Oh maybe this could be something we're going to use.

I have something for a second.

Try this again.

Thank you.

Yeah, it's both the talk.

Or can check.

All right.

I now call the order.

The Friday November 14th meeting of the St.

Paul's Planning Commission.

First item is approval of the minutes from the October 17th Planning Commission meeting.

Do I have a motion on the minutes?

So moved.

Moved by Commissioner Risberg.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Hackney.

Is there any discussion on the motions?

Seeing no discussion, we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

All right, motion passes.

Next up is chair's announcements.

I have no exciting announcements, just that we'll be doing an election later on today.

And excited that we will be hopefully filling some vacant spots on the leadership.

Next up is the planning director announcements.

Thanks, Chair.

Morning, everybody.

Just a couple of quick things.

This uh past Wednesday, the city council adapted the T District zoning tax amendments, which was really exciting.

Uh and they also initiated a phase two of uh zoning map amendments.

So we'll be moving forward with that and we'll get you more information as we develop the scope.

Just wanted to let you know about that.

Thank you.

Uh next up is zoning committee.

Are there any announcements from the zoning committee?

Thank you, Share.

There's no uh cases on a document this week.

However, the next meeting is capable of connect the 20th um is uh closed that we have today.

There'll be two items of business on our agenda, um a CUP the 226 summit and um an NCUP for 1383 Encade on a variance.

Thank you, Commissioner Teg.

Yeah.

Next up is comprehensive and neighborhood planning committee.

Uh Commissioner.

Good morning, everyone.

Um we met a couple weeks back, and uh we had one item on our agenda, which was the 84137 Grand Avenue Redevelopment Plan.

Um regarding um uh determining whether TIP uh was consistent uh with the site.

I assume that you're giving are we getting a little presentation actually?

Sorry if I I probably chair.

Um we weren't planning on it, but if you'd like us to make that I think it'd be a good idea to at least give a short one on it, yeah.

Sorry, I didn't mean to uh catch anyone flat wood, my apologies.

Don't worry, Commissioner.

We're preparing maybe connected.

It's not a meeting if we don't make bell run around a little bit.

Thanks, I feel useful.

In the interim, our next meeting is scheduled for the uh 26th.

We do not have an agenda this time.

Wonderful, thank you.

Okay, chair commissioners, good morning.

Um just got a few slides on the redevelopment plan and the role the planning commission has vision.

So this is the redevelopment plan for assignment 841 and 857 Grand Avenue.

These sites might look familiar because the um rezoning went through you all in April 2025, and then conditionally it's permitted for you all for approval May of 2025.

So we've talked about these sites in this proposed project here.

Um here's a couple photos of the sites just to orient you.

The grand avenue is there kind of in front of paper source and Victoria's uh kind of background of the images.

That house is the A poll one property, which is an interior lot.

So Minnesota State Law requires input from a municipalities planning agency um for proposed redevelopment plans and St.

Paul, the planning commission acts as planning agency for these decisions.

This decision that needs to be made basically is whether the proposed redevelopment plan tip district or its system with the comprehensive plan and the scope of that decision is pretty narrow in terms of what's within the planning commission's purview.

This process is kind of similar to comprehensive planning consistency reviews that planning commission has done somewhat recently this year for like commercial development districts.

We're talking about a lot of additional hours for here's some key policies from the 2040 comprehensive plan.

You know, basically the component supports density adjacent to transit, supports efficient use of parking, also supports focus growth at um folks growth and mixed uses at neighborhood nodes on transit corridors and new housing that supports walkability.

And here's just a reminder of this project that would be within the redevelopment plan.

So it's a six-story virtual mixed use building.

It's got a step back after the first two stories, and then another one after the fifth story.

90 dwelling units, 12,000 square feet of commercial space.

There are also a total of parking spaces and all those are supposed to be in structure that's located underneath and to the rear of the building.

There's also a ground floor closet for outdoor tax fronting brand advocate.

And so because the project basically exemplifies comprehensive plan policy and it aligns with the new T3 zoning, the CNPC found that the proposed redevelopment plans consistent with the comprehensive plan.

And they um basically made the recommendation that planning commission then go forward and recommend approval to the HRA to be the next step.

All right, thank you.

Um so uh the uh planning commission met on this um and we did make a motion coming out of the planning commission uh motion was to find the uh or I guess I would make a motion, but we agreed uh uh as approved the final redevelopment plan consistent with the 2020 40 comprehensive plan and recommend approval for the housing and redevelopment authority.

So there's a mission from Commissioner Holt uh for approval uh and to move it forward to the HRA.

Um is there a second?

Second second by Commissioner Riley.

So we have a motion and a second um the discussion on the motion.

Okay, um all three of you are at the same time.

I'm gonna go Riley, Martins, and TF.

Thanks.

I just I have a couple, I have a I just have a comment, I guess, which is that it seemed like we could beep up the connection to that comprehensive plan in the in the staff report.

Um, I think it doesn't address some of the things that um are important to be considered in the conference plan.

For example, it doesn't address the number of housing units the number of households that'll generate along with the connection to the least water system.

So I'm just sort of thinking through how to um kind of develop suspenders some of this, especially since I suspect that ultimately this will come with the affordable housing components.

So that's another if then the seeking tip, then that's another um component of connection to our comprehensive plan and the regional um comprehensive planning is not that I just had a comment.

Oh thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Riley, Commissioner Martinson.

Thank you, Chair.

So uh I was I was just gonna ask a question because the motion that was in materials that I've got and then the printed didn't exactly match what's here, and I apologize.

I was out of town and not able to be at comp planning.

So there so the redevelopment plan and TIP district.

But TIP district this is the first time I've seen it mentioned.

So what's the what's the business with the tip here?

And is that part of so that's part of your motion, but that's not part of what I came prepared to vote on.

So I need to I need a little bit of backfield there.

I apologize.

Okay, no, that yes, it's sorry, it's a bit of semantics.

So basically, we're approached to consider TIP for the site, and to do that, you need to establish a redevelopment plan.

And so the by voting on agreeing that the comp that the redevelopment plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Um, you'd be establishing or you'd be recommending to the HRA that to establish a redevelopment plan that way to enact a tip district.

I see.

So it's it's one same.

If it helps, we can you can go with what's printed and vote on the redevelopment plan, but it's essentially a package.

And oh, can I get a follow-up on this as well?

Yep.

So I didn't see that there are plans in this building for any uh portable housing uh at any level of income.

Uh so Ryan, uh sorry, Jake.

You Commissioner Riley has mentioned low-income housing.

Is there was there more that I'm not aware of that was in the discussion?

Is there plans for any low-income units in this book at all?

I'm sorry.

Um it's a market required.

Straight market.

And then it qualifies for TIP.

It can't planning commission and HRA agree that it follows.

Go to the director before I go to Commissioner or Commissioner Sick, Tavia, it's right.

Thanks, Chair.

Uh, just want to clarify some things.

So just sort of like a land use application that we get, anyone can submit an application for a redevelopment tip.

Um, and we have to accept it if process it.

So that's what's happening here.

Um, you know, the city in this case hasn't initiated this on their own.

This is an application coming from a private developer.

So we're looking, so we're evaluating it and moving it through the process.

Um, whether or not it has affordable or not, isn't what's before you today?

