This transcript is from the Apple Valley City Council meeting held on March 27th, 2025. I have added the speaker names based on the context provided and the flow of the meeting. [0:01] [Music] [Music] [0:33] [Music] [Music] [Music] **Clint Hooppaw:** Not because they wanted. I almost said morning. Good afternoon. [1:06] **Clint Hooppaw:** That's been close. No. Really early. This guy I've been up for a while. So you guys ready? Yep. All right. Good evening. We'll call this meeting to order for the March 27th, 2025 Apple Valley Council meeting. Uh for any audience members who have signed up to speak as your name is called please approach the podium to address the council. With that the first item on our agenda is the pledge of allegiance and I would ask everyone to rise and join us in the pledge. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [1:48] **Clint Hooppaw:** Thank you. The next item on our agenda is to approve the agenda and Tom, I know we have an item, one new item for AC. Any other changes? **Tom Lawell:** That's the only one. **Clint Hooppaw:** All right. I think everybody had that item distributed ahead of time and hopefully had a chance to look at it. [2:04] **Clint Hooppaw:** With that, do we have a motion to approve the consent or to approve the agenda, excuse me? **Ruth Grendahl:** Second. **Clint Hooppaw:** Have a motion from council member Grendahl and a second from council member Hiebert. All those in favor indicate by saying I. **Council Members:** I. **Clint Hooppaw:** Opposed. All right. We the agenda is passed. The next item is the audience participation portion of the meeting. This is for items not on the agenda. Um I did not grab the signup sheet. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? All right. Seeing none, the next item is our consent agenda. These items are considered routine and will be enacted with a single motion unless a council member or citizen has to pull an item. Council members, any items you would like to pull from consent? All right. Uh audience, any items to pull and discuss separately. [2:51] **Clint Hooppaw:** All right. Uh seeing none, do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? **John Bergman:** So moved. **Ruth Grendahl:** Second. **Clint Hooppaw:** Motion from council member Bergman and a second from council member Grendahl. All those in favor indicate by saying I. **Council Members:** I. **Clint Hooppaw:** Opposed. Consent items all pass. And that moves us on to our regular agenda. And our first item Matt has for us. and that is to proclaim April 25th, 2025 as Arbor Day and May 2025 as Arbor Month. And Matt, take us away. **Matt Saam:** Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Uh well, I won't take too long. I just have a couple items I'd like to mention before the council considers adoption of the this proclamation. First, um as you all know, each year we do hold an annual event, a tree planting event with members of the Dakota Electric Association Board who donate a tree. This year's event is scheduled for Thursday, May 8th at Diamond Path Park at five o'clock. Um the second item I want to mention, and it's a h it's a um a happy one. Um for the 40th year in a row, um our city has been declared a Tree City USA by the Arbor Day Foundation. So with that, um I could stand for any questions and u if the council would consider adoption of the proclamation. [4:05] **Clint Hooppaw:** Great. Thanks, Matt. What was the date of the tree planting again? just for anyone who might want to uh attend. **Matt Saam:** Yes. Thursday, May 8th at Diamond Path Park, 5 o'clock. **Clint Hooppaw:** Great. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a a motion to proclaim April 25th, 2025 as Arbor Day and May 25th, 2025 is Arbor Month? **Ruth Grendahl:** So moved. **Lisa Hiebert:** Second. **Clint Hooppaw:** Motion from Council Member Grendahl. Second from Council Member Hiebert. All those in favor indicate by saying I. **Council Members:** I. **Clint Hooppaw:** And opposed. [4:31] **Clint Hooppaw:** Thank you, Matt. **Matt Saam:** Thanks, Matt. **Clint Hooppaw:** And our next item is 5B and that's a resolution supporting retention of city zoning authority and opposing proposed legislation seeking to limit local land use decisionmaking. And as long as that sentence is, I think the discussion might actually be a little longer. Um there are a number of things uh behind this one. So Tom, why don't you start us off? **Tom Lawell:** Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council. Uh yes, we wanted to come to the council tonight and talk about this important issue. Um it's not a new issue. We talked to about this about a year ago at this time, but uh there's been some new developments. So, wanted to give a little background and then we'll walk through the bills that are of concern to the city of Apple Valley uh related to housing at the legislature. [5:13] **Tom Lawell:** Uh you might recall just in January, January 9th, we had an informal city council meeting. We had the members of our local legislative delegation there with us and this was a topic that we discussed with them at that time. So there are many housing bills that have been introduced this session uh aimed at increasing the production of housing and the increase in affordable housing. Uh but many of them are they're going too far. The result is would result in the loss of local control over land use development and it really has some far-reaching consequences that we want to go through tonight. So the current status is there are four primary bills that we are concerned about. I will quick go through u the their names. Minnesota Starter Home Act and you can see the uh Senate file number as well as the House file number. Then there's one called More Homes Right Places Act, Transforming Main Street Act and People Over Parking Act. So I'm going to touch on each of these just so you get a sense of what type of provisions are being included in those. [5:58] **Tom Lawell:** So, the first one, the Minnesota Starter Home Act, uh would require cities to permit at least two units on any single family zoned lot and allow accessory dwelling units on lots with single family homes. So, single family zoning essentially would go away uh with this bill. It would limit the minimum lot sizes to 1/8 of an acre, 5400 square feet basically, uh for duplexes and single family homes. And you may recall that the minimum lot size in Apple Valley right now for a single family home is 11,000 square feet. So it's a pretty significant change uh would prohibit minimum lot sizes for town houses uh larger than 500 square ft. So much smaller uh for town houses and it would allow at least 80% lot coverage and restrict floor area ratio and setback provisions that a city may have. [7:09] **Tom Lawell:** um our current lot coverage is more is less than 40%. So this is a pretty significant change as well. This is a graphic I wanted to show you. This was actually prepared by the city of Eagan. It's a standard residential single family neighborhood in Eagan. Not sure exactly where, but u they've identified there in three in blue. You can see three lots that they've identified in the middle of the page. Uh their understanding of the bill is that you could change those lots. So you could tear them down. Those single family houses would put that many town houses in there. 