Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

30 seconds. I will call the meeting to order. The North St. Paul Planning Commission meeting of August 7th, 2025. Can you do roll call, please? Yes, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Alvarez here. Commissioner Rathy here. Commissioner Gadboy here. Commissioner Weiss here. Commissioner Muk here. And Chair Bllee here. Thank you. And Lazison Norby is here as well.

Lean Norby is here. Excellent. All right. We have an agenda before us. Anybody want to make a motion to adopt the agenda as written? I'll make a motion to adopt it. Motion from Commissioner Rothy. A second. Second. Second from Commissioner Muick. All in favor say I. I.

I. We have an agenda. Um, approval of meeting minutes from July 9th, our special meeting. Um, I have one thing that I saw that I think needs correction, but I need to ask Commissioner Alvarez. The vote for the home um home occupation. I think you were in nay, correct? Yeah, that needs to be fixed on the meeting minutes. It's page three of the minutes. Yeah. So, it was a 61 vote. 61 vote, Mr. Art. Nay.

Yeah. And I'll I'll take the blame for that. I think my my vote call was haphazard. So, we'll get it corrected. My apologies. And that's the only thing I saw. Any other comments on? Nope. Motion to adopt uh to accept meeting minutes. Then with that correction, I will move to adopt meeting minutes with the correction uh from Commissioner Wise. A second. I'll make a second. Second from Commissioner Rothy. All in favor say I. I. I.

None. Meeting is open to the public and the public is not here. So that's easy. We can just keep right on rolling. We have no public hearings for tonight. We have commission business. We will rely on Mr. Ken Roberts to do a report and present. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Uh, first item is some zoning ordinance text amendments that staff has prepared for your reading pleasure and discussion this evening. Uh, I will not read all the words because there are many here for you, but I'll give you the highlights. These uh were generated or I worked on them in part based on the work plan that earlier this year to clarify some things especially what type of encroachments or additions should be considered or not considered encroachments into a required setback. And then I'm also proposing some additional code language about the expansion of non-conforming structures and how they relate to non-conforming setbacks. So first with the well the whole thing is a big zoning ordinance text amendment which you have uh some of the highlights clarifying the definition of pergola and then adding some specific requirements about pergolas and where they can go and how they will be treated. And I included in the packet a little handout I found from a source called the spruce defining what is a pergola and what is an arbor and all sorts of fun pictures uh for reference purposes and that was part of the basis

for those proposed changes. The second set of changes which jump it's really section three of the ordinance which is page 15 of the packet adds it and deletes a couple of sections that overlap with one of the new sections new section D1 proposing to eliminate C and D. And what this does is add and clarifies what are not what the city will consider not consider to be encroachments on required setbacks. If you want I can walk through those one by one. Uh there's a lot there. If there's any particular concerns I'm happy to address those if you have them. Uh I don't know that it's necessary to read them all. I'll I'll give you a couple of highlights. Uh number two, which is again on page 15 of the packet, calling out and clarifying that ramps and other devices in compliance with ADA are not considered an they will not be subject to the setback requirements. They're not considered an encroachment

problem, if you will. Uh, and the key with that is I call them uncovered ramps and other devices for access to buildings. And my thought was an an opened ramp, uncovered ramp. It's not a lot different than a sidewalk or front steps that go up into a front door into even a side door. And as people age, they often want to stay in their homes. They need the ramps. the difference or the clarifying one of the clarifying things is I added that it be uncovered because in my opinion if you cover it it's almost acting like a front porch and getting that much closer to the front and I don't think that's the intent of what the city would want. So that's number two. Number three talks about egress window wells and and a lot of these are proposed because they're not clear in the code. And so I'm proposing that they they the eress window wells may encroach up to 3 ft into a required setback subject to review and approval by the building official. And with many of these I added in that they are not permitted to cross property lines and may not be placed in public drains and utility easements. We want to make sure that those especially the easements are kept clear for utility work, grading, drainage, those kind of purposes.

What page is that on? That's pages 15. And then going over to the top of page 16. So D3, I believe it is. So the so egress windows can go three feet into Say that. Say that again, please. Up to three feet into a required setback. Okay. Side and back or just It doesn't matter. Any side. Any front side or rear? Yeah. Any any required setback. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. And then for our residential zoning districts, the R1, R2, R3, starting near the top of page 16, uh again call out several things. Uh patios, how they can which are paved outdoor areas of the ground, usually adjoining a dwelling designed, established, and or installed for to provide a space for outdoor living. and go the the standard I'm proposing is that uncrevered concrete and PA patios that are built flush at the grade shall have at least a three-foot set back from the side or rear property line and that's the same standard for driveways in our residential districts. uh and to ensure that drainage is directed away or to a public way and so it does not adversely affect neighbors. And uncovered concrete and PA patios that are built flush to the grade may encroach up to six feet into any required or actual front yard. And we don't necessarily get a lot of calls on these, but again, we're trying to cover as many of the bases as reasonably possible. with these proposals. Next one is awnings. And what this is for fixed or permanent awnings where if you say have a west facing window or a south facing window, you want to put an awning on your house at permanent. If your house is built right at the setback, then you'd have an awning encroaching into a setback. And I'm proposing that they may encroach at least up to three feet into a required setback. And And then there's additional rules there about they may reco encroach into up to

six feet into a required front or rear setback and three feet on a required sideyard setback when placed over steps, stoops or an exterior landing. So again, some coverage um in those areas with some limits that they not exceed eight feet in length along the wall plane and the front rear setbacks of not less than 20 ft be maintained and 3 feet on the again on the sides. added I'm proposing to add in rules about arbors and trelluses and that that if they're less than 20 square feet in area they may be located in a required setback. Uh if they're more than 20 ft 20 square feet in area, then they have to meet our setback requirements and some language there that they not be constructed of razor wire, chain link, chicken wire, railroad ties, utility poles, plywood or other similar similar materials. Uh if they are larger than the 20 square feet or 9 ft in height then they have to meet all setback requirements that we would have for an accessory building which is again depends on the zoning district. I have a question for you on that uh on those requirements and that is the 50% open uh as it stated in the examples that you gave uh many uh trelluses these days have a uh movable covering. So would that if that covering is in place is that you know that would not have 50% open and what would happen if you built it as a trellis originally and then decided later that you wanted to roof it.

