[0:01] good even good evening everybody it is uh Tuesday December 17 2024 and it is 5 [0:08] 17 p.m. and uh this is the city council work session for the din city council [0:15] I'm going to call the meeting to order and ask our cler shair Ellison to call the rooll council member aen here [0:20] council member Jackson here council member Pierce here council member rer here mayor hlin here uh let's go quickly [0:28] around the perimeter of the room here and have people introduce themselves person Marissa be sustainability manager [0:34] Katy be it Stephanie hackinson affordable housing hi I'm Jennifer benat [0:40] I'm in Communications ran day Planning Commission Christ Chad Milner engineer K [0:46] te Community Development per vet works and Recreation Bill nondorf Economic Development will Warstein planning [0:52] commissioner CLA hman Planning Commission Mar Planning Commission [0:57] Addison L planning staff R lens assistant city manager thanks all [1:05] right um Scott Neil you sent us a little memo this afternoon thought you'd want [1:11] to get to the take about 15 minutes and WRA this up [1:16] yeah okay are you ready ready uh we asked the council uh every year to give [1:22] some kind of General approval blessing to a legislative platform and this is [1:27] important particularly important for staff that when we are talking with legislators or te or testifying or [1:35] talking to our lobbyists that we we hold uh positions that are consistent with [1:42] what the council wants us to hold not what we want to hold as individually so we we bring these issues to you in terms [1:48] of priorities and U policies that we ask you to to to let us know if it's okay [1:55] right the way that they uh come to you these come from a a a number of different U sources they come from uh [2:04] our lobbying organizations that we belong to the league Metro cities Municipal legislative commission uh they [2:10] come from our various disciplines that we're part of professional associations uh they come from previous councils uh [2:17] there might be items on here that have been on for a while and and because we seek uh we bring back every year so [2:24] there there's a lot of overlap from previous years but again that's the purpose of this is so that we can carry [2:30] out uh the will of the council when we're talking uh to the state um State staff and state legislators and state [2:36] and our lobbyists uh what we want to do tonight is is uh we didn't we there's most of [2:43] this we don't need to go through word by word I think if we focus on the items that that have kind of gotten your [2:49] attention that's uh where we should probably start uh what we'd like to do tonight is to get this into a format [2:56] that we can approve later this evening in the meeting uh Zoe's going to keep notes uh based on what you provide [3:03] she'll produce an amended version of this and then we've we've got it ready for you to act on later [3:12] tonight Zoe do you want to start about what kind of what kind of feedback we've gotten so far yeah so we started this [3:17] process back on October 15th with um a work session that evening uh gave our [3:23] drafted platforms both federal and state to you asked for feedback to um be [3:29] submitted by November 15th um so now we're just all coming back together [3:34] after all that time to dig back into legislative to make sure that we are ready for when um the 2025 legislative [3:41] session starts um so with that we received um comments [3:49] from um if you review the staff report that shows um all of the council [3:55] feedback that was received uh you will see [4:02] about nine um submissions from council members and then in addition we have uh [4:09] Julie's uh Julie rer feed uh risser's feedback that she uh gave us yesterday [4:15] that's all been passed out in a handout version as well um so with that uh we [4:21] can open the conversation up if we want to start talking about um the expansion of local sales tax that spending plan um [4:28] for any input yeah council member Jackson you want to [4:33] start out on that I think um sure briefly uh when we talked to voters we [4:40] talked about when the um amount that we had scheduled to play to pay for Fred [4:46] Richards and the Brar Arena were paid off it would blink the sales tax would blink off and I think that that we need [4:53] to stick with what we told the voters and council member richer also [4:59] had comment on that one I agree with um council member Jackson and I apologize [5:06] for getting this in so late yesterday um and I agree for the reasons exactly what [5:12] she just articulated I think we need to be consistent this is all about transparency and Trust I [5:20] agree I think that um regardless of whether there might be [5:27] a a date subsequent time where we think that this is important to be thinking about it the timing of this is really [5:33] bad I think too U we got a new legislator coming on board we're going [5:39] to be asking her to sponsor this bonding request and we know that with [5:46] Edina you get something at the out of the legislature is a rare feed so I think we had to stick with our [5:53] primary concentration and that's um the bonding of that potential interchange [5:58] Improvement have I know member rer have some comments on that as well but uh nonetheless I think [6:06] at a minimum I think this request to think about expanding the local sales tax spending is premature it maybe [6:13] inappropriate at all but I don't think I don't think we need to talk about it [6:19] now yeah we've heard that from our legislators and our lobus um I think we [6:25] will have to come back to it someday because it's it's a it's a big source of Revenue [6:31] particularly if we're going to be more concerned about managing our property tax levy um a non-property tax source to [6:38] fund major Community improvements is there aren't a lot of options for that but the truth is this one uh in [6:45] particular even though we're not going to have it as part of our agenda the league is taking a league of cities is [6:51] taking a pretty active role in it too so um so that that's okay yeah I say letot [6:58] them lead on it for now we come back to it we'll just delete all that that piece [7:03] right I know the suggestion was that we The Proposal wouldn't increase the rate of the current local sales tax in terms [7:09] of its term but it could create some additional Revenue sources for projects that have [7:16] Regional application but nonetheless I think pull that out [7:21] what I hearing James any yeah thank you yeah I so I agree with that I um just [7:27] thinking ahead I we will need to think about all revenue [7:34] sources um if if you do look through the lens of our the budget and our Levy and [7:42] so if it's not a part of the state legislature I think it is something that we should [7:50] keep um top of mind um so that we do lean into it when the time comes so I [7:57] don't want to I don't want to lose it um and then just in terms of the the [8:03] feedback I totally get us saying this is what the residents ask [8:10] for um but the re the the residents also ask us to lean [8:17] into increases from a budgetary standpoint too and so I think we need to [8:22] message that whole thing uh when we start uh really thinking about how we're [8:27] going to manage expenses [8:32] forward so you pull that one out yep I will pull that one out and if there are no further comments on that uh [8:40] legislative priority former legislative priority um we can move on to funding [8:45] support for entrepreneurs and second stage [Applause] businesses Caroline I don't know if you [8:52] want to I just I was uncomfortable being the lead on this I think this is something that this chamber of commerce [8:58] should be talking talking about and um I don't know why we want to have that as our [9:05] priority you want to talk about that a little bit from a staff [9:12] standpoint did this come from you though uh yes it did um maybe last [9:22] year so yeah this was um this was us trying to talk about how we can support [9:27] um the chamber and other entrepreneurial efforts without [9:32] um straight up asking for money necessarily to be given right to us so [9:38] it was kind of a kind of an awkward one to [9:43] um to was the originator of this idea so it was both Bill yep [9:51] [Music] yeah uh I'm sorry I don't don't recall [9:56] that but yeah the chamber's been looking for for a source of revenue for their Innovation lab um not sure how we came [10:03] at this proposal at the moment quite honestly but [10:09] um uh but the ask would be to try to get some kind of state funding to support [10:14] that cause to my knowledge there's not a specific program that they can apply to so it's we're not really sure what we're [10:20] asking them for other than some assistance um but there's no there's no [10:26] program to apply to about this would be the only way to even give that a shot I also had concerns on my little [10:34] handout and um but I I agree with council member Jackson that it's not [10:41] appropriate for the city to be requesting this and I would add we need a lot more data before we formally go to [10:48] bat for this because um just learning more about the [10:54] program and I don't even know what their income has been I don't know what their [11:01] expenses are it is appears to have limited interest I think there were [11:09] 30 individuals total who have gone through the program and some of them I [11:14] don't know how many uh were able to attend for free so um I really I feel [11:20] like we don't even have the material that we need in order [11:27] to just be a quarter and not like the one making the big ask so I I would like [11:33] us to pull it back to yeah to the point bill was making I don't even know what we would support right and we don't I [11:41] don't feel comfortable saying invest in this um so I interpreted the feedback [11:52] differently so I just want to make sure I'm I'm tracking I actually support [12:00] providing some funding as needed and they're going to they've met with us individually they'll [12:07] be