The first item on the agenda is approval of a minute from November 14th.

I don't believe these were in your packet, so we're going to skip this item and we'll add it to the next meeting agenda.

Next up is chair's announcements.

Next up is director's announcement.

Not a lot of emails from folks this week.

So please uh please be patient and might be able to get to it today.

I feel so lost.

That's all awesome.

Thank you.

Next up is zoning committee.

And there are two items.

Uh Commissioner Kigya.

Thank you.

So we have two items coming out of committee.

Um, first is a um CUP for one zero three arcade, um, conditional use permit for a rental hole and event center.

Um the motion now set the zoning committee was to adopt the stop recommendation to approve a conditional use permit for rental whole event center with two conditions.

Um firstly was a parking of transportation plan to be approved by the zoning administration for events to more than 100 guests, and second was that the applicant has to submit a site plan to the zone administration that includes one handy cap parking space in accordance with um the uh section of the zoning code that deals with accessible parking spaces.

Um so this is a essentially a conditional use permit for a reception whole rental hole, which is required in a teacher's only districts to proposed rental hole with hold events for up to 100 people.

Events are expected to be held throughout the week with an emphasis on weekend events.

All right.

So um that is the emotion coming out of the committee, which was a unanimous recommendation.

All right, so we have a motion coming out of the committee.

Um boy, it's been a minute since we've had one of these.

Uh since it's already a motion coming out of committee, we don't need a second here.

Um is there any discussion on this item?

Commissioner to answer.

I don't know, Mr.

Meaning, so I may be behind the half step.

I'm just curious when when you have the maximum occupancy, hasn't been determined by the fire marshal.

How can how do we proceed polling sort of a cut in the 150 number too on your order if we don't have a number for that yet?

Um looking over in the corner to see if the staff would like to comment.

If you want to come up just a little bit closer to the microphone.

Either either microphone.

Thanks, Chair, Commissioner.

Uh that was the maximum event size anticipated by the applicant.

Um I'm not sure if they've gotten the that maximum capacity from the fire marshal yet, but that's something I could check out.

Yeah, you guys know it's just kind of making a decision without on all the information just strikes me as interesting.

Um the director has a comment.

Uh thanks, Commissioner Ortega.

So usually um in a situation like this, if the applicant expects that the maximum amount of attendance would be 150, and say the fire marshal said it has to be lower, the fire marshal would uh supersede the decision that we make here.

Yep.

So if you know we said 150 and the fire marshal said 100, 100 would be the maximum.

And just again, just for the definitions to give you online.

Um so when we use these rules like parking arrangements and shuttle service, is that us sort of making that determination, or does the owner of the property sort of agree that they're the shuttle service only the ones that provide that service?

You know, I mean Chair, Commissioner.

Um that was a condition that we required of the applicant.

Uh the applicant has since um made parking arrangements with four businesses in the area, including Mon American Partnership and nonprofit located two blocks to the north that has a fairly sizable parking lot.

Yeah, they're planning offer shuttle services for the okay.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Martinson.

Thank you, Chair.

So this is an item that we laid over previously.

Um I'm looking back at the materials.

Um there's not new information here that I saw, but there's something that I noted last time in the zoning analysis.

The arcade street small area plan.

I think it's okay to cite the economic development strategy one with respect to this proposal.

But the land use strategies irrelevant because the two areas that are identified there are not encompassing of the property, the parcel under consideration.

So I don't think that I don't think that should be cited there.

And of course, the consistency with the comprehensive plan, of course, is yes, the the policies that are cited are consistent, but there's other policies that could be cited as well that would inconsistency with this plan.

So I don't, I'm not I'm not trying to make the case, but I'm and I guess I'm asking the question.

So this is a arterial or collector street arcade.

And so land use policy 35 suggests providing for multifamily housing along such streets.

And I have some recall of another commissioner making mention of such discussion and such hopes from prior prior considerations as parcel before I been seated on this body.

So I guess I'm just I'm I'm raising those points uh to ask whether any of that was considered in the zoning discussion.

Thanks.

I can answer potentially first.

Um so my recollection of the zoning committee meeting was that um we didn't get particularly deep into the uh prior history and usage of the site.

That wasn't something that we were particularly aware of.

Um I I don't think we saw necessarily a huge conflict with those policies um at the time and that um we we looked at the existing use of the space, which it always be in a uh community church formally if I'm right.

Um and so I I think I think the committee saw this as sort of not quite a continuation, but you know, it's been an event space, it will continue to be an event space.

So I think that was maybe the driving rationale.

Um and obviously the conference plan falls that you cited, do certainly you certainly sort of spoke about.

We do want to prioritize multi-family housing along correct streets, for example, but I didn't address the exclusion of um of all the businesses with that that would essentially be maybe serving in those same areas.

So that's kind of I think I think that's where we saw the committee at least.

Yeah, and I would um I'll let Commissioner Riley comment as well, but I do think we have we have to view the application that's in front of us um and that the packet that's in front of us uh and keep that in consideration that we're talking about the project that is here um as part of that.

Sure, I like thank you.

Uh yeah, I mean I guess I was the person who asked to have it lean over for some additional information.

I don't actually see the additional information in here, you know, the history of the site, but uh some of the other concerns I think that Commissioner Martinson expressed really clearly about other components of the comprehensive plan.

Um, and that's I guess what it is.

Um so yeah, I mean I'm not interested in holding up a small business owner from trying to run their business, but I do think that there's um there's an opportunity would have been an opportunity here to um consider things a little more broadly in terms of the use and the designated goals for Arcade Street in the long run.

Um especially the stated in the conference plan regarding additional places for people to live.

Um that's I guess kind of where I am today.

Thanks, Commissioner Riley, Commissioner Amos.

Yeah.

Um so we think of Turn, what's the alleyway being used as a party one?

Um, and how that is going to be controlled because it says one in, one out.

And um, I understand we have to uh ADA parking request, but um that doesn't at capacity that doesn't really handle or mitigate how that traffic is going to come first in, first out.

Um if Mr.

