Based on the context provided and the content of the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names identified. Note: While the provided list includes the City Council, this is a **Planning Commission** meeting. The Commissioners identified through the roll call are **Susek (Chair)**, **Tinsley**, **Marovic**, **Zimmer**, and **Han**. [0:52] **Chair Susek**: I call to order the March 6, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Please join me in the flag pledge. [1:18] **Chair Susek**: Miss Erikson, will you please do a roll call of members? **Miss Erikson**: Susek? **Chair Susek**: Here. **Miss Erikson**: Tinsley? **Commissioner Tinsley**: Here. **Miss Erikson**: Marovic? **Commissioner Marovic**: Here. **Miss Erikson**: Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer**: Here. **Miss Erikson**: Han? **Commissioner Han**: Here. **Chair Susek**: All right, agenda item number three: approval of minutes. Approval of the February 20th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Any changes? Right, and the meeting minutes will stand. Tina, any announcements? **Tina Goodroad**: The only thing is the two items on the agenda; if they move forward tonight, they'll be on the March 17th Council agenda. **Chair Susek**: All right, thank you. And agenda item number five: The Spirit of Brandon Farms 25th Edition. Do I have to read the thing? So sorry. [2:05] **Tina Goodroad**: No, Chair. We're just looking for a motion to table this item until the March 20th Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant. **Chair Susek**: Okay. **Commissioner Zimmer**: Madame Chair, yes, I make a motion to table the Spirit of Brandon Farm 25th Edition preliminary plat PUD development stage plan and amendment to the Spirit of Brandon Farm planned unit development to the March 20th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. **Commissioner Tinsley**: Second. **Chair Susek**: I have a motion and a second. Will you please do a roll call vote? **Miss Erikson**: Tinsley? **Commissioner Tinsley**: Aye. **Miss Erikson**: Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer**: Aye. **Miss Erikson**: Han? **Commissioner Han**: Aye. **Miss Erikson**: Susek? [2:55] **Chair Susek**: Aye. All right, agenda item number six. This is a public hearing to consider the application of ISG Inc. on behalf of OPAN for the preliminary plat of nine commercial lots to be known as Marketplace at Cedar and a conditional use permit to allow a lot without public street frontage. This is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to speak on this item, please make sure that you sign up in the back of the room. And then here we have Pete to give us a brief overview of the project. **Pete Carbono**: Good evening, Pete Carbono, OP Investment Company. I'm here with our engineer with ISG to answer any questions about the project or any technical questions about the plat as well. [3:40] **Chair Susek**: Okay, thank you. [3:50] **Dan Lick**: Good evening, Madame Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Dan Lick; I'm the city's planning consultant with the Planning Company, working with Community Development Director Goodroad and Planning Manager Jensen on this application along with other city staff. This is the Marketplace at Cedar preliminary plat. As the chair read, there's also the conditional use permit for a lot without public street frontage. And then, as you'll see on the plat, they're using shared internal access to access adjacent public streets. The property is located at the southeast corner of 179th Street (County Road 9) and Cedar Avenue (County Road 23). Adjacent to the property to the north is the Crossroads commercial development. To the east is the Cordelia Townhomes. To the south is the Edison at Avonlea multiple-family development as well as the Park and Ride facility. And to the west across Cedar Avenue is the central maintenance facility. The city's 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Corridor Mixed Use development. This land use was designated to provide for a combination of commercial retail service and office type uses together with multiple-family housing in a compact urban form that supports future transit service along the Cedar Avenue corridor. So there's unique performance standards that go with this development as well as a range of uses allowed by the zoning ordinance and corresponding to the land use designation. [5:24] **Dan Lick**: The property is zoned Mixed Use Cedar Avenue Corridor 2 District. What's for the Planning Commission at this point is a preliminary plat subdividing the property into nine commercial lots as well as five outlots—three of which are for stormwater purposes and then two outlots for future development. The commercial lots being platted all comply with the requirements of the M2 District in terms of minimum lot area and width, the exception being Lot 8, which does not have frontage to a public street as required by the zoning ordinance. That's allowed to occur by conditional use permit. The main thing the city is looking for there is that there's adequate provision put in place through ingress-egress easements and shared access to allow that lot to be accessed from the adjacent public streets. This is a common arrangement in this type of commercial development and certainly appropriate for the form of development sought within the M2 zoning district. Each of the lots has the ability to accommodate a