Stephanie's here. I'm sorry. Could you help me with your name, please? >> Kane Burbach. >> Thank you. And and for the record, uh, Commissioner Ble is absent, so Commissioner Weise will be the chair of the meeting this evening. >> Excellent. Thank you. All right. So, we
will now adopt the agenda for tonight. Does anyone have any comments? >> Would it be approval of the minutes from the last meeting first? I think that's after this. Yeah, that's okay. >> Um, so I'd take a motion to adopt the
agenda for tonight. >> I'll I'll I'll make a motion to adopt it. I'll second. >> Okay. First from Commissioner Rathy, second from Commissioner Alvarez. Uh, >> all in favor?
>> All in favor say I. I. I. >> All in favor? All against say no. Nay. Okay, passes. Thank you. Okay, now the approval of the minutes from the October 2nd pling,
excuse me, planning commission meeting. Um, did anybody have any comments that you saw from the minutes? >> Nope. >> Look good to me.
All right. If nobody has any comments, then I'll take a motion to approve the minutes from October 2nd. >> I'll make that motion. >> Okay. First from Commissioner Gadboy. >> I'll second. >> Second from Commissioner Muick.
And that will pass as well. >> No, you need a vote. >> Oh, sorry. Uh, everyone in favor say I. >> I. >> Anyone against say nay. No nays. It approves. >> No. Don't they never?
>> All right. Now, we have the meeting open to the public. This is for anything that is not on the agenda tonight. There's no one in attendance here. So, I will open the public meeting at 7:32
and I will close it at 7:32. >> 7:33. >> 7:33 now. Okay. >> Eastern time. Oh, I'm sorry. Six. Yes. I I apologize. Yes. 6 >> I'm reading the clock. Yes.
>> 6:32. Thank you. All right. Um, so we have uh few public hearings tonight or I guess one public hearing tonight on the zoning code text amendments. Um, Ken, could you give us a
staff report, please? I would be happy to. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, this is a followup from our meeting on October 2nd where we previewed, I would say, these proposed zoning ordinance
text amendments. There's proposed changes to the residential definitions and then some proposed changes for our mixeduse districts. The actual ordinance I've put up on the screen, it's also
included in your packet. Uh, as far as the definitions for the residential dwellings, we we worked through again all these at the last meeting. The one change was
uh where did it go? House. >> What page are you on? Well, I'm on page seven, but I'm also looking at the ordinance, which is there was a right. Oh, in right in here, we had in the in my
draft from the previous meeting, we had other chapters of the state building code. And you'll see in my cover memo took that out based on comments from the commission. And that's reflected. This is the actual ordinance uh for your consideration.
that that was the only change on on those from the last meeting. All the other terms and words are all the same. So I don't think that needs a lot of discussion. And then the second part of the uh amend or text amendments that we
talked about were clarifying and adding some terms and words into the definitions, purposes, and goals for the mixed use districts. that starts on page eight of the packet in your report or in
the packet in the staff report. Uh for example, here we're propo I'm proposing a change quarter to mixed use and call this corridor mixed use instead of corridor highway which are reflective of our current uh zoning map terms.
These are leftover old terms. But more importantly, getting down into the purpose and goals of the mixeduse districts, we're proposing adding in D,
for example, allow or encourage development and redevelopment that will maintain a sense of the city's heritage. Uh there is a proposed change for the MU2 district which I'll get to in a minute. And then in the mixeduse
corridor mixed use the MU3 the proposed change adds D here that's on the screen provide more flexibility in the redevelopment of existing commercial centers and the development of vacant sites. And again, as way of review and
background, these are terms and terminology uh found in the comprehensive plan. And so we thought it was important to make sure that these goals and purposes are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Make that abundantly clear. And then for the MU2 district, I talked about should we allow multiple family uh residential develop developments in that zoning district. Currently, they're
not allowed as this is the table of uses and I was proposing that they could be allowed potentially by PUD. So PED is now added in here as a residential land use for multiple family
and the MU2 and then adding in number five here that PUD means PUD. Yeah, PUD means the use requires city approval of a PUD in the district where designated in compliance with applicable standards.
So, it's not a permitted use. It's not a conditional use. It's a kind of a maybe use for lack of a better uh term. But that's so it opens up potentially more zoned property in the MU2 to have
multiple family developments subject to getting approved by the PUD. So, that is the overview of the changes. Oh, I just caught one more on page 10 of the packet
for item D here. The original proposal had after redevelopment. I had originally proposed or intens in intensification and commission asked to take that out which no longer shows up there. So again, the ordinance reflects those
changes. That is my report. So in summary, I've made all the changes requested by the commission. Uh we're recommending approval as staff and now you can I'll take questions otherwise you can open up the public
hearing. >> Excellent. Um >> does anyone on the commission have any questions about anything that Ken just said? >> Not about what Ken said, but I do have a question uh about the zoning. And this
is something, Ken, that just I just came from a meeting uh at the university about uh freight uses in the metro area. And one thing that was brought up there was that cities are not zoning
commercial buildings with a freight pickup drop off area. And that was something that they were recommending that cities should add to their zoning ordinances. So that you know building you know homes of one and two people are fine but when you start getting like 6 8
10 20 units because of the amount of deliveries that are going on these days between FedEx UPS and all of the food delivery services and the grocery delivery services that there is a parking problem being occur you
occurring at a lot of larger properties and that was just something I wanted to bring up and see is this something that we might want to put in our zoning code for the future and is if so is this the time to do it or do we add it in later?
