Yeah. >> Uh, good evening. I'd like to call to order the Monday, December 8th, 2025, City of St. Paul Park Planning Commission meeting. Um, let's uh have a
Oh, the order the agenda is uh roll call. Uh, prior to roll call again, today is an open meeting. This meeting is being recorded by True Lens Community Media. You can view city meetings live and replayed on cable channel 799.
Meetings are also streamed live and archived in the city of St. Paul Park's YouTube channel. Um, we're going to do the pledge of allegiance first. Let's stand for that. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, let's do roll call. Uh, I, Patrick Dins, am in attendance. Mr. Diaz >> here, >> Mr. Hagerty >> here, >> and Mr. Conrad >> here. >> Mr. Glidden and Mr. Mr. McCannernney are
not with us tonight. Um I guess okay. Um our the meeting minutes from the last meeting are still pending. Therefore, we are not able to approve those. Hopefully, we'll have those by the next meeting. Otherwise, tonight uh um number five, commission actions. We
have two commission actions. First is a public hearing on the B2 use tax amendment. And tonight we have Mr. Sparks with us to help us out with that one. Uh good evening honorable members of the planning commission. Uh we recently had
an application for a conditional use permit for uh commercial recreation facility in the B2 district. And while going through that, we noticed that there's a slight tweak that's necessary in the
code because uh commercial recreation facilities are considered to be an type of assembly use. And when you allow assembly uses, you have to uh make sure that you when
you allow one, you have to allow all of them. So really your choice is to remove all the assembly type uses from the B2 district or put them all into the B2 district. And since we have
uh like next to this site that we were talking about, we've got the bowling alley. And since the bowling alley is kind of an entrenched common, you know, well- reggarded use in that area, uh the staff, you know, we just thought that perhaps the best move would be to bring
the other uses in rather than remove the uses. Um so, but that being kind of the big picture. So, we've got this other zoning district called the P2, public semi-public zoning district where you
had been traditionally zoning churches for that in that zone and schools and stuff like that. And that's fine. You can do that. But the issue becomes that when you allow like commercial recreation, banquet halls, theaters,
community centers, and things like that, you also have to allow um religious institutions in that zoning district. So again, we allow some of the assembly uses, we don't allow all of them. So that you would either have to
take them out or put them all in to be consistent with the religious land use and institutionalized persons act which is a federal law. So what that law essentially says is if you allow an assembly use you have to allow a
religious institution. So, um, based on that, I guess we could then put into this zoning district, you know, you just list all the common. You got to treat the assembly uses the same, too. So, if a theater you say that's an
allowed use, then the other ones have to be an allowed use, too. Or if you say they're a conditional use, you should just be consistent with that. You can parse it where it's a large assembly and a small assembly, but we're talking about our B2 district. It didn't seem to
make any sense to go into the size and scale because you do allow like the bowling alley. It's a big facility. A lot of people could be in there. So, we don't want to maybe start parsing that uh at this time. But the idea just being
that we would put in the conditional use list in the B2 district. >> Uh we have to rename like you call churches in some you define the term church but then in the P2 district you
call them cultural institutions. So just to not get in trouble um because there's also another federal law RF RIFFRA which says you can't say church
in the zoning ordinance. You got to call it places of assembly. So what we would do is just say conditional uses, places of assembly, clubs and lodges, banquet halls, theaters, daycare centers, schools, and community centers. We're not parsing
whether it's public or private schools, not public or private community centers, just any place, any building where people gather uh becomes uh conditional use. And commercial recreation is another one,
but that's already in there. So, we didn't need to add that one, but we should probably tweak that definition a little bit just to be So, then when it comes to specifically
like clubs and lodges and banquet halls specifically, those have somewhat different types of land use patterns and impacts that we probably want to have some standards around. So when you put a use in the
conditional use list, you can say this is allowed provided you're doing A B CD and E. It could also just be allowed provided that you're meeting the cup review criteria which covers a lot of this same ground, right?
But some specific standards would be and I provided with you some other cities ordinances that cover banquet halls just so you can see what other people do and that illustrate that this stuff that
I'm suggesting you can do isn't just out of left field, right? I mean the issue with like a banquet hall type use is that like a banquet is a large gathering of people who generally arrive around
the same time for an event and generally leave at the same time. So it has a strange not every you know assembly use in a banquet hall would do that but a vast majority of them would because you're going to go there for like let's
say we're going to have the planning commission appreciation banquet >> at 5:00 p.m. come Saturday, right? I mean, everybody's going to come around the same time and they're going to be there until it's over and then they're all going to leave, right? So, that type
of that's a different type of pattern than like a bowling alley where, you know, we may all decide to go bowling together one one night and do that, but that's just, you know, us, the, you know, the five of us, right? and the
other people are coming and going throughout the night, right? So because of that like that does create a different set of impacts because commercial uses generally have that flow of traffic in and out. they provide uh
customers for other businesses. And then the ones that are different or more odd, you can put under a cup because you want to probably see, okay, what is it that you're doing here exactly? And if it's like a banquet hall and you're going to have these large groups of people coming
and going somewhat at the same time, that's going to create a strange traffic pattern that could be impactful to people. But also like when you arrive and when you leave, the time of that can become something of somewhat of a
concern, right? Because it could be that, you know, if your events go until 4 in the morning, then people are going to be going out to their cars, opening and shutting car doors and things like that and creating noise. And if that's
in an area where it's not completely surrounded by commercial or industrial uses, that could be impactful. So what we talk about with the um use standards is something about how,
you know, during the week, you know, events have to be done at 10, weekends midnight. It's just kind of what we put in there. Now, you could also just say, um, and I put this when adjacent to or across the street from residentially zoned properties because I'm assuming
that you're not going to care if it was in like the middle of an industrial area or a area that was surrounded completely by commercial. But, so we just say that because like in the situation we were just looking at, we got residents across
the street. And so when you have a commercial use with residents across the street, you can make mitigation strategies on how to lessen the impact of that to those residences. However, you could also just be vague about it
and leave it up to the review criteria if you don't feel it's necessary. So, but it is something that cities do and the cities that do it usually have a lot of like in St. Paul Park, your um
>> well, the zoning map's gone, but >> but your B2 district is isn't always um in big blocks of land. It's more linear. So, your B2 is your highway commercial district, which is the area
as you just enter the city off of 61. And then it's also down Hastings as it goes out. And that's really the only spots where it is. Um, we've got our our map here. We can hold it up in in awe of
how So you see here your your B2 is here and here, you know, so you don't have big blocks of land in the B2. So, you're probably going to be,
you know, like the the car wash by the Duffies is is the B2, right? Um, and the downtown area is B1. So, that's a different thing. We don't allow these. None of these uses we allowed are B1's, right? These are all B2s. And this area
in here is the transit mixed use. Different, too. So, we're only talking about like this area and this area. And both of them, well, in the future, we'll have one down here, but again, that's going to be a spot in the middle of a
residential area. So, your B2s are all fairly adjacent to residential uses, which creates maybe some desire to have a list like this, but you don't have to. I mean, it's my recommendation that you do. And these are the things that we're
saying. And so it's like when adjacent to across the street from residential properties, no outdoor activities or outdoor seating areas. So if you had a banquet hall across the street from somebody's house that's zoned residential, can't have like picnic
table sitting outside with people, you know, smoking cigarettes at 3:00 in the morning. You know, it's just you wouldn't allow that, right? But again, you know, if it's a bar or a restaurant though, I mean, that would be regulated differently because it's not a large
gathering facility. It's more transient, people coming and going. So, you're not going to have the massing of people, and you would just use your existing standards and liquor licensing ordinances and stuff to govern how those uses operate. But, uh, banquet hall type
use isn't always going to have a liquor license. Most of them wouldn't actually. and uh they would have like a caterer's permit where a caterer comes in and sells the alcohol and sells the food and stuff, right? So, it's a slightly different use, but if you want to treat
it the same as a bar restaurant, then some of these standards you wouldn't need to put in there, but you could just use the regular generic criteria and get to kind of the same point. But if you got into a dispute with somebody, you're
less likely to be successful. And so then we also say trash enclosures should not be in the front yard. No sound may be detected from the venue at the property line of any residentially zoned property. Lights producing varying intensities, changing colors, moving lights, the search lights are
prohibited. That would be on the that are detectable from outside, not in, you know, when you're in the building. You can do whatever you want. But uh then the serving of food and alcoholic beverage is only permitted during a private event which is just stating that
you can't have one of these and just have people in it all the time, right? It's got to be event oriented. So those were kind of the things that we thought that kind of fit with that. And then some cities obviously have had issues
with these events center type places or want to make sure that they don't have issues with them. And so I've provided those examples to you. Um, and not everything in all of them I think we need to worry about, but that just shows
you what some places have dealt with. And if you wanted to include some of the examples of what they have, maybe that's something you want to think about. But, uh, again, that would be just just some things that
we would do. Now, I put it where clubs and lodges and events, banquet halls kind of have these same standards. You could also strike the club and lodges part of it and just treat them more like
a restaurant bar type facility, which has been traditionally, you know, like people always say when you're making an ordinance like this, oh, what about the American Legion? Well, if the American Legion is open to the public, people coming and going all the time and it's
more like a bar restaurant type place, that's what it is, a bar restaurant, even though it is a fraternal organization if they operate. But this would only be if it's like a place where um like a club where you know the
planning commission club where only you guys get to go to it, then you'd have to follow these rules. if you're open to the public, that's not the case. So, with that, um it is a public hearing
um because it's a zoning amendment and um but that's the gist of it is just putting these uses in the cup section of the B2 and then this draft language that has some restrictions on it added to it.
