2026-10-26 - City Planning Commission

30:211 minute to start. Tech team.

30:24>> Sounds good. One moment, please.

31:17Welcome everyone to the regular meeting

31:18for the Minneapolis Planning Commission

31:19for October 26. My name is Chris Meyer,

31:22chair of the commission. At this time, I

31:24will ask the clerk to please call the

31:25role.

31:26>> Commissioner Baxley

31:28>> here.

31:29>> Chowry is absent. Connley

31:32[clears throat] is absent. Garcia

31:34>> here.

31:35>> Gordon is absent. Jones

31:38>> here.

31:40>> Shepy is absent. Shepard

31:44absent. Vice President Wagner

31:46>> here

31:48>> and President Meyer

31:49>> here.

31:49>> There are five members present.

31:51>> We have a quorum. Uh next we'll move to

31:53the minutes for October 13th, 2026. Is

31:56there a motion to adopt those minutes?

31:59>> Second. There's a motion and a second.

32:01Any discussion? Not seeing any. All in

32:04favor say I. I. Opposed. Abstensions.

32:06The minutes are adopted.

32:08>> Next, we're going to organize our

32:10agenda. Um, I'm going to read through

32:13each item. If you were here to speak

32:16against the staff recommendation on that

32:17item, I'll ask you to raise your hand

32:19when I call it out. Uh, staff are

32:21recommending uh that items four, five,

32:24and six uh be on consent. and we will be

32:28discussing item number seven. U so as I

32:33read through each of these, if you came

32:35and you wanted to have a supportive

32:37comment or a neutral comment, you'll

32:38have a chance to do that in just a bit.

32:40But for now, we're just looking for

32:41people who want to speak against the

32:43staff recommendation and then we'll take

32:44them off our consent agenda. So, first

32:47uh item number four, 312 through 318

32:49Third Street South in W 3. Was anyone

32:52here to speak against item number four?

32:55All right, we'll keep that on consent.

32:59Item five, 3716 Chetm Avenue in W 9. Was

33:03anyone here to speak against the staff

33:04recommendation for item five?

33:07Okay, we'll keep that on consent.

33:10Item six, rightway segments adjacent to

33:131942nd Avenue North. Is anyone here to

33:15speak against the staff recommendation

33:17for item six?

33:20All right. and then we will discuss item

33:22seven uh the text amendment and then

33:25after that we would have our calendar

33:28for next year.

33:30All right. Is there a motion to adopt

33:31that agenda?

33:33>> So moved.

33:34>> Is there a second?

33:35>> Second.

33:36>> There's a second. All in favor say I. I.

33:38>> Opposed abstensions. That agenda is

33:40adopted. All right. So I will open our

33:43consent agenda. If if anyone wanted to

33:46speak to items four, five or six, now is

33:49your chance.

33:52All right. I'm not seeing anyone, so

33:54I'll close close the consent hearing.

33:57Commissioners, is there any discussion

33:59or questions about our consent items?

34:02Is there a motion to adopt the staff

34:04recommendations for items four, five,

34:05and six?

34:06>> So move.

34:07>> Second.

34:08>> All right. Any discussion? All in favor

34:11say I.

34:11>> I. Opposed.

34:14>> That is adopted. So if you are here for

34:16items four, five, or six, your plans are

34:18approved. Good luck with your projects.

34:21Now we'll move to item number seven,

34:25the update for development standards for

34:26dwellings with one to two three one to

34:29three units by amending title 20 of the

34:31Minneapolis Code of Ordinances and staff

34:33is Janelle

34:33>> Woodmier.

34:55Okay,

34:57good afternoon. Uh, so the U amen that's

35:01before you is an update to the zoning

35:03code and subdivision ordinance to update

35:06rules for dwellings with one to three

35:07units.

35:10And we're talking about housing with one

35:12to three units. That can include single

35:14family homes, duplexes, twin homes,

35:16triplexes, anything with one to three

35:18units.

35:21And uh just to summarize the purpose of

35:23rules um for these types of uses,

35:25there's two main reasons. Um first is to

35:27make sure that any changes to properties

35:30the established building patterns found

35:32in Minneapolis neighborhoods. The second

35:34is um related to supporting high quality

35:37development in every part of the city.

35:39And that second reason is directly tied

35:41to uh policy number five of the

35:44Minneapolis 20 240 plan related to

35:46visual quality of new development.

35:51And we have done quite a few updates to

35:54the zoning code um in the past that

35:57addressed major inconsistencies between

35:59our rules and um policies of the

36:02comprehensive plan. So, we're not

36:03intending to update every single rule

36:05that applies to uh one to three unit

36:08dwellings.

36:13Um but I do want to point out um that we

36:16are you know

36:18proposing to um

36:22continue to follow that guidance. This

36:24is not looking at updating um

36:26comprehensive plan guidance. Um so

36:28there's some built form guidance from

36:29204 Minneapolis 20 240 that does have a

36:33pretty big impact on um the rules for

36:35dwellings one to three units and we do

36:38find that most of these uses are located

36:40in the areas that are designated for air

36:43interior one and interior 2 and we do

36:45have some rather prescriptive guidance

36:47um for those districts specific to the

36:50number of units that can be allowed and

36:53height. Um so for interior one and

36:56interior 2 generally the limit would be

36:58up to three units would be allowed per

37:00lot and that height limit would be up to

37:022.5 stories. In interior 2 there is um

37:05one exception for how many units can be

37:08established on um larger lots. And then

37:11by comparison we have interior three up

37:14here um just to show that that district

37:16which would be the next step up for the

37:18interior districts does allow for more

37:20variety and some additional height.

37:26Uh just to summarize the goals of this

37:28amendment, um

37:31we are proposing to further align the

37:34rules for these uses with the

37:36Minneapolis 2040 plan. Um as I

37:38indicated, we um did some major um

37:42updates to the zoning code, but we

37:44weren't able to update all of the rules

37:46that apply. Um, so this gives us a

37:49chance to just better align some of the

37:50other rules um with our adapted policies

37:54and it also gives us a chance to um

37:57better reflect what the community cares

37:58about. Um, we also want to look at what

38:02is not working well um and fix it, make

38:05clarifications so that the rules are

38:07easier to understand, administer and

38:09enforce. Um, another part of this is we

38:13do want to consider how updates can

38:14affect housing costs. Um, and we also

38:17want to make sure that they are any

38:18changes are practical. They're not going

38:21to be creating new problems. Um, and

38:24we're also trying to be um, aware of

38:27what's been happening with the housing

38:28market and making sure that we're

38:30allowing for some reasonable changes.

38:32And then where we can, we want to

38:33simplify the rules.

38:37And before I start getting into more of

38:40what's um included with the amendment,

38:42um I just want to recap what we've done

38:44for engagement, which included uh

38:47there's a an amendment web page that

38:50provides information on this amendment.

38:51It has a video that kind of explains

38:54uh some key things in this amendment. Um

38:57a summary of the changes that are

38:59proposed and then just uh like a photo

39:02gallery that's showing a lot of the new

39:03development that we've seen. So you can

39:06see how the rules have been playing out.

39:08Um and then we did some earlier

39:10engagement with the development

39:12community. Um

39:15we had asked them about their

39:17experiences like what's working well,

39:20what isn't working so well. Uh we did

39:22receive some really good feedback but

39:25not all that feedback is being included

39:27and addressed in this amendment. Um

39:31some of the things that were brought up

39:33or things that would maybe be better

39:35addressed um just looking at it more

39:38holistically were how would it affect

39:40other uses that are not captured with

39:41the amendment this amendment like uh

39:44dwellings with four or more units for

39:46example and some things could require a

39:49comprehensive plan amendment and more

39:51public engagement would be needed with

39:53that. So um we are you know keeping that

39:57feedback in mind for other opportunities

40:00that would be coming up um to address

40:02some of that. And then also note that we

40:06had our committee the whole meeting um

40:07on October 1st. And uh there was one

40:10change to the staff recommendations

40:12since then

40:14and that was just in addition um to the

40:17permitted obstructions that would be

40:18allowed in front and um corner side

40:21yards just allowing the standards to be

40:23a little more permissive for raised

40:26planting beds. And that's more in line

40:27with what the um council adopted for

40:30rules with the public right ofway.

40:34Uh so

40:37a very important part of this amendment

40:40is updating our site plan review

40:42standards that include design standards

40:44that apply specifically to new houses.

40:47And just in nutshell, these are tools

40:50that support high quality design and

40:52development in all parts of the city.

40:55And it does include a menu of options.

41:00And the reason that we have these rules

41:03um goes back about 20 years. Um when the

41:05rules were first adopted before that

41:07time, we noticed that um many homes were

41:11not being built to a consistent quality.

41:13Um there were a lot of neighborhoods

41:15that were experiencing more lowquality

41:17development. um and that

41:21these were really like the cheapest

41:23homes possible to build and they were uh

41:27signaling that the neighborhood wasn't

41:28worth further investment um and that in

41:31turn was discouraging home ownership u

41:33maintenance and investment of nearby

41:35properties.

41:38[snorts]

41:39So, when we're talking about site plan

41:41review design standards, um they are not

41:44only meant to improve the quality of

41:47homes, um but they are also intended to

41:50be fair and practical to achieve. Um we

41:53want them to be applied the same way

41:55every time. They're part of a a

41:57non-discretionary administrative

41:58process. Um and they're also not based

42:02on opinion. Um these are clear standards

42:05um that are applied the same way. Um,

42:10it's also not a design review. We're not

42:12looking at the style of home. Um, it's

42:14not an architectural review, for

42:16example. Um, and these are not the only

42:18rules that uh people are required to

42:20follow. We have other rules that are

42:22just required for any home. Um, so like

42:26having a front entrance, having windows

42:28facing the street, or just our general

42:31built form requirements. [clears throat]

42:36Uh so to give you an idea of how a site

42:38plan re review works, there are four

42:41parts. Uh the first would be the design

42:43standards themselves that are a menu of

42:45options. Um

42:48and uh there are currently 11

42:52and then each

42:54[clears throat] standard has a point

42:56value. Um

42:59and that considers um these are things

43:01that we can't require. So there's that

43:04incentive attached to um provide some of

43:07these. And then uh with the third piece

43:10of it, the builder would choose which

43:12standards to include. And then that

43:16allows for more flexibility and uh

43:18knowing that not every house could meet

43:21every standard. Um

43:25and then lastly,

43:27there is a total minimum number of

43:30points that would be required for

43:31approval. Currently that is 17 points.

43:35And then to give an example of just how

43:37this works again have a project that

43:40would be proposed. They have the menu of

43:41options to choose from. A builder would

43:44incorporate the ones that they want to

43:46into their project. As long as that's

43:48adding up to the minimum, the project

43:50would be approved. So in this case, this

43:53house um example house would have 18

43:56points and it would just be approved.

44:01Um so overall we are seeing higher

44:03quality home designs in all parts of the

44:05cities. Uh this slide just lists the

44:08outcomes that we are receiving. These

44:09are the intended outcomes of these

44:12standards. Um so we are seeing um a lot

44:16of the standards that promote high

44:18quality development, physical

44:19development um being used and we also

44:24the standards that promote practical use

44:26and functionality. things like having a

44:28basement for example um and then how

44:31they fit in with properties as well as

44:33public safety. So having more like eyes

44:35on the street um with windows is an

44:37example of that. Those are all used. We

44:39also have a couple of standards that

44:41promote environmental sustainability.

44:43The current ones that we have aren't

44:45being used so often um so this one we're

44:47not achieving as much.

44:52So looking at our um recommendation,

44:56this is a very high level overview um of

45:00the site plan changes that are being

45:02recommended. Um but there's more

45:05detailed summary in the staff report. Uh

45:09overall though, we are looking to

45:11clarify the standards um make sure that

45:13we have enough options to choose from.

45:16That was something that we heard from

45:17developers is that they want to have a

45:20good selection of options. Um

45:23but another thing I'd want to point out

45:25is we are proposing some updates to the

45:27point values for standards including the

45:29total minimum number of points and that

45:32includes a reduction to the total

45:33minimum. Um so this [snorts] is based on

45:35the new mix of point values and the

45:38options that would be available the

45:40overall sense of reasonleness for um

45:42being able to achieve the standards. Um

45:46it also takes into consideration

45:48somewhat the uh current uh costs of

45:51construction. Um

45:54but it's not expected to significantly

45:57affect the overall quality of physical

45:58development in any part of the city. So

46:01we expect that that baseline will still

46:04be established. Um, one other thing I'll

46:06note though is that with these new

46:07standards, we um are proposing that two

46:12and three family homes are automatically

46:14qualified for one of the standards with

46:16the ADU standard um which is proposed to

46:20be worth two points. So even if they

46:22didn't provide an ADU, they would be um

46:25qualifying for those two points. So

46:26essentially they have a little more

46:28flexibility in being able to meet the

46:30proposed standards.

46:34So, um I just want to go over that again

46:36because that is a very important part of

46:38this amendment and kind of the main

46:39reason it was coming forward. But I know

46:41there's a lot of interest in um some of

46:44the other rules that we've had uh for

46:47one to three uh homes with one to three

46:50units. Um

46:53so I'm going to transition to that

46:54because we did look at uh what's been

46:57happening with our construction related

46:59to dwellings with two and three units.

47:02Um,

47:04and so this slide just summarizes for

47:06the past [clears throat] six years or

47:09so, how many um one, two, and three

47:12unit, also four unit um structures we've

47:16had um built. And so for single family

47:20homes, that's obviously the highest. Um

47:22there's still a pretty strong market for

47:24that, although it has reduced somewhat

47:27more recently. Um and had fair amount of

47:32duplex construction as well as um three

47:36and four unit construction but obviously

47:38not as many and our data just works that

47:40we can't split apart the permit numbers

47:43for three and unit four unit um

47:45buildings unfortunately but it was the

47:48number of three-unit buildings is about

47:50half of what's represented there so

47:5120ome. Um, but one other thing I'll

47:55point out with this information is a

47:57good part of our a good number of our

48:00two and three-unit buildings are being

48:01built in the university area. Um,

48:06so then when you're looking more broadly

48:09about, you know, how our rules have

48:10changed, how many are being built in

48:12areas where previously we only allowed

48:14single family homes, there's a a fair

48:17amount there, too, but it's still less

48:18than 40%.

48:20Um

48:24but one other thing to note is just

48:26looking again at what's happened since

48:29um we legalized uh two and three family

48:32homes like throughout the city those

48:35numbers have increased so hasn't gone

48:37down. They've maybe been a little bit

48:40modest but they have increased. Um

48:45so we did look at you know why we wanted

48:48to understand better why we're not

48:49seeing as many triplexes being built. Um

48:53and we did this was one of our um

48:56specific outreach out outreach questions

48:58for the development community. So this

49:01slide summarizes what we heard. Um

49:05a lot of it is just related to making

49:08these types of projects pencil out. Um

49:11so generally they are more difficult to

49:15build because of that. Um but the main

49:19barriers that came up were the building

49:21code um being reviewed under the

49:25international build building code rather

49:27than the in uh residential code and

49:29sprink sprinkler requirements can add a

49:31lot of cost. Um

49:34then there's just the cost of

49:35construction.

49:37uh difficulty obtaining financing

49:39compared to a single family home and

49:40little return on investment

49:43um when you're doing so few units. Uh

49:46but then related to the zoning code, we

49:47did get feedback there as well

49:50and maximum floor area and maximum lot

49:53coverage came up as barriers in the

49:55interior one and interior 2 districts.

49:59And um the reason for that is we do

50:03apply the same F limits um that's for

50:08applies to a single family home to the

50:10two and three unit homes as well. And

50:12that was something that stemmed from um

50:14when the 2040 plan was adopted and went

50:17into effect. The council directed us to

50:19make sure that those regulations

50:21matched.

50:23So now we are looking at that again. But

50:26um that's just a little background. And

50:28then also um there were some comments

50:32about the lot coverage as well. If you

50:34have any kind of increase to the FA,

50:36you're easily going to push up against

50:39the maximum allowed lot coverage.

50:44Uh so the staff recommendation looked at

50:47this um the feedback that we received

50:50the numbers of projects that we're

50:52seeing built as well as our

50:54comprehensive plan guidance um which we

50:57need to make sure is consistent with

50:59whatever code updates we propose. So the

51:02staff recommendation is to increase the

51:04maximum F for duplexes from 0.5 to 6. Um

51:10and then for triplexes from 0.5 to 7 and

51:13that's in the interior districts I

51:14mentioned as well as the parks overlay

51:17district. Um lot coverage is also

51:20proposed to increase from 45% to 50%.

