This is a transcript of a **Lakeville Planning Commission** meeting. Please note that while you provided a list of City Council members and City Staff, this specific meeting features the Planning Commission (Commissioners Kusa, Zuzek, Tinsley-Morovic, Travis, and Chini) and Planning Department staff (Mr. Dempsey and Miss Jensen). [0:51] **Chair:** I call to order the June 20th 2024 Planning Commission meeting please join me in the flag pudge. [1:16] **Chair:** Miss Morrow will you please call the role of members? [1:20] **Miss Morrow:** Zac? **Commissioner Zuzek:** Here. **Miss Morrow:** Kusa? **Commissioner Kusa:** Here. **Miss Morrow:** Tinsley-Morovic? **Commissioner Tinsley-Morovic:** Here. **Miss Morrow:** Travis? **Commissioner Travis:** Here. **Miss Morrow:** Chini? **Commissioner Chini:** Here. [1:32] **Chair:** Agenda item number three is the approval of minutes from the June 6th 2024 Planning Commission meeting fellow Commissioners any changes? [Pause] And the meeting minutes will stand. Agenda item number four Miss Jensen any announcements? [1:47] **Miss Jensen:** Uh yes commissioners before you you have a letter dated uh today from Darren Schmidt regarding the Kevin kwatt cup application which is agenda item 5A and then uh provided none of these items are tabled this evening they will be brought forth to the July 1st city council meeting and as a reminder the first Planning Commission meeting in July is canceled due to the Fourth of July holiday. [2:02] **Chair:** All right thank you and agenda item number five this is a public hearing for Kevin kwatt. Consider the application of Kevin kwatt for a conditional use permit to a detached accessory building with a combined accessory building area exceeding 2,000 feet on a single family lot in the rs1 single family residential district located at 16560 Langley Avenue um and what is it Mosley like well okay W joining um and here to give a brief overview of the project is Kevin is now joining. [3:04] **Kevin Kwatt:** Good evening my name is uh Kevin kwat. As you'll see that my wife and I are Molly are trying to get approval for a conditional use permit. We're looking to build a p post frame structure on our property. We moved here back in 2020 and this has kind of been one of the dreams of ours to continue growing with our property that we're currently at right now. Throughout this whole process we've basically been I've been trying to abide by all the codes and you know other requirements that are there. One minor oversight on my part was that the accessory structure was also included was the attached garage to our house therefore with the engineered plans that I submitted that put us right at about 2300 square fet 2400 Square fet. So I'm seeking approval for that additional 3 to 400 square feet to our structure to prevent having to get any uh you know re-engineered plans or anything like that. I normally would be all four trying to adjust plans and everything but I'm hoping to get that 2,000 squ F feet approved just so we can uh you know have ample space for storage it may seem like a lot but it's something that we want to grow into and hopefully live there for a very long time so thank you. [4:30] **Chair:** Thank you. [4:33] **Mr. Dempsey:** Good evening Madam chair and planning Commissioners the get the overhead here up in a moment Jack you can help bring this up here we go. Okay so um this is a request of uh Mr Kat. He lives at 16560 legal Avenue he proposes a condition a conditional use permit for an accessory building which is larger than what is allowed in the rs1 district without approval of a conditionally used permit. There was a there's a letter that was um distributed to from a neighbor and you have that before you this evening. There's some comments he has regarding this proposal that is near his property. This is a particular aerial photo. This is an aerial photo from 2011 but I chose this because exceptionally clear Leaf off conditions and it's it's fairly similar to what is in the neighborhood in terms of building but it also shows the house that is currently on the property it shows the outline of the property. This is a wet land that's to the South. The condition of use permit request is to have the accessory building in this location. This is a wider area of the property it's north of Orchard Lake. This property and the property is along the lake are zoned rs1 single family residential the properties' North and in the west of the property are zoned ra which is a rural agriculture District. These are also outside of the the Musa the urban service area and this is the property here that shows the zoning. Again the green area here is the ra District it's on the edge of of that area this is a railroad track that runs North and South through Orchard Gardens Burnsville Etc South to air Lake and further south. This is the survey of the property which the applicant overlaid the proposed building location. As I noted the building setback requirements from this property line which is platted Street ride of way from from this Swan Edition property is 30 feet and so the proposed location is not compliant with setbacks it does have to be setback 30 ft and that could be in this vicinity anywhere where it'll fit in in that in that area. And so if this was to move forward then Mr Kat would have to amend the site plan and I've had that conversation with him. The this is also an outline of the area that is proposed I understand as well is that some of the trees in here have been cleared out to for the construction of the accessory building prior to the approval but Mr Kat's aware that that work further work can't continue until he gets a building permit and approval of the conditional use permit. I included this in the presentation because I wanted it to be clear what's the Topography is like in this area each of these Contours represents 2 feet in this direction I believe this is higher in this than in this direction or lower I think but the Contours in this area are such that some grading will have to be done in this vicinity. It also shows the location of of the house and a flat area that's in this location which is primarily where the septic drain field is I understand and this is the driveway access to to the house in this location. The proposed building is a metal structure it is under the 20 foot maximum height. The total combined area for accessory building counting the attached garage is about 392 square feet more than the then the square footage it's allowed without going through this conditional use permit process so uh this the planning report recommends seven stipulations that are listed on page four of the planning report um and the following stipulations are recommended with the conditional use permit. Has to show amendment has the site plan has to show the 30 foot setback to Legal Avenue and we recommend a 20 foot set braack to the north property line given the size of the proposed building. Install a minimum six foot tall Evergreens along the west side of the accessory building to provide screening from legal Avenue