If you'd like to comment on that, um I know you mentioned the shared parking agreements already, and I'm assuming there's a conversation that would happen inside plan review, but I shouldn't be the one saying that definitively.

So the parking spaces are on their property, the applicant's property.

It's only 20 parking spaces, and the rest of the traffic would be at those additional lots off site that they've arranged those shared parking agreements with.

Um they would have shuttle services to the event space.

So that hope there is that that would mitigate those traffic conflicts during the so that's gonna uh the alleyway is going to need uh more attention with that.

And right now we don't generate maintainer, you know, it's every seven, five, seven years that we look at an alley and this is gonna increase something, but I think Bill might have a comment in a moment.

All right.

Yeah, more thanks, Chair Commissioner.

Um part of the extended layover with because the applicant was invited to attend the district council meeting.

They were able to go there was a discussion and the district council did submit a letter that's not part of the public record, but it could be the public commentary could be opened up to consider that letter the district council submitted.

Okay.

Um Riley, and then I I would like maybe to go to the director if there's any general point back.

I just have a question based on what Mr.

Hinkerson said, which is how do we do that procedurally?

I think that seems wise.

And that leads us to our next question for the director, which is um I don't think I've ever opened the record this far after the fact.

Um is that something that we can have here?

Is it something that would make sense to go to city council?

Um was there a plan on the staff side?

Just trying to think about how we manage this.

Good question.

I don't think I've ever opened a record this far after either.

Um I guess I would think, you know, I would say we could, you know, we could reopen the record.

There's probably a few ways to do that.

Uh the most conservative way would be to do a layover and um notice of you know, notice that the public hearing would be reopening.

That would take you know some additional time.

That would be um, you know, if we'd have to notice it.

Um that's probably the most transparent way, but I think maybe Bill has another way.

Hello, Bill.

Uh sure, commissioners, in lieu of having um city attorney advice on this.

I'll note in the past they've advised that we can reopen public hearing for a specific purpose, unless it's been done before well after a public hearing in the past.

Um, and based on that previous advice, I I think you'd be okay to open a public hearing for the specific focus of the council buttermont record and then close the public hearing again.

Okay.

Um it would.

I'm also I don't know where we are with time on this one because it's been laid over multiple times.

Um I don't know if we open the record in this meeting, everyone read the item without a city attorney here.

I'm just um I'm curious on our pathboard, but Commissioner Riley has to do that.

I I have a I think given thank you, Chair.

Given Bill's comment, and then there's a I I think there's I think there's a path forward.

Assuming that either Mr.

Dermitty or somebody's home staff has the letter available to them.

I think a motion that could be made would be for that to be read by staff into the record, and then move from there, uh, assuming that letter is available.

That way we can all hear what the district council said today, and so can everybody else who is here.

Um so if if staff think that's a reasonable solution, that seems like it would be both the spirit and the letter of what Bill describes as an option.

Okay, um I am comfortable with that if someone wants to make the motion.

be read by that into the record and then move from there uh assuming that letter is available that way we can all hear what the district council said today and so can everybody else who is here um so if if staff think that's a reasonable solution that seems like it would be both the spirit and the letter of what bill describes as an option okay um i am comfortable with that if someone wants to make the motion um so it would be able to open the public record point of order we have a motion on the table which we need to lie in order for this to be seen okay which is fine no that's that's all right um can it yes commissioner riley can that motion be withdrawn by the chair of that committee there wasn't a second so it must be able to be withdrawn yes by the maker of the motion which was the mayor of the committee I think that's reasonable so commissioner would you be comfortable withdrawing the motion that's currently on the table I will roll the motion on the table okay so the current motion is withdrawn uh there's wasn't a second so there's no one to uh check in with um we didn't as a committee vote to accept the motion or anything so the motion would just be withdrawn um so the original motion is withdrawn thank you commissioner taggy off we would be looking for somebody to make a motion to reopen the public record and I'm looking at both Bill and director when I ask this and it would say uh for today would we be opening the public record for today or would we opening it for the length of the meeting you can do it today and you can do it for the specific purpose of getting a letter on the record as opposed to opening it generally thank you guys all right I think Commissioner Riley looks confident which I like Commissioner Riley I'd like to make a motion to uh open the public record for the specific purpose of having staff read the letter from the district council into the record today for this case all right uh so we have a motion by commissioner riley to have the item read into the record and the the public comment or the public record open for today is there a second commissioner martinson seconds um is there any discussion on this motion all right seeing none we'll move forward the vote all those in favor all right all right wonderful uh i believe this um you have it i'm wondering if you want to go up to the front mic for this for the purposes of this that is still connected correct so uh chair commissioners the letter sent from paynew and community council on november 26 2025 reads i am writing to you on behalf of the board of directors of the payneval and community council the board of directors met in community at our regular monthly meeting last night Tuesday november 25th 2025 at the Arlington Hills Community Center the agenda included the application for a conditional use permit for Champa events center approximately 20 people attended the meeting the applicants ear on Lai and Money Bai attended the meeting and made a short presentation to the board and the community the proposal for the project was explained by the applicants and drawings were shared with the board.

The applicant responded to questions about their project and their application to the city following the discussion the board of the Payneville and community council voted to support the conditional use permit application for 1003 Arcade Street.

The board expressed enthusiasm and gratitude for the efforts I and I have made to improve the site and they expressed excitement to see the project open for business.

Furthermore the board expressed gratitude that Champa has been resourceful in creating agreements with nearby properties for shared parking so that no new parking lots need to be created in the neighborhood we look forward to continuing progress with this great project on St.

Paul's east side thank you.

All right the letter has been read into the record commissioner Riley I'll move to close that public record having received the letter okay all second all right so there's a motion to close public record uh by Commissioner Riley was seconded by Commissioner Humanis.

Is there any discussion on the motion all right seeing none we'll move forward with the vote all those in favor?

All right item passes um so that has now been read into the record um everyone looks comfortable over there commissioner riley I'd like to move the staff recommendation and the recommendation of the zoning committee.

All right.

Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

The item passes.

And then we move on to the next item from zoning committee.

So the next item is a CUP again.

