Are they ready down Are they ready downstairs? Okay. Welcome to the May 18th, 2026 meeting of the Wayzata Planning Commission. I hereby call this meeting to order. My name is Blake Cameron and I'm chair of the Wayzata Planning Commission. Um first on the agenda is roll call. Um I will note uh that Commissioners Ellick and Commissioners Engebretson are not present and everybody else is. We have City Attorney Schelzel, Planner Headbloom, intern May, I don't even know your last name. I'm sorry. Jejunsky. Okay. Intern May. Cuz I'll trip on that. And uh City Forester uh Myhren uh here this evening with us as well. >> [snorts] >> Um next on the uh agenda is approval of tonight's agenda. Um does anyone have any questions or proposed changes to tonight's agenda? No. All right. Uh may I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Van Loy. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Swalwell. Uh further discussion? All those in favor? I. Opposed? The eyes have it. The motion passes and tonight's agenda is approved. Um next [snorts] on the agenda is approval of the consent agenda which consists of one item which is the meeting minutes from May 4th, 2026. Um does anybody have any um questions or comments about the consent agenda? May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? So moved. Thank you. Um Severson. Commissioner Severson. >> [laughter] >> It's all right. Thank you, Commissioner Severson. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Planton. >> [snorts] >> Further discussion. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. Eyes have it. The motion passes and the consent agenda is approved. Um next on the agenda is old business. Um seeing none, we're going to move right into public hearing. We have two public hearing items this evening, which are zoning text amendments. Um we have a uh zoning text amendment to chapter 950 general zoning district provisions and a zoning text amendment to chapter 936 street preservation ordinance. Um we will go with the first one and chapter 950 general zoning district provisions. Planner Hedlund, I believe that's you. Yes. Thanks, Chair. Our intern, May Jagodzinski, um will be presenting this item tonight. She's going to give you guys a little bit of an introduction to start with just on her background and how long she's been with the city. Awesome. Thank you, May. Welcome. Um hello. That's all good. Hello. Um so, my name is May. Um and I've been a planning intern here at the city for um a few months and uh so, I introduced myself at the April council meeting and um so, I'm happy to meet you all today. Um so, um I'm happy to present the um consideration of zoning text amendment um to our general zoning district provisions. Um so, the proposed changes um are to chapter 950 section 950.01, which lists the title of the established zoning districts. Um so, essentially staff noticed um that the zoning district titles um in the code. So, oh, I'm so sorry. Okay, so the code is the table to the left. Um, are different than the titles in our zoning map. So, it's going to be that legend on the right. Um, and so staff recommends a zoning text amendment to section 950.01, just to ensure continuity between the two and make sure that they are both the same. Um, so these are the proposed changes. And so, the proposed changes are in red and crossed out in black. They can also be found in your council packet. Um, oh, sorry, wrong slide. Um, so the text amendment evaluation criteria is in section 903.02 of our code. The possible adverse effects of the proposed amendments are listed here. I won't go through them all unless you guys want me to. But they are in that chapter. And as you guys know, the next steps are the public hearing and directing staff to prepare draft planning commission report and recommendation review. And that was quick. So, happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Questions for staff? I have some. Yes. Commissioner Klein, shall we? Yeah, I should be telling you. >> I'm sorry. Okay. May Jan Zinskey? Yes. >> Okay. Um, so I'm just wondering at what point did the did the discrepancy come about between the two articles, between the two sections? Why is why do we need to have this done? Um yeah, so um again, so the code is um different than the zoning map, so um the slight inconsistencies could cause confusion for potential development applications. Um so, just to ensure the the continuity between the both of them. Um Okay. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that um it wasn't an issue of density cuz I know that's come up in several past issues that we've looked at that um we weren't Let me Let me jump in here real quick cuz I think if I miss the this and I'm afraid this is in the form of a question. Can you go back >> Mhm. three slides? Yep. So, I think what we're doing is we're basically taking what's in the code itself, which is on the left >> Yep. and aligning that language to map match which is on the map on the right. >> With the map map legend on the right and the changes are very minimal. >> Those And these are the changes. So, somehow somehow we got a map that was out front of what was actually in code. That makes Is that correct? Yep. That would be correct. So, we're not actually changing any of the description of any of the zoning districts. We're just basically changing the title to a align