Good morning.

We are peer gathering for the St.

Paul Planning Commission's regular meeting.

Today, September 19, 2025.

Today I'm filling in for our chair.

Chair Grill.

And hopefully I get us through this meeting today.

Faith in you, Chair.

Okay.

First on our agenda is to approve the minutes of our last meeting of September 5th.

Do I have a motion?

Do we have calling?

Yes.

Yes.

Do I have a second?

Second.

The motion has been made and seconded to approve the minutes of September 5th.

Is there further discussion?

Seeing none, I'll take a vote.

All in favor.

Any in opposition.

Any abstentions.

Seeing none, the minutes for September 5th have been approved.

As the chair, I don't really have a lot of announcements other than um good to see everyone today.

And let's not get sad summer's coming to an end.

But I would like to let everybody know, in case you didn't know, Commissioner O'Cho has resigned.

And he didn't want any cluster or any of that.

He just wanted to quietly resign, but he um sends well wishes to our team.

And he's got a lot on his plate.

So he just saw that it he needed to resign.

So we have another vacancy.

So as ambassadors of our planning commission.

Folks should be should help with recruiting, maybe someone that you might know.

And next, our director, if there's any announcement.

Thanks, thanks, Vice Chair.

Um just add that um, you know, we're always looking for commission members.

So if you know anybody, um, I'll send out a list of um which wards we're looking for.

So if you know of anybody that you think would be a good fit and you'd make the commitment, uh you can reach out to me and we can see if it works out.

Great.

Okay, moving right along to the zoning committee, Commissioner Taggyok.

Yeah, um, so we have one ISO and discuss the zoning committee.

It is uh 25556, which is the 1029 Maryland rezoning.

Um they want to rezone from a B2 community neighborhood business.

Um corner of Maryland and Bell Street.

Um essentially they want to uh market the vacant property redevelopments, the Snake RAM property um zoning committee recommended approval 5 to nothing so unanimous.

Are there any questions for Commissioner Tagilla?

Go ahead, Commissioner Riley.

No, no questions.

I just want to thank SAP for adding the other additional surrounding zoning, which is why it came back to us today, and that was for my request.

So I appreciate that.

I know this is great.

Thank you.

See that a motion um has been made to approve the rezoning of 1059 Maryland Avenue to bus from business to traditional T2 traditional neighborhood.

Is there a second?

Second.

Um is there any uh um calling for the vote?

Then it's been seconded.

Chanted we didn't have discussion.

Oh yes, questions and more discussion, sorry.

Go ahead.

I didn't actually want to know what the amendment was.

Oh yes.

Go ahead, chair.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, the the uh chain was uh is in finding number three.

Um initially it had said that the surrounding block of Maryland Avenue are zone B2 and did not include the fact that there are other abutting properties that are zone H2.

Is it any further discussion or questions?

It's been moved and seconded that we approve this change in zoning.

All in favor.

Any opposition?

Any abstentions.

The motion has been approved to uh rezone 1059 Maryland.

Is there anything coming up?

Your next meeting.

We do have one meeting.

It'll be on the September the 20th minute.

Um currently looks like we have one item on the agenda.

Awesome.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

Sam Juno will be covering that.

I'll be absent that day.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving to the comprehensive neighborhood planning committee.

And I guess that's me.

We had two items on our agenda for that meeting to the Hamsburg local historic designation.

Okay.

So the Hambre uh Company.

Well, actually it's the Theodore Ham Brewing Company Heritage Preservation Preservation District has been nominated for local destination as a St.

Paul Heritage Preservation site.

And the Heritage Preservation Committee voted to continue the designation process and forward the nomination to the to our to our committee, the planning commission.

Coming out of our committee, we did approve the designation and to move it to the city council.

Is there any other input from my committee members that were there that day?

Okay, there's none.

So coming out of again, coming out of our committee, we did approve it.

So I'm looking for a second.

The second.

All in favor?

Any in opposition?

Any abstentions.

Hearing none, the motion has been approved and seconded to accept this designation for the hands.

The next item on our agenda was the Mississippi River Corridor critical area.

Um staff member Tony Um Johnson Boos is coming.

He's in traffic and he's going to do a presentation.

But I thought in lieu of his um, you know, until he gets here.

I thought our committee members could maybe um just kind of tell what happened in our meeting and talk about a little bit of the discussion that we did have.

When Tony does uh get here and he does the presentation, we will only have a discussion within our body, and then it will come to the planning commission again at the next meeting for um a vote.

Okay, and our director would like to first of all add some stuff, some items.

Thanks, Vice Chair.

Um I know recently we've been doing, I just want to give you some context on why we're having a discussion, you know, in front of the vote.

Uh a few commissioners, including Commissioner Tagiaf expressed interest in bringing some of these conversations to the larger planning commission before uh the vote so that everyone uh could have better access to the information and presentations and discussion.

Um, you know, you know, if if they can't make it to CNPC because I know there's a lot of schedules and uh conflicts.

So this is you know, one of those uh attempts that we also did it with drive-throughs last time, and I thought it went really well.

So we're trying it out again today so that everyone can have as many uh chances to hear about this proposed text amendment, uh chew on it, and then we'll bring it back to the commission at the next meeting for a vote.

Is there any other oh commissioner Ryan?

Yeah, I have a I have a question.

Um in the future with these local store designation items that might be a helpful thing to have the whole commission have an understanding of because preservation is sort of a niche.

Um they don't often come to us.

Um it takes a tremendous amount of staff time and work to do it, and so I think it would be um nice to add some of that um institutional memory to the folks here.

So just a request for the future next time this happens.

Commissioner Holmes, I mean hood.

Thank you, yeah.

I am leaning a little on this.

Um you're playing two people, right?

Uh little less handsome rich holst.

Um, you know, the one thing that I I thought was interesting about this one is that you know, I I I obviously voted in support of the historic district here, and I think that's good, it's probably a good step.

It's a unique area, and I think we should probably preserve that.

But I just thought it was interesting that the developer requested it for the sole purpose of getting historic tax credits.

It feels like a little underwhelming that, like, hey, let's make this place historic because you know, I just want to get it like you know, money.

So I mean, I know that it has to go through that review process, but I'm just curious, like, I guess you know, I haven't worked too too much with the HPC and getting these listings, but you know, it to me that's that like struck as like kind of a head scratcher a little bit.

So if if anybody, any developer wants to do this, is that essentially the process?

This is more like a developer-led process to get historic listings as opposed to the city taking a more proactive approach and saying, hey, we truly believe these buildings are historic.

So therefore, as from the city's perspective, we want to save this particular building or area or what have you.

I mean, just as a discussion point, um, you know, I thought that was like I don't know, question if that's necessarily like the best way to go about these things.

But that being said, I think this is a unique property and you know, support in general, but that was just kind of one of those uh moments, you know.

