We have the Saint Paul City Council will come to order. Roll call. Tolbert, Bostrom, Henningsen, Nager, Prince, Tao, council president, Bren Moen. For present, three absent being council members, Bostrom, Prince, and Tao. Council member Tao has been excused. Please stand and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance. For the Consent agenda items three through 19 are before you for your consideration. I understand that item 17 will be taken separately. Is there anything else on the consent agenda that we need to consider separately? All right. Seeing none, Ms. Prince moves the balance of the consent agenda. All in favor,
say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Five in favor. No one opposed? The consent agenda is adopted as amended. Item number 17, resolution eighteen-eight 76, designating five city street sections as urban districts Miss Hegginson. Yeah. I just wanted to take a minute, to talk about this item. We're taking one Ward four street segment and a number of segments reducing the speed limit to 30 miles an hour and just taking I think we have some slides too that can go up. So this slide shows how much harder it is to stop quickly if you're going
fast. And then the more compelling slide is the next one. Thank you, miss Mormon. So on Creighton Avenue in particular, the speed limit right now is 35 miles an hour, which means people are going 39 or faster. And so the eighty five percent likelihood of serious injury or death and hoping to drop that closer to the forty five percent mark. And we have other streets in the city that have higher speed limits, but not ones that are adjacent to neighborhoods like this. And so I think, obviously, we have long term work to do on our streets to build them,
to be safer for all users, but this is kind of a short term solution we can do, that is not a multimillion dollar prospect. So I just wanted to share this with the council and the public. Miss Maker. Thank you. I just wanna thank, you, council member Henningston, for your leadership on this, and, I'm I'm really, really glad we're able to get this done. I hear very frequently from my constituents on the West Side, especially along these segments of Cesar Chavez that we're addressing today, about the, about the ridiculous speeds that people are traveling there in the middle of a of a neighborhood. So, I am glad to see the statistics that support it and,
and really appreciate your taking the lead. Great. And I also appreciate the, movement towards a consistent speed throughout the city. I know that, by setting the stage with city streets all being 30 miles an hour or less, it certainly creates an opportunity for our county and state managed roads to follow suit and so your leadership could, ex potentiate further in that, department. So thank you as well. Any further thoughts on item 17? Seeing none, Ms. Henningston moves approval. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Six in favor. No one opposed. The resolution is adopted.
Item number 20, staff report eighteen-eighty, Twins Community Fund RBI Baseball and Softball Presentation. I believe, Mr. Han is here from the Parks Department with a crew. Welcome. Thank you, counsel President Brennal and council members. I brought friends today. With me are, Brian Donaldson and Josh Cortese from the, Minnesota Twins and Gwen Peterson who manages our recreation services section. And I am, going to let, mister or mister Donelson introduce the program. Yeah. Quickly, I just wanna say thank you to the council for a long partnership that we've
had with the state City Of Saint Paul and the Twins Community Fund and the Minnesota Twins towards making sure that kids in Saint Paul have an opportunity to play baseball and softball. This is the twenty fifth anniversary of the public private partnership that that is the Minnesota Twins and Saint Paul, parks and recreation and the baseball and softball programs. We are very blessed to have this great partnership with the city of Saint Paul and the parks department when we meet with other groups across the country. They are envious of our relationship with the Saint Paul parks, and we say give them a call. Have your parks department give our parks department a call,
and they'll tell you how to do it right. So we're very pleased to be able to come and just share a little bit about the RBI program here in excuse me, in Saint Paul. We also run it in Minneapolis as well. And this being this our twenty fifth anniversary of the partnership, we make an annual contribution to the, to the parks department to help, subsidize this program. We're gonna increase our overall contribution this year in honor of the twenty fifth anniversary. So the Twins Community Fund Board of Directors voted, to make a contribution of a hundred thousand dollars this year, which is just, the, which is probably the greatest number we've ever donated to this program.
So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Josh Ortiz, who's the pro community programs manager for the Twins Community Fund, and he'll just give you a quick update on what baseball and softball and the reviving baseball in the inner cities program is. Thanks. Thanks. Thank you, Brian. So our first, slide here just is briefly about the program. It's public and private, obviously, between, the Twins Community Fund and the City Of Saint Paul and also Minneapolis Park and Rec Board. But we're able to operate programs for kids ages five to 18, both baseball and softball fundamental all the way up through, varsity players. The Twins Community Fund provides operating, renovation,
and staff funding to, the city to help, run the program. Then we also engage in a lot of promotion, via our media assets and things of that nature. Intern in the partnership, the parks department then provides all the league operations, all the recruiting, and all the reporting, so scheduling, registering kids, all those great things. And it really it really works well. I think, we've we've kind of found a great spot where we're both working hard in in getting a lot of kids involved. You see, we're trying to increase participation, academic achievement, develop talent, and promote inclusion through the program.
So just an idea of some of the opportunities that kids ages five to 18 have by being a part of this program. They get free equipment, free uniforms. We're really trying to remove every barrier we can so that kids can play baseball and softball in Saint Paul if they want to. They get league games. We bring them to the Twins game tonight. We're hosting some kids from Minneapolis. Next week, we have kids from Saint Paul. All of the kids in the program get invited to come target field, do a parade, and really kind of be be, celebrated. We've had skill development all star teams. We have college scholarship opportunities and coaching training.
So we're always trying to figure out what's the best way of giving the kids and the families who are involved in this program, like, the best way to give them a first class experience so that they continue to love baseball and softball and engage in other, programs of of the city of Saint Paul parks and rec. So that's our program in a nutshell. So I I think we want to officially present this check. I'll have, Gwen help us with that. And I I just wanna say, like, this week and today, on, Monday through Thursday, we'll have, dozens of teams with thousands of young people and thousands of adults cheering them on
in neighborhoods all across Saint Paul that are participating in baseball and softball programs. And simply stated, without the support of the Twins organization, those programs would look drastically different. So on behalf of our professional staff, we're very grateful for this. So let's, Yes. Those checks are I mean, the amount is amazing, the size of that. That's great. And just a huge thank you to the Twins Ball Club and the RBI program for this grant and also for the great partnership you have with the city. From May to July, '3 nights a week, my son, Lars, plays baseball direct team,
and I try to get out as many nights as I can because it's so, it's such first of all, the weather has been insane. It's, like, just just beautiful night after night, you're like, it couldn't get any better than this, and there's kids developing their skills. They're out appreciating being outdoors. We're building relationships with our community because there's other parents that are there cheering on the game, and you're clearly, developing a love of the game with these kids. It's really wonderful. And so I can speak firsthand and say that it's working. It's wonderful. And we're just so, so appreciative of your continued investment in St.
Paul's. So thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Item number 21, RLHSAO eighteen-thirty, appeal of Patrick Brown to a summary abatement order at 792 Thomas Avenue. Ms. Mormon. The vehicle has been removed, and the matter is resolved. So I recommend approval of the resolution. Your mic's on. Is there any discussion on, this item? All right. Seeing none, Ms. Henningsen moves approval. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Six in favor. No one opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item number 22, first reading of ordinance eighteen-nineteen,
amending chapter three twenty four of the legislative code pertaining to the number of licenses. This ordinance is laid over to June 13 for second reading. Item number 23, resolution public hearing eighteen-one hundred and thirty eight, amending the financing and spending plan of the Department of Parks and Recreation in the amount of $59,000 to utilize available CIB contingency funds for the 2018 Cherokee Regional Park sidewalk project. Miss Naker? Thank you. I just wanna say, thank you to staff and to the constituents who, initially raised this issue.
This was a great example of a a partnership, I think, taking advantage of an an unbelievable opportunity to fill in a gap in our pedestrian infrastructure on the West Side. This was actually raised to me by a constituent at a community coffee who said, why does that side that crosswalk lead to nowhere, by Cherokee Regional Park? And when I brought the issue up to Parks and Rec, it turned out they had been already talking about this with public works at MnDOT to try to figure out if they could include the sidewalk as part of the work they're doing on Annapolis this year anyway. The conversations had stalled out a little bit, but Alice Messer and her team just kinda kept pushing and got to the point where we were able to get MnDOT to incorporate the sidewalk into their project this
year to pay for half the cost and then to find the CIB dollars to do, the rest of it ourselves. Normally, it would be a % our cost. So, and it'll be done this year. So just wanted to say thanks to the team and really excited to have the sidewalk. This is one of those, examples where I'd love to see the before and after pictures. So maybe we can put this in the follow-up. I'll take one on my morning commute. Great. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, miss Naker moves approval. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Seven in favor. No one opposed. Public hearing is closed and the resolution is adopted. Miss Henningsen moves suspension of the rules.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Ordinance 18 dash 25 amending the Can Can Wonderland Commercial Development District to add one additional on sale license. Miss Hendrickson. Yep. So thank you for support of my colleague just to get this on for first reading today so that we can kind of expedite the public hearing process. It took us a little longer going back and forth with DSI and procedure, so appreciate the support. Okay. And the ordinance is laid over to June 13 for second reading. Legislative hearing consent agenda items 24 through sorry.
