[CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL ]
[00:00:04]
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO DO A CALL TO SEE.
[APPROVE MINUTES]
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR THE NOVEMBER 6TH MEETING.WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE NOVEMBER 6TH, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
I WILL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE.
ARE WE DOING A PUBLIC HEARING TODAY? NO. WE'RE MOVE TO OTHER BUSINESS.
[OTHER BUSINESS]
THIS IS KIND OF LIKE AN INFORMAL WORKSHOP, JUST TO KIND OF DISCUSS A VARIETY OF ITEMS THAT STAFF HAS BEEN TRACKING SINCE THE LAST UPDATE IN, I THINK, AUGUST.AND THEN JUST FOLLOWING THE CAR WASH PROJECT, WE JUST FELT LIKE THERE WAS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF KEEP YOU GUYS ENGAGED AND HAVE REGULAR MEETINGS TO KIND OF DISCUSS POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE.
AND WE CAN KIND OF JUST KICK IT OFF.
OH, YEAH. JUST TO ADD TO THAT REAL QUICK.
SO THIS IS TO KIND OF GET IN FRONT OF YOU AS RESIDENTS, AS PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY AND GET AS MUCH FEEDBACK AS WE CAN AND GET THAT KIND OF COMMON SENSE TO SOME OF THESE THINGS. SOME OF THESE THINGS MIGHT JUST SEEM, YOU KNOW, SUPER SIMPLE.
IF YOU GUYS COMMENT AND KIND OF GET INTO SOME DISCUSSION HERE.
SO AS WE KIND OF CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE WORKSHOPS WITH OTHER ITEMS THAT GO ON, FEEL FREE TO BRING, YOU KNOW, ITEMS, AMENDMENTS TO CODE THAT YOU FIND IF YOU'RE EVER DIVING INTO CODE ON A SATURDAY EVENING.
COOL. SO THE FIRST ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION IS 9.10 FOR ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENTS.
INTERIM USES RIGHT NOW ARE NO LONGER APPLICABLE IN THE ZONING CODE.
WE'VE TRIED TO IDENTIFY THE APPLICABLE.
INTERIM USES SUCH AS THE SEASONAL SALES AND THEN FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE GREENHOUSES.
AND WE FELT THAT BECAUSE ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT THESE HAVE TO BE ACCESSORY TO A PRIMARY USE, IT DIDN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE TO REQUIRE THEM TO GO THROUGH THE FIREWORKS TENT PROCESS WHERE THEY WOULD GET AN INTERIM USE PERMIT AND REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. THE CONDITIONS WERE BASICALLY ALL THE SAME FOR THE SEASONAL USES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LANGUAGE FOR FIREWORKS REQUIRING FIRE REVIEW AND THEN JUST COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIRE CHAPTER.
THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR CERTAIN ITEMS SUCH AS OVER HEIGHT FENCES, SEASONAL SALES STANDS.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UNDER 200FT², AND THEN ADDITIONS OF PARKING OR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO BE REVIEWED ADMINISTRATIVELY. WE DID RECENTLY ADOPT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM.
SO I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THIS WOULD HELP US ENFORCE AND JUST KIND OF BE ABLE TO PUT PEN TO PAPER, LIKE WHAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO, AND THEN KIND OF ADDRESSING IF THERE'S ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THAT AS FAR AS ENFORCEMENT GOES.
[00:05:09]
SO IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS ON THAT SECTION.ONE QUICK THING. ANDREW, DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN THE OVER HEIGHT FENCES A LITTLE MORE? MORE? I THINK THAT KIND OF TIES INTO THE OUR CAR WASH DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD.
YEP. BASICALLY AS WE TOOK THE CAR WASH THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS, WE DETERMINED THAT THEY NEEDED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OVER HEIGHT FENCE. BASICALLY, THERE WERE NO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THAT.
AND AT LEAST SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, THERE'S KIND OF BEEN A CONCERTED PUSH TO RECLASSIFY THINGS THAT ARE LISTED AS CONDITIONAL USES, BUT DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
TYPICALLY THERE ARE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD APPLY TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
AND SO ONE OF THE REASONS WE ADDED OVER HEIGHT FENCES AS PART OF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, APART FROM REQUIRING ENGINEERING FOR ANYTHING OVER SEVEN FEET, I BELIEVE.
AND IT KIND OF JUST DIVE INTO THAT A LITTLE MORE.
WE RECEIVED AN OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THAT SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND IT'S PRETTY MUCH UNLESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN FIND SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE ENGINEERING OF THE FENCE, WHICH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS GOING TO FIND WHEN THEY APPLY FOR A PERMIT, THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REALLY EVEN CONSIDER DISAPPROVING IT WITHOUT OPENING UP FOR LIABILITY FOR A LAWSUIT.
SO THIS WOULD JUST REMOVE THAT FROM A CONDITIONAL PERMIT PERSPECTIVE.
PUT IT ON ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
IF THE FENCE MEETS, YOU KNOW, BUILDING PERMIT AND ENGINEERING, THEN IT'S THEN IT'S GOOD TO GO.
SO IT WOULD REMOVE SOME CONTROL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT ALSO KIND OF REMOVE SOMETHING THAT UNLESS WE CAN ESTABLISH CONDITIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ACTUALLY GOING TO CONSIDER, THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH OF A REASON TO HAVE IT AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK. YEAH, I'M UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL LIKE I CAN'T, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S THE LIMITS AT EIGHT FEET CURRENTLY WITH TEN FEET, TEN FEET IN AN INDUSTRIAL.
THE WAY THE CITY CODE IS WRITTEN, IT KIND OF CAPS THE LIMIT AT EIGHT FEET.
ONE EXAMPLE THAT COMES TO MIND WAS THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING.
THEY HAD TO GET A VARIANCE, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, TO EXCEED THAT EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT.
IN MY PLAYING CAREER, I'VE NEVER REALLY SEEN ANY CITY APPROVE OVER HEIGHT FENCES UNLESS IT'S FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE IN WHICH CASE YOU WOULD HAVE THE VARIANCE TO ALLEVIATE THE DIFFICULTY MEETING THAT PROVISION OF THE ZONING CODE.
YEAH. SO, YEAH, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, TOM, I CAN'T REALLY THINK OF ONE, ESPECIALLY WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ABILITY TO DO A VARIANCE, WHICH THEN WOULD COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE VARIANCE, ANYTHING OVER THAT EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
SO YEAH, I CAN'T REALLY THINK OF ONE.
I THINK THAT'S THE MOST COMMON EXAMPLE OR THE ONLY EXAMPLE WE REALLY HAVE OF AN OVER HEIGHT FENCE.
AND THEN LIKE SAY FOR EXAMPLE, DON'T WANT TO ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THE CAR WASH AND WE'RE NOT GOING AFTER THE CAR WASH, BUT IT'S THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLE EVEN THOUGH THE FENCE, YOU KNOW, THE OVER HEIGHT FENCE PART OF THAT DISCUSSION WOULD NOT BE TALKED ABOUT.
SO WE WOULDN'T BE REMOVING THAT PART AND WHAT IT'S MADE OUT OF AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
[00:10:15]
IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS OKAY GIVING UP THE FIREWORKS PERMIT EVERY YEAR.WE CAN STILL HAVE LIKE A CELEBRATION REVIEW, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY.
CORRECT. BOTH OF THOSE WOULD BE REVIEWED.
CORRECT. WE ONLY REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITIONS TO PROPERTIES OTHER THAN A 1 OR 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT.
YEP. AND THERE WAS A VARIANCE TO THAT AS WELL.
YEP. JUST TO SPEAK TO THAT ADU PERMIT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
SO I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE IT INCREASING THAT AT ALL.
I THINK PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO TRY AND SKIRT THE RULES.
LIKE I TOLD THE CITY COUNCIL LAST NIGHT, WE HAVE A BUILDING OFFICIAL FOUND A HOUSE THAT THEY RAN THE PLUMBING FROM ONE SINK OUTSIDE THE HOUSE, DOWN THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE, BACK INTO THE HOUSE.
IT JUST DOESN'T WORK IN THE WINTER IN MINNESOTA.
SO WE ALWAYS FIND STUFF LIKE THAT THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT'S MORE JUST MAKING SURE THAT THE PAPERWORK IS FILED CORRECTLY.
SO IF WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE, THEN 9.107 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THIS KIND OF CAME AS A RESULT OF THE CAR WASH AND JUST KIND OF HEARING THE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSIONERS STAFF AND THE RESIDENTS AS A WHOLE ABOUT THE NEED TO JUST KIND OF UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE A SMALLER CITY.
SO SOME OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD BE REQUIRING A SOUND STUDY AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION FOR CAR WASHES, AS WELL AS CONSIDERING ADDING A MINIMUM OF AN ACRE OF PROPERTY TO THIS USE, ALONG WITH RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SALES.
[00:15:05]
MINIMUM OF AN ACRE REQUIREMENT.SO I THINK THIS WAS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT CODE A LITTLE MORE CONSISTENT AND THEN RESPOND TO YOU KNOW, THE FEEDBACK FROM THE RESIDENTS, BECAUSE THAT WAS A MAIN SELLING POINT IN REQUIRING THAT SOUND STUDY.
