Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

and for the benefit of those watching at home. All right. Good evening. I'll call our meeting to order. Our first order of business is to adopt the agenda for tonight's meetings. Commissioner, may I have a motion to adopt the final agenda? Motion to adopt the final agenda. Is there a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Great. We have an agenda approved. Our next order of business is to adopt the minutes from our September 16th, 2025 planning committee meeting. Uh, commissioners, is there a motion to approve those minutes? I'll make a motion on that. Great. We have a motion to approve the minutes. Second. Second. We have a second. All those in favor? I. I.

Any opposed? Great. Thank you. Motion carries. Now we'll move on to our discussion items. Our first item for discussion tonight is item 3.1. Consider a proposed R1 Oldtown Residential Zoning District. This item does include a public hearing. Uh for the benefit of those in the audience, I understand there's been a fair bit of uh public discussion and feedback. So, I wanted to clarify that this ordinance is not intended to and will not allow mobile housing developments in the Oldtown area, nor nor will it uh encourage or authorize section 8 housing in this area. It's proposed to allow a smaller size footprint for the houses in this traditional neighborhood that matches culturally and aesthetically the existing neighborhood. Um the word I heard from both the planning commission previously and the city council is charm. The the uh objective is to maintain the charm and character of this traditional area of Victoria. So for anyone who's interested in speaking to this uh issue during the public hearing, you'll have an opportunity um to come up to the podium, state your name and your address and and you'll have three minutes. Uh my only request is to not repeat the comments of those who might come before you. After that, our planning commission will have a discussion around that. This is an advisory body. So, we'll come up with a recommendation, a motion to recommend something to the city council who will then consider uh that action. So, let me now turn it over to associate uh planner Travis Briarley for a staff presentation. maybe some of your questions will be answered as a result of that presentation. So, Travis, please take us through.

Good evening, chair, commission. Uh, tonight we're talking about a proposed zoning district known as R1A um titled Oldtown Residential. Uh, just a little bit of background of how we got here today. Is there this zoning district uh is was investigated to see for feasibility and now looking for to see if the application would work with the with public support uh based on an zoning amendment that was requested for smaller lot size as well as other bulk standards throughout the R1. The planning commission went through a public hearing. It went to the city council and got denied. So therefore the R1 or normal single family has not changed. Um this was properly published in the newspaper and a no not mailed notice was sent to all the properties the 107 with inside the district as well as every property within 350 ft of the edge of the district. Um this is all this was done for the feasibility and tonight was at the direction of the city council. Um and there's no rest because of that there's no restriction. We don't have a 60-day rule like we normally would with any type of changes to the zoning code. Uh the goals of this is to focus on redevelopment, not subdivision development. So that's you're looking at individual properties or maybe two properties or three properties together to be redeveloped um through it. Uh the other the other goal is to make sure that the principal structure is the focus of the property. It should be the largest thing on the property, not not the garage or other accessory structures. Uh we're also looking at setting reasonable design standards. Uh as was mentioned by the chair, uh charm is the term that's been being used. We want to make sure that we can accompany that and embody that when redevelopment does take place. Um and with that being said, redeveloped properties have to be compatible with the existing homes. No McMansions and no trailer homes or things like that. It has to be similar to the neighborhood and fit with the character of the neighborhood. Um the other thing that we want to do is we

want to make sure that any changes proposed mitigate any adverse effects of the redevelopment on existing properties as well as doesn't take any abilities of current land owners to be able to use their property as they have and as what the R1 would allow. Um, one of the things that we will be looking at is our comprehensive plan, uh, when we look at how this is done. And per our comprehensive plan, this is a low density residential and we're looking primarily at density ranges of 2 and a/4 to six units an acre. In addition with that, it's predominantly single family detached homes with a limited attached housing such as duplexes and twin homes. the area that we're looking at. We're looking at the feasibility or looking to see if the if the area would work for. What we did is we took a look at the historics of the plat to look when properties were set up and when homes were built. And through here there's a wide range, but the primary area that we're looking at is the area that's highlighted or excuse me highlighted in red. Uh those subdivisions are between 1914 and 1972 is the primary area of what we're looking at. A little bit better understanding where it is. Everything in blue is the proposed R1A Oldtown residential zone. Uh this area uh primarily has single family homes on it uh except for two properties which are currently legal non-conforming and those properties would continue to stay legal non-conforming and continue the uses they are. When we look at the overview, like I said, the intent is for infill redevelopment opportunities. Um this is a variation of the R1 standard, so there's a little bit of change, but not anything too significant. The primary things we're looking at is a little bit smaller lot sizes and smaller front and rear setbacks. Currently, they're at 30 ft. We'd be looking at going down to 25. Uh we also want to allow for more varied housing stock housing stock than just single family. That's where the twin homes and the duplexes come into play to align with the comprehensive plan and

the goals laid out in that. With that being said, the 2040 comprehensive plan doesn't require any change because we're still in the low um density for residential properties. And then the R1A we when we start working on our 2050 plan in the next year or two, it'll be something that we would need to take into account if it's approved um by the city council. This area also includes a shoreland district within it. And with that, Oops. And with that, the shoreland district has certain rules and it is an overlay. Um I'll be talking about those in just a couple slides. When we're looking at the proposed changes, currently our single family sits at about uh 3.6 6 units an acre or excuse me, excuse me, it sits at 4.8. I apologize about the typo. The R1A and the R1 on here are backwards for the units an acre, but we're looking at a minimum lot area currently of 12,000 square ft with a lot width of 80 80 ft, a minimum lot depth of 130 ft, and a front yard setback of 30 ft. Those are the items that we're looking at that the R1A would have an effect on compared to the current R1 standards. For a single family home, we'd be looking at going down to uh 9200 square feet with a 75 foot uh minimum width on corners and 65 for the interior, 110 for the depth, and 25 ft for the front and rear setbacks. This does not affect the sideyard setbacks at all. Those are currently 10 ft and those are proposed to remain the same. So, you still have the same separation between properties or between homes. In addition to that, with twin homes and duplexes, um on there, we're looking at going on our range of our densities. Uh with twin homes being able to be at 3 uh zero units per acre, uh with a minimum lot size of 7,260 square ft. Uh duplexes, 14,500. If you notice, the duplexes are twice the number, and that's just because the type of home that it is compared to what a duplex would be. And when we look at the bulk standards

for accessory uses between the R1 and the R1A, they are exactly the same. There's no changes to those. Um, they need to stay the same, keep that charm, keep the character that currently exists. The other thing that we're looking at is our total principal uses are very similar where we allow single family, twin homes, duplexes, state licensed residential group homes, six or fewer people. That falls underneath the state statute. That's something that's going to be allowed anyways under the state statutes. Uh municipal facilities and parks, which we definitely want to have in there. Places of worship, uh including cemeteries, memorial gardens. Currently, this area doesn't have any of those, but uh religious institutions are or uh faith-based organizations are able to be with inside your single family residential under federal law, as well as utility services such as your gas, your electric, internet, cable, and things like that. Just for uh an example, single family homes. Uh on the screen in front of you are single family homes. There's two types that we want to look at. And I do want to apologize uh for some confusion for causing some of the confusion tonight. In the written ordinance said manufactured homes, that term was was meant to be modular homes. Uh the difference between a single family and a modular or your traditional single family home. And your modular home is a modular home. A lot of it is built offsite, brought to the property and put together in a very short time period, generally a couple days compared to the construction that we typically see where it's a few months. On the screen, the top property is actually a single family home and the property below it is a picture of a modular home. As you can tell, there's not any difference that you can see from the street. They're also both required to meet all building code standards as well as pass the same inspections throughout the process. Twin homes are a little bit different. Twin homes are two single family homes that share a wall together and they're on their own individual parcels. So, they're still single family, just one

shared wall. If a twin home has a third unit attached to it, that actually becomes a town home, uh, which we have defined in our code, and town homes aren't allowed within this area. Uh, duplexes. The biggest thing with the duplex is a single parcel that has two units with it with separate entrances. So, this can be done by stacking um residential property or residential units on top of each other and next to each other. And that goes back to the densities and the minimum size requirements that were listed earlier. So, if you create a duplex that is separated more as a town or twin home, you need to have the larger parcel and vice versa. Uh some of the things that would be prohibited for housing that we would typically see, apartment buildings are not permitted um within the zoning district, town homes, trailered and manufacturing homes, uh trailer manufactured parks, as well as tiny homes or RV parks. Anything that doesn't have to come in compliance with the with the building code for single family, twin homes or for duplexes, basically it's not allowed. Uh we still do allow for ADUs um which is currently allowed in the R1 district. Um getting back earlier I mentioned we're going to talk about the shoreland overlay and the affected parcels. On the left side of that dark blue line that you see there are properties that fall within the shoreland overlay meaning they're within 1,000 ft of an ordinary high water mark for a body of water. Uh the two parcels that you see highlighted in red on there. Those parcels are large enough where under the proposed regulations that they would be able to be subdivided into two parcels. However, because the shoreland overlay requires parcels to be no less than 15,000 square ft, these parcels would not be able to be subdivided. They'd have to remain as is. So, anything within the shoreland, the benefits that they would get is the front and rear yard setbacks is the primary benefit that those properties would have. Beyond that, any type of development would have to be fairly

similar to what exists today. To the right side, to the right side of that line is where we're going to see more um properties and a varying effect of what can be built there. When we do look at development, there's a lot of things on this on the screen here. It's going to this is referencing the next slide for a map, but I want to make sure that kind of go over this uh just real quick. If you look at on the next screen, you'll see black black and red properties highlighted. Those properties are currently uh non-conforming due to lot lot dimensions underneath the current zoning code. Under the proposed language, they would continue to be legal non-conforming. Nothing changes for those properties. Um if there was any type of redevelopment for those properties, there would have to be partial combinations. When you take down a legal non-conforming structure voluntarily, you can't rebuild it as a legal non-conforming. It has to be in conformance. Uh the yellow properties on the next slide when we look at it are going to be properties that are currently legal non-conforming but would become conforming. And then we have green and blue and those are currently conforming. They would still be conforming. Um and we look at that the blue properties would be large enough to be able to put a duplex on for redevelopment. I would like to point out that uh there's no property that's currently large enough within the proposed R18 district that could be subdivided to create twin homes. So every so I just want to make there so this is the map that we talked about there are the scales down for the reference in the side when we look at the right side of the blue line for the shoreline overlay you'll see five parcels that are highlighted in red of those parcels those will be able to be subdivided um to create single family homes um I would like to point out the property that's on the very north of Qualquit that is an apartment building it's unlikely to see that redevelopment or redevelop into two single family homes as it is a larger structure. Um when the shoreline overlay cuts through some of these parcels, they're required

