I will call the meeting to order at 6:30. The planning commission meeting oops sorry the planning commission meeting of of uh North St. Paul on October whatever today is second. Had to think about let's see where am I going to be tomorrow. Um we have an agenda before us. I don't know if everyone has looked at the agenda. Is there anything that would >> Would you like to roll call first? >> Oh, yeah, sure. Let's do roll call. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Alvarez >> here. >> Commissioner Gadboy >> here. >> Is that close? >> You're right. >> You've got it. >> Good. I'm I'm practicing. Commissioner Weise >> here. >> Commissioner Muk here. >> Chair Bllee here. >> And we have two absent tonight from the meeting. Then it's agenda time. Um, our council liaison is a substitute, >> right? Yeah. >> Tonight, >> council member McKenzie is in. >> Council member >> Council Member Norby this evening. >> Thank you. I appreciate the fact that he has a name tag because then I probably won't forget. >> It's been one of those days. What can I say? Um, if there's no comments or questions about the agenda, I would entertain a motion to adopt the agenda as written. >> I'll make that motion. >> Motion from Commissioner Gatboy. Second. >> I'll second. >> Oh boy. It's a competition. >> I'll give it to Cameron. That's >> okay. Cameron. Uh, second. All in favor say I. >> I. None opposed. Um, and meeting minutes from the 4th of September. I don't think I saw anything personally that I would question about that. We did a couple of planning or public hearings that were short and sweet, a whole minute long. Mhm. >> I don't know if there's anything. If there's not u comment or question about that, I would entertain a motion to approve the September uh meeting minutes. >> I'll approve. >> Motion from Commissioner Muick. Uh second. >> I'll second. >> Second from Commissioner Weiss. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? None. All right. The next thing is meeting open to the public. I don't think we're going to hear from anybody from the public because there's no one here in the room. Makes it easy, right? That covers agenda item number five. And agenda item number six is public hearings, of which we have none tonight. So, we are on agenda item seven, commission business. And I believe Mr. Ken Roberts has a report to begin. I do, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Uh continuing continuing working through items that were on the work plan for the commission. One of the And so this first memo has two of the items. I combine them on a one memo to keep life a little simpler. Uh the first topic which is in the memo which is I've got it up on the screen if anybody wants to read it there was the words were to check definitions of town houses duplex and twin homes to ensure they align with state law the building code and the intent of the R2 and R3 zoning districts. Below that on the on the first page of this memo, which is page seven in your PDF packet, I included all the existing definitions out of the zoning code. With them, I've proposed amendments that are shown in bold and underline. And those additions, they're primarily additions, are all words and terms are on the next page, which are references to the state building code and from Minnesota state statutes. So for example for a dwelling single family I'm proposing to add in at the end occupied by one family for living purposes would seem maybe not necessary but that's a clarifying point. Uh under dwelling townhouse again you can see at the end proposing to add some language each dwelling unit must have separate building service utilities as required by other chapters of the state code. We might want to say by the state code instead of the other chapters >> as I reread that uh because the reference was out of the state building code. And then the note there is just to clarify orformational a two-unit townhouse is sometimes referred to as a twin home because we get those terms thrown around a lot. Twin home duplex. Just out of curiosity, is twin home currently in our ordinance? That is there a definition for twin home or is that reference? >> All these definitions are the existing definition. Okay. >> We don't have okay >> a separate definition. >> Next then uh is the term or definition for dwelling to family. Um again adding in uh two dwelling units for living purposes. They each have separate housekeeping, cooking facilities, each of which has direct access to the outside. And then adding the note, these structures are sometimes referred to as duplexes. >> And then question on that. Yes. >> So in rental industry, duplex are usually though the difference with a town home and a duplex is a town home different people can own parts of that building even though they're attached to each other. Whereas a duplex usually one person owns that and then and so it just has one parcel number and >> and that's in the existing definitions on a single parcel. Mhm. >> Okay. >> So, that's not changing >> on a single parcel, >> but you're right. The the dwelling townhouse could be a twin home and have separate lot or separate lots under each unit. >> They always are. >> Yeah. And you can have four unit townhouse buildings all the way up to eight units. Not uncommon >> at the Okay. So then when arranged horizontally, they may span more than one parcel. May doesn't there's there's some flexibility there. >> Okay. I thought they I thought for a town home they had to have it their own parcel >> like each one had their own like property ID number. >> They they do >> duplex like you said it's just the one PIN. >> Right. >> Okay. >> And then the last proposed change is for dual dwelling multiple family. uh that's now says for uh containing three or more dwelling units and I added in the word separate again each