Good morning.

I'm gonna call the May 15th meeting of the St.

Paul Planning Commission to order.

It is my pleasure to be your chair.

This is the B team, so please be gentle.

Um so we will start uh with a roll call.

Commissioner Grill, Commissioner Hackney.

Commissioner Holtz.

Here.

Commissioner Johnson Becker, Commissioner Martinson.

Commissioner Presley, Commissioner Riley?

Yeah.

Commissioner Starling.

Here.

Commissioner Tagioff.

Commissioner Thomas.

Thank you.

With that, we do have quorum.

All right.

Um next up is the approval of the May 1st Planning Commission meeting minutes.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Martinson, seconded by Commissioner Taggat.

Is there any discussion of the minutes?

Seeing none, all those in favor of approving the minutes.

Any opposed?

Minutes are approved.

All right.

Next up, this is the public hearing portion of the agenda.

Planning commission decisions on most types of zoning applications, including conditional use permits, non-conforming use permits, site plans, and variances are final decisions unless appealed to the city council.

Planning commission decisions on rezonings in master plan applications are only recommendations to city council who will make the final decision.

Planning commission findings must have a rational basis based upon the St.

Paul's zoning code and applicable state and federal laws.

Today we are holding two public hearings with the following rules and procedures.

After I read the item, we'll read a here a staff report, and then I will open up the floor for commissioners to ask questions of staff.

The applicant will then be given the opportunity to speak about their request and answer any questions from commissioners.

After that, I will open the public hearing on the item.

All testimony and questions should be addressed to the chair and relate to the proposal before the commission.

If you are a member of the public that would like to comment on a specific item, you may do so by standing between the two center microphones, stating your name and home location for the record.

After you complete your testimony, please sign in on the sheet to your right.

Testimony testimony will be limited to no more than two minutes.

You are allowed to speak only once, with the exception of the applicant, who will be given the opportunity to respond to testimony and answer commission questions.

The first application on the agenda is zoning application number.

Finding the number.

And Ms.

Hong is here to present the item.

Good morning.

The zoning application is located at 62 Winifred Street.

It's at the southeast corner of uh Stryker and Winifred on the west side.

This is the zoning in the area with um primarily residential with some corners of Stryker having been um uh rezoned because of a previous zoning study.

The application before us is a um change of non-conforming use permit from auto uh repair to auto specialty store.

The proposed use is an auto uh window tinting business.

The um the zoning administrator um issued a statement of clarification stating that the because auto window tinting is not a use that's specifically named in the um in the zoning code, it's the closest to auto specialty.

And so uh reviewing the uh the standards for a change of non-conforming use permit.

Um the proposed use is more or less the um similar to the um to auto repair without a lot of the um uh noise and um uh uh visual impact of um auto repair.

The traffic is expected to be the same or less, and because it doesn't uh have a lot of the negative externalities of say an auto repair um station, it's not expected to be um to negatively impact the neighborhood, and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan in that it's a um it's a commercial use um on a corner.

And so staff recommends approval of a change of non-conforming use permit from auto repair to auto specialty at 62 Winifred Street West.

And um the district council stated that they don't have um, they don't oppose uh this application, but don't specifically um uh approve of it, and we haven't received any neighborhood letters.

So with that, I'd be happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from Ms.

Hong?

All right, seeing no questions, I will now call out the applicant.

They'd like to add anything to the record or answer any questions from the commissioners.

A little Matt Kennavan, owner of uh 62 Winifred.

Only thing I have to add is that's an old pitcher.

It looks much nicer now.

That's it.

Um any questions for the applicant?

All right, thank you.

Um if there are no other questions, I will open the public hearing.

If you'd like to speak on this zoning application, please approach the microphones.

Is there anyone here to testify?

Anyone here to testify?

Anyone here for testify?

All right, seeing no speakers, I'm looking for a motion to close the public hearing.

I'd like to move to close the public hearing and um approve the staff recommendation on the change of non-confirming use for auto repair to auto specialty store.

Two motions in one.

Is there a second?

Second, all right.

We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing and approve the staff recommendation.

Is there any discussion on the motion before us?

We've had two commissioners arrive in the meantime, um so we should probably note that arrival on the record before actually voting.

Let the record note that Commissioner Presley and Commissioner Thomas have arrived.

Any discussion on the motion?

