Alright, I'll now call to order the May 29th, 2026 meeting of the St.

Paul Planning Commission.

First order business is a roll call.

Caroline.

Commissioner Growe.

Present.

Commissioner Hackney.

Is excused.

Commissioner Holtz.

Here.

Commissioner Johnson Becker.

Commissioner Martinson.

Commissioner Presley.

Not here.

Commissioner Riley.

Here.

Commissioner Sterling here.

Commissioner Tagiaff.

Yeah.

Commissioner Thomas.

Thank you.

Next up is approval of the May 15th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Do I have a motion on the minutes?

So moved.

Motion by Commissioner Holtz.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Riley.

Is there any discussion on the meeting minutes?

Seeing no discussion, we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

I'll abstain.

That wasn't present at the meeting.

All right.

Item passes.

Next up are public hearings.

And we're gonna have 1759 Selby, the non-conforming use, come up first.

And we've got Nellie Jerome here to speak on this item.

Good morning.

All right.

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners.

So this is a change in non-conforming use permit for 1759 Selby Avenue.

Here is the location.

It is in the Union Park District Council.

It's on the corner of North Wheeler and Selby Avenue.

It's a long sort of north-south property.

And the building covers the entire property.

And fronts on Selby Avenue.

This would be the surrounding zoning.

So there's some other businesses.

The interesting thing about this lot is that it's a split zone.

So the north portion of the lot is actually H2, and the southern two-thirds or so are uh is B2.

So that's why it would require a change in non-conforming use.

Um it is proposed to be oh, sorry, the change is from a finishing shop, which would be uh wood finishing for furniture construction.

There's some solvents used, and there was a furniture shop there for about the last 20 years, and then the proposed use uh would be a limited production and processing.

So the plan is to have a tea brewing and bottling space in the center portion of the building and then um sort of an artist or a maker space in the northern portion.

Um this would be the layout of the building, the right side is the south side, so that fronts on Selby, and that would be um retail, it's just a continuing use of what's already there, and then the center part of the building and the north part, so the blue and the pink would be the tea brewing, and then the pink is the maker space proposed.

So the change in non-conforming use permit standards, um all four requirements are met.

Um I can read them off, but I think you all have them.

And staff does recommend approval of a change of nonconforming use permit at from finishing shop to limited production and processing at 1759 Selby Avenue.

Thank you.

Um do we have questions for our staff?

Commissioner Riley.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Uh two questions.

One uh Mr.

Can you go back a slide?

This one?

Yes.

So can you um just state for the record a little bit more about the traffic generated by the proposed use being similar to that generated by the existing use?

So I'm specifically thinking about the furniture finishing as compared with tea brewing and profit makerspace.

No, though I guess.

Bottling.

Right, bottling.

Because I under I think if I understand correctly, that's the actual part of this remodel, etc.

That is the non-conforming use, the retail use is conform to the district.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

The traffic generated is similar.

The furniture shop had I think there were three owners.

The tea brewing is proposed to have one employee.

The retail is TBD, but you know it's not a change, so there's nothing required there.

And then the makerspace would, you know, have uh two or three artists, perhaps, but that's also TBD.

So it's just the one employee at the tea brewing and bottling.

I ask one follow-up question, sure.

Uh, thank you.

Uh that's very helpful.

And then so what I hear you saying is that the three owners of the finishing shop were the really the only people with vehicles going in and out to use that pre-existing non-conforming use, besides maybe a couple of customers talking to those folks.

Because it's not an intensive employee driven use, nor is it a retail use that has constant traffic in and out of the door.

And uh is that a correct that's correct, and then the one person brewing tea and bottling it, same sort of situation.

Yes, thank you very much.

Um that is helpful um for other folks just because uh, you know, reviewing the letters, one of them had comments about um business use and and shipping doors and some of those things.

Um can you just clarify?

I I know you sort of did already for Commissioner Riley, um, but sort of how staff would respond to the content of that letter related to the zoning.

The proposed change.

Sorry, what was the question?

Um just based on the sort of the letter of descent, um, just want to sort of clarify like clap staff's position on that related to the um the change.

Uh the they're commenting on things like uh the the shipping door, which from my understanding would be something that would already be part of um the um have I I have not seen this letter.

It came in at the end of the day yesterday.

It came in at the end of the day yesterday.

Are we talking about this letter?

Yeah, sorry.

Uh Commissioner Halls will bring that up and we'll just take a second real quick.

Thank you.

Oh wow.

Oh, sure.

Maybe what she's reading.

So I if if we understand this correctly, the this sounds like I'm just kind of an internal discussion, just to chew up a little bit of time.

This sounds like a lot less intense use in some in some aspects than the the well, I don't know if it's less, but maybe similar, right?

Um to what existed in the past.

I don't know who I'm asking that question to.

So I just I guess my thought on this is right now is is that it's pretty seems like a pretty benign use overall, and it seems like it goes well with what what's in the neighborhood.

So, um, perhaps Chair Mr.

Derby could tell us what some of the uses that are allowed by right in the B2 district are while we're waiting for Mr.

Rome.

Thank you, Commissioner Riley.

One more point.

She describes you.

I think I have that.

Thank you.

So sorry, you're waiting on me.

Let's hear from Bill and Some uses that are allowed in B2 include uh general retail service business with showroom or workshop, dry cleaning or commercial laundry, um, potentially a garden center with a conditional use permit approval, um, tattoo shop, vet clinic, bar, uh restaurant or B2 types of uses.

Thanks, Belle.

Nellie, has that uh are you comfortable responding?

Yeah, I think so.

Um let's see, the letter letter states that there's construction um and there's uh uh what is it?

A shipping door.