to the thanks. >> It's just so they're the same. Yep. Okay, but when did that discrepancy happen? Yeah, Chair and Commissioner, if I could um maybe answer that particular question about when, but I would underscore that the discussion's all correct. This is not a substantive change. We're not changing any of the relevant standards or specifications for anything. It's really just to bring consistency, as our intern said, between the map and this particular part of the the Other parts of the code are correct. I think this happened, I don't know if you recall when um the city adopted a use table to streamline the zoning ordinance so that permitted uses, conditional uses were all in a table. And that's I think oh, within the last maybe 5 years or so. Um and I think at that point the discrepancy arose. In that table, some of those titles just weren't precisely correct. And now with this amendment, they will be. So it hasn't been a long-standing discrepancy. It's it's relatively recent. I think this is just a clean-up amendment. Yep. >> As as staff has explained. Okay. And the reason why I brought it up is in the lower ones, the R3A, R4, R4A, R5, the changes with the red added in are increasing the density possibilities for those zones. And and that's what we've been going on all along or just since I I know that the state of the county asked us to increase the density in the last few years, which we did. And is is this part of the reason we didn't catch up here on the paperwork? Uh Chair Cameron and Commissioner Swalwell, that's a great question, great catch. Um this is just a situation in which uh this portion of our code was not updated to match the rest. So there's no um substitute substantive Oh, wow. Change in our code. These just uh these titles in this table simply were never updated to be the accurate title to match our zoning map and also the zoning chapters within our code. So the zoning the individual corresponding zoning chapters related to each district listed here matches the map currently. This table just for one reason or another did not get accurately updated at that time. So, there's no changes to density or any um changes to the district requirements that should be reviewed by both the planning commission and city council. This is just a text amendment that's updating these errors that we found while doing, you know, uh normal planning review. Thank you. Other questions for staff? All right. Um So, uh with that since the public hearing, we're going to now turn to the public hearing. Um and I will open the public hearing. Do we have uh planner head room, do we have anybody online with questions? I will note that there's nobody present from the public to come forward and ask questions here. Thanks, chair. We do not. Okay. I will close the public hearing. Um commissioners, thoughts? This seems like a reasonable cleanup of some language that doesn't uh directly affect any of the underlying code, so it makes perfect sense to me. Um I would note that the uh map that was in our packets was not the current map. And it actually reflects old language. Oh, I see. Yeah. Okay. >> 2022 That's okay. It's all good. It's all good. I just I wanted to put that out there in case that somebody actually looked at the packet and had questions about it. Chair, thanks for catching that. We'll get it updated and hopefully amend the packet so it's accurate on the website and accurate in the minutes. Um yeah, I think I I I would agree, Commissioner Van Loy. I think it's um it's just a pretty common sense um update to just align stuff to remove confusion. So, when our motion should we include that this map be updated, too? No, they'll they'll take care of that. Okay. Um all right. Uh so, motion to um direct staff to prepare a planning commission report and recommendation um of um approval of the proposed change to 905. I'd make that motion. Okay. I second it. Thank you, Commissioner Planton, Commissioner Schwalbe. Further discussion? All those in favor? I. I. Opposed? I's have it. The motion passes, and the planning commission report and recommendation uh will be on our consent agenda at the next meeting. Um next on our uh agenda is a second um zoning update. So, I got to find my I'm at at one, and this is for um Chapter There we go. Chapter 936, thank you. Um uh just to update some of the language around tree preservation. Um is this Planner Hedlund? All right. Thanks, Chair. I'll be presenting the content piece of this proposed amendment, and then we have our city forester, um Bennett Myren, here in case the commission has questions directly related to the tree preservation ordinance. Um so, feel free to direct questions his way after this presentation. So, the next zoning text amendment for this meeting tonight um is to chapter 936, the tree preservation ordinance. We propose or staff proposes a clarifying text amendment to the definitions including included in this chapter. The uh additional language intends to resolve a recurring point of confusion related to the chapter's classification of heritage trees and significant trees as well as their respective standards and requirements per code. So, I have a few uh slides on the background of the tree classification within our code. The way that our ordinance classifies trees is critical for staff's assessment of a proposed projects and their impact on the