[0:00] [Music] [0:09] [Music] [0:18] [Music] [0:24] [Music] [0:29] [Music] [0:36] [Music] [0:54] Good evening. I call the July 17, 2025, excuse me, 2025 meeting to order. Could [1:03] you rise for the uh pledge pledge of allegiance [1:09] to the flag of the United States of America to the stands one nationice [1:20] for all. [1:27] Thank you. Miss Ericen, will you take the role, please? Tinsley here. [1:32] here. Palooa here. Zimmer here. Mike here. [1:38] Swany here. Here. [1:44] Thanks. Um, approval of the minutes from the June 26th meeting. We had those [1:49] distributed. Does anyone have any changes? Right. We will let those stand as they [1:55] are. Uh, next item on the agenda is announcements. I would ask planning [2:01] manager Jensen if she has any announcements for us. Thank you, Chair Zimmer. Uh before you this evening, uh you do have the motions [2:07] for uh from the parks, recreation, and natural resources committee regarding the tree preservation ordinance from [2:14] their meeting last evening. That is all of your handouts for this evening. [2:21] Okay, thank you. Uh, next on the agenda is a public [2:26] hearing to consider amendments to title 10 subdivision and title 11 zoning of [2:32] the city code relating to tree preservation. Believe we have director Tina Goodro to uh start us off on that. [2:40] And if you would like to um speak to these uh items, please sign up at the [2:46] back of the room so we have your name uh when we're ready. Thank you. Thank you, chair, members of the [2:51] commission. And um over the past several months, you know, city forestry staff and community development staff have [2:57] been working on evaluating our tree preservation ordinance. Um in a result to um create additional protection for [3:04] remaining trees in the community, um we had prepared an outline that became the [3:10] ordinance. That outline was shared um you know, the context of that outline [3:15] really related to or became um the gist of the ordinance. and we met with the city council over the course of two work [3:21] sessions and with this group combined with the parks and natural resource committee um in a joint session. So out [3:28] of that support from those bodies, we created the ordinance based on that outline. I'm just going to touch on an [3:34] overview of the ordinance. With me this evening is Grace Benson and Zach Jorgensson from our forestry department. [3:41] And if you have specific questions on the ordinance, they'll probably be able to help you a little better than I can. [3:47] But the gist of the ordinance starts with um a section change um to the [3:52] subdivision ordinance that requires the tree preservation ordinance to be created but then um sends you back to [3:59] the zoning ordinance. So this ordinance will now sit within the zoning ordinance rather than the subdivision ordinance. [4:05] Um we have several definitions that were added to the code. And then in section 11219B, [4:12] um we made an edit to the landscaping section um to make sure it's very clear [4:17] the amount of trees that are required for different types of development, specifically residential. Right now, [4:23] that requirement has been sitting in our development contract, and we want to make sure it's very clear in the ordinance. And then um the just the [4:31] whole um tree preservation ordinance will sit in section 112111. [4:36] And so that main section starts out with um purpose um the scope or how this [4:43] ordinance will apply incentives um and then in section E um we get into [4:50] the requirements for the tree preservation plan. Um item F gets into [4:55] the allowed tree removal and this has been established at 40% for residential, [5:01] 70% for all other resident all other districts other than residential. So your commercial, your industrial and [5:07] your special districts. That 40% was recommended by the council at our last [5:13] work session a couple of weeks ago. Um that came down from 50%. Originally, um, [5:19] we had proposed 50% and then we had a whole bunch of exclusions. To make it [5:24] simple, we just added it at 40%. All in all, it's probably not that much of a [5:29] difference when you consider the exclusions. Then the ordinance goes into [5:35] um the replacement requirements. So if there is a development that exceeds the removal threshold, it walks you through [5:42] um how to prepare and identify the requirements for replacement and then um [5:49] gets into um an alternative cash contribution if it's necessary in the [5:54] event that the replacement trees do not fit and then um follows through with um [6:00] different warranty and protective measures for the trees. Um this ordinance is very um you would if you [6:07] looked at this ordinance and you compared it to many of our surrounding cities, you would find that it compares very well. Um Grace has done a lot of [6:15] work on this ordinance as has Jack um Zach. Um and if you have questions [6:21] specifically on an example of how this would apply um they can they're prepared to answer that tonight. Um we've done a [6:28] lot of study on that as well as understanding the cost. Um, we did meet [6:33] with the parks commission last night. Um, had a good conversation with them and they unanimously recommended support [6:40] for this ordinance. Um, so I can answer or we'll pull up Zach and Grace if you [6:46] have any specific questions. Commissioners, what's your preference? [6:54] Is this a public hearing? It is a public hearing. The public hearing. So, um, this is public hearing [7:01] and Uh if we have questions beyond uh what Miss Goodro has presented, we can [7:07] call up our uh our uh a team. Um but do we have anyone that [7:14] wishes to speak? Please come forward and identify yourself and your address and [7:20] uh give us your comments. Madam Chair, good evening. Uh I'm Bob [7:26] Ericson 1908. What is my address? [7:34] I'm going blank for a moment. I'll get back to that in just a second. The only question I had this evening, [7:40] um, it's Irale path drive. Um, [7:50] first the term mixed use, if uh, someone could define what they mean by mixed [7:57] use. It's in item F on page two. It says while mixed use are [8:05] set at 70%. Is mixed use include any residential [8:12] and we will uh staff will be taking keeping track of all the questions and we'll have them addressed. The other [8:18] question is um some members of this plan of the planning of this current planning [8:24] commission were responsible for the approval of Authentics, an affordable [8:30] town home project. Um of which there were 900 [8:35] plus or minus um but close to 900 oak trees that were uh removed uh in that [8:42] project. Um they actually clearcut the site. Um, and what I'm interested in [8:49] learning is if authentics was being pursued today, would um [8:58] a a would 40% or 60% depending how you look [9:04] at it be saved um would have been saved in that project. And the reason I raise [9:10] that point is authentics is a quality affordable project. Um however because [9:17] of the clear cutting and there's no vegetation literally left on the site uh [9:23] those that reside uh adjoining a commercial building uh look are looking [9:28] or viewing at a loading dock and I think that could have been avoided if the [9:34] trees some trees had been saved in that uh site plant process. Thank you. [9:41] Thank you so much. Do we have any others? [9:47] Madam Chair, seeing no one else come forward, I move to close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor signify by [9:54] saying I. I. The public hearing is closed. Uh, now we [10:01] will open it up for commissioners um to think about their questions and see if [10:06] staff can address the questions raised by Mr. Ericson. [10:13] Thank you. Um the mixed use refers to the zoning district mixed use. So there's an M1 and an M2 mixed use. [10:22] I think the further question on that was does mixed use include any residential. [10:29] It does, but we decided to um classify that with um we lump that one with the [10:36] commercial at the 70% threshold versus the residential threshold. Okay. [10:49] The other question was about whether authentics were on the docket now. Would [10:54] it happen? And it doesn't need to be specifically that one, but is there some change? I mean, do we need to walk [11:01] through that example in some way? [11:07] Madam Chair. Yeah. I I think kind of like as an addition to that just kind of um M Goodro could kind [11:14] of tell us what what happens if someone you know the [11:19] constraints of the space do not allow for things to be um you know saved. If you [11:27] could just kind of walk that through for the public on like what what happens then? [11:33] Yeah. So if you exceed your threshold on any given site, um we're allowing um in [11:40] situations where there is buffering or screening required, those trees would count towards the reforestation. The [11:47] base landscaping requirements wouldn't, but anything that's in addition buffering, um screening, those kinds of [11:53] things would count towards the reforestation trees. And if a site just simply ran out of room, that's why we [12:00] have the FEN loop. and we'll be establishing that within the fee schedule. Then those um those fees would [12:07] then be put into a fund. Um and then it's established in the ordinance how that fee would be used. [12:14] Thank you. U have a couple of questions and I kind [12:20] of use an example but I want to kind of preface this by a couple things. One is I used to own some houses down in [12:26] downtown Lakeville. So these are kind of real examples and The second thing is [12:31] I'm not anti- trees. Anybody go to my house, they would understand that I'm not anti-tree. So if you were going to [12:39] old old Lake build houses built, you know, sometime in the 60s, which is most [12:44] of downtown, a lot by Lakeville South. So in those yards, particularly in the [12:52] backyards, there are a number of very large trees that would do the 30 inch. I had one for [12:58] example, and a lot of those houses have turned over and there's younger folks in [13:04] their childbearing years. Um, as those