All right, I will call the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic in which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Great. Um, any changes to the agenda? >> No. >> All right. Anyone want to make a motion to approve the agenda? >> So moved. All right. I'll second. All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> All right. Public comment. So, this is an opportunity for people in the um public to comment on any items that are not listed on the agenda. >> Okay. >> Just want to listen. >> Okay, that's fine. Um any announcements? >> Nope. >> Okay. And then no approval of minutes because we didn't have a meeting last month. Um public hearing. No public hearings. >> There are none. >> All right. General business. Review minimum lot size standards for single family detached lots. >> Okay. I'll be handling um the presentation on this tonight. I have a short PowerPoint that I will use to guide us through the discussion. Um so the issue of u minimum lot sizes uh for spec particularly for single family residential has been um a topic on our uh goals list for a couple of years now and would like to try to move this forward um discussion as quickly as possible. Um so just some reasons why to review the minimum requirements. Um uh well we want to continue to react to market trends trends in the market. Uh want uh change or different um lot sizes allow a greater variety in housing styles. Uh there are changing lifestyles. Um changing lifestyle options. A lot of people today want to spend maybe less time in their yard than uh generations of the past. um reduce infrastructure costs um to construct uh streets and utilities adjacent to new lots. Uh provides a more efficient use of the land. Um the list can go on and on. Uh Rich could add a doz probably a dozen more reasons uh why we should review the minimum lot size requirements, but Rich will I'm sure add more as we go. struggling for more reasons [laughter] let me know. [sighs] >> So at the highest level um the metropolitan council influences how we develop. Um we're part of the Twin Cities uh 7ount metro area and the metropolitan council was established in 1967 as a regional planning agency uh tasked with ensuring the orderly and economic development of the seven county metro area. Um and to efficiently uh the to ensure the efficient use of the land and resources. Uh the Met Council establishes residential development densities um and they assign community designations and the designations categorize communities based on population growth potential and the urbanization level. Um community designations help guide regional policy, allocate resources and plan for future growth. Of course, the Met Council provides our sewer um infrastructure. So, they need to plan their infrastructure as well. Um although also they uh advocate for um and set policy related to roads and transportation all ties back to how um you know basically densities are residential densities. Um, Elquin Market is designated as a rural center community in the Met Council's 2050 plan. So, they have just recently um published their policy documents that and delivered to the city. Um, the policies that we will have to comply with for the next round of comprehensive planning. Um, and rural centers are required to achieve an overall minimum density of three units per net acre. That's a minimum density. So, um we can't go below three units per net acre. And this is just how it compa compares to um some again this is the this table shows the 2040 plan uh versus the 2050 plan. And you can see the closer you get to the urban core of the metro area, um there are requirements to develop u some cities even 20 25 units per acre. Um 14 units per acre, seven. So as you as we get, you know, further out, uh we don't have those uh types of requirements, but they are still setting our minimum at three units per net acre. Um, as part of um my re initial research for this particular staff report that was in your uh packet, I wanted to reach out to some developers that we have been working with over the years just to get their feedback on what they're seeing in the market. So, the first um person I talked to was John Anderson. And John is a consultant. He actually has a planning background. He was a city planner uh couple decades ago and now he consults to developers to entitle their projects. So he get works with cities to on their land use approvals. Um and he also sub uh contracts to cities and rewriting their zoning ordinances or and stuff like that. But is the majority of his work is done with developers. Um so these are just some bullet points that um I got with talking to John. He said he's seeing that the more common lot size is a 65 foot wide lot with a 50- foot building pad. Um he also noted that the villa or a detached town home product with either a 40 or 50 foot lot um with either a 30 or 40 foot building pad are becoming more popular. And that villa product seems to he said it's not necessarily that it's specifically marketed to 55 and uh plus um buyers, but he said they seem to be the main buyers. Sometimes those developments have um you know associations or the yard work is and snow removal is handled by somebody else and a lot of times these are people winter somewhere else. Um he said he is seeing uh some 85 foot lots in Lakeville, but those are for real um high-end homes with fourcar garages, so more of a executive type development. He sees a benefit in allowing um a detached villa town home by right um rather than PUD, but also does see a benefit of having a PUD if there are common facilities like a private street or a a clubhouse associated with just a development like pool or uh something along that line. Um and he also just noted that he believes that a healthy sh city should have a mixture of housing options. um that is good for the community. Um next I uh talked with KJ Walk who has done a development in Elanu Market. They platted the Boulder Heights development. Their primary work is developing lots and then selling lots to builders. They do have um their contractor's license. They have built a few homes, but that's not their business model. They deliver lots to builders. um they do a lot of developing in Lakeville and the communities kind of to the north and east of us um but are doing a lot