I didn't look at the end. 75 are for you for your consideration. Miss Mormon. I understand, the people here that testify on items number twenty four and forty two, I'm unaware of other items that need to be removed from consent. You said twenty four and forty two? Yes. And just to clarify, 46 was is corrected in I'd also like to pull 46 Yeah. If possible. Okay. Anything beyond the the the, 24, 40 two, and 46? Alright. Seeing none, mister Tolbert moves the balance of the legislative oh,
alright. So we'll have a public hearing on the balance of the legislative hearing consent agenda items. Seeing there's no one here on the other items, mister Tolbert moves to close public hearings and approve. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Six in favor, none seven in favor, none opposed. The public hearing is closed and the consent agenda is adopted as amended. Item number 24, RLH TA eighteen-one 70, ratifying the field special tax assessment for property at 1059 Beach Street. Ms. Mormon. Council President Brenmullen.
This is a cleanup that happened at this property. It is, basically, extreme accumulation of garbage in and around the containers. Orders were issued on December twenty ninth of twenty seventeen with compliance date of January fifth of twenty eighteen. The parks crew showed up, on January 8, so, a little bit more than a week later. Up on screen is a photograph of the area around the dumpster, with the garbage bags there. And I can show you a before and after video of the,
cleanup as well. We work with a bit of 1059 Dean Street. We work on our calls to to remove the overflowing trash, loose garbage bags from surrounding advanced disposal dumpster. Here we have a 1059 Beach Street. I got the garbage bags on the the ground. Clean up The observation I would make there is that what was on the ground then was piled, extremely high onto the dumpsters so that the dumpsters were recycling materials. Over folded garbage. So when the cleanup crew came, in the after video It's completed work order video for 1059 Beach Street.
As you can see, we cleaned the area from below the dumpsters. We left all the trash that's in the dumpsters, still in the dumpster. Still in the dumpster. Recycling. We got recycling in there, but all the trash we were on on the ground. It's all been picked up. Area's been cleaned at 1055 Beach Street. And, in the legislative hearing, the matter was discussed that the property manager did move, some of the garbage bags and that some effort had been made. My concern was that cleaning it up means removing it from the site, not rearranging it on the site. And so I would recommend that the council decrease the assessment by $100
as there was some effort made, but that, the city did do a substantial amount of work on the site. And, I would recommend approval of the assessment. Thanks. Does anyone have questions of Ms. Mormond? Ms. Prince? I do, Ms. Mormond. It looked like in the after picture that one of the dumpsters still had bags piled much higher. Yeah, and I think the audio explains that. Like, we weren't getting very good audio, and I'm not sure that that's on that property, but on the adjacent property. But I would want to see if cable could increase the audio inside chambers before,
you know. That's the second time we've had quiet audio on these. Yeah. Yeah. It is it is a problem. But it looks like there were there were two dumpsters. It's complete a work order for Yeah. Let me, Beach Street. Actually, I'm going to go back to the before video on 1059. The work order for 1059 Beach Street. Work order calls to remove the overflow and trash, loose garbage bags from surrounding advanced disposal dumpsters. It's very loud in here now. Beech Street. I got the garbage bags on the ground. Clean up from around clean up from around the dumpster here.
There's no ice recycling materials, so we'll leave that alone at 1059 Beach Street. Okay. And let's try the after video again. Just complete a work order video for 1059 Beach Street. As you can see, we cleaned the area below the dumpsters. We left all the trash that's in the dumpsters, still in the dumpster. Recycling. All recycling in there, but all the trash was wrong. So it was the stuff on the ground that they took? It's all been picked up. And it's been cleaned at 1059 Beach Street. So so they took those few items on the ground? Yes. K. Any other questions of miss Mormon?
Alright. This is the public hearing. If you'd like to be heard on this item, please join us. So I And begin by, introducing yourself Christina Harding, the property manager. Us know where you live. What's that? And your address, please. My personal address? 1643 Fifth Street. Thank you. So I live in the neighborhood. I drive by my properties all the time. I just counted four trash bags that had fallen out of the dumpster that they cleaned up. That was all that they cleaned up. I personally and I gave her the pictures. I personally went over there, picked it all up myself. I did not know until she told me at that last hearing that you can't
pile the trash up like that. We had just bought the property, and they're trash the the two reason for the two dumpsters was because the previous, owner refused to remove his, and I'm sure he's probably been here several times, he refused to take it. He refused to pay for it. So I kept fighting with him to take that dumpster, so people in the neighborhood kept coming and dumping and dumping and dumping. So when I saw this after the holidays, Christmas, it was all Christmas food that I was picking up with my hands, no gloves, putting it in the dumpster. I didn't know that they couldn't be that high.
And then some had just fallen off the dumpster before I could get them there. So I was arguing with that trash service, and I was arguing with our trash company to go and do a special pickup before they got there to clean up. Well, actually, we hadn't even gotten this letter. I did all of this before. I I never even knew the letter because I think we had that talk at the hearing too that nobody had actually received the letter. I think there was a discrepancy in getting the address changed when they bought the property because this guy is a new property owner.
But I made every effort that I possibly could to get all this trash picked up, which I do at all of my properties, and with just those four bags to assess this owner. The amount that you guys are assessing, I thought was kind of ridiculous. So I wanted to try and come and see if we can reduce that any more than the hundred dollars that she offered. Thank you. Anything further? I don't think so. K. Thank you. Miss Prince moves to close the public hearing. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Miss Prince. I'm a I'm a little bit flummoxed by the videos, miss Mormon, Because
the videos, it appears that they left both dumpsters overflowing. Yeah, they did. And I misstated that. They did leave both overflowing. That isn't their standard practice. So what I was saying earlier, I was repeating what their standard practice is. Parks normally does tip dumpsters if they are. And the actual city code is like six inches for the lid. So, it being mounted like that, that would be, you know, a significant violation. I'm very surprised Parks didn't take care of it. However, Parks did pick up the garbage bags around there and did deploy a crew to
take care of that. And so, that whether believe it or not, the expense and I can break it down for you this $478 is consistent with, picking up four bags of garbage, especially once the $100 is decreased. And, if the council is interested, I could confirm for you that the, summary abatement order was sent to the owner of record, and the owner of record that's currently in the system. But I think sometimes there's a disconnect between mailing the orders to the owner of record rather than the certificate of occupancy,
responsible party, or the property manager. That sometimes owners and managers don't communicate quickly about these things. And so, there's, sometimes issues around that. It could be one of those cases also when the council wants to lay the matter over and decrease or delete if there's no same or similar violations at this property to encourage, compliance for the next six months, say. So if there's no other garbage or tall grass and weeds or other kinds of issues going on, which I think would be a good goal for this property. Miss Mormon, I we closed the public hearing. So Oh,
I'm sorry. Miss Mormon, so the it sounds like it's on it's not their typical practice, but the city staff picked up the bags of garbage that were on the ground, and the bill looks like it's about $400 for that service. Yes. What would the cost have been if they dump tipped the dumpsters? Significantly more because they would be charging a yardage fee for, all of the garbage collected. So by cubic yard, there would be charges, and those are not insignificant. I was just gonna see if I could, look up the amount of the bill, and that's sometimes a little bit tricky to do on the fly,
of the breakdown on it. Of the the Yeah. The individual charges that make up the amount that's in front of you right now. And we see cost of what, $3.16 and service charge of $1.16? Right. And if I if I break down that $3.16, is there anything I can learn from that? I think that that we're looking at a base fee plus, a small fee for Yeah. There's $260 per hour, and I'm assuming that the rest is, yardage fee for the bags picked up. Miss Baker. Thank you. I mean, I I think what's concerning me about this is that normally, we issue orders to do something,
and then if that's not done, we go and we do it. We do all of it. So in this case, the order was to remove overflowing trash and loose garbage bags, both of those things, ramen surrounding the dumpster. And we went and removed those garbage bags, but we didn't take care of overflowing trash. It seems to me that if we're charging $260 an hour to send a crew out to do what the property owner didn't do, and that crew doesn't do all the things we asked the property owner to do, leaving some of it still on the property owner to do because it's still violating code. I don't see why a property owner should be charged that that rate. I mean, that seems like the bulk of the rate was their time,
and they didn't do what we were supposed to do. Miss Prince. Miss Mormon, if you're you're suggesting that we could lay it over and, spend time unless there is a same or similar within there's quite a number of assessments that the council has laid over to October 17, to, decrease or delete if there are no same or similar violations. I would like I would like to move that option. Would you like to move it as a reduction or a deletion of the amount if there's no same or similar? I think I move it as a deletion. So miss Prince moves a deletion of the assessment,
late over till October 17, provided there are no same or similar. Is there any discussion on that item? Alright. Seeing none, miss Prince moves her motion. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion prevails. Seven in favor. No one opposed. The resolution is laid over to October 17. Thank you. We have gotten a bar on the dumpster too now, so it's locked. Thank you. Thank you. Item number 42, RLHCO Eighteen-fifteen, appeal of Maria Denison to a correction notice at 1990 Hoyt Avenue East.