>> Yes and later. >> Okay. >> So essentially the loading zones, >> right? >> 5 minute, 10 minute. >> Yeah. >> And they are common usually for commercial buildings, industrial buildings, you have loading docks, but on the larger multifamily, I could
see where it could be. Yeah, >> challenging. >> So that that was that was the only only question I had. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Amazon, Uber. I mean, it's not just FedEx anymore. It's >> right. >> Everything is getting >> Well, and aren't the buildings now
incorporating places for packages to be kept. >> A lot of times they are. Yeah. >> In the lobby or in an office or somehow, but >> Yep. >> That's their thing. Anyway, yes, we can look at adding loading docks or loading zones, I should say. >> Okay. Thank you. as we work through the changes.
>> Yeah, that's a good comment. Um, okay. I'm going to open the public hearing at 6:41. There is no one in attendance, so I will close the public hearing at 6:41.
Um, okay. We've had the commissioner's questions. >> Doing a great job with that gavvel, by the way. >> Thank you. Thank you. I feel I feel like that's that's the be the thing I'm doing the best right now. Okay. >> Um
so let's see if nobody has any other questions then um I will ask for uh a motion to approve what we just talked about. >> I'll make a motion. >> And to be clear, it's it's on the bottom
page 10 of this packet. It's making a recommendation to the city council to approve the ordinances as presented. >> Oh, sorry. >> Yeah, that's exactly what I meant to say. >> I knew that.
>> So, thank you. Commissioner Rathy is the first. Commissioner Alvarez is the second. And this is the motion to uh recommend uh to the that the city count or excuse me the planning commission has reviewed this um
and we are supportive of the proposed ordinance. Everyone that is in agreement say I >> I >> I >> and we have no nays. So it passes. >> Just having fun with that.
>> Thank you all. >> Did Did you see what you needed, Jason? >> Yeah. And I sent you an email. For some reason, I'm viewing this through Chrome. >> Yeah. >> And it's coming across not the way you want it to come across. So, it's just a technical thing. Um, >> okay.
>> Nothing of substance. >> Is it the page numbers are off? Is that >> No. Um, so so where it said dwelling attached and stuff like that because I'm viewing it through Chrome. It's this weird. >> Yep. I I
>> I found when I He can show it. >> Yeah. >> When I originally >> Oh, yeah. Weird. Well, and what how that happened is when I made the PDF of the Word document, it went wonky for some reason. >> So, I went back in just this afternoon
after I saw that, >> retyped some of those uh punctuation points and then resaved it and it was fine. I think it may have been because I copied and pasted from another document to create the word document and so
>> yeah I just knew if someone was actually following along from home it it looks confusing. >> Yes, >> you had a in submission >> sometimes word likes to >> well the punctuation was wonky but yes
thank you >> got it. All right, moving on to our next topic, which is the capital improvement plan review. Um, Ken, could you give us a rundown of that?
>> I will. Thank you. That's a few. >> So to start off, Minnesota statute require uh all planning commissions actually to review proposed capital improvement plans
in their respective jurisdictions as and what plan commissioners to look for are the proposed improvements consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan for that jurisdiction. So the capital improvement plan I've
included there's a summary table in the staff report but it's I don't know more than 100 pages I think the whole document. >> And so one might ask what is a capital improvement plan? Well, I'll tell you. The capital improvement plan is a long
range planning document that the city uses and most jurisdictions use to project out plan out when they will need and or make major capital purchases for the city, whether it's park
improvements, fire engines, snow plows, major building improvements, say for this building or any of the buildings. And each jurisdiction can define what is a capital improvement uh with
different dollar amounts. Here in North St. Paul, the one of the cut offs, if you will, one of the criteria is that it be at least $125,000 expense. Some cities I've worked at use 50, some use 100. That that's not
dictated by state law. But so they are major purchases or expenses that the city will have and I should say purchases. So ongoing maintenance projects uh painting things that might need to be done uh repairs are not capital
improvements. They are again the big purchases that and expenses that should last 10, 20, 30 years or more. But they are supposed to what is in the plan should be reflective of what are the
goals and policies in the comprehensive plan again as required by state law. So the the CIP document is a doc is a a document that the city updates every year with the input from
city staff, all the departments. Sometimes I know the park commission has been very involved with what they would like to see uh how park funds and park improvement projects would be programmed out for the next few years. And there's again a summary table in the staff
report. So I clearly not going to go through the whole CIP, but it helps forecast again the spending needs the city will have if we stay on track. And so it can help with budgeting
then for the city. Okay, for example, if we say and this is on page two of the staff report, the uh the city had a W world architects and engineers a facility assessment study a
few years ago and they projected for all the city buildings and facilities, the city should spend around $17 million over the next 10 years to maintain and make the improvements.
