They had family visiting that weekend. >> Okay. >> Sorry, my clock says six. Good to go. All right. Good evening everyone. I'll call this meeting to order. Our um first order of business is to adopt the agenda for tonight's meetings uh meeting. Commissioners, is there a motion to adopt the final agenda? Make a motion to adop adopt the final agenda. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Our next order of business then is to adopt the minutes from our July 1, 2025 planning commission meeting. Commissioners, is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> Make a motion to approve the minutes of the July 1st, 2025 planning commission meeting. >> Thank you, Erin. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. And all those in favor? >> I I. >> Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. We'll now move on to our discussion items. The first item for discussion is item 3.1, which is to discuss the proposed R1A Oldtown Residential Zoning District. I'll now turn it over to associate planner uh Travis Briley for a staff presentation. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Um tonight we are looking at a potential uh zoning district known as Oldtown Residential, which would be a subset of our R1 zoning. Um this request is or what we're looking at the background on it is based on a request that we recently had for an amendment to the R1 standards which was recommended by denial by the planning commission and subsequently denied by the city council. A result of that is to look for ways that we can still spur infill and redevelopment within the community. Um so the staff was directed by the city council to explore their options and as a result the R1A has been formed. Um the process for this is we're going to review uh the language that's been prepared with the planning commission to get feedback. We'll take that feedback, we'll do some updates to the ordinance based on that feedback and present it to the city council. Uh the city council will provide feedback for staff. Um and then we will go ahead and schedule a public hearing so we can get feedback from the community. So there's no decisions to be made tonight, just feedback for staff, comments, questions, concerns. Um the whole idea is that by October, um we can have a determination made by the city council whether uh the zoning district should go forward, what it should look like, or if it should be denied. Just a little bit of history on the area that we're looking at. It is south of Highway 5 along Victoria Drive going to the east and the west. You'll see on the screen, uh you'll see outlines of everything in red. Uh that's the primary area that we're looking at because those are our more historic districts. Uh if you ever look at aerial photos from the 20s and the 30s and even the 40s, um most of the homes that you see in those aerial photos are going to be inside that green box that's in the center toward top. So you'll notice that a lot of these are 1914, 1940s,50s,60s going into that era. Um, so some of these have been platted before Victoria was a city. Another way to look at it is we take that information, we break it down to our examination area we're looking at. That's everything that's highlighted in purple on the screen. Um, you'll notice that where those stripe lines are, those properties have PUDS with them. Uh so they have other allowances. Um the affected parcels for what we're looking at are on the screen. You'll notice that it's almost the same except that there's two parcels that we're looking at. One is on the north along Quamquit which is a multifamily housing and that does not fit within our R1 code. So that'd be better suited to be with our central business business district. And also to the south side of that along Patunia, you have a property where it's an R2 with a question mark. Uh the reason there's a question mark is because we're just confirming some legality stuff as well as working with the property owner to figure out the the best definition if it should be an R2 R3 and then what capabilities that the city does have in moving forward with that. uh both the property owners in this case um I've been able to get in contact with to get their feedback to see if this is something that they would support not support so on and so forth. At the end of the day the zoning of properties within the city is guided by the planning commission ultimately approved by the city council. >> Travis, what's in that orange box today? >> Uh it is a um duplex which is which is would be a legal non-conforming status for the R1 zoning. Got it. >> Um the R1A would allow for duplexes. The biggest difference that would come in the future with this would be the amount of impervious cover because of the size of the site and improvements that the property owner has been requesting. It comes down to figuring out what best suits and what has the least impact or least adverse impact on the neighborhood if any as well as allowing the property to flourish as much as possible. So it's a balancing act with everything. Um the true affected area is uh the area shown on screen on the left side, especially west of um County Road 11. You'll see that there's a bunch of blue dots and a blue line though. All those properties that represents our shoreland overlay district. So those properties are within a thousand ft of the ordinary water marks of a body. Um, uh, the proposed language that you'll see in the future will have an effect on those properties to only allow for potential shrinkage and setbacks, but not lot size, lot width, and those type of criteria. Um, to the to the other side, uh, it's a little bit different. You'll see that we have two parcels in green. those can would have the maximum amount of effect by an R1 district allowing those properties to subdivide completely without having any type of significant restrictions. The property that's in the center uh is along Victoria Drive that's highlighted in blue, that property there has shoreline that partially goes through it. So, it will only be slightly affected to where the shoreline ordinance only affects the portion that covers the property. And that's primarily going to be with the 25% impervious cover. The two properties that you see that are highlighted in red on the left, those properties are large enough which underneath the ordin underneath the proposed language would be able to be split. However, because they're in shoreland, they couldn't be subdivided. So, just to point out the maximum number of properties that would be affected by this. >> So, while we're looking at everything with the R1, >> Travis, can you go back and say that one more time? Sorry. >> All right. So the red properties are large enough where underneath the proposed language and the R1A would be able to be subdivided into two parcels. However, being with inside the shoreland overlay, they would not be able to do that because they wouldn't meet the shoreland overlay requirements. >> Okay. Uh the blue and green ones, >> the the blue parcel is partially affected by the shoreline overlay to where they would only be affected in that small area on imperous cover restrictions. And we did confirm that with the with the DNR that that's how they want their rules interpreted. The parcels that are highlighted in green, those parcels would be able to be subdivided and take full advantage of an R1A uh zoning as far as our bulk standards go. So, >> so the one on um in blue, the blue box >> right in the center, >> right in the center, is that 8101 that we talked about earlier? >> Correct. That's 1801. Yep. >> I'm sorry. 1801. >> Yep. >> That's the one we talked about. Uh there is a proposal that was brought forward to the city several months ago uh to do a subdivision. And that's when the recommendation came forward from staff that the only way to make that possible was to request an amendment to the R1 zoning standards. um which we looked at uh and were denied. Uh so this is a way to take that and shrink it down to more specified area and look at an actual certain type of housing stock that the community does have instead of affecting all the housing stock. We can narrow it down uh to help with that redevelopment. Many of the homes here were built between the 1920s and 1980s. >> Okay. >> So 1801 would not be divided into two. it it would be able to be divided under two underneath the proposed zoning regulations which uh we'll get to. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, just a quick overview of what we want to do. The the intent of the R1A zoning is to take our R1 standard and allow for a little bit of flexibility. Nothing that changes the characteristics of the neighborhood. Nothing that changes the characteristics of the community as a whole. Um, we're we're looking for slightly smaller lot sizes, smaller uh front and rear setbacks. Um, it's been pointed out that our sideyard setback is something that we've gotten some push back on at staff to keep alone. So, those haven't changed, just the front and the rear. Um, it also allows for u a more varied type of housing stock that we have. Homes can be taken down and rebuilt. So, a home from like 1930, you might demolish and put in a brand new home. Um, it might make financial sense, it might not make financial sense to a developer, to a private property owner to do so. So, we looked at doing other things such as twin homes or duplexes. The main difference between a twin home and a duplex. A duplex has two residential units with inside one structure. Twin homes are two single family homes that are joined by a single wall. So, uh, the other thing that we looked at was the effect on the comprehensive plans and we talked to Met Council about it. Uh, the Met Council doesn't see, uh, any changes that we need to do to our current comp plan, which is the 2040 comprehensive plan. However, when we start going through our 2050 comprehensive plan, we'll need to add the R1A as a zoning district, but we won't have to change the land use designation uh for that single family um because we can allow for that single family to have a little bit broader definition such as we currently do. We also looked at the shoreland ordinance u as the DNR what's the possibility for getting some leniency or any type of variance to the regulations in this area. They came out with the resounding resounding no nothing will change requested it'll get denied. So we're not even going to consider that type of option for the area mainly because we can't have one area of the community where the shoreland ordinances are one way and then the rest of the community has to have it another. It's not a fair application of any type of regulations. We want we want to keep everything fair and transparent. So just a reminder where we're at. Like I said, the the true effect, we have different partials in there. The shoreland on the west, non-shorland parcels on the right. I don't know why that why that doubled. That was weird. Anyways, uh so just comparing the bulk standards between the R1 and the R1A. Um the R1 you'll see is labeled in the blue. Uh where we have 12,000 square foot minimum watt size, 80 for the width, 130 for the depth, and we have a front and rear setback of 30 feet. Um, so those are the main things that we would be looking at for the comparisons on it. As far as the sideyard setbacks, that'd stay at 10 feet. Impervious cover stays at 35. Maximum height stays at 35 ft. Uh, with the R1A, uh, we'd be looking at going to a smaller property size, which would allow an increase in density, but it allows for that smaller property to go to 9100 square feet. Um, we would be looking at corner properties at 75 and then the interior properties at 65. This still allows property or homes to be built that can fit on the parcels, don't cause obstructions, and still fit within the character of the the neighborhood. Uh, looking for your lot depth 110 ft. That's just because of some math. That is 110 ft. Most of the parcels with inside the the area that we're looking at are between 120 and 160 feet in depth. So 110 feet that's already being met and you wouldn't be able to split any of the parcels to have that really be an issue. Um front yard setbacks and rear yard setbacks taking 5T off and making those 25 ft. That's mainly because the size of the parcels. When examining the area and looking at the at the historical plats and where homes were built, we see homes being built anywhere between about that 25 foot mark and about 40 feet depending on what area you're looking at. If it was done in the 19s, 1940s, 1970s. Um, so there is a a variety there. By shrinking that distance, you're going to allow for property or homes to fit on those uh smaller parcels evenly. You can still have a larger home, but it would be similar to the type of housing stock that already exists, not to the type of housing stock that we're building with say Lenard or MI or >> uh we're also looking at introducing the twin homes in there. Uh >> I had a question. >> Yes, sir. >> Question. Why the large discrepancy in the lot size between a twin and a duplex? To me, they're close to the same product. I mean, a duplex can be either side by side or stacked. whereas a twin home is basically side by side. Correct. >> So, Commissioner, that's an excellent question. Um, let me answer that for you. A twin home is considered two individual residential dwellings there. So, they're considered separate buildings. >> A duplex is considered a single building with inside it has two residential units. So, with twin homes, each home you look at as a single family home on its own parcel. as we're duplex you have one parcel and that's where the change goes for the density requirements is the difference from you're going to have two residential units on a single parcel. So if you make that parcel smaller you can have a higher density compared to or excuse me if you make the parcel larger you'll have the same density as a twin home that has two parcels. Basically, the twin home, if there's twin home A, twin home B that are joined, A has to have 7260 minimum, and B has to have 7260. They add together to make the 14 500 as a duplex, right? And then if it's a duplex, it would be just one larger parcel instead of two smaller parcels with the same amount of residential units of two. >> I didn't get that either. That's a good question. >> Yeah, it's a super good question. I didn't understand that. That's more for like when we look at the map that's going to apply more to the was it the green >> we yeah if we if we take a look so let's take let's take an example of uh the center green par highlighted parcel here currently there's a single family home on the parcel if the if the parcel was to be split and they want to do two twin or they want to do twin homes on it you would need two parcels so each twin home is on a parcel However, if they wanted to redevelop it into a duplex or take the current single family and create a duplex out of it, then you would have to meet that higher standard of the 14.5,000 square feet for the parcel size. It goes it goes back to the calculation of densities and making sure densities are comparable uh for your residential equivalencies. >> Okay. So, and that's one of the things in here with like a twin home because it has to have an adjoining wall between them. Twin homes are usually they they're on separate parts. So, they'll never be stacked. They'll be next to each other. It