the developer beat the revisions, those revisions should have gone in years earlier. St. Paul was, there were 25 communities that had to revise their MRCA ordinances. St. Paul was last among the 25. Minneapolis got theirs done in 2020, I think, December 2020.

So the issue is a procedural issue with, you know, the evolution and adoption of the new Merck Act.

Yeah, exactly.

But the issue isn't necessarily an issue with the development itself. It's more a procedural issue with the evolution and adoption of the MRCA, the new MRCA?

Sure. One could say that. Okay. The thing we don't like about the development is that we think it should be complying with the 35-foot height limit, not a 50-foot.

I see. Okay. So that's the developmental issue there. Okay. Thank you so much.

Yep. Thank you.

Other questions?

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Commissioner. Seeing none, I'll now call up the applicant.

And you also have five minutes.

Don't touch anything.

Touch as little as possible. Just down. I'll probably screw that up, but. Good morning, Chair, Commissioners, Meister, Devon with Pasture Properties. We are the applicant, owner and developer of Basilia 3418 Rainbow Drive, Minnetonka, Minnesota. Thanks for having us this morning. Uh, I can be brief. I just thought it'd be helpful. Some folks likely weren't part of the original site plan application back in 22 tier because when we originally applied, so just I'll spin through a brief presentation and then we're around for questions. Pete Keeley with him as well. He's the architect and designer on the project. And I just want to recognize the project certainly has been proposed for a long time. I think we were hoping to build the project several years ago. We've been delayed due to the rise in interest rates. High construction costs have made it challenging for us to move forward, but we still remain confident in the project. So this is a view of essentially if you're at the 740 tower looking north at Highland Parkway, Again, we think this is a really unique location and our hope and desire is to offer a unique residential experience that we don't think currently exists broadly in St. Paul, but more specifically in this location. I think that's more pronounced in the unit mix that we're offering. We've been very intentful in offering essentially 50% of the building as two bedrooms and three bedrooms, really getting a larger footprint in a condo quality rental project to allow for residents to retain a residency in Highland Park and even as an offering for folks who maybe grew up in Highland Park, maybe live in Mugnota Heights and want to get back to the area, but really want to be able to transition out of a single family home

feel comfortable in this type of building. Here's just a few pretty pictures of some of the amenity space.

And just a general schedule. I think it's our hope to break ground in the project in early 2027 and deliver at some point in 2028.

We're up for questions.

Any questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Alright, with that, if there are no other questions, I will now open the public hearing. If you would like to speak on the zoning application, please queue up at the microphone. And please state your name and address for the record and all speakers will have two minutes.

Good morning.

Do you want them to sign in?

Yes, please.

Give me one sec.

We'll start the timer after you sign it.

Hi, Wendy Neuer from 7-Eleven Woodlawn. My backyard is right there with the apartment. I think we glossed over the MRCA a little too quickly. That was set up by the state legislature. It's to protect the sacred land of the mighty Mississippi River. It's holy to Native Americans. What Why it was designed with a height limit exactly where we are is so we want to have Trump Towers. We already have 740 River Drive. I was here when my parents bought that building. And it was political back then, but the city said they would never do it again. It stands now as an eyesore and a middle finger for the city going against being a custodian of the Mississippi River Road. I'm going to quote two PED staff members who are planners. When I questioned them, 2020, why isn't MRCA being passed? Both of them told me it's political. Mayor Carter did not want it passed. He stalled on it. The previous city council Jane Prince helped write with Alan Tarteson this MRCA ordinance. They knew it was coming. They knew the height limit would be a maximum of 35. And had it been presented to the previous city council, MRCA would have passed. We wouldn't be here today. I'm gonna quote one of the planning commissioners who was here when I was speaking and said, I'm real uncomfortable selling out the Mississippi River Corridor for commerce and commercial. So I'm here on behalf of my grandson, all of your grandchildren. This should be a view that Minneapolis residents can see, but yes, it is, bikers and walkers. That is what we're contesting, not the tax base. We could keep it to 35. And just to tell you, this is not unique in the Highland area. You have Marbella and you have the others. So I will conclude with what a great place to put in single family townhouses.

Thank you.

Please sign in and then we'll start the two-minute timer.