AND I THINK THAT WE CAN ALL KIND OF AGREE IT WAS FOR THE BEST.
SO I THINK HAVING THAT AS A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARD JUST HELPS SET THAT EXPECTATION FOR ANY OTHER INTERESTED CAR WASH ENTREPRENEURS. I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN THINK OF ANY, BUT ARE THERE OTHER? MADAM CHAIR, THAT'S THE EXACT QUESTION STAFF HAD, AND I'M JUST THINKING FROM OUR SIDE.
I MEAN, I CAN'T THINK OF ANY, BUT PROPOSED TO BECAUSE CAR WASH.
IT'S JUST AN INTERESTING USE WHERE IT HAS THAT LOUD BLOWER.
I DON'T KNOW REALLY WHAT OTHER TYPE OF BUSINESS WOULD HAVE THAT, BUT.
AND I THINK, LET ME CHECK REAL QUICK.
LET ME JUST CONFIRM THAT TO BE SURE.
ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED WITHIN A COMPLETELY ENCLOSED BUILDING.
I THINK THAT'S TOTALLY UP FOR DISCUSSION IF YOU GUYS FEEL LIKE THAT IS INTRUSIVE USE.
I LIKE I SAID, I'D LIKE TO BE CONSISTENT.
SO IF WE'RE REQUIRED FOR CAR WASHES BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT NOISE INTENSITY IS SO HEAVY, I FEEL LIKE THAT IS THE SAME PRINCIPLE FOR REQUIRING IT FOR OUTER USES.
NO, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO DO A MOTION.
THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER POTENTIAL NOISY BUSINESS.
AND SOME OF THEM DO BORDER RESIDENTIAL, SO.
TECHNICALLY IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE AND ENFORCED ON THAT.
SOMETHING THAT NEW AUTO REPAIR USES SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE A SIMILAR ISSUE THAT WE WOULD EXPERIENCE WITH AN AUTO REPAIR USE.
I THINK IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT THE MPCA HAS, BUT I THINK HAVING THAT SOUND STUDY JUST KIND OF HELPS STAFF FROM A NEGOTIATIONS PERSPECTIVE TO KIND OF LIKE WHAT THE CAR WASH, MAKE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THAT SOUND STUDY. YEAH.
BECAUSE JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE SOUND STUDY FOR THIS CAR WASH WASN'T REQUIRED.
[00:20:01]
SO IT'S NOT US KIND OF, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS ALREADY.YEP. IT'S READY AT THE VERY FIRST MEETING RIGHT AWAY.
SO THAT WAY IF IT'S OH WE CAN'T MEET THESE STANDARDS, THEN IT'S NOT A TWO MONTH PROCESS DOWN THE LINE OF, OH YOU TOLD US YOU COULD, BUT YOU ACTUALLY CAN'T SO.
YEAH, I THINK WE COULD DEFINITELY ADD THAT TO THE GAS STATION.
SO HAVING THE SOUND STUDY WITH THE GAS STATION IS A GOOD ADD.
I WOULD SAY THAT NOT UNDER THE ZONING PERMIT REVIEW, JUST BECAUSE THAT WOULD LIKELY BE WE WOULDN'T ALLOW, LIKE A HOME OCCUPATION TO HAVE THAT KIND OF INTRUSIVE NOISE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BAKED INTO OUR CODE.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? BE MORE OF AN ENFORCEMENT TYPE ISSUE.
I BELIEVE IT WAS LESS THAN AN ACRE.
YEAH. AN ACRE. YEP. I THINK IT'S LIKE 0.87.
I THINK IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE WAY THE CAR WASH HAD DONE IT.
KIND OF TESTING OTHER, SIMILAR OTHER PROPERTIES.
AND THEN THIS WOULD ALSO ONLY BE REQUIRED OF NEW PROPERTIES.
THIS IS KIND OF IF YOU'RE BUILDING OUT A BRAND NEW SPOT, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY GARAGES DO YOU HAVE? HOW MANY PNEUMATIC DRILLS ARE IN THE BACK.
YOU CAN KIND OF SCALE IT TO THE SITE, SCALE IT TO THE PROJECT.
WHEREAS LIKE EXISTING IS JUST GOING TO BE REPLACED BY ANOTHER SHOP.
[00:25:15]
I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE PREFERABLE CASE JUST BECAUSE I THINK SOUND STUDIES KIND OF THEY'RE SIMILAR BUT ADJACENT TO LIKE TRAFFIC STUDIES WHERE YOU CAN KIND OF HAVE DEFINED METRICS AND THEN APPLY THEM TO SITE SPECIFIC LOCATIONS.SO, I THINK THAT HAVING A STANDARD APPROACH MIGHT MISS THINGS THAT HAVING THE APPLICANT TAKE THAT COST WOULD CATCH. AND THAT'S KIND OF, I THINK, HOW THE SOUND SITE FOR THE CAR WASH AT LEAST EVOLVED.
I ALSO THINK IT JUST KIND OF POTENTIALLY OPENS UP THE CITY FOR LIABILITY TO A DEGREE.
AND IF YOU HAVE BUILDINGS IN BETWEEN THEM.
SO JUST KIND OF CASE BY CASE, I THINK WORKS BEST.
WHEREAS I THINK THE SOUND STUDY IS KIND OF ALL INCLUSIVE IN THE SENSE THAT IT WOULD BASICALLY BE ANYTHING THAT THE BUSINESS IS USING TO BASICALLY CONDUCT ITS OPERATIONS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT SOUND STUDY.
THE CAR WASH KIND OF SHOWED A PUMP HOUSE.
IT KIND OF SHOWED SOME LIKE IT HAD A VARIETY OF COMPONENTS THAT I THINK WERE DESIGNED TO MITIGATE SPECIFIC THINGS.
AND SO I THINK THAT IS KIND OF THE BENEFIT THROUGH THE SOUND STUDY.
AND IT KIND OF ALSO HELPS SET THE EXPECTATION FOR WHAT ENFORCEMENT LOOKS LIKE.
AND THIS WOULD ALSO ONLY BE TO LIKE NEW OPERATIONS.
SO I THINK THE CHANCES OF THIS NEED ARISING ARE LOW.
BUT I THINK KIND OF WITH THE CAR WASH THE MORE THAT WE CAN KIND OF JUST MAKE THAT EXPECTATION CLEAR FROM THE GET GO, I THINK IT'S THE MOST BENEFICIAL THING TO ALL PARTIES, RESIDENTS, DEVELOPERS, CITY OFFICIALS.
[00:30:46]
I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY IT IS.THE SOUND STUDY IS GOING TO CAPTURE WHAT REALLY MATTERS.
AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL IS THAT THE SOUND STUDY IS GOING TO BE DONE AHEAD OF TIME BEFORE THIS ITEM GETS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION KIND OF STARTS TO REALLY TEAR IT APART, BECAUSE IN THE BACKGROUND WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIDN'T GET 100% OF WAS THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BRING BACK TO THE SECOND MEETING OR TO THE OFFICIAL, YOU KNOW, APPROVAL WAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION KIND OF LATCHED ON TO THAT? CAN YOU ACTUALLY DO THE DOOR THING? AND THEY ACTUALLY COULDN'T DO THE DOOR THING.
SO THEY DID NOT TALK TO THE SOUND ENGINEERS THAT DID THE SOUND STUDY AND THE DEVELOPER, THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY DECIDE, CAN WE ACTUALLY DO THIS BEFOREHAND? SO SINCE THEY'RE KIND OF BUILDING THE PLANE AS THEY FLEW IT, THOSE WERE THE ISSUES THAT ENDED UP KIND OF TAILORING OFF THE PROJECT.
WHEREAS HAVING THAT SOUND STUDY AT THE BEGINNING IS LIKE, YOU HAVE TO TALK TO YOUR SOUND ENGINEER.
IF YOUR SOUND ENGINEER, AS A THIRD PARTY SHOULD, PROPOSES SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT DO, WELL, THEN MAYBE THE PROJECT ISN'T VIABLE BEFORE IT EVEN GETS TO THIS CONSIDERATION PHASE.
AND THAT KIND OF TAKES AWAY THE BIG STUFF.
LIKE WE DON'T HAVE TO DIVE THAT MINUTELY INTO IT JUST BY ADDING THAT ON THERE.
NO THOSE ARE TYPICALLY REQUIRED FOR PROJECTS OF SCALE OR WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LARGER COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. THE TRAFFIC STUDY WE KIND OF SET AS THE STAFF EXPECTATION BASED ON KIND OF OUR OBSERVATIONS ON HOW THAT INTERSECTION OPERATES.
SOME OF THE HISTORICAL DATA THAT WE HAD FROM MNDOT AND JUST THE VEHICLE QUEUING IN PARTICULAR WAS KIND OF HOW THE TRAFFIC STUDY GOT INITIATED.
I'VE NEVER SEEN A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE FOR A SINGLE PROJECT LIKE THIS.