And then if there's anything you wanted to add to this, we can. Um I do note that uh we had that definition of church in the code. We should get rid of that and define it as a place of assembly and
that would be something else that we should do. And then the reference to cultural institutions in the P2, we switch that to be places of assembly. Read. So where it says church period with a definition, take that out, write
places of assembly and then cultural institutions, strike that places of assembly and then put these uses in there. So instead of churches, we're referencing places of assembly. And that will cover us because what happens is
with this topic is let's say your zoning ordinance is not consistent with that or lupa federal statute that I talked about. What happens then is you get sued in federal court. If like let's say somebody wanted to
turn the bowling alley into uh a church and you said no because we don't allow churches in that zoning district. They would say, "Well, you allow other assembly uses in that zoning district." As a matter of fact, right next door is a place, a dance hall place.
>> And so they'd say, "So you're discriminating against us and we're going to take you to court and it goes to federal court. There's punitive damages if you lose." Um, one city that I'm familiar with, uh, won a suit, but
still got the punitive damages for, uh, bungling a part of it, but they still won the big picture, lost part of it, and they had to pay a million dollars. So, that would be quite the burden for your taxpayers to carry. So, we want to make sure that we've taken adequate
steps to avoid something like that in the future. So, with that, I'll turn it over to you guys, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. So, since this is public, let's let's um open the public meeting first, then we can have commission comments. So, um I'm going to open up the public meeting as to the B2 assembly ordinance
amendment. Um I there's nobody in the audience. I don't believe anybody has made any indication that they want to speak. So, having no members of the public here, I'm going to close the public hearing and then we can go right to commission
uh comments and thoughts. So, um so I have a question. So, I I I understand the difference between frequency and intensity, right? People coming going from the bar, that's frequency. There's a lot same thing happening a lot but happening in small
amounts, right? That's frequency. Intensity is the banquet, right? Everybody comes at once, they stay, then everybody leaves. So you're suggesting that given that the use pattern, frequency, and intensity is different, we may want
different rules to address businesses or organizations that have the use pattern of high intensity. Right. Okay. >> Right. And so all assembly uses typically have that like a theater
>> like they'll say our show is at 3:00, right? Uh a school all the kids arrive in the morning, leave in the afternoon. A church has set times where they do it. So all of these uses generally follow that pattern. And so this use language
that we were talking about touches more on the commercial ones that have it because um when it is like a school or a religious institution or something and you know that's kind of inherent to that
use and they're not operating though like there I'm not aware of any churches that operate at like till 2 in the morning. Right. So >> other than like once a year Christmas, you know, midnight mass, you're not Yeah, you were not worried about that. >> It could. But so we're
>> So as a part of this ordinance, so I know the public or the the the notice was off for the B2, but are you also saying that maybe we need to look at at P2 language, correct? >> Yeah, we got to change the way that we worded in the P2 to say the same thing about place
>> places of assembly. Okay. So I have a question. So, are we going to have to include this laundry list in the P2s or so? Other than changing that language, is there any P2
changes that we need to make? >> No, because where I think you're going there is like if we allow churches and schools, do we have to allow banquet halls and clubs and lodges? But the the federal protection only applies to the uh like
the the places of non-commercial assembly essentially. >> So you don't have to include all the other ones in they might say, well what's up with that? I I think I should be allowed in there in the P2, you know,
but still you would say no. I mean the P2 is built around institutional uses which are like nonprofit governmental you know things like that. >> So it's not terrible that we've sort of got this sort of history of of of zoning
the peaches of zoning these things little language change. We can keep those we can keep those areas we can keep those uses that are in there homogeneous kind of what they already are. we don't have to worry about something else coming in there that maybe people would be surprised or
shocked to see. >> Right. >> Okay. I think that's okay. Um I guess as far as like Okay, so we want to make recommendations concerning
changes to the B2, right? That's what you want us to do. Okay. Um, first things first, right? Change just the core just the core definition in language, right? So like the when we look at the at bottom of the first page of the of your letter, it's again the
places of assembly, clubs, lodges, banquets. So we want those things, we want the the B2 ordinance to be amended so that the language is clear and we and we've replaced the the places of assembly.
Correct? >> Yep. >> Okay. Then beyond that, you're saying, "Okay, well, now we're putting all this in there. Are there things we would like to do?" Right? So, again, and I I think when we talked about the the the Simicks place, you know, the Hastings the New
Dance Place, um kind of it's the trade-off, right? It's the public private trade-off. Like you private citizens, you private entities want to do something that may or may not be obvious there, right? So, but we got these COP uses. So, it's a trade-off.
You want to do something that's a little bit different. So, we're asking that you maybe follow some additional rules or look at some additional I don't want to use the word restrictions, but just additional sort of courtesies that we want to show the neighbors, right? So, it's a trade-off, right? So, part of what we want to do is figure, okay, are
there are there specific tradeoffs that we want to include? And to put even a finer point on it, I mean, we could include some of these trade-offs into like some of the subcategories or we could make them blanket across all the categories, right, within the COP.
>> Y >> or we could do nothing, rely on other ordinance language, but that wasn't the suggestion, right? I think your suggestion, and I'm I'm kind of also for that, which is let's throw
something in here, and it doesn't have to be excessive. It doesn't have to be overwhelming, but maybe we want to put some things in here so that um we can be better able to manage those uses if they come in as a CUP,
right? And I mean, you could just say like, you know, banquet halls like like I've got it here. Number one, one adjacent across the street from residentially owned properties. the city council may create, you know, limits on time
business operation, but you know, where we're starting from is we've got some specific language and we put clubs and lodges/banquet halls uh treat them kind of similarly. So there isn't something that >> right I mean in some of the ones you
list in here like let's say like like a daycare center a school or community I mean some of those are probably almost self-limiting in terms of the reasonable operating hours right >> but you could see again a bank or even possibly even a theater right that's a use that could be potentially you know
moving later than you might otherwise want to so um I guess I mean It it' be up to us to decide. I mean, do we want to create a gen a generic set of
regulations that apply to everybody or do we want to parcel out like, you know, >> there's some general rules for everybody, but then if you're one of these specific cups, we would like you to maybe follow these additional ones or what are people what are people's thoughts or or what are your
preferences? >> I've got a bunch. >> Okay. Well, no, I mean, so do I mean, no. So, do you like a do you want a generalized list? Do you want to sort of break it apart and have different kinds or I mean what is your >> Yeah. Well, I I appreciate what Rosemount did and what Cottage Grove
did. Some of the sections uh so you know Rose Mount 3 4 5 7 11 12 13 and 15 uh are right in line with what I think would be good for St. Paul Park. And then the ones in Cottage Grove.
Yeah. Yeah. So for Cottage Grove is one and three in addition to the ones from the Rosemount uh suggestions and these are the ones that they currently have in place for Rose Mount and for Cottage Grove. >> Um >> so do you want do you want those in reference to a specific use under the
CUP or do you want them broadly and generally applied to everybody? >> Broadly and generally applied to everybody. >> Okay. Cuz I know because I think I think that's the first level of analysis which is if we're going to create rules, okay, who do they apply to? everybody or or and again I don't think it's right or wrong to have it like if we wanted to
focus them. It's just a matter of like framing the conversation. So you're saying everything I'm talking about I want general applicability. >> Right. Correct. But like Nate uh suggested in the beginning is like the Legion and and other uh similar
organizations that we would have language that puts them over here in this category and the assemblies would be in this category which would then be governed by these uh that you suggested from Rose Mountain Cottage Grove. >> Yep.
>> So we would treat like if a place is open to the public operates like a bar restaurant, treat them like a bar restaurant. Correct. >> If they >> So, like if they were operating in a bar restaurant, but then they had a big hall there that they would rent out to people, then those rules would apply to
the hall. >> Correct. >> Not the bar restaurant area. >> Correct. >> So, that's how we would do it. And if you want to um like with the the you noted some
things from one of the codes that you liked. I mean, what we could do is this week when we're preparing this for the council, we could add all those make sure all those things are either in the ordinance or covered elsewhere in code.
