keeping track of that's already um my understanding is crazy >> when it would come into the city annex property
to storm one and then it would need to be resolved to be two again that's my understanding should check on that that agreement the thing is that as soon as annexation
occurs they revert to R1 >> and then it has to be reszone to the future land use map which would be system to the bigger crowd. >> We're not enough for you.
>> Yeah. Well, depends on how excited you are. >> Go quicker this way. >> Patience. >> Yeah, we got a little bit of All right, >> we got a little bit time. Grant away for a second, too.
>> No, I went right from work to the soccer game. Then from the soccer game, I had to leave early and he was playing on the field and I'm like watching and I'm like looking at what Google Maps tells me it's going to take to get here and what is traffic doing? So going from that to
here clipped. >> She had to drive behind me for a little while. But you were driving the speed limit, right? >> I Well, I was a little bit old as well. >> Yeah. I I can't deny or claim that she was gaining on me.
>> Confirmed or denied. >> No matter what the sign says, right? >> Who's behind me? You got to leave. >> Right. Well, let's say our two-minut break is over. And with that, we're going to move forward with our next public hearing for the evening.
And with that, it is 7:37 and I will open our continuence of our August 18th, 2025 public hearing updating the existing and introducing our new zoning ordinances and zoning map for the city of Hornoko.
We did have a public hearing last month, but I am just going to reopen it again. If there's anyone present that would like to speak for or against this is on the zoning changes. If there is anyone present that would
like to speak for or against the zoning changes. >> I madame chair. Excuse me. I am online and I would like to speak. >> Okay. If you could just state your name and address. >> Certainly. Uh, my name is Joy Bzinger
and I'm a resident of Oronokco. I prefer not to give my address in light of all the recent um turmoil and uh angst against people who speak.
>> We are aware of that and also know that where you live in town here. So that is fine for public record to not offici put that out there. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, my first question would be, did the planning and zoning commissioners read my September 5th
letter? Did you receive that? >> We received and that's the one that we've all got copies of here in >> I just Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I just wanted to note again that I have
the concern that single family lots and houses um, and the minimal square feet are larger in R2, which is supposed to be uh, more dense development than they are
in R1. And my concern is that that does not seem appropriate, especially since uh the last public hearing there were notes of concern that R1 uh wanted to improve the lot size to
12,000. Um, so that I would suggest that the council switch the lot size um, and the square foot minimal size between R1 and R2.
My other concern again is the professional standards. It is a new standard for the city of Oronokco to have the landscaping. I'm not opposed to having landscaping. I love green space. I love trees. But I
have concerns with the wording of an overstory trees being required on private lots in the front lot. Overstory trees are the largest trees in a forest.
I'm asking why that could language could not be say ornamental trees or some type of landscaping plant. If you've taken the time to drive around oral, you may see few lots that have those large of
trees in their front yards. And especially if you're reducing the minimal required lot size, that will even give you less front yard space. So, I appreciate your time. I appreciate the
work that you do as a planning commission. Thank you very much. Thanks, Troy. >> Thanks, Troy. >> Is there anyone present that would like to speak for or against zoning ordinance changes? You could
state your name and address. >> Hi, I'm Jeff Gi here with my lovely wife in Bris and we uh submitted a letter. It was just first of all also just making sure that that went through. Um but uh would
just express some concerns with a wide ranging change to R1 down to 10,000 square ft. Um I think there are a number of issues with that uh across the city.
um whether it is first responders, whether it is the density that that would contribute to uh school zone concerns, whether it is traffic and noise, um uh whether it's lack of environmental
um kind of surveys uh having been done to see what that would do to our wildlife. Um I think that there are just a large number of things and um to me this would have potential to um change
the uh the main appeal of Ornooco which is kind of going back and I cited it in my letter to um not actually turn into Rochester but to be distinct from that. Um, so I would just urge you to consider
um that the current uh zoning changes having a single R1 that brings all lots down to 10,000 square ft will likely result in much greater housing density than we uh I think should have. Um, I think that maybe different different
levels of single family zoning is needed and um I would encourage you to um not support the current plan. Thanks for your time. >> Thank you. Thanks, Jeff. >> Is there anyone else present that would
like to speak for or against the zoning change? This again is the public hearing. It's the continuence from last month of the updating of the existing and introduction of our new zoning ordinance
zoning map for the city of Oronoko. I'll just throw it out there one last time. Anyone present that would like to speak for or against the change? Hearing none, I will close the public hearing. So, we've got some comments that we had
last month. We have gotten a few more comments since that time. Lori, I believe you're online here as well. >> Yes, I am. And there was one additional comment that you received um on growing orono.com
uh since the last meeting and there was no name attached to this, but the the comment was in regard to the size of trees on single family lots. that says um if this applies to single family lots, there are new builds. These sizes
of trees are too big. This could cost a home builder thousands in landscaping, pushing people over budget and forcing them to lower quality of amenities in the home. This could also lead to new developments loaded up with the same trees, whatever is cheapest.
And that's that's the only comment that we received. Okay, >> that was me again. Thank you. I was going to >> Was that a test? >> We passed. >> Yeah. Yeah,
>> well, we can get there when we get there. We So, >> tonight, what I'm hearing is we've got uh one that we did talk about last month, which was the lot size of 10,000. And we did request last month that we take a look at increasing that lot size
for the RO1. And I wrote down two different numbers. I wrote down a 12,000 and I wrote down a 14,000 on my notes, but I believe >> nothing in here is a 12. Yeah. So, I think we have a couple of potentially
good options for something like this is we could we could look at increasing the lot size, but we could also in incorporate the step down buffer that was suggested um and keep
the 10,000 square ft but require say a 40% step down from um current R1 homes that are already built. um whether it's in the front or the backyard. And so that would require
um a developer to if there were 1 acre lots across the street to step down to uh point4 acres and then step down and then they could get into the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size and that
would >> that'd be for new developments. >> That would be for for for new homes being developed. Yeah. Uh but it would it would strictly be for the R1. So a new development would need to take into consideration the homes that are already
currently >> surrounding >> surrounding. >> So if a developer buys a large parcel of land, they can use the new 10,000, but anything fringing and ringing around it would have to be larger lots. >> Yeah. Or or seek variance. >> Or seek a variance. That's that's what
that's one one I think option to be able to get to the density of 10,000 square foot lots but also not impose onto homeowners who bought large lots who
expected large lots. Um, and I think that is there's many areas in Oruraokco, if you look at the map, that could be affected by a new development in the future that goes from a 2 acre lot straight to a 10,000 square foot lot.