That study also showed that the community center would need $6.8 million in improvements, repairs, etc., maintenance or rehabilitation if if the city is going to continue to keep the community center. And that
hasn't been fully decided yet what the outcome of that is going to be. So, I don't want to promise that that's going to be spent or not spent. Those are two big examples. And so then from the having those numbers
and then again what say the engineers have laid out for water system improvements or a water tower or the street reconstruction projects that the city is doing every other year. Uh again lay out what years what budgets
how the dollar amounts was best estimated and come up with this plan. So staff working with the part again with the plane commission or excuse me the parks commission all the various departments put this plan together as we
see on the screen it was last updated in August. Uh the parks commission wanted to move some things around on their priorities. uh we as a staff believe it is consistent with the goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan. So, we are recommending that it be adopted. And actually in this case there's a resolution in your packet page 229 that we would if commission agrees
recommend that the commission would adopt recommending approval of the compreh uh capital improvement plan to the city council and then we at the second meeting in December with the city council will give them that update. I
can uh be happy to take questions, but just so you know, this should be done annually by the planning commission. CIP gets updated every year and unless there's something really crazy, we should be fairly consistent and
consistent with a comprehensive plan. Some cities will use it say if uh there's they know that a new freeway interchange is going to happen in a developing city and they can project out that may affect land uses and
development in that area. So maybe the comprehensive plan hasn't identified that interchange but the engineers in the say mind think it's a great idea. So we try to make sure those are consistent. Again, not really applicable here other than if Highway
120 and 36 ever gets redone, but that hasn't been programmed yet. So, we we know it's out there, but it's a long way off. So, that's enough talk. I'll answer your questions if you have any. >> So, question for you. If I look at P, you know, so you want us to review the
information that's on here. And if we're looking at numbers, obviously there's association information related to every one of these individual projects. and without knowing the detail of every one of those individual projects. That's not our responsibility, but that's what you're asking us to approve. >> Correct.
And that's why I included this whole big plan if one really wanted to read through because the the email plan has all everything laid out and pretty spreadsheets.
>> Yeah. Because I'm looking at some of these and I'm like, okay. So, I mean, look at page 225 as an example, which is a 12-in looping on the Gateway Trail in 2030. I mean, really, I mean, you want me to approve that that's going to be a valid case of $731,000. I can't say that's going to be the case.
and and it's not so much the dollar amounts but just the projects that have been identified that are they will they be again primarily consistent with the comprehensive plan and of I would say of value or importance to the
city and so in that same context so we've got dollars we've got a project but there's no viability as to why these are sitting here on a on a budget list that we're supposed to approve other than yeah, they were vetted
through again parks commission staff and to this point and if you if you disagree then >> no I'm I'm just I'm just trying to understand I'm just trying to understand what the expectation is because if I'm going to review a budget and I know that there's a project related to it what's the viability to say that hey we're just
not sliding something in there as one of the groups because I I don't want to say that that's my responsibility to approve it >> but I'm also trying to understand is has there done reviews on this, what other teams have reviewed this information because we're talking out, you know, we're talking 10 years from now.
>> Right. >> Well, and and adding to that because we don't know what's going to happen with the community center and that number is really large. >> Yeah. >> I mean, that's a huge percentage, >> right? >> And so I don't necessarily want to say yeah to it with the big question mark still
over the city. >> If I can add a little clarity, >> y >> I would call these placeholders. >> Okay. When say 2026 comes around and public works or the parks commission want to do a specific project,
it'll have to go through that individual vetting process with designs, cost estimates and then it would still have to be approved by the city council on an individual basis. Just because it's in here, half of these may never happen
>> or they may get pushed out another five years. So these are just to help the city start planning out the potential okay >> expenses and each one will get vetted in more detail on an individual basis.
