How you doing? >> Sorry guys, I was late here. >> That's okay. All right. Good evening. I'm going to call to order the September 14th, 2026 City of St. Paul Park Planning Commission. Um, again, this meeting is being recorded by True Lens Community Media. You can view all city meetings live and in replay on cable channel 799. All meetings are also streamed live and archived on the city of St. Paul Parks YouTube channel. Let's start with attendance. Um I'm here. Patrick DS, Mr. Glidden is absent this evening. Mr. M, [cough] excuse me, Mcernney is here. Mr. Diaz is here. Mr. Hagerty is appearing by remote tonight. and our council leaison Mr. Conrad is also present. So we do have a quorum. That is good. Um so let's start with the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Um, we do have meeting minutes from the May 11, 2026 meeting. So, I will move that we adopt and approve the uh minutes as submitted for the May 11, 2026. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. Those are approved. >> Oh, sorry, the delay. Um uh tonight we have one commission action which is an ordinance review for the subdivision ordinance technical standards. Good evening, Mr. Sparks. >> Good evening honorable members of the planning commission, even those attending remotely from exotic locations. What we have before you this evening is a part two of that previous discussion that we had which was about updating the subdivision ordinance. Uh over the years the city has um hasn't had a lot of like big subdivisions in more recent years. We've had a couple subdivisions that were like kind of replplats of the old old divisions and uh like there was some kind of on the south end of town where it was like a town home development replplatted into single family things like that. And with all of these it didn't really test our ordinance very much because those were kind of unique situations. And then when we had the LAR subdivision uh called uh Geneva Meadows in the U last year, we noticed that the way that we typically looked at subdivisions versus how the ordinance was written kind of diverged a little bit. So like procedurally we had a lot of um like for example a final plat coming to the planning commission for planning commission review even though there's really nothing for the planning commission to review. So we we corrected those procedural elements with an ordinance that the council adopted at the end of last year [snorts] that you guys worked on in the fall of last year. But then what we were going to do is at the next time that we had a had a meeting that was available was we were going to start talking about some of the other parts of the subdivision ordinance. So the parts that we were kind of focusing on at this point are the sections that are talking about like technical standards because we talked about the procedure and the administrative. Now, we're going to talk about the technical and then the next step would be that we're going to talk about things like park dedication, which is going to be a little bit more of a complicated discussion. But, um, with with a subdivision ordinance, you have in your code rules that are like how wide a street should be and how like wide like the built surface of the street should be and the right of way that it sits in. So like for example your current code requires like class different classifications of road like an arterial says it has to be if you if you're dedicating a new arterial road it has to be 120 ft in width and then the roadway width is determined by the city engineer and then a collector street is 80 with uh 44 foot wide right of wave. So we have these standards in code but what are the standards that we're actually asking people to do? Sometimes those aren't the same because we have engineering standards which were uh created I believe like 2000 just ahead of that river's edge subdivision. So that would have been around the 27 20078 era. you the city adopted a set of engineering standards that don't match the standards in the subdivision ordinance. So what we need to do is kind of make those match because what you're doing is some guy who's designing a subdivision is going to look at these standards and make his roads that width and then when we say no we want you to do this instead you know he's going to be a little rightfully disappointed in us at that point. So when we look at street widths um the main problem that we have is that we say that we first off we have vernacular in our comprehensive plan like we identify roads as collector local. Uh those are the categories we use and here we used uh collector commercial or industrial service street and minor street and those don't relate with anything in our transportation plan anymore. So we should just be we do have one city jurisdiction arterial. So we got to leave that in I guess and then we have a collector street then we should have local uh and then culdeac. So a local road would be um we say 66 feet which was a old common right ofway width standard from the days when people didn't have curbs largely and usually today you require storm sewer underneath and a curb and so your right ofway width only needs to be 60 ft wide and that's what we required LAR to do on their local road and then one of LAR's streets in that Geneva Meadow subdivision was a collector road, Lincoln, which we required them to be 80 ft wide and and uh we asked for them to put a trail along it and everything and it all fit in the rightway just fine. So what we're doing here is proposing that we go 80, you know, keep 80 for a collector, but then the actual street surface, we used to say 44. We're suggesting 40 now to match the what we actually do. Deleting the commercial industrial service street. We don't use that classification anymore. It doesn't exist in the comp plan. we wouldn't know where nobody would ever have it apply to them. And then we would say a local road be a 60 foot wide right ofway with a minimum width of 32 ft which is like allows for some parking. We do have different standards though for like if there's no parking parking on one side parking on both sides. the street width can change and it may be where we want to consult with our engineering standards and make these two things match up. But for the purposes of what we're talking about here, it would be fine just to do that. But we need to alter these standards to fit with what our practice is. And then culdeacs um we we uh have like a slight change that we would need to do with that as well. Um but then um the rest of that section about street widths is fine. Then we have a section also about alleys and it's saying that an alley is required in commercial and industrial areas. But if somebody were to come in and like build some like divide part of like some of that property around tennis sanitation for example, you're not making them put in. You're not going to make them put in an alley of that's uh 30 feet in width with a street in it of 26 feet in width. I mean, that's like some sort of backage road concept thing that we don't currently do. Like if somebody divided some of the property on Hastings, you're not going to require them to put in an alley. you would require them to do these things if it were necessary for the development to work and be safe. But to just arbitrarily say that everyone has to do it, that's probably not necessary anymore. And it kind of questions why we would even have this section because in a new development area, like let's say the area down here in this area, we looked at the concept plan for let's say this area came in for development. As you know, this spot here is supposed to be commercial and you're not going to require them to put in like their gas station and the little, you know, little strip mall. You're not going to require I mean, you wouldn't require them to do this. So, all you're doing is making them have to get a PUD to get out of a standard that was never really intended to apply to them anyway. This standard was likely intended for the area up by the refinery at a time where there may have been easier access from the highway into the property. You know, [clears throat] we're talking like 50 years ago. And so what we were probably doing is trying to set up that um areas that had industrial development would have these package roads for deliveries and everything. And at this point that hasn't been how the city's really developed. So that section may not even really be needed anymore. And if it is needed, you might want to say that you're not always going to require that. Um then sidewalks, that's like the next section in the technical standards. So historically, St. Paul Park has not had a lot of sidewalks. It's only been in certain areas that sidewalks have been required. And lately, we've put in some sidewalks that kind of go up towards the downtown area, which is probably a good idea. We have a