Um, there's there's quite a few developments that would be affected by that. Um, >> so you'd prefer the step down, keep it at 10 with a step down. I said 40% but that's just to get
>> so two B two roads from >> 14 if you look at believe a 10,000 square foot lot versus a 14,000 square foot lot that would be your 40%. Is that am I doing the math right? Just
scribbling numbers here. So >> I think some of the comments we heard last meeting though too was because Daniel see what you're saying is kind of a in between but one of the things we heard last time was both were unappealing to some of the people that
were here having >> any development going to have to come through here anyway. >> I don't know if I put it in to the code when we've already got the code saying the developments are going to come here. They're all going to have to show up. And just like the other one that came
through, the community was here. We had public hearings. They did listen. The first time it got denied, they listened. They made some changes. And the second time they did do that, the larger lots on the outside. So, that that did work. >> Yeah. >> So,
>> uh but they won't have to come here. If it's >> No, if they're if it's a developer doing a a the flex zone, they're going to have to still come through to do a development here. >> Well, a flex zone they would have to >> that's what the developer would use
>> in an R1 zoned area. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. they would have to use it. >> Um, Madame Chair, if if somebody were to come in and develop an R1 zoned area and they uh had lot sizes and included and
they just wanted to do a plat and their lot sizes met your minimum requirements, they don't need to do a resoning to development flex as development flex is used when they can't meet zoning requirements that are already established. >> So, we would need to do that then. So, >> now if you're thinking about doing
transitional zoning, you're going to need to think about dimensions. Um, like are you going to just put a line in your R1 standards that says if you're adjacent to um an R1 zoning district um
uh within a certain distance of that property line adjacent to that district, your lot sizes have to be a certain size because typically when you do transitional zoning, you're doing that through reszonings. It's not necessarily a standard. It's
through your comp plan and it's through new zoning districts. And I I I I think like Kathy says, if somebody comes in and wants to do smaller lots, they can use the DF, which accomplishes
that anyway. That's that give and take we're talking about where you get them to do the smaller lots on the on the outside. So, and when I wrote my notes down last month, one of the suggestions was to take that R110,000 and just bump it up. So, you can't take somebody that has
your 20,000 square foot today and cut it in half. And if we were to bump it up, to me, I would I think that's very reasonable to bump that up because otherwise all these lots out there right now could just be chopped up. >> Um,
>> that's where the 12 would fit in. But if you've got a larger lot to begin with, and we definitely have folks out there that have had their own septic systems for years that have very huge lots and the streets would certainly accommodate more driveways, it makes sense to maybe
we don't go with the 10,000, but we would go with something larger like that 12,000 that we talked about or even a 14 I could go and see. >> And that would be larger than some of these surrounding towns. when you talk about what is the look and feel of Oronokoco.
>> Sure. So the I I just wanted to bring that step down back conversation. >> I think that's good as opposed to develop flex. >> Um yes, I think there might be some it it's
hard to figure out what it needs to say, right? Um but that I just wanted to bring that in for for um discussion. >> I don't think that was a a good idea.
>> I don't know that we want to peacemeal the city with DF zones either. Mhm. >> Um, >> so I could see where that would be super useful to come in and say, you know, I
want these lots to be this size, these lots, and so you have to go to DF. But R1, if it says 10,000 or 12,000, they don't come to us to put those in. Madam Chair, I I would add one other thing too that you have to keep in mind
that your comp plan is also guiding these discussions. Um, so it's not like somebody can use development flex to come in and put an apartment building in the middle of a R1 zoning, you know, in an R1 area because your comp plan doesn't allow that. So I
mean, and you have a lot of discretion when it comes to comp plan amendments and resonings. That's probably the next project we take on is >> looking at it's actually not a bad thing for those developers and that to come
here, >> you know, to to have that, you know, it's it's to try to bypass this committee, which is sometimes what I feel is being done is not a positive thing. we're all working together for the same city to have the same city look
and and and be the way it should be, you know, and so that's where I think that this is so important to have this committee and and to be actively involved in what's going on, you know. So, >> so the question I think right now is we
do have a draft out here. We've been working on it for a while. >> Um I know last month I believe we asked you to look I'm going to I'm going to go with the 12,000 number. I don't recall from my notes here which one I had written down >> and that's what's what's in here too >> was the 12. >> Yeah.
>> And so right now um to move this forward to council so that they can because we're again just advisory. It has to go to council and they can approve deny and even change it there as well. uh do we want to leave it at the old 10 or the
12,000 we talked about next month or do we want to change it either to 14 and or do we want to do this step down language to insert into R1? >> I think those are two different things that you're looking at. So I make a
motion >> that we up the minimum lot size to 12,000. Okay. >> So, you'd approve it but to send a council but with a 12,000 minimum lot size but no step down at this >> where those are two different things. >> Yep.
>> Okay. I'm just looking at this last increase to 12,000. >> 12,000. >> Do we need to do this in one big >> I think we're going to do it all in one big So maybe what I'll have you do is withdraw your motions and I'll just keep track of what we're saying right now is it would be a 12,000.
>> Okay, I'll withdraw that. minimum lot size. >> Um, so that would be the first change. So it would be approval with whatever changes we come up with. So 12,000 minimum lot size. And then what she wrote down with WSB on page five,
okay, is looking exactly what you had talked about, Daniel, off of that, which is looking at um the transitional zoning, okay, gradual change from one zoning classification to another or are you looking at just within one?
