No. Okay. >> All right. This is February 26th. This is a continuation of our workshop for the planning and zoning codes. And uh with that, we just continue on where we were at. Starting with our
single family R-1 start at 151040 code. >> Yeah. So, we like I said, we left off with the R R1's um after last week. Basically, the R1 defines low and medium density
residential development standards, prioritizing neighborhood compatibility while allowing limited flexibility through conditional and accessory uses. We've got Marie online here. But so Maria, we're just getting started.
Just uh jumping into the start of page one there. >> Yeah. I mean, I guess this is kind of your guys' time. Is there questions, comments, concerns, adjustments? Just like last time, this is council
time to talk. And >> on the bottom of the control uses, I had a comment about the combined garage, anything structure greater than 1,000 total combined carport that requires a conditional use permit.
Is that right? Let me get it right. >> Um 1510.042. Um the sideyard for was 8 ft. That's on either side. Correct. >> Correct.
>> So So that's like similar to our 16, but we don't bury it like we do before. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So down to um minimum lot sizes of 14,000 square feet. We talked about a little bit about this
last week already. You know the in my comment I guess is to me I think that's a little large for our to meet our density for a comprehensive plan based on we have a system now but I know
that um 14,000 square feet is a doesn't meet our plan from that standpoint. It also affects um the number of houses that are on each street which is a less
um I think I mentioned like 25 or 30% fewer homes in a mile 10,000 versus 14. I think a 12,000 foot is very it'll be more acceptable in my eyes versus 14. I
know the star steering committee um the last figure they saw was 10,000 square feet and going into the August planning and zoning meeting and that's when the discussion was to when the meeting was over it was at
12,000 ft and then September meeting the discussion continued and it ended up being at 14,000 square feet and so my only comment is that the steering committee I don't believe they really saw that number after the discussion of
the 10,000. So that's that's one concern I have about that whole process. The other concern or not concern awareness is back in 2022 um Stantech did a lot survey with the
community and I don't know if this was shared meeting but they did a summary of the residents cities I should say um talks about
the first page is what the preliminary recommend commendation was. And down at the bottom was their suggested lot sizes to start discussion with 6,000 downtown, 8,000 intermediate areas. And there's a page at the very back that talks about the intermediate
areas and 10,000 sort out outer areas. on the second page. Um this is something that we we talked about. Um the opportunities there for lot splits and replplatting. Um there's a suggestion over on the
northwest side off of Seventh Street, 7th Avenue. There's some pretty big lots and if we to do some inclusive lot uh with a street or culac on that lower right corner picture those would be
12,000 square feet typical the sizes and 12,000 is pretty it's a good size lot. It's um probably um yeah 20% 30 third of an acre maybe. Is that right?
On the next page, uh, some of the cities they want to look at. Rochester, Ein Island, um, Rochester, Century Hills, which cent average 12,000 to 22,000.
Pine Island is 9 to 10,000. Rochester East and Northwest, they vary from 6,500 to 9,000. Northwest, which is the newer portions of 7,000 to 10,000. >> I guess the question that I have,
Ryland, is um if a lot of the residents here wanted to live in Rochester, they live in Rochester. >> There's a reason why people like living in Orco >> and and it's what there is with the
larger lives and the other things. And you know, it's it's like, do we lose our city and what the city and the the residents like to have just to turn around to find a way to pay
for the sewer plants? >> Okay. Um, is that's what's shaking the dog or is it the tail shaking the dog or or what do we really want to have, you know? And so I think that that we have to keep in mind why the residents and
why we live here and and it's not to to be like everybody else that there is around and and I understand and I see like what we were talking about at the end of the last meeting you and I over River Ben
okay of of what's over there. But I think that what makes Oronooco Orinoo is a uniqueness of what it is and and that that should be one of the driving forces that there are to be able to to maintain
that and not lose lose sight of that. >> Yeah. Go ahead. No, I was going to say that was actually be my comment too, especially that last page that you disagree there talking about the 6,500 to 9,000 7,000 to 10,000. Um Jim's point
with all due respect, I mean that's why a lot of people moved out here, myself included, that was the reason we moved out of Rochester was for the bigger a little more land, a little more space. Um you know, and to further extent if we want to pile in Rochester, I think Paige prior to that even talked about last 22,000 ft. You know, again, I know that
was a portion or area of town, but same time we're kind of apples and oranges with Rochester and what's going on there. Um, and the risk of opening a can of worms. So the 14,000 we talked about in P&Z you brought that up and that was kind of the I think the basis of our
discussion that night was the 10 to 12 because again to Jim's point kind of everything we discussed is that's why a lot of people moved out here to a further extent talking about again this is the can of worms is you know the the step downs a lot of that came up and a
lot of that discussion came from the um public hearing we had where a lot of the the people that were in there that were and that's where we kind of came up with the idea again whether that I lost translation. Daniel, you and I had that discussion. That's where that idea came from is the people that had
property adjacent to any open lots that would be developed is possibly incorporating a step down to honor some of those bushes from the residents that live in Orco. And that's kind of where we came. Now, I know that gets a little bit dicey talking about what do you consider adjacent is a street? Is it a tree line? Is it whatever that is? I
think that's something that could be worked through. And then if it's a percentage of what your current lot is because everything varies, that's something to me I guess that it could be discussed. But again, I just want to put that back out there that that is something that is important to a fair number of people in the community
itself. So >> yeah, I was clear that was that that message is clear and I think that's we understand that and the reason it does add you some uniqueness but somehow we need to balance that with our comprehensive plan the density
>> the same comprehensive plan from 2006 is that >> it is but it's the same if you look at the 2006 which I'm guessing everybody has it talks about the sewer plant and the sewer plant will require density throughout the whole comprehensive plan talks about that.
>> My my question is when you looked at that uh report that there is from 2006 um it didn't have in there the the capabilities or the size of the sewer plant either you know and I know we need
enough to be able to keep that plant operating you know where you know we were looking at a growth the way I understood it that that the way the city was supposed to grow and it was supposed to be at a population of 3,000 by 2030
and we're at 2026 and we haven't had any developments. But again, looking when you did that, nobody knew what the economy was going to be. Nobody knew what was going to happen with COVID and everything that's associated with that and and especially with the interest
rates of what's what's going on, which I think are all a part of it. But um you know it's a matter of that was done at that that time for for that. But I don't know if we looked at the size of the plant at that time versus when we we got
and started building the plant and and what was it 2018 when you got the funding or 2019? >> It's 2020. But the physibility plan is planned for 2030. That's what phase one >> and and we're not going to going to hit that no matter what. I mean, it's like
if if we start right now with construction um just for doing a little bit, it's going to be two years before the you know, and and it's not going to be close to to where we're at. Um I just you know
the bottom line is is I want to still maintain what we have for Oronokco which makes Oronooco very unique in itself where it sits here and and it's the community that has the larger lot sizes and I
think the last uh report that was was done by uh CEDA uh turned around and the majority of the people that were here as residents agreed with that as well that that that's what we want to have is a
country style living and that type of a situation. His question is just comments. >> Yeah. No, you know if you look at this page here too and I like to hear comments as well. You know the 12,000 is still very
respectable size. um you know I think that's what um would bit with the uniqueness compared to the other cities you know 20,000 is it's huge I agree that but at the same
time um we need to think of developers and the cost of putting in homes now compared to even 101 15 years ago it's substantially more and that's why you see like riverbin river bins is a classic example of 100 foot width lots.
Um, and a lot of those are 12 to 13,000 square feet, especially probably half a dozen of them or more that are that square footage before it drops off the hill. So, it's usable space. And that developer did a great job of working with 100 foot fronts. And I just feel
like there's and they're all six 700,000 homes. They compleimement everybody with Riverwood Hills, which was a concern during our public hearing. uh they were concerned about the small loss is going to change their home values and uh looking back now it compliments too.
>> I I think I think though regardless of size right if you think about homes and trying to sell your home and buy a home you're in the 400 500 600,000 easy for even starter homes. So again I I I agree with Jim and even Grant. I think if we
think about new residents coming in, they're not coming in because we have a water and sewer treatment plant even today. I mean, that's a nice to have and and they feel like that's infrastructure that's needed, but that's not their selling point of why they're coming in. >> I had just two things. One is a comment,
one is a question, I guess. Um, just to what Jim was saying about not being on target for 2030 with P1B, as far as what I've read in the information that we have available, um, and then the voting to approve and move forward with P1B at the December city
council meeting, we are we will be and are are on track for 2030. So, we're not going to I don't think we're going to blow that timeline for for phase 1B. Um, I just wanted to comment that. And then I had a question like I know I I live here too and I know there we're talking
a lot about lot sizes and what's is if the sewer facility is driving the this conversation right are we driving the conversation about lot sizes and density because of it. So I would just question I mean why these conversations must have been had by
council when they approved the wastewater facility, >> right? >> They had to have known there had to have been statistics when the facility was approved that density and development was going to have to happen for the project and for the city to be um
profitable in every aspect. I mean not just to pay for the facility but but to grow and stuff. So, I'm just curious if we can find for some of us that were not around during that time when those conversations were taking place if we could get more background about what was the discussion by by council when they moved forward with the treatment
facility and what were the statistics that were provided at that time. Um, because we clearly approved them and move forward with them. >> I I would like to see that that same thing of what was really really done at that time. Um, because none of us were
aware of it or are a part of it. The only one that was was you, Ryland, and Joe Palin. You you you were the only two that that have that. Um, so yeah, I would I would like to have that information. I think it'd be very helpful. >> Sure. And that did we talked about it
with the cash flow analysis because we had Mike Bonnie do a multi-year starting with our 500 units with cost of the plant if you and his and Jason has seen it as well and and worked with it too. There is, you know,
we were or Mike took a very conservative approach of 10 units per year and looking at what our expenses were going to be, the revenue from the sales and also how much from the CIP that we were going to have to put into to subsidize that into the homes were there to
support the treatment plus. And that's a very clear black and white picture of what we want. We need the growth and um >> but it's 10 a year. >> 10 a year. >> That was the estimate. I don't think there was anything I've seen, I don't think there was any,
correct me if I'm wrong, but from everything I've seen, there wasn't anything to dictate like the future size of lots or houses or things like that. It was just the number of properties, the number of connections is what they looked at. >> That's connections equals x amount of dollars, which equals coverage of that.
