This transcript features the Lakeville Planning Commission meeting from July 6, 2023. Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the recording, here is the formatted transcript with speaker identifications. **Note on Identifications:** * **Chair Stacy Zuzak** leads the meeting. * **Chris Jensen** (Senior Planner) and **Frank Dempsey** (Planning Consultant) provide staff reports. * **Joe Masiarchin** (Parks & Recreation Director) provides the opening announcements. * **Zach Johnson** (City Engineer) addresses technical infrastructure and traffic questions. *** [0:08] (Background noise) [0:15] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** I call to order the July 6, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. Please join me in the flag pledge. [0:42] **Commissioner Marovich:** Please call the role of members. Zuzak? **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Here. **Commissioner Marovich:** Kaluza? **Commissioner Kaluza:** Here. **Commissioner Marovich:** Lilligren? **Commissioner Lilligren:** Here. **Commissioner Marovich:** Marovich? **Commissioner Marovich:** Here. **Commissioner Marovich:** Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer:** Here. **Commissioner Marovich:** Swanson? **Commissioner Swanson:** Here. [1:00] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** All right. Agenda item number three, approval of the June 15, 2023, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Fellow Commissioners, any changes? They will stand. Item number four, announcements. Director, any announcements today? [1:13] **Parks & Recreation Director Joe Masiarchin:** Good evening, Madam Chair and Planning Commission members. I do have a couple of announcements for this evening's meeting. First of all, to call your attention to handouts: we have the July 5th Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Committee meeting motion regarding the Antlers Ridge preliminary plat. We also have sent previously by email an email from a neighboring property owner regarding the Promontory Comp Plan Amendment, which is agenda item number six. And then just an announcement that if none of these three agenda items on this evening's meeting are tabled for any reason, then the next Planning Commission meeting on July 20th would be canceled because we have no new public hearings coming your way. So that concludes my announcements. Thank you. [2:02] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Thank you. Anyone wishing to speak tonight on any of the agenda items, please make sure that you fill out the information listed in the back of the room. And with that, agenda item number five: Christian Heritage Academy. This is a public hearing to consider the application of Apro Development on behalf of Christian Heritage Academy for a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of Christian Heritage Academy, a private elementary and middle school located at 7320 175th Street. And here to give us a brief overview is Joel Koski. [2:45] **Joel Koski:** Good evening, commission members. My name is Joel Koski. I am the head of school at Christian Heritage Academy. We are looking to expand upon our current facility, our current school, and I have Jim Conley from Apro who's going to give a brief overview of that. Thank you. [3:01] **Jim Conley:** Good evening, Plan Commission members. Jim Conley with Apro Development. Christian Heritage looked at a number of different ways to expand the school to accommodate the growing class sizes and things like that. I think you heard an interim use permit here about six to eight months ago. This is kind of the next evolution of the potential of what they're after. So with that, we'll turn it over to Chris and Stan for any questions you might have. Thank you. [3:33] **Chris Jensen (Senior Planner):** Good evening, Commissioners. This is a conditional use permit amendment for a permanent building addition at Christian Heritage Academy. You are likely familiar with where they're at, but as a reminder, they are south of 175th Street, east of Glasgow Avenue, west of Glacier Way, and they are adjacent to Crossroads Church. Also newly constructed on the site is the Pillars senior housing and the Foursquare daycare, and the property is zoned PUD. This is the overall site plan showing the existing school with the two proposed additions on each wing. [4:18] **Chris Jensen:** Just for some background, the CUP for the school was originally approved in 2016. We did approve an IUP earlier this year for temporary classrooms, but the school has opted to move forward with this option at this time. The proposed additions, as I said, are to both wings of the school. Just a brief touch on the parking requirements: we have the large parking lot on this slide. School parking requirements are one space for every seven students; that's for elementary and middle schools. The total parking required by all of the four current users on the site is 285 spaces. There's currently 406 total spaces on the site, which is 344 surface spaces and the remainder are enclosed spaces for the Pillars senior housing. With these two proposed additions, the school would require an additional 24 parking spaces. This would bring the total required spaces on the site to 309, which is still less than the number of available spaces. And also the school and church have peaks at different times, so that helps with the parking on the site as well. [5:21] **Chris Jensen:** A little bit of a close-up of the additions: with the classroom wing here and then this addition off the gymnasium. The classroom wing is about 3,800 square feet; the gymnasium addition is about 12,000. Both additions meet the setback requirements and both are showing sidewalk additions out to Glasgow Avenue. Regarding the landscaping plan, each addition is showing foundation plantings on the areas kind of outside the play area of the school. We would require an escrow for each addition for the landscaping that would be added, and that would be paid with the building permit. [6:15] **Chris Jensen:** This is the floor plan showing the three proposed classrooms that would be on the classroom wing, and six classrooms and a multi-purpose room on the gymnasium wing. The exterior materials are a thin brick, architectural precast panel, and then an exposed aggregate which matches the existing school that was just constructed a few years ago. And then the building heights, overall 16 feet, all of which meets our ordinance requirements. [6:45] **Chris Jensen:** And then just for informational purpose, this is the site circulation plan for parents doing a drop-off. The vehicles enter off 175th in two lanes, drive through here, and come across to the front to be able to drop off. There was some concern that there may be vehicles backing up onto 175th Street, but after speaking with Mr. Koski, it's most likely that the vehicles traveling on 175th from this direction are waiting to turn left into the site, and they're having to wait for vehicles coming from this direction to turn right. So the vehicles backing up onto 175th aren't in the queue already; they're just waiting to turn into the site. However, if that were to change and the additional space is needed, there would be ways to reorient through the parking lot to make greater use of that to allow for additional queuing space. [7:34] **Chris Jensen:** There is a stipulation on this CUP amendment that it be valid for five years from the date of approval to allow for the future construction of both wings. A one-year extension would be available from the zoning administrator, but any additional extensions beyond that would require City Council approval. And the City Attorney did request that the wording of stipulation number five that you have in your reports be amended to read as follows: "The conditional use permit amendment shall expire unless the applicant commences the authorized use within five years of the date of this amendment." So saying the same thing, just slightly different wording. And then if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of this CUP amendment, staff does recommend it be subject to those five stipulations listed in your report, and I'll stand for any questions you may have. Thank you. [8:21] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Fellow commissioners? Oh, sorry, yes—this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak regarding this item can please come forward. [8:45] **Commissioner Marovich:** Madam Chair? **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Yes. **Commissioner Marovich:** Motion to close the public hearing. **Commissioner Kaluza:** Second. **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please signify by saying aye. **Commissioners (Chorus):** Aye. **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Opposed? All right, public hearing is now closed. Now, fellow commissioners, have any comments? [9:11] **Commissioner Swanson:** I'd just like to say that the parking situation, the way you've worked it around, looks like a good fix, and the expansion of it so that