Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

reference. Okay. So, we're going to call the meeting to order. the planning commission meeting of North St. Paul on May 1st 2025. So first item is roll call. You get to do that which allows you to practice names which I think is a good thing. So if you I am here Mimick red. I supposeally. Excellent. Thank you. Um the agenda is pretty basic today. I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as written or since there's not a quorum do we even bother okay we will hold off if our quorum fills um we will probably approve meeting minutes otherwise we will hold that being the case

Mr. Roberts We don't we don't have any um meeting open to the public. That is to say there's no one present. So meeting and so so commission business. Let's proceed. Yes, let's do that. Ah, there we go. Thank you, Lisa. Now we got It's the special green light. Yeah, I thought she controlled that. No, she's good. Hopefully, she'll get the reverb. Uh, as far as my biography, I grew up in Rochester, went to the University of Minnesota, received a degree in urban studies and geography. Planning career started out city years, community development for years, was a planner up in North Branch County. for about five and a half years. time off. I had a short stint with the DNR working on the groundwater project and then about two and a half

years ago I was hired as city planner ended up there last Friday public service And meanwhile also was at the UN or at Maplewood back to school and earned my master's degree from public. I gave you mine earlier. So then on the agenda then there's an item called goal setting and I was looking back through some recent meetings in the last year or two. I didn't find any research I did there was any one special or one session commission put a work certainly never tonight is maybe you three have ideas what are things that you would like staff to put into a work. Are there particular needs missing in the zoning code or subdivision code? Anything that you see on a regular basis you think isn't clear could be done better. I did see the fence code

got a major work over last year and rewrite and hopefully it's better now. Chris says it is. We did a rewrite of that. We did a rewrite of signage. Um, the intent at one point in time was [Music] to kind of look at the whole zoning ordinance and upgrade it, if you will. Um, hopefully in small bites. Yeah, in small bites. Obviously, you don't tackle the whole thing all at once, but there's that always that overlapping information that has to blend and not conflict, which makes it a bit of a challenge just even if you do a small bit. Um, I don't know that there was that I can recall what was sort of next on that list. I know um we had talked about subdivision and lot combination. Um one of the interesting things about North St. Paul is subdivisions. We aren't going to see big subdivisions. Oh, we may see lots combined. um we may see, you know, individual residents that decides to split their lot because they have a big lot, that kind of a thing, but there isn't going to be any big redevelopment very likely because you'd have to tear something down in order to do it. So, there were aspects of that that we were kind of looking at and trying to figure out, okay, what does that mean relative to the ordinance? The other thing that I think and I I don't know if the two of you will will agree with this but I think you will. one of

the sort of uh overarching my one of my perceptions um is as we look at the ordinance and we look at changing language um and this is certainly my feeling maybe I'm not speaking for others but I I don't there there are circumstances where we're looking at the ordinance and there's stuff in there that are requirements ments that aren't enforced or requirements that we look at and they they really seem like they don't need to be enforced. Like part of it is sort of why is it in there? Why do we have that requirement? Do we really need that? Do we really want that? What are we achieving by having it included? If it's included, then it should be enforceable and it should be something that we seek to enforce. If we aren't going to enforce it, take it out. So part of it is subtract the stuff that really doesn't apply and we really don't care about. Why put more regulations in front of people if you aren't going to do anything about it? So um there and it and it's it takes me back to when we were looking at parking. We're looking at residential parking and there's requirements in the ordinance written for um RV parking on a on a residential lot and where where it could be you can't park your RV in the front yard. You have to park it on the sideyard or backyard and it has to be on a paving and those sorts of things. And there's parts of me that says why why do we have that requirement for particular aspects of that? I can see why you don't want it in the front yard, but why do we care if we put it on

paving? Well, maybe it matters. Maybe it has to do with keeping the site looking good and not wrecking your yard. the same kinds of discussions we had with regard to fencing and why why are we choosing a fence of a certain height in a certain area on a site and um we have those discussions and then kind of go around and about and eventually some of it comes down to we just don't really care about that. It really doesn't matter. Don't put a regulation in there if you really don't care as a as a community. So, I think it's the less is more sort of philosophy toward revising the ordinance and then and then just making sure that it's current one section is compatible with another, that sort of thing. Um, and I'm not sure that we had any more of a plan than that because we had a a staff member that was working on that a piece at a time. Um, other than that, I don't know if there are other goals that you would see as I would add one. Um, I I would add one goal and we had talked about this and I believe you all agreed to it. Um, last year it was a requirement of this planning commission to review the CIP and it happened in the end of December. At that point in time, the budget was already decided, the levy was already decided. Um, so it was [Music] so if they wanted to make a change, they really couldn't have. So we had talked about moving that to June or July. Um, we have a great group of people in this commission. So I if if the requirement is going to be that the