to meet the um the impervious cover percentages of that area. So they're still able to to split. They're still able to have some redevelopment, but they're still restricted in some ways in the smaller areas. Um the other thing that we looked at is design standards being written in the ordinance. The first thing is the relationship to adjacent buildings. Um, if an existing or if a lot becomes vacant or vacant lot currently exists at the time of patch to this, it'll have to meet all the design standards that go in there. The biggest things that we're looking at is scale, size, proportions, and character. Um, those are subjective terms. Um, but those are things that we would encourage anybody developing a home to look at and to make sure that fits there. If a if an application was come in and did not meet those standards um by uh staff's um reasoning, then we would deny the permit. There is an appeals process for developer that would go through the planning commission and the city council uh to overrule an administrative decision. One thing that currently doesn't exist in any part of our code is the primary entrance to the to the home. We want to this states that it would have to be facing the street. Many decades ago and even somewhat recently, a lot of homes would be built where you have a detached garage and the entrance to the home would be on the side of the home, not on the street side of the home. What this would say is if you take down a home and you rebuild it, the standard would be you would need a door on the front facing because that is the it's the modern way homes are being built. We don't see many homes built with side entrances anymore. Um, the other part looking at it is for the principal structures, making sure that 15% of any part of the home that faces the street would have to have windows. Um, most homes do. Um, in this district, the majority of them would meet already meet this requirement, but the idea is that you're not looking at a flat wall, especially for properties that are on a corner. Um, you don't want to turn around. You still want to feel like you're in a neighborhood. You're not going down an alley when you make the

corner. Uh the other thing we look at is building materials and architectural treatments. Basically, if anything is facing the street, it needs to be the same material. If it's an accessory structure of 200 ft or greater or it needs to meet the facade of the principal structure that gives some unity to it, it doesn't make things stand out too much, but still allows some flexibility with the maintenance of the character of the community. Um the other the last thing that we look at is the design of the city and of the building. This is primarily designed. We want to encourage tree preservation. This is an older part of the community. Some of these trees are over hundred years old. We wouldn't want develop or somebody to look at a property and redevelop it and come in and take down three oak trees that have been there since before our grandparents. We want to keep that. We want to keep that character because that is an essential part of the neighborhood. Um the next thing that we looked at is garages and accessory structures. A lot of rules on here, a lot of things stated and whatnot. Um to summarize this entire slide, we don't want that we don't want the garage or an accessory structure to be the primary focus of a building of a property. It's a single family home or it's a duplex or it's a twin home. That should be the focus of the property is a residential aspect. The proposed language has in there um that the maximum footprint of your accessory structures in total, the two that you'd be permitted, whether they're attached or detached to the home, can't be greater than the footprint of the home up to 2,000 uh square ft. Um so that's going to be one of the biggest things that we look at. We also look at garage door heights of being 10 feet or more. If you're in the older part of the community, we don't see large garages that have 15t garage doors that are bringing in uh larger vehicles such as tractors or uh some type of commercial equipment. These are residential properties. The neighborhood should stay residential. We shouldn't be moving towards a commercial. Uh the other thing that we looked at is inner module

containers or shipping containers from being prohibited from being placed on a property for in 72 hours. The reason that these containers are there, this is like your pod. So if you're moving in, you can have a pod dropped off. It's to take your stuff out of the pod, move into your home, and then have the pod leave. So it causes a minimal disruption to the um to the neighborhood itself. The other thing is no accessory structure can be used as a habitable building. If you want to have an accessory structure where you want to have somebody living in it, like a mother-in-law suite or something like that, that would fall underneath our ADUs or accessory dwelling units. and we have a conditional use uh permit process for that and those have to meet all the building standards as well as receive a certificate of occupancy. So when we're looking at garages because this has been a focus and we're trying to make the focus there um we look at the the proposed R1A versus our current zoning ordinance. So all accessory structures are limited the footprint of the principal structure. Uh, under our current code, you're up to 900 for your detached structure or you get a conditional use permit for 1350. What does that mean? That means if you have an attached garage, it can be as big as you want it to be. Under the proposed language, it would stop that from being bigger than the size of the home. Um, accessory structures are also uh limited in their height uh to the principal structure. Uh, currently it the standard is 35 ft. So, if the home is only 25 ft, you could have a 35 ft accessory structure. Thus, the focus of the property would change from the residential use to the accessory structure use. Um, looking at metal covered storage buildings not being permitted. Uh, currently we just have a restriction in the code for pole buildings, but we don't talk about the actual facade of the building. We just talk about the inner construction building or pole building generally reference your pole barn type type buildings, but this would take it a little bit further. And if you were to

put up a steel shed or something like that, it's to prevent that type of construction from creating extra noise, especially during storm events or during high winds and things like that. The other thing that we look at is you have to have a principal structure on the property. So, if you were to go in and demolish a home and not have a plan for redevelopment of the property at the time, you wouldn't be allowed to keep the garages. Recently, there is a a property on Victoria Drive which was uh uh demolished. The accessory structures went with it and that is that you get a vacant piece of property. You don't have a garage or shed that just sits there possibly for a couple years and that's what you see every time you go by because that's going to detract from the charm and the character of the neighborhood. Um, right now we we state that you that you must have an access or that if you have an accessory structure, you need a principal structure, but we don't really address it in the demolition. This takes care of that. However, if a building plan is submitted and they want to keep a garage or a shed for storage during the construction, that's something that uh would be discussed um with staff and could possibly be approved. But it would but at the end of the project before the home received a certificate of occupancy that building would either have to be removed or come into compliance with the proposed language of the R1. And like I said the inner modular containers right now we don't have that. Um we do have individuals who have unique storage throughout the area and part of that is we have a lot of residents who have lived in the proposed R1 area for 20 30 40 50 years. Um over time you collect things, you store things, some things get left. It it happens. It's part of older parts of communities, especially older communities. Um the idea here is that if there was a unique situation where an individual wanted to put some type of unique storage, we would want we want to allow that to deal with whatever the property owner is going through at the time, but we want it wouldn't want

it to be a permanent thing. Uh we look at the conditional uses on there currently. Uh the R1 does allow for accessory dwelling units. What we've done as staff is we've looked at and researched what condition should be a minimum requirement for these accessory dwelling units. The the biggest thing that we want to look at is that these are accessory dwelling units, not the primary dwelling unit. So if you are to build it, it shouldn't be the focus of the property. with it being a uh conditional use permit, the city is is permitted to put what's called reasonable conditions. So, if somebody was to submit uh for an accessory dwelling unit that's the same size as the principal structure, that doesn't necessarily work because now you've created essentially either a duplex or a twin home at that point or you've put two principal structures on a property. So, what we've done to to combat that type of thing from happening is that the any ADU that's put on will count towards the accessory structure um the footprint on the property. So, therefore, you're still restricted down in that size. And then the the other thing we looked at is off- streetet parking. Um if you have more people living at your property, you should have the parking on the property to be able to house those vehicles. So, we want to make sure that that is stated within inside the code. The other thing that we looked at for conditional use permits is daycare facilities. A lot of this is um or or the licensing is done through the state and the county. So, the city doesn't partake in that. But what we want to make sure is that uh play equipment is being put in the rear yard. So, you don't have a jungle gym or a play set in the front yard of a property, thus taking away from the charm of the neighborhood. It's in the rear where generally kids would play. Um, and then parking would be prohibited in the public rightway for employees. So, if you're going to have a daycare and you're going to have employees, um, underneath the state regulations, you

would need to have space on the property to park set employees and you still need to meet all the requirements such as setbacks as well as impervious cover. Um, with all that said, I do have a recommended motion uh for approval, but I would like um I can stand for any questions or comments that the planning commission might have. Uh before we move to the public hearing.

Very good. Thank you, Travis. I'll now open the public hearing and allow anyone in chambers who wishes to speak to do so. Uh again, my requests are to please state your name and address, limit your comments to three minutes, and and try not to repeat anybody who might come before you. I hope that Travis's presentation address some of the concerns uh that you may have heard or have personally. And after that we'll close the hearing and the commission will have a discuss a discussion of the proposal as well. So with that we'll open the public hearing. Anybody in chambers wish to speak? Yes I am. Okay.

Great. All right. I don't know if this is on. Can you hear me? No. Okay. Lori Kala and the address is 8124 Kwamlit Street. Um, so I have been in the old town, as you want to call it, neighborhood for um, 30 years. I went around and spoke to all the residents that I could get a hold of that is impacted by this in the blue um, section that you have. And obviously, I wasn't able to speak to everybody. I have limited time, people are at work, etc. But of the um I have 48 residences that have signed a petition that they do not approve of this. Um most of the people 55% of these homes are o that are owner occupied. People have been here for over 20 years, some up to 60 years. Nobody wants our neighborhood changed. We already have charm. your idea of charm and I think the idea of charm in the residents, the old-time residents and the ones that have been here over well all of us actually I must say um think that we like the large lots we like the established trees which you did touch on um we know all our neighbors so there's there's just so much um disappointment that you want to try to modify our neighborhood into something that we don't want if you want to develop a property like the empty lot at 8101 I think it is Victoria Drive that should be I think addressed by the surrounding neighbors and only that lot should be allowed to be developed. It should be on a case-bycase basis I would say because we don't we don't want smaller lots. We like our you know quiet streets are large lots. You're adding more density and I think that that's just something that nobody really wants. Um, so I'm not

sure who would want the signature list. Who should um I give that to? And I'm I'm not done. I can get more signatures, but this is all I have time. Yeah. No, thank you for that. I think Travis would probably be or no, excuse me, Brian McCann, the city planner. Okay. So, I'll give it to Brian. I actually too, I think. So, okay. So, that's all I have to say. Oh, very good. Thank you. I appreciate it. Anybody else wish to speak? Yeah, please.