I'm John Brand from 668 Woodlawn. And I'd like to focus on maybe a detail that I was concerned was getting lost just a little bit. Understand the way the ordinances are written in that the approval should happen based on existing ordinances. And whether or not the new ordinance should have been in place is one issue. I think one of the things that we are saying is that their previous approval lapsed because they didn't fill. And what we are contesting is the refreshing of it And we think that you should be looking at the new ordinances given that and that 35-foot barrier. Not that you shouldn't have the building, but that it should be 35 feet. And I think that's a really important thing to take into consideration in terms of updating where it should be and how you do it. Because, you know, do you allow that to go on forever? And it is not consistent with the vision of the area and the neighborhood. So that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome. Please sign in.

Thank you. I'm Ron Bennett, and my address is 700 Mount Curry Boulevard. I'm part of this neighborhood. I sent a letter to you folks stating my objections in support of this appeal. But after I did that, I thought of some other aspects. Kurt and Wendy have done a good job to go into the details as have the components of the project. But to me, it's a matter of the spirit of the law as much as the written fact of the law. And as a planning commission, I would appeal to you to think about the role you have for planning for the future. As Wendy mentioned, our grandchildren and our future generations. And so what we have is a unique and wonderful library. And in a time when in this country, there's a growing concern about institutions representing the people, the neighborhood of the communities. I think it's misplaced to propose, to support this kind of a project when the neighborhood is largely in opposition to it for good reasons. And it increases the opportunity for distrust in institutions which we need desperately to survive in this country.

So it's a higher level reflection on this project.

Thank you.

Are there any additional speakers? Welcome.

You have two minutes.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Dan Becker. I'm at 717 Woodlawn, a neighbor of Wendy and Kurt. I support the appeal on the grounds that we've discussed. I just want to reiterate and offer my support here publicly in front of all of you. I think I am excited to have new neighbors. I welcome development and new housing on that lot. I think I want more people to appreciate that River Gorge in the same way that I do with my neighbors too. That's not the issue. I think the issue has been discussed is the height of the building at that specific location and how it goes against the current ordinance of the MRCAA. And that's what we're here talking about. tall height of the building, a proposed building, is too high, it should be 35 feet in compliance with the existing ordinance.

Thank you.

Are there other speakers? Welcome. You have two minutes.

Two minutes.

Two minutes, sorry.

My name is Winston Taylor.

I live at 1712 Palace, which is not in the immediate area of the proposed development. So I'm speaking as a resident of Saint Paul. Who is concerned about? The. Mississippi River Blvd area and Mississippi River as. Just as Lake Michigan is one of the. Prize. amenities in Chicago, the Mississippi River is a prized amenity in the Twin Cities. And I think it is the responsibility and duty of the city government to recognize those amenities. And clearly the city was dragging its feet on regulating and protecting that amenity by delaying its approval of the rules. that were proposed many, many years ago, well, nine years ago. And I feel that the city should honor its duty to protect that area. And I will say I was connected with the previous use of the property as the musician at the Christian Science Church that was originally on that site and has now been demolished. understand because of problems with people using the property after it was no longer a Christian Science Church. And the Pastor Enterprises was, in fact, after that property for many years before it was actually sold to them when the church went defunct. So that pastor is, in effect, exploiting the tardiness of the city in signing on to the height limits of the America ordinances and those. Finally, adopted ordinance. Limitations and protections should be honored by the city, which it should have been done earlier, but better late than never. And now that we have them, I think they should be honored. And I speak as a resident of St. Paul. Basically, rather than as an immediate neighbor, it will be impacted by having the view of a 50-foot building in the river corridor, which is not an appropriate property. Thank you.

Have you signed in?

I beg your pardon?

Have you signed in?

Oh, I will do so.

Thank you.

I believe we had another speaker.

Welcome. You have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Matt Barofi. I live at 79 Western Avenue North. I'm in Ward 1 of St. Paul. I wrote a letter to Russell Blanchard, who was the representative on the city council about four years ago on this issue. And that deals with the height. And I think it's a moral issue. You know, the river is going to be around a lot longer than anybody in this room. And this 72 mile corridor, 28 communities approved the height limit. And somehow the fact that St. Paul never got around to it, that's the decision in itself. You're showing the other communities a certain amount of arrogance that St. Paul doesn't have to deal with the other issues on the river that everybody else does. And I say St. Paul at the time, it was a different city council, a different planning commission. There were 21 people on the planning commission in 2019, and now there's only eight, which is really rather interesting. But it's interesting to look at the history of planning commissions, city councils, and but the issue of the river has never changed. And there's no reason, this is a McMansion issue to destroy a building and put up something bigger. All along this issue of height limitations were known and people are playing games under the law with talking about a four story instead of a three story. And a lot of these issues tied into other small things like plastic and rivers and micro Microplastics to get into humans and they all start here and I am here to support the appeal that not that against what was approved apparently, which without much public attention and I'm going to sign my name and move on.

