The Friday, February 20th, 2026 meeting of the St.

Paul Planning Commission will now come to order.

Um the first item is a roll call.

Commissioner Grill.

Present.

Commissioner Hackney.

Present.

Commissioner Holtz.

Here.

Commissioner Holmes.

Commissioner Presley.

Here.

Commissioner Martinson.

Yes.

Commissioner Riley.

Here.

Commissioner Tagioff.

Here.

Commissioner Sterling.

Here.

That's everyone.

All right.

Commissioner.

Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner JC Johnson Becker.

He's excused.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortega is excused.

That would be everyone.

All right.

Next up is approval of the February 6th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Do I have a motion for the minutes?

So moved.

Uh motion by Commissioner Starling.

Do you have a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Hackney.

Is there any discussion on the minutes?

Seeing none, we'll move forward.

All those in favor?

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the minutes pass.

Next up is approval of the January 26 or January 29th, 2026 zoning committee meeting minutes.

For this one, we'll have only uh zoning commissioners who were uh present vote.

Um so a little quiz for all of us.

Um maybe for the sake of Caroline and everyone else, we'll just do this as a roll call.

We can do a voice vote.

Voice we'll do a we can do a voice vote.

Okay.

So uh approval of the January 29th, 2026 zoning committee meeting minutes.

Do I have a motion?

So moved.

Motion by Commissioner Tagiaff.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Starling.

All right.

And then all those in favor?

All right.

The minutes pass.

All right, that's the last time we have to try that.

Um next up uh in the new format would be public hearings.

We have none here today.

Then old business, also none.

Then we have new business.

The first item being the update of planning commission bylaws in accordance with ordinance 2579.

For that, we have the director here with us today.

Okay.

Uh so in your packet.

You see, uh, maybe if we can have you closer to the mics.

Oh better.

Okay.

Sometimes I feel like I'm too loud up here.

Okay.

Uh in your packets is a uh draft version of updated bylaws.

We're not entirely sure if they're if the mic is on from this end.

I just want to make sure if you're recording and everything that it's and maybe it's just us, in which case that's great.

Better.

There's better, yeah.

That'll be better.

Okay.

I'll just try.

I will try to yell.

In front of you is a uh draft version of the bylaws.

Um the council uh passed ordinance 2579, uh making changes to the composition of the planning commission in accordance with that.

Staff has drafted uh some recommended bylaws to bring them into uh conformance with that.

Um updates the committees and the committee participation.

Um it allows a nominations and elections for officers to occur at a regular meeting, uh, provides some flexibility on the date of the annual meeting, uh, includes the alternate members in quorum, um, and then there's just a few other kind of small text and procedural updates.

So I can take any questions that you might have.

Um do we have questions for the director?

Uh Commissioner Martinson.

Thank you, Chair.

So I do have a question that I I started the question before the meeting.

So the the there's a strikeout of all standing committees, and um so sort of two parts to the question.

And um, so sort of two parts to the question.

So, what happens if we do want to stand up a committee?

Uh, and then the second part of the question is what about transportation, which remains a standing committee as far as I understand.

Chair, Commissioner Martinson, good question.

So the there's an additional provision in the bylaws that allows um, you know, any type of committee to be created, like for you know, if if there was a need for something for the comp plan or something like that, committees can always be uh can be created.

Um the transportation committee was created by a city council resolution, so it's different than a committee that was created by the planning commission.

So its status with respect to the bylaws is ambiguous though.

The the the bylaws, the bylaws apply to the functioning of the planning commission.

I think the resolution creates the subcommittee, the transportation committee.

So they're they're kind of it is awkward, you know, but they're kind of separate.

Okay, thanks.

Commissioner Riley.

Uh thank you, Chair.

To Commissioner Um Martinson's point, I think it should be made clear that the Transportation Committee is not a standing committee of the Planning Commission, like specifically, it has never been that and was not created as that, whereas the zoning committee, the comprehensive and neighborhood planning committee, the which used to be two separate committees.

That's what the 2019 amendment is in here.

Um, those are were the standing committees.

So that's and then I think you didn't get an answer to your other question of what if we want to stand our own.

Did you?

That's what a special committee is.

Did I miss your answer to that?

I'm really sorry.

Thank you.

Um yeah, so no, this is and I just since I'm talking, I just want to say how great I think this is.

I know that there's a lot of fear and trepidation for a lot of people in the community who have been involved for a long time and maybe are observing this from afar, but I just want to state for the record that I think this is a really exciting opportunity to affect some positive change, um, generate some long-term um you know, sort of cyclical um regeneration of this body uh because there's fewer members and I'm just really excited about it.

So thanks for the privilege.

And Chair, if I could interject.

Yep.

Um, I want to just give a couple of notes on the format of this document.

Um this document was created, I believe, on some type of word processor, and has been translated to various technologies over the years.

I would have changed the format so that it is compatible with modern computing technology.

However, it uh made it really difficult for side-by-side comparison for you, so I left it as is.

If the chair and commission uh would like the format could be updated, but for the purposes of your review, I left it as is I'd like to move that we update the formatting of the bylaws.

Am I allowed to do that?

I need a second though.

Good question.

So um do we have a motion before the committee right now or the commission to approve the bylaws?

Yes.

We don't have the motion yet.

Okay.

I will um perhaps we'd move that motion and then make a secondary motion to amend the format.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Riley.

May I make the motion then to approve the to move the resolution to move the resolution?

Approving amendments to the bylaws of the St.

Paul Planning Commission Commission.

I'd like to move the resolution approving amendments to the bylaws of the St.

Paul Planning Commission.

Second.

So moved by Commissioner Riley, seconded by Commissioner Martinson.

And then sounds like there maybe is a secondary amendment to that.

We should discuss the we should discuss, yeah.

Okay.

Um, do you want to discuss anyone discussion for the motion on the floor?

Commissioner Tag.

Just a little one.

Um, the previous bylaws says something about an annual meeting in January.

Um, this one strikes that.

I'm just curious about, I believe it still says we got to submit the report by Marsh.

So is that the constraint or it's just got a little more vague than it was?

Uh Chair, Commissioner Tag Yaf.

So my intent uh in changing the date of the annual meeting was that um things happen, and I would, you know, it would be great for staff to have some flexibility.

I think uh this past January was like an excellent example of why we need to be flexible in our uh abilities.

Um it was simply just of convenience and being able to roll with what's coming at us.

Makes sense, thank you.

Commissioner Starling.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

Um Ms.

Robinson, I believe there's one additional strikeout that is missing from this, and I'd like your agreement or explanation.

Looking at Article 5, item two on the executive committee.

The first sentence then says a steering committee, and steering was struck out.

We can make that update.

If that could be a friendly amendment to the motion to approve.

That was likely the result of the formatting.

Track changes was not uh cooperating.

All right.

Um, so striking steering from that section.

Um or either a committee or an executive committee.

Okay, a committee or an executive committee.

Are the the folks the motion makers taking taking this all in as we go?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, so amended to make that correction.

Um, and then other points.

Oh, well, we should vote.

Right?

No, okay.

Simon checked his head, and I appreciate that.

Um, so we've got the motion, we've got the friendly amendment.

Um more discussion.

And make that change to the executive committee language.

Okay, okay.

So that'll be the secondary motion before you now to approve that, and then we'll vote on the bylaws as a whole.