and the accessory building shall have exterior finish of gray in a black W's coat as proposed by the application the applicant. So with that let just follow up here there's actually there's a total of seven stipulations I should make note of here in the planning report but including the ones that are on the board. There's also a list in the planning report of all the conditional use permits that have been approved for accessory buildings since 1981 and I've tried to keep track of these over the years in order to give some reference as to the types of property the zoning and the size of the accessory of buildings and in this case there's a couple there's one on here that is was approved in 2013 which is north of this property at 162nd Street it's a similar property or building and that was approved by a conditionally used permit in 2013. So similar to that these are large properties there's a lot of square footage for each of them acreage and there's also some significant setbacks between other residences in that neighborhood so I'll stand for any questions the Planning Commission has and we'll go forward thank you. [11:08] **Chair:** Thank you. All right and this is a public hearing so anyone wishing to speak on this agenda item can come forward. [11:31] **Darren Schmidt:** Thank you chair and Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak um on my family's behalf tonight. My name is Darren Schmidt I live at 16535 legel Avenue and I'm also representing 16471 legel Avenue. The letter that you have is from me. I'm the neighbor. I've got two pages of things that I was going to rehash that's in that letter I'm not going to do that. I reached out to the applicant again this afternoon and I guess my goal would be is to come up with a solution that works for everybody here so he chose not to pick up the phone which is fine. So I'm just going to lay out in front of you I guess what I would like to see to make this thing go forward because I'd like to make this thing go forward. I mean my family's been in the orchard Gardens area for 84 years. We've got lots of neighbors that have been friends for probably close to that so I mean there's a lot of family members are now generation or two generations later so people tend to move in here and they stay so I mean that's a good thing. So I guess the compromise I would look at because I would like to see Kevin build a building too so he's asking for 390 square feet more than allowed so I would propose that if he wants to build something 390 ft more than allowed that he would provide 390 ft more setback to his building so 390 ft divided by 552 7 ft so instead of 30 ft 37 ft and then you know have him Grant an easement to the city and I'm going to call it a wood easement so instead of implanting these Evergreens in the middle of the Woods which aren't going to grow anyways I mean evergreen trees will or spruce trees evergreen trees are not going to grow with the canopy that's there so I would propose instead that he Grant the city a 20ft wood easement for woods and he just merely let the woods grow back and fill in that yard. And then at that point I would agree with him that he could build a 390 ft too much square footage and used the materials that he's proposing. So I'm trying to come to some compromise here so I don't know if he's receptive to something like that I don't know. I mean he's got plenty of room to move the building in another 7 feet so he's going to have to move the pad that he's already prepared from 10 to 30 anyway so to move it an extra 7 feet I don't see as an issue so that's really my proposal. So I would love to have done this without all of you sitting here and me do it because I think that's the way neighbors should have done it but it didn't happen that way so I would say that my request is that we find a compromise or that you please deny this conditional use permit. Thank you for your time to listen to my comments and I wait your decision thank you. [15:03] **Chair:** Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this agenda item? [15:12] **Commissioner:** Madam chair yes I moveed to close the public hearing. **Commissioner:** Second. [15:15] **Chair:** I have a motion in a second to close the public hearing all those in favor please signify by saying I. **Commissioners:** I. **Chair:** All opposed? [Silence] All right the public hearing is now closed. Okay so to address some of the things in the letter so you've Mr. Dempsey you've already said that the setback would have to be changed to the 30 ft correct? [15:51] **Mr. Dempsey:** Madam chair yes that's true the planning the site plan has to be amended to show a minimum a 30 foot set back from that East property line which is the road rideway line. [15:57] **Chair:** Okay and the the size deviation so not knowing that the square the square foot of the structure also included the current garage right? [16:04] **Mr. Dempsey:** That's correct the total square footage that's allowed is 2,000 square feet and he has a two-car garage which is typically 500 square ft or so and then the additional square footage proposed is 392 ft more than 2,000 square ft. [16:20] **Chair:** Okay yes and then there's um a comment in here as well about the material is there a material deviation I I'm not sure that I read that in the original? [16:34] **Mr. Dempsey:** Yeah no the building materials that are proposed is a finished steel walls black wngs coat lower portion a gray building wall and then a metal roof and those are allowed. Steel is allowed siding material in the rs1 zoning District correct. That's not part of the conditional use permit as a deviation. [17:05] **Chair:** Okay I'm just curious what color is the house? **Kevin Kwatt:** Gray. **Chair:** Okay so it matches. Fellow Commissioners questions or comments? [17:31] **Commissioner Zuzek:** Madam chair so um Mr Dempsey are these um suggestions of compromise that Mr Schmidt mentioned is that part of those three stipulations you showed us earlier or are these things considered at all? [17:46] **Mr. Dempsey:** What was mentioned I believe in the letter is the setback here is not showing 30 feet and I agree with that and I did inform the applicant that that would have to be increased to 30 ft minimum. The other stipulations that are suggested as from the original Seven are that the setbacks be increased in the site plan, Landscaping be included had that conversation with the applicant as well and that just a condition that the building exterior color is as what is being proposed that's correct. [18:31] **Commissioner Kusa:** Madam chair I'm I am uh comfortable with these three additional stipulations and I think that they are good work by City staff to attempt to um address some things by the neighbors and um make the I think it will make the project more successful going forward but I am supportive of moving forward with the cup with those three additional stipulations. [19:04] **Commissioner Chini:** Any other comments Madam chair yes I think it was brought up the tree type um may or may not survive in the area I don't know if