3:33 p.m. Yeah, let's do a roll call for the council and then we'll go around the room and have people introduce themselves as well. >> Councilmember Azim is absent or is he just running late? Okay. >> late. >> Councilmember Jackson.
>> Here. >> Councilmember Pierce. >> Here. >> Councilmember Risser. >> Here. >> Mayor Olson. >> Here. Uh we've got one topic tonight for the uh the work session and that is another update on zoning and subdivision ordinance work being done by staff and
the planning commission. Please have David Alkay here but just to make sure we'll go around the room and introduce ourselves around the rest of the table. >> Uh Addison Lewis, community development coordinator. >> David, go ahead. >> David Alkay, planning commissioner. >> Well, we're looping all around to Sharon and let's go back over here.
>> I I must have missed you. I'm the city manager. >> Laurie Olson, deputy city manager. >> Eric Larson, parks and recreation director. >> Laurie Olson, councilman. >> Tony Gorf, economic development. >> Ted Milner, public works director.
>> Justin Meyer IT. >> Stephanie Hokanson, housing. >> Yeah, good. Thanks. >> We'll turn to you Scott or go right to David? >> Yeah, I'll just pitch it right over to Addison. Uh we've got some preparation. You see some of this uh tonight. We're going to be looking at residential
districts and uh there's some maps involved as well. Take it away. >> All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council. So, as you said, we're here to talk about the zoning code update. Um just a reminder, our main project goals with this are really to approve alignment of the zoning code with our comprehensive plan and just improve the
usability and simplicity of the code for for all of its users. Um tonight we have uh Sean Suter and Michael Stein from ZoneCo with us. They're going to be presenting the given overview of our proposed changes. Uh we gave you in your packet tonight a copy of module one of the
draft zoning ordinance that includes the introduction section to the zoning chapter. It includes the zoning district standards, a use table, and the use standards. So, like Scott mentioned, tonight our focus is really just on the residential districts.
Um we also gave you a a memo that Zone Co prepared that provided kind of a high-level overview of the proposed changes between the existing code and the new draft. We gave you a copy of the zoning proposed zoning map, which I think is the first time we've given that to you here.
Um you'll see a lot of new names on there, but I want to note with that we're not really creating new districts. We're just changing giving giving a lot of the existing districts better names and just changing some of the standards within them to make them more usable. Um and then lastly on the kind of the cover sheet for this item, there was a
link to a story map, um which is posted online. So, that's how we're communicating and sharing these changes with the public. That's what uh Zone Co is going to to use to present the changes tonight. So, I'll hand it over to Sean and Michael. >> Thank you, Addison, and thank you,
members of council. Um it's a pleasure to be here in front of you for the first time really. Uh tonight we are the lead consultant for the zoning and subdivision ordinance update for Edina. Uh very um proud to be working with you all and um bringing
overhauling the zoning um for the first time really since 1970. So, uh it's a big undertaking um and um one that we are working uh hand-in-hand with uh city staff, Addison, and others on
um to bring this uh up-to-date. So, uh like Addison said, uh a lot of the goal is to clarify, simplify, uh make easier to use, and more defensible your zoning regulations. We've been working uh through some initial
uh thinking on this, including around the residential zones. So, one of the things we always do with a uh zoning code rewrite is take a look at your menu of existing zones and districts and just see uh what, you know, is
working, what's not. Is there anything that's superfluous? Can we consolidate uh or rename things to make them more intuitive? So, that's where we are uh right now uh with the project. Um we'll be continuing to work through this
calibrating uh standards uh that uh reflect your comprehensive plan goals uh and uh we'll be doing that um uh in the in the coming months. With me is Michael Stein, my colleague here at Zoneco, and Michael is going to walk us through this story map, which is really
a nice uh presentation uh tool. It allows us uh to uh have a single document that we work from throughout the project. We build on as we go, and uh it it it I think it's a nice way to kind of explain
uh these concepts. So, Michael, if you would, uh take it away on the story map, please. >> Yeah, thanks, Sean, and then thanks, members of council and uh mayor for having us today. Um as I have been touched upon, you know, a major goal of this project is to improve
the code's alignment with the comprehensive plan, but the code is also looking to simplify regulations by getting away from uh reliance on the planned unit development process. Uh the PUD process affords a lot of uh control to the city and how development occurs,
but it creates uncertainty for uh prop- property owners, residents, and developers alike. And it can it can really slow down and make the development process inefficient in the city. So, one of the goals is to convert a lot of the standards that the city's currently seeking to extract from
development through the planned unit development process and um translate those to base zoning districts that can be applied throughout the city. So, to kind of go through some of the developments um that have sought PUD
approval in recent years and to uh show why those developments uh maybe could be better done with base zoning. Uh we've identified three developments that have been done through PUD zoning in Edina in the last 10 years.
Uh these developments, for the most part, uh with the exception of one, complied with the comprehensive plan densities and so required PUD approval for various setback or building uh site layout requirements. The first is Heather Glen Place. Uh this
required a rezoning despite meeting comprehensive plan density. Um it uh was built in 2018. And um in the current code, this could be built on or in the proposed code, rather, this
could be built under a mixed middle or medium density uh designation. Edina Townhomes are another one that required PUD approval. Uh this actually did require uh comprehensive plan amendment, which did pass, but then also required a rezoning
to PUD. Um while rezoning would still be required to go from low density to medium density, uh ideally under the new code, it would be a more painless process once the comprehensive plan amendment was passed. [clears throat] >> Can Can I ask a question? Um
>> Yes. >> Did we get this presentation? >> Yeah. So, this is in the story map. There's a link to this that's in the in the in the cover sheet. >> Yep. >> In the cover sheet. >> In the cover sheet. There's a place to >> something anyone in the public >> Yep. >> can see. >> Yep. This is posted online.
>> With the other documents that are in the board portal, the public cannot see those. And we did get, my understanding is on the digital access, we have a whole another year to meet those requirements. And since zoning is such a critical
thing, uh it would be great if those could be made available to the public. And so and make it super crystal clear how they can get to this presentation. Thank you.
