[6:24] Mayor: We re calling to order the Egon Advisory Planning Commission meeting for JULY 28th, 2026. At this time, we all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under GOD, indivisible, with liberty [6:52] Council Member: and justice for all. Um, MR. Schultz, uh, at this point, are there any changes to the agenda or any updates for the Commission? Uh, MR. Chair, there are no changes to the agenda. Okay. With that, I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So move. Okay. I have a motion by Member Whitfield. Seconded. Second by Secretary Wagner. All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. [7:13] Mayor: All right. All. Matt passes 6 to 0. Um, are there any changes or any updates to the minutes, MR. Schultz? Uh, MISTER CHAIRMAN, were of any recommended changes to the minutes? Okay. And I will then entertain a motion to approve the minutes. So moved. [7:31] Council Member: Okay, I have a motion from Vice Chair Schwenk. I have a second for member Whitfield. All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Okay. And that has. I m sorry. I should have said no. I wasn t here for the last meeting. Okay. So let s take that vote one more time. No problem. All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. [7:47] Mayor: Aye. Aye. And that is three with. Is that three abstentions? So that has, uh. We ll have to do passes. That passes. All right. Thank you. From Attorney Bauer. Um, so this is the portion of the meeting with any agenda. Agenda items that are not currently on our agenda. Anybody who would like to put an item onto our agenda that s not currently on it. This is an opportunity to do that for the public. Okay. [8:14] Mayor: I m not hearing anybody come forward. We re opening that up to the public at this point. Then we ll bring it back to the commission for the first new business. And this is, um, the applicant I understand is Dustin needs, but it s approval of a comprehensive guide plan amendment from low density to medium density for property at 1360 Lone Oak Road. Um, with that, will I defer to you, MR. [8:40] Council Member: Schultz? Yes. Uh, filling in for planner Sarah Thomas, who is out. Um, making sure our [8:53] Council Member: screen works here. There we go. So. You have to forgive me, MR. Chair. I got rid of my touch computer, so I m like, I m gonna have dual mouse duties here. Up here. So, uh, so if this property looks familiar is because it does, uh, planning Commission saw this proposal a few months ago when the applicant, uh, previously had proposed, um, a change of land use or comp plan amendment to high density. Uh, at that time, the Planning Commission had recommended, uh, denial of that application, um, before it reached planning, before it reached city council. The applicant then withdrew the application, uh, for further consideration. So, uh, so the applicant is now back before, um, before we with the new [9:40] Council Member: proposal for medium density residential, uh, for the subject property, uh, shown here just south of Lonoke Road. Um, consists of, uh, essentially six buildable acres, uh, really on the very northern one third. Uh, the property. Um, and the concept, uh, in the concept plan currently, uh, shows, uh, 27, uh, townhome units as part of the revised concept. Uh, so the property is zoned uh, agriculture and guided low density. Uh, the property is on platted and contains a single family home that was built in 1872. Uh, barn is located on the east side of the property. [10:22] Council Member: Uh, a wetland lies further east. Uh, the barn and LeMay Lake lies to the south. Uh, the northwest and southeast portions of the site are wooded, uh, with significant topography. Uh portion of the site was cleared for the for the existing driveway and building. Uh, while the site consists of over 17 acres, uh, only six acres, uh, are located above the ordinary high water line of LeMay Lake. Uh, so a portion of the property, uh, two segments, uh, are located at the very south end of the site. Uh, essentially across the lake. Those consists of 0.25 acres. Uh, and again south of LeMay Lake, adjacent to [11:08] Council Member: single family homes located along uh, Tower View Road. Uh, in FEBRUARY, the applicant, uh, submitted a comp guide amendment, uh, for the high density. Uh, the apc again then recommended denial, and the applicant then withdrew the application. Uh, subsequently, the applicant submitted a comp guide amendment concept plan for City Council input in JUNE 9th at a council workshop. Uh, the concept plan identified a change in land use to the medium density. Uh, and that concept showed 34 townhome units. Uh, so as far as the existing conditions, as far as the existing conditions, access would be taken solely from Lone Oak Road to the north. The property is served by city [11:54] Council Member: sanitary sewer and water main. Uh, and single family uses are present adjacent to the property, and then multifamily uses. Townhomes and apartments are located just beyond the property. Uh, apartment unit uh, located to the east. And then there s a townhome complex located west just beyond, uh, single family homes immediately adjacent to the site. Uh, so the submitted concept plan, uh, shows eight townhome buildings with 3 to 4 units each, for a total of 27 units. The plan illustrates two garage styles for each townhome building. Uh, a row of buildings is shown 75ft from LeMay Lake, uh, exceeding the 50 foot setback [12:40] Council Member: requirement. Uh staff does want to note that actual building location, uh, will be impacted by future, uh, wetland delineation and bluff delineation, uh, on the property. So by line, uh, here still needs to be delineated. Um, and then further analysis, uh, with the dnr, whether this constitutes a bluff, uh, still also needs to be analyzed as part of any future development [13:09] Council Member: proposal. So the question before city policymakers is one of change in the land use designation. If the land use amendment is approved, the development plan for subsequent rezoning and plan development is expected to be generally consistent with the submitted concept plan. Uh, the plan will also be evaluated against the city s shoreline overlay standards, as the property is within the overlay district of low MAY Lake, which is classified as a general development lake. Uh, the Shoreline Overlay District requires use of plan development zoning for consideration of multifamily or multiple dwelling units. Uh, as well as the tiered zoning to keep residential density lower along the shoreline and allowed density to increase further from the shoreline. As far as [13:55] Council Member: environmental, uh, topography from the site slopes, uh, the south and west east, with elevations changing up to 50ft. Uh, both a lake and wetland are located on the property. Development is subject to the city s Tree preservation ordinance, so a tree inventory and preservation plan will be included. Uh, with future development plans, submittals. [14:18] Council Member: Uh, the site is also located within the one mile aircraft noise uh zone. Overlay district. Uh, buffer. Uh, so there is compatibility and noise attenuation construction standards that will apply to any new housing construction. [14:34] Council Member: Uh, street access would be available again from Lone Oak Road, which is a county controlled roadway. Uh, water and sanitary sewer are available to serve the property. Uh, the development or the applicant, uh, should provide a physical connection between, uh, the city. Um. Uh, uh, wetland connection in LeMay Lake via gravity sewer. Uh, to manage the stormwater. Uh, the city s utility division, uh, would consider development, uh, funded relocation of the sanitary sewer running along the south and east portions of the site. Uh, if proposed. So you can see this dashed line does represent, uh, basically the sanitary sewer line that runs along the property and then continues north, and then that the station is located [15:20] Council Member: here, just, uh, on the south side of Lone Oak. Uh, development will need to comply with post construction requirements for stormwater management and surface water quality and should be located outside of the right of way. [15:35] Council Member: Uh, I do want to note, and if you remember from the previous discussions, there is excess right of way that s located along about the easterly two thirds of the property. Of Lone Oak, which the applicant has been working with. Uh, Dakota County. Uh, whether there s options and which maybe that property either could be vacated or conveyed, uh, to allow maybe, uh, better use of the property. Uh, the, uh, concept plan shows the proposed access to be approximately the same location as the existing access, uh, and would align with, uh, Eagan Avenue, located directly to the north on the other side of Lone Oak Road upon an easement is present on the east side of the site. And the sanitary easement then also [16:21] Council Member: runs to the site. Uh, as pointed out by staff here as part of the comprehensive Plan review. Medium density is is a general land use category which provides for areas of housing at densities of 4 to 12 units per acre. Uh, the proposed concept plan, uh, as shown, is that 4.5 units per acre, which is pretty much on the lower extreme, uh, of that density range for medium density, uh, medium density residential uses are generally compatible with other, uh, residential uses, uh, including lower and higher density uses. Uh, such as single family uses like single family uses, medium density residential MAY also be compatible with some commercial and industrial uses. Given [17:07] Council Member: appropriate scale buffering and design. Treatment of the higher intensity uses some situations. Medium density residential may serve as a buffer between lower and higher intensity. Uh, as far as the, uh, the comprehensive uh, land use in the housing, uh, land use chapters, uh, such goals and policies encourage a diverse mix of housing, desirable and safe neighborhoods, redevelopment that is compatible with surrounding uses in infill of residential development that preserves and enhances the vitality and character of the existing neighborhoods. Uh, with the city largely built out, uh, infill or underlying underutilized parcels such as this MAY help uh uh, future housing supply needs. Uh, [17:53] Council Member: within the city. As part of the upcoming 2050 Comprehensive Plan, uh review criteria relating to infill projects MAY need to be re-evaluated to consider factors such as scale of the project, presence of surrounding housing types and densities, and consideration of adjacent roadway classifications. Uh, as far as parks and recreation, I m just going to go back here just so you can get a better view of this. Uh, the parcel is served by Moonshine Park, which is located to the south, technically in the south side of LeMay. [18:25] Council Member: Lake. But it is accessible to those residents. Uh, approximately a quarter mile southwest of the, uh, subject site. Um, on the other side of the lake is, uh, Moonshine Park. Uh, in addition, within a half mile, uh, both Highview Park and, uh, country home park, uh, country home park and Highview Park located here. Uh trails are also located on both the north and south sides of Lone Oak Road. Uh, which does connect to trails along Pilot Knob Road. [18:56] Council Member: Uh, it is anticipated that cash park and trail dedications would be due at the time of development. Uh, so in summary, uh, the applicant is proposing a land use change of six acres to medium from low density to medium density. Concept plan identifies 27 uh units townhome units on the development. The proposed medium density designation is compatible with a variety of surrounding residential uses on the site. [19:22] Council Member: Does have significant constraint constraints, including the lake, wetland, woodland, and topography, which MAY present challenges for development. Uh. Since the development is located within the Shoreline Overlay Plan, development zoning will be required with this proposal. [19:39] Council Member: Uh, other typical performance standards such as tree preservation, stormwater management, park dedication will apply at the time of the formal development proposal. Uh, so it is, uh, to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment from low density to medium density pond. [19:57] Council Member: Uh, approximately six, uh, buildable acres located at 1360 Lone Oak Road. Uh, so with that, I believe the applicant is in the audience areas in the back. Uh, uh, for if you have any questions of the applicant or want a formal presentation. [20:14] Mayor: Thank you. MR. Schultz. Are there any questions of members of the Commission for MR. Schultz? Oh. Yes. Vice. Josh monk. Um. MR. Schultz, the the question tonight before us is, is a land use question. Correct. Uh, MISTER Chair. Um, Commissioner. That is correct. [20:32] Council Member: So basically changing the land use designation from low density, which allows 1 to 4 units per acre to medium density, which allows the 4 to 12. Right now, the concept plan shows at 4.5 units per acre. And so if I MAY yesterday. So. And what I m getting at is, as I listened to your presentation, there appear to be appear to be anyway. And I guess this is part of my question. A number of outstanding issues or issues, maybe just circumstances that need to be investigated, studies that need to be done that could affect, um, the site plan that we see in front of us. [21:08] Council Member: MISTER Chair. Uh, Commissioner, that is correct. And maybe the applicant can address those, but, uh, his I think his concern or recommendation is, um, not knowing whether the planning Commission or City council will accept or support that land use change. They don t want to necessarily invest in those additional studies that are basically needed to address some of those, those issues. So maybe the applicant can speak to that a little bit more. [21:30] Mayor: All right. Very good. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Vice chair Schwenk. Um, yes. Yeah. MISTER Chair. I guess. Member Whitfield. Um, kind of piggybacking off of, um. What? Uh, vice Chair Schwenk was asking, so I so I guess with the environmental review, that wouldn t occur until after we say yes or no to this becoming a medium density. [21:52] Council Member: Uh, MISTER Chair, uh, Commissioner Whitfield, there wouldn t be necessarily a full environmental review as, like an eaw. There would not be that involved in this proposal, but they would submit basically. Um, basically, uh, drainage studies, uh, things like that. [22:08] Council Member: Then the tree, uh, tree inventory, tree preservation, uh, that information will all be provided as part of the future land use application. Thank you. Thank you, member Whitfield. Any other questions? Yes. Then, MR. Schulz, I do have a question, too. So I know you talked about the wetland and bluff determinations that need to be done. Um, can you explain for us what that MAY mean if they determine the wetland line is not where we re expecting, or that there s a bluff there. [22:40] Council Member: So the wetland. Delineation, which does have to be conducted within a period of an calendar year, which I believe ends in, I want to say like OCTOBER. Um, but the applicant would need to go out, their consultant would need to go out there and determine exactly where that wetland boundary would be established, and then that boundary or that buffer setback then would be established from there. So, I mean, it s possible that that buffer could extend further into the property than what s graphically depicted here, which MAY mean having to relocate some of the buildings or re jockeying basically some of the buildings. Uh, so a delineation will basically show that buffer, that setback and buffer area, uh, around that [23:26] Council Member: wetland. Um, the bluff area, um, which we would need to work closely with the dnr, basically what those elevations are and whether that that actually constitutes a bluff as defined by the dnr. Um, I, I myself had some questions. If the bluffs really been disturbed with the presence of, um, a city sanitary line that runs through basically that portion of the site, and whether that then impacts really the determination of a bluff. Um, so, so there are some questions that certainly we need to work with. Um, either outside consultants or the dnr to maybe address some of those questions. [24:01] Mayor: Okay. Thank you, MR. Schultz. Any other questions from members of the Commission? Okay. With that, then we would invite the applicant to come forward and present, if you d like. If you can, please state your name and, uh, address of your business. That would. [24:22] Dustin Knives: Be great. Yeah, absolutely. I am Dustin Knives. Um, I m currently under contract for 1360 Lone Oak Road, and I m here with my partner, Matt Katz Meyer. We also have Marsha here who is the current owner, um, of the piece of land. I d like to know one thing before you all start. Okay. [24:42] Marsha Easton: When did you change it? From multiple residential to our to agricultural without notifying me? Because I have owned that property for 45 years. And you have never notified me that it went from multiple residential to agricultural at all. And I was never notified of that. [25:12] Marsha Easton: Never once. And what I like to know is why we call that a wetland, when it is appalling time for all the parking lots in the neighborhood. It s not a wetland, it s a parking lot, drainage. And that s it. It calls for a dump. It goes for the Hampton and it goes for the center. It goes for the industrial park. It goes for everything. When you build, the more buildings in the industrial park. I called you up and wanted to know where you re holding. Kind was. And you said, well, we didn t have room for one. Well, guess what? [25:53] Mayor: You didn t have room for one. So, MISS. MISS Marsha. Yeah. And do you mind stating your last name so that we have a Easton? Thank you for your comments at this point. Um. Thank you. [26:08] Dustin Knives: I want to know something. Thank you. I appreciate it. Um, chair, members of the Planning Commission. Thank you for your time this evening. My name is Dustin. It s as I stated before, and I m here tonight with my business partner, Matt Casimir. Um, Matt and I were both raised just up the road in Mendota Heights. While Matt currently lives in Fargo. I still live in Mendota Heights today with my family, and my wife is originally from Eagan. [26:31] Dustin Knives: I mentioned this simply to emphasize that we are not a facelift. Faceless development group. Looking at a spreadsheet. We have a deep personal passion for this area and a vested interest in seeing it continue to thrive. We are standing before you today because we have listened over the past few months. We have received invaluable feedback from this commission