51:24And uh a similar bump to impervious

51:26surfaces proposed as well to prevent

51:29creating um problems by increasing the F

51:32but then not creating uh increasing the

51:34other uh requirements for lot coverage.

51:39Um in interior 3 I also mentioned um

51:43that district has more flexibility for

51:48uh dwellings with four or more units. Um

51:51so the proposal there is just to

51:52increase uh the allowed F to match

51:56what's allowed for those four unit

51:57buildings um when a triplex is proposed.

52:02Uh and this slide also just illustrates

52:04like kind of the intended increase for

52:08uh what you'd get for increase in lot

52:11coverage and impervious surface um with

52:13a 5% increase.

52:18And then the slide just illustrates a

52:20little bit more about what these numbers

52:22mean going from like 0.5 to 0 6 to 0.7.

52:25Um so each lot represented here would be

52:275,000 square feet. Um

52:31and then it notes the total floor area

52:33that would be then achievable on that

52:365,000 foot lot at each um representative

52:39floor area ratio. Um so it's essentially

52:42on a 5,000 lot it's like a 500 square ft

52:45increase between each bump. Um, also

52:49note that basements and halfways are not

52:52included in this. So, it's just those

52:53like full levels above grade. And, um,

52:59also indicated here's the minimum lot

53:00coverage that would be needed just for

53:02that structure. So, not including things

53:04like garages or porches or decks or

53:08things like that.

53:12And here's just another diagram just

53:14showing kind of the comparisons when you

53:15add it all up, how this would

53:17transition, what would be allowed um

53:20between what's currently the maximums

53:24are and then what the proposed maximums

53:26are.

53:31And that concludes my presentation.

53:35Thank you. Questions for staff before we

53:37proceed to the hearing? I've got quite a

53:38few, but others go first. Commissioner

53:40back just a quick one. Thanks Janelle.

53:42That was great. Um I'm assuming when we

53:44increase these lot coverages the

53:46setbacks remain consistent um front,

53:49rear and side to current.

53:52>> That's correct. Um the setbacks, the lot

53:56size requirements, the FI, the height,

53:59they're all intended to work together.

54:01Um

54:02so

54:04if you remove one of those, then it's

54:07not working as intended. So, we didn't

54:09change propose to change the setback

54:11requirements. Um, those are pretty

54:13standard across districts with one

54:15exception. Um, the corner side yard

54:17requirement is recommended to be reduced

54:20by two feet for like twotory structures

54:23essentially. Um, but

54:26that's yeah, we pretty much are focused

54:28on the Floria and the lot coverage for

54:31the updates.

54:32>> Thank you, Commissioner Wagner. Uh,

54:35thank you, Chair Meer. Thank you for the

54:37presentation. really really helpful to

54:38see all the different uh metrics and

54:41diagrams. I want to dive a little bit

54:43deeper on impervious surface and lot

54:46coverage stuff. Um which one would you

54:49say in staff's experience is like more

54:54restrictive like causing more issues in

54:56terms of housing not being built? And

54:58then as a followup to that, um, how did

55:01you arrive at those new numbers and that

55:045% increase?

55:08>> Uh, maybe helpful just to have this up

55:10here while talking about this. Um,

55:14the lot coverage was specifically

55:16identified as being the barrier in

55:18previous surface didn't come up. Um, but

55:21they are kind of linked. Um and that's a

55:23pattern that's um reflected in our other

55:26regulations for other districts, you

55:28know, for they just kind of kind of

55:30mirror each other. We go up in

55:32increments for the corridor districts

55:34and um the interior three district for

55:37example. Um

55:41and I'm sorry I forgot your last

55:43question, the followup.

55:46Yes. The follow-up question was is how

55:47did you arrive at the new numbers and

55:49like how is staff confident that this

55:52change going up by 5% is enough to kind

55:55of maybe ease the burden that is like

55:58developers and builders are struggling

56:00to to clear.

56:02>> Okay. Thank you. Yes. Um yeah, we looked

56:04at the um limitations and we wanted to

56:07be thoughtful about you know the impacts

56:09to increased storm water runoff

56:12specifically. Um so we didn't want to

56:15increase it too much. Um

56:18and so but we felt like a 5% increase

56:21would be enough to accommodate the

56:24additional F without creating a new

56:25problem um but still you know address

56:30any adverse imp potential adverse

56:32impacts by increasing those amounts. So

56:35they're just intended to be modest

56:36increases. And I should mention these

56:38were the percentages that were in effect

56:42um prior to 2015. So they were changed

56:46with the previous amendment at that

56:47time.

56:48>> Thank you. And then one one more

56:50follow-up question for my own education

56:52and for others is the main like negative

56:55effect of lot coverage and impervious

56:57service in terms of like planning and

56:59designing our code. Is it the storm

57:00water runoff or what other adverse

57:02effects are there?

57:05Uh certainly part of it is a big part of

57:08it is the storm water runoff. Um but

57:11another uh part intention like an

57:13intentional part of it is just helping

57:16to minimize the amount of um buildable

57:21area on a site to make kind of reiterate

57:24um what's intended for scale. It's part

57:28of that you know those regulations and

57:29how they work together.

57:32>> Uh thank you. I have some more questions

57:34on height, but I want to hold off on

57:35those for now. So, I will come back to

57:37those.

57:38>> Well, that actually ties into what I was

57:41going to ask you to clarify what you

57:43believe is in scope for tonight's

57:45discussion. So, there are some things

57:47that would require a comp plan amendment

57:51and I was hoping you could walk through

57:53like each level. It sounds like height

57:56is one that you you believe would

57:58require a comp plan amendment and then

58:00the the number of units would require

58:04one. Um,

58:07is that correct?

58:09>> That's correct. Um, and so I flip back

58:11to this slide that has the guidance from

58:13the 2040 plan specific to these

58:16districts that are kind of the main

58:17focus um, in this amendment for built

58:20form updates. Um and it's very specific

58:22about the number of units that can be

58:24allowed um and the height that can be

58:28allowed. So

58:30um yeah, the staff recommendation is

58:33adhering to this um and we're proposing

58:37just incremental increases that fits

58:39with the guidance of the 2040 plan. So,

58:43um, there could be other things that

58:47other than height and the number of

58:48units that could fit under this guidance

58:51without needing a comprehensive plan

58:53amendment. Um,

58:56but like I said, these rules are all

58:58intended to work together. So, it tends

58:59to have a domino effect once you start

59:01to change things.

59:03So is it still in scope like some of the

59:05things that count toward height

59:10like

59:13>> uh

59:16there is potentially could be something

59:19we do have exceptions built into our

59:21ordinance um for things that count

59:23towards height.

59:24>> Okay. And that would be in scope without

59:26a comp plan amendment

59:27>> potentially.

59:28>> Okay. And then

59:31minimum lot size requirements,

59:35impervious

59:37um proportion, setbacks,

59:41um the new point system, those would all

59:44be in scope.

59:46>> The point system is in scope. Um

59:50setbacks potentially.

59:52Um it it all depends. You know, this is

59:55our guidance. um you start adding a lot

59:58of different changes, it's probably not

1:00:01going to fit that guidance anymore. So

1:00:07there's not I'm sorry, there's not a

1:00:09clear answer, but that you know like

1:00:11this is the as prescriptive as the

1:00:13comprehensive plan gets. That's more

1:00:15prescriptive than probably most comp

1:00:18plans. Um

1:00:20so it's looking at okay, what's that

1:00:23intent? Are we still being consistent

1:00:25with that intent is the question that

1:00:29would have to be uh addressed with any

1:00:31proposed amendment.

1:00:32>> Okay. And how about FS like I don't

1:00:36recall them being me mentioned in the

1:00:382040 plan. It just you know has the

1:00:40images of the type of houses and um you

1:00:43know doesn't have

1:00:46kind of um jargon like that in in there.

1:00:50So would it be in scope to

1:00:53you know eliminate FS or or change them

1:00:56you know more substantially?

1:00:58>> Um we've seen that eliminating the FS

1:01:02does can drastically change um what can

1:01:05be built on a lot. So I think that is

1:01:07much more questionable about would it be

1:01:09consistent? Um what we've looked at is

1:01:13that it would be more

1:01:16it would change the what could be built

1:01:18to be more like what would be allowed in

1:01:20interior 3. So I think like I was saying

1:01:22the more you change the more likely it's

1:01:25going to become out inconsistent with

1:01:27the comprehensive plan

1:01:28>> but there's not a finite list of like

1:01:30how what the limit is necessarily.

1:01:34What what in the comp planet are are you

1:01:36looking at that um is is delineating

1:01:39those those limits for you? Like is it

1:01:43the the images that are displayed or or

1:01:45you know you know the words like guided

1:01:48for small scale residential is it words

1:01:50like that or like what what are the

1:01:51limiting limiting factors?

1:01:54>> This is pretty much the language that we

1:01:56have to work with and then comparing it

1:01:58to what the other districts are

1:02:00allowing. So um

1:02:03for example um in the interior 3

1:02:05district the again these rules are all

1:02:08meant to work together to achieve the

1:02:10attended scale. So in the tier three

1:02:12district the um maximum F allowed for

1:02:17currently for a four or more unit

1:02:18building is 1.4.

1:02:21Um so if you're proposing to eliminate

1:02:25um the F the maximum F

1:02:28then what's going to prevent um a

1:02:31building from interior one or interior 2

1:02:33from being built that at that scale. So

1:02:36um that's why I'm saying you know like

1:02:39it depends on what's proposed to be

1:02:41changed.

1:02:42>> Okay. So it's relative to the other

1:02:46uh categories.

1:02:49>> Yes. So you wouldn't want

1:02:52like you would you would think it would

1:02:54require a complaint amendment if the F

1:02:56was if we allowed a higher F for

1:02:59interior one and two than it is for

1:03:01corridor 6 or something like that.

1:03:03>> Yes.

1:03:04>> Okay.

1:03:06Um so you prepared a document today that

1:03:10did a compare and contrast with St.

1:03:12Paul's regulations. Do you have that?

1:03:13Can you display that for everyone?

1:03:16And I was hoping that you could

1:03:18walk us through that and uh tell us,

1:03:24you know, um how St. Paul's um policies

1:03:29compared to ours and then how many units

1:03:32have been built there compared to ours

1:03:36that

1:03:38>> uh I have not done a tally of like

1:03:40exactly how many units have been built.

1:03:42Um but I don't I'm sorry this is very

1:03:46tiny print so it might not be the

1:03:48easiest to read um but I can just give

1:03:50give you general observations

1:03:52um

1:03:55so the St. Paul data, permit data um

1:03:58that they provided is on the top. And so

1:04:01they're showing um back to 2015 the

1:04:05number of permits that they have issued

1:04:07for

1:04:08uh homes with two to six units in them.

1:04:12And they have also been able to include

1:04:14um remodels in their data. We weren't

1:04:17able to secure um

1:04:20that much information. Um it wasn't just

1:04:23it just wasn't available. Um but

1:04:26generally what they've seen is that um

1:04:32their construction has been fairly

1:04:34steady. Um in 2023 they adopted their

1:04:37new rules um which are quite a bit more

1:04:40flexible and applied to most of the

1:04:42residential areas. And after that time

1:04:45they definitely saw an increase in their

1:04:48duplex construction. The rest of the

1:04:50numbers remain kind of modest. Um and

1:04:53then we're looking at the Minneapolis

1:04:55numbers and this is this table is

1:04:58specific to just new construction. You

1:05:00don't have conversions in there. Um

1:05:02these are the number of permits that

1:05:04have been issued again from 2 to six

1:05:07units. Um

1:05:10for we have three and four lumped

1:05:11together again. So I don't have those

1:05:13specific numbers there. Um

1:05:16but in just note that in 2021

1:05:20um was when um we adopted our updated

1:05:23built form rules. So there have been

1:05:28some increases there in the 3 to four

1:05:30unit range. Um but just [clears throat]

1:05:31generally speaking, we've seen more

1:05:35construction in that 2 to six unit range

1:05:37um than St. Paul has.

1:05:43And

1:05:47and then this is just showing um the a

1:05:51comparison between the Minneapolis

1:05:54requirements and the St. Palazonian

1:05:55requirements for those districts. Their

1:05:58H1

1:06:00district is pretty comparable somewhat.

1:06:03Um they're not apples to apples in

1:06:05anyway. Um

1:06:07>> H1 is comparable to to which one?

1:06:08Interior one or two?

1:06:10>> Interior one and interior two. which is

1:06:13probably the closest. Um,

1:06:17but it's again it's not exact. Um, they

1:06:20don't have minimum F.

1:06:22Um, their height is a little more

1:06:24permissive. They don't regulate height

1:06:27and stories like we do. Um,

1:06:30and their yard requirements are a little

1:06:32bit different. Um, lot coverage is u

1:06:36closer than ours.

1:06:39And I should mention lot size is also

1:06:41different. They also

1:06:43um propose to allow more units, but

1:06:46that's not something we can um address

1:06:50with this amendment.

1:06:52>> Um

1:06:53>> sorry, which one we we cannot address?

1:06:55>> The number of units that would be

1:06:57>> Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, they

1:06:59they have no FS that

1:07:01>> in their H1 and H2. They do not. Um it's

1:07:04interesting. They do have maximum F in

1:07:07their multif family districts which is

1:07:08included just below.

1:07:12Um

1:07:14but their H2 oh I should mention their

1:07:16H2 does seem more comparable to our kind

1:07:19of like interior 3 and corridor 3 built

1:07:21form districts for those built form

1:07:23regulations.

1:07:25Um but it would be more restrictive

1:07:28um regarding the number of units that

1:07:30are allowed [snorts]

1:07:32because they would allow up to only six

1:07:35and we don't have we technically don't

1:07:37have a limit. It's just whatever you can

1:07:38fit in whatever that whatever building

1:07:41size would be allowed

1:07:43>> and their lot width minimums are more

1:07:47permissive than ours. Right. Ours is 40.

1:07:50>> Yep. Ours is a standard 40 um with the

1:07:53exception of their RL lot which is like

1:07:55I don't I don't even know where it is.

1:07:57Um so basically we're just looking at H1

1:07:59and H2. Um 30 and 25 would be the

1:08:03minimums that they have uh have

1:08:06implemented.

1:08:08>> Okay. And then their height they allow

1:08:1135 ft and then 39 in H2 but we can't

1:08:17that's out of scope for today. um how

1:08:20how do their setbacks compare and

1:08:22contrast with ours?

1:08:24>> Um they're a little different. They have

1:08:27gone a more um

1:08:32flexible route, I guess you would say,

1:08:33with their front yard requirements and

1:08:36sides are pretty comparable.

1:08:38Um and for some reason they have a 10

1:08:40foot setback in the rear yard. I don't

1:08:42but um

1:08:45so I you know I don't know their

1:08:48requirements

1:08:50in depth but like this according to

1:08:52these tables this was um the comparison

1:08:56is like some things are more flexible

1:08:59some things are not um

1:09:03but yeah just going back to then the

1:09:04permit information we it doesn't seem

1:09:07like there's been a significant change

1:09:09in what's being constructed based on

1:09:12these flex uh more flexible rules. And

1:09:14that's something we've also observed

1:09:16with our corridor districts where we

1:09:17have a lot more flexibility um when

1:09:21you're looking at building like a three

1:09:23or more unit building, but we just have

1:09:25not seen a lot of three-unit building

1:09:27construction there either. Um where you

1:09:30do have more flexibility with height and

1:09:32F and lot coverage and even um yard

1:09:37requirements.

1:09:39>> Okay. So if I like like I said during

1:09:42the committee the whole like I I'd like

1:09:45to basically at least match St. Paul in

1:09:48in terms of how much we we permit for

1:09:51the scale of housing. So just you know

1:09:54for the list for me so they allow

1:09:56fourplexes that would take a compound

1:09:57amendment. They allow slightly taller

1:10:01height that would take a compound

1:10:02amendment.

1:10:04They don't have any F at all. So it

1:10:09would take a comp plan amendment to go

1:10:12that that full amount, but it would be

1:10:16in scope to increase it

1:10:18at least so that it's not to the point

1:10:20to the next

1:10:23um zoning category.

1:10:25uh they have [snorts]

1:10:28more permissive lot widths

1:10:32and then

1:10:34I I I didn't totally get um

1:10:38you know

1:10:39there areas where they're more and less

1:10:41permissive on setbacks. Was that right?

