Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

30 p.m. on August 6th, and I will call the meeting to order. And would you like to do roll call?

I'll do it.

Okay.

Chair Bleas is absent. Commissioner Wise?

Present.

Commissioner Alvarez is absent. Commissioner Muir? Here. Commissioner Marcaccini? Very good. Present. And Commissioner Sorrell?

Present.

Thank you.

And now we will move to adopt the agenda from? Tonight. Oh, tonight, right. This is the agenda from tonight, not minutes. Okay, so the agenda for tonight, does anyone have any questions, comments, anything? Looks, nope, okay. Can I have a motion to approve?

I move.

Moved by Commissioner Mueck. Thank you. I'll second that. Second by Commissioner Saro. And that is approved.

All in favor.

Oh, sorry. I always forget that part. All in favor, say aye. Aye. And no nays. Now we'll do the approval of the minutes from last meeting, which was June 4th. I didn't see any issues. Did anybody else have any comments? No. Well recorded. Okay. So is there a motion to approve the minutes from June 4th? I'll move. Okay.

I'll second.

So we have Commissioner Saro and Commissioner Mueck as the approvers. All in favor say aye. Aye. And no nays. That's what I sign here, Ken? Okay. Okay. I'll just so I don't forget. Okay. Okay. Now we will open the meeting to the public for anything that is not on the agenda. And there's nobody here. So I think we can, should I open the meeting and then close it? Okay, we can just move past it. All right.

Okay.

All right, so now we are moving on to the public hearings, and we'll start with the animal ordinance text amendment. And Julia, are you going to walk us through it? Okay, awesome.

Well, thank you. So, city staff has prepared an animal ordinance text amendment about chicken keeping. So, as an introduction, we, upon the request of the city code enforcement officer, were asked to review the chicken keeping regulations due to resident challenges in complying with the regulations. And after reviewing them, we determined that they should be revised to be a little bit more user-friendly and also to comply with the League of Minnesota City's recommendations. So, the ordinance amends the distance of a coop or run from all property lines from 15 feet to 5 feet. And it also includes additional language regarding the permissibility of slaughtering chickens for cultural purposes only. It also clarifies that chicken keeping regulations apply to residential properties and it provides a couple grammatical corrections. So with the section one for the proposed amendment, as you can see, there are just a couple of grammatical corrections and also clarifying here that these hens are on residential properties. And going forward, you see that there is the change from 15 feet to five feet. And also on the bottom here that slaughtering onsite is prohibited except for cultural purposes. And then in section two, just a small grammatical change. And alongside this, the code enforcement officer foresees no challenges in implementing this change. And these changes are also consistent with other cities in the area. So Maplewood Oakdale with the setbacks from 15 feet to five feet. Any questions? Yes, a recommendation is for the Planning Commission to review the proposed animal ordinance text amendment and If supportive we recommend that the Planning Commission make the following motion to recommend to the City Council to approve the animals ordinance

Very good. Thank you. I do have a question. Yeah. I have a friend who lives in Lake Elmo, and he has 10 chickens. And I asked him to look it over. He says, boy, this is just about exactly the same as Lake Elmo. He says, the one thing that stuck out to me is the coop shall not exceed 15 feet in height. And he wondered, why would you have a 15-foot-high chicken coop?

Mm-hmm. I personally do not have a good answer to that. I'm not sure much about the heights of the coops. I was more so looking at just like the distance from the property lines.

Commissioners, I can speculate. I think our maximum height ordinance for accessory buildings is 15 feet. That's what I was wondering if it's consistent with that. If it was at 10 feet, could people probably live with it? Sure, but... We weren't asked to change that, and it apparently hasn't been an issue. That's my guess, is where the 15 feet came from.

That's good enough for me. Thank you.

I do have a couple of questions. Yeah. Per property, one coop and run structure is permitted per property. Now, is that based on the lot size? Because some of the city lots are quite small, and then there are some areas in town where people have quite a good deal of property. I don't know whether anybody does have, but if they had a couple of acres on their property and they're within North St. Paul, does that mean that they're restricted to only one group? Or if they have a property that is consistent of several city lots, does it allow for a coupon each lot? It just is a little unclear. So I would kind of ask for a little bit more definition there.

Let's tackle that first if we could.

Right. I think based on how the ordinance is worded, it seems like it would just be that one chicken coop per lot, so we could definitely amend things to be able to be a little bit more flexible when people have a lot more property.

I think, I mean, it looked like the way it was written, it can get bigger based on the number of chickens you have, right? So it was whatever, four square feet per chicken or whatever it was. So you could have a lot of chickens. It would just be in a bigger coop, I guess, then. But I mean, I don't know. I'm not a, I don't know the chicken keeping world very much, so.

To Commissioner Muehlich's second point, The way we look at properties in town is how they are identified by property identification number. You could have 10 little lots, but they'd be all under one ownership with one property ID. That would be one property.

The other one is actually kind of two questions on the same thing, and that's about the roosters. I actually kind of like the original wording, roosters are prohibited, because at one point I had neighbors that had a rooster for about a month, which they finally slaughtered for cultural purposes. But that rooster was crowing every morning at about 4.30 for that whole month. And I would think that somebody could argue the definition of what is keeping and what is not keeping. If it's just there temporarily, but I would kind of prefer just to go back and say roosters are prohibited, full stop. The other thing is, for cultural purposes, do we need, and I know this is a, fuzzy ground here but do we need to have them have some sort of certificate or specification when they get the birds that they're going to be you know occasionally slaughtering them for cultural purposes because otherwise it's kind of the same problem that you have with with guide dogs versus emotional support animals. I know it's a bit of a difference, but it's still along the same lines of that people pass off an awful lot of animals as guide dogs and what have you, because by ADA they're not allowed to be required to have a certificate that says that this animal is a guide dog. So people are forever pushing the bounds.

That's something to consider.

Let me, yeah, I'll just, because that was really one of my only concerns, too, was just that use, and I'm sure you pulled that from somewhere that it, you know, makes sense, but I just, I'm thinking, you know, enforcement-wise, a code enforcement person's going to have to determine at some point whether something is cultural or not, and that seems like a very hard thing to do. So I don't know. I mean, if nobody else agrees that this is not an issue, I'll completely be fine with it. But to me, it just seems like it's more, we should be more talking about the activity and the impacts rather than the reason for it. Because the reason is maybe harder to clearly say one way or the other. I don't know. Did you see any other code where it would say like, you know, if animals are slaughtered, it has to be done out of the view of the public and, you know, be done humanely. I mean, I don't know what it would say exactly, but something like that. I don't know.