We did have the discussion.

I don't know if Commissioner Martin said once uh yeah, I will I will because I I think I I had the same thing, sort of concerns.

I think I I phrased my concern a little differently.

I just think um I I I won't impugn JB Bang's motives in this thing.

They will be, in fact, very dedicated to the preservation of this property.

Yeah, but it's a property that had been put up for preservational status in 2020, or no, 2005, so 20 years ago.

And at that time, apparently there was pushback from owners of of the property or parts of the property, and so that didn't go forward.

And so the timing of this just the optics of it are just not great, right?

It's like you'd like to believe that this is in good faith, probably is, but it's also for the tax credits.

So it would have been better had maybe the city proposed it, or maybe what was the other entity over there?

That the the Sweden Hollow, the Sweet Hollow group, the sweet hollow group could have proposed it and it would have been, you know, it would the optics would have just been better.

Sure.

Yeah.

The fullwares here.

Oh, go ahead.

Come on, just that Riley first before Ms.

Forward.

Well, I think first uh Commissioner Starling had a comment.

Which might be similar to mine.

Starling, but I won't.

Uh my comment is only have having been in conversations with developers who are accessing those tax credits.

There is a financial benefit of the credits and a great number of additional hoops that must be jumped through as a condition of accessing those money.

So it's not it's hardly a windfall of accessing those tax credits.

There's a lot of work that goes with those.

And before you speak, do you mind if I say make a copy sorry?

I'm so sorry, Chair.

Oh, go ahead.

Um I had a similar but different comment to Commissioner Starling, which is that um I think that the uh use of tax credits as an economic development tool is highly underrated and undervalued.

In fact, that's why it was sunset for an entire year.

And I can tell you about multiple projects that did not occur in that year that could have, and that probably kept additional homes from being built in the city and around the country, which is a significant problem that we talk about on a regular basis.

So while I respectfully appreciate your opinion, that having done this earlier would have been better, it takes a tremendous amount of time for a city staff to try and get that together and for a developer to come and ask and actually have dollars behind it is an exceptional uh approach and outcome from my professional opinion um and personal opinion, but I took it back to the chair.

So I just wanted to make sure you got both people in the room got both.

And I I was telling Commissioner Mark and said at our meeting.

Um my last project that I was involved in, the Western U Plaza on Western University, um kind of fits the same scenario.

We as a developer um asked to get um designation so that we could access the those tax credits, those historic tax credits.

However, um the reason why we did do it was because the building that we wanted to um repurpose.

At first, my inclination was to just tear the dog thing down, because when I walked through it, you know, it was it was horrible.

And I said, let's just tear the thing down.

But however, um talk to the city and our planning uh folks that were involved, and the more I thought about the building, it had more, it was more than just a building to just tear down.

There was a very deep story that connected to in particular the cup, you know, the community there surrounded it, but to the Rondo committee uh, in fact, it was a place that it was a milk dairy company, of course, that made milk.

It was the first company that um did pastorized, you know, pasteurized milk.

And one of the the architect of that is um Charles Hausler, who has done uh several uh municipal buildings throughout the city of uh of our St.

Paul.

And so there was that historic um piece of that.

And it was for our community and for the community, the other surrounding it provided jobs and um the milk that got delivered to our doorsteps back in the day.

Milk came in the little jars and got set on your stoop.

So it had more than just um, oh, let's just tear the building down, but the only like it is a financial mechanism so that it can encourage people and developers rather than tear buildings down, starting to look at preserving um buildings um and keeping that um his, you know, these buildings um in our city um historic.

And then there was the two iconic um twins.

Um, and I forgot their names, I don't know, maybe Chrissy might as Polly and something, but anyways, they were very important as these iconic twins that were on the building as well.

But today um I don't know if anybody has gone through it, but um that ugly nest that I talked about, it's is a fabulous building.

Of course, there were um you know, some um challenge to get through because you can't change everything that you want to change.

And so we had some difficulty trying to find the the same flooring, for example, and we had a really um hard time with doing the windows.

But when it was all done and um getting the that that designation, the historic designation um really helped to preserve that building and keep that building and that story and that history uh connected to the um community.

So um again, we as a developer knew the only to do that was uh um do the designation.

Commissioner, I just want I just wanted to clarify.

My objection is not to the use of tax credits.

Yeah, 100% not.

My objection is about the process.

That's all that's I just think and we we live in an era where financial naked financial self-interest drives so much of what happens in our world.

And I just think that when we're talking about historical preservation, maybe I'm just an idealist and I'd like to believe that there's actually some principle behind it as well.

So I just think it just doesn't this process doesn't necessarily convey that particularly clearly.

So that's all.

Okay.

Um while your conversation here has spurred like several tangents in my head, which I'd be happy to expound upon at a future meeting, uh, what I would like you to know is that this is the third district in my time with the city of St.

Paul that has been designated or is going through the designation process in order to be certified for the national register.

Those other uh ones that I can think of would be uh the University Raymond District in 2004-2005, as well as the Jacob Schmidt Brewing Company, which was 2011.

Um were also led by the developers where they proposed coming forward, those were properties that were all identified um as eligible for uh the national register.

So there would there was the choice between looking at doing the national district first and then doing that, or the city has the ability to certify a district for the national register.

It's just a matter of process and being able to get to the access of those tax credits, but it's it's not uh it's not an unusual uh process.

And if you have additional questions while I'm here, and if uh my colleague, Mr.

Johnson needs a little more time, I can uh answer a question or two you have.

Oh, sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Wright.

So um that's really helpful, uh, Ms.

Buller.

I'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit about all of the work that the city has done first in order to designate properties.

Um, because I think that there seems to be a conception that um seeking tax credits is um the primary way that properties are designated in St.

Paul.

Um and my experience suggests that that it's not true, and then it takes a tremendous amount of staff time, which is also taxpayer dollars in order to get those resources accomplished.

And so I'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about the city led work.

I'm not sure as they uh Commissioner Rail.

Um so typically before there's designation, there is survey that happens and sometimes layers of survey.

In this case, I want to say that the uh Hams brewery buildings were first identified as being a historic resource in St.

Paul between 1980 and 1983.

Um it's a matter of uh number one, having enough staff to vocalist, but also having uh political will, developers, people who are willing to come in to this and uh while we've had an HPC next year will be their 50th anniversary.

We've had um multiple designations over that time, some of them as districts, large districts, uh taking a couple years at a time to get there because there's a lot of community engagement that goes along with it.

I should note that with the Hanberry, um, when I started with the city, this was actually just at the time I was here that they were bringing it forward the first time, which is when we only had a 20% tax credit.

Now that there's a state tax credit that's another 20% upon that, that's a huge incentive.

Um but at that point in time, there was already a national register nomination that had been pulled up in other studies.