Uh minor saying is that there's there's existing shipping doors installed in the building already.

Um I think yeah, I mean, I think that that I understand the struggles of this neighbor.

Um but again, I the the use is the proposed use is uh less intensive than the previous use.

So I, you know, yeah, I I empathize.

Um, but I don't think that the uh change in non-conforming use permit hinges on this letter.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Um Commissioner Tech, yeah.

Sorry, um, I have a question for stuff.

When we're assessing a use and the intensity, are we assessing the use based on literally the activity that was there versus the activity that's planned, or are we thinking about it kind of in more abstract way?

Like in theory, does this use generally is more intense than the previous use?

In other words, if we had a furniture finisher here who was sending out one shipment a week, and we had a TBR who's sending out 50 shipments a week, or has that planned?

Is that the does should that be something we consider on our decision, or is it more about generally speaking a furniture finisher and generally speaking a T Brew would have this level of intensity?

Chair Commissioner Tagioff, I I think I would look at it as the general use because the previous use, we wouldn't have kicked them out if they had more deliveries.

They were furniture finishing, they could have continued to do that.

Same with this if it's approved, unless you put a condition otherwise.

Um if it's approved for this class of use, we would continue to allow this class of use.

I think that's really helpful.

Thank you.

Chair, just follow up on that question, and I guess sort of part of it is do we need to think about the most intense use possible with this type of zoning, or just because we're using uh a non-conforming use, we don't have to be as concerned about that.

I know sometimes in these meetings we talk about how when we rezone this, we shouldn't just be thinking about the businesses going in there today because we've sort of changed it for all time, but this is a little bit different than that, is that correct?

Chair Grill, Commissioner Holst, I think if it's matters to you, the uh intensity, uh and you would approve it if it was a certain level of intensity and not another, then you should consider findings and conditions along those lines to limit it to what you think would be appropriate.

So if you don't think it can meet the findings without conditions, then add a condition so it could meet the findings.

Uh Commissioner Riley, then Commissioner Thomas.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Uh Mr.

Derby or Miss Jerome.

Uh in the analysis, you discuss um when limited production and processing are first permitted, uh, which states here T2, and I think generally the city um and the way the T2 zoning district is written, um, that is more restrictive as stated here than B3, where finishing shop uses are first permitted.

Can you tell, can either of you tell us either answer either of these questions?

And if one of the answers is we don't know yet, that's fine.

Um we are review- I think we're you're undertaking a zoning study of various districts and streets and looking at them for T2 and looking at the T districts.

Um will you be looking at when and where permitted uses, whether that will change?

And that might be the question you can't answer right now.

Um and then the other one is can you tell us where other B3 districts are in relationship to this one?

I'll handle the first question while Nelly looks up the second question.

Um, so Chair uh Commissioner Riley, um that the question of what the permitted uses are in the T districts is not a core part of the upcoming study.

It's more of a matter of where the T districts should be in certain corridors in the city.

Um I I don't know that that precludes a tweak if we've found it necessary, but that's not a core purpose for that study.

Thank you.

And the second question was where are similar uses where are B.

Yeah, if I wanted to find a B3 zoning district, where would I go to find one?

Ideally somewhere in driving, you know, 15 10 minutes of this site, but I have lost track of where the B3's districts are.

You know what?

I'd I could dig around in the map, but I don't think you want to see me do that.

Um I am not sure the closest B3 district.

Uh I did not zoom out.

Yes, this is all B2.

Yes, I I understand.

But the use itself is first permitted in the B3.

The the previous use or the finishing shot was previously here, is first allowed, not in B2, because that's why it's non-conforming in B3, which is for more intense uses.

And so I'm curious about what the neighborhood character is around B3 uses in comparison to this one, since the imagined intensity seems to be the concern here.

Uh Mr.

Germany.

The closest B3 to here is about a half mile west-northwest at the intersection of Marshall and Cleveland.

Thank you.

So a similarly mixed-use area, but perhaps less fewer residential properties close by.

That corner has more intensity than this area.

So thank you very much.

That's very helpful.

Okay.

All right.

Um, so it sounds like there we're wrapping up questions here for staff.

Um so we're gonna switch to the public hearing and I'm gonna read that script now.

Um very smoothly.

All right.

Uh this is the public hearing portion of the agenda.

Planning commission decisions on most types of zoning applications, including conditional use permits, non-conforming use permits, site plans and variances are final decisions unless appealed to the city council.

Planning commission decisions on rezonings and master plan amendments or master plan applications are only recommendations to city council who make the final decision.

Planning commission findings must have a rational basis based upon the St.

Paul zoning code and applicable state and federal laws.

Today we're holding a public hearing with the following rules and procedures.

After I read the item, we heard a staff report, and then I will open up the floor for commissioners.

Uh, and then I opened up the floor for commissioners to have questions of staff.

The applicant will then uh will now be given an opportunity to speak about the request and answer any questions from commissioners.

After that, I will open the public hearing on the item.

All testimony and questions should be addressed to me, the chair, and related to the proposal before the commission.

If you're a member of the public that would like to comment on a specific item, you may do so by standing between the two center microphones, stating your name and home location for the record.

After you complete your testimony, please sign in on the sheet to your right.

Testimony limited to no more than two minutes.

You're allowed to speak only once, with the exception of the applicant.

Who will be able to respond to testimony and answer commissioner questions?

The first uh, and then today's application that we're holding this public hearing for is 1759 Selby, the nonconforming use permit.

Um we've done the staff presentation, um, so now I will call up the applicant to see if they'd like to add anything to the record or answer answer any questions from the commissioners.

If you're the applicant, you're welcome to come up.

You're not required to.

