[0:34] Chair Zimmer: 25 city planning commission meeting to order. If you rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the republic for it stands one nation indivisible. [1:04] Chair Zimmer: Thank you. Miss Ericson, will you take the role, please? [1:08] Clerk Miss Ericson: Travis. [1:09] Commissioner Travis: Here. [1:10] Clerk Miss Ericson: Duckworth. [1:11] Commissioner Duckworth: Here. [1:12] Clerk Miss Ericson: Kuza. [1:13] Commissioner Kuza: Here. [1:14] Clerk Miss Ericson: Zimmer. [1:15] Chair Zimmer: Here. [1:16] Clerk Miss Ericson: Ike. [1:17] Commissioner Ike: Here. [1:18] Clerk Miss Ericson: Swain. [1:19] Commissioner Swaney: Here. [1:20] Chair Zimmer: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of our July 17th uh planning commission meetings meeting minutes. Does anyone have any changes? [1:32] Chair Zimmer: Great. We will be able to let those stand as listed. Next item on the agenda number four is announcements. Miss Jensen. [1:38] Miss Jensen: Thank you, chair. Uh there are two handouts before you this evening. One is the parks, recreation, and natural resources committee motions regarding the tree preservation ordinance from their meeting last evening. Um and then the other is an email comment regarding agenda item number seven for tradition development. And then I do also want to just note that there will not be a public hearing for agenda item number six as that application was withdrawn by the applicant. [2:09] Chair Zimmer: Thank you very much. Um, all right. We don't have three public hearings. Uh, we have two. And just to let you know, uh, if you'd like to speak on the items tonight, there's a signup sheet at the back. Uh, please be advised that planning commission meetings are televised live on cable television and streamed online at lakefvillemn.gov as well as recorded and posted online later viewing. Uh if you'd like to provide a comment, as I said, sign up and then um at the time of that public hearing, we'll have people come to the podium, speak into the microphone, uh stating your full name and address for the public record. [2:51] Chair Zimmer: And um let's see, uh the audio system does not pick up any comments from the seating area. All comments and questions must be made at the podium during the public hearing portion of the hearing. And uh we always try to give everyone an equal opportunity. So if we need to limit comments, we may have to do so. Staff will monitor any call-ins uh to let us know if there's anyone that's uh going to speak virtually. Thank you for that. [3:20] Chair Zimmer: And then uh our first item is city of Lakeville um consideration of amendments to title 10 and title 11 of the city code relating to tree preservation. We'll have presentation by director Tina Goodroad. We had a public hearing on this item already, so we just have an opportunity to hear an update. Thank you, Miss Goodroad. [3:42] Tina Goodroad: Thank you, chair, members of the commission. Um, as you recall, the July 17th planet commission meeting, we did review the tree preservation ordinance and there was a couple of things that the commission had some questions on, decided to open and close the public hearing, um, held comment, um, but then asked that the item be tabled. Since that time, community development staff and forestry staff have been working together to come to some um revisions on a couple of the points that you raised at the meeting. I'm going to hand things over to our city forester, Zach Jorgensen, who will review those changes. [4:18] Zachary Jorgensen: Thank you. All right. Thanks, Tina. Thanks, Commission. Uh Zach Jorgensen, city forester. Uh thanks for having us in again. I've got a brief presentation. Um I go through it and I'll just touch on the highlights, especially the changes that were made since the last meeting. [4:36] Zachary Jorgensen: Um we've got quite a bit of information in there, but um really just looking at what this ordinance seeks to do. Um you know, uh providing a a more detailed tree preservation ordinance for the city. Um, as far as the scope goes, uh, we had talked about this a bit last time, but the the types of development that are included include, uh, new development, uh, at the time of subdivision approval, uh, new development for site plans, uh, applications for building permits for infill development, and then also applications for, uh, building permits for reconstruction or expansion, and that's the one we had quite a few questions on last time, and that we addressed again, uh, hence the asterisk here. [5:14] Zachary Jorgensen: So on the next slide, um you know, we did go back and considered, you know, the questions that were brought up here, uh the conversations with council at the work sessions as well as the purpose statement of the ordinance, uh and made a few revisions to the ordinance that are outlined here. Uh looking to change it to, uh apply only to properties that are an acre or greater, not including right-of-way or easements on those properties. Uh only applying it to heritage trees, uh which again are trees that are hardwood deciduous over or 30 inches or greater in diameter. So things like cottonwood, silver maples wouldn't apply in this case. We're looking at those higher value trees. Uh also changing the replacement requirements. [5:51] Zachary Jorgensen: Uh before we had a much larger replacement requirement for these types of properties. Uh we've changed that just to two trees uh per heritage tree removed under this uh in respect to the size of the properties uh and the impacts as well. Um and then we also added a note that uh you know for these types of properties preservation plans could be prepared by the owner themselves. uh since they're familiar with with the property itself. So um certainly can use a professional to do that work, but we decided to open that up as well. [6:21] Zachary Jorgensen: Um running through everything else again, you know, the the thresholds is applied, you know, we're looking at 40 and 70% uh removal thresholds for residential districts 40%, industrial, mixeduse, commercial 70%. And then heritage trees, again, those hardwood deciduous over 30 inches, you know, a 0% removal threshold on those for the purpose of the math. [6:41] Zachary Jorgensen: Um, we've got the math here which Grace uh did a good job presenting uh some examples of last time uh how we determine you know the number of trees that are required for replacement. Basically any trees that are removed over that that threshold do require replacement um for you know a new development. [7:01] Zachary Jorgensen: Um, we've got exemptions in there, uh, you know, listing things like dead trees, uh, trees that are controlled under the shade tree pest ordinance. Um, trees that are listed invasive or is planted as part of a commercial operation. So, think nurseries, orchards, things like that. Uh, or within the right of ways of major collector or arterial streets, things that developers can't control. So, those would be exempted. [7:25] Zachary Jorgensen: Um, as far as the math in for replacement, basically we've got another calculation. um uh we've broken it down into common trees, coniferous trees and hardwood deciduous and then we've got a fraction of replacement of diameters is removed that have to be replaced by that. So if you take down a significant tree that's say a common tree of a box elder you replace 1/8 inches removed. If it's an oak you replace half the diameter is removed. And then heritage trees again those large trees uh we've got a 100% replacement requirement on those. Um and then one other note I'll I'll make here that we've changed is under the uh replacement or the fee in lieu we did lower that dollar amount. Uh we reviewed again you know initially we had looked at uh the plant appraisal guides replacement costs guidance for that and then uh we also started to look at some of the replacement costs that we're seeing from development and adjusted that down. So instead of being uh 550 uh per tree it's around $440. So, $175 an inch of replacement. So, about a 20% reduction in that. [8:30] Zachary Jorgensen: Um, again, you we've got the the removal prior to development. Uh, you know, if an area of 2 acres or more within two years of development has been removed, that does require replacement. Um, basically one tree for every 300 square feet of trees removed on a property. [8:48] Zachary Jorgensen: And then we've got a couple incentives. Um, you know, if you're preserving heritage trees or significant woodlands, uh, which are defined as, you know, an area two acres or larger, we do provide a a credit to knock down the number of replacement trees required. And that's at a 2 to 1 ratio. So, for every inch of tree that you you save, uh, protect, you get two inches of credit for that uh, up to 50% of the required replacements. [9:12] Zachary Jorgensen: And then just as a quick note, we've got the whole huge uh table that we did of this comparison, but just pointing out that a lot of communities have very similar um removal thresholds, replacement requirements, uh etc. So, and that's it for the presentation. [9:31] Chair Zimmer: Great. If there's any questions, have any questions on this? Commissioner Kuza. [9:36] Commissioner Kuza: I don't have a question. I just want to thank city staff for the work that you've done on this and um definitely my concerns particularly related to kind of um what happens for expansion of existing developments if a single family homeowner wanted to add on to their house um you know addressing that by uh kind of bumping it up to one acre. I think that is great and um I think it's very well crafted um ordinance and our job as the planning commission isn't you know we don't we're not the deciders we don't have election certificates that's a city council but our job is to send to them the very best possible ordinances and I think that um we've done that and city staff's done a great job on this so I appreciate all the work. [10:19] Zachary Jorgensen: Thank you. [10:20] Commissioner Swaney: Thank you so much just like to thank staff for sorry just like to say thank staff for taking into account their comments and adjusting uh the ordinance as that would take care of those concerns very much appreciated madam chair. [10:39] Chair Zimmer: Please go ahead Commissioner Travis. [10:41] Commissioner Travis: Mr. Jorgensen, quick question about the the changes that you made particularly with respect to the uh currently developed properties, the homeowners. Um I think last time we really focused in on those small lots in downtown Lakeville and difficulty that those homeowners would have in case of an addition. Um could you say a few words about why you chose the one acre? There aren't one acre lots downtown. [11:15] Zachary Jorgensen: Yeah, we thought it was a an area or a size that would um address some of the the concerns we