intended for residential occupancy by different families. So that's topic number one out of the work plan. I guess we want >> okay I do have >> stop at that point and have some discussion that'd be great. Yeah, I do have a question on the state statute and it may be that simply, you know, because it's written into the state statute, but I don't really see the difference between uh and it's both dwelling in single family and two family uh occupied or occupied for living purposes. you know, if it's occupied, I don't see what the occupied for living purposes is doing to it. >> So, it could be occupied for other purposes like a business or something like that. And then that's yeah, different >> different purpose than >> it defines it as a residence for living, not business. I mean, >> right, we're going to muddy that because we have people who live in homes here that still have their businesses >> right >> there. But >> but the primary function of that >> Y >> but that would be a homebased business, >> right? >> That would be a business within your residence. >> I'm just I just feel like >> we've been there. Yeah. >> Yeah. I just feel like you know it's occupied regardless of whether it's being used for a a business or a residence. So you're thinking splitting hairs. >> It feel it right and it feels >> feels redundant. >> Sort of redundant. Sort of. >> That's that's all I'm saying. It just seems seems redundant. >> Say that. You said this might be over, but yeah, just to clarify more. >> And I just took the words right out of the state statute. >> Okay. >> Which is why I think it should be included personally. >> No. And yeah, only >> I would agree with that. If it says that in the state statute, then >> you know, I think it's silly, but it's worth keeping our things >> parallel. >> Parallel or I was thinking conjunction, but you know, whichever you you know what I'm saying? >> Consistent. >> Consistent. Thank you. That's what I was trying to think. So other than my on the-fly change on the townhouse where I took out by other chapter of just it would say by the state building code. That's the first first one of two in this memo. Is there any other comments, suggestions, heartburn on that? >> Seems now are all these changes needed for the zoning code? Yeah. Will they hurt? >> Yeah. >> Will they make it clearer and better? Sure. This is one of these projects. If I had six other things to do, this wouldn't be one of them. But it was a good time. >> Yeah. >> So, here we are. >> It's good to have solid definitions because >> words. >> I haven't been very on here very long and we've had the discussion about these definitions a few times. Yeah. >> So, if we have them down, >> that is helpful. So, am I hearing a consensus to keep proceeding with these? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yes, you are. >> Because the next step would be to schedule a public hearing. >> The Yeah. The only question that I put out there is how >> because you're talking about >> um there's there's two What was it? Uh shoot, I lost track. the the duplex scenario um >> which is >> yeah the the dwelling two family >> is is in is described as a single structure with two residences in it on one parcel. In what way do we where do we address when there's multiple structures on a property is that does that need to be addressed in a >> in a similar manner >> living structures? >> Yes. >> That well most codes don't allow that to the closest thing we have right now are allowing accessory dwelling units. >> Yeah. >> Which are right by conditional use now. >> Is that conditional now? >> Yes. Okay. There's one across the street for me. That's why that's why it pops into my head. I look at it every day. >> Probably grandfathered in from before. >> No, it was recent. It was less than 5 years ago. >> So, >> technically a condominium then. >> It's it's an in I mean, I think it's an appropriate use. The property allowed for it from a setback standpoint and things like that. And so I think that's something that that the accessory dwelling unit as long as it's being addressed, I think it's an okay thing to do, but I think a conditional use is a really good way to handle it because then you can look at it critically relative to the property shape and size and everything else and say, "Okay, >> does it make sense? >> How is this fitting in the neighborhood?" Yeah. >> So I just wanted to make sure that that's in here, but it's it's not in the topic of conversation for tonight. So okay. >> Okay. Then going on to the second work plan topic which is on the next page. The middle next page is about or what the words were check sections 15407 and '08 of the zoning code to ensure they are consistent with the goals and policies of the downtown design manual and comprehensive plan. And as you may if you read your packet then downtown design manual will be the next topic. But >> what I did then was go through section 15407 of the zoning code which is all the mixed use zoning district language that starts on the next page and compared that to what the downtown design manual says. compared it to what the goals and policies and uh are listed in the current comprehensive plan. I got an extra two in there kind of didn't have my staff proof read this and look what happens. I had a 2240 comp plan. Uh overall I thought the definitions in the zoning code were very close and consistent with both those. Now that being said, could we make some changes to them to make them even better, stronger, clearer? That's what I proposing here. So top of page nine, which is page three in this report. That's uh this is the whole most of the mixeduse district language in the zoning code. Uh I found one thing right that which I didn't include in the packet. Uh paragraph A at the top uh it says the mixeduse districts are established