John Elen, 1870 Victoria Circle. A question to start with. Is that okay to have a question? Sure. Of course. Um, are there are twin homes or duplexes um allowed in any other part of the city? They are allowed in the R1 district and Brian's probably better able to answer that. R2, sorry, district.

Yeah. uh chair and commissioners and um members of the audience this evening, we do allow twin homes and duplexes in our R2 and R3 districts. Those are medium density districts. Um the reason that they're being proposed in the R1A district that's being reviewed this evening is our comprehensive plan that Travis mentioned earlier allows twin homes and duplexes as an allowed use in our comp plan in our low density single family district. So, we're aligning what was approved in our comp plan back in 2018 with what's being proposed right now. Okay. So, R1, they're not allowed in R1 as R1 stands. Correct.

If it wasn't changed, then we would be all right. Um, I guess uh and modular are they also accepted in other other parts of the city? Has a question. Um, so modular homes are that are single family since they have to meet all the requirements of your traditionally built single family, they would be permitted. Now, just as a reminder, a modular home is pieces is pieces. It has to meet all the standards of a a single family home regardless how so that's currently would be currently in R1. It would be currently permitted. Yes, that's not a change. Correct. Okay. Okay.

Um, and then I guess uh That's pretty much what I got. Um, I guess as far as my opinion, I I don't see any reason for the change myself. And in the D in a a duplex or a twin home, that doesn't really seem fitting to me in in our neighborhoods. And and I guess uh I just don't see that as as a fit. Um, and I guess that's about all I got. Thank you. Appreciate it. Very good. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Anybody else in chambers?

I do just have one question. My name is Kim. I live at 8143 Platunia. My one question is is we're building all of this, but how will our infrastructure be impacted if we're dividing lots, which is creating more people and more traffic and more and more and more? How will our combat that if there is a plan for it at all. That's a good question for our city planner.

I'm good with that. Um, chair, commissioners, members of the public, um, speaking about this district specifically based on the standards that are being proposed in the ordinance. This would only result in addition additional eight housing units compared to what's existing out there. So, we've had our city engineer look at this and discuss this with all of city staff throughout the process, and there aren't any concerns about an infrastructure capacity. Thank you.

8000 km clip. Thanks, Jeff. Now, does can I tear my house down in my garage and put up a duplex on it right on the highway? Uh, chair, commissioners, Travis, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but if this district were approved, yes, that's something you could do if you met all the setbacks and architectural requirements, everything that's proposed. Uh, if I could make the the old part of town look ugly with town homes. So, uh, what what uh what color is your property on this on the screen? Blue. I can't figure that out. It's green.

Right across the high. Okay. Yep.

So, uh, that your property would would be only able to redevelop as a single family. And the main reason for that is because when we look at the green, you're underneath the 14,500 square foot mark. And when we go up to the standards of a duplex, you'd have to be at 14,500 ft². So your property is too small to be able to create a duplex. Even if you were to take your existing home and convert it to a duplex, that wouldn't be allowed underneath the proposed zoning. It would that would only work for the properties shown on here, which are in blue. Travis, maybe you could address. Yeah. Abs. Yeah.

Up there. Yeah. Maybe the So people could come in and buy a house in the development and tear it down and put up a new Well, it it would depend on the property size. That that would be in there. So, um that that's the biggest thing to look at is is there's a minimum property size based on density. If we can just zoom out for a second, I I think your underlying question is about aesthetic requirements and and consistency with the overall look feel of this area of town and that is addressed in this proposed ordinance and Travis maybe you could reiterate some of of that.

Absolutely chair. So let's say uh you did have a prop your property did was large enough to be able to convert into a duplex. when you convert it into a duplex, if you were to convert would exist or rebuild, it wouldn't matter because you're making that or if you were to rebuild it, you wouldn't be able to rebuild in some very modern design that's concrete or something like that because that'd be out of place with the with the character of the neighborhood. It'd be way different. So, you'd have to build it to a similar design, a similar size that currently exists for what the neighboring properties are. So, this would prevent you from going or the the way the rules are written is basically you wouldn't be able to build a McMansion next to in the neighborhood because the neighborhood doesn't have 4500 square foot or homes. A lot of the homes are much smaller than that. So, that's part of the regulations that we proposed was to make sure that that didn't happen. Okay.

But if you were to build a duplex from the curb point of view, it would still need to look like a single family home just with a second entrance maybe. What about you said about these pods and stuff in the neighborhood?

So we have so not this is very rare that that happens, but what we've been seeing lately is a trend of using third party shipping companies to help with moving residents in especially in our newer neighborhoods that we have in town. And as staff, we get requests to have shipping containers or pods put onto the street or put into people's driveways or in their yards. And sometimes those are there for two or three weeks while people move into their homes. Aesthetically, we've gotten complaints about that from other neighborhoods. So, we want to make sure that we have a way to address that if we were to propose uh new language. What about a fish house that looks like a white king fish house in the

so that's been sitting there for five years at reps and everything else um specifically to something like that uh that would fall underneath our nuisance code that wouldn't fall underneath the zoning code if it's parked in the alley because it's on a Okay, I I'd be more than happy to talk to you specifically about that after the meeting. Um, I do have uh cards as well that I or if you have the flyer, my contact information is on there. Um, and I'd be more be more than happy to talk to you specifically about that trailer. Very good. Round two. Sure. Why don't you come up to the podium

so we can record it? Johnny again, uh, 1870 Victoria Circle. Um, can I ask what is the impetus? Why why um are we visiting this issue? What is what has brought it about that? You know, I think we're all happy with single family homes. So, so what is it that that drives the the question to should we have two family or or or that? And uh to us, I I think most of the people don't just don't see a reason for that change. Is there a real driving force for that? want from from from our community.

No, it's it's a fair question and and I I have a sense from hearing the first round on this, but but Brian, you're probably better positioned to answer this question than than I am. If you would go, uh, chair, commissioners, sir, uh, the reason that it's in there is that when we have an ordinance and we have the comp plan, we need both them to line up with each other. We can't have inconsistencies between the two. So what would happen is that we would need to go to the Met Council for a comprehensive plan amendment to our low density districts which we did reach out uh earlier this year to the Met Council and asked about it and they stated that they wouldn't have support for that change. It's something that as staff we'd be more than happy to revisit again uh to see if there's been a change in mindset, but when we initially reached out, that's why it's there. And then they instructed us that we should be in conformance if we're especially we're creating creating new low density zoning that we need to meet that low density standard that we have in the comp plan.

And from my my standpoint, um this all came about when the homeowner at 8101, the person that bought that, wanted to redevelop that property. And we saw that other people would in future want to redevelop properties in that area of town. And the concern that the planning commission expressed and I think the city council echoed is that we didn't want that area to lose what it has currently when this area inevitably does have some redevelopment. And we didn't want to do it oneoff by variances or by ex or by lowering the standards for other districts, the R1 district. And so that's how this and correct me if I'm wrong Travis or Brian, but that's that's how uh from my standpoint it got it came to this point.

And the only change the only way it can change to R18. Thank you.

Question. So the only one that can change from R1 to R1 A I don't know what my exactly my question is now. Um

I don't know. Um so so maybe this will maybe this will help you. Um the difference the main difference between R1 and R1A is that there are uh R1A was created to preserve the unique attributes of the old older part of Victoria. Okay. And as you drive down Victoria Drive in this in the streets that adjoin that area, you see the mature trees, you see the beautiful houses that are for the most part really well-maintained. Uh, and speaking for myself, I didn't want to see that lost.

Uh, and I didn't want to see us as a planning commission try to deal with changes on a one-off basis and try to tell somebody that they can't build a 5,000 foot house in this area. So this was the attempt of city staff to try to deal with this in a in a way that preserves the the character and charm of this area without u dealing with it on a one-off or unfair basis.

Well, it seems like the R1 would do that also as it is kind of staying there would also preserve that same charm. And to add to that too, part of a discussion that we had with the planning commission when this all very first came up was, you know, you look into Henipin County and they're redeveloping all of these older cities and you see how much is starting to change and we really want to protect downtown and this area that so many residents fall in love with. And it's like, how can we maintain that and protect that and not just have someone just out of town come bulldoze it and then put up ultra modern brand new house that does not look like

R1 also still does that same thing. So those are in different zones different zones. So R1 protects R1 also does that same thing. You can't really you can't make those same changes in R1. I mean R1 kind of stays would stay the same also as it is. Chair chair may respond underneath the current standards. If someone came in and wanted to redevelop their home,

the only size restriction they would have would be setbacks and impervious cover. So if they want to come in and build a 35 foot tall threetory home, they would be permitted to do so. Okay. and underneath the proposed standards that we want with the design in there that would be out of place wouldn't meet the character of the comm or of the the area. So, this would stop that type of redevelopment from happening.

Well, with the lot sizes there, I don't know how big you could be with with your um setbacks and then your pvious and non-pervious materials. You could only have so big a house. If I look at all those lot sizes, I don't know how big a house you could put. You know, you maybe go three stories, but you know, you couldn't have a a a 3,000 square foot house with a garage on any of those lots. You know, I mean, I'm guessing at that, but as I see it, it would seem pretty tough to do.

Chair chair commission, if I may, on on the blue properties, that's that is something that you would be able to do. Those would fit. uh because we're looking at when we look at the subdivisions that have come in, they're smaller, less than these and they're much bigger homes. Um and when we compare that to say the Huntersburg neighborhood or to Marsh Hollow or to Meline Creek or to Brookmore, those are smaller lots than what the current R1 standard has. And those homes are significantly larger than what we tend to see with inside your neighborhood. Okay? And then and this is designed to prevent that type of one-off house from going in over time. When we do look at development, we're not looking at development in the next six months to five years. We're looking at 10, 20, 30, how many other years down the road. And we want to make sure that we start that protection over the long haul.