from the City Council during a concept review, and from the neighbors behind us during the meetings we have hosted. We have took every single piece of that feedback to heart. We went back to the drawing board and we completely overhauled our vision for 1360 Lonoke Road. We are formally requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to modify the future land use designation of this property from low density, as you ve already heard, to medium density. Our intent here is to build an upscale market rate [27:17] Dustin Knives: community of 27 townhomes, specifically designed for single level maintenance, free living. Right now, our understanding is that Eagan is facing a severe housing stock mismatch. The vast majority of the city s housing was built in the 80s and 90s is large. Two stories in split levels. [27:33] Dustin Knives: Meanwhile, Dakota County s fastest growing demographic is the 65 plus population. Empty nesters like my own parents want to stay in Eagan, but there s virtually zero single level inventory for them to move into today by providing this missing, missing housing type, we aren t just giving seniors a place to live. We are unlocking the market and freeing up existing inventory for the next generation of young families looking to live in Eagan. I want to highlight exactly how much this project has evolved in direct response to the community s input. [28:09] Dustin Knives: First, we completely scrap the original 100 unit apartment building. We step that down to a 34 unit townhome concept, and based on a recent concept review feedback from the City Council, we then reduced it to 27 units. That represents a massive 73% reduction in density from our original proposal, and a 20% reduction just from our last check in with the City Council. Second, we heard the council s concerns regarding the geography of the site. In response, we completely removed three units that were originally planned for the peninsula. Third, to address concerns raised during the concept review regarding proximity to the lake, we pushed the townhomes even further back. This increased the setback from LeMay Lake by an additional 25ft, a 50% increase in the shoreline [28:55] Dustin Knives: setback. The shift thoroughly accommodates those proximity concerns while also allowing for density bonuses. We understand and respectfully acknowledge the concerns of the adjacent property owners. However, we believe it is vital to look at historical and established context of this specific corridor. The area surrounding 1360 Lone Oak Road is one of Meghan s most diverse land use districts. It sits directly next to I-35e, adjacent to a significant commercial properties to the northeast and right next to the 285 unit LeMay Lake Apartments. [29:28] Dustin Knives: In fact, if you look at the shoreline of LeMay Lake today, roughly 70 to 80% of it is already consists of multi-family housing, with much of it built prior to the surrounding residential homes. For example, if we look at Poplar Lane, nearly all of the homes were built after the massive apartment complex was constructed right behind them. [29:48] Dustin Knives: This corridor corridor has historically been defined by mixed housing and higher density. Our proposed townhomes, in our belief, do not disrupt that pattern. They provide a natural step down transition because we want to be exceptionally good neighbors. We aren t just relying on historical context. [30:05] Dustin Knives: We are building an unprecedented physical barriers. Currently, the homes on Poplar, as an example, sit just 70ft away from the existing apartment building behind them. Under our new site plan that you see in the screen, we are introducing a 300 foot building of property buffer between our townhomes and those neighbors to the east. That has nearly five times the separation that they currently experienced today. [30:26] Dustin Knives: And to the west, we are maintaining a 30 foot buffer with mature trees supported, supported by, as you heard, a significant elevation change to naturally screen the property. Because we were utilizing a cluster townhome design rather than sprawling single family lots. These buffers will remain filled with existing and mature forest forestry as much as we can, acting as a natural, year round visual and acoustic screen. Finally, as you heard the proposal align seamlessly with Egan s 2040 comprehensive plan. Eagan is currently 98% built out, meaning full new development must come from, as you heard, strategic infill. [31:02] Dustin Knives: The 2040 plan explicitly calls out for a wider variety of housing options to accommodate an aging population, and it specifically notes that attached dwellings and clustering techniques are highly suited for properties with default and limitations, like the one you see here today. If we kept existing low density zoning, which allows for four units per acre, a developer could legally and our understanding, subdivide the available buildable land on the site and built 24 sprawling single family homes. That alternative would require clearcutting. The mature tree canopy across the entire property. By clustering these 27 townhomes instead, we are saving the trees as much as we can, protecting the lake and utilizing existing infrastructure without consuming new greenfield land. [31:45] Dustin Knives: We believe this drastic reduction in density, combined with the preservation of the peninsula, the increased lake setbacks, the exceptional tree buffers represents the ultimate compromise. It provides life cycle housing the city, in our opinion, desperately needs, while fiercely protecting the character of a neighborhood. [32:02] Matt Katz Meyer: Thank you. With that said, I would like to hand it off to Matt to add a few more specifics about the site. Yeah. Thank you commissioners. My name is Matt Katz Meyer. Um, has met you prior, um, some months back. Um, so just, you know, MR. Schultz did a very good job of explaining the site. It s, uh, very complex site. Uh, a lot of grade change, a lot of easements, a lot of setbacks, a lot of density tier density requirements. So it does, uh, propose a challenge, um, across this piece of land. So just a couple things I want to add to what MR. Schultz had said. Um, the bluff analysis. Um, we understand that it is a concern. And that was brought up, um, by a city staff member. [32:45] Matt Katz Meyer: And it was a it was a thing to consider. It was a consideration that he had brought up. And we we understand that. And from my understanding, it s very close. But that would be cleared up. Um, once a survey is completed on the site. Um, and as, uh, MR. Schultz had said, you know, until we have support from the city and this is moving forward, it does not make sense to start investing tens of thousands of dollars into a property that s not going to have the support from the city on moving forward. Um, so Bluff Analysis was the one item, um, the 75 foot setback from from my understanding there, there is some, uh, bonus density requirements. So, um, in order for us to show these units as is, we had to increase that [33:31] Matt Katz Meyer: setback by another 50% from the 50ft. So that s why we re showing that. And as we work through this plan, um, if we have support, if we work through this plan going forward, that would that would work itself out. Um, but that additional 25ft doesn t make a major impact on the site. Um, if that were to be gained back. [33:51] Matt Katz Meyer: But what that does provide is a little more, uh, level area off the back of those townhomes for potential backyards. Um, during our concept meeting, um, one of the um council members stated that as they would like to see, um, you know, some form of backyards within these towns with the in this townhome development, um, the other item there is the, um, the right of way, um, item. And then there is a sanitary easement. So I have been going back and forth with Dakota County and um, um, Eagan engineer as well. Um, and so what we re looking at is a 70 foot, 75 foot right away setback that is going to be most likely, um, what will work [34:37] Matt Katz Meyer: with and then that will remove, um, the larger chunk on the northeast side of the property. So we just have a consistent 75 foot buffer or right away easement along, uh, Lone Oak Road that is still just an initial talks. But what that does is, um, it pushes the, the, um, four, three places on this north side would push them back in line. Um, but we would still be able to accomplish the site plan with, with, uh, with those, um, with that right away setback plus that, uh, 50 foot, um, I believe MR. Schultz can clarify, clarify, but it s another 50ft in addition to that, 75ft from the centerline of the road. So we believe we have that worked out initially [35:23] Matt Katz Meyer: with Dakota County. Um, if we have further support, you know, we would we would then look at, um, further working out the details of this site plan. Um, the sanitary item, um, uh, is the sanitary easement. Um, is something we can work with. The main thing that does create some challenge for us is then stormwater infiltration basin. [35:48] Matt Katz Meyer: So since that, um, northeast side is the lowest spot of the site, that s where we kind of earmarked for an infiltration basin with that easement in line there that, um, where we can t have that infiltration basin within in that easement will create some, um, items that will work on, uh, with city staff as well as we work through that, um, through design. Um, another item that council brought up during the concept review was the concern with flood proofing. So I just wanted to explain that a little bit further. Um, the estimated lowest elevation for livable space. Um, we are estimating around 885 in elevation, about 885 to 890. Um, the estimated high water level is at 876. So groundwater. Groundwater is [36:34] Matt Katz Meyer: estimated to be at that same elevation as the lake, which leaves about a 10 to 15 foot separation. Um, the development, you know, our development and construction team in conjunction with civil and geotechnical engineers will evaluate that and make sure that we would mitigate any concerns regarding flood proofing for this site. Um, from our understanding, the existing soils on the site consists mostly of sandy silt and aggregate materials that should provide ample drainage [37:08] Matt Katz Meyer: and infiltration. Um. I believe that covers, uh, the other other item that I think was brought up tonight, too was the wetland delineation. So, um, in in talks with environmental engineer, um, the dnr has the ordinary high water level posted on their dnr website. [37:26] Matt Katz Meyer: Um, based off the information that s posted there, which, which we would have to do a more recent wetland delineation, but based off the elevation that s there. And what we re showing on the plan is it s within, I d say, about a half a foot of what the dnr is showing. So we re, um, in talks with them. We re believing that to be consistent for the for what we show on this site plan and not not to be drastically different, but that would be cleared up as we get further along into this site. We d like to open up to any questions that you guys have on. We hope to answer any questions or concerns. [38:08] Mayor: Okay. Thank you, MR. Cats. MR. Nidus sorry. Um, are there any questions from members of the commission for the applicants who are here? Yes. Uh, Secretary Wagner. Thank you, MR. Chair. Um, my question is, I m. You said 27 units. Now. Um, once we. And given that we re just talking about a comp plan amendment right now where we re changing it from low density to medium density, uh, I just wanted to make sure as far as just a verbal commitment from you at this point, that once it s changed there, we re not going to see you come back with a higher density number request at that point. You know, once once it s changed, you do have within certain rights to change [38:53] Secretary Wagner: that number. Obviously, as the situation changes. But we re not looking at anything significantly more than what you re talking about at this point. No. And we wouldn t be able to do that within the Shaw Land Overlay district either. So. Um, what is your workable number if that based on, you know, where the, uh, the easements and the shore land, I m, you know, we were just talking about the the high watermark level. I mean, if that reduces significantly, is that something that s going to cause you to, to to abandon the project, and then we end up with the medium density, undeveloped land at that point where, you know what I mean? [39:30] Secretary Wagner: Like, is that a have you guys looked at that possibility and said, well, we are fairly confident that that s going to work, obviously. Um, see what I m getting at. Like what s what s what s your min and your max limit is kind of what I m talking about with the number of townhomes. [39:45] Dustin Knives: Well, and, uh, MR. Schultz, I guess I d ask for clarification on this, because this it would, it would go the process would be, um, the apc and then the, um, council, but then we would have that would just be the preliminary. Right. And then there would be the final approval at the next round. [40:05] Matt Katz Meyer: Once we develop a full, pretty much full civil set of plans, plus, um, some architectural items as well. So you d be looking at a design I believe in hand wall. Before we before our full comp amendment. Okay. [40:21] Council Member: I guess just clarifying that. MR. Chair. Uh, Commissioner. So yeah, so the following this this would go to the City council, uh, if there s a favorable recommendation by, uh, City Council, uh, they would direct staff to submit the land use amendment to the Met Council for acceptance. Met Council comes back with a positive, uh, acceptance of of the land use change. We informed the applicants they could submit their, uh, rezoning and plan development, preliminary plan development applications. Which time then that additional information. [40:51] Council Member: Everything would then be reviewed, uh, forwarded to the planning Commission and a new public hearing would be scheduled for that. Um, and then basically, we would be able to analyze whether, uh, what those impacts would consist of regarding, uh, placement of the buildings, setbacks, you know, things like that, that would actually be shown as part of that. So obviously, the 27 numbers just shown conceptually right now, um, obviously that could be impacted either, maybe slightly positively or slightly negatively, but my guess would be within that range following the Planning Commission or following the preliminary plan development, if that goes through the Planning Commission and goes through the City Council, the applicant still needs to come back for that final, which then really kind of dances across the teaser, uh, to show exactly what s [41:37] Council Member: being built on the property. Okay. Great. You. Thank you. Secretary Wagner. And, uh, maybe as a follow up, MR. Schultz. So the thank you for describing that process. The understanding is it would be if it s favorable from the Commission, favorable from the Council, favorable from the Met Council. Um, at that point, would the land use designation change to medium density? [42:03] Council Member: No. And thank for making sure i clarify that as well. So, uh, so the applicant comes back with the rezoning, the preliminary plan development that would come back before the Planning Commission, and that forwards, uh, in a favorable manner to City council, the land, uh, land use amendment then marries up with those applications. Council then would, uh, act final action on that land use amendment only at that time, once that preliminary pd then accompanies that. So so that s why MAY be a little bit unique process. But it does provide us some assurances that, uh, that the concept that the preliminary plan development follows generally what was shown as part of that concept plan. [42:45] Council Member: Thank you. That that thank you, MISTER Chair. That clarifies it for me, because I was under the impression that once it gets through, that it s a done deal, but they have to come back before it s even changed to medium density. Correct? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, MR. Schultz. Any other questions for the applicants, for members of the Commission? Okay. Thank you very much, MR. Meyer. MR. [43:07] Mayor: Knights. Thank you. Very much. Appreciate it. Well, thank you. Okay. Uh, this is the portion of the meeting that we open up to the public. It s our public hearing. And this is for approval of a comprehensive guide plan amendment from low density to medium density for approximately 30 townhome units on property located at 1360 Lone Oak Road. Um, for those who would like to speak, you re welcome to come up and speak. [43:35] Mayor: Uh, we want you as you come forward to state your name and address as you present to us. Um, we respectfully ask you to limit it to 3 to 5 minutes. Um, we are also, if somebody has said what you wanted to say, um, feel free to say I agree with everything this person said. And if you have new information to offer, that would be very helpful. Um, as we do have a long night ahead, but we want to hear your voice and hear what you have to say. [44:00] Mayor: This is not an interactive question and answer portion of this meeting. So what you bring forward and what you present, we will take notes and then bring that back to staff with questions or for commission for discussion. But it isn t a question and answer format. Um, and then you will have one chance at the podium. This is not an opportunity for debate. [44:21] Mayor: Again, not a question and answer format. Uh, what you have before you or six volunteers, citizens, your fellow Eagan residents who are here on this commission, we want to hear your voice. We want to hear what you have to say. Um, we want a great Liverpool city as much as everybody else. And so we really appreciate all of you being here. Um, with that, uh, if there s anybody who would like to come forward and speak, we have had a few, I understand, submissions that have been included in our packet that people have written into the city about this proposal, but anybody else would like to speak. You re [45:09] Kevin Conroy: welcome to come forward now. Thank you. My name is Kevin Conroy. Uh, currently still live in Trempealeau, Wisconsin. However, my daughter lives at 1382 Lone Oak Road, and that is a directly adjacent to the property to the west. So, um, I d say I have a vested interest in what happens next door to her. Um, I do want to thank Mike Schultz and the planning department for the planning report they put together. Just a very comprehensive. And it gave me a lot of information, background, and a lot of things to think about. Uh, I guess I d like to preference it by some of the comments I [45:55] Kevin Conroy: ve heard from the developers from the workshop and other questions from commission members, and that is the difficulty and challenges with this property. And maybe that property is trying to tell us something. The other thing would be medium density, 4 to 12 units. Well, what is that range and what is the topography of a property that could support those? Certainly this property is going to support something on the very low end of that. So I do want to register my opposition to this designation for the [46:42] Kevin Conroy: following reasons. Um, as I mentioned, very difficult property. And to me, it s it s kind of like this big puzzle. And in the case of the concept plan before the commission, it s missing some pieces. And I think first and foremost is the designation currently for that property. It is low density and it changing it to medium density is going to change the character of that property in the neighborhood. Um, the planning workshop on JUNE 9th, there was conversation or discussion that back when [47:29] Kevin Conroy: Poplar Lane was developed and approved, that there was discussion specifically about 1360. And at that time it was decided that it would be and should be remaining as r-1 single family residential. [47:52] Kevin Conroy: Number two is the topography of the land. I mean, there s, you know, there s potentially going to be a bluff on that northwest corner, regardless of whether you call it a bluff or not. That northwest corner is challenging. And while they mention that drainage will be from the west to the east, directly inside that west property line is a high point that directs drainage to the west to my daughter s property and her neighbor to the north. [48:27] Kevin Conroy: Also tries to deal with the runoff that comes off of that [48:36] Kevin Conroy: property to the northwest. Now, with the existing tree cover and vegetation, you know, that mitigates that somewhat. During heavy rains. But if that property is cleared and developed, it s going to create even more of a berm that prevents water and runoff from draining to the east. It will drain to the west. Uh, the tree cover, you know, there s no question about it. It has significant tree cover. Uh, you pointed out in the planning report and, you know, there s a lot of majestic trees in there. [49:17] Kevin Conroy: Um, supports a lot of local wildlife. Uh, this spring there were turkeys roosting in those trees, and I thought that was [49:29] Kevin Conroy: pretty cool. So, you know, medium density. Um, I m not in favor of it, but I would suggest and possibly throw out for consideration if that property could be considered for r-1 s for small property lines. Uh, when I ve looked at that property, I could visualize there being a very nice pocket neighborhood developed in there. And I think the, you know, pocket neighborhood supports single family, uh, pocket neighborhoods. Address a wide demographic. You can have starter homes in there, new homeowners, you can serve the elderly department. And I just [50:16] Kevin Conroy: think the concept of a pocket neighborhood would be a great answer for that property. And I, I guess I d like to see that considered before any change to land designation is approved. So that s all I have to say. [50:34] Mayor: Can I pass something out for you guys? Take a. Look at, um, uh, to the city attorney. Is that okay? If he had something. To contribute. Hand it to the. [50:47] Mayor: Planner. Thank you. Thank you, MR. Conroy. Um, and is there anybody else who d like to come up? I would I should also say that, um, we don t, uh, support any sort of clapping or comments when other folks are speaking. We really want this to be as respectful as possible for everybody. The applicant and all the folks are here to say something to thank you. [51:12] Tim Neubauer: Hi, my name is Tim Neubauer. I live at 1320 Tower View Road on the south side of Lake LeMay. I do agree this. Is a difficult property, as was was stated here. Um. I m sorry, do you mind stating your name one more time? I was just handing. [51:33] Tim Neubauer: Tim Neubauer any. You be like, boy, a uer. Thank you very much, MR. Neubauer. I appreciate it, sir. If the interruption. Okay. Um, was stated earlier, the the wetland line has not been established yet. My my question is, why is that not established before this application for the, um, density is approved. Also, I think the sanitation issue needs to be addressed. I don t think that s been addressed properly. Also, a traffic issue on Lone Oak Road. I don t I don t think a full study and I don t think that s been [52:21] Tim Neubauer: addressed. Um, last month at the meeting on JUNE 9th, the the planning Commission, um, directly asked the applicant to consider a r1 s, and I didn t hear anything on their on their proposal to, um, why or why not. They they considered applying for an r-1. S. Also, there s there s two orphaned triangles of property on the south side of of LeMay Lake. [52:56] Tim Neubauer: I d like to know what s going to happen to those. Um, I think I bought around to one of those, um, and I would just say I ve. [53:13] Tim Neubauer: I speaking in opposition to the zoning change. Um, and I think I speak for. Most of my neighbors were were not in favor of this, um, zoning change to medium density. [53:32] Tim Neubauer: Thank you. [53:43] Mayor: Thank you, MR. Neubauer. Good evening, Committee members. My name is Michael Ekblad. Ekblad. I m against the change in zoning. Uh, from r-1 to medium. So in these are the reasons why. Listen to MR. [54:00] Michael Ekblad: Barkan. At the last meeting, he said there were some discussion early in the 90s about what that property was going to stay. And it was our one. I would like each of you to look at the map that the good city of Eagan sent me at 3070 Poplar Lane, and look at what properties attach to the 3060 property. Every one is a single family home. It s not the apart from the townhouses to the west, that property doesn t adjoin. [54:39] Michael Ekblad: It s closer to the townhouses across the street. So from those two vantage points, I would like the city to leave the zoning the way it is right now. As r-1, because r-1 is attached to r-1, we re a big neighborhood. If you look at country home heights across the street, those are acre lots. [55:07] Michael Ekblad: They have country home high or country home park. You look at Moonshine Park, which the city just developed. Everything abutting your property or our property is our one. And when you take a look at what s across the street a little bit further down, you ve got the school, you ve got the city park, and you ve got a neighborhood. Again, I would like to see the city maintain a neighborhood of r-1 homes. [55:40] Council Member: Thank you. Committee members. And do you want me to sign in? Yeah. Sorry, MR. Chair, if residents can sign in and those who already spoke, if you can come in, maybe later in sign up. But yeah, we are trying to get since we re expecting a number of residents to maybe have people sign in with their name and address. Just so we have that information. [56:02] Council Member: Thank you, MR. Schultz. And I apologize that I neglected that. And that s so that they can have a clear record when they re. A clear record. We have a quick turnaround for minutes. And so hopefully that will expedite our, uh, draft minutes. [56:32] Council Member: Thank you, MR. Schultz. Yes. Please come forward. All right, MR. Chair. Uh, all the members, thanks for your time and consideration. My name is Jason West. Just like the direction. Nice and simple for the minutes. Um, I live at 209 Egan Avenue, directly across Lone Oak from the property that we re discussing. Um, very simply, I like. I ve been here almost two decades myself at this property, and I speak for myself, but I think a lot of people in neighborhood would also agree. When we bought into this neighborhood, bought into this city, we bought specifically in this neighborhood because of the unique nature of the larger lots, the green space, the space keyword being space. And what we re proposing is taken [57:20] Jason West: away. That space the current owner has themselves had that space for a long time, as she just let everybody know we re just trying to maintain that space. We re just trying to maintain that. What makes it so precious to us and why we re all here in this room today with you guys. If you look at Lone Oak, I know that s a county, not a city thing, but all the actions that we ve witnessed last summer is directly opposing what you are proposing here today. To make more traffic on that road. [57:51] Jason West: There was four lanes, two directions, either lane. We just went through a summer of construction to minimize traffic on that road. So why are we today even contemplating adding more? I agree with all the other things we ve said today and that we said before. [58:08] Jason West: I don t know what else there is to say. R-1 that s it. That s what we bought next to. It s not like we bought into next to a. I think. What was the last time you guys said next to a golf course? This isn t the same thing. We bought next to a single family home. We didn t buy next to any other subject or any other kind of property that showed signs of anything else. You look at your comp plan, the very document we get from the city just the last month. It does not talk about changing our ones for more residents. It talks about special neighborhoods, not in this area. It specifically calls out different areas in the city for this purpose. [58:54] Jason West: Nowhere in any documentation to the constituents of this city do we get any information suggesting that we need to worry about the neighbor next door turning into an apartment or medium density? I could understand if it was an industrial property. That s not what we re discussing here today, so please take that in consideration when you vote. I appreciate your time. [59:20] Mayor: Thank you very much, MR. West. Good evening. My name is Ian. And just go with page. Page. And I m at 2990 Eagan Avenue. So directly across Lone Oak. And I want to say I m opposed to it. Um, I m not quite sure the developer is not capable of staying in the r or the current designation or not. I think he s pretty close. What point? [59:52] Ian Page: A half a point away. Anyway. Um, I still have. Like I talked last time, I have concerns about fire trucks. We see a lot of fire trucks and rescue first responders, and I m not really seeing turnaround space. The other thing, I have a concern with is I think about their homes. People have parties. [1:00:14] Ian Page: Where s the overflow? Because you can t work on Lone Oak and there s nothing really close. So that s just something else I think about. And I think about, um, I m presuming if there s kids, they have to walk to school because it s close to Pilot Knob. I know there s been, you know, accidents and such, and Pilot Knob and Lone Oak, um, and I think about snow plowing and snow banks, but anyway, there s anyway, I m agreeing with my neighbors. [1:00:52] Ian Page: Thank you for your time. And I m against changing it. And I think it can just be used as is. Thank you. And, MISS Paige, if you would mind signing the. Oh, sure. And then if Jason West. Um, thank you very much. I don t believe MR. Khan. MR. [1:01:09] Ian Page: Conroy, you might not have. Called me. Oh. [1:01:15] Mayor: Okay. Jason. Thank you. [1:01:27] Jen Conroy: You. Hello. My name is Jen Conroy. I live at 1386 on Oak Road. That was my dad. Um, I can agree with Jason. I think about, um, I brought my property in 2021. [1:01:43] Jen Conroy: I definitely bought it because it was unique. Um, and I probably would not have bought it if I knew there was going to be a building 30ft from mine. Um, yeah. So I live west of the property. Um, and I really enjoy the beautiful landscape of Lake LeMay, the quiet, secluded area. Um, and once farmland, the soils rich and, um, home to many plant and wildlife species. I often look out on the lake and see flocks of geese and ducks, and sometimes a blue heron settles in a tree to look for its next meal. And though privacy is a high priority for me, um, my biggest concern is the [1:02:28] Jen Conroy: environmental impact of developing a 27 to 30 unit, um, townhome on that section of land that doesn t seem suited to a high volume of buildings and people, uh, large development significantly impact small bodies of water such as Lake LeMay. Since living in my home, I ve done a lot of work to improve the land, and I aim to have a positive impact on the environment. Um, I ve removed multiple invasive species and replaced them with native plants to enhance and support the small lake. And in the winter, I see the city opening up the ice to ensure the fish that have an adequate oxygen supply. The creation of extensive impervious surfaces such as parking lots and rooftops accelerates water [1:03:13] Jen Conroy: quality degradation and alters the surrounding watershed, leading to increased pollution, flooding and habitat destruction. Increased runoff from a medium density project, such as townhomes can lead to excessive aquatic plant growth. Growth. Excuse me? Depleting oxygen and killing this fish supply pollution and altered conditions shift from a once biodiverse, healthy ecosystem to one dominated by pollutant tolerant species. In conclusion, medium density project is not consistent with the current neighborhood. A mostly single family residential homes, but it will also have a negative impact on the environment, most notably, Lake MAY. [1:03:53] Mayor: Thank you. [1:04:01] Erin Gable: Thank you, MR. Comrie. I thank you. Guys for taking the time to listen. Um. Jen said a lot of sorry. Erin Gable. 1360. Um, lone oak or 1386. Sorry, Oak Road. So I m Jen s neighbor, and I have a lot of the same concerns she has. Um, I became an environmental nerd when I moved in. So this is my book of animals that I ve seen out of my backyard in the three years I ve been out. All of them. But the ones that I ve been home for, um, in the three years I ve been living on LeMay Lake, um, like they said, the turkeys, the eagles, the swans. [1:04:42] Erin Gable: We had swans in the lake for the first time this year. Um, so regardless of the zoning, my concern is like making sure we re thinking of the impact on the environment that we re having. So which one will be which zoning, um, which decision will be best for not only the land itself and the animals on it, but the lake? [1:05:04] Erin Gable: Um, we just had a mercury hike in the lake, so now it s not safe to eat fish out the lake anymore. Um, so we re constantly watching that. It is a small lake, so I guess I question, um, the builders did did mention that we do have a large apartment building, and we do have existing townhomes on the lake already. So I guess my question is on a small lake, how much is too much of medium and high density? Um, living? [1:05:31] Erin Gable: Um, I don t know. I m not an expert in that. So I guess it s just a question that that I would have. Um, and then another concern is just for my neighbors and just the proximity of these to them. I also agree, I bought because I got a good amount of land, um, on LeMay and in the neighborhood, um, it s a it s a huge draw to the neighborhood. [1:05:54] Erin Gable: And it is what makes us who we are and the animals and the wildlife that we have. Um, so, so making, you know, putting large amounts of, um, housing right next door to that is a complete change, um, for her and for Joanna. Um, the other one that s up against this property. So thank you. [1:06:33] Mayor: Thank you very much, MR. Gable. Are there any other residents [1:06:51] Larry Poplar: that would like to to speak? Larry Poplar, living on 3030 Poplar Lane. Can you say your last name one more time, Larry? Poplar. Poplar, Poplar. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And, uh, I have a very short presentation. I, I, uh, quickly review the material I sent you, but I ll read this, so it ll be under two minutes. [1:07:10] Larry Poplar: And, uh, to appreciate your time here. Thank you for inviting the neighborhood to express their views and concerns. The city should take notice to differentiate the quantity and quality of these concerns in your packet. You have my response to this proposal. To summarize, this property is difficult to develop for more density due to its odd, odd and limited buildable shape. Along with shoreline ordinance ordinances and setback requirements. [1:07:37] Larry Poplar: Reviewing the policies on page eight of the planning report, this development should preserve and enhance the vitality and character of the existing neighborhoods, but the developer for this proposal is trying to stretch the facts, to change the image for your acceptance. Um. This proposal is not compatible with the neighborhood as it is totally surrounded by low density housing. It is stretching to say that it s near LeMay Lake Apartments to the east. To justify that density. There is no economic benefit for the surrounding neighborhood, but it absolutely benefits the seller and the property of the property and the developer. So [1:08:23] Larry Poplar: thank you for the planning department for helping us understand this. And it s complicated. And, um, uh, thank you for your time. [1:08:44] Mayor: Thank you, MR. Poplar. Hi. My name is Angela Fisher. Um, I live at 3045 Poplar Lane. Um, I did my best to cut some out while I was sitting there, so I apologize if I go along. Um, but I, um, just want to thank you for letting me share my thoughts and concerns with all of you tonight. Um, I do not love public speaking, but I m going to push through my fears because this is something I m very passionate for. Um, but I do want to address, first of all, something that Dustin said tonight and that s that they re trying to preserve as much tree coverage as possible. [1:09:17] Angela Fisher: If you look at the diagram, at least ten of the units on the left currently have complete tree coverage on the property. So they would be wiping out all those trees to make those ten units happen. Um, I d also like to state that this nearly 30 unit townhome idea still does not fit into the makeup of our current neighborhood. That is all single family homes surrounding it on all sides are their apartments near our neighborhood? Yes, but those apartments have commercial properties. On one side of them. Are there other townhomes near our neighborhood? Yes. [1:09:50] Angela Fisher: Like Mike explained, they have townhomes across the street from them as well. Um, but in regard to the property in question, it is completely surrounded by single family homes. Um, I know that developers would like me to stop bringing up the fact that Dustin Knight s, the potential buyer of this property, told me himself that if he lived where I live, he wouldn t want an apartment in his backyard either. He had he expects to be okay with this development in our backyards, whether it s apartments or townhomes. He wouldn t be okay with it. Um, and neither are we. Um, and while