Hello, my name is Ann Ben Riswick.

I live at 2205 Harriet Avenue South Minneapolis 55405.

And I am not the applicant, I'm her friend.

We're her good their good friends, and they weren't able to be here today, so they wanted us to come in case there were any questions that we could answer about the project.

Um Nadine gave me some paperwork about it um that I could talk about, but I'm just here to attest to their good character, their humble and hardworking um personages, and um, you know we've been we've been hearing about the project for quite a long time now, so um uh I don't know what else I should say.

Um you're not required to say anything.

Um do any commissioners have any questions?

Okay.

Seeing none.

Um if there's nothing you are required, there's nothing you're required to add.

So um if there's nothing you'd like to speak on, um you're welcome.

I mean she just wrote down she you know we talked yesterday and she said uh just to mention that there's no on-street parking, that the diagonal use for the in is for internal parking and there's a minimum of five, and that what they're doing is all natural, there's no noise, it it's not toxic, it doesn't smell and it's a non-industrial usage.

That's what she told me to tell you all.

So, wonderful, uh thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

If you could sign in, please on the glad the tea's not toxic.

Um if there are no other questions, I will open the public hearing.

If you'd like to speak on the zoning application, please come up.

If you'd like to speak on this item, please come up.

If you'd like to speak on this item, please come up.

All right.

Uh seeing no one, um, I'll look for a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Uh motion by Commissioner Holt, seconded by Commissioner Starling.

Any discussion on the motion.

Seeing none, uh, we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

I all those opposed, any abstentions?

All right, the public hearing is closed.

Um, thank you, Bill.

Um, Commissioner Martinson.

We might want to make note on the public record that we've had two more commissioners join the meeting during the conversation.

Yes, um Commissioners Presley and Johnson Becker uh did join during the staff presentation at the beginning of the staff presentation.

Correct.

Thank you, Commissioner Riley.

I'd like to move the staff recommendation to approve the um change in non-conforming use from finishing shop to limited production and processing at 1759.

Uh we have a motion from Commissioner Riley.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Thomas.

Is there any discussion on this item?

Alright, seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

Alright, the item passes.

Um, and then we move on to old business of which there's none, and then new business and informational presentation on the sign code amendments uh by Tony Johnson.

Yeah, that's a good question.

All right.

Well, while the staff is preparing, I just I would just like to note if I may that that this this particular staff member is always raising the bar on this arctorial splendor to which we must aspire, it's true.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Martinson.

I would say yes, the best rest of the of the bunch.

There you go.

And Chair, can I ask uh Mr.

Dermitty uh question while Mr.

Johnson is getting ready?

Sure, Commissioner Riley.

What kind of question?

Uh it's a question about the previous agenda item, but related to the comment from the Union Park District Council.

It's unrelated to the decision.

It's an informational question in order to put over.

If it's an informational question unrelated to the decision, then I'm just for me.

He has a question for Bill about the Union Park Flatter.

Um, I'd be glad to at least listen to the question and research.

So I thought it was interesting and thoughtful that the district council president mentioned adding small-scale beverage production and maker spaces and artist studios to approved uses in the B2 zoning district.

So I just thought I'd state for the record that I agree, and it would be interesting to see that come forward at some point.

I guess it wasn't really a question.

Thank you, Commissioner Riley.

More of a comment.

And I'm a I apologize that my face always looks suspicious when anyone wants to ask questions that are even slightly outside of the agenda.

Trying to get something that's in personal.

Yeah, still shouldn't have to say, but perhaps uh, do it to that, too.

So that was maybe a bit of print it and it's yours.

Well, yeah, sorry, guys.

Um I might suggest taking this out of my phone.

Okay, yeah, I can do that.

Um if folks are, if commissioners are comfortable, um we might take the site plan review update out of order.

Um, if there's interest in that from the group.

Fine.

Yes, that sounds great.

Great.

I'm I'm doing it informally.

Um, so I'm gonna we're gonna do site plan review and then we'll come back up to the site uh sign presentations.

Um so the upcoming site plan review applications that have been received are two.

The first one is 389 Robert Street South site improvements um for renovation uh common bond communities, and then next one is A21 Woodlawn Avenue New Construction Highland Bridge, block five, senior residential.

And those are the two items on site plan review.

I think it's a lot of we could do uh announcements next as well.

Sure, uh planning commission chair announcements.

Um I want to say thank you to Commissioner Starling for chairing the last meeting.

I hear it went wonderfully.

Um, and that you know you're coming any day.

And I'm excited.

Um so thank you for that.

Um another thing is there are a lot of a lot of programming this weekend um in the city from sort of good different government partners.

There's um waterfest at Lake Phelan, which is always exciting with the regional water groups, um, and then there's the river walk inauguration tomorrow from one to four.

Um and this is the two mile loop that connects the Mississippi River to St.

Paul.

Um, and there will be uh live music, guided walks, games, food.

Uh so science museum to union depot.

They've signed that route um doing the loop.

Um, and there is a registration and information available on the city website as well as the conservancy website.

So just a fun update there.

Are there any updates from that?

No staff announcements.

No staff announcements.

All right, so we have completed announcements, and we are gonna bounce back to the presentation at this point.

Uh, I believe Mr.

Johnson is available.

Yeah.

Got our tech issues figured out.

Uh good morning, everyone.

Uh so uh I just wanted to come here today to give you an update on a study that I'm working on that is nearing completion.

Uh, this is something you guys uh maybe haven't heard about yet because it wasn't actually initiated by you as initiated by city council, so we wanted to let you know it's happening, uh, because I'll probably be done in about a month or so.

Back to you guys.

Uh so today this is just the general outline of what I'll talk about.