we don't have queuing would be ideal. [9:28] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Anything else? Sounds like we're ready for a motion. [9:34] **Commissioner Swanson:** Madam Chair? **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Yes. **Commissioner Swanson:** I move to recommend approval of the Christian Heritage Academy conditional use permit amendment, subject to the five stipulations listed in the June 28, 2023, planning report and approval of the findings of fact dated July 6, 2023. I would have one question because Ms. Jensen said that they made a change. Do we need to have that be "as amended" or not? [10:04] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Does the motion need to be "as amended"? **Chris Jensen:** Yes. **Commissioner Swanson:** As amended. **Commissioner Kaluza:** Second. [10:11] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** I have a motion and a second. Commissioner Marovich, will you please take a roll call vote? **Commissioner Marovich:** Zuzak? **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Kaluza? **Commissioner Kaluza:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Lilligren? **Commissioner Lilligren:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Marovich? **Commissioner Marovich:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Swanson? **Commissioner Swanson:** Aye. [10:28] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** And Director Masiarchin, when will that go in front of City Council? **Parks & Recreation Director Joe Masiarchin:** At their July 17th meeting. **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Great. Congratulations on your growth; we look forward to having you continue to expand. Thank you. [10:41] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** And agenda item number six is Promontory. This is a public hearing to consider the application of Tradition Development Corporation for a comprehensive plan amendment to bring land into the current MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) located east of Judicial Road and south of 185th Street. And here to present is Patrick Rossi. I appreciate the phonetic spelling of your last name; that helps. [11:15] **Pat Rossi:** Good evening, Commissioners. Pat Rossi with Tradition Development. We're the applicant for the Comp Plan Amendment here tonight and we're the owner of two parcels—former Morrison parcels—on the south side of 185th Street. A little bit of history: I know that the staff will run through their report here shortly, but we've owned the two parcels since February of 2021 and purchased it for the intent of development. We did reach out to some of the adjacent landowners to inquire whether they would be interested in a larger development. We had favorable discussions with one of the landowners, and that landowner recently sold to another party. So at that time, we thought it was appropriate to bring forward the development on the two parcels totaling approximately 28 acres that we own. So that's why we're here tonight, and hopeful that we can bring a prelim plat to you in the future. Thank you. [12:35] **Chris Jensen:** Good evening, Commissioners. This is a public hearing, as we said, for a comprehensive plan amendment to bring property into the MUSA. The property, as we said, is located south of 185th Street, east of Judicial Road. As Mr. Rossi said, Tradition Development submitted an application for these two parcels right here to be brought into the MUSA. When staff was reviewing this application, given the zoning on the property—and I'm going to move over here to the zoning map—these five parcels have a base zoning of RST-2. Because they are not in the MUSA, they have the Rural Agriculture overlay. The properties to the south are in Urban Reserve. These five parcels are in MUSA expansion area B, and I'll touch on that in a bit. [13:30] **Chris Jensen:** Because these five parcels have the same zoning and are all within expansion area B, staff opted to include all five parcels within the request. There's a couple of reasons for that. One: for a comprehensive plan amendment, part of the process that we go through is sending a notice to all adjacent and affected jurisdictions—that's every city and township that we border. So Burnsville, Apple Valley, Farmington, Rosemount, Credit River, Empire; they all get a notice. Dakota and Scott County get notices. The school district, Eureka Township to the south—they all get a notice and they have 60 days in which to provide comment. As of the date of this meeting, we have heard from seven of the ten jurisdictions; none have provided comment to this point. [14:15] **Chris Jensen:** After that, we wanted to include all five in that, and then we got to the public hearing time. Again, all five properties were included. This was because if we came to this meeting and it only included the two Tradition parcels and, for instance, if the property owner to the west here had said, "Well, I would have liked mine to come into the MUSA," we wouldn't be able to add the parcel at that time because it wasn't included in the notification and the public hearing notice. At this point, with all five of them being included, if those property owners say, "We don't want to be included," they can be removed. The Planning Commission can choose to remove those from consideration—no problem. So that is why we included all five, just so we avoided a situation where we may have not included someone who wanted to be a part of it. [15:10] **Chris Jensen:** Moving on from that, that is the location of those parcels. As I said, the zoning is RST-2; they have the RAO designation. That is for parcels that have a residential or a non-agricultural zoning but are not within the MUSA. It gives them the ability to use their property in an agricultural manner until such time that they are brought into the MUSA. This is from the staging plan for MUSA. These five parcels, as I said, are all within the expansion area B. Properties to the south are in Urban Reserve, as are some of these other properties on the east side of this portion of Lake Marion. [16:03] **Chris Jensen:** We did send letters. Given that we included the three additional properties, we did send letters about a week after those notices to adjacent and affected jurisdictions to each of those properties to let them know that we intended to include them within this process. We encouraged them to contact us if they had questions. I did speak with Ms. Stoddard, who is the property owner. She and her husband own this property here—I'm going to back up so it's a little easier to see—this property here. Again, these are the two Tradition parcels. She expressed at that time that they were not interested in being brought into the MUSA and would prefer that all of the parcels remain in expansion area B as they were currently designated. [16:47] **Chris Jensen:** This afternoon I spoke with Mr. Foster, who is the property owner of the bookend parcels—this parcel here and this parcel here. He stated that he has a preference that the parcels remain as is and are not brought into the MUSA at this time as well. The written comments that you were provided were from Ms. Stoddard, again this property owner here. Those were emailed to you earlier today as well as included with your information tonight. So that's about all the information I have at this point. Given that the two other property owners within this area have requested specifically not to be brought into the MUSA, at most, planning staff would recommend that the two Tradition parcels owned by Tradition RTH LLC be brought into the MUSA, and I will stand for any questions that you may have. [17:45] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** This is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to come forward can please do so now. [18:00] **Nancy Stoddard:** Hello. **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Hello. Can you please stand? Yes. Name and address, thank you. **Nancy Stoddard:** I'm Nancy Stoddard. My address is 12240 185th Street West. So, where that parcel would be adjoining the development in the center. First of all, I just want to make it really clear: I don't know what being brought into the MUSA means. I don't know what it costs. So I'm not asking for it, but I really don't have any information to make any sort of an informed decision at this point. I did talk to Zach, the City Engineer, and got city prices, but there's a lot more to it than that. So at this point, I just want you to know, I don't know—this was sort of sprung on us very quickly and we haven't really had time to understand what this means for us. [18:55] **Nancy Stoddard:** We were here during the process of developing the 2040 comprehensive plan when our property was rezoned from agricultural to residential. Along with the other property owners who appeared, we opposed that rezoning; it happened anyway at that time. At the time we bought our property, I spoke to Frank Dempsey before we purchased to make sure that we wouldn't have issues with development. And at