Um >> okay >> either by well staff will certainly vet them but when they get brought forth well it could be from the parks commission could be staff city council may say hey there's a project identified in 2028 we want to move it to 2027 or 26
or we may not want to do it till 2030 >> because not only are there numbers associated with this there's also a priority number >> yes >> which you know if it's a priority three or four it might not even happen right I some are priority fives
>> and and all these are also contingent on funding, >> right? >> And if if as I think Dan pointed out or Dan gave me the number that to consistently try to keep up with this, the city would have at a minimum have to
have a 8 to 10% levy increase every year. >> And the city council may not go for that. But our our scope specifically for us is really just to say is there anything on this list that we
feel is not in in alignment with the comp plan basically right >> at a real real high level >> right yeah the the specific numbers in terms of cost I mean obviously that's very important but I think for what we're voting on it's it's really just
the the topics the the things that are on that list And I and I know it's a long list. I >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> You mean like replacing a backhoe is on this list? That's on this list. >> That's really part of the comprehensive plan that you want us to approve. >> Well, I'm just being I'm just asking the
question, >> right? One of the things I'd like to point out too, and I believe this is a huge step in the right direction, and I thank Ken for this, is last time uh when this was approved, I believe it was in January >> when the budget was already set and the
entire budget for the next year was already set, then it was brought >> um before the commission. This actually gives you >> Yeah. a a a step in the right direction of actually having input where we could affect change for the next year. still might need to be tweaked a little bit if
you feel, you know, more time to review or whatever level you wish to put in, but I still view it as a huge step in the right direction that you you could put in input where there's still time to change it for the budget and
>> versus the what I would consider >> no reasonable chance for change in January of going, "Yep, everything's planned." >> Right. >> Here it is. Please approve this. >> Right. No, I I no disagreements. >> Yeah, >> I think the I mean something like a
backhoe, I feel like that's not really our purview to >> right >> say yes or no to that. But um the things that are on the list here that Ken you called out specifically like uh what page is this 16 of the packet where that's where it starts at least. Um so a
lot of the park improvements, uh sports fields, um different sort of street improvements that to me is more aligned with what our scope is. Um so I think you know these
these few it's you know whatever 30 things you pulled out here are a little bit more aligned to what we're our scope, right? Um >> I would say so. Sure. Yep. >> So, just quick question to you. This is being brought before us because the
state requires us, they want every city's planning commission to go over these. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Because it's viewed as an element of the comprehensive plan or it needs to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. A a common one again in a developing
city would be say he's planning for a major road extension across for three or four miles across a farm field. Then we would look at has that corridor been identified in the comprehensive plan in the transportation plan. Is it generally in line with that?
Does the timing make sense? say with the utility extensions here, we don't clearly have that, but these are still major expense expenses. And the ones in the actual staff report, page 16 and 17 were examples we pulled out. Uh clearly
they're park centric. Uh but those seemed and there's some other improvements, but those seemed to be examples that we thought the commission would be most interested in. They're clearly with hundreds of them in the plan. We're not
expecting you to appreciate every one, but it's a fair question, Jim, about what are we doing and why are we doing it. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I mean, this I this is definitely very high level. Um I mean, I I love all
the stuff that's that's called out here. I wish all of it would get done. Um I don't think I had any specific um questions. I I you know there's
I mean is is our purview here to could we suggest things that we think should be moved up in priority or is it really just sort of a general scope of >> I think you could if you if there's one or two or well however many that
somebody has a strong opinion up or down in the timeline. >> Yeah, >> we can certainly pass that information on. >> Okay. When is the timeline that the year that the desire is to have this approved by? >> Yeah. >> Well, it's going to the council on December 16th.
>> Okay. >> The last council meeting of the year. >> So, we could hold it for a month. >> We could hold it for a month. We could review it and come back and come back to force. >> Yep. >> I don't Yeah, >> that seems to be a viable option
>> knowing what you're looking for. >> Well, hopefully my explanation helped a little bit. >> Yeah, it did very much so. I move we table this for the next meeting then. >> Yeah, I think that's I think that would give us all a little bit more time to now that we understand
the scope a little bit more time to look at it. >> Yeah. And is would that cause any issue? I mean I I appreciate we got this earlier than we did last time. So it gives us that time to do that. So >> yeah, and remember I'm 105, but from my viewpoint, if you going saying I'd like
these three things pushed out a year and these four things increased a year, >> I I can't tell you how proud of I am of you guys, of the lens you view things. So a little bit of that insight from the planning commission side would be
wonderful as far as I'm concerned is >> perfect. Um, you know, let's um uh I I don't know what a good example, you know, but um we we just we just redid some housy park. Let's push that plan
maintenance back a year and let's move up >> the um the the Casey Lake one >> things of that nature from this >> commission would be outstanding. >> Yeah. Great. I think that's a good >> Mr. Chair, there's a motion on the table, but I didn't hear a second.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So, yes, the the motion is to table this until our December meeting that was by uh member Muick. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Commissioner Rathy. Um, all in favor? >> I >> I.
>> All against. Okay. Passes. So, we will table this until next meeting. we'll have a little more time to >> I'm wondering would it be possible for us to get u a list of the improvements that were done within the last two to three years uh at least major
improvements that we could kind of use that as a way of guiding us uh >> you know if there's something that we might want to rearrange >> yes that to be emailed so we can review it before the next meeting >> that'd be I agree yeah >> I can check with Dan our finance
director and >> thank you >> thank All right. Excellent. Next up is >> the only reason I brought the back ho up is it's in 2026 and I looked at the dollar. I'm like this is near-term. I'm like let's understand the picture here. That's why I raised that by the way. So
>> yeah, >> FYI. >> Okay. So, we speaking of the comprehensive plan, we now are going to be looking at a potential 2050 comprehensive plan. Um, so an update to our 2040 plan.