Like one of the things it talks about is like the lighting >> Mhm. >> uh level. Uh that was one of them that you mentioned number 11 from Rosemont. And like that if if our existing ordinance already covers that, I'll just
leave it. I can just leave it out in the final version >> and but if our existing ordinance doesn't cover it then I'd put it in. Or if this was more restrictive I guess I'd like to walk through some of them. I guess my my thinking with I mean taking you know taking Nate's list I would go
from this page like start with his sort of generic ones walk through those ones and then maybe we move into like here's like some real specific ones and you can make reference to the ones you want and we kind of walk through them. Does that sound okay with everybody? >> Good. >> Okay. So, let's start with the ones that
Nate was was was recommending, which is Okay. If and I'm going to speak just in general. So, if any usage, right? I know yours says club, lodges, and banquet halls. Um, adjacent or across
the street from a residentially zoned properties. Hours of operation would be limited. Um, and this goes back to our discussion earlier, which is I mean we don't necessarily have hours of operations in other parts of the ordinances. So
the first question is is that is is that something we want? I mean do we want those kinds of restrictions on a business? Do we want those kinds of limits when maybe we don't by ordinance where we don't have them by ordinance on
other businesses in other parts of of the city. Um because there are other you know I mean there's churches that are in residential zones. There are some businesses that touch on you know residential property. So, you know, my first question is,
okay, are we are are we unfairly treating a business in this area or are we putting restrictions on a business in this area that we won't that we don't have anywhere else? So, is that something that we want to do or is that something we think is necessary? So,
that's I I kind of have a I'm hesitant on on the hours of operation a little bit as a general rule. Now, similar to what we did for the Hastings application, which is we said, okay, on a particular application as a part of
approving that particular cup, maybe we could look at hours of operation. But as terms of having like like in-your-face upfront restriction, I guess I'm inclined to say I'd rather not have a blanket restriction either on
all the uses or even on a subset of uses upfront. I would personally as a member of the planning commissioner if I was on the city council I might want to have more flexibility in dealing with a particular applicant and looking at exactly what they're doing and how does it impact is there is it frequency is
intensity like a like a daycare like I mean I don't know do we do we need to say a daycare has to be closed by 10 o'clock at night I mean maybe we don't so my preference would be that we would leave ourselves the flexibility and power to kind of deal with it on a case-to case basis
So I don't know what other people think. I don't know what other people preferences are. >> Right. Yeah. But public businesses like bars, nightclubs, things like that are governed by a different set of rules already. Correct. >> Yeah. There's uh like liquor licensing
rules which >> state what time they have to be closed. >> And and I don't want to run to a place where where we got a conflict. Oh, this ordinance says if you're running this, this is your close time. But the liquor license, I mean, so this is why my my my initial hesitation is say, let's deal with it on a case-by case basis and not
have a blanket like upfront like doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter what you do, you got to be done by this time. >> Yeah. But these these rules that we're discussing are not going to apply to those public businesses, the nightclubs and the bars. So, we don't have to worry
about that. Correct. These would not apply to park Park Tavern, not Park Tavern, but you know, Park Place. Um, right. >> And it would it would only apply to >> to the B2, right? But this is what I'm saying, which is is we don't have those restrictions. Okay. In terms of like an
ordinance, like in terms of like planning, like again, there's liquor license, there's licensing restrictions we can place. >> This is we're talking about ordinances and like what restrictions we want for the ordinance. And I guess my position would be I'd rather not have a a blanket rule in the at the ordinance level
because I'd like us as commissioners, I'd like you as a city council member to be able to go on a on a case-bycase basis and not have our hands tied by this general rule we just made to apply to everybody. >> Yeah. The only thing is that when we have these types of rules, it's cut and
dry. then there's no we don't have to worry about how people are interpreting it because it's cut and dry >> and then a person could come before and say well can we get a an exception >> correct and and Cottage Grove actually has that uh you know in in theirs in
section one the last sentence uh where they say they may be reduced should the city determine the applicant has added sufficient elements to reduce the impact of this use. So there is that available in there for our discretion, but the
rules and understanding for people that are going to have assembly. Uh it's all right there cut and dry. >> I think I kind of like that. >> My concern is like we put ourselves in a straight jacket, then we hang a key around our neck and says, "Well, if you need the key, you the keys there." >> How about we just go put on the straight jacket? >> I know,
>> right? I mean, let's just instead of like we're going to tie ourselves up, but we're going to give this we're going to add a sentence at the end says if we want to untie ourselves, we can. So I But unfortunately, >> but but >> how things have become where we need to have these things in place. >> But if they're coming in on a cup,
right, because that's what we're talking about. This isn't they're not just coming on straight ordinance where we have no ability. If they're coming in on a cup, we can say, "Oh, by the way, for your particular case, we want just like we did for the Hastings application, which is we're looking at like let's put
some hours of operation in there." So again, it just for me it's just a process thing, which is I'd rather have a cup applicant have the ability to be treated individually, look at what they're doing, how they want to operate, and
decide whether or not we need restrictions on time. So I I I want to have the maximum flexibility for members of the public. People want to come in and I want to have maximum flexibility as a planning commissioner. And I want the city council to have the man maximum PL because you guys are the ones that
are end up taking the votes, right? So again, I don't want to put on a straight jacket and then hang the key around my neck. Just let's just not put on the jacket. >> Mr. >> If I may, so is the conditions of the new applicant
same the same zoning application to the bowling alley? Would they have the same or are they different because they're they're a liquor establishment? >> Correct. They're already governed by a liquor license, >> right? So, >> so that supersedes like hours of operation, noises, things like that.
Because today's world, even our downtown, a lot of times the carpets rolled up down the streets at 10:00 if it's a dead night, >> right? >> But if they have a busy event or a rental at the Legion, they may go till midnight or even slightly after. >> There was a time before CO where
licensing was out till 2:00 a.m. >> You know, I don't know if we'll ever return to 2 a.m. again. I think we live in a different world and it would take a lot to get back to that. But um >> but that's like remember we're talking about ordinancing and we're talking about very specifically a cup where they're coming in
>> and and they've got to present a plan just like just like the Hastings building did which is and again as a part of that process we had the ability >> to implement time restrictions if we if we so chose. Right. So again, I'm not trying to take anything away from us,
but again, like I said, and it's kind of a crude analogy, like I I don't want to have us the ordinance put a straight jacket on us and then we hang a key around our neck, say, "Well, gez, if we want to get out, we can get out." Well, let's let's just not tie ourselves up. >> Is it similar to a variance if you were doing a building permit or something
like that? Is it kind of like where somebody would apply for a special situation? I I guess you could say it's similar in that we have the ability to look at the at the cup criteria, look at the application that someone's put in and then decide whether it's appropriate and if it's appropriate, then we have
the Yeah, we're not losing any flexibility and we're not losing any authority if we don't put it in like right up front. >> So again, I I mean I I I try to be consistent in that. try to be cautious or conservative and not pile on
necessarily more rules than we absolutely have to, right? I I'd like I'd like these people to be able to come in and kind of stand on their own, be judged on their own application >> and by having and again and I don't know what what kind of potential like
barrier like somebody like, well, hey, this if I want a cup, if I want to do this, well, look, I got to close by 10:00. Well, I I can't operate by that. I I need to have another hour. I mean, so is is that, you know, are we going to lose that? I mean, it's probably one in a million, but I would rather have fewer barriers to
having somebody come in. Maybe they come in, their COP just is. I mean, it's just not what we want. We can kill it then, too. I mean, so I don't think we're losing flexibility. We're definitely not losing power. We're not losing authority. And again, my preferences,
and again, they're just mine. There it's there's not it's not about right or wrong. It's just about how do you want to frame it or look at it. I'd rather have fewer upfront barriers and then have maximum flexibility and ability to kind of maneuver when we're sitting up
here. >> Yeah. >> I also like less less regulations, but the one thought that that didn't open up my eyes was was your thought about a lawsuit. >> Well, we're going to fix that. >> That made me think, okay, you've looked into this. you're familiar with other cities >> and how they're doing it
>> and >> but that's mostly about the language about making sure we're we're identifying and calling things the right thing. It's not it's not about how later or or or it's not about how late we let a business go or not go. It's about what do we call the things in the district like right because not everyone goes to
church. Some people go to a mosque, some people go to a temple, some people go to all kinds of different things. So you can't call things a church. So just a place where lots of people get together, they assemble. So it's an assembly space, right? So we we we can save ourselves from that legal issue, but that's different than
saying if if we want there to be rules about cups in the B2, what do we want them to be? I'd like them to be as minimal as possible and have maximum flexibility once the application comes in and then
we can look at it. >> And I'm all for minimizing government. No problem there. The only thing is that these uh rules, ordinances, whatever you want to call them, uh are what's going to be protecting uh the homeowners in
the areas of these assemblies. Uh that's the whole reason for this. So that's that's why I think it's most >> well what's going to be protecting them is the final language of the COP and the recommendations that come out of us and the final recommendations that get voted on city council. So the ordinance because again if you write an ordinance
where you tie yourself up but you give yourself the key to get out you're still leaving yourself I mean something anything anything's possible right you so you have all the rules but then if you say well in certain circumstances we're just going to free ourselves from the rules okay how about we don't again
how about we don't do that to ourselves and and and just give ourselves I I don't expect any kind of crazy decisions going to come from the planning commission or the city cil you guys aren't going to vote for something that's not going to be in the public good or
that's that's not going to serve everybody. So, but again, you're right. It's just a it's you're not right or wrong. I'm not it's just a matter of of reference and a matter of preference. So, and that's just on the time. I mean, I have other thoughts on other issues, but for the time one,
>> I'd like to go more on a case by case than have a again a blanket rule on everybody. But if we have that blanket rule, that's kind of our starting place. And then we can, you know, if they come in and they say, "Hey, you know, we we have a special party going on. We just
want to go till 1:00." >> Well, that take it under consideration and then evaluate it just like what Cottage Grove does. And so, >> but that's a difference between like having like a special event license, which is like a one time >> as opposed to >> so if we approve a cup, that's just
that's going to be the baseline rule like in perpetuity for long as that cup is there, right? >> Agreed. >> So, so that analogy doesn't work. It's like like, oh, hey, just this one weekend we want to go later. Well, you couldn't just do that for one weekend. You can't just amend the CUP for one week.