would have 10 feet on the non-adjoining side. So, you still have that side setback, but they would be touching each other with the common wall. Uh duplex you could build vertically on top of each other. There's some specific rules that go into that. Um, but those are more building code questions which I'm not as prepared to answer as I'd like to be. >> Okay. Thank you. >> One question on that map too. The the R3 that's designated is that so that's currently >> that's existing. Yes. >> Existing R3. >> Correct. Uh that property is currently a forlex. So, the the R3 parcel that's listed on here and the parcel to the north that we're looking at, uh potentially looking at what zoning would fit best for it, they're owned by the same individual. >> Okay. >> So, one's a forplex, one's a a duplex. Um, and the property owners looking at making some improvements to the site, especially with parking, storage, and things like that. We we want to take a look at what options are available to find that find a good balance and something that' be good for the community and not negative for the neighborhood. Uh when we're looking at principal uses, like I said, we want to stick with the R1 type of uses. So the only real difference between this is is that the R1A would allow for twin homes as well as duplexes. else. Everything else is the same. Um, for the garages and accessory structures, a lot of things on here, but basically what we did is we're using more modern language to meet the same intent and the same goals that we see in our current zoning code, as well as looking at some of the comments we received. So, just to highlight a couple things, um, you can't have an accessory structure that's going to be greater than the than the principal use. So you can't build a one-story home and then put a two-story garage on the same property. It the the principal structure this the home residential piece of it should be the focus of a residential property um in the opinion of staff. So therefore this rule comes into play. Um the total footprint of garage space, whether it's attached or not, and and accessory structures um and whatnot, should be no larger than the footprint of the principal structure, uh with a maximum footprint of 2,000 square feet. Getting up to 2,000 square feet would be fairly difficult with the property sizes that can be allowed. Um, based on your percentages, uh, if you're looking at 35% of a 9,100 square foot lot, you're looking at about 3,000 square feet or about 3500 or was it 3,600 feet worth of impervious. It's hard to get to, but the idea behind that type of language is yet again to keep the primary focus of the property, the residential property, residential use piece, not the garage piece. Um, so we're this is trying to encourage uh single family dwellings with families, not with single family dwellings that have a garage that has 15 cars in it to to help with that type of stuff. Uh, the other thing that we looked at is metal cover storage buildings and pole buildings. Uh, metal storage building isn't isn't a metal just a metal roof. It's the full metal all the way around. Metal roofs are still permitted. uh keeping that out. That's more of an agricultural use and it there's no way you're going to get that type of building to match the type of home if you build it over 200 square feet. Um sticking with the same thing that we have, no more than two accessory buildings. So you could have one attached and one detached structure. Um but no more than two accessory structures. So you could have two detached garages or detached garage detached shed or attached garage, detached shed. So you can have that, but it limits it. So again, this is all focused back at residential use. That's what that's what we should be looking at. We drive down the street. Um, we still have the rule in here about the 200 ft or greater. It still requires that you have uh comparable or compatible and similar type of design. So if you have a blue house with lap siding, you shouldn't be putting in a shed with stuckco siding. If you go back to lapard, you should make them the same. uh if a building or access session buildings attached to the main building. So like say an attached garage uh it has to meet the require or the setback requirements of the principal structure that's currently how we operate in the current code. Um garage doors was something that we looked at. Uh setting a maximum height of 10 ft. Generally there's for residential vehicle what you're going to be driving on your dayto-day there shouldn't really be a reason to go above 10 feet. um unless you have a boat then you might need to go above 10 feet but in that case that would require a larger garage and could distract from the single family use. That type of language is common in other codes, not so much in the western part of the cities but throughout different part of the city as we were able to see it as well as talking with other individuals. But it's a way to keep that large garage from happening. Um, also making sure that that we have the rule in here that specifically states uh that land can't be subdivided to where an accessory structure is the is the principal use of it. So, if you have a detached garage, you can't split the property. Say, well, the home's over here and the garage is on this parcel. You would have to uh raise the garage in order to split or you'd have to make the split go around it. This is language that we talked about in in previous code review about making sure that when we do a split, it's it is conforming at the end of the split. Um, right now we don't have that language in our current code. So, this is a way just to kind of get that in there now. Yes, Commissioner. >> Uh, what where'd you come up with a 10 ft? Because I think most the neighborhoods are probably eight at a max. >> Correct. So, why would we put a 10 on the R1A on what's going to be smaller buildings and duplexes? >> So, uh, Commissioner, at this point, we don't have a restriction on garage heights as far as the opening goes. Um, we have some newer homes. Some of the carriage homes have 10 and 12 foot garages. >> Carriage homes, but not small homes down. >> Not not small homes. Not for this type of area. uh the area that we're looking at has they're significantly more affordable than what we have in new development. Um you have a lot of the homes in the area, they're valued at anywhere between 280 and 450 $500,000 compared to the new residential homes that we look at. Say a Lenard product comes in you're looking at $800,000 $900,000 to fit our market. If you put in an $800,000 home next to a $300,000 home, it's going to be out of place a little bit and it's going to take decades to find a way to get the neighborhood to transition over. This makes it so that you can still build new and you can still have that creative design, but you're sticking with the theme of it is an older part of the community. It's the historic part of our community. But 8 foot is a is a pretty standard going back to your your >> I don't know what what you would have. You would have to have like a pretty large you have a lifted truck, you might need 10 feet, but >> 10 foot 10 foot was the max that that we looked at. I talked with the the building official uh about different size garages that comes into play. And he says typically they see between 8 and 10 feet for the garage height, but anything bigger that you're starting to get into another realm of a type of garage that you need. >> Yeah. The question is if you're trying to restrict something, restrict it. They'll leave it. >> This is really just for the R1A. It's not for all codes in general. This is just this section, right? >> Just R1A. And at the end of and at the commission, I'm more than happy to to note that there's a sense to move it to 8 foot. That'd be fine. >> I'm just asking because I don't I don't know any any I mean, I know there's a couple like bigger pads that have like maybe a 10 or whatever for vans to go in or RVs or that kind of thing. Then RVs can't fit in 10. So Travis, let me just understand in the meeting materials, there was a detailed section on garages and accessory structures, >> correct? >> Which I thought were useful. Are we talking now are we going to talk about more generally or just about R1A today? >> So this is just about the R1A. So one of the things because we do have two things going and some there's some overlap. >> Y >> when we're looking at the R1A tonight, we're looking at comparison to our current code. what we currently have for our language. What we'll talk about next that is proposed future language. So there will need to be some adjustments based on the R1A. There'll be some things that may overlap that we'll look at at that time and as staff will get squared away before uh we do any type of public hearing and whatnot. But for this for the purposes of the R1A conversation, the conversation on a full code review doesn't exist. >> Okay. All right. So um and that and that's where that's where letter I kind of comes into play is we don't have that language. So now we can put that language in and uh we can make sure that if there is redevelopment and infill housing that type of stuff it's done in a more appropriate fashion and then later on next year when we start looking at doing actual approvals on an update to the entire city code that language is already in place. Okay. Uh the other thing that that we want to look at that we don't currently have is that an accessory building in no time should be used as a habitable space nor can an accessory structure in a residential district be used at any time for commercial or industrial use. Um except for the accessory dwelling which then becomes a habitable space at that point. But the main purpose behind that is if you're running a a business out of your home that you're not using your garage to run your business out of an at home business is supposed to be within the home. Um, and we'll we'll be discussing the the home occupation stuff in in a future meeting, just to point out. But that's the intent behind that. Uh, the other thing we looked at is shipping containers or your inner module container. Um, basically if you're moving into a property, set it on the property, set it in the driveway, what have you. It in two days you got to you'd have to get rid of it. >> Um, >> so does that apply to like those pods? would apply to the pods and all that type of stuff. Now, one of the things we look at and we say 48 hours you have you have to get rid of it. Well, >> this it's a zoning code. So, the enforcement piece of it is let's say somebody has it there and they need it dropped off on Thursday and it's not getting picked up till Monday. Well, by the time that staff gets a chance to go out there, investigate, take the pictures, send the letter, it's already going to be gone. So, there is some flexibility in there that's an inherent ability of being able to enforce our code. Can they apply for a permit to have something longer? >> Uh we do have uh we're working as staff at looking at our rightway and rightaway obstructions. >> Okay. >> Um and that's how we come forward. Now, this is all going to take time. I just want to >> Yeah. >> point that out, but that is something that we're looking at is how can we better manage our rideaways. So, if you do have a pods container and you want and you want to put it in the street, right now it's more or less let us know when you want to do it and where it's going to be, when it's coming, when it's being picked up, some safety items get put on there and then we send an email back saying okay or we deny it. So, what we're looking at doing as staff is actually creating a more formal process. So, that would go back to this. The intention behind this type of language is to uh prevent individuals from getting a shipping container, plapping it down in their backyard and saying, "Well, that's my shed." Y that's the intention behind this. >> Does this impact construction use of a shipping container for their tool storage? >> If if a property is under construction, there's certain leeways that are given underneath the building permit. >> Um if it's being used for constructive purpose, then it's fine. It'd be like uh if you have pallets of roofing and they're out in the front yard, well, they're not being screened, things like that. That could be violation of code, but you're actively building a home. You have a permit to have that type of exception. Um the property has to be it has to be maintained and controlled, but it does exist. >> So, we don't have any provision for accessory dwelling units in people's backyards. accessory accessory dwelling units underneath the current code requires a conditional use permit. >> Okay, >> that's all that the current code says. >> When we're looking at conditional uses in the proposed language, we have accessory dwelling units. Then we have a couple items just a small checklist of what would need to be done such as it's counted part of the principal structure if it's attached to it. So it can count towards a footprint. Um, if you're looking at a detached one, it needs to meet the setbacks and of the accessory structure. So, it can still be a habitable ADU, but now it meets the accessory structure is detached because they're generally smaller. And then and with that, that footprint would count against the total number of accessory structures as well as the size of accessory structures. Um, and then we looked at the Austrian requirements. we would require one more parking stall um to be there and that limits the amount of on street parking that may be required um depending on the type of residence. I grew up in a larger family who said we could only park two cars in the driveway. We'd have to park them out on a county road and that wouldn't that wouldn't go well. So, um we do take those type of things into consideration when we're looking at this. Uh the other thing we' be looking at is daycare facilities. Um conditional use perm for that. Uh that so that's play equipment being in the rear yard not an easement. Um and parking should be prohibited on the uh right away for employees. That's different type of stuff we looked at when we went through use last year and uh principal and accessory uses within our residential districts as well as in our commercial districts. >> So they're treated actually completely separately from the accessories space defined in section 4 >> in a in a way >> in a way. So, a with a conditional use is a permitted use, but the city has the right to put conditions on. When we list certain things out in the code, those are mandatory conditions that cannot be altered. So, those would be things where you wouldn't be able to go in and say, I'm applying for an ADU to go in my backyard, but no, I I want it bigger than what the code allows for accessory structures. You wouldn't be able to get that. You'd still be restricted down to that size. every and that goes back to everything is written in such a way where the primary focus of the resident property should be the residence not anything that's accompanying the resident itself and an ADU is separate from a duplex as well when it comes down to the definitions as far as access goes it's a little bit different duplexes you can have a split entry for a duplex you can have two entries for a duplexus have completely separate entries um and sometimes there are connecting walls with doors between