It's 6:30. So, we will call the meeting to order of the city of Oronoko Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for 6:30 p.m. for Monday, August 18th. And with that,
excuse me, I will apologize upfront. My allergies are going crazy this week and I'm on medication, but I will you'll bear with me. We'll keep my voice going here as long as we can. I think there's some more people in the
hall. We'll get them in here as well. I think that's it. That everybody I'm gonna log on. Cheers. >> Come on in. I'll be there. So, let's pull it up here. subs,
>> but we do have on our agenda for this evening a potentially a long agenda. With that, we've got, I believe, roll call first here. Coming up, we have Commissioner Kathy Brand Rucker. I am here. Don Evans
>> here. >> Grant Coser >> here. Jim Phillips >> here. >> Scott Sorenson, Daniel Spring >> here. >> All right. So, we do have quorum for this evening. External staff Stantech
and I understand Phil Carlson is We have a replacement for Phil. >> He's on. Okay. >> Yes. Good evening, Chair. Evan Mson filling in. >> Okay. Thank you. with >> uh Joe Palin,
Jason Baker, I saw you popped in here and popped out again. Uh and then we also have Lori Johnson from WSB. With that approval of the agenda, are there any changes or additions to the agenda for this evening? Yeah, I'd like
to make one addition uh which is for um Jeff Green and we could probably put that uh under our new business um for him to get up and talk a little bit about what's going on with with his
project that he has. And the only other thing we'll just go with that >> Jeff Green under new business. Any other changes or additions? >> And with that we do have
uh one change. So all in favor of the agenda as amended >> I. >> Any opposed? Same sign. Okay. So the agenda has been amended. We don't currently have any minutes from prior meetings. I know Dan, you have been working on getting some minutes there
for us. >> Yes, I will run them through the audience and hopefully create create those. >> I know we've been hoping and waiting and
working with that waiting. I know >> I don't have direct access files, so it's a it's going to be a staff thing. Okay, very good. I know council had previously approved time for city staff to do all the minutes. So, we're just waiting for
that. And with that, we I do have to wait till 6:35 to uh start the public hearing. That's the hearing that's been posted. There are two other public hearings that were posted for Gold Rush Crossings. They have been delayed until
September 11th, next month's meeting. seconds away, folks. So, still 6:34. In the meantime, with everybody here, we do have an open spot on planning and zoning if anybody is interested. I'm hoping everybody in here is somewhat interested in zoning this evening. And
if you are, please feel free to uh hang out. And towards the end of our meeting on our agenda, we actually do have open position interviewing any candidates who are present. So if anybody is interested,
you do have that available as well. 6:35. And with that, I will call the public hearing at 6:35 for updating existing and introduc introduction of new zoning ordinance and zoning map for the city of Oronokco. Before I go into
that, I just want to thank we did have a lot of public citizens that were actually on the planning and zoning commission about a year and a half ago. We started this process year and a half, maybe even two years ago to start the RFP. Got approval from council to get an
outside consultant to help us bring our city code and ordinance into this century. It was a lot of it written last century before iPhones, before food trucks. It was written when we had every house in town had its own septic. Every house in town had its own well. So with
that, I do thank all of those folks for their time and reading 6 to 800 pages of zoning over the course and several different meetings that were held at city hall here. Um I will open for public comment. If anybody has public
comment, there are forms up there that you can sign. I would ask that you would fill out a form and bring it in. We will, if you could say your name and your address and we will just go in order and see what we have for folks that do want to hear. I do have some
public comments that were also submitted in writing and I will have our staff Lori go through those for us. My voice is probably not going to hold out long enough to read through all those out loud for everybody as well. But with that, is there anyone who would like to
speak for or against the zoning changes? >> Yes, please. >> Good evening, Paul Janetto, 1090 Cedar Drive, Southeast. I want to start out by thanking the committee for all the hard work that's gone into updating the city zoning ordinance. As a previous chair and
committee member of planning and zoning, I understand that uh these were outdated and didn't need updating and the incredible undertaking that it was. However, I do want you to consider adding a component that I found that was missing to the new city code. Specifically, the requirement for step
down lot size zoning. City zoning ordinances often employ a stepdown approach to lot sizes, particularly when transitioning either between or within different residential densities and/or between residential and other zoning districts such as business or
industrial. The purpose and function of a step down ordinance is to create a transition zone or overlay. For example, if you have a higher density residential zone like R2 adjacent to a lower density residential zone R1, cities establish a
transitional area or apply a specific overlay zone to the lots along the border between those two. Similar transition zones could also be implemented where residential area means commercial or industrial districts to mitigate potential negative impacts. In
this transition zone, the minimum lot size requirements would be adjusted upwards compared to the higher density district, effectively creating larger lots at the interface. For example, you could require a 50% maximum lot size step reduction between or within a
residential density or zone. So, for example, if you had for quarter acre lots being built next to all 1acre lots, you would have a at the transition zone halfacre lot upper zone between those two. This type of code is actually used
by many different cities. Example, Cook County zoning ordinance details specific lot area and dimensional requirements for various residential districts reflecting a gradual increase in density and smaller lot sizes as you move from lower to higher density areas. The main rationale applying this step down
approach is three-fold. First, to ensure new development is compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Two, second, to create a buffering zone between different land uses and minimize potential conflicts. And lastly, and most importantly, it actually ensures
that the infrastructure, roads, sewers, water adequatically support the flow's density. Thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. >> Do you want this? >> Sure. >> I would have you give it to Dan who is
our unofficial. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else present who would like to speak for or against the Yes. >> Thank you.
>> You just want to say your name and address. >> Thanks, Paul. >> Uh Paul Pendergrass, 105 Minnesota Avenue North. Uh, I know when we first started writing this, rewriting this a couple years ago, I was kind of on the committee that was
kind of involved in doing some of the rewrite of it that the purpose the purpose the original intent and purpose of this was to uh remove any redundancies or contradictions in in the code. And in doing so, you'll see that you know, there's a lot of stuff that
that uh you know, there's a lot of concern about property values and such and a lot of the property values by rewriting the code. I don't know. They've added so many new codes to it that I have a question whether or not you're actually
helping the co helping the tax base or hurting it, you know, prop actual property values. And uh you know the lot sizes were were a big thing in it. And it seemed like every time we turn around we we kind of asked Stantech for an
opinion on whether or not a uh a uh improvement will fit will fit the lot size and what kind of you know and do we need to do a you know and and what all we need what all we need to do to make things fit. You know, uh, I really question because
a lot of seems like they're turning the whole town into an HOA. You know, the homeowners associations, you know, this the new developments pretty much have them. And we've had we've had these we had the zoning codes for quite a few years, but seemed like some of the stuff
that's being added to it is something that's more related to an HOA. And I guess I really question you for really helping or hurting lot lot values for property values, but I'm sure the assessor will appreciate the increase. Thank you.
>> I will ask again if there's any Thank you. Brian button 940 Woodland Lane. Um I yes I as Paul alluded to appreciate all the effort that you guys are putting into it. Um I will say though um one of my biggest disappointments with this though
has been the communication. About a year ago I wrote my name down has this for other meeting purposes. I never was communicated to never reach out with my email address. I gave it twice to be honest. We had a clipboard went through.
never reached out. Now, you're going to say there was other opportunities come to, but I want to put it out there that it does begin to question the transparency of this when there's when yes, there's other events, but I put my name down to be contacted and no one
reached out. So, I want to put that out there. for transparency communications. Um there are other events but um I don't know when the when the planning and zoning asked me to participate and I give you my information and not reached out and I know I'm not the only one. So
I want to put that as a disappointment with how this process is because coming to this having about three weeks or so to come up with do I like what's I see or not a little bit tougher to to to grasp that when I'm starting to go through. A couple things that do that I want to highlight. Stepping down from
20,000 to 10,000 square ft. Um I'm not necessarily certain that that's necessary for Oronokco. Do we need to be other like other communities? One of the things people like here is bigger lot sizes. I think our developers can succeed with 20,000 foot lots, not
necessarily going down to 10. Um but I hope there's good dialogue about that during this public hearing. Um, I also want to put out that um I think there were some changes to the future use plan. I look forward to hearing and understanding why that would occur. Um, what Paul alluded to, no step down. I
think that needs to be added into this. I hope people understand the flux uh opportunity as well. There seems to be a huge uh variety um in that section. I think it's about page 70. Um, I hope people understand and and understand
what that could mean for developments because I don't I'll put it this way. I try to keep up on things. I'm guessing the general public doesn't understand what that could do and and I'd love to make sure that's discussed here. So, the fluxed um component of it. Um, and does
this proposal set us apart from other communities or make us like other communities? I think we want to be different than other communities. Do we want to be a Byron? Do we want to be a Steuart? Do we want to be a Kassen? I think we we don't need to follow others. We can stay uh where we're at with a lot
of these things. Um and then finally, to be fair, I think there's a a small showing of individuals that are here. I don't think most people understand it doesn't just impact those that have new land opportunities. It impacts everybody in this city. Everybody. because now how
many things have you voted on here turned down that could become uh somebody puts that proposal back to put a garage in now those setbacks are changed how many things would be overturned because the new ordinances so prepare for those opportunities I don't
think everybody understand it's not just about the new land the new opportunities are being built it's existing as well I I I mean I'm glad for the people that are here I don't think the whole uh town knows about it I was talking to somebody this morning or sorry this afternoon wasn't even aware this discussion was
happening this this evening. So thank you. Thanks. >> Is there anyone who'd like to speak for or against the uh new zoning ordinance zoning map change? I'll just say it one more time before I
close the public hearing. Is there anyone present who would like to speak for or against the new zoning ordinances change? Hearing no more, I will close the public hearing at this time. So, it's 6:46.