I'll give a little background about why the study came to be, uh, some of the communications that we've had with outside groups, um, and then just talk a little bit about kind of what's on the table, um, and then uh a little bit on the timeline.

Uh so as I said before, uh, we kind of did this one a little bit different, and this one wasn't uh initiated by you like the normal process is initiated by city council.

Uh, and that happened last month on April 15th.

Um, and this uh the the city council interest in this came um because of kind of communications they've had with interest groups, uh, specifically the Downtown Alliance and the Chamber of Commerce, who first advocated for changes to the sign code and then sent letters uh advocating for specific changes to the code.

Uh after receiving those letters, uh, the city council and mayor's office uh directed me to review the uh things that they're recommending, and then also identify additional issues and processes uh in order to create like a broader package of amendments.

Um doing this in a broad uh kind of package is pretty important because over the years we've made periodic updates to the sign code, uh, but there hasn't been a comprehensive uh chapter update in a really long time.

Um because we haven't uh done a comprehensive update, uh many of the provisions are now out of date and sorry, and uh more restrictive than Pierce Cities.

Uh so these are some of the changes that were requested in the letters.

Um they wanted changes to projecting sign regulations as shown in this picture, uh changes to sign allotments, uh, more permit exemptions added to the code, uh, changes to off-premise advertising restrictions, and then less subjective language.

Um, in addition to the zoning issues that they pointed out, uh, there is also a number of non-zoning code related issues identified with signs, uh, which we won't address with the study, but hopefully something that we can revisit uh with other uh departments that are responsible for these um kind of various things.

Um so that includes uh uh historic preservation standards and review, uh signage restrictions and sideways and skyways, uh particularly around sandwich boards, and then uh process improvements.

Um, and with the process improvements, we can um address those somewhat through code changes, uh, but we don't, you know, manage the implementation of the code, and so that's something that DSI needs to kind of look at and look at their processes.

Um, so in addition to that scope of uh study that was recommended by the Downtown Alliance and Chamber of Commerce, uh we drafted an additional scope and uh presented it to the mayor and city council, and they were uh in support of the additional uh changes that were recommending.

Um, and so what we've recommended uh to add to the the initial scope was to simplify district and overlay, so a simplification of district and overlay district standards.

Uh so right now we currently have uh 17 special sign districts, so every neighborhood has their own uh sign regulations on top of the regulations that we have citywide.

Um, and so what we will will recommend is deleting all of those.

Uh we'll also recommend consolidation of specific regulations by district standards, and then creating more uniform temporary signage regulations.

So right now this is kind of a code writing no no.

There's a lot of like standards and saying like how you do stuff in definitions, which creates a lot of issues because staff will miss it.

And it also makes it so that you can never like vary those standards because it's in a definition.

So we're moving those and uh moving them to the standards like it should be.

Uh we're going through and fixing contradictory language.

Um because we've uh kind of done stuff piecemeal, um, our code right now contradicts itself a lot, and so I'm going through and fixing all that and making everything kind of make sense.

Uh the amendments will provide more flexibility in residential districts.

Uh so this is uh probably the thing we get the most variances for.

Um so for like non-resid or non-residential uses and residential districts, the standards are pretty uh tight, and so we're gonna provide more flexibility for those uses.

Sorry.

Uh we're also looking at reducing the amount of prohibited sign types.

Uh so for example, uh roof signs and off-premise advertising.

And I purposely put uh this picture in my presentation, which is probably our most iconic sign in St.

Paul, the first national bank building.

And I put that there because this sign is now illegal with the way our code is.

Um, and so we're looking at changing the code to allow things like that.

We're also looking at uh allowing new types of signs, so allowing like wayfinding signs in the public right away.

Um, sorry.

So this is the kind of general process and schedule going forward.

Uh so the city council has already initiated the study.

Uh I have a first draft of amendments already completed, and um, it's been reviewed by staff, and I'm currently revising things.

Uh in June, I'm hoping to bring uh the study to you guys to review for uh to release for public review and then set a public hearing.

Uh, and then hopefully we'll have a public hearing in July, which would give us uh recommendation time in August.

Uh so from there I'd be happy to answer any questions that you guys may have.

All right, Tony.

I think there are gonna be some questions.

Um as we know, signage has always been a uh an interesting topic in St.

Paul.

Um, and I imagine we all have our own angle that we're coming from.

I have two questions.

I'm just gonna go first before we we go through everyone because I think they'll be quick.

Um the first one's around the district councils and like the Capitol River Council in particular.

Um, knowing that this is a pretty short timeline for like study release and and hopefully for approval, what's the process for engaging or sharing information with the councils?

Sure.

So I'm hoping to do a lot of the engagement after we release the study.

Um again, I'm trying to move this quick because it's something that the council kind of wanted it done on a quick time frame, and so what my hope is is that I'll come to you guys, we'll release it, and then I'll reach out to all the district councils and offer um presentations and then get them queued up for the public hearing.

Awesome.

And then I feel like the second question that I'm gonna get from people is around like digital display and our like large-scale billboard signs.

Yep.

What's sort of in scope for this versus out of scope?

Yeah, so we're not doing many changes to digital display.

Uh we will be in the draft allowing advertising but not billboards, so there's a little nuance there.

So the way our code just uh defines a billboard would be over 50 square feet of advertising, and so basically with the draft amendments as they are now, you could do up to 50 square feet of advertising, uh, but no more than that.

Um, and there's uh, you know, I mentioned like we'll allow roof signs.

So one of the things we said is you can do roof signs, but you can't do advertising, which is how like a lot of like the billboards like to do.

