All right. This is the January 8th, 2026 North St. Paul Planning Commission meeting. Would you like to do roll call, Mr. Roberts? >> Yes, I would. Commissioner Alvarez, >> here. Commissioner Gadboy
>> here. >> Commissioner Weiss >> here. >> Commissioner Muk >> here. Commissioner Burbach is absent. And here >> was that not here. Not here. Yeah. Thank you. And Commissioner Biz is not here
this evening for attending. At least we have enough for a quorum, right? >> Yes. And and Jason will not be here either. He sent me a message. >> Okay. All right. So, next up is uh the adoption of our agenda.
Does anybody have any questions or comments on the agenda? If not, I'll take a motion to approve the agenda. >> I'll make that motion. >> First by Commissioner Gadboy, >> second
>> and second by Commissioner Muick. And that's as presented. >> As presented. >> Yes. >> I didn't see any reason for >> just for the record. >> Okay. Then we can uh move on to the
approval. >> We have to vote. >> You need a vote. >> Oh, sorry. See, I'm always forgetting the vote. Um, okay. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All against say nay. No nays. It passes. Now we can uh move on to adopt the
agenda for tonight. >> We did that >> the >> I'm sorry the approval of minutes from last month's uh meeting which was December 4th. Does anybody have any comments,
clarifications, changes? If not, I will take a motion to approve the minutes from December 4th. >> Yeah, I'll make the motion. >> First from Commissioner Muick.
I'll second. Second from Commissioner Alvarez. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All against say nay. And it approves. And we have approved the minutes from last meeting. And let's see, there's
nobody here for public meeting. So, I think we can move past that. Do I still have to open it and close it or no? Okay. Um, no public hearings today. >> Correct. >> So, we can move right on to the election
of chair and vice chair for this year. Uh, is there anything you need to give us a roundup on that or? >> First of all, you did you have the little hand out there, a cheat sheet of >> I do. Okay. >> Yes. >> And we Chris and I or Chris has had
contact with Patrick and he's agreed to be chair again somewhat begrudgingly but I think somewhat happily doesn't mean he you know we can take other nominations but for the record that's what we know via email.
>> Yes. That's great. Well, I I will officially nominate uh Commissioner Biz for chair position. >> Commissioner Alvarez will second. >> We have to ask if there's any other nominations also.
>> All right. Are there any other nominations for chair? Anybody else interested to know? Okay. So then, um, I'd like to call for a motion on this to nominate Commissioner Biz as the chair for 2026.
Do I have a motion for that? >> I'll make that motion. >> Commissioner Gadboy is first. >> I'll second it. >> And Commissioner Alvarez is second. All right. Any discussion?
>> What him again? >> Patrick. >> Thank you, Patrick. >> Okay. So, um, >> we need a call for the vote. >> Yes. So, all in favor of Patrick as the chair for 2026, please say I. >> I. >> I.
>> All against? Nay. We have no nays. Patrick is the chair. And for co-chair, vice chair, excuse me. Um, do we have any
anyone wanting to be vice chair for 2026? >> Or submit nominations. >> Or yes, submit nominations. Yes. Correct. >> I submit Andrew Weiss as vice chair. >> You can make that.
>> All right. Does he agree to serve or declined to serve? >> I I would agree to serve as vice chair again. Yes, I would do that. >> Um, is there any other nomine nominations from anybody else?
Okay. So, that's a no. Um, all right. So, so I have to say I move to nominate myself as vice chair for 2026. >> If you want to make the motion. >> Oh, okay. Got it. Got it. Okay. Um, I
will make that motion. Is uh May I have a second for that? >> I'll second. >> Commissioner Mu is second. All in favor say I. >> I. I. All against nay. No nays. And
Commissioner Wise is the vice chair for 2026. >> Gabble that one. >> Yeah, there we go. Okay, >> it wasn't too painful. >> It wasn't. >> It was good. It only took seven minutes. >> We're going right through it. Um,
okay. Next up is the the boost. I like this. Was this something that was boost your acronym? >> Ken, >> uh, I'll I'll admit I found this uh at another city and I thought it was >> I like it. I like
>> I It's not verbatim, but it's the inspired me. >> I like it. Better ordinances and ongoing streamline transformation summary. >> And I'm sure that somebody spent at least a half a day coming up with an acronism, too. >> How How can we make that work? So, I I
put a little PowerPoint together. It's up on the screen based on the staff report. Uh hopefully you all have had a chance to review it. And before I go into this, I'm apologizing in advance. I've come down with a cold. You may have noticed. I will try not to hack into the
microphone, but if I turn away, that's why. So, I'm not spewing all over the place. Uh so the purpose of this presentation is to introduce the commission to the city's boost initiative to modernize today's city code for tomorrow's
community. The initiative aims to update selected portions of the city land use regulations. We'll be tackling this over the next few months by bringing forward several code amendment packages improve to that are intended to improve clarity, eliminate redundancies and
ensure the code reflects current practices and expectations in North St. Paul. Why we are doing this is because over time 10, 20 or more years, incremental changes to the city zoning and
subdivision subdivision regulations have resulted in inconsistencies, overlapping procedures and sections that no longer align seamlessly with one another. Certainly, the code and codes remain functional,
but there's room for improvement. And another term I like to use is process improvement. So we're that will be part of what my goal and hopefully the commission's goal will be going through this. So, and we also will be
uh staff primarily myself and others will be review to modernize the organization of the many land use related code sections, strengthen their internal consistency
and improve the usability of key administrative functions. So again, the objectives are to improve clarity and readability, strengthen internal consistency, enhance administrative efficiency, and support predict predictable
development review. Now, that in North St. Paul probably won't be a super high priority because, well, we don't have that much new development, but when we do, we want to make it as consistent as possible. This is the table in the report, which of course we can't read on
that. screen. So, let me find it. There it is on this screen. Uh, so there's themes, observations, and opportunities. And I'm not going to read all those, but in the end, if we could,
it's what page in the packets? Page eight of the packet. If by whatever code amendments we put forth and hopefully the city council agrees to it will improve the clarity and readability. It'll improve the internal
alignment, remove redundancies, remove outdated language, process efficiency and improvement will be better and hopefully make for a better user experience both city staff, planning commission and
applicants is the goal with that. So as far as up and I'll back up a second. I didn't include this in the slides, but examples of this are things that we've already worked on since I've been with the city. Uh updating the home
occupation ordinance, major rewrite of the subdivision ordinance, but done some other changes to the zoning code. All those kind of things fall into this very thing. It's just I'm putting a pretty label on it to start 2026. We have a
couple things on the next item that are into this package of uh and goals for the upcoming year uh that fall into the same program. So our goal, my goal is for each meeting as time allows bring a
report and outline of proposed amendments to the commission hopefully touching on those themes and improvements and with draft ordinance language for your initial discussion. Again, we have one after this item. And
then as time allows, we'll have the public hearings and get these amendments to the city council for hopeful adoption. Uh so with that, that's I'll take questions, but really there's not really a recommendation. is just an
introduction and really try to summarize it than that. This initiative presents an opportunity to strengthen and streamline the city's development review framework, improve internal consistency, and ensure the code continues to support efficient and
predictable decision-m and of course staff looks forward to working with the plane commission throughout this process. If you have comments or anything, I'm happy to take them. Otherwise, I wanted to give you all that introduction.
