I'll now call the Friday uh March 20th meeting of the St.

Paul Planning Commission to order.

Um the first order business is a roll call.

Commissioner Grayl.

Present.

Commissioner Hackney.

Present.

Commissioner Holst.

Here.

Commissioner Johnson Becker.

Commissioner Martinson.

Commissioner Presley.

Commissioner Riley.

Yeah.

Commissioner Starling.

Present.

Commissioner Tagia.

Present.

Commissioner Thomas.

Six present.

Thank you.

Next up is approval of the March 6th, 2026 planning commission meeting minutes.

Do I have a motion?

So moved.

Motion by Commissioner Starling.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Seconded by Commissioner Holtz.

Is there any discussion on the minutes?

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

The minutes pass.

The next item on our agenda is public hearing.

I'm now gonna read the following rules and procedures for the public hearing.

Today the City of St.

Paul Planning Commission is holding a public hearing and the proposed amendment to section 66931 F.

Notice that the public hearing is published in the St.

Paul Pioneer Press on Tuesday, March 10th, 2026, and was sent to the early notification system list of recipients and other interested parties.

The following rules of procedures will be used in conducting the hearing.

One speakers should state their name and address for the record before beginning their testimony.

Two speakers are requested to limit their remarks to three minutes.

Three, please relate your comments to the green roof incentives text.

Four, each speaker may speak only once.

Five speakers are requested to address all questions to the chair.

Planning commission members may address questions to the speakers and the staff.

Six, when the planning commission closes the public hearing, the staff will hold the record open for additional written testimony that they receive by 4 30 p.m.

on Monday, March 23rd, 2026.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, I will ask three times if there are any persons present who wish to be heard.

There being no further testimony, there'll be a motion that the hearing be closed and taken under advisement by the planning commission.

I'll now open the public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Seeing none, I'll look for a motion to close the public hearing.

Chair, uh, I'd look to close the public hearing and keep the record open until March 23rd, 2026 at 4.30 p.m.

All right.

Uh there's a motion to close the public hearing and leave the record open for a written testimony that they received by 4 30 p.m.

on Monday, March 23rd, 2026.

Is there a second for that motion?

Second.

Uh seconded by Commissioner Starling.

Is there 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 passes.

Next up on the agenda is old business, of which there is none.

Now new business.

The first item is salt storage ordinance study initiation.

Uh staff is Josh Williams.

He'll come up to present.

Good morning, Chair, Commissioners.

It's nice to be in here.

Uh, I will note that I went to the basement on accident on my way there.

But it's nice to see you all.

Um, just one moment.

I'm gonna pull up a very very quick um uh slideshow.

On screen, okay.

And oops.

Still did everyone.

All right.

Um, yeah, slideshow.

There we go.

Sorry, it's been apologies.

Um, so uh here today to uh um talk to you a little bit about the salt storage ordinance.

This is something that's required um as part of the city's uh uh uh phase one uh MS4 permit that's municipal uh municipal separated storm and sanitary sewer.

Um so basically pursuant to the clean water act, and this is uh something that's required by the MPCA as part of uh um our current the city's current rather um uh MS4 phase one permit.

So again, as I just said, requirement of the Clean Water Act, um run through MPCA.

We have uh a permit that um requires us to adopt new language regarding salt storage.

Obviously, you've probably heard of this sodium uh contamination pollution of surface waters.

We use a lot of salt um to uh help maintain uh clear roadways during the during the winter time.

Um we've made a lot of advances in in minimizing the amount of salt we use, um, but also the way it's stored both for the city itself and for um you know companies with large campuses that may uh have salt as well um is an issue that that this is trying to address.

Um so again, related related to a permit requirement, um not uh not something that uh was cooked up by staff, for example.

Uh but but a good idea nonetheless.

Um so as I mentioned, chloride pollution, um the de-icing chemicals must be stockpiled in ways that um essentially prevent excess runoff.

Um, previously we have a very old salt shed out at the Dale Street Garage, for example.

Uh so the date idea here is is that we have uh um specific language uh within our city legislative code to make sure that any salt that's stored is you know covered if possible.

Um there are requirements in the actual language, which is based on uh a model ordinance put together by the PCA.

Um so for example, um if water runoff is gonna be impacting a stockpile that it's not directed towards uh a storm sewer, for example.

So basically the idea is again, you know, there are chemicals that need to be used for safety purposes, um, but we want to minimize the amount that's running off to public waters.

Um so the if you'll look at your packets, there should be a uh both a resolution initiating the study, um, as well as uh a copy of that draft language.

Again, it's based on um uh language from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Um today uh what staff is requesting is that you initiate the SALT ordinance study.