So when we did move forward with this one, it was actually providing the information that we had gathered up to 20, like 2004, 2005.

Uh, the developer had hired a consultant to do additional work to update that information and bring it forward for the national register nomination uh that came to the state review board.

Um, I want to say it was January or February, everything blurs to me now, but uh they did make a recommendation to approve it.

It's just there was more than half of the owner entities that uh were opposed to the designation at that time.

Um national register listing does require 50% plus one to have that uh local designation does not, nor does the process to um to certify for the tax credits.

Um that national register designation, you know, that's updated by the consultant.

Staff brings it through when it comes to the local designation.

If we've already got a determination of eligibility, staff spends time making sure that that complies with our local criteria, as well as writing ordinance language and then working here because local designation does not require uh majority of the owner consent.

Uh, I can only think of one time in my time here that the council has designated something where there hasn't been 100% owner consent.

Uh, but that was actually uh that owner was not completely um they weren't for or against it, they were ambivalent and possibly selling their property.

So they were concerned about so um I'm going uh way too deep into the weeds here, but um, but this is also a good topic that maybe we can pull together some ideas to discuss, and I'm happy to come back.

Um so you you mentioned the notion that everyone like this potentially affects more than just the applicant.

Um I'm curious about for a non-applicant.

What is the impact on for example?

Do they get tax credits or are they new restrictions on how they might use that property as a result of designation?

I share, Commissioner.

Um so historic designation does not restrict use.

Um it does look at the structural elements of buildings.

We look at what whether it's contributing or non-contributing to district, what are the character-defining features, things like that.

So it's a matter of preserving um those features which identify that building and in that context.

But it doesn't stop change, it kind of just guides it.

For other property owners within that district, that does open up opportunities for historic tax credits that opens up opportunities to apply for legacy uh dollars for the state.

Um I'm not going to mess the name up at say legacy grants.

Um it also provides some protection in if there say is a federal undertaking, whether it's a uh somebody uh using federal funds or needing a federal license to do work, the um the actions of that entity on the historic resources are considered within that.

So there's a this community process that goes into that.

So there are a couple different layers of things that start to happen.

Um that's kind of like the overview, but helpful.

Any other questions that I can answer for you?

All right, well, thank you, Chris.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

So how we how are we doing, Tony?

Ready as we are, we're gonna be well then we'll turn it over to you to talk about Merca.

Uh morning, everyone.

Sorry, uh late this morning.

Set my alarm but turned off the volume on that, so that doesn't help clear to work.

All right, so today uh after a long while, we're back here to talk about uh Merca again, which is the Mississippi corridor critical area zoning study.

Uh and then in this presentation, um basically I'm gonna give a brief overview of what we're doing.

Um, and then go through different uh main aspects of public testimony, and we could either do it two ways.

I could go through the whole thing, or we could stop at kind of natural breakpoints to talk about the testimony.

Um, at the committee level, that's how we did it is we did kind of pause this one, right?

For discussion.

So whatever you guys want to do when I get there.

Tony, I think we should do that break point because that really worked well.

Yep, sure.

We could really understand.

Sounds good.

All right, so what is Merca?

So the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area or MERCA program is a joint state, regional, and local program that provides coordinated land use planning and zoning regulations for the whole 72 mile stretch of the Mississippi River.

Uh the Merca was originally created in 1976 through executive order uh to protect the river's natural, cultural, and scenic resources.

Uh and these resources are protected through development standards that are administered through local government.

So essentially what happens is the state drafts rules, and then every municipality within the Merca area needs to create zoning regulations to then implement those rules.

So why are we here today?

Uh well, we're here today because in 2017 uh the state DNR uh updated the Merkel rules.

Uh and then in 2019 they created a model ordinance to help guide cities through uh zoning tax amendment changes.

So within this model ordinance, uh there are specific zoning code provisions, definitions of regulations that local units of government are required to adopt to comply with Merkel rules, uh, as well as optional provisions uh within the model ordinance uh that are intended to provide better resource protection, either through higher standards than the minimum of the Mercury rules or by clarifying uh rule provisions that may be otherwise difficult to administer.

Uh so when we look at the old rules versus the new rules, um basically the uh new rules create stronger and more robust standards.

Um so this includes things like more height limits and protections of use, uh, more detail uh within the variations of geological form, natural resources and development history along the corridor, uh, and then closer regulation of taller buildings through uh conditional use permit process with specific mitigation requirements, uh potential impacts on Mercant Corps.

Um so how does it work?

So this is uh one of the main things that the Merca does.

So here on the map, all these colored areas, that's the whole Merca area, and then within the Merca, there's different um overlays.

Uh and within those overlays, uh, basically there's gonna be a different river setback, a different bluff setback, and then a different maximum height within all of these different overlay districts that make up the market.

Tony.

Yep.

Commissioner Starling has a question.

Thank you, Vice Care.

A question is the Merca districts.

Are those set centrally AKA outside of St.

Paul or are those defined by the city?

Yep, no, those are set outside of St.

St.

Paul.

So those are created by the DNR, and we have no authority to change them.

All right.

So the second uh way that it works is uh there's another number of other chapters within Merca.

So Merca also regulates uh within the Merca area performance standards for different facilities.

Uh so for example, that'd be like performance standards for marina or you know, other kind of water based things.

Uh it also includes vegetation management standards, uh, it has standards uh around land alteration and stormwater management, uh, and then also subdivision and land division uh land development standards as well.

So the general overview of what we're doing with this study is uh we're uh deleting the 1982 Merca language in chapter 68, uh, and then adopting new language uh that we're required to adopt to comply with the 2017 uh Merka rules.

Uh we're also as a part of this uh moving everything that's currently in chapter 72, which is the floodplain management overlay district and moving it to chapter 68.

Uh, this isn't an actual substantive change, it's just a reorganization.

So basically what we're trying to do is get everything water related to one chapter.

Uh chapter 72 is also our city planning code, it's not our zoning code, and so it doesn't make sense to have zoning provisions in our city planning code.

So we're moving them so our code is more uh logically organized.

Um this is a little bit of a different study than other studies in the sense that uh what we come up with here today also has to be approved by the DNR.

Uh so after this gets through uh the council process, I'll then need to forward uh whatever amendments uh the city recommends the DNR for final approval.

Uh if there's issues with those amendments, uh the DNR can send it back to us, and then we'll have to modify uh modify what we came up with to comply with the rules.

Um and I say that just to remind folks that um you know we can't do like whatever we want with the study, we have to do stuff that complies with the rules.

So that's what we're doing here today.

All right, so now on to the fun stuff, public hearing.

Um May 2nd, 2025, uh, as you all may recall, we held a public hearing.

Uh at the public hearing, there were 16 speakers, uh, two in support and 14 in opposition.