that time, the MUSA extension was slated for not before 2040, which would mean no development before 2040. When we were rezoned, the dates changed and they moved up to not before 2029, but in the timeframe of 2029–2038. That was done for the 2040 comprehensive plan. [19:55] **Nancy Stoddard:** So when Tradition purchased, they purchased knowing those dates for development and the MUSA extension. Our properties are rural; there are a lot of natural resources. The property to be developed is very heavily forested. We have horses, and we feel that that timeframe, the 2029, is necessary to really evaluate the entire area. We're concerned by putting one development in the middle of this without considering all the properties; we're going to miss a lot of opportunities. We did have a brief conversation with Tradition back in 2018 in an email in 2019—that's the extent of any communication regarding this. [20:56] **Nancy Stoddard:** When Tradition was buying the property, I spoke to Chris about what this could mean for development. At that time, she told me that property on either side of us could not develop without our property because the access needed to go through our property due to the distance from the other intersections. So we have been living there with this timeframe and planning our lives around that. My husband, Scott, just retired. We were looking forward to having, you know, some peaceful years before the property next to us gets torn up and all the commotion that goes with construction. [21:42] **Nancy Stoddard:** We also have expressed throughout the years an interest in talking about how our properties can enhance Ritter Farm Park. We live there because we love the natural resources that are there, we love the park, and we know that our properties could help facilitate—this is together with Greg Foster—but our properties could help facilitate a bike access to Ritter Farm Park, which would be a continuation of the Lake Marion Greenway. We'd like, you know, we've offered to work together with the city on that. But to be honest, if we can't trust these dates we are given that we planned our lives around and this gets rushed through, it's going to change our lives drastically. [22:28] **Nancy Stoddard:** We came from a property where a single property developed next to us. There are a lot of noises that go along with construction, which is not very compatible with horses. There's a lot of dust, a lot of dirt, and then the people came and the people saw our farm as a great amenity for their development. We had a real hard time keeping people out of our property; people would trespass, take a shortcut, and leave a gate open, spook the horses. We had never had problems like that before the development, and we know what problems this can bring. [23:22] **Nancy Stoddard:** We understand our property will develop at some point. We want to work to make a smooth transition for that development. We know they purchased their property knowing the timeframe. We need that time. We need these years to look at these properties—all the properties together—and come up with the best solution for all of us living there, for all of us in Lakeville and the whole region who could benefit from the continuation of the Lake Marion Greenway. [24:02] **Nancy Stoddard:** If this gets forced on us at this point, we're pretty frustrated. We really felt betrayed when our property was rezoned against the wishes of the residents. We felt short-changed when the date was moved up on us, but we've tried to adapt our lives to this. And at this point, we're looking for who can help us. What are our options? Yesterday, we met with a member of the USDA who came out to our property, walked the property with us, and told us what they can do in terms of a conservation easement on the property to protect the agricultural use of our property. That would be forever; that would be permanent. I wouldn't mind that, but it means no bike trail. You said there could be no bike trail, no public access on these properties. So if Mr. Foster and us decide to go that route to protect our properties, we'll be closing the door on some other opportunities that I think people not only in Lakeville but the whole region could benefit from. So I just want to say, we've tried to work within the constraints and the dates of the city. This is pushing it too far. And I hope that you will consider honoring the dates that we were given: not before 2029, in that 2029 to 2038 timeframe. Thank you. [25:55] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? [26:08] **Keith Sieber:** My name is Keith Sieber. I live at 11950 185th Street West. So, I'm directly east of the purple area; I'm the green area between the purple and the blue bell south of 185th. Two years ago we went through this whole process. I'm not affected by it in any way; wasn't affected two years ago, I'm not being affected this time either. But two years ago, I wanted to see what was happening. And when I left that meeting, I was under the impression from the city that that five-area parcel area would not be developed prior to 2040. [26:48] **Keith Sieber:** The long caveat was that if somebody had assembled all five parcels, then the city would look at the possibility of developing it sooner. Their reasoning was that they weren't going to develop it prior to 2040, and they wanted all five parcels together because the access to those parcels would be off of Judicial. So now if you're looking at just developing two of the parcels, that's not going to happen. If you're familiar with 185th, if I'm coming west from Target, I have my own turn lane off 185th. If I'm coming east from Prior Lake, I take my life into my own hands to turn into my driveway because the cars do not slow down. [27:34] **Keith Sieber:** So now you're talking about adding another I-don't-know-how-many homes you're planning on putting in there. All those people would have to turn off of—coming from Prior Lake—off of 185th. It's just a death trap waiting to happen. And I don't know what the plan is for going westbound, if you're going to put in turn lanes or what's going to happen. The bottom line is when we were here two years ago, those were the conditions the city laid out. Now the goalposts have moved, or they're planning on moving up. And I think the city really needs to—if they're going to say they're going to do something, they need to stand by it and not change it because two of the five parcels want something changed. That's not what was told to us two years ago. Thank you. [28:45] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Thank you. [28:49] **Greg Foster:** Hello. I'm Greg Foster and my residence is in the blue on 19198 Judicial Road. I had purchased a 40-acre ranch in the 1995 era. I am the owner of Rainbow Play Systems; I make and design children's wooden residential playground equipment. In 1995 is when I moved my company, which started in 1985 from Prior Lake, to Brookings, South Dakota. So, I had a residence in South Dakota and then I had my residence here, which I have been a primary resident or a Minnesota state resident for the past 16 years since my children were born. But when I first started, I was a South Dakota resident for some years—about eight years—but I followed the rules of how many days you can spend in each state. [30:50] **Greg Foster:** Then about 10 or 12 years later, the other 40 acres north of that, which was owned by Bliss Bancroft—each year I'd send her another letter. I had met with her a few times at her kitchen table, but I think it was around the 2007 era I purchased her 40 acres. So I had an 80-acre rectangle, and that would be my what I'd call my homestead, or where I plan to grow old. And then when I die, my children and hopefully their children's children... that was my intent: to have my family have it be our, I don't know what the right word is, homestead or estate. [31:56] **Greg Foster:** With that, it was maybe 10 or 12 years ago, Bliss's house, or the 12 acres in this purple area—I always said to Bliss... and her house is a single house on the 12 acres. There's quite a bit of wetland along Judicial except for where her driveway is. Otherwise, you could see it with your own eyes: there's a lot of wetland. But at the same time, it was very high hill, steep hill where her house was built. So high that she doesn't have window treatments because you can't see in her window, except you see the ceiling— [32:43] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Madam Chair, can I interject? Mr. Foster, could you please have your comments pertain to the application at hand and not the history of the land? Thank you. [32:56] **Greg Foster:** I apologize. This is actually my first time; I've spoken in business meetings but I've not ever been in a city council meeting. Bottom line: I'm the owner of that 12-acre parcel for—whenever you can look up whenever I bought it. And then a year ago I bought the, what you'd call, the 23-acre parcel with the waterfront. And the concern I have as I reflect on what my dad always taught me, which was, "a deal is a