>> Yeah, it would be R1 to R1 only. >> Yeah. So, I'm just Okay, because I I think that >> that step down is is important. Lori, do you have other uh communities that do that? >> No, I don't. I It's not super common to
do that. Um, like I said, transitional zoning is generally imp implemented by creating new zoning districts for specific areas in the city that are a mixeduse zoning district that allow for
the smaller lot sizes. So, I mean, we certainly could craft some language to insert into the R1 zoning district, but it sounds like you're I mean, if you're looking to increase the lot size
and then also do transitional zoning, maybe you just want to look at even increasing it more. >> Do we just say 14,000 instead of 12? Cuz that is your 40%. Mhm.
>> Or 20% 20 40. >> Yeah, I'm I'm open for a little then. >> That's fine. >> You just over a quarter of an acre. You're 308. If you go to 14,000 >> 12 weeks a nice size lot.
>> That's a nice size lot transitional. >> You okay with 14, Daniel? >> I'm okay with a 14. I think that uh >> that 14, why don't you just split the difference and go 15? >> Okay. >> Well, then then why don't we go to 20? You know, I mean, it just what do you stop?
>> It's and it's got to be >> at 10 >> feasible for a developer to want to develop here >> at some point. Again, it's not going to be >> well and we will have different developments that do have different looks and feels. And when you start doing that, it makes it more feasible to put in sidewalks, too. I mean, some of
those different features. Guess the way I'm looking at it is our current R1 standard going to this new R1 standard whether it be 10,000 or 14,000 is almost like a completely new zone even though it's
still R1 the standards are extremely different and that's why in my mind transitional >> a step down between the old and the new makes sense in my mind >> difference though in the old R1, you had
to have the larger sizes because you had your septic, you had a well, you had all of these other things that had and that's part of what we're transitioning to as a city, which is why we took all this on to begin with >> because we knew the old 20,000 was not what we needed to do anymore.
>> Yeah. >> Um, do we have a lot of areas of the town that are in these larger zones? because historically that was required in order to actually put a house in cuz you had to put all those services in. >> So we can go a little smaller and still
retain. Now do we have to go down to 10? I think we can still retain. You said we're at 3 acres >> 308. >> If we're at >> the 14,000 >> I think that's that's a nice size city.
Good size lot. Um, >> and there will still be areas of town where you've got people that have two and four acres that could conceivably split their lot. I mean, so you still potentially have some larger ones from
people who have the old acreage out there because they had to have the septic field. >> So, I I I see 14,000 as reasonable and not having to do all the transition. And it's going to be easier for our folks that live in
town here if you have that multiple acres and want to split off a lot that you can measure that. >> I'm okay with it. >> 14. >> Yeah. >> Good. >> Yeah.
>> Uh the next one we heard about was the help me overtory trees. So that would be your oaks, your maples, your taller trees. Ultimately, they get taller, but when you're first planting
them, they're not necessarily thousand trees. What it would require, my understanding, is >> that >> the trees? >> The trees. >> Yeah. Thinking. >> Yeah. So, I don't know if there's
anything further you can give us on the tree conversation there, Lori, but is that correct? my understanding of o overstory trees. We're asking people that if you're building a house, you'd have to put in one of these types of trees in your front yard. >> So my
sorry Lauria um >> when I read it, it >> to me was saying a maple of one of each, right? Not one or.
>> No, it's just one one overset. a one overstory tree in the front yard >> of of one of those types. Correct. >> Uh let me pull let me pull that up. Hang on just a second. >> Because the way that I read it required
so and I just did the math on my lot. If I were to build my house with this, it would require me to put in 14 trees with caliber of 2 and 12 in. So after buying those trees and buying that size of
trees, you you pretty much have to have somebody plant that tree for you with the root ball. All right. So you just doubled the cost of the tree. That's for for my property alone would be a minimum of $8 to $10,000 in trees. If I was
building a house, that would prevent me from finishing the deck or rolling the patio in or adding the third stall garage, which ultimately is going to increase the property value of the house are those
to in my opinion more important things than having a 2 and 1/2 in caliber tree. Um, I love the idea of getting trees and and having all that in there, but I think we have to look at >> So,
sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. >> No, go ahead. >> Um, I I think you're not reading that correctly, Commissioner. Um, what we're saying is if you're building a new house, you have to put one tree in the front yard and then one other tree on
your lot somewhere else. So, two trees. But where did I read that? It was the circumference of the lot per 100 ft of the lot. >> That's for commercial. That's for commercial. >> Okay. >> So if somebody puts in a commercial building, those are the commercial standards.
>> Okay. >> And we want them to put it that way. >> Yeah. And so the purpose of having a tree in the front yard is simply to reforest your community after trees come down over time and to provide shade. Um, but you can do whatever you want.
>> That has a development that went in 10 years ago and no trees, >> right? Um, but sorry, but the way that I had read it was um an over story plus an evergreen >> ornament.
>> That's not correct. Right. >> Yeah, >> that's I appreciate you uh >> that's that's so in your R1 in all your residential standards you have um in R1 it's number 14
um and it says each lot shall contain and this is for residential each lot shall contain one front yard tree meaning minimum size requirements and one additional tree shall be planted in sideyards on corner lots. So on most lots, if you just have if you're not a
corner yard, you're just planting one tree on your lot, that's required. You can of course plant more, but only requiring one tree, but if you're on a corner lot and you it's is it's try it's trying to create shade in front yards
and for roadways. Mhm. >> No, and I appreciate that and thank you for straightening that out because that was >> so the performance standards then that we're that I was just talking about in the second to last that's only commercial.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> And it says that in the first first sentence of that. >> Yeah. Myaping by the time I got all the way >> it's not super exciting stuff. So, >> all right.
