City Council - workshop

33 p.m. And let's do a roll call for the council, and then we'll go around the room and have people introduce themselves as well.

Council Member Agnew is absent. He's just running late. Council Member Jackson. Here. Council Member Pierce. Here. Council Member Risser. Here.

Here. We've got one topic tonight for the work session, and that is another update on zoning and subdivision ordinance work being done by staff and the Planning Commission. We're pleased to have David Alkire here, but just to make sure, we'll go around the room and introduce ourselves around the rest of the table. Addison Lewis, Community Development Coordinator. David, go ahead. David Alkire, Planning Commissioner. We're looping all around to Sharon. Let's go back over here. Hi, I'm Asif Masood. I'm the City Manager of the Hub.

Ari Lentz, Deputy City Manager.

Craig Vedder, Parks and Recreation Director.

Laurie Hart, President.

Bill Newdorf, Economic Development. Chad Milner, Public Works Director. Justin Myrood, IT.

Yeah, I'll just pitch it right over to Addison. We've got some preparation. You see some of this tonight. We're going to be looking at residential districts, and there's some maps involved as well. Take it away. All right.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. So as you said, we're here to talk about the zoning code update. Just a reminder, our main project goals with this are really to improve alignment of the zoning code with our comprehensive plan and just improve the usability and simplicity of the code for all of its users. Tonight we have Shawn Suter and Michael Stein from ZoneCo with us. They're going to be presenting the given overview of our proposed changes. We gave you in your packet tonight a copy of module one of the draft zoning ordinance that includes the introduction section to the zoning chapter. It includes the zoning district standards, a use table, and the use standards. So like Scott mentioned, tonight our focus is really just on the residential districts. We also gave you a memo that Zone Code prepared that provided kind of a high-level overview of the proposed changes between the existing code and the new draft. We gave you a copy of the zoning, the proposed zoning map, which I think is the first time we've given that to you here. You'll see a lot of new names on there, but I want to note with that we're not really creating new districts. We're just changing, giving a lot of the existing districts better names and just changing some of the standards within them to make them more usable. Um, and then lastly on the kind of the cover sheet for this item, there was a link to a story map, um, which is hosted online. So that's how we're communicating and sharing these changes with the public. That's what a zone co is gonna to use to present the changes tonight. So I'll hand it over to Sean and Michael.

Thank you Addison and thank you members of council. It's a pleasure to be here in front of you for the first time really tonight. We are the lead consultant for the zoning and subdivision ordinance update for Edina. Very proud to be working with you all and bringing overhauling the zoning for the first time really since 1970. So it's a big undertaking and one that we are working hand in hand with city staff, Addison and others on to bring this up to date. So like Addison said, a lot of the goal is to clarify, simplify, make easier to use and more defensible your zoning regulations. We've been working through some initial thinking on this, including around the residential zones. So one of the things we always do with a zoning code rewrite is take a look at your menu of existing zones and districts and just see what is working, what's not. Is there anything that's superfluous? Can we consolidate or rename things to make them more intuitive? So that's where we are right now with the project. We'll be continuing to work through this, calibrating standards, that reflect your comprehensive plan goals. And we'll be doing that in the coming months. With me is Michael Stein, my colleague here at ZoneCo. And Michael is going to walk us through this story map, which is really a nice presentation tool. It allows us to have a single document that we work from throughout the project we build on as we go, and I think it's a nice way to kind of explain these concepts. So, Michael, if you would, take it away on the story, Matt, please.

Yeah, thanks, Sean, and thanks, members of Council and Mayor for having us today. As Allison touched upon, you know, a major goal of this project is to improve the codes alignment the comprehensive plan but the code is also looking to simplify regulations by getting away from reliance on the plan unit development process the pd process affords a lot of control to the city and how development occurs but it creates uncertainty for uh property owners residents and developers alike And it can really slow down and make the development process inefficient in the city. So one of the goals is to convert a lot of the standards that the city is currently seeking to extract from development through the planning and development process and translate those to base zoning districts that can be applied throughout the city. So to kind of go through some of the developments that have sought PUD approval in recent years and to just Yeah, show why those developments maybe could be better done with base zoning. We've identified three developments that have been done through PUD zoning in Edina in the last 10 years. These developments, for the most part, with the exception of one, complied with the comprehensive plant densities and so required PUD approval for various setback or building site layout requirements. first is halter in place this required a rezoning despite meeting comprehensive plan density it was built in 2018 and in the current code this could be built on or in the proposed code rather this could be built under a mixed middle or medium density designation hankerson townhomes are another one that required pud approval This actually did require comprehensive plan amendment, which did pass, but then also required a rezoning to PED. While rezoning would still be required to go from low density to medium density, ideally under the new code, it would be a more painless process once the comprehensive plan amendment was passed.

Can I ask a question? Yes. Did we get this presentation

So this is in the story map. There's a link to this in the cover sheet.

In the cover sheet.

In the cover sheet.

And this is something anyone in the public can see.

Yep. This is posted online.

With the other documents that are in the board portal, the public cannot see those. And we did get, my understanding is on the digital access, we have a whole nother year to meet those requirements. And since zoning is such a critical thing, it would be great if those could be made available to the public. And so, and make it super crystal clear how they can get to this presentation. Thank you.