Ms. Marmont. Council President Bren Moen. I'm sorry. In front of the microphones. Council President Brenmohan, this is a case where there is a correction order that's been issued for the removal of, a treehouse in the backyard. There's a couple of other things on the order, but the treehouse is what is primarily of concern. I brought up a photograph of this, structure here. And the concern is that it is not structurally sound, that it doesn't have proper footings, that it is not built in a safe manner, and that it needs to come down or the owner needs to demonstrate by getting
a building permit and sign offs that it is actually a safe structure for children to to go into. The order itself was issued on May 3. I conducted a legislative hearing on May 8. At that time, it's my recommendation to the council to, give July 1 as a deadline. I note that this is a correction order. It's saying, would you please have this done or we will pursue additional enforcement action? That enforcement action that would follow would likely be a summary abatement order that would send the city crew in to remove it. So this is the initial correction order,
not subsequent enforcement action for failure to take care of business. And that can be making it safe or removing it? There's two choices on the table. Great. Great. Are there it doesn't look safe, but it definitely looks fun. I can't lie. It would've been something I would've run to as a child, so I understand why we need to deal with it. Are there any questions for miss Mormon before we move to our public hearing? Alright. This is a public hearing. If you'd like to be heard on this matter, please join us. My song with Would you please start by in standing between the two microphones, and and you don't have to touch them? They'll just pick up your voice perfectly and let us know your name.
My name is Maria Dennison. This is my son, Webster Lee Dennison. In case you don't understand my English, that's can help me. So I call, the sorry. I call, Nationwide because I have insurance for my house, and coming, the inspector is writing to me this letter because maybe not looks like a really cute or really beautiful. You know, I wanna the you know, over here is telling me to me, you need to prove me this cannot fell fell down and no can is danger
for my kid or for anybody. You know? And she don't see this picture already. It's have it like a If if you set your phone right Yeah. Down next to you on the on the table if you see right there, there's a Right here. Yep. There's an overhead projector that's now we can see it on the screens. You see right there, every single box have a, like, a concrete. Before, construction of the house, one inspector for the city is coming, and they tell my hospital and me, maybe it's nice but not light because it's not really beautiful,
but it's safe for my key. Because he say, don't leave open window in the back. It's not have a open window. Just only have a open window in the front. So, the inspector writing this letter already, and he say what what he found in my treehouse right here on that floor for nationwide. Can can I actually, is that the same thing? Yeah. This is what inspector said about our treehouse. And basically, this talks about the, treehouse being insured as a part of the property.
It doesn't make a statement specifically about the treehouse having, structural soundness or a signed up permit or anything. But, yes, it is a part of the property, and is insured as such as a dog would be or, trees on the property or other kinds of things is my reading of it. Would you add to that? Yeah. Okay. So, the thing is, even though it looks so beautiful, it that really, like, people reach, you know, have a beautiful thing. You know, my kids really enjoy. And I have a my plan is,
in one year, take it down and clean it over there. So I tell her about, my situation is I have a busy, busy light right now. And even when me you tell to to me, take it down, it's like a lot of money for me and a lot of time for me. Right now, I'm recovering cancer problem. You know? And I need, just only I need peace for me right now. And then taking my time for take it down,
it's no danger for my skin, no danger for anybody. It's far away from my diaspora, far away from another diaspora. So that's just only the the thing. Maybe it's not really beautiful, but it's no danger for anybody, even for my kid. Only the inspector tell me, about my tree house when he's finished. He say, let I wanna let you know some some somebody have a accident over here and you and your property and on this tree house, you you responsibility for everything. So every time every time we need to do something with family,
I couldn't, like, a door and say, no. Go play it. That's what we mean. Only my kid can stay over there. So for say for me, for everybody, I don't want any kid running or have a accident over there. That's just what we do that. That's just only way we wanna say it's my tree house. The tree house is my key. Thank you. And would your son would you like to add anything? Yeah. So it's pretty structurally safe in her opinion. We don't think that there's many problems. A couple of years ago,
like she was saying, we had an inspector come visit, and he said it was all clear. Like, none of the windows that you see open except for the ones on the deck. So it's there's no problem with a child falling out. And, yeah, it's we don't usually, all she really needs is just some time because she's been recovering from cancer and some issues in her in her life. So, yeah, she really just wants some time to get rid of it because we haven't even used it that much recently anyway. So yeah. Thank you. If there's nothing further, mister Bostrom would move to close the public hearing.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Mister Bostrom. What is your recommendation? My recommendation was to grant an extension to July 1 to either pull a building permit and get it signed off as being safe or to remove the treehouse. Okay. Sounds reasonable. That would be my motion. Is there any further discussion on this item? Okay. Mr. Bostrom moves the recommendation of the legislative hearing officer. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Seven in favor. No one opposed. The resolution is adopted as amended.
Item number 46, RLHSAO Seventeen-ninety 7, appeal of Patrick Millan to a summary abatement order at 108 Lawson Avenue West. And I just pulled this one off the consent agenda. We it came before us one hundred and eighty days ago, and I've worked with, Marsha Mormand and the DSI on this case. And I think we've reached a resolution, modified to include a pallet that I think was still in question before this was put on the agenda. But I did pull it out specifically because I just I wanted to draw to the attention of my colleagues a couple issues that seem to be continuing to come
before us. And one of them is, I would again and again, I'm hearing that the notices that we're people are receiving from our DSI, need to be reevaluated for a plain language approach, that something that is more collaborative and less confrontational. People say, they get a letter. It's accusatory. It says things like, you know, you will have a citation. It uses words like summary abatement, which we know well, but most people aren't familiar with. And that it's very it's full of what the person is doing wrong and what the consequences are for what they're doing wrong and not very much about what we
expect and how and why we expect certain things and how this person can comply with it. So I think, I really believe that we would have less, challenges here at the council if maybe our initial contact with people was in a more collaborative, we're all on the same team and here's why we're doing this approach as opposed to this, real kind of enforcement, confrontational. And I think part of that starts with playing language. And then, and so it's something I'm gonna commit to working on. And I wanted to draw attention to my colleagues because I know we've all experienced this on a weekly basis. And I think more and more, we're running into examples where community members are using their yards for seasonal growing.
And I think we're going to need to revisit our codes to find a place to accommodate some of this seasonal growing in a way that makes sense in an urban setting because it is it's coming before us. And what what we have right now is a very blunt instrument. And what looks to someone like PVC pipes and a pile of storm windows to another person is their their greenhouse and their trellis for their spring planting. So, these are two things that I think are even just this week, two times both of these issues came up in my ward, and they're things as, we're trying to, be more,
at the same Paul for all, to use the mayor's term. I think we need to work on that plain language and and our notices and also, evaluate our building our our codes to find a place for these this urban agriculture, again, in a way that makes sense in a in our close proximity setting. I don't know if there's that. Miss Henningston. Just wanted to add, I mean, on the notification letters, I agree. I think it comes up every so often. We're just, like, we jump right to a confrontational approach, whether it's a first time offender or somebody who we perhaps know is not going to do what is asked.