That's the uh that's the language in the resolution, and that uh public hearing uh date for uh that ordinance language be set for May 1st, and that's also in the resolution.

And that's about all I have, but happy to take any questions.

Yep.

Um are there any questions for staff?

Commissioner Riley.

I uh thanks, Mr.

Williams.

I have two questions.

One um one sort of irrelevant.

All right, I have one question, which is we have a lot of um other public entities that have facilities in the city limits that are likely to be high users of things like salt and or washing vehicles from salt.

I think about the metro transit garages, the minda facilities.

Um I assume those apply.

I'm just curious um if that's the case and how that sort of intergovernmental relationship works.

Yes, uh through the chair, Commissioner Riley.

Um, great question.

Um the the ordinance language, if you take a look at it, does apply to other entities other than the city.

Um my colleague Andrew Hogg from the Department of Safety and Inspections, uh, the city's water resource manager is not here unless he's hiding somewhere.

I don't see him.

Um but uh the same regulations should apply as well.

Um it certainly applies to to private entities.

Um so to the extent that um public entities have facilities located in the city of St.

Paul, it should apply to them as well.

But I can uh can um clarify that with with uh Mr.

Hogan and let you know.

Maybe we'll follow up.

Uh yep, Commissioner Riley.

Thank thanks.

Uh just I think my follow-up just to clarify the question isn't whether it applies, it's how that application actually works as far as enforcement.

So uh that might be helpful to include in the memo at some point about how things will be enforced since DSI will enforce it.

And if you're violating it, it's a civil offense.

And then that's where the intergovernment relationship may or may not be more complicated than the one with a private citizen.

So that's all that's that's the additional information that I'm looking for.

Okay.

I appreciate that you don't have it.

Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying.

I I will uh I will verify that and get back to you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right, if there are no other questions, I'll look for a motion on the item.

I think we got it here right now.

Uh I'd move to initiate the salt storage ordinance study and set a public hearing date for May 1st, 2026.

Second.

So motion by Commissioner Holtz, seconded by Commissioner Riley.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Commissioner Thomas.

I'm wondering, so so we uh we address the salt storage uh piece of this um to reduce uh the amount of salt that that goes into the groundwater, right?

That is correct.

There's already there are already best sort of housekeeping practices and for example, um I don't know if you remember the old trucks with the little spinny thing on the back.

Um the city has moved more and more towards uh pre-application of of actual liquid, which then reduces essentially the amount of salt.

So that's part of the the same permit, the MS4 permit.

Uh so this is just a a new requirement that deals specifically with the way that the the chemicals are stored before they're uh excuse me, put in use.

I'm not sure if that got picked up.

Thank you.

All right, uh any other questions on the motion?

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

All those in favor?

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the item passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is the annual report.

And because I have my packet open, I'm not sure.

Uh Nelly is here with the uh 2025 annual report.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Um so I have the 2025 um planning commission annual report.

Um this is pretty much the same as last year, just updated for everything that came to planning commission this year.

Oh, here we go.

We have a very simple desk.

I was actually burning it's not sorry.

Um so these are the zoning applications for the last few years from 2021 to 2025, and um broken down by type.

So uh we did have a few more conditional use permits compared to previous years.

Um, but generally the trend is kind of going the same way.

Um in terms of zoning cases by ward, most of them were in ward two, which is downtown and west side.

Um uh let's see, yeah, five and seven had the fewest.

This is kind of a similar trend as previous years.

Nothing um, nothing outlandish.

Uh skip that one, that was a mistake one.

This these are just a few notable planning cases.

Um this is all this is in no particular order as well.

Um just things that came before the uh planning commission in 2025.

Um a beautiful picture of um, I think this was the 841-857 Avenue.

Um and then at the end of the report, there's a little blurb about um Imagine 2025, which we are starting to work on, and in the next couple years, I'm sure you'll hear a lot more.

Um that's that's a summary of the annual report.

Um that's all I had.

Um, if there's any questions, this will come back uh the next planning commission for a final review, and then um you would make a motion to send it to um the mayor and to city council for their review as well.

Thank you.

Are there questions on the report uh for staff?

All right, seeing no questions.

If if oh sorry, Commissioner Starling.

Uh thank you, manager.

This is less a question about the report per se, and more a question about what the report says about planning in our work.

So um, for example, the map and planning commission cases.

Have we looked at how that compares?

Have we?

Have you looked at how this compares to where say permits are happening?

And trying to get a sense of like are there places where there's a mismatch between what's happening in terms of planning cases relative to building permits, trying to get to where does the existing zoning support what the market wants to develop, where are there mismatches, and with that thinking about the different types of zoning applications as well, how that compares to what the market wants to do and where are the places where there's the greatest mismatch.