And with that, Lori, if I could ask you to go through some of the other comments we've also received as well. >> Yes, chair. Thank you. I will be happy to follow you. Um, I'll go through the letters first, but then I will go through the the
comments we received on from the website. So, this first one is from Travis, Kristen, Kalin, and Evan Ducker, and they're at 960 Woodlands Lane Southeast. Um, I'm not going to read this word for ROR. I'm going to hit the high points, and there's copies of these over here if
you would like to see what they have to say. but they're writing to express their concern at the large reduction in lot size being proposed. A 50% reduction lot size is considerable change. Uh it'll greatly change the character of our community. Um while the sewer
project is often noted as giving the community the ability to have smaller lot sizes, it does not mandate that it should be so. Um it would be a good idea to include sidewalk requirements in the R1 and R2 developments. Um, this community is described as having small
town charm that would be be preserved as we developed. And the website claims, "We are committed to preserving the character of our city while investing in infrastructure." Uh, and again, the lot size will greatly change the character of our city, making it more like a suburban extension of Rochester.
Um, they are strongly opposed to this lot size reduction and hope that the planning and zoning committee and city council will take this into consideration. Uh, that's the gist of theirs. The next one is from
Mark Johnson at 240 Shady Bridge Lane Southwest. Um he is also expressing his concerns regarding the significant changes with the proposal to uh R1 zoning. Concerns center around safety,
population density, and established community values based upon the future land use map. Uh last concern is the communication of this proposed change. Very little information has been sent out to residents. Uh he signed up to be part of the group of residents to express a
community voice but didn't hear back. Uh this should have been clearly communicated to the community at large versus hidden in the recesses of city hall. Uh it seems like the city officials have an agenda that they will decide upon themselves versus the residents of Oronoko.
Um, this next one is from Morgan Oser at 1240 Cedar Drive Southeast to express my deep concern regarding the proposed uh lot size change from 20,000 to 10,000.
Um, he breaks his letter into blocks. The first one being traffic and pedestrian safety creates a major safety concerns due to the increase in traffic that will accompany the change in zoning parameters. Um
he talks about the neighborhoods and kids and dogs and buses. Um people walking their dogs etc. Um it could cause massive cone congestion with the current infrastructure that is in place. They've already noticed an increase in traffic. adding multif family units will
exacerbate the problems especially near intersections. He says not to mention the new development about moving forward next Glenn's motor coach. It seems this change in lot sizes will disproportionately impact our neighborhood.
And then he talks about environmental and wildlife impact. Um this neighborhood is home to diverse wildlife and green spaces that contribute to the environment quality in Orokco. Um, this could lead to the displacement of wildlife that makes our neighborhood
beautiful. Um, a lot size change would double the amount of properties in our neighborhood compared to the current zoning. Um, feels all too familiar and all the same issues we have from the land development discussions from 2024 with
the Hamiltons. And then safety. I value the safety, stability, and close-knit nature that our single family zoning has helped foster. I understand the need for housing diversity and growth. I'm concerned about the potential impact this change may have on neighborhood safety.
Um, current R1 zoning has contributed to a peaceful environment where families feel secure. Um, having the lot sizes could introduce a level of unpredictability that may compromise the atmosphere. um respectfully urge the planning
commissioner planning commission to consider these concerns seriously to conduct a thorough impact assessment including crime statistics and community feedback before making any decisions our neighborhood safety and character are worth preserving. Um he has some recommendations here.
Conduct a comprehensive traffic impact study. Hold additional neighborhood meetings. Evaluate alternative development strategies that preserve single family zoning. include environmental assessments in the resoning review to protect wildlife
increased green spaces. >> The next one is from >> Jeff Ingrid, Anisa, Kyra, and Sarah Skesky at 855 Cedar Point Lane. Um, thank you for the time and effort that you put into this. Has our family
has concerns about the minimum lot size reduction by 50%. Um, they make several points here that they've numbered. The first one, we strongly feel that changes to planning and land use regulations should consider the established community values in the
approved city of Oronoko comprehensive future land use plan. Does the density seem consistent with these goals? Um uh they would argue that this plan goes in direct contradiction to these agreed upon values. They have safety concerns
um mostly due to the traffic. Um how does this impact school districtricting crime rates um they have third is we have environmental concerns. Um how will reducing lot sizes impact the
environment? Um, we believe plan changes place huge stress on community resources. Uh, we are aware that first responders are currently limited to the place where they are no longer able to serve Oronoko Township.
Um, it's unclear how the community has been engaged in this planning process. Our family has specifically signed up at a prior planning and zoning meeting. Um, they have received no information. Um, it's clear from the prior planning and zoning meetings regarding
development and resoning of the land north of Cedar Point Road that the community wants to help guide thoughtful plan growth. The plan change the planned change rate is many of the same concerns voiced by dozens of neighbors at these meetings. Six is communication regarding
the plan change has been suboptimal. um talk about the dates for public comments were discrepant when posted online and on Facebook. Despite a website designed to increase transparency, the only way to see the proposed new zoning map seems
to be in person at city hall which limits open access. Um we find and finally number seven we find the desire to increase R1 housing density rather than focus on safe infrastructure um to be misguided for those seeking housing options with
small land plots and higher density. There is undeveloped R2 zoning that meets this need urge you to guide or growth in a thoughtful fashion. Please do not make sweeping changes to R1's own English. And then
um this last one is uh from Joy Birdinger. She's an orop resident. Um he was a member of our steering committee and um she has she had some comments and questions and she had some specific
instances in her email uh particularly about minimum finished floor area for the R1 and R2 zoning. She questioned uh the numbers there and uh question what had happened at our steering committee meetings for those.
Um, essentially the R1 zoning district has um minimum finished floor area without a basement of 1,000 square ft and with a basement of 900. The R2 zoning is proposed to have uh without a basement 1,240 ft and with uh with a
basement 1040 square ft. Um she she wondered why they they were different. Um, and I responded that the larger single family homes could be constructed in the R2 zoning district because of the larger lot size. Um, the minimum lot size of R1
um is 10,000 and the R2 is 14,000 and she wondered why that the R2 was larger and that is uh to accommodate the larger buildings where duplexes could be constructed. uh she had some concerns about the
performance standard section where we talk about landscaping. She wondered why R2 uh had two front yard trees as a requirement and that's mostly because of the larger lot size and the potential for two units on those properties.
Um also in the landscaping section um she had questions about whether that uh 151.118 applied to single family zoning. Um, and it does not. It applies to the commercial and industrial areas. And,
uh, she asked if private homeowners would be required to submit a landscape plan of the zoning administrator and the answer is no. And then finally on tree preservation um she asked for the definition of a significant tree and the definition um
is any live healthy tree measuring 8 in in di diameter or greater measured at 4 and 1/2 ft above the ground. And then she asked if a private homeowner would be able to submit a forest management plan and that the answer to that is yes. Um
she she said perhaps the steering committee should take time to review before the documents are. So those are all of the separate comments that were submitted um not on the website and so I'll go through um
these quickly. Um there's a general comment uh in section 151.035 035 through 39, which is um the R1 zoning. Um he agreed with he or she agreed with
the new zoning. She like he or she likes the change to R1 for the area east of 2nd Avenue and south of Timberline Drive, the Hamilton land. This makes sense because we will have the new town homes south of Cedar Point Road in the R2 zoned area that will meet the future
needs of multif family homes. The next one is also on um 151.040 through 044. Um 10,000 foot minimum lot size allows for 4.4 dwelling units per acre and will
create medium density neighborhoods, not low density. Low density is widely accepted to be four dwelling units per acre and below. This will effectively change the current zoning from low density to medium density leaving Oronoko without any low density zoning.
Um the next one agreed with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square ft for low density. This is normal for R1 zoning in suburban areas and rural towns. Our last home in Apple Valley was 11,200 square ft.
