[00:00:05]
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
[CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]
YEAH, IT'S RECORDING.AWESOME. YEP. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S RECORDING.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL DO A QUICK ROLL CALL.
YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF, OR YOU ALREADY DID.
ALL RIGHT. COOL. TAKE IT AWAY.
[APPROVE MINUTES]
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE MINUTES? I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THE MAY 7TH, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ALL RIGHT, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, THIS BRINGS US TO OUR ONLY ITEM ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.
[PUBLIC HEARINGS]
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO A FEW DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF CHAPTER NINE.LAND USE, SPECIFICALLY AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 9.103 DEFINITIONS 9.104 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT.
9.106 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
9.107 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND THEN 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, 9.110 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND FINALLY 9.111 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS AND THE CITY HAS KIND OF BEEN TRACKING JUST OPPORTUNITIES TO CLEAN UP THE ZONING CODE AND JUST KIND OF GO FOR MORE CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE BOARD.
SO WE'VE KIND OF BEEN TRACKING THESE FOR A FEW YEARS.
CAN YOU SCROLL TO THE NEXT SLIDE AND THEN IF ANYONE WHO SHOWED UP.
IF THEY WANT TO COMMENT, FEEL FREE TO SIGN THEM.
ALRIGHT. AT THE JULY WORK SESSION, CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSED POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS THAT STAFF HAS BEEN TRACKING TO CHAPTER NINE LAND USE AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR THE AUGUST 7TH, 2024, PLANNING COMMISSION.
THESE ARE REQUIRED SUBJECT TO REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS PER 9.1 04F.
IT'S ACTUALLY THE LAST COUPLE ITEMS THAT WE TOOK THE COMMISSION THROUGH OUR LAST MEETING.
SO AS I MENTIONED, THESE ARE THE PROPOSED SECTIONS THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATION OF ENFORCEMENT, NON-CONFORMITIES, GENERAL AND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND THEN RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS.
JUST TO KIND OF I'LL START OFF WITH DEFINITIONS.
A BULK OF THE DEFINITIONS THAT WERE INCLUDED WERE ADDITION OF USES THAT ARE ALREADY CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE CITY ZONING CODE, AND STAFF FELT THAT IT WAS WORTHWHILE TO BASICALLY DEFINE SOME OF THOSE, JUST SO THERE'S KIND OF CLARITY ON HOW THEY FIT INTO THE CITY.
OTHERS ARE REVISIONS OF EXISTING DEFINITIONS THAT REFLECT CHANGES IN LAW OR TRENDS.
ARE BUILDING OFFICIAL WEIGHED IN ON SOME OF THE DWELLING LANGUAGE JUST SO WE COULD KIND OF IMPROVE TOWNHOME DWELLINGS REDEFINE FAMILY TO REMOVE THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED PEOPLE THAT CAN OCCUPY RESIDENCE AND THEN CHANGES IN THE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES WHICH STAFF BECAME AWARE OF BASED ON A CHANGE IN LAW THAT RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES SERVING SIX OR FEWER PEOPLE ARE BASICALLY TO BE CONSIDERED THE SAME WAY, ZONING WISE, AS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES.
SO WE DO STILL HAVE SOME LOCAL CONTROL ON THAT REGARD AND THEN NEW DEFINITIONS INCLUDE DEFINITIONS FOR RENTAL UNIT, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, SHARED FAMILY LIVING ARRANGEMENTS AND PUBLIC ART AND IT'S HARD TO SEE HERE,
[00:05:07]
BUT THIS IS BASICALLY I JUST WANTED TO GIVE EVERYONE KIND OF A READOUT OF WHAT THE DEFINITIONS INTRODUCED WERE.GOING IN THE NEXT ONE 9.10 FOR ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT WE ARE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT SPLITS THAT DON'T REQUIRE ADDITIONAL DEDICATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR CAUSE ANY CHANGES TO EXISTING STREETS, ALLEYS WATER, SANITARY OR STORM SEWER OR OTHER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
WHERE I'VE BEEN PREVIOUSLY, SOME OF THOSE HAVE BEEN HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY.
OTHERS THEY'VE JUST REQUIRED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, AS WE CURRENTLY DO.
OUR EXISTING DEFINITION WAS OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH THAT AND WAS TOO LOOSE AND YOU CAN BASICALLY BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE, BUT YOU CAN'T BE LESS.
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
PREVIOUSLY, WE WERE REQUIRING ANY ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OVER 120FT² TO REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
BUILDING CODE STATES BASICALLY THAT ANYTHING UNDER 200FT² DOES NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT.
SO THAT WAS INCONSISTENT LANGUAGE WITH WHAT THE STATE BUILDING CODE ACTUALLY REQUIRES AND THEN THE OTHER ITEM REMOVED IS THE BUILDING COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
SHALL NOT EXCEED 35% FOR LOTS OF 6500FT² OR LESS, OR 30% FOR LOTS WITH MORE THAN 6500FT² IN AREA AND THAT'S JUST BECAUSE WE ARE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS JUST KIND OF REMOVING THE BUILDING COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS AND KIND OF BRING IT INTO ALIGNMENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELINE OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHICH BASICALLY HAS A FLAT, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM WHEREAS IF YOU GET OUTSIDE OF THAT, IT'S SUBJECT TO BUILDING COVERAGE AND SO WE JUST WANTED TO TRY TO MAINTAIN SOME CONSISTENCY AND WE CAN KIND OF ADDRESS THAT AS WE GET TO THAT SECTION.