>> Right. And then the uh the last development I want to highlight was there's Lorient. Uh this also, I believe, complied with the comprehensive plan density designation, but required some setbacks in terms of height from the adjacent single-family residential neighborhood.
One of the goals that we have in this project is to build in context-sensitive standards, like that height setback, into the base zoning districts. So, the city doesn't have to negotiate to get these context-sensitive uh building design requirements
into each development. >> [clears throat] >> And so, for example, the high-density residential uh designation could require that within 100 ft of the single-family neighborhood, we require a building only be 35 ft tall. So, that kind of builds
that into the base code rather than having to ask for each time a developer comes with a proposal. Uh we already have gone over the R1 district, but it's been a little bit of time, so I'll just give you a a pretty brief uh explanation of the proposal in front of you.
Uh we did some sampling a while back on the current standards, dimensional standards, in the R1 single-family district, and uh acknowledge that those needed some changing. The key changes are the creation of a uh R1 district lot size subarea. This
would be instead of having uh one minimum lot size throughout the city or an average, it would be split into different neighborhoods, with each neighborhood having its own designation ranging from 8,712 sq ft up to 35,000 sq ft. That
8,712 meeting the maximum density for low density residential in the comprehensive plan. And within each of those district sub areas, there is a minimum lot width tied to the lot size. So, anything in the A8,
we have a minimum lot width of 50 ft, and anything in the A35 would have a minimum lot width of 150. And then the last piece from the R1 district just to remind you is the changing of the established front setback standard. It
currently applies to any lot you have to meet the front setback of the average front setback of any lot on your block face or in your neighborhood. This would now apply to only those lots that front on the same street and about your property. So, it'd only be
lots immediately to the side of you. We've now gone through the zoning map. Sorry, is that a question? >> Yeah, I remember it being something different when you guys presented before. Am I remembering wrong? For the setbacks? We had that discussion. I thought we were just going to say a certain number
of feet rather than >> Yep. >> That is Sorry, yes. >> Oh, okay. >> It's a 30-ft setback, which if it if the average of the two lots next to you is less than 30 ft, then the average would apply. >> Yeah, so >> Oh, okay. >> Yep, so in a neighborhood
>> case in the city >> where it's less than We would allow them to average it. >> Okay. >> But not more than 30. We wouldn't require that. >> Okay. Would it make sense to have a driveway length length minimum? I'm just thinking in terms of practicality,
you know, it should at least be long enough so that it can definitely accommodate a dumpster, you know, and so you don't have a dumpster, you know, poking out onto a sidewalk, which does happen.
Like couldn't aren't some cities don't they set minimum driveway lengths? >> Uh minimum driveway lengths m- kind of out of fashion, no, Shawn. >> Okay. >> Or I mean, Shawn. >> Is that because there's such a push to
put buildings close to streets? >> Yeah, they they some suburban communities, especially green field communities, will set minimum driveway lengths. That's mainly to keep cars from hanging over the sidewalk or hanging over into the
right-of-way, especially like patio homes, things like that, as they're, you know, jamming these things in on small lots. Um people have these huge trucks nowadays, so they're like 22 ft long, and a lot of times they'll build a driveway as cheaply as they can at 18 19
ft, so the truck doesn't fit in the driveway. So, that's why you're seeing that. >> So, it'd be good to figure out how we can avoid having more of that. >> Yeah. Yeah, well, you would you would definitely want at least a 20 probably a 22-ft long driveway at a minimum then.
>> Okay. [snorts] >> Oh, I think I just lost. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, we lost you. >> We lost the stream. >> Yeah, yeah. >> There we go. Oh, you're back. >> Okay. Is it the right size for everyone? >> Yes, yeah. >> Yes, sure. >> Okay. Great.
Um well, >> Hey, what are the pros and cons of What are the pros and cons of having a defined driveway minimum versus not defining a driveway minimum? Uh, and it helped me or if you had a minimum, you'd have to then use a
variance if you had the situation that Julie's talking about over at Valley View Valley View and Brookside or whatever it is. Kellogg. Wait, you Are you talked about that issue at all, David? >> No, it did not come up. No.
>> I think yeah, this is the first time we've discussed it. So, I think you kind of touched on it, Mayor, is like if if we put something in place and someone wants to deviate from it, then yeah, they would have to go through a variance and and meet that statutory criteria. >> And if you don't set a
then >> Yeah. Yeah, then I mean, then your driveway is probably going to be you know, whatever the front to back of the house is, right? Which in general we're saying is going to be 30 ft. There might be some places where it's less than that. Um, but for the
you know, probably 99% of single-family homes, it's going to be around that 30 ft. >> Do we still require um, garages to be attached for a new home? >> Um, we don't require that they be attached. We require one enclosed parking space for a single-family home,
but it can be detached. >> Okay. >> All right, you guys can keep going. >> All right. Uh, something that we've gone through with the planning commission, but I believe is new to this group is the is the zoning map. Um, the We We don't have to go through each proposed zoning district's purpose
statement, but these are available for others who want to read them and they should be in your packet. But to get to the actual map, um again, this was in an attempt to try to align or better align the code with the comprehensive plan.
Excuse me, the map doesn't seem to be loading. >> Here we go. >> So, um and this is available online, but uh this is a slider tool that shows the translation from the future land use plan categories to the proposed zoning
districts. Uh you see most of the family still low density residential R1 zone. Uh there are a few areas where um district names have changed and I'll get to those shortly, but the uh I think the key takeaway is that we're not
rezoning large sections of the city. Uh it's my understanding that the city doesn't proactively rezone properties unless necessary, and so that's not a goal of this project. I Here's a conversion chart of the future land use categories to the
proposed zoning districts. Uh the idea being this kind of gives a guide for how a property could be rezoned. Uh someone sees that their property is designated uh to medium density residential, they have two zoning districts which are kind of
at their disposal for uh rezoning without having to get a comprehensive plan amendment. >> We've we've talked about in the past um a lot that has a single home on it,
but it's large enough to divide to increase density. >> Okay. >> Um Does Does this >> Where does that fit in? >> Yeah. >> So, that Are you talking about like subdividing it to have two single family homes? >> Yeah. >> So, that would pertain to um when he was
talking about the R1 stuff and our our lot sub areas, that has to do with the lot size and the lot width. >> Okay. >> Right? So, what what is proposed here with the way the lot sub areas are set up is that we identified for each neighborhood
what is like the what is like a reasonable minimum for each neighborhood. And we kind of set that such that we wanted it to be a number where like ideally like 90% of the lots in that neighborhood exceeded the minimum, but weren't double.