It is for the addresses for 226 Summit Avenue.

And it is for the reuse of a large structure over 9,000 square feet.

So the motion coming out of zoning committee is to approve a CUP to allow the reuse of a large structure on the property at 2 to 6 Summit Avenue to permit leaflet missile, a retailer religious good suppliers on the main level of the former Archives residence, subject to a couple of conditions.

The number one, that the total amount of identification signage permitted is 10 square feet.

And second, that the delivery vehicles in excess of 9,000 pounds must enter and exit the property from Selby Avenue, crossing Summit Avenue and must not enter or enter the property from eastbound or westbound Summit Avenue.

So that was the that was the original discussion of the committee.

However, committee, we also um we also expressed some um there was some discussion around the uh comprehensive plan basis for this finding.

Um specifically that um we felt that we wanted to ensure that that this um this decision was backed by um maybe some alternative comprehensive plan policies.

Um that is partly because the original rationale was based on the the sites um the site being within the downtown district from a comprehensive plan purpose, and it is obviously not.

Um so we updated that.

Um I think the committee felt that there were certainly comprehensive plan policies that would support this, but that was not one of them.

So um in any case, uh we the motion that I'll be making um I think reflects the committee's discussion in that regard.

Um, and it is essentially that um is as I read out at the top, but um additionally modifying the findings um with some new language.

Um so I can read this out if it's helpful.

Um I do think that would be helpful.

Right.

So um I'm gonna find the original the original uh part of the zoning analysis.

Just sort of clear.

Okay, so this is on page three of the staff report for those who are following along at home.

Um the this is uh under I think sub uh subsection B.

Um the new language would read the finding is met, the subject property located in the downtown neighborhood, is identified as urban neighborhood in the future land use plan.

Policy LU7 supports using land use and zoning flexibility to respond to social, economic, technological, market, and environmental changes, conditions and opportunities.

Reuse of a large structure is listed in zoning code as a conditional use in residential districts.

Reuse of a portion of the former Archbishop's residence for a religious goods store allows for reuse of a unique residential structure with a use that is closely related to the Cathedral of St.

Paul, which is across the street.

Land use and zoning flexibility would allow reuse of a portion of the unique residential structure that is a challenge to market and use for a performing use due to its size, design, and layout.

Um then I think this can discontinues.

Okay.

And I think we actually struck the remaining language of L26.

That that is, I think that is the extent of the proposed condition.

So in other words, um, instead of basing this on the original policy LU26, which is um about supporting office and commercial development that takes volunteers of downtown's position, but only pertains to properties physically located in downtown as defined by the future land use map.

Um this would now this this is now making a case um about basing this on um the flexibility of zoning policy essentially, um and also I think highlights the many unique factors that set this property aside from other larger properties along Summit Avenue.

So I think I think I think that reflects the committee's evaluation that this particular property, the way it's situated, the concurrency of the use um seems to be much more in line with uh this this seems to sort of be kind of um uh in line with the public plan where certain other commercial along summit avenue might not be.

So that was sort of I think the thinking.

All right, uh thank you, Commissioner Tag.

Uh so the nothing about the motion or the two conditions change, just uh the some of the rationale um that was on page three.

Correct.

So it's the same motion, the same conditions, but um it's an update to the language in in finding B, which is the planning commission shall find the project and plans comprehensive plan um to essentially rebase it on uh L U7 instead of L U26, more or less.

Thank you.

And staff accepted the changes, and that was a conversation that was had correct on the edit to the staff report.

All right, I just want to say it all out loud.

I think I was following from the notes, but I wanted to summarize quickly.

Absolutely.

And I and we we did discuss this plan at committee.

Correct to speak with um all right.

So we have the the motion and the conditions um coming out of committee.

Um and we got um some background information from Commissioner Tanya about the the edits.

Um are there questions or discussion on the motion.

You you're referring to the motion on the committee, but I just want to clarify that Commissioner Teddy is presenting a an amended motion from what came out.

The motion is amended.

Or a proposal to amend, just to be clear before you vote on it.

I suppose it's subtent if they reposited to amend is the right way to do this consent.

Well, there probably should be a motion about amending the finding if you wish to amend the finding.

I see.

So what you're voted on, because that's the findings are part of the resolution that will be adopted.

So then I think the correct pathboard for Mr.

Dermity is to think Mr.

Deremy.

All right, so I will first then make a motion to amend the finding in the staff report for this item, finding B, um, striking the original language and substituting the language I just read out.

Um if if people would like a reminder, I can fill in the paragraph again.

Yeah, we're gonna full.

Okay.

So that's my first motion.

Okay, so is a commissioner from motion from Commissioner Taggyff to amend the staff findings and thus uh the item in front of us.

Is there a second for Commissioner Tag?

Okay, so motion by uh do you want to correct?

Yeah, uh motion by Commissioner Tagyff, seconded by Commissioner Riley.

Is there any discussion on that motion?

Commissioner Riley.

I think it's very well crafted and thought out of amendment.

I would also support including the existing um rationale, but I think that the rationale presented by the commissioner is um really appropriate.

Um that's why I second it there.

Okay.

So sticking with what we got right now from Commissioner Taggia, we have a motion from him.

We have a second from Commissioner Riley.

Is there any discussion on this motion?

Any other all right?

Seeing none, then we'll move forward with the vote on this item.

All those in favor?

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, so this item passes.

Um the motion is now amended.

Findings are amended.

Findings are amended.

Thank you.

Bill gave us a thumbs up.

Um, so now I believe I I may proceed.

Um, so now I would um make essentially the original motion that came out of zoning committee, um, which is to approve the cut for the reuse of the last structure um to permit specifically this business leaflet massal, a retailer that just goes to supplies on the main level of the former archbishop's residence, subject to the following conditions.

Number one, the total amount of signage permitted is 10 square feet, and number two, the delivery vehicles in excess of 9,000 pounds must enter and into the property from Selby Avenue, crossing summit avenue and must not enter or exit the property from eastbound or westbound on Summit Avenue.

Um so that is the motion, and obviously that will now pertain to the amendment to the findings as amended.