coming back at some point with an Ask um but I interpreted your feedback to [12:13] say we're already in a position to assist if we so choose to as a city and [12:20] therefore it shouldn't be part of the state agenda um you are amplifying what [12:26] I said I don't know I don't disagree with that but I just don't think we're the party who should be lobing for this [12:32] it's too hard to explain it's too attenuated it's not directly for us so they hire [12:38] their okay so I I agree with that I'm just making the point I think this is a [12:44] worthy investment right and we should let that process of them coming in and [12:50] describing what they need and let that process play out and then we were in a position to do something that we could [12:57] it's just it's procedural right okay so we'll do a delete all on that [13:03] one as well uh tax increment financing [13:10] legislation for 70th in France and 72nd in France number two you're working up [13:17] council member Jackson's I'm looking at your memo and [13:23] you you jump by the bonding because member Brer had a concern over the [13:28] bonding yeah where is oh these are these are yeah sorry your staff report but [13:34] it's tracking member Jackson's yeah thank you in here wellbe we'll just take [13:39] that up why don't you keep going the way you're going and we we'll catch the uh the make we'll have the conversation [13:46] about the bonding request on Highway 150th at the end okay you can go back to bonding if you [13:53] would ra if you would rather okay sorry no it's I um you're on the Tiff issue [14:00] not yep Tiff legislation for 70th in France and 72nd in France number [14:05] two this does come from this does yeah yeah I do remember this [14:13] one I'm just uncomfortable with this that's um you know [14:20] we had a long drawn out fight on both of these Tiff um deals and uh I don't want [14:25] to reopen it so concur with that for 70th in France um I [14:33] think in particular because we haven't seen anything it feels like it's been kind of stagnant for 72nd in [14:41] France maybe you can explain to me a little bit more about the timing of this [14:46] cuz it feels like we did just complete the approval of that sure um so [14:54] for both of these the the rationale is the same so I'll speak to both of them [14:59] but as you recall we created these tip districts a few years ago um tip districts have about they have a exactly [15:06] a 5year shelf FL um the ti Tiff statute says you have to spend the money and make the obligations within 5 years um [15:14] and if you get to five years in a day you're out of luck um with two to three years of delay just working through the [15:21] financing and capital markets to try to get these deals financed we've already eaten away 3 years out of that 5-year [15:27] term so the the first ask here is to um is to extend that fiveyear deadline to [15:34] 10 year that's something that um happens quite frequently actually we're not the [15:39] only projects in the state that have that this isn't the only time that it happens that that's kind of a normal app [15:46] um uh it doesn't cost anybody any more money doesn't require anything of that nature um and how the procedure works is [15:54] first we have to go to the legislature and get their authority to to even consider it then we come back to the [16:01] city council and H and actually take the action so there's still another step [16:07] where you guys as a group can AG can agree or disagree to move forward but [16:12] without the state authority to even consider it we'd be done and I do not disagree with that I'm I'm I'm okay with [16:19] that part of it and the second piece of this is extending the the duration of the of the tip District so uh 7th in [16:27] France for example we decided to play it safe and only create a 15-year District as we work through the numbers inflation [16:33] is increased everything is increased we don't think a 15year term is going to get it done so we've asked to increase [16:40] that time frame that would collect more money and it would have an impact on the overall fiscal project um again we have [16:49] to go to the state legislature first and then if they say we can consider it then [16:54] we come back to the city council the HRA our school board and Hanahan County and [17:01] all of those bodies have to agree to extend it um that's never happened [17:07] before in a Dina and that's pretty rare but again I'm looking to make sure that we've got the flexibility to try to see [17:13] good things happen on these sites and I thought that would be the ass and so what happens if we don't do [17:21] that um So based on what I know today um if we don't uh if we don't secure more [17:30] flexibility for 70th in France I think that deals dead and you'll have a vacant [17:36] site for quite some time and they'll come back with a much different project [17:41] Tiff would no longer be an option there 72nd in France I feel a little bit more optimistic that office building is on [17:48] the cusp of of pulling the building permit moving forward the apartment building is going to be discussed by the [17:53] H later this week um and that's got the zoning approvals recently so I feel [17:58] still more optimistic about that one um but 70th in France I I really think if [18:03] we want to see something good happen there we need to keep our options [18:11] open if we thought these projects at the time they were approved were appropriate for the use of tip but now external [18:18] forces have come into play to cause those projects not to advance way they [18:24] would normally advance in a development cycle due to the availability of private Equity or the financial rates the market [18:32] conditions I I was I I I don't see any reason why we wouldn't support both of [18:38] these requests that project at 70th of France we we all thought was were on the [18:43] council at the time thought it was an extraordinary project I think the same thing with the Planning Commission that [18:49] uh it's got some real special attributes to it and I would I would support uh the [18:55] request that you're making from the staff standpoint on this I know member Brer feels differently [19:01] this may cause member Jackson to think about in a little different way too just it's I guess it's just the [19:08] feeling 25 years and 30 years are very long times that's that's what's driving [19:14] that just feels like a very long time before that starts generating taxes for the [19:19] city so it it's a big jump from 15 years to 25 years and less so from 25 to 30 [19:27] but those are just long time per periods have anything I agree with that [19:33] U with member Jackson on that um then the other thing is just probably [19:41] semantics um I don't know if doing this actually means the project goes forward so it's [19:50] it's like a it's almost like a lless test to me that perhaps the factors around that [19:57] project aren't financially sound in a way um and so if [20:04] we get to that point I kind of feel like we should move on and then allow another [20:11] project perhaps to come in um but I know that's it's kind of semantics from that [20:18] perspective you could extend it and allow more time for that project um well [20:24] and the one thing and this is a question for you Bill is I know that because it's an empty lot tip's not available in the [20:31] future um and I even if a different project [20:37] came forward this tip would only apply to this project so there really is no [20:42] second option um to use public financing for that's exactly correct yeah so [20:48] that's that's the risk of of the 70th site um if there is concern about [20:53] extending the time frame from 25 to 30 years um we could still move forward I [20:58] mean a good first step is is sending that 5year deadline to 10 years um I [21:04] would normally ask for seven but at the legislature that's just how they write it you go from 5 to 10 there's no six [21:10] seven or eight um uh so at a minimum I strongly recommend we do that again it [21:17] still has to come back to you to actually and approve it um but if there's strong concern or hesitancy [21:23] about ever extending it we don't have to go there and we can see what happens in the future [21:30] I would like to support this to keep our options open I think knowing that we [21:35] would ultimately be making a decision we would be having I don't would there be public [21:40] hearings if we were to do this there'd be a public hearing there' be school district has to agree county has to [21:47] agree city council has to agree there a public hearing and the H so the the [21:53] threshold to actually implement it is extraordinarily I think given that I'm [22:00] comfortable with let's leave the option open and not have it off the [22:08] table so are you saying ex agree to extend the fiveyear rule to 10 years AR [22:15] saying keep it in as is as is okay that's what I thought you were saying I just want to make sure [22:23] I'll yeah I um I don't believe in practice that [22:31] that's what would happen um I think if we leave it in and and it comes back [22:38] through the process I think it'll get approved and so but I'm just being completely [22:45] transparent this is one of those things that I believe as a council we should be [22:52] aligned on um and so if if three of my council members believe going through [22:59] that process which is today the standard process we would go through to evaluate and then make that decision um I would [23:07] support going through that process and we get more info on what the time extension means um which we can't cover [23:15] tonight yeah you hold you hold a contrary view I think right but again I [23:21] understand um I'm in the minority and it's kind of the way the Democratic process works so and we have a lot to [23:28] cover tonight I don't we need to say more yeah mayor I I want to make a suggestion that um as much as I want to [23:36] get this wrapped up for you tonight because we've got uh our first meeting [23:41] with our legislators is is our first council meeting in January we have a lot of people