Now, obviously, smaller properties equals the potential for more connections. Um, and I'll speak from my experience working in city hall. I have had handful of residents that have come in wanting smaller sizes. Um, between I
would say between 10 to 12,000 because there's a lot where they talk about where they have 20,000 square foot lots. They want to divide in half. I don't care either way. This is council's decision. But we do have residents that come in that that talk to us staff and tell us this. They're not always the
ones that come to meetings. They're not always the ones that are most vocal online. But we do have residents come in as well as an aging population, senior population. I think that was noted within the housing study that was referenced. I was just looking at that while we're talking. They talked about,
you know, being able to transition out of their residence, which may be in a bigger property, if you will, to a smaller property. All things to consider as you move forward making decisions. The other thing too to consider with
that was um you know demographics that there are associated with that that in Oronokco the aging community people over 65 is 10%. Uh most of the the development and the growth that you have are younger
families and people with kids because of what you've got with the school systems. Um, and so that the smaller places like I mean we've got a couple in the one that's under construction right now. Uh, understand that and and I think that
there's there's places for that. And if you look downtown too, I mean there's there's some few houses that are for sale down here too that have smaller lots that that are available for people that that are aging community if it wants to be that way. Um, again, it's
it's I see and and I'm just looking at at the report that came back that, you know, 90% of the people that there are in this community are young and have families. That's that's that's where it is. And those kids like to play and they like to
have a little bit of room that there is. And again, I think it's what makes Oronokco unique by itself is that that fact. >> Yeah. There's a first of all the 2030 date and this is what we when MPCA
talked to us in 2015 um know we Stante did an injuring survey of downtown Boro and for these lots 75% of non-compliant and so MPCA agreed between 2015 and 2020 we
will not enforce any penalties on your individual sedic systems. I had a couple residents tell me they don't walk through the yard anymore because they're spongy. It's because they're that as bad as they were. And you can maybe hear Joe with the same story. So the idea of a
2020 date, and this is the same thing for the 2030 date, is that yes, we got funding on November 2020, $25 million, $31 million. So this 2030 date is not a build date. is just to indicate that you've got funding to start in
completion of your phase 1B. So it be the same type of thing. If we get bonding bill money in 28, 29 or even 2030, just like we did in 2020, we would have met MBCA's requirements and commitment that we as a city were going
to build. So I the 2030 day is a good date, but that's kind of our goal, but it's strictly from a a financing and not to have homes completed and new lift stationation and lines put in place. If we get that's great, but the funding is an issue for 230. And I think
that's that's a goal. And now that we've we had a water and sewer meeting uh earlier this month and the 12 million that we thought was going to take care of it is now just because of the estimates of getting started getting estimates for supplies and is 21
million. So we thought we were going to use point source implementation grants. We're going to have to go back and get bonding bill money and get involved with the yearly bonding bill process. So, so that will take some work to make happen, but that's that's okay because we've
done phase 1 a taken care of 500 units. We've got this balance. We got a new treatment plant. So, we have we have MPCA telling us. So, there's a lot of carrots out there to help us get the funding. So, the reason this I'm showing this to you because this is what back in 2022 that's when we were concerned about
the density and the lot sizes, how we can improve the density. So Stantech put this together and that was you know if you look at the very first page of their recommendations talk about wack relation to lot sizes
um set the densest standards you're comfortable with the cost of maintaining infrastructure is related to lot frontage smaller lots cost less a city as cities develop they always get more dense not less and on the very back page
I should say on page too. Um, part of that density was looking at how we could do it inclusively. And that's where they came in with these lots that Joe or Stantax Pinsering put together and said you could you do these streets you can have
X number of I number here or not but like maybe a dozen or more lots 12,000 ft is is a typical lot you know so that's that's all very respectable size lots on the back page
just to reemphasize part of this planning for the future land used map was to am look at historic lots downtown intermediate size lots near downtown which is know today we know river park you looked at all today but that also
that's empty lot of 43 acres and then the larger sizes on the outside so there was some intent and planning done back in 2022 and I think this is a a great opportunity to keep this in mind
of our density and and uh going forward our comprehensive plan and if you write a new comprehensive plan density will be part of that as well. Daniel Le. >> So um first I guess the first thing I
want to add is um mentioned that we have to take in consideration our developers and I I think that that is not our responsibility. Our responsibility are the people who
elected us the residents not the developers. developers will find a way to make their money and whether it's more money or less money based off of what we decide. Our our main focus should be what our
residents want, not what the developers want. So, I'm putting that forward first. As I'm looking at this map back here, you've got you got River Park and Cedar Woodlands
as intermediate lot sizes. And so that would justify to me that that one developable lot that we have available would be intermediate lot sizes close to what are in River Park
and Cedar Woodlands. Um, so I mean, so right there I think that even if we kept it at 20,000 square ft, we would be meeting this map here. Um,
but I think we have to talk about how we're going to protect the lots that are currently um currently built and lived in before
we get into minimum lot sizes. um whether it be the step down zone, a specific step down zone or a buffer zone or something written into R1 about step downs or a third
zoning district for residential. Um, I think that's all conversations that we should probably be having before we approach the minimum lot size because I I think we could go we could
go down to 10,000 square feet with the proper protections of the current residence. But if we're not going to write that in, then then we should keep it high.
Mike, can I ask you a question? Okay. Um, what's your lot size that you've got over there at your house right now in your random? You know what your lot size is? >> Um, it's about.9 acres, I think. >> Mine's just over one.
So you're you're looking at that area and the people that that bought into that area bought because of that size a lot that there was that was associated with that >> and and to me I think that you'd like to
keep that the same of what there is for the value for where you're at and also for if you know because you've got your the drain field that's over there but you like to keep that same relatively larger lot size that that there is. And and and
that makes sense. Um it really does. I mean, that's that's where I'm I'm I'm looking more at the other. I mean, you're looking at on on this map here of u the larger lot sizes that are are actually south of a 100 and nothing has
been developed in that area at all during this time of the land map, you know. So, I mean it's and and I know when Santech did this. Okay. Um very much aware of that and that's when we are looking at the historic downtown and
what we were doing with that. Uh again, I just I I go back to to what makes Oronooco or noco and and where residents are at and what their thought plan is or their thoughts.
Yeah, I think the uh you know you know the growth the growth is going to happen hopefully. Um it hasn't grown too much in the last two years but we got a lot of plans I guess. Um but I
think that you know just to look at Cedar Woodlands or to River Park 2005 2004 um you know I don't know I've never talked with Mr. Jack about his rationale for why he did the lots, but I'm guessing he thought the lots would be
nice and they probably paid for his ability to develop that drain field. Okay. He didn't he didn't put in 10,000 lots because he knew he had to get that kind of resource back to build a drain field. I'm guessing he built to see if
85 lots I do this and this 85 lots can give me this 8 acre site. I think it's 80 acres for that drain field. So there wasn't planning on his sizing of lots. Well, I like I should say I like to think he was thinking that in my argument here, but that's point
being that he designed the lot for what property he had on a much bigger scale. We're looking at it right now, too, because we've got a a brand new $45 million sewer system that we need to have houses to help pay for. That's a
given. and we're looking at phase 1B and those lots over there are huger than anything we've done so far. So we already had those people that are going to have to help support us and that's nec that's we need those users but at the same time we
also need to look at more inclusive um potential for just getting more that's what the cash value cash value analysis shows that we can it's very I don't know why we can't make that available but that would help tell the story of the need for density. I know at
one time too and and going back a couple of years ago um and um Oak Meadows or or no go estates, whatever you want to call it at that time, they were going to double the size of that and and put those up
against that field that there was over there next to where the sewer plant was, >> you know, and they were going >> Yeah. And so they were going to put in like 200 units that that there were I mean if if that happened that would be
the answer to what there is for for getting the users to be able to take care of >> but I mean it's again these are things that have been been up in the air and and different things that that that we're in. I just don't want to let
the sewer plant be the determining factor of what the city is going to be, you know. So, again, what's wagging the dog? Is it the tail or is it the dog? And, you know, I just look at the residents that there are in the town and
and I I have to listen to what they have to say, too. >> It's kind of hard to have the one without the other. and and I I think that that there could be other options that would be available. we haven't looked at on different things and they
haven't been discussed and you know to take a look at at ways to pay for that plant that there is and and again it's one of those things that I don't think that this is the time right now but on a a private conversation I'd love to sit
down and and and talk to you about that for options that might be there that might be able to satisfy everything that we're looking at right now >> looking at the replac concept here. What
what immediately strikes me is um that does create density. But what happens when half of the people want that to happen and half of the people don't want that to happen? >> It doesn't happen.