to create vibrant urban urban urban environment etc etc. Second sentence these districts provide a range of district types from downtown core district to corridor highway district. Those have those terms have changed. is now the downtown mixeduse district which is right below that in D and the corridor mixed use instead of the corridor highway. That's so that's a change I didn't catch initially that would need to be cleaned up. But getting into the actual words of the districts themselves, the downtown mixeduse district, which is the MU1 uh looking and and so in this attached to this memo, there's a bunch of uh sections I copied out of the comprehensive plan. Starting on page nine of this, which is page 15, I kind of cherrypicked the most relevant sections of the comprehensive plan as they relate to the downtown area. So there's there's bunch of random sections out of different parts of the comp plan. So, if you look on page 11 of the report, which is page 17, there's words about downtown goals and policies. So, I've incorporated some of those in the down I'm proposing to in the downtown mix zoning language. If you see B, I've added the word superior because that's included in one of the downtown goals and policies. >> Yeah. I was wondering if there is a definition. Superior seems like an awfully nebulous word. >> Well, that's I'm I'm copying the words almost verbatim. >> Is that necessary? No. But it makes everything consistent. and then and proposing to add D that says allow or encourage development or redevelopment that will maintain a sense of the city's heritage and that is also one of the goals on page 11. So that's where those changes came from for the downtown district MU1. I'm going to skip the list of the uses for a minute here. Then the downtown or excuse me the mixeduse district which is on page 11, which is >> five of the packet. >> Five of the pack or five of the memo, page 11 of the packet. >> Um, the purpose is right on consistent. I didn't see a need to change that. I did put a note in there that should the city allow multiple family residential in this district. Right now, we allow residential units over non-residential uses or town houses. So, not single families, not apartments. You may ask, well, where is this MU2 district? Well, if you could see the map, this is the zoning map of the city. This pinkish salmon color here is the MU2 district. So it's this is the Pine Tree Center on Century. >> Mhm. >> There's pockets of it along 7th Avenue. Most of downtown is our downtown mix district and there's an overlay on that. There's a piece up here by St. Peters that's it used to be an office building or something on the east side of school on 17th. >> Hang on, let me think. >> Is it that that loan place? Is it their their credit union that's no longer a credit union building? >> So that's that has that zoning. There's a over by the Dairy Queen there's a couple along Century. >> Yep. >> And then there's a couple over here on Mcnite by the childcare center and that. So there's not a lot of that zoning in the city. >> Mhm. Uh I think it after thinking about a little further the idea of potentially adding multifamily or apartments in these limited areas there it could be a big change. Now maybe one way to do it to help mitigate that would be only allow them if they were approved by PUD. So there'd be an extra layer of review and process and setbacks and negotiated development versus just straight zoning. Um I'm not 100% sold on it. It would give us potentially more housing options in limited areas, but it so that I that's worth talking about. I'll stop right there. >> If it's not a PUD, then it's basically a permitted use is the concept. Well, don't >> I'm sorry. >> Go. >> Don't we already have apartment buildings in that in that district? >> I don't >> I don't think so. >> I don't think so. >> Pine tree. >> Pine across the street. >> It's in the salmon colored area, right? You said? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And they're very small areas. So again, we're >> I'm trying to think how maybe I'm looking at the wrong portion of the map. Uh where is Margaret Street on there? >> Right here. >> Margaret Street's right here. >> Okay. >> That goes straight up. >> It's We're talking about the lighter pink, not the salmon. >> Yeah, the light Oh, am I looking at the wrong pink? >> Yep. It's the light. >> Yeah, it's that really light pink. >> Yep. >> Right. So, can you see where I'm circling down? >> It looks like there's a little piece of it over there where uh the Kendall's corner is >> that much. >> Okay. >> A little tiny piece there. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, that's my fault. I was looking at the wrong color. >> Okay. >> Sorry about that. >> Cuz I was trying to think, you know, we've got these high-rise buildings and then the what I was seeing was >> Oh, yeah. That's even that's even over further added possibility by PUD. It would just give an extra layer of oversight that they have to go through. >> Yeah. >> And if it was reasonable, then it probably would be okay. >> And it becomes a negotiated between the city and the I guess the question is for the commission and ultimately the council. Is there a need? >> Does and is it is it going to overly complicate the approval of a project in that zone? >> Absolutely. >> That's and that's part of That might be a good >> That's part of where I lean toward is are we making it more complicated than it needs to be? If someone desires >> without this change, they could not put in multif family. It just it's a non-starter. >> Be a hard true not in the code. >> I would lean in favor of allowing it with a PUD. >> Mhm. >> Or else allowing it just without, you know, without restriction as opposed to saying that no, they can't do that in that district. >> Right. I think allowing it makes sense. It's the the only question in my mind is is it a PUD or not? >> Could we just have a F requirement that would limit the >> or a max density of some type? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I would rather I think I would rather do that than a PD. Yeah. >> Well, the one the one thing with PED is you get flexibility on say setbacks, >> building heights, >> those kind of things. >> That may be to the advantage of the developer or to the advantage to the city, >> right? Well, let's say the developer wants to go four stories, but >> the city says, "Well, that's fine, but now you have to increase your setbacks." >> Or there could be a hundred different things that get >> right >> negotiated on each site. talk about amount of parking. Maybe they don't want two parking spaces per unit. Okay. As part of a PED, we can reduce that if they show something. And there's a lot of variables there. >> Yeah, I guess >> the architects would know. depends on the site and >> I would come down to what is your experience with uh PUDS in the various places that you've worked you know as a builder come to you and said you know we'd like to develop XYZ but because it's a PUD we don't feel like it's worth going through all this hassle or does the PUD yes it increases the hassle for both the city and the developer but does usually not detract. >> My experience it usually does not detract as long as they know that going they the developer know that going in. Well, I think both article 7 and the other >> new building downtown were both >> essentially PED. >> Yeah, I think they were. And so there's I reading the files it was >> before my time there was a lot of negotiating and figuring out and >> I would say I would say then if it gives us more versatility I would say let's go for the PUD. >> Okay. >> Yeah I would lean that lean that way maybe right. Yeah. >> So that's the MU2. Uh now over to the next page right to the ordinance. Ken, can I just ask your opinion on should >> Should we be should we have more of MU2? Like is it a valuable is there a reason that we should like should we just get rid of it or should we have more of it? Because it seems in a weird place right now that we're not really using it. >> Yeah. My guess is it was put in as to kind of fit the existing conditions. It wasn't. >> Oh yeah. uh just like we don't have a zoning for schools or churches, but >> right >> they're in that residential district. >> I I think it's valuable keeping it. It's just now how do we work it and maybe as we do more of a dive into each district. Maybe there are other things that we can change and make it more user friendly or pal palatable. But I would not recommend taking it out. Well, if we took it out of the code, then we're making a bunch of non-conforming, >> right? >> Yeah. Uses and that's and you need to reszone stuff. >> Yep. >> Okay. I'm just curious. Thank you. >> And looking at the map, I look at that where the pine tree is behind that is that big lot. Is it Sentry Link? Is there >> Sentry Link? >> And that is mostly empty. And that >> they own that, I think. >> Yeah, they do. Yeah. Okay. >> But if if they ever wanted to subdivide, maybe there could be a piece along >> and because that is a big lot. >> Yes. I drive by it and >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> And I think if they ever decided they wanted to sell it, that would make the pine tree space more valuable to more interesting to a developer. >> That might. >> But is that space you're that lot you're talking about, is that different zoning? Yes, >> it is. >> Is that a residential zoning? >> Yeah, it's R1. >> Yeah, >> it's all R1. >> So, it's a nonconforming at present. >> Well, yeah, I think utilities and service building >> conditional use or conditional use. >> Yeah, probably. >> So, >> again, those all probably went in even before zoning, >> right? >> And they rarely use that building. >> No, nobody's ever there. >> There are a few. I know middle management the guy that used to office there and he said it's almost all empty. There's just a few people that equipment in out of it. >> There's just it says equipment >> clinic is changing >> as a structured >> business and I could see not in the too far future that that >> I just think that would make >> building is not going to be >> pine tree lot more interesting. >> It'll change that. >> Yeah, >> because that's so dead in there now. That pine tree >> hypothetically. Yep. >> There it is. That's a grand opening next week. >> A grand opening >> where? >> Oh, yeah. There's a >> of what? >> One of there's a tent going in one. >> But back to the the >> I don't think there's anything on the sec. Is it going on the second floor? I'm sorry. >> Next to the pizza place. >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. >> If Century Link said we don't need this anymore, if >> this road could be realigned and kind of do this kind of thing. >> Yeah. So all kinds of opportunity there then. >> Yeah. A big chunk of land. >> Probably a reszone or conditional use or something. >> It's old PUD or its own. Exactly. >> Yeah. >> Well, that's that's kind of >> Yeah, that's the kind of flexibility that we're trying to build in. Correct. >> All right. The last district then is our quarter mixeduse district and that is all the dark red. That's our predominant commercial district in the city. And so again, taking words out of the comprehensive plan, I'm proposing to add D there bottom of page six, which is on also page nine again comes out of some of the comprehensive goals and objectives. Uh, okay. So, that's besides uses themselves, that's words to add to make their purposes more consistent with what's outlined in the plan. The second part then is uh for each one, I typed out all the uses that are permitted and conditional in each of the zoning districts. And these have been updated occasionally. You'll see cannabis is in there. They got added in certain places. Off the top of my head, other than the multifamily I proposed in the MU2, I'm not aware of anything that's really missing or lacking as far as a use. If anyone has one that they thought, boy, we should make sure that's included in the zoning code, great. If not, I would not propose any changes to the uses themselves. And >> I have two comments. Uh, one, uh, on D, I really wonder if we should strike the small portion where it says intensification of existing commercial centers. Uh, not that we don't want to do that. >> Cameron, where are you reading again? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Uh >> 273. >> Yeah. Uh line item D that you added in on page six >> of the uh Yep. original uh where it says intensification of existing commercial centers. I just think that unfortunately anytime that we talk about intensification of a use that gives some people the reason to get their knickers in a twist about the amount of extra traffic and that type of thing that it's going to generate. And I think we can still be aiming for that without necessarily using the word intensification in that sentence. So, I'm just thinking from a, you know, from some from the standpoint of somebody that may read through this thing and say, "Oh my god, they want to put more traffic on this street near my house." Uh, you know, I'm just thinking it would be better to to leave out that little section. >> You don't need it for a descriptor, >> right? >> I I think that you're right about that. I think it's extra extra word you don't need. >> Yeah. >> Take out the ore in >> Take or intensification out. Yeah. And then the other thing is just uh and I know that you were, I'm sure, doing this off of what was existing already, but under the permitted uses, could we alphabetize them when the thing is actually done because it's a little difficult to make sure that you, you know, to find something or see if you skipped over something because it's >> just >> That's a good idea. >> Jumbled. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Those are the uses right in the use tables and I just went down the line, but >> y >> I'm sure that can be done. >> Yeah. Well, if we're not changing those then those use tables which I can let me pull that up. Oops. I'll show you I'll show you how it is in the code and then you can see what I speak of. Yeah. Can you see the screens? Unfortunately, it's not on the screen that's down here and I can't see it from back here. >> Wonder if you can switch that over. Ask him. >> There we go. That's better. >> Thank you. All right. So, instead of having a whole bunch of words outlined in each section there, the uses, for example, are laid out this way. Mhm. And so when we get to here's the mu, which one are we on? Well, mu1 for example, start going down a list. And I'm just pulling these terms, >> right, >> out of the table in the order that they appeared in the table. And so this table goes on and on and on and on. So I don't in a list like this >> I I could alphabetize them but if we're not changing them it's not going to change the table. >> Yeah. >> Table's organized >> the table is alphabetized in the >> it is. Yes it is somewhat. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's allized by subsection I guess. >> Right. Yeah. If we were proposing a bunch of different uses and changes, then yes. But I'm not seeing a value in that for for this because in a in a code amendment, none of these these uses aren't going to change except if we add multifamily by P. That's use change. >> And they don't they don't appear like this list. It's separated differently. So, >> right. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, if that's the case and you know, like I say, I was just reading over the list that you had provided us and it was difficult to find it there. So, that's what made me think about it. >> Oh, it was fun to type out, too. >> Oh, I'm sure it was. >> So, that's So, that's my summary of uh item two that was in the staff report for work plan items. So, all that said, we wanted to have a discussion and review them. that's in the recommendation and then review the potential changes and assuming we have some consensus I'll be uh and I guess we're we're there I'll be putting this if that's the consensus to do what I've shown uh proposing these in ordinance fashion and have a public hearing do >> with the minor revisions that we talked about >> and Yeah. So that's where we're at with that. >> So we don't need any further action from this group. >> Again, I I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but if that's a consensus, then I will proceed that way. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I like what we have here. >> Sounds good. >> Yeah. >> Good. All right. That's that. Next. How about a downtown design manual? Oh boy. As the commission remembers, we've talked about this a couple of times. And I've done a little more digging on it. Um have a couple more thoughts, a little more than what's in the manual. And again, there's a couple of attachments with I'll get to this one. So page 24 of the packet, if you remember the last meeting, we had this notes from the design review and then we talked about it had some changes proposed in blue here, couple of changes I think the commission wanted and then I looked at this bullet point about reviewing building heights. So then I went toward this is right out of the zoning code. The green zoning code does allow up to uh mixeduse buildings to be up to four stories high and 50 ft in height which again I think the article 7 and the sentinel are both close to that if not >> right at that. So that is not really not 100% consistent with what's in