But >> all right. Uh Marie, can you see us or do you still see the black screen? >> No, I can see you guys. >> Great. >> Open the door. Do you think that would be >> turned? better.
>> We'll try that. >> Mel, you have an extra one of these. Mel, you have an extra >> to steal my favorite gra it. And then someone puts them away. >> Um I think they get stolen. Oh. Uh no.
Grant. >> Okay. Grant's here. Oh, in person. I didn't even see you sneak in. I was paying way too much attention to the TV. >> Screen time for you. >> Yeah, I I need to get cut off, that's for sure.
>> All right, we're going to get started here. So, this is one of two workshops. This is u Thursday night, the February the 19th. Special city council meetings.
>> No, just work. >> Approval of what's it? >> Just workshop. Workshop. >> Workshop. I'm sorry. Workshop. >> Special meeting. >> Um, the meeting order at 6:33. Make a motion we approve the agenda.
Second. Any other comments, changes? Does everybody have a copy of the agenda? >> Okay. See no discussion, comments. All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> So, the first item is a uh Wait a minute. I'm on the wrong. >> You're on the wrong week. >> What are you talking about? >> This is >> Yeah, this is the This is the agenda
just >> very very formal informal work, >> right? >> No, that's all right. So, I'll just kind of kick us off. So, as you see with the memo, um, page two starts up, kind of just lays out the rough walk through of
the different parts of the, um, zoning ordinances and just kind of talk about some things. This is going to be very open and free and share ideas and share concerns. And you know, I'm kind of here to help guide, but also listen um really to if there's any comments, questions,
concerns from council, anybody else um as we we go through this that staff can make any recommendations for corrections to be able to bring to council hopefully at the March council meeting. Uh because we'd really like to get these approved so that way uh we can start having
companies review them and move forward with their projects. Um there's been a lot of hard work in our background from our uh steering committee group through planning and zoning group to get it this far. So we can dive into it. We'll do that. Any questions?
All right. Well, and you guys can hear us online just fine. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes, I can hear you. So really kind of the first part here, like I said, I just put in a different took a lot of the the different sections
here and tried to juggle in between the two days to really hit on first just kind of talk about, you know, zoning does and doesn't. And I I'm going to put Evan on the spot here a little bit with this uh first section here, but you know, what what does uh
zoning do and and not do? What do they kind of regulate? and then kind of help explain through his experience the roles between council uh their roles versus staff that's just what you see with the planning and zoning commission. So you want to start us off with that? >> Certainly. So Evan Mson planner with
Stantech. So I'm that voice that's usually on the computer but today I get to see all you guys here in person. Um I guess quick overview obviously plan zoning is a way for you guys as a community to essentially guide or direct
development how you wish. So where do you want residential properties, where do you want commercial, industrial, so on and so forth. And then it drills down into the details of you know what is the maximum height of a structure for example, how many parking spaces are required for a commercial use versus
industrial use and then is there any additional requirements? Is there screening, landscaping? And then obviously how do you divide land? So is there requirements on how big a lot is? Should there be areas set aside for parks? Is there maybe a fee that someone pays in le of setting aside land for
parks and all that hopefully sets it up so that one still it does actually occur all that can work in sync with obviously all the in infrastructure you have so your water your sewer your streets etc and then obviously that will generate tax income for you over here the city um
the different roles um that the zoning code does is again it guides that development but doesn't necessarily tell you how to build and that's your building code so Um it's more I guess kind of sighting, you know, where is it located on the property, what type of use it is. Uh so again, you know,
commercial, industrial, residential, kind of those big three, but maybe you'll have more specifics. So maybe you'll have single family residential allowed in a certain zone. Duplex is maybe allowed in other zones. Uh commercial that can range from anything such as retail, office space, and then
industrial is maybe more manufacturing, generating goods, or creating products. uh you guys as the council get to essentially kind of dictate all that policy. So uh whenever a request comes to you guys, you guys get to either approve or deny it. A lot of requests that come before you guys are going to
be uh typically one of two options. They're going to either be a legislative request or um what's called a quasi judicial request. And so anytime you're creating ordinances, so obviously this process right now is uh legislative. you're actually setting the rules up and
then a quasi judicial would be when you actually have the rules in front of you and you get to decide, okay, does this request meet those rules or does it not? And then uh that's kind of when we get into the weeds of reviewing. Are these things met? Are they not? Is there stuff that could be added as a conditional approval, for example. So that'd be a
conditional use permit or a variance, for example. Um planning and zoning commission, they are kind of your I guess boot soldiers on the ground. They're doing a lot of the footwork for you guys, reviewing it ahead of time. They'll kind of see it first at the city level and kind of
provide any sort of feedback. A lot of times they'll do also the public hearings for you as well. So they'll get all the public engagement, kind of synthesize all that, come up with a recommendation, and you guys get to decide, okay, does this make sense? Does this not make sense? And then ultimately approve or deny request. Um,
so the planning commission kind of does a little bit of what you guys do. Um, they also get to typically dictate your comprehensive plan. So whenever you guys update that um typically by statute the planning commission hence the name planning um that's their main task but
um you guys as of the council and kind of dictate and kind of set the direction of what you want them to do. Out of staff role is kind of more the administrative side. So when someone wants to do something ideally they'll reach out to the city kind of figure out what's going on what is allowed what
isn't allowed and then when someone does formally apply they'll submit that request to the city. So, uh, that might be Mel or Jason. They'll receive that firsthand. They'll port it to a planner such as myself. We'll review, make sure, you know, does this fit all the criteria what we need for a submitt. You know, do
they have a survey? Do they have a plan? You know, do they give you all the information on those surveys and plans that you need to know to actually review the request? Is there anything missing or not? And then once that request is deemed complete, you know, we'll kind of do our end review your codes that you have to kind of give you our assumptions
or analysis of whether it meets your code or not. And then kind of help guide you guys through the process because as you get through later here in this uh document, you'll notice there's a 60-day rule, which means you basically have a shot clock of how long or quick you take rebining requests. And so we're kind of
trying to make sure you guys are moving forward in the process and not uh getting hung up in any spots. Um once you guys do let's say approve a request staff kind of helps make sure that they're getting anything else that they need to be doing so such as building permits um electrical permits if there's
any sort of sewer infrastructure project etc. So with that, is there any additional questions? Because that's a very elevator pitch of how NAS. Okay. So diving into it, kind of get into and
you'll see in this memo that I put out, it started with the summaries kind of each section here. Uh we'll go through obviously you come in through the first part of this is your purpose. It's listed out the first part of the uh ordinances here. basically goes through
sets the legal authority and policy foundation for zoning decisions. Um basic uh essentially we're trying to implement the um city's comprehensive plan to promote orderly development within the city. Just again that's what this section is here in the city code
just kind of spells out that information like we talked about the comprehensive plan. That's something that is usually taken on by planning and zoning at the direction of council. um as we get into this. I think we all know that's an older plan that probably should be updated here in the the coming years. I
think that's going to be important. Um but as of right now, we go off of that and so that is listed something that's listed in here. >> I have a question on the purpose. So, as I was reading it, I should the purpose maybe have a little more clarity of like
fiscal sustainability and really infrastructure efficiencies? I I think you know this is where in my mind council has the authority to really balance the growth the density and then really that fiscal um sustainability. Right now it's just really emphasizing
the welfare of orderly develop but development but not really thinking about how do we talk about um not just growing our tax base but having kind of the the right ways to do that. I don't know if there's something in maybe that
um a that we want to talk a little bit about like having the right growth for our city and I don't know if that's too far in the weeds but right now I just I I know we want to grow but we should also be really cognizant of the growth and the density and what it means from a
financial sustainability and I think that's where we probably need to to just level set. So, I think from my interpretation of what you're asking, Marie, I look at that and I don't know that that's something necessarily that's specific towards needing to be in the city code.
I think that's something that would be built into a comprehensive plan as well as um a goal setting like council does a goal setting session. What are the goals for the city moving forward? Um this is more just the guiding principles to help
steer that that direction. Yeah, I'm just looking at like a so it says to promote and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city of Aronokco. So again, I I think that's where, you know, as city council, right, we have the authority to balance the growth and the
density and make really wise decisions on what that looks like. And I I don't know if there needs and and maybe it's maybe it's something as we talk about goals, but I'm just thinking it's not just about growth. It's about the right level of growth in the right
locations as we start to to build out the zoning versus right now just saying we're going to grow and here's kind of the plans to grow. I don't know if that helps, but just a thought on some of the purpose
Yeah. So I would look at that and I would say okay uh yeah it's tough because with with that it I I guess I would say you know councils change and positions and things change. So you know even the city influx I mean one we could get up to growth and then oh we you know
can't really grow anymore. We don't want to we want to maintain. So again that's the ideal council to make sure we're maintaining. I don't know that that would be something that would be put in the code. Evan maybe you can help me. Um, I think in a roundabout way, a lot of the purpose statements, you have, you know,
A through P. So, there's a lot of statements in there already. I think in a roundabout way that kind of covers what you're looking at. Um, and the sense that you want, you know, fiscally responsible development, I think, is kind of my takeaway from this. If you guys wish to just add another line, you
could do that. Um I think to Jason's point though the comprehensive plan is kind of that you know overarching guide to what you want to do and that's probably ideally the best place to put it but I don't think run in here as well. So >> I see the comprehensive plan as a vision
for the city >> correct >> how it's going to grow versus the codes which is the working document. >> Yes. So the vision is the is the the 20,000 foot level where we want to go and this is in the weeds with the detail of how you correct something does come
to the committee we have codes to follow. So >> okay well maybe we just need to make sure it's there. I know that's a hot topic for a lot of the residents about the right level of growth and the right level of density and the right location. So maybe we need to make sure it's listed in there.
Do you think K um kind of speaks to that? Right. >> I think it kind of I don't know orderly. Maybe the word orderly gets me. Um
because it doesn't get into like the right sustainment of growth. It is talking about just orderly development. And orderly could mean a lot lot of things to a lot of different people. It could be a big bang. It could be anyone that wants to. It could be a a a plan.
