Jalali Johnson. Toast here maker. Council PRESIDENT Can't Vice PRESIDENT Kamala. Present police and if you're able for the Pledge of allegiance. a student mayor and to the just one nation under indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Item number one is resolution 25 dash 2.16, electing the officers of the City Council. Awesome. So top of the day and John Doe we've got. So the trend, important business to conduct, we are going to be lucky and then sort of new officers of the Saint Paul City Council in brief it is electing are very cherished councilmember in acres or council PRESIDENT And me as your continued vice PRESIDENT.
So I make a motion To support him, pass the resolution and they did. Also hold for discussion. Any comments from council members regarding election ever. Leadership. Hey, well, I am happy to speak very briefly, but if some of the head of the privilege of working with Rebecca back when I was the la to the council PRESIDENT Her as the veep, just a tremendous amount of support and guidance for the council and continues to be just a really incredibly strong kind and steady hand for the new council members. Your leadership and guidance has helped us through many a different things last year and just personally professionally, very excited tan the gavel over to you and also to work with you this
Again, our council, any discussion from my colleagues, yes, considering things Rice PRESIDENT Is I'm trying to gather my thoughts my laptop up. But I just want to tell overall same very supportive of having that concern acre as our PRESIDENT, the new continuing or vice chair. I do want to say thank you for really taking on these 2 important goals so much more responsibility. And am very confident in you leaving you both leaving the council together and want to say thank you for your mentorship. And also just really modeling to was I'm strong communication. Looks like in really look forward to making sure that, you know, we find ways to get to get communication across the council offices. I feel
like that's always something that we strive t and just looking forward to working together, cohesively and brainstorming together for the greater good of city here. So I look forward to your leadership and again, thank you. Take on Thanks, council. Vice PRESIDENT. I want to thank all my colleagues for your support as I step into this role PRESIDENT In particular. Appreciate the opportunity to serve alongside you. And really appreciate the leadership that you've shown over the last year as well. And councilor Yang to your point, I as I said earlier today, I think we are so fortunate on this council to have this incredible talents, this deep bench of leadership. And I'm excited that we're going to be making some changes this year that bring
all of us more into those positions of leadership and a building that pipeline of talent. So looking forward to it. Any other comments for colleagues? All right. With Yeah. Motion to approve. On favor. Say Aye. Aye. Tell us. 6 a favorite. No one opposed. The resolution is adopted. Consent agenda items. 3, 3 team are before you for your consideration. And my understanding is that we're taking items 3.10, any other items for separate consideration. All right, seeing none council vice PRESIDENT Moves the bounds of the consent agenda all in favor say Aye. Opposed motion carries 6 in favor. No one opposed the consent agenda is adopted as amended item. 3 is resolution. 25 dash, 2.78 directing Department of Safety
and Inspections to proceed with the denial of the still license in adverse action against pca 2 llc doing business as Ben area cassette for the premises located at 2.11, 7th Street West Suite be 100. And understanding is that there was a small, typo in the first Persian. There's aversion to in Legistar now. So I would move version 2, just spoke. And I would move approval. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none all in favor say Aye. Opposed 6, a favorite now and oppose. The resolution is adopted as amended. We'll figure this out. Item 10, this resolution, 25 dash 2.53. Approving the appointment of officers of the City Council Budget Committee. And I actually wanted to pull this item off of consent just
to take a moment to recognize the fact it's going to be stepping in as chair of our Budget Committee and council vice PRESIDENT Kim will be our vice chair. And again, this is just one more step in our attempting mention just a few moments ago to try to make sure that all of us are taking on different positions of leadership and building our power as a council and have and our ability to work on many different types of items, especially our budget. We had a in-depth conversation about our budget at the end of last year. And I know many of the discussions that we had, the changes that we want to make are not the kind of changes that we can make just in the last 4 months of the year. They're not just the kinds of tweaks around the edges of a budget, but we were really speaking about some more systemic, some more structural types of changes that take
longer. And so as Danielle, turn it over to you in case you want to say anything. But I'm I'm excited that we're going to be watching this budget committee much earlier this year. Yeah, thank you. PRESIDENT Maker, echo everything that you said and I want to say thank you to my colleagues for the support of having. The chair, our Budget committee and also our council vice PRESIDENT To be the vice chair to one of the reasons why I am really excited about just this new structure. We as a council have put together for this year is is, you know, that really comes down to work sustainability for me. It traditionally a lot of the work has really lives in the council PRESIDENT's office where any concerns that we have committees in which airing it all has been on the shoulders of the council PRESIDENT. And to me that just
isn't sustainable at all. So I want to appreciate the opportunity for us to create more leadership opportunities within the council here to have making transitions into these really important roles. But also that this is how we create more sustainability into as well and spent the to everybody here. So thank you. Look forward to the opportunity to chip the Budget Committee. Thank you so much for stepping up. Any other discussion. Take a motion from MISS Yang for approval. All in favor say Aye. Aye. All opposed. 6 a favor opposed resolution is adopted. Item. 19 is resolution. 25 dash one. 61 proving adverse action against a tobacco shop license held by Peters Market doing business as Peters market for the premises located at Five-thirty Saint Peter Street. And I believe we have
a staff report on item. Councilmember in New York or members of slide on and on the behalf of Department of and inspections in this matter the matter before you is a resolution asking for you to consider a recommendation to revoke the tobacco shop license held by Peters market because of the high volume of adverse actions and appeals related to the increase penalties related to the flavored tobacco products the city used outside counsel. To further assist with this matter to briefly summarize this matter involves multiple violations. On MAY 12, 2022, the Department of Safety inspections conducted investigation, the licensed premises after it received a complaint flavored tobacco products are being sold on the licensed premises. Peter Market fell to respond to the 7/8/2022. Notice of violation where peers market was in violation. With the the City
Council passed a resolution. 22 dash 12 86 imposing the tent. They suspension of the license for a violation. Unders section 3.24, 0, 7, of the Saint Paul Unicode. On JANUARY. 26 2023. The U.S. I received the complaint in the from the Minnesota Department of where they found flavored tobacco products and then 2 or the cash register of the licensed premises following up from there the following day on JANUARY. 27 2023 decide to formed an investigation of the licensed premises. Were they found numerous flavored tobacco products in a metal filing cabinet behind the counter in the area of the cash register. FEBRUARY 2017, 2023. The city issued a notice
of violation to licensee, which alleged that the licensee violated same publisher spate of Co 3.24, Dash, 0 7, Which prohibits the sale of flavored tobacco products. And then JULY, 28 2023, the licensee. It responded. City's additional request, Discovery request and provided invoices. From core Mark Golden Valley whole so either which included the purchase of the men will or any other flavored tobacco products and did not include any information or I wear licensee a 5 month low tobacco products. On Jne 7 to 2024. The city of teen, the subpoena issued to Costco for all the receipts and invoices or documents regarding te so it's about the products to licensee. From MAY 13th 2022. 3g 5th of 2024. G 25 to 2024. Also provided the city with documents in response, a Supreme. Because of the
challenges brought by licensee and the licensees failure to disclose the possible for flavored tobacco products. The city paid out attorney fees and costs a little cake. This mountain amount of 74,000, $631. And $0.36. I know that as a recommendation of the aside for the revocation as this was a presumptive penalty. Under the second violation. Into Saint Paul legislative Code, section 3, turning 0, 0, 3 subsection k the city Council MAY impose any licensee. MAY impose any fines to of the costs of any contested hearing bfore an independent hearing examiner day. In the situation like this. Are there any questions? Thanks so much for the informative report. Just one clarifying questions. So it
appears that the licensee failed to provide us with accurate information about their purchase of these products. And that's why we require the subpoena, correct? Remember, thank you. Any other questions before we go to our a hearing. It's not like. Thanks so much. Thank you. So has 5 minutes to testify. If they are here. If they're here. Well, I'm going to approval of the resolution in front of us approving intersection. Is there any discussion on the side? Seeing all in favor say aye. I opposed. 6 a favor opposed the resolution is adopted as amended. I'm sorry. It's just Item 20 is a public hearing for ordinance. 25 Dash 17 granting the application of time time