Thank you, Sir.

Are there other speakers? Are there any additional speakers?

Are there any additional speakers?

Seeing none.

Seeing no more speakers, I would take a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Any discussion? All those in favor of closing the public hearing?

Hi.

All right. With our public hearing is closed, are there any questions for the appellant or the applicant?

Madam Chair, so I do have a question for the applicant.

So if this body were to accept the appeal and to deny the approval that you currently have, what would you say is the likelihood that you would pursue a conditional use permit to increase the height from 35 to 50 feet?

Probably likely.

Hard to say. It's a speculative question, so a speculative answer is fine. Sure. Probably likely. Okay, thanks.

That's all I needed.

Are there other questions for the applicant or the appellant?

Then looking at our staff report, we do have some options that staff have provided. Granting the appeal, thereby denying the site plan review, laying over for further discussion. If there's a specific item that you would like staff to provide more information on.

I would accept a motion. There's something on the floor to discuss. Alright.

So so I moved the weed benignity appeal and maintain the approval of the site plan review as as we've seen it. We have now. I believe we have fulfilled the requirements of Zoning Code 61.402 in terms of the Planning Commission weighing in on the site plan review. I haven't reviewed it. Even though it's a delegated function, I think we've gone above and beyond that at this point with today's proceedings. And I believe that this property does meet the requirements 3, 4, and 5 that were the objections of the appellant. Looking back at the comprehensive plan about what it has to say about the MRCA, the MRCA chapter has a number of goals listed. Among them, to maintain a balance between all of the ways the river is a resource to St. Paul, environmental, natural, economic, cultural, social, physical, recreational, historic, and spiritual. So I don't see, I don't find a conflict with the comprehensive plan. And when I look at the zoning code 61803 in terms of the amendments, the direction there to us is. We need to approve or not based on what was in place at the time the site plan review application was completed, and it's very clear that that was completed prior to the changes in the Merca designation of this district. So I don't see a conflict. I think our our. Discretion here is very limited based on what is in the zoning code. Therefore, I move approval or denial of the appeal.

Commissioner Martinson, could you articulate your motion without the explanation?

Yeah.

Just so someone can second clearly.

Yeah, that's cool. So I move to adopt the staff recommendation to deny the appeal of a zoning administrator decision. to approve a site plan for a multi-family residential development at 2315 Highland Parkway and 706 Mississippi River Boulevard South.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Hall seconds. Discussion of the motion that's on the table. Commissioner Takia.

So I mean, 10 is over in my head. There are three grounds of appeal stated here. The first is that the developer has already had a chance to develop this property and has not. I don't agree. I don't think that's relevant. I actually think the existence of a prior application is detrimental to the appeal grounds because that shows there was an intent to develop this property a long time ago, way before these rules. In other words, this project existed well before these rules were going to be adopted. So I think on that ground, I'm unconvinced. It also appears they did get their paperwork in, they got a new application in, and it was all approved. So I struggle with the first ground. And similarly, the third ground mentions 61.402 , 3, 4 and 5. I don't find any concerns with the current legislation. So a lot of my thinking is on the second ground, which is around the late implementation of the rules. And I disagree, I agree entirely with Commissioner Martinson in terms of what our current ordinance says, right? I don't think we can substitute the updated ordinance for what was in place at the time on the basis of the ordinance. I think it's very clear that 61803 says we are to evaluate all applications with the codes that are in place at the time, right? So I'm in agreement with all those things. The piece that's bothering me is this. It's the comp plan grounds. The very first finding we need to make is the comp plan grounds. And the question I've been wrestling with is, how prescriptive is the comp plan? Typically, in almost every application we review here, the comp plan is a generally stated goal. The comp plan says we want X and we're going to accomplish that by some later ordinance. And so there's a lot of wiggle room in the comp plan. This is very, very different in my mind, because when I look at the comp plan, I see two things. I see there is a model ordinance that we are required by the state to implement. The comp plan says we will implement this ordinance. That ordinance defines that this present district and gives it a height of 35. We do not have discretion to change that language. There is also a map on page 231 of the comp plan, which specifies the exact districts that we are required to implement. And so when I asked early Ms. Anderson, how much discretion did we have to go from this to sort of find compliance with the comp plan? I find that in this case, this is As prescriptive as the future land use map, this is a very specific center. This district says there's a map in our comp plan of this parcel which says this is going to be 35 feet, and so that's where I'm struggling with the argument that this is in line with the comp plan. So I want to. I want to share that with the group for because. It's it's a nuanced argument, but that's that's where I'm struggling to to look at the map on page 231, which default which says this this district As our policy at the COMP plan time is going to be 35 feet and then to say, well, this is still in compliance with the COMP plan. It seems to me that the COMP plan is very prescriptive because they have to be because the state told us these districts as ordinance these specific requirements. And it's and yes, our ordinances were just not in compliance with the COMP plan. So I think that gives the argument that I'm beginning to be convinced by personally.