plan in the comp plan. There's a page that talks about pedestrian routes that could be trails or sidewalks, but in reality, it's like with a new subdivision, which is likely going to be, if you look at the map, this this whole area of the city is already developed. This is an older map here that we could use sometime. This is all already developed. This area is going to be where all the subdivisions happen, right? And in that area, it probably, you know, it's common for cities to say that on streets in a new subdivision that there's a sidewalk on one side of the street or the other and that then would lead people to like where parks are and stuff. And then, you know, so it might make sense to say in areas of new subdivisions that aren't replplats of existing subdivisions that a sidewalk be, you know, put in on one side of the road because the way your ordinance reads now, it doesn't say when a sidewalk would be required. It just has when a sidewalk is put in, it's going to be this width. And the width that's in there doesn't meet ADA requirements. It says it's 4 feet. You got to be minimum five. And then um and then it says that for multiple family area and public sites it should be six feet wide. Commercial areas 10. That's a pretty wide sidewalk. Industrial areas six. So it might just be that you want to put in it that minimum sidewalk width 5T sidewalks meet ADA and in uh residential subdivisions are on one side of the road. In like a a commercial subdivision, you could say that you want them on maybe both sides of the road if if necessary. And it could be something that the planning commission looks at with a plat. But you don't have to say anything about putting it in in this part of the other the northern part of town. But if you [clears throat] think about it, like you have these areas here that could be subdivided. And you may want to say just that if it's, you know, a new a new subdivision like here or here in those types of areas that a sidewalk would be put in on one side of the street. But if you're replatting an area that's already been platted, not creating any new lots or anything, or just doing a lot split, something that you're not going to require it if there aren't other sidewalks in the area because you wouldn't want a guy with like a double wide lot splitting his lot in half and then well technically you're supposed to be putting in a sidewalk. That would be ridiculous. So we'd want to be careful with how we word that. But at the same time it would seem to suggest that you know because we did require that in Geneva Meadows that we should be looking at that for these other areas as well. Um but we also don't want to disrupt the existing portion of the city. Right? Then easements um you know surveying methods have changed and distances that we use for things have changed over the years. There used to be uh rods and chains and now we do everything in feet, right? And so what's common is is that you know now you use a different vernacular than what you used to use where um we we currently say like you know when you create a new lot you're supposed to put a drainage and utility easement around it that's 5t wide um like it's 10 ft wide centered on the lot line right so if there's nothing behind it'd be 10 there but if there's easements on both sides of the lot line, they'd be five and five, right? Um, but we we use six and 12, which is very uncommon these days. It's like an old standard that people used to use like 50s era. Um, now most people use five and 10. And as a matter of fact, we required LAR to use 5 and 10 in Geneva Meadows. So, just saying that we should change this code to be 5 and 10. And I even found a stock drawing to illustrate the five and 10 that we can stick into the code that will help everybody envision what we're talking about. But this doesn't say that if an easement's for a specific purpose, like let's say there's a this happens from time to time. There's a sewer line that goes in between two houses. It doesn't have to fit in the 10-ft easement. that width of that easement would be wide enough for whatever we're doing, right? Um, then the next topic I brought up in the technical standards that seemed to fit for us to discuss was street trees. Now, we used to require in new subdivisions that people would put a tree every 50 ft in the right of way. And that was common. I mean, that was what cities used to do. Like I'm sure like, you know, I remember when I before Dutch Elm, like all the streets had the Dutch elm trees over them that, you know, you drive on a shady street. It was kind of a neat look, right? But that's not what cities commonly do anymore because there's liability concerns. when you have a tree in the right ofway, then the branch hangs over the road and whose responsibility to trim that, you know, and there there gets to be disputes on that topic sometimes. So, what's somewhat common in kind of the practice of the city now is to have the trees placed like inside the lot line in a new subdivision instead of in the right of way. So it would be like 2 feet into the property. So it's like right on the front lot line. And so then it's clearly the responsibility of the person who owns the house. And so what we say though in our ordinance is technically that you're supposed to be putting in a street tree every 50 ft. That isn't what we've required of any of the last few subdivisions though. And so if that is truly the intent that we don't do that anymore and we have the trees planted on the front of you know on the lot line but on the property that's being platted uh then we would want to say that I mean it was very common for cities to require street trees. It's becoming less common because of those liability things and whose maintenance responsibility it is and cities, you know, the taxpayers don't want to pay for city guys going around trimming trees all the time, right? And if you have a private guy trimming a tree in the right ofway that is technically on city property, city taxpayers don't want to pay for if that guy falls off and falls into the, you know, they don't want to pay that for an accident, liability stuff. We just want to be careful with that. So, it may be where we want to just change this section to reference our landscaping ordinance and then put something in the landscaping ordinance that says any new house being built, you got to put a tree on the front lot line and just leave it at that. And that would be an easy tweak to make. Um, so again, we've been going through the subdivision ordinance. we know that it's it's out ofd. I mean, the language in there is um you know, older than any of us in most cases, and we probably need to update it. But, um just looking at it from the lens of what was required of that last subdivision that we did, I'm just talking about making things match the expectations we levied on that developer. So, we use that going forward. But there are some spots here like, you know, street widths is pretty self-explanatory. We should be matching our engineering standards, right? Cuz that's what we use. Uh alleys, we don't really use that clause anymore. And we probably don't want people creating these alleys cuz, you know, the city would have to plow those and maintain them. That's extra infrastructure. It's kind of what we're trying to get away from. There could be an instance where somebody wants to do an alley and you guys could accept it, but to mandate it, I think that would be something you don't want to do anymore. Then uh with the sidewalks, you know, we've kind of talked about maybe starting doing sidewalks on one side of the street in these new neighborhoods. But if we don't want to do that, you're going to have to say in areas where required by the comprehensive plan that we have to put sidewalks in because you do have a map in the comp plan that shows where you want sidewalks and trails. But you did require LAR to put in a trail along the collector road and a sidewalk on the secondary road on one side of the street. So it would seem that that's probably the way the direction we're going. And then easements 12 and six. We should change that to be 10 and five and put that drawing in there. And then uh then you guys should tell me what you want to do with street trees. And uh right now we require street trees 50 ft apart. Two per lot. Two per lot. That's pretty big. Especially when you think like some of the lots like you guys allow like in the R2 district a single family lot 40 ft. That'd be two street trees for every like would be pretty dense uh right away there. So we got to change that somehow. But so I guess those are our discussion topics. And what we can do here is because the street tree thing thing could cause a ripple effect into the zoning ordinance based on which way you go. Uh we would want to probably uh take the concepts that you talk about here tonight and then package