Uh we also received 35 written comments, uh, one was in support and 34 were in opposition.

Uh and within those written comments, there was a petition circulated against the proposed amendments that was advocating for bird sex glass.

Uh so supporters of the proposed amendments as drafted, uh, favorite increased development flexibility, uh, particularly in regard to the proposed height standard for the urban core district, uh, which can help facilitate downtown development.

Uh on the comments uh opposing the requested changes, there were kind of four main uh changes that were requested in those public comments.

Uh one included uh bird safe glass, uh, one about optional findings for conditional use permits and variances, uh, one for battering requirements, and then one about uh building heights.

And I'll go through all of these in a little bit more detail.

Um and this is what I was talking about with stopping at certain points.

I think what I'll do is I'll go through each one, and then we'll stop, and then we can have a bit of discussion and then uh move on.

Um the largest percentage of uh public comments in opposition to the proposed ordinance uh advocating for the inclusion of bird safe glass as part of our MERCA ordinance.

Um as a part of their testimony, the Friends of the Mississippi has uh provided specific language for bird safe glass.

Uh so here is the language that's proposed by FMR is the language from our 2023 draft uh that was released for public review.

Um and so basically there's a couple parts to this.

So there's an exterior lighting standard, and then there's bird safe, uh, the actual bird safe glass part.

Uh this top part of the ordinance uh would uh basically give the thresholds when bird said glass is required, and then the bottom part explains kind of what it is and what you can do to meet uh the standard.

Um so here is our staff response.

So this study again was initiated in response to the 2017 uh DNR updates the Merca rules.

Uh within those Merca rules, bird safe glass is neither required by the rules nor included as an optional provision in the model ordinance.

Uh after looking at other cities, we found that no other communities have included bird safe class in their Merca ordinances.

Uh there is one city with bird safe glass requirements within the Merca, that's Minneapolis, but it's not tied to Merca.

They do bird safe glass requirements for their skyway.

Yes, um, so independent of Merca, they have one zoning provision in our uh seven cabinetry area for bird safe class.

Um so bird safe glass was included in St.

Paul's 2023 draft amendments.

However, uh the 2023 memorandum did not uh provide a robust analysis of potential impacts on development feasibility, nor the effectiveness of such measures in reducing birds, bird strikes.

Um, and upon further review, there were several uh outstanding questions that have not been addressed in the 2023 analysis uh that came up after when you know we were talking to policymakers and other staff about uh this provisions.

Uh and these questions include uh what are the cost implications of mandating bird safe glass?

Uh what geographic areas would benefit most from such provision?

So, for example, the Merca wasn't created, the boundaries weren't created with bird safe glass in mind.

So if we adopted it as part of Merca, none of downtown would be or the majority of downtown wouldn't be uh included or required to have bird safe glass.

Um also is there appropriate zoning the appropriate regulatory tool to advance bird safe design?

Uh how would these requirements interact with historic guidelines or T district standards that require window transparency?

Uh and could other alternatives or standards complement bird safe glass to reduce bird conditions more effectively.

Uh and very importantly, um, bold of this one.

Uh, there was a question raised by DSI as to whether or not this draft provision is legal in its current form.

So because bird safe glass is not included in the state Merka rules or model ordinance, and due to these several unresolved questions, uh staff removed it from the current draft of amendments and recommended evaluating this issue through a dedicated study to allow for a comprehensive analysis of uh bird safe provisions, uh and the staff recommendation, as well as now the C NPC recommendation.

Uh so any CFPC reclamation from now on, I'll do a square around.

Uh is recommending uh adoption of Merca amendments without bird safe glass provisions and initiating a separate study to evaluate bird safe glass policy options sample.

Uh and I want to be clear too, like this recommend recommendation isn't just PED, this is DSI, CAO and uh City Attorney's Office and uh PED's recommendation staff.

So from there I will stop.

Commissioner Riley, yeah.

I just I I think the staff recommendation is great.

I have a question about the commentary on uh lighting.

It was in the same session, and I was wondering what happened.

So we are included, so we are keeping the exterior lighting shield.

No, okay.

So that did not come forward.

No, so this was uh uh we could if you want.

Okay.

I mean, they were it was intended for bird safe glass.

So I anything that was bird safe glass related, I took off.

But if you want to keep it as like a separate, I guess that gives me a follow-up question.

Sure, does the city have uh an adopted or a plan to adopt a like dark skies ordinance or something?

That would then after that it would be duplicative.

Uh I'm not sure.

I'd have to look into that.

We do have lighting standards within our zoning code.

So we have like maximum light.

I don't know if it prohibits up lighting or not, though.

I'm not sure I'd have to look at what's currently in the zone.

But there is there is like standard.

Yeah, thank thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

I guess I would just want to say sort of state of the conversation that I would be very supportive of adding that uplighting prohibited uh standard.

Uh when you finally take that recommendation.

I think it's it's important.

Um, would you want that uh sorry question?

Would you want that just in the Merca?

Or do you think that's important?

Well, I think it's important that uh city citywide, but if we're looking to do something for this particular case, now is a good time to include.

Yeah.

Commissioner Martins.

So to your question and to Tony's comment about being the code already in section 631 16 with respect to exterior lighting.

Uh, we do the the code does say all outdoor lighting in all use districts, including Austreet Park facilities shall be shielded to reduce clear, shall be so arranged as to reflect lights away from all adjacent residential districts or adjacent residences in such a way to not exceed three foot candles measured at the residence district boundary.

So it that covers the whole city.

Thank you, Commissioner Martin.

Commissioner Keggy, obviously, this is simple AP to as we will have sometimes this is important issues here, law number T.

Um, I'm here to absolutely we can recommend study by what process would that be prioritize.

Are you saying we'll do a study and we'll think about doing study?

And I'm curious about how this goes from recommendation do a study to an actual study.

Yeah, I mean, so a lot of that is gonna depend on staffing and capacity.

But what I will commit to doing right away is when I come with uh the or the resolution for this, I'll also come with uh like a what resolution initiated the study officially.

Um then we'll have to figure out you know, within our staffing capacity and talk to the mayor's office, kind of what gets prioritized and what should Martin said any commission.

Out of committee.

We we said specifically we asked for a study to evaluate bird safe glass policy options throughout the city of St.

Paul.

Yeah, yeah.

So yeah, that's a good point.

So if we did this, we don't have to again tie it to Merca.

We can do boundaries that actually make a lot of sense.

So the whole Mississippi flyway, St.

Paul's in the whole flyway.

Um, and so potentially we could put the whole city on the table, we could put sub-districts if that makes sense.

And so this gives us a little bit more flexibility to do something.

Commissioner Starling.

Thank you.

At the risk of suggesting something that exponentially increases the complexity, this seems like something that should be a regional conversation, not just one city, because birds recognize city boundaries less than almost anyone else.