Um, Ken, could you give us a rundown of that? >> Absolutely. Thank you. Um, so I'm calling this the kickoff of the comprehensive plan update. And for background purposes, I thought it'd be good to start with
why are we doing this? Why are we required to do this? Uh so I included in the staff report some background information from the Met Council and then a little bit from our existing comprehensive plan. The
comprehensive plan by state law and by Met Council regulations, each city, each jurisdiction in the seven county area has to update it every 10 years. And how that starts is the mech council
develops what they call a regional guide plan for the whole seven county area and that's what they're calling imagine 2050 and within that then they set some overall goals and policies of how they
in hope envision the whole metro area will develop develop redevelop transform over the next 20 25 years. Uh so their overall vision for that and
I've included all a lot of this in the report is to have a prosperous, equitable and resilient re region with abundant opportunities for all to live, work, play and thrive. Very
aspirational I guess would be the term. Then then page 231 which is the second page of the report. They included several goals for the region. Again, these are policy goals at the Met
Council, by the way, an unelected political body, but that's another tangent for another day. >> Uh well stated >> and their hearts are in the good in the right place. I'll I'll say that for the
most part. >> Okay. >> From that then the uh the so the mech council was created in I think the 1960s or early '7s by state law to coordinate and organize the planning and problem
solving that no one community can do by alone. And so it was created by state statute. And through that they created regional guides initially for sewers and highways I believe and then eventually they've taken they've gotten into park
regional parks and trails and other elements. So now they have this great vision what do we say it is imagine 2050 with these overall goals. Then they are
required they them the council to prepare a system statement for each jurisdiction in again the seven county area and send those out by September of this year and they did and I included the North St. Paul one in your packet
and what that gives is a little snapshot of how each jurisdiction or city are the things that they will need to address as they update their comprehensive plan. and I put the cover on the screen. So,
what does the system what is a system statement? It helps guide local planning. It'll identify impacts and most importantly for the mid council it ensures conformity uh that is the local governments
must use the system statement when determining their comprehensive plan needs to be amended and and how it needs to be amended to stay consistent with the Met Council's regional plans. Again, those regional plans are primarily
around highways, land uses, uh, sanitary sewer systems, and parks and trails. So, the North St. Paul system statement, we did get it in September and did I did a little review and analysis of it, what it included
uh within it. We'll just quick run through it. So this gives some of the background why we have it. Some of the same things I just talked about. Uh the city can
dispute what they are projecting for a city if they wish. They have 60 days to do so. Uh frankly we don't have any issues but I'll let you decide. So for example on the screen which is uh what page
>> 239 right now. Yeah, I think so. >> Yep. >> This is the this is an example of what they project for all the cities jurisdictions. And for 2040 they are projecting a population on North St. Paul of 13,100
and for 2050 13,000. No big change. Number of households going from 5,300 staying at 5,300. employment 3500 and staying at 3500. So what that's telling me there's not
expecting a lot of change in North St. Paul which since the land is 99% developed >> really expecting. Again this would be more relevant in a city like Oakdale or Woodbury where they're growing. >> The council may say you're going to add
10,000 people or the city may say no we think 12 or 15 or only six. So then those two will have to they have to hash it out and come to an agreement. >> So where's the variation come from between 2020 and 2030 because there's probably about 400 homes there
difference between the two. I'm not so sure that we've got 400 property openings in the city of North St. Paul to add to that is my inquis is my inquisition. >> I don't know. That's a fair question. I don't >> no because I mean because >> we had the we had the town houses, we've
had the apartments. I'm not sure how many units all of that adds up to. Yeah, that >> but that's a sizable number of housing units, right, that we've >> Yeah. Article 7 and the >> Yeah, >> the uh Sentinel >> were built after 2020 and so are now
open. That'll add to the number of households for 2030. >> But that's not that's those are individual houses. Those are not apartment complexes. >> No, but a household is a is a housing unit. >> Each apartment would >> Oh, so apartment is considered as a unit
in this instance. It's a household. >> Got it. Individual households. Yes. >> Okay. >> I am kind of curious as to how they expect the number of households to uh maintain and yet our population dropped by 100. But maybe they're thinking that we'll have fewer
>> less children. >> Yeah. Less children per per person. >> That's the thing population is happening. >> I think that's exactly it. >> That's what it is. And I believe um that 5200 number uh for households at 2030 comes from an uncontested number that
was put forth with the 2030 plan. >> Okay. >> When in 2020 or whatever when it was created. >> Got it. >> And they they do update these based on census data >> and they track building permits. So they
know they the council knows how many new units have been built. Do you know how many households we have in in North St. Paul today? >> I I don't the actual there that first column was based on the census, but I haven't looked at it now since.
>> Again, I'm just I'm inquisitive as to where we stand today and what does that picture look like? >> Yeah, I could find that. >> Apartment buildings we've added since then. It's probably close to another 300 probably, right? And something like that. >> I think one building has >> I don't know how many units are in
those. One has 80 and I think one has 110 or 20. >> Okay. >> I think article seven >> the ones downtown. Yes. What about the ones on McNight? >> Yeah. All the all the town houses. >> Huge. >> Well, there's an apartment building there. >> There's a Yeah. Huge apartment building
and the town homes. >> So, we've added quite a few. >> Yeah. >> The when was that the one on Mcnite built? Was that before 20? >> I think it was after 2020. >> Okay. >> It's been pretty recent. >> Yeah. Okay. Time doesn't make any sense anymore. I agree.