1:10:44>> Yeah, it's kind of a mix.

1:10:46>> Okay. Are there any other substantial

1:10:50policy differences between us and St.

1:10:52Paul? Not that I'm aware of.

1:10:55>> Okay.

1:10:56Um, can we go to the point system? I

1:11:00think it's on page 35 in mine.

1:11:05Um, I'm looking at the the three points

1:11:10for parking. So it says not less than

1:11:13one off- streetet parking space per

1:11:15dwelling unit is pro provided in an

1:11:17enclosed structure that is detached from

1:11:19the principal structure and it is

1:11:22located entirely in the rear 40 ft or or

1:11:2520% of the lot whichever is greater and

1:11:28the accessory structure is not less than

1:11:3020 ft from any habitable habitable

1:11:32portion of the principal structure.

1:11:34Okay. Um,

1:11:37so for our TDM for larger projects, they

1:11:42can get

1:11:44more points if they have no parking at

1:11:47all.

1:11:48Uh, you know, meeting our vehicle miles

1:11:51traveled um, reduction target goals. Um,

1:11:56the way I read this is they they get

1:11:59points if they have parking or if if

1:12:02they have their one parking spot

1:12:04in an enclosed structure, but if they

1:12:06have zero parking spots that they don't

1:12:07get any points for this. Is that a

1:12:09correct reading?

1:12:10>> That's correct.

1:12:11>> Okay.

1:12:12And then

1:12:14why um what's the basis for preferring

1:12:19detached over attached

1:12:22um buildings for that?

1:12:24>> Um there's two parts to this. Um it's

1:12:27trying to um promote like traditional

1:12:31urban development where you have those

1:12:33detached structures. Typically

1:12:35properties are going to be adjacent to

1:12:36an alley. Um, so that can be a means to

1:12:39help reduce impervious surfaces. Um, but

1:12:43it also, um, you know, it's looking at

1:12:45creating more of a pedestrian friendly

1:12:47environment, not having attached

1:12:49garages, especially if they're at the

1:12:50front. Um, you when you have it at the

1:12:53front, you typically have a wider

1:12:55driveway. Um, when it's in the back, you

1:12:57typically would have a narrower

1:12:58driveway. Um, is what we've seen. And um

1:13:03so putting at the back, it's looking at,

1:13:05you know, preserving some backyard space

1:13:07for um residents who live in the home.

1:13:10Um and just creating more of that

1:13:12traditional urban design. Um so those

1:13:16that's promoted there. Um remember if

1:13:20there's anything else. So yeah, I

1:13:21brought up, you know, um some of the

1:13:23considerations, the additional

1:13:24considerations that we have with even

1:13:27though we don't have a minimum parking

1:13:28requirement and that's been implemented

1:13:30citywide. um you know, we're looking at

1:13:32what the market is building and we're

1:13:35trying to promote things that, you know,

1:13:36are fit with our policy guidance. So,

1:13:39that's kind of the crux of um why it is

1:13:43the way it is. And so, um yeah, having

1:13:46detached is preferred over attached for

1:13:49those reasons.

1:13:51>> Do we not have any policies elsewhere

1:13:54that restrict having the the parking in

1:13:57the front? I thought

1:14:00that that we did.

1:14:03>> Um I don't I'm trying to think of

1:14:05something specific and nothing's coming

1:14:07to mind. I do know that we have um we

1:14:10have implemented in the zoning code a

1:14:12rule that if you your property has

1:14:15access to an alley that we're not going

1:14:16to permit a new curb cut. You would have

1:14:19to ask for variance which would be very

1:14:21difficult to achieve. But if you do not

1:14:23have LA access, um it is still possible

1:14:27to um do a front-facing garage. Um or if

1:14:31you have a corner lot, potentially you

1:14:33could do some kind of front facing

1:14:35garage, but um so it is still possible

1:14:38in some situations, but we have um

1:14:41implemented rules that have made it much

1:14:42more difficult in a lot of situations.

1:14:45>> Okay. Then I also wanted to ask about

1:14:47the points for solar and and I just

1:14:49wanted to get a better understanding of

1:14:50how staff treats solar on on um if if a

1:14:56if a project is going to be built and

1:15:00partially obstructs

1:15:02um the solar panels for some part of the

1:15:05year um for some part of the portion of

1:15:08the building. how how staff treats that

1:15:10because you know we had uh the proposal

1:15:12in in Lynen Hills a while back um where

1:15:17like if for a few days in winter

1:15:20there was going to be a partial

1:15:22obstruction of of the solar. Um staff

1:15:25still recommended that proposal, but it

1:15:28sounded like from um the

1:15:32comments that staff made at the time

1:15:33that you know if it were more

1:15:36obstructing of of of the solar then

1:15:40that could have been used as as a reason

1:15:43to not allow the project. And I'm I'm

1:15:46trying to understand those details

1:15:48because it seems to me like as solar

1:15:50becomes more common, as it you know, a

1:15:51lot of states have legalized balcony

1:15:53solar, so you can just buy one from the

1:15:55department store and and plug it in. I

1:15:57I'm concerned that it could be used as a

1:15:59shield to block projects. You know, as

1:16:02soon as you get a word that there might

1:16:03be a project coming, you get one and

1:16:05plug it in and you have a plausible

1:16:07reason to deny it. Um, so can you walk

1:16:10through how you treat solar on on

1:16:12properties that are adjacent to new new

1:16:13projects? and and Commissioner Meyer, if

1:16:15I can provide some context to the

1:16:17example that you're asking about. In

1:16:19that case, we were evaluating a

1:16:20conditional use permit to increase

1:16:22height. So, in that case, they were

1:16:25asking for more height than what was

1:16:26allowed in the Shoreland Overlay

1:16:28district. So, we had additional findings

1:16:29that we needed to make. Also in that

1:16:32case, the information that was provided

1:16:34to us by the applicant showed that the

1:16:37way that the building massing was

1:16:39proposed essentially had no impact on

1:16:42the neighboring solar panel. So just I

1:16:46don't think Janelle has that background.

1:16:49>> Okay. So but you do so if if it had

1:16:53covered more of it, would staff have

1:16:54recommended against it?

1:16:58I think I don't want to get into

1:16:59hypotheticals on that particular project

1:17:01right now given the current status of

1:17:04it.

1:17:05>> Okay.

1:17:07>> Okay. Well, um that is a a a con concern

1:17:10that I have. Um I do have some more, but

1:17:12I'll um let any other commissioners go.

1:17:15>> I'd like to Commissioner Jones.

1:17:16>> Thank you, Janelle. Uh it's great. Um I

1:17:20I have a few maybe different opin uh

1:17:23differing ideas than uh Chair Myers. I

1:17:26do appreciate urban design. I like to

1:17:28make sure the setbacks and everything

1:17:30maintain the flow of our traditional um

1:17:33streetscapes. Um I'm I'm really curious

1:17:37about um how much we think and this I

1:17:40think it's a commissioner Wagner's point

1:17:42some of these changes are actually going

1:17:44to impact the um ability to build uh

1:17:47three four unit structures. My guess is

1:17:50that the building code is probably the

1:17:52primary reason people don't build and

1:17:55cost. So getting a, you know, 250 square

1:17:58foot here or there isn't necessarily

1:18:01going to make I I support it because I

1:18:03think anything we can do to increase the

1:18:07um

1:18:09um options or for people to build two

1:18:13and three and four unit buildings is

1:18:15really important, but I also want to

1:18:16balance that with sort of the cadence

1:18:19and the flow of the community in terms

1:18:21of urban design. I'm personally okay

1:18:24with um garages. I think that's a

1:18:26reasonable um

1:18:29thing for new development. I think um

1:18:32and and um that's all I just wanted to

1:18:37say that um I'm not so sure I agree with

1:18:40100% of um getting rid of FIRS. I think

1:18:44again that

1:18:46I like the idea that our plan encourages

1:18:49some form of urban design and and um the

1:18:52site plan review being the tool to make

1:18:54sure that we have that in our cities. Um

1:18:58and again, I'm curious again as to how

1:19:01much any of this really impacts

1:19:04um increased production if we're not

1:19:07looking at creative ways to modify the

1:19:10building code. So that that's where

1:19:12people really see the bang for their

1:19:14buck in terms of money and um

1:19:17um feasibility, financial feasibility.

1:19:20So that's I just wanted to put and I'm

1:19:23and I think again solar panels if we can

1:19:26again balance the need for some slight

1:19:30increase in height which I understand we

1:19:32have to use can't that's not on the

1:19:35table today but you know just those ways

1:19:38that we can do it that

1:19:40um continue the urban form and the

1:19:43lovely patterns that we have in our

1:19:45community but then look at more

1:19:48significant ways

1:19:50um in addition to the zoning and which

1:19:53it's not on the table here either, but I

1:19:55just wanted to point that out. Thank

1:19:57you,

1:19:59>> Commissioner Wagner.

1:20:00>> Uh thank you, Chair Meer. Just a quick

1:20:01clarification question on height being

1:20:03out of scope. Um I actually have some

1:20:05questions in regards to height and feet,

1:20:07not height and stories. Um would height

1:20:10and feet be in scope?

1:20:11>> Potentially. Yes. Yeah, because the the

1:20:13policy guidance is specific to stories.

1:20:16Yes. Um if you were then proposing like

1:20:18to increase the maximum height by 50

1:20:20feet that you know

1:20:22>> not going to be in scope but um yes

1:20:24potentially.

1:20:26>> Um and I guess just a question for the

1:20:28chair and for um kind of how things go.

1:20:32I have I'm have opinions. I think the

1:20:34public hearing is still open. Do we

1:20:36>> we haven't started yet?

1:20:37>> We haven't even started yet.

1:20:38>> This is a question before the hearing

1:20:39>> questions. So I'll hold on my other

1:20:40thoughts for now.

1:20:43>> Okay.

1:20:44Um,

1:20:46some of these are u some of some of the

1:20:49language in here is kind of complicated

1:20:50and I would you would read it several

1:20:52times to try to properly understand it,

1:20:53but can you walk through like how many

1:20:58proposals are making things more

1:21:00restrictive for for property owners? It

1:21:02sounded like like the changes for

1:21:04example to the air conditioning units

1:21:07were more restrictive to the status quo.

1:21:09Are there a lot of changes that are

1:21:12going to be less permissive than they

1:21:14are now?

1:21:15>> Um, I wasn't able to go through the

1:21:17amendment and look for anything else.

1:21:18Um, nothing was jumping to mind um with

1:21:22relation to the um like air conditioners

1:21:26in the sideyard. That is I can show you.

1:21:28Um

1:21:31it's kind that one is kind of a

1:21:32clarification. Um because the intent of

1:21:35that

1:21:36was to allow these to be permitted

1:21:40obstructions for like single family

1:21:42homes when the ordinance was originally

1:21:44adopted many years ago. Um but what

1:21:47we're seeing now is where we allow all

1:21:50these more missing middle scale um

1:21:53housing developments is that we are

1:21:55getting a lot of um condenser units in a

1:21:59sideyard much more than was intended. Um

1:22:02so the two main issues um that were or

1:22:06impacts that were identified with these

1:22:08is that they create noise and they

1:22:11create storm water runoff. Um so I've

1:22:15been doing research on this um looking

1:22:18at you know like what would be a viable

1:22:20alternative for the scale of housing. Um

1:22:24what these are also like triplexes.

1:22:28These are projects that are more

1:22:29difficult to pencil out financially. Um

1:22:31so what they would likely turn to would

1:22:33be doing magic packs which are less

1:22:36environmentally sustainable. Um

1:22:39so then we looked at okay so we have an

1:22:42intent that was originally to allow

1:22:43these for like single family homes. Um a

1:22:47magic pack system is going to create

1:22:51actually more noise than these units um

1:22:53and be less environmentally sustainable.

1:22:56So the issue that we focused on was more

1:22:59um what can we do about the storm water

1:23:01runoff? though if they're ground mounted

1:23:05the proposal is to limit those to three

1:23:07units. If they are building mounted

1:23:09there would be no limit because they

1:23:11would have they would be expected to

1:23:13have pads underneath. So that was how we

1:23:16tried to address this based on its

1:23:19original tent and how it's um

1:23:23what we're seeing then in the actual

1:23:25buildout of these types of projects. Um,

1:23:28so we're trying to find that middle

1:23:30ground. Hopefully, it's not creating a

1:23:33huge financial barrier as well, but

1:23:35addressing what we think is the main

1:23:38issue is the storm water runoff and

1:23:40narrow sideyards.

1:23:41>> Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

1:23:43Um, can you talk about how subdivision

1:23:47works? Like,

1:23:50um, so it's in five table 54015 like um

1:23:58like what are the requirements in order

1:24:00for someone to be able to subdivide

1:24:02their lot?

1:24:03>> Uh just the they'd have to meet the

1:24:06standard uh lot width and lot area

1:24:08requirements. Um so at least 40 ft wide,

1:24:12at least 5,000 square feet. Um is that

1:24:15your question specific? Okay.

1:24:17>> Okay. So if we reduce the lot size

1:24:21requirement and the the lot width

1:24:23requirement, would that also

1:24:27make it easier for someone to subdivide

1:24:29a lot into multiple lots?

1:24:31>> Um yes. Okay.

1:24:33>> Um

1:24:35the

1:24:36the question then is okay when you're

1:24:38how substantial is that change that

1:24:41reduction? Um because then it starts to

1:24:43trigger impacts to what's allowed with

1:24:45the other rules. Um I should also

1:24:48mention um that you know we put out this

1:24:52recommendation

1:24:54um which included incremental changes.

1:24:57Um so the amount of public engagement

1:25:00that we did was you know based on those

1:25:02changes. Um so just want the commission

1:25:05to be aware you know if much more

1:25:07substantial changes are proposed um we

1:25:11would expect that we'd want to have more

1:25:13public engagement on that as well. And

1:25:15um I had mentioned at the committee the

1:25:17whole meeting that you know we are

1:25:18trying to move this forward because we

1:25:20do have another project in the works for

1:25:21pre-approved plans um for dwellings with

1:25:24two to six units and we're trying to get

1:25:26that moving forward which is a mayor

1:25:28priority. So um just wanted to mention

1:25:32that again because I did mention it in

1:25:34my pre presentation previously.

1:25:36>> Okay. Uh and on that um you know my hope

1:25:41tonight is that we will kind of treat

1:25:45this uh as a discussion as like the um

1:25:49like we would have had at committee the

1:25:51whole if we hadn't run out of time. So,

1:25:53uh, for context for people, um, at our

1:25:55last committee, the whole meeting, um,

1:25:57we only had 8 minutes to discuss this,

1:26:00uh, proposal,

1:26:02um, because the building had to close at

1:26:05at 6 p.m. Um, and it is a a very long

1:26:09and detailed proposal. So, my hope is

1:26:11that we can discuss

1:26:14uh where we're at and what potential

1:26:17amendments we're interested in and then

1:26:19continue this item to the next um

1:26:22meeting. I know staff doesn't doesn't

1:26:25support that, but I I do think that you

1:26:28it'd be good to have that. But, um,

1:26:30after the hearing is concluded, my

1:26:32proposal would be to first figure out

1:26:34where we're at on whether we support

1:26:37continuing or not, and then if if

1:26:38there's not support for continuing it,

1:26:40then we would go through all the

1:26:43amendments um that we can tonight. Are

1:26:46there any other questions uh for staff

1:26:49before we go to the hearing?

1:26:52All right, seeing none, I will open the

1:26:54public hearing. Um, would anyone like to

1:26:57speak to this item? Yep. Um, you can go

1:27:00first. We'll let each speaker have two

1:27:02minutes. Introduce yourself.

1:27:04>> Can I use the uh

1:27:06>> Yeah, you should be able to uh

1:27:10>> use the projector. Danell, can you help

1:27:11him with that? If

1:27:14>> I will say too, um, if you're willing or

1:27:17if you're wishing to speak, can you come

1:27:19sign in? You can you can after just I

1:27:22need your name after the fact. Thanks.

1:27:24>> Okay. Hopefully.

1:27:28It's always weird doing this in a um

1:27:31you know different room.

1:27:34Okay. Uh hello. My name is Ian Roberts.

1:27:37Um like to comment on the one these uh

1:27:40these proposed standards. Uh so over the

1:27:42last couple of years I've been leading

1:27:44the Minnesota zoning atlas which is a

1:27:45component of the national zoning atlas.