in the room tonight that are [23:47] here for the the second item and I want to make sure including including [23:52] Consulting uh partners that help produce it so I I would really recommend that we probably table this right where it is [23:59] and switch that second topic I think it's a good idea [24:05] that okay let's go on to talk about the zoning [24:22] audit got room for all the plan commission up think we comfortable moving up feel free to [24:29] move up if you [24:45] want you want to move up [24:59] [Music] [25:04] oh zoning is too important be the only person [25:18] [Music] [25:33] okay I'll turn to Edon all right good evening mayor council and members of the Planning Commission uh we're here [25:38] tonight to present the uh key findings and recommendations from the zoning and subdivision ordinance audit report um [25:46] this is something we worked on over the past year with uh we hired H KGI to help us with this project um so Jeff Miller [25:53] is here tonight he was the project manager um as you probably read in the materials it's been about 54 years since [25:59] we last did a major update to Ed zoning ordinance um so you can probably all agree um a lot has changed since then um [26:07] so the purpose of this work is really to analyze the existing code in terms of how well is it working um are the [26:13] standards clear and easy to understand is the code as simple as it could be are things easy to find and then probably [26:19] most importantly does it actually achieve the desired development outcomes um does it actually reflect the vision [26:25] and goals of the comprehensive plan so um before I hand it over to Jeff I just wanted to share this um high level [26:32] guidance from the league of Minnesota City Zoning guide it says that once a city adopts a comprehensive plan it [26:37] needs a means of attaining the development goals stated in the plan zoning provides a means for implementing [26:43] the comprehensive plan so as you all know we spend a lot of money time and effort um on our comprehensive plan and [26:49] small area plans a lot of time engaging the community and asking for feedback um but we're really not getting the full [26:55] bang for our buck if um our zoning is not totally in sync with those plans um [27:00] it goes on to say that City should strive for zoning that meets their goals as simply and efficiently as possible [27:06] drafting a well organized easy to understand ordinance benefits all a good zoning ordinance makes information easy [27:11] to find is easy to administer and amend uses plain language well uses plain well [27:17] defined language that reduces the potential for erroneous or controversial interpretations um I'm not sure how many [27:23] of you all have tried to go online and dig through the zoning code um it's probably um a little bit scary but [27:29] ideally it would be simple enough that with a little bit of practice and doing it regularly you all could go in there and find the information that you're [27:35] looking for um as staff who work with it day in and day out we know that there are some problems um and I'm guessing [27:42] that all of you in your respective roles have probably felt that as well so um this is really just a first step this is [27:49] our effort to document what we think those problems are um The Next Step that [27:55] staff would be recommending is that we actually do the work to up dat are zoning um that would likely be an 18 to [28:01] 24 month process um there would be a lot of meetings and um engagement around you [28:07] know what changing the ordinance would actually look like um we can talk about that a little bit more at the end um tonight we're not really trying to [28:13] discuss how the ordinance should change we're just trying to communicate what those issues are um and get some [28:19] consensus in this room that we think these are things worth addressing so um unless there's any questions on any of [28:25] that high level stuff I said I will hand it over to Jeff to walk through the report so any questions real quick or [28:31] good go okay go ahead all right good evening everyone um as Addison said said [28:38] the uh the intent of this audit was to identify issues and findings and uh [28:44] recommendations but not Solutions so you're looking for us to have the answers we probably don't have those um [28:51] in any detail or specificity so there's four um you [28:58] yeah so there's four main things we're going to talk about tonight the audit was um targeted towards key parts of the [29:06] code not the entire zoning ordinance um so those four things are the zoning [29:12] districts the supplemental development regulations that doesn't roll off the time but explain where that is in the [29:19] code uh the development procedures specifically the site planine review lot [29:26] splits which are in the subdivision ordinance rather than zoning and then [29:31] the Pud and then lastly is the overall structure of the ordinance which we [29:36] tried to sequence these four things most important to least important so we're probably not going to talk about the [29:43] details of how to organize the code better in this that's something that would be very [29:49] technical as part of the Zone code update so we'll start with zoning districts uh if you do have questions or [29:57] comment as I'm going please feel free to State those uh [30:03] so uh you all got the audit I think in your meeting packets right riveting [30:11] reading um we tried to keep it shorter we worked with the Planning [30:16] Commission had a couple meetings WR a lot of analysis and findings and tried to boil it down to what the the gist of [30:24] the story is so uh you know at a basic level the the code is complex and we're [30:31] working with other cities on their zoning Orin ordinances most cities have older ordinances they're complex they're [30:39] out they're out of date and so a lot of people are updating them we are working with St Louis Park [30:45] currently you know phased update so we're really just focused on the residential districts at the moment not [30:51] even the whole code um to fix some of their issues and their opportunities so [30:56] the way we look at uh IGN code as part of the audit is there's four conventional based districts so there's [31:02] just the R1 the R2 residential the regional medical and then the U [31:09] parking that are just you know kind of regular districts that zoning codes have [31:14] then there's What's called the five planned districts and then underneath those there's 17 subdistricts so there's [31:21] a lot of districts um in the zoning code to um work with and then on top of that you [31:28] have up up to now you have about 23 planned unit districts or puds and then [31:34] of course you have the dist say districts it can get confusing because there's so many types of districts in [31:41] the code um if you didn't make it through [31:46] the report in the appendix there is a bunch of maps that we found in other cities are helpful to try to understand [31:54] the um kind of the level to show the level the frequency and pattern of usage [32:00] of the different districts so in there we have just the residential districts shown on the map just the business [32:07] districts um just mixed use and so forth uh and then you know one of the things [32:14] that you know we've identified in the audit is the R1 District covers a lot of [32:20] the map um there's a tart in there and it's like I think 91% of the residential [32:26] land is zoned R1 so a lot of land is Guided by one District yes um I do have [32:32] a question um looking at that map with all the yellow yeah you are showing what [32:38] is zoned residential but there's also Parcels that are not zoned residential [32:43] but function as purely residential and those are in our pcd1 Zone in the Wooddale Valley View [32:50] area we have three purely residential projects occupying commercial land and [32:55] so I just want that on your radar cuz what are we to do with that yeah and that's probably also true [33:02] of the MDD they those could also residen in there those could be yeah so the the [33:09] PCD districts are mixed use [33:16] districts and those were built with the language in the code at the very very [33:22] end of the code stipulating that residential use was not permitted on the first floor or Bas and [33:29] that existed when those projects were approved great thanks for mentioning [33:41] that uh yeah so this is just to let you know that those maps are in there and we have found with other cities that it's [33:46] helpful to just see what those patterns are um and how you're using those districts [33:53] today so the key findings um you know we I'm just trying to cover what's in the [33:58] audit and then we're open to questions and discussion but key findings are [34:03] relative to the zoning districts that um they should better align with the 2040 comprehensive plan [34:10] and those land use categories that are laid out in that plan um we have some more slides that get into some of the [34:16] details of that especially the densities between the districts and the land use [34:22] categories uh simple development projects often must seek approval through a p UD rezoning since the [34:29] current zoning districts are not precisely aligned with the comp plan and they're overly [34:35] complex um so they're not really set up for new development I would say the uh [34:42] the zoning ordinances Reliance on planned districts and subd districts means that there's a lack of [34:48] conventional base districts that can be applied to those new [34:55] developments uh the zoning number four the zoning districts are hard to administer and apply to propose de [35:01] development applications because they are overly specific in terms of allowed uses and [35:07] standards uh an example would be the some of the prds or [35:13] PSR know what PSR stands for but some of those subdistricts only allow senior [35:18] housing um you know the R2 District only allows Twin Homes or two units but not [35:26] single family and so that gets really complicated when every