Thank you.

So I'll second Commissioner Martinson's earlier stated motion.

Okay.

So that was the friendly amendment to update the formatting.

Correct.

So we have two friendly amendments.

Everyone is aware of what they are.

Great.

Uh Commissioner Holtz.

Sorry, um, we're in discussion phase, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So I guess I now looking at this paragraph a little bit more closely.

Uh it's not a typo, but I guess uh comprised of officers of the planning commission and immediate past president.

That brings us to five people of a planning commission of seven.

Any thoughts or comments on that?

Do we run into a quorum issue?

Um, that large of a steering committee or executive committee.

Chair, uh Commissioner Holst, uh, that's a good flag.

I also looked at that and was a little puzzled and trying to figure out where that might have come from, like why past you know, executives may have been.

I couldn't find any you know research about that.

If you would like that to be struck, um that is seems like within the purview.

I would defer to uh city attorney on that.

If if I may on this read, so I guess I'd have two thoughts on it.

Five out of seven.

I don't know if that makes a lot of sense.

Even four out of seven, I'm not sure.

Um, so that's that's the first question, really, is like do we really want that?

Maybe we do.

The other is really is it a quorum issue, right?

Or because now you've got you've got quorum.

So sort of two parts to the question, and yeah, with the city attorney for sure for the second one.

Chair, I and uh commissioner, I think procedurally it would probably not occur.

So I left it, but again, I think that's a change that can be made.

Um Commissioner Commissioner Riley and Starling.

Um two thoughts.

One I would support an amendment to strike everything after Planning Commission.

So it would say an executive committee shall be comprised of the officers of the planning commission period.

And I'll just note that when the executive committee meets, it is noticed as a public meeting, so quorum issues are not a concern.

Like if you're thinking of a quorum issue as what you're really saying is a open meeting law violation, then it's not that if that's what your concern is.

But I'm also not the city attorney, so I defer to her, of course.

But that those are I support that idea.

I think that's fine.

We don't have a president anymore.

It seems weird that it says if still on the commission.

I'm done.

I'm fine with it.

If if if I were removed or deposed, I do not need to also be on the executive committee.

It refers to the chair.

Yeah, it refers to it.

Um I support Commissioner Riley's proposal in terms of ending the sentence at commission.

In terms of the quorum issue.

And with apologies to the city attorney because I may be saying things about quorum that don't work.

But given the proposal to have alternate members for members who cannot make meetings, I am wondering if the proposal is to have quorum be a minimum of five members.

And then that would remove the quorum issue with the executive committee.

Um I'm gonna pause and look at the director.

What number is is quorum believed to be for the the updated commission.

Chair, I think that with seven, I think I'll look to city attorney.

Four is what I was anticipating.

But if if you know a certain number is determined, you know, like if the commission decides to make a certain number quorum, um that's you know, been done other places.

I would say that it's easier to go off of you know, like a majority.

So okay.

I'll try to answer all these questions, I think, but I think four would be the majority, so that would be the quorum that we'd have.

And that's typically what you see for meetings is the or in most bylaws, it is the quora or a majority of the the members.

Um you can set it at what you want, but just keeping in mind meeting attendance and those kind of things.

So with regard to the executive committee, um, so currently the committee would just meet, and there's no public meeting requirement for that, and so there's no quorum requirements for it either, because you're not gonna conduct business at those executive committee meetings.

So that would be a a change you would have to make then also to the bylaws to establish that as um Commissioner Riley mentioned about uh making it a um a public body meeting with notice and then and then you would have quorum there.

So we'd establish that uh we could make those changes to the bylaws.

That seems to be a little more uh in-depth changes, but we can we can do that today if if you so desire.

Um and I think did I hit all the questions?

I think I think we got the other friendly amendments to oh, and and then to remove the immediate past president, we'll just add that as a to the friendly amendment list.

Okay, um I see Commissioner Starling, Commissioner Martinson.

But we'll keep going, but I want to reflect back to the director.

Um is there a point in which we are making so many changes today that we it might be recommended that we hold this for them to be updated and reviewed, or is there uh are there time pressures on this particular change that we want to be cognizant of as uh the commission?

Chair, um I would say there's you know there's no taking clock here, however, um you could make you know, like you could make a set of changes and then you could direct staff to make additional changes to bring back at a later date.

Um it was my intent that hopefully this would be approved in some forum today so that you could conduct the election right after, but that it's okay if that doesn't happen, it can be laid over.

Okay.

Um I just want everyone to have that information.

I don't think I need to be the decider of of this item.

So um everyone's got the same information now.

Um Commissioner Starling.

Um thank you.

Based on the comments from the city attorney, I'm wondering if the way of handling the executive committee would be to simply add a sentence that says the executive committee does not take official, the executive committee is not empowered to take official actions, then we would get away from the quorum issue, we would get away from the notice issue, and there would be clarity about why there is no quorum issue.

So advise advisory to the commission, yeah.

I'm also looking at the city attorney as we have this particular line of discussion.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, so if that I think that language would be fine.

I my understanding is that's the way the executive committee operates today, is more of a planning and advisory to the board to um as a whole.

Okay.

Chair, I believe that in this section it describes the work of the executive committee.

I thought clearly.

So if that needs to be clarified, that's fine.

But usually executive committee meets to talk about, you know, if there's some sort of issue or something that needs to be changed.

It's not something that happens very often.

Yeah.

Okay.

So Commissioner Starling, you propose some some language to be added.

I'm just trying to keep track of our various friendlies.

Um so maybe maybe and I I like that idea, I really do.

But maybe we just pass the thing as a whole with direction to staff to like come back with with uh five two revised and we can just take a look.

That way we can have the whole thing done except for one little segment and um and they can bring it back to us when we can get it kind of cleaned up the way we want instead of trying to do it on the fly.

Um I you know, do we want to be public or not?

You know, I have an opinion.

Do we is it a quorum issue or not?

We're not entirely certain.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

I know we've heard some opinions, but but maybe we just get the whole thing passed and then we can come back and at at our direction request that staff clean up to 5 2.

Okay, I'm saying nods from the director and the city attorney, I believe.

Sure.

So um, so then we'll um maybe um not approve the current motion, the secondary motion for the friendly amendments, but approve it.

Um so deny that motion and then a vote to approve it, and then we'll come back with approvals for the next meeting or the discussion that we had today with those changes and approve it as amended.

Can I withdraw my motion and then withdraw your motion?

Sure.

Because we haven't voted on it yet, right?

Okay.

So I'll withdraw the initial motion to approve along with my friendly amendment.

The all the all the all the friendly amendments.

Okay, when it's withdrawn.

We don't need a second.

Correct.

Correct.

Yeah, yeah, it just does.

Okay.

So the motion is withdrawn.

We're testing everybody's Roberts rules this morning.

Okay, so the motion is withdrawn.

Um, and we're sort of back to zero on this.

Does someone want to make an alternate motion?

Commissioner Martins, I think.

Before we do that, I the questions of quorum have raised another question that I didn't have in my head before.

So the the statement of a majority of the regular members.

Um does that does that language cover the distinction between seated or appointed members versus seats.

I've had this come up before in committees where quorum hinged on there was a couple of empty seats, and and the question became do we count those seats or not?

So is it okay?

So does reg does the term regular members cover that?

Chair, uh, I can answer that.