Thank you. Other discussion.

So I'm looking at a different page in the compound, but I think it's the same page. I may have a different version of the compound. I have final adopted. So I plan it's 243. Anyway, the point being, so you're saying that The designation of that district, it is CA River neighborhood, C-A-R-N in the Merca.

Correct. I believe that's right. When I look at the model ordinance, we were required to adopt the blue lines, the things we have discretion on. It defines that same district and gives it a height of 35 feet. That's what I wanted to look at. Yeah, I can find the exact. Give me a second. I had a moment to go.

Sorry.

The reason I ask is that that's not my recall. My recall is that as that was that as that district was was zoned previous to the adoption of America, that that RN was a 50 foot height limit. But I might be misremembering.

Yeah, that's what I imagine. Ordinance. Yeah, it's it's 6.21. B, which says RN district 35 feet, which is that's in the model ordinance. So that is my understanding. So when it connects that the model ordinance gave a specific height limit and that the map designates that parcel as RN, then you can reasonably, you can reasonably conclude that the comp plan did say that this should be specifically limited to 35 feet. And so it's so given the specificity of the comp plan in this case, given that it's backed by state law and we and we as a city, we cities not have discretion to say, well, when we implement this, it's going to be 50 or 40 or whatever. You know, we're implementing a very specific number, unfortunately. So that's the part where I do have some sympathy for the for the for the appeal here. That's not entirely as envisioned, but that's that's where I'm landing on this one, unfortunately.

Commissioner Holst.

Chair, would it be possible if staff comment on, and I know it might be a little unprepared, so if it needs to be later and we need to hold this over, that's okay, but on the 35 feet versus the 50 feet on the comp plan that Commissioner Martinson and Tageyoff are discussing, because I'd like their perspective on it as well.

Council is advising me I can take a motion to.

Close this.

Or. We had to take a motion to suspend rules.

Yeah, yeah. So now.

So I am being advised by my staff and counsel at this point that If there is an additional request for information, perhaps the motion that is on the table would be withdrawn and then replaced by a motion to lay over with requests for specific information from staff. So I will look to commissioners Martinson and Hulse as to their willingness to withdraw their motion

Yeah, I I I need more information because I don't see in in the comp plan. I don't see RC4 River corridor urban diverse by overlay district mentioned and so I need further information. Therefore I will be withdrawing my motion. I'll withdraw my second.

Alright, so the motion on the floor has been withdrawn. I would accept a replacement motion regarding a request for further laying this over and requesting further information.

I will accept the motion.

Yeah, sorry, I move that we lay over and we seek specific information from staff regarding which of the MRCA districts are explicitly mentioned in the comp plan and specifically with respect to RN and RC4 districts are where we need clarity.

Would you add anything to that? Yeah, I think the As I understand the question, the zoning mentioned references the RC4 district, whereas the model audience talks about the RN district. And so I'm wondering if that's an implementation detail where St. Paul just chose different names for the same districts and we should read RC4 as being RN, or whether that's very different. Point of order, maybe just do the motion.

I've moved laying over and asking specific information from staff. And I'll second that.

All right, we have a motion and a second to lay over with a request for additional information from staff. Any further discussion on this, recognizing that this does buy us time to follow up with staff and ask, get specific information.

I mean, it's only helpful to at least ask the question live, and we can obviously follow up by email, but I think what we're trying to understand is there were a number of districts set out in the model ordinance. Those are the same districts that have laid out a comprehensive plan, and there's a map in the comprehensive plan that lays out the passes in those districts. The staff report makes reference to RC4, and so our question, I think, relates to is RC4 our implementation of RN as described in the model ordinance, or is that different? Did we just choose different names?