THE OTHER CORRECTION IS JUST FOR NONRESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
JUST CLARIFYING THAT ANYTHING OVER 200FT² DOES REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
AS I MENTIONED, WE DO NOT ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS FOR STRUCTURES UNDER 200FT² AND THEN CONTINUING WITH SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WE ARE AMENDING LANGUAGE TO REMOVE THE FROM THE DWELLING SIDE OF IT, TO STATE THAT NO ACCESSORY BUILDING SHALL BE USED AT ANY TIME AS A RENTAL UNIT OR A DWELLING UNIT.
WE STILL ARE GOING TO PRESERVE A PROHIBITING RVS FROM BEING USED AS DWELLING UNITS, BUT THIS BASICALLY BUILDS IT INTO WHERE WE WOULD ALLOW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
BY REMOVING THAT ACCESSORY BUILDING LANGUAGE AND THEN THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT SECTION OF THE CODE TO THE DWELLING LANGUAGE.
I CAN GO OVER THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
WE TOOK THIS THROUGH A WORK SESSION, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN JULY, AND WE KIND OF LANDED ON A FEW DIFFERENT COMPONENTS THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE ALLOWED PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES ON ANY LOTS THAT HAVE A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
WE FELT THAT WAS A MORE COMPREHENSIVE WAY TO ADDRESS, YOU KNOW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT MIGHT BE IN THE GENERAL BUSINESS WHERE THAT'S NOT ALLOWED, OR HOUSES THAT ARE IN LIKE THE R3 OR THE R4, THE MORE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSES OR DISTRICTS WHERE WE JUST KIND OF CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT MADE SENSE TO ALLOW THIS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SPECIFICALLY, AND NOT TO BAKE IT INTO A SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICT.
[00:10:09]
NO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE PERMITTED.THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT SHALL NOT BE SOLD OR CONVEYED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING AND MAY NOT BE ON A SEPARATE TAX PARCEL OR SUBDIVIDED THROUGH ANY MEANS. IT'S GOT TO STAY WITH THE PROPERTY.
EITHER THE ADU OR THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING SHALL BE OCCUPIED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND A RESTRICTION SHALL BE RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY REQUIRING OWNER OCCUPANCY FOR AT LEAST ONE OF THE UNITS, AND THEN A RENTAL LICENSE FOR THE NON OWNER OCCUPIED UNIT IS REQUIRED IF THEY ARE INTENDING TO RENT THAT OUT.
PARKING SPACES MAY BE GARAGE SPACES OR PAVED OUTDOOR SPACES.
THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 250FT², AND A MAXIMUM OF 50% OF THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING, UP TO 1000FT.
ADU'S IN MINNESOTA MUST ADHERE TO THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE, WHICH INCLUDES FIRE SEPARATION FOR ATTACHED UNITS, SAFE EGRESS AND ENTRANCES, AND PROPER WATER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS AND THEN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WITHIN OR ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SHALL CONFORM TO THE ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SETBACK HEIGHT, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, CURB CUT AND DRIVEWAY AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE STANDARDS IF THE UNIT IS DETACHED. THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS SUBJECT TO CURRENT BUILDING, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, AND FIRE CODE PROVISIONS, INCLUDING MAINTAINING EMERGENCY ACCESS TO BOTH UNITS.
STAFF KIND OF TOOK THE PERSPECTIVE THAT FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO PUT ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS BEYOND WHAT THE STATE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE WERE REQUIRING, BECAUSE THOSE, I WOULD SAY ARE KIND OF MORE STRINGENT THAN ANY KIND OF ESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WOULD HAVE.
THE ZONING CODE AS IT'S WRITTEN NOW, I WOULD SAY, FITS VERY NICELY.
CONTINUING WITH THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP WAS THE TOPIC OF ARTIFICIAL TURF AND SO STAFF WORKED WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO AMEND LAND ALTERATION LANGUAGE, BECAUSE WE HAD THAT PROCESS FOR LAND DISTURBANCE PERMITS BAKED IN ALREADY AND SO THIS SEEMED LIKE A GOOD PLACE FOR IT TO LIVE.
A LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR ANY INSTALLATION OF ARTIFICIAL TURF, BECAUSE THERE IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT IF YOU ARE PUTTING THAT TURF DOWN, YOU ARE DISTURBING THE LAND OR ALTERING IT.
SO WE WOULD WANT TO SEE BASICALLY THAT THE PLACEMENT, REMOVAL OR GRADING OF ANY PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF INSTALLING TURF OR OTHER SURFACE NEEDS TO HAVE A REVIEW PROCESS SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IT IS A PERMEABLE SURFACE AND THAT THERE'S NO POTENTIAL FOR ILLICIT DISCHARGES AND THEN THOSE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS.
SORRY. CAN YOU GO BACK? THIS IS ON THE TURF PAGE FOR YOU.
WE JUST BAKED AN ADDITIONAL ITEM INTO THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, BASICALLY REQUESTING THAT THERE IS A PRODUCT SPECIFICATION SHEET THAT SHOWS THE PERMEABILITY, THE TYPES OF MATERIAL USED AND ANY TREATMENTS JUST SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF MAKE A DETERMINATION.
A IS IT IMPERVIOUS? AND B DOES IT HAVE A POTENTIAL FOR ILLICIT DISCHARGE INTO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM? THE OTHER WE MADE SOME CHANGES TO OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING, SPECIFICALLY INTRODUCING A SETBACK MAXIMUM FOR PARKING PURPOSES.
