All right, we'll call the October 12th planned Commission meeting to order this evening Glad to see
everybody here. We do have quorum So that's a good thing and we have an agenda this evening Including
the normal administrative actions at the beginning and we have two minutes to approve two months of
minutes to approve we have some reports and resolutions
We have no petitions to be continued or requested to be continued no consent agenda and we have three
petitions on for tonight So why don't we get started with the roll call? Bishop Kinsey here copper Smith
here Stossburg here Morris here
Good. Okay. Yay. I hear Morris online. Yay. Welcome glad you're here with us Yeah, okay. All right Okay,
so we have approval of minutes from two prior meetings August 10th and September 14th. We had
some corrections made to the August minutes Anybody want to we probably should treat these separately
in case there's any changes
I do believe that one of the playing commission members plans on abstaining. So before you go too much
further Okay, all right, so yes because we are just at quorum we do need a hundred percent voting in
order to take any real action So I guess we will wait knowing having a preview of your vote. We will
wait to review so now we'll have
the next meeting three minutes to review. Okay, we make a motion to forward them We don't need to I
Don't know if we need to do anything. You can certainly take a motion to forward if you want We still
can't vote on it though, right? Yeah, we can't even vote on it. Okay. All right Okay, so let's yeah,
so essentially we're not taking any action on the minutes that are presented because we have a command
commissioner member here who's substituting okay
So how about number three reports resolutions and communications? I think we have an agenda item on
this for our October 8th special meeting we need further information about this or The coin interim
planning director House bill 1001 or house and roll act 1001 amended a lot of
issues re affordable housing and one of its requirements is was that a unit of government had to hold
a public hearing and Hear input on its UDO. It's there are nine topics. We'll go through those At the
meeting the format will be that we will open the meeting Eric and I will have some remarks about where
we were with the amendments that already took place and then it's designed to hear from the public we will then
Take minutes of that meeting and then forward those minutes to the state by the end of the year So that's
the plan for that meeting. You will not vote on anything There there will you just simply receive input
from the public on any comments or thoughts They may have about the UDO how it works How it affects
affordable housing and so forth and then we'll take those in and pass them along and of course consider
everything that said but that's It's an unusual meeting. That's why it's a little
different than what you're used to but we appreciate your time and your effort to Come and hold that
meeting and we have tried to broadly advertise it to get as much input as we can So that's where we
are with that. Thank you Questions I do have one clarification. So the requirement for the special meeting is
Or that there's a public meeting is only that there is an announced public meeting and that the minutes
from that are forwarded there's no requirement that the planned Commission be present or Well given
it is a hearing of the plan Commission. So you need to be present to hold that hearing Yes, so there
will be a quorum expectation then for that. Yes. Okay, and Well, let's just say yes if there isn't we'll
deal with it at the time but
I think we could still take input, but it would be best if there was a quorum present. Okay, so that
will be one of the expectations. I know that this is a different date than we normally meet, so I wanted
to make sure we were clear. Oh, it is. That's simply so when we could get it on the schedule and get
this room, so that's why it's... It is unusual. It's quite different. Will there be an electronic virtual
option or no? Yes, there'll be a Zoom. Great. Absolutely. Okay. Yeah.
We'll conduct it just as we're doing this right now except its content will be quite different Okay,
great. All right. All right. Any other questions about that special meeting? All right. We do hope people
show up and yes I'd encourage if anybody's watching please show up and we would really like to hear
your thoughts. Thank you very much Thank you. Thanks. All right Okay
We have no petitions to be considered for continuation. We have no consent agenda, but we have Three
petitions that will start with z o twenty twenty six dash zero six dash zero zero seven one that we
started talking about last week, but then Just continued to this week. So Eric, do we have a presentation
on this? I
Yes, thank you. So as mentioned, this is I think the third hearing for this particular last round of
amendments that were coming from staff. So the Planning Commission heard two hearings for staff amendments.
One was related to a resolution that came from council that was passed and will be going to council
this Wednesday actually for discussion. Another set of amendments that was heard last month dealt with
limited compliance and change in use standards.
So that is that is going on. So that will be heard this Wednesday. The resolution was was passed so
this is the the third set of amendments that is coming from staff and this is Really just kind of doing
a small little bit of house cleaning and cleanup some minor amendments to the accessory dwelling unit
definition to reflect some changes in state code regarding the the definition of that use and
We're amending the standards for cottage developments. Cottage developments are a little utilized allowance
within the UDO for a housing type that due to the standards that were kind of imposed on it when those
were created really hasn't saw much use due to the limited
increased housing that you can get with that. So we're proposing to amend a few standards within that
and I'll step through that in just a second. And then the third is a few changes to the regulations
for duplexes. One to remove the maximum number of 15 that are allowed per calendar year. The second
amendment to that would be removing the 150 foot buffer that is placed for two years around each duplex.
A third is amending one of the use restrictions regarding
the number of doors that are allowed for triplexes and fourplexes. And then as we briefly discussed
at the last hearing, the Planning Commission looked for a few changes to the standards for duplexes
regarding the definition of blockface to reflect situations where maybe there is a limited number of
residents along a particular street. So we are
proposing to amend the definition of blockface to give a little bit more number of units for context
for evaluating those.
So as I mentioned one of the amendments tonight is to amend the definition for accessory dwelling unit
There was a change at the state level that regard regarding the definition of that and the size allowance
for those So it did modify the language to say the accessory dwelling units could be 75% of the habitable
area of the main structure or a thousand square feet whichever is less so we needed to update our definition
to reflect that and
So we are doing that with this change tonight. As I mentioned, we're increasing the size of that to
1000 square feet. So these would be in all of the districts. One of the other standards that we are
amending that I mentioned was for cottage homes.
So again, we haven't really seen much utilization of this provision Due to the density restrictions
that were placed on it. So we are proposing to increase those density standards For the districts where
those are all proposed as well as reducing or getting rid of the minimum project size and maximum project
size As well as a few other amendments to some of the use specific standards governing those specifically
regarding the rear setback
The provision square footage provision for central open space relative to each number of dwelling unit
Some modifications to the sidewalk language for that as well as to the buffer yard Language and then
modifying the size and including language to say no more than two units are allowed in any one building
In regards to the duplex changes that I mentioned the use specific standards when we've evaluated the
four criteria that are required for Duplexes it talks about four specific elements that are required
to be evaluated roof pitch front porch width and depth front building setback and vehicle parking access and
As we have evaluated these in relation to the first one regarding the roof pitch, we have instinctively
always included with that the orientation of roof lines to help keep some symmetry along a block face.
