[0:00] this is the May 22nd Planning Commission work session staff present Liz Olen [0:05] Carrie teag Chris haer Addison Lewis Ryan day Bonnie Pia David [0:14] Al Richmond Jeff Miller all right um so uh this evening [0:22] again we have uh Jeff Miller Beth Richmond from H KGI to give us an update on the progress of the zoning code audit [0:29] which as we talked about last time is really meant to be an assessment of our zoning code to um look at whether it's [0:34] still working the way we're intending and aligned with City goals um you know we've amended the code kind of piece by [0:40] piece over time but haven't really done a comprehensive update and look at the code since the 1970s so that's really [0:47] the purpose of this um tonight is the second of two Planning Commission work sessions that uh we're doing and then [0:54] we'll have a third joint meeting once the report is finalized to present those findings to U planning and Council um [1:02] tonight we're going to continue the discussion on the zoning districts and looking at the alignment of our [1:07] districts with our comprehensive plan and small area plans also talking a bit about R1 lot standards and then also a [1:15] discussion on development procedures for applications like site plan review puds and minor subdivisions so take a look [1:23] all right we'll jump right in so there's kind of two as Addison said two big [1:30] topics going to talk about zoning districts some more but really focus on um how they align or how they compare [1:38] to the comprehensive plans land use categories uh touch on the small area [1:43] plans and what what they contain and how they affect zoning and then existing lot [1:50] sizes talk about um the impact of those or the potential [1:58] with those in the r one district and then we'll go into development procedures after [2:05] that new districts um the language of this gets [2:11] can get confusing but the way we've been looking at it and I think it may be changed from the last meeting EV so four [2:18] base districts uh so those are districts that are meant intended to be used Citywide I [2:26] would say and then there's five plan districts which consists of 17 [2:32] subdistricts that act like districts it seems like so um and those are all the [2:40] prds uh the senior housing the PSR the mixed use [2:45] commercial office and Industrial planned districts and then [2:52] there's 23 planned unit development districts which is used more common now [2:58] or more frequently now now and those plan districts it seems like and then there's two overlay [3:05] districts so there's a lot going on there there's a lot of complexity in the code part which district is going to get [3:13] used when the development com in so to go back to the comprehensive [3:18] plan and what that what the guidance is from the comprehensive plan in the plan there's [3:24] descriptions of all the land uses or the land uses for each category should say [3:31] uh densities are in there for the residential and the mixed use categories both the minimum and the [3:38] maximum that's not always typical sometimes they just have maximums I think well me County you probably mostly [3:45] have minimums too uh there's a standard I guess in the comp for the [3:51] percent mix of mixed juice categories residential versus commercial fs and [3:57] there for the business categories and then jobs excuse me jobs per acre is [4:04] identified in there for business and mixed juice categories so there's 14 land use [4:11] categories there's four residential six mixed use couple business and a couple [4:19] public the four residential categories are low density low density attached [4:26] medium density and high density [4:32] so we're going to compare these um especially the densities so these are the densities [4:38] that are we talked about last at our last meeting for each of the districts [4:43] so you know as low as the maximum for R1 is 4.8 you know close to the five which [4:50] does line up with the comp plan pretty well um and then they mostly go up but [4:56] these are based on the minimum lot area so we've calculated these if you go to [5:01] the zoning code you don't see these numbers uh but to compare with the or [5:07] align with the comprehensive plan we need to calculate what is the density that's allowed and that's not always [5:12] easy because some of these districts or subd districts have allowances so then those densities go up [5:20] so you can see PRD 3 goes up from 10 to 15 and pd4 [5:26] doubles uh gets up to 31 uh so those are the densities in the [5:33] districts and then if you try to line up the districts with the land use [5:38] categories just for residential uh what we're showing here is it looks like the district [5:47] that aligns with low density residen I think the only one is [5:52] R1 and that that aligns you know the district is within the maximum of the [5:59] land you category 4.8 less than five for the next one there's three [6:05] districts that have maximums that fall within the 4 [6:11] to8 uh and then the medium the land use category just has a [6:19] maximum of 12 so it's the same there's no new districts that work for the medium land [6:27] use category so that's an issue and we'll go through the findings uh because it's basically [6:33] saying there's not any true medium density zoning districts based on [6:40] density of course D medium density can be defined in different ways but um in [6:45] the way that we've worked with these that that's what we would say and then high density there's five districts [6:52] we've listed here and you can see all the densities that fall within that land use so that looks [6:59] good um three out of the five are only allow senior housing so it doesn't it's really [7:05] only two districts so we'll get to that detail um then we have the maps if we [7:12] need to pull them up we did we send those out the last some of those right [7:18] uh you know so you can see all the residential districts and subd districts [7:25] on the leand side we also can for this meeting we we mapped which [7:31] districts if you just map the districts that align with the low density attached [7:37] residen so what does that look like and so you can see where that it's not [7:42] medium density even but where those areas are and actually medium [7:49] density only the only difference is is prd1 doesn't work for medium density and [7:56] there's only one uh P1 on the map I think I think it's [8:02] just that one so that's also the map of currently [8:08] zoned medium density uh districts in the [8:14] city I think I think that's what we're seeing and then high density we also [8:20] mapped there's really only two subdistricts PRD 3 and [8:26] four that allow densities at um meet the comp PL high density [8:32] definition so these are the only these are the uh properties that are zoned for high density based on that those two [8:40] districts and then the senior housing map we're just mapping which districts [8:46] allow senior housing you can see that there because there's two districts there's actually [8:51] three but one's never been applied [8:57] so so uh uh feel free to ask questions or comment anytime while we're talking [9:05] but I'll just start to go into the finding so uh there's only two [9:10] residential based districts so you know we'd say typically there'd be you know at least a low density a medium density [9:17] and a high density in this case you know the code has two and they're both low [9:22] density R1 and R2 and there's not really a medium or a [9:28] high density zoning District um each subd districts for the [9:34] residential uh prds the psrs K or Addison can correct me if [9:41] we're wrong but it's our understanding that they were generally established for specific developments and sites in the [9:47] past and they're not they weren't intended to be used broadly or applied broadly going forward sometimes they can [9:55] because they work but that wasn't the intent of yeah that's kind of the definition of [10:01] spot zone right well it's like [10:09] a but it they used in place of P yeah but that's essentially what it was [10:15] you're right created that district for that project so it could be reused it's just that it often doesn't work to be [10:21] reused because it was tailor to meet a devel in a site [10:29] uh permitted uses in the districts are typically eared to a specific use so some of the examples are um you know in [10:36] R2 only two unit dwellings are allowed not even single family dwellings so I [10:42] think I might have mentioned that the last meeting but that's very atypical I would say uh as I mentioned just earlier [10:48] three of the five high density subd districts that are out there that could be used they only allow senior housing [10:55] looks like so that's why we're at that map where we just have two subd districts that [11:00] are that can really handle high density residential without doing a [11:06] PUD um and as far as the residential district there there's a psr3 in the [11:12] code but it's never been applied to the map so you probably don't need that so there was a one of the I think [11:18] it was prd1 was actually lower density than R [11:24] yeah yeah oh and the reason the reason that's happen [11:30] I think this gets overlooked a lot uh the R2 is two two units two two unit [11:38] dwellings and so the the lot size a 2.9 but it's per two unit dwelling so [11:47] it's really double so if the density is 2.9 but you're getting two units for each of [11:55] those that's 2.9 * 2 so I think that's I think that works for this code that's [12:01] what we see elsewhere but I think sometimes that gets overlooked because you just see that and actually in the [12:06] code it doesn't even show the density so it's just focused on that minimum lot size so if you don't actually calculate [12:13] it you wouldn't realize it yeah you wouldn't notice it I guess is probably [12:19] what happens but it's good to know that right [12:25] yeah um so there as I said there's no there's [12:31] no medium or high density residential based districts in the code today only those subd districts that were created [12:38] in the past uh The Limited number of Base districts seems to be increasing the [12:44] need