Okay. Then one last um is would it be I I think maybe it would go a little distance in that is R1A. Could that be could you have an R1A with without the twin homes or the duplex? You know, I think that maybe would answer some people's uh reservations of that only with a comp plan amendment, right? Correct. Um, chair, commission, if if that was a direction that the city want to move forward with, uh, we'd reach out to the ME or we would look at uh, trying to establish a comp plan amendment for it.

Um, and that way the zoning code would still line up for it. Um, we would want to double check as staff before that decision would be finally made. So, right now that the answer would be unclear, but it's definitely something we can look into. Actually had a similar question. We can discuss that once the public hearing is closed, but uh I want to give anybody else a chance who wishes to speak.

Some clarifying questions. Um Kim Larson live at 1881st Street. We've been there for 30 almost 32 years. Um my husband and I are vehemently opposed to having, you know, multifamily residents on these lots. We haven't really been excited about the current building that they're doing of all these apartment buildings in downtown because I think that is really taken away from the old charm that you want because if you want to be like an excelsier or something like that, you're losing it. So, we do not want this. The other question is is you mentioned the property that had the house torn down. I think anybody that's lived in the area for probably more than 15 years knows that as Pat's home. She was my three kids bus driver at one point. Um, so since that seems to be the impetus, what are they bringing that they want to build there? Because I am guessing if they just wanted to replace it with a similar home that was there or what was in the area, this would not even be discussed.

Can you can you enlighten me? I know that we looked at a proposal early on. It was a modestlyssized house. The idea, as I recall, was to divide a very large lot in two and to put a fairly small home on that on that space. Uh I don't know where the owner stands currently. Um but that's that's the latest I knew. John, sure, please. Are you the current owner of the lot? Okay. I'll share that with you.

John Wickben, 1495 Stugger Lake Lane, working with Thomas family. So, yes, initially this was brought to the table and we kind of apologize. We kind of created this mess. We tried to take what was three lots. Then we came one lot and make two lots out of it. As we all know, the problem 8101 has been a nuisance for many, many years. I've been in town for 25 and the grass got cut twice a year or not. rebel with five years ago. We hauled six 30-year dumpsters full of trash out of it. It was definitely a nuisance home. The camera can grab this that used to be able to pretty tough for people in the audience to see, John. You want to email it? Never mind.

I don't have my computer. Um, so basically what the our the Mr. Thomas' intent is to split it into two lots and there'll be two small single family homes. The I don't know if you guys can see that and to match the current charm will be a detach. Um maybe it's working. We're trying to pull up a rendering from Oh, there we go. Thank you. Go. So, we've got a rendering presented the city. So, the we are not putting up a twin home. We're not putting up a duplex. We're putting up two single family homes that match character to clean up what's been an eyesore for all of us for many, many, many years. We've all driven by many, many years. Does that help with any clarity? Does anybody have questions? Be nice if we could see it. I think I think people would provide

s. Yes, the one we're going to he's going to live in and build a single family one level home for himself and his family. It's about I think the foundation is about 1,700. I can show you the plan in detail if you want to see it. Maybe can I email it? Would that help? I didn't, Mr. Do you remember? We'll find it. Meeting date you guys were here. Do you remember the meeting date you guys were here? That's what I think we're trying to find. I know. I'm trying to remember, too. It was

beginning six or eight weeks ago. some some months back I think. So I have a question for the dilemma that they didn't want those three. Correct. That was the problem. That's what started all of this. Correct. Okay. So, all right. Can you address the spot? I want to turn this back into the hearing mode and give the public an opportunity to ask any questions, make any presentations if if you wish, please. We'll we'll look for that. We'll look for that. No, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, please.

8124 Clamoth Street. That is a lot and a half. It's not three lots. And most of us have no problem with something happening to Pat's lot there. But we didn't ask for our whole neighborhood to be changed. We like it. And you guys talking about charm. It sounds like you don't like our neighborhood, that you don't think it's charm. And anybody with any common sense at all knows that twin homes and multif family homes devalue single family homes, period. None of us asked for it.

You guys put a lot of work into something. Why don't you just come and ask us? It seems like you hate our neighborhood. We love it. You know, you're messing up the whole town.

Thank you. Any other comments? I'm uh Sarah Payne. I live at 8123 Quit. I also agree with um Don and um we don't want this. I'll just be clear. I live on one of the lots where I could divide it if this went through. I don't want that. Part of the reason I moved into this neighborhood is because of the history we have behind it. We're not a fan of the apartment complexes that are going up. It seems like you guys are sugar coating this, talking about charm, and then you're adding restrictions onto existing things like sheds and what materials we can use. There's people that have lived here for 30 years, 60 years, like has been said before. I moved back to this area to keep that charm alive and this is not doing a good job of it. I feel like it's getting pushed through for what motive you have. I live where I can get it subdivided or make a profit. They should have thought about that before buying the property. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Anybody else have wish to speak?

Yeah. Chris, 8127 Victoria Drive. So, down the street they have like these HUD homes and stuff like that. Is that able to come in next door? Say, you know, move in like lowinccome houses like that? No. This is I mean I'm just saying it could be a possibility. If if your question is whether this could be um a subdivision development. No, just like the house right down the street, but it's owned by the government. Yeah. No, this is not this is not section 8 housing. It is not it is not it wouldn't be able to be changed into that

meant to be lowincome housing. No, this is the the goal of this district is to preserve what is there

and to not allow vast changes, including design changes. As Travis explained, it would be out of character to come in and build a Franklidd Wright model house or something that's, you know, four stories high in this area. And that's and this is meant to allow redevelopment. It doesn't apply to existing homes. It's redevelopment. So when people buy these lots as the owner of 8101 Victoria did and want to build something, the goal is to give the city a framework to work with the person to build a house that fits the character, right?

And you guys are talking about character city. I see a lot of neighbors or neighbors my neighbors around here here and there's nobody around anymore around town. It's just everybody from out of town. It used to be everybody walk down the street know everybody's name but now anymore nobody wants to come down here and look at all this like this. I don't know. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak?

Brit Ringstrom 8163 Victoria Drive. I think what a lot of us are here for is a needs more information situation because ultimately if you're going to put a home and I respect your plan sir um you're looking at what $450,000 at a bare minimum to build a brand new single family home right so what that's going to do to all of our tax dollars that we pay and also considering the two monstrosities of apartment buildings that you guys did put up respectfully I understand that I don't know if I'd call that charm we are not a modern downtown and some of us live in some of the original houses of Victoria and we're very proud of that trying to preserve as much of that as possible. So I think the needs more information comment is we are all taxpaying residents of this town and I personally moved out of god forsaken Minneapolis to come back to this place because of its small town charm. So I think we all would love to know more information when it comes to building things such as a duplex, such as a multif family unit, which will also shift the demographic that comes in our little safe town that we love so much. So those have created some distrust in us. I'm not pointing at you, sir. Sorry. the apartment buildings across the way have felt or I guess put distrust in us as resident or taxpaying citizens of this town. So I think we just want a lot more information so we don't feel stressed out and so we don't have to keep you guys here until 9:30 at night. So I don't know if that helps. I think that all we have to do is find a solution, but in my opinion, a solution would be more information and reassurance that we're not going to end up getting a rug pulled up from underneath us like a lot of us feel we did with those two apartment buildings. So,

thank you. Thank you,

Shane Flicky, 1820 Victoria Circle. I bought my house a year and a half ago. I bought it because of the charm. I wanted to live out here. like she said that came up there. I'm like, "What the?" And now I see, you know, the traffic is this that and you know, it's different kind of the way it's set up. I don't even know what the cost over there, but just the the charm and then the house is going to be built. Who decides, you know, is this following the model of the neighborhood? Nope, you can't build that one. doesn't look like kind of the other ones. You know, it's more modern this and that. And you know, you I don't think you're going to be able to say that to somebody as long as they follow the footprints, they follow this, they follow that. How can you tell them how they can decorate it, paint it, whatever? 10 roofs very popular now. You know, obviously you can do that, but how who's going to decide what's what? You know, you can do this, you can't do this. That's my property. I can do what I want. In essence, that's what I'm kind of concerned about. And obviously all this stuff,

keep it small. Keep the charm you're talking about. You're just trying to charm one little area. The hotel is charm. That's why I moved out here. That's why a lot of people stayed here for 20, 40, 50 years of the charm. You don't have to be big. I came from Golden Valley, right in the edge of North. And you know, it's just I want to be out here away from everything. Now it's all coming out here now. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, please.

John Berlin blow 8591 Alageni Grove Boulevard. um been in Victoria for 13 years now and um just listening to the last you know whatever 45 50 minutes of comments I've not heard one single comment in favor pretty much everybody's opposed I agree I mean I think it will obviously drive down everybody's property values I don't think that was was mentioned in passing but not enough time was spent on that I mean nobody wants to see their home value drop you know 10 20% % and I have no idea if anybody actually did a study about that of how much of a drop in probability values we're expecting from this. Obviously, that's something that should be thought about pretty seriously.

And the other thing that I'm not exactly clear is how is a decision going to be made about this? Is it going to be up to a vote of the residents of Victoria? Are you guys just going to run with it and make a decision without other than this one meeting or what is the process to make a decision? The decision is made by the city council. Okay. So, there's not going to be any more than just the input that people say. So, yeah. Well, the city council will watch this hearing, right? And and have the benefit of your input. And you're all welcome to come to the city council meeting as well, but we'll have a discussion after the hearing closes about our our questions. And we have some questions about this proposal as well. Right.

Uh the city council then are elected representatives and they make that decision. Okay. Right. So is there any sort of study that's going to be made about what the impact is going to be on property values? Um I'll defer to the city staff. I'm not aware of any.

