We'll call the meeting to order and start by going around the room to introduce who's here. We'll start with Carrie >> Carrie T. Community development director. >> Marvel Phelping Commission. >> Claire Norman, Planning Commission. >> David Alire, Planning Commission. >> Padilla, Planning Commission. >> Paul, Joe Brennan, Commissioner, >> Sean Sudter, Zenco, >> Michael Stein, Zeno. >> Addison Lewis, community development coordinator. >> Claire Stler, MSA professional services. >> Great. Thanks for coming in person today. >> Yeah, it's good to see you forward to the discussion you want to start. >> Yeah, so we're back to continue discussion on the zoning code updates. Um we gave you a pretty lengthy draft of uh kind of the first module here which includes a lot of the districts. We're going to start tonight just talking about um focus mainly on our residential districts uses and standards. So I'll hand it over to these guys to walk through it. >> Awesome. And we have this really fun story map we call it that tells the story that we're going to use as a guiding >> over there. >> Yeah. >> Camera over there. >> Uh we have this story map that's going to serve as a guiding document throughout the project. Um and we don't need to go through a lot of this. You already know the purpose of this, but what we're going to do tonight is go through the residential districts and zones. talk about what we're proposing to change based on all of the uh feedback. The comprehensive plan of course being the main guiding document, our zoning code diagnostic, which uh we uh not ours, the zoning code diagnostic you all did prior to our involvement, and then the feedback we've received from you so far. Um so, Michael is going to walk us through the story map. >> Yeah. Uh, and feel free to jump in with whatever questions and comments as we go. You don't need to save those. I want to have a good discussion. You all are steering us. We need to be steered. So, uh, we'll have our ideas, our best practices, our thoughts, but um, we need we need some steerage. >> All right. So, Michael, >> I need to introduce all of you to the project. You've been aware of it for a few almost a year now. And uh we've been working to produce a draft the past about four or five months with a goal of having a draft up for adoption towards year's end. Uh to remind everyone of the project goals, uh improve the zoning code alignment with the comprehensive plan. Currently the code and the plan are out of alignment and that creates development difficulties. I'll get more to later. Simplify the code. This is really to get administr make administration easier for the city staff and to make sure that standards that are objective are easy to understand for both code users and administrators. Promote sustainability in community. Uh this is kind of an extension of aligning the code with the comprehensive plans goals for the city and then enhance accessibility architectural graphics, visual guides, tables, making the code easier for the average person to understand. The zoning code uh here is a traditional zoning code. It hasn't been updated comprehensively in quite some time and as a result it is as previously mentioned out of alignment with the comprehensive plan to bypass this uh misalignment. The city has relied heavily on the plan unit development process as you are all aware. Um the planned unit development process has given a lot of control to the city but it also leads to a relatively unpredictable development atmosphere throughout the city and leads to lots of reasonzoning hearings and variance approvals. So to run through a few as a topic of conversation tonight is residential development to run through a few residential developments that have required either PD approval or uh lengthy variance processes. Uh we've highlighted four here and we'll run through them. Um I think some of you will be familiar with these. You must all be familiar with where they're located. Some of you may have been on planning commission when they were when they went through them. Um Hawthor Place required a reasonzoning to the PUD. Uh this is 16 dwelling units on 1.43 acres of land. Believe this was within the density consistent in the comprehensive plan. required a resoning to PUB 5 uh tankers and town homes. Uh I think similarly was uh this actually required a change in the comprehensive plan to increase its density but on top of the change in the comprehensive plan also required a PUB meaning it needed to go through two levels of Ruby before it could be built. I think it's eight dwelling units. uh view 44 is required a or was part of the PCD1 district but required a set of variances both on setbacks and uh density I believe. Yeah. and Delorean up at 44th in France required u a reszoning to PUD 15. So with the goal of the goal of the project is to allow for there to be base zoning districts where a lot of these projects would still need to require resoning but instead of that resoning being negotiated between the city and the developer they would pick a base zoning district and avoid that back and forth process of speeding up the development time but also creating more predictable results for both the city and residents and developers. Uh we don't need to go through the R1 district. Uh this is a section that we went through two meetings ago on the sub areas. The proposed zoning map is what we went through last time. So we'll skip ahead to the residential districts. Here we're going to bounce around the six, I believe, residential districts. And I'm going to highlight the previous classification and the key changes. If you look at the draft that was sent to you in your packets, that should have the exact standards. But a lot of these are rebrand to continue from our conversation last time. A lot of these are rebrandings of existing zoning districts rather than comprehensive resonings. Uh R1 district, largest district in the city. Biggest change is that lot size sub area which is going to have variable lot sizes and lot width uh depending on the neighborhood in the city. try to match the context without requiring complicated medium measurements. >> Now we'll switch to the R2. You'll notice that this is significantly less area of the city. >> Yeah. >> Uh big change in the R2 is a reduction in the minimum lot size to align with the comprehensive plans designate density for the R2 district. uh that is four units an acre. So 10,890 square feet. Uh the rear setback has been reduced as well to try to create more flexible development outcomes and align it with the setbacks in other residential districts. And there you'll see uh a 40% green space coverage has been proposed. I'll get more into how green space coverage works and what the proposal is uh comprehensively across the code later, but that is a new standard that would be added to try to encourage perus surfaces, trees, and landscaped areas. >> How did you land on 10,890? >> That is 1 acre divided by 43,560 ft divided by four. >> I'll be specific. >> Yes. Zooming here as well. This is the mixed middle district trying to provide town homes, quadplexes, um, small apartment buildings that are in a neighborhood scale compatible with single family homes. One of the changes here is dropping the lie area running unit from 10,500 ft to 5,445 ft. This is also to align it with the comp plan density, but also trying to allow for the development of these types of housing units on individual lots. Rather than requiring large tracks of say 10 acres where the lot is being divided into smaller lots to create um rows of town homes, we want to be able to create