So currently the way that we do it is that if we have uh you know open seats, we don't count those for quorum.

So I would continue that way.

Okay.

Thanks.

All right, saying not.

Um okay, so we had a question from Commissioner Martins, and um we have done quite a bit of discussion.

Um I'd like to make a motion, Chair.

What would you what kind of motion would you like to make, Commissioner?

Yeah.

So I would like to make a motion that is it a motion to request staff to come back with an amended version reflecting the conversation that includes striking a sentence in five-two related to the executive committee and immediate past precedent updating the format, which includes any extraneous typos because I found a bunch of weird periods fluttering around now.

Um, and come back at the next planning commission meeting with that updated format change to five two and additional information related to membership and function of the executive committee.

Can I clarify?

Was it a motion?

So was it a motion to approve yes?

I'm sorry, approve subject.

The amendments to the bylaws subject to those things conditions with Article 5 coming back to us for consideration.

I'm sorry, Caroline.

Trying.

That's why we're recorded.

Okay, so we have we have a motion.

Uh do we have a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Thomas.

Are there is there discussion on this motion?

Commissioner Taggyff.

Just a question.

Did the motion incorporate the other friendly amendments?

The other friendly amendments were in the were they in the bucket of things to be edited or yes, and I I tried to list them.

Um striking the portion of the executive committee related to the immediate past president, updating the format, um, and addressing the concerns related to quorum and five to executive committee.

Okay, so we're gonna pause as is essentially and then repos when the changes are made.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Commissioner is that what we did, or did we just change the language in here and ask them to come back and do some more changes on a commission uh chair?

Because I uh so I thought our intent was to pass it as it sits.

Sorry, I'm asking a compound question, and then make some, hey staff, please come back and address these particular issues as opposed to we're passing as it sits, plus we're modifying it a little bit, plus we're coming requested some changes, which I think is what just happened.

So I just want to make sure we're my understanding of the motion is is that we did just pass it as a block and then these edits will come back to us and we'll we'll approve it again.

Very good.

I I am seeing nods.

That was my yes, that was my intent.

Because I especially wanted them the staff to be able to update the format before it comes back to us.

Um chair, could I make one note?

Uh is the deadline the next planning commission meeting.

Oh, I'm sorry, no, whenever is the most feasible time.

I think we'll amend my emotion to include that.

Just want to provide enough time to be able to wrangle the format properly.

Um I could bring it back, you know, probably within the next few meetings.

Okay.

The timeline.

We haven't done this all very tight, but um, since we're adding that sort of after we've discussed a little bit.

Do you you want to amend it to include that amend your motion to include the timeline?

Amend the motion to remove the sentence that I said about the timeline, which included next planning commission.

Okay.

So we've removed a requirement that it's at the next planning commission.

Um Commissioner Thomas uh agrees with that change.

Okay.

So we have an updated motion.

We've added on the amendment.

It was approved by the maker of the motion and the seconder.

So we're doing great.

Um is there any more discussion, or would folks feel comfortable moving forward with a vote?

All right.

So we'll move forward the vote.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstention?

Uh Commissioner Miss Abstains.

Uh then the motion passes.

Um, and we will see this again in the coming weeks.

All right.

I'm sorry.

Well, that was fun.

Maybe we should consider a motion to move away from Robert's rules.

I think that is a longer discussion for a future day, right?

Um I do not the current boilers, which we just passed, do state that an abstaining commissioner must say to reason for his abstention.

We can change that, but no, I I appreciate that you're testing us already, Commissioner Tegia.

So he's off the hook for that particular motion.

For that particular vote.

I don't think that's a change.

I think that's oh that that exists.

I'm sorry, I should have answered the show.

My apologies.

No, this is this is this is good.

This is good for all of us.

It's a reminder that we should all do a refresher on the bylaws, perhaps before the next meeting.

Um, since you did abstain, do you have a reason for your abstention?

Yeah, um there's a list, but it would take quite some time.

Uh but the let's see, let's get back to article four, section two.

No, no, section five.

Um just looking at removing um commissioners.

Um changing making it more uh democratic and changing that from let's see.

Currently it says Chair Chair, yes.

Or removing members for absence.

Okay.

Um I see.

It might just be that you're far away from the mic.

I I can only kind of hear you.

I'm sorry.

Um it was only just one.

Okay, got it.

Yeah, so uh just looking at uh article four, section five.

Um, and it's just divulging um concentrated power and making it uh spreading it across the group better.

Um or more uniform.

So for when you're removing folks, you it would be it would come to a majority vote of commission rather than just the chair.

And that's your reason for abstention.

Yeah, that yeah, just democratic process, and there's some other issues.

Um there's uh public comment procedures aren't defined.

Um so like uh the commission shall adopt procedures ensuring uh equitable uh access time limits and respectful engagement.

Um just this I don't see that in here in the changes.

So would you say you just have uh an overall objection to the the things contained in the bylaws like for for the reason for abstention?

Yes, is it is a concern about the the bylaws in general.

I can hand them.

I have a whole list here, I can hand them to you afterwards.

Yeah, okay.

Um yeah, maybe there's a conversation between uh the director and commission uh commissioner Hamas.

Um maybe we can get some more information that way.

Okay.

Um all right, so we've thank you, Commissioner Taggia.

We have added uh our our our note there on the abstention.

Um next up is nomination and election of planning commission officers.

Thank you, Chair.

So this will be the first uh the new way of doing the election.

Previously the elections uh were done with the communications and nominations committee nominating people and bringing that to the commission for a vote.

Uh now you will make nominations here on the floor, um, and you'll have a choice whether to vote on those now or lay them over and vote next time.

Um I would suggest uh you could do this a variety of ways.

You could you know, you could do a block uh or you could nominate uh specific people.

I would ask uh I would suggest asking the people that you nominate if they accept the nomination, and then if they don't move uh that you would move on from them.

Okay.

Um thank you, director.

Um so this item is the election.

Um we'd be looking for nominations and then um confirmation from the folks nominated that they are interested in that nomination.

Is anyone interested in making a motion?

Uh Commissioner Holtz.

I would nominate uh Chair Grill uh for position of chair, second I accept I didn't really ask you, I guess.

Um okay, so we have a motion and a second discussion on this.

Um this is my last full year on the commission.

I'll be done serving my term.

Um so I am very comfortable.

Um I'm willing to serve as chair for the remainder of my time.

Um I will say for folks that are elected as first and second vice chair um that I would like opportunities this year to bring them into the the leadership process so that when I leave um we're not just dropping you cold.

So keep those in mind for future nominations.

Um so we have a motion, a second, any other discussion on this particular motion.

A point of order.

I think we just need to ask for other nominations for chair, and then we can move on to oh fair enough again.

Yep.

Are there is anyone else uh would like to nominate for chair?

You're very you're very welcome to all right.

Seeing none.

Um we've had the motion, I just I have accepted, we've uh had discussion.

Um we can move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

Aye, all those opposed any abstentions.

All right, the item passes, and I am chair again.

Um another motion.

Uh Commissioner Riley.

Yes, I'd like to uh nominate Commissioner Presley for first vice chair.

Second.

Commissioner Presley.

Well, I was thinking about stepping down since I have been the first vice president for a while.

Um so I'd like to uh um that accept the nomination, but thank you.

I'll try again.

Yeah, I'd like to nominate Commissioner Thomas for first vice chair.