13 of them would be a 60ft lot depth. Uh would have zero setback and would have 80% maximum building coverage. **Clint Hooppaw:** And Tom, you you said could, but I think that could is a little too soft on this. I mean, you'd be required to. There would be nothing from a zoning perspective you'd be able to do to to uh protect the neighborhood or in that or the parking or anything else in that case. **Tom Lawell:** And the parking is is a good thing. where would where would the owners of these homes park? And the bill continues to say prohibits minimum parking requirements for any development. So we couldn't even stipulate that a home needs to have an off-street parking space associated with it. **Clint Hooppaw:** So you'll probably get to this—would that also includes you know say it's 130 unit apartment building, you also would not be able to require minimum parking on that which means developer could develop all of that with no no parking. **Tom Lawell:** Um the bill in this language about parking is in all four of the bills that we're going to talk about. The city could provide a recommendation to the developer about how much parking we think they need but we could not require that parking. uh still on the Minnesota Starter Home Act would require an administrative review process only. So there would really be very limited role for the planning commission or the city council to play in evaluating any of these housing items. It would end up being an administrative approval. We would have fixed rules that would have to conform to the this bill and then we could have no more than one public meeting associated with the proposal. [9:19] **Tom Lawell:** And again, with the strict requirements of the bill, there would be very little leeway that the city staff would have in in saying, "No, you you can't have this." And this is a common piece of all of the bills as well, uh, going to an administrative review rather than the traditional public process that we have used for all residential type developments of, you know, new subdivisions and new apartment buildings. Um there is some contradictory language in the bills which we're worried that uh would actually have some legal challenges that could come with them. Um onto the the next bill, more homes right places act. Um they had a hearing on this bill. They offered a delete everything amendment. So that from what was originally proposed, they came in with new language and that was on March the 12th. [10:09] **Tom Lawell:** Apple Valley would be under the terms of this bill considered a non-urban municipality. Cities over 10,000 residents that don't qualify as an urban municipality or first class city. So, what I'll follow, what I'll go on next is just the Apple Valley pertinent piece would require the city to upzone 50% of residential areas to allow for town homes, duplexes, and triplexes by right or any combination of development to permit an average density of one unit per 4,000 square feet. So this seems to give the city some some option to figure out where in the city that would work. But 50% of our residential areas would have to somehow meet this new minimum lot standard or new density standard. It would also for first, second, third class cities of which that includes Apple Valley uh would create commercial corridor districts along municipal state aid streets that would allow higher density per acre. [11:33] **Tom Lawell:** Continuing on, would limit setbacks, floor area ratios, lot coverages, and minimum square footage rules for those mixed-use housing zones. Uh would prohibit minimum unit sizes, any construction material requirements and local design standards, anything above the state building code. Again, would eliminate minimum parking requirements. Uh would limit our ability to use planned unit developments and conditional use permits. and again would require the administrative approval process with no more than one public meeting. The third bill transforming the Main Street Act requires all cities to permit multi-family and mixed-use development in any commercially zoned district except for heavy industrial uses. [11:55] **Tom Lawell:** So that would u it would allow cities to require that developments authorized in the bill include commercial use on the ground floor, but only if the development that it's replacing already had commercial use. So if there if someone were to tear down an existing commercial building and wanted to put up housing, the city could require them to put commercial on the first floor with the housing above. If it's a vacant lot, there would be no such requirement that it could just be pure housing on a commercially zoned piece of property. It would limit city review for projects under 300 units. And we could we would be prohibited from considering traffic, noise, and nuisance concerns. And it would require all metro area cities to allow multi-family buildings up to 75 feet tall in commercial districts. [12:41] **Tom Lawell:** continues uh prohibits cities from requiring egress durability or energy efficiency standards and limits any setback and lot coverage requirements beyond those required for commercial buildings. So again, we're still in the commercially owned property. Would eliminate all the parking minimums, would require the cities to give density bonuses for affordable housing projects. Again, would mandate an administrative review process with no more than one public meeting, not a public hearing. and again has contradictory language in the bill that we think would be um be right for challenge um as this would be implemented if it were to be approved. **Clint Hooppaw:** Fourth bill to the parking one along MSA streets. So just give us an example of for those who might be watching MSA streets in Apple Valley would be which ones? **Tom Lawell:** um anything that is s a significant traffic carrying roadway. So probably not your residential street where you live, but once you make it out to a major roadway, 140th Street, Galaxy Avenue, all of those, there is state money that comes from the gas tax that goes to the state of Minnesota and then gets distributed out to cities and also out to counties to maintain a