planning commission reviews the CIP and what is worthwhile including and what is maybe do we push off let's review it at a time where changes could be enacted not so far when the budget's already finalized set in stone that I if an intelligent choice you know or a smart choice was made no action could be done and and that shar would not be an ordinance thing. It's just more of practice. You make sure that when the finance department and the city manager and the other departments put the CIP together in that timeline, they leave us time for playing commission review and recommendation. our our primary role there would just be to flag anything that looks like it's contrary to the ordinance or something like that which I I would not expect to find but you never know right is also to be consistent with the comprehensive plan right the comprehensive plan is another thing what's the I I don't even recall what is the current status of that when I was looking at the design manual there's reference to the comp plan of 2020 I can answer. Yeah. So, the city currently has the 2040 plan which was adopted six or eight years ago. The Met Council is just starting to kick off the process for all the cities and the counties in the area to update the plans for what they will call the 2050 plan. They are requiring all agencies, cities, counties that do a comp plan to have it the update done by the end of 2028. So there's a little time, but to do it correctly, I would want the city to have probably at least

two years. So that means starting it a year from now, starting the update process. But it'll it'll come up pretty fast. So, the good news is I'll just get up to speed and start learning about the city and then we'll be able to jump into that. Well, that'll be fine. Also, it's that you have a 2040 plan. Yes. That you can look at. Absolutely. And just just like when I was looking at the design manual, looking at it in that respect, too. It's a document that was a good document for its purpose. What did you do to it? 20 years ago. Yeah. Yeah. 20 years ago. Well, so something I wanted to bring up with the comp plan is are there parts of the comp plan that are really no longer relevant? Clearly the with the downtown redevelopment all that will have to be incorporated and integrated and there'll be new statistics about housing and housing units. But say the number of redevelopment sites has probably gone way down that are available that we know of. But it'll be more just goals and policies and that there will be lots of discussion about that going forward. I don't know enough yet to know if we'll need consultant help to work on that. It'll probably depend a lot on how much other workload there is in the city. Yeah, I I would make the assumption that consultant help would be in order, but I mean just just based on what I expect your workload is. Um you're going to need support some sort or another. Um that that would be my expectation. So that'll be something for the budget coming up. Yeah. And there's nothing there's nothing that I would flag and say, "Oh, we really got to work on this." Nothing. But I also don't have my the 2040 plan set to memory

obviously. So um that will be something that we'll have for reading material. Probably a chapter at a time. Yeah, that's th those are so right. And and so really maybe we'll have tackled some of that this year yet, but if one thing Brian told me that is that the city attorney looked at the current subdivision ordinance and and when I looked at it, I think it was last updated in 1989. Now, there hasn't been that many subdivisions, I understand, but the and I haven't spoken to the attorney, but the attorney was concerned that there was some outdated or inconsistent sections in the subdivision ordinance. So, I'm going to guess that will come up pretty high. The next one, that's where I was going. Pretty high on the worklist of things to tackle. One other thing that was noted to me in one of the conversations was was there interest in explor exploring uh language in the zoning code about accessory dwelling units. There was talk of it several different ways. I think um yeah I I think that probably needs some more serious attention. Yeah. And I think that's that's an opportunity in our community because there are people with um there it's interesting because there are people with the little tiny lots that are 40t wide or less 25 ft wide kind of lots, little narrow homes, that kind of thing. And then there are people that have three of those or four of those. And so they have a big lot and and those big

lots could get divided and you start looking at accessory dwelling, right? And other and there there are two ways that those can be incorporated into the zoning code. They can be a whole separate freestanding unit 6 or 800 square feet or something or attached like almost a separate apartment attached onto the primary structure. that has maybe its own separate entrance where I've seen it in the code that if it's attached, it has to at least have an entrance or a hallway connecting into the main house. Maybe they share the kitchen, maybe they don't, but it's what used to be called the mother-in-law suite. Maybe it's their own bedroom, maybe it's got a uh small kitchen, maybe their own washer and dryer, maybe not. Or certainly their own bathroom. So, there's two different ways or both. You can accommodate allowing that separate unit be attached or if there is enough room allowing a detached unit on the same parcel or even if somebody really wants to get creative turn a garage into a carriage house kind of thing. And we um have one of those that was built across the street from our house. So there's there's carriage house scenario. Yeah, there's a variety of ways to do that. unit still a lot of work. Yeah. So is that whole topic of interest? Yeah, I think it is. Okay. And then you know there had been talk of oh tiny homes and um what was the other Yeah. There there's whole different scenarios about community living scenarios. Is that with the sanctuary thing at churches where they were bringing in