USUALLY YOU SEE HIM IN LARGER AREA PROJECTS OR THINGS OF SCALE, I WOULD SAY.
CHASE BANK, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY.
THEIR PEAK DEMAND WAS THEY DID.
I BELIEVE THEY HAD A PARKING STUDY DONE.
AND THAT WAS KIND OF USED TO DETERMINE IF THEY WERE TO SUBDIVIDE LA CASITA.
DOES THAT HAVE COMBINED ENOUGH PARKING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF BOTH? SO I WOULD SAY THAT WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN A TRAFFIC STUDY.
I THINK WHILE ANDREW'S HAD ENOUGH ON THAT QUESTION, I'M GOING TO JUST KIND OF GET THROUGH 9.110 AND 9.111, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH THE EXACT SAME CONVERSATION WE HAD PRIOR TALKING ABOUT THE REMOVING THE FENCES THAT ARE SIX FEET IN HEIGHT FROM THE CONDITION, GREATER THAN SIX FEET FROM THE CONDITIONAL USE TO PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES, AND THE GENERAL BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL AS WELL.
KIND OF CHANGING THE MINOR AUTOMOBILE AND MOTORCYCLE REPAIR CAR WASHES FROM PERMITTED USES TO CONDITIONAL USES.
SO THAT WAY, EVEN THOUGH IF IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A SITE PLAN REVIEW, THAT IT STILL IS CONSIDERED A CONDITIONAL USE, AND THEN ADDING SOME CONDITIONS WITH THOSE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS, AS WE'VE BEEN KIND OF TALKING ABOUT.
[00:35:06]
YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT.YEAH. I THINK THAT THIS WOULD LIKELY USUALLY TRIGGER A SITE PLAN REVIEW, BUT KIND OF WE IN THAT WITH THE CAR WASH, WE KIND OF KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHERE IF A SITE PLAN REVIEW MEETS THE APPLICABLE CITY CODES, IT HAS TO BE APPROVED, WHEREAS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HAS A NEIGHBORHOOD COMPONENT TO IT.
AND SO THAT FEEDBACK FROM THE RESIDENTS, THAT IS ONE OF THE REQUIRED FINDINGS IS THAT IT'S KIND OF IN HARMONY OR COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I THINK THAT JUST KIND OF HEARING THE FEEDBACK FROM COMMISSIONERS, STAFF AND RESIDENTS THAT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE AN INPUT ON SOME OF THOSE THINGS, AND SO HAVING THOSE MORE INTENSIVE USES BE CONDITIONAL USES, I THINK IS WORTH EXPLORING.
AND THEN THE OTHER THINGS ARE I2, I1 AND I2, SAME SITUATION.
DO WE WANT, THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S MORE OF A HEAVY USE DESIGN DISTRICT, BUT I STILL THINK IT HAS THE SAME ISSUES ABUTTING NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL. SO DO YOU FEEL LIKE THERE IS A DESIRE TO CHANGE AUTOMOBILE USES, LIKE REPAIR USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS FROM PERMITTED TO CONDITIONAL? OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE THAT IS ALLOWED, LIKE A USE WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT? AND THEN I BELIEVE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.
WE DON'T HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF INDUSTRIAL.
THE ONLY TWO DISTRICTS WE REALLY HAVE, I GUESS THREE ARE KIND OF ALONG UNIVERSITY AVENUE NEAR 37TH ON THE WEST SIDE, THE 30 HUSET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEN NEAR THE RAILYARDS ON THE VERY WESTERN EDGE OF THE CITY.
THERE ARE SOME INDUSTRIAL THAT BUTTS UP AGAINST THE BRAND NEW SACA'S NEW BUILDING IS LOCATED AT I THINK ONE BIG DISTINCTION IS WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DISSUADE AUTO USES WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE.
IT'S ADDING IN ITEMS THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE BUSINESS IS ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE CITY.
ONE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE AS A CITY IS THE STORAGE OF JUNK CARS ON LOTS.
SO HAVING A CONDITIONAL USE OR A CONDITION THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR LOT STRIPED YOU HAVE CAN ONLY HAVE SO MANY CARS HANGING OUT, SO MANY BOX TRUCKS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF SITTING OUTSIDE OF YOUR BUILDING.
THAT WAY, THE CITY AND STAFF HAVE AN ABILITY TO ENFORCE THAT AND ALSO REVOKE THAT CONDITION IF A BUSINESS IS ACTING IN BAD FAITH.
MIC] AND THEN IF I CAN CIRCLE BACK ON STUDY QUESTION.
BASICALLY, IF A DEVELOPMENT IS SHOWN TO DECREASE THE LEVELS OF SERVICE OR BRING THEM BELOW A CERTAIN STANDARD, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE AREN'T NECESSARILY ABLE TO APPROVE OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION FACTORS. THERE IT'S SORT OF SUBJECTIVE IN THE SENSE THAT YOU KNOW, WITH THE CAR WASH, WE WERE ABLE TO KIND OF DETERMINE THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE QUEUING ISSUES POTENTIALLY.
[00:40:03]
SO IT WAS SUBJECTIVE IN THE SENSE THAT WE IDENTIFIED THAT THIS WAS A POTENTIAL ISSUE, AND THEN WE NEEDED TO SEE DATA TO CONFIRM THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO BE AN ISSUE.I CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD TOPIC FOR ANOTHER WORK SESSION.
THAT WAY, STAFF CAN KIND OF DO SOME OF THE SIMILAR RESEARCH AS THE SOUND STUDY AND BRING BACK, SEE WHAT KIND OF OTHER CITIES ARE DOING WITH REGARD TO REQUIREMENTS OF TRAFFIC STUDIES. AND THEN ALSO, ARE THERE ANY METRICS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO BASE IT OFF OF, AT LEAST TO GIVE US A BASELINE OF THERE IS SOME SUBJECTIVITY WITH STAFF, BUT AT THE BARE MINIMUM, A TRAFFIC STUDY IS REQUIRED FOR, I DON'T KNOW, X.
WE DO ALSO HAVE LIKE FOR THE BANQUET HALL, FOR EXAMPLE.
SORRY, I LOST MY VOICE A LITTLE BIT.
THE BANQUET HALL WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHICH IS KIND OF A LESS INTRUSIVE, SMALLER SCALE, AREA SPECIFIC TRAFFIC STUDY.
IT'S KIND OF DEALS WITH LOADING AND UNLOADING HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ACCESS AND EXIT THE SITE.
I FEEL LIKE THAT IS KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WHEREAS LIKE A TRAFFIC STUDY, YOU KNOW, 4300 CENTRAL IS LIKELY REQUIRING A TRAFFIC STUDY.
I WOULD SAY THAT TRAFFIC STUDIES ARE MORE SO FOR LARGE INTENSITY PROJECTS OF SCALE.
SO I FEEL LIKE THAT STRENGTHENED OUR ABILITY TO ASK FOR THAT.
BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK WE WANT TO ATTACH THAT AS A CONDITION FOR EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS USE, BECAUSE THAT IS A LITTLE UNREASONABLE IN MY OPINION. I AGREE, BUT I WOULD JUST ADD THAT MAYBE HAVING AT LEAST SOME CODE TO GO BACK TO, IN CASE, YOU KNOW, ONCE EVERY BLUE MOON YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT THAT BUSINESS THAT'S GOING TO SAY, NOPE, I CAN'T AFFORD TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY, OR THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME WHY I SHOULD.
CLEARLY, THERE'S A CHANCE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC.
SO I THINK JUST LIKE WE'RE TALKING NOW TO BE PROACTIVE FOR THAT ONE DISCUSSION THAT COMES UP IN FIVE YEARS OR TEN YEARS OR WHO KNOWS WHEN TO SAVE THAT ENERGY AND THAT TIME TO JUST, YOU KNOW, REFER BACK TO THE CODE.
HERE'S WHERE WE SET THE LIMIT.
AND THEN THIS TRIGGERS A TRAFFIC STUDY NEEDING TO BE DONE.
AT A BARE MINIMUM, REQUIRED OF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU EXPECT TO HAVE MORE THAN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER WOULD BE, I'M JUST GOING TO THROW OUT 20 CARS VISITING YOUR BUSINESS IN A DAY, THEN, YOU KNOW, THEN WE WANT YOU TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
LIKE IF A CANES WERE TO OPEN UP ON CENTRAL, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD.
GREAT EXAMPLE. THAT'S A FANTASTIC EXAMPLE.
LIKE WHAT WOULD YOU TELL THEM TO HAVE TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY.
THEY NEED A THEY NEED ONE PARKING SPOT FOR CITY STAFF.
AND THEN YOU KNOW DEFINITELY STAFF WILL BRING THAT FORWARD TO ANOTHER WORK SESSION.
WE'LL ADD IT TO OUR LIST OF ITEMS TO KIND OF DO SOME RESEARCH ON.
JUST ONE QUICK REMINDER FROM OUR SECRETARY OF STATE HERE.
THAT BRINGS US TO THE LAST ITEM, WHICH IS 9.106 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
AND WE JUST KIND OF WANTED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT PARKING.