1:27:48Um we have reviewed 448

1:27:52uh zoning codes the whole metro area

1:27:54most of the most of the state's major

1:27:56cities outside there all of the state's

1:27:57major cities there's not too many uh

1:27:59conducted a range of interviews with

1:28:01planners architects and developers uh

1:28:03about middle housing uh and we're

1:28:05currently writing guidance for Minnesota

1:28:07municipalities to uh zone to allow more

1:28:12uh middle housing in urban areas. Uh a

1:28:14theme of those interviews with

1:28:15architects and developers um and we did

1:28:18interviews with about a dozen trying to

1:28:19work in this uh sort of project size

1:28:21space uh was that Minneapolis's zoning

1:28:24code was very restrictive. Uh there was

1:28:26consistent feedback that the St. Paul

1:28:28zoning code allowed a lot more

1:28:29flexibility. One uh architect developer

1:28:32described Minneapolis's zoning code as

1:28:34being squeezed like a balloon to try and

1:28:37have financial and social feasibility.

1:28:39However, don't want to romanticize St.

1:28:41Paul. Uh there was a lot of criticism

1:28:44about the slowness of their inspections

1:28:46and permitting process and that added

1:28:48substantial risk. Uh and people did

1:28:50comment that if Minneapolis adopted

1:28:52similar standards to St. Paul uh we

1:28:56would see projects start to emerge in

1:28:58the space given the better regulatory uh

1:29:00implementation environment.

1:29:03Uh to give you an example of what is now

1:29:05being built in St. Paul uh under these

1:29:07new rules. This is a recently built

1:29:08triplex uh in their lowest density zone

1:29:11apart from the Highwood Hills area. Uh

1:29:13it's about in 0.9 F. So in terms of the

1:29:15staff proposal, this would still be uh

1:29:17out of scope and it does several things

1:29:20uh which are not sort of allowed under

1:29:22the the proposal. Uh it pulls the

1:29:24building forward towards the corner. So

1:29:26the setbacks are reduced. Um and of

1:29:28course the the 0.9 F uh is also just

1:29:31much larger than staff uh proposal uh is

1:29:34allowing. Uh but as you can see this is

1:29:36a fairly modestsized uh triplex.

1:29:40Um

1:29:42this is despite the two cities having

1:29:44very similar goals in their comp plans.

1:29:46Uh I will say that in interviews with

1:29:48planners around the metro area. uh

1:29:51unsolicited uh comments from a range of

1:29:54suburban uh planners were that they were

1:29:57surprised about how tightly Minneapolis

1:29:59has put guidance like the two stories

1:30:03into the comprehensive plan and

1:30:05essentially made it more difficult to

1:30:07make mid comp plan cycle amendments. Um

1:30:10and so that was a range of as I say

1:30:13anonymous feedback. Thank you.

1:30:15>> All right. Thank you. Uh, next speaker

1:30:17and and you can submit that to the to

1:30:20the clerk if you'd like that um

1:30:23those slides included in the public

1:30:24record.

1:30:27All right, introduce yourself and you

1:30:28have two minutes.

1:30:29>> Uh, hi, I'm Jim Hagen in Ward 12. Um,

1:30:34I'm delighted that the code has a goal

1:30:36of making accessible housing accessible

1:30:38to live in the house and not just to

1:30:40visit the house. That's stated as a

1:30:41goal. However, I think other items make

1:30:44it more difficult to develop accessible

1:30:47housing. Um, so for example,

1:30:50the number of feet between the house and

1:30:53the garage to get the points for

1:30:55detached garage is 20. I can't find any

1:30:58source for why that's a reasonable

1:30:59number. It's just other than it's been

1:31:02that way for many years and I would

1:31:04think 12T would be frankly more

1:31:06reasonable or just at least justify the

1:31:08number. Basements. Basements are a

1:31:11problem in that it's very difficult to

1:31:13have accessible housing from the street

1:31:15to the house and from the house to the

1:31:17garage. However, a lot of points are

1:31:21given in the design standards for

1:31:23basements. Basements don't count for F.

1:31:27So, I don't understand the strong bias

1:31:29toward basement. The only thing I've

1:31:30heard is to have higher quality of

1:31:32housing, which might as well be

1:31:34accomplished by simply giving a price

1:31:36that you should spend on your house

1:31:37construction. Uh the basement also go to

1:31:40Miss uh Commission Commissioner Jones's

1:31:43point and that we're talking about the

1:31:45building code making things more

1:31:47expensive. It's recently that the

1:31:50building code changed so that you have

1:31:52to build shoring when you build a

1:31:54basement. Very expensive adding maybe 30

1:31:56$40,000 to the house price of a house to

1:31:59say nothing of all of the concrete that

1:32:02takes which is environmentally not

1:32:04friendly. Construction standards have

1:32:06changed so that single family home

1:32:08singlestory homes built without a

1:32:11basement are totally fle feasible in

1:32:13this climate and much better for uh

1:32:16accessibility. So I would hope that

1:32:19those things could be addressed so that

1:32:21accessible housing could be built in a

1:32:24neighborhood like where I am near Ding

1:32:26School which is built specifically to be

1:32:29accessible. There are many singlestory

1:32:31houses. So when we talk about keeping

1:32:33the traditional design in my

1:32:35neighborhood that is singlestory and

1:32:37maybe one and a half story. So this

1:32:40notion of what's tradition may vary by

1:32:43neighborhood. Thanks.

1:32:44>> Thank you. Next speaker if there's one.

1:32:48Anyone else?

1:32:50All right. Not seeing any. So I will

1:32:52close the public hearing. Commissioners

1:32:55more questions, comments, or motions?

1:33:00All right. Well, um, first let's start

1:33:02off with where we're at on whether

1:33:05there's support to continue the item

1:33:08because that'll determine whether we

1:33:11attempt to put forward all our

1:33:13amendments.

1:33:14Commissioner

1:33:15>> Chair Meer, if I may, it would be very

1:33:17helpful for staff to know what the

1:33:19intent of a continuence is and what the

1:33:21expectation

1:33:23would be for the time between now and

1:33:25the next meeting.

1:33:27Um my intent would be like I I want to

1:33:31have a sense of where commissioners are

1:33:32at on different issues. For example,

1:33:34with with FS I think it would be good to

1:33:37have some initial discussion about that.

1:33:39also um with setbacks and other

1:33:45requirements. And then based on

1:33:48the comments that we have today, then

1:33:52commissioners can send their more

1:33:55specific amendments and have them

1:33:58drafted in in the language that staff

1:34:00would recommend. Otherwise, I you know,

1:34:04I'm going to do my best to come up with

1:34:07um all the amendments that I have for

1:34:08tonight in in the language

1:34:11uh that would work and you know, we can

1:34:13do that in in terms of a a staff

1:34:14directive, but I I do think it would be

1:34:18a lot better and you know, it's a very

1:34:22um very long proposal and I I just think

1:34:27there are a lot of details to work

1:34:28through. So, I I think

1:34:30um you know, I I understand that it's

1:34:34it's the one of the mayor's priorities

1:34:35to uh get this through and I I really

1:34:38want to as well, but I I think

1:34:41there's a lot we could do to improve it

1:34:44and I think that's worth the the the two

1:34:46weeks and

1:34:49um

1:34:50yeah, I just you we didn't get the

1:34:54committee the whole discussion that we

1:34:55normally get.

1:34:57Uh, Commissioner Mag, you had your hand

1:34:59raised.

1:35:00>> Yeah, I had a question or comment about

1:35:02the continuence and just this

1:35:04legislation in general. Um, it's

1:35:07authored by Council Member Chowry who is

1:35:09on the body here today and was not able

1:35:11to make it. So, I'm sympathetic to the

1:35:14idea that having her be here today would

1:35:16be really impactful for the discussion.

1:35:19Um similarly because she would uh be

1:35:23there at biz, which this goes to next if

1:35:26I understand correctly. Um Kimberly's

1:35:29nodding. So I'm I'm open to the

1:35:31continuence for that reason. Um I see

1:35:34the arguments for proceeding today as

1:35:36well. Um, I also was wondering and and

1:35:40staff obviously you can't speak to um

1:35:45for the mayor or for council member

1:35:47Chowry, but if some guidance and kind of

1:35:51uh if we could illuminate like who's

1:35:54driving this policy and like where this

1:35:55policy originated from. Um, anything you

1:35:58could do to speak to that would be uh

1:36:00helpful.

1:36:02>> I'll defer to Jason or Janelle on that.

1:36:03they've been more directly involved in

1:36:05those conversations than I have.

1:36:12>> And just to let everyone know, council

1:36:14member Chowdery was stuck in budget

1:36:16committee still when we started. So

1:36:19that's why she's absent. As far as the

1:36:21staff recommendation relating to

1:36:24updating the builtroom requirements,

1:36:25those are um you know staff has come up

1:36:29with those um you know with the

1:36:33with the comprehensive plan guidance

1:36:35that was given and the engagement that

1:36:36was done with that. You know, we're

1:36:38trying to keep that in mind, the

1:36:40messaging that went with that um and the

1:36:43intent of all that that went into that

1:36:45previous plan. So we are of course like

1:36:48kicking off a new comprehensive plan and

1:36:50we're so much of the things that have

1:36:52come up here are going to be asked with

1:36:54the development of you know updating

1:36:57those policies and the new plan. So this

1:36:59is um looked at as like okay how can we

1:37:03move something forward that's going to

1:37:04help to tackle the barriers that we're

1:37:06seeing and understanding that we're

1:37:08still under the current comprehensive

1:37:09plan um that needs to be um that affects

1:37:15what we can actually propose.

1:37:21>> Commissioner Jones.

1:37:22>> Yeah. So I I I'm I'm sort of um at this

1:37:25point not sure about continuence. My

1:37:27question is that a lot of the things

1:37:29that we've discussed today sounds like

1:37:31aren't part of actually things we can we

1:37:35can uh take any action on um without

1:37:38changing comp plan or other issues. And

1:37:42then also you talked about the

1:37:43engagement was being done with community

1:37:45on incremental the incremental approach

1:37:47you're you're proposing um and not some

1:37:50of these maybe larger jumps in and

1:37:54changes to the code.

1:37:57And I curious about whether you think

1:38:00there'd have to be like what triggers

1:38:03additional engagement by community based

1:38:05on you know recommendations that might

1:38:08come out of this committee or

1:38:12>> yeah the recommendation that we put

1:38:14forward was just for those incremental

1:38:16changes um and a lot of things that are

1:38:19coming up here today like eliminating

1:38:20maximum F that could have a really big

1:38:23impact on what could be built and So it

1:38:27um asked the questions like well what

1:38:29would you know would public the public

1:38:32want to weigh in on that and what would

1:38:34the um

1:38:36you know there wouldn't be a better

1:38:38opportunity then to weigh in on that

1:38:40whereas right now if it's all just being

1:38:42added at this time there really isn't

1:38:44opportunity there typically is not a

1:38:46public hearing at the biz committee

1:38:48meeting. So what I heard you say was

1:38:50that, you know, we're launching the next

1:38:53version of the comp plan and that that

1:38:56may be a better opportunity to discuss

1:38:58these larger jumps in in code and

1:39:02changes through the comp plan in a in a

1:39:04broader discussion.

1:39:05>> That's right.

1:39:06>> Thank you.

1:39:11>> All right.

1:39:13>> So I heard from Commissioner Wagner that

1:39:15he's open to a continuence. I didn't

1:39:16hear from anyone else or I heard from

1:39:18Jones that you're not Commissioner

1:39:19Baxley.

1:39:20>> Yeah, thank you,

1:39:22Chairman Meyer. I I think for me, um

1:39:26I I I guess I'm not in favor of a

1:39:28continuence, I would like to, again, in

1:39:31the spirit of getting things done.

1:39:32There's been a process that expands the

1:39:35current code. We are in a process of

1:39:37really comprehensively evaluating that

1:39:39for 2050. I think there are some

1:39:41discussion items that do merit uh bigger

1:39:44and broader conversations. Um so I think

1:39:47for me I appreciate the planning staff.

1:39:49I think this incremental change get

1:39:51things going. Let's take advantage of

1:39:53this period between now and 2050

1:39:56adoption to drill into some of these

1:39:58bigger items. So that's where I stand on

1:40:00this.

1:40:01>> I guess I would disagree on the process

1:40:02because I feel that's where we were

1:40:03short changed on the committee the whole

1:40:05like we didn't get to have that that

1:40:06state of the process. a conversation for

1:40:08sure of many conversations.

1:40:12Commissioner Garcia.

1:40:13>> Um, thank you, President Meyer. Um, I

1:40:19I can see the the value of the

1:40:22continuence, especially in as much as it

1:40:24would allow us to have Commissioner

1:40:27Chowdery here um to be able to speak to

1:40:30some of the intent of what has been

1:40:33worked out. Um but

1:40:37as as an elected myself, I know how um

1:40:41budget committees and things like that

1:40:43go and there's no guarantee that um

1:40:47Commissioner Chowry would be able to

1:40:48attend next meeting. Um so I

1:40:53I'm not necessarily averse to a

1:40:55continuence, but I would probably

1:40:59prefer not to have a continuence at this

1:41:01point.

1:41:02>> Okay.

1:41:04Well, with that, then we can get started

1:41:05with proposed amendments. I have

1:41:07several, but I'll let others go first.

1:41:10Anyone like to make any? Commissioner

1:41:12Wagner.

1:41:13>> Uh, thank you, Chair Meer. Um, I have I

1:41:16have some thoughts. I appreciate all the

1:41:18work that staff has put into this and I

1:41:21think this is a step in the right

1:41:22direction. Um, I think that we as a city

1:41:26when we passed the 2040 plan, we were

1:41:28trailblazers in the urban planning space

1:41:31and we were heralded nationally for the

1:41:34changes we've made. And

1:41:37I think that was deserved and we made

1:41:39progress as a city, but I think we can

1:41:41see through the production of housing

1:41:43and per perhaps the lack of production

1:41:45of housing that the 2040 plan in the 1

1:41:47to three unit space has not been as

1:41:50large of a success as it could be. Um,

1:41:52so for that reason, I I sit here and I

1:41:56think whether we're doing enough today

1:41:58and and I think there's a lot of room

1:42:00between what's proposed and what we

1:42:03would do if we eliminated FAR uh

1:42:05entirely. Um, and I want to explore that

1:42:07space. I think uh, Chair Meer, you might

1:42:09have um, and correct me if I'm wrong and

1:42:13I don't want to put words in your mouth,

1:42:14but I'm sensing that you have some

1:42:17amendments that might be pushing the

1:42:19envelope a little bit more than what I

1:42:20would propose. So, what I would maybe

1:42:22suggest is to kind of test the waters

1:42:25with what you have and then I have some

1:42:27stuff that I would like to share, but

1:42:28I'm also happy to dive into what I have

1:42:31as well.

1:42:35>> Um, can you share the ones that you have

1:42:37so I have a baseline?

1:42:39>> Yeah, I don't have them fully formulated

1:42:41yet and I'd be happy I'd be happy to

1:42:43engage a little bit more with staff. Um,

1:42:45I'd say the main thing I would like to

1:42:48continue for us to look at is that F

1:42:51number. I see where we are in relation

1:42:53to St. Paul. Um, and I ran some back of

1:42:56the envelope calculations on what's

1:42:57allowed in St. Paul based on their

1:43:00limiting factor being setbacks and their

1:43:02F and low residential districts is like

1:43:05above one like like without without a

1:43:07doubt above one. one of the one of the

1:43:09people who came today showed an image um

1:43:11on the on the PowerPoint of it was a a

1:43:14triplex at 0.9 um I believe if I

1:43:16remember correctly. So I I appreciate

1:43:19the the step we've taken in this

1:43:21legislation as written in order to go to

1:43:246 and 7 but I don't think that's enough.

1:43:27Um if I were to be asked to put forward

1:43:30a number right now I'd maybe have a few

1:43:31quick questions of staff. Um I also have

1:43:34some things I want to get to in regards

1:43:36to height and feet. Um I I sent an email

1:43:39earlier today to staff that I'd like to

1:43:41share and talk about. Um I think that

1:43:43height has become restrictive as ceiling

1:43:47heights have continued to rise over time

1:43:49and the expectations in the private

1:43:50development and like residential space

1:43:52have increased. I think that our our

1:43:55height number needs to increase as well.