[00:15:04]
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY LANGUAGE THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, WHERE WE HAVE TO BASICALLY LOOK AT THEM IF THEY'RE SERVING SIX OR FEWER PEOPLE, THE SAME AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO THAT'S WHY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SIX OR FEWER MATCH WHAT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE.TWO OF THEM MUST BE ENCLOSED AND THEN FOR RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES SERVING SEVEN OR MORE, IT'S ONE PER EMPLOYEE AND THEN ONE PER EVERY SIX RESIDENTS AND THEN JUST KIND OF CONTINUE ON THE TURF.
CONVERSATION WE ALSO INCLUDED IN OUR SET LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARTIFICIAL TURF SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A PERVIOUS GROUND COVER UNLESS THE LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT IS ISSUED AND APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
WE KIND OF FELT THAT THEY WERE THE BEST AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT CALL ON WHETHER OR NOT IT BASICALLY ALLOWS THE AMOUNT OF WATER NEEDED TO KIND OF FLOW THROUGH THAT SURFACE.
WE BASICALLY TWEAKED JUST TO ENSURE THAT THE DESIGN GUIDELINES DO NOT PROHIBIT PUBLIC ARTS.
PUBLIC ART SHALL BE ALLOWED TO BE INCORPORATED INTO BUILDING DESIGN AND MAY INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, PAINTED BLOCK LANDSCAPING AND TREE PLANTINGS AND ORNAMENTAL STRUCTURES. PUBLIC ART SHALL BE ENCOURAGED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO TRADITIONAL DESIGN GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T WE'RE REMOVING ANY BARRIERS TO THAT AND THEN TO CONTINUE ON THAT PUBLIC ART WON'T COUNT TOWARDS ANY SIGNAGE REGULATIONS, AND ONLY THE PORTION OF THE ARTWORK DISPLAYING THE NAME OF THE BUSINESS SHALL COUNT TOWARDS THE OVERALL SIGNAGE AREA.
BASICALLY WE HAVE IN OUR ZONING CODE HOW WE DEFINE SIGN AREA AND HOW WE CALCULATE THAT AND SO I THINK THAT GIVES US AN ALREADY EXISTING DEFINITION OF HOW TO BASICALLY IDENTIFY WHAT IS THE BUSINESS SIGNAGE AND WHAT IS KIND OF THE MURAL OR THE PUBLIC ART COMPONENT OF IT.
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
JUST A FEW THINGS THAT WE'RE KIND OF CLEANING UP THEIR HOME DAYCARES.
IT'S KIND OF A CONTINUATION OF WHAT WE DID WITH CHILD DAYCARES AND ADULT DAYCARES BEFORE THAT.
THIS IS JUST BASICALLY IDENTIFYING THE THIRD OF THOSE AND MAKING IT CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THOSE DAYCARE FACILITIES. OTHER WE KIND OF STRUCK SOME SEASONAL SALES THAT HAD THEIR OWN THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF USES THAT BASICALLY DIDN'T HAVE THAT HAD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BUT THAT WERE ENFORCED EITHER THROUGH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE.
FIREWORKS. TENTS? FOOD SERVICE IN TERMS OF LIKE COFFEE SHOP OR DELI AND THEN FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS, GREENHOUSES, RESIDENTIAL OUTDOOR EG AND OUTDOOR TREE SALES AND PARKING RAMPS ALL HAD THINGS THAT WERE EITHER CALLED OUT IN PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, IN DESIGN STANDARDS, OR WE ADDRESSED THEM IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE.
AS I MENTIONED, THE NEW LAW BASICALLY EXEMPTS THEM FROM SOME OF OUR SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SPECIFICALLY THE RADIUS CLAUSE, THAT THEY HAVE TO BE LOCATED AT LEAST ONE QUARTER MILE FROM A AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY.
SO, AS I SAID, THOSE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BASICALLY AND THEN WE CREATED A SEASONAL SALES STAND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AND USE BASICALLY TO ENCOMPASS ALL THOSE SEASONAL PRODUCE, STANDS, FIREWORKS, TENTS OUTDOOR TREE SALES, ANYTHING THAT OCCURS SEASONALLY FOR LIMITED AMOUNTS OF TIME.
WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING LATER ON IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS TO MAKE THOSE PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO ADMINISTRATIVELY AND KIND OF FOCUS ON LARGER ISSUES.
REALLY. IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT THOSE SEASONAL USES ALREADY HAVE.
THE ONLY ADDITION IS JUST BASICALLY THE CREATION OF A FIREWORKS SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT JUST KIND OF ENCOMPASSES ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE FOR FIREWORK TENTS. GOING INTO THE DISTRICTS, BASICALLY WE'RE JUST INCLUDING IN GENERAL PROVISIONS, THE PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN ALL FOUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
[00:20:03]
FIVE, ACTUALLY, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE THE SAME IN ALL FIVE OF THEM.THE ONLY NEW ADDITIONS ARE THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, WHICH I SAID WOULD BE ONLY ALLOWED AS A PERMIT ACCESSORY USE TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND THEN SHARED FAMILY LIVING ARRANGEMENTS.
THAT'S ALLOWED VIRTUALLY ANYWHERE.
WE'VE KIND OF RUN INTO A LOT OF LEGALLY NONCONFORMING LOTS THAT WERE BASICALLY PLOTTED OR PLATTED.