have about woodlands, right? So, we're trying to preserve woodlands. Um those lots can have significant, you know, trees on them, a sign significant amount of of woodland on them. Um also, they allow for replanting uh more so than other properties. And so, it's easier to get those trees back in um and and actually accomplish the goals of the ordinance. Um, we also looked at some other communities to see what they were doing. And a lot of communities that do this kind of thing also look at area size as one of the basis of uh how they how they define a property that requires a tree preservation plan. [12:01] Commissioner Travis: Thank you. [12:02] Zachary Jorgensen: Yeah. Thank you. [12:05] Chair Zimmer: And if there are no other comments, I think we're ready for a motion. [12:09] Commissioner Kuza: Madam Chair, I had a motion to recommend the city council approval of the ordinance and amendments to title 10 subdivisions and title 11 zoning of the city code related to tree preservation. [12:21] Commissioner Travis: I'll second that. [12:23] Chair Zimmer: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Miss Ericson, will you take the roll. [12:29] Clerk Miss Ericson: Duckworth. [12:30] Commissioner Duckworth: I. [12:31] Clerk Miss Ericson: Kuza. [12:32] Commissioner Kuza: I. [12:33] Clerk Miss Ericson: Zimmer. [12:34] Chair Zimmer: I. [12:35] Clerk Miss Ericson: Swainy. [12:36] Commissioner Swaney: I. [12:37] Clerk Miss Ericson: Travis. [12:38] Commissioner Travis: I. [12:48] Chair Zimmer: Pretty good. Thank you. Moving forward. Thank you so much for coming back, Mr. Jorgensen, and working on that. As stated by our staff, the ETS South Metro application was withdrawn. So, we'll move on to number seven, the tradition development. Uh this is a motion to recommend uh to city council. Um it's a public hearing, excuse me, to consider the application of tradition development for a comprehensive plan um to bring approximately 390 acres of land into the current uh municipal urban service area, also known as Musa, and a comp plan amendment to reguide properties from uh a variety of density changes um as stated in the agenda which are available at the back of the room and um we will have uh Mr. Stutz is going to uh start us off with a presentation on this. [14:02] Todd Stutz: Uh good evening uh Chair Zimmer and members of the commission. Uh I'm Todd Stutz. I'm with Tradition Development Corporation. Uh in addition here is Adam Mickelson. Um he's a chief financial officer also for Tradition Development Corporation. And how do we go forward? Just here. Okay. Or the mouse. Okay. I'm still in the process of programming my VCR at home. So, I apologize for the brief delay. Um, again, our development team consists of a number of individuals, all located here in the city of Lakeville at Tradition Development Corp. Um, and those individuals are listed and they'll have an active role uh in this proposed development. [15:10] Todd Stutz: We began looking at this property um approximately 9 months ago. Uh even though this is our first opportunity to appear before the commission, we've been working with staff. Uh we've been working with adjoining property owners. Um it all started with us being contacted by the Leonard family. The Leonard family owns roughly 200 acres in the uh as part of this overall development area. Um and they had a desire as a family to sell their property. And so um they approached us and so therefore over a period of time we were in a position in March to close on that property. So the 390 acres, our company currently owns 200 acres of that which was the Leonard property. Uh in addition to that, we control roughly 40 acres under purchase agreement and we're working jointly um with Jay Blanchard um at his firm uh for roughly 50 acres. So there's currently roughly about 290 of the total acres of the 390 acres uh that we either control or working uh jointly with a property owner on. [16:30] Todd Stutz: Um in addition to that um we reached out to the surrounding property owners once we uh purchased the Leonard property and asked if they wanted to join uh with us and looking at a a comprehensive plan amendment that did two things. Um changed the metropolitan urban service staging area uh and in addition to that changed the current land use designation for some of the property. Um and so there's a total of now at this point a total of 12 different property owners that represent 21 different properties um that are part of the application that you see in front of you. Ultimately as we go through the process um some of them may join us on the plan unit development process which we're intending on following that path. Um some may just uh you know choose not to develop their property. Um of the 390 I can say that we would probably more than likely have at least 290 acres as part of a plan unit development application that we'll make at some point. Um in addition to that there's an AUAR which I'll mention here which is an alternative urban areawide review um which because of the number of units that would be proposed within the 390 acres um we meet the threshold as established by the environmental quality board and so therefore it would be mandatory to go through that process. Uh and even within that again the two roughly the 390 total acres um if they choose not to participate in our planning unit development process um we would still um prepare an alternative urban areawide review for all the property. So at some point if they chose to develop that environment review has already been completed. [18:02] Todd Stutz: One of our commitments to the staff uh in our early conversations is we would look at this area comprehensively um or as a whole rather than looking at on a piecemeal basis. It would have been very easy to submit an application just dealing with the Leonard 200 acres versus the total 390 acres, but we felt that it was in everyone's best interest as we look at it as a whole versus pieces. Um and so that was our initial commitment to staff and we've done that. Um again we've reached out over the last we'll say roughly six months uh to the various property owners that join the Leonard property to to solicit their participation and they either signed as an application for just the Musa expansion or signed as an applicant for change in land use as well as the Musa staging change. And so you'll see that again as part of our application and what we've submitted. [19:13] Todd Stutz: One of the things that we've been actively involved in again really over the last nine six to nine months um is we've been under contract with a number of consultants and those consultants are preparing say background information on existing conditions and those existing conditions will inform ultimately the plan development application that we'll make at some point. Um and that information includes topography, it includes tree survey, it includes wetland delineation, includes geotechnical information. All that again which will be used in our preparation ultimately of a planning and development application. One of the things to keep in mind too, there's a lot of people here this evening. I recognize that. But this is really early on in the process. There will be a lot of steps. There'll be a lot of uh opportunities for community engagement through neighborhood meetings that we'll have. um especially during the PUD process as well as the AUAR process. So again, this is the first step in a long journey uh that this development will be involved in. [19:32] Todd Stutz: Uh for those who are not familiar with Tradition Development Corp, um obviously just down the road is Spirit of Brandtjen Farms. Uh here in Lakeville, it's 512 acres, has roughly 1,369 total housing units as well as um commercial. That development follows we'll call traditional neighborhood architectural design and development standards. I will say that that's one of the things that we look at in terms of setting the stage or using as a template as part of that PUD for the proposed development that ultimately hopefully will occur on this property. In addition to that, Huntersbrook in Victoria, which is a number of our developments that's currently um under construction, that's 112 acres out in Victoria. Again, another master planned unit development consists of roughly 231 single family homes and again also follows traditional neighborhood architectural design and development standards. Um I don't probably have the time tonight to explain what that means as a definition. Um but for those you have not driven through Spirit of Brandtjen Farms, you'll see that that neighborhood looks different. You know, setbacks are smaller, rights-of-way are smaller. Uh it's very connected in terms of pedestrian activity, bike activity. Um, and it's very, again, it's definitely different than you'll see in a typical development. [20:49] Todd Stutz: These are just some photos that they're included in. Uh, this is Spirit of Brandtjen Farms. Again, a variety of different housing types. Uh definitely strong community amenities in terms of clubhouses. Um, this is Huntersbrook. Again, strong community amenities as far as the clubhouse is concerned. Again, very, you know, strong architectural uh guidelines. Um and so as far as as when we're looking at this and again this is early on but stepping back um so the extent that you know again there's 390 acres that you're considering this evening for the two different comp plan amendments. Um if we proceed forward hopefully we'll have 390 acres as part of the overall PUD for for sure I would say at a minimum have 290 acres and that we basically are looking at it just so everyone knows really again looking at it using Spirit of Brandtjen Farm as a template and then also having a wide range of distinctive neighborhoods of homes different sizes and types you know with a variety of um again price points to really appeal to a bunch of different lifestyles as well those demographics. Uh we will provide connected extensive connected open space um which preserves existing wetlands and ponds. The great thing about this property that we're you know looking at within the 390 acres is there are a lot of wetlands, a lot of natural amenities and as part of that of course you just recently adopted um at least proposed to be adopted a tree preservation ordinance. Um we were one of the developers that responded to that original ordinance draft. Um we definitely are supportive of the city tree preservation ordinance um and you know look forward to that going to the you know hopefully to the city council and for their adoption um because of this property having a lot of stands of existing trees and woodlands. It's something definitely that will be a great case in terms of how this might apply to that development. I would expect that we probably exceed the 40% threshold as far as removal is concerned. Um