This transcript appears to be from a **Lakeville Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the names mentioned in the dialogue and the official roll call, I have identified the speakers (Commissioners, City Staff, and the Applicant). **Note on Speaker Names:** * **Chair Swanson:** The presiding officer. * **Miss Morrow:** Kris Morrow (Administrative Assistant/City Clerk staff). * **Miss Jensen:** Stacy Jensen (Planning Staff). * **Frank Dempsey:** Senior Planner (identified as "Frank" and "Mr. Dempsey"). * **Michael Waldo:** The applicant (Ron Clark Construction). * **Commissioners:** Zimmer, Aink, Cla (Kza), etc. *** [0:59] **Chair Swanson**: I order the 2024 Planning Commission meeting; please join me in the flag [salute]. [1:26] **Chair Swanson**: Miss Morrow, will you please call a roll of members? [1:28] **Miss Morrow**: Kza? **Commissioner Cla**: Here. **Miss Morrow**: Hensley? **Commissioner Hinley**: Here. **Miss Morrow**: Marovic? **Commissioner Morovic**: Here. **Miss Morrow**: Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer**: Here. **Miss Morrow**: Aink? **Commissioner Aink**: Here. **Miss Morrow**: Swanson? **Chair Swanson**: Here. [1:40] **Chair Swanson**: All right, agenda item number three: approval of the May 9th, 2024 Planning Commission meeting minutes and the May 9th, 2024 Planning Commission work session minutes. Fellow Commissioners, any changes? [None]. They will stand. Miss Jensen, are there any announcements tonight? [1:55] **Miss Jensen**: Good evening, Commissioners. Before you, we do have handouts from the June 5th, 2024 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Committee meeting motions regarding the Kenyon Green preliminary plat. And then our only announcement is that the first Planning Commission meeting in July will be canceled due to the Independence Day holiday. [2:12] **Chair Swanson**: All right, thank you. And agenda item number five: this is a public hearing for Kenyon Green rezoning and preliminary plat. And this is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to speak can please sign up in the back. And it looks like we have Michael Waldo that will present a brief overview of the project. [3:01] **Michael Waldo**: With Ron Clark Construction; we will be the developer and the builder and the owner of the project. Mike Sten with Toui Architects is here too as architect, in case we have any questions for him. What we're proposing is a 49-unit apartment and 15 townhomes. The site on Kenyon Avenue, as you know, has been there for a long period of time. The original piece of property actually connected across 35, and I believe part of where Target and some of the things are was part of their original farm—actually, one of the owners is here tonight. So that project has been here for a long time. I think Frank's going to help me with the [slide] side. No problem. [3:48] **Michael Waldo**: So I think one of the keys for the conversation tonight: we've been working back and forth with staff for about six months, trying to get to a point where we feel both staff and us feel really good about the project. We think it's a great use for the site. With the OR zoning, it does allow for the office residential. As we know right now, unfortunately, office is... it could be many years before we see an office building actually rebuilt again for most uses. So I think the residential does fit very well in it. It's very similar, if any of you know of Lakeville Point over kind of behind Culver's—that's a very similar 49-unit apartment that we built about six years ago. [4:33] **Michael Waldo**: And I don't know if anyone's still on the Planning Commission—a couple people look familiar. So that is very similar. In this case, as you can see, it's a little bit bigger parcel, and so one of the things we're looking at as part of that is trying to balance out a little bit of mixed density in going with the apartment and the townhomes, which we feel fits well together. We're currently planning for those to be rental, but again, we still plat them as individual lots. So depending upon the market, by the time a year from now or two years from now comes when we get those finished, we'll make that decision at that time. But they're all individual parcels; they're all set up to be for sale if they want to be. It's always best long-term to give a project the most flexibility than having it be locked into something. [5:19] **Michael Waldo**: I think one of the big keys if we look at the site is just the constraints. We've got Kenyon Avenue to the north, which is, I think, a minor collector; we've got the freeway to the east, and then 185th to the south, and a wetland down in the corner. So over time, you can see that between the City and the State and others, we've lost 20% of the site probably to rights-of-way. And then we've got very extensive 50-foot buffers on almost every direction because of the roads that are there. And so most of what our asks are for is to kind of bring those a little bit back more in line to what it would be if it wasn't maybe adjacent to something would be considered a higher-use road. [6:06] **Michael Waldo**: Along Kenyon, we're adding a fence and some additional buffer plantings to make up for that slight loss of buffer of the actual setback. The same thing if you look at this corner here—I don't know if you can actually see my mouse or not—I'm getting there. So this little tiny corner of the building here is less than the 50-foot setback that's required from the freeway side. But if you look, we're almost 400 feet from the drive lane and over 200 feet away from the actual exit ramp. So even though we're taking 10 feet out of that just for a very short period, it's really still double the distance away than if you go any further north in here where your setback is normally 150 feet from the drive lane. [6:51] **Michael Waldo**: So we think we're kind of asking for something