municipal state aid street system. And uh we have many many major roadways, collector type roadways, minor arterial type roadways that would fall into that category. **Clint Hooppaw:** I just that was my point probably more than people are realizing is how many roads that encompasses. Yeah. It's not just Cedar Avenue, not just County Road 42. **Tom Lawell:** Yeah. Uh the people over parking act, this one is very short. Prohibits all cities from acquiring minimum parking spaces for new development, including commercial, industrial, and residential. So it's not just related to residential. It's also other types of parking. except for disability parking, the city would still be able to uh to require that. [14:32] **Tom Lawell:** So, we have concerns. There's an awful lot in here that would change uh how Apple Valley has developed in the past, the community that we have uh planned for over the course of time. And uh we're concerned that if these bills were to advance, this is a very significant change in development patterns for our community. Clearly, the one-size-fits-all approach in these bills does not work well uh for Apple Valley. Would greatly restrict local government zoning and land use authority. Would remove the meaningful public input in the residential development process that we're all used to. Uh it would subject current residents to the prospect of significant change of character in their existing neighborhood. So, this is not just vacant property to be developed. This has implications on all existing single family neighborhoods. [15:25] **Tom Lawell:** and it really would overturn all of the development assumptions that we used in preparing our comprehensive plan. Uh we went through a very extensive process in preparing the 2040 comprehensive plan involved many stakeholders, citizens, uh businesses, um school district. Uh the comprehensive plan of course has to go through the metropolitan council. it needs to be approved. And so the framework for our development has been set over the course of time. And it has allowed us to thoughtfully think through the cost implications of the infrastructure that we put into the ground to serve development. And we're really worried that these bills would pretty much ignore that planning that has happened. Really, it provides no limits on how much additional housing could be added. So it's not that there's a certain cap number that you have to accommodate. This would pretty much open up development and there is no limitation on the number of units that we would potentially have to accept. [16:10] **Tom Lawell:** It could overwhelm our municipal infrastructure, the roads, the water mains, the sewer mains, the storm water systems. There's no set forth mechanism to provide that the new development would pay for all of the added costs that would come with that. So, we're worried that there could be financial carryover onto existing homes, existing taxpayers that would have to pay for the development prospects that are in these bills. Again, there's vagueness in some of the language that there could be future legal challenges and it really forces all of the commercially zoned property to accommodate multifamily housing. And the council is aware that we've been very judicious about the way that we have gone about planning for the rest of our development in our community on our vacant land. Our long range plan calls for adding more commercial and industrial tax base and head of household jobs to the community. That's been a goal of the city. That's a goal set forth in our comprehensive plan. These bills would upset that uh that plan. [16:57] **Tom Lawell:** Um, why do we care about commercial industrial property? Well, under current state tax code, commercial industrial tax base pays more in property taxes than residential does. So, if we hit the right balance of commercial industrial property, we actually diminish the tax burden that we have on our residential properties. Another thing on the job piece of this, a standard measure for jobs housing balance. We want more commercial industrial property because we want to generate more jobs in the community. American Planning Association has recommended a ratio of jobs to households of 1.3 to 1.7. Apple Valley currently sits at .77. So again, our long-term planning has been to try to increase that the number of head of household jobs in our community. Zoning is the proper way to do do this with comprehensive planning and appropriate zoning. That's how we can help to tip the scale of the commercial industrial property. [18:20] **Tom Lawell:** I wanted to show these numbers. This is this is current data uh tax year 2025 for taxes payable in 2026. And just wanted to give you a a comparison of how we stack up with our surrounding cities as a ratio of the property that we have developed and plan to develop as residential and apartments versus the amount of commercial industrial property. So the these are the actual values of mark of taxable market value for taxes for 25 payable 26. You can see Apple Valley the total value we have in residential and apartments. You can see what it is in commercial industrial. So it's about a 10 to 1 ratio of how many residential and apartments we have relative to commercial and industrial. Burnsville 26% of theirs is commercial. Eagan 30%. So you can even Lakeville and Rosemount, you know, Apple Valley still is behind those. So part of our long-term growth planning has been to try to increase the amount of commercial and industrial and this is a good reason why we put a lot of time and thought into our comprehensive plan. [19:07] **Tom Lawell:** This is the comprehensive land use guide map uh that has been adopted as part of the 2040 comprehensive plan. Um you can certainly see that much of Apple Valley is already developed. We don't have a lot of vacant land left and it's important that we um stay true to our vision that we set forth in our comprehensive plan and not allow these new bills to uh basically derail uh the plans that we have. So what's next? Um these bills have already been heard in a couple of the committees. The House Housing Finance and Policy Committee and the Senate Housing and Homelessness Prevention Committee have heard them already. They are scheduled before two additional committees. uh the House Elections Finance and Government Operations Committee and the Senate State and Local Government Committee and those will likely happen before an upcoming legislative deadline of April the 4th. [20:41] **Tom Lawell:** Um our own local senator Erin MayeQuade serves as the vice chair of the Senate State and Local Government Committee. So, it's important that thoughts that we have, thoughts that our citizens may have uh be important to communicate with her about uh