for rezoning for proposed residential developments and we've talked about it with staff and sounds [12:49] like most new developments require resoning which you know isn't [12:55] necessarily bad or good but it's definitely a bigger process [13:00] for a development to get completed if they have to go through resoning and all that's required with [13:06] that uh a variety of housing types is not well defined across the districts [13:12] and density levels so each district just has a list of the uses that are [13:19] identified so they're not you know they don't match up across districts and so you get different language for those so [13:25] what we've been typically doing is creating a table that says these are the [13:31] housing types that we allow in the city or we want in the city and then across [13:37] the districts use the same language so whatever that's called if it's called a [13:42] fourplex just say these districts allow board plexes these don't and you make it really easy [13:48] to understand where things are allowed and where they're not allowed [13:55] uh see yeah so I just said the [14:01] last different so we'll keep going [14:06] uh so District densities are too low to achieve the comp plan densities so go [14:13] back to that quick high density districts only allow [14:18] 10 or 15 units per acre even with the allowances you only get up to 15 or [14:25] 31 and then medium density districts those was R2 prd2 only allows six units per acre [14:32] so if we go back to that table you can see that Medium [14:41] density which I would say 12 maximum for medium density is on the low side but [14:48] today the only districts that get you that it would be allowed in that range [14:53] would be basically six units per acre so there's no District [14:59] I mean we do need a PUD to do the de development because the district's not there to allow that density and then the [15:06] same with the high density residential you can see those densities for those five districts the highest [15:13] one that's with allowances gets up to 43 but that's senior [15:21] housing uh 31 is the highest for you know non senior H housing residential [15:29] and the comp plan is saying maximum 60 so it's half of what the comp plan is [15:35] saying car was that was the Vernon the anerson project I remember nine per acre [15:41] n per acre yeah so that's in just as an example that's in the medium density but over [15:48] the Zone even for R2 okay [15:57] yeah so yeah things L up uh CU with R2 you need 15,000 square [16:05] ft per lot and those were 9,000 foot [16:14] Lots uh let's see so we talk about I think we should go through the mixed use and then maybe see [16:22] what you'd like to comment on or talk about so the in the comprehensive plan [16:28] the mixed use Landes categories there's six of them [16:33] um the districts which we looked at last time the densities for the zoning [16:39] districts that are allowed are pretty narrow and low I would say 10 [16:45] to 13 is the maximum for those subd districts but again they were I I guess [16:51] these were created for specific developments and sites and probably wasn't about getting to a certain [16:57] density necessarily yeah the idea behind the mixed development districts was to have [17:04] half residential half office retail and so that was the way the [17:11] original like take um md6 which is sentenia lakes that was supposed to be [17:16] half half but the economy they weren't building much housing and so that's [17:24] where um a lot of the housing was replaced with the office this year [17:30] there was a formula you could only build so much retail then you had to have so [17:36] many residential units in order to get the retail or the office yeah [17:43] soes meets that density it wouldn't be that low would it well if you take the [17:48] entire district and that does seem low it seems [17:56] low it was supposed to have a lot more residential units go oh and then the the PCD [18:04] subdistricts they don't have uh density standards at [18:10] all so when you compare them to the kind plan land use [18:16] categories uh let's see you can see so yeah sorry seems qu kind of quiet in [18:23] here so I wonder if maybe we need to explain like which neighborhood you know where neighborhood nodes we mix VI [18:29] Center because Mixie Center is 50th in France and is Grand View to okay and [18:35] those the only two and the other small area plans are the neighborhood nodes y [18:40] that's right and then the greater Southdale so what's the community activity CER that's that's Southdale [18:47] it's in between France and York and a little on the other side of York should able to see it on this map right on the [18:54] left side yeah it's all the that looks like more like zoning but oh [19:01] it is zoning sorry yep sorry but it's essentially this area can't fool [19:11] carry um so we did the same exercise where you [19:17] know for the neighborhood node minimums 10 up to 60 these are the residential [19:23] dist well these are the residential mix districts that could [19:29] could meet that so you can see again goes up to 60 the various highest is 43 which is [19:37] going to be that senior housing one so again it's like the maximum zoning [19:44] districts about half of what the comp plan is saying should be allowed so the first two columns are the [19:52] comp plan the second two columns are our actual zoning yeah yeah sorry yeah land [19:58] categories because the comprehensive plan and the idea behind establishing [20:04] all those with the comp plans were in order to achieve those densities you [20:10] needed to meet the sdale guidelines and we were going to negotiate the p and that's where of the Pud came [20:16] out rather than giving developers by right really everything was to be [20:22] negotiation through Beauty well and also the MDD 5 and six five has the minimum [20:29] tra area of 5 acres and md6 is 40 acres so you know the likelihood that you're [20:34] going to reuse those on any individual site like a neighborhood [20:41] node it's just not going to [20:49] happen which one that's so that's under Section 36555 special requirements minimum track [20:56] area yeah CU it was MDD 6 is Centennial AES MDD 5 is Edinburgh MDD 4 is Grand [21:06] View and that's it so yeah even at our neighborhood [21:12] nodes if someone you know wanted to do a mix use project you couldn't request a [21:18] res to that unless you had five you know five acres for mv5 [21:31] yeah still still would only get you 12.1 right5 what that [21:38] says MDD 5 is the 12.1 maximum is that right md5 yeah y [21:50] y uh so you can see mixed two Center all these are similar the first three so [21:57] this is just showing which districts you could apply to the comprehensive plan landage categories then you get down to [22:04] the last three the greater Southdale District the community Activity Center Regional [22:10] Medical uh these have minimums that are higher than all of those District [22:18] maximums so that's a challenge doesn't work uh and then the PCD could be used [22:26] for those landies categories because there is there's no density [22:31] maximum yeah those minimum low ends those were mandates of the me Council we [22:37] had much lower than what we submitted and they said nope you got to ratchet that up it [22:44] they calculated off of that right cuz you need yeah you need to have [22:50] your uh let's see so yeah so we do have a mix juice [22:56] map here if we wanted at could bring up the C that's a plan map and share if we [23:01] want and then also the business owning that you [23:07] have hand so the findings for the Mixed use districts are some of them there going to be more I would think but uh so [23:15] no residential or MDD districts meet the minimum density which I pointed out before for those three land use [23:23] categories uh there's no parcel zone md3 so there's another [23:29] subdistrict that's never been used um maximum densities of districts do not [23:36] achieve the maximum densities in the comp plan yeah PCD subd districts I think [23:43] what you found they offer more flexibility because they don't have a density so I guess you could start proposing [23:50] getting rid of density maximums for more districts to make it more flexible but [23:57] yeah because in the areas where it's you know guided for maybe higher density residential we can't really use PCD [24:03] because it allows the commercial it's not what we that right right [24:09] right so maybe we could take a break there and see if there's questions or comments [24:15] about anything we we're finding that we should we think we really should focus [24:20] on or or missing anything well I think it's a lot of [24:27] information and you understand it in a different way than we do and it might take me a little time to so it's coming [24:35] at me very dry I'm letting you know and I'm kind of like okay I get that they're [24:40] not matching up um and I get that we need to use our land more densely um [24:48] so um I think I think maybe a little bit more finding in the findings would help [24:56] me so how do other cities map comprehensive planning zones to [25:04] zoning zones I mean is there is it like one for one or how how [25:11] does what's a good way to do it in other words yeah should be there's usually more zoning districts than comp plan [25:18] land use categories in general sometimes they're almost one to one but usually there's multiple zoning [25:25] districts that could apply could be used for for a category in the comp plan I mean the challenge here [25:32] is um you know developments changed over time I guess in Nina also where the [25:39] densities have been going up in these plan districts I mean they're from the [25:45] past they're not going to they're not going to keep up with Trends in in a development style [25:52] so so the fact that those were done specifically for sites and developments [25:59] means there's the districts just aren't there and we're working with another city that has a it's a it's different [26:04] than this but they really lean on the Pud also and they actually have [26:11] standards in their PUD that they're running up against so they actually [26:16] issue variances to a PUD which doesn't make