>> All or nothing kind of thing. >> So it's an all it's an all or nothing kind of thing. But if House one wants to add four additional lots, they could they could still potentially put a road back there and
put lots and it wouldn't matter the rest of the houses >> potentially. Yeah, >> potentially. So I think where this is going back to your one of your initial comments of the steering committee started at 10, B&Z raised it to 12 and
then to 14 which I believe was part of the process. >> Um and correctly part of the process was the steering committee recommends PNZ PNZ recommends to council. Um, so PNZ increased it to 14 to prevent exactly
this scenario from happening without having to go through a variance >> um, situation to get that to happen. That would give everybody in the surrounding area understanding that
somebody was trying to split their lots and put houses and and >> you know, it's all a personal choice. You know, we can't >> propose this without some acceptance from the lot owners that they want to split their
>> correct. Correct. But if one of them wants to do it, if one of them wants to do it, it makes sense >> um without building extra infrastructure and we have a minimum lot size. What's keeping them from splitting the lot and
being able to add a house that kind of doesn't fit into the neighborhood? One house. So that's why that's why the biggest reason why uh PNC increased it was to keep
the the lot splits in the future to a minimum, just random lot splits and building new houses. Um, but I think honestly we probably could go down to a lower
footage if we had protection for the homes that currently exist. >> Can I have a question off of that for Evan? Is there a way to I don't put a a sentence or paragraph in here that
talks about newer houses are held to this standard, but anything with with lots splits would have to meet a you know a current a current property as of this date would have to meet a a a
size of this proportion 14,000 square foot. Whereas a new minimum, you know, anything new build after this date would have to meet 12,000 square feet type of thing kind of >> existing or something. >> So, it kind of focuses on allowing the
newer development, but you get those residential areas where they would have a higher standard if they wanted that lot split to help keep the continuity of the neighborhood. Is is that what you're kind of we're getting at? And I know then that's not quite talking about the buffer zone you're talking about either,
but that specific area something like that though. Would that be is that done? Is that something that could be done? >> I think there's I think to get to your end goal, there's ways that we could do that. I don't know if there's necessarily a perfect way or one single way, but there's, I think, a way that we
could come up with. If you have an existing lot and say it's, you know, an acre, two acres, and you want to split it, would that be acceptable to you guys in already developed areas? You know, they're not putting in new streets, they're just putting in a new house.
Obviously, that add another connection. Um, but that'd be one thing of you could add, you know, density through existing areas where people just have, you know, a very large yard. They're able to sell it off. They have that, you know, ability to maybe generate additional
income, you know, have a relative child move on that lot. Um, but maybe for some of your other areas on the edge of town where then you don't have that development already, maybe you would have those larger lot size requirements, whether it's, you know, 12, 14, whatever
you want to have, you could have that set as your zoning now. And if say for whatever reason someone wants to develop it, they could come request from you guys, whether that's through that development flex zone, a smaller lot, um or maybe they say, "Hey, we want to
mimic a development similar to what you have downtown. So we'd like to reszone to R2 or to Dan's point, maybe there's a third zone that's, you know, the smallest lot size." And maybe we'd have the downtown area here as that smallest lot size. Um and as we keep going out,
maybe we have larger lot sizes. So I think that might be one way we could get to your kind of end goal of um balancing both the needs of existing development while also kind of um citing the expectation that larger development or new development I should say should be
larger unless you guys grant some sort of approval for a variation from that. I was going to say if we do that, I would propose that we are pretty transparent of where those areas are on that land use map so that we don't get
into um maybe difference of opinions of what's existing and where some of those smaller lots. So again, having that clear for residents to know, I think that's going to be important to have that land use map identify where maybe
some of those smaller lots could go or should go um compared to some of the buffer zone or even the bigger lots. >> Yeah. So I guess my thought initially kind of based on your discussions is you know going off of this map from the
2022 report that downtown area if you will that would be maybe this new zone of the smallest lot size that you guys come up with for middle lot size. Your immediate intermediate areas would be maybe your current R2 zone that's 10,000 right now. Um and then your areas that
are labeled larger lot sizes maybe that would be your largest. So whether that's 12, 14, whatever you guys want to come up with, maybe that would be one way to delineate that >> kind of makes sense or sounds good. >> What's your initial
a new zone, >> correct? >> To dictate the step downs from the existing stuff. >> Well, I think that would address some of your density issues in your existing parts, too. And then there could be
something else in your R1 zone of you might be allowed to if you have an existing lot, you could reszone to R2, split it if you want. Say you have a acre lot and you want to split it into two lots that are 20,000 square feet or 15,000 square feet, you could reszone to
R2, that'd be allowed to split. Um, but maybe going to Jason's question of maybe there'd be some sort of requirement if you're creating, you know, four or more lots. a larger subdivision, if you will. Maybe there'll be some sort of buffer requirement from some of your existing plans. Maybe that'd be a way to um kind
of address the step down or um buffer protection from some of your existing developments. >> What was generally the accepted um definition of like a simple lot split versus moving into actually needing to
follow a development path. >> Yeah. So, typically most communities when you have your subdivision code is you'll have kind of two paths to creating a subdivision. One would be a minor subdivision. So, that's typically one where you're not putting any
streets. Um, you're not, you know, extending, you know, a culde-sac or anything. Um, you already have the access, you're basically splitting a lot into two lots or if you have a big enough piece of land, maybe you're splitting into three lots. Um, sometimes some communities do four, but typically
your threshold is pretty low. If you're going above that, as well as if you're putting in actual new streets, that's what would be called typically a major subdivision. And so maybe that would be the trigger of if you're doing a major subdivision, you want that buffer included. But if you have an existing lot, you already have the frontage,
you're just adding lines and um reducing yards from a large yard to two houses. Maybe that's where that'd be acceptable as a minor subdivision where we don't necessarily need a buffer, request a buffer. >> We've had two of those that are down in
town right now, Daniel. >> And we did it as a lot split. And that's one that's under construction on your side going over there and the other one that there is up here and and um and those have have worked out well the the
way that's been done but they came and asked and and it made sense and and and I think it's working okay for what there is. So, so to follow up, you know, the orno is kind of unique in that we have basically
three subdivisions. Riverwood Hills, Cedar Woods, River Park. And just like what Ari was trying to do over in Cedar Woodlands, he agreed to put in comparable homes across the street. There's five lots, I think. >> I don't remember.
>> Five or six, but they complement the house across. So is there a way we can word it such that if you're building across the street from Riverwood Hills, Cedar Woodlands or River Park that those first row of houses have to be a minimum
of 14,000 square feet and then use everything beyond that drop down to 10,000 or 12,000. that would help with the transition across the street like what Ari was trying to do.
>> And >> then I think you're putting people on the west side up for maybe a difference of lifestyles then >> what do you mean? So, if you're saying within River Park and Cedar Woodlands, you would have the expectation of that
step down. But everyone else, if you wanted lots in that on that west side um right off 100th Street, again, if that you're saying those would be smaller, I don't know. Again, I mean, there's a lot of people out there that that homes butt up against that, I don't think they'd be happy about that.
>> Yeah, Marie, I don't think we would be able to call out specific subdivisions. It would have to be a more general. So, I don't know if that would necessarily be an issue to be worded in a way that talks about, you know, if it abuts a a subdivision,
you know, it's got to meet certain standards as they're, you know, directly adjacent to. Is >> there a way to add like a R1A on our >> you can create as many zones as you want? So, that is one way I think to
maybe get to the end goal of what you want. And >> I'm just thinking to color the the future use map and say, you know, within 300 ft of this area, this is actually
contingent to the original R1 standards before this was adopted or coloring the back end of the west side that's going to be up against that field. um
and putting that in as um I mean that's basically creating the step a step down zone within a zone, right? But it's putting it on the future use land map, calling it out and saying these are the areas that are beholden to
this specific rule. um any and I would think that anything built after after this would not be added into that. But >> um
that's that's where what I'm thinking. I I just don't know what the easiest thing to do. >> I think that would probably be the easiest path to go down instead of having bunch of different loopholes and various criteria to meet. I I think
maybe specific areas of town that are designated certain zones and then tying that zone to a certain lot size. But um I think it's really more picking and choosing it seems like where you guys um would find development acceptable, where
the existing land owners would find development acceptable. But um leaving some of your undeveloped areas maybe open for the potential to have a development flex or some sort of maybe different type of development we already have.
So Daniel, I kind of like that where you're actually trying to set set those boundaries of downs because that's obviously been a topic of discussion. It's something I've brought up a few times. The one question I do have is Ryland, you went back to that mentioned a few times, the 10,000 foot minimum with that 14,000 ft. I thought that was
the whole whole premise of the development flex is again because this feels like we're going back to working with the developers, catering to them a little bit toward that 10,000t lot. Obviously, I get the septic fields in there. the septic plants in there with that 14,000 foot minimum having that development flex still allows that
option to come in with the 10,000 foot lots. So again, it's not setting that minimum, but that's still an option at some point if that's what is pursued. >> That allows him to do >> Yes, exactly. So I guess to just to bump that down based on all the discussions we've had, I mean, like I said, that
that 14,000 is how we came up with that P&Z. So just calling that out >> and and the flex is great. I I agree with what you're saying. Yeah, that's the purpose. >> That's the purpose of it being in there. And I guess the other piece too I just I just want to make mention of this is earlier you mentioned improving density.
