I'm going to call the meeting to order. This is the North St. Paul Planning Commission meeting of April 2nd, 2026. >> Can I have a roll call? >> Chair Bl >> present. >> Vice Chair Weise >> present. >> Commissioner Alvarez
>> here. >> Commissioner Muick >> here. >> Commissioner Maruchini >> here. >> Commissioner Sorrowro >> here. and staff and liaison present today are city council liaison Nordby, community development director Roberts and planning commission secretary
Journey. Excellent. Thank you very much. With that, um we have an agenda before us. Uh is there a motion to adopt the agenda as written? >> I'll move to adopt. >> Motion from Commissioner Weise. Second. >> Second. Motion from Commissioner Muick.
All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All right. Commissioner introductions. What a great idea. That's something that's not usually on the agenda. So, that's kind of fun. >> Well, because there were I think these
two were missing at the last meeting >> and those two were present at the last meeting for the first time. So, it's kind of like how do you want to go about this? Um, Veto, can you just briefly >> you want me to set the tone?
>> Yeah. Describe who you are and and don't spend a whole lot of time with it, but you know. >> Yeah. >> What you're doing? >> Uh, my my name is Vto Sorro and my wife and I moved to North St. Paul just under two years ago. We live on Margaret and we've
got three kids. We had two when we came. So, one of them is still pink. And before that, we lived on Maryland Rice in in St. Paul. And I I think people ought to be involved in their communities if they can. And I'm
fortunate enough to be afforded the time and ability to do that. So, here I am. >> Excellent. >> Um, I think that probably sums it up. If you got questions, you know, let let me know. But >> yeah, well, we capture more questions later. >> Yeah. Thank you.
>> You want to explain for for veto and for Pete what kind of you've been here for what one term? >> Yes. >> Or a term and a half? I can't even remember. >> A while. >> Just the one. Yeah. Just
>> Yeah. You have a background in I mean what what led you here to do to do this? Just out of curiosity. >> Um I was asked. >> Yeah. Very nice. Good, man. Okay. >> And my background is in construction. >> In construction, which is in real
estate, so kind of >> good place to be. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, I thought these guys might want to have some knowledge of that. >> So, I'm I'm Patrick Ble and I um have been involved. My wife was asking me, "How long have you been a commissioner in North St. Paul?"
>> I think I'm going on 20 years pretty soon because I was on the design historic review commission when it existed. and and Mayor Sandberg um appointed me to that. So it goes back a few years. >> Yeah.
>> Um and I am an architect by profession and with that move on. >> I'm um also an architect and uh I work for a
contractor in Minneapolis. Um, I have two little boys and my wife is also an architect as well. We live over near um the very bottom corner of North St. Paul near the
Maplewood Y. Um, I've been on plan commission I think for four years I think. Five years even maybe. >> Yeah, maybe five. >> Um, and yeah, that's that's it.
Well, I'm Cameron Muick and I work for Mandot in the uh uh development review area. So, basically, if anybody's doing construction near one of our highways, it comes through our department to take a look at. Uh I am a uh urban planner by
training although I've uh always worked on the transportation side and I live over by u and I never do remember is it housy or is it house park >> housy is >> generally how it's pronounced.
>> Okay I'm on 4th Avenue near housy park. So >> uh I'm Pete Maruchini. I uh retired about five years ago as a uh treasurer and controller for a hearing aid company. Um I lost uh my uh wife a
couple years ago and uh decided to sell my house and moved into the Sentinel apartments over on 7th Avenue East. And uh I'm here because I met Art at a uh uh Christmas party and he uh
convinced me to check in on the uh open position at the planning commission because I did the same thing when I I lived in Florida and served on the commission down there. >> Great. Y >> I appreciate getting the little brief update. We can always talk more after
the after the meeting. So, um, let's go to agenda item number five. Golly, we just move along. Um, approval of meeting minutes. Um, I would
entertain a motion for approval of the March 5th meeting minutes. >> Motion from Commissioner Alvarez. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second from Was that? >> That was me. Uh, Commissioner Maruchini.
Um, and did anybody find anything that needs comment? I didn't in my observation. >> Looks spot on to me. >> All right. All in favor? >> I. >> We're good.
Open is meeting to open meeting open to the public. If anyone uh from the public wants to speak on something not on the agenda, um now is the time to do that. If you'd limit your comments to three minutes, if anybody's interested in that. And if
not, then we proceed. We move on to public hearings. Um condition use permit application for 2020 2121 Holloway Avenue East. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this first of two public hearings that the planning
commission will hold tonight um is regarding a conditional use permit application for an accessory dwelling unit, also known as an ADU, at 2121 Holloway Avenue East.
For background, the applicant is Logo Mulesa. He is the owner and the applicant. Um the location is 2121 Holloway Avenue East. And for the request, he submitted a conditional use permit application to allow for the
conversion of a portion of the attached garage into an accessory dwelling unit. And that is, if you can see my cursor, this area right here of the attached garage. The applicant provided a project
narrative. Um they indicated that the proposed project involves the conversion of a portion of the existing garage into a self-contained accessory living unit. The existing garage measures approximately 17 ft
wide, 19 ft high, and 30 feet long. The total area will be reconfigured to accommodate both a lower and upper level of habitable space while m maintaining structural integrity and compliance with applicable building codes. They also um
submitted floor plans that are included in the packet. Code requirements. The lot here is zoned R1, single family residential district. And within the zoning ordinance, chapter
154, appendix A, table 3, use districts, ADU is allowed as a conditional use in the R1 single family district in compliance with the applicable standards. So, ADU regulations. The ADU regulations
are found in chapter 154.010 D2 in the city code. staff reviewed the ADU proposal against the ADU regulations and noted that the proposal was compliant with all of the regulations in
um that section except for one and that is that the minimum size of the ADU shall be 300 square ft with a maximum size of 900 square ft. The proposed ADU will have a ground floor area of 629
square feet and a top floor area of 629 square feet, making the total square footage 1,258 square ft. The zoning ordinance limits the maximum size of an ADU to be 900 square ft.
As a condition of approval, the applicant shall amend the floor plans to show a square footage of no more than 900 square feet for the proposed ADU to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Other considerations for the ADU project
would be impervious surface coverage. There's no expansion of imperous surface coverage. Um, and there will be no changes to existing driveways. The project will work within the existing building footprint and structure. The design of the ADU shall
be consistent with the existing attached garage and principal structure. A condition of approval should be that the installation of new windows, doors, and siding shall be consistent with the design and colors of the principal structure.
Per the zoning ordinance, one maximum parking space is required for each ADU. Um staff do not anticipate a parking impact due to the ADU because of the large amount of square footage of the existing driveways and parking areas. Um
and that is also demonstrated in the packet as an attachment as well. Here on this slide is a list of all of the CUP review criteria. Um after reviewing all of the criteria, staff do
find that the proposed ADU is in um harmony with the criteria here. The proposed ADU would blend in with the existing building due to there being no footprint changes and therefore would be compatible with the existing building
site and surrounding area as long as the new windows, doors, and siding are consistent with the existing building. The proposed ADU staff find would not negatively impact the health, safety, or general welfare of the neighbors or the
city. Um, in summary, the accessory use of this lot at 2121 Holloway Avenue East as an accessory dwelling unit is allowed by conditional use in the RB1 district.