it into an ordinance then come back at a future meeting and talk about it. So with that, Mr. share. I will turn it over to you to initiate a lively discussion on this very exciting topic. >> So piggybacking off your tree comment. So let's frame the conversation tonight. So are you looking for direction and commentary such that we'll have a future ordinance that we can really look at and start tweaking. You're not asking us to come up with ordinance language now. you is that you you would like us to walk through each of these topics, give thoughts, give direction, and again, as you said with the trees, come back and have like a concrete a piece of concrete language to really kind of um >> Yeah. >> examine. Right. >> Right. So, like on all of these topics, some of them are pretty self-explanatory, but you guys may talk about like the street trees or the street widths or something and that may cause I mean, we can't just go from here and have an ordinance that goes to council. We'd want to come back because based on how you talk about these things, it may require changes to other things that we would need to do. So, so we need this feedback before we can draft the ordinance. >> Okay. So, Okay. So, let's just go in the order. So, street widths, right? So, um cleaning up the language, right? Like we have to properly identify what actual streets do we have like what do we call them, right? Which is consistent with the comp plan, right? So, >> you've identified three, the arterial, collector, and local road, right? then culde-sac is a form of a street but okay so I think that's painfully obvious we want to have consistent language I don't think that's uh controversial um then the only question I have is like if we're okay >> then this is a this is about changing the subdivision ordinance y so we're we're we're >> we're working with a smaller subset of ordinance language because we have got them we've got the generalized ordinances which talk about what do we want you to do generally you got your puds you got so but we're talking about a subset which is just the subdivisions right >> right and so what we would want to do too is probably put language in there that says that this is not intended to so like if you had a lot that you were splitting the hot and it's in an area cuz the old part of the city, the 1800's platted part of the city has 80 foot wide and 100 foot wide rights of way, right? And so this if somebody's split a lot and they're on a 100 foot wide road, we don't want them trying to vacate the portion of the road in front of them and them having pointing at this and making an argument. We'd want to say that this is for newly dedicated rights of way, not to intended to impact existing rights of way. >> Right? So in the preamble actually even before section 6287, right? We you maybe we'd want an amendment to that preamble, the very beginning section which says, hey, we've got an ordinance that deals with subdivisions. And again, it kind of the general, okay, it's got to conform with the plan. It's got to be reasonable for the area. I mean, so that would be something what we could put in like the preamble, which is this is designed like this ordinance is designed to apply to new subdivisions. Again, like I said, not the replats, not the the the reconfiguration or the splits. This is for actual new subdivisions. Um, my other question on this on this on the street widths. So, let's say I'm just going to do a a one a block a block, right? Where I'm not technically affecting or doing anything to the streets around me. Is that going to be a problem or is that something we have to identify where like if I'm just doing a literally like say I just picked a block up, I'm I'm going to subdivide it. I'm going to and I'm going to, you know, plat it out, but I'm not going to touch any of the streets around me. You could you could technically find yourself in a situation where you're not meeting the subdivision language. So unless your subdivision requires you to put in a street, do we need to have something that says like this street section only applies to those subdivisions which are putting in streets or are we saying your subdivision can't be done unless when you put it in you just happen to be meeting all the street requirements around it. So there's two I mean there's a couple different ways to go on that. Yeah. What the way we want it to go is that if you're making a new street, you're meeting meeting these standards. Okay? >> If you're not meeting a new street, you're fine. Except like you see in here, there's a clause that says where a subdivision of Butts or contains an existing street of inadequate width, sufficient additional width shall be provided to meet the standards above. So, we want it to be that if somebody's got too small of a street, like I don't know, you'll see in some like cities, they'll have like 30 foot wide rights of way that a streets in. That's not wide enough. So, we'd be asking the person in your scenario that's doing the block if there was like a substandard rightway that they would get up to these standards, but we would not make them go up to the like if the other roads in the area were the 80 and 100. We wouldn't make them go up to that. But it's just that we want to make sure that we're not creating an opening for somebody to reduce the size of the rights of way in the old platted part of town because you can see how that would be weird. you'd have a street with that would go like that and then back out. It you'd want to handle that in a more global fa fashion, not on an ad hoc basis like that. >> Well, but it also says if there are streets that you have to be the streets have to be contiguous, you you can't if you're when you're platting, you have to play again if you're making a street, your street has to be in such a way that it merges or melds with the streets either coming off it or going or that it's around. Yeah. So, I just want to make sure I'm clear, which is if you're building a street as a part of your subdivision, we want you to meet the new requirements. But if you're not building a street, we still want you to create your subdivision such that you can meet these new minimum requirements. Y >> right. So, one way or another, either you're going to build the street to requirement or you're going to adjust your subdivision such that at the end of the day, it's meeting these requirements. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And that's kind of some of that language is already kind of in there, but I just want to make sure we're articulating it and that we're clear >> and Okay. So, your letter or your planning letter for tonight doesn't list out every single little subdivision subdivision within the the generalized ordinances. So, when you're talking about making changes, we're talking about making just the changes to the sections that you've highlighted. these other sub and subp parts were leaving alone. >> Yep. Yeah. Some of them I reviewed them. >> Like what I did was I went through the ordinance and I flagged things that looked off to me. And then I also went through and looked at what we have done in the last couple subdivisions we've talked about, even dating back to the ones that were like 10 years ago, and just noted the things that we required of other. And then I brought the things that have been consistent and not issues I didn't I didn't bring up. So I left those out. But these topics were the ones that jumped out. And then if we make tweaks to these sections, it may cause a little bit of a ripple effect through other parts of the subdivision ordinance and then that's what we would bring back next time. >> Okay. Just out of curiosity on page two like the the subprime 4 it says extension of exist of existing streets with lesser right away than prescribed. You crossed out permitted by variance and you added via planned PUD. Yeah. So, um, we like the proper tool for that if somebody's going to have in like let's say somebody came in and wanted to do a subdivision that only had 50 foot wide rights of way instead of the 60 that you require. We wouldn't want to do that by variance because what would be the hardship for that ever? I mean, there would be what would be the practical difficulty? I just don't want to I mean, it's that's >> I don't want to spend the money or Yeah. Yeah. Right. and it's uh or I want to get more lots in my subdivision, right? And those aren't reasons. We should be doing that stuff via PUD because planned unit development evaluation for one is very discretionary. And you guys could be like, I don't see the benefit to doing this to the public. There's no public benefit to this. And then you can just say, no, we're not going to do that. Or you could say, "Yeah, there is a reason for doing this because in this area we want to have narrower rights of way for some reason." Like sometimes it'll be you'll