Okay, so we're gonna get a second and we're gonna we're gonna do it in here just because we have amended the motion.

Is there a second from that motion?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Riley.

So motion made by Commissioner Tagyff, seconded by Riley.

Is there any discussion on this item?

All right, seeing none, then we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the item passes.

Um Commissioner Tagyev, uh, other updates from zoning.

We do not currently have a meeting scheduled.

So I think that is it.

All right.

Uh thank you.

Um and then we're gonna move on to CNPC.

Um there's nothing on here.

Um, but does anyone know if you have an upcoming meeting who's on CNPC?

I read, I believe that somebody's sending a lot of the wording meetings on up in December 12th.

Okay.

Uh wonderful.

Thank you.

Uh next up is transportation committee.

Yes, transportation committee's next meeting will be December 15th.

Um, we'll be hearing uh we'll begin an update on the purple line.

Proposed purple line and the Earl Street reconstruction.

So that'll be once again 4:30 Monday.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

So that is it for Transportation Committee.

We don't have any updates from communications and nominations.

And we don't have any passports or later as on reports.

All right, and then we're into new business.

And the new business item is an informational presentation about improving the planning process in St.

Paul by the director.

And then a second one from Go Polly, which I had asked that we had laid over.

So a few weeks ago, I sent out an email and I talked to many of you about some proposed changes and obviously council agenda.

This month I'll give you a schedule.

Director, can I ask you the mic?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry, I have a little voice.

All right.

So let you know about this a little while ago, but I wanted to walk you through some of uh some of the details.

Uh since I emailed you, there were a couple of changes, nothing huge.

Um, but I think you know, since I've been in this position, I've watched you know how the planning commission functions and um made some recommendations that I think will be really helpful for everyone uh in the uh operationally, uh in decision making and other things.

So um so I really wanted us to have um have some you know guiding principles for the planning commission.

Um I thought a great goal would be to have an accessible, transparent, equitable, and efficient process.

So these were the guiding principles that we used to uh help make decisions and evaluate you know the recommendations that we were making.

So there's essentially three recommendations.

First is reduction in the size of the commission and streamlining the organization.

Uh second is uh improving and modernizing public noticing, and the third is just sort of a collection of non-legislative changes uh that are like more policy level that we think would help kind of the overall effort.

So first uh the reduction in the size and streamlined organization.

So uh technically we are 21 commissioners, but uh I'm proposing to go down to seven commissioners with two at-large alternates.

Um accessory to that would be rolling the uh committee work into the planning commission work, um, which I feel like we had a really good example of like why that would be helpful today, uh, you know, during the zoning committee discussion.

Um we've all seen like depending on who can make it to what meeting, you know, sometimes I think uh it would be helpful for everyone to have all of the information at the same time, and that's standard for planning commissions throughout the country.

Um the you know, the number of subcommittees is because of the number of commissioners.

So um, you know, like I've seen I've you know, I've seen you all kind of struggle with but why you know why was this decision made or like what piece of information happened here, and you know, really think that it's more you know accessible for everyone to have access to all of the same information at the same time.

Um so the way that this would work um with seven commissioners and two alternates is that we would have the planning commission meeting, and instead of having zoning committee, the applicants you know would come here for their public hearing, staff would give their presentation just like they do at zoning committee, and then the commission would be able to make a decision if they wanted, or they'd be able to lay over more information.

Um I think that having uh the public hearing um, you know, at the same, you know, with everybody present is really helpful, and having all of those details on like what you would like to see, what if there's additional information that you're looking for, um having that all happen in one place seems more efficient and equitable.

And having all of those details on like what you would like to see, what if there's additional information that you're looking for, having that all happen in one place seems more efficient and equitable.

This would also, you know, be really helpful for the public because we often get questions about, you know, what meeting should I go to, you know, to go to the public hearing and how do I find out what happened?

Um, so this could potentially all happen at one meeting, um, which would be helpful for people because as you all well know, it can be, you know, it can sometimes be tough with schedules uh to get down here.

And um also if you're an applicant, you know, you're looking for um, you know, you're looking for some predictability.

Um, and you know, if the zoning committee makes a recommendation, but that changes that planning commission, that can be really confusing.

Um so you know, in those aspects, I think that this would be a great improvement.

Um this would also allow us some options uh in terms of our room, which is one of my really uh what is one of my top wish list items uh is that we would be able to move to the council chambers uh where we have adequate you know services uh with audio visual.

Um there's a timer for public hearings.

Um it's happened a few times where um someone from the audience has come up to me and said I couldn't hear the discussion, you know, and that's not addable, that's not accessible.

Um so I think that would be like a great change that we'd be able to make.

There's a lot of details there, obviously, but um be able to get into a more functional space.

Um here's just some of the you know, some of the process diagrams.

Um so we'd be cutting down you know, about a week off of like a zoning application.

Um this doesn't mean that you know can only take this amount of time, but it gives us a little bit more flexibility.

Um there's some applications where you know they're not really very complicated, everyone's on the same page.

You'd be able to have the public hearing and make a decision on those, you know, at the same meeting, or if you wanted more information, you'd be able to lay over to the next meeting, and it wouldn't take you know, like a full month.

So this would be helping us with 1599, uh would help us, you know, with saving staff time with you know continuity of information.

So there's that.

Um on the um zoning study portion, um, this would cut off a lot of time of um of you know information and presentations going back and forth from CNPC to planning commission.

And I think this is something that a lot of you have talked to me about of like wanting to have like those larger policy conversations with the entire group, uh, which I think is totally valid.

Having having that um, you know, having those conversations um at CNPC, um, and then bringing that to planning commission.

There's a lot lost, you know, in translation, um, you know, with with depending on who attends, you know, the committee meeting.

So this would definitely, you know, cut down the uh the time that we'd be able to get things you know out the door a little bit more quickly.

Um, but it doesn't, you know, it it doesn't limit you, it's just sort of a you know, a quicker baseline.

So the schedule uh is this is on the council agenda uh for next week, next Wednesday.