And then the last development we'll highlight was the Lorient. This also, I believe, complied with the comprehensive plan density designation, but required some setbacks in terms of height from the adjacent single family residential neighborhood. One of the goals that we have in this project is to build in context sensitive standards like that height setback into the base zoning districts so the city doesn't have to negotiate to get these context sensitive building design requirements into each development. And so, for example, the high density residential designation could require that within 100 feet of the single family neighborhood, we require a building only be 35 feet tall. So that kind of builds that into the base code rather than having to ask for it each time a developer comes to the proposal. We already have gone over the district. But it's been a little bit of time, so I'll just give you a pretty brief explanation of the proposal in front of you. We did some sampling a while back on the current standards, dimensional standards in the R1 single family district and acknowledged that those needed some changing. The key changes are the creation of a R1 district lot size sub area. This would be instead of having one minimum lot size throughout the city or an average, it would be split into different neighborhoods, which each neighborhood having its own destination ranging from 8712 square feet up to 35,000 square feet. That 8712 meeting the maximum density for low density residential in the comprehensive plan. And within each of those districts sub areas, there is a minimum lot width tied to the lot size so anything in the a8 would have a minimum lot with the 50 feet and anything in the a35 would have a minimum lot width of 150. and then the last piece from the arwen district just to remind you is the changing of the established front setback standard it currently applies to any lot you have to meet the front setback of the average front setback of any lot on your block face or in your neighborhood, this would now apply to only those lots that front on the same street and above your property. So it would only be the lots immediately to the side of you. We've not gone through the zoning map. Sorry, is that question?

Yeah, I remember it being something different when you guys presented it before. Am I remembering wrong for the setbacks? discussion. I thought we were just going to say a certain number of feet rather than.

Yep, that is what we're sorry. Yes, OK, it's a 30 foot setback, which if it if the average of the two lots next to you is less than 30 feet. Then the average would apply.

Yeah, so OK, yeah, so in the neighborhood, no case for the city where it's less than we would allow them to average it, OK, but not more than 30. We wouldn't require that, OK?

Would it make sense to have a driveway length minimum? I'm just thinking in terms of practicality, it should at least be long enough so that it can definitely accommodate a dumpster. And so you don't have a dumpster poking out onto a sidewalk, which does happen. Like couldn't aren't some cities don't they set minimum driveway links?

Minimum driveway links kind of out of fashion. No, Sean.

Okay.

You're on mute, Sean.

Is that because there's such a push to put buildings close to streets?

Yeah, some suburban communities, especially greenfield communities, will set minimum driveway lengths. That's mainly to keep cars from hanging over the sidewalk or hanging over into the right-of-way, especially patio homes, things like that, as they're jamming these things in on small lots. Um, people have these huge trucks nowadays, so they're like 22 feet long and a lot of times they'll build a driveway as cheaply as they can at 18, 19 feet. So the truck doesn't fit in the driveway. So that's why you're seeing that.

So it'd be good to figure out how we can avoid having more of that.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, you would, you would definitely want at least a 20, probably a 22 foot long driveway at a minimum then.

Okay.

Oh, I think I just lost. Yeah, we lost, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, there we go or your back. OK, is it the right size for everyone?

OK, great. Well. Define driving minimum versus. Not defining a driveway minimum. Or if you had a minimum, you'd have to then use a variance if you had the situation that Julie's talking about over on Valley View and Brookside or whatever. Kellogg. Are you talking about that issue at all, David?

No. Did that come up? No. I think, yeah, this is the first time we've discussed it. So I think you kind of touched on it, Mayor, is like, if, if we put something in place and someone wants to deviate from it, then yeah, they would have to go through a variance and, and meet that statutory criteria. Yeah, I mean, then your driveway is probably going to be, you know, whatever the front, the back of the house is, right, which in general we're saying is going to be 30 feet. There might be some places where it's less than that. But for the you know, probably 99% of single family homes is going to be around that 30 feet.

Do we still require garages to be attached for a new home?

We don't require that they be attached. We require one enclosed parking space for a single family home, but it can be detached. Okay.

All right, you guys can keep going. All right, something that we've gone through with the Planning Commission, but I believe is new to this group is the zoning map. We don't have to go through each proposed zoning district's purpose statement, but these are available for others who wanna read that and they should be in your packet. But to get to the actual map, again, this was in an attempt to try to align or better align the code with the comprehensive plan. Excuse me, the map doesn't seem to be loading. so um and it's available online but this is a slider tool that shows the translation from the future land use plan categories to the proposed zoning districts uh you see most of the families still low density residential r1 zone there are a few areas where district names have changed and i'll get to those shortly but the uh i think the key takeaway is that we're not rezoning large sections of the city. It's my understanding that ADANA doesn't proactively rezone properties unless necessary. And so that's not a goal of this project. Here's a conversion chart of the future land use categories to the proposed zoning districts. The idea being this kind of gives a guide for how a property could be rezoned. Someone sees that their property is designated to medium density residential. They have two zoning districts which are kind of at their disposal for rezoning without having to get a comprehensive plan amendment.

We've talked about in the past a lot

Yeah. So that you're talking about like subdividing it to have two single family homes. Yeah. So that would pertain to when he was talking about the R1 stuff and our lot sub areas. That has to do with the lot size and the lot width. Okay. Right. So what what is proposed here with the way the lot sub areas are set up is that we identified for each neighborhood, what is like the what is like a reasonable minimum for each neighborhood. And we kind of set that such that we wanted it to be a number where like ideally like 90% of the lots in that neighborhood exceeded the minimum, but weren't double. Right? Because I guess it was we kind of set it up that way under the assumption that you kind of want to maintain the status quo, that you don't want to just like open the floodgates where all of a sudden like half of the lots in a neighborhood are able to be subdivided. Right? So we could change those numbers if you wanted to kind of incentivize or encourage more subdivisions. But we've had some subdivisions come forward where they because right now the the standard lot size is whatever the median is you know within 500 feet we've had subdivisions come forward where they didn't exceed the median but they were very reasonable for that neighborhood and there was like you know maybe 30 percent of the lots were at least that size or smaller so those are the ones that have tended to get approved but they needed to go through this variance process and that kind of added to the unpredictability of the outcome. So what we're trying to do is set it so that those types of ones, those very reasonable ones, don't need variances, but not necessarily open it up so that neighborhoods can just have tons of lots in their neighborhood be split.