a quadlex on one lot. So dropping that square footage just creates more lots in the city where this district could be applied. The maximum building coverage is proposed to be increased from 25 to 40%. This is recognizing that as the lot size is shrunk, there needs to be more lot coverage or building coverage to allow for the same types of buildings to fit on smaller lots. And uh note the minimum green space coverage is 35%. Coming from the PRD2, the U lot area has also shrunk but a little less from 7,300 to 5,445. And the side side setback, street side setback and rear setback have all been reduced to allow for more flexible development. And the building coverage is increased again to match small size. The map is disappearing. >> Excuse me. >> Can I ask a question about >> Yes. >> about the PR1 and PR2. Um the map uh indicated those were all the same. Mhm. >> Those are being consolidated into one district. >> One and two. And there's not that many lots. >> No. All the ones that you saw on there, that's all of the PRD1 and 2 property currently. So, it's not currently utilized very much. >> Yeah. >> But part of our intent here with loosening some of these standards is that it could be used in the future more. So when we do the comp plan update, if we guide areas more for this mixed metal, missing metal type housing that we can use this more easily. >> Would there be an opportunity because this one allows more density, would there be an opportunity for anything else to be classified as it seems like there's not a lot of space left for them. Are you saying like guiding like zoning other property missing mix? >> Uh, okay. The See, so these right on the north side of 62 and west of 100. There's some on Vernon. There's some there's one right next to the church. Those town homes down there. Oh, there's a few down there on South Yes. >> Um like for example, are there others on Vernon that would could be considered >> like all along? >> We could do that in comp. >> So when we do the comp plan, we need to we need to actually we would need to guide those areas for higher nets because right now a lot of those areas are just guided for single family essentially. >> And a lot of those areas though are double dwelling units. Well, anything that's a double dwelling unit >> could have been R2. >> It could could have been an R2 or it could be this mixed middle. >> Okay. >> The difference is that R2 only allows like a duplex. >> Yeah, >> mixed middle allows a little more variety in housing types, but up to the same density. >> Is is there a reason not to further combine R2 and the missing middle? Um, we could, um, it would allow more of those housing types in R2 where currently they're just restricted to like duplexes. >> Just wondering, food for thought, you know, you had some not McMansions along, you know, uh, France or Valley View or whatnot, if those are not well cared for and you wanted to rebuild and put three instead of two, is that Does that really make anyone so uncomfortable because already it's more than single family? >> Yeah. Um >> I just as a way to open more properties to be more than two but less than >> Yeah. Well, and those properties could also be like that whole area could be reszoned to mix residential as well. >> You mean guided? >> Um no, because it's already guided for attached residential in the comp plan. >> Yep. So in that under that land use designation there's two zoning districts we can use to implement the R2 and the mix middle. So there might be some areas where we say we only want to allow duplexes and then there might be some areas where we would say we want to allow triplexes, forplexes, six unit multif family buildings up to eight units an acre >> things like that >> that just came in front of us the last >> y >> um what do you mean >> the two houses? It's it's the other hankerson. >> Oh you're talking about that. Okay. Yeah, >> that might not be zoned correctly, but if you could if your request was, hey, uh, I'm guided mixed middle, >> then don't you have an easier case to make that you want to have three instead of two? >> Yep. And since we have so very few properties that are just PRD2 and PRD1 by com this thought process by combining them we're gently opening up some already transitional areas to be fully >> yes but thank you >> I mean yeah we could do that they could be consolidated and then in that case everything that's currently zoned R2 you would essentially allow any kind of housing update units in anchor. >> Mhm. >> So, >> sure. >> And that would be consistent with the comp plan because those are guided for update units in anchor currently. So, >> that's an option. >> You know, to follow CL's thought, I mean, I >> I would hate to invest all this time and money and do what amounts to, you know, kind of spit in the ocean in terms of increasing um the ability to house more people. >> Um, so I certainly think following that line of questioning that we should move towards something that um allows us as much flexibility as possible in providing housing options, >> especially along those corridors where we can get transit, >> right? >> This on that right by the railroad. Is that Are there just two homes on those properties or what? >> Yeah, >> they're they're duplexes. I mean you >> Oh, they are duplexes. >> Yeah, >> two homes. >> They're duplexes. >> They're they're two homes with a common wall. >> They're right down by the railroad. One of them's for sale if you're looking just so I'm trying to make sure logic. So you're saying that instead of having you essentially get rid of R2 and go to one that would allow go to a zoning district that would allow three instead of two. So you skip over R2 any any residential building up to eight units anchor. So it could be like attached it could be an eight unit apartment building on a oneacre site >> but not a single family. >> Correct. >> So two to eight. >> So you have a single family zone and a two to eight zone. >> Right. Because people are very protective of R1. >> Yeah. We have already allowed multiple dwellings on a property or multiple families on a property. It feels to me a gentle transition. If we're going to allow two, if the site really makes sense to have four, I mean I've >> based on like square foot per unit >> or because Yeah. Or because somebody comes and they look and they say, "Hey, this is a really big duplex property. I could make it a forplex. I've just allowed two more homes on the same. >> So it could end up being a duplex or quad. >> Correct. >> So the way these are set up is that like you know R2 is slightly more intense than R1. Mix middle is slightly more, you know, so and so on. So like it would be, you know, the mixed middle has a slightly higher building coverage allowance. Um >> all the mix. >> Yeah. Are you saying we should resone all those properties >> essentially? >> R2 district. >> Well, the reason >> it's it's opening up a lot of a lot a lot of those a lot of those R2 lots are not even 10,000 square feet in size. I don't >> Right. But so then don't you back into protecting it by your unit can't be I mean if it's less than 10,000 square feet it barely could fit two under the new mixed municipal square footage >> compound >> and we'd have to res >> so the minimum lot area per dwelling unit oh no uh in mix >> so you would need a little more than10 10,000. >> Yeah. >> To do two >> to do to do a duplex. >> Quarter acre lot you could put a duplex on. >> Makes total sense to me. I think that's what a lot of them are. >> Yeah. >> And one of the reason >> put eight units on an acre. >> Yeah. I mean the other thing a lot