WEBVTT 00:00:00.610 --> 00:00:08.609 - All right, we'll call the October 12th planned Commission meeting to order this evening Glad to see 00:00:08.609 --> 00:00:16.768 - everybody here. We do have quorum So that's a good thing and we have an agenda this evening Including 00:00:16.768 --> 00:00:24.767 - the normal administrative actions at the beginning and we have two minutes to approve two months of 00:00:24.767 --> 00:00:29.246 - minutes to approve we have some reports and resolutions 00:00:29.378 --> 00:00:40.712 - We have no petitions to be continued or requested to be continued no consent agenda and we have three 00:00:40.712 --> 00:00:52.378 - petitions on for tonight So why don't we get started with the roll call? Bishop Kinsey here copper Smith 00:00:52.378 --> 00:00:55.934 - here Stossburg here Morris here 00:00:57.346 --> 00:01:05.760 - Good. Okay. Yay. I hear Morris online. Yay. Welcome glad you're here with us Yeah, okay. All right Okay, 00:01:05.760 --> 00:01:13.293 - so we have approval of minutes from two prior meetings August 10th and September 14th. We had 00:01:13.293 --> 00:01:21.466 - some corrections made to the August minutes Anybody want to we probably should treat these separately 00:01:21.466 --> 00:01:23.710 - in case there's any changes 00:01:25.954 --> 00:01:35.061 - I do believe that one of the playing commission members plans on abstaining. So before you go too much 00:01:35.061 --> 00:01:43.990 - further Okay, all right, so yes because we are just at quorum we do need a hundred percent voting in 00:01:43.990 --> 00:01:52.920 - order to take any real action So I guess we will wait knowing having a preview of your vote. We will 00:01:52.920 --> 00:01:55.838 - wait to review so now we'll have 00:01:55.938 --> 00:02:02.365 - the next meeting three minutes to review. Okay, we make a motion to forward them We don't need to I 00:02:02.365 --> 00:02:08.921 - Don't know if we need to do anything. You can certainly take a motion to forward if you want We still 00:02:08.921 --> 00:02:15.413 - can't vote on it though, right? Yeah, we can't even vote on it. Okay. All right Okay, so let's yeah, 00:02:15.413 --> 00:02:22.033 - so essentially we're not taking any action on the minutes that are presented because we have a command 00:02:22.033 --> 00:02:25.182 - commissioner member here who's substituting okay 00:02:25.730 --> 00:02:35.306 - So how about number three reports resolutions and communications? I think we have an agenda item on 00:02:35.306 --> 00:02:44.881 - this for our October 8th special meeting we need further information about this or The coin interim 00:02:44.881 --> 00:02:52.350 - planning director House bill 1001 or house and roll act 1001 amended a lot of 00:02:53.506 --> 00:03:00.407 - issues re affordable housing and one of its requirements is was that a unit of government had to hold 00:03:00.407 --> 00:03:07.308 - a public hearing and Hear input on its UDO. It's there are nine topics. We'll go through those At the 00:03:07.308 --> 00:03:14.276 - meeting the format will be that we will open the meeting Eric and I will have some remarks about where 00:03:14.276 --> 00:03:21.854 - we were with the amendments that already took place and then it's designed to hear from the public we will then 00:03:22.210 --> 00:03:28.562 - Take minutes of that meeting and then forward those minutes to the state by the end of the year So that's 00:03:28.562 --> 00:03:34.795 - the plan for that meeting. You will not vote on anything There there will you just simply receive input 00:03:34.795 --> 00:03:40.787 - from the public on any comments or thoughts They may have about the UDO how it works How it affects 00:03:40.787 --> 00:03:47.020 - affordable housing and so forth and then we'll take those in and pass them along and of course consider 00:03:47.020 --> 00:03:51.934 - everything that said but that's It's an unusual meeting. That's why it's a little 00:03:52.226 --> 00:03:59.084 - different than what you're used to but we appreciate your time and your effort to Come and hold that 00:03:59.084 --> 00:04:05.873 - meeting and we have tried to broadly advertise it to get as much input as we can So that's where we 00:04:05.873 --> 00:04:13.342 - are with that. Thank you Questions I do have one clarification. So the requirement for the special meeting is 00:04:13.794 --> 00:04:20.040 - Or that there's a public meeting is only that there is an announced public meeting and that the minutes 00:04:20.040 --> 00:04:26.045 - from that are forwarded there's no requirement that the planned Commission be present or Well given 00:04:26.045 --> 00:04:32.111 - it is a hearing of the plan Commission. So you need to be present to hold that hearing Yes, so there 00:04:32.111 --> 00:04:38.416 - will be a quorum expectation then for that. Yes. Okay, and Well, let's just say yes if there isn't we'll 00:04:38.416 --> 00:04:40.158 - deal with it at the time but 00:04:40.290 --> 00:04:46.178 - I think we could still take input, but it would be best if there was a quorum present. Okay, so that 00:04:46.178 --> 00:04:52.299 - will be one of the expectations. I know that this is a different date than we normally meet, so I wanted 00:04:52.299 --> 00:04:58.186 - to make sure we were clear. Oh, it is. That's simply so when we could get it on the schedule and get 00:04:58.186 --> 00:05:04.365 - this room, so that's why it's... It is unusual. It's quite different. Will there be an electronic virtual 00:05:04.365 --> 00:05:08.446 - option or no? Yes, there'll be a Zoom. Great. Absolutely. Okay. Yeah. 00:05:08.546 --> 00:05:15.490 - We'll conduct it just as we're doing this right now except its content will be quite different Okay, 00:05:15.490 --> 00:05:22.778 - great. All right. All right. Any other questions about that special meeting? All right. We do hope people 00:05:22.778 --> 00:05:29.654 - show up and yes I'd encourage if anybody's watching please show up and we would really like to hear 00:05:29.654 --> 00:05:34.398 - your thoughts. Thank you very much Thank you. Thanks. All right Okay 00:05:34.690 --> 00:05:42.322 - We have no petitions to be considered for continuation. We have no consent agenda, but we have Three 00:05:42.322 --> 00:05:49.878 - petitions that will start with z o twenty twenty six dash zero six dash zero zero seven one that we 00:05:49.878 --> 00:05:57.887 - started talking about last week, but then Just continued to this week. So Eric, do we have a presentation 00:05:57.887 --> 00:05:58.718 - on this? I 00:06:01.890 --> 00:06:08.353 - Yes, thank you. So as mentioned, this is I think the third hearing for this particular last round of 00:06:08.353 --> 00:06:15.264 - amendments that were coming from staff. So the Planning Commission heard two hearings for staff amendments. 00:06:15.264 --> 00:06:21.663 - One was related to a resolution that came from council that was passed and will be going to council 00:06:21.663 --> 00:06:28.254 - this Wednesday actually for discussion. Another set of amendments that was heard last month dealt with 00:06:28.254 --> 00:06:31.326 - limited compliance and change in use standards. 00:06:31.426 --> 00:06:38.033 - So that is that is going on. So that will be heard this Wednesday. The resolution was was passed so 00:06:38.033 --> 00:06:44.904 - this is the the third set of amendments that is coming from staff and this is Really just kind of doing 00:06:44.904 --> 00:06:51.643 - a small little bit of house cleaning and cleanup some minor amendments to the accessory dwelling unit 00:06:51.643 --> 00:06:57.854 - definition to reflect some changes in state code regarding the the definition of that use and 00:06:58.178 --> 00:07:06.138 - We're amending the standards for cottage developments. Cottage developments are a little utilized allowance 00:07:06.138 --> 00:07:13.729 - within the UDO for a housing type that due to the standards that were kind of imposed on it when those 00:07:13.729 --> 00:07:18.078 - were created really hasn't saw much use due to the limited 00:07:18.178 --> 00:07:25.090 - increased housing that you can get with that. So we're proposing to amend a few standards within that 00:07:25.090 --> 00:07:31.866 - and I'll step through that in just a second. And then the third is a few changes to the regulations 00:07:31.866 --> 00:07:38.643 - for duplexes. One to remove the maximum number of 15 that are allowed per calendar year. The second 00:07:38.643 --> 00:07:45.758 - amendment to that would be removing the 150 foot buffer that is placed for two years around each duplex. 00:07:45.858 --> 00:07:51.262 - A third is amending one of the use restrictions regarding 00:07:51.330 --> 00:07:58.961 - the number of doors that are allowed for triplexes and fourplexes. And then as we briefly discussed 00:07:58.961 --> 00:08:06.592 - at the last hearing, the Planning Commission looked for a few changes to the standards for duplexes 00:08:06.592 --> 00:08:14.299 - regarding the definition of blockface to reflect situations where maybe there is a limited number of 00:08:14.299 --> 00:08:17.886 - residents along a particular street. So we are 00:08:17.986 --> 00:08:24.631 - proposing to amend the definition of blockface to give a little bit more number of units for context 00:08:24.631 --> 00:08:26.078 - for evaluating those. 00:08:26.402 --> 00:08:33.164 - So as I mentioned one of the amendments tonight is to amend the definition for accessory dwelling unit 00:08:33.164 --> 00:08:40.123 - There was a change at the state level that regard regarding the definition of that and the size allowance 00:08:40.123 --> 00:08:47.081 - for those So it did modify the language to say the accessory dwelling units could be 75% of the habitable 00:08:47.081 --> 00:08:54.237 - area of the main structure or a thousand square feet whichever is less so we needed to update our definition 00:08:54.237 --> 00:08:55.550 - to reflect that and 00:08:55.810 --> 00:09:02.144 - So we are doing that with this change tonight. As I mentioned, we're increasing the size of that to 00:09:02.144 --> 00:09:08.478 - 1000 square feet. So these would be in all of the districts. One of the other standards that we are 00:09:08.478 --> 00:09:11.582 - amending that I mentioned was for cottage homes. 00:09:11.650 --> 00:09:17.941 - So again, we haven't really seen much utilization of this provision Due to the density restrictions 00:09:17.941 --> 00:09:24.483 - that were placed on it. So we are proposing to increase those density standards For the districts where 00:09:24.483 --> 00:09:31.151 - those are all proposed as well as reducing or getting rid of the minimum project size and maximum project 00:09:31.151 --> 00:09:37.819 - size As well as a few other amendments to some of the use specific standards governing those specifically 00:09:37.819 --> 00:09:39.518 - regarding the rear setback 00:09:39.586 --> 00:09:46.733 - The provision square footage provision for central open space relative to each number of dwelling unit 00:09:46.733 --> 00:09:53.741 - Some modifications to the sidewalk language for that as well as to the buffer yard Language and then 00:09:53.741 --> 00:10:00.958 - modifying the size and including language to say no more than two units are allowed in any one building 00:10:01.634 --> 00:10:09.437 - In regards to the duplex changes that I mentioned the use specific standards when we've evaluated the 00:10:09.437 --> 00:10:17.163 - four criteria that are required for Duplexes it talks about four specific elements that are required 00:10:17.163 --> 00:10:25.502 - to be evaluated roof pitch front porch width and depth front building setback and vehicle parking access and 00:10:25.698 --> 00:10:33.546 - As we have evaluated these in relation to the first one regarding the roof pitch, we have instinctively 00:10:33.546 --> 00:10:41.319 - always included with that the orientation of roof lines to help keep some symmetry along a block face. 00:10:41.319 --> 00:10:48.941 - So we're amending that one particular aspect to state that roof pitch and orientation will be one of 00:10:48.941 --> 00:10:50.526 - the review criteria. 