>> I'm hoping we're going to have a 2030 census to base this on. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Because I'm not at all positive that the current government's going to allow a census to go. >> We have added a lot of household units in the last five years. >> And I'm sure we could
look at our building permits from the last three, four, five years and get some numbers. >> We know I'm I'm confident in 2020 because that's census. >> Mhm. And then to get from 2020 to 2024, 2025, at least on the unit count and
household count, we could get that population is guesstimated by number of residents in a housing unit. Single family home might have three or four where apartment might have two. >> Yeah. I'm more I'm more concerned on the number of households because the number of households are going to dictate what
your population is going to be. >> And also the school districts. >> That's correct. Right. >> Yeah. I would like to suggest that once we determine what we think it is that the planning office try to do an annual update on that based on the number of
permits or some or something however you feel like it would be suitable to keep track. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Certainly based on building permit information we could >> project out how many units have been built and >> there isn't a whole lot of space left to
>> Yeah. Unless they demolish something else. >> Well, where article 7 was, I don't know that people thought 10 years ago that would get redeveloped and >> right. >> True. >> Sometimes you just don't know. >> According to Ramsey County, we're at
5,0001. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Households. >> Yes. >> Oh, >> so that fits into that. >> We're over 5,000. Yay. >> Let's have a party. >> Yeah. So >> I would like to see the employment numbers increase
>> and our population is 11,000. >> I know >> that's that's the number that concerns me. >> Yeah. >> Doesn't seem quite >> we need business. >> So that's that's again one element. I don't have any reason to disagree with
any of those numbers or more importantly the 2040 and 2050 numbers. >> Right. >> What's happening in 2025 or 2030 it is what it is. We can't control that really. >> But then going through this
they one thing that we are also required to look at is the number of affordable housing units. >> Mhm. >> And each again each jurisdiction has to have what they call their fair share of affordable units and by 2050 we as a
city are supposed to add 33 more units. >> Okay. >> Does the city add those? >> Very much. Well, they need to happen in the city. It's not a citydriven. So, we we as a city have to try to accommodate those wherever we can. Whether
it's a new development and is strictly for low to moderate income folks or if it's a larger project, do we require 10% of the units to be for low to moderate income? However, we get there. I don't know that there's any penalties if we
don't meet that number, but that's again the M council trying to spread out the affordable housing all throughout the region >> because if the city's not doing that, that means private landlords need to make that happen. >> Yes. >> And I don't know how you make them do
that. I, as an example, I've seen where cities adopt housing policies or affordable housing policies that say if you're going to build new more than 100 units, 5% or 10% of those have to be reserved
for low to moderate income. We don't have that policy yet. It might be coming. We'll have to see. You can always add incentives to it, you know, saying that if you do build X number of units and Y or >> lowinccome housing will allow you to
develop more densely or something like that. Um, >> yeah, there's carrots that can be put out to >> there's tiff financing or right tax >> or u yeah more density on the same size property as a bonus or reducing parking
standards or design standards or there's many ways to incentivize it. Uh what's interesting too is they want cities and again cities and counties
to get into climate policy. I don't know how the heck we're going to do this. I haven't given it a deep thought but they uh they say Met Council will assist communities in addressing climate mitigation and adaptation elements
by providing communities with greenhouse gas inventories and technical assistance for identifying appropriate strategies. I I I it's something we'll be looking at as we go forward. I'm just going to leave it
at that pace. I again I could see where if if you're an area that has transit or you want to encourage transit to reduce car trips, great. That can help. But that's so driven by the Met Council
because they control the bus routes >> and metro transit. So unless I I stay tuned. >> We're part of that association where we have our own windmill and I mean I don't know how I mean green means so many different things. Yes. They're
specifically talking talking greenhouse gas emissions. >> Yeah. >> So there's >> probably different ways >> that's something. >> Well the other the other thing is right now the current federal government is uh strongly discouraging discussion of this. So, this is going to be a landmine
for the next three years. Yeah. >> Right. >> But I think it's worth talking to the Met Council about. And I strongly suspect because we have two bus routes here that operate daily, we'll be in a much better situation than a lot of the
more suburban communities would be. >> Right. Mhm. >> Uh, one thing they include in, again, this is right out of the system statement as they give a designation to
each city or jurisdiction. North St. Paul is considered urban edge as is Maplewood, but Oakdale, for example, is called suburban. Urban edge is what the last time around North St.
