Based on the context provided, the names mentioned in the text (such as "Director Maury," "Daniel Licht," "Frank Dempsey," and "Chris Jensen"), and the roll call of Planning Commission members, here is the transcribed townhall with speaker names added. **Note on Roles:** While the Mayor and City Council were listed in your context, this specific transcript is for a **Planning Commission** meeting. The "Madam Chair" is **Michele Swanson** (confirmed by Lakeville's 2023 commission roster and the roll call). "Director Maury" refers to **Cathy Morey** (Planning Director), and "Syria" refers to the new commissioner being sworn in, **Suriya Khong**. *** [0:00] **[Background Audio]** [0:18] **[Music]** [0:51] **[Background Audio]** [1:06] **Chair Michele Swanson:** 2023 Planning Commission meeting please join me in the flag pledge thank you. [1:32] **Chair Michele Swanson:** All right agenda item number two swearing in of the new Planning Commission member Suriya. [1:50] **Ann Orlofsky (City Clerk):** Please raise your right hand and repeat after me: I, state your name, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Minnesota and Faithfully discharge the duties from the office of planning commissioner of the city of Lakeville in the county of Dakota to the best of my ability. [2:15] **Commissioner Suriya Khong:** [Repeats Oath] [2:20] **Chair Michele Swanson:** Congratulations. All right um and Miss Orlofsky, will you please take a roll call of members? I forgot to do that part. [2:35] **Ann Orlofsky (City Clerk):** Zuzak? **Commissioner Zuzak:** Hi. **Ann Orlofsky:** Calusa? **Commissioner Calusa:** [Present]. **Ann Orlofsky:** Lily? **Commissioner Lily:** Hi, here. **Ann Orlofsky:** Marovich? **Commissioner Marovich:** Here. **Ann Orlofsky:** Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer:** Here. **Ann Orlofsky:** Swanson? **Chair Michele Swanson:** Here. **Ann Orlofsky:** Janison? **Commissioner Janison:** Yeah. [2:55] **Chair Michele Swanson:** All right, agenda item number three: approval of the May 4th, 2023, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Any changes? [Pause] Correct, the meeting minutes will stand. On number four, um, Director Morey, any announcements? [3:21] **Cathy Morey (Planning Director):** Yes, good evening Madam chair and Planning Commission members. Just a couple of announcements. Obviously, we want to welcome our new alternate Planning Commission member, and there'll be a bit of a little bit of a learning curve on correctly pronouncing his name so if we don't do it correctly at first we apologize but hopefully we'll get it right over time. And then also just as an FYI, if the zoning ordinance discussion this evening is moved forward by the Planning Commission to the city council, we will not have any items for your next meeting on June 1st and that meeting will be canceled. And that concludes my announcements. Thank you. [4:00] **Chair Michele Swanson:** All right, agenda item number five: City of Lakeville. This is a public hearing to consider amendments to titles 10 and 11 of the Lakeville city code, and this is a public hearing so anyone wishing to speak on the items can please um sign up in the back. [4:07] **Daniel Licht (The Planning Company):** Good evening Madam chair, members of the Planning Commission. Daniel Licht with The Planning Company, presenting on behalf of City staff this evening for the annual undertaking of review of the city's development regulations. The city undertakes this process each year to look at the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance to make sure that we're reflecting best practices in the establishment of these standards enacted through these ordinances. Also we have to take into account that zoning and subdivision ordinances change over time as practices in terms of development evolve. There's always new types of development, new land uses, new standards or new approaches that need to be incorporated as part of these. Then there's also the need from time to time to re-look at existing provisions and see how they can either be implemented better or restated so that they're more easily understood and put in place. So the work to date this year has been led largely by City staff—Frank Dempsey and Chris Jensen did all the heavy lifting working with the Planning Commission to outline the initial issues and do all the research leading up to the ordinance that you have before you tonight, and that occurred at two work sessions in January and April. Just to highlight some of the proposed changes included in the amendment—and we won't go through all 44 pages of them in great detail—but solar energy systems are allowed in the zoning ordinance either as ground-mounted structures or on the buildings themselves. There's clarification provided for the ground-mounted structures to regulate them basically as an accessory building within the yards of single-family homes so that pertains to the number area, setbacks, building coverage, or height. So where you could have a garden shed in place now, you could have solar