Bath, are you clear about the question?

All right. Let's move ahead and vote on the motion to lay this over. All those in favour?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. The motion Motion is approved. All right, we are still in the public hearing portion of our agenda. Our second public hearing item is 1400 University, a conditional use permit. Staff is here to present this item.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hearing? Not yet.

Maybe it's on the right back. Oh. Hearing alone.

And someone told me, I don't know why.

Yeah, I don't know. It's always such a joy.

I know, right? Functional AV. If you're right, this is the stage where the ribbons are cashed in.

So that's about how you're.

So that doesn't seem scary. Yeah.

Stop sharing.

Try unplugging it because you turned it on.

That's not. So I don't know if you say this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I just thought I'd go on. That's what we see.

I don't think it changed. This is the original. It doesn't change. Yes. Yes. Why aren't you sorry? Which part of the industry does this have? Is this the end? I think it's all in the curse there. It doesn't happen. Yeah, I'm assuming that we implemented it in a way that I assume without distressing it to be. So it's like, if it's IPV, it brings us into that experience. It's a reality, isn't it? All right, welcome. Thank you.

I'm Katie Dallas, city planner. And what is before you this morning is a condition used for the application for indoor recreation and a trampoline park. And as part of this application, the applicant is requesting a modification of one of the conditions required for use. And before I get into the details, just want to orient folks to The project site. I don't know. Does the cursor work on here? Yes, yes. OK, good. So the property is located in the Union Park neighborhood in this section of the city, very near the soccer stadium where most people know that is the site itself is at Midway Marketplace, which is south of University Ave between Hamlin and Pasco streets. And on this map here on the left, it's this very irregularly shaped parcel. It has access here in Hamlin, two spots, and access here from St. Anthony Avenue. And the site is the site of the former Herberger's department store. And here's a picture of that building. It's been vacant for about eight years. Property is owned T4 and surrounded by various commercial and office uses. and some service parking. And so in terms of the specific conditional use permit application, again, it's to allow for the indoor recreation and entertainment. So in addition to the trampoline course, they would also be having at this venue dodgeball courts, obstacle courses, climbing walls, a place for toddlers to play, as well as some party rooms and concessions And the venue would be open seven days a week, although the specific of the hours of operation have been different yet. And I mentioned there was service parking to service site. There's a little bit more than 350 parking spaces. These would be entirely indoors. Some exterior improvements to the building are proposed, but no additions. They're proposing some new entrances in the buildings and the windows, awnings, lighting and landscaping. The proposed use itself would occupy the lower level of the building and the entire second level of the building for a total floor area in the building of a little over 76,000 square feet. And there would be a couple of new tenants in the building as well. A retail use on the east side of the building on the main level and a restaurant on the west side in the main level of the building. Before I get into the specific findings for the conditioning department, I just want to talk a little bit about the nature of the department store building, its location, and its construction. It's a large anchor building in an established existing commercial center that is being served by existing vehicle access and an existing street network. The entire building itself is over 124,000 square feet and the upper level is more than 58,000 square feet. Building construction is a department store design and it has wide columns and configuration, high ceilings and an open floor plate. There are two required conditions for the indoor recreation use. The first requires primary access from an interior collector street. And as you can see, this condition is met. Property does have access, as I showed earlier, on Old Hamlin and St. Anthony Avenues. There's also an existing reciprocal easement agreement for the shopping center that allows access from University Avenue as well as Pasco Street. The second condition relates to a floor area, and that says the floor area shall not exceed 40,000 square feet. And in this case, as I noted earlier, the size of the indoor recreation is proposed to be a little over 76,000 square feet, and the applicant requests a modification of that condition. In terms of the general requirements for all conditional use permits, staff finds all of these to be met except for the last one, which could be met if a modification of the floor area requirement is granted and i'll get to the details of that request for modification in a second but in terms of comprehensive plan there are a number of policies that are cited in the staff report from the comprehensive plan including some some information from the hamlin station area plan Regarding ingress and egress, the staff report notes that the site again is an established commercial center served by an existing street and access network and service parking to serve the site. I had mentioned earlier the site will be completely enclosed and contained within the existing building. And the immediate neighborhood is characterized by big box commercial, retail and uses. And so the use will not be detrimental to existing character of development in any neighborhood or in poor or. Your I'm sorry. Impede normal and worthy development of the surrounding property. So regarding the modification that's being requested for the floor area again, the maximum floor area for the use and the zoning code is 40,000 square feet. Request is for 76,272 square feet. And the staff report discusses this and talks about the change in the retail environment over the last few years, and that the site is an established commercial center, sort of an existing street and access network, and also addresses the uniqueness of the large commercial anchor building that's been vacant for eight years. The size, 124,000 square feet total, and the upper level alone, 58,000 square feet. And again, the specifics on that building construction design with the white columns, high ceilings, and open floor plate. And the applicant states that these elements are particularly well suited for proposed indoor recreation use. All of this leads staff to conclude and recommend that strict application of the floor area condition would unreasonably limit and prevent otherwise lawful use of the structure and would result in undue hardship TO OWNER PROPERTY. AND SO BASED ON THESE FINDINGS, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BOTH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE MODIFICATION OF THE MAXIMAL FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENT. THE UNITED PARKS DISTRICT COUNCIL DID VOTE TO SUPPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE MODIFICATION AND WE, THE COMMISSION SECRETARY, PROVIDED THAT LETTER TO COMMISSIONERS. AND SO WITH THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ANYBODY HAS.