Right? Cuz I guess it was we kind of set it up that way under the assumption that you kind of want to maintain the status quo, that you don't want to just like open the floodgates where all of a sudden like half of the lots in a neighborhood are able to be subdivided. Right? So, we could change those numbers
if if you wanted to kind of incentivize or encourage more subdivisions. But, we've had some subdivisions come forward where they because right now the the standard lot size is whatever the median is, you
know, within 500 ft. We've had subdivisions come forward where they didn't exceed the median, but they were very reasonable for that neighborhood and there was like you know, maybe 30% of the lots were at least that size or smaller. So, those are the ones that have tended to get approved, but they needed to go through
this variance process and that kind of added to like the unpredictability of the outcomes. So, what we're trying to do is set it so that those types of ones those very reasonable ones don't need variances, >> Okay. >> but not necessarily open it up so that neighborhoods can just have tons of lots
in the neighborhood be split. >> I think that makes sense. >> Yeah. >> But, if future city council wanted [clears throat] to open up the floodgates as it were, um the way this is written, it wouldn't
be a super complicated um legal process to change the names and stuff like that that this would be flexible enough or clear enough and simple enough that like, okay, Edina has decided that we're going to only have 50-ft lots. >> Mhm.
>> Then the way this will be written, it wouldn't be, you know, we wouldn't have to do handstands and back stands and flips to do that. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> It's changing one number in the code. >> Okay. >> And I think we talked about how for right now, you know, the the smallest subareas that 8712 and that's because
the max density in our low-density category in the comp plan is five units an acre. Even though we have neighborhoods in Edina that are more dense than that. We have neighborhoods where most of the lots are 6,000 sq ft. So when if we do the comp plan update and we were to increase that number,
then it's a simple fix to go back and change that 8712 to 6,000 or 5,000, whatever whatever we want it to be. >> Great. Thank you. >> Moving on to the existing zoning versus the proposed zoning. This is where we kind of get to what Addison was saying
where this isn't comprehensive rezoning of the city. This is renaming a lot of the districts and converting them to better align with the comprehensive plan. So here's another slide tool that colors are changing, but districts are a one-to-one conversion
and for the most part and we can run through which districts have been combined below, but here's a chart showing them the PRD1 and PRD2 are being combined into the mixed middle district. The PRD4 and the PSR PRD5, sorry, and
the PSR4 are being combined into the assisted residential district. And then the planned office district one and planned office district two are being combined. The only difference between those two districts now being a use permission and for accessory restaurants and retail.
>> I really like that we're getting rid of the planned [clears throat] um language and going to language that is more standard because it is super hard whenever I try to work with the League of Minnesota Cities to get clarity on something that is confusing to me, they
can't help me because all of our zones are like planned this, planned that, and there's nothing to compare it with. So, it's it really is an obstacle. >> Yeah, and those were really set up to be those planned districts. They were like PUDs at the time. And so, they're like very specific They have very specific
standards, which is what makes them really hard to reuse. And so, that's what we're doing is, you know, we're just taking that district, changing the name, and then we're going to make it so that it's easier to reuse it in different places. >> It's been a huge barrier. >> Yeah. >> You know, this is just same zoning map,
just easier to click around with the legend on the side. And so, when we get to the main topic of of tonight's meeting, which is going over the residential districts, introducing the the goals of each and the major changes or key takeaways that
we wanted to highlight for you all. Uh so, to start with the single dwelling unit district, I've gone over the major changes there already, so we won't rehash them too much right now. Uh it can be a topic of conversation later. But, again, not much changing in the R1
district. That has been discussed already. Uh in the double dwelling unit district, uh the density is being realigned uh down from 15,000 sq ft to 10,890 sq
ft. That would be um four dwelling units an acre, and the idea is to align that with the comprehensive plan. And then, the rear setback is also just being uh slightly reduced from 35 ft to 25 ft, trying to create uh more flexible development standards. There's also the
proposal of a 40% minimum green space coverage. The R1 district is currently the only district in the city that has a maximum impervious surface or minimum green space coverage. Those are kind of two standards that work in inverse, but the R1 district is currently the only
district that has standards limiting the amount of coverage a lot can have. So, one of the major proposals in this draft is to expand that citywide. So, in the R2 district, that standard would be 40% and we can touch more on that later. See
across the top, there is a green space coverage tab. We can explain a little bit more how that would work. This is the proposed MM district is a combination of PRD1 and PRD2. As you can see on the map, it is pretty sparse.
The Planning Commission did did discuss combining this with the R2 district, so I'll let you think about that. I'll continue discussing these as two separate districts for the purpose of the presentation, but as you look at the differences between the district standards, that's something that you can think about.
There is currently 10 acre minimum tract area for the for the PRD1 district. That is being removed in place of a 5,445 sq ft minimum lot size. That is also to align the MM district with the
comprehensive plan density of 821 units an acre. Similar to in the R2 district, we are combining or we are loosening the side setback and the side setbacks down from 30 ft in the on the street
side to 15 ft and 20 ft 10 ft on the interior side. And that's just to create more flexible development standards. try to limit the number of of two or three foot variances that need to be approved for setbacks. >> Okay. Okay. >> And then the maximum building coverage,
sorry. >> Um, when you came up with this getting down to 15 ft, that makes me wonder, you know, if you've got a development that is near a busy road and, you know, we're trying to create more multimodal
transportation and you want to have an 8-ft wide sidewalk and you want to have a boulevard that could actually be large enough for a significant tree and you're taking it down to 15 ft. Um,
you know, what is this something that is going to make it harder cuz the other goal that we have and I really hope, if you haven't looked at the heat map that the sustainability people put forward, we really need to work on our tree canopy,
especially in areas, the southeast part of Edina, where we do have real need for more trees and there's busy roads and people who are more dependent on, you know, not necessarily using a car. So, I
just want to put that out there. I don't want us to paint ourselves into a corner where, you know, we've got the building coming up so close that, you know, it's it's not going to be viable in a comfortable way. >> So, I'll just note that the the 15-ft
setback is from the property line. So, from the property, yep. So, the the sidewalk, the boulevard, like that should all be in the right-of-way. >> Okay. >> This wouldn't affect the >> So, the setback, even, okay. Patios and porches, one of those can go
up, right, to the lot line? >> Um, patios can can be 5 ft from a side or rear lot line. >> Okay. >> But not a front. Um porches, I think it's 20 ft. So, they can't get that close. >> Okay, cuz I've got patios that go right
up to the lot line on Valley View. >> That's a different district then. >> That's a different district. Okay, so residential, you can have the patio go all the way to the lot line. >> Well, and and this is So, what we're talking about here is So, this is what we're calling the mixed metal district.