deal." When I met with the seller of that 23 acres, he said the 2039 date... I helped sign a letter, and I was going to sell the land to the developer, but the developer didn't own any of the land at the time. I signed a letter asking or requesting the zoning change from AG which, of course, he was always agricultural because he was the Llama guy and he had his goats. He's definitely not wanting it to be residential, but since he was going to move to accommodate his decision, he wanted... he couldn't sell it to the developer unless it could have the ability to be changed sooner than the 2039 date. [35:00] **Greg Foster:** So, because I don't want to be using hearsay, I'm simply speaking on the point of what Patrick Haley, the previous property owner, expressed to me before I chose or made my decision if I was going to buy his property or not, which was that the 2039 date was moved up to 2029 to a window of 2038. So the soonest would be 2029, and that meant the MUSA but it also meant the ability for a development. That was my concern. I'm in parallel with Nancy; I don't support a rushed development. I request that it would be thought out and planned. I'd suggest that it would help to have more discussion with not just the developer but with the neighbors as well, which is basically now in this purple area. There's three owners: Tradition, myself, and Nancy. You can call it five parcels, but there's three owners. [36:12] **Greg Foster:** So the main thing that was appealing to me was that the timeframe of which development could occur would be 2029 or maybe later, and that it was rezoned residential. However—and I'm using your terminology—it received an agricultural overlay so Nancy could keep doing her horses. It was important to me that Patrick's land would also carry that agricultural... I preferred agricultural zoning for the other end of the 12 acres. Because I don't think the mix of pre-planned neighborhoods and then 20-acre ranches... it kind of should all be in its own places. [37:27] **Greg Foster:** When you develop, I really strongly feel—and I think it was spoken of already—that purple area would be a phenomenal 83-acre development as it stands, accommodating all of the necessary rules and regulations. My stance on the MUSA is I'm happy to take it, and I'm happy to pay my fair share. You know, my property has well water, and sometimes my daughter doesn't like how her hair washes with the well water, and of course, she'd probably prefer city water. I'm a supporter of progress and I support MUSA, or public sewer and water. If I'm charged like everyone else, I believe by my frontage foot on the 185th, and it costs 150,000 for one and 200,000 for the other—whatever it is, I accept that. And then I'm assuming that's what each person pays on whatever you determine how you charge people. I think that's a good thing, and I have no concern about that. I see it as a positive, and if it came, I would hook up; I would take advantage of that benefit. [39:05] **Greg Foster:** My focus and the reason I'm here tonight is I do not support, agree, or appreciate development being smushed in between Nancy and myself. I have a few reasons why, but I tried to weed out personal reasons. As a matter of fact, I spoke to Chris before the meeting and she allowed me to maybe get that out of my system, because I don't think it's appropriate. I'm trying to rush here through to get to my points and not bother with things that are just an opinion. [39:53] **Greg Foster:** The key for me is the idea of when I chose to purchase a 1.75-million-dollar piece of property, that was a big decision for me. The driving factor that gave me comfort in moving forward with that was the 2029 date. In other words, I accept there will be development, and I actually am a believer in and support development. I make my living selling swing sets to people who build houses or people that live in houses with children and they need a nice yard. I just don't feel right that I'm sitting here today and I'm not clear. I'm still not clear from the developer's presentation—and I respect the developer, I have no ill will against a developer. I think the developer has done a great job for other projects they do in Lakeville, and I don't want any fight or disagreement. I just think there's different points of view. [41:19] **Greg Foster:** As I made a point, it was a big decision for me to choose to buy Patrick Haley's 23 acres of land, and one of the key factors on that was I wouldn't have to worry about properties adjacent to me—including even Nancy, if she chose to sell in the future. I just felt that I would be accommodating to be able to work through that. And then at the time of the date that was agreed upon of 2029, then at that time, I will go along with what is proposed. Furthermore, I'm not against selling my land. I'm not here to say I will never sell my land—now, I retract that: I will never sell my core 80 acres on Judicial. But this other land I bought... I'm wanting to expand my land. I would even have bought the Morrison property, and then I would have three perfect squares: 40, 40, 40. [42:32] **Greg Foster:** But the developer bought it instead. I think if you see what I'm trying to say... and this is a question: Is the developer asking that the 2029 date is changed to now, or January 1st, 2024, or even to this fall or winter? Pardon me, I'm still not... I have not been able to receive or obtain an answer. Now, if the developer's talking about this but the developer is going to respect the 2029 date, I'm ready to stop talking. Because then "a deal is a deal" and I'm fine with that. As a matter of fact, I'm open for discussion about how I can participate in working with the city on the bike path. [43:25] **Greg Foster:** As a matter of fact, you know, I haven't done anything yet, but I've had dialogue with different city people on the bike path over the years since I bought as we call it "the land of Bliss," the 40 acres that I pledged to Bliss I would never develop and keep it natural. So that was one of the choices for the bike path: to follow my property line off Judicial and get right into Ritter Farm Park. But there's another choice now, as we have the Patrick land to work with. And I'm not against... I've had recently a two-and-a-half-hour conversation with John Hennen. I happen to graduate with his sister, who is a year older than him... I know John from years ago in school. He treats... we had a very professional conversation and we talked about all the possible scenarios of how to continue with this multi-participation bike path, because it appears that there's been... if you're riding your bike, you reach a dead end because the bike path has not made it through. [45:00] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Mr. Foster, sorry to interrupt you. Close with your final comments just to allow any others in the audience who would like to speak on the topic and for discussion of additional agenda items. We feel like we've given you ample time at this point. [45:26] **Chris Jensen:** Can I jump in here? The Lake Marion Corridor is not part of this discussion and application; we will have those conversations at a future date, but that's not part of the application that's before you. I think staff has conceded as part of the presentation that we are not going to recommend Foster's property or Stoddard's property be included in this Comp Plan Amendment. So at this point, I think we should just focus on the two Tradition parcels and whether those two Tradition parcels should be brought in. And because we do have another public hearing after this one, and I know we do have folks that have signed in to speak at that public hearing... Mr. Foster, if you could please conclude your comments so we can move on. Thank you. [46:23] **Greg Foster:** Let me get to the meat and potatoes. The benefits of the 83-acre development: you have two roads. You could get a road in from Judicial and you get a road in from 185th. You can promote the amenity that you're close to Ritter Farm Park, you could promote the waterfront, and you have an ability to work within the landscape of the various topography of the parcels of land. Yesterday, my son and I walked the 28 acres, counting 170 fully developed trees on average, my estimate per acre. Times 28? 