>> That's great. No, this is this is great. This is awesome. >> I think I'd like to make a motion actually that uh in support of this this so that we go on record saying that uh we agree with it. If you folks do, I do.
So, you know, >> yeah, absolutely. >> I'd like I'd like to move that uh the uh planning commission is in agreement with this application improvement. >> Yeah, for sure. Is there a second? >> Yeah, I'd second that. This sounds like
a very good thing. >> Yeah, Commissioner Alvarez is a second and I agree as well. All in favor say I. I. >> I. >> No. So, yeah. >> You didn't ask about nays, but I'm hoping no nazs. >> Oh, yeah. Sorry. Um,
>> so it's really a motion of support. >> Yes. >> Right. Exactly. >> Yeah. This is great. >> Just so that we go on record that we're in supporting of this. >> Thank you. I I just for the minutes I want to make sure I >> Yep. >> I appreciate the way you organize and clarify what all of this is going to be
and >> hopefully I can stick >> something that's going to continue as we go forward. Yes. >> In an organized manner. >> Yeah, this is great. I >> definitely needed. >> Yes. All right, on to our second
or third topic, I guess, for the uh zoning ordinance text amendment um changes that uh you have >> produced here. You want to give us a rundown of that? >> Yes, I will. All right.
So, in this staff report, which starts on page 11 in the packet, for those following along at home or on their electronic devices, there are three three different sets of zoning ordinance text amendments. I'll run of course
through each one of those individually. Uh, so that's really that's what that slide is. Okay, first one. When I was reviewing definitions, well, there's there's several definitions that
probably need improvement. That'll be one of our topics coming up future meeting. Uh I was reading the definition of limited production and processing which is partial is is on the screen here. The
uh not bold print here, the bottom part here is the existing language. The bolded part now which I placed at the beginning is what I'm proposing to add to that definition. That's a very I think it just
yes it has more words but I think it really helps tell and set the city's expectations of what uses and activities fit within limited production and processing. And so for clarity and hopefully yeah clarity that
I'm proposing to add those words. I guess we can discuss one of these one at a time if you wish. Yeah, I think that would be good just to do them while we talk about them. Um I Yeah, I I think this is
I don't have any issue with this. I guess is it um you know the thing that comes to mind is something like the um the asphalt and gravel plant over here. Does that fall into a limited production
processing or is that >> No, that's that's in the old shipskies. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's that's in our that's in a mixeduse district. >> Okay. Right. >> But this is just for one which district.
>> Well, no, I'm sorry. Um limited production could happen. I'm glad you brought that up, Art. This is a a type of land use and it could happen in any potentially in any of our commercial zoning districts. Okay, not just the mixed use. >> Okay.
>> So what again what I'm trying to clarify here is to make sure we are really if somebody comes in with a proposal to build the widget factory that is that a really a limited production or processing facility or is it more a heavy
production kind of thing that would not necessarily fit? And we when we get to the next item, I can look at I can show you the use table and that'll Well, hang on a second. Let me let me go to another thing here.
So, this is this is actually zoning code and then where is >> Oh, there it is. as if it was on both of us.
>> So these are the districts and then limiting. So I got to get to the tables. All right, hang on. So these these tables that are in the zoning code tell us which use will fit in which
zoning district. This use district table. So, we look down this left hand side and we'll look for limited production and processing. I'm going fast, but we'll get there. Here we go. So here's limited production
and processing and that and then here's some of the uses that fall under that category. And so they are it is possible in all our mixeduse districts that
these type of activities could occur. So >> there's four of them. Right. So by hopefully clarifying this the definition of what this term is
in the bold here in the table that will then help guide again what uses the city will or will not allow in the MU1 or in the MU2 or the MU3 as a permitted use. for example.
So yes, the shipsky site would be a one that's in the mixed use three I believe. >> Well, I think it it's I like what you added in because it you know it does say that um it references the impacts of it to
the surrounding businesses and so I think it's good to have that in there for sure. I mean that's that would be that's a good example. um that came to my head off, you know, first, but yeah, I personally don't have any uh
changes I'd want to see in that. Anybody else comments? Okay. >> If not, I'll move on to the next one. >> Yep. >> Where were we? Okay. back to the PowerPoint.
So the second amendment now we're going to talk about that table three which I just put up on the screen. So as hopefully many of you know that table lists all the possible land uses
in what zoning district each possible it is possible to locate that use either by per permitted use, conditional use or interim use. And I thought the list of uses were somewhat lacking or there were things that I
thought needed clarifying. So I'm going to go back to the packet. It's easier to see it. So we got to get to Okay, here we go. So this is starting on page 12 of the packet.
And it affects the hang I'm sorry. So the words are on page 11, but we got to jump. I My bad. Got to go back and forth.
There we go. All right. Here's the table I was just showing you in that other screen, but it's not as pretty because it doesn't have all the lines. So, what I'm proposing for first thing, this is page 17 of the packet, >> uh, I'm proposing that we strike
manufactured housing as a possible use in the single family district. That's referring to if you were to try to develop a manufactured home park. I don't see the city ever allowing that. So, that's more of a cleanup thing. So, all the changes I've tried to either
highlight in yellow or in bold in this table. I'll kind of scroll through them as we find them. So, if you can see here, institutions. When I first read that, I thought, "What the heck is that?" What I thought initially was
referring to places like schools and other things, but it it's primarily I I adding the words here just includes churches and places of worship. So, it's easier for someone to say, "Okay, where where could churches go maybe?" And
the definition itself doesn't change. It's just adding words to make it quicker and easier for someone who's just reading the table. They don't have to look for the definition of institution. And the next item,
uh, I'm just adding the word public for public service facilities. I don't think we would want private service facilities. So just trying to make that distinction that these are all public facilities. I somewhat assume but
don't want to assume. >> What would an example of a private one be? >> Yeah. Oh, say even uh US West or one of the private utility companies having a facility, which they do.