WE'VE KIND OF IDENTIFIED SOME ISSUES WITH MULTIFAMILY PARKING STANDARDS.
WE DO NOT DEFINE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY ZONES, APART FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH IS AN OFF STREET PARKING DISTRICT WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE OFF STREET PARKING FOR NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USES, BUT FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, IT DOES HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT.
THIS IS KIND OF COMING IN RESPONSE TO MULTIPLE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN HANDLED WITHIN THE CITY AS PUDS, RATHER THAN PROCEEDING BY RIGHT OR REQUIRING ONLY REZONING.
OUR CURRENT THOUGHT PROCESS IS TO REDUCE THAT TO THE WAY THAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE DETERMINED, ARE IS IT A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT OR IS IT A ONE BEDROOM OR AND THEN TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS HAS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT OF TWO ENCLOSED SPACES? THAT SEEMS TO BE A MAJOR HURDLE.
[00:45:02]
AND FRANKLY, SOMETHING THAT'S KIND OF OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH OTHER CITIES.FRIDLEY PLAYS AROUND WITH THE FRACTIONS A LITTLE BIT.
RIDGEFIELD JUST MAKES IT TO OFF STREET PARKING, BUT HAS THE GIVES COUNCIL THE ABILITY, ITS DISCRETION TO REDUCE THAT. THIS IS JUST KIND OF AN ANTICIPATION TO IF THE STATE LEGISLATURE DECIDES TO REMOVE THE ABILITY TO DO PUDS, THAT WE HAVE A PARKING STANDARD THAT IS KIND OF REALISTIC AND MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE DEVELOPER AS MUCH AS IT MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. AND IT IS STAFF'S POSITION THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO SET A MULTIFAMILY STANDARD, BUT THEN FOR EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT, WE FIND A WAY TO GO AROUND THAT STANDARD AND ALTER THE STANDARD FOR DEVELOPMENT.
WHY HAVE THAT STANDARD? SO THIS IS KIND OF A WAY TO JUST KIND OF START THE CONVERSATION ON LOOKING.
IS IT TIME TO CHANGE THAT STANDARD SINCE WE'RE ALREADY DOING THESE PROJECTS AROUND THE PARKING STANDARD AND KIND OF GET, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE COMMUNITY'S FEEL? SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, THE COLE, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, AT 1.7 AVERAGE PARKING SPACES PER UNIT.
THEY'VE GOT A GOOD MIX OF UNDERGROUND PARKING AND SURFACE PARKING.
I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBER JAMES JUST GOT TO TOUR IT THIS THIS PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
AND THEN THE GRAND CENTRAL LOFTS IS KIND OF ONE OF THE OPPOSITES.
THEY'RE MISSING SOME PARKING SPACES, AND AS PART OF THEIR APPROVAL PROCESS, THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INCLUDE THE PARKING IN THE RENT OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS. SO A LOT OF PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, MOVED TO THE STREETS RATHER THAN PAYING FOR THAT.
SO THAT WAY PEOPLE AREN'T, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE OF LOWER INCOMES AREN'T FORCED TO, YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH FORCED OUTSIDE OF THE PARKING BECAUSE THEY JUST THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.
I THINK WE STILL HAVE TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TO CONSIDER HOW MUCH SURFACE PARKING.
WE WANT TO ALLOW, YOU KNOW, IDEALLY WE WILL ALL WANT UNDERGROUND PARKING.
BUT WITH WITH REGARDS TO THE MEDTRONIC SITE, WATER TABLE IS GOING TO BE HIGH.
IS THAT GOING TO BE FEASIBLE? AND THEN ALSO HOW MUCH OF A PARKING LOT DO WE WANT OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING, YOU KNOW, VERSUS UNDERGROUND.
AND KIND OF WHERE DOES THAT RELATIONSHIP AND STAFF DOESN'T HAVE THE ANSWER? WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT IT AS IF WE'RE GOING AROUND THE STANDARD EVERY SINGLE TIME FOR SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS WHERE IT COULD BE JUST, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY LIKE, SAY WE LOOK AT FAIRVIEW, YOU KNOW, SAW DEVELOPMENT AS SOMEONE COMES IN TO REDEVELOP FAIRVIEW.
THEY HAVE PARKING. THEY CAN EASILY ADD IT ON SITE.
LIKE, IS THAT SOMETHING THEY CAN JUST DO? OR DO WE HAVE TO CONTINUALLY DO PUDS TO GET AROUND THE STANDARD FOR EVERYTHING? SURE. IT'S KIND OF MY PERSPECTIVE THAT IF YOU HAVE TO CONTINUALLY USE A PUD OR A PROCESS TO ALLEVIATE THE STANDARD, THAT THE STANDARD JUST ISN'T WORKING. YEAH.
I WORK FOR A PROPERTY DEVELOPER, IN FACT MULTI HOUSING.
SO I CAN SEE THIS FROM BOTH SIDES.
I ALSO SEE IT FROM A DEVELOPER SIDE WHERE THERE'S LIMITED SPACE AND YOU CAN'T PHYSICALLY, YOU WANT TO PUT UNITS IN SO PEOPLE HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE, BUT YOU CAN'T PHYSICALLY FIT ENOUGH PARKING STALLS OR SPACES IN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT CHANGING THE DEVELOPMENT TO A POINT WHERE IT'S NOT REALLY ECONOMICAL FOR THE DEVELOPER. SO I THINK, I THINK DOING SOMETHING IS IMPORTANT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ELIMINATES THE NEED TO DO A PUD OR IF THAT'S STILL REQUIRES IT.
I WOULDN'T SAY NECESSARILY ELIMINATES IT, BUT I DEFINITELY DO AGREE.
RICHFIELD'S IS A GOOD EXAMPLE TO LOOK AT.
LET ME PULL THOSE UP REAL QUICK.
AND SO WE'RE KIND OF PROPOSING RIGHT NOW THAT THE TWO BEDROOMS OR MORE.
STILL HAS THE TWO PER UNIT REQUIREMENT, BUT JUST TWEAKING THAT ENCLOSED REQUIREMENT FROM BOTH OF THOSE SPACES BEING REQUIRED TO BE ENCLOSED TO ONE OF THEM. I LIVE IN AN APARTMENT IN PLYMOUTH.
[00:50:04]
THAT'S KIND OF HOW OURS IS SET UP.AND JUST KIND OF HAVING LOOKED AT OTHER PLACES AS WE'VE BEEN MOVING.
THAT SEEMS TO BE PRETTY CONSISTENT.
BUT FOR PARKING CALCULATIONS AND WE HAVE A SECTION CODE IN CASES WHERE THE FUTURE POTENTIAL USE OF A BUILDING MAY GENERATE ADDITIONAL PARKING DEMAND.
THE CITY MAY REQUIRE A PROOF OF PARKING PLAN TO SHOW BASICALLY IF ADDITIONAL PARKING IS REQUIRED.
DO YOU HAVE THAT ABILITY TO MEET IT? IF IS NECESSARY.
IF IT IS. IF IT'S NOT NECESSARY, THEN WE DON'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD THAT OUT.
BUT IF IT DOES, THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD.
THEN IT'S BAKED IN CITY CODE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ADD THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING.
QUESTION FOR THE REST OF THE COMMISSION.
HOW DOES EVERYONE ELSE FEEL ABOUT RICHFIELD'S LANGUAGE? I THINK FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, THE TWO OFF STREET PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT WOULD KIND OF HAVE A HIGHER REQUIREMENT THAN WE CURRENTLY DO WITH THE ONE BEDROOM. SO JUST THINKING OFF THE CUFF HERE WOULD KIND OF LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE STAFF HAVE PROPOSED AND THEN HAVING THAT LANGUAGE OF, YOU KNOW, KIND OF REDUCING IT TO A, YOU KNOW, 1.6 OR I KNOW THE COLE IS AT 1.7 REDUCING THAT THERE.
WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KIND OF HITTING FROM BOTH SIDES? I THINK I DO LIKE THE PART WITH THE DISCRETION AS WELL, MOSTLY BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON WHERE THE LOCATION IS RIGHT OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE IT COULD BE RIGHT ON CENTRAL WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC.
SO THERE'S A LOT MORE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO OFF STREET.
PARKING IS GOING TO BE A LOT MORE DIFFICULT.
SO FOR US TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY, TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WORKS BEST WITH THE DEVELOPER AND ALSO WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC, THAT'S BUT IF IT'S ALSO LIKE A LOT MORE KIND OF LIKE INSIDE THE CITY WHERE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH OFF THE STREET, PARKING IS A LOT MORE OF AN OPTION, YOU KNOW? SO I THINK HAVING THAT DISCRETION AND ALSO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY WILL BE HELPFUL I'D SAY. I ALSO LIKE THE SIMPLICITY OF THE RICHFIELD REQUIREMENT.
BUT YEAH, I THINK TWO OFF STREET SPACES PER UNIT IS TOO HIGH.
AND LOOKING DOWN THIS LIST, THE ONE I DISLIKE THE MOST IS MAPLEWOOD.