Um I think that's a lot size, not a home size. The smaller lot size would not allow adequate space for families to enjoy their yards. If future residents do not wish for fair for yards, they will have the option to live in the town homes in the R2 zone areas.
Um the low density uh or the R1 um 10,000 square foot lot size. I would like to see this increase to 12,000 square feet um to under four dwelling units per acre. Increasing would also prevent s
significant number of possible lot splits without review because the prior minimum was 20,000. A new minimum of 10,000 would allow for almost any prior lot to split without review or approval from PZ. The next one is about the garages or
accessory buildings and I think the single family zoning. This seems a bit restrictive. boats, pop-up campers, snowmobile trailers, classic vehicles would all be examples of why this could be unreasonable. Maneuverability of any of the above or larger equipment needed
for yard care, log foot splitter, midsize lawn tractors. Um the next one is front yard, rear yards, and sideyards. And I believe that uh they're not talking about setbacks, but
they're talking about the need for sod. Um, I've seen a requirement to sad front yards but not in the yard in its entirety. This seems like something that should be included in an HOA and not a city code. Um, sod versus seed seems like an HOA
concern, not needed in code. And then it goes on to say a minimum size of 8.5 ft by 17 ft for 90° parking spaces. So this is in reference to the performance standard section works just fine elsewhere and would save money in land.
And then the last one is this whole section um which is required parking spaces. So this is in the performance standard section and it's about uh how many spaces each use should have within the city. Um it says the whole section
should be removed. Parking minimums are an outdated and costly policy. Oronokco should follow the Twin Cities in Lacrosse and let the market determine the parking provision. And so all of these comments then were also screenshotted and added to the end of this. And that concludes the comments
that I've received from uh the city and through our website. >> Thank you. With that, I know so with that, do we have any discussion up front here? I know there's a number
of different comments. I think one of the overwhelming comments seems to be on the R1 lot size going from 20 to 10. I know there was some discussion on that. I'll come back to that. also on communication and I will say I dropped
the ball on that one. So I do apologize for that. I know we did have meetings. We did post them out there on the website but it was trying to work around people's schedules and where that email list went. I do not know. So I do apologize about that. I do know also
that what we decide here is not the final word. So that will be going and I believe city council is going to meet on this not this month but next month. So there's a whole another month to look at this as well. Just make sure everybody is aware of that. But to circle back,
one of the first overwhelming comments would be lot sizes in R1. I do know it's something I had written down as well myself to look at because one of the things I had thought about in all of this because it's hundreds of pages to look at, but how
would this effectively work? And I think somebody actually did put in here too is that you could have any of our 20,000 lots, somebody come in and just split it without the neighbors knowing, >> provided there's setbacks and everything else if there's open space. Uh so that
is certainly something I had down on my list. I know we did have somebody actually out here uh it was comment number 12. So that on the community input from the website that talked about seeing that increase to 12,000
but I don't know if anybody has discussion on lot size that they want to bring forward. >> So one question I have because again I've haven't been part of PNZ as long as some of the others. I guess my question is is on that decision to go from 20 to
10. Is it strictly based on or was that decision made strictly based on the new septic and the capabilities rather than what others may have moved to or core? That's one of the comments that has been made. I tend to agree with that myself and we'll say that but I'm just curious what that what drove that decision from
the the 2010. >> I think overall it was probably a discussion that it was there's sewer there's septic the lot sizes historically were there because of water and sewer not because developers were choosing to make larger lot sizes. Now,
they effectively did because that's what you needed in order to fit all of that on there, but it certainly is something that we could entertain if people do have some discussion and wants. You talk about a change to that. >> I think what we were looking at when we were going through this with with our
committee was other communities that there were that we were looking at and and comparing um that. And so that's kind of how it arrived at the 10,000. I mean, it could be, like I said, we could be changed. It's open for discussion. Whatever we
want to do that that's >> somewhat larger than other communities out there that we compared with that or similar size to us that had water and sewer. >> But I think certainly it's overwhelming in the comments that lot size is out there as an issue. Now, it's happen
stance that we inherited and walked into that because of the way the city is one of the last ones in the state to get water and sewer, but it certainly does add to the character of the town. >> And I think that the comment that was made too without going through P&Z, and
I think it's important for changes for other people, if you do a lot split automatically where it's 10,000, it bypasses P&Z. And I think it's something that we should be concerned with what we're looking at for the city and direction for the city. So I could I
could see that increase. But that's where it came from. Just so you know. >> Yeah, I was assuming so, but I wanted to ask the question just again. But >> that um that comment is actually my comment from from going on there. So, um
I think that's a big concern of mine is just people being able to to split their lots. I do like the idea of having the step down um zone. So, I was on the steering committee briefly. Um I think we got
through two sections, then I was elected at council and then then it would have been an open meeting, so I had to step down because there were already council members on there. I didn't hear a whole lot. um after those meetings. But the the 12,000 square ft that that brings it
under the four. But I do like the idea of a of a step down zone, reduction zone. I think that could help fulfill two different needs is keeping the aesthetic of
the community in the existing houses and give them the buffer while also providing the homes to help pay for these upgrades that the city has has done with the sewer. So, we we do need more numbers of
houses to pay um and help water and sewer along. Um, but I think that there was some good points earlier about it being over four. Um, well, so
>> can I add something about the density? Sure. >> Your comp plan does not specify four dwelling units per acre in the R1 and I think the comment was that it's generally accepted. I wanted to make sure I looked at the land use plan again
because your your comp plan doesn't say that R1 has to be under four. Um, in fact, your comp plan is in consistent with your current zoning and that residential one is what they call
it in your comp plan from 2006 is to have lot sizes of three 3/4 of an acre to two acres. And that's um more than so that that would be a minimum lot size of 30ome,000 square ft which is more than
what you even have right now. And then um residential 2 uh has low densities 1 to 4.5 dwellings per acre for the R2. I just wanted to let you know. Thank
you. So size we had a little discussion step down. Anything more on step down? I've heard that mentioned as well. >> I think the step down is is a positive thing that was put in there when when Paul was on looking at going even
between R1 or or R2 and a B. Okay. was was looking at the step down approach as you worked its way through. Um, and I think that that makes sense to maybe take a look at that with the with the step
down. Um, I think also maybe taking a look again at at that lot size to maybe have it be something that goes through like the 12 or something along those lines, you know, to change that a little bit. Yeah.
Uh there was a question a comment related to the flex development >> and now with the flex development my understanding is that is not on people's existing lots the flex development would be if we have new developers that come in one of the things by going flex
development correct me if I'm when they go come through with the development say this is what we want to do and the city approves it goes through council it gets approved if they want to change it once it's approved it has to come back again and that's one of the
things that we don't have today is if they change some of the stuff after the fact >> there's not a mechanism in place to pull that back to council >> pull that back >> would you like me to explain that concept for everybody because it's probably new >> it's >> um so the development flex
zoning district takes the place of a traditional planned unit development ordinance. It functions the same way. It's just a different process for approval. Um but this would apply to anybody coming in and wanting to develop
on land that um provides a development proposal that doesn't meet any existing zoning requirements for that property. So then you the city starts that negotiating process like you would do with a PUD and um you know the city
planning commission and the city council will have to say what are what are we getting out if we're giving you smaller lot sizes what are we getting out of this and that's when they add in maybe this is just an example maybe they add in better architecture maybe they add in a bigger buffer strip maybe they add in
um wider streets or things like that and then um As we work through the planning commission for a public hearing on that and then the city council for their portion of the approval process, then we wind up with a document that functions
exactly like one of these zoning chapters. So, it will contain all of the rules of development for that particular property or development. So, it will have its own minimum lot size. It will have its own landscaping requirements, its own setback requirements. It's
really meant to function just as a PUD. It just takes away some of the some ordinances will have okay you need a concept like review then you need master plan approval then you need to do final approval and uh it it takes the burden
off city staff but it also makes it easier for the commission and council to understand how the process works. >> So this is this will apply only to to new development. It's not going to apply to any existing BL
>> and the decision of one developer apply to the next developer too or it's just individual >> just the property that's included in that say it's 36 acres it's only for that 36 acres it doesn't apply anywhere else
it'll have its own zoning >> the zone will be called the flex zone then Right. >> It'll be zone DF, development flex. >> And so the person developing doesn't need no variances to do anything as long as they follow that. >> Yes. Yes. And if they want to change
from what's been removed, they can't just work it through. They actually have to come back to planning and zoning or city council. >> Yes. >> Right. >> And be back out there in the public again. For instance, if somebody in that development in one of those DF developments wants to build a little bit
closer to the front lot line than what that development prescribes, then then it's not a variance process. It's called a conditional use permit amendment. And so then the city council has the ability to decide on that as well. >> It also has architectural too in it as
well. So you're going to know exactly what what the units look like or the housing that's in there to be approved, right? >> Yes. Yes. Well, this is for B1, B2, not R1, not R2. >> It can be used in commercial and
residential zoning and industrial if necessary. >> So, an R1 could switch to Plex. >> Well, if it's a vacant R1, >> right? >> Yes. >> Just to make sure it's not starting at the business side, it could go all the way down to where R1, right? >> And could be come through this group and
it could turn an R1 could up to a >> flex. usually going to be your developers using that whether they're developing residential or whether they're developing commercial or if I I don't know if there would ever be an industrial that would try it but >> and the city council really holds the
cards with this particular proposal because the reasoning uh uh the the city council has the ability to say no to a resoning whereas if it's um you know somebody just coming in for a
variance or a conditional use permit without that resoning, their ability to say no goes down because of the number of votes needed and just the way that the the charter is set out for the city council. >> Since it would you said follow partially
on the conditionings permit, would then that be specific to that developer? So if they a developer sold it to another developer, they would have to get reapproval. Correct. Because No, it would this conditions would still stay the same. >> So, anybody coming to that property would have the flex could do whatever >> or would be locked into what has already
been agreed to. They can't change. Yeah. >> That'll be the zoning ordinance for that property. So, if somebody else wants to come in and build on that, they have to follow whatever was approved. They can't deviate from that at all without going through a process.