BACK IN THE DAY, AND THEY WERE DONE SO AT MINIMUM LOT AREA OR LOT AREA SIZES THAT ARE BELOW THE MINIMUM AND ALSO AT MINIMUM BELOW THE MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIREMENTS.
YOU CAN'T ALTER THEM BEYOND WHAT THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT IS.
YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING THAT INTENSIFIES THE USER MAKES IT MORE NONCONFORMING.
SO WHAT STAFF KIND OF FOUND IS THAT THERE'S NUMEROUS PROPERTIES THAT THESE WOULD APPLY TO, AND THAT IT'S KIND OF MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR HOMEOWNERS TO BASICALLY BUILD EQUITY AND TO TRY TO IMPROVE UPON THE VALUE OF THOSE PROPERTIES IF THEY'RE NON CONFORMING.
AND WE HAD KIND OF ALREADY HAD A TEMPLATE FOR HOW TO ADDRESS THAT THROUGH THE DUPLEX LANGUAGE AND SPECIFICALLY THE R-2B DISTRICT WHERE IT'S SET, IF IT WAS ESTABLISHED BEFORE, IF IT EXISTED ON JANUARY 1ST, 2005, IT WAS ALLOWED UNDER THAT SMALLER LOT SIZE, KIND OF ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS IS HOW IT WAS PLATTED AND SO THOSE PROPERTIES DO NOT HAVE THAT LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS.
SO WE TOOK THAT SAME LANGUAGE AND BASICALLY APPLIED THAT TO R2-A, R2-B, R-3 AND R-4, BASICALLY JUST TO RECOGNIZE THAT SOME OF THESE LOTS WERE PLATTED THIS WAY AT A TIME BEFORE THE ZONING CODE CHANGED.
ADD UPON THEM GARAGES, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE OTHER KIND OF OBSTACLE THAT WE FOUND WAS THAT IF WE DID, IF WE ALLOW PREPARED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO GO FORWARD, A LOT OF THE HOUSES IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD ANY OF THOSE BECAUSE THEY'RE CONSIDERED LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING.
SO IT WAS KIND OF A WEIRD KIND OF SITUATION AND THEN THE OTHER DIFFERENCE IS BASICALLY REFLECTING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SHORELINE OVERLAY DISTRICT IN ALL THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, KIND OF USING THAT SAME LANGUAGE THAT THE SHORELINE OVERLAY DOES, BASICALLY SETTING MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AMOUNTS FOR LOTS, 35% FOR LOTS LESS THAN 6500FT², 30% FOR LOTS GREATER THAN 60 500FT² A LOT OF PLACES WHERE I'VE BEEN HAVE BOTH BUILDING COVERAGE AND THEN SLIGHTLY MORE ALLOWED FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
MY UNDERSTANDING SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT ONLY APPLIES WITHIN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY AND SO IF ONCE YOU GET EVEN, YOU KNOW, A HOUSE OR TWO, OUTSIDE OF THAT, THERE AREN'T REALLY ANY MECHANISMS TO BE ABLE TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM JUST COVERING THEIR ENTIRE PROPERTY IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, WHICH IN CONSULTING WITH ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS, KIND OF DOES A DISSERVICE TO THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE TRYING ARE WITHIN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT.
IT KIND OF HURTS THE CITY'S ABILITY OVERALL TO KIND OF RESPOND TO SOME OF THE STORMWATER SITUATIONS AND SO WE KIND OF FEEL LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD ALLEVIATE SOME OF THOSE LEGACY ISSUES I FEEL LIKE WE SEE AND THEN THE OTHER MAJOR CHANGE IS THAT WE'RE JUST IN THE R2-A AND R2-B TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
THAT WAS A DISTRICT THAT WAS BASICALLY DESIGNED TO HELP ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE DUPLEXES THAT WE'VE SEEN AND FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, IT DIDN'T REALLY MAKE A TON OF SENSE FOR US TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR SOMETHING THAT IS EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE ZONE AS BEING ALLOWED.
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AGAIN, KIND OF ALONG THOSE SAME LINES, WE JUST WANTED TO IDENTIFY USES THAT WERE CONSIDERED CONDITIONAL USES AND THEN WOULD REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ONE COME BEFORE YOU GUYS NEXT MONTH.
[00:25:01]
SO JUST TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THOSE REAL QUICK, WE'RE BASICALLY PROPOSING FOR THE THREE BUSINESS DISTRICTS, LIMITED BUSINESS.WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE OFFICE RETAIL SALES, FOOD SERVICE LIMITED COFFEE SHOP OR DELI, AND THEN MUSEUM/GALLERIES WHICH ARE CURRENTLY CONDITIONAL USES AND WOULD REQUIRE A CUP.
THAT YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE ON AND THEN COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE ON IT.
IT MAKES SENSE TO INCLUDE THOSE AS PERMITTED USES, JUST BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BEYOND WHAT WAS REQUIRED FOR THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. BASICALLY, JUST CLEANING UP LITTER WAS A LOT OF THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THESE OTHERS, LIKE OFFICE DIDN'T HAVE ANY RETAIL SALES, DIDN'T HAVE ANY AND THAT KIND OF PERMEATED TO THE GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF USES, INCLUDING ARCADE, FIREARMS, DEALER PARKING RAMP PRINTING AND PUBLISHING, AND CLUBS AND LODGES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS CONDITIONAL USES, BUT AGAIN, HAVE NO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, SO IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO KIND OF SEE A RATIONALE TO REQUIRE THEM TO GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THEM TO REALLY FOLLOW.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE INTERIM USES, WHICH BASICALLY INCLUDE THOSE SEASONAL SALES STANDS AND MAKING THOSE PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES JUST TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER.