But if a future city council wanted to open up the floodgates, as it were, the way this is written IT WOULDN'T BE A SUPER COMPLICATED LEGAL PROCESS TO CHANGE THE NAMES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, THAT THIS WOULD BE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH OR CLEAR ENOUGH AND SIMPLE ENOUGH THAT, LIKE, OKAY, EDON HAS DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING TO ONLY HAVE 50-FOOT LOTS, THEN THE WAY THIS WILL BE WRITTEN, IT WOULDN'T BE, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO HANDSTANDS AND BACKSTANDS AND CLIPS TO DO THAT.

YEP. IT'S CHANGING ONE NUMBER IN THE CODE. OKAY. AND I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT HOW For right now, the smallest sub area is that 8712, and that's because the max density and our low density category in the comp plan is five units an acre. Even though we have neighborhoods in Edina that are more dense than that. We have neighborhoods where most of the lots are 6,000 square feet. So if we do the comp plan update and we were to increase that number, then it's a simple fix to go back and change that 8712 to 6,000 or 5,000, whatever we want it to be.

moving on to the existing zoning versus the proposed zoning this is where we kind of get to what Addison was saying where this isn't uh comprehensive rezoning of the city this is renaming a lot of the districts and converting them to better align with the comprehensive plan so here's another slide tool that colors are changing but districts are a one-to-one conversion and For the most part, and we can run through which districts have been combined below, but here's a chart showing them. The PRD1 and PRD2 are being combined into the mixed middle district. The PRD4 and the PSR, PRD5, sorry, and the PSR4 are being combined into the assisted residential district. And then the planned office district one and planned office district two are being combined. The only difference between those two districts now being a use permission for accessory restaurants and retail.

I really like that we're getting rid of the planned language and going to language that is more standard because it is super hard whenever I try to work with the League of Minnesota Cities to get clarity on something that is confusing to me. They can't help me because all of our zones are like planned this, planned that, and there's nothing to compare it with. So it's, it really is an obstacle.

Yeah, and those were really set up to be those planned districts. They were like PUDs at the time. And so they're like very specific, they have very specific standards, which is what makes them really hard to reuse. And so that's what we're doing is, you know, we're just taking that district, changing the name, and then we're going to make it so that it's easier to reuse it.

And then this is just same building map, just easier to click around with the legend on the side. And so let me get to the main topic of of tonight's meeting, which is going over the residential districts, introducing the the goals of each and the major changes or key takeaways that we wanted to highlight for you all. So to start with the single dwelling unit district, I've gone over the major changes there already, so we won't rehash them too much right now. It can be a topic of conversation later. But again, not much changing in the R1 district. That hasn't been discussed already. In the double dwelling unit district, the density is being realigned down from 15,000 square feet to 10,890 square feet. That would be four dwelling units an acre, and the idea is to align that with the comprehensive plan. And then there are setback is also just being slightly reduced from 35 feet to 25 feet, trying to create more flexible development standards. There's also the proposal of a 40% minimum green space coverage. The Arwen district is currently the only district in the city that has a maximum pervious surface or minimum green space coverage. Those are kind of two standards that work in inverse. But the Arwen district is currently the only district that has standards limiting the amount of coverage a lot can have. So one of the major proposals in this draft is to expand that citywide. So in the R2 district, that standard would be 40%. And we can touch more on that later. See across the top, there is a green space coverage tab. We can explain a little bit more how that would work. This is the proposed MM district is a combination of the PRD1 and PRD2. As you can see on the map, it is pretty sparse. The Planning Commission did discuss combining this with the R2 district, so I'll let you think about that. I'll continue discussing these as two separate districts for the purpose of the presentation, but as you look at the differences between the district standards, that's something that you can think about. There is. currently a 10-acre minimum tract area for the PRD1 district. That is being removed in place of a 5,445 square foot minimum lot size. That is also to align the MM district with the comprehensive plan density of 8 dwelling units an acre. Similar to in the R2 district, we are combining or we are loosening the side setbacks down from 30 feet in the on the street side to 15 feet and 20 feet 10 feet on the interior side and that's just to create more flexible development standards uh try to limit the number of two or three foot variances that need to be approved for setbacks and then the maximum building coverage sorry um when you came up with this getting down to 15 feet that makes me wonder you know if you've got

development that is near a busy road and you know we're trying to create more multimodal transportation and you want to have an eight foot wide sidewalk and you want to have a boulevard that could actually be large enough for a significant tree and you're taking it down to 15 feet you know what Is this something that is going to make it harder? Because the other goal that we have, and I really hope if you haven't looked at the heat map that the sustainability people put forward, we really need to work on our tree canopy, especially in areas, the southeast part of Edina, where we do have real need for more trees and there's busy roads and people who are more dependent on, you know, not necessarily using a car. So I just want to put that out there. I don't want us to paint ourselves into a corner where, you know, we've got the building coming up so close that, you know, it's not going to be viable in a comfortable way.