Okay.

What's before you today is, you know, somewhat narrow, but is this you know in line with the cop?

You know, like is housing this, you know, this type of this type of housing in line with the cop plan.

There's a lot, you know, like I acknowledge that there's a lot of questions about the development.

We don't have all of the answers at this point because they're not required to be provided for this.

Um, just like if we got a conditional use permit, we wouldn't ask, is there affordable housing?

You know, like so I think there's a lot still in the works.

Um I would, you know, I would uh recommend that you look at what's in front of you today.

Um, and if you have questions about you know other parts of the project or the TIP process, I can connect to you with staff later on to answer those.

And I I also want to flag, um, it's been pointed out that I should remind everyone as well, and that this will be going to the HRA and the city council after us.

If there are several stops along the way.

Just for clarification, um uh that there are more steps required, not only more steps, but more um sort of independent votes that would determine whether or not this property would be ultimately received, right?

This is okay, are you eligible, are you not?

Right.

And then there's a separate decision essentially, are we giving it, are we not?

So is that fair summary?

What you're looking at is if the redevelopment district is compatible with the comprehensive plan.

So this is a checking the box, you know, like there's many steps along the process, and this is one of them.

This isn't approving TIFF.

It isn't saying you like TIFF.

You know, like it's really looking very specifically at something that we've done.

Um, the example that Spencer gave was looking at you know some of the liquor-related um, you know, approvals that we do where there's a long process and the planning commission is one of the steps in that process.

So I know there's a lot of you know information and feelings about TIFF, and that's okay, but in order to make your decision, you have to look, you know, at this very specific uh piece of information.

Just share if I may just uh some committee um sort of color to to what our decision was and answered why.

Um so our the when the committee looks at this, because we do have opinions and feelings on TIP, right?

We were looking to see are in the box check.

Uh the question we asked staff was is there anything here that in the conference plan that would make this um uh uh a reason to go against making it um a um uh excuse me redevelopment district and response was was no.

So what was provided to us was that for the reasons, yes, there are no reasons, no, and hence that was sort of the decision that the committee made at that time, just to use the color on the committee's decision.

All right, we've got a lot of folks.

Um I'm still going back to the original list because uh commissioners taggy off and starling haven't had an opportunity.

Then I'll go to Hood and Riley.

Uh so Commissioner Tag, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Shadow.

I appreciate some of your kind of service.

So I want to preface my comments by saying that I have approached this from the comp plan, the narrow comp plan question.

Um, and I however I look at this, I cannot, I cannot see how in good conscience we can adopt the the CMPC recommendation today on the basis of the presentation and the discussion and the method that's come before us.

And the reason I feel that way is because the NOS recommendation does not, it may provide a great set of arguments for why this is a great development that we should support.

It does not provide a single basis or rationale for finding that this is an appropriate site for a redevelopment district.

It's a very different question.

Beyond that, it also fails to consider a couple of relevant compound policies, but I can go into that.

And I have a little bit to say here, so please be patient.

So I started this by looking at kind of some of the bases of the comprehensive plan.

So when it was written, um it was clear that generating new tax base was a major concern.

So when you look at page 11, the introduction, major trends informing compound policy, it states that St.

Paul lived inclusively challenged paid city services facilities.

It notes that 23% of the time in 2016 of our tax base, buy appraised value is tax exempt, and that as a result, we require two to three more times property tax effort from the remaining taxable properties than the average metro area city.

And that it concludes in its own words that we must continually do more with less.

We need new development in St.

Paul, we absolutely do, but every new building needs services.

The reason we're so focused on density, on walkability, some of these things, is because when we build tall, dense urban mixed-use buildings like this one, they make the city more money in the form of tax base than it costs to provide them various services.

And if you look at the comp plan, we look at this site, it doesn't treat every piece of land equally.

It marks some, such as this site as having particularly high commercial potential.

So if you look at the future land use map, LU2 on page 47, this site is prime real estate.

It is within a mixed-use corridor.

Victorian ground is also the center of a neighborhood node.

So you can see why, right?

If you if you've ever been to this intersection, it has many established businesses, Cafe Latte, Cooks, Red Balloon, you know, bread and chocolate, all those.

The site itself has obviously had a successful hairdresser for many years, had a successful bar for many years, has a premium uh stationary store.

And so it's little wonder then that this was a prime candidate for redevelopment when the previous owner, you know, wasn't able to continue running it.

So in addition, we have addressed this with zoning.

We have rezoned this T3, which is one of our highest densities.

We have approved a CUP adding additional 17 feet in height for a maximum of 74 feet, so that we could get a mixed-use six-story building on this site.

Um, and that those decisions have further increased this site's commercial potential.

So we're going to have two new restaurants and a hair salon, anchoring the three commercial spaces, but gonna have a hundred new premium market rate apartments or more, structure parking below.

This is exactly the kind of site and project that the authors of the comp plan were hoping to bring about when they wrote the 2040 plan.

And the arguments expensive cited are wonderful reasons why we should have a building like this on this site.

And that's just the problem.

So imagine my surprise when I read that this was this site was asking for a TIF district and reporting the reporting, it's not relevant to our decision, but the reporting is somewhere in the region of three to three and a half million dollars in TIF.

It's not relevant, but to give you a sense of what this is.

And let me underline this, right?

When we decide to designate a site as a redevelopment district, what we are saying is we are going is we think it's okay to forego all of the additional tax revenue from that redevelopment for a period of up to 25 years.

That's what we're saying.

So normally when we do a try and new development, we would get a bunch of additional tax money.

We're saying we're going to redesign this redevelopment district and forego all of that.

And that's so I would have expected when I read the memo, I would have expected um the city or our planners to come with a really solid argument about why you know a T3 site with a cup and all this prime location is deserving of you know a public assistance like this.

And I just didn't see it in the memo.

Um, so when I look at, for example, policy LU3 in the comprehensive plan, that says we are to prioritize equitable public investments relative to areas of concentrated poverty as defined by the Metropolitan Council.

In other words, we should prioritize limited public assistance to the areas that need it most.

Policy LU6 also directs us to foster equitable and sustainable economic growth in part by subsection three, growing St.

Paul's tax base in order to maintain and expand city services, amenities, and infrastructure.

You might also, and this is where Commissioner Vance's point is tangentially relevant, you would expect it to address why we should ignore the very specific policy guidance on page 189 of the Comp Plan, which tells us exactly when TIF is and isn't an appropriate tool from the policy perspective.

The Comp Plan sees TIFF as a tool to help us towards goal six in the housing chapter, which is the production, preservation, or improvement of affordable housing or housing for the homeless, not for developments that will command premium rental in Swanky Penthouses.

Except, of course, the memo is written, it is silent on all of these points.

It doesn't address them.

Every single policy that you can bring up if you like, every single policy in there is a reason why mixed use building is a great fit for this site and should be supported in it.

These are these are reasons why we pose it for the rezoning, why we voted for the COP.

This is not, this does not address in its current form why we should designate this site as a redevelopment district specifically.

It just doesn't do it.

So I did ask what happened to CMPC.

I was told, and I think it's clear from Commissioner Monson and Commissioner Holt's comments that there was a brief discussion, and this is all fine, we should wave this through.

And I um it's one of those don't think too hard, which I understand.