SO ARCADE, FIREARMS, DEALER PARKING RAMP PRINTING, PUBLISHING, CLUB, LODGE, THOSE WERE ALL BEING PROPOSED TO GO FROM CONDITIONAL USES TO PERMITTED USES AND THEN, AS I MENTIONED, THE SEASONAL SALES STAND WOULD BE A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE.
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS HAD THAT TO A LESSER DEGREE.
THERE WEREN'T REALLY MANY MAJOR USES THAT STOOD OUT.
OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, I WOULD SAY IS SIMILAR ISH TO OUR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
SO IT KIND OF MADE SENSE CONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WE TOOK [INAUDIBLE] THROUGH TO BASICALLY LOOK AT IT AND SEE, LIKE, OKAY, WE ALLOW RETAIL IN OTHER, MORE INTENSE FORMS. IS THERE A BENEFIT TO RESTRICTING RETAIL, ESPECIALLY KIND OF AS YOU SEE FUTURE BUSINESSES POP UP AND THOSE BEING DESIRED SPACES. SO WE CAN TAKE THE PERSPECTIVE THAT RETAIL SALES IN ARE ALLOWED IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ALREADY THROUGH DIFFERENT FORMS MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS STORES, BODY PIERCING, TATTOOS.
SO IT KIND OF MADE SENSE TO INCLUDE RETAIL SALES AND THEN PARKING RAMPS.
JUST BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY DID NOT HAVE PARKING RAMPS, DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT AREN'T ALREADY IN THE DESIGN STANDARDS OR THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THEN THE OTHER ITEM CARETAKERS RESIDENCES ARE IDENTIFIED AS A CONDITIONAL USE, BUT WE WOULDN'T ALLOW THAT AS A STANDALONE USE. THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED IN BASICALLY A LOT THAT ALREADY HAS A SPECIFIC USE.
IT'S AN A LOT. IT'S AN ACCESSORY USE.
SO THAT KIND OF MADE SENSE FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE TO JUST HAVE THAT AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME BUSINESSES THAT WE ALLOW OR USES THAT WE ALLOW CURRENTLY THAT COULD LEND THEMSELVES TO HAVING A CARETAKER ON SITE AND AGAIN, NO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON THAT.
AND THOSE ARE THE SAME CHANGES THAT ARE REFLECTED IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AS WELL.
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH FOR FINDINGS OF FACT WITH 9.104F FIRST IS THAT THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE AMENDMENT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE PARTICULAR CLASSIFICATION AND HAS THERE BEEN A CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OR TREND OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, WHICH HAS TAKEN PLACE SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS PLACED IN THE CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION? WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY CLASSIFICATIONS.
WE'RE JUST KIND OF RE-ADJUSTING THE USES BASED ON KIND OF HOW THESE AREAS HAVE DEVELOPED.
[00:30:06]
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.SO STAFF FEELS THAT THESE REQUIRED FINDINGS ARE MET.
THE CITY ATTORNEY AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THESE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY HAD SOME COMMENTS, JUST BASICALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING THINGS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER AND THEN TRYING TO THINK OF HE DELETED A FEW DEFINITIONS GOVERNMENT OFFICE.
HE FELT LIKE THAT WAS PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY AND THEN HOSPITAL, JUST BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S THEY DO A LOT MORE OUTPATIENT PROCEDURES IN OFFICES NOW.
SO HE JUST KIND OF STRUGGLED TO KIND OF LOCK DOWN ONE SPECIFIC DEFINITION.
BUT WE BASICALLY INCORPORATED ANY OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS INTO THE ORDINANCE YOU SEE TODAY.
I'VE GOT TWO RECOMMENDED MOTIONS.
ARE WE MOVING ON TO? YEP. WE CAN OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS.
IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I WOULD LIKE TO JUST CLARIFY.
ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, I THINK THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT DATES, AND A FEW OF THEM LOOK LIKE THEY HAD JUST COPIED THE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO RATHER THAN ESTABLISHED AFTER. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT SQUARE FOOTAGES.
ONE IS PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST OF 2005.
RIGHT AND THEN THE SECOND, THE LARGER SQUARE FOOTAGE IS AFTER ESTABLISHED AFTER JANUARY 1ST.
YEAH, BASICALLY IT'S GRANDFATHERING IN THOSE.
EXISTING ON JANUARY 1ST IS 5100 KIND OF RECOGNIZING THOSE SMALLER LOT SIZES.
THE SAME WITH THE LOT WIDTH AND THEN THE ESTABLISHED AFTER JANUARY 1ST REFLECTS THE CURRENT ZONING STANDARD OF 6500FT², AND THEN THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 60FT AND THEN 70 FOR THE OTHER, THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS.
THANK YOU. I JUST WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE THAT WENT OUT.
HOW WAS IT DETERMINED ON WHO WAS GOING TO GET THE NOTICE AND WHO WASN'T GOING TO GET THE NOTICE? SO WE DID NOT DO WE DID THE SAME AS WE DID FOR THE TREE PRESERVATION, BUT NOT THE DAYCARE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, JUST BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A SPECIFIC SITE THAT THIS COULD BE APPLIED TO.
SO THERE WASN'T REALLY A WAY TO DETERMINE A RADIUS DISTANCE OF WHO SHOULD GET THIS.
BUT WE BASICALLY TRIED TO GET THIS OUT LIKE THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE HEARING.
