North St. Paul City Council — Transcript
Thursday, August 6, 2026
Animal Ordinance Text Amendment (Chicken Keeping)
Land Use Ordinance Text Amendments for Swimming Pools
Downtown Accessory Buildings Discussion
Votes (3)
Animal Ordinance Text Amendment (Chicken Keeping)
Dissent: None
Moved by Commissioner Muick [0:35:46] · Seconded by Commissioner Sorrow [0:36:00]
Staff presented revisions to chicken keeping regulations, including reducing coop setbacks from 15ft to 5ft and clarifying cultural slaughtering. Commissioners debated the height of coops (not changed), lot size flexibility, and the enforceability of cultural purposes for slaughtering. There was significant discussion on strengthening the prohibition on roosters to prevent temporary keeping, eventually reverting to the original 'roosters are prohibited' language. The cultural slaughtering provision was retained as proposed, deferring to existing cruelty laws and code enforcement's view.
Land Use Ordinance Text Amendments for Swimming Pools
Dissent: None
Moved by Commissioner Sorrow [1:02:18] · Seconded by Commissioner Muick [1:02:30]
Staff proposed amendments to Chapters 150 and 154 to harmonize pool regulations, address safety, and clarify permit requirements. Discussion points included the fence height (4ft minimum accepted, contrasting with perceived Ramsey County standard), definition consistency for spa pools (adding 'hot tub'), clarity between zoning and building permits across chapters, and the wording of 'non-climbing fence' (changed to 'non-climbable'). The requirement for an 'adult or skilled swimmer' supervision was deemed unenforceable and changed to a recommendation for 'responsible supervision'. Portable hot tubs were excluded from the ordinance's scope.
Downtown Accessory Buildings Discussion
Dissent: None
Staff presented research on the current prohibition of accessory buildings in downtown (MU1 zoning), noting interest from businesses and that most other cities allow them with restrictions. The commission discussed the low frequency of past requests, the need for aesthetic consistency with principal buildings, and potential size limitations (1000 sq ft seemed too large). There was a consensus for a one-building maximum. Commissioners requested staff to analyze the number of properties that could actually accommodate such buildings under various guidelines and to consider a tiered approach: small buildings by right, larger ones via Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Notable Quotes (10)
I would kind of prefer it just to go back and say, roosters are prohibited full stop.
If there's some way to put a couple of boundaries on that... or out of sight of other neighbors or other and I mean some of those things we could easily add.
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.
Ramsey County does say for pools it is a minimum of five foot privacy fence that is required.
It looks if we look at chapter 150, section two, um, where it's talking about permits, no pools except waiting pools shall be constructed or erected within city city limits unless a building permit is first received by the city. Um and then if we go to the next chapter 154 um section two 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 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.
I mean I 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.
Have there been any requests? ...There have been in the past and that's what prompted this. and the C's just said no. Right. It's not allowed. Uh I'm curious if you can comment on the frequency and passion of those requests. Uh I can't because it was all before my Yeah, I Julia, have you gotten anything? [laughter] Uh I I think it's been one primary property owner loc uh asked before my time. I remember Chris bringing it up.
I don't see any reason for two structures.
I think that if the lot could hold it, uh, a 200 square foot is permissible and then after that 200 square foot, then you have to go for a cup.
I think looking more at White Bear Lake a little bit and you know Maplewood, Oakdale, Little Canada, Roseville those you know there isn't really a a applicable downtown that is similar to ours in those. So, I think that's less important.
Ordinances & Resolutions (12)
Proposed changes to chicken keeping regulations.
Guidelines used for revising chicken keeping regulations.
City Code section pertaining to general/commercial swimming pool regulations.
City Code section pertaining to residential swimming pool regulations.
Standards referenced for pool permit requirements.
Downtown zoning district being discussed for accessory building allowance.
Americans with Disabilities Act, referenced in a discussion about guide dogs vs. emotional support animals.
City plan currently undergoing an update process with WSB and Met Council grant funding.
Previous master plan for Maidike fields by HGA, now subject of a new study.
Planned agreement with WSB for the comprehensive plan update and Maidike fields study.
Non-competitive grants provided by Met Council to 60 cities for comprehensive plan updates.
City contract for solid waste, recycling, and yard waste services, recently renewed.