Good point.

Commissioner Hood.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, thank you for this proposal.

I I like staff recommendation.

I'm gonna vote in favor of uh the work that you've done.

The one thing that I would like scratch is the future study of bird safe glass specifically as it pertains to this, and here's why.

You know, with Merka, just use an example.

You know, that law was passed by the state legislature in 2017 with the deadline of 2020, and we're in 2025, and we still have not adopted this yet.

And like if we if we have staff capacity issues, like we really got to prioritize in this city.

And I think just doing this is just a way to appease, and I think it's it's it's not a core function of what the city ought to be doing right now.

I guess what Commissioner Martinson brought up discussing the broader, wider and Commissioner Starling, wider, broader study.

You know, I'm open to that, and I think you know that would probably be good at some future date, but right now I just don't think it's in staff's best interest to uh to add that specific language about a future study in here.

But that being said, I think what we have in front of us is good and something that you know I I guess I would here to support.

So that that would be my only comment.

So thank you.

Okay.

All right, uh, so the next piece of public testimony that we received was related to optional findings for CUP's interim use permits and variances.

Uh so numerous public comments.

Uh host the current draft of amendments advocated for the inclusion of additional findings for Merca interim use permits, conditional permits and variances.

Uh and again, that's an addendum to their testimony.

The Friends of the Mississippi were recommended the following changes that would add optional findings from the DNIR's model coordinates uh to these various Merca approvals.

So here is the selected or suggested language by FMR.

The top part is pretty pretty similar to what was released as part of the public hearing draft.

But what's different is that there's three added findings to both cups and variances.

And for these approvals, I'm going to talk about them kind of separately, but we can we'll go back together.

I think the issue is a little bit different.

So here's staff response to conditional use permits and interim use permits.

So these suggested findings, again, there's going to be a whole lot of times where I talk about optional things versus required things.

And with or without having these structured optional findings, the city must still evaluate the potential impacts of conditional and interim use permits on primary conservation areas, public river corridor views, and other resources identified in the Merca chapter of the comprehensive plan.

So under the Merka rules and the currently draft proposed zoning amendments, Merca's conditional use permits would only be required in three situations.

One for wireless towers, two for mining operations, and then thirdly for height increases.

Now staff anticipates that the first two conditional use permits will be very rare if ever happened.

And it doesn't make a lot of sense to put wireless towers on low elevation.

I think it's very rare, or there's not a lot of chance that we'll get a lot of wireless towers in the Merca area.

So the main conditional use permit that will be getting in for Merca by far will be height increases.

It may result in redundant analysis for CUPs to exceed the maximum height.

And the reason why that is there's already two other separate sections with findings that would have to be met.

Findings are criteria that have to be met for height.

And so if we were to add the optional findings as suggested by public testimony, uh it would basically we would have to address 12 separate findings for any Merca height related request.

And many of these findings would be duplicative.

And so I'll give you a good example of that.

So for example, so the first finding in Merca would be the extent.

If we added these optional findings, the extent, location, and intensity of the use uh will be in substantial compliance with the Merca plan.

Uh well, with any conditional use permits, we have to evaluate consistency with the comp plan, which the Merca is a part of.

And so if I were doing a staff report in the Merca, I would probably copy and paste that finding and just put it back in this one because it's essentially asking for the same thing.

Um so because of that potential redundancy uh and reduced administrative flexibility, staff is recommending not including optional findings uh in 68 point 224 as proposed by the French of the Mississippi.

Um alternatively, staff is recommending keeping that as drafted, but then updating um language related to heights uh to follow the more to follow the DNR ordinance more closely.

Uh so what this uh new section is the section 68.236.

This is that specific criteria for height.

And so what it's doing is instead of taking these general findings, we're gonna put back in findings that are very specific to height and very pertinent to evaluating height.

Uh and which is consistent with what the uh with the DNR.

Uh so staff recommendations.

Sorry, I forgot a square on this one.

Staff recommendation and the recommendation on a committee was to recommend uh the section 68.224 without optional findings, and then replace language that's currently in 68.236 with language from the model ordinance, so that height language uh there.

Uh and I might just I'll just move on to variances real quick because it's essentially the same thing.

So uh you know, for variances, uh what we did with variances is we recommended language that were required to adopt, and then again emitted optional rank language with uh specific findings to be met.

Uh again, because we believe that having these optional findings will result in redundant analysis given what's already in the zoning code in terms of required findings for variances.

Um, and so to create the most streamlined process possible, staff is recommending not including optional findings for variances as well.

Uh and on that one, uh the committee uh went with staff recommendation that's important there.

I will stop in case anyone wants to have discussion.

Commissioner Barton just a quick cleanup thing, Total.

Yeah, so now that you've changed the reference to the state statute of 61 601.

I think there's a redundancy in the uh uh 6823.

So there's a redundancy because now it's 61.601 is referenced again below.

Uh I think you go down from here.

There, oh you had it.

So you you changed the reference there in the second line to reference the R the city section of code.

Yeah, and then it's referenced again at the bottom.

I'm not sure that's needed now.

Um I think I think it I think it is um and the reason why.

So the well you make an argument or something, but uh so with with findings with variance findings, there's a finding that talks about consistency with the zoning code, and you can essentially yeah, so that will the article would do that.

So yeah, we could probably get rid of it.

So it's a little bit more specific, it points directly to the article.

I guess that's what you might want to keep it.

I'll think about it a bit more.

We can discuss it at the next uh okay.

Do we have any discussion?

All right, um, so the next major theme that we got in public testimony, uh recommended changes to tiering.

Uh so comments submitted by uh Mr.

Torrison recommended changes to the language regarding tiering, and according to his testimony, the draft language release for public review conflates tiering with separate requirements for the provid preservation of public report reviews.

He also recommended incorporating tiering into section uh 68.234 uh rather than treating it as a standard review.

Uh after further evaluation, uh staff concurs with uh Mr.

Torsen's comments and suggestions and is recommending three changes in response.

Uh so one of them would delete the tiering definition, uh second one would delete site plan review standards for tiering, um, and then we revise the section on structure heights to align more closely with DNR's ordinance.

So that's something I already showed you uh in the last batch of slides.

But so basically, this is what the amendments would look like.

We delete tiering as a separate definition.

Uh we would delete the site plan review standards for tiering.

Um, and then we would add tiering language uh directly into well, yeah.

We so uh something changed later in the in the meeting, but I will explain it when we get to it.

But essentially, what we're trying to do is not have tiering is like a separate thing.

We're trying to have it incorporated into uh the actual standard so that it's easier to use.

And so that's what we are doing with with this suggested amendment.

Um instead of having it as like a separate thing you need to look up, uh tiering language would be included directly with the height standards um in this version of the so here uh staff recommended uh deleting the tiering definition from 68.24, uh deleting uh section 68.25235 and amending section 68.234.