I TRIED TO PROVIDE A FULL READOUT OF THE ZONING TEXT WITH THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED AND THEN SMALLER BREAKDOWNS, JUST KIND OF IDENTIFYING BASICALLY LIKE THROUGH THAT POWERPOINT, THESE ARE THE SPECIFIC CHANGES THAT ARE BEING MADE.
JUST KIND OF TRYING TO HIT THE HIGH POINTS OF WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW.
OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE REMOVED OR WHAT WAS THE WHERE WOULD YOU WRITE THE NEXT SLIDE? THE SLIDE RIGHT AFTER THIS. YEP.
IS THAT GOING TO BE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT ONE? THE ONE WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.
YEP. RIGHT THERE UNDER DWELLINGS, POINT D.
THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE REMOVED OKAY.
YEP. SORRY I WAS TRYING TO INCLUDE WHAT WAS REMOVED AND WHAT WASN'T.
THE UNRELATED ADULTS LANGUAGE IS GOING TO BE REMOVED, SO THERE WON'T BE A MAXIMUM THAT WILL BE DETERMINED BY FIRE CODE AND THEN THAT'S ALSO WE AMEND OR PROPOSING TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY TO ALSO REFLECT THAT YOU CAN HAVE MORE THAN THREE UNRELATED PEOPLE LIVING IN A HOUSE TOGETHER.
SO ONLY THE ONLY THING THAT WILL BE ON THE WILL BE THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE.
YEP. THAT'S GOING TO STAY JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PERMANENT DWELLING UNIT.
I HAD A QUESTION ON THE PERMITTED USES SLIDE.
[00:35:03]
I KNOW THAT WE SAID WE WERE CHANGING SOME OF THOSE DEFINITIONS BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T REALLY INDIVIDUAL STANDARDS FOR THOSE ITEMS. I NOTICED ON HERE A COUPLE OF TIMES THERE'S FIREARMS DEALERS.ARE THERE NO STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE FOR SAFETY OR THEY'RE LICENSED FEDERALLY ALREADY.
SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE ANY CITY LICENSING.
THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE PUT ON THEM WERE ALSO FOR SHOOTING, LIKE OUR SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ADDRESSES FIREARMS DEALERS, BUT ONLY IN RELATION TO SHOOTING RANGES. OKAY.
WHICH IS WHERE THOSE STANDARDS WERE MOSTLY APPLICABLE TO.
FIREARMS DEALERS ARE, AS I SAID, REGULATED ATF FEDERAL LICENSING.
SURE. IN ESSENCE, WE'RE KIND OF LOOKING AT THEM SIMILARLY TO A RETAIL USE AND SO THOSE STANDARDS THAT THE ATF ENFORCES, THEY I ASSUME THEY INCLUDE LIKE EXTRA SECURITY WHEN IT'S CLOSED AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
YEAH. YOU CAN'T DISPLAY THEM IN THE WINDOWS.
THEY HAVE STANDARDS THAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW FEDERALLY TO GET THEIR LICENSE.
THANK YOU. JUST A FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
ARE THERE IN WITHIN THE FEDERAL STANDARDS OR PERHAPS SOMEWHERE ELSE WITHIN OUR ZONING CODE? ARE THERE RESTRICTIONS ON DISTANCE AWAY FROM CERTAIN USES AND TYPES THAT THOSE FACILITIES ARE ALLOWED TO OCCUPY FOR THE SHOOTING RANGE SIDE OF IT, OR THE SALES SIDE, NOT FOR THE SALES SIDE.
OKAY. HOW IF WE WERE TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING TO BE ADDED INTO THIS DRAFT ORDINANCE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO TONIGHT? POTENTIALLY, I'D WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY BASICALLY READS THROUGH IT FIRST JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S LEGAL.
BUT YES, THAT I BELIEVE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD INCLUDE.
THAT IS ONE OF THOSE THAT WE CONSIDERED REMOVING JUST BECAUSE SHOOTING RANGE DOESN'T REALLY SEEM LIKE IT COULD BE APPLICABLE TO ANY OF THE PROPERTIES HERE IN THE CITY. ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON HOW MANY CAN BE WITHIN THE CITY, PERIOD, LIKE DISTANCE FROM EACH OTHER OR STUFF LIKE THAT? NO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE LOOK AT THEM SIMILARLY TO RETAIL SALES.
THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CAN I OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC? TO OPEN IT UP. AWESOME.
FIRST WE HAVE JOHN NELSON, 2,143RD AVENUE, NORTHEAST COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THE ADUS.
I'M REALLY GRATEFUL THAT YOU ALL ARE CONSIDERING THIS AND TALKING ABOUT THIS RIGHT NOW.
MY INTEREST IN THIS ACTUALLY COMES FROM MY PARENTS.
THERE ARE FARMERS IN SOUTHERN MINNESOTA, AND JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO THEY ACTUALLY HAD ASKED ME ABOUT THIS IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS BECAUSE THEY ARE RETIRING, WORKING ON RETIRING.
BUT THEY HAVE INTEREST IN COMING UP AND BEING CLOSER MORE REGULARLY AND ARE FAMILIAR WITH MINNEAPOLIS AND OTHER AREAS AROUND THE TWIN CITIES WHERE YOU CAN HAVE THESE DETACHED DWELLING UNITS.
SO I DID SOME RESEARCH, WAS SURPRISED TO DISCOVER THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT AN OPTION HERE.
SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT.