any sense to me but because you're [26:22] you're supposed to be using the Pud to offer flexibility but they're actually running into [26:28] standards that they can't live up to but the part of it is they don't have any base districts that they've used [26:34] recently so Mo a lot of their lands already zoned P it's kind of the same [26:39] thing it's just a different way of doing it but they just have these districts that they don't refer to they don't use [26:45] so they have nothing really to look at except each time somebody comes in you [26:50] know they negotiate and they actually end up using previous puds as [26:56] precedents and you know we've seen there's commonality across those P so [27:02] you could just create a district rather than having you know multiple PS that come in pretty [27:08] similar but because there's no District out there to use you have to do it individually each time yeah and I think [27:15] adding on to kind of your question is that particularly for districts that have residential focuses um you want to [27:24] make sure that that entire density range is captured at in in your districts so [27:30] whether you have one land use category with two districts and one gets at like the lower end and one gets at the higher [27:36] end that works or if you've got a one: one where you're kind of you have the [27:44] ability to create developments that fit that entire density range I think that's [27:49] kind of the important piece is that you don't want um you don't want to see that you're not being able to capture for [27:55] example your entire medium density because you're stuck at that low end you want to give as much flexibility as you [28:02] can for people to be creative with the Lots they have or with the different Products that come through um to [28:09] understand kind of to let to let as much as you can kind of things just happen [28:15] organically instead of getting in the way either on purpose or on accident depending on depending on [28:22] how that goes but what are some comparable um like inner ring suburbs [28:27] that have developed you know because we''ve got like the east side and the west side east side was developed 100 [28:32] years ago the west side was developed you know 60 years ago are there comparable um ining suburbs that are [28:40] dealing with this residential density issue and yeah [28:47] yeah again it's not it's not exactly the same but we're working on same Lou Park uh there's a couple things we're [28:55] addressing there I guess unlike you they have unlikely Dina they have a lot of [29:01] alleys yeah kind of like the East West thing they have areas that have alleys [29:07] they have areas that don't have alleys yeah so we're actually setting the standards to allow smaller [29:14] Lots with Alle if you have a lot with an alley okay because then you don't need the driveway on the front yeah so you [29:22] can have a narrower alley um and so that's that's going to that's what's [29:28] being proposed in their code is to so they're going to allow smaller Lots with those alleys yeah okay y uh they they [29:37] currently have two to simplify it two low density districts in R1 and in R2 [29:44] that only allows single family s they currently have two of those they have two different minimum lot sizes [29:52] okay tons of non-conforming lots to both of them and so [29:59] we're working with them just to lower the minimum lot size okay to reflect [30:04] what's in place okay so I think that kind of relates to here where you're saying I me you have the issue of one [30:10] District yeah addressing a lot of different lot sizes [30:16] yes so yeah would seem at a minimum you would need more districts to accommodate [30:24] different lot sizes unless you know some cities are kind of leaning towards [30:31] just smaller lot sizes being allowed but yeah but it depends on how much [30:36] variation I think there is within the city yeah I sometimes I feel like we're [30:44] really bifurcated because when we're talking about the um adus the expectations of people in [30:52] morning side for example and the closeness to the neighbors versus expectations [30:59] R Hills where they don't see their neighbors I it's just like two different [31:04] cities and and I think we react to our neighborhoods in different ways yeah so [31:11] we feel I feel very dis distinctly different than yeah right if you look at the lot [31:18] size map that that you guys generated you know I gu guess this what a mile [31:24] wide between like Xerxes and France that is about CU you've got one mile blocks [31:31] to 1 mile west of 100 and then you have that down to just [31:37] below 62 so this area is all a street [31:43] grid and this area is all the culde saacs and everything so to to your point [31:48] you can actually see on the map kind of must have been the Farms or whatever whenever they developed it but it's [31:53] really clear that this is and it does go slightly west of [31:59] it's like the very rectilinear yeah I think the rail roll the Dan Patch line splits it it's yeah it's a little bit [32:05] Yeah the block e of there yeah you talk about this uh no the other one the other one [32:11] you made although I suppose that one would do it too but the color makes it bit easier than the other one one yeah [32:23] so so here's 100 so you've got these one mile grids [32:28] right and then that goes to here's 100 it goes to One Mile West of 100 this is [32:35] what remember what I was saying the rail line goes right here and then just south [32:41] of 62 see they're all rectilinear streets and and rectangular lots and [32:48] then once you go there's exceptions of course for but generally that's what it is and then once you go west of there [32:55] then it's the cue saxs and the LA well you also have this area next to Hopkins which also problems [33:02] that so the city is sort of like three different parts right yeah and that's that's what the street car line went too [33:09] was up in that area and through morning side also down France that again about your [33:16] um about the different residential um Zoning for the different [33:23] areas you had mentioned um St Louis Park is doing they have two different today they [33:31] have two different zoning districts they have say one I'm just [33:38] one's 9,000 ft maybe the same as yours and one's more like 7500 or okay they're [33:43] two different minimum lot sizes okay and they're thinking of um allowing [33:50] to split the ones that have alleys um and we have just one R1 [33:57] we have two different yep that's where that median [34:03] calculation thing came in when the west side was [34:09] developing which median thing just so I make sure so minimum lot size is well [34:15] when all the 50 foot wide Lots were developed 50 foot wide was the standard I don't know what the minimum don't [34:22] recall but anyway they came up with the minimum lot size of 9,000 ft 75 ft wide [34:28] but if you live in a neighborhood with lots larger than that minimum lot size is established by all the Lots around [34:37] that individual property within 500 ft and it's the median lot area width and [34:42] depth so every lot on the west side has a different minimum lot size and then so [34:50] on one all of our setbacks vary by lot size based on lot width lot [34:57] w and we have a lot of oddly shaped [35:03] Lots very complicated [35:08] right it's a lot to enforce and it's a lot for the average property owner to [35:14] understand what the requirements are for their speci well we can't even answer their questions when they call you have to go pay a survey you have to P surve [35:21] thousand of it's a few question yeah well I I tell my clients that it's a [35:27] legal document in in your best interest to have so spend the [35:33] money right cuz it's kind of inexpensive in the long run yeah it's just if you [35:39] knew you couldn't do an addition that you were thinking about doing you wouldn't want to go spend thousands of doll you know you would just you know [35:45] move on well you can do that on the um so um [35:53] what are some suggestions you might have for or what are different ways you think [35:59] yeah yeah um well before you before you skip to the [36:05] solution back up about an hour this is super interesting because I [36:12] think I've had like people who have been involved for a while would not be surprised that our our comprehensive [36:19] plan is a bit more aspirational than our zoning Cod we knew they were different you could have guessed in which way they're different but it's so amazing to [36:25] see it documented and actually in numbers like it's proof that we weren't crazy but I that kind of begs the [36:32] question for me is like what's the so our goal is to have our zoning [36:38] code more closely match comprehensive plan who Skip to the end it's the same [36:45] who wins who who benefits from having why is it why is it better for the world [36:50] if our comprehensive plan is more similar to the zone is it better for residents is it better for developers is [36:57] it better for planners or who's it better I think it just brings more predictability like for everyone for for [37:05] residents for property owners like we're telling people this is the [37:11] expectation this is what you can do there's no guessing there's still going to be VAR I mean there's still going to be yeah sure there's still going to be [37:17] some peties there's still going to be variance requests and things like that but like our comp plan and our small area plans that's a statement of like [37:24] what we're saying we want and our our regulation are kind of how we get there [37:29] and right now they don't align so we're kind of telling people this is what we want but then we have this set of [37:34] regulations that this is what you can actually do right and then and they're so wildly off that when people come and [37:40] try to build what we're saying we want it's just kind of the wild west of [37:47] casting and then when people go oh they want to change the zoning well let's [37:52] look at the zoning code and they look at the zoning code it's 40 years old and we're like no there's a comprehensive [37:58] plan and they're like what do you mean there's a comprehensive plan right