And so there's gotta be a range. So I would support working on that moving forward. And it seems I mean, it feels like these the approach is effective on people who are already trying to do the right thing because it's sort of terrifying. But people who aren't necessarily, interested in doing the right thing, tend to disregard them or find ways to weasel around them. So it does feel like we just need to, thread the needle in a different way. So I wanted to pull that to draw attention to that, but I do appreciate miss Mormon's efforts on this particular effort. And I thank Mr. Milan for his tour of his garden yesterday and the delicious strawberry he shared from
his garden. And I would move the recommendation of the legislative hearing officer. Is there any further discussion on that? All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Seven in favor and none opposed. The public hearing is closed and the resolution is adopted. And I believe that brings us to the end of the legislative hearings and then the 03:30 portion of our meeting and two news from the wards. Does anyone have something they'd like to share tonight? Miss Henningsoft. I don't have the details on it, but I believe Well, maybe before we go to that, miss Mormon has something to add.
There is one legislative item that I would ask you to recall. The appellant was not identified in the hallway, and so we weren't aware he was here. The address is 337 Topping. And, I pull up the agenda if I can try. So, mister Tao, will This is item number 66. So, mister Tao, we'll move to reconsider number 66. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Item number 66, RLHSAO 18 Dash 20 6, appeal of Jeffrey Myers to a summary abatement order at 337 Topping Street.
Miss Mormon. Well, this is this is kind of a confusing one here. And certainly, it is a case where there has been, unclear and confusing communication. I will give it to you as, clearly as I can. On April 16, a summary abatement order was issued to Mr. Jeffrey Myers and his wife, to remove the couch from their front porch. There you can see this, is a couch. I don't know if that's leather or microfiber or whatever, but it's an interior couch that's on the front porch.
I'd like to tell you in, this yard is just as cute as a pin, in terms of, how they maintain it. And they like to use the front porch to sit and enjoy the neighborhood and the weather and so on. I was very, sympathetic to his use of the couch here and wanted to give a long deadline for him to be able to remove the couch and find something that is appropriate exterior furniture, knowing that, you know, it's not an easy thing to get somebody to pick up a couch, whether you're having it hauled or you're giving it away or whatever the circumstance
counsel deny the appeal, but, that the matter not come before you until June 6. So, when I heard it on May 1 and I recommended denial, I knew it wouldn't get to you till June 6 and enforcement was stayed for the entire month of May until now for him to be able to, take care of the matter. So, really, I just wanted to put a big delay in there for him to do this. There is what happens in the city's computer system, and then there's what happens on the streets. What happened in the city's computer system was that,
it wasn't clear to the inspector right away that an appeal had been filed and a parks crew went out to abate the couch and remove it. I understand that, missus Myers was at home and said, hey. We have this under appeal. We haven't even had our hearing yet. And the crew said, okay. We'll leave the couch. They had their hearing. They got the length of time to deal with the couch. In the computer system, it indicates that the appeal was denied and there was an automatic order generated for
the parks crew to go clean it up and also an excessive consumption letter generated. Now, what you didn't see, if you're just looking at the computer system and you're in city council offices, was that that work order was cancelled by the Department of Safety and Inspections and then never sent forward to Parks, and that the excessive consumption bill was cancelled and never sent forward to be mailed. And so it looks like if you're coming in and you're looking at the computer system, like my God, are they being heavy handed,
It didn't actually end up being that that work order was executed or the excessive consumption bill issued. The concern also that a person would have in Mr. Myers' shoes would be, Gosh, you guys can charge excessive consumption if I have more violations during the course of the year. And the thing is, no, we won't. The department is saying, no, we won't. We didn't, this wasn't transmitted correct information wise to the property owner. At the end of the day,
the couch is now gone, and, I think Mr. Myers would like to share a little bit of what his experience has been as a citizen in this. The abatement order itself has been resolved, though, so, that's the best I can do. Right. Are there any questions for miss Mormond? Alright. Thank you. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone here who'd like to be heard on this item, please join us. She she miss Mormond did a very good job in explaining the conditions. Can you just start by introducing yourself? I know we've heard your name a few times and maybe Say again,
please? Can you please introduce yourself? My name is Jeff Myers. I live at 337 Topham Street. And then also, if you stand between the two mics, we can hear you better. So just inch over a bit. Okay. Thank you so much. As I said, Ms. Mormon did a pretty good job explaining, but our big concern was that in the computer, it shows that you know, those, abatement attempts have been made on the May, and we would like to get those removed from our property service record. So if,
you know, it doesn't look like we're, you know, and and always violating, you know, and and having to be abated. And, you know, because the on the letter, you know, it states that, you know, if if there's so many incidences within twelve months of the original abatement, you know, that there can be more consumption fees and and and and and maybe a fine later on. And so we don't want that to occur and make it look like, you know, we don't take care of our property when we do. Are there any questions? Questions. Mr. Town? Okay. Anything further? And I appreciate that you agree with Ms.
Foreman's summary. She went into a lot of detail about that. But is there anything further you wanna add before we close the public hearing? Say again? Is there anything further you'd like to add before we close the public hearing? Anything else? No. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. I I I I I'm hard of hearing. Well, I wasn't talking into the microphone very well either, so I apologize. Mister Tao, would move to close the public hearing then. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Mister Tao. Thank you, council president. Miss Morman, so the request was to ask us to remove those from the record.
Can you indicate if we that's possible, and can we do that? My understanding is that we, do not have the ability legally to remove and change records from the past. But what we can do and what I've asked the department to do is to make thorough notes that this was resolved, that there shouldn't be an excessive consumption fee, that this shouldn't be counted towards additional billing, so that notes can be put in the system so that we know that this wasn't the case and there's documentation of this hearing.
But going backwards and changing orders that have been issued is perilous territory, you know. So our best route is simply to explain, hey, no way. You know, and that is a really common thing at the department, you know, for any number of cases where there's notes explaining there's circumstances that are particular to this that we need to know. And, I talked directly to Steve Magner, the code enforcement manager, about my concerns on this, directly, and I also emailed him some particulars about it. So I feel confident that,
the, records at the department will be, showing that Mr. Myers has been, a fantastic citizen and really, this has been unnecessarily confusing. Okay. Mister Towel. Mister Meyer, I wanna I wanna thank you for coming down here and sharing us with your experience. First first of all, when the city make this sort of a mistake, I I take some responsibility for that. So I apologize that that did happen. But I think that the fix that Ms. Mormon has proposed is very fair, and that it's also helpful that you came down here to share your experience.
And I'm really glad that you have that pride as a property owner in the city of Saint Paul. We all do. And you're one of them, to not have that on your on your record. And I can appreciate that, and Saint Paul is much better because of folks like you too. So I appreciate that. And and I I'm really, happy that you've been working with our office to resolve this. So thank you so much. Okay. So is the motion I would recommend approval of the resolution as it's written, noting that, the matter has already been resolved and the couch is gone.
So the council did, recall the item, so you can amend to grant or simply pass knowing pass the resolution as it's written knowing that it's all taken care of. Move with the, staff recommendation. Any discussion on that? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Closed motion prevails. Seven in favor. No one opposed. The resolution's adopted. And I do I think it's, in speaking with the attorney, I just think before we move on, it is I do think that we should there should be some way to remove errant information in the in the property records. I know it sounds like it's not,
easily to do right now, but it it doesn't seem like a difficult request if something was simply an error. So Great. Alright. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So where were we? Good news. Good news. And Samantha was just about to say something amazing, I think. So I just wanted to remind everyone that tomorrow evening is the first city run public input session on minimum wage. That's from $5.30 to $8.30 at Arlington Hills Community Center. And there's information on the city website. If you wanna RSVP,
you probably don't need to. So that kind of accompanies the Citizens League process, but just wanted to let everybody know. Thank you very much, miss Henningsen. And I the reason why I will not be there even though I would love to is because at the very same time tomorrow, between six and 08:00, we are celebrating the gateway, which, of course, is the intersection of Rice And Larpenter where Roseville, Maplewood, and Saint Paul come together, with interactive stations at the corners of all of the cities, the chance to for people to see the short and line long term plans for the corridor. This is, the location where we invested $350,000
of CPZ money, to increase or for economic development. Of course, we have not spent that yet. We're making working working with the community to to decide where the best place to move forward with that is. But, Thursday, we will have kids' games and activities, treats. I've heard Roseville is bringing a taco truck on the scene. So maybe after the the 15 minimum wage conversation, people can come over and check out the gateway. It's not too far away. Six to eight, Thursday at Rice and Larpedder. Anything else on our news from the wards tonight? Alright. We will be in recess until 05:30.