have a narrower right of way and then a a smaller street in in an area where there's like a lot of storm water runoff issues or something to have less impervious and hard cover, right? Um, so like you would want it to be for a situation that had some tangible benefit, not just because somebody didn't want to do it or wanted to get more lots in a subdivision, right? So that would be the reason for that type of tweak is that um just anytime that somebody doesn't want to meet the width standards. [clears throat] I mean if they they can apply variance because you can get variances from the subdivision ordinance too just like this this zoning ordinance but the proper tool so you call it when you call it out we should say PUD rather than variance because that would be the proper method of varying that type of standard >> and [snorts] did Geneva Meadows just remind me their streets are how I mean were they are they 60 ft. >> Yeah, they're 80. One was 80 and one was like uh >> so the link the the extension of Lincoln was >> 80 >> 80. Okay. >> And then Summit was 60 and I think I believe they platted they have to plat part of the road to the north. I can't remember but um but it was 80 and 60. Yeah. >> Okay. But if for some reason, so that would have been a situation where if they wanted to go shorter, it would have to be they would have to had to include that in their PUD. It couldn't be a subdivision thing, >> right? It would have to be a PUD. that that's what this would do is if they wanted to propose a 50-ft rideway for Summit, we would want that to be a PUD because uh the test for a PUD generally is that you guys identify some benefit to the city for doing something different than normal. Where a variance is, it's just man, I just can't make this happen without this. And a variance is supposed to be very uncommon and when related to practical difficulty, I mean it's just a better tool to use is the PUD. >> You want a different standard. You want them to meet a different standard. >> Yeah. >> Instead of the variance. Okay. Okay. >> Anybody else have a question or comment or discussion about the street width proposed changes? I think it sounds clear. >> Okay. >> All right. So the next thing you talked about again is is alley. So talking about Okay. Not making to eliminate the language that we currently have where it makes it sound like an alley is a requirement. Right. >> Yeah. says in a commercial industrial setting that we um that we it says except in the case of a PUD, a public or private alley or adequate loading facility shall be provided in a block where commercially zoned property but a collector arterial street. So we say that it's required unless you get a PUD and it might make more sense. I mean like if like you have plenty of examples of commercial development in town. A lot of them are on collector roads that don't have that. And um you know like you just think about like that would be something that you'd want to require possibly in a situation where it was unsafe. But just as a practice it just isn't common to do that anymore for an alley because the city the alley becomes city property and you you'd want them to have a lane. Sure. But it should be their lane, not the city's lane. Right. >> Well, you know, and here's the thing, and that kind of goes back to something else which talks about when we're talking about subdivisions, which is it talks about you developing like what's the definition of a block, right? Um, you know, and because that's kind of that's that's something that that you find in here. And my question is okay on the alleys which is you know looking at your letter so if it says and the first line it says loading facilities shall be provided if you turn shall into may right that's one right one word right >> that that could be that's a solution >> does well okay well and I'm just asking now if you go to the last sentence there where it says alleys and residential areas other than those zoned for multiple family use shall not be permitted right So that last sentence kind of saves you in some situations which it says, hey, unless you're in this really narrow little kind of exception, if you're residential, you just can't do it period, right? So it seems a weird way like you can do something but they I mean I is it a matter of cleaning this up or is it or is it more effective to just get this alley thing gone? It might make sense to just get rid of the alley thing and say alleys. The city may accept alleys and certain conditions where there's access problems because if they plat this as an alley that's like a public right of way. That means public works has to go back there and plow it and that that's adding expense to the taxpayers. them having like a lane on the back of their commercial development that the trucks go in. We could say you need to have that because the road doesn't support not having that, but you wouldn't want it to become a public infrastructure. you'd want it to be their own infrastructure, you know, or at least like in this case, it's assuming that you're going to have probably a series of lots and they need to share something for access and the fronts of the lots are facing the street. But in reality, if we had a situation where the street couldn't handle the commercial, industrial traffic, development, deliveries, and whatnot, we'd probably be looking for them to create a private solution to that issue rather than a public one going forward. >> I mean, would would that be more appropriate than like something like a PUD or we'd have a >> Yeah, you could accept it as a PUD if somebody wanted to do it. So then my question becomes is okay you didn't actually it doesn't look like you changed like when you get down to like paragraph B where it talks about the right of way with or the payment you the grade it didn't look like you were interested in changing those like technical requirements right is that fair read like those seem to be like reasonable current up-to-date technical requirements yes no >> for the alley width >> well the alley width being 30 feet yeah it says 30 feet with pavement of 26. I mean, I I guess that's I wouldn't view that as being something that you would want to do because 26 feet 30 centered in that that's like 2 feet on a side. If you plow it, the snow is going to be outside of that in some cases. That's not a good situation. >> Well, so my question being is if if if the suggestion right now is let's let's just eliminate the alley thing. Let's say at some point somebody wants an alley. Are we gonna then have to like either refer to a different section of the code or do we want to have like something that just says like if for some reason your subdivision requires or or or you want to propose an alley I mean do we want some technical requirements in there so we're not searching for them or scram or or it just be like empty and and they're just kind of making it up as they go. So that's my question which is taking it out. Sure. That's one option. Or we're going to provide some alternative language about like it's not required. If you want one or if you request one, we may give you one. But if you do have one or if you're going to come to us with a with a plot or with a plan, follow these up so when we're looking at it, we've got what you want up front the way we would potentially want to see it. >> Yeah. I mean, I think you probably don't need that for this reason, which is that if they're going to say they need one, and you're going to want them I mean, you're probably going to want them to make it like private, not public. Private with cross easements perhaps if there's multiple lots so they can share it, you know, like sometimes you drive through a business area and you can drive from one parking lot to the other, right? You know, like that isn't like a city thing. That's private, right? And if they do it, I mean, you're going to have standards for like two-way traffic and stuff, which is just going to be inherent in the zoning ordinance. But if it's for like trucks and deliveries and things like that, they're going to want it to be designed, you know, you probably would just want to use like two-way traffic design. I mean the 26 and 30 is probably a little bit arbitrary for every purpose. So I don't know that you really need it. And plus the 30 a 30ft easement with a 26 foot wide infrastructure in it. It does seem a little tight. You know it's um you know it's just kind of occupies a bit bit of space. You know almost the whole space. It's not doesn't leave you much room to move. But you could leave it in there and say when permitted. But again, I mean, if you just say we don't permit alleys except by planned unit development and new subdivisions. >> Well, and that's what I was thinking. You know, most new new development nowadays, you have curved streets, right? They're not making them square blocks like they