but we look forward to working on that and as I mentioned we've already done a lot of that background. [22:45] Todd Stutz: We already have on the Leonard property a complete tree survey. There's a lot of trees on that property. We're going to work very closely again with the city and trying to protect as many of those trees as possible, but I would expect that we'll exceed the 40%. Um talked about distinctive homeowner association amenity areas and connected trail systems. Uh also, you know, that will be part of the development, but then also again using Spirit of Brandtjen Farm as a template using the development standards as well as the architectural guidelines they're part of Spirit. I don't know if any of you were part of that process. That process occurred back in 2005, the adoption of that. Um but um I think you'll find that um has was a very useful document um for Spirit of Brandtjen Farms and the ultimate development of that property over a 20-year period of time. Um we talked about the total of 390 acres. Net acres would be 316 acres and that would be taking out um the existing wetlands uh that we used based upon a national wetland inventory um that's available. Net residential acres is 253. [23:57] Todd Stutz: Why is that important? Because the Met Council is part of this comp plan amendment. We'll be watching very closely of how we develop that 253 acres. Um, currently they require three units per acre and that is going to go to three and a half as part of their 2050 comp plan. And so we're currently looking at this developing at a minimum at three and a half units per acre. Uh in addition to that uh there's net school and we'll say commercial areas primarily United Christian Academy uh is part of that portion of their property as part of this application which is roughly 63.18 acres. Um property owners as I mentioned there's a total of 21 properties or 12 different property owners some who are represented here this evening. Uh and then traditional development corporation we currently own 200.28 acres as of this morning and now we own 210.28 acres as of this afternoon with the acquisition of additional property. So, didn't get a chance to update that yet. So, the requested action that I know staff will go through with you as part of their presentation. um really two um items and that all again the 12 property owners um have varying interests in each one of these um but all of them signed applications um and that basically to amend the 2040 comprehensive plan MUSA staging plan is the first one and again staff will go in more detail on that and then second one being amend the 2040 comprehensive plan land use plan um with proposed land use designations which are shown by uh the document that you have in front of you which is right there. [25:40] Todd Stutz: Um, and so you can see the Leonard property which is roughly the 200 acres which is sort of in the central location. United Christian Academy which I think pretty much everyone knows um is roughly the 60 acres that they have um out along um we'll call it Kiokuk and Keswick Loop. Uh and then addition to that other properties that surround it um I mentioned the Jay Blanchard property or affiliations of him um is the property generally to the north of the Leonard property. Um and so that is the plan that we did and I will note on this um not all the land uses are being changed. Um if it says current land use, that is currently um guided for that property as part of the 2040 comp plan. That is the current guiding. Uh the other properties that it doesn't say current land use are ones that we're looking at reguiding from their current use. Um which is definitely typically residential reserve. [26:29] Todd Stutz: As I said, we're early on in this process. This is just a very sort of summary of the types of um steps that we'll be taking um provided we go forward and receive approval from the um from the council based upon your recommendation which we hope will be approval. Um basically is after that um that we submit it to the Met Council for their approval. Uh then addition to that we'll start the AUAR process. Again there's certain thresholds and I'll get into those in just a second. Um, and based upon looking at the whole 390 acres, we would be subject to an AUAR process, which is by itself is a nine-month process. And it looks at all the types of things that you would normally look at from wastewater to water to environmental conditions, um, storm ponds, um, looks at traffic, a lot of different things that basically will take some period of time to go through. And again, that alone is a nine-month process, which has public hearings as part of that process as well. Um so that is a nine-month process by itself itself. We expect that the city hopefully again based upon the results of this evening and and the council and also at the council meeting um is authorization of a trunk sanitary sewer project construction uh which would extend the current trunk sewer which is located on the east side of 35. Uh extended along alignment of 215th underneath 35 and then to serve this property roughly along the existing right-of-way of 215th. Um and then of course your normal sort of PUD process PUD sketch plan approval, PUD development stage approval and PUD final stage approval and ultimately final plat approval for what we'll call phase one. [28:18] Todd Stutz: So if you put that all on a calendar and you'll look at that and again this is making some assumptions relative to approvals. So this would all sort of get pushed out. Um but basically governmental approvals occurring in 2025 and 2026. Physical development start meaning utilities and streets. Um basically starting in 2026 um and then 2027 that for phase one will be completed starting model homes or homes in 2027 and then 2028 through 2040 would be our expected duration of home construction and and additional development phases. Again, I mentioned that Spirit of Brandtjen Farms was originally planned to last for seven years. We sort of had the Great Recession in there, which didn't help, but that build-out took 20 years. So, we're looking at from pretty much today a 15-year project, of which 12 years will be dedicated to building out uh the homes. So, it's not something that's going to happen tomorrow. It's going to happen over a long period of time. I think you'll see that with a lot of the communities we do, we're interested more in the quality than necessarily the pace. And so, we're going to try to do something that's unique and different. um and sometimes that takes longer. So that's what we're proposing to do. [29:19] Todd Stutz: Um we mentioned the AUAR and it's important because that's sort of the next step. Um and that's really a long period of time again 9 months. Um and so basically this the site contains roughly 250 net residential acres. Our preliminary sort of sketch plans that we've done which are just conceptual at this point has roughly 1,200 housing units. And at 1,200 housing units um basically if you're over a thousand units as far as detached or over 1500 units um with um attached that's their thresholds um or it's basically a quotient um so it's a math calculation if you're over one if you do all that math which would basically be 600 detached and 600 attached um that requires what would be either an EIS or as an alternative an alternative urban areawide review so that sort of falls into that category. And again, that's based upon the total 390 acres and based upon the 253 net residential acres. And so we get down below that or we do a smaller project. Um then really would be up to the city of whether or not they would require this. And again, even if a property is not acquired and brought into the PUD process, they would have an AUAR that would be in place. So in the future, they would not be required to do an independent EAW or um EIS or AUAR. Um, one of the things that we'll be asked, you'll be asked and we'll be talking about is an AUAR requires you to figure out what development scenarios that you want to be studied. And usually there's a low range and a high range that's studied to look at the overall environmental impacts on that particular piece of property. And then as part of that, then there's a mitigation plan put in place in terms of what needs to be done relative to traffic, what needs to be done relative to the environment, all those issues. Um, and again, there's definitely will be opportunities for public engagement along the way as part of that nine-month process. [31:11] Todd Stutz: Some additional development considerations that we've really been talking about through the last, I'll say, six to nine months, um, is wastewater. We talked about the extension of the existing trunk sanitary sewer, which does have capacity to serve this development. Um, transportation. Um there's been a conversation going on with Dakota County in terms of where they would like to see that connection occur on 210th Street. The current connection is proposed to be roughly a half mile spacing from the intersection at 35 and 210th. So it would be directly to the west of that and that would be the proposed entrance to this development. Um and the extension of basically it would pretty much be the extension northerly of Lagel Avenue and I'm sure I said that wrong. Um but it would follow generally that alignment. There's a lot of streets out here that are hard to say. Um then parks and open space. Um consideration of potential neighborhood park on the property. That's one of the things that is in your comp plan. Additional comp plan guidance also says is that there should be a greenway constructed that basically connects the Soberg waterfall production area to the future connection to to a future connection to Ritter Farm. So a north-south greenway that eventually would um serve not only the development but the surrounding area. [32:41] Todd Stutz: And then the school district, we had an opportunity earlier this week to meet with the school district to talk about the proposed development, potentially the number of units that would be built on the site, how those housing types might impact their enrollment in the future. And basically, it's really dependent upon the types of buyers. And so we gave them some idea of who we thought that various demographics might be. So one end of the spectrum, baby boomers don't create a lot of children in schools. On the other end of the spectrum, millennials create probably a few more kids. And so we went through all the various product types again very early on to give them some idea of what their enrollment projections might look at. Again, not starting until 2028 uh potentially. And um they were very thankful for that. Um and it's something we'll continue to work with the school district on so they have a really good idea of of what type of housing is being built, when it's being