The proposed plan meets this criteria here for approval um, but should be conditioned upon those applicable requirements for the ADU. Public hearing notice. This notice was published in the Star Tribune on March
23rd, 2026 and notice was mailed to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject site on March 20th, 2026. Um staff received no public comments prior to this public hearing. Finally, staff recommend that the
planning commission make a motion to recommend to the city council approval of the proposed conditional use permit for the conversion of a portion of the attached garage into an ADU at 2121 Holloway Avenue East subject to the
conditions outlined in the draft resolution attached in the packet. Um the primary condition that staff note is that the applicant shall amend the proposed floor plans to show the ADU
with a square footage of no more than 900 square f feet. Other conditions are submitt plans for a building permit and other applicable permits. Um, new ex exterior sighting, windows and doors shall have a
design and colors that are consistent with the existing design and colors of the principal structure. Um, another condition is that the applicant shall submit a new sack determination with the Met Council and coordinate with North St. Paul electric department to
determine whether there's a need to establish an independent electrical utility on site. And for next steps, um, it is now open to the planning commission to ask questions about the staff report. I will also note that the applicant
is here today if they would like to add or present anything else or if you have any questions for them. >> The picture that we have right now is this one here. Is this currently a photo of it?
>> So, it's been a garage, but it doesn't have a door on the front. >> It's on the back side. Interesting. And it's been currently being used as a garage. >> Are they asking for a variance for that 300 square feet more to go from 9 to 12?
>> We have not received a variance at >> Okay. So, are we just asking them to not use 300 square feet of that space? >> Yeah, that that would be how >> just leave it unfinished. >> Would that qualify?
>> Get the mic. >> Uh there's a couple options. >> Well, the biggest option is they can revise the plans, shrink down the size of the ADU however they see fit. >> Sure. to meet that 900 square foot maximum. If they want to pursue the
variance and have a larger one, then they would have to submit an application for the variance and come back and go through that whole process. >> Sure. >> We we discussed those options this morning and I'm sure maybe they'll have an answer now. >> There you go. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> I think it would be difficult to come up with the rationale for a a hardship that drives a variance. >> I would agree. >> Approval. I think that would be a challenge. Um I was you answered one of my questions
was which was if those conditions had been discussed with the applicant. So >> and the requirement for a variance being is that there has to be a hardship >> there. Yeah. In order to justify a variance. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. there's um certain requirements. >> We'll see those on the next report. >> Gotcha. >> Yeah. Give you an opportunity to look at it and understand what the difference is. >> Sometimes the the hardships are hard to
define. >> Yeah. >> Um and the fact that it would cost you money is not considered a hardship. >> Sure. That's something that I've always played with in my experiences as an architect.
>> Client wants to do this because it's going to cost him too much. Sorry. Too late. Too late. Um, you bought the property. Um, are there any other comments, questions? No, this does seem like an ideal use of
the space and um you know, if there was no public comment and staff has laid this out really clearly, I feel like it's there's not not a great deal to discuss. >> Absolutely.
>> Well, if we're done with questions from this group, um I will call the public hearing to order. at uh 6:47. >> Yes, I would like to hear from the applicant.
The applicant has words to say >> if you have something to share, something further to share about maybe response to the conditions that are being suggested. >> You're going to excuse me. I don't know how to address you. It's fine. We're
just a bunch of guys. >> We're We're friendly. We're not going to hold you. >> Yes. I uh My name is uh Dr. Ligo MZA. I'm a psychiatric nurse practitioner at Fair View. And Elizabeth uh is my
wife. Uh and we we we bought the the building in 20 and we moved in 2015, I think. Right. >> 16. >> 2016. And uh we've been living there and this massive two garages have been
sitting there >> uh not utilized. I I tried to put a small workshop in there myself to to waste time when I'm back from work and but but I don't have time to to do
that. Then we start talking to my wife, why why why not finish it? And uh and it's it looks ugly >> the way it is. It's one part of the house seems finished and the other part
looks ugly and unfinished. It's like we living in unfinished house >> basically. And we said let's let's just finish it. And we say we can do this slowly by ourselves. We going to find uh help here and there for people who know
how to do it. Since the the main structure is finished is just putting dry walls and those separation. We can do that and we start to work on that and until I got a message from
uh Chris that we we need to shrink the space and and that was kind of shocking to me. And I had two questions that I came to ask him. Uh what harm does it do to have the whole 12
500 80 completed there? They said there was no harm. We are just constricted by a rule that was established in the past and and this rules applies to everyone regardless of
the conditions because the the the attachment doesn't have big have to be bigger than the house and and they estimated that 900 square foot will be enough for the attachment to be bigger than the many house. Well, my
house is 4,200 square foot. there's nowhere 10020 going to be bigger and and now I they gave me the option to to go for the what the other process >> a variance
>> the variance and and finally we couldn't find a way that the variance will be possible it's it's just I'm trapped in in a rule that I can't do anything and I I don't have the
power to to to change the the ordinance you're going to take more time and and more complicated. So I don't know. I I am open to discuss with my wife to
to have a a space behind the living room that is 300 and something square foot that is locked out and and un unutilized >> or I go for a variance that I'm less likely to to get.
What option do I have? >> Well, you you guys are the first people to apply for this. So, so you're the test case basically. We we this was on we discussed this maybe what two years ago, something like that.
>> So, you're the first one. And um I think yeah the 900 ft² was just you know I think in in our minds where that was more important a lot of times people will build an ADU separate from the
house right like just in the backyard like a another structure. Um and in that case you don't want a bigger a bigger building there if it's a separate thing. Yours is a very different in my opinion very different. it's already there. It's already part of the building.