Uh these this group is all public entities. So, I was trying to make sure that they're all it stays all public and not have a private one sneak in there, so to speak. >> We we wouldn't want a private one in
there. Not in this group. There's another place where they're called. >> You're just trying to keep those two entities. >> Clarify. Gotcha. Okay, >> that makes sense. >> Yeah. >> The next change is I'm striking hospital because I don't ever foresee a hospital being built in North St. Paul.
>> I guess we are a little short on land to develop one. >> And with St. John's so close, I don't >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That's kind of just a cleanup thing, I guess, is the way I would look at it. >> All right. Uh, so we move down. All right, here's where we get into some of
the uses. Maybe it's too many or extra words that aren't really necessary, but I'm proposing that we add the word deli after restaurant >> and then add bakery as its own line as a permitted use in all these things. Just
again for clarity, we we like our bakery and we like delies and restaurants and down. So I thought, well, let's again put those words in to make sure it's really clear that those are permitted uses. >> Sure. >> Yeah.
>> Uh in the artisal studio marketplace and I'm I'm proposing the word add the word gallery. So if >> someone is doing their art, they can also sell the art at the same building. It isn't clear from that
>> uh the words the way they are right now. Again, just a word to help clarify. Uh yes, sir. >> A quick recommendation. Uh where you're talking about motor
vehicle station with fuel sales. How about changing that to refueling station? Because what I'm thinking of is fuel sales >> sounds like gasoline, but you know, if it they've got a a energy recharger.
>> Sure. uh you know we might want to cover that in that same type of situation. >> Yep. >> You jumped ahead. >> You jumped ahead. >> Sorry. Sorry. >> I appreciate the comments. I was just about to get there. Uh >> okay.
>> Before that though, under retail sales, I added again here in bold several examples. Uh is it are they absolutely necessary? I think again for ease of readability and understanding I think they're very
helpful to give examples of what type of retail sales we're talking about. Then down to the commercial and automotive and parking section where I had changed automobile to motor vehicle.
I because I my experience is everybody assumes when we say automobile service or repair well then what about trucks? motorcycles >> or motorcycles. So, change that to motor vehicle motor vehicle wash. Again, the same thing. Motor vehicle sales and
rental. But to Cameron's point, >> does this not cover it? Because it says motor vehicle station with fuel cell sales. Would the EV chargers be a sale >> or or is that kind of an accessory use
at a at say a quick trip? I think it depends on the uh on the system that you have because I think some of them, you know, you plug in and you your build port, but I think some of the others uh like didn't the Teslas originally,
didn't you have like a an unlimited use card or something like that when you bought them originally and somebody else might do that kind of thing again? So it might not necessarily be a fuel sales or refueling sales that
much as you know just refueling station. And I'm not even sure refueling is quite the right word to use. I'm just trying to think of a >> or do we just say with charging charging station >> or that? Yeah. >> And recharging. >> Yeah. >> So >> fuel and charging station.
>> Yeah. Right. So in in where I've got the cursor here where I'm circling motor vehicle station with fuel cells and we could say with or without retail convenience store or charging station. >> Yeah, I like that. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. I'll just add the or charging station at the end there. >> Motor vehicle charging station. I don't >> I don't think that that way we're covering a wide variety. I I know like uh the LP vehicles are not really doing very well, but who knows that could
become a big thing. >> But that's a fuel. >> Yeah, it's a fuel. Exactly. >> So ju just to put them maybe motor vehicle station with fuel/charging. So that because those are the two those are the same thing. The fuel and the charging really are. >> But does it
>> with fuel? It says with fuel sales. Does charging are charging stations a sale? I think they are >> people pay for it. >> I think you pay for that enough mostly. I mean like Cameron said there may be these you know weird certain ones but I think you pay for that. Mhm.
>> So after fuel add >> I don't >> char or just say charging stations you know >> with fuel >> and charging station sales >> motor vehicle station with
fuel and I don't charge it I don't know >> because with retail convenience store is kind of a separate issue from the fuel and the recharging. >> So after the word sales add in or charging stations. >> Good. That works for me.
>> But what about places that aren't motor vehicle like say HY has charging stations so and they're not part of necessarily >> at their fuel >> at their fueling at their fuel store. Mhm.
>> So is that going to be included in this? >> Well, the H high example is a retail sales store. So that's above. >> Mhm. >> And the way most cities treat those charging stations, whether they're in the front of the store or most in that example, if they're at the
front of the store and not part of the fuel station, it'd be an accessory use. It wouldn't have to be called out as a primary permitted use. And I think that probably historically the reason why the fuel thing is an issue is because it's highly flammable and toxic and I'll hold you know spill hazard and whereas the
electric >> there's a shock hazard but for the most part they're they're pretty well >> well till the till the EV cars are the fire and then >> Yes. >> Yep. Yep. So to make sure I got this, we're proposing
after the word fuel cell fuel sales add in or charging station. >> Yeah, I think that covers it. >> Okay, I want to make sure I get that correct. But then with or without and most I
think most fuel sales go sales fuel sales facilities will have a convenience store but we're not saying they have to >> back in the day they didn't. You may be lucky to get a candy bar inside the gas station >> under the counter right >> and the guy would even check your oil
but that's >> those were the days. Yeah. >> So next then on we're back to now we're limited production and processing and then I've added again some examples
of what are limited production and processing types of activities or businesses. So it's electronic components, assemblies and accessories, computers and accessories, film, video and audio production,
precision dental, medical and optical goods, electric and neon signs and advertising displays. I >> think it's good you have that but not limited to because there's >> yeah there'll always be something >> more yes businesses that someone could come up with that would fall under that.
>> Those are good that's good good set of examples. I think >> I do have two things in this section uh that I'd like to go back to, but are you finished with the section? >> Uh not quite. >> Okay. When you're done, I'll go back to >> All right. Fair enough. Uh two more. Uh
here in the bottom of this page, I added in for composting residential use only. That's in the residential zoning districts. Wanted to make it clear, we don't want somebody setting up a commercial >> compost >> compost site in the residential district. in the residential district. >> Okay.