So we're amending that one particular aspect to state that roof pitch and orientation will be one of
the review criteria.
As I mentioned, we're also proposing to remove the 150-foot buffer as well as the 15-unit cap.
or the maximum number that we can do in a calendar year. We haven't quite reached one of the requirements
with the HB 1001 language was regarding or removing barriers to our housing, including diversity of
housing types, including duplexes and triplexes. So certainly that cap is something that could be something
we would hit up against. You know, over the years we have seen sort of an increasing number of duplexes
per calendar year.
So it is certainly possible that as time goes on hopefully we see these be Implemented and utilized
more frequently and more often that 15 cap could be something we would come up again So we would like
to propose to remove that as well as the hundred and fifty foot buffer And the maximum number that are
allowed per year As I mentioned one of the elements that we're all so proposing is the definition of
block face and so
in the evaluation for duplexes and triplexes, we are including language to say that you can utilize
structures on both side of the street along that block face. And then one of the other criteria that
I mentioned in regards to triplexes and fourplexes, there's language now that only allows a maximum
of two exterior entrances for a building with a triplex and fourplex. We certainly wanna promote the idea of
Townhome arrangement for a fourplex and the idea of that being condo eyes And having an entrance for
each unit works along tour. It works a long way toward allowing Those buildings to be condo eyes And
then sold off and so allowing for one door for each unit and a triplex and fourplex Works a long way
towards accomplishing housing attainability and increasing owner occupancy Chances and so we're proposing
to remove that particular
Language. So with that we are recommending that the Planning Commission forward this to the Common Council
with a favorable recommendation and I'm happy to answer any questions Great. Thank you. Do we have questions?
Yes Okay, I'll go right first. That's where I looked first. So Commissioner Smith. Okay
Why did we restrict cottage development to two units per building? Why do we add that? Yeah, great question
So one of the things that we're always careful of is, you know loopholes that would allow for a multifamily
development or something that is not a
What we are trying to accomplish with a cottage home development. So a typical cottage home development
You see small clusters of buildings kind of scattered around some sort of central open space so the
previous language
That was in the use specific standards for cottage home had a maximum square footage for each unit We
took that out as we increase the density allowance. But again, we wanted to make sure that this didn't
get Utilized for something that we weren't intending So the maximum two units per building helps keep
it in line with the expectation for what a cottage development should look like Is that because of the
zones they're allowed in? Yes. Yeah, I
Because it's a lot of it, you know, you're only really gonna see this in the single-family districts
in a multifamily district The cottage home development doesn't really give you any bonus. So this is
our one through our three our four Yeah, it's also allowed in the multifamily districts as well as the
mixed-use neighborhood district and the RMH district so, you know in the multifamily like I said, you
know the cottage home nine times out of ten isn't gonna be the thing you go towards because you don't need it
Okay, then That's fine. I get it. Talk about the front door requirement Just clarify that for me. So
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
to have two floors front the public street? Is that still there? Are you taking that out? No, so you
know so then it wouldn't apply in that case here for so for Forget cottage development for a second.
Go to the other stuff. What are the
front door requirements. So for duplexes, the UDO says that each unit in a newly constructed duplex
should have a separate exterior entrance facing a public or private street and should have at least
one exterior entrance facing a public or private street. So we don't get into that maximum number. The
triplex and fourplex has that maximum number because
when we were implementing those use-specific standards at the early on, you know, one of the concerns
was we didn't want to have a building with four different doors and sidewalks facing a street. It was,
I guess, an attempt to minimize the visual impact of the triplex and fourplex. However, you know, those
are only really allowed in the R4 district. And in the R4 district, what we're seeing is
these being developed on brand new lots. And so in those situations, you know, we're not trying to match
the context of a built environment where you've got single family houses or duplexes. You know, you
have a completely new building and only allowing
two unit two doors for that four unit building doesn't give you a door for each unit in that building
and so you have to share a door which can be you know somewhat challenging for a situation where somebody
wants to have their own their own house their own unit their own door you know they don't want to have
a communal door so we've seen a few situations at least for BHA where they wanted to have they had a
design for a four-plex and they wanted each door
Door for each unit and the language that was in here didn't allow for that So as we looked at the context
of the situation where these would be happening, you know, we didn't see that there would be a challenge
You know with removing or modifying this standard. So that's why we're we're adding the right to have
the four doors Yes to allow doors for each unit. Yeah, and they four don't have to front the public
street or only two of them can front the public street For a four plus four plus no, they can all face
the street or not. I
Or no, I think you have to have at least one facing the street. Yeah, I'm with you there So wonder there's
a minimum but not all of them have to yes, correct Because I'm seeing is these duplex built that are
offset and so both doors front the street because that's the code currently But it's dumb because it
should almost run off. It's just a weird layout. I think it would be better to have this Okay, let's
make sure we're changing it. I didn't quite understand. I'll make sure I understood it. Okay, I
On the cottage development side, I'm gonna go back to that real quick. I've seen the landscape code
overlaid on cottage development as it's written and it's on tenuous. It's kind of crazy. And I asked
this in our work session, but is there any discussion about the overzealous approach of the landscape
code as regard to some of these products we're discussing because it gets pretty involved
And I didn't know if there's if there's any way to have a discussion not necessarily tonight, but is
there any Palate for discussion on yep, so palatable that is actually one of the changes That is in
our package tonight is you're only required to have that if you're in a multifamily district and you're
up against a single-family Okay, so I've read that but that's that's a change. We're adding to make
it easier. So that is that it's not a required buffer everywhere Correct. Okay. Okay
Commissioner Stasper I also actually had a question about the cottage developments. I Guess I'm still
looking at the maximum density in terms of dwelling units per acre and trying to picture what 43 units
per acre would look like and like would that just be 43 really tiny units like Because if you can't
have more than two units per structure Yeah, so, you know, it certainly depends on
the arrangement so you can have a stacked arrangement, for instance. Certainly you can have a horizontal
arrangement. You know, the 43 units an acre certainly would be very compact. You know, whether or not
somebody's going to achieve that, that's an unknown. But we are just looking at it from, you know, increasing
the density perspective. You know, we weren't seeing anything, you know, with the previous numbers that
were shown. So that's why we are looking to really kind
bump those up very substantially to allow for that to be higher utilized. Okay. I guess that that just
seems like really sort of implausible. And so I'm wondering, it just feels really implausible and sort
of absurd. So I guess I'm interested in some sort of like a visual of what that actually, I guess like
I don't want to put something in code that then is not actually possible.