All right, seeing that all in favor of the motion to close the public hearing and accept the staff recommendation.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

So the second item is the 213 Bates rezoning.

Mr.

Duarte Green is here.

Good morning.

All right.

Uh PD Res 000 466 2026 is an application to rezone property at 213 Bates Avenue from H2 residential to T1 traditional neighborhood.

Uh property is located at 213 Bates Avenue in the Dayton's Bluff neighborhood and ward seven.

Uh nearby land use and zoning uh include um multifamily buildings, three to six units to the northeast and south, zoned H2, and a single family residence to the west, zoned H2.

Here's a view of the surrounding properties, some of those three to six units, and then the single family residents.

And again, the application is to rezone 213 Bates Avenue from H2 residential to T1 traditional neighborhood.

There are a few findings.

First is that the proposed T1 zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The 2040 comprehensive plan designates the parcel as urban neighborhood, which calls for primarily residential areas with a range of housing types and limited neighborhoods serving commercial, which the T1 traditional neighborhood supports, as well as there are a few specific policies that apply.

Policy LU6, foster equitable and sustainable economic growth by facilitating business creation, attraction, retention, and expansion.

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

Policy LU 36 promote neighborhood serving commercial businesses within urban neighborhoods that are compatible with the character and scale of the existing residential development, and policy HP 15, historic preservation, utilize historic and cultural resources to foster economic development and prevent or minimize displacement of area residents and businesses.

The rezoning contributes to orderly and predictable development.

The T1 traditional neighborhood zoning district permits a range of residential and low-intensity commercial uses, such as barbers and beauty shops, bakeries and coffee shops, and general retail and office that are complementary to the mix of multifamily and single family residential in the area, as well as nearby commercial uses.

Based on the findings, staff recommends approval of the rezoning at 213 Bates Avenue from H2 residential to T1 traditional neighborhood.

The District 4 Planning Council didn't actually submit a letter of recommendation on the rezoning, but they did submit a letter of support for the project.

And that should actually say three letters in support and zero letters of concern and opposition.

So with that, be happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Are there questions for staff?

Just a small one.

Sorry, could you repeat the question?

I'm used to seeing a spot zoning determination on just every rezoning soft report.

Um I don't see it here.

I don't think it's a problem, but I'm curious as to whether you took a view on that.

Thank you, Chair, Commissioner.

Um we've kind of moved away from the spot zone finding because the orderly and predictable development, the kind of complementary uses we think covers that.

I think Mr.

Dermady wants to add something as well.

I could probably give you some more context.

We actually changed the staff report on this several cycles ago.

Um there you're not allowed to have spot zoning in Minnesota, but as came up on a previous case, it's not really a determination of a planning commission to make, it's a court determination.

We have to avoid it, just like we have to avoid other things that are illegal.

Um, we don't we don't have a finding that says we have a quorum today, you know, that sort of thing.

Um the uh the findings have been more realigned with what's in the law and case law to what and findings that the commission should actually make, and as Stefan alluded to, if there were an issue with um with spot zoning, it would fall under that finding about orderly and predictable development.

Thank you, thank you, Bill.

Other questions.

I guess, you know, and just kind of more thoughts in this area, because this is the sort of the same thing that I was thinking about earlier when I was looking at this, is that when I think about changing zoning in a neighborhood, it it seems like you know, we should sort of determine the zoning and then what develops around it, in other words, w the order of which things happen, I think kind of matters here a little bit, right?

In other words, somebody decides to do a project, and I get that we're sometimes going to change zoning because of that, but it seems like like this is a case along others that are like uh somebody buys something, somebody wants to change the business or put a business in there, and then we change the zoning as opposed to like okay, let's make sure that we have appropriate zoning in appropriate locations, and then businesses can select those areas.

It feels more random as opposed to sort of what was sort of earlier described as as a kind of an orderly progression of a build through a neighborhood.

Um I don't know if I agree or disagree with the on whether or not we should weigh in on spot zoning.

I you know that's it's a good question and it's an interesting observation because it has come with the past.

But when I look at this and I look at that, you know, second or third slide that you showed.

I mentioned pulling up the map before that that matches exactly what I was I was gonna look at, and it sure kind of seems like it to me.

And I guess if we're not doing a determination about spot zoming anymore, I think I'd like to hear more about that and why and have a better understanding of what's really really changed there.