Um chair um commission. When it comes to property values, those are done through the county's assessor's office. But on a general sense of how property values are calculated, I only speak in general terms, more specific, you'd want to reach out to the county assessor on the on the more detailed steps, but in general, the way that property values are looked at is they're looked at what are local and regional sales of property. So that's the type of building as well as the land. So if if homes within the within the area, not just your neighborhood, but within Victoria, within the surrounding area, if those properties start selling at a higher value, the market value goes up. And if they start selling for less, it goes down. So it's not on an if the individual property a street or two away or even across street next to it, that change that doesn't affect your property value. Depending on the type of construction or the type of condition, it could affect your market value for what you could sell it for based on what what potential buyers would see. The intention behind having some design standards is also having some limiting standards with inside the ordinance is to protect against a a redevelopment that comes in that either has a massive effect shooting everybody's property values up real quick because that sale was high and affecting the amount you you would pay in property tax or having a property get redeveloped or stay undeveloped which would detract away from the ability for you to sell the property thus potentially decreasing increasing it. But for the specifics on exactly how property taxes would be affected, I would definitely reach out to the Carver Countyy's assessor's office and speak directly with them on on what that process looks like and what rules they have to follow. I understand that wasn't exactly my question. My question was the market values, right? You know, everybody here owns it. So, it doesn't really matter what the assessor says it's worth for taxes. The market value

is what matters to all of us. I mean, yeah, the taxes matter, but the market value is Correct. Important consideration. Correct. And that's one of the things that when we looked at and had the conversations um is looking at if you have a blighted property across the street such as the the 8101 which kind of kicked off is this even a possibility to do anything like this. Looking at that blighted if you live next to that property and you go to sell your home now you're next to a blighted property.

That that can hurt the ability for you to sell your property. though your property value might not change if you have and what this whole zoning is set up for is to re-encourage those type of properties to be redeveloped into something that is similar to what exists in the neighborhood. It's not to change the entire design. It's not to build a Hunterbrook home um with within this area and it's definitely not to build anything that would be substandard uh compared to the nice all the nice homes that are in the area. It's it's just for the long long term thing. As far as a study being done, uh there's no direct study to it. Uh especially with uh property values and things like that.

Thank you. just quickly. Um, so I'm a residential appraiser and I I know that when you have multiple family housing next to a single family home, your value is down. We adjust for it as appraisers. That's it's if you're all single family, you got a nice neighborhood. We don't have any blighted homes. It was just taken down. There's all the homes are well cared for. Um, there's no reason to redevelop our neighborhood or to try to put in these restrictions. I don't want to look like LAR or whatever else is out there. I don't want to look like that. Our homes are all different. I can say what color my home is. Everybody knows exactly where I am. I just have to say, you know, I'm on the yellow house. They know. But and every single home, because I went through the whole entire neighborhood, they're all different. And I think that's what we all like is the the just the the yeah just I mean this is old town Victoria or old Victoria I'm not going to call it old town we like it the way it is and I think this one property is setting off a very bad chain reaction to change you're trying to change the way our our neighborhood looks and y'all like the way it looks as is so but as far as the as you know multif family housing I is there is an adjustment made for your home when you when when I'm appraising because people don't want to live by that. They don't want renters coming and going. So anyway, I just want to clarify as far as

Okay. Very good. Thank you. Are you saying that down the road somebody could come in and buy a whole block and change that into doubles? I I would defer to commission chair. Sir, it

it's completely a possibility. Someone could buy the entire block. The one thing that comes with it is they're h any developer that comes in, they're not doing it just to do it. They're doing it to to uh reinvest to make a profit out of it, right? So, if they go in and they go to buy say 7, eight homes, they're looking at millions of dollars worth of investment, you're not really going to get millions of dollars worth of return out of that after you negotiate with every property owner and purchase all the properties and then do the demolition and then go through the plans and everything else. Is it a possibility? Absolutely can't rule it out. Is it likely? It's it's highly unlikely that that would happen. Generally for the development that would happen, which is going to happen naturally within with inside uh the older parts of any community, is you're going to see homes one by one as they get older as families and long-term residents who have been there a long time as they move out or as however they leave their home. you tend to see homes depre or homes have um maintenance that needs to be done uh over time and not and not all the times it's done. That's how we do get some homes that are blighted. Not saying anybody's homes here are blighted or anything like that. That's not anything I'm trying to say. But what the goal is is that when a home does become in a condition where it it could use some uh some rehab and use some TLC such as redoing the entire roof or the structure or the cider and things like that. It could be advantageous to have somebody come to purchase the property with the intent of rebuilding a a new home on the site. In that case, the whole idea behind the design standards is that it still fits with inside the character of your neighborhood. It's not something that it's not a LAR home. It's not it's not anything like that. It is an individual home coming in. Um, and that's the big difference between an infill development

plan and a uh your subdivision plan for development. I mean two houses they look identical you drive any development now all it is going to house and all it is on the other side of the house

I don't think people want to see the home sitting next to each other we got all different my built up this So I mean we all know where they came from all but I mean like two houses on the not wrong with that if they stay close to what the rest of it looks like. You don't put two side by side like you set two houses down from an off board there. There's your two houses and that's what we don't want.

Sir, for so for clarification, um the the concern that you're raising is not wanting twin homes because the twin homes would be two homes that look the same. Okay. idiot. So, has anybody is there anybody who has not spoken that wishes to speak at this point? Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing. I

any opposed? No. Thank you. Motion carries and public hearing is now closed. Um I'd like to give the planning commission now an opportunity to ask any questions or express their views with respect to the proposed R1A district. U I'll start with a question, Travis, if I heard you properly. Um there are no lots in this area that would accommodate um twin homes. That is correct, Chair. in order for so though twin homes are proposed to be allowed because of the the comprehensive plan which staff will look into to see if there's an opportunity to get some flexibility or what have you with the Met Council and

um because none of the properties reach the the size requirements which in this case would be 29,000 square feet is what you'd have to get up to is you'd have to be able to create two properties that are the four or that uh ah let Let me speak. Sorry.

Let me get to the slide. That way I don't I I don't want to confuse anybody or myself. We're looking at So, you'd be looking at uh twin homes going in. You'd have to split and get 7260 at each side. So, there would be some potential options, but the duplexes is where you're looking at the 14,500 square feet. So there is the potential if you're purchasing properties with more than one it'll be created um based ba but then again based on the feedback tonight it's something that staff's definitely going to look into. Sure. And and as far as I know there are no duplexes in this proposed R1A district today.

Uh there there's one uh property that is a duplex down on the southern part. Okay. Um it's it's this parcel right here. Uh below that there there's a four I believe it's a forplex um that's there. So there's a duplex there. And then this property up on Quamquit is a multifamily. Um I would like to reiterate multif family isn't being proposed with inside this district. Okay. So that it's an existing use.

It's an existing use. it would keep a legal non-conforming status um is is what' be there with the duplex that's down off Patunia um towards the bottom that property then would fall underneath a anything that would change from a non-conforming status under the R1 to the R1A and become conforming would have to stay conforming and anything that would be non-conforming underneath the proposed regulations would retain that legal non-conforming status and the reason to include in the proposed language duplex Texas and twin homes is for consistency with our comprehensive plan. That is correct. It's not Nobody is coming forward saying I'm going to buy up a bunch of lots and put in twin homes or duplexes.

That is correct. Staff's not aware of any of that.

In fact, it seems to be economically nonsensical that you'd buy up single family lots and try to put a twin home or a duplex. in in my opinion, chair commission, uh working with redevelopment in the prior community I was in, especially with infill development because I had come from an older community. Um that is homes and neighborhoods similar to the ones that we see uh in this area of Victoria. It it's an expensive proposition without having the city provide some financial help for those. And with this, I would be hardressed to think that the city would want to uh do significant investment just so a developer could uh turn a dime, especially with homes that are still great condition. So, one last question on this on this part. Uh why suppose we just left it at R1.

Uh and people are going to move out. Houses are going to be torn down. We've seen it in other areas. Sadly, that's inevitable over time. What is the benefit of this R1A district compared to just leaving it R1?

And that's an excellent point and that's one of the basis after we looked at feasibility for reason and application, how would this apply to the area? um if a home if a home was become vacant or be need to be torn down or something like that um and a developer wanted to come in and redevelop a property that meet the entire R1 standard. What that means is any property that's on the screen that you see that's in red or that's in yellow or there's two parcels that are in black, those properties would not be able to have any structure built on it. uh primarily because when you voluntarily remove a remove a legal nonconformity such as the property size now when you rebuild you have to build to that conformity. So it'd be difficult to where you'd have to have uh somebody come in and purchase multiple properties able to become conforming with the proposed changes. It doesn't affect the properties that are in red uh as far as their ability to redevelop if they're taken down. What it does do is it would provide flexibility when you look at smaller properties um such such as the ones done in the 19s and 1920s. Um and then when you get to the properties that were done in the 1950s,60s and 70s, they're a little bit bigger. So we primary look at if a developer come in would or somebody was to redevelop a home whether a homeowner comes in such as the property 8101 that's a current resident of Victoria. they're looking to purchase the property and wanting to build their own home but also be able to subdivide it and create another home. Under the current regulations, they wouldn't be able to do the two properties that don't meet the dimensional requirements. So, we looked heavily at what those dimensional requirements are and how they would be affected. And we sat there and went, okay, what would be the the low or where would we have to go as a city to allow for redevelopment of those properties?

And then what type of effect does it have? Under the current R1 standards, if the property owner 8101 Victoria wanted to build a 4 4500 square foot home, that is something that would fit on this parcel. However, it would be of staff's opinion that that would be well out of place from the surrounding homes that are there. Um, so allowing it to be subdivided and build two smaller homes allows for the purchase of the property and the redevelopment of the property to make financial sense uh for the individual that owns it. Now, that'd be the same as if a developer came in and wanted to do it. It has to make financial sense. We also don't want to create a situation where you have ultraodern homes or you have the cookie cutter LAR or MI or whoever homes going in. it. This is property by property, case by case.