Do we get to have a meeting like this where we can say our opinions on certain things then as well? >> Yeah, for those that development, >> that's the whole point of having that is that I think in the past there has not been enough of that and something gets
approved and then the end result gets changed and that's what this is intended to do is to basically stop that. So, it'll get approved and if they want to change from that, they're gonna have to come back in front of folks.
>> Public hearings are required >> for that. >> Just making sure. But if you own a home and want to change it, now you're bu you're going against the the design of the neighborhood and right. So, are you then breaking the building codes?
>> Well, I mean, in the examples that I've seen when I've used this >> commercial, but >> yeah. I mean the time that it's been an issue for me in my previous experience is maybe when for shed sizes like we'll ask the developer when this comes
through how big do you want your garages and how big do you think the sheds are going to be and then we'll present that to the city council if that's acceptable then we'll write that into the ordinance. So sometimes people might come well I want a bigger garage. Well, then you have to go then we have to change it for the whole neighborhood,
not just this one property. And so that's when the city council gets to decide if that's appropriate. If it's not, then they don't get to build that bigger garage. >> Is that a fair example to help you understand that? Somebody had mentioned sidewalks and I think that's a fair question. I
like to walk today. None of very few sidewalks exist in or no goal. There are some paths and walking trails. I believe the new development that's going out by the transportation and out by two
sisters is going to have paths going around it that are going to be open and available to the public. >> So I know on a site by site but that might be something would sidewalks be covered if we had a developer coming in and wanting
so we could require sidewalks. >> Yes. with particularly with the de development flex zoning. Um that would be one of the negotiating tools that you have said you got you we're not going to support this if you don't give us the sidewalks. I mean, the city council is going to have to decide and you're going
to have to decide what's appropriate, but that's the job of the planner to bring that information to you. And um anybody that wants to do a development flex zoning has to come in with a concept plan. So, they don't just automatically get to apply. Um they have to come in with a concept plan for the
city council to review. And um they can uh generally the city council can review that at a workshop or at a regular meeting. and they can't make any decisions. They can provide feedback about about the proposal. Um, but it
just provides another avenue for that information to get out to the planning commission and city council before any applications are made. >> Thanks. >> Is there a reason why we can't require sidewalks in new R1 R2 development besides the flex? I'm a little Why would
it have to be tied to a flex if we want sidewalks? I mean, there's been multiple occasions where we want to have a walkable city, but there's no sidewalks. You're walking down the street. >> You certainly could. >> Who would pay for that sidewalk? >> Well, it would be if it's a new
development. This this wouldn't this wouldn't pertain to any existing >> existing come through and force everybody to put in sidewalks. I think that'd be a whole different discussion. >> That would not necessarily be >> that doesn't have anything to do with
zoning. >> Yeah. >> But if you're going to build a certain density, then you're then you're required to have a sidewalk type thing. But on the builder to build it and the city to maintain it >> depending on the type of development
maybe that's part of the DF that they want to say well we don't want to maintain the city doesn't want to maintain these so you have to have your HOA do it depending on what type of development it is. >> Yeah. So with this flex deal,
if I'm understanding correctly, this is a negotiating process. So the city kind of gets what they wants more. The developer get what's, you know, what they want. My question is is there's there's negotiating back and forth. So you're going to to get that sidewalk or to get that piece you want, you're going
to have to give up smaller lot sizes, build more houses. So where does the city's standards go from there? because at that point you're getting rid of all your standards >> for planning and zoning and there is no standard. So now you have all these different subdivisions and every single one is completely different and it
doesn't really mold the values of the city. Is that a fair statement? >> Good point. >> They it could be different than other neighborhoods for sure. Um, I think when the way that I've always approached
development by using this DF is that the city encourages people to use the zoning that you have in place now. And if they if the developer just doesn't think the market is there for that type, then they that's when they start asking about the
DFA process. And so it'll be up to the planning commission and city council to determine what things are acceptable and what things aren't for the community. >> The other piece of that is even as the city is negotiating, working, anything they come up with, it's going to end up
having to come, we'll finally get a chance to see some of that at planning and zoning and we'll get a chance to see it at council. So, it's going to force them to have to come with a final that if they want to change it after the fact, they have to bring it back. >> Keep in mind, this process would still
happen under your current zoning. It's just called something different. It's called a planned unit development. So, >> it could happen today. It's just called a planned unit development in the same process. This just simplifies it and how you how the city staff has to work uh on
this and the number of approvals that >> does make sure that there if there are changes that they want after the fact that it has to be done out in the open and come back. >> Yep. So they could do it today. It's just called something different.
>> They're less um like they don't have to follow it as much now. if we changed it to this other or is it just exactly the same process? >> It's it's the same essentially. >> So I I was just reading your
the actual ordinance and I I mean I think Brian you still here had it right on this is the zoning administrator approves the plan. So where does the public come into these flex developments because it's not in your statute ordinance proposal. The developer meets
with the zoning administrator. the Z and I don't know who that is. The zoning administrator approves the plan >> for DF. >> Correct. It's in this 15151.081. >> The developer shall meet with the zoning administrator to review all applicable
ordinances, regulations, and plans. The developer shall present the concept plat and site plan to the zoning administrator. The zoning administrator shall review the concept design. Yep. >> And recommend changes to comply with the criteria listed. >> Yep. So then upon approval of the concept plan, um then they make an
application for the resoning and conditional use permit and that's when it comes before the city council. >> Thanks. >> That's also somebody had mentioned traffic. That's also at the point where you could require traffic studies as a
condition. So if a development comes in and conditionally it's approved, you can say when you put through that road, we can approve that, but you can put a condition that says they have to do a traffic study and if it's over a certain, then they also have to pay to
widen the road and add turning lanes. So things will end up coming through here. So we can put certain additional conditions on things >> and it'll it still goes through your professional staff. So, your city engineer is going to have input and if they think a traffic study's needed, that's we're just going to tell them.
You're not going to go forward and say get that. >> Um, if uh that's when our city engineer makes decisions on how wide the roads if if the road width are okay, if the culde-sac diameter is okay. So, you still have your professional staff, your
planner, and your engineer reviewing all of this. And there's a lot that does get done ahead of time to make sure that it meets our ordinance in terms of subdivisions and roads. And you know, if if we don't think they're going to we
don't think a smaller road size is acceptable, then we'll just say, well, we're not going to present that to the city council because I don't think they'll accept that. >> So, on that comment, was a traffic study done as part of all of the work that went into this for the new zoning?
