[0:55] Chair Zimmer: Good evening. I'd like to call April 16th Planning Commission order. Uh like to have you stand and say the pledge of allegiance. [1:26] Chair Zimmer: Sorry. Thank you so much. Miss Ericson, will you please call the role? >> Miss Ericson: Travis >> Commissioner Travis: here. >> Miss Ericson: Kusa >> Commissioner Kusa: here. >> Miss Ericson: Zimmer >> Chair Zimmer: here. >> Miss Ericson: Mike >> Commissioner Mike: here. >> Miss Ericson: Sweeney >> Commissioner Sweeney: here. >> Miss Ericson: Swanson >> Commissioner Swanson: here. [1:42] Chair Zimmer: Next on the agenda is the March 19th planning commission meeting minutes. Do we have any changes? We will let them stand as prepared. Uh next item is announcements. [1:57] Chair Zimmer: We have any announcements, Miss Jensen? >> Miss Jensen: Uh, thank you, Chair Zimmer. Yes. Uh, before you, you should have the motions from the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Committee from last evening as they reviewed the Haven at Lake Marian preliminary plan. And that's all my announcements for this evening. [2:15] Chair Zimmer: Thank you. Uh the next item on public hearing, if you would like to speak, please sign up at the back of the room. And um the first item uh 5A Haven at Lake Marian for Progressive LLC. This is a public hearing to consider the application of Progressive LLC for a preliminary plat of—excuse me—of 51 detached town homes and twin homes to be known as at Lake Marian in conjunction with the following applications that were tabled at our March 19th, 2026 planning commission meeting. One, comprehensive land amendment to reguide property from low density residential and medium density residential to low/medium density residential. Two, zoning map and amendment to zone property from RS3 single family residential district and RM1 residential district to RST2 single and two family residential district. And the third, conditional use permit for a planned shoreland development within the shoreland overlay district of Lake Marian, and of a fourth vacation of a public right of way. Um we first will have our uh applicant come forward and give us a presentation. Mr. Steve Sabber, if you could identify yourself for the record please. [3:47] Steve Sabber: Good evening planning commission. My name is Steve Sabber. I'm with Country Joe Homes and Progressive LLC. I'm here tonight to obviously present our applications for the Haven at Lake Marian development. This development—what I've brought forth tonight is just a couple of our renderings showcasing what we're going to be bringing into this community. We're going to have a combination of villa homes and twin homes. There's going to be two builders in here, Country Joe Homes and Bellpar Homes. Um the villa plans are going to, you know, incorporate stone, hardboard siding. They're all going to have foundations. There's a combinations of full basements, lookouts, walkouts. Um same thing with the twin homes. We have, you know, foundations in all of them. They're going to have two and three-bedroom options. We have a two-story option, main level master options. So, we're excited about the development and what we can bring to the community with it. So, I'm here for questions and uh Pioneer Engineering is here as well in case you have any questions for them. [4:49] Chair Zimmer: Great. Thank you so much. And now we will have a presentation from Mr. Lick. >> Daniel Lick: Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission. Daniel Lick with the planning company. I assist the uh city staff in review of development applications from time to time and pleased to be here tonight. Uh if we want to switch to the other PowerPoint or is it on this one? Okay, there we go. All right. So, the property location that we're dealing with with this application is 21 acres located southwest of Kenwood Trail, which is County State Highway 50 and Ipava Avenue. Uh it's adjacent to the east shoreline of Lake Marian on a portion of the property. Surrounding it are single family homes to the west and southwest. Uh Antlers Park is across the street from uh the subject property. And then uh east of Ipava Avenue is a property that's undeveloped and guided for office park uses by the comprehensive plan. To the north you have uh the railroad right-of-way and Kenwood Trail which creates separation from any of the uses on the north side of the roadway. Uh the applications as the chair read off in announcing the public hearing—each of these requires a public hearing uh which is the purpose of the meeting tonight. Preceding the public hearing was a neighborhood meeting held by the developer in December 10th of 2025. As the chair indicated, the meeting was originally noticed—the public hearing was originally noticed for March 19th. Uh the developer requested an extension to tonight to allow some adjustments to the plat realizing that the planning commission and city council had made changes to setback requirements uh for uh detached town homes and two-unit buildings that allowed them to incorporate one additional unit, thus altering the preliminary plat that had been previously noted. Uh specific to the preliminary plat that is before the planning commission