District only [35:31] allows very specific things to be able to apply it um a new [35:40] development the recommendations um seems like there should be more um [35:47] but we tried to boil it down to three basic things since uh you know the zoning code update the first thing you [35:53] would do is you would do a very detailed evaluation of the districts and and try to determine which direction to go with [36:01] those districts but the as far as the audit the finding is that um to do that [36:07] detailed evaluation restructure the code rewrite the current districts to better align with the 20 240 comprehensive plan [36:15] um and that's what even if that's not the goal in other cities that ends up [36:22] being a big part of what cities are doing so in one city that we did couple [36:27] years ago we we did a lot of things in the zoning districts that were pushing the [36:34] envelope a little bit but they were already in the comp plan so you know there was discussion about it and the [36:40] public was interested but there was less resistance I think because the comp plan already laid it out um it wasn't really [36:48] setting new territory as much as it could seem like it was U number two is reorganize reformat [36:55] the zoning District regulations from um more of a text based format to table [37:01] based and that that sounds simple but you can really see a lot by just putting [37:07] all the information on the table and comparing you know all the uses to all the districts and all of a sudden you [37:12] just think why do we even have this District what is this use we shouldn't be so specific I think the commercial [37:19] districts or the pcds have long list of uses and then you know you had this [37:25] situation something comes in it's not the list so is it allowed because you have such a long list and you know in [37:32] general it's better to kind of generalize the uses in the districts and the specific should be in a you know the [37:39] definitions or something so you don't get caught up in just one thing isn't in there so we should add that to the [37:45] district and amend it and go through this process and shouldn't have to do that uh third is conduct a detailed [37:52] evaluation re rewriting of the lot site building dimension regulations so that [37:58] would include setbacks building Heights um they're pretty complex uh standards [38:05] the calculations are complex um and uh they require data [38:12] Gathering and that's especially in the R1 District so with that uh we're going to [38:19] just share a little more information about these recommendations some of the details [38:25] behind this yeah so we wanted to give just kind of couple real world examples of projects that I think illustrate some [38:32] of those issues um so these are two examples of projects that were both approved by the city as puds but [38:39] probably didn't need to be because there's nothing super complex about these These are pretty simple [38:45] development projects um but they both Advanced goals of the comprehensive plan [38:50] but they weren't allowed by conventional zoning so for example um the project on [38:56] the right when that was approved the the resolution actually cited that um part [39:02] of it as part of its justification that the site layout would be an improvement over a site layout required by standard [39:08] zoning the building is brought up to the street provides front door entries towards the street includes side walks [39:13] to encourage a more pedestrian friendly environment um the proposed project would meet the following goals and [39:18] policies of the comprehensive plan and goes on to list a number of goals um referencing you know building facad [39:25] should form a consistent Street wall that helps to Define the street and enhance The Pedestrian environment um [39:31] Locate prominent buildings to visually Define corners and Screen parking lots encourage and require or require [39:36] placement of surface parking uh to the rear or side of buildings rather than between buildings in the street so um [39:43] what we got through the Pud was was better than what we could have got through our conventional zoning because [39:48] our conventional zoning didn't allow for this even though we're saying this is what we want um so it's just apparent [39:54] that our zoning isn't actually a true reflection of um of our vision similarly [40:01] with the the project on the left um that was approved purely because the comp [40:06] plan talks a lot about the need for more missing middle and more more town home more variety and housing options um if [40:13] we want more of that um we can just have zoning that would better facilitate that [40:21] um again there's nothing particularly unique about this project that would suggest it couldn't be appropriate [40:26] elsewhere but it wasn't allowed under conventional zoning with can you go back to that [40:33] example with that and with the vast majority of our puds um we do not attain sort of the [40:42] classic goal of the Pud which is to allow greater amounts of perious surface [40:47] and green space to happen and in that case it went into a neighborhood the entire backyards there's no [40:55] backyards um and so as we're advancing the idea of missing middle and I know one thing I've [41:01] heard from a lot of people is missing middle is simply an architectural type it's not it has nothing to do with [41:08] affordability and missing middle price range in Idina and I I keep thinking if we were going to come up with a way to [41:17] bring in density but also reduce the size of the building it's possible it [41:23] could be missing middle both economically missing middle and design [41:29] wise missing middle and we could also maintain Green Space so I just that's a concern when I look at that remember rer [41:36] can you repeat you said for missing middle isn't affordability it's I just [41:42] missed that last it's just a design type it's um what it looks like and so it's [41:50] not the affordable missing metal it's just a style it's like town houses that's what we want or is not I think we [41:57] want it to be affordable and that the term missing middle should Encompass that but it [42:04] doesn't so so by virtue of the construction of it it becomes a design [42:10] issue as opposed to an affordability issue is that what you're saying um missing middle can be interpreted as [42:17] design and affordability but the way it's interpreted here and I've heard it [42:23] when things are being presented it is simply designed and not ability not here on this project I recall that it was it [42:30] was specifically designed uh to be affordable at what [42:35] they deem to be the missing middle but and labor and lumber costs went up so high that it didn't really capture that [42:42] concept so the intent was but they're over a million dollars now yeah they were okay they were going to hit the [42:48] when we approved it the first four I think it was the first four40 [42:53] wasn't it yeah they were going to be like 5 to 700 I think seven okay so [42:59] that the concept I mean the idea at the time was to create something that was affordable but look [43:05] goodpoint right I have heard though in other cases that missing middle is not [43:11] tied to so we need to be clear as we move forward that those two both [43:21] matter been P I'm not quite sure how to verbalize it [43:28] um so that your one of your first slides talked about the themes of why we're [43:34] doing this work and then I liked it in the [43:39] presentation where you have the examples um and I think what I'm trying [43:45] to do is understand what our desire outcomes are [43:53] but they're actually at the level Addison that you just to and so it's [43:59] like um is our outcome for [44:05] to um have a zoning code that is simplified so [44:11] that maybe fewer projects is clear to the developer what they can and cannot do so fewer projects combo for councel [44:21] it's um and I'm just pontificating but I would I think will be helpful [44:28] for us as a council to ground on some of those outcomes because I think that can [44:35] inform the work moving forward does that yeah definitely I think what I kind of [44:42] think I hear you're saying is yeah I mean ultimately like our zoning is supposed to be a reflection of our expectations for what you can do on a [44:48] piece of property and right now it seems like that's not the case yeah because what our zoning said you could do on [44:53] this piece of property on the right didn't actually match what we wanted yeah right yeah so you did a good job in [45:00] those two examples of doing what I think is in my hand but it's like how do you [45:06] put that on on paper so that we can all say yep that is what we would like for an [45:14] outcome so I think like our next step in the process like I said if we were to move forward with looking to update the [45:20] code the next would be for staff to prepare an RFP and so in that RFP we could State these are the goals [45:27] objectives of doing this work and would you gather those goals and objectives from both the council and [45:33] the Planning Commission yeah I think that would be ultimately the RFP would need to be approved by Council so if [45:40] there were any changes you would have that authority to to direct [45:46] those and I get the the years mixed up when we talk about the 2040 comp plan is [45:51] that the one we've already done or the one that we'll be doing that's the one we just did 5 years ago okay cuz we're already talking about the next one [45:58] yeah confus far away yeah yeah so this is a less visual attempt at that but [46:05] maybe this gets at your question of the so one of the outcomes would be [46:10] the comp plan has low density residential low deny attach medium high [46:16] and then the mixed use Cate land use categories that allow residential and you can see the density [46:22] numbers that are in the comprehensive plan they've been in there for whatever 5 to 10 years and then you know we [46:30] calculated the zoning districts which have they don't have density numbers but [46:35] they