Thirty. Order. Roll call. Tolbert, Ostrom, Henningsen, Nager, Prince, Teil, council president, Brent Moen. Seven present. No one absent. Well, greetings, everybody. Sorry for that slight delay. We pride ourselves on starting exactly on time, and we are three minutes behind already. On behalf of my colleagues, I'd like to welcome community members, visitors, and staff to the council chambers this evening. We have just called to order the second part of our meeting, which is the public hearing section of the agenda, and I believe there's eight items that will have a council public hearing tonight. For every one of these public hearings, the differing sides are allocated fifteen minutes to address the council.
First, we hear from those in opposition, then we hear from those in support. Sometimes there are people who are sort of in the middle, and that's okay too. Public hearings are held on items that are particularly impactful, to the city or neighborhood. So fifteen minutes sometimes seems like a short period of time. And we recognize that it is, but we also I think it is worth mentioning that a lot of complicated or divisive subjects are initially discussed at neighborhood meetings. You have opportunities to talk with your, council member or district councils ahead of time. Sometimes it's the planning commission. So when we if there are a lot of people that intend to speak on an issue,
we just ask you to try to stick to the high notes, so we can fit it in in that fifteen minutes. So a little housekeeping. If you plan to speak tonight when your item is called, please line up as you're able in the front of the hearing room on either side of the podium. Based on the number of people who are here, we can get a sense of how much time you would be allocated. Give us your full name and the neighborhood in which you live before you testify, before and I'll it seems that it's important to say this. If you just stand between the microphones, they'll pick up your voice. You don't need to adjust them. And when you're done testifying, if you could please sign in at one of the the ledgers on either side
of the podium so that we can enter your information into the public, record. And with that, I guess we will get started. Welcome. Item number 76, ordinance 18 dash 18, granting the application of LV eight forty two Ray LLC to rezone property at 2330 Long Avenue from T2, traditional neighborhood, to T3, traditional neighborhood, and to many Chapter 60 of the legislative code pertaining to the zoning map. And we'll begin with the staff report. Welcome. Thank you, Council President Brent Mullen, Councilmembers. This is the property in question with the Blue Star,
set the intersection of Long And Bradford Street in the just outside the Raymond Station area plan planning area. This is Raymond Avenue. The Raymond Avenue LRT station is about a six minute walk from this location. The applicant also owns this property, 842 Raymond, on the corner of Raymond And Bradford. It's not part of the application, but there's plans to redevelop that site as well as the 2,330 long.
And the purpose of the rezoning is to allow for additional height at the 2,330 long site. T2 allows for 35 feet by right. T3 allows for 45 feet by right. So for reference, it's about three stories in T2 and four stories in T3. For context of the zoning for the area, the property is currently zoned T2 as is the adjacent properties to the south and
west. The rest of the lot is surrounded by RM2. Again, for context, RM2 allows for 50 feet of height by right. And here is some aerial imagery for for context of the site is basically this property. So it's currently, a surface parking lot to service the businesses here. So the zoning committee found that the applicant met all the required findings, including consistency with the District 12 plan and the comprehensive plan. There was seven people that testified at four and seven that testified against the proposal.
They unanimously recommend approval of the application. However, they asked that when a site plan is finally proposed for the site, given that there's none at the time that they would review the site plan rather than having it delegated to staff. They felt like there's enough concern with heights and transitioning to the neighborhood and parking that they would like to see that those issues were addressed when the development actually comes forward. And finally, the planning commission recommended approval unanimously.
However, I did want to note that there was an issue with the notifications for the postcards when they went out for the zoning here at public hearing. We found that there was an issue in our automatic system relating to the Ramsey County database. We hold the database, and this might be getting too far into the weeds, but it's kind of an important issue where it was editing out any condos, basically. And we found that that issue could have been happening for a couple of months. And since then, we're able to kind of rectify the situation,
come up with a different system that was able to pull in the correct data there. So it was good that we found out about it and but unfortunate that it happened in this case. We brought that up to the zoning committee as well to see if they wanted to extend the notification period. But they felt like the neighbors, because they were showing up and had contacted us, were, knew of the public hearing and were able to participate in the process. That's it. I'm happy to answer questions. Right. So there are questions for Mr. Gerbi, Ms. Prince. Yes. Mr. Gerbi, in terms of the public we're having a public hearing now on it.
Was any effort made to send the postcard correctly for this public hearing? President Brenmont, council member Prince, yes. We in between the time of, the the zoning committee public hearing and this public hearing, we're able to to use a completely different system that, we, double checked to make sure that it it was pulling the right addresses and and and was, in fact, pulling all the addresses. Miss Brents. And one other question. In terms of the proposed project, do we know what the we don't have a plan.
You don't have any kind of a site plan, so you don't know the height, the parking, anything? That's correct. Or whether they'll be seeking a conditional use permit for additional height or have they indicated any of those things? Through the president. The applicant has stated that they wouldn't be seeking any height above 45 feet. But beyond that, we don't have any details in the project. So the recommendation was just based on the merits of rezoning alone, not any specific proposal.
The only other thing we know is that it was multifamily. Miss Henningsen. Just wanted to follow-up on the planning commission's recommendation that the site plan come back to them for review. Does that stick with the property, or is that specific to this owner or this developer? Will that be through the present, that would be regardless of Who's doing it? Was. You know, it would be tied to this rezoning process. So assuming if the rezoning was approved, we would put, flag it in our system that it would need to go through planning commission. Thank you.
Are there any further questions? Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have further questions for you later, but now, this is a public hearing. If there are here people here who would like to be heard in opposition, to this matter, please, join us at the podium. Again, I'll just remind you to start off by introducing yourself and the neighborhood you live in, and sign in when you're done. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for hearing us. My name is Patty George. I own a business at 856 Raymond Avenue directly next to 842 and directly in
front of 2330 Long, both of the properties that are being redeveloped and also directly across the street from the Baker East rezoning that just happened. As mister Jervis just said, he, stated that we did not get zoning postcards, and that is correct for all three properties. And my neighbors, including my own business owners within my building, did not get zoning postcards, so we didn't know about the Baker East rezoning to be able to be participants in a voice with that. And so it's already been rezoned, and I'm not happy about that as well.
But now with this being next to us and behind us, it will take over. The development has gone to a bigger scale to the neighborhood. I bought into the, area thirteen years ago. I, own a full service spa and salon. In my building, there are five owners, and we all own different businesses, one being a chiropractic, clinic. And so we service, obviously, families, elderly, handicap, men, women, and kids. And we are obviously looking for help, to keep the zoning where it's at. We redeveloped our building,
which was an old, warehouse, and we redeveloped it into a condo business association. There are seven units. There's five of us that own. And we want to we redeveloped it within the shape of the building. I mean, it's a one story brick building. We created the condos, and we tried to keep it in a scale of the neighborhood and in the style of the neighborhood. And here we are. We're having light rail come in and encroach on us. Because we didn't have a voice, I feel like the neighbors didn't know about this.
I went around the neighborhood, and I talked to all of my neighbors. I talked to I went out five, six times, and I knocked on doors. And I asked them if they knew about this, and 99% were not happy about it. 90% didn't know about it. Those that did get zoning postcards said that stated something like 20 units. 20 units is different than 50 units. I've been at five or four different meetings. Mr. Stoeplestad came to our business, condo association and had a, chance to tell us about his plan. And at that first meeting,
he told us 20 units at twenty three thirty long. Then at the neighborhood council meetings, at the zone the, land use and the neighborhood council meeting, it went up from there. He went from 20 to 35, 30 five to 50, and then he came to zoning and planning and said 50 units. So at every meeting, he stated a different number, and that caused, obviously, concerns not only for me but for our neighbors. We've already lost half of our parking because of Raymond Avenue being rezoned and or redone and putting in bike lanes,
and we are, not happy with that. It's going higher. Right now, you can see where this is all green space. This is his parking lot. I just want to make sure that it comes up. Could you see it? Would you turn it sideways? Is that better? I think it's upside down. Other way. There we go. This way? Yeah. That helps. Okay. So this is his building here at 842. This is our building at 856, and this is, my neighbor house, and then there's an apartment building next to him. This is the Alley. Here is where he wants to build 2330 lawn.