our concerns on this particular bill. So, we'd encourage our residents to share those opinions uh with our legislators and we would continue to work with our legislators to voice our concerns. Um the staff recommendation because I think it is important that we get officially on record as to our thinking on these bills would be to adopt a resolution tonight. a resolution supporting the retention of city zoning authority and opposing proposed legislation seeking to limit local land use decision-making. And if you'd like, I can read through the the resolutions so everybody knows what it is we're being asked to uh to approve. [21:26] **Tom Lawell:** So whereas the Minnesota state legislature is currently considering proposed legislation aimed at limiting long-standing city authority over local land use and development, whereas bills currently being considered, and I've listed the the four bills. Uh whereas the legislation, if adopted, would greatly restrict local government zoning and land use authority and would severely limit public input related to the development residential development process. Whereas the legislation could significantly affect the character of existing single family neighborhoods in the community by allowing greater housing density on each residential lot. Whereas the legislation forces administrative approvals of projects that meet the standards in the bill language and prohibits public input on the approval process before planning commission and city council. [21:58] **Tom Lawell:** Whereas land development within the city of Apple Valley is currently guided by its 2040 comprehensive plan which has been developed in collaboration with citizens, community and business organizations, school districts, and many others and which was approved by the Metropolitan Council. And whereas these bills, if adopted, would overturn this approved 2040 comprehensive plan and would jeopardize long range planning efforts involving the city's essential infrastructure, roads, water mains, sewer lines, storm water management systems, threatening to overwhelm these systems. Whereas significant increases in housing density will result in added infrastructure costs, which should not become the responsibility of existing residents and businesses. Without a remedy, this legislation could result in property tax increases over time. [22:44] **Tom Lawell:** Whereas the proposed legislation is an attempt to address housing availability and affordability challenges by inappropriately limiting city authority over zoning and land use decisions, transferring that authority to the state government. Whereas these proposed measures fail to adequately address afford housing affordability and offer no guarantees that cost savings realized by housing developers would translate into lower housing costs for prospective homeowners and renters. Now therefore be resolved by the city council of Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota. Strongly supports the retention of city zoning authority and opposes the proposed legislation that would broadly limit local zoning and land use decision-making related to residential development. Be it further resolved that it urges the legislature to recognize the negative impacts associated with this proposed legislation and to withhold action on the bills until suitable amendment language can be developed in consultation with the League of Minnesota cities and other municipal groups. That's what I have for you tonight and uh I'll bet there'll be some discussion. [23:50] **Clint Hooppaw:** Council member Bergman, I think you were up first. **John Bergman:** Thanks. Thanks, Mayor. Uh Tom, nice presentation as usual. Uh the disappointment to me is last year we went most of us went to the state capital and um heard what they wanted to do similar to this matter um and it got rejected. And this time around it seems to me just looking at this that this is worse than last year's um debacle. Um, I'm disappointed in our state reps in in particular the one that you mentioned that's the chair. Um, I believe these people that want to um have these kind of things and represent our city, they need to ask their res their neighbors first if this is going to work for them. Uh, I don't believe the message um by our state legislators has gone out far enough to the residents and they're relying on us to pass the message on. [24:36] **John Bergman:** Um I'm thoroughly disappointed I think in the long run. Um and I cannot imagine this passing but worse things are other things have happened um that this may um I don't see how cities maintain what they have what they pride themselves in and then the debacle that we'll have for no meetings, no parking, whatever. It's just open for business and do what you want to do. And I think that's that's a shame, but hopefully um something gets resolved that this has to start at such a small scale. And I thought when we left last year from the state capital that this was a work in progress and it seems like they just jumped a bunch of hurdles and now they're at the big at the big plan now. And fortunately for us, I said this before that we have, you know, 17 square miles. I can't imagine um what they can pack what people want what these representatives want us to pack into our 17 square miles. So it's a it's a shame. So thanks. [26:04] **Clint Hooppaw:** Counselor Bergman, I just want to clarify uh Senator MayeQuade is chairing that committee. She's not the author of the bill and none none of our local representatives authored these bills. **John Bergman:** Right. We still they still have a vote on them. But just to be clear, it isn't our reps that are bringing these bills forward. They need to I agree. I I just don't want I wanted the the authors to be known I guess or not known. **Tom Lawell:** If I could just clarify um none of our legislative delegation are authors of any of the bills except Erin MayeQuade is a author that was added to the people over parking act. So she is identified as an author on that particular bill. **John Bergman:** Thanks. Thank you. [26:38] **Clint Hooppaw:** Council member Hiebert, you were up next. **Lisa Hiebert:** Thank you. Um, I think it's important to acknowledge that the Twin Cities, like many other areas across the country, that there is a housing shortage and this is a challenge. Um, but a key partner in this has to be the city and our residents who need to have a very strong voice in it. I think you identified a lot of that. I think Apple Valley um has done a really good job over the years being very intentional about our housing um and really providing options to be born and raised here and retire here. that was really intentional and I think that shows in certainly in our um residential and and commercial