there s nothing currently on the plan to build on the peninsula directly behind my house, um, that doesn t change the fact that they re trying to build 30ft from Joanna Ekblad [1:10:40] Angela Fisher: and Jennifer Conroy. Um, sorry. Um, also, if this isn t good enough for Dustin needs, then it shouldn t have to be good enough for my family. Mike and Leslie Tierney, Scott and Cecelia Berg, Joanna Ekblad or Jennifer Conroy. It s all of our single family backyards back up to this property. [1:10:56] Angela Fisher: Another concern of mine is that living this close to a body of water, the rule is that we cannot exceed 25% of hard surface coverage. When I look at their drawing, I find it very hard to believe that this falls anywhere near 25% of coverage. I m sure I m not the only person in this room who has had to modify our building plans to stay within this 25% rule. Mine was simply for a patio, but if the rest of the neighbors who owned single family homes around the lake have to abide, then I expect this property would have to do the same. And until I can see an official surveyed calculation, I m not buying that these 27 townhomes and their driveways and their roads to service them fall within the 25% hard surface coverage rule. [1:11:38] Angela Fisher: Along the same lines, Dustin just claimed tonight that you could build 24 sprawling single family homes, which would supposedly remove even more trees, but with only being able to build on 25% of that land, it s absolutely impossible to build for single family homes per acre, for a total of 24 homes, according to the 25% numbers, a max of six homes could be built on that land, which would leave a drastically more green space and tree coverage. I m sure other neighbors will share their concerns on these issues as well, but I d like to touch on them quickly. Um, one being just the parking somebody else mentioned. There is no extra parking besides what s in their driveways. Um, if they have more than 1 or 2 cars or a boat or anything, like there s no [1:12:26] Angela Fisher: room for guests. Um, and then the impact on Lone Oak also, um, oh, also, if they were to have guests over, we don t want them parking on Eagan Avenue or Poplar Lane. They can t park on Lone Oak because of the traffic. Um, as for traffic on Lonoke, um, the county might have said that Lonoke can handle the additional traffic, because I know that was one of our concerns with the high density. Um, but they are referring to the wear and tear on the road. They re not looking at the safety issues at this one. Cause for drivers and pedestrians on such a busy street with no turning lane from the east, which then, as I was told before, from the Dakota County Transportation Department, they would likely require a right only turn into this development from Lone Oak Road coming from the west. And [1:13:11] Angela Fisher: I guarantee that nobody, none of the 30 families will be okay with that, nor would they follow the rule, making it even more dangerous for cars and pedestrians as they come up over the hill from the west. Plus, if you look at their diagram, you ll notice that the main road into the development is as narrow as Poplar Lane. [1:13:28] Angela Fisher: Living on Poplar Lane, I can tell you it s already narrow and it s going to make that a pretty tight squeeze if you re trying to get any emergency services into and out of the development, especially if any family has guests over and they re parked on the road already, it seems like a major safety concern or major safety issue in any emergency. Also, the City of Eagan website says that any permanent single exit street must terminate in an adequate turnaround bulb, such as a cul de sac circle. As you can see in their diagram, there are three different points of that road that just end do not terminate in the cul de sac because they are trying to make as much money as possible by trying to cram as many units as possible into an already tight space, and are not taking into [1:14:13] Angela Fisher: consideration the safety of the individuals who will be living there. For my experience, from living on Poplar Lane for the past 17 years, there is absolutely no way, sorry that garbage trucks, ambulances and especially fire trucks could turn around if it weren t for the cul de sac at the end of our street. This point alone proves that this development will not promote the general health, safety and welfare of the city, which is what you are here today to determine. [1:14:40] Angela Fisher: Therefore, this request should be tonight. My final point I m trying to hustle is that 40 years ago, Larry and Sue Poplar and the other Poplar families who are sadly no longer with us, had to fight very similar battle to this all on their own. While at a listening workshop session about a month and a half ago, a member of the city council shared that he recalls when they decided to allow the LeMay Lake Apartments to be built in 1986. They specifically stated that if and when the property currently in question ever became available, and all of the property to the west of the lake apartments, it would be best suited for r-1 and any future developments, because that s what s currently surrounding the property. If [1:15:26] Angela Fisher: that was part of the agreement to approve the LeMay Lake Apartments and appease the Poplar families so it doesn t isolate Poplar Lane completely from the rest of the neighborhood, then why is this even up for debate now, if the last time City Council discussed the future plans for this property and they determined r-1 would be the best fit, then it needs to remain low density and not be approved for medium density. [1:15:51] Angela Fisher: Um, I realized some of the members of the city council have changed, but not all of them have. I strongly feel like they should stand by their word and the city s future plans that they agreed upon. The. According to the city s Comprehensive Guide Plan, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.86 for the Land Use Plan is a guide and MAY be amended from time to time as conditions change. But given the fact that this property is still completely surrounded by single family homes, just like it was in 1986, nothing else has changed. The landscape of the neighborhood. To encourage City Council to go back on its word to Larry and to Poplar all those years ago. Again, thank you for your time and listening to my concerns. I pray that all [1:16:37] Mike Tierney: of you can see that this proposed development would divide and destroy the very fabric of our community. Thank you, MR.. Chair. I I m going to jump in. Um, I m Mike Tierney. I m at 30, 55 Poplar Lane, and I m next to Angela, Tim and family on the bottom right side on the other side of the green there. So, um, I ll be quick because I want to respect your time, and I m starving. So I ll just say [1:17:13] Mike Tierney: that, uh, so, um, again, uh, as everyone said, thank you for your time. Very much. Appreciate it. Um, and, uh, I had gone through, actually, I d read the, the, um, comprehensive plan and have come up with just a handful of points that I wanted to have you guys consider. Um, much of them you ve heard. So I ll just zip right through them. Um, first of all, um, uh, the, uh, the plan notes redevelopment limited to higher density or. [1:17:42] Mike Tierney: Excuse me, higher density is targeted to special areas. You heard one of my neighbors talk about that earlier, right? That makes a ton of sense. There s a number of reasons for that. Um, as we see in Viking Lakes, central area, common, Cedar Grove, cliff, uh, road Commons as well. The idea is that we want to have let me back up. [1:18:02] Mike Tierney: I m a 20 excuse me, 30 year resident. We re celebrating our 30th anniversary. So I m a 30 year Egan resident, so I ve seen quite a bit of growth came from Saint Paul. So saw when this was farmland. Right. So my point is and I appreciate the work that this team does in preserving what Egan is. But then also thinking in the future where Egan should be. So I totally understand what s in front of you with respect to housing needs and and many, many other needs. Very much respect that. Um, my point is, that s why we come up with these special areas, right? [1:18:39] Mike Tierney: That I just mentioned is because of that, we want to make sure that we focus that growth in the right areas at the right time, along the right continuum. Um, the second point is, um, the city, I m quoting the plan here. The city will support higher density residential development and areas adequately served by municipal services. You heard from a number of my neighbors about safety. We ve got two boys isd one nine 7 or 1 nine six, of course, is stopping on loan on Lone Oak because it s it s a county highway. They just don t. So so how do we manage that? Right. The kids that are living there, do we force them to walk through. My point is that s just one [1:19:24] Mike Tierney: component of safety. You also heard about, you know, my neighbor talking about increased, um, cars, etc. You can t see this as two dimensional. That s a hill coming from west to east on Lone Oak Road. And of course the sun setting right there. In the bulk of that. My point is people pulling out of there don t necessarily notice that people are exceeding the speed limit. If you have an opportunity, check, uh, check this. Uh, the city, city, police department records. [1:19:55] Mike Tierney: There s a lot of speeding tickets coming there, people going down that hill. So again, safety number two. Number three, you ve heard my neighbors also talk about preserving wetlands. I love that that quote, how much is too much right. How much is too much on this little lake. Um, and then of course compatibility with surrounding existing land uses. Um, I m going to quote again, the city will support residential uses within redevelopment proposals that ensure capability with the surrounding existing land uses. [1:20:30] Mike Tierney: The surrounding existing. That s quote, surrounding it. So as we talked before, all of us bought we built 21 years ago. All of us bought next to an r-1, shaking hands with neighbors across the lake next door, east west, north of us. [1:20:51] Mike Tierney: The point of it is it. Just as we got to. And I m trying. I m trying hard to get past where we ended up last time. We all bought next to r-1. Right? So this is pulling the rug out from all of those. Again, we re 21 year residences in that home. Many of my neighbors are much longer than that. Uh, the fifth and final one. Um, uh, really just coming back to, uh, sorry, I just got to capture my notes here. Um, yeah. The quality of existing home. So I m going to quote again real quickly, and I ll finish in about 20s to maintain and enhance the quality of existing and future housing and preserve residential land value. That [1:21:36] Mike Tierney: s goal number one on our comprehensive plan, right? I m an economist at heart. I recognize land value is it s a debatable subject. When we talk about change. But my point goes back to what did we expect? And we expected our one. And that changes not only our value, but more so our families expectation and and perception of this land. So again, thank you for your time. [1:22:07] Mayor: Thank you very much, MR. [1:22:20] Troy Carson: CHAIRMAN. Hello, Troy Carson, 3010 Poplar Lane. Thank you for, uh, hearing us tonight. I m really not going to take any more time. I just want to say, I ask that you would not, uh, approve this. Um. And I don t know that I need to list everything that s been listed already, because I agree with with most of it. So thank you. [1:22:56] Mayor: Thank you, MR. Carson. Hi, I m. Sarah Carson. That s my husband, Troy. We live at 3010 Poplar. Um, from the last time I stood up here, which was in FEBRUARY when we addressed this planning commission. Um, there were many things shared that night. The plan from the developer has changed a lot. [1:23:19] Sarah Carson: But I would say that a good portion of that meeting that we had in FEBRUARY, a good portion of the things that this community brought to you all has remained the same. There are still many questions that are not answered. We still have very similar concerns to what we express at night. So, um, I really don t want to take up a lot of time to reiterate what all those are, but I agree with many of the things that were said tonight here. My one of my main points that I made at the meeting in FEBRUARY, I will make again, because it s really dear to my heart, um, that we have on Poplar Lane, a home that is a care home. And as I expressed in FEBRUARY, our street is very narrow. And I know that Angela talked about that too. It [1:24:04] Sarah Carson: s as narrow as the proposed driveway for this, um, proposed development. Um, our street. You cannot park on both sides and expect for a vehicle to get through. And we ve had many times that it s been the case that, um, emergency vehicles are trying to get in and out of our streets. So it is really something that is concerning about this new development proposal. Also, considering overflow parking, our street will become that I am assuming. And so we really I need to stand here in support of my community and the neighbors to our south that are not here tonight. I m assuming there s no residents from that care home, but, um, lots of metro mobility vehicles need to [1:24:50] Sarah Carson: get through. There are people there that, um, have jobs and need to get to their jobs through Metro mobility. And also, unfortunately, we ve had several times that we ve had emergency vehicles coming up and down the block. So that is a concern of mine, and I need to be the voice for my community in that. Um, I also want to reiterate that blind spot on Elk Road and, um, as Anne said, just the overflow parking not being a part of this comprehensive plan for development is is concerning also. So thank you so much. [1:25:41] Mayor: Thank you, MISS Carson. Good evening gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity. I m here on behalf of myself, Sean Shay. Uh, my spouse, uh, f a r n as last name t o usc 3064 Poplar Lane. So, 20 plus years ago, we purchased a lot from MISTER Popular senior. Uh, my wife was really interested to have her parents live with us. [1:26:11] Sean Furness: I believe I did stop by and I spoke with, uh, MR. Michael Schultz 20 plus years ago at the appeal at the zoning office, and I asked him, could we build a duplex or a couple of townhouses? The gentleman said, no way. This is a r-1. [1:26:27] Sean Furness: This is a single family home. It s going to stay. That s great. So we did go ahead and precede it and build a house. Try this. My question is that, uh, on the other side of Lone Oak and of course, other places in Minnesota, they are single family homes. So if somebody comes in and buy 12 homes, half acre lots, so now you have five acres, six acres. Can you come here and say, we want to put 40 townhouses with that fly? Uh, probably not. So that s number one. No. So consistently. So number two is the traffic. Lone Oak has a terrible traffic situation when we want to make a right turn into Poplar. Uh, you know, we have to pray to the Lord. I [1:27:12] Sean Furness: m not kidding. If you re going to get branded or whatever. And they just imagine if you have 30 or 40 additional homes, we re just going to bring another 100 people. It just doesn t support it. Thank you very much. [1:27:35] Mayor: Thank you, MR. Furness. MR. CHAIRMAN, my name is [1:27:43] Resident: courtesy 3060 Poplar Lane. Uh, Sean is my brother in law. We build a house side by side, so we love it. We fall in love in this area because all of them are single family, big lots. [1:27:59] Resident: Not too much crowded. So that s the whole reason we build that places. So my question is everybody talking about negative things about this project? I like to know what is the positive effect of this project to our neighborhoods and how this project affecting our property values, is it going to be positive effect or negative? [1:28:38] Mayor: Thank you. [1:28:43] Marsha Easton: Thank you. MR.. Um, no ma am. As an applicant, you ve already had a chance to speak. So we this is a chance for public comment. But as the applicant, you ve already had a chance to speak. So. Oh, I was I was it I just wanted to talk about the, the what it called the the barn. [1:29:02] Marsha Easton: That that the gentleman said, well, the barn burned down a man because the fire truck couldn t get in. Was it the fire hydrant didn t have water that in. So the woman that was complaining about the fire truck, I said, if the fire hydrant doesn t have water, they had to bring in two pumpers. Inver Grove Heights had one, in Eagan had one. They literally emptied all the fire stations in Eagan, and they were all volunteer because they wasn t they they didn t have pumpers. [1:29:42] Mayor: Thank you. Thank you, MISS Easton. At this point, I think we re just open to public [1:29:55] Cecelia Berg: comment. Thank you. All right. Hi. I just want to sign up. Uh, my name is Cecelia Berg. Uh, 3035 Poplar Lane. And I agree with everything that my neighbors have said. Um, in addition, I just want to say the pollution on the pond is just incredible. So with all this building up, um, around there, it s going to get even worse. And I know that it might not be, you know, a sufficient, uh, decision for you, but, um, I m just thinking that nobody really cares about what happens, right? It s about money. And you guys have. You [1:30:43] Cecelia Berg: guys have the authority to say this is not going to happen, so please just consider that. [1:31:01] Mayor: Thank you. [1:31:13] Nina Moreira: Thank you, MISS Burke. Is there anybody else who would like to to speak or share their concern [1:31:27] or thought with the commission? Hi, my. Name is Nina moreira. This is my husband, Julio Moreira. We live at 1305 Tower View Road, um, which is the house that the previous owners are Bartosz, but with their own hands and trusted us to preserve. And with all the characteristics that all of our neighbors have already highlighted. I really, um, have a phobia of public speaking, but here we are, and this will be over soon for all of us. Um. We support everything that has already been said again by our neighbors, and we wholeheartedly agree with those who are in opposition. To be clear, we are not against the sale and development of this property. And we do. But we just don t understand why it [1:32:14] Julio Moreira: cannot be within the current low zoning parameters respecting the current wonderful characteristics of our neighborhood, our community, and our environment. At the lower end of medium zone or at the high end of low zoning. Why can t that not happen? Thank you for your time. [1:32:34] Thank you. Well, in addition to what my wife said, I would like to just highlight one practical challenge we ve experienced firsthand while living and in trying to develop our property in such a unique location. [1:32:52] Julio