The uh October 9th meeting of the St.

Paul Planning Commission will now come to order.

Um our special meeting.

Uh so we have two zoning cases on our agenda today.

The first one is zero empire drive, CUP and our planning staff, uh Chris Hong will provide a brief report.

Hello.

Um for those of you who are not in attendance.

Um the zoning application is for um St.

Paul Public Schools, which is um we see a parcel from the port authority to construct a proposed heavy machinery sandbox training facility, and it will provide heavy equipment training for high school students.

Um and uh a CUP is required for trade schools in the I2 zoning district.

Um we did not receive any written testimony, but at the public hearing we had three people speak in support, and um one speaker four people speak in um in support and one in opposition.

All right, uh thanks, Chris.

Uh so the motion at a committee was for approval.

Um and we have the motion already coming out of committee, so we can move forward um to discussion.

All right, Christian.

Um just wondering what was the uh what was the comment?

What was the opposition?

Um the opposition was from a uh nearby property owner.

They said that they did not receive the public hearing notice, and they were concerned about um uh dust and some various other um um negative effects from the um from the site.

And um the zoning secretary was able to verify that we did send a public hearing notice.

That was the comment I heard.

And um there will be a site plan review process which is required um of them to assure that there won't be issues with dust.

Any other questions or items for discussion?

Uh so the site plan review process that the outdoor school contingent upon that being completed.

Um, process before they can start.

Yes.

It it's required in order to obtain a building permit.

Okay.

And and that's it's not required for um all construction, but it is for um this because they are including outdoor storage.

Because there's quite a rush to get the school started, right?

Right.

So that it still needs to wait for that process to conclude.

Correct.

I think um, yes, that that is correct.

One one comment, and this wasn't enough to kind of displace my my opinion on this, but um there was a sense that the noise could potentially be disrupted to where to that plaza they've just constructed outside, you know, it would get to the to the criterion of disrupting the normal and orderly use and development of the surrounding property criterion potentially.

So it sounds like that kind of condition about noise and impact on plausible usage, wherever that plaza is, is something that could be potentially addressed during site plan.

It could.

Um however, they do need to you know comply with the the noise ordinance and the noise um limit is higher in industrial uh districts.

Um, but but that is required regardless of site plan review.

Thank you, Trigo.

Yeah, on that comment.

One, this was really reading this application was the first I heard of this.

I thought this was a great effort by the operating engineers and SPPS, and this is a really cool creative thing.

This parcel is right by that uh the Rice Street Bridge in an I2 zone.

So really, if you want to think about it, this is actually a low intensive use for I2.

So if we say no to this, I mean, you know, you could there are a lot of things that you could do on I2 that would be significantly more disruptive to the plaza of the MTIC or that organization.

So that would be my comment.

Yeah, sure.

So relative to these questions, I see on the diagram we have a berm that's identified and we have fencing that's identified.

I don't see heights of those at all.

I see lengths, but I don't see the heights.

Do we have any further information about that?

Because those both seem to be mitigating measures to some of these concerns.

Uh we we don't.

The the berm, I believe, is mostly for um stormwater.

But uh that because it was just a preliminary um site plan, I didn't really have questions about height, and there are height restrictions in I2.

Okay.

Thanks.

All right, any other discount?

Commissioner Raleigh.

I forget the um when they're red.

Okay.

Um thank you, Chair.

I'm just curious if um the I guess there's an option where we can request that something come to us for site plan review.

I'm not suggesting we make that request, but I thought based on the line of questioning that I would bring it up.

Any other discussion on the item?

This is the right spot if you might commission um chair.

I was interested that they talked about students being bust there.

So it's all about the parking.

There was some commentary about the parking.

I don't think it's a big issue, but it just struck me their high school kids.

Many of them can drive there.

So but they made it sound like if they were using the bus transportation as a way to minimize traffic.

And I think I know schools are a little bit to say that a lot of kids drive, and kids who tend to be going to trade school, going to school part-time, tend to drive there.

Is their place for them to park?

Because they talk about staff parking, but they don't talk about any extra parking.