So, overstory trees, we have heard, you know, some comments out there as well. Um, I mean, there's pros and cons. One is it's cheaper to build if you don't have to go out and buy, and I did Google just now. I will admit, uh, oak tree 2
and 1/2 inch was $279. I don't know if it's on sale or not, but >> that's not too expensive at all. Um, now you're will you probably have to have somebody maybe come out and plant these? Possibly. But that you've already got people coming out to do all your other
stuff as well as your building. >> My concern was when I misre I misread it to looking at having to put $10,000 in trees on the lot and >> Well, I mean, if you look at what a new home, >> but TG Market, if you look at it, the
way the trees are commercially around there are pretty nice what they put in. >> No, I agree. And and if if that's the direction you're going, I think that's going to be very nice for what there is in the city. >> And it it does it'll start to really make the community look >> look sharp.
>> Mature. Yeah. >> So the overstory designation, it's not saying when you plant it, it has to be overstory. It's that it will eventually >> is in that category. >> Yeah. So you have a definition of
overstory tree in the definitions that explains what that is. >> Okay. >> Um but you could say if you just one tree of either ornamental or overstory or conifer. >> I mean if you'd rather change it to that.
>> I think the searchable large document will help >> clarify a lot of that stuff. So >> appreciate the conversation. It's a lot. >> Yes. >> Everybody last year, year and a half
feels like it's it's taken a while, but >> hundreds of pages, lots of meetings, many many hours of reading from some of our folks that volunteered from town here on the steering committee, as well as folks on planning and zoning. Again, we're we're not we all have day jobs, so
I appreciate all the extra reading and work that people are putting in on this. So 14,000 the tree language can stay as is or does anybody have a suggestion? >> Good. >> Yeah. No, clarifications are all good.
That's why we're here and that's why we're on >> continuing this public hearing to make sure what we can send to council is as good as we can do with what we've got. Um going back to what we had there. So,
from last month, we talked about the 12,000. >> And thank you for the chart, Lori. >> Sure. >> Any other changes, conversation? >> So, I would like to talk about the R2. Okay.
>> The minimum lot size in R2. And Lori, feel free to weigh in on this, but I I do think that it would be appropriate to if we have single family homes in the R2
that those would as a single family require a smaller lot size in the R2, say 10,000 square ft there, while still maintaining the
14,000 square foot minimum for anything over one unit, including if somebody wanted to add on like a mother-in-law suite, post build, or uh additional dwelling unit,
something along those lines. Is it uncommon to single out single family homes in that R2 section and say, you know, if it's a single family home, it the standards for the lot size can be a little bit smaller. >> I think that's very reasonable. It's not
that uncommon to do that. So, that is something that you could make a motion on or include in your motion, I should say. >> R2, what I'm hearing is 10,000 if it's a single family. >> And then if it's a multifamily,
you said >> stay the 14. >> We have 14. >> I think that's what it says in here, but it would stay. >> So, it would just add one more under R2. You could do 10. Yes, >> for single family. Okay. >> And I do think that I was listening on
the meeting when we discussed R2, but do you guys remember or recall why >> the single family was higher for R2 over R1? I remember there being a discussion. I just don't remember the exact reasoning because
there was a reason given at the time >> and it made sense. >> It made sense at the time. Um, where are you looking? >> Yeah, >> because there was discussion. I think that was one that I was just a fly on
the wall at though. So, probably just had earbuds in. But either way, um, but I think that anything over one would still require that 14,000. So somebody building a single family home could not add or
split into a duplex pri like afterwards to turn into two rentals. You couldn't add the the additional mother-in-law suite on there >> unless you had at least 14,000 >> unless you had at least >> or came in for a variance >> or came in for a variance. Yes, I think
that that's reasonable. So if I writing this down right for R2, you would make the change in the hundreds of pages of code to have 10,000 as a single family minimum lot size and
14,000 if it was two plus multifamily. >> Yes. however we want to work. >> Multi family >> 1.1 plus whatever you feel. >> Yeah. >> And I could argue even in R2 going lower
than that 10,000 and that could be a discussion. Otherwise, I'm good with 10. I think 10 is >> if somebody else wanted to do that, they could still come in for the variance to be >> reasonable. Okay. >> I think you're fine with that. Uh, chair, I would also mention, you know,
as Commissioner Spring talked about, you could also change the size of the single family dwelling, the minimum finished floor area to match that of R1 if you're going to change the lot size. I mean, that that's reasonable.
>> So, what would that be? >> So, right now for R2, um, without a basement, it's 1240 square ft and with a basement, it's 1040. And then if you were to go to the R1, it would be without basement, TH000 and
with basement 900. So I think that we this this conversation I do remember is why we went larger for the floor plan is we envisioned people who were going to be building homes in the R2 as a single family were
more than likely going to be like on slab or they were going to be singlestory ranches to where having that >> homes senior home >> patio home so so >> or smaller families >> yeah but having that larger footprint on
that made sense. Where when you go onto a 14,000 square foot lot, you're more than likely going to start getting into multilevel homes with basement and potentially. So
that's was where our discussion was or the discussion was with that and the difference in that. And so I'd still be okay with keeping it written as is. >> So the minimum floor area would not change in the R2.
>> Yeah, I would I would be fine with leaving it, but I'm open for discussion still. >> Well, I think that that let's leave it with where it's at and if somebody wants to come in with a variance to do it, then they can come in with variance to be able.
So, at this point then I've got the last one on our list, at least on my list, was sidewalks. Had some discussion on sidewalks and requiring or not requiring. Historically, the lots have all been big. We all know we had septic
fields. You don't want to put a a sidewalk going past a septic field. Very expensive and really doesn't serve the purpose. This would be for new, >> but we could say for new ones to go and retrofit anything. >> So, I don't know if you've got any extra
discussion on that one, Lori, that you can continue. >> Yeah, as I stated in my memo that I sent out to you all, sidewalks are already required in the new zoning ordinance in the subdivision section >> on one on one side of the street. >> Yep.