ratios being as low as they are that that was a you know a really strong focus for the city for many years and now we need to look at the other other side of that coin to balance things out. [27:24] **Lisa Hiebert:** And and I also want to say I don't have any issues about building density in our communities it just needs to be smart and planful and thought out um in our local communities and that requires the local input. Um, and and I I actually also would like I like the idea of along local transit corridors, not necessarily all MSA routes and that cart blanch because it allows people to live and work in Apple Valley, connect that and, you know, use mass transit, walk, bike to live, work, and play um in the community. Um, however, all these bills are highly problematic for all the the variety of reasons what you've talked about. I think it's really important to say that none of these bills address affordable housing. Um it's it's all market rate housing. Um which gives developers a very wide brush stroke of what they can do and where they can do it. And we talked about you've already talked highly about how it strips control about local control about the input from our residents are process and decision-making having just one meeting and not even a public hearing is ridiculous. Um and and not okay at all. [28:34] **Lisa Hiebert:** Um and then again the undue burden of you know what is this going to do? It's going to it could be hodge podge and all of our infrastructure you know our streets our our water our sewer and I think the thing that also as a public works gal all these bills have that provision and the one is specifically on it to remove uh parking minimums. And this might really seem benign um but it's really not. And people might say well we've got parking in Apple Valley. Yeah, maybe. Um, but our streets are public infrastructure. They're for the public. Um, and it connects our communities. Our our streets are not for car storage and they never should be for car storage um at all. Um, and I think if if you live in a neighborhood like mine, many many of our streets in Apple Valley, we don't have we don't have sidewalks in my neighborhood. We don't have real curbs either. And so what that looks like is that if there's already a car parked in there, I'm walking my dog. I'm walking out into the middle of the street around that parked car. Now imagine both sides parked up with no parking minimums and multi-unit housings or or you know, whatever. You have people walking in the middle of the street with traffic. [29:32] **Lisa Hiebert:** So it does two things. It makes our our city's streets um and our neighborhoods less safe. Um, and so that's a huge safety and and also the maintenance. Um, again, not having the parking on the street allows our public works staff to get in and plow, um, street sweep, cut down trees or trim trees, um, and do all the all the required work in the in the right of way. And this is critically important because if they can't get in and do the maintenance and the operations, it's just going to help it's just going to create more deterioration of our public infrastructure, which is going to cost us more money down the road. So again, I think that it's problematic on many levels and and I think that there is opportunity and I just really encourage people to invite the cities in and find out what we can do because we want to be partners on this and not just have these mandates that we're going to have to figure out how to make it happen. So sorry that was a lot but— [30:46] **Clint Hooppaw:** No, thank you. This is a lot. Tom? **Tom Melander:** Thanks, Mayor. I mean, these bills are so far out there, I don't even know where compromise can come into play, really. Um, but so the bills were heard, were they voted on? **Tom Lawell:** Um, I think most of them were held over for possible inclusion and not actually voted on and I assume there was a lot of opposition at the hearings. It appears from the the testimony that was identified that there were both sides well represented. **Tom Lawell:** Yeah. Yeah, there was a hearing on these bills that was scheduled for this week was going to be on Tuesday and that would have been in before that Senate committee that I mentioned earlier and um that committee was cancelled. That hearing was cancelled. So, we are hoping that uh that means that there's been some pressure and they were not ready to be heard and u to be considered. So, we'll continue to watch it. I don't see it on the legislative calendar to be heard yet this week. So, we're probably talking about next week, April 4th being a legislative deadline. They're going to have to deal with this fairly quickly if they want to get through that process. **Tom Melander:** I can see this pitting neighbor against neighbor all over the city. I mean, it's going to cause so much havoc. It would be unbelievable. Um, I I don't need to repeat everything that's been said because I think most of you hit the point. [31:56] **Clint Hooppaw:** So, just add a couple quick things. Um, as I've looked these over and some of this is left over from last year because I feel like we just did this, right? And uh um ju just a you know a couple things that I'm thinking of it. The thing I got a little tired of hearing last year was um you know if you're not for this it's just an NIMBY deal. People don't want it in their backyard and and there might be some truth to that but that let's take that to the conclusion it goes to there's a reason people maybe don't want things constructed around them. And if you put a 300 unit parking, you know, maybe on the corner down the street from me and require no parking where a 300 unit apartment require no parking whatsoever, right? The reason isn't that I don't want an apartment building in Apple Valley. It's that I don't want the impacts of not having a well planned apartment building in Apple Valley. Um, you know, right now on the EDA owned lot, we have right uh a nice apartment building going in and that was a lot owned by the city. So, I don't think anybody can say we're not doing our part to encourage higher, more dense development in areas that it makes sense to put those things. [33:09] **Clint Hooppaw:** Um, parking is one. Uh, your graphic in there of the Eagan neighborhood, right? That looks like the neighborhood I used to live in in Eagan, right? Those are those are nice neighborhoods. I'm also going to almost guarantee those aren't going to be owned in most cases. Um, right? Because the just construction cost alone on that is not going to allow those to be very affordable when constructed. So those are likely going to be rental. So despite calling these things the starter home act, I don't see any requiring those to be owned. And so I don't know