JUST BECAUSE THAT SEEMS A LITTLE, I DON'T KNOW, PAINTING WITH A BROAD BRUSH.
I MEAN, IT WOULD BE NICE IF OUR CODE WAS SOMETHING SIMPLE THAT WAS EASY TO EXPLAIN AND DIDN'T REQUIRE A 45 MINUTE DISCUSSION TO TELL THE PUBLIC WHY IT IS THE WAY THAT IT IS.
I ALSO HATE THE TOPIC OF PARKING BECAUSE OF MY TIME ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BECAUSE IT BRINGS OUT THE WORST IN PEOPLE, AND I MAYBE THAT INCLUDES ME.
I DON'T KNOW. BUT I HATE THE TOPIC.
AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE SITTING UP HERE IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.
BUT PHILOSOPHICALLY, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA FOR A CITY LIKE OURS THAT IS A TRANSITIONAL CITY AND PROBABLY HAS QUITE A BIT MORE DENSITY IN ITS FUTURE.
AND, YOU KNOW, TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S AS COMPLEX AS FRIDLEY OR SAINT LOUIS PARK, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A RECIPE FOR WHAT ANDREW WAS SAYING, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO END UP GOING AROUND THAT CODE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER BECAUSE OF SPECIFIC SITE REQUIREMENTS OR WHATEVER ELSE IT COULD BE.
I GUESS THEY DO KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE FRACTIONALS, ALTHOUGH IT DOES LOOK REALLY CONFUSING BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EVEN A ONE BEDROOM, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO HAVE A VISITOR AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY VISITOR PARKING, THEN YOU'RE KIND OF EXACERBATING THAT PARKING SITUATION AGAIN.
[00:55:01]
YEP YEP. I DO LIKE THE IDEA.I LIKE THE RICHFIELD LANGUAGE A LOT.
I TWO SPACES FOR A STUDIO OR A ONE BEDROOM I THINK ARE TOO HIGH.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW MAYBE ADDING THAT CAVEAT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE SPACE FOR THOSE UNITS.
AND I ALSO LIKE THE IDEA OF AND I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO BEST DO THIS, BUT TO REQUIRE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE TO BE COVERED OR ENCLOSED PARKING SO THAT WE DON'T GET A SEA OF ASPHALT ON A LOT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY ON STREET PARKING OR ON SURFACE PARKING IS MUCH, MUCH CHEAPER TO BUILD AND WILL BE THE PREFERENCE BECAUSE OF ITS COST.
BUT I THINK THEN WE OPEN OURSELVES UP TO HAVING MORE PARKING LOT THAN GRASS IN THESE UNITS.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING OURSELVES THAT WAY A LITTLE BIT.
I DON'T KNOW ACTUALLY A LOT ABOUT THIS TOPIC.
BUT I REALLY LIKED YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
JUST YOU KNOW, ON THE THIRD PAGE.
THAT DOES SEEM TO BE THE STANDARD THAT WE END UP HAVING TO ALLEVIATE.
IS MY UNDERSTANDING, BASED ON KIND OF LOOKING AT SOME PAST PROJECTS? I AM FROM SAINT LOUIS PARK, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PLAYS INTO IT, BUT I LIKE YOUR AN ADDITIONAL 5% OF REQUIRED PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR GUEST PARKING.
I FEEL LIKE THAT KEEPS IT REALLY SIMPLE.
I LOVE THE IDEA OF KEEPING TRYING TO MAKE THIS AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW? IT JUST APPEALS TO ME AGAIN.
I DON'T KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT THIS TOPIC, ACTUALLY, SO I LIKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
AND AN ADDITIONAL 5% OF REQUIRED PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR GUEST PARKING.
TO ME, THAT SOUNDS PRETTY GOOD.
BUT JUST TAKE THAT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.
DO WE HAVE ANY DATA ON, A UNIT THAT'S BEEN BUILT THAT HAS WAY TOO MUCH PARKING, OR A UNIT THAT'S BEEN BUILT THAT HAS TOO LITTLE PARKING. WHAT HAS BEEN THE MEDIAN OF SORTS OF LIKE THE AMOUNT OF LIKE THE BEDROOMS TO THE AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES THAT IS AVAILABLE.
YOU KNOW, DO WE HAVE I MEAN, I'M SURE THE DATA IS OUT THERE.
YEAH LIKE. LIKE, WHAT'S THE SWEET SPOT? YEAH. YEAH.
THERE'S TOO MUCH OFF STREET PARKING AT GRAND CENTRAL FLATS IS A BIG ONE LIKE YOU MENTIONED? I THINK SO. IT'S ONE CENTRAL, RIGHT? OKAY. OR KIND OF. YEAH. BEHIND THAT.
RIGHT, RIGHT. WHERE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH OFF STREET PARKING.
WHAT DID YOU SAY? THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE IT.
WERE THERE NOT ENOUGH SPACES, AND THEY ALSO DIDN'T INCLUDE IT IN THE RENTS.
YES, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO NOT ENOUGH SPACES FOR ALL OF THE RESIDENTS.
RIGHT. SO, AND THEN THAT KIND OF COMES BACK TO THE DISCUSSION ON THE COLE IS IT'S ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE PARKING.
I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL MEMBER JAMES, YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IT AT ALL.
WHEN WE WERE THERE, THEY HAVE A MIX AND THE GARAGE WASN'T FULL AND THE SURFACE WASN'T FULL.
I THINK THEY HAVE FAMILIES THAT MAYBE DON'T HAVE MULTIPLE CARS.
IT'S NOT DIRECTLY ON CENTRAL, SO IT'S NOT EVEN IS IT? IN OUR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT UNIT, IT'S RIGHT ON THE BORDER, RIGHT ON RIGHT ON THE BORDER OF THAT.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IN TRANSIT AREAS.
I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO DO THAT.
BUT I ALSO LIKE THE SAINT LOUIS PARK IN RICHFIELD ONE.
WHERE'S THE COLE? IT'S BEHIND THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING.
THERE ARE SOME VARIABLES THAT COME INTO PLAY.
YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ARE GENERALLY HAVE LARGER BEDROOMS, RIGHT.
THEY'RE MORE THEY'RE HIGHER TWO, THREE BEDROOM COUNTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMPARED TO, YOU KNOW, AS THIS BUILDING, WHICH HAS A LOT OF STUDIOS AND KIND OF THE MIXED LIVING ONE BEDROOMS, KIND OF THOSE SMALLER DEPENDING ON THE CLIENTELE.
[01:00:02]
AND THEN LIKE ERIC HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT, AS YOU KNOW, THE BALANCE.HOW DO WE FIND THE BALANCE OF HOW MUCH SURFACE DO YOU WANT COVERED WITH ASPHALT? AND THEN HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT UNDERGROUND? I THINK THE COLE IS 62 OR 46 UNDER, 62 ABOVE.
SO IT'S KIND OF JUST UNDER THAT 50%.
SO WE COULD KIND OF LOOK AT SOME OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT ACTION TODAY.
LEGENDS IS OUR HARD. IT'S THOSE OLDER DEVELOPMENTS.
YOU REALLY HAVE TO DIVE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO GET ALL THAT DATA.
SOME OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, YOU KIND OF SEE THAT THEY HAVE LESS THAN IS REQUIRED.
WITH GRAND CENTRAL FLATS, THAT'S KIND OF AN ISSUE OR WITH OTHERS, YOU KNOW, THEY INCLUDE THAT THEY INCLUDE A FEE FOR THAT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN PLACES INCLUDED WITH THEIR RENTS.
I'VE SEEN OTHER PLACES CHARGE SEPARATELY.
MY CURRENT PLACE CHOSE CHARGE SEPARATELY.
SO, I THINK ROBBINSDALE IS KIND OF INTERESTING AND THERE'S REQUIRES THAT THOSE SPOTS BE FEE FREE OR OTHERWISE INCLUDED IN THE RENTS. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO KIND OF DISCUSS.
I LOVE THAT, AND I'M SHOCKED THAT THAT WAS PART OF WHAT YOU GUYS ARE THINKING.
I REALLY PERKED UP WHEN YOU SAID THAT EARLIER, MITCH, BECAUSE I CAN JUST THINK OF SO MANY MEETINGS WHERE RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS BRING THAT SPECIFIC DYNAMIC UP. IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO ANSWER THAT WITH.
NOT RIGHT NOW. THAT'S ACHIEVED THROUGH NEGOTIATION.
SO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PUD.
BUT HAVING IT IN CODE I DIDN'T EVEN SEE THAT.
AND I'M THE ONE THAT PUT THE DATA TOGETHER.
BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DEFINITELY ADD IN CODE JUST TO SOLIDIFY IT.
THE PLACE, RACHEL, THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS THAT DOES THAT HAVE FREE PARKING THERE? SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S A REALLY STRONG VARIABLE TO INCLUDE FOR LIKE, LIKE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AS WELL.
SO, BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE IT IN CITY CODE.
RIGHT. DEPENDING ON THE TRAFFIC.
YEAH. THAT THE LOCATION GETS AS WELL.
THE COLE IS ON THE EDGE OF THE TRANSIT ORIENTED.