Any questions for staff? Mr. Martin, Madam Chair.

So this happens from time to time when when you poke around in the zoning code, you find mysteries, you find things that are, you're not clear why they're there. And so I'm, I'm just, and I don't know that anyone at staff will have the answer for this, but I need to ask the question. We allow commercial buildings to be built, obviously far in excess of 40,000 square feet. Why on earth would we care to limit indoor recreation buildings to 40,000 square feet? Is there a public safety issue or? Yeah, do staff have any insight into the history of this particular aspect of the zoning code is my question.

Chair and Commissioner, I was not with the City of St. Paul when this use was defined and when the maximum floor area was determined. But I can presume that the intent is to limit the effects of the use on the surrounding property, primarily traffic and maybe a large number of people congregating in one place at one time in a particular area. And I would say that zoning code allows for modifications and contemplates instances in which the circumstances might be right to modify conditions. And I believe in this particular case that those conditions are met and would recommend that modification.

Thank you.

Seeing no other questions for staff, I'd like to invite up the applicant. If they would like to add anything to the record. Welcome, please state your name and address for the record and we'll give you 5 minutes to be consistent.

Hello, my name is Marsha and developers.

Somebody who can also hear Jason here as well. I never felt so tall. I'm a short guy and everybody's sitting and wow. So quick story. I was not born here. I was born in Vietnam and came to U.S. in 93 and we actually spend a lot of time on Midway going grocery shopping and spending a lot of family and shopping retail and restaurants. Unfortunately, after the civil unrest, the whole area changed COVID and so Definitely, you know, it was really sad to see, you know, a lot of my childhood memories kind of fade away. So, but in terms of the property, our background is we do a lot of development, especially on the Asian team shopping centers, not the Asian Mall project, but particularly this property, when we looked at this, you know, one of the questions was asked was, you know, what, you know, when we bought this from, from building wire and also to party management. One of the major questions is how can you help rebuild that area? And we thought a lot about this and one of the things is being able to bring in uses that drives a lot of the traffic for families and children. Because around this area you don't see any families at all. And I think because of this, I think we might have the answer. Hopefully it will be a small catalyst to the redevelopment and what uses to drive back commerce here. And hopefully bring up more property taxes. So with the property, so this is what it kind of looks like now. And also one thing I wanted to mention too is that the floor plate, there's two levels. The top levels can be the main area. And that's actually only 58,000 square feet. But we do have an entrance on the first level going up to the second floor, trampoline floor. So the entrance actually takes up a lot of space, so that's not going to be used. Majority of that will be used just for the entrance of the customer's company. So and that's about nine.

That's about 17,000 square. And. Here quick some.

I will be at the other vendor sign here, but I didn't include him.

It was really hard to see. I think that that OK, no worries, no worries.

Yeah, so we actually had some renderings and some of the improvements that we're going to do for the property is putting, you know, updating the facade. So each entrance will have brand new glass doors that also will hopefully repaint the building to make it look much more modern, much more nice for, you know, for the whole marketplace, but also for the people attending. But I want to say thank you so much, Chair.

also the commissioner and the in park for human reviews and and you know we love Saint Paul this would be our first project in Saint Paul forward to working thank you are there any questions welcome and uh you absolutely win joke of the day so thank you oh thank you for you okay i did not want to be the developer in the very beginning i appreciate that um Just one query I had just from the back here. I think there was some mentions of other tenants on the site as well. Is it sort of your building and there are other uses kind of plan you're going to demise for yourself plus others? Is that how this is going to go? I just wasn't clear from that.