That's open to interpretation depending on who you're talking to because again there's a lot of people taxpayers, current residents that their idea of improved density is probably completely different than 10,000 foot lot. So I just want to make mention of that too. >> No, that's a good point because it can be taken right both ways
>> depending on who's Yeah, depending on who you're talking to. It's it's that's there's a different definition for it. So, >> okay. So, um I like the idea that we use as a takeaway and Evan gets back to us with some
so we want to keep the 14,000 square foot with the understanding of VEX uh flex development is ideal for those certain areas while now incorporating a new type of buffer zone.
against existing R1 areas >> and additional new zones. >> So, >> which which would be that pretty thing everything against >> I think you're going to point out something is that >> Yeah. So would it would it be easier to just say current development is or
current build is R1 >> then we're moving into say R one to 26 2026 whatever D make it simple >> but so say because here's we'll just use
my lot for example I own on three three road fronts at the beginning of a river park right and we drop it down to 10,000 square ft. I can I could split my lot and put three more houses on my lot. I have enough space. I I could do that.
Um, so would it be best to just encompass my lot, all existing lots in this original R1, so that in the future if I sell my lot
and the next owner, well, this isn't part of the that buffer zone that you've called out. I want to split my lot and I want to build three or four houses. Uh would it be better to just encompass the larger lot neighborhoods right now,
call them what they are, give them the buffer across the street or next to and then create that next zone and that's what we're going to be moving forward with as our R2, I guess. I don't know what would be the
>> Wouldn't be an R2 because that would be multi, >> you know, but >> I think the residents are I think I mean that's basically what they're saying is like preservation of their neighborhood preservation of their current >> So yeah, so we're keeping everything. So you you better like those people that
you're going to build three lots or three houses next to. Okay. But >> you know, I think keeping with what there is, which is the way the community is right now. Okay. And it's the same thing with your neighbors, Ryland. I know it is with mine that they like to have what it is and that's where they
were at, but have that protection that that's where that stays at to be able to to have that that look and the appeal that there is. >> Which guy? >> Yeah. Had a buddy come from Las Vegas and he was like there would be 20 houses
on your lot in Las Vegas. They would have a 6 8 foot wall between them. >> Well, that's California, too. Okay. edge by foot rule that there is up you go. >> But >> but I guess that's that would be my my
only concern with just like giving the buffer and not including what's already there because there are a few lots river park specifically the three houses that own from 5th to 6th Street Cedar
Woodlands who own basically from >> all Yeah, Woodlands to Cedar Drive. I mean, there's three houses there that could still potentially ownership changes and they want to do it that then they're
going against everything that we're working for right now. Um, so including all of those existing lots within Cedar Woodlands, River Park, and
um, Riverwood Hills and especially that back south edge on those fields of Riverwood Hills, >> right? >> That's not cut off by the river, right? Those houses need protected just like
the other houses do. That's just my personal opinion. >> I'm sure they would agree with you. >> Use a grandfather type that there in this grandfather. That's what it would be. >> Yeah. I'm good for the easiest and the
uh the easiest wording, the easiest change of what what we've already got written. if it's just adding. >> Yeah, I think we could come up with maybe an option or two for you guys to um mold over and see, you know, what
makes sense to you guys. Um hopefully from there we can kind of use that as the way to both allow, you know, people to foot their lot um if they do have a lot of land, but at the same time, what you guys have been talking about, how do we balance, you know, new
development with existing development? So, local question, Daniel. Um, sorry, Marie, go ahead. >> I was just going to say I think, you know, I I agree of of having another zone. I think it's going to be important
that we put it on that land use map so that people can anticipate it. I've heard many of times they don't know how we're going to get density and how we're going to grow. and being able to have some of those conversations as we put it on the map is going to make it a little more tangible for people that it's going
to impact versus it's in our zoning. We don't really know how and where it goes. I think that's going to be an important piece to have a visual that's going to support that and to be able to be transparent back to our residents. Yeah, I think whatever we come up with
for a plan moving forward, we definitely want to update that map because obviously that's the easiest way to visually know, hey, this is, you know, what my zone is or the zone that I'm within. What is my neighbor's lot zone as? And obviously if someone wants to request a change, you know, they can
visually see what's going on, what's been proposed. So, >> sound good? >> I I you had a question. >> One question for clarity. bas on that buffer zone that you mentioned. So again using our example where rather you mentioned where they were looking at
those five lots across from our houses for what Ari was working on. What is the definition for that buffer zone then? Is it percentage of a lot that's adjacent or is it the current what those were zoned as? I
guess that's that's the clarity I would look for too. I think um I would have a hard time not arguing for keeping it what it would be zoned as currently though.
>> Yeah. To increase it. Um not proposing increasing it. I think like I said and this is going back to my whether it was misinterpretation from P&Z but that was kind of what the way I took it was that that buffer what we're now calling in yeah was 20 and then the
minimum lot size was 14 with the development flex option if a developer wanted to do smaller lots for consideration I guess. >> Yeah. So 20 would would still put it at halfacre lots approximately. Uh I would have a hard time arguing that
it should be more than that than what it currently is. loaned going up from it just because a developer chose to um put in a two or three acre lot somewhere. It would be hard to force
somebody in the future to then have to put in a one and a half and then a 3/4 and then a, you know, it would be hard for me to justify that. But I think keeping it as what it currently is
um makes sense to me. >> Yeah, agreed. And I think that was kind of the the basis of our not say argument. It kind of was, but where our stance was with that project that was being looked at out there was that people moved out there knowing that this
could be developed, but it was those 20,000 foot lots. So at least it gives a little bit of a buffer using your terminology. And then the new 14,000 foot lots with less option at 20,000 is 46 acres. 14,000 is.32
acres it down. >> Okay. So Evan, do you have your direction? >> I think so. >> Clarification. >> This meeting is being recorded, so I can definitely go back and watch the recording. Yeah. Okay. Mel's got
>> I'll get you some nice minute last time. >> Okay. Great. It was a good discussion. So it's needed. So should I move on? >> Anything else in the R1? Now we move fauc initial talks.
On page second to the last paragraph on page four of article one talks about the required all front yards, rear yards, sideyards beaded over a bill of 4 in of black dirt.
Um all trees shall meet the city's residential tree planting requirements. more or less that I think the putting and maybe the 4 in is very common to put around a house, but but to have it
solded I think is is quite an expense. Maybe s the front and the sides or something like that, all four sides is a little extreme. Sounds like two more inches of black dirt than we had when we got.
Yeah, >> we don't go in clay. So, >> that's exactly it. >> When they dug when they dug the lift station, that's probably where they put all the black dirt because I looked down at that hole and it's like 13 feet of black dirt.
>> Yes. I dig I dig this far and I hit a rock. Uh the soding that was something that I I thought that was a little excessive to do especially with these larger lots. Um
as far as an R1 goes, I think people should have the oper option of hydro seed or um um or just traditional seeding. I think that that's that's reasonable to
>> but I think what what we're trying to do is to make sure when they they build that they finish the yard and it just isn't left for weeds. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And and and believe me, weeds grow really well around
the word shall get >> So what page are you on on >> page four number 14? Page four. >> Yeah. And I don't know if the word soded in this case was meant to be like tur
turf establishment. That's probably the idea >> actually import sod on a lot of I mean even a 10,000 square foot lot is a lot of sod. >> I mean that's
done. >> Yeah. Me too. So if we say um soldered or seated, >> say turf, turf establishment, something along those lines >> because there's a lot of people that don't like saw for various reasons and
they have their yard seated >> look great. They look better than mine sometimes when it's but mine saw but it's there's kind of greener than before mine does. >> Jason, a question for you. You guys have a nuisance ordinance. Does that cover
weeds or is that a a separate ordinance? >> But typically, yeah. So, typically you guys probably have some sort of way to regulate weeds. And so, >> I don't know if we necessarily need to get into the specifics of how much dirt. So, I don't think we want to go out
there with a rule and say, "Well, you're three and a half, we're going to find you for not having enough dirt." But, I think the intent, it sounds like, is we don't want weeds and >> gravel. established >> established um turf >> is what we >> like to think that's everyone's desire
too is have a nice house and >> this was grown around it. >> Can I ask on that second section or sentence of that where it says each lot shall contain one front yard tree meeting minimum size requirements. Again, if you think about R1, how many
of those lots don't have trees today? I mean, I don't know. And again, how would you enforce that? There's many that I see that are in R1 that don't have a front yard tree. >> I think this that was put in to
um for future for future developments to put them in. >> It doesn't say that though. I mean, cuz cuz this you could go around and say, "Well, you don't have a tree. You're getting fined. You're getting fine because you don't have a tree." I mean, it doesn't say for future
development only. Well, yeah, but we've got something as a grandfather class, too. Okay. And so that would be new developments from this point going forward. The rest of it would be grandfathered. >> Yeah. Most most when it comes to zoning code stuff like this, most of it's considered that depending on when your
property was built, it gets grandfathered in under the code that it's in. No matter things moving forward is my understanding. >> Yeah. Maybe it'd be good to specify new lots have to provide the trees, but obviously if you're an existing lot, we're not going to go name each one and say you have to put in a tree down. You
have to put the tree down. So, unless you guys want to do that, >> we just put each new lot. >> Yeah. Newly developed, newly subdivided. >> It's two words, but easy enough. Don't do we leave it shall or say shall but just add in the case of of
assad slash seated seed. It sounds like you'd rather have something along the lines of a yard landscaped and be in accordance with your weed ordinance and then any newly created or
subdivided lot would have to provide trees in accordance with that section that it refers to which is the tree landscaping section. >> Yeah, that's I agree with that. >> I don't know that the four inches of black dirt is
required to be in there, but you grow a whole lot better out here. >> I like that approach. I guess some lots definitely have better dirt than others, but >> let you get that help.