So, if I'm following you correctly, I'm looking at at your your chart. Uh, if I owned one of the lots on Victoria Drive on my left side, the the smaller lots there and I wanted to sell my house or tear it down, it it had become uh at a point where I just want to I want to upgrade, right? It's in a state of disrepair. I couldn't do that if it was just R1

if if as as R1. So there's a legal non-conforming status goes with it and that creates what's called a lot of record. So the lot exists if you were looking to build on those properties today. The size home that's there. Um in in some of the areas the front yard setbacks range from about 20 feet on some streets all the way up to 40 feet from what we gathered from looking at GIS maps and doing some measuring. you'd have to meet the current standards. 30 foot front yard setback, 30 foot rear yard setback, 10 foot sideyards. At that point, if you have a parcel that's 50 foot wide, you're looking at a potentially 30 foot wide home parcel. And so, you get a skinnier home that's going to be longer. And then for for the time period when that's built, that was a a typical design. And those designs evolve over time really in homes that have been in this area for hundred years in some cases primarily uh all the homes that are shown on here were built prior to 1980 except for a handful. Um and there hasn't been significant redevelopment of the homes whose homes generally stay for 50 80 100 years before they're redeveloped. Um, so there's some of those challenges and some of those uniqueness things that we looked at and if somebody did want to redevelop, we want to make sure it still matches and it can and it still fits the character of the neighborhood. What it would look like in 50 years long after we're all gone. So, it's it's one of those things that are just being considered. Unfortunately, staff doesn't have a crystal ball to say what the future's going to bring. And we don't have uh a way to say what type of developer would want to come in or what type of the new modern style might be or or how the neighborhood character is going to want to change naturally on its own over the next 30 years. But what we do want to do is we want to make sure that as properties start to see that redevelopment over the next 10, 20

years, there's at least a baseline standard that keeps it similar in design, size, and we don't get and the city doesn't have anything that looks out of place. Okay. Other questions? I just want to clarify on your your comment. I'm sorry. Please on the you on some of the larger sites in blue where they're 145 14,500 feet or greater. Um when we look at 35% impervious surface um that we can cover with a new structure. You mentioned 4,500 foot, but that's footprint right now. We're still digging a basement. We can go up 35 ft. In theory, somebody could build a 15,000 foot house with finished square foot. I just want to be clear,

commissioner. In theory, that that could be a proposal underneath the current standard. But what would happen is underneath the R18 that 15,000 foot, probably closer to 45,00 to 5,000 ft² because you still have a garage, you still have a driveway, patio, that type of stuff taken out of the out of the footprint. And I should have been clear. I wasn't I I meant in current zoning in the R1 that would be allowable. an R1A that would not be allowable in current zoning. That would that would be allowable. Underneath the R1A, what would happen is if we received an application, they would meet the bulk standards. It wouldn't meet the design standards because it would have a size that is greatly different than the surround surrounding homes as well as the neighborhood itself. Sure.

So, we would deny that application based on failure to meet zoning regulations. Um, in that case, it it is subjective. It's not perfect. It can never be perfect because there's always going to be um in 20 years there's going to be a different person in my position. Um I love Victoria. I want to stay here, but hopefully I don't stand entry level that long. And that's one of the things is now if my position is the one making the determination on that in 20 years you have somebody else in or whatever or the policies change internally with staff, we still want to find some consistency. And the way we do that is by putting it into the code itself and creating parameters and and having the discussions to look back.

So building on Ryan's question, is it possible in the R1A district to prescribe a maximum square footage for single family homes?

It is uh chair, it is a um it is possible. We could definitely write or we could write in what that size limit would be or a minimum size which we have currently in the R1 R1 zone. Um I would be I'd be skeptical of creating a maximum size uh because by doing that we would have that maximum size would sit for a long time. We would want to make sure that if a current property exists and they want to put on an addition that would still it doesn't change the character of the neighborhood. We'd want to make sure that they were still able to do that just because they own a large let's say the maximum finished square footprint of of homes is 2500 square feet. That's the biggest one in the entire zoning. I don't know what the actual number is. I'm just hypothetically. And we so we say, okay, the maximum you can build is 2500 finished square feet. And then that larger home wants to put an addition because their family's expanding or or somebody else comes in who whatever the case may be. We'd have to tell them no. And now we're restricting current property owners from being able to enjoy their property in the same way that they have moving forward.

To that point, there's a theoretical size based on the square footage, based on the impervious height. I mean, we can figure out the math. Yeah. um commission.

I I guess the thing that I've been struggling with or wanting to clarify is is again I think this started on one you know project site looking to separate. Um what I've learned is that the reason um that the town homes and duplexes is based on the comp plan and that would be require an amendment to kind of get out of because our comp plan has that in there but we're out of compliance. The third thing that I've heard is kind of this idea of size and what what is going on with potential redevelopment and not having overly large ones. So there's there's some things that it's doing to address kind of it not changing to larger or aesthetically out of compliant, you know, out of the the character of the community and the neighborhood. The struggle is those two adders that I keep hearing about is the concern about the town homes and the duplexes. And like I would wonder, you know, in in this role whether you know the MA council would see fit to have us adjust numbers within the broader community in terms of how many homes this could possibly address through the maximum potential of duplexes or town homes. So, we're talking about a 100, you know, properties in a growing community that has new development. And I guess that's my sentiment listening to this is, is there another path with them that holds the character of letting single family homes redevelop? It's establishing some con, you know, parameters that it can't go out of character. I don't know. That's what I'm

just That's what I'm hearing, you know, in this conversation is there's a there's sentiment I'm getting that this is not really something that's appealing, but could we do something with the Met Council that gets an equivalence on the broader community

and uh and chair commissioners, I I would like to remind everybody we don't there's no timeline to approval or denial or anything like that. Um, I would also like to point out that any public hearing that we had on this is valid for a year. So, this isn't a decision that necessarily has to be made tonight. Uh, especially with some of the comments we've heard and some of the research staff would need to do. Um, especially when it comes to the twin homes as well as duplexes and taking a look at that.

Well, even like the nonome performance once, I was I was struggling with that one with the three smaller ones, you know, the oldest part of the community. It's like, yeah, that's what I was getting is like it's going to be this like very narrow 17, you know, 18 foot wide home um if it needs to be redeveloped. So, we need to have a plan to allow for something meaningful to go into that space rather than it become vacant if that were to ever, you know, be the homeowner's choice. So, it is kind of trying to think of think ahead of how we address that at least in my mind. Yeah, I I think fundamentally what I'm hearing is we should explore the comp plan amendment process and see if we can adjust either the comp plan in general or can we fine-tune the comp plan with respect to R1A and say twin ohms and and duplexes are not allowed in the R1A.

Yeah. And you know that was my oversight and knowing that this was in the you know the comp plan that particular fact um it I think in general it has a lot of you know value but there's two things in there that seem to be creating more more resistance than at least that's my observation. Another question I was going to have is not really a question, but if we could get a very overview generalized explanation of why we keep discussing Met Council and why we are kind of beholden to the comp plan just so that we have it on record of why we keep going back to that. The only from my understanding the only reason it got added town homes duplexes is because of the comp plan from my council. We have legal bindings with those agencies. So I get it from that perspective. We have to be within the parameters of the overall, you know, as a community.

I'm going to shift gears quickly and and move to a different section unrelated to to town houses, town home or twin homes and duplexes. Um accessory structures. Um, the current draft ordinance in subdivision 3 says that garages can be a max no larger than the footprint of the principal structure or 2,000 ft. And that's way too large in my opinion uh for this district especially. Um, the average threecar garage in Minnesota is 900 ft at max, 700 to 900. So I would encourage us to align the accessory structures with our one district. so that we don't have um combination accessory structure, garage that get way too big. And I know that they can't exceed the size of the principal structure, but I if somebody can build a a 3500 foot house, I'd hate to see a massive garage there as well in this in this part of the town.

U chair, that's an excellent point. Uh in the R1 district, uh current detached accessory structure can be permitted up to 900 square feet and could be permitted with a conditional use permit up to 1,350 ft. Um attached accessory structures uh do not have a size limit as far as accessory structure goes. So the language that is proposed is for the attached and detached accessory structures to have a total footprint capacity. Um if if we want if uh if there's consensus, I'd be more than happy to do an amendment bringing that down to 900 square feet or um whatever the planning commission would recommend. That would certainly have an impact on potential ADUs in the future though. Correct.

Correct. Down to 900 feet then potentially then they couldn't have an ADU as well. um commissioner uh in a way because that if you bring it down to 900 square feet and let's say you have a threecar garage that's 700 square feet you're a and then you want to put in a shed that's say another 80 square f feet now you're down to 120 square feet that you could potentially do for an ADU if it's attached so that would restrict that um we don't really have any ADUs within the community um that's something we tried looking up and we just couldn't really find So, but to to your point that is correct.

Yeah, maybe we focus on garage size and then if there is an ADU limited to 300 ft or something like that. Just an idea. Well, the ADU is also subject to conditional use, right? Uh, Commissioner, that's correct. Conditional use permits allow the city to put on reasonable conditions for permitted use. Um if we do set a maximum size for it, um that would be a standard we could write in the ordinance and therefore it would it would be an ordinance rather than a reasonable condition.

So we could focus on the garage and deal with any ADUs that do come up through the conditional use process. I just thought Um my chair, if I may, uh what I would recommend is that if we did reduce the size, say to 900 square ft, if an ADU was to be detached, it would have to be a similar design to the principal structure, the same as if you did a shed or a detached garage that was over 200 square feet. One of the things I do like is that any accessory structure has to mimic the design and materials of the principal structure. So you don't have Morton buildings, you know, in the middle of in the middle of Oldtown Victoria.

And and chair, um, we we did hear a comment earlier about how that might be restrictive. The way that the language is written in there, that's only for the side that faces the street. So basically, if you can't see it from the street, then that that's different. So that this primarily focuses on uh corner properties or uh detached garages is typically what you would see within the neighborhood. But as far as sheds and things go if it's under 200 square feet, if you wanted to go to Menards and get a prefab shed and put it in your backyard, absolutely under 200 square feet. Um but if you want to do something greater than 200 feet, there's building code requirements that come with that. Um especially structural wind load and things like that. Uh and that's where we would set the line of saying, hey, it needs to be a similar design, but in this case, it would be only to the sides facing the street. Under the current R1, all sides would have to meet that design.