there's work around for that where we commend the language to just say something that would be native to the area rather than just simply Evergreen. [19:24] **Mr. Dempsey:** Commissioner Chini and Madam chair I can express that we're not requesting that it be any particular whether it's fur balls and pine, Spruce, or Cedar for that matter. We do have a city Forester that I can get some advice on for that but the tradition is that if we want screening we ask for evergreens and it certainly can be a mix but I think that there's something that will work in those conditions so I do appreciate that the neighbor brought that comment up I'll have the city Forester advise us on that. [20:12] **Commissioner Chini:** Madam chair Mr Dempsey um could we perhaps change that proposed stipulation to screening instead of specifying evergreen trees? [20:19] **Mr. Dempsey:** Sure. [20:25] **Commissioner:** Madam chair is there anything that needs to come back to commission or is with these stipulations for the site plan do we need to see anything additionally or is City staff is that required? [20:34] **Mr. Dempsey:** It is not required to come back unless the Planning Commission requests so typically in situations like this we take the comments and then move forward with them and address them as being completed or addressed by the time against the city council thank you. [20:47] **Commissioner:** Yes Madam chair with the screening that would that be added to it so the word trees would still be there? I just don't want to say screening and then have that be a six foot fence. [21:10] **Mr. Dempsey:** Yeah if the concern is that it'd be natural landscaping that's my intent and that's I wouldn't have any issues with that. That's the intent is that it would be landscape screening. Our tradition is that when screening is proposed it's first Landscaping, fence or fence Landscaping but we do prefer green wall instead of solid. [21:30] **Commissioner:** Thank you for the clarification Madam chair um yeah I think I my suggestion was just to uh maybe take out evergreen trees I mean we have a city Forester that yeah can provide some perspective but uh I think that the city staff understands the intent. [21:50] **Chair:** Anything else? Are we ready for a motion? [21:59] **Commissioner Zuzek:** Madam chair uh I motion to recommend approval of the Kenyon green conditional use permit subject to the 10 stipulations listed in the June 13 2024 planning report as amended. **Commissioner:** Second. [22:12] **Chair:** I have a motion on a second Miss Morrow will you please take your roll call vote. **Miss Morrow:** Zuzek? **Commissioner Zuzek:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Kusa? **Commissioner Kusa:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Tinsley-Morovic? **Commissioner Tinsley-Morovic:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Travis? **Commissioner Travis:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Chini? **Commissioner Chini:** Aye. [22:25] **Chair:** All right and Miss Jensen you said this would go in front of City Council on July 1 correct? **Miss Jensen:** July 1. **Chair:** All right well thank you Mr. Kwatt and best of luck on your project. [22:46] **Chair:** Agenda item number 5B is the Sundance Lakeville. This is to consider the application of Mark Davis Davis HRE for the preliminary and final plot of two lots and two out lots to be known as Sundance Lakeville located north of 162nd Street West of Buck Hill Road and East of Kendale drive and here to give a brief overview is Mark Davis. [23:20] **Mark Davis:** Madam chair and members. My name is Mark Davis my address is 33 South 6 Street suite 4650 Minneapolis Minnesota. We're excited to be here tonight. We have another project as you know we finished our project with Allina and got them relocated into the community and the building has turned out wonderfully and for those that could attend our open house we're excited for the building that we've brought to the community and we're looking forward to do another building here. We've got a small building planned. Two potential buildings one that we're asking for approval tonight in an overall site plan. Midwest ENT is one of our long-term clients and they're looking forward to move into the community and bring their practice to Lakeville and so that's really the tenant for the the new development. We've laid it out we'll have similar Class A materials as we've done on the first building that we developed in the community and we look forward to bringing a great project to the city again thank you. [24:42] **Chair:** Thank you. [24:44] **Mr. Dempsey:** The request this evening is for a preliminary plat of two commercial lots and two out Lots on on three acres the total plat area is 18.75 Acres. And it's located at the northwest corner of Buck Hill Road in 162nd Street which is also County Road 46. This is an aerial photo of the 18 acre property. The south portion of the property where these two buildings are located it will be where the proposed medical two medical buildings to be located on two lots. To the north is the city of Burnsville single family homes to the north. To the West are single family homes part of the Strein Edition and vacant undeveloped property here immediately to the West adjacent to County Road 46. To the South is Bolero McDonald's office building Etc single family homes. To the east is Interstate 35. So the property is mix of zoning. The area that is proposed for these Office Buildings is Zone C3 General commercial. Commercial has been the zoning of the property since about the year 2000 and that was rezoned at a time when the intersection was recently developed and it was determined that a higher use land use in that area than single family residential was was optimal given the proximity the interstate and the intersection. The comprehensive plan was amended by the city council and also the rezoning for a conceptual layout for Town Homes to be located on the 18.75 acre property and also the commercial property to the South that is being proposed so it's a mix of different land uses. The the property was rezoned to M1 which is a mixed use I35 Corridor District use where the idea is to allow increased density residential and Commercial along the Interstate 35 Corridor. The medical office then of course is being proposed this evening as a first phase of the development and soon I think you should expect that the residential portion will come in for preliminary plat sometime in the near future. As part of the rezoning and the comments received during that process with the public there was a traffic study that was completed at the request of the city and that was in the findings of that were included in the planning report and we can discuss that if there's any interest in that. There is for this 18 acre parcel there is a this particular property drains into the Crystal Lake sanitary lift station which is located adjacent to Crystal Lake and the city of Burnsville and the City of Lakeville had have had at a shared Power agreement for using that lift