So that's not about the report itself, but more about the so what coming off of the report.

So thank you for the opportunity to ask questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Starling.

Commissioner Riley.

Um I'll just second Commissioner Starling's um comments.

There was a time when we showed the you know number of zoning cases over time, which was really helpful, I think, to see.

Um especially if you think about big rezoning changes that might um positively influence sort of what Commissioner Starling's talking about.

So it'd be nice to see that again.

I guess that's my comment on the actual report is to see some of that comparative data.

Um and then I did have one question that is maybe because I can't remember time.

The hotel that we reviewed at the stadium site Snelling in university.

I have no idea whether that was in I assume that was in 2024, but it didn't start construction until 2025.

And so I'm curious if at some point we could get an update on some of those big decisions that we have made over time.

Um that maybe have been, I mean, to Commissioner Starling's point, like there's an example of something that came through here one year and now is you know, they didn't get that permit right away to start building, or if they did, there was still a delay.

Economics clearly a factor.

And um, it'd be cool to know about some of those other ones too, as even though they're not in the current year, that they continue to happen and they're not complete.

So it'd be nice to get a progress, I think, in here too.

So that's what I got.

Thank you.

Yeah, and uh um, so I'll tack on to that.

I think there are things that like I don't I don't need a lot more in the report.

I think the report's great.

I think if folks have notes and comments and things for this report, years report, it's worth sending it in to staff, getting them up the updates.

If there's something you really want in, obviously flag it for staff.

Um, but I would like a future presentation, and I think we've mentioned this with the ASMI um in the past, and this just feels like the opportunity to mention it about like a couple of the bigger cases from the last few years.

Like, I don't know that everybody has seen oh, some of these have actually gotten built, like this is the the practical application.

Umce upon a time we were in a space where we could go out once in a while to go see something.

Um I'm not saying anybody needs to do that in the near future, but in lieu of of taking us out to go see a project, it might be nice to hear a few updates on a couple of the bigger ones.

Um I realize it'll be a different format because it's not like a bringing back to comp plan or bringing it back to zoning, um, but just something for staff to think about.

Commissioner Tegev.

Yeah, if I may, just um when I look at the report, I mean it's it's fine as far as it goes.

And then I think the question for me is, you know, what why are we producing an annual report and what are we hoping to accomplish by doing so?

So, you know, who is our audience, what do they care about?

And I think some of the um responses here saying, well, this is fine, it's fine as far as it goes, but you know, is our job to describe the various committees is our job to say, you know, so uh if I were reading this as a member of the public, I wouldn't really know what I was supposed to take away from it.

You know, I mean, and that's not a criticism, that's really just I think us stepping back and going, well, is this an opportunity for us as a commission to tell a better story about our work and how it's impacting the city?

Any other questions or comments?

Commissioner Halls.

Um I think sort of uh perhaps dovetailing into uh Commissioner Starling's earliest comment uh on this.

I guess again, I don't know if this is the right spot this that it would necessarily go in here, but not only would I be curious about like where are this zoning geographically where we doing zoning reviews, but I'd be really curious about what are the ones that die before we they even come to the planning commission.

In other words, sort of like somebody initiated a project and then presumably, you know, but maybe not necessarily you know if it died because of economics, fine, but did it die because of red tape or something like that, you know, with the city and and so it'd be interesting to see some statistics around that.

So folks that started the process and then didn't make it all the way through.

Started an application but now the project never happened, and why you know why why did the project not happen?

Thank you for helping me flesh that out.

All right, seeing no other hands.

Uh thank you.

There's no action for us today, correct?

Okay.

Just a review.

And yeah, send comments or questions anytime.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right.

Um next up is when I read to you site plan review.

All right.

So at the Tuesday, March 17th meeting of the St.

Paul site plan review committee.

Um, they reviewed two items.

2200 Idaho Avenue East, New Construction, New Park at the Heights.

That was St.

Paul Parks and Rec.

And the second item was two zero zero four Randolph Avenue, New Construction, St.

Catherine University, Cleveland Access.

So those were the Tuesday, March 17th items, and then upcoming Tuesday, March 24th, there will be two items.

101 Empire Drive, New Construction, HEO Sandbox Site, and then uh 345 Smith Avenue North, an addition St.

Paul ED remodel and entrance expansion.

And those are the two items on site plan review.

Uh next up our announcements.

Um I have no announcements this week.

And the director, acting director, do you have any announcements?

Just one small one.

Uh 325 commercial, which was a rezoning that you saw here.

It was uh from residential to industrial to facilitate an expansion of Excel Energy's uh substation.

That got approved by city council this past week.

So just an update on that.

Wonderful, thank you.

Um and with that, I will adjourn the meeting.

We are adjourned.