THAT'S A LITTLE FARTHER FROM TRANSIT.
ARE YOU CLOSE TO TRANSIT? ARE YOU NOT CLOSE TO TRANSIT? OKAY. YEAH. GREAT.
SO DOES IT SEEM LIKE THE ACTION ITEMS I'M KIND OF GETTING OUT OF THIS ARE DROPPING THAT TWO ENCLOSED SPACE REQUIREMENT TO ONE, REQUIRING A PERCENTAGE OF PARKING BE DESIGNATED FOR VISITOR PARKING AND THEN POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT FEE FREE OR JUST INCLUDED, LIKE PARKING SPACES INCLUDED IN RENT PRICING.
THAT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE THE KEY THINGS THAT WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT.
YEAH, I WOULD I WOULD SAY ONE THING ABOUT THE FEE FREE, DOES THAT AFFECT THE PROPERTY'S ABILITY TO COLLECT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS IF THEIR ASSISTANCE IS.
DOES THAT MAKE YOUR RENT STILL QUALIFY TO BE AFFORDABLE AND THEN STILL BE ABLE TO COLLECT ASSISTANCE? IF THAT'S AN OFFERING, IT DOES.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S KIND OF BEEN IN THE NEGOTIATION IN THE PAST IS, YOU KNOW, WHERE DEPENDING ON THE PROJECT AND THE INCOME QUALIFICATIONS AND EVERYTHING WHERE THAT'S AT, I THINK WE'RE SOLID ENOUGH IN THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO THAT, THAT IF A PROJECT CAN'T ACHIEVE THAT, IT MIGHT JUST NOT BE A GOOD DEAL FOR THE CITY TO HAVE.
YEAH. MAKES SENSE. THE ONLY OTHER ITEM I HAD PARKING WISE WAS JUST A DISCUSSION ON LIMITED BUSINESS.
WE HAVE KIND OF TRIED TO IDENTIFY PROPERTIES THAT ARE CONSIDERED LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING.
[01:05:06]
SAME LANGUAGE THAT WE USED FOR THE BUILT AS DUPLEX DISTRICT TO REMOVE BASICALLY LEGALLY NONCONFORMING STATUS KIND OF FREEZES A PROPERTY IN TIME, AND IT AFFECTS YOUR ABILITY TO REALLY INVEST IN THAT PROPERTY BEYOND MAINTAINING IT IN ITS CURRENT STATE.AND IN LOOKING AT THE LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT, THE BAKERY AS AN EXAMPLE, HAD DIFFICULTY MEETING THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT.
AND SO THAT PUT THEM INTO A LEGAL, NONCONFORMING STATUS.
AND SO STAFF IS JUST KIND OF LOOKED AT THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS AN OFF STREET PARKING DISTRICT, WHERE IT DOES NOT HAVE THOSE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES.
THE RESIDENTIAL USES WOULD STILL TRIGGER THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT, BUT IT'S JUST KIND OF AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT, OKAY, ON STREET PARKING IS KIND OF THE NORM FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
AND I FEEL LIKE THAT IS KIND OF JUST LOOKING AT HOW THE LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT OPERATES.
THAT IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME CONDITION THAT APPLIES TO THEM.
JUST TO KIND OF GIVE SOME CONTEXT AS WELL, IS THAT OUR LIMITED BUSINESS IS PRETTY MUCH 40TH AVENUE, AND THEN WE HAVE SOME NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESSES ON 37TH AVENUE, AND THEN I THINK SOME ALONG UNIVERSITY AVENUE THAT WOULD MORE THAN LIKELY LOOK AT BEING REZONED TO GENERAL BUSINESS JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE.
SO IT'S KIND OF GRAPPLING, AS ALL CITIES DO, WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS.
HOW MUCH DOES THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS REQUIRE PARKING? OFF STREET PARKING.
HOW MUCH CAN THEY JUST USE ON 40TH AVENUE? AND THEN WE ONLY ALLOW CERTAIN, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN SIZES OF BUSINESSES, CERTAIN TYPES OF BUSINESSES FOR TRAFFIC PURPOSES ON THOSE IN THE LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT. RIGHT.
WHERE DOES THAT KIND OF WHERE DOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT MEET? AND, YOU KNOW, WHERE DOES THE RESIDENTIAL MEET? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MERGED ON 40TH AVENUE.
AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, THE DESIGNATION AS AN OFF STREET PARKING DISTRICT, IT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT NONRESIDENTIAL USES ARE EXEMPT FROM THAT.
YEAH. DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE ANY CONCERNS.
THE ONLY THING THAT WAS COMING TO MY MIND IS WHAT ARE THE ALLOWED BUSINESSES? THE LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICTS HAVE MORE INTERACTION WITH RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THAN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT DOES.
AND ARE WE NOW CREATING ANOTHER POTENTIAL ISSUE OF THOSE BUSINESS CONNECTING TO RESIDENTIAL UNIT OR RESIDENTIAL AREA ISSUES IF WE DON'T REQUIRE SOME SORT OF OFF STREET PARKING TO MITIGATE OR MITIGATE OR AT LEAST MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THAT FIRST RESIDENTIAL UNIT THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THAT LAST LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT UNIT.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT WAS GIVING ME PAUSE ON THAT WAS IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT.
WAS OWNED BY A CO-OP THAT WAS LIKE THE NORTHEAST CO-OP.
YEAH. IT'S ON THE NORTH EASTERN CORNER.
SO JUST A LITTLE REALLY SMALL COMMERCIAL.
SO AT THIS POINT THAT CREATES THAT NONCONFORMING, THEY CAN'T EVER REALLY IMPROVE IT.
THEY CAN SPRUCE UP THE INSIDE, BUT THEY CAN'T REALLY EVER CHANGE THE BUILDING.
REALLY. YOU KNOW, OFFICIALLY CHANGE THE USE.
[01:10:02]
YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO PUT A BAKERY IN THERE BECAUSE THAT'D BE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC, RIGHT? COMING IN. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THE DISCUSSION CAME FROM.YEP. AND JUST TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF THE LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT IN CODE IS DESCRIBED AS TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS FOR LIMITED RETAIL SALES AND SERVICES FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
THESE AREAS ARE LOCATED ALONG COLLECTOR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, ARRANGED AND DESIGNED TO BE A FUNCTIONAL AND HARMONIOUS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ACCESSIBLE BY PUBLIC SIDEWALKS, TRAILS, OR ROADWAYS.
SO THAT KIND OF SETS THE SCALE FOR WHAT KIND OF INTENSITY OF BUSINESS THAT WE WOULD SEE HERE.
SOME OF THESE INCLUDE MEDICAL DENTAL CLINICS, VET CLINICS FUNERAL HOMES, OFFICES.
ACTUALLY. HANG ON. LET ME I THINK THIS IS SORRY.
I HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE AMENDMENT.
WE DID. LET ME JUST ONE SECOND.
ONE THING TO NOTE REAL QUICK ON THE ZONING MAP IN FRONT OF YOU SOME OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON CENTRAL AVENUE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ZONED GENERAL BUSINESS, AND IT IS THE COMP, THE 2040 COMP PLANS GUIDANCE TO REZONE THE LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICTS THAT ARE KIND OF ON CENTRAL AVENUE, ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE TO THAT GENERAL BUSINESS, JUST BECAUSE THEY FIT MORE WITHIN THAT.
THEY'RE IN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
AND THEN IF I CAN GO, HERE WE GO.
PERMITTED USES FOR LIMITED BUSINESS.
MEDICAL, DENTAL, VETERINARY CLINIC, OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL STUDIO, PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, RETAIL SALES, LIMITED FOOD SERVICE LIKE COFFEE SHOP OR A DELI WITHOUT A DRIVE THROUGH MUSEUM GALLERY.
AND THEN AS YOU KIND OF LOOK AT THE CONDITIONAL USES, THEY KIND OF GET MORE INTENSE.
BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THOSE USES HAVE DEFINED SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS THAT WOULD KIND OF GUIDE SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS ON PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO I FEEL LIKE THERE ARE OTHER LEVERS TO KIND OF PREVENT A MORE INTENSE BUSINESS FROM COMING IN.
AND AS THEY ARE CONDITIONAL USES, THERE WOULD BE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD COMPONENT WHERE THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN, AND THAT WOULD BE GIVEN GREATER CONSIDERATION THAN IF IT WAS JUST LIKE A TYPICAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, LIKE WITH THE CAR WASH.
SO WE CAN DEFINITELY CIRCLE BACK ON THAT TO KIND OF JUST REVISIT THE CONVERSATION.
THERE'S NO ACTION THAT HAS TO BE DONE TONIGHT.
YEAH, SURE. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
YEAH. I HAD ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO JUST CHECKING ABOUT OR I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT IN THE BACKGROUND. AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST I DON'T HAVE A TON OF EXPERTISE ON THIS, BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT JUST LARGE INVESTMENT CORPORATIONS BUYING, LIKE, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND LIKE, LIKE, BASICALLY GROUPS LIKE BLACKSTONE, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT, LIKE, PERIODICALLY I READ NEWS ARTICLES THAT SAY, LIKE, HEY, THESE INVESTMENT GROUPS, YOU KNOW, PURCHASED 20% OF THE HOMES, YOU KNOW, IN THE UNITED STATES IN THE FOURTH QUARTER, LIKE OF 20% OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THESE CORPORATIONS, YOU KNOW, BOTTOM UP.