Yeah, when looking at the other city codes, they did not mention too much about requirements with slaughtering chickens. I believe they did have some provisions about like slaughtering them humanely, but I think that was the extent of it.

Okay.

And this came up because the way it's word now, you can't slaughter. Right. And the code enforcement officer has run into cases where the folks are saying, well, we're doing this for religious or cultural purposes. That's, you shouldn't really be able to prevent that.

Right, right.

This was our attempt to try to address that. Now, how far do we, is the pendulum going to swing now we open up that door a little bit? Is it challenging? Is it maybe, and we're open, certainly open to suggestions that try to tighten that up, but we're not going to be able to register chickens and say, these are going to be slaughtered for culture and these are just laying eggs. If there's some way to put a couple of boundaries on that, maybe with the hours that it happens or the day, well, we don't even want to get into the days of the week or out of sight of other neighbors or other... Some of those things we could easily add.

I guess I would suggest humanely and out of sight of other neighbors just because, you know, among other things, not that it's something that I practice, but, you know, some, you know, I've known practitioners of witchcraft that may involve slaughtering kids, you know, chickens for cultural purposes. Not kids. Yeah, not kids. Chickens for cultural purposes. So, you know.

So if we added that it must be done humanely and out of sight of neighboring properties or... something or a neighbor.

Yeah, I would be good with that. How would you guys feel?

I'm just not particularly concerned about it. We're talking about six chickens tops, right? I don't think people are going to be bringing chickens in and then, you know, doing the six. It just feels like maybe a non.

We don't want it to become a processing station for chickens and take care of them for you. That's

Yeah, I'm fine with it. It was just if the city attorney says, yes, this is the way it should be worded, I'm fine with it. It was just that cultural part that it just seemed like it was introducing a gray area that enforcement would have a hard time doing something with.

Yeah, that was my big concern, too, was just the cultural enforcement. And as you know, I get caught up in details quite regularly. Yeah.

Words matter. Well, so I'm gonna jump in to keep this going. Is the consensus of the commission, if we add in that it must be done humanely and out of the sight of neighboring properties, Is that enough to keep this moving along to the city council with those additions?

I'm okay with it as written, but that is probably the loosest take here is that as written it's good to go. If folks feel like we ought to send it back and do another LEVEL OF REVISION ON IT, I COULD BE PERSUADED.

AS LONG AS ENFORCEMENT LOOKS AT THIS AND SAYS, YES, WE CAN DO THAT, I'M OKAY WITH IT. THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN ON THEIR END.

FRANKLY, IF IT BECOMES AN ISSUE WHERE THERE ARE FOLKS REGULARLY SLAUGHTERING CHICKENS BY THE HALF DOZEN IN SOME KIND OF REVOLVING OPERATION, WE CAN REVISIT IT. I AGREE.

We should open the public at some point.

Before you do that, I will add one thing, too. One of the things to think about is I believe our standard cruelty to animal would cover the slaughtering of it humanely, so I don't know if it needs to be added twice. That's just my thought. It's kind of covered in a different regular cruelty to animals.

Right, that is true. Okay. Okay. So, yeah, I guess after all that, I'd be fine keeping it as it is then.

Thank you for discussing it. I appreciate it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Can we go back to item K, the keeping of roosters? Mm-hmm. What was the agreement on that wording again?

I just like the original wording, roosters are prohibited.

What bothers me about keeping is that somebody could say, well, I'm not going to have this rooster. I'm just keeping them until Thanksgiving. And it could be six months.

Yeah, that was kind of my thought, too. So Commissioner Murek wanted to not make the change and just leave the original language.

And I want to support that approach.

Yeah, what was the thought behind adding the keeping in there just to keep it consistent with elsewhere in the document, or was it? Yes. Okay.

Again, not a Hillward thing.

No, no, I would be fine either way, yeah.

So the consensus is go back and keep the original.

think yeah yeah the concern would be that roosters are prohibited seems very heavy-handed except that if you read item third you know section three here it is specifically in regards to the keeping of hens so I think it's it's fine as roosters is prohibited as long as you know

I lived in Oakdale for 20 years and somebody had a rooster a block away, so I'd say no roosters.

Okay, well I think that's all good. Should we do the public open? Okay, so we're gonna open the public hearing at 6.46 p.m. There's no one here, so we will close the public hearing at 6.46. I think we went over our questions and concerns, so I think we're ready to ask for a motion, yeah? To approve it? With that one, I think that's the only change, right? So, yeah, can I have a motion to approve?

I'll approve with, I make the motion to approve with the changes so discussed. Okay, second.

Okay, now there's a second. And then just for our, we want to go back to the original rooster language. Is that the consensus?

Yes.

And we're going to keep the cultural purposes the way it is?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yep.

As long as code enforcement thinks they can enforce that.

It was their idea.

Okay.

So really the only change from what's proposed is going back to the original rooster language.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

So first was Commissioner Mueck and second was Commissioner Marconi. So I think, yeah, that's it. We're ready to take a vote. So everyone in favor say aye. Aye. And there are no nays. And so that passes and we're good there. So now we are on to the next public hearing, which is the land use ordinance text amendments for swimming pools. And staff, can we have a rundown on that?