community canopy within um that site and the city as a whole. Um the classification of trees is assigned by a combination of specific tree data um that includes species type, condition, um general general condition as in terms of health of the tree and then also the size. Um and uh Mr. My Myron may have some additional points um to bring up related to the specific data if you have questions as to how trees are classified. Um but each class has a unique code requirement related to their protections from construction activity or development activity, their conditions for removal, um and that's for any site within the city um for any in any zoning district, um and then on-site replacement obligations per uh tree classification or type. Um the current ordinance requires trees to be identified as either a standard growth tree species or a rapid growth tree species. And then from there, um the standard the trees are further classified um into either a significant tree or heritage tree. The code uh calls for all standard growth trees to be considered either a significant or heritage tree. And, um, there are some specific species of rapid growth trees that also are then further classified into either a significant tree or a heritage tree. Uh, certain trees are classified as significant trees, although they may eventually transition into a heritage tree or transition to meet the definition of a heritage tree once their growth reaches a certain, um, diameter, um, of their trunk. And that diameter in our code is 25 in or greater. So, all that to say is that trees that are classified as significant trees may become heritage trees, um, which creates confusion, um, as evidence that staff has seen, um, in review of projects. So, the impact of tree classifications are that significant trees and heritage trees have different obligations for on-site tree replacement when development warrants or a property owner or developer re- applies for removal of one of these tree classes. Um, the ordinance allows developers to remove a percentage of a site's inventory significant trees without an obligation for on-site tree replacement. But any heritage tree that is removed has to be replaced at a ratio of two to one. There's no percentage allowance for the removal of heritage trees. So, in review of development applications and building permits, staff has have, um, noticed that there is some confusion, um, on behalf of applicants describing significant trees as or counting heritage trees as significant trees. So it essentially inflates their numbers a number of significant trees and allows removal that's greater than what the intent of our our ordinance calls for. So the type of calculation is reached when an applicant includes their heritage tree inventory in the total trunk inches that are used to identify the allowed removal percentage. So there's confusion kind of combining these two tree classifications um that are basically allowing for removal or requested removal um of heritage trees which then is caught by staff and creates confusion for the applicant when they're asked to revise their tree inventory or their removal plans or replacement plans. So when the discrepancy is identified in our plan review process, applicants have pointed to the definitions of heritage and significant trees in our code. And as currently written, the heritage tree could technically also qualify as a significant tree. um which when um our city forester can speak more to this but it has resulted in additional unmitigated tree removal in certain circumstances. So the proposed changes tonight is that staff recommends the following addition or the addition included in red on your screen and in your packet to the definitions for heritage tree and significant tree. The definition of heritage tree is going to remain as is. That definition is a healthy standard growth tree, a healthy coniferous tree or a healthy American elm tree that is 25 inches or greater in um their trunk diameter. So a tree with the addition of the proposed change tonight would mean that any of the following trees that have not yet matured into or meet the definition of a heritage tree, a healthy standard growth tree that is 6 in or greater in DBH, a healthy rapid growth tree that is 12 in or greater in DBH, or a healthy coniferous tree that is 12 in or greater in height or 12 in or greater in DBH. So, uh staff's recommendation tonight, which includes a recommendation from the city forester, is to approve recommend approval of the change to um the tree preservation ordinance, just the definition section. And staff believe that the proposed changes will help resolve confusion on tree replacement requirements and calculations and provide uh greater clarity to applicants during their application and plan review process. Uh so, this is a slide that you also saw in uh the previous presentation. This is the evaluation criteria when the planning commission is asked to consider a text amendment. Um so, this is pulled directly from code and available for your review on screen. I can come back to this slide um after we uh review the next action steps for tonight's meeting. So, we ask staff ask that uh you hold the public hearing on this item and then ultimately direct direct staff to prepare a draft planning commission report and recommendation for review at the next meeting. With that, we