Um, but I do think my fellow commissioners, I think it's our job minimally to ask the hard questions and insist that if we're going to approve something like this, we see a well-articulated rational argument.

I'm hoping this is a genuine oversight.

I'd like to believe that staff genuinely you know didn't necessarily have a lot of time for this, or maybe they missed some of the obvious complex.

I'd like to believe that.

Um the other possibility is that potentially this is an example of the lack of transparency that we've seen across the city around deals like this.

It's reflected with the very smoke field rooms, the short-term thinking and the handshake deals that both in the city have resounded rejected not two weeks ago and they've fed up with.

So look, I I don't mean to get on my pedestal here, but if staff is genuinely of the opinion that despite the clear guidance of the country in our plan, there is some basis for us to make a finding consistency.

I would be happy to hear it.

And if I were to hear it, I'd be happy to vote for it.

But we should not, as a commission, be accepting an entire lack of justification for this deficient on their face and pretend that's good policy.

I'll wrap with this final thought, and this is what this is something that I kind of got to think in.

So let's say a prime site like this, neighborhood node, T3, you know, along the bus route, all those things we typically say is a prime site, is really a good candidate for a redevelopment district.

What site in the city is not?

If we approve this today, why shouldn't every single developer on every other unremarkable site in the city ask for the exact same special treatment the next time around?

Shouldn't they too get to ask that the city, the school district, and the county provide infrastructure and services to whatever their mixed-use tenants, their restaurants, their 100-plus families, and then not have to pay taxes to cover them.

Commissioner.

I will I am wrapping.

So for these reasons, I sincerely hope that you will join me in finding that the CNCTC recommendation does not even begin in its current written form to make an adequate case.

That even if a good argument does exist in support of finding performance with the comp plan, it just isn't before us today.

And that unless and until that happens, it is our duty to insist on better.

Thanks, Commissioner Chag.

Um, I don't know if there's any feedback from the staff before we keep rolling.

Yeah.

Uh thanks, Chair.

Commissioner Tag, um, I take a lot of yeah, I take your kind your comments to heart.

Um, and you know, want to assure you that um the staff has not engaged in any backroom dealings of any sort.

We're simply here making a recommendation to you, and you as the planning commission do have the ability to differ from that and make the recommendation that you know uh you think is appropriate.

So um, yes, that's my director Rumson.

I didn't mean to imply anything either way.

I'm just thank you, Madam Chair.

I think this is a moment where, as I understand the task before us, it is whether or not the proposed project in the redevelopment plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

And if on this prime site, the proposal was for say um a parking for parking lot, service parking lot with no services.

I think at that point we would say no, this is not consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The project itself, with everything that Spencer has up, is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

And I think the decision about whether or not it is an appropriate use for a tax increment financing district, is not the question that is before us, nor the information that we have before us.

So I would propose, I'm not sure what the motion was coming out of CNPC that Commissioner Pulse made.

Is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

And leave any discussion of the appropriateness of it for a tax increment financing district and even the reference to it out of our motion.

Sorry, I'm just glancing down the table a little bit.

And it looks like I got a nod.

So I think that's a plausible option.

So I don't know.

Commissioner Olds, do you want to reply to Commissioner Sally now?

All I just want to do is reread the motion, just so you're probably going to find it and come to the score.

Motion is to find the redevelopment plan consistent with the 2020, sorry, with the 2040 comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the housing and redevelopment authority.

Commissioner Stanley.

Not whether it's a good project or not.

I'm just trying to understand the so this is the language that is in writing before that.

So I've got a cheat sheet.

This is what I got.

Find the redevelopment plan consistent with the 2040 comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the housing and redevelopment board.

Yeah, would we consider an amendment that ends that statement at comprehensive plan?

So it's that the planning commission finds that the redevelopment plan is consistent with the 2040 comprehensive plan, period.

So uh to respond to that, so I I uh certainly can take an amendment to a motion, right?

And the section maybe to vote that up or down.

If it's helpful, the secondary of the motion very much greatly supports the said amendment.

Yeah, just a moment.

Um we're getting a little clarity on language here.

Um maybe while we think about and clarify the language with the motion to make sure everything is sort of um tight.

Uh we could keep going with some comments uh and questions and sort of circle back again here on the phrasing.

Um while we're doing that, uh next up was Commissioner Hood.

Thank you, Chair.

So uh Spencer, do you mind everyone?

Um so I guess I want to clarify this.

Um so we're keep going.

Yep.

There we go.

So the uh the planning commission funds the proposed redevelopment plan and TIP district be consistent.

We're scratching TIP district, correct?

Or that's an old version of we're going on this version.

Well, my understanding is that Commissioner Holtz was recommending the version in right now.

Yes.

In writing, so we're the well, no, the version that I read out loud, which is quite different than what's yes, I think that is consistent with what is on the printed copy before us, the plan is not consistent with what Spencer has.

All right, it sounds like we're gonna get some clarification here on the language here certainly regardless.

Um, and if necessary, I suspect uh Commissioner Riley would uh rescind his motion as or second, and I would send mine if there's some some language to use clarification.

So um so Commissioner Holtz, the motion that you made was uh to find a redevelopment plan consistent with the 2040 comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the housing and redevelopment authority.

Correct.

It's been suggested that we also add and city council to that phrase.

Um so I would go with that because that's the motion made here.

Um, and the motions that come out of CMPC are a little bit different than zoning.

So what you make on the table here today is is sort of is the motion.

Very good.

But the uh the only recommended changes and city council.

That was the only recommended okay.

Would you uh draw your second?

Well, we didn't have a motion.

I was just saying that I would support it if the motion was made and accepted, I believe is what I was trying to identify, but might I we had you as a seconder?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, so that would require in order for me to accept his withdrawal of a motion, he has to withdraw a motion, but I thought we had a motion on the table to amend the motion.

It was it was not a motion the discussion.

Okay, I am happy to make that motion at the discretion.

Well, and I have a question that perhaps the city attorney needs to verify.

All right.

Uh so I got a little clarity.

So uh this item would go to the HRA and city council both on the 17th.

So that was why the request was to uh add city council as well.

Oh and I still have a clarifying question about the motion.

I'm sorry.

Sure, let's go.

I thought I I'm under the impression that legally the redevelopment plan and the TIFF district are have to go together.

Because you can't you need to have a redevelopment district in order to have a TISP district.

So I think that the language that is that was originally read by Commissioner Holtz that included the TIP district has to be included.

But I could be wrong, and if it's just a redevelopment plan, that's fine.

I just want to make sure that when we're recommending the consistent, well, we're all we're doing is saying this thing that's happening is consistent with the conference plan to be good, right?

And I want to apologize for adding the affordable component statement.

I shouldn't have said that, just to clarify.

And the two things legally are tied together.

You can't have one without the other.

I want to know from the city attorney whether the motion can just be for the redevelopment.

So that when we are actually making this motion, it is correct, regardless of where it's going and on what day.

Whether the redevelopment plan is consistent with the comp plan.

No, whether you we me our motion needs to say both, as you can't have one without the other, but it's very possible that we only need to make a determination that the redevelopment plan itself is consistent with the conference plan.

Do we need all right?

We've got uh Jenny's got another answer.