Sure.

There is uh street parking on on Empire Drive.

However, because they're not the the classes don't take up the entire day, and I'm I suppose that they would be taking the school bus because they're going from the school to the site.

Um, however, just in conversations with the applicant, local 49 owns the building next door, and they have a large parking lot and they have volunteered that space.

Thanks.

All right, any other discussion on the item.

All right.

Um so we have a motion coming out of committee.

Um, so we'll move forward with a vote.

So uh uh we have a motion coming out of committee, so we we're all right.

We can we can move forward with that a second, but thank you.

We appreciate it.

Um different being in the different room.

Um, so we'll move forward.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed any abstentions?

All right, uh the item passes.

Next up is 1003 arcade SEUP, and uh Mr.

Hankerson uh will provide a brief report as well.

Good afternoon, Chair Commissioners.

Um 1003 arcade street.

Oh sorry.

I think we were all here for the first presentation.

Uh just uh I I don't know that everyone was here for the the full uh okay.

This will be brief.

Okay, I'll make it I'll make it quick.

Uh but this zoning application was an application for a conditional use permit at 1003 arcade street for a rental hall event center.

The applicant is planning to host events such as weddings, um cultural events, business meetings, and um most of the conditions were met.

There's one that uh has additional conditions attached um regarding ingress and egress um creating um traffic in the area, and there needs to be a a plan submitted to the zoning administrator to show how they would manage traffic for large events, and there was no public comment submitted and no public testimony as zoning committee.

Thank you.

Um so the motion at a committee was for approval with the two conditions.

Um is there any discussion on this item?

Commissioner Riley.

I have a bunch of questions.

Let's maybe have Mr.

Hankerson uh slowly make his way back up.

Hi.

Hi.

Can you tell me where exactly on the site the 20 parking spaces are?

Yes.

So the parcel um maybe I can't.

Are they on the HRA parcel adjacent?

What's that?

Are they on the HRA parcel that is a butting the parcel that's in question?

It's not, it's a part of their parcel.

Um I'm just gonna pull up the presentation again.

So it's kind of a unique yeah.

It's a unique parcel here that actually has like two areas of land.

So it's um the parking is located in this strip that's in the alley.

Thank you.

Um I guess I'm real I'm all in favor of new businesses.

I'm all in favor of um you know, entrepreneurs, et cetera.

However, I do not think that this comes anywhere near close to meeting the goals um of the comprehensive plan.

Uh and I do not think that there is an effective way to minimize congestion in the public right-of-way or road based on the site and how it is constrained by the HRA parcel next door and the middle school to the rear.

And in full disclosure, um I facilitated the purchase of this property next door by the HRA, and the hope has always been that this be additional housing and workspace for people who live and work in St.

Paul because it is on a transit corridor.

Um, and so I'm just going to state that for the record.

Um, and uh note that I am more than happy to make a motion to deny, but that's not the motion on the table.

Thank you for your time.

Is there any other discussion on the motion on the table?

Yeah, I'm I'm I always, you know, I think it's I always look at the parking and and the and the movement of vehicles in.

So my question would be when the conditions are to be met, who decides that the plan is approved after we vote at this table.

Commissioner, the transportation plan and the site plan with the parking spaces are to be submitted to the zoning administrator, and the zoning administrator would need to uh approve those plans before the permit is acted.

I'll add a comment to me.

It does sound like Commissioner Riley's comments are directed to sort of larger events there.

And um I know that the staff report in itself did impose a condition requiring transportation plan over a certain number.

Um I I I didn't at the uh prior hearing delve too closely into why that number, why is that the threshold, you know, would it make sense to consider like a lower limit or a lower number requiring some sort of further scrutiny?

Um given Commissioner Rodney's comments, I wonder if that's something we could discuss a little bit here about you know that that where that threshold should be given the um I guess the context of the site.

Sure.

Um Chair Commissioner, um that number was chosen kind of based on the amount of spots available, um, as well as you know, I think it's appropriate to have some street parking, um, just not overly burdensome.