of work in Lakeville at the present time. So um they reported uh these bullet points that the more common lot that they're seeing is um a 70 foot lot with 7 and 1/2t side setbacks and a 55- ft building pad. Um, a lot of builders minimum uh requirement for a standard um, you know, larger home with three-car garage is they want a 50- foot building pad. Um, he also noted that the detached town home lots are typically 40t wide. That allows for a two-car garage. And he said that some of the lots that are 50 feet wide, depending on the side setbacks, can even allow for a threecar garage. Um he also noted that it's nice to have an option for a 40 or 50 foot lot allowed by Riot if they are on a public street. Um it removes the hurdle of a planned unit development zoning. He also sees the benefit of um PUDS for some developments if there are amen are amenities like club houses, pools or private streets. Um he his comment was that he believes 85 foot minimums are too big for where the market is at right now and that the average lot size um would ideally be between 65 and 70 ft. [snorts and clears throat] Um, next I worked or uh spoke with a um staff person at LAR real estate developer and LAR is the second largest national home builder in the United States and they've started building in Elqu Market about one year ago and they I believe at that time went under contract with basically all of the remaining vacant lots in Elqu Market and that was about 90 lots I think um so um I know a lot of you are familiar with the developments that they're building in. They did note that their bread and butter um their standard home is on a 65 foot wide lot and uh but they're also building on 55 foot and 45 foot lots. He said that um postcoid um inc uh inflation, increased mortgage rates, uh city fees, increasing land costs met council mandates, increasing or greater storm water requirements are all influencing home costs. and he said uh factors have forced LAR to expand their housing product offerings uh which now include a smaller home on a smaller lot um more more re in more recent years. Um attached town homes he said have become trickier to build due to some building code issues and also insurance issues. He saw the insurance on um attached town homes is uh getting more difficult to afford. [snorts] He noted that developers can't achieve four units per acre on a 65 foot wide lot. And maybe his reference to four units per acre were is uh in different cities that he works in. He said mo he noted that most people prefer to live in a detached home rather than an attached home. narrower lots provide the detached town home or bill of product. Uh he said it's important to be mindful of all the factors that previously listed just u inflation really in the last five years and increasing mortgage rate. So um sorry about that and finally he noted the common theme. there is a common theme in the communities that he works with that city zoning standards um a lot of times don't match the density requirements. So if a city has guided um a certain area for two and a half to five units per acre, oftentimes the zoning standards they have in place uh don't allow them to meet those um standards. And the um the final developer that end builder was MI Homes. They are also in Elu Alunu Market in the area um off James Parkway, Parkway Meadows. Um they purchased the remaining entitled property. They also have a option on another 120 acres that they are currently master planning. Um uh properties currently in the township ex um MI Homes is the 13th largest national home builder in the United States as of 2024. Uh they build also a variety of single family detached home options from the small uh two-car garage home to large and luxury homes. uh also noted that they have been seeing um more interest in the smaller houses with fewer amenities on the interior on smaller lots just due to the price points um that they do use PUD zoning for most of the developments in the metro area because a lot of um city standards don't allow the lot sizes that um the market is seeing at this point. their standard homes um is again that 65 ft lot very similar to LAR with 7 and 1/2t side setbacks and so that would give them that 50-ft building pad and then um they also build on 50 foot lots and with their home this is a home with a twocar garage and five foot side setback so it's a 40 foot building pad MI doesn't like to go above 65 foot uh lot width for single family homes and 65 foot lot is needed to meet most uh communities met council density requirements. That is their opinion. Um, I did also a lot of research on other cities zoning ordinances and there was a table included in your staff report that um really I was just researching where single family detached homes would be allowed and um any zoning district in these cities that allow detached single family residential homes. Um I don't necessarily need to go through every one of them. I have um there's a couple communities that I was able to talk to after the staff report was released. Um and that was I I think I'll add these. Um Bel Plane, their community development director reported that um they h they have not done very many plats in recent years, but the plats that they have done, this is really the single community that um is kind of different than the rest. they had larger lot sizes in their uh plats ranging from 12 to 14,000 square feet, but she noted that those lots aren't selling uh that the larger lot sales have been pretty sluggish and that they're seeing more lot sales on their smaller lots. Um Cottage Grove is a unique community. They recently revamped their um st minimum standards just kind of across the board. They really only have two zoning districts and they amended them to uh allow a 65 foot lot and a 45 foot lot in the in the two districts. Farmington is doing a ton of development. They're um kind of their growth is kind of off the charts right now. They're um with LAR Dr. Horton Summergate Winkler. their community development director uh noted that most of their development is uh the lot size is between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet even as small as 4500 square feet for single family. Most of the lots they're seeing range between 50 and 60 ft wide. They use straight zoning if possible, not PUDs. Um but also noted a lot of uh developments have been permitted through PUDS. Um Jordan um new development is currently guided to R1 district which is a 10,000 Oops, I got a typo there. 