Outside of like theory because especially then if you add like the okay 200 square feet per dwelling
unit is needed for the central open space and then if you have an acre of property and you have 43 units
and then each of those units have to have the 200 square feet like Like I'm interested in that math
like does that math actually math to make that possible except. It's not actually possible then have that
In there let me let me maybe back up a little bit here. So when when you look at the original density
numbers You know, so let's just take the r2 district And it's at five so five units an acre So that
was kind of imagining that you would have a lot that's about seventy two hundred square, you know so
when these numbers were arrived we looked at it of
Let's have your one acre lot and you can have 7200 square feet for a lot. How many of those 7200 lots
are you going to get in this acre? So the number of the cottage home equaled the same number that you
would get if you had a single family subdivision. So you know that's how we got to these numbers to
begin with. And so these were assuming you know that you had the minimum lot size of that district.
7200 square feet and and so that's how we got there. So now imagine five That's how you got like the
original numbers that are being changed So now imagine, you know instead of a lot that's 7200 square
feet, you know in that same lot you had a house It was only 800 square feet and you could get eight
of those Or seven of those or something like that seven eight nine on that same lot or some aggregation of that
You know, that's sort of how we got to where these numbers were going. So these are maximums, you know,
obviously not minimums. So, you know, this was just kind of adjusting that cap based on where we were
coming from. You know, certainly you could, you know, maybe make an argument by the time you get to
43 or, you know, 35, you could say no maximum. But, you know, I don't, I think 43, I mean, it just depends
on the lot, you know, the R4 lots.
There aren't many of those out there that don't have things on them. Certainly in Sudbury, or I'm sorry,
Summit, PUD, you know, there was land that was zoned for the R4 development standards, so you could
see this. But yes, I certainly see that, you know, 43 does seem like a very high number. You know, and
maybe there's some arrangement that gets you there. You know, if you were doing tiny homes of 500 square
feet each or 400 square feet, maybe you could get there with that.
Okay, so basically though that math was just based on Minimum lot size and then like converting essentially
single-family homes to And so that so there wasn't consideration of that 200 square feet per dwelling
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
Consider the central open space of 200 square feet per dwelling unit that's required when you calculated
the maximum dwelling units per acre No, we weren't looking at it of you know, here's here's a here's
a lot And let's see how many five five hundred square foot houses we could get on there and keep the
200 square feet You know, there might be some situation where there's some overlap You know again, it
was just kind of
really high-end adjusting the theoretical cap here in hopes that it would get a little bit more traction.
Okay. Okay. So the math probably really doesn't math, and I'm not just looking at that and being crazy.
It probably really doesn't math. Okay. Thanks. All right. I had a question about the blackface conversation
that we had last time we were here. And Eric, I heard you say that it's been expanded to include
either side of the street, is that correct? Yes, so the language in here, I can put it up. Yeah, point
me to it if you would, please. Yep. So in the use specific standards, as I mentioned, item two,
It talks about the following design elements of the duplex dwelling shall be similar in general shape
size and design with a majority of existing Single-family or duplex structures on the same block face
on which it is located So the new language in parentheses says for purposes of this section Both both
sides of the street along the block face shall be included So what that is
giving us direction to is previously along the block face. We only utilized that particular side of
the street that a petition site was on. So with this change here, we were intending for this to allow
for the board and others and staff to look at both sides of the block face as you evaluate those four
design elements. Okay, that's helpful because I know that was the debate last time about it being a
little too restrictive.
In the same block face referring to the same side of the street. Okay. All right. That's good. I Couldn't
it's not in the presentation packet as that. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. It's okay. No, it's okay I just wanted
to make sure that I was I actually caught sight of it. So that's good. Okay. All right Okay, other questions
All right Do we have
Members of the public. There is one member online with raised hand. Corey, you should be able to speak.
Okay, I just have two quick questions both about the redefinition of the block face. So the use specific
design elements are required to resemble a majority of the existing dwellings on the block face.
Can someone explain how having defined resemblances among roughly twice the number of dwellings would
make the requirements more attainable? It seems to complicate things significantly. And then real quick,
the other question, if you were to include the other side of the street for the block face, how do you
define that in situations where the streets that kind of border the block face key into the road and
you have houses across the street that are
partially across the street from the original block face and partially not. All right, that's the end
of your comment slash question. Yeah, thank you. All right. Okay. Do we have any other commenters in
the room or online?
If there is anybody else online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you. I'm not
seeing anybody else online. All right. Well, I appreciate the commenter's remarks about the blackface.
Would love to hear a response about this tricky definition when if you if you caught that Eric in terms
of Where the resemblance comes in and then when the streets aren't quite across or how that works when
it's near and not across So what what scopes the block face then? Yeah, no, that's that's certainly a great
Question and certainly a situation that we certainly can encounter, you know, real quickly. I just pulled
up a map of the city just to easily, you know, you pick any core neighborhood where you've got a block
face establishment and you're going to see situations where streets don't align on the other side of
the street there.