This is all evergreens and green space and, crab apple trees along the boulevard. Here is his property too, the all crab apple trees. I feel like this is all gonna be no green space. It will be a complete five to six story building. Granted, he says four stories, but that means if he's putting in a half a parking space per unit that he wants to put in, He's gonna build parking at grade and then build four stories above it. And then we'll probably ask for a conditional use permit, and then that'll go up to another building, another, level. And so it could be up to six stories high.
Next to all of these are affordable housing, two story condos, two story townhouses. These are two story townhouses. We're one story. These are all two story. Everyone around us, these are green spaces, neighborhoods, that kind of thing, and it's you can see even from here, this is all neighborhood. This up here is industrial. This forward is, I'm sorry. This forward up to University Avenue is industrial as well and light rail zone. I can't advertise on the light rail because I'm past territorial. I'm north of territorial. Yet he says he can,
build within light rail zone, and he's past territorial. It doesn't make sense when I asked about that. And I'm just, just out of respect to the other speakers, I just wanna let you know that it's been about five minutes and fifteen seconds. And no. And that's fine. I just know there's a there's two more people, and they say they just have a little bit to say. So just, like, quick, quick checking in. Thank you. Okay. I do want to say that I have been intimidated by the builder to not be talking to my neighbors, and it came back to me. They have requested that I speak with them and that they had,
you know, they can offer me something if I spoke to them or that there is a city official in my neighborhood and that they have already killed my parking request, which I don't have a parking request. I'm not quite sure what that means. But to me, that meant they wanted to silence me, and they wanted to silence our neighbors. And he and I'm not appreciative of that. I've been a supportive person in the neighborhood. We've talked about being, you know, I've been a part of the neighborhood council, and I've been going to all the meetings for months,
and I've done it even before with the Raymond Avenue reconstruction. I just feel like it's not okay. If you have money, it feels like you can be, you can build in Saint Paul and push out the small businesses, push out the neighborhoods. This is a quaint neighborhood, and it's not being recognized. Thank you. Sorry. No. Thank you very much. We appreciate hearing from you. Welcome. Good afternoon, President Vendeemann and Council member. My name is Ray Brian, as several of you probably already know because I've been involved in the District Council
with you and before some of you others. My wife is not able to be here, so I put her letter here on the board for you to be able to read it. Back during Vietnam War, a major was quoted as having said, in order to save a town, it became necessary to destroy the town. And we're being told that this is creating an urban village to be able to put this on this block. But yet the history of this block is that this has been an urban village practically since its inception,
certainly longer than I've been alive. And I'm just wondering I mean, the quote is from Peter Arnett. You can look it up on the Internet. He actually wrote it down. I'm just wondering, are we in the business today of destroying an urban village to create or recreate an urban village? Is that what we are doing here? Are we sacrificing everything in the livability, the walkability of a neighborhood to have affordability and housing density? Those are questions that I'm asking you to answer here today. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Good evening,
council members or good afternoon, I guess. I'm not sure what time it is. My name is Terry Path, and I reside at 891 Raymond Avenue, a single family residence where I live by myself. And I also own the property of four unit building at the corner of Raymond And Long University at 898 Raymond Avenue, Sarah Brown Hair Salon. Some of you may know the building. Several years ago, we lost a significant amount of parking when the Raymond Avenue Street calming project went through. The loss of parking was significant. It hasn't impacted it a great deal. My end of the block, The condo owners at 856 Raymond Avenue or Pettigrew's Hazard Salon,
it did impact a lot more. So now we're looking at the redevelopment of 842 Raymond Avenue, which is going to add more residential units to the area. I'm for that. It's going to take away parking. I'm not for that. The proposed rezoning at 2330 Long Avenue going from T2 to T3. T2 is still going to take away a lot of significant parking spots from that area, more so where the eight fifty six Condo Association is. But from going from T2 to T3,
we'll take away an additional amount of parking. And plus, it will impact the neighborhood, I think, in a negative way adding to a four or conceivably five story building or six story if a conditional use permit is allowed. And I think that will impact the neighborhood in a negative way and also reducing the parking in the area. And those are my comments, and I wish you would oppose the rezoning as I do. I think T2 will be adequate and t three, I think,
will just be negatively impact the parking and the character of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here who'd like to speak in opposition before we move to those here in support? Alright. If there are people here who would like to speak in support of this rezoning, now is the time. Someone's got to do it. Do it. Thank you, Madam Chair, Council members. My name is Sherman Eagles. I live at 980 Hampton Avenue in South Saint Anthony Park. A couple years ago, the district council created an equity committee and developed an equity framework for District 12.
Now you might wonder why we need an equity framework in Saint Anthony Park. It's generally thought of as a pretty well off and well connected area. But I'd like to just give you a few, demographic figures from South Saint Anthony Park when you separate that out by itself. 36% of the people in South Saint Anthony are people of color. Sixteen percent are foreign born. 38% have moved in the last year. 48% have family income less than $35,000.78 percent of the housing units in South Saint Anthony are rental
and 47 people 47% of the renters are housing cost burdened. So we aren't a really wealthy neighborhood. So I chaired the District Council's work on the ten year plan, and I'm not here speaking for the council, I'm here speaking for myself. We recently completed our, new ten year plan. We just adopted it about three weeks ago finally and sent the final draft to the city. We developed that plan trying to keep these equity issues in mind and and make
sure that everyone who lives in South Saint Anthony and in Saint Anthony Park had an opportunity to provide input. And so to do that, we did an online survey. We looked at the people who responded to that. We said we don't see the demographic being the same as we see in these figures from Men Compass. So we went out and canvassed people. We went and talked to people at the light rail stations. We went to neighborhood events to try to make sure that everybody had an opportunity to provide input for that plan. The thing that came out as the most important item was affordable housing.
75% of the people overall said affordable housing was important. 93% of the people with family income less than $35,000 said affordable housing was important. So we used that to try to come up with some of the objectives and and strategies in this new ten year plan. So just a couple of those are that we're suggesting that we should encourage multifamily structures in areas where they are permitted. We believe that new development of more than 12 units should include affordable housing
and that we should consider density bonuses for taller buildings where that's possible to provide affordable units in those buildings. So, I think that both our previous district plan, ten year plan and our current one support the staff conclusions that this rezoning would fit with where the neighborhood needs to add density and add affordable housing. I'm going to just interrupt you quick.
No, Ms. Prince. I'm wondering, Mr. Eagles, do you know if, District 12 will be submitting a recommendation on the rezoning? Madam Chair, Councilmember Prince, the there was an unfortunate timing issue with the district council's review of this. We had, time to have the land use committee look at it. Unfortunately, because of people traveling in conflicts, we didn't have a quorum at that committee, so we did not take make a recommendation. The, zoning committee hearing was before our next full council meeting.
Our bylaws say that the, executive committee of the council can take a position, but since we had heard neighbors opposing, we didn't feel that it was appropriate for the executive committee who hadn't many of whom had not heard any discussion about this to take a position. So we did not take a position, and the, as I said, the, zoning committee hearing was before the next council meeting. So we have not taken any position. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Rishon Moore, and I own Nanosystems,
a computer repair shop that is right next to Patrick George's salon at 842 Raymond. I rent my office space. I've been in the area for now five years. And I can tell you that the the bike lane has disrupted parking in the area, but I can also say that there are new people moving in who are used to the now standard disruption, if you will. Each block in the 28094 area is different. One block, a block and a half up the street where everybody in Saint Paul is eating at Keys has parking meters,
while all the employees and the owners of Keyes Park 1 block up right by Baker Court where there are no meters. Also the Naughty Creek and the dual citizen, which have just opened up in the area, have gotten exclusive parking, right, again, one block away from our parking, from our area. There's also, plenty of parking, which I feel like the community can work out the correct pricing with Baker Court to make everything work out. I found the developer to be open minded to all of the community's needs with his development,
and I think that you should move forward, with this project. Thank you. Thank you very much. And if you haven't signed in, did you did you get a chance? Hi. My name is Pat Thompson. I am a resident of Saint Anthony Park. I am, chair of the transportation committee of the Saint Anthony Park Community Council here speaking for myself. I am supporting the plan. I just wanna say that as Sherman said, it does everything we say we want in our city. We want, density near rail stations. We want affordable housing. So it's doing all the things we want and I think it would be really
strange to not approve, this change. I I do recognize that the parking issue is is a real problem, and our committee is working with neighbors and we're going to be doing I guess we talked about a working group is the term we're starting to use, to work on that. And I I just don't wanna have us try and solve the parking by by preventing more neighbors near transit. Thanks. Thank you. Question. I speak in support of the redevelopment for the simple reason that, St. Paul as a whole and St. Anthony Park in particular need more affordable housing.