tiny homes and setting them up on church property? We haven't done we haven't we haven't done that in North St. Paul anywhere. I I know that I think there's one in Roseville that did it. But that again is there's a whole bunch of state law on that too that supersedes some of the city But that's probably that transient housing, rental housing is probably something that should be addressed in some form or another. It probably isn't right now. I can't imagine. Yeah. Okay. Well, that could potentially tie into whatever rental housing licensing and inspections are done by the fire department. Yeah. But but it takes staff time. If you're going to require registration and inspection and all the documentation and then what do you do if people don't get registered? How do we even know about them? I have friends that just Airbnb their homes. Who wants to Airbnb? And people do. It's kind of So it's here. It is. I'm sure it is. Yeah. No question. How much does that mean? I don't know. I don't know either. I think the problem only becomes an issue if people are having a lot of parties, right? Or let's say it's a bachelor party or bachelor. Well, at least the the the at least the Airbnb

um entity attempts to control that. The individual owners can can really manage that very rigorously if they want to. U every time we've stayed in Airbnbs, there's rules about you can't have more than six people in the house and you can't, you know, this sort of thing. be reviewed and in fact in fact we did one we went because because I have four adult sons and their spouses and such and so if we go to an Airbnb and we want to get everybody together it's a pretty big group so we have to get specific approval when we do that you know before we can have them over. So it's I think that uh that industry manages itself somewhat but like you say if it causes if there's problems then we'll have to act on it. Yeah. This the city gets the calls not necessarily they're parking and blocking the mailbox or Yeah. or or if it's in the winter and they don't get cars off the street and the snow plows got to get through. Yeah, you can start going down a rabbit hole of thinking all the bad things. Yeah. We do have rules about that. So, it's knowing what the rules are, right? All right. That gives me a few ideas for things. That's some pretty good goals. Now, it's just a matter of prioritizing. Yep. any other thoughts on goals and go code updates or I would ask because my memory isn't the greatest. Um, when Brandy was here, we were having a discussion about the differences and the technicalities between and I'm going to need help like town home duplexes or ad a joined homes. Mhm. Did we feel

that we got that squared away in an acceptable manner or did did that did we say we were going to revisit that? I think I think the only thing that I thought was a little quirky was there was a there was a description of town homes and there was a description of duplex and a description of I I can't remember what the definitions are. There were three different definitions that were all very similar. Twin home. It was probably twin home. There was different definitions and it seemed like there were more definitions than there had to be. That was the only thing that I remember from that discussion is that it's like why why do we call them out so differently? Now a town home can be more than two usually up to eight units. Yeah. Uh twin home why is a twin home different from a duplex? And I think what we were getting into was the fact that a duplex is one property. owner and a twin home is two properties with a property line property line in the middle. But then that's why isn't that just a townhouse? It's a townhouse that's two units. Well, yeah, that's right. So, so the these are some of the discussions we had in there. Yeah, I think I think there were reasons that all of those definitions were there and but there were some really fine lines about what's different. If I was recall correctly, did that come up with the little subdivision that's up on over on Delaware? Yes. In 17th. Yeah. I think that was part of the discussion. What? Four units on 17th and then two up the Yeah. Yeah. I think there's 10 total. could be. And there I I but I I think they're twin homes. I can't I don't remember the definition. They might be

town homes. Town homes because it's H. There's an HOA. Yeah. I don't remember what was decided. I I I know there was a lot of ironing trying to be done and I don't how smooth we got it. Yeah, I think it got done right in the end, but see if that needs clarification. I'm a member of SPAR and so there is a reason why each of those things have a different name and I often get confused on them and so I'll go down um and I'll figure I'll I'll look at that and see if we can look at what the what NAR what National Association Realtors that because there's a reason why they're each named a different thing and there's you know whether they have a HOA if they're attached not attach that because you have a town home that's freestanding to me it looks like a regular home but it's not you know and So, I'll I'll look that up until my next meeting. I'll have some I'll get some info on that. Okay. All right. Any other comments on any of that goodness? Think that's it. Should we go to item B, please? Item B is the downtown design manual. So, I'd given everyone homework to do some review and see what we can come up with as far as what we think needs to be done with it. Um, I had trouble getting my homework done personally. That's probably why there are people that aren't here and do their homework and they don't want to get punished. They didn't want to get called out. I I did look at it and um May I interject for a second? Yeah. for my benefit. I know it's been on the books for about 20 years. Yeah. What has even brought up this discussion? Is the question is it still relevant? Are there sections that need