1:43:57And I know we um are trying to match the

1:44:00existing built form of our city, but

1:44:01cities change over time. So those are

1:44:02some of the things um I'm thinking

1:44:04about. I'd I'd like to maybe ask a few

1:44:07questions of staff before I propose any

1:44:08specific numbers. I'm happy to do that

1:44:10now. Um or

1:44:13>> yeah, um

1:44:17let yeah, let's take on height. So we

1:44:20can go go subject by subject and

1:44:22>> Sure. Well, I also want to be cognitive

1:44:24of time because we are once again I mean

1:44:25we're 45 minutes early, but we're

1:44:27running up against a 630 I believe

1:44:28capture hard stop. Is that correct? I

1:44:31see.

1:44:32>> I am personally hoping that that

1:44:35>> is not an issue.

1:44:36>> Well, no. I'm I'm hoping that we go past

1:44:37it and then persuade commissioners to

1:44:39support my [laughter] continuence.

1:44:40>> Sure. [snorts] Well, let's try to move

1:44:41quickly on height. Chanel, would you

1:44:43mind answering some of my height

1:44:44questions? Um, and I can keep rambling

1:44:47to kill time like I'm a podcast host as

1:44:49you pull up my documents. Um,

1:44:52essentially, um, as Janelle pulls this

1:44:54up, um, I think that the 33 foot height

1:44:58limit, and, uh, I I I'm I don't want to

1:45:01conflate two numbers. There's the 28T

1:45:03height limit in interior 1 and interior

1:45:052, and there's a 33 foot number at the

1:45:09um at the at like the tip of the roof.

1:45:12I'm forgetting the exact phrase,

1:45:13>> the peak.

1:45:14>> The peak of the roof. Peak. I probably

1:45:16should have been able to get to that

1:45:17one. So, this is a project that was uh I

1:45:20don't I have it in my email. I should

1:45:22have the address on hand. Let me see if

1:45:24I can find it. [snorts]

1:45:26Uh 1312 28th Street Southeast. This was

1:45:29from

1:45:32uh 2022. And this is a 2 and a half

1:45:35story building. So, this is kind of the

1:45:36built form that we are as a city looking

1:45:38at when we consider two and a half story

1:45:40triplexes. And this was uh approved and

1:45:43I believe built. I didn't actually

1:45:45verify that, but I'm assuming they

1:45:47weren't requesting their permits and

1:45:48approvals for no reason. So, I hope it

1:45:50was built. Sometimes they don't get

1:45:52built, of course. And you can see uh

1:45:54that that uh building as proposed is or

1:45:58as approved was 29.6 ft. And you can see

1:46:02uh it's too small to see right now, but

1:46:04the ceiling height in that in uh on the

1:46:07first floor, second floor, excuse

1:46:09[clears throat] me, on the first floor,

1:46:11second floor, and third floor is 8'1 in.

1:46:14Um so essentially, when we sit here with

1:46:16the 28T limit, we are dictating and

1:46:20legislating and codifying low ceilings

1:46:22is the way I read this. And I'd be

1:46:23curious, that's a little bit of a blunt

1:46:25statement, um but I'd be curious of

1:46:28staff's opinion on my opinion.

1:46:32Uh so the well I'll just go back to the

1:46:35history um that I mentioned previously.

1:46:38Um so when we uh the council adopted the

1:46:412040 plan they gave that direction to

1:46:44just match the regulations for single

1:46:47family homes to what we would allow for

1:46:48two and three family homes. And um so

1:46:51that's where that 28t midpoint came from

1:46:54and also the 33 feet at the peak. So, um

1:47:00that wasn't proposed to be changed as

1:47:02part of this. Um but it's something that

1:47:04could be looked at, you know, to allow

1:47:07additional floor height um for

1:47:10individual floors in two and three unit

1:47:13buildings.

1:47:16>> So, with that in mind, I'll I'll maybe

1:47:18make my pitch and I'll propose an

1:47:19amendment. So, we're we're sitting here

1:47:22today thinking about how can we increase

1:47:24the supply of housing in our city in

1:47:27order to make housing more affordable

1:47:28and and achieve the goals of the

1:47:30comprehensive plan. Okay. Well, for

1:47:32housing to get built, it needs to work

1:47:34for the developer. For the developer to

1:47:36build the housing, they need to be able

1:47:37to either sell or rent the housing. What

1:47:39do people want? They want higher

1:47:40ceilings. They want like, if you're

1:47:42looking at new construction houses, they

1:47:44have 10, 11, 12t ceilings on the first

1:47:46floor. as written. The code does not

1:47:48allow for that in a two and a half story

1:47:49building. Um so my amendment I would

1:47:52propose for height in interior one and

1:47:54interior two would be to add five feet

1:47:56um to both numbers. So the base height

1:47:59number go to 33 and the maximum height

1:48:02number go to 38. Um the argument I would

1:48:05make for that in addition to what I've

1:48:06already said is that uh cities are

1:48:09evolving things. Cities change over

1:48:12time. You look at cities around the

1:48:13world that have experienced kind of huge

1:48:15run-ups in price and they've responded

1:48:18and they've adapted and they've built

1:48:19more housing of all different sizes and

1:48:21and increased density in all different

1:48:23ways. And I think that we are falling a

1:48:25bit behind in multiple ways. One of them

1:48:27being height of buildings. So there's my

1:48:29amendment to 33 feet um in interior 1,

1:48:32interior 2, and interior 3. Actually,

1:48:34maybe not interior three. I Chair Meer

1:48:36has the table up in front of him. Um I

1:48:38think I'm mostly focused on interior. I

1:48:40don't know what the height limit is.

1:48:41It's probably higher in interior 3. So I

1:48:42I'll retract my statement on interior 3.

1:48:44So 33 foot limit in interior 1 and

1:48:46interior 2 with 38 feet at the limit at

1:48:49the tip of at the peak of the roof.

1:48:53Sorry, I'm confused because on on on the

1:48:56chart on what page 15 says interior one

1:49:01is 35 ft. So you'd be reducing it some.

1:49:05So So I'm confused where the different

1:49:06heights come in. Can you explain the

1:49:09where the

1:49:1128 foot restriction applies to?

1:49:17>> Uh yeah, I'm just pulling up the table

1:49:19for comparison. So the um

1:49:23>> I think this is

1:49:25>> just highlight that doesn't work. Um

1:49:28so the yeah the 33 feet maybe it's the

1:49:32small print but that's 33 feet for one

1:49:36and two unit dwellings. Um so in um

1:49:42interior 3 that 28 ft 33 foot limit

1:49:47still applies for one to two three

1:49:50buildings but it goes up to three

1:49:51stories and 42 feet for three units. Um

1:49:56so yeah, this proposal to go to 33 feet

1:49:59at the midpoint.

1:50:01Um and 38 to the peak in interior one

1:50:05and interior two would definitely be

1:50:08increasing the height for those. I guess

1:50:10that would be a clarification question.

1:50:12Is it for one, two, and three unit

1:50:14buildings?

1:50:16Uh, I think from a simplicity standpoint

1:50:19and um

1:50:22implementation standpoint, I I'd be

1:50:24amendable to arguments that a single

1:50:25family home doesn't need that additional

1:50:27height if we're trying to I know there

1:50:28was a big discussion back and I was

1:50:30researching back in the archives today

1:50:32in 2014 about mega homes. I think they

1:50:34recalled at the time and that was when

1:50:36the height dropped from 30 feet to 28

1:50:38feet um according to the Star Tribune um

1:50:42that I was reading. So, I'd be amendable

1:50:44to keeping uh single family homes at the

1:50:46same height, but I'd also be amendable

1:50:48to just uh increasing the the height

1:50:51blanket in order to keep it simple. Um

1:50:53don't really have a strong preference

1:50:55there.

1:50:57I'm not sure if staff has an opinion.

1:50:58I'm happy to take a stance if needed

1:51:00>> and and sorry, I'm still just confused.

1:51:03>> So, and if I can hop in, chair me. So,

1:51:05you're looking at table 540-6.

1:51:08And I believe that is um and staff can

1:51:10hop in and correct me, but that's kind

1:51:12of not like the base case table. That's

1:51:14like a table for more of an edge case

1:51:16where like um there might be some

1:51:21something weird about the lot or maybe

1:51:22it has to do with the antennas or

1:51:24something like that. But I think under

1:51:25regular circumstances on a regular lot,

1:51:27my understanding that is that the

1:51:28maximum height is currently 28 feet and

1:51:30the maximum height at the peak of the

1:51:32roof is currently 33 feet.

1:51:35Right. There's a table following 540-6

1:51:38that is specific to uh dwellings with

1:51:42one, two, and three units and some other

1:51:44uses um that are regulated the same way.

1:51:47So, uh 540-7

1:51:51>> and and uh in table 540-6, it says

1:51:54maximum height except as otherwise

1:51:56required in table 540-7. So, there's

1:51:58some interaction between these two

1:52:00tables. If we scroll down one more page,

1:52:01page 17 on table 540-7, that's where you

1:52:05see the 28 and the 33 that I'm referring

1:52:07to.

1:52:08>> Okay.

1:52:10So your amendment would apply to um

1:52:14540-7

1:52:17and strike

1:52:2128 from so so for for single and two

1:52:24family and for three family.

1:52:26It would strike the 28 ft requirement

1:52:28and make it 33.

1:52:31>> I'll actually in my I'm open to hearing

1:52:34from commissioners on this. I don't

1:52:35think single families need a height

1:52:37increase. Um, so I would uh change the

1:52:40table to lump two and three family

1:52:42together and I would have those get the

1:52:44increase in height because we're trying

1:52:46to spur the development of more housing

1:52:48units. I I don't think we need to

1:52:50increase the height for single family

1:52:52homes. So, um I will make my amendment

1:52:54to be for interior 1 and interior 2

1:52:57districts, two and three family

1:53:00buildings, dwellings, the base height 33

1:53:04ft instead of 28, and the peak highest

1:53:06point of a gable hip or gamble roof uh

1:53:10up to 38 ft instead of 33 feet.

1:53:13>> All right. Is there a second?

1:53:16>> I will.

1:53:16>> Second.

1:53:17>> Okay.

1:53:18Did staff get that full uh language?

1:53:26>> Yes.

1:53:26>> Yes.

1:53:27>> Okay.

1:53:29So, is there discussion on changing

1:53:33that? Commissioner Baxley, just one

1:53:37Janelle, could you reiterate again why

1:53:40we landed at 28 and 33? Sorry, I know

1:53:42you probably said it three times, but

1:53:44one more. Thank you. It is matching what

1:53:47was um the rule for single family homes

1:53:51when Minneapolis 2040 was adopted and

1:53:54went into effect. That was the council

1:53:56direction. And so we've just kept that

1:53:59um those regulations consistent for two

1:54:02and three family homes in those

1:54:03districts. Where it starts to break

1:54:05apart is in the interior three district

1:54:07where we do allow more height already

1:54:09for um three unit buildings. Um, so that

1:54:15was a kind of a carryover from that time

1:54:18when the 2040 plan first went into

1:54:20effect.

1:54:22>> That was to maintain some built form

1:54:24consistency and

1:54:25>> right and we haven't heard so much that

1:54:28height has been the issue. F lot

1:54:31coverage is where people are more often

1:54:33bumping into issues.

1:54:36>> Thank you.

1:54:38other commissioners.

1:54:42Commissioner Jones.

1:54:43>> Yeah, I don't um I don't actually have a

1:54:46strong opinion either way on that that

1:54:50change.

1:54:52So, I would probably support it. So, are

1:54:55we how many So, we're going to just

1:54:58clarification then. We're thinking we're

1:55:00going to now go amendment by amendment

1:55:03by amendment here. And we've got I know

1:55:06Commissioner Meyer, you probably have

1:55:07many.

1:55:07>> I do.

1:55:08>> Um

1:55:11Okay.

1:55:13>> Um Commissioner Wagner, can we just

1:55:15clarify in your motion? So I have in

1:55:18table 540-7, we would be changing the

1:55:22height for two and three family

1:55:25dwellings in the interior one and

1:55:26interior two districts to 33 feet at the

1:55:31midpoint and 38 ft at the peak.

1:55:36Um, is your intention also in the

1:55:39interior three district to allow for

1:55:42duplexes to take advantage of the three

1:55:45stories 42 ft

1:55:48or to just allow triplexes to take

1:55:51advantage of that additional height?

1:55:53Because

1:55:55the way it's written now,

1:55:58duplexes in interior 3 would then be

1:56:02subject just the way the table is laid

1:56:04out would be subject to the 28 foot

1:56:09>> 33 foot.

1:56:09>> It' be subject to the existing number.

1:56:11So are you saying that in order to be

1:56:13consistent we need to change that row in

1:56:15the table as well

1:56:16>> or add a new row for duplexes in the

1:56:20interior three district?

1:56:22>> Yeah. to be 33 feet at midpoint and 38

1:56:26at peak,

1:56:28which is what you're proposing for

1:56:30interior one and interior two.

1:56:32>> Yeah, I I I don't think it makes sense

1:56:34for to Janelle's point from earlier for

1:56:37uh interior 3 to have any aspect of

1:56:38their code be more restrictive than

1:56:40interior one or interior 2. So for

1:56:42duplexes in interior 3, um we can retain

1:56:46those same numbers uh that I'm proposing

1:56:48in interior one and interior 2. I see

1:56:51Kimberly nodding. Yeah, thank you.

1:56:55>> Okay, Commissioner Baxley. Um, so

1:56:58Commissioner W, interesting. I certainly

1:57:01potentially get it from a market

1:57:03standpoint, but do you um

1:57:07can you maybe explain a little bit what

1:57:08the potential shadowing impacts may or

1:57:11may not be with increased height in in

1:57:14those districts?

1:57:15>> That's a good question. You're the

1:57:16architect, so I would maybe ask you to

1:57:17explain those. Uh, so I guess to let me

1:57:20speak to it a little bit more. So to

1:57:22Janelle's point about and maybe Janelle

1:57:23you could pull back up the image I sent.

1:57:27I think that we like are not hearing

1:57:29about this because when a project does

1:57:33get built um it if they're building two

1:57:36and a half stories they are not getting

1:57:38the ceiling heights that they want on

1:57:40the first floor but they're still

1:57:41building the project.

1:57:42>> Yeah.

1:57:42>> Right. Potentially. Or maybe maybe

1:57:44they're not building the project and we

1:57:45never hear about it.

1:57:46>> Right. But we're here to try to augment

1:57:48the supply of housing in our city.

1:57:51Right? And the for rent environment

1:57:53right now is a little bit of a mess. The

1:57:55for sale environment, the competing

1:57:56product and what developers want and

1:57:58what home buyers want is higher

1:57:59ceilings. Right? And I think that more

1:58:02projects will pencil in more locations

1:58:04if people can build a 9 or a 10ft

1:58:07ceiling on the first floor versus an 8ft

1:58:09ceiling on the first floor and thereby

1:58:11increasing the supply of housing thereby

1:58:13through filtering making housing more

1:58:15affordable for everyone. So, it's it's

1:58:18uh I know a bit of a vanity amendment.

1:58:20Like, it's not exactly the most

1:58:22impactful piece of code ever written, I

1:58:23would say, but um I would argue it's a

1:58:26net positive in terms of shadowing. Um

1:58:30it's worth thinking about and and I

1:58:32think uh there would obviously be

1:58:34increased shadowing. Um I think that

1:58:38uh I know I live on a street that is a

1:58:40mix of single family homes and duplexes,

1:58:42and there are some duplexes that are

1:58:43really tall. Um, and maybe in the winter

1:58:47on the shortest days there are more

1:58:48shadows, but it doesn't I don't think

1:58:50I've ever heard anyone on my street

1:58:51complaining about, oh, I don't get any

1:58:53sunlight in my unit. So, I think the

1:58:55trade-off is worth it.

1:59:00Um,

1:59:02I I think, you know, I'm going to

1:59:04support Commissioner Wagner's amendment,

1:59:06but I would go a little further. I mean,

1:59:08I think it'd be

1:59:10fine to have it apply to single family

1:59:13homes. Um, I also think one of the goals

1:59:19should be to simplify or, you know, is

1:59:22is to simplify things. And as I was

1:59:24reading this, I definitely got confused

1:59:25by it.

1:59:27I think it'd be better if, you know, we

1:59:30we just had 540-6 as the defining

1:59:34limits. So, just say, you know, you can

1:59:36build up to

1:59:38to 35 ft. Um, and yours is a a little

1:59:42bit more more restrictive than that,

1:59:44although allowing it to 38 for

1:59:48uses that I'm I'm not quite clear on,

1:59:49but it does seem a little bit more

1:59:51complex than it needs to be.