And in order to make it affordable, one has to put in more units. And then I want to take issue with some of the issues mentioned by the people in opposition to the development. So it was said that the new development will take our parking away, that the light rail encroaches. Well, no, it's not like that. Parking does not belong to anyone. Street parking or the street should be shared by everyone. That means by the residents, by the businesses,
by their customers, by bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists alike. So that was my point. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak on this item? Looks like no. So Ms. Henningsen would move to close the public hearing. Miss Henningsen? I did have a couple follow-up questions for mister Jeremy. Oh, excuse me. Let's vote on that. Oh, okay. Miss Henningsen moves to close the public hearing. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Miss Henningsen. I just had a couple of follow-up questions. So I just wanted a couple of things from the testimony. Did any post what did the postcard say in terms of number of units,
the notification postcards? Through the president, the didn't have any number of units. It just said proposed rezoning from t two to t three. Okay. And then in terms of whether with the rezoning, could they build parking on grade plus four stories on top? I mean, there's the height cap Right. At 45. So It it would be tight. I don't it it's an odd shaped lot too. So it seems like there would have to be some structured parking in there. But, there's just a lot of factors that would have to be weighed,
so I can't say for certain. Miss Prince. I'm also curious. There were a number of references to this being an affordable housing project. Is this, a development that is seeking any kind of city support? I mean, do we do we know how it's gonna be affordable? Through the present, I I don't know of any, specific asks in terms of affordability, from city funding specifically. Maybe you can clarify. I was just I was asking, did did anyone say it was affordable housing, or is it housing? I'm not sure I heard
The the applicant is discussed having affordable housing at the site, but I think the project is at such a point where we don't know for certain exactly what it is. Right. And I'm mostly asking because I think that we are we we all spend a quite a bit of time talking about housing, affordable housing, attainable housing. And, in that that context, adding more housing could can be affordable or can alleviate the need in other areas. But I just wanted to I wasn't clear if if we had said we're clearing or making this change because we want to add affordable housing arc.
That's just one of the options, and it sounds like it's an option. Okay. Other questions? Mister Tow. Thank you. There's, like, a high rise in this area. How far is it from from that high rise, and what is the what's the height? How much story was that? Through the president, the so here's the site. To the high rises, half block, and 14. 14 stories. 14 block. Okay. And so if I remember correctly, the major traffic in this area is Raymond. Right? And so is that correct? That's correct. And then compared to to Long and Bradford,
so, it wouldn't it wouldn't block motorists from not seeing the other's lower height business. Yes, right. That's correct. Other questions or comments? Anything further, miss Henningston? And I do think I I guess we I just said it, but I'm gonna say it again or two things. One is, what is before us is an application for rezoning. Not it's I've I've heard a few people use the word the plan, the plan, and I think we need to be clear that we're talking about rezoning, which creates an opportunity to develop a plan.
And for people who are invested in the area, it's important to stay engaged in these processes as, you know, when we move forward with the rezoning, that's the beginning of an opportunity to create a plan and a plan that makes sense in a neighborhood. So I I think that we can imagine what could be on the site, but right now, what we're really talking about is creating that opportunity to do that. And so I think that's worth saying again. Miss Prince? And and I do I do appreciate what you're saying there. People definitely should stay involved. But I do feel when a rezoning is being driven by a developer
who is communicating, plans to people in hopes of getting their approval, that, you know, the accountability that there is a reason for people to feel that we're rezoning this. Is it 20 units or is it 50 units? Is it going to include affordable housing? I mean, a few people on the pro side did say this is about affordable housing. So I think that the developer has some responsibility to communicate forthrightly with people.
And as that project comes forward, I would hope that those discussions continue because I think it's really important when you're gonna be a neighbor, to be to to be a reliable, neighbor leading up to that. I appreciate that clarification. The other thing that I was gonna say is that the way our process works in city council is that when we hear the ordinance change like a rezoning, the third the third reading is a public hearing, but we don't vote on it until the fourth reading. So sometimes we have a public hearing and we have a discussion,
and then we don't vote, and it's confusing for people in the audience. So just so people are aware, this is the the third reading, and we would not vote on this until next week. So are there is there any further discussion on this item? Alright. So the item is laid over to June 13 for final adoption, and that would be at 03:30PM. Item number 77, ordinance 18 dash 21, amending chapter 44 of the administrative code on employee authority in immigration matters pertaining to law enforcement certifications for victims of crimes.
And I believe we have a staff report. Welcome. Council member Brenmont, members of the council, my name is Daphne Van Buren. I'm an assistant city attorney, and I'm here to provide a brief staff report on the ordinance that is before you. So chapter 44 of the city's administrative code regulates employee authority in certain matters. Part of the policy of that chapter is that all residents of the city should have equal access to the city and to city services without regard to immigration status.
The ordinance being proposed and for which this hearing is being held expands on that chapter in that it codifies a standard process for how crime victim certifications are handled. And the background on this is, this pertains specifically to what we call U and T type visas. These are federal visas that are specifically reserved for individuals who are victims of crime for very specific purposes, and they're visas that are processed and approved by the federal government,
not the city of Saint Paul. Right? So we're not doing immigration work per se. But what these visas require is that a local agency, like a local police department or a local prosecutor, provide what's called a certification, and it gives the federal government information about the person asking for the visa. Specifically, were they a victim of a crime and were they helpful? This ordinance standardizes that process for going through and evaluating those requests. When we talk about were they a victim of a crime, these are specific types of crimes that the federal government has identified.
And these visas are there as a victim support, and part of the policy is that all victims should feel comfortable reporting crimes and and feel like they're safe in their neighborhood. These crimes are serious. They include rape, torture, murder, manslaughter, slavery and hostage crimes, abduction, felony assault, trafficking, domestic violence, sex crimes, blackmail or extortion, and witness tampering. These are various serious crimes that we certify whether a person has been a victim and whether this, type of process may be available. The second part of that is helpfulness.
And the question is, has a person been helpful? Are they being helpful, or may they be helpful in the future? And the ordinance before you, sets out a very broad, scope of helpfulness that includes making an initial police report, filing a criminal complaint. The ordinance in more than nuts and bolts sets out a standard and an expedited review process. So a standard review process within thirty days, an expedited review process, within seven days for individuals facing deportation proceedings. It requires that agencies that do this work within the city post information online in
several languages. The Saint Paul Police Department already has a page on New Visas on its, web page. And if another if another organization like the City Attorney's Office for, victims of domestic violence, engaged in this work, that would be required as well. It discusses in more detail the helpfulness requirement. And finally, it acknowledges and recognizes the data protections, protections of confidential and private data about individuals who are victims of crime. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions, for miss Van Buren? No? Great. Thank you so much.
Thank you. So so before we move to a public hearing, I do wanna move version two, which isn't Legistar, and it's, a minor adjustment that clarifies, defines more clearly what helpful, helpfulness is in this case. So I would move version two. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Seven in favor. No one opposed. The amendment is approved. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to be heard in opposition to this matter? Is there anyone here who would like to be heard in support? Council president Brenmon, my name is John Keller.
I'm the executive director of the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, members of the council. I rise in support of this ordinance and for the work, to bring forward this important issue. The Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota is the state's largest provider of free legal services to immigrants and refugees in the state. We have two offices in Saint Paul and three in Greater Minnesota. Roughly 25% of our work is working on U visa cases, U and T visa cases. The ordinance, that you're considering is extremely important for two reasons at a minimum. The first, there are,
consistent reports of, a fear of reporting crime to law enforcement, and a fear that has increased, unfortunately, under the current administration. The fear is not, without merit, unfortunately. What we have seen, across The US and in Minnesota is an increasing number of arrests and an increasing number of arrests of victims, as well as persons with no prior criminal, history or criminal contact. Here in the Minnesota Dakota region of, homeland security of ICE, we've seen nearly a 70% increase in arrests,
over the last year. One of the effects of that increased enforcement, is a lack of trust in all government entities, most particularly law enforcement. When there is fear of a victim of one of our clients or a potential client, that contacting local law enforcement anywhere in the state, could lead to further referral, to ICE, there is an obvious chilling effect, and we've seen that reported across The US. Here in Minnesota, we've been asked to come in and try to alleviate the fear that people have even of approaching a local food shelf run by churches.