Well, Josh Lai at the city attorney's office, one of the main elements of spot zoning involves a taking of an individual's property.

So this body does not evaluate whether someone has experienced a taking, and for them to make a determination on that would be outside of its scope and arbitrary and compression, be speculative.

So you can just can't make a determination on it without being speculative, and it there it is right there.

Okay, because that that seems contradictory to what this body's done for it seems like at least the last five or six years and time before that, so and I understand what you're saying, but I I also feel it like maybe we need to have a discussion as a group or at least have a um uh information session as a group that would sort of cover this particular issue.

This seems different than what we've done in the past.

Um, so thanks, Vice Chair.

Um, just want to add a little bit of context here, that you know, many of the structures that exist in the city were built pre-zoning.

So in a lot of those areas, you know, like um Thomas Avenue, for example, you go down, you see a lot of what used to be corner stores that have been converted to residential.

Um over the years, you know, we have a variety of structures that have been um converted zoning-wise to uh residential, but they're obviously a com you know, a commercial type of structure.

You know, Stefan, could you bring up the uh picture of the site?

Um, you know, like this is a one-story brick uh brick building, um, and has been zoned, you know, residential, and I think you know, nobody has bit on, you know, converting that for a variety of reasons.

There's a lot of really interesting character on this street.

Um, and it is it's quite normal for um people to say, hey, can we can we come up with a designation that um still meets the character of this neighborhood um and repurposes, you know, an existing building.

Um so just wanted to put that out there that like I I see how it could look like you know, look like that, but um, you know, we have to we have to evaluate, you know, what's in front of us and also applicants and property owners have the have the right to ask for something like this.

If we had the staff to look at all of the you know previous commercial structures you know it's it's definitely something on our list but until we're able to do that um you know people are going to come to the planning commission asking for you know a fresh look at what's the best use uh for this structure what's the best zoning um does the applicant have a viable path to move something like that forward just uh I should still kind of follow up on that so um you know you're right these are scattered throughout the city of St.

Paul everywhere I mean you probably go three blocks and you can find a building built right up against the sidewalk right and now at some point in time we've zoned them H2 or H1 maybe and you know I I hear you when you say we don't have to but that's probably what we should seriously consider because I I think when you buy in a neighborhood in St.

Paul you should have some predictability as to what's going to happen around where you're at right so that you know that okay and I love T1 and I like I like the idea of this business going in here and I I think you know uh east side neighborhood and along 94 could certainly you know use whatever can get um but I I think it's probably important that we at least look at proactively taking these buildings that are sort of historically commercial buildings and then you know zoning them appropriately um proactively instead of reactively all the time so Commissioner Riley Thank you Chair Starling uh perhaps Stefan you could tell us a little bit about the two lists of uses available to T1 and H1 and that might help folks understand where the overlap is maybe.

Definitely thanks Chair Commissioner so H2 residential primarily allows what's I missed focus oh okay um well I'll just talk about T1.

So the intent of T1 is to provide for neighborhood scale compact pedestrian oriented mixed use areas with a variety of residential office um service civic and institutional uses um we believe that's a fit here uh some of the commercial uses allowed um include coffee shop tattoo shop farmers market artist studio service business general retail and general office are our lowest intense intensity commercial uses um there's also other commercial uses present in the neighborhood there's a home goods store across the street as well as a a bakery a few blocks away um a market a few blocks away um additionally T1 also allows uh the same essentially the same residential uses as H2.

Um there's maybe a little more density in T1 but it's it's pretty gentle um so do believe that um the range of uses that are allowed in T1 are complementary to the neighborhood and are not spot zone yeah so here's the home goods store and there's a vacant commercial building believe at the end of this block as well just that's just on this block and then if we look at the surrounding blocks there's um other commercial uses in the area.

I don't have a question but more of a comment.

If we didn't allow changing of the zoning, it seems to me that it would be more prohibitive and restrictive for um people to want to come in and do something.

And so, you know, clearly the the issues have to do with the process and not the outcome.

And I think that if we focus on the outcome, I think we would all, you know, agree that this is a good thing to change it to T1.

Any further questions on this one?

No, not a question to comment.

Just to say that I think I think we are all reading the room.

I think there's that's not really people objecting necessarily in this case.

And I think, you know, when I look at rezoning, spots, etc., I look at complementarity of uses.