>> Say that one more. Was a traffic study done as part of all this? I know what you talked about with development. >> Traffic study is not done when you rewrite code. >> So the reason >> traffic study would be when you have developments come through that's when you say in order to approve this
location, you need to do a traffic study to get a condition to approve it and it has to meet whatever it is. So, if we wanted to require if another business wants to go in on Minnesota Avenue and those are the
ones where you might want a traffic study done to just see what kind of business it is, how much traffic is it going to generate. You could do the same thing with development. >> Yeah, and I get that. And I guess the reason I'm asking that though too is to require that for development to come in, but yet if we're willing to truncate or
shrink the lot sizes and different things that are part of this if our current infrastructure doesn't handle that roads, especially the ones that are existing, do we have a problem there already? >> Possibly. >> Yeah, I think there spots in town right now that >> and I want to make sure that we can do
that because I would prefer we don't see more businesses coming in where we have accidents, >> right? Because as a first responder, I know Minnesota Avenue, there's been a couple accidents down that way already. >> Yeah, >> I guess that's just part of my concern. >> No, that was one of my concerns, too. >> Yeah. And I mean,
>> I know with uh the new R2 development going in across from Two Sisters, which again, very thoughtful work went into that, but that was even a concern that was brought up the last P&Z meeting was, >> you know, uh lines being painted on different roads and things like that. And you know, it's something that that's separate from what they were doing. But
again, you're talking small lot size and things like that. That's something two sisters win. >> Doesn't have to the developer doesn't have to do that then because the lot the lot sizes have changed. No. >> Well, I know when two sisters win and that was one of the discussion points too is to make sure that if traffic would increase that there's still room
for turning lanes, future turning lanes and other traffic lanes through there to make sure. >> Yeah. They actually put in that that right turn lane that there was that was developed that we talked about before that happened. >> Absolutely. >> So I know that's one of the things that when it does come to planning and zoning
and when things do go to council is we can require those additional look at things to look at where that that's part of what this is is to try and make sure any of the ones that are going to be most impactful do get somebody looking at them.
they meet the zone, there's no traffic study needed. Correct. >> If it's if you've got an empty single lot and somebody puts a house in, there's not going to necessarily be a traffic study. >> But if there's going to be a development, those are the ones that we can those are the ones you really want
to think about. If somebody has three lots in a row and they put a house on one of them, you're probably not going to have that opportunity to ask for a traffic study. Not unless the house doesn't meet whatever standards or they want to make it some kind of special interest
>> developer if they meet the building code say right if they they can build 10,000 square foot lots >> they it can >> not necessarily >> not nec yeah they'd still come through if it's a development are going to have to come through and have a public hearing >> and the city engineer would evaluate
that for um the tax on the city roads and you know if you have a small lot development of six lots. It's pretty easy to calculate the traffic when you do like 2.2 or how many trips per day per household. You can do that in your
your head. It's really going to be on the bigger developments that those are going to be required. Isn't the uh city somewhat responsible for traffic doing a traffic study
before they offer to accept a plan from somebody? >> It's pretty costly to have a traffic study that's done, I think, to do it the right way. And so, it's got to be with the developer, not with the city. You
know, if there's roads in town that we think are too busy, that is on the city. It's not the >> right Minnesota. >> Yeah. Minnesota Avenue. If the city thinks it's too busy and too dangerous, that would be on the city. >> Yeah. Development specific traffic studies would be covered by the the
developer and they would occur before the item goes before the planning commission for a public hearing so that information is available to the public at that time. questions. Got another couple left on my list here that I wrote down as we were going
through comments. So, we did talk about transitional step down zones a little bit, development, flex, sidewalks, lot sizes. Uh, somebody did mention and I'll put these together. So wildlife and there
was also landscaping and trees mentioned. >> Transparency was also >> mentioned as well. Lack of transparency. >> Yep. Communication. >> And I think also that was mentioned was um you know we don't necessarily have to
be the same as everybody else. that you know for local can be a unique town by what it does by what we want to have as as a residents of the town you know so we can set that to be what it is and and that's the uniqueness of what Oroco is
is the larger lot sizes and the country style living and that's what people want that are here you know that's that's what we love about this town and what goes on so >> so go back and Look at the wildlife
though and the the trees. I do one of the things, one of the comments was, you know, wooded and making sure that we still continue to have trees. Um, there is a tree part of this zoning ordinance.
So, it does require that you can't have somebody basically plop a house down and not put trees in. Um, so there are some requirements there. It also says if somebody h buys land and it's wooded, you can't just tear down every tree and
not replace them. Um, so you have to get permission if there's particularly larger trees that are nicer cuz that's one thing we don't want to have either is just a bare open land. So I do know that was written instead of
colum wildlife. I don't know that we specifically talked about wildlife. I know in the township where they have a lot larger. I used to live in there years ago and we talked about wildlife corridors. So the DNR out in the country has wildlife
corridors, but I don't know that we particularly address that piece of it. >> No, we spend a lot of time though on the trees, you know, trying to keep that up or try to make sure that >> Yeah. that we replace those that everything is done where it's just not somebody going in and removing all the
trees. Okay. Now, if it's a tree that's not healthy, that was different and it's written. So, if you have boxelder trees that are starting to go down, you can down and tear those down. But if you have a nice majestic oak that the neighborhood enjoys looking at, you can't just go and
tear that one down. just like to mention something about the lot size of 20,000 square feet and 10,000. >> If you increase that to 12, you then you can't split to 20,000.
>> That'd be correct. Now, you could have people today that have larger lots to begin with. So, 20,000, you could have somebody sitting at a 30,000 and now they could do a split. >> Yeah. And there are definitely places around town that have very big lots because they had septic fields.
>> Yeah. >> So, you could potentially see some lot splits there. >> But again, if you do have that 12,000 seems to be a number that's being kicked around here, >> then you're stuck with the 20. >> Then you you're not going to have a 20 that's going to split. Okay.
>> Now, if you are going to split, the other thing to keep in mind, the locations where they can put their houses can't be super close either. You have to have that set back from the edges, too. >> A lot of these in the old town are less than 20. >> Yeah, absolutely.
Questions up here front. Any more discussion? I know I've tried to pick out the different questions. I know there was one on finished floor space in an R1 versus R2, but it was explained that there's a
basement versus a slab. >> Yeah. >> And I think Paul had mentioned too also the original purpose to remove some redundancy and a lot of conflicts. Um, when you have a consultant and you're going to do a rewrite, we definitely
want to remove that redundancy. But I think by redoing this, one of the other goals was to make sure when somebody walks into the city office and wants to do something, our Jason is our zoning administrator, he can look at the code
and figure out what paperwork to get people to fill it out because I know that's the problem. One of the things that comes out of this as well is that there's going to be training for city staff on what to do and we've asked to say the top five or 10 things that people request. there'd be packets put
together so somebody can walk in and pick up the packet to put a pool in, pick up the packet to add a garage, know what your rules are. And so I know that was one of the issues that we were trying to make sure and address at least that some of those are a little bit more clear for folks when you want to do
something with your land. I know that in the past we had turned around and and put in another checklist that was there, okay, for planning and zoning and for count to be aware of. And um um in the past we had a single wide
mobile home that was was put did not fit into code and was put in by a city administrator and you need to have checks and balances that there are to go along with that. and I works was one that we were all given which gives us access to be able to look at all the permits that are
being issued by the city so that we know exactly what's going on and and again council had approved that that needs to go back and be put back on where all of us have the ability to take a look at that to make sure we know what's really happening and it's done correctly
without just an administrator saying okay this is what we're going to do and bypass everything that there is with the council and planning and zoning Nice. >> Uh Jim, did you want to talk about that uh chart that we talked about before the meeting? >> Yeah. Um in our old ordinance that we
had, we we had a really good chart that was about a four-page chart that there was that that identified R1, R2, B1, B2, and and the different things that you can do. And it was a real simple chart. And I just didn't bring my old code book
with. We were talking about that. I think that that same chart should be added again to what we have here. That's real simple to take a look at. Okay, I want to do this, I want to do that. Is it permitted or what do I need? Does it need to be a variance or conditional
use? But it will identify that for people to look. And I think we should have that put in as well. >> Yeah, that's easy. All right. So, we've got couple things we can do here now, folks. I know we've had some discussion. I think we've talked our way through
some of the points that I had written down that we've gotten from comments, the written comments, the online comments, and the inperson comments. as a body here, we can we are a body that refers all of this to city council.
So, what we do here is not the final say. It goes to them as a recommendation. But even with that, what we've got out here, we can tonight or put through changes if we want to do make some changes. Um, one of the ones I'm hearing loud and clear is a change
on lot size for R1. So, do we want to talk about making some changes to this before it goes to council? >> I think we have to. I This This is me speaking. I think we have to because I don't know that I could vote in favor to
send this to city council at this point. So, >> I agree. I had that down too as well. >> I think that's probably the direction we need to go is to table >> any recommendation until our next meeting. We should probably have discussion um get the website back up and running.
Maybe get some of these documents on orco.com straight home page so people can find them easier. Um, I wouldn't mind being able to have another sitdown and a
virtual meeting even with with you to go through some of these things cuz the flex zone I had question marks all over that and no idea what that is. Um, and it sounds like I'm not the only one.
Um, so I think that it's reasonable to to delay any kind of recommendation to council. >> So what we can do is we can I believe continue this public hearing to next month's meeting. >> Okay. >> Um, so we can do that. I think we should
narrow down and focus on there's a couple things I wrote down. Lot size potentially a step down component within development flex. make sure that we're specifying some sidewalks.