I'll just note, the 15-foot setback is from the property line.

It's from the property line.

From the property line, yep. So the sidewalk, the boulevard, like that should all be in the right-of-way. Okay. So this wouldn't affect that.

So the setback, even... Okay, patios and porches, one of those can go up, right, to the lot line?

Patios can be five feet from a side or rear lot line.

Okay.

But not a front. Porches, I think it's 20 feet, so they can't get that close.

Okay, because I've got patios that go right up to the lot line on Valley View. That's a different district than what this is. That's a different district. Okay, so residential, you can have the patio go all the way to the lot line. Look at the map.

And this is, so what we're talking about here is, so this is what we're calling the mixed middle district. So what we did here was we took the setbacks for the R2 district and what we're calling the mixed middle district, and we just made them consistent with R1. So in R1, the side street setback, like if you're a corner lot, your side street setback is 15 in a single family home. And the thinking is missing middle is intended to be compatible with single family neighborhoods. It's supposed to be similar in scale. So we just kind of stream or made all the setbacks consistent between those three districts. So that's the reason for the change, I guess.

Can we move the map so I can see the southeast quadrant?

is that can you can you guys move the map to the see the southeast yeah i don't believe there are any partial zoned mm in the southeast quadrant okay there might be one so again what we're what we had originally proposed to call the mixed middle district was we were going to combine what's currently prd1 and 2. okay there's only one prd1 property in the whole city So we were going to combine that with PRD2 and make that our mixed middle district, which would allow for kind of a variety of housing types. It would depend on the size of the lot, but you could go up to eight units an acre.

Okay.

If you had a half acre site, you could do four units.

So this does include Wooddale Valley View?

I don't know that there's any property there that's actually zoned that, but we...

GREEN OVER THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M SEEING THAT.

THERE'S TWO. IS THERE? OH, YEP. THERE'S A COUPLE OVER THERE. SO THERE'S SOME PRD2 PROPERTIES OVER THERE CURRENTLY.

I THINK THAT... OKAY, IT'S FURTHER DOWN VALUE. THOSE ARE OTHER, LIKE, THE DUPLEX PROPERTIES, I THINK, TODAY.

THANK YOU. YEP.

I'LL DO ANOTHER So, as we discussed, trying to move away from having large like planned development style developments in the PR81 and PR82 and trying to make it more neighborhood scale, that is the intent of removing the 10-acre minimum tract size. You need a lot of capital and a lot of planning to get a 10-acre tract and put it in turn into housing. If you remove that requirement, you can integrate these types of development, these middle housing stock more seamlessly into neighborhoods without having to have large developments that break up the character of that neighborhood. So that's kind of the logic on removing the 10 acre minimum tract area. There's also the proposal to increase the maximum building coverage from 25 to 40 percent this is a recognition that if you drop the minimum lot size you need to give a little bit in building coverage to make up for it without making uh projects impossible to pencil out and then there's also a minimum green space coverage of 35 percent and then uh with the period technology does not seem to want to cooperate today. All right. I think it's back up.

Yep. Yep.

Great. And the PRD to dropping the minimum lot area from 7,300 square feet per dwelling unit to 5,445 square feet per dwelling unit. Same thing with the setbacks and the maximum building coverage is also increasing, recognizing that decrease in minimum lot area. Medium density residential district is slightly more intense than the missing middle list is a little less neighborhood scale and more for that large almost planned development style housing. These are you classify these apartment buildings, but not missing middle housing stock or like apartment towers per se. And so the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is being reduced also to align with the comprehensive plan from 4400 square feet per dwelling unit to 3630. Building coverage increases correspondingly with the drop in lot size. And the green space proposal is 30%. Identity residential district is the most intense of the residential districts. This in this district, the minimum lot size is tied directly to the comprehensive plans, maximum density assigned for the lot. So you would go to the future land use plan see what the maximum density assigned by the future land use designation for property is and that would be the minimum law area per dwelling units however many dwelling units are allowed per acre is the minimum lot area per dwelling unit in the high density residential district another key uh change that is being posed in the HDR is the sustainable building policy being required for any development exceeding a floor area ratio at 1.2. My understanding is that the PUD process currently allows the city to employ that sustainable building policy, and so by requiring it for any building exceeding an FIR of 1.2, they can still be required for larger scale developments without overburdening small scale developments. Simple graphic, but this building on the left has an FIR of 1.0. Sustainable building policy would not be required, but if the proposal increased the FIR to 1.5, then the sustainable building policy would be required. And then the HDR proposes a minimum green space coverage of 25%. Are there any questions on that for our ratio? Yes.

We always, I was on the Environment Commission, and we always tripped up against the building code that you'd have to give to get to require that. So this would be the give, would be the greater FAR.

Yep, we're kind of structuring this similar to like a density bonus. So Edina has had FAR you know, limits in place for most districts for, you know, going back to 1970. So what we're going to do is we're going to use those FAR limits as kind of like the base requirement. And you can do something within that FAR and not trigger the sustainable buildings policy, just like you could today, right? It's only when developments exceed those FARs that they start to you know, pursue a PUD, and that's when they've needed to comply with the Sustainable Buildings Policy. So we're kind of using those historic FAR limits as the trigger to trigger the Sustainable Buildings Policy.

But you wouldn't have to necessarily do a PUD to get the extra stories, correct? Or you would? Correct.

Correct. You would not have to do a PUD.

There's a click-on factor to the zoning code, and the click-on is the give to get.

click on is exceeding that FAR threshold. They don't have to comply with the sustainable buildings policy if they do something within that FAR.