so there's just so much [38:03] information for you know one residential person or just one resident [38:10] here to kind of go through that it gets difficult and I think because they [38:15] there's been 40 years and but it's it's really kind of um become extravagant lately it feels [38:23] like it to me it's a city that's been built the last last 60 70 years based on this we're [38:32] going to create a zoning ordinance around this project you know with the prds the MDD and now it's the Pud we [38:40] just call it but it's the same way that we've planned the city for 70 years but [38:46] I think to Addison's sorry go ahead I think to Addison's point about you know people call up and you can't even give [38:52] them an answer about you know anything that they want to do and I think at at [38:57] this point in time when we have a lot of 60 and 70 year old homes where they want [39:03] to do something and change those homes those you know there's a huge percentage of residences that are ripe for either [39:11] change or remodel or something like that I think it's incumbent upon us to make [39:17] that as easy a process or streamlined or as transparent a process as can be by [39:23] aligning you know all of this so that they don't have to hire surveyor just to [39:29] find out you know what their setback needs to be or something like that so that's right like when a business owner [39:36] buys a piece of property they they want to know what they could do with it right and same thing with a homeowner [39:42] especially now for allow adus and stuff if you buy a house in a DIN and you know you can do adus in a certain way it's [39:49] better to have all that information kind of up front but actually there's a much more pragmatic reason for it and that's [39:55] because zoning didn't exist until I the 1920s and before then um you know [40:02] anything went and so City started implementing zoning and then um I think [40:07] it was a case from Ohio went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled that sure you can have zoning but [40:14] you must have a plan to show that you're not just spot zoning people out or [40:19] whatever and so and it's Minnesota state law and part of the um met Council too [40:25] that cities Within council's domain have to have a comprehensive plan and it has to match [40:32] you know the Zoning for the city so so it's a legal [40:37] requirement that's I I agree with all that it was more a rhetorical question than anything else I wanted to be sure I [40:44] knew why we were doing this and what the expected outcome was supposed to be but yeah it helps [40:50] knowing repeating these things and hearing yeah I mean different different cities have different purposes for doing [40:56] it so you know again seamless partk in some ways is very focused on housing you [41:03] know in in the ways that they look at housing and that's driving how they change their code whereas other codes we [41:09] update it's more about making more user friendly you know get rid of things that [41:15] are we don't use anymore make it development from I mean we've worked [41:20] with cies that said make it so that when Property Owners developers came like you [41:26] were saying make it easy to use so it's not this cryptic thing that has to be interpreted by staff every time I think [41:33] two to your point David of like when they're not in alignment the things that you can do without coming in requesting [41:40] flexibility like what you're just allowed to do Under the code people can just do development then that might not align with what we want right so like [41:47] people can build a certain way that maybe isn't the way we would want them to so that's why it's important to like [41:53] bring them into alignment that bring up another interesting point so some U ofm students [41:59] had a Capstone project were they informed of that project yeah y okay the [42:06] result that I know they we started to look at it they they recommended a [42:11] smaller lot size right yeah and I don't know if it was it [42:18] overlay or you know Transportation you know along corridors you can have greater density and even along the [42:24] Bikeway which I thought wasting greater density yeah so as far as I mean we we're not [42:31] really ready to say what all the solutions are but I mean one solution we've been landing on more often than [42:38] not is to have the zoning districts really identify or Define the [42:43] housing types that are allowed in them so you know real practical practical way [42:49] of doing that is to put the uses into a table and just say single single unit double [42:55] unit town houses Courtyard Cottages whatever those things are medium siiz [43:02] Apartments versus large size all those things get those defined and then setb [43:09] or not so much setbacks but lot area lot width those things can be different by housing [43:15] type instead of just by a district so most codes that we work with that the [43:21] lot sizes are determined just by the district because traditionally they wouldn't just been one housing type or a [43:29] primary housing type but if you mix the housing types then you can say town houses can have narrower Lots in the [43:36] same district because they are narrower so a lot of times we [43:42] see I'm wandering a little bit but a lot of times we see tow houses aren't identified adequately in a code so they [43:50] in some C they're all the PS right you guys R into this city in Iowa because [43:56] the codes wasn't set up for them so the minimum lot size was way too big for an individual townhouse so they would just [44:03] do puds they do the setbacks differently they do everything differently rather than have a district that allowed it [44:09] they just would just do puds so we've been going towards having [44:15] districts defined that have the housing types defined and then if the standards need to be different they're different [44:22] by housing type so that you know it works for the housing type that you want [44:27] in there what's the advantage of of housing type as opposed to just density why do we care what the housing [44:34] type is whether it's a cottage thing or or [44:40] you know Town Homes I me does it matter yeah it's still I [44:46] mean with the lot areas it still calculates to a density so you know we're looking at the density but a lot [44:52] of zoning codes don't have the density in it it's in the comprehensive the [44:57] plan oh I see and so uh it's still there but we've we've [45:04] actually worked with some cities that are outside the Metropolitan Council that you know they're they're not as [45:10] dense as cities in the Met metro area but they don't have density so prominently in their code or their [45:17] comprehensive plan it's really more about what type of housing they want how [45:23] many units and so they don't actually calculate the density and we kind of leaned into that to say I [45:30] know maybe you don't want to put that in there you know because it at some point density just becomes a calculation that [45:36] doesn't really mean anything to everybody and it looks really different I mean density of 15 looks very [45:42] different based on the housing type so [45:50] um that's some of the that's one of the solutions we've been getting to I guess to your question about what do you do [45:56] next I think we're we're saying so far you should have base districts so for [46:02] residential you should at least have a low density medium density and high [46:07] density District we would probably suggest that that there's a mix [46:13] of housing types allowed in those maybe even the low density but you know every [46:18] community's every every Community has to have that conversation and well yeah and then as you get into [46:26] that analysis that's when you start to look at the existing neighborhoods or the existing patterns that you see in [46:33] the city and say you know doesn't make sense to have multiple different districts or doesn't make sense to kind [46:39] of have to treat certain areas differently and maybe it does or maybe it doesn't it just it really depends [46:45] Community to community and kind of based on that analysis so that's kind of the next jump is once you start to see the [46:51] patterns that you start um to look at with the audit um get kind of those basic maps in [46:57] um you can use those moving forward as far as looking at you know where is the right cut off for you know that first [47:04] district versus the next one for lot size or lot width or whatever it may be [47:09] this helps to kind of start to position you to be able to answer that question [47:14] maybe this is obvious or maybe it's what you were saying before but it seems like you'd have to have a denth like when [47:22] you're comparing the comprehensive plan to the zoning and we saw that time after time the comprehensive plan has higher [47:27] aspirations than the zoning does so if we're going to really get to the comprehensive plan goals we'd have to [47:33] enforce minimums in our zone so you would have minimums and maximums in multif family residential minimum [47:41] densities generally we would not um well Jeff you you've done other it's not very [47:48] common generally we wouldn't put density in the code itself we would talk about lot area in the code um and so as part [47:55] of a code update we are balancing the densities in the comp plan and then making sure that the [48:03] lot areas that are set are appropriate with that when you say lot area you mean [48:08] lot coverage no I mean lot area the the size of the lot so like a 15,000 ft [48:14] minimum lot size mhm is a lot computes or calculates to about a three unit [48:22] density so we just calculate how many Lots you could fit in an acre [48:29] of land I'm thinking more of um high density so the numbers between the comp [48:35] and so were like like 50 to 100 I don't 50 or 60 was the low end you're saying [48:42] and our high end in the zone was below the low end of the comp plan so it seems [48:48] Thinking Out Loud it seems like we would need minimums in the zone description yeah probably you could wa [48:55] this probably would never work but you could also have minimum height we always talk about maximum [49:02] height but you could have minimum height a lot of districts or a lot of cities that have at least some that say [49:09] you know it needs to be six to eight stories or whatever whatever the number is yeah but sometimes there's there [49:16] could be minimum densities there could also be districts at a high density where you say you don't want Twin Homes right you [49:24] know certain housing types you don't want in the high density districts because you're trying to have more people there you only [49:31] allow loock ability and all that so you don't want to allow really low density [49:36] in that District um just to get through as much as we can tonight uh so we also looked [49:44] at the small area plans that are in the comprehensive plan and I [49:49] think everything's actually in the comp plan except the guidelines are kind of in the comp plan but they're [49:57] guidelines so they're not required is that how it works yeah so uh so there's [50:03] a bunch of them they have you know we looked at we've looked at them at a high level so what's in there is zoning [50:10] related requirements so individual plans have things about density building Heights allow ground floor [50:17] Heights uh upper Flor step backs there's heighten density bonuses in at least one [50:23] of them we saw uh building St back so these are all things that are typically in a zoning [50:31] code that are in your small area plans it [50:37] seems challenging ideally it'd be in the code [50:43] but uh I guess that's something we look at when start updating the districts [50:49] because I mean today it'd be hard to click them somewhere because you don't really have a dist or two a Target so [50:55] yeah so you kind of have have to do it this way it seems like right and putting that putting that language in the code [51:01] is giving it the full effect of being able to actually require that instead of saying this is our plan this is what [51:07] we'd like to see but we don't have that legal not always sometimes you do have um I me correct me if I'm wrong but like [51:14] with the self build design experience guidelines often projects don't meet all of it just can so then there a [51:22] discussion about which pieces make sense to codify and which pieces should stay as [51:27] guidelines yeah um the other thing we looked at [51:33] which we we' touched on but U the R1 District uh which is such a big [51:41] District uh has this 9,000 ft this medium we' talked about that it applies [51:46] to the width and the depth of the lot as well there's uh significant [51:53] non-conforming lots and um that can't really be mapped fully but you know we [51:59] have the map showing the 9,000 ft area as the breaking [52:05] point um and just those standards are overly complicated there's some way to [52:10] correct to make those easier would be a good thing to update so that's the [52:17] map you know actually staff did this map we [52:22] didn't do this map right uh [52:28] so we have that mapping that can help out with the update and then we've mapped the existing lot sizes by kind of [52:36] band of size so what size are they if they're under 9,000 or over 9,000 so you can see in here anything that's you know [52:45] there's similarities to the other map anything that's blue you can see some get down there's a few that are below [52:51] 5,000 but there's a lot between 5 and seven and then seven and n [52:57] in those areas that are uh under nine so that would help you [53:03] decide well the minimum lot size should it be 7,000 should it be [53:09] 6,000 how much of these non compon LS do you want to address with a new Zone [53:20] District so any questions or comments about that information [53:27] can you go back one slide so oh [53:34] conforming greater than 9,000 ft and non-conforming less than 9,000 sare ft [53:39] well yeah I guess and I think I changed the wording on that in one that's in [53:45] your packet because it's a little misleading to say that they're conforming it just means they're over [53:50] 9,000 okay doesn't mean that they meet that median standard so they could still be nonconforming yeah okay so all the [53:56] yellow is just over 9,000 and all the aqua is nonconforming less than 9,000 [54:02] yes all of the yeah the blue is definitely not conforming and at least half of the ones probably about or [54:08] probably about half of the ones that are yellow would also be not conforming okay for yeah okay if [54:17] yes okay and I think another thing to keep [54:23] in mind is that as some property owners you know maybe acquire the property next to them and combine their Lots yeah now [54:30] the median in the neighborhood has got bigger and as that happens over time you [54:37] can see how that would be [54:44] problematic and that's just lot area right have both don't meet with WID or [54:51] something else right so if they're non-conforming with respect to any of those three area [54:57] width or depth it's not performing okay do you know when 9,000 came in and [55:05] that [55:11] was so it was after the B for a lot of the East Side WS yeah and we've seen [55:17] that in other cities where everything before that's [55:27] but we have I mean we doesn't haveen often but we have approved subdivisions under 9,000 haven't [55:34] we yes yeah so who could probably attest as the longtime planning [55:40] commissioner in my time we've I've created a map where subdivisions we've [55:47] approved that were under the 9,000 and those we've denied and it's a mixture [55:52] it's half half some neighborhoods get approved some don't a lot of it is based [55:58] if you're the last if the whole block is 50 foot wide [56:04] Lots but you're the last 100f footer those have been approved but there have [56:09] been a lot of instances where there's two or three 100 foot wide lots and those have been denied some of [56:17] those have been approved we even had one site that was originally denied and the [56:22] same property owner came back like two three years ago and got it approved [56:28] um so yeah it's been it's just a case by casee basis does it fit in the [56:34] neighborhood does it not well depending who's on the commission and who's on the council probably more than anything [56:42] changes and is the number 9,000 part of that conversation or it's just they're [56:48] smaller than usually they're smaller than the 9,000 so they're keying on the 9,000 and [56:55] the 50 Foot it's 100t wide lot going to 50 that's the but even Lots where like [57:01] it was originally two lots and they combined them and now they want to divide them again we occasionally deny [57:07] that yeah just reestablishing PL which makes no sense right [57:12] so so is there a is there like a you know if you go [57:18] down to minimum Lots uh you know your graph lot sizes I guess be this way is [57:23] there a point where it kind of just falls off where there's some you know few they're really really small but generally there's like a a general [57:29] minimum like for those Eastern Lots like east of France I think in they're [57:35] usually around 6700 squ ft 50t wide lot 130t depth it's usually right around [57:43] there so those would be the dark blue yeah on [57:53] this would there be a re would it make sense to make that the minimum lot size for the size of the diner whatever [58:00] certainly cuz the worst that can happen is a developer would have to buy like three lots to make four houses or [58:06] whatever so that's a tiny increase in like the hanker said neighborhood those are platted 50 foot wide Lots but those [58:13] two that we looked at those they made they're 75 Footers but it's the underlying plat is [58:20] three lots for those two sites yeah these areas I mean you know [58:26] the the depth of those half blocks is going to be you know what it is so it's [58:33] really more about the width like what's the width that people are comfortable with in those [58:40] neighborhoods I will say that depth is not something that we often see in the code just because if you're already [58:46] regulating area and width your depth is also regulated and so what you're doing is you're causing yet another chance for [58:53] something to be non-performing you're just adding that one extra calculation that might tip [58:58] something over and need a variance or something you know it's just you've already got two you don't need the third [59:03] okay right like along uh4 Street you know where because [59:10] of the the light or the light real the street car used to go through so you've [59:15] got lots they're like the minimum size but they're wider than they are deep yeah it's like is there really a [59:20] difference you know it's the same same L size [59:28] all right we can come back to anything we just we want to get through these development procedures and get your [59:34] input on this as well yeah um so I think let's just go to the so we um with help [59:40] from staff uh put the current development review procedures that you have um and we didn't do all of them but [59:46] we did uh certain ones that we wanted to focus on um and we put them in a table for you just to see kind of what is the [59:54] process for um for each of these types of requests or applications that you get [1:00:00] um and so the first few columns there are just kind of preliminary meetings that might be required or um encouraged [1:00:08] but really what you want to look at is those furthest to the right those three columns there um and that's telling us [1:00:14] is there administrative review that's involved is there Planning Commission involvement is there Council involvement [1:00:20] and so um the r that you see there is that's the body or the individual that's just reviewing um the D is that's the [1:00:28] body or individual that's making the decision um and then the public hearing is that pH so where is there a public [1:00:34] hearing required um and so so R stands for review it's right on the bottom [1:00:40] sorry no that's okay um so that's just who's reviewing it so most of the time that's going to be the Planning Commission you're holding the public [1:00:47] hearing you're reviewing that you're providing a recommendation and then that's going to council for final [1:00:52] decision um what kind of what the the