I think Commissioner Riley was pointing out, you know, just are the uses compassable, not as a zoning code, literally the same.

But um I do take the point, which is that in general when we're looking at an application before us to do a specific project, we are essentially stuck with the zoning um designation the applicant has applied for, whether or not we might otherwise choose that.

And so I I do I do take the point of getting to a place where we have where we can say we've looked at this already, here's what we think.

Um probably would create more certainty for applicants in the city, which I believe is uh is an imperative if we want to attract investment to the same pool.

So um definitely understand and um want to thank the applicants for their patience with our uh with our discussion.

Just sort of follow up.

I I'd echo what you said and agree with everything you said.

And when we do these, if we ever get to a point where hopefully we can start being proactive on this stuff, I think that makes a more business friendly environment and entrepreneur friendly and small person um friendly environment, right?

Because you know, when you go through this process, you know, you're taking a winger, you know, to a to a large degree.

You don't know what's going to happen.

And if you've got a couple of people on the planning commissioner city council that are providing some reason to be opposed, and you're six months into us, that could be a big deal for you, you know.

Um, because it's it might be your whole, you know, it might be a real big commitment for you to do something like this.

I love it.

I think it should be there.

I agree, but I just I don't like the process, and I don't like that we have to do this reactively all the time.

My biggest concern was the spot thing, uh, which we certainly weighed in last time we had one of these, but apparently uh I'm relieved of that burden.

Um so I will be supporting this, you know, personally.

Um, but I do think that you know we want to encourage small business in the city of St.

Paul, then part of that is make it so you don't have to convert your place from H2 to T1 all the time.

So I'm sorry, one more chair.

Um just just on the spot zoning piece.

I think we're relieved of making a legal determination of spot zoning.

I think it's still open to us to make a legislative decision or legislative recommendation on whether there's compatibility, which is a similar sort of it's a similar sort of evaluation, just not making a legal determination on it, because to how I read the um the um sorry, the uh Mr.

Dermoty's comments.

Right, and through the chair, I hope that we hear something more about spot zoning in the future, so some more about it.

All right, I think that concludes questions and comments.

Um, so I will now call up the applicant if they would like to add anything to the record or answer any questions from commissioners.

Not sure they were able to make it.

Do we have an applicant in the room?

All right, seeing no applicant, um, I will open the public hearing.

If you would like to speak on this zoning application, please approach the podium.

Welcome.

Please state your name and look address for the record.

Good morning, Chair and members of the St.

Paul Planning Commission.

My name is Andy Joy.

I live at 2257 Maryland Avenue in St.

Paul.

I'm and I think it's wonderful that we have this opportunity to discuss adaptive reuse of buildings that sit vacant, a commercial building that's now zoned for housing, that we want to change.

So I'm here today to express my support for the proposed rezoning of 213 Bates Avenue from H2 to T1.

This project aligns with the goals of a collaborative effort launched in 2025 by the Eastside Neighborhood Development Company, the Latino Economic Development Center, and the Eastside Funders Group.

That effort is called the Eastside Commercial Real Estate Development Initiative.

It promotes community-centered property acquisition as a strategy to address disinvestment and to promote local ownership.

The adaptive reuse of 213 Bates Avenue brings a vacant property back into productive use.

It will support an emerging developer, an Almer Development Group, and a local business from the roots salon in the Dayton's Bluff neighborhood.

It will preserve an historic building through one of the most sustainable forms of development.

And it will restore an active storefront, improve public safety, and build on the investments that the neighbors have already made along Bates Avenue.

For these reasons, I encourage the Planning Commission to approve the rezoning request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well timed.

Are there other speakers?

Are there other speakers?

Are there other speakers?

With that, seeing no additional speakers, I'm looking for a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Second.

The motion is moved and seconded.

Any discussion on the motion to close the public hearing?

Seeing none, all those in favor of closing the public hearing?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

With that, we have a staff recommendation before us.

Commissioner Riley.

I'd like to move the staff recommendation and thank Ms.

DeJoy for her comments.

I think that that initiative may show up here with some other projects.

And it's exciting to see that kind of work and that kind of collaborative work take place in our city.

So that's my motion.

Awesome.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Any further discussion on the motion?

Um seeing nothing, um, I'd like the record to note that I will not be voting on this particular item.

Um, all those in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, the motion carries.