10,500 square foot minimum lot width. Um but they noted that most of their new development again is by PUB with smaller lot sizes and uh they are seeing a lot of national builder de developer de um development also with Dr. Horton and MI Homes. They've recently uh had a variety of lot sizes um including 45 foot lots, 55 foot lots, and 65 foot lots. Um Lakeville, uh their code was a bit confusing because I think they had about a dozen zoning districts that um allowed single family homes. their community development director noted they're going to try to consolidate and um their ordinance and simplify it uh in the coming years. Um uh they currently allow a 55 foot lot that can accommodate accommodate a villa. So they have a zoning district that is uh can allow basically a 55 foot lot by right >> [snorts] >> um which would accommodate a town home uh detached town home. Overall uh Lakeville is open to smaller lots by right. Ldale has not seen any new developments recently. Uh they literally only have three or four lots left in their entire city and their infill lots in older areas of town. Um did they indicated development is greatly needed. Uh they've been working with the developer on a concept for 45 to 70 foot lots and they're pretty excited about the opportunity to um get some new development. So they sounded very open to doing that through PUD zoning at this point. New Prairigg is uh currently has a draft ordinance in front of their planning commission also which is reducing minimum lot sizes um from their current standards um to allow um a 60 foot wide lot, a 55 foot wide lot and a 50 foot wide lot by right. Um, Prayer Lake is uh they basically do everything by PUB. They uh their um zoning ordinance is old. So, their standards are quite large. Um their community development director also indicated that he would like to bring this topic to their planning commission for for discussion, but um he said developers are not using straight zoning. um their lot standards are too large. Actual lot width in the last nine subdivisions ranged from 50 feet wide to 86 feet wide, most being 50 to 65 ft wide, all permitted by PUD. Um Savage also has a draft ordinance uh with amended lot standards. Um again, current draft has a minimum lot width of 70 feet and 60 feet for their two single family districts. And Shaki has uh talked with their community development staff stated that most of their um development is on a 60 foot wide lot. They're seeing um basically 60 by 120. They're also seeing PUDS for 50 foot wide lots and even as low as 40 and maybe a bit deeper. So, um I've seen some cities if they decide to go a little narrower and they go a little deeper. Um they're not able to meet met council density requirements with anything bigger than a 65 foot wide lot. Um, Shaki is unique in their when they um grant a PUD, they require extra open space over and above the park dedication requirements. It was the only community that that does that currently. So, um, just a brief history on the minimum lot sizes in in Elanu Market. Um from 2007 to 2018 um residential lot standards uh were established in 2007 during the merger of the two cities. Um the code established minimum lot sizes for all new single family development at 12,000 square feet and 85 foot wide lots with a 10-ft side setback. Um, in 2018, uh, the city code was amended to allow a 70 foot wide lot in certain locations like along major transportation corridors like County Road 2 or maybe adjacent to commercial development uh, commercial zoning districts, historic residential development centers. Um, so I'm not going to read this out loud. This uh this is our current lot standards. We have three zoning districts that allow single family detached. Again, R1, R2, and R3. R3 is only in areas that are guided by our comprehensive plan to medium density housing. And then the R1, R2 are for areas guided to low density residential. uh between 2017, another typo, and 2025, the city approved PUB zoning for multiple developments, which has allowed deviations from the minimum lot standards. Um just a quick review of those are um first with Boulder Heights, that was uh 70 foot wide lots uh the 8,400 square feet. Um, Parkway Meadows, the area north of City Hall where MI Homes is developing, those lots are 65 feet wide, 7,800 square feet. Um, the Highlands at Eagle View is uh also 65 foot lot wide lots, primarily 65 by 120, which is uh I think 80 I can't remember off the top of my head. Um and then Eagle View Meadows is an 80acre development. Uh Joe Sullivan recently proposed you reviewed a concept plan for that development and those lots. Um at this point nothing is approved. It hasn't been annexed into the city yet, but both the planning commission and city council have um indicated support for the 65 foot wide lot concept that he presented to the city >> 7,800 this year. >> Thank you. Um, so getting back to our policy documents, both there's a reference in our comprehensive plan and in our zoning ordinance to where that R2 zoning. Um, and that's the current 70 foot wide minimum would be allowed. This is just an example. um on oops I'll give well I'll give this example. So on the north here you um if you can see my mouse on the you can see county road two. So and then on the west side is county road 91. No I'm sorry county road 27. So based on our policy documents that R2 zoning would be uh permitted along major transportation corridors, so like those county roads, but then when you get off uh the beaten path per se, um then it would uh those properties would only be eligible for R1 zoning, which is uh 85 85 foot 12,000 square feet, if that makes sense. Um, yeah. And then there are areas that are the areas that are guided to medium density, which are some areas really along County Road 2, where you can build a single family home or a town home, attached town home. Um, they uh a single family detached home would be permitted on a 60 foot wide lot in those areas. So this is an example of some of those areas along County Road 2. So this is County Road 91. So some areas on the north of the Degross property. Um and some