Yeah, so then we typically utilize, you know, so we'll buy a property and we'll put some tenants in some of the business with my employer on the business as well. And one thing I didn't mention too is that these concepts are from out of state. So we need to bring new blood, new money into the city. So it's not taking one tenant from across the street over, but these are very new tenants from different states.

Thank you. How many, thank you, Madam Chair. How many tenants in addition to the restaurant in the region?

Yep, so there's gonna be a total of three tenants. So the trampoline park, the retail and also the restaurants.

Oh, so that is that.

Okay.

Are you creating these spaces as in the use of, are you demising it? Yes. Okay.

So we're demising the space. So we're not adding on anything additional to the property itself. The only work would be the facade work.

Mr. Holst? Yeah, the retail space. What's the intent of the plot behind the retail space? Planned use.

So we're working with a few different potential tenants from out of state, but they're more of similar Asian retail uses that's different within the area. But they sell a lot of not apparel, but more of like lifestyle type of products. I would say like toys for kids and everything that people, you know, just random things that you can find in a retail store.

Okay, so sort of following that would sort of mesh with the idea of the trampoline park and the clientele goes.

Yeah, and also being able to find uses that create good synergies among each other. So then, so it's all, all the different scenarios there. Also keeping in mind too is that the soccer stadium, you know, one of the uses that we were thinking is that even though, you know, there's a different development concept, but our thought process, you know, how can we all work collectively? What uses can we bring in to help each other? Because I think that's one way for us to really maximize the rebuild of the market. Not a big shop. Oh, not a big shop. No big shop, yeah. We definitely want to be sure that we don't have that.

All right, seeing no more questions from commissioners, thank you. I will now open the public hearing.

If you'd like to speak in the zoning application, please come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, sign in, and we'll give you two minutes.

For the sake of time, I will violate order. I will speak first and sign out later. Good morning. My name is Mark Morrow. I'm with Union Park District Council. I live at 1984 Carroll Avenue in St. Paul. Kudos to Katie and to Samantha for getting the letter that we submitted on Wednesday afternoon. It's kind of a timeline from the early notification until this hearing. We're very happy about that short timeline, but Samantha got back at him. Union Park District Council supports this request. We're actually very excited that the developer behind the Asian Walnut Eden Prairie is turning their attention to our former Herberger's, which has been just empty and kind of a sad space for a long time. So we're looking forward to some positive energy there. We are also very relieved that whatever the city's idea behind the 40,000 square feet that did not limit their creativity. That's a big building. And if they took that 40,000 square foot, literally that was the end of creative thinking. So thank you for thinking beyond what the numbers said there. We are very hopeful that people across the region will actually come and take advantage of that adventure park. We are also very hopeful that while they're in the neighborhood, they will appreciate our neighborhood and they will do a little bit of shopping, a little bit of dining in our neighborhood. There's lots of spots nearby. So we were very excited about that. Thanks to Bill Dermody and Katie for explaining the criteria that needed to be met. We do these as hinging on not just the impact of the building, but actually the impact of the neighborhood. We do this as a real positive, a real win for the neighborhood. So we're very excited about that. We very much agree with Katie's assessment that it means. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there other speakers? Are there other speakers? Are there other speakers? Seeing no speakers, I'm looking for a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

A second? Second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, the public hearing is closed. We have a proposal in front of us. Lori Packett, I would take a motion.

I'll motion that we move to approve a conditional use permit for indoor recreation and a modification of the maximum floor area condition.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Any discussion on the motion before us? Commissioner Taggart.