people have children and they want to do [13:11] an addition, a lot of the trees down there were built really close to decks. [13:17] Um, and so let's just use an example that you have a 30 inch 40 foot tall tree [13:23] and most of those lots down there are what? Quarter of an acre, third at the most [13:29] that you had to take down that tree to put on an addition. This this ordinance would say that you [13:37] needed to replace 30 inches of diameter on a quarter acre lot [13:43] and you have to use a minimum of a 2 inch tree, 2 and 1/2 inch tree, 4 foot, four and a half foot. [13:50] That'd be 12 trees. You went bigger diameter. [13:55] You'd probably need to get a tree spade, some sort of motorized tree spade that you wouldn't be able to get into the [14:01] backyard anyway. How how do you how do you satisfy that [14:07] ordinance in an older neighborhood? [14:15] Think we're going to phone a friend here. Yep. He is the expert on the [14:22] Yeah. So I think in those situations and I think you should identify yourself for the record. [14:27] Oh yeah, sorry about that. Yeah, Zach Jorgensson, uh, city forester. So yeah, on properties uh where we're [14:33] looking at at uh you know replacement of housing or expansion um yeah we're looking at those heritage trees uh which [14:40] as you mentioned yeah that can certainly exist on those. Um yeah I think I mean the intention of it obviously is to [14:47] preserve those preserve those trees. Um it is a question of how you get get [14:52] those back on there. and and having built a house where we took out trees and put other trees, when [14:59] you put too many trees on the lot, 10 years from now, it's a disappointment [15:04] because they're growing into each other and they're shading each other out. So, it becomes somewhat problematic. And my [15:11] other concern for this that kind of ties into there is that there's a requirement that that home builder wanted to do an [15:17] addition would need to get an arborist certify the trees in the in the yard all [15:23] the costs associated with doing that. Um and then I think you know as you look at [15:30] that in itself becomes a little bit problematic. And I think the other side [15:35] of this coin is you know if they can't do the addition and if they bought that house three [15:42] years ago they're sitting on a three and a half% or 3% mortgage. [15:48] Are they going to be forced to move and now have a 5% mortgage? [15:55] I I just think there's a cost associated with this beyond trees [16:01] um that we need to be cognizant of particularly on existing older more mature neighborhoods and and you know I [16:09] suppose you could look at doing going around this by looking at a variance but I I just don't think that's the way to [16:15] do this because that becomes very subjective where I like your variance I don't like [16:20] yours um I think there needs to be some work done That would allow some [16:28] flexibility for some of the older neighborhoods where they do have those trees where those trees were probably [16:34] not correctly placed when planted 50 years ago, 40 years ago. [16:41] Um that that makes it a little bit more workable so that people don't have to [16:46] move to add a bedroom. Sure. And I will note too on uh on the [16:53] certified and all that. We did expand the list uh from what we had before. Initially it was licensed or certified [17:00] forester or landscape architect. We did include certified arborist which a much broader set of [17:05] Yeah. And I get that but it's it's still a cost and it's a cost in neighborhoods [17:10] and most of the neighborhoods where this would occur or in lower moderate incomes. [17:16] Um, again, nothing wrong with that, but we just need to be sensitive that, you [17:22] know, people stretch to get in these homes. They're trying to create a nice place, and we're putting some [17:28] restrictions around that. So, a little bit of this comes into property rights, too. [17:34] So, if I could um commission point you to it's on page four of the ordinance [17:41] um where this applies. It's under scope section B number four. [17:53] So that would be the area that would require an edit if we [17:59] were to change something. Um I think you bring up some good points. Um this has [18:04] been a difficult part of the ordinance to address. Um so that we don't just have clear cutting to, you know, add on, [18:12] but that we're conscious and paying attention. But I but I do get your point. Um what I would ask is if the [18:19] other commissioners consider the same concern then we will take that as a [18:24] recommendation to do some revisions before this goes to council. [18:30] Madam Chair, sorry, I I would agree with Commissioner Ike [18:37] that Yeah, I mean that's what I was looking at under the scope the number four on on what would trigger that. And [18:47] I I think Commissioner Rank is right. You don't necessarily want to deal with this by variance, which in itself is [18:53] another application fee for someone trying to do it. And um [18:59] I I think my largest concern would be [19:05] what to do for kind of our established neighborhoods. I I like the other parts [19:10] of this ordinance, especially when you're talking about new developments. Um, you know, I think all of us cringe [19:18] when we see the people that harvest their land right before they come in for an application. Um, [19:26] so I if there's some work that could be done on that number four under scope [19:33] uh to take into account some of our older neighborhoods and and those really [19:39] mature nice trees that I don't think people you know want to to cut down but [19:45] you know circumstances change in life whether it's expanding for a uh you know [19:52] additional new family members or adding in so that uh you know their parents can [19:58] age in I think that that's something we should look at or a home office to work from home. [20:05] One more question. Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner. I think also in looking at this, we need to look at the replacement side of this. [20:14] My read on this felt it was more for open space, new land coming in. I don't [20:20] know how many lots uh in Lakeville that you could put up [20:26] 12, you know, two and a half inch trees, but you know, make them six. Make them [20:31] as big as you want on the tree space. Most of the lots in town, and then going to what the lots are shaping up to be in [20:38] the future, which are going back to the smaller lots. I think it'd be hardressed [20:44] to fit enough diameter trees replace a 30 in let alone [20:51] a 40 inch cotton or something like that. So, I think I think I think that may work well in open land that we're [20:58] developing, but I think in neighborhood land, it becomes really a hard nut to crack. And [21:05] I don't, you know, not knowing what the cash payment substitute is. You know, I [21:13] can't opine on whether that's feasible or unfeasible or whatnot. [21:19] There's there's no dollar amount attached to that. Commissioner Kuza and u just to add on to that I think you [21:26] don't want the unintended consequence of you know I in my yard I planted a whole bunch of trees because I thought they'd [21:33] look nice but I don't want to you know someone to hold off on doing that in the future because they think well what if I [21:39] want to expand. Um similarly I don't think you want someone to come in with [21:44] you know those 12 two inch diameter trees assuming and knowing that the [21:50] majority of them are going to die or have to be cut down. It might help if we go through a couple [21:55] of development examples so you can see how this ordinance plays out in projects [22:00] that have already occurred in Lakeville. I I think I think on again that's more open land and I'm not I'm not as [22:07] concerned on open land. I'm more concerned about existing mature [22:13] neighborhoods where the big trees are in neighborhoods. [22:18] You know, in the new developments, they're, you know, they're all relatively small. There's no heritage tree, so to speak, are very few, very [22:26] limited. Where where they pop up is in the old existing neighborhoods. And [22:31] that's where I think the the trouble um comes into play. [22:38] Commissioner I have a quick question too. What how does this uh [22:44] ordinance amendment to the ordinance affect where there are uh mature trees, [22:51] large trees, but they're diseased and they have to be removed specifically the ash trees because of [22:58] the emerald ashbor but there's other way other trees that get diseased and have to be removed as well. [23:05] Yeah, I can take that one. Um so within the the and all that. Certainly uh trees [23:10] that are dead are exempt from the calculations. Uh trees that are diseased or infested uh under the shade tree [23:15] ordinance. So your emerald ash, ash trees, oak wilts, disease pockets, Dutch [23:22] elm disease are exempt from those calculations because certainly they are not viable [23:28] and so those wouldn't be counted as part of the removal numbers uh nor require replacement. [23:35] Mr. Jorgensson. I had one question um [23:42] on this issue where we're looking on scope five land disturbing activities is [23:47] regulated by section land disturbing. So you want to give a [23:54] little definition of what that might be? Yeah, that's that's maybe I'll bring you up again Tina as well. So u those are [24:00] getting into issues uh where permitting is required for things like grading. Sorry I couldn't hear. Oh sorry. Those are for issues uh where [24:06] you've got uh projects that are basically applying for permits for mass grading uh big disturbances to the site. [24:12] Not not anything that a homeowner would be doing um but specifically those larger projects that are going to be disturbing large areas of land. [24:19] So that would be the reference to larger projects, not residential. Correct. Yep. [24:28] Madam Chair Commission, just a a quick question. So on here it lists out items where primarily [24:35] construction whether you're adding on or new new dirt projects coming up. What if [24:42] I don't have a new project, don't