when to rezone property at 25 George Street East from b one local business to h one residential. And amending chapter 60 of the legislative Code pertaining to zoning map. So just before we start a public hearing section, first of all, welcome anyone who's here to testify public hearing. And and just a couple of housekeeping items. If you're here to testify, once you hear item called and I call the public hearing, I'm just line up on the side. Either side, if you're going to be testifying and when it's your turn, just come and stand right in between those 2 microphones, you don't have to touch them or just them at all. They will pick up your voice and you'll have 2 minutes to testify. There's o'clock right in front of you
that will count down. Don't be nervous. We're all just human being sitting around this table and we really want to hear your on the spot. So try not to be nrvous. Then on the side, either side of the microphone, you'll see there's a clipboard with a sign in sheets. So if you can sign and when you're done testifying, that was really help us out a lot. When you do to start your testimony to say your name and where you're coming from. So with that, we just read item 20 25 just 17. So is there anyone here to testify on this item? Anti connected? If I just set up at a know but that's okay. Seeing motion to close the public hearing and leave the matter over from this bully all in favor say Aye. All opposed 6, a favorite. No one opposed. The public hearing is closed in. The ordinance is laid over to FEBRUARY 19th for final
adoption. Item 21 is a public ordinance. 25 Dash 18 get to the application of Lbe 1. 41 Selby llc to rezone property at 6.42. Selby Avenue from b to community business to t 3 traditional neighborhood. And the many chapter 60 of the legislative code pertaining to the zoning map. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak on the Seeing? Is we will move to close the public hearing lay the matter over all in favor say Aye. All opposed 6. A favorite. No one opposed to public hearing is closed in. The ordinance is laid over to FEBRUARY 19th for final adoption. Item. 22 is a public hearing of ordinance. 25 Dash 19 amending chapter 2 Point 0, 2, of the Administrative code
to add and g 10 establishing an Office of Financial Services Grants Section. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to testify on this item? Seeing none as Johnson moves to close the public hearing, the matter over all in favor say Aye. Post 6 a favorite know and oppose a public hearing is closed in. The ordinance is laid over to FEBRUARY 19th for final adoption. Item. 23 is abc a 25 Dash one considering the appeal of Sean Ryan, Ryan companies, U.S. Inc to decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to 9 for variance. Request to construct a mixed use development on the property at 2200 Fort Parkway. And we have a staff report will come u. I council PRESIDENT Council members. David, I'd with the Department Safety inspections on the staff member signed of the Board of Zoning Appeals and I'm here today to talk about 2200 Fort Parkway, which
is our first of zoning there. The zip your case this year. So why is this in front of you? 61.7. '02, states that the city council should have the power to hear side appeals where it's alleged that there's an error, in fact, find your procedure. So that is why this is here today. I think Ryan has more signs that look prettier than But this is just a little. Overview of where this site is located. It is on the Southside of Fort Parkway between and heard Boulevard. And it's if you're familiar with the ones and by early is. It is it's near. Gets to the it's west of this first cases to of another wants to see if the separate property. And that's whether 2 separate case numbers and everything like that. Here's another view, satellite image of of the say. You can see that there's is that are being
constructed around here. This is the view to the north of the property in question. This is the view to the west of property. And you can see that this is a vacant piece of land. That's not in scope to to a walk to the right is to be. This is to the east it. Some words over the future civic area. And then you can see the of mixed use building with the ones and bodies. And then this is to the South. These are some of the senior housing Presbyterian homes. You can see the civic area. They're that beats the water future. Also a little more about the project of this 2.1 8 acre property. That's part of the Highland Ridge for the redevelopment say. Its 5, which is the business next district's proposal that is in the blue. Fox is for a mixed use
development with 97 dwelling units and then 3, 1, story, commercial buildings building is for the drilling. Units will be located in that building is mixed uses. Also retail in that building. To te east of this property is the proposed civic square, which privately owned public space. Then Hillcrest at Hillcrest of the South Hillcrest Drive is privately on. So you can see that the property line for to see extending extending about say into that access Crest Avenue, which is public, provides access to particular access to be safe on the back. Here's a rendering from Fort Parkway kind of looking. To the Southeast see, can see that the story proposed commercial buildings kind of stepped down to Fort Parkway. This and greed. Elevation changes here on the site.
You can see the mixed use of component in the back with the residential units on top. This is a view from the proposed civic. Area southwest. Another view. This is required pedestrian easement that provides access to the water heater from the proposed civic Square. And then this looking from Hillcrest North at the building. Complex. So the zoning variance across the Rhine companies requested. There were 13. The only ones that we're discussing today are the ones that were denied by the Board Zoning Appeals. So the board granted lot coverage, variance and then window and pleasing variances which 5 to 13. And then the height and for your ratio request for the ones that were denied. So that's why we're here today on the board denied them. And then applicant appealed in the city Council. I mean, explain that there are a flurry ratio
of one is proposed for this block to be one to point out was what the zoning code requires. And then the building height, minimum is 40 feet buildings bc, and d are less than that. The Inc year proposed be 15 feet and then is 12 for you. I would know that that's a measure to the top of the road, not the pair. That's when you're looking at it from the street. There would be some additional on top of the roof and on the front facade ce. So the bza outcome that there was a public hearing that was held on DECEMBER 9th 2024, the case was laid over to JANUARY 6 2025, there's a little technicality where we MISS Approval, the kind glazed over the parts they wanted to prove. So the parts that were denied happened on JANUARY 6, the approval of the variances happened on JANUARY. 21st staff recommended approval of
all the request of variance is Highland, MR. Council, they submitted a resolution supporting the variance request from the Community Development Committee. At the meeting we had 0 people speak in opposition or in support. Sorry, 0 letters, U.S. Even support. And then 6 person spoke against variances 0 letters receive again, stood up for The Bza on the board denied request one, which is the Florida ratio in Tucson for which with a high requests based upon findings, 2, 3, and 4, which of the Conference of Plan, practical difficulties and the plight of the landowner. So there's 6 findings that need to be found to grant a zoning variance. And then at the vote result was 4 members voted in favor of denying request and then
too against and then the applicants submitted the appeal application on JANUARY 16 2025. There's the 60 Day deadline which was extended and another 60 Our deadline is MARCH 17th to make sure that doesn't get approved administratively. And then these are the 6 things that are necessary to grant zoning. Variances and the board found 2, 3, 4 were not in that. So the the Conference of plan and practical difficulties think circumstances unique to the property. The bard. To sum it up. You can read this in the resolution, but the board thought that the flourish for a show us to not make the findings because they conflict with the conference of plan and they cited multiple parts. The Conference of plan. Generally surrounding transit, supported density and then develop developer. The next step for practical
difficulties in the plate. They stated that they were surmountable as parts the design and build processes. On the staff findings. Staff on that. The land use chapters. General citywide goals are to increase density in land. Use diversity and neighbor Notes, Oaks investment along transit corridors and promote high high quality urban design. And that was you. 5, 0, u 7, o u 29 were cited. The proposed development is consistent with the guiding principle set for 4th in the forward Zoning and public ground master plan to create jobs and increase taxes. And the master plan. General design guidelines are meant to promote a static singer and design standards. You can see the pay. They did that. They are into the site towards all the public rights of way around it. Staff report on that the practical difficulties in flight were due to dots. It typical say it the pedestrian easements, not
buildable along wth that private Hillcrest. That's not buildable, although that's part of to seeing out the storm, the o Ford parkways, shallow comforts like water table, create difficulties and say it was complying with the heightened applicant split up the buildings to ensure that their late veteran elevation before parkway and they create pedestrian cut throughs for more permeability. If this were one building, it would comply with the 40 and then overall, the development aligns with the spirit of the development. It's considered with flock to see him to be. And also that on the next slide, would be 1.7 and then blocked which is not in Stow could further increase the density of luck to you. So the in the blue box you can see blocked.