Moreira: Recently, we we became concerned about the erosion, um, and a potential future landslide behind our garage. When we looked into repairing the area, we were not allowed by the dnr to bring heavy machinery. Um, because our properties are next to the lake, too close to the lake. [1:33:13] Julio Moreira: And as a result, we had to hire a crew to build a small riprap wall entirely by hand, which significantly increased the cost of what was a relatively modest repair. So we understand and appreciate the importance of protecting the ecology of this area. It s one of the reasons we love living here, as all our neighbors have highlighted. Um, but based on our own experience, it s difficult for us to understand how a project of this scale being proposed could be carried out with the same level of environmental care and regulatory scrutiny that has been required of individual homeowners like us. So thank you. [1:33:55] Mayor: Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any address? What was the [1:34:08] Mayor: address? Um, is there anybody else you d [1:34:16] Mayor: like to speak? Uh, with that, we will bring this back to the commission for further discussion. And. MISTER Chair, can you close. All the. Sorry. I will close the public hearing. Thank you. Um, city Attorney Bauer, and then bring this back to the commission for further discussion. Um, are there, so let s. I ll walk through, I think, with city staff, a few of the questions that have come up. And if there are any that commission members have after I m done with that, um, please, certainly feel free to raise those as well. So I ll start, um, and I m going to I know there were several concerns that were consistent raised by various, um, folks who spoke tonight. And so we will just focus in on individual concerns the best that we can. Um, so [1:35:02] Mayor: MISTER Conroy was the first to speak tonight, and he talked about, in particular, topography of the land, and that there was part of the land that might drain to the west. And so this is, um, in the neighboring properties just to the west of the townhome development. Is that something that the city is aware of, or are there any concerns about how that drainage might work? [1:35:26] Council Member: MISTER Chair and Commission, as far as existing drainage that is not being looked at at this time, as far as any future plans moving forward? We would look at the grading plan. We do not allow for additional drainage to be sent to the neighboring properties. Okay. Um, and thank you. And this is Assistant City engineer. Um, Ben Perkins. [1:35:46] Ben Perkins: Correct. Okay. Um, and so next then there was a, um. And MISTER Conroy, of course, shared that he was not in support of the development, but, uh, tree coverage and had the county or. Sorry, the city considered r1 s small lots as opposed to the development that s before the city right now. [1:36:05] Council Member: MISTER Chair. Commission. I know that was discussed and at least raised as maybe a consideration at the, uh, City Council workshop. Um, and I know council did suggest to the applicant for them to evaluate the r1 as consideration. But before you now is the request for medium density residential. [1:36:26] Council Member: Okay. And then tree coverage was another issue that was raised. Um, I believe you had mentioned MISTER Schultz when presenting that, uh, tree mitigation or tree study has not been completed yet. Is that correct. MISTER Chair? That is correct. They would complete that on the next round of application for the preliminary plan development. [1:36:46] Council Member: Okay. And can you just briefly explain what a tree study does? Uh, yeah, actually I am bringing up an example. This is uh, and I do want to reiterate for residents again, what is before you as a concept plan is not the final details. So they will actually submit a preliminary plan development, which will include additional details. So before you, as a recent, uh, townhome development trails end that was provided, um, here they show a plan that shows existing conditions, uh, how the lots would be laid out. Um, how grading would actually occur on the property. Um, and then within this also do have a, uh, tree mitigation plan. They do [1:37:33] Council Member: have a landscape plan. Um, and then they do have a tree mitigation plan here that shows inventory of the existing trees. Uh, and then which trees would actually be removed from the site, and then they would actually submit that a replacement plan as well. So that would also be included as part of their future plan proposal. Uh, as part of this application. [1:37:55] Mayor: Thank you, MISTER Schultz. And next, MR. Neubauer, um, had asked why the wetland had not been established for this property, and, uh, I think I recall you say, MR. Schultz, that they had to establish that by OCTOBER. Can you explain what you were talking about. [1:38:13] Council Member: MISTER Chair and commission? I might not have the dates exactly, but there is a period of time in which the dnr recommends. And maybe I mean, maybe, MR. Pearcy recalls. But there s a date and period of time where basically, um, wetland mitigation or a wetland, um, study needs to be completed by, uh, in order to be deemed, uh, um, acceptable by the dnr. And so they would need to go out there and complete that. And I think the applicant has indicated that they re willing to provide, you know, basically the required information as part of the study. But at this point in time, they don t want to necessarily pay for a consultant to go out there. If the land use change is not going to be supported by planning commission or city council. So again, that [1:38:59] Council Member: evaluation would be provided at the time of their next round of applications with the preliminary pd. And that would actually completely delineate, you know, that wetland location and what those required buffers would be. So we anticipate that that would actually probably have some impacts on their overall site plan and layout. [1:39:19] Council Member: And so what you see before you right now is part of the concept could be changed or tweaked when they come in with their next phase of applications. Um, and is a wetland study typical and a development uh, adjacent to any wetland? If there s an existing wetland, then yes. Okay. [1:39:36] Council Member: Um, and then MR. Neubauer also brought up about sanitation, the sanitation issue being addressed in advance. Um, does the city typically require that to be addressed in advance of a of approval? MR. Chair and commission? Uh, I believe what the resident was referring to was the sanitary study looking at the capacity of the sanitary sewer and the lift station that s nearby. [1:40:00] Council Member: That is not something that we require for this step in the process. That s something that we re requiring later on. If this moves forward. Okay. Thank you. Um, and then several residents brought this up, MR. Neubauer. The first, uh, but traffic issue on Lone Oak Road with, uh, proposal of up to 30, uh, townhomes. Um, and I guess I ll defer to city engineer. Um, Pearcy, if you want to address that concern. [1:40:25] Ben Perkins: Sure thing. And commission, uh, with the site plan before you. That s 27 units with the, uh, traffic manual that we use for projecting, uh, trip generations. A weekday is expected of 200 trips. That s coming and going combined. Um, and a peak hour of 16 trips to this development for a weekend. [1:40:49] Ben Perkins: It increases to 240 for a for the day, with a trip peak of 23. And again, that s coming and going. It s not just all leaving. Um, and so, MR. Pearcy, how does that, um, how does that relate to traffic flow and Lone Oak Road, for example. Based on the most recent traffic counts, this section of Lone Oak Road receives about 7000 vehicles a day, with capacity for, I don t know the exact capacity, but it has capacity for more trips. [1:41:17] Ben Perkins: Okay. And so is the city concerned about the increased traffic load from this development on. The city is not, um, if this application moves forward, there would be more conversation with Dakota County. Okay. Um, and then as long as we re talking about traffic, there were several concerns raised about safety on land. [1:41:33] Council Member: Okay. Specifically, I think it s that there s a blind spot and then perhaps the sun setting coming from the west. Um, is the city aware of those concerns or have any response to those being raised? Chair. Commission. Uh, some of those concerns were brought up at the the last time this property was brought for application. Um, at this point, all we would require is a study of the intersection as far as where it s projected that vehicles are going to travel to and from when leaving here. Um, but as far as any other study, it would be something brought forward by Dakota County if they would want to see that. [1:42:09] Council Member: And then with that study, likely have recommendations for changes. If there were concerns. Yes, it would. And the other point of view that Dakota County might provide is if they would restrict it to a right in write out. Okay. But it is a county road, so the city does not dictate that. [1:42:24] Council Member: Sure. Uh, thank you, MISTER Piercy. Um, there was also a question about what would happen to the orphan properties. I think those are the two triangles in the lower end of the main lake. Yeah. MISTER Chair Commission. So this is some conversation we MAY need to have with the applicant. And as well as Met Council, whether those orphan parcels, um, potentially remain low density. Um, it doesn t make sense to probably change those to medium density since they re not buildable. Um, so we ll probably have to talk with the applicant at Met Counsel on how best to address those orphan parcels on the south side of the lake. [1:43:02] Council Member: Uh, thank you, MR. Schultz. Uh, so next, MISTER Ekblad, um, was also against the proposed development or zoning change, um, and noted that all land abutting the property is r-1, and, um, I think as you look at the map, I think that that s accurate as as I see it. Um, is the city aware of. And this is just a question, I guess, for me and maybe for members of the commission. Um, are there other areas where r-1 abuts medium density property within this area? Within the city? [1:43:36] Council Member: Uh, MR. CHAIRMAN, I don t I don t have the zoning map up. I mean, I do have the comp plan, on, um, up here, and I. And maybe this addresses one of the other comments about transitions. Um, as you can see, basically the yellow on this, this is the 2040 comprehensive plan. The lighter yellow is low density, which is, um, single family residential. Um, the orange colors is medium density and the kind of orange brown is the higher density. Um, as you can see, a lot of these land use designations represent or reflect the existing land uses, uh, throughout the city. Um, so you see, in these orange areas, I mean, there s a lot of medium density, uh, areas that [1:44:22] Council Member: basically abut existing single family, you know, throughout, uh, throughout the city. Um, and we do have areas, um, even though I think one of the, uh, residents basically indicated that focus of higher density within the special areas. Yes. [1:44:39] Council Member: The comp plan does suggest to represent or reflect, um, wanting higher density within those special areas, which are those blue areas, but generally that s, you know, the hope is even for higher density, um, hd, you know, apartments, um, you know, three, 4 or 5 level type apartments, basically within those special areas to bring density within within those particular areas, not necessarily, uh, medium density. [1:45:04] Council Member: Uh, thank you, MISTER Schultz. And while on that topic of special areas, I know that that was raised, um, by MR. Tierney in particular about, um, a targeted area or a special area for development. Um, can you explain the special areas for development and how that works with the city? [1:45:24] Council Member: Yeah. And I just, uh, it MAY be a plug. We are doing our 2050 comprehensive plan right now. So if residents want to weigh in on our future 2050 plan, unplugging that right now. Um, so, uh, so the city does have multiple special areas within the city. Those are represented in blue. Um, really these for the primary special areas. We do have another special area of really part of Lebanon Hills, really to protect, uh, Lebanon Hills area. But those other four areas are intended to provide, uh, necessarily a concentration or mix of land uses. Uh, within those special areas, higher density type residential, commercial, uh, whatnot. So, um, this particular area, the central [1:46:10] Council Member: area, special area, um, here at um, Pilot Knob and Yankee Doodle, you can see there is a mix of land uses within that particular area that s made up of, you know, commercial, higher density, residential, some medium density, uh, even some office type development, uh, within there. But those special areas do, um, you know, are called out within our comprehensive plan. And there is kind of a level of focus to hope, to help, hopefully to bring more, uh, residential density within those areas. But that doesn t mean that other properties don t have the ability or property owners have the ability to request a land use change. Uh, you know, as they see fit. So, so applicants or property owners do have the ability to seek land use. Uh, um, changes for basically [1:46:55] Council Member: properties when they, uh, when they feel, uh, there s an opportunity. Okay. Um, and in, uh, comparison of this particular property, is this something that the city might consider for a special area plan, in your experience. As of right now? No, I mean, the special area boundaries, for the most part, are remaining. There s some consideration, uh, maybe modifying, uh, the Cliff road special area, but, for the most part, I believe the boundaries, for the most part, are established. Now, again, we re going through the 2050 Comprehensive plan. We might end up tweaking those a little bit based on, existing conditions, but, um, but that s to be determined. [1:47:36] Council Member: Thank you, MR. Schultz. And MISTER West brought up about more traffic. I think we we talked about, um, the traffic, which is brought up by several residents to. I MISS Page then asked about, um, fire trucks, overflow parking and kids walking to school. Um, in the proposed development, are those concerns that the city would have, and if so, how would those be addressed as this move forward? [1:48:01] Ben Perkins: MISTER Chair and Commission, as far as the emergency vehicle and being able to respond, that is something I spoke with our fire department about and with the the length of each individual segment to get to the intersections for them to be able to turn around. They re comfortable with the layout, okay. [1:48:22] Council Member: And overflow parking. I an issue with. MISTER Chair uh, planning staff did, uh, suggest at least as part of the concept plan review, that the applicant should consider, uh, some guest parking. Um, it s only required to provide two, um, parking stalls for each unit, which is accommodated through the two stall garages, at least shown as part of this concept plan. [1:48:45] Council Member: Um, they do show what could be, uh, some tandem parking, uh, within the driveway for guests. Um, but we did. At least staff did encourage the applicant to take a look at that with the next, uh, application to add maybe some additional guest parking stalls on the site. [1:49:03] Council Member: Um, thank you. And several, um, speakers also mentioned, uh, safety of kids walking to school from here. If they were to go, for example, to the school of the West, uh, Pilot Knob Elementary. Yeah. MISTER Chair, I mean, again, we ll get into greater details, but, uh, you know, we d probably encourage maybe the presence of a sidewalk that would lead out to the trail, uh, which then there s again, a county road, uh, trail system that, uh, parallels Lone Oak Road. [1:49:29] Council Member: Uh, thank you, MISTER Schultz. Um, so another, uh, and this is similar to, I think, what MAY have come up with, uh, requests for MR. Neubauer about, um, about the property, MISS Conroy, um, also brought up about the environmental impact. [1:49:45] Council Member: There were several other folks who spoke about the environmental impact of the area and how much they care, um, for this lake and for this neighborhood. Um, pollution concerns in particular. How would the city respond to concerns about pollution or the environment? And would that be a part of any of the studies that are going to move forward that have been mentioned so far. [1:50:07] Ben Perkins: MISTER Chair and Commission, as far as the increased impervious area and the increased runoff that would be on this property, that is part of our requirements for them to have a stormwater feature that s going to be able to handle 1.1in of runoff from that impervious area and treat it on site. [1:50:24] Ben Perkins: First option would be to look at, uh, infiltration. Second option would be look at filtration. Otherwise it becomes a holding pond and just [1:50:38] Ben Perkins: connects into the city storm sewer. So that is something that will need to be studied with the next phase. Is that 1.1in, um, standard. For that is our city standard per city ordinance. Okay. Um, and then there were so I know MISS, um, MISS Gable spoke and she also sent in, uh, an email which all of the members of the commission reviewed as well. Um, and talking, I think in particular, there was a will there be a review of habitat impact or Eagle nest study? Um, as a city where if that will occur. [1:51:10] Council Member: Um, MISTER Chair, I this particular development would not trigger an environmental review. Uh, that would probably go further in depth with habitat impacts, but they would submit their, um, you know, tree preservation plan, uh, grading plan, things like that. [1:51:27] Council Member: So we would be aware of, uh, what vegetation would be disturbed. Uh, as part of that, there would be, you know, a landscape and tree replacement plan that would also be submitted as part of the future, uh, round of applications. Okay. Um, and then there s this question, um, that MISS Gable raised, and I think others as well, and perhaps there is no answer from the city, as in how much is too much for a particular development? And, um, I ll just see if the city has a response to. [1:51:56] Council Member: That, MISTER Chair. That s why we re here. That s for you. For you guys, to determine. I thought so. Thank you. Level of discretion. [1:52:09] Council Member: Yeah. Um. So the next, uh, MISS Fisher, uh, presented, uh, to us or spoke with us and was wondering if, um, again, this is back to trees if this development would wipe out some of the tree coverage. I think you had stated that there