But then if they want to do more than that, there's a method for doing that, but it also triggers the sustainability.

Exactly, yep.

Very clever.

I am concerned about reducing The street side set back to 15 feet, just because of what we talked about with driveway length and sidewalks. And it seems like that's setting things up so that we're going to have sidewalks getting blocked and thinking about these developments that are along busy streets, where people, you know, do need to be able to walk safely and not have to worry about whether they're going to be seen or, you know,

they have to step into the street yeah so the 15 feet is intended to be like the side of your house right so if it's a corner lot like right now there's a requirement where if you have a corner lot and you have a detail and you have a garage that faces your side corner then the setback is increased to 20. and i think we're i think we're keeping that so you couldn't you couldn't have a garage facing the side street okay and have it be closer than 20. but back to the idea of

bigger vehicles, and I think the number 22 was tossed out as, you know, if you want to make sure that your driveway can probably accommodate a dumpster and that kind of thing. Just thinking, and sorry to belabor the point, but really thinking about use and safety and kids and bikes and busy roads.

Yeah, it's something we could consider. I think there's a lot of existing detached garages that are probably built at that 20 feet now. But then if we put that if we increase it to 22 feet, right, those would all become nonconforming.

Then if they maintain legally nonconforming, yes, they wouldn't be illegally nonconforming. But something that might be an alternative is to say if you're you're driveway is 20 feet, you can't have a dumpster over 20 feet long and do it on the dumpster side rather than on the zoning side.

Yeah, I mean, that's true. Technically, they're not supposed to block the right of way anyway.

Right. So you could say this is not, this dumpster is not up to code, not the house. It's much easier to limit the size of the dumpster than it is to limit the size of the house. Well, you can propose an ordinance change, Julie, to do that. I think the dumpster is much easier to be more flexible than existing homes to, say, put them all out of compliance. And then if they want to redo, if they want to change their deck, they have to get a variance or whatever. I mean, it gets very complicated when you're out of compliance, like we saw with Kevin Keys. So they were basically the same use, but then it was triggered because they were going to change a little bit. It changed a big legal change.

to do with PUD.

So we wouldn't be getting rid of the PUD. Everything that's zoned PUD today is still going to be PUD. And it'll still be a tool that we can use. I'm talking about the future. You didn't get rid of it. No, we're not getting rid of it. No, no. The intent is we'll still use it for, you know, those kind of unique, exceptional projects. Gives us flexibility on it. Exactly. Yep. Yep.

Okay. David, were there any other things that you saw or the Planning Commission saw that were in your...

Well, we did have a lot of discussion about combining R2 and mixed middle. I don't know if you want to talk about that now or you want to talk about that later. So the basic premise is that if we want to preserve R1, and I think we do, then we've got to look for mixed middle opportunities elsewhere. And in rough numbers, R2 and mixed middle have the same density requirements. So they're kind of the same thing from a density perspective. But if we maintain R2 and mixed middle separately, then you could have a 15,000 square foot lot zoned R2 that couldn't put three units even though the density would allow it. So in a nutshell, that was the argument for just getting rid of R2, pushing them both together, and making them R3. And then the capacity of the lot depends on the square foot. not the zoning designation. So it seemed like a really tidy way to go about it. I mean, rezoning is always complicated. But the philosophy of it seemed really strong. And it seemed like it was something that we should consider.

So of the examples that we got, I'm thinking the 5113 49th Street and then the building on Hankerson. Would those fall into either of those designations? Were those things that you talked about when you were talking about combining these two?

We were talking about the population of parcels that are currently zoned R2, I think is the population that we were looking at, not at particular projects. I think there's some numbers on that now. Like you said, how many properties are zoned R2 and how many would qualify for higher capacity?

Yeah, Michael did some analysis for our R2 district, and I think Michael is correct. There's roughly like 500 or so R2 parcels. And, you know, if we were to basically do with the R2 what we were planning to do with mixed middle and just allow, you know, the number of units based on the lot size, right, and base that on one unit per 5,445, which, again, that's eight units an acre. That's how they're guided in the comp plan. then like is it something like two-thirds of them are like would not be able to add a unit so most of them would stay the same but there'd be like maybe a third of those r2 zone properties that potentially could add a unit or two or three depends on how big they are yeah there were there weren't any i don't believe there were any in the r2 district that would be allowed to add more than more than three maybe one or two parcels could add up to four

dwelling units per parcel. And I think the total number of dwelling units that we identified is like if every lot developed to its maximum potential, it would come out to about 144 lots or new dwelling units. And that comes down to 140 net dwelling units of what's currently allowed.

So that's 140 properties that by right could build, say, a triplex. Yeah. But leave the rest of them with the same density. requirement limited to two. So it just seemed like a good idea.

And just to review what you said, that the setbacks remain, the way you have written them as the proposed change, the setbacks have a feel of a single-family home, the closeness and everything. They're not less setback than a single-family home would, by right, be able to build, correct?

Correct, yep. The setbacks are all aligned, yep.

I think that makes sense. I mean, just again, and the theme of simplification for no other reason. I'm in agreement with that.

Yeah, for sure. Yeah, and I am curious, because as we were going through this, I think, Julie, you always bring us back to like the Valley View and Waddell, but that whole kind of corridor there from Valley View down to 62 is a lot of I guess I don't really know what it's owned today, but I would have expected more of that to be incorporated into that area. But it didn't look like that because we saw the couple of properties there. And that's just one site that kind of comes to mind. So I'm curious to know like where there is that mismatch maybe of what is there today compared to what this would be layering over it. I don't know if that question makes sense, but.