can answer questions. Cool. Thank you, Planner Edblom. Uh questions for staff. I do. Yes. Mr. Henderson. >> if you go back a couple of slides when you're talking about the maybe one more. Yes, the evidence of the confusion. Can Can you just like give me an example of what you're talking about and maybe not one specifically, but just like what are we talking about here? And what's what's happening that this is becoming an issue? Good evening. Um thank you for having me here, commissioners. Um good question. Um there's a lot of terms and a lot of jargon that are easy to get lost in in my experience. Um basically uh when you have a site um as you can imagine, every site is different. Every tree inventory is different. But the way that it's broken down um that big distinction between heritage and significant trees has it really affects um those removal allowance calculations. So, if you have a site where let's say you have 100 in of heritage trees on the property, um the way that the the ordinance is meant to function is the the heritage trees are kind of assessed on on a case-by-case basis where, you know, each tree it's expected that it's it will be protected. Um And so, it is not looked at as part of a broader inventory where um percentages are used to identify how much removal can occur. Um the expectation is that those heritage trees will be preserved. And then we can look at the significant trees and decide um you know, how much of those could be removed without any replacement requirement. So, if you have 100 in of each, for example, you would be allowed to remove 25 in of significant trees. Um if you were to include both categories and and refer to both as being significant, you'd be allowed 50 in of unmitigated of unmitigated tree removal that wouldn't require replacement. Um, because it's 25% of that of that whole that total of significant inches. Um, so again every site is different, um, but for certain projects it can be really significant that I shouldn't use that word. It's confusing. Um, it can be really substantial. Um, especially for a site that has a lot of old growth, you know, heritage trees. Um, if if you were to interpret the definitions, um, in a certain way you could you could remove a lot of trees without needing to replace anything. So, we're trying to we're trying to change that. So, what you're saying is, um, if I have a property and I have some heritage and some significant that are but the significant trees are going to grow into heritage trees. Today I could cut down all those significant trees and have to plant fewer than if I if they were classified as heritage trees. Is that I understanding that right? >> Well, the the removal allowance, so that percentage of significant trees that we're trying to address here, um, that that only applies in the context of permitted development. Um, but in those situations the So, the the heritage trees are they require a greater amount of replacement. Um, and that's assessed on a tree by tree basis. So, a 25 in heritage tree requires 50 in of plant new planting on site. Um, the significant trees require one-to-one replacement, so an inch of new trees for an inch of trees removed. Um, and that doesn't kick in until after that 25% allowance is crossed. Um, does that make sense? Um, the 25% allowance maybe I think you lost me there. Let me Let me I I just Can I ask a question? >> Yes, please. >> Yeah. Um, cuz I think maybe this cleared up. So, what's on our screen currently, the text that is in red, is the text that is being proposed to be added. Is that correct? Sure, that's correct. >> And so, that doesn't exist today in the code. Correct. So, the way it would read today is significant tree means a healthy standard grown tree that is blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, right? >> Correct. >> And so, if I hear what you're saying, what I think I hear you saying, is that developers are saying my heritage tree actually falls underneath the significant tree as well That's correct. >> because of how it reads today. And we're what we're wanting to do is we want to break that apart so that heritage trees are truly just heritage trees and can't be considered as part of that significant tree calculation. That's exactly right. >> Okay. That makes sense. So, but I'm still Okay, maybe um I feel dumb today. Um But why why would they have been allowed to do that in the first place? Because isn't a heritage tree a heritage tree? How would they also count counting it as a significant tree? Well, I I it might make more sense if we're um so that I forget the the section that describes the removal allowance, but it describes how you go about identifying what that percentage is. Mhm. And you So, you're adding up all your significant trees. So, if you were to interpret the definition to mean that a heritage tree is also significant, you can I guess selectively say well, I because this is also a significant tree, it's going to be included in my total inventory that is used to determine what my removal allowance is going to be. Wouldn't that make it more though? It would allow for a higher um that 25% would produce a higher number for your removal allowance. And that's the amount that you can remove without replacement. So it's more trees removed without a replacement mandated for the project. Chair, if I could ask a question of Sure. our