SO WHEN I SAW THIS ON THE AGENDA, I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF IT BECAUSE I THINK IT OPENS UP A LOT OF POSSIBILITIES FOR MULTI-GENERATIONAL FAMILIES WHO DESIRE TO BE TOGETHER, BUT MAYBE NOT IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY ALL THE TIME.
I LOVE MY PARENTS AND ALSO THE SPACE WOULD BE HELPFUL ON OCCASION.
SO AND I HAVE A FEELING THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THAT SITUATION.
IS IT AIDEN VANG? I APOLOGIZE AIDEN.
OKAY. 4400 NORTHEAST STINSON BOULEVARD.
LIKE YOU SAID, MY NAME IS AIDEN VANG.
[00:40:01]
ESPECIALLY TO OUR OCCUPANCY LIMITS FROM THREE UNRELATED MEMBERS TO NO LIMIT.SO MY HERITAGE IS HMONG AND MY PEOPLE ARE REFUGEES TO THE US.
FOR GENERATIONS, MY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIVING IN COMMUNITIES AND VERY COMMUNITY.
THIS ALSO EXTENDS TO FRIENDS AS WELL AS A PROUD CITIZEN OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE CHANGES WHERE UNRELATED PEOPLE CAN ALSO LIVE IN THE SAME DWELLING.
THIS WOULD ATTRACT AND KEEP NOT JUST HMONG PEOPLE, BUT OUR IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE COMMUNITIES THAT COME FROM COMMUNAL SOCIETIES WHERE LIVING WITH RELATED AND UNRELATED PEOPLE IS NORMAL.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS IS AN EXTREMELY DIVERSE CITY WHICH I AM VERY PROUD OF, AND THERE ARE WAYS WE CAN MAKE IT FEEL MORE HOSPITABLE, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE THAT ARE FLEEING WAR AND THOSE THAT ARE TRYING TO FIND A BETTER LIFE.
AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF THRIVING COMMUNITIES AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE JUST OPENING UP.
I'M A BIG FAN OF THE GOLDEN NUTS.
LOS CACTUS AND ALL THESE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT ARE REFUGEE COMMUNITIES ARE OPENING.
RIGHT AND IT WOULD BE GREAT TO CONTINUE TO MAKE CHANGES WHERE THEY ARE WELCOMED AND OUR THAT OUR COMMUNITY AND CITY CAN FEEL MORE HOSPITABLE TO THOSE TO OUR PEOPLE.
YEAH. I JUST ECHO WHAT THOSE HAVE SAID.
JUST THANKING YOU FOR TALKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES TODAY.
I DON'T NORMALLY COME TO CITY MEETINGS LIKE THIS OR SPEAK, BUT SIMILAR TO ADD IN THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY LIMITS WERE REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME.
I'M A SINGLE YOUNG PERSON WORKING PROFESSIONAL, LIVING IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND LIKE A GROWING NUMBER OF AMERICANS, I'M WANTING TO FIND WAYS TO LIVE WELL WITH FRIENDS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
OUR MARRIAGE AGE IS JUST GETTING OLDER AND OLDER, AS I'M SURE YOU'RE WELL AWARE, AND WE NOW HAVE LARGE STRETCHES OF TIME IF PEOPLE YEAH, EVEN CHOOSE TO DO TO GET MARRIED WHERE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO LIVE SUSTAINABLY BOTH FINANCIALLY AND FOR OUR PLANET.
AND TO BE ABLE TO LIVE WITH CONNECTION.
I, AS A YOUNG PERSON, I CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THE MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS THAT WE'RE IN AND STUDIES SHOW THAT TO BE ABLE TO BE IN CONTACT WITH PEOPLE AND LIVE TOGETHER IS SO IMPORTANT FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND I THINK WE REALLY SAW THAT DURING THE PANDEMIC.
I'VE BEEN LIVING WITH FRIENDS THE PAST TWO YEARS THAT I HAVE BEEN IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, AND I ONLY REALLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THE OCCUPANCY LIMIT AS I WAS INTERESTED IN HAVING ANOTHER FRIEND LIVE WITH US.
WE LIVE WELL TOGETHER, WE'RE CLEAN, WE'RE RESPECTFUL, WE'RE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND GOOD CITIZENS, AND WE'RE JUST REALLY INTERESTED IN HAVING POLICIES AND LAWS THAT SUPPORT OUR SOCIETY AS IT IS TODAY AND AS IT'S CONTINUING TO EVOLVE.
SO THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE AND THEN JUST TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE FIREARMS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THERE IS RADIUS DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY BE LOCATED 300FT AWAY FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, PROPERTY OR RESIDENTIAL USE, AND THEN 500FT AWAY FROM PROTECTED USES SUCH AS LICENSED DAYCARE FACILITIES, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SCHOOLS, PARKS, PLACES OF WORSHIP.
SO THAT ALREADY EXISTS CURRENTLY.
IF YOU GUYS WISH TO JUST MAINTAIN THAT THE WAY IT IS.
THAT'S A LOCAL ONE RIGHT NOW OKAY.
BUT TAKING OUT THIS DEFINITION WON'T AFFECT THAT.
CORRECT? CORRECT. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION? THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS WILTON.