>> We do it for heritage days. I mean, things like that. >> That's an that's a special event license. >> Correct. Yes, I know. and and we could do that for that place of assembly. >> So, >> if they had a special circumstance. >> So, Nate, I guess maybe you could be the tiebreaker. I my my my belief is that if
you approved a cup that had particular like closing and opening time, I don't think you can on an ad hoc one-off basis just to say, "Hey, can I open up?" I mean, am I completely wrong or or or am I or we the COP is the COP, right?
Right. But you you could do something like if somebody came forward and was like, "But I want to be open till 1 in the morning." At with their application, they could apply for a code amendment where you just then change it to allow, but then other people could get to use
that time, too. But, you know, again, kind of in the big picture, it's like I think you want to have something in it either way, but you just say like when adjacent to across the street from residentially zoned properties, you would either have this language
>> Mhm. >> or you'd have language that says the city council may set hours of operation. >> Fair. Yeah. And so you could do it either way, but I mean if you have something objective in there that you've
said we don't want you going past this time, it's going to be you know less of a discussion obviously every time. And if you get into a dispute with someone, >> it may make it easier. But if there's some concern
around like the concept of hours of operation because I think what the chairman is getting at is that um you know we do allow these other uses to go past these times and there aren't really issues with it. So in a context
if they could set up their site in such a way where they mitigate against those concerns, why why are we involving ourselves in the hours of operation? But you know, you know, it is so like with the banquet hall use though, I guess
like the reason why I put it the way that it was in the initial draft is just because, you know, the later that closing time goes because like you heard the people talking about that last one last month, the neighbors, they were
talking about hearing people talking outside and like if people like we were talking about how we wanted to make sure they had enough parking cuz otherwise they're going to park on the street next to the houses, opening, shutting car doors, people talking by by the houses
and stuff. And we were kind of conceptually discussing how do we regulate that? And the solution you came up with was that you didn't want them getting a parking reduction for the off- peak on peak use.
You wanted them to provide the parking for everything just to make sure that you'd be covered. So they'd be up in the lot, not out in the neighborhood, right? And that, you know, you were talking with them about an end time to the music
and everything. And so just kind of based on that discussion, you know, we just kind of came up with this general language thinking that in the B2, you know, your current B2 properties are all going to be
essentially around residential stuff. So maybe we ought to put something in there. But you could just put general language that says city council may set hours of operation. So you put them on notice that
when you come in to a permit and if you're going to have a lot of loud ba bass music and stuff that's bothersome to people, you know what, you're done at 10. You know, you could do that. But you
could say, you know, the the event center that only has harps accords in it, they can go till 4 in the morning, you know. So, I mean that you can uh that's how you would do it if you didn't have the language. And if you
have the language, you just say it's kind of common for cities that have these regulations to say that those things are done at midnight. Um it's kind of common and it kind of fit with what you were talking about last month. So, that's where that came from. But you could do it either way.
And then the outdoor activity. Again, it's just saying like some of these event centers have like they'll do a wedding outside on the grounds of the facility >> and then everyone goes into the building, right? And what we're saying
here is that because you're going to be too close to residential areas, we don't want you having an outdoor area. Period. I mean, you could say that um again, you could
just say when in this context, outdoor activity areas may be restricted by the city council, the council can just be like, "No, you don't get to have it." But you, you know, you've got a 10 acre parcel, so sticking it way in the back, even though you're surrounded by houses,
we don't care. I mean, you could do it that way. um then the serving of food and beverages only permitted during a private event. This is to stop something like if you're going to be a bar restaurant, you're a
bar restaurant. If you want to have we're just keeping our >> You want to be an event center, be an event center where things happen and then they stop happening. They can't happen all the time, right? >> So, no, that one makes Yeah. No, I get that one. That makes sense. Yeah. And then uh the light thing,
you know, because I saw this in one of the codes and it was like, yeah, I could see something like that happening cuz you have a dance inside and like if there's windows and then like all of a sudden you can see that light from outside the building and you live across the street, it'd be just
like not only is it loud, but then it's like the lights are like flashing and this is this is nuts, you know? like I I could see that becoming a concern. And then the sound issue, we talked about that. And then trash enclosures. Uh
>> standard, right? That's just >> Yeah. Well, you know, sometimes people will like take a building like that and retrofit it into something else and there isn't a trash enclosure there cuz it never had one. to look. It just shows up in the front yard
and then the garbage truck comes by at 6:00 in the morning and cleans it out and then backs out with the backup beeper. I mean, >> yeah, >> kind of degrades the experience for those who live around it, right? So, you know, just catching some of those
things. But, I mean, but with that, I mean, that's kind of where we got what we've got. But the hours of operation was kind of based on your discussion last month and then kind of noting that all these other cities that we've got here when they do have an hour of
operation they kind of end around the same time kind of seems common. Um and then the outdoor activity thing you know that's mean I think your two through six are great. I guess again my hesitation is just on number one and
again and we haven't even gotten to some of the other ones that I know Mr. Hagerty's looking at. I've got other ideas too, but I mean um I guess so, Mr. Were there other specific things you wanted to talk about? So, if we're going to make recommendations, do we add it to the list or I guess you know, walk us maybe
through some of the things you thought were interesting enough that we want to talk about if we want to make them happen. >> Okay. Yeah. So the Rosemont section. So number three, so it just talks about the property owner must be on site uh when
there's a uh an event taking place. Well, if the property owner is a is a business, I mean, how does that >> Well, I guess if I may jump in here, that would be like, so let's say you had a catering
company host, you know, they're serving the drinks, they're serving the food, and then you got the DJ playing the music. It's just stating that somebody from the venue has to be there as well, not
outside of the people that the people holding the party have hired, right? Just to make sure that all of your rules and restrictions are being followed and everything, which is kind of one of the concerns. >> That individual has the most to lose
something happen. I'd be okay with the second sentence, but the first sentence I think is I don't like the first sentence because I mean >> that's like talking about one of those party barn type places that people used to, you know, they have those around there where you can get married in a
barn and hold your reception in there. That's what that first sentence is getting at. The second sentence is what I think you guys are trying to take care of. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I think the first sentence might be >> too risky. >> Yeah. kind of like really I mean >> I can go for that.
>> Yeah. I mean >> second sentence is probably better. >> Yeah. No, I know. Again, I think that that's a >> Yes, we want somebody with some minimal amount of authority or knowledge wandering around the facility while things are happening. Yes, I think that's fine.
>> Yeah. And then number four is kind of along the lines where you were kind of going to where this is just saying it's a restriction on number of guests but it does allow uh for other relative relevant factors to be taken into consideration.