have minimum lot sizes so you can calculate it and these are the densities [46:41] that calculate for all the residential districts and you can see you know they [46:46] only get up to 17 versus the number you see on the rightand side and there is allowances [46:53] for some things and I'm not I don't I don't have the code m but like parking and enclosed parking is one of those [47:01] things that allows you to get more density and that's we calculated that so that gets up to some higher numbers but [47:07] it's still not up to the numbers in the comp plan yeah a concern I hear [47:12] frequently is that we look at what is allowed per acre and um if you looked at [47:19] the building that you saw as you entered City Hall Maison green it's on land that [47:25] has a building height overlay of two stories for part of it and four stories for the other part and so it got a [47:33] variance to go up to seven stories um the project that is near my house [47:41] Wooddale Valley View it's a tiny triangular piece of land and so but it [47:47] was big enough even though it's oddly shaped that it qualified for four um [47:52] structures and so the legal buildable area was not followed and um the [47:58] footprint is about 2 and a half times that legal buildable area I'm concerned about pedestrian safety along a colle a [48:05] collector Road and so you know we can talk about what can go in in a space but [48:12] um it often times is the case that it's just okay then we completely get rid of [48:19] any stipulations in terms of height and it's [48:26] not necess neily something that is helping other goals that we have for you know like pedestrian bike safety and [48:32] that kind of thing so there needs to be some kind of balance there and I'm not [48:38] seeing that happening were one or both of those puds um one of them was [48:45] the fully residential in the commercial and the other was a [48:51] PUD so where I struggle with that is like this process here is about the [48:58] zoning and I think in those cases either way those are variances that if they're [49:03] proposed to the city we as a city council review them and have to bring them through the process and so I'm [49:11] seeing those as different things cuz like this process is good and I think we should go through this process but no [49:17] matter what we do to the zoning we will always get requests for variances and we'll always evaluate those as a council [49:23] right however other cities and thank you for that because because in terms of zoning there's additional stipulations [49:30] for example Bloomington says you can't go um Beyond 25% outside of the legal buildable area [49:38] so there could be ways to put stipulations in the zoning code so it wouldn't just be left [49:45] to variances and that kind of thing so thank you so much for raising that um [49:52] and I don't see and it could also be that you can't go more than you you know 25% above what the buildable height [50:00] limitations is so I would ask that we build in some kind of restraint because there's no restraint in there at all [50:06] right now so I I'd like to get through the review of what we have and and the [50:12] presentation and not get so much into the content if that's possible we we'll move through so that's [50:19] residential densities and then there are densities in the MDD plan District [50:27] also and you can see that those are much lower than what's allowed in the comprehensive plan so you know the gist [50:35] of it is the district densities are too low to achieve the comp plan that's out there as far as density high density [50:43] districts I guess would be the PRD and the PRD or three and [50:48] prd4 they only allow 10 to 15 units per acre um if you're tied into densities [50:55] that's a pretty low number for high density 15 to 31 is [51:01] also you know maybe that's getting into the medium density level but it's not [51:07] they're not typical high densities um and then medium density [51:13] districts I think you could look at the code and say there really isn't a medium density District or a missing middle [51:18] housing District the closest would be the R2 prd2 based on how you look at [51:24] those housing types R2 allows two units [51:30] um but the density only gets six so I that's those housing types would [51:36] automatically be higher almost always want to be higher than that so that's [51:41] very limiting um and then this is in the report but [51:48] and we see this in in a lot of cities that have older codes the the districts [51:54] that allow only single family housing are just a very large number St Louis [51:59] Tark I think was at about 80 to 85% of their residential [52:05] land only allowed single family um but most cities have had these high numbers [52:12] um St Louis Park is currently going towards allowing more than single family [52:18] throughout the city uh so that's a conversation that's been out there that we've all heard about the the the chart [52:26] of on the right is showing in R1 where the I don't think there's a good way to [52:32] describe the standards in R1 but it's 9,000 square ft or if the Lots around [52:38] you are bigger then it's larger than that and that numers obviously hard to [52:44] determine in any one spot on the map um we tried to look at what is actually out [52:51] there for lot sizes so you can see I'd say about 20 a little bit more than 20% of the lots are less than [52:58] 9,000 um and of course uh we have the map for that too but there's a range of [53:04] lot sizes within R1 there's only one standard so that's that seems like a [53:09] situation where the R1 district is just handling too much land um on the [53:16] map and then this map is in the the report in the appendix um this is the the lot sizes so [53:25] you can see where those small smaller and where the larger lot sizes are and as you might imagine they're by [53:31] subdivision you know whenever they were plotted more there's more smaller lots east of 100 of course in the older part [53:38] of the city and then um staff already had this map I guess and it's um [53:44] strictly based on the 9,000 ft lot size minimum it's showing nonconforming lots [53:51] and you can see all the the green is non-conforming U so what's happened in [53:57] other cities is you analyze the often the lot sizes are analyzed and people [54:05] will agree that those small Lots aren't a problem and so somehow you either have [54:11] a new District or you lower the current District's lot size and and and really [54:16] lower the the number of non-conforming lots in the [54:21] city so that's zoning districts so I can go through the I can just go through the [54:26] rest and then we could talk about you go back to that slide please I want to try to understand something [54:32] better so your definition of a non-conforming lot is based on the fact [54:39] that 20% of our R1 lots are 9,000 square ft yeah can this better than I can so [54:49] that map is only showing the lots that are less than 9,000 so if your lot is less than 9,000 ft it's a non-conforming [54:55] lot but if it also is in a neighborhood where the median is greater than [55:01] 9,000 um if it's less than the median it's also non-conforming there's no way for us to map that because we would have [55:07] to analyze every single parcel individually every single property has a different set of parcels within 500 ft [55:15] um so potentially in some neighborhoods um where there's not a lot of uniformity [55:21] in the size of the lot like Western Edina potentially half of those lots are not nonconforming because with the [55:27] median half half we're saying half of those are less than the median half of those would be [55:34] non-conforming so 9,000 a 9,000 foot lot you've determined based on the fact that [55:41] only 20% of the Lots in the N 9,000 square ft that that's the that's the [55:46] conforming standard that's what's in our code a lot has to be either a minimum of [55:51] 9,000 ft so you see like in a lot of the older parts of a lot of our Lots us [55:59] not yeah so I'll run through these other topics quick and then maybe we can just [56:05] open up your questions and comments so supplementary regulations [56:12] is one um division within an article buried in the code and it has this [56:19] random grouping of regulatory sections um it's one of those things I mean I've [56:25] worked for was a planner before I did this job in a city where the code was confusing and you always felt like you [56:31] were going to miss something somebody's going to come in after you've written your report and they go what about this [56:36] oh because that's buried over here that's that's the article right there [56:41] that most cities have and it's just you know people don't know where to put it [56:48] over time incrementally it just gets worse and so there's a lot in there um that that should be fixed um and and the [56:57] the the other one is that these regulations all relate to the zoning [57:02] districts too so there can be inconsistencies and redundancy because [57:07] you know for instance open space might be dealt with separately but it's also in the district sometimes and then the [57:14] the the they're inconsistent between those two areas of the code um the [57:20] recommendations are as you might imagine reorganize update all those sections we [57:26] we've gone through and said where these sections should go in the code and so in [57:31] a more organized code some of those things actually go into the district some go into standards some should stay [57:37] there um the ones that should stay in there that are kind of those General development sections standards and [57:45] they're applicable to all districts are the ones you probably deal with a lot are parking Landscaping fences walls [57:53] every District you have to meet those standards um a lot of the other ones are just more specific they might even be [57:59] definitions of things and it's it's just really confusing that they're all in one [58:05] place um and so then you would relocate the other sections to a more organized [58:11] code and we'll talk about