>> And the other changes I just added in the word garage for yard or garage sales because I think they're somewhat interchangeable, but I I usually call them garage sales. Some people call them yard sales. Y >> some people call them junk sales. >> Yes. Stuff sales.
>> So those are the changes I was proposing. >> I think Mr. Mu has a couple of comments. >> Yeah. There are two things. one is, and I it's not that I'm disagreeing with the the terminology. I just wish you would be a little more descriptive. Uh at the
beginning of table three where we have manufactured housing home parks and modular buildings. I'm just thinking that there are some very attractive manufactured homes out there and I just would kind of like it
to be spelled out a little bit more so that someone in the future doesn't say well it says manufactured housing is is not permitted. Uh, even though it does say home parks in parenthesis,
you know, I just would like to make it clear, more clear that they're talking about manufactured home parks as opposed to just manufactured homes. >> And I know that those could fall under modular buildings. >> Yeah, that's what I was saying. >> You know, if it could spell that out
just the difference a little bit more. And I have a question on that same one too actually if you're done. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Because there is a difference between modular and manufacturer. >> Yes. And that's one of the things I'd definitely appreciate your >> Yep. And so you have it you you struck
out the first one under R1. >> So but R2 R3 they're >> still potentially. And again, that was the way I read that. Yeah. >> Currently, it's a manufactured housing home park, mobile home park to use the
old fashioned term >> under just R1 >> is where it struck. I don't >> frankly I don't ever foresee one ever being developed in North St. Paul at this point. But >> but individual ones like Cameron's saying, you know, you some of them are hard to
>> Yes. tell that are modular manufactured have a whole different code that they fall under. They literally have a tag like a car kind of on them on the outside. You just if you walk around it, you can find them. If you went when they were being
put in, there were axles under them and there's a a unibody frame under them. >> Totally different building code. So, those are what I think most people are are are referring to >> and they which historically looked like
a big long, you know, semi-trail box. Um, but lots of homes now are being modularly built. >> Yep. >> And they're built to residential code. Very, very different code. >> They're factory built. >> They they are there's a lot of work.
It's almost like twin home, town home. There's a lot of nuances in the manu in the modular part. Manufactured. That's kind of a cut and dry sort of thing. So, as long as you know we're still open to there's some really great I mean you you
can't tell the difference even once you're in them once they're put together on some of them. >> Yeah. Like I said my big thing was just trying to make sure that we spell this out for future people where we don't have a builder on the commission and they're saying you know this says this and we got stick by that and you know.
>> Yeah. So, this is saying that in the R1 districts, you can't even have an individual manufactured house. >> No, the whole >> Okay. And I think that's what >> Yeah. What he's trying to >> That's what he wants clarified. >> Yeah. Okay. >> You could have an individual one.
>> Yes. That I would not I Yes, I would. >> So, I would say manufactured housing parks. Well, so it's home parks >> or do we just strike the word manufactured home park >> as
>> so then that's >> maybe just manufactured home park. >> I would just say manufactured home park, >> right? >> Yeah. Because that that way that more than more than one or two units, >> right? >> So that would not be allowed with that change in the R1. Still potentially
allowed in the R2 or R3 districts again park. But then do we want a line that says manufactured home with the conditional in each of those >> or or we add that in with modular? >> Well, they're two different things, >> right? No, we could see.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, we I'll add a line. So, manufactured >> just so it's really clear. >> Yeah. The other thing that I wanted to mention is on page 13 in the uh in the packet down on the bottom. Uh it's item
four, design requirements and elements B. >> We're not on that one yet. >> Oh, I thought we'd been we're past that in the >> No, we jumped because the table I put >> never mind. We'll come back to it. So >> I lost obviously I lost track of exactly
what >> I'm not trying not trying to belabor this one too much but individually people could even a manufactured a single one because I mean Minnesota has especially compared to the states just around us we have some of the highest building costs and sometimes
manufactured homes are they're just still affordable and and so they're >> they're affordable housing for people and so individually people could still have some sort of way to request and maybe utilize them. >> And there's still some minimum requirements, a minimum square footage.
>> Yep. >> They have to be on a foundation and anchored >> and it's conditional. >> Yep. It' be conditional, but if they meet those conditions, it's still way less expensive to own than >> traditional a lot of traditional. picking up on
>> Elizabeth's comment, the manufactured home park, using the former term and now the new term was a conditional use. Modular buildings were a permitted use. Mhm. >> I would think an individual manufactured
house or home should be a permitted use, a one a one building, whether it comes in a trailer on wheels and it gets set on a foundation or if it's a modular home and it comes in eight pieces and it's assembled on a foundation.
>> Sure. >> One single unit should be permitted no matter how it's in initially constructed. >> Okay. I wanted >> They're very different codes, but they very different codes.
>> Is Is that the only building on that lot then? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Well, except a garage or a shed or >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Only livable. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, it couldn't be the second It couldn't be the house, you know, adding
a mother-in-law house behind them. No, >> I guess I don't have an issue with that even with the diff the huge difference in code because I mean some people that's that's where they can afford their their housing is
at that is at that level and they still do have a code requirement. It's just different than normal residential than the residential housing. But >> and let's be honest, there aren't a whole lot of open lots in North St. Paul's anyway. >> There's not. Yep. >> So,
>> unless somebody rebuilds after a fire or >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That was kind of my thought was, you know, that type of circumstance, you know, they they've lost the house or, >> you know, degraded to the point that they have to tear down and, >> you know, redo or something.