>> So my concern with that is is I don't again I don't want to get into the micromanaging of how many people they can so all these buildings should Yeah. >> fire you know so the fire chiefs because one of them also that I did include and I can't remember if it's in the rose there it is. Yeah. So it's number 12 just talking about the the fire marshal
or police chief, >> right? So I don't I don't want number four because I don't want there to be two, you know, like the fire marshals rated this facility or this property at here, but the city ordinance is something different. Well, which one? Okay, so I would just say if the fire marshall says you can have 200 people in the building, well then that's what
could be in the building. I do not >> I am not smart enough to know what's the right number for any particular venue or any, you know, so let's let the fire marshall rate the buildings. do that and let's keep it out of the ordinances. Let's keep it >> Okay, agreed. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. So, we don't have to have three in
I mean four in there. Okay. But 12. >> Yeah. But >> some wording that talks about capacity of a building needs to be evaluated. >> I'm sorry. What you said >> on on the one you just talked about with the fire marshal. >> I don't know if we have a formal process
for that to be done. So I would ask that there be an effort put into an establishing a maximum person whether it be not not through our process. >> That's kind of what my point was >> and I and I get that but what I'm saying
is I don't know that we have a full-time position that does that and if that somehow can be an important part of the cup or the application of residency or whatever. Isn't occupancy handled mostly by the by the building and like by code, right? So many square feet depending
upon the use, right? So >> So the way it works is a licensed architect has to draw up a plan. >> Yeah. >> And that plan they state what they believe the occupancy to be based on the type of use, use classification
>> and uh some factors related to the building. Then the building official would review that and either concur or say, "No, you got this wrong. It's too high." Now, this last one we were talking about last month, they had these
numbers and it was like 400 some people in that party room that they had. And what what this is getting at in this code particularly is stating that these
types of event centers um we don't want you designing them to be for more than x number of people. we wanted to and it's um what we would do on this and this would be right now if somebody came
forward with one of these is we go through that process where the building official reviews the plans from a licensed architect and then but the other thing is is we have like parking counts all these other factors involved too where from a zoning standpoint you'd
be looking at these and when we get these we send them to the building official to look at and provide some comments and he just didn't have any comments on that last one. It was like he thought that from his preliminary
look that they had provided the correct information, right? Like my concern is I don't want conflicting rules and I'm not going to pretend that I'm even remotely smart enough to figure out how many people can and should be in a building. So that's the architects and the building inspectors. I want to go with
what the professionals have decided and what they think is right because I I I'm again I would never be so arrogant or bold as to think I know what the right number is and I don't want there to be conflicting rules because that's going to be a place that we get hung up. So >> I
>> and again and maybe maybe we've already I don't know. I mean I I I don't know what people think, but I mean again I >> my biggest concern is just having in a residential area just having a gathering place that's going to have three, four, 500 people uh in in a residential area
is going to be problematic. >> Well, but it's in B2. It's not in a resent. >> But but like like Mr. Park said that isn't going to happen if if if there's if there's not enough space, if there's not enough parking and if and if the
professionals who know say it can I mean so then so again I'll go back to my first principle which is do we or is it necessary to have this and if it's necessary are we the smartest ones to figure it out and in this particular case I don't know that
we are and I and again and and it's not if we don't address this it's not that it's just going going to be the wild west because again there's the the architect has to approve it, the building inspector has to do it. If we had a fire chief or anything like who
because I'm mean so there are there are us not putting a cap on something doesn't mean that things are going to go out of hand, right? Because there's all these other pieces of ordinance. There's all these other things that are going to act as constraints on how a property is
going to be used. So my first principle is if I don't think it has to be there, I don't want it there. I don't think it has to be there. And secondly, I don't think I'm the smart enough guy to be the one who who would put it in. So that's my that's my position on that one. And okay, people in
>> Yeah, that's a starting point is all I'm saying. And it does have language in it that allows the city to take things under consideration, all relevant considerations, relevant factors. So that language is in there. Is it not? Um like if you go to the
Legion Parkplace, uh even some schools or restaurants, it says occupancy. Somebody determines that. I would assume that only has to be done once unless there's a remodel or correct, you know, rep prioritization of space. But I if a
number is calculated by somebody that's of official capacity, it it probably shouldn't be anybody in this room that doesn't understand, you know, square foot and how it applies to a human body. Um >> but do we want to
>> but somebody should establish that? And like I said, you walk into the Legion, one of the first things you see is occupancy is this and they have it even in some of the rooms per room. Correct. >> I would assume that we could get that done, know that it's done, and there's a number that's been applied by somebody more official than us in that capacity.
>> Yeah. It's just that uh >> I don't know that 200's the number, you know, >> right? Yeah. But would we want a gathering place of 500 people adjacent to a residential area? >> Well, then you take Nate's suggestion, which is again, fair warning, >> as a part of your CUP process, the city council may put restrictions on
occupancy. >> Okay. I mean we can as long as we have some sort of language in there uh so that >> because that is a concern by the residents that are adjacent to these uh uh possible assemblies.
>> Right. >> And Nate at the risk of sounding what I mean even if it wasn't explicit it's just it's just underlying authority of being able to approve or disapprove a cup we would kind of have the ability to to regulate or manage. So with your
regular CUP review criteria, you can say, "We think this fits, but only if you're capped at 300 people, >> right?" The problem with that though is when you do that is if they think you just pulled that number from the sky
then they're like well um but by that point if we have the cup we're going to have the the engineer we're going to have a licensed architect's estimates and so we're going to have a baseline that we could look at and then apply our own sort of preferences and reasons to it.
We wouldn't I mean again devil's avy we like we wouldn't I don't think any of you guys would pull a number out of the air but we'll have a baseline. So as long as we're somewhere near the baseline we're not going to be out on a limb. I would hope >> Rosemont has a good baseline.
>> I'm just saying. >> Okay. So what other things are you looking at that we that you would like to see as an included suggestion for the council to consider? >> Right. I open this up to anybody. I don't mean to pick on you, Mr. Hagerty. I'm saying
go by the the past discussions that were had um the neighbors to me, I thought their main concerns were noise, >> right, >> and hours, >> right? >> And I don't know that 10:00 is or isn't, but um I think noise should be measured
by complaint. I think we've had complaint, we've heard complaint by people that live in relatively close proximity. They tried to explain it away one time and maybe it's legit that the inside doors, storm doors if you would call them that, insulated doors were open. Well, that needs to be assured
that that can't happen while there's an event. Well, no. And that was one of the things I suggested, right, which is as a part of their COP that all noise mitigation um efforts must be in place while the music is. Now, if the music is off, you want some fresh air, that's fine.
>> But no, that was one of the things that I specifically said that whatever noise mitigation you have has to be in use, has to be effective or whatever during the dur during those operating hours. And I think we as a as a group, the city in its level of formality, um the
complaints that came from the citizens saying that they heard going on at 2 3 and 4 in the morning. I think it should be clear that we have something reasonable in place um that we we afford as you say the option to to modify hours
but some uh reasonable thing that uh you know definitely beyond 1:00 and maybe midnight is not acceptable to be disturbing the peace if you would at at >> and when you mention that makes me think of how many complaints would come in
would be needed to revoke up. >> Exactly. Uh that's the other that's the other concern. That's why having all of these already spelled out makes it cut and dry. >> Well, >> makes it less burden for the police, less burden for the citizens. >> They got one complaint, two complaints, 10 complaints.
>> Well, okay. So, all right. >> Okay. So, your thing with noise, I think Nate's, you know, one of his suggestions I kind of already address that, right, which is right. Um, uh, no sound may be detected from the
venue at the property line of any residentially zoned property. So, that recommendation's already in there. I think that's a good one. So, I mean, I think I think now you you've you've touched on that one, so that's good, right? And again, to be the devil's advocate, I mean, in a
weird way, I mean, probably no one's going to agree with me, but like the hours of operation or the activity that occurs on a property, if it's not disturbing anybody around it, do we really have or want the right to tell
them what they I mean, if they want to go to 12 minute, if they want to go to one, if they're literally not disturbing anybody, if there's no light, there's no sound, there's no noise, there's nobody wandering the streets, >> should we just mind our own business. >> Well, I I agree to that to the point that we have a campground we go to and
it's the the rule of the campground is noises to a minimum at 11:00 and it doesn't mean people all run into their their places and hide. They have bonfires and they have noise and they have music and somebody the camp Paw Patrol if you would
>> hears it and thinks that it's loud, they stop and tell them, "Hey, it's loud. You need to turn it down or else you have to turn it off." >> Right. But I mean in theory if if again and this I don't want to keep >> I get what I understand what you're saying >> right which is which is again and this is why I I'm I'm I'm not interested in like hours of operation rules. I'm not
interested in in in occupancy. If we just if we just give them a notice like hey know that you might have your these things affected by your as a part of your CV process. I'd rather just have the warning than have a hard black, you know, black line like you just can't go over this because again, we're not smart
enough to know what's the venue, what's the occupy, what's the use. There's smarter people who are doing this. There's smarter people know this. It's a part of the cup process. So again, I'd rather have the minimum intrusiveness on the applicant and the maximum amount of
flexibility on this side. I think that's the that's a great balance to be in. I I I guess I don't want to tie my hands and then find a way to un time. >> Can we put an inclusion that states that if if noise and or end time becomes an
issue that we reserve the right to amend? >> I don't think you I don't think you put that in there cuz that that I think that just interpretation. >> Well, no, it just it just it just know what we giveth we may taketh away. We don't need to tell them that, right? It does. I mean, it's just,
you know, I I don't think that's I think it's just implied like violate the COP enough and again, you know, we'll we'll, you know, the city council will bring your COP up for for review again or or the planning commission >> and you can do that without looking like you're singling them out even though that is
>> with enough formal complaints with enough people showing up >> against them specifically, you have reason to single them out, >> right? Because you're violating the CUP. They're violating again, it's a public private deal we're making. It's the give and the take. Right. And if they're not living up to their end of the given the take, then
it's fair to take a look at that. Yep. All right. You had other ones. Let's let's see some other ones. Uh >> yeah, those are the main ones. Okay. >> So, the hours noise, you know, the other basic, you know, state health code, uh
you know, requirements, and then no overnight guests and no parking. I mean, no campers or like that. >> Actually, that was one of my notes. No overnight accommodations. Um, >> do you allow people to park there if they get a ride home >> or do they leave their car there?
>> Yeah, I think that's that's not a problem, >> right? Well, if your car is the only one sleeping there, that's one thing. If there's three people in the back seat all curled up, that's that's a different problem. Yeah, >> understandable. Yeah. No, no. We do not want to ever create a situation where for someone's like, I'm scared to leave
my car here cuz that just will open up a whole different can of worms. That again, leave your car there, grab your Uber, get in the car with your sober friend, your car will be there in the morning, everything will be fine. Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, do we want to put start trying
to put a button on this? So, okay. So, we've got Nate's six recommendations. We've got some extra ones um from Mr. Hagerty. Do we want to do them in mass? Do we do we want to
kind of walk through like let's recommend this one, not recommend this one? We I mean, we could vote on them all, vote on some. How do you guys want to structure it? I mean, I think Okay, I think Nate's two through six. I think those are non-controversial. I'm down for all of them. The only thing that I've got
misgivings on is time and occupancy. Um, so I mean, are are Nate's recommendations two through six? Is there anyone have any controversy? Does anybody have any disagreements with any of those? Because we could >> That sounds fine. >> Cuz >> I mean, yeah. And keep in mind, I agree
with two through six just like you do, but I also like number one for the time. >> Well, here's the thing. Why don't we Why don't we break it up? Let's someone. Okay. >> I will move >> that the planning commission recommends to the city council adopting
recommendations 2 through six from city planner Nate Sparks uh planning memo and that they adopt those as a part of the the changes we're making to the B2 district ordinance. That's my motion. >> Second.
>> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. That passes. Okay. So now we've got questions about do we want time restrictions, right? And or occupancy restrictions. Are there any other
restrictions that we think are in controversy? So what we So what we So what we could do is we could say okay so I will okay I'm going to make a motion. I am going to move that we as a planning commission recommend to the city council adopting
language for the B2 ordinance amendment that would say to the effect that the city council would reserve the right to limit or restrict hours of operation as
a part of the cup approval process. And that would be as opposed to having a hard automatic cap on time. So my motion would be that we would forward a recommendation that again
a warning that the city council would is reserving the right to place those restrictions on an applicant through the cup process. So that's my motion. So is there a second to that motion? I think that'd be acceptable.
>> Do you second? >> I second. >> Okay. >> All those in favor say I. I >> I. >> Okay. >> Nay. >> No. You No. No. You're doing your job. YOU'RE DOING YOUR JOB. You're doing your
job. Trust me. I've I've had to throw some naysay into the wind. Yes, I know. >> Okay. >> Okay. So on the Okay, I'm going to let you if you would so like to make a motion concerning occupancy. I'll let you and then we'll >> Oh, the occupancy aspect. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Uh yeah. So I would like to make a motion similar to what Rosemount has and uh number three is to just No, no, sorry. And number four, uh, maximum number of guests to be started at 200, but that the, uh, number of guests may
be approved by the city based on the size and site, but 200 is the starting suggestion, but each site can be evaluated and uh, with relevant factors taken into consideration. >> Right? So your motion is essentially you
want a hard cap >> subject to subject to a possible individual change, right? >> Yes, correct. >> Okay, >> that's my motion. >> Okay, so motion has been made. >> I would second it. >> You'll second it. Okay, all those in favor say I. >> I.
>> All those opposed? Nay. >> Okay. So, we will then recommend to the city council that they would adopt a maximum occupancy um number that's set at a hard cap of
200, but with the option of making adjustments based upon the individual applicant. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um Nate, is there any other action that you would like us to take on that issue? >> Uh no, I think you're good. that we beat
it to death sufficiently for you. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I just didn't want you to fall asleep or wander off, you know, over there while we were chatting. So, okay, let's move on to our second uh commission action ordinance amendment. And boy, is this a doozy. I don't think
I've seen uh as many proposed changes as since we did the comp plan. I mean, this is a >> I got about twothirds of the way through this and I'm like, "Wow, I'm I'm not a city engineer. I am not a I am I am this
is uh some pretty uh thick and complicated and meaty stuff but well written. I really I read every single word. Oh, >> did you? >> Yeah, I did. See, and I even highlighted the things that are important to me. Yeah.
>> So, very well written. Um so, big picture. Um, when we did the LAR subdivision, we, you know, I should put it to you this way. Um, we've had code, but then we've had policy.
And since even before I was around with the city, we've kind of followed a policy where even though our subdivision ordinance may have said one thing, we always operated with some general set of
assumptions that were more of a policy of how we go about doing our business. And the idea here is is that we're going to make the code fit what the intended policy of the city was. In this with the
LAR subdivision, we were going absolutely by the book because we wanted to make sure that we had everything right. And so by going absolutely by the book, we detected that our code was so
woefully out ofd >> that we need to make some changes. Now these changes are essentially related to a couple factors. Number one, when when you do a subdivision and you
get preliminary plat approval, that's the game right there. You can't then deny a final plat that is exactly the same as the preliminary plat. So when our ordinance talks about
preliminary plat like it's a glorified concept plan and then that the final plat's the Super Bowl, we've got a little bit of a problem because you can't deny the final plat when it matches the preliminary plat. So you your preliminary plat you can approve it
on a list of conditions and then they got to come back with a final plat that shows that they met those conditions. And what what our code was suggesting and this is how codes were written in like the 50s and 60s was back in those
days it was it wasn't as easy to do the engineering type stuff as it is today. And there was so many court cases that had happened over time that every the burden was shifted to the pre-plat, not the final plat. And our code still kind
of had it where, hey, if the final plat if we decide we don't like it, we can deny it. But you can't do that anymore. Uh, state statutes written a certain way. There's court cases that go a certain way. So what we need to do is
like the people who don't like a subdivision need to be at that preliminary plat meeting not coming to the final plat meeting with regrets right I mean the pre-plat meeting is where all the entitlements
are granted to a subdivision so what we needed to do is beef up the submission requirements for a preliminary plat make sure that every little detail is worked out at that stage.
And then at the final plat stage, you know, by state law, you got 60 days to either approve or not approve a final plat. And we have in our code currently a public hearing requirement, which
means that you're you're going to run out of time on your little 60-day window and you got to have a development agreement done. You got to have all these details ironed out that are final plat administrative type items that the council needs to take action on. And we
need the way we've got it written is you got to come to the planning commission and talk to them about it and then you go to the council with a public hearing. So that sucks up a bunch of that 60-day time where this application needs to get
in front of the council as quick as possible because if the council doesn't like the development agreement, if the council has a beef with some of the administrative things that are going around it or they think, you know what, I don't think you really met the conditions of that pre-plat approval in
this regard. You don't really have the time to get into it with how we've got it set up. and our code was written around things at a time when things were done a little differently. So, what we need to do is beef up those submission requirements at the pre-plat stage, make
sure that everybody who doesn't like the subdivision is at that meeting because that's when the planning commission can affect change on the plat. The way we were operating um too, you know, by holding that hearing at the final plat
is you're giving people notice that they can come comment on a final plat when the council's hands are are bound to approve it. And it's like we should be getting those people in to the pre-plat stage, not bringing them into the final
plat stage because you're giving them the false sense that there's something you can do about something when you've already given away all your entitlements, right? So now, how do we do that? How do we get that into the code? Well, the way that
it works is so first off, we've got this concept plan thing where um we imply that this sketch plan is a requirement, but we never have ever required anyone to do it. We've
allowed them to combine it with their pre-plat essentially. And we've been doing that since before I was around, right? That's just kind of how we've always done it. And because somebody somebody might have a really simple thing where they're just splitting a lot in half and doing it by a plat and it's like why would we make them do that,
right? So we just say it's recommended that they do it and we don't call it sketch plan, we call it concept plan because that's the vernacular that we've been using all along. So we change make that change. But then we had absolutely nothing on what the submission
requirements would be and we had absolutely nothing on what the procedure for a concept plan would be. So we have to add that in here because otherwise you know some guy could come in and say I want to put an apartment building on block 89 and just draw a rectangle and
come in here and then we were looking at it up on the screen and we're just like what what are we looking at here? What is this? you know, I mean, there's has to be a minimum amount of effort put into an application that comes before a public body, right? So, we're just we're
just doing that and then then it just says that the staff sends it around and it goes to the planning commission and you guys tell them what you want them to change before they come back to pre-plat and then it goes to council.