Depends if they call the city and ask. Well that's true too. Yeah. Uh well the intent is that they remain open for vines to climb up or just decorative and that kind of thing if we want to. Yeah. The as it's proposes says it there to be at least 50% open. Uh I can't imagine covering a small trellis is really going to make a It's not the trellis so much that I'm thinking about. It's the pergola. Sure. So, I'm just wondering if maybe there maybe we might want to put a uh

a modifier in there that says something to the effect of uh you know, must be 50% open uh with the exception of, you know, movable or movable roofing or something like that. you know, something that would give people that want to have a uh uh a pergola that has a uh temporary temporary sunroof, you know, and what I'm thinking of is the, you know, the ones that are contained in that are mechanical, you know, you you flip a switch and the the roof extends and comes back. But I think but I think we have a separate reference to pergola, do we not? Yes. Yeah. Which addresses something about covering. Yes.

Okay. So I think for arbers and trelluses you're okay cuz I think you're talking about a different definition then. Okay. I think that's my understanding. I agree. Thank you. All right. Thanks.

Excuse me. In the next um set of things to have some rules about are permanently installed outdoor fireplaces, grills, and barbecues. We don't necessarily want them uh there's no setback rules for them now. So, we're proposing some that they not be in not be in a front yard, only be located in side and rear yards. They may not encroach encroach into the required side setbacks, but may encroach up to 10 feet in a required rear yard setback. Uh, if it's on a corner lot, the sideyard setback on the street site still has to be met. And again, they are not not permitted to cross property lines, which I would like to think we wouldn't have to put in the code, but it's kind of a

Mhm. extra belts and suspenders kind of thing. And they may not be placed in public drainage any utility easements. Are you taking into account the location of some of the houses that are positioned differently where that sideyard faces the front of the house? I'm just asking out of perspective. faces the you can if the house faces um north south and from the street you have two angles one side and one the front they can put it on the side and you can see everything if it's a corner doesn't even need to be a corner look across the street from my house I can see the sideyard just as much as I can see the Oh yeah yeah that's true that's true I don't know that it's a visibility issue so much as um thus is why I was

asking I'm sure that's not the only one in town and Ken, could you explain um Oh, there sorry. Um what is an instance where the side or rear yards public alley a setback of not less than the required front setback? What is a front setback

on the side street? So on a corner lot, there's a required front yard set back of 20 feet in most districts, but the sideyard set back can go down to 15 feet, I believe. And so on on a corner lot, if it's, as Jim was pointing out, if the house is here, and this is your front street, your side street's over here. I don't think the city wants them right out by the sidewalk on the side street or that boulevard. So then it would have to meet that 15t set back from that side property line if it's on a street side or

and the example the example that Jim is referring to is a house that is very long. It's a corner lot but it's very long on its front um on this the facing facing the street and there's a deck on the end which is the end of the long house which is the side lot. And so that's that's the situation that you know yeah that's a extraordinarily larger lot than a lot of them in our town but um it would that be likely to be a very rare lot layout in

depends on the circumstance I suppose I mean you're you're going to find it elsewhere but I don't know that I I guess part of the part of the rationale for The requirements, proposed requirements is aesthetic. And is that is that situation where they could have it on a side lot and it's visible from the street, it's visible to the neighbor. Does that matter? Is it is it a significant item? Are we concerned about it?

Visibility or more the safety of it? I would think safety and just some separation from the neighbors. These are permanently installed. Yeah, these are permanent. Well, and the other scenario, the reason I asked a question that I believe there is a fair amount is the grass alleys that people's backyard bumps up to. I can walk down these grass alleys and these permanently installed fireplaces are 3 to four feet from the grass alley. So, it would make a lot of these non-conforming Mhm. if it goes into effect as worded.

Well, you're going to have non-conforming anyway all over the place. So, whatever rules you put in place, there's always something. And I'll if I can jump in for a second, these are all ideas I've picked up from working elsewhere and looking into the codes. I think they're applicable here, but you all know much better if they really are necessary or not. If they're not, I'm not at all offended if you say it's not worth it. We don't need to worry about it and we'll just scratch that. If you think there's value in it, then by all means, let's keep it in and figure it out for any of these. Have we had any issues surface on any of these pieces that have raised? Not reference.

Not in talking to Chris. Not that I'm aware of. So to answer your question, Jim, I I don't have a good answer other than I if somebody really wanted to do it and they asked, they'd probably have to go through a variance process if this is the language that stays put. Is there be a setback question? I don't I don't have an objection to the way it's written. Personally, I mean, I can't really envision a problem. And I I like the idea that a permanent fixture like that wouldn't be in in a front yard.

They can get pretty big. Mhm. And know part of it goes back to if you were going to put your patio in the front yard and that's where you want to do your cooking and stuff then we've with these proposed um requirements that we kind of ruled that out. Right. And I so not everybody most people have mobile or portable grills. Yeah. Barbecues. Unless you want to build a fancy pizza oven where it's permanent or bread oven, which are cool.

A lot of people though just put down a row of not fire grade um landscape blocks and that's kind of permanent issue. I mean, not really. It's not morted in, but you ain't moving those around too. Sure. If you went over people do that across the border to Patio Town, they could solve your problem really, really well, and you could have a massive cooking equipment. Yeah, that to me seems semi-permanmanent that you're not like mine is a roller one, right? So, I can move it around, but a lot of people are just getting some some, you know, pavers and putting them around. Um, and those wouldn't look great in the front.

How about the guy who does the uh um the deep fried tacos on 120 going south out of his garage? Out of his garage. I mean, I say that that's not a permanent structure, but that's probably as close to a permanent structure as one could think of. Like a big fire hazard. Yeah. Fred tles. I know. The only thing that gives me any concern at all is just the houses like mine where you've got Oh, he's right down from here.