that these are starter homes or these are more, you know, high dollar $1,800 a month rentals um that end up going in that aren't actually affordable and don't actually do anything to build ownership um in there. [33:56] **Clint Hooppaw:** Um I think this is much like last year. I feel like this issue is largely unknown to most of our residents and honestly most of the residents around. As I talk to people, we don't hear a whole lot about this bill coming. I think part of it is we have these cute names that sound really nice, right? Increasing home, increasing home ownership sounds great. People over parking. Of course, I like people better than parking, right? But we don't dig into the what. Um, we've got a I know it's after the deadlines, but we do have a council meeting coming up on the 10th. It might be worthwhile to invite planning commission to join us at the informal or for part of that and to just talk about this, make sure they're aware, and maybe invite others in. I know there are Met Council members who are interested in this topic. We maybe get our legislators there. Maybe we get some folks there to hear and just talk about how this might impact um their neighborhoods and just kind of help get the word out a little bit as to what's there because I think that's where the input is. Um we talk a little bit and hear about no role for planning commission or council and you know that could be said well see they just want to control everything and I think the reality is our planning commission is here on a volunteer basis right dedicating their time. They probably would love to have less things to do. I know what their agenda looks like in a couple weeks. I will tell you they probably love to have less things to do. That's not why they're doing this. But really, when we take planning commission and council away, right, we also take every bit of resident input away. And so that that really is the bigger concern to me than whether we take council and planning commission input away. So those are my thoughts on top of what you all have said. Very good. **Lisa Hiebert:** Lisa, did you have something else? You were hovering. Yeah, I was hovering over the button. Um, I just have a curiosity. Have have we had any conversations with uh the school district? Because as much as this would impact our planning with the comp plan, I this is going to be really disastrous for school districts and all their planning for you know growth and um structure with that too. So I'm just wondering if we've— **Clint Hooppaw:** They shared a concern last year on that exact topic. I don't know if we've talked to him this year or not. **Tom Lawell:** We have not. Okay. Thank you. [35:51] **Clint Hooppaw:** Tom. Where do we go from here? **Tom Lawell:** Well, I think it would be important to uh to adopt a resolution so we have an official position. We would then forward that on to the legislators. We would uh certainly offer that as testimony when it does finally get scheduled before a committee. Uh but I think the important thing is to get the word out to our citizens because otherwise these are some pretty significant changes that are being considered. And you're right, we don't believe that the broader community really knows much about uh this discussion that's underway. So, we would encourage them to uh to connect with our legislators, share their thoughts. There will be some that are in favor of this. There will be some that are against. We're not going to presuppose how people think about it, but it's important that people understand what is being proposed and offer their opinions. That's the way it's supposed to work is uh full public discussion and uh consideration before these types of important decisions are made. **Clint Hooppaw:** Yeah. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to the resolution which is uh or the motion or the action which is to adopt a resolution supporting retention of city zoning authority and opposing the proposed legislation seeking to limit local land use decisionmaking. We have a motion for that resolution. **John Bergman:** So moved. **Clint Hooppaw:** So moved from council member Bergman. Do we have a second? **Ruth Grendahl:** Second. **Clint Hooppaw:** Second from council member Grendahl. All those in favor indicate by saying I. **Council Members:** I. **Clint Hooppaw:** Opposed. All right. Thank you all. Um thanks for the discussion and look for more coming. **Clint Hooppaw:** Yeah. public. Um, we can if anybody would like to speak to this. Council—former council member Goodwin. See, all those years I can't even not call you council member Goodwin anymore. Or is it like president? You get to keep the title after you're done. [37:33] **Tom Goodwin:** I have retired from the city council mayor. And first of all, I'd like to apologize to Mayor Hooppaw and council member Bergman for uh overdressing. Hi. I said administrator and our public works director. They still have a tie, but I park director did too, just so you know. Look at that. Finance director didn't. Well, my name is Tom Goodwin. I live at 1315 Garvin Brook Lane in Apple Valley. And I want to make a few comments on this legislation. [38:11] **Tom Goodwin:** the legislation described by the city administrator which was described very well. He he let off—he left out one important part that I will add later—is the worst piece of legislation for cities that I've ever seen in my 40 years as a city council member. Now why do I say as a city council member? Council member Bergman mentioned, it's came up last year. But as also Council Member Bergman mentioned, now they've added to it. Now they got four bills. Now the way they work at the legislature, if you smash this stuff together, who knows what they're going to come with is just the worst thing I've ever seen. Basically, what this legislation would do, it would do away with single family zoning. there would be no more single family zoning in Apple Valley or any city. Well, not any city. I'm going to discuss that later. [39:33] **Tom Goodwin:** But um and and and the worst part about it, this is something that the citizens have to understand. If this legislation passed, a citizen would have no recourse. Right now, if your neighbor wants to do something crazy to his property, you can come and see the city council. But if this legislation passed, the citizens, there would only be one public hearing or one hearing of some kind, but it wouldn't be a planning commission hearing. And once this is passed, you could have your neighbor decide to take his lot in developing it into two or three or four homes and there's nothing you could do under this law. Absolutely nothing you could do. [40:12] **Tom Goodwin:** Now I just want to give a few examples of why I think this