would be a tree study to address that concern. [1:52:29] Council Member: Yep. MISTER Chair, again, the tree study. So they would also work with the city forester should um, indicate and they would try to, um, you know, protect some of those more significant, uh, trees based on caliper tree type, um, and whatnot on the property. So there s an ability to, to protect, you know, significant tree on the property by maybe, you know, shimmying basically the road or relocating, maybe a pad site. Um, you know, we could try to work with the applicant on accomplishing that. So, um, so that s part of the basis of the, of the tree study is there s significant trees on the site that we we could try to preserve. [1:53:08] Council Member: Okay. And then another point that was brought up by MISS Fisher and others as well was about, uh, what was said in 1986, I believe maybe one of our council members stated this, that they had agreed that this property would remain residential. And this might be a question that goes to the city attorney as well. Um, is the city aware of any of the agreement or if there is an agreement, or is it something. [1:53:34] Attorney Bauer: That I can answer that? MR.. MISTER Chair, this you cannot. Bind future city councils. So each council makes its own policy decisions. Thank you, MISTER. Bower. Um, and then there was another question. About 25% coverage. [1:53:51] Council Member: And that for residences they are required to limit their impervious to 25% of the property coverage. And in this proposal, um, it appeared at least to the to MISS Fisher. Um, and as, as you look at it, um, ah, will the developer be held to a 25% coverage limit as well? [1:54:11] Council Member: Uh, so, MISTER Chair Commission. Um, and just to be clear, so the 25% is a threshold before, um, basically mitigation is required. So if they if a property owner or development does go over the 25% usually, then a conditional use permit is then required for over the 25%. So I think before you you ve had a number of instances where someone has proposed a pool or some other improvement where basically they exceeded the 25%. They then worked with, uh, city Engineering, how that additional stormwater would be then mitigated on on site. So, so 25% certainly is is the threshold. But then anything over that needs to go through additional mitigation, uh, through the dnr. [1:54:54] Council Member: So it is possible, MR. Schultz, to go beyond the 25%. But then you have to to mitigate that. You have to mitigate that and go through the conditional use permit, or in this case, the applicant will go through the plan development review process. Okay. Um, and then MISS Fisher also mentioned that there is a, a cul de sac, um, requirement on, uh, so for single family houses at the end for a turnaround. Um, I know the fire truck question came up already. [1:55:25] Ben Perkins: Is there a similar requirement for a cul de sac in this development. Sharing commission? Usually the cul de sac is in response to, uh, emergency response needs. Okay. And, uh, assistant City engineer Pearcy, if the fire would, um, the fire marshal would say that they wouldn t require one, then it wouldn t be required. Correct. Okay. [1:55:53] Ben Perkins: Um. And then, uh, this is maybe another. So I hope I captured for MR. Carson. MISS Carson. Um, Shawn, um, Priya, this question of what is the positive effect of the neighborhood? And if that s a question that the city can answer. [1:56:15] Council Member: I mean, MR. Chair, I think that s, you know, maybe for the applicant to address. I mean, um, one of the aspects, I mean, if you want to say the comprehensive plan would that would bring additional housing opportunities for people looking for housing. Uh, townhomes are certainly seen as as maybe entry level type, uh, housing for people. So, um, if you want to use the comprehensive plan and aspects of that, I mean that that could be a positive. [1:56:41] Council Member: Um, and then another question about property values, is that something that the city takes into consideration with an application of how this will affect their property values. MR. Chair? And we ve, I think, repeated this before, but there s no way for staff to gauge or understand if there s an impact to to residents. [1:56:58] Council Member: Thank you. And then the final two, I think are related. This is from MISS Bourg and also from the Marrero family. Um, one is about erosion. Uh, that could be caused by this development and or pollution on the pond. And if those are things that the city has any answer to those questions, as those concerns have been raised. [1:57:20] Ben Perkins: Uh, MR. CHAIRMAN, commissioners, if this application moves forward when they develop civil plans, we d be looking at their erosion control plan as well as the grades to make sure what they are proposing meet city standards to protect against erosion. [1:57:37] Ben Perkins: Uh, thank you, MR. Piercy. And then with regard to pollution in the lake, is that something that the city would be involved in as well in monitoring? Not to my knowledge, no. Okay. MR. Chair, I would just acknowledge that the city is well aware of the turnaround of LeMay Lake. I mean, it was listed as polluted Lake, and I think our our staff have worked hard diligently to have that lake rebound. So I know our water resources staff is well aware that LeMay Lake is in a much better condition than it was, say, 20 years ago. [1:58:12] Council Member: Okay. Um, I believe that s all the questions that I have here. Are there other questions from members of the Commission for staff or comments they d like to share? Yes. There s one question that I, I, I think I ve gotten confused, but I want to make sure I understand this property is not zoned residential. It s zoned agriculture. [1:58:29] Council Member: Agriculture. Yeah. So I mean. So yeah. So before I go to the next so actually there could be it s just that it s not used for agriculture, but had it been used for agriculture, there would be all sorts of environmental impacts on, on the lake. But so the it s zone agriculture. But the land use is deemed low density. And so my question is if if the comprehensive guide amendments change or the plan changes to a medium density, the applicant would then become need to come back. And in their proposal also seek a rezoning of the property from agriculture to r-1 or sorry, not r-1, but for for uh, the r-2. [1:59:14] Council Member: Yeah, r-2 are three or plan development. So so but I want to make sure that I understood this parcel was not r-1, it was not zoned residential. So I m a little confused on some of the background. On it was a residential and part of the r-1, but it s not. [1:59:32] Council Member: Zoned. Ma am. Yeah, ma am. It was. This is to. MISS MISS Easton. This is cultural. And then it went back to. Was it? And now it s still agricultural. [1:59:48] Marsha Easton: Yeah. MISTER Chair, let me just clarify. There is a difference between land use designation and zoning. And so zoning must follow. Basically the land use designation or the comprehensive plan designation of a particular property. So while a property owner, current property owner is speaking before, I thought I d see if I could take a stab and look at what the previous, uh, you know, guiding of the property was. And, and maybe when that changed. So, um, based on what I can tell from, uh, this map, was that the property was guided d to mixed residential, which is 0 to 6 units per acre. [2:00:27] Council Member: This was for the 2020 comprehensive, uh, or for the 2000 comprehensive plan. So back then it was basically allowed for low density residential. But the range of density was much higher back than 0 to 6 units per acre for the 2020 plan, the city basically went to what its current land use designations are to low density, and which was 0 to 4 units per acre. So on the 2020 plan, uh, you ll see on here, um, let me zoom in just a little bit. You can see the designation basically went from that d2, which is 0 to 6 to ld, which is now the current designation, 0 to 4 units per acre at some point. So the city [2:01:13] Council Member: does have the discretion to basically make those changes to reflect basically our how our zoning might relate based on density, minimum lot sizes, blah, blah, blah, that, that type of stuff. So the ld designation basically reflected the city s zoning at the time. [2:01:31] Council Member: So so it still does allow for residential right to city s policy has been that we don t go and rezone properties. Every parcel allow the applicants to come forward with basically the rezoning of the property, because then it does also give the city the opportunity to review the property, you know, for rezoning, land use impacts and things like that. So, okay. [2:01:55] Council Member: Thank you. Thank you, MR. Schultz. Um, any other questions for, uh, MR. Schultz or members of our staff? [2:02:18] Council Member: MR. Chair. Secretary. I m just throwing this out there to fellow commissioners. Um, first of all, great community involvement. Well done. I love seeing you guys out here in force. That s fantastic to see this many people show up for this, this one development. Um, the last time when they came for the high density, I voted against it. Um, probably primarily because of a lot of the ideas that we talked about here already tonight regarding expectations. Um, but I think even at that meeting, we talked about the expectation that something was going in here, something was going to go in here. What and what that looked [2:03:03] Secretary Wagner: like. Um, was very nebulous, right? Even now I sit here and look at this and say, well, in r1, s might work as well, but Would you support it? Would there be the same level of of distaste for that level of development? Or even if it were moved to, you know, r1 that would require significant variances and potentially more. [2:03:28] Secretary Wagner: I mean, equal or greater tree removal, potentially more grading. If you if you were to do that and spread that out, or at least in the medium density, it s tighter in there. I m not saying that it s going to save a lot of trees, but but I see almost more disturbance trying to get multiple homes in there. [2:03:44] But I can see arguments both ways, and I would really appreciate other commissioners, uh, opinion on this. Um, the number of homes, they would be smaller, like even if you did do the r1s, it would be smaller homes, which theoretically would be of less value. And does that, you know, how does that affect the neighborhood as far as there. I just I m torn as to what necessarily community wants. Um, and I just, I yeah, I throw that out there and I d like to know what you guys think. [2:04:23] Council Member: I you. Secretary Weiner. Yeah. I ll go next. Uh, so I share a lot of Member Wagner s, uh, comments there. And thank you again to the community for coming out. And we figured we d see something re-intensified here. It s interesting to hear some of the the. History where it used to be zoned up to. Was it six? We re at four and a half, which of course we re zoning it for 4 to 12 so they could come back. A lot of unknowns. We don t know a lot of things about the wetland and everything else, but I m leaning more towards being comfortable sending this that way to learn what this is. [2:04:53] Because otherwise this property is going to keep coming back and we re never going to get those answers. So I would vote in favor of moving it to the next step to get those answers. It comes back to us for another public forum. And we can, we can visually, uh, visit it again. [2:05:10] Council Member: Thank you. Member Block. And I, vice chair. Um, i m not going to repeat everything my fellow commissioners have said. I do fundamentally agree with the couple of comments made, and I will echo, um, the one that my colleague immediately adjacent to me commented on, that the possibility of single family and the impact of the property could be much greater than with r-2, where you have specific pads. Um, I, I don t say this too often, but I am a real estate developer. I do a fair amount of this kind of work and, uh, single family has the potential to have much greater [2:05:56] Council Member: impact, particularly given the grades on the site and the trees. So it s it is tough, though, and I, I fully respect that. Quietly listen to the comments made. I ve got almost an entire page of comments made by you, and I certainly respect those comments. I appreciate everyone being here tonight, as my fellow colleagues have mentioned. Um, so, um, thank you. [2:06:31] Council Member: Uh, thank you, Vice Chair. Yes. Uh, member. Um, yeah. As always, I love the, uh, the the community involvement. I think it s great to be able to hear from the folks who live around, um, what the concerns are. I mean, I definitely understand it. Um, as, uh, Chair Johnson said, I mean, we re all we re all citizens here. Vegan. Uh, we all live here. Um, we obviously want what s best for our communities. Um, you know, I think, um, kind of echoing, uh, uh, Andrew s point as well on, you know, what happens if we do put a lot of single family homes in there? Um, I live over by Lexington and Westcott. Um, I remember a handful of years back, there was a single property on a pretty large parcel, very similar to this. I think they put, I mean, a ton of single family homes in there. So it [2:07:17] Council Member: s not a very dissimilar kind of situation here where, uh, you know, there s going to be something that that goes in kind of as he said, there is something that is going to go in there. Um, now, again, as, as a, uh, MR. Schultz laid out, um, this is just the first step of the process. Again, this would have to go before City council, the Met Council. And again, that s just to get the initial approval. I mean, there s still a lot that would have to come back before, um, anything really gets set in stone again. [2:07:45] Council Member: Um, after an environmental survey comes back. Um, tree surveys, I mean, who knows? What s before us could look very different, right? So, um, again, understanding that this is just the first step of that process. Um, I know it s never easy to see change. And again, uh, all of the, all of the, uh, the feedback from everybody is obviously taken into consideration. I know City Council weighs all that very carefully as well. Uh, so again, um, I think that it does go a long ways to get that feedback from everyone. [2:08:18] Council Member: I thank you, member Whitfield. Member chair. I guess I get to be the weird one because I voted in support of moving the last proposal forward. Um, but but I remind everyone I didn t do it because I thought everything was going to get signed and sealed as it was proposed. I think I remember telling everyone that that the only thing I was voting on was whether to make a recommendation for for the process to move forward. Uh, and I said that I didn t think that the proposal, as made at the time, was probably going to go forward. And obviously it didn t, but for different, different reasons. Um, so, uh, as mentioned, the community feedback is is awesome. Um, it s really challenging to be living near a almost 18 acre [2:09:05] Council Member: parcel. Um, and over time, there are a lot of parcels like that in Eagan that are being redeveloped because we don t have a lot of land left. And so, you know, developers and sellers are being creative on trying to find ways to continue to have folks live in Eagan in housing that suits their needs. [2:09:25] Council Member: So, um, I still think that this whole area has is, you know, used in a lot of different ways. Um, and I ll say again, I m not sure that the proposal exactly as drafted is what s going to be the final proposal, if there even is one. But but I am supportive of of moving the project forward to at least evaluate next next steps. And there s probably a lot more to go here. I will probably more at the beginning of the beginning than we are at the beginning of the, you know, or the middle. But, um, so I, you know, still support, um, still support a proposal and, and support this one. [2:10:03] Council Member: Thank you. Member Turner. Um, and I believe that that leaves me is the last one. And I also want to echo, um, how much it means to us to have you show up here and share your voice. I think we said with the last proposal as well. Um. What an impact that has on all of us. [2:10:22] Council Member: We are here again as volunteers who just, um, review what is presented to us, and then we make a recommendation to the city council, and they ultimately get to decide what happens. But this is set up. This process is set up so that we can hear what you all care about and what this means to you. And thank you so much for that. And thank you for being here. And thank you to the, um, to both sides for the applicant for presenting as well. And I think as a few have pointed out, it s a rational basis, a standard. What is legally sufficient reason, supportable by facts that relate to protein promoting public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. And I know when I proposed that question of how much is too much to MR. [2:11:04] Council Member: Schultz, he said that that s a question for us. Ultimately, it s a question for the city Council and the Met Council through the 5 or 6 steps that we all talked about even more. I think through the whole process. And your voice is so important in all of that. Um, and how much is too much is a is a very difficult question to answer. Um, you know, for me, I look at this and I the I agree with my colleagues what they ve shared about the thoughts of what might this look like if it was, um, r1 or r1 s? I know there was a comment about whether there, you know, instead of 24 homes because of the setbacks and the topography would actually be be less than that. But, you know, we ve just gone through several developments that have come before us of single family [2:11:51] Council Member: homes that have squeaked to the ends of property to have a development put in, and it could have a larger impact than something like this. And so I weigh that as well. I also know that there is an excellent staff that we have here. [2:12:06] Council Member: There s an there s a process in place that we ve walked through many times, and that process is thorough and it ll, um, pull out all of the concerns that have been raised and try to bring back those facts for all of us to consider when this if this were to come back again. [2:12:23] Council Member: And so just I thank you to all of you for for being here. And, um, those are my comments. I think with that, then if there are any more comments, I would entertain a vote or sorry, a motion. Yes. Vice chair. Thank you. [2:12:38] Council Member: MR. Chair. I d like to recommend approval of a comprehensive guide plan amendment from ld low density to meeting armed medium density residential upon approximately six acres of