Then we go into the preliminary plat section where our pre-plat section is really soft and it doesn't have um some of the requirements. So we just
what we did here was um I wrote up in this procedure essentially that kind of more is a more contemporary way of doing a pre-plat and has more of the application
requirements a little more stringent to make sure that we're covering ourselves. And then like the thing we did with LAR with the grading permit, uh, we put something in here about that specifically that just says if you're
going to do that, you got to give us your development agreement money. And that's that. And then the council can decide if they want to do it or not. And it's up to them. And if you give us the money and the council's okay with it, all right, you can do it. But it it has
a specific procedure for that. And then it also has review criteria for a preliminary plat where it says uh that you can deny what you can deny it based off of and um and
it talks about the process for that. So you know we just didn't have very strong things in regards to that. And then final plat, it changes it so there's no public hearing at the final plat. That
the final plat's for the purpose of what the final plat's supposed to be, confirming that they did what they committed to do on their pre-plat application and that we're not dragging in all this extra stuff into it. That is just so the council's focused on the
development agreement and ensuring that the conditions were met, not on whether or not they like the subdivision period. >> We're there to check boxes. We're not there to have a philosophical debate about what has already gone on, >> right? Because that's what by state law
final plat is. >> Yep. >> It's it's it's already done. You've already given up everything to the guy. And if he's consistent with his pre-plat approval by law, you have to approve it. So, by acting like it's something more
than that, you can get yourself into a little bit of a pickle. Um, so we did that. And then we have the application requirements for each one. The way your code is written. I didn't change this, but normally what they do is they say concept plan, you have to submit these
things and then this is what we do with it. But we have that in two different spots. And we just kept it that way where it's like concept plan, this is what we do. Pre-plat, this is what we do. Final plat this is what we do. And then another section that says for a concept plan you have to submit this
pre-plat this final plat this. Right? So we have them separated. It's just the way it is. Just left it that way. But then uh so we had to rewrite all of those sections uh to make sure that we had it all
covered because there were some gaps in what we had originally. So, we're just throwing the whole thing out and starting over with new new language and then um we can take this to council, but
you're not done because we got to come back at another meeting because there's performance standards in your subdivision ordinance. For example, every subdivision ordinance talks about
drainage and utility easements, which is like or like the width of a road. A drainage and utility easement is like on the perimeter of every lot or over a drainage way and stuff. And it's on the edges of lots because like utilities, that's where like the cable company can
put their line to get through or if the city needs to uh fix some drainage issue, you got that space due and it's on the edges of the lots and it's universally nowadays five and 10 ft, you know? So
like if if it's on a property line, it's five on each lot. If it's not, it's just 10 in total. So it's always 10 feet. That's the common standard and that's what our engineer always requires. But if you look at the text of our code, it says six and 12, which is what they used to do back in the olden days because
that kind of fit more with what the oldfashioned surveying equipment would do like rods and chains and whatnot. So we always tell people we want them to use the five and 10 though, not the six and 12 cuz the six and 12 is kind of
abnormal now. It wasn't back in the day, but it is now. So, like those types of things, we've got to like go back in and rewrite all of that. And so, I just thought that we would take care of this procedural element first and then we'll
come back and take care of those standards because what we want to do and what we need to do is make our engineering standards manual match what we say that we want in our subdivision ordinance. cuz right now we have that document
overriding our subdivision ordinance and they should be in sync. And so we can do that, but that's going to take a little more time. And so we can just next meeting we have we can just pick that
back up and be that like if that's next month, two months from now or whatever, we'll just pick that up at that time and then clean that section up as well. And then that will essentially completely fix the
subdivision ordinance. Then um and now as you know like I mean those of you that have been on the commission a while I mean we regularly are tweaking ordinances when we see problems. That's all this is is, you know, we had other
subdivisions in the past like I think of uh there was like a where a town home development was turned into single family and we reviewed that one and you know we just followed the same procedure that we did on the previous subdivision
which didn't include some of the things cuz we had always kind of done it that way where by policy we've always held the hearing ing at the planning commission, gone to the council with this, but you know,
that's not exactly how the code's written. So, we got to we got to tweak that to make it consistent with how people intend for us to operate. And so, that's what we have in here. if there's any questions on that. Um, if there's
anything you wanted changed, but big picture, it's it's not like um, you know, there's some things that are really specific about how we operate here as a city in here that match how we go about doing
business, but a lot of it is kind of just standard stuff. and our standard stuff was just getting a little bit out of date and didn't match with the importance that nowadays is placed on the preliminary plat. So, we just have
to reor orient our code around that concept. >> No. Um I mean I'm probably not experienced enough or technically savvy enough to say whether or not what you proposed is good, bad or in between. It makes sense. I mean, again, you're focusing like we're talking today about
the how we do it. We're going to get to the substance and the what later. This is the skeleton like these are the steps. This is kind of how you navigate and that's what we're focusing on today. My only question and it's probably not in here. It's probably but it's a it's
an adjacent issue which is I agree we need to change the the relative importance. we need to get rid of the the public hearing at the final. I get all that right. But if that's the case, if the pre-plat is going to become like the
principal moment, then not tonight, but at some point, maybe we need to talk about, okay, in the event that we've got somebody putting in a a an application, um, then notice, right?
when does it go out and how broad is the notice? That's something we should at some again somewhere down the line as we're looking at the meat and potatoes or the the what we want like that second part I'd like to see a piggyback on of like okay let's look at the notice requirements because if if it's just you
know properties within 100 ft of the of the of of the affected property okay maybe that's not enough because I think LAR the LAR situation really highlighted the fact that I think notice for these kinds of large projects I
has to be I shouldn't say has to be it. I think it would be good if it was broader. >> So on that topic, Mr. Sure. Um in here it talks about the notice requirements where we just ape the
we just mimic the um state statute language which is a preliminary plat is required to have a public hearing with 350 ft of notice in an in urban city 10 days before the meeting.
So that's what it says. Now >> that's bare minimum. That doesn't mean that we couldn't if we chose >> you could raise that like some cities will do it 500 ft. >> Like more rural areas usually have a wider bank because there's fewer people in the area. So they'll go to like 500.
I mean you could theoretically do 500 feet and just say we want the notice to go out to a wider area than just the 350. But when you start changing that number, see like most people just base it off of
what the statute is the 350 and for the reason is is that if you just arbitrarily make it 500, then the guy that's 700 ft away, well, why didn't you make it 750? So, I got one, right? I mean, you're you're trying to avoid the criticism of not giving enough notice,
but that criticism is going to stay there, you know, at where you go, at wherever you set it. And it is more of a function that, >> you know, in St. Paul Park, I mean, we're a largely already developed city. We had these that that area that wasn't
developed. We got the big area to the south, both of those. I mean, but a lot of it is already kind of filled in and people are kind of used to things not really happening that often, no change. And so it is a situation to where we got
to be cognizant of the fact that we have to start um getting people used to the idea that they have to pay attention to what's going on nowadays because there's things that are going to be happening over the next 5 10 years that are going
to be impactful like big development projects that could happen. And so it's is that solved by increasing the the the distance of the mail? Possibly.
Um is it solved by you know you know mailing the notice out earlier? It could be if you just put the bare minimum in the ordinance and you just follow that at minimum. But then like the administrator, the mayor or somebody
can say, "Hey, this one's a big deal. We I think we should double it." You know, and then you just send it out more. I mean, you can do that as well on a case- by case basis. Um, but it's just that, you know, that's why people go with the the smaller number. It's just because
that's what you have to do by statute. There's no conflict with the statute then. Um, and then you know when people criticize that they didn't get a notice, you could be we're following the
statute, right? And the statute could is, you know, is what it is and we're just doing what we're supposed to do because when you start changing that number, you know, it's like what what did you base your change on it on? I mean, if you just are saying, "Yeah, you know, we
just thought for subdivisions, those can be a big deal that we wanted to go out to 500 ft instead." I mean, you could do that. And that's not there's nothing wrong with that, but it's just when you just arbitrarily make that decision, you know, you're going to get hit with
somebody being like, "Well, why didn't you make it bigger?" Because I would have liked to known about this, too. But in reality, anybody that has any interest on things that are going on with the city should be on the city's website looking at agendas
>> and cuz things are going to start happening in town where you know like that BNSF land you had that concept plan on that. >> Yeah. I mean, that's that's a big project and you know, someday that's
going to hit an agenda and you don't want to be the guy that missed that, right? >> Yeah. Well, no. And and you're right and and speaking of that project, that concept plan, you know, it's also it's a multi-stage one. It's not like we're just gonna have to put up with a year
of, you know, dump trucks and, you know, tra actually extra. No, I mean, that could be like it might take five years, could take 10 years to get that thing fully up to speed. >> And what and it could be two or three years where they build the first section and maybe get a year off and maybe a couple years later, well, they're back
again, right? >> Yeah. I mean, so I agree. And then that's what I'm saying, which is how do we get the people out there to pay attention and to read and to know what's going on in this room? And
>> that's what I'm thinking, you know, instead of just just a 10day, it'd be nice to do a 30-day for any big project, you know, >> but but then you're running into >> the other timelines for their submissions and and again, Mr. Spark says between submission and and you know, you've got 60 days. So if we have
to wait more than 10 days, we're just we're chewing up so much of our time even even if we're eliminating the extra public hearing. So it may not so the length of time might not be the best it might be
maybe the breath at which >> right >> and and I guess what I'm saying when when an idea big idea comes in so it's coming forward right okay they don't they don't have everything all figured out but at least that might be a time to let the neighbors know hey there's an idea that's coming up >> right well that's and that's the
distance and the time right >> so time is >> time is hard to and that's the most precious commodity that we have to be careful of. So that's not the place where we want to wiggle. My suggestion was and again it's just a thought and here's we can always just say let's pass
this in in total as it is. It's an ordinance. If we want to circle back to it later you know we can always come back to that particular provision at any at any point that we want to. >> Yeah. >> Because most of this content is a guidelines. There's not >> it's the how not the
>> significant Yeah. There's not significant restrictions in here. This is mostly guidance for for uh developers to follow. >> Yeah, it's the minimums that they have to follow. And like if you >> want to do something more specific like I mean it doesn't say that you can't
send the notice out to 500 ft. >> Mhm. >> It's just saying it's 350 because that's what the state says you have to do. >> I have a question couple questions. Um one is say you're talking about that big development down south of town. the impact, the daily impact is really
to the folks that live on third. Well, if you did that in the lineal feet, that's a whole bunch. Can you isolate a traffic segment that's heavily impact that maybe would have been a consideration with LAR down Lincoln? Um
I know that now we have a clear understanding of what preliminary means versus final >> and the importance of that. But if uh you had mentioned earlier about um the grading permit
um I mean I heard and I tried to pay attention everything that I heard but at no point did I hear that they would spend the majority of the summer hauling in thousands of loads of dirt. And I I struggle to believe that somebody didn't
know that go forward, but when you went up and looked at it, and I went up many times and looked at that from the top road there, and all you saw was treetops. So, it was hard to even for to to have an a grasp of what was going to really go on there. And I think that that development is a really good thing
for the city of St. Paul Park, but I think that the endurance of what went on on Lincoln during that transformational time could have maybe had been handled better. So that I'm wondering the the um ordinance says, you know, a
circumference of distance, but if that circumference of distance really is mostly relevant to potentially Third Street, can you isolate just Third Street so people know there's going to be a big increase in traffic? or could you have isolated Lincoln and you know
sent it out to just them and not a radius. So, that'd be the difference between having the baseline ordinance language, which matches statute, and then having a city council or the mayor or the the or city administrator saying, "Hey, we're gonna we're gonna hand out notices either we're going to expand the the distance or we're going to look at
the the travel corridor like, right, like, hey, we should probably just let the people of Lincoln Avenue know or just the people if they're again, also remember this is a logistical probably nightmare for city staff and it's and it's a cost, right? So every foot we expand, every road we give notice to,
right, there's people in that office that have to, >> you know, you know, put the envelopes together and they got to put the stamps on them and there's a budgetary line item that's got to handle that too. So I mean I don't want to >> and I understand that. I'm just saying >> having seen what we saw on Lincoln and
trying to avoid that >> heartburn on third, it's okay to isolate a street and not have it assumed that it's a circumference. Yeah, >> you could do that as I mean the the way the statute reads is it's the property
and 350 ft around it. So it's so that's what you minimum have to do, but you can say hang on here. Let's let's let everybody up and down this street know what's coming. Let's let them know.