So, you know, I don't I don't have a great answer For that situation because you know previously the
definition just said block face on the side that your Petition side is on and that's pretty easy one
side one public Street on one side the other public Street on the other side So, you know what does
happen if you have a street that splits it on the other side of you you know kind of what you can see
right here on the screen in front of you and
I don't have a great answer from that. You can make an inference that you can extend that block face
from the two streets that were on the same side as that site. That certainly could be one inference
to make from that. It's not clear cut. Okay. Yeah, I guess I was one of the people who was in favor
of expanding or
Changing the definition of block face or adopting a different thing that was different from a presumption
of neighborhood But maybe more open than block face. So here we are still in a position. That's not
quite clear but Commissioner Stasburg, is that a partial hand up? well, it's a partial it's a partial
hand up because I
Was trying to look up the block face thing so it's the portion of the block adjacent and parallel to
the abutting public Street extending from one intersecting Street to another so I Would assume that
in a situation like this there would be that a
Eric you can tell me if you think that this makes sense in terms of interpretation With how it is written
right now It says for the purpose of this section both sides of the street along the block face shall
be included so I would think that If for example we were talking about okay, so you have the X right
there so if we're talking about that one and it intersects, but it goes from you know, I don't know
what that street that is by 915 and then
Left over to the next street that right across the street It would include 914 to 1022 and it would
exclude the 908 and the 900 like that's how I would interpret that Personally, yeah, that's reasonable
in terms of how you read what you put in because I feel like that's how I read what you put in both
sides of the Street along the block face shall be included. So just that intersection to intersection
Yeah, so that's what I was trying to say, you know, explain if we can infer that it would be an extension
of those two streets that define that block face. So it's kind of the green lines that I drew here of,
you know, the extension of the street to the east and the streets of the west, you know, that lines
up with a different street. But just an extension of those could be used to make that clarification.
Okay. Yeah, I think that's helpful. So the references that side where the
properties. Yeah. Okay. All right. Some clarity. Yes. Commissioner Stasberg. I'm also going to address
the first thing that the public commenter brought up. One of the reasons why we started this conversation
last month were considering blocks that were very small. We don't have that map up there right now but
there was one of those blocks that was shown that only had four lots on it. So if you're you know
Taking one of those houses and then you only have three others to compare it to you that that's just
not very many And so thinking about trying to make sure that there was a good perspective of what other
Dwelling units in that area actually look like and so that would be the reason the reasoning behind
What behind this decision that we talked about at the last meeting and then again at the lunch session
last month All right other
Comments or questions on this one or a motion? Are you satisfied with what this specifies? I really
like the removal of some of the guardrails about the buffer and the number. We enacted those because
we thought we needed it and clearly we don't.
So, let's move on this. Motion? I'll make a motion. Okay. I'll move to approve petition. Zio was at
2026-06-007 in accordance with staff findings and recommendations. So if I may amend to that, we're
forwarding this to the common council with a favorable recommendation. That's right, we don't get to
approve it.
that Okay, so we have a motion to forward this petition to the council with a favorable recommendation
from Thank you. Okay motion and second ready for roll Yes copper Smith yes Stossberg yes Bishop yes
Right. Okay. That's five all. We're good. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the work on that and thanks
for those of you who worked out the special session where our work session where these things were debated
and constructively corrected. So nice work. Okay. Now we have
Another petition. This one is a new one for us. The oh twenty twenty six dash zero nine dash zero zero
one four KNN properties LLC with Kevin and Natalie Wynn to to to South Johnson Ave. It's a recommendation
for zoning for approximately point seven seven acres for a voluntary annexation request. So we have
staff to present on this one.
Thank you. Eric Grulick, development services manager. So this petition and the next petition are very
identical in two capacities. One, they are a recommendation to the common council for zoning if the
common council approves the annexation of these parcels.
We did deal with the situation last year where property owner in the county jurisdiction was coming
forward for a voluntary annexation request.
So with that it goes to the City Council for them to whether or not to approve or disapprove the annexation.
If they approve the annexation and it is incorporated into our boundaries, then zoning has to be assigned
to it. So the role that the Planning Commission makes in this scenario is to make a recommendation to
the common council for what that zoning should be if the property is annexed.
So we have two property or two petitioners coming forward tonight with two separate annexation requests
that are almost immediately adjacent to each other So the first petition is for 222 South Johnson
Avenue the property consists or the petition site includes two properties That are just off of 3rd Street
And at the corner just off of Johnson and 3rd Street so you can see him shown in green here They border
properties that are in the city that are zoned
Mixed-use corridor to the north of this are Predominantly single-family lots to the north and to the
east or single-family that are all in the county zoning So these particular properties Were firmly owned
by the residents just to the north of this the petitioner has bought these two properties the petitioner
also owns the two properties to the south that are in the city that are zoned mixed-use corridor and
So with this, obviously we are using a variety of tools to make some judgment about what the zoning
should be. The county currently has these properties zoned as LB, which is limited business. So you
can see those two properties shown here. Adjacent properties within the county are all zoned RES, which
is a low density residential zoning. But these two properties are zoned LB.
When these were in the city's planning jurisdiction, they were in our AFA. They were zoned commercial
arterial. When these were reverted back then to the county's jurisdiction, the county updated their
zoning codes a few years ago and zoned this as LB. And so with this, we're looking obviously at two
comprehensive plans. We have the city's comprehensive plan that guides areas surrounding this
And then obviously we'll look at the counties urbanized urban urbanization area plan Which kind of has
two different recommendations? So you can see here the city's comprehensive plan the area surrounding
this is zoned or designated as a regional activity center just to the east of this you have urban corridor
as it extends along 3rd Street and
But all of this area kind of in blue Encircling I 69 and 3rd Street is designated as a regional activity
center the comprehensive plan denotes this area as a high-intensity commercial node Certainly the close
proximity to I 69 plays into that And then as I mentioned the counties
Urbanizing area plan looks at this for the areas that are in its jurisdiction So you can see here the
excerpt from the county's urbanizing area plan showing all of this area Designated as mixed residential.
So the mixed residential is denoted as areas that are accomplishing a wide range of both single-family and
attached housing types. This area is designed to supplement and kind of support commercial uses that
might be in the area. But the mixed residential area is mostly envisioning residential development.
You know, the county's urbanizing plan does have some other designations for more heavy commercial corridors.