unplanned property located at 1360 Lone Oak Road. [2:12:57] Council Member: Second. All right. I have a motion and a second from Member Turner. Is there any further comments? Okay. All in favor of of the motion in the process moving forward, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. And that has passed 6 to 0. So I understand that ll be in front of the city Council on AUGUST 3rd. [2:13:16] Mayor: Is that AUGUST 3rd? Monday. AUGUST and Monday. Um, and so I just want to thank you all again. I would encourage you to share your thoughts, um, with our council, and I wish. [2:13:29] Mayor: You all the best of luck. Um, and with that, we can move forward to our second new business. Uh, take a five minute break. Am I hearing that? Okay. Um, we will take a five minute break and then reconvene with our second new [2:20:49] Mayor: business. We are reconvening the advisory Planning commission for JULY 28th, 2026, moving to our second new business. This is applicant, Eastern Lutheran Church, with a request for approval of a planned development amendment for property at 45 for 54 Pilot Knob Road. And I ll defer, I think, to MR. Zajac at this time. [2:21:08] Council Member: Thank you, MR. CHAIRMAN. Members of the commission, eastern Lutheran Church is requesting approval of a planned development amendment to amend the signage plan and add parking on property located at 4545 Pilot Knob Road. The almost 14 acre property is zoned planned development and is developed with a church building and 223 parking stalls. The property has two driveway entrances, one from Cliff road at the southwest corner and one from Pilot Knob Road at the northeast corner. A single monument sign is located on the southeast corner of the property, at the intersection of the two county roads. The applicant is proposing to expand monument signage at the southeast corner, and entrance signs at the two driveways, and add 22 parking stalls to the [2:21:53] site. The additional parking is proposed along the west side of the northerly driveway, and removes the circular drop off area, with a slight increase to impervious coverage. Um. The impervious coverage remains below the amount allowed through the prior plan. [2:22:11] Council Member: Development approvals. Existing stormwater basins with infiltration capacity will take drainage from that new parking area, and two trees will be planted west of the new parking lot. And no tree mitigation is required. Easter Lutheran constructed an addition to the building in 2025 to consolidate their church functions. From there. On the hillside at Pilot Knob and Road to this single by the lake site. Here at Cliff road and Lee road, and the church proposes to reuse the existing signs from both of the church properties, which result in two monument signs being proposed where the city code allows just one sign per building. So the single monument sign would be replaced [2:22:57] Council Member: with two individual monument signs at that southeast corner. The signs satisfy the height limitations and dimensional standards of the city code. The signs are proposed to be set back just two feet from the property lines, whereas the standard is ten feet and a burned landscape bed is proposed for each sign, with removal of the existing bed where the current sign is located. The church is also proposing an entrance sign at each of the two driveways. Each of those signs is approximately eight square feet in area, and stands about 6.5ft tall and 2.5ft wide. Uh, the design, uh, aesthetic is similar to the monument signs with the same metal shroud for the base as [2:23:42] Council Member: the monument signs have. The entrance signs are proposed to be set back five feet from the property line abutting the right of way, whereas the city code standard is ten feet. Uh, and these signs also are placed with encroached within drainage and utility easements, for which an encroachment agreement would be necessary. In summary, Eastern Lutheran Church is proposing to amend the site signage and expand parking on this property. The building condition addition was constructed in 2025, consolidating church operations on this site. The proposal involves adding 22 parking stalls and installing two monument signs at the southeast corner, and an entrance sign at each of the two driveways. The proposed improvements include [2:24:29] Council Member: um deviations for the number and setbacks for the signs, and encroachment to existing easements. The action to be considered is to recommend approval of a planned development amendment to amend the signage plan, and add parking on property at 4545 Pilot Knob Road, and, if approved, the conditions and the staff report shall apply. [2:24:50] Mayor: Thank you, MR. Chair. I m happy to answer any questions and the applicant is also present this evening. Thank you. Thank you, MR. Zajac, are there any questions for MR. Zajac? Okay. The applicant is certainly welcome to present. The applicant would [2:25:10] Mayor: like to. Chair and members of the commission. My name is Gary. I m a staff member at Easter Church, 4545 Pilot Mountain Road. Um, Pastor Megan Torgerson is our senior pastor. [2:25:25] Gary: And I asked her if she wanted to be present while she s currently on a sabbatical. So she said, no, you ll do just fine. So here I am, uh, my personal history, and I ll keep my comments brief. My personal history goes back with our church to 1988, and subsequent to that, I was a part of the church. Originally bought this land, and in the staff report that Pam put together, I think this is our fourth or fifth pd amendment. Over the years, and I have had the privilege of working with her, and I don t want to date her or myself, but 4 or 5 of them, uh, so, uh, that [2:26:11] Gary: s important because we both worked together to put together a good staff analysis and staff report. So, um, as such, we re supportive generally of everything that is in the staff report. Um, I wanted to comment just very briefly on three things history, sort of our commitment and why, um, from a historical perspective, we we purchased this site with the intent of a singular campus in 1995, and we began operating on this site in 2001. Unfortunately, what we were able to build because of the money at that time was not satisfactory or was not enough for us to move from our [2:26:56] Gary: previous facility at 4200 Pilot Knob to this location. So we operated for 25 years as a two campus ministry. But our goal never changed, and that was to work towards consolidation. Um, as, as uh, staff mentioned, we finally hit that milestone and we have now consolidated. We sold the 4200 facility and we are now consolidated on this site. We actually just moved in a few months ago. In the spring of this year. Uh, so it took us 25 years, but we re there. Um, the challenge with that is we [2:27:43] Gary: went from two sites and 4 to 6 worship services to now trying to operate with two everybody together. So we re still in the process of trying to operationally live within the site, live within our building and figure out, uh, the best way to operate, um, from a standpoint of our commitment, uh, we really believe that as a church, we have the blessing of a fantastic site. Uh, very, very unique. And we re privileged to be there. So caring for the land is really a high priority for us. We ve we ve worked cooperatively with the city on on several mutually beneficial projects, such as [2:28:29] Gary: buckthorn removal, stormwater detention, facility improvements. Um, and currently we re doing a native prairie restoration project along Pilot Knob and Cliff. So, um, we value the site that we ve been given. Um, likewise, we really care for our congregation and, and visitors, and that s a high priority. Uh, the latter point is really the purpose of this pd, uh, amendment, um, really focused on, on safety and accessibility and visibility in our few short months of operations, since we ve consolidated, uh, we immediately found that we had [2:29:15] Gary: attendance that forced our congregation on Sunday mornings to park off site. So we had a number of people parking at the water treatment plant. We had a number of people parking at Thomas Lake and, um, we did not feel that that was either, um, treating our congregation really frankly, the way that we wanted to. So that is leading us down the path of how can we make various adjustments to, um, bring that together on the site as we intended. And one of those proposed solutions is adding these 22 parking stalls. [2:30:03] Gary: Um, secondly, the issue of of access and visibility, because of our location, we re constrained by, um, the county roads and, and specifically the access point. So we only have two access points, as was mentioned in the staff report, uh, to our site. So trying to make sure that people who want to visit our site understand where our driveway access is is pretty important. Once you MISS Them, you re kind of you got to go around the corner, etc.. [2:30:39] Gary: Likewise, our building is down in kind of in a hole. So part of the purpose of the corner, uh, monuments is to try to give more recognition and more visibility to our location and our site. Um, so that really is what the pd amendment we re proposing is trying to address is making sure we have enough parking on site so that our members visitors don t have to cross streets and come from Thomas Lake Park and then create more visibility. So that s really our why. And I stand ready to answer any questions. [2:31:25] Mayor: Uh, thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the Commission? Uh, thank you especially for your patience tonight. I know it s sent to all the other applicants, and it s taken a while to get here, but we appreciate that. Um, okay. Well, this is the public portion of the hearing where we open it, um, to public comment for approval of a plan development amendment to amend the signage plan and add parking upon property located at 4545 Pilot Knob Road, as described by MR. Zajac. Is there anybody from the public who would like to comment on this application? Okay. Not seeing a folks come forward, we will close the hearing and bring public, uh, bring the second new business back to the Commission for further discussion. Are there any other [2:32:11] Mayor: questions or comments that members of the Commission have? MISTER Chair, if there are no other comments, I m ready to make a motion. Yes, I thank you, Member Wagner. And for the record, I d like to correct that. I ve been calling under Wagner. Secretary, I don t mind. My new secretary is actually to my right to Secretary Whitfield. [2:32:29] Council Member: Um, so, yes, um, for Wagner, please go ahead. All right. I d like to recommend approval of a planned development amendment to amend the signage plan and the parking upon property upon the property located at 4545 Pilot Knob Road, legally described as lot one, block one Easter by the lake, and if approved, the following six conditions shall apply. [2:32:49] Secretary Wagner: Second. Thank you. I have a motion by Member Wagner and second by Secretary Whitfield. All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye, aye. Um, thank you very much for your commitment and your time tonight. We really appreciate it. MISS You. Best of luck. And that will be before the City Council on AUGUST 3rd as well. [2:33:10] Mayor: Monday, AUGUST 3rd. Okay with that then we will move to our third new business. Um, and this is applicant Millennium Homes llc. It s approval of an interim use permit to allow residential program facility. And I don t understand the music you MAY be presenting this to you. [2:33:27] Council Member: Yes, MR. Chair, uh, the applicant is requesting approval of an interim use permit to allow a residential program facility serving fewer than 16 people on property at 1708 Meadowview Road. The property is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial, as is the surrounding area. In 2023, the city adopted an ordinance pertaining to residential shelters and residential program facilities, allowing them in certain residential and commercial zoning districts. [2:33:54] Council Member: The uses were not allowed in the I-1 zoning district. The requested interim use permit allows consideration of a use not otherwise allowed in a zoning district on an interim basis. The applicant is requesting a five year term because of the investment required to satisfy building and fire code requirements for the proposed use. The existing building was initially constructed as a single family home in 1952, and existed as a non-conforming use for several decades. The residential use was discontinued in the 2000, and the property was converted to office use without permits. [2:34:30] Council Member: Following enforcement action, and in an effort to bring the property into compliance, several variances were granted, some of which remain applicable. The current owner purchased the property in 2014 and renovated it for use as an adult day therapy center. In recent years, the building has been partially leased to similar uses. The owner is now proposing to convert the entire building to a residential program facility for women. The plans show six units with a total of 11 beds. The renovations create new bathrooms, laundry rooms, several common areas with table and chairs, or lounge seating on both the upper and lower levels, and a kitchen and dining area also provided on the lower level of the building. The property has access from both Meadowview and [2:35:16] Council Member: Alexander roads, required parking for this use is about 6 to 7 stalls and 19 parking stalls are proposed in the north parking lot. The north parking lot is currently surfaced with asphalt and proposed for resurfacing. [2:35:32] Council Member: Additional parking is shown in on the south side of the property, with access from Alexandra Road. However, that parking is not needed at this time, since the north parking lot more than satisfies the minimum required amount of parking. The plans indicate that the green space gray is currently satisfied and new landscaping will be provided along the north edge of the parking lot. The swimming pool is located in the yard area south of the building, which the owner states will not be used at this time, whether that s available for use or not. The pool must be maintained in a manner that is safe and in compliance with building and city codes. Park and trail dedications do not appear to have been previously satisfied and are not due at this time. In summary, the applicant is requesting approval of an Interim Use [2:36:19] Council Member: Permit to allow a residential program facility for fewer than 16 people on property located at 1708 Meadow View Road. The proposal does make use of previously approved variances for reduced parking stall sizes and widths. Uh. The action to be considered is to recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit for the residential program facility, and, if approved, the conditions in the staff report shall apply. Thank you, MR. Chair. [2:36:45] Mayor: Thank you, MR. Zach. Are there any questions for members of the Commission? MR.. Yes. Member. Wagner. MR.. Chair. Thank you. MR.. This seems like an awesome application for a property that was out of compliance, and that could now be in compliance. [2:37:00] Secretary Wagner: It s I was it looks fantastic. My question is why aren t you being on a cfp. Well I mean, if they re going to put this money and time and effort into this, why are we making this time limited? Yeah. [2:37:16] Council Member: MR. Chair, commissioners. I saw that look. Uh, as MR. Dusek, uh, explained. So when we went forward with the, um, uh, ordinance to city council, is their recommendation that they didn t want to encourage these type of uses within the I-1 zone district. We have kind of a exception to the rule here with basically because we have a single family house that s zoned I-1. [2:37:41] Council Member: It s already there. Zoned I-1. Um, and so they would really need to rezone the property in order to allow for that long term. You know, basically, um, use of the property. We don t want to necessarily encourage spot zoning because this would be a single parcel surrounded by a sea of industrial land uses. [2:38:03] Council Member: Uh, there is another parcel across the street that is also single family. So long term, the city would probably encourage these properties to redevelop eventually to industrial. So so the iep, like we have a church property within uh, business Park Zone district, um, we have allowed for extension. So there s this five year proposal as part of this use. If it continues to operate and function and doesn t seem like there s maybe a long term, you know, impact to surrounding property owners, the applicant command and request another extension, uh, for, you know, two, three, five years, you know, for the use to continue. So, so we didn t necessarily want to encourage rezoning, which would be potentially spot zoning to the [2:38:48] Council Member: property and allow for long term use of the property. Thank you, MR. Schultz. Any other questions? Members of the Commission. Okay. Um, and at this point, then we invite the applicant at and if you d like to, to share any thing with the commission. [2:39:09] Oksana Pizzo: What do you think? And if you could state your name and and the address of your property. Okay. My name is Oksana Pizzo, and I m, um, here this evening representing Hope International Foundation, Ellis Cove, which is the applicant and the founder of the organization, was not able to be here tonight. So I m representing the organization. Um, and I ll try my best to answer any questions. Hope International Foundation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping those in need by providing support, resources and programs that promote stability, hope, and long term independence. Um, tonight we re requesting an interim use permit to operate House of Hope. Um, housing program with supportive services for women. [2:39:52] Oksana Pizzo: This vision was born out of a need. We personally have witnessed both me and Ella, uh, repeatedly, especially in the last few years within our community. Many women experiencing domestic violence, abuse, trauma, housing instability. And they face significant barriers when seeking help, especially, um, newer immigrant refugee women who have a language barrier and they re not aware of all the resources and where to go for help. So House of Hope, um, is intended to be that first basic, um, shelter and the basic needs for these women so they can pay so they can, um, stabilize and try to be more independent. So it will not be like an emergency shelter will [2:40:39] Oksana Pizzo: not be a treatment facility. It s just a structured transitional like, uh, residential program facility where women can find safety, stability and individualized support while working toward permanent housing. And greater independence. It will be a short term to