>> So am I re like I think your suggestion is let's leave it as it is. Let's let let's make a recommendation to pass it as it is and then let's leave city staff, the mayor the flexibility on a kind of a case by case basis if they want to expand. And I don't think we
need a that that's not language any of the ordinance. That could just be policy or that could just be a decision that gets happened or that happens at the city level, right? just at staff level >> and you know like if we like with with the big picture of what we're talking
about here this change really like with what uh council member Conrad was talking about like on the back end with the final plat process. I mean, we were all trying to um you know, I know
council member Conrad Hagerty, uh all the council members, the mayor were like talking about the ideas that they had on how they wanted to manage the the final plat and the final development stage stuff with like the development
agreement and that appro and but then we were like having to hold these meetings where we were talking about the exist distance of the subdivision instead of focusing on those details, which is really the point of the final plat
procedure. He's like, we had people trying to um get things into the development agreement, but we didn't have as much time to deal with it because we were dealing with the existential issue of the subdivision
itself, right? And so if you think about it, if you had this development again and we had this procedure, the final plat stage would have been more tight on that topic, which would have given, you
know, we had two members of the council here like these gentlemen more time to assert what they wanted to have happen in managing the end of the process, right? And so this will be helpful on
that because we had to hold these hearings and we had to have another planning commission meeting that we had to schedule off cycle and all that stuff because it had so much interest and we really got to redirect that interest into the initial stages. So that the end
stages were focused on making sure that we're handling and managing the process for when it's actually getting built properly. We're checking boxes. We're not having the philosophical debate. That's what final plat is. Checking boxes. >> We're checking boxes. And then it's
like, all right, by checking this box, you know, they're bringing all this traffic down Lincoln. What can we do about Lincoln? Like we're talking about that stuff. >> Fix it at the pre-plat. That's what you do. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. >> So, yeah. >> So, when we by doing this, I mean, you
know, you can tweak notice requirements. You can get creative about how you do it, but you got to think on the same token if you put that in your code, the guy that's splitting his lot in half, right? He's going to get stuck with doing it, too. And so that's why I
suggest the case by case thing. But I think, you know, like if we go another 20 years without a subdivision and then another one pops up, nobody's going to remember, uh, you know, when we develop the property next to Geneva Meadows and all the people that live in Geneva Meadows
are mad about the traffic, ironically, in the future, >> are we going to remember that? So, it is, it cuts both ways to a degree, but by keeping it based on the statute, you
are uh you know you can do more on a case-byase basis which is what I think we want to do but I mean we can even put a line in there right after that said that says on a case-byase basis the city council can decide to expand the notice
requirement I mean you can put something like that in there just so people realize oh why is that in there may maybe that's something to do but >> well then they're going to get pissed if we don't then right let's leave it I'd rather just leave it as a I mean as a at the staff level. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> And so I mean if you don't have any big changes with this uh what we would do is take this to council. Council can uh you know you guys can like talk about this at the next meeting. Uh put this in but we're like I said we're still going to
have to come back and talk about street widths. Um you know things like that >> and we got to make those match your engineering requirements. and it was just too much for for one meeting here. So, we split it into two.
>> Do you need anything for I mean other than I mean I'm I mean I'm ready to ask for a motion. So, are you you're okay >> if you're fine with what we've got here? >> Yeah. >> So, I'll I'll look for a motion to uh concerning the uh the the code amendments for the um subdivisions. >> Do you make a motion or you
>> I'm looking for one. I'm going to make you guys work for it tonight. >> I'll make that motion. >> Move that. Well, wait. So, so you you're going to move that we recommend to the city council that they adopt the proposed subdivision or amendments as
presented here at this meeting. >> Correct. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> I have a second. >> All right. I have a first and a second. Uh all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Motion carries. All right. So, on our agenda, we have new business. Well, there's no more new
business. We don't have any staff to report on and I don't believe we have any unfinished business. So I will look for a motion to adjurnn. >> We can adjourn. I just had one question. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Yes. >> Fire away. >> Well, on that new development, you know,
that's being planned in the future 10, 20, whatever. >> The concept plan that we had for the Yeah. >> Where is the majority of that traffic planned on? That's a whole other city down there, right? So, is that right? The traffic going to come down Third Avenue? are going to come off Lincoln.
>> We're we're hoping to take it across the railroad tracks >> and Cottage Grove. >> Well, it'd be nice if they if we had multiple uh avenues of exit from that area. >> Some people are going to want to go through third avenue and come up. Some people might want to go through I mean, you know, if you want to go up to the
gas station, grab a coffee or if you just want to get to Highway 61 faster, might might make a difference which way you go, right? >> Well, that's what I have heard from some neighbors. How in the heck is a whole other city going to come out, you know, on on and down Summit or down Lincoln or down third. >> Well, I'll tell you what, show up at the planning commission meeting. I bet
you'll figure that out. >> Well, that's what I thought I'd toss it out there for you guys at home or whatever. >> Right. Yeah. >> Yeah. Just come on down here. We You'll learn all you need to know. Right. >> So, you say there's a thought of going across the train tracks. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> And who's going to pay for the bridge?
>> Oh, no. Yes. So, so the uh uh developer is going to give us their proposals. Okay. >> Yeah. So, they're going to be doing the study and then giving us their proposal. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And that proposal as they had it was that traffic would
disperse north through the city or south on the underpass. There's a concept that was talked about of a potential bridge, but again, they have to provide they have to update the AUR from the River's
Edge development to fit the number of units that they're proposing and it very well may work one way, may work another way. They have to provide that data >> and they have to look at
like all these intersections uh going up here. They have to look at these. They have to look at the impact there. They got to look at all of that as part of their traffic study. And then that'll determine what has to happen to support it. But again, I mean, the River's Edge
development proposal that the city reviewed and had the AUR on had more stuff in it than what we're talking about now because they like remember we had a concept plan
on the Riverside as well. You take all of this in totality, it's not as much stuff going on as there was before. It is been simplified a bit and probably more realistic uh on both counts, but
you know, there's DNR rules on the Riverside that reduce the number of units there. There's uh you know, because they're only doing half of it on this last one that we saw, not the whole thing. It So, there's some differences with what was done in the past and what
will be coming back. So it very well may be that not as much has to happen uh to make it happen if that makes sense. And like the way that traffic disperses, you know, they're going to provide a study on that. And you know, you have a finite
number of railroad crossings in this area and if another one's needed, another one's needed, right? And if if it works without it, it works without it. That would be what everyone looks at. and you know the developer has to
pay for the city to do that traffic study and so that would be what's happening next. >> Doesn't Met Council get involved sometimes with uh traffic flow, what's needed between cities and >> yes, >> you know, to most effectively manage not
just flow of who lives there, but also the flow for emergency purposes and all the rest >> of those types of situations. And Mayor Frankie talked about last month about, you know, working with the our state representative about getting some funding and look and reooking at like the 70th Avenue exchange and stuff. So,
I mean, I think that >> there are people, you know, there are people that are thinking about this already, which is which is good for us. >> Exactly. And I believe there may be some um communications going on about possible connection to um routes that would go through Cottage Grove.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah, it just it it's it's just stuff I've been hearing out there. How in the heck is that going to happen? You know, so >> well, stay tuned. You know, same bat channel, same bat time. We'll be here. So, >> thank you. >> All right. I'm looking for a motion to
adjurnn. >> I'll make that motion to adjurnn. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> All those in favor say I. I. We stand adjourned. Thank you.