built, and how that might uh impact their future enrollment. Uh and then United Christian Academy, we've been engaged with a conversation now. We've had a number of meetings with the United Christian Academy as they work to get their school up and going. Um, and so we're definitely, you know, there's a new opportunity here in terms of providing connections of the school, um, to this proposed development area, which didn't exist before because it was basically the Leonard farm. Um, and so, um, we look forward to continuing to work with the United Christian Academy to get them going. Um, but then also how they might fit into the overall development. Um that's my part of the presentation. Hopefully you found it be useful. Um and so [33:55] Chair Zimmer: We appreciate that very much. We will bring you back up after we hear from staff for responding to questions. [34:04] Todd Stutz: Thanks chair, members of commission. [34:06] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much. This is really helpful. [34:10] Tina Goodroad: Thank you chair, members of the commission. Thank you Mr. Stutz. Um, yep, there's my presentation. All right. So, I'll touch on a couple of um similar things that uh Mr. Stutz did, but also just go into a little bit more detail um with a little bit more um deeper dive overview into the comprehensive plan. Um but as you can see on the screen, the outlines in red are the different properties that are involved in this request. Um the proposal is for a comprehensive plan MUSA change or a staging change amendment as well as a land use amendment and then rezoning amendments for um and that is due to maintaining consistency with the comprehensive plan. As Mr. Stutz said this is the first step in a very lengthy process to create this new residential development. Um and again through the meetings that we have had um with the folks from tradition um they have very much committed to bringing um to this area um a development parallel to Spirit of Brandtjen Farms. Um so that would again um include that variety of lot sizes. It would include um a variety of densities um to attract a variety of buyers um quality residential construction, open space and development amenities. Um so again um as he said they've assembled five properties. There are 16 other surrounding properties that are part of the amendment for a total of the 390 gross acres or 316 net acres. [35:40] Tina Goodroad: Mr. Stutz showed this map um or this plan um brought this up early in my presentation um for the purposes of this conceptual plan is what laid out the framework or the foundation for the request for the land use changes. This is a conceptual plan to identify the areas that it felt um appropriate for the range in densities that we have. So between low density, low, medium, and high density and so forth. Um this by no means is the plan. Um they've identified um some very early routes for some roadways. We have limitations in terms of the connections at County Road 70 or 215th Street. Um, I want the audience to understand that there are so many more steps to developing this master plan, figuring out transportation. That is part of what that urban or that um environmental review will assist with is to identify the traffic impacts and to help identify the roadway network to serve this neighborhood. Future plans will also lay out um the different types of neighborhood nodes um the different types of housing, different types of lot layout as well as the green space, the protection of the trees, the protection of the wetlands. So by no means is this the plan. This is just a very early step and a lot of work will be done in the future. [37:01] Tina Goodroad: So what is a comprehensive plan? It's a long range planning document that guides um future growth and development. We are required by state law to have a comprehensive plan. It's approved by the metropolitan council and we update this every 10 years. The land use element includes a staging plan or a sewer staging plan. That sewer staging plan projects the estimated timing for development based on projected extension of sanitary sewer. Again, it's updated every 10 years. However, amendments can be requested. A property owner, a developer can request amendments not only to the land use and staging but also other elements due to development proposals. On the screen on your right is the 2040 land use map. We are entering into a phase where we'll start working on our 2050 plan in the next couple of years. Right now we are operating under our 2040 plan. The land use plan simply outlines how land is intended to be developed or redeveloped over time. residential land uses, which is all of the yellow, the different shades of yellow as well as the orange and the brown. Those are all different types of residential land uses and they all have associated minimum densities. We must maintain three units an acre overall. Moving into the 2050 plan, we'll have to meet 3.5 units per acre overall. This plan um the master plan and ultimately the PUD will have to meet that minimum threshold of 3.5 units um per acre overall and then zoning must be consistent with the land use. So the proposed land use um is to reguide 16 properties. Um there is a commercial change to a medium high density, a rural density to low density, a rural density to low medium and a rural density to medium high. So the top of the screen is the existing land use. The bottom screen is the proposed land use. [38:57] Tina Goodroad: Five parcels have no land use change. So the commercial to medium, this is an area, if I can get my mouse to work. This property, it's split guided. Never a good idea. Um, this commercial area is being proposed to be the same as the opposite side of the property to medium high density. It's quite off the beaten path from a major roadway to serve effectively as commercial and so that request is to change that. The rural density this land use designation is within the urban reserve area which is part of the staging plan and this is an interim use until utilities are extended. It does have a minimum of one per 10 acre minimum until such time utilities are provided and that is basically to ensure that development doesn't happen that cannot be developed in an efficient and orderly manner when sewer services are provided to the property. So it's technically a holding zone or an interim type of land use. So we have a lot of that um rural um density residential in this location as well as in this location. Some of that is proposed to change to low density residential which would then have up to three units an acre or in the future three and a half. Rural to low and medium density or low medium and that has a density threshold of four to five units an acre and then up to the medium high um of 5 to nine units per acre. So that in a nutshell is the three different types of land use categories that are proposed for this change and again that corresponds to the concept plan that we're working under. The staging plan is a framework again for when land will develop based on estimated extension of infrastructure. [40:50] Tina Goodroad: The map on the right um shows all the area in white is essentially the current MUSA. So this is all the area that's actively um developing without any amendment necessary. Um then there's area A, area B and urban reserve. Urban reserve is a designation that anticipates future development when utilities are available. Amendments considered as uh infrastructure is expanded or planned and that is the situation that we're under in this project. So the amendment proposes to bring 11 properties from expansion area B. Those are highlighted in the purple. Um and then 10 properties from urban reserve into the current Musa, which is the blue. Infrastructure extension is planned for next year east of I-35 to bring sewer along 215th Street. This project will also include on the east side water, storm, and road improvements. This project will also include an extension under I-35 to serve this amendment area, thus the need to bring the property into the current Musa. This same improvement will serve approximately 270 acres of new industrial development east of I-35. And that is one of the reasons for the application after this item. Following all of that, the zoning is required to be consistent with the land use. So again, on the top of the screen is the existing zoning. So that area that was under the commercial land use needs to be rezoned to a corresponding zoning district. So we have a C3 general commercial district moving to an RM3 or medium density residential district. We have RA areas that are being reguided to low. That zoning designation is proposed at RS4. We have rural residential land use moving to low medium and that is the RST2. And then finally rural to medium density residential and that is the RM3. So we have the corresponding land uses that or corresponding zoning that fits within the land uses. So again Mr. Stutz laid out a more detailed timeline. Um excuse me we will um this will require obviously recommendation from this body go to city council. Then we need to submit this application to the Met Council. Preparation of the AUAR will start probably shortly after that along with um the very detailed master planning um that will definitely include neighborhood meetings, participation from this body, ultimately preliminary platting, final platting in phases and development start. Um I said later 2026 because I'm probably not as optimistic as Mr. Stutz. Things do take long. Um but it's possible that grading could start in 2026. We believe that the improvement of 215th Street um to bring the sewer that is going to take a full year on the east side of I-35 where that project will start. There is very um some of that sewer is going to be very deep. It's going to be a very big project um and it's going to take some time um before it gets all the way to the interstate. That is all that I have. Um, I stand for any questions that you may have and I know, um, I'm sure there are people anxious to speak at the public hearing. [44:02] Chair Zimmer: Excellent. Thank you so much. That was, I think, really helpful. And, uh, as it's a public hearing, we'll probably take the public hearing comments and then, um, after we close public hearing, then we'll ask commissioners for input uh, and put questions to staff and to Mr. Stutz. So, as I stated, it is a public hearing. I do have a list of folks that signed up and um we have quite a few. So, if we can be sure that we are um bringing new ideas and not um reiterating something that someone else has brought forward and we'll try to uh keep it around three minutes so that we can get through um all of the folks that have signed up. And uh please note that any questions that are asked, staff will take the time to uh note those so that we can bring those up and address those uh