that's really more substance over form and trying to get to that point. It does—and again, with the trees and the pond and everything else—we are farther from the freeway than most developments would be along here. And then to the 185th side, we're about anywhere from 7 to 10, I think, feet less. And if you kind of drive down there, you can see that we've got a substantial amount of trees kind of right at the back of that sidewalk that's there. Most of those we can maintain along with adding some additional buffering any place that they do have to remove because I think we have to stub in a couple utilities there. So there will be a few areas where we will have to take trees. [7:37] **Michael Waldo**: One of the other pieces along that back, and the reason that we're asking for the height variance, is because of the water. It isn't this part of the wetlands on the property—wetlands on the property are down here and our building is up here, six feet higher—but there's wetlands across 185th that have actually caused there to be some perched water in these areas. So in our final work with engineering, we've gone out and set piezometers to confirm what the actual groundwater maximum is. And so that ended up getting up to about a 1.5 [elevation]. That was about where we planned to put our basement of our building, and with staff and the ordinance, we need to be 3 feet above that. So we're going to end up having to raise that up, but we don't want to have to fill more in the backyard to kind of lose some of that buffer trees, which is why we're asking for that three-foot variance on the height restriction from that side. So kind of, that's the contemplation of how we're getting from there to there. [8:24] **Michael Waldo**: I think one of the other things too—and I think as far as the Planning Commission, you're probably starting to see a few more of these. Fortunately, I see a lot of them. Lakeville has been so used to being a greenfield developer, meaning that everything is okay, we've got 50 acres, let's go in here, we've got zoning, let's get it done. Now we're getting residual pieces that are kind of left over from other things. And now we're kind of saying, "Okay, maybe that exact zoning doesn't quite fit," even though we're very close. And that's where, when we started to work through it with staff, they're like, "Why don't we look at doing a PUD?" I know they don't do a lot of PUDs in Lakeville, but in this case, she felt that it helped deal with the constraints of the site but also gives the City the most control. [9:10] **Michael Waldo**: One of the advantages to a PUD is normally the City gets more control because every single thing is at your discretion. You can say, "You know, that's okay" because there's a justifiable reason for it, or you say, "Nope, I don't like it." Under the PUD, you have complete control, and you have control in the future because once that's set, that is the code, the zoning for this site. They can't come back later and change it without getting a PUD amendment. So there are... I always say that the developer usually is the one that takes it a little more in the shorts when you do a PUD because you kind of get asked for more along the way. And here, we're doing a combination of things to kind of offset that, but we think that the flexibility is really driven by that infill piece of property, which is something unique in a lot of areas of Lakeville right now. You'll see a lot more of these, I think, over the next few years. [10:02] **Michael Waldo**: The constraints we talked about a little bit. So I think just talking through some of the reasons of how everything got built: one of the big things when you're dealing with connection roads to Kenyon, even though it feels like you're driving through the woods, it actually has got enough traffic on it that when we're looking at sightlines... sorry, what did I do there? There we go. This is really the only good place for the access road. Currently, the driveway is farther over here to the left, but it's over here. And so in working with engineers, we want to have the maximum distance we can see each direction, so that area there fits the spot. So it kind of divides the two sections with that access point. [10:49] **Michael Waldo**: Kind of talked about the setback things and the differences we're doing along 185th in the townhomes. Again, because of that constraint of kind of making that work, we've got fences and buffer plantings to kind of make up for that little bit of setback that we've lost. We think that's going to give the residents at least as much privacy and livability as what you would have with the extra buffer, and so it's very similar to what we've done on other projects. Talked about Highway 35, talked about that watershed. We did go through and got a delineation done—actually, the delineation was done about three years ago. We went back and did a re-delineation this spring. Went through with the Watershed, got full Watershed approval for a small amount of wetland finger—it was like an old drainage ditch that kind of came up into the property. And so that actually, we're filling that and taking wetland bank for about 6,000 square feet. I think it's very small, a little sliver, but that's been approved by the Watershed and the City. [11:34] **Michael Waldo**: The other thing, and I know that part of this always comes is, you know, with some of the variances we're asking for and some of the compaction of the site. Part of it is again, with an OR zoning, this would normally be allowed for about 70 to 75 units on this site based on what the normal OR zoning would allow. Here we're doing 64. And we're also... but we can't afford to just do like an apartment or just do townhomes because with the value of a site being Office Residential, it's not like you can just go buy a vacant lot somewhere that doesn't have kind of that zoning classification. In