to be changed or not? Or what? Yes. And yes. Okay. I think both of those things are primarily why it was brought up. Okay. Is it relevant? and if it is relevant, what's relevant and what should be changed or modified or kept. And and I think I I got the feeling at our last meeting that it's relevant from the standpoint of it um illustrates elements of the ordinance for this region of the of the community. It illustrates it and helps to clarify, hey, here's when the ordinance has these words, here's kind of what we think it means visually, you know, represent there are visuals in there and there's images of examples and that sort of thing. So, it's a it's an illustrative view of the ordinance is what it was intended to be. Um, and I think it does that reasonably well. I think it's maybe more substantial than it needs to be, but I think there's good stuff in there, too. Well, again, for my benefit, has it been mostly or carefully adhere adhered to while projects have come in? Um, I would say most recently, probably not adhered to as much as kind of used as a little bit of a reference. It's it's there. It's in the background, but it's not the primary tool that people are going to to look for things. I'm hearing it's more of a guide than an absolute. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's that's the way I see it, too. And it's

for it's for both new developments, changes in in property and and existing properties. If people are going to do something on on an existing property, they want to add a patio outside or something like that, public seating or change the windows. There's some guide to that um advice to say here's kind of the direction we'd like to see you go. Now, the the thing that I thought was notable most notable about it was it was built around the design historic review commission. That's that's who had the responsibility to create it and and that's who had the resp that's what it's it's when I say it's built around it. Um the whole concept was properties in this area were to go to the design historic review commission for review as part of the review process of if you're doing something on your site. That commission no longer exists in North St. Paul. It was disbanded about well about the time I started here at the planning commission. I think maybe six years ago. Does that feel about right? I I would say closer to more than that. Maybe closer to eight. I can't remember. I should have I should have my own dates in my own brain, but um I was a member of the design historic review commission from '08 until it was disbanded and that was done by Mayor Furlong if I remember right. At any rate, so the point the point I'm making is it was kind of built around that commission. Since that commission is no longer in in existence in North St. Paul, what does that mean? How does it change what this says and

what this the purpose of this document is? And does it just does that mean we just throw the document away? And I thought the general feel was no we don't just throw it away but we change it to be applicable. Um so now since that step in the approval process is gone that means the approval process is to the planning commission and to the council. It used to be design historic review planning commission and council. used to be three-step um as I understood it and then if there was something really unique it goes to you know gets advice from the park and recck commission or something like that and do you know are there small projects that staff can approve without I think there yeah I'm sure there are um there's thresholds or something but I that's I think part of the question is is that a clearly defined line. Um part of the other the other issue is um looking at the ordinance and things like um the requirements of particular architectural materials on a building. Um I I think that or fencing of a certain type or outdoor furniture. That's the kind of stuff this is dealing with. It's a lot of aesthetic. It's a lot of um you know what is it going to look like? is it of the proper scale in the community in the in the on the lot where it is stuff like that. Um and I obviously there are plenty of locations in this document where the design historic review commission is referenced and it shouldn't be you know so that obviously has to change. Um but um let me see if I can find some of that

was one of the things that was very obvious to me. But then there is reference to the creation of space and place in the in the downtown area and very specifically you know two or threetory buildings was sort of the kind of maxing out. Well, we now have fourstory buildings downtown. And so that was one of the areas when you asked, do we follow this? Well, not exactly, right? Because we specifically approved um the apartment buildings that have been built recently. And and I think what caught my attention was on page 10 there's reference to building height where a four story bu fourstory building there's reference here it says fourstory building dwarfs the one-story building next to it and I think yep that's probably true but if if we're targeting two and threetory structures a fourtory structure structure next to a two or three story structure is perfectly fine from a scale standpoint. So the the problem is we have we have old one-story buildings that are just short little squat simple structures in our downtown. Um, I I actually worked on a project myself to redevelop one of the one of the lots on on Seventh and we could not make a deal work because there was one-story buildings on both sides of it and it was far too complicated to put a tall building in between them from a structural standpoint. it it just doesn't work well design-wise and couldn't make it work financially because you kind of couldn't

put this building where we wanted to put it without buying up these adjacent lots and doing something with them too. So, um, so I think there's there's rationale to this. And yes, a fourstory building next to a one-story building probably isn't going to work very well, but that's I I don't know that that's the end all of what this should say. I don't think I don't think saying four-story buildings are out of the question makes sense anymore. Right. So, that's that's a rewrite. So would that be kind of on a case by case basis you're almost I think I think a fourstory building yeah should be looked at case by case but I don't think it should be out of the question either certainly not with with considering the recent developments um that were approved for their various components um as you know with the cost of land and the cost of construction if you can get more units or more space going up Yep. Oh yeah. So there there are there are quite a few pages related to the the whole height of the building and how does it fit and how does it create edges in the in the area and stuff like that. Um there's little things like the reference to the comp plan. It's probably not the most current. Um that sort of thing. Um, and then there's there's a whole description of the design historic review commission, which doesn't belong in there, but maybe maybe there should be reference to the planning commission and the council, something like that. Um, there's pieces of the history which are kind of nice. It's just a few pages, but that's kind of nice to have in there. Um, and then there's just parts that I