tonight, the uh proposed development consists of 11 detached town homes uh which are effectively single family dwellings and 40 twin home units. Uh the first application that needs to be considered is amendment of the 2040 land use plan which guides the anticipated development of the site. Uh this has been in place essentially since the 2008 comprehensive plan was adopted uh per agreement with the property owner regarding acquisition of uh land for Antler's Park. No changes were contemplated in 2018 as part of the comprehensive plan update essentially freezing this in place. So, the range of land uses that could be developed on the property under the current guidance include uh row town homes, the detached town homes and twin family units and then single family dwellings basically extending north of the existing development. What the developer is proposing is to change the land use to one single category of uh low to medium density residential development to allow for the proposed uh detached town homes and two family units. Um overall we didn't do a direct comparison of the number of units could be developed pre-change to the plan but in terms of the character of land uses that are available and the type of dwelling units, uh it's a much less intense development which also is evident in the analysis that was done as part of the shoreland overlay district. Accompanying the amendment to the land use plan would be changes to the zoning map uh which reflect the land use designations of the comprehensive plan. Basically changing from the three existing zoning districts to the RST2 which is residential, single and two family district allowing the detached town homes and two family units. So uh the report that you have from our office evaluating the preliminary plat is based on those RST2 district standards. Uh the property is also within the shoreland overlay district of Lake Marian which applies to all property within a thousand feet of the lake shore. The analysis that's done as part of this is those standards are designed to limit the intensity of development within that thousand foot area and move development away from the shoreline itself. So that if you're sitting in a boat on the lake, you're not necessarily perceiving uh intensive land use or development. So the analysis that's completed in order to allow for the detached town homes and two family units is based on the lot standards and density for single family units. Essentially what's proposed can't be more intensive than if the property was developed with single family homes. One of the primary requirements of that is that there needs to be at least 50% open space within the property. Uh what's required is 8.7 acres. Nine and a half acres are proposed and that's achieved not only through outlots uh preserving the existing wetlands but also the open space yards between all of the buildings. Uh the result of that analysis completed by the developer is that under the shoreland rules, 90 homes could be developed within the subject property and again they're proposing 51. The preliminary plat itself proposes again the 11 detached town homes and 40 twin home units. Uh the zoning ordinance requires that within the RST2 district, those uses are required to provide 5,000 square feet of lot area per unit. Uh the proposed plat has 8,700 square feet of lot area per unit, meaning there's more land there than there would be otherwise required by the zoning ordinance. Uh the zoning ordinance also establishes specific setback requirements both from public rights-of-way and between buildings. Uh these were recently amended by the planning commission and city council to be more reflective of the type of development and allow somewhat tighter more compact development pattern for this. Uh the one additional setback that applies is Ipava Avenue is designated as a major collector street. So there's a 50-foot setback required from that right-of-way to accommodate a residential buffer yard. Streets accessing the property include the primary access being from Ipava Avenue, again a major collector street, which is designed to collect traffic from this neighborhood and carry it out to Kenwood Trail and to destinations either within the city or regionally. Uh the connection is off of 201st Street and then uh the plat itself provides for construction of Itasca Lane as the primary access for the detached town homes and twin home units off of 201st Street and then connecting to the north corner of the plat to an existing roadway. There's also the construction of a permanent cul-de-sac at the terminus of Italy Avenue. None of the detached town homes or single or twin homes access off of that. It would only be used to access potential development of outlot A if that's brought forward in the future. Uh the sidewalk along Itasca Lane includes a sidewalk as consistent with the city's subdivision ordinance standards. Uh outlot A is the portion of the property that may be potentially developable adjacent to the shore of Lake Marian. Uh parts of that property are within the flood plane and require further analysis to show that there's adequate buildable area within the lot to accommodate a single family home. Uh so for