Where are those 144 properties?

Yeah. Yeah.

Are they kind of all over or is it in a certain zone?

Do you guys want to pull up the map that shows the R2?

Current R2 properties, because yeah, I can't just take me a second.

Because yeah, all those ones along Valley View you're talking about like just north of 62.

Are you the current from the story map or the one that I sent you earlier today? I was thinking the story map. OK, yeah, sorry.

Lots of those are zoned R2 today. What he would shown before was the mixed middle district, which is properties that are currently zoned PRD one or two. So those two parcels you saw are zoned PRD two today. And then what we're talking about is just essentially combining them and making them one district.

Okay, so all of that would then align to one district? after this change, we're just highlighting which ones were changing.

Yep. So now he's showing the R2 district, the properties that are currently zoned R2.

Okay.

And you can kind of see a lot, most of those properties there just north of 62 along Valley View are R2 today. A couple of them were PRD2. If we combine them, which was the Planning Commission suggestion, and staff is not opposed to that either, then they'd all be one district and they'd all have the same regulations.

Okay. That helps clarify too. that alignment then with what the Planning Commission was thinking of, it feels cleaner.

Yeah. Yep. Because all those properties too are guided the same way in the comp plan.

I think some of those are triplexes.

Yep. Some of them are. Yep. So again, yeah, too, like then this would open up the possibility that a property that zoned R2 today could be a triplex if it was big enough.

in the last two years about housing affordability and production. What kind of position does this put us in in terms of making arguments about local control versus trying to be more cooperative on the issue of expanding housing and production and affordability?

Yeah. I think this is like us being a good partner and like doing our part, right? Like what we're trying to do is, you know, Met Council makes us adopt a comprehensive plan and they want us to say, okay, where are you going to allow this growth to happen? And so what we're doing now is the next step to change the zoning so that it can actually happen, right? So I think there are, you know, some cities that will fight density and they won't change the zoning and then they won't allow it through PUD, like we have. Um, and there's not a lot of enforcement around that. So like a lot of cities end up not really having to implement their comprehensive plans and there's not a lot of teeth or enforcement behind that. And I think that is one big reason why the legislature is looking at taking back some of that local control.

But you think this is us doing

OUR PART IN A WAY THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES AREN'T. YEP, YEP. YEP, THIS IS A STEP TOWARDS US SAYING, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO ALLOW. NOW WE'RE BACKING IT UP WITH THE REGULATIONS TO ACTUALLY FACILITATE IT. SAY THAT AGAIN.

WITH THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION BE PRIMARILY ILLUSTRATED BY MID-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND R2, OR WILL IT BE ILLUSTRATED ON A BROADER SORT OF BASIS?

Well, I think with all of our zoning districts, we're trying to better match, right? I mean, one thing that the zoning code audit identified was that we don't have any districts that really allow you to go above, like, 30 units an acre, even though in our comp plan we have, like, the area in the Southdale district between France and York that's got it for a minimum of 90, right? So, I mean, it's all of it, right? It's having medium density districts. It's our high density districts, mixed use districts.

And then even within like R1, some of the some of the opportunities to do the subdivision, right? There's not a ton, but just those incremental additions throughout.

Yeah. Just to build on that, I think this map shows a potential untapped opportunity to maybe find some more places where what we currently call R2 or what we may call mixed middle, because it's pretty haphazard, in my opinion, a pretty haphazard display of R2. Like, it's on France, but only part of France on the southern side. I mean, is a question, not a proposal. Are there ways to have a few more R2 spots or mixed middle spots, or whatever you want to call it, where that could go in our city?

Well, and the Humphrey School study was to do vermin with all, would be this new, is MMR is what we're calling it? No. Mixed middle. Mixed middle, just mixed middle. And then all of France Avenue and Valley View Road, make that all the mixed middle. So that was their proposal. And then that would help increase the density to the point where we could talk bus lines in West Edina.

We are still limited by the sewer capacity in West Edina, so we couldn't have the... the redevelopment there. But it's really with our next comp plan update to where we can guide those areas for that higher density because right now, the reason they're not our two properties is because they're guided for low density residential, which is just single family. So we would have to guide them in the next comp plan update or I think that's a discussion that should be part of the comp plan discussion. Yeah.

You know, and then if we need to bring in the Met Council to say what you want us more density, you've got to give us money for more sewer capacity kind of thing or something like that. But I think that's a discussion I hope we have for the comprehensive plan.

But do you see that little black dot on Valley View just kind of hanging out in the middle there, you know, between 100? Yeah, that is a duplex, and it's on a corner lot. And it fits in just perfectly. It's a typical mid-century style like all of the others. And I don't see why there couldn't be more units like that along arterials and collectors where there's space.

Yeah. Yeah, we just have to guide them that way in the comp plan. What are the next steps? Well, sorry, did you guys get through all the presentation you wanted to?

No, we still have a little bit to go. Okay, why don't we let you keep going? Great. The last district we'll cover today is the assisted residential. This is a proposed combination of the PRD-5 and the PSR-4. You'll also notice this is pretty sparsely used throughout the city currently. The floor area ratio standard discussed for the HDR would still apply. Minimum green space coverage is 25%. And the interior side setback, which seems like it's something we are going to continue to discuss, but has been reduced from 35 to 20 feet. And this is a combination of assisted living and senior independent living facilities. No real changes from PS PSR 4. ELLIE WILSON- Sorry.