1:59:53>> Yeah. Um, I can just hop in quick. I do

1:59:56think to Commissioner Baxley's point,

1:59:58you reach a point where you start

2:00:00thinking about shadowing. And I think

2:00:01that five feet here, I I did think about

2:00:04this today, hence the email I sent to

2:00:06staff and the diagram I found. in a plan

2:00:07from 2022. Uh I think five feet is

2:00:10enough to make a a good impact here and

2:00:12it kind of strikes the right balance. Um

2:00:14so that's why I proposed that number.

2:00:16I'd be open to simplifying the code and

2:00:19including uh single families in this as

2:00:21well. I'd like to hear from Commissioner

2:00:22Baxley if he has any thoughts on that.

2:00:24Um but I like I said, I don't think

2:00:26single families necessarily need the

2:00:28height as much as duplexes do and

2:00:29triplexes.

2:00:32>> Commissioner Bley.

2:00:33>> Uh thank you, Commissioner Wagner. Yeah.

2:00:35Well, I I I think um

2:00:38in this period if it is a vanity, as you

2:00:41said, uh amendment uh we should apply it

2:00:44equally. I I I guess I'm again concerned

2:00:48about playing a little fast and loose

2:00:50with uh what we understand as shadowing

2:00:53or not shadowing built forum versus not

2:00:56um in this forum. I for me I would just

2:00:59much rather have a larger conversation

2:01:01around the impacts of these things. Um,

2:01:04we've heard that the height is not

2:01:06driving why people are not building on

2:01:08the site. So, um, while it may be part

2:01:10of it, uh, I'm not willing to use this

2:01:14forum to kind of air that out. So, for

2:01:16me, uh, we have a methodology that is

2:01:19more robust heading into 2050

2:01:22uh, to set these things in place in a in

2:01:24a in a truly meaningful way. And at the

2:01:26end of the day, you know, things like I

2:01:28don't understand the basement issue

2:01:30either, but that's something I love to

2:01:31talk about. uh more robustly. I just I

2:01:34think making those decisions here I'm

2:01:37just uncomfortable with that. So

2:01:40>> I I I excuse me.

2:01:42>> Yeah, I'd kind of like to second that.

2:01:43I'm I'm a little concerned that in our

2:01:46next half hour we're sort of really um

2:01:49doing some digging deep into convers and

2:01:51things that need to have more

2:01:53conversation. I do think there's a forum

2:01:55coming up in terms of the plan where we

2:01:57can get bigger. I don't know. I mean, I

2:02:00don't Anyway, I I'm just not so sure

2:02:04that um taking the next, you know, 25

2:02:08minutes and hammering out little teeny

2:02:11details on very on small aspects of this

2:02:14amendment versus,

2:02:16you know, either um continuing, which I

2:02:19don't support, or um just allowing these

2:02:22conversations to happen in the uh flow

2:02:25of the upcoming comprehensive plan

2:02:27discussions.

2:02:30I guess my my philosophy is, you know,

2:02:33we're going to have the comp plan

2:02:34discussions and those will be more

2:02:35robust, but I think it is still a good

2:02:36idea in the interim to take pieces, you

2:02:39know, um and try to hash out some of the

2:02:42details uh that we can because it's it

2:02:45can be overwhelming for the public to

2:02:47try to have comment on everything. So if

2:02:50if we can, you know, try to fine-tune

2:02:53things a little bit as we go, we can

2:02:55accomplish some things instead of

2:02:56waiting every 10 years for them. Um, but

2:03:00if Commissioner Wagner is receptive to

2:03:02it, I would propose an amendment to the

2:03:04amendment uh to make the same feed

2:03:08adjustments to single family. So that

2:03:10would be um 33

2:03:15and 38.

2:03:18Um so uh for one, two, and three uh

2:03:23dwellings. Would you be receptive to

2:03:24that?

2:03:24>> Yeah, I'm I'm receptive to that

2:03:26amendment. Um the staff have what they

2:03:28need on that?

2:03:31Uh just one more clarification. We also

2:03:34call out common lot developments in that

2:03:37table in the code which is essentially

2:03:40um a development where you can have more

2:03:42than one principal residential structure

2:03:44on a lot. I assume that you would want

2:03:45common lot developments also included.

2:03:48>> Correct. Yes.

2:03:48>> Okay.

2:03:51>> Okay. Can I interpret that as a second

2:03:53to my amendment?

2:03:54>> Uh amendment to your amendment.

2:03:55>> Okay.

2:03:57Is there any discussion on the amendment

2:03:59to the amendment?

2:04:02So, we're going to do that first. So,

2:04:04the amendment to the amendment makes it

2:04:05apply to single families and then we

2:04:07would take the original

2:04:09amendment and actually

2:04:11>> So, this first vote is only on inclusion

2:04:13of single families in the height change.

2:04:15Correct.

2:04:15>> It occurs to me that we made the same

2:04:17mistake that we made last time where we

2:04:18haven't moved the original motion yet.

2:04:22>> [laughter]

2:04:23>> We can assume since the body's debating

2:04:25amendments that the uh underlying motion

2:04:28has been moved for approval.

2:04:30>> Oh, okay. Well, they didn't let us do

2:04:31that last meeting. So [laughter] that

2:04:33Thank you.

2:04:34>> I will Can I clarif

2:04:36developments and cluster developments?

2:04:38Yes.

2:04:39>> Good question. Yes. Thank you.

2:04:42>> Okay. Is there any discussion on the

2:04:44amendment to the amendment which makes

2:04:45it apply to single families? Right. Not

2:04:48seeing any. So clerk, please call the

2:04:49role on the amendment to the amendment.

2:04:51Commissioner Baxley.

2:04:53>> Nay.

2:04:54>> Garcia.

2:04:56>> I.

2:04:57>> Jones.

2:04:58>> No. Nay.

2:05:00>> Vice President Wagner.

2:05:02>> Yes.

2:05:03>> And President Meyer.

2:05:04>> I.

2:05:05>> There are three eyes and two NAZs.

2:05:07>> The amendment to the amendment is

2:05:08adopted. Now we have the underlying

2:05:10amendment. Is there any further

2:05:11discussion on that?

2:05:14>> All right. Clerk, please call a role on

2:05:16the amendment.

2:05:17>> Commissioner Bley.

2:05:19>> Nay.

2:05:20Commissioner Garcia,

2:05:21>> nay.

2:05:23>> Commissioner Jones,

2:05:24>> nay.

2:05:26>> Vice President Wagner,

2:05:28>> yes.

2:05:29>> And President Meyer,

2:05:30>> I.

2:05:31>> There are two eyes's and three nays.

2:05:33>> So that amendment is not adopted.

2:05:36Do people have any further discussion on

2:05:37the height issue?

2:05:41Okay. Commissioner Garcia, was there a

2:05:43different version that you would have

2:05:44supported?

2:05:46>> Um, no. Oh, and at this time I would

2:05:49like to motion that we

2:05:52adopt the staff findings as presented um

2:05:56and end um the amendment process.

2:06:00>> Okay. So would that be

2:06:03a previous question or Yeah. Um

2:06:07so let's first have you

2:06:10so so first you move the adoption of the

2:06:12staff finding and then we would take a

2:06:15vote on previous questioning and ending

2:06:17discussion on it. Okay.

2:06:19>> I second that.

2:06:21>> All right. There's a motion in a second

2:06:23for previous question which I don't

2:06:25think is debatable. Or is it? I don't

2:06:27know.

2:06:28>> Um Chair Meer, that's correct. The

2:06:29motion is not debatable. Uh the the

2:06:32motion essentially as as you described

2:06:34it, this is a motion to end debate. Uh

2:06:36so this is not I means we will proceed

2:06:39if if the motion carries we would then

2:06:41proceed to the main motion to adopt

2:06:43[clears throat] staff findings. If the

2:06:45motion fails, then we would continue

2:06:47debate and more amendments could be

2:06:48brought forward. Um so the the motion to

2:06:52end debate does require twoirds

2:06:56to pass.

2:06:57>> That was my next question.

2:06:58>> Yes.

2:06:58>> Okay.

2:06:59Yeah, most bodies have a supermajority

2:07:02requirement. This is the first time

2:07:03we've we've had that motion here while

2:07:05I've been on the body.

2:07:07Um, you're still you're confident about

2:07:10twothirds. Are you still looking that

2:07:11up?

2:07:13>> We are looking it up.

2:07:14>> Oh, okay.

2:07:23>> Two is correct.

2:07:24>> Okay. Clerk, please call the role on

2:07:27previous question with a two-thirds

2:07:29requirement.

2:07:30>> Commissioner Baxley,

2:07:33>> I.

2:07:35>> Garcia,

2:07:36>> I.

2:07:37>> Jones,

2:07:38>> I.

2:07:39>> Vice President Wagner,

2:07:41>> no.

2:07:42>> And President Meyer,

2:07:43>> no.

2:07:44>> There are three eyes's and two nazs.

2:07:46>> All right. That does not meet the

2:07:47supermajority requirement.

2:07:52All right. Um, was there more discussion

2:07:54on the height?

2:07:56Okay. Uh,

2:07:58>> and clarification. Yes, Commissioner.

2:08:00>> So, that means that we we we just tried

2:08:05to move the the staff recommendation.

2:08:08>> No,

2:08:08>> you just tried to end debate, but there

2:08:10was a second motion for staff

2:08:13recommendation.

2:08:15>> That that was the main motion that

2:08:17essentially has already been made. Uh,

2:08:19so he didn't need to remove the staff

2:08:21motion. That was already essentially the

2:08:22motion before the body. Uh but 2/3 of

2:08:25five is four. Uh well, it's 3.3. Uh

2:08:28which means we would have needed four

2:08:30eyes in order for the motion to end

2:08:32debate to be successful.

2:08:33>> I guess I'm just confused. So that's not

2:08:37there there isn't an option now to to

2:08:39move staff uh recommendations.

2:08:42>> Yeah,

2:08:43>> it's already been moved.

2:08:44>> Okay. And are we voting on that or did

2:08:47we just I'm confused.

2:08:48>> Anyone?

2:08:51So, as as I mentioned earlier, I because

2:08:53the body is already debating it, the

2:08:55assumption is that the body has agreed

2:08:57that the item has been moved. Uh because

2:08:59you can't you can't amend something if

2:09:01you haven't made a motion. So, the fact

2:09:03that you all entered into debate on

2:09:05amendments suggests that the body has

2:09:08accepted uh the motion before the body.

2:09:10So, I would argue the main motion that

2:09:12has already been moved by by nobody

2:09:15objecting um is the item on the agenda,

2:09:17which is staff findings. So now what the

2:09:20body is doing is discussing amendments

2:09:22to that motion.

2:09:23>> Okay. I was confused. I'm assuming we

2:09:26could still move staff

2:09:29but but not.

2:09:30>> Yeah. But the the vote to end discussion

2:09:32on it did not succeed. So we'll continue

2:09:34with the discussion on it.

2:09:37Um so the next thing I would move to is

2:09:41the lot size requirements.

2:09:43And I would point to the the contrast uh

2:09:46wi with St. Pauls. Um, so my amendment

2:09:52would be to make uh the minimum lot size

2:09:55requirement

2:09:57um for interior 1 and two to be 1500 ft²

2:10:03and uh for interior 3 uh to be 1,000

2:10:08square ft.

2:10:11Um,

2:10:12and

2:10:14you know, right now it's 5,000 ft, which

2:10:19is quite substantial. It essentially

2:10:21means that

2:10:23um,

2:10:25you know, the the tiny homes that a lot

2:10:29of people want to see more of are not

2:10:31allowed. And I see Janelle is walking up

2:10:32here. So Janelle, do you

2:10:33>> have

2:10:33>> clarification question about would that

2:10:35be per unit similar to St. Paul, or just

2:10:38flat out minimum 1,000 ft for any number

2:10:42of units

2:10:43>> in the interior one and then 1500 for

2:10:46interior 2 and interior 3.

2:10:51>> Can you remind me which uh table that's

2:10:54on?

2:11:08We are I don't believe we're proposing

2:11:10any um changes in the staff

2:11:13recommendation to the lot size. I don't

2:11:14have that table in front of me. I'm

2:11:15sorry. I don't know the number.

2:11:18>> Okay.

2:11:19>> We just looking for the lot area minimum

2:11:20table for one to 3es.

2:11:22>> That's correct.

2:11:22>> Okay. I'll get it. Just one moment.

2:11:27>> Um

2:11:28you know, my intent was to match St.

2:11:30Paul's. So

2:11:34I I guess I'll make it apply based on

2:11:36the number of units.

2:11:40So am I interpreting that right? That

2:11:44for a triplex it would be 4500

2:11:50square feet.

2:11:53>> Uh

2:11:55that's correct. That's how I understand

2:11:56their rules work.

2:11:57>> Okay.

2:12:02All right. So again, my proposed

2:12:03amendment

2:12:05um would change the minimum lot size

2:12:07requirement to 1500 feet for interior 1

2:12:10and two and 1,000 square ft for interior

2:12:143. Um is there any second that

2:12:22>> I'm actually I'm not going to second. Is

2:12:24there a second?

2:12:25>> So I I can provide some context. Is that

2:12:28okay?

2:12:28>> Sure. quick. So, I I'm generally very

2:12:31supportive of that idea. Um, and I think

2:12:33it's something that we as a city like

2:12:35should be looking at. Um, and I think

2:12:39that we should not be waiting for the

2:12:41comprehensive plan cycle to make some of

2:12:43these changes. And like I said

2:12:44previously, I appreciate staff bringing

2:12:46some of these forward and bringing this

2:12:48amendment forward. Um, but in terms of

2:12:51like

2:12:52I'm not elected and I don't know how all

2:12:54this stuff fully works, but I don't

2:12:56believe this was noticed in a way to the

2:12:59public or in the agenda that we are

2:13:01discussing minimum lot size. And I think

2:13:03that like to staff's point and

2:13:05Commissioner Baxley's point like large I

2:13:08I view that as a larger change and what

2:13:10a discussion we should have, but a

2:13:12larger change should be um kind of

2:13:15disseminated slightly differently than

2:13:17it has been. I would encourage Council

2:13:21Member Chowry if she's watching this or

2:13:23watching the YouTube later. she's

2:13:24probably still in her budget meeting or

2:13:26anyone in the mayor's office. Like I I

2:13:28would encourage us to to really think

2:13:30about whether this is the right time to

2:13:31push the envelope and if we're doing

2:13:33enough. I don't I don't think we are

2:13:35doing enough with this with this code as

2:13:37written. I I don't think it's taking us

2:13:39anywhere close to some of our peer

2:13:41cities in terms of uh what's allowed,

2:13:44particularly the one directly across the

2:13:45river from us. Um, so I I would

2:13:48encourage those involved to to take a

2:13:51look and and and push this further. Um,

2:13:54but I I at this point will not second

2:13:57that amendment for lot size. Uh, we do

2:14:00have 16 minutes left. I would like to

2:14:02re-engage on F. Um, if that's something

2:14:06you'd be amendable to or if others would

2:14:07be amendable to.

2:14:08>> Yes.

2:14:10So, my amendment did not get a second,

2:14:12so we'll move on. Do you have a new one?

2:14:14>> Yes. I'd like to chat with staff quickly

2:14:16before I propose um some actual numbers.

2:14:23Um

2:14:25so the uh legislation as proposed is 6

2:14:29for duplexes

2:14:317 for triplexes.

2:14:33Um you look at and I'm I'm sure you've

2:14:36done some of this research and apologies

2:14:37for putting you on the spot, but you

2:14:39look across the river to St. hall and

2:14:41they're building larger or maybe not

2:14:44building but there are some buildings

2:14:45going up that are larger than that in

2:14:46interior neighborhoods. Um and they

2:14:49permit more based on the way their code

2:14:51is written. Um why did we land on 6 and

2:14:567? Was there discussion of alternative

2:14:58numbers? Um whether that be 7 and8 or 8

2:15:02flat. Thoughts on a slightly increased

2:15:05number there from staff? Um yeah, we

2:15:07were looking at okay, what would be

2:15:11um what would help address um the main

2:15:14barrier to building these set aside with

2:15:17respect also without you know with

2:15:19consideration of the comprehensive plan

2:15:21guidance as I've mentioned before. Um so

2:15:23we did look at projects that have been

2:15:25built and um

2:15:29both what's been built in St. Paul and

2:15:31what's been built here. So um that was

2:15:34something

2:15:36We didn't really look at it, but um

2:15:39find

2:15:41so something that was included in this

2:15:43attachment that was sent out today.