But again, you know, looking at it from the county's perspective in terms of their jurisdiction, the
property within there,
All of the area within this particular area is all residential nature. So the mixed residential Designation
is kind of why it was leaning in that direction So the city's zoning As I mentioned currently has all
the properties to the south zone MC mixed-use corridor You know one of the challenges as we look at
this, you know, certainly is there are
Certainly different criteria that could lend toward different designations for this certainly we could
follow a residential zoning for this However, given that it's immediately adjacent to commercial uses
and current commercial zoning It's designated commercial with the county now and the petitioner does
own the land of the south And as I mentioned this was previously zoned commercial arterial when it was
in the city It was envisioned that these properties would be
Developed with commercial uses and joined with the properties to the south also owned by the petitioner
So having the zoning for this property match the adjacent zoning to the south You know avoids a situation
where you've got split zoning on a property Allows for the property to be developed in a uniform manner there is
Buffer yard requirements that would be required if this property develops with a commercial use with
residential next door So there are protections in place for buffering if that were to happen Given the
close proximity of this property to 3rd Street and I 69
You know, again, kind of going back to that larger picture here, you know, we certainly want to make
sure that commercial uses are viable along this corridor here. So the department is coming forward with
a recommendation that the Plain Commission adopt the findings that are in our report and forward this
to the common council with the recommendation that the zoning should be mixed use corridor and MC and
approve the waiver from the required second hearing.
So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Okay, do we have a petitioner report on this
one or? We do have a petitioner here. They're not required to necessarily say anything. They're here
for certainly questions, if any are necessary. Okay. All right, well, that's certainly, if there is
a question, please,
We would love to have your input on this. Okay, let's move right to commission members' questions then
on this piece. What questions do we have? Nothing from my right? I actually am pleased, I'm gonna call out our
Greg Morris from our county who joined us today and see if Greg has any By no means are you expected
to respond or offer anything? That's not an expectation, but I wondered if given your Presence today
if you have anything to say about how this worked out and if this makes sense given your perspective
from the county Yeah, thank you. I think this certainly makes sense
to me and I apologize that this is the first meeting I've been able to attend this year, but thank you
for the offer. Okay. All right. Well, county counties in us, at least Greg is in some sort of agreement
on this. All right. Anything that we can think of that we're yes. Commissioner Stasberg. I actually
do have a small question about the buffer yard. How much of a buffer yard is required against adjacent
zoning districts?
So when you've got MC up against our I know but how big does that buffer yard have to be and like what?
Is it supposed to look like like so in this yard in this case here? It's probably a type 3 buffer yard,
which I think is a 20 foot depth And is there like certain landscaping Yeah, so there's a 20 foot setback
requirement for buildings and parking and whatnot and then a heavy landscape component with that, okay Thanks
Okay. I don't know if I had a question. I wondered if there were any other considerations given for
what this could be. I don't see how there could be, but was there any discussion of any other zoning?
Yeah, so like I said, the main thought process would be commercial zoning sort of makes sense. We did
briefly look at single family or something of that nature, but again,
the close proximity to 3rd Street really didn't seem to lend itself toward a residential zoning here.
Going then back to the commercial zoning, MC or MM could be one of those paths, but having split zoning
here with MM on the north side and MC on the south side doesn't really make sense because you can't
really develop those small lots by themselves.
Matching what we originally had its own for a long time ago allows for uniform zoning on the site matches
what is appropriate along 3rd Street. It would certainly make sure we don't get into problems of split
zoning on a property and uses spanning over a property line. So having uniform zoning made the most sense.
in a lot of regards, and then the mixed use corridor matching what it was previously zoned and matching
what the comprehensive plane designation is for the property to the south, again, supports the mixed
use corridor designation. Thank you. All right. If we don't have any more comments, we can move to public
comment. I don't know if there's anyone online or in the room here today who's here because they all
want to offer a comment or on this
Petition but if you're in the zoom space and you want to make a comment, please raise your hand So we
can unmute you and give you a chance to speak There anybody in in zoom land for us I am I am NOT seeing
anybody online with a raised hand All right, okay, well if we don't have any other questions or comments
we can move forward on a motion for this one and
If we're ready and this one is another one where we don't get to decide but we make a recommendation
to counsel Anybody want to make a motion for this one I recommend we forward this to common council and
I'll just read this that the property is annexed the zoning shall be a mixed-use corridor For the proposed
findings and approved the waiver of the second required second hearing Motion and a second. Yep. Okay.
Well, we have two seconds. That's even better Okay, all right, do we do we have a debate going on over
the at the table and
We can we can take it slow if we need to here That's something else. Okay Okay. All right. So if we're
ready, we can take the role for this petition Z o Twenty twenty six dash zero nine dash zero zero one
four copper Smith yes
Stossburg. Yes Bishop. Yes Kinsey. Yes. All right. Okay that passes five zero Okay, so now we are ready
to move on to our second petition Zio 2026-09-0015 Patel Ramilla s revocable trust Patel Suresh see
revocable trusts at 104 South Johnson Ave again on a
similar request for zoning of approximately 2.82 acres for a voluntary annexation request and Also requested
as a waiver of the required second hearing and Eric you're presenting this one, too
So this petition is for properties that are just to the north of what we were just discussing. So this
site is approximately eight properties and totals about five point something acres. That's what we were
just discussing is the actual acreage of the site is a little bit.
Little bit more than what we had in the staff report. So we'll get that corrected for future hearings
but shown here on the map is
Just kind of an overview of what zoning is in this area So I'm showing this to just kind of get of a
general context as it frames the discussion for What staff was looking at and how we kind of evaluated
this area? So as you can see here, you've got I 69 along the west side with mixed-use corridor zoning
along there moves along 3rd Street
With again mixed use corridor zoning along there. You've got several splotches of color here that are
zoned residential multifamily that are within the city's limits And then you've got the vahala memory
gardens to the east and kind of the blue so what you see here is sort of an island of area that hasn't
seen a lot of redevelopment has a mix of uses within there is bordered by an interstate third Street
some large open space and then some Employment land just to the north of this So the properties that
we're talking about now the eight properties that are kind of shown in green there And I've kind of
zoomed in here Have been developed primarily with just one single-family house or two single-family
houses And a lot of land that has kind of sat empty and undeveloped
So the properties along here are very narrow. They're about 50 feet wide about 400 feet deep You've
got properties that are kind of isolated As you look to the west you see a church as well as a multifamily
development And then some single-family lots. There's a mobile home park I think just to the north and
then further to the northwest and then to the east of this you have several single-family lots
as well. So you can see a slightly zoomed in look here. As I mentioned, there is single family lots
on here. So the county has this area predominantly zoned RES, which is a single family. You do have
some few HD, which is a high density residential district scattered in here. But again, predominantly
the county zoning is reflecting a lot of the land use that is here.