the purposes of the plat they've shown it as an outlot meaning it needs to come back for preliminary plat approval in the future again involving additional public hearings. That site is also being kept as RS3 single family zoning district. So the only potential development of that lot would be as one single family home. Uh you have the recommendations from the parks resources and natural resources committee as part of your packet. Uh there aren't obviously the need to develop a park facility in this area with Antlers Park directly across the street. So the developer would pay a cash fee in lieu of land for park dedication at the time of final plat approval. The developer provided a both a tree preservation plan based on the ordinance adopted by the city within the zoning ordinance to inventory and preserve significant trees within the site. Uh the city forester reviewed that and finds it complies with the requirements established by the city. Uh they also provide a landscape plan for the RST2 district. There's a specific criteria for establishing the landscape tying the value of the improvements to the quantity of landscaping. Uh and in addition to those landscaping requirements, there is again the buffer yard requirement along the lots abutting Ipava Avenue to provide screening from traffic on that roadway. Uh the forester again reviewed the landscape plan finds all the materials to be appropriate. Uh they did recommend planting additional trees behind the homes on the southern cul-de-sac to provide additional screening between the proposed homes and those existing off of Italy Avenue. Uh the engineering division completed their review of the construction plans for the proposed development addressing connection to sanitary sewer and water utilities as the property is within the municipal urban service area. Uh they've also addressed storm water management in terms of grading, drainage, and erosion control. Uh there's also significant wetlands within the site that are protected both by buffers required by the zoning ordinance at the perimeter of those wetlands. The wetlands are included within two outlots that will be deeded to the city for perpetual maintenance. City staff's review of the application is that the amendment of the comprehensive plan is consistent with the housing policies outlined therein. Uh we also find that the proposed preliminary plat complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance. Uh we have provided findings of fact for consideration by the planning commission pertaining to the comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment as well as the shoreland development conditional use permit. Uh our recommendations for approval are subject to the 12 stipulations outlined in our report of April 8th. [14:34] Chair Zimmer: Excellent. Thank you so much. Um this is a public hearing and I believe there were some people that signed up. We ask you to keep your comments brief and to um the issue at hand and not sure if there's a list. Nope. Okay. All right. Is there anyone that wishes to speak? Please come forward and then uh give us your name and address. That would be great. [14:56] Jill Lawrence: Hi, I'm Jill Lawrence, 9715 201st Street West. Um and my biggest concern is—which I haven't heard addressed—is um how they will handle parking. Um, our neighborhood 201st and Italy has extensive signage of no parking or residential parking only. Um, this will be a real attractive area for overflow. So, um, I I do think that is something that needs to be addressed in the plan. Um, and you know, if that is also going to be signed, no parking, I'm not quite sure then that the houses have enough parking for their own guests. Um, that was my only real concern with the project. Um, my husband and I are for the project. We are—we've been very impressed with our interactions with the builder and um we are basically here to just lend our support and say, you know, change is hard, but um I think we've got good neighbors in the builder. So, thank you so much. [16:30] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much. I know that staff is noting the questions. We'll address that. Uh there is another person to speak, Bob Ericson. If you could come forward, please. Thank you. [16:47] Bob Ericson: Good evening. Uh Bob Ericson, 1908 Indale Drive. Thank you for this opportunity. Uh Chair Zimmer and members of the planning commission. Um first and foremost, I just want to uh thank Dan Lick for uh his report and I want to acknowledge the quality work uh by the developer and Pioneer with the exhibits A through P. Um, in that regard, I just have a couple of quick questions that I'm sure Dan can respond to. Uh, and I will compliment the planning commission on the work they did on the new tree preservation ordinance. Thank you for that. Um, tree preservation exhibit N and uh the tree planting exhibit M references "irrigation by others" which prompted me to ask this question: Are there going to be HOAs governing this development? If so, it wasn't referenced in the report. Um, the legacy that George Warwig left to the community was his planting of Ponderosa pines 50 years ago. 50 years ago, he planted those Ponderosa pines and they