00:10:50.754 --> 00:11:00.542 - As I mentioned, we're also proposing to remove the 150-foot buffer as well as the 15-unit cap. 00:11:00.770 --> 00:11:07.980 - or the maximum number that we can do in a calendar year. We haven't quite reached one of the requirements 00:11:07.980 --> 00:11:14.782 - with the HB 1001 language was regarding or removing barriers to our housing, including diversity of 00:11:14.782 --> 00:11:22.128 - housing types, including duplexes and triplexes. So certainly that cap is something that could be something 00:11:22.128 --> 00:11:29.202 - we would hit up against. You know, over the years we have seen sort of an increasing number of duplexes 00:11:29.202 --> 00:11:30.494 - per calendar year. 00:11:30.594 --> 00:11:37.378 - So it is certainly possible that as time goes on hopefully we see these be Implemented and utilized 00:11:37.378 --> 00:11:44.298 - more frequently and more often that 15 cap could be something we would come up again So we would like 00:11:44.298 --> 00:11:51.285 - to propose to remove that as well as the hundred and fifty foot buffer And the maximum number that are 00:11:51.285 --> 00:11:58.137 - allowed per year As I mentioned one of the elements that we're all so proposing is the definition of 00:11:58.137 --> 00:11:59.358 - block face and so 00:11:59.842 --> 00:12:06.553 - in the evaluation for duplexes and triplexes, we are including language to say that you can utilize 00:12:06.553 --> 00:12:13.332 - structures on both side of the street along that block face. And then one of the other criteria that 00:12:13.332 --> 00:12:20.043 - I mentioned in regards to triplexes and fourplexes, there's language now that only allows a maximum 00:12:20.043 --> 00:12:27.358 - of two exterior entrances for a building with a triplex and fourplex. We certainly wanna promote the idea of 00:12:27.650 --> 00:12:34.366 - Townhome arrangement for a fourplex and the idea of that being condo eyes And having an entrance for 00:12:34.366 --> 00:12:41.081 - each unit works along tour. It works a long way toward allowing Those buildings to be condo eyes And 00:12:41.081 --> 00:12:47.797 - then sold off and so allowing for one door for each unit and a triplex and fourplex Works a long way 00:12:47.797 --> 00:12:54.845 - towards accomplishing housing attainability and increasing owner occupancy Chances and so we're proposing 00:12:54.845 --> 00:12:56.574 - to remove that particular 00:12:56.834 --> 00:13:06.599 - Language. So with that we are recommending that the Planning Commission forward this to the Common Council 00:13:06.599 --> 00:13:16.639 - with a favorable recommendation and I'm happy to answer any questions Great. Thank you. Do we have questions? 00:13:16.639 --> 00:13:24.670 - Yes Okay, I'll go right first. That's where I looked first. So Commissioner Smith. Okay 00:13:33.026 --> 00:13:41.115 - Why did we restrict cottage development to two units per building? Why do we add that? Yeah, great question 00:13:41.115 --> 00:13:49.205 - So one of the things that we're always careful of is, you know loopholes that would allow for a multifamily 00:13:49.205 --> 00:13:52.126 - development or something that is not a 00:13:52.258 --> 00:13:58.193 - What we are trying to accomplish with a cottage home development. So a typical cottage home development 00:13:58.193 --> 00:14:03.899 - You see small clusters of buildings kind of scattered around some sort of central open space so the 00:14:03.899 --> 00:14:04.926 - previous language 00:14:05.090 --> 00:14:10.934 - That was in the use specific standards for cottage home had a maximum square footage for each unit We 00:14:10.934 --> 00:14:16.835 - took that out as we increase the density allowance. But again, we wanted to make sure that this didn't 00:14:16.835 --> 00:14:22.679 - get Utilized for something that we weren't intending So the maximum two units per building helps keep 00:14:22.679 --> 00:14:28.580 - it in line with the expectation for what a cottage development should look like Is that because of the 00:14:28.580 --> 00:14:30.814 - zones they're allowed in? Yes. Yeah, I 00:14:31.874 --> 00:14:37.462 - Because it's a lot of it, you know, you're only really gonna see this in the single-family districts 00:14:37.462 --> 00:14:43.050 - in a multifamily district The cottage home development doesn't really give you any bonus. So this is 00:14:43.050 --> 00:14:48.749 - our one through our three our four Yeah, it's also allowed in the multifamily districts as well as the 00:14:48.749 --> 00:14:54.392 - mixed-use neighborhood district and the RMH district so, you know in the multifamily like I said, you 00:14:54.392 --> 00:15:00.478 - know the cottage home nine times out of ten isn't gonna be the thing you go towards because you don't need it 00:15:01.570 --> 00:15:08.179 - Okay, then That's fine. I get it. Talk about the front door requirement Just clarify that for me. So 00:15:08.179 --> 00:15:14.984 - if you're building a duplex on an infill lot and you're gonna or or And you're on an alley. Do you have 00:15:14.984 --> 00:15:21.593 - to have two floors front the public street? Is that still there? Are you taking that out? No, so you 00:15:21.593 --> 00:15:28.202 - know so then it wouldn't apply in that case here for so for Forget cottage development for a second. 00:15:28.202 --> 00:15:30.558 - Go to the other stuff. What are the 00:15:30.690 --> 00:15:38.096 - front door requirements. So for duplexes, the UDO says that each unit in a newly constructed duplex 00:15:38.096 --> 00:15:45.501 - should have a separate exterior entrance facing a public or private street and should have at least 00:15:45.501 --> 00:15:53.129 - one exterior entrance facing a public or private street. So we don't get into that maximum number. The 00:15:53.129 --> 00:15:57.054 - triplex and fourplex has that maximum number because 00:15:57.154 --> 00:16:03.673 - when we were implementing those use-specific standards at the early on, you know, one of the concerns 00:16:03.673 --> 00:16:10.255 - was we didn't want to have a building with four different doors and sidewalks facing a street. It was, 00:16:10.255 --> 00:16:16.902 - I guess, an attempt to minimize the visual impact of the triplex and fourplex. However, you know, those 00:16:16.902 --> 00:16:22.590 - are only really allowed in the R4 district. And in the R4 district, what we're seeing is 00:16:22.818 --> 00:16:28.968 - these being developed on brand new lots. And so in those situations, you know, we're not trying to match 00:16:28.968 --> 00:16:34.824 - the context of a built environment where you've got single family houses or duplexes. You know, you 00:16:34.824 --> 00:16:37.694 - have a completely new building and only allowing 00:16:37.826 --> 00:16:43.631 - two unit two doors for that four unit building doesn't give you a door for each unit in that building 00:16:43.631 --> 00:16:49.664 - and so you have to share a door which can be you know somewhat challenging for a situation where somebody 00:16:49.664 --> 00:16:55.525 - wants to have their own their own house their own unit their own door you know they don't want to have 00:16:55.525 --> 00:17:01.273 - a communal door so we've seen a few situations at least for BHA where they wanted to have they had a 00:17:01.273 --> 00:17:04.062 - design for a four-plex and they wanted each door 00:17:04.194 --> 00:17:09.461 - Door for each unit and the language that was in here didn't allow for that So as we looked at the context 00:17:09.461 --> 00:17:14.679 - of the situation where these would be happening, you know, we didn't see that there would be a challenge 00:17:14.679 --> 00:17:19.747 - You know with removing or modifying this standard. So that's why we're we're adding the right to have 00:17:19.747 --> 00:17:24.716 - the four doors Yes to allow doors for each unit. Yeah, and they four don't have to front the public 00:17:24.716 --> 00:17:29.834 - street or only two of them can front the public street For a four plus four plus no, they can all face 00:17:29.834 --> 00:17:30.878 - the street or not. I 00:17:31.042 --> 00:17:36.678 - Or no, I think you have to have at least one facing the street. Yeah, I'm with you there So wonder there's 00:17:36.678 --> 00:17:41.998 - a minimum but not all of them have to yes, correct Because I'm seeing is these duplex built that are 00:17:41.998 --> 00:17:47.318 - offset and so both doors front the street because that's the code currently But it's dumb because it 00:17:47.318 --> 00:17:52.637 - should almost run off. It's just a weird layout. I think it would be better to have this Okay, let's 00:17:52.637 --> 00:17:57.694 - make sure we're changing it. I didn't quite understand. I'll make sure I understood it. Okay, I 00:17:58.914 --> 00:18:05.940 - On the cottage development side, I'm gonna go back to that real quick. I've seen the landscape code 00:18:05.940 --> 00:18:13.036 - overlaid on cottage development as it's written and it's on tenuous. It's kind of crazy. And I asked 00:18:13.036 --> 00:18:20.203 - this in our work session, but is there any discussion about the overzealous approach of the landscape 00:18:20.203 --> 00:18:26.526 - code as regard to some of these products we're discussing because it gets pretty involved 00:18:26.786 --> 00:18:32.695 - And I didn't know if there's if there's any way to have a discussion not necessarily tonight, but is 00:18:32.695 --> 00:18:38.546 - there any Palate for discussion on yep, so palatable that is actually one of the changes That is in 00:18:38.546 --> 00:18:44.630 - our package tonight is you're only required to have that if you're in a multifamily district and you're 00:18:44.630 --> 00:18:50.481 - up against a single-family Okay, so I've read that but that's that's a change. We're adding to make 00:18:50.481 --> 00:18:55.454 - it easier. So that is that it's not a required buffer everywhere Correct. Okay. Okay 00:19:02.306 --> 00:19:10.120 - Commissioner Stasper I also actually had a question about the cottage developments. I Guess I'm still 00:19:10.120 --> 00:19:18.011 - looking at the maximum density in terms of dwelling units per acre and trying to picture what 43 units 00:19:18.011 --> 00:19:25.672 - per acre would look like and like would that just be 43 really tiny units like Because if you can't 00:19:25.672 --> 00:19:32.030 - have more than two units per structure Yeah, so, you know, it certainly depends on 00:19:32.290 --> 00:19:38.763 - the arrangement so you can have a stacked arrangement, for instance. Certainly you can have a horizontal 00:19:38.763 --> 00:19:45.050 - arrangement. You know, the 43 units an acre certainly would be very compact. You know, whether or not 00:19:45.050 --> 00:19:51.831 - somebody's going to achieve that, that's an unknown. But we are just looking at it from, you know, increasing 00:19:51.831 --> 00:19:58.242 - the density perspective. You know, we weren't seeing anything, you know, with the previous numbers that 00:19:58.242 --> 00:20:01.694 - were shown. So that's why we are looking to really kind 00:20:01.794 --> 00:20:09.504 - bump those up very substantially to allow for that to be higher utilized. Okay. I guess that that just 00:20:09.504 --> 00:20:17.213 - seems like really sort of implausible. And so I'm wondering, it just feels really implausible and sort 00:20:17.213 --> 00:20:24.923 - of absurd. So I guess I'm interested in some sort of like a visual of what that actually, I guess like 00:20:24.923 --> 00:20:30.462 - I don't want to put something in code that then is not actually possible. 