2:15:44These are some examples of what's been

2:15:46being built in St. Paul

2:15:50um with no maximum F requirements. Um

2:15:54and so we um you know don't believe

2:15:58that's the intent of the guidance to

2:16:00allow um some of these larger

2:16:03structures. Um, so we,

2:16:07you know, we're looking at, okay, a

2:16:10maximum F that would prevent this, but

2:16:12still something bigger than what's being

2:16:14allowed now would fit in that

2:16:16appropriate range. Um,

2:16:21also,

2:16:22let's see, to show you some Minneapolis

2:16:25examples, I did have some

2:16:30if this question came up. um just kind

2:16:33of looking at

2:16:35well this is okay this first example is

2:16:38showing yes they do push up against the

2:16:390.5 so that's a standard one um but this

2:16:44example is looking at something a little

2:16:46bit bigger in a corridor 4 district um

2:16:50with sidebyside units and this one had a

2:16:526 F

2:16:54they would have been allowed to do a 2.0

2:16:56OM Max F because of the corridor 4

2:16:58zoning. Um so that one was a little bit

2:17:03bigger.

2:17:04Um also a little bit larger lot size

2:17:07which is pretty common with sidebyside

2:17:09units needing uh that width extra width

2:17:12to fit in those units. Um this is

2:17:15another example. This one is interior 2

2:17:17where the maximum is 0.5 but they have

2:17:20that larger lot. So we're seeing like

2:17:21yes when you have that larger lot size

2:17:24um developers are trying to take

2:17:25advantage of that. So that's 2900 square

2:17:28feet of gross foot area would fit within

2:17:32that 3500 on a typical 5,000t lot. Um

2:17:37and then we also are looking of course

2:17:39at the

2:17:41um we've seen more examples of triplexes

2:17:44being built around the university um

2:17:46where they do try to take advantage like

2:17:48full advantage of the F um to get more

2:17:53bedrooms. So, here's an example of where

2:17:55it's interior three where the maximum is

2:17:587. You can just kind of see um

2:18:02what that looks like as far as scale. Um

2:18:06so, and this one just falls just below

2:18:08that 7. So, what we're seeing is like

2:18:11this should

2:18:13um pretty much address the barriers that

2:18:16we're seeing, we're expecting, but still

2:18:18fitting within that comprehensive plan

2:18:20guidance. So hopefully that helps give a

2:18:22little more background of how we've

2:18:24looked at this and tried to consider

2:18:26something that would be reasonable.

2:18:28>> Very helpful. Thank you very much. You

2:18:30know, could you flip to slide 26,

2:18:33the next one?

2:18:34>> Oh, yes. Um,

2:18:38and this is showing um

2:18:41Oh, sorry. It's not in slide

2:18:44and the slideshow view. So, sorry it's

2:18:46not as big. Um, try this. There we go.

2:18:51Um, so this is just showing some

2:18:53additional

2:18:55um, diagrams with F in it and with the

2:18:59recommendation of course and then what

2:19:00it would look like bigger than that and

2:19:02then impact lot coverage as part of

2:19:04that.

2:19:06>> Thank you for that context. Um, with

2:19:09that [snorts] in mind, I will propose an

2:19:12amendment

2:19:14um to the text before us to increase the

2:19:19duplex limit from 6 to 7 and the triplex

2:19:24limit from 7 to8.

2:19:26And it might not seem like very much to

2:19:29those listening at home, but those

2:19:31decimals translated into square feet, I

2:19:33think, will make a difference in housing

2:19:35production.

2:19:38And um Commissioner Wagner, if I could

2:19:40clarify,

2:19:42that proposal is for residential

2:19:45buildings with one to three units in the

2:19:47interior one and interior 2 districts.

2:19:50>> Correct? Yes.

2:19:53>> Okay.

2:19:55>> I also have a clarification question

2:19:57because in the interior 3 district,

2:19:59duplexes would be limited to 6

2:20:01currently. We weren't proposing to

2:20:02change that. So would that also be

2:20:04included?

2:20:04>> Uh I would include that as well. Yes.

2:20:06Thank you for that clarification. And um

2:20:07Kimberly asked about one to three and so

2:20:10uh single family homes would be included

2:20:11in the 7. I just I'm not sure that I

2:20:14heard that. So I wanted

2:20:15>> Yeah, I would actually leave single

2:20:17family homes um where they are at at

2:20:190.5.

2:20:19>> Okay. Thank you.

2:20:22>> Okay. Is there a second? I will second

2:20:25it. Um

2:20:30I would have so my proposal was going to

2:20:32be one point high higher than that. Um

2:20:37which would allow the same type of

2:20:39buildings that were brought up to us

2:20:40during the the hearing that St. Paul is

2:20:43allowing at 0.9. I think

2:20:47you know 1.0 0 shown up there would be

2:20:50even even better um to accommodate that.

2:20:54Um

2:20:56but

2:20:58I'll go with the the motion that

2:21:00Commissioner Magner has proposed. Is

2:21:02there more discussion on it?

2:21:04Commissioner Jones?

2:21:05>> Yeah. So again, I am I'm going to just

2:21:07say I am not necessarily opposed to this

2:21:10discussion on the F. I'm just not sure

2:21:13this is the right moment in time in 10

2:21:15minutes or whatever it is to complete

2:21:17the discussion. Uh I mean there seems

2:21:20like there's so many um

2:21:24places that we could go and just this

2:21:26short order it so that's all I wanted to

2:21:29say is that um I am open and think it's

2:21:32a good idea to discuss F. I just think

2:21:36these very short sort of back and forth

2:21:39conversations doesn't really do it

2:21:41justice in terms of the level of um

2:21:46discussion and thoughtfulness that we

2:21:49really should be um using right now. So

2:21:54>> I I couldn't agree more which is why I

2:21:56thought it was important to have further

2:21:58discussion at the committee the whole

2:22:02commissioner back you reaching.

2:22:04>> Yeah. Thanks. Uh I'm with um uh

2:22:07Commissioner Chevy, too. You know, the

2:22:09I'm not necessarily opposed to that

2:22:10either, but I think things like

2:22:12shadowing do concern me. I think

2:22:14reduction of increasing impervious

2:22:17surface, we don't necessarily understand

2:22:20ecological tradeoff that we're getting

2:22:22for incentivizing additional housing.

2:22:25You might find um there's a happy medium

2:22:28there. I just I I think this um sort of

2:22:32picking points is not necessarily

2:22:35grounded in that kind of thinking here.

2:22:38So I apologize if the research has been

2:22:40put in and you you understand that more

2:22:42fully maybe than I do, but I I think um

2:22:46multiplied over an entire city in those

2:22:49three districts that could have a pretty

2:22:50large impact. I want to understand that.

2:22:52So

2:22:56thank you Commissioner Garcia. Um yeah,

2:22:59I would just like to um if um Okay. I

2:23:03would like to ask Commissioner Wagner um

2:23:07have have you done research on the

2:23:10impacts of the imperous surface and

2:23:12things like that that you can share with

2:23:14us?

2:23:16>> Thank you, Commissioner Garcia, for that

2:23:17question. I did some light research on

2:23:19that and I will admit that's one area in

2:23:21which my expertise is limited. Um, I

2:23:25think that some peer cities as you get

2:23:28into this uh F area area do more in

2:23:31regards to requiring storm water um

2:23:34retention. Um, and that's something that

2:23:37I'd be very much amendable to and I

2:23:39think that developers would be amendable

2:23:40to if it allowed them to build the type

2:23:42of units they want to build. That said,

2:23:44I'm I'm not in a position to make an

2:23:47amendment related to storm water

2:23:48retention. I just don't have the depth

2:23:49of that knowledge. Um, perhaps that's a

2:23:52discussion that staff could have or BIZ

2:23:54could have. Um, and that could be

2:23:56latched on to this legislation. Um, but

2:23:59I've done some some research, but I'm

2:24:01I'm definitely not an expert to

2:24:02Commissioner Baxley's point.

2:24:04>> Okay. Thanks. Um, I I appreciate that

2:24:07and um the reason I ask is because I

2:24:10know that you do a lot of research and I

2:24:11I genu genuinely appreciate um all of

2:24:15the information that you're willing to

2:24:16share. Um,

2:24:19thinking about the imperous surface and

2:24:22storm water runoff concerns is something

2:24:24that is always paramount to me. Um, I

2:24:31I think about where we are located

2:24:33geographically and where our storm water

2:24:35runs off to, that being primarily the

2:24:38Mississippi River, and how many other

2:24:40communities downstream of us have to

2:24:42deal with the impacts of what we make

2:24:44decisions on here. Um,

2:24:48on its face, I am not against the

2:24:52amendment, but um, to echo Commissioner

2:24:56Baxley, I would need to to have more,

2:24:59um, information to allay my concerns

2:25:01about what we would potentially be doing

2:25:04to communities further down the

2:25:07Mississippi before I could fully support

2:25:09that. Commissioner Garcia, I want to

2:25:11point out there there's a separate

2:25:13requirement

2:25:14about how much impervious service there

2:25:17can be, like a percentage of the lot,

2:25:19which they do change um somewhat, and

2:25:22maybe Janelle can highlight that change.

2:25:26Um but it Commissioner Wagner's

2:25:29amendment would not affect that. So

2:25:31there would be no effect on impervious

2:25:32surface with his amendment. It's just

2:25:34about how far up you could build.

2:25:37more roof is more impervious surface

2:25:41>> and but the the limit on how much

2:25:43impervious surface you can have is not

2:25:44changed by his channel. Can you

2:25:48>> uh if you're looking for more

2:25:49clarification on the diagram is just to

2:25:50illustrate like if you were to max out

2:25:52the F and the smallest footprint

2:25:54possible. You're at minimum going to

2:25:56have this much lot coverage um it's

2:25:58probably going to be more just because

2:26:00we've seen more variation in building

2:26:01form than what is illustrated here. Um

2:26:05so yeah it is very likely that there

2:26:08would be additional um imperative

2:26:11surface as a result of increasing the FI

2:26:15um but um

2:26:19the yeah the staff recommendation is to

2:26:22increase it to 50% for lot coverage 65%

2:26:25for imperous surface coverage and so if

2:26:28that's not on the table then this would

2:26:30be the consideration.

2:26:35Okay. Can you can you pull up those

2:26:37tables for your recommendation? 520-23

2:26:39and and 24.

2:26:42I'm I'm just pointing this out for

2:26:44Commissioner Garcia. So I guess you know

2:26:45if if the F is increased then there may

2:26:48be some scenarios where it's

2:26:51more impervious surface

2:26:53gets taken but the the limitations that

2:26:55they have in in 540-23

2:26:58and 24 would still apply. So there'd be

2:27:02limitations on I mean there'd be

2:27:04requirements to have a certain amount of

2:27:06impervious surface. Sure, I I understand

2:27:09that. But I I feel like given

2:27:12>> the increase to F, it becomes more

2:27:15likely that people will add up to the

2:27:19greater levels of imperous surface.

2:27:23Okay.

2:27:25All right. Um was there more discussion

2:27:27on the amendment?

2:27:31Okay. Can you repeat the amendment? So

2:27:32it's um

2:27:377 F for duplexes in interior 1 and

2:27:41interior 2.8

2:27:43F for triplexes in interior one and

2:27:45interior 2. Uh and I think there was

2:27:48something about uh interior 3 duplexes I

2:27:51think needed to go to 7 in order to

2:27:53match. Kimberly's nodding. So uh

2:27:56duplexes to 7 and interior three. Was I

2:27:58missing anything?

2:28:01>> So So would it be

2:28:037 in all three and then point8 for

2:28:05triplexes in all three.

2:28:07>> Uh I believe I don't I'd have to I I

2:28:10didn't look at interior 3 much today,

2:28:12but for interior one and interior 2,

2:28:14that's what I had in mind. Yes.

2:28:15>> Interior 3 is currently limited to 7 for

2:28:18triplexes.

2:28:19>> So I would I would adjust that to 8 and

2:28:21interior 3.

2:28:22>> The recommendation for triplexes and the

2:28:24staff recommendation is to go to 0.1 1.4

2:28:27for triplexes. So Oh, really?

2:28:28>> I think you're good with that. Um, but I

2:28:30wanted to mention the district we're

2:28:31forgetting is the parks built form

2:28:33overlay district.

2:28:36>> Say there what about the what about

2:28:38>> the parks built form overlay district?

2:28:40The staff recommendation is to do the

2:28:43tiered 6.7 there as well but that wasn't

2:28:46mentioned.

2:28:47>> I would I would add it to parks as well.

2:28:51>> Okay.

2:28:53Do we have clarity on that?

2:28:56All right. Clerk, please call the role

2:28:57on the amendment. Before I call the

2:29:00role, I did want to say that we double

2:29:02checked and we do have captioning until

2:29:037:30, not 6:30. Great. So, we do have

2:29:06another hour to discuss if necessary.

2:29:09>> Wonderful.

2:29:09>> Um, okay. Uh, Commissioner Baxley,

2:29:12>> nay.

2:29:12>> I'm sorry, was that

2:29:13>> uh, sorry, nay.

2:29:14>> Nay.

2:29:16>> Uh, Garcia,

2:29:17>> nay.

2:29:18>> Jones,

2:29:19>> nay.

2:29:22Vice President Wagner,

2:29:23>> yes.

2:29:24>> And President Meyer,

2:29:26>> I.

2:29:26>> There are two eyes and three nays. All

2:29:28right, that amendment is not adopted.

2:29:31Um,

2:29:32given the general direction where

2:29:35commissioners have been on the previous

2:29:37votes, that kind of rules out a lot of

2:29:39the things that I was going to propose.

2:29:40I do have still a few that I hope we can

2:29:43um get done. One one is a change to the

2:29:47point system.

2:29:49Um, let me pull up. I think it was page

2:29:5142.

2:29:53This is the one um regarding the points

2:29:57that we give to parking which I brought

2:29:59up before and um Commissioner Jones

2:30:01commented that

2:30:04you know that garages are fine and I

2:30:06agree like we I have no problem with

2:30:09allowing garages and if they have them

2:30:12to encourage them to be enclosed. Uh,

2:30:15but the change I would propose to make

2:30:18is to let them keep their points, get

2:30:20those three points if they don't have

2:30:22any parking at all. Um, so I don't know

2:30:25if it would be best to add another

2:30:29line on that table or to just um,

2:30:34you know, amend

2:30:36this line to you know, right now it says

2:30:38not less than one off- streetet parking

2:30:41space. If we could just say if you have

2:30:45zero or one then you get the points. Um

2:30:50Janelle, do you have any preference on

2:30:53how I how I word that?

2:30:57The goal would be to make it consistent

2:30:58with our TDM policy where you know we

2:31:01give give the points if you don't build

2:31:03any parking at all because that meet

2:31:04helps our VMT goals.

2:31:07Uh,

2:31:09I guess the clarification would be

2:31:13do you think there it still makes sense

2:31:16to have a standard for the garage and

2:31:19then maybe it would make more sense to

2:31:21just make it a separate

2:31:24>> design standard. Three points for no.

2:31:27>> Yeah, we can still keep

2:31:28>> no enclosed parking or sorry, no points

2:31:31for any parking.

2:31:33>> Yeah, that'd be fine. would keep the

2:31:36standards for the garage. So then my

2:31:37proposal would add another line

2:31:41where you get three points if no parking

2:31:45is included with the application.

2:31:52>> Would that include a garage?

2:31:56>> So no okay

2:31:59>> no you so you get the points if you have

2:32:01the garage according to the conditions

2:32:03>> right

2:32:04>> that are listed there. And so I'm I'm

2:32:06not changing that. I'm adding a new line

2:32:08that if you don't have any if you don't

2:32:10have any garage or parking at all, then

2:32:12you get three points

2:32:13>> trying to incent. Yeah. Okay. I

2:32:14understand that. Okay, that's good.

2:32:18>> And I think a clarification would be uh

2:32:20is the intent to award three points for

2:32:22that?

2:32:22>> Yes. I'm not sure if you said that.

2:32:23>> Yeah. An equivalent number of points.

2:32:30>> Okay. Is there a second on that?

2:32:34Commissioner Baxley, you're shaking here

2:32:36before. Would you second it?

2:32:39I don't quite understand the

2:32:41ramifications. I understand you're

2:32:44wanting to um promote public

2:32:47transportation through something like

2:32:49this. And I think um while it may not be

2:32:52chosen often, I think to say, "Hey, you

2:32:54get points." Uh, and what's the what's

2:32:57the most is three kind of a Midland

2:33:01point gain or what's the what's the

2:33:03highest point number you can get?