Um so that 100 number comes from what could be burdensome to the surrounding neighborhood, but it certainly could be discussed, and we could write a new condition.

Um I mean uh I think we should keep discussing the item.

I I will flag 20 spots for 100 people is not, I think an unwieldy number um for us to be discussing.

Um when there is other options for street parking, um, and then over the 100, they are also looking into other options for demand management, including shared parking arrangements.

Um I do think that's maybe just something to keep in mind as we're discussing this that that doesn't feel like an outsized number when you think about the number of folks.

Um that's sort of my my my comment for this.

Um thank you, True.

Uh so is this a right-of-way currently?

The parcel, like a right-of-way alley.

Uh Commissioner, so there's there's right of way and then the slice of the parcel that is a part of this subject property.

Is it actually attached to the other property?

It doesn't look like it's attached.

It's not attached.

Okay.

And 20 spots there.

They would be end-to-end somehow, it looks like looking at cars.

So somebody's gonna have to moderate in and out.

That's the same thing.

Commissioner Riley.

If it's helpful, I do drive up and down this street many, many times a week and could share what it has been like in the past if people are interested while it was being used as a church on Sundays.

Cars would park end to end along the little blue strip.

They would sometimes park on the HRA owned lot, which also happens to happen across the street from me, which we recently saw zoning case for two.

Um and uh the both sides of the street on arcade are almost always fully parked because there's a tremendous number of small businesses around.

Um there is a uh really successful um boxing gym just down the street from here.

There's an auto um repair um uh facility not far that has sort of a constrained parking lot um behind it as well.

Um it's a very busy place with a bus that also travels here, and I'm mostly worried about that congestion clause in in our code um and minimizing congestion in the public right-of-way.

I think a hundred I think 20 spaces is totally fine for 100 people.

Um the nonprofit down the street that they're referencing, I am fairly confident is the Among American Partnership up by the CVS.

They have probably another 30 parking spaces, but it's not that close.

Um again, my concern's not so much parking, it's the conflict between potential pedestrian and vehicle conflicts, um buses, um, and then sort of the highest and best use outcome that could be for the site, given that there's a um publicly owned property uh and you could fit multiple places for people to live and work here.

There's also another um vacant lot kitty corner.

Um I don't know.

It's just it's a it's a tough this is a tough one because the staff report is well written and well crafted for approval um and with different findings related to the comprehensive plan, certainly um you could you could also craft it for for denial.

So maybe this is the kind that we should lay over.

I don't I don't know.

Thank you.

Uh thanks, Commissioner Riley.

Um so we can, I think we're in a position time-wise where if laying it over um is what we want to do, we can.

Um I also think there is a motion on the table.

There's a vote in the committee.

Um, and I do think we should perhaps move forward with the vote as is and then see where we are and see what motions maybe folks want to take.

Um, unless there's other discussion on the particular item.

Um Commissioner Martinson.

Thank you, Chair.

So in looking at the um looking at the recommendations from staff um under the zoning analysis, there's reference made to the arcade street small area plan.

Um the economic develop strategy one seems yes, that makes sense, but the land use strategy one I was puzzled by because that suggests concentrated community oriented commercial uses in two areas along arcade.

One at Arcade in Maryland, which this isn't, and uh and then arcade between case and the arcade bridge, which I trust is the bridge across pa uh Phainland down to the south.

And this is not in that zone either.

So I I don't think land use strategy one is pertinent because it's this is outside of both of those development zones.

So just that should be that should be changed because it that doesn't that's that is not part of the small area plan that is supportive of this proposal.

That's that's it.

I uh do you have any feedback on the though?

Um yeah, I would just ask if they're if we're moving towards denial if we could have um something for the record so I could write staff for it based on findings.

Yep, just a second.

Uh we're at a comment from the director.

Uh thank you, Commissioners.

I think you know, if if there's outstanding questions about parking and or other issues that we can get answers for you, we're happy to entertain a layover so that we can get more information and maybe work some of that out uh to get you some additional information.

Point of order.

So in order to get there, we have to kill this motion that's before us currently, yes?

So we have to vote it down.