Uh we also in the uh draft amendments say they can't have a defined background, so they'd have to look like kind of if it's a roof sign, like the first national bank thing and it couldn't have like a big thing that you would put like advertising on, and so that was another way I tried to kind of thread the needle of like allowing stuff but not uh allowing billboards and things like that.

But I uh to to follow up on that, Chair, um the entire sign code is within the scope of changes you could make.

So if uh that's not a change that's being proposed to billboards, but if you heard something through uh public engagement that caused you to want to make a change, you could.

I appreciate that.

Yeah, I think you'll probably be hearing from us with more questions on digital display in particular, um, along with the what is and is not a billboard.

Um, is my guess.

Um okay.

Uh now I I saw Taggy after and then Martinson, but I assume they'll be and then Riley.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I have three questions, unfortunately.

So um my first question is just on process.

This is probably the I think the first study that's come to us, um, you know, post the reformation of the planning commission.

Um, I'm curious about how we want to structure kind of planning commission input.

Um, one of my complaints of the old system was that essentially the study would a study would come to us very first at the same moment we would be under pressure to release it for public comment, and at that point it sort of feels like it was somewhat baked.

And in the past, I believe C MPC would have had some form of input price at that point in time.

So my question or potentially request is is there a way for the planning commission to have some degree of input before we're looking at a final document to go out for public review?

Yeah, absolutely.

So you can um so like at CNPC, um, you know, it would kind of depend on the thing, but we sometimes we would take like three or four meetings to get through the content, and so when I have the draft ready, I'll do like a way more detailed presentation where we actually kind of go through things, um, and it might be a little tedious, but that's typically how I do it, is kind of just go through like line by line and explain like we're doing this why so.

So the intent is sort of to try and recreate at least some of the C NPC process with this body.

Yeah, I think so.

I haven't heard different.

Cool.

Yeah, to be the chair, Commissioner Tagehoff, um, Tony's going to come with more details, and you can take as many meetings as you need um before you're ready to release it.

I think that's great to hear.

Um, second question, which is sort of a we've heard a lot about the what of this study.

Um, I'd love to get just like a high level why.

Obviously, when we do regulatory studies, we typically have goals in mind, and what what I've heard is a sort of uh businesses wanted things, therefore the city council directed us.

What are we as a city hoping to achieve by this regulatory change?

Yeah, I mean, I think make it easier to start a business in St.

Paul.

Um, I mean, like I said, like we've we've periodically made changes to the sign code, but there hasn't been like a comprehensive update.

And if you look at our sign code compared to other cities, we're a lot more restrictive.

There's a lot of things that are just out of date.

There's again, there's things that don't make sense anymore.

Like someone wrote something somewhere, and then someone wrote something elsewhere, and so like staff has a hard time dealing with it when we have contradictory uh regulations, and so I'm trying to like clean up all of that stuff.

So this seems like removing unnecessary regulatory burden for businesses trying to make sure.

It's removing stuff, it's simplifying things, um, so like for example, like right now we have like sign regulations based off district in addition to those overlays, and so like I'm like consolidating things, so instead of having like individual district standards, there'll just be one set of standards for all commercial districts except for downtown will have their own standards, uh, one set of standards for all residential districts, and so I'm trying to just make it simple and easier to use and more business friendly and uh frankly more friendly for staff because the the way the code is written right now is really confusing.

Fine.

Um and then my last question, um, so given uh I remember personally sitting in several uh meetings, district council level where we um talked about the Grand Avenue Special Science District, one of the 17 in much detail.

And um when I read the words deletion of special sign digit overlays, I can almost feel the pearls being clutched.

Um so my question is when you say deletion, are we are we discussing sort of looking at all 17, seeing if anything is relevant in there and consolidating, or is it just merely like anything in there is not valuable at all?

My recommendation as of now is to get rid of them all in their entirety.

Um, Tony, maybe if I rephrase this, we'll we'll answer it slightly differently.

If there are good items in any of the 17, we would take those good items and move them into the overall.

So we we we could do that, but we've already kind of done that for the most part.

So most, I think grand might be the exception, but most of the districts, they they don't actually do anything.

Like, so like we like they they came about because over time different districts were like banning billboards and things like that.

And then we took what people were doing in individual districts and we put it in the main chapter, and so a lot of it's already been moved over to the main chapter.

Like that that's been done, and it's just most of it's unnecessary text.

So like right now, the sign chapter I think is like 47 pages because of all the the unnecessary like the district regulations, and so I'm trying to get it down to like half of that by consolidating things.

So that seems like a great idea.

Yep.

Wonderful.

Uh Commissioner Martinson.

Thank you, Chair.

So that conversation has answered one of my two questions.

Thank you for that.

The other question I had, so in in conversations around variances, often the discussion uh includes um considerations of the scale of the building and the scale of the sign.

And and I don't know if that's actually codified in the code or not, but it seems to me that it's an important part of the it has been an important part of the decision making.

I mean, when I look at it, I say, you know, it it's it would be kind of crazy to have like a little itty bitty sign on on, you know, Excel.

I mean, grand casino, right?

So having the scale of the sign appropriate to the scale of the structure seems like it would be a reasonable inclusion in the code if it's not already there, and the fact that it comes up in the conversation makes me think it might not be.

Yeah, I mean, so there, so the the sign, so there's two chapters where we have like additional findings for variances.

Uh one would be Merca, where we kind of had a little bit additional stuff, and then the other one is the sign chapter.

So doing sign variances are kind of they're kind of nuts right now.

There's like 10 required findings because there's the uh five or six regular findings that any variants have to meet, plus five more for signs.

Uh I I in the draft I am trying to simplify the amount of findings that have to be met for signs because I think it's kind of crazy to like regulate those more than kind of any other variance.