is very very questionable and um uh give you a couple examples. One of the examples I can give you is just recently the last year or two we had a redevelopment of a golf course here in Apple Valley at the corner of 140 properties in Garden View. If this legislation had been passed that 23 acres could be developed in certain parts of it, such a density level that you can't believe it. Matter of fact, I still remember the person from the neighborhood who spoke that night and said, "Council, I don't want to live next to a five-story apartment building." Can you imagine a five-story apartment building at the corner of Garden View in 240th? Now, I don't know if that's accurate. This person said they researched the law and they think it could get that high. I don't know if it could get that high, but um pretty darn close. [41:28] **Tom Goodwin:** And let me just give a few other examples. The smallest lot in Apple Valley right now is 11,000 square feet. Right now, under this legislation, the smallest lot you could develop two or three homes on that lot, but I want to give you a couple of more bigger, more absurd examples. Now, these are extreme, and I admit they're extreme, but I want the people out there to listen. When you think of some of the neighborhoods that we have that have huge lots, let me give you let me give you an example of a couple of them. One is um Chateau Estates and the other one is Grand View and then we also have some of the Oaks, the newer Oaks developments that have large lots. If this legislation was passed, somebody could buy one of those lots and put in I don't know how many houses, 13, 15, 20 houses, I don't know. [42:33] **Tom Goodwin:** This is just absurd. And um uh I have some other things to say, but I think I'll just kind of wrap it up. One of the worst things to me about this is your neighbor, the citizens, the people who live next door to all you would have no recourse if this law passed. As I said earlier, if your neighbor wants to do something crazy with their property, you can come in and see the council. The council under this law would have no recourse. Again, this is just the worst legislation I've seen in the 40 years that I was on the city council. [43:31] **Tom Goodwin:** So, uh, couple other things. city administrator mentioned that under this law, one of the laws, I can't remember which one it was, that 80% could be covered by housing. Just imagine a single family home lot you all live on. Can you imagine that? That 80% of that property be covered by housing. But there's one thing that really scares me about this and this is city administrator mentioned it in passing that there was an amendment to one of the four bills and I don't know which one it was was an amendment that would have said if you live in a community of less than 10,000 people it doesn't apply to you. [44:40] **Tom Goodwin:** Now, just think of that. There's 850 some cities in the state of Minnesota, and I would gather I would say that no more than 10 or 12% are more than 10,000 people. Therefore, you could be a legislator in outstate Minnesota, Black Duck, or I don't know where. You could be a legislator in our state of Minnesota and you could vote for this thing knowing full well that your community would never be included. Now, that's just one of the most outrageous things about this act that I've ever seen. But again, just to sum it up, and I know I'm repeating myself, but to take away zoning, and I'm going to say this as a council member of all those years, the most important thing I ever think I did as a council member was zoning. [45:27] **Tom Goodwin:** You set out your community. We had 40, we had 20 year plans and 10 year plans, and we laid out our communities. and zoning was so important to take that duty—I don't call it a power I call it a duty—away from the city council is outrageous and again to repeat one more time if this legislation passed and I hope people are listening and I hope the newspapers listening I think next in two weeks if this isn't front page of the Dakota County Tribune I'm just going to be shocked people should know if this happens that they have no recourse, zero recourse. There's nothing they could do. So, I want to thank you, mayor and council, for listening and thank you for your introduction. Appreciate it. **Clint Hooppaw:** Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Goodwin. Good night. Thanks. [46:26] **Clint Hooppaw:** All right, we we could talk a lot longer about this because the more we talk, the more you think of other things, right? another potential impacts of this one, but we'll save that for a for another conversation. Um, brings us to staff and council items. Council member Bergman, are you on the last one or are we— **John Bergman:** I'm on the last one. Okay. Well, while we—it's, you know, they all mesh together here. You're good. So, uh, thanks, Mayor. Uh, Mr. administrator is uh Eve on top of this and we're going to have her work due diligent to send out stuff and put it on our website that folks can follow. **Tom Lawell:** Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bergman, yes, we can certainly uh use our own communication vehicles to get the word out to our citizens about this proposed legislation. **John Bergman:** Okay. Thank you. [47:24] **Clint Hooppaw:** All right. Uh staff, it any communication items tonight, Tom? **Tom Lawell:** Uh Mr. Mayor, just a a couple of things on the upcoming calendar that I think the community would be interested in. Uh we are excited that the Nordstrom Rack will be having their grand opening celebration on Thursday, April the 3rd at 8:00 a.m. So, that's a nice addition to the Fisher Marketplace uh commercial area. So, we would encourage citizens to come and be part of that uh that event. And then also just want to highlight um yes, spring is trying to make a comeback here. And uh Saturday, April the 12th, we'll actually have the Apple Valley Home and Garden Expo that will be held at Eastview High School. Obviously, this is an event put on by the Chamber of Commerce has uh different vendors from all over the the region uh to do various types of improvements to your property. And the city of Apple Valley uh has uh five separate tables there. We'll have a number of our departments there to talk about various topics, whether it be building permits or natural resources, um planning. uh we'll just have a large staff later to talk about uh things that people are concerned about. So maybe we'll have a flyer on this particular topic that we can distribute that day as well. Great. [48:27] **Clint Hooppaw:** Thank you. Speaking of new things, last Saturday I attended Urban Air's uh ribbon cutting uh which has been a long time coming, but good to see another long vacant uh retail