>> With sidewalks, we have to check with drainage, too, to make sure that we don't have to have some sort of sewer component for drainage. I think that's the big the big issue, but we can dig into it a little bit further is once we start throwing up curbs for sidewalks,
um, then we have to redirect that rainwater somewhere. Um I know and >> and I do know when you have developments there's a drainage plan that goes along with them. So that's >> y >> definitely piece of it. It's
>> but I do think that there are definitely things to continue working on here. I know it's a lot to have done in that period of time, >> but we do want to make sure we're getting it right. >> Questions over there. comments.
I like to hear comments from you guys. That's that's fantastic. >> No, I'm happy to have people show up and be excited and interested in one way or the other. >> Oh, sidewalks. Um, back in P&Z in like 2015, 2016,
um, sidewalks were discussed very heavily. Um, majority of the residents didn't want them. See, that's changed a little bit more now, but back then that was the general consensus among the community was, you know, sidewalks, bigger lot sizes. And we were told back
then by Joe Palin that sidewalks were not feasible anywhere in the town. Maybe new developments, but possibly not because then you have to add the whole sanitary sewer and a whole bunch of infrastructure, which we don't have. So, it's pretty much impossible to do. At least that's what we were told back then.
>> So, food for thought. Yeah, to the best of my knowledge, I can remember, >> you know, and I think when we had um the one survey that was done, uh everybody like the way the lots are in town right now and the way it is and they like the
country style living as it was referred to. Okay. And so that's one of the attractive parts of what there is to the city is is that country style, you know, and you you give up on the sidewalks with that. So that was also strong last
January I think is when that report was done. >> I think most of the concern comes from the increased traffic with all the kids running around >> and you can already see it where DG market is and kids shooting across that road already >> is
>> if it's a terrible location because there's a hill there people speed and somebody's going to get hurt there. >> There's no shoulder. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Yep. I agree. policy. My our neighborhood kids go over there all the time and I'm just waiting for one of them to get in.
>> And and that's an example of where the eye works was so important. We didn't even know as city council or planning and zoning that that was going in and that got bypassed. Everything got bypassed with just the city administrator saying, "Okay, it's going in." And there should have been, I think, a turn lane and should have all
been checked a little bit differently before it was done. >> But that's where I works. is so important for us to be able to know what's going on and what's happening. >> That seems to be like the number one uh severe risk
>> as the people walking along. I walk along. >> Absolutely. >> And I worry about do I have a bright enough shirt on? >> No. And >> it it's true. There there's no question about it. opposite side there traffic coming a lot and
>> we never had these electric scooters two two or three years ago >> I think it's >> we did not write the code to address electric scooters though >> it's scary it's scary >> don't miss snow >> yes >> um I just have to jump on to what she
was saying um I mean as a mom and as an or nurse I just that that's what really scares me and that Having someone kind of come in and deciding these things without the public is a little concerning. >> Okay. Absolutely.
>> We can't take the neighborhoods where everyone watches out for everyone's kids. I can already tell the increased traffic with we love two sisters, but a lot of people think that that road goes through. So, the the increase in traffic constantly, the speeders, >> um new kids driving all the time. I
mean, it's a constant concern. And then if we're just going to bring in higher density stuff, I mean, Minnesota AB is a nightmare. We all know that. It's our only outlet, too. >> No, it is one of those things that's always been a concern of mine, especially with new developments going on that way, that we do need to have a
traffic plan and take a look at it. >> If you add piece of it, though, is something that the council should be working. Planning and zoning is here not necessarily to be able to control the traffic flow. Planning and zoning is here though. As new developments come in, we can force them to do a traffic
study or have them do one at that point. And if there's a definite change needed, we can have them help pay for that extra turning length. We can put those on as conditions of the development with that development flex. What planning and zoning never has been able to do is say,
"Hey, this road is too busy. Go and do something with it." That that really has to come from council. There wouldn't be an increase in traffic without that developer requesting that additional. So, the developer should >> But that's also something that council
can direct our zoning administrator if he has one-off businesses coming into town to make sure that that traffic is being considered. So, >> so a little thousand foot view of what's what you might see coming is uh parks
and trails is working on getting more trails and connecting the current ones that we have. We have developers that are coming in and they are um adding to that trail system willingly. And I think that if we continue that um the the
walking corridors, you'll see that they're going to start to connect. They're going to start to make sense um a little bit more. And that might that doesn't that doesn't change Minnesota Avenue at all. But there is there is a a a view, but it's different committees
all working together to try and get these things um uh the vision of the city and and being able to get around safely. So, all of those are considerations, but as Kathy was saying, some of these are in
different committees and they're they're they're dealt with different committees, but >> um that is something that >> the good thing is is we've got two council members that sit on here that are also on some of these other committees. So, >> correct. >> And they can take these back to council
as other issues. But with that, I think what we're going to do is if anybody would like to make a motion to continue this public hearing to next month so we can gather a little bit more information before then and then put this back on again as next
month as a public hearing again. >> I make a motion that we continue this to to next month. I'll second the adjustments. >> All in favor of continuing this hearing to next month say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Same sign. Okay. This will be
on our agenda for next month as well, so we can continue the discussion and hopefully get some additional information on those couple points. >> Will we reopen public comment >> um >> beginning with it being a continuation? >> We don't know.
>> We could we I don't know yet. I have not thought about that. >> It should be fine to do that. Yeah, I think that we should. >> Oh, yeah. Absolutely. >> I believe we legally can. So, as long as it's a continuous, >> correct? And and it should be just so you know, if you have neighbors and that
that want to come, we'll have a bigger room next time because it's going to be open and we'll be have the other part of the other half of the room that there is. So, >> no, no be worried. >> Yeah. >> Can we talk a little bit about the website? >> Yes. um if you put it I don't know I don't
have any control over the city's website so I don't know what the city's website it what the capability is of gathering comments >> on this you could certainly put the document on there and just have people write in send you or Jason the comments
um but we are working on a different way of using growing orunnco which is something that we do have control of that will eventually be turned over to the city so you can use it for other things. But um working on fixing this solution, but also maybe a different
mechanism for gathering comments that won't cause the glitch that was happening. >> Is it possible to push the whole document out there as a single PDF or two PDFs and just have all the comments go to Jason?
>> I don't know. We'll we'll take that one afterwards. >> What's causing the problems? >> Yeah. So >> we can talk about that. I just wanted you to be aware that there are other options if you want to keep it open for people to to to comment on. There are
other options that we're exploring for growing orunno. But you can certainly put the PDI on your website. >> And I think if we even just unberry link to growing oronco out of the page and put that on, >> that's a whole lot easier. Um,
and then >> it probably wouldn't be available for maybe by the end of the week we'll have it. >> And then for anybody who's looking at it, if you rightclick open new tab, they will open. But just clicking on them currently, >> you'll get an error. So,
>> uh, >> we'll have hopefully directions. Yeah. >> With that link, um, if there's any other issues. Um, and then I think that it would be reasonable to be able to request the document. >> Well, the final document we're going to
have a single PDF that >> we can do at a control F and find it stuff, >> right? Yes. >> Yeah. So, I I think it's reasonable to be able to request that full document as well. >> Um, if you need it emailed to you or whatever. So,
>> all right. So, we have voted. We were going to have that again next month of continuous. So, thank you all for the feedback. We definitely appreciate hearing from everybody because we do it's it's what we need to bring us into the current era of iPhones and food
trucks and all that is it was all the internet wasn't invented hardly when this was originally written. So, >> we did not catch the electric scooters though. No, but >> in your code anyway, not in your zoning. >> Yes. So with that though, thank you
everybody. If you do want to stay, we are going to have discussion on anybody open positions, we will have one open position. >> And I did put on interviews if there's anybody present that wanted to uh apply.