>> Okay. So, I let me just give you the list of what I got tracking changes. Uh, so it would be a motion we could make would have send this to council for approval with the following changes. R1, the minimum
would change to 14,000. R2, the minimums would change to 10,000 for a single family, 14,000 if it was multifamily. We would not be putting in any changes related to the floor area.
no changes related to trees, no changes related to step down, and no changes related to sidewalks because it's being addressed. So I agree with all those and I would like to discuss just completely
removing the developmental flex zone and let council decide and get or if Lori if you want to continue that conversation um to where the DF zone would would
benefit the city because my my concern is is as we're discussing this. We understand it. Council understands it as it's approved. But 10 years from now, 15 years from now, new council, maybe a
new, you know, city staff who are doing this don't understand it the way that it's the way that it is and then we end up with stuff that we don't want and uh and we don't want it utilized in the city. So that would that's my only
thought is to take that under further review as an entire section. >> So I yeah I uh chair and commission I mean you could do that but then you're not allowing any new development other
than what your zoning ordinance allows because right now you have a PUD option in your ordinance that does essentially the same thing. So, um, I would not recommend that you remove that entirely. If you want to look at a PD POD ordinance, you could do
that. Um, but the goal of this DF development flex zoning district, it it does the exact same thing a PUD would do, which is in your ordinance. Now, it's just worded differently, and it's just a simpler process for your staff and for your
council to understand. Um, but I mean if if there's still qualms about it, certainly I mean that's that's your prerogative to take that out, but then you're left with a zoning ordinance that doesn't accommodate any new development that doesn't fit within a
certain box. So, >> so one of the questions I have, so we've got our contract once this is through. We've also got training included in our contract for staff for
planning and for whoever ends up at this workshop with the new stuff, we could focus on that development flex piece to make sure everybody understands it. >> Yeah. And and I think that that that opens it up for for more developers to come in. It gives them a flexibility to
be able to play with knowing that once they do it and they bring it to us and we approve it, they can't make any changes. >> Okay. >> And that's been a >> and so that's that's the part that I like. No changes. Okay. And >> they can, but they have to come back
here. Okay. And um I I think that that that might open up some opportunities. It's okay. Depending upon what goes on because there's some larger areas that need to be developed or have potential developed in town. >> I think you'll find once you do one or
two of these that you'll think that it's a lot easier than doing a PUD development when you're dealing with concept plan approvals and then you're dealing with general plan approvals and then you're dealing with preliminary approvals. you know, it's
ordinance POD ordinances have a wide range of approval processes and um this is just so much easier to me as a staff member having used it for 24 years and developers understood it very easily.
Um, but I understand that that cities like what they like and if a PUD ordinance is something that you'd rather have, um, you'd have to to work with your staff to create that. >> Daniel, part of your concern, what was
raised last meeting with Flex and some of the comments that were made? >> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Um part of it is also that we are going to be rapidly um developing as well and it just seemed like this development flex is like
developer can come in and say I want to do this so I'll give you this and if the current council or the current you know zoning commission finds that a positive thing then this automatically goes through or
it would go through. So, it's it seems like a tit fortat situation that could occur. That would be my concern, my fear of having a developmental flex zone. But >> I think the difference is on the PUDS though, they come through, they're going
to tell us this, then it gets approved. But >> they can change it after the fact and it doesn't come back. There's a lot of changing that >> Yeah. Your PUD ordinance does that exactly now, Commissioner Spring. That's that's a that's what a PUB
process is. It's a give and take. >> Okay? >> If they want smaller lot sizes, then they're going to have to give you something. And maybe that's a buffer area. Maybe that's a a 100 foot setback between the R1 residential and the slightly smaller lot sizes that they
might want to create. Or if they're putting in a where the keep in mind, your land use still comes into play here too. That that doesn't change anything, >> right? So, but that's I mean it could happen today. It's this isn't this process isn't
creating something that can't already happen within your ordinance. It's just making it easier. >> Okay. >> I think it gives us more control, you know, to make sure that this is what it's going to be like and look like and these are the materials that are going to be used and and then this is so at
least we know versus what what could happen. So when you were looking at the Hamilton, they were looking at at three different phases that they were going to go through and they said they were going to do the first one, but they're not going to give us any idea what they're going to do with second, third, even though it was on there. They could
change it at any time because they were going to sell the property, okay, to do the rest of it. This would keep everything confined that at least we know what that whole development's going to look like and we we like the look of it. >> Sure. >> You know, to get it to go in. It's all
right. I appreciate that explanation, Jim and Lori. So, >> it's not for the faint of heart these processes. It's not I'll be the first to admit it and it's not very exciting and it's tedious and so I understand that there's lots of questions. No,
>> I'm just trying to do my due diligence. >> Of course. Absolutely. It's >> good to ask 100%. Yeah. >> Um, understanding that there's a definite learning curve. I know city
staff, but I I don't know how well city staff are versed with our current development process in the PUD process. So, I think we've got a lot of new staff members and having this opportunity to train everybody from the ground up is going to be to our advantage.
>> Yes, agree with that. >> And we do have, like I said, we've got some budget set in there for training hours. was the one of the other things that we had asked is that we have some packets basically made that figure out what our top couple things are that our
residents come into town come into the office to do and city hall can pass them a packet you want to put in a new roof here's your packet you want and we can go back and we can pull all the permits and say here's the top things that people have done there's a pool swimming
pool packet here's the new roof packet here's the new house packet here's the you know whatever it might be. Um, development flex might be a bit bigger and that's one that would be a conversation. >> True. >> But so >> not everybody's going to be pulling it either.
>> No, I don't. >> So, and those are out there now for permits on what they can pull along the side, you know, in the hall. So, >> so I think that'll be and I think that one I would leave up to the city staff to have tell them what do people come in for the most >> and we can just say, "Yep, that makes
sense." They're going to be the ones that are there dayto-day knowing what what's coming through and they're the ones I really want to make sure that we've got training for them and for us too, don't get me wrong, but >> them and Jason are going to be as our zoning administrator answering a lot of
questions and >> hopefully this makes it much more searchable and usable because it will be a ultimately a single document that you can find words. >> Yes. and search words and >> the definitions are have been brought up
into this century of food trucks and touchones and smartphones. All this a lot of this was written when we did not have smartphones and you couldn't access things during the middle of the meeting online. So
So right now what I'm hearing is R14,000 that would be a change. R2 would be a 14,000 for multifamily, 10,000 single family. I you did talk about not moving forward with the development flex. >> I can um I'll take that back.