And sometimes with duplexes you don't have that. So there's some minor details which separate the two and then also affected with building. So couple things for discussion tonight. So that's just the highlights. That's not every piece of information that's within the code. Um, but I do want to point out that there is a red line in there and basically the overall idea is that we highlight the change or some of the significant changes, some of the policy decisions that come with uh creating an R1 and and using a modernized language and modernized structure for it. Everything else fits with inside the current R1 regulations. So for discussion tonight, uh staff would like feedback from the planning commission on the front rear setbacks being reduced from fi by five feet from the R1 standard. So from 30 feet to 25. Uh the lot sizes, the width, the depths reductions from the R1 standards as well. And any questions that may exist with that. And then allowing duplexes and twin homes um with inside this area and how that might affect the community. These aren't apartments. So, it'd be more no more than two dwelling units that could be on there. Um, and then as well as the accessory building standards, especially with uh the footprint size uh changing instead of looking at 900 square feet per for a permitted accessory dwelling or accessory building, looking at it can't be bigger than the home. So, that type of information is what staff is looking for feedback. And with that, I'd appreciate any feedback or questions. I have a I don't know if philosophical is the right word, but just a bigger picture question of I want to if you can clarify, Travis, this R1A is only going to be for downtown. >> It is only going to be for the area highlighted in gold. So, we're talking the other side of Highway 5. >> So, this passes, six months go by. a resident not in this area wants to reszone their their home, would they be permitted to to submit an application to reszone their home, their lot to R1A? Commissioner, it depends. Um, if the property would be adjacent, so let's say it's out in uh so we look, we got um Katie Hills uh third edition was or Katie Hills and Katie's third edition was done in 1986, 1988. if it was one of those properties that would be adjacent to the R1A, then that's something the city would be able to consider. But let's say it's on the east side of the street instead of the west side, so it's not adjacent. At that point, we wouldn't be able to do it because that would be considered spot zoning. So, they would have to be adjacent to this to the R1A set up. >> So, individual property owners couldn't. But let's say then uh the next developer comes in and says, "We want to plot this chunk of this new development, just use LAR as an example. They come back and they say, "We want to plot most of this as R1A." Are they going to be able to do that? So, all zoning decisions, especially what the designation is, is something that the planning commission reviews on an application the city council has the final determination on. It's one of the few powers where the city can go in and say, "This is what it's going to be, and that's it." And it's just it's done. There's no appeal on it or anything like that. That's just that's a right that the city has. >> Okay. U no that that's very helpful. I just wanted to like understand if that's >> like how this is working. And then my second followup to that again is so part of this discussion has been keep doing all these PUDS and like skirting R1. how much of the rest of the devel of the developed areas fall within the proposed R1A lot sizes etc like and maybe not all of the city but of the recent PUDs that have come in how many of them fit within the R1A has that exercise been done >> we commissioner we did take a look at that uh before when we were examining the R1 uh it's with that we I'd have to go back to the previous presentation that I gave a month ago on it to to remember for sure, but we we did take a look at that and look at average sizes between it as well as comparable zoning and other communities and things like that. Um ultimately with this with the R1A being proposed for where it is and its limitation in scope um if a PD comes in and there's or if a developer LAR comes in and says hey we want to be R1A for our zoning the planning commission can recommend no and the city council can be like no and then they have to still go through the same processes. >> Yeah. I'm thinking less of limiting and more of enabling. Um >> or the city well city council could also say yes to it and the planning commission could could do that. But the intention of the R1A zoning that is set up is specific to our older part or one of our oldest parts of the community and our most historic area and that's been the direction that's been provided is to focus it within this area. So, I don't believe underneath the current uh political structure that we would see that happen, but I could always be wrong with that because I don't make that determination. >> Yeah. I mean, if you go back to the table, like as I looked at that table, I could be wrong. Someone else might have a better memory, all the R1A single family look very similar to all the recent PUDs we have approved. And so if I'm a developer, I'm going to come in and say, "Hey, well, zone this is you. If I reszone this as R1A, I don't have to go through the whole PD rigma row and a whole bunch of, you know, stuff." I I don't know if that's the fact if that's the case. I just I just want to make sure we're thinking like the bigger picture of like how is this going to affect the rest of the development, especially south growth that's happening? And if it's not R1A, is there and maybe this is part of the comp plan is to figure out what's the in between R1 and R1A. >> Commissioner, that's an excellent point. Uh, one thing I'd like to point out is that the parcels that are redeveloped are not within the corporate limits of the city of Victoria. So, they're actually in Lake Township. When those parcels are brought or annexed into the city by ordinance, we actually annex those in as an agricultural property. It has an extremely low density because they're greater than 10 acres per unit. Um, so they have to so the developer has to request a resoning. The city needs to approve that resoning and then the PUD is based on the resoning that's requested and approved. The PUD then allows for the variance to that zoning to take place. So just because there's a zoning that's on the table doesn't necessarily mean it's a zoning that will be chosen. It doesn't mean that it's a zoning that won't. But historically we see properties come in as an R1 or an R2 because those are generally put in a larger scope and designed and built for the larger type of developments. >> Yeah. And and maybe it's like outside of the realm of this. I think just my additional feedback would be that we continue to explore that side of it so that we stop everything that's been developed doesn't meet R1. Like by letter of the load it's it's deviated so far from R1 that like why do we even have R1? So I don't know maybe it's not the if that's not the intent of the oldtown residential that's fine. Um I would have thought we would do something a little bit more comprehensive but that's okay. I think we can tackle this and then hopefully expand it. But think that's a big need so that we make things more consistent and things actually meet our zoning zoning uh code. >> Can we put in building like specific requirements of like it needs to look a certain way? So like they can't go and like demolish this house and then put up like the most ultra modern house that manages to fit in this zone. >> Commissioner, that's an excellent question. Yes, but no. So, one thing that'll be brought forward uh in about two to three planning commission meetings is a draft language for what we call the anti- monogamy ordinance. So, that's something that we have or monotony, excuse me. >> Oh, we like monogamy. >> Let the record reflect that. Uh >> so, uh I apologize about that gaff. Uh so that that's something that's coming forward and looking at. So when we're looking specifically towards this and when we look at development um to commissioner cross point we have everything comes with the pe when it comes to development and that's one of the reasons that we looked at the R1A as a potential amending it allowing for smaller taking a look and doing an analysis throughout the community what would be affected and that's what was presented with uh a month ago on the R1 which was denied for its amendment is because there was a question about control by the city to be able to have greater control over those type of developments. When we're looking at LAR and MI and Albert Thomas, that type of stuff, those are production home builders. They have 5, seven, 10, 12, whatever style homes that they're going to build. And you can say the garage, the third stalls on the left or it's on the right and we want this. And then for the old town that we're looking at and with the R1 way a the intent is they have somebody comes in and says, "Okay, this house needs a lot of renovations. It's not financially worth doing it, but hey, if we split the property, we can build two new homes on it." Now, those two new homes need to fit within the neighborhood. So if you have a lot of ramblers building ramblers, you have the two store, you don't have the 4,800 square footed home that's two and a half stories with a full basement sitting next to a home that is a rambler that has a small deck and a shut out back. So that's the main thing that we're looking for. As far as the creative design of the home goes, there's a freedom of speech element to it that we have to be very careful not to a bridge. >> Could we have like a historical element to it like must maintain within a historical because that's like between what 1970 to 1919 in that section technically. >> Commissioner that is an interesting question. Um, I have worked in other communities which have historical districts. >> What I can say is that establishing a historical uh dynamic to it involves a lot more than just a couple sentences within the the ordinance, we would be talking a lot of work that would need to go into play as well as some legal actions the city might need to take to actually that um if that's something that wanted to be explored. Um I I would request that that direction would come from the city council just because of the labor and the time intensification that that's been required. >> If you look at so excelsier has a historical district downtown and uh very complicated, very high bar to get that designation. Um oftentimes challenged in court. Then Deep Haven also years ago tried to go with an architectural standard and um generally lost time and time again because it was too subjective. You know what you think is looks great I think looks like a you know piece of crap. Um so whose architectural opinion and and again they struggled for years and years to come up with a to to stop the McMansion kind of you know because Excelsure same thing they have a lot of um turn of the c turn of the past century cottages that they were seeing two or three of them get knocked down and then this 10,000 foot house go up and Excel is still struggling with that with the homes along the comments you if you ever drive through there. It's really tough to keep the old >> and share commission. One thing that this ordinance does is that when we're looking at those production type homes, you're looking at those threecar garages that are 24 ft deep, right? Or fourcar garages that are 20 24 ft deep. underneath the regulations of what you can do with an accessory structure based on the size of the parcel based on actually being able to build a home that can suit a single family. You're not going to get a lar production home built anywhere within these regulations. >> It's the properties are already generally small enough where that's going to be difficult outside a handful. So, as far as keeping a similar design, that's kind of built into what's possible to be built on the property based on market conditions. >> So, that may change in the future, but under current conditions, >> you're just we've talked to a couple realators, they don't know if they could sell a $600,000 home next to a $300,000 home just because there's that significance of a difference in how the used, maintained, all types of stuff. Not saying that one one property owner is better or worse than the other or anything like that. It's just the style of the homes. They just don't fit. And generally individuals don't want to buy homes where they're the sore thumb of the neighborhood sticking out. >> You don't buy the worst home. You don't buy the biggest home. >> Other comments? Yeah, I was just going to say is the goal the goal of this is to have people buy these homes and rebuild something else on the footprint, right? Isn't that why we're doing this? >> Correct. Something similar uh in size that of the surrounding homes. Yes. >> And so if we're accomplishing that by really only I mean changing the minimum lot area, what is the imperviously the existing? Are they all around 35 or close? because it looks like some of these are small lots and to be 35% seems almost impossible. >> Generally, it's 35. They range between 30 and 35 and then uh the shoreline properties are are limited to the 25%. So if they if if I if I bought a lot there and the existing structure was over the max impervious, would I have to use the existing foundation and all that kind of garbage or could I just demolish and reestablish on the same lot lines or could I create a new structure or under statute if you voluntarily destroy more than 50% of the value of the legal non-conforming structure you lose the legal status for it and then you have to come into full compliance during the remodel or reconstruction with So, so are we setting like I'm just wondering if we're setting a too high of a bar on some of on the impervious, for example, if somebody if you really want somebody to buy a lot over there and and redevelop it into a a nice home and the existing lot has uh >> I think I think the west ones were they're just so they're in the shoreland. It's the east ones. So, I think that would be a good feedback is to double check that the east ones that are not in the shoreland. If we want people to buy it and rebuild, >> it's a good point. >> Let's let them, you know, let's make it available in the code for them to buy and rebuild. >> And the on the minimum lot size, you get what about a 2500 or 2600 foot >> foundation on the if you had the minimum lot size, if you look at what 35% improve, I guess was about 25 or 2600 foot >> the foundation. So you go up >> and have a 5,000 foot house if you want. >> Yeah. And I guess I was just thinking about if you have a >> you got max height. Well, but that's >> foot garage or 1,600 foot garage >> and then a driveway because these need a driveway. >> Yeah. >> So, and and those are all valid questions uh and comments and and we'll definitely take >> I would just say if our goal is to make these available to be sold and rebuilt, let's make them available to be sold and rebuilt and not have people back here saying, "Okay, well, the impervious was already over, but now I got to keep the structure or not or modify this or that." I just kind of as as a reminder underneath here, the properties