Absolutely. There we go. Swimming pools, they're great. So we're proposing tonight a set of ordinance text amendments for swimming pools for consideration by the commission. And full credit to Julia, she started looking into our swimming pool regulations and somewhat not surprising in my time here, we found inconsistencies in the ordinances. And there's pool regulations in two separate sections of the code. So we're proposing several changes to make the two sections consistent and update them with some current practices and standards in the industry. So we get into, some of the changes get into the placement of pools, equipment, climbable facilities, Safety fences, we add proposing some additional details when a spa or hot tub is placed on a deck, and some grammatical corrections, and some other amendments regarding safety requirements. And again, striving for consistencies between the two sections. So chapter 150 has pool regulations. It doesn't say that, but my reading of these is these were written and intended for, say, pools at apartment buildings or possibly hotels or motels. Not single-family homes, so that's why. These are not in the zoning code because they're just safety regulations. So want to add a definition of a spa pool? Make sure we know what that is. Clarify what wading pools are for, that they're exclusively for wading. And... add a little more wording to the definition of in-ground pools. So not that it needs a lot of work, but that's what we're proposing. This section gets into the safety requirements about the fencing, the type of fencing, the gates and how it can be locked or it needs to be locked. where the latch can be, and that's all the new words in there. And these are standards we found, again, Julia and myself, a lot of Julia's work, from other ordinances that seem to make sense for here. We don't always plagiarize, but when we find good stuff, we're going to use it. You don't want to reinvent the wheel every time. Exactly. The important one here is adding the words that the ladder shall be secured or removed to prevent access when unattended. Shouldn't have to say that, but if the code doesn't say it, then we know how that goes. These changes, the 60 foot and the 316ths are just little typo grammatical things that they always bug me. If we can correct them, then why not? Now we're into 154, and these are for the residential pools, excuse me, which are for single family homes or twin homes. again we had a definition of spa pools same definition as the other one one change that uh... has come up since since the friday edition that got sent out because we made some changes after the original packet this is the friday edition as i call it uh... at the request of one of the readers we added in the words i'm proposing to add in the words intended for human Swimming, diving, and relaxation. So we're clear that we're not talking about koi ponds or something like that. Oh, right, yep. May not be necessary, but again, if we're making the changes, let's make it perfectly clear. Well, I don't think we have too many of those in North St. Paul, I hope. This now, section 36 in chapter 154 says, has all the current rules about pools and spas. And we outline here when contractors or property owners need a zoning permit and when they need a building permit based on those standards of 5,000 gallons and the depth of 24 inches. And those are consistent with the requirements of the state building code. So that's where those have come from. And from Rum River, our building consultants. We added in, and there's a lot of words here, and I'm not going to read them all, but essentially we clarified what we need as a city on an application for a pool zoning permit or building permit. None of this was in the code. We said, I think you need a site plan. Well, what does that mean? So now we get into the details of where are their easements, where is the drainage going to go, where are their adjacent structures, a whole, there's 11 points there. I will not read them all. But all things that we expect a decent site plan to show everything so we know the whole story before someone installs a pool. That's really good. Again, continuing with the pools and spas, added words here in the new D that pools may be permitted and a corner side yard provided the pool will meet the required corner side yard house setback. So in corner lots, well, okay. Right now the pool ordinance says you can only put pools in the backyard. But if you're on a corner lot, you have visibility from two street sides. And so if you're in the backyard, but we don't want it going out right to the side street, but still be kind of in that backyard. So we're saying you can have it in the backyard, But you have to at least meet the side yard setback from that side street to line up with the house. Again, more of a clarifying thing. I think that was always the intent, but the words didn't say that. Again, some standards we're adding from setback requirements from overhead utility lines and underground utilities. One thing we're changing is the safety fence can be, we're only requiring four foot to height instead of five, which is consistent with what we found in other ordinances. This has the language also about the access gate and the latch and how it should be kept otherwise inaccessible to small children so they don't find their way into the pool. because what a great nuisance or attractive nuisance they can become. Clarifying that the openings at the bottom of the fence of the ground should not be more than four inches because maybe somebody would slide underneath or Rocky the cat might, but what can we do? Try to minimize those opportunities as best we can. More clarification, and some of these come from the other section in 150 about the fences and gates and the type of construction they need to be. Again, the responsible party shall lock the access gate when not in use. Adding that climbable facilities of any kind that could be used in any way to gain access to the swimming pool shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the outside edge of all safety fences. And clarifying that we do allow covers in lieu of the fences based on their construction and types. And we have that now. This is just, again, some more clarification. Then for the above ground pools, we're again adding how they have to be constructed and only accessed by a ladder, how the supports must be designed and built so a child cannot climb them. Again, the ladder must be detachable so a child cannot use them to get in, and the ladder shall be secured and removed to prevent access when unattended. And then adding a couple of new things, that noise, lighting, and other conditions that interfere with neighbors' property rights are prohibited. Can't have the stereo going at 11 o'clock at night and having the pool party. Darn it. And then one we just recently found that if a spa or hot tub is being placed on a deck, the owner or contractor also must provide the city with deck structure details, manufacturer weight of the spa or hot tub, and how many gallons the spa or hot tub holds. We don't want a deck to collapse with too much weight on them. That's another permit requirement that they will be required to submit to the city. So a lot of words, again, the goal to make it clear, especially helpful for city staff of what we need and hopefully for any users and readers, whether it's contractors or property owners wanting to put in a pool or a spot. So we have two separate ordinances before you tonight, one for Chapter 150 and a separate one for 154. So we're proposing two separate, we're recommending approval of the two sets of changes, and for clarity, we have proposed two separate motions, one for each. So I recommend some discussion, have the public hearing, and then consider the motions. And with that, I will take questions. Yeah, excellent.

Yeah, I think this is all really good. The four-foot fence is great, because that's, sorry.

You're talking about the four-foot fence, so Commissioner Weiss, if you don't mind, if I can jump in here. First, I want to ask, how long have you and Commissioner Munich been on the Planning Commission?

Let's see, I started in,

I think this is my fifth year, fourth or fifth year. So let me ask you this, because I'm trying to remember it, and the fence is what triggered it for me. Do you remember having this conversation with Brandy? About pools? Yep. Oh, no, I don't. So one of the things I would recommend is that we ask staff to review is, I believe for a pool, Ramsey County's standard for the fence is five feet. And what I remembered is... the conversation with Brandy is we were gonna adopt all of the Ramsey County regulations and ordinances. And I just looked it up on my phone, which is back of the napkin math. Ramsey County does say for pools, it is a minimum of five foot privacy fence that is required.

May I? Yeah. Is that for what I would call commercial pools, say at apartments and hotels? Because they don't regulate local zoning because all the cities do their own local zoning. So that five foot standard, I'm going to guess, is for any pools that they would license through their health department.

And like I say, back of the napkin math from Google on a cell phone. So I wouldn't. But I did remember the five foot when we were talking to Brandy. and I believe I was new to the commission. So we're talking three and a half, almost four years ago now. Okay. And I just didn't remember if you guys remember that conversation. No. Okay.