areas on the Marty Deutsch property as an example. Um I didn't include this. We've included this in past staff reports on this topic, but this was um kind of a Excel spreadsheet that was meant to show the difference in the number of lots that you could get um based on different lot widths. So on a this is um on a half mileile segment of local road where you're developing single family residential lots with our current standard of 85 ft you could get 31 lots on each side of the street. No, in the far like oops, as an example, in the far um lower right on that same half mile of street with a 60 foot minimum lot width, you could get 44 lots on each side of the street. So, um pretty significant difference. And then also these are old um cost estimates but estimates uh based the construction costs for street sewer and water um changes basically from you know in one case uh 12,000 per lot to 17,000 per lot. But um these are old figures this is just for reference. [snorts] So, that concludes my um presentation. At this point, I'm just really looking for feedback from the commission on um whether you support uh revisiting this, if you support um staff, you want to direct staff to draft amendments to the city code. You support 70 foot lots by right anywhere? Do you support 65 foot lots by right anywhere? Do you support smaller? Um, we can prepare recommendations based on your feedback tonight. And if Rich, >> I do have uh feedback. >> Okay. >> If uh it occurs to me a lot of this presentation is focused on sort of the upfront, especially things like cost or what it costs a developer. But, uh, once a lot is platted, it persists for a long time. So, in that example, she showed where you could get 88 lots versus 61 or 62. That's 26 more taxpayers, 26 more restaurant customers, 26 more people sending their kids to school, 26 more friends and neighbors. There's a lot of long-term benefits to that higher density economically and socially. Um, I'm no expert on the social part, but on the economics, it's undeniable if because the roads the same length, you just have more people paying for the snow plowing and the policing and everything else. So, focus on the long term as well as the upfront would be the suggestion. That's all time for questions. >> I guess I have a question. Um, in your presentation you mentioned that the couple builders said they have smaller homes. What do they consider smaller homes? Because they're large small lots, but all the houses I'm seeing are really large and not smaller. >> Um, I am going to share a different screen. >> You get what I'm asking again? >> Yeah, I think I do. I do. Um, I get I understand like diversifying like the lot sizes and things to make more affordable housing because that is what is needed. >> Yeah. >> But if we're lowering the lot size and they're still building really large homes, how is that helping that market? >> And then to piggyback on your question, do we um do we have a maximum percentage of the lot that can be built on? >> We do not. >> Okay. >> We do not. Um these top two pictures are well either any one of these really is um the top two homes are the the smaller home with a twocar attached garage. These homes are on a 50 foot wide lot. >> Are they lockouts or >> um I can't tell on these. Yeah, I can't tell on these. >> That's what I'm getting. Like >> I appreciate wanting smaller lots and >> yeah, >> all of that, >> right? >> But how do we diversify and get like those new starter homes that we really desperately need so we can get more families here? >> It's up to the builder. >> I know it is. >> I mean, honestly, I mean, the people that are moving into my neighborhood are all young people that have kids and I they need the space in the house. So that's kind of why I think you're getting what you're seeing on your side of the >> No, there's not there's not a ton of families. >> Okay. >> Well, maybe they're just >> recently married planning. >> I just think and I'm not talking about the people. I'm just trying to figure out how do we get >> younger generation to be able to afford those homes. Do you get what I'm saying? like [snorts] and I guess it's cost is comparable per year >> 20 years ago to 20 years now it's comparable but it's just astronomical what what is considered affordable housing >> right >> right >> I think Nicole if I can what you're asking is is there anything in policy that we can incentivize or create to force developers to build smaller homes even you know smaller homes even though it's smaller lot so it's not a huge footprint on a smaller Right. Yeah. >> Sure. Right. >> I guess my question is with our um old city plat and the smaller lots is what you're proposing, would that be able to bring back that type of dynamic or we're not there yet? Because I know that through zoning throughout the years, the preference has been for larger lots, bigger subdivisions, but at the end of the day, >> our core, our downtown, Elco, new market, there are the smaller homes or the smaller lots, >> but they're they don't seem to be the preference for builders to build, >> and then to also um reply to Brandon's thing, I would not be opposed to an inclusionary zoning ordinance, which I know is not on the table today, But just, you know, putting it out there. >> And for um Casey and Nicole, an inclus inclusionary zoning ordinance would be uh where the city requires affordable housing to be built into every subdivision. Uh it could be defined by percentage. Um I'm going to bring up another to answer your question, Nicole. I think it's difficult to mandate what what is going to be built. >> Um the MI we're working with MI on another development that you that has not been brought to the planning commission yet to this point and their initial concept showed lots from like 40 foot lots to 50 foot lots to 65 foot lots. So, kind of those three. Um, and I was looking at some of their developments in Shakabby and I I truly felt like these were starter homes. These were these were not this product. You know, they're >> How much were they? >> Oh, I don't know. I mean, >> I think that you're No matter what >> I mean, we haven't seen the housing. Oh, you mean in the ones in Shaki? >> Just in general. I think no matter what you're looking at a starter home, if it's brand new >> is going to be probably 450 >> probably >> minimum. So I mean if you're if you're looking at all these LAR builds >> and everybody that's moving into my neighborhood is moving away from the city. >> I mean if they're if they're going to get a lot size that is 70 feet and you can get the house you want and it's call it 500,000. What are you going to do? I'd spend an extra $25,000 on their loan to get more of a forever home, especially if the interest rates are were that now. Not saying they're great, but they're probably might only go up. >> Mhm. >> So, >> I'm just saying I don't think Elco is ready for like that type of housing yet, like the small homes. I mean, how long has it taken to like to build that up here, Christmas Pines area? Well, I don't think they were, in fairness, I don't think they were marketing Christmas pines for the first several years that it was really approved um by their admittance. I think they were waiting to see what the how the market adjusted after COVID, but now uh I don't know. It's now that they're building the homes >> and I don't know that I call those starter villas either. I they are on a 40 foot wide lot. >> You know, I guess the problem that I have with this conversation is that when we talk about affordability, um we can never truly with the way the economics are currently working, we can never truly uh recreate our natural uh naturally occurring affordable housing, our older housing stock. And so I guess I come back to will this what's being proposed, can that bring back like a more of a a feel of what is our downtown areas? Like when you walk through our neighborhoods, >> you know, it does. It feels smaller. It feels cozier. >> They're neat. They're small houses >> and yet it's still a cohesive neighborhood. >> And then you move further out and you can feel suburbia right away. Right. Well, I can tell you that lots that were platted between, you know, 1900 and 1940 or 50 are typically 40 to 50 ft wide. >> Would you agree with that? That's >> my house is on a 50 foot lot. >> The lots platted in the core of New Prague, the pl the lots platted in the downtown New Market, they're about 50 feet wide. So, is it going to guarantee that type of development? I It can't guarantee it, but it might guarantee an opportunity for it. Um, >> I wonder if people's expectations have changed, too. I shared a bedroom with two brothers until I was 18, and none of my kids ever shared a bedroom. And you know, so >> yeah, >> it's everything. It's not one thing. It's not necessarily lot sizes or anything else. It's a combination of things that a lot of them are beyond your control here, >> right? Oh, and then to also kind of respond a little bit to what Casey was saying about your forever home, and I agree with you 100%. People want to find their and their forever space. and our family, we built what we thought was going to be our forever home. And then our four adult children moved out. We got one and then it's like, okay, I have a Asian and elderly parents and a disabled sister. And so now our our circumstances has also changed. And it really kind of stinks to have such a huge yard to maintain, you know, within all of that. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is it'd be nice to have alternatives and options in the city, which also includes smaller footprint homes and smaller lots. Um, but then that doesn't always guarantee affordability either. No. >> Um, >> yeah. >> And I don't u I'll just piggyback on Melissa's comments only on a personal level. um you know uh how do you define a forever home because I am at the my children are in their 30s now and I live in in a house like you do and um I don't need that anymore and I don't want that anymore to spend most of my free time maintaining my my yard anymore. Um, so at some point in the next 5 to 10 years, I'll want something something different. Maybe something like that. Um, so it's just there every there are stages to to lives. So, >> I just love the opportunity that you're allowing for options. And I think that is the theme of the day is we need to have options because currently what we have in code from at least from how long I've been sitting on the planning commission, we seem to get a lot of PUDS, right? It'd be nice if we can um solidify or standardized within our code so that we're not seeing so much of that. >> I'm thinking too again about the long term. So a new house on a 50- foot lot may not be affordable as a starter home, but it might be in 15 years and in 30 years and in 60 years. So once they're there, >> that's when you start looking forward. It's not day one maybe. >> So I came into this meeting tonight and in your staff report, I didn't want to provide a recommendation to you. I wanted to deliver to you what the research was saying um with our conversations with builders and other communities and what they're seeing being built in their communities. And we don't have to be like every other community. I understand that. So, um, at this point, I just I really wanted to hear from you and have you direct me on the next step, but also I'm bringing I think Rich and I are bringing our personal experiences of where we're at. You know, we're in different stages of our our lives perhaps and have different lifestyles, >> right? [snorts] >> And just actually currently looking at homes right now, like I've seen houses that are built in the 60s and 70s and 1910 that are >> not affordable. They're still astronomical and they need a lot of updating. >> So there still isn't >> like 30 years from now. >> Y >> they could not be >> possibly affordable homes, you know, >> right? >> Location, >> it's a lot of things, >> right? >> I mean, when I started looking for my family and I started looking for a home probably, call it 14, 15 months ago. >> Yeah. >> We I was dead set on not buying a new home. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> we go to all these older homes and it would be we got to remodel the kitchen, we got to do a deck or we got to do the basement. It's like they're already asking 500,000 for it. It's like why not spend the extra money now up front and buy the new home and buy get everything you want up front. >> If you are Yeah. No, >> but I'm just But but that's why they I mean we started in a town home. >> I mean that's that was our starter home and that's what I feel like any of those town homes are is for people that are going through those stages of life whether that's young or in retirement. That's what those are set up for. >> Sure. >> I think one thing kind of changing the topic a little bit is if we're going to continue to >> have all this residents come in and we're changing lot size to get more people here. Are we ever going to get a school district? Because that's every everybody asked me. I keep I keep That's why I tell them I said we're not going to get a school district. >> So if we're 12,000 people, why >> unlikely? >> We got two. >> Well, no. It's inconvenient for all the families. If you work from home and you got you're living on this side of town, you drive all the way to New Prague and it's like for me it's like I come home and it's like I got to bring my son into Lakeville for all the activities. It's like >> we have the people. >> It's like we should we should be able to get a school district, >> right? We used to have one up until 1956, right? Or was that 64? >> I think it was 56. >> I think I think that sounds about right. >> So, how do we bring that back? I don't know that there's much the city can do at all. >> Yeah. >> And I also see New Prague asking for >> Yeah. >> Lakeville asking for money. So even those big districts, it's tough going. Imagine just a 12,000 student. >> I mean, it'd be nice, but it's just a it's just a sad fact of life here that Yeah. >> you're not close to >> Lakeville moving forward with another high school. >> There's rumors for it. >> I don't know that. >> I don't know, but I'm voting yes. Yeah, I thought it was going to be like the Credit River area which would probably benefit Elco New Market, but I think yeah, I think the biggest struggle I hear from other parents, it's like, well, it'd be really convenient for us to send our kids to >> Eagle View, >> but it's like, well, we live on the Lakeville side, so then it's like you split them up after whatever grade that is, >> which kids are resilient. They can figure it out. But I know that's definitely popular conversation in my neighborhood. >> Sure. >> I think I mean the best case scenario I think would be one of the school districts building another school in this vicinity versus getting our own school district. >> I don't know that. >> Well, and you may I don't know if this if this commission knows, but there is land earmarked for a middle school north of Eagle View Elementary when the time is right. So, they're thinking ahead that way. But the >> population is not not there yet. So >> yeah, >> another question. Um the minimum of three units per acre. >> Yeah. >> Are we not meeting that right now? Because if because right now are we two and a half to five >> two >> in the low in our low density areas? Yeah, we have to um it's two and a half to five. >> Okay. >> So that three units per acre is an average across the whole city. So if um so when we do our comp plan, we have to take the density and our high density or medium density or low density and average it all out. Um but each development, so we've set our own policy in our comp plan at two and a half to five units per acre for the low density. So we have to um we can't develop at 2.4 units per acre. It has to be 2.5 or above. >> Yeah, we're meeting Yeah. Um, yeah, we are. It's It's close though with the 65 foot lots. And I was just going to maybe bring I want to kind of look at Sullivan's uh concept plan that he just submitted on the 80 acres. Um, just to give you an idea of what that is. So, at the 65 foot lot widths, 8,400 square ft on this particular development, um it's he's meeting 2.7 units per acre. So if we had held this particular 80 acres to the 85 foot standard, there is no way that in my opinion that we would he would be meeting our own policy documents of two and a half units per acre. It would be under that. It's probably 2.3 or um something like that. And what happens then if we and it's happened to it happened during the uh preserve is we get all the way through final plat approval and they we submit to the Met council uh for our sewer extension permit and they won't they will not let us extend sewer into the development sanitary sewer into the development because we aren't meeting that two and a half to five units per break acre. So, it's a big deal that we have to pay attention to. >> I'm sorry. What did you say the lot widths were for the preserve then? Was that 80 or >> uh the preserved there 65? >> 65. >> They still couldn't meet it. >> Well, >> yeah. >> Yeah. Well, at that point it was the complicating factor with that is that that was guided to medium density, which is 5 to 10 units per acre. So, um, it just didn't meet. Have >> they even sold a house in the preserve yet? >> Um, I don't know. >> There's few. Well, the one's been the one that's been built has been sitting there for over a year. Tom Ryan. I think the one that uh Ryan Construction built um maybe is still not sold, but the other ones maybe. >> Oh, it's not Ryan that's building those. >> No, he's ended up selling the lots to a local builder, one of the smaller local builders. >> Well, I move in support of smaller lot sizes. Um I also I also though think that we should consider the depth too. um as we're moving forward with this and when I say it depth I think then hopefully we could compromise then with what Casey I believe is asking for too um and kind of meld the smaller widths with a deeper lot because I know two I can't remember which development had some issues in determining the square footage maybe you remember better but maybe it a few years ago or >> I'm drawing a blank. >> Me too. But anyways, I thought that years ago there was an issue with another developer who said, "Well, if we do narrower lots and deeper, then we could still meet the square footage requirement as as you know, dictated by the city." Sure. >> And then I thought I remembered somebody saying and then in doing that you can also move the garages in the back but maybe that was a different conversation. >> I can't remember. >> Wasn't it these lots up here? you just end up with the how do you get to the garage problem. >> There's a couple of them in Lakeville and you're like okay that's not cool and and >> I guess you know I am open to smaller lot sizes. Um I