Uh but that that's something that you know I'd welcome your input on since you've had a lot of sign variances before to look at uh kind of what we're proposing for the new findings, and then seeing if um that kind of gets at what you would want to get at with uh reviewing sign variances.

All right, thanks.

Commissioner Riley.

Thank you.

Um, I'll start Commissioner Ratley.

Um, left off.

Um, Commissioner Riley.

Oh, no, no, I'm so sorry.

Thank you.

Um scale of building as related to scale of sign.

Uh I am currently evaluating and writing my own sign code.

And that has come up many, many, many times.

And all of the communities around the one in which I work seem to have gone that route.

So I just want to sort of encourage you to also think that way.

And um so that that's a comment, and then my other comment is on what I'm gonna call uh the subset of off-premise advertising signs known as outdoor advertising signs, commonly referred to as billboards.

I want to strongly encourage us not to change anything related to the way that is in the code today.

And relative to billboards for the sake of everyone's mental health.

Thank you.

And I'll just state for the record today as you're working through this.

And so I I hope that we think very thoughtfully and critically about the actual value of those signs to the people who say they need and want them relative to um the potential negative impacts to those signs on the surrounding community whether that is through say public health matters or um obstruction in the right of way etc.

Which leads me to my so that's two comments to a qu and that leads me to a question.

Yeah.

Um when you mention more uniform temporary signage regulations that's citywide.

Yep.

And will you evaluate all the different kinds of temporary signs because again there seem to be ever increasing different ways to put a temporary signs up.

Good luck.

Yeah I mean we uh so we we could get like very specific about different types of temporary signs.

Um in the draft amendments I didn't really do that that much I did a little bit um but not like a ton of that simple uh what I meant by that bullet point is um so like other signs there's like different district standards for temporary signs and I don't understand the logic with some of it of like how we regulated temporary signs in one district versus another and so again to try to simplify the code uh what I'll be proposing is trying to create one set of standards that fits a whole bunch of stuff so it's not again so staff doesn't get confused and then also people trying to just put up a temporary sign don't get confused.

We're also looking at increasing um the amount of exemptions for temporary signs so allowing some by right um and I think that'll decrease I mean permit review time but also the amount of variances that we we get in for those types of things.

Tony for folks that haven't been around signage as long as some of us um for the temporary signs in particular can you kind of give an example of a couple of them because I think some people might be thinking you know um I'm running a bike race and it's a sign in a park and or uh it's the predatory we'll buy your house for cash temporary.

Um so maybe an example of what like a another kind might be yeah I mean like a temporary sign would be like anything that's like a cloth sign or like a and so like those those actually would kind of fit a temporary sign regulations but typically it's like a business wants to put something up that's like I have this sale going on, right?

And so they want to put up like a banner temporarily it could be like for events or something they're having they might want to put up you know a temporary sign and not have that sign there permanently and so that's kind of what it regulates.

It also it regulates like portable signs so those like ugly flag thing.

Yeah would fall in the temporary sign regulations.

So yeah that takes um Commissioner Thomas.

Thanks um Chair Gro.

Are we uh thinking about to uh the evolution of uh digital technology and you know and how how it uh can parlay into the future because now you see all these like TV signs as you're driving on the the freeways and they change and yeah and I'm sure there's some studies out there that that um explore the impact right?

Yeah, there sure is and we were pretty restrictive about those already and I didn't make like a lot of changes to those restrictions.

So for the most part stuff with dynamic display will say the same and for like freeways for example um in order to do uh one of the things we did to try to reduce billboards is we created like this like cap and trade type system.

So if you want to do like a digital display billboard now you have to get rid of a number of other billboards in the rest of the city and so that's one of the ways that we've been reducing billboards over time and that's not something that I'm proposing to change at all.

Okay.

The change that I was talking about where again trying to find a middle ground would allow some advertising but it wouldn't allow billboards it wouldn't allow advertising in the right-of-way um and it's also it's about like wayfinding and stuff too and um can you define sorry can you define wayfinding uh so like signs that'll help you get to different way yeah find your way to different places right um self-explaining I can give you a good example of uh a Minneapolis one because they allow some of this stuff too so one of my buddies owns uh uh bricksworth the restaurant and it's like off of an alleyway behind the building and if he wasn't allowed to put up a sign on his neighbor's property saying like go this way to find it there's no way anyone would be able to find his restaurant um and so we're trying to allow stuff like that in St.

Paul with the amendments another follow-up so um I'm imagining uh a city um like New York or I don't know a city in Japan and there's like all of these neon and lighted signs everywhere and um so I'm wondering I mean are we we're not okay we're not we're not going that far okay I think you're you're a great this is a great example of of the kind of questions we're gonna get so I think these are all good questions to ask Tony now because yeah I think Commissioner Riley's questions, Commissioner Stagiaff's questions, Commissioner Martinson's mine are all coming I think from a similar direction of um we've also seen and heard things throughout this whole process um have met the organized groups in St.

Paul that are enthusiastic about sign regulation.

And so I think are are hoping to get some some answers out in the front end so that maybe we can yeah yeah so under the existing code structure and again this isn't something that I'm proposing to change.

I don't want to get into like you you have to in St.

Paul like signs like that have to be monochromatic we regulate like the amount of time that they can change from one image to another so kind of getting at what what you're asking about before we don't want to create like distractions for people driving.

And so we make them static we regulate like scrolling speed of signs.

So there's a lot of regulations around digital displays that I'm not proposing to to loosen as a part of this it's more about just making it like for you know your mom and pop business making it easier for them to just put up a sign and not have to jump through a miller and eventually go for it.

Even those signs will become digital I mean they possibly they they could but there's still there's there's a lot of regulations against them.