>> Yep. >> Do you remember why that 4 in of the earth? I think that she was just looking out what what the standards were around when when it was there and so it just kind of that got started
with our two >> I'm not going around with a a ruler to measure >> well Ryland's the weed enforcer and he'll be the dirt enforcer too >> post you know We might have to talk about what the We might like have to
talk about what your role is when if we get a cannabis. >> You're still the weed inspector. >> No more than six plants. >> I've been trying to work myself out of the job. >> All right. Anything else with the R1
before we move into R2 here? >> Um Paul, welcome. We're just finishing up R1. I don't know if you can hear me. But the only other thing I was seeing in R1 was the I feel like there was a res
like a garage code in here somewhere that >> it's on it's on page 57. We got we got R1 page one combined garage carport greater than
1,000 ft and up one,200 square ft. >> Marie, what section of the code are you referencing? >> She said she said >> I'm I'm on 57. It's under the Oh, sorry.
That's R2. Never mind. Oh, >> 15141 has is the uh is the R1 section he's talking about under C and conditional uses
talks about combine combined total garage carport accessory structure greater than 1,000 ft and up to 1,200 ft. That 151 right there. The 1314 >> 041.
>> There are the 151.046 permitted uses. >> We're still in R1. >> What is the comment about 0041 conditional use and carports? >> That was the garage. >> I know. Are we having a conversation?
But I feel like that's a little bit restrictive on some of these houses cuz if you look out at some of the houses that are being built at there I mean there houses that are being built with fourc car garages that I would swear
that those are attached and they're over the that conditional use already. And then if they want a shed in their backyard that they have to apply for a variance even though they might be sitting on a
um large lot that I think in our old code it was part of a percentage of your lot size was based on what you could have as garage space. I think where it gets tricky is that the
old code didn't necessarily, the way I read it, it didn't necessarily include what was attached to the house where the new code is including what's attached to the house. So, it's almost cutting down. Um, you got to look too that we're
reducing as you're doing this. And you know, again, somebody wants to put in a fourc car garage, you know, and I wish I had one, but if somebody wants to do it, um, then you can come in and ask for a
variance is no big deal to come in and and explain you want to have a variance and it doesn't disrupt what there is with the neighborhood and and the rest of it that you can still do that, you know. So, I think it's looking at the smaller lots that you you want to be a
little bit more cautious on the size of plot what you're putting in there. >> I guess I can accept that. It's just uh like for some of these larger lots that would like additional garages moving
forward, they would still have to come in for a variance that >> but that's not we do those. So I don't think there's that many. I don't think it's going to be everybody that builds is going to be that that situation.
>> I guess do you want to have those variances come to or do you just want to permit them? Well, I just, you know, I I think that that P&Z is is there for a reason, not off of that stuff. And you're going to be >> without going to the the 300 ft rule
that there is with the neighbors that are going to be around, which is the right way to do it, you know, off of that because the neighbors are going to have to look at it, >> you know, and if it's if it's okay to them. But I I think >> so. I guess my concern is historically
the variances haven't been treated equally. So, there are houses that have been specifically on the east side who've been denied variances for additional garage spaces where houses on
the west side have been granted. >> Interesting. I I'd like to have some specifics on that. I would Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't know >> because again there's pre-existing which is is different because when I turned around I looked at Fitzpatrick and I'm looking at the number of people that
have two garages over there which are two twos or a three and a two. >> It's like how did you do it? And it was like well Fitzpatrick said this is what we wanted and I wanted to sell a lot. So he said, "Okay, fine. This is what was going on." You know, but but it isn't
something that that I that you see now that that's transpiring. I think it was pre-existing from what I've seen and and talk to those neighbors that that have those, you know. Um, and then I would think we would want to put in
here as well that that tuck under garage spaces should be excluded from the square footage calculating. >> Okay, that's interesting because that's that I I love that concept. I love that concept. Okay. But
>> and I think you're already counting that square footage with this the first story of >> I I I would say it shouldn't be, you know, counted because it's going to be non-existent for what there is for what you see, right? Because it's it's it's under
is that >> I don't know who I only know one person that's done that. Okay. That I'm aware of. >> I'm not familiar with that. So recessed either. >> Yeah, that's great. I love that garage.
>> A third like another stall of a garage underneath your garage. >> You can go drive around the back side of the house. >> Really >> if it's in a hill, >> you can open up drive. >> So you'd probably maybe want to rate something about >> the garage under a garage.
>> Any accessories well any garage space that's under living space would not count towards that thousand square feet. Is that what you're thinking? >> Your living space or under a garage space? >> So you'd have >> either
>> living space and then garage and this garage would be okay. But if you guys think garage over garage is probably >> I've seen them both. I've seen I've seen them built both ways. And I mean, most people will put a tuck under garage
under a garage because there's less uh exhaust stuff that you have to deal with if it's under the living space, but I have seen it under the living space. >> And a lot of times those just get converted into like, you know,
woodworking props or something. not necessarily for vehicle storage, but >> um my desk >> I would I would think that that would be reasonable to add that tuck under do not count towards that. >> I don't know if we need to spell that
out or >> to put in a size level because what if I want to put in a three stall tuck under on a big house? >> I don't care. >> I'm just asking. It's an honest question. you know, if I want to if I'm looking to say, "Oh, I'm limited on my garage space." But this allows me to
>> do whatever I want to because there's nothing that specifies the size that this is allowed to be. That something may want to be considered because I know people do weird things. >> So, do a whole lot of >> Yeah. Well, I've seen that before as
well, but um >> not around here, but >> see how good the boys >> is the reason for that >> stay vacuum today. The reason for that paragraph getting back to a comment you said in PNZ I guess what you said you was concerned
about think >> so I still got if I'm building a brand new house and it's got four stalls and it's all nicely done garage doors I don't know why anybody would complain if you meet all the setbacks what's the difference if it's four
garages or two garages it's that personal choice and it meets all the codes all the setbacks and everything you could. >> Well, what I was looking at is you were putting in an accessory building was came in off of that and so that's what I
was looking at for the >> the percentage. And so that's that was different. That's why I I commented that >> the access the accessory building then gets dictated by your attached garage space >> which seems
uh restrictive I guess is what I'm getting at is because if you're putting in an accessory building you're you're wanting more space and if you've already capped out at a th00and square feet in a garage which what's that what's a standard threecar garage? Well, no, but
I'm we've denied people that have wanted to do that because of the exciting need and the square footage that goes along. And so, we've had people come in and we've we've done that. So, we just said no. >> I had a three stall garage that was 944 square ft.
So, I mean, >> so if you wanted to add a garden shed at a 200 square foot garden shed, you're >> you're over you're over the >> this language would say what >> this language would prevent you from adding that garden shed.
>> Or if you want to come in for variance, then you come in for variance and then you'd go with people that are around to say if it's okay for them. >> But see, a garden shed right now doesn't even require um a permit. A two under 200 square foot garden shed doesn't
require a permit, but it would still then require a variance. >> No, because you don't need to have a permit for it. So, it wouldn't require a variance if you went bigger than that. But it's saying like so say I got a garage that's,00 ft a little bit bigger
than what I had mine but you know and then I've got a 190 square foot shed that I want to put in that doesn't require a permit but that puts me over the 12,200 square ft for uh that's allowed as accessory structures. I think that's what you're getting at.
>> Right. So then shows up and says use permit. Yeah. Or or remove your shed. >> Yeah. >> That's not good. to have a cup, you have to have a variance. You don't have to have um >> So, how hard is it or does it make sense
to go back to using a percentage >> versus a thousand feet or thousand? >> Well, if it's like this, who's going to get a tape measure out, go inside the garage, go, okay, well, yeah, but you got prints, but I mean other >> that was one thing that just struck me
is it it felt restrictive. Um, and then knowing that some houses have been granted them and some houses have not been granted and I don't know the specifics of why they >> but again it's whatever is grandfathered
in is the way it's going to be stuff too and so >> future builds. I mean there's still a lot of houses that could add accessory buildings. >> I would think increase the because you got 1,000 to,200. I would think increasing the 1,200 to something higher. >> Yes.