So that tiering language is embedded directly in the standard.

Uh and then it did put a note, and then uh a note is that the recommended recommended language for this section changed a little bit later in the meeting, but I will go through that in this next part of a presentation.

So again, I can stop there for discussion, and we can just keep on cruising.

I just like to recognize the plot parts.

That's my importance here in my tier building.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

I just want to uh share my my appreciation for these edits.

I think they're they're great and respond for them to run.

We're gonna on to the fun part, which hopefully I did my edits right.

All right, so uh testimony submitted by uh FMR and Mr.

Torstenson recommended um lowering the base heights in RTC, UM and UC districts.

Uh the UC districts is only in Mr.

Torsten's version amendments, not FMRs.

Um, and so both of these parties propose a system in which structures would be limited to a 35-foot kind of base height with allowances for height increases based on setbacks from bluffs, shorelines, and district boundaries.

Um and then under both proposals, uh heights could be increased with a cup.

Uh so under FMR's proposal, the uh they differ a little bit uh in two ways.

So under FMR's proposal, the maximum height would be capped under a cup.

Uh so it has the face height, it has a height, 35 feet, and you can set back, and then it goes to another height, uh, depending on the district, and then you can go even higher with the cup.

They cap that top cup height.

So that's one of the differences in Allen's, it's the same way where it's 35 feet setbacks, cup, but then his doesn't cup, doesn't uh cap height.

So basically, whatever the underlying zoning district would then be the cat buyers proposal.

Um another difference is that FMR's proposal does not have uh that 35 height limit in downtown, uh, but Alan's proposal does.

So it would be applied in the UC district.

Um, and so both of these proposals offer argue both both of the testimony argues that these height methodologies offer a less subjective approach to tiering uh as compared to the current staff proposed approach, uh, which would just set a higher base height, and then you without setbacks, and then you could go uh above that with cut.

Um, and then we would result we rely on qualitative analysis for tiering versus the kind of standard formula that's being proposed by uh FMR and Mr.

Torsenson.

So here is uh FMR suggested language.

Uh so basically so here's that 35-foot height limit we're talking about in all of these, and then depending on the district, uh basically how high you can go changes uh in relation to setbacks from the uh so again Alan's proposal was very similar.

Uh and then following the meeting, I get uh new text from him.

So this is how his his looks again is extremely similar, except there's no maximum height for the cup in any of these districts, and then there's this UC what they're doing in UC is a little bit different.

So and you see as a reminder is downtown St.

Paul.

Um there's also another uh piece of his proposal that we would need to change.

So remember while I was talking about uh putting this back in uh so that they're basically we have criteria for evaluating height increases.

Well, the way uh Allen's works is we wouldn't have subjective tiering uh for most of development.

However, if they wanted to get a cup, uh then we would need to increase the height so to go over the height limit, uh, then we would need to uh do subjective tiering under his proposal.

So here is the stack response.

So again, so Peter is a lot of time.

So the model, so the Merco ordinance has uh model language and with tiering requirements.

And so this is what the model ordinance looks like, and this is the language that in blue that uh is optional, and they kind of want you to fill in.

Um what the model ordinance has is kind of this base height, and then there's a little bit different, so it's higher heights in these districts, and then you can increase it with cut.

Um in addition to that guidance, the model ordinance also has uh guidance related to tiering.

So what they're uh uh suggesting is that you replace vague language of tiering and as an option of priority language in the RTC, UM and UC districts with specific height standards based on distance from the river.

Uh but then they also go on to say in their guidance that you should do that by mapping or zoning additional districts for each district further than the river, uh, and then a maximum height allowed by the CUP would be would be increased.

Um the approach of kind of doing this with this formula uh is inconsistent with this framework and guidance provided by the DNR because it's not create sub-districts to apply a framework to tiering.

Um and one of our major concerns with this approach is that it'd be extremely difficult to administer because of the irregular and curved linear nature of these natural features, district boundaries that do not always uh follow road center lines or legally described boundaries and reliance on a database that does not uh always discern between the natural bluff, man-made bluff embankment, or a pilot dirt.

Um, and if you look at so one of the attachments I provided you guys with is a height standard from every other city.

And so if you look at the approach that every other city is taken for the most part, they just do the least restrictive height limit possible with a cup increase.

Uh the one city that wanted to get a little bit more specific with tiering is Minneapolis, and they did it the way the DNR suggests, which would be creating sub-districts to apply tiering.

So if you look at that spreadsheet, you'll see in Minneapolis, there's three sub-districts for UMs.

Um, and so that's how they did their tiering, um, kind of consistent with what the DNR recommended in that second part of that sentence.

Uh, and I looks like I skipped ahead and said, Yep.

So, again, so no other city has adopted setback base height methodology.

So, if we were to do this, we would be unique in doing it this way in terms of all the other Merker cities.

Uh, pretty much every other city adopted base height limit.

Well, every other city adopted base height limits with cup allowances, uh, consistent with what we did in the public hearing draft.

And then again, most other cities have adopted the least restrictive height limits possible uh when they did this.

Um, and so again, the Merca program was created to promote coordinated land use planning and zoning along the 1772-mile corridor.

Uh we feel as though introducing a unique height methodology that deviates from these regional standards undermines this goal of coordinated, having coordinated ordinances across uh the 72 mile uh area.

So, as a part of this analysis, uh I did spatial analysis to try to figure out okay, what Blue these uh tiering requirements actually mean.

Um and with this analysis, I found that even with the formulating tiering uh methodology were adopted, uh most uh Merca properties would not fall under the formulating formula tiering requirements.

So in the UM district, there's less than 23% of the land area would fall under this formular lake tiering requirements, and then the RTC district, approximately 20% of the land area would fall under these formal tiering requirements.

So for the most part, we're not gonna have to be doing the stepback thing, it's not gonna matter.

Um the second part of uh my analysis was I wanted to look at opportunity sites to figure out what the impact would be on those sites.

Um, and just as a reminder, opportunity sites are are considered uh high priority for development under the 2040 comp plan.

Um, and these are sites that are generally larger than acre uh with potential for redevelopment, and there are six opportunity sites within the market area.

So there's three uh within the West Side Flats, there's one at the Johnson Brothers site, there's one at the Ford site, and then Ramsey County West site and downtown St.

Paul.

Um, and these are sites that again the comp plan is uh directing us to drive growth to.

So let's start with the West Side Flats.

So uh on the West Side Flats, there's three opportunity sites, which are all located within the UM Merca overlay district and would be partially affected by FMR's formulary tiering requirements.

Uh much of the land that would be subjected to these tiering requirements, however, is publicly owned or already developed.

Uh so for example, a lot of the airport would have had tiering or a lot of uh like another regional park would be required to have tiering, but these are areas where we're not expecting development.