think rewrites are just completely in order. Now, you get to page 19 and it talks about application procedure. All that, I'm sure, is not correct at this point in time. So, I think it's good to have it in here from the standpoint of you could give somebody this document and say, "Hey, if you look at page 19, it talks about the process to to simplify or or uh explain the process of applying for for something or should just say contact city staff or contact city staff and get Yeah, exactly. Like step three is DHRC. Maybe that's a whole lot simpler is to just say talk to city staff. They will they will help you through it. Yeah. Because that's what city staff should be doing, they should be helping them through it. How do you put a link in there and then you can Yeah. Yeah. So, so there are things like that that instead of putting it all in writing Yeah. Maybe maybe most of it maybe most of this just is online and and the majority of the content is actually gone because you've created appropriate links to to things. So besides the question about building height, are there any other standards or sections or things that immediately jump out or is this worth the worthy of another discussion with more when more of the commission's here. And and then the question is with the work plan is when do we when do we I tackle this versus the other things we spoke of earlier today. It's a good point. A and I'll speak to my homework and I'll be the first to

admit that I didn't get it as completed as I would have wished and that was um although it was started it wasn't finished. It was to speak with the city manager and um city uh attorney to be able to um advise this commission on the pros and cons of leaving this as a standalone document compared to rolling into one of the other existing um and and I don't believe I can at this point in time I I haven't got that information where I could um give you the pros and cons of that at this point. Um, so that I have a couple thoughts on that. Yeah. Uh, my recommendation would be to keep it as a standalone document as an advisory policy guide. The comprehensive plans such as the highlevel goals and policies for the city. This can refer to those and they can refer to each other. Uh there can be a whole chapter in the comp plan about downtown design, the importance of downtown, and if you need more information, see the downtown design manual. There should there are a few references in the zoning code to it. And the nice thing about having it as a policy guide document like when you talk about the building height, you can have some gray area in there and it be on a case- by case basis. It depends fit or not. Or if you put in the zoning code and you have kind of black and white, it must be this or it cannot be taller than this. Then you're locked in. Yeah. And so and to work it as a appendix or something to the comprehensive plan if it ever needs to be amended that takes four fifth vote of the council and it also has to get

approved by the Met Council because the Met Council has yeah comprehensive plan. I would not recommend that. They don't they they don't they the Met Council don't need this or care about this. They they talk about density and sewer and water and streets and roads. They don't really care what the buildings look like or your downtown looks like, right? So, the way it's generally structured now is I would recommend keeping it that way. Just making sure that and this will be a whole process. the zoding code references to the design manual and the comp plan references to the design manual are consistent up to date and vice versa all the way through and that'll take work when all three documents as we go forward but there's there's value in having it its own separate thing. So maybe just just this needs amendments. Maybe the comprehensive plan doesn't need amendment yet or the zoning code doesn't mean need amendment yet and they can work together but yet independently. I think that's good. Um there is one thing that I think page 25 references design guidelines versus design standards and I think that's important to address in that is a standard a a specific requirement because I think it's basically defined that way and I think those standards the original intent was those standards come straight out of the ordinance and this is just a document used to illustrate them and clarify them. Um and the guidelines are not necessarily the guidelines may just be advice.

Yeah. Um, and I think there's reference to infill development, which I think is very, very important because that's essentially all we're doing in this area is we're doing infill or we're modifying an existing building to make improvements to it. So, um the I think that page um starts to that probably needs some serious attention to say, okay, is it still accurate as to what it says? So, here's a here's an example. I just pulled it up for some of the exterior elements to the correct place here. So that you touched on this earlier, Patrick, streetcape elements and materials. The guideline says when making improvements to private property that connects to the public domain, including the addition of bike racks, trash receptacles, parking structures, fences, or benches. The property owners should match the approved St. Paul style, North St. Paul styles and whenever possible. So that's a guideline. That's what you're striving to do. Then the standard, which gets more specific. When renovation, redevelopment, or new construction damages existing public streetscape elements, those elements must be replaced with the approved North St. Paul streetscape elements. So that's one says that thou shall or must do where the guideline is well you're striving for that and that kind of thing. Right. So that that's just one example of a guideline versus a standard. Yep.