The house is so far back on the setback that you've got like twothirds of the property is front lawn and the back is uh about 40 ft. So, I'm not I don't want to have a patio in the front of my place, but you know, somebody that, you know, wanted to entertain might want a patio in the front. Yeah. For some reason. And and that would be a case that's unique circumstances. Practical difficulties could probably be met. Mhm. Because if they have a 60 or 70 foot front yard and only 30 on the back, well, yeah. If the house was built that way 30 or 40 years ago, it's not their fault. I can I can give you an example of Y

such a thing when we get to the recreational equipment. Any other comments on that section or should we keep moving? All right. Speaking of recreational equipment, that's next. And again, the word there is permanent, which to means it's anchored down and intended to be stationary for more than a week. uh over four feet in height again are not permitted in the front yard. They are permitted in the side and rear yards provided a setback of at least 5T is maintained.

So an example such as Cameron brought up across the street from us very deep lots because they're on the lake

their front yard. So front yard setback is different from the actual set the actual yard size but their yard has to be well over 100 ft their front yard and they had a big play structure there for a while years ago but it was behind trees and I mean you couldn't even tell it was there except for certain times of the year so in a situation like that it was probably beyond on the setback, but it was in fact in the front yard. Mhm.

Wouldn't have been objectionable to anybody the way it was positioned. So that's one of those extraordinary situations where you might come forward and say, "Well, look, this is this is our condition and here's what we're planning on doing." Yeah. If they ask is Yeah. If they ask is this verbiage that's in our code right now? No. Everything is bold and underlined is all proposed new okay language.

So So this one here, so I took my big playground equipment when my daughter got older and our neighbor, the two ladies on the corner that have little little girls. We literally got eight guys, picked it up, walked it to their front yard and put it in. They have about 4 feet. I don't know how it's tiny lot in the back. They have no room. They have their chickens on the side and it's in the front yard and it's about 8 ft from the I mean it's they have they have no yard hardly at all. So my gut is it's where they have and so in general my and this is maybe not appropriate time for this but I'm going to toss it out and if it's not just say it's not. I feel like um I don't know that I I would say we should define everything so specific ahead of time if there's not current issues with it. And that's a little more LZ fair idea on my part maybe of um in general I want to see people be able to enjoy their homes as best as they practically can and if people are complaining we should address that. Um, and so that's that's maybe a a higher level philosophical level of governance of I would rather see less things pinned down so that people cuz it's not black things aren't very there's all kinds of different examples of homes especially for St. Paul. I mean, there's a crazy amount of different things, you know, and so I don't know. Right now, I can show you one that's I could probably reach out from the sidewalk and touch it almost. Um, I moved it there myself for these little girls. And so, I don't know. I don't know that anyone's

complained about it. It's on a very busy street. And so, I I don't know. That's my gut in general is um I I would like to see code be as user friendly as possible and as free as possible that people who are violating clear things that we already know like if they're disturbing someone we already have code and ordinances for most of that right and so I I don't know some yards there's zero room in their backyard for any equipment for their kids. So, the front yard's all that's left. I got a neighbor that put one on his side. He's got another one on the back.

This This is one that I cons I considered in my mind is maybe you just don't need it. I would say this particular recreation equipment even that's permanent tends to come and go as kids come and go and kids come and go. Mhm. The other thing I'd be a little concerned about, I don't know that I've seen it, but I'm sure they exist, would be things like rope swings from trees, you know, that's permanent, but you know, is is that going to come under a regulation like this because it's attached to a tree? I would hope not. Yeah. Yeah. And are we including like above ground swimming pools in this? No, those are Okay. Most pools are considered structures and then they have to

okay meet the pick requirements and most aren't over four foot high either. Some are but usually they're dug down a little bit. Am I sensing a consensus that we just scratched number five of recreation equipment? I think so. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think it's an issue. That's easy enough. Thank you. Always address it later if it becomes an issue. I think a lot of these things, I mean, you know, we're bringing up a lot of good examples where we don't want to give variances out for everything, but what we're bringing up is a good variance, but for this seems heavy-handed to have to get a variance for, you know, swings it.

So, yeah, I would say I agree. This one is could be taken out. And however, I would like to commend you for thinking about these things and bringing them to us. Oh, absolutely. you know, because we might not, you know, you bring forth issues we may never have never considered, right? Yeah. And it for staff, it's kind of a good and bad. We have more rules on the book and then we can tell people here's what you can and can't do. Mhm. But when they don't fit those nice boxes, then we create more variance requests. So that Yeah.

potentially. So it's a balancing act and if if there's not a big concern or big need, we'll strike it. So the next one on the list is about air conditioning equipment. Uh and what's what I'm proposing is they may in again the outside condensers primarily is what uh this is focused on that they can may encroach 5T into a required or actual side or rear yard provided again it doesn't cross the property line may not be placed in drainage easements and if the placement will not negatively affect creating a drainage and in my uh previous work experiences that for a lot of these things that often becomes a problem. It's not so much that something is in a sideyard but suddenly somebody changes the grading and drainage and now the water's going in a different direction that used to now it's flooding my neighbor's back or the neighbor's backyard their driveway and now they're mad and why did the city let them do that and that kind of thing. So in theory trying to prevent that. I also though am proposing that they can encroach up to five feet in a required front yard provided the front set back of not less than 15 feet is maintained and that in the front yard they be screened from view from the public street by landscaping fence or a wall. I don't know that there would be if very many times when somebody would have an air conditioner condenser in a front yard. It's possible again depending on how the house is laid out where the mechanical room is and all that. Uh you'd like to think most people would want them in the side or rear yard, but at least wanted to provide some flexibility there because most people I

think want to have air conditioning if they can. And if that's the only or the best place to put it, do it with some screening. Sometimes they do have to go in the front yard. Yep. Just where they are in the mechanical room. I'm just wondering whether they need to have screening or not. you know, they're not a particularly large unit and putting a screen around them does seem like that would make it more difficult for them to be serviced. Depends on the distance away from the unit that the screen is. That's true. That's true. Yeah. You don't put the fence right next to it. You got to let them breathe. Yeah. [Music]

Most I mean, most contractors are going to try to keep that space around a unit. I mean that that's most that's most cases that is or worst case a fence has to come down and then it gets put back up if if it's a fence if it's landscaping. Yeah. Trim the bushes. Okay.