Paul was urban, just like St. all and now that mech council has broken that out so the first ring suburbs are now considered urban edge when that becomes most important is for the suburban and suburban edge cities
the mech council has a standard that all new residential development be built at at least three and a half units per acre >> and we're not necessarily bound by that because we're in the urban edge they like more density they want more density
And when you're developing soybean fields and for corn fields, raw raw land for development, that's they don't want the large lots spread out. They are pushing for smaller lots and higher
density. Again, in the places like Oakdale, Woodbury and those we're not subject to that. So, I'm not again not concerned about that. But that's that's another example. Uh one thing they are also oh so talk about transportation
plan again this comes up in if there's going to be highway projects interchanges lanes added to a road then this system statement should identify those. Uh we have none of that. The only thing that
they have identified is the intersection at again 120 and highway 36. >> It's on the radar. It's not programmed. There's no funding for it yet, but that's the only metro area highway system thing that could impact or be a
part of North St. Paul. And so we just have to identify that that yes, we're aware of that and we uh will, you know, we just identify it on our maps and all our
say highway 36 for example, we have to identify that as a state highway. It's a major corridor. Well, okay, that hasn't changed. So, it's it's a lot of this is just what we have to do. It's not >> high level planning for anything. Uh
regional freight planning or regional bicycle planning. Well, again, the gateway trail is our regional bicycle corridor. I don't think we have any other regional bicycle routes or trails. Freight planning would be again the
highway. There's nothing or highway 36 I should say. Again, nothing changing there. They want us to look at travel demand management and again greenhouse gas emissions. Uh yeah. So yeah, for travel demand
management, the Met Council encourages local governments to address travel demand management needs in your areas that experience traffic congestion. So again, that'd be working with the county. >> Mandot. Nothing that we can really do
about any of that that I can think of. They touch on regional parks. Uh and they make clear that there are no regional parks. Well, here's our arterial map for the the only regional park facility.
Uh similar to that is the Gateway Trail. That's the only stateowned facility. even the the county parks that are nearby are not large enough to be regional parks. So, as I say, there are no regional parks or trail
system components within North St. Paul as identified in the 25 2050 regional parks plan. North St. Paul must state this fact in its comprehensive plan. Okay, we will. Easy. That's a easy condition to meet. Uh so
that is what the system statement is and I don't recommend that we challenge it or fight it or question it but I use that as a introduction to some of the elements that we will be looking at as
we progress the next two and a half years on the comprehensive plan update. Again the update is required to be done by September of 2028. So a little less than three years. So, we have time. Don't want to leave it to the last six months because there's a lot involved.
But, nonetheless, that's where we're at. Any questions on the system statement? It's what we get from the Met Council. We get to work with. >> When does this need to be updated by >> the system statement or the comp plan? >> Comp plan
>> by September 2028. >> Oh, okay. Again, the system statement is put out. So again, if there was a growing city, they disagreed on the population growth and the number of households that's going to happen, then the two agencies
can talk and arm wrestle and figure out a number that they both can live with. I don't see an issue with the North St. Paul, so I'm not recommending that we flag it or have any problems with it unless the commission sees something.
Well, and and you said if like let's say hypothetically a year from now there's some larger housing development that occurs because some developer has you know put pieces of property together. Um
that would they would still be able to take that into account based on census data and >> so we we're not >> cutting anything off here if we say >> excuse me. No. Okay. >> No, not at all. they would love it frankly.
>> So the second element I included in the packet. Uh okay that's that's the end of that was chapter two of the current comprehensive plan. So this is the 2040 comprehensive plan. Uh, and I thought
for a little brain work or discussion, this has the vision, goals, and decisions that set up the writing and adoption of the comprehensive plan that we now have in effect in effect. Uh,
in that, see if I can find it here. They they went through a lot of work and came up with a vision and I'll it's on the screen. It's also on the last page of the page 235 in the report.
After the initial processes, they came up with North St. Paul is your favorite small town. We promote community stewardship through an involved and informed citizenry. We preserve neighborhood value with diverse and maintained housing and
active neighbors. The city engages in creative placemaking that fosters an environment of economic and employment opportunity. North St. Paul builds systems that connect people to places and promote active lifestyles.
That was the overall vision for the city and 20 for the 2040 plan. There are several then goals in the plan that are in again this chapter two there's the vision and I I
included a few of those in the report. There's goals and questions and how they would be measured. Uh we can talk through these if you have any questions, comments. There's goals regarding business and economic
development, downtown transportation, urban design, parks and trails, resilience. Uh, at this point from what I know of the city in my six or so months, I think
initially my initial look at them, they all seem relevant and important, but this is now what, eight, nine years old. Things certainly have changed, especially downtown for the good.
There's been redevelopment down there. We don't necessarily need to go through all these tonight, but I think this would be looking at these and understanding these and ultimately deciding are they still relevant and
important for the city will be a good way to start formulating what the rest of the comprehensive plan is going to look like as we do the update. So with that, we can talk about it. you want to have questions, digest it.
I'm open for however the commission would like to proceed at this point. >> Thanks, Ken. I mean, this Yeah, this is a lot to uh >> there's a lot of words there. >> Yep. Um
so, I think first, does anybody have any topics they want to bring up? I know it's a lot here, but um initial reactions >> and we're going over this to do what's the goal of us going >> to
>> are we changing it or >> No, not yet. >> Not yet. But it's starting to think about I think most importantly, are these goals still relevant to the city now? >> Okay. >> And if they are, great. Keep going down that path. If there are some that need to be changed, then as we do the
comprehensive plan update, we'll look at those proposed changes, excuse me, and then figure out how what they should say if they're not current or >> we're looking for possible feedback as this gets updated for the next one. >> Yes.