order to make the apartment work, we've added in the 15 townhomes, which we think is a good thing for the City to have the mixed density. It makes the project work, which otherwise financially doesn't work, especially with some of the cost of the wetlands and the extra roads because of the drainage stuff that we're doing. So I know it's always a gray area, but that is kind of what needs to happen in order to make this project work. I think I've kind of hit everything else. I know that Frank will go into more detail on this and of course I'll be available for questions either now or at any point that you feel. So, thank you. [13:05] **Chair Swanson**: Thank you. Good evening, [Frank]. [13:51] **Frank Dempsey**: Good evening, Plan Commissioners. Trying to get this back on the large screen. I can't see exactly where to do that—maybe Cory you have it... there we go. Thank you. The man behind the curtain always comes to my rescue. So, Ron Clark Construction is proposing this development. It's a mixed-use of the property and, let me just back up again to the beginning, it's a mixed-use of high density and medium density, meaning townhomes and apartments. [14:37] **Frank Dempsey**: The request then this evening is for the rezoning from OR to Planned Unit Development (PUD). There's also a preliminary plat that is proposed for these lots that consists of 17 residential lots, which one includes the apartment building, and then the PUD stage plan for the townhomes and apartments was essentially the site plan. The property is about 6 and a half acres and it's located here at the northwest corner of Interstate 35 and County Road 46—both minor arterials and principal arterial roadways. A little background on this vicinity of Lakeville: Kenyon Avenue used to come straight down into what is now the off-ramp for the freeway and ran down parallel to the freeway here. I think it was in 2011, or maybe before that, 2005—I forget what the date is—but MnDOT expanded the off-ramp for I-35 into this area and that closed off Kenyon Avenue. [15:23] **Frank Dempsey**: Kenyon Avenue that came down into this property, as such, it created... there's a wetland to the north, so it created kind of a pinch on the property here to avoid the wetland and then made the intersection here further west at 185th Street. And so that resulted in the shape of this parcel. There's a wetland complex that's right in this location here that was mentioned. The property is zoned OR (Office Residential Transition District) which allows offices, very limited retail, or it also allows high-density apartments as a use in the OR district. The property has been on the market for many years. I can't speak for the others in the department, but I frequently get phone calls on this property, and in the last five or six years, it's always been a question of high density. Some developers were requesting much higher density than what was allowed since the City updated its last Comprehensive Plan and allowed pockets of higher density near high-density road corridors within transit districts, etc., and that never applied to this property. [17:02] **Frank Dempsey**: This proposal came in from Ron Clark Construction. It also introduced kind of a mix of townhomes as well within that area. This is the preliminary plat. This is the one lot that the apartment building would be located on. These are the townhome lots. The Kenyon Avenue right-of-way again comes to this point here. This is the wetland; there's a lobe of the wetland that comes right up into this vicinity here, and that is the one that's going to be impacted but purchased with wetland credits, and this will remain untouched and deeded to the City as a separate outlot. [17:49] **Frank Dempsey**: This is the site plan. You've become familiar with it; it shows various setback lines for the development of what the 30-foot setback is, what the 50-foot setback requirement is. It shows the wetland buffer area and what the setback would be to that. It also shows the location of the apartment building adjacent to 185th Street and the 50-foot setback requirement. It also shows the 30-foot... so this would be the area that would be impacted by the request for the deviation from the 50-foot buffer yard setback and then also in this corner of the apartment building here. As was mentioned, the apartment building provides 123 parking spaces—a combination of underground and above-ground. That's one more parking space than what is required. The townhomes provide the required parking spaces plus one half-space per dwelling unit as guest parking. [18:34] **Frank Dempsey**: This is the overall site plan for the site. It's the same one, just a little bit more detail but it's the same as the colored one. This one is an exhibit I put together; it's intended to show, again, highlight where the impact areas are for deviation to the request for the setback requirement. In this area, it's 50 feet because Kenyon Avenue is a major collector roadway, so residential rear yards are required to be 50-foot setback. There are instances in the City where we've granted variances or exceptions to setback requirements. Some of the things that we look at are the type of roadway it is, the anticipated traffic, noise mitigation, landscape screening that would be in place. [20:07] **Frank Dempsey**: The other request is for a 25-foot setback requirement from the front of the garage to the private drive. That is a requirement of 30 feet in that zoning district for townhomes. I should remind the Planning Commission or explain a bit about the parking. We typically had a 30-foot setback to provide extra space and maybe another vehicle in tandem behind a parked vehicle in the driveway, but a standard parking stall is 20 feet and the 25-foot setback still provides 2 feet from the garage and 3 feet from the curb, and there is no sidewalk along the private road here. Staff's opinion is the 5-foot