2:33:05>> The highest point in the staff

2:33:06recommendation is five.

2:33:07>> Five points. Okay. And they need 15.

2:33:11Correct.

2:33:12>> Right. The minimum across the board

2:33:14would be 15.

2:33:15>> Yeah. I would say my amendment makes it

2:33:18so that you don't have an incentive to

2:33:19build a garage when you might not have

2:33:21otherwise. Like that's that's the effect

2:33:22that we're having is we are

2:33:24incentivizing the people to build the

2:33:26garages in order to get that point even

2:33:28if they might not have needed it. So I

2:33:29just want to equalize it.

2:33:32>> Got it.

2:33:32>> So that

2:33:34>> so you get the one you get how many

2:33:36points you get for a garage then?

2:33:37>> Is it one?

2:33:38>> Three.

2:33:38>> Three. If you if you do it according to

2:33:40these instructions and if you want to

2:33:41want to look at it's on page 41 where

2:33:42where the table is at. It's page 41 and

2:33:44it's the fourth one down. Right.

2:33:46>> So you want to say you want to level the

2:33:47playground. Say hey great you get three

2:33:49if you cover it.

2:33:51Um, you also get three if you don't

2:33:52build it at all.

2:33:53>> Yep.

2:33:53>> Right. I could support that.

2:33:55>> Is that a second?

2:33:56>> Mhm.

2:33:57>> Okay. The motion has been moved and

2:33:59seconded. Is there further discussion on

2:34:01that amendment?

2:34:07Okay.

2:34:08Not seeing any. So, clerk, please call

2:34:10the role.

2:34:11>> Commissioner Baxley.

2:34:13>> I.

2:34:14>> Commissioner Garcia.

2:34:15>> I.

2:34:17>> Jones.

2:34:17>> No.

2:34:19President, I'm sorry. Vice President

2:34:21Wagner,

2:34:21>> yes.

2:34:23>> And President Meyer,

2:34:24>> I.

2:34:25>> There are three. I'm sorry. Yes.

2:34:28Four eyes's and one nay.

2:34:31>> That amendment is adopted.

2:34:34Um, next I wanted to have a conversation

2:34:36about setbacks. Um, front yard setbacks

2:34:40in particular.

2:34:41Um, so Janelle, is it right that St.

2:34:45Paul has generally 10 ft setbacks

2:34:50for front yards for their H1 and H2.

2:35:00>> Okay. Sorry, trying to remember where

2:35:01this is now.

2:35:06>> Uh yeah, that's their standard. I

2:35:09believe the D that's behind it is an

2:35:11established front like increased

2:35:13established front yard requirement. um

2:35:15which is different than ours,

2:35:17but the district standard is 10 ft.

2:35:21>> Okay.

2:35:23And ours are

2:35:26what what's the baseline for ours? And

2:35:28then it's also based on the neighbors,

2:35:29right? So how how does that work for

2:35:31ours,

2:35:32>> right? Is drawing we call it like the

2:35:34string test. You draw a line between the

2:35:37two adjacent structures. Um, if it's

2:35:41greater than the district setback, then

2:35:43you're, you know, matching that string

2:35:46test line. They can't build in front of

2:35:47that unless it's a permitted

2:35:49obstruction. So, it's just those tells

2:35:51you where you can build your house. It's

2:35:53trying to match the established setback

2:35:56line, the average setback of the block.

2:36:00>> Okay. And and the baseline disregarding

2:36:03that is how many feet

2:36:05>> for interior one, two, and three? 20.

2:36:0720.

2:36:07>> Right. Okay. And that that that applies

2:36:09to all three interior one two three.

2:36:12>> Yes. Um

2:36:14trying to remember if interior three

2:36:16might be a little different.

2:36:19Sorry, I looked it and I don't recall.

2:36:21>> Okay.

2:36:22>> Um it might be 20 or it might be I think

2:36:24it only becomes 15 in the corridor

2:36:27districts, but I have to check.

2:36:30>> Okay. Um,

2:36:33so before I make the amendment, we can

2:36:35have some discussion to see if there's

2:36:36any interest in looking at setbacks.

2:36:38But, you know, I feel that's a a modest

2:36:42change that it could accommodate

2:36:44um some more more triplexes to be built.

2:36:48And I feel that front yards in

2:36:51particular are often not very well used,

2:36:55especially on busier corridors. Like

2:36:56I've said this before, like um and

2:37:00having the building closer to the street

2:37:03slows vehicles down.

2:37:06And there's research that that shows

2:37:08that. Engineers back in the 60s had the

2:37:10opposite philosophy. They tried to

2:37:11remove all obstructions. They tried to

2:37:13remove trees and and and push houses

2:37:16back away from the roads thinking that

2:37:18would improve safety, but it actually

2:37:20has reduced it. Um, so

2:37:26I would like to to match St. Paul um

2:37:29with their with their setback policies

2:37:31for the front yards at least. Um,

2:37:35commissioners have any any thoughts

2:37:37about that. If people are against it, I

2:37:40won't bother proposing, but

2:37:42>> I have the same thought about F. I just

2:37:45think these discussions just us in these

2:37:48five minutes don't do it justice. So

2:37:50>> we have an hour now. Well, I don't. So,

2:37:53okay.

2:37:53>> Um I um would vote against that motion.

2:37:58>> Okay.

2:38:01>> I would echo

2:38:02>> I would echo Commissioner Jones. I think

2:38:04that we are getting kind of far a field

2:38:07of what the charge of our positions are

2:38:11at this point. Um that's why I called

2:38:15the question earlier. Um I feel like in

2:38:17this case this is something that is

2:38:19accomplished through legislation

2:38:22not through

2:38:24this board. Um I think that we are

2:38:29looking at

2:38:31so many different points of a staff

2:38:33recommendation

2:38:35in even if we had 3 hours I don't think

2:38:38that that is a timely

2:38:40or a proper amount of time particularly

2:38:44with the limited public interaction that

2:38:46we have had this evening. Um, so while I

2:38:52appreciate the the thought and energy

2:38:55behind

2:38:57the amendments that you and Vice

2:39:00President Wagner are are bringing up

2:39:02tonight. I just to me this doesn't feel

2:39:04like the appropriate way to

2:39:08try to make several changes to an

2:39:12already crafted amendment.

2:39:18Okay.

2:39:20Um, so I will not make the amendment if

2:39:23if that's the direction. But I do want

2:39:25to note that I I'm perplexed by

2:39:27Commissioner Garcia's comments because

2:39:28this is legislation. This is our comment

2:39:31on the the legislation and it is

2:39:35entirely appropriate and one of our main

2:39:37jobs to

2:39:38review, comment on, try to improve

2:39:42legislation like this. And I feel

2:39:46by not doing so, we're we're abdicating

2:39:49our core responsibility. This is one of

2:39:51the main things that we are tasked to do

2:39:53is look at the details on on things like

2:39:55this that the council doesn't have the

2:39:59time to to get as far into. So I I do,

2:40:03you know, disagree pretty strongly on

2:40:05that, but I see the direction where the

2:40:08rest of the commission is. Um, I do have

2:40:12more amendments that I wish were

2:40:16included in this. Um, but I will refrain

2:40:19from proposing them for now. Are there

2:40:22other amendments that commissioners

2:40:23would like to propose?

2:40:28Commissioner Wagner. Thank you, Chair

2:40:30Meer. I don't have any other amendments

2:40:32at this time. I'd be curious to hear

2:40:33from other commissioners if there's any

2:40:35where they think this comes up short,

2:40:37even if it's marginally short. Um, and

2:40:40then I depending on what the answer is

2:40:42to that, I will perhaps get on my soap

2:40:45box for a second and make a different

2:40:46motion.

2:40:47>> Okay.

2:40:50Commissioners, I have response to that.

2:40:51Commissioner Beexley.

2:40:53Yeah, I thank you, Commissioner W.

2:40:55Commissioner Meyer. Um,

2:41:00as I mentioned, I I'd love to talk about

2:41:02basements. I think that's such an

2:41:03interesting component to this. But um I

2:41:07think for me the the the bigger context

2:41:10and it's something that um I brought up

2:41:13and was unable to present um which is

2:41:16the idea of a um um an ecological aspect

2:41:21to our planning code and how we approach

2:41:24this. And I think all these

2:41:28independent points that we're bringing

2:41:30up are we have a better idea of how all

2:41:32these things tie together and and so for

2:41:35me um it may be very rational from a

2:41:39certain point of view around F but to

2:41:42not understand it holistically some of

2:41:44the issues we got into trouble with on

2:41:4620 240 and I would like to take the time

2:41:49to get something in a position that was

2:41:51much more holistic around understanding

2:41:54built form and the natural environment

2:41:56together. And so for me picking at these

2:41:58things is hard given that context. So

2:42:02thank you.

2:42:04>> Am I hearing in that a request for

2:42:06something at the committee the whole to

2:42:08get into that? Like what what what would

2:42:10that look like that you would like to

2:42:12get more about? Yeah, I I had I had

2:42:15written a um

2:42:18kind of outlined a a new position um for

2:42:21our planning commission around a staff

2:42:24ecologist. And so I'm happy to represent

2:42:26that at the next committee of whole. I

2:42:29was unable to present. I think I just

2:42:31emailed it around. So

2:42:34okay, I'd love to be able to do that.

2:42:35Thank you.

2:42:39>> All right. Other commissioners,

2:42:41Commissioner McGner. Thank you, Chair

2:42:43Meer. I appreciate all the discussion

2:42:45here tonight, and I agree with a lot of

2:42:47the comments mentioned by staff and by

2:42:50commissioners, and

2:42:52I I hear the concerns about lack of

2:42:56public engagement and about this perhaps

2:42:59not being the right forum. Um, and

2:43:02unfortunately, uh, Council Member Chowry

2:43:04wasn't able to join us tonight. I would

2:43:07I would challenge us as a city to take a

2:43:10look in the mirror

2:43:12and think about like what we've done

2:43:14since enacting 2040 to continue being

2:43:17progressive on housing policy. And

2:43:21I I laotted the initial

2:43:242040 plan as did everyone else in the

2:43:26whole country. But I think like it's

2:43:30overwhelmingly clear now that in the

2:43:31duplex and triplex space that we had

2:43:34have not done enough to encourage that

2:43:36production of that housing type. And

2:43:39sure you could say this is a step in the

2:43:41right direction and the the math and the

2:43:43the 6 and the 7 for two family and three

2:43:46family. Like

2:43:48you can prove that it is a step in the

2:43:50right direction because you're

2:43:51increasing the density allowed but it's

2:43:52it's not enough in my opinion. And you

2:43:54look around the country and you see all

2:43:57these cities tackling the affordability

2:44:01of housing through more progressive

2:44:02policy and we sit here and do nothing

2:44:05going on almost a decade now since 2040

2:44:08plan was passed and I'm not sure when

2:44:10the 2050 plan process is. It's a couple

2:44:12years from now. I know it's starting but

2:44:14it's not going to be enacted for a

2:44:15couple years. And maybe that's the right

2:44:16time. Maybe that is maybe we can wait

2:44:18two more years. But

2:44:22I I remember uh Commissioner Garcia or

2:44:26Baxley, one of you said like the the

2:44:30impact of storm water runoff is

2:44:32paramount. And that's very important.

2:44:33Like 100% that's very very important.

2:44:36One of the most important things that we

2:44:38have control over as a city is the

2:44:39production and affordability of housing.

2:44:41That is designated to cities

2:44:45to to implement. And I just don't feel

2:44:48like we as a city and I'm not sure if

2:44:51that's

2:44:52us. I'm not sure if that's the mayor.

2:44:55I'm not sure if that's the council, if

2:44:56that's the residents. I'm not sure who

2:44:58that that we is like who's encompassed

2:45:01there who's empowered to make those

2:45:02changes, but we collectively are not

2:45:04doing enough. And I I hope that Biz

2:45:09re-engages on some of these comments we

2:45:11discussed today

2:45:13and that the residents get engaged on

2:45:16some of the comments we discussed today.

2:45:19And

2:45:21yeah, I think it's a really important

2:45:23discussion to have and I don't think we

2:45:25should be doing planning in 10ear

2:45:26planning cycles and I appreciate staff

2:45:28bringing this forward today and all the

2:45:30work that you've put into this, but it

2:45:32just doesn't feel to me like we're doing

2:45:34enough. we collectively. So, um I guess

2:45:37I'll get off my soap box now and um I'm

2:45:41[clears throat] happy to make a motion

2:45:42to adopt staff findings and unless

2:45:45Commissioner Meyer has more thoughts.

2:45:46Nope.

2:45:47>> Um so, I'll make that motion to adopt

2:45:48staff findings and this I hope this

2:45:50conversation continues with Biz. I hope

2:45:53the mayor and mayor staff take another

2:45:55look at some of this stuff and I hope

2:45:56that we continue progressing as a city

2:45:59and re-evaluating our production of

2:46:00housing in this space.

2:46:02>> All right. And just to clarify that a

2:46:04that motion before you make it. So it's

2:46:05to adopt the staff finding as amended

2:46:07amended by the one amended amendment

2:46:09that did pass.

2:46:10>> Correct.

2:46:11>> All right. Is there a second to that?

2:46:12>> Second.

2:46:13>> All right. Is there discussion to the

2:46:16main motion?

2:46:18Um so I'm going to vote no at this time.

2:46:21I don't feel it's ready to go to the

2:46:22council. I think that there was a lot

2:46:24more uh work that we could have done and

2:46:28I'm going to really strongly encourage

2:46:30the council uh to do more of that and

2:46:33you know at the committee the whole

2:46:34council member Chowry um said that she

2:46:37thought we should be more ambitious and

2:46:38I believe that a lot of council members

2:46:41um would would support that. You know

2:46:44when we legalized triplexes in 2019 we

2:46:47were the first city in the country to do

2:46:50that citywide. So, we were a little

2:46:51tepid about it and that made sense at

2:46:54the time. But since then, St. Paul and

2:46:58lots of other cities across uh the

2:47:00country and and states as well have

2:47:03passed legislation that is um allowing

2:47:05substantively more housing. It's not

2:47:07going to have a huge impact. You know,

2:47:09we we saw that with the numbers in St.

2:47:11Paul, but it um it was still quite

2:47:16substantive, you know, enough to be

2:47:19worth doing. And I would really like the

2:47:21council to at least get closer to St.

2:47:24Paul. And to correct something that

2:47:26Commissioner Wagner said earlier, and

2:47:27this is something that bothers me, but u

2:47:29both cities are on both sides of the

2:47:31river. So please don't erase East

2:47:34Minneapolis and West St. Paul. Um but

2:47:38[laughter]

2:47:40uh so I'll I'll be voting no because I I

2:47:45would like to see this improved before

2:47:47it's sent to the council. Are there any

2:47:50other comments before we move to a vote?

2:47:54>> All right, clerk, please call the role

2:47:55on the main motion.

2:47:58>> Commissioner Baxley,

2:47:59>> I.

2:48:01>> Garcia,

2:48:01>> I.

2:48:03>> Jones,

2:48:03>> I.

2:48:05>> Vice President Wagner,

2:48:06>> I.

2:48:07>> And President Meyer,

2:48:08>> no.

2:48:09>> There are four eyes and one A.

2:48:10>> That is adopted. Uh, last we have

2:48:14[snorts] the calendar for 2027.

2:48:18Is there any discussion

2:48:20on the calendar?

2:48:25All right. Would anyone like to move

2:48:26adoption of the 2027 CPC calendar?

2:48:31>> Second.

2:48:32>> All right. All in favor say I. I.

2:48:34>> Opposed. Abstensions. That is adopted.

2:48:38Our next planning commission meeting

2:48:39will be on November 9th and we do not

2:48:42have any committee of the whole this

2:48:44week. Are there any updates from staff

2:48:46or commissioners?

2:48:48>> Uh, just one update. I think I told you

2:48:50last time that we had received an appeal

2:48:51on the project at 35614th

2:48:54Street West and 4409 Chowan Avenue

2:48:56South. Uh, that appeal went to the biz

2:48:58committee last week and the appeal was

2:49:00denied upholding the planning

2:49:02commission's recommendation on that and

2:49:04it goes to the full city council this

2:49:06week.

2:49:07>> Great.

2:49:09All right, that concludes our business.

2:49:11We are journ. Thank you everyone.

```*