We'll put you if you get you closer to the mic go on.

Uh I'm Jenny Wolf with PED.

Um I'll just say that the HRA is the one requesting the redevelopment plan, and redevelopment plan can be established without any TIFF district following.

So redevelopment plan, the process as Spencer laid out has been when we establish a redevelopment plan in a project area that the planning commission is the entity that determines it's consistent with the comp plan.

When we establish the TIFF district, we use our finding department to determine that it's consistent with the comp plan, not the planning commission.

That's all we that's all we've done.

Thank you.

Uh are you open to receiving questions?

There it looks like there might be a couple, and I want to make sure uh we are putting you on the spot today.

I can't answer it all.

Okay, so we're sort of doing a round of questions within the questions um and comments.

What did I see, Commissioner Starling?

Did I see a hand from you?

I'm ready to propose an amendment to the motion, but it's not a question of staff.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Riley, do you have a question of staff?

I um I don't have a question of staff.

I have a comment in response to Commissioner Tap Yes comment that can come after the motion.

Okay, let's let's put those two on ice then.

Is there any questions for uh staff while they are up here?

Okay, maybe I just see a hand over there.

Uh Commissioner Martin.

Well, so I I will ask so so based on based on a comment that I heard from director Robinson.

My thinking was that the redevelopment district was in fact synonymous with a tipped what I just heard from staff is that that is not the case, and what we are being asked to vote on here is whether or not a redevelopment district is consistent with the comp plan in this location.

That is something that I could vote on and vote to approve to pass on to HRA and City Council because it does not it is not been establishing a TIP district is establishing a redevelopment district.

In my mind, those are significant significantly different enough that I did I vote to approve this.

I just make a comment, it's a redevelopment plan.

Redevelopment plan.

Yeah, and I think correct.

Like I said, a TIP district cannot be established without a redevelopment plan, but you can establish redevelopment plan if not establish the TIP district.

Thank you.

And our and our boundaries are proposed to be equal to my ask the question.

Um Commissioner Starling and then Commissioner.

I'm sorry.

Again, not a question, but a proposed amendment.

Okay.

Given the tenor of the conversation, I would like to make an amendment to the language that Spencer Helpley has up.

And simply add recommend approval of the redevelopment plan to the HRA and City Council, just so that is clear that our focus is on the redevelopment plan itself, which given what's in the staff report, given everything in Commissioner Tagyath's comments about this particular site.

I see a strong case for the redevelopment plan itself being worthy of approval.

And then we are very clear that our motion is leaving the conversation about the appropriateness of tax increment financing on this site to other entities.

So that's a proposed amendment to the language.

Commissioner Holtz made the motion.

It was seconded by Commissioner Riley.

So we would need uh Commissioner Holtz and Riley to accept the amendment.

I believe we just need a procedurally, maybe I'm wrong here.

Is that is that accurate?

Because I I thought we just, since there's an uh uh there's a motion and second on the table, there's proposed amendments to the motion that would need to be seconded, voted on.

I'll second the amendment, then if that's what we need.

And if it's a friendly amendment to the motion makers, then that's why I'm looking at you.

Okay.

So I mean I'm I'm 100% fine with it, but that is procedurally what we want to do.

It might be cleaner to just rescind just because due to the the conversation today, it might be cleaner to just rescind I'd like to be sending a regional motion earlier today.

Okay.

Um can you state the process here?

So I'd like to make a motion that we find the redevelopment plan system 2020 2040 comprehensive plan and recommend approval of the redevelopment plan to the housing and uh housing and redevelopment authority authority and city council.

So we have a new motion by Commissioner Holtz.

It's seconded by Commissioner Riley.

Um I appreciate everyone's flexibility in this.

I know there are still additional comments and folks haven't been gotten to the first time.

So I want to make sure if folks haven't spoken at this point that they get an option before we go through another round.

Um Commissioner Hackney.

Thank you, Chair.

Setting aside the TIFF district as we seem to have firmly done.

That's I'm wondering though.

Given Commissioner Tag Young comments.

Is it consistent with the comprehensive plan?

Is the redevelopment plan specifically consistent?

It's a comprehensive plan.

I don't know.

I mean, I came in if you're thinking yes, but excellent points.

So Commissioner Riley, thank you.

Um actually before Commissioner Riley, I just there is nobody else that hasn't had an opportunity.

We've gone around around a few times.

Okay, Commissioner Riley, because it feels like it's a response to Commissioner Hackney, and then I oh, okay.

Yes, so I think for our purposes, I think that regardless of whether we're talking about a redevelopment plan or a project within that redevelopment plan, the findings here are sufficient to make it clear that this redevelopment plan and the redevelopment associated with it are very consistent with the comprehensive plan.

I do think that there are some bulleted points in the staff report that could be added to um you know, sort of added as on this cover sheet where there's this list of the land use policies.

There are some comments in the bulletin items that sort of are live within those land use policies that are really great that would support this finding even this process even further.

Um even without that, it's here in the packet, it's on the record, it's part of the whole thing that we're putting forward to the HRA and the city council.

Um, and I'll note that to Commissioner Taggyak's comments about economics, municipal economics.

I think that it's a fair commentary.

However, I think that there's also sufficient evidence in data done by really qualified researching agencies, both public and private, both educational and not, to show that supply, basic economic theory, supply will increase this affordability in the rest of the city, number one.

Number two, high value properties always increase your net tax capacity, no matter what.

And that's ultimately what the financial success or failure of a community relies on.

And I think that Ms.

Wolf would agree if she's still here.

Um yeah, so net tax capacity is going to increase with a high value development, regardless of what amount of money the people inside are paying.

And it's not our decision ultimately.

Um, so then my request, I guess there's other things that that can happen that will happen next.

So if folks are concerned about um the tax increment or um other permissions that will be asked from the city and the HRA, those are the times to go and raise those concerns at those public meetings.

Um, things that could be asked of the HRAs for not all of the increment to be taken and a portion of it.

There's lots of things, ways to slice and dice and tax increment finance district that don't do it.

But ultimately, increasing the net tax capacity of the city is the goal of the comprehensive plan and has been for three comprehensive planning cycles and will continue to be.

And that alone, I think, means that this redevelopment plan is consistent with the comprehensive.

Thanks, Commissioner Addict.

Um, we skipped Commissioner Hamas.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um so now that we've separated the TIF section, and I'm sorry I missed uh our CMPC beat us.

Um once this plan moves on, where in the process does the application of uh TIF relief happen uh for this for a project like this.

Who makes that decision?

Where are those for um I address um the Baron Commissioners?

Um so as shown on the redevelopment plan document or scheduling approval on December 17th by both the city council and the HRA.

Prior to that uh meeting date, the HRA will have an introduction on its nth of December, and that will walk through the uh fifth district and the assistance that we would like the HRA board to approve.

The city council doesn't approve the assistance package or the HRA board does, the city council is required to have a public hearing.

Um, and they will be asked to hold that public hearing before they approve the establishment of the TIFF district and the redevelopment plan.

Um, but the actual development agreement that provides assistance is at the HRA board.

And that's leading to three to three thirds.

Uh the HRA board needs at two PM.

There you go.

All right.

Um, I think I'll go back to Commissioner Taggyav because he had some comments.

I see Commissioner Hood.