Would you be okay with me nominating you?

I suppose that's what I should do.

Right.

I think I'm in my third, my final year uh of my appointment.

Yeah.

Third and final year of nine.

Oh, nine.

Right, right, right.

So I think I Commissioner Riley, we also don't have to pressure Commissioner's true statement into something.

I'm just thinking just for a point of discussion, I was thinking about how the first vice chair is often um the heir to the chair throne, and that there's um some potential need to have people with who have been here for a little while but have time left on their terms to serve as the vice chair.

So that was my rationale for the nomination.

Okay.

I I'm a little uncomfortable with this format of you know being side swiped.

Oh, it's okay.

That's okay.

How about Commissioner Riley?

Let me let me let me try another one.

How about and we can keep thinking?

Um I'd like to nominate Commissioner Starling as first vice chair.

I was second that Commissioner Starling.

How how do you feel about that?

I believe that despite the tag, I am officially currently the second vice chair, which is a lovely role.

It is I used to be the second vice chair.

So you're still in the running.

Is that is that a no from you, Commissioner Starling?

That is a don't stop with me.

Um make a suggestion.

Is it possible that we um that we that we could like email in, you know what, what what uh roles we would be interested in?

Or I mean this this thing on the spot here is very uncomfortable for me.

I don't, I don't, my spidey senses are going haywire.

And you know, I'm ready to sling a web and get out of here.

I I just want to share how this you know how how uncomfortable it is.

I appreciate that.

Um Chair, yeah, might it be possible to temporarily it says in our new by in our bylaws that we can you know have an ad hoc committee.

So would it be possible to take the members of the existing communications and nominations committee and have those folks have a separate meeting to discuss a slate?

It's only me.

I think I'm technically on that committee as well.

I appreciate the commission.

And I heard the chair is also on that committee.

So I am worried because that committee is small that without having the the feedback of everyone else, where we may end up in the same place where we're here, we're proposing people.

Well, I guess what I meant my recommendation would be for those three people or four people to get together where we pick four people to have that conversation about how the process is that we want and and actually reach out to other members and figure out how to have that conversation since that purpose has existed for that committee in the past.

But I'm you're the chair, I'm open to anything.

I uh this is we're all making decisions here together, and I I don't want anyone in a position that makes them uncomfortable.

Um I because we've elected a chair, and we now have the other ones unfilled.

I'm a little it's I think it's fine.

Um, because we have a chair of the commission.

Um I'm looking at the director.

I'm just preference because you are sort of trying to work us away from additional committees and as our first action, standing up another one.

It does like I also am struggling with how to do it.

We could have folks email in their interest to the director, and we could come up with this late that way.

Um I'm a little nervous though that there's not Commissioner Snarling.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

There's one piece of information that I do not have that I think would be helpful, which is laying out what the current terms are, thinking about Commissioner Presley's.

That is what I know.

And so having a little bit more transparency about that, I think would be helpful.

Then toward laying out toward Chair Grill's piece about understanding succession planning.

So I feel like part of our struggle is that we're trying to have this conversation with one important piece of information missing.

Chair, uh, so the terms of uh the the terms for being an officer are one year, but if you leave before that, obviously then your term is over.

That's why there's an election every year.

So technically, you know, there could be a totally different makeup of uh you know officers every year.

Um I think the purpose of holding the election this way is so that the you know the discussion is happening with the whole group.

I absolutely understand that getting put on the spot can be uh can be intimidating.

However, it is totally okay to say I decline.

Thank you very much.

There's no harm, no foul there.

Um I think that you could also um, you know, you could also re-elect if you wanted to, everybody that's already sitting.

And you know, this could be something that we think about more.

You know, obviously the the way that this plays out is up to you all as the commission uh to hold the elections and decide how you know the succession planning will go and who will serve in each role.

Uh I obviously like cannot tell you tell you that.

So um we'll be you know, I'll be here to provide support as you need.

Chair, Commissioner Presley.

One of the things too, in addition to what Commissioner Starline said, I'm gonna be honest, I don't know when my term ends on the website.

If it hasn't been um updated today as of today, it says my term ended in 2023.

So that's one of my reasons because I don't even know where I am at and how much longer do I have in terms of the legal nine.

What is it, nine years is you know, stated.

So yeah, sure.

Uh we do track that the website.

I think I'm not sure the mayor's office was managing that website, so we can I can follow up and get that updated, but I'll follow up with each of you on your on your terms.

But you're all in good standing right now.

Sure.

Hackney, then Commissioner Riley.

I think I have one more person to make uncomfortable.

Um I would nominate Commissioner Martinson for first vice chair.

I second that if it helps.

I'm sorry to put you on the spot.

But my reason for doing so is your research is consistent.

Well, Commissioner Martinson's research is consistently detailed.

I mean, I really value his insight.

He knows the process well.

Seems like a good choice.

Do I think an answer right now?

I guess I do.

Um chair.

Clearly, this is a challenging process, and I and I I don't disagree with anything that you said at all, but we really need to punt this.

Um, in my opinion.

Um, it just you know, part of the problem is if you're nominated for something is like, okay, logistically, can I actually do this or not?

Am I gonna commit to something I can't do?

Did I just commit to something I can do?

You know, you just it's just there is a lot to think about.

For example, the role of chair is uh, I don't know how many hours you put in per week, but I I if you told me it was you know five to eight hours a week, I would I would be surprised it was that low.

Um so I so I I think we need to to to to punt this in some way, shape, or form.

I do think the commission ought to be the ones deciding who we want for officers of the commission.

I like the idea of being able to do it in a non-public meeting, but I'm not exactly sure how we get that.

That's just my opinion on that on the last part of it.

Is it's like I think I think it is a discussion we ought to have among ourselves who we're gonna choose to be our leadership.

Um but ideally we do that in a sort of less than public fashion.

So although I kind of like the idea of of having less committees, this does feel like a spot where it might be nice.

So the director has a suggestion, and then I'll let folks keep going.

Thanks, Chair.

So the suggestion, um, I think you could do a layover here.

Um, and my suggestion is that uh nominations could be sent to me if the city attorney is okay with this.

Could be sent to me.

I could contact the nominee and see if they are willing and answer any questions that they may have, and then um confirm with the person who nominated them that it's okay to do so.

I chair, commissioners, I think that sounds like a good process.

Um, maybe it's a express interest to you in the process and then or a suggestion of a nomination in case nobody expresses interest, which might be the case here.

But then I would also add um since we already have an acceptance by the chair to go ahead and vote the chair in if um if that's acceptable to the commission.

I thought we I thought we had we already did.

I thought I don't know if you voted on, I think we were working through the nomination process, but did we vote on the voted?

We voted all right, you're in.

Great.

Okay, yeah, we got the chair.

Um definitely entertaining.

Okay, so I think at this point um there's a lot of momentum behind laying the item over and doing nominations for first voice chair, second vice chair, and secretary um at uh later at our maybe next meeting, if we can swing it.

Um in the meantime, we need folks to um share if you're interested with the director or share if you have a nomination with the director.

Um I will say, as someone that has been the secretary, the first vice chair, and the second vice chair, that it is nice to have the opportunity to be the secretary and the second vice chair before we put somebody into the position of making them the first vice chair.

You are all free to make whatever decisions that you want.

But in my absence, the first vice chair does chair the meetings, they're responsible for things.