So that concludes the public hearings portion of our agenda.

We have no old business.

Uh, we do have new business and informational presentation.

Conveniently a presentation on T District's implementation study.

Ms.

Quarles.

Hello, Commissioners.

I am so excited to talk about proactive rezoning.

One moment, Commissioner Tagass.

Sorry to be a stick.

Um, Chair, would you say your reason for abstention?

I think we're required to do that by the rules.

Oh, um, I am abstaining on the previous motion because I have a conflict of interest with an organization described in the staff report.

Thanks.

Okay.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Valerie Quarrels.

I'm a senior planner here with the city, and I'm here to talk about some proactive rezoning along some transit corridors here in the city.

Uh, I don't need to tell you all what T districts are, but for the record, uh, they were created in 2004.

They allow all of the things that were just discussed uh within the previous presentation, scaling all the way up to some of the larger redevelopments along University Avenue.

Uh, we already see them placed along a lot of corridors throughout the city, Rice, Robert, University Snelling in a few master planned areas as well as quite a few of one-off projects.

Obviously, we have a lot of developers that come in front of the planning commission and say, I think T makes sense for my district or for my parcel, and then we have this conversation kind of over and over.

In 2025, planning staff led by my esteemed colleague Spencer Miller-Johnson, uh, updated the T District code language along with the planning commission to do things like update the uses, promote affordable housing development through some density bonuses, and generally increase the quality of design in new buildings.

The follow-up from that is that city council pretty enthusiastically approved those changes at the end of 2025 and then turned right around and said, okay, where are these T districts going?

We want to see more of them throughout the city.

So we've identified six corridors and we've decided to align them with future bus rapid transit routes along with recent bus rapid transit routes.

These are corridors, both that are earning transit investment in this way because they have high transit ridership already, but also because they have a strong mix of business and residential zoning as is.

Doing this work fulfills the comp plan policies around transit supportive density, around high quality urban design.

Both of those policies are very redevelopment focused, but also, you know, in line with the presentation that we just went through, it does add more uses and options for our existing buildings, which provides a lot more opportunities for local business to succeed through building reuse and preserving some of our existing historic character throughout town, but then also encouraging high quality redevelopment where it is needed, including both affordable and market rate housing whenever possible.

That being said, these are the six corridors.

They are Rice Street, Maryland, plus the Como Front Dale intersection, White Bear Avenue, Selby, West 7th with a little bit of Randolph thrown in, and Robert Street.

This is a lot.

I am excited that we're going to be able to say, you know, every essentially every BRT line proposed for the next five to seven years is covered within this, as well as the B line, which had not been studied for rezoning previously because there were efforts going on within the Rondo neighborhood for their own land use plan.

So we wanted to wait for that to finish up.

But yeah, all of these align with G, H, Bronze, B, J, all of the alphabet soup of BRT that's coming down the pipeline.

It's really exciting.

This group already knows that all of these districts are very different from one another, but the thing that they have in common is a large mix of zoning districts.

You know, this section of Selby, for instance, has a mix of B district zoning, some community business, a lot of multifamily, some parking, the occasional T district project thrown in.

And as conveniently teed up for me again in the last presentation, this provides some unpredictability for people who want to do business in St.

Paul, whether that's redevelopment, whether that's using an existing building.

So part of this is to introduce some uniformity along a lot of these districts, but we are going to be taking a pretty intensive look, or at least I have been already about the suitability of each of these parcels for different types of T districts.

The primary focus is parcels that front the corridor directly, and then from there will sort of come out into the neighborhood a little bit more, depending on the results of community engagement.

Our baseline assumption is at the bare minimum looking at all of the B districts along these corridors because B districts are as wonderful as they are, they're definitely a relic of our you know 1970s zoning code and deserve a little bit of love in the form of T districts.

But then from there, going, okay, what residential districts could support small scale or medium-scale or large scale T district development, and what does that look like?

Part of that is because if we took every B district and replaced it with a T district, we talk about T districts in a mixed-use way, but they don't necessarily have to be mixed use.

They don't mandate retail or commercial or office in the way that the B districts do.

So we'd want to also add T districts into some of the residential zoning so that we don't have a net loss of commercial space, which would not be what we're aiming for in St.

Paul right now is a net loss of commercial space.

Like I said, so that's sort of the baseline.

Our engagement will be you know, how far do we go into the neighborhood?