Um, that is designated R. E. S. Um, so again, here is a look at the city's comprehensive plan and then
we'll look at the county's urbanizing area plan. Um, in blue, you have the regional activity center
again that we just looked at. Um, again, circling around I 69 and capturing third street.
And then the institutional civic uses surrounding Valhalla Garden and then along 3rd Street. You've
got an urban corridor designation So the the city's comprehensive plan designations here for the area
surrounding that certainly envisioned a lot of development a lot of intensity of commercial uses Obviously
with this lane that we are looking at today not being in the city's comprehensive plan you know, we
didn't evaluate it based on
our expectations for the area or how we see it being developed. And the county's urbanizing plan, as
I mentioned with the previous petition, looked at this as mixed residential. So the mixed residential,
as I talked about previously, envisions a wide array of single family and attached housing types integrated
into a cohesive neighborhood to
facilitate new housing choices Throughout the community in a wide range of uses and demographics Residential
buildings should be compatible and height and scale And so that's how the county's urbanizing
plan Characterizes this area that's designated as mixed residential So the city zoning you can see here.
We've as I mentioned you've got these pockets of RM so the RM
Kind of somewhat adjacent to this you've got a church. It's immediately to the west of these properties
these Zoning from the city envision high intensity or higher development here than just single-family
You know one of the challenges that we looked at with this for these lots is it's very hard to develop
these lots with a single-family house and
I'm sorry, anything more than a single family house. You can certainly get a single family house on
there, but it leaves a vast majority of property undeveloped. You've got properties that are a half
acre or larger in size, and they're only supporting one house on there. It's very difficult to develop
all of these properties in any sort of use other than single family lot, which really doesn't create
a great utilization of land here.
So as we looked at these properties in combination with what is adjacent to them, it really seemed to
kind of match in terms of what we want to accomplish within the city in terms of housing diversity,
housing attainability of having more units, making better utilization of land that is immediately adjacent
to goods and services. You know, you go back to this map here of all the goods and services and commercial
uses that are just
right down the street, right across the street that are surrounding here. This is one of the places
where we really want to promote density and infill development. There is water and sewer that is along
Third Street with some extensions that are along Johnson. Utilities did indicate that there is currently
some very low usage in terms of the sewer capacity here, so it's very possible that
additional improvements to the sewer line might be needed if additional development is occurring within
this area, but obviously nothing's happened over here, so we haven't seen a lot of that expansion. So
this would be a great opportunity to get development here, get that public infrastructure improved to
help spur further development in this area. But kind of going back to what I was referencing, given
the proximity of goods and services here, the close
Proximity to this to 3rd Street. We really felt like zoning this Something other than single-family
residential was a better choice to make here to make better utilization of this land and these deep
lots And so the comprehensive plan of the city as well as the urbanizing plan of the county both looks
at Promoting something more and in addition to single-family and allowing attached housing types duplexes triplexes
something of that nature incorporates recommendations that the height and scale of these areas be keeping
with residential structures. So, you know, looking at buildings that are one, two, three stories at
max. So the RM district does match that as well. Maximum height in the RM district is three stories,
allows for some of that mixture of housing that I was just discussing.
So we do feel that the residential multifamily district would be the best recommendation to make for
this area Given the existing uses some of the surrounding uses the proximity to the commercial corridor
and those goods and services So we are recommending that to Plan Commission forward to the the Common
Council a recommendation that the property be zoned residential multifamily RM And approve the waiver
of the required second hearing
Okay. Thank you. All right. And again petitioner is not required to present on this or But they're always
invited but I don't even know if they're here Yeah, the petitioners representative is here if there
any question, okay All right. Okay. So if we have any questions, we'll direct them. So do we have any
questions about this? Annexation and zoning proposal. Yes, Commissioner Stasberg
I have a lot of questions about this one. I didn't really have thoughts on the other one, but I have
a lot of questions on this one. So the first question is something that I just realized that it appears
as though, so I'm on slide three right now of that presentation, that there is
Like it looks like an alley and I thought honestly when I was looking at it earlier It was probably
a platted alley. But when I looked at the Monroe County property map that very very narrow rectangle
is actually also owned by the same trust but that is not included in this annexation request and can
the petitioners representative maybe share why that might not be included or what's going on with that and
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
them. I am assuming I am assuming that is part of This annexation request, you know, I'm talking about
Chris You know the drill state your name and
Hi, I'm Chris Cockrum and I represent the owners of this property In fact, I represented the owners
of the property before them sold it to these to Sam and Rosie But that piece that goes over that is
included in it. They did own the house there. That was 130 I think Johnson Avenue and we sold that off
to a family bought that but this had a small strip that went next to it and So this one would connect
to it. We thought it could be
Be utilized for some reason if the property was developed So that little strip should be then part of
them as well. Yep. Okay, so we would like for that to be included Okay, okay and then the second question
that I have is
Probably mostly for Eric, but honestly, mr. Cocker you've been around for a long time. So you might
be able to address this as well When I was looking at this personally I feel like there's a huge difference
between the like those several lots on the north side like the long rectangles and then the long north-south
rectangle just in terms of how that entire neighborhood over there looks so in terms of I guess two
things first off
Let's just go down the, suppose this gets annexed. What's the process then to replatting this? Because
one of the things you said in your report is those long, narrow lots that are off Johnson, they're not
really practical for building. Could that essentially turn into one big lot or multiple, like a subdivision
lot? That could just get replatted. Yeah, so they don't necessarily have to replat it if they sell
All the lots to one person that is just developed as one zoning lot So they can combine that on one
deed and we just treat it as one zoning lot Okay, so they could sell half of me it could sell three
lots of one entity five lots to another one Okay, so that's a pretty standard kind of thing. So in terms
of thinking about this zoning
It kind of maybe could be thought of as a whole. But then the other piece of question that came with
that is that in terms of our role, could we recommend two different zoning designations for this area?