have a life expectancy of uh 300 years. So, um I'm pleased to the best of my ability—uh it was a micro version exhibit, but I increased it several hundred percent—and it appears that the Ponderosa pines are... I'd just like a response to that if that's possible. Um, I'm assuming that we don't have an ordinance requiring guest parking because there's no guest parking provided. And I was um somewhat surprised. Uh, historically there's been guest parking in similar developments, but I'm sure Dan can address that matter. Um, it was hard with micro versions of the exhibits, which are all very well done, to determine sidewalks. I think it showed sidewalks, but it wasn't very clear. Now, the last and most important issue is, in my opinion, is the intersection of Ipava and 201st. And the reason I think that's significant is I believe there's a likelihood that there'll be a matched road coming from the Warwig property on the east to align with this if that's true. And that's possible. I was wondering why there wouldn't—I know the road is brand new by the way, I'm well aware of that—but I was uh hoping that there might be a demonstrated design from Ipava to 201st showing that maybe there would be a three-lane portion to provide um ingress and egress considering the 51 new units on this side of Ipava and then the unknown on on the east side as well. And as a neighbor who's not able to be here because of a track meet responsibility um—he just wanted me to mention that the um when the traffic signal turns green, he wanted me to say this: that um traffic volumes mornings, afternoons can—and with the park now—can be challenging. So again I thought there might have been three lanes ingress egress and maybe turn lane scenario only in the context of what might happen in the future, and I thank you for this opportunity. Thank you. [21:02] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? I don't have anyone else signed up. There's no one else. I think we're ready for a motion. >> Commissioner Travis: Madam chair, seeing no one else come forward. I move to close the public hearing. [21:19] Chair Zimmer: All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Commissioners: I. >> Chair Zimmer: Opposed. Same sign. Opposed. Mr. Lick, we can have you answer questions. We could also have the developer answer. [21:28] Daniel Lick: Madam Chair, um so first with regards to the parking issue, it is noted in the planning report that city staff is aware of the need to evaluate the capacity for parking on Itasca Lane and the uh Italy Avenue as well. Um we expect that city staff will continue to work with the developer on a signage plan, parking plan for those streets as it moves forward to final plat. Uh parking restrictions are approved by resolution of the city council. Um so that would occur concurrently with the action on a final plat requirement or request. Um with respect to guest parking within the RST2 district, uh the city doesn't require dedicated off-street parking. Uh we've changed the approach to this to be more accommodating to more dense housing types that are accessed off public streets, recognizing that there is opportunity to park on those streets uh to some extent based on the city's design standards for those roadways. Uh sidewalks for the development would be provided on Itasca Lane on the west side of the road and south side. So directly adjacent to the homes, which also then allows for maintenance. Uh because if it was on the east side, obviously you're running along the right-of-way adjacent to the railroad with no adjacent property owner. Uh the zoning ordinance does require a homeowners association for the development based on the configuration of the homes where the owner will own basically the property immediately under the structure. All of the land surrounding the structures—the yards essentially—are held in common by the homeowners association which addresses ownership and maintenance of that property. That is also addressed as part of the final plat application and reviewed by the city attorney and city staff prior to approval of that. Um the final issue raised was the potential for impacts to traffic on Ipava Avenue. Uh city staff's review is that the 51 units proposed with this project—uh there is adequate capacity within the road to accommodate it. Obviously the road has a certain amount of capacity. This will take 51 homes worth of capacity out of that. If there's a proposal for development to the east, either as the current office park or a proposed change in land use, that would have to be evaluated at that time based on the capacity that's available. Uh and that may require the need to look at potential improvements to that roadway or it may be determined that there is capacity, but that's a matter to be discussed at some point when a proposal comes forward to the planning commission for that property. And then I believe the final question was the preservation of the Ponderosa pines and I would leave that to the developer to explain their intent with that as again the tree preservation plan as presented does comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. [24:22] Chair Zimmer: Thank you. Very efficient Mr. Lick. So we'll