I know. Yeah. The only time I remember talking about fences was just recently when we did the adjustment for the fence in the front yard. Um, Yeah, I mean, four-foot made sense to me because that is a basically off-the-shelf fence site. Five-foot is kind of, but it's a little bit less common. So that made sense to me. But, yeah, I mean, Ramsey County can't override our local zoning, though, right?

Correct. But if they license, and I don't even know if they have any facilities that they license in, North St. Paul for hotels or public health or anything like that. And Maplewood and Moundsville and Roseville, they may have some that they license. I don't know that there's anything, any business or any even apartments, because we do our own rental housing licensing in North St. Paul. I don't know that there's anything that they inspect in North St. Paul. I would be surprised if they do what I'm looking for.

That's a good point though. The only thing I saw, oh well the first thing was actually about the fence as well too. Say somebody has a, well I guess the way it's written, it says, does it say four foot minimum or is it four feet? It has to be.

I didn't see what the... Hopefully it says four foot minimum. Okay. All right. I'm hoping. You wouldn't want to... Oh, it says at least.

It does. Okay. So that answers that question. Never mind. And then maybe this is just the way I'm reading this. It could be wrong. But if we look at Chapter 150, Section 2... We're talking about permits. No pools except wading pools shall be constructed or erected within city limits unless a building permit is first received by the city. And then if we go to the next chapter, 154. SECTION 2 AS WELL. IT SAYS THE CITY REQUIRES PROPERTY OWNER OR CONTRACTOR TO APPLY TO THE CITY FOR A ZONING PERMIT FOR ANY POOL THAT HAS CAPACITY UP TO 5,000 GALLONS. SO THERE IT TALKS ABOUT A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ZONING PERMIT AND A BUILDING PERMIT. BUT IT LOOKS TO ME, AND MAYBE LIKE I SAID, I MIGHT BE READING THIS WRONG, BUT 150 ONLY TALKS ABOUT A BUILDING PERMIT. SO THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I

Well, and that brings up a question that I had, was that by the reading, because we don't talk about excluding wading pools in the one chapter, it makes it sound like they need to have a permit to put a wading pool in their yard. Because the wading pool is going to be less than 5,000 gallons.

Wait, you're talking about in 154? Yeah. Any pool that has capacity up to 5,000 gallons and a depth of no more than 24 inches. The 150 says no pools except wading pools shall be constructed. So that one seems clear. But there it just references the building permit. So yeah, I guess it sounds like you could, if you only read 150, it sounds like you could have to have a building permit for a smaller pool, right? Where it clarifies it more in 154. So maybe it's just copying that.

Yeah, there's the same kind of thing about in 150 about above ground pools as well, which I flagged initially above-ground pools which are reached only by means of a ladder. Well, the first thing I thought about was, well, what if you can reach it by means other than the ladder? Now, in the next section, it says the above-ground pool must be accessed by a ladder. But it doesn't say that in this section. So it seems like it would be nice to make those two Coinside is not what I'm thinking of, but you know what I mean.

Consistent.

Consistent, thank you. The other thing is a spa pool. I like the definition there, but should we add and hot tubs? Because an awful lot of people call a whirlpool a hot tub.

So are you saying in the definition it's just said Or is the spa pool a synonymous with the term of whirlpool and hot tub?

Right, and or hot tub.

Sure.

I didn't have any other comments on that other than that, so is there anybody else?

Yeah, under the safety requirements, I...

And what section are you on?

I'm sorry, 150.102, safety requirements, section three. A non-climbing type of fence, that just is worded strangely to me, because it makes it sound like the fence itself is not climbing. So, you know, could that possibly be rephrased slightly? So the fence, it's not possible to climb, and even that sounds inelegant, but...

Like non-climbable?

Right, non-climbable fence or something like that. Also, down in section E, an adult or a skilled swimmer. What is a skilled swimmer? You know, if they're 10 years old and they are certified for life-saving and all that kind of thing, does that mean that even though they're not an adult, they can still supervise?

That's right. We're open to suggestions.

I would just like to see some sort of idea, some sort of definition of what a skilled swimmer is. Or just say not under the age of 13 or something. I don't know. It's just, like I said, it seems like that's something.

If we put in... Let's workshop this, if we may. If we added after skilled swimmers of at least 13 years of age or 14 years of age or something, that doesn't define what a skilled swimmer is. But you can have a 14-year-old that can't swim and you can have a 10-year-old that's a very good swimmer. Exactly. So how do you, or, all right, do we even need E at all?

Yeah, I would argue that the skilled swimmer portion of E is more important than the adult portion, frankly. Like a skilled swimmer shall be present.

That would be. And remember, all this sounds great, but I don't know how the heck we were gonna force it.

I mean, so I'm more of the mind that like E is probably less useful than the sections that talk about have a life-saving device near the pool.

That's probably more important than E. One theory with an adult, if there is a problem, hopefully they would know what to do. Call 911, use the throwing device.

That is a nice thought.

They wouldn't necessarily get in the water, but they would be lucid, paying attention, responsible.

Responsible covers a lot of territory.

So we could say an adult or other responsible person or something?

Yeah, something like that. Because I know some adults that are not very responsible.

And then I do have one other point. Hang on. So I want to just, we can go one at a time. So are we changing Ian's something with responsible or what's, I'm open to suggestions because you're right, it's very nebulous and We want to try to make it somewhat useful on the rare chance it might actually come up.

I would be okay just taking the whole line out, because it's not something that's going to be easily enforced on a consistent basis.

I think it falls under child endangerment, which is different laws altogether. You don't have somebody there to...

So I don't know. What's the consensus? Do we just remove the whole line or adjust the skilled swimmer verbiage?

Yeah, I think it's essentially impossible to enforce, so it probably shouldn't be in there at all.

Yeah, much as I said, I kind of agree with that just because I don't think you really can enforce it.

I mean, we also said that chicken feed should be kept in rodent-proof containers, which we're pretty much incapable of enforcing as well.

But I think that's a little bit easier. You could at least check on that, because it exists even when people aren't swimming.

Can we change it to a recommendation or a reminder that supervision should be done

available when there are swimmers. Yeah. An individual responsible for the supervision of the pool should be present when it is in use.