have an addition, and I decide to cut down a [24:47] tree. Yeah. Uh that's not not regulated under this. So that is something that's that's [24:52] allowed as a property owner maintaining your property. Oh wow. That that opens up a whole new [24:58] bag of worms. Sorry. So if I want to add on to my house, I have to add 10 trees [25:05] if I'm doing a heritage tree, but if I'm not adding on to my house, I can cut any [25:10] tree down I want. Yeah. I mean, this is primarily aimed at at development and building. So, [25:17] okay. So um when we're looking at this I just [25:23] wrote down is there a determination factor in some way uh good read that we [25:29] can do that is there enough land or space to support x number of trees that [25:36] have to be the replacement as you're reworking this ordinance to kind of work [25:41] with um the concerns that commissioner Ike brought forward something on that order. I'm not sure [25:48] what would be best, but I I can't imagine adding 12 more trees. [25:56] I have a lot of trees already on my lot, but to have to add 12 more would be problematic. Can I add on to that? Um I I think this [26:03] whole concept that that if I own land and I know I want to do an addition in a [26:10] few years, I just cut down the tree today [26:15] and for a building permit next year. We I think if if the goal here is to try [26:22] to limit some of that, we need to figure that out because [26:27] that's kind of, you know, if I look on Lake Marion, for example, that's what people are doing. The [26:33] builders are going in, they're taking everything out and then filing for a building permit. [26:45] Other questions? Commissioner Swanson looks like he's contemplating something. I I have been contemplating something, [26:51] Madam Chair. Um but what I do want to just check in on are we relatively close [26:56] to having completed conversation on say the small lot situations and scenarios before we transition into I'll say large [27:02] developments. Anyone else wants to chime in there on that on that issue? on that issue. [27:08] Madam Chair, um I I I think it's just important to [27:15] say that I I think that the some residential limitations make sense to [27:20] me. So I don't think we're saying here that we want to just remove any limitations based on these older [27:27] developments. Um, I think it would be good to modify, but I I I think that the [27:32] concept I I think is sound to try to preserve the heritage trees and have some sort of limitation on that. So So [27:39] there So there would be work to do there. Um, at least my my take on it. [27:48] Any additional feedback on residential lots and tree replacement? [27:54] And if not, then we'll turn it that we can't revisit it, but Commissioner Swenson, new subject. [28:02] All right. So, kind of shifting gears, um, you talked about having some examples of how this would apply to, [28:08] we'll say, development we've had occur here in Lakeville already, that type of thing. I know I was kind of interested [28:13] in some analysis like that just to see what exactly would we be gaining by [28:18] changing our ordinance here and what what what benefit would we get in maybe [28:24] looking at some of those examples just to see we plant [28:31] this. Excellent. Thank you. [28:39] Okay. [28:46] Grace Benson, forestry technician. So I put together two examples of the um [28:55] developments that this would apply to or could have applied to. These are relatively recent [29:01] ones. See how to change this. [29:08] Okay, there we go. All right. So Klano is the first one. about 61% of the [29:16] significant tree diameter inches were removed on this site. So that's about 2,200 trees. [29:23] No heritage trees were preserved. With this ordinance, we do have a credit for preserving those trees, which would [29:30] apply to replacement. With a 40% removal threshold, we would [29:35] be requiring 1,649 trees to be planted. That's with the 2.5 [29:42] inch replacement trees or the equivalent cost in the fee and loo [29:48] under their landscaping plan 187 trees were planted as screening and reviewing [29:54] the landscaping plan we did see places where more trees could be planted on that site. [30:00] Um we the replacement trees came out of mostly [30:08] hardwood deciduous that were removed. So mostly oak trees, any other hardwood deciduous. Um so that was found through [30:16] a rate of one half the inches removed from the site that were above the [30:22] removal threshold. Can I ask a question before you switch? [30:28] Are you going to talk more about that when you switching to the next example? My question would be what's the difference in cost? [30:34] Yes, cost is on the next slide. If that's in the next slide, that'd be great. Thank you. Yeah. [30:40] So, I compared it to several other um ordinances. The estimated costs are [30:48] down at the bottom left hand corner. Under a 40% threshold, that would be [30:54] about 900,000 or so. But you can see compared to other cities [31:01] in our area generally we are at a lower replacement requirement than other [31:07] cities. Um in this scenario we did get a high [31:13] replacement rate partially because of our heritage tree requirement that we replace 100% of those diameter inches. [31:21] Um, ideally we would like to see more preservation of those trees which would then incur a credit which would then [31:29] reduce the amount of replacement needed which we can see an example of in the next slide. If anybody has any questions [31:36] I can stop. I would So I'm looking at the chart and I don't see the specific the 900. So is [31:41] it $900 total? Um yes, for [31:46] it's down at the bottom left in a just typed out. Um [31:53] yeah, roughly 900,000. 900,000. So that's significant. [31:59] Yes. Um in the in the scope of a development, I don't think it's [32:05] unreasonable. Um and a quick question. When when you're [32:13] That's the cost of the tree preservation. How, if you're a builder and you're [32:20] looking at how many lots can I have in a in a development, [32:25] how many lots would this take out? I don't know. I'm not extremely familiar [32:31] with lots. Maybe you can think about that if [32:37] somebody can come up with an answer. So are you asking how that dollar amount [32:43] would equate to lots? Yeah. What? Because if you look again, you know, I'm thinking in terms of this [32:49] missing middle and and trying to get more housing, not necessarily less and and again this is [32:55] has nothing to do with tree preservation. Um but it has to do with cost of [33:01] building. So the tree preservation here adds about a million dollars, 900, whatever. Um, [33:10] but if we take out 10 lots, that's another million. Yep. [33:15] Or more. Right. Lots are what? 100 to 150, maybe more. I haven't bought a lot [33:20] lately for about a long time. So, yeah, I was going to suggest 150 to 200. Yeah. [33:26] Um, so yeah, you're absolutely correct. This is a worst case scenario because literally the entire site was cleared, [33:31] right? So, the intent is, and I should have prefaced this too, we did share [33:37] this ordinance with probably a dozen of our ongoing, you know, developers that [33:43] have been working in the community for years. Um, we've heard from one um the rest of them provided feedback on the [33:50] outline. When we shared the full ordinance, we only received back feedback from one. Um, all of them [33:56] understand that this ordinance is doing what a lot of our neighboring communities, it's not something that's [34:03] wild and crazy. It's consistent. Um, so they understand um the goal. The hope is [34:10] because we have this now, people might pay a little bit more attention to their land planning. We try really hard when [34:16] we're going through sketch plan, concept plan, plumary plat, but we have zero teeth. So, this is a worst case [34:23] scenario. Hopefully this kind of scenario doesn't happen again because of this ordinance and people think a little [34:28] more consciously about the design of their development, creating desirable lots because there are trees and trying [34:35] to figure out a land plan around that to save more. [34:40] Can I do one followup question? I'm not sure if it's for um Miss Jacobson, no, [34:46] Ms. Benson or not. the proposed fee that we don't haven't [34:52] seen yet for um kind of buying your way out of the problem and then this like [34:58] million dollars to preserve all those trees. Are those [35:04] equable? Do we have any idea where those numbers are going to where they're come at come out? [35:10] Yeah, our current fe would approx or would equal the cost for planting the [35:17] replacement trees. So the only applies to the cost of the replacement trees. That would be [35:26] okay. So that would be like be equal as as far as million dollars or so in this case. [35:32] Yeah. And this estimate is created using a I think $550 per tree estimate which [35:39] could change depending on the developer what stock they have. Okay. [35:48] Shall I continue with the next example? Sure. Okay. All right. The next one is more what [35:56] we'd like to see. Uh the preserve preserved about seven acres of oak [36:01] woodland in the center of their development. Um they preserved a good [36:07] deal of heritage trees um out of the ones on site. So around 56% of [36:14] significant trees were preserved. um 2 again 2,200 were removed. The preserved [36:21] heritage trees ended up creating a 50% reduction in required tree planting. [36:29] So with a with the 40% removal threshold, this comes out to 820ish [36:35] trees required to be planted or uh the fian [36:41] about 140 trees were proposed to be planted as screening so that could have counted towards that number. [36:50] And comparing it to other cities, we are [36:55] consistently lower than most other cities with this example, largely [37:00] because of the credit applied to heritage trees. There's another credit in our ordinance that I couldn't math [37:07] out with this example, which is the significant woodland credit. That would apply most likely another 50% reduction. [37:15] So, probably taking it down to about 400 trees