that'd be able to subdivide uh to meet these type of requirements are the the five parcels that are highlighted between the red, the dark blue, and the two greens. And the two red you would be subdivided. So, we're looking at three parcels for subdivision. So, you'd be looking at parcel collection to do some type of redevelopment. Um that would go into place. If some if a developer came in to do that, it's likely they would have a request to the city to take a look at maybe some standards. >> Not not a developer, individuals. If individuals want to buy a lot like are all of these lots going to kind of just tear it down and build rebuild without having to his point worry about the 35%. >> You would still be restricted by the impervious cover regardless. So the question would be is 30 if 35% seems low. Now granted most of these parcels that we're looking at are between 12 and 18,000 square feet. These aren't 9100. They're not 8200 that we're seeing in some of our more recent production of elements that have gone in. >> So these are larger parcels. Um, if we're talking about the percentage, the question would have to come into play to what either directing staff to look at a certain um footprint between the accessory structure as well as the footprint of the home. Uh, one of the reasons for the smaller setbacks is to get rid of five feet of that impervious cover in the front yard or in the rear yard because there are alleys in these areas too. What could we could something like could be the greater of existing footprint or 35% impervious? >> We would have to set a hard number commissioner. >> Um and that's just the main reason for that is we want to have a fairness in the application of the ordinance. If we say well it can be whatever it was when you demolish the home then one home could say maybe be at 45 and the other one's now at 38. >> Sure. >> But that >> why what's wrong with that? Well, the concern the concern that I would have with that, commissioner, is that that would be saying, well, you bought a parcel and you want to do X, Y, or Z with it, but you bought it with current conditions. You didn't like the conditions. Therefore, you shouldn't have to abide by them. Well, if we start making selective enforcement on what a property should be, then we don't have an even application of the code between parcels. We wouldn't we don't want >> that. But property values all have different values because of their characteristics, right? >> Prop property values are set up in various ways. You have you have the land value and you have the the building value or the the improvement value to a property. A lot of that is based on various formulas that go to the age of the home, goes to remodels, uh goes to type of home, type of footprint, and that type of stuff. If you put a new roof on your home, your home is five years younger. Now, in the in the eyes of looking or generally, sorry, I should say in general, excuse me, because I'm not an assessor, it makes your home a little bit younger, which actually raised the value of your home. But when we look at property values, we look at the type of property or the type of property, the dirt piece is looked at to figure out how much the dirt is worth or what that would realistically sell if there wasn't a home there. And then the type of home that's there based on the age of home as compared to recent sales within a local and a regional area. It's actually some real fun stuff if you ever >> No, we all know how to assess home values. But my point is some lots are worth more than than one right next to it. So if there's if there's a house, you're saying that it can't be in the code as existing or x%. >> I would I would >> it's a hard no. Then let's move on. I'd be more than happy to talk to the attorney, but I would be very strongly against doing that because I I feel that it' be difficult to staff for us to be able to justify an even application of that type of language. But where we could maybe go is to say because we're going for a little bit higher density in the R1A, you know, dropping the square footage to 9,000, maybe the impervious goes from 35 to 37 or I don't know, 40 is maybe too far. But so you you give >> Yeah. What's the max existing impervious in the region and set the watermark there, >> right? or or somewhere in between because there's probably a couple small lots that you probably don't want to go that that far. But I I do think that's a very fair comment that staff should take a look at what is the max, what is the minimum, and what is our distribution of current impervious percentages of these lots because I think that I think it's a good point that 35% might not be enough. and chair commission. What what we'll do is staff will take a look to see what properties are at and we'll present that to the city council to get feedback and see if it's something that they would want to entertain and if they're looking to entertain and we definitely bring it back to the planning commission for greater feedback on on that type of thing. >> So I have a comment and then a couple of questions. Um my comment is I think we've now come full circle because u we did this as a solution to not having the precedent of lowering the standards for R1 developments generally. None of us like that. >> Uh including impervious coverage setbacks and the like. Um, so my my my other comment is akin to Mallalerie's. This is a charming area, Victoria, that we all appreciate and value, and I'd like to see it remain like that. I wonder if there are some objective things. If we can't dictate architectural or aesthetic standards, are there things that we can do? For instance, um, not allowing future access points from Victoria Drive into a property. um requiring preservation of heritage trees along Victoria Drive. Those sorts of things that would be objective that would help preserve the aesthetics of this beautiful little area. Uh I'm less concerned about setting a precedent for developers to come in and say, "Well, this is your R1A standard. This is what I want, therefore, for my PUD." Um I I don't really have a problem with 35% impervious. Um I But then again, I don't know. I mean, we do want people to build nice homes, not make McMansions. And so, the 35% acts as a bit of a regulator on on size as well, which is kind of nice. Um, but I would I would encourage the staff to look at other objective things that we could we could do in this area to help keep it attractive. >> I like the idea that of like the mature trees. You can't come in and um you know buy that thousand square foot house that's been there for 100 years >> and knock it down. But I'm going to take out 15 mature >> trees to Oh, that's right. >> something bigger. So and chair and commission we do have certain regulations already within the subdivision code which would apply to any individual lot being subdivided. >> Yeah. um that involves trees, especially heritage trees and and their more elder trees. So, a lot of that's taken on case by case basis, but we do have regulations that we strictly enforce. Staff is very passionate about making sure that our tree preservation, our vegetative means for redevelopment. Is there a way that we could see what kind of materials are being used for like the facing of houses of like my thought process here is >> if we have you know these standard houses that are gorgeous in this area and then someone wants to go and build like a stucco house in the middle of all this like I don't think there's very many stucco houses in Victoria. So, I'm going to go to the next presentation to bring up a slide getting getting back to that question because I'd like to stay on point with the R18 as much as we can during that discussion. Um, so this is the last slide that I have for both presentations today. And if you look on the right side for the standards for residential districts, we have number nine, which right there is where we'll have the ability to set certain design standards that can't necessarily influence or can't restrict on freedom of speech and freedom of expression. However, we can dictate it and there are limits to what we can do with that, but I said this was going to be something that we're we're going to get to, but for now we're just looking at that is any change that would be done there would ultimately have an effect on the R1. I'll explain why and how that works >> when we when we get to that point. >> I wasn't sure with the one a if that also applies for like >> nope >> with one it applies to everything or one A is just it own >> little subset >> when you look at a when you look at a zoning district and you see an R1A or an R1B R1C basically what that does it says okay R1 standard well now you have R1A is a slight deviation from that to a specific area R1B is the same thing to a different area and and things like that. That's where that comes into play is allows to still have the single family but allows for different standards based on the needs of the community with those areas. >> Got good. >> All right, let's move on to the um next discussion item which um >> Sorry, >> no. Sure. No, no, it's fine. >> Leave that chart up there. based on the pace that this development would happen and the fact that we see um deviations all the t all the time anyway and there's opinions on what we want to keep in the area and not does it make sense to slightly alter one of these to put a blanket on to see dev or to leave it and be able to see the deviations as they come up Right. So instead of making a new code, a new R1A designation, leaving the existing, they're all under R1 single family currently. And then as the development happens, review the deviations case by case >> by variances. That's spot zoning commission >> that >> maybe >> we would not meet the practical difficulties test especially the plight of the land owner um in that case to allow for deviation especially dimensional standards or in any of our bulk standards and the main reason for that is that a property owner purchases the property if they choose to redevelop it but don't like the rules and ask for a variance then we're granting something specific to a property owner that the reason that they wanted is for an economic purpose and an economic purpose alone. Not that the property couldn't be redeveloped. If you could build a home on it, doesn't matter if the footprint of the home is 1,200 square feet or 2,000 square feet. As long as you could redevelop a home, a variance would not be applicable. That's where we got with the proposal that started this whole conversation, you know, a month ago or whatever was and a variance wouldn't work. Um, it didn't fit the R1. So then they were talking about PUD. Well, we're not going to do a PUD for one house or one or for two houses. And so as we kicked a lot of that around finally said, well maybe this area given the way it developed a 100 years ago um we need a new you know R just having R1 was too restrict >> mini district. Yeah. >> I I like the idea of of R1A. Um, I I would encourage staff to look at objective criteria that would help preserve the the charm of the area, including front yard setbacks, access points, historic trees, that sort of thing. >> All those things are very important and the direction that we were provided from the council was to keep that charm. So, everything that we write, we want to make sure that it's staying within that. >> Excellent. All right. Anything further before we move on? All right. Thank you, Travis. Our second and final item for discussion tonight is item 3.2, proposed revisions for article three of the zoning code update. I'll now turn it back to Travis uh for a presentation on this topic. Chair, commissioners, now we get to get into the fun part of our zoning interview. There's a few new commissioners uh since we started this process earlier this year. Um, I would like to to point out before we begin just a little bit of background with it. Staff started looking at this and doing specific ordinance updates that came forward last year as well as the year prior um to get some of the shortfalls that we had in the code corrected. And as a result of that, um, SAS's been able to find time uh to go through. I mean, not a lot of time, but enough time that we're able to go through and we've gone through the entire zoning code page by page in its entirety in its current format and noted it and reviewed it and discussed it, wrote it into a modernized format, reviewed it, noted it, discussed it many, many times. There's a lot of there's a lot of eyeballs on this process. We want to make sure we get it right. We want to make sure that we can have a fair and equal application of everything through it. Uh any comments received tonight, any changes go into a redline version of the draft that you'll see in front of you. All that information is noted and it's going to be tracked by staff so that we have a log of all the types of changes that we do. So far, we've only been through two articles. We're on article three. Everything goes into this wonderful binder here that has all our notes, so we can go back and take a look at everything that we're doing. Um there are a lot of things to it. We're uh tonight we're going to be looking at a lot of the performance standards, but because of the complexity that performance standards bring and the ability that they have to affect land use rights as well as the ability for you to just kind of do whatever with your property, we want to make sure we take this a little bit slow so it's going to be broken down into a little bit of a longer process. So, with our zoning code update goals, first off and foremost, we want to be transparent. We want to make sure staff is available for questions and that any comments received are noted and that they can be discussed um either at the staff level with the planning commission, ultimately with the city council, or any combination thereof. Uh we want to make sure that we're flexible during the process. Just because we would say something tonight doesn't mean that uh we get to another part of the code and we don't need to go back to like, you know what, it just doesn't work with what we thought before. We're going to have that type of stuff. it's going to come up no matter how much we try. It's going to happen. Um the other thing we're looking at is we're looking at doing a re a review of our municipal code which for the most part will not be seen by the planning commission because that's more that's the criminal side of the or of the city code rather than the zoning side. There are sections that will want to run by the planning commission for feedback, but we want to do conjunction. when we get into some things that are conflictual between zoning and municipal, we'll make sure as staff to point those out as best we can. So therefore, there's an understanding of why something is written in there or not written in there based on comments. Um the ultimate goal is to put the municipal and the zoning code back together into one city code and recodify. The goal is early 26 is probably going to be closer to the end of summer or fall of 2026. uh just because process is a little bit bigger than about a year longer than than initially anticipated. Um just quick background um the reason that we started this was we were looking at the zoning code and we realized that there was a ton of shortfalls and all we were doing is patching everything together. The code