>> Are you sure? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> We want to make sure we >> I would make sure that we note that when we do our training, we do want to put some focus time on the development flex. For sure. Sure. We passed on the sidewalks because it is
covered for new all the new developments would have sidewalks. We did talk about and discuss trees. We did talk about step down but instead of doing step down we did bump up the sizes. Um other
>> is there Yeah. No, I was just going to ask for clarity on that Kathy because I know when we were talking about the additional 2,000 from what we talked about last lot sizes that transitional or step down moving away from anything there. The only question I have is in the situation where
one is where you know in different areas in the town where there's already bigger lot sizes, is it worthwhile talking about something where it's already butdding up to somebody that's been here in town? And maybe not, but I know he's going to ask the question. But to the not to make you roll your
eyes again talking about me from 14,000 to 15,000 is this something where there's an opportunity or consideration of current and again the current lot size down to that 14,000 at least kind of a buffer there. >> I don't know disagree. >> It's just a thought because again
>> I get it. We did all this. We're doing this now. There's septic. There's all these different things, but I heard loud and clear last meeting people didn't move to this city for city. So, it was for kind of the aesthetics and things we have now. So, it's just a question I want to ask.
So if a disagree if a DF comes in, okay, and you're you're doing that, then you have a right to say at that time you want to have larger larger lot sizes that there are there, but coming up to where the other new or older residential areas are, you
know, so you can, you know, more or less say that that's what you need to have. So I think it could give you that flexibility with that. >> Or am I wrong with that, Lori? if it will come here. >> No, you're not wrong. Um, >> has got to come out.
>> Yeah, it and it all depends on the situation. You know, if you've got are are you going to care if somebody has a 28,000 ft lot next to a 20,000 foot lot,
if that 28,000 ft lot gets subdivided into two 14,000t lots, are you going to care? I mean, are residents going to care? >> I think that's where we did talk about the 20,000. If you split it into two 10s, that people would notice that
>> definitely. >> Mhm. >> Spiny. >> And that's our current every lot in theory. Not some of the older ones, but 20,000 was our oldest. >> And again, always keep in the back of your mind your density allotments in
your comp plan. Somebody's not going to come in in a residentially zoned district and be able to plop down a an apartment building or a duplex if it's not it's not allowed in your comp plan. So, you've got two things working for
you there. Your lot sizes and your comp plan designations. One of the other interesting things were when I was talking to some of the other council people, they turned around and dropped lot sizes in some of their developments that they had. It didn't
change the size of the house. The houses were still big houses on small lots. >> It's just what they do. Builder makes more money. less for your kids to mow or your neighbor kids to mow.
I >> think that that a step down could continue to be a um conversation for council for sure. I think that that we agree that >> that that could totally be
>> and that's completely up to council if they want to >> um >> do something there. >> The other uh chair the other thing to consider is that you know you you leave it as you're I think you're recommending to increase the lot sizes a little bit
and change the R2 and live with it for a year and see what happens. If you're finding out that this is a problem, then you take another look at it. >> I think within a year we could have a lot of houses. So,
>> but yeah. Um cuz so for me, the way that I would have worded like a step down would be an average of the lot sizes in proximity. So it wouldn't be like the largest lot, but it
would be an average of the lot sizes on there >> because you could have a >> 8 acre lot that's ab budding and everybody else has got 3/4 of an acre. So that step down would then have to
start at the average of that. That's how in my mind that would be worded. But >> so if you have an 8 acre lot and it's 3/4 acres lot surrounding it, those 3/4 acre lots couldn't split or they could
cuz right now they'd be able to split into 214,000 cuz >> well we say that in theory. So sublotss um for example, my lot is just under an acre, but there's no way you could you could humanly possibly split my lot to
let a driveway and another house. That's the other piece. You've got to your setbacks from the edges are still going to have to be at play. >> Correct. >> You're going to have to have a buildable lot that you could split off and it might not be a buildable lot, >> right? So, just cuz they meet that footage doesn't mean there a lot that
can be split. There's probably less that can be split than what could be. So, >> cuz you Yeah, you'd still have this side and the different setbacks from the houses and >> Right. >> Good point.
I'm okay with council if they want to have further discussions on that or that makes >> and and I think that the step down that you were saying Daniel is important. I I do I I think that yeah I don't know how to word it properly right
>> but the concept I agree with >> um without creating a completely new R zone and saying you know R1 is going to stay exactly how it is >> but really all these every zone you have that's what zoning is
>> you're R1 R2 R3 >> gradually each one steps I mean that's what it is And >> so yeah, sorry Kathy, I didn't mean to interrupt. Let's take the example of the 8 acre lot surrounded by 3/4 acre homes
and lots. If they're not going to split that 8 acres into lots that are 14,000 square foot in size to match the zoning that it it would be, then they would have to go through development flex.
Knowing what I know about you, and we'll see what the council says. If I were the planner, I would tell that developer that you've got to make the lots around the edge of this development flex district larger and the rest we can look at smaller
lots, but that's the give and take because the city council has the ultimate discretion in reszoning this property to DF. They don't have to do it. if they're not supportive of that lot size, the developer, it's in the developer's best interest
to do what the city wants. >> And so they can flat out say no >> because with a a reasonzoning, you have a lot of discretion unlike something like a conditional use permit in a straight zoning district. So, I guess I'm not as concerned about
the the DF coming in with the the fact that it would be coming to council and PNZ. It would be all of the older R1 homes with the huge lots who then would
have this new the new R1 minimum immediately adjacent to them. That would that's that's why the step down for me makes sense is to go from
what was built into what can be built if that makes sense. >> So let me ask you with with the drain field for example. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's not next to your house but it's going to be across the street from your house let's say. Okay. Would would
the 14 change or would you say that should be a step down? Just out of curiosity. >> No, that's a good that's a good point. But that would be I mean that would be one of those things that you wouldn't want for like that that community
wouldn't want 14,000 square foot lots within but it's zoned as R1. So >> somebody can come in and do that. >> They don't have to do the development plex. they can jump in say it's meets R1 or 14,000 square feet or even 15,000
square feet which is still under well under half of what most of the lots would be around it. Um >> but could you do it as a step down going that direction saying that it's got to be a step down because it's across the street.