5,000 fully developed trees, which would be this big around, and maybe 25 to 30,000 trees this big around. [47:15] **Greg Foster:** There's also hills and valleys that vary over a hundred feet. That piece of land, as we see it here in a little square of purple—just like my 12 acres, as you can see from the road—is very hilly with wetlands at the bottom and then high peaks. My land has numerous what I'd call developed or fully developed trees. The point is, a neighborhood built in the cornfield? The sunshine development—people like to have shade, natural with big trees. I just say, what is the value of taking the 83-acre development and heading that direction, and then suddenly now we're talking about this squish-down development? Even though I realize the first draft of this drawing with the 40 houses on it is just simply a drawing and that doesn't mean that's where the houses will be, but no matter how you slice it or dice it, that's a 1,500-foot dead-end road with a cul-de-sac at the end. I don't think cul-de-sacs are supposed to be born on 500-foot-long roads. [48:47] **Greg Foster:** So unless there is a way to get at Judicial... and if you look, there's a road that is proposed as interim, which is then a dead end and has a dotted line for the cul-de-sac, but that lines up with my driveway on my side of the property. So if I did sell... and I believe the developer said he had reached out to adjacent property. I've lived there or I've owned that property for well over a decade; I've never—nor anybody in my employ—has ever spoken to anyone at Tradition or any agent for Tradition. So I've never been approached one way or the other about selling my property. [49:33] **Greg Foster:** But I'm here to say, I am not against selling my property. I'm not going to sell my core 80 acres, but I'm not against what I would like to do in a timeframe of what was, I believe, already agreed upon. So, I'm not arguing about the water and sewer; bring that whenever you want. What I'm talking about is squishing 40 houses in. And I realized the drawing was just preliminary, but there were 44 houses and four of them were on Nancy's property. I also saw an easement that said, "Well, here's how you could get the bike trail through." Well, it appears that the bike trail would be the road. Okay, so how much of this whole bike trail is a bike trail, and how much of it is on a dead-end road? I don't think that's well thought out. [50:40] **Greg Foster:** So let's go through: you got the hills, you're probably going to have to move 300 to 400 tons of earth to get even to a development state. You got at least 5,000 trees that are in excess of a 24-inch diameter—go see for yourself. My property has them, too. I think a well-thought-out development where you strategically keep the trees and design a real, real well-thought-out neighborhood... that has the attractiveness of medium and large trees, and of course, small ones, too. But the biggest part of the development—probably the biggest drawing card that will make the development a success—is the waterfront. As time goes on and more funds are applied towards Ritter Farm Park... right now, just like when I grew up in Prior Lake, Mud Bay was turned into Crystal Cove. [51:49] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** I need you to give final comments; we do need to move on. [51:55] **Greg Foster:** Okay. My final comments are: why is it that the 83-acre development has been aborted? Well, maybe because I bought Patrick's property. Now, I didn't realize that I was going to cause this. My negotiations with Patrick were his wife's health and his need to move to Red Wing. I believe that disrupted the 83 acres. In other words, why would you—apologize because I always mispronounce it—why would you name a 28-acre development "The Promontory"? Peninsula in the dictionary is called the "Promontory." [53:12] **Greg Foster:** So my question is, when is this development... when is it going to happen? Is it going to happen on 2029? Because that's what I'm waiting to get an answer on. And once we continue, we will have staff answer some of those questions when the public hearing is closed. My other question is, it's so fast-track, and now I'm told that July 17th is when a decision will be rendered. Okay, you know what happens when you do a knee-jerk reaction? And then Nancy and I... I'll support her and I'll do the same thing: you file for whatever that word is, and then everything's frozen and we all lose. And that's dumb; that's like a conflict of interest for everyone. I feel Nancy and I combined have two-thirds of this property; the developer has one-third. You say maybe that doesn't matter; that's okay. I'm not trying to say who has more acreage should say... what I'm saying is a deal was made. [54:35] **Greg Foster:** And it was the other gentleman here who doesn't geographically affect him, also said the same thing: it was understood that the date was 2029. If you tell me that that's the date, I have no problem. Furthermore, I understand a gentleman said that the bike trail is not of concern; I agree it's not at this meeting. But in the big picture, the bike trail has been in a hiatus for over a decade, and this would be an opportunity to resolve that. And I'm saying as a resident of Lakeville since 1995, I'm willing to accommodate and willing to talk and continue my dialogue with John Hennen. [55:33] **Greg Foster:** Furthermore, I'm saying at the point of 2029, as we can all imagine, waiting to do the proper 83-acre development will bear fruit much better than shoving an ill-prepared 1,500-foot dead-end road development that doesn't have enough room for snow when you plow, doesn't have enough room for a fire truck—the water truck would have to park on 185th. You're going to run a 1,500-foot hose if it happens to be the house at the end? You need an access to Judicial, and I'm willing to, be candid, sell that property when it's in a timeframe. [56:16] **Greg Foster:** And I'm wrapping up now. In parallel to what both parties said prior to me, summarized in one sentence: honor the 2029 date, which was already 10 years moved forward. That's fine. And I'm ready for the sewer and water; I'm ready to write the developer a check and I'll buy the property from them if they don't want to sit on it for four years. But the developer bought that property knowing the development wouldn't and couldn't occur according to your rules until 2029. Vice versa, I feel like my status is at least equal to the developer as a long-time resident. I elected to purchase, as the developer did, a property over a million dollars, and the basis of that was I was comfortable with that 2029 date. That's really asking you to say that's what was talked about last time and that's what's going to continue. I am here to say that's my only complaint, and I am also here to say I am ready to participate in my dialogue with John Hennen about the park and rec. I'm supportive of future improvement of the area as a whole. Thank you. [57:52] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Thank you. [58:05] **Commissioner Marovich:** Make a motion to close the public hearing. **Commissioner Kaluza:** Second. **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** All right, I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** All those opposed? All right, the public hearing is now closed. I think we had a couple of questions to answer. I think specifically the biggest question is: if this is pulled into the MUSA, what date would development start on these parcels? [58:52] **Chris Jensen:** If the Planning Commission—or I should say if the City Council—were to approve a MUSA expansion, let's say for the two Tradition parcels, at that point the item then goes to Met Council, who has to review and grant approval before any further steps could be taken. They have 60 days to do that from the time of submittal, which would likely not be before the first week of August or so. So, depending upon Met Council's timing and review, it could be anywhere from September to the first week of October before a final approval could be had. At that point, then the developer, if they wish to move forward, could prepare plans for a preliminary plat submittal. And then staff would do a review. There would be another public hearing on that preliminary plat, as you are all familiar with the process. And again, notice would be sent to all property owners within 500 feet of those effective parcels. There would be a public hearing on the plat itself, and then Planning Commission would make a recommendation and City Council would have final authority on that. After that, the developer would then do their final development plans. My guess is at earliest we would see, if everything were to move forward, a final plat next spring. But that's just speculation. [1:00:34] **Commissioner Marovich:** A couple of questions just regarding some of the comments that were said. So because this is a comprehensive plan amendment... thank you... there hasn't been a preliminary plat, so I'm wondering what was floating around? Was there like a kind of a...? [1:00:54] **Chris Jensen:** The developer submitted a sketch plan, which is something we often see with larger developments or in a case like this where there are other issues that will need to be considered. It's a way for a developer to have a conversation with staff looking at high-level plans and just to help identify issues or concerns that will need to be addressed with the development if it moves forward to a formal preliminary plat application. Sketch plan applications do not involve any sort of formal Planning Commission or City Council approval. They may involve a work session if there are larger issues, but it's typically just staff-level informal reviews. In this case, that sketch plan was also looked at by the Dakota County Plat Commission, which