You certainly could. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I guess I'll say for my colleagues, I'm more inclined to have
two different zoning considerations here.
Party we had affordable housing developers that wanted to develop this Because there was no sewer access
or city services We and plus they also own a small piece there on third Street a half of an acre is
also included But that's in the city, but because we didn't have access to city services the the the
developer and they were also two different planning commissions and
It just didn't work. So they bought this property, but the whole intent is this is to market this back
to affordable housing developer Habitat will be the first call I make to Wendy With city sewer, I think
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,
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
zoning So we could attract somebody to put affordable housing
I'll ask you then since you are thinking about you know moving forward, of course There's no plan here
and ideally you would like to have one zoning because I'm looking at it and thinking I I like r4 better
than RM Partly because of what the rest of that space looks like so especially thinking about those
several little thin lots up there like I definitely like
For a lot better up there, but you know that in part, you know this closer to 3rd Street like that could
be a good RM But because I'm looking at the rest of that doughnut hole and thinking that's our four
ish our three ish to me So what would your thoughts be about our four and I guess I want to have Eric
answer the same question, too Well, some of the some of the challenges when I think of like a potential
developer we
Thinking of access so they could maybe get access off at 3rd Street Which they'd have to come over that
half acre lot, which I don't know if that's marketable And or they'd have to use that small strip There
which I don't know if the setbacks would allow us to make that an entryway By having that the rest those
parcels because it's just one house that sits on all those narrow parcels It's not it's just one house
that sits in the middle of them having that a part of it. It allows Actually for the other parts to
be more usable
In terms of the zoning being r4 instead of RM Like in terms of a recommendation from us to counsel to
make it be r4 instead of RM Is that something you have an opinion on and then Eric? What would be your
opinion on that? I would lean toward the higher density You know when I see the duplexes over off a
Kimball, which is right there next to it You know, I could maybe see that
Continuing maybe those come that maybe that becomes an entryway into this property. Maybe that property
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
the cursor is right now. Yeah right there. That's all those are all duplexes I know they're super cute
Yeah, and I can see that being an extension over onto this property and having several different
exits and entrances to the property but really I think I would obviously lean towards a higher density
and Having the entire thing being one zoning. I Think it's gonna be easier to attract someone that's
gonna want to invest into the property Okay, Eric, what are your thoughts on our four over there versus
RM in terms of what? How that changes You know the r4 I think on the on the north side certainly
You know, the tall part here, I certainly see that as making sense. You know, I can see that it does
kind of leave a weird anomaly of the long vertical piece that sticks out. You know, again, having split
zoning creates challenges sometimes. You know, so we would, yeah, the zoning needs to match the property
line, certainly, for one.
And we did look at possibly what would a segment, is there a different district that might make sense
for part of this than a different part? And it's hard to sit here and just without a particular development
in front of you say, okay, we're gonna give half of this one thing and half another. If you've got a
development coming forward and it works for something, then that matches. But the RM gave the most variety
in terms of options of things that could move forward. Certainly either one, I think the R4 on the north
side could certainly work, but it does leave an anomaly of that long vertical piece. That making that
multifamily, because it's very hard, you can't get a street in there. When we look at single family,
you have to envision 60 feet of that of anything is gonna be a public street in order to get loss out
of there. And so that's kind of always the scenario that we have to look at.
You know, especially as it wraps around and has two connections Certainly it can work and you can have
a number of different variety of single-family neighborhoods with the r4 But again that that long vertical
piece does does present a challenge Say that again so that that long vertical piece of
Not wide enough to get like a real straight down in terms of making it a subdivision. Is that what you're
saying? It's probably about a hundred feet ninety-eight Ninety so feet one I can I can measure but you
know once you take out sixty, you know You're once you take out sixty feet that leaves you a thirty
foot which can be fine and
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
drove over there today like the trees that are on here do not exist out there. Oh Like they are gone
they're gone Okay, they're gone yeah Well, then I guess it's all fair game. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I
Can I just clarify, what's the strip that we're referencing? Is it the one next to 130 or is it the
north? Okay, that strip. Okay, yep, gotcha, thank you. So anyway, should go back to that. So that would
be the pro to making it RM is that then you could put a larger multifamily in there because then you
wouldn't need a standard size driveway.
Yes, or not a driveway like a street with with RM You don't have to have a 60 foot wide street in front
of everything in order to get houses in there All right other questions this is I
Interesting to think about I see the potential for variation in zoning on this particular property Any
other questions All right, Commissioner Stasberg, are you still puzzling? Only five of us here tonight.
I know I am still puzzling I think that I
I would be very uncomfortable making those many lots that are running parallel in RM. And I would feel
much more comfortable making them in R4. I do want to point out that duplexes are permitted in R4s.
And a multifamily up to eight units are also permitted in our force So there is still some option for
that density, but I feel like that would be a softer Transition into the rest of that neighborhood,
which I think Could also really belong in Even our three like an r3r4. Those thoughts are kind of weird
because they're so like long and narrow They're they're very interesting looking lots But I would also be
pretty good with having that longer one that we were just talking about, an RM, with that little carve
out there, an RM, because there's an RM right next to it. And so that does create some transition. I'm
looking at transition right now. But the petitioner's representative also just said that they would
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
in my mind, less ideal. And so then it's like, well, which part do I want to make less ideal? The RMs
or the RHs? If I decide, yeah, I'm good with it being all RMs, then that northern part seems like it's
not quite right. And if I make it all RHs, then the southern part seems like it's not quite right.