00:20:30.946 --> 00:20:37.166 - Outside of like theory because especially then if you add like the okay 200 square feet per dwelling 00:20:37.166 --> 00:20:43.632 - unit is needed for the central open space and then if you have an acre of property and you have 43 units 00:20:43.632 --> 00:20:49.790 - and then each of those units have to have the 200 square feet like Like I'm interested in that math 00:20:49.790 --> 00:20:56.318 - like does that math actually math to make that possible except. It's not actually possible then have that 00:20:56.546 --> 00:21:02.713 - In there let me let me maybe back up a little bit here. So when when you look at the original density 00:21:02.713 --> 00:21:08.760 - numbers You know, so let's just take the r2 district And it's at five so five units an acre So that 00:21:08.760 --> 00:21:14.866 - was kind of imagining that you would have a lot that's about seventy two hundred square, you know so 00:21:14.866 --> 00:21:17.950 - when these numbers were arrived we looked at it of 00:21:18.082 --> 00:21:23.543 - Let's have your one acre lot and you can have 7200 square feet for a lot. How many of those 7200 lots 00:21:23.543 --> 00:21:29.003 - are you going to get in this acre? So the number of the cottage home equaled the same number that you 00:21:29.003 --> 00:21:34.357 - would get if you had a single family subdivision. So you know that's how we got to these numbers to 00:21:34.357 --> 00:21:39.710 - begin with. And so these were assuming you know that you had the minimum lot size of that district. 00:21:39.874 --> 00:21:46.087 - 7200 square feet and and so that's how we got there. So now imagine five That's how you got like the 00:21:46.087 --> 00:21:52.300 - original numbers that are being changed So now imagine, you know instead of a lot that's 7200 square 00:21:52.300 --> 00:21:58.452 - feet, you know in that same lot you had a house It was only 800 square feet and you could get eight 00:21:58.452 --> 00:22:05.342 - of those Or seven of those or something like that seven eight nine on that same lot or some aggregation of that 00:22:05.506 --> 00:22:11.715 - You know, that's sort of how we got to where these numbers were going. So these are maximums, you know, 00:22:11.715 --> 00:22:17.805 - obviously not minimums. So, you know, this was just kind of adjusting that cap based on where we were 00:22:17.805 --> 00:22:23.776 - coming from. You know, certainly you could, you know, maybe make an argument by the time you get to 00:22:23.776 --> 00:22:30.164 - 43 or, you know, 35, you could say no maximum. But, you know, I don't, I think 43, I mean, it just depends 00:22:30.164 --> 00:22:32.254 - on the lot, you know, the R4 lots. 00:22:32.418 --> 00:22:38.108 - There aren't many of those out there that don't have things on them. Certainly in Sudbury, or I'm sorry, 00:22:38.108 --> 00:22:43.527 - Summit, PUD, you know, there was land that was zoned for the R4 development standards, so you could 00:22:43.527 --> 00:22:49.109 - see this. But yes, I certainly see that, you know, 43 does seem like a very high number. You know, and 00:22:49.109 --> 00:22:54.799 - maybe there's some arrangement that gets you there. You know, if you were doing tiny homes of 500 square 00:22:54.799 --> 00:22:58.430 - feet each or 400 square feet, maybe you could get there with that. 00:22:59.586 --> 00:23:09.173 - Okay, so basically though that math was just based on Minimum lot size and then like converting essentially 00:23:09.173 --> 00:23:18.227 - single-family homes to And so that so there wasn't consideration of that 200 square feet per dwelling 00:23:18.227 --> 00:23:27.902 - space of open area in the central open space I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last part we said so so you didn't 00:23:28.066 --> 00:23:34.911 - Consider the central open space of 200 square feet per dwelling unit that's required when you calculated 00:23:34.911 --> 00:23:41.496 - the maximum dwelling units per acre No, we weren't looking at it of you know, here's here's a here's 00:23:41.496 --> 00:23:48.080 - a lot And let's see how many five five hundred square foot houses we could get on there and keep the 00:23:48.080 --> 00:23:54.730 - 200 square feet You know, there might be some situation where there's some overlap You know again, it 00:23:54.730 --> 00:23:55.838 - was just kind of 00:23:55.938 --> 00:24:03.408 - really high-end adjusting the theoretical cap here in hopes that it would get a little bit more traction. 00:24:03.408 --> 00:24:10.736 - Okay. Okay. So the math probably really doesn't math, and I'm not just looking at that and being crazy. 00:24:10.736 --> 00:24:18.347 - It probably really doesn't math. Okay. Thanks. All right. I had a question about the blackface conversation 00:24:18.347 --> 00:24:25.182 - that we had last time we were here. And Eric, I heard you say that it's been expanded to include 00:24:25.474 --> 00:24:39.832 - either side of the street, is that correct? Yes, so the language in here, I can put it up. Yeah, point 00:24:39.832 --> 00:24:53.214 - me to it if you would, please. Yep. So in the use specific standards, as I mentioned, item two, 00:24:53.474 --> 00:25:00.669 - It talks about the following design elements of the duplex dwelling shall be similar in general shape 00:25:00.669 --> 00:25:07.864 - size and design with a majority of existing Single-family or duplex structures on the same block face 00:25:07.864 --> 00:25:15.059 - on which it is located So the new language in parentheses says for purposes of this section Both both 00:25:15.059 --> 00:25:20.350 - sides of the street along the block face shall be included So what that is 00:25:20.514 --> 00:25:27.399 - giving us direction to is previously along the block face. We only utilized that particular side of 00:25:27.399 --> 00:25:34.422 - the street that a petition site was on. So with this change here, we were intending for this to allow 00:25:34.422 --> 00:25:41.445 - for the board and others and staff to look at both sides of the block face as you evaluate those four 00:25:41.445 --> 00:25:48.330 - design elements. Okay, that's helpful because I know that was the debate last time about it being a 00:25:48.330 --> 00:25:49.982 - little too restrictive. 00:25:50.466 --> 00:25:59.318 - In the same block face referring to the same side of the street. Okay. All right. That's good. I Couldn't 00:25:59.318 --> 00:26:08.086 - it's not in the presentation packet as that. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. It's okay. No, it's okay I just wanted 00:26:08.086 --> 00:26:17.188 - to make sure that I was I actually caught sight of it. So that's good. Okay. All right Okay, other questions 00:26:17.188 --> 00:26:18.942 - All right Do we have 00:26:19.426 --> 00:26:26.494 - Members of the public. There is one member online with raised hand. Corey, you should be able to speak. 00:26:26.494 --> 00:26:33.630 - Okay, I just have two quick questions both about the redefinition of the block face. So the use specific 00:26:33.630 --> 00:26:40.222 - design elements are required to resemble a majority of the existing dwellings on the block face. 00:26:40.578 --> 00:26:47.105 - Can someone explain how having defined resemblances among roughly twice the number of dwellings would 00:26:47.105 --> 00:26:53.824 - make the requirements more attainable? It seems to complicate things significantly. And then real quick, 00:26:53.824 --> 00:27:00.415 - the other question, if you were to include the other side of the street for the block face, how do you 00:27:00.415 --> 00:27:06.878 - define that in situations where the streets that kind of border the block face key into the road and 00:27:06.878 --> 00:27:09.630 - you have houses across the street that are 00:27:09.762 --> 00:27:19.845 - partially across the street from the original block face and partially not. All right, that's the end 00:27:19.845 --> 00:27:29.829 - of your comment slash question. Yeah, thank you. All right. Okay. Do we have any other commenters in 00:27:29.829 --> 00:27:31.806 - the room or online? 00:27:35.842 --> 00:27:48.769 - If there is anybody else online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you. I'm not 00:27:48.769 --> 00:28:01.822 - seeing anybody else online. All right. Well, I appreciate the commenter's remarks about the blackface. 00:28:02.114 --> 00:28:10.163 - Would love to hear a response about this tricky definition when if you if you caught that Eric in terms 00:28:10.163 --> 00:28:18.135 - of Where the resemblance comes in and then when the streets aren't quite across or how that works when 00:28:18.135 --> 00:28:26.494 - it's near and not across So what what scopes the block face then? Yeah, no, that's that's certainly a great 00:28:26.626 --> 00:28:34.433 - Question and certainly a situation that we certainly can encounter, you know, real quickly. I just pulled 00:28:34.433 --> 00:28:42.018 - up a map of the city just to easily, you know, you pick any core neighborhood where you've got a block 00:28:42.018 --> 00:28:49.456 - face establishment and you're going to see situations where streets don't align on the other side of 00:28:49.456 --> 00:28:50.782 - the street there. 