And because we've just rolled zoning into the full planning commission, this person will also be responsible for all of the zoning items.

So if you haven't served on zoning, you also are learning um a lot more about the quasi-judicial and uh process and and chairing all of those items.

Having been all of the positions on the executive committee, I still find it quite challenging.

Um so that is food for thought for all of you as you think about um what positions you are interested in and uh what what roles you might be comfortable taking.

Um I see Commissioner Tag, yeah, then Riley, then Thomas.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to capture the a couple of requests I think came from the uh commission.

Firstly, that's it would be I think helpful to folks um to understand when terms are expiring, just given the succession planning that we're thinking of doing.

Um and that would be for old commissioners, so that you know people could look at who's timing on and coming off and get a sense of that.

Um I think uh secondly, getting a sense of the the responsibilities he's in workload of each position again, practically would be helpful, I think.

Because then as people are deciding, do I want to put myself forward, do I nominate, do I want to accept nomination?

I think that would also help folks to make those kind of decisions.

So a little bit of um, I think transparency to the entire commission on those points would be helpful to I think everyone in this room.

Thank you, Commissioner Tag.

Um seeing nods.

Um Commissioner Riley.

Uh well, I I was gonna move to lay it over and that the and make a request that staff provide to the commission the actual number of people continuing this year, because we in fact have resolutions in here from the last meeting that suggest that there are people here today who will maybe not be here next month.

Um and uh whether there are vacancies so that when we do have the full conversation, we actually have a full compliment.

Um, but I I that that was just kind of that's why I had raised my hand.

And all right, so you are you you you are making a motion to lay this item over and those notes.

No, I think I well, I don't know.

I wasn't I would like to hear from Commissioner Thomas, I guess, before I say definitively that that was the motion that I would like to make.

Commissioner Thomas.

I was gonna suggest to get some clarity around um what the the time commitment looks like for the vice chair, first vice chair, second vice chair and secretary.

Because that would help me in making my my decision if I were asked.

Yeah.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Commissioner Thomas.

And uh Commissioner Taggyov kind of kind of uh address that for me.

So thank you.

Yes, I I guess I would like to make the motion that I said I was interested in making.

Okay.

So you're making a motion to lay the item over two weeks to the next meeting.

Um is that sufficient time planning director Robinson?

Yes.

So lay it over to the next meeting provided that in the interim, the members of the commission are able to have a full understanding of the time commitment, the roles, and the current status of each member on the planning commission, what the term is, and I think maybe some clarity around how many terms a person can serve.

Well, I know that, but I think it might help to have it all kind of right out there in in writing for everyone.

And also perhaps a timeline to replace anybody a timeline.

Sorry.

An understanding of the um timing related to when we get to that natural attrition to seven members within that right, because we don't want to create create a problem for ourselves over the next 12 months, I guess.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Riley.

That was well put.

Uh yeah, Commissioner Presley.

Then I wanted to add one more thing.

I'd um I know we have also been discussing the day and time of our meetings, and I don't know where that is at.

And for me personally, that might even um cause a conflict.

I don't know about other folk, but um some of the days and times have already got something going on in some of those days.

So trying to make a commitment um based on that if we haven't even decided on a new day as well.

Um I'd like to add as a part of the discussion.

Okay.

Um I think we can add that to the discussion because it's gonna come up in the director's announcements today.

So I don't think you need to add it to the motion.

Um unless you feel that's fine.

All right, so Commissioner Riley then made the motion.

We're looking for it second by Commissioner Starling.

Is there any additional discussion on the motion?

All right.

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

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the item is laid over, and we'll pick this back up.

Um please think about once you receive the information, please think about how you could serve the commission.

Um is rewarding.

And that is that is my only note on that.

Um, then next up is the bronze line locally preferred alternative.

And Billmade is here for this item.

Oh, I got it zoomed, huh?

This is gonna be fun.

I don't might be easier to just jump.

Um okay, we'll go without that since.

Oh, here we go.

Well uh I am not a techie.

Thank you for your patience.

Um good morning, Chair, Commissioners.

Um looking for a uh planning commission resolution to recommend that the city supports the bronze line LPA.

Uh LPA stands for locally preferred alternative.

This is a um technical um description for the road the route and the mode of the uh proposed transit line that gets inserted into the official regional plans for transportation um via the Met Council.

Um the uh locally preferred alternative uh does not require city resolutions of support, but they have been requested of both Maplewood and St.

Paul as well as Ramsey County.

The bronze line may look familiar.

You may know it as the purple line, is what it used to be, or the rush line if you've been around a long time and paying attention.

The endpoints for this have long been Union Depot, that's the consistent side in St.

Paul.

The question was was it going to go all the way to Rush City at one point, Forest Lake for a while.

The thought was downtown White Bear Lake.

But the end point at this point is Maplewood Mall Transit Center.

And the route has shifted from being more in the Bruce Vento Trail Corridor to now being partially along that corridor, but also Maryland and White Bear Avenue.

So I've got up here on the screen the proposed LPA.

It is there's a color coding to this.

So it goes from Union Depot to the Maplewood Mall Transit Center.

There is a little bit of dedicated lanes in downtown, then it heads out of downtown on Robert Street, shifts over to Jackson Street, and then you see the blue here.

That is where it gets a dedicated lane, the outer lane of Pennsylvania and then Phelan Boulevard to Payne Avenue.

Then when it gets to Arcade Street, it runs along the north side of Phalan Boulevard.

So it kind of a separate road rather than using the outer lanes, it's a separate road north of Phelan where the buses go both directions, and then around Maryland, it goes over Johnson Parkway on a bridge, heads east along Maryland, uses on Maryland and White Bear Avenue the outer two lanes.

So those are both four-lane roads, so that would be a conversion to uh two lanes of general traffic, and the outer two lanes would be four buses and right turns only.

Umce it gets to just about Larpender Avenue, it'll transition to being mixed traffic to Maplewood Mall.

This being a BRT project, this is not just regular route bus, that's why we're talking about an LPA.

We wouldn't be doing this if this was just the 64 line or something like that.

It is uh significant transit investment.

Um, besides the new road, some new bridges, uh dedicated lanes, these are also above you know more than just a post on the street, these are full stations.

It is um off-board fare payment, so much quicker travel because people pay in advance.

There's real-time um arrival and departure information, um the shelters and other features like that, um, as well as uh branded buses.

So this would be this is not arterial BRT, but um that is one of the good examples in town.

Think of the A-line stations or the B line stations or the gold line stations.

Um it's very similar to the gold line, is what's being proposed.

So construction won't be for a few years yet, I think starting in 2030, 2030 construction for this, but um they're looking for the LPA to be officially adopted into the regional transportation policy plan so that the further stages of study can go forward, so they can work on the 30% plans for this and then the 60% plans and so forth.

Umsportation committee took this up and staff had evaluated the comp plan conformance for this.

It is uh in conformance with the comp plan in a number of ways, obviously promoting transit and uh moving away from single occupant vehicles in the city.

Also, in some ways, it improves the pedestrian environment.

So compared to you know shrinking these streets, it may not be quite as friendly as that to pedestrians.

However, we need to have uh bus service in the city.

So in order to have higher level bus service, and assuming that we are accommodating buses, there are a number of improvements that will go along with this that do improve the pedestrian um situation to the extent that it's possible and working with the transit, such as medians will be put in place to shorten the crossing distances, and if we are actually able to keep general traffic out of the outer lanes, it would mean most of the time only two lanes of traffic to uh to cross.