Uh next one is a one that I've just paid attention to from maybe watching too much television is about generators. Uh, I see the commercials for Enerjack and I think I would be surprised if not more and more people have permanent generators installed at their home for backup power. And so, similar to the air conditioning units, I think it's appropriate to have some rules about where they can and cannot go. So again, these are the standby or permanent generators, not the ones you take camping or wheel around and just use for 12 hours. These are ones that are look like probably the size of this desktop or a little bigger that they get fed with propane or natural gas and then they click on when your power goes out. Uh so proposing several rules there again that they be keep kept at least 5t away from property lines, buildings and designated means of egress systems including stairs, ramps, windows, wells. Uh that they have to meet all the fire prevention code. That's the NFPA. Uh the exhaust would need to be positioned to prevent creating a nuisance. And this gets a little trickier. That means uh and and these standards I took from other codes. I didn't I didn't I I'll take full credit that I plagiarized them. But uh want to have a minimum of 10 foot clearance from any openings that could allow fumes into the building including doors, window vents, and air intakes. Uh the placement shall verify that all potential sources of water intrusion such as sprinklers, roof runoff, downspouts, and some pump discharge are directed away from the generator. You would seem to make sense that you don't want to have water going on your new

electrical unit. That doesn't seem like it'd be a good mix. But one of those things you wouldn't think you'd have to put in the code, but uh I think E is a little trickier is that the it says the placement shall take into consideration the location of doors, windows, and other openings on adjoining properties so as not to create a nuisance from noise and exhaust. And that one certainly would be more subjective. Some ordinances said, "Isn't that covered by C?" This is relationship to adjoining.

Yeah, but wouldn't that still be covered by C? Because it doesn't specify which building the exhaust would be. Well, the C is was intended for the property that it's on with the 10 foot. It doesn't say that. No, it doesn't. I just And it. I think you're right. I think it could be written such that C covers Yeah. this building that's being served as well as other buildings around. Yep. Doesn't specifically say in C. It says a building. Well, I think what you're doing with C also seems like um for for code for fumes and and um Yeah,

that's a different code than noise. That's a that's a E is talking about creating a nuisance from noise and exhaust. Yeah. which was intended for the neighbors. If you want to create your noise for your own property and you can live with it, so be it. But but the 10 foot is for a safety thing for CO for correct. Yeah. And it

and and there were some codes that required depending on where the generator was placed, especially in a sideyard that the uh person installing it put up a 5ft fence around a solid fence or landscaping with arbor vite or something to knock down noise so it wouldn't necessarily disturb the neighbors. I didn't want to go down that rabbit hole if I didn't have to. Well, then we get into the fencing ordinance and right. Do we have any residential units in North St. Paul? Probably like these right now. Probably. I don't think so. I have not seen any residential units. That's why I'm inquiring. I think I might I might have seen some. Yeah, I can't pinpoint it right now, but

and I and I just presenting it. Just asking because proactively because I would be surprised if we don't see them in the future.

I think you you call out NFPA 37 which is good. I think some of the other issues can be cleared up just by calling out um I know the mechanical code references you know exhaust locations and so maybe we could use that as more of a you know we don't have to describe it ourselves just call out like I think what was it NFPA 110 is a standard for emergency and standby power systems so that would have you know Like we shouldn't be the ones making the rules. So does that cover C, Andrew? Um, probably. Yeah. Could Yeah. Yep. Yep.

C is a is a and E, I would think. No. Yeah. E gets into the nuisance question. Yeah. Yeah. Doesn't give specific setback numbers or placement. Yeah, that's true. So is that's good. is Andrew is it so replace C with just a reference to state is a state building code it's the NFPA NFPA 110 110 so could that be could B say reference both NFPA 10 and and B and B just make B refer to both of those I think so yeah that's good then C gets struck is it 10 or 110 110 110

110 110 okay I'll look it up before I put it in but just out of curiosity if we reference a code like that and it gets changed sometime in the future uh you know does that get does that redirect automatically get taken care of or you know let's say that they do away with that regulation and give it a whole new number uh you know does the follow through follow If we add in the key phrases as may be amended. Okay. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Probably a good idea. Yeah, thank you.

But it's a good call. All right. So, I'll change out B to add the NFPA 110 drop C. Mhm. uh the sprinkler and water runoff and the nuisance and and then the last thing again f again wouldn't think we'd have to put in the zoning code to say that the installation requires a building permit, electrical permit and mechanical permit. So help me with the building permit part of it. Mechanical you're saying because it's probably going to be hooked up to propane propane or natural gas or natural gas. Yeah. Uh electrical permit makes sense. Help explain the building permit one. I'll double check that. I It would only have to do with a pad to put it on. Yeah. Do they need a pad?

That's pretty pretty minimal. Um they usually a lot of the like kind you're referencing kind of come with their own built-in foot pad on them. I've installed a very few of them. So you just set it on the ground on a level ground. Yep. And you can put them on a pad, but they the base is kind of its own pad. It's not like I Yeah, it's possible. Yeah. So there may not be I'm not sure building permit would be required in that. It would cover. Yeah, I don't think you really I'll strike it. Electric and mechanical I can see, but I but building I don't I don't see a good point need for that. C Can I ask why you need the mechanical the gas? Yes. You're hyping natural gas to fire it up to run it.

Okay. So So if it's one of the self-contained ones that you fill, you wouldn't need that then, right? Most of the ones you're referring to and they're not quite that big. the for the home ones, they're about three and a half, four feet. Um they're almost all propane or natural gas and they a lot of them are dual. I did one where it was both they wanted both because in case the city gas went down, they wanted propane and that was another whole code set of where you put a giant 500gallon propane tank in Shore View. So, thank you. All kinds of good code. They have solar as well just as an additional backup. No, they didn't. They had fireproof uh coverings for their windows though. Yeah. Wow. It was interesting home.