was originally codified back in 1998 and subsequently it's had various amendments to it. So, it's just you tons of different things in there and not everything lines up. Some things are out of date. We found some things that were illegal. Overall, we identified over 500 items just within our zoning code that we need to take a look at for review. Um, so the question was asked earlier if we open the file and sometimes it just sits there and loads. Absolutely. It's the the main file that all this is saved on is massive. Um, we did, like I said, we went through and we looked at our more immediate amendments last year. Uh so we looked at our business districts bringing back the C1 and C2 especially for our south growth development. Uh we reviewed conditional use permits as well as instituting uh interim use permits u and a lot of that had to do with some of the ways that it was written. It was fine back in the 90s back in the 2000s but there's been different standards that needed to be applied. We looked at our sign ordinance and how that application goes as well as our fence ordinance were some of the larger things that we looked at and got squared away um before we started this process. So overall process is to review the proposed language go through look at everything and this the bulk standards performance standards overlay district uh administrative uh tasks clerical tasks and some of that legal stuff. Um there's certain zoning ordinances that we have that should be listed within our municipal code. There's certain ordinances within our municipal code which should be under the zoning code. Through this process, we'll cross those things over. Um but like I said, we're going to take things piece of piece because doing the whole thing would be we could spend an entire week for eight hours a day on it and scratch it. Um so, but this is a full review. Uh we're planning on over 12 plus planning commission meetings to get through all of this. Like I said, we're tracking all the changes. Uh we do have a master redline copy of what's being presented in front of you, as well as paper copies that have various colors of color pencils, pens, and other notes and sticky notes and all types of fun stuff with it. Um, when we get to the point of getting ready for a public hearing, before we do that, staff will bring back a redline version that'll have all the comments finalized in a draft form for the planning commission to review as well as a summary of it. So, as far as keeping track of all the notes and everything, it's highly encouraged. However, staff will have it. So, if you lose anything or have questions on what happened in this area, we'll have that information readily available. Um the order of review I said there's this is the new format that we're looking at. Um when we're looking at the code right now we're in article three which is for performance standards for the district regulations. District regulations is broken up for all districts. So anything applies doesn't matter what district you're in. That's the rule specific to business districts and specific to residential districts. This is talking about the performance standards not necessarily the use specific that's there. So we're not looking at use tables yet. We'll get to those type of things. Um, so jumping right into it, we're looking at two specific items tonight of article three. The first is division one, which is our in general, that's your more administrative, setting your intent, whatnot. And then division two, which is our performance standards. The performance standards are part of the meat and potatoes of what a zoning code is. And this is where there's the most confusion. It is the most complicated. and you will never be 100% right on it. And I just want to make that clear. No matter what is decided and what is approved, there will always be someone who disagrees with it. And there there's always change. That's why we have an amendment process to the to the zoning code and the city code. So division one in general, uh when we look through it, we have our district classification. So we're identifying the business, the residential, and the overlay districts. You'll notice on that page that we have rural residential and we have the R1A listed under residential. We don't have any properties listed as rural residential. However, our comp plan identifies that that is potential zoning. So therefore, we want to make sure that we put regulations in for that zoning. So that can be applicable. Those properties are generally agricultural properties less than 10 acres. Uh and then the R1A, which we discussed earlier, we need to get added. We also look at the uses part. that's the rights of the city. The prohibited use is not specified within the code. Um, so if we don't have something that says you can do it, it means that you can't do it is basically what it means. It's it's a catch all verbiage that's put in there. So, if someone wants if we say or someone wants to build a treehouse as their as their home and whatnot and we don't and we don't say that the residential district can allow for it, then at that point they would apply for an amendment to put that type of stuff in so we can still be flexible with the needs of the community without overreach and without overextension. So, I said in front or on the screen is all our district classifications. Uh we have four business districts. We have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight residential districts that are proposed as well as a few overlay districts. Right now we have the shoreline management district that exists and we have the Lake Minnitonka residential district which under our current code is its own district. However, the standards that are set there are R1 standards but a little bit more strict. So therefore that better fits as an overlay district rather than having it as a residential district on its own. Um we have flood plane management district. We still have to meet flood plane rules but getting things in and making sure that we're pulling from the other parts of the code to get this in place is good. Uh the bluff land area district is something else that we've identified. We don't have a whole lot of bluff areas. It's based on slope u that goes in there. And then the conservation residential district. If you look at some of the beauties that we've looked at over the past year, at least the year that I've been here, we've talked about doing a lower density to conserve trees and things like that. Um especially uh down in our south growth area. That's all done under the regulations that the DNR said that we should be following. What this would be later on is actually putting it into the code. So that's where some of like our shortfalls come in. Just to break that down a little bit, um we just want to get those things identified so we have clear direction. Um regardless of who's on the planning commission or who's on the city council or what developer comes in, we we all are on the same page of those standards. Um like I said with the uses, uh the big thing in here is if it's not list, it's not permitted. Uh there is the question on what if a use is similar to another use? When we were looking at article two, we looked at language that said, "Hey, can the zoning or can the the zoning administrator can the planning commission determine if a use is similar enough to another use?" Like if you have a Papa Murphy's, is that a restaurant? Is it a deli? Is it a taken bag? What is it? We don't have any classification for it. So that's where that determination comes into play. Um, so just because it's not listed doesn't mean there's not other means. Uh the other thing that we look in there is that an appeals process uh can be taken into place. Uh that process is also listed out in the previous article and follow state statute. Now we're looking at the performance standards. Um which is like I said our meat and potato. Um the intent is why the performance standards exist. It sounds like a question but it's truly the intent. Why do we want to say what we would want to allow ourselves, our neighbors, and the community to be able to do with their property? And what are things that we don't want? Do we want to allow freedom where you could build a racetrack or do we want to say, "Hey, you have to have a nice lawn, you know, anywhere in between." So, that's what we're going to be determinating when we're looking at the standards for the all districts. We're going to take a look at utility location. We're going to take a look at fences, single and two family garage, and accessory structures. We're going to look at off streetet parking and driveways. We're going to look at outdoor storage and entertainment structures. We're also going to look at exterior exterior solid fuel fired heating devices, basically external furnace to heat your house, heat your garage and and whatnot. Um construction within outlots as well as additional landscaping requirements that are outside our subdivision ordinance which is listed on our municipal code. So just kind of looking at the intent, there's a lot of words up there, a lot of different things, but basically what it says is that this is our intent and purpose for having the standards health, safety, setting the community standard. Um, this type of language has been borrowed from our code and has been borrowed from a few other codes, has been modified to feed or to fit something that staff has agreed upon for the language to sit at. So, utility locations and fences. Um, utility locations, we have a lot of fiber going in. We have water, we have sanitary sewer, we have storm sewer, we have um, uh, drain tile, we have all types of stuff in the ground that's owned by the city or not owned by the city or what have you. So, now we want to look at where can that stuff go. And what this does is it basically says that everything has to be placed underground when feasible. So, we have a new subdivision. You don't run you we're not running overhead power or Excel or Minnesota Valley is not running overhead power. You don't have cable TV being run above ground. Everything's got to be put below ground. So you're cleaning up your your visual aspects in one way uh more than another. Um so that's that's basically where that says and that's practical and feasible which means that if it's not practical or feasible then it's something that they would come to the city and say hey we can't do it. Here's why. And then a determination is made probably by staff on if it goes in with the city engineer. Uh fences. Uh we don't >> we pause there for a sec. I mean this is a little bit of a digression, but as we look at new developments, do we have any ability to say the city's going to put down a utility conduit or whatever? And where I'm going with this is so we don't have five cable companies coming in and tearing up yards to, you know, to run their own fiber optic. Commissioner, we do have the ability to do that. Yes, there are pros and cons to that. The uh the con is is if the city says to a developer, you have to put a conduit for these other private businesses to come in. Who pays for that? city's not going to want to pay for a private business to install their infrastructure and the city doesn't get any financial gain out of it. >> No, but we could go >> or if we have if we require developer to do it, that could be a cost that could push them away and make it more enticing to go to a different community or build a different type of home. If we look at saying uh your telecommunications companies need to have their stuff on the ground during development, that can pose a challenge because of the public utilities commission and the rights that these type of companies have to work within the boulevards and within the easements. So it's >> where I'm going with it is the developer is going to put in a pipe. I'm using that euphemistically. >> The developer doesn't put in that type of material. That's a private business outside of it. So if we have a new development comes in and let's say um Mediacom wants to run their cable, the developer doesn't install that. Mediacom installs it. Media. >> No, but at the time of the development, somebody put down the first utility >> and typically the developers paying for that as part of their street. >> That that's all paid for private by the company that owns that utility. The only thing that would go into the ground that the developer generally pays for is for city infrastructure because that's part of the deal for them to build the street, put our pipes in, and then those all that all the street as well as the pipes are transferred over to the city upon successful completion of the development or however the >> I won't beat it to death tonight. I'm just saying we ought to be able to get to a point where we only put one pipe down. I commissioner, I'd be more than happy to talk to you uh offline about it. There's a lot of rules and I don't want to get into everything uh during this discussion tonight, but I'd be more than happy to go over that type of stuff and the answers that I can't provide, I'd be more happy to look up or point you in the direction we can provide. >> Okay. Um, so fences is something that we looked at last year and we removed and we replaced and couple things happened when we were going through that. Like I said, we always try to be perfect, but we know we're not going to be. There's a couple things that we missed. One is that the intention was to make sure that we didn't have any pipe or any post going to the ground within six feet of a storm sewer or we didn't want a fence within so close of a sidewalk or or sanitary pipe or what have you. Well, the way that we wrote it is we wrote it to the fence. We should have done and said that the post because if you have a pipe in your backyard and easement, you should be allowed to cross that pipe through the easement. If it's 10 foot easement, you should be able to cross it. So if the posts aren't within that or if the posts meet the six foot away with a double gate, you have 12 feet worth of access, which talking with public works and the city engineer should be enough to get to storm pipe. So we just made that clarification so that the intent of the change matches now the language that we have in there. The other thing that we missed, we didn't talk about construction fences. We were type of temporary fences. Um, so this is your so this is construction fences are erected for the purposes of screening and security of construction site. They're only there for the construction. They go down. We don't have clear language in the code that says that they can be there and they can't be there and so on so forth. This would be something just to clean it up. Uh, we've also had another community reach out to ask about our fence ordinance because they heard that we' updated it and I had a conversation with them and they thought this was a great idea as well. So >> wouldn't that be covered under the building or the building permit? >> You would commissioner I would agree that it does and that's why we don't see it in anybody's code. Um but we did have significant push back and uh challenges provided by uh various residents to the community over the last six to nine months. Okay. So, we just want to make sure that we clarify that so we have more ground to answer that's fair. But yes, we uh as staff we agree that it did. Uh so, next thing to look at