So transportation committee recommended its approval of the planning commission resolution.

They did add an extra um statement to the end of it that they wanted to see the possibility of a future Earl Street.

You can see arcade to cook is quite a long distance, as long as distance between stops.

Um Earl Street station is not feasible in the near term.

There's not much happening there.

There's not going to be a lot of ridership, it's not a uh station location with a lot of eyes on it.

Um the uh the project office has agreed that they would take a look at not precluding a future Earl Street.

So if the guideway could be moved a few feet one way or the other to uh allow space for a future station, they'll consider that.

Um and that it's that request is within your resolution today.

So um with that, I'd be glad to take any questions, but again, we're looking for a um motion to move the planning commission uh resolution that would recommend uh St.

Paul's support of the LPA.

All right, uh Commissioner Riley.

Yeah, thank you.

Um Mr.

Dermoty.

Um I have a question about the Earl Street provision.

Um was did the conversation of the transportation committee, perhaps.

Um, was there talk of other points sort of within that window that aren't Earl Street?

So the Earl Street connection would be above grade.

I mean, at the moment, Earl goes above Phalan.

And if this is the portion of the row of the bus that is along the north side of Phalan, was there any conversation about looking at Forrest or Frank instead, which are already at grade?

Um Chair Grill, Commissioner Riley, um not during our transportation committee discussion.

Um Commissioner Homus was there, he could probably comment on on that as well.

Um and also I'll note that we have staff from Metro Transit, Stephen Smith and Craig Lamoth here, if we have any technical questions that we'd like them to answer, but uh maybe I'll defer to Commissioner Homus for another comment.

Sure.

And if I may just add context, I don't want us to be pigeon-hold into them considering only one of those options when you know, sort of based on what Mr.

DeMindi said it is kind of a long stretch with no stop.

I can appreciate why Earl Street would be sort of the marker because it is um you know just south of there is the new gold line.

Um, however, I don't want to inadvertently limit Metro Transit's opportunity to evaluate different interim stops there.

Um just for context, and I would love to hear from Commissioner Huma.

Commissioner, uh so there were the in looking at arcade street stop, there were several um locations identified in that area.

Earl Street um is the some of the logic behind the conversation was if um ridership needs develop at that point.

Um and it it does not uh work into the current plan, so this is off in the future if if need be.

Uh it was basically a placeholder for some folks in committee.

So um I don't see it as being um a major major uh hold uh issue right now.

Thank you.

Commissioner Thomas.

Thank you, Chair Grill.

Uh Commissioner Homas, have you guys um because Earl Street is being is being redone now, right?

They're they're about to launch their big redo.

Would it you know would it would it make sense to are or have you guys talked to that to that party that's doing the you know the overlay of Earl Street and how how a future opportunity could be shelved, uh so to speak?

Um well with with the bridge and um that aspect to the to the project that's not built into what Earl Street is what's being done to Earl Street, so that conversation if there was some bridge work being done, then that conversation would have made sense.

But I at this point okay.

Thank you.

Other questions, Commissioner Starling?

Uh thank you, madam chair.

This is a question for either Mr.

Derminy or perhaps the director.

We are being asked to recommend support for this or to indicate that it is consistent with a comprehensive plan.

I'm trying to understand what the question is that is before us.

Um Chair Grill, Commissioner Starling.

We are being asked for the city's support of the LPA.

Um comprehensive plan conformance is not a an official requirement of that, but that is our um best policy guidance for whether we should be supporting this or not, and that's where staff's analysis uh came from.

Commissioner Starling.

What is the ask of the planning commission on this?

Whether to whether to recommend the city council supports the LPA or not, is the bottom line.

If I may just make a comment on this, based on the materials that are before us, it is clear to me that this is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Investing in investing in public transit, I believe is a high priority.

It is not clear from the materials that are before us that this is the optimal use of 300 million dollars in transit investment to serve the east side, and I will note I did try to do some end-to-end research in terms of overall travel time, just Maplewood mall to Union Depot.

And I haven't done this side by side to know exactly what the transit time differential are.

So transit investment good.

Is this the right transit investment?

I don't know.

And that's why I'm trying to understand what is being asked of the planning commission.

And if I might yeah, yep, Commissioner Riley, just to Commissioner Starling's point, the resolution does include a whereas clause that says that the revised bronze line LPA is consistent with the St.

Paul comprehensive plan.

And so if the concern is that we haven't been able to have a full conversation about all of the things associated with comprehensive plan consistency, then I concur.

Um Commissioner Taggyaf, and then I'll go back to staff, maybe if I'm not going to be able to do that.

I mean concurrent that I'm not sure what we're agreeing to either, I guess.

Yeah.

Yeah, my my comments are exactly along the same lines in that um, you know, what does it mean support the LPA in this way?

Are we supporting everything down to the specific alignment?

Are we supporting it's it's unclear to me what the relevant considerations are to our decision, you know, including is this the best use of the money?

You know, is it which basically the compliance should we be thinking about?

So I I agree with both commissioners that this this seems it's it's unclear what we're being asked support and why.

Um I'm gonna go to the director.

Uh thanks, Chair.

I think those are very good questions.

Um I don't know if Bill, could you talk about what the process has been for this and you know that the the transportation committee review and maybe we can have some discussion from uh our Metro Transit folks on some of the details that Commissioner Starling brought up?

Yeah, sure.

So yeah, trans transportation committee reviewed this not as uh versus other ways of spending the money, but um basically as it is laid out in the resolution with those considerations.

Um funding is kind of a uh uh interesting topic to talk about on this.

Um this is not a St.

Paul funded project.

The alternatives to this are not St.

Paul funded either.

So it is uh uh proposed to be mostly a Ramsey County funded project with some metro transit money involved.

So um, you know, it's uh if we wanted a different project, it really wouldn't be the city's choice because we are not funding it.

Um there are some other ways that transit is funded, such as our trial bus rapid transits, um that is uh not funded by Ramsey County, um, that is funded by a combination of Metro Transit and other sources, including um you know federal funding that comes through the regional solicitation oftentimes and some other sources, but the it's a different funding source, so it's not like you could say, well, we'd rather have two arterial B or T lines with this money.

Um it's not our money.

This is the proposed project.

So with Ramsey County wanting a project in this general vicinity, the question is out of the options that could be considered in this general corridor with the that uh Ramsey County and Metro Transit are bringing before us, is this the proper mode and alignments for this area I'll just chair if I could clarify.

I think what you are evaluating here is making a recommendation to the city council on whether or not you rec recommend that they approve of the alignment.

And if the answer is no, then we can send that along to them or uh you could lay over.

I'm not sure what the timeline is for this getting to council.

Uh the the plan is as soon as possible.

Um but that is not uh there's some flexibility on that.

Um Commissioner Riley.

Thank you, Chair Girl.

Um, thank you, Bill.

That's really helpful.

Um I think that those of us who have concerns potentially with this resolution, at least speaking for myself, it's not about the need for transit or the need to have life associated with the project formerly known as Rush Line.

Um but I I think that there's I think I'd like to try to make a motion to move this along so that we can get this LPA in front of the people who need to see it.

Um but I don't want to stifle the conversation.