Yeah, I like that. It's a little more general.

Yeah. All right. All right. I had it crossed out. This is good. So, Pete, what were your words, please?

It is recommended that a supervision be provided when any swimmers are utilizing the pool.

We say responsible? Yeah, fix that up. That's good. Is that consensus? I'm happy with that. Yeah, that's fine. Okay, I'm going to read it back just to make sure I got it. There's a scribble. It is recommended that responsible supervision be present at all times that pools are in use. Great. Excellent. Okay. Go ahead.

I had just one other point, and that was these are written from the standpoint of a permanent hot tub, but you know there are portable hot tubs. You see them at the state fair all the time. So do we need to put them in the code here somehow or another, or do we ignore them? Because a portable hot tub has some weight to them. They're large enough usually for two or three adults to sit in, but they are usually like blow up or something to that effect. So do they need to be in here, or do we ignore them?

I would say we ignore it. Yes. Because it's not a permitted thing. It's not a it's not permanent, and it's not permitted so to me yet There's not a whole lot. We could do with that. I don't think Any other comments If we could well, let's open the public yeah, then I have more questions okay, so we are going to open the public hearing at 712 and And there's nobody here, so we're closing the meeting at 7-12. All right.

It would really help me if we go back and just start at the beginning of chapter 150. And then I've taken some notes, but I want to make sure I get them all. I'm sure Julie has taken some. So the first thing I've written down is adding and or hot tubs or spa pools. People want to say spools, and that's... So then in the next page We want to change the the non climbing type of fence to a By a type of non climbable fence or a non climbable fence or something Sounds less clunky. Yeah We just finished II down below was there something else on this page I in A or B?

I think just, if you could just double check the difference between 150 and 154 with how it words the... It looks to me like it's... What's written in 154 seems to be correct, and I think what's in 150 is... not mentioning the option of a zoning permit compared to a building permit, because it only references a building permit.

And the other thing was the above-ground pool in 150 should be more consistent with the definition in 154.

Okay, so now you just jumped around. So going back up, the above-ground pool definition check will check 154. And then under permits, I think Andrew's point was what we're clarifying, what pools will need permits, because right there it's just saying no pools except wading pools. Okay.

Right, and I, yeah, and I mean, I could be just not reading it correctly, but.

All right, well, we'll. I think. The fresh set eyes are great, so I appreciate that. Yep. So we'll make sure we're consistent on that.

Yeah, like what it says in the 154 I think is a lot clearer, because it talks about both the options of zoning and building permit.

Okay. So 154 is MoBeta?

Mm-hmm.

Okay. Was that all in 150 now, the changes? I think so, yep. Okay. If we go over to 154, again, we'll add in the and or hot tub for spa pools. We'll make the change that the definition of pool is for body of water intended for human swimming, diving, or relaxation. What other changes were in 154, if any?

I don't think there were any others.

I think that was it.

Okay. Okay.

Yeah, this one doesn't have the responsible adults or anything because. Okay. Okay. But I've got all those, thank you.

Okay, so when I ask for the motion, can I phrase it as we are voting on this with all of the changes that were just mentioned? Yeah. Okay.

I remember we want two motions, one for 154. Oh, yes.

Okay, all right, so let's start with the first one for 150. And nobody else has any other comments, we're good? No? Okay. So do I have a motion for the first one that deals with Chapter 150?

Yeah, I'll make a motion to, you know, bring that back and make the aforementioned changes.

No, we're gonna recommend approval to the council. with the changes.

Oh, great. Not to put words in your mouth. No, no, no. I mean, I do, Ken. Yeah, so I'd like to make a motion that we bring that to council with the aforementioned changes. Okay, that's first by Commissioner Saro.

And a second?

I'll second.

Second by Commissioner Mueck. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. And there are no nays. And 150 is good to be sent on to council. Now we'll do 154. Same thing.

Yeah. I'll motion that we bring 154 to council with the aforementioned changes. Okay. First by Commissioner Saro.

Second. Second by Commissioner Marconi. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. And there are no nays. And that passes as well. Excellent. So now we move on to the last piece, which is the downtown accessory buildings discussion. Can we have a report on that?

We do. So we're bringing this item to the Commission's attention, discussion this evening. because we have learned, Julia and I, that in the past businesses located in downtown North St. Paul had expressed interest in two city staff and adding accessory buildings on their properties. However, the current zoning code doesn't allow them in the downtown zoning district. So we had Julia do some research on this topic. and found that many other cities in the area don't have the same restrictions on accessory buildings in their downtown. So they say downtown, what area is that? Well, that's the area in the red line, mostly along Seventh and a little bit here on Margaret. This is an aerial photo from a couple years ago.

Here's a Sentinel right there. Right there.

And then lastly, here's the zoning map. The zoning district we're talking about is the MU1, which is this either side of 7th, again, Formosa 7th, all the way out to 120, and then along both sides of Margaret. Staff research, and again, I give Julia credit. She did most of the heavy lifting on this. All these are nearby cities, and see what restrictions they may or may not have on accessory buildings. And she found that only one, which is Stillwater, does not permit accessory buildings in their downtown district. All the cities that do allow them require they be consistent with the design of the principal building using materials that are similar based on color and appearance. Most cities allow two, which I was a little bit surprised, accessory buildings. Well, Canada only allows one. Well, they don't have a traditional downtown, but nonetheless, that's... A good thing to keep in mind. There's size and height requirements for the accessory buildings in the cities, again, that allow them. If a lot is going to have two, the second one shall not be more than 200 square feet in size. Setbacks vary depending on the district and locations. Julia put this table together of the various cities across the top. There's zoning districts. If they're allowed or not allowed, are they permitted? Maplewood does it by conditional use. Other cities say they're permitted. Again, North St. Paul and Stillwater say no, can't have it. So, all that background, we're saying, what does the commission think about the idea of allowing accessory buildings in the downtown zoning district? That's the MU1 along here. Now, with the caveat, all these small buildings here, like where Newman's are and some of the other ones, these lots are so small they could never fit one on anyways. It's some of these larger properties down here by the community center where that might be a possibility and maybe some of the larger ones down by 120. There's the gas station. There's the Legion. Some of the properties on the north side. They might want to put up a shed to put the lawnmower in or the snowblower. I don't have a strong take on it, and so that's why we're going to ask the commission for some ideas, feedback, yay, nay. Have there been any requests? There have been in the past, and that's what prompted this. And the city's just said no, it's not allowed.