So there'll be a first reading and a staff presentation on the 17th, there will be a public hearing, and then um based on the three readings, we probably have some sort of decision on January 7th.

Um I know this is a big change uh and that you all have a lot of questions.

So I just wanted to you know open up some time to answer those for you.

All right.

Um we'll open it up for some discussion.

Um I have a couple of notes, but I'll go last folks who have questions or comments.

I will um the efficiency I see that uh I do think that um it will cut out some time for processing and actually analyzing uh some of the items that come through.

Um but it definitely does speed everything.

Commissioner Red.

Um Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Um I don't know, change is hard, right?

Um, but as somebody who's sat on this side of the day, I send that one.

Um and I I hear Commissioner this is concerned uh state law though has a development's approach to that.

They require decisions to be made in 120 days.

And sometimes it may and I think the resident or the community member who's making an application would really like to not have to wait 120 days for a decision.

Um and it's not like uh like I say about the speed limit, it's a speed limit, not a speed requirement.

It's a deadline, not uh required um condition of of approval.

And I think that um given how much has changed since this original process was established.

This process is approximately as old as I am.

Um and it was cutting edge at the time, and the 21 commission members were also cutting edge at the time, and the establishment of district councils in 17 neighborhoods was also cutting edge at the time.

There were also 17 planners.

There was one person assigned to every district council, and so there was a lot more staff out there to do the work.

Um this seems to be not just a change that is helpful um to staff, but also to the public.

And um one thing I think would be really important because it has been a consistent concern.

Um and I think it can't it really was evidenced tonight, right?

We got a letter from the district council on a project that a lot of us had concerns about neighborhood circulation.

And we added it to their record because the timeline for their meetings does not align well with the timeline for zoning committee and planning commission.

But hearing directly from the neighborhood reassured me that people have eyes on that site and that street, and the desire for that was necessary.

And I live in the neighborhood, right?

But I'm not on the district council and I don't live right there.

So that alone, so one thing I want to make sure as um we are talking about this process is that we recognize that this also is like more likely than not to improve communications between district councils and the city.

And I think that that is for me personally um top of mind.

Uh not to mention also just getting the work done in the amount of time that we have and making good use of volunteer time.

Um I also really appreciate I'll note that I've never experienced the planning commission with alternates before this year.

Um, but it makes life a lot easier.

Um the city council and the planning commission that I staff has alternates.

Um we have never had to cancel a zoning committee or planning commission conversation.

Um, and in previous work that I've done that often has had to happen because of your lack of quorum.

Um, so I'm really supportive of this concept, and I get it, change is hard.

Um sometimes it's the right thing to do because things have changed so much.

So that's me.

Thank you for indulging me.

Yeah, thank you.

Um thank you, Chair Grill.

Yeah, two comments.

Uh through my work, I present occasionally to uh many suburban uh planning commissions and our structure is very very unique.

So I think what this does is puts us in line with what we want to assume 90 to 95% of Minnesota cities do.

Um the other comment, um kind of a general comment in support of this is I really like CNPC and I'd love to be involved with that, but just because of my schedule kids, I'm not able to be on that committee, but I'm very interested in those conversations.

And I know that we have reports, we have changes, and those are presented back to us in documents, but that's not the same as being there hearing the staff presentation firsthand, being part of those discussions.

So I think what this does is you know, if Sony doesn't work for your time and you're on CNPC or transportation, now you're being looped into those conversations, and I think that we can generally make better, more streamlined decisions because of that because I I have we've had a times before where something's you know come to C NPC, maybe come back to the you know the full commission, and I'll be sitting here asking like basic one on one questions that the only reason that I don't know the answer is because you know, I guess I didn't dig closely enough into a 35-page staff report to catch the laws change, right?

So like being part of that I think will help streamline and help us make better decisions.

I mean, that's my that's my personal opinion.

Um and that is my comment.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Tf, I couldn't tell if if you were looking for my read or if you have a comment.

I certainly would appreciate your review.

However, um, I I do have a comment just to just to voice support for this um strong supports, at least in my experience, I felt this tension very directly.

Um I've chaired a zoning committee meeting, and I arrived in planning commission a week or two weeks later, or whatever it is, and wished that the commissioners were able to hear the testimony directly.

Um and that detail that cover.

Um it's it's challenging to bring a two-line summary and really capture the nuance of the discussion that's happened sometimes that has influenced the way we've thought about something.

So I I found I found that to be very I found that I found that to be sort of a difficulty, and I I assume the same happens from CMPC, as with Commissioner Hood.

Many times I've wished to go to CMPC and be able to engage with a particular item in detail.

I enjoy policy work.

Um however it's it can be challenging, especially as those discussions tend to spray across many multiple meetings, especially for a large study.

So we end up with you know asking for an extra special discussion and planning commission.

Um, so I think bringing those things together is really going to be helpful.

And I think also helps helps to increase representation from across the city.

In other words, you know, sometimes we've had three three commissioners on zoning committee.

Um, it would be better if we had seven to consider it in detail, I would think, and it's some of the CMPC.

So I like it for those reasons.

I also like it from a timing and public engagement perspective, transparency perspective.

Many, many times before I knew how the commission functioned, I worked with the street council pretty closely.

It was always a challenge in the early days to just understand the difference between the committees and the full planning commission and when the public hearing would be and these sorts of things, and then to make time to attend the correct one.

So I think we still have frustration for members of the public.

Um partly because of the issues that that Commissioner Riley sort of highlights in terms of just the timing doesn't work with the regular history council meeting, something like that, and and then just with the notion of well, which meeting should I go to and these sorts of things.

So I think creating space for 1599 makes a lot of sense.

Consolidating the discussion into the main body of the commission's work makes a lot of sense.

Um so I'm a strong support as well.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Respert.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Um I also uh like this idea.

Um after being on this commission for eight years now, um and being on an executive committee in which we have this part of this, which was well, we had the what we thought were was the largest planning commission in the country.

I did that research, but I couldn't find one bigger.

We shouldn't have that to you know so we we had a focus on that.

We had a focus not on changing the structure, but changing the number of commissioners.