Um, Commissioner Amos.

Yep.

Uh so little I've worked on this involved in this project because it's heavy, it's about three quarters in my um district.

And um Wiper Avenue is the line share of this.

It's needed help for a long time.

The city is not given help right now.

These are dollars that are not the cities that are gonna do this.

Um there's been people killed along this corridor.

Um, and something has to happen here.

This is years of planning.

Um that is developed into what we have in front of us now.

Um so I would make a recommendation to approve.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um, Commissioner Riley.

So I'll just maybe it'll help people if I just explain my what I think might meet the needs very well described by Commissioner Humas, as well as um some of the other concerns.

So I think it's very important to move this locally preferred alternative forward.

Very important.

I think there are other things that we don't know that we don't need to know right now to move that LPA forward that relate to consistency with our comprehensive plan as well as interrelated changes to future bus service or existing bus service based on this LPA.

For example, Bill and I worked really hard to get the 54 to do what it does.

That would change transportation options for people if it was replaced fully by this.

And that's not really what we're talking about today.

So I think that to make me feel comfortable with the resolution, um, and knowing that frankly the Metropolitan Council has to make its own determination that the project is consistent with the regional plans and all those other things.

I would move this resolution forward, but minus the where I was clause that says that this LPA is consistent with the St.

Paul comprehensive plan.

It doesn't sound like it's required because this is not a metropolitan this is not a request from the city to the Metropolitan Council to change something about our transportation plan.

Um and that way I think we get away from all the other things in the comprehensive plan associated with economics, um, support of marginalized communities, et cetera, um and still are able to support a really really important transit investment that does not take advantage of or does not use I guess um municipal taxpayer dollars.

So that that would be the motion that I would propose.

Can you restate the motion?

Yes.

So I would uh I would like to should I just make the make it and see what happens to it?

Let's do that.

Um I would like to move this resolution, um, which has no number, planning commission resolution 26-x written, but strike the whereas clause that's on my page two of three on page two of three that says whereas the transportation nope, sorry, whereas the proposed revised bronze line LPA is consistent with the St.

Paul comprehensive plan.

I leave everything else.

Paul comprehensive plan and leave everything else substantially the same in order to move the whole concept and the project forward one more time Commissioner Riley move the resolution as written striking or amending it to strike the whereas clause the proposed revised bronze line LPA is consistent with the St.

Paul comprehensive plan okay Commissioner Riley has made a motion is there a second on the motion okay seeing no second the motion dies would anyone else have some interest commissioner martin I I guess I um I'm I'm I'm puzzled about this because when I look at this I think I see enough evidence here I see more evidence than we typically have of consistency with the comprehensive plan so that's why I'm not really interested in striking that particular clause because I'm comfortable that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan myself although I'm although I'm I'm sensing there's some discomfort among other members of the body so I I want to ask a question so is it could we could we simply decline to weigh in on this and just let this pass directly to city council I know I know that the transportation committee has asked for us to approve this but are we bound to do so or do we have the option of just passing it over since there is some because I don't want to get in the way of it.

Chair Grill Commissioners there is no requirement for a planning commission recommendation to the city council on this in fact um legally we could have gone straight to the city council without even going to transportation committee I I think Commissioner Homas had were you did you have an item not so much an ad I was um gonna uh make a motion to approve it um so we have a motion for approval from commissioner homas I would second that so we have a motion for approval from commissioner homes we have a second by commissioner martinson discussion on the motion in front of us commissioner tagy off just a small point um I now read in the resolution again um it does mention that the revised LPA page one is generally consistent with the original LPA pH 17204 I believe that was an additional several miles north so I'm I'm I'm I just want to I want to be in clear that if we're saying if we're making a statement this is generally consistent with that what are we saying because that it does sound like the original one would have been several more miles and when calculating things like proposed ridership and the economic benefits and the traders etc that does seem to be substantially different and require a fresh analysis that going from Maplewood Mole Downs Union Depot.

Well Mr.

Chair Grill uh Commissioner Tegyhoff uh I would like to just clarify that the phrase you're referring to is the LPA is consistent just between downtown St.

Paul and Maryland Avenue beyond that it changed so this is kind of broken into two parts um city already supported the part up to Maryland once before and that has not substantially changed and then the route changed north of Maryland so this is new and a new policy statement by the city of St.

Paul so that hasn't happened for it.

So it's it's not the entire LPA to White Bear Lake is the same as before it's just the stretch up to Maryland.

Okay so so we should read this clause as saying the new LPA is consistent for that section that's what the to be clear yes okay thank you other discussion on the item all right uh seeing no additional discussion we move forward with the vote then um let's let's do it as a roll call commissioner hackney commissioner holz aye commissioner homes aye commissioner martinson aye commissioner presley aye aye commissioner starling abstain commissioner tag aye commissioner thomas

Aye.

Commissioner Holmes.

Commissioner Martinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Presley.

Aye.

Commissioner Riley.

Aye.

Commissioner Starling.

Abstain.

Commissioner Tagiaff.

Aye.

Commissioner Thomas.

Aye.

Yes, have it.

I think technically I can vote on this one.

Yes, because my apologies, Chairville.

Aye.

And then because we've we've mentioned our new rule on abstentions, our new old rule.

Um, Commissioner Starling.

Um, I am abstaining on this because I do not want to vote against transit investment.

I do not want to vote against transit investment on the east side.

I am empathetic to Commissioner Humas' comments about the need for investment along White Bear Avenue.

And we can have a long conversation about the history of who pays for what transit in this region and how all of that plays out.

Because like some others, I have been in this conversation for more years than I want to admit.

And it is not clear to me that the route that is proposed will truly be an improvement in transit access on the east side relative to other pieces.

And so I cannot support using other people's money for something that may or may not be an improvement.

Thank you, Commissioner Starling.

All right, so that item passed.

We did the vote.

Um next up is site plan review.

Uh and for that, I will look to the director.

Thanks, Chair.

Uh, those on who served on the zoning committee are uh familiar with the reading of the site plans.

This is something uh that was a procedural step during the zoning committee meetings where we read aloud what items are on the site plan committee agenda so that the public could be aware of what those items are.

Uh so the next site plan committee meeting is on Tuesday.

Uh let's see.

Oh, this might be looks like this one is a little bit old.

Uh, but what was on the agenda, so it sounds like there wasn't anything on the upcoming agenda, but what there was was uh 2370 Carter Avenue, new construction of a single family dwelling on steep slopes.

Uh Commissioner Tagan.

Question Director Robinson, I believe part of the reason to read the site plan reviews is because technically the commission is delegated that authority to the zoning administrator, and so therefore the commission has the ability to pull any site plan review it chooses into its own agenda, should it so choose.

I believe that's still true given the current commission.

Yes, that's correct.

So restating that for everybody, um, another reason that we read the site plans is that they could be pulled um onto our agenda if necessary if if a commissioner requests it.

Um I think we will get a future updated training on some of the zoning items, and that might be another bullet point on that particular list.

Um all right, then next up is announcements.

Um planning commission chair, uh thank you all for finding the new room and joining us up here.

Um I just want to before I read um a couple of resolutions, I just want to note um you will all now be taking part in the zoning matters from the beginning.

Um it's always been very important to read and review your packets.

Um, I would say it's become even more important now to become intimately familiar with all of the items in your packets, and if you have questions or if things come up as we're sort of waiting our way into this, please contact the staff members attached to the packets.