This just covers what are considered like larger facility type properties not some of the like intermittent like group homes that we have. FRED PODESTA.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Those are yeah those are like like allowed by statute. So like in single family, we have to allow at least like six units. And then in any multi-family district, I think it's 14 or 16. So this would just be like those larger institutional facilities.

So why is this its own zoning district and not an apartment?

Senior?

Yeah.

Yeah, OK. So this is one thing the Planning Commission discussed a lot. So right now, we have the PRD 5 district, which is its own zoning district just for things like nursing homes, And then we have the PSR-4 district, which is just for independent and senior. And so our proposal was, well, can we just, for simplicity, just combine them? Planning Commission didn't like that idea. You guys wanted to keep them separate. People on the commission felt that they were different uses. They should be separate. And that's fine. We don't feel, I don't think we feel strongly either way. You can see that they're not really used very much at all. there was some discussion about, well, why do we need a district solely for independent senior housing? That could just be a lot. That will be allowed in the high density residential district. You could do a senior building in a district that's zoned just for any kind of multifamily.

So like 403 West 70th, is that listed on here or not? That was a PUD, was it not?

That was a PUD. Yeah, that one was a PUD. That's fine. So I don't know that we would use the PSR-4 district going forward. If someone wanted to do a senior project, we would probably just zone it high density residential, if that was the density appellant to. So we could just leave this alone, leave them separate. It's not a big deal either way. But I think it was Planning Commission's preference that we just not combine them.

I think the notion was that a 55-plus independent living community has, the easiest example is probably different parking requirements than a nursing home. And that they're probably, the uses are sufficiently different where it's going to complicate things if we try to squish them into one. But, you know, it's doable either way.

Yeah.

No, I wouldn't combine the nursing home with anything because that's really its own business.

Just keep it its own.

OK. Yeah. be folded into the apartments, I would think.

Combine PSR 4 with the high density residential district? Yeah. That was a feeling that, yeah, some commissioners had too, was that like a senior building shouldn't have any advantages over a multifamily. Alright, and then did you guys want to cover the green green space?

Yeah, and then we'll go over the green space requirement. Again, this currently only applies or some variation of this impervious surface coverage only applies in the R1 district. Currently the proposed draft would expand this to all zoning districts. Minimum green space is the inverse of impervious surface, so that includes anything that water green space would be anything that water can infiltrate. uh driveways pedestrian paths uh the foundation that would not be green space that would count as impervious surface and then anything that is um that is that water can get through would be uh green space i'll note the city does not i believe count pervious pavers as pervious they count them as impervious so if you had a pervious paved driveway that would count um towards your impervious surface coverage rather than your green space coverage Yes, it's just something a practice of the engineering department that any, you know, there's pervious pavers that allow some degree of 100% down to, you know, 50% or some fraction of the water that hits the surface of the of the pavement to infiltrate into the ground. The engineering department recognizes these need to be constantly maintained. And to try to prevent them from having to police like maintenance standards on these surfaces, they just count them as impervious.

So we would just be maintained. So right now we only have this in the R1 district where we regulate impervious. But like you said, it's a little confusing because we count pervious payers as impervious. So. we're not changing our practice we're just calling it green space so it's just the inverse of what we do now and then we would apply that in every district because right now we don't have a limit on impervious surface in any other district we you know significantly limit far we limit building coverage but that's not necessarily giving us any green space because if you look at an overhead of like the southdale area it's small buildings and then large surface parking lots and they're like 95 hardcover So this is kind of thought of as where we're kind of making a trade or a compromise, where we're giving more flexibility on FAR and building coverage in exchange for green space.

So you're also, I think, potentially causing a problem for people in Country Club and Salt Area Park that want to put in patios that take them over 50%. And are there any materials that they can use in the realm construction materials that would be designated pervious as opposed to impervious. In where, did you say? Some of these nearby neighborhoods here.

We're not changing anything. This wouldn't change anything with anything that's R1. Anything that's single family, this is how we do it today.

Yeah, I understand that's how you do it today, but there are people calling me and writing to me today that are over the 50% rule, and they want to use some pervious material to expand patio capacity because they've got small lot sizes.

OK. Well, we could change it.

One of the materials out there that they can use that don't cause them to violate the rules.

Right now, I think there's nothing.

If it's any- We're going to release it in the future. Most of these things short circuit unless you maintain them, and you know I maintain them.

cracks fill in with dirt and leaves and they become impervious.

I think specific, we're happy to work with specific applicants. Concerns, we can see if there's a way to work around that.

Well, I think when the impervious requirement for R1 was first adopted, I think staff analyzed and at first came in and recommended 60% because recognizing there are a lot of lots that are already over 50%. We ended up settling on 50%. So if we want to revisit increasing that number, that'd be another way to address that issue. Just increasing it.

Or decreasing the green space.

Right, right. So yeah, we could change it for sure.

How would that apply to a district like 50th and France, where all the commercial buildings are built lot line to lot line?

There's the only green space is the city's Yeah, that's a great point. So that is something that we need to still talk about and figure out if we're going to carve out like an exception for 50th and Francima because that is you're right, like 100% hardcover right now. I don't know that if one of those buildings needed to be redeveloped. Like we want to require that they shrink the building footprint and put in a little green space between I don't think so.

It's got a big parking lot, right? So you could the pervious surface could actually increase and have a bigger building there.

Yeah. I mean, they are that way now, so they would be, you know, allowed to continue. They could expand the building as long as, you know, they're not increasing the amount of impervious or reducing their green space. But that is a good point that we do need to talk through more. 40th in France and 50th in France are the exceptions. Yep. Yep. Because those are like 100% impervious today.