Hardy board sighting that it was all that metal roof. Metal roof and it was quite quite the deal. Huh. No trees within 100 ft of the house. It was a residential home in Shore View that looked like a regular house and it was not. Somebody had been through something. Yeah, it was interesting.

All right. Thank you for all that. Uh number eight then is about covered but open porches. So again proposing that covered but open porches which means kind of a patio with a roof but not enclosed. So without walls, doors, windows or screens may encroach six feet into a required front setback. Similar to what the patio language says, provided that a front setback of not less than 15 feet is maintained. No, but no covered no covered but open porch may encroach into a required or rear yard setback. Uh and then we get into some materials there. We don't want uh corrugated metal or plastic roofing on them. want asphalt shingles or standing seam metal because they've seen the hillbilly things that enclosures that get put up that look

Can I ask why not um the like the clear ones the clear roofs my experience they don't hold up unless you're really oh you get invite you to come to see mine that my neighbors all compliment me on if it looks very nice actually if there's a specific type of plastic It's very clear glass works fairly expensive and yeah, it holds up really well. Um there's a lot of materials. Um I would say put putting up a structure that holds asphalt shingles is a whole different beast than doing one that just holds up the plastic corrugated one.

You're you're building a whole different structure to hold up a a shingled roof because of the weight or a metal roof. Yeah. Depends on the type of metal roof. Yep. Those are a lot lighter than shingles, but shingles are quite heavy. And again, this is one that I got the idea from reading another code. It Yeah, it may not come up very often. I don't think it does, but I would encourage not drilling down on the materials of the roof. Um, well, so the question for the commission is, is there a need for it? The whole thing, you mean? Yes. Oh, I again can't anticipate whatever

what people may want to propose or not propose. Uh I can see some value in it. That's why I put it in there. But I'm and then a rail and spindles must be used around the I like uh I like the idea of that it's u complimentary with the existing structure that it's attached to, but I think all the other information about materials could be eliminated. Yeah. Because if it's less than 30 inches, it technically doesn't need railings or spindles, right? I I also question the fact that it's referred to as covered but open porches. And then we refer to walls, doors, windows, and screens. Yep. Which makes it not open in my opinion. Well, it says without walls.

Without walls, doors, windows, and screens. Trying to define what a what a covered open. Okay, I understand what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, it's Yeah, I think getting real specific about the materials isn't necessary. So, Patrick, you like the line that said the high quality durable materials are consistent with the front of the principal structure. Yes, that's appropriate. But then strike the next sentence. Yeah. Because in part, we don't even know what's going to be developed in the next 10 years in terms of, you know, Yeah. higher tech materials. Yeah. Then strike strike the next sentence. Okay.

All the way down to and then I we have in there a railing and spindles must be used around the covered but open porch. Need that. Well, I think the theory is if it's more than 30 in above ground, you don't want But that's a building code thing. It's covered in a different code. Yeah, it's covered in a different code. Okay, good point. Then we refer to the and then where you're talking about the base. Yeah, there's I think there's confusion there. We're we're in the weeds there.

Yeah. Then you're talking about frost footings required for a building permit and stuff. It it's like you're you have a whole bunch of information there that will be a building code requirement or I think all of that could get struck because these e these are either built on a patio or they're built on a porch. Mine's on the porch that was already there and that was if you're building a structure that's going to have a cover over it, there will be a footing requirement of some sort. It's probably and it's going to be regulated by the building code. Yep. So, I don't think all that stuff needs to be

Do we need the last sense that says if unfinished wood components are used, they must be stained or sealed? Yeah, I think that's fine. Yeah, that's really pretty generic. Okay. So, I'll strike a whole bunch of the middle and leave that last sentence. Yeah. Yeah. Because if you're building a new detached garage, you're not required to have a frost footing, per se. You can have a monolithic slab as well. So, I don't know why that might not work on a on a porch. I don't know that that's true from a building code standpoint. Well, let's put it this way. I've been dealing with it for three years. And I I understand that people might do it. I No, I'm not saying doing it. I've been talking about dealing with the planning department for three years on this. So,

all right, that's all the encroachment proposals. Next section is uh section four and there's a first of all I included a whole bunch of the existing code about nonconformities 1549. And if we turn over to the next page, which is page 19, is where the additional language is. And what I'm proposing here, this is a new thing, is that if you have a house or a structure with a non-conforming setback, that you can add on to that house or structure using that same setback and not have to get a variance. So let's say it's at a 4 foot setback and you're supposed to have six foot. If you put an addition on and maintain the 4 foot setback, you can do that because the non-conformity has already been established. Maintain that same setback or less. You don't need a variance and go forth and build. And and the code because the code doesn't say that. And it it's it's one of those v vague areas in the code where if it doesn't say it, then you can't do it because we don't want to it seems silly if a house has a three or 4 foot setback and now they want to do an addition and the setback is six foot to have the house jog over two or three feet to with the addition jog over to meet the current setback rules. So that's the intent of that uh in a nutshell. I think that sounds fair.

Is that that whole section of all four of those bullet points? Yeah, it's pretty good.

All the all the new all the new words are in black there is calling that out. And and so it says the building addition does not encroach further into the required setback than the existing structure and at least a three-foot setback from the property line is maintained. Uh the building additions footprint must not exceed 50% of the footprint of the principal structure to be approved administratively. The city may approve an addition with a footprint that exceeds 50% of the footprint of the principal structure by conditional use permit and that the building addition meets all other applicable city code and building code requirements.

Good. That's pretty straightforward to take care of those properties that were on was it Seventh Street I think you mentioned a couple of months ago that they couldn't develop. Yeah. The the only I think it's awesome. The only thing I would ask, and I need to defer to you guys, are there ever non-conforming front setbacks? And because right now we spell out it can only be non-conforming side or back, but are is non-conforming front and would we allow them to if it's non-conforming add on to the side

and and maintain the front? Yeah, I I would think that would be a reasonable thing to do, too. Y like if it's a really wide lot, right, but their setback on the front is short of what the current code would require and the house was built allow them to add before the front set back was. Yeah. The only time I could see that possibility is if the front face of the house is not a straight parallel plane to the front property line. Maybe part of it juts out and then part of it. Oh, so if it Yeah. If it's on an angle to the if

Yeah. Like let's say your house is your front wall is positioned not parallel with the street or on a curved street or something and you want to add on and now you're actually encroaching even more. So you would Yeah. Or variation. Let's say the the front wall is the living space is at the setback but the garage is front. M we allow an addition on the living space to go closer in the front because now the garage wall is established that. The other thing I could think of and I don't know whether it would fall under this or not would be somebody that decides to add a second story onto the original building.