panels. One of the efforts always undertaken as part of a zoning ordinance review is to look at how the process can be made more streamlined and more efficient both for those requesting approvals or for City staff and the Planning Commission Council to manage. So a number of uses are being changed from those that would have to come before the Planning Commission as conditional uses, including convenience restaurants without a drive-through window. It's basically functioning as a storefront so there's no real impacts associated with that. Daycare uses have evolved over time to a fairly set standard of development—again, no need for a conditional use permit review there. And then within the neighborhood commercial District, back in 2000 it was put in place that these required a conditional use permit based on the potential impacts to parking and traffic surrounding neighborhoods. So over time we've seen that that is not an issue and also the C1 district has very limited application so it's not a concern any longer. Some changes made from conditional uses to those requiring some review by City staff but not certainly requiring a policy-level review from the Planning Commission or city council include expansion of conditional or interim uses or those uses allowed in planned unit development districts that would have gone through the Planning Commission and city council to get their initial approval. If those are being expanded to a limited extent—say 20 percent of the principal building area—that's really not going to trigger the need to reevaluate the overall impact of that development. So in order to expedite that, that would be limited now to staff review. Also in recent years the city put in place provisions allowing for multiple principal buildings on one lot—so a shopping center with the main user and a pad user for example—or connecting principal buildings across lot lines which we saw at the senior housing developments on the west side of I-35. There are very specific requirements in place for that as to how it's allowed in managing the property, so changing that again from a conditional use to essentially staff review to make sure those provisions are met. Looking at current development practices, there was requests looking at the Brookshire development and how that development had multiple entry points to collector or arterial streets. There was a need to clarify the ordinance stating that identification sign would be allowed at each one of those intersections, also making provision that those intersections could have two, not just one sign. That was seen to be as a really minor change in terms of the ordinance application and consistent with the original intent. Building heights have also changed over time from what they'd been established in the zoning ordinance, especially as it pertains to multiple family housing and industrial buildings. Looking at the R2 residential high density District—that's intended to be the more intensive residential high density district adjacent to the I-35 Corridor or major activity centers—increasing that overall height up to 48 feet from 45 feet allows for some additional height to the building and additional floor to ceiling area within each apartment. So that's more consistent with contemporary applications. Then looking at the distribution facilities being developed along the County Road 70 Corridor, 50 feet is now becoming the new standard for that and again trying to encourage the city's continued economic development matching that trend. Number of other topics that were a little more routine in nature: there was a recent development application that questioned the limit on cul-de-sac length and how that applied in terms of phased development of a large-scale residential subdivision. So we're clarifying that those standards apply only to permanent cul-de-sacs, not those intended to be temporary with future street extensions. Looking at the allowed uses within the various zoning districts: bed and breakfast changed from conditional use to an interim use permit so that when there's a change of ownership or a change in circumstance, the right to that use expires. Removing animal kennels from the Office Park District as it's just not compatible with the intended character of that area. Allowing daycare only as an accessory use essentially within a business location within the Office Park and Industrial districts. Removing airports from the I-2 district is no longer needed as the I-3 District was established specific for the Airlake airport, and then removing daycare from that district as well. As for two performance standards that were reviewed and updated: making provision for a second driveway for single-family lots by administrative permit, recognizing that some larger lots do have the ability to circulate and space out in intersections to streets that won't interfere with traffic or parking situations. Limiting home occupations, specifically the number of students to one per business at a time—again, not intending to increase the intensity of that use over the typical