principal use in compliance with required setbacks. The plat also provides for dedication of right-of-way for future expansion of Cedar Avenue along the west side, as well as internal right-of-way for Glenshaw Avenue within the plat itself. The plat provides for review by Dakota County as part of the county road system adjacent to the property, and you have their approval letter included as part of the report this evening. The plat provides for dedication of easements at the perimeter of each lot as well as over any stormwater facilities or internal utilities that serve each of the lots with sanitary sewer and water service. [6:56] **Dan Lick**: As I mentioned, there are the five outlots. Three of which are stormwater basins (Outlots A, B, and C). A and B will be privately maintained by the developer through documents establishing cross-ownership and maintenance. Outlot C will be deeded to the city as it handles runoff from the public streets. Outlots D and E are for future development, likely multiple-family housing or commercial development as allowed within the M2 zoning district. Park dedication requirements apply to subdivision of the property. Those are established within the subdivision ordinance. Basically, we look at the 2015 Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan and determine if there's a need for public parkland in the area. None is guided for this property, so the developer will satisfy those requirements by payment of a cash fee in lieu of land; that is completed at the time of final plat approval. The developer has provided a site plan illustrating the potential build-out of each of the lots within the development. The uses that are shown are illustrative at this point and would be subject to future application for site plan review as well as potential conditional use permit applications. What they are showing does comply with the uses allowed within the M2 zoning district. We've highlighted the shared internal private driveway that has access off of 179th Street and the north leg of this intersection of Glenshaw Avenue to provide access to each of the lots within the development. That would also be overlaid by ingress-egress easement, providing for shared maintenance and ownership and allowing access to each of the lots. [8:29] **Dan Lick**: One of the cornerstones of the M2 district is the provision of pedestrian access, again reflecting that more compact urban form that's sought. There are existing trails adjacent to the property on the west, north, and east sides of the development. There will be sidewalk on at least one side of Glenshaw Avenue accessing the property, and then the site plan illustrates sidewalks connecting to those public ways to each of the principal buildings. Those internal connections will be reviewed as each site plan progresses forward to ensure that those connections are made. Signage within the M2 district is limited. Each individual use is not allowed a freestanding sign, again reflecting the desired development character. They are allowed one freestanding area identification sign that can identify the entire development and specific uses within that, and that's shown on the site plan. They are showing initial landscaping that would be required as part of the screening requirements of the zoning ordinance for development of the uses on the east side of the development to screen the uses across Glacier Way from the commercial activity within the site. It is positive that that's being installed now because it will give it a chance to become established and form a more effective screening going forward as each of the sites are developed. [10:03] **Dan Lick**: Then I again talked about the stormwater basins that will be subject to a stormwater maintenance agreement as part of the final plat application. Engineering provided a memorandum outlining their review of the application, including utilities, grading and drainage, erosion control, wetlands, and overall stormwater management. They've also noted a specialist assessment related to Glacier Way that needs to be satisfied as a condition of final plat approval as well. Engineering is recommending approval of the request. City staff's overall recommendation for the applications is that the uses and the subdivision of the property are consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for future land use. The plat complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance, and we've also prepared findings of fact for consideration by the Planning Commission related to the conditional use permit. Our recommendation for approval is subject to the 15 conditions we outlined in the planning report from February 26th. Thank you. [10:49] **Chair Susek**: Thank you. This is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to speak on this agenda item can please come forward. [11:24] **Diane Cunningham**: My name is Diane Cunningham and I'm a resident of the Cordelia, and this plan is right across from me. So I'm a little concerned about what it's going to be. Can you outlay or tell us what kind of commercial buildings would be in this site? **Chair Susek**: Yeah, we'll take all of your questions and then once the public hearing is closed, then they'll answer. **Diane Cunningham**: Okay. And then the second question would be: what is the access to—I'm trying to follow everything that was said—but what is the access going to be to this development? I—you know, there's a lot