couple of takeaways here that we've [1:00:58] that we've really seen is if you look at the number of public hearings that are required um for these types of of [1:01:06] applications um that is significantly more than we see in most cities it's [1:01:11] more than what's required by the state um and so what you're doing for better or worse is you are providing more [1:01:17] opportunities for public involvement um often that lengthens the process um [1:01:24] either for length of meeting um or just for um the fact that you have to notify all of these you have to kind [1:01:31] of have your timelines be a little bit longer to make sure that people are informed that this is occurring and that [1:01:36] they have time to be able to attend or not um the other piece that it's not on this table but is relevant to mention is [1:01:44] that Council when they hold a public hearing they don't act um they table it [1:01:50] and you have another council meeting that's required yeah I'm not sure are you aware that last year the Planning [1:01:56] Commission went to the city council in order to um try to affect change around [1:02:03] yeah yes we are not meant warmly I know I know I know you guys have uh you've [1:02:09] heard this over and over um I just want to make sure that you aware of that whole process no we are we are with you [1:02:18] um let's see is there anything else oh I think the other just the other piece here is that you see that there's one [1:02:24] administrative review on here um so most of the decisions for these types of [1:02:30] applications are lying in council's hands so um if we go to the [1:02:37] next maybe this the site plan so I just want to talk about a few [1:02:44] of these um and again you've probably heard some of this before but um site [1:02:51] plan as a standalone request is pretty infrequent um often you'll be reviewing [1:02:57] a site plan in conjunction with a variance or a cup or a preliminary plat or whatever it might be um so site plans [1:03:04] on their own don't happen overly frequently um and typically that would [1:03:10] be that this is a project that's coming in they're going to build a commercial building that meets code but you need to [1:03:17] make sure that they have planted enough trees and they're meeting the setbacks and whatever it might be um so generally [1:03:25] speaking we we don't see most cities have public hearings for this [1:03:31] um State Statute doesn't require those types of public hearings um and the [1:03:36] reason for that is because this type of site plan is pretty black and white if it meets code you have to approve it if [1:03:41] it doesn't you don't um and so there's kind of that weighing of is public [1:03:48] involvement something that's necessary or helpful when there's [1:03:54] not leeway for this City to make a decision or to add a condition or something like that because if they meet [1:04:01] code they meet code and you have to allow it anyway um so are the public [1:04:06] hearings something that's helpful or important when it comes to something that is pretty blacking [1:04:12] way um the other piece as I was reviewing site plan um that we wanted to [1:04:18] touch on is the opportunities for allowing some administrative review of [1:04:24] these again because this is is often such a such a black and white topic obviously if there's a variance or if [1:04:29] something doesn't meet code this would come back to you but for those projects that meet all the code requirements but [1:04:35] still need to be reviewed and make sure that they are meeting those code requirements um is there a little bit [1:04:41] more appetite for flexibility to allow staff to do that review rather than [1:04:47] going through both city council and Planning Commission to look at those um [1:04:52] and so what we typically see and uh Ed does allow a little bit of this is um for minor modifications where maybe [1:04:59] you're only enlarging the building for you D it's if you're enlarging the building by less than [1:05:04] 10% that's something that staff can review and check off the list um other [1:05:10] cities I've worked with increase that number to about 25% so there's a little bit more room for people to do additions [1:05:17] or other types of projects and go through an administrative review um so there are additional [1:05:25] opportunities to allow for administrative review of site plans if that's something that the city is open [1:05:31] to exploring or interested in so we rarely have site plans unless [1:05:39] they're rarely stand standal along yeah so like the hockey training facility was [1:05:44] a recent one and I think it had maybe been a while since we had had one of those and so when we brought it forward [1:05:50] you know we look at our pyramid of discretion it was like well we have very little discretion because it means Cod so it's really just [1:05:56] review and there was some feedback of like well wait why are we doing this why do we have to take action it meets code [1:06:01] we can't really do anything why are we inviting the public here to seek their input when we can't really do anything [1:06:07] with their input it's confusing to people and it kind of sends the wrong message [1:06:13] okay so what why was that what's that our code requires public hearing yeah [1:06:20] it's written into the code that we have multiple public hearings for a project that is 100% code compant interesting [1:06:26] it's that top it's that top line on the table so you're require right now the code is requiring a public hearing with Planning Commission and a public hearing [1:06:33] with Council it's three meetings for a second [1:06:39] that means and that we can't we get very very few of those but on occasion every three [1:06:47] four years we'll get one but that's because that site was a commercial or PUD before because of someone just does [1:06:54] a site plan the area of that site that was planned for a third sheet of ice so [1:06:59] they had room out there yeah they just never built the the third [1:07:07] phase but like the well like the dental clinic that needed variances but they could have been done in a way that met [1:07:12] coat so that could have been another example where had they had they designed it that way we would have still had to [1:07:18] go through the public hearing process and review but we would have had very little opportunity to make them change [1:07:24] anything and we would be asking the public to come out and give their input when we can't really do anything with it [1:07:30] in theory if you have base districts that are working and you got all the time properties that [1:07:36] are zoned correctly you'd get to the point where site plan is what you're doing because [1:07:42] you don't have to constantly rezone or right ask for Varian gets back to that [1:07:47] predictability right everybody knows what the expectation is there's no guessing does that make sense so the [1:07:53] reason you're not seeing site PL is because you're resoning and doing involved so it's a good process to have [1:08:00] in place but you're just not using it because of the way that code works today okay [1:08:06] okay and another case for the base zoning yeah [Music] [1:08:11] right so how do we we require things like affordable housing or whatever how [1:08:16] do we do that sort of thing written into our BAS it's written into the PCD as a conditional use our [1:08:25] attorney was good with that as a conditional use um but that's where it's [1:08:31] stopped so that's part of the Pud and and I think we've heard that obviously that's an important part of the Pud [1:08:37] today um and we're kind of at the point in the audit that we know that that's [1:08:43] something that's important to the city and we haven't fully taken the step to understand exactly what routes we could [1:08:49] take we've talked a little bit about different incentives and saying you know if somebody wants to do affordable [1:08:54] housing maybe there's ways to lower some of the requirements or something like that to kind of balance but it hasn't [1:09:01] gone any further than actually talking about what that would look like at this point but that's part of your scope is to make a recommendation on [1:09:09] that it'd be part of the next phase the next the code writing scope this is yeah [1:09:15] CU I mean you could do it you don't have inclusionary an inclusionary housing policy right we have a policy [1:09:22] yeah but it's on the code well it's in the PC what [1:09:27] we okay so that's that's that's how that's working yeah yeah yeah so yeah we [1:09:33] would need to write it into the other districts yeah like if we created a high density residential district that we [1:09:39] intended to use we could write it in those zones right now we don't have any place to put it we don't have go back to that [1:09:50] interesting more thoughts on site plan before we scoop [1:09:56] okay um just a couple more to touch on here so resoning to PUD uh this is [1:10:03] something that as we were talking with staff found that it kind of had a a circular problem um so again going back [1:10:12] to the fact that there aren't base districts that are you know up to Modern Market standards or desires of the city [1:10:20] um what you're getting is you're getting more requests for simple puds maybe it's [1:10:25] one one building or maybe it's two lots things that in theory shouldn't be puds [1:10:31] and then because of that those types of puds are having trouble meeting the standards or the purpose and intent of [1:10:38] the Pud which is bringing up issues um as you review them and saying well this PUD you know I'm fine with the project [1:10:45] but it doesn't meet the purpose or intent of a PUD it's like yes because it [1:10:50] really shouldn't be but this is your only route to do it right now and so it's kind of circular issue um that [1:10:57] you're that you're having with particularly those simpler types of puds um this is uh one of those review [1:11:05] processes that is uh longer so if if you include the recommended sketch plan [1:11:10] process a PUD project is looking at six meetings two public [1:11:16] hearings which is extensive which may or [1:11:21] may not be a good thing I mean you know if it is a