used to so much. Right. >> But when they do have the square blocks to to allow people to park in their garage in the back rather than than uh take up space in their front yard, you know, if they do the square blocks, it is nice to have an alley, but are they doing that anymore? Now, cities usually don't permit alleys and new subdivisions, even when you're in the square block area, because alleys have to be maintained by the city. the city's got to send a plow truck back there. They have to patch it. You know, it becomes a maintenance issue that ends up then with the city's budget growing and then people getting disappointed with the taxes that they're paying. It creates this I mean it's something that where it's already exists, it's fine and everybody's okay with that. But in areas where it doesn't need to be that way, you prefer that they design it in a different fashion or that if they have the alley that it's a private function like a like almost like a shared drive in a town home association, right? So then the city doesn't have to be involved with it, >> right? All right. And all of our ordinances are designed so that we've got house setbacks and driveways are long enough that you should have adequate parking and we got garage requirements. So, you know, if if if it doesn't have an alley, we're you know, the the whole concept of the way we're ordinancing is you we don't need alleys because we don't want people driving behind. You don't need a garage behind. We're we're set up such that alleys don't have they're not it's not that they're not necess they're just not important. They're just not something that we have to aim for. So, yeah. >> Yeah. >> I guess I'm not like uh super um devoted like whether we keep it or don't keep it. My only thought is like I said, you know, where is if somebody does want to come and have an alley? Do we want to have the some specs in there or not? If they're going to come in with an alley, they're going to come in with sort of this is our thought of how we want to get it done. That's fine, too. Um, I think to me that makes the most sense is just having that when they would put in the PUD for one, we would then be able to just dictate, okay, if you want to do an alley, fine, we'll let it slide or we'll allow it, but it needs to be X feet and X right away with to me I think would make the most sense. >> Or if you want an alley, it's got to be, you know, have to meet, you know, city engineers, you know, approval or something. something. I mean, you could you could just put something that just like acknowledges like I just feel if you take like like do they allow alien there's going to be somebody who looks and goes hey it doesn't talk about alleys. Do they allow alleys or not? I mean maybe you keep the the the heading but you just put like like if you want one or you know it's subject to like the approval by the city you know city or city engineer or whatever it may be. I always find this thing where sometimes the the absence of something creates questions and and kind of creates more confusion sometimes. >> Yeah. >> So, not having specific language I think is fine. Not having specific uh requirements is fine, but maybe again just acknowledging like it's a thing that could happen. It might exist, but it's going to exist. you know, you're going to have to plan it right and it's going to have to get approved by the city engineer and by the, you know, city council ultimately. All right. Anybody else want to talk about alleys? >> All right. >> I liked them. >> Yeah, I grew up with an alley. It was fine. Whatever it was. Yeah. >> I don't have one now. And I'm glad because I I've got 10 more feet of backyard and I get to see my neighbors. So, I mean, I'm okay with no alleys. Um, okay. Sidewalks. Um, I mean, I grew up in South St. Paul. I mean, that was just everybody had a sidewalk. That was just a part of life. Now, here in St. Paul Park, sidewalks are I mean, mostly they're hit and miss, but mostly miss. Um, [sighs] I think it'd be nice to have I mean, [laughter] my concern is like, let's say you're doing a sub. I mean, are you going to build a sidewalk to nowhere? Right? Because because that's the qu, right? I mean, so we've got somebody just does a subdivision, they put up their sidewalk. Well, I mean, where do they end? Right? They're going to end somewhere. Um, do they lead somewhere? Um, I mean, I guess if you think long term, you know, eventually, you know, someone does it here, somebody does it there. Eventually, maybe they would line up. Um, also again back to my one block, you know, example. Well, let's say I do the block. Well, I say, well, maybe the sidewalk should be on the other side. I don't want to build it, you know, because the sidewalk only has to be on one side. Maybe it would be better on the other side. Maybe I, you know, so how do you manage something like that? Also, let let's say I built a subdivision. I've got my sidewalk. Someone builds a subdivision on the other side of the street down two blocks. [snorts] Are they gonna have to build a sidew but but the sidewalk would be on the other side of the street? So you could envision where over time I mean if we're going to have a sidewalk we want the sidewalks to go somewhere meet up with each other. So that's going to put a burden on one side of the street that's not on the other side of the street, right? Because we don't want sidewalks hopping back and forth across the street. So how do we how do we decide whether or not you should build a sidewalk if you've only say got one street front in your subdivision and there should be some language that says you know if there is one and you're building next to it yours has you have to have one that connects. Um, so I mean those are things that I mean I think that somehow we should find a way to make sure that those are those kinds of ideas are in there. >> That would make sense. >> I I mean I don't know if anybody has any profound thoughts on sidewalk or sidewalks or >> No, I I just 4 foot sidewalks are no longer >> Yeah. AD right as you know we would want sidewalks to be ADA compliant. We want curb cuts. I mean, you know, all that kind of stuff. Yeah. >> I mean, you do have areas like in uh where in development where the sidewalks over here cuz you know, like the sidewalk will be over here and then it'll come to a street and then there'll be like where it comes out to the side and it crosses this street and then it goes over on that side for a while. That does happen in areas of development based on conditions. I mean that will happen from time to time. Um putting [clears throat] some you know concepts in here around like where it should be and how we know where it should be. Um you know we can look into that. We can come up with something around that. But just the main overarching point is is that do we want to say that we want to include sidewalks on one side of the street in these new subdivisions as they come in. I mean, I think we do have areas of town where there are sidewalks and right now we just kind of say where required you need to put in a sidewalk of this width, but what triggers the requirement isn't always that clear. We have areas where we talk about wanting sidewalks to lead to parks. And so just saying that, well, if you're near a park, we're going to make you put in a sidewalk. How would you know that? By looking at this code, right? And so it's probably easier that you just start with a, you know, that and you could also say something like in new subdivisions or you're dedicating new right of way, you have to put a sidewalk on one side of the street unless it's a culde-sac road less than x number of feet, you know, like less than like 400 feet or something. So, you're not putting one in that just goes past like four or five houses, right? >> You could put something in there like that. And then you could say that, you know, in cases where, you know, you maybe there's something we can put in about when you're just doing one side of the road versus the other if you would have to. cuz you know we do have areas like there was a subdivision that we reviewed that was um just on the south side of the city that was uh taking a block an undeveloped block next to the park on the river. It was um I don't know if you guys remember this one. It was um this block. It was one of these blocks in here where somebody was it was this one. Somebody was taking that block and wanted to divide it just in, you know, it was one block. They were going to divide it into like 30 single family homes. And there was a row of houses facing the street that then on the other side was existing development. And would you require them to put in a sidewalk in that case? And they be like, well, wait a minute. Why isn't it going to that guy? And so sometimes you have to like make a judgment call that would be that you're first, you're doing it or we have