So yeah, I'm still puzzling it. Are there any thoughts from anybody else on here? I have a thought on
this, because I do think that if I
keep the larger objective in mind here, which is to increase housing options and increase density, and
given this location and the ways that the petitioner, at least the petitioner's representative, explained
it, given its access, its bus routes, I do think it's a good candidate for larger residential multifamily
options. Now that doesn't mean that there can't be a transition
built in that might be more accommodating of an R4 like standard without having to make that a zoning
issue. I guess I have trouble imagining, well, if we were to change or recommend or suggest a different
kind of zoning for this to R4, which I understand what you're saying, we'd have to continue this and
it would probably go back and
You know, because I don't think we can decide it here on the fly where, right, I don't think we could
decide that here that it would involve a mixed. I mean it would be up to the planning commission,
you know, certainly all you, you know, if you wanted to say, you know, the north eight lots or five
lots or whatever should be zoned R5 or R4 and the southern lots would be zoned RM, you know, that's
an easy exhibit that we can draw and you can clearly see and vote on.
I mean, if there's a consensus, obviously. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I guess I am kind of trying to think about
the larger objective here, which is to increase density where we can. And to me, this does seem like
a good candidate for that particular move. So that's my view on it, at least right now. Go ahead. I'll
tell you one of my recent RM things that I think is
has been problematic in a couple places, and I'm not sure if it would be problematic over here, is that
the definition of family changes in RM, and the definition of family becomes five unrelated adults.
In some of these border areas to IU where these duplexes are being built with five on either side, and
that is part of what is becoming a challenge for some of my constituents.
That's what I'm looking forward to and going, ooh, what's the difference between the RM and the RH in
terms of what can actually be built there? And is the R4, sorry, is the R4 still going to add valuable
density? And as I hear the petitioners represent, I'm talking about, hey, contacting Habitat around
this, I'm going, okay, Habitat stuff would probably be in the,
like BOK and the R4 in terms of duplexes are allowed, they're like permitted.
would use specific standards, and then the other round of plexes are conditional, and then the multifamily
up to eight units are conditional. And so then I'm like, oh, I think that R4 could work for that. But
would it be appropriate to have something bigger potentially in that long? Yeah. There's something just
to the west that is a little bit bigger. And so that would also be super appropriate, especially since
we just did the MC and that other one, and there's all that overlap there.
Yeah, but I would definitely be amenable to having the north lots be R4 and then the south lot be RM.
But I mean, the petitioner said that they would prefer to have all of it the same, so I'm a little stuck.
And I guess I'd rather make it all R4 at that point than all RM. I think that I would rather have that
disjoint closer to 3rd Street than that disjoint closer into the rest of that neighborhood in terms
of what RM could potentially allow
Yes, I see the dilemma. I'm looking at the Kimball properties that labeled RM alongside of it, contiguous.
And seeing how modest those are in terms of what they are and their land use. So I can see how if the,
okay, I'm gonna get my directions, the south lot was continued to be RM. That makes a lot of sense.
if they were within that spirit. So I'm really in favor of keeping that RM and not moving that north,
or sorry, south side to R4. So I would be on the split decision then. Okay, Commissioner Smith. Gonna
get us out of this hole? Well, we need housing. Yeah. This area is highly underutilized because it's
been stuck in annexation purgatory for what, five or six years?
If they don't annex they can't have sewer They need to annex The north-south skinnier one doesn't work
as our for because you can't build it. You can't put a road in there and develop anything You're putting
all this infrastructure in for no reason which flies in the face of everything. We're trying to do here
And I just and to split the zoning on this. I hear that I hear you all I don't disagree with your arguments,
but we need housing and
And five unrelated in this area is not five unrelated next to campus. I'm going to say that loud. I
don't disagree with you, Hope. I understand your comment. But this is not campus. This is not a student
living area. And if it is, it's going to be an affordable student area that they can ride the bus into
town on. So it's a whole different environment out here. I used to call these the baby farms. They've
been there forever. The donut should have been annexed many, many years ago. This should have
been redeveloped many, many years ago under the APHA.
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
it allows the most diversity of housing in this area It still has to come back to us if they do anything
squirrely And we've already changed and even an r4 very change minimum lot size so much I Would be favor
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
Keeping straight zoning and saying, okay, let's just do it RM because you can't you're gonna lose acreage
and I'm just not for that because it's it's in fill land Infrastructures around that it's near an interstate.
It's near bus route and we need housing So my thought is we approve this as recommended and Senate will
send it to a positive recommendation because City Council's less, you know their vote so That's my thoughts
Yeah, I guess I'm also persuaded by the if we're gonna invest in Upgraded services and sewer I guess
I would rather invest that in a larger potential payoff around RM. So that's also persuasive to me Bishop
anything Commissioner Bishop There's only five of us here so yeah, go ahead I
My question because there's only five of us here with the petitioners representative rather we come
to some conclusion tonight, even if it is splitting the zoning or rather it be Continued to a second
hearing where there are more commissioners here
I mean, I don't think my clients in any big hurry right now. They want the right zoning I think if we
do split it we're looking for two different types of people wanting to invest in the property I'm already
getting up, you know a tax credit affordable housing developers wanting to buy the property, but we've
been turning them away They're not quite ready yet But I do think we'd be looking for two Where it would
be nice to have one developer come in there and develop the whole thing
I mean, I'd love to see the developer pick up red brick apartments and you know do some positive things
there as well So I could see a larger developer coming through and doing a tax credit property Otherwise,
we're gonna be looking for two different types of investors or buyers for the property, which is not
impossible But it's just be nice to have one that would could could do the whole project So if it took
some extra, I mean I'd love to know tonight and we can move forward I
But if it takes more discussion, I'm fine with that as well. Okay, thank you. All right, so we, yes,
we definitely need to act on this either as a continuing it so that we can have some more discussion
or consideration and have a full commission panel for our next meeting, or we could make a motion and
try and get something through.
I'll make a motion On zeo 202 609 zero zero one five It is to recommend Recommend to the Common Council
that the property is annexed and that the zoning shall be residential multifamily per the proposed findings
and approve a waiver of the required second hearing and
Do we have a second second? Okay, we have a second so we can take it to a vote Smith Yes Stossburg Can
you come back to me at the end? Bishop yes Kinsey. Yes copper. Yes
I Still have really mixed feelings about that North part B and RM But I will say yes for now to be able
to keep the annexation Process moving because there's a lot of paperwork involved in that. Thank you
All right, thank you we have five zero that ends our Meeting tonight. Thank you everybody. I appreciate it
Thanks. We are officially adjourned.