So, but if we want to take a two-minute break or something, I need to go cough and get something to hit my throat here since the fan switch >> turn on the air over there if you want too. Okay, just turn over on the regular
air conditioner. >> I will it will not >> but I have question. Does anybody know what they're doing? >> January selling property
houses inside. >> Yeah. So what will be the what will be just the same housing or what I mean it's septic and it's so there could be issues underneath correct >> well what we were looking at is >> shouldn't be but do we have all the correct papers because I'm not buried
I've had I live across the street from there and I was told that nobody could be built nothing could be built on >> I have regulators on site >> river so >> I was when I first of all I was told this park >> bought it when I was init And then I was told that the septic was
already >> and I was told they couldn't be able to sell. So >> we're looking. >> And with that a little longer than our two minutes, but thank you everybody for that. and we will look forward to next
month where we get to continue talking about our zoning ordinance changes that are coming about. We do move next to new business. We have first on for new business. People's energy co-op was looking at just wanted to give us a
heads up some type of future untitled future development and that's all I know folks. So >> that's all there is. >> Thank you very much. Marty Walsh. I'm the economic development and key accounts manager for People's Energy Cooperative, your local memberowned energy provider. Uh we have
a property just to the north of the co-op building. It's right where there's a split rail fence kind of um between us and the ballpark up there, our solar, and there's a wastewater retention pond. That was our septic system until the city developed their uh your the
wastewater plant. And in look, we've now decommissioned that septic system. Uh it's PCA cleared. It's all good to go. And in looking at uh what would be the strategically best decision for the cooperative, for our members, and communities that we serve, um we looked
at how it could be developed similar to how we developed everything on the east side of Lake Shady Avenue. Um and determined that commercial development was not likely. It's currently zoned M um which would allow for manufacturing there. It's 175 ft wide. that's that's
not going to happen. Um, and so we we opted we saw Hunt Day as a really significant need in the community uh both locally and regionally the entire co-op 1100 miles that we serve around here. And uh we've recognized that there's a pretty good opportunity to
create some what we'd call attainable housing. We are not going to seek affordable subsidized housing. We are actually not going to develop it ourselves. We're going to be seeking a request for qualifications from developers uh regionally who have some expertise. We likely will be utilizing
if it becomes available the development flex zoning um because at 175 ft we might need to ask for 5t of forgiveness on something here. We might need to get something, you know, um the storm water is already well drained because it was a
septic field. So like we might need different storm water things. There's a lot of different things. Um, our intent is to seek a developer to probably incentivize the sale. So, we're helping affordability on the supply side rather than offering um direct government subsidy on it because that's not our
business and we don't think that's a sustainable long-term opportunity. Uh, but we are probably going to seek medium density at the very least, but we're very very intent. Every citizen of Oronoko is a member and a therefore owner of the cooperative. And so working
really closely with the co-op or with the community on what makes sense that helps achieve some attainable housing lowers our total utility plan investment. So if we have say cottage homes or um town homes there, we have to
put a lot less in. That's a lot less that goes on our system investments overall while still maintaining what the city of Orno needs for workforce development, for everything else. Um, we have taken a look and seen if we were at the 6 to8 unit per acre development that
would be roughly between water and property tax about $100,000 a year additional revenue to the city of Oronokco versus about $10,000 a year additional revenue at single family at one home per acre zoning. Um, so that those are the things we're trying to take in consideration what works best,
what works not. Our intent is that a request for qualifications for developers will go out maybe the end of this month. Um we might wait and see if the for the development zone the development flex to go. Otherwise, we'd seek R2 zoning for the same reason. Um,
but we'd like to kind of get this rolling, go out to developers, and then uh see who comes back over the wintertime, work with the developer on a plan that kind of from the ground up meets the community's needs, as well as achieving the co-op's goals around electrification and some other things,
and then see maybe springtime final applications and construction next year. >> So, just there's zero structure to that. It's we really want to see what does a developer come forward with that we think helps achieve goals that push against uh the rising cost of housing
regionally. Again, that still makes sense for everybody in the community. So, um purelyformational zero structure assume we'll talk to you a lot more over the next six to 12 months. Um but didn't want to have that go in the post bulletin or somewhere
else and say what the heck is this project going on here. >> Really appreciate it. >> Very good. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. >> So the land in question, I don't know if everybody's familiar. The frontage road, other side of 52 there. >> Yep. Turn right at Casey's. We're on the left a little further up.
>> Yeah. Casey's up here. There's some a few a little islanded town houses there. And then there's that land right there kind of along the >> Yeah. And so that that that reminds me one of the kind of discrepants. So it's zoned M the long the um land use
planning has it as R2 long-term. So, it actually fits into R2 zoning. Um, but again, because it's it's only 175 ft wide, we don't know that we would actually do it. That's why we'd be seeking out some variances, but we'll do another some way. Yeah. >> One way or the other in the future at
one of these meetings, which we still have an open seat if anybody's interested. >> Open seat. So, you're planning >> shameless plug. Um, but with that, we'll expect to see you and potentially this whatever partner you end up correct >> picking at some point in time doing
something housing related on that plot of land. >> Correct. Yep. >> So, probably a zone change and some type of some other application to go with it to be determined. >> Yeah. And and I I want to just, you know, it's not saying that a developer might not choose that they want to
pursue some different program, estate program or anything, but our we're not prioritizing that. We're prioritizing a project that gets done that can be replicated in other communities. >> Okay. Well, thank you. Appreciate you coming out. We'll talk again, I'm sure,
at this very same meeting. >> Excuse me. Next up for new business, I have put on there uh I would like us to do an RFP, so a request for proposal and just doing
a draft on that to look at our future zoning services support. So, I know we're nearing the end of the code rewrite, which was 800 pages originally, down to a well, it's still going to be a book. I don't lie. There's a lot that
goes into it, but it won't be 6 to 800. and it's going to be illustrated with pictures to make it easier. But to move forward on that is uh our zoning services that we get. So our zoning administrator is Jason, but along with
that on the city side, we don't have a current hard and fast contract that we look at every year. It's just been stay because that's what's been in place and that's what we've always done. And I'm not saying we're going to change. I'm not
saying we're not going to change, but I think we should look at writing an RFP >> to just look at our zoning support services, our zoning and engineering that we use to make sure we're getting the quality that we pay for as citizens each year.
>> So, if everybody is okay, I don't know if I'll do it next month, but I will come forward with a draft. I've gotten a couple two or three different ones from the League of Minnesota Cities that we can use to model our RFP and do the same process where we write it, make sure
council is on board, and that we go forward and look to make sure we've got a company to support us with our new code. So, >> what's the timing on the renewal now? When does that happen? Just first of the year or no, >> there is no there isn't one. It's just they bill us every month and what there
is really not a check and balance. The council hasn't looked at that in years is my understanding and I >> Yeah. The last time I think was 2006. Yeah. >> I think on the city side if council's not looking at I think we can push them to say we we need to look at that and making sure we're getting our zoning
support done. >> I'm just curious on again timing wise how timing of this would go with an RFP and if there was a renewal. >> I think the RFP is not anything. It would just say here's the zoning support services that we want and we're going to
have companies come in front of us and say what they can do and how they would support it because I was on township zoning for years and we had an outside company that did some stuff for us and they also did things like have a person at every meeting in person. I mean
there's different things we can request supportwise >> and I I think that's okay. I think >> how could that affect water and sewer? >> Didn't have anything to do with water and shilling. >> It wouldn't change the waste water plan at all.
>> No. No. >> Different engineering contract. >> No. Yeah. >> Same company, just different. >> Yeah, you can have multiple then, >> you know, that's why we have the one that's doing rewrite right now. And >> having a a fresh set of eyes on it is an okay thing. And considering it's all of
our tax money going in to pay the bills, I want to make sure they're doing the best job or paying for the best job that we possibly can get. >> Yeah. Before we did this, we had three different companies that came in and we had the existing one and we had two other ones that came in and they did their presentation of what there was and
we turned around even had a second go at the last two just to make sure that we were looking at it the right way before we turned around and and went with the ones we did. But it was it was as an RFP that >> I'm not saying we're happy or unhappy with services. I'm just saying it was
>> change in code. I think it's good to look at it. >> Nothing else. >> Yeah. I what they do is they help us put our agendas and our packets together. Other place what other zoning I've been on. I've been where they sometimes they even did the minutes and had like a I
said a person at the meeting. Um, but what they would do is help determine these applications, help figure out, help our citizens fill forms out, figure out what needs to be done. They would also be looking at these applications as they come through and saying, you know,
let's do a traffic study on something. I I just think it's reasonable to look at it and not go how many years it's been without us as a city looking at it and all of our tax money going into pay the bill each month. >> Sure. >> So, that's just me. I just >> I think
>> so if you guys are good with that I do expect that we will have something else to occupy our agenda in future months. So >> not near as extensive and long. The code rewrite was definitely longer. >> But with that uh monthly incoming zoning
applications and questions Jason I don't know >> I don't know if you're on Jason if if you are if you can come down. I did. >> Jason did email me >> um and I printed off hard copies of the zoning
reports because we didn't get one last month. So, he did send me the June and the July one. >> But, >> yeah, as um Jim had alluded previously, zoning had access to I works which is the software for permitting and for some reason
there's an issue going on with the software access. So if council could look at that and make sure that's reordered already approved that access to everybody that there is and so >> I would like to make sure that >> we are looking at that each month so
that >> let me pass that down this >> yeah this this only this only gives you just a you know and that's where I works is good and and everybody should be on I works >> well if you have time you can be on it and look at it but if you don't I
previous months when we've had it, I I've asked Jim specifically to be on it, look at it so that you can look into different permits to make sure we're not missing anything. Because the other thing I want us to be aware of is as we go through and we're working on the code and if we
see that there's a bunch of things that are coming through permit-wise, I know roofing is one that's out there. We've had a lot of rough permits, but if we suddenly get an influx of private swimming pools, you know, making sure that our one way for us is make sure our code is up to date on that helps us
prioritize. But that was the June one I just passed out. Here is the July one, which is shorter. >> Okay. And just know we missed number C on that, which was Jeff Green, that there was on new business. >> Okay. and and Jeff should go next after
that before we get into that. >> So, I will pass pass that one down, too. So, I think what I'll do for this one is just pass it out and maybe next month we can have some discussion on it since none of us received it until just the email I got.