ask Sabber to come back up to talk about the trees. [24:41] Steve Sabber: Steve Sabber back here again. I wasn't aware of the Ponderosa pines and the history behind them. We currently do at the intersection of Itasca and Ipava and 201st Street—we have some of those Ponderosa pines being saved. Feel free to come up and give us... >> Jenny Thompson: Oh, Jenny Thompson. I'm the landscape architect on this project. Is it Mr. Ericson? Is that who it is, Bob? >> Bob Ericson: Yep. >> Jenny Thompson: Um, are you specifically speaking to the pine on the corner or which ones were you? >> Bob Ericson: Yes. Yeah, the ones along the railroad track. And some of them might be in the right-of-way. [25:53] Jenny Thompson: Okay. Yeah. Best to address. I'm sorry, I just wanted to make sure I understood what he was talking about. Yes, those trees on the corner—the pine on the corner—we are saving, and we're saving the trees he's referring to along the railroad track as well. So, I think those trees should be covered. [26:14] Chair Zimmer: Thank you very much. And chair, maybe we could pull up the landscape plan just to show so that people can... >> Daniel Lick: That would be great. It would be the trees shown here along the railroad right-of-way and these at the intersection, and it appears those are all being preserved. >> Jenny Thompson: Correct. >> Chair Zimmer: Thank you very much. Um, did we answer all the questions? My first off, if staff was keeping track, I think we've addressed those questions. So, I would open it up to planning commissioners to um ask questions and give comments. Please, Mr. Kusa. [27:05] Commissioner Kusa: Thank you, Madam Chair. Um just kind of want to go back uh to parking. Um I thank you, Mr. Lick, for kind of explaining the process and the timeline on doing that. I know that city staff um will be keenly watching as this uh neighborhood is constructed and developed kind of what the natural tendencies of people that are trying to access Antler's Park do. I, you know, it's not just the uh streets in this development, but kind of with that connection now to Itasca Lane. I think as someone who has driven around for about a half an hour trying to find parking at that parking lot in Antlers Park, um people will try to find wherever they can. So, I'm—I know that city staff will be watching that both for this neighborhood as well as um the existing neighborhood to the north side of the lake as this kind of develops. And that is definitely something um that is a concern of me. Um I you know, the city has a great problem in that Antlers Park is a wonderful amenity that a lot of people want to use and um you know, we just need to make sure that that does not affect uh you know, the desire of people to go there and find convenient parking does not impact uh the existing neighbors or our new neighbors that are going to be coming their ability to kind of enjoy their property uh without people um you know clogging up the street in front of there. So, I appreciate uh your comments and then um you know I appreciate that the city staff will be kind of keeping an eye on this as this goes forward. [28:53] Chair Zimmer: Thank you. Commissioner Swanson. [28:53] Commissioner Swanson: Madam Chair, question for Mr. Lick or for our city engineer. Um, can you kind of go over what the street widths are for Itasca Lane and maybe the cul-de-sacs if they're kind of city standard—just kind of what the sizes of those are. [29:11] Daniel Lick: Madam Chair, um, so the standards for the street are the basic standards specified by the subdivision ordinance. Uh 60-foot wide right-of-way, 32-foot wide section with sidewalk on one side. There isn't sidewalk on the two cul-de-sac streets as per subdivision ordinance specifications. [29:32] Commissioner Swanson: And then just a follow-on comment if I may. One of the things I haven't heard talked about here tonight is the fact that this actually will provide a second outlet to a large neighborhood um right now that is only accessed by Jaguar Avenue. Um, so this actually will provide the ability for ingress and egress of emergency services. Say in the event that a train is blocking the tracks at Jaguar Avenue, um, which has been a long-term issue and concern of the community. We know there's potential for a future railyard, that type of thing, but there's a lot of unknowns with the railroad track and what it can and can't be in the future. So, I'm grateful to see this connection be made. [30:09] Chair Zimmer: Thank you. Madam Chair. Commissioner Travis. [30:09] Commissioner Travis: please go ahead, Commissioner. Uh, and this may be a question for Mr. Lick or Mr. Sabber, but there are 51 homes close to Lake Marian. Just a question about the storm sewer. Um, will these 51 homes and their fertilizer and their lawn chemicals have a connection to Lake Marian? And if so, has there been some sort of assessment about what the lake can take? [30:42] Daniel Lick: Madam Chair, so I'll start and if the assistant city engineer wants to jump in, they can certainly do so. Um so the requirements for the property as part of the storm water management plan that they provide is it collects all the water runoff generated by the development, directs