>> Yeah, I I think that's seems fair. So, that was the second code amendment. Thank you for all those comments. Third one. Well, we'll get into the overlay districts
and this starts on page 12 of the packet and it's focusing on primarily subsection B, which is the downtown overly district. And my
inspiration for this was a couple things. Trying to make sure where did it go? Oh, I gotta go back to the report. As you well know, we we I started tackling or looking at the
downtown design manual, and that's a whole big thing in itself. So, I started thinking, are there ways that we can use some of those elements in the downtown design manual now without doing a whole big amendment to that and still ensure
that those standards are in place for the city going forward? So, I thought, well, let's look at this downtown overlay district and see how we can incorporate some of those standards. So, that that is what I have done. And I've got to go back to the
staff report. So now we're going to jump back. So So it's and again new language shown in bold and the striketh through is shown with the strike through. So for example here
we don't have in the zoning code or as far as I could tell anything called the historic commercial district. I kind of know what the intent is. So I just change that to the downtown district. uh added the word downtown here. Again,
focusing on the downtown district. And then going into number two here, bottom of page 12. These are so it says in addition to lot requirement standards, I'm saying the
following standards also shall apply and there's setback standards and some lot standards and all sorts of things. So, a lot of the words that now are I'm proposing to add in this code came right out of the downtown design manual. And I
put little footnotes after each one that not bolded here to to show you that's where I got that inspiration. Mhm. >> So the the what struck out proposing to
strike out here is short and kind of sweet, but I thought if we wanted to try to be more consistent with the downtown design manual, let's use those words. So that's all it's much longer now, but I think it
gives us more and better information >> for that example for the front and sideyard setbacks. I appreciate you putting the definition of a bay in there. I think that that really >> clarifies
some questions that people might have. >> Well, and the question will be, do we we can add if we're going to do we need to include that in the zoning code? And if so, I can do that. I put it in more for my information and for the commission's
information. Uh we can talk about that if you think it's important to put it in. I So when we talk about bays and and fen what is the other term? Fenestration. Fenestration. >> Fenration. >> That's the other term I didn't really
know very well. So I added that definition more for reference. But if you think it's important, we'll keep it in the code. Well, I think it's good to have it in there because now, you know, not being an architect or a builder, I tend to think of a bay window or of a
bay in terms of a bay window. It's a window that projects out, >> but this actually gives us the definition that says it can be the area between supports. So, you know, you could have a flat front that just had supports every 25 ft and it's one or two
bricks back and that is considered a bay even though, you know, it doesn't bow out like a like a window does. So, I think that's an important clarification. >> Yeah. >> Okay, we'll keep it in. So on the screen here uh number four now
proposing to add again this is language right from the the design manual a single building facade shall not have not be greater than 75 ft in width or length on Margaret Street or 7th Avenue. If a building is greater than 25 ft in
width there must be bays or defined sections established every 25 ft. Uh, and no two adjacent bays or sections may be blank walls. So, we want we just don't want big blank walls. It's got to have some
some features so it looks better. Uh, now in bottom of page 13, uh, added in some words about the building orientation, about where the entrances have to be clearly marked.
Uh there's three of those in B, C, and D. Number four is where I start a whole bunch of new words. >> Is did you have a comment here, Cameron? >> Yeah. Uh on 4B says, "Deteriorated architectural details shall be repaired
rather than replaced." Uh, and I definitely agree with the idea behind that, but uh, I would like to see it maybe broaden just a little bit to say something to the effect of, uh, should be repaired or
replaced with a recast of what was there or a reproduction of what was there >> like a light kind >> like kind or something like that just so that somebody doesn't get in the situation of, you know, these details on my building have deteriorated to the
point that I can't replace them and I can't do anything with the building, >> but they do make, you know, you can get things recast or >> reproductions, >> reproductions or whatever. >> I I had a question on B before we even get to that is what is a historically
designated building? Who's making that designation? >> That would be if they're on the National Register. >> Do we have anything on the National Register? Okay. So this might not even be relevant. >> The post office should be on the
national registry, but I don't know for sure. >> But um >> I don't know if it's significant whether Yeah. >> And again, >> these words are right out of the design manual. So, but I I to Cameron's point. >> Yeah. >> So, and that second sentence after the
word replaced, add in repaired rather than replaced. No, we want them to be repaired >> rather than be replaced. >> Repaired if possible >> because sometimes it's
>> so cost prohibitive to repair something that's so specifically although I can't think of really anything >> lost art. >> Well, I can't think of anything in in North St. Paul that would be that >> right. >> Old plaster work that that's almost a
law. I mean, there's still people that do it, but it's so expensive to make a business or a building do that, but >> I I can't think of any big example. I can't think of anything. >> I can't either. I'm just trying to think of, you know, >> worst case scenario.
>> I just think um we need to leave a little room for sometimes it's not possible to repair something. >> The the building down with the stained glass. Um what is the right down from
um between Newman's and Rody's what's the they they pulled down a facade over it and called the old hardware >> hardware store. Yep. >> And it has that big stained glass, >> you know. >> I mean that is repairable. >> It is. I've done stained glass not that
big. That's a huge cost to hire someone to do that. Schnelkies. Why am I thinking? It's as something >> Yeah. But I mean it's doable, but it's really some of the times it's pretty cost prohibitive, but I don't know that
we have anything in North St. Paul that's that specialized. >> Yeah. I just >> we don't have big brass facads like they used to in the 20s and 30s on these old architectural buildings. >> I just don't like to see it get locked in like that. something that we don't know about that
uncovered later. >> Yeah. So is there something in B that we need to add up sto because >> the second sentence says deterior deteriorated architectural detail shall be repaired >> rather than replaced >> if at all possible or I mean there needs
to be like you're saying Cameron some sort of ability to flex >> on that if possible >> if possible >> but I and I but we would have to define if possible because are we are we defining it as physically possible or
are we defining it as economically possible? If it's economics that is holding the owner of the building back, is that something that the city of North St. Paul could there could be grants that could help with that? Like there this opens a whole can of worms that Yeah,
>> that's why I just think it's would be easier to say replaced with a in you know like likeuction that effect. >> Yeah. So if we said shall be repaired or replaced
with a like mine, I would I would think that would >> is that what we're striving for? >> That's what I would think. I'm looking, you know, you're the one that would know the most about what >> something you know. >> Yeah.
>> Is it a like kind design materials? both like kind of design and materials. >> I mean >> like aesthetically it should look the same, right? >> Aesthetically or historically accurate. >> So I think of even a more modest example
like our neighbor had a home that had stucco and when he went to go do the garage they were going to try to make him do it in stucco. Well big difference in cost to have to stucco a garage and we don't have really good stucco people anymore. And so he had
80-year-old stucco that was going to last another hundred years. And now they wanted him to stucco a garage that may or may not. It's hard to get good stucco anymore. And so he used a 4x8 sheetboard that looked like stucco and they allowed
it, but he had to really flex. And this was a while ago. Um, so I mean that's a more modest example >> of a light kind was allowable. Yeah. >> I mean, even even with like sculptural,
you know, plaster things, you can >> you can have a 3D printed version that looks, you know, and then it's it's just covered like so material the materiality to me isn't quite as important, but >> aesthetic >> look, >> a reasonably aesthetic replacement.
>> Yeah. >> Like reasonably like aesthetic replacement or is that That's kind of clunky. >> Ken, I'm sorry I'm making you split hairs. >> No, we want we want it we want it right. Uh, so we change shall be repaired and
take out rather than or replaced with like kind design and materials with similar architectural features. >> Sure. work that.