But with that, let's go back to Jeff. Sorry, >> I own that one. >> No, I I really appreciate uh getting you added on. So, um, there's a little miscommunication on all Marty's as far as how you get added to these agendas.
So, um, so again, thank you very much. Um, I'm here today mainly to, um, I'm filing for a conditional use permit. Again, my name is Jeff Green and my wife and I own 40 North Minnesota Avenue, right next to
the post office. It's a big white building. See some new windows in there. We're looking at um uh opening up a bar beastro boutique. Um right now it's it's uh slated as just a garage. So um I'm
looking at doing the I filled the paperwork out uh with uh Melissa and the city um for the conditional use permit. So um that part has been done. I I I just did some quick sketches. I mean, just for people to to sort of get a
overview of what we're looking at doing. So, and uh we'll just hand a few out here if you guys want to make a share. >> Okay. Council move. >> Um so, so basically in the pictures you'll
see some 3Ds here. um you know what we're looking at for layout. Uh you'll see a um a deck in the back we're looking at doing. So we've actually uh you know have uh my
architect has uh passed on to uh Jason and the city um as far as uh uh site plan and a floor plan inside. Um, I apologize
the one that I printed there. Um, that's not the accurate floor plan inside. It's very similar. It's just, uh, there's a little more seating and that has been given to, uh, the city and Jason for for the latest. And then it's got, uh, the
elevations and the site plan image and the patio image as far as uh, um, looking at the setbacks as such for the for the property. I think, you know, I don't know where I
need to bring this, but my my only concern, I know we guys are there's a lot of talk tonight about about the the water waste, you know, as far as uh uh drain uh water drainage and the storm sewers and and um what Stantech is is is
requesting that I provide them with an engineer design um which is very spendy and and I'm just I I don't know if I have any options as far as you know I I did a site visit there with them and there is a storm
sewer right right down below under uh behind the uh the post office and my drainage is natural or comes down and they're wanting me to put like a little perennial garden retention pond and and
burying a pipe in the to connect in with the storm sewer. And I I I just I just don't see where they're coming across on that where it's already all natural flowage, you know, where the church comes in, my parking lot comes in and
and going through with uh with a design like that to be able to pull a permit. So, that's really my only complaint about everything else buying what they want, but I just thought I'd throw that out there. I'm not sure if there's anything I can actually do about that. So,
So, right now what we don't have is an application. So, we appreciate you coming forward. Sounds like you're in the process of filling all that out and working through >> that side of it. So, we will see you probably at a future month with a conditional use permit hearing on that piece of it.
>> Yeah, I got I did I did uh send that did fill that out. Melissa does have that, right? So, >> and I don't know out there if any of you got a chance to look at this, but pretty exciting for potentially another
business in Oronco here, but little concept. >> Yeah, but it basically the the business is uh we're looking we want it to be like a general store. We're going to be doing firework pizza, got an Italy pizza oven we're looking at putting in there um a full bar. We're not going to be a
late night bar. Our hours we're looking at are anywhere from uh 10 to 8 or 9, but we're not going to be no late night bar. I don't want nothing to do with that. Um and just ice cream, cold sodas. Uh
>> yeah, >> Jeff, is the patio is that facing the church? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, it's on the back side. >> Side. Gotcha. Okay. >> And then the front the front of it would be just another patio just uh just concrete. And then we're going to have
some table and chairs out there for, you know, the kids, they want to come in and get an ice cream cone. They can sit out in the front and watch the cars go by. And >> all right, any questions here? Otherwise, I think we look forward to hearing from you in a future month.
>> Thanks again for letting me uh speak tonight. I appreciate that. >> You picked a lively meeting. Pardon me. You picked a lively. No, it's interesting. That's all good. So is one more question. So um so is there any kind of time frame as far as
uh just you know this is pretty green to me as far as how these um additional use permits go and all that stuff. So it has to go into front of the city council now. Is that correct? Well, the public hearing portion of any permit process if there is a a variance or would come in
front of this body and we do a recommendation to city council for the final approval but we do the public hearing the public input here. >> Okay. >> Y thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Great. >> And you had a name for this again? It was called
>> uh it's going to be Greeners Pub and Cocktail Lounge. And the front end of the my wife's business is pretty please. Thank you. >> I think it's up in the top there. >> I swear that. All right. I'm pretty pleased. Thank you. >> All right.
>> My wife does she does private labeling and all that stuff. So, she's got a theme about all that how I like it. >> So, going to work with you. >> Well, we appreciate the heads up. Yeah. >> It's always nice when we hear about something before it shows up. So, I appreciate it. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> You're welcome. All right. So, new business is done. So, thank you for that. >> Old business, we did briefly chat about the incoming zoning applications. So, what I would say for that are to city council. Could you guys bring that to
city council and see what's going on with the access to make sure that we can still be on top of that? >> Yeah, >> because that is one thing I myself don't have time every month to look at, but I know you guys are out there and looking and >> I'm watching that. >> Yeah. To make sure that if there is
something that we know about it. >> Very important. We never cross check on what's going on. >> Yeah. I >> transparency in the city. >> I appreciate that. uh minutes of prior meetings. I know we have kind of tasked
you with that unofficially, Dan. >> Yep. >> Is that still >> that working? >> Yeah, it's it's a works in progress. >> You and Rachel or Mel or somebody are working through that together. >> Yes, I will have to get with them when they get fully
>> figure that out. It'd be really nice to get those minutes out there. Um, so I think I think the issue is finding the file for the YouTube to actually be able to drop into the system. >> Okay.
>> Or paying for YouTube premium. Then you can get the file downloaded to your >> I will trust that you will figure out the best method of doing that and just bring it back to us next month. That sound good? >> Okay.
>> Open position out there. Any interest? There's anyone interested? I actually have paper form. Yes. Anyone going? We'll be around next month as well if you're still interested at that time.
>> You guys aren't going anywhere. >> Got a bright shirt out. >> Hopefully my voice will be better by then. We do also have up here officer positions if there is anybody interested. So we do need to think about
that as well. Is there anybody this month that's willing to be a backup vice chair? >> Hearing none moving forward if we can do it as I don't know if I can do it for council. I don't know. >> Yeah. I'm not sure about that backup,
but yeah, >> as we get into soccer season, if my son is starting, I probably will be at the vein. >> So, that is a potential for >> not a lot, but >> yeah, >> it's there. >> Um, and then the other thing I have out
on old business f Oh, I'm sorry. >> I'll check into that. Okay. if that's open up. >> And then the only other thing is I as I hear about them, I'm putting things out there on the just to update to keep them going cuz things are slipping through the cracks in the city and I want to
make sure. So we have one that was a driveway request back to February that we had heard about that and I don't know whether he's just given up on working through the city trying to figure that one out. I know we haven't received anything here,
>> but I think there's that one. And then the other one was Gold Rush Crossing, which was out there for a long time as an update, but now they're they aren't this month, but next month they're going to move forwards with some paperwork for us. So, we'll have a hearing on that one.
>> Mary has uh condemned storage with her or building that she >> Mary Nash is >> that was resolved. I thought >> maybe I don't know >> we took it to council and >> but we're still waiting to >> but that one's not necessarily a P&Z
thing but it's council was dealing with but if there are planning and zoning things where I I've heard a couple times things getting slip through slipping through the cracks. I want to make sure >> at least here we're documenting that this one was received as an inquiry in February and it's not resolved one way
or the other. So, those are the kind of things that are concerning to me and at least if I'm hearing about them, I want to put them on there. >> Um, Gold's Crossing though is one that was down there up until this month as a long been sitting there holding a long
long spot. So, >> Kathy, it's Melissa Griggs here. If the commission has any specific questions about um permits or anything on that list, you can feel free to ask if you'd like. Now >> I haven't had a chance to go through anything.
>> Probably next month go through them. Just the quarters, the last three months worth just to make sure we're understanding what's going on. >> Well, I've done a lot of catch up. So I have pretty much any update you guys want. We can go over that this month before your next meeting is fine. >> Okay.
Thank you. Questions beyond that? >> No. >> It's 9:20. I would >> I make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second >> first. Oh 820. >> 8:20. >> Thank you. I looked at the clock wrong. >> Thanks.
>> Clearly I'm tight. >> 8:20. >> So we have a motion at 8:20. A second. All in favor of adjournment say I. >> Oppos. >> We are adjourned at 8:20. Thank you. It feels like 9:20, but 8:20. Hopefully
that future beastro is going to still be open