I'm okay. I'm okay if it goes into the comprehensive plan. I just know that like I said, this is this has been a hot topic for many people. And if we don't address like how we balance the growth and the density and all of these things
and not just to increase tax base, but do it in a sensible way. I think we're missing the mark. could agree that and I think that going through these um other sections that's where we're going to have to decide what is fiscally
responsible what is appropriate >> size lot sizes and and house sizes and all of that that's so I think that we ultimately get into that by developing
you know the R1 R2 to M1 B1 sections. >> Yeah. The how the how where that's why I was thinking if we call it out like that is our goal, right? If you're talking about goals versus the how to do it. If the first
section of the 151.002 002 is like the overarching goal. That's maybe where we need to say our goal as a city, right, is to balance growth and the density and be fiscally sustainable to
our residents or to whatever we want to say like that. That's a goal. And then getting down into the detail about okay, R1 is going to have this type of lot size and we're going to require this. R2 is this. you know, some of the the be zones are going to be some of these
things. Like that's the how to me where when you look at the purpose and intent, it doesn't get into that goal, which I think is where I was trying to maybe call something out. But again, if it's in the comprehensive plan, I'm okay with that. I know that's in that next section
there. It talks about bringing that to light. I just know I just want to be able to give everyone the the same state of mind that we want to grow, but we want to do it in a in a wellthoughtout plan and we're not just going to add density to
increase that tax base. We're going to do it in a sensible way that makes sense for our city. That's why I go back to that should be in the comprehensive plan section or be in the comprehensive plan itself because that's going to be your guiding factor of for growth for the the future years
to come. >> So, and that'll kind of give you that sense of this is how we're going to do it and give you the building blocks for for future growth. >> This is a silly question, but do we have a comprehensive plan? We knew from like
what 2006 >> I've never seen it. >> 2016 there was another one too that was in there. So there were two that were in there. >> So maybe that's the next phase that we need to look at and make sure that that's up to date.
>> 06 was the actual plan and then >> you guys came back and updated the future land use map within said plan. So, the map is new, which is what James refer to, but the text to the plan's a little out of date, which is what Jason, >> what was the date on the floor?
>> 2016. >> And I feel like we tried to add was 2020 in this budget to do a new plan, >> comprehensive plan. No, I don't think that we did, >> but I don't think it went through. >> Yeah, >> we talked about an EDA action plan of
the 2027 budget. because we didn't plan for money. But in talking with Kurt, our executive director, Dave, um you know, our EDA was looking at uh putting together an RFP at some time during the
26 to plan for a budget u is one uh is one aspect we're looking at. So >> yeah, and that will be something we can discuss later. I mean, >> it needs to be done. We don't. So >> I think to add to the earlier point, your current comprehensive plan, which
again is old, does kind of address some of those concerns that we want to be uh balancing growth with sustainable development. So maybe that kind of already addresses some of those concerns. >> Okay. Anything else on this section?
We'll move on to the next part of this. Um the the next section rules and definitions. Um this just provides extensive definitions interpretations for the the rules uh that will help
reduce ambiguity and legal risk. Basically the section provides is critical to uh consistent enforcement and includes modern land use language. Again this kind of just meant to go through if there's question what is this? what do they mean by this or what
do they mean by that? Um, that's where we refer to the definition section for this. This is a common section in any city code. I usually start off with a definition section and that's one to be, you know, for people to reference for that section. This
won't apply to other sections of our city code. It is specific for the 151s. Were there any questions, comments, concerns? I don't think I had anything in here that really stuck out
to me. It was all pretty boilerplate. >> The only thing I I would have is I think that as we go through the codes, there may be something that may circle back to the definitions. Um, you know, I'm sure sometimes we'll talk
about the DF development flex. Um, we'll talk about solar energies. We'll talk about um there's some diagrams missing on page eight. Um,
escrow versus our security agreement. Um, that may or may not be added. That's those are all things I I think the definitions for the most part are good. I just think that there some discussion as we go in that will kind of reflect our definitions. But
>> can I ask a question? So on the definition in the family section, it says B and C. Like how would we uphold that? >> I have that one highlighted in mine too. >> Which one is it? >> It's family B. It says a group of not
more than four individuals, none of whom are related by blood or marriage, adoption or foster care, but all whom are maintaining a common residence. And then C is up to two adult individuals, whether related or unrelated, and the parents and children of each, if any,
residing in the same dwelling unit and maintaining a common residency. >> Oh, that seems very excessive and detailed. >> I don't know. I don't know why we would be that. I mean, I know I get what it's trying to say is you don't want a house
with 10 people living on it that aren't related, but again, I don't know how you would how would you enforce that? I look at that as a uh >> yeah, kind of a coverall where okay, we
we do end up with a a residential unit that claims to be a family living there, but we know through reports or whatever and through code enforcement action that, hey, we've got six vehicles and there are clearly 10 different people there that have, you know, live that
appear to be living out of there to be able to go and enforce and say, hey, this is what this is meant Um, as far as I mean, I would assume put in this was all reviewed by their legal too. I'm assuming that it has enforcement behind it. Um, I don't know.
My comment was can you limit to, you know, limit it to a group of four individuals in section B. I don't know. >> Um, but like I said there, >> it's kind of just a cover yourself on it. You could also get a conditional use or variance if there would be of something
like that would come up. But at least it would come to our attention that one's going on. So, >> but I just think of like myself, right? So, I got three kids. They're not adults, but say they go to college and then they come back. >> So, I wouldn't even fit Well, I guess I
would fit probably in the B, but if I was C, I'd have more than two. You know, I am just I just I I don't know. That's seems weird to me. I get what it's trying to do. I don't know. Again, I think we have to think about the times that we're in. There's
families that have big families and some again, right, adult children come and live back with their parents. I just I just I know it's just a term, but I just I don't want someone to be like, "Oh, it's in there and I'm going to report it and then we're going to be in the the
space that we either need to enforce it or get rid of it." I I don't know. >> Yeah. >> I qu I question if it's any of our business >> have in there. Go ahead. >> Say again, Paul. >> I question if that's any of our business
and who's living in the house. Uh if there's no criminal activity, what's the issue? >> I I would say it falls more under when there's a health and nuisance issue. That's why it's it's in there kind of to cover the city >> as an enforcement policy.
>> Um not that we really care who's living there, but if if it does become an issue where there's a health concern or a major nuisance concern that the city is able to act upon it um to be able to take action to mitigate that for the community, for that neighborhood um and
to help with that problem. Well, then explain to me what we need. Then we need guess we need a definition of what's a what's a health problem. >> That uh that would be in our other code section under public nuisances.
>> It's it's awfully vague is what it is. >> So I just question I just question if she'd even be there. >> I think it's good to have in there. Yeah. Again, you can get a variance or you know that they go along with it if somebody complained about it.
>> It just doesn't this doesn't preclude and if my parents moved in with me and my wife's parents moved in with me and then my kids moved home, they're all blood related or they're all marriage related.
So, that doesn't even qualify be right there. It doesn't matter how many there are >> living in the house. it doesn't qualify B at all because they're all blood related or marriage related. So I think it's okay. I so I think that this is
keeping you know more than like I don't know this is probably turning turning homes into uh rentals for their kids or
>> who are going to rent out five other rooms and they're going to be lit. Like that's where that's where this kind of takes into play here. >> Yeah. Like somebody building >> is there other language that applies to like the rental situation situation
versus it being like a single family residential? I mean does that define the difference between the two? >> So since this is the definition section we if we got into a rental section they might not we might not be using the word family. That's what I'm saying. It's
like it's is it defined whether you're using the intent of the property is for single family residential or is it a rental? >> Right. >> Because I totally get what you're saying about I'm currently in that situation. I have kids in my 20s. They want to buy something or rent something. They're
going to need four or five roommates, right? They kind of need to pull their money. How? So, does that is that inclusive of this or not? >> Well, and it just depends on how the code is written in the rental section. If it's if it says family in the rental section,
then then that this I would assume this would apply. But if it doesn't say family, then I would I would assume this does not apply if it's not using those definitions. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but Daniel,
in your example, if something like if all of those people lived in your home, then you'd have to get a conditional use if we started to see some issues. >> Oh, it says none of whom are related by blood or marriage.
>> Yeah. But look at C. Up to two adult individuals, whether related or unrelated, and the parents of children of each, if any, residing in the same dwelling unit and maintaining a common residence. Yeah. So, what that's saying is you have two individuals, whether they're related or not.
>> Yep. >> And so, then either their parents or their children residing in the same dwelling and maintain that residence, that is considered >> a family. >> A family. So, it doesn't matter if you could have 10 kids, you could have your parents live there, your 10 kids,
you're all there. As long as they're basically, >> you know, direct relatives, they're going to be considered part of the family and be allowed Okay. I read it I read it differently, but okay. >> That's my interpretation of it
because you're reading and the parents and children of each each referring back to the two adults, if there are any for those two adults residing in that same dwelling, then they're allowed.
>> But if both sides of Daniel's mom and dad came and lived with him, there would be four adults. And then Danielle and his wife are parents and then they're kids. >> Yeah. You don't have to meet all four of these conditions. You have to meet one of the conditions. And in my scenario, you're meeting B
>> B. Okay. I don't It just It just reads weird to me. I don't know. >> I I get where you're coming from, but I I think it's a misreading on it. I think >> Okay. >> It Yeah, I understand what you're saying, though. Yeah, that's it's meant to be like so
you know if Daniel's parents came and lived with him and then his wife's parents came and lived with him, they'd all still be considered family living under his roof because they are the two primary. You take the two adult individuals, they're the primary for that house, anybody related to them that's either a
child or a parent would be considered family and be allowed to live there. I'm assuming the definition for family is in here because family is mentioned 78 times in the code. >> This is the definition for family though.
>> Yeah, >> it doesn't. Yeah, family is kind of whatever makeup it is. Yeah, this is pretty standard language for 90% of communities in the state. So, >> that's why it's in there.