of traffic already on Glacier, so I'm just concerned about that. Those are my two questions. **Chair Susek**: Okay, thank you. [12:20] **Commissioner Zimmer**: Madame Chair, seeing no other folks coming forward, I would move to close the public hearing. **Commissioner Tinsley**: Second. **Chair Susek**: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please signify by saying aye. **Commissioners**: Aye. **Chair Susek**: Closed. All right, the public hearing is now closed. So, the first question—if you could share potentially what will be in the development? **Pete Carbono**: Thank you. We're working with CBRE as our brokers on this. So they're looking across the country for users that want to come to the space. Right now, we are working with a bank, a grocer, a coffee shop, a dental use, an oil change, a car wash, and a daycare. And there's still room for two more users at the site as well. And with regards to the traffic, we are completing and will be submitting the required traffic study by the County. [13:06] **Chair Susek**: Okay. Could we bring up where it shows the access to the location? **Commissioner Zimmer**: Could we ask Mr. Carbono—could you give that list again? It was rather quick; I want to make sure we all had a chance to write them down. **Pete Carbono**: Absolutely. Apologies for talking fast. We're working with a bank, a coffee shop, a dental user, a quick-service restaurant, an oil change, a car wash, a daycare, and a grocer. **Commissioner Zimmer**: Also, one other quick question while you're there: those are all single-story, correct? **Pete Carbono**: Correct. Thank you. [13:53] **Dan Lick**: Madame Chair, so the site has two accesses to public streets. The first being a right-in off 179th Street; so people will not be able to exit the site to 179th Street. It's very similar to the Argon Village access near Wendy's. The plat also provides for construction of Glenshaw Way off of Glacier Way, which leads into the second access to this development. So all the traffic exiting the development needs to go south on Glenshaw or east on Glenshaw out to Glacier Way to be able to access. Glacier Way has been constructed as a collector street; it's intended to accommodate traffic both from the adjacent residential uses as well as this mixed-use development going forward. [14:39] **Chair Susek**: Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, any questions? **Commissioner Tinsley**: Madame Chair, I just have an additional question. So if you are traveling westbound on the north side there, you cannot take a left into there then? **Dan Lick**: Right, correct. **Commissioner Tinsley**: Okay, thank you. [15:25] **Chair Susek**: I do have one question. I'm not sure if it was said quite loud enough, but are they all one-story buildings? **Dan Lick**: Each of these buildings is likely to be one story. Obviously, that'll be something that's presented at the time each site is identified as a user. **Chair Susek**: Do we have any drive-throughs where we have to stack them up with two lanes potentially? **Dan Lick**: The uses in the center—the two quick-serve restaurants that are shown—those would obviously require conditional use permits and would be back before the Planning Commission. [16:08] **Chair Susek**: Any other comments or questions? I think we're ready for a motion then. **Commissioner Zimmer**: Madame Chair, I'd make a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the Marketplace at Cedar preliminary plat and conditional use permit to allow a lot without public street frontage, subject to the 15 stipulations listed in the February 26, 2025 planning report. **Commissioner Han**: Second. **Chair Susek**: All right, I have a motion and a second. Will you please take a roll call? **Miss Erikson**: Marovic? **Commissioner Marovic**: Aye. **Miss Erikson**: Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer**: Aye. **Miss Erikson**: Han? **Commissioner Han**: Aye. **Miss Erikson**: Susek? **Chair Susek**: Aye. **Miss Erikson**: Tinsley? **Commissioner Tinsley**: Aye. **Chair Susek**: All right, best of luck on your project. Thank you. [16:54] **Chair Susek**: Agenda item number seven: City of Lakeville. This is a public hearing to consider amendments to Title 11, Chapter 23, Zoning Signs and Signs of the city code. **Dan Lick**: Madame Chair, so this item comes to the Planning Commission as a response and follow-up to a variance application that you previously considered for allowing additional wall signage for a medical clinic. The Planning Commission generally wasn't supportive of the variance approach. Obviously, when you're looking at the criteria for variance needing to relate to natural conditions of the property, it's difficult to find justification to approve a variance in that situation. However, what the Planning Commission was supportive of was looking at alternatives to the current language within the ordinance. Now, sign ordinances are adopted basically for two purposes: mainly to eliminate visual pollution—[example]—and the purpose for that is to avoid visual distraction for motorists on adjacent roadways and enhance business identification. Make it easy to find what you're looking for; might be hard to find that muffler shop on that street there. Otherwise, the other thing it does is provide for visual aesthetics desired by the community. When we're looking at the wall sign regulations in the current zoning ordinance, there's two areas of