00:28:51.138 --> 00:28:57.356 - So, you know, I don't I don't have a great answer For that situation because you know previously the 00:28:57.356 --> 00:29:03.575 - definition just said block face on the side that your Petition side is on and that's pretty easy one 00:29:03.575 --> 00:29:09.732 - side one public Street on one side the other public Street on the other side So, you know what does 00:29:09.732 --> 00:29:16.011 - happen if you have a street that splits it on the other side of you you know kind of what you can see 00:29:16.011 --> 00:29:18.782 - right here on the screen in front of you and 00:29:18.978 --> 00:29:28.469 - I don't have a great answer from that. You can make an inference that you can extend that block face 00:29:28.469 --> 00:29:37.866 - from the two streets that were on the same side as that site. That certainly could be one inference 00:29:37.866 --> 00:29:47.263 - to make from that. It's not clear cut. Okay. Yeah, I guess I was one of the people who was in favor 00:29:47.263 --> 00:29:48.766 - of expanding or 00:29:49.282 --> 00:29:57.917 - Changing the definition of block face or adopting a different thing that was different from a presumption 00:29:57.917 --> 00:30:06.063 - of neighborhood But maybe more open than block face. So here we are still in a position. That's not 00:30:06.063 --> 00:30:14.372 - quite clear but Commissioner Stasburg, is that a partial hand up? well, it's a partial it's a partial 00:30:14.372 --> 00:30:15.838 - hand up because I 00:30:16.098 --> 00:30:23.981 - Was trying to look up the block face thing so it's the portion of the block adjacent and parallel to 00:30:23.981 --> 00:30:31.786 - the abutting public Street extending from one intersecting Street to another so I Would assume that 00:30:31.786 --> 00:30:35.454 - in a situation like this there would be that a 00:30:36.802 --> 00:30:43.758 - Eric you can tell me if you think that this makes sense in terms of interpretation With how it is written 00:30:43.758 --> 00:30:50.452 - right now It says for the purpose of this section both sides of the street along the block face shall 00:30:50.452 --> 00:30:57.081 - be included so I would think that If for example we were talking about okay, so you have the X right 00:30:57.081 --> 00:31:03.643 - there so if we're talking about that one and it intersects, but it goes from you know, I don't know 00:31:03.643 --> 00:31:06.334 - what that street that is by 915 and then 00:31:07.298 --> 00:31:14.005 - Left over to the next street that right across the street It would include 914 to 1022 and it would 00:31:14.005 --> 00:31:20.914 - exclude the 908 and the 900 like that's how I would interpret that Personally, yeah, that's reasonable 00:31:20.914 --> 00:31:27.621 - in terms of how you read what you put in because I feel like that's how I read what you put in both 00:31:27.621 --> 00:31:34.462 - sides of the Street along the block face shall be included. So just that intersection to intersection 00:31:35.458 --> 00:31:41.982 - Yeah, so that's what I was trying to say, you know, explain if we can infer that it would be an extension 00:31:41.982 --> 00:31:48.321 - of those two streets that define that block face. So it's kind of the green lines that I drew here of, 00:31:48.321 --> 00:31:54.476 - you know, the extension of the street to the east and the streets of the west, you know, that lines 00:31:54.476 --> 00:32:00.692 - up with a different street. But just an extension of those could be used to make that clarification. 00:32:00.692 --> 00:32:05.246 - Okay. Yeah, I think that's helpful. So the references that side where the 00:32:05.378 --> 00:32:11.832 - properties. Yeah. Okay. All right. Some clarity. Yes. Commissioner Stasberg. I'm also going to address 00:32:11.832 --> 00:32:18.475 - the first thing that the public commenter brought up. One of the reasons why we started this conversation 00:32:18.475 --> 00:32:24.929 - last month were considering blocks that were very small. We don't have that map up there right now but 00:32:24.929 --> 00:32:31.070 - there was one of those blocks that was shown that only had four lots on it. So if you're you know 00:32:31.170 --> 00:32:38.071 - Taking one of those houses and then you only have three others to compare it to you that that's just 00:32:38.071 --> 00:32:45.178 - not very many And so thinking about trying to make sure that there was a good perspective of what other 00:32:45.178 --> 00:32:52.011 - Dwelling units in that area actually look like and so that would be the reason the reasoning behind 00:32:52.011 --> 00:32:59.049 - What behind this decision that we talked about at the last meeting and then again at the lunch session 00:32:59.049 --> 00:33:00.894 - last month All right other 00:33:01.474 --> 00:33:13.599 - Comments or questions on this one or a motion? Are you satisfied with what this specifies? I really 00:33:13.599 --> 00:33:25.845 - like the removal of some of the guardrails about the buffer and the number. We enacted those because 00:33:25.845 --> 00:33:31.422 - we thought we needed it and clearly we don't. 00:33:31.714 --> 00:33:40.924 - So, let's move on this. Motion? I'll make a motion. Okay. I'll move to approve petition. Zio was at 00:33:40.924 --> 00:33:50.134 - 2026-06-007 in accordance with staff findings and recommendations. So if I may amend to that, we're 00:33:50.134 --> 00:33:59.437 - forwarding this to the common council with a favorable recommendation. That's right, we don't get to 00:33:59.437 --> 00:34:00.542 - approve it. 00:34:02.050 --> 00:34:16.222 - that Okay, so we have a motion to forward this petition to the council with a favorable recommendation 00:34:16.222 --> 00:34:29.982 - from Thank you. Okay motion and second ready for roll Yes copper Smith yes Stossberg yes Bishop yes 00:34:32.194 --> 00:34:39.889 - Right. Okay. That's five all. We're good. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the work on that and thanks 00:34:39.889 --> 00:34:48.042 - for those of you who worked out the special session where our work session where these things were debated 00:34:48.042 --> 00:34:52.766 - and constructively corrected. So nice work. Okay. Now we have 00:34:53.026 --> 00:35:00.472 - Another petition. This one is a new one for us. The oh twenty twenty six dash zero nine dash zero zero 00:35:00.472 --> 00:35:08.136 - one four KNN properties LLC with Kevin and Natalie Wynn to to to South Johnson Ave. It's a recommendation 00:35:08.136 --> 00:35:15.365 - for zoning for approximately point seven seven acres for a voluntary annexation request. So we have 00:35:15.365 --> 00:35:17.534 - staff to present on this one. 00:35:21.282 --> 00:35:29.571 - Thank you. Eric Grulick, development services manager. So this petition and the next petition are very 00:35:29.571 --> 00:35:37.619 - identical in two capacities. One, they are a recommendation to the common council for zoning if the 00:35:37.619 --> 00:35:42.206 - common council approves the annexation of these parcels. 00:35:42.530 --> 00:35:48.794 - We did deal with the situation last year where property owner in the county jurisdiction was coming 00:35:48.794 --> 00:35:51.550 - forward for a voluntary annexation request. 00:35:51.810 --> 00:35:58.361 - So with that it goes to the City Council for them to whether or not to approve or disapprove the annexation. 00:35:58.361 --> 00:36:04.732 - If they approve the annexation and it is incorporated into our boundaries, then zoning has to be assigned 00:36:04.732 --> 00:36:10.862 - to it. So the role that the Planning Commission makes in this scenario is to make a recommendation to 00:36:10.862 --> 00:36:15.550 - the common council for what that zoning should be if the property is annexed. 00:36:15.810 --> 00:36:23.288 - So we have two property or two petitioners coming forward tonight with two separate annexation requests 00:36:23.288 --> 00:36:30.334 - that are almost immediately adjacent to each other So the first petition is for 222 South Johnson 00:36:30.402 --> 00:36:37.659 - Avenue the property consists or the petition site includes two properties That are just off of 3rd Street 00:36:37.659 --> 00:36:44.780 - And at the corner just off of Johnson and 3rd Street so you can see him shown in green here They border 00:36:44.780 --> 00:36:47.998 - properties that are in the city that are zoned 00:36:48.194 --> 00:36:55.057 - Mixed-use corridor to the north of this are Predominantly single-family lots to the north and to the 00:36:55.057 --> 00:37:02.192 - east or single-family that are all in the county zoning So these particular properties Were firmly owned 00:37:02.192 --> 00:37:09.327 - by the residents just to the north of this the petitioner has bought these two properties the petitioner 00:37:09.327 --> 00:37:16.190 - also owns the two properties to the south that are in the city that are zoned mixed-use corridor and 00:37:16.578 --> 00:37:23.760 - So with this, obviously we are using a variety of tools to make some judgment about what the zoning 00:37:23.760 --> 00:37:30.942 - should be. The county currently has these properties zoned as LB, which is limited business. So you 00:37:30.942 --> 00:37:38.412 - can see those two properties shown here. Adjacent properties within the county are all zoned RES, which 00:37:38.412 --> 00:37:43.870 - is a low density residential zoning. But these two properties are zoned LB. 00:37:44.322 --> 00:37:51.640 - When these were in the city's planning jurisdiction, they were in our AFA. They were zoned commercial 00:37:51.640 --> 00:37:58.815 - arterial. When these were reverted back then to the county's jurisdiction, the county updated their 00:37:58.815 --> 00:38:05.990 - zoning codes a few years ago and zoned this as LB. And so with this, we're looking obviously at two 00:38:05.990 --> 00:38:12.734 - comprehensive plans. We have the city's comprehensive plan that guides areas surrounding this 00:38:12.962 --> 00:38:19.695 - And then obviously we'll look at the counties urbanized urban urbanization area plan Which kind of has 00:38:19.695 --> 00:38:26.363 - two different recommendations? So you can see here the city's comprehensive plan the area surrounding 00:38:26.363 --> 00:38:33.358 - this is zoned or designated as a regional activity center just to the east of this you have urban corridor 00:38:33.358 --> 00:38:35.646 - as it extends along 3rd Street and 00:38:35.970 --> 00:38:43.588 - But all of this area kind of in blue Encircling I 69 and 3rd Street is designated as a regional activity 00:38:43.588 --> 00:38:51.134 - center the comprehensive plan denotes this area as a high-intensity commercial node Certainly the close 00:38:51.134 --> 00:38:56.286 - proximity to I 69 plays into that And then as I mentioned the counties 00:38:56.674 --> 00:39:04.292 - Urbanizing area plan looks at this for the areas that are in its jurisdiction So you can see here the 00:39:04.292 --> 00:39:12.134 - excerpt from the county's urbanizing area plan showing all of this area Designated as mixed residential. 00:39:12.134 --> 00:39:20.126 - So the mixed residential is denoted as areas that are accomplishing a wide range of both single-family and 00:39:20.290 --> 00:39:27.073 - attached housing types. This area is designed to supplement and kind of support commercial uses that 00:39:27.073 --> 00:39:33.788 - might be in the area. But the mixed residential area is mostly envisioning residential development. 00:39:33.788 --> 00:39:41.175 - You know, the county's urbanizing plan does have some other designations for more heavy commercial corridors. 