>> Yeah, it's basically kind of like what you guys were talking about earlier. You don't want to have someone renting out every room in their house and then it's not really a single family house. That's kind of the intent behind it, having something like this. Is there any way we could have someone
look at it and maybe try to make it more clear? Because maybe I'm the only one that's getting stuck on that, but the B to me >> B to me is the a shared household, right? Up to four individuals who are not related but live together in one
household. C is a household consisting of at up to two adults and it doesn't matter if they're related or unrelated and their children are all living together in one house. Is that >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Mike's already gone through this stuff, you know, Murray, and so I don't think he had any issues with it. >> No, I don't. I do. >> I don't know of another way I look at legal definitions can be >> confusing at times. I mean
>> when you're looking at I don't know I've seen I've seen the way state laws are written sometimes and you look at the wording and >> to me this is fairly ambiguous like it's it's yeah >> the problem with ambiguous nature is if
we're trying to enforce things then we have to enforce it fairly for all. So, I'm just I'm just gonna call that out. >> Yep. >> We can move on. I'm just I I I think that's confusing for all and we're a community with uh lots of a family with
lots of kids and maybe bringing their parents back and kids coming home from college. I just I just think we could be prime for having some difficult conversations and trying to explain what a family means and who should be in one household and not. So, but we can move
on >> and Marie, we'll take a look at it as staff and see if there's any anything we can come up put our heads together and come up with. So, >> so one question on the definitions. I know I'm not council, but we talked about this pretty at length in PNZ the
one night, but the one that's not in here, I see setback, but I do not see anything about step downs. That was something we had talked about. I know that comes up in R1. It's not listed in there either, but I don't know if that needs to be a definition or if we need to talk about it later is fine. I just want to make that call out that step
down is not listed in the definition. >> I don't think that there's anything in R1 about step down. I think we ended up going with the larger lot size >> and
>> and then if um if a developer wanted to put in smaller lot sizes in R1 then they would go to the development flex and that's where the city would say you have to have a step down from this neighborhood down
to the smaller lot sizes that you wanted. So that was the I think that was the ultimate outcome of >> the conversation we had conversation >> initially was the step downs to the adjacent to the current lots. >> Yeah. >> They're going to step down before you
get to the 14,000. So that's that's outgo and the flex like you're talking about that was >> flex and then we could actually determine what that step down is as the conditions of the flex.
it makes it a little bit easier to like putting that language in R1. Um I think is what Lori was saying is that it's easier to just go with pushing them to the development flex. So then we can just say exactly what we
want to happen versus writing it all out in R1 um as a separate tingency. Um, so I mean I since it's not mentioned in
the code then that's probably why there's not a definition. But >> I get that and that's why because I noticed reviewing earlier it wasn't in there. That was one of my concerns that we talked about it but I didn't see that at. So >> I don't have a problem with finding a definition for step down and putting it
in there though even if we needed. But again, that's going to be determined by the de development flex and who's like who's doing the negotiation of the
the flex, right? So if we ask for a step down in one neighborhood of 75% lot size to 75% to 75 down to their lot size and then the next one we came back
well 45 is okay. Um I don't I don't know if having the definition in here when we don't mention it in the actual code anywhere will be confusing.
I think it'd be confusing, but my question was it's not in the R1. And that was where my question was coming in. If we were Yeah, that's where I was coming from. >> Yeah, we we settled on the larger lot size and moved the step down portion to
uh to the development flex if that's going to be needed. that gives that gives somebody the opportunity to do smaller lot sizes, but they still have to respect the homes that are um already built and established.
So, >> and Daniel, when you say we decided, who was that? >> Uh that would have been P& Lori. Lori was the one who um who had she said she'd never had
anything like that put in to the any of the codes that she had done before. Um because if that were to be used then the development flex would be used for for that certain scenario
and we can we can talk more about that in our one because I have other thoughts on this >> so we can wait. It doesn't need to be talked about now but I've got other thoughts on it too. So we can move on. Anything else? Definitions right there.
>> Okay. Next part of this is the uh general provisions. Basically, general provisions put into apply zoning citywide establishes minimum standards helps clarify treatment of non-conforming uses and structures and
confirms that uses are not expressly permitted that are not expressly permitted are prohibited. going through that reviewing that. So on the page general provisions 151.10 10 applicability item number D.
Uh the last sentence of that uh it says any existing building or structure and any existing uses or properties not in conformity with the regulations here and prescribed shall be regard as non-conforming and may be repaired, maintained, replaced and improved but not expanded
subject to the special regulations here and provided with respect to nonconformity. So is that saying we can't a person can't if they do something to one part of the building the rest of the building has to be brought into confirmity
the building permit um it would depend on what they're doing. So let's say for example you had a property and the house was you know a foot off from the roadway which obviously wouldn't be meeting your setbacks of today. um they could
maintain it, repair it. Um if for whatever reason it was, you know, hit by lightning and burned down, they can rebuild it, same spot, basically exact same look as before, but they can't expand. So once they start expanding, that's when you guys can say, well, you
know, if you're expanding, you have to bring it into code. And so um one option would be they would, you know, meet code somehow. So maybe the addition would be meeting the setback. Uh the other option would be they'd request a variance. So that obviously goes through plan and zoning commission ultimate you guys for
approval or denial and so you get to pick you know does this make sense to keep it you know not meeting code or you know does it not make sense. Okay, great. Thank you. >> Anything else on that section? Kind of a shorter section there.
So that falls in line with 151 015 item A subdivision five where it says any addition greater than 50% of the square footage of the building shall require the entire building to meet architectural control standards. Is that pretty standard too?
>> Yep. >> Yeah. So you guys as a city can kind of dictate how much you allow someone to alter non-conformity without triggering rebarance. So uh let's say you didn't have that language in there. Um they would basically anytime they touch it,
they'd have to bring it into code compliance. Um this kind of gives someone a little bit of leeway if they're, you know, an older structure, older house, if you will. they can kind of >> but the 30% is pretty common or >> I'd say that's a good threshold. um it's
kind of easy from a staff perspective to interpret okay this is half of you know what you're dealing with before whereas if you have a different percentage it's kind of hard to nitpick or interpret you know how much they are alternate for examp um this is our administration and
enforcement section um this section really centralizes is the zoning administration with the city administratorzoning administrator helps outline enforcement authority and incorporates the Minnesota 60-day rule for land use decision decisions which
were briefly talked about by Evan earlier. Uh this is again pretty standard language here some of which we already kind of had um but just really spells it out how it I think should be. The one thing on this section that I
noted is it it talks about the what, but I don't know it it doesn't get to like how we would enforce it. So if we're talking about like what are the ramifications of the 60day rule and
the site plans review and relo relocation, there's nothing in there that talks about like the actual enforcement. It just gives you the timelines um from our standpoint. But again, I
know we've been in situations where things are not um that we can't that we have to get legal and other things involved to actually enforce them or to stop or to take things down. And so I don't know if that if we need to have any verbiage in any of those about the
actual like enforcement plan. >> Yeah. And I and Evan maybe correct me. I think this would fall under looking at different um different sections of the code for the enforcement side of it. I just think of, you know, we've we've had future or
we've had problems like the the Mary Nash house for instance. There was a lot of zoning stuff that was wrong with it, but the enforcement action was um put into from the different parts of the code is where it kind of came into what would happen. But are you talking about
um you know what the say what the steps are for okay you get your your first code violation is this your second code violation is this and your third one's this or I guess I'm trying to better understand what you're getting at >> well your 1510 or 0.02 is talking about
enforcement. So, it's giving the city administrator or the zoning administrator the the responsibilities to do those things, but it does doesn't get into the steps that would be taken if something is not followed in those. And even the subsequent the 60-day rule
site plans and some of those, it doesn't get into anything about if they don't meet those um criteria or um plans for ordinance. There's nothing in there that
shares what that path from an true enforcement would mean. >> Yeah. So, your 60-day rule doesn't necessarily apply to the applicant. It's actually more of a timeline that we the city would have to follow. So >> yeah, but your site like your site plan
like some of those things like I don't I mean we've had issues where things are not and maybe again maybe we should reference codes but that aren't up to code and then people basically don't do anything.
>> Yeah. So I think some of that language is more just kind of explaining what that is, you know. So what is a site plan? So, uh, when someone, you know, comes to the city hall and says, "I want to build something," and they hand Jason a napkin
with, you know, scribbles on it, we can say, "Well, that's not a site plan." I think that's the purpose of that. And then you look at some of these, uh, later sections, um, you know, those different requests, you know, they require a site plan, for example, or they might require, you know, building
plans, you know, if you're building a structure that are more detailed, you know, showing how you're constructing it. So I think that language that you have in there initially is okay. So that site plan review. I don't see any issues with that. Um public hearings just kind of states, you know, again the process
that you guys as a city undertake whenever a public hearing is required. Um 60-day rule again is, you know, just making sure that we're on top of things. Typically for the enforcement aspect, which is kind of what we were talking about as well, that is typically going to be a lot of times it will trigger a
nuisance violation as well. And so there's usually two ways you can basically catch all any zoning code violation is also nuisance. And so your enforcement policy under the nuisance code could be used, which is typically send out a notice or letter of some sort. They have time to comply. They
don't. you guys get to dictate, you know, whether we go to court essentially or if there's some other remedy to enforce it. Um, the other option would be maybe you could add some language in here again stating, you know, we have a nuisance code violation process and any
violation in this ordinance um would have to follow that process for enforcement. >> Yeah, maybe maybe um right after D, we probably need an E to just call that out. I mean because if you're talking about that section right it's talking about enforcement
>> in section 151.148 which is uh the subdivision platting section um it talks about violations and penalties but that's relative to >> subdivisions. >> Correct. And so that might be where it' be good in this section to kind of have
a just a blanket statement that says, you know, any zoning violation basically enforce that through the nuisance code process. >> It's also mentioned in the flood plan, but we're not talking about that. So >> yes.
>> Yeah. So I think that's something we could >> So we want to have a comparable violations paragraph. It's A and B. put that into performance standards. >> What section are you pulling now? >> 148
>> 148. It's in the subdivision padding and it's back in here, but it does it's not in the there's nothing in the performance standards. I'm sorry. I just I think we need an E on the
151.020 >> that talks about the nuisance violation. >> If I'm okay with that, >> look at that. It'll I'm looking at the 148. I'm guessing we'll kind of mimic it
off of that one, off of a violation and penalties. Um, something similar to that. That'll go in there. >> Jason, as you go through here and we're asking for changes and edits, things that you know, things that you think that need to go
back to Lori, I want you to call those out here. >> Yeah. if you can. >> Yeah. I haven't seen anything that we can >> Yeah. >> handle. So, but we have Evan here. >> Yes. >> Yes, we also have.
>> Was there anything else in this section kind of That was in admin. No, you're the general provisions. I'm sorry. Let's track here. >> Administration. >> Administration enforcement. >> Administration. Okay.
>> Um, yes. on page one section 151024 variances um subdivision D um subdivision one the complete application this is regard to required
variance information materials shall be required for the application just says a complete application form signed by all property owners in our current rules today we say 350 ft I think it'd be good to add that dimension.