Uh, how do we talk about specific parcels?

For instance, auto uses become nonconforming under T, and then how do we identify some of those additional uh opportunities for T.

There's two levels of engagement associated with this.

There's this like, you know, deep workshop style engagement.

Uh we're planning to do in person workshops along at least a few of the corridors right now.

I'm still in discussions with district councils about their capacity for being able to support that kind of thing, but that's where a lot of those deeper conversations will happen that I just mentioned.

That'll also be where we get a lot of individual property owner connections.

Part of the opportunity that comes with proactively rezoning a lot of these properties is that we can get some idea of property owner intent with some of these key parcels ahead of time so that we don't have to do project-specific rezonings.

We can do rezonings that are in line with what the comprehensive plan asks for and what the study is looking to do.

And then on top of that deep level engagement, there will also be broader engagement through an online survey.

And the point of that is both to uh be able to get feedback from people who maybe aren't able to participate in that really deep discussion, but also to get some idea of where else people might want to see T districts throughout the throughout town.

Uh, this is a lot to chew at once, but I'm already hearing from people about okay, what about this corridor?

What about this corridor?

What about this parcel?

And I'm like, yes, I agree with you, we should do it when we have the capacity.

So we're doing this chunk at once and then seeing what 2027 looks like.

So we're doing our launch right now.

Engagement will be summer and fall, and then hopefully uh a public hearing at the very least by the end of the year uh on all of these rezonings at once uh as one big batch, and then adoption may sort of trail on beyond that, depending on how many times we maybe come back to the planning commission, how many times uh we need to make changes or rounds and go back and adjust, uh, and then we'll go from there.

So that's a lot of information at once, but I'm happy to take questions.

Questions for Ms.

Quarles.

Commissioner Riley.

So many questions.

No, I'm just kidding.

Um, this is great.

Thank you very much.

Um, I do have uh I think it would be helpful to know what's on deck for 2027 because I think one of the most obvious things from my perspective that's missing is something that's been talked about for almost 20 years, which is rezoning pain avenue.

And so that's a bit to me, that's a big gap in the map, um, because of how long it's been discussed, and because of frankly, the conversation that we just had about the site over in the Dayton's Bluff area.

So um, so that for for to like reduce concern or all those questions about what about this, it might be nice to have a list of who's on deck.

Um, so that's just that one comment.

Um, and then as for the engagement, um, I love that you're calling out district councils.

I think that there are some district councils that are in flux, and so they might be adequately served by um the neighborhood development corporations that operate in St.

Paul, although those are becoming fewer and further between.

Um, but I also think that the partnership mentioned by uh Ms.

DeJoy, especially the work um done by LEDC and the quality of the staff that they have there today could add value in a way that we have not seen in the past on the east side, and since three of these are essentially on the east side, I really encourage you to look at those other partnerships, especially in places where this district councils don't have capacity.

And I'm super excited.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner's Hagueff.

That is a good point.

It'd be interesting also to think about if if you happen to know this stuff, if there are sort of hot spots on the map aside from where planned transit exists, that might be something that are prioritize.

You know, if you know we have a lot of projects along Pain Avenue or something like that in the pipe, then that would potentially be a reason to look at is there anything else to include proactively?

Yeah, I think there's certainly um multiple, both looking in terms of actual, you know, land use potential to switch to T, Pain Pain is on sort of my personal short list, front avenue is also on my personal short list.

Uh but you're right, that interest is also a key, you know.

How can we be proactive and get just ahead of that instead of reactive?

Any other comments or questions for staff?

Seeing none, thank you for the update, and we wish you luck.

Thank you.

I will be back to talk about this more.

Uh there will be more updates throughout the study.

So the next time you hear about this won't be hello, I have 600 parcels I'd like to resonate.

So thank you.

Thank you.

We appreciate that.

All right, next on our agenda is um what's coming up on next week's site plan review committee.

Uh the site plan review committee is meeting on Tuesday, May 19th.

Uh there is one new item on it, which is the new construction at 500 Broadway Street for a mixed use multiple multifamily dwelling.

And as I recall, we approved a rezoning on that particular site several weeks or months ago.

All right.

Um, as I am the sub in planning commission chair, I have no announcements.

Any announcements from the no announcements from the planning director.

So with that, um I will adjourn the May 19th meeting.

Thank you so much.