00:39:41.175 --> 00:39:47.957 - But again, you know, looking at it from the county's perspective in terms of their jurisdiction, the 00:39:47.957 --> 00:39:49.502 - property within there, 00:39:49.634 --> 00:39:57.882 - All of the area within this particular area is all residential nature. So the mixed residential Designation 00:39:57.882 --> 00:40:05.671 - is kind of why it was leaning in that direction So the city's zoning As I mentioned currently has all 00:40:05.671 --> 00:40:13.308 - the properties to the south zone MC mixed-use corridor You know one of the challenges as we look at 00:40:13.308 --> 00:40:16.286 - this, you know, certainly is there are 00:40:16.738 --> 00:40:22.971 - Certainly different criteria that could lend toward different designations for this certainly we could 00:40:22.971 --> 00:40:29.144 - follow a residential zoning for this However, given that it's immediately adjacent to commercial uses 00:40:29.144 --> 00:40:35.257 - and current commercial zoning It's designated commercial with the county now and the petitioner does 00:40:35.257 --> 00:40:41.490 - own the land of the south And as I mentioned this was previously zoned commercial arterial when it was 00:40:41.490 --> 00:40:45.182 - in the city It was envisioned that these properties would be 00:40:45.282 --> 00:40:52.071 - Developed with commercial uses and joined with the properties to the south also owned by the petitioner 00:40:52.071 --> 00:40:58.990 - So having the zoning for this property match the adjacent zoning to the south You know avoids a situation 00:40:58.990 --> 00:41:06.366 - where you've got split zoning on a property Allows for the property to be developed in a uniform manner there is 00:41:06.466 --> 00:41:12.953 - Buffer yard requirements that would be required if this property develops with a commercial use with 00:41:12.953 --> 00:41:19.569 - residential next door So there are protections in place for buffering if that were to happen Given the 00:41:19.569 --> 00:41:23.166 - close proximity of this property to 3rd Street and I 69 00:41:23.810 --> 00:41:30.126 - You know, again, kind of going back to that larger picture here, you know, we certainly want to make 00:41:30.126 --> 00:41:36.630 - sure that commercial uses are viable along this corridor here. So the department is coming forward with 00:41:36.630 --> 00:41:43.009 - a recommendation that the Plain Commission adopt the findings that are in our report and forward this 00:41:43.009 --> 00:41:49.388 - to the common council with the recommendation that the zoning should be mixed use corridor and MC and 00:41:49.388 --> 00:41:52.702 - approve the waiver from the required second hearing. 00:41:53.762 --> 00:42:02.132 - So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Okay, do we have a petitioner report on this 00:42:02.132 --> 00:42:10.502 - one or? We do have a petitioner here. They're not required to necessarily say anything. They're here 00:42:10.502 --> 00:42:18.789 - for certainly questions, if any are necessary. Okay. All right, well, that's certainly, if there is 00:42:18.789 --> 00:42:20.446 - a question, please, 00:42:20.546 --> 00:42:33.651 - We would love to have your input on this. Okay, let's move right to commission members' questions then 00:42:33.651 --> 00:42:47.774 - on this piece. What questions do we have? Nothing from my right? I actually am pleased, I'm gonna call out our 00:42:47.938 --> 00:42:55.202 - Greg Morris from our county who joined us today and see if Greg has any By no means are you expected 00:42:55.202 --> 00:43:02.467 - to respond or offer anything? That's not an expectation, but I wondered if given your Presence today 00:43:02.467 --> 00:43:09.731 - if you have anything to say about how this worked out and if this makes sense given your perspective 00:43:09.731 --> 00:43:14.622 - from the county Yeah, thank you. I think this certainly makes sense 00:43:15.138 --> 00:43:22.083 - to me and I apologize that this is the first meeting I've been able to attend this year, but thank you 00:43:22.083 --> 00:43:29.096 - for the offer. Okay. All right. Well, county counties in us, at least Greg is in some sort of agreement 00:43:29.096 --> 00:43:35.839 - on this. All right. Anything that we can think of that we're yes. Commissioner Stasberg. I actually 00:43:35.839 --> 00:43:42.784 - do have a small question about the buffer yard. How much of a buffer yard is required against adjacent 00:43:42.784 --> 00:43:43.998 - zoning districts? 00:43:44.098 --> 00:43:51.059 - So when you've got MC up against our I know but how big does that buffer yard have to be and like what? 00:43:51.059 --> 00:43:58.020 - Is it supposed to look like like so in this yard in this case here? It's probably a type 3 buffer yard, 00:43:58.020 --> 00:44:05.115 - which I think is a 20 foot depth And is there like certain landscaping Yeah, so there's a 20 foot setback 00:44:05.115 --> 00:44:12.478 - requirement for buildings and parking and whatnot and then a heavy landscape component with that, okay Thanks 00:44:14.434 --> 00:44:22.228 - Okay. I don't know if I had a question. I wondered if there were any other considerations given for 00:44:22.228 --> 00:44:30.177 - what this could be. I don't see how there could be, but was there any discussion of any other zoning? 00:44:30.177 --> 00:44:38.126 - Yeah, so like I said, the main thought process would be commercial zoning sort of makes sense. We did 00:44:38.126 --> 00:44:43.582 - briefly look at single family or something of that nature, but again, 00:44:43.778 --> 00:44:50.841 - the close proximity to 3rd Street really didn't seem to lend itself toward a residential zoning here. 00:44:50.841 --> 00:44:58.043 - Going then back to the commercial zoning, MC or MM could be one of those paths, but having split zoning 00:44:58.043 --> 00:45:04.967 - here with MM on the north side and MC on the south side doesn't really make sense because you can't 00:45:04.967 --> 00:45:08.222 - really develop those small lots by themselves. 00:45:08.354 --> 00:45:15.083 - Matching what we originally had its own for a long time ago allows for uniform zoning on the site matches 00:45:15.083 --> 00:45:21.622 - what is appropriate along 3rd Street. It would certainly make sure we don't get into problems of split 00:45:21.622 --> 00:45:28.414 - zoning on a property and uses spanning over a property line. So having uniform zoning made the most sense. 00:45:28.642 --> 00:45:35.453 - in a lot of regards, and then the mixed use corridor matching what it was previously zoned and matching 00:45:35.453 --> 00:45:42.068 - what the comprehensive plane designation is for the property to the south, again, supports the mixed 00:45:42.068 --> 00:45:49.011 - use corridor designation. Thank you. All right. If we don't have any more comments, we can move to public 00:45:49.011 --> 00:45:55.626 - comment. I don't know if there's anyone online or in the room here today who's here because they all 00:45:55.626 --> 00:45:57.918 - want to offer a comment or on this 00:45:58.050 --> 00:46:06.218 - Petition but if you're in the zoom space and you want to make a comment, please raise your hand So we 00:46:06.218 --> 00:46:14.546 - can unmute you and give you a chance to speak There anybody in in zoom land for us I am I am NOT seeing 00:46:14.546 --> 00:46:22.954 - anybody online with a raised hand All right, okay, well if we don't have any other questions or comments 00:46:22.954 --> 00:46:26.878 - we can move forward on a motion for this one and 00:46:28.450 --> 00:46:41.392 - If we're ready and this one is another one where we don't get to decide but we make a recommendation 00:46:41.392 --> 00:46:54.718 - to counsel Anybody want to make a motion for this one I recommend we forward this to common council and 00:46:59.170 --> 00:47:08.508 - I'll just read this that the property is annexed the zoning shall be a mixed-use corridor For the proposed 00:47:08.508 --> 00:47:17.497 - findings and approved the waiver of the second required second hearing Motion and a second. Yep. Okay. 00:47:17.497 --> 00:47:26.485 - Well, we have two seconds. That's even better Okay, all right, do we do we have a debate going on over 00:47:26.485 --> 00:47:28.318 - the at the table and 00:47:34.882 --> 00:47:48.238 - We can we can take it slow if we need to here That's something else. Okay Okay. All right. So if we're 00:47:48.238 --> 00:48:01.465 - ready, we can take the role for this petition Z o Twenty twenty six dash zero nine dash zero zero one 00:48:01.465 --> 00:48:04.318 - four copper Smith yes 00:48:04.962 --> 00:48:16.589 - Stossburg. Yes Bishop. Yes Kinsey. Yes. All right. Okay that passes five zero Okay, so now we are ready 00:48:16.589 --> 00:48:27.769 - to move on to our second petition Zio 2026-09-0015 Patel Ramilla s revocable trust Patel Suresh see 00:48:27.769 --> 00:48:33.694 - revocable trusts at 104 South Johnson Ave again on a 00:48:33.794 --> 00:48:40.750 - similar request for zoning of approximately 2.82 acres for a voluntary annexation request and Also requested 00:48:40.750 --> 00:48:46.110 - as a waiver of the required second hearing and Eric you're presenting this one, too 00:49:15.394 --> 00:49:23.524 - So this petition is for properties that are just to the north of what we were just discussing. So this 00:49:23.524 --> 00:49:31.733 - site is approximately eight properties and totals about five point something acres. That's what we were 00:49:31.733 --> 00:49:37.022 - just discussing is the actual acreage of the site is a little bit. 00:49:37.122 --> 00:49:44.594 - Little bit more than what we had in the staff report. So we'll get that corrected for future hearings 00:49:44.594 --> 00:49:46.718 - but shown here on the map is 00:49:46.850 --> 00:49:53.825 - Just kind of an overview of what zoning is in this area So I'm showing this to just kind of get of a 00:49:53.825 --> 00:50:00.937 - general context as it frames the discussion for What staff was looking at and how we kind of evaluated 00:50:00.937 --> 00:50:07.981 - this area? So as you can see here, you've got I 69 along the west side with mixed-use corridor zoning 00:50:07.981 --> 00:50:10.398 - along there moves along 3rd Street 00:50:10.594 --> 00:50:17.985 - With again mixed use corridor zoning along there. You've got several splotches of color here that are 00:50:17.985 --> 00:50:25.376 - zoned residential multifamily that are within the city's limits And then you've got the vahala memory 00:50:25.376 --> 00:50:32.839 - gardens to the east and kind of the blue so what you see here is sort of an island of area that hasn't 00:50:32.839 --> 00:50:40.158 - seen a lot of redevelopment has a mix of uses within there is bordered by an interstate third Street 00:50:40.258 --> 00:50:46.721 - some large open space and then some Employment land just to the north of this So the properties that 00:50:46.721 --> 00:50:53.120 - we're talking about now the eight properties that are kind of shown in green there And I've kind of 00:50:53.120 --> 00:50:59.519 - zoomed in here Have been developed primarily with just one single-family house or two single-family 00:50:59.519 --> 00:51:03.870 - houses And a lot of land that has kind of sat empty and undeveloped 00:51:04.130 --> 00:51:10.403 - So the properties along here are very narrow. They're about 50 feet wide about 400 feet deep You've 00:51:10.403 --> 00:51:17.114 - got properties that are kind of isolated As you look to the west you see a church as well as a multifamily 00:51:17.114 --> 00:51:23.575 - development And then some single-family lots. There's a mobile home park I think just to the north and 00:51:23.575 --> 00:51:29.534 - then further to the northwest and then to the east of this you have several single-family lots 00:51:29.730 --> 00:51:37.037 - as well. So you can see a slightly zoomed in look here. As I mentioned, there is single family lots 00:51:37.037 --> 00:51:44.344 - on here. So the county has this area predominantly zoned RES, which is a single family. You do have 00:51:44.344 --> 00:51:51.797 - some few HD, which is a high density residential district scattered in here. But again, predominantly 00:51:51.797 --> 00:51:56.766 - the county zoning is reflecting a lot of the land use that is here. 00:51:56.834 --> 00:52:03.200 - Um, that is designated R. E. S. Um, so again, here is a look at the city's comprehensive plan and then 00:52:03.200 --> 00:52:09.380 - we'll look at the county's urbanizing area plan. Um, in blue, you have the regional activity center 00:52:09.380 --> 00:52:14.942 - again that we just looked at. Um, again, circling around I 69 and capturing third street. 