>> So, do you want people neighboring the property to also sign the application that we >> range? Our current process is not having them sign it. Our current process is that we mail >> and that actually is covered. But
>> underneath 151022, it's it's listing 500 ft >> for public hearings and if you need a public hearing for a variance that's already covered. >> Yeah, >> you're right. I misspoke about being the form signed, but there is a letter, but
say the letter is 350 ft. >> This is saying 500. >> 500. So, do you want to basically raise it to 500 or do you want to keep it at 350 maybe is the question for tonight? >> What's the rationale for going to 500
feet or 350? >> Transparency maybe. >> Probably transparency. >> We have big >> I was going to say big lots. >> We have really big lots. So, >> 350 is totally sufficient in town.
>> Nine letters probably. you know >> and 500 I think >> somewhere it's like four or five letters >> yeah I mean we have big lot I mean not that 500 500 is going to give you two more houses but >> at least this notification which I think
transparency makes sense So um see 151028 the last paragraph on page 10 of administration. Can you say the chapter again?
>> 151.028 collapse. Um, question ahead. If not approved, what happens if it's not? This doesn't really we talk about the approval. It's becomes null and void up to one year
unless prior to the expiration of one year. Would you describe this diligently pursued on the subject site? City council be grant an extension for good cause but >> they would have to reop. >> What would determine good cause on that?
If there >> there has to be some kind of guidelines as what the good cause would actually be referring to. >> That usually left up to the commissions and council. I've never seen that defined, but that's usually a case by case basis.
>> Yeah. Anyway, yeah. >> I mean, it's hard to list every possible scenario. So, I think it's typical for a lot of communities to just say good cause. So, let's say there's a flood for, you know, whatever reason that would be good cause. Um, but there's all sorts of
things or situations that could come could come up and it may be hard to list all those because if you do have a specific list, it might be hard to say, well, your issue isn't on the list, so therefore, you know, we agree with you, but it's not on the list. We can't give you an extension. So, that's just kind of an easier way to say, well, if we as
a council think this is a good cause, then that's okay. I actually did have a question on that too. I saw in here and Evan, you might be able to answer this. What is an administrative permit consist of? >> Not seen that listed anywhere and that
it's not like we have >> we have zoning permits and variance permits. I I don't know if those are considered >> administrative permit would be. I say sometimes you might have a kind of like the equivalent of a zoning
I guess license or permit that you might issue for like a fence or ADU, but I don't know if you guys necessarily have that anywhere else in the code. So maybe that's something that could have been deleted. Um I don't see anywhere else actually. Let
me double check that. Well, since it's not in the rest of our code, it probably those two words probably shouldn't be in there >> because it's also in the revocation one, administrative permits listed again. Um,
the two ones that I found right away there. So, I see a reference under >> what's it say under definitions? There is none. >> Probably best for just remove it. >> He did. Although
>> for both sections. >> I see in one section the R1 zone. You have an accessory dwelling unit is allowed as an accessory use uh consistent with some standards outlined subject to approval of an
administrative permit. So that's the only actual reference in your code to administrative permit. But again, there's no definition. There's no permit process. You have every other permit listed. Um, so maybe I would think that's something that should be removed.
>> Okay. I mark that in our ones when we get to it. >> Yeah. >> It's in uh 028 and 030. Administrative permit is listed in both of those. So, 0 to8 and what >> at the
end 151.032 032 zoning application fees, deposits, and um the word escrow fees and I don't know when the the right time to
discuss the ESCO versus what we currently have in place or their cost security agreement. Um no, I think that's I think what we have today, the cost security agreement meets the needs. It meets a lot of needs. It's
very comprehensive. Escrow fees are kind of I'm not sure what would be in the escro fees. There could be a lot of different things, but today we call it out as a cost security agreement and it's very comprehensive
the process of how the developer uses it. And to me, I my my personal opinion, I think we to keep it the cost security agreement and and we just replace escrow with cost security agreement. >> I worry
>> based on our experiences of using it being accepted. >> I worry about replacing it. Escrows usually see those a lot more. My my understanding and experiences in big I'm talking like you know hundred multi-million dollar facilities that are
built or if we have commercial development in the south end where they're building a say they build a giant grocery store that's going to be you know tens of millions of dollars. That's where you usually see the escro fees put into place for that just because of the sheer size of the project. We haven't really had something
to that extent. So we've been able to get by with the development agreements. So I worry about taking out escore fees. I think we should add >> or or a cost security agreement in there where you have both of them that are in there >> because right now we do have some limits
in the cost security the development. >> I think that would be just updated improved when we get to the large commercial agreements. >> Yeah. But I would I would I would hesitate removing it. We can add the the other language though. >> I would say leave I would say just leave
it as escro fees because your cost security agreement is the same thing. you're holding that money in trust against the against what's what the uh fees are going to add up to. >> I understand what you're saying, Paul. I
think the escrow is is a is a a term that's used a lot for a lot of things outside of our city developments, but I think what we have today, the cost me is very definitive and comprehensive and
applies to covering our cost of what whether it's our city uh injuring firm charges. So the city doesn't get charged with those. That's why it was >> so it's very comprehensive. That's if we can leave it in there, I think that's good. It can still be used. We can
update it as we get into the larger commercial projects and would be, you know, is was put together with our attorneys and our engineering firm. So, I think that's why I like it. I think it served us well. Um, and it gives the
developer a clear understanding of what the expectations are of covering costs for their particular development. Well, may maybe one thing to add to it to make to clarify it would be make it also
known as the cost security agreement. >> I think that'd be a good >> Yeah, because I also I I have some of the same concerns that Ryland has just from an administrative perspective. I'm just curious and maybe Evan, you can clear up some of that, but I'm just curious if we move to to doing something
like escrow versus um the in-house kind of the way that we've been doing with the cost of security agreements, does that limit administrative oversight? If we move to like an escro type situation, >> I'm just curious because we're still so
small. Yeah. >> Right. And so we we have a lot of um I we still have a lot of relationship with our developers, right? And so I think that keeping that and that kind of goes back to what Marie was talking about earlier too is um just transparency and
>> working with residents and having a relationship like we're not that big. >> I just feel like escrow is something maybe that we grow into later. Are we really at that point where we have to have that kind of verbiage? And what kind of administrative oversight does moving to escrow does that limit us?
>> Is it as simple as adding a definition that escrow can also mean cost security agreement? >> I think initially right now we could just state kind of what Paul stated. We'll just you know insert a sentence maybe two sentences in this section. You know as payment also referred to as a
cost secure agreement. Um just to kind of cover your current process. I think the idea or the goal of either one is to make sure that you guys aren't putting the bill for everything project. Um, but you know there's obviously many ways
that you can get to that. And so a lot of cities that are much larger in size you escrow which is probably why that language is inserted here just because again that's kind of I'd say a majority of cities in the state. But again, there's more than one way to do things. And so, if you guys use the cost
security agreement, you like doing that, it's working for you, let's keep it as is and just make as small tweak in this section as possible so that if you guys do change it and say, "Okay, we're going to do escros now." You don't have to go back and rewrite the section. >> That makes sense. >> Yeah. I think if we can just have a
sentence and couple words insert on that would be good >> because we'll have to look at section B of that too because in section B it talks escro payment and then it talked about it being in the fee schedule as required by our fee schedule. We don't have escro payment listed in our fee schedule but we have the CSA stuff listed in there.
>> Exactly. So if we can just make a minor insertion in there I think that would cover all your bases. Make sure we don't have to rewrite everything. And then say you guys do want to change your administrator process, we don't have to come back in here and rewrite it again for you >> because right now escrow is not in the definitions and neither of course is
cost security agreement is not in the definition. So that's probably something we should add. >> I don't know if you necessarily have to add it typically if it's not defined. You use kind of like the dictionary or common definition. So obviously it sounds like all of you guys know what
escrow and cost agreement mean. Um, but you know, if you want to add an amendment in there, you certainly can. >> If we're going to put in the text, I think it because it is it is different than ask. It's unique to our codes. Yeah. >> So, at a very 20,000 foot level, I think
we need just a one sentence or two sentences to add a definition and then um kind of like policy to just insert that reference into this section. add a definition for cost security agreement and page six and add >> just put just put it in parentheses and
it's cost security aka cost security agreement >> that that' be okay. Yeah, there is it's mentioned escrow, but that's I think that would be in my opinion it'd be acceptable
to do that. That's Paul's suggestion. Anything else? One thing I did find when I was reading through this, you guys do have what's called an interim use permit. I don't know if it's come up recently, but there was an ordinance
passed a couple years ago creating that. Um, it's not in your code now. I'm not sure if that's something that you guys discuss at the plans meetings or on the task force, but um, that is kind of another tool in the toolbox if you want to use it at some point.
>> An interim use permit >> instead of the the we had the IEP. Mhm. >> And there is a couple references in this draft document to intermuse permit. So I think it may have been discussed at some point. >> I remember them talking about it during
the steering committees. >> Yeah. Um it's kind of like a CP and that you can add or set conditions of approval. Uh, some of the I guess perks or unique things about an intermuse permit is if it's something that you don't want permanent, you can set a time
limit on how long that lasts. So that could be something as simple as we'd allow this for one year. Okay. >> Um, you could also set something stating, you know, once this person sells or ends the business, you know, the permit expires and so someone can move in and continue that use. So
somebody wants to build a shed that's over the square footage, you could say instead of a variance have an interuse permit, >> but the other has to be down. >> Yeah, that would be one way. >> Okay. >> Or like say animal housing. >> Yeah,
>> Daniel, I would think instead instead of building sizes, you wouldn't want to be tearing the building down after it was up. It'd be more what the building was being used for. >> Yeah. Typically, it's more like a use um or an activity. um like you know a dog
or pet boarding business, you know, maybe don't necessarily like that in a lot of spots, but maybe um you'd be okay with it temporarily. Um so that might be one instance you would use it. I see it a lot for like mines. Obviously, that's something you don't want permanently operating, but u maybe you'd give it a
time limit of it can operate for this long. Once it expires, maybe they, you know, mind as much as they can. They're ready to do some other sort of development. So, it it's kind of another option that you guys can utilize that may not come up a lot, but it might be easier to add that in now instead of
once something comes in and you don't have that tool in your toolbox to use, you can't really add it in in the middle of a request. >> So, can you clarify? Is it standard that if a cup if somebody has a cup safe like for the animal boarding house, right, and they sell or move, does the cup
follow the property? So the buyer could if there's no stipulation on the end point does it transfer with the property? >> It would run with the land. >> Okay, >> that being said, we'll double check in the section here, but typically a conditional use permit
will end if the use has ceased operation for a certain amount of time. So typically if it hasn't operated for a year or more, it's no longer valid or active. >> But not necessarily does it come to an end in a transfer of sale. >> Correct. So, say you had an auto
dealership, for example, and that was a conditional use permit. Um, say that gets sold and bought by someone else. It would still be active, that permit. Um, but say if that was an interim use permit instead, they would have to come back to you guys and maybe at that point you'd be like, well, we don't
necessarily, you know, want this used active anymore and you could possibly deny it. I'm just curious because sometimes the conditions >> in like a cup would be, you know, again back I'm just using this as an example, animal boarding house. Say their cup says they can have up to 30 animals.