I'm curious if you can comment on the frequency and passion of those requests.

I can't because it was all before my time.

Julia, have you gotten anything?

I think it's been one primary property owner located near the West End asked before my time, I remember Chris bringing it up, our administrative assistant, And Brian even said, our city manager, no, not allowed, sorry. And right now there's not even a provision in the code to say, well, if you do this, this, and this, then maybe you could get it. It's just not allowed. And if it's not in the zoning code as an allowed thing, you can't have it.

Who owns the building on the other side of Seppala from Newman's in the post office?

That peak you see on your map down here, we're down here. No, I can't see it down here. Well, I know, they're pretty small.

I think it's a cinder block building, a white, with a mural painted on it.

Oh, is this like in behind the post office, is that what you said?

Right, oh, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. Up in here? This is Article 7. This is the Sentinel. So are you on the same side of the street as the Sentinel? On the other side. Okay, so backing up to Seppala is down this red line.

Yeah.

So here's the Article 7 building. Is it near that?

It's... Or is it down here closer to the community center? Find the post office.

That's right here. Yeah, it's like that lot north of the post office. It's probably more like Newman's across the street. Oh, yeah, yeah. I think it's back in that lot kind of, right? Yeah, yeah.

It's behind there. To answer your question, I don't know.

But actually, it looks like that's not even MU1 anyway.

No, it's not.

So it would be a... North of this red line, is it?

Yeah, it's on the other side of the red line. Yep. Okay.

It doesn't surprise me that historically, North St. Paul and Stillwater have been aligned on this as their downtown districts are relatively similar compared to the other municipalities.

Yeah, that's where I was going to.

It's more of a... And again, I don't know if there's a strong need and if we get one request and it's too bad, is it worth changing the code? I don't necessarily think so. There might be some that argue, well, if we want to be more accommodating to the downtown businesses that can have these, that we sure would be nice so they could maybe store more stuff inside, but does that start becoming cluttered in the downtown area if... You'll allow them. Now, again, you don't allow them everywhere. There's, again, main properties it wouldn't fit because there's just no space.

Could we do something somewhat akin to the auxiliary unit code for residences, saying that as long as they have X number of square feet available on their property, they could... they could have an auxiliary unit, and if they don't have that many, you know, then they can't. I don't know exactly how we'd write it. I just kind of wonder if that could be, you know.

Or has that just become self-limiting by lot size? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we'll have to meet setbacks and all that stuff.

So, yeah, it would kind of self – sift out the properties that wouldn't even have the ability to do it anyway.

We're looking at maybe less than 20 properties here that could even... Just a quick look, yeah, some on the west end and some on the east end.

Yeah.

But if we want a consistent downtown, we don't have any.

Right, right. I think my general feeling is I don't really have an issue as long... I mean, the fact that it would have to aesthetically look the same as the main building on the site I think is important, and that's in there. The fact that it can be 1,000 square feet, that was the only thing that popped into my head because I know that I think that's even more than what we allow for an ADU on a residential lot.

No, we changed that to 1,000. Oh, did we?

Oh, okay. All right. I forgot about that. You're right.

And, Mayor, those are just numbers that other cities have. We could set any number.

We could say you could have one at 200 square feet, and that's it. Yeah. Well, so what do we want to get to tonight? Is it just if we say yes, this is something that you guys should look at? Is that enough to get you moving on it?

What I would hope is if you say no, just what we want to, don't change, then that's the end of the story. I'm not going to do any more work on it. If you say, well, maybe, but then I would want some parameters if we're going to prepare an ordinance amendment with number of buildings, size of buildings, setbacks, those kind of things that we could craft. Now, important to note, I haven't brought this to the city manager and I haven't talked to the city council.

Okay.

This is just the first step. If it dies right here, then that's the end of the story. I have no idea what the others might think.

I would be open to exploring it, and I think... In my mind, it makes sense to just try and mimic the ADU requirements, but I mean, there may be a reason why that doesn't work, but I think you'll find that if you dive into it more. But I would be okay exploring it more.

So the table I put up on the screen then, which is in your report too, I think, is... The standards that other Cs are using.

Oh, okay.

Yep. If the commission is interested, this would be a starting point for the discussion.

Yeah. I'm hesitant generally. I think I'm on board with the idea of making things easier for businesses in the downtown district. That sounds like a great idea. Beyond storage, I struggle to see a use for you know, an accessory building. So I think a size of 1,000 square feet seems large.

You could put five or six cars in that, but that would be taking up potentially parking spaces on a property that they may need for their business, and that would be something we'd have to look at is if it was approved, we'd have to look at If they're removing parking spaces, do they still have enough parking on site to operate their business?

Well, and that brings up the whole question of do we want to mandate parking spaces, because more and more cities are doing away with the parking mandate. I guess I would be curious to see how many properties would qualify for an auxiliary unit under these various you know, could we run the numbers and see, you know, if, see what the comparison would be, you know, as to how many properties would fall under that based on the White Bear Lake or the Stillwater or the Hopkins or the, no, Stillwater doesn't have any, but, or Oakdale or someone like that, you know, just to kind of give us a little bit of parameter as far as how these things would change.

So my words for your words is if there's 100 properties in downtown and only 15 or 20 have enough room to even put one on, is that the kind of analysis you're looking for? Yeah. And maybe identify which properties.

Would any auxiliary building need to be permitted or approved by the city? Yes. So there's control in place.

And that's... a choice we could make. We could say, yeah, maybe, but you have to get a conditional use permit and then make them jump through the hoops. Or if we say up to 200 square feet, as long as you meet setbacks and it's just a zoning approval, check the architectural elements of it. And just like we do for an accessory building on a single family lot, up to 200 square feet doesn't need a building permit. It just, we check for setbacks and zoning regulations. that if we went to that size and that limit, that would be my recommendation. Anything larger that needs a building permit gets more complicated. They can build them, but if there's a one-acre property or a one-and-a-half-acre property downtown, does the city want them building a 1,000-square-foot garage to store stuff? And they may just have not even... Equipment for the property, they might just have raw materials that they want to put in a building. Don't know. But then we look at impervious surfaces and landscaping, and, well, the whole downtown's impervious anyway, so that doesn't. But I think the parking becomes a concern. Where if you're 200 square feet, that might take one or two parking spaces. I'm sure most businesses could live and not worry about that. But then we get into, okay, if we're going to allow it, And we'd have to almost look lot by lot. Where would we allow them on? I don't think we want them fronting on 7th. I'm envisioning back by Seppala. Now maybe as you get down by 120 where the Legion and the gas station are, maybe there's some places that can't be tucked out and back because of the way the properties are. So there's a lot of variables that will be on a case-by-case basis.