>> Because you're still limiting the amount of structures they can have. >> Yes. >> And we still have in place of if you are over this size, you're going to have a building permit, but it would allow that to not happen where you go. Okay. you know, and I think that having the same
setbacks or same uh height restrictions because that's all built into the accessory building uh portion of the code would be reasonable as well. So, somebody's not coming in and putting, you know, two
stall 14 foot doors for, you know, personal use when they're going to be storing RVs. We don't Yeah, we don't want that. But if somebody's putting in an additional twocar garage that's an accessory building and it is going to be
over the conditional use permit, it just seems restrictive because then you are losing garden sheds potentially. You're losing condition. >> Yeah. But again, it it's it's how it
gets uh used evenly from one person to the next person. I would be in favor of increasing those numbers. And if then if it's going over um
>> up to 1500 square feet. >> Yeah, I would say up to what is the language? up to 1,200 and then a conditional use up to like 1,500 would be. >> So for if we're talking about new build and we're talking about, you know, 1,400
square foot lots, I mean, and adding that garage, it's going to be all garage. >> Well, so this this will this goes to new builds, but a new build could also be someone's existing home adding an
>> Sure. Yeah, they can add a stall. Yep. >> Yeah. So, this is restrict that this restricts that those scenarios as well. >> The two figures are there, 1200. What are your suggestion? >> I would say 1,200 and then 1,500 I would
give. And then we're still we're still leaving it at um the single one one accessory unit building a consensus. Is everybody okay with that? That
go back to R2. Anything else? smart one to whatever. >> So I'm going to use is I I mentioned this the other day too about adding four family dwellings. Is there a reason why that was not inputed there?
>> No. We've already got the four that are going to be going in anyway that right aren't they four >> the preliminary plan I believe is >> there's four. >> So I I just think that we just didn't
put the four in there. >> Okay. you know, and that so I and we talked about that I think last >> if you go back further back in 151083 performance requirements, it does talk about quads and talent. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I just
think we just >> okay. So, do we want to add a four? >> Yeah. >> So, after three family dwellings, we'll also add four >> legs or whatever. And then you were going to look at the
definition of apartment and quad I think in the definition sections. And then permitted uses I think need that quads needed to be either >> added in with three family dwellings or it needed a separate line in the in the
table. >> You've got that down already, don't you, Evan? >> Yes. Um H2 under 0.047 standards. Um the setback for R2
range from we currently have 25 ft uh and it's changed at 35 ft which is like a 40% increase. Um from a cost standpoint that's going to cost that the driveway is going to be longer, the
water and sewer lines going to be longer to the house. The type of sidewalks to the house. Was there a rationale or what was the background there for 35? >> I think we were just doing the standard that there is across the state with that.
>> Okay. Is that that's what the the normal standard was was a 35. >> Any other readings one way or the other? >> R1 is 25. R1's 30. One's 25. Well, the other thing too is is if you're looking
at that, you're going to probably have more cars that there are that are going to be parked on the on the street or in the driveway >> because this is an R2 that you want to have a little bit more space so they're not taking up the street. Then it would uniform whether it's a
single family home or a multifamily home. Yeah, because you're trying to park. You could be looking at a one one stall, >> right? >> Like extra deep garage or you know you're park Yeah. So you're parking
bumper to know >> and that's just reality of what you have everybody's going to have at least two cars that there are per family and an R2 that would be four. Okay. So, >> and you don't want them on the street
for everybody that's parking on the street. That's not a >> No, I just thought it was when I see the difference. It adds up in cost to a homeowner developer. That's what I was thinking to be.
It's not a showstopper. It's edible. >> Well, I mean, there's a reason with it because especially if you're looking at doing multi doing this with with an R2, you're going to have another one that's going to be next to it also. So, it's not going to be single by itself. You're going to have multiple R2s, I think,
that are going to be the >> Yeah, you kind of have a question with that. Do I look at that? It go says front yard space. Obviously, you would have a driveway if it was a house type thing, but I mean, if you're looking at that as an R2 or like an apartment building, is that area, that 35 foot
front yard setback, is that also something to be used for a parking lot or does it have to be physical yard? You could allow parking. I guess maybe the better question is, do you want to have parking in the front? >> What do you want it to look like is the
question. Okay. Do you want it to be I grew up in an area where you have parking in front, parking in back, parking in the side. >> I understand that, but that isn't a place where you end up having the lot sizes and what we have for the way >> heck. It's right up against the the street. They don't have it 35 ft back.
If the parking's behind, it's always right up against Well, right up from the sidewalk. You're looking at maybe 10 feet back, if that. So, that's why I'm asking what that 35 ft. >> Yeah. I just think for for visible what you want to have in in this community is is to have that yard. I think that that
looks >> just a whole lot more uh with with the whole outlook of what what or noco is. We want to have that. >> It looks nicer with a big front yard. That's only I can see. >> Yeah. And and and so we like that. Well,
>> I'm just asking, like I said, especially in that RT for that clarification because I'm sure if I got the question, somebody else will get the question. Um I thought there was a parking lot back. >> I say you do have a parking section later on that we can kind of re address that as well.
>> So another editorial question and this is I asked Lori u in one of my comments to her um all the measurements that you see a 35 yard set back. So the question is that the rideway for
the property line or is that the edge of the street >> and I never got a >> good going from the property line >> rightway property line >> right so if you have a platted rightway you'd be going from your property line to the house or if
you had a rightway easement you'd be going from the easement of the rideway to the house >> so on the drawing we could just put a dimension across that darker gray as being the rightway >> correct I think that be the easiest way to do. >> Right. Right.
>> I think that needs to be done on all probably a dozen drawings throughout the world. Okay. >> Excuse me if it's there and I haven't seen it, but did the size of the right did the depth of the rightway change at all or is that still 15 ft? >> It's just a No, no dimensions have changed. Just identifying this gray
area, >> right? I'm just cur like they didn't change the size of the rightway, right? That's always just going to stay 15. >> Every street is you 66 feet >> from the center. >> Okay. That's just standard. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think it's
>> I I had a question. So on that parking for the R2s, if it's a multifamily, so on that the um use table, there is a shared parking. Um but it it only focuses on B2. So I wonder if we need to
add that to that table as well. There's a shared parking andor access and there's a conditional use permit only for B2 listed on there. So I don't know if that would we would need to update that as well if that would be considered a shared parking situation if
it's a parking lot. >> So ideally a shared or in theory shared parking would be if you have you know two lots say there's one or two >> buting up against each other >> and then they have a parking lot that straddles both lots. So that'd be your shared parking >> like a strip mall.
>> Yeah. Yeah. A strip mall would be an example. Um if you want to have that situation where you have two lots that are two, maybe there's, you know, quads on each one, you have again a parking lot straddling both, you could um allow that shared parking and again you could
put that as a conditional use in that zone. >> There's buildings over on Riverwood. Yeah. Or Superior Drive. There's a common driveway to two park >> that was Yeah. So, >> um, >> yes, like if you want the shared driveway, that'd be one thing. And then
I think the shared parking would be um probably for sure something you'd want maybe as a conditional use in that situation. There's only a C and B2 though. So if that's the case, we probably need to update that table for having some of those situations with um current
resident slots. >> Where would I'm trying to imagine where that would happen in current? I don't know if you necessarily have it in your existing, but say you had a new development going and they had like a
quadlex on each lot and they wanted the parking, you could based on a conditional use permit for shared parking, you could allow that. >> So even though they're all own same developer. >> Yes. Oh, never mind.
that I figured out in my head. >> Yeah, my brain went the same place yours did originally. So, I was thinking of the caros. >> Yeah. I think the only big issue you'd want when you're reviewing a C for that is you'd want to make sure there'd be some sort of maintenance agreement between the two properties so that if there is obviously stuff that needs to
be done at the parking lot, they're in agreement of how they're splitting the cost, who's replacing what. Um because obviously would share their, you know, both equally involved in that. >> Yeah. Uh Jason, I just want this is Paul. I'm I'm the one that says Zoom
user on there. >> Yep. Mhm. >> Uh I kind of understand what what's being said there, but something like that, something that would only be able to be available within an HOA, isn't it? You know, you
would you wouldn't want to the Sydney don't want to have to structure arrangements between two different property owners. >> Absolutely not. You know, we we you would you wouldn't want that shared you wouldn't want that shared agreement. That just causes nothing but headaches.
>> The same as you look at like a strip mall. Think of like a a grocery center with a strip mall. That whole parking lot. That's not city's property. That's >> ask them to have an agreement. It would stay like the HOA would still be the same. So that's why I don't know.
>> I think the idea is we're not necessarily managing that agreement. be those two entities would be in agreement with each other and >> they would. >> Yeah. But like what I'm getting at is like in an HOA in the residential side of it, you're not really having multiple entities like you would in the
commercial who have to come together. It's all just under one, >> right? >> And so I don't know that that's so would that still apply then needing that type of permitted use CP and that because it's all you know what I mean? >> Yeah. I guess if you don't want to have
a parking lot, straddle lots for a duplex or a quadlex, that would be where you wouldn't want to allow it then as a condition use. And maybe that's where they would have like a development flex zone type development. Everything's under one owner um or an HOA or whatever
they're taking care. >> I'm not grasping, but we'll move on. I can address it later in my head. Parking is in 124. >> Later on, >> we do need to add quads to the minimum
lot size table as well. >> Where's that? >> That's uh page three of our section B. Section B. There's a little table lot size. There's two three family dwellings, but there's no quads. So,
we'll have to add Got it. Um and this is um R2 right below that letter C maximum building height shall not exceed 2 and
1/2 stories or 30 ft whichever is less and B2 today has part B2 B2 has 35 feet and and again We we changed we talked
about that too on making that change last night. >> Are we going to make that 35 ft across the board? >> I think that's what we decided last time, Paul. >> Okay. Well, I had a another question too
because it shows in in R1 it shows a a uh minimum how dwelling size of 1,000 square feet but now here in R2 it shows the minimum size of,240 ft. Why wouldn't why wouldn't we keep that the
same versus having two different sizes? >> Because R1 is for single and R2 is for multi. But you could also build a house in R1 or excuse me, you can put a single family dwelling in R2. >> You you you can. But
>> so why so why would we allow that to be bigger than the R1? >> Paul, what section in R1 and R2 are you specifically looking at? In R in R2 under section F >> F >> it shows single family dwelling the
minimum finished floor area for the various dwellings shall be as follows without a basement 1240 square ft and with a basement 1,040 square ft. >> Okay. >> And if you go back to R1
>> Okay, I see in number six. >> Is that is that where it's at? >> Yep. number. Yep. Number six. There >> it shows 1,000 square feet and 900 square feet, which in in in R1 R1's going to definitely allow more
space to start with because it's because you get a bigger lot to start with. So, I don't know why we would make that smaller than the R one available the minimum size in R2 small or larger than R1. I think they should I think they should
be brought out the same. >> Yeah, I got I got it noted for you, Paul. >> Okay, thank you. >> Raised or lowered? Which one? >> Well, just to be the same. >> Okay, but which which one are the same? Are they meeting the R1 standards? They meeting the R2 standards. Which one's
>> I think maybe make it the R2 standard. Okay. So, R1 will change to the same numbers that are in R2. >> I would I would think so. Yes. >> Got a real really quick question. But with R2, uh we identify single family detached
dwellings. That's an R1. So, why is why single family in an R2 section? >> Allows for a smaller square footage. smaller last. >> Got it. Thank you.