>> Um, so yeah, I I think there's not an easy answer that I know of in the short term, but I mean, I would be open to relooking at that 900 foot number. That doesn't help you right now because we would still have to do
all the stuff to get that approved and talk it talk it through and amend the ordinance and everything. Um, but I would be open to doing that because I I don't see any harm in this one. But as it stands right now,
um, >> yeah, there's the rule is the rule. So, >> so would his next step then be to apply for the variance and then argue that it's already an existing space and the 300 square feet. I think I think we um
we should table the the question to discuss with staff about what options there are. um because there are probably a couple of options um but either one will take time and make and and some
effort and um it's not suitable for for this discussion I don't think >> he was just asking what's >> maybe to be a little bit clear that variance who who decides that yes we're
going to grant this is you guys or >> that would come before us but then it goes to council for fin for any kind of final approval just like this would go to council for final approval for the conditional use. >> Yeah because what what we are feeling with my wife we we we might want to go
the easy route and and accept that we we shy that 300 square foot but this is where we live. How how we're going to have to live with this looking at it every day and and and mourning and complaining and cursing that this space
is there and not being used. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> It's like living in a horn in your shoes. >> Yeah. For the rest. >> I have an architectural question. And would that a storage area qualify as
removing that or is that still part of the plan and make it difficult? >> Well, I'm I'm assuming it would storage or something outside of the the living unit would be justifiable, but yeah, it's just a matter of is the space
being well utilized. And I think that's a legitimate um argument to be made. But um as of today a variance is not being requested. So as of today it's a conditional use to
allow for the ADU and that's our that's our task before us. So >> I think it basically comes in part at least comes down to how quickly you want uh an answer on this. you know, if you
can wait uh a few months more for us to figure a way, if there's a way that we can solve this problem within the rules, then you know, we can certainly do that. But if you want to start construction, you know, in 3 weeks time or something
like that, then you're kind right now, you're bound by the rules that we have. Well, >> I don't know. And Chris, maybe just throwing out like a hypothetical if if they would move forward now with the 900
square f feet and they would, let's just say you frame out a storage area that is not part of this space, right? Um if we would then let's say six months from now amend the ordinance based on
the fact that the first person we hear about this it's a problem um would he retroactively be able to enlarge that ADU at that point? I would recommend if if that's a possibility that the condition about the
900 square feet be nuanced to say unless the city changes the code in the future to accommodate larger spaces or something. >> Could it be something along the lines of like you're saying if it's a detached structure but this is that's why I asked I'm like
>> it's an attached structure what's it going to do leave 300 feet unfinished? Yeah. And the bottom line is when you're saying that this is an eyesore, you mean because it's an unfinished garage. Is that why? >> Because you can you can sheetrock your garage. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> You can sheetrock the entire room as one
big room and make it look finished if you want. >> And so that wouldn't be habitable. Obviously, it wouldn't have water or things like that. But I I would think it would be a fair thing to approach this and say, "Hey, here's an existing footprint of an attached
ADU. Maybe that has a different qualification than a a detached." >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I agree. >> Are there Let me um let me do this. Um are there any other um members of the public that wish to speak about on this topic?
>> If not, I'd like to close the public hearing, but have further discussion. >> Yeah. Unless you have more. >> I think I said what I >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um let's close the public hearing at 9 uh 658.
Um and um I guess a question I have is could we modify and or add conditions that would
shall we say manipulate this this problem that's being discussed >> or accommodate? Yeah. I'm just wondering if there's a way that makes sense to do that. I I don't have anything in mind. That's
why I'm just kind of I'm putting it out there for discussion. >> Yeah, >> just to expedite. I mean, because there are certainly things we can do down the road. We could address a variance. If a if the applicant brings a variance
request, we could modify the ordinance to remove the 900 square foot maximum in whatever circumstances we would decide that could be done, but there is time involved in doing that. >> Yeah. >> So, I'm just trying to figure out is
there an expedited I I think this group seems very willing to look at the practicality of the situation. Um, but I'm trying Yeah. I'm trying to figure out if there's a condition we can >> Can I ask a question for a moment? >> Um, ju just as someone not in the
construction field, um, they are putting forth a permit for a accessory dwelling unit. When does that have to be put forth versus a permit for a remodel? Is it because they're they're trying to take
up square footage that originally wasn't intended as living space or could they just why it it doesn't sound like they're making a separate apartment. Why is it being added as an ADU and not just >> it is it well generally it's if my
recollection is it's if there's all the equipment and such usually usually one of the critical factors is putting a range in >> and a separate bathroom >> and a separate bathroom. >> I mean it's it is a living unit. It is a separate living unit or it can be
>> okay. Um, I mean, you could make the argument that, um, you know, just it's going to be family members that are just going to live there just like they're living there now. But the fact that there is certain pieces that are included in it makes it so it can be an independent
>> the kitchen basically. >> The kitchen is usually the issue. So, if it was just adding six more bedrooms and two more baths, >> Yeah. >> and it's part of the original home. Yeah. That's a different issue. >> Yeah. I remember in this case there's garage space in between the two, >> right? >> There's not a direct connection into the
living space. >> Is that >> except they're connected? >> Does that matter? >> I don't think it matters. >> I don't think that matters. >> No, I think the kitchen is what matters. >> Right. Because it's can be a separate thing. >> Yeah. >> But if they were just to add more. Yeah.
>> I would like to make one comment suggestion uh to the applicant and this is solely coming from me. This is not a requirement or anything, but just looking over your plans. If you go with
doorways that are 32 in or wider, then that qualifies under that qualifies as uh under the disability uh requirements, which is not a requirement that we're setting. It's just it allows people to be in there if they're in a wheelchair
later on. And if they're in a 28 in doorway like you have in several places there, that makes it much harder for people that have mobility issues. But that is not a requirement. It's just something I'm suggesting if you wind up, you know, you might think about as if
you do wind up having to reo your uh floor plan a little bit. Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm glad that that you applied for this because it's a good test >> because, you know, we we >> talk about ordinances all the time and
>> there's not necessarily a right or wrong answer to the things we come up with. It's just we pick a number that seems correct and this is how we test it. When if you know we're getting a lot of variance requests or um doesn't seem to be working then we
have to fix it. So um I'm glad you guys are are doing this. ADUs are really a good thing to do and uh yeah, I wish uh I wish there'd be a speedier way to do it, but um I think
yeah, we'll how how quickly are you looking to to start? >> I didn't know how >> last fall. >> Okay. >> Okay.
Yeah. So >> yeah. Yeah, >> makes sense. Mr. here. >> Yes. >> I noodled a potential additional condition. >> Okay. >> Uh
so we we at this point we have to stay within 900 square feet because that's the rules, >> right? If if a condition was adopted ultimately with the council, something in effect to say if the city changes
the ADU regulations in the future to allow attached ADUs with up to,260 square feet. The applicant's request shall be approved >> or applicants current request or
>> yeah the as as presented or as proposed. Um >> so they would not have to come back through the process >> and and in order to make that change it would mean um a change to the ordinance probably a pretty simple one change to
the ordinance which would require a public hearing >> review among uh planning commission members and presented to the council for approval. So it's at least a month and a half. >> Correct.
>> If you expedited it. >> Yes. >> Couple months. >> Okay. >> Say a couple of months. >> Yeah. >> And that's if it goes quite smoothly. >> Yeah. >> And there Yeah. >> And I would expect all we'd be changing
is probably putting some some variable conditions in there. I mean, like like uh Andrew said, um it's it's not unreasonable to consider it because this particular circumstance was
not envisioned when the ordinance is put together in the way it was. >> So, I agree with the earlier comment that it was probably written for detached units, not >> enclosed in an attached, >> right? >> So, that's that would be some of the differentiation I would make in
>> Yeah. this case or future cases. >> Okay. Um I think that's a reasonable addition to the conditions. It's not so much a condition on the applicant but a condition of the approval.
>> So all right, any other comments, questions? >> Oh, and just for the record, if if the commission likes that, maybe a sep separate motion >> to modify the to add the condition >> or If if you want to add that condition,
great. But then a second motion requesting that city staff uh investigate changing the ordinance >> as a somewhat of a directive. >> Okay. >> Direction to go. >> Does that make sense what we're doing?
Does it I mean do you understand what we're trying to do? Like we're trying to help accommodate this and just work with the current thing and see if we can work with it. Yeah. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. >> Absolutely. Okay. >> You You just have to
>> Yeah. You just have to put up your framing and your drywall slowly. >> Maybe a nail every couple of days. Yeah. >> Building permit. >> Technically. Technically. >> Yeah. Building permit. Yeah. >> Maybe the building permit will be held
up a little bit, but probably not. All right. So, um, a motion to, um, modify add. >> We should probably finish this topic >> and add something.