AND THEN BASICALLY TYPICALLY THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, BUYING HOMES THAT ARE MORE AFFORDABLE.
SO IT'S MORE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BUY THEIR FIRST HOME, YOU KNOW, TO BUY A HOME.
AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PAST YOU KNOW A LIMIT ON HOW MANY RENTALS CAN BE ON THE BLOCK. AND SO THAT, YOU KNOW, DISCOURAGES INVESTMENT CORPORATIONS.
BUT I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
[01:15:05]
DO WE STILL HAVE A MORATORIUM ON SINGLE FAMILY? NO, THE MORATORIUM HAS BEEN LIFTED, SO I CAN DEFINITELY SPEAK TO THAT.AS I WORKED WITH THE COUNCIL ALL LAST YEAR THROUGH THE MORATORIUM TO KIND OF GET THAT IN PLACE.
OKAY. THE COUNCIL SAW THE EXACT SAME THING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
MINNEAPOLIS FED ACTUALLY RELEASED A PAPER ON THE AMOUNT OF THE CITIES IN THE METRO THAT HAD, YOU KNOW, CORPORATIONS COMING IN PURCHASING THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT WERE TRADITIONALLY MORE AFFORDABLE, ESPECIALLY IN COMMUNITIES LIKE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, WEST SAINT PAUL, ROBBINSDALE, THOSE KIND OF FIRST RING SUBURBS THAT HAVE THOSE SMALLER HOMES THAT ARE THE, YOU KNOW, THE END OF LIFE DOWNSCALING OR PEOPLE TRYING TO GET INTO THEIR FIRST HOME, THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE PURCHASE PRICE TO, YOU KNOW, START THE HOMEOWNERSHIP PROCESS.
THE COUNCIL SAW THIS HAPPENING GOING THROUGH.
SO THEY PUT THE MORATORIUM IN PLACE AND THEN ESTABLISHED THE 10% RENTAL DENSITY CAP.
THE 10% RENTAL DENSITY CAP, LIKE YOU SAID, LIMITS EACH BLOCK TO THAT 10%.
THERE ARE VERY FEW CITIES THAT ARE AT THAT 10% DENSITY, BUT THAT KIND OF SETS THE LIMIT THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT, NO MORE THAN 10% OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS WILL EVER GET TO THE POINT WHERE THAT THEY ARE RENTALS, AND WE'RE NOT REDUCING THAT HOUSING STOCK THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN AND PURCHASE. SO THAT'S BASICALLY OUR DEFENSE.
THAT'S OUR DEFENSE, AND WE FIGHT WITH IT EVERY WEEK.
I KNOW RACHEL CAN SPEAK A LOT MORE TO IT THAN I.
I ACTUALLY SEE A THREE PART DEFENSE.
I SEE THE RENTAL DENSITY CAP AS OUR WAY THAT IS LEGAL TO PREVENT OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF RENTALS, BECAUSE THERE IS AN OPTION FOR GETTING AN EXEMPTION.
BUT IT'S NOT FOR CORPORATIONS.
WE'RE NOT LIKELY TO GRANT THAT.
AND SO NOW THE TIME OF SALE PROGRAM, WHERE WE'RE CATCHING SO MANY HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN FLIPPED, SOMETIMES IT'S CORPORATIONS, SOMETIMES IT'S REAL ESTATE AGENTS, SOMETIMES IT'S JUST INVESTORS. AND THEN THE THIRD THING THAT I SEE IS DOING IT.
LET ME JUST I FORGOT IT FOR A QUICK SECOND.
ONE, WHAT AM I THINKING OF IS THE THIRD THING? OH, WE'RE DOING MORE RENTAL ENFORCEMENT WITH OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND OUR NEW, I MEAN, OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT AND OUR NEW, WE HAVE A NEW ELECTRONIC SYSTEM COMING FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO JUST REALLY HELP THAT THE LANDLORDS WE HAVE ARE DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB, AND IF THEY'RE JUST PREDATORY LANDLORDS, THEY'RE GOING TO COME UP AGAINST THAT AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE THEIR LICENSE AND IT WOULDN'T JUST BE FOR ONE HOME, IT WOULD BE FOR ALL THE HOMES THAT THEY RENT.
AND SO THAT'S HARD FOR RESIDENTS.
IT'S A REALLY, REALLY HARD THING.
AND I HATE THAT FOR PEOPLE LOSING THEIR HOME.
BUT THAT'S THE TOOL THAT WE HAVE IS TO GIVE OR WITHHOLD THE RENTAL LICENSURE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I SAW IN THE NO MORE THAN THAT.
OKAY. YEAH, BUT IT'S REALLY BROUGHT A LOT OF ENFORCEMENT ISSUES TO LIGHT.
AND I THINK IT'S KIND OF WORKED OUT THE WAY IT'S INTENDED.
I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER JAMES CAN ATTEST, PREVIOUS STAFF MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THE BEST AT ENFORCING THE RULES THAT THEY WERE ENTRUSTED BY THE RESIDENTS TO ENFORCE, SO THERE HAS BEEN A SHIFT.
YES, I KNOW ANDREW HAS HIS WEEKLY TRIPLEX, NOT A TRIPLEX FIGHT WHERE SOMEBODY LIKE THE MOST RECENT ONE WAS THEY BOUGHT IT FROM AN OLD COUNCIL MEMBER THAT SAID IT COULD BE A TRIPLEX, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ZONED R-1.
THEY BROUGHT THEY WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TRIED TO GET A TRIPLEX.
AND SO WE'RE KIND OF DIGGING OURSELVES OUT OF A HOLE.
YOU KNOW DENSITY IS NEEDED THAT MISSING MIDDLE.
IT HAS TO BE DONE IN GOOD HOUSING FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE LIVING IN IT.
SO JUST FROM MY CURIOSITY, WHAT IS THE TIME OF SALE? HOW DO WE WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT ENTAIL? THEY'RE DOING A GREAT JOB.
THERE'S A LIST OF THINGS THAT ARE BASICALLY LIFE AND SAFETY.
AND OUR BUILDING INSPECTOR, THEY HAVE TO PAY A FEE.
WHEN YOU'RE SELLING YOUR HOME, THEY'LL GO IN AND MAKE SURE THAT THE CODE IS MET TO THOSE ITEMS.
[01:20:01]
AND THEN IF THEY'RE NOT, YOU CAN EITHER FIX IT AND GET A RE-INSPECTION, OR THEY CAN WRITE UP A LIST FOR THE BUYER AND THE SELLER TO NEGOTIATE, AND THEN IT HAS TO BE PUT IN ESCROW TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THOSE THINGS ARE TAKEN CARE OF.BUT JUST SO THAT IT'S DISCLOSED TO FOLKS.
THEY'VE HAD 170 HOUSES SOLD SINCE MAY WHEN THIS WAS STARTED, AND 139 REQUIRED INSPECTIONS.
SO THEY MIGHT END UP TWEAKING THAT A LITTLE BIT.
BUT ONLY ABOUT 15 TO 17 HAVE BEEN FLIPPERS THAT HAVE JUST BEEN TERRIBLE.
AND THAT'S ALL THE THINGS MITCH WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH RUNNING THE WATER OUTSIDE.
SO THEY'RE CATCHING FLIPPERS, AND THEN THEY'RE NOT BEING ABLE TO JUST SELL THINGS.
ALL THE BUILDING PROBLEMS THAT HAVE HAPPENED WITH PEOPLE NOT PUTTING INSULATION BEHIND DRY WALLS AND NOT VENTING THE FANS OUTSIDE, BUT VENTING THEM INTO THE ATTIC AND ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY DO. SO THOSE ARE BEING CAUGHT? YEP. SO ANY HOUSE THAT'S SOLD HAS TO GET INSPECTED.
CITY BROUGHT ON A GREAT BRAND NEW INSPECTOR ON THAT.
SHE WORKS UNDER OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL RYAN IS JUST ABSOLUTELY KILLING IT.
THEY'D DONE A TON OF HOUSES IN OTHER CITIES.
NO OTHER CITY HAD EVER CAUGHT THEM DOING WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
AND THEN RYAN GETS IN THERE AND, YOU KNOW, THEY PUT IN PLUMBING THAT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.
IT WAS EVERYTHING WAS DONE WRONG.
SO THEN THEY HAVE TO FIX THAT BEFORE THEY CAN SELL IT TO A FAMILY.
I KNOW THE MAYOR HAS A WEBSITE UP STILL OF HER EXPERIENCE WITH LIKE BUYING A FLIPPED HOUSE THAT YOU JUST PEOPLE ARE JUST PUTTING MONEY IN SO PEOPLE COME INTO A AFFORDABLE, YOU KNOW, HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY AND THEN END UP DROPPING, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER $100,000 INTO IT.