deviation is acceptable for that. [20:52] **Frank Dempsey**: After getting a bit more information from the architect on this project, we know there were some areas that were marked for setbacks of less than 15 feet to the private drive and into the guest parking area. The measurements that were provided were actually from the stairway of the building, not really the living unit, so the guest parking does meet those minimum setback requirements. That's no longer under consideration. The guest parking in this area here does not meet the 30-foot perimeter setback for the development; however, it's a wetland complex behind it. The wetland buffer is not impacted. There will be landscape screening along these areas to the west. Again, to the west is the wetland and then further west is the office complex. [21:43] **Frank Dempsey**: The Planned Unit Developments—just to remind the Planning Commission how these are administered and the purpose: they're established to allow creative development designed as long as the land use complies with a Comprehensive Plan, which this does. It allows mixed uses, which this is proposing; provides variations from strict applications to improve site design. Again, the proposal here is to achieve some of the attainable housing goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan and other documents; preserving and enhancing natural features and open spaces (that's being done with the acquisition of the wetland buffer areas); and ensure appropriate transitions between different land uses. I should point out that directly to the north is a large wetland complex and also an apartment building to the north. So there are no immediate adjacent residential uses other than that. [22:29] **Frank Dempsey**: This is the landscape plan. The dark area here which, you know, could have been in green obviously, but the dark area represents all the green space on the property. You can see there's areas here that staff is recommending be increased landscape screening, also along the buffer yard. It does require a staggered row of evergreens and/or a combination of landscaping and a fence. I think that's appropriate in this area, especially under consideration for a reduced setback to that area. [23:14] **Frank Dempsey**: This is an example of the building. It's the east elevation. To the lower level here, this is what would face the interstate with this corner of the building being impacted by the setback deviation. This would be the south elevation facing 185th Street; the north and west elevations. As was mentioned, this is a 42-foot tall building. In order to achieve the grades needed to allow for the proper drainage of the site, the developer is requesting an increase of grade elevation to an additional 3 feet, which would result in a building height of 45 feet. I should point out that this is a rather flat site; even from 185th Street, it's not an elevated site. So staff's position is that the 3 feet in deviation is not going to be really noticeable for a building of this size between 42 and 45 feet. [24:01] **Frank Dempsey**: As far as the affordable housing is concerned, Envision Lakeville (the last update 2023, I think the first was 2011/2013 that we did the first Envision Lakeville), one of the goals is providing a home for all ages and stages of life. Planning Commission may be familiar with this term as we use it on our planning reports for presenting to the City Council about how certain goals are being met with certain developments. And one of the challenges identified in the community involvement with Envision Lakeville was workforce housing availability, which this development is attempting to provide. And one of the greatest challenges in the next 10 years was also affordable housing that was identified, and a strategic priority here is providing affordable workforce housing and providing some incentives. In this case, the City is not involved financially, so the incentive would be deviations from strict interpretation of the code. [25:32] **Frank Dempsey**: The Comprehensive Plan also has a goal—Housing Plan implementation—to promote opportunities to develop dwelling units between 2021 and 2030 that are accessible to households earning at or below 30% average median income (AMI), and 51 to 80% AMI in accordance with the regional affordable housing allocations, and that refers to Metropolitan Council's goals. There was a recent Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment that was completed in 2023. It describes Lakeville at that time—the overall vacancy rate is rather low at 3.3%. There have been apartment units constructed since that time, but at the time of the study, demand existed for about 400 affordable units and 160 subsidized rental units. Also, goals for more affordable housing up through 2030. [26:20] **Frank Dempsey**: The Community Development Agency (which we're familiar with as the Dakota County CDA), they have a long history in the City of Lakeville with developing workforce housing throughout the city, and they are not directly involved in the development of this project, but I believe that they work as a conduit for the tax incentives that the developer is working with. If you have questions about that, he can explain that to you, but that's the limit of the Dakota County CDA involvement. Also, finally, the Economic Development Commission goals include the development of affordable workforce housing to support Lakeville's growing economic market by targeting the affordable housing needs identified in a recent housing market study. [27:08] **Frank Dempsey**: I put this plan in because I want the Planning Commission to know—and you won't see this likely as it'll be done with the final plat—but this little knob of right-of-way is going to be vacated to trim this off. It is a part of where the parking lot and driveway come in, and it's unnecessary right-of-way. It's not a critical