of these are are situated along corridors. If you overlap those two, you know, the green ones and the yellow ones, they're in the same area. >> So I'm thinking because they're on corridors and because they It's kind of I mean in a way it's simpler because you're not getting caught in the middle like not getting hung up on definition like R2 or something else saying it depends on how big the lot is. That's what you do with it. >> And big line you can do more. Small line you can do less. >> Makes sense. >> It does open up. >> And I think the mixed middle feels good. >> Right. >> Go back to the arts. Yeah. People like those. >> People like Yes. People like those words and it becomes, you know, medium density, high density. >> And it's not it's not as specific. It's not as exclusionary as >> two or one. You know, I mean, They're both the same density. They're both eight units and >> R2 and R2. They're both being set up to be the same density because they're guided the same in >> some of them do about single family residential. >> Yeah. Mhm. >> So, we're going to have to be mindful of the treatment of the rear of the property because we're going to need if it's a six unit, we'll need 12 spots probably parking somewhere. 6 to 12 spots, 8 to 12 spots. So, we just want to make sure that in these zones we have some buffer or something from the rear. On a lot of what's come before us, the parking is the garage, which is half of the first floor. So, it's not >> on a duplex 8 unit, they might tuck it under the back or something. >> Yeah. Hankers in. >> Yeah. >> But it it's still it's not surface parking. It's it's within the 12. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> There'll still be drives and things and and and you're talking about potentially eight units next to a single family. I'm just throwing it out there because you're that's what you're going to hear from the public. >> I think you're less likely to hear it from the public if we talk about mixed metal. >> That's what everybody says they want. >> Oh, everybody loves missing metal. Yeah. Um, >> you know, maybe we should just look through some of the lot sizes, >> right? Because I think um so like can I point out >> I don't know. >> Oh, some of those are are large enough. That one. So, where's the railroad? I just lost it. >> It's right where where it comes. Right over here, too. >> Right. >> Right there. Right there. So, there's some houses along Tracy right here. >> Mhm. >> They are on very big lots. They are all dilapitated. And when I win the lottery, I would put density here because it's less desirable lots, but they have this space. >> Well, that's a bent there. You say >> how big? Uh yeah, Benton deflexes are awesome. >> How big are those lots? >> How big are the lots? >> Wow. >> There's wetland back there, too. That used to be There used to be right of way that was going to connect those and then they were going to split off the back. >> Right. >> But over the years, the council vacated that right away. >> Okay. The rightway up here. >> No, it's not there. It's the culdeac that's going >> this one shower. I don't know if that's the right I don't know if it's 11,000 square feet, which would make it be eligible under this theory for free, but I look at it as I drive by and I go, that would be a >> This was supposed to connect >> to this road here and there in there. It's open. >> Yes. >> And there's some wetlands in here, too. >> It could possibly, right? >> Well, you could combine a lot. >> Four. >> Four. Okay. But that's what I'm saying. This seems to me to be a place where based on the size of the lot, I don't know anyone is going to get real out of shape if it's three versus two. >> There's so few of them >> all single individual public hearings per getting at it. >> Well, we we have to have a public hearing no matter what. But we got to notify all those people that were changing there. >> That's a little bigger lift than what we wereending. >> Yeah, that's maybe >> maybe this is we put it on paper to discuss >> Yeah. >> as a next step, but I think that the things that you guys have done with the lot area and setbacks feel to me like a great next step for the >> I like it. simplify it. We can eliminate a district to it. >> Um K, you said it was what is this? It's R2. >> The yellow ones that we're seeing. Yes. >> They're current. >> So that's an R2 that's big enough hypothetically for three units. >> And so how many R2s do we have? 100 R2s. >> Uh I couldn't give you an answer on that, but significantly more than you have mm proposed NM. So, we just rename it, >> but those those properties could ask for a reszoning to go to one of the PRDs like we did on Vernon, you know, with the abundance property. So, they could still do that under what's proposed here, right? >> But isn't that the whole basis of the law >> we're creating? We're creating Well, we think we're going to win the lawsuit. >> I know, >> but let's not provide that opportunity. >> You could rename it. Because there's so many more parcels here than what's in the MM, >> we could name these the MM, change the standards, >> and then reszone the limited MM ones to MM. >> I think that's great. >> That makes the most sense probably just to avoid mass reszonings. >> Yeah, look at there's hardly any MM. >> Could you name the name? What does that do from a legal >> stand? >> Well, we could change the allowed uses in the R2. >> So, like we could allow more housing >> because right >> right now they're both we're heading towards the same. They are the same R2 and one of the same >> underdance. Yes. >> Yeah. >> That's why >> I mean whatever we can do to bring them together so they seem like they're cousins I think is a good thing. If it's mm and mm1 >> or when you just have to know if you back into it the other way. You rename R2 because it feels good. We give them more rights like we have shown and then we notify the handful of property owners that are what are they PR >> TRP yeah >> and their rights are also getting better. So that's >> no those are >> if you scroll down one also >> yeah they're not that many >> those are the animals >> right I mean but they're purity one and two currently so we notify them and say hey congratulations you're getting all of this stuff we're now going to call it all mixed metal >> sounds good to Great. We're done. >> We're asking you to consider We're asking to consider it. >> I I get it. I got it. >> I think eliminates R2. >> Correct. >> We can't I think we can't get sucked into talking about R2 versus description. We have to get We have to talk about it as allowable density per square foot. >> Yep. >> That's what we're after. The mix middle is a classification that allows you depending on the size of your land to to do gentle densification based on the size of your property and who your property surrounding. >> So next step up would be uh MDR medium density residential district. This is a rebranding of the PRD3 and is likewise tying the density to the comprehensive plan. That would be going from 4,400 square ft per dwelling unit to 3,630 with that be maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre. >> So it's going 8 to 12. >> Yes. A little less a little more than 8 12. >> Where can I build nine? about nine units an acre. >> Well, I get the what we were just talking about was 2 to eight. >> This is like >> up up to 12. Sorry. 3630 is the 12th of an acre. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, anything less than 12 here. I guess you you could build a duplex here, I believe. But >> why would you? >> Yeah. >> Oh, we're back. >> Oh, right. Similar to the MM recognizing that the lot size has dropped, the building coverage is proposed to be increased and then there is a 30% green space coverage requirement. So 40 45% is pretty constant once we're getting up higher, right? >> Yeah. The idea being as the intensity increases so should so can building coverage >> currently. No, >> we're going to talk about that. Yeah. Later. >> That's a that's a fun tricky interesting conversation. >> Yeah. The HDR district is a conversion of the PR4 and this actually ties the anything more than 12 units acre would be HDR. This ties the density directly to the comprehensive plant designation for the property. So if the property is designated at um 30 or what is it 12 to 60 for high density in the comp plan then it would be 60 dwelling units maximum per acre. If it's activity center where it goes up to 150 then it would be 150 units per acre. It all depends on the designation of the subject property >> within the comp >> within the comp plan. >> Y >> can you say that again for me the density goes up it's based on the size of the lot. >> It's based on the allowed density for that property and the comp plan. >> Okay. Each lot has their own density. Um, so the future land use map, you know, that you've seen like has a density range for each of the different land use designations. So like >> highdensity residential is one of the future land use designations and that's a density range of 12 to 60. But then we have like the community activity center which is like where like the Southdale area that has a density range of what is it 90 to 150. >> Okay. Right. >> But it's also in the comp plan highdensity residential. >> It's community, >> right? >> So I think >> Yeah. So it's not it's not in there. It's around the high is around South. >> So like for for example, there's like a you guys know where the south ramp is at 50 and France. On the other side of the street, there's a multif family building there that is within the mixed use center land use designation which has a density range up to 100 units an acre. But I think it's zon PRD4. So it if we use this zoning district there, then the allowed density could go up to 100 units an acre because of that's what's allowed. old Walgreens that's right there on whatever it is 49th and a half assuming that's in somebody wants to take down that down they can do the higher density because that's how it is in the line >> correct that side that Walgreens I think is zoned PC or yeah PCD2 >> so under that zoning district yes they could go to that density but PCD2 requires commercial on the ground for >> some or all commercial. >> It requires it doesn't allow residential on the first floor. >> That's how the code is currently. >> Yeah, we changed the code. >> Conflicting code requirements. Another standard that the HDR introduces that you will see more in the non-residential districts when we introduce those is the sustainable building policy will be required for any project proposing an F above 1.2. Currently the maximum F is 1.2 but with doing away with PED process there's been concerns that the city won't be able to uh enforce its sustainable building policy or require it in new developments. So this is an attempt to still encourage that provide a carrot for developers who comply with the sustainable building policy saying if your FIR is above 1.2 you have to meet it. If it's below 1.2 you can meet it. You could not meet it. It's your choice. So I tried to explain this here with a building with an FR of 1.0. This building on the left would not have to comply with sustainable building policy. This building on the right with an F of 1.5 would. >> But you could build more. You could build something in between that if you agree to like if you voluntarily comply with the sustainable building policy you get more density >> if you >> if you voluntarily comply you can go to any F allowed by your setbacks and height overlay district. >> Yeah. >> So where can you put that in a real example here like a specific example >> like who's who's got an F of 1.0? >> Well, so like a lot of the PUDs we do, they need flexibility from the F requirements, right? So use a PUB. And so like one of the concerns is well, if we change our zoning so that people don't have to do a PUB, are we going to lose the ability to get people to comply with the sustainable building policy? >> Um, so what we're doing is we're using all of the the F standards in each district as sort of the trigger. So it's like that those have been the historic, you know, FS that you're allowed to build up to and it's kind of a hard cap. If you want to exceed that, then you have to do a PUB or ask for a variance. >> So what we're saying is, okay, we will let you exceed that, but you have to comply with the sustainability policy. So it's sort of like clarifying the gift get, right? Like >> Okay. And does that work all the way down to the R2 mix? >> No. So it it wouldn't start until just just for like higher density development and commercial. So it wouldn't apply to like town homes and missing middle type housing because that's just too small of a scale to probably make it feasible. >> But it so if you're build you' be building more than 12 units an acre before this give to get carrot happens. >> Um you would be >> unit size. >> Yeah. It's not it's not based on number of units. It's based on the F >> and and so 50th in France, we just allowed to go to 1.25 >> for the parking >> for the parking. Okay. And the the Americana, right? >> Yep. That's just for the parking. So currently, so that's all zone PCD2. The F limit there is 1.5. So we would be saying you can build up to 1.5 without needing to comply with the sustainability policy. If you want to exceed that, you can. But then the sustainable buildings policy is triggered. >> Okay. >> Just a quick question on that. >> Yeah. >> The 1.2 does that change depending on which year of the city that you're in? So if you're like the south the flow area ratio is different than if you're like 15. >> No, it's just based on whether the property is zoned HDR or not. >> And how do we come up with the 1.2 to >> that's just what it is currently for in the planned residence district. >> Maybe not. >> Yeah, most that we've granted over the years are usually in between two to four. >> Yeah. >> F range. Uh the final new standard in the HDR is the 25% green space coverage. Then the last new district is the uh assisted residential AR. It's a combination of the PRD5 and the PSR4. This is for uh nursing homes as well as independent senior living. side setback has been reduced and a similar standard where the 4 ratio can be removed if the sustainable building policy is met of 1.2 and all the standards are the same from the current PSR4 except for that 1.2 floor error ratio and the 25% green space coverage environment. So not to be a stickler, but why are we including age restricted senior independent living? Is that already in the category? >> So a senior independent senior living means there's not a healthcare component. It's just an age restricted building. >> I think that's already allowed in PSR4. like why are we allowing it in the assisted residential if it's if there's >> I just want to be really mindful that that is uh there's a lot of that being built >> and I don't just want to be mindful that including that is very different than including a nursing home. So if there are anything from setbacks to parking requirements there we I don't think it's appropriate to think of them the same or to just not consider that there's a difference. >> So yeah I mean right now we have