>> Yeah. >> And remember, you'll all get a second bite at this when we >> That's true. Yeah. Okay. >> But I'm trying to get as >> Yep. >> close as we can now. >> Yeah. >> We're We're making you hit go up against your uh your time here.
>> Got seven minutes. >> All right. Next page. So, thanks for those comments. Uh let's see again all these bold things are from the
design manual. Uh item D here uh the base 25 ft of building sides facing and above abunding public streets must include elements that relate to the human scale of grade. These elements include doors, windows, projections, awnings, canopies, porches, stoops, etc.
That is that was recently added to the St. Paul zoning code. >> I thought that was some very helpful design ideas or requirements. Uh same with E right below that. What are the materials we're not going to allow in
the downtown? There may be others, but uh we certainly don't want vinyl, fiberglass, or fiberboard sighting. Shouldn't have to say no, but that's what I'm proposing. Uh, >> you can't use fiberboard.
>> Not in the downtown is what we're proposing. >> Let's see. >> Is so fiberboard. Would that be like a hardy board? Is that or that's a composite kind of cementitious? >> It is cementitious, but I mean it's it's I consider fiber board. Now, if if we
want to be a little bit nicer, we could say not allowed on sides visible to a public rideway or a public street. >> So, what are the allowable materials? >> Well, there's a whole I don't know if
it's primarily brick and stone and glass. >> Okay. >> I don't know if we necessarily have a list of approved materials. Oh, right above that. Well, that's for the trim. It says trim and architectural detail should be constructed of natural
stone, textured cast, anodized aluminum or similar metals. Okay, >> that's for trim and detail. So, around window frames and door frames and >> so we're looking mostly brick. >> Yes, brick. Brick and stone will be the primary two primary. I think
the the only thing that concerned me there was just the 100% number >> because I think that >> it which >> oh sorry in C the the part you you were just reading the lower part of that but um I mean I love brick and I it's a
great building material. Um >> well if we want if we want to be a little more flexible we could say 100% brick or stone. I would definitely recommend that just give us that >> I can't see anybody building a building
out of field stone these days but you know it at least gives them options >> and this is this is the down this is very specific district downtown >> so >> I guess I'm okay with >> that's that's for new construction see
>> so the article 7 building in the sentinel would have been two recent examples And they are mostly brick, I believe. >> Y >> they have Yeah, I mean there's a lot of I think they use Hardy board for that whole interior
like um Ushape of it, but >> Mhm. >> Um >> but is that on not on a street side then? >> It's on 7th. >> Is that part of the a bay? >> Well, yeah. I don't know. I I mean I think the
only hesitation I would have is that I I have not ever seen another city like demand 100% of a material before and that and especially with brick even though it's great it's very expensive and if we're we're saying
you know like I I would be more comfortable if it said >> brick or other approved I mean like you have to get an approval something like At least it's allowable then to do something else. >> I also think a variet some variety in
material makes for a more interesting block when everything is brick >> but brick itself can have lots of different shapes colors. >> True. >> Yeah. >> True. >> But >> but I I also that 100%.
And actually the last sentence of C is really what we're all publicly visible facade should be 100% brick or stone if we add that including sidewalls adjacent to pedestrian walkways or rear approaches visible to a pedestrian. So, think of like the Sentinel building on
the corner where Max is. They've got two sides. They've got Margaret and seventh. >> That's saying all anything visible from the street would have to be in this case again for new construction 100% brick if we want to stay or stone
because a little more flexibility >> and and anybody of course I mean designer developer could ask for a waiver or variance to that standard. It's not like a setback for variance. >> Yeah, that's true. >> If they could make a design case and
I hate to keep going back to it, but these are the exact words in the downtown design man. >> Yeah. No, and I I totally get I get that. I just >> Oh, if we're not comfortable with them, then we can now's the time we can tweak them a little bit. >> Yeah. >> Does adding in the word or or words or
stone help >> give a little more? But I think about, you know, like the even the backside of the the Seno building, you know, they use those big aluminum panels basically. >> Those look they they blend in well.
There's brick and then some aluminum. I mean, that's a good look if that were up high >> on the front part of a bay or I could see other architectural items being acceptable other than just brick. So, I get your 100% brick thing being kind of like a
>> and I get that it is in there now. Well, maybe that needs to be adjusted also. >> How do we say we'd like it to primarily be brick, >> right? I know that, you know, >> like majority, but again, that's not a that's not a >> majority means something that's 50% or
more. So, >> cuz you could get a percentage. I don't know. >> Yeah. I mean that that would personally make me feel like this is more attainable if if we would, you know, drop down to 65 or or 70 or something like that because that is more in line
with >> I think a monochromatic brick, >> right? Yeah. >> You know, we wouldn't want that either >> because you you have the potential to make a more interesting facade and you also may open it up to more affordable
>> construction. >> Yeah. Yeah. And those are I mean and those are >> two important things I think. >> Yeah. >> So in that last line of C where it says all publicly visible facade should be
100% brick etc etc. If we add in change the 100% to 75 and then add in stone as an option is that given flexibility for now. And when you say stone are you meaning veneer or stone? Stone.
veneer is what I was those are two wildly different costs. >> Those are very different things. >> Yeah. >> The only other thing that and I hate to throw a monkey wrench in this, but the only other thing I'm thinking of is, you know, we were talking about manufactured buildings a little bit ago. What if
somebody wants to erect a manufactured building in the downtown that meets code standards otherwise? >> We don't want tip. >> You mean modular? >> We don't want tip up panels. >> I'm sorry, not manufactur. We don't we wouldn't want to tip up warehouse style
>> concrete panels down. >> Well, a lot of almost any like you see in these hotels or or bigger um housing development put on, they're all modular. >> They're all modular. Then they just put in a a a different sighting on it.
>> Do we need to add the word veneer in there then? So that you know if somebody wanted to do something like that, they could bring the building in, but they'd have to put a a brick veneer. the visible facade, whatever's on the outside. So, the >> might be concrete on the back and then covered with
>> Yeah. >> fake brick or fake stone. >> Yeah. >> I'm just wondering the ones that are down here right now that just got built, are those actually structural brick or are they facade? They're they're not structural. They're built steel and modular and then they're it's a veneer
anyway. So, yeah, >> which is the point. It's the facade. So, >> so do we want 75% there? I I haven't heard necessarily a consult. >> Well, when you go down to H, you you have it at a different area there. It
comprises a 50% branch. >> That's renovation, right? For building >> renovation or restoration project. This is >> and C is for new construction, >> right? >> I would >> what I'm saying is we have a an example of it there. So, I mean it could be 75. >> I would say 75. >> Okay.