00:52:15.010 --> 00:52:21.211 - And then the institutional civic uses surrounding Valhalla Garden and then along 3rd Street. You've 00:52:21.211 --> 00:52:27.537 - got an urban corridor designation So the the city's comprehensive plan designations here for the area 00:52:27.537 --> 00:52:34.172 - surrounding that certainly envisioned a lot of development a lot of intensity of commercial uses Obviously 00:52:34.172 --> 00:52:40.374 - with this lane that we are looking at today not being in the city's comprehensive plan you know, we 00:52:40.374 --> 00:52:42.110 - didn't evaluate it based on 00:52:42.210 --> 00:52:49.537 - our expectations for the area or how we see it being developed. And the county's urbanizing plan, as 00:52:49.537 --> 00:52:57.009 - I mentioned with the previous petition, looked at this as mixed residential. So the mixed residential, 00:52:57.009 --> 00:53:04.845 - as I talked about previously, envisions a wide array of single family and attached housing types integrated 00:53:04.845 --> 00:53:07.166 - into a cohesive neighborhood to 00:53:07.298 --> 00:53:15.413 - facilitate new housing choices Throughout the community in a wide range of uses and demographics Residential 00:53:15.413 --> 00:53:22.412 - buildings should be compatible and height and scale And so that's how the county's urbanizing 00:53:22.412 --> 00:53:30.230 - plan Characterizes this area that's designated as mixed residential So the city zoning you can see here. 00:53:30.230 --> 00:53:34.846 - We've as I mentioned you've got these pockets of RM so the RM 00:53:35.010 --> 00:53:41.921 - Kind of somewhat adjacent to this you've got a church. It's immediately to the west of these properties 00:53:41.921 --> 00:53:48.699 - these Zoning from the city envision high intensity or higher development here than just single-family 00:53:48.699 --> 00:53:55.543 - You know one of the challenges that we looked at with this for these lots is it's very hard to develop 00:53:55.543 --> 00:53:58.334 - these lots with a single-family house and 00:53:58.466 --> 00:54:04.485 - I'm sorry, anything more than a single family house. You can certainly get a single family house on 00:54:04.485 --> 00:54:10.504 - there, but it leaves a vast majority of property undeveloped. You've got properties that are a half 00:54:10.504 --> 00:54:16.704 - acre or larger in size, and they're only supporting one house on there. It's very difficult to develop 00:54:16.704 --> 00:54:22.783 - all of these properties in any sort of use other than single family lot, which really doesn't create 00:54:22.783 --> 00:54:24.830 - a great utilization of land here. 00:54:24.962 --> 00:54:31.947 - So as we looked at these properties in combination with what is adjacent to them, it really seemed to 00:54:31.947 --> 00:54:38.795 - kind of match in terms of what we want to accomplish within the city in terms of housing diversity, 00:54:38.795 --> 00:54:46.122 - housing attainability of having more units, making better utilization of land that is immediately adjacent 00:54:46.122 --> 00:54:53.449 - to goods and services. You know, you go back to this map here of all the goods and services and commercial 00:54:53.449 --> 00:54:54.750 - uses that are just 00:54:54.882 --> 00:55:01.354 - right down the street, right across the street that are surrounding here. This is one of the places 00:55:01.354 --> 00:55:08.021 - where we really want to promote density and infill development. There is water and sewer that is along 00:55:08.021 --> 00:55:14.817 - Third Street with some extensions that are along Johnson. Utilities did indicate that there is currently 00:55:14.817 --> 00:55:20.254 - some very low usage in terms of the sewer capacity here, so it's very possible that 00:55:20.354 --> 00:55:26.307 - additional improvements to the sewer line might be needed if additional development is occurring within 00:55:26.307 --> 00:55:32.146 - this area, but obviously nothing's happened over here, so we haven't seen a lot of that expansion. So 00:55:32.146 --> 00:55:37.985 - this would be a great opportunity to get development here, get that public infrastructure improved to 00:55:37.985 --> 00:55:43.709 - help spur further development in this area. But kind of going back to what I was referencing, given 00:55:43.709 --> 00:55:46.686 - the proximity of goods and services here, the close 00:55:46.786 --> 00:55:53.559 - Proximity to this to 3rd Street. We really felt like zoning this Something other than single-family 00:55:53.559 --> 00:56:00.333 - residential was a better choice to make here to make better utilization of this land and these deep 00:56:00.333 --> 00:56:07.309 - lots And so the comprehensive plan of the city as well as the urbanizing plan of the county both looks 00:56:07.309 --> 00:56:15.166 - at Promoting something more and in addition to single-family and allowing attached housing types duplexes triplexes 00:56:15.266 --> 00:56:22.076 - something of that nature incorporates recommendations that the height and scale of these areas be keeping 00:56:22.076 --> 00:56:28.500 - with residential structures. So, you know, looking at buildings that are one, two, three stories at 00:56:28.500 --> 00:56:34.989 - max. So the RM district does match that as well. Maximum height in the RM district is three stories, 00:56:34.989 --> 00:56:39.550 - allows for some of that mixture of housing that I was just discussing. 00:56:39.746 --> 00:56:46.525 - So we do feel that the residential multifamily district would be the best recommendation to make for 00:56:46.525 --> 00:56:53.505 - this area Given the existing uses some of the surrounding uses the proximity to the commercial corridor 00:56:53.505 --> 00:57:00.351 - and those goods and services So we are recommending that to Plan Commission forward to the the Common 00:57:00.351 --> 00:57:07.197 - Council a recommendation that the property be zoned residential multifamily RM And approve the waiver 00:57:07.197 --> 00:57:09.278 - of the required second hearing 00:57:11.554 --> 00:57:19.174 - Okay. Thank you. All right. And again petitioner is not required to present on this or But they're always 00:57:19.174 --> 00:57:26.363 - invited but I don't even know if they're here Yeah, the petitioners representative is here if there 00:57:26.363 --> 00:57:33.695 - any question, okay All right. Okay. So if we have any questions, we'll direct them. So do we have any 00:57:33.695 --> 00:57:39.518 - questions about this? Annexation and zoning proposal. Yes, Commissioner Stasberg 00:57:39.618 --> 00:57:46.422 - I have a lot of questions about this one. I didn't really have thoughts on the other one, but I have 00:57:46.422 --> 00:57:53.428 - a lot of questions on this one. So the first question is something that I just realized that it appears 00:57:53.428 --> 00:57:58.750 - as though, so I'm on slide three right now of that presentation, that there is 00:57:58.978 --> 00:58:05.698 - Like it looks like an alley and I thought honestly when I was looking at it earlier It was probably 00:58:05.698 --> 00:58:12.485 - a platted alley. But when I looked at the Monroe County property map that very very narrow rectangle 00:58:12.485 --> 00:58:19.272 - is actually also owned by the same trust but that is not included in this annexation request and can 00:58:19.272 --> 00:58:26.462 - the petitioners representative maybe share why that might not be included or what's going on with that and 00:58:27.010 --> 00:58:36.539 - Very narrow strip. Do you see where I am? Eric yes, I do I do see that I do see that that is owned by 00:58:36.539 --> 00:58:46.162 - them. I am assuming I am assuming that is part of This annexation request, you know, I'm talking about 00:58:46.162 --> 00:58:50.366 - Chris You know the drill state your name and 00:58:56.898 --> 00:59:03.407 - Hi, I'm Chris Cockrum and I represent the owners of this property In fact, I represented the owners 00:59:03.407 --> 00:59:09.917 - of the property before them sold it to these to Sam and Rosie But that piece that goes over that is 00:59:09.917 --> 00:59:16.622 - included in it. They did own the house there. That was 130 I think Johnson Avenue and we sold that off 00:59:16.622 --> 00:59:23.261 - to a family bought that but this had a small strip that went next to it and So this one would connect 00:59:23.261 --> 00:59:25.214 - to it. We thought it could be 00:59:25.410 --> 00:59:35.054 - Be utilized for some reason if the property was developed So that little strip should be then part of 00:59:35.054 --> 00:59:45.076 - them as well. Yep. Okay, so we would like for that to be included Okay, okay and then the second question 00:59:45.076 --> 00:59:46.494 - that I have is 00:59:46.690 --> 00:59:53.082 - Probably mostly for Eric, but honestly, mr. Cocker you've been around for a long time. So you might 00:59:53.082 --> 00:59:59.985 - be able to address this as well When I was looking at this personally I feel like there's a huge difference 00:59:59.985 --> 01:00:06.952 - between the like those several lots on the north side like the long rectangles and then the long north-south 01:00:06.952 --> 01:00:13.343 - rectangle just in terms of how that entire neighborhood over there looks so in terms of I guess two 01:00:13.343 --> 01:00:14.430 - things first off 01:00:15.138 --> 01:00:22.615 - Let's just go down the, suppose this gets annexed. What's the process then to replatting this? Because 01:00:22.615 --> 01:00:30.092 - one of the things you said in your report is those long, narrow lots that are off Johnson, they're not 01:00:30.092 --> 01:00:37.932 - really practical for building. Could that essentially turn into one big lot or multiple, like a subdivision 01:00:37.932 --> 01:00:45.118 - lot? That could just get replatted. Yeah, so they don't necessarily have to replat it if they sell 01:00:45.378 --> 01:00:52.130 - All the lots to one person that is just developed as one zoning lot So they can combine that on one 01:00:52.130 --> 01:00:58.882 - deed and we just treat it as one zoning lot Okay, so they could sell half of me it could sell three 01:00:58.882 --> 01:01:05.972 - lots of one entity five lots to another one Okay, so that's a pretty standard kind of thing. So in terms 01:01:05.972 --> 01:01:07.998 - of thinking about this zoning 01:01:10.082 --> 01:01:18.361 - It kind of maybe could be thought of as a whole. But then the other piece of question that came with 01:01:18.361 --> 01:01:26.804 - that is that in terms of our role, could we recommend two different zoning designations for this area? 01:01:26.804 --> 01:01:35.083 - You certainly could. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I guess I'll say for my colleagues, I'm more inclined to have 01:01:35.083 --> 01:01:38.526 - two different zoning considerations here. 01:01:42.786 --> 01:01:49.703 - Party we had affordable housing developers that wanted to develop this Because there was no sewer access 01:01:49.703 --> 01:01:56.290 - or city services We and plus they also own a small piece there on third Street a half of an acre is 01:01:56.290 --> 01:02:02.943 - also included But that's in the city, but because we didn't have access to city services the the the 01:02:02.943 --> 01:02:07.422 - developer and they were also two different planning commissions and 01:02:07.554 --> 01:02:13.691 - It just didn't work. So they bought this property, but the whole intent is this is to market this back 01:02:13.691 --> 01:02:19.888 - to affordable housing developer Habitat will be the first call I make to Wendy With city sewer, I think 01:02:19.888 --> 01:02:26.025 - this could be a great habitat community So it's a it's right there. It's on the bus line. It's I mean, 01:02:26.025 --> 01:02:31.984 - it's got a lot of benefits to it So we would like this I mean ideally it would be to have it as one 01:02:31.984 --> 01:02:35.678 - zoning So we could attract somebody to put affordable housing 01:02:36.962 --> 01:02:43.064 - I'll ask you then since you are thinking about you know moving forward, of course There's no plan here 01:02:43.064 --> 01:02:49.225 - and ideally you would like to have one zoning because I'm looking at it and thinking I I like r4 better 01:02:49.225 --> 01:02:55.149 - than RM Partly because of what the rest of that space looks like so especially thinking about those 01:02:55.149 --> 01:02:58.526 - several little thin lots up there like I definitely like 01:02:58.914 --> 01:03:05.284 - For a lot better up there, but you know that in part, you know this closer to 3rd Street like that could 01:03:05.284 --> 01:03:11.351 - be a good RM But because I'm looking at the rest of that doughnut hole and thinking that's our four 01:03:11.351 --> 01:03:17.540 - ish our three ish to me So what would your thoughts be about our four and I guess I want to have Eric 01:03:17.540 --> 01:03:23.849 - answer the same question, too Well, some of the some of the challenges when I think of like a potential 01:03:23.849 --> 01:03:24.638 - developer we 01:03:24.866 --> 01:03:30.543 - Thinking of access so they could maybe get access off at 3rd Street Which they'd have to come over that 01:03:30.543 --> 01:03:36.221 - half acre lot, which I don't know if that's marketable And or they'd have to use that small strip There 01:03:36.221 --> 01:03:41.953 - which I don't know if the setbacks would allow us to make that an entryway By having that the rest those 01:03:41.953 --> 01:03:47.576 - parcels because it's just one house that sits on all those narrow parcels It's not it's just one house 01:03:47.576 --> 01:03:53.035 - that sits in the middle of them having that a part of it. It allows Actually for the other parts to 01:03:53.035 --> 01:03:53.854 - be more usable 01:03:54.658 --> 01:04:02.115 - In terms of the zoning being r4 instead of RM Like in terms of a recommendation from us to counsel to 01:04:02.115 --> 01:04:09.645 - make it be r4 instead of RM Is that something you have an opinion on and then Eric? What would be your 01:04:09.645 --> 01:04:16.956 - opinion on that? I would lean toward the higher density You know when I see the duplexes over off a 01:04:16.956 --> 01:04:22.366 - Kimball, which is right there next to it You know, I could maybe see that 01:04:22.690 --> 01:04:28.750 - Continuing maybe those come that maybe that becomes an entryway into this property. Maybe that property 01:04:28.750 --> 01:04:34.809 - owner wants to expand I don't know but I could if you look it's where the orange is It's right by where 01:04:34.809 --> 01:04:40.810 - the cursor is right now. Yeah right there. That's all those are all duplexes I know they're super cute 01:04:40.810 --> 01:04:46.462 - Yeah, and I can see that being an extension over onto this property and having several different 01:04:46.722 --> 01:04:54.135 - exits and entrances to the property but really I think I would obviously lean towards a higher density 01:04:54.135 --> 01:05:01.404 - and Having the entire thing being one zoning. I Think it's gonna be easier to attract someone that's 01:05:01.404 --> 01:05:08.889 - gonna want to invest into the property Okay, Eric, what are your thoughts on our four over there versus 01:05:08.889 --> 01:05:15.870 - RM in terms of what? How that changes You know the r4 I think on the on the north side certainly 01:05:16.130 --> 01:05:24.363 - You know, the tall part here, I certainly see that as making sense. You know, I can see that it does 01:05:24.363 --> 01:05:32.840 - kind of leave a weird anomaly of the long vertical piece that sticks out. You know, again, having split 01:05:32.840 --> 01:05:41.399 - zoning creates challenges sometimes. You know, so we would, yeah, the zoning needs to match the property 01:05:41.399 --> 01:05:43.518 - line, certainly, for one. 01:05:43.938 --> 01:05:51.137 - And we did look at possibly what would a segment, is there a different district that might make sense 01:05:51.137 --> 01:05:58.759 - for part of this than a different part? And it's hard to sit here and just without a particular development 01:05:58.759 --> 01:06:05.887 - in front of you say, okay, we're gonna give half of this one thing and half another. If you've got a 01:06:05.887 --> 01:06:13.438 - development coming forward and it works for something, then that matches. But the RM gave the most variety 01:06:13.570 --> 01:06:20.034 - in terms of options of things that could move forward. Certainly either one, I think the R4 on the north 01:06:20.034 --> 01:06:26.313 - side could certainly work, but it does leave an anomaly of that long vertical piece. That making that 01:06:26.313 --> 01:06:32.531 - multifamily, because it's very hard, you can't get a street in there. When we look at single family, 01:06:32.531 --> 01:06:38.810 - you have to envision 60 feet of that of anything is gonna be a public street in order to get loss out 01:06:38.810 --> 01:06:43.550 - of there. And so that's kind of always the scenario that we have to look at. 01:06:43.682 --> 01:06:51.072 - You know, especially as it wraps around and has two connections Certainly it can work and you can have 01:06:51.072 --> 01:06:58.748 - a number of different variety of single-family neighborhoods with the r4 But again that that long vertical 01:06:58.748 --> 01:07:04.990 - piece does does present a challenge Say that again so that that long vertical piece of 01:07:05.634 --> 01:07:11.983 - Not wide enough to get like a real straight down in terms of making it a subdivision. Is that what you're 01:07:11.983 --> 01:07:18.152 - saying? It's probably about a hundred feet ninety-eight Ninety so feet one I can I can measure but you 01:07:18.152 --> 01:07:24.141 - know once you take out sixty, you know You're once you take out sixty feet that leaves you a thirty 01:07:24.141 --> 01:07:25.758 - foot which can be fine and 01:07:26.338 --> 01:07:35.937 - But you know most of that is trees, you know, so as as I'm looking at it's not trees now Can I just 01:07:35.937 --> 01:07:45.631 - drove over there today like the trees that are on here do not exist out there. Oh Like they are gone 01:07:45.631 --> 01:07:54.654 - they're gone Okay, they're gone yeah Well, then I guess it's all fair game. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I 01:07:55.010 --> 01:08:03.681 - Can I just clarify, what's the strip that we're referencing? Is it the one next to 130 or is it the 01:08:03.681 --> 01:08:12.699 - north? Okay, that strip. Okay, yep, gotcha, thank you. So anyway, should go back to that. So that would 01:08:12.699 --> 01:08:21.457 - be the pro to making it RM is that then you could put a larger multifamily in there because then you 01:08:21.457 --> 01:08:24.926 - wouldn't need a standard size driveway. 01:08:25.570 --> 01:08:38.325 - Yes, or not a driveway like a street with with RM You don't have to have a 60 foot wide street in front 01:08:38.325 --> 01:08:48.382 - of everything in order to get houses in there All right other questions this is I 01:08:49.186 --> 01:09:00.700 - Interesting to think about I see the potential for variation in zoning on this particular property Any 01:09:00.700 --> 01:09:12.327 - other questions All right, Commissioner Stasberg, are you still puzzling? Only five of us here tonight. 01:09:12.327 --> 01:09:17.022 - I know I am still puzzling I think that I 01:09:17.762 --> 01:09:27.031 - I would be very uncomfortable making those many lots that are running parallel in RM. And I would feel 01:09:27.031 --> 01:09:36.030 - much more comfortable making them in R4. I do want to point out that duplexes are permitted in R4s. 01:09:36.770 --> 01:09:44.184 - And a multifamily up to eight units are also permitted in our force So there is still some option for 01:09:44.184 --> 01:09:51.453 - that density, but I feel like that would be a softer Transition into the rest of that neighborhood, 01:09:51.453 --> 01:09:59.013 - which I think Could also really belong in Even our three like an r3r4. Those thoughts are kind of weird 01:09:59.013 --> 01:10:06.718 - because they're so like long and narrow They're they're very interesting looking lots But I would also be 01:10:06.978 --> 01:10:14.263 - pretty good with having that longer one that we were just talking about, an RM, with that little carve 01:10:14.263 --> 01:10:21.548 - out there, an RM, because there's an RM right next to it. And so that does create some transition. I'm 01:10:21.548 --> 01:10:28.621 - looking at transition right now. But the petitioner's representative also just said that they would 01:10:28.621 --> 01:10:36.542 - prefer to have it all the same. So then I'm trying to figure out, I think making it all the same makes one part 01:10:36.706 --> 01:10:43.018 - in my mind, less ideal. And so then it's like, well, which part do I want to make less ideal? The RMs 01:10:43.018 --> 01:10:49.393 - or the RHs? If I decide, yeah, I'm good with it being all RMs, then that northern part seems like it's 01:10:49.393 --> 01:10:55.520 - not quite right. And if I make it all RHs, then the southern part seems like it's not quite right. 