Yeah. You know, if they because that would be enlarging the enlarging the building. So, you know, if they, let's say they've got a story and a half bungalow and they decide, well, we're going to jack this up another six feet. So, we can put a second story on here with that. But unless you can lever it, it wouldn't be going forward anymore. But if you're But you're matching the existing. You're matching the existing. But you're up. Whereas you're you're Jason, you're talking about just make the house a little wider. Well, it specifically calls out that this only talks about side. Side and back. if if your house existing right now isn't set back far enough on the front and you wanted to make it a little wider,

that's not covered by this. So, I didn't know if we wanted to make that have to go to city council and be a variance that they approve or should this just cover all sides. You could do it with a variance and it would probably make sense to do it, but do we want to handle it that way? Okay, I that sounds reasonable to me. I mean, what if you did an addition? It was the entire side of the house and it was the back and the the front, what would the difference be? Right. Well, we can certainly add in front yard if

Yeah, I don't see a problem with it. I mean I can imagine that somewhere you would see a situation where oh it really doesn't make sense here but right where I mean I it would have to be something extraordinary I think that's what variances are for appreciate that front yard it is that is all I have on that if there are other comments or questions

well actually I'm I am going to go back to the pergola thing again because I was just in the wrong section uh because the uh the section that uh was on mine is showing as page one. Uh so uh and that was your general definition of a pergola. Again my question was at least 50% open to the sky. It's like, you know, what do you know, for those people that have movable roofs and that type of thing on their pergola, uh, you know, can we can we massage that definition slightly? say something like, you know, cannot have, you know, cannot have permanent roofing on them or something to that effect because, like I said, right right now, the way it reads, if you have a uh, you know, if you have a a movable roof on there, it could possibly be a non-conforming thing, especially if your roof is on there all the time, even though it could be retracted. So, that that's the only thing I'm wondering about.

It may not be enough. So would adding the word permanent before open solve that? I think so. Does anybody else have any? Or am I just nit am I just picking at nits, folks? I would never say that. I have seen more roofs on pergolas than I ever would have imagined in my in the past. I see a lot more of them than I see others. That's a covered pergola. Yeah, it's it's not a whole lot different from porch then or Yeah. Yeah. kind of a gazebo kind of thing. Yeah.

Maybe that's maybe that covers it. Maybe the difference is, you know, between a pergola and a a gazebo cuz based on the based on the information that you included in the packet, there was def definitions of pergola was it was pretty loose from the standpoint of is it covered, is it not covered, is it attached, is it not attached, right? It could be a lot of things. So you can buy kits at Costco and put them on your deck and kind of I kind of think leaving it fairly loose is a good thing. Yes. Mhm. I agree. I agree.

So I'm so I'm clear. Do we want or need the word permanent in there or not for the roof? No. No. I'll I'll go with whatever the rest of the group goes with. Like I said, it was just something that I was concerning. Something that was Never mind. I can't talk tonight. Got your attention. Yeah, it caught my attention.

I have a question. In general, um there were as we were going through all of the various paragraphs, there was specific mention of permits in one or two of those paragraphs. So, if I want to build my patio and I want to follow the rules of building my patio, do I need a permit or if I want to add my awning or if I want to build my arbor or my pergola? Well, anything attached to the house permanently would need a building would need a permit. Yeah. Yeah. And the patio wouldn't necessarily. So, the rules about where the patio can be. There's really no enforcement

unless they call and ask. Unless they call and ask or the neighbors say, "Hey, wait a minute. They're putting this over my property line." Correct. Or they're putting it too close to the property line or in the front yard and they shouldn't do that. Yeah. So, you could in theory you can just go do your patio. Yes. Because it's not a permitted thing. But yeah, the attached to the house. I actually did a deck that was not attached to the house. It's about that far from the house. But I specifically talked to the building official and said, "Do I need a permit for this?" and he said if it's attached to the house you do. So that was a very specific situation. Um a lot of freestanding ducks for that reason. Yeah. It's a floating platform.

Okay. I'm just thinking about Well, it it goes back in the same category. It goes back to that that concept of if you're going to put something in the ordinance y then you want to enforce it. Otherwise, why is it in there? And so, how are we enforcing it? I guess is kind of where I was getting to. Yeah, agree. And I think the the attached to the house part is really what matters. You attach it to the structure, then you treat it differently. Many municipalities, that's their that's their If I was doing a a 20 foot diameter gazebo in my backyard, would that require a permit? bigger than

freestanding. It's bigger than 200 square feet. So now it's an accessory structure. Yep. So it's the it then comes down to the size. Yep. Keep it 199 ft and you're under the Yeah. Keep it Keep it under that. No taller than 9 ft tall. My co shed was 189 ft. It's I mean it it's one of those things where you kind of it's it's like building codes. You got to draw the line somewhere. Sometimes it's really arbitrary.

Okay. So, thank you for all that. I think we have some good direction and consensus and and I will uh make changes and then we'll schedule this for a public hearing at the next plan commission meeting for formal review and adoption hopefully. All right. Next, shall we talk subdivision ordinance? This is really fun, too. Actually, this one uh we did have a preview of this on July 9th and

I uh since I've gotten a few more comments from our city attorney, I have not gotten the comments yet from our city engineer. Well, I I just got them this week after the packet went out. I rephrase that about some of the engineering sections. So what has changed from last month is there it's reformatted a little different. The order is a little different. Most of the words are all the same except one section which is 1537 which is on pages 17 through 20 of the code which are what pages? I will find that for you.

That the highlighted ones. Yeah. No, that I'll talk about those. No, I'm seeing it's on page 39 of the packet. It's administrative subdivisions. And so this is a section that is in a nutshell grants staff the authority to staff to approve some what I would call minor subdivisions whether 39 39 in the packet.