station since the 1970s. Development between Burnsville and Lakeville is increased to the point where additional capacity is needed and the the city has contracted for the construction of a rerouting of the city's sewer system to drain into a different drainage area away from that lift station and that was at the request of the city of of Burnsville after they did a study finding that it was approaching capacity. So this 18 acre development will ultimately have to drain into that other area. The lift stations is expected to be completed in Spring of 2025 so if this project were to move forward we would allow construction and temporary connection to for one of the buildings to the existing sewer system until such time that the rerouting can be completed by Spring in the city of Burnsville is an agreement with that is a temporary measure. The zoning of the property this is the zoning map I'm sorry it's kind of clipped off in the top here but this outline in in the white here is this the general location know where these buildings will be located the rest of the property on this map is zone now M1 and not C3 but you can see the surrounding zoning is single family homes. This is the building one of the buildings that is proposed from from the the Buck Hill access and also the private drive that will lead to another building on the west side of of the property. The site layout shows the construction of two buildings. This is the lot line which will subdivide the property there'll be a shared parking Arrangement and both of these properties on their own comply with parking requirements but they will have shared parking shared access because this of course will be an invisible line of development. The developer of this project would extend the private Drive connecting Buck Hill Road to this location and the developer of the residential area if that was to move forward that would construct the private drive out to Kendall Drive which would allow public Drive access from Kendall to get to Buck Hill Road without turning left on Kendall Drive. This is an area sight plan this is what's being proposed this evening. This lot with a preliminary plat this area here would be an out lot for future development of the residential. There's a sliver of outlot that is part of this property here is outlot A which will likely ultimately be right of way for when this property this property this property are developed. This connects up to Dupont Avenue which goes towards Burnsville to the North, County Road 46 on the south. This is a blown up site plan it shows all the parking it shows parking and stalls that are striped and comply with Dimension requirements the number of required handicap assessible stalls are provided. This shows the grading plan for the site. The purpose of this is to show where the drainage basin is going to be located this will be temporary until such time that the residential portion develops and they will incorporate an overall drainage plan that we will discuss at that time that the residential portion is proposed. This is the landscape plan of the site the lighting plan I know this is hard to read but the intention is to show that it does meet the light intensity maximums at the property line and this is an image of what the lighting would look like which is common for a commercial property in the city. The city as I mentioned had requested a traffic study to give an idea of what the traffic impact would be. Comments that were raised by the public what what was included was this commercial area and also the potential layout that was conceptually approved for the residential area and also taking into account existing traffic movements through through Kendall and that area in Buck Hill Road now and the findings concluded that currently the streets are operating at a service level A which is a high function meaning there's not significant issues regarding traffic congestion backup Etc. The commercial development portion of this would result in approximately 2600 average daily trips to and from vast majority of those would be from Buck Hill Road from Interstate 35 County Road 5 County Road 46. And then I just wanted to comment that if the Public's interest did that traffic study is made available and have a chance to see that before the residential portion comes through in the future. The Dakota County plaque commission has an ordinance that requires that any plat that is adjacent to one of their County highways be reviewed for RightWay needs for access locations surrounding Street Network weighing and what is proposed making sure that what is proposed doesn't cause issues regarding functionality and safety of the County Road. The plat commission did review the plat and the site plan and determine that that there is no additional RightWay needed but they are recommending or they're going to recommend to the County Board that Kendall Avenue be converted to a what we call a three-quarter access meaning that if you're on Kendall you will not be able to make a left turn onto 162nd. That traffic would have to go through the the Private Drive of the development that's being proposed to Buck Hill Road to a safe signalized intersection where full turning movements can be made. Kendall will be allowed right turns out of the neighborhood right turns into the neighborhood from County Road 46 and left turns eastbound on 46 onto Kendall but no left turns out of Kendall on 46. So the Community Development staff and the planning report recommends 12 stipulations that are outlined in their report and they're all consistent with preliminary and final plat requirements. This is only a preliminary plat request at this point for the Planning Commission. Cross access easements will have to be provided for the public for the private Street what the developer has agreed to and I'll stand for any questions thank you. [35:36] **Chair:** All right this is a public hearing and I do see quite a few of you signed up on the list to speak. One thing that I would just ask is that we try to bring new topics forward we will keep note of them and try to address each one of them um for the interest of time so. And if I could just add Jack if you could pull up image two which is the aerial photo before I step away yes thank you thank you and then yeah full screen thank you. All right so those wishing to speak can come forward. [36:15] **Tara Wear:** Hello my name is Tara Wear and I've been living in the Strein Edition since 2006 and I am mostly here to talk about not being able to take go eastbound from Kendale Drive. Excuse me ma'am can you please provide your address for the record? Sure, 15939 Kendale Circle. Thank you. Several years ago this came up where they were going to block our ability to take a left out of our neighborhood and it was brought up that it was an emergency vehicle concern. I see now that it's going to be a 3/4's block or yeah a one-fourth block. So they the emergency vehicles will be able to take a left but then when they leave they won't be able to get to 35 without either going up through 158 or taking a right