planted. [37:20] Um, comparing to Dayton and Farmington, those were both around the 2000, mid200s [37:27] for replacement trees compared to our 800 or 400 with the additional credit. [37:33] Um, and the cost on this was more around 500,000. So, significant reduction with [37:40] the use of those credits in there. So half a million for them. [37:52] Any follow questions? Keep going. Those are my two examples. So yes, [38:00] that's it on the um Madam Chair, Commissioner Travis. [38:05] So So I have a question about significant woodland. The idea that it's two acres or more of [38:12] undisturbed woodland. Um, I'm not asking for an exact acreage, but is that a [38:19] substantial number of acres? Are there are there still a lot of significant [38:24] woodland in Lakeville to be preserved? So, we definitely see a lot of significant woodland on the west side of [38:31] 35, which is what we were holding in mind when writing this ordinance. Um, [38:37] significant woodland. It's also a lot healthier for the trees to preserve them as is in a woodland. So, That's why we [38:44] wanted to include the the significant credit. Thank you. [38:54] Thank you. Other questions from commissioners? [39:06] Did you read a bunch of notes you want to share with us? Um, chair, members of the commission, I just have the notes [39:13] from the previous conversation. So, um, we can take those considerations back [39:18] and revise, address things, um, to that scope and how, you know, see if we can [39:26] come up with some alternatives of how it would apply to existing lot situations, existing neighborhood situations. Um, I [39:32] have the note regarding the concern over um, the replacement in such situations as well. Um, so I guess it's up to the [39:40] commission if you want this to come back prior to um going to council. We could [39:46] table the item and bring it back if that's a desire or work on this and [39:51] bring something to the council that addresses those concerns. Thank you. Uh, what is the feeling of [39:58] the commission? Madam Chair, Commissioner, um I think it'd be cleanest if we tabled [40:05] it and have it came back come back for us and um I think that just would be the [40:11] easiest opposed to trying to change something kind of on the fly. [40:16] Okay, other opinions. I see some heads nodding. [40:23] All right, looks like we're ready for a mad chair. Just real quick, I just want to make sure that people understand that [40:28] before this open plan. Yep. And I think particularly west of the [40:33] interstate, I I get it. Um but I think we also need to understand that it's [40:39] going to make those lots much more expensive and the average cost of a home in Lakeville much more expensive and [40:46] that's the cost of tree saving. Understood. [40:52] chair kind of stole a little of what I was thinking about there as well that [40:58] I appreciate the examples of the dollars associated with this because I think it's important that we as a body have an [41:04] understanding of what the ramifications of some of these rules are. They're real dollars and as a developer you're kind [41:12] of weighing all these different factors out and so I I understand that the hope and the desire is to impact the design [41:19] the development but the flip side of this too is also the developer is kind of weighing out how can I maximize how [41:25] many lots I have with walkout homes on it and when you do that that starts meaning masquerading and when you start [41:31] masquerading you start taking out all the trees so there's kind of a a balance and a give and take in all this and so [41:37] thank you for providing those numbers for us to kind of wrap our heads around what the dollar amounts are and those [41:43] dollar amounts don't shock me given what the cost of land development and earth moving all the utilities and everything [41:48] else that goes into this it's expensive to do all this. But you're absolutely right. There's a cost associated with [41:55] that. And as I'm thinking about the conversations we're having about missing middle housing um and other pieces, it's [42:02] all costs that add into the cost of that housing. The flip side of that as I consider this is we do look at our [42:08] neighboring communities and they already have this in place and we've kind of been in that position that we just [42:13] haven't done this for a variety of reasons. Um so it's not like we're trying to reinvent the wheel. something [42:20] different than our neighboring communities are. So, I appreciate that as well. So, I'm kind of weighing all [42:25] this out as I ponder the direction we go with this. I don't know that it influences anything you're doing with [42:31] the language that goes into this, but it helps me understand the impact and the cost and what developers would need to [42:37] consider as they're putting this together. Certainly. So, again, appreciate that information. [42:45] Any other comments? I think we're ready for a motion. [42:50] Uh, Madam Chair, Commissioner Guza. Um, I motion to uh table uh the proposed [42:58] ordinance amendments to title 10 uh subdivisions and title 11 zoning of the city code related to tree preservation. [43:05] Second. We have a motion and a second. Miss Ericson, would you please take the vote? [43:11] Travis, I Zimmer. I [43:17] sw I swson I tinsley I [43:23] thank you very much lots of work appreciate the input and exa the examples too thank you [43:32] our second issue is public hearing to consider amendments to title 10 subdivisions title 11 uh zoning of the [43:40] public city code relating to development and residential districts And I believe we have uh our consultant, [43:48] Mr. Lick, here to present. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission. Dan L with the [43:54] planning company uh assisting city staff and collaborating on the updates to the zoning ordinance and subdivision [44:00] ordinance and continued discussion of these items yet again tonight. Um so what we have before you as part of this [44:07] discussion and this proposal is uh an approach taken by the city and as an initiative uh of the mayor to work with [44:14] our partners in the development sector to see if there's common ground that can be found to address the middle missing [44:21] middle housing issue uh to try and proactively respond to that in that um [44:26] without this type of action it may be forced upon the city given the uh [44:31] actions at the legislature the last two sessions uh that involve proposals to mandate [44:37] certain changes to city development processes. Uh as long as we're looking at zoning ordinances, uh city staff [44:43] always maintains a list of items that require review from time to time uh either to update for best practices, [44:49] reflect current development trends. Uh sometimes you look at the provisions of the ordinance and they don't make sense [44:55] after you look at them several years later. Uh so we need to correct that. And then of course there are always statutory changes that come out that [45:02] need review. So first the missing middle housing uh what is it? So it's that gap [45:07] in the housing market where uh people that are defined as middle income are finding it difficult to find housing [45:13] that is within that 30% threshold of their uh household income that would be [45:20] considered affordable or attainable to them. These households typically don't qualify for housing assistance programs. [45:26] So they're basically being left out of the housing market especially in growing cities such as Lakeville. Uh so what are [45:32] the factors that influence these housing costs? Well, first of all, it's land value because you there's three partners [45:38] involved in development. The land owner, the developer, and then the city. So the land owner and the developer first need [45:44] to agree on a price for what that development is going to cost to acquire. Uh then the city steps in with its [45:49] infrastructure, and those all involve costs either that the developer has to build or that the city collects impact [45:55] fees for uh to refund itself for the infrastructure it's making available. uh [46:00] you get through those and then the developer has obviously the cost to build everything including uh streets, [46:06] utilities, landscaping, uh whether tree preservation or uh new installation [46:12] that's required by the ordinance. There are factors that go beyond the three partners control uh related to the [46:18] economy. So, uh, inflation, interest rates, tariffs, the cost of goods, [46:24] services, labor, uh, those are all things that, uh, none of the three can control, but all have to deal with. Uh, [46:31] regional development policy, which the city must reflect through its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances. And then the city's [46:37] establishing, uh, its regulations for what the development needs to look like, lot sizes, etc. So obviously with this [46:45] initiative, we're focusing on the zoning regulation portion of it. Um the city's [46:50] fundamental policy when it comes to housing is that uh trying to provide a range of housing options for all ages [46:57] and all incomes uh in order to provide balance that serves not only housing but economic development. Uh you can't have [47:03] industrial development if there aren't workers in your community. Um likewise, people need places to shop and uh [47:10] acquire goods and services. So uh it all ends up providing balance within the city and needs to be addressed as part [47:17] of the comprehensive plan uh process. So we do that through the density of development that's allowed for [47:22] residential uses. We provide for a range of development types from single family all the way up to apartments and [47:28] everything in between. A range of different lot requirements for different areas of the city. Uh establishing [47:34] performance standards for what those dwellings need to consist of whether it's exterior finishes, garages, floor [47:39] area, etc. and then kind of the administration part of it. Uh the [47:44] overhead that's uh often not necessarily seen initially, but you know, how complicated