residential character. Making adjustments so that it's clearly understood what the lot area requirements are for the medium high density and mixed-use residential districts. Specifying and clarifying the exterior finish requirements for where there's a standalone multiple family building within the mixed-use district so that it matches the requirements within the residential high density district. If there's a mixed-use building, those would continue to be applied with the commercial building standards as well. Clarifying in the mixed-use district the allowance for convenience food restaurants as initially as a permitted use, and then separating more clearly if there's a drive-through facility or a drive-through window for say a drugstore or other use that might have a window as well. And then just in the C2 Highway commercial district and the C3 General commercial district, there's provision for the setback along rear yards, just specifying that rear yards abutting a street are treated the same as a front yard setback; they're at 30 feet. Just when you might think you're done dealing with zoning ordinance updates for the rest of the year, of course as we said this is an evolving document. City staff had a number of issues that they've already started listing out, including several that have come up in the last week or two since the public hearing notice was put together. So these are going to be undertaken as a separate process yet this year—so more excitement yet to come. City staff is pleased to recommend approval of the draft ordinance as presented in your packet this evening and we are available for questions. Thank you. [12:51] **Chair Michele Swanson:** It's a public hearing. [Pause] Seeing no one, I think we're ready. [13:03] **Commissioner Marovich:** Madam Chair, seeing no one coming forward, I move to close the public hearing. **Commissioner Janison:** Second. [13:08] **Chair Michele Swanson:** All right, a motion and the second to close public hearing. All those in favor? **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair Michele Swanson:** All opposed? [None] All right, public hearing is now closed. Fellow Commissioners, any comments on this item? [13:25] **Commissioner Marovich:** Madam Chair, so one question—I apologize I didn't ask this in advance—but um, for the multi-story residential buildings where we're going from 45 to 48 feet: that's trying to accommodate some of the increased ceiling height typically that we're seeing in some of those residential developments or those types of developments? At 48 feet, is that inclusive of just the floors themselves and does that have any allowance for like parapets or any kind of aesthetic things that occur on those structures? [14:00] **Daniel Licht (The Planning Company):** Madam Chair, so building height is measured to the midpoint of a pitched roof or to the height of the flat roof. But there is also exception within the zoning ordinance for a three-foot parapet above that. So the actual height of the building, if they have a parapet above it—for instance screening rooftop equipment—could go as high as 51 feet. [14:20] **Commissioner Marovich:** And this is germane to some of the discussions we've had earlier on some other projects that have come before us where we were talking about conditional use permits and that type of thing because they were in that range, specifically trying to accommodate that before height. So it's just accommodating current trends in development, basically. [14:41] **Commissioner Marovich:** Other than that, all these items have been discussed with the Planning Commission under multiple workshops. Workshops are always open to the public to attend and participate in the conversation. We tend to have a little more free-flowing conversation in those workshops so don't take the lack of conversation occurring with the group here today as being indicative of us not discussing these items. We have discussed them in quite some length in other formats in other locations. So thank you, well stated. [15:15] **Chair Michele Swanson:** Thank you. There are no other comments? I think we're ready for a motion. [15:26] **Commissioner Marovich:** Madam Chair, I moved to recommend to City Council approval of the amendments to titles 10 and 11 of the Lakeville city code as presented. **Commissioner Lily:** Second. [15:35] **Chair Michele Swanson:** Motion on this. **Ann Orlofsky (City Clerk):** Lily? **Commissioner Lily:** Aye. **Ann Orlofsky:** Zuzak? **Commissioner Zuzak:** Aye. **Ann Orlofsky:** Marovich? **Commissioner Marovich:** Aye. **Ann Orlofsky:** Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer:** Aye. **Ann Orlofsky:** Swenson? [Swanson] **Chair Michele Swanson:** Aye. **Ann Orlofsky:** Janison? **Commissioner Janison:** Aye. [15:58] **Chair Michele Swanson:** Great. And Director Morey, when will this one go in front of the City Council? [16:05] **Cathy Morey (Planning Director):** We're shooting for their June 5th meeting. [16:15] **[Music]** [16:29] **Chair Michele Swanson:** Thank you. [16:35] **[Music]**