and then doing a u-turn on five which is what most people will probably do if this happens or I guess they would go through the private drive through the new subdivision which I'm not understanding why the city wouldn't require a dedicated road rway instead of a private drive there so we know that it's being plowed adequately and that kind of thing. And he brought up the traffic study. The traffic study says nothing about blocking the eastbound turning in fact it said it recommended no change to the existing traffic flow and so I found it odd that the plat commission all of a sudden based on not based on the traffic study is going to block our access. If you look on the traffic study page eight it says the use of the private roadway by others meaning us and the neighborhood to the north of us uses Dupont to come out on Kendall and get over to 35 and it says the use of the private roadway by others is negligible due to Limited Time Savings well they're obviously not contemplating that we're going to be blocked. In page 21 it says no geometric or traffic control improvements are required from an operation perspective and then page 24 they observed our traffic on one day in August 2023 and 432 cars turned left to go eastbound. So we're going to have at least that many cars plus all of the new residents in the new 176 town homes. So I would propose a new traffic study that contemplates the Restriction of us turning left onto um County Road 46 or considering a roundabout those are pretty popular in our city these days we're getting very Adept at using those um or just something to keep that open for us that need to access 35 to go to work every morning. And with that I just did want to give a shout out to you guys for Antlers park because it's awesome so you guys obviously know what you're doing so I trust that you'll do the right thing thank you. [39:46] **Chair:** Thank you. Anyone else wishing wishing to speak or is it all the concern with the eastbound turn? [40:11] **Chelsea W.:** Hello Madam chair and commission members my name is Chelsea W. and I live at 15956 Kendale Drive and our backyard backs up to the development in question. My concerns with this development is the volume of homes and the sheer increase in traffic. I know our prior speaker mentioned that but if you consider looking at the two medical buildings on average a doctor can see between 11 to 25 patients a day and each building would probably have about 10 to 20 doctors in it. So if you do the math that's between 110 to 500 patients which means 110 to 500 cars going through that private drive. That's not considering all of the homes up in Burnsville into the West on 158 and all of Kendale that also uses Kendale drive to exit onto 42 or 46 and Buck Hill Road. If you do the math in our neighborhood there's 50 homes in the cul-de-sacs and attached many streets of Kendale drive to the right of the buildings like there are 72 homes 72 homes in the upper right area of Burnsville on Bryant Avenue and Alpine Circle and 16 homes on the upper left area of Burnsville 158 in Fremont Avenue. That's not including the rest after Fremont Avenue. Adding all that up that's 138 homes homes with an average of two cars each that totals over 278 cars in that 1.5 mile radius. Now add that to the traffic that's going to come from this medical building and you got already over almost close to 200,000 or 200,000 cars. So what does that mean? I don't think we should be putting a private Drive especially one that exits onto Kendale Drive. You want over 2,000 cars using that private drive to go over to Buck Hill and 2,000 cars sitting there waiting to get to the stoplight and to exit that's it's not connecting in my brain. So a couple Solutions because I'm a solution oriented person is have a private road that goes to Medical buildings and don't even put a road to exit onto Kendale drive. That being said that you reduce that traffic coming off to Kendale to try to make a left or a right on to 46. The other solution is create a one-way where cars can go onto Kendale from the right and turn one way into the private drive into the new development and not even let cars come out onto Kendale Drive to turn. Then another suggestion is currently there is a driveway entrance on that plot of land right where the barn is. There's a driveway thing you can make a road there that's strictly just for the medical and then the developer could also take a road from The Buck Hill entrance that's closer to 46 and create an entrance on the back of it with all that extra land that's out there. But putting a passway through closing it off and redirecting 2,665 cars onto that Main Road in addition to all of the other houses that are above just does not make sense. Thank you. [43:56] **Amy Kenra:** Good evening Madam chair and fellow Commissioners my name is Amy Kenra I live at 11255 162nd Street West that's the vacant land over to the the west of Kendale and I also want to echo I don't want to waste time repeating but just want to Echo the concerns of the former two who spoke on Kendale Drive with the traffic from Burnsville with the traffic from the Strein area. That is the only way to leave the neighborhood and and exit and go east on County Road 46. So I wouldn't recommend blocking that off as there's really no other access points to get out of the neighborhood unless you take 158 to County Road 5 and swing around or make the right turn have to do a U-turn or now go through this private road into the Sundance area and with those residents there they're not going to be happy because it's already backed up on Kendale. I have seen from my house even going to the bus stop picking up my daughter car car car car no exaggeration 10 cars in 10 seconds already leaving the neighborhood without adding any additional homes. So if you were to add the Sundance area add the medical buildings make that private road the major Access Road it will be backed up Buck Hill will be backed up. I don't recommend it. I understand the need for development and I encourage that. I want us to you know see if there's a way that we can work together. With the medical buildings perhaps cutting off the access if any of you have ever traveled to that area you will see so many people on County Road 46 going west that go north onto Kendale they're always constantly turning right and then that the private road is right there as well so as soon as a car will turn you have your private road here you're going to have a lot of accidents a lot of accidents. You have a lot of people walking that are and we have a lot of active people in the neighborhood that are already very concerned for the safety of their families kids walkers bikers just because of the development there. So I just wanted to Echo what everyone had said and just you know if we could maybe put a pin in this or maybe do some additional thinking on this and wait that would be my recommendation and I appreciate your time thank you. [46:54] **Kathleen:** I just found out about this basically at 6 o'clock so I didn't sign was I supposed to sign in or