I'M A BUSINESS OWNER HERE IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, AND I HAVE TO SPEAK ABOUT GRANDMA MAE BECAUSE WHEN I DO MY WALKS, SHE USUALLY TENDS TO HER HYDRANGEAS RIGHT OVER THERE AND HOOK FISH OR RIGHT BEHIND HOOK FISH AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW SHE'S GETTING OLDER AND HER CHILDREN WANT TO COME
[00:45:04]
HOME AND LIVE WITH HER, AND THEY CAN'T BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN UNATTACHED DWELLING UNIT IN THE BACK.BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO TURN IT INTO AND THEY CAN'T BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T WANT TO LEAVE HER HOME AND SHE DOESN'T WANT TO TRAVEL TO VERMONT OR MASSACHUSETTS, WHERE A COUPLE OF HER CHILDREN ARE, AND SHE WANTS TO STAY HERE IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A BEAUTIFUL CITY TO LIVE IN, SO DIVERSE.
THE BUSINESS HERE IS IT'S JUST A GREAT WAY TO START A FAMILY AND A BUSINESS AND HAVE KIDS.
I'M LEARNING THAT. I JUST GOT HERE ABOUT LESS THAN A YEAR AGO FROM BALTIMORE.
I WAS PREVIOUSLY HERE BACK IN 2019, BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, AND I WENT HOME DURING THE PANDEMIC, AND I SAID, I HAVE TO COME BACK TO MINNESOTA BECAUSE IT'S SO BEAUTIFUL HERE AND SO I LOVED IT HERE, AND I STARTED A BUSINESS HERE.
BUT I WANT TO SPEAK FOR GRANDMA MAE TODAY, WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN A DIFFERENT TYPE OF SITUATION THAT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR OUR LAWS? I MEAN, THAT DOESN'T ALLOW IT BECAUSE OUR LAWS ARE A PARTICULAR WAY AND SO I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU CHANGE THIS FOR GRANDMA MAE, FOR PEOPLE LIKE CARMEN AND HER SON WHO WANT TO INVITE WHO WANT TO LIVE WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO AREN'T FAMILY MEMBERS JUST TO HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT REFLECTS, AS I THINK IT WAS MADDIE WHO SAID, WHO REFLECTS OUR SOCIETY TODAY AND OUR TODAY IN OUR SOCIETY IS DIFFERENT.
I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS PANEL, IT LOOKS LIKE PAUL MOSES.
I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH YOU, PAUL, BUT WELCOME.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT LOOKS LIKE ME.
IT LOOKS LIKE ADDIE, WHAT'S, EXCUSE ME? WHAT'S YOUR NAME? ADEN AND SO I WANT TO SPEAK FOR THOSE PEOPLE.
I'M NOT THE LORAX, BUT I DON'T SEE THEM HERE, YOU KNOW? AND I FEEL LIKE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT, WHAT'S GOING ON AND HOW IT AFFECTS THEM AND THE KIND OF LIFE THEY WANT TO LIVE HERE IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND HOW THAT AND HOW YOU CAN BE A PART OF THAT AND HOW YOU CAN CHANGE THAT.
OUR GOVERNOR NOW IS PART OF THE KAMALA CAMPAIGN.
I MEAN, PART OF THESE POLICIES, THE NUCLEAR FAMILY POLICY, IT'S A LITTLE RACIST AND SO I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS TODAY.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, BEFORE WE MOVE ON AND MAKE OUR MOTION, I KNOW A NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE UP HERE WORKED REALLY HARD ON DOING A LOT OF RESEARCH ON ADUS AND BRINGING THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A WORK SESSION AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY UP HERE WHO'S DONE THE WORK AND WHO KNEW HOW IMPORTANT THIS WAS TO OUR COMMUNITY AND HOW LIFE CHANGING IT CAN BE FOR SO MANY FAMILIES.
SO THANK YOU GUYS FOR DOING THAT WORK.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO WE CAN TAKE MOTIONS WHENEVER YOU'RE READY OKAY.
WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE AND SPEAKING.
WE'LL START WITH THE FIRST MOTION.
MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NUMBER 1700.
THERE BEING AMPLE COPIES AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
MOVING ON. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE TO RECOMMEND THAT THIS PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE 1700 AS PRESENTED. SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS OR ARE WE?
[OTHER BUSINESS]
JUST TO GIVE YOU GUYS AN UPDATE AND KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT WITH SOME THINGS, MET COUNCIL IS TAKING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR MEDTRONIC THROUGH THEIR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND THEN THE MET COUNCIL REVIEW WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO.SO HOPEFULLY WE HAVE SOME MOTION ON THAT.
WE WILL HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NEXT MONTH.
THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR THAT SITE.
PLAN REVIEW FOR 999 50TH AVENUE NORTHEAST.
IT'S GOING TO BE THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AND A NEW CONSTRUCTION CAR WASH AND THEN THE OTHER IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 604 40TH AVENUE NORTHEAST.
THE ADDITION OF A RETAIL COMPONENT TO THEIR BAKERY.
KIND OF DOING, LIKE, A SMALL MARKER MARKET GROCER TYPE THING AND THEN I THINK AFTER THAT, WE'RE HOPING TO KIND OF SIT DOWN WITH YOU GUYS AND DO SOME WORK SESSION WORKSHOP TYPE ITEMS. I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DESIGN GUIDELINES, GETTING AN UPDATE SIGN CODE, PROBABLY.
I'D LIKE TO KIND OF GET STARTED THROUGH THE SOLSMART PROCESS.
[00:50:03]
SO YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? JUST TO SPEAK TO ANDREW'S KIND OF THE WORK SESSION UPDATES AS YOU GUYS ARE AWARE, OUR CODE IS A MESS.SO WE'RE EXCITED TO GET THOSE PARTS ROLLING.
ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? OTHERWISE, WE CAN CALL THIS.
SESSION ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.