particularly complicated project [1:11:26] it you want that extra review to look at it and make sure that it makes sense if it's a simple PUD does it really make [1:11:32] sense to have six meetings I I don't know um the other piece here uh is again [1:11:40] talking about are there opportunities to um to review modifications [1:11:46] administratively again trying to cut down on the number of times that you have to go through um this fairly [1:11:52] extensive review process uh so right now uh one minor modification is allowed to [1:11:57] be approved administratively for each PUD um sounds like that's been working for staff since that's been written into [1:12:03] the code um where you know you get one minor modification uh if it's larger or [1:12:08] if you need multiple changes then you're going back through that normal review process um I would say most commonly we [1:12:14] see kind of a list of Minor modifications and said you know and say any of these are okay for staff to [1:12:21] approve instead of just limiting them to one but sounds like you've been fine with with just the one yeah we have a [1:12:27] list but you can only do it one time right right and normally I just see the list and don't see just the one but it [1:12:34] you know if it's been working I don't know that we need to really harp on it so you guys both look like you're [1:12:41] thinking have thoughts to say no I am thinking but nothing nothing to spout [1:12:47] yet okay that's fair um I think the last one I wanted to touch on here was uh [1:12:54] talking about uh subdivisions and particularly lot splits um and so lot [1:12:59] splits are uh those pretty minor subdivisions you know you've got one lot maybe you're splitting it into two maybe [1:13:06] three um and right now that's something that's required to go through your full platting procedure um so again multiple [1:13:14] public hearings multiple meetings um for something that theory if you're meeting [1:13:19] code um it really shouldn't need to be that complicated um this is is something [1:13:25] that uh as we are talking to staff and it's been brought up tonight that especially for those lots that were previously combined and now they want to [1:13:31] split back to how they were originally um going through this really long process is kind of extensive for that um [1:13:40] a lot of the cities that we look at use what we call a minor subdivision process for this um and it it allows a shortened [1:13:47] review process usually what I've seen is it's just a council review without a public hearing but that changes from [1:13:54] City to City um and it caps it so it says you know if you're going to do a subdivision that creates three lots or [1:14:00] two lots or whatever the city's comfortable with you know then you can go through a shortened review process you don't need to go through this full [1:14:06] preliminary and Final platting Phase do we see a lot of that because I've been on the commission I have not seen that [1:14:13] since I've been on the commiss many we haven't had many lately but even a code compliant plat can be some of the most [1:14:20] difficult projects that you'll face we like think of the ones in [1:14:26] Rolling Green where we had code compliant remember the three lot one up there [1:14:31] um yeah they can be even if they're code compliant and then when there's variances attached to them there then [1:14:39] it's even more difficult we generally have like one a year I think on average yeah when they code compliant you're [1:14:45] saying they're difficult yeah from like a political standpoint or like political stand y yeah we did deny one this is [1:14:55] probably 25 years ago a code compliant one and we got sued and lost and we had [1:15:00] established some tree protection on it and when you lose a lawsuit like that you lose all those conditions that you [1:15:07] they cut all the trees down and um but we have yeah we've approved subdivisions [1:15:14] that were code compliant but they can be difficult so I'm ignorant on this issue [1:15:19] so platting what would be a situation where you need to do plating versus not for subdivision so I'm just not familiar [1:15:26] with platting as a process when it's not it's really it's not even a subdivision it's a shift of a lot line yeah so if [1:15:32] you're if there's two lots and you're just shifting where that lot that or where the line between them is that's [1:15:39] you don't require a plat for that um the other piece that you don't require a plat for is if you have you have one lot [1:15:46] where there's a town home with four units and you're going to divide that into now it's going to be four lots that [1:15:53] doesn't require platting I believe code today things with what is it a party wall or there's we see some of [1:16:00] those with duplexes where it's existing duplex and they want to um sell each [1:16:06] side then they have to have a firewall in between and we do those administratively it's those are the [1:16:14] those are the only two that don't require PL so the lot adjustment just requires a survey Flat Line adjustment is yep Y and [1:16:22] then it's administratively that was a code change we made probably probably 10 years ago um we were bringing those [1:16:28] through public hearings and the council said we don't need that we can you can improve those staff that work pretty [1:16:35] well and that's that's common practice is we get three every year again [1:16:41] obviously if something's not code compliant then you're going to be bringing that through but if it if everything meets it then there's really [1:16:48] no need for everybody to to see it and have the neighborhood come and [1:16:55] is it a state requirement that Planning Commission review every single variance of every kind it's state law that a [1:17:03] zoning board of appeals yeah um and you are the zoning board of appeals yes you [1:17:09] don't technically need a public hearing for that than you do well our code does [1:17:16] state law does not require public hearing for variances but that's not on your list [1:17:22] that wasn't one we were doing a deep dug on okay but I would say it's pretty typical most cities most cities require [1:17:28] the public hearing but in theory you don't have to or some sometimes sometimes they take off the like the [1:17:36] required public notice you know and they say you got to notice the neighborhood but maybe they don't have like the 350 [1:17:41] ft or something like they'll they'll mess with the notification a little bit um but usually they still inform the [1:17:49] neighborhood do you require two for appearance Two public plan Commission takes final [1:17:55] action but like we don't publish it in the paper but we do notices to [1:18:03] Pap when it's appealed to council is that a public it's the same we follow the same [1:18:11] process so we re notice in that case and you put it on better together [1:18:17] oh yeah [1:18:25] overarching thoughts about procedures before I think that's kind of where we're wrapping up tonight [1:18:30] so other than what you guys have already or anything we've talked or anything that we've talked about what about [1:18:37] far what about it I have to think about it every time it comes up because it's like it [1:18:43] stretches my brain as to why we care or whatever but is it something a lot of cities [1:18:50] do I I feel like [1:18:57] a lot of times you can logic your way to get rid of it that is not [1:19:04] needed so if you're doing density you're doing building Heights you're doing lot coverage [1:19:11] impervious surface there's a lot of things you're doing to get what you want i i f is challenging I would say [1:19:18] most of the codes and I don't know if this is just cuz we're planners and we don't love doing lots of math but um I [1:19:25] would say most of the codes we look at we would rely more on impervious surface or height and we would get rid of the F [1:19:31] piece of things yeah and I mean my understanding don't quote me but f is [1:19:37] really developed for much higher density areas you know New York City or [1:19:44] downtowns yeah or downtowns buildings yeah because it gives you [1:19:49] flexibility to do things where most cities were working [1:19:54] with you don't need that kind of flexibility for development cuz you're controlling so many other things I mean [1:19:59] with lack coverage downtown New York you're not going to have lock [1:20:05] coverage it's 100% we already have yeah setbacks lock coverage requirements height [1:20:11] requirements that there's indirectly a floor area ratio maximum that gets [1:20:16] imposed so and then you do you know when you do start to dive into all those requirements one of the things that we [1:20:22] often look at is kind of like the lot are area width and depth are there [1:20:27] regulations that are kind of layering on top of one another to kind of conflict at times and do we need all of these [1:20:33] regulations or which ones are the ones that are important for the city to be able to make sure that there's Green [1:20:40] Space or sunlight or whatever it happens to be but um which happens with f a lot [1:20:47] right complex F in our districts that are used across different parts of the city so like PC [1:20:55] CD3 or well I guess that's just sub but [1:21:00] like some of those FS don't allow the type of like development density that's called for the to restrictive they're [1:21:08] too low right right yeah I mean are there ways of [1:21:14] requiring happened at Nolan Mains where they have that nice little Community you [1:21:19] know kind of public area where you know it's a good siiz building or buildings or whatever [1:21:25] and so I guess maybe that's related to far or reason why might have far but where you have a break you know so it's [1:21:32] not just like this massive building because if that were just a massive building it wouldn't be nearly as [1:21:38] engaging as it is with that little you know area but I think that was a city council member who really pushed for [1:21:44] that there wasn't really it's nothing in our code that requires anything like that right small we talked about [1:21:50] transitions to neighborhoods too so was part of that scaling down on [1:21:56] the this this