Yep. Page 17 or 39 depending how you look at 15307. So, this would give staff the authority to approve a subdivision where dividing an existing property into two or three lots, combining multiple lots into one parcel or adjusting a common property line affecting existing parcels.

So, the first one dividing existing property into two or three lots. That's and there are rule more details in this for that. If let's say there's a property is 200 feet wide

maybe has one house on it maybe has no houses the streets in the utilities in now they want to subdivide that they don't they don't have to go through the full platting process with a preliminary plat final plat if they don't want to they can submit paperwork and surveys staff can approve that administratively rather than going to the plane commission and city council no new street no new utilities these lots meet all the setbacks and the zoning requirements uh that as proposed the staff could approve that combining multiple lots into one parcel. That's again if you have three 50 foot lots and now you want to make one 150 foot wide lot you want to combine them all staff can approve that. Last one is the adjusting a common lot line affecting existing parcels. So, one neighbor wants to buy 5 ft from the other neighbor. Again, they get a survey done. They both agree on it. Staff can approve that. It doesn't have to go to the plane commission.

Does the approval does is there a condition anywhere about recording it with the county? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Because that for all does that have to happen before the staff officially approves or build on it or something? Okay. The process would be staff would have to approve it then goes to the county. That's what I thought. Yeah, that's sequence. So, it could be struck down by the county or in my case, MDOT if we determine that uh uh that was going to create a traffic hazard. Sure. Okay. That was the only thing I was concerned about. combining lots and adjusting the lot line makes worlds of sense to me,

but splitting lots uh you know there and I can't think of anything in this in within the town that's a possibility that this would do this but you know if you split a lot and you had more driveway accesses coming onto a min a Minnesota highway you know that could create problems with uh traffic situations. Mhm. So, but like I say, I can't think I can't think of any Margaret and South that there's a house for sale right now. It's two parcels. It might already be two parcels, but it's definitely buildable. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a couple over on It's one. They're advertised and saying they can split it. They talked to somebody. So, it's one of these examples.

Yeah. And it has it has driveways from both streets. There's a few properties like that that are big that could first right behind me it's two parcels and I'm not saying that that's a reason not to do it. I just want to make sure that there is uh an out. Yeah. So that if we were to come back to talking as mindot we were to come back to somebody that said I want to build a 60 unit apartment building on two different lots here and we say our road can't handle that. we've got that option of saying you know so

so that that in a very quick summary is the biggest change from the last set of words that you all had. Now, the the sections that are highlighted in yellow were the areas I wanted input from the city engineer and I just kept them yellow more for my make sure I didn't forget. And as I said, I just got his comments and there'll be some tweaks to those. Okay. Um I don't remember what pages they're on. Oh, page 37 is the first one,

right? So, for example, in some cities, the city engineer designs all the public improvements. Other cities, the applicants consulting engineer designs them and then they get reviewed by the city engineer. There's no right or wrong way to do it. Each city can do it however they wish. Um, and then yeah, over on page 38 and is the next yellows. Uh I was wondering if they really need a surveyor to do construction staking. He he has since told me no, they don't. Uh but so I I'll get some clarity on H1 on H and H1 on page 38 before putting the final version together. And and this did take into I should clarify too there were a few changes in the some of the words uh based on comments from this the uh city attorney. So he has reviewed the this draft the previous draft and I made some changes. I didn't think there was anything real substantial that I needed to call out to the commission. It was a lot of legal and making sure that we crossed our tees and dotted our eyes. And so that's hopefully all taken care of in this version. I'm waiting to get his feedback on on the one section about park dedication which is oh where the heck is it?

Oh 153091 towards the back. yellow. What page are you referring to? I'm looking at 43. 43 of the ordinance, which is page 65. City engine area. Page 43 and 44. Building permits into a street parking land dedication requirements.

Yep. That that had some I made some changes there based on city attorney uh input. And then since the packet went out, we also got some comments from one of the residents that had some suggestions that to make sure that that's really conforming with it meets the standards that were set by the Supreme Court in 2022 in the Burnsville case. And so I've asked city attorney to look at that again to make sure we've covered everything there we need to cover. So that might change a little bit in the final.

Okay. So my intent is to make those final changes based on the engineer, the attorney, any comments you all might have and again schedule that for this ordinance for a public hearing at the next meeting as well. Ken, um, question for you. I and I apologize. I should know this. Can you define what mixed use is? Pardon me. What is mixed use? That's primarily our downtown district where you have residential and commercial either in the same building or right next to Oh, so so it's not multifamily. No. Okay. Thank you. The apartments above Newman's correct.

Any other questions on that? I'm comfortable with the administrative Yeah. lot trying to simplify people's lives a little bit. Yeah. Especially if the city engineer has sent you that information. Yeah. You know, if they're comfortable with it, I'm comfortable with it. Great. Right. That's all I had on that. Okay. Wow. We're up to item eight on our agenda then. Report. Thank you. Very good. Very good report on your part. I can give you a couple updates under reports if you wish. Yes.

So, as I indicated, the two items on tonight will schedule for public hearings for the meeting on the 4th and advertise them and all that. And then we did receive the application for the cow and school edition remodel redo project that just came in Monday or Tuesday. So that will also be on the meeting of the fourth. That will also be a public hearing. So the neighbors will be invited and have a chance to come out and talk about that. It looks like it meets all the code, everything that we need. It's a high very high level. It's an addition going off to the southwest side of the building. redoing some of the playgrounds, expanding the parking lot so there's more on-site parking and more queuing within the parking lot to get some of the cars off of South hopefully. And then adding a bus pull in lane right off of Margaret right in the front of the school.

That makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. That'll alleviate some traffic. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They they've got a plan. They're squeezing it in. So, three public hearings next month. Yeah. All of the two ordinances. I wouldn't expect a big turnout, but Right. Can I ask a question? Absolutely. Last month's meeting, Tim Taylor came in and talked. Is there any follow-up actions? That's all in the hands of our code enforcement folks. Okay, perfect. That was what I was looking to inquire. Yeah.