regulation that we're focused on possibly amending. First is the number of signs allowed. Currently, the zoning allows you one wall sign, or two if you have a corner through-lot. Second is the location where those signs are. The zoning ordinance currently says the sign needs to face a public street. So, are there options to look at that staying within the intent of the ordinance to make modification—give flexibility to businesses looking to locate within Lakeville and identify themselves—and then move forward with that? [19:14] **Dan Lick**: Now, obviously what you have in your packet is a lot more language than just that. We kind of took a step back from this entire section and tried to write it more clearly so that it's easier to find information and easier for people to understand just looking at it online versus needing to contact city staff. As I said, the current allowances are for interior lots: one sign facing the public street; corner or through-lots get two signs. Then there's limits by district; so as the intensity of the district moves higher, the more signage is allowed. Over time, the city also made a number of amendments to the sign ordinance regulations to accommodate more signage for larger users like grocery stores or industrial buildings of certain sizes. We basically carried that language forward in the same form but tried to streamline the language somewhat. What we're proposing here is to not limit the number of signs—basically allow the same area and let the business decide how best they need to allocate that for their purposes. Also, to allow flexibility that these signs could be located on any wall that they choose, provided it doesn't face a residential district. I think if you drive down Kenwood Trail, you can see how certain businesses as you're driving the corridor—if they had a side-facing sign, they'd be as visible as the front-facing sign. Looking at the Midwest ENT example that you previously looked at: the zoning ordinance would allow currently the two signs in green—the address sign and the central identification sign—and none of the additional signs that were proposed to help identify what other professions are in that same clinic. [20:46] **Dan Lick**: The ordinance as proposed would allow the signs as originally proposed by the business. Again, they would also, because this is a corner lot, be allowed a sign or signs on the east side of their building as well. But for illustrative purposes, this accomplishes the same outcome as the variance would have, but applies that same flexibility broadly across all commercial and industrial zoning districts within the city. City staff is recommending approval of the ordinance as presented. We're improving business identification, benefiting those property owners within the city, and providing greater flexibility in applying the ordinance to these properties. We're still maintaining the same limit on the total area of signs within the city, so we feel that's consistent with the intent of the sign regulations to avoid visual distraction and maintain community aesthetics. And again, the intent is to make the ordinance easier for people to use for their signage purposes. So again, the recommendation is for approval of the amendments. [21:33] **Chair Susek**: Thank you. And this is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to speak on this agenda item can please come forward. [22:07] **Commissioner Zimmer**: Madame Chair, yes, I make a motion to close the public hearing. **Commissioner Han**: Second. **Chair Susek**: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please signify by saying aye. **Commissioners**: Aye. **Chair Susek**: All opposed? All right, the public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, questions, comments? **Commissioner Tinsley**: My only question, Madame Chair—when we talked about it, so you're saying that signage for the Midwest ENT example: if we didn't allow all those extra signs, would their Midwest ENT sign be able to be bigger? More font? Okay. All right, just wanted to be clear. **Dan Lick**: Yeah, Madame Chair, they would have been allowed 150 square feet of sign. [22:54] **Chair Susek**: Yeah, thank you. I remember when they were here, they had kind of said they could take all of them and put it in one big one, but I do appreciate the change to it because I think aesthetically, this is much better than if they would have put it all in one giant sign. So I think it's great. And Mr. Lick, as far as you know, not limiting—having an unlimited number of signs is really limited by the space, correct? **Dan Lick**: Perfect. Madame Chair, the user will have to balance how small they can make the signs by the number, so it again gives them the flexibility to determine. [23:42] **Chair Susek**: Thank you. **Commissioner Han**: Madame Chair, I make a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendment to section 11-23-9 of the zoning ordinance of the city code. **Commissioner Zimmer**: Second. **Chair Susek**: I have a motion and a second. Will you please take a roll call? **Miss Erikson**: Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer**: Aye. **Miss Erikson**: Han? **Commissioner Han**: Aye. **Miss Erikson**: Tinsley? **Commissioner Tinsley**: Aye. **Miss Erikson**: Marovic? **Commissioner Marovic**: Aye. **Miss Erikson**: Susek? **Chair Susek**: Aye. All right, that is our last agenda item. So with that, the meeting is adjourned. [24:43] [Music]