it to a storm basin that holds the water. Uh it also provides treatment where sediment, chemicals, etc. can filter out of that before it's discharged downstream towards Lake Marian. And the expectation is that uh the water is as clean, if not cleaner, and doesn't leave the site at a rate greater than it does today. [31:18] Commissioner Travis: Thank you. That would be Commissioner Travis stepping on Commissioner Swanson's toes. Nice job. [31:18] Chair Zimmer: Uh other questions for... There are a couple of things. One on the retention—is there an additional pond or is it going to use the existing? [31:39] Daniel Lick: Uh the development does have additional storm water basins. Uh there's proposed in outlot C along Ipava and Kenwood Trail. Uh and then additional basin—I believe it's in the area... let's see. There it is... up here in the north side of outlot B. [32:14] Commissioner Travis: Very good. And then this uh the second comment would tail back on—as a person who lives up in that area and kids have to miss stuff because of train issues. Um it's about time. [32:14] Daniel Lick: Madam Chair, I would say this is the perfect example of why the city advocates for multiple connections to developments for emergency vehicle access, but also service vehicle access, mail trucks, service trucks, Amazon delivery, etc. Uh, and simply distribution of traffic. It provides multiple directions for people to go so that if there is congestion on Ipava, there is still the opportunity to go different directions. [32:44] Chair Zimmer: When I was first brought on as planning commissioner, I do remember that lesson. Commissioner Swanson. [32:44] Commissioner Swanson: One one last question. Um I noticed um it looks like on the end of the existing Italy Avenue, we're building a new cul-de-sac end. Is that going to be built as part of this development, just kind of keeping tabs on who's building what and where. [33:06] Miss Jensen: Madam Chair, it is part of the preliminary plat approval. It is to be constructed with the final plat with Haven at Lake Marian this first edition that we're looking at here today. Uh not with the proposed outlot. [33:40] Commissioner Sweeney: Question. Go ahead. Itasca Lane particularly and probably even the one since that's going to connect up into pavements via Italy. Help me on the widths of those because I know in our development they got really narrow. You cannot park both sides. Well, you could, but you're not going to get emergency vehicle through there. So, are these wider than those? I don't know. Somebody from the hearing side can comment to that. And I'm thinking like Jersey Avenue 199th. Um those are pretty darn narrow, like exceptionally narrow. There are many times in the summer when people have events that you can't get through there even with a car. [34:19] Daniel Lick: Madam Chair, so the street again, the section is 32 feet wide. If you assume most passenger vehicles are less than 8 feet wide, that still leaves 16 feet down the center of the street even if there is parking on both sides. Uh which is more than a standard traffic lane at 12 feet. So there should be adequate space to get through. And again, that's one of the issues that city staff will be working with both with the police department and fire department on the parking plan. [35:05] Commissioner Sweeney: I'm just telling you that. And it's—it's a safety issue that people start thinking about before somebody dies or a house burns down because if somebody has a party and you have people parking on both sides and they don't want to be on anybody's yard, so they're—I mean literally you can hardly get a full-size vehicle through there. You would not get a fire truck through there and maybe not even that. So something people to consider—those roads were built too small. [36:13] Chair Zimmer: Excellent. Any other questions? If there are no other questions, I think we're ready for a motion. [36:13] Commissioner Kusa: Madam Chair, I motion to recommend to city council approval of the preliminary plat to be known as Haven at Lake Marian, the comprehensive land use amendment, zoning map amendment, conditional use permit, and vacation for Progressive LLC subject to the 12 stipulations in the planning report dated April 8th, 2026 and the findings of fact. [36:49] Commissioner Swanson: Second. [36:49] Chair Zimmer: We have a motion and a second. Miss Ericson, please take the role. >> Miss Ericson: Zimmer? >> Chair Zimmer: I. >> Miss Ericson: Mike? >> Commissioner Mike: I. >> Miss Ericson: Sweeney? >> Commissioner Sweeney: I. >> Miss Ericson: Swanson? >> Commissioner Swanson: I. >> Miss Ericson: Kusa? >> Commissioner Kusa: I. >> Chair Zimmer: The eyes have it and the motion is approved. Thank you for your development and uh continued work, appreciate that. The next item on the agenda... um, the preliminary plat and conditional use permit for Globus Business Park. And we'll have a presentation. Mr. Muzafar Gafurov. [38:06] Muzafar Gafurov: Good evening everyone attending. My name is Muzafar, president of Globus Transport. Uh, we currently call Lakeville home for our operation. Uh, we're just down near the intersection of D and County 70 on Humboldt Road currently. And, uh, we're