So, what we did here was what we we took the setbacks for the R2 district and the what we're calling the mixed metal district, and we just made them consistent with R1. So, in R1, the side the side street setback, like if you're
a corner lot, your side street setback is 15 in a single-family home. And the thinking is is, you know, missing middle is you know, intended to be compatible with single-family neighborhoods. It's supposed to be similar in scale. So, we just um kind of stream or made all of the
setbacks consistent between those three districts. So, that's that's the reason for the change, I guess. >> Can we move the map so I can see the southeast quadrant? Where is that? >> Can you Can you guys move the map to the see the southeast quadrant? >> don't believe there are any
parcels zoned MM in the southeast quadrant. >> Okay. >> There might be one. >> So, again, what we're what what we had originally proposed to call the mixed metal district was we were going to combine what's currently PRD 1 and 2. >> Okay.
>> There's only one PRD 1 property in the whole city. So, we were going to combine that with PRD 2 and make that our mixed metal district, which would allow for kind of a variety of housing types. It would depend on the size of the lot, but you could go up to eight units an acre. >> Okay. >> So, if you had a half-acre site, you
could do four units. Um >> So, this does include Wood Dale Valley View. >> Um I don't know that there's any property there that's actually zoned that, but we >> green over there, but >> Um, there's two. >> Is there?
>> Oh, yep. >> There's >> Yep, there's a couple over there. So, so there's some PRD2 properties over there currently. I think that >> Okay, it's further down Valley. >> Yeah, those are other like the duplex properties, I think today. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. >> Yep. >> I I I know another So, Allison discussed that trying to move away from um, having large uh, like planned development style developments in the PRD1 and PRD2 and
trying to make it more neighborhood scale. That is the intent of removing the 10-acre minimum tract size. Uh, you need a lot of capital and a lot of planning to get a 10-acre tract and put it and turn it into housing. Uh, if you remove that requirement, you can
integrate these types of development, these these middle housing stock more seamlessly into neighborhoods without having to have uh, large developments that break up the the character of that neighborhood. So, that's kind of the the logic on removing the 10-acre minimum tract area.
There's also the proposal to uh, increase the maximum building coverage from 25% to 40%. This is a recognition that if you drop the minimum lot size, you need to give a little bit in building coverage to make up for it without making uh,
projects impossible to pencil out. And then there's also a minimum green space coverage of 35%. And then uh, with the period Technology does not seem to want to cooperate today. All right. I think it's back up.
>> Yep. >> Yep. >> Great. In the PRD 2, dropping the minimum lot area from 7,300 square feet per dwelling unit to 5,445 square feet per dwelling unit. Same thing with the setbacks and
the maximum building coverage is also increasing recognizing that decrease in minimum lot area. Medium density residential district is slightly more intense than the missing middle list is a little less neighborhood scale and more for that
large almost planned development style housing. These are classified as apartment buildings, but not missing middle housing stock or like apartment towers per se. And so the minimum lot area per dwelling
unit is being reduced also to align with the comprehensive plan from 4,400 square feet per dwelling unit to 3,630. Building coverage increases correspondingly with the drop in uh lot size and the minimum green space
proposal is 30%. High density residential district is the most intense of the residential districts. This in this district the minimum lot size is tied directly to the comprehensive plan's maximum density assigned for the lot. So you would go to
the future land use plan, see what the maximum density assigned by the future land use designation for a property is and that would be the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. So however many dwelling units are allowed per acre is the minimum lot area per
dwelling unit in the high density residential district. Another key uh change >> that is being posed in the HDR is, uh, the sustainable building policy being required for any development exceeding a
floor area ratio of 1.2. My understanding is that the PUD process currently allows the city to employ that sustainable building policy. And so, by requiring it for any building exceeding an FAR of 1.2, uh, they can still be required for larger scale developments
without overburdening, uh, small scale developments. So, uh, simple graphic, but this building on the left has an FAR of 1.0, sustainable building policy would not be required, but if the proposal increased the FAR to 1.5, then the sustainable building policy would be
required. And then the HDR proposes a minimum green space coverage of 25%. >> And so, that by >> Are there any questions on that floor area ratio? Yes. >> So, you know, we always I was on the Environment Commission, and we always
tripped up against the building code that you'd have to give to get to require that. So, is this is would be the give, would be the greater FAR? >> Yeah, we're kind of structuring this similar to like a density bonus. Um, so, Edina has had FAR, you know, limits in place for most
districts for, you know, going back to 1970. So, what we're going to do is we're going to use those FAR limits as kind of the like the base requirement, and you can do something within that FAR and not trigger the sustainable buildings policy, just like you could today, right? It's It's only when
developments exceed those FARs that they start to, you know, pursue a PUD, and that's when they've needed to comply with the sustainable buildings policy. So, we're we're kind of using those historic FAR limits as the trigger to trigger the sustainable buildings
policy. >> But, you wouldn't have to necessarily do a PUD to get the extra stories, correct? Or you would? >> Correct. Correct. You would not have to do a PUD. >> There's a There's a click-on factor to the zoning code, and the click-on is the give-to-get.