We could vote on the motion.

Um the motion could pass.

Um if the motion fails, then we would have an option either then uh to make a motion to lay it over or an option for denial.

Because we do have the motion, it did just come straight out of committee.

If folks are comfortable with that.

Okay.

So the motion, um, I'm not seeing any other hands for discussion.

Okay.

So the motion coming out of committee was for approval with the two conditions.

Um we'll move forward and we'll vote now.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Um and then all those in opposition.

Okay.

So I had three in favor.

And more than three in opposition.

I think five at least.

Um so with that, the motion fails.

We did it on voice vote.

Um, so the motion fails.

Um with that said, then we have the option for someone to introduce a motion to lay the item over.

I I'll make the motion to lay the item over.

Okay, so there's a motion from Commissioner Riley.

Second.

Seconded by uh, excuse me, without the name in front of you.

Just so you just say it right now.

Commissioner Hackney seconds the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Hackney.

You've all moved chairs, and I just for everybody's sake.

Commissioner Riley and Commissioner Hackney.

So we have a motion, we have a second.

Um we have discussion.

Thank you, Chair.

Since this is being laid over, then can we make a request of staff that uh when they come back to us?

I would be interested in seeing a bit more of the history of this parcel if we can.

If that is if that's deemed germane by legal for our decision purposes, I would like to see what may have been envisioned previously for this parcel.

Is that fair?

Um we can take that note back to staff, and I think they can provide what they think is appropriate in the situation.

There's also the note um that Commissioner Martinson made about correcting the record um around that other note.

So um for Michelle Hagerson, I think that would be helpful.

Um other items for discussion.

Commissioner Hudd.

I pose uh thank you, Chair.

I oppose laying this over.

I think that we should just do it right now, move this thing forward.

I like look, it 20 spots.

I think everything is gonna be fine with this.

This the history of this building is it was a church up until 2012 when it was bought by the new owners.

They are a small business owner, they want to start an event center in this former church.

You know, the HRA land is to the north.

Just because that we have an event hall here, it doesn't preclude the city or the HRA from doing anything to the lot to the north.

You there's like there's no rules that say can't build housing next to a former church that hosts some events.

So uh in my opinion, the staff report was rock solid, and it's something that I support and I'd love to get this approved and just have the small business owner uh add some more vitality to this like corridor.

Um so that's my that's my opinion.

So I'm gonna be voting no in laying this thing over because the questions that we're asking for, like it doesn't they don't matter to the case, the facts of this case.

So that's why I'm gonna vote to not lay it over and let's just approve it and move it forward.

Thank you, Commissioner Hood.

Is there anyone else uh who has items for discussion?

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I agree, uh Commissioner Hood, uh we just need to approve it and move it.

And uh um we uh uh for us for a zoning, we did discuss it and we also uh uh ask a question for the stuff and uh um yeah, we just need to vote it and move it.

Anyone else?

I will say that for folks that live in the area.

Um I would uh encourage folks to lay it over.

All right.

Uh seeing no one else for discussion, um, so we have a motion on the table, which is to lay it over and tell our Commissioner Hackney.

Chair, could you expand on what you meant?

Uh yeah, I'm just seeing that the parcel is separated like it is.

Um just because a church was using it prior to this this in this manner.

Um not sure if we you know want to continue that practice.

Um, you know, now that we're it's under purview and we want to look take a look at it.

Um is that the land use we want to continue.

Okay.

Um so seeing nobody else for discussion, um, we have the motion, which is to lay the item over.

We had a motion and a second.

Um we've had discussion on the item.

We'll move forward with a vote.

Uh all those in favor to lay the item over.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

Nay.

A all right.

Stay count.

So we had the majority in favor of laying the item over.

We have four that were in opposition, Commissioners Presley, Hood, Starling, and Syed.

Correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

So this item uh will be laid over and we'll have it at our next regular meeting, which will be October 17th at 8 30 a.m.

Um and that is all for us today.

So the next regularly scheduled meeting is October 17th at 8 30 a.m.

in City Hall room 40.

Uh, we are adjourned.