excited to, uh, you know, present this development project that we're working on, um, on just a recently acquired land parcel um you know on County 70 near the Kenrich intersection. Um and uh yeah I guess um what we do is we are a trucking company, logistics company um I would say more of a logistics consolidation consolidator that we use warehouse space to bring freight—cross dock it—you know, fill trailers out and send them over the road. Um for the most part we don't do any repairs on site or you know um not like a typical trucking terminal. You know we just primarily use the warehouse for cross docking and distribution. Um and uh yeah I guess uh that's kind of our main um you know purpose for this new uh development. [40:05] Chair Zimmer: Okay. Thank you so much. We'll have staff present and uh then open it up. >> Miss Borton: Good evening, chair, commission members. This request is for property located on the southwest side of County Road 70, which is also known as Juniper Way, east of Kenrich Avenue and at the terminus of Kenrich Court. The property is zoned and guided for office park use. The action in front of you tonight is a preliminary plat for a one lot subdivision and then a conditional use permit to allow a warehouse in the OP district. Uh the parent parcels are—there's two parcels currently and the site is about approximately 10 acres in size. The applicant is proposing an 81,100 square foot industrial office warehouse building. Uh there are two egress points in the property. One in the southwest corner on Kenrich Court and the other would be a right-in right-out onto County State Highway 70. Uh both engineering and the Dakota County Plat Commission have approved these locations for access. Building and parking lot setbacks either meet or exceed the minimum requirements. Uh the site is currently short on the number of parking spaces that would be required. Uh but the applicant has demonstrated proof of parking on the northern part of the drive area here. So if those parking requirements are not met with the final plat, there would have to be a deferred parking agreement that would be recorded against the property and then in the future if there would ever be a need for those parking spaces, the owner would be required to put in those parking spaces. In the office park district, the maximum amount of outside storage is limited to a maximum of 20% of lot area. The area outlined in red is the area that's depicted for outside storage. This is proposed at about 1 acre which is 10% of the lot size. So they are in compliance with that code requirement. And looking at the grading plan, the development includes one privately owned and maintained storm water management system. This will include a pre-treatment area and then the infiltration basin to the east of it. This will collect and treat all the storm water runoff for the site. A storm water maintenance agreement will be required with the final plat. The office park district requires a minimum of 30% of green space on a parcel. So the property as proposed demonstrates 3.04 acres of green space. So this is coming in at 30.2% of open space. So they are meeting our minimum requirements. When looking at tree preservation and the landscaping requirements in an industrial and commercial type of zoning district, they are allowed to have a 70% tree removal. They are proposing 63%. So they are in compliance with the removal threshold, but the ordinance also requires that heritage trees be replaced at 100% of the diameter inches removed. So in this case they are—they're removing 193 inches of heritage trees but then they're also allowed some credits with the ones that they're saving. So then their total replacement would be 97 inches of trees. So the tree preservation plan will have to be updated to reflect that requirement with the final plat. The landscape plan shows a variety of trees and shrubs. So city code requires that the outdoor storage area in the back portion must be screened and landscaped from adjacent properties. But then the industrial district also requires that perimeter plantings be required around the entire development. So, an updated landscaping plan will have to be submitted to be in compliance with code requirements. The elevations that were submitted in your plan show a building with smooth texture pre-cast concrete that complies with our exterior building material requirements. Um, this may change between now and the final plat as I know the applicant was looking at alternative materials and different design. So whatever they come back with, we'll just have to comply with the OP district which requires at least 65% grade A materials and not more than 35% grade B or C materials. The staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat and conditional use permit with the six stipulations listed in the planning report and also the requirements and stipulations that were included with your engineering report. So I'll stand for questions. [44:43] Chair Zimmer: Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to come up and speak, please let us know. Seeing none, I'm ready for a motion. Move to close the public hearing and a