Um, in the R2, >> do you think we should Do you think we should separate those? Would that make it easier for people to understand when it's a single dwelling but a smaller lot size and here's the requirements versus two or three family or a quad. And here,
I wonder if that would read easier than having it all lumped together. What part are you talking about, Murray? >> So, I'm looking at like the R2 on page three. Um, uh, what am I on?
>> Pages are different than yours. Give us numbers. >> Yeah, I know. Sorry. Um, I'm on page three of the R2 with that table. Or wait, nope, that's not it. Sorry, I just lost it. I was scrolling.
Um, let me find it. I'll bring it back up. >> Another one of my services. There's no page numbers. Seriously, I've not even ever noticed that >> there's page
pages of each section because the way it was put together. We'll have page numbers >> overall. Oh, I >> Well, it's all going to go hopefully we'll get it online and it'll all >> easily update that for the next workshop. I didn't realize that they were actually not the entire document was not page.
>> It is on the computer. Yeah, if you get the PDF PDF as it was in 57. >> Okay, >> I was in R1. Sorry. So, the R2 on page three of the R2 or 58 of the PDF, it
does have F, it's saying a single family dwelling um without a basement is 20 1,240 square ft. With a basement, it's 1,040. And then G has the two and above square
footage. So I'm good. I'm glad I was looking at R1, but it is separated between the two. >> Y anything else for R2? >> Um number G, which is page four of the R2 medium
density section. At the very top, the quads need to be added to G. >> Yeah. >> And also the um the change to O about the 4 in of dirt saw. Another
change here. >> What number is that one? >> O. So maybe the same as R1. Ryland, what what is it that you're referring to under number under O >> the mission?
>> I think you missed that part, Paul. >> The sod or seating >> here. It's asking for two front trees. >> Yes, because there's multiple houses. So Paul, we had kind of gone through and
we had looked at that um and there's going to be some wording changes that because it makes it seem like you can only use sod where we want to allow more options basically for establishing turf. Um so there's going to be some some wordage change in there and it's going
to be referenced towards um with the trees towards new developments uh or anything newly built. So it doesn't impact like existing houses or anything like that. >> Gotcha. I see. What time did you guys start the meeting? >> 5:30.
>> 5:30. >> Oh, it said 6:30 on the Okay, >> that was last week because I was here. >> No, it was dated for today. So, >> we're trying to mess with your schedule, Paul. Y
>> point that Paul brought up on the the square footage for the single family dwelling in R2. Is that going to match what's in R1 or R1 match R2? >> We're going to have R2 and R1. >> What is it? 124 is the larger or the smaller?
>> The R2 standard. >> The bigger one. >> We'll go with >> Yeah. And I think the reason that the R1 was actually smaller was cuz those are going to be generally like three like a full basement and two stories. So 900
square foot with three stories of 900 square ft is still a big house. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You're not going to have three stories. >> What's that? >> You're not going to have three stories. Two stories in a basement. >> Two stories in a basement all equals to
over to 900 ft each. It's still a large house. Yeah. >> Right. But you have but you have to remember this is talking about the first floor in in each of these. It says a single family dwelling. The minimum finished first floor
>> is what it's referring to in that square footage. >> Whatever the first floor is is going to be what the basement and what the >> the footprint is going to be. So you're going to have if you have 980 square ft on the main floor, you're going to have
980 square ft above it and below it. >> Correct. Yep. >> So that's still a 3,000 foot house. >> I'd argue below might be smaller >> and you
furnish room and under the stairs. So Evans panic going on between the first section D of the R2 talk about total garage space shall not exceed 10% of the lot area and in no
case exceed 1,000 square feet of gross area. Is that very typical for what could be town houses quads and
did I should ask Grant and Jim discussion about that with Lori >> about the garage size >> the garage space per unit? >> Yeah. we were looking at off of that is
um usually they it's going to be two stalls. >> Okay. But you know sometimes it's hard to get two cars and and two two stalls because they're so tight that that you know but that's what it was is to have
two cars to be able to go into. >> Okay. I just not to exceed 10%. Is that a >> So that's fair number. I mean, looking at the lot sizes, I think that's fair because >> yeah, >> you're looking at what the thousand or
the >> I think it would work. Um, >> it might come up where people might want more than that though. So, um, you could get some sort of areas for larger structures. >> I would say for a lot of communities,
accessory structures is going to be the big thing that people want more space of. It's probably going to get amended. So, um, two years from now, we might be back looking at the section again because that seems to be the thing that everyone wants to >> wasn't enough. >> Yeah.
>> Be a living doctor. >> Yeah. >> Real quick with that with section D, is there any um problems if we clean this up because it lists all single family, two family, three family, four. Can we just say all family dwellings because it covers >> any res
>> any of the any of those in there? >> That might be an easy way to do it. Yeah. instead of list I mean there's >> and that would add quad too. >> Yeah, just all put all family dwellings. >> So because it already lists the one instead
of just listing everything else. >> You might you might not want to add it add that language that way because that would leave it leave it or two open to uh more than four four units.
All family dwellings listed in section B. >> That way it covers the four that are listed there. >> Come down. >> Thanks, Paul. >> Anything else? R2
B1. >> All right, just a heads up, we got 15 minutes, so we can get through at least B1 here. We'll see. >> The sideyard had zero feet on
page two of B1. In the chart above the diagrams, >> where do you see it? >> It's in the building in that chart. The very top sideyard, it says zero sideyard. So, you can build right up to
the property line. That's the way it's written. >> How does that work with maintenance easement? >> Going to be in there anyway. >> Huh? >> Easement's going to be in there because it's in everything.
>> There's not there's not an easement along everybody's property. >> I say some of your B1 lots that are existing probably predate any sort of easement requirement. Um, >> but obviously whatever you would build within an easement, you have the risk of
needing to remove it in. >> So the the side, excuse me, the diagrams show five foot sideyard setback. So >> generally B1 is zero lot lines. It all has to do with uh like downtown areas
and you know you have you have buildings downtown Rochester. They're right up next to each other. That's not uncommon and there wouldn't be an easement underneath it. >> Yeah. >> And it's the same and it's the same way
on their frontage. The zero lot line come right comes right up to the edge of the rightway where the sidewalk is. and your side currently right now in the B1 is >> zero in the current >> your current ordinance. I wonder um
>> we currently have have several properties in the old downtown area that are at the zero lot line for the for the f for the on the uh rightaway sides. You know, the the le the VFW
uh Fluffy's building and Taso Taso's building I believe is zero lot line on at least one side. his local name will show five feet not zero or we take the five feet off the drawing.
>> Well, that would I I would think you would maybe add five feet to it for future for future building on them. >> At zero 15t Paul's talking about on the sideyard on
the diagram it shows five feet. Yeah, >> that that shows everything is fine. >> So, do we fix the the five yard in the >> matrix or the the sideyard in the matrix to say five yards?
>> For the parking. >> Well, building. >> Well, yeah, for the parking, but for the building as well. >> You just put that five. I'd say I'd say five. Just >> change that. Change that to five feet. Okay. Good. So, no more zero footage.
>> Next page. Landscaping. >> And the maximum building height. We said that's going to be 35, right? Right about 053 landscaping where it's just >> if you look at 053 landscaping we'll
look at B right above it from the previous from 52 subdivision B maximum building height should see 30 whichever is less but we're making that 35. Okay.
053 is landscaping and there's a lot of shells. Um first one in subdivision A open areas of the story shall be landscaped. I guess that's okay. It's the owner in number B.
The owner shall replace any dead or damaged trees or shrubs with similar species. That seems a little strict. I think that's pretty common though because if you've got people especially, you know, by putting in a
I want to say like a neighborhood, but you know, you put in these areas where they're going to put in four or five trees in at a time, one dies, you want to replace it with something similar. you don't want to replace it with, oh, we've got maples and there's an evergreen and then there's more maples. So, I think that's pretty common at least.