PRD5 which is just rest homes and convolescent homes and nursing homes and then PSR4 is separate. Um you saying you have concern about combining them? >> I do. Okay. >> I mean, the other ones you mentioned all take healthcare. The residents aren't driving. Senior living in some cities, they require just like an apartment building, two parking spaces per person because two six-year-olds are still driving. So, I just mentioned the pickle. >> No, I mean, exactly. But like it is something that is being built a lot right now in the Twin Cities. I just don't want us to accidentally either advantage or disadvantage ourselves by not carefully considering the differences. I mean those other conolescence and assisted living they not only have healthcare but they also have commercial food service. There's an independent scene of living is not it's just an apartment building. So smart developers will find ways to find a lot that maximizes their flexibility and for example parking right if if our assisted living is not required to have the same parking per unit as an apartment building is but I want to build a 55 plus apartment I'm going to want to be here because it's cheaper and right there's lots of reasons that people I just want to buy it >> I agree with that and I think that's an example of us designing this toward the future because I think that, you know, the future building, you know, has to have an eye toward, you know, the aging population in the city and and things like that and that might need to be its own >> or or you just have a required healthcare. I mean, right, you just it's right like how you craft the definition of it may solve the problem. >> But if I just want to do a plus building because I don't want kids running up and down my home. These are a different set of requirements. >> Yeah. >> So you split the AR district or just keep them two separate districts basically. >> Yeah. They are two separate districts now >> or just consider senior to be HDR. >> Yeah. >> Right. It doesn't really need >> Does it need it category? Is that a function of >> the only reason? Yeah. To distinguish it is if you wanted to allow it in >> I maybe I just >> we probably allow it as a uh component of an assisted and >> correct continuum. >> Yes. >> Part of a continuum of housing options in this >> but not as a standalone. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> That's a standard we can consider. >> Yeah. We'll look at it. >> Put together. >> Sounds good. >> Uh we don't need to go. We're going to go through the central districts another time. Uh but to get to the green space coverage, this is a time to recognize that as the city leans less heavily on F to regulate the scale of development, uh there needs to be other standards to promote green space. So we talked about this as a project team and we'd appreciate your input on this. We're in between labeling it as green space coverage or impervious surface coverage. uh they're more or less the inverse of each other, but they obviously come with a different branding to each. So I've listed in the first number you see for each district is the green space coverage and the next one is the impervious surface coverage. Impervious surface coverage is any surface that water does not flow through. So that would be your driveway, pedestrian paths, parking facilities, home, backyard, patio, deck. A green space cover probably coverage would be any is a little more difficult to define. It's a little less intuitive. Uh traditionally considered though anything that's pvious. So anything that water flows through driveway >> the city does not currently consider semi-pervious pers as well as >> some cities do. You don't >> because there are people that are advertising their product as that can We we wouldn't let them count it. We would count it as impervious surface >> and swimming pools are impervious. >> Yes. >> Just it's funny since all they do is hold water. since since we distributed this draft to you like we've talked and our thinking on it has maybe evolved because for right now in the R1 district we have a 50% impervious surface limit and that's the only zoning district that has an impervious surface limit at all. Um, but we talked about like, you know, we're we're kind of loosening up a lot of our zoning standards to allow more building coverage, lessen setbacks, but in exchange, we want to require some green space, right? Because the the very restrictive building coverage and setbacks have not always resulted in green space. It's resulted in smaller buildings and then larger service parking lots in a lot of cases. Um, so in exchange for that flexibility on setbacks, F things like that, um, in return, we want to get you know, more green space. Um, but I think our thinking evolved to just rather than having like an impervious surface requirement for R1 and then calling it green space for the other districts, we want to just call it have an impervious surface limit for each district. >> Simple. >> Why Why do you like Can you say that again? impervious surface limit sounds inherently negative versus space coverage sounds inherently >> yeah especially if you're going after green >> feeling it almost seems like we should go >> well you made a good point when we were talking about how like well what does green mean does that mean can it be mulch like can it be all these other things it just kind of opens the door to making it a little bit more >> there are lots of ways to do this lot coverage minimums open space minimums green space minimums s they become I think hard to define. Um impervious impervious is what we're seeing mostly now and it's just you know easier I think to define. >> Yeah, that was what we were thinking on the staff level. This would be easier to enforce consistent with the R1. You know, we've been doing it now for four yearsish on the impervious surface. So, so you stick with that. >> Stick with that. But >> is impervious the same as redscape. >> Hardscape would be impervious. >> Yeah. >> No, I know hardscape is impervious, but are they synonymous? >> Well, what if you have special building materials that become up your driveway? >> Well, at this point, >> we would count that as impervious. >> Would a building be hardcape? Well, today you would, but we don't know. I mean, they're making all kinds of new product. There could be a moment. I mean, that we're not the only city who's worried about like runoff and whatever. So, I see a universe where you have special paper patio driveways and they are breathable in a different way than an asphalt driveway. >> So then in theory, like someone could cover 100% of their lot with >> this special. >> I think that's what we don't want, right? Like we're saying we don't want that. is more expensive than grass, >> right? Yeah. >> Right. I don't know why you would, but again, that's that's why we don't count it. >> Is that why or are we >> I think the issue is our engineering department. We people don't maintain it. >> That's a big expense to maintain. It has to be done. You got to upkeep it every six months, every year. And people just don't do it. >> So, it becomes impervious over time. True. to go through a little bit of the logic on the exact numbers. We try to create a gradient as districts get more intense, the greater the impervious surface uh coverage, allowable impervious surface coverage is the residential district. There needs to be greater coverage on districts, >> but >> there's one. We're >> pretty confident they have the approach. >> So, I think it's worth staff talking about. >> I think it's from the engineering perspective. To me, we don't want to negate the possibility of future product technological improvements. So, I just want to be smart in the wording. If it's because we don't want somebody to cover their property lot to lot in breathable parking lot, that's an aesthetic concern, not a runoff concern. >> Right. >> I think this is trying to get at the aesthetic concern, right? >> Oh, >> really? Then the opposite. >> Well, they're saying the same thing. 