They can only have animals from this time to this time, whatever. >> They sell the cup follows the land or the next owner and all of a sudden now there's 60 dogs up there and they're open at 6:00 a.m. instead of 8:00 a.m. Like how do you um out with something
like that? One way you would address that is when you initially issue the conditional use permit, you might set a limit of how much they could do. So for that example, if you have a dog boarding facility, you might set the limit at, you know, 30 dogs. And if they want to
have boarding space for, you know, a 100 dogs, they'd have to come back and amend that permit. Uh, which again goes to the plan and zoning, then council for approval. Um, I wouldn't necessarily have time limits in your cup. Um, basically once it ends for a certain amount of time it expires, but that
intermuse permit gives you that explicit authority to set some sort of >> would it be wise for would it be wise or is do other people say in their cup agreements that it would expire on the transfer of sale?
>> And Mel, just so you know, when we did that over here at the boarding house that there was, I think they came back in and got a new >> Yeah. So >> they did, but they were the same owner and they were responsible saying, "We're changing the way that we're doing business. We want to make sure that's
okay with you." I'm just thinking like if it were sold and someone else came in and just started operating differently, right? There's, um, I don't know how the city then maintains or keeps track of or goes back to say to them,
>> uh, you have x amount of time to >> comply or I don't know like is there verbiage? Can you put that in the agreement that says that if and it doesn't follow the land? Like if it's a transfer of sale, it's over and the next person has to come in and say what their
intention is with the business and what you know and then we reapprove those intentions. >> You could put in language stating if it ceases for a certain amount of time, it expires, but technically the CP would run with the land. So you can't say,
"Well, if you sell it, we want to look at it again. We don't have it. body really needs to be paying attention to any kind of transfer of sale for a property that has a cup. >> Yeah, I would say, you know, whatever active or issued cups, it's always
obviously good to keep track of what those are. >> Are they active? Are they, you know, adhering to those conditions that you have. >> Um, but again, when a use comes up, which I think we're getting to the table of the next section with all the uses, that's where you'd want to go through and be like, we want this as a
conditional use. Does it make sense in this zone? The we don't want to allow because in theory if they meet all those conditions for a cup, you really have to there's not a lot of leeway to say, well, I don't like it, but it's allowed here. I want to deny it.
Basically, if they meet it, you have to issue it. So, >> I think this is obviously a good process to go through and determine, you know, do we like this use as a conditional use? Do we not maybe like it as a conditional use? And so, >> just trying to think ahead of how you plan to follow it. >> Yeah. And I think hopefully when we go
through the table, we'll kind of figure out if all these uses make sense. But obviously if there's some of you guys a little uncomfortable saying, well, if we don't want this to be permanent, maybe that's where interviews would make sense. So >> yeah, >> the enforcement is always the fun part of, you know, tracking and following up
with everything. >> Conditional use permits is in 151.026. It's >> before you're talking about there. So, um, I don't see anything glancing through it. I'm not sure.
>> Yeah, we can add something about conditional use for and intermittent >> wherever you think that's appropriate to add in here. >> Well, I've got it to add it in the definitions, an IEP, >> and it sounds like it's already referenced in other parts of the code.
>> I did a search through there. There is insertions of it elsewhere. Perfect. I checked in or I don't see it in the coach today. >> Well, even with the animal boarding
place, you know that that has like a four or five year permit on it, doesn't it? For the conditional use permit. >> Yes. We need to stop talking about dog place. >> I'm sorry as an example. I was not picking on them like I have an issue with them. I was just using that as a
good example of >> No, I guess I'm not I'm not saying I'm not saying anybody has an issue with it. It's kind of a good example. But but maybe, you know, with with the residential development around there, maybe that in all reality, an interimm
use permit would be a better better use for that as development moves along in the city. You know, >> I would say it's something to consider because I do know Jason and I were made aware that they do want to come in and do um they do they do need to re um they
do need to re-up their cup. Um we actually just talked to Isaac about this maybe a week or two ago. Um, so we're going to be working with them on coming forward with what they want to do next, which is ironic and totally unrelated still. I didn't mean to use them as a as a a the best example or a poor example
at all. Um, but if we're talking about IUPs, maybe >> they never did their green space. They were supposed to >> maybe that's something maybe that's something they would want to consider. Yeah, thems used in sections old 151 30 and 31
initial code two years ago. >> What was that reference number? >> 151.0301. >> Yeah. So, my guess is it started out in the draft and through whatever discussions got removed at some point,
but I think it might be good to add back in. So, um if we again go through those uses and you guys are uncomfortable with stuff, you know, we can have that option >> definition and Yep. just being included with everything else. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. We'll have to kind of look for
that then. >> Yeah. something. Anything else >> that section? >> Okay, let's move on to the next chapter here. Next or next section, I should say. Our
general uh district's provisions. Um this kind of goes into zoning district framework. This has the use table. Uh it helps establish zoning districts, adopts the official zoning map and provides a master use table that outlines where the uses are permitted by right versus
requiring what is a conditional approval. >> So um I guess this a good starting point for the discussion regarding development flex. Um it's in section point 151.035 035
establishment of districts. Uh today, as we know, we have a PUD uh and a development flex would replace that. Um so I I've got a a couple concerns, I guess, from standpoint it's
it's a I talked about several times in my conversations with Lori that it's it's just like a development. It's just like a PUD, but there's certain differences. But um the way we do PUDS and how all of
our applications forms, our staffing um I think it might be true, it might be easier down the road, but given our certain given our staff levels and um the way we've done things, not that we
can't change, but I just think the timing of picking up something a different nomenclature I guess is a better way to say Um, it's something I I feel like the PUD is is very well established. Development
flex is not in any Minnesota statutes. Um, PUD is mentioned and I just think it's it's something worthy of discussion of. I know a lot of time has been spent talking about it. It's something that Lori was involved with very u for a lot
of years in Blaine where she was working. Um, and I respect that, but I just I just for our particular application, to me, I think it's a a PUD would be something that to keep in place. Um, or familiarity with the developers
we have used and are going to be going forward with our injuring firms that we have that work with the different sites. I just feel like it's >> if it's a lot of changing and training for our staff to understand, too.
Is it if it's the same then why I guess why does it matter if it's called one versus the other like what's the difference between the two of them? My understanding is that the development flex would allow flexibility
and any changes then that were agreed upon would then have to come back um if changes were made would have to come back to uh planning and zoning to get reapproved if they wanted to change. Is that the
same as the CUP or does the CUP because I believe the way it was explained to me is the CUP then becomes administrative changes. So if they just get something approved and make a change then it's administrative changes. It
doesn't necessarily have to come back for a vote to change. So the developmental flex brings it back any changes back. Well, what I like about the development flex part of it was that a development comes in, they have to
establish everything that there is that's going to be in that development from the very start. >> Okay? And it isn't going in, you know, first phase, second phase, third phase, which is where changes take place. And
even though it was meant to be that way, as it goes into the different ones, that's when you have changes that that pop in where a developer will say, "Well, I'm going to sell this off to this part of it." But under development flex, it's all laid out that we know
exactly what the materials are, what the houses are going to look like, where they're going to be set, and those things were more important than what it is. So, as a city, it gives us an ability to see upfront and not to have
changes that are made halfway in between when that developer wants to sell the other part of it development off. And that's that's where the concern is, you know, that it's all got to be done the right way up front and this is what we have, which is what I like. I think that
that that that's better for the city. I I understand the flexibility of of watching and and not controlling or making sure it does something doesn't get different than what was approved. But today, a person comes in with a preliminary plan and it comes to PNZ and
council and gets approved as a preliminary plan. But before they can start building anything, there's a final plan that comes in for the same, and correct me if I'm wrong even, but for the same area that the preliminary plan comes in. The final plan comes in with more definitive
details that's not in the preliminary plan. >> This is this is looking at the whole thing. So when when when it when you come in and so if you look at like what Hamilton was doing, they had different phases that they were going into. And so
Hamilton could come in and I'm just using that for an example that they say, "Okay, we're going to do phase one." And so they start doing phase one. All of a sudden they said, "Okay, I'm going to sell out phase two and phase three to another developer." Then you lose what what the original
plan was because that other developer can change what he has doing it. And so with the with the the development flex that has all got to be maintained the same from the very start. So we see what's what's going to be there and
that's what they have to maintain all the way through their development. So it gives you that that confidence of what it's going to be where it's not going to be changed halfway through this the the system. So, I mean, they can come in with their
preliminary, they can do the but it still has got to be the final uh development flex that that we see and we approve as council. >> So, right now >> I just your planning and development process and you can correct me if I'm wrong. You
have two steps. You have the preliminary plan which comes through plan and zone in and you guys correct? And then if you approve that um they have that final plan which again goes through plan and zoning and you guys for final approval. Um so the Don flex zone
a little different but kind of the same process um what they have in here right now. So in 151.082 um they know that if developer would have to present a concept plan that just goes to the zoning administrator right
now. um and then say the concept plan is okay with the criteria that are listed in the previous section. Um then they could then submit a formal application. Uh what you could do maybe to kind of mimic your current process is that
concept plan could go first through uh planning and zoning and then maybe to you guys give you that kind of initial review and then if you guys are okay with it um then they would have that again formal application of officially hey this is what we're going to do this is how we're going to do it. So that
might kind of give you the best of both worlds for example >> I worry about that because a lot of times we get them in there they're not ready to have all of that before they've made their application. You get some of them that they've got a concept, but they don't want a public go through that.