The other thing is you can talk about pervious surface and make the assumption that it, you know, is pervious all the way down. But that's not necessarily true. Because you can have the parking underground parking extend all the way to the lot line. And then you put dirt on top of that. And yes, that is pervious. So it is absorbing. But it's not a place where you could plant a tree. And so just sort of thinking about pervious, impervious, but also impact on, you know, how do we get that tree canopy? It's not necessarily guaranteed if you have pervious surface.

Well, and from talking to Ross, it sounded like the stormwater benefits of pervious surface versus impervious There's not a huge stormwater benefit, right? This requirement really is more of an aesthetic thing than a stormwater benefit.

Yeah. I think it would also be a cooling.

Yeah. But trees are great for the water retention. But you're not necessarily going to get it with this.

Yeah. So the word impervious would go away. It would be defined as green space requirements.

Yeah. I think we would measure it, again, unless we get direction to do it differently. But our assumption was, do what we're doing now for R1 and just apply that. And yeah, green space is just the inverse of what we're doing now.

Yeah, it's just a rewording. It's the same policy.

Exactly.

And then we can futz with the policy. Just like the lot size, we can always change the underlying policy. But we want something that's clear, easy to read, and easy to enforce. And then we can make our policy changes based with that language.

I think that impervious rule is easier to enforce when you've got a tear down rebuild. They can then build something custom. When people have built houses, they were built in the 40s and 50s. Now they want to improve their personal living circumstance in the back by adding a little bit of patio. We're saying you can't do it if you're over 50% lot coverage. I don't think we can cover some kind of distinction, but.

Well, isn't R1 broken into lot sizes? So some of those are smaller even, I think, than what's in the, well, this would be rewritten. So if they were under a certain size, there could be a different set of rules. There could be.

Yeah. So like we have the lot sub areas for the smaller lots, we could have a higher percentage that we allow to be impervious. That's an option.

WHERE THEY'RE REALLY SQUEEZED.

COULDN'T THAT MEAN THOUGH THAT WE JUST GET EVEN BIGGER HOUSES ON THOSE LOGS? YEP.

WELL, NO, BECAUSE WE DO LIMIT BUILDING COVERAGE. SO LIKE THE PAVER, THE PATIO, I KNOW THE GUY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, HE, THAT WOULDN'T COUNT AGAINST BUILDING COVERAGE. SO THERE'S A BUILDING COVERAGE LIMIT AND THERE'S A HARD COVER, AN OVERALL HARD COVER LIMIT. OKAY. SO LIKE PATIO, HARDSCAPE, THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUILDING COVERAGE.

OKAY, SO WE CAN

manage them separately correct anything else with the planning commission covered that we didn't talk about daily no not on this one you guys have anything else you want to add uh i guess i'll

I'll note that there is some changes to these permissions. Nothing drastic. It's in your packet. Mostly the goal is to shift things from requiring conditional use permits to being permitted by right where it makes sense. For example, a country club clubhouse is previously required a conditional use permit, but golf courses were permitted by right in the R1. That's being shifted to permitted by right. Use standards still apply even to be associated with a golf course needing to be on a certain amount of lot size, etc. And then permitting things as essential uses where they make sense in consolidating. For now, you know, consolidating the AR uses into one, but it sounds like that might be something that we undo in the next iteration. That's kind of all for this draft. The next meeting that we plan to have with you all in September, I believe, would be on the non-residential districts.

So go back to the country club section again. Addison, what does that mean if we take away the conditional use permit? Because I know the neighbors, when the country clubs are making changes, the neighbors get worried.

Yeah, well, I think what we'd like to do, you know, we would, you know, be talking about this with you, is come up with standards that we can agree on that, you know, would make it just a permitted use so that they don't have to go through and get a conditional use permit. I think they would still have to go through site plan review. So it would still come before you. But generally, if it's a site plan review and not a conditional use permit, it's just kind of a check to make sure it complies with the code. You do maintain more discretion with a conditional use permit. So we could keep it a conditional use, but our goal here is to try to just come up with objective standards that we just expect them to follow. And it's either they meet these standards or they don't.

Could this result in an expansion of Country Club area? Like, could they purchase R1 houses around the Country Club to...

This wouldn't change anything with that. I think that they could, right? I mean, they can buy property. Yeah.

Right. And they have.

Yeah.

But then... that process would not change at all?

This is not changing that process. So this change just applies to the clubhouse. So that's like the clubhouses. Yeah. Like when they make changes to their clubhouse and expand it or something like that, then they have to go through and amend their conditional use permit.

OK.

But there's more to a country club than clubhouses and . Yeah. attempts court.

Well, cool. Yeah, they'd have setback standards on where they could be located.

Pickleball could be a tricky one. Yeah.

Yeah, exactly. But I mean, that's the question. Would a pickleball court be by right then? Or would it be you know, conditional use where we'd have, say, you have to have noise mitigator.

That's a good question. I'd have to ask Kerry about how he would have handled that now.

Before we close out residential, I'd like to know a lot more about how the entry plug would work.

We'll talk about that.

And then maybe also think about looking at minimum lot size as a differentiator to what you're talking about. It could be, what districts would We possibly recommend that we go to 60% lot coverage on Hartscape. Sure. Or some districts, some areas.

OK. I think that's all we have for you.

Yeah. This is excellent work. Great. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, David.

Thank you, Addison.

Thank you. That's all we got. Thank you all. Thanks everyone.