You don't have to wait for the meeting to ask questions.

If you don't understand something, if it's not clear, or if you're thinking about proposing a change, feel free to reach out to the staff members, they will help you with your process.

Um they want things to be good.

Um, but in order for them to help us, we have to help them and make sure we're really familiar with the materials.

Um, so that's my little soapbox, and I'm gonna get off that now and read um two resolutions that are are here.

Okay, they're just copies.

All right.

Um, so I'm gonna start here with a resolution of recognition for Commissioner Homas.

Um, whereas the City of St.

Paul Planning Commission is charged with advising the mayor, city council, and city departments on matters related to land use zoning, comprehensive planning, and the orderly growth and development of the city, and whereas Commissioner Homas has faithfully served as a member of the St.

Paul Planning Commission, contributing his time, expertise, and dedication to the review of planning, zoning, and development matters.

And whereas Commissioner Homus has served on the comprehensive and neighborhood planning committee, where you provided thoughtful input on long-range planning policies and neighborhood plans and initiatives shaping the future of St.

Paul.

And whereas Commissioner Homas has also served on the Transportation Committee, helping guide recommendations related to mobility, safety, and multimodal transportation systems throughout the city.

And whereas Commissioner Homas will continue to serve on the Transportation Committee as a citizen member, and whereas Commissioner Homas' service supported coordinated planning across land use, transportation, and neighborhood priorities, strengthening the city's commitment to equitable and sustainable growth.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the St.

Paul Planning Commission hereby expresses its sincere appreciation and gratitude to Commissioner Homas for his dedicated service and valuable contributions to the Planning Commission and City of St.

Paul.

So we we have a resolution.

So moved.

A move by Commissioner Holt.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Martinson.

Um do we have any discussion on the motion?

I I would just like to say I'm a comprehensive neighborhood planning committee.

I really appreciated your insight and your perspective, um, which was uh uh in a very good way unique um to many of the other uh members of the commission.

So thank you for your time and your service, Commissioner Riley.

And I I also um would like to sort of um highlight the sustainable part of this resolution.

I think that um your expertise and understanding of environmental sustainability and sort of environment the environment um in which we live in an urban place is really exceptional, and um that value added will be I think missed on the commission.

So thank you for that, especially Chair.

I would add that in the meetings and outside of the meetings, you're just such a pleasant person.

Commissioner Homes is such a pleasant person to work with, really appreciated his insight and just the personal touch that he brings to all of his contributions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um we had a motion and a second.

We'll now vote.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye, aye.

All those post?

Any abstentions?

All right, uh the resolution passes, and then I think there's a copy of this for you as well.

Um, and then uh he's not here today.

Um, but Commissioner Ortega is also terming off as part of this new cycle.

Um, so we have a rec resolution of recognition for him as well.

Um so whereas the City of St.

Paul Planning Commission is charged with advising the mayor, city council, and city departments on matters related to land use zoning, comprehensive planning, and the orderly and growth and development of the city, and whereas Commissioner Ortega has faithfully served as a member of the St.

Paul Planning Commission, contributing his time, insight, and dedication to the review of planning, zoning, and development matters.

And whereas Commissioner Ortega served on the comprehensive neighborhood planning committee, where he provided thoughtful guidance on long-range planning policies and neighborhood focused initiatives affecting the future of St.

Paul, and whereas Commissioner Ortega was a clear and consistent voice for the West side, bringing forward perspectives, priorities, and lived experiences of the community to ensure that planning decisions reflected neighborhood needs and values, and whereas Commissioner Ortega's service and strengthened community service strengthened community representation, informed policy development, and advanced equitable and inclusive planning through the city.

Now, therefore be it resolved that the St.

Paul Planning Commission hereby expresses its sincere appreciation and gratitude to Commissioner Ortega for his dedicated service and valuable contributions to the planning commission in the city of St.

Paul.

Um Commissioner Ortega is obviously not here today.

Um but if anyone would like to move the motion, uh so moved.

Moved by Commissioner Holtz.

Second, seconded by Commissioner Homas.

Is there any discussion on this motion?

Commissioner Riley.

I just want to note for the record that I really appreciated, Commissioner Ortega's um always asking why and helping us to really remember that not everyone knows all the things that everybody at this table knows about the things that we know and being really consistent about uh asking for clarity about the why.

That was something that was really valuable.

Thank you, Commissioner Riley.

And Commissioner Holtz.

And I think it was very appropriate that you put in in the resolution uh because uh there's no very zealous advocate for the west side of St.

Paul.

So I think if that was not in there, that would have been remiss.

So I appreciate the extra detail to report that in.

Wonderful.

All right, we'll move forward with the vote.

knows all the things that everybody at this table knows about the things that we know and being really consistent about uh asking for clarity uh about the why that was something that was really valuable thank you commissioner riley and controls and i think it was very appropriate that you put in in the resolution uh because uh there's no very zealous advocate for the west side of st poll so I think if that was not in there that would have been remiss so I appreciate the extra detail to report that in wonderful all right we'll move forward with the vote uh all those in favor uh all those posts any abstentions all right the item passes um and again I think we're gonna be doing this a lot this year um thank you to everybody for all of your time um and next up is the planning director thank you chair uh so I sent out a a poll uh did everyone get the poll yes okay um you didn't get the poll um so it's looking like there's some interest in moving to a Thursday um but I'm gonna I'm gonna refine based on the results of the poll I'm gonna refine the information and send it out again uh in order to get some details on time um and then I have to make sure that we would be able to actually have rooms at certain dates and times.

If the commission wants to change the uh day of the meeting we will have to do another bylaws change um I could however write in some flexibility um when I return with the updated bylaws so I may bring uh some suggestions there too but I just wanted to give you an update um want to make sure that um you know everybody can um you know can still make the meeting so I'll continue discussing you know with Chair Grail um and get that additional additionally refined information but the first uh first cut here was just to see you know how many people are actually um actually interested and could make it during that time so that's all I've got today um first I guess uh I see no reason why in the bylaws we ought to have a specific day of the week mentioned for our meeting so um at least in my opinion and I'm seeing a lot of heads nod um I think that would be good to bring back some options without a specific day of the week I it seems pointless to me.

Um and then regarding uh you're so you're coming out with times um at least hopefully we can put some whatever the latest possible times are on some of these if we can consider a 4 p.m start time or something like that.

Or earliest or or and earliest right but the full the full but I just I don't know if it's on the last survey I I feel like the latest start time was I don't know if it was three o'clock or something like that, but I don't remember exactly maybe it was 3 30 if it would be possible to throw in some a little bit later times too I recognize there's a little bit of a challenge for staff there's also a challenge for commissioners too so all right.

So it feels like there's potentially some some movement there.

Excited to to see some new times.

I'm one of the people who's always been nervous about Friday mornings because uh a lot of people like a long weekend um so uh excited to see that there might be some movement there.

Um cool well that's the last item on the revised and updated agenda um and just as we're saying that as we close out um it is a new layout it is a new format for the meetings um there we're gonna take feedback I think over the course of this year we're gonna figure out what works and does what what doesn't work here.

So please keep track of that sort of in your own heads and make sure if it feels like we're calling something out of order or it doesn't make sense for the flow of the meeting um please share that with the the two of us.

All right thank you everyone we are adjourned