that at the very end uh development procedures so we [58:17] looked at three procedures based on um working with step this is what the focus [58:23] was so safe plan review or the first thing we did is we put everything into a [58:28] table which is usually helpful just to see how things are being reviewed how [58:35] many meetings are required how many steps are in each [58:40] process we have that information for site planine review it sounds like um [58:47] it's fairly infrequent that it's a standalone thing it's really being tied into the Pud um when you're resoning to a PUD uh [58:57] but typically site planine review should have the standards in place that [59:03] it's um really clear and straightforward and so um public [59:09] hearings aren't typically required for site plan reviews because if the standards are in the code that this is [59:15] what you have to meet with the site plan review you won't need to have public hearings um and then many says allow [59:20] administrative review for minor modifications and that can be a you know a list [59:26] things um and right now sounds like you is only um minor is enlargements that [59:34] are less than 10% so there's opportunities there to make site planine reveal an easier [59:40] process for people if it's a straightforward process and the standards are in the [59:46] code um so even though site planes are subject to clear and objective standards [59:52] they require a time consuming process and that includes to public hearings the [59:58] recommendations to update that to remove those unnecessary barriers for projects that are in compliance with the [1:00:05] ordinance um and that includes opportunities for administrative review and the reduction or elimination of [1:00:11] public car so if we get rid of the public hearing there's still um Council [1:00:18] approval yeah okay so like a good example is that hockey training facility that one was 100% co- compliant they had [1:00:25] to go through three meetings and two public hearings you know for a project that was pretty straightforward complied [1:00:31] with code okay thank you uh the next procedure that we looked [1:00:38] at was Lot splits uh typically that's an easier process the way it's in [1:00:46] the code the zoning or or the subdivision ordinance today is it's basically a full planning procedure to [1:00:52] split a lot um so that makes it even challenging to split lots that were previously [1:01:02] combined uh many cities use what's called a minor subdivision process [1:01:07] within their subdivision ordinance and that allows for a shortened review process and a lot of times it's three or [1:01:14] fewer Lots is when that's simplified and more and administrative when you say shorten [1:01:21] review process you mean do you mean that it's all administrative or there's still public during old um it's typically [1:01:30] administrative okay so obviously that would be a [1:01:36] conversation but if it meets all the lot standards you know if there were variances being [1:01:41] requested then it goes through the variance process of course [1:01:48] yeah um so the finding key finding that we have in there is that it's that [1:01:53] procedure is over really complex it's time consuming four meetings are required it [1:01:59] looks like including two public hearings so the recommendation would be [1:02:04] to update the subdivisions ordinance and the R1 District um which [1:02:11] also addresses lot splits um and then that includes [1:02:16] opportunities for administrative review reduction or elimination of public hearings for minor [1:02:24] subdivisions add as long as they comply with the lot standards in the [1:02:31] ordinance the third one is the Pud [1:02:37] um difficult for simpler puds to meet the requirements that you brought up the [1:02:42] benefits of the Pud are not being met in a lot of cases that are identified in [1:02:48] the purpose and intent um one code says today one minor [1:02:55] modification can be approved administratively but that's it um otherwise it's a process that both [1:03:04] Planning Commission and the council key finding um is the Pud process is being [1:03:11] used for most proposed development projects the required procedures overly [1:03:17] complex time consuming and has a lot of meetings um I think as we've talked [1:03:23] about it more this is happening in another city we're working with they're trying [1:03:29] to make the Pud work better but it's really the base districts that aren't [1:03:35] working and so the Pud if there was better districts that you could refer to to say the standards [1:03:43] are for this property or this land are this and yes we agree a PUD would be [1:03:50] appropriate here to do something special but you're starting with some standards [1:03:56] that makes sense that you want in the in the code but today in most cases there's [1:04:02] really not a good District to look at so you you end up doing a PUD yeah I would [1:04:07] say that's true for us too sometimes you guys are reviewing a PUD and the standards in the closest conventional [1:04:13] District are just way off you know they're not even close to the same so this isn't to say we would never [1:04:20] use PD again it's a great tool like for providing us with flexibility for Unique projects [1:04:26] um this would just be updating the code to bring those conventional districts a little bit closer to match what our true [1:04:33] expectations [1:04:38] are yeah so the recommendations to update the Pud to reflect best practices [1:04:45] that would be um probably strengthening the purpose Clauses and and maybe a minimum project [1:04:52] size to prevent puds from being overused and use as a bypass for other [1:04:59] procedures but again I think it is really more the base or the conventional districts that are causing it most of [1:05:06] the time um and then this is procedural but the Pud [1:05:13] resoning as you read through it it really starts going back to the site planine review procedures and so I think [1:05:19] that's complicating things too because it's it's relying on another procedure to Define this procedure [1:05:26] and uh I think that could be simplified so the last thing we looked [1:05:32] at was the overall ordinance structure um I'll go through this quickly but so [1:05:39] there's whatever number of articles are in there um they're pretty inconsistent [1:05:44] from being really large some are really short literally ranging from one page [1:05:50] for an article to 74 Pages for another article the districts article has 85 [1:05:57] sections so just that kind of stuff kind of tells you it's not very well organized it's hard to [1:06:03] use um and we've seen this in other cities codes so sometimes we talk to [1:06:08] cities about their codes and they say you're saying our code is terrible and I'm like well no I'm not saying I'm saying codes are terrible I guess but [1:06:16] not your code specifically um information such as uses [1:06:21] and dimensional standards uh they're contained in long list they're over overly specific and redundant so the [1:06:28] example is the uses and some of the districts are just really really long and there's things that don't make sense [1:06:33] to be in there anymore things are going to be missing so that that should be um [1:06:39] streamlined uh that one article called supplementary reg regulations is a catch-all for a lot of unrelated things [1:06:47] um so that should be addressed uh the development procedures we just looked at three but [1:06:54] typically the ordinance is easier to use if all the procedur procedures are in [1:06:59] one article or chapter whatever it's called and today it's in six different [1:07:04] places um and we've seen that before so that'd be an easy thing to fix and then [1:07:11] definitions are located in multiple places and that's a problem because something like lot Frontage could be [1:07:18] defined two or three times in different places and then they're not consistent obviously so um we usually have a [1:07:25] definition chapter and all the definitions are in there [1:07:30] um recommendations are establish a new hierarchy a numbering system for the [1:07:36] ordinance that makes it consistent throughout easier to navigate and set up [1:07:41] better for adding new sections over time and we did go through this in some detail with the Planning Commission [1:07:47] and showed U colors and it's very detailed we're not going to talk about [1:07:54] that tonight but there's ways to make the code much easier to use um reorganize the ordinance to group [1:08:01] related topics together and uh convert text based information to tables which we talked [1:08:07] about a little bit earlier and then consider reconfiguring the ordinance structure to integrate all [1:08:13] development related regulations procedures into one place often that's [1:08:19] called a unified development code um you maybe heard of those in other cities we [1:08:24] did that with Winona and on Alaska Wisconsin are two that I know [1:08:30] of and it it makes it better for the city but also property owners and developers to just be able to go to one [1:08:36] place and not have to think oh something's in the building code or something's in the environmental [1:08:42] chapter as much as possible get anything related to development and the unified development code or [1:08:49] whatever it's called that's it [1:08:56] that maybe some questions or ideas yeah I'm looking at your written [1:09:06] report seem to be the predominant recommendation I saw [1:09:14] was uh better align the districts with the 24 comprehensive [1:09:20] plan saw a lot a major part of that in your presentation as well so um [1:09:26] can you go back to the uh R1 District you talk about 91 92% of our city is [1:09:32] zoned R1 and you were talking about the non-conforming Lots was there a was there a direction that you wanted to [1:09:38] head uh Edison or Planning Commission on the um nonconforming lot issue is I [1:09:46] think the takeaway here was we have a lot of districts that we're just not [1:09:51] using um largely because they're hard to reuse and apply to