To be to see ito If all those are considered together for what's proposed and block to in their housing, that's under construction. Now it's all those were considered together. The 1.7, which getting their 2 point. They are. And then blocked could add even more density in the future. So that's pretty much the end of my staff report. I always like to sum it up with why we're here again today. Is that the city council, you know, that alleges that there was an error, in fact, finding a procedure, not sir responsibility to determine if there was an error, in fact, find your procedure. And then these are the 2 requests that are we're discussing today. If you grant the appeal development can move forward Fahrenheit Heights that the proposing, if you were deny the appeal, the development, we need to revise teir plans
to comply with Fahrenheit and then the deadline is MARCH 17th. And that's all have. And you have any question great. Very thorough. Thank you very much. There. Any questions. All right, seeing Thanks so much. So in this one, actually, first of all, thank you for falling directions already lined up. That is amazing. But this was a little bit different. So we actually have this is an appeal. So you will come up with your 2 minutes in just a minute. But first, we're going to have the appellant have 5 minutes to make their presentation and then we'll go others who are here to testify. Stranger say your name and where you're coming from. Before you start your testimony get 5 minutes. Council PRESIDENT Maker members of the council, name is Maureen Michelle Scam with Ryan companies. And with me today is my colleague Sean Ryan. Addresses businesses 5.33. Church Street suite 100
Minneapolis. So thank you for the opportunity to address a counselor appeal of the bza ce recent fighting for our Northern Island Bridge Block one lakh to proposed development. The submitted application supplements and appeal for this project provide clear evidence. The practical difficulties exist. This s attaining the request variance is that all findings are met. The bca is action to deny the request contained errors and facts procedure and findings. Actions were contrary to the findings of the city planning staff, the Holland District Council. And most importantly, contrary to an objective application of the criteria required by Minnesota statute and city code. bc aired their findings in the following 4 ways. One findings were erroneous and not based on fact that the Bza did not assign any error to certain findings. With respect to the variances. Number 2, while well
intentioned bza commentary did not objectively focus on the procedural criteria set out in Minnesota statutes and city code rather included assertions regarding not meeting zoning require transit oriented development such as bicycle parking stalls per share stalls, which do meet in fact and were not the subject of the application. And they also focus on subjective and personal opinions about the project housing demand citywide and about other developments in markets such as New York, therefore didn't basing their rationale for denying variances on personal opinions, implying that the project to deal with items beyond the scope. Up right fired by Minnesota statute and city code. 3. The bza accepted the surgeons of a self-described other developer in the public testimony who without evidence stated that the site conditions and practical difficulties were surmountable. Where is Ryan delivered
evidence of prior geotechnical report submitted to the city in MAY of 2020 for the overall foresight which staff has on file includes 4 brings related to this plaque. We have brought a copy of the original document today and like to put it in the public record to unequivocally demonstrate the evidence that our application is derived from actual site due diligence and investigation information. When the Bza granted number 4 when the Bza grant a variance is for Ryan's other application items including lot coverage in window various glazing items, the unique circumstances in which the Bza relied to make those determinations were then ignored and discredited in their are in building height, discussions based on the personal opinions of the bza
members rather than the facts. As noted in the staff material submitted the unique characteristics or circumstances to the property that affect a fair and building height and put personal shape, great changes and soil conditions. These attributes make it difficult for this development to comply with a building height standards and are legitimate based on granting the variance is. Legitimate basis for granting the fixes variances excuse me, I would be happy to specifically outline these in greater detail desired by the council. Has this as part of this testimony in question answer, period. Finally, others have asserted that we were seeking a variance is solely because of financing market factors, which misconstrued or application materials and her testimony. While the master plan and zoning code were set up to outline broad concepts for Highland Bridge, they culd not consider simply by their nature. The unique attributes each of the sites at Highland
Bridge and the conflicting standards amongst amongst them. One practically apply to an actual proposed development. They're seeking variances for this particular site due to the unique circumstances this parcel of land. There is a did because of the practical difficulties that wind, I'd be pleased to answer any questions council MAY have regarding our application and thank you for the opportunity present you today. Thank you so much for your testimony. Are there any questions? All right. Thanks so much with that. We will move on to the rest of our public hearing again at. 2 minutes coming up, state, your name, where coming from. And when you're done silent. Coming up. Good afternoon. Council members. I am. We're we're in great. This is Pablo King and he had cough. And we are students at McAllister College. We have a statement this morning today that
applies to both. 23 23 and 24th. So your council members, we are mccollister college students concerned with our cities. Long-term fiscal health, climate resilience and housing abundance. We urge you to vote against Ryan companies. Variance requests appealed for crafting as and 2200 forward Parkway. The promise of the Highland Ridge Redevelopment Project was to turn a former industrial site into a healthy, sustainable, affordable and transit oriented neighborhood. The proposed variance not only breaks this promise for the current and future residents of Highland Bridge. It also sets a precedent for future
developers to submit their own various proposals. Given the current housing and climate crises, it is vital that new developments meet the density and sustainability goals. The city has set. Ryan companies attributes their proposal to rent stabilization. Market forces and financing while these issues are real, they are not legal justifications for variances under Minnesota state law variances can only be approved if the physical characteristics of property present hardships. This variance was requested to economic hardships. The current zoning was designed to alleviate the long term housing and environmental pressures currently facing residents of Saint Paul. This variance is designed to lessen the economic risks which Ryan companies and investment firm
takes. If this variant passes, it declares that the short-term profits of developers are more important. The health and livelihood of Saint Paul residents. Therefore, the variance should not be ptched. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much for your testimony. Don't forget to sign it. Excellent job. Keeping to the 2 minutes. Even splitting it between the coming up. Good afternoon. Members of the bard and City Council are testimony also applies to both variants to both. Hearings. We're here today as students for McCallister College to express our concerns regarding the proposed zoning variances for the Highland Ridge Development as residents of Saint Paul, we believe it's crucial that we uphold the vision outlined in the master
plan, a vision that promises a vibrant walkable and sustainable urban neighborhood. First, we want to emphasize the importance of public input. The community of Saint Paul has been engaged in the planning process for Helen Bridge for years. I essential that our voices continue to be heard. The proposed changes significant deviate from the agreed upon plans. Imperative that we the residents have a say in shaping the future of our city. Not only did variances deviate from collectively agreed upon plans, they sacrifice community benefit for cost cutting short cuts. Also need to consider the community benefits. The original plan for Highland Bridge included high-density mixed-use development that would foster lively urban environment. These proposed one story commercial building so short this vision and will create a
strip mall environment, which is not what our community needs or wants. We deserve a development enhances quality of life walkability and supports local businesses. Last we want to touch on the importance of maintaining faith in our governance, especially during these challenging tmes approving these variances would send a message that our city's plans and regulations can be easily bypassed, which very clearly undermines public trust. We need to hold ourselves to a high standard and ensure our decisions are transparent, consistent and in the best interests of our community. We urge the board and city Council to deny the request of variances and to work with Ryan companies to find a solution that aligns with the master plan and benefits for our community. But it's not
compromise our vision for short-term gains and said let's build a future that we can on the Thank you for your time. Consideration. Thank you so much. Would you both just mensing your names on the record? I'm Al Davis. Green. Nathan thank you both. Thank you very much. Hello Council. PRESIDENT Maker members of City Council. My name is McCulloch and I'm the senior director. Government affairs at the Saint Paul Area Chamber. On behalf of our 1700 members and affiliates. I'm here to express our support for the proposed Highland Bridge block to be than to see development at the intersection of 4 parkway. Concrete evidence. This proposed development as an opportunity to revitalize a key intersection of Saint Paul. Future proposals MAY not deliver the same scale benefits. Project is lost and it could be years before another comparable opportunity arises. The site presents challenges specifically the 16 foot elevation change along for Parkway. And the development constraints created by the civic spaces
and a pedestrian these are not challenges that can be resolved with a simple uniform solution and they limit the options available. That meant accessibility and ada compliance. Ryan company's proposal allows for the activation of retail along for Parkway by segmenting the buildings. This design brings to the store fronts closer to street level, creating a welcoming and accessible environment. If the buildings are to remain connected retrial, the retail entrances would be 14 to 16 feet above 4 parkway. The proposed variances are necessary to address these obstacles while preserving the essential features of the project, including market rate housing care center, retail service and dining options. These changes are the most viable way forward and earned approval of both Island district Councils, Community Development Committee and the
same staff report. We understand that no development is without its challenges. But delaying and potentially losing this project will stall progress addressing both the housing shortage and needed economic development. Thank you for the opportunity speak today. We respectfully ask that you overturn the Board of Zoning Appeals ruling and approve the requested variance. And they're much tougher. Get think PRESIDENT Members, the council meetings, Kody Fisher live at 10, 17 Ashland Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of 16 Saint Paul. But also my testimony, possible hearings cheat. He getting. Twice as much for half the price Something. So table as a grassroots organization that champions abundant housing, low-carbon transportation and sustainable land. Use. I also am the atermath other
developer that attended the bza hearing. So I'm I'm speaking to you as as a a developer of 3 to 5 story buildings with deep knowledge of the geotechnical conditions that were mentioned and the structural in cost considerations with actually developing buildings that go above one story. It's so I and we urge you to deny the applicants appeal and uphold the Bza findings and decision which contrary to how they were represented by applicant. We're I think fair, reasonable in their approach. And I would encourage you before you vote on the matter to go back and actually watching double time. The the hearing to get a sense of what was there. First, they lack credit, credible evidence of practical difficulties or undue hardship. Second, they represent enormous deviations from the zoning standards in the area. And 3rd are
inconsistent with the foresight master plan. So in terms of the the no evidence of undue hardship, great change, purse, water table. The bedrock. These are all things that are commonly dealt with. They're establishing the geotechnical report as the applicant said. But such conditions are routinely managed in multi-story construction. These do not represent insurmountable or practical difficulties or undue hardship, the lot shape and other things that are also cited in the applicant's proposal like not relevant to the fact that the 3 single-story commercial buildings on the side or proposed a single-story commercial buildings with nothing above them. And the that is the reason that they cannot meet the height they are requirements. I'm so sorry to have to stop you there.