Other comments, questions? One other thing, the property at 8101, I believe that's the address was on Victoria Drive that we reviewed previously has come up a few times. And I know one of the things that we discussed when reviewing that the first time was if we were to allow that decrease there, the impact that would have had across all of R1 zoning. Am I correct in that understanding?

Correct. the application that started this process and this idea and looking at the feasibility if this was a potential and getting to tonight when we're looking at the actual applicability if that's possible was an application that came in to reduce the minimum lot widths and the minimum lot size as well as a reduction in front and rear yard setbacks to accommodate for the parcel at 8101 to be subdivided to two parcels to build two homes that would fit within uh the character designs were shown to staff and it was discussed to not bring something to staff though it would be allowed um not to have McMansions because it's out of place. We still want to make sure the neighborhood stays in the neighborhood that it's been that it is and to make sure that that legacy can continue for as long as possible.

But we couldn't have just let that property owner do it all other property owners in that with those conditions. Correct. when we when we looked at the potential and we said, "Okay, you want to subdivide, it's not large enough to subdivide into the current R1 standards."

There's a couple options that were discussed. One was a variance. Unfortunately, with a variance though, we would be uh the city council would be able to um say, well, we're going to give flexibility on certain bulk standards or certain requirements. a variance has a bar in there that um uh it's I'm trying to uh in there where you have to demonstrate that it's not your fault that it's there and part of that practical difficulties test is something called plight of the owner. If you in if you buy a property and the property conditions are what they are at that point your plight doesn't exist because that was a known condition whether you knew it or not at the time of purchase. So, a variance would be something that the city would not be able to pass um when it comes to this because it doesn't meet the statutory test. In addition to that, we looked at other options of smaller homes or possibly doing an ADU or looking forward to recommending able to do two types of principal structures if they're smaller. nothing really made sense that because it would affect all of our single family districts and what they'd be able to do and one property shouldn't have an impact on the entire community. So the other option was this as an alternative saying, okay, if we had a zoning district for the other part of town and this was to happen to other properties, what is the potential of this being able to happen to other properties and what would those impacts look like? And big things that we heard right away is needs to be the essential character. Camp anything strange and out of place, sideyard setbacks absolutely have to stay at the 10 ft. Um because we don't want to have already pushed. We don't want any resident to feel like the home on their left and on their right got redevelopment. Now they're squished in the middle and they don't have any

breathing space. Um properties being uh in some areas at 20 ft from the road, some at 40. having that set back in there at a minimum of 25, but also put in the rule that, you know, you have to pretty much align with the homes, keeps from having some type of jigsaw or sawtooth uh uh description happen to a neighborhood over time. So, that's where this stuff comes into play. It's it's though one property kind of kicked this off as the idea, now it's is it a good idea? Is it something that is going to work for more than just the one property? and how do we protect an entire neighborhood that is the historical area of the of the community?

Chair and commissioners, if I can, um I would like Brian touch on that Met Council question. Um because there is some chatter in the crowd too about why we are developing so quickly and and I think it's important that folks know that we have to take growth. Um it's expected. Um we are going to be doubling by 2050. So um the growth is coming. We were working on our comp plan here starting this year for the 2050 plan, but I just wanted Brian to touch on that so you as commissioners are aware of of why we're talking about development like this.

Thank you, Jen. Uh, chair, commissioners, audience members. So, we have to go through a comprehensive plan process every 10 years to help guide the next decade of development. Uh, that plan looks out to the next 20 years. So I mentioned the plan that we did for the 2040 comprehensive plan was done in 2018. So we are predicting development from 2018 to 2040. This upcoming cycle that we're going to have, we're predicting development from 2028 to 2050. And part of the mech council's guidance and policies for that is citywide we have to have a certain number of housing units per acre. Right now in the 2040 plan that was three units per acre. As we look to 2050 they've upped that guidance. Now we have to meet three and a half units per acre. Right now as a city we are at 3.48. So we are going to have to make up that density in the future uh with developments down the line by increasing um the number of houses that come in with development or the allowable product types. So, um, in this instance, for example, I'm hesitant to explore removing twin homes and duplexes in our comprehensive plan, just for everyone's knowledge, because our low density district allows 2 and a/4 to six units per acre. That higherend six units per acre, how we reach that is through developments like twin homes or duplexes. two units in the square footage of a single family home. That increases our numbers by a lot. Um if we remove those from our district, that means we have to lower our maximum density from six down to maybe four um for our low density and that affects our

projections throughout the entire city. We now go from 3.48 to 2 and a half and now we have to make up a full unit per acre. as we look to our 2050 plan, which means a lot more apartments, a lot more town homes, a lot more duplexes, including all the apartments that are coming in now. Correct. That 3.48 includes everything that's being constructed right now that you're seeing. So, that's my hesitance with it. Um, I'm not sure that's going to be a viable option in this scenario because it has large citywide implications. So, Brian, two follow-ups on that. So every community is going through that. So it's I mean we're tasked with that same similar responsibility.

Correct. Do you just the the fine point on the the duplex in the twin homes? Was that specific to this R1A in this particular area or generally within the community that you're reluctant to get rid of that because I think that

it's not an R1. Chair and Commissioner Ree, that's in the R1 total. What our zoning should reflect is what our comp plan says. And our comp plan says duplexes and twin homes. Right now, we have a misalignment that we're working on uh straightening out with the zoning code update, but in this scenario, um it's is something that we're proposing to allow because it's what our comp plan says and we need those to align and we're going to be looking at that as a broader perspective on the whole community as a team shortly. Correct. Or we are going through that, we know.

Yeah. And and like you said, we're not the only community going through this. The Metropolitan Council has authority over the 7ount metro. So, a lot of other suburban uh emerging suburban edge communities such as ourselves are experiencing this um same frustration with the increase in the comp plan amendment. So, we're we're all looking at this more as we start moving into our 2050 plan. Very good. Any other comments, questions?

I would just comment that I think redevelopment is inevitable regardless. Um, I think it's going to happen as we go to the future. Um, I think having strong standards and some guidelines in place to help support the growth that we'd like to see, um, will help preserve our community. I think the R1A achieves that.

I I do agree with you, Ryan. We are I think this gives us more gives the city staff more ammunition having an R1A and some ability to influence size design standards and setbacks that they would not have if we did not have this district if it was simply R1. The other thing that it solves is, you know, when these smaller lots are developed, ironically, could backfire and force um either vacant lots or multiple lots to be sold and then resulting in much bigger properties. I'll be surprised, as a matter of economic sense, whether we see town homes, twin homes, duplexes in this area. I I just don't I don't see that. Uh, and if they are, they're going to be nice ones because they have to conform to the design standards of this area. So, I'm I'm sort of aligned with where you are.

Other comments? If not, I'll ask for a motion.

Do you have a sample motion?

Thank you. Brit Ringstrom. So, I'm just trying to understand a comprehensive plan for 2040. Are we expecting to have a mass migration of humans moving out here? I guess that's what we want to know. Is there a plan, a 2040 comprehensive plan to have an exponential amount of homes added because we're expecting a lot of people to come out here or can you explain that to us, I guess?

Sure. Uh, chair and commissioners, if you're all right with me answering the question. Yes. So, we have a copy of this plan online publicly available for anyone who's interested in learning more about future projections for the city. By 2040, our population is anticipated to double. So, yes, more households, um, more people, um, heads and beds is how Jen likes to put it. That brings new businesses to town, some of which many of you have probably been asking for, such as grocery store, more restaurants, more retail, things like that. So, as um cities expand outward, like I said, we're designated as an emerging suburban edge. So, we're expanding. We're becoming urbanized. In 20 years, I mean, I've heard from several members of the audience tonight about what the city looked like 20 years ago. We expect that trend to continue 20 years into the future.

We also have an orderly annexation agreement with Lake Township. So, as property owners want to develop and sell their land, that slowly gets annexed into the city. And so, that's why you're going to see the city actually grow that much more is because that land will be in Victoria. Um, so we are preparing for that growth. Um, yes, you're seeing a lot of apartment buildings. Yes, you're seeing a lot of housing, but our projections through the Met Council is stating we're going to actually probably triple that. So, we will be the largest city in Carver County at the end of the day when we're all built out. And yes, if we want a grocery store, we have to have people because they're a business as well. and they have site selectors that look at those locations. We've got 10 grocerers around us within 8 miles and if they don't have the people to support the business, they're not going to open. So, it's a it's a balance, right? We we don't um we don't look for developers. We don't go and find them. They come to us. Every project takes months to years to get developed. So, unfortunately, we're just seeing all the growth happen right now because property owners are selling. So, Sorry.

Correct. So the Met Council holds our sewer permits. So they hold our feet to the fire when it comes to doing developments and Brian if you want to speak more on that. But um yeah, so it is imperative that we work with them. We we do struggle with with some of that. we don't agree on a lot of their forecasts um because we as staff and council and commissioners love the rowing hills the the big yards the larger setbacks so we are trying to actively work with developers when they come in and like I had mentioned when a developer comes in and they propose five yard setbacks we're like nope this is our standard so we're really trying to get to a standard that if staff leaves that the city can continue to develop in the way that it is developing sustainably and smart and planned and thoughtful. Um, and so yeah, we we struggle with them and I I'm saying that publicly. Um, but we do have to go off of their projections and their in their rules. So,

thank you, Jen. All right. Um, is there a motion? Travis, if you put the draft motion up. Can I just say one more thing? Just in general, I just want to say thank you to everybody that came from the public and everybody watching online. We really do really appreciate your input and your time. and we know that we've all been here a really long time and thank you. Just thank you. Well, well said, Miller. Thank you. Very good. Yeah. All right. We have a recommended motion. I would make a motion to recommend approval to the city council of an ordinance amending section 16, 18, and 24 of the Victoria Z code. Thank you, Ryan. So, we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. All right. All those in favor?