>> The click-on is exceeding that FAR threshold. They don't have to comply with the sustainable buildings policy if they do something within that FAR. >> But then then if if they want to do more than that, there's a method for doing that, >> Yep. >> but it also triggers the sustainable
building. >> Exactly. Yep. >> It's very clever. Are you concerned about reducing the street-side setback to 15 ft just because of what we talked about with driveway lengths and sidewalks? And it seems like that's setting things up so that we're going to have
sidewalks getting blocked. And thinking about these developments that are along busy streets where people, you know, do need to be able to walk safely and and not have to worry about whether they're going to be seen or, you know, if they have to step into the
street. >> Yeah. So, the 15 ft is intended to be like the side of your house, right? So, if it's a corner lot, like right now, there's a requirement where if you have a corner lot and you have a detail and you have a garage that faces your side corner, then the setback is increased to 20. And I think we're I think we're
keeping that. >> Going to go to 20 ft? >> You couldn't have a garage facing the side street >> Okay. >> and have it be closer than 20. >> But back to the idea of bigger vehicles, and I think the number 22 was tossed out as, you know, if you
want to make sure that your driveway can probably accommodate a dumpster and that kind of thing. >> Mhm. [clears throat] >> Um just thinking, and sorry to belabor the point, but really thinking about use and safety and kids and bikes
and busy roads. >> Yeah. It's something we could consider. I think there's a lot of existing detached garages that are probably built at that 20 ft now. But then, if we put that if we increase it to 22 ft, >> Right. >> um
those would all become non-conforming. Then if they make changes >> non-conforming. It wouldn't be illegally non-conforming. But something that might be an alternative is to say if your your driveway is 20 ft, you can't have a dumpster over 20 ft long and do it on the dumpster side rather
than on the zoning side. >> Yeah, I mean that's true. Technically, they're not supposed to block the right of way anyway. >> Right. So, you could say this is not but the this dumpster is not up to code, not the house. It's much easier to limit the size of the dumpster than it is to limit the size of the house.
That's not happening. >> Well, I mean it >> You can propose a ordinance change, Julie, to to do that if if this is I think it is the dumpster is much easier to be more flexible than than existing homes. There is to say put them all out of compliance and then they want to
redo, if they want to, you know, change their deck, they have to get a variance or whatever. I mean, it gets very complicated when you're out of compliance like we saw with Kevin Keys. So, they were basically the same use but then it was triggered because you're going to change a little bit. It changed
big legal change. >> Right. >> You do it in PUD. >> So, we wouldn't be getting rid of the PUD. They the everything that's zoned PUD today is still going to be PUD. And it'll still be a tool that we can use. >> But what I'm talking about the future,
not the present. You didn't You didn't get rid of it. >> No, we're not getting rid of it. No. No, the intent is we'll still use it for, you know, those kind of unique exceptional projects. >> Gives us flexibility on >> Exactly, yep. Yep. >> [clears throat]
>> Okay. David, were there any other things that you saw or planning commission saw that were burning in your >> Well, we we did have [clears throat] a lot of discussion about combining R2 and mixed middle. I don't know if you want to talk about that now or you want to
talk about that later. So, the the basic premise is that if we want to preserve R1, and I think we do, um that we got to look for mixed middle opportunities elsewhere. And
you know, in rough numbers, R2 and mixed middle have the same density requirements. So, they're kind of the same thing from a density perspective. But, if we maintain R2 and mixed middle separately, then you could have a 15,000 square foot lot zoned R2 that couldn't put three
units even though the density would allow it. So, in a nutshell, that was the argument for just getting rid of R2, pushing them both together, making them R3, and then the capacity of lot depends on the square foot, not the zoning designation. So, it seemed like a really
tidy way to go about it. I mean, there's some you know, rezoning is always complicated, but the the the philosophy of it seemed really strong, and it seemed like it was something that we should consider.
>> So, of the um uh examples that we got from I'm thinking the 511 349th Street and then the building on Hankerson, would those fall into either of those designations? Were those things that you
talked about when you were talking about combining these two or were >> I think we were talking about the population of of parcels that are currently zoned R2, I think is the population that we were looking at, not at particular projects. I think there's some numbers on that now. Like of the You said how many How
many properties were are zoned R2 and how many would qualify for a higher capacity? >> Yeah, Mike Michael did some analysis of our two district and I think Michael, is this correct? There's roughly like 500 or so R2 parcels. And
um you know, if we were to basically do with the R2 what we were planning to do with mixed middle and just allow, you know, the number of units based on the lot size, right? And and base that on um one unit per 5,445, which again, that's eight units an acre.
That's how they're got in the comp plan. Then like is it something like two-thirds of them are um like would not be able to add a unit. So, most of them would stay the same, but there'd be like maybe a third of those R2 zoned properties that
potentially could add a unit or two or three. Depends on how big they are. >> Yeah, uh there were there weren't any I don't believe there were any in the R2 district that would be allowed to add more than more than three. Maybe one or two parcels could add up to four
uh dwelling units an acre or dwelling units per parcel. Um and the total I think the total number of dwelling units that we identified is like if every lot developed to its maximum potential, it would come out to about 144 lots or new dwelling units. Um and that's
comes down to 140 net dwelling units of what's currently allowed. >> So, that's 140 properties that by right could build say a trip- triplex. >> Yeah, that would be enough. Yep. >> But leave the rest of them with the same density requirement limited to two. So,
it just seemed seemed like a good idea. >> [clears throat] >> And just to review what you said that the setbacks remain The way you have written them as the proposed change, the setbacks remain have the feel of a single family home. The closeness and
everything is they're not less setback than a single family home would by right be able to build, correct? >> Correct. Yep, the setbacks are all aligned. Yep. >> I think that makes sense. I mean, just again, in the theme of simplification for no other reason.
Keith, what do you think? I'm going to agree with that. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, for sure. >> Having looked at some of these things >> Yeah, and I am curious cuz as we were going through this, um I think Julie, you always bring us back to like the Valley View and Wooddale,
but that whole kind of corridor there from Valley View down to 62 is a lot of I guess I don't really know what it's owned today, but I would have expected more of that to be incorporated into that area, but it didn't look like that
cuz we saw the couple of properties there. Um and that's just one site that kind of comes to mind. So, I'm curious to know like where there is that mismatch maybe of what is there today compared to
what this would be layering over it. I don't know if that question makes sense, but >> Where are those 144 properties? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Are they kind of all over or is it in a certain zone? >> Um do you guys want to pull up the map that shows the R2 current R2 properties?