is the single family and two family garages. Um let me make sure I'm on the right page here. Okay. So, when we look at single family and two family garage and accessory structures, we're going to be looking at our residential. So we have agricultural rural residential R1, R2, R3. So the first thing we want to look at is the R1, R2, R3, which is going to apply to just about everywhere. The agricultural and the rule are going to have a little bit of exceptions that have been written in, but basically two structures, the maximum, same as we have now, same as what's proposed for the R1A. Height restriction to the height of the principal structure, same language proposed in the R1A. total footprint restricted to the principal structure. Same as present in the R1A. Um not considered habitable except for ADUs. Same thing we see in the R1A. Uh one of the differences that we have is accessory structure setback increases one to one or one foot back for every foot that is over 20 ft in height. The main reason for this is if you want to put if you put in a 35 foot tall home, which is allowed, and then you do a 35 foot tall garage, is 6 feet from the side yard appropriate, or do we think that it should be pulled further back so it doesn't feel like it's towering over the adjacent property? The garage door limited to 10 feet um for our production developments, that could be a PUB item if their type of design is greater than that. Um it is something that um should be added actually over to the agriculture and residential. >> So that's just saying that if like a development comes in, they want to do R1, but they want to have RV garages attached, they have to have that in the PUD. >> That design would have to get approved. Okay. It's the It's something that we looked at with the PD where they want to do carriage homes >> attached to it, which is basically your detached garage that's going to have a semi-living space above the garage and generally it's a larger, taller space. They had to come back to the city council and the planning commission to get permission to do that. So, that's where that would be. >> Travis, in the language I read um in the meeting packet, I I would make it emphatic that um this new standard applies to all residential. And I'd also make it emphatic that it excludes commercial and agricultural because u some of these standards wouldn't work for egg. For example, the the door height um and the commissioner chair the specific section for this is underneath single family and two family garages. >> Yeah. So, if you have an R3 go in that builds a an apartment building, which would be permitted, >> then that apartment building isn't a single family or two family structure at that point. >> So, you're excluding R3s. >> Yep. Um, wasn't, and I may have misread this, but I thought that there was a 2,000 foot max size. >> So, they're they're accessory structures, >> correct? So, 2,000 ft would be the maximum size for anything. So, that's based on the total footprint. So, if you build a home that has a footprint, so the foundation is 2,000 square feet, then you could do 2,000 square feet of an accessory structure and your attached garage. But if you're building a home that that's large, that's that's a really significantly large home. Um, compared to if you're putting in a home that is a 1,200 square foot. Now you're going to have a smaller garage and things that or a lot of the homes that are being built that around the thousand square foot but they're three and a half stories tall with a basement and whatnot. So that's restricting the size of your total accessories. >> Do we want to say we want to apply like a percentage to that? So right now we're saying it can be up to the up to 2,000 ft or the size of your principal structure >> whichever is whichever is less. And we >> but do we want to do like 75% like do we really want to see garages that are the same size of the houses? That seems not in line with the Victoria's >> Yeah. >> where Victoria is and where it's where it's going. My opinion. >> Were we talking foundation size? >> Foundation size. >> Just foundation size. >> So not square footage. >> Just foundation. >> Well, sure. But your foundation is still it's square feet. It's a time b. It's square feet. >> Right. Right. Right. >> So, >> well, a 2,000 foot garage would be about a 10c car garage. >> Do we really want 10car garages in our >> maximum? But the other part, if you're looking at a 10car garage, you're probably looking at greater than a 2,000 square footprint of the home. But that be 10car garage, but that's broken up between two garages. That's fine. underneath the current code for perspective of what we see throughout the community. You have an attached garage to your house and you build you can build up to the maximum purview. There is no limit on how big that attached garage can be. We only regulate the size specifically for detached with the 900 square feet or 1350 with conditional use permit. What this does is this is more of a middle ground between the two and sets that standard. When we look at some of the larger homes being built in our in our current developments, they have threecar garages, fourc car garages, 24 26 ft deep. So if you're looking at each stall, you figure it's about 12 feet wide by 24, you're getting up to I said 280 square feet per stall. So you're looking at,00 square foot fourc car garage right there. And those are going on some of our smaller properties that are allowed to have 50% impervious or allowed to have the 5,000 square feet or more specifically down by Marsh Lakes. They're allowed to have 4,500 square feet worth of actual hard cover on property. >> I think my thought just is like again going to the extreme. I don't think a um accessory structure should ever be the same size as whatever the primary structure, whatever it's called. I I suggest that we you guys consider putting in a multiplier. So be no greater than 2,000 square feet or 75% of the principal structure. For example, I don't know if 75% is the right word is the right number, but I suggest you guys take a look at that. Yeah, we don't we don't want a repeat of the situation we had on Smithtown Road. I don't think any of us have good >> not only that, just like it that's not the character of Victoria to see accessory structures the size of the primary structure. It just doesn't make sense. Just don't think we should write it in a way that that could happen. >> Chair, I have that note in there that we can take a look see. >> Excuse me, Commissioner. I apologed in here to take a look at what those sizes would be and kind of how that would work. Um, and we'll take a look at adjacent uh communities to see what's there. See if we can find some language in other communities to see how that would look. Um, and then we can actually do a deeper dive into that process. Um, so yeah, but the intention of all this, it goes back to if it's a res if it's single family residential property, you should be seeing a single family residential property when you drive by. not something that is out of place. And we've learned based on our code and based on applicants and some creative individuals who have built over the years, there are some shortcomings that don't necessarily meet the intent of what we're looking at or maybe the intent at the time was to allow for those type of structures and it just isn't anymore. And that's part of this process. To Erin's point though, I don't think anybody would would describe as conducive to Victoria's aesthetic two structures of the same size. Um I I just don't think that makes sense. You don't want a home and a garage be both 2,000 ft or whatever it is. >> And if and if you built a underneath the proposed language, chair and commission, if you built a garage that matched the footprint of the home, you wouldn't even be allowed to put a shed on your property. So that would be that just wouldn't be there. So that's part of how this works. I don't I don't know how many developers build like that, but I could see um a builder coming in. >> Yeah. >> So um and I just want to clarify that I read that right when I reviewed this. >> In our previous language, uh attached garage were not accessory structures and now we are making them. Is that correct? We're only making mix we're making them accessory structures by through zoning not through building code. It's only through zoning to consider it as part of the total footprint of accessory structure. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, you can't get you can't get around this by building a breezeway. >> No, if you build a breezeway, it's a detached. It's not a breezeway. It's attached. the attachment that was was part of the conversation that was done when we had an appeal over permit along Smithtown and that property because of how the garage was attached to the home is considered attached. >> A breezeway is basically you have a covered area that doesn't have any HVAC any power outdoor space that you put a cover on. >> Okay. >> So is the simplest way. >> So I asked it poorly whether it's attached or detached. We're still limiting the size of that structure. >> Correct. the total footprint you can have up to two and we want to say here's the limit you can get to based on the proportions of your home >> for the garage height um I see here for on garages a number four except for um agricultural and rural residential can we have an exception for garage door height as well >> that was commissioner That is something that I noticed when I was reading this that we missed. >> So, I've I've already got that noted. >> Okay. >> Um it's definitely something is out of on a pole barn. >> Tractors are taller than cars. >> Yeah. >> And they're going to need a bigger garage door to get inside. >> Right. >> So, um the other thing that we're looking at on here, um accessory structures will be prohibited from being used for commercial purpose. A big part of that, just like in the R1A language that's being proposed, a lot of this is the same, but the big part to it is that if you have a home occupation, you should be in the home. And staff does have draft language of home occupation regulations, which we'll get to at a future meeting. Um, same thing with the shipping containers being used as an accessory structure. Just can't do it. You want to use it for moving, fine. But you can't just plop one down and say that's my shed. For the agricultural and rural residential, uh they would get exceptions to have a a pole barn or a metal covered storage building. Um they also would be permitted to have a max footprint that is not based on the size of the home. Rather, it is based on the size of the property. So if they're less than 10 acres, 2,000 square feet, they can still have their two structures but only up to 2,000 more than 10 acres, 2500 square feet, or they could come to the planning commission and city council and request up to 3500 with a conditional use permit. That is kind of standard uh a practice that's been done in various communities. The actual sizes, that is a preference of the community itself. There's no standard that's ever been set for that. But if you build a 40 by 50 foot pole bar, that's 2,000 square feet right there. And if you have more than just a couple tractors, you're going to need more storage. Uh any questions so far on uh this slide? >> Um random thought here for any of this. Does the fire station fall into any of these categories? >> So, the fire station is not being built on a residential property. >> Okay. >> It is also a public building and there's >> there's exceptions for all those, right? >> Along those lines, yes, there are special circumstances permitted and the city has the right to underneath our rules. There aren't any statute to make certain exceptions or relax standards, but city still has to follow the rules of everybody else. Just it's it's a matter of a legal opinion. >> Gotcha. >> For for more detailed answer, I'm not the person to answer it. >> Um, we're looking at off streetet uh parking and driveways. >> Can we had a qu um it's paragraph I and it wasn't really in your on the air conditioning units >> um located a minimum of 20 ft from all lot lines and and not within the front but we we have sideyard setbacks >> 10 ft correct so what would happen is with this if a developer came in they want to put it on the side the it would just be part of the PUD package that they would apply for the main reason is is that we're starting to see more and more sensitivity to noise, light to vibration. So, we want to make sure that we have those type of items addressed in in here. Uh this one of the questions that staff we did have some decent conversations on. Should it be in there? Should it not be in there? Should there be a distance? Should it be screening noise? What would it look like? Um, so looking at different codes, I've I saw the 20 foot in multiple codes and it it made sense if you're redeveloping a home instead of putting the air conditioner right next to the property line next to your neighbor's house, maybe stick it in the back where there's more room for the noise to disperse and cause less disruptions. So that would just come down to the design of the home. It's nothing that as staff were entirely set to or open to change on it. >> I My last house had AC unit in the back and it sucked. I would not recommend we keep that in there. >> Okay. >> Kills your backyard vibe. >> I mean, I guess I think about the R1A where we have narrower lots. >> The locations of that unit could be difficult. >> Be difficult to keep it away. Well, is it possible that we can have it written in there to have like a sound mitigation like a fence or something >> that um commissioner that could add to the cost of development, >> right? >> Um that's not something that would necessarily want to do something but what that would look like and be able to be safely done. >> I know for certain type of electrical boxes, things like that that can add thousands of dollars cost. So, if you go to replace your air conditioner now, you have to come into complete conformance with the zoning code. >> Now, you just bought a brand new air conditioner for a few grand, had it installed, and now you got to throw a few grand on top of that. >> I don't know if that's necessarily fair. >> Yeah. >> To do, but it is something that that we could take a look at, but that would be the the con. >> Could it be for having a sound mitigation for houses that are within 10 feet of each other? I still don't think we want to put that into the code. Like HOAs want to mandate that or something like let them do that at the smaller level. I don't think we should do that at the city. That's >> my concern. It basically says you got to put it in the backyard. >> Yep. >> I can't put it in the front and my sideyard setbacks are not 20 ft. By definition, I'm in the backyard. >> Yeah, I agree. I think we strike that's the wrong thing to do. the consensus strike it. I've already crossed it out on my >> think so. Thank you for bringing that up, Commissioner. >> Yeah, good catch. >> Um, any other questions regarding this part? Uh, the next is off street parking and driveways. Um, all parking must be on approved surface underneath our current code. If you want to park in your grass, go for it. We don't have anything that says you can't do it. So that deteriorates the front lawns and things like that. So staff thought it was important