something? What's your name and address? Kathleen [Inaudible], my address is 1317 158th Street so I am in Burnsville and I am on the road that essentially everybody will have to go on to get out of the neighborhood if they can't take a left on Kendale. I personally I've lived here for 32 years I have watched all the developments around me and the different changes and and to like where I am I'm only a few houses in from County Road five and I don't take a left to go to 35W I go through and go to Kendale because I can't get out in the morning because of the traffic and so I have to get go through and get on Kendale so I can take a left to get to 35. And so now you're going to add all you know I won't go through the numbers they did a great job you're add all these things but I thought a lot of the people who spoke are from that immediate neighborhood I'm in the Burnsville part I'm on 158th where everybody is now going to have to be directed and where I am we had to put in stop sign in years ago because people just zoom go down there's a little Hill I could hardly get out of my driveway because people were just going down. So we have a stop sign which not everybody follows they slow and they roll it's better than when I first lived there but it's still hard sometimes to even get out of my driveway and I can't imagine with all of these other cars and all these other people the accidents and we have kids. We have on the corner right on the corner of 158 in County Road 5 there is a young family with two children that I can't imagine already it's hard for them to have visitors park by where they are because of the way the streets are and then the traffic. So I know we're talking a lot about traffic but it like I said I think because I'm a Burnsville resident I really didn't know about this and yet it's going to affect me every single day. And so looking at some of those rerouting especially the medical building doesn't bother me quite as much because I know there's hours and end of the day evening when the kids are out you're not going to see all the traffic but 176 rental units it's going to change everything. And and they have some some solutions I don't because I didn't have time to think about it. So I just wanted to really voice my opinion and again 32 years in that neighborhood and already the traffic can be difficult so I just can't even imagine what it'll be like so thank you for your time thank you. [49:54] **Samuel Hos:** Good evening my name name is Samuel Hos I live at 15729 Bryant Avenue Court and just briefly I want to say that I I second all the concerns that my neighbors have brought up about the the traffic in the neighborhood thank you. [50:19] **Public Speaker:** Entrances into the Burnsville area neighborhood you come off on 158th Street come off of 155th and you can come up through Kendell Dupont we can't get out of our neighborhood any other way we can't access it we can't leave those are the only three places for us to go in and out so again that's a concern of mine and I think about somebody mentioned safety emergency vehicles this and that but if something gets bogged down it's not like we can back up and go down and go to Buck Hill Road there's no there's no other way out it's just those three so thank you. [51:14] **Matt Lyson:** Madam chair and Commissioners thank you for giving me this time. I can't say what they've said any more eloquently so I will not reiterate any of that. Sorry can you state your name and your address for the? Matt Lyson I'm at 16031 Canard Court Lakeville I live right next to what really isn't a vacant lot on the other side right adjacent to it. I guess I would just like to say you know I agree with everything that's been said here traffic is going to be atrocious in the future if this happens and if it does happen though I want to make sure we've talked about this in the meeting before here that the hearing that there is a sidewalk that goes in on Kendale Drive because it's already a dangerous walk there and it will be almost suicidal to walk along that Kendale Drive if this gets put in. So I would like to hear about a commitment that a sidewalk would be put in on that road so there's good passage to get to other areas in there around there thank you. [52:33] **Seth Thomas:** My name is Seth Thomas I live at 15829 Dupont Avenue so right on the corner of Kendale and Dupont so I get I get all the traffic that comes in on Kendale that goes to Burnsville on my corner. I just wanted to Echo everyone else's traffic concerns even with a couple extra hundred cars in the neighborhood is going to be really wild in there got thanks for your time thank you. [53:02] **Amy Bell:** Hi my name is Amy Bell I'm not smooth at this at all I've never done it before so excuse me I live at 15902 Kendale Drive. So if you look at your map I don't know if you all have access to your map you you see where you come around the curve on Kendale that curve is already as it stands today kind of a visual issue because people come down out of the Burnsville section down Dupont and they or back in the neighborhood and they come kind of quickly and whip around that corner because they got to get to where they're going and coming down that way. And having the additional traffic also coming down that way will be an definitely an issue. I would say that I don't personally have an issue with any of the medical building any of that that being there if the access to that and to all of the other proposed housing would come off of Buck Hill Road and not come off of Kendale Drive. I can see where obviously is logical for the cul-de-sac that's proposed that that just small portion would come out on Kendale Drive. That would not be an issue and I do oppose the fact that they would not allow a left to go out of there then to the freeway because that's basically that's why people live there they want that quick access to the freeway that's why the vast majority of people move there and to kind of cut that off and to have an additional agant to those drivers that have to be rerouted that's not going to be a good scenario either so that's my comment thank you thank you. [55:21] **Commissioner:** Madam chair yes I motion to close the public hearing. **Commissioner:** Second. [55:25] **Chair:** I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing all those in favor please signify by saying I. **Commissioners:** I. **Chair:** All opposed? [Silence] All right the public hearing is now closed. Mr. Dempsey um would could you I guess speak more in regards to the traffic study not taking into account or if it did take into account kind of the change in turning on Kendall that's my understanding and and I can be corrected by our engineering representative. [56:18] **Mr. Dempsey:** My understanding is that the traffic study was completed in May of this year took into account the recommendation that the plaque commission is proposing to the County Board to have restricted access to Kendall. I I do see the concern it does really kind of limit the ability to get out. Yeah I should pain a broader picture