[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