And so this makes a lot more sense in terms of being able to reduce the number of commissioners, but still covered the same level of business.

Um because you it was gonna be tough to try and spread seven commissioners in this case on three different committees and you know, and cover cover all that information.

Um a question.

So if we are focusing on the full commission to cover zoning, uh and the neighborhood planning.

Um so I guess I have two questions.

One, what kind of impact is that gonna have on the length of individual meetings?

Do meetings need to be happened more frequently as a result.

Um, and just curious on the number of seven.

Um versus nine or five, or you know, what things can you talk a little bit more about the genesis of that?

Sure, uh, Chair and Commissioner Risberg.

Um seven is one commissioner per ward, uh, which seemed equitable.

Um, and then you know, the two uh alternates could be at large.

Um you know depending on who's available.

Um that was the basis of that decision.

We would we did go over, you know, we talked about different numbers and you know, like what's what would be appropriate.

Um, there was uh a time where I thought maybe eight was a good number, but I think seven um you know is the best choice just due to this, you know, the the uh award system.

So uh one per ward.

Um on the length of meetings, um we actually looked into the length of most of the meetings, like the CMPC meetings, zoning committee meetings, planning commission meetings, um, and looked at how long, you know, diff discussions and cases usually take.

Um I do a lot of work in the background also on uh agenda management.

Um so if you know, I try to, I have a um, if you could only see the spreadsheets that I have of everything that's coming down the pipeline for us.

Um, I make sure to say, okay, we're gonna have, you know, on this meeting, we're gonna have a big public hearing.

So let's try to not have you know a ton of other items.

Um, so I do a lot of background management on the agenda.

Um, but given what we saw in you know, the the data related to the times, um, we thought that the meetings would uh probably stay at about the same or a bit longer.

Um, you know, sometimes uh there's one case, you know, like one zoning case on the planning commission agenda.

So everyone's gonna come in for what has I've seen is like a five minute vote.

And so balancing all of that um was sort of the guiding focus there.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, that was very helpful.

But I do have one follow-up.

So on the transportation committee, so I I it's a unique committee in that we have citizen members who are incredibly valuable and you know, knowledgeable and helpful through that committee.

Um I've so I assume that that's staying put as is the structure as is, or so the uh commissioner uh the structure of it, like you know, having the citizen numbers will stay the same.

We're proposing to reduce you know the number of commissioners, planning commissioners that are on, um, you know, because what is it now?

Right, but there's only about two of us that actually show up.

So um, you know, and that committee was created by a resolution.

So it's a little bit different, you know, than zoning committee, which was created um in the admin code, it's section 107.

Um, so you know, we we do have a uh updated draft resolution in the entire package, which I'll send to all of you later via email so you can see the whole document.

Um, but you know, trying to, you know, we're really trying to improve the amount of time that you know you all need to put in these committees.

Um I think there's you know, a pretty big um equity issue when it comes to when people are available and who is available at certain times.

Um that's something that I've seen as I talked to people.

Um, like I met, I actually met somebody uh a server at restaurant, and somehow we ended up talking about signs, because that's the types of conversations that I have with people.

Um and he had all these really interesting uh perspectives on signs as he'd applied for a lot of sign permits and you know was really interested in urbanism.

Um and I said, hey, would you ever want to you know be on the planning commission?

And you as we talked about it, he was like, Oh, I'm not gonna be able to make that.

My job won't let me off, you know.

Like I work at a restaurant, I don't get, you know, I don't have that luxury of having time off.

So being able to reduce the required commitment, I think would help like attract a lot more people, like in a more meaningful way.

Um and you know, the transportation committee uh is really interesting because you know, they're they're a little different, you know, than I mentioned, but I think um still keeping that, you know, is really valuable and being able to get more people interested in going and you know, like that was like a deterrent for somebody on the planning commission, like we obviously wouldn't want that, but it's an option, you know.

I think the liaison rule is like definitely a good thing because certain, you know, uh certain projects from transportation committee come to planning commission, but not everything does.

So that one's a little a little different.

Well, I was just going to add if I come in, um that some of the discussions of transportation committee might also be useful here that are not, you know.

Classic decision making planning commission required decision making items.

Um I think I don't know.

Commissioner Homas agrees, but I think some of those some of that information can come here.

But like I said, the citizen members are extremely valuable members of that committee.

Yeah.

Agree, I think it would be really cool to have a you know, have them at some point come to the planning commission so you you could all meet them and maybe do like a you know, maybe maybe we could have a like transportation policy talk, you know, planning commission, transportation committee mixer.

And you know, like this would give us a little bit more flexibility to think about things like that.

Um, you know, to be like, we've got a little bit more time to play with.

We've got a little bit more staff capacity to play with.

Um, so where we would have have the ability to do some of those more like creative things and have those bigger policy discussions with everyone involved.

Great.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Commissioner Martinson.

Thank you.

Um so I I want to echo all of the support that I've heard because everything that's been said is absolutely consistent with why this is a good idea or these are good ideas.

Um, and but I I the transportation committee seems hanging out there like an appendix a little bit like a vestige.

And having served a little bit on the transportation committee before I had to step off to beyond BZA.

Um it it strikes me that a case could maybe be made for locating that committee within public works instead of here in PEV.

And I just wanted to sort of raise, I guess that question of whether that has been entertained in any of any of the conversations.

And I don't and also I would oh I would also like to hear the chair's uh input on these proposed changes as well.

So thanks.

I have a feeling the transportation committee conversation could be its own conversation.

And I I wouldn't be surprised if that's maybe something in the coming years.

If this item passes and things before, that could be like an ongoing conversation with folks.

Um, but I'll depart with the director.

If there's anything you want to add on that particular thanks, Chair Commissioner.

Um so the transportation committee was created by a city council resolution.

Um I believe in the resolution it does say staffed by planning or public works, but I'll have to double check on that.

Um I have also floated this idea.

Um in the in you know, in the works right now, Laura from uh public works is leading transportation committee, doing a great job.

Um, and I think that you know, this was created before public works had the staffing to be able to do that.