>> Yes. >> So, what I would be looking for is a motion to um recommend approval to the council for the uh, the proposal as written with the five conditions.
Do we want to do the added sixth condition as part of the motion? I think we can do that. >> Yes, you can. >> Well, it does. That would give them the option that if they wanted to go ahead with the 900, they could do that immediately and if they want to wait.
>> Exactly. >> But so with the added sixth condition as described by staff. >> Yeah. >> So, how about a motion for that? >> A motion for that. as described. >> As described, >> I'll second
>> from Commissioner Alvarez and a second from Commissioner Muick. >> Please want to come up. So to to my understanding about the discussion that was going on, there is a possibilities that an amendment to the
um >> regulations >> to that could happen but it might take two months that to be completed right. >> Yes. >> And and I know for Yeah. So I think
we will go with that putting the drywall slowly until the that two month maybe come. I know we need the construction permit that may take also that amount of time
to have engineer to do that. Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. So we have a motion and a second. >> Yep. >> All in favor say I. I. I. So, we have a slightly modified
directive to council. Um, uh, can I get a motion to have staff investigate modification to the ADU ordinance? >> I will so move that we request staff to make a to investigate a modification to the ADU ordinance.
>> Motion from Commissioner Miwick. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second from Commissioner Maruchini. Uh, all in favor say I. I >> I >> we are unanimous. >> Now staff, you have a directive. >> Should be pretty straightforward.
>> Again, remember the city council will make the final decision on step one here on April 21st. So, put that on the calendar. Be good to be here. >> Thank you. >> We are in April.
>> Very good. And then uh when staff brings a revision a proposed amendment to the ordinance um that may be of interest to them as well. >> Would you notify them about that or do
they need to be aware and watching newsletters and such? >> Okay. Excellent. All right. We are to the next topic which is a public hearing for variance
request for 2357 7th Avenue East. This next public hearing item is regarding a variance request application for the property at 2357th
Avenue East. For some background, the applicant is the city of North St. Paul. Um, city of North St. Paul is also the owner of the property at 2357th Avenue East. The applicant is seeking a variance from the residential district's
lot requirements and off- streetet parking standards for residential districts in the North St. Paul zoning ordinance. These variance these variances are requested in order to proceed with an administrative minor
subdivision of the property at 2357th Avenue East. And more specifically, the request is a lot width variance of 9.07 07 ft on a proposed eastern lot and a
driveway setback variance of 1.5 ft from the side lot line for both the proposed western and eastern lot. This, as you may already know, is the site of an ongoing student build
project. Um, currently it is being constructed to be a two family dwelling and a minor subdivision is desired for the property. However, in order to pursue that route, uh, variances must be granted
for the lot width and driveway setbacks. Code requirements. The lot at 23577th Avenue East is located in the R2 mixed residential zoning district. In chapter
154 appendix A table 4 residential districts lot requirements, it indicates that the minimum lot width in the R2 district is 50 ft. And in chapter 154.010 010 J9C
off-street parking standards for residential districts. It indicates that new driveways and off- streetet parking shall be set back a minimum of three feet from side property lines. So that is what the code says. And next
um is the proposed conditions. So right here is the survey showing the proposed minor subdivision. Um and I highlighted here in yellow where the lot width variance is
requested. Um as you recall the minimum lot width is 50 ft in the R2 district and what is proposed right here is 40.93 ft. And this red line right here is the proposed lot line that runs light right
along the shared wall between parcel A on the east and parcel B on the west. This slide demonstrates the applicant statement. Um however I will get into that um on this next slide with the
variance review criteria as well. Um so the subject property is located in the R2 mixed residential zoning district and will have a use of townhouse dwellings once construction of the building is complete. Townhouse dwelling
is a permitted use within the R2 mixed residential zoning district. The lot, as you saw in the survey at this property, is irregularly shaped due to its location being at the intersection of
Third Street North, 7th Avenue East, and South Avenue East. Um, that is that fiveway intersection over there. Um the lot is not rectangular and therefore becomes substantially more difficult to
evenly subdivide in accordance with the residential district's lot requirements due to the structures location on this property and the location of the shared wall that would ultimately be the
location of a shared property line. Um there is no avenue in which the lot could be subdivided without granting a lot with variance of 9.07 for parcel A which is the eastern lot.
The driveways are unable to be reasonably relocated because the garages are directly next to each other and also have shared space. staff believe the three feet that currently would exist between those two
driveways does establish enough space to alleviate concerns of drainage affecting each lot um and is a reasonable variance request due to both the dwelling units and garages being directly attached to each other. staff find that the proposal would be
unlikely to have any adverse effects on the health, safety or general welfare of the city. And um I will also note the visual aesthetics of the dwelling units that are currently being constructed are not
proposed to change with this. The variances, if granted, will not alter any character of the locality and will only divide the singular lot into two separate lots. The building's appearance and the driveways will remain unchanged
as permitted through the building permit process. Um whether or not the variance request would be approved, public hearing notice. Um, just like for the ADU application, um, the notice was published in the paper on March 23rd,
2026 and was mailed to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject site on March 20th, 2026. Staff received no public comments prior to this public hearing tonight.
Staff recommendation. Staff recommend the planning commission make a motion to recommend city council approval of the attached resolution adopting findings of fact and reasons for approval for a variance application for the property at
2357th Avenue East. The city council may impose with planning commission recommendation conditions considered necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and which are directly related to and bear a rough
proportionality to the impact created by the variance. And now I leave it up to you if you have any questions. Is am I correct that the setback on the what would be the northeast
the side setback of six feet is compliant with current ordinance? Right. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Is there any kind of easement along this dividing line or is it just the lines we're seeing are just services utility
services? >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, I'm and I'm wondering if there will be easements. There probably doesn't need to be because they're they're private services. They're the
final connections. So, okay. Um, is there a reason this didn't come sooner when they were in development mode, like planning mode? >> I'll uh I'll tackle that. Just out of curious, you know,
>> the original design was to have the the two units share a lot. >> Okay. >> Got approved that way. Got the permit, got a construction, and >> upon further review, it was determined it probably be better to have two separate units that could be sold separately rather than having to sell
one whole big property. >> Okay. And so the variance came in after, but in part it allowed for the surveyor to survey exactly where the line is based on where the footings in the >> common so we get exact dimensions.
>> Yeah. And the description >> and the building construction doesn't change. It still has a dividing wall that's comparable. >> We're just changing it from one lot to two lots. Correct. >> Yeah. Because I remember when we first >> looking at this there was some things we
had to fudge because weird >> separate issue. Now it's like we want to have two lots. Correct. Okay. >> Did we actually we never saw this as a >> uh I think we saw it. There was a >> because this was this was what the that
whole rule change where we were not gonna review things that were by right >> okay to go >> that are compliant >> that were compliant that we >> true it might have been >> so yeah I don't think we ever saw this but >> we talked something about this one we did >> there was a zoning change
>> last summer Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Because we knew the city wanted to try to build something. >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. >> We didn't necessarily have this design, but that was part of the impetus.