And then so then the question is I'm sure there's many of those. Are those all still relevant? And I can't tell you that that's probably part of the homework. But yeah, that's that's part of it is is going through it and figuring out are they still relevant, which means reviewing the ordinance and if we've changed ordinance, what has changed and should this change in accordance with it, that sort of thing. So that yeah, it's homework. Well, or serious amounts of homework. If there's changes warranted to this, right, that's fine. And then the ordinance whether it's the zone probably the zoning ordinance says I think in the end the zoning ordinance may say just refer to the latest adopted version of the city's downtown design standard and just leave it at that because maybe there's a chapter or an element that changes in this every two years. Right. Okay. Now we're going to do something with imperous surfaces or building colors. Well, you don't need to rewrite the whole design manual. You can Yeah, just pick on those pages. I I look at something like here's another example of something um page 29 there's reference to setbacks. You know, build build your infill buildings up tight to the prop to the sidewalk. Basically, line them up um with the other buildings around it. And then there's avoiding setbacks. And I think, okay, it's a good guide. But the reality is, if something is designed right, a setback may not be such a bad deal. If, in fact, there's, you know, some public seating in front of it or something like that, that might be a really nice little pocket. Yeah. For a patio to Yeah. to to separate this long straight front, if you will. Maybe there's an opportunity to do something really really nice design-wise and do a

setback of the building. So to be hard and fast about that kind of rule seems I I'm hesitant to do that because somebody might have a really good idea. Yeah. On an infill. Yeah. And we would want to idea than the city has. We would want to accept that potentially, right? and maybe there's some conditional use associated with it or something like that. But but I think to to rule it out I think is uh premature. Yeah. The question will become with any of these items is if they're not standards you're going to run into the one case where well we're meeting the general guidelines. It doesn't say we have to do this and that'll be the one exception that and will will there be one that's just a really bad idea, right? And do we have to accept it? How do we put rules and guidelines in place that where we can have some say in what's going on? And I think that's the challenge of this. You don't want as a city I don't think you want to be so overly restrictive and yeah down to every little nut and bolt detail. You want examples that hey well maybe we didn't think of that but maybe that is a good idea and people are super super creative coming up with things and that's kind of what variances are for also. Mhm. Right. So that they have an opportunity if it's something totally and unique and they bring it and they're like wow that really looks fantastic. That's a really good idea. Then then there's a there is a vehicle to allow for that even currently. So, but and what you're what you're mentioning too is like a lot of these pages like 39 they they take pick a topic intent guideline standard intent guideline standard. So I think it's well

put together. Yeah. It's clearly written. It's just not accurate anymore. Sure. Across the board. Well, and so I go back to the original my original question. It's I think I've gotten the answer that a lot of it is still relevant and useful needs to be tweaked. Tweaking. Yeah. I my initial look at that boy oh boy there's a lot here. Is all of it really necessary? And I I can't answer that yet. Yeah. I'm I'm not sure I can because is it Could you whittle it down and make it about half that much? Yeah, you probably could. Do we care what color the garbage cans are? But Right. Exactly. And I'm not sure we need to be quite that restrictive and say if you're going to have a bench it has to be this design of bench. No, we probably don't. But but do do we want it to be a shall we say commercial grade of bench as opposed to the formed plastic thing, right? Yeah, probably. But how do you write it? So you still give design flexibility, right, and uniqueness to a particular property and yet it's high quality and yet it's somewhat consistent with the whole downtown theme. Yeah, you want it chartus and everything is black. Yeah, right. There is something with a continuity of designs, but at the same time, it's nice to have some things a little different. So, it just depends. So much continuity takes away from the charm a little bit too. Sure. So, from regulating a little too much that it just becomes gray. Yep. There's a balance in there. Yep. For sure.

So there was reference in here to the standards of how tall the three stories are 40 feet in height thing. There was another reference to that on page 43. You know what's too tall? Um that sort of thing. So those all need those all need attention because we are in fact developing things. The developers are coming and they're doing things different and we are approving them. Yeah, it's not uncommon now to see 40 and 45 foot tall. Yeah, especially multifamily buildings, right? I think for a long time, fire departments were against it because of access and safety and their ladder trucks wouldn't reach that high and it was difficult to get water. Now, if everything's got fire sprinklers, yeah, less risk then and and the podium buildings are just going crazy. I mean, they've been ever since that got approved in in the building code, they're doing the parking below and the wood frame above and they're going up all over the place now. They aren't there isn't anything that tall here in our community, but no, when I was in Forest Lake, we approved one with what you just said. Yeah. Lower level garage which was kind of half in the ground and then Yeah. three stories above with a peaked roof. So that Yeah. It got up to about 45 ft high. Yeah. But it's it's it's a it's a fairly massive building. But by building code, I think you can build five stories on top of one. I think by building code if it's designed right, that might be a little bit for too much. That's too much for the downtown, but it compared to 20 years ago. That's that's a new new thing. Yeah, it is. Newer thing. And one of the questions I would have