>> Gotcha. >> And I thought, well, what's what's in a comprehensive plan? What should it say? These are a good starting point to think about what ultimately what if you had your way how would the city be developed
in 2040 and 2050 what it would look like >> what kind of elements what's important and each city gets to decide that within >> yep >> some with some flexibility >> I think I mean to me this is this is
important enough that if everybody agrees I feel like Maybe this could be another thing where we could bring up next meeting just to >> well I'd like >> instead of going all you know we don't have to do the whole presentation we can just come with comments to to talk about
because it's it is important. >> I'm wondering if maybe we should put off for the January meeting because this is a lot of material and we've got a lot to look at for the next meeting. So >> true. >> Should we maybe kick this two months down the road and do it in January? And we we certainly have time.
>> Yeah. >> And and in the meantime, you can read it, bedtime reading to >> hopefully not put you to sleep when >> Yeah, I think that's a good idea. >> I agree. Is everyone else comfortable with that? >> I'm game. >> And yeah, Jim Jim's happy.
>> Okay. >> Be a lot to this. But in the meantime, if there's something that jumps out at you or is missing or you need more information either for the next meeting or the January meeting, let me know so I can pull it together for you.
>> I don't know if you were any of you on the commission when the last plan was adopted. No, >> I don't think any of us were. >> Oh, okay. Well, we're getting comprehensive plan 101. >> Patrick might have been. Patrick might have been, but yeah, >> maybe that might No, I think he's only a year or two ahead of me, so I don't know
if that >> really because I think he isn't he hasn't he been around for about eight years. >> Maybe >> it feels like >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm not sure. >> Not sure. >> Maybe it just seems like it.
>> Tell you what, I don't want to assume. >> Yes. >> So, I'll just put it out there is we'll have to ask him when he returns from Illinois for our next one. >> Yes. But yeah, I think I think that'll be good just to give us a little bit of time to look at it and just have good more pointed comments about it. >> Okay,
>> that does however beg the question of when will our January meeting be because the first Thursday in January is the first. >> Oh, >> well, so that would be pushed >> probably to the 8th, but >> typically push.
>> Um, >> you're planning ahead. That's why I'm called a platter. I I should have been on that. >> So, there's no specific We're not We don't have to There's no motion here, right? No. >> No. If you if Well, you should if you don't want to take any action. Just for
the record, somebody to make a motion to table for a future meeting. >> Okay. Yeah. So, do I have a motion to table for a potential? >> I tabled the last one. So, >> I'll make the motion to table this >> and I'll second that. Commissioner Gadboy is first and Commissioner Muick
is second to table this >> I want to be the perpetual table >> and and to be clear that's to the January meeting >> to January correct yes >> we don't we have to vote >> sorry yes oh my goodness
>> another another chance >> we're near the gavl >> everybody in favor of tableabling this to January say I I >> any opposed say nay. No nays. So we're good. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Rat. >> Having too much fun. >> All right. So I think we're through our topics and we are on to reports from uh commissioners and council leaison.
Jason, you want to go first? And do you have any reports from council? >> No, just as always, thank you very much for uh the great work that you guys do. >> Thank you. All right, Stephanie. >> Nothing. >> No reports. Cameron,
>> nothing on my >> I got nothing. >> Nothing. Well, since um I am wrapping up the end of my tenure, the question is whether I'm going to stick around. And uh I've thought about planning against it. Obviously now with all this kind of
changes my mind but um so as of right now that has been my game plan is just to roll off planning probably after December is kind of the game plan. Doesn't mean I couldn't be construed but that's kind of the game plan. So but uh with that being stated it's been four
years of fun and I've enjoyed all the conversations we've had and um all the interactions that we've had and I continue to see a lot of good stuff happening. So that's the only comment that I have. >> Oh, okay. >> For a report. House. >> I didn't realize your time was up this year.
>> I did not either until recently. So >> Okay. Well, but we still have time to convince you otherwise, right? >> I I will accept that. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Alvarez, >> I have nothing. >> All right. >> Good. Oh, yeah. Elizabeth says she
didn't have anything. That's right. So based on Jim's report, if we will be advertising for new one or two new commissioners, we haven't heard from Patrick yet what he wants to do. He was
when I last talked to him considering also ending his term. >> Mhm. So, with that said, if you know people that might be interested in the commission, either have them contact Chris or myself or look for a posting, I'm sure it'll be something on the website or on the in the newsletter
about how to submit an application. And we're always looking for good people. Yeah. Excellent. All right. Well, I guess that's it. So at uh 7:34
we are adjourned. >> You want a motion to adjurnn? Oh, >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. >> Well, do we need to make a motion about the January meeting at this point? >> No, I because I I don't know when the date will be set. It's just auto. >> We can figure that out. We'll let you
know at December meeting. >> Okay, that sounds good. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. Thank you. >> Who made the motion? I'm sorry. >> I did. First seconded by Mr. Alvarez. >> Thank you. >> Did we vote? >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> All against nay. >> I'm saying nay just for the hell of it. >> Ruled. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for sticking with this handicapped uh chairman here. >> He did a good job.