thing, but I want you to know that we'll be coming back. The developer did provide us with some other examples of similar buildings that the Planning Commission may be interested in. This is in Rosemount off County Road 46—this does provide a minimum 30-foot setback in this area adjacent to County Road 46. This one's in Inver Grove Heights—similar housing development. The one on the bottom is Lakeville off of Kenwood Trail, and to the north is in Savage; also in Prior Lake is one under construction; and then also in Carver. So there are other communities within the metropolitan area and our neighbors, basically, that are providing the housing needs identified in the comprehensive plans. [28:40] **Frank Dempsey**: We are recommending a stipulation to be included for the Planning Commission to consider: in the event (and Mr. Waldo brought this up) the townhome properties are sold as private properties, the Homeowners Association needs to be created with covenants and declarations, and that's required by state statute. So it's just something as a reminder that'll be documented in the development contract and also the PUD agreement. I will stand for any questions. I will leave the site plan up here for reference. Thank you. [29:29] **Chair Swanson**: Thank you. And this is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to speak on this agenda item can please come forward. [29:44] **Janet Leens**: Hi. My name is Janet Leens. I live at 18560 Norwood Circle. I want to say thank you for making me aware of this proposed development and for inviting me to this meeting. I'm not usually a public speaker, so excuse me if I'm not very good at this. I am really interested in just getting copies of the proposed development so I can understand it better, because I'm not a site planner type person and I just want to make sure that I understand what's going on. I would say that the only concern that I really have, as a resident who lives just south of the proposed development, is the potential height of the apartment building and if it would have any impact on my sightlines. I do live on a property that's about 10 and a half acres, so my house is set back... so there may not... and my property does go up before it goes back down to 185th Street. So maybe there won't be an impact to me, maybe there will be, but I would just like to understand and not be surprised after the development is done. Thank you. [31:11] **Chair Swanson**: Thank you. [31:13] **Frank Dempsey**: I could, just for reference, show the aerial photo in here where she was speaking. I think it would be this far back... sorry. I'm not sure why it's not going up. I make it worse when I try and help. I believe that Norwood Circle is down in this vicinity here, south of 185th Street. [31:58] **Janet Leens**: That's right. And my house is right... I mean, I basically live right here, adjacent to the pond. [32:05] **Frank Dempsey**: So, like right there. [32:08] **Janet Leens**: Thank you. [32:10] **Chair Swanson**: Anyone else wishing to speak on this agenda item? [32:16] **Commissioner**: I'd make a motion to close the public hearing. [32:18] **Commissioner**: Second. [32:19] **Chair Swanson**: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please signify by saying "Aye." **Commissioners**: Aye. **Chair Swanson**: All opposed? [None]. All right, the public hearing is now closed. Okay, so for the first question, the copies of the information are accessible online, right? Okay, so yeah, all of that information is accessible on the website. Staff would be able to help you find that if you're not able to find that. And then the second question about the height of the building—I didn't quite catch... you were concerned about the height of the building blocking your view, is that right? [33:04] **Janet Leens**: [From gallery] I just want to know if I'm going to be able to see the building from my house, if my sightline is impacted from my driveway, basically. [33:14] **Chair Swanson**: Okay, yeah. Thank you. Would we know that information based on the grading? [33:17] **Frank Dempsey**: Yes, Madam Chair. I can help with that information if she would like to call me and we can talk about that. We have topography information through all the properties in the county and can see exactly what the change in elevation would be from here to the building. [33:30] **Chair Swanson**: Yeah, okay, great. Thank you. All right, fellow Commissioners, any comments or questions? [33:40] **Commissioner Zimmer**: I have a couple questions, and I'm not sure if the transportation person is here or available, but as far as the I-35 alignment and changes or anything we're going to need to do in the future because we're kissing right up to the edge with this. So I just don't know if we're thinking ahead if that's going to be a problem. And I'm not sure if that's for Frank or whatever. [34:10] **Frank Dempsey**: Commissioner Zimmer, we did send the plans to MnDOT and we were well aware that sometime in the future there'll be a third lane added to I-35. We really did not receive any responses back in terms of the plan and the impact of any future plans with Interstate 35. However, I do remember—and we can verify this if needed—but that this off-ramp here was placed in anticipation of widening the interstate to allow that third lane construction without impacting additional property. [34:39] **Commissioner Zimmer**: Okay, thank you. [34:41] **Commissioner Cla**: I do [have questions], but I can let somebody else go. [34:43] **Chair Swanson**: Go ahead. [34:45] **Commissioner Cla**: Thank you. Um, and I'm... should I be asking the questions of the developer or you, [Frank]? Well, we'll see. There are so many variances requested and I'm concerned about that. We're doing a height variance, the setback variance in a couple places—and you did clarify the one on the parking setback. And I'm... I think Lakeville has always done