0:00The primary agenda item was the initiation of a zoning ordinance update, aimed at bringing the city’s zoning regulations in line with its comprehensive plan. The need for this update has been recognized for several years, with specific emphasis on ensuring consistency with broader city planning objectives. The discussion served as the kickoff for the update process, with commission members providing input on several key areas of interest. A flexible schedule was proposed to guide the update, allowing for adjustments as new issues or priorities arise.

Notably, the discussion addressed several specific zoning elements, such as minimum lot sizes and tree preservation requirements for new developments. The commission explored the possibility of allowing additional accessory buildings in residential areas, such as garden sheds, without counting against current restrictions. This prompted considerations for increasing the maximum height limit for accessory buildings, currently capped at 17 feet, to accommodate larger structures.

Parking regulations also came under scrutiny, with suggestions to permit materials like river rock for parking pads as a cost-effective alternative to traditional asphalt or concrete. This would help in managing impervious surface calculations more efficiently. There was a consensus on the need to review off-street parking requirements, particularly in relation to recreational vehicles and the allowable percentage of lot coverage in different zoning districts.

The conversation extended to residential zoning districts, with proposals to introduce new classifications to address the changing development landscape. The current R1 district’s minimum lot width of 85 feet has been underutilized, prompting suggestions to create additional districts like R2 for smaller single-family lots and R3 for twin homes and townhomes. These changes could enable more varied housing options, aligning zoning regulations with contemporary development practices.

11:33In parallel discussions, the commission considered the delineation of commercial and industrial zones. There was a call to clearly distinguish “True Light” industrial areas from commercial zones, suggesting that industrial structures should not be subject to the same aesthetic requirements, such as the 30% brick mandate currently applicable to C3 commercial zoning. This would allow for more utilitarian industrial designs, including pole sheds and open displays, without the need for extensive screening.

24:31Infrastructure planning was another topic, particularly the need for adequate north-south routes in anticipation of future development. The commission reviewed potential road developments and emphasized the importance of proactive planning to avoid future complications.

11:33Concerns about infrastructure capacity, especially sewer access for future growth, were raised. The Trumpy property was identified as pivotal in controlling sewer access in the area, with indications that it might be up for sale. The potential expansion of city utilities to properties adjacent to Lutheran High, currently under township jurisdiction, was debated, with skepticism about the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of such an effort.

24:31The commission also reviewed future land use, guided by a future land use map that, while not fixed, provides a framework for planning. Adjustments to the zoning map may be necessary as new developments arise, and the commission emphasized the need for flexibility while adhering to the comprehensive plan approved by the Met Council.

In closing discussions, the commission addressed the potential development of a property known as “crey,” with plans for apartments above commercial space under the new ownership of an architect. The commission committed to keeping the developer informed about zoning considerations that could impact project planning.