So it kind of by default came to us.

Um so happy to um clarify that, but that's that's my recollection of what it says in the resolution.

So I'll double check on that.

But um good point, you know, um working on working on having those conversations, you know, it's it's a big thing for for a department to take on.

So, you know, maybe there's like a partnership there that could be helpful, but um, you know, there's a lot of um a lot has changed since a lot of these committees and you know, resolutions happen.

So just trying to uh incrementally modernize you know some of our processes that way, but that's a that's a great point.

All right.

Um so I'm the last one, at least here that has feedback.

Um I'm support I'm supportive.

Um when we had conversations six years ago, right when I was coming on the commission, one of the first questions I had was how are there 21 of us?

How is that possible?

As someone that works in government, how can you have a meeting with 21 people?

How can you do some of the things?

Like that's a small legislature, that's not a like a board or a commission.

Um and we had conversations then, but we really got hung up on how do you staff the committees, how do you do things?

We we had a hard time even realizing like to Commissioner Sprisburg Brisburg's point, like we could change the structure.

So I think that's a lot of credit to the director, in that there are more options that we could see our way forward.

Um, and probably to the administration, other folks who are more flexible about changes.

Um so I'm supportive.

I think when we had originally talked about it, we were thinking about larger numbers.

I think the idea of going from 21 to seven or nine was like, oh, we'd have to go down to 14, or we'd have to go like to be able to staff it, we have to go.

Like and how many commissioners do we normally have?

Like how many can we normally retain and it, you know, is somewhere in the 14 to 15.

That's like a carrying number.

Um, but uh reading through this, thinking about the conversations, I hate us having the conversations twice.

I don't um once upon a time, the vote in zoning committee was the vote that was gonna be held here.

There you weren't carrying it over, and so some of those concerns about not being able to hear the whole conversation, all that stuff, like it was a moot point because the work was done in the committees.

We have changed and the work is no longer being done in the committees.

It is, but it's being duplicated here.

And I don't think that's bad.

I think that's just an evolution of the commission.

But if we're gonna have the conversation as the full commission, we should have the full conversation as the full commission.

Um I don't like the idea that folks that aren't sitting in the public hearing to Commissioner Taggyff's point that don't hear every person speak that don't hear the passion and the feelings, like I um it feels like a disservice to them for us to do it the way that we're doing it now.

Um, and I think the same thing is is held for CNPC.

Um when I started on the commission, it was understood that everyone would be on two committees.

So I was on CNPC and zoning for a long time.

Um the time commit for that is unreasonable.

Um and I couldn't be the chair and be on two committees, so it did you know that fell apart, but a lot of the most transformational work that has happened here while I've been part of the commission is the work that's done in CMPC.

Um the things that have really long lasting impacts, the big changes, the things that um will stick around a long after we're gone, um happen in there.

And I miss being part of that conversation.

Like there are things that I can look around the city today and see that were decisions that we made five years ago.

And sometimes when that's a specific building or project and something from zoning, that's exciting.

Um, but knowing that it's happening full scale from things that are discussed here, um, and that there are substantive changes made in CMPC that impact those things.

Um, I do think we should all be part of the conversation.

Um, and I don't like having the truncated half conversation here.

Uming that because of timing and because of things like yes, we can make a few changes and tinker on the edges, but if you weren't there at that initial discussion and you weren't in every subsequent one, um it really subverts the process when we make changes at the last minute that sort of force everybody to rework all over again.

Um, so I think like from a process point, all of this makes sense to me.

It would give us the option to switch days potentially, it might not be a Friday morning, maybe it's a Thursday afternoon.

And the meeting could be longer, but if we're starting at 3:30 or four and it goes longer, um, or three, uh we have a little bit more flexibility in our lives than right now, everybody looking at their watches, thinking I need to get to work.

I probably told them I was gonna leave by 10.

So, like um a little less pressure, some of that stuff.

So, from all of those planning reasons, I'm I'm supportive.

Um, and then there's another thing that as I've been on the commission, I have noticed, and probably all of you have too.

Um, folks with younger kids, um, the women on the commission, um, folks who have jobs that don't allow you to be here for the same amount of time, um, will get appointed, we'll get put on the commission.

And then when you have a baby, when you have a second child, um, when your job changes, this all becomes completely untenable.

Um, and we've lost so many great commissioners over the last few years because this process doesn't work for most people.

Like I think looking around today, we can be clear about why all of us are able to be here.

Um, and so I do think that's important to just say out loud.

And director didn't get point and other folks have brought it up, but I think that's something to me.

Um, as I'm looking around, like we this no longer works.

Um and it shouldn't just be us making the decisions.

So um, for all of those reasons, I'm very supportive.

And I hope that does move forward.

So just on a process question.

So if city council does approve this, um we thought through what the process is at the bat to narrow the group.

Yeah.

Yes, uh chair pictures.

I knew that that would be something everyone would be curious about.

Um and in the email that I sent out, um, described that everyone it would take about a year to term off folks.

Um so no one would be, you know, like terminated, but we would take the year um, you know, for folks to term off and to get into the you know uh to the one commissioner pro board.

Um with two alternates.

So uh we're working on you know what that would look like and when for everybody uh if this were if this passes um and then uh you know wouldn't preclude anyone from reapplying again, um but would definitely open the pool up, you know, to a lot of other folks.

Any other questions on this one?

Awesome.

Well thank you for fitting it all in to your time.

Uh we know you are already busy and to restructure the entire planning commission in your spare time.

Uh just a big commitment.

So we appreciate it.

All right, next up is Paulie.

Okay, that's really good.

And by the way, I I looked up while you all were talking the transportation committee resolution.

It's snapped by planning and public works to compilation.

So uh no changes to be made to that.

Let's see if I can share it.

Well, I don't want your photo to update of your children, but I am curious and I I do wonder if in a future presentation perhaps you could just put an updated version somewhere so that we can see it.

It will always be your baby.

One on the right is graduating college is now working for one in the middle of this having more social audio video system would also be a benefit of some of these proposed changes.

Yeah, sure.