the design manual right now, >> right? >> Because I think it said threetory limit. >> It is. >> So that would be one change if if we want to continue that. Uh and then all these other notes are things I picked up on and I I went through my copy and I've got a whole bunch of red lines and things that would need to be changed. So the question becomes two questions. I think we know the answer is it's still valuable and I think the consensus is yes in some fashion. And then for staff is what is the best way to tackle getting it updated? Uh and on this page of the memo I had outlined two options. do a complete rewrite, reorganize it, and public public input as outlined in that memo from 2016 that I would imagine we'd probably have to have a consultant do, which we have not budgeted for. Or my second point there is if the layout and organization is generally sufficient for the city to use and if the planning commission thinks so then have staff tackle the text updates the words >> uh and then we'll figure out what photos should be there or Not. And before I or yeah, before I wrote this, I had not talked to Ava, our communications person. I spoke to her today and showed her the document and she says, "Yeah, I I think I can do that. I think she likes doing layout and publishing and Okay. >> Yeah. >> And I said, "Well, great." So, that's my inkling at this point. Uh because a lot of the summer events she works on are now done. >> Mhm. Mhm. >> She has more time, not >> tons. >> I think that I a long way to say I guess that's my recommendation rather than farming it out to someone and going back and forth. It'll be an internal project. It might take several months, but that will save time and well save money at least >> for the city. >> Yeah. uh and and we'll I don't know if we'll just pick away at the text or I haven't figured that next step out because there are a lot of pages that have words and graphics that some are applicable, some are not. Do we just kind of like an ordinance amendment just work on the wording of that and then figure out the graphics to go with it >> here? That's probably what I would lean toward is you work on the text first. >> Yeah. >> You can always find the images. >> Yeah. cuz I was going to raise the question which I think you basically are raising already is that it's been >> what at least 15 years since this or 10 years since this was done >> and 20 you know there is a lot of computer software out there and a lot of knowledge that wasn't there or wasn't so easy to do when this was done and I was going to say if worse came to worse let's get a consultant in that can do it in a way that we can edit it ourselves for the future. And if we already have that ability on staff, then I would say let's keep it in house. And if we need to, I would even propose that we suggest or allow for the purchase of software that might that the city may not have now that would allow that to more easily happen, you know, for it to be constructed in such a way that it could be easily changed internally for the future. And we discussed that very point this morning when I talked to Aan. She >> she has I don't remember two different kinds of publishing software. And >> that's why she thinks she can do the confident about it. >> And I said we want to make it in a format that is easily editable. >> Yeah. >> In the future. So >> yes, >> right. >> Future staff aren't pulling their hair out like we've been doing this summer. >> Make sure you keep a editable copy somewhere easily. >> Yes. >> Found. And I did a little looking. I think we may even have some of the original images in a file in the computer which is great. Right now there's a big PDF with the whole thing. That's what >> you can probably at least identify the characters and start playing with it. >> Yeah. >> Y just make sure that and I'm sure that you would make sure that if it is something that we got from a consulting firm that it's the images aren't copyrighted to them. >> So, >> right. Yeah. If they're pictures of downtown businesses, I don't think that would be a >> Yeah. >> And clearly some of those have changed. >> Yes. >> All right. Well, that's I think that's the direction we're going to attempt. I I pro I don't promise a timeline, but that's I wanted to get your feedback and >> I don't think we'll be uh implementing any kind of determining any kind of deadlines today. So, >> appreciate >> I need this done by the end of the year. in six weeks. >> Okay. I I appreciate the fact that you compiled what you compiled so that we have something to look at. >> Yeah. >> One thing that I was thinking about uh when I was reading over page two here under the downtown mixeduse district, I was just curious, you know, we've got a couple of lots in the downtown area that have signs up on them saying that uh you know, available for development. Have we had anybody come in in the last couple of years that you're aware of that have looked at those and then walked away because they said that, you know, some portion of our zoning made it too difficult? I'm just wondering whether, you know, you know, is there something that we can do to help fill in some of these spots that are in along 7th Street? And uh uh you know is there a restriction that we have right now that people keep turning them down as being developable? >> I can tell you one of the challenges is um oh a lot like um over next to Sidewinders. >> Mhm. >> Um is difficult to develop just as an example. It's difficult to develop anything of substantial like multi-story there because the adjacent structures are right up to the property line and they're low structures and they have no capacity for snow drift load and that kind of thing. So you end up with restrictions that are not city or zoning or oriented there. They are just simply the nature of the adjacent