is the organization or group that has jurisdiction over those county roads and where those access points to those roads are. One of the issues identified was that the parcel was not within the MUSA, and a Comp Plan Amendment would be required before we could go forward with that. [1:02:24] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Fellow commissioners? [1:02:31] **Commissioner Zimmer:** Madam Chair? Yes, I'm prepared to table this and ask for a work session for us to sit down and see many of the things that others have already heard about and thought about. I think that would be a better forum with the amount of questions I still have in front of me. [1:03:00] **Commissioner Kaluza:** Yes, Madam Chair. I would be supportive of moving forward today with just those two parcels by the property owner that requested. Part of the thing to me is we have to look at what's in front of us, and we're not looking at a preliminary plat. We're not looking at what the county is going to do for access on the roads. We're not looking at the topography or what the Parks Commission will look at with the trees and the open space. We're looking at the request of a property owner to bring their property into the MUSA and get access to city water and sewer. And all of those other things that might come later on will be addressed at the appropriate time with a public hearing, but that's not what's in front of us right now. It's a request from a property owner. And we have done this before in other areas of the city: to bring their property that they own into the MUSA. I think hearing from the adjacent property owners that they do not want to be brought in... I fully support honoring their wishes. But the question in front of us is: should we allow a property owner to be brought in that is requesting it and requesting access to city water and sewer? And I am supportive of that. [1:04:52] **Commissioner Marovich:** Yes, Madam Chair. I'd have a question, Ms. Jensen. When was it Tradition bought the property? What were the conditions with the MUSA and the zoning? What was the state of play when they initially bought it? They are making this request now and I just need the background. [1:05:12] **Chris Jensen:** The zoning and MUSA are the same as currently as they were when Tradition bought the property. That's that RST-2 zoning with the rural AG overlay, and within expansion area B of the MUSA staging plan in our current comprehensive plan. **Commissioner Marovich:** With the date of 2029 as the most... the earliest date for development? **Chris Jensen:** Yes, the targeted time of when that would be brought into the MUSA for development. [1:05:54] **Commissioner Swanson:** Madam Chair? So Ms. Jensen, when we talk about these dates that are in the plan, you just used the word "targeted." So we have a lot of people kind of hanging their hats on, "You said it's not going to develop exactly until 2029." Within the comp plan and the guiding documents, is there room for City Council to adjust, modify, and change those things in terms of as the market develops, changes, listening to landowner requests—that type of thing? So is there some flexibility within those documents? [1:06:24] **Chris Jensen:** There is that ability. I'm going to show you the overall staging plan here. This is the overall 2040 MUSA staging plan that is in our current comprehensive plan. Everything that is in white is already within the MUSA. This is from the end of 2018. Everything in this kind of orange was expansion area A. Those are areas that could be brought into the MUSA; it did not require a Met Council amendment. As the Planning Commission is aware, this is the Berkshire development that is occurring, so that is now all within the MUSA. That expansion area A is pretty much exhausted. The parcels in question are here over on 185th Street. [1:07:44] **Chris Jensen:** We have, since our comp plan was approved, there's been one other parcel from expansion area B—this parcel right here. It is the Redstone development that was brought in in early 2021. Part of the reason that that parcel was brought into the MUSA was that it provided the city with the opportunity to obtain right-of-way for Highview Avenue and 185th Street, which is currently being reconstructed. So there was a public benefit in addition to that development. And the city engineering division reviewed and confirmed that this 20 acres could be served at the end of the sanitary sewer line in this area and did not need to wait for sewer to come up from the south. There is provisions, as Commissioner Swanson said, for the city to review areas—taking into consideration the availability of land that's available for development, public benefit, things such as that, in order to bring property from expansion area B into the MUSA. [1:09:07] (Mr. Foster tries to speak) **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** I see your hand, Mr. Foster, but unfortunately the public hearing is closed. So there's no additional comments. No additional comments, I'm sorry. Fellow commissioners? [1:09:33] **Commissioner Swanson:** Madam Chair? So as I was reading documents earlier today and kind of going back through history... this body was heavily involved with the development of the comp plan and the associated documents. Some of these dates and everything that are put out here—these were something that the city was essentially putting in at the request of Met Council, is that correct? [1:09:54] **Chris Jensen:** Yes. We're required to update it every 10 years, but it's a document that looks 20 years into the future. So this expansion area A is intended to be that first 10-year period; this expansion area B is intended to be that next 10-year period. It's the city looking at how to stage development for the future. [1:10:39] **Commissioner Swanson:** Madam Chair, if I may continue. I think one of the things that strikes me as we're having this conversation is I've heard a lot of concern about the date that's listed in the document. And the trick for us as a planning body and for the city is trying to basically use a crystal ball to forecast what future development is going to be like. The reality is we're not always right. Things change; things happen over the years. I can recall earlier when I joined this Planning Commission, we were actually in a situation where we had land that was slated to come in at a certain date under the MUSA and we weren't going to hit the projections just because the market had changed. Similarly, we're in a case here where development has occurred on some of these parcels at a little faster rate than we may have anticipated. [1:11:58] **Commissioner Swanson:** So the city finds itself in a spot here where this is part of keeping developable land available as we move forward. Ultimately, these lands on this side of the city... at some point development's going to come; that's what the plan is long term. Timeframes change, unfortunately or fortunately as the case may be. So for me, this is a situation where I have a property owner who's approached the city, made a request to bring the property into the MUSA. That's all I am considering at this meeting tonight; it's all I can consider. I don't have a plat in front of me. I don't have a development to look at. [1:12:44] **Commissioner Swanson:** If I may continue, just one other comment. I recognize the perception of this being two parcels out of five. The reality is if this was an 80-some-acre development, it would be a very large development for the city of Lakeville. A lot of the parcels that we look at fall right into this category. Most, in fact... we've got one that we're going to look at right after this that's 17 acres in size. It's not a small piece of land. I understand the desire in a perfect world that this would all go as one piece, but that's not how things always happen. From that standpoint, I'm only looking at the MUSA consideration; I'm comfortable moving forward on making a recommendation on that tonight. Thank you. [1:13:30] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Ms. Jensen, if you could go back to the slide that shows the parcels? Thank you. So as we move, MUSA would come from the west heading east, correct? [1:13:58] **Chris Jensen:** The parcel here is within the MUSA; otherwise the MUSA line is generally to the north. [1:14:15] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** I think Mr. Foster said that he would be okay with it. And then the second property is the Stoddards. How frequently, or have we in the past, jumped properties as we bring property into the MUSA? [1:14:40] **Chris Jensen:** Well, we've only done the one previous amendment from expansion area B, and that was adjacent on the north and I believe on the west as well. So I don't believe in the previous 10-year period that we did any amendments to bring land from expansion area B into the MUSA. [1:15:10] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Okay. So in my time with Lakeville, we haven't really had this. My main question was: you have five parcels. The first parcel, I