new development um a lot of [1:10:00] these like Jeff said a lot of the plan districts were created almost like a PUD [1:10:05] for like an original development um and maybe that development was built back in the 70s [1:10:11] and it's really hard to apply to a development state so that's why you see they're just not getting used you know [1:10:18] you rarely see us bring forward a development application where someone's requesting a rezoning to prd4 because it [1:10:24] just doesn't work um so I think the recommendation would be um you know look into our comp plan [1:10:31] if we have a goal of providing more variety in housing types and more missing metal um you know going back to [1:10:38] the example of the Hankerson Town Homes we can create zoning districts that allow for that more of that type of [1:10:43] housing because the districts we have right now aren't working well for that and so where there's the if we go back [1:10:50] to this uh it the compli has low density low density [1:10:58] attached medium high it's really hard to point to districts that align with that [1:11:05] so you know I said earlier I don't think there are there's not really a medium density District so if people agreed and [1:11:12] I think it's in the comp the missing middle housing idea that there's there's [1:11:18] a desire for that in some places in the city there's not really a district to do it with today because you don't have a d [1:11:25] a district with a density that would do that and some of the the um plan [1:11:32] districts might have the uses that you want but then they're specific to the [1:11:38] site that they were originally used for so then something else doesn't work very well so that's where it's the districts [1:11:45] are so specific that they're hard to re reuse [1:11:52] basically oh yeah I kind of want to follow up on the single fan family housing though so one of the things that [1:11:58] I've heard especially in the morning Side neighborhood where the lots are smaller that they'd like to have a [1:12:04] different set of Standards so can we in the process of doing this would we be able to look at those different lot [1:12:10] sizes and come up with a more uniform and then have a discussion about when your lot size is this size what what [1:12:17] what are our expectations for lot set size so that would give us the the power really to do that which we don't really [1:12:23] have now yeah exactly so like Jeff said we have one R1 District that's applied to the entire city and it has these [1:12:30] different formulas to try to fit Within These different neighborhoods even though these neighborhoods are very [1:12:35] different and because of those complex formulas it means um well it's hard for [1:12:40] staff to answer like basic questions like we have residents call us and say hey I'm thinking about putting on a front porch what's my front here set [1:12:46] back well we can't tell you you have to go survey all the other homes on your block and spend $1,000 to find out so we [1:12:52] could look at like morning side and see okay 90 5% of the homes are set back at 30t we [1:12:58] could have a district that just has a front set back at 30t okay great thank [1:13:04] you so what I'm hearing is that there's a lot of opportunity um and I also think I heard [1:13:12] in there that some cities kind of do more of a phased approach um what if we [1:13:18] were to do kind of a full overhaul of everything that needs to be prioritized [1:13:24] how long long would that effort take probably like 18 to 24 months okay so [1:13:30] how should we think about layering in the timing of that compared to our next [1:13:37] comp plan we would try to finish it before the next comp and then the comp plan would be different and it would [1:13:43] already be like out of date this would hopefully get us 95% of the way there because we haven't done it in 54 years I [1:13:50] mean unless you all think that the next comp plan is going to be radically different than the one we have I mean I'm sure will be some changes right um [1:13:58] but just having zoning districts that work for you know a lot of the development we're seeing we'll we'll be [1:14:04] 95% of the way there that hopefully at that point then when we have to go on and do additional updates it's very minor okay and then to piggy back on [1:14:11] that like how do we then over the next 40 to 50 years [1:14:17] maintain better ordinance kind of posture um yeah probably reviewing it [1:14:24] and up it just more regularly you know maybe then in 20 years Notting [1:14:31] yeah okay I mean one one of the things that can make the districts work better [1:14:36] is if they're instead of having standards just at the district level especially for lot size and maybe like [1:14:43] setbacks is to think of what are the housing types that you want to allow in them and then have the standards relate [1:14:51] to the housing types so the best example I think I think the easiest example is [1:14:56] tow houses only need to be whatever 24 30 wide something like [1:15:03] that but a lot of codes have a minimum lot lot width of 50 60 80 whatever it is [1:15:14] and so I mean we've worked with cities where all the town houses were done as puds because they just never had a [1:15:19] district that would have accommodated them and uh so I [1:15:26] think going through and saying there's not just R1 there's R1 2 3 and four or [1:15:32] whatever number which housing types do you want to allow in each one and then [1:15:38] work on the standards from there and it's a part of that process would we also look [1:15:44] at then and kind of making this up right is to articulate it but when we're [1:15:51] looking at these two graphs what we might come up with is is R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 [1:15:57] that have different definitions than what we have today and so there might be more of an equal [1:16:02] distribution of 60% making it up might be the existing kind of R1 definition we have [1:16:09] today but then there would be more that fall into those different categories and so as a part of this it's not just [1:16:15] redefining it's also then saying like these are the zones these are the districts that correlate to [1:16:22] that thank you one of the challenges we'll have as a fully developed town with 92% of our [1:16:30] property in an R1 district is that most neighborhoods are going to be [1:16:35] reluctant to change the circumstance that their house exists [1:16:40] in barring a situation where you've got a lot split where you use that minor subdivision technique where you have a [1:16:49] more uniform standard for dealing with something that used to be 250ft lots now [1:16:54] it's 100 foot lot in the neighborhood and you're you're saying okay you can go through this minor subdivision process [1:16:59] it's administrative of nature you can put two houses in there instead of one now I can see people because we've [1:17:06] experienced that and people are are kind of used to that but to think about [1:17:11] turning some neighborhoods that are single family into more medium density or something [1:17:18] other than what they have um something that requires really careful thought [1:17:25] about where that might happen yeah and that I mean that would that could also [1:17:31] go to the comp plan so maybe the code is set up the way you want it to be but you [1:17:38] might not do as much rezoning until after you do the comp plan and so if you create a medium [1:17:45] density residential district the comp plan would be a good place to say where do we want medium density and it's not [1:17:52] you know necessarily changing whole neighborhoods but right now I don't think there's areas zoned even using [1:18:00] your current districts for medium density District residential on your chart the on the [1:18:06] comp in the in the comp plan medium density residential is defined yeah we just don't have anything it matches up [1:18:12] with right so yeah yeah like we could proactively identify and that probably [1:18:19] would be something we would do with the next comp plan is like proactively identify where we see [1:18:25] um you know areas changing if if they are single family areas if there are [1:18:30] certain areas kind of like the Anor one is like an example right um we could proactively identify those in the [1:18:37] component um but alternatively we could just create the district so that they're there when an opportunity arises like [1:18:44] Hankerson we actually have a zoning District that fits and works for this that instead of requesting a resoning to PUD they're requesting a resoning to R3 [1:18:51] or something and then we've proactive CU then what we've done is we've proactively decided like what is an [1:18:58] appropriate setback what's an appropriate building coverage versus every time we do a PUD we are being reactive right and having to decide on [1:19:05] the spot and take each of these Case by case so this this would be us being [1:19:10] proactive to you know take the time to decide what are the appropriate setbacks [1:19:17] height building coverage F all those standards so we've already thought through it and that would I like that in that it [1:19:26] would require a review because we have parts of town where our sewer capacity [1:19:31] is not great we have parts of town where our mass transit is not that great and [1:19:37] so when I look at the map that's in the comprehensive plan that talks about you [1:19:43] know how many units you could do per acre it kind of scares me I'll be honest because those factors are not there it's [1:19:51] just this broad swath whatever the community Activity Center is that's you know you can build 150 units per acre [1:19:59] regardless of how that looks and I did come across a slide presentation I think [1:20:04] it was the Met Council that you know what does density look like in different places and it was really kind of [1:20:10] fascinating because you know here you've got that high density and you've got Light Rail right nearby um or you've got [1:20:18] a bus line or you've got something like that so the other thing