>> Yeah. If you have some sort of landscape plan tied to a development, ideally you'd want that to remain in effect. >> Um, I don't know if you necessarily want to have that apply to existing development. Maybe that's >> again your grandfather.
>> Yeah. So, maybe we could tweak the language to specify landscaping as part of like an approved landscape plan for COP would >> have to replace or maintain. >> Would that fall into the weed inspector's chop?
>> Your list is getting longer and longer and longer. >> Well, I have I have a question back on the permitted uses on that because it it only shows single family detached dwellings now. So down there, down in that
neighborhood, you're not going to allow an attached garage. >> So number seven, >> 151.051, 051 section A permitted uses >> subsection seven I just list single family detached dwellings
which I would look at that and go that's the same as you know if you look at the newer housings you're matching the style of the houses that are there typically detached from their garages you're not going to you know the older
style historical houses don't have the attached garages is at least not in my experience of any town I've been in. >> Well, I I guess I'm looking at it this way. If somebody's going to replace if somebody decided to replace a house down there,
are they going to put in a detached dwelling? Are they going to want to attach a garage? >> Is there room on those? >> It's not attached to another dwelling. You could still have an attached garage. It says it says single family detached
dwellings is what it says. >> Yeah. So detached dwelling means it's not attached to another dwelling. >> So it just be two houses one. You couldn't have two houses attached or three houses >> like a town home
>> duplex or a business. >> Okay. Is there is there some is there some language that we could clarify that so it wouldn't be >> I think >> wouldn't be duplexes and such down there.
>> I think that's just us understanding the terminology of the planning and zoning. I think it does make sense once you understand that point. >> I guess >> okay duplexes or anything in V1.
>> Don't we have AVU stuff in here? You do >> maybe not do >> I only bring this up so you had maybe over greener pub they wanted to build an apartment above that would that something you'd want downtown
or system while business residential but business system >> um ADUs are allowed as permanent use on R1 and R2 districts an accessory. >> I don't think that's going to get that will highly get taken advantage of.
>> I don't think we have that's 151.130 start is the start of the ADU section which allows that B1 R1 R2 districts an accessory to a single family home.
So it does not include businesses. >> Well, most of most of your B1 across across the country or across Mstead County, you take these older older structures in the downtown areas. It's
not unusual for him to have an apartment above it. It's go to Fluffy's building. It's a that's what it was to start with and it has has two apartments on top. did, but >> that's grandfathered. >> It is grandfathered. And I think that
the I think that the county has it recorded as residential as well. >> But I'm just saying that's that's a part looking at the historic >> Yeah. >> downtown area, which is a little bit different than what there would be for doing new businesses or whatever that
become. I imagine that would be conditional to a cup if it was attached to a business as well. Now I lost my space. >> Moving on. >> Okay. >> 151 056 outside display.
To me that was in my opinion I think it was it was it was project scope scope grease. I think I don't think we should unless there's some particular reason why it's here. I would just leave our I would remove that section and just keep our sign ordinance as it is and we'll
deal with it sometime later. >> Is this smaller than our sign sign current sign ordinance? >> I didn't look I just to me just didn't fit into >> it's 056 isn't necessarily referring to
a sign ordinance. That's just that's referring to how much stuff you would just do as like a sidewalk display out front. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Like vending machines, cabinets such as beverages, ice roll from heights. >> Yeah. So
>> or like a side or like a sidewalk beastro type thing >> above the water. >> That's right. That's the way it was. I remember that being explained that >> business aspect. >> Yeah. So if they want to bring a rolling coat rack out,
>> they could. That would be an outside display. >> Is this part suspended during gold rush? >> I mean, honestly, like if you get a business down there and I want to just line the front of my business with a, you know, say you got a a a thrift shop
type thing. >> Yep. So what how we do that right now with Gold Rush is they just get a gathering permit and they're they become a vendor inside the show. You just need a gathering permit like for a garage sale or a you know if you had a business
and you wanted to bring a clothing >> it's like what Jan does in the background that was my first pay they're paying a fee to go >> they pay the city they paid the city the gathering permit fee right >> somebody would ask it I know so I just figured I'd ask it now because
>> we actually can't charge them for being on their own property cannot >> but the city can say maybe they don't >> know if there's space between the the gold rush street thing and the building >> and they want to put stuff out in front of their building and drawing. I mean,
are you suspending that for gold rush weekend or they have to just get a gathering per like I don't >> we haven't seen it happen. >> They'd be covered under the festival. >> I mean >> I mean Luffy actually used to do that when there was still like the antiques
downstairs and he would open up or bring things outside. >> We digress here, >> right? I don't know. No, I'm sure. But it's a question to be covered under that cuz somebody's going to ask that. We do have those shops along the the street there where, you know, especially I know there's one next to her place that's for
sale that's a little bit back where I want to open up a a shop in there and then I want to be able to or even with the gentleman's across the street here, he wants to bring a bunch of his stuff out from his showroom floor and set it out in front of his business. That kind of falls under that. you know
how >> it's hard for us to regulate and tell a business what they can and can't do on their own property >> like during the festival >> but that doesn't matter this doesn't take into account festival that's what I'm saying like >> this is all year round so you have to either say okay we're just going to suspend it not worry about it
>> or we're going to have them >> I see >> get a permit how we handled garage sales in the past >> because I believe you have to have a permit >> gathering permit >> a gathering permit whether you're one mile from the show or the edge of town. So, I would look at it that way. If they
don't fit this, they need a gathering permit. >> I just want to make sure that we're all understanding and you're understanding. >> That makes sense to me. People park cars on their lot. >> People park cars, they have to have a gathering permit. Yeah. All right. >> Just want to make sure we're out there. So,
>> the same way the garage sales are dirty. >> I'm going to put a vending machine out in my front yard. anything else in this section before we call it a day here. >> Um, can I I just wanted to add a comment just something for people to like think about or chaw on until we meet again.
Um, for you know, we're talking about just going back just for general understanding. I I just want to say a little something for gain and the utility. I know that Ryland has kind of talked to this before too, but just so that everybody kind of has some knowledge or wants to learn more about
connections, right? And why we're talking about connections and growth and it also does apply to commercial business, right? So, not only would we want growth or we get those connections through residential development, um we get those connections and we get
multiple connections um in the case of just even a single commercial business. How we currently operate is any commercial business in that is on our um on our utility starts out at a minimum of two erus. So that's two houses. Okay,
they start at that based on their first six months of usage. We determine how much water they're using, adjust their eru rate accordingly. So we have some businesses in town that are paying seven erus. That's seven homes. We have some that are paying 10. We have a couple
that are paying 20 or more um just based on usage. So just to keep on mind in mind, I know we don't like to have the discussion that connections and the and the and the utility and stuff are driving some of our decisions, but it is a fact that we have to deal with. It's
not going away. We can't take it back. Um but if we thoughtfully kind of think about all of those ways that we can meet those needs, not just through residential, but also through commercial. Just something just to think about. >> Thanks. Okay, >> thank you. All right.
>> Um, last thing here before we end, um, and this Marie and Paul do this online. I want to try to set up another one here. The 12th of March, that's the second Thursday. Does that day work for everybody? It was the old P&Z day. Um,
it's opened up. I'd like to keep this rolling and not get a big gap because I don't know when else at this point. >> I'll be around. >> Yeah, I'll make it I'll make it work. 5:30 work or should we shoot for 6:30? 5:30. 5:30. >> I don't care. I don't care which it is.
I just need to know ahead of time. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> I'm supposed to be packing to leave for Arizona that night. So, y'all better make it quick that night. >> Yeah. 5:30. >> All right. 5:30. Marie, >> does that work for you? Or at least if we have it online, too, you be available.
>> I'm going to have to call in again, which is fine. The phone works great, Marie. Great. >> Okay, you can hear me good. >> Oh, yeah. It's very clear. >> Okay. So, we'll put one in for the 12th of of March there at 5:30 for another zoning workshop so we can continue
starting with B2. >> The 12th at 5:30, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Can before we leave, can is there any historic on that B3 like what was in there prior to now it being proposed for B2? because I was looking through that.
I couldn't find anything. What was in that old B3? Like what was considered there? If you could send any of that, that would be helpful. >> It's under B1. >> B2 now. >> B1 is now B3 or B3 is B1.
>> Oh, it just has historic on there. It's neighborhood historic central business. >> She's asking about the zone B3. >> Oh, okay. There's a B3 zone right behind people's co-op. And so in in our new packet,
there's nothing on B3. We're they're trying to reszone to two, but I just want to see what it was before and if anything is changing to B2 and what that those differences. >> Yeah, we can I'll look for something to
see what it was. >> Okay. Thank you. I'd like to leave for next week's discussion for those that haven't seen this is a copy of our current current cost reverse cost reimbursement and
security agreement. It's just a continuation of our escrow but just kind of lays out what what it does for the developer in the city. Okay. >> I think this one we have >> you have you have these right that was
approved by council to use as these developments come in to get the ball going. So that's what we kind of sent out to helpers the first >> collection for the bus >> Glenn's motor. >> So what do you want to highlight on this? Do you just want us to reveal?
>> Oh the comparison this I'm pushing for this versus the escro gun. Oh, okay. Boom. >> I think this is more comprehensive. Covers a lot of stuff. Just >> FYI Jason up the business. >> We all set everybody.
>> The fifth is PNZ. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thanks, Marie. Thanks, Paul. in the hole. Okay.