I do want to also just keep flagging time for folks because we do have quite a few other items.

Thank you, Commissioner Gain.

I apologize for having more excess on this one, but um I want to point out this I don't think my I don't think the points are made as specific as to TIFF or not.

They really relate to does this site merit a redevelopment plan.

Because every argument I'd hearing, including from Commissioner Riley, including from others around the table is well, this project's great, so we should give it redevelopment district.

And that is an argument that could apply to any property in the city, which begs the question why this property, what again?

I'm not saying good reasons don't exist.

I'm sure they do.

I'm saying in the in the discussion we've had today, in everything I've heard from the presentation from stock, I'm hearing it's a great project there for revelation street.

I'm not seeing it's a great development, and here's why they should be designated to the redevelopment center specifically.

And it's it's interesting to me because if you look at the enabling language and state statutes, it it says there are various purposes why you might declare redevelopment district, the city statute flows from state law, and it's it's things like acquiring blighted areas or doing some work.

It is, it is because we want to give an area some form of public assistance, and and the question isn't should we build buildings, should we adds to the city's tax base, should we do this project?

The question is why does this project need this extra health?

And that's the part that I'm not seeing, and I'm sure it exists, but I'm not seeing that that connection between you know great projects, which we want, and this is why it needs redevelopment plan.

Regardless of the TIFF or whatever might, what whatever instrument might follow is, I'm not seeing why the development plan and that that's the problem I have with this.

And that that's the problem I have with this.

So I'm going to go back to Commissioner Riley.

And then I think unless there are we're getting into sort of new topics, we might start.

I can appreciate where you're coming from.

However, we're not determining whether it's an appropriate thing for the plan to be there.

You're determining whether this concept and the plan related to it are consistent with the comprehensive plan.

And I cannot find a single thing that makes this particular redevelopment plan inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

And you have yet to identify anything that makes it inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

And I think Commissioner Stallingerling did a really good job of describing what something would look like if it was incompatible or inconsistent with the comprehensive thing.

Okay.

And so I see Commissioner Hackley hackney and Commissioner Tag.

And then I would like us to keep open forward.

Thanks for my comment is simply I I would like to hear Commissioner Tago address specifically how it is inconsistent.

So that would help me a lot.

I mean, I'd like to.

I see it as the other round.

And I agree the project is.

That's the part that I don't understand because there are reasons why you do that.

And as I mentioned to this point, that we have limited capacity to direct public assistance to sites in the city.

And I think the plan is pretty clear that we should be focusing those efforts on areas with the greatest areas of concentrated policy poverty per LU3.

And I and I think we should be our default should be on a prime commercial side.

We should be maximizing our tax revenue and not diminishing that by adding costs to the city in um in delivering it.

Whatever form of assistance comes out of this redevelopment plan, like that's the reason why you do a redevelopment plan.

Otherwise, every site in the city would have a redevelopment plan.

So the question is again why should we give this site that special status and do things like what whatever whatever the instrument is, but I won't speculate, we think it's going to be TIFF, but what why should we make the site eligible for those kind of instruments?

I'm not seeing why we should do that.

And if it makes sense here, why not any time, why not any plant city?

That's the part I'm not in struggling with.

Yeah, I I think to Commissioner Happy's point, I'm still not hearing anything associated with inconsistency with the comprehensive plan.

Um and I think that your question, while fair and rational, the answer is there is no reason why a redevelopment plan couldn't be applied to any place in the city.

In fact, many municipalities have their entire city boundary within a redevelopment plan so that they don't have to go through this every single time that they want to help support some sort of development in their community.

Um for an example that is not the whole city, but the entirety of the green line in the city of St.

Paul was within a redevelopment plan.

The entirety of downtown has been in a redevelopment plan.

This is this is um and and again, our task is to find out whether this redevelopment plan is consistent with the adopted 2040 comprehensive plan.

And I'm still not hearing any statements that are sufficient to umplay the many, many, many, many statements about consistency with the comprehensive plan.

I think that some of your questions are better asked at a public hearing at the city council or um at the two upcoming HRA meetings at two o'clock on Wednesdays, one on the 10th and one on the 17th.

I also think this is the project in front of us.

Um, and so that's something to consider too, that it's um we don't have every part of the city in front of us.

This is the project in front of us that we're making the decision about consistency with.

Um it does feel like we're sort of getting into something sort of cyclical as far as discussing it.

I don't know if there are sort of additional um questions or comments if folks are ready to move forward or vote.

Um just kind of want to see where where people are at.

I'd like to call the question.

Okay, Commissioner Riley has called the question.

Um I think we'll go forward and we'll do a roll call.

Sam, are you comfortable?

Yeah.

Okay.

So the motion.

Um I think we're just going to restate it quickly.

Um because that creating sounding the redevelopment plan consistent with the 2040 comprehensive plan and recommending approval of the redevelopment plan to the housing and redevelopment authority and city council.

And we had a motion by Commissioner Holmes, it's seconded by Commissioner Riley.

Riley called the question, and we're going to go forward with the roll call.

Commissioner Hackney.

Commissioner Holtz.

No.

Commissioner Hood.

Aye.

Commissioner Humas?

No.

Commissioner Markinson.

No.

Commissioner Presley.

Approve.

Commissioner Riley.

Yes.

Commissioner Risberg.

Yes.

Commissioner Sterling.

Yes.

Commissioner Tavia?

No.

And Chair Graeb.

Are we tied?

Oh wait, this is comprehensive neighborhood committee.

I can vote.

Yes.

Six in favor and five proposed.

All right.

So the item passes.

We also got the update from Commissioner Holtz already on the schedule for our comprehensive planning committee.

But we do have one other item from comprehensive planning committee, the congregate living zoning study with Bill.

So we'll have a moment to come up.

We won't make them run.

We thought this was going to be a very thin, boring agenda.

So four weeks ago we had public hearing on the congregate living zoning study.

And I just wanted to do a download debrief on what we heard and kind of set up the decisions to come.

No recommendation today.

We'll be back in committee in the not too distant future talk about this.

So this is what I want to talk about today.

So reminder we asked the public these questions and in the expanded version that went out with the public notice.

We also asked them why, you know, each one is questions and why with uh paragraph or so description of what we're talking about a little backward.

But key questions you wanted to ask public were how many adult residents should be permitted to solar house, how far should sober house separated from each other, how far should sober supportive housing and certain other staff congregate living services with services be separated from each other.

And uh this one's especially for operators.

Will these definitions make it easier?

These are so the operators about which category of congregate limit to fall on or say fall.

We have six speakers at the hearing, 11 letters.

I think one person did both sent letters and spoke.

Um those we heard from included three district councils, three operators, and 10 other residents.

Well, what we heard the operators all spoke and not submitted anything in writing, but we what we heard from them was um the suggested smaller minimum separation distance for supportive housing, like 330 feet of suggestion put out there, which would match how sober houses are separated from each other.

And the reasoning that we heard what was that it would avoid shutting down homes that changed their classification, sober house to support funds.

I think they said these are just made for concrete.

What do we hear from the district councils?

Mac Rowland supports the regulations as proposed, including a minimum separation distance of 600 feet, roughly half of what's in Cody Bay for supportive housing facilities.

It's the number they suggested minimum separation.