Uh the city council did approve the comprehensive plan amendment, zoning ordinance map amendments that we made or proposed for down by 7th and McNight. So, those are now in effect. Um, we got a student built house trying we're going to try to get it in on the corner of seventh and second or third. It's been surveyed. Yes, that corner lot and that was part of the reason for making the zoning map change because yeah, the house wouldn't have been legal there. And actually, it looks like a twin home will fit there.

That's what's in the works. We'll hopefully get that permit. construction started to end early and midepptember. Uh, this one's now going to be done by St. Paul College. Oh, wow. The other program is lost their leader. Oh, that's too bad. But St. Paul College does more of it, I think, than the previous program. More students, more hands-on. Okay. Uh, so yeah, new new opportunity there. What is the difference between a twin home and a duplex? Oh, no. I don't know that they're you have another half hour. I think it depends on who owns the property and is that basically what it comes down to is it

that's a lot two two different property owners as opposed to one that's renting. Yeah. So is it a bubbler or is it a fountain? Is it soda or pop? It is pop. That's exactly when I hear those together of I know. Yeah. I think those are much alike. Yeah, they're much alike. It's muchness of a muchness there. There. Yeah, there is. It has to do with ownership, I think, more than anything else. Is there anything else you want to add, Jason? I don't know if Council Member Norp has any No. And again, just want to say I appreciate all of you. You You are doing outstanding work and can't thank you enough. Thank you. I have nothing else. And

we have reports from um Commission Mu. I'm reportless. Sure. We wise, I just wanted to ask about the um you had showed us a plan on South and Seventh Street or right near there, a little strip right next to the Gateway Trail. Is there any movement on that at all? No. Okay.

Actually, I do have a question. Well, and this is I don't know. It's not exactly a planning commission question, but it could be. Uh I just remembered see something online very recently about uh confrontation in front of the post office about uh uh handicap parking during the car show and I was just wondering whether that was something that had come to the city's attention and it has the city manager is aware of it and he has been given all the data that's available. Okay. Um and that's current as of Tuesday. I have not had an update since Tuesday. I was just wondering because of, you know, possibility of signage and that type of thing was what I was thinking about.

Um I I do have one question though about Andrew's question. Um they were that was the gentleman that was at the meeting on the city council meeting um earlier this month and we approved him to go after the grant he's after. Oh. So, so there there is a slight update of okay that was um yes he is applying for a grant and we as a city approved him to allow him to go after that grant. Okay. Okay. That has been submitted. It's in the works. What was the grant covering? More or less. Yeah.

No. What what was it about? Well, it's it's for to help the developer finalize development plans, do soil testing, uh advanced landscaping and storm water management plans to be more natural friendly and eco-friendly and all that. And in turn, he will pledge to have loaded moderate income units for sale. M and a grant the grant submitt was for 225,000 to go towards those costs which then he can lower the cost of the project in theory make it work to have moderate income housing.

Thanks Jason creative financing that's good commissioner Alvarez you have anything to report do not. Commissioner Ry I do not. Commissioner Gway I do not. Did anybody attend? I know some people did. Tuesday's night out. It was pretty awesome. Nice work, Mr. Bliss. Yeah, I give my give my lovely bride credit for that. She and Jinda did a really good job. Did nice work. It's good time. Yeah, we we um we do one every year and we had about 60 people. Wow. It was good. Big.

Yeah, the fire trucks always stop. A lot of police stop and it was good. It was a good time. It's it's um where we're at now in between our we use our neighbors driveway cuz theirs is nicer than ours. It's been I think third year and then we did two in our gravel driveway and then we were at housy for two years and it just never had as much traction. It's a good turnout though. Yeah, it's it's it's good. We do a pile of BRZ and it was a lot of fun and the kids come and the neighbors show up right away this this year and it was a good time. I think it's a great thing and we should we should really publicize and yeah try and the city responds really well like the fire trucks are there a long time and they come out and they bring stickers for the kids and the cops bring stickers for the kids.

The ghost police car that's white I never saw that one before. The white one with white printing. Yeah. And the license plate that that looks like a I don't know what it looks like. You can sort of make out the word police on it but sneaky white. You're not supposed to see it. Yeah. It looks like a ghost car. The fire department here went through 250 hot dogs in about an hour. Wow. It's a lot of hot dogs. Unfortunately, my street doesn't seem to participate. So, well, I encourage you watch for it next year. It's the second Tuesday. Oh, right. Yes. Second Tuesday. August. Always second. Always a second Tuesday, but Oh, no. First Tuesday. First, sorry. First Tuesday. First Tuesday. First Tuesday. Always a first Tuesday.

Of course, it's a first Tuesday. Every August. Um, I did notice that, um, I think it was Maplewood and White Bear. I saw that there were the news reporting actually had showed that they had maps of where there were gatherings and I thought that might be a really cool thing if we have somebody on staff who could pull that together. Well, to actually put it on their website. Yeah. The people that pre-register so the police and fire know where to go. I assume it wouldn't be very difficult to make a map of Yeah. Yeah. We register every year. Something to think about for next year. I guess the theory is the neighbors know where their neighbors are and Yeah. But it's

Are they going to go six blocks over to another neighborhood? Maybe. We We hand I handed out 75. I mean, I go the neighborhood and walk the entire neighborhood and knock everyone's door. Yeah. Little half sheet flyers. Yeah. I guess the next question is, are we going to be the skeleton city for Halloween? Ooh. Well, oh, I don't know how you make the snowman look like a skeleton. Good luck on that. She came She can't She comes to our neighborhood night out. She's in the block behind us. She comes to ours. I've noticed them popping up in more places around town. There's a lot of them showing up. I can put mine out. Yeah. Okay. You can get Halloween candy a cup already. Anybody want to make a motion to adjurnn?

I'll make a motion. Motion from Commissioner Rothy. Is there a second? I will second. Second from Commissioner Alvarez. All in favor say I. I. I. We have unanim unanimousness. It's uh 7:47. It's funny how nobody ever seems to be opposed to Nobody is opposed two.