is it to go through the [47:50] city's review process and expedite and actually get in the ground and start building homes. So, the initiatives [47:57] Lakeville has taken under the guise of providing for this policy, uh they put [48:03] 2040 comprehensive plan, but this is really an effort that goes back decades. Uh the city, you know, starting in the [48:10] 70s, looked at proactively positioning itself for the growth that it saw coming. Uh in the 1990s through probably [48:16] the current comprehensive plan, it's managing that growth and adjusting to [48:22] changes in the market. Uh with Lakeville becoming one of the fastest growing communities in the Twin Cities. Uh and [48:28] now to address this current issue that's before not only the city but the region uh is the mayor's initiative that he [48:35] started in August of 2024 to sit down with builders in the community and say where can we work together to find ways [48:42] to address this this issue. So uh they had that discussion the results of which were brought to the planning commission [48:48] in December for discussion. Uh the city council discussed your comments and feedback at their work session in [48:55] January. It was basically set aside until now to allow the legislative [49:00] session to work its way through because again there were uh bills proposed that would mandate certain changes uh that [49:07] were aimed at this type of issue. So having the session complete nothing changed. So now again bringing this [49:13] forward uh to prepare specific amendments on a city basis. [49:18] So I'll just quickly kind of go through some of these amendments. Uh when the planning commission met in December, we [49:23] talked about where a lot of these requirements came from. Uh not only early comprehensive planning, but [49:28] specific studies that were done in the 1990s related to growth management. Uh significant effort to update the zoning [49:35] ordinance in 2000 uh to address quality of development, consistency of [49:40] development, and u manage that growth going forward. Um those amendments that [49:46] were put in place in 2000 as part of the city's proactive effort to uh maintain [49:52] uh contemporary regulations resulted in these annual updates that are done for the zoning ordinance and subdivision [49:58] ordinance to make sure that if new issues are coming forward that they are addressed uh in a timely manner and [50:04] proactively by the city. So, one of the amendments put in place in 2000 was a requirement that uh if you have a [50:11] dwelling unit without basements, it needed to provide a 540 foot garage adequate for parking two vehicles, but [50:19] also some additional storage uh with the intent of not displacing vehicles from [50:24] the garage to the driveway uh for uh those units that don't have basement and [50:30] lack other storage. Um what's become apparent uh in the last 25 years is that [50:36] this is still a requirement unique to Lakeville. Uh it's caused these builders to generate specific housing plans to [50:42] respond to that for Lakeville development. Uh whereas other communities have found and the developers argue that a 440 foot garage [50:51] for a townhouse or 480 square feet for single family is more than sufficient. [50:56] Uh basically these residents are making a choice to live in that size dwelling and will find ways to accommodate it. [51:03] Sometimes that does mean parking their car outside on the driveway, but uh in terms of balancing housing cost versus [51:10] uh parking on the driveway, it's an item that the city was willing to consider. Another item that was put in place, this [51:16] one from 1994, was the requirement that for any single family lot, the site plan needed to show how uh the if not [51:23] constructed, a third garage stall could be added. That kind of comes from the [51:30] first tier suburb development where houses were one or two stall garages at [51:35] the time and then three stalls became the norm. And so you ended up with a lot of variances in cities like Crystal or [51:41] New Hope to accommodate that. So trying to look ahead and forecast that need in [51:46] Lakeville to put that requirement in place. Today it's only applies to the RS1, RS2, [51:53] and RS3 districts. Those lots have sufficient width to accommodate a three-stall garage if they weren't [51:59] constructed initially. So uh city staff kind of views this requirement as unnecessary at this point and uh just a [52:06] target for uh attraction. Um lot area. These is this is an area [52:13] that's been changed significantly over the last 25 years as uh development [52:18] trends have changed and practices have changed particularly after the great recession. So the 2010 era zoning [52:26] ordinance amendments looking at reducing lot areas. We also made significant changes to lot area following the 2018 [52:32] or the 2020 or 2040 version of the comprehensive plan where regional density mandates went up which [52:38] necessitated the city lowering the the minimum lot requirements in some of these zoning districts. So what was done [52:46] uh after the 2040 comprehensive plan was putting in place within the RST2 [52:51] district a ability to lower single family lot sizes to 55 ft in width. uh [52:58] that was based on the model established through Spirit of Branch and Farm and Avon Lee where those developments used [53:04] planned unit development districts to provide for a mix of single family lot sizes within their project. Basically 30 [53:11] to 35% of those developments were to be these smaller narrower lots. Um, seeing [53:17] that in practice through those two developments gave the city enough confidence to put this in place as a [53:23] conditional use permit so that when Brookshshire came in uh it was basically [53:28] an entitlement by conditional use permit to do that versus uh by uh planned unit [53:34] development district. So now what's being proposed is to facilitate that flexibility for developers by making the [53:42] 55 foot wide wide lot the standard within the RST2 district and expanding [53:47] that flexibility into the RS4 district by conditional use permit. The intent [53:52] here again is to provide a mix of uh dwelling and lot sizes within those [53:58] individual neighborhoods for greater variety that will expand the market and market choice within these subdivisions. [54:06] uh exterior materials. So in the 2000 zoning ordinance update, one of the major initiatives was to move away from [54:14] using planned unit development in order to develop any type of townhouse [54:19] project. Uh there was inconsistency in how those standards would be applied, what requirements were required of [54:25] individual development. So everything was standardized into the requirements of the MR, excuse me, the RM and RH [54:34] zoning districts. That included specifications for minimum exterior materials. Uh there was a requirement [54:40] put in for a minimum 25% brick on the front and then percentages [54:46] for each side of the structure. Purpose was twofold. Uh first was durability. uh [54:52] the concern that you have townhouse development with maintenance occurring hired landscaping coming through with [54:59] their weed whippers tearing up the vinyl siding at the base of the structure. So to address that, put the most durable [55:05] materials at the base of the structure. Second, obviously aesthetics that these buildings are typically exposed on all [55:12] four sides. So what is the front and where should the highest quality materials be? Obviously, you should use [55:18] four-sided architecture in the same fashion as commercial structure so that it's a balanced appearance all the way [55:23] around. Um, these modifi these standards have been modified over time. Uh, the [55:28] brick on all four sides for detached town homes was removed after the Great Recession. Uh, and they've been [55:35] basically stepping back. At the same time, you have new materials like Hardy Board or LP Smart Side that are more [55:40] durable than vinyl and have been viewed as a reasonable substitute. Uh in terms [55:47] of that durability component, uh when the city put the 2000 zoning ordinance [55:52] in place, initially, one of the developers commented that you can't legislate taste. Uh so, you know, [55:58] focusing less on the aesthetics and more on the durability. Uh that still meets [56:03] the intent of that ordinance. So the change here would be to uh eliminate the specific brick requirement and allow uh [56:11] fiber cement or uh engineered wood to meet that durable requirement, durability requirement and leave the [56:18] aesthetic uh provisions mainly to the developer but there is still provision in there for variation in materials [56:25] either in terms of actual change of materials or in terms of texture and color. Um some other amendments that are [56:32] addressing the um missing middle provisions. Um again standardizing those [56:37] townhouse standards in 2000 led to setbacks specific to the base lot or the [56:43] yard surrounding individual town homes. How those are applied in practice gets a little convoluted when you're dealing [56:48] with side lot lines, rear lot lines, etc. So, we've simplified that uh as part of this amendment to just require a [56:55] perimeter 10- foot easement unless budding a public rideaway or a private drive. So, that uh it's basically the [57:02] same distance that you would apply to a single family dwelling. Uh the proposal is to use RM3 district [57:09] density design and construction standards for town houses within the RH districts. Uh the RM3 district was put [57:17] in place after the 2040 comprehensive plan update specifically for areas [57:22] targeted for high density like the Cedar Avenue corridor. So the density is higher than you'd see in most of the [57:28] existing townhouse developments in Lakeville. There's also a higher design standard that goes with that and some [57:34] differences in construction standards such as uh you're only prov required to provide one garage stall per dwelling [57:40] unit within that RM3 district. But given that this is a high density residential district, trying to add as