I do want to come back to Commissioner Marx's point here. I had the same question as Dr. Stadler's. And just to share on the record, my reasoning is that, you know, when we have like a number in the code, we do have the power to modify any condition. And typically when it's a nonspecific condition, you can sort of just infer the intent and go, you know, we intend the X, okay, this is reasonable. Here we have a number, and I think we're all struggling with the Y, the number is 40,000 important. And if it's a minor modification, you say, wow, you know, it's a thousand square feet, who cares? You know, it's very easy to kind of get from, to get to the language of, you know, strict application and, okay, we vary by a thousand feet, it probably isn't changing the intent, right? Whereas this is almost double, and so I think it's reasonable to ask at least, know does the um you know did it would be helpful to understand to get some insight to see and why did the city council set it to 40 000 square feet if if it's immaterial right so um i understand it's just it's a little it's tricky to get to it i mean i think i'm more or less reassured by the idea that this is an existing building and therefore size is probably to regulate you know impacts traffic spillover etc this building clearly has been designed to accommodate the things that's done successfully so the concern is probably addressed but i'm making a huge mental leap from a number to my own narrative of what the city council's legislative intent is was at the time And I think it'd be very easy for a planning commission to think otherwise and go, well, if we, you know, the council said 40K for a reason, If the council no longer thinks that's applicable, we should change it or we should understand the intent better. So there's maybe a request that in these circumstances, when it comes to us, anything to explain the intent up front. So we so we're better placed to, you know, to make this determination would be helpful to me personally, even though I don't think in this case, given the existing building, given that it functions, I'm not actually going to vote against this. It's just in other circumstances, I can see myself going the other way. So thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion before us? All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Motion is approved. Next up, we have a request to initiate and release for public review the minor text amendment zoning study.

Mr. Dermody?

Thank you for joining everybody. We'll see if I get back to work.

Yes.

All right, fantastic. Good morning, everyone. I've got the minor text amendments zoning study before you, and it's a number of changes to the zoning code that are, most of them are very, very minor. Misspellings, updated code references, that sort of thing. I'll just call your attention to the two that have some substance to them, and one of them I've got images to show you. So one is that state law needs to be followed with regard to stormwater for developments over 10,000 square feet. And so there's a clarification that an entire common plan of development that's over 10,000 square feet would trigger this. So somebody wouldn't come in and develop 8,000 and come back and do another 8,000 to get around the 10,000 square feet. It's clearly intentional law. So we straightened that out. And then I've got an image to show on the second one. So this is a real temple as far as what's in the code, but not a real house that this is happening to. I just didn't have good photographs of the other three examples in the real world, but hopefully this will show us what's going on. So this house in the middle here has a legally nonconforming setback. You can see pretty clearly where the property line is, retaining walls on the neighboring property, sidewalk is on theirs. They got about two feet. Minimum setback here is five feet. So it's a legal nonconforming situation. different picture, but this exact issue has arisen at least three times in the last year. So here it is from a side view. You can see that same home and what would happen if they wanted to put solar panels on it. Today, the zoning code would require that the solar panels stop five feet from the property line because that is the minimum building setback. Even if the roof is expanding, into that area, if the wall is extending into that area, it doesn't matter. The proposed code amendments would allow flush-mounted systems to go to the root edge, and it's a legal non-performing situation. We've had three in the last year where somebody wanted to do this. At least two of those went to the Board of Zoning Appeals and got approved. But it's time, I think, to change the code on that So this is the impact as far as, you know, the space where you can put solar panels, but also remember that solar panels aren't poured in like concrete, so the impact would actually be greater than this if you can't fit another panel piece in there. And it could make the difference between having solar panels be economical or not for a given home. So potentially a great impact in any given situation. So we recommend that change. The ASKING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO PASS A RESOLUTION INITIATING THIS PROJECT, RELEASING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 9TH HERE AT PLANNING COMMISSION. HOPEFULLY THE THIRD FLOOR AT PLANNING COMMISSION. I'D BE GLAD TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE CHAIR.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GERMANY?

DO THEY CALL THAT A ZERO LOT LINE WHERE ONE DOESN'T MEET THEM?

NO, ZERO WOULD BE LITERALLY ZERO. But it's close to that. This would be legal nine to four. The building is probably about two feet away in this case.

Realtor charge. We call it zero.

You would call it zero? We would call it zero if the wall was right in front of us.

All right.

Seeing no other questions, I would take a motion.

I move that we approve the proposed amendments to the zoning vote and move it forward for a public comment period. Is that right?

Instead of public hearing date of October 9th.

Yes, yes, thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed?

All right, motion carries. Next on the agenda is a review of upcoming site plan review applications. Most recent was on August 25th. The items were 2016 Dayton Avenue, new construction for a multifamily six units and 1835 Energy Park Drive, building additions and parking lot expansion for a state of Minnesota C-A-R-E facility. I do not know what C-A-R-E stands for, but that is what is on the agenda. I am the Planning Commission Vice Chair, so the Planning Commission Chair has no announcements today. Planning Director. All right. With that, I will adjourn today's meeting. Thank you so much.