Uh and so what I did for my analysis was focus on this area here, uh, which is probably the only uh place or new development that will likely have tiering.

And so as you can see, uh, you know, you tier up to here, and then after that back line, here you hit your maximum height limit, so then tiering doesn't apply anything else.

So uh at the West Side Flats, we have an adopted master plan.

Um, and this master plan already has tiering built in.

So we did this, whether or not we were required to uh by the state.

And at the parcels that would be uh affected by tiering, uh, the maximum height would be uh 50 feet at these yellow parcels at the kind of yellow area, and then the height increases as you step back from the river.

So we already have tiering in place with a master plan.

And so what this would do would just add an extra thing on top of what we already have in place.

Um so under the suggested tiering requirements, uh it'd be possible to reach uh the heights that are called for in the master plan.

However, this would uh be administratively burdensome and add another review thing that we have to do uh to look at tiering.

Um and therefore uh we believe that adding this extra requirement would be redundant given what's already in the master plan scenario.

Uh the next site is the Johnson Brothers site.

And under uh FMR's and uh Ms.

Torsens's uh proposed amendments, basically tiering does nothing to this site.

So uh the way it works in the RTC district is that tiering is done from the district boundary, which happens to be uh well enough outside the site, where essentially tiering is doing the tiering requirement, just isn't doing anything for for this opportunity site.

Um, and then we have Ford and Highland Bridge.

So uh the proposed amendments would apply formulate tiering uh for parcels on Mississippi River Boulevard.

Um south of village way, uh it would be oops.

Kind of the majority of the parcels of the area of the parcels would fall under this formula tiering requirements.

Um north of village way, there's less uh that would be uh subjected to these tiering requirements.

Um and so, like the West Side Flats, uh the Ford Master Plan and associated F districts already provide required tier building heights, and we codified them in both the master plan, but then also the zoning here.

Um so limiting the heights, like limiting heights beyond what is already required in the F district would be inconsistent with the adopted plan and therefore inconsistent with the 2040 plan.

Um, and this formula tiering approach again would be unnecessarily unnecessary.

It might be unnecessary and duplicative, considering tiering is already codified in the F districts.

Uh, and so adding this other layer uh would offer no practical benefit while aftermining adopted policies.

And why I say that is you know, we spent 10 years of planning trying to figure out these heights.

We've had a lot of discussion uh, you know, and decided that 48 feet was the right height for those parcels, and now we're coming in and adding another thing on top of what we already had to limit these heights for.

All right, moving.

So the last site uh uh that I looked at was the Ramsey County West site.

Um, and again, this is where the proposals differ a little bit.

So FMR has uh doesn't include the UC and their version of amendments for this kind of setback methodology.

Uh Allen's does.

Um and so under Mr.

Torsens' proposal, the UC district would be subject subject to a 35 base height at the shoreline with a one-foot height increases for every five feet distance uh uh structure is from the river.

Um our opinion is that this staff's opinion is that this approach would be highly restrictive in a downtown context where the bluff is approximately 85 foot feet high.

Uh and this height limit uh limitation would effectively prevent uh some of the early concepts that have been proposed by Ramsey County from the site from advancing without a conditional use permit approval.

Um and so this is how the tiering looks at this site.

Um earlier I was talking about kind of irregular boundaries to do tiering from.

Well, this is a great example of uh site where if you try to actually design the zoning standards without a cup, it would be extremely difficult.

Um so you can kind of see here, so there's two lines out at two heights here.

So basically, you know, set back this far to get to 85 feet and then sit back that far to get to 100 feet, and you'd have to design a building around this curve if you wanted to meet the standard without um without a conditional use program.

So our staff recommendation, so because of the the reasons listed, uh we did not uh recommend lowering the base sites as proposed by testimony uh because suggested height amendments of testimony are inconsistent with the guidance with the DNR model ordinance, which suggested creating sub-districts of cities wish to apply less subjective tiering requirements, inconsistent with the approach to heights that every other city that is required to adopt mercury provisions taken, again undermining the goal of promoting the coordinated land use planning, zoning along the 72-mile corridor, uh difficult to administer due to irregular and curvy linear nature of rivers, bluffs, and potentially difficult to survey uh district boundaries and at times unreliable data to assist staff in discerning what is a natural versus unnatural bluff, and then overly restrictive in the UC district and would not permit regional development projects as envisioned without a conditional use permit.

Uh and the setback formula in the UC districts uh would not result in um less restrictive tier or less subjective tiering substances.

So here was the recommended language that was being proposed by staff.

However, after discussion and a vote, uh the CMTC is recommending language that is uh uh language from Mr.

Torsenson's very version of amendments.

So here's what that new section would look like under the CMDC recommended language.

So again, the big difference is that you would have this 35 foot height limit base at these districts uh with then different setbacks.

Uh we also made another change just uh that I requested just to make things a little bit easier going forward instead of shoreline, we're saying the ordinary high water level for the setback, and the reason why I wanted to do that is because the shoreline where it is changes at different times of year.

And so if you do the ordinary high water level, I think that makes us less uh susceptible to challenges or litigation due that way.

Um and then a second part of um what we need to do with uh if we do his uh with the CFPC recommendation is that it'll add a standard B here.

Um so because we're replacing tiering language completely with the formula, uh, we need to have something in place to guide us to what to do when we go over that maximum height.

Um, and so uh basically what this new language here in red is saying is that if you go over it over the maximum height of the cup, buildings still need to be tiered, but that um review will be subjective and don't do the conditional use permit process.

So with that, that's what I got to belong to.

We've lost most of the people in the sport.

Thank you, Chair.

Um Mr.

Johnson I think this is a great uh best fit line through the concerns.

Um, but I have a question of a concern specifically about the Randy West site and the structure height.

So one I'm not clear, and I guess if I'm not clear, I'd worry that the developer might be clear either.

Um, about what happens if I want to build a building that is saying I don't know a hundred taller than a hundred.

I don't I don't even know how to ask my question.

So if I think about the Ramsey County West site, it starts essentially at the river's edge.

Yeah, and so then there's no visual impact if you're building an 80 at all, if you're building an 85 feet or shorter, even if it's you know the way the original building was built up against flood block, right?

That only gives you 15 feet.

And it seems not silly, but it seems like a lot of work for staff to go through a conditional use permit process and then through the planning commission.

Like I I feel like Mr.

Torsen's proposals um to limit the number of CUP applications of this COVID is a good solution.

I'm not in the way that it was originally structured work.

So I think you've come to a good conclusion, but I do think that like on this in particular and the Johnson brother site too to some extent um where there is no master plan that protects sort of the rest and there's multiple steps right if you need to do a master plan amendment.