Cuz yeah, I can. I'll just take me a second. Cuz yeah, all those ones along Valley View, you're talking about like just north of 62? >> Yeah. >> I I sorry, are you are you the current the from the story map or the one that I sent you earlier today? >> Um the I was thinking the story map.
>> Okay. >> Um lots of those are zoned R2 today. >> Okay. >> What he had shown before was the mixed metal district, which is properties that are currently zoned PRD1 or 2. So, those two parcels you saw are zoned
PRD2 today. And then >> Okay. >> what we're talking about is just essentially combining them and making them one district. >> Okay. So, all of that would then align to one district after this change. We are just highlighting which ones we're changing.
>> Yep. So, now he's showing the R2 district what the properties that are currently zoned R2. >> Okay. >> And you can kind of see a lot most of those properties there just north of 62 along Valley View are R2 today. Couple of them were PRD2. If we combine them, which was the planning commission
suggestion, and staff is not opposed to that either. Um then they'd all be one district and they'd all have the same regulations. >> Okay. That helps clarify, too. Um that alignment then with what the planning commission was thinking of. It it feels cleaner.
>> Yeah. Yep, cuz all those properties too are guided the same way in the comp plan. >> I think some of those are triplexes. >> I yep, some of them are. Yep. So, again, yeah, too, like then this would open up the possibility that a property that's zoned R2 today could be
a triplex if it uh was big enough. >> What have we done on what we said we'd do in the last two years? Housing and affordable building production. What kind of position does this put us in in terms of making arguments about
local control versus um trying to be more cooperative on issues of expanding housing production and affordability? >> Yeah. Um I think this is like us being a good partner and like doing our part, right? Like what we're trying to do is
you know Met Council makes us adopt a comprehensive plan and they want us to say, "Okay, where are you going to allow this growth growth to happen?" And so what we're doing now is the next step to change the zoning [clears throat] so that it can actually happen. Right? So, I think
there are, you know, some cities that will fight density and they won't change the zoning and then they won't allow it through a PUD like what we have. Um and there's not a lot of enforcement around that. So, like a lot of cities end up not really having to implement
their comprehensive plans and there's not a lot of teeth or enforcement behind that. And I think that is one big reason why the legislature is looking at taking back some of that local control. >> But you think this is us doing our part in the way that other communities aren't? >> Yep. Yep, this is a step towards us
saying, "Okay, this is what we said we were going to allow. Now we're backing it up with the regulations to actually facilitate it." >> Is both MDR and R2 changes or >> Say that again. >> Would those Would those Would that spirit of cooperation be primarily
illustrated by the density residential and R2 or would it be illustrated on a broader sort of basis? >> Um well, I think with with all of our zoning districts, we're trying to to better match, right? I mean, one one thing that the zoning code audit
identified was that we don't have any districts that really allow you to go above like 30 units an acre. Even though in our comp plan we have like the area in the Southdale district between France and York that's guided for a minimum of 90. Right? So, I mean, it's it's all of it,
right? It's having medium density districts, it's our high density districts, mixed-use districts. >> And then even within like R1, some of the some of the opportunities to do the subdivision, right? There's not a ton, but
just those incremental additions throughout. >> Yep. I think just [clears throat] to build on that, I think this map shows [snorts] a potential untapped opportunity to maybe find some more places where what we currently call R2 or what we may call
mid middle cuz it's pretty haphazard in my opinion, a pretty haphazard display of R2. Like it's on France, but only part of France on the southern side. I mean, are there Is a question, not a proposal. Are
there ways to have a few more R2 spots or mixed middle spots or whatever you want to call it that where that could go in our city? >> Well, in the Humphrey School study was to do Vernon with all would be this new Is MMR is what we're calling? No. >> Mixed middle.
>> Mixed middle, just mixed middle. And then all of France Avenue and Valley View Road, make that all the mixed middle. So that that was their proposal. Um and then that would help increase the density to the point where we could talk bus lines on the west side of Edina.
>> Uh we are still limited by the sewer capacity in West Edina, so we couldn't have the the redevelopment there, but um it's really with our next comp plan update, too, where we can guide those areas for that higher density. Cuz right now the reason they're not R2 properties is because they're guided for low-density
residential, which is just single family. So we would have to guide them in the next comp plan update for >> But I think that's a discussion that should be part of the comp plan discussion. >> Yeah. Definitely. >> You know, and then if we need to bring in the Met Council to say what you want us more density, you got to
give us money for more sewer capacity kind of thing. Or something like that, but I I that's a that's a discussion I hope we have for the comprehensive plan. >> But do you see that little black dot on Valley View just kind of hanging out in the middle there?
Um you know, between 100 Yeah, that is a duplex and it's on a corner lot. And um it fits in just perfectly. It's a typical mid-century style like all of the others and
um you know, I I don't see why there couldn't be more units like that along you know, arterials and collectors where there's space. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, we just have to guide them that
way in the comp plan. >> So, what are the [clears throat] next steps? >> Um well, sorry. Did you guys get through all the presentation you wanted to? >> Uh no, we still have a little bit to go. >> Okay. Well, then we'll let you keep going. >> Great. Um the the the last district we'll cover
today is the assisted residential. Uh this is a proposed combination of the PRD 5 in the PSR 4. You'll also notice this is pretty sparsely uh used throughout the city currently. Uh the floor area ratio standard
discussed for the HDR would still apply. Uh minimum green space coverage is 25% and uh the interior side setback uh which since it's something we are going to continue to discuss, but um has been reduced from 35 to 20 ft.
And this is a combination of assisted living and senior independent living facilities. >> So, this is a >> Uh no real changes from PS PSR 4. >> Sorry. Um this just covers uh what are considered like larger
facility type properties, not some of the like intermittent like group homes that we have. >> Yeah. Yeah. Those are Yeah, those are like um like allowed by statute. So, like in single family, we have to allow at least like six unit. And then in in any
multi-family district, I think it's 14 or 16. So, this would just be like those larger institutional facilities. >> Okay. >> Um >> So, why is this its own zoning district and not an apartment? >> Senior? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So, this is one thing the planning commission discussed a lot. So,
right now we have the PRD 5 district, which is its own zoning district just for things like nursing homes. And then we have the PSR 4 district, which is just for independent senior. And so, our proposal was, well, can we just for simplicity just combine them?