help them find something more stable. Um, and our supportive services are going to be nonclinical, so they re going to be, you know, obviously, first, the base, the basic need of the of life, which is, um, shelter and housing, um, food and clothing, but also later on to help them with skills, um, education assistance, transportation coordination, referrals to licensed healthcare, uh, or whatever other kind of help they ll need so it can be that referral and help them and give [2:41:24] Oksana Pizzo: them the resources that are out there. Uh, we believe this property will provide a warm and residential environment where women can safely rebuild their lives while remaining part of the community. Um, and we are committed to operating responsibly, maintaining the property, complying with all the city requirements and conditions, and being good neighbors. Um, through open communication with the city staff and the surrounding residents. And we respectfully ask for your support of this interim use permit by a approving this request. We are helping create not only a safe place to live, but also a pathway towards stability, independence and hope for women facing difficulties. Thank you for your time and your consideration. [2:42:08] Ralph Gard: My name is. Ralph Gard. With Ralph Lukens. Guard architecture. I live and work in Eagan and I like Commissioner Wagner s thoughts. I like the. Way. He thinks that should be our tour because it is an hour one. It is. An hour. One building. It s a it s a house. It started out as a house and that s where we picked it up as a house. And we ve made a lot of work and put a lot of work into the interiors and the exteriors needs some work. So we re working on the next step, which would be the landscape architecture plan. And we ve done the interiors with just moving a few walls and adding a few walls to make it work for for the function. It s been a great pleasure to work with [2:42:55] Ralph Gard: Ella and Oxnard and their their passion and their their effort to do what they re doing is, is really amazing. And that s that s what keeps me going. And that s why I m here. So thank you for your time and attention. And you re good. I. [2:43:12] Mayor: Thank you. Are there any questions or members of the commission for the applicants? Well, thank you so much, MR. Blair. MR. Elkins, card. Um, with that, then we will open up the public portion of the hearing for approval of an interim use permit to allow a residential program facility upon property located at 1708 Meadowview Road, as described by MR. Zach. Um, are there any members of the public that would like to come forward to speak about this application? [2:43:45] Mayor: Again, not seeing a rush at the at the podium right now, we will close the public portion of the hearing or close the public hearing on item number three and then bring this back to the Commission for further discussion. Are there any other comments or questions the Commission members have for staff, and if not, I would entertain a motion. Yes, Secretary would feel. [2:44:04] Secretary Whitfield: It s okay. I d like to make a recommendation here. Um, recommend approval of an interim use permit to allow residential program facility upon property located at 1708 Meadow View Road. Legally described as lot five, Meadow View. And if approved, if approved, the following eight conditions apply. [2:44:23] Secretary Whitfield: Second. Okay. Thank you. I have a motion from Secretary Whitfield. A second for member Turner. Um, any further discussion? Um, and I will just say thank you very much for being here tonight. This is a cause you can tell that s a hard cause. And I really appreciate you bringing this forward tonight. Um, with that, uh, all in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. [2:44:44] Mayor: All right. That is passed 6 to 0, so it will be on before the City Council on AUGUST 3rd. And wish you the best of luck. Um, with that, we can move forward to our fourth new business. Uh, this is applicant Bay and Bay Transfer Company for conditional use. Permits and variances, and I understand that, um, is it, MR. Cuervo? [2:45:09] Council Member: Is. Yes. It s correct. Present tonight. [2:45:21] Yes. MR. Chair, and members of the Planning Commission. Uh, yes. This, uh, is a request for, um, two things. A conditional use permit for the outdoor storage of trucks and trailers across 117 parking spots and one shipping container. Uh, a truck terminal for assembly and temporary storage of freight and a service of trucks and trailers. Um, additionally, the request is for variances to formalize existing conditions for a parking lot. Setbacks on the east, west, and southern property lines to reduce the minimum green space, um, to 12%, and to reduce minimum parking space dimensions to nine by 18ft. Um, this is upon [2:46:06] Council Member: approximately 5.4 acres at 1056 Gemini Road. So this property is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial and is guided, uh, industrial as well. The property was originally developed in 1970, and in 1978 a conditional use permit was approved, allowing the outdoor storage of 27 trucks and trailers. Uh. This conditional use permit only applied to the original applicant and is now expired. [2:46:34] Council Member: The property is currently used by a trucking and logistics company with an outdoor storage area and office building containing an employee lounge and truck services. Earlier this year, city staff received a request for a zoning verification letter, where staff identified several nonconforming issues on the property. Upon sale of the property, the applicant reached out to the city to address these issues and bring the property closer in compliance with current zoning standards. [2:47:05] Council Member: Um. The site is approximately 5.4 acres and is developed with a 16,406 416 square foot office and lounge building. Access is provided by Gemini by Gemini Road to the north of the property, in two locations. Um green space on the site is located on that north side along Gemini Road. Otherwise the rest of the property is bituminous pavement used for parking and other outdoor storage. Um, additionally, uh, some of the applicant s current outdoor storage is encroaching on the property. Uh, to the east. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for the following uses to bring its current uses into compliance [2:47:51] Council Member: with city code number one. Outdoor storage, which is a stocking keeping, selling, or trading outside a commercial industrial building of merchandise, supplies, materials, finished goods inventory. Other movable property or motor vehicles. Um, a truck terminal a building or area where freight brought by truck is assembled and or temporarily stored for rerouting or re shipment, which MAY include storage and or parking areas for truck, tractor and or trailer units, and service for trucks. Um, which is indoor service, repair and maintenance of truck tractors and trailers within enclosed bays. Accessory to the principal use outdoor storage, uh truck terminals and service for trucks are all conditional uses in the I-1 limited [2:48:36] Council Member: industrial zoning district. The applicant is also requesting approval of several variances to address existing site conditions, the first being parking lot setbacks. The applicant requests a five foot variance for the parking lot setback on the East and West property line, and a 2.3ft variance for the setback on the South property line. Um, for reference, in the I-1 district, uh, the the setbacks, there are five feet for all three minimum green space. The applicant is requesting a variance from 25% down to 12%. Green space coverage. And then finally for parking space with the applicant is requesting a variance from the required ten by 20 foot parking space with or parking space dimension to [2:49:23] Council Member: the nine by 18 parking space. Dimensions. I would like to note that all uh, the this all see the all the conditional use permit and variances all represent current uses and site conditions. Um, the the applicant has also proposed a few conditions of approval associated with this request. [2:49:43] Council Member: Um, the applicant is proposing the addition of a shrub bed for screening along Gemini Road to the west of the central axis. This shrub bed represents the applicant s attempt to improve the quality of the green space on the site through increased greening, in lieu of increasing the actual amount of green space. The applicant is also proposing to move the trailers in parking spaces that are encroaching on the neighboring property. To the east. Um. The applicant proposes to remove the guard slash ticket shed, uh, located in the northern parking lot. And finally, the applicant, um, has proposed providing a new handicapped parking space in the northern parking lot. And these are all, like I said, included as conditions of approval. Um, staff s use, the conditional use permit request as reasonable as other properties [2:50:29] Council Member: along Gemini Road and throughout the surrounding area. Having granted conditional use permits involving outdoor storage, truck terminals and service for trucks, the applicant has been proactive in identifying areas where the property does not comply with city code, and many of the current nonconforming conditions were not standards when the property was developed. It is a policy matter for city officials to decide whether to formally recognize these conditions, as they have not caused negative effects or negative impacts on the surrounding properties before, but formally validated. [2:51:00] Council Member: Validating them MAY prevent the city from requesting improvements associated with future development as conditional use. Permits and variances. Um usually run in duration with the property s uh lifespan, so in summary, the applicant is requesting the approval of conditional use permits for outdoor storage, a truck terminal, and service for trucks, and variances for parking lot setbacks, minimum green space coverage, and minimum parking space dimensions. These uses and nonconformity are already existing on the site, and the applicant has proposed site improvements such as the new shrub bed and additional handicapped handicapped space. [2:51:41] Council Member: As conditions of approval, so the action to be considered is to recommend approval of a conditional of of a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage of trucks and trailers across 117 parking spots and one shipping container to allow a truck terminal and to allow the service of trucks and trailers. Um. The action to be. [2:51:59] Council Member: Also the action to be considered is to recommend approval of variances to parking lot setbacks, green space coverage and parking space dimensions, both upon approximately 5.4 acres. Located at 1056 Gemini Road and if approved, the conditions outlined in the staff report shall apply. Um. With that MISTER Chair, members of the Commission, I can take questions. And I also think the applicant is here tonight as well. [2:52:23] Mayor: Uh, thank you, MISTER Cuervo. Are there any questions for members of the commission? I have one. Quick one. Yes, I m a writer. Thank you and well done. Good job on the presentation. Thank you. Um, question for staff is, uh, we were always taught that the conditional use permit runs with the land. How did it expire? [2:52:43] Secretary Wagner: Well, MR. Chair, uh, so the, uh, in commission. So the conditional use permit, um, technically ran with the property, and it allowed for the 27 trailers to be stored on the property. However, what typically is not applied anymore is that it s specific to the property owner. Uh, we normally would not place a condition with the cup that would run with a specific property, would run property owner. It would run with the property itself. However, even that cup granted in 1978, is that a compliance because it only allowed for the 27 trucks and trailers. The applicant now wants to increase that more than tripling the amount of outdoor storage on the property. So. So really, they need to update their cup to [2:53:28] Council Member: represent what would be allowed to be stored outside. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Member Wagner, any other questions? Okay. With that, we d invite the applicant to come forward. If you [2:53:46] Tony Jaworski: d like. Thank you for your patience. And it s been a long night. My name is Tony Jaworski. I m the vice PRESIDENT Of finance for. Bay and Bay. So I figured I d give you a laugh. It s gotten late, so bam! Bay, a lot of people ask how the name came about in 1941, when the company was formed, they had two bay mare horses that hauled the wagon. [2:54:06] Tony Jaworski: They named it back Bay. Uh, so we re talking about a terminal or terminal. We have 300 refrigerated drivers in that terminal. And Eagan is where they bring their trailers. The terminal that we re talking about is, uh, it has a fitness facility. It s got a lounge, kitchen, laundry facilities, bathroom and showers. It s really the home for the drivers when they re on the road and they stop in Eagan. Um, it s also paired up with our corporate office. So 2905 West Service Road is our corporate office. We have 180 employees there that support the organization. That s really just our maintenance facility in a place for our drivers to go. Um, we re happy to, to try and do what we can to help out. [2:54:43] Tony Jaworski: The facility is built in 1970. We haven t changed it from 1970. Um, besides remodeling the inside, make it nice for the drivers. Uh, we just like your help to to get this through. We sold the property to help the organization. Um, not sure how familiar are with the trucking industry, but for the last four years, we ve been in a freight recession. That was very difficult on the company. So we didn t want to sell the facility. We ended up doing a sale lease back to help the organization, and the buyers wanted a conditional use permit, which we thought was fair and reasonable for them to ask. So we re before you today to say we ll be more than happy to make these changes. If that would satisfy the city of Eagan and help us continue on. Thank you for your time. [2:55:22] Mayor: Thank you very much, MR. Jaworski. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Commission? Okay. Well. Sir, if I MAY, I just wanted to say thank you very much for that. I there s a lot of detail here, a lot of stuff you guys had to bring up to speed. And it s great to do that. And thank you for having your business here. [2:55:43] Mayor: Thank you. I think we all echo that to thank you. Um, member. Thank you very much. Um, so with that, then we will move to the public portion of the hearing. And this is for approval of conditional use permits and variances as presented by MR. [2:56:03] Mayor: Cuervo. Um, specifically for the outdoor storage of 117 trucks and trailers and one shipping container, including a truck terminal for assembly and temporary storage of freight service of trucks and trailers designated in bays at 1056 Gemini Road, and variances that will formalize existing conditions, including reducing parking lot setbacks in the east, west and south property lines and reducing the minimum allowable green space. Um, is there anybody from the public who would like to comment on this? Use the last 2 or 3 hours to get here. I don t see anybody from the public with that. Then we will close the public hearing on this application and bring it back to the Commission for further discussion and or a motion. [2:56:43] Mayor: Yes. Yeah. I just want to point a clarification for the variances. Do those have to be separate motions or can you make one motion for all three? Are they written purposefully to be okay. You know, MR. Chair? Yeah. Yeah I hear you re not able. To take separate action item on each variance. All right. I d love to make I d love to make these 43 motions. [2:57:03] Council Member: Thank you. Uh, if I MAY. We have, uh, and which motion in particular you re making right now. I can go down the line. I ll start with the top. Uh, move to recommend approval of a conditional of conditional use permits to allow outdoor storage of trucks and trailers across 117 parking spots and one shipping container to allow truck terminal and serve as a trucks and trailers upon property located at 1056 Gemini Road. Legally described as Edendale Center Industrial number three, block six, lot seven, eight, nine and East 85. [2:57:36] Council Member: Uh four and 12ft of lot six with the seven conditions as outlined in the staff report. Okay. Um, a motion by Member Turner. I have a second by Secretary Whitfield. Um, any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye, aye. [2:57:53] Mayor: And that is passed 6 to 0. i move to recommend approval of variance to reduce parking lot setbacks in the east, west and south property lines two zero feet from property located at 1056 Gemini Road, legally described as Edendale Center. Industrial number three blocks. Six, lot seven, eight, nine and East 85 for 12ft of lot six. [2:58:11] Council Member: Second okay, a motion from returner, second from Secretary Whitfield. Uh, any further discussion? Any. All in favor, raise your hand and please say I. I ll pass a 6 to 0. I move to recommend approval of variance to reduce the minimum allowable green space coverage to 12% from property located at 1056 Gemini Road, legally described as Edendale Center, industrial number three, block six, lot seven, eight, nine and East 85 for 12ft of lot six. [2:58:37] Council Member: Second okay motion by member Turner, second by Secretary Whitfield. And there s no further discussion. All in favor, please raise your hand and say hi. Hi, hi. And that has passed 6 to 0. And a move to recommend approval of variance to reduce the minimum parking space dimensions to nine by 18ft upon property located at 1056 Gemini Road. Legally described as Edendale Center, industrial number three, block six, lot seven, eight, nine and East 85 for 12ft of lot six with the five conditions outlined in the staff report. [2:59:04] Council Member: Second. Thank you. I have a motion for member Turner and a second from Secretary Whitfield. Um, all in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye, And that has also passed 6 to 0. Uh, thank you very much again for your patience tonight and for your commitment to Eagan. I I understand that ll be in front of the city Council on AUGUST 3rd. That s on Monday. [2:59:28] Mayor: So thank you very much. Uh, with that, is there any other business for the commission? MR. Schultz. Stretches out for three hours. I have no. More minutes. No other business, MR. Chair. [2:59:44] Mayor: Um, thank you very much. With that, then I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. I have a motion by Member Wagner, a second by Secretary Whitfield. All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. We are officially joined.