I think if there was a frequent and persistent request for this kind of thing, I would be more enthusiastic about addressing it. But it doesn't seem like that's the case.

Not at the moment. And maybe people just, they know and so they don't ask. I don't know.

Well, if a whole host of folks who own property in that district got together and were like, we would really love accessory units on these properties, could we look into doing that? I think that would be a much easier, like, yes, we'll absolutely find a way to, as long as you're meeting the setbacks and code requirements.

Right. And believe me, I'm not necessarily looking for extra work, but it was brought to our attention. So I wanted to bring it by you folks and get a read of the room here, the importance of it.

Like I say, I like the idea of being flexible, but I would be curious just how many pieces of property might even qualify for something.

That doesn't seem like a huge lift, yeah?

Oh, perfect. Yeah.

Yeah, if we could just get a number of properties that that would even potentially affect at the current setbacks and size.

Based on that, is there a sense yet, and maybe it's too early to know, would you only be interested in one small building 200 square feet or less? or maybe allowing the 800 or 1,000 square foot building on a large enough property.

I want to agree with Vito is that I think it's a good idea to accommodate the businesses and help them to be successful. And they might need some kind of auxiliary space in the future. But on the other hand, I think you can have Julia do the work and come up with one of these restricted policies that would really control anything getting out of hand. So it leaves the door open. Mm-hmm.

I'll go, here's maybe the strongest thing I've said. I don't see any reason for two structures.

Yeah, I agree with that.

If we were even looking at this, I would say one structure seems like plenty of accessory structures on this very limited number of lots.

Yeah, and I think maybe what you guys are describing a little bit would be like what you said with the conditional use permit, where we're not saying no, but if you want to do it, there's going to be... That gives us a lot of flexibility to set... requirements, and it doesn't have to be spelled out exactly. It could be case by case basis based on the property. So that seems like that could work.

As long as, Cameron, I appreciate this, as long as we're not arbitrary and capricious, then we can.

My thought is that I think that if the lot could hold it, a 200 square foot permissible, and then after that 200 square foot, then you have to go for a CUP.

Okay, so I'm going to try to summarize. The Commission, the four of you, think there's at least some validity in exploring it a little further. First, by trying to identify the properties that it might even work on by size and available land. And then from there, we could start looking at, okay, if we're gonna do an ordinance, do we, so the veto said just one building max, and then Cameron broke that out into 200 square feet or less, or the larger ones by CUP. And we're not there yet, and I'm not even saying we would propose an ordinance. As I may bring this up, with my other staff people in the same measure, and they may say, hell no, don't. Because I'm taking it out a little bit.

If you'd permit me, I would throw one other thing out there. And I don't have strong feelings one way or other on this, but I would invite all of you to drive down the north alley and think about if we did allow a very small one with minimal setbacks, would that alley all of a sudden look better?

Are you along in here, Jason? Can you see?

No, I'm blind, sorry. No.

We say the north alley there. Yep. So behind Sidewinders?

Behind Sidewinders, behind Newman's, behind...

Some of that's sepula then.

Yep.

Isn't that all sepula?

I think so, pretty much.

Yeah, that's worth...

Basically the old street car right away. Right, but you'll see snow blowers, you'll see panels of salt, you'll see stuff there that potentially if we allowed a very small one, and I'm thinking five by five, would that allow them to

Sure. And even outside of storage, I mean, it could activate that street more if they could on car show night, you know, sell something out of the, off that side too, to get people, you know, um, it would just could potentially expand how they use the business too. But, um, yeah, I, I think the way you summarized is good. Um, The only thing I would say at the end here is, and going back to what you said, Vito, I think in terms of comparison, like where we should be heading, I think looking more at White Bear Lake a little bit, and Maplewood, Oakdale, Little Canada, Roseville. There isn't really an applicable downtown that is similar to ours in those, so I think that's less important.

We do have Hopkins in there, too.

Oh, yeah, Hopkins is a good one, right, yep. So I guess aim more towards the ones that would be a lot more similar to ours than... Through downtown. Yeah, like less suburban.

For God's sakes, don't use Woodbury.

Yes, please.

Okay, so we have some direction. I don't know how soon we'll be back with this, if at all, but this was kind of our first take on it and wanted to, again, get your opinion on it, so thank you.

Yeah, no, thank you guys.

Anything else that we should know before we move on on this?

I don't think so.

I think we're good. Great, thanks.

All right, so that's, we're just down to reports from. I have a couple things.

Oh, sorry, okay. Well, you can have commissioner reports first if you wish.

Sure, all right. Commissioner Marchini, anything to report? I do not.

Mr. Mueck?

I don't think I have anything.

No reports from me either.

All right. I will say one thing. I want to say thank you to Chris and Ken for all of their assistance with my project. So thank you very much. You're welcome. Dealing with me on a constant basis.

On the customer side?

Yes, on the customer side.

Thank Chris and Sarah and Jordan. Thank you.

And I will say that the city was amazingly responsive the other day when we discovered something in my backyard that we didn't think was going to be there.

Ancient burial ground?

Well, no, but it was an ancient clay pipe that was not marked on any property maps or anything. And the public works was out there about 20 minutes after I called Chris. And he swears to me that he did not say that I was a matter on the planning commission.

So... What did they end up finding out about it, if anything?

They said it was crushed on one end, so it obviously hadn't been used in quite a long time. And it's like a four-inch thick clay pipe, so I don't think those have been legal for quite a long time either.

Was it a sewer pipe originally?

No, they said it was too small to be a sewer pipe, but it might have been a water overflow or something like that.

Okay.

So...

Well, good. How'd you find it?

Through excavation. As we were digging for the foundation for the garage, it surfaced.