I mean so one of them for example that would maybe prevent that is only 20% of your total signage can be digital display.

And so for a lot of businesses they're not even gonna have like with their regular buildings their regular sign they're not gonna have enough extra signage left over to do digital display.

Thank you.

But Commissioner Starling or Holtz do you have any additional sign questions that we haven't asked already?

Just one of the comment.

I guess technology changes and I guess one of the things I think about is sign light intensity.

You know, neon lights had sort of a certain level of brightness and that was about that, right?

Um, but today with LEDs and and other technology, I I feel we need to start thinking about something comprehensive as to sort of make sure that signs have a recent relative brightness to it, especially at night.

And just sort of the classic example I'm thinking of, it's not actually signage, but it's really common in like smoke or tobacco shops where they put the white lights around the windows right, and you're just like really and I know that's not exactly what I'm talking about.

I think it's an example of like how on a scale sometimes something can be.

So we we do regulate that already.

That's that's another thing.

I'm not I'm not planning to change.

So that maybe something you can help me out with is if you if you guys are seeing signs and you're like that's too bright, um, you know, let's let's talk about it.

That w I'm not um planning on making the the code less restrictive or more restrictive in that regard at this time.

I feel like we should think about that, because it's you know, it's gonna be a long time before it gets updated again.

And and I I mean I I get advertising and I get an interest there, but I I just I just don't want people to start taking too much advantage of like we'll just make it more intense and more intense.

Yeah, they can't make it more intense in terms of light and okay, and what one thing I will say, and I think you guys know this, we're kind of complaint-based, and so like for us to go check out a sign, like if it's too bright, yeah.

Um, typically a complaint has to come in, but the the way we do it now, it's measured off of foot candles, and basically there's brightness standard, there's foot candle standards based off of the distance of the sign.

So the way what would happen now, like say you saw a sign and you're like, well, that sign's really bright.

We would send an inspector out at night, they have a light gun thing that can like read lighting measurements, they take a measurement and see if it meets the code or not.

Um I will say is public part of public testimony.

There's I think you'll hear from a gentleman that's that's gonna suggest uh changing the measurement.

Um that we do it.

So there's there's a bunch of different measurements you can use to do sign measurements.

Um one of the more common ones is changing it to knits.

Um, yeah.

I didn't do knits because I'm not gonna recommend it because we already have technology to measure in foot candles, and so if we do that, we have to get new stuff to go to look at knits.

And you can convert foot candles to knits, but it's I don't I don't know if we want people to doing math or not.

So I'm having so many flashbacks.

So many conversations over the last few years.

Um Commissioner Starling.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh Mr.

Johnson, I have not had any of the trauma around signage that some of my fellow commissioners have had yet.

And I'm looking forward to reading the proposed amendments.

Can you just briefly lay out um what some of the pieces of a sign conage uh sign code look like?

And thinking there's a location, there's a zoning, yeah.

Zoning or land use dimension to it.

Is there also a who is the entity posting the signs?

Or is it locational only?

So location, um size, obviously, uh there'll be height.

There is sometimes there's stuff based off like who's doing the sign.

Um so for example in residential districts, um, like that we prohibit dynamic displays except for things like for schools and churches and things like that where they have like the bulletin board.

Uh so there's sometimes uses come into play, but for the most part, the sign code would regulate size and placement of the of a sign.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Riley and then commitment, you've been so so polite.

Commissioner uh Johnson Backer or Commissioner Presley, do you have any questions?

Thank you, Chair.

No, I don't really have any questions, but um, well, maybe it's a question um thinking about um signage when you um again when you talk about wayfinding signs, especially in neighborhoods maybe where you're thinking of um creating uh history or a tour, exactly walking tour, um signage, wayfinding signage, and how is that going to be regulated or is that going to be allowed?

Yep.

So that is so I had uh kind of our cultural destination areas in mind.

That's something that we talked about a lot when I was managing that program, is we the we like don't allow wayfinding signs.

So that's what I'm trying to get at allow us to allow folks to put up signs that can direct people to different destinations, or it could direct people to like say there's a district parking lot that's off the street.

You could put up a wayfinding sign to say like parking that way, or you know, we could say the rondo district this way, um, that type of stuff is what we're trying to allow with the wayfinding.

Just a follow-up chair.

Um, again, then what about um kiosk um signs that are more permanent, but maybe a person can walk up to it and push a button and a talk, or it may light up, whichever might want to show a map, whatever.

Yep.

So that is another thing we're trying to to allow with uh with the sign updates.

I I will say I do in between now and getting this back, I do need to have conversations with public works.

I haven't got to them yet.

Uh just to let them know like we're gonna get rid of the zoning restrictions that prohibit this.

Um and so that you know, I kind of talked about I can only do so much with the amendments, and so I need to work with other uh departments to kind of do comprehensively what we're everything we're trying to do with signage reform.

But the zoning code will no longer say no on those things.

And then I one more, and I would assume that um signs that are already in place, they're gonna be grandfathered into the um the new codes or whatever.

Yep, exactly.

And would um input not implicate them but influence so if they did um want to take down their old sign to put up a new, then they would have to follow the new code.

Yep, that's that's correct.

And and the new code, I mean it it would be standard easier than the old code.

So like I don't think there's gonna be a situation where um unless it was already non-conforming, like where they take it down and they can't put something back.

So like the first national bank example is a good example of like today under the existing regulations.

If they got rid of that sign, it's never coming back.

And like again, I think this is our most iconic sign in St.

Paul, and so we're trying to allow more creativity.

And I put so this is another one.

Like, I put signs that are problematic with our code in kind of on purpose.

So like the Schmidt Brewery sign, another really cool sign you couldn't do under the current text amendment current text.