40% green space is the same as 60% impervious on a lot. They're saying that it's easier to to regulate impervious versus pvious. >> They're saying it's easier to regulate >> pmperousness. >> Yes. Because they've been doing it for a while and there's a set definition so it's easier to regulate. >> Yeah. >> I would assume your storm water ordinance uses impervious as well. zoning code has has um impervious on it. >> It's in there now. Right. So, we already we already have it and use it for the R1 district. We've already been doing it. >> So, the changes we're applying that to other districts, >> correct? Have have you studied much how this would impact potential future development on I don't know these different zoning districts off the top of my head but with setbacks all of a sudden your building needs the absolute minimum setback and all of a sudden your imperous surface ex balloons and now you >> Yeah, that's where my head is going. Yeah, we talked about that a little bit just before this actually about um maybe even rethinking like how like CMU one has the highest requirement for green space and then it you know decreases as you go to CMU3 which is like the Southdale district >> potentially flipping that um because CMU1 that's like your neighborhood nodes right so like 44th in France >> a lot of those parcels are really small they take up like the whole parcel it would be hard for them to provide much of any green space, much less 20%. >> But in the Southdale district, when those properties were developed, those are much bigger parcels and they have much greater height allowances. It's easier maybe to require more green space on a parcel in the Southdale area where we're giving more height than in our neighborhood nodes. Well, considering our neighborhoods have better canopy than some does. >> Yeah. I feel like this can really drive whether a project can happen or not. Just the amount of impous surface you're required to have like, oh well now I can't fit as many units or whatever and also so be careful. >> Yeah. >> Parking. >> Well, yeah, that's the other Yeah. And again, yeah, we're trying to give property owners and developers a lot more flexibility on setbacks, F building coverage by loosening these other standards, but then saying in return, we want some >> some pvious surface in exchange. So, I agree. It's kind of like a trying to thread a needle. >> Yeah, you know, I just >> That's a good point about the neighborhood. You know, it's unsum the most compact areas have the least ability, >> right? Especially when they have to meet parking requirements and those developments are not going to have structured parking. Probably if they're singlestory, single use commercial buildings. Um, but a redevelopment in Southdale that's going to be a mixeduse multi-story building is going to have probably structured parking and can provide more green space >> especially because We want to protect our neighborhood. >> Yeah. >> Has there been any feedback from your clearing team on >> which parts of the city has risk where improve your services are concern parts of the city? >> Look like storm water capacity. >> Um not yet. We have not discussed this with them yet. >> Their concerns have been more in the R1 districts. I haven't heard a lot in the commercial areas, but maybe some of these smaller neighborhood nodes, maybe they do. >> That's a good question. >> A lot of the commercial districts, they go underneath with the with the storm water requirements where it's all surface in the R1. So, that's where they had most of their >> What about the Ever the diner realy that backs up it wasn't that like hugely flooded >> uh up at 44th in France. >> No valley like ever. >> Oh yeah. That pretty routinely floods that whole parking lot. >> Yeah. There's a big concern with that site. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Y >> couldn't you box some of this up and collect data on this? Like >> take a few different parcels throughout the city or even just theoretical parcels and say, "All right, if I want to build a building here and put a drive a reasonable size driveway and stuff, what does that equate to for percent coverage?" Right? You do that for >> 10 different theoretical sites and see how that compares to your restrictions here >> and see how how potentially limiting it actually is versus us trying to spitball it >> in the table. The R2 had 50% which is >> we made a change this afternoon to the R to the R2. So this is the regation. Sorry, I should have mentioned that earlier. Thanks for catching that. Uh, we had proposed R2 in the draft that was sent out to you all. But in discussing trying to have this uh gradient of intensity, we decided that the R2 needed to have a little more impervious surface coverage. It's actually going to be 65 on that. >> Yeah, it would be. >> Sorry. Is this all new to zoning code? The impervious impervious piece >> for every district except R1. >> Okay. Isn't that a fairly common thing in zoning code to have impervious? >> Well, yeah, we've used building coverage. So, we've limited the size of the building, but not necessarily >> Okay. >> total impervious. >> Sure. >> I I've seen a code that has impervious surface, lot coverage, building coverage, maximum, and green space requirements. Can you ever without having to come to us? >> And then we have setback requirements for the building and the parking lot. So what we end up with is just green space between the lot line and the parking lot or the lot line and the building. >> Yeah. >> You know, personally for me, I like the impervious uh concept. It's more defensible. It's easy to measure, right? In the future, if we have, you know, driveways that are pvious and these kind of things and better technology and we have better understanding, maybe we could change it. But for right now, the impeous designation seems like a pretty clean way to to measure it. >> Well, I mean, there currently are, but you're just saying you're not allowing the pvious payment or anything. You're not allowing that anyways. >> You're defining it differently. Right. >> Right. You're advertising your product as is pvious and the city says no it counts as imperous like that to me creates that's where question >> but that's an an engineering >> yeah there's two perspectives the engineering then the cosmetic right I keep going the engineering route with like underground water retention to ease the burden on the storm system but this is the cosmetic is just >> do you think units per square foot means the mm needs to be that high or low depend that high of >> might be a good test case to run. >> Yeah. Yeah, because on the one hand we're saying because when we were talking about that before there was some not concern but somebody observed that a lot of times these are but up against R1 which has 50%. So you want to try to balance the additional density that you're allowing without going too far. I just don't know how far too far is on the that but that seems like a big step for 15 to 65 and wanting to workshop. >> Yeah. So, um, for those who were on the planning commission when we did do the R1 impervious surface engineering