some very high-quality developments, and I think people have a certain expectation of that when they move to Lakeville. So I just want to understand what we're doing here and making sure that we are producing something that's of good quality. And if the folks in the townhomes are right up along Kenyon Avenue and it's supposed to be 50 feet and we're going to 30 feet... I think I find that very concerning. [35:48] **Frank Dempsey**: Yeah, I can... I think I can answer those, and then why the units are designed the way they are, I would have Mr. Waldo respond to that. But they were presented to us as the number of units needed to make this project feasible. What City staff did was to come to, after some study and deliberation on what the site plan is proposed as, to what is considered reasonable. That's what the purpose of the PUDs are. If we're looking even at a variance (which we're not technically; we don't have the same criteria), but if we're looking from some deviation: what's the impact of that? Is it significant? Is it insignificant? We took the position that given the height of the building, the grade of the property, the 3-foot difference in the total height of the building—that it was not a significant change between 42 feet and 45 feet. [36:58] **Frank Dempsey**: The setbacks for the townhomes adjacent to Kenyon Avenue: there are residential lots that require the buffer because Kenyon Avenue is a major collector. The long-term of Kenyon Avenue is it's a very minor major collector. It's a major collector because it potentially is going to connect 172nd/County Road 5/35 intersection with 185th Street as it does now. The density in that area that travels that roadway is quite low, so that will never have a lot of traffic. So it's much like a residential backyard. If we can increase the density of landscaping in that area, that would protect the visual. There's not going to be a lot of traffic in terms of noise like you would see on 185th Street from the rear yards of these townhomes. So again, it's a question of acceptability, and that's really a judgment call that the City and everyone involved needs to make. [38:15] **Frank Dempsey**: And the same goes for County Road 61/185th Street in the apartment building. When you look at the significance or not of that setback requirement: most cities do not require 50 feet, most require only 30. We required it because we tried to provide as much buffer and usable space as possible, and in residential single-family home and twin home privately owned properties, you have that larger backyard area that you try to achieve. In this case, the play area is to the north; there's other green space available. So again, it's a judgment call: is it a significant impact to the community to deviate the small amount? But as far as the design goes, I would have the developer explain why they're making this request. [38:59] **Chair Swanson**: Thank you. Mr. Waldo? [39:04] **Michael Waldo**: Chair, Commissioners. Again, Mike Waldo with Ron Clark. Sorry, I sometimes speak faster than I should, so I apologize for that. So I think one of the things, if anything... if you look at Lakeville Point and if you look around the communities around here that we've built in, one of the things that you will see is a quality neighborhood. We're not going to go in and build something just to throw it up and have it be "okay." And I think if you can look at Ron's 47-year history and my close to 40-year history in the building business, that is really our focus. I think with what we've looked at here, we've looked at where we've done other residential neighborhoods, and we've made sure that the 30 feet with a fence... we've got one I'm doing right now up on Radisson Road in Blaine which is actually at the 30 feet. We're doing the fence, we're doing some additional trees. That road is 10 times busier than what Kenyon will ever be. [39:50] **Michael Waldo**: And I think that's one of the things we looked at is that [context]. And I think as staff has talked about the reasonableness of making sure that we're not taking it farther than we should and trying to customize it to make each unit... how does that affect each unit? Is there going to be a situation there where someone's not going to be happy in that home? And I feel very confident with the eight townhomes that back up that way—between the fence and having a nice backyard and having additional trees—it is very livable. And I think that's our focus always: livability, whether it's for-sale or rental or anything. And I think if you historically look at any of the affordable projects we've done... I laugh that the only thing different on our affordable than our market-rate is one gets a granite top and one gets a Formica top in the kitchen. They have the same high-quality finishes. The exterior building, honestly, at Lakeville Point is probably almost of a higher quality than the one I just finished at Minnetonka that was a market-rate. [40:35] **Michael Waldo**: So we kind of focus on: what does it take to create a neighborhood where we don't have to cut corners on any other costs? In this case, we're asking for some flexibility within the PUD to make sure that we are delivering a high-quality affordable apartment. We're doing high-quality townhomes that'll be in that 2,200 to 2,300 square foot range. We've got a combination of threes and four bedrooms. They're very, very livable; they're not 1,950 or 2,000 square feet which a lot of the three-story townhomes are done. It's a little bit of extra footage to make sure that they've got the space inside the home along with their yards that make it most livable. So that's something I feel extremely comfortable with. And as we invest our money and try to make this work and have people live here, we feel extremely comfortable with that. [41:21] **Chair Swanson**: Thank you. Mr. Waldo, I really value all of the details that you've