>> Okay. >> Right. Um >> I'm just curious, and it has nothing to do with this per se, but uh the lots are next to this that were platted decades ago. How wide are those? Do you know? Are those 40 foot wide lots?
>> I don't think they're No, >> but there's some that are three or four lots connected together, >> right? >> Yeah. >> If you look at the five, six, seven, those are not 40. >> Not if not if this scale drawing is correct because that's 41 ft. >> Yeah.
>> They're more like >> they might be 50 >> 20 or something. >> Yeah. >> If you look at the individual those individual lot numbers, >> they're really really small. That was >> They're less than 20. They're like 24 or 25 ft. >> Yeah.
>> Maybe 25 now that I'm thinking about it. >> If you look at some of the historical documents >> Mhm. >> They did a lot of really narrow lots. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> And they're very skinny homes. They're like 16 foot wide homes on there. >> Yeah. And some of those are still
around. >> Yeah. I think they should get historical designation, but that's a whole separate. >> We have some amazingly small homes in this. >> Yeah, we really do. Some of the old ones. Okay. Uh, anything any other
questions, comments? If not, I will open a public hearing at 7:22. Open the public hearing on this topic. Anyone want to speak? Come forward. Give your name and address, please.
Excellent. >> Yeah. >> Give it to staff. I don't want it. >> My name is Joseph Florian and I reside at 2367th Avenue East, right next door. There's two things I want to talk to you
about. The North St. Paul building ordinances and adherence. The third thing I want to talk to you about is a safety issue. This is this is a I don't know who Ken Roberts is, but he called me and told me
about this proposal. I saw it all staked out and there's a city employee by the name of Randy Miller, I believe his name is, and he told me they're going to build two town homes there. I said, "Look where they got these stakes. Ordinance is that they're it's supposed
to say 6 feet 72 in from the lot line." I said, "It's not right." So, I had a contractor come in there and put in a fence. And at that time, they were doing the excavating, and when it came back, it had been poured. The wall had been
poured. And he told me they're closer than six feet. I went out there. Tape measure doesn't lie. He told me that he keeps his fences at least 2 in or further from the from the lot line. I measured it's it's it's a little over
five feet, but there's with the six foot, it runs for over 50 feet and there's a eve and that's going to run right down on my property. This thing was not done and inspected properly. But more importantly, this is
the real issue here. That lot is not even a quarter of an acre. It's 229. It's at less than uh 10,000 square ft. They're building two town homes on it. Now, there's an ordinance which I'm sure
you're all aware of. Maximum imperous surface. The maximum impervious surf it's a 60/40 splick. I think you guys are all aware of that. And we all know what that is. That means no asphalt, no bricks, no
cement. That means it has to be dirt so the water can go away. Well, I looked I I did the math on it. It's pretty simple. We know how many square feet are on an acre and we know what 40% is. They were only allowed to put a footprint in there
of 3,900 or 3,700 there. That I did a pencil thing just a workout. Just a workout. I haven't seen the blueprint, but they're over a thousand uh feet larger than that footprint.
And that doesn't include it. There's a four porches. You tell me what house gets four porches. I figured out the square footage of those four fourome feet square foot. What I'm concerned
about is they first of all they built too close to my lot line. Secondly, there's a 50ft eve and it's 24 in that's all going to run on mine and I I got lower land. Secondly, uh I'm concerned about now they want to encroach that. I always
thought that you came with a var and requested a variance before you started building. This seems ass backward to me. But now they want to take the sidewalk and move it further toward my my lot line. I mean the the the 20 by 25 uh
driveway. They're going to cut they're going to come even closer to my property. When you give them a variance of another foot and a half, you give them a hand, they take your arm. I I am totally opposed to this. This should never have been that big. A footprint
when you have maximum pvious surface, it's 40%. That's what you're allowed to build on. 60% of it has to be pvious. Has to allow the runoff. This was not abided by. And they built as big as they could. And now they want to go and move the side their
uh driveway closer to my house. >> That's not my understanding. But >> they're they're going to if they're going to >> driveway is not moving closer. The driveway is the driveways are close to each other, but they're not closer to your property. >> The per uh they want to move a foot and
a half toward the property line. >> No, they're they're act the variance is to put the two driveways that are being constructed closer to each other, which would actually move it farther from your >> Okay. Well, I I wasn't clear on that.
>> Okay. The third thing is even a bigger issue. The comprehensive plan that uh that was developed in the 20 uh 2000 2005 2010 that intersection with those five roads coming and impinching on it. It's very
very dangerous. I lived there long enough to know I cannot pull into my driveway. I got to do a Y turn and back up. And I damn near got hit. And when the motorcycles come up from Newman's, I can't see them. I don't know how those people are going to drive in head first
and back into that traffic. There was just a accident there about two weeks ago. Somebody got rear ended and I'm telling you it was glass and everything. They pushed that vehicle into there. Ryan Franle came on a Wednesday afternoon this late fall and he was
standing there and we were sitting and looking at that intersection. While we were there, two vehicles ran those stop lightss. They came right through. The worst is uh seven's not that bad, but that one that's coming from uh the southeast across is that county B.
>> And al also third, there's a hell of a lot of traffic on third. It's going to get really busy this. The comprehensive plan on two different occasions wanted to put a roundabout there. That was the plan. And it would speed
traffic. There wouldn't be the backup this summer. That's going to be really backed up. Especially with the car shows, a lot of people coming through with construction stuff. There'll be a lot of people recreating, having boats and stuff. I had a really good friend who lived in
that little greenhouse. His name was Jack Mayer. He got killed and he just uh by right out in front. He was walking across the street and somebody came up and killed him and splattered him right there, right in front of Ruland Chapel's house.
There was a woman who lived over on that county B. Wonderful woman. Terrific woman. And she walked down to Mcnite and uh what is it? Uh B to catch a bus. Somebody killed
her. That's two fatalities. The third there was a motorcyclist. I don't know his thing, but somebody ran a a light and he went flying up in the air. I don't know if he was paralyzed or killed. I never heard. But that is a very dangerous intersection. Also, I've
lived in that property long enough to know that when Tim Schwanker owned that house, him and his wife, the city came and told him, "You cannot take egress onto 7th. It's too dangerous." They shut him down. and he had a asphalt uh
driveway and a curb. He said no more. So he couldn't do that. He had to come in through the other side through that uh the curb is still there. >> It is it's going to be damn dangerous for those people to pull out especially in the summer. There is a lot of accidents. You know, nobody's getting
killed now, but there's a lot of fender benders. I wish that roundabout would go in there. It would keep the traffic moving. It sometimes it's backed up beyond my drive. It's a dangerous intersection. I'm more concerned not so much about people in
trucks and and vehicles, but there's a lot of kids on bicycles. There's a lot of kids on scooters. I see them uh I see uh young women pushing baby buggies. I just don't want to see a fatality there. I've seen two. That's enough. I
just want you to be aware of this. >> Thank you. >> I'm glad you heard me out. >> Thank you, man. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, just out of curiosity, >> the square footage of the building, >> well, it's on the >> documentation.