>> That does that >> makes me feel better. Yeah. Okay, got it. They'll make the change. >> They can always ask >> some flex some flexibility and they can ask for a variance. Okay. >> But at least it gives them the idea that we're not hard fast. It has to be
>> all right. Uh again, we talked about E, F talks about should restore architectural details, acornnesses, etc., etc. This I think a good one. If there are
false facade materials on the building, the renovation should seek to uncover and preserve the original building materials as feasible. If they're uncovering brick, >> like the stained glass that they did on that that was covered up. >> Yep. Then the next one comes again another
St. Paul example. Uh all building renovation restoration projects must be designed and constructed to be compatible with the original scale, massing, detailing, etc. etc. >> And you have verbiage in both of those that I think are a little more flexible, like
>> as appropriate and feasible to the maximum extent possible. They're a little vague, >> but at least it gives some >> some wiggle room for people. >> Yeah, I like that. >> Yeah. And then we have I included the definition of fenistration. Is it is that right, Andrew? I was
>> penistration. That's correct. >> Okay. >> Go to the Google and I don't necessarily want to trust it, but >> mostly windows. Yeah. >> But it's windows and doors. windows and doors. >> And then on the next page, we've got some uh standards for the roofs and how they
will blend in doors, door windows openings. This again, I was really surprised, but for Jay, buildings must be comprised of at least 70% transparent window material on the ground level facad facing streets.
that they you look at the uh article 7 building, there are a lot of windows on that first floor as you walk down the sidewalk. That's an example. >> K came from St. Paul, but again, I I don't think we'll have much of that in downtown, but essentially what we're
saying, we want to maintain the street pattern and we don't want culde-sacs downtown. M >> uh L talks about screening of equipment and service areas. Uh some options there.
They can do it with fencing or other decorative materials that are compatible with the primary structure. If they want to use landscaping, it has to stay 90% opaque for the entire year. So typically that's arbor vites or some type of
evergreen or mix or something. So, >> we don't want to see that stuff in the winter. >> And the rooftop screening and rooftop equipment shall be screened as visible from the budding properties. Uh,
and those aren't see a lot more. Yeah, they used to be just crappy looking fences, but there's much better ways to do that now. screen rooftop >> and then number four there is changed to number five because all that right above it is now the new number four and I've
got the note there the rest of it >> does not change >> so that is all of that one so >> you did a lot of work >> definitely appreciate all that >> so in summary go back to the powerpoint
we had Good man. We reviewed the proposed revision to the definition of limited production and processing. Reviewed the proposed changes to the uses listed in table three. And then we just through went through the code
amendments, proposed code amendments for the overlay district in the primarily downtown district. So if there's no other further discussion, that's really all I have on those things. I've got took some notes.
>> Nice. >> Any last comments on those? >> We don't have to do any sort of um you know motion right now, right, for this. Okay. >> No, if unless you Yeah, generally we're supportive of it and look forward to coming back or but I got that
impression. >> Yeah. Yeah, definitely. I do think it's fascinating that this is very much a document of our times. I'm just thinking, you know, if we were sitting on this commission in the 50s and 60s when Victorian architecture was so
despised, we'd be doing everything we could to help people uncover up all of those Victorian things that we love now. >> Right. Be putting carpet over hardwood floors. That's right. >> Hey, it preserved it.
>> It did. All right. Thank you. That's all I have on that item. And then the last item is the work plan. So, as commission knows, we've re reviewed the work plan couple of times
since I've been with the city. Uh we last reviewed it well we reviewed it we had a work plan we started in May did an update on June 5th and then October 2nd. So now at some point we'll have to clean this
up and just really drop off the things that no longer need to be done. So the things that are struck out are things that we have completed. Things that are still there still probably need some attention. Uh couple of things at the bottom of
this page are things we just spoke about tonight. Amendments to table three and the overlay district amendments. Uh I don't know how important off- streetet parking standards will be. I've keep hearing different things from
different people on that. Uh but updating the definitions that that goes back to one of the consistency items in the boost plan. removing unused terms, adding in terms that we may need to add as we change
parts of the code. So that that'll be taken a look. Uh we will still need to do work on the comprehensive plan in the next two years. Uh so I continue to keep that in. Remember we briefly looked at that
what in November, December and I think everybody's head was getting ready to explode because there was a lot there. So that's not forgotten. That'll be coming back. Uh, of course, we'll be reviewing or make recommendations on a land use and development applications,
and we have two for the next meeting. Uh, I kept on there the downtown design manual and the cannabis hemp business if we need to change anything. And we again had the boost report and
the annual CIP update which I've included so we don't forget come November and December. Is there any other topics that you think the commission should tackle that you're aware of at this point? Otherwise, that's what I have so far.
>> I the off- streetet parking I would advocate for that to be a priority in in my opinion. It's something that can, you know, add a tremendous amount of
cost to projects. And I and admittedly, it's been probably 2 years since I read the parking requirements here, but I don't think it's changed in the 5 years I've been on the planning commission. So, um, and it was pretty high what I remember, which, you know, and I know it
was an issue with both the projects that were built here. So that I think to me that would be a priority to to do sooner than later. But yeah, everything else looks good to me.
All right, that's all I had on that. >> Awesome. >> Thank you very much, Ken. That was a lot of work, >> especially over holiday uh break, too. We hope we hope you got some time off for Christmas.
>> A little bit. >> Well, thank you. Um, now reports. Mr. Muick. >> Well, I've got something that I I wish our city council person was here as well, but I'm going to bring it
up to Ken and the rest of the members. Uh I saw online just recently that the uh car show is going to go to bi-weekly and part of that they were saying was
difficulty in dealing with uh both the crowds and the city and then you read through all the comments which of course is always a terrible thing to do. And there are an awful lot of people in the comment section saying how hard
it is working with the city these days and how much it's changed and everything. I'm just wondering and I know that I know that there are always a ton of people that are upset about anything you do, but I'm just wondering
do we need to try to get some sort of a committee together of longerterm residents and new residents to kind of find out, you know, are we making things more difficult for people?