properties make it difficult to >> physical challenges. Okay, >> they're physical challenges by building code and that kind of a thing and and if you you know wanted to develop this property and you bought these two and wanted to add that in now it potentially makes sense but but there's real estate wise it's really complicated to do that. So, >> I think there are those kinds of things that sometimes get in the way >> of what someone may be interested in doing. And I I personally have experience on that particular lot, having tried to design something there >> and it was really complicated and it ended up being out of the question from a budget standpoint. Just couldn't make it work with what wanted to be done. So, >> um >> I just >> a creative designer might come up with something. Yeah, >> creative developer. I don't know. >> I was just curious if there was something that that, you know, was sticking in somebody's craw as it were. >> Not that I've heard, >> right? >> I still get to play the new card for a little while longer. >> Yeah, you need more property. taking the open. >> Yeah. Drugs, >> right? >> That then you have enough space. >> Yeah. Exactly. And that's the kind of thing that some of those lots are really small. >> Yeah. >> Really really small. They're little narrow 20t wide kind of things. And it's that's the piece of property. The tattoo shop for instance, it's on a little property like that. >> Yeah. Look here. There's some of the lots. Not so big. Go ahead. Even down here. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Last item then is the work plan. >> And we've quickly go through that. We've knocked No, I shouldn't say that. We've accomplished some of the things on the list. >> Yeah. Uh, and so the updated list I put in with the memo get never mind. I'm not do that. Uh, I struck through the items that have been completed just in case you all forgot what what's been done so far. And then under four D and E we're talking about this evening uh 7A about the ME council and the comprehensive plan. We just got noticed last week. We received the city's system statement from the Met Council. They send these little packets of information out to every jurisdiction saying it's more important for the cities that are growing. How many what's your population growth look like? What's your number of housing unit growth look like? What are you going to do with the sewer system, water system, highways? Not a lot of change in North St. Paul. I think they're projecting maybe another 50 residents in the next 20 years or something. It's pretty pretty nominal. But nonetheless, we have to go through this whole exercise and make sure all our plans, our 2040 plan will be updated to make sure everything we say in our plan is consistent with their overall system statement. So, that'll be something we can start looking at. Maybe the next meeting, maybe in December, I'll pull out what's kind of the most relevant and present it and say, "What do you think?" Uh I did a quick look at there's no surprises in that. They're not expecting North St. Paul to add 3,000 residents or anything which would be quite a shock. >> Uh number nine on there is review the downtown design manual. Again, we touched on that and that'll be an ongoing thing. So I think overall we're doing pretty well. Uh the CIP there and number six, expect we'll have that for review at our next meeting in November. just verified that today with our finance director. Uh so I'm not aware of any new projects that need to be added to the list unless again the commission'sware aware of something I'm not. Otherwise it's just more of an update to say yeah we're making progress. >> Yeah, good report. Okay. >> Okay. One thing that I'm wondering about as I was reading through all of this, uh, and we may very well be doing this already, but, uh, is there anything in like the downtown design manual or the comp plan, uh, where we might be linking to particular words or regulations so that uh, if something changes in the future, like there's a a new zoning code or a new regulation that goes into place rather than having to rewrite everything. The only thing that has to be rewritten is just one item somewhere and everything else refers to that line. If you kind of understand what I'm getting at, >> do it do it by reference. >> Yeah. And I'm just thinking that that might make it a little bit easier in the future. Uh, you know, to keep things updated. If you only have to update it once and the rest of it's referring to that reference point, maybe might, you know, might make things easier on. But >> I'm sure there's a way to do it. I we'll just have to keep that in mind as we move forward on all these. >> Yeah. That's all I have for the reports and >> thank you and very very helpful. >> I really appreciate the work that you and staff are doing. >> All right, that being on uh end of item seven on the agenda, item eight is reports. So, let's start with um our substitute liaison. Mr. McKenzie, do you have anything that you would like to share coming from council? Just out of curiosity. >> I'm part of the EDA and we're going to revisit some of the past [Music] uh applicants that were turned down the first time. We want to have them come back in so we can relook at their proposals on their fascias and their what they want to do back with their design manual again. that we have for the patient program. It's for the facade improve. >> Facade program. >> Facade improvement. Yeah. >> If you guys notice, the Shell building's got all their new windows in. >> I didn't notice that. Oh, look at that. >> I stopped over there right after day. They were in getting put in. Boy, they look nice. I believe I believe Swedis just got theirs put in >> which isn't owned by the same location. >> Right over in that same area. >> Just saw new