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