>> It's on the plat map here. Uh, third or fourth page from the back. We've got the square footage on the parcel AB and the garage floor. >> I see the parcel square footages, but I don't Oh, I'm sorry. We still are in public
hearing. >> Well, unless we have more people. >> Unless there's anyone else who wants to speak public. Yeah, I was just trying >> 26 plus
92. We're looking at about 13603. If I'm reading this right, >> I don't know the square footage of the home and the garages in the porch. There's two porches, one on the back side of parcel A and one on the east or west side of parcel B. There's a front
porch also on parcel B. There are four porches. >> Yeah. And there's a front one on >> those are entrance porches. >> Two front ones are. Yeah. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I was looking at the parcel square footage. My problem. >> My mistake. Yeah.
>> Did was this reviewed for the um impervious what he had brought up? >> Yes. In the R2 mixed residential district. Um it is not 40% like in the R1. The allowed impervious surface is
50%. >> Okay. We we can't address unfortunately. >> Maybe someday we will but not today. questions. >> If I may, I I did speak to Joe a couple
of times about the project when he was working on his fence and there this was starting and I had our team double check the setbacks and according to the staff I talked to, they verified that the the outside of
the footings or the basement wall was right at six feet. And then he's saying his overhang though. >> Well, yeah. And and that's allowed. >> Yeah. >> Uh he was Joe's belief or contention it was at 5 and a half ft, but best
information we have it was surveyed. The surveyor set the corners as I understand it for the footings in the foundation and they said it was at six. I I didn't put a tape on it. I just have to go by what I was told. >> The surveyor that's why
registered professionals. I think the the only comment that I have is um I'm having just a hard time getting past the the you know legal reason why a variance
is needed here because um this if this all would have gone in in the correct order, this wouldn't be an issue because the house would have been designed to to meet all of this already. Um, so you know, when it says the plight
of the land owner uh is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the land owner, in my opinion, it is created by the land owner because it was originally designed for one thing and now it's um been
rethought. Um, so that to me I that's the part I just can't get past for my my own opinion. But um yeah, that's that's the only issue I I see.
>> Patrick, can I provide a couple? >> First of all, so everyone knows the minimum lot sizes for both lots will be met. It's just the lot width variance for the one lot. And part of to
Andrew's point, the conditions were not created by the property owner. There's that goofy shape. which makes it more challenging. Now, yeah, you could shrink something way down, shift it, the whole footprint is smaller
and then shift it farther to the west. So then the new property line shifts over. One of the challenges is the shape of that that it is what it is. the city, >> right? But
again, just my opinion, but I, you know, there's the same project with the same square footage. If we would have started with the idea of it being two separate lots, we could have gotten there without having a variance, right? The house might be slight look slightly
different, but >> to me that that's just, you know, >> it could have been planned from if it was planned from the beginning. >> Yeah. Right. Right. And I mean, I agree it is an oddsiz lot, but I don't in my
opinion that that wouldn't stop this project from existing as a conforming project. So, their main reason for requesting this is so they can sell it as two separate parcels. Were they imagining they were going to sell this
as one parcel in the beginning? >> As a realtor, that's a hard sell to have to sell. Someone say you have to buy both properties. >> That's That's what I mean, right? Both. You have to buy two units on this on this parcel. They do that. They do that.
>> Yep. Investors buy them all the time. But our main question here that we're being asked, should we should we say, "Yep, you can get that nine feet." >> Yeah. The main question is two things, right?
reduction in the width of the reduction of the slide set and staff's recommendation is to approve it. We have a motion to approve recommended. So if we say hey we don't think this is
a good idea and they have to sell this they have to sell both these units together. >> Well remember yours is a recommendation. >> Yeah. >> Right. So but Right. And then they can do what they want. But but if it doesn't get approved
>> by city council doing it then it'll say nope. It's one parcel with two different properties >> two different units on one part. Okay. Do those have two separate like
property ID numbers? >> Okay. >> They do have separate utilities. >> And addresses and everything, right? So, yeah. >> Unit A. >> Oh,
I feel like we're really boxed in on this. You know, I'm not happy about the points that the gentleman raised. uh in particular about the safety on the streets, but the building is already
well under construction. We can't exactly, you know, well, I guess we could, but it would be an awful waste of materials and time and experience for people that, you know, if we said they can't proceed with this, >> but it does fit all the requirements.
>> They're going to proceed with building it. >> Yeah, exactly. >> It's a matter of are we letting them divide? Not are we letting are we proposing that it can be two different parcels also. >> So like I say we're kind of boxed in. >> Yeah. The only the only question before us is should it be subdivided?
>> Yeah. No, I realize that. >> Yeah, I have a I have a challenging time seeing how the shape of the lot is the crux of the issue. I think a similarly sized
two town homes could have been built on that lot in such a way that they met the width requirements if it was planned that way. Right. the problem is a a planning issue by the land owner like the not a
shape of the right like if it were a rectangular shaped lot that'd be great but it wasn't and they knew it wasn't rectangularly shaped when they built the structure I don't like that I think I would love to put a line down the middle and say yeah it's two separate lots You could
sell them as two separate lots, but that's I'm not seeing a lot of Yeah, I agree. I mean, I I it's it's unfortunate because I mean, I I I'm a big proponent of the student
build homes program and um >> I would it's just unfortunate that we're at this point now where it's there's literally nothing that can be done. I mean, we can't um
the house is there. So, you know, and my my concern with this also, just in the same vein, is that, you know, we're going to set a precedent that we're going to give a variance to a building that's already built or in
construction, which to me is not a good thing to do in my opinion. Um, but yeah, I mean, I I do feel like we're kind of boxed in. There's not a whole lot we can do here. talk about why why you
feel about it's not a good idea for a property already under construction. >> Well, because it just wasn't planned well enough up front or >> Yeah, you can't um a variance is meant for, you know, if
if it's a very an oddly shaped lot is is something to me. this isn't odd enough to to get to that point, but um I I just don't think in my opinion it's good to start down the road of saying
yes to a variance when in my viewpoint it's it's just a a missed um planning issue in the beginning. Not it's nothing having to do with the actual parcel itself. It was it could have been addressed in the beginning.
wasn't. Um, so I just I I just can't see a way around that in my opinion, but just me. So, if we would have a motion and vote, we would get a result, be able to send
it back to the council. >> Yeah. >> For action. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, I think we can vote. I >> So, we need >> I'm just going I'm just saying my opinion. >> We need We need a motion to to >> We can have a motion. to approve or
reject. >> Well, the motion is not necessarily about Robert's rules for a second. If the motion is to recommend approval to the council as staff has suggested,
then the vote will either approve that motion or What would the second motion be? >> Well, not approving. >> Not Yeah. Not Not approving it or recommending to council not to approve it.
>> If we would vote that way. >> I should notice the city owns this property right now. Does the on these buildings. >> Yes. And they will be sold >> completed and hopefully in May or June
and then be sold. So I will motion to recommendation for city staff. Was that a second? >> Yeah.