Uh, but with the amendments, you could do something like that.

So hopefully we start to see cool signs again.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Johnson Becker, you don't have to comment.

Okay.

I don't think I'm traumatized by sign.

And I'm so happy for you for that.

Um it sounds like we just even based on this conversation right now, um, I imagine it's gonna take, and and we wanted to take probably more than one meeting.

Yeah, um, just an assumption.

Um, and so I think maybe I'm just saying that out loud for all of us for general planning purposes, that we might have maybe an informational and a discussion meeting, and then perhaps one that's more of a vote um after that, and and maybe that's a conversation we can have with Yasmin.

Um, but I I don't think we're getting through this in in a meeting, um a vote and a discussion, unless I see dissent from around the table.

Okay.

I mean, we yeah, we can go at whatever pace you guys feel comfortable with.

I'm I'm okay with whatever.

Um I will say though, so don't don't think of like the first step as your only chance to make changes.

Um so the way it works is we'll release it, and then when it after we hold the public hearing, you guys will get it, we can make changes then too.

So like if there's things that you're iffy on at the like releasing stage, you know, a strategy could be like let's release it, hear what people have to say, and then come back and make changes before we send it to council.

Thanks, Tony.

I think for this one in particular, and again, I don't want to speak for everyone, but there are probably some things in there that we all feel strongly enough that before a public hearing, perhaps we we want to address before we have have that conversation in public.

Um, and maybe maybe it's perfect and we don't, but um, I know that I'm just generally nervous about signs.

Um, and then oh, I had one more thought related to that, but it is gone.

Um I saw right Christian Riley and Tagia or hands.

So to your direct follow-up to Tony.

Last comment.

Yeah, go for it.

Um, just really quickly.

Um when we're thinking about the strategy of how much to agree beforehand or ofta.

The question that goes is how much change is reasonable post a public comment period.

The way I've always looked at it is kind of you want something going out of public comment, which is at least relatively bait, because then if we want to bring in substantial changes off to the public comment period, that can feel like a bait and switch.

Well, so I would say keep in mind that we in St.

Paul we have two public hearings, and this is kind of why we do it.

So you guys will hold your public hearing and then you can make changes, but the council will also make changes or will hold a public hearing.

And so, like, say you guys make changes that someone doesn't like, they have a second opportunity to go speak at council, and that's why we do two in St.

Paul.

Legally, we're only obligated to do one, but we do increase process for this very very reason.

Thank you, and thank you.

Uh uh thank you, Chair Girl.

I just I wanted to sort of agree with your statements about the potential length of time this might take, and then following up from Commissioner Holt's comments about um intensity of light uh and measuring in nits versus foot candles, um, which is directly related to technology and perhaps my personal fear associated with historic sign code experiences, however, I think it's based in fact.

So I encourage you to look at how LEDs work and bring back information to inform us about how LEDs work because my understanding is that LEDs can produce a brightness that is significantly greater than other lights without spilling over on neighboring properties, and that is what your foot candle measurement looks at and your complaint looks at.

It doesn't look at whether the bright it light is annoying, it looks at whether it spills over onto the neighboring property.

And so I encourage you to, for example, look at the new street lighting.

I think Commissioner Thomas will know where I'm going with this, perhaps, um, on arcade slash highway 61 uh along Phelan Park and into Maplewood.

The new lighting there is LED lighting, it is dark sky compliant per our regulations, and it is potentially the brightest stretch of roadway in all of St.

Paul, but it doesn't spill over.

So you can see that light coming down the hill from Maplewood, even though it's not spilling over.

You can see as it gets darker, you can see the little pools of light.

So I think it would be very helpful for folks to understand a little bit about how lighting technology works today and how intensity works and how we might actually tackle through DSI's process, um, that concern because if you look at, for example, another example on the canopies of gas stations often have very bright LEDs that do not go beyond the property line, but you can see them for miles.

So I encourage you to think about how you share that information with us in the public to reassure them that they will not be bothered from a public health and safety standpoint um by uh new lighting technology.

Yeah, I could I can look into that.

Um we could also do, I mean we could do two standards, we could have a foot candle standard and a knit standard.

So the benefit of NITs is it's easier on the sign owner because they can program their sign to like do what the code says.

Uh my concern with it is more of like an implementation, like how does us the city get into that?

But I can I'll do some figuring out of stuff.

So one of the ways I've seen just to what seen in regulating that is to have the provisions of the sign, just like we do with speaker boxes.

As some of us may have experiences with drive-through speaker box issues, um, you can you can be shown how it's set, and then you can determine that they have met that, especially when an LED may not spill over onto the neighboring property.

Yeah, no, I can I can I'm I'm with you in solidarity.

So this is good I came here first, I can make some final uh final revisions.

Um I think to two all of the points that we've made today.

Um I think we're we're going to ask a lot of Tony.

We're already asking a lot of Tony around signs.

Um, and I know we all read our packets before we come to the meetings.

Um, but I think for the two sign discussion meetings in particular, um, please read the packets.

Please be comfortable with the materials, discussing the materials so that when we're having the meeting and we're discussing them, like we've all been through the content.

Um, because I I think, yes, we we have the potential to get into the weeds um on this one, and I think there are places where that makes sense.

But I think if we're all starting from kind of a level point on the signage, that will make the conversation a little bit easier.

Um so that is my request of everyone is to familiarize yourself with the document that Tony sends us.

Um any other questions before we wrap this up?

Great.

Thank you so much, Tony.

All right.

Uh so that wrapped up our new business, which was the informational presentation.

We took site plan review out of order, um, and we did announcements already.

So with that, we will adjourn the meeting.