Um Planning commission didn't like that idea. You guys wanted to keep them separate. Um people on the commission felt that they were different uses, they should be separate. And that's fine. We don't feel I don't think we feel strongly either way. Um you can see that they're not really
used very much at all. Um There was some discussion about like, well, why do we need a district solely for like independent senior housing? Like that could just be allowed that it will be allowed in like the the high-density residential district. Like
you could do a senior building in um a district that's zoned just for any kind of multi-family. >> West 70th, is that on listed on here or not? >> Uh that was a PUD, wasn't that? Yeah. That one was PUD. >> That's fine. >> Um
So, I don't know that we would like use the PSR 4 district going forward, you know? Like if someone wanted to do um a senior project, like we would probably just zone it um high-density residential if that was the the density it fell into.
Um So, we could just leave this alone, leave them separate. It's not a big deal either way, but um I [clears throat] think it was planning commission's preference that we just not combine them. >> I think the notion was that a 55 plus independent living community has
the easiest example is probably different parking requirements than a than a than a nursing home. And that they're probably the the uses are sufficiently different where it's going to complicate things if we try to squish them into one. But, you know, it's it's doable either way.
>> Yeah. >> No, I wouldn't combine the nursing home with anything cuz that's really its own >> Just keep it its own. Okay. >> Yeah, but this could be folded into the apartments, I would think. >> Combine PSR4 with the H the high density residential district, yeah. That was a
feeling that yeah, some commissioners had too was that um like a senior building shouldn't have any advantages over a multi-family standard multi-family building. All right, and then did you guys want to cover the green green space? >> Yeah, and then we'll we'll go over the
the green space requirement. Um yeah, this currently only applies or some variation of this impervious surface coverage only applies in the R1 district currently. Uh the proposed draft would expand this to all zoning districts. Uh
minimum green space is the inverse of impervious surface. So, uh that includes anything that water Green space would be anything that water can infiltrate. Uh driveways, pedestrian paths, uh the foundation, that would not be green space, that would count as impervious surface. And
then anything that is um that is that water can get through would be uh green space. I'll note the city does not, I believe, count pervious pavers as pervious, they count them as impervious. So, if you had a previous
paved driveway, that would count um towards your impervious surface coverage and your green space coverage. >> Say Say that again. >> I didn't see. >> Say that again. That the impervious becomes a previous? >> [laughter] >> Yes. Um it it's it's just something a
practice of the engineering department that any you know, those previous pavers that allow some degree of um 100% down to you know, 50% or some fraction of the water that hits [clears throat] the surface of the
of the pavement to infiltrate into the ground. The engineering department recognizes that these need to be constantly maintained. And to try to prevent them have from having to police like maintenance standards on these surfaces, they just count them as impervious.
>> So, we would just be maintained So, right now, we only have this in the R1 district where we regulate impervious. But, like you said, it's a little confusing because we count previous pavers as impervious. So, um we're not changing our practice. We're
just calling it green space. So, it's just the inverse of what we do now, and then we would apply that in every district cuz right now, we don't have a limit on impervious surface in any other district. We, you know, significantly limit FAR, we limit building coverage, but that's
not necessarily getting us any green space. Cuz if you look at an overhead of like the Southdale area, it's small buildings and then large surface parking lots, and they're like 95% hard cover. So, this is this is kind of thought of as a a trade where we're kind of making
a trade or a compromise where we're giving more flexibility on FAR and building coverage in exchange for green space. >> So, we're here you're also you're potentially causing a problem for people in Country Club and Southdale Park
that want to put in patios that take them over 50%, and can we Are there any materials that they can use in the realm of construction materials that would be designated pervious as opposed to impervious? >> In In where did you say? The >> Some of these neigh- nearby
neighborhoods here. >> Well, we're we're not Yeah. We're not changing anything. Th- This wouldn't change anything with um >> [clears throat] >> anything that's R1. Anything that's single family, this is how we do it today. >> Yeah, I understand that's how you do it today, but there are people calling me
and bringing to me today that are over the 50% rule and they want to use some pervious material Yeah, pervious materials to expand patio capacity because they've got small lot sizes. >> Okay. Well, we could we could change that. >> What are the What are the materials out there that they can they can use that
don't cause them to violate the rules? >> Right now, I think there's nothing. If it's If it's any >> in the future >> Most of these things short circuit unless you maintain them and they don't want to maintain them. >> The cracks fill in with dirt and leaves
and they become impervious then. >> I think specific >> We're happy to work with >> Yeah, specific applicants. >> Yeah. concerns we can see if there's a way to work around it. >> Well, I think when the impervious requirement for R1 was first adopted, I think staff analyzed and at first came
in and recommended 60% because recognizing there are a lot of lots that are already over 50% Um we ended up settling on 50%. So, if we want to revisit increasing that number, that'd be another way to address that issue. Just increasing it. >> Or decreasing the green space and the
tree. >> Right. Right. >> So, so yeah, we could change it. For sure. >> How would that apply to a district like 50th and France where all the commercial buildings are built lot line to lot line? There's The only green space is the city's
>> Yeah, that's a great point. So, that is something that we need to still talk about and figure out if we're going to carve out like an exception for 50th and France Amoco's that is you're right like 100% hard cover right now. I don't know that if one of those buildings needed to be redeveloped
like would we want to require that they shrink the building footprint and put in a little green space between. I don't think so. >> I think about the space. I It's got a big parking lot, right? So, the pervious surface could actually
increase and have a bigger building there. >> Yeah. I mean they are that way now so they would be you know allowed to continue. They could expand the building as long as you know they're not increasing the amount of impervious or
reducing their green space. Um but that is a good point that we do need to talk through more. >> Yeah, 44th and France and 50th and France >> Yeah. >> are the exceptions? >> Yeah. Yeah, cuz those are like 100% impervious today. >> The other thing is you can talk about
pervious surface and make the assumption that it you know is pervious all the way down but that's not necessarily true cuz you can have the parking underground parking extend all the way to the lot line
and then you put dirt on top of that and yes that is pervious so it is absorbing but it's not a place where you could plant a tree. And so I'm just sort of thinking about
pervious impervious but also impact on you know how do we get that tree canopy? It's not necessarily guaranteed if you have pervious surface. Um >> Well, and from talking to Ross it sounded like it
the storm water benefits of pervious surface versus impervious there's not a huge storm water benefit, right? It's This requirement really is more of an aesthetic thing than a storm water benefit. >> Yeah. >> Um >> I think it also be a cooling. >> Yeah.