I don't like that 85 right like sorry there's a question in here somewhere but I think you're picking up what I'm I am and I'll and I will um you know perhaps offer a solution for the committee to chew on um so basically what we did in our first one uh and what we recommended um this is what the DNR will allow in the site so we don't have to put a height limit in UC uh the model ordinance says that we can have it so that the height is determined by the underlying zoning and so what you could potentially do if you wanted to kind of split the difference is maybe just amend UC to say that again but then keep the tiering for the rest of the districts um might be a way to go with it.

Otherwise yeah I think you're Jake I think I agree with your analysis I think uh we'd be getting a conditional use permit there kind of no matter what even even if the we change the limits just the way it curves would be super hard to kind of design a building around it so I don't think I don't think the designers are going to want to deal with that and they'll just go into it with a we're gonna get a cup if it passes this way.

Commissioner Keggy's a small counts point um we have an 85 foot grade difference regardless of whether we adopt this or not and presumably the underline zoning would sound that 85 it would compensate by feet either way right so you have an underlying zone district you're still measuring from the ground and the first 85% of whatever the first 85 feet of the underlying zoning you know it's it's not a different thing to me is some policy different right because what we're saying is you the first 85 feet building you build is going to get you to catalog anyway and so that's going to take 85 feet of whatever the underlying zoning would allow and so when you say well this is a feat that that applies either way in in in my estimation um do you think there is a a difference between you know taking an 8 by feat putting it along the river line is different to um to putting it after so I think we we have a site specific concern there which is a bit unconventional in any case and sure adding this um this requirement which will will restrict further but online zone would also have to deal with a five grade change.

Commissioner Ryan right and I think that that's that's the problem I'm identifying is that this site is unique and other sites that are going to be like let's take the um post office building the hope that's not a post office anymore what if it's a hotel custom house custom house thank you let's take the custom house building you enter on colour but that building goes down and up and any of these buildings will as well and so what I'm saying is we're sort of applying especially if you look at this table we're applying a height standard that just doesn't work from a business standpoint for anybody trying to build a building um and you're right they'll have to come for a conditional use permit and it seems like this might be an opportunity to avoid that actual layer and whether that doing something to the UC part that's the downtown part to remove that additional hurdle in order to make it easier to develop that's what I that's what I'm thinking yeah I guess my question for Sherley is is is that same let's we just rely on online zoning would the developer have the same problem you know we would they also say well that the end line zoning has no they wouldn't have to get a cobline zoning is so I got this question I should have actually been prepared for this this time so our code is really weird there's a provision from like the 1920s that actually does limit the height at this location that I don't think a lot of people that work in zoning even know about because we're it is in the code um and I don't have that in front of me but in the rest of downtown heights are on and what we do to rely on basically the limit height is the FAR of actually the height at some point the original referencing no so there is an actual height limit here it's in a weird place so it's it's like a from 1922 it's basically this thing that refers to different datums in St.

And I don't have that in front of me, but in the rest of downtown heights are on.

And what we do to rely on basically the limit height is the FAR eventually the height at some point.

No, so there is an actual height limit here.

It's in a weird place.

So it's it's like a from 1922.

It's basically this thing that refers to different datums in St.

Paul.

And then it refers to a map that I don't even know.

I don't even know where the map is, but to go find it.

Uh and so but that's a separate thing.

So like I I bring that up to say that there is, but that's separate from RECA.

And uh I'd rather that they stay separate and kind of think about those two different things.

I think the issue that Jake is bringing up, and the question you should ask yourself is whether or not you want to have them have a condition require a conditional use permit to develop this site, because that's essentially what we'd be doing if we did this.

So anyone's gonna get a code.

And help me understand what is the uh but let's say we did not go in the um, I suppose the is formulate sharing approach.

There's mention of subjective sharing case.

Yep.

What is that?

So it's basically they would still have to do tiering, like we can't tell them you can't do tiering, so they would have to and this is my not good example.

I mean, this is the extreme example, but they would have to design a building that has some tiering in it, and basically what we would have to do as staff is look at the building and say, does the is this building tier away from the river as suggested?

And and in the concepts that I've seen so far, but you know, again, we serve for change, they're doing that.

Um, but that's just something that we'll have to review.

But it's not being administrative examination.

It would be, um, but like say there's disagreement about it.

Remember, we can always forward you guys site plan.

So if it becomes controversial, I think we would forward it to the commission and then have a discussion as to whether or not you know it's tiered enough for folks.

Okay, so if it were a formulate sharing one application, is that they would get comp that would then come to zoning where the other approach could be a comp sign plan review, which in theory could be called the acceleration, yeah.

It would be no assignment review and less company wide that particular exactly.

Yep.

Interesting, yep.

Well, I think that's that's helpful, and it's it's an interesting one.

I'm not sure it necessarily kills composed liberal, but it's a yeah, it's something new, we should be treated the site differently.

Okay, but there's we're all not overlap.

This has nothing to do with you, Tony.

My flame.

But if there's over discussion, and then there's nothing else on our agenda, although it's there, there's no reports or anything.

So the people, the commissioners that aren't on count the neighborhood planning committee can see how detailed the board can get with the what isn't it?

Uh what is it?

Chapter 63.

Yeah, that's that 22, might be 22.

Yep, exactly.

And that that's what I think it's in a weird place.

So that section of the code is uh general applicability.

Um if I were to amend that one day, I would put it in downtown.

Commissioner Ryan, yeah.

So I did just have one question about the staff report on the blue language on page 12 of the staff report when it's that uh you know, this is optional language shown in blue.

Yeah, so are you looking for us to somehow?

No, no, I just wanted to like that.

We like it or we don't like it.

No, I didn't no, no, no, no.

So that that's directly from the model ordinance, and I put that in there just to show you guys like what kind of how the DNR gives us information.

So they give us most of it in a way where they're like, we want you to do it this way, but then in blue, they'll give us options at various things, and so that's how the DNR presented their height standard.

Um, and then we're changing it a bit more than that.

Um, but I think they're uh I think they're okay with what we would do if we recommend outlets version of methodology.

Thank you.

Okay, well, that's everything on our agenda agenda.

Our next meeting for the comprehensive neighborhood planning meeting is October one, and this uh presentation will actually come back to the planning, our next planning commission meeting, and then we'll be voting, right?

And then we'll be voting, right?

Thank you.

Great job.

With that, um our meeting for today's September 19th is adjourned.

No transportation.

Oh yes, it does.

You don't want our transportation report.

Oh, we didn't think that there was any.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Oh, we said we make certain.

Transformation is important.

I'm sorry.

Transportation is important.

We're not inquired.

Just this thing.

You should have said.

There's only three of you, right?

There's not many of us left.

I know I think that's a good idea.

This is one of the things that we're trying to remember.

Yeah.

Well, you know, but then when they, you know, then we like it.

You are so you are.