questions. So as I stated, this is a public hearing and um we'll just have uh we've got a people listed and please come forward. The first one listed is uh Beth Lden. [45:48] Chair Zimmer: Thanks so much. Just please state your name and address for the record. [45:53] Beth Lden: Sure. So, good evening, planning committee members. I'm Beth Lden. I live at 12330 210th Street West. I've lived there for 23 years. I'm here to oppose changing or amending the 2040 comprehensive plan and zoning. I own two homes. One of them directly borders the Leonard property. The 2040 plan was developed thoroughly, thoughtfully, strategically to plan the growth for the city of Lakeville. In due respect, the proposal of the development and the adjacent parcels is premature. There are several reasons I'd like to point out to the committee for your consideration on a serious decision. This is not just to benefit our family, our neighbors that are here, or it's for also the community of Lakeville. I'm helping you figure out your problems because I've identified at least six of them that the uh city can work on on the planning. [46:48] Beth Lden: The first is the traffic concerns. When Dakota County uh widened County Road 70 from 35W going west, um it went from two lanes to four lanes, but it stopped 5/10 of a mile to the border of Dakota County and Scott County. The remaining two lanes are exactly what the traditional um proposal tonight is for those two lanes coming into the property to get to the property through 210th Street. Those are exactly the properties that are only two-lane for county road 70. There are no turning lanes. Um and so for example, there's also as you go up the hill from Blanchards, it goes from two lane up the hill to past Laredo goes down the hill and around the curve um is that 5/10 mile that does that's only two lane. people coming in and out of this development would have no way to turn without stopping traffic, which is what I've had to do for the last 23 years. So, I make sure that I break, signal, and and stop on the brakes to make sure that no one hits me when I stop traffic to turn into my driveway. [48:03] Beth Lden: The second issue is the wetlands and the watershed. When Dakota County added bike paths along the widening County Road 70, the bike paths did extend past our area and into Scott County. However, when they did that, they um caused flooding into my second property right off of County Road 70. Um I contacted the Dakota County, the city of Lakeville, DNR, Jacobson survey came out to learn that nobody really wanted to take responsibility for that wetland right behind my home. There is no way to control it. There's no gate to control that. That watershed then continues down through my property and my neighbors' property to wetlands that are right behind our home that are not indicated on anywhere in this map. In fact, there's several wetlands not mentioned or showed on this map. Um the city owns that piece of property. I've given you the PI number so that you can look it up. Um, so it's a problem and there's a lot of wetlands as it was mentioned and there's a lot more than what's pictured on there. [49:13] Beth Lden: The third issue is the habitat for wildlife. Um, the northern part of Leonard's property is heavily wooded, which is why we don't see any neighbors. The front part of that area is not wooded. It's wide open. So, your trees that you're going to be looking at are all at the back of the property, which is the back of my property and my neighbors. Um there's it's full of deer, turkey, even the the wood ducks are back, which hadn't been for years. Um when the development by Goodwill was um built, they removed hundreds of trees. All of that wildlife came through our yards and to into the back into Leonard's. Um and during that process, in one week, there was four deer killed with that development. [49:51] Beth Lden: The fourth issue is the tree preservation and I've already started to talk to. I would hope that we would look differently than what was just presented because most of the trees are all at the back of the property. Um, so there's a lot of acreage that doesn't even have trees. It was open pasture for his cattle. Um, and that would give a lot of privacy would be taken away if you take 40% of those trees away. Um, the fifth thing is the school district. I'm not speaking for the district, but I'm using my knowledge to speak to the issues in the district. The city district are not more they need to be strategic and aligned moving forward over the years. They have been in fact the bond issues would be one time for the city, one time for the school district. But most of the housing has happened is on the northeast corner of Lakeville. Those schools are now full. And as you cross over to the west side of 35W, there's only one elementary school, Orchard Lake, and that's up off of County Road 46. So, this would be a burden to the school district to be able to do this development at this time because there are no other schools in that area or it's going to cost the district a lot of money in bus transportation. Um, building a school takes at least 3 to 5 years. They talk about things not starting till 26 or 27. Um, the school district is going to need 28 to 30 to even address this subject. This November, there is no bond referendum for a new school. They're just trying to get their operating levy passed so they can keep operating the schools that they have. Um in TW since 2018, we've had one referendum after another. Either the city with the parks, which are beautiful, or the schools, which are wonderful, but the school district cannot keep up right now. And as you noticed in the report, they do not support this. I just want to make sure that you saw that in writing at this time. [51:42] Beth Lden: Um, the other thing, number six, I I just want you to be strategic in your thinking. If you look to the north neighbor, you've got Burnsville. They're struggling having enough students into their schools and trying to figure out how to close schools. Prior Lake just voted last month to close one of their elementaries and sell their district office and move into it. They don't have enough students. Farmington is right now trying to sell and has been this last year or so acreage so that they can pay $18 million worth of infrastructure. I'm aware that Lakeville Schools is closer to 70 to $80 million in deferred maintenance. That was part of that 10-year plan. We have to be conscientious and be smart about how we build our school district to be able to support our kids. The second newest school in Lakeville is Lakeville South, built in 2005. It's now 20 years old. And the next 5 to 10 years, there's a lot of money that has to go back into Lakeville South to be able to get the mechanical done and upgraded, the parking lots upgraded. So, it's a huge burden to the school district right now to maintain what they've got. So, I ask you guys, please slow down, follow your well-thought-out 2040 comprehensive plan and zoning. The tradition development knew when they purchased Lawrence property what it was zoned and that it was outside the Musa when they purchased it. So, I like the idea that they got till 2040. I think that's what they should zero in on is a 2040 development, not next year. Thank you. [53:13] Chair Zimmer: Thanks very much. Uh, next on the list, Steve Hovick. [53:30] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much. [53:32] Steve Hovick: Good evening. Thanks for listening. My name is Steve Hovick. My wife and I uh live at 12430 210th Street West. If you look at exhibit E, um all the way to the west on the borderline of Scott County, uh the first property is my neighbor Larry Jones's and the second property is uh ours. And our concern is that for future and I can't remember reading the bottom little line there, but we're not included in the Musa plan at this point, but the proposed road, if if I'm correctly reading it, goes right over the top of our house. And at what point during this uh project or phase does the expansion come to where we possibly could be imminent domain because you need access to that development or you do not want to spend the funding to tar the road that goes through it the back way. And so our concern is, you know, in a two-year, four-year, 10-year plan, what what does our future hold? Uh when we bought the place, cleaned it up, it was pretty much a dump. And we have a relatively nice place in the city limits, never never complained and paid our taxes. And so where where do we fall in the mix of changing the musa, letting traditions come in, and then in the future without Jake buying us or traditions buying us, um, where do we sit and is there a plan for that road somewhere in a plan that we're not seeing and at what date? So, those are our concerns and questions. [55:18] Chair Zimmer: All right, I think we've got those noted. Appreciate it. [55:21] Steve Hovick: Thank you. [55:23] Chair Zimmer: Hope you hit a hole in one today. Uh, next on the list, it looks like um Lee and Diane Soberg. And if you don't want to speak, that's okay, too. You don't have to. Next up, Bob Ericson. [56:27] Chair Zimmer: Thanks. Thank you. [57:21] Chair Zimmer: Thanks so much for the uh handout and look forward to your comments. Again, a couple issues have been already raised, so if we can keep moving through it, that would be great. Thank you, Mr. Ericson. [57:33] Bob Ericson: Chair Zimmer, uh, members of the planning commission, good evening. I'm Bob Ericson. I reside at 19081 Indale Drive. When I read the legal notice for this public hearing, what caught my attention was the Musa expansion and more specifically the significant size of the comprehensive plan amendment. Um, I'm familiar with this property primarily because of my active participation with the United Christian Academy um, education development program. I've served on that committee uh, since the groundbreaking. So, I'm quite familiar with with the adjoining property. My comments tonight will be based on the staff planning commission agenda packet. Um, and also will be based on the 2040 comprehensive land use plan. uh page 74 in the packet I provided you the 20-page packet which references the timing and boundaries of any Musa expansion will require detailed engineering studies to determine the extent of the improvements required for extension of utilities and staging of construction. [59:04] Bob Ericson: This evening you heard uh from staff regarding the extension major extension of a sewer trunk initially to serve properties uh east of 35 and ultimately west to serve the tradition development. Expansion of the mucus will occur, this is a quote from the comprehensive plan. The expansion of the Musa will occur when such action is consistent with the goals, policies, and plans of the comprehensive plan and capital improvement plan. I'll go very