>> But you want it like trees are great for the water >> Right. >> retention. >> Yeah. >> But you're not necessarily going to get it with this. >> Yeah. >> So, uh the word impervious would go away and it would be defined as green space requirement. >> Yeah. I think we would you know we would
measure it again unless we get direction to do it differently, but our assumption was do what we're doing now for R1 and just apply that. And yeah, green space is just the inverse of what we're doing now. >> Yeah, it's just a re-wording. It's the same policy. >> Exactly. >> And then we can fuss with the policy
just like the lot size. We can we can always change the underlying policy, but we want something that's clear, easy to read, and easy to enforce. And then we can make our policy changes based with that language. >> Yep. >> I think that impervious
impervious rule is easier to enforce when you've got a turn down rebuild. They can then build something custom. But when people have built houses that were built in the 40s and 50s and now they wanted to improve their personal living circumstances back by
adding a little bit of patio we're saying you can't do it if you're over 50% lot coverage. So I think I'd be in favor of looking at that lot coverage in in the R1 with respect to houses that
were I mean that are newer. You know, I don't know if you can carve some kind of distinction, but >> Well, isn't R1 broken into lot sizes? And so some of those are smaller even I think than what's in the what this would be rewritten. So, if they were under a
certain size, there could be a different set of rules. >> There could be. >> Yeah. So, like we have the lot sub-areas for the smaller lots, we could have a higher percentage that we allow to be impervious. >> Yeah. >> That's an option. >> It wouldn't have to be all R1, but just the smaller.
Where they're really squeezed. >> Couldn't that mean though that we just get even bigger houses on those lots? >> Yes. Yep. Well, no, cuz we do limit building coverage. So, like the paver, the patio, I know the guy you're talking about, he
that wouldn't count against building coverage. So, there's a building coverage limit and there's a hard cover and overall hard cover limit. >> Okay. >> So, like patio, hardscape, that's not included in the building coverage. >> Okay. So, we can manage them separately.
>> Correct. Yep. >> Anything else with the planning commission covered that we didn't talk about, David? >> No, not on this one. >> Do you guys have anything else you want to add? >> Uh I guess I'll I'll I'll note that we there is some um changes to the use permissions. Uh
nothing nothing drastic. Uh it's in your packet. Um mostly the the goal is to shift things from requiring conditional use permits to being permitted by right where it makes sense. Uh for example, a country club clubhouses previously required a conditional use permit, but golf courses
were permitted by right in the R1. Uh that's being shifted to permitted by right. Uh use standards still apply needing to be associated with a golf course, needing to be on a certain amount of of of lot size, um etc. And then permitting things as as
accessory uses where they make sense. Um and consolidating uh for now like it, you know, consolidating the AR uh uh uses into one, but it sounds like that might be uh something that we undo in the next iteration.
That's kind of all for for this draft. Uh the next meeting that we plan to have with you all in September, I believe, would be on the non-residential districts. >> So, go back to the country club um section again.
Addison, what does that mean if we um take away the conditional use permit? Because I know the neighbors, when the country clubs are making changes, the neighbors get worried. >> Yeah. Well, I think what we'd like to do, you know, and we would, you know, be talking about this with you, is come
up with standards that we can agree on that, you know, would make it just a permitted use, so that they don't have to go through and get a conditional use permit. Um I think they would still have to go through site plan review. So, it would still come before you. Um but generally, if it's a site plan
review and not a conditional use permit, um it's just kind of a check to make sure it complies with the code. Um you do maintain more discretion with a conditional use permit. Um So, we could we could keep it a conditional use, but our goal here is to
try to just come up with objective standards that we just expect them to follow, and it's either they meet these standards or they don't. >> Could this result in expansion of country club area? Like, could they purchase R-1 houses
around the country club to >> Um this wouldn't change anything with that. Um I I think that they could, right? I mean, they can buy property. >> Yeah, certainly. Right, they and they have. >> Yeah. >> But then,
that process would not change at all. >> Um this is not changing that process. So, this change just applies to the the clubhouse. That's like the clubhouses. Yeah, like when they make changes to their clubhouse and expand it or something like that. Then they have to go through and amend their conditional
use permit. >> Okay. But there's more to a country club than clubhouses and golf courses. >> Yeah. >> So how would it kind of support What what does what would control the tennis court? >> Pickleball
Yeah, they'd have setback standards. On where they could be located. >> [clears throat and cough] >> Pickleball could be a tricky one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, noisy. >> Yeah, exactly. But I mean that's the question. Would a pickleball court be by right then?
Or would it be you know, conditional use where we'd have say you have to have noise mitigators. >> That's a good question. I'd have to ask Carrie >> Yeah, I think >> how he would have handled that now. >> to close out residential. I'd like to know a lot more about how the country club would work. >> We'll talk about that.
>> Thank you. >> Then maybe also think about looking at minimum lot size as >> [clears throat] >> as a differentiator to what you're talking about. >> [cough] >> Could be in what districts would you possibly recommend that we go to 60% lot
coverage on hardscape? >> Sure. >> [clears throat] >> Or sub districts, sub areas. >> Okay. I think that's all we have for you. >> Yeah. >> Good. >> This is excellent work. >> Great. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Thank you for your time, David. Thank you, Adam. [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> Thank you, David.
>> All right. >> Anything else? >> No, that's all we got for you. >> All right. >> That sounds good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all. Thanks, everyone. >> Thanks everyone. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> It was fantastic.