given into this. This site looks complicated and very much like a puzzle with all of the setbacks and how you need to fit it in there, and just your explanations have been really helpful. So I appreciate it. [41:40] **Michael Waldo**: Thank you. I have good help too, so thank you. Available for anybody else's questions. [41:47] **Commissioner**: I've got one for you, actually, regarding safety. So it looks like we're losing 20 feet of a setback from pretty busy roads. You mentioned the fence; how high is it going to be and is it going to go all the way around the property or just partway? [42:15] **Michael Waldo**: Currently we're only planning for that at the Kenyon road; that it's going to be a six-foot high continuous fence along Kenyon Avenue. We haven't planned for one along 185th. I think that's one once we see between utilities and everything else what level of, maybe, tree removal does have to happen. If we've got, I think, a couple stubs coming in that way, then we may end up wanting to add fence there to make that buffer work if we're not able to achieve enough of the tree cover. Because again, if we end up running a pipe through, we could have a 10-foot or 15-foot easement coming through where we can't put anything, and we would just have to get an exception from staff—usually, you can put fences across these [but] you can't plant trees. Currently along there we'd like to see it be more of a natural buffer, but if we find out that either with our revised plan that we're putting together for staff with the additional plantings, if they come back and say, "You know what, we still think you need a fence in addition to that," we would be open to doing that. We also do think... sorry, we would probably still try to put a gate because that will connect to a trail, and we do expect a lot of our residents that will use that trail to get across to downtown and walkability and bikeability. So we wouldn't want to close it off; they want to do something there that allows them flexibility, whether it's an actual gate or just an opening in a couple spots. [43:36] **Commissioner**: Question for you on the townhouses that back up to Kenyon: we have the setback that we're shortening. Will those have decks on the back? And if they do have decks on the back, is that included in that setback or is that an additional amount? [43:57] **Michael Waldo**: There will be decks on the back and it's usually at about 5 feet tall because you bury some of that first floor down in, so it'll be about 5 feet off the ground and those would be inside of the setback. You can see here that the building is about two feet in from that line... that the decks in those little areas that are showing green... the deck comes out and it projects about a foot to two past the building, so that includes the deck at the 30-foot [line]. [44:21] **Commissioner**: Great, thank you. [44:23] **Commissioner Aink**: Madam Chair. So, to start off with just a statement, and the statement is: I work for MnDOT. Some people might question where some of my allegiance lies or who I'm representing while I'm here in the Planning Commission for this item. So to make it crystal clear: in my role at MnDOT, I review and approve drainage permits in the MnDOT right-of-way as part of the Water Resources Group. I have seen this project come through our planning process. Frank referred to the fact it's already been sent to MnDOT at one point and comments were made. But to that end, because of the fact I've had a chance to review the site, look at it... there is no conflict for me because no drainage permit will be required from MnDOT on this project because you're not entering the MnDOT right-of-way. Just want to make that crystal clear for anyone who might be watching and my employer as well. [45:30] **Commissioner Aink**: But also to back up Frank, again, this information was sent to MnDOT. It was reviewed by all the functional groups with MnDOT Metro. They didn't express any concerns about a third lane coming in the future, and that includes the design groups at MnDOT who had a chance to review and comment on that. So I figured I'd just offer that information for reference. I had asked some questions of Frank regarding driveways and change to the driveway length and all that, and I actually did find a spot in Lakeville where we have approved that before—it's actually Avonlea in the fourth addition. I found a spot where it has the 25-foot driveways and a narrower street or private drive in between things. So I've had a chance to kind of review how that looks and how that feels, and I have very few concerns with that. I wasn't sure at first when I heard the 30-foot setback going back to 25, but based on what I've seen, I don't have any concerns now that I've had a chance to see what that looks like. Um, do you have your civil engineer here by chance? [46:48] **Michael Waldo**: I do not. [46:49] **Commissioner Aink**: You do not. Do you have anyone who might be able to talk about stormwater on the site in the private pumping? [46:53] **Michael Waldo**: I know enough to be dangerous, so ask away and I'll give you what I know. [46:58] **Commissioner Aink**: So I noticed on here there was a private lift station intended to feed the underground storage, I think if that's correct? [47:04] **Michael Waldo**: I think everything going to the underground storage is gravity. I may be misinformed on what I saw with the lift station; I thought we were gravity-ing out into the [wetland]. Anything with a pump... we've got a filter system, the last piece before it goes into the wetland. We've got a secondary filter system. Lakeville's requirement is that you can't bounce more than two feet within a 10-year [event], and so we're at like two-foot-four. So just to make sure we're not getting any [overflow], we added a filter system at the very end as the very last piece going in. And then again, in front of the storage