city forester. Um and this comes out of our conversations which helped me understand as I was you know I had to understand before you guys did. Um is it essentially true that this amendment is writing in explicitly the way we've interpreted it from the beginning in the way it was intended. So again, like our last amendment, this isn't a shift really in any there's not a policy question here. This is really what we would call an administrative cleanup and the city forester has noticed clever developers are exploiting this ambiguity to argue with him about what a significant tree and a heritage tree is. And clearly it you know, it's meant that significant trees when they grow older, they mature into heritage trees. They're bigger and we care more about relatively speaking protecting those heritage trees than the significant trees. So this is really just hardwiring in clear explicit language. How we've been interpreting the code and how it was intended to read. I'm sorry, that was long-winded. Is that accurate and fair? Absolutely, yes. >> Council, I would ask how are they going to exploit this then? Well, we'll just have to wait and see. Do we need to make this stronger language? >> I No, I think I think this I think this goes to this particular issue. Um I I don't I don't know how else they could exploit uh But we'll find out. >> People will rule and they will find a way to break it. >> get creative, yeah. Good? Okay. Yeah. Other questions for staff? I I have one question. So this This usually sounds like it's coming up with developers, but homeowners have this same uh this same requirement, right? If if they decide they just don't like a big oak tree anymore, they have the same requirements in terms of cutting down a heritage tree or how much of their significant trees they can take down. There there are certain requirements with homeowners um when there's no development application um to consider. They are different though. Um in those instances we're looking at heritage trees as requiring one-to-one replacement. Um so it can still be a lot, you know, a 30-in um oak tree, for example. Um 30 in of new plantings is is a lot. I mean, that's at least 15 new trees in most cases. Um with the significant trees, if there's not a development application to consider, then those there there are no limitations. Um we did a year or two ago we did um incorporate a we refer to it as a look back clause um to account for the you know, there have been situations where people have recognized that and you know, done their tree removal before coming to apply. >> right? Yeah. Um and that seems to have resolved that. Um but for just the average homeowner that's looking to do some tree work on their property, the significant trees are not There a permit is required for removal, but there's not typically a replacement requirement. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. I will now turn to the public hearing. That said, public hearing is now open. I would note that there is nobody present in the chambers. Uh planner Hedblom, do we have anybody online? Chair, we do not. All right. Closing public hearing. Um Discussion, commissioners. Sounds good administrative to me. Yeah, reasonable and good administrative clean up. Glad to protect those trees. And have it in written form the way it's was meant to be so it can't be misread. Creatively creatively interpreted. >> Yes. >> [laughter] >> All right. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment to 93602. May I have a motion? So moved. >> Question. Thank you, Commissioner Blanton. May I have a second? Second. Yes. Can I just break in and say if you could ask for a motion that reflects what's up on the screen there to Yes, I certainly can. Thank you. All right. Tabeling your removing your your motion. Or revising. Um May I have a motion to prepare to direct staff to prepare a draft planning commission report and recommendation of approval for the text amendments to 93602. So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Blanton. May I have a I second that. Thank you, Commissioner Severson. Further discussion. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. The eyes have it. Motion passes and the um um uh draft report and recommendation will be on the consent agenda in our next meeting in 2 weeks. Uh all right. Next on our agenda this evening is other items. Planner Hedblom, is that you? Thanks, Chair. Um our next Planning Commission meeting will be on June 1st. We will have that meeting um to at minimum review the two draft uh report and recommendations that you directed staff to prepare tonight. Um Secondly, I will give a review of development activities. Um I have quite a few updates this week. Um first is related to the Wells Fargo project. It's the same update as we um reviewed at our last meeting. Um but we do have um they do have tenants moving in. Um so the apartment building received their CO um and we have new tenants moving into that building, which is exciting. It's been a long time coming. Um then for 200 Lake, which is the former TCF site, uh wanted to provide the update that the city is working with the property owner to secure the site. Um they installed security cameras. We're working on um making sure that that site is uh held to a standard that we'd like to see. Um and uh just working on getting that more secured um and less