windows on the east side of Margaret Street. I don't remember which building it is, but they were getting new windows in that building, too. So, it's up one one or two buildings from Gary Insurance. >> Okay. >> So, they are doing some facade work in town here. So, >> nice. >> That's great. >> Notice they're actually doing work on the post office, too. >> Yeah, that started today or the other day I was downtown here. Yeah. >> Yes. That's great. >> Good. I don't think so. >> Okay. Mr. Muick, anything you'd like to report, bring up? >> Nothing other than, like I said, my little announcement earlier that I could be late for the next meeting. >> Yeah. >> So, >> I'm I'm in the I don't know if I'm going to be here for the next meeting mode right now. I might have work travel, but we'll see. >> Commissioner Weise, >> nothing. Commissioner Alvarez, >> I have nothing. >> I also have nothing. >> Well, I will make a comment about um you were talking about Ava having done summer activities. She helped to organize the volunteer day at the food shelf which we participated in and um it went really well. Got cleaned up real nice. I washed windows and I think it was very successful. My my my wife and I were going in and thinking, "Oh, those windows are dirty." So before we left, we thought, "We're going to make sure they aren't dirty when we leave." Anyway, um heard >> it was I think it went really well. was well organized and it and I mean in general I find that when volunteers get together it's generally a really positive experience because people are there for a reason. >> Mhm. >> And um and I am definitely of the opinion that I'd like to see the uh 15 to 20% of motans that are food insecure not be food insecure. >> So I think that kind of volunteering is a really big deal. I don't think people should have to look for food. Not when my refrigerator's full, you know, that kind of a thing. So, um, but that was really good. And, um, that's pretty much all I have except I don't know about the next meeting. I I'm in this floating around trying to figure out when when travel's going to happen. So, >> I had a couple things to report if >> Yeah, >> you wish. uh council meeting back on September 16th, they did approve the Cowin School >> edition project. So, they've been going through now all the final design and getting it out for bids and all that stuff. They also approved the zoning ordinance amendments we had about the encroachments and setbacks and all that that we talked about the last meeting and the new subdivision ordinance. >> Good. write a little comment on any of those and then so that was successful and then for those who care Sunday night or Yeah. Sunday the fire department booya. >> Yeah. >> Well, no. Yeah. Sunday morning. Saturday night they make it Sunday morning. Sunday morning. >> Sunday morning it's gone. >> Gone by 11:4 >> and it the pre-orders are already fil or done. We're not >> Yeah. I mean it goes fast. You got to be in in line hours before just to get some. Just a reminder. That's good. >> I think all I have. >> Does anybody else see Booya in town? >> Does anyone else do Booya in town? I can't remember. Do the Nights of Columbus does its Columbus >> once once once a year I think in the winter time or fall, November maybe. That might be why they had a uh special uh permit coming up in November. >> Okay. >> But the the foreign the foreign wars and all that, they don't do anything like that. They do a lot of other things. They do meat raffles and all that kind of stuff which, you know, we should all try and get to once in a while. >> I guess I might have just one little thing. The the city workers for the parade, they were a huge help and they really were great helping get that set up. So, just thank them. >> Um, Ron was sick that day and Randy stepped right up and just made a whole bunch of stuff happen for us and it was fantastic. So, >> Okay. almost got rained out, but it didn't. >> Market Street got repaved up front. >> Yeah. Isn't that nice? >> I'm really appreciating that. >> The only other thing that I wanted to mention was I saw in the I think it was a business journal recently um Minnesota communities. How was the article described? The um friendliest to development communities. North St. Paul was not listed in the top 10. So, I'm just saying >> something to work on. >> It was something to work on. Yeah. I looked at it and I thought, "Oh, that's something to work on to see if we can make improvements and make make it easier for people who want to do things in our community." >> They saying that the state is generally friendly to that. >> No, I mean it was I I can't remember exactly that >> or they were just ranking the state. >> They were ranking communities. They're one of the highest regulated for building. >> Yeah. >> Especially if you're going to consider us to Iowa or >> but it was it was they were looking in the state the state. Okay. >> The the local jurisdictions and their friendliness to development and I think >> like commercial or residential >> in the metro area. I don't think it differentiated but in the metro area it seems to me it was uh >> oh boy can't remember now. Sorry. I was I was gonna share >> we weren't in it >> and I can't remember I just saw that we weren't listed in the top 10 or 25 or whatever it was and I thought oh that's that'd be a good goal to see if we can >> I can say that Rum River who you guys >> just that much better right >> river is very nice to work >> start giving out that I've had a lot that's you know >> they've been decent >> all right I think we're finished we can uh have a a motion for a journal A motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn from Commissioner Alvarez. Second. >> I will second that. >> Second from Commissioner Gadboy. All in favor say I. >> I. And no nays. >> It is seven.