quickly and I will avoid duplication from previous comments this evening. What I feel is lacking and what is desperately needed. First and foremost, I was surprised that this item didn't appear on this week's parks and recreation natural resources agenda. I would have expected that to appear considering the significant natural resource natural environment natural resource impact of of any future urban development in the Leonard property and adjoining properties. [1:00:25] Bob Ericson: I just want to quickly point out that the extension of the major trunk sanitary sewer currently uh the current approved capital improvement plan for 2025 to 2029. The utility project section does not include this extension in 2026. And you have copies of all of that provided to you this evening. Transportation was referenced, but I I don't know if it was referenced in the context that I think it needs to be referenced, and that is um the ingress and egress from this development onto County Road 70. Uh that's Dakota County 70. Um specifically, um although the development, the project when it was completed recently, it didn't complete it to the Scott County line. It it developed a a transition, if you will, in their design, but there are going to be challenges uh and there are alternatives that could be considered like the a new subdivision in Scott County immediately to the west. And there's a a street in that subdivision that has a sign said future road extension. And I think that warrants some consideration um going forward. [1:01:49] Bob Ericson: I had a resident contact me and said, "I'd like to take you out my ATV and I'll share with you the uh wetlands that have surfaced since the 2003 citywide wetland delineation." And it was pretty apparent to me that that has occurred and of course that would be the responsibility as pointed out by Mr. Stutz this evening. But there are concerns that we should see that sooner than after uh the Musa expansion comprehensive plan amendment is approved that it should in my opinion professionally speaking I think it should occur prior to these approvals. Impact on the adjoining federal Soberg wildlife production area which is 114 acres. That's pretty significant. Um, so there's going to be a wildlife impact, a habitat impact, and in your packet, you'll see the city of Lakeville's recently adopted hunting map, which would require major change. And I think that's significant and the public I think should have uh I'm sure the federal government even though the Minnesota Department of DNR enforces hunting on the property, it is federal property and it allows hunting and I think that is an issue that cannot just be overlooked and waited for an AUAR or waiting for some public comment period when the subdivisions are brought forward, preliminary plat etc. for public comment. Seems like that should occur sooner than later. [1:03:52] Bob Ericson: The ISD 1904 school district comment in the staff report and Mr. Stutz's reference that he's spoken with the district which we appreciate from my vantage point as a 12-year member of the Lakeville school board. Um, and I haven't spoken directly with the superintendent, but I just see he's in the audience tonight. I appreciate Michael Bowman being here. From my vantage point, um, the school board recently went through uh the need for a minor boundary change because High View Elementary is already full and they had to make some adjustments. Um and um our middle school is full and um this development, the timing of this development um is going to have an impact and the school board and the school community, the parents, taxpayers, I think need to have some involvement in any major and this is a major comprehensive plan amendment and it's a major Musa expansion. I might I just want to mention um in the last two Musa expansion efforts by tradition one at the southeast quadrant of 185th and judicial the city council said no to that. Then another attempt to bring our sanitary sewer to the city of Credit River um uh on Judicial Road across from Balante Town Homes uh to that farm and the city council said no to that. [1:05:30] Bob Ericson: I was really surprised as a side note that there wasn't a work session held on this subject with the city council prior to this public hearing. That's not normal and it's not typical. So the real subject here is strategic growth management. We all talk about Lakeville's always number one in issuing building permits and there's something to be said for the comfort that that gives residents in some respects, but it also challenges our residents in other contexts. What we don't have here this evening is a copy of the letters if they've been received from the various governmental agencies that have been contacted. I'm disappointed that we don't have that and that we're at a disadvantage but not knowing if they've responded and if so what have they said. [1:06:35] Bob Ericson: Finally, rate of land absorption within the MUSA. This is very significant from my vantage point. The current staff document which is within the packet you received shows that there are 539 available lots where you can a building permit could be issued as of June 30th, 2025. Now let me go to the other Musa developments that are available in addition to the 539 current active Musa development projects. This one by tradition is called Ritter Meadows. It's across from Emagine theaters just underway. Um so the first edition is in the 539. The remaining 177 single family and townhome lots is in addition to the 539. D.R. Horton recently purchased the Karen property which is west of Ritter Meadows across from Emagine Theater 75 acres in the Musa. They plan on pursuing approvals and and having development in the form of building permits issued in the fall of 2026 150 single family that's in addition to 539. Then there's the preserve of Lakeville which has been very active and and developing very appropriately. There's a new subdivision between 185th and 190th 26 new lots. They're just doing the grading as we speak. Amelia Meadows 144 townhome lots not within the 539. So when you add all of that up, we have 1,034 developable lots in Lakeville in the in the short term. And I define the short term as 2025 to 2028. [1:08:55] Bob Ericson: Then I thought, you know, I and many other residents have been uh attending the meetings involving the George Warwig Estate property, adjoining Ames Arena, adjoining Lakeville North High School, adjoining Antlers Park, 49 acres in the Musa, not in the not even in my a thousand plus, because there's been no application, there has been a work session that drew a lot of interest. Um, and that interest prompted the estate holders to revisit that development. Sincerely and respectfully of the work that you do and the work that others have done preceding tonight's meeting in the form of a comprehensive plan and I provided the comprehensive plan cover document and it identifies those of you that previously served in developing and adopting that including Pat Kuza who served as the chair of the planning commission at that time. [1:10:14] Bob Ericson: Uh with that I just want to close with a personal thought and a recommendation and that is I believe the proposal has merit but I believe it's totally premature and lacking the information that the comprehensive plan clearly states is necessary for a development of this magnitude to move forward. So that in that context, I would recommend that this be tabled uh providing the developer if the developer in fact owns all the property that's being represented or is it just waiting for approvals before they can close. I don't know the answer to that. I don't know if it's that significant, but maybe they do own the Leonard property free and clear, but I don't think they own all the property they're representing or that's being represented this evening. And to me, the community, the school district, the adjoining residents have an interest. It's and there's a lot at stake here and it warrants um appropriate um studies as the comprehensive plan requires. And um I believe that it would yield a a very favorable could provide a very favorable outcome, but it it just seems like we're out of sequence. And um I don't understand as a professional past professional in this process that why why this seems to be pursued and why we were wanting to get this this comprehensive plan and Musa expansion done in advance of the needed detailed information required and needed. Thank you. [1:12:09] Chair Zimmer: Thank you Mr. Ericson. Next on the list, if you're interested in speaking, is Don and Susan Flanigan. [1:12:17] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much, Mr. Flanigan. Uh, we have Katie Gross on the list as well. [1:12:35] Katie Gross: Hello. Um, yes, I'm Katie Gross. My husband and I, we own the property. Um we live on 210 Penn Avenue. So it's actually the original Soberg land. Um our house directly faces the uh waterfowl. Then it will also be hugely impacted by this um development. Um I just want I'm just really going to just reiterate it won't be long, but just like what Beth Lden said, Bob Ericson that this feels a little premature. Um there's been so much development in Lakeville in the last five years and I have been involved in the school board um in the last couple years and one huge struggle is that we cannot house all the kids that are coming in and it's been just it's a major problem as you know High View is already overpopulated and now we have all these developments that aren't even completed yet. There's a new one on 29 south of Amazon that's going up that um is still Lakeville school district which then there's also tons more kids coming in which is great but it's a problem we're not ready for and it's also there's a two-year lack in finances so this just adds a lot of extra pressure to Lakeville residents to have another development coming in um like Bob Ericson had said I think there's I mean you you guys know better than I, but there's three, four major um developments happening in Lakeville right now. And they're, you know, 400,000 dollar homes, which means they're usually young families coming in. I think traditions underestimated or, you know, made it because they know it's an issue that, you know, these homes may not have, you know, kids that are coming in. There's going to be lots of kids. It's hard to determine how many, but we really need to be thinking about that because one of the draws for people to come to Lakeville is the schools, right? If you look up there, I mean, everyone, even for us, it was like the Lakeville schools are amazing. It's a place we want to look at. We want to keep Lakeville the strong community that it is. We need to uh I agree with Bob Ericson about like let's table this and then also not rezoning the density for this area because um it's it's a real gem in Lakeville to still have