>> Well, you could do a concept and I guess not have a public hearing. You could just have it informal. Um, and so you guys just review the criteria >> going there. >> Yep. >> Yeah. And so right now in 151081, um, that's all the criteria you have for
your development flex zone. And so um you can kind of run it with what we've done now for PB is you'd have staff go through do you think it meets all these criteria plan zone go through do you think it meets all this and then ultimately do you guys as the council think all these criteria are met or not.
um you can kind of give direction at that point and then um they would then have the direction and you know wherewithal of knowing do we meet this, do we not? Is there stuff we need to fix or amend for you guys and then they can come back with again that formal plan set um and have all their details ironed
out presumably at that point and they kind of dictate on you know if you want to formally approve or not at that point. So that might be one way to kind of balance what you have now. Um but again kind of to have that new process and enshrine it um as a zoning district
as just a cop as it is now. >> But today correct me if I'm wrong but the preliminary plan comes in it's let's just for example the condo project the dragons work on >> he's identified what he wants to do as a preliminary plan. We've approved it.
So we're waiting for a final plan. Y >> so he comes in with a final plan for all 14 buildings. However, he's just going to do phase he's going to build phase one first with four homes or four buildings and depending on how that goes, he'll
continue on with phase two and three. But because he sent us a final plan and that's what we approved, he really can't change phase two or phase three or sell it off. >> So really what we currently have today, >> we could sell it off, but it would be
contingent to the plan. Well, it's still >> it would have to come back to Calvin and allow it. >> So, you could sell it, but whoever would inherit it or buy would have to adhere to that plan, >> right? >> Or come and keep the plan that's in place.
>> Yep. >> Or they could apply to >> amend it. >> Correct. >> Which then would come back through >> basically the same >> the process all over again. It wouldn't skip >> skip steps. The only reason that I think that there's something to be said for
the way that we're doing it right now where it comes through admin first is because we have both seen yes >> some very lacking people think they have a plan right or their idea of a plan but they're severely lacking and to not
waste the time of planning and zoning or to have them directly go to planning and zoning before it's seen by admin or questions are being asked or we're having the planner review it or we're having the engineer look at it to say, you know, are are there other easements or things that we should be worried
about that exist here um before it goes to PNZ. I think it's been really beneficial for a lot of that stuff to move to PNZ with sort of like an oversight from admin. It usually comes with a recommendation letter that the city planner's already kind of reviewed it or engineering has already looked at
it and you guys feel a little bit safer about moving forward with it and not having to do some of that the initial investigative work that usually happens before it comes to you. That's the only place I get hung up with it if the new >> So, where is the where is the um cost
security agreement coming in before you guys start? >> It is >> having him. It is exactly that. It's covering our time for our investigation, our review. It's covering the cost to have it go through him before it ever >> even gets to you. A lot of the times
we're finding incompleteness, right? like the application is missing things or the setbacks aren't there or there's all sorts of little diddy stuff that we're doing way before it ever comes to planning it own. >> I think the way that it's written here is saying that it goes to you first and
then comes to >> Yeah. that all I'm saying is that that there's just definitely a a bonus to that not to waste your time and just to keep the ball moving because a lot of times too they think, "Oh, we have a hearing. We're getting to planning and zoning. Here we go. the ball is rolling.
>> We don't want to set that ball rolling too far in advance for them. Once we schedule them a hearing, they feel like they're actually making progress. >> Um, you know, >> I believe the cost security agreement usually starts after the preliminary plan has been reviewed because we haven't had really had any input into
it. So as the final plan is being developed um and going to our engineering staff or to get feedback that cost security is the first thing we do before we start have that interaction. Right? >> So it covers our costs so the taxpayers
aren't pay >> especially if they don't go through with the project or if it gets denied or something in planning and zoning. Right? The work that we already have into it the review that we've already had done um through consultants, planners, engineers, all that stuff, those costs are covered. Um,
that's the only point I wanted to make. Yeah. >> The other thing too is is what Grant was saying before when we were talking about step up, step down and we talked about development flex um type situation. Those were the things that that we were
looking at to make sure that things fit in, you know, and if you don't have that development flex and you're looking at having to go a different direction that there is for step up, step downs, everything that there is that are associated with it to make it fit into
what the current uh you know architectural is or or current buildings that there are. So the concern I raised earlier basically hinges on the fact that the night that we discussed we talked about a uh a step down from like lot adjacent to current 20,000 foot
square foot lots. We'll just call it out that the next kind of step down would be anything close to them or adjacent to them would be the 20,000 and then the 14,000 after that. So a true step down. The way that I the way I understood what you were saying earlier, Daniel, is that because we went to bigger lot sizes
essentially, we would be treating those adjacent lots, those 14,000 the standard as the step down and then using this development flex based on this uh uh subsection A here that the proposal shall provide a wider range of housing types, price ranges, and styles that
could be accomplished under the existing zoning. So essentially what I'm hearing then is the step down now turns into the standard lot and then the R1 is a standard is a flex zone and everything can be smaller and just kind of go from
there. That's that's my concern is I think that it's different than what we talked about at P&Z. So if they want if they want a to go to smaller lot than 14,000 then the step down would like I said we
were talking about step downs like half half going from a 2 acre to a 1 acre. That's what development flex allows is for us to dictate that step down. we can require a step down from two or 4 acre
lot to 50% of the adjacent lot or whatever we determine. Um, but putting it in, I guess putting it in just complicates things quite a bit. But if he if somebody wanted to develop much smaller
lots, they would still have to respect that step down that we would put in place to approve the developmental flex. So >> So what I'm hearing you say is the step down is the new standard is the new standard lot size of 14,000 is the way
that this sounds to me. So, if they wanted to build out an entire uh development at 14,000, that would be allowable. But if they wanted to drop, you know, 80% of the lots down to 7,000,
that's where they would have to reszone to development flex. And that's where P&Z council can determine that there is a significant step down from the current lots to that smaller lot size that they
want. So wouldn't the variance currently today to do what you talked about, they'd have to come in with a variance to go with the >> No, they would they would reszone from R1 to a developmental flex zone
>> in the new world >> in in this. >> Yeah. >> And then once that development flex, then >> they can request whatever they want, but we can approve and request whatever we want. So if we want 1 acre lots stepping
down from 2 acre lots that are already existing and then those 1 acre lots have to step down to halfacre lots to get to the 14 or to get to the seven that that's what development flex allows
us to do is to actually and the rule on yeah and then and it's not then it's not a standard. So what would happen in one development might not be the exact same as what happens in a different development on the other side of 52 that
needs a different type of consideration. So I get that. But I guess going back to the my earlier comment to the definitions tying this all back together. I know I'm jumping around a lot here, but then shouldn't there be some kind of call out either with the um
the flex lots or up in R1 talking about council has oversight on instrumenting or implementing a step down that's greater than 14,000 something like that because I guess the way I read this right now is that if it's R1 and it doesn't matter where it's at that
standard lot size is 14,000. >> Yes. And if they're there, then like your example of two acres down to one, it's kind of irrelevant because if it's R1 already, they can just go in and put a 14,000 square foot lot in there. And that that 1acre lot is out the window.
We never had any oversight over that. So I guess that's where that step down there to me there's some language being in there. There's protection in that to protect the current homeowners. That's why when when we had been when we were talking about it, the original
number was 10,000 square foot lots. >> We bumped it to 14 and then talked about a 20,000 step down for adjacent. Yep. >> But we left the step down portion out when we bumped it to 14 was my understanding. >> But we went back to the development flex, the DF.
>> We went back to the development flex that was when it left PNZ that night. It was going to go to city council to talk about the step down in the 14,000 foot lot. So that was the only reason I was bringing that up because this was not seeing step down in here was news to me based on what we talked about. And again, if that's city council's
governing body, if that was what we decided, that's fine. But I just want to call that out that that was my understanding leaving that and it never came back. >> And I that's not the way that I remember it. I remember it raising it up to the 14,000 from the 10, getting rid of the
step down language and I think we were looking at >> we were going from 20 to 10,000 >> which is basically cut in half and we said well that's that's just a little bit too small. We wanted to go up to a
little bit larger lot just because of what we have in the community and what the community wants to have and the way they want to have it look. Um, I I I'm in agreement with the step down part of it that there is. And I'm looking
also at River Park, too, where you're at, that if you were going to subdivide, you know, what you've got over there for the drain field, you'd like to have those lots the same size as what your current lots are, which I think would be good for the residents that are there to
have it be >> the light type situation. >> Yeah. Consistent. And and that's what you want to try to keep is is that uniformity that there is instead of going down to 10,000 over there.
>> But I'm just saying it's it's looking at that to try to have it. um your situation where you're at, I can see the step down because that was a part of what was basically agreed upon when you turned around and bought your property
>> of what was said at that time. Um, and again, I'm I'm taking a look on the other side of 52 where you might have an open farm that's over there that that that could be developed that that the 14,000 might be great on
the outside part of it. And then you might want to go down to 10 on the inside, you know, to make it where you could use that DF type situation that there is and be able to to get a little bit more in there by by that type situation. So I I
can see both >> that again I so those butt up against our houses and that would be a huge issue for a lot of people on the on the what is it west side of the town. So again, I think I think we need to have that conversation because again, I want
to make sure that we're being transparent. This is a hot topic for a lot of people. A lot of people move to Oronokco to have larger lots. They don't want, you know, apartment buildings and really small single family homes in their backyards and there's a place for
it. But but again to Grant's point, like we need to think about where where they can be located and not just put them on a a DF because that leaves it up to interpretation. And if we're trying to do this right and
set ourselves up for for being scalable, like we should be calling some of these out because otherwise we're going to have to do development flex or reszoning all the time. One of the one of the things that was talked about during the development of
Riverwood Hills and Cedar Woodlands is they started out with the larger lots and the closer they worked to the major rightways, the uh lot sizes would become smaller. So, I guess I I kind of I kind of see some point, but I think you'd
want to keep the you'd want to keep the lot sizes close to the the larger lots that are there that exist today, you'd want to keep them stepped up fairly good, then the closer you get the closer you get to 100th Street or the closer you get to
Minnesota Avenue, they can get a little bit smaller. But, you know, on Minnesota Avenue, that probably wouldn't work so good. you're we're looking at there's different stuff going in there than single family residents, but for the west side of the highway,
you know, I don't see that any reason you couldn't have 10,000 or 7,500 foot lots out down along 100 street in the future, but that's when somebody decides to develop it. I mean, that's that's township land anyway, and it's zoned
agriculture, so they would have to bring it in and reszone it. So, again, it's probably not worth talking about, but again, I just want to be be aware, right? People moved out here because they wanted space. They don't want what's happening in Rochester in their
backyard. Well, it is it is it is worth talking about, Marie, because when it when it come to your the the property that your last house sits on, that was agriculture was brought into the city, too. >> Yep. I agree.