We've seen parents of US citizens withdrawing their children from medical services. So the moment for this action in St. Paul, particularly coupled with what Minneapolis did recently, is extremely important. So I laud you in doing that. As a lawyer, who works in this area, it's been twenty years that we've worked on it. I would recommend one slight change to the ordinance, and I apologize for the lateness of the recommendation. And if the time has passed, that's fine. We can try to look at it at a different
time. In the certification of helpfulness, in the final sentence, it says victim helpfulness is minimally established by making a criminal complaint or filing a full or accurate police report. The word minimally in our experience is confusing. Under the U Visa law, and I brought the Homeland Security law enforcement Training Manual if you'd like to review it. The simple filing of a police report, coming forward and, confiding what's happened to you or to your family member is sufficient to certify, on behalf of, that victim.
And so by adding minimally, we'd prefer to have that word removed if at all possible. I'm happy to stand for any questions. Otherwise, I thank you for your work. Anyone have questions? Is there anyone else here who would like to speak in support of this item? Alright. And I and, mister Keller, just in response to your recommendation, we have a one more hearing, and we can review that with, our attorneys and with the police. To me, the reading minimally means at a minimum. I don't see it as problematic, but if change is appropriate, we would do that. So, miss Prince. I do I I do just wanna thank mister Keller for the work of the
Immigrant Law Center. We definitely when we look at the fact that we're facing a huge labor shortage in the metro area in the coming years, the fact that you're there fighting for our immigrants is a really important thing, and we really appreciate it. Thank you. If there's, no one here to else to speak on this matter, Ms. Naker moves to close the public hearing. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion prevails. Seven in favor. No one opposed. The public hearing is closed,
and the ordinance is laid over to June 13. And I I did wanna say, in that space between when we close Obamacare and move on, this I I wanna thank, the the passionate advocacy of my friend Felipe Alesias, who continually, comes knocking on my door with, suggestions on, the way ways that Saint Paul could be a better advocate for the immigrants in our community. And, he had pointed out that there was a real discrepancy between the way Minneapolis and Saint Paul was handling u visas. And, we said we would dig into it, and we were really, quite happy to see that in the time,
between, really, when the data was collected and, the time we looked into it, that things had really changed in Saint Paul. And I think that's, a big thank you to chief Axtel, assistant chief Iovino, and their approach to U Visas and that the discrepancy was really shrinking. So when we started to have this conversation, the police, were very willing to work with us on how to codify, the the practices that they had started using in Saint Paul. And we all had the same goal of trying to create a a system that really served our most vulnerable citizens in a a meaningful way and made it clear
that the police are here to help everyone. So, I I really wanna thank you, Felipe. I wanna thank the Immigrant Law Center, chief Axel, Iovino, commander Sass, and, miss Van Buren for your help on this. My aide, Kim O'Brien, who's been really has tracked all this down and and gotten to be somewhat of an expert on this, issue. As you can tell by the tone of this public hearing, it's really serious. It's become even more serious in the months that we've been working on this. And so it, I appreciate, my colleague's, support on this matter, and I look forward to voting on it on Friday and continuing the good work.
So with that, we can move on to our next. Excuse me. Item number 78, ordinance 18 dash 22, amending chapter four zero nine of the legislative code to allow the city council to waive the distance restriction for certain off sale liquor establishments Friday. Which existed prior to 01/15/2003. Do I have a staff report on this? No? Alright. This is the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to be heard on this item? Seeing none, mister Thao moves to close the public hearing. All in favor, say aye.
Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Mister Thao? Thank you. You know, I think that this is a, this is, helping to relocate, Big Top to the old Perkin. And so and this is this is the right strategy to help them. Right. And to approve. Great. And this is also an ordinance that we'll lay over. That's true. Not Friday. Next week. June 13 for for final adaption, and that's at 03:30. Item number 79, resolution public hearing 18 dash 78, approving the petition of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to vacate the city's ownership of
a portion of Main Street. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to be heard on this item? Seeing none, miss Naker moves to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Seven in favor. No one opposed. The public hearing is closed and the resolution is adopted. Item number 80, resolution public hearing eighteen-one 46, approving the application of Tawfiq Islamic Center for a sound level variance for Eid al Fitr Islam Festival on Friday, February or June 15 or Saturday,
June 16 at the Oxford Community Center Football Field 270 Lexington Parkway North. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to be heard on this item? Seeing none, mister Town moves to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Seven in favor. No one opposed. Public hearing is closed and the resolution is adopted. Item number 81, resolution public hearing eighteen-one 48, approving the application of Twin Cities Jazz Festival for a sound level variance to present amplified live music on June 22 and June 23 during the Twin Cities Jazz Festival
at Mears Park. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to be heard on this item? Let's let's go with both at the same time. Welcome. Hi. Thank you for having me here. A little tough to follow the immigrant law side of folks. Here I am just up here asking to make some noise. That's about it. Well, this is our fifteenth year in Saint Paul. We we came to Saint Paul, expanded the event to Mears Park, as you know, and it expanded into a true civic festival. We're all over the city. We're I think everyone's sitting here has some kind of noise from us happening happening.
It's June. We're pretty careful on the noise, how we do it, and we have a PA system, obviously. And, but it is jazz. It's an acoustic kind of form of music. So, I mean, we have a grand piano on there. We have, well, I can brag about it a little bit. We have D. V. Bridgewater coming in for some great national artists coming in. Everything from the new club in Hygge downtown all the way to Como Park. We have stuff in Episcopal Homes and, the new place on Raymond Avenue, that dual citizen. And so it's gonna be a lot of fun. Well, I I think I remember saying at another meeting that I you invited me to
come and introduce a band, and I thought there were so many shows all over Saint Paul that there was gonna be nobody at that show. And there was, like, 400 people on the Como Pavilion just loving it. Glad we surprised you. That's always a Yeah. No. I mean, I just was like, how many people are there that could all be going to jazz shows? We're always we're always amazed at, the amount of folks that show up. Because we try to keep it approachable. Given it's also a civic event, it's fun. You might not even like jazz or it might scare you or you might think it's kind of whatever. And the whole point of the festival is get people to engage with each other.
I I think we need more events that bring people together, right, other less in this world. Absolutely. So real quickly, I I have two of them on the agenda. One is for the Amir's Park and, there are two stages down there. And there's a second one here for Union Depot, and that's a that's a youth stage that's being booked by the, by the Dakota Foundation for youth education. And they outreach throughout the Twin Cities. They do auditions. They do that, and we partner with them. Including the high school for recording arts is gonna be part of that. Now that might not be a whole lot of jazz, but we just encourage young people to the fact that they're exposed to jazz makes
us happy. So there'll be music throughout the Friday and Saturday at the Union Depot stage. Oh, that's so it's Union Depot North Plaza. There's something The North Plaza. Right. Pointing toward North. So it's outside. Outside. Yeah. Great. Okay. So we are looking at, item number 81, and that's item number 82. Correct. Right. So we got both. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you for having me, buddy. Double down. Encourage people to get out and see the bands because they are they're so varied, and it's Thank you. All the different venues really make it fun. So thank you. Hopefully, you're around that weekend and come on down. Thank you very much for your time.
Anyone else on resolution number 81? Seeing none, miss Naker moves to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Seven in favor. No one opposed. The public hearing is closed and the resolution is adopted. Item number 82, resolution public hearing eighteen-one 49, approving the application of Twin Cities Jazz Festival for Sound Lula variance to present amplified Twin Cities Jazz Festival at the Union Depot North Plaza, 2 14 Fourth Street East. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who'd like to be heard on this item?
You said your piece. No. Thanks for knowing your audience. Alright. Seeing no one, Mr. Bostrom moves to close the public hearing under approval. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Seven in favor. No one opposed. The public hearing is closed, and the resolution is adopted. Item number 83, resolution public hearing eighteen-one 52, approving the application of Special Olympics Minnesota Summer Games for a sound level variance to present announcements and live music at 2115 Summit Avenue from June 22 through the twenty fourth, two two thousand eighteen.
It's one of those strange boundary lines where 2115 Summit is Ward 4. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to be heard on this item? It used to be Ward 3. We can fight that out later. Anyone here wants to be heard on this item? Seeing none, miss Henningsen moves to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion prevails. Seven in favor. No one opposed. The public hearing is closed, and the resolution is adopted. Is there anything else to come before us this evening? If not, we are adjourned.