this and you don't have this um in the suburbs north of us and so um I highly I just ask that you really consider it take a lot of thought because it really does affect every Lakeville citizen impacting the schools that have kids. So, thank you. [1:15:28] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much, Ms. Gross. There's two more on the list, Mr. Stutz. Excellent. Thank you. I get that. And Mr. Bowman, thank you so much. [1:15:51] Michael Bowman: Thank you, Chair. Uh, Michael Bowman, 17876 Folder Trail, Superintendent Lakeville Area Schools. Thank you for the opportunity to address this commission. I appreciate it. Um, I want to just say two things. First, thank you, and we do love this community uh, as a school system. My concerns uh with regard to this, many have already been articulated, but the one that I want to make sure you hear me say is growth is the best problem for Lakeville area schools to have. It's also logistics, logistics, logistics. And the challenge I have with this is the level of detail at this point in time for us to do our predictive analysis to address the logistical challenges uh that you've heard from a few other people here tonight. We have a density problem or a concentration problem. We have over a thousand 106 kids as of today going into Century Middle School. High View is well over 700 uh somewhere in the 720s. Uh this is a challenge and the timing of this we base our stuff on the 2040 plan and now we're getting some interdiction or what I call interdiction and I want to just ask everybody here uh maybe take a pause look deeply at this because our ability to react to it and the taxpayers' ability to deal with what the growth in the school system will be is a significant challenge and concern not just for me as a superintendent but for our whole community and thank you for your service. Appreciate it. Thank you. [1:17:35] Chair Zimmer: Thank you for your time, Mr. Bowman. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? Please come up to the podium, sir. [1:17:49] Brian Lden: Hi, my name is Brian Lden and I live at 12310 210th Street West. I'll keep it short. There's a lot of people have come up here shown concern for a lot of different things. Um, biggest thing is just keep that in mind. And kind of my question that I want to ask and obviously this is something just to think about is why Lakeville? We sit here and we talk about we've developments going on right now, large developments. We have Farmington that's struggling with a lot of things. Why not Elko? I mean, in in reality, we don't we haven't pushed Elko to we've had their students being able to kind of move up here into our Lakeville community, but we really haven't pushed anything in the sense of and development and working with cities in correlation with that of why not have them kind of take some of that burden, some of their money or contributions to that and have that in that next 40, 50 year plan because eventually Elko will need to have school systems they'll need to start growing in that kind of um especially with this kind of thing. Um Soberg is also a huge um if you've never been out there to the WMA, it's a great wonderful place to be. Last fall, they actually cut down a bunch of trees in that property. If you haven't gone and seen it, it's it's pretty crazy to see that it was a little trail, single walkable trail for deer to kind of walk through to now it's a giant open area that's not even useful for a whole lot of hunting in that kind of aspect in that in that front area of the property um from the access point. Now, going backwards, there's some property lines or some properties that all face Soberg that would be, you know, detrimental on being able to have those people be able to go in there to hunt, to even walk dogs. I mean, I've seen people just go in there and it's a great little area to just go walk your dog that's private and wide open and just things to all consider is that. So, thank you. [1:19:58] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much. Looks like we have another person that would like to speak. [1:20:04] Mr. Jones: Thank you for allowing me to speak. A couple you I know Christine Pat was at the fair doing my duties so got here late. Sorry. Uh I am resident at 12450 210th Street West next to Steve who was up here and talked already. And my concern too is that we go ahead with this planning on it. Um, and we're planning a development and a road through property we don't own yet. Um, I'm not I'm kind of curious how we can do that technically. Um, because I've lived in this city now going on 40 years. I've watched Wagon Wheel get developed. I've watched the territory get developed. I watched that 80 acres on the west side of me get developed now. And the amount of traffic that comes down County Road 70 is becoming unacceptable in a sense. Sometimes there's up to 10 cars in a row for us to get even out of our driveway and that and the traffic even though I've talked to the police department stuff like that is getting out of hand. Uh these young motorcyclists are doing wheelies down county road 70 and you can hear them when they turn off 70 how they race past all the cars so they can be the first one down and just go flying through that curve. Now I know eventually they're going to cause their own problem and stuff down the road. They're responsible, but it is somewhat scary to know um that there's not enough patrol in that area. Scott County does come out and does set up their patrols and stuff like that. We used to have a officer uh officer Row that used to come out and uh he would even sit in my driveway uh to monitor the traffic and he wouldn't be there more than 15 or 20 minutes and the lights were on with speeding and stuff. And now we've got construction out there, developments uh into Scott County and stuff. So the dump trucks and construction equipment stuff like that is all adding to the traffic flow. And I guess that's just a side note to the amount of development. I'll go along with what Bob said. You've got uh Meadows Ridge development. You've got a huge development down by Dodd. Um and several of these big developments. And I I don't know how I know the city, you know, um slogan is progress, but uh at what rate and at what cost? Um that's all I have to say. Thank you. [1:23:04] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much. I'll do a final call if there's others that wish to speak. [1:23:18] Mark Zweber: Hi, my name is Mark Zweber and I live with my wife Betsy Ryan at 12320 210th Street um adjacent to this proposed development and um I do agree with the general gist of this that it that it is premature and there's a lot of questions to be answered but um knowing somewhat about tradition development. Uh I think what I've seen they do very good work uh a good quality outfit. So they have a development called Reverence um which is a Lakeville mailing address but it's uh no it's in New Market Township and you access it through territory. Uh it's directly south of Heritage Links Golf Course. So, uh, looks to me like it's a very successful development, but it's a 2 and a half acre well and septic. Um, very high-end houses. Um, and I'm wondering whether tradition has considered that. I mean, they hold up Brandtjen Farms, which is as much as you can possibly put on whatever you're buying. And sometimes I think less is better, you know. um it just works and it solves a lot of problems. There's less kids for school districts and and that and so I'm sure they've thought about it because that was a very successful development and um and the model seems to work and maybe it doesn't work here but I just like to know if that was ever considered. Thank you. [1:25:00] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much. I believe that's all the folks interested in speaking. So I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing and that would close the comment period. [1:25:12] Commissioner Kuza: Madam Chair, I make a motion to close the public hearing. [1:25:18] Commissioner Swaney: Second. [1:25:21] Chair Zimmer: Um we have a motion and a second. Uh is there any discussion? All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please say I. [1:25:31] Planning Commission: I. [1:25:32] Chair Zimmer: Opposed. Sorry. Well, premature with my gavel. All right, the public hearing portion of the hearing is closed and we would uh turn to perhaps staff to answer some questions or if we want to start out with some comments from planning commissioners. Staff, we'll we'll see if staff can address some of those questions. [1:25:54] Tina Goodroad: Thank you. Um chair, members of the commission, a lot of what you heard were comments more so than questions and there is a lot that will be evaluated. Um the AUAR process alone um will dig into issues of the wetlands um the transportation, the wildlife um the trees and just how that will all be managed. The parks commission will certainly get involved as the master plan um is evaluated um for its natural amenities and what could be protected um what kind of park planning could be placed. Um the timing is good for this master planning because the um parks department has also kicked off their um next master plan or their next update of their comprehensive plan. So a lot of that will be evaluated. Um in terms of the school board, I do understand that Mr. Stutz did meet with the superintendent and their staff. Um they did supply um numbers in terms of projected density um from the different land use types. um the type of housing that comes within these different land use types and the expectation that the school district could look towards in terms of um the number of families. Certainly, there will be continued conversations and work to do as that master plan is developed um and we can speed um that communication up in terms of um really getting them um real numbers to um start dealing with what the eventuality for the development might be. Um again a lot of this um will get studied in terms of the notes. Um so I don't have a lot I didn't take notes of a lot of very specific questions. It appeared to be more just comments unless I'm missing something that you all noted um that I can address or Mr. Stutz can address. [1:27:46] Chair Zimmer: Excellent. Thank you so much. Uh Commissioner Kuza. [1:27:51] Commissioner Kuza: Um, one question that I heard, um, uh, I think Mr. Jones and Mr. uh, Helen Beck brought it up. Can you talk about the, uh, kind of the plan that the applicant supplied showing potential future roads? [1:28:09] Tina Goodroad: Certainly. Yep. Um, thank you. Um so again this is a conceptual layout to help us identify the land uses for this land use change which is necessary for the preparation of the AUAR because the AUAR studies it based on the land use. What these roadway lines show is the distance limitations that we'll have to