And they support requiring a conditional use permit for support of positive facilities at 12 people rather than 16.

So about 16 should not be a lot better, right?

But 12, yes.

And they support keeping sober house separation at 330 feet as it is currently.

So that was not even something that we had suggested for supportive housing.

And then they cited some lessons learned from their neighborhood with the over concentration of sober houses in brewery town, a sub-neighborhood that's one resident created a mental health ghetto decades ago.

Not a lot of logic of most of that, but some people said it's reasonable for avoiding over concentration, and it aligns with Minneapolis and some other cities, not the area.

One resident talked a lot about Kimmel Court.

They would like that sort of housing first supportive housing to be regulated more restrictively than other supportive housing because they believe the impact is more similar to a licensed correctional community residential facility, which is like a half half of the house for people coming out of jail.

And that use requires a conditional use permit in every zoning district that permits it, and it's capped at 16 residents outside of downtown, no conditional use permit to go higher.

So that was different.

Notably, you know, Pimble Court has 76 beds uh expanding soon to 98.

Actually, I think it's got some level of permits for that.

It won't be affected by whatever changes, you're always legally non-conforming if the rules change and you will win it legally, but just uh to keep those numbers in mind when people are talking about a higher cap at 16 or 12 or something like that.

And the court has changed report than that.

So that's what we heard from folks.

Um we get the the full testimony um packable in the go committee.

So what's next?

We're reviewing our internal data and conferring with city experts uh on impacts of these facilities and see if we can get some uh experts input from them.

You did ask for a map.

I can tell you we are not going to provide a good map.

I'll show you why.

Um we do have old maps, which we didn't even put in the packet, but I showed them at presentations previously.

But they use old terms, and they're from a decade ago.

Do you have those?

We have sober house maps similarly, a decade old.

Uh but get out of this and share differently.

But get out of this and share different ways.

Okay.

So I didn't like that.

Just showing my kids.

Why is it only shown my kids?

Thank you.

I think that every time.

I think that they must be significantly older.

Seems really excited about sober homes.

I think two let me know.

It's currently sharing the screen.

Yeah.

Oh, it's like a double screen set.

All right.

You can't see it, but they can't.

Well, no, I can't.

All right.

I'm gonna have to talk about it without being able to see it on my screen to do anything.

So this is what we have as an internal map for congregate limits.

So lots of dots of different colors.

You see pink dots, blue dots, yellows, um, orange dots.

If I clicked on any one of these, it would give you more information.

This is currently how we see whether there is a sober house or a supportive housing facility or other within a certain distance.

Uh the problem is this is picking up adult care homes with six people in it.

It's picking up child care, residential child care is picking up all sorts of things that do not matter.

We made an intentional decision to pull data from the state that was unfiltered because it would be the most up-to-date.

Uh, the problem with that is that it takes in all sorts of things that are not congregate living under our code.

Um, this ensures that DSI, when they're checking to see if there's a facility within certain distance gets everything, but they have to do research on each of these individual facilities, and most of them don't matter.

Um that's problematic for producing a map because we would have to go through each dot on this map and then see whether it's congregate living.

Um be able to produce such a map.

So it's not something that our GIS folks can just run very easily and produce maps.

That's that's why it's not forthcoming.

We just have those old maps.

Um just want to provide some background on that.

So this uh could be coming to Common Neighborhood Planning in December at some point uh with the mayoral transition, having trouble getting key meetings on the calendar.

Um, so we'll see those meetings haven't happened yet.

Like to talk to we've talked to some folks who are experts internally and need to talk to support before we go back.

Um looking forward to bringing this back to committee.

Obviously, we got some good input from the the public hearing, and uh we'll see where this goes.

Any questions?

Thanks, Belle.

I do think you might get some metadata-based questions from Commissioner Martinson or other folks around the table around the ability to filter that data.

Um just just looking at the did lovingly data nerds in the room, thinking there might be further follow-up questions.

Um you can handle those outside of outside of this room.

All right, that would conclude CNPC.

Um next up is Transportation Committee.

Yes, Transportation Committee.

So our just wanted to announce our next meeting.

So is this coming Monday the 17th?

Um 42 right now about them all here.

Um we have two items.

Uh the first uh will be uh presentation by public works on the St.

Anthony Rondo Avenue Resurfacing Project.

And the other one will be on the um presentation by Met uh Metro Transit and Mr.

Jervey of PEB on the arterial BRT plan.

Uh it's an update on that plan.

So that's coming again 4:30 on Monday in 42.

Cool.

Thank you, Commissioner Risberg.

Um next up is communications and nominations committee uh and the elections officers.

Commissioner Thomas is not here today, so I will fulfill this particular role.

So communications and nominations met two weeks ago and made the following recommendations for the elections of officers.

So for vice chair, uh we recommended Commissioner Starling.

Um if folks are open to that, uh I'd be looking uh for a motion and then a second for Commissioner Starling for vice chair.

And the recommendation came out of uh communications.

So I think um much like NPC, we'd like okay.

So Commissioner Holtz uh made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Risberg.

Um is there any discussion on the motion?

All right, so we move forward with a vote for Commissioner Starling for vice chair.

All those in favor?

All right, all those opposed.

All right, the motion passes, and Commissioner Starling is now vice chair of the planning commission.

Second vice chair, sorry.

Second vice chair.

My notes in my defense do say vice chair, which is better and worse.

Um and then the next one, which is why I'm doing this uh not asking Commissioner Riley to do it, is the recommendation for secretary was for uh Commissioner Riley out of the committee.

Um, do I have uh a motion for Commissioner Riley for secretary of the planning commission?

Oh boy.

Um I was looking Commissioner Holtz in your eyes again.

I missed everyone else and ordered uh uh so the motion commissioner holds so now that now's the time.

Who seconds the second commissioner seconded by Commissioner Homus, who I also was making eye contact with.

Um so we have a motion and a second for Commissioner Riley for Secretary.

Um forward with the vote.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Uh seeing none, um, any abstentions and commissioner.

Uh the motion passes, and then Commissioner Riley is now the secretary of the planning commission.

Uh congratulations, Commissioner Starling.

Uh, you no longer have to sign uh paperwork anymore.

And thank you, Commissioner Riley.

You are now the signer of things.

Uh so congratulations.

Uh, and then um, because we had a vacancy and then sort of another vacancy.

Um, we've now filled the slots for executive team, and I assume that we'll do an up meeting of the executive team in the coming months to sort of reconvene as that particular group.

Um, and then thank you for Commissioner Riley.

Um, and Commissioner uh Johnson Becker for coming to a CMPC meeting on the one Friday where you didn't have planning commission two weeks ago.

So thank you for that.

Um and then that is all for communications and nominations.

Um next up is new business.

Um, and in new business, we have an informational presentations.

Um imagine 2050 comprehensive planner deductions with Metropolitan Council.

This is what we do.

Good morning, and thank you.

Very, very much.

It's wonderful to be able to do in with you.

I appreciate the five different questions.

You are and I just want to say thank you so much for taking your time as volunteers to do this very important for the city of St.

Paul and for all of us.

I'm Tony Carter.

I am the representative for District 14, which is areas west of 35E.

For the most part.

That's all the line beyond that.

In St.

Paul.

And I have been your representative on the Metropolitan Council for the past couple of years.