to make sure that we say it has to be an improved surface. An improved surface, concrete, asphalt, class 5, if you want to do in your backyard or in your backyards, but not a class five driveway. So you're going to redo your driveway and you're with inside the district, you need to go with pavement. And then we have in there a certain amount of feet. I believe it's 40 feet where we put it. um that that's one of the things that we we saw there. >> Can we have an exception for agricultural for farm equipment? >> So far equipment would be generally stored or be used in fields. The intent of this is to make it for vehicle. So um I can note it to take a look. Random question on that. For people who like to use old farm equipment as decoration in their front yards, >> yard art >> that commissioner that is considered art and is >> okay. So we cannot be we have to look at this objectively with anything >> and art is subjective >> and it's protected. So if somebody just abandoned a vehicle in their front yard and wants to call it art, that's one thing. >> If they go out there and it's painted and they put a little fence around it and you know they got flowers or whatever growing out of it and actually did something with it, that's a different thing. So there's different ways to look at it. In those cases, if there's a question on it, definitely involve consulting the city attorney >> before we would take any action. >> Uh the other thing that we're looking at is single driveway permitted for single and two family homes. Uh basically, we have that rule, but underneath our current ordinance, it there's a discretionary rule that's in there that allows staff to make a determination if you can have a second driveway. How do we apply that fairly? We don't know. So, just get rid of it and keep it simple, saying you can have one driveway. Even if you're on a corner, pick where you want to put your garage, and there's your driveway. Um, front yard impervious cover to 35%. Uh, that is something new that's uh that we looked at. Basically what it is, so you don't have a driveway that comes out, meets your maximum width of 24 feet at the property line, and then the entire front yard turns into parking and asphalt and concrete. It still keeps that single family feel to the property, the neighborhood, and doesn't look out of place. Uh we did look at some of the developments that came in, even with the new production homes coming in and the standard design for those, they don't hit the 35% for the front yard. So, and if it was something within the design that would come into place with impervious cover such as carriage homes and things like that, that would be something that could be requested through the PD process. Uh, we want to make sure there's not an encroachment upon easements uh for driveways except to access the street. Uh, no less than six yard or six feet in the minimum of the sideyard. Some of our older properties don't have sideyard e easements. So, this makes so you can't put your driveway right on the property line. you have to have a separation. Um, some of that's for snow storage, some of it's for aesthetics, some of it's because not everybody knows where their property lines are. And it's just it's one of the things uh we looked at, uh, parking space, creating standard sizes, which is 8 and a half by 18, and creating compact spaces 8 by 16. Uh, that part's important because we're going to be looking at parking standards for number of parking that's required, diagonal parking, parallel parking, things like that. Um, as far as compact spaces go, one of the criteria in there is that compact spaces wouldn't be angled or parallel because we want to make sure that if it ever gets restriped in the future, it still works for the safety of of up the road with the design. Um, drive aisles get defined. A lot of this is in our engineering manual um and in our subdivision code, but it's important to make sure that we define what those are. So, we're looking at 18 feet in a single direction of parking lot. So, between the parking spaces or between the curb and a parking space. Same thing with two-way traffic. Uh, also parking spaces must be on a property in which the parking spaces are intended to serve. So, if you have parking spaces, we have parking spaces across from city hall that are used for city hall. In the CBD district, we have special regulations that allow an exception of that parking rule that are clearly stated in the code that allow to use parking away or use a parking spot for multiple businesses in their calculation. This more focuses on your residential areas and um your C1 and C2 areas, but unless we put in something specific to allow for an exception, it it's there. Um the other thing is uh electric vehicle parking uh allowing for that to go into place. And the reason that this is in here is because the pedestals used to charge the vehicles generally have to be placed on the curb. Sometimes those are placed within an easement or inside setbacks. This allows for that encroachment to be 2 feet into it. So you're you're not having a weird design or having to shrink a parking lot all to accommodate electric vehicles in the green initiatives. the Met Council is definitely going to be pushing towards us. >> Question on that. What if it encroaches on sidewalk? Does that not get in the way of um >> if this commissioner, if the sidewalk is built, and generally sidewalks and residential areas are built six inches off the edge of the rightway, so off the property line. in your commercial districts where this is more likely to go or in your residential common areas where these could go. This would just allow that to go and say if your parking set back is 10 feet or 20 feet from the edge of the rideway >> that well now you can encroach two feet into that setback with your charging station so you can still have nice clean lines for your parking lot. >> Okay, >> that that's the intent behind this. Um there are setbacks that are going to be in place for parking >> um just about everywhere except our central business which is very unique area. >> But that's what we're looking at. >> I just want to make sure that like for ADA like if someone has a wheelchair or something they can still get by and all that is >> regardless of what our zoning code says you still have to meet all those federal regulations. >> Okay. >> And there's nothing we can do to get around it because they're not going to give us a variance. >> Yep. >> And we don't want to ask for one either. My other thought too is parking space standard size. Um that 8 and a half by 18 is it? Um that's been the standard for like ever. Correct. Uh our cars aren't that small anymore. So has there has engineering or anybody looked at widening the standard by a foot or two? >> Lanes on the road yet, >> right? >> So cars are still built generally with the Mhm. Okay. I was just thinking for like specifically for parking because when you do park, then you have to get out. You know, there's not as much space now between each individual vehicle. >> Commissioner, we did take a look at that and one of the comments that we made as staff was, well, what if you have a big F350 DY? >> Can you fit in a space? Well, an F350 DY is 22 feet. Like, it's not going to fit there anyways. >> But you do have people with larger vehicles that try to park in these spaces. It can cause some issues, but having to create bigger spaces to accommodate a small portion of of vehicle parking >> doesn't seem at least in staff didn't seem like a fair application. >> Those individuals that drive those larger vehicles understand their larger vehicles and they have to deal with the consequences having those larger vehicles and the challenges that parking smaller. I would challenge you that F-150s don't fit in those spaces and they're the most sold vehicle in the United States. I think that's to your point is people aren't driving compact cars anymore and that's one of the things that we commissioner one of the things that we did look at is when we're looking at parking space which is a whole another part we're going to get to in the future with that. We did take a look at different types of vehicles, percentage of compact cars was actually decreased in the United States and looking at our parking standards and things like that. Uh what I would recommend is instead of focusing tonight on that 8 and a half by 18 when we get to the section on park and parking requirements for certain types of businesses and areas >> that that point we can take a look to address because there'll be greater information on what's being proposed >> and then we can make the change and simultaneously make adjustments. >> Gotcha. Yeah. I wasn't sure since this is all general also. >> Yep. This is there there's a lot of things and commissioner or chair and commission like I said there's a lot of things we're going to have to get to in the future. Um this is just part of it. This is more high level. Um and we'll get through it. Um so >> I had a couple of questions on this whole section four just document structure-wise. This is all still part of single family. I mean, uh, I'm sorry, all districts. >> This would be for all districts. Correct. >> Right. And just from a format standpoint, because in a couple of the other places, you actually break out residential versus commercial. Um it seems like four could follow a similar format because I J K M um they're all commercial district kind of requirements. Commissioner, one of the things that we'll be doing is the other two parts to article three specific at the business as well as residential, separating those two out for specific standards that fall within those zoning regulations. These are more general guidelines. So even if the residential and commercial are mixed within this section of the code, what it does is that the commercial doesn't apply to a single family or two family property. At that point, you're already in compliance with that part of the zoning code. This is setting a minimum generalized standard. If I look at M as an example, >> electric vehicle charging stations. I'm in all districts now. Is this applying to private homes? >> Uh, yes. and and as a private property owner, I can install a EV charging station in a in a parking space and charge a fee for it. So, I can put a I can put a charging station out there at the end of my driveway and charge my neighbors for it. Commissioner, I believe that's a a stretch of the intent, but if you're if you're putting a charging station on your property for the purpose of sale, you're now operating a commercial business and that commercial business would not fit within the category of a home occupation, which we'll be discussing later in the code, which would not be permit. So that would not be permitted in a general sense with >> all I'm saying is I think we could clarify this very easily by just breaking it out residential versus commercial like like you're doing in in the in paragraph or section five >> you have section five outdoor storage and structures we start with 5A all districts 5B business districts why don't we do the same thing in section four >> it goes down to the type of of use for the type performance standard. Like I said, there are >> there's more detail to this. This is just a part of the larger picture. Okay. >> Complicated and unfortunately I don't >> those are my comments. >> Unfortunately, I don't have all the information presented tonight, but I do have draft of future language that'll be coming back. Be more than happy to have a conversation allow you to review that information outside of a planning commission meeting. I think I then I could better address your questions than in the meeting tonight. So, I do apologize. We move on. Uh the next part that we're looking at is a single family and two family garage structures. Um basically this is an amendment. The highlights of it, uh screen and trash containers already exist. You're supposed to store your trash containers inside your garage or have it screened from public view. That's common. So, we're not looking to get rid of that. Screen HVAC systems. That was something that we've seen in some more modern language, but it's not everywhere. Basically, if you have your air conditioning unit on the side of your home, if I'm walking down the street, put a bush or small fence or some landscaping in front of it and then your compliance with the screening, something like that. Um, that is one of the points where it's kind of do we really need it or do we not really need it? But from a personal perspective on it, I think that it helps hide some of the the utilitarian stuff that we have to do with homes. >> I I think that should be controlled at the HOA level, not at the city level. >> All right. Um, >> so I was going to ask, so then what's the difference between a bush and then some offense? It comes down to the definition of opa >> and all the PUDs we've just approved. I mean I look through the developments that have gone up and there's a HVAC unit hanging off the side of the house with no screening. I mean we don't we don't have that requirement currently with our code. So this would be if the code got the code got approved that language it would be from the date of adoption that that would be a requirement. that just be something part of the review process. But if there's consensus to to have it removed, I'm all in favor of that consensus. Um the other thing we looked at is screening of exterior storage from public view and adjacent properties. Um big thing with that is if you're going to stack wood and we're looking at different types of homes. We do have homes that are on larger properties and things like that, but if you're going to stack wood in a general sense, it should be screened. Does that mean it's going to be screened on every property? Absolutely not. But if it creates some type of issue and then at that point that's when we would want to look at different things. So it just it allows for a tool for enforcement if something becomes a problem or if somebody is storing washers and dryers underneath a tent in the backyard or a carport or something like that. This is just what it is. When we look at screening we're looking at eye level. So under six six six feet at the max and we're looking at screening being an opakqueness of 80%. So you can only see 20% through whatever is blocking it. Just for a little bit of clarification on the screening part. Um that's more of an enforcement tool that we would have to address though. It's not something that we would necessarily be driving around because we don't do actual code enforcement. Uh car ports and tent garages. Uh these are temporary structures. These aren't permanent ones. They're temporary structures. Um so if you have like outside a hotel, they have the area you drive up, you're underneath the canopy. That's a permanent structure. It's part of the permanent structure. If that was a canvas tent, it's temporary structure. We would limit that to 180 days. Doesn't mean that everybody's going to follow it. There's no permit we're going to require for it. But what it does is it allows us to have an enforcement tool. So somebody's not having uh this type of material up for years and years and it just falls apart and then it's harder to get rid of because now there's a emotional attachment to it. Uh with the business and the commercial uh still screening of all outdoor