I. Any opposed? I'm going to go no on this one. No. I understand the justice. Very good. Right. Thank you very much. Um the um our second item for discussion tonight, excuse me. Um yeah, second item is to um discuss the proposed zoning code article five on planned unit developments. I'll now turn it back to associate planner Travis Briarley for a staff presentation. Commissioner, one second, please. Chair and commissioners, maybe we just have a moment to let the council chambers clear out. I can't No, it's going to city council next.

So, I can't ask or whatever else at city council. Okay. All right, thanks everyone. So let's let's move on to item 3.2 uh plan unit development uh discussion.

Good good evening again chair and commission. Um we are at the next stage of our full zoning code review. Um tonight we're going to be talking about plan unit developments. Uh the good news with this part of the review, there's no changes than what we currently use, but I still want to go over it um and and make sure that we understand what it is. Um that way if there's anything that kind of jogs a memory, we can get that addressed sooner than later. Um and just quick background of why we're doing this for residents who might uh be tuning in for the first time. Uh uh staff identified over 500 items for review within uh the zoning code last year and that's why we started this process going through the entire zoning code methodically. Um we did identify some things last year right away uh that we needed to get updated as staff and went through such as sign ordinances, fences, cups, business districts and similar items. Our goals with this is always to be transparent. That's always the process. Staff is always available for any type of criticism, feedback, whatever it may be. Um, and more than happy to share those with the planning commission as well as city council. Want to be flexible with the process. Zoning is zoning is complicated. As we saw earlier tonight during the public hearing, there's a lot of factors that come into the decisions that staff, the planning commission, city council have to consider whenever making a change. Um, we also want to make sure that the updates we provide here are going to align with some of the updates and some of the goals of the municipal code which will be getting worked through the the city council as well as other staff. Um, and then ultimately we want to unite and recodify everything sometime in 2026. The goal was the summer is probably looking towards the fall. Like I said, it's a long complicated process. So, a lot of things that we look at through this process. We're going to review the proposed language of the zoning code. We're going to do a uh and that's just us looking at bulk

standards, foreign standards, all the clerical and administrative stuff. Uh then we're going to do a full review of the zoning code uh once we get through all of that um and try to do our best with community engagement to get feedback and help with understanding um with everything. We're also going to be uh uh moving some things out of the zoning code which don't belong there, moving those over to the municipal side as well as making sure any changes that are presented in the packets that go to the planning commission, we're going to be redlining those to present those in the future. So that'll be our base working document of the proposed language. We also keep a document which tracks all those type of changes. So we have a summary table that we can get to. So like I said, we are in article five which is Puds. Uh if you look it is on the bottom third of the entire list of everything we looked at. Um so far we are about 130 pages into almost a 200page document which is awesome. Uh planning and development uh just to remind everybody the purpose of planning and development is is to allow innovative creative and flexible development. uh bunch of other language on there, but basically what it says is that a planning and development, we want to focus at properties that are or areas that through parcel collection or properties themselves are 10 acres or greater. And what it does is it allows for flexibility for a developer to come in and develop something unique or creative and give some flexibility on some standards. maybe setbacks of properties. It might be street wis, it might be um uh design of homes, things like that. Impervious cover is one thing that's often requested. Those come to the planning commission. They go through the process of being reviewed and there's it's not just that they show up, ask the question, and get a nod yes or no that day. When we do look at if a PUD should be uh applied for or not, various things we look at, we look at location.

is location unique now there we are able to do PDS for under 10 acres however there's a very those have to be very special and proof show they provide a benefit to the community it's the same thing with the location that's picked when LAR or MI or Robert Thomas come in and want to develop properties we have to look at that they want a PUD with it however does that PUD provide a greater benefit to the city than if they built within the current zoning regulations um We also look at it said the minimum error 10 acres and it's accepted very specific cases and I've been doing this for almost a decade and I've never seen or I have no recollection of a PUD for under 10 acres um that's been out there. uh unusual physical characteristics as we expand uh as the community expands into Lake Town. We do have creeks, we do have hills, we have farmland, we have areas that haven't had trees for hundred years since they've been cleared and turned into corn fields, wheat fields, beet fields, what have you. Um so all those type of stuff uh are taken a look into. And one of the big things that we want to preserve is one, we want to preserve as much natural beauty. Two, we want to do as much environmental protection we can. that includes storm water management. It's probably the biggest and the most complicated thing we deal with in any of these developments. Uh we also want to look at mixed land uses. This allows us to vary in our units per acre. As described earlier, that number is going to be going up over the years um just because of how our population growth is growing compared to how housing development is going. So, we look at different areas where you could have single family homes mixed in with twin homes or mixed in with town homes. Um, those type of things can happen. We recently looked at one of those that's adjacent to an apartment building down on Victoria Ridge between Victoria Ridge first and Victoria Ridge second. Um, this unique area, everything has to align with it. We also want to be efficient with the

land. Um, and we want to be effective with how that has an effect on utilities. That's just not the financial what does it cost to get utilities there to what we're going to get in return. But do we have sewer capacity? Do we have the capacity to supply clean stable uh uh pressured water to these developments as they go forward or what amenities would the city need to build utilities would the city need to create in order to make these possible? And does that make sense? Uh, as far as the process goes, a developer will generally approach staff and we will spend anywhere from a couple months to a couple years going back and forth on various plans looking at anything from our development review team which includes our emergency services. It includes our public works, city engineer, planning staff, community economic development staff. Um, and then it's also brought forward and discussed with administrative staff and then financial staff at at certain points we need it. And that's so at the staff level, we can work out as many of the bugs as possible before uh the developer goes out and spends the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to bring plans forward uh to the sketch plat phase. Sketch classic phase is the first time that the planning commission as well as the city council gets um their bite at the apple and so to speak when it comes to a development to say what they like, what they don't like. Um and to give that direct feedback to the developer during sketch plat. There's no public hearing required. Um this is just saying, hey, this is what our code says. This is what we're willing to do. This is what we think residents like and don't like and how we think we should proceed. The developer will then take that do the modifications bring back to the next stage which is preliminary plat and that does require uh yeah does sorry it's late it does require public hearing and with that we want to have residents

give initial feedback on what the design is after it goes to the stage. So as we go through the plan unit development stages we're going to include more and more people and expand that type of engagement. After all that's said and done, a developer come back with final plat show their final designs. Um, as kind of public hearing, we need to make sure that once that approval is done and then we start working on developer agreement documents and things like that, we want to make sure this is set and this is the right thing because we don't necessarily want to ask for an amendment or the developer asking for an amendment to any type of agreements that are in place. So with that, that's what a PED is. It's all it's fun. We've been through a lot, especially been on the planning commission for a while. We have a lot of PES in town. Um, the next thing that we would be looking at, uh, when it comes to review is a sign ordinance. We recently approved, uh, or the city approved a sign ordinance last fall. Um, so there's not really anything for changes in that, but there are some interesting things that we're going to want to discuss. With that being said, are there any questions on pees or where we're moving forward? Thank you, Travis. As as you mentioned, there are no changes to this section. So, unless there are questions or comments, we'll move on. But I I want to give the commission a chance to ask any questions you might have for comments.

The only change was the one sentence that's redlined. Excuse me. Uh besides clerical changes, so we can have references. Uh we do have one. We we don't require uh 11 by7 printouts from the developer to be dropped off. Everything's done electronically now. And if we need to, we have our own printer. And if we ask the developer to bring in prints, they want the PD. They're going to bring in prints to help us out. Fair enough. Yeah.

Very good. All right. Um, this doesn't require any uh formal motion, so we'll move on. The last item uh tonight is item 3.3, development updates and maps. And I'll now turn it over to Brian McCann for a staff overview. But I want to thank um Brian and the city staff for doing this. This is in followup to requests that we had made earlier to get some followup on some of the projects that come before us. So u go ahead with the update, please.

Chair and commissioners, yes, I heard uh I didn't make it to the last meeting, but I heard you were interested on a development update similar to like I did last year. So, uh, yeah, I provided some maps for you outlining our developments within the last 3 or 4 years, where they're located, uh, in the city, as well as a copy of our updated zoning map, which was just done by our local GIS individual last year. So, I have copies of those maps printed out for you. The cases online, publicly available as well. I'll note that we also have a development resources page on the city website that we update quarterly, if not more often uh as projects come in. And the uh sheets that you have in front of you that were in the case tonight also list how many housing units, what types of housing units, what stage in the development process they're in right now. So, it's a really comprehensive overview of where we're at for the year as we start looking into our development activity in the coming months and the winter. Terrific. Good. Thank you.

Love the pictures. Good. Glad you like them. It really helps to see it. The graph. I agree. I agree. Um any other questions, comments? I really again really appreciate doing this for us. Um

so no no formal motion. So we'll move on. Uh staff uh are there any miscellaneous items for us? Yeah, I've got a couple minor items for you. First off, we do have some new artwork in the chambers this evening. So, as we've done in the past, our city clerk likes to hear from all of our commissions, committees, city council to hear what their favorite piece of art is in the latest collection. So, please uh fill out a form and provide it to me after the meeting on which one is your favorite so that I can give it to our city clerk. Uh secondly, our next meeting is on October 21st. As Travis mentioned, we have the sign code update. So far, that's the only thing on the agenda. Um, we're only two weeks out, so I'd be surprised if anything else comes up, but you never know. So, that should be a relatively short meeting since we just did that revision recently. And then lastly, I just want to make a note as we start thinking about uh the holidays. I know the snow hasn't dropped yet, but we got to think about that as upcoming meetings are coming. We've already got items uh coming to our meeting the week of Thanksgiving. So, please, if you're going to be out the week of Thanksgiving or potentially Christmas, just let me know so that we can make sure we have a quorum for those states.

Very good. Thank you, Brian. Uh commissioners, any miscellaneous items? If not, uh can I ask for a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Thank you, Mallerie. Is there a second? Second. We have a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. The motion carries. We are adjourned. Appreciate it.