think anything under 65 I think really needs to have a bigger discussion. >> I agree. um just so we kind of know what is coming down the pipeline and to figure out if it makes sense or not >> if that um >> yeah that's where my head is >> you know in looking in comparison to other cities um towns they looks like the average is 6570 >> kind of across the board um I mean I like the idea of having a deeper lot as well. Um, >> well, maybe to your point then if it's going to be something smaller than 65, then it's got to have something to offset than that smaller size, maybe. I don't know. I'm trying to think out outside of the box and still help staff with what they need to do, too. Well, >> that does go to what you were talking about. We talked about the existing small lots in downtown Elco, downtown. A lot of those have alleys behind you know, in the um the packet when I was reading through it, um you had all those u the M council had all those points. the one that >> number three and number five are kind of contradictory. I'll be honest because it says environmental sustainability for number three >> and it says higher density development reduces the need for sprawling um for sprawling suburban growth >> and it preserves open space. But if you go down to number five, >> it goes into um >> while in suburban or rural areas, lower densities may be preferred to maintain more spacious, quieter environment. So it I'm like, >> sure, >> how do how does that work? >> I get number five, but number three seems a little contradictory where >> if they're >> smaller lots or you know, higher density, then how do you get that? >> Um >> there's probably more infrastructure open space, I guess, cuz I don't see a lot of open space with >> the houses, smaller lots. It's like house house, right? >> And they all look the same, >> right? >> I don't know. I was just >> I would >> thinking about that today. >> I would say it's probably offset by more parks and ponds for the storm water and and a lot of these will have a park in them. >> So, on average, it may not be as different, but Well, I think >> Yeah, I think we need to think about this like right now the city ordinance um requires 8% of the land the city can ask for 8% of the land but then the development be dedicated for parks. Um, so there's really no, you know, if we went to a, let's say hypothetically you supported a 40 foot lot by right, um, there isn't any thing in our policy documents right now that would require more open space than just the the standard park dedication. I mean, you can set that, I think, with your own policies if you want to do that. Um, >> I think doing it though, wouldn't that um then negate what we're trying to do? >> It could. Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. Well, um they're also they're also probably um they have uh I mean their policies are applying to cities across the entire metro. So in some areas maybe their policies are set to achieve one thing and other areas others. in the urban core or closer to the in suburban urbanizing communities versus, you know, they uh have mandates over Credit River and New Market and uh the township areas too. So, >> I would um think keep in mind too, we have a ton of wetlands around here. >> Almost every development is going to have open space just for wetlands because they can't fill them. So that plus ponds plus any parks kind of offsets >> and actually would be an argument for higher density because we have to accommodate all these wetlands. [clears throat] >> We have less room for >> sure. My I have an a thought that I I guess if I came back with a recommendation based on if all three of you supported a reduction in our the way our our code is currently written reduce lot sizes of whatever that means 65 foot. um we could still keep that R1 district in our code. And if you have a really unusual piece of property that is really rolling, has significant steep slopes, and um the terrain is such a maybe is highly wooded, maybe you don't support a 50 or 60 foot wide lot on that property. you you could still perhaps choose to say, "No, we we only want we want to have R1 zoning on that property, not >> or maybe a developer themselves would choose that because they want to create a different upper high-end housing product like in Lakeville." >> I agree. Yeah. >> Yeah. That's that's the uh property that comes to mind for me is maybe wanting to maintain R1 zoning, but >> it's very rolling. Yeah. >> Yeah. No, I agree with that. And I also agree with having the opportunity though to for smaller lots or smaller footprints too. >> Okay. >> So really the curiosity is changing the R2 >> from 70 right now. Um but then perhaps also moving the removing the requirement that it's only only properties that are adjacent to county roads or commercial development are eligible for that. Um and I guess as an example I'll say that Sullivan 80 acres that you reviewed last. It's not near a county road. It's not near commercial development but at the same time you indicated support for the 65 foot wide lots there. So just uh changing some that some of the text and how it's just removing that guidance, I guess. >> I'd be supportive of that because I don't understand why it was in put in place to begin with. >> Well, it was a really different time. I know 2018 doesn't seem that long ago, but it was a very different conversation. The world has changed a lot since >> Oh, yeah. >> 2018. That really does seem like a long time ago. >> Yeah. Casey, did I don't know that I heard directly what your thoughts were about >> I don't know. I just think there's got to be something here. We can't I've said this since I've started. We've gota we instead of keep building houses, we still have to have stuff that supports people living here. We don't have a grocery store. We don't have industry. >> It's like, oh, we got Niagara now. But >> yeah, >> I don't know if it's still true, but they're only employing like like 50 to 60 people. >> Yep. >> So, I just feel like obviously this is a town that people >> live in and either go north or south >> for work. >> Sure. I understand that. Yeah. Don't >> and to to flip that conversation. You know, we won't get a grocery store on until we get more people. >> What about Ldale? >> We're going to be bigger than Lale. >> Well, it's