storage. If you have a business, say we have an electric company and they need to put their trucks and their vans and whatnot, they're being stored outside. There would be a screening requirement that would go with that for them to keep it there more than just for their daily use. Same thing with if you have uh with an RC2, you might have a firework tent show up for the Fourth of July outside of Cub Foods. Let's say we had one. Well, they're allowed to bring things outside the tent for display, but as soon as they close, everything's got to go back inside the tent. >> So, you can't just leave that type of stuff out um all the time. Uh screening of vehicles parked more than 48 hours. Basically, we're looking at creating a definition between parked and stored for vehicles. Parked vehicle is under 48. Stored is greater than 48. We can apply that evenly throughout the entire code. Um, and then no storage within setbacks is is the big thing. We don't want in setbacks. We don't want any easements. So if your accessory structure is a 10 foot setback, you can't go behind there and just stack a whole bunch of stuff behind it or put 50 gallon barrels back there and say, "Well, it's not a structure." Um, the exterior solid fuel fired heating devices. Also, uh, they're coal or wood burning fire furnaces placed outside the structure, also known as outdoor stoves. We know that there's a potential that they can exist in Victoria, though we don't know about it because we haven't gone around to our more larger properties to take a look. But if you're on a larger property and you want to heat your pole barn with it or you want to heat your garage with it, we feel staff feels that that should be acceptable with reasonable regulations. So that's why we looked at only within the agriculture and the rural residential because they do produce smoke. Um, and the other thing would be 75 ft from the property lines. The biggest difference from these is these are running throughout the day throughout the winter compared to a residential fireplace which you throw some wood in when you get home from work or on the weekends or or what have you. So, it's more of a temporary use. This these are more permanent. Um, the other thing with it is making sure we have a list of appropriate materials by also creating a list of materials that are strictly forbidden. So, you're not going to be burning plastics or garbage. We don't have incinerators going. We're not going to allow people to use it as a tannery or anything like that. Got to use clean wood, clean coal, whatever it may be. In addition to that, because of the smoke that these can produce, we're also looking at the municipal code right now and taking a look at uh nuisances and part of that will be to address dense smoke and that type of stuff. >> That's good. >> So, that's that's a big part. So there's a kind of a crossover to we have a regulation, we can enforce it zoning wise, but now what do we do when it creates an issue municipal side takes care of that? Uh structures on city outlots. This was a point of friction um over the last 20 plus years. This has been a point of friction. We don't have any specific language which makes it so you can't put something on there. It is trespassing. It is damage to city property. It's not your property. So now we can put something in there that says, "Hey, you can't do it. You can't build your garage. You can't build your you." Okay, big thing. Can't put your garage on it. That's more of a permanent structure. Now, we have to also look at the landscaping piece of it. Fences, placeets, compost, fire pits, those are all considered landscaping. What happens is that we would use the nuisance code to deal with that. And that way if somebody's dumping their grass clippings on it, now it's a nuisance code violation. we can go through that process and more quickly address it. Uh we also have additional landscaping requirements. This section was not touched. We didn't make any changes to this from the current language to the proposed language as it was initially established in 2017 and then it was amended in 2024. Um the importance behind this is uh is is purpose and scope which sets a minimum standard per for preservation, installation and maintenance of landscape plantings including trees, hedges, wetlands all within every district we have within the community. So going back to tree preservation, we have this in place and we also have standards that are with inside our subdivision code which is on the municipal side because this says city of lakes and parks. It also says trees and trails. So unofficially >> that's just a big thing. >> Can we add something to it? >> Uh any suggestions? uh having a line of so it does say like there should be a minimum quantity of trees. Can we add one of them being specifically a Minnesota native tree per the DNR? >> We have language now. >> Okay. >> That it needs to be a native tree. >> They're looking at going further on the restrictions. >> I would ask for consensus of the plan. I was just looking earlier today and I couldn't find anywhere where it said specifically Minnesota native. So, >> it doesn't say Minnesota native. It just says native trees. They've got to be trees that can survive. You can't plant a coconut tree in your front yard and say, "Hey, this is the one tree I need for my property." >> It's not going to survive the winter. Now, it becomes a nuisance. Now, we've got another issue. So, we want trees that can survive. >> Yep. I just wasn't sure if like we could put it more specifically for our region and not like just any native tree because like technically a cottonwood is a native tree to North America but we don't really want cottonwoods in our area. >> We do have specific rules on that. >> Okay. >> And we we have a contract with the landscape architect to refuse the type of plantings that are there. >> Okay. >> As well as when we get applications staff we're not that tree would be appropriate. underneath the current terms of the code. >> We'll reach out to the landscape architect, the DNR, wershed, and and other agencies to make sure that it's an appropriate thing. >> Okay. >> We could put language that's more specific in there. I do have faith that staff is going to ask that, but one time we don't >> could be a thing. If there's a consensus to to make that a more strict requirement, I'm more than happy to do the research on it. Well, paragraph 11 does stipulate to trees you can't put in. >> Yeah. >> But it doesn't say anything about specifically curbing two trees that we would want. >> Right. So planting is prohibited. Plant species to be used for landscaping shall be acceptable to the city. So that's where the determination comes in at the staff level where we would have a review of somebody who >> got >> knows more about trees if we don't >> that are not considered a nuisance. So can't we're not we're not allowing people to plant ash trees right now because of EAB or Dutch trees because of Dutch elm. >> Um undesirable species with thorns, cottonwood or cotton bearing, polars, ash trees prone to emerald ashbor, elm trees prone to Dutch elm disease and box elder. >> So we have that type of stuff in there to where we want to have hearty trees. We want trees to be healthy. uh with the developments that we have going on, the city uh city planner uh McCann and our landscape architect, I can tell you right now, I've spent many, many hours going through and looking at hundreds of thousands of trees at this point for help and to make sure they meet landscaping plans and I've been detailing that and trees that need to be replaced are marked for replacement and that's a followup. >> Okay. >> Can attest to that. there's out in my neighborhood. >> I I think they enjoy getting out in the sun. >> I had a question on um 8B6. >> Okay. >> Are do you mean literally uh SAD? I mean, so I would need to get permission if I were going to hydraed for example. So um the part that's being specifically looked at is uh all disturbed land shall be restored with sod unless specifically approved otherwise. Yes. So sod is our minimum standard that you would need to do if you had an alternate solution for replacing a disturbed area as a property owner or as a contractor. At that point, you would need to get permission to do that by requesting it through the public works and the public works director would be able to say, "Okay, you can do something different or this." >> So, it's not a it's not a variance or >> no, you or conditional use or anything like that. I just go to the public works and say, "Can I put hydro seed down?" >> Yep. It's this is this is what we say the standard should be as a city should be saw. you're saying there's an alternate solution that's going to give you the give the same result that same end result. You present your case and we've done it uh with the the fiber companies for example and uh mediacom uh for their cable network that they have in town. There's been a variety between sod hydro seeding black dirt and seed during the summer especially during the hot periods. Sod isn't always the best option because you put it down it dies. Well, if you're doing your restoration work and saw just going to die and it's going to be a waste of time and resources and you say, "Hey, public works, you know, this just doesn't make sense to do. Here's an alternate solution that works for the type of season that we're in or whatever the case may be." >> If I wanted to go in with a more pollinator friendly solution, I would go to public works. >> Yep. It'd be public works. Should we say that then um as specifically approved by >> Victoria Public Works? So >> we leave it as identified as a city. What it does is it allows that decision to be controlled by the city manager of who would be the appropriate party to do it. Um and I think that's the intention of why those are generally written that way. and under a city manager under manager council form of government that we have here in Victoria. I think it's most appropriate we're trying to remove through other parts of the code where it said public works director or it said the director of public works or it has language for positions that don't exist or it says you can go to this person or this person. Um those are various things that we have stripped out of the current language of the city code specifically for the reason that sometimes it can cause confusion or policy decisions can be made and not necessarily noted in the code that a policy decision was made and now confusion under under current things those requests go to the go to public works and generally public works will discuss it with the city engineer and figure out an ample solution. Is that specific to development development or >> when it's not specific that example is specific to the sod piece but anywhere in the code where it says a determination the city that's a staff >> okay but the sod specific one is about development it anybody who go so if you so let's say you're responsible for the tree in the boulevard >> which some properties are well let's say the tree is diseased you got to replace it right you rip everything out put nutrient in right now you've ripped out all the all the grass and you got to put saw let's say you don't want to do so same thing or if a developer comes in and does it or if a fiber company or a telecommunications company or whoever this is the language for just that restoration this is what we want but if you have a better solution we're all ears so it's just allows for that little bit >> this is specifically in residential districts Do we want to open that up to all districts? >> You just tell me no. That's fine. >> I with the the landscaping um the additional landscaping requirements has been working well for the city. Um 2000, like I said, 2017 it was put in. Couple minor tweaks had to be done in 2024. They're done. uh we're able to do the inspections and have control and we haven't really run into issues that have warranted the amendment. The beauty of it is if we do run into issues with commercial development which is more likely to just take care of it um then we can always do amendments or we have other enforcement actions that can be done through the city's nuisance code. So that's where a lot of this comes in. We we have a whole another way to do enforcement. We're just trying to set those high level minimum standards of what we want to see. >> Thank you. >> Is that it Travis? So the only last thing I have uh for tonight chair is just talking about the next two meetings. We went through some highle stuff. Um and I do say that some of the discussion will f will be coming back to uh during the next couple meetings as we look at uh standards and business districts specifically at your performance standards and then specific uh performance standards for residential. So you have an overall arching with the all and then more detailed as you get into those other areas. In addition to that um after that we'll start looking at uses within districts and those are the principal and the accessory uses and then we'll start looking at parking standards and start looking at a lot of a lot of fun interesting stuff the next five to seven meetings should be interesting. Um I do want to point out our staff's goal is to start bringing this back at every meeting. There are various things that can come up between meetings which may cause delay, but that is our intention is to keep things moving as best we can. So, um we do I we do have a full draft um with a ton of notes on it of what we're using as the basis for what we're bringing to the planning commission. And any planning commissioner like to to view future stuff, um we're more than happy to present that. Not all of it has been f has got the final discussion of staff on it, but if there's questions or if there's input or anything like that, more than happy to set up and set up anytime you'd like to go through it. >> Good. Thank you. Um, anything further, commissioners? All right, that concludes our discussion items for tonight. Thank you for your patience. Any miscellaneous items from staff other than the items you just mentioned? Not that I can think of at this time. >> Okay. Thanks, Travis. Commissioners, any miscellaneous? >> Very good. Um, two things for me. Back to the to the um draft standards that we just reviewed. Um, I first of all, I shared Bob's concerns that sometimes it wasn't clear what we were talking about, which district we were in, if it was, you know, or which subdivision if it's residential, commercial business. It would help me a lot if we could figure out a way to make that crystal clear. Secondly, I it would help me too if we could find a better way. We've all taken the time to read these things in advance. Um this this felt painstaking to me and there's got to be a better way to do this. So maybe offline, um Travis, you and Brian and I can talk about how we might streamline this process, get the input that we're here to give you, um and yet make it easier for you as well to not have to go through in in detail. So we'll do that. Um with that, there are no more items this evening. Um can I ask for a motion to adjurnn? >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Multiple motions. I'll take we have a second. Um so we have a motion. Um, and a second. So, all in favor? >> I. >> Any oppose? Motion carries. We're adjourned. Thank you. >> Thanks, Travis. Nice work, man.