Okay. I'll be back for the second public hearing. Thanks so Boca. Katz, PRESIDENT Naked. Congrats, by the way the City My name is Simon government. 63 revenue and same pull speaking of pasta pasta today. But I'm also the sitting sheriff pull Senate Committee Planning Commission and so I often sit in this chair and hit these matches. I myself so in my opinion, the bza has correctly to 90's variances. It's really pretty clear looking for looking at factors both b and c that these are correctly tonight, Krishnan be exists because essentially sometimes it's necessary. 2 very the investors a little to give effect to experience. And if you look at even a cursory reading full-time nasa plan makes feel the spirit of this book. It is to create a walkable that civil of a neighborhood on a prime piece of city land of the 6 districts, even f one, the
least dense requires at least 2 stories flight supposed to be the second densest 40 60 feet 2.2 full. It's deliberately placed northeast corner of the site, which is also close to a neighborhood note more into the lawn full parkway and essentially allowing a single story strip mall in a suburban typology at this location. It's just fundamentally incompatible with the vision of plan. Turning to the practical if he's finding, I agree with statements made that these very standard things which a kind of common to many at the sites in the city and nothing about the site itself justifies grant variance based practical difference. 11, it's a big unremarkable piece of vacant land withstand engineering challenges develop. The simply doesn't think they can build while for former financing work. That is regrettable. It's
understandable. It is also not about a basis for finding a practical, the difficulty in a social. To be clear b and c in my opinion, fatally undermine these various applications. And if my my denial, I would tonight as the bza to it in closing option. She's like the Ford site just don't come around often they offer option to sites in the Conference of Plan for a reason. If you're ready on minded to rip up the vision for Highland Bridge and put a strip mall into the largest o an opportunity site would like to see in our lifetimes. You have you have that power. You need to amend the force lost a plan to do it. And that decision along with the political spotlight that would definitely try to you for doing so. Thank you. Thank you so much. Hello, thank you. Council
members for the opportunity to speak. My name is merit claps Smith and I live at 2.28 East, 8th Street in downtown. I used to work for Saint Paul and was the project lead for the Ford site. Redevelopment planning for 11 years. I strongly oppose granting the height and floor area ratio variances to Ryan companies and asked that the council uphold the busy a decision. I submitted a letter which describes my primary concerns. First, the variances are inconsistent with Highland Ridge Master plan and are significant enough to require a master plan amendment with full public preview. You're planning commission and city council processes, the master plan is carefully crafted prove through a decade of planning work, hundreds public meetings, a dozen studies and
input from public private and nonprofit partners. Second, the propose height density variances are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan with a number of land use policies and the designation of the site is a neighborhood node defined as denser concentrations of development relative to adjacent future land uses. Variances must meet the legal standard of being consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. 3rd, the variance is to not meet the legal standard. A practical difficulty the physical constraints identified can be addressed through design and engineering. They are also not new to Ryan companies, which is done extensive studies for years on this site and understood the conditions
there. The city has a lot to lose and little to gain by approving these legally tenuous is variances requests and allowing reduced development and lower value. The city has an obligation to its partners, its investors, its taxpayers and years of public process and hundreds of meetings that crafted this master plan in the land uses densities adopted into zoning millions and millions have been invested on this site for the density and the return of value from that density. So please uphold the bda decision and oppose the height and floor area ratio, variances for this property. Thank you.
Thank you. Hello, Council members and PRESIDENT Fall Feazell and I love that 1992. Jefferson Avenue. I'm urging that the city Council denies these appeals requested by Ryan companies. The community does not want a strip mall at Creighton and Fort Parkway. And that's reflected well, and the master plan that was developed for the Ford years ago. And this proposal is. Contrary to the master plan that we envisioned that the city and community and vision for this land, these many variances drastically opposed the plan and values of the community put into the plan. Our values as a city and community, including a desire for more neighbors, greater environmental sustainability
and adding to the tax base granting this appeal would undermine these values and set a harmful precedent for future development at Highland Bridge and any site with a master plan developed by the city and community. Additionally, Ryan companies claim that the bza their proposal is necessary due to economic factors, which is not a legal justification for a variance. Thanks for your time. Thanks so much. Senate. Alright, is there anyone else here to testify on this matter? I going seeing none. Turn it over to MISS. Just for a motion thank At least to make a motion to close the public hearing and leave this matter over for one week mission is to close the public a little better
over for one week. Any discussion on that motion? Thanks, council PRESIDENT, I will support the motion. I also think Billy over is really important, especially with there being a lot of testimony that came in so that Kuz members have more time to review it. Another discussion, the motion MR. Also support the motion the motion, but I think I appreciated just getting a chance to review some of the things that are there. But overall, like to hear more about this item as far as just like as a response to some of the issues that have been racing. Be really nice to get a little bit more in depth of a staff report. If we could. Thanks. Answer you suggesting that we have that now or at next week's. This response to some of the public comment, there's a couple of questions that we have a follow-up. S thanks for can we have staff coming up? To respond to the questions? Thank you so much.
Starts with a start. Yes, thank you so much for coming back up. I didn't have necessarily some questions when I heard your presentation. But as a that's just some of the public comments have come up. There seems to be a couple of concerns regarding the deviation from the master plan. And I'm just kind of wondering if you can touch briefly on and guess what the implications of this. Variance, if approved would be what would be the deviants from of that and like how that impacts us project. Just really trying to understand the level of deviance. Yes, council PRESIDENT Maker Councilmember. David, I department safety inspections again. When and I mean Dsi when pd was initially working with Ryan companies on this developing, it was it did come up whether to try to amend the mster plan. He's decided to leave the master
plan the way it is. So and not change it and have these properties be one-off variance request so that the rest of the plan would remain the same. Okay. So you just like talked specifically about what is changing. So instead of revising the zoning cde or the requirements to allow for less tense, was proposed just remain at as is and then they would be one-off variance requests for these properties. So the rest of the plan would remain move forward as is. Okay. And then you talk a little bit about the density changes. In the master planner in the zoning and design. Okay. In the zoning code, You know, they're proposing. I fe are one on block to into is required. I would say that the medical office building that property has different zoning, but that
required a one they are and they requested a variance that was granted years ago to get a 0.9, fairer. So it's not unprecedented to have variances. There's been many, many of the properties of the Ford said had variance requests. All right. Thank We have any follow up. Happy to have known each other. Thanks patient's 6 and thus try not put you on the spot with the math. But I think sometimes floor area ratio, it's a hard concept to grasp. Can you just describe a little bit more with the differences between 1.0? 2 point o far? Yes, so show is the lot size compared to the building size. So far employer showed one would b like a building covering the whole lot or a 2 story building on half a lot.
