The Saint Paul Planning Commission met on February 7, 2025, at 14:30 UTC. Note: The agenda for this meeting is dated February 21, 2025, but the meeting date is recorded as February 7, 2025, per the provided metadata. The meeting included routine approvals, a contested zoning appeal, and committee reports.
Meeting of St. Paul Planning Commission. Our first order of business is approval of the minutes from February 7, 2025. Do I have a motion? Motion by Commissioner Sayev. Do I have a second? Seconded by Commissioner Presley. Is there any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. All those in favor? All those opposed. Any abstentions? All right. Next up is chair's announcements. Thank you, Chair. I also have no announcements. Okay. Then we're going to move right along to the voting committee. And there were two items on their agenda that were coming up to us today. So Commissioner Kega. Thank you, Commissioner Girl. So the first matter is 10 River Park Plaza rezoning. That's file number 24078480. That is a rezone from T3M traditional neighborhood master plan to ITN traditional industrial. And this was approved by the committee. Okay, so we have the item 10 River Plaza. We have the motion coming out of committee. Is there any discussion on the motion for this item? Seeing no discussion. All those opposed. Any abstentions? All right, uh 10 River Park Plaza then moves forward. Commissioner Teg. All right, the second item. Um this produced a little bit more discussion. Um this was item 250578. Um and this was a P an appeal. Um the zoning administrator issued a statement of clarification um related to the site. Um and essentially what what happened here was that um a uh I guess the city's new private waste hauler wants to have a vehicle servicing site at that address. Um we don't have such a use in the zoning code. And so um they the applicant requested a determination of similar use and the similar use identified was a public works yacht. Um and so in order to evaluate that similar use, there are four factors we need to evaluate. Um and that was the discussion we had. Um I think there were there were two pieces of discussion around that. Um firstly there was a on the similar use itself essentially. Does the public versus private distinction matter? Um I think the argument advanced by you know it was as well. Yeah, I know we have staff here at one present on the item. Oh we do, okay. So maybe I'll just let them talk.