there, we do have the underground storage. In that situation, I'm 98% sure it's gravity feeding into it. [47:50] **Commissioner Aink**: But for reference for the rest of the Planning Commission's education purposes: recognize they've got a stormwater pond on the site, but they also have underground storage that they're utilizing for stormwater, which is something you typically don't put into use unless a site has a lot of constraints and is driving a lot of different decisions, because there's an economic consequence to installing that—it's a lot more expensive to put that in. And I'm assuming you'd agree with me. [48:16] **Michael Waldo**: Elevation-wise is probably the biggest thing. Just the elevations didn't work for us to try to create more surface ponding in this case, especially when we raised the building. It very comfortably worked in that front area under the parking zone and it is, yes, it's more expensive, but when you look at the overall scope of things, it balances with some of the other pieces of the project. [48:43] **Commissioner Aink**: Thank you. May I continue? I'm just going to say, you know, I've had a chance to kind of review and I had some similar thoughts as other Commissioners. "Geez, there's a lot of asks here in terms of flexibility and what they're looking for and changes and modifications to what the standards are." But that literally is part of why we have the PUD process—to allow some of those flexibilities, particularly for sites that have some difficulties. This site, in my view as I look at it, does suffer from a lot of different things, and not all of them are the developer's doing by any stretch of the imagination. [49:15] **Commissioner Aink**: Obviously we've got I-35 to the east; that's a major constraint. It's not going anywhere. If anything, it's going to get larger in the future. So that kind of pins things down on one side. And when those changes were made, that kind of drove where Kenyon Avenue had to go. But then there's a large wetland complex to the north, so Kenyon kind of had to go where it went, which then put a pinch between Kenyon and 185th. I understand the need for flexibility here with setbacks and some of the other things. So I think you've done a really good job trying to find a balance here. And when I looked at like the setback of the apartment building to 185th and understanding why we typically ask for the 50-foot setback, I'm really comfortable with what we're asking for there. Similarly with Kenyon Avenue and the amount of traffic that carries, I'm less leery of that potential change as well. All in all, I'm going to be voting in support of this proposal. Again, I did think long and hard about each of these asks and requests, and Frank in particular was helpful in answering some questions that I had in relation to this as I was thinking about it. So, that's my two cents' worth. [50:35] **Chair Swanson**: Thank you. Maybe more than two cents today. [50:40] **Commissioner Cla**: I just want to say I really do appreciate the work that the developer's done in the community, and as was mentioned, you know, some of the projects that have been completed are of high quality, and I really do appreciate that. And I do appreciate the work that staff has done in putting this together and trying to be creative for this site. I also support, you know, the intended use; I think it's appropriate with this site being an OR. It fits with the current zoning. Unfortunately, I'm uncomfortable with the number of deviations—I know they're not variances because it's a PUD—but I will be unable to support the rezoning tonight. But I just want to thank the applicant and City staff for all the work that they have put into the project. [52:08] **Chair Swanson**: Any additional comments? Ready for a motion? [52:16] **Commissioner Aink**: Madam Chair, one comment before we make the motion. There was a suggested stipulation, if I recall, that was to be added. Are the planning commissioners comfortable with the stipulation that was suggested? **Commissioners**: Yes. [52:32] **Commissioner Aink**: Okay, I think we all saw the language, we're all good with it, but I just wanted to make sure before I made the motion. So here we go: I move to recommend approval of the Kenyon Green preliminary plat, zoning map amendment, and PUD development stage plan subject to the eight stipulations listed in the May 30th, 2024 planning report as amended. [52:58] **Commissioner**: Second. [53:01] **Chair Swanson**: I have a motion and a second. Miss Morrow, will you please take a roll call vote? [53:05] **Miss Morrow**: Cla? **Commissioner Cla**: No. **Miss Morrow**: Hinley? **Commissioner Hinley**: Aye. **Miss Morrow**: Morovic? **Commissioner Morovic**: Aye. **Miss Morrow**: Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer**: No. **Miss Morrow**: Aink? **Commissioner Aink**: Aye. **Miss Morrow**: Swanson? **Chair Swanson**: Aye. [53:20] **Chair Swanson**: All right. And Miss Jensen, when will this go in front of City Council? [53:25] **Miss Jensen**: This would be June 17th. And just a note, Commissioners: for those of you that voted "no," we do need for the record the reason why. [53:36] **Commissioner Cla**: I am uncomfortable with the number of changes in the PUD. [53:43] **Commissioner Zimmer**: Yeah, I had said I had some major concerns about the number of deviations, not variances. [53:49] **Commissioner Cla**: And I'm just concerned it's precedent-setting for the next attempt for a PUD. So I understand and appreciate the input from Mr. Waldo about how it's a difficult site and you're trying to make it work. I don't want to make anybody go back to the drawing board and redo it, but maybe it has to be less units or something in order to make me more comfortable with it. Thank you. [54:15] **Chair Swanson**: All right, well best of luck with this. It goes to City Council. And with that, our meeting is adjourned.