>> You're you're having a a good point, Marie, and I agree 100% what we're trying to do and what you're looking at and for the value of of your neighborhood that's there. The way that was put in as well. Um, >> but it's not just my neighborhood though. Like it it's happening on the
west side and the east side. Like >> so it's not just my neighborhood. I don't I don't want that to come across that this is just for Marie because that's not the point. Like my point is people moved out here for a reason. They like what they have and we have to be
sensible about where these things fit and and there's places for it. There's places within our city that we could allow for that. But we shouldn't just do it and put it on I mean reszoning all
the time to do that because there's not going to be any consistency and there's no transparency of where it fits within our city plans for residents and that's what they're worried about right because there is nothing called out so they're feeling like anyone can buy it and they
can do whatever they want with it. I mean, that is the perception of what's happening out in Oronoko because there because we aren't clear of where things fit within our land use and our ordinances. >> I'm okay with the step down. I thought
the development flex made it easier and with the wording, but if everybody is strongly wants the step down wording in there, I'm fine with that. I guess I have two comments about what Marie is saying.
Like I hear from residents what Marie hears like we've all heard it, right? I think Marie's point to the 14,000 lot size is let's call out the elephant in the room. Like everyone says there's a place for it. Where where is the place
in Oronokco that we think that high density housing at 14,000 square lots square foot lots or 7,500 foot lots would be appropriate. Where are we thinking that area is? Cuz I am pretty
sure that most of the neighbors or neighborhoods that one or two or three of us might mention are going to disagree with that. So when we say there's a place for that, where is that place? Um, and then my other question is, let's get real. We know that any
developer that's going to come in here and want to do developments is going to want to get the maximum amount of development in a small space, right? They are definitely going to want to go for that 14,000 foot lot or smaller. So whether they do a setback or however we
end up doing development flex, we are going to end up constantly reszoning stuff like Marie says because they're going to want to take advantage of development flex. they are going to want to get as much housing built and as much development as they can and in this in the smaller lots. So I just worry are we
create are we creating a situation for ourselves down the road that's going to be hard to manage. >> And the way that I understand that the development complex works is it actually allows for that. So, if they want 7,000 square foot homes down by
uh Second Avenue, they can they can drop down to that. They could have over half of that that field be 7,000 square foot homes, which would be the exact same number of homes
>> or 14,000 square foot. But now they have to build x number of large lot homes as well. >> Yeah. >> For those step downs. So >> I get the idea of it. I'm just curious like I'm just with the transparency and
like I I'm just trying to think about it from a resident's perspective, >> you know, like what neighborhoods and what areas and where are we thinking that those those size lots or those >> more higher high density areas, where
are we thinking about putting them? If we're making plans to do it, where are we going to >> where are we going to apply it? What's the vision? and be cautious using the word high density. That's not high density. >> Well, you know what I'm what I'm saying is when I'm speaking like that, what I'm saying is what this
is what the residents are saying, right? Anything that's smaller than 2 acres that they moved out here to have, they are that's how they're viewing that. >> But that's a feeling versus fact. And I don't want to get those confused because that's where we end up in a lot of problems as communities. People have strong feelings, which is great. >> Oh, but then they're confusing. What is
factual? That is not high density. So we want to make sure we are using the right terms there so it's it's transparent and understood. So that's why I just want to make sure we're caution on using that. Got it. >> So Daniel, one clarification piece based on what we were just talking about. So you mentioned after PNZ
earlier you mentioned that it went back to the steering committee and then it was talked about at council and now we were just kind of talking that when it left PNZ that night you mentioned that we went to the bigger lot sizes but with the flex. So now based on that, if we didn't use a step down as part of that
flex process, they were there's no there's no flex option though to create a step down greater than 14,000 I guess is what I'm getting at because you mentioned again going to that >> they would have to apply for the DF. So
DF is >> is a zone just like R1 as a zone. So right now it >> so R1 would shift to a DF essentially. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> And at that point it would be up to
administration P and Z council to say we have these homes that are an average of you know um an acre and a half. So we need a step down for this first row of homes and that has to be picking up or
50% 60% of that lot size. and then they can step down from 60% of or 50% of that number and then they get to the wherever they're trying to go to. So it would still be probably a buffer
of like in a DEP situation it would still be a it would the end the means to the end is different but the end would be the same I guess is where I'm going. So the verbiage the problem I think with adding
the step down in the verbiage in is what I'm just looking at is what is considered an adjoining lot? Is it one that's directly across an established road? What if there's a tree line? What if there's a big bur that a conjoining lot? Like, um, so I think
that's where the confusion of putting that into the actual RO1. Um, and again, this is just how I understood it from Lor's explanation cuz it initially I was against the DF
completely, but once she explained that it gives us the freedom to allow a developer to come in and do what they want as long as they meet the
requirements that adjoining residents are requesting because that's what it's going to come down But I guess wouldn't that be the same process if you put a step down in there and the because again if that step down is in there like you said there's some
ambiguity around what is adjacent right >> because you said tree lines things like that what do they have to apply for >> I guess to me if they have that step down and the builder wants to do something different than what's currently adjacent to them because that
all goes through. Anything that's within 500 ft now comes up for public hearing. >> So, at least you have that opportunity to listen to people of the town and hear what they have to say, I guess, is my concern because this this lack of step down and the verbiage and just the clarification in there
opens up a lot of I think opportunities for builders and do like I said that whole 14,000 foot. My intent, my thought that night was that there was a step down from adjacent properties down to 14,000. And now it sounds like that could essentially be the step down is 14. >> So R1 is how it's written in here and
again this is where this is all up for conversation tonight. >> Uh the way it's written right now is R1 is 14,000. So if they came in and they're like that's R1 and we'll do 14. >> But that's still
>> what 4 acres something like that. That's still almost half an acre lot. I mean, that's still a a big lot, but >> um >> it's 46 acres. >> Yeah.
>> May maybe maybe one thing to consider to I I kind of have to agree with Grant on the step down process. Maybe one way to look at it would be to uh require anything within
500 ft of the uh 40,000 ft lot or the 20,000 ft lot requirements would have to be the 14,000 foot lots and it would have to be at least go in 500 foot increments before they could
step down anything else. that way development flex couldn't take over and put 10,000 foot lots on there. Just just one way of looking at it maybe. >> And I'm okay with putting the verbiage back in for stepdowns.
Um I just thought that it would be encompassed completely in the D app and give us a little bit more flexibility on what we could do because it'll have to be a percentage, right? we'd have to write it in as a
percentage. So a step down of again 50% of what the average of the the lots. So I mean the average of the six lots is in in your
instance is 1.27 acres. So we're already below that 50% mark. I guess just thinking about it personally. So yeah, when you said that, that's when I was kind of going down that path because again, going back to previous comments of initially moving out here, it was with
the understanding that it was 20,000 foot lots around us. So we it is what it is. So the 14,000 is now below that. So that's where that step down came in, I thought that night when we talked about it. Yeah. And again, we would still have to come up with a number of what that step
down is because if we say it's a 70% step down, the whole establishment's going to be a step down, like, >> right? But along alongside that, you should probably give it a distance away from what currently exists as the larger
lots. That that that'd give a buffer of protection. So how do we write that in? I guess is the concern. >> It would be it would be anything within 500 foot lot. 500 foot would could be
under a certain size. >> Understanding on that, Jason, since we've already been talking to them. So are we contracting them to make the decision or are we contracting them to advise us? >> Our contract is over with them. So any changes we make, >> but we're going to look at re recontracting with them and but we're
setting in exactly what we want to have. >> That's my point. >> The finished new part of that contract if we want to do that. So >> I think the other thing to think about is we need to write it in there, but I think we also need to put it on the map so people know where these
these step down and if we're going to do development flex where they would go. because right now it's unclear to me when looking at the map where these spaces would even go and I and I and I speak for probably many people that live here. They're going to look at the map. They're not
going to pull up the ordinance. So again, just a visual person. So, I know I get we need to write it and have some of that language, but we also need to show our residents on the zoning map where some of these step down andor DF
um zonings are going to go. >> I agree with that. So you want to designate pre-desate areas of town to be DF or step down required.