I previously served you as an elected official in Ramsey County as county commissioner for district four.

So I'm a little familiar with the work that you do.

And again, thank you so much.

I'd appreciate, I also want to appreciate the chair and director for inviting us here to share with you this morning.

I'm here along with Patrick Boylan.

So Patrick, who is our aison for district 14, is going to be working or will work, does work with the planning team in particular, right at this point in time, as we are in an intersection of time inside perennial process, which is the planning process that we use to develop our regional development guide and to set in motion the process of our community 100 and A within the Metropolitan Council to do their comprehensive.

So 188 within the Metropolitan Council to do their comprehensive.

There's been a lot of talk this morning about the City of St.

Paul's competence plan.

Again, thank you so much for the five discussion.

And we would like to share with you the Metropolitan Council's role in helping to in that process guide the entire region forward as we are all working to grow our communities carefully and in wordly fashion.

We'll go through the slides that we prepared rather quickly this morning, unless you slow us down.

We wanna be sure that we're giving you the information that you like.

And we're not sure how much of the detail you would like.

All of this is online on the Metropolitan Council's website, but we're here this morning to make sure that as we're in this process right now.

So I'm gonna move through and uh thank you for allowing us to share this information today.

I thought I was gonna move through.

Okay, please do want to know that.

Okay, thank you very much.

So on this first slide, I just wanna share with you that this high level is going to be about the work that Metropolitan Council does, our authority, our mission authority, our history and structure.

So we'll be sharing information about the regional development guide and framework.

Uh the Metropolitan Council was established by the Minnesota legislature in 1967, and that was in response to the fact that the region was growing, but was growing in a fragmented and more disorderly fashion than desired.

So the state leaders created the metropolitan council to coordinate the orderly and economic the orderly and economical development of the seven county metropolitan area and to balance regional and local interest.

The primary duties of the council today involved managing regional wastewater services, operating the metro transit system, bus and rail, issuing rental assistance across the metropolitan area, and drafting long-range plans to establish the regional policy, also maintaining the regional parts system.

And many of you know, of course, that the Metropolitan Council has authority to operate the regional systems and to provide planning specifically for wastewater, for transportation, and for parts.

We also create and implement policies for developing housing, land use, and climate policy to guide the development across the region, creating a regional development guide every 10 years, and serving as the metropolitan planning organization to provide water, wastewater, and transit services.

You may have and as I go to the next slide, you'll see that perennial process that every 10 years, uh, such as was true for 24 plan, we create a regional development plan.

And the process that we've been in over the past year since I've been a part of the council has been.

So right now we are sending, we have sent the system savings already to the city of St.

Paul.

And your staff is working to understand and to interpret as it relates to developing a new comprehensive plan for the city of St.

Paul.

So this slide shows that cycle, which starts at the census, uh, last conducted in 2020.

The statute requires the MEC Council to develop our regional development guide in February of this year, which includes the development of plans for our regional systems.

Imagine 2050 is our guide, and the next slides will detail Imagine 2050 systems and policies.

Statute also directs that the council will issue system statements as we have through the seven county area to all 181 local communities.

So think of a boiled down version of overall county policy found in Imagine 2050 that is customized for each of our 100, said 181, but now it says 188 communities.

Okay.

Patrick and the team, he works with our developing tools and resources that our cities and counties and communities can use as they work to update and develop their new competence plans.

The 2050 plans are due in 2028 and following the council review of the city's plan.

The 2050 plan, your next 2050 complan, then will guide the work that you're doing over the next 10 years through zoning, subdivision, CIP processes and also reviewing the plans that come before you as you have been today as to how they fit with your comprehensive plan.

And we'll have another census in 2030, and then of course that process begins again.

So the Metropolitan Council calls the regional development guide, Imagine 2050 in the document.

And we provide an outline for a regional vision for the next 20 years.

We update the plan, as I said, every 10 years, and finally imagine identifies planning parameters and priorities, and it sets a direction for policies so that we are orderly in the development of our region.

I mentioned that system statements that come to St.

Paul recently, and those system statements again are the customized and individualized statements about this unit of government.

They include forecasted growth projections and general development expectations for this area for the city of St.

Paul specifically, and they provide each local unit of government with key changes that will affect them as a result of the regional plan.

They also provide considerations for regional systems plans.

So our plan in our plan and for the city of St.

Paul in its system statements are included this table on the left.

And for the comprehensive planning period for the year 2050, the changes are, oh, thank you.

I missed it.

Thank you.

So for the comprehensive planning period uh to 2050, the changes for the city of St.

Paul are that the population is expected to increase by 26,673 residents, and this represents over 17,000 new households.

As for employment, the council forecasted growth is over 38,000 jobs in the planning period.

For the next decade, the Metropolitan Council has determined that over 40,000 new housing units are needed to meet the affordable need in the region.

And the system statement has uh shared that the city of St.

Paul's share of that will be a total of 1,548 new affordable units.

That's for the years 2031 through 2040.

Imagine 2050's considerable land use policy is detailed within the context of the community designations.

And this map here, which probably means a little less to the city of St.

Paul, just shows the variety of community designations across the region.

Of course, St.

Paul, all in the urban category, but the purpose of the map is to, based on the characteristics of the communities, be able to provide guidance for the growth with or their participation in the orderly growth of our communities and meeting the needs of our community.

So that's the purpose of the map and its various categories from urban through agricultural.

Here's the city of St.

Paul, all urban.

Within the area of regional density also for the city of St.

Paul, there is that one designation as urban, but for each of the communities and all of our designations, we have in 2050 updated the requirements for minimum average net density.

The city of St.

Paul, you see, is 25 units per acre.

And don't worry, we're meeting that.

And as you will see, other communities go as low as one unit per 40 acres, all within the metropolitan area.

So quite a variety.

But the goal is to ensure that each community is meeting or doing its part to meet our needs for density within our metropolitan area.

Of course that attributes to the manner in which we are able to share with the resources, such as wastewater, transportation and other areas of needs.

For your part, the role of the plan is to make sure that St.

Paul is able to meet its needs according to the vision that this community has.

So it's like rolling up all of the work that you are doing and the various areas of vision goals and directions, and making sure that we're able to see the community's vision, guide the growth and development, identify key issues and strategies that can also be able to address them and provide reasoning for public facilities for the plans and the budgets that we make for those facilities.

And finally, of course, to provide decision makers with the information that they need to make the decisions for our area.

The council has developed many tools and resources for the city's planning to use, including a recently updated handbook for planning, uh natural systems planning tool, and also a greenhouse gas reduction tool.

And those tools will be used in connection with Patrick and your planning staff in order to ensure that the comprehensive plan for St.

Paul is able to be developed.

And I think that may be my last slide.

And we are open for any questions that you may have or additional details that you may need about this process that we're involved in with you right now.

I will refer to Patrick, of course, to help me with any of those responses that he knows a lot better than I do.

So thank you so much, and we're open.

All right.

Uh, do we have any questions?

Um looks like that this was uh the open uh or public review is still open for uh comment.

Um when did that initially open?

Because it's been extended recently to I'm sorry.

We have completed uh the public comment period, and the council has adopted the plan.

So it is now in the process of being reviewed.