this criteria of determining who does it. We could put a little thought into that and come back with something on that topic just to avoid a potential issue. But then again, like you remember the block 89 apartment building that we talked about a few years ago. It's like shouldn't they be putting in a sidewalk there? Because I mean it's they're going to be the ones that generate all the traffic and all the people, right? So why wouldn't they be putting the sidewalk here, here, and here? Well, you don't want to send all the apartment people over here and stick them on a sidewalk over there, right? I mean, that would be weird. So, a lot of times it is kind of contextual on who does it and when it would happen, but I mean, we can put a little more thought in that. if you want to go the sidewalk on one side of the street bit that you know we can come up with some criteria around some of these questions and see what we have. >> Well, I say if there's no sidewalk, maybe you put in a sidewalk. >> If there's already a sidewalk that's somehow a budding or near your, you know, you would be required to to continue it, right? where if where if if the subdivision across the street already had it and you were on you were going to subdivide on this side of the street, you you could you wouldn't have to because okay, there's already a sidewalk on the street where I'm at right now. If if if on my side of the street the sidewalk was on the next block, but on my side, then it would just be a requirement. Okay, I'd have to then I would be responsible for having the sidewalk on my side because it would make it a continuous sidewalk, right? cuz that's that's the benefit of a sidewalk is just being able to stay on it and cross as few streets as possible. >> Yeah. And right now we don't clearly require sidewalks in all cases. So it's like is this something we want to a path we want to go down? Cuz if we would have to rebird this otherwise to say you have to put in sidewalks when required by the comprehensive plan, then we'd have to stick into the comprehensive plan a map showing where we're expecting sidewalks to be. >> But this is but this is this other one is is specific to subdivisions, right? And we've already said it's not for splitting lots or if it's if you're not replatting an existing piece. This is for new subdivisions, right? So we're we're already kind of narrowing the the applicability of this. >> Yep. So, I know what you're saying, which is like we don't want to make it like everyone feel like they have to put one in, but if we're if we're already only including this language in a very again a small subset of the ordinances for a small subset of building choices, I would imagine that the impact would be not so worrisome that we'd have to really like ratchet the language down. >> Right. And I'm thinking the sidewalks are going to be on the rightway of the city then, right? >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> They'd be in the right way and then >> and so any damages that happened to them or whatever as time goes on is to be taken care of by the city then. >> Yeah. Typically, um city would m the adjacent property owner would have to shovel it. >> Right. Right. But [clears throat] the like if it gets all cracked up and stuff, the city would replace it or what a lot of cities will do is they'll, you know, come through and fix them all at the same time. You don't want trip hazards everywhere, right? So, >> so the developer would pay for the sidewalk initially >> and then the maintenance would be picked up by the city. >> Yeah. And the neighboring property owner. >> Okay. Is it not something you could list that it be addressed on a case-byase basis? You know, like if you have a block and then two blocks don't and you have a block that does, obviously you would want them to be linear. If you have a new development that don't doesn't have any feeder roads in it, you might not want or require a sidewalk. But if you had feeder roads, you might want to make it so that those like you uh addressed earlier, having them go to a park, say that that southern quadrant down there that's potential may maybe have its own significant park area and you would want things to feed to there. Um would it would it not be advisable to do it case by case because our town is so developed. We're not we're not cottage grow where we've got a continuous areas of development. We've got random little spots and one potential sizable one which would be more comprehensive than the little one-offs. Something that just brings it up. So, it's an issue that is discussed, but it might not be particular yet. >> But isn't the question though whether or not we want to make the presence of a sidewalk like an assumption like is this is this a thing we like kind of like the alleys, right? If you're if again if you're in this or section of the orders and you're doing a subdivision is there do we want to create the expectation that having a sidewalk or continue is going to be a part of our expectation when you develop this subdivision right that's that's really the first question right that we want to you know I think it would be beneficial to have the assumption that a sidewalk should be a part of your subdivision right I just think that I mean I think we're in a world where I think I think people are looking for that. I think they see that as a not as an amenity but I think it's like there's there's there's a growing expectation. I mean I I mean one of the biggest things you see cottage Grove and or places like Cottage Grove Woodbury very selling is like we've got this system of trails and parks and and sidewalks where people can go for a walk, go for a run and it's it's they're they're very popular. they're they're used. And so I think it's something that people like to see in their community. So I I I think it would be not unreasonable if you're going to do a subdivision that you would you at the initial get-go you would look at like there's going to be a sidewalk here. We're going have to have we're either going to start it or we're going to connect to something or somehow or another this is going to be a part of of what we what we're doing. So I like the idea of having it as an assumption. I mean, other I mean, everybody else could chime in whether they like it or don't like it, but I I like it as an assumption. >> Yeah. I like the idea of the sidewalk to try to keep those electric scooters off the streets, you know, if they want can use them on on a sidewalks a little bit, that might not be a bad idea. >> Yeah. I mean, and I live on Lincoln. It's a wide road. I mean, there's always people walking up and down. I mean, if they I would imagine if there was a sidewalk, people would probably just as soon walk on the sidewalk. It's probably a little bit safer, a little bit nicer. So, um, again, you know, we're we're also talking about, again, the subdivision. So, I mean, we're we're really kind of looking at a very small subset of the possible things that could be built or done here. So, it's not going to be, I think, an undue burden on, you know, development in general in St. Paul Park. So >> they say we put her in there >> as an assumption. >> Yeah. >> It's not automatic, right? But like if it's something that's a it's a generalized expectation, which I'm sure if if a builder came in and said, "Hey, it's just not going to work here. It's it's not going to it's not feasible. It doesn't you know, we're at the end of something where it's not going to continue anywhere." I'm not saying we're not trying to tie our hands, but I think it'd be nice if it was >> at least a thought. You could put something in there that says maybe waved in cases where it doesn't connect to anything or is on the culdeac less than x number of feet. something like I mean we can put like what council member Conrad's talking about something like that in there some exceptions if we can come up with some clear ones and then just as long as we say just as a standard point of view in new development we're requiring the sidewalk on one side of the street and then there's some exceptions and you got to meet these ADA compliant standards we should be good then but we can come up with some exceptions as well to see if that works. >> Okay. Um and just out of curiosity, okay, so the next thing in your thing is easements. Um although when I when I did pull the the language of the the current ordinances, it does talk about the the definition of what's a block, what's a lot. And you don't you think those all seem to be okay? we don't need to re-examine what the definitions of blocks and lots are for subdivisions. I guess I hadn't really gotten into that part of it yet because we have one more round of this, the third round where we're going to talk about some of the more existential things like where it could be perhaps we look at that cuz there there is a standard