So that that would either >> this is this is just Marie's feeling but yes I I think that's what people are looking for in terms of clarity because right now it's it it could be anywhere. >> So I have a question with this. I I'll
play devil's advocate here. I've got a development. We've got a step down. We build it down. And now I've got another half of the development. Say, you know, we got established to the east, development to the west of it, uh, of of the established stuff. We step down and then to further west, I've got another
development, but I say, you know what, I want to make these threeacre lots in R1. Now, we've screwed over and we've got to start over a new step down process somewhere. How does that work? because the developers, I mean, they don't have to make them 14,000. They can make them
>> 20, 50, 60,000 square foot lots, whatever they want to, and still qualify under that R1. So, I don't know that we can really define this is a step down area because they can make them what they want to. That's where I think we're going to get into a lot of problems trying to really be that on the point of
this is how this is. That's why when you build the districts, the R1's, R2s, you set the minimums of this is what the minimum is. you need to meet that and then if you can't that's where you come in for your variances your development flex or whatever process wants to be put
in place and so I'm just that was a good point but that just brings something else up. Um who's to say that Dragon's condos aren't
going to be immediately adjacent and then have to be averaged in to that step down. But it's too low. >> Is that one that point is >> one of these lots whether we design
designated BF now or RO1 now >> in a few years when none of us are on council can be reszoned to a different if it's not developed it can it can a different council can reszone it. So
again, I'm okay with the step down. I just don't under I just don't know how to do the verbiage. >> And maybe we could ask Lori about that. I mean, >> I don't know that I'm also willing to pay another $40,000 to Lori and saying that maybe a deal or come up with
something else. That's >> So some background. Back in 2022, PNZ asked Stantech to put together Bill Larson proposed updates to lots size limits with completion of water sewer
property. The reason that was done because our comprehensive plan even was 2006 identified we need a density to pay for the plant and to pay for the plant we need the density. That's very clear and
so they put together a proposal. I just have one copy here, but they went in and they surveyed all the different cities around here and it's in the report here, you know, subro
uh 11,000 residential, 7,500 depending on the lot, Rochester, Pine Island, it's in the report. But what they did they they proposed a intermediate lot sizes which is basically like the 43 acres of 8,000 square ft I think it was and the
larger areas was 10,000 and 6,000 down in downtown areas. So there has been an effort even though it's four years old or more that how we would identify well we're kind of talking about the different areas. Um, so we talk about
minimum and I know that I I apologize again for being too dense or not figuring that out, but I just when I see your development flex when that preliminary plan comes in for approval for 43 acres, we know what's
being proposed and nothing's going to change, but they come back with the final that meets everything for that 43 acres. It's going to stay in place. It's there's nothing changing and what you're saying with the development flex is it
can change and I just don't see that has to go back through >> yeah has to go back through all of the uh public hearings everything they change it >> to change it. So why would he why would
a developer do that when he's figured his cost >> what it's going to take to pay for his infrastructure >> y >> to put in say all 10,000 lots versus 10,000 maybe you want to spend 20,000 you know the lots we have at 20,000 10
15 years ago was great and that's an anomaly right now I mean it can still be done but the developer is going to pay a lot more money for that and it's not going to give us the density to support our um wastewater
treatment plant and facilities based on the cost that we have. And so we need the density and 14,000 is not going to get us density. If you look at 14,000 compared to 10 12,000 or 10,000 square feet, if you look at those lots, those
square footages, and each of those have 120 foot depth, a 14,000 square foot is 117 front width. 12,000 is 100 and 10,000 is 83. 83 is very common and 100 is very common for
what we have in Riverbended Estates. They have 17 homes up there and 13 of them are or seven of them are less than 100 feet and that 83 feet. They're all seven six $700,000 homes. So that's what the developer is looking for. The
dollars is he's investing to eliminate his infrastructure to fit a nice size house. But if you look at a 15,000 square ft 120 foot depth, you can build 45 homes. If you look at a 10,000 foot
lot, you can build 64 homes. So, a developer can build 33 cent 33% more homes with a thou 10,000 versus 14,000. >> I think what we're hearing from residents are they don't want that number right up against
>> well >> development that >> that's not what your steering committee said. >> Your steering committee came to your August P&Z and you started out with 10,000 square feet. Well, the August meeting, he says, "Well, let's talk about 12,000." Okay,
12,000's recommendation. We come back in September and PNZ says, "No, let's do 15,000 because that sounds good and that gives us the uniqueness of the city." Uniqueness of the city is not going to help pay the plant. And I think that's as a city, as a
council, we need to keep that in perspective. We got a comprehensive plan and we need to be focused and keep that in mind that these minimums are our minimums. If a developer wants to do 20,000 lots, he can do it, but it's
going to limit the number of homes that can be built. Um, that's a developer's choice. He can decide if he wants to to spend the money for the infrastructure or we come in with a minimum 10,000. And 10,000 is a very reputable lot. uh it's
it's nicesized homes can be put on it. And I guess the point I'm getting back to is that when the preliminary plan comes in, developer knows what he's going to he wants to do and that's what he's going to ask when he comes to the council on P&Z. This is what I want to do in my 43
acres or 10 acres, whatever the case may be. So a development flex is something I think is it's nice to have probably but I just think it's it gives it leaves a area of unknown in my opinion of what it really means
because if you look at the first sentence of the criteria in 151.081 081 criteria. >> Okay. And before we get going, we're jumping way ahead of what we do. So, I would like to get us back on track here. >> Yeah. >> Because we are going down the rabbit hole of R1 and development flex.
Development flex is next week's discussion >> and I want to try to get us through the rest of this and we're still trying to talk about the provisions in the the chart here for the acceptable uses in this section. Um, and then we can get into R1 a little bit because we're already hitting the twoour mark. So, I'd
like to continue on with this. Um, it's good discussion, but I think we're we're jumping out of order and I just want to try to get through some of this stuff. >> So, Jason, >> if we can just kind of look over again section starting with 35 um and running
through 3940. 39 is that use table. Um, you'll see that in the copy that's posted online here, the draft copy. It shows what all the different uses are whether it is a uh permitted use and accessory use or conditional use
represented by the different lettering EAC and different zones. Anything that stood out in this section to anybody? >> Uh quads were not listed in the 151039 use table.
Yeah. >> Single family, two family, and three family, but quad was not listed. >> Okay. I think it's important that it be part of, you know, it's a permitted R2, of course, I think it's it's listed in the the
shoreline and the flood plane, so I don't know why why it wouldn't be listed here. And based on what we have in process now of quads >> on the use table, um Jason, there's so the home occupancy
um and the private garage. Why is there a P and like a permit use and conditional use? Like why is there an option or is it both? Like why aren't we picking which one needs to be?
I I think it's a uh it's it can be either or depending on the circumstances. >> Should we be clear though? I mean, >> I think that's during decision time, that's where it's made clear. This just kind of gives the overall guidance of this can be permitted or this can be
considered a conditional use. And then as we come through and it gets presented to council, we'll provide whether it's a conditional or permitted use. Yeah, I think basically if you're under a certain size for a building, that's where it might be accessory, but if it's over a certain
size, that's for be conditional. So, >> should we separate those then? >> We could think the other thing, not to bring us back to what we were just talking about, but is there a reason why we're intentionally not calling out high
density dwellings >> and I'm talking like high density like multi-floor condo apartments. >> I don't think that the fire department has the ability to service those right now.
>> Yeah. It' be two stories. Nothing over two stories. >> We don't have a ladder truck. Yeah. >> Yeah. But if you look through the table, there's stuff on there that we don't have in Oronoko. We don't have a theater. We don't have a funeral home.
>> This was taken from the original uh chart that there was that we've had for years in Orno. Just so you know that, Marie. So, you're saying you want to add something that >> I I I'm just asking is are we in is
there a reason why we're not calling them out? I'm not saying they need to be added. I'm just trying to understand because there's things in that table that we don't have in oral go >> does
>> allow for higher than quads. >> It doesn't check. >> I mean, I can think of >> I think Sorry. >> You could have higher density units in R2. You could have apartments, things like that. I mean, I've lived in two-story apartment buildings. They're
usually just short and wide, you know, but that would be more considered than >> you just can't go three stores. Okay. I mean, so I mean everything we most of the houses are twotory houses that there are which we can service with fire.
>> So good. It >> looks like your R2 does not do higher than three. You can do a single family. Uh you can do a two family which would be a duplex or you can do a three family. So a triplex um is listed as permitted. And
then you don't have quad or anything higher than that anywhere in that R2. >> Well, we're looking at the stuff right now with Denon being quad >> planned unit development your current code,
>> right? and so we'd already approved that which you could do through a varian >> right >> but they're not multif floor though. >> No. >> So do we need to call that out when it's like a quad? So it's a you know side by
side versus three floors. You >> can't do three floors. >> Going back to our consistency and just making it make sense. Quad is listed the definitions. It's one of the definitions in there. So >> I think it's listed in the shoreland. >> So which we didn't the DNR. So that
should be added to your table to the what I was saying. It should be the table definitions or remove definitions. >> That' be added to the table. So we've got in the shorland one. >> So from the fire department
no fire department's capabilities. Yes. We don't have the ladder tracked, but is that they just don't have the ladder so I can go to the third floor now? >> Yeah, it's correct. >> Okay. So, >> and your R2 zone does limit your height. Sorry to cut the office.
>> Yes, >> your R2 zone does limit your height to no taller than two and a half stories or 30 feet. >> I presume it's concurrent with your >> current. It's 35 ft. >> Correct. So, why did it drop down to 30?
Should we keep 35? >> It's a good note for when we get to that. It's a good note for when we get to that point. So, >> I I have to agree with Ryland. Let it stay where the what the current height already is.
>> So, on that table again, if we're going to add quads, apartments are also listed in the um definitions, too. So again, if we're going to be consistent of where they go, I think we need to put that on there, too. >> Yeah, I know we've hit the twoour mark.
>> So, I just want to make sure we get through this section and then we'll go from there. So, is there anything else with this section with the permitted use >> the uh on 151.041 uses
conditional uses of a uh total combined I'm sorry under conditional uses C >> that's in R1. We're not into that section. That's in the R1. >> I'm sorry. I had it covered up. So, Maria, on the chart, you were
talking something about high d adding something about high density. >> Well, I I just was asking because it there's no apartment or like high density homes listed there and I didn't know if we were intentionally not calling that out, but again, to Gran's
point, quad is listed in the definition. Apartments are also listed in the definition. So, we probably should go through the definition and make sure we have all of them aligned. Yep. We can get that added.
>> From the definition, apartment is three or more dwelling units grouped in one. >> We already have some of those. >> A trip a triplex is considered an apartment building. >> Would be an apartment building. A quad would be an apartment building,
>> but neither of them are on that chart. >> The threelex is there. >> And there are two. >> It must be quad being >> three levels or whatever you said. No, >> more than three units. >> Three units. >> An apartment building is three or more
consecutive units. >> But an apartment also includes any buildings with two or more than two dwelling units. >> So it's hard to get there. So you don't have to worry about it. Yeah.
>> But that's just the definition. So anyway, we'll take a look at those and um add them accordingly and make the adjustments there. Okay, so we've hit the two-hour mark a little after um >> I'm fine with uh adjourning this for now and and carrying into the next one and
going from there. We will start with R1 and R2 next week. >> R2 R2 in an hour. >> No, that's why we're gonna we're gonna go ahead and uh do that. So, uh, we'll next week we'll do, uh, the start with
the R1 and R2. >> Any questions? >> Okay. Um, and real quick, I just want to touch base. This was something that I these three things that were also included. These are kind of checklist forms that were created to to help with council and they also work for PNZ. Um,
you know, at a glance things and help kind of looked over these as well to make sure they fit within. Um, I think these will be great tools for council and P&Z uh to kind of help clean up some of the stuff we already have. But just as you're going through, we get these things, you can use this as go, do they meet this or their application meeting this
>> because this is kind of the same stuff we use right in the office. But just so as you guys are in your meetings, um be able to check off and go, okay, yep, this actually fits or no, this one doesn't fit. And so it kind of gives you that benefit behind of can it be approved or not approved. So
>> thank you. >> All right, that's all I got. >> Thank you. Thanks Marie and Paul for joining us. Y thank you guys. >> Have a good night.