think Mr. Foster said he would be acceptable. The second one, the Stoddards, I think were a little bit concerned on. Nobody has said what it would cost to come into the MUSA. So if they don't want to, how often have we jumped parcels? [1:15:40] **Chris Jensen:** Well, I think the issue more is that—and I'm going to go to a map that shows where the sewer is located. Reference Judicial Road here, 185th Street. This red line is the existing sanitary sewer line. This was put in in 2007 when 185th Street was reconstructed. So that pipe has been there for any number of years. For the Tradition parcel to be brought into the MUSA, there is currently sewer service at that property. Okay? So that is part of the reason they are making the request, because there is a manhole and a service line here that is intended to serve these two parcels and, ultimately if needed, could serve Mr. Foster's property here. So it's not so much a matter of leapfrogging because, in this case, it's the utility to serve that—and the water lines aren't shown here, but there is a water stub across 185th Street in this location as well. Those utilities are there. That is one of the considerations. A lot of times the utilities aren't there, and so that's one of the reasons they're in expansion area B. In this case, it's a little different. [1:17:15] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** For me, with that particular issue at hand where everything is there, it's just a matter of extending it to the individual properties themselves. I would be supportive of that addition. Thank you. [1:17:31] **Commissioner Swanson:** Yes, Madam Chair. This kind of gets at part of what you just referred to in terms of the considerations that us and City Council can have: leveraging existing city infrastructure to further those goals. This is a clear example of that. When you're designing pipe, you're designing systems that are designed to last 75, 100 years. When you build a major roadway, you make the disturbance then, you make the investment then, and then the flip side of that is later on you use that investment. That's part of what the property owner here is requesting. [1:18:22] **Commissioner Swanson:** Madam Chair, I motion to recommend to City Council approval of the Tradition Development comprehensive plan amendment, amended to include only the two parcels owned by Tradition RTH LLC, and approval of the findings of fact dated July 6, 2023. **Commissioner Kaluza:** Second. [1:18:41] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** I have a motion and a second. Commissioner Marovich, will you please take a roll call vote? **Commissioner Marovich:** Kaluza? **Commissioner Kaluza:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Lilligren? **Commissioner Lilligren:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer:** No. **Commissioner Marovich:** Swanson? **Commissioner Swanson:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Zuzak? **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Aye. [1:19:15] **Chris Jensen:** For the no votes, please? **Commissioner Zimmer:** I'm basing mine off of the... I understand that things change, as we talked about, but bringing everything into the MUSA seems to be jumping the gun on that when we had it out there at 2038. I would prefer that we lay it over and talk about it further. I would prefer a work session on this particular item. It was a very nice diagram to see that the water lines have been set, and I wasn't familiar with that. [1:20:31] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** When will this go in front of City Council? **Chris Jensen:** Well, we need to get the other jurisdictions' feedback before we can process this officially, so it likely will be the August 7th council meeting. [1:20:52] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Agenda item number seven: Antlers Ridge. This is a public hearing to consider the application of Tamarack Land Lake Marion Commons LLC for the following: Number one, a zoning map amendment to rezone property from RM-2 medium-density residential district to RST-2 single and two-family residential district. Number two, a preliminary plat of 54 twin-home lots to be known as Antlers Ridge. And three, a conditional use permit for a Shore Impact Plan within the Shoreland Overlay District of Lake Marion. Located east of Kenrick Avenue and north of 205th Street. And here to talk about their project is Nate Herman. [1:21:37] **Nate Herman:** Yes, Madam Chair, members of the Commission, thank you very much for your time tonight. My name is Nate Herman with Terra Land Services. I am the project engineer and also the developer's representative tonight. You reiterated a lot of stuff—we're looking at a preliminary plat rezoning and a CUP for the 54-unit twin homes. Tamarack Development is the parcel owner. As far as timeline goes, we currently have a grading permit in hand that allows us to import material. Previous mining activities took out quite a few yards of material, so we're bringing some of that in just to work with the sanitary sewer depths. [1:22:35] **Nate Herman:** Once the preliminary plat is approved, we'll continue with a grading permit to grade the development plan and move into final plat application. We plan to grade the site in one phase but expect the street utility work to likely be split up into two phases. The intention is to finish the grading this year and move into the utility and street work basically as soon as the final plat process is approved. Regarding the builder, we have not solidified a builder yet. Unfortunately, due to a tragic incident, the builder planned for this development is not able to build on the site anymore. But Tamarack is in conversation with a couple other interested builders, so we'll know more in the coming weeks. We are certainly aware of the architectural requirements within the city code and will continue to work with Frank and staff to ensure those are met. I'll let Frank take over, but I will be here for any questions. Thank you. [1:23:47] **Frank Dempsey (Planning Consultant):** Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. The request this evening is for the development of 54 twin-home lots. The property here is east of Interstate 35, north of 205th Street. This is Ken's Field Trail; this is Kenrick Avenue. Lake Marion is over here. Marion Village single-family subdivision is here; Stonebrook subdivision of attached townhomes here. This property is 17 acres and it's zoned two different zoning districts. Roughly split right here is RM-2 Medium Density Residential, and then on this portion of the property in the east, it's zoned RST-2. [1:26:08] **Frank Dempsey:** You'll see that there's a property here that is owned by Terra Products—that's a nursery that's been in place since about 1985. And also immediately between this development and Kenrick Avenue there's Merit Towing, which has been on the property I'm guessing since before 1980. Both of these uses are considered legal non-conforming. This is the development plan. It shows street connecting Kenrick Avenue as the main access, eventually leading to the east into the Marion Village subdivision. There'll also be the extension of Ken's Field Trail to intersect here. [1:27:39] **Frank Dempsey:** The north part of this property has some steep slopes, which you'll see on the grading plan. Retaining walls, there's a trail right here that gives access down to the city-owned wetland. This drawing, I believe, is the grading plan and it shows the topography. There's a retaining wall here, so there's a drop from the back of the lots toward the slope and the stormwater basin of the wetlands. The Shore Impact Plan is required for any development within a thousand feet of Lakeshore. We did send these plans to the Department of Natural Resources for their review, and they responded they had no comment. [1:31:14] **Frank Dempsey:** These are the trees on site. This had been a gravel pit area. 33% of the trees on the entire site are being reserved. There are screening trees being installed that would replace trees removed from grading on the adjacent Terra property. On this side of the property adjacent to Merit Towing, there would be a six-foot privacy fence on this property and then also a row of staggered evergreens. We encouraged the developer to get eight-foot-tall trees in here to mature over time to provide visual screening to that area. The plan was reviewed by the Park and Recreation committee last night, and they forwarded it to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. [1:36:21] **Frank Dempsey:** I should mention there was a neighborhood meeting on April 13th of this year. I would guess approximately 30 people from the neighborhood attended. Most of the comments had to do with construction access, timing, and impact to the roadway network—whether the roads are suitable to accommodate the 54 townhomes. There are eight stipulations that staff is recommending. The homes will be reviewed for compliance with the minimum requirements of the RST-2 district for twin homes for design