is there are some buildings that I see currently downtown that deviate from this downtown design manual and couldn't be built currently. Are there any legal ramifications? Basically, we're grandfathering in things that couldn't be built today. Um, are there any concerns and I honestly don't know? Well, you can build you can modify your building. You can refinish the facade, for instance, without it building it taller or, you know, changing its footprint, that kind of thing. Well, those might not be compatible, but if they're going to change the facade, then they should be using the guidelines as to this facade change. I I I looked at it as if I were to buy Newman's Mhm. I could move into, you know, buy Newman's, but I couldn't build with the standards in this downtown. I couldn't build an identical Newman's right next door. So, is that okay to what's your thoughts on like what's your concern with that? Just uh making sure that we're not opening up the city for litigation by saying although we we allowed this or this is existing, we wouldn't let someone new come in here and build this just to make sure this is a this is a common building. I mean, there's new building, but you couldn't expect My home was built in 1887. There's no way I could do the stairwell to fit current height and run and rise. So it's like you have to have some flexibility without it would be so cost prohibitive. Are are you suggesting that the old places need to be brought up to current code or because there is that discontinuity in buildings right now. There's 100-y old homes, 130 year

old homes and businesses and non-compliant. They're not. But to get them to be compliant, no one would run that business. you couldn't afford it. You can't walk down the street and say your building is not compliant with our current codes. You have to change it. You can't do that. Yeah. Agreed. If they change if they choose to change it, right, then you can require them to do certain things. But you can't go to them and say you are forced to change it. Right. And to answer your question, Jason, I don't think there's a problem. Most buyers of a building, commercial building, hopefully have done their due diligence and understand, oh, by the way, you're in this downtown district. And if you want to do things, there are certain standards the city expects you to meet, right? And if they don't, it's kind of a shame on them. Yeah. If they haven't done that due diligence. So I I'd be very surprised if there be anything and and the current the current situation is a known it's a known thing. There's there's new code and if you're going to build a new home you build to a new code but to take any old home and and have to make it right. Even when you remodel some things you're required to bring up to if whatever area you touch you have to bring up to current code and sometimes it's prohibitive. So I wasn't thinking of things like that. I was in my mind it was specifically the attached patio. We would not by the downtown design manual we would not allow an attached patio because it says we can't you can't have setbacks. So to me it wasn't it was things of that nature. The design concept has changed. Is that okay? And at the same time, there's a part in here and I'd have to find it where it talked about we encourage businesses to have outdoor seating for for particularly restaurants, right? So, it's like they're they're asking for that, but yet the set the bump back the

setback thing is and in Newman's it's a it's an open area that goes it's a whole open lot. It's a whole open lot. So, but um so yeah, there's some areas that probably have to be looked at and kind of maybe nuanced and really looked at collectively for what what would be best and what's allowable and but So, so your concern was more like if someone complains there's litigation, well, why can Newman's do this and I can't? Right. Um you know, Newman has been there for 100 since 198 new to the city council and and government in general. So I want the lit I've done it from the ownership side, right? But I've never done it from the setting policy concerned about litigation side, right? So yeah, uh Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, would it be helpful to bring this back to the next meeting and maybe ahead of that meeting, I'll taking some notes and maybe for the commissioners who aren't here, point out the things that were at least brought up tonight that are potential concerns and then I'll review it in more detail of course in the next month and try to put kind of a list together of here's things that have been identified as potential problems, may need changing, tweaking, however we want to describe it, and then have a list to kind of work through. I would like I would want more direction before I would jump in to start amend it, start revising it. Yeah. Right. And um there's there's for instance there's a whole section on awnings. I think there's multiple pages

about awnings and I'm thinking we don't need to be that specific about awnings. Yeah. Okay. There's probably something we want to put in there, but we don't need four pages of awnings. Then again, there are images, which also helps. I think images are a really good thing, but then I'd like to see some of the images updated, especially when they're images of North St. Paul buildings that don't exist anymore, as an example. Yeah. Um I kind of got a chuckle out of the drive-thru drive-in um liquor store. I thought that I always thought that was interesting that I know that was in in existence when I was a little kid and every so often my dad would drive through the drive-in liquor store and I thought as I got older I thought, "Wait a minute, you're going and buying liquor at a drive-thru, huh?" Yeah. Sure, why not? I suppose. Um, there's there's a whole series of appendices with forms, which as you were suggesting, it's just a link to the city thing. Besides the fact the forms, I'm sure, are not accurate anymore. So, so from the standpoint of if you had a project going on today and you said to somebody here, go look at the downtown design manual, it's meaningless to them because none of those forms are applicable. So that that's reason to give it attention. I don't know that it becomes the priority, but but it's kind of not a useful document in that regard. So something to think about as far as setting priorities for yourself and I'm not going to try and set your priorities with regard to this right now because I don't know I and I don't know yet either. But well, okay. So, if I if I may, do