We don't even mean it in a smaller room.

Let me drag it over there.

This is no fault of anyone in this room.

So I just want to say that uh, but when I started the planet commission, we had in some ways more audiovisual equipment than we do today.

We have the owl, but we did all have mics, but those no longer work.

That's right.

Yeah.

But we're it was wasn't there something about it.

There is this it doesn't screen back.

This is an unsupported room.

There's a sign if you look at the podium before you leave.

There's a sign that says no one will help you.

We're in the actual no.

This is a but that all governments have abandoned this room.

So does at least have yoga on Thursdays or no?

Oh, nothing happened.

That was the best thing about it's there, Bill in large.

It is, yeah, I hear this little upper room.

Here's the call number left.

I can't see that.

But you can't have it on your local screen.

I I moved it over there and hope that it would just magically and it shrank, and now I can't touch it.

Are you using the HDMP?

And what used to be does anyone know how to change it from two screens?

No.

So it's it's operating like two screen thing.

That's what happened.

Is there any way to change that for two screen to one?

What used to say?

It's not much of a techie button.

If you right click and you scroll down to display settings and you click on display settings, it should give you an option for yeah.

This is now pop the official record of the meeting you understand.

Right.

We're moving to action minutes.

Control plus some of the operational efficiencies that I was referencing previously are.

Yeah, are you set up?

Some organic problems.

All right, so um I just want to do a my thought was a quick run through of Pauli.

Um we have a new planning and utility licensing inspection engine.

Okay.

Polly.

Uh new online first.

So the yeah, the other acronyms maybe weren't as good.

But we got Paulie.

Um I am arguing for a different logo involving a parrot, but for now we have that logo.

Um that's a picture of stuff that gets permitted basically.

Um this website is available to the public at St.

Paul.gov slash Polly.

And then redirects you to this site.

Uh you have to register, but once you do, you can do some cool stuff.

Um, so uh you know, there's an introduction to Polly, a bunch of great videos.

They show you how to create an account.

You can find uh background information on a permit or license that you might want to apply for.

Um it's it's got inspections for every step in the process.

It also allows people to just search for an application in Polly.

So this is I think a great benefit if you just want to know what's going on with that property in my neighborhood.

Um you can just sent us send you where to apply, but you can use anything on this bar, including the search.

Um hopefully we'll make we'll make this a little easier to direct you straight to the search.

Like you could search for say I'm typing in a thousand three arcade street, which is on the archiving.

Um I know from experience that we don't want the exact phrase because it's too picky.

But I can search for that address.

The internet is not going to be fixed by our engineer.

So let's go.

Um I get hundreds of uh permits that came up that might be for this address.

Um and there are you can sort by all of them, just the permits, just the plan applications, which is everything we see here.

Um search for the licenses as well and get all the applications on this property.

So um extra level of transparency that we have not had available to the public to the same degree before.

Um I'm gonna go into the plan applications here that says there are eight, and the top one is hey, conditional use permit that we were just talking about today.

Um not only can I see that the conditional use permit exists, but it tells me we're in the process of this.

I don't know how exactly this is some of this is phrased, but um we have the ability behind the scenes to show certain steps that are public and certain um that are not, they're actually like 20 steps for a conditional use permit case, including you know, uh setting out public notice and closing the file, that sort of thing that people don't care so much about.

Uh but determine completeness, yes, schedule zoning committee hearings, only committee hearings held, recommendation of the planning commission happen, and the last step that is highlighted is planning commission hearing, which my frustration we have to call it a hearing, but that means planning commission uh is happening on this case.

Um a resolution hasn't been passed, they don't know that because we haven't updated it, but that'll be the next thing that shows here.

So the resolution was passed and on through an inspection.

Uh you know, a couple of years in the future.

Um DSI will inspect, make sure that there's goal button issues.

With these other tabs, you can look at more including uh information on the inspection once that happens and attachments.

I can see the actual attachments that were part of the application, uh, and take a look at what the applicants said that they were applying for.

So um really cool.

And on the inside, we we have a uh you know different form of this that we look at.

Uh but what I'm showing you here is available to the public.

Like I use my personal email and tried it on outside systems.

This is what you see uh from the public.

You can also you know, say you don't know the address yet.

Um there's an ability to I click map button, and it's a little bit slow, but you should be able to zoom in on any given address or any any given site.

Figure out what the address is uh and search that way.

This this is this one is a little um more difficult to work with, honestly.

If you don't click on the exact points, uh you can't get a link to the search, but you can at least find out what the address is and then type the address and get the search.

So overall, this is much more transparent than what we had available before.

It is somewhat difficult to deal with, but it is it makes much more available to the public as far as what we're doing with our uh applications at the city, whether it's building permits, uh license, or the sorts of applications that come through the planning.

So just wanted to make everybody aware of that.

St.

Paul.gov slash Pauly is up in line for not only applicants but also neighbors who just want to know what's going on.

Awesome.

Thank you, Bill.

Uh question Commissioner Risberg.

Um this is cool, Bill.

Um I I wanted to ask, is there um some at least a link to the decisions we make on things that come through here and the information that are that's available that we see the stuff that's on our site, I guess.

But if there isn't at least a link to the I know the resolution will be all the materials at the end of the process will be uploaded.

Um that's part of uh what Sam actually does to close the files, and that should be available to the public at the end.

Um during the process, I want to give some thought to that.

There's there's probably a way to do it right now.

We have material available on the finally commission web site.

There may be a way to cross link here.

Are you thinking about doing an active case or once it's done?

Once it's done, be fine.

Um done here or down at the city council level.

Right, it depends on their appeals to the city council et cetera.

Yeah, it depends where it actually ends.

Yeah, yeah, that that you can do it.

An act is process great.

Other questions, comments.

I think it's great, it's very exciting.

Thank you for coming a few times to tell us about it.

I was hearing all right.

Um not seeing any other hands.

That is the end of new business.

Um, and we will adjourn.

Bill, how are you gonna get the word out about this?

Oh, it is.

Yeah, it's good.

GSI is leading the way of implementation and being okay.

Um