of an eyesore on our Lake Street. Um staff also worked with the applicant um for the development project at that site to submit a cleanup contamination cleanup grant um application through DEED, through the state. Uh, that was submitted on May 1st. Uh, so we hope to hear back, um, about the status for that soon. They also, the applicant received, um, a cleanup grant from Hennepin County related to that site. I believe the total for that grant from Hennepin County was 200k. Um, the applicant has indicated to staff that if they receive the grant, um, application from or the grant funds from the state that they would, um, like to come back with their development agreement and get moving forward on the cleanup of that site and hopefully the the redevelopment. Um, so that's where that site is at. I have an update about, uh, the development at 163 Wayzata Boulevard. Um, known that development, um, is known as Moments of Wayzata. Um, that, uh, the approvals for that development, uh, have an extension through, I believe, a date in July. Um, the city has not received any building permits for that site to date. Um, their approvals are still standing. We know that, uh, the the property fell into foreclosure and is now being held by a holding company. Um, just waiting to hear what may happen with that development, um, or what the status of the approvals or how the applicant intends to move forward. Um, but they do have an extension on their approvals, uh, that runs through July. So we should hear, hopefully, something soon. Um, Harbors of Wayzata, um, is another development that's kind of in a a limbo status as of now. They similarly have, um, extensions approved for their approvals through a date this summer. Um we do have a meeting staff has a meeting scheduled with that developer um and we'll hopefully have a more substantial update at our next meeting as to the status of of that one. Can you remind me where that is? Or which one is it? >> Yes, that's the one over on off of um I don't have the address on my list. Um and I think it has several it's their applications were comprised of several different addresses, but it's the site that's over by the Minnetonka Endsley project. So over on the entrance of town off of Highway 12. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's the the memory care site. Yep, it's had its approvals for at least a year um or more. Yeah. Um and then my update for the Walser Lamborghini site is the same as our last meeting is that we'll likely start to see some light site work begin um and the lease for Mulberry's is up at the end of June, I believe. Uh so they plan to get started with their demo um of the building on site in earnest sometime in July. Um we have also heard from Mulberry's that they are looking to relocate somewhere within the city. Um we have a proposed site to just is yet to be reviewed by staff. Um and then that seems to be my list of updates. I can try to field questions if you have any. Is is there anything at the uh on Lake Street, the old Caribou uh and Jewel site? They seem to be having an awful lot of internal work done and it didn't it didn't last time we talked I didn't think there was any uh permit actually pulled to do that work yet. So I was just wondering if you You any updates there. Thanks for the the question, Commissioner. That's a great one. At our last meeting when that question arose, I was unaware of tenant space permits being processed. They were processed while I was on leave. So, we do have two interior renovation permits for that first floor and two tenants. I'm not sure if the tenants are ready to be publicly shared at this point, but we do have those permits processed and construction is underway. Do you know if they're retail or if they're services or can you give me any insight there? >> There is one retail or one coffee shop going in and then the other seems to be business at this point or conference meeting space. Yeah, cuz which is the one that I think I saw being done which is confuses me cuz I didn't think conference space would be allowed in the middle of that retail district. The code provision is that um the building footprint needs to be 50% retail on the first floor. And that's a unique site because it's not just the addition that was renovated. That entire Well, it's not the entire block, but it's the building or that parcel um is all the way down through Gianni's. So, they have to meet the 50% requirement within the total building footprint and that building technically spans about half of that block. Yeah. So, they meet they're meeting that 50% requirement. As far as I am aware at this point, yes. The permits have been approved. Okay. Anyone else? No. Good. Excellent. Thank you, staff. Jagodzinski. Did I say that right? Thank you, May. Appreciate your presentation tonight. Appreciate your internship with the city this summer. Hope you're having a good time. Uh you're very welcome. Um so that's it. Do I have a uh motion to um Move to adjourn? Adjourn? Move to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Thank you. Commissioner Severson, have a second? I'll second that. Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner Van Loy. Further discussion? All those in favor? I. >> I. Opposed? The eyes have it. The motion passes and the May 18th, 2026 meeting of the Wyzetta Planning Commission is hereby adjourned.