>> Yeah. I mean, in this scenario, there would if you stepped it down, you wouldn't you'd end up with one house maybe in the middle that would be at the 14,000 square feet, right? But that's not the case for all lots. Like, I see what your point is, but um
>> No, I'm you you've got a good idea. I'm just trying to figure out how how to work all this stuff together. Okay. is some of these places are are going to be protected by neighborhood covenances already, right? So, the River Park drain
field has a covenants. >> It's already got a minimum lot size built into it. So something like that isn't necessarily you're not going to have, you know, a developer come in and want to put
smaller lots in there, but very very easily anywhere on the fringe of Oronokco that has houses on the fringe could get that. If you're looking at a big field, um there's there's stuff on the west
side that have very large lots that I mean there's fields that will eventually be developed and if they go from R1 to for to the new R14,000 ft, it's a
significant change from one house to the very next. we see a difference like where I'm at and I'm in an older neighborhood. Okay, Kathy lives in a newer neighborhood that there is that's really close by. And if you look at
Riverbend and if you had everything that would be a new development that was similar to what a Riverbend is, I think it's very attractive and and very functional for for what goes on. Um just the way the houses are are set a little bit
differently in there. Okay. >> Towns are at no a quarter acre and 14,000. >> Have you been over and looked at the difference on how it is how how it flips in there? >> So I guess specifically speaking I've
been and some of the houses that like that kind of meet this criteria would be the south southern houses on Riverwood Court. the western houses on Riverwood Drive Southwest. Um some of those other houses that are
adjacent to this this field that's here that you know eventually could be Sunny View Lane. those those homes including um including um Cedar Woodlands and then
you know that looks like pretty much that for the south side of town. But that's a lot of homes that would be they could they could have much smaller lots built into their
uh right adjacent to them. I mean, we have a unique community that we'd like to stay >> unique. >> Unique. >> Yes. >> There's a reason why we're out here and we pay the extra money to be out here, >> you know, and and so I don't think we
want to, you know, ruin what we've we've got. And and I don't think there you got some of the larger lots that are out there that people might want to subdivide, but as a whole, I don't think people really want to instantly subdivide saying that they could have a smaller lot.
>> And I'm not worried about subdividers per se. I'm devel worried about developers, >> a full development coming in to established neighborhood, >> an estab basically right on the right on the edge of an established neighborhood.
Okay. where the that's where the step down makes sense. >> No, and and I agree with that. It's but how you know again it's a wording on how do you put that in for for that part of it? You could control it again if if it was going with the other um but what
what do we call that the DF you know the flex you you could do that. >> Yeah. you know, would you say that they have to be larger going next to existing, you know, properties that they're on the on the outskirts? I mean, the the simplest way would be to
have the step down go from the minimum required right now, which would be the step down. So, regardless of what the house and lot size is surrounding, it's a step down from the 20,000 square foot minimum. I mean, I don't know that that
solves the issue, but that would be the easiest >> for sure. >> You'd be going from 20 to 14. >> You'd be doing you'd be doing one row of 20, then you could go to the 14,
>> right? >> Um I don't know. I don't know that there's a >> I don't know. The 20 is to me still when you had your full septic, you had your field in there and you've got the extra space in there, but you don't have to
have that field in a lot of the areas where it you have it. You've got, you know, you've got to have the buildable landed again too on those. And just because you've got the space doesn't mean you can hit the setback and that you can hit all these other things that
are still there. You can't build right up to the property line. You can't I don't know >> and you got to the developers have to make money too, right? >> You know, I mean, you can't be so restrictive that they can't make any money, you know. So, >> and we're already would be bigger
minimum lot sizes in some communities, >> even with 14,000. And if there's roads involved, the developer is going to want to recoup that cost because they're the ones installing the road and not the city
and the utilities. >> Yeah. >> Well, I think that was that it's been a good discussion. I mean, I'm comfortable moving forward to council um as it as with the R1 R2
discussion that we've had. I think that we'll probably discuss the step down >> by then and if um >> some more >> hopefully we have some examples or verbiage that make make it so it makes
sense or be easier to deal with. But um um because you're right the developers have to want to come in and develop. They have to want to they've got to be able to make money. >> Yeah. Um,
so >> and we want to keep the city looking the way it does. >> We want to keep the city the way and we don't want to continue to raise taxes because there are residents moving in here. So there's lots of lots of things. So I'm
comfortable with moving if we don't have any more discussion points. The changes I have right now would just be in the R1 zone changing the minimum lot size to 14,000 and then in the R2 changing the lot sizes to 14,000 if it's
multifamily or 10,000 if it's single family. Those would be the two changes that we would send along with all the other stuff that's been done and we push it to council for them to have their discussion and then they can yay or nay our decision.
>> Yeah. or they can yay or nay our decision and make more changes. I mean, that's up to them at that point. >> A step down discussion would take place at council then. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think that's that's >> that would give you more time to do some.
>> All right. Is there a motion anyone wants to make that would include the 14,000 for R1 and the 14 and 10,000? >> You want to do it? You want me to do it? I'll make the motion to approve the ordinances with the changes to R1
minimum lot size 14,000 square ft. R2 minimum lot size for a single family home decreases to 10,000 ft while the multifamily stays the same at for 14,000.
>> So approval of this whole stuff with those couple more changes. >> I'll second that. >> Second that. And so just so everybody's clear, approval of this would not put it in stone yet. It makes it go to council where they can have their further
discussions and then yay or nay or yay and nay and change stuff. >> So with that, any last discussion or I will call the vote here on this one. All in favor of all the zoning stuff with those
two other sectional changes and moving it on to council for their approval say I. >> I. Any opposed? Okay. So, this does move to council then.