>> Sorry. >> Just just checking. I saw the wheel spinning. >> Yeah, it's Sorry, my my brain runs really slow. >> And now I got a question. >> Yeah. >> Chris will put the image up. So the the
garages are right next to each other. >> And there's only three feet between the >> Oh, it's between them. >> Oh, okay. >> So it's instead of a three to meet setback, the driveways would have to be six feet apart. Now they're only going to be three feet apart down that line
>> down the center basically. >> If you if you can Can you see the image, Pete? >> Yeah. >> Not out to the sides. It's just two driveways right next to each other. >> But they're not a combined driveway, right? Not like the houses over on the
>> that we looked at earlier in two years ago. >> Yeah. On what is that? >> Uh over by the school. Yeah. Okay. So, there's a motion on the There's a motion on the table. >> Yes. So, now we vote. Yep.
>> Let's vote. In favor, say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Right. >> I'm going to abstain because I don't feel good about it. But I don't see a I don't see a way around it, but I don't feel good about it.
>> All right. Nays. >> I don't feel good about >> nay. Nay. >> Nays. Do you need names attached to those? >> That would be ideal. Yes. All right. >> As a le liaison, can I ask a question? >> Yes. >> A point of order, I guess.
>> If a city council member, my understanding, >> if I were to abstain without clear conflict of interest, it counts as a nay. >> That's my understanding as well. >> Okay. I I I I if I I believe
>> All right. >> If if it's if he >> does exactly what he says, it doesn't change anything. >> My understanding is that would have to be counted as an A. >> That's just my two cents. >> Good to know. >> I think you're right about that. >> I recall reading that also. Yeah.
>> Okay. We hold where we're at. >> All right. Uh, I'll change it to a yay, but I'm >> commission. >> Yes. Very reluctantly. >> Reluctant. >> But to be clear, I was not trying to change your vote.
>> No, no, no, no. I I understand. It's because >> matters though if that's the scenario. and and uh >> otherwise it leaves a lot and yeah, >> I think it you know I think the fact that we've got a couple of nays up there at least gives the city council the idea that they may need this is not a slam
dunk and they need to think about it otherwise if we're deadlocked then it really doesn't you know do anything. So just so it's for recording purposes, Commissioner Sorrow and Commissioner Wise just to make sure that we
>> not happy with that. >> I think we are done with the agenda. >> Unless there's something else. Um, I would like to make one more request of city staff because of some of the comments made here today. Um, it sounds
like there is great interest. Um, and I don't know if it can happen immediately, but my understanding with conversations I've had recently with the gentleman that just sat next to me is although this was in the past on
the summary for a roundabout because of there were it got changed where it was no longer recommended where this was a good fit. Um so so if possible forwarding that those details and facts to this council sounds like might be interested some of
them but it it w it that was my understanding is is some someone made a determination that this intersection was not a good fit. I'm vaguely remembering because of elevation changes or something, but that a roundabout wasn't appropriate for
>> that could be a possibility. But on the flip side to that, I will also say that if that was done a while back, there have been a lot of new developments in how roundabouts can be done. So, it might be worth taking a look at again. >> Agreed. I was just trying to >> You're right. There is there definitely
is an elevation problem there with that third street coming up the hill. >> Yeah. So >> also have to get Ramsey County on board. >> Yeah. >> Very low priority with them. >> Right. Right. >> Although if we actually have had several deaths in that area, that could count
for raising the priority. >> Mr. >> Thank you, sir. >> We'd love to hear from you. >> So, a couple things. Um, so I talked to Morgan, our city engineer, about that and it came up as a just a suggestion. He threw it out there. It wasn't a full
plan from the county that came from WSB, not from the county. And looking at the actual size of roundabouts, it wouldn't fit there. You you'd be taking property is what you would >> Oh, yeah. So, they did have an alternate design. It almost looks like from above almost like a figure eight. It's kind of
a round, but >> um it just wasn't a good fit in there. Um, and talk according to Morgan, um, our Dolly, our our engineer. Um, I would like to correct one of the things that Joe had said when he was up here
earlier. Uh, I was out there. I did talk to him about that. I did not see two people running through the stop sign when I was up there. Um, now as someone who was on the fire department for several years, uh, and also talking to the fire chief and also
talking to the police chief, I did ask about that intersection. Um, the issues are down on South and 7th McNight and people are racing those lights. That's where the deaths have happened. Are there bump bumpers once in a while hit
here? There is, but we have not and I don't remember even recently responding to any major accident at that intersection. I just want to be clear about that. Yes, if you want to talk about uh your motorcycles coming up the hill and sometimes they do come up fast.
I agree. Um, one thing that, um, I had talked about with the, uh, school and with, uh, Ron and Randy through the public works department, and, I don't want to throw a wrench in anything at this point with all the conversation, but, uh, one thing that was talked about potentially is off
to the side of each one of those driveways. So, if you backed out of the garage, had a little square section of asphalt that you could back there and then so you could pull out onto there was a suggestion. I don't know if this is just too late to even throw it out there. I don't want to throw a wrench in
anything, but that was one thing that was talked about. But now if that uh distance to that property line is an issue, then I wouldn't work. But uh that was one thing to address potential safety issues that again hasn't been a
major issue um talking to police and fire responded to. So that out there >> would also not be challenging to add as a future property owner if that was something they desired, right? I mean,
you could even add an impervious or a pvious surface to do that. >> Yeah. >> If they really like each other, they connected. They could. >> All right. Is there actually a break between the two driveways?
>> Does there have to be I mean >> then you could then you could if you were polite you could you could >> landscape rock. Yep. >> Depends who your neighbor is. >> Right. >> I I would be interested though to see have them take another look at the
roundabout situation. I know uh in the last few years we at Menot have started looking more and more at many roundabouts uh in downtown areas because they take up a lot less space. There would still be property taking but it might be possible to put something in there but
but there are so many other contributing factors that it just may not be sensible. But if they looked at the standard roundabout that's about an 80 foot radius uh when they looked at it the first time we are looking at smaller round roundabouts these days
>> so >> and that was kind of looked at too but uh like on the south uh west quadrant you would say they just put a new gas transmission line >> down there they have pipes coming up out of the ground there. Oh function
department has a feeder line that comes down along 7th Avenue on the north side which is large cabinet over um in front of M& development it came more difficult with some of the employees that are on there you're right something
>> think possible >> but he is right there is an awful lot of high-speed traffic well not high speed but higher speed traffic on third going to and from the quick trip in particular it's like I've in In fact, I think I may have mentioned to Chris or to Ken that I
would like to see the county put or somebody put a flashing uh bicycle crossing signal there on Third Street because it's hard to see bikes coming up and down the trail. And oh yeah, >> you know, uh there they did put a flasher over by the public works
building, >> but uh you it's actually easier to see bikes coming when you're crossing there than it is when you're coming down Third Street. >> Yep. >> So, but I think that's a county thing or the or DNR. I'm not sure >> who put that up, but anyway, that's
another story altogether. >> Okay. We have any reports worth reporting? >> I've got I've got one thing I'll mention. Uh we are having the city's once again holding the cleanup day.