The system statements are now in the process of being reviewed by your plans, and so the process of developing the city's comprehensive plan is now rolling forward.

Yeah, and sometimes they come up in the middle of the nine.

Okay, just we only want easy questions from the commissioner starling, commissioner.

Our contact information is listed here, of course.

And if you do have any questions beyond now, we're gonna pause and give you another moment to come up with any thoughts you should have.

But please feel free to reach out to us, um, you know, to ask any questions.

We can point you to a website that is pretty comprehensive.

You'll see all of the materials from the regional development guide, uh, which is the council's vision and hope is moving forward in all of the sections of the plan, but I move for that.

It also has the system statements for each five communities, including community think law, and uh also links to the resource seeking use.

Just to add to that, uh Anton invited me to a staff meeting uh coming up.

Um so I'll be kind of going into more details, more technical and for uh the city planning staff, the second staff here.

Thank you.

I think Commissioner Riley does have a question.

Um I don't I don't have I don't really have a question for um the council member or for uh Mr.

Boylan, but I have a uh comment and a request of the planning director and the long-range planning staff, which is um one and a comment, I guess.

So thank you to the Met Council um folks for coming and providing this presentation to the planning commission.

I know there wasn't one for the 2040 cycle, and I don't even recall if there was one for the 2030 cycle.

Um I know that they're always available, but I really appreciate staff being willing to have the council folks comment and make this presentation to us, especially right at the beginning.

And then I would encourage um two things.

One that uh the planning and economic development staff work really closely with the public works staff on ensuring the and the new um administration on ensuring that the capital improvement program is very clearly aligned with the comprehensive plan, um, and that that doesn't occur in sort of a silo or a vacuum.

I think we've made great strides, but it'd be nice to see that continue to make great strides.

Um and then also encourage uh the planning staff to sort of take a page from what the Met Council local planning assistance staff did, which was to do some really robust post-bord of engagement with communities following the 2040 cycle in order to make the 2050 cycle more um uh more comprehensive and cohesive and understandable by everybody, I guess, uh, and that we can do that um and and work as a planning commission and with uh you know 330,000 people who live here in St.

Paul to continue that successful public engagement, make sure that what we end up with reflects um what we sort of all really really want.

I think we did a really great job um especially on doing that engagement um for the 2040 cycle, and I look forward to seeing that again for the cycle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for the time.

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner.

Yeah, we appreciate so much uh the relationship and coming to talk about it.

And uh it's very scary to think that we're resetting and that we're back at the beginning of the comp planning cycle.

Uh, but it is comforting to know that sort of we're having these conversations and it's sort of all happening in concert, which I appreciate.

Uh Commissioner Resper.

Yes, thanks again uh for your presentation.

Um I I guess I'm just wondering um were there any specifically for St.

Paul.

Were there any surprises or news or changes or trends that you see coming that are typically you know stand out as red flags for mining staff and our commission to consider forward with the next plan?

Again, I think I would say that there were likely more changes and perhaps um agonizing factors for other communities who have not had the kind of concentrations that St.

Paul has and who have been struggling to meet some of the guidelines.

I didn't see you know as an example, and are concerned with how they mine with increased city requirements from the council meet those needs uh who may be more concerned with the housing allocations that they have received and your ability to move forward in providing the kind of housing that we St.

Paul typically does good job in those areas and has a muscle around planning um and developing for density and also for the kind of affordable housing meeting that we have.

So it's share as a region is not something that I believe is a concern.

But I'm going to ask Patrick to see if he found any gnarly factors and address that question.

I love the word gnarly, thank you.

So, Commissioner uh and Chair, there um I don't really see any red flags.

I think one thing I think for the planning commission and city staff to think about is that the growth of jobs, the growth policy of the has the curve has flattened out since we did this 10 years ago and even 20 years ago, um, significantly, you know, and we're still growing.

That's good.

St.

Paul is going to grow, that is good.

Um development, that's that's happy news.

It's not the case everywhere in the country.

So that's something to think about.

Um, certainly as a retail environment is changing.

Um, bricks and border is uh in some aspects going away, you know, for retail environments, um that other areas it's it's increasing.

So I mean, you know, areas that um are focus of redevelopment, thinking around uh midway or Highland Bridge or other major redevelopment areas is going to probably take flexibility as you think about your visioning for your long-range planning.

You know, and how that plays out exactly is really up to the city, um, you know, through zoning and CIP and things like that.

We're mostly concerned, we are charged under statute with being concerned with conformance to the regional systems, particularly we own and operate the wastewater system.

You work posted with implementation agencies for parks and regional trails, um, and the transportation work also been not with Rancy County and other county high agencies.

Um generally speaking, those three regional systems and then the housing uh policy and other policies that the council has developed.

We don't really have any challenges with the city of St.

Paul.

Um, really even the the core cities of the first rank suburbs are for things uh what commissioner Carter ums Marter um referenced was affordable housing.

That's been an interesting trend of my career to kind of watch unfold.

I I in terms of developable land and urban densities or residential densities rather.

Um City of St.

Paul along with Minneapolis and places like St.

Park, you know, West St.

Paul are so far ahead of regional policy.

It's not even something to be terribly concerned about.

We have some concerns on the third range of suburban areas and the developing edge for many art density panel.

So no red flags.

Um, you know, uh Dan and I have um had a couple of conversations.

We met and I'm in meeting with his staff again, and the encouragement is to just keep talking to me and keep engaging me early and often.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, question.

Unless there are other questions, I think we can uh let our friends from the Metropolitan Council uh head out if they're unless you have any final remarks you'd like to make.

Just thank you so very much again for all of the work that you all are doing.

And I hope that the presentation that you saw today just illustrates how we're all in it together.

We're really not at the beginning of another process, and we're in the process of that simple work that we do and that we do multiple.

Thank you.

One more one more question.

It's the outcome measures um tool that's still open for public.

Yeah, thank you.

And so um again, all of the material that are online that we are still working through the development of outcome measures.

Can you talk a little bit about that?

Yeah, not any great detail, but yeah, you're you're you're correct.

And other other tools that uh customer Carter referred to, our Green Spiat tool, things like that.

Those are still forthcoming.

You know, we have some beta versions of that, um our NACO systems um and other tools are in final stages now with the idea that they're gonna be up and running in the new year.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks for pointing back.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, so wonderful presentation.

Um I am going to, we have one more item on our new business.

Um, based on folks' availability, um, I would suggest that we bump this to our next meeting, unless somebody here is feeling very strongly about the poly presentation.

Um, I'd like everyone to be able to get it.

And I know there are a lot of folks that need to see the presentation.

Is that if that's the only reason, then we will all stay at commissioner.

Okay, it is a big part.

I'm happy to do that.

And I would second that motion that the like I can make that motion if you look at the same.

Make a motion to um uh postpone the informational presentation while the uh poly, the cities and likely things to the next um planning commission meeting at which there's enough room to put it on.

Uh thanks, Mr.

Is there a second?

Second Micro.

Uh is there any discussion on that item?

All right, uh we'll now vote.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, we're gonna lay that my item over for uh a little while.

Uh and with that, we are adjourned.

Thank you.

And one of the next meeting in case staff at the next meeting is going to be.

I appreciate that.

Yeah.

I really do.

And thank you, Bill, for letting us