here is that when the comprehensive plan public hearing was held these very same comments were brought up by the neighbors regarding traffic traffic impact from the development of this 18 acre parcel and going back further I was the fortunate staff person that wrote the planning report for the Strein Edition that's to the west and we were faced with a condition where Burnsville city of Burnsville built that area to the north I believe in maybe in the in the 70s I used to have a friend that lived on 158 back in the 80s so I'm thinking the neighborhood would be back longer than that but there was a a stub street that was constructed here with the intention of providing access out of that neighborhood which is Dupont Avenue. And so there there could not be access to County Road 5 to the West that's why there's a cul-de-sac and what I say could not that means that there's a regulation set by Dakota County and how many Street accesses there can be on their County Roads and so their the the design was to include an access at this location it's right-in right-out and that's a certain distance from County root five that that would be allowed. There's also an access that was across from the commercial area when the bowling alley and Etc was constructed this was constructed as a restricted access with a left-in turn so this was already laid out as planed when this development was to come through. There has to be a way to handle either 18 Acres of strictly commercial or 18 Acres of a mix of commercial and a residential. This land was going to be developed of in some sort and so how is the traffic handled? The idea for this is that if the county moves forward with restricting this access is that these people that are coming from the north neighbors coming from the north would have a a what would look exactly like a a city street. It would have City easement over the street it would have plowing responsibilities maintenance responsibilities Etc from the developer to maintain that and it would provide Street access to this location on Buck Hill Road to get to a signalized intersection. So daily out of town Northbound southbound 35 traffic will come like this to a signalized intersection make safe left turns coming in they'll be able to go this way this way or this way coming back into this area. So the traffic study took all those factors into account and determined that the layout that is proposed functions as a as it should with the network that's in place it's it's as safe as it's going to be. We're not going to restrict turning movements into this area it has to have in other words restricting residential development from having access to Kindle this development has to have more than one access and that's also a policy to the city that all subdivisions have more than one access. So that's kind of a little bit bit the the background and why this has proceeded to the point that it has in terms of recommendation for Street design and and subdivision layout with that private road. [1:00:19] **Chair:** Okay one I just did want to point out the one thing that you said because that was something that came up with it being a private drive but you were saying like that it will be plowed just like any other city street that was a concern? [1:00:24] **Mr. Dempsey:** Correct it will have the width of a regular City street it have curb and gutter look and operate as a city street but it will be a private Drive between those two properties. I should add another if I could just add a similar one to that is in Heritage Commons up here where Cub Foods is you can go North to that to that neighborhood to the North and South to County Road 50 202nd Street by using that private road so that kind of arrangement Is Not Unusual in the city that's a good call out thank you. [1:01:15] **Chair:** Um I'm just kind of going through my list of the other things I wrote down so County Road 46 162nd is is a County Road and so one of the suggestions was to have a another exit South on that. I'm guessing the it would be too close to both Buck Hill Road and Kendell Drive in the county probably would not allow that correct? [1:01:35] **Mr. Dempsey:** That's correct given the classification of this road and the the expectation of increased daily traffic that but having a signal here and a street here and a drive private driveway here is highly unlikely the county has moved away from that many years ago and so having a separate access to the commercial area this not something that they would approve. I if I could I'm sorry yeah I mean just from other projects that we've dealt with you know I kind of get the feeling that the county is trying to reduce the number of accesses onto the those County Roads and that's probably I'm guessing that's why they're suggesting this restricted turnout. That's correct. There are concerns about increasing amount of traffic and close intersections and having full access people particularly the most dangerous one is people making left turns across two lanes of traffic and as traffic increases you lose your visibility and that's why the county is starting to pull back on that. The driveway location for the private Drive is set back in compliance with with setback requirements for a Road access to a a street of this this size and it's likely to have a turn lane going into that also. Kendall Drive will have um public sidewalk on both sides of the street first one the residential portion would be developed and then if this property here was developed in the future there'd be a sidewalk in both sides of the street potentially up well to one of these locations here. I do realize that there's no sidewalk in this location that's something we're looking at it's not determine whether or not that will go forward but in case anybody's wondering where the sidewalk would go that's something we're looking at. [1:03:27] **Commissioner Zuzek:** Yes Madam chair Mr. Dempsey would there be a shared maintenance agreement for that road going in there then that private road there? [1:03:38] **Mr. Dempsey:** There will be an a maintenance agreement. Whether the city has would actually plow the street is not determined at this point but the the property owner would be responsible at a minimum for keeping that clear just similar to the one that we have in on Heritage common. Yeah I'll make a note here to find a an answer to whether there will be cooperation and shared resources on that I do think that's a little bit of a concern if that's going to be a a main way out for safety purposes for that neighborhood I I think having a maintenance agreement is going to be imperative there. [1:04:16] **Commissioner Zuzek:** Thank you. [1:04:18] **Commissioner:** Madam chair Mr Dempsey um with respect to the the study and Concepts like level of service and trip generation the conclusions drawn there is that assuming that most the people who now take a left on Highway 46 would take that private drive and take a right turn on on Buck Hill Road and then take that traffic light control left? [1:04:45] **Mr. Dempsey:** Yes commissioner that is taken