So that's kind so to me to have a one are, if you like the whole lot covered with the want one story building. I mean, it matches the square footage of the lot. Basically. So is it fair to say one far compared to 2 fires, happenstance, correct. Difficult math for me, but would other questions from MR. I really haven't. I think your pick. Think sorry. Thank you. I have a question about the master We have a former staff member testify around the amount of time and intensity and engagement to create the master plan. And I caught that it took about 10 years to complete. And even though now, you know, we are there's buildings on the lot and folks are moving in in your experience, how much do master plans continue to guide projects? Long after the
master plan has been established. Council member council PRESIDENT Council member. It's it's it's it's difficult answer because cyber working with the zoning for what's permitted. So with the heightened it is the applicants right to request a zoning variance if they believe that they need the findings. I don't believe that there was an issue with the master plan with moving this forward. If they were granted a variance requests. I don't know. Finances are quite It's pretty complicated. I was not around. That many years ago. I started in 2017 when the master plan that's going on that there are other staff from pd that maybe could answer deeper questions about the master plan. Yes, like a gun want to follow. But I think there's a question of the the engagement and the time and attention that was
committed to creating what is now we're seeing come to fruition on the site. And kind of are ability to be accountable. As we've heard from the students for McCallister to that master plan and the intentionality of what we're building really matters now. Now more than ever. Yeah, it sounds like a of question, but I appreciate your response. And absolutely friends for 30 some. Thank you. Right. Thank you. Any other questions? All right, seeing none. Thank right? We have a motion to close public hearing and one weekly over all I favor say Aye. All opposed. 6 if they were known to pose a public hearing is closed in. The item is laid over to FEBRUARY 19th. I know Twenty-four's abc a 25 dash 2 considering the appeal of Sean
Ryan, Ryan companies, us ink to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to 9 to various requests to construct a commercial building on the property at 0 Korean Avenue South. David, I did the safety inspections again, we're moving on to 0Avenue south, which is having bridge park to see. You already know why here. And this property is to the South east of the proper that we were just discussing, sits right on just north of the private Hillcrest Drive. If you can see it right here. This property is also zoned at 5 business mix district. The proposed building as a single story building with approximately 13,000 square feet of retail. Ryan companies discussed discussing, working with like a day care potentially for the use. You can see this little of course she's cheap and the
Middle Section b, the outdoor play space. I believe. Civic Square is proposed to the north of privately and publicly accessible space. And like I said, Hillcrest Drive, which is private, provides some parking to the south of the building. This is a rendering looking north west of proposed building can see the are providing quite a bit pleasing around the on the facade. This is looking to the northeast through that pedestrian easement you can see block to be on the left and that you see is on the right. This is kind of the back space. It's it's a little difficult on getting that later to. Meet some of these requirements with when all sides are public. S the variances the requested there
were 6 on this, say it the blazing and the window opening requirement ones were granted by the Board Zoning Appeals the only ones that were talking about today are the faa are which was 0.3 was accosted and then a high of 18 feet was a question. So those were denied that he and funny today we held a public hearing along with to be on DECEMBER 9th. And the case is laid over to JANUARY 6. Staff recommended approval of all their quest to variances Highland U.S. To counsel their community Development Committee submitted a resolution supporting the quest of variances for this case. In particular, we didn't get any people speaking in support and no letters and one person spoke in opposition and
0 letters received, although some people didn't speak again because they spoke for the prior one. The board denied requests one which is a '02 for the high based upon findings, 2, 3, ad 4. And it was largely the same as park to be. And the vote was the same for voted in favor of denial and 2 against and then received the appeal application for this block on the same date. And then again, the 6 things that are necessary to grant a variance and the board found that finding 2, 3, 4, are in the comp b, practical difficulties and plates were not met. And then I will note that economic considerations alone don't constitute practical difficulties, but they can be a consideration. So getting into the board's finding is findings again, flourish and height. The board thought that the those conflicted with the
24 the cops and they listed a lot of transportation. And land use of sections. I would note that, you kow, the applicant is not planning on exceeding the park maximum parking requirement and they are proposing to provide. And I served by school parking whatnot. Developers packed with a season play. Were some months multiple as parts sign a bill proper processes. That's what the board. Thoughts. And then the staff report. Largely the same as the last property the development aligns with the spirit of the development consider the park to the into Monday that they are would be 1.7. And in this instance, they have the pedestrian easement on West side. Plus, the non buildable Hillcrest
Drive on the self if it was connected with to be with minimum of 40 feet. And largely the same except there's only 2 variance requests this time. So the council can decide if there's an error, in fact, from your procedure and grant the appeal and the project can move forward or if appeal is denied and the development would need to revise their plans and then the one 20 day deadline is MARCH 17th. You have any questions, I'm happy to try to answer. Thanks so much. Any questions. Seeing the public will again have 5 minutes and go to public testimony 2 minutes each. Again, council, PRESIDENT Maker members of the council Murray, Michelle schemes, run companies 5.33, South 3rd Street Minneapolis. Thank you again for the opportunity
address council under appeal of Bza Ce recent fines for Northern Island Bridge. Black, One 3 proposed development. Again, the submitted applications. Supplements appeal for this project provide clear evidence. The practical difficulties exist. Yes, saysit aiding the request of variances and that all findings are mt. The bcs action to deny requests contained errors. In fact, procedure and findings and their actions were contrary to the findings of City Planning District Council. And more importantly, to an objective application of the criteria required by Minnesota statute and city code. The bza aired in their findings in the following ways. One, the findings were erroneous not based on fact or the bza did not assign any air to certain findings. With respect to the variances number 2, while well intentioned busy, a comment or
did not object focus on the procedural criteria set out in Minnesota statutes and city code, but rather included subjective and personal finance for the project, which was lumped together with the prior item on this agenda, therefore basing their rationale for denying variances on the other lot proposal. This is I conflict with their assertion and that of the public testimonials of this parcel in the prior item on the agenda should not be considered collectively because they are separate zoning. Lots further. They are they based their rationale for denying variances on personal opinions, implying that the project should deal with items beyond scope of criteria required by Minnesota's statue in City Code. 3, the bza accepted the assertions of a self-described other developer in the public testimony without evidence stated that
the site conditions and practical difficulties were surmountable. Whereas Ryan, on the other hand, has delivered detailed evidence and the pass. And again, today, replication supplement derived from actual side. Your diligence investigation, information for when the bza granted variances for Ran's other application items. Lot coverage, window and door openings in various glazing items, the unique circumstances in which the Bza relied to make those determinations were then ignored and discredited in there. They are in building height, discussions based on the personal opinions of the bza members rather than the facts, unique circumstances of this property that create practical 50's difficulties with complying with a fair and building height requirements. We're not only outlined in our
submittals in the staff report that outlined in agenda item. 23 in or incorporated into this application as well. Also, the Spurs parcel is further compact comprised and its ability to be fair requirements because of the small I lot size, which does not allow for practical access to or circulation of underground parking to support greater density and height. Others have, sir, that we are seeking variances solely because of financing and marketing market sectors, countries are applications materials in our testimony. While the master plan and zoning could worsen up to outline broad concepts for the Highland Bridge, they could not consider simply by their nature. The unique attributes of each of the sites at Highland Bridge and the conflicting standards among some, fact, they applied to an
actual proposed development. We are seeking variances for this particular site which is proposes a day care due to the unique circumstances of this parcel of land that are necessitated because of the practical difficulties outlined. Again, I'd be happy to answer any questions the council MAY have. And thank you for the opportunity present. Thank you. Any questions for the public? Not seeing anything. Thank you. On the back to public testimony again, 2 minutes and just made us your name where from. Welcome Due respect your time. Sorry, I just. Cody Fisher. 10, 17 Ashland Avenue. So I do think the point about these distinct parcels indeed to apply the zoning rules I the consideration, the findings directly to the part that the parcel level are critical. And that's what I
think it's important that the council be aware that its we can't rely on both of the bza staff description of well, if you consider the broader block context, right, the faa are would be 1.7 or 1.8 for this particular say the the applicant is seeking an reduction to 0.3, which like 85% production right? 85% reduction. It's completely inconsistent with the master plan for the site and it. And I think the mistake, number one in this whole process was. city staff directing the applicant steering application through the bza variance process. For 26 variances across the 2 applications. Rather than going through the transparent open longer.
And yes, more risky to the applicant process of a master plan amendment. But that process is designed specifically for situations like this where the applicant wants to take the broader site context across multiple parcels. On a larger developable block. Into consideration. This is precisely why that process exists and we shouldn't ignore that, especially when it relates to, you know, master plan that was developed in almost a decade of community engagement and a decade of staff time. And I think on top of this broader context as well because these decisions are made within the context. But this is not the legal basis for denying the appeal
is that the applicant is also in a parallel process seeking 18 million dollars in tiff public subsidy to develop this strip mall. I think context matters. But obviously make the decision based on the legal basis require. Thank you. Thanks so much. Any other the folks here to testify on this item? Seeing the look to MISS Just 4 I'm so sorry coming back. I thank you again there at Smith to 28 e State Street. It's want reiterate the comments I made for the other parcels. Well, they home for the site, too. And I simply really struggle with the notion that no other development than what's proposed is technically feasible on this land. If we think about the city of Saint Paul's a whole which rns along the
Mississippi River. Many, many acres of the city are sitting on bedrock. That also have slopes. Some have perch, groundwater, a lot of different construction types and heights are seen across similar contacts in the city. So I don't think they're insurmountable. And I think the city with this level I mean, a site with this level of public investment deserves to have the density that was intended when all that money was spent and degenerate the value. So I simply don't think that. Whatever is being identified as unique impediments on the
site. Her genuinely strong enough to mean that we can't do something other than what's proposed. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Anyone else here to testify on the subject. And do a better job just ok Ascena ultimate just for motion. Thanks, council PRESIDENT I again would like to motion to close the public hearing in Lee this matter. Over one week. Wish to close the public can better over for one week. Any discussion of that person? Seeing all in favor say Aye. Aye. All opposed. favor nor opposed the public hearing is closed in the item is lead over to FEBRUARY 19. Item. 25 this resolution public hearing. 25 Dash 19 accepting grant funds authorizing execution of a grant agreement and amending the operating budget. With
respect to the city sponsorship, Metropolitan Council, Lovable Communities Act pre Development Grant program for the benefit of the side, tennis and community center at 14. 49 Rainey Avenue East. It's been wins for the longest title of an item. Anyone here to public here and here to testify on this item. Seeing none. I'll take a motion from Johnson to close public hearing approve any discussion that motion seeing none all in favor say Aye. Opposed 5 favorite know and oppose. The public hearing is closed to the resolution is adopted. Item 26 is our latest. He a 24 Dash 4.39. Ratifying the Appeal. Special Tax Assessment for property at 21 30 Ivy
Avenue east. Well commitment. Council PRESIDENT Maker council this is played over from last week so some of the numbers that were newly provided by the appellant could be reviewed carefully. The appellant was looking for a reduction by half of what my recommendation is. So I did have a chance to share the materials with the We walk through pretty slowly and make sure catching all of the information that she had chaired. So is Thanks So this is PRESIDENT Maker? First want to say thank you to my colleagues for the weekly over is really helpful. I got a chance to review of the materials that were sent in the appellant and also have a conversation with a legislative hearing. Officer
Marshall, more about this. I also want to say thank you to the Palin for coming and testifying last week. They mentioned that it's been a really long process for them to get this close to the finish line. And so very grateful to them for just the willingness to continue having conversations persistence in going through with the process. After reviewing the item I do want to share that I did not find any justification to further reduce the fee on That was their request when they come in front of us last week. Be of given consideration for this item. It's gotten a six-month leave for and the recommendation from I legislator hearing officers to reduce it from $5,077 to $2,815. This takes
into account the appellants pbs Askin handles any alternative interpretation of the resolution granting an extension of the fee waiver. Normally we would not have look to any reduction in this case and not at the level being requested. So if this idea move the recommendation of the legislative hearing, officer. Thanks so much for Top Wilson abscess and for taking time to are considered about this. Any discussion of the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. Opposed. 5 in favor opposed the resolution is adopted. Legislative hearing consent agenda items. 27 through 61 or before you for your consideration. This woman, is there anything we should be taken for separate consideration? I know one for sure. And perhaps to the first one last people is item number. 49.