you feel value in having it brought back at another meeting? I think so. Okay. Yeah. And would you like some kind of a list that I try to assemble of things that were pointed out tonight and things that I see stuff? Okay. And I I can give you more specifics as to what I was looking at too if you want it. But please um I I can go through it with a little bit more um fine tooth myself and at least flags if anybody has ideas. Yeah. Things that look wonky or no longer relevant or or conversely if there's things that are really important that you think we want to make sure we continue to have in it. It'd be good to know that as well. Oh yeah. Okay. Any other comments? The only other thing um that I thought was interesting is when when the design historic review commission was in existence and we actually hired a historical specialist to go and look at communities portions of the community and and I think the one I recall was specifically 18th A. Um they did a study of 18th Avenue because there's some nice older homes and things like that there and um the result of that was yeah it's probably the most likely area to to be um appropriately suited for a designation historic designation. Um but when all was said and done they said not really. It's not really quite in the realm of of possibility. I like Still Water and that Yeah, that was sort of the best we could do from a historic perspective. And I think that's when the historic design design historic review

commission started to kind of work its way down because the historic components of the community are too diverse and dispersed. Yeah. You know, there's a little house here or a little house there, that kind of thing. And there is not a district per se that really is applicable. Right. And so then we don't have a Summit Avenue. There's some really neat old buildings. There are if you if you do the historic in an area where it's a collective in a row that's Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, that was a that was a component of I think why the design historic review commission kind of just fizzled because it there just wasn't that much of the historical component. to look at. So anyway, just that's a little piece little piece of history there. Um I think we are to um reports are there any anything from commissioners? Liz, you have something really interesting you want to share? Uh the garage sale currently going on. Yeah. And then the following Saturday is the cleanup day. Next Yeah, next week is cleanup day, which is always a really good event. It's probably going to rain. No, that's No, the last there were a couple of years we brought stuff to the to the cleanup day and it was just pouring rain and all the city staff is out there just getting drenched. It's just it's just awful for them. But but on the other hand, I think it's really well done. Um it's always been really well organized and really easy to get in and out and get rid of that stuff that you I sat in at a meeting Tuesday about it and they're emphasizing and for any the

public that might be watching, it's closes off. The line closes off at 11. If you come after 11 o'clock, you're not going to get in. Yeah. If you're in line and it looks like they can manage it, you will get to dispose of your things and you have to be a resident, they they check ID. So, that's that's two important items to remember. Right. Very good. I appreciate that. That's um and and I we don't stop there every year, but when we do, we're really glad it's there. It's just a really handy thing. Um you you'd like to think after a few years there'd be less stuff and there'd be less need for it, but wouldn't you think every year they keep I Yeah. So it's a great service. That's why people keep having garage sales too to collect stuff so they can dispose of stuff. You collect stuff so you can get rid of it. Um another thing that Liz, you recognize the the buy nothing. Oh, you participate in that. That's another wonderful community event. people come and pick up their stuff. If you're into if you're into Facebook, it's a Facebook linkage that's local and um there's a very active I I happen to know about her involvement because my wife is involved in it and they've exchanged stuff at various times. She's taking my stuff. Isn't that the idea is to get rid of things. And and the idea there is you can borrow things. You can give things away. You can take things from someone else that wants to get rid of them. You can, you know, put your wish out there. That kind of a thing. I can't tell my wife about this. It's very good. It really is. I think the lending thing I think the borrowing thing would be fantastic. It's really good. Yeah. A lot of people need each thing all the time. And the reality is um it's set up so the the in the whole intent is you're not

exchanging money, right? And you're not taking something from someone else to sell it, right? You want it for your own personal use. And it's just it's nice knowing that the stuff that I no longer need is going to somebody that really wants it. Yeah. And they come and pick it up. Yeah. Which is great. So you don't get ghosted. And it's very good. Yep. And I don't want money for it. I just want it to go away. The space it was taking. Yes. Well, and have it serve a useful life. Yes. Yes. I don't I don't have any other reports other than the we talked on the Met Council and the comp plan update. So, be thinking about that. It'll be it's coming. So, is CIP. So, that should get on the agenda when it makes sense to get on the agenda, but that's a little bit up to council to stay within their schedule and throw it back to us when it when the timing is right. Maybe one of these days I'll get to a council meeting. Yeah, just December didn't make any sense. Well, if you if you guys wouldn't have your meetings on Tuesday, they're more likely I would be there. But, all right. Um, that being the case, I think we're finished with our agenda. Good. And um I don't know that I even need to officially have a motion to adjurnn since we don't have a quorum. So we're just going to adjourn. So let's say 7:37 7:38 7:30 if you