into account is that if that access is closed and that it's going to be dispersed into other locations in this case it would be at Buck Hill Road to the signalized intersection correct. [1:05:05] **Commissioner Chini:** Question Madam chair. As we've discussed I think I'm hearing a lot of concerns from the neighbors rightly so around safety particularly on Kendale but particular or potentially on the future private roadway. Have other traffic calming measures been evaluated? Not beyond just a sidewalk addition but narrowing of roadway widths, trees things like that that typically slow drivers down, safe pedestrian Crossings? I think on the private roadway I know that we're only evaluating today the plat application for the medical buildings but knowing that there is a potential for 167 units ways that we can you know encourage safe roadway designs. I think about I think the the neighbors have described traffic patterns today from their existing neighbors right on Kendale and so I I'm I am concerned also concerned that it could be exacerbated but typically when you have slower traffic speeds right You mitigate some of those concerns are the things that we've explored Beyond just a sidewalk on Kendale to help with that? [1:06:17] **Mr. Dempsey:** Commissioner Chini the city does not have a policy of traffic calming design in its roadways that's something that would have to be directed by the city council if we were to initiate that. I do understand what the some of those are. I can point out that a public Street would likely be a wider Street than what is proposed as this private Drive typically be about a 40 foot because of the commercial location. So it is a slightly narrower and the idea with that is that it would also provide that narrow feeling but a normal residential public street and there will be no direct access onto that and multiple direct access from the future development to the north it be restricted to a location or two. There will be some access onto it but there will not be individual driveways accessing that property correct. There's one I believe there's one access from the commercial area at this point of the development which is what we're considering at the moment. [1:07:37] **Commissioner Chini:** Madam chair Mr Dempsey would you mind um talking again about the sidewalk I didn't write down like what the process is and what what the when the neighbors could expect to see that? [1:07:46] **Mr. Dempsey:** Yes when this property here to the north portion develops there'll be a sidewalk that'll be constructed down to County Road 46 that's required for any commercial rain I should say um collector Street and I'm sure. [1:08:14] **Commissioner Chini:** And because that private Drive is would not be fully connecting to Kendale yet that's why it wouldn't be constructed? [1:08:19] **Mr. Dempsey:** Yes the the development is proposed to to construct only this portion of the private drive up to this location if and when the portion up here is ever developed then it would be extended out to Kendall at that time and this sidewalk would be with that okay thank you. [1:08:34] **Chair:** Yeah and just for clarification because I think you've said it just so I understand nothing would change in terms of how you can turn out of Kendale until that private drive would be completed and the development of the Town hubs? [1:08:52] **Mr. Dempsey:** Yes this street will not be constructed until that time and the restricted access would have to be constructed with this larger development not with this phase of the commercial portion thank you. [1:09:05] **Commissioner:** Madam chair Mr Dempsey the Kendale itself is built as a collector correct so it's a little bit wider than most streets? [1:09:14] **Mr. Dempsey:** Yeah I believe it's a minor collector street because that provides access to the north to another neighborhood that's correct it's not a local Street and that's why it's wider than it normally would be. And so when when also when this develop this portion of the road is right now a rural section meaning it's doesn't have curb and gutter it's a ditch drainage system in here that would be a curb and gutter Street improvement with that future development. [1:09:54] **Chair:** Any additional comments or questions fellow Commissioners? Um Madam chair I I have a question unrelated to the roads for Mr. Davis if if we've completed our discussion of of the road. [1:10:18] **Commissioner:** Okay. Mr. Davis the medical buildings you have Midwest ENT and that's one of the buildings the other one has there been a tenant interest market assessment as to the likelihood of finding a tenant for that second building? [1:10:35] **Mark Davis:** We've had a lot of interest and we actually have a lot of people that are interested in moving to Lakeville as a community. We've got we only do Healthcare real estate and we've got four or five respective groups for that. Some are for the whole building some are for half of the building that we have two of Our Own Private clients that are interested in that building. So we're hoping to follow that along quickly but all great services. OBGYN is one of the services that has interest in that I is another one that has interest in the building and so we expect that that'll follow fairly shortly thank you thank you. [1:11:18] **Chair:** So much additional comments. [1:11:43] **Commissioner Zuzek:** Madam chair before we have a motion to set quick question for Mr. Dempsey with commissioner Zuzek's suggestions is it 12 stipulations or or 13 the addition of the maintenance agreement? [1:11:54] **Mr. Dempsey:** That yeah yes there's 12 stipulations in the report and if if you so decide to include the information on the maintenance agreement as a stipulation I could certainly add that. [1:12:04] **Commissioner Kusa:** Okay Madam chair I strongly agree with commissioner Zuzek and would support that additional stipulation. [1:12:12] **Chair:** Agreed. [1:12:14] **Commissioner Zuzek:** Madam chair yes uh motion to recommend approval of the Sundance Lakeville preliminary and final plant subject to the 13 stipulations listed in the June 14 2024 planning report as amended. **Commissioner:** Second. [1:12:35] **Chair:** I have a motion in a second Miss Morrow will you please take a roll call vote. **Miss Morrow:** Zuzek? **Commissioner Zuzek:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Kusa? **Commissioner Kusa:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Tinsley-Morovic? **Commissioner Tinsley-Morovic:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Travis? **Commissioner Travis:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Chini? **Commissioner Chini:** Aye. [1:12:56] **Chair:** All right and Miss Jensen when will this go in front of city council? **Miss Jensen:** It would be planned for July 1st. **Chair:** All right well thank you Mr. Davis um I do have experience with Midwest ENT and they are a great organization I really do appreciate the services that they provide and best of luck on this project. All right and with that this meeting is adjourned.