property into a very active full parking lot with a bunch of kids running around having a good time. So, it just tells you that uh something is still pretty attractive about our retail draw when we have Nordstrom Rack coming, we have Urban Air coming and other things filling up empty big box spaces and we don't see that everywhere. So, we're doing something right and that feels good. So, Council Bergman— **John Bergman:** I see our park and rec director is in the audience. I I commend you or if you would like to speak about um some of the things that are going to take place in the parks in the next few months. Um, please come up if you want to. I I one of the things that I saw in the in your information was the new signage for all the parks. I think that really is crisp and clean and um really fresh. [49:12] **Eric Carlson:** So, uh, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, and those watching at home, uh there will be a lot of things happening in the Apple Valley park system this summer due to the uh voter approval of the parks referendum from November of '23. And um because I kind of have them memorized, I'll talk about them quickly. So, one one project we are we are updating all of our park signage and kind of changing our brand, if you will. So, all of the park ID signs that we have in the park system will start to be replaced here in the near future with a goal of having that completed by July. There will be a few park signs that don't get replaced. Um, some of some of our major parks, we're working on a plan to have something a little bit more significant. And so, we need to uh spend a little bit more time planning that before we make those improvements. [50:28] **Eric Carlson:** Um we are finishing the um improvements to the Apple Valley Family Aquatic Center which will now be known as Splash Valley Waterpark and we are scheduled to open that up on time here in the early June. Um we are planning to do some type of ribbon cutting event hopefully on Thursday, June 12th prior to the city council meeting. Um and there's a lot of exciting things happening there including we are going to do a trial of a season pass at the park this year. So, we'll see how that goes over and if it if it goes well, you know, it's something that will continue in the future and if not, uh we'll switch gears to something different. [51:04] **Eric Carlson:** We are the council tonight uh approved plans for Redwood Park. Um and so we've entered into an agreement with Krauss Anderson uh to make the improvements at Kelly Park, which also includes the community's first inclusive playground. Um and that is being purchased through landscape structures. And so that will be an awesome facility for the community once it's installed. Uh construction will start on that park in June. Should be done around June of '26 hopefully. It includes a new pool, a new building, the inclusive playground, and some other features, additional on-site parking, etc. Um we start on the youth baseball softball complex at Hayes Park uh this coming week. Um and that construction will start uh again in April here. [51:36] **Eric Carlson:** should be done by about the middle of a uh middle to late August because we need to get things seeded so that we can get some grass to grow. Um it won't be ready for use. Maybe some of it might be ready for use this fall, but most likely it'll be sometime in 2026. Um then we go to Kelly Park and we uh will plan to be doing some improvements at Kelly Park. uh a new stage, a new splash pad, a new restroom building, some more additional uh on-site parking. That construction will start sometime in July, working around the concert series that is held there every year. Um and then fully take over the park from a construction perspective starting in September. Um and that we hope to be done uh by concert season in 2026. [52:23] **Eric Carlson:** So June of 2026, we are resurfacing two and a half miles of trails at Cobblestone Park uh Cobblestone Lake Park this year. Um, so everything that didn't get done last year by the county's North Creek Regional Greenway project will be resurfaced this year by our city project. That construction will start in May. It'll be done hopefully by the end of July, weather permitting. And we have an open house on Monday, April 14th, uh, to invite neighbors and people that use that park in to learn about, you know, the disruptions that are going to happen. [53:01] **Eric Carlson:** Uh because of that, we have eight pickleball courts going in at Johnny—eight additional pickleball courts going in at Johnny Cake West just east of the existing tennis courts. Those will be lighted. Um and that should be done um hopefully by August. We also have a concrete skate park going in at Johnny Cake West in the northwest corner of the parking lot in front of the aquatic center. And then because we don't have anything else to do, we're doing about five we're going to do about five neighborhood parks, uh trails, playgrounds, uh tennis courts, basketball courts, that kind of stuff. So, going to be a busy summer. A lot of things going to be under construction. Some of it will be a mess, but in the long run, they they will be improvements. So, questions. **Clint Hooppaw:** There is a skateboard in my garage that we can give to former council member Goodwin if you would like to go be the first user of the new skatepark when it's done. **John Bergman:** I would pay money to show up to that or give it to the chief of police— **Clint Hooppaw:** Oh, we need him. It's— **Eric Carlson:** Thank you, Eric. Thanks. Thanks, Eric. [54:02] **Clint Hooppaw:** All right. Anything else from council? If not, we will move on to the calendar of upcoming events. Our next informal city council meeting is Thursday, April 10th at 5:30 and our next regular council meeting is Thursday, April 10th at 7. Do we have a motion to approve the calendar? **Ruth Grendahl:** So moved. **Lisa Hiebert:** Second. **Clint Hooppaw:** Motion from council member Grendahl, a second from council member Hiebert. All in favor indicate by saying I. **Council Members:** I. **Clint Hooppaw:** Opposed. And before I adjourn, uh, Christina, is there anything else from staff? **Christina Scipioni:** mayor and council, there is nothing further from staff. **Clint Hooppaw:** All right. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, with that, I would take a motion to adjourn. **Ruth Grendahl:** So moved. **Clint Hooppaw:** Motion from council member Grendahl. Do we have a second? **Lisa Hiebert:** Second. **Clint Hooppaw:** Second from council member Hiebert. All those in favor indicate by saying I. **Council Members:** I. **Clint Hooppaw:** And opposed. Thank you. We are adjourned. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music]