49 is Late Co 24 Dash. 8 appeal of Thomas Nelson Iranian it a and are Nelson to a correction. Notice for 93 Van Buren Avenue. As for months. PRESIDENT Council members Thomas. I'm in a show Nelson have filed an appeal on a second order related to the same topic last year. There was an appeal on a vacant building. Parks. Of vehicle abatement order and the vehicle abatement order was related to some vehicles that wre parked in the side yard area and they were parked class 5 gravel. The Department of Safety
inspections identified 2 problems. The parking surface itself and also the area which the vehicles were parked not okay to be used as far as owning us concerned for that purpose. My recommendation at that time and the vehicle abatement order was to allow significant length of time for there to be compliance and compliance could come by way of removal of the vehicles are approval from zoning. Zoning did review the application and they. Approved the. Plan submitted by the owners to have parking there and realize they made an error the following day the day after the head and sent a new letter saying this
shouldn't have been approved. So this little bit of confusion layered on because of that, however, comes to. The same thing in that a letter was issued again after the council's deadline passes said these vehicles need to be removed. It's ok parking surface or compliance with zoning. In my memo, I outlined a couple of the things that have come up. One issue that came up in the course of the hearing was that there was a change in city policy in 2017 related to parking surfaces on properties and that change in policy. It's basically. You need to have an asphalt, hard
surface to park on unless you have a pre-existing gravel surface that you are using and which case that maybe refresh to keep the boundaries of clear just tidy. I finding in reviewing it, unfortunately, was that I don't think that there was pre existing parking that would have been allowed under the and see hre I have on a few pictures. I'd like to share here. And the first one is what you're looking at is a Google Street and this is at the corner Mccubbin. And then during the other says obviously a Van Buren and the driveway is into the side of the house. So often mccubbin
into the side garage there and the parking is in the side yard, if you will, the back of the side here in that would be zoning issue. Historically, I wanted to take you back words about how things have been at the site so you can see what's changed over time. It has been significant right now here in 2024. Taken just sorry in 2024, you can see that there's fresh a gravel down classified gravel and that is a rectangle there. There is a the same area. And 22. Going backwards in time. 2020, a large area, 2018. And then going to 2017. You can see that there's maybe an l shaped area. I think that we're not looking at gravel.
There are not as much for sure. And that that looks more like a wonder surface here. By the time you get to 2015, there is no surfacing at all. And it's a similar kind of one situation in the years prior. With national. Want to talk to about know, just show this. So you have this is here in. 2017 when there was the policy change. This is the aerial in 2017 where you see the l shape of the parking. In 2018. You see that it's a rectangle. They indicate there was a conversation with staff and Dsi. Who told them you can have this is a parking surface as long as it has class 5. So they did put in the class 5 gravel and operated with good
intention to be in compliance. The rub is that even if the code was enforced incorrectly and 2017 and they were given wrong advice, that doesn't mean that continues to be enforced incorrectly. Now in the present. I does mean that they made decisions based on that advice that are not serving them at this time. I put in front of you is the only thing I have is the correction order under appeal. Compliance with zoning. And zoning is not in front of you. This is a code enforcement appeal that's in front of you. So only the deadline, if there's a peel about whether this area could be used as parking and what kind of surfacing going would allow. That would need to go back to. And his team at the Department of Safety
Inspections and Zoning. The bza if again objected to the council. And so we've spent some time talking about what that process would look like. And we're good on that. The owners have been trying really hard to comply and feel like they have gotten mixed messaging from zoning from code enforcement. Unfortunately, even from my team last Friday when the call went out to say. Would you like to have your hearing on Wednesday when it's scheduled or continued into the future? Because we know you're getting this information late and instead it was like can you make that call? And that wasn't what I had wanted it to be. I wanted to be a hey, we can continue this free. Understand it's a fast turnaround. So I apologize to the apologize again. Now that
was not. I want to be operating in this environment. So I'm giving you this background to save the oners a little bit of time and that they can have their comments a little bit more condensed. If you have any questions, I'm happy to field them they are here to testify and I would also last thing that amend the resolution, the current deadline inside the resolution is MARCH 14th. I was envisioning that wreck. That deadline thinking only about the removal o vehicle as compliance because there was no applications. Zoning. They're going to be doing an application again was owning which zoning will accept. So I'm asking for a first deadline to take into account any changes that could happen is a part of that process, right? Thanks so much. As were many questions this moment. If
you are here to testify item, 49, please join us at the microphones. You'll have 2 minutes to testify. Please start by saying your name where you're coming from. And then the side. And when you're done. And you can, you don't have to adjust the microphone. Still picking Highland the Thomas Nelson. And we nation Nelson. And we just here today just be quest fairness. Equity and some responsibility on both sides. We tried to do the right thing. We believe that was doing the right thing. We came in from the first notice that we received and ask questions, make sure we understood what was reading. And we was tow. Yes, they have to what they consider it. Probably not proper, but I'm a little
nervous. I'm sorry. But whatever the the gravel to be our Class 5 yeah. And was told at first it wasn't classified. Want to sent rocks be down there and he did. That's why one of the pictures you only see just a little. And then. We was a year later. That's why see difference between 20 of 6, 15 2017. You know, we thought everything was ok, we didn't hear anything else from anyone. We complied. And then that's when we was told another letter. It was incorrect. And I thought and came down. They said we don't have locks down there and he told him there was rock scene and he told him what time is it was the wrong time. I wasn't talking at the time. I was listening in. And so he told classify rock to whether
that person was it was in the same department. Where ya, ya so went that the money together, put the classified rocks down and move, but also at the time told he he told how many vehicles was there. Where had to cover all of this space. That's what he did. It at one point. Doesn't matter to you, but family matters and had to be by the time I was that oe. Digging up everything and trying to make sure stayed in order. When I came that yes, the grass and weeds overtook the rocks. So and one point you can see the other some parts of te rocks. Bring it up to speed. When we came in started and was told again, like I said, is a difference of year time
between letters at one point thinking that everything was ok and that we comply. Upon starting coming in and trying to get all of this state. Now he brought in something we didn't know what a site plan was. That just just put it out there. We just thought and we didn't bother to we assume coming and talking to someone would do the trick and decided to stop you because we are a time. But sorry. Can you let us know what your request would be for us today? What are you asking for today? I mean, understand you don't. And believing grandfathering in, but we've been there. We've done everything you've asked. And with whenever we was told that we needed to do and somewhere along the line that because of the city's air. And it was an and I mean, it's an argument, but it was error on the city's part. And it kept coming out there that between times and that say, hey, it's still not
right do going looking at everything else that we took it as though we had complied. We just want fairness. We just you to be at least acknowledge that there was air on your part. And let's see, we can't come together. As we look at stay there, we got calls. Kids got in vehicles. We definitely they should have because we complied. And we told we got it. The occult again. Can you just be fair? And trying to do. Think you get Hill. That's so And you know, is the kind of look at it. have we got a request or it from From the city? We do something we We didn't just sit on it see if we're not gonna do And that's all we trying to say. We will work on that area which vehicle removed boost to kids. You know, we're asking,
can it stay there if we cn could whatever it takes, more lives to cover, whatever will keep it up. Thanks thank appreciate it. I know 2 minutes goes by fast. I think we've got the gist of it. We're going to ask you both to sign in and then take a seat and we're going to what you just said. So thank you. Get. Anyone else here to testify on this matter. Seeing look to misspeak. Thank you. Council. PRESIDENT Maker first, say that. Thank you so much for coming in. And really appreciate you taking the time and working with our city staff and appreciate you know, your commitment and your responsiveness to this issue. Just give you some larger context. This was actually a item that was brought before council before
this council. So back in 2023, believe my shared with me. Kitty, this actually has been moved over quite a few times. Believe maybe twice or 3 times twice with this council just hearing the full context. This is an issue where it's pretty much cars are being parked in areas that's not permit it for a driveway the family and the homeowners had expressed that that they do. So the understanding that they actually were permitted and that they did get the ok and we have. a letter from Marcia from Dsi to saying that that they did not. So where we're at right now is kinda and this limbo where what's the item? That's before
us is just a judicial type of matter and item there, the next steps for them for the homeowners is still work with dsi and to go through the proper steps of getting going through the application at believe they already attempted to do that. But that was denied. I was surprised as well about that. And want to actually get some more time. I want to get clarity, particularly because I think that was also included in your recommendation, but give them that time to go through the proper channels director. From Dsi so they can get that permit so they can expand their driveway. You know, even reviewing some of the document on the homeowners actually built their house. So they,
you know, went through the process of designing their driveway. And now that, you know, they're having additional use of their land. I think, you know, it would be it would be great for us, too. Work with them and provide that technical senses of whatever that process is. So I would want know not deviate to fy to fy from marshes recommendation, but making sure that those built in time we have staff that is on, you know, continue to contact around. What are the steps? Because it kind of looked like from what I reviewed They put a proposal in and, you know, they just hat did not have a proper steps of that proposal. I'm asking that, you yes, I