You said, oh boy.

Yeah, exactly.

All right, a couple of, if I may, some reports for the commission. The newest student-built property down at 7th and 3rd is just about done. In fact, hopefully be done done tomorrow, and it will be going up for sale soon. It's beautiful. The two units. And we have another property that we're 90% sure we'll be able to buy in the next couple of weeks. I'm not going to say where or when because it's not closed yet, but it has... If all comes together, it'll be replacing one dilapidated house, and there'll be enough room for two lots for two new single-family homes. Perfect. We're excited about that, so the program will continue.

Excellent.

Good. For anybody listening, commissioners, we now have a no-change policy here at City Hall, so if you're paying bills... Of course. Pennies. So if you've got your utility bill and you bring... let's say it's $38 and you bring, or $38.50, they're not giving any coins back, so they'll round it up. Or they may round it up if you bring $40 to give you credit on your next bill. Not dealing with coins, especially the pennies, because they're going away. Let's see. We are very close to having a work plan with WSB to do the comprehensive plan update. We've myself and again my team have been working back and forth on what we can do, what they're going to do, timeline, all those kind of things. Julie has done a lot of writing and research already to some of the more, I don't want to say boilerplate, but like the introduction and some of the background and even updating the electrical chapter, which didn't change much, some of our natural features. We're doing as much of that work as we can to minimize the cost. Fingers crossed that we'll be going to the council on the 16th to get approved and then we'll be looking to have an official kickoff with WSB, the Planning Commission and City Council to really start diving into it. With that, the Met Council in their infinite wisdom identified 60 cities in the seven county area to provide planning grants to help get their comprehensive plans done. And North St. Paul is one of those. Is one, I should say. And they're a non-competitive grant. We have to have a work plan, we have to have a resolution approved by the city council saying yes, we want the grant, we apply, we get the money. And it was based on demographics and some other things. So I'll be bringing that to the council at the same time because we'll get 40,000 to help pay the bill. The whole work plan could be $125,000 or so to the whole thing. $40,000 will help. We had the community center property surveyed because we have a potential buyer, a pretty serious buyer looking at buying it. But after so many years, hundreds of years, 100 plus years, the property lines on there are all A mess, put it nicely. And the only way to really straighten it out, we have to replat it and designate which parking spaces are going with the community center, which spaces are staying with CEPLA as it runs along the building, which go with Franklin Park Apartments on the east end. And it's a mess. So by doing a plat where we designate new rights-of-way, new property lines, Buyer gets these, the city keeps these. So we're working towards getting a plat put together. We'll have to bring that through the Planning Commission to bless that. The buyer seems serious, and until that's done, I'm not gonna say who or what, but this is a step we're taking to help facilitate that. So that's, we've had a couple, Brian and I have a couple of meetings with those buyers, and they seem very serious, so great, we'll go with that.

Can, out of curiosity, if you could say, does it look like the library would be able to stay there?

Yes, they are planning to keep the library for the foreseeable future.

Wow, that's excellent.

We are also undertaking a major study of the midnight fields. This will be mostly the Parks Commission. They had a master plan done for that by HTA a couple of years ago, saying all the grand redevelopment things you should do here only cost $15 million. We had it surveyed last year. Now we've got a work plan with WSB to go through and do an analysis. Okay, if you want to do this over here, you want to do this over here, get some more firm cost estimates on each of the elements, maybe a staging plan, timing plan. But the first step in that is, We're having the wetlands delineated because there's a ditch along McKnight and 36. Make sure there's no wetlands there or if there are, what they are. And then get soil borings taken next week because apparently that may have been filled in with less than desirable materials over the years where the ball fields are. So we have to know what's under the ground because you can't build big structures on crappy fill. So if you see drill rigs out there on the fields, that's why. And this will be an eight to nine month process. I don't know that the commission here will be a part of it. Certainly the Parks Commission will be very involved with it. I think the last thing I'll note is If I didn't mention it before, the city re-upped our contract with Tennis Sanitation for solid waste recycling and yard waste. That starts September 1st, which came upon us pretty quickly. The biggest difference is... We negotiated in the new contract that each residence, which is single family, two families, get up to eight free bulky pickup items at their curb, at the home. Six of the items and two appliances. Now, they're not going to take pool tables. There's some things that don't even count because they're just too darn big. But there are many items they will take. And the city will be tracking that. You still have to call into the city, get on the list so they can route the trucks. But there'll be eight in a calendar year, so September through next August. So we're hoping that'll really cut down the bulky waste in the neighborhoods.

Mattresses included?

What's that?

Mattresses included?

They are not.

They're not.

But we're very pleased about that. It was some good negotiation of the contract that got us that, and some very favorable rates, which we're also happy for everybody. So that will be coming, that's going to affect September 1st.

And there'll be community education around that?

Yep. In fact, we were just working on all the stuff that was going to go out in the newsletter and the blast.

Does that mean we won't be doing the bulk?

Oh, let's hope so. The goal ultimately is maybe we don't need to have cleanup day.

Yeah.

We'll see. That has not been decided yet. I think we'll know by January or February if a whole bunch of stuff has been picked up by tennis. The goal is to not have a cleanup day. And last year's cleanup day when we charged, it was a lot slower. I think shockingly people didn't want to pay to get rid of this.

Ken, have you seen the new fee schedule for the stuff that is not included? My understanding was that was gonna drop significantly. Yes, we have. Although mattresses weren't included, I believe the fee is.

Yeah, we have a fee schedule from Tennis on things that won't fit in garbage cans easily or they just can't handle for the free pickup. There's a whole fee schedule on the charges for all those items, which we had, but now it's been updated as part of the contract. Okay, that's enough, unless you have questions. No, that's great. Thank you. I did think of one thing, sorry. For the next meeting, which is scheduled for the third, that's, again, right before Labor Day, because Labor Day is not until the 7th. Right now, we don't have any applications from developers, property owners, to bring to the commission. I don't know if we'll have any items or not. I'm not going to bring this downtown study if that's the only thing. We're not gonna have a meeting for that. If something else comes up and it's worthy of bringing it, we will, but we will keep you informed. Sounds good.

Excellent. So I think all that's left is to get a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Commissioner Martini?

I'll second.

Mr. Mewick is second. And we are adjourned at 7.51.