much [57:47] potential uh dwelling units into those areas is positive both in terms of market but also helps the city achieve [57:54] its density requirements established by Metropolitan Council. Uh that same concept applies to the transition [58:00] requirement that's put in place in 2000. Basically, if an area was guided for [58:05] multiple family housing, a developer was required to put in a block of single family or lower density type dwelling [58:12] units. Problem that causes it basically lowers the development density of the [58:18] multiple family project affects the city's overall density ability. So, in looking at the RH district where you're [58:25] supposed to have the highest density, most intense land use, the townhouse really serves as that transition to a [58:31] single family. The other thing that was noted and I think we discussed this as part of the 2040 comprehensive plan [58:37] update was that most of the areas that were one of the reasons behind the [58:42] transition requirement is you had areas planned for multiple family uses that [58:48] had were abuing existing single family neighborhoods at the time the requirements were put in place. So this [58:54] change would have affected the expectations of adjacent development. Now we're well beyond all those areas. [59:01] We're in areas that are basically all open fields on the Cedar Corridor and some more difficult project projects [59:08] potentially on the west side. But uh for the most part that transition requirement just needs to follow kind of [59:13] conde conventional uh land use planning principles. Um the final change is to [59:18] eliminate the minimum area for use of PUD districts. Um again with that intent [59:24] to move towards standardized conventional zoning for multiple family and townhouse developments. There was [59:30] provision made uh in the 20 2000 zoning ordinance update to say that if you're [59:35] going to use a PUD district, it couldn't be for any area guided for lowdensity residential development. That was [59:42] changed to an area of 540 square or 540 acres to accommodate Spirit of Branch [59:48] and Farm basically as a test to see how that would work. And given the very unique circumstances and planning that [59:54] went into that, that worked so well that the city lowered it to 320 acres to [59:59] accommodate again planning for Avon Lee. So as we were working through those [1:00:05] planned unit developments, we also took elements of those approvals and put it into the conventional zoning. The [1:00:10] example being the flexibility on single family lot sizes. So there isn't the need necessarily to accommodate [1:00:17] developments to that extent or that type through PUD anymore. But now as [1:00:22] Lakeville is nearing nearly fully developed in the challenges that will occur in areas such as west of I35 [1:00:30] PUD may be a a very valuable tool to try and preserve trees natural environment [1:00:36] consolidate and cluster development while kind of fitting it into an existing area. So staff's recommendation [1:00:43] is to remove that area limit uh between the planning commission, the council, and city staff. There's sophistication [1:00:49] now in using the regulations that are in place to avoid uh what some cities fall [1:00:55] into doing is using planned unit development almost for every uh [1:01:00] subdivision or development request, which obviously is basically kind of contrary to the applying the concept of [1:01:07] applying consistent regulations across the board. So, uh, with the middle missing middle [1:01:13] part covered, again, staff thought as long as we were looking at zoning ordinance, we may as well tackle the [1:01:19] annual update and review. Uh, the city attorney had a number of, uh, items regarding variance processing criteria [1:01:26] uh, within the subdivision ordinance to make it consistent with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. U there was [1:01:32] also just a little bit of clarification needed on street extension and temporary culde-sacs as to when they're required [1:01:38] and how far the developer must extend those to the plat line so that they're available to extend then to the next [1:01:43] development. So those are incorporated. Then as part of the uh zoning ordinance [1:01:49] changes uh there's some provisions dealing with application administration again related to variances uh fee [1:01:56] schedules. When the 2000 zoning ordinance was uh done, the city still used zoning books. [1:02:04] So in order to reduce the number of pages, reduce paper usage, we basically [1:02:09] cross referenced every section if it was duplicative. Now that you're online, that basically requires additional [1:02:15] clicking. Uh so rather than in the interim use section saying, well, this [1:02:21] is the process for interim use, refer back to conditional use permits, now we're just going to list that out. Um, [1:02:27] commercial exterior finishes always comes up as part of these annual updates because there's always a new material that comes up. Uh, the latest being kind [1:02:34] of masonry paneling that has a high quality smooth finish, more contemporary appearance. So, we're accommodating that [1:02:41] as a grade A material. U, the single family accessory building maximum area [1:02:47] and height provisions. This is one that gets amended quite frequently from time to time and it's important that you also [1:02:55] step back and look at the entire section because it can become quite convoluted. So in looking at that staff wanted to [1:03:01] simplify it and just make it a simple requirement that anyone looking online could understand how big of an accessory [1:03:09] building they're allowed and how tall it needs to be and how many and how many [1:03:14] uh rightaway antenna users. Again, this is a change recommended by the city attorney. Uh, commercial recreation, [1:03:20] off- streetet parking requirements. Commercial recreation is a pretty broad category. Uh, so we needed to expand on [1:03:26] that to address multiple types of uses that come forward. Understanding that there's always the ability to use [1:03:32] outside sources and references to accommodate. Um within the uh downtown [1:03:37] highdensity residential district, multiple family dwellings were listed as a conditional use with the condition [1:03:44] that they have conformed to the downtown development guide. We've changed that to make the downtown development guide a [1:03:50] performance standard and then made the multiple family dwellings a permitted use. Uh the intent there again is to try [1:03:57] and encourage and facilitate development of apartments downtown. And then finally, given the potential impacts of [1:04:03] data centers in terms of infrastructure, changing those from a permitted use to a [1:04:08] conditional use in the OP district, those tend to be smaller lots adjacent to residential neighborhoods versus uh [1:04:14] the industrial districts where they will remain as a permitted use. So, city staff is recommending approval of these [1:04:21] amendments as presented and we will be available for questions following public hearing. [1:04:27] Thank you so much, Mr. L. really great work. Uh, this is a public hearing and [1:04:32] do we have anyone that would like to speak to this issue? [1:04:42] As you come forward, can you again please identify yourself uh and your address for the record? Thank you. [1:04:49] Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission, staff, [1:04:54] and representative of the planning company. I'm Bob Ericson. Um [1:05:02] 19081 Indale Drive, Lakeville. Likeville [1:05:07] resident for 35 years. Um [1:05:12] I read the legal public ad for this evening's [1:05:17] public hearing. I immediately went to staff and requested a copy of the information. [1:05:24] They were prompt in getting it emailed to me when I was available. [1:05:31] And as anybody who is receiving notice of planning commission meetings, [1:05:37] they would have received it yesterday for tonight's public hearing. [1:05:45] considering the short time that I've had the information and I don't know if [1:05:51] anybody else in the community has requested it, but I've thoroughly looked over the 50page subdivision ordinance [1:05:59] and zoning ordinance amendments and I appreciated the planning company's [1:06:04] detailed background uh that they provided in their 10page [1:06:10] uh summation and was revisited again this evening. by Mr. L. [1:06:23] I apologize for not having a written statement which will be forwarded to you [1:06:30] and members of the city council. I've spoken with members of the city council, [1:06:36] all of our state legislators and members of the former Envision [1:06:44] Lakeville task force. They're quite somewhat taken back and [1:06:50] somewhat surprised by some of the re recommendations. That doesn't mean they [1:06:56] were speaking with a concern in opposition. was just [1:07:02] speaking concern about the community not being aware of the far-reaching changes [1:07:08] that are being proposed and that they felt that the community should have been [1:07:14] given more advanced um notice of of this upcoming [1:07:21] uh these upcoming recommendations and I concur with that statement. [1:07:29] So, as the city administrator responsible for the [1:07:36] 1994 growth management strategic plan [1:07:41] and following retirement being the vice president of Dear Horton, Minnesota [1:07:48] and then also serving as a member of the school board. Those all give me a [1:07:53] valuable perspective of what's being proposed uh this evening. [1:08:05] The I'll go very quickly through I'll start with the 1994 growth management [1:08:11] strategic plan. I would hope and I would have expected the staff would have [1:08:16] shared that document with you. would have been a valuable if not it would be [1:08:21] a very valuable resource as you consider these changes because it was the [1:08:27] foundation for dramatic change in the community um and its impact. One word two words in [1:08:36] the page two of the 10 second line says [1:08:41] ensuring growth lake is managed and fiscally sustainable. [1:08:47] So