second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please say I. >> Commissioners: I. >> Chair Zimmer: Those opposed, same sign. Public hearing is now closed. Uh questions for uh the applicant. I wanted to start with just one—what will be stored outside would be my question. [45:41] Muzafar Gafurov: The storage plan is for trailers primarily—tractor trailers. [45:41] Chair Zimmer: Yep. Excellent. That's helpful. Questions from others? Commissioner Swanson. [46:08] Commissioner Swanson: So, just kind of curious, you mentioned you already have a location here in Lakeville. Are you expanding and into this facility and keeping the other facility or just moving to this facility? [46:08] Muzafar Gafurov: Yep. We're not certain what we're going to do with the current facility, but we will move our operation. Uh, currently we're a little bit—we have some sort of a bottleneck with the uh number of dock doors that we have and for cross-docking purposes, we need as many of them as possible. The structure of the building and the layout allows us to have like 18 dock doors in a same spot where we can only have seven right now. So that allows for efficient flow of operation basically, that's one of the main reasons. [47:01] Commissioner Swanson: I'll just state always grateful to hear that businesses are investing more in Lakeville and expanding and so that's a great thing to hear. Um you'd also mentioned that um you're not really doing any truck repair or anything like that on site. I'm just kind of curious where do you have your trucks repaired or? [47:17] Muzafar Gafurov: Um, we do—a lot of drivers are contractors, owner-operators where they own their own tractor and so it's up to them where they repair and primarily we have a—one of the bigger facilities nearby—and so they just go there for repairs. For the most part we don't do anything on site. We don't plan on having our own repair facilities in the future. Suffer a headache, we don't want to. [48:04] Commissioner Swanson: So, thank you. I'll just kind of put it in the perspective then that um obviously you have most of your heavy maintenance and everything done offsite, that type of thing. It's not to say you might not have someone come in to do like a wheel repair or something like that... a quick trailer repair or something to get someone back on the road, something like that. But that's typical of any warehouse operation. [48:04] Muzafar Gafurov: Unless the trailer is not mobile for some reason. You know, something that needs to be called and resourced, but for the most part we're able to just go to the repair facilities locally, you know. [48:49] Commissioner Mike: Madam Chair. So, we understand that there's going to be like 12 parking spots short of the parking that's required for the development. And you know what happens when—when these semi-trailers... I mean, they'll be parked there on a short-term basis or basis and what are you going to do when you run out of space? [48:49] Muzafar Gafurov: Well, uh for the um primarily you know they come and go. So they might stay here, they might show up a day and you know to make a delivery next day and then you know get the... so usually currently we have adequate space for the amount of trailers that we own. Um and um you know in the future we'll I guess have to cross that bridge when we get there but I feel like for the size of our current operation on this building, I think that that requirement is adequate. [49:32] Commissioner Travis: Madam Chair. Uh just a clarification based on some of the other similar projects along Juniper Way 70. Um is Globus the only occupant of of this site? You're building it—you're going to use it 100% or is there another tenant? [50:18] Muzafar Gafurov: We are planning on occupying about 24,000 square feet of the building ourselves and then uh we're hoping to lease out the remainder of the building. Um and so um but there is basically for us a great opportunity to expand. [50:18] Chair Zimmer: Excellent. Thank you. Other questions? Are there any Ponderosa pines that we're taking out of any? [50:42] Commissioner Travis: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to recommend to city council approval of the preliminary plat and conditional use permit for Globus Business Park subject to the six stipulations in the planning report dated April 8th, 2026 and the findings of fact. [51:09] Commissioner Kusa: Second. [51:09] Chair Zimmer: We have a motion and a second. Miss Ericson, take the role. >> Miss Ericson: Zimmer. >> Chair Zimmer: I. >> Miss Ericson: Mike. >> Commissioner Mike: I. >> Miss Ericson: Sweeney. >> Commissioner Sweeney: I. >> Miss Ericson: Swinson. >> Commissioner Swinson: I. >> Miss Ericson: Kusa. >> Commissioner Kusa: I. >> Chair Zimmer: Uh the motion prevails and we look forward to watching you guys develop and then to see what you're doing with your other property as well. Thank you for moving forward in Lakeville and again this issue will be considered before city council on May 4th. Thank you. Um, so staff notices? [51:44] Miss Jensen: Yep. The next planning commission is May 7th and uh planning memo has been included. [51:44] Chair Zimmer: Need to add anything to your report Miss Jensen? No? Then we stand adjourned.