that I'm concerned [1:20:24] about is you know we talk about variation of lot size and we do have a rule that if it's [1:20:30] less than 9,000 sare ft you can cover 30% of the lot instead of 25% and so [1:20:36] that for places where you've got slopey land sometimes set really hard on the person who's a little bit lower down and [1:20:43] and so there's a lot to take into account here but the idea of creating a [1:20:50] specific zoning that would allow Town Homes do make sense to me what I would [1:20:55] not want to see is like suddenly there's an area of town where we're saying it's going to go right here um and just [1:21:04] identifying that and I guess um I'll be there's one street and it's [1:21:11] come up before like let's make this an area of change and that's Grand View Lane and that's got some of the most [1:21:17] affordable housing in located right where it's very useful [1:21:23] and to take you know where we've already got some density and um you know those are places where people have subdivided [1:21:30] some of these double dwelling units so you know I think kind of [1:21:36] keeping uh appreciating what we have that really is valuable um in terms of [1:21:42] our goals for affordability and walkability and inclusion and all of that is important as we move forward [1:21:49] yeah so I do think I mean I agree with that you could do the code update before the comp plan yeah but making big moves [1:21:58] on the zone map probably should come from the comp plan right so if you don't [1:22:04] have a lot of medium density residential identified on the comp plan map then [1:22:10] there only map sh either okay I so I was one of the reasons I was excited about [1:22:16] this was for um housing affordability in broader terms and so [1:22:24] part of me says yeah it makes sense to define the districts so that they're [1:22:31] there when they're ready to be used right that's one of the one of the options you gave [1:22:37] Addison but I think we should in addition to that have the [1:22:43] conversation which is contrary to what you just said M okay of where should we [1:22:48] target to have medium density and you would do that yeah through the comp plan [1:22:55] and so I think we should do both of those things um [1:23:00] because I I think at some point we have to have the conversation yeah conversation and then it'll still [1:23:07] take 30 years to right to shift to that new um that new normal but I think it's [1:23:15] I think it would be the right thing I'm not so sure that's contradictory I think there's room for both of those yeah yeah [1:23:24] I if we don't at least sorry go ahead no no no please if we don't at least have the conversation I can tell you that the [1:23:31] legislature we missed I mean we we we were successful in fighting off Minneapolis 2040 plan imposed Statewide [1:23:39] where they were going to say we're going to preempt land use in cities we're going to mandate that you have be in our [1:23:46] quest for production of Housing and potential affordability you're going to have to [1:23:51] build eight plexes fourplexes six plexes duplexes and single family neighborhoods so we if we don't at least start the [1:23:57] conversation and we've been having this conversation with our legislators and with people that are running running housing and local government committees [1:24:05] over there what what what can we do together to try to help on this production issue [1:24:11] and affordability issue so I think James raises a good point there Caroline so I have one other [1:24:18] question before we started using PUD before the 2018 comprehensive plan which [1:24:23] is what I call [Laughter] um CU I can remember then when it was done um we had a problem with give to [1:24:30] get we wanted to be able to to have a mechanism for give to get and PUD became [1:24:36] that mechanism so our affordable housing policy and our um Green Building policy come into play when we do [1:24:45] PUD will what will that do these changes due to our ability to ask developers to [1:24:52] include affordable housing and and comply with our Green Building policy um so I would say like right now that's no [1:24:59] different than if someone could do something that complied with a conventional District right now um but I [1:25:06] think too when we do a PUD that give to get is not always clear so when the developer does those things it's very [1:25:11] undefined of well how much flexibility do they get in return on setbacks height floor a ratio right um [1:25:20] what we could do what other cities do is um and it's kind of similar to what we [1:25:26] had with the allowances I forget where that was um yeah so this we have this in some of [1:25:33] our some of our code right now where um it's written in there like if you include affordable units you get [1:25:40] additional density or height so that it's very clear you include 10% of the units you get an extra two stories of [1:25:46] height so that give to get becomes very clear and defined okay and then it's clear to the public too like what are we [1:25:51] trading okay so that can be written as we redo this yeah it's optional as [1:25:56] long as it's something they are opting into as inen right right yeah conventional districts not just in [1:26:04] the PE right okay well that's good to know because I don't want to lose that ability as we talk about comp plan [1:26:11] densities and think about density in general I think one thing that's going to be important to be able to discuss [1:26:17] maybe you can think about this is how do we Define to our presidents the net [1:26:23] benefit of density because right now we're going to make a [1:26:28] decision on the final tax levy tonight we're getting a lot of emails or some at least I've had several emails saying hey [1:26:35] mayor uh you shouldn't be building these apartments because they're costing us money this is why our taxes are going up [1:26:41] well we know that that's not we know density is assisting them you know but [1:26:46] for the fact that our estimated market value of all of our property in our town has doubled over the last seven eight [1:26:53] years their taxes would be much much higher but we got to be able to explain that to [1:26:59] people and have it make sense from a datadriven standpoint think about how to do that [1:27:06] yeah just with the time we have left I just um want to get the temperature in [1:27:11] the room of moving to the next step then staff preparing and art does that good idea abely [1:27:19] okay yeah things change in 54 years at least around [1:27:26] here okay any questions good I got just real [1:27:32] as so if this is approved we talked about getting feedback from the Planning Commission and the council with respect [1:27:38] to the comp plan changes that might be coming and just all of this before it's formally presented is there a way to [1:27:43] build in you know some working sessions or something else where we can we can gather we can give more [1:27:50] feedback on the next phase and what some of the changes might be but before they're formally is that the work plan [1:27:57] what is that the work plan initiative I just ask like how do how do we cuz we've really gotten some good benefits out of [1:28:02] that having conversations like this before something just gets presented and we have to say we support or we don't [1:28:08] we're seeing it for the first time yeah are you talking about like when we're actually developing how the code would change yeah you mean yeah so when we do [1:28:16] that RP we would look to hire a consultant and there would be lots of meetings with the public with the commission with Council on what those [1:28:23] changes would be so yeah yeah it's like a giant small area plan yeah it's kind of like a similar to like a comp [1:28:30] comprehensive plan Community engagement process there will be a lot of it [1:28:35] okay I I do like the idea of restraints though on because we focused on residential but you look at Commercial [1:28:42] and it's I feel like sometimes we're the you know just this everything is on the [1:28:49] table and then you end up with situations where small area plans are totally ignored and the goals and [1:28:57] Visions are not there because the code is not followed and there's such a Divergence from standards so you know [1:29:05] there needs to be some way to address the fact that we do do variances that [1:29:13] are really very large you know and you know just looking we've got one building where the [1:29:21] public right of way now hosts the planter beds and that's [1:29:27] v44 for you know and and so there's this compromise that's happening and with [1:29:33] that one was so strange because the setback variant was only followed for [1:29:38] the building above ground below ground you've got the parking coming all the [1:29:44] way to the lot line you know so how do we dial things so that the expectations [1:29:51] if you're looking at the code and you think it's going to be there yeah there is some flexibility for variances but [1:29:57] it's it's not something that would surprise people I think the whole point [1:30:03] of this would be to change our zoning so that it more accurately reflects those small area plans in the account plan so [1:30:09] that hopefully fewer variances are being requested that doesn't mean that there won't be some people will always request [1:30:15] variances and that will be up to the Planning Commission and Council to you know review those as they come in I I [1:30:21] think there's got to be restraints though there's got to be like you can't go more than 25% you can't you know cuz [1:30:27] it's not that's a discussion we'll have yeah yeah but that it's for a [1:30:33] conversation yep let them do their work and yeah I was once accused of never [1:30:39] having a never meeting of varg I didn't like you're the exact opposite I don't [1:30:45] think it's fair like you know it's so that's good we're s close through [1:30:54] thanks everybody yeah this is [1:31:00] ERS you guys this sum was really well written right very concise very clear I [1:31:07] appreciated it yeah I don't know