can take, you know, the time and actually walk them through of what they need is quite quite a lot of green space around their house. And and I don't really perceive issues. You know, I'm not sure about the nature of like the neighbors. I let you know that. District council has plans, particularly for that area. But I think, you know, at least as a council member, I would want to adopt your recommendation would also including more time for them to get that permit they could be able to expand and properly use their driveway. Thanks for Israeli. So what I'm hearing you say is you would move the legislative hearing officer's recommendation, which just to clarify, it sounds like we're saying that the correction notice wouldn't be wouldn't
take effect until JUNE. 1st. So there would be no need for anything to be moved until JUNE. 1st. And that give time for the application to the department safety inspections to be allowed to have some amount of this parking and to work with your office. Ms Pilley and helping navigate those steps with dsi, which as we all know, can be can be complicated. Is that? Care about that you are spot on council PRESIDENT your councilmember. We was able to come and meet in the hallway with me and the appellant's and we're able to walk through a lot so that she will be able to help. Go through the process of the department's. So that's that was great. So. That's 7, quick. Question just around. Like
the tactic. Ally of You know, I have my office have and work directly with anyone particularly around this type of process, especially can you share, like is the timeline to JUNE the feel like that's adequate time for a that plan to work through that process? When when walking through the like the time, I think it will take them to make a decision which I'm thinking this maximum 2 weeks. Then another. I think appeal time period this 10 days on that. But if it's as much as 3 weeks, having that on apeal, scheduling it on the bza calendar. If they want appeal the bza decision, putting another length of time on it. So we're at a good 2 months and this is a period of 3 and a half months before the
deadline come. So I think it's got some cushion built in there. Should anything take a little bit longer than anticipated? Sounds good, so perfect. I would like to move the motion that the recommendation that was given by MS. Marshall, thanks so much, disbelief. Any discussion on that motion. Seeing none all in favor say Aye. I opposed. 6, a favorite. No one opposed to public hearing is closed in the resolution is adopted. Just before we move sir. And ma'am, I just want to thank you. It takes a lot to come out here and testify and we know that infield in putting time into this. So thank you for being here tonight. This woman, are there any other items to be taken for separate consideration? Item number, 41, there's requests that the read into the record, please. Instead it one more time about 41, I'm sorry. Item 41 is our lhc. A 25 dash 25 ratifying the Appeal.
Special Tax Assessment for property at 16 89 Rainey Avenue apartment. This assessment is for a garbage bill that one pay. That's a complicated garbage bill because there's a lot of extras that need to be picked up. Thus the property was also transacted. And so the new owners didn't realize that the owl's owner had left us much of the bill as much of a mess as they did leave the realtor approached the seller to say. You now there's this great big they did not get satisfaction from that conversation and therefore they want the city to delete this bill that occurred prior to their owner was incurred prior to their ownership. My recommendation is that the council approve and ratify the assessment because this
would be the responsibility of the cellar. And a private matter is a part of that real estate transaction not involving the city. Moment. And we hear testimony. I asked for incident report to council council PRESIDENT. So moment I just got a follow-up question for you on this. I did get a chance to like view than meetings. And that meeting minutes from the hearing. And just like the overall recommendations. But what was unclear to me how this item deferred item number. 35, that's being recommended for deletion. I think today due to a situation where the former owner also had a bill that Recommended for deletion. So I just wanted to. Understands a kind of the difference in the 2. So I can understand why
wouldn't. Be accommodating. And the situation. As we as we are potentially recommending for fact that sorry. Item number. 28 11, 32 Beach. Now on. In this particular case for the other property at 11. 32 Beach, the building was actually incorrect. The building was going to the previous owner during the current, the current owners period of ownership. And so they did not receive legal notification. Bill was hanging out there. So they did not have the opportunity to pay it. Had they been aware of it? They would have filed. 4. You d I an occupied dwelling exception for that time period because it was in the process of being
redeveloped. then in this and item number, 41 was there. I noticed that that. Real-time think spoke on behalf of the property owner. But with the property owner notified. Of this assessment prior to acquiring the property. I believe the assessment ws done that they actual work on the property was done the day before the closing. And so was there ever actual notification to the owner of the property about this unpaid coverage. Bill. The notification at that point in time would have been a notification provided by day. Owner of record before the sale to the owner of record after the sale, the city would not have generated any assessment, Norwood the
hall or have generated bill associated with that overage. The overage is pretty much all of them move out garbage that was left. So the bill was incurred while the pevious owner still owned it and it would have been very responsibility to deal per person buying it as unfortunate it Between them. Understand that. That's usually look, I think the standard protocol, I had some trouble when reading reviewing this item about Didn't mostly because of the fact that the previous owner have been contacted several times and there was unsuccessful attempt. It seems like according to the dog. And so actually, I'm just going to thank you, MISS Mormon. I didn't mean to put this on the spot for you. I didn't get a chance to fly this for you,
but liked him actually I guess in this case, I like to make a motion to not accept the recommendation of the hearing. Officer and to waive this assessment fee under great pretty much end of the space of like this was example where the owner who will purchase the property a day after this was this work was done and it was not disclosed to the the incoming owner, that this was outstanding bill that didn't have the assessment at the time of amount that would be owed on this. And that was part of the parents like a testimony. And I know that that in this case for a lot of these things, it's like, it's the owner of the new person. But this didn't necessarily sit well with me. And I'd actually like to waive this fee. So I would be my motion
on the matter and I'm open to council members are, you know, feedback. As a council member in the morning 10, that's something that I think we should be aiming 2 and certain circumstances. And the seems like a typical circumstance. Thanks start. The motion is to at. We have assessment not follow sleep apps or second edition discussion on the question is, can. missions, one commission it's waived, if it was a service that was provided but not. Because the PRESIDENT Council, vice PRESIDENT, assessment question is $576.70. And the burden of it would go to the general tax payer. I'm sorry. Just to clarify when can use it more things when you say the general taxpayer, with what you mean when you say that. Anybody who contributes
funds to the general fund of the city. So pretty much have property tax payers. Thanks, MISS You. Thanks, council PRESIDENT, I'm wondering if. We approved the assessment, then the can the current homeowners still take action against the previous owner? A homeowner to make sure that be the One homeowner is the one responsible for these fees. I see that just because, well, I I think you know, your motion customer Jhnson is a very generous one. I feel uncomfortable with the idea of waiving the fee, especially if they're still options for the current homeowner to still making sure that they're not the one responsible for this
mean, legal options. I that would be the action. I'm not sure that would be what I'm asking for. Clarity of the questions. What would be the mechanism for the new homeowner to get redress from the previous homeowner outside of this process? What most people questioned in the appeals setting have done at this. At this. Time would be too file in small claims court. For the amount. My advice to begin with is always to have your real estate agent who is who we talked work with their broker whose license they work under and get a hold of the broker for the seller and have it be that kind of conversation like we need to hold you accountable. This is
under your license. That the agent was Tony was not successful. I don't know how that conversation went, but it's for that reason that they came forward. Thank you. Other. Discussion. Just last comment that I be supporting motion from Kuz right Johnson, which is to delete the assessment. Thank you, Thank you. I also you know, I think we've dealt with this as a council before the case for other people purchase the property and they didn't know the assessment was on there. I my show you can clarify because isn't this something that would have been found through like the title He's wondering why is the air on the like the real estate agent? They just didn't know. And and now they have
ownership of this property. cases like yu know, like we talk about just the item, but in cases like this, no, maybe they're very and reexamined policy to hold kind of. I guess those brokers are that transaction accountable before there I a release of ownership of a property that property ownership actually address. The assessment sets on that on that property before transferring it just because it seems like this comes up, you know, quite a few times. Yes, realtors who work in the city of Saint Paul are very aware garbage hauling. And if necessary assessments need to be divided appropriately like if they sold it halfway through the quarter, nifty 50 and so on
that that needs to be handled a part of the closing. For this particular bill. When there is a large amount of material at the end of quarter. There's no way that you would have known how much to bill for that if you're the hauler until it happens. And so that extra volume shows up on the phone Porter's bill. By the time they bought it. They worked ready getting. Bills for that. But it hadn't gone to assessment because unpaid bill hadn't. Got into assessment yet. So it is a kind of cork do know that. Almost all closing documents in the state of Minnesota indicate that it is the responsibility of the seller to disclose to the buyer. Any pending orders on the property, any pending bills,
things like that. We also know that it is word to the wise to drive by the property before you buy That doesn't mean that they didn't drive by that morning and see that the garbage was gone. Yesterday was a mountain. You know that can all be acting that yeah. I do believe it was incumbent for seller to disclose that did not happen. was speaking against the motion. I think it's very clear that an injustice was done here to the new owner. But I think that that injustice was done on the part of the seller who should have both pay their bill or if not disclosed it to the buyer. I don't think that the responsibility should fall on the other taxpayers of State. Colin think that this is definitely a matter between
those 2 parties that does need to be resolved. But in spirit that side of camber, so I think that's important line to to maintain because there's often things that happen in the private, a private spear that. I think in particular about times before we actually responsible for organized collection. If this has been private hauler and then by this could the same situation, would have no part of it. I think that line is really important to maintain just that we're not always stepping in when there's injustice is between private parties. So I would be voting against the motion. Is there further conversation and the special? Seeing I think that's take a roll call. Vote. Johnson. Just know. Kim know. Know. Yes. Council PRESIDENT Maker know.