and exterior materials. And there's a homeowners association that has to be established. I'll stand for any questions. [1:38:16] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this agenda item can please come forward. [1:38:46] **Jesse Drews:** Hi, everybody. Jesse Drews, 20452 Ken's Field Trail. I'm here to ask if a traffic study has been done for the area between 185th and 215th. At the April 13th meeting, this issue was raised over and over again. We have concerns about the amount of traffic in that area. City staff told us that a traffic study was not done and sort of laughed it off that it wasn't needed. I think there are concerns with the number of cars that come off of 35 when there is a traffic jam—that all feeds right now onto that frontage road on the east side of 35. My ask would be: One, has there been a traffic study done? If a traffic study has not been done, I would ask that you delay approving this project until we can work as a group to figure out how we will manage the traffic here. Thank you. [1:40:43] **Kevin Merrick:** I'm Kevin Merrick. I own the towing property. One of my biggest concerns is the traffic; it is a big issue. Especially when 35 has an issue, the frontage road is then all of a sudden the go-to for everything. My wife does have a video on her phone that shows exactly how bad that road does get. The next thing would be: What's the grade level of the development going to be to my property in the back? I understand they're going to put trees and a retaining wall up there as well as a fence. We do run a 24-hour business, so there is noise, backup alarms on trucks, and stuff like that. That's going to be somebody's concern someplace along the line. I mean, let's just start out with "it's not a problem" and it's going to turn into a problem. [1:42:19] **Kevin Merrick:** The next thing is: What are we going to do with my property in the future? Originally it was a business type planning, and that keeps getting moved around. Does that mean I have room for five houses on that property because my property's probably not big enough for an apartment complex? So now did my property just actually go way down in value? The traffic flow on the road is really the major thing. We're emergency vehicles; we can't even get out of our driveway when there's an incident on the freeway. I'm worried about what my values are, I'm worried about future complaints, I'm worried about safety. [1:44:34] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Madam Chair, we do have one member who's joined us via Teams who would like to speak at the hearing. Mr. Khan, you can turn on your mic. [1:44:42] **Joshua Khan (via Teams):** My name is Joshua Khan. I live at 20291 Kensington Way, which is adjacent to the proposed development as well as adjacent to the 203rd—currently a dead end. I'd like to echo the concerns as far as traffic goes. As a property owner, one of my biggest concerns is losing the privacy. We have a wonderful private woods behind us, and it looks like we stand to lose all of that. Also wondering about what's to be done with the fence that lines the back of our yard. [1:46:12] **Joshua Khan:** Have concerns as well about how drainage would be handled and just how much noise the trees block from 35W today; removing all those is going to create a lot more noise for where we live. And then the other thing is the plan to extend the dead end through the neighborhood—that brings in a whole host of other concerns for me. People in our neighborhood are going to use that road as a shortcut going to Target or 35W. It opens up access for people coming into Lakeville to steal cars, which has been happening at increasing rates. I definitely oppose the road going through. Thank you. [1:48:16] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Anyone else? **Commissioner Marovich:** Madam Chair, seeing no one else, I move to close the public hearing. **Commissioner Swanson:** Second. **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Public hearing is now closed. I think we had a couple of questions. Mr. Johnson, regarding the traffic study and the frontage road? [1:48:52] **Zach Johnson (City Engineer):** I have looked into the traffic volumes. In the current state, both Kenrick and 205th are undivided two-lane roads with a capacity of 14 to 17 thousand cars per day. Traffic counts collected in 2021 were 6,240 for 205th and 5,105 for Kenrick. Both of these volumes were less than half the capacity. We do collect traffic volumes every four years. While a traffic study may not be warranted today, we can certainly evaluate in the future as the developments come to fruition. [1:49:39] **Commissioner Marovich:** Madam Chair? Mr. Dempsey, can you show the topography between Merricks and the development please? [1:49:52] **Frank Dempsey:** The elevation here for these two units is almost exactly 8 to 10 feet higher than the elevation of this lot here. This is about 1,032 elevation; this is about 1,040 right at the corner of the building. So it does sit up a bit higher. [1:50:35] **Commissioner Marovich:** Mr. Herman, what type of twin homes are you looking at—single level, multi-level? [1:50:42] **Nate Herman:** A lot of it is going to be single level, maybe main-level living. These are around a 1,034 for a garage elevation, and then there's a walk-out, so the basement would be another eight feet lower than that. [1:52:22] **Commissioner Marovich:** Madam Chair, I'd have one more question for our traffic engineer. I think Mr. Merrick asked a question about the turn lanes. Can you just clarify for that? [1:52:43] **Zach Johnson:** Right now, for the preliminary plat, all you will see is a dedicated right turn lane for northbound movements. Through final design, we are including a dedicated left turn lane for southbound movements as well. **Commissioner Marovich:** I have one more question. Is there any room to do a traffic study sooner than the four years, just knowing that 2021 was still kind of the COVID era? **Zach Johnson:** We can internally do another traffic count at your request. [1:53:55] **Commissioner Kaluza:** Madam Chair? Appreciate what's brought in front of us. This is certainly a case of significant elevation change. I really appreciate the creativity that captures and brings together the roads that have been stubs for so many years. I know that creates consternation for those that have lived along those stubs, but the city has done a good job of identifying that those roads eventually would go through. I am appreciative also of the Merricks for making the city of Lakeville a place where they can do their business. I think those that would move in nearby would be familiar with the type of business that is. I'm thankful for this being in front of us today, and I will vote in support. [1:57:30] **Commissioner Swanson:** Madam Chair, a couple of items. If I could get the developer's representative up here? Two questions: first, the trail on the northwestern portion—what is the purpose of that? [1:58:04] **Nate Herman:** Primarily pond access for maintenance. We just had to find a path that gets us a maintainable slope to get equipment down. **Commissioner Swanson:** Second, what's the retaining wall going to be constructed of? **Nate Herman:** We're looking at typical modular style or potentially boulders like granite boulders. [2:00:00] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** There was a question from the resident on the phone regarding a fence on Kensington Way. **Nate Herman:** If there's an undesirable fence that is on our parcel, we'll certainly take it out. There's no plan to put a new fence up in the back of those yards. [2:02:40] **Commissioner Swanson:** A couple other things. It's nice to see a development come in now that the CenterPoint gas pipeline is now being abandoned and removed. The other piece, regarding traffic: having those turn lanes, I think, will be a benefit overall. I'm fully in support. [2:05:27] **Commissioner Swanson:** Madam Chair? I moved to recommend approval of the Antlers Ridge preliminary plat, zoning map amendment, and conditional use permit, subject to the eight stipulations listed in the June 30, 2023, planning report. **Commissioner Kaluza:** Second. [2:06:12] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Motion and a second. Commissioner Marovich, take a roll call vote. **Commissioner Marovich:** Lilligren? **Commissioner Lilligren:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Marovich? **Commissioner Marovich:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Swanson? **Commissioner Swanson:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Zuzak? **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** Aye. **Commissioner Marovich:** Kaluza? **Commissioner Kaluza:** Aye. [2:06:40] **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** When will this go in front of City Council? **Chris Jensen:** July 17th meeting. **Chair Stacy Zuzak:** And with that, we are at agenda item number nine, which... this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. [2:06:52] (Meeting concludes)