did do a study of Morning Side and the Country Club and those properties, you know, some of our smaller lot areas. Those were in the high 50s to 65%. >> Impervious. >> Imperous. >> The actual >> Yes. Yeah. And that's where staff had recommended a 60% impervious um council ultimately and I think it was recommendation of planning commission to go to 50 but we made half of Morningside and the country club non-conforming and a big part of it is the driveways going back to the detached garage played a big role in that if that's a if that helps visually for >> a giant but >> yes Yes. >> But there's usually a pretty distinct difference between the single family and >> well in books like if you're driving through you can tell from >> No, there's a few that aren't but mostly I mean most of they're built for cost. Yeah. But but I think a single family residential like one family lives there with a 50% lot coverage is a very specific look in a town. >> That's Yeah. >> So I think I think um like if you are a single family residential next to a duplex or a townhouse you know or you expect slightly different yeah standards. One thing our former city attorney always advised anytime we were amending the zoning ordinance, there's always going to be unintended consequences. You can't think of every scenario. So, he always recommended um that we, you know, make a list of all the issues that have come up over the year and once every year you do a a code update >> with all the issues that you've encountered over the years. So, I would anticipate we would do something like that once. Do we do that? >> Um, >> have we done that? >> We haven't done it so much recently. >> It was more a lot of it was based on the variances that we were seeing >> and we made some changes to the setback requirements and expanding non-conforming buildings and the number of variances significantly reduced as a result of that. >> We haven't made a lot of code changes lately to to monitor All right. And the last uh portion of the draft that was sent out is use permissions. We can't go through every single change to the use permissions, but I'm going to try to highlight some of the the major ones in each district. Uh in the R1, Country Clubhouse shifted from conditionally permitted to permitted by right. Golf courses are currently permitted by right in the R1. So this is just to allow uh those club houses with the same permission. And then municipal public facilities. This is slightly because there's been a shift in the terminology. Uh this wouldn't include municipal utility facilities or um non-public facilities. This is only buildings like this or buildings uh for public safety. uh parks and municipal public facilities are permitted by right in the R2 with the idea of applying those amenities uh in those districts if uh a duplex could be built on the lot. multi-unit drawings in the MM. This is kind of a terminology change, but again, it's all tied to the density allowed on the lot by the comp plan. And then independent senior housing permitted by right and someone wanted to build a unit independent senior housing development in the MM that would be >> that might get updated based on these conversations. multi-unit dwellings, right? >> Right. >> In the MM. >> Yeah. Isn't that the whole point of the MM? It's more than one unit. >> Yeah. So, it would still be permitted by Right. >> Okay. >> It's just going to be restricted by density of the >> not permitted by right before >> in the purity one. I don't >> Oh, okay. It's a function of >> the equivalent the equivalent use would be apartment building in the current code. I don't believe that was allowed in the P1. Got it. >> Currently, but since now we're just worried more about size of the dwelling in terms of number of units and massing. We're consolidating apartment buildings and forplexes and all these other types into a multi-unit dwelling use term. And then it's going to be regulated. density is going to be regulated by the district rather than the type of building. In uh the HDR allowing outpatient medical care to allow a mixed use development, you might have like a dentist office in the first floor of a um building if HDR development wanted to provide a mix of uses. >> Um and then structured parking permitted as an accessory use. Don't know what it was previously permitted as. And then in the uh AR consolidation of care and senior housing and parks and municipal facilities. And that is all for the story map. If you look at the packet, you'll see that there's a use table and you can evaluate that if you have any specific questions about uses. >> Ken Addison, this was a big packet and a lot. So, thank you to go through >> when for those of us that did not know the memorial, we can read all 32 pages with a fine tooth comb. If we have additional comments, what is your timeline for us to receive those? >> Um, not super urgent. I mean, probably a month from now. We're having another work session. >> Okay. >> Second meeting next month where we'll go through the commercial district. So, I mean, certainly between now and then and even beyond that, you have time to look it over. Car history question. Do you know what? There's so few R2 pars. How did they come to be? Did they come one by one or two by two or or have you been around since >> Yeah, of originally that way. >> That's it. It should be that way, but they're so sporadic. >> It's weird. >> It is weird. very >> like in France there's some like there's a bunch of R2s and then there's a bunch of R1s and then R2 >> and there's some buildings >> and then there's that big condo building just south of 50 in France the uh >> No, it's on our side. It's the And it's U-shaped homes. >> Yeah. >> There's eight eight Peter >> town homes. >> Who was it? Was it Peter? >> He also did the 54. >> Edun. Yeah. Yeah. >> Peter. >> Oh, it's not Peter. It's just >> Peter. >> Okay. Is that was that a PE or no? >> That was that was done just before my time. Um not sure what is that zoned. >> Those are threetory town halls with >> garage 3. >> Those are pretty recent. Yeah, because I want to say from what I recall, it used to be a parking lot for the church that's just to the south and the church sold in that land. Did you happen to see um Sunday's New York Times opinion section? There's a full page about building more housing. >> Okay, you can see it. Very interesting article about the what are uh the things that are holding up more housing in the graph about what cities are are are you see it? Did you read? >> I don't know if I saw this one. >> I I would suggest it's uh it's Yeah. Yeah. zoning. It's the number one impediment. >> One number one impediment. That's right. >> There was also an article in the New York Times about um >> a neighborhood and it's a and a building department and a residence they saved and they allowed three to >> send it around. It was really charm. It was nicely done and the neighborhood was great. >> So the next discussion we going to go over the commercial areas, right? Cuz I did notice employee district and office district instead of industrial. >> Um so I'd love to get you guys thoughts on that. And then I was reading through the packet and I was looking at the ADU stuff. I think it had like 95 foot setback. I'm like >> what is that should be 5 ft? It was just some conflicting stuff in there that I saw. >> Are we going to need to do red off street parking for these new districts? >> Like parking minimums. >> We were kind of talking about that. I don't know that we need to. We've already lowered them. A lot of the development proposals have been coming in