Saturday, May 9th. Couple of changes this year posted on the website. We are charging this year. There's different rates based on the size of vehicle and trailers. Uh we're prohibiting box trucks. You can't
rent the 26 foot yo U-Haul and fill it up and bring it down. Great. >> Uh you can have one small trailer, a single axle, no dump trailers, no big tandemss. Uh I think it's basically SUVs and pickups
and trailers. And there's different prices for the different elements. Uh we're going to have vehicles line up on third and on second I believe approaching from 7th going down the hill to the site. And so hopefully
with smaller vehicles and charging uh it will help crowd control because last year it got to be overwhelmed and getting dangerous at times within the site of the public works. So, we're hoping these changes will mitigate some
of that cluster effect that was happening. >> Yeah. And what can be brought? >> Um, >> just about anything. >> Yeah. Except we're not taking electronics now because those can go to Ramsey County, the Roseville, or the
Washington County sites for free. And no mattresses this year because there's a special mattress pickup program going on as well. Uh, and we're hoping Related to this, we're in the process right now of
reviewing proposals for our new solid waste and recycling hauler contract which will go into effect September 1st. We're hoping, fingers crossed, we might be able to work in some curbside bulky pickup as part of that contract to even
lessen the need for the cleanup day. But that's yet to be determined. >> How would that differ from what they're doing now? Because right now it seems like they'll do uh curbside bulk pickup is if you contact them a week or more out. >> We're what we're hoping is maybe
with minimal price increase that every home could put out two items a month >> included. That would be >> yes, >> but that's we're hoping. It hasn't been decided yet. >> Yeah, because I know I've had to rent a
like an 18t U-Haul the last two years. Not because of the amount of stuff that I have, but because it won't fit in my car and I don't have access to a pickup truck. >> So, it's like that's the next thing that you can rent. >> Yeah. >> Or you go to >> pickup.
>> Yeah. You can if you you can if you remember far enough out. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That's the other problem. But that's on me. >> Van or a pickup or minar will >> preach. >> Yeah. So that's so we're trying to get the word out that there are changes.
>> The other thing is um There's a citywide garage. >> What is it? The last >> Chris got that. >> First week of May. >> It is the first weekend of May. Just finding the dates. I believe it's
Thursday through Saturday. >> Second weekend. >> Correct. And then on Sunday, May 2nd will be or Sunday, May 3rd, will be the city's first ever trash to treasure
day. Um where residents can place items at their curb for free and people can go around and shop the curbs. >> So that way you can do the garage sale and the trash to curb and then anything that's not left you can take down to the uh
>> Yeah. Exactly. >> That's all. time. >> Oh, one other thing that's you may have noticed the city has started flushing fire >> hydrants. >> This week we got some calls Monday that it was
stirring up some color. Some of the water was turning color. >> It did because the chlorine have been sitting in the pipes and it's getting flushed through. Those calls have subsided, but that'll be going on for three or four weeks. The water's safe. It just doesn't look great. Run your
faucets for 30 20 30 minutes. Hopefully it clears. >> That always makes me grin a little bit. I think of the uh people I know in Houston that say that in Houston, Texas, never trust any air or water that isn't a color that you uh see in real life.
>> Can I expand on that quick if that's okay? >> Uh there so many phone calls have come in over this. So we'll back up to the beginning. So, we did a road reconstruction um last year and you know, you cut out large sections of the water mane and you put new water
mane in and if you don't get that cleaned very well uh with chlorine before you put it in the system and then test it and all that good stuff, you have the potential of this bacteria that got in there. We think that's how it got in there. Um so then you're required by the Department of Health to um add
chlorine into it. The bacteria that was in it um is not bad to your health. it uh it's a precursor to something else that could be in there. It wasn't it so it was like leaf or dirt or something like that. It wasn't um you know species
or unfortunately left into the pipe on the contractor's site somewhere and it didn't get washed out good enough or something like that. Um so we tried a couple times. We uh put it in the system um then stopped because the we had good
readings on the testing. Uh within three days we detected it again. So, we had to put the chlorine back in there. Um, so this to do it properly now and in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Health, we're flushing the entire system. We couldn't do it over the winter time because that great ice
skating ring sol uh so we're waiting until this time of year. They've started the flushing. I think it's going to be about a three-week process. Once we get it good and flushed, um we will then stop using the chlorine. We will do the testing about three days. We get a positive
test, you wait another week, another another test be positive before we can think about removing it. If unfortunately we can't get it out of the system, it will be permanent in the system. >> The chlorine. >> The chlorine. Correct. Which is a big deal. I mean, it's a big change for us.
Um, which is kind of a shock to our system because chlorine not only is put in there for the bacteria aspect of things, but it also cleans the pipes. So, all the minerals that are built up into the pipes and the walls of the pipe over the years, that's what gets cleaned off. and people see the rusty water
coming through. Um, so you just run it until it runs clear. Um, you know, and it's fine. It's it's not harmful to your health according to not just us but the department of health. Um, but we get a lot of complaints about that. People think it's dangerous to drink and um it
is not. Just clear it out. If you do happen, it does happen to uh affect you while you're washing your clothes. do not dry them because that will be permanent at that point. Just re-wash them again in clean water and you'll be good to go. But, uh, we're keeping our fingers crossed that, uh, we can get
this taken care of and get back off it. I mean, we are well known for the good quality of water that we have. Um, so we're hoping to get back there. >> Yeah, because we we were never affected by that 3M chemical stuff, right? So the testing for that over the years has
gotten more and more uh I don't know intensive I guess it used to be uh calculated in parts per million they are now parts per per billion because they can test that level. There's actually only a couple of >> do it across the country but uh we did find once you got down to the billionth
level we had >> like four parts per billion that so nothing like the neighboring communities. Yeah. So >> we're fortunate that way. Any others? >> N
>> I was excited to see the rebate for uh rechargeable lawn care equipment. That's awesome. >> Oh yeah, that is nice. >> I'm definitely going to use that. >> There's Yeah, there's a whole you get I think up to 50% of the cost of the equipment and >> Oh, and you forgot to mention the uh the
tree thing is coming up too. The tree what? >> The tree giveaway is coming up >> in >> Yes, you uh so the tree giveaway um North St. Paul residents um can enter a
lottery for a free tree. Um looks like um entrance for the drawing starts April 24th at 8 a.m. and ends May 3rd. So you have that entire time window to sign up. Um, more information can be found on our
website or if you call city hall, we'll get you set up with >> you. >> That's where we got it from. >> Out of curiosity, do we have any idea how many people apply for those as opposed to how many we give out?
I don't imagine that's a planning activity that you guys know. >> I don't have those. I don't have those numbers, but I do know that last year we received more people in the lottery than trees we had available. I believe it was around 50 trees around there. Don't take
me at my word. >> It wasn't always that way. Um there were times that we did leftover trees. >> Actually, we wanted to start doing more of a lottery because there were more people that applied to the same people. >> Yeah.
>> It's close though. I just I'm glad the city does it. >> I keep hoping one of these days I'll have a situation where I can get one. But it's it's not the city. It's just that my plan my yard needs a lot more
work before I plant something there. >> We planted it and then the rabbits started immediately eating it. >> Ah, they thought you brought in a buffet. >> Separate problem. >> All right. Um, with that, I think I would entertain a motion to journ.
Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to >> second. All in favor say I. >> I 808. >> Thanks folks.