about a block because you know when you think about if I may grab this one more time since I love doing so um let's say this property is getting developed if you can see this far. And then you see this street here and somebody just makes one long street and then cuts it over to the county road. So you got like a 7,000 foot long streets. You got to have a standard for block which requires them to put a cross street in at some point. Otherwise, somebody would do that. they would just have one mile long stretch of road that you can never and there there's issues with that from a functional point of view, but also like you think about fire trucks and emergency response when you when you have kind of a long straight road with no roads that connect to it, you kind of you're on that road until it goes somewhere, right? There's no place to turn. And so having that standard is important. what that standard is. I didn't really look at it compared. I mean, we hadn't really had issues with it, but we could look at that. >> No, and and that's okay. No, I just I I just noticed that, you know, you we just kind of jumped over a couple of sections. Again, I don't know if if that would just meant like these are great, they're fine. I'm not worried about them. Or like you said, maybe I didn't touch them. Do we have definitions in and I just again I just came off top. Do we have definitions in other parts of the ordinance about what's a lot and what's a block? like like R1 or multi >> there's some definitions related to lots and everything but not block is always going to be a subdivision ordinance function. >> Okay. So, and that is again to prevent that one really long road or alternatively sometimes you have a standard for like somebody will make like a a block that's too short and then you've got like one house with roads all around it, you know, and that's you don't want that either, right? So, those standards serve a purpose, but you know, I didn't get too deep into that. I what I was focused on for tonight was the things that we kind of flagged when we looked at Geneva Meadows. Uh those were kind of first order of business. Well, second order of business actually because we took care of the first order of business last time. But so I mean we can look at some of that and if there's something off with what we're using, we can definitely fix. And I didn't I didn't personally see anything that was off that was it was an honest question which is like again there's just we kind of we kind of leaprogged. So my mind was like okay if we leaprog do we leaprog because we didn't look or because we think it's fine and that's so I have no commentary or no no desire to change anything if if it if it's not broken I don't need to fix it. Um so the next sections seem kind of there it's easements and then you have um and you didn't talk about public utilities but I don't I think e but easements is your next uh thing in your >> ements was the next one that I flagged because of our our our 612 instead of 510 >> 510. Yeah. Yeah. And that's really about just like when we're going out in the market and we're and we're looking for city engineers and planners and stuff, they've already got a certain mindset in terms of setbacks and kind of like what's what's currently being used. So, um, by conforming to kind of what everything is out there, we're making it a little bit easier for prospective builders or or or designers, like, you know, the things you're typically building and using and that the the concepts that you're comfortable with, we're going to start making sure that those are sort of our our baseline. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, before I lose this thought, one of the other thoughts, and I don't know if this is something that needs to be or I don't know what section this would be in, but you know, somewhere in the subdivision, do we need to talk about things like fences, secondary buildings or out buildings? Um, like do we need to have like your trash behind a a a screen? I mean, are there other things that we should be adding or could be adding or that we should contemplate adding? And the only reason we think about maybe when you talk about easements, it made me think about like you know the setbacks and like trash and like like how do we um manage that stuff that kind of made me think about some of these other issues which is like again you know fences out buildings. You know some cities have you know you want your trash to be behind a some sort of screen or fence. So is that is that necessary and appropriate? And if so, is that something that we would want to talk about putting in a the subdivision ordinance? >> Wouldn't that more be sort of like a city code thing versus like the building? And I mean, this is more like how wide you know, easements are and streets. I don't know. >> Well, but I mean, but if you're bu but if a sub but if we're creating standards for a subdivision, which is different than like I'm just going to build a single family home or I'm going to build a multi-unit home, right? So that what I'm saying is do we want or do we need or is it appropriate to address these things when we're looking if we're going to if we're going to kind of revamp the subdivision ordinances and I'm not trying to make extra work or create new issues, but it just kind of struck me as I was going through these things. Um there's there's other little things that I know can crop up. people might be interested in them. And I don't I guess I I'm looking for your thoughts on is it appropriate, inappropriate, necessary? I mean, what what do you think about some of these other like smaller issues? >> Well, there's a clause in the subdivision ordinance that says that you any subdivision you do has to be designed to meet the other requirements of the city's zoning ordinance. And so if because when the subdivision's done, the subdivision ordinance is out of the picture. So [clears throat] you would want to put things like that in your zoning ordinance and say it's a zoning violation to have your wheeled bin sitting up by the street 247 365, right? And then that would be in the uh nuisance code or the subdivision in the zoning ordinance. And then subdivisions would have to be designed to where all these little technical details of the zoning ordinance are met on every lot in the subdivision. So you want to just make sure that you're saying that you can't design a lot that can't handle the requirements of the code. >> Okay. That would be >> so like like like out like out building or second be like like you have to be able you have to have the a lot of such size and width that you could have enough setbacks where the out building is far enough away from the main dwelling. It's also far enough away from the property lines and yeah it's like people design things all the time that technically meet code. And when we're looking at the subdivision, like if somebody designed a subdivision where the house was here and the setbacks were right at the house and there was you have a code that says a shed has to be 10 ft from the house, but if there's no place to put a shed, we'd flagged that during the the review from a zoning point of view saying like, "Hey man, you're designing your subdivision here where nobody can have a shed. Are you aware of that?" And then and then they'd probably say, "Well, nobody needs a shed." And then the first guy that buys a lot >> wants a shed. >> wants a shed. >> Yeah. Then he's gonna be applying for a variance and we're going to have to have, you know, 50 variances. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, you would probably you'd snuff that out through through the zoning review of the subdivision application. >> Okay. So you wouldn't necessarily need to have those sorts of things individually within the subdivision, >> right? >> Okay. All right. So I I sidetracked. So again, we're talking about easements and trying to make them more uniform and get them more in line with sort of the general practice of what's happening now. >> Yep. >> I mean I get I mean obviously I mean I don't have the technical expertise to know what's the standard out there. I don't have the technical expertise to know you know what is required by all you know all these stuff. So I mean I I trust if you say that you know if we can get some uniform language that meets general standards I'm going to trust that that's going to be sufficient such that builders can can make plans they can develop plats and subdivisions that are going to be you know reasonable and that are going to be desirable for people to want to live in and buy. >> Yeah. And are you going to put are you and I not not I'm not trying to be funny but you're you're going to include the little picture right for Okay so people can >> I stick that in all the subdivision ordinances I write that do the 510 if you want to stick with the 612 I can make you a 612 >> one okay no I mean it is okay for like lay people right I mean I mean reading Sydney ordinances sometimes you Maybe you just don't always get it. I I actually was appreciative that you had this example in there which kind of showed us like a concrete example of like what we're actually talking about. Anybody have thoughts or issues with changing easement language? >> I think so for me. >> All right. And then the I think the last thing you got in here is the trees, right? So again, the city doesn't want to have to pay to maintain, to chop, to cut, to dig them up. Um, that sounds good by me. Um, I guess my only thought would be I mean do we want some language that says that that depending upon the property size there should be a tree on the property. >> I think um what you guys should probably think about doing is we put some claws in the city's landscaping standards. Tell me what you think of this. And then we just say one tree per single family lot at the front property line. Like within 3 ft of the front property line, >> but not in the rightway. >> Not in the right way. Per single family lot, minimum one. And so now, say there there's an existing tree on on the rightway, right on the boulevard and a tree dies and so the city cleans it up right now. So now is the homeowner required then to plant a tree? >> Well, it would be not necessarily. I mean, [snorts] no, it would not be. But well, but let's also go back to the beginning of our conversation, which is we're talking about creating requirements in this ordinance for new subdivisions, not for replats or prop. So, in theory, >> you'd have kind of a a fresh set of ground. I mean you for go back to the beginning like we're we're not looking at reinventing what's there saying if you just got a flat piece of dirt with some with grass and rocks if you're going to start building >> Yeah. >> the expectation is once this thing all comes up then we'll make sure you've got a tree there >> Yeah. >> on the lot. Right. >> That was just in my mind and I'm just thinking if I'm watching over on on on TV right now or whatever it's like so if I lose my tree do I got to put one at least to make that clear. Well, and these are for, you know, this is for the builders and plants. Like, like when you're building and planting, you should do that. Now, five years later, if the homeowner, if the tree dies, the homeowner digs up the tree. I mean, that's there's not I mean, what are you going to do? They own the property, it's theirs now. It's their tree. I mean, there's not a lot we can do. >> Mr. Conrad. >> Yeah. If >> there if there's a corner lot, would they would you want a requirement to provide it on both both sides of their property and not just have the wording of one per lot? >> It'd be like one per frontage. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I' I'd thought that, but then I'd on a quarter lot. Sometimes depending on how big the lot is with there's a driveway could make it tight potentially. might be more restrictive of like the builder trying to figure out, well, if I need a garage here, I need a tree on this side of the street and I need another tree on that side of the street or sidewalk. >> Like if you got a driveway that that comes off the side street is as opposed to the the main the main street. Yeah. No, I that that makes >> Is there not something that requires the driveway to come in off your address side of your home >> in our current plat? >> Uh, no. I mean it you're allowed one driveway per lot and your front is usually the narrow side. So typically it would come in off the narrower like if you're on the corner. >> Yeah. >> So the issue we run into like what you're talking about is sometimes when people if the lot's too narrow and the driveway is too wide, there really isn't enough space on the one side. And then if they do something where they move the driveway over to the other, if it's on the long side, you'll have space for one. But sometimes codes will say you're supposed to have one for every number of feet and that length is too long and you can't meet that because the driveway moved on to that side. >> So that's that does happen. So, like if you say one per 50 like our current code does, um, and that's a long street side, but then their driveway is there, sometimes they can't meet the one per 50 cuz the driveway gets in the way or the drive the driveway goes in between the trees and the trees can't grow because their roots are under the driveway. It can create some sort of issue. So sometimes you just say one per frontage or sometimes you say one per x number of feet just based off of the kind of the way that it I mean you can say one per 50 or >> you're you're kind of trying to get away from the one like the per feet, right? You're trying to just get away from like the the >> kind of Yeah. I mean it's >> to make it like one per lison, >> but like again this is for these this is ordered for new subdivisions, right? So in theory, you know, if you just had one tree, you know, at least, you know, within 3 ft of the property line, but not within the right away, I mean, if a if a builder wants to put another tree in, I mean, I mean, it they can't. I mean, no one's going to stop them, but you maybe having a minimum like a, you know, a minimum instead of a maximum might be reasonable. >> You could make it like one per 100 instead of one per. So then you you're catching like if it's a long side line then you're catching it something like that or one per 75 something like that. You could do that. I mean what you want them to do is to create a subdivision landscaping plan and then we want to put standards in the zoning ordinance that they have to meet with the landscaping plan. So when they do the subdivision, it's a zoning requirement that they have all these trees in there that they plant an adequate number of trees. That's what we're trying to switch it to from what we have now, one street tree per 50 ft, which is based off of the old development pattern. Doesn't really fit like a LAR type subdivision. That would be And then we don't want the trees in the right ofway anymore. Unless, you know, I mean, unless I'm wrong on that, I mean, I mean, we got two members of the council here. maybe they do want to have an urban forestry program going. Um, but that it it been my understanding that from direction from public works is that we wanted to stop having street trees because of the maintenance and liability issues. But um, but we want to probably just tweak this to reference our landscaping ordinance. Okay. >> And then we can take a look at our landscaping ordinance with some suggested language at the next meeting. Okay, >> if that makes sense to everyone. >> Yeah. I mean, I think there's a general consensus. We want a tree. Again, if you're building a brand new subdivision, >> we want some trees. Yeah. >> Let's put some trees on it. Let's let's create a little, you know, let's break up the the line of sight. Let's make it somewhat interesting. But yeah. Um, >> okay. Well, that's the I've come to the end of your letter. So like I I Is there anything else that you would like to talk about or get direction on or get our thoughts on? >> I don't believe so. >> Okay. Well, that being said, um the agenda, uh next item on the agenda is new business. If anybody has any new business or new issues they'd like to raise. >> Uh Mr. Chair, we are getting in a concept plan uh application for uh the river property south of town on the south side of town, not the t like we reviewed the one on the railroad track side. This would be on the river side. So, we're getting a concept plan application. They sent it in the payments coming in. We haven't received it yet, so I guess it's not technically official, but um they sent their plans in. So, we would likely be looking at that at your next meeting. >> Okay. >> And so, um, you know, might want to get, you know, get energized for that meeting. >> Stay tuned. Exciting things are coming, right? >> And, uh, but that would be, so we do have something coming in on that. Um, and that'll be kind of a big discussion. >> Okay. And and what area is that? >> So, it's uh I could point to it [snorts] on this map. If you can see [clears throat] across the room, this property here. >> Okay. So, that [snorts] will be next next month. >> It helps >> concept plan. >> All right. Um, next thing on agenda is staff reports. Well, we don't have staff. Uh, any unfinished business? I am not aware of any unfinished business. Does anybody have anything that we have yet to discuss or figure out? All right. Well, then I would be looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll second. >> There's been a motion and a second. All those in favor of adjournment say I. I. >> I. I. >> Nobody opposed, I hope. All right. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. >> [cough]