is in the middle of the in between the buildings [1:22:03] yeah yeah so that's where it came from PD right but there's no regulations on [1:22:09] that all hand and carved yeah I mean you could have you could have building or [1:22:17] architectural standards I get at that or they could be in the guidelines where you you you show the developer this is [1:22:24] what we want and you get close to what you want and give them flexibility or I've seen I've seen [1:22:31] requirements for it can be open space it can be public space it can be kind of [1:22:36] whatever you're looking for um and that can be based on the number of units in a development or just the square footage [1:22:42] of you know for every I don't know thousand square feet of retail space we need X number of [1:22:49] public space available or something and then it's up to that developer to decide where to put it [1:22:55] but at least in some form or fashion you're getting see that happen [1:23:05] too well I think we can wrap up with the next steps here so we are kind of [1:23:13] through our review or analysis of the code and we need to prepare the draft audit report which [1:23:20] is going to be based on a lot of what we've what we've been talking about with all of you and with staff um and so once that's ready then we'll [1:23:27] be doing a joint meeting with Planning Commission and Council um and then kind of finishing it up once we get all of [1:23:33] your final feedback so that's where we're [1:23:39] headed is there is there anything that we haven't hit on that you struggle with with the code when you're reviewing [1:23:48] things or sections of the code that you just think we haven't talked about just [1:23:55] curious well do we even resolve the uh retail in [1:24:00] austrial area like the cholate factory [1:24:06] um the code allows for the 10% no we hav we haven't we haven't [1:24:14] changed the code that one like if you're a large building you can do it but if you're a small industrial building you [1:24:21] can it was intended to allow like retail uses inside of Office Buildings that [1:24:28] only serve that office building kind of I guess the way it seems like it was set [1:24:33] up and I'm wondering because it's our industrial areas are [1:24:41] kind of changing or being redeveloped or you know that building was neglected MH [1:24:47] and probably should have been torn down um so I was like whatever kind of [1:24:53] energized that building that they were willing to kind of yeah they really fixed it Kids Next Door could have [1:24:59] crawled underneath that building right well I think that that restriction on retail like most retailers aren't going [1:25:06] to go into a building if they can't have outdoor signage and they can't you know face the outside right yeah but then [1:25:12] we've also heard from like the the company that owns all those Office Buildings in kahill that like they want [1:25:18] more retail like that actually makes their office more attractive to tenants yeah and so we have this restriction [1:25:25] that actually like makes our office Park less attractive to office [1:25:30] tents and so some flexibility in that industrial or [1:25:38] that zoning I think yeah that could be part of the next steps where we're is it is it P or p [1:25:47] p right CU kill we Shel the Cahill plan because nobody could decide anything but [1:25:53] we want things to happen there you know we have other industrial [1:25:59] areas where we want stuff to happen too um so I'm thinking some flexibility in [1:26:05] the code might be right so part of our climate action plan you know is to mix these uses so [1:26:13] that you don't have to drive everywhere and you can share parking so if you're an apartment building and [1:26:19] there's commercial next door whatever then the people live in the apartments [1:26:25] use their parking at night but the people but they're gone during the day and the people who you know I mean you [1:26:30] know just I don't know modernize things just so it's more mixed use and more [1:26:35] shared things yeah um not not separate things so much like you did in the 60s [1:26:42] and 70s what about Lou mentioned affordable housing and how that's you know [1:26:48] prominent part of our comprehensive plan but doesn't show up in zoning necessarily about Transit I mean [1:26:55] are there are there ways our zoning code should should we have a Transit overlay [1:27:00] or do some cities have a Transit overlay saying okay there's some this is an R1 or R2 or whatever it is but the [1:27:07] requirements are a little bit different along France Avenue because that has that ends up having to be a zoning thing [1:27:12] unless it's going to be it has to be in in the code somehow if we're trying to get off of one off but Dana created the transit [1:27:21] buffer map um yeah we created a map that just [1:27:27] visually shows kind of um where existing Transit routes are and kind of the properties within like a quarter mile [1:27:32] half mile mile yeah yeah M that could be the basis of an overlay [1:27:39] right that's a I mean I think that's kind of what like the student study gets [1:27:52] at also like form based zoning is that something I hear conflicting views and [1:27:57] whether that's a good thing or a bad thing yeah uh yeah some cities are doing [1:28:04] I'd say most cities that we've seen I think technically in Minnesota there's not a form based [1:28:10] C on the form based code Institute or something but but a lot of codes are hybrid so you know the the districts [1:28:19] become more form based so they have form based standards ards and the uses are more flexible [1:28:26] which is the opposite of the if you were trying to think of UK Ohio the [1:28:32] ukan uh zoning was all about separate [1:28:37] uses uh the hybrid districts would be more how do we mix uses but keep the [1:28:44] form the same so I mean some cities we a lot of say we have more housing types [1:28:50] allowed in a district but you don't change the building height you know if it's 30 or it's 35 but you're [1:28:57] allowing some other housing types you don't change the standards you just you you U tailor the standards to [1:29:06] those new housing types so that you're not increasing or making it more more [1:29:11] intense I guess yeah I think more where we've where we've dabbled and where we've kind of seen it done is that there [1:29:19] may be certain districts in the city that are appropriate to be form based so usually what we've seen is you know if [1:29:24] it's if it's the downtowns or the Central Business districts or maybe it's the transit area those specific [1:29:31] districts might have might be form based or might have more of those qualities than maybe your R1 or something like [1:29:38] that so some cities are kind of doing a a hybrid like you said or a mix of certain districts are more form other [1:29:45] districts are yeah plans and even like the Grand View [1:29:50] right our plan it's a framework thank you um you know it has all these pretty [1:29:56] pictures about what it could look like and everything and then you know developer comes in with a two-story [1:30:02] apartment build or two-story restaurant with surface parking and it gets approved you know and it's like that's [1:30:08] not what we were aiming for in this District at all so yeah so sometimes we take in plans [1:30:15] like the Grand View framework say and figure out what the district could be [1:30:20] for that area and figure out the things that could be objective and could be standards in the district and then other [1:30:28] things that you want but it's pretty hard to get at it like whether it's you know color or M you know just things [1:30:34] that you feel like you can't get too restrictive and you can have guidelines still whether they're in the plan or a [1:30:42] separate document so that when somebody comes in you show it to them say this is what we'd like this is what we want we [1:30:48] can't require it because it's too subjective um so then you get the best of both world in some ways because [1:30:54] you're showing what you want you're requiring the things that you you know you're you need that might [1:31:02] be seem to care about guidelines at all but what's that some developers don't seem to care about guidelines at all but [1:31:08] yeah yeah's that guidelines well that's the well that's [1:31:15] the problem is that because they're not in code right they're guidelines and then it doesn't happen what you want to [1:31:20] happen I mean we get all these pretty pictures and we don't see it right so so [1:31:25] it's sort of frustrating when we have to vote on these things yeah I mean the good thing about guidelines is if you [1:31:32] have pretty pictures they might not be feasible financially or you know because [1:31:38] you're not the developer if if the city's not the developer and if they [1:31:43] have some flexibility to come in and say I get what you want here's what we could do and it actually would yeah well [1:31:50] generally the pretty pictures are denser than what is there [1:31:55] and then is there possibility of like sharing zones I mean because you know 44th in France [1:32:02] and and u s Ethan kill and probably [1:32:07] valie and uh could that be one yeah I mean they they're pretty similar they're [1:32:13] similar size everything do we need like custom everything to be custom for everything no in theory you wouldn't [1:32:20] have everything being custom yeah I mean in in what the way the comprehensive [1:32:25] plans land uses are I mean there's a neighborhood not it I mean typically a [1:32:31] neighborhood no District could be used other places not just in one [1:32:36] place the language of the comp plan could really help with the [1:32:45] district all right we're pretty close to [1:32:50] our yeah thank you thanks very much [1:32:56] discussion the um the Joint City Council Planning Commission meeting that's going to be [1:33:02] the challenge all their work sessions are full for the rest of the year so [1:33:07] I've been trying talking to the city manager we may have to schedule a special night because this is that [1:33:14] important you give us a little notice for that yes yeah couple [1:33:20] hours thank you very much really great