SO CATCHES THE FLIPPERS, MAINTAINS THE HOUSING STOCK WITHIN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
SO LIKE IT'S THE MAJOR STUFF, RIGHT? LIKE IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SMOKE DETECTOR, JUST PUT THE SMOKE DETECTOR IN.
THE PIPING CODE IN THE 50S IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN IT IS NOW.
IT'S NOT OH, YOU'RE NOT WITH CODE.
YOU'RE NOT REPLACING THE PIPING.
IT'S OKAY. YOU ARE MISSING HEALTH AND SAFETY ITEMS. YOU KNOW, THE VENTING FOR YOUR WATER HEATER ISN'T RIGHT.
SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S POSSIBILITY FOR GASES TO COME BACK, AND IT'S JUST SMALLER STUFF, BUT ALSO KIND OF HAMMERING THE BIGGER STUFF THAT HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, WITH THE AFFORDABILITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, INVESTORS COME IN AND IF THEY CAN'T RENT IT, THEY FLIP IT OR THEY DO WHATEVER THEY CAN WITH IT.
SO AND IF I CAN JUST ADD ON TO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST NIGHT, IT'S ALSO BROUGHT A LOT OF ZONING ISSUES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY MISSED OR JUST IGNORED IN THE PAST LIGHT.
SO JUST FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, IT'S BEEN REALLY NICE AS WELL.
CAN I ADD A TOPIC FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF TONIGHT.
YEAH. IS THAT POSSIBLE? SO I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW.
I DON'T KNOW WE CAN DO THIS OR HOW WE DO THIS, BUT THINKING ABOUT THESE PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY, THE DEVELOPER COMES IN AND EITHER DEVELOPS THROUGH A TIF OR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR SOME OTHER VEHICLE WITHIN THE CITY.
ESPECIALLY IF SOMEHOW THERE ARE CITY DOLLARS INVOLVED IN IT, EITHER THROUGH A TIF OR OTHER VEHICLES.
IF WE HAVE THAT PROJECT COME IN TYING TO THOSE MEASURES, ADDITIONAL INCREASED SUSTAINABILITY METRICS A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE BELOW ENERGY CODE.
AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES OTHER, OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN TIE IN EITHER PV OR SOLAR PRODUCTION OF ENERGY ON SITE OR OFFSETS PURCHASED OFFSETS. BOTH ENERGY AND CARBON OFFSETS ON THE PROPERTY.
SO THAT IF WE'RE ESSENTIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO BE USING CITY DOLLARS AND WE'RE GOING TO BE USING CITY PROPERTIES AND CITY LEVERAGE LIKE THIS, THAT WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE HOLDING THOSE DEVELOPMENTS TO A HIGHER STANDARD BECAUSE THEY ARE A PARTNER WITH THE CITY AT THAT POINT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S IF THERE'S WAYS TO ADD THAT TO THOSE LANGUAGES.
WHAT THE WHAT THE VEHICLE IS FOR THAT.
BUT BUT ASKING THE DEVELOPER TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP.
WE'D ALL LOVE THE DEVELOPERS TO TRY TO BE NET ZERO AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE.
OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF THEM AREN'T GOING TO DO THAT UNLESS NOT FORCED, BUT FORCED YOU KNOW SO TAKING
[01:25:06]
THAT NEXT STEP AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THESE ABSOLUTE BEST PROPERTIES THAT WE CAN WHEN THE CITY IS INVOLVED WITH CONNECTING THOSE.I LOVE THAT IDEA. I DO HAVE TO PICK UP MY KIDS FROM THEIR PRACTICE, BUT I WILL SAY I KNOW ANDREW HAS A COMPLETE STREETS THING HE'S TALKING ABOUT, AND WE'VE ADDED IN LIKE THE TREE PRESERVATION STANDARD AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD TALK ABOUT.
OFTEN WE DO IT. SO I THINK THERE'S INTEREST.
I'D LOVE TO SEE THE STAFF DO SOME RESEARCH AND SEE WHAT COMES BACK TO THAT.
I THINK THAT'S GREAT. AND WITHIN THE TIF, YOU KNOW, THAT REALLY YOU KIND OF GET INTO THE NEGOTIATION PIECE OF IT, RIGHT? THE CITY HAS ITS PRO FORMA.
THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER JAMES.
AND I WILL SAY THE EASIEST WAY TO ADD THAT IS TO HAVE THE COUNCIL BRING THAT FORWARD.
REUTER WALTON CAME TO THE EDA LAST MONTH WITH A PROPOSAL FOR 3901 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER BUESGENS'S HAD THOSE REQUESTS AND THAT WAS IT.
SHE WANTED THE NET NEUTRAL ENERGY STANDARDS.
SHE WANTED THE REUSABLE WATER.
WE WANTED TO ADD A BIKE PATH AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S JUST WE HAVEN'T HAD A DEVELOPMENT REALLY RECENTLY.
SO LAST NIGHT AT THE COUNCIL WORK SESSION REUTER WALTON CAME BACK.
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW, FILTER THE WATER, WATER FILTRATION AND TRY AND REUSE THAT ON SITE AND TRY AND MEET SOME OF THOSE TO INCLUDE SOME OF THE STANDARDS THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE FINANCING THEY'RE GETTING FROM THE STATE IS ALSO DOING SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
WE COULD DEFINITELY THINK ABOUT SETTING IT IN STONE, BUT THROUGH THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS, THE COUNCIL IS PUSHING FOR THAT STUFF AND THE COMPLETE STREETS, LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER JAMES HAD SAID.
THAT REQUIRES NEW DEVELOPMENTS, ESPECIALLY DEVELOPMENTS WITH ROADS LIKE MEDTRONIC, 4300 CENTRAL.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE THOSE ADA COMPLIANT SIDEWALKS, BIKE PATHS, THAT KIND OF STUFF BUILT INTO THEIR PROJECT AND THEN THROUGH THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS WITH THE COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL REQUIRES KIND OF THOSE ITEMS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND IF I CAN JUST KIND OF ADD TO THAT A LITTLE BIT, LIKE YOU SAID, WE'RE DOING COMPLETE STREETS.
I THINK THAT'S GOING TO EVENTUALLY LEAD TO UPDATES TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE SOLSMART PROCESS.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TECHNICAL STAFF BASICALLY LOOKING THROUGH OUR CODE, PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS IN A MEMO THAT YOU GUYS WILL END UP SEEING AND DECIDING KIND OF ALL RIGHT, WHICH OF THESE ARE WE GOING TO ACT ON AS FAR AS REMOVING BARRIERS FROM THE EXISTING ZONING CODE AND THEN INCLUDING LANGUAGE TO PROMOTE RENEWABLE ENERGY? JUST BECAUSE I THINK RIGHT NOW THE CODE JUST DOESN'T HAVE ANY REFERENCES ON THAT.
AND THEN THE OTHER ITEM WE'RE GOING THROUGH, PARTNERS IN ENERGY.
WE WILL HAVE AN ENERGY ACTION PLAN DRAFTED LIKELY BY SPRING OF 2025.
SO I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WILL HAVE PLANNING AND ZONING COMPONENTS THAT WILL KIND OF HELP US INFLUENCE, YOU KNOW, ANY POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS IN THE FUTURE.
AND QUICK PLUG, THERE'S A SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION POSITION OPEN.
DO WE AS A CITY ALSO HAVE ANY SAY ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE GRID, THE TRANSFORMERS, THE WHAT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED, THINGS LIKE THAT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE RENEWABLE INFLUX INTO OUR INTO OUR GRID, THEN WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TRANSFORMERS HAVE THE CAPACITY TO BE UPDATED.
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR THE CITY ENGINEER.
WE CAN DEFINITELY RUN THAT PAST THEM.
I HAVE NO IDEA. I KNOW WATER AND SEWER IS WHERE WE, YOU KNOW, WE LIVE AT.
SO LIKE FOR THAT TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT FOR ELECTRICITY, I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW MUCH INFLUENCE THE CITY HAS OVER WHAT XCEL ENERGY OR, YOU KNOW, CENTERPOINT IS REALLY BRINGING TO THE TABLE.
AND I THINK THOSE WILL KIND OF GIVE US AVENUES TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.
[01:30:05]
HOW DIFFERENT THIS GROUP, ALL OF US AND THE THINGS THAT WE CARE ABOUT AND TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT AS WELL.IT WAS NOT THIS WAY EIGHT YEARS AGO.
THIS IS I WILL REMEMBER THIS CONVERSATION.
WE ARE THE. WE ARE THE OLD GUYS, AREN'T WE, TOM? YEAH WE ARE. THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT.
ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OTHERWISE, I'D LIKE TO COMMEND STAFF AGAIN FOR THIS.
THIS HAS BEEN AN EXCELLENT SESSION.
LOTS OF GOOD TOPICS. THANK YOU ALL.
THANK YOU GUYS FOR PARTICIPATING SO MUCH.
COULD HAVE BEEN A NIGHT FULL OF CRICKETS.
OKAY. IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
I SECOND ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MEETING ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.