01:10:55.520 --> 01:11:01.832 - So yeah, I'm still puzzling it. Are there any thoughts from anybody else on here? I have a thought on 01:11:01.832 --> 01:11:03.998 - this, because I do think that if I 01:11:04.226 --> 01:11:12.217 - keep the larger objective in mind here, which is to increase housing options and increase density, and 01:11:12.217 --> 01:11:20.441 - given this location and the ways that the petitioner, at least the petitioner's representative, explained 01:11:20.441 --> 01:11:28.665 - it, given its access, its bus routes, I do think it's a good candidate for larger residential multifamily 01:11:28.665 --> 01:11:33.630 - options. Now that doesn't mean that there can't be a transition 01:11:35.042 --> 01:11:42.779 - built in that might be more accommodating of an R4 like standard without having to make that a zoning 01:11:42.779 --> 01:11:50.669 - issue. I guess I have trouble imagining, well, if we were to change or recommend or suggest a different 01:11:50.669 --> 01:11:58.330 - kind of zoning for this to R4, which I understand what you're saying, we'd have to continue this and 01:11:58.330 --> 01:12:00.606 - it would probably go back and 01:12:02.242 --> 01:12:08.616 - You know, because I don't think we can decide it here on the fly where, right, I don't think we could 01:12:08.616 --> 01:12:14.741 - decide that here that it would involve a mixed. I mean it would be up to the planning commission, 01:12:14.741 --> 01:12:20.990 - you know, certainly all you, you know, if you wanted to say, you know, the north eight lots or five 01:12:20.990 --> 01:12:27.239 - lots or whatever should be zoned R5 or R4 and the southern lots would be zoned RM, you know, that's 01:12:27.239 --> 01:12:31.614 - an easy exhibit that we can draw and you can clearly see and vote on. 01:12:32.066 --> 01:12:39.553 - I mean, if there's a consensus, obviously. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I guess I am kind of trying to think about 01:12:39.553 --> 01:12:46.824 - the larger objective here, which is to increase density where we can. And to me, this does seem like 01:12:46.824 --> 01:12:54.239 - a good candidate for that particular move. So that's my view on it, at least right now. Go ahead. I'll 01:12:54.239 --> 01:12:57.982 - tell you one of my recent RM things that I think is 01:12:58.402 --> 01:13:04.664 - has been problematic in a couple places, and I'm not sure if it would be problematic over here, is that 01:13:04.664 --> 01:13:10.685 - the definition of family changes in RM, and the definition of family becomes five unrelated adults. 01:13:10.685 --> 01:13:16.886 - In some of these border areas to IU where these duplexes are being built with five on either side, and 01:13:16.886 --> 01:13:21.342 - that is part of what is becoming a challenge for some of my constituents. 01:13:21.538 --> 01:13:29.537 - That's what I'm looking forward to and going, ooh, what's the difference between the RM and the RH in 01:13:29.537 --> 01:13:37.615 - terms of what can actually be built there? And is the R4, sorry, is the R4 still going to add valuable 01:13:37.615 --> 01:13:45.457 - density? And as I hear the petitioners represent, I'm talking about, hey, contacting Habitat around 01:13:45.457 --> 01:13:50.398 - this, I'm going, okay, Habitat stuff would probably be in the, 01:13:50.690 --> 01:13:57.406 - like BOK and the R4 in terms of duplexes are allowed, they're like permitted. 01:13:57.570 --> 01:14:03.504 - would use specific standards, and then the other round of plexes are conditional, and then the multifamily 01:14:03.504 --> 01:14:09.160 - up to eight units are conditional. And so then I'm like, oh, I think that R4 could work for that. But 01:14:09.160 --> 01:14:14.927 - would it be appropriate to have something bigger potentially in that long? Yeah. There's something just 01:14:14.927 --> 01:14:20.639 - to the west that is a little bit bigger. And so that would also be super appropriate, especially since 01:14:20.639 --> 01:14:24.798 - we just did the MC and that other one, and there's all that overlap there. 01:14:25.698 --> 01:14:32.496 - Yeah, but I would definitely be amenable to having the north lots be R4 and then the south lot be RM. 01:14:32.496 --> 01:14:39.560 - But I mean, the petitioner said that they would prefer to have all of it the same, so I'm a little stuck. 01:14:39.560 --> 01:14:46.425 - And I guess I'd rather make it all R4 at that point than all RM. I think that I would rather have that 01:14:46.425 --> 01:14:53.089 - disjoint closer to 3rd Street than that disjoint closer into the rest of that neighborhood in terms 01:14:53.089 --> 01:14:55.422 - of what RM could potentially allow 01:14:57.282 --> 01:15:07.155 - Yes, I see the dilemma. I'm looking at the Kimball properties that labeled RM alongside of it, contiguous. 01:15:07.155 --> 01:15:16.659 - And seeing how modest those are in terms of what they are and their land use. So I can see how if the, 01:15:16.659 --> 01:15:25.886 - okay, I'm gonna get my directions, the south lot was continued to be RM. That makes a lot of sense. 01:15:26.594 --> 01:15:34.704 - if they were within that spirit. So I'm really in favor of keeping that RM and not moving that north, 01:15:34.704 --> 01:15:42.814 - or sorry, south side to R4. So I would be on the split decision then. Okay, Commissioner Smith. Gonna 01:15:42.814 --> 01:15:50.845 - get us out of this hole? Well, we need housing. Yeah. This area is highly underutilized because it's 01:15:50.845 --> 01:15:55.934 - been stuck in annexation purgatory for what, five or six years? 01:15:56.546 --> 01:16:03.011 - If they don't annex they can't have sewer They need to annex The north-south skinnier one doesn't work 01:16:03.011 --> 01:16:09.602 - as our for because you can't build it. You can't put a road in there and develop anything You're putting 01:16:09.602 --> 01:16:16.130 - all this infrastructure in for no reason which flies in the face of everything. We're trying to do here 01:16:16.130 --> 01:16:22.972 - And I just and to split the zoning on this. I hear that I hear you all I don't disagree with your arguments, 01:16:22.972 --> 01:16:24.478 - but we need housing and 01:16:24.994 --> 01:16:30.158 - And five unrelated in this area is not five unrelated next to campus. I'm going to say that loud. I 01:16:30.158 --> 01:16:35.529 - don't disagree with you, Hope. I understand your comment. But this is not campus. This is not a student 01:16:35.529 --> 01:16:40.848 - living area. And if it is, it's going to be an affordable student area that they can ride the bus into 01:16:40.848 --> 01:16:46.115 - town on. So it's a whole different environment out here. I used to call these the baby farms. They've 01:16:46.115 --> 01:16:50.969 - been there forever. The donut should have been annexed many, many years ago. This should have 01:16:50.969 --> 01:16:53.758 - been redeveloped many, many years ago under the APHA. 01:16:53.922 --> 01:17:00.953 - And it's just kind of sad that it sat here like this So I would I'm in favor of the RM simply because 01:17:00.953 --> 01:17:08.191 - it allows the most diversity of housing in this area It still has to come back to us if they do anything 01:17:08.191 --> 01:17:15.429 - squirrely And we've already changed and even an r4 very change minimum lot size so much I Would be favor 01:17:15.429 --> 01:17:22.942 - of r4 on all of it if that skinny parcel didn't require a 60-foot right away so I'm leaning the other way of 01:17:23.426 --> 01:17:28.854 - Keeping straight zoning and saying, okay, let's just do it RM because you can't you're gonna lose acreage 01:17:28.854 --> 01:17:34.486 - and I'm just not for that because it's it's in fill land Infrastructures around that it's near an interstate. 01:17:34.486 --> 01:17:39.812 - It's near bus route and we need housing So my thought is we approve this as recommended and Senate will 01:17:39.812 --> 01:17:45.342 - send it to a positive recommendation because City Council's less, you know their vote so That's my thoughts 01:17:46.114 --> 01:17:55.638 - Yeah, I guess I'm also persuaded by the if we're gonna invest in Upgraded services and sewer I guess 01:17:55.638 --> 01:18:05.634 - I would rather invest that in a larger potential payoff around RM. So that's also persuasive to me Bishop 01:18:05.634 --> 01:18:12.990 - anything Commissioner Bishop There's only five of us here so yeah, go ahead I 01:18:13.410 --> 01:18:21.441 - My question because there's only five of us here with the petitioners representative rather we come 01:18:21.441 --> 01:18:29.551 - to some conclusion tonight, even if it is splitting the zoning or rather it be Continued to a second 01:18:29.551 --> 01:18:33.406 - hearing where there are more commissioners here 01:18:34.082 --> 01:18:39.653 - I mean, I don't think my clients in any big hurry right now. They want the right zoning I think if we 01:18:39.653 --> 01:18:45.442 - do split it we're looking for two different types of people wanting to invest in the property I'm already 01:18:45.442 --> 01:18:51.067 - getting up, you know a tax credit affordable housing developers wanting to buy the property, but we've 01:18:51.067 --> 01:18:56.802 - been turning them away They're not quite ready yet But I do think we'd be looking for two Where it would 01:18:56.802 --> 01:19:00.734 - be nice to have one developer come in there and develop the whole thing 01:19:00.898 --> 01:19:07.058 - I mean, I'd love to see the developer pick up red brick apartments and you know do some positive things 01:19:07.058 --> 01:19:13.337 - there as well So I could see a larger developer coming through and doing a tax credit property Otherwise, 01:19:13.337 --> 01:19:19.319 - we're gonna be looking for two different types of investors or buyers for the property, which is not 01:19:19.319 --> 01:19:25.420 - impossible But it's just be nice to have one that would could could do the whole project So if it took 01:19:25.420 --> 01:19:29.566 - some extra, I mean I'd love to know tonight and we can move forward I 01:19:29.794 --> 01:19:38.119 - But if it takes more discussion, I'm fine with that as well. Okay, thank you. All right, so we, yes, 01:19:38.119 --> 01:19:46.444 - we definitely need to act on this either as a continuing it so that we can have some more discussion 01:19:46.444 --> 01:19:54.851 - or consideration and have a full commission panel for our next meeting, or we could make a motion and 01:19:54.851 --> 01:19:57.406 - try and get something through. 01:19:58.786 --> 01:20:09.600 - I'll make a motion On zeo 202 609 zero zero one five It is to recommend Recommend to the Common Council 01:20:09.600 --> 01:20:20.831 - that the property is annexed and that the zoning shall be residential multifamily per the proposed findings 01:20:20.831 --> 01:20:26.654 - and approve a waiver of the required second hearing and 01:20:28.706 --> 01:20:43.865 - Do we have a second second? Okay, we have a second so we can take it to a vote Smith Yes Stossburg Can 01:20:43.865 --> 01:20:53.726 - you come back to me at the end? Bishop yes Kinsey. Yes copper. Yes 01:21:03.362 --> 01:21:13.259 - I Still have really mixed feelings about that North part B and RM But I will say yes for now to be able 01:21:13.259 --> 01:21:22.871 - to keep the annexation Process moving because there's a lot of paperwork involved in that. Thank you 01:21:22.871 --> 01:21:33.054 - All right, thank you we have five zero that ends our Meeting tonight. Thank you everybody. I appreciate it 01:21:33.186 --> 01:21:40.254 - Thanks. We are officially adjourned.