And Lori, can you take care of updating those changes? So, the R1 would have 14,000, the R2 would have the 14 and 10. >> Yes. That would be fantastic. >> I don't know that this will be
this month's council meeting. >> It's a lot for council to read. >> Well, it's coming up on Tuesday, >> right? So, we've already got the >> It will probably >> So, it will not be the 16th, >> right? >> Council will have to other ones we voted
on earlier would go. >> This one I would recommend you wait a month and then give you all the time to read it. And then Lori, will there still be uh opportunity for feedback from residents to get to council then or does
that the >> I mean you can leave it we can we can leave it open. Um we only got one more since the planning commission meeting. So, I don't know how many more you'd get if you left the growing oronoco open, but it's always up on I can make the
changes and get you a new PDF so you can put the new >> after your recommendation. I can we can put that up on your website and just have people submit their comments to Jason. >> Yep. That would be >> I think just submit to Jason instead of >> Yeah.
>> through the website. Then >> let's put uh >> one big master PDF out there. We put a you please submit a week prior to the >> meeting for Jason >> and we've already had the public
hearing. So the opportunity where people have to have to submit comments for a public hearing but people can still continue. We can put that out there just like people can submit comments to him on anything that's on your package really. >> Okay.
But yes, we could put a cover sheet on top of the PDF that says something to that effect. >> Yeah. >> Um I think we also put I'd have to check. I did a summary memo for you for last month's meeting and I
think that also went on the growing ornoo.com. So if people wanted to look at the major changes, they could just skim through that without having to read the whole thing. So, we'll send that to council again for them to to review, but obviously
encourage them to read the whole thing, no matter how boring that might be. >> All right. >> And then I would encourage anybody to reach out with questions before then, too, so um we can get those answered.
>> All right. Thank you so much, Lori. appreciate. >> This is a monumental day. >> Yeah. >> Lori, would you prefer um if council members have questions, do you want those to be funneled through Jason to you or do you want any of the five of us
just to email you directly? How do you want to >> You can certainly email me directly and Jason Unless Jason has another preference. >> I think that'll be easier because we'll just get it to her and she she'll have it. Yeah. Otherwise, it could get delayed. >> Sure. That's a good com. >> I'm usually pretty quick at responding
other than the one that I missed from you, Commissioner Spring. I'm sorry about that. >> Yeah, you're good. >> All right. >> Well, unless you want to stick around for our next new business lockbox discussion, you can uh go take your time
and uh >> go home. >> Go home. >> I'm gonna go home. >> Dream about square footage. Yeah. >> Thanks, everyone. All right. >> Thank you. Yep. All right, thank you everyone. We've got
moving into new business finally. I just wanted to throw out there on the lock boxes. So, I don't know if everybody knows what a lock box is. They some of them there's different brands like a Knox box is a lock box, but what they are are you see them more with
commercial properties, the ability to have a box on site. So if there is an emergency and a fire truck or first responder may be getting in, there's a way that they can access that property without having to break down doors. So that's essentially what lock boxes are. Now there are
uh not commercial but residential customers that also could have lock boxes. A lot of times you might see senior citizens. There's a program through the um senior citizens for Oronco and and Pine Island through their senior citizen program where there might
be funding. I don't know, but they could have lock boxes, but you have to coordinate with the different area first responder groups, too. So, I know that is something that Jason had done a little bit of research on and we can require them for commercial customers.
We could do different things. We don't necessarily even have to do it through a zoning statute of any kind. But that was a question that had come up and I think it would be up to like Dan as the fire chief if he wanted to put something together to require them for new
businesses for example and that's not uncommon for municipalities to require that. >> No, I know they've been talking to commercial places and some said yes and there's some that are out there but some of them haven't followed up on it. So if they get their door broken in or knocked down, it's because next time they'll put
a box on. >> Yeah. >> Common sense says yes. >> So that that's okay. Next. >> I may. >> Yep. And so then we did get a request from Marie uh if we want to have some
type of workshop. you may know more on that, but it looks like there were a couple different choices she had thrown out there, and I don't know uh if those dates work for any of you, >> but I'm not that far out in my calendar.
>> So, [Music] not yet. They are all Wednesday nights and I know one of those I probably am not even going to be in the state because I'll be at a conference potentially, but I'm not sure yet on Wednesday nights there.
>> Okay, we can we can think about those. >> So maybe we'll just push that to next month and we'll talk about it then. >> And then buzzing our way through old business open position. There's nobody here currently to interview, but if they do know of anybody who wants to
volunteer their time, we are through the hardest part, which was hundreds and hundreds of pages and uh this is probably the latest meeting we've had in a long time. So, I do appreciate you all sticking around. >> I do know there are a couple people considering. >> Yes. So, I will
>> um what I will do is have hard copies of the application form at the next meeting. So, anybody's interested, they can fill one out there and interview, right, Ben? And we can submit it to council. >> They don't even have to wait that long. They can submit it to Jason >> ahead of time.
>> Ahead of time, he'll give it to >> you. 35. >> They're on the fence. >> Just if they're on the fence, we don't usually go this late >> meeting go get a fighter. >> Right. But you worked that out with
them. Don't tell me >> next month if we have anybody we'll look at that will just stay there until we permanently have somebody to interview. Um officer position consider that as well. >> I did say that I talked to you on that.
So >> So maybe once we get fully staffed we'll take a look at that. Again we did cover briefly minutes of prior meetings. So that should be coming at some point. We did include in the packet this month they did get us >> AI. What can you say? Hey,
>> we got to get the raw files first. >> Yes. Monthly incoming zoning applications and questions. I think we look at that for this month. And if we have discussion next month, it's just fine. >> I looked at that. >> And then longterm, we've still got just sitting out there. No new on the
driveway. Nothing that I know on any development. >> Yeah. >> And I have not had time to get to the RFP. So, that is also a future. >> Okay. I'll table that one. >> So, that will be next month. >> Okay. Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Yes, please.
>> Oh, he beat >> first. Second. We'll give you that one there. >> All in favor of adjournings. >> I >> I opposed. Let's go home. All right. 852. Thank you all for the conversation tonight >> and and and good things