proposing more parking than we even require >> code compliant now instead of needing flexibility through the beauty. >> I was thinking more like R2 versus like I don't even know what R2 requires now. There's one per >> Yeah, I think it's one stall per unit. Every uh I think every type of housing up to multi-unit right now requires one per dwelling unit duplex is one per unit just one >> just one change that seven years bigger and bigger >> it doesn't mean you build three car >> yeah tell them your thing about the garage fully enclosed space >> with the 35 ft versus 40 ft and the older 1950s garages. >> Oh, that was remember when we were talking about the setbacks 30 feet, 35 ft, 40 ft in some of those areas. I was thinking later on, especially since a lot of those houses are in President's or Morning Side or um 1955. >> Yeah. 1950s, 1960s where we're going to keep those kind of 1950s and 1960s homes and um that there are a lot of projects that come before us. One was right on 40 of Morningside in Grimes. Um that we allowed it was a white painted white and they did a a front entry that kind of stuck out 2 and a half feet. We allowed it into the sideyard set back and really made the house charming. But so those houses that have like 1300 or 1500 square feet where someone wants to remodel it a little bit, maybe make a bigger kitchen or a bigger master suite or a bigger garage without reconfiguring that entire house because remodels of half a house cost half a million dollars. Now everybody's kind of walking in the cost. It would allow people to be 30 ft rather than 35. Remember I was talking about having it be 35 ft because it's what it's always been. But allowing it to be 30 feet would allow people to make very modest additions that would not affect the neighbor. >> 30 is what it's always been. And I think that's what's in the draft now, right? It's 30 for >> But it's based on the adjacent neighbor houses. >> Well, yeah. Like it's a minimum of 30, but >> for the the established set setback is what ends up getting used in, you know, established areas. >> Okay. >> But if there was like a brand new subdivision, Yeah. you know, where there's no it would be 30. >> But I thought it was an interesting thought to think of my 1950s house, right? If I had five more feet, I could make my garage functional today, but it will always be a restriction based on just not wanting to cut her nose off to spider face. Like that the five feet might not seem like a big deal, but in certain applications that five feet could be the difference between a tear down and giant rebuild versus somebody be able to make a modest improvement. >> Yeah. Yeah. The draft that we gave you has 30 ft as the requirement. So if the established setback in a neighborhood was less, then they could reduce it. But the city would not require you to be more than 30 ft set back. >> If that's what I was going to say, are we still good with that? This group, >> that's what you guys advocate for, right? or at least something where it makes it easier where we don't feel like we know >> this would make it easier. >> Unless you're on a corner lot, >> it's pretty much unless you're on a corner lot. >> Well, your front would still be 30. >> Yeah. And then your garage side also, but you can go to 15 on a side street, >> assuming your neighbor doesn't face the corner. >> Yeah, >> that's right. I wonder if there's a better just like 30 seems fine to me, but 35 also seems fine to me. I don't know what the right number should be, >> right? >> And not completely satisfied with 30 because that's the way it is in a subdivision. I don't know if there's a better reason or a better way to figure out what the right number is, but I guess if I were explaining it to somebody, >> I want a better r. >> Well, I think there's trade-offs. No matter what we right, like if we go with 30, then in the neighborhoods where the established setback is way back further back than that, somebody could build way closer than all the other houses, right? Um but if we increase it then like all those houses all those neighborhoods where the established set setback is you know like let's say we go to 40 and then in a neighborhood where all the houses are set back like 30 to 35 ft. Well now we haven't saved them the trouble of having to like do all the survey work. Um they're still potentially impacted by like if their neighbor tears down and rebuilds and moves the house back >> now their setback changes. So like that's what we're trying to fix by loosening it. Um so it's sort of this like spectrum of more flexibility and like opening up the floodgating. So potentially people building way closer. >> We want all of it, right? All we want to have one number for all our one. Yeah. >> And we don't know what the setback is all. We know what it is. Kind of. They did some lot sampling. They took like they looked at 10 lots in each neighborhood and figured out what the median is. So, we kind of, you know, we kind of know what it is. In most neighborhoods, it's 30 to 35. >> Okay. That helps me. That would be much I feel much more happy making that explanation. >> But there are neighborhoods where it's much more than that. >> But this would eliminate that whole averaging thing. How far >> up to 30 ft? Yeah. So like >> yeah I mean right >> yeah most neighborhoods do not have houses that are closer than 32 right >> but in the few rare cases where they are if the average of the neighbors was less than 30 then they could reduce to whatever that number is it could be an issue in rolling green that's that's the area >> that I would >> well I think in rolling green those lots are so big I don't think anyone's going to put their house up really I think the issue would be more like morning side where like the lots are narrow and the houses are you know close close together side by side but some of those like houses are on a line at like 80 ft set back. So it's not an issue if somebody pulls it up 20. >> Well, it's set back from the edge of the right of way, right? Or the center of the >> from the property line. >> Right. >> Right. So are there a lot of streets where the property line and the curb are not more or less one and the same? >> Where the property line and the curb it's usually not the property line is usually not on the curb. It's usually set back on the curb to 12t. >> It varies. >> I'm jumping around a little bit. Like if I in the new MN, if I had a lot big enough to build three houses, three three units, I could still build a two, could I? >> Yes. If I was >> just like today, if you have an R2 parcel, you can build. >> No, you can't. >> You cannot in R2, you cannot build. >> Well, that's interesting. >> The planning commission proposed that a number of years ago and council said no. >> The planning commission said that you could do that. >> No, they recommended an ordinance to the city council >> to allow single family >> to allow a single family home. And the thinking was the thinking was >> Yeah. The reason they didn't was because they thought our our two districts would all turn into single family home. >> Yeah. >> We got some really good steering today. Yeah, steer especially steerage from the uh I think the big the big takeaway is getting rid of R2 or changing R2 to MM and reszoning some other properties. Mm. That's a big one. Thank you for that. I think the impervious pvious surface green space conversation was very good. Think we got some direction on um some uses living was good comment. So, thank you, I guess, is my takeaway here. >> Think like that. >> Yeah. >> Thank you guys for coming. >> Yeah, absolutely.