Is it because of changes to the city? Is it because of changes to the state codes that we really don't have any influence? Is it something that we're doing as a city that we're not aware of? You know,
this hasn't coming to light to us and, you know, because we're a we're a small town really and we should be fairly flexible. I think that what we're doing here is helping that. But then again, I've only been a resident here for 9
years. I don't know what things were like 30 and 40 years ago. A lot of what happened back then can't happen now. But, you know, have we made things more difficult for people? And is there something that we could be doing to ease
some of those problems for people if it's something of our own making that we, you know, we're not bound hide bound to because of law. Mhm. >> So, >> like I say, that's just a concern of mine. >> Uh, and I I kind of wanted to go on
record about that, but I'd really like to see us look into that because we're not Minneapolis. We're not St. Paul. We do have the the flexibility to to make some changes if we need to >> pivot a little quicker. >> Yeah. >> Can I add in a couple things,
>> please? Please. The car show and many of the events in town have to get what's called a special event permit which is reviewed by staff ultimately approved by the city council. Especially with the car show, we enter in essentially a contract with them. These are the days. Here's what the
city's going to provide. Here's what the car show is going to do. As part of that, they have to provide us updated insurance every year to make sure if there's something goes bad that there's coverage. in my department now there's been staff turnover we've had well in four years
three directors I'm the third one and there's been yeah >> at least four new administrative assistants in the front >> one of which deals a lot with the special event permits they're not just the car show >> so there's been some learning curve right now we are working on an update to
that special event ordinance to try to make it smoother >> one of the struggles we've had with some of the groups is about their insurance. >> Mhm. >> We hear, "Well, we gave you insurance last year. Isn't that good enough?" >> No. >> We need an updated copy every year and
we just need it before you start the event. If we get a a binder that's saying you will get it and your insurance agent will approve it, we'll we'll get it approved and we'll work with you. But some of the people just think, well, we gave it to you last year. Why don't
you keep a file and keep it for us? No. >> No. you have to be responsible for your stuff to bring it to us. >> That's been one of the struggles. >> Uh and what I read some of the comments, I didn't read them all. The other thing I think they are facing is the aging out of the volunteers.
>> Yeah. And >> and I know that is part of >> some of the people coming in that we help and deal with. >> Y >> they're not as sprry as they used to be and we think >> sometimes they forget, well, we never had to do it. No, these are the same rules that were last year. Mhm.
>> And so then the perception is we're being more difficult. We're we're not trying to be. We know this is important, but it it's a little frustrating for staff if we do the same thing every year and we get the same, well, why can't you?
No, it's it's have your insurance agent send us the insurance form. It's not >> real difficult, >> right? And it wasn't just about the car show because I certainly understand that. I'm just thinking in terms of generally working with the city. Uh and
and believe me, Ken, you know, I know exactly, well, let me rephrase that. I don't know exactly what you're going through, but I have a damn good idea what you're going through. >> Thank you. Uh and >> and so we are we're certainly aware of the concerns and we are working as I
said an update on the special event ordinance to try to >> process improvement maybe make it streamlined for for the some of the smaller things that shouldn't have to take a whole bunch of hoop jumping to get approved. >> Yeah. And I'm sorry I do think that what
we're doing here will also solve a lot of that. you know, making these line up and writing them in a more simple language that you don't need to have an a legal background to understand. I think that will be a big improvement. >> And I can say not that this is at all an
empirical study on or on the city staff here, but as working with them as a contractor, I've always had really good experience working here with people. They've been extremely friendly and flexible and helpful. um just as one tiny little feedback for you on that.
And as far as the car show stuff, um so the city um the St. Paul, you know, used to have the business association. Now it's transferred to a chamber of commerce that's being re recast as a chamber of commerce. We're going to get
I forget his name, the the main guy that's been part of the car show for the last 30 years. Um what's is it Bob or Anyway, he's going to come. One of the main things is volunteers. They're aging out and they just don't have the
volunteers and we feel like as part of the I'm on the board also for the Chamber of Commerce is that >> this really behooves the businesses down here to have this once a week. There's a lot. So, we're going to kind of pitch and say, can we help step up as a as a
body of businesses and help, you know, because it really helps >> Yeah. >> I think the whole economy of of downtown. I mean, it's a huge influx of people. >> It's a very good thing. And so maybe maybe we need a volunteer to help with the technical side of the car show stuff
or, you know, but anyway, hopefully there'll be some solutions to help get back up and going again. >> Exactly. Someone that can come alongside him who's a little more techsavvy maybe and say, "We'll take a we'll take that over or something." So >> yeah, >> maybe that'll maybe that'll happen. We don't know.
>> Hopefully. But like I say, it it was just my concern was that we haven't piled things on somehow in trying to do the right thing that have made things more. >> I think it's always good as governance to say are we serving as best as possible and and knocking down any
barrier for the public. >> Yeah. >> To have access to to what they need. I think that's and I think or St. Paul >> I don't know. I've always experienced a really good done really good job. Well, and of course, you know, the other thing is we know that anytime anybody asks for
something and they're told you can't do that, they get they get their knickers in a twist and say won't do anything. >> Anything that changes or perceived change. Yeah, it's hard. >> That's all I That >> good point. >> That was the only thing I >> That was great.
>> Wanted to get us distracted. >> Mr. Gab boy, >> I don't have anything. >> Mr. Albert, >> I have nothing. >> I have nothing either. >> Just a couple of notes. Uh, next meeting, I think it's February 5th, we've got two public hearings. Quick
Quick Trip wants to add another car wash lane on the back side there. >> Yeah. >> Doesn't surprise me, I think. >> No. >> And it looks pretty straightforward. I'm not too worried about We have a a request for a fence variance to have a six or seven foot tall fence in our front yard when four feet is what's
allowed by code. They think there's special circumstances there. We're not so convinced, but we haven't written the report yet. So, and then we'll have a public hearing on these code amendments that we just went through tonight and get that scheduled and keep those moving along. So, those
are the three things for sure that'll be on the next meeting. Uh oh, there's, you know, a vacancy in the commission. We have two applicants. >> We're going to try to get those interviews scheduled. >> I don't know if it'll be next week or the following week. Uh so,
Yeah, >> good. >> I'm not sure who'll be on the panel. I'd like to have Patrick on the panel if he's available, but >> we'll see. >> Nice. We've got two. >> So, we'll uh that's what we're working on at the moment. >> Excellent.
All right. Well, if nobody has anything else, I would take a motion to adjurnn. >> A motion to adjurnn. >> Commissioner Alvarez first. >> Commissioner Mu is second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. on against saying nay.
We are adjourned at 7:51.