2 in favor 4 opposed being counselors, Jones, Kim Yang and maker the motion fails. So sure where that leaves us. We don't have Britain where some motions new the most. Maybe the move. Yes, the ones that I'm not moving And yet motion to approve recommendation which hearings as Kim moves approval. Any discussion of that motion? I appreciate just the comments that are there. And I genuinely think in this space, you know, as one of my roles, as I see is a city council members. When injustices done to my constituents. I will speak up favor of them in those moments because it's really hard for a lot of folks to go through whatever sold civil litigation or other spaces. I would say in this case it does it. It's just a huge barrier to place on someone to be like, wow goal, recoup
those funds somewhere ese. And I think that that practice is not necessarily one tat I necessarily want to continue to hold. Some people are going against this motion, but do appreciate the ability to point to have that discussion because when I did read the the testimony and just the overall things from Brown her military. It definitely seems like there's an injustice that happened in this capacity. And I would encourage Us well as our practices when we have situations like this to ensure that we have done as much as we can around the communication piece that we just make sure that we can fully say, you know, that this is for sure and justice caused by the seller that our in this space is to ensure the communication. It's simple funds. It was somewhat concerning things on the record. So. I appreciate the
motion, but I'll be start summer camp on just really quickly. I just always commend Council Johnson from wake the amount of detail. And as see that you have for your constituents. It's just a simple note that we are changing holler soon billing will be moved internally. And so my hope and I think our councils focused on moving forward is that we actually will have the power ensure that new owners are getting bills and reminders and phone calls and that we're tracking them down to ensure that the right person is paying the result for these ones in particular, it is will always be difficult for to to support deletion on services. Services completed without paying because another taxpayers have to. It's not to say that you're not wrong, but it for that reason. I'm I'll
make the motion so. What any further discussion. Seeing. All in favor say Aye. Aye. No host. Just we didn't call. So number of clients who Johnson, no, just ys, Kim. Yes, but yes, council PRESIDENT Maker, I 5 in favor. One opposed being Councilmember Johnson's a resolution is adopted. And the kids to come arrangement. Yes, item number 60 place. 66. 6, 0, 6, 0, Item 6. Are are 25 dash. One ratifying the assessment for the city's cost of providing collection of link GOD which bills for services during JULY t SEPTEMBER 2020 for this moment. I'm asking the council amend resolution and refer
back to legislative hearing. 16 86 race Street. Looks to MISS Let's get I their recommendation. Hearing motion on the table. Any discussion. Seeing none all in favor say Aye. Aye. All opposed. 6, a favorite. No one opposed The resolution is laid over. Rams are the resolution is adopted as amended. It feels to come into consideration. Not that I'm aware seeing a commission from is just for balance of legislative. Noticed call. We'll call the public hearing on one side here on that. I want to think twice I'll take a motion from its just too close the public hearing and approve the recommendation on all of the remaining items. Any discussion seeing none all
in favor say Aye. I'll post 6 favor opposed the public hearings are closed to the consent agenda is adopted as amended. We are at the end of our agenda. But we're bringing back oldie but a goody. Good news for more. So I know this is a surprise to many people. But if you happen to have something that can jumping out of her seat to if you something to share about something going on in your ward. Please this Yes, I'm excited to kick off news from the war. I think everyone I know last night, word 5 and district 3 of Ramsey County was proud to left. a new county commissioner which is very exciting to special election. So it officially an official welcome to your stomach or tree. Congratulations on being our new council around. New left
are excited to work with you and at the county. Thanks so that. And the other good news from the words I can give on people are searching because I know no one has ay ntice at Last night used to go to the reopening of Trask, even as we yesterday, only Venezuelan restaurant, thank in Minnesota. You want to Minneapolis, and cngratulate to Laramie as the owner make it there really tough month. Closure reopening too great fanfare last night. If you haven't been it is just down the fringe on the left side in Wabasha, West side flats. Highly recommend that you go. Other news from the courts. An office 2 quick things. First we last night we had could not make it to the grand opening is actually worth 7
resident. That is cost of shameless. Plug of a word to business that has reopened. But I ended up going to a hams. Redevelopment very discussion. And honestly, it was a packed house. So really huge huge gratitude to those that came out from 6 to 7. We kept to an hour. It was a really productive cnversation with gb, things team. But that plan economic development team. And even just some of the folks in the business owners or by so it was, you know, a packed house really exciting and then also upcoming in our ward and 2 weeks from today will be talking about vacant properties and some properties with the Department of Safety inspections. S if all the viewers watching at home have they want to bring up a community forum that's going to be happening from 5 to
7.30, at the Dayton Rec center. So another step towards endeavors, nice. Thank Thank you for bringing this back. I MISS It. So quickly worked. One is hosting a community conversation about the ongoing United Village development that's happening on every the 20 it. So we're going to have it at the Allianz Field. Everyone is welcome to go will be in partnership with the Union Park District Council as well as the Hamlin midway and some of university District Council. So we'll be talking about ongoing development that we already have seen and just connecting with community members and just bringing no more vitality to that area. And hopefully not too cold. Taking beautiful picture in front of the loan landing
statue itself. Thank you. And think it is just. Thank you. Council PRESIDENT Next Thursday, FEBRUARY 20th, the Highland District Council is hosting a trivia night the Highland golf course clubhouse. And I think opens at 6.30. In trivia starts at 7. And so. Feel free to still sign up or bring your team in. It should be fun. So head toward one that had 2 or 3. New thank you. That's it. Thanks for saw couple of from this. But I did want to share about it and also and I'll have pull up my office, reached out to you all in case you have some contractors. We can. Sure this information to you, but I'm hosting an event with commissioner Mai Tai and also Sherman Associates. A few other organizations to including the Cities, Habitat
to do a business networking event. The want to bring together construction partners who are interested in a subcontract subcontracting opportunities for the heights. And so that's specific specifically for the high density development that will be happening. So if you are interested in coming, it's on Thursday, FEBRUARY 27th. That's from noon to one it will be at the heart 10 Hills community center and you can if you can't make it. But you do have some contractors in mind who but great for us to invite, please send their contacts to us. Thank you so much. So cloudy by the specter. So much going at and one last piece of good news, which is that we are having our.
25 Council retreat starting tomorrow morning. Get 08:30am, breakfast can be delicious pastries. I hear there from red Sweat. So either the square a 30 is optional, but the Pacers will be there at 8.30 and then 9 o'clock. Will start right on the dot. teaching. - And I'm really excited also for some other good news for more to introduce my brand new aid make and check it. And check. It will be bringing the pastries so that. Around the question of the bigger all right, Jay, anything else we need to know before tomorrow? Great that the outcome of forest near just