I would ask you in in the memo I will get to you it will ask you if any [1:08:53] evaluation has been made to determine if the changes these the changes especially [1:08:59] in um middle as it's being referred to in this conversation the middle missing [1:09:07] middle housing scenarios in that regard um and and in [1:09:14] the density changes that are being advocated, which I'll touch on shortly. [1:09:20] Um, are they fiscally sustainable? In other words, what we learned in 1994 was [1:09:27] that the values of homes did not pay their [1:09:34] fair share of costs in the form of property taxes that [1:09:39] funded schools. And that was one of the primary underlying guidance directions that emerged in that [1:09:48] process extensive process. Um so will [1:09:53] the RH density increases [1:09:59] uh support provide and support um the [1:10:05] corresponding costs for uh funding uh Lakeville area [1:10:11] schools. I raised that question because that was one of the fundamental reasons [1:10:18] of for those changes in 1994. [1:10:23] I've stayed in close touch with Mayor Helier and I've given him kudos and I [1:10:30] want to recognize his leadership on a state level with the legislature [1:10:35] regarding this subject. but it hasn't been approved yet and it's gone through a lot of very challenging [1:10:44] corresponding issues and concerns um by [1:10:50] on a bipartisan basis on on the subject that that you're [1:10:57] addressing with these proposed amendments. It hasn't been adopted yet [1:11:02] and the legislature has um found a lot of angst and a lot of disagreement on [1:11:10] the merits of this on a statewide basis. [1:11:17] I I'm assuming most of you are quite aware of that and have followed that [1:11:22] with with the media coverage it's received. [1:11:30] One thing that that you may be aware of and I apologize that I'm not aware of is [1:11:36] how are the changes in the minimum lot area especially RST2 [1:11:43] how are they um what level of RST2 is available or [1:11:51] allowed permitted in the in the Lakeville community in the remaining developable [1:11:57] current MUSA and future Musa areas. I think that's an important subject. Um, [1:12:03] and I'm assuming the comprehensive plan as was referenced by Mr. Lick [1:12:09] addresses that, but maybe it didn't address it in the context in which it's being proposed. No, [1:12:25] there's a statement on page six that was troubling to me and I'm sure I'm misunderstanding the intent of it. It [1:12:31] says such considerations are not pract given regional minimum residential [1:12:37] development densities are now required to be maintained are now required. I'm [1:12:45] not sure that they are required yet. I think they're being considered. They're [1:12:50] being debated. They're being considered. The merits are being considered. But I [1:12:56] don't think unless I'm misunderstanding and if I if I am I apologize. [1:13:05] The last subdivision under my area of responsibility [1:13:11] um in 2004 uh was the tradition development better [1:13:18] known as branch and farms. That was my last responsibility at PUD. [1:13:24] I'm very pleased with the outcome as I'm sure [1:13:29] many of you are and maybe some of you and I apologize maybe maybe one or two [1:13:35] live in that one square mile but I think the Annabbecks have done a did a [1:13:40] phenomenal job and they met every expectation of that PUD that was brought [1:13:47] forward in 2004. And so their reference to tradition [1:13:52] development and and that outcome are appropriate. But I want to underscore that the [1:14:00] quality of the outcome was driven in large measure by the quality [1:14:06] and the ability for the uh property owner, the buyer and subsequent [1:14:12] property developer to achieve the outcome. And we can't all we cannot all [1:14:19] of us cannot control the having that quality of a group that had the [1:14:29] foresight, the leadership, financial wherewithal to achieve that outcome. [1:14:35] Considering they did it during one of the most difficult recession times in in [1:14:44] the residential marketplace during the time that they stayed the [1:14:49] course and accomplished the phenomenal outcome. So I say that because [1:14:57] um on that special that major that Friday [1:15:05] when Dr. Horton laid off their entire almost their entire organizations over [1:15:10] the United States. Um which I was one of them. Uh we were all [1:15:16] laid off because of the housing c the recession and the housing crisis that [1:15:22] occurred. And so just to reference the fact that tradition experienced some of [1:15:28] those same challenges, but they they weathered it and worked through it and Lakeville is better for it. [1:15:36] In January of 2025, the city council held a work session and I took the time to attend [1:15:44] along with a representative sitting next to me from tradition development. We [1:15:50] talked about the merits of changing the exterior finish standards. I feel [1:15:56] there's anything I feel I don't feel I can't begin to tell you how strongly I feel about my opposition to that. I and [1:16:04] the city council heard that concern on my part. um in tradition development [1:16:10] acknowledged that some of the concerns I raised were legitimate and appropriate, but I never thought it would continue to [1:16:18] be brought forward and now recommended to to a higher quality or higher [1:16:23] standard of material, but not not the material that has been standard in [1:16:30] Lakeville for certainly more than a decade. And as a former president of two [1:16:38] different HOAs in Lakeville's history, 10 years in both in each of them, um I [1:16:44] can attest to the the value of the current ordinance and how it protects [1:16:50] and saves um the HOAs from enduring [1:16:56] major changes in the materials because they have a permanent materials that [1:17:02] they have have worked extremely well, had protected their investment and have [1:17:09] reduced kept their dues down because that standard was presented to them as [1:17:15] part of an ownership scenario and I uh will provide photos [1:17:22] for you to demonstrate my my point. [1:17:27] I do have a question and and I'm sure you might have asked this question yourselves. Are there any changes in the [1:17:34] definitions in the either in in the zoning ordinance [1:17:40] specifically? I'll I'll reference there's a reference in here about antennas. [1:17:47] So, did the definition for antennas change or are we just changing this and [1:17:52] not changing that? and should are there any definitions that warrant change [1:17:59] under the recommendations that you're considering this evening? [1:18:05] Um, finally, um, last comment on RH [1:18:10] districts. I'd be I'd be curious I'd be interested to learn, which was not [1:18:16] available in the text, but I'm sure they could speak to it. Um, what's the [1:18:21] density change? what's the density change in the RH districts under what's [1:18:28] being proposed um lowering the um district from 5,000 square feet to 3,800 [1:18:36] square ft. So I think that's just would be valuable so that you could appreciate [1:18:42] excuse me so you could consider I apologize for that statement you could consider the merits of the density um [1:18:52] under what's being advocated. So, it's one thing to talk about the square footage change, but let's put it into a [1:19:00] realistic uh density change. Um, [1:19:05] again, I want to go back to RST2 and I'm I'm just curious and I need [1:19:11] clarification at some point uh going forward that where that would be [1:19:17] permitted. Um, and it's my understanding it would not be via a conditional use [1:19:22] permit. In closing, I just want to thank uh the planning commission giving me this opportunity. I I [1:19:31] care deeply about Lakeville. People know that, but I've had a very interesting [1:19:36] experience as a city administrator, a vice president of a national home [1:19:42] builder, one of one of the premier home builders in Lakeville. and then I've had the opportunity to serve for 12 years on [1:19:50] the school board. And those three experiences given me the opportunity to [1:19:55] be here this evening. And I would hope that you would consider um tableabling and getting more public [1:20:02] input or at least making the public aware of this and uh consider these [1:20:09] initiatives and maybe uh bring back the Envision Lakeville persons, some of whom [1:20:16] I spoke with recently. Um and the legislators, state legislators, city council members, [1:20:23] all were surprised that this had come forward. Not that they were speaking against it. They were just surprised it [1:20:30] had come forward without more public awareness and more public input. Thank [1:20:36] you. Thank you, Mr. Ericson. I don't see any other folks to speak at [1:20:44] the public hearing, so I'll take a motion. Madam Chair, I make a motion to close the public hearing. [1:20:51] Second. We have a motion and a second. The public hearing is now closed. [1:21:02] Sorry. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please say I. I. [1:21:07] I. Opposed. Now the public hearing is closed. Thank [1:21:13] you. Um, thank you for coming back, Mr. I think we had a number of questions [1:21:18] there and uh between you and staff perhaps we could address those. Certainly. Thank you. [1:21:24] Um so first question Mr. Ericson raised uh was the amount of land guided and [1:21:30] zoned for RST2 in the entire city on the future land use plan. It's approximately [1:21:35] 9% of the city's area. I don't have available how much of that [1:21:41] remains undeveloped at this point. That's the existing and future to come. [1:21:46] Uh the density range for areas guided high density is nine dwelling units up [1:21:52] to 26 dwelling units per acre at a minimum uh lot area per unit of 5,000 [1:22:00] square feet. That's just under nine units an acre. If you implement the [1:22:06] change proposed down to 3,800 square feet per dwelling unit, that makes 11 units per acre. So approximately a three [1:22:12] dwelling unit per acre change and again that would be only for the [1:22:19] transition requirement or uh well actually it would only be for the transition requirement because uh the [1:22:25] intent is to have highdensity residential in those areas up to the 26 units per acre. So and in terms of the [1:22:33] achievement of the density requirements, the 2040 land use plan is balanced based [1:22:38] on meeting three units per acre. Uh the current direction coming for the 2050 land use plan will be three and a half [1:22:45] units per acre. They decrease that down from four units an acre and you would [1:22:51] have to wait and see, but the intent is in the direction from Metropolitan Council is they've moved as far as they [1:22:57] intend to at this point. So based on the [1:23:02] progress and how this has changed every year since uh 2000 you know initially it [1:23:08] was approximately three then it was well now three to five now it's three well it [1:23:16] was proposed at four three and a half so there's this constant push and it also [1:23:21] doesn't needs to account for the agreement Lakeville made for the Cedar Avenue corridor to achieve at least [1:23:27] seven units per acre on that corridor. Now, that element may change given changes potentially to the planning for [1:23:35] transit along that corridor as well where we also had to designate specific nodes of development that would achieve [1:23:41] certain densities to facilitate that and that will be worked out as part of the [1:23:47] 2050 comprehensive plan. The intent of these changes is really not necessarily [1:23:53] looking forward to the 2050 comprehensive plan, but again based on current practices that the city is [1:24:00] seeing with the land use plan we have now, the development proposals coming forward now uh and accommodating what [1:24:07] was put in place with the 2040 comprehensive plan. [1:24:13] Thank you. How about the any change in definition [1:24:20] for antennas. So, this was an item that was recommended by the city attorney and it pertains to uh recent court decisions [1:24:27] for antennas located within the right ofway. Um the zoning ordinance already [1:24:32] addresses definitions of rightway users, antennas, etc. So, this was more a performance and process standard, not [1:24:39] necessarily a definition. So, it's an update of existing provisions. So, no additional changes to the definition [1:24:45] were required. Thank you. Anybody know of any other [1:24:52] questions that weren't addressed here? [1:25:01] Commissioner Kuza. Uh I don't really have a question. Um but I do kind of have a statement. First [1:25:06] off, Mr. L, I'd like to say uh I was happy to see that there very some some very small changes to the sign [1:25:12] ordinances there. I was concerned that we go through a uh ordinance update without touching the sign ordinance. [1:25:19] Got to find at least one. Where I'm coming from on this, um I'm [1:25:26] seeing what's happening up at the capital. And I mean, some of the bills that came forward this year include [1:25:33] proposals to limit our ability to regulate height for units or buildings under seven stories. Um there was one [1:25:41] that was heard that would allow uh emergency homeless shelters in any [1:25:46] zoning district without a public hearing um by right. Uh we had [1:25:54] uh another one that I think was egregious that would have removed our ability to conduct public hearings on [1:26:01] new developments. Um when I take a look at all of this, what [1:26:07] I think is that Lakeville needs to uh respond to concerns that we're [1:26:15] hearing and it's better if we are writing the ordinances than having them dictated from St. Paul or from uh the [1:26:23] Met Council without any input. Um you know or uh [1:26:30] you know the the thought of us not being able to conduct public hearings is uh [1:26:36] you know antithetical in my mind to our democratic system of government. And so [1:26:43] um would I have uh been the one driving all of these [1:26:50] changes? No. Probably not. Is there some stuff in here that I'm not 100% behind? [1:26:55] Yes. But looking at the alternative and what could be imposed on us, um I think [1:27:02] it is appropriate that Lakeville is [1:27:08] crafting ordinances that still uh will fit with the character of our community [1:27:14] instead of having to be a one-sizefits-all. because um Brainer is different than Burnsville [1:27:21] and uh Lakeville's different than Lndale and I think that that having these decisions [1:27:27] made on the local level are are still preferable than what could happen. [1:27:34] So, I will be supporting these uh ordinance changes today. Thank you, Commissioner Ka. [1:27:42] I'm gonna interject because tag my comments on to uh Commissioner Kus's [1:27:47] that I I do see things happening uh up at the legislature that would essentially create uh one zoning fits [1:27:55] all for the whole state and I don't see how that can work in Lakeville. And uh [1:28:01] the importance of having as uh Commissioner Kuza said the ordinances [1:28:07] and having some guidelines uh is important. I I'm I'm constantly talking [1:28:14] about uh the garage size because I've been at some of the places where you [1:28:20] pull into the garage and you can't even open uh both car doors. So, I appreciate [1:28:25] that we're taking a look at um reducing the size of the garages so that it's [1:28:30] less uh costly to create it, but let's not compromise too far uh because you [1:28:35] need to be able to open the car door and get out of it with your groceries to get into the house and you might have a [1:28:42] person on either side of the car. So, u we've seem to be making what appear to [1:28:48] be logical uh changes as uh Mr. Ericson raised the concerns about um the [1:28:55] different quality of products. Um I served six years on the planning commission in St. Paul and um have seen [1:29:04] you know different ordinances work in different ways and one of the things that St. Paul did was eliminate any [1:29:10] parking requirement depending on not depending on nothing you if you have [1:29:17] a bar if you have a restaurant if you have a auto [1:29:22] And I I think that's the wrong way to go. So I appreciate that we have um [1:29:27] created enough parking requirements for our areas and different businesses and [1:29:34] different uses. I think that's really important and without it we uh might end [1:29:39] up with some chaos which is very difficult to deal with and you cannot [1:29:45] develop your way out of that once you've said you don't need it. So, I appreciate [1:29:50] that and like Commissioner Kuza, there's not I don't love everything in here. I [1:29:55] do see uh the need for some changes and some flexibility and um Mr. Lick, you [1:30:00] did a just a great job outlining it and working through it. And I know that there's a lot of staff work that went [1:30:06] into it uh behind the scenes as well. And um I think we're in general [1:30:13] reasonable people and try to always make it work uh the best we can with flexibility. So, I think are also [1:30:19] important pieces. Thank you. Other comments, Madam Chair, [1:30:26] Commissioner Travis. Uh M Mr. Lick, u a specific question about the reduction in the minimum size [1:30:34] for garages for dwellings that don't have basements. Um do the do the setback [1:30:41] requirements um accommodate at least two car lengths [1:30:46] for a driveway? Um because these these developments typically do not allow for [1:30:52] street parking. Madam Chair, so uh in terms of the [1:30:57] setback from a public rightway, the setback is 30 feet. So you've got 30 feet to the property line plus then the [1:31:04] boulevard. So if there's no sidewalk there, you've got additional depth. If it's off of a private drive, there's [1:31:10] also 30 feet of depth between the garage and the back of curb of the private drive. So that's 20 feet is a parking [1:31:17] stall. So there's space to park a vehicle, even an extended cab pickup in a driveway or a townhouse off of a [1:31:24] private drive. The RM district standards also have guest parking requirements. So that there needs to be provision of off- [1:31:32] streetet parking within the townhouse development to try and accommodate guests beyond just the occupants of the [1:31:37] dwell as well. Thank you. And Commissioner Travis, did you ask um you were saying two car [1:31:44] lengths behind the Well, I was assuming that there may be cases where the driveway was so narrow [1:31:51] that that wouldn't accommodate two cars parked next to each other. So that's why I was thinking about the two Madam [1:31:56] Chair. So while we're changing the garage area requirement, the proposal [1:32:02] isn't to change the minimum garage width. So to the chair's earlier point of having elbow room within the garage, [1:32:08] that's still the case. So these aren't being reduced to simply a less than 20 feet [1:32:14] measured from the outside of the structure. This is 20 feet inside the structure. In the case of single family [1:32:20] dwellings, 22 ft. That's helpful. [1:32:26] Other comments or questions? [1:32:37] Nothing else. I Looking for a motion. [1:32:42] Madam Chair, Commissioner Swinson, I move to recommend to city council [1:32:48] approval of the proposed ordinance amendments to title 10 subdivisions and title 11 zoning of the city code [1:32:55] relating to development and residential districts. Second. [1:33:01] Uh having a motion and a second, Miss Ericson, will you take the role? I Zimmer [1:33:07] I Hi Swain. Hi [1:33:13] Swansson. Hi [1:33:21] um with that. Um I believe that we may have some staff notices um [1:33:26] that have changed a few things since we uh tabled one item. If we've got a comment on that. [1:33:34] Uh the ordinance that you just recommended approval of would move forward to city council on August 4th. [1:33:41] Uh we'll need to uh discuss the potential changes to the tree ordinance. [1:33:47] Uh not sure at this point whether it will come back to the August 7th planning commission or at a later date. So [1:33:54] okay, thank you. Uh seeing nothing else on the agenda, uh and a special thank [1:33:59] you to Mr. and to staff for that great presentation. Um we are ajourned