two things. It's population and it's proximity to choices. And we have [clears throat] >> at least in the market's >> high proximity to options for groceries that Lndale might not. >> And Lndale has other issues going on too with their developments. So yeah, every community is different, but yes, you're 100% right, Casey. I would love to see a a grocery store. >> Quick Trip has been amazing and >> for sure. Yeah. Well, our conversations with grocerers, and that's just one example. I know you're looking for all amenities from, >> right? um you know, hardware grocery convenience. Um our conversations with grocerers over the years, and we've had a lot of them, is that they want more households here before they come. >> I I mean, I'm looking for just a really high level direction and I'll come back with a a concept for the next meeting. Um, but if I heard absolutely not, I don't we don't want to adjust any we want we don't want any changes from what our code currently is and we want to handle all new developments uh by PUD zoning. Um, we'll leave it as as it is. But if you're open to making some changes so um that we're not doing everything by planned unit or special zoning, then we'll I'll come back with some recommendations. Okay. I'm sure there's other things that Yeah, [clears throat] there's obviously this is very entry level on this, but like one thing I've noticed is >> the tree requirement for your front yard. >> Yeah. >> I mean, all the builders are Yeah. The builders in my neighborhood are putting them like right by the driveway. So, those are going to be a problem. >> Okay. I think it's 13 and a half feet. Was it 10 ft setbacks up in Boulder Heights? Something like that. >> From the road. >> No, from house to house. >> Oh, house to house. >> Um, it's seven and a half. >> Seven. Seven foot side set back. >> Yeah. So, that' be from house to house is like 14. >> Yeah. >> So, you keep bringing that in. I just It's pretty tight in there already. So, I do house reviews personally through >> Thank you. That's that's where my head's going. Like >> yeah, >> keep getting smaller. It have to be like the right. >> Yeah, a lot of communities are going to a five foot setback on the small lots and I just am kind of not I think seven is our seventh is a little bit better. Most of us have replanted one tree to the backyard >> because of that. >> Are they planting two in the front? >> Yeah. >> Let's not requirement. >> Okay. >> Well, that's what they're doing. And they're putting them like >> like for instance, when we moved in, it was >> 23 inches away from the driveway. >> Yeah. >> They can plan one in the front front. It used to be that they had plan two in the front and this concern was expressed to us. So, the city uh the plan commission and city council changed it to um if one doesn't fit in the front, then they can put it in the back. One in the front, one in the back. >> Yeah. On the smaller lots, it's hard when you have your driveway in there. Yep. >> Once they get m mature. >> Okay. >> I think I have what I need. Okay. >> Thank you. All right. Um, miscellaneous community development updates. Uh, just a little update on some of the developments that are under construction. Parkway Meadows north of City Hall is um the streets are in. They we've released the development for building permits. They're going to be putting in sidewalks here in the next couple weeks. going to try to get them in before winter. Um the Highlands at Eagle View, which is north of the school, they're making good progress on that. I think they're starting the streets. >> They'll be starting to build up the subbase and base for streets in the next couple weeks. I think they'll have it um by Thanksgiving they'll have it paved. um the 80 acres which is the Sullivan property which is also in that vicinity. Both the planning commission and city council recommended um support of moving forward with annexing the property for uh development. We've uh the city council agreed with all of your recommendations regarding the plat. Um, we've approached the township regarding that and um, the city attorney is currently drafting the draft documents. I had a call with her today to uh, review the concept. So, I think we'll have those this week yet. I forward to uh, the board and your attorney for review. Um, the apartment building by um, the firehouse grill. Second one has been started. They pouring footings here yesterday. Anything else? [clears throat] >> We are compiling um we're starting to look at goals for planning commission goals for next year. Um we'll have that I think as an agenda item in November. So maybe we can adopt goals in December uh for the next year. um including a list of ordinance amendments if you guys have any um thing that you'd like us to take a look at talk about that now or next at the next meeting. Yeah, for the next meeting I've scheduled we have [clears throat] I put together an Excel sheet today actually that we've had since I way before I worked here maybe 2018ish there's a word doc that's been like intended to be brought back ordinance amendments so compiled it into an Excel sheet and going to ask you guys at the next meeting to rank them by priority and we'll start bringing them back one by one as it makes sense and as we have time >> and then the 2050 comprehensive plan um as we mentioned earlier Um we'll need to start working on that. It seems early. Seems like we just finished the last one. Um um but usually the first part of that is public engagement and just reaching out to the public and the community to get their input regarding the various plan component components from parks to transportation to land use and such. And um I'd like to map out uh public engagement process maybe for 2026. So, we would spend next year trying to reach out to the community in different ways, maybe survey monkeys or going to community events and having a table. Uh um so things like that. >> That's it. You have anything from the township here? >> Okay. Okay, that's all I have. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Any other questions or comments? >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Sure. >> All right. I'll second. [laughter] Meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. All in favor? [clears throat] I. Thank you.