the county road. Obviously, if tradition does not acquire property, we are certainly not going to be seeing a road go through someone's property. And nor does the city have any history of eminent domain for such a thing. Um, if that were to happen um and um if you don't have a willing seller and a willing buyer, the property isn't included. It's as simple as that. And so that is why this is conceptual, especially when it comes to those potential roadway lines. Other alternatives will have to be examined and there'll be many iterations of the master plan as we go through that process. But thank you. I missed that one. [1:29:12] Commissioner Kuza: Thanks. Uh there was a question on the capital plan to extend the trunk. [1:29:18] Tina Goodroad: Yep. And to be honest, um I haven't read the CIP. I know it's just been fine-tuned. I know there's a work session coming up the end of the month. My understanding is the um infrastructure improvements are included in that. Whether or not the extension under the interchange because it might be partly um city developer project that could be I've got a note to check with our city engineer Zach Johnson. Our department does not get involved in the CIP planning. [1:29:51] Miss Jensen: I can add to that in lieu of Zach Johnson. It is in the proposed CIP that's currently going through its draft. It's not in the approved CIP that was last year for the five-year plan. So it is showing in our current proposal that has not yet made it through city council for approvals. [1:30:17] Chair Zimmer: Thank you. Um you had mentioned um Miss Goodroad about wetlands, transportation, wildlife all addressed through the AUAR process. Can you just let everybody know how that process goes, how long it takes and [1:30:35] Tina Goodroad: Yep. So there's a and I'm not an expert. We've had a few completed um over the last couple of years um but I am not an expert. Um we rely on experts. Um the city will hire an approved consultant to prepare the AUAR. It starts with a scoping EAW which basically that's an environmental assessment worksheet that identifies all the things that have to be studied within this project boundary area. Once that scoping EAW is approved, it goes to council. It's a council action to order the AUAR preparation. And that is a very in-depth document. Um there's a lot of rules established for the requirement of that document set by the environmental quality board or the EQB. Um once that is established, including all of the wetland delineations, um tree inventory, natural resource inventory, plus an in-depth traffic analysis, all of those different components are compiled. Um it is submitted for review. We rely on a consultant to do the review for us in addition to our staff so that we have kind of a double set of eyes on it. Um then it goes out to an approved required list based on state statute for evaluation. Um folks from MPCA, DNR um there's a whole laundry list of probably 25 folks that or departments and agencies that receive it. They make comment those comments are taken. Edits are made. another draft is created. Ultimately through all of that process, it is ultimately blessed and introduced and published on the EQB. More comments are solicited and then ultimately gets in front of the city council. We can incorporate different elements in terms of review um for a local public review, planning commission review. That's not always done. It's not part of the required process, but we can certainly incorporate that into this project due to the nature, size, and so forth, but it does study all of those different elements. [1:32:41] Chair Zimmer: Any idea of a timetable for something like that? [1:32:43] Tina Goodroad: It is about nine months from start to finish and it could be longer depending on the additional public um input elements um that we include in it. [1:32:55] Chair Zimmer: Excellent. Thank you so much for that. Any other comments, Commissioner Travis? [1:33:01] Commissioner Travis: Ms. Goodroad, with respect to what we're voting on tonight, the zoning changes, can you say a little bit about how those specific changes are known now even though the process you just described is quite extensive in the future? [1:33:18] Tina Goodroad: Correct. So part of um the reason for moving forward with the application now is to inform the land use to then inform the study of the AUAR. The rezoning—the zoning takes place once actual preliminary and final plats are prepared. Um but in order for us to pass this on to the Met Council, the Met Council is going to want to see that we're planning for consistency with our comprehensive plan. [1:33:44] Commissioner Travis: Thank you. So it's a flow question on that. It's just the overall flow. So this isn't racing ahead with one section before we go with the other. It's normal flow. [1:33:57] Tina Goodroad: Correct. [1:33:58] Commissioner Travis: Okay. [1:34:03] Commissioner Kuza: Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Um on kind of what's in front of us tonight, um you know, this is not the next step to breaking ground. This is the the process that we go through and you know the comprehensive plan's been talked about and um it's a 10-year process and uh we spend a lot of time on that. The city staff spends years to prepare. I mean it is over a year-long process. The Met Council takes a while to to review it. All the neighboring communities review it. Um, but it's it's over 10 years and we're kind of approaching the end of the current comprehensive plan and things have changed. The city's grown, I think, faster than, um, any of us thought. Uh, you know, when I was growing up here in Lakeville, um, the city has changed a lot. One of the things with having a well-run city and a really great school district is other people want to move here. And the city looks very different than when I went to Lakeville High School. Um, we've added tens of thousands of people and we develop in response to more people wanting to move here because of the schools and because of the great quality of life we provide. [1:35:44] Commissioner Kuza: I look at this property and I look at what is around it. Um, especially looking north of it. The gravel pit um is now being developed. uh we've added uh the Authentix building and uh other commercial development just north of this. It in my mind kind of logically makes sense that this is kind of one of the next things that is moving forward. Um, and we as the planning commission have to look at what's in front of us. And what's in front of us is a request from a property owner to look at their property and to consider a comprehensive plan and a zoning amendment. And that is the step that we have to take before they bring anything in front of us. And um, then we have to judge with what they're bringing in front of us. Does that meet the standards of Lakeville? and then the city council makes that decision as well. Um, and so I am supportive um of what is in front of us today. Uh I appreciate Director Goodroad uh addressing the um the question about uh the roads that uh when I saw that was a concern of mine too. But um you know this—that's just kind of for demonstration purposes how you would get to the you know county road 70. Um this city uh in my 10 years on the planning commission and in my nearly 40 years in this city I don't we don't use eminent domain. We're not a kind of city that does that to make things easier for the city or easier for the developer. The city is one that respects property rights. And um I'm very comfortable moving forward with this next step. Um and I think that there's a long way to go and I look forward to, you know, what eventually gets brought to us in the in the future. Um but what could possibly be in the future is not before us now. It's it's looking at rezoning and a comprehensive plan amendment. And it's a comprehensive plan that we are very close to the end to. And I think if we didn't um make changes now, the next time that the city's comprehensive plan uh gets updated, I think that you know it would be updated anyways. And so I am supportive of this, Madam Chair. [1:38:04] Chair Zimmer: Thank you. [1:38:05] Commissioner Swaney: Madam Chair, I was just more of a question, but you know in the report, it said that as as required in consideration of the comprehensive plan amendment, the proposed amendment has been submitted to 10 adjacent government jurisdictions, but they all we haven't heard back from all of them. It just said that more than half and is it prudent for us to do anything with this before hearing back from all these other jurisdictions? [1:38:42] Tina Goodroad: Um the thank you for that question. The Met Council requires us to do a jurisdictional review. Um, in a terms like this, I think it's a six-week threshold. [1:38:55] Miss Jensen: They have 60 days. [1:38:57] Tina Goodroad: 60 days. Okay. Um, oftentimes it gets lost. The email gets lost. Um, we've heard from more than half. The school district is the only one that we received a comment from. We will wait until we receive an answer or a non-answer before we submit to the Met Council. [1:39:18] Commissioner Kuza: Uh kind on that, is it is it uncommon that we wouldn't hear back from surrounding uh municipalities or governments? I I feel like we've—that's come up a lot and the most standard thing is we don't have a comment. [1:39:37] Tina Goodroad: Right. So, the majority will not have comment. Um, if they don't have comment, it gets forgotten. So, I've put out a feeler reminding them. I asked for it by the 4th of August. We'll put out another feeler um again before it goes to council, but um it's not surprising to me and I I I don't think moving forward with a recommendation is out of turn because I'm not anticipating the remaining adjacent communities to have a comment. [1:40:10] Miss Jensen: Chair Zimmer, uh just as a comment, the Met Council will not take action provided uh the city council makes a recommendation to approve a comprehensive plan amendment and forward it to Met Council. Met Council will not consider the application complete and take action until either those 60 days have passed from when the notice was sent out or all of those jurisdictions have responded whether they have comments or not. So, everybody does have that full opportunity to provide comment, but it is pretty um uncommon that we do receive comments on these. Keep in mind, they're going to Rosemount, uh the city of Empire, Burnsville, Apple Valley. It's all of our adjacent jurisdictions. So, that is kind of what the typical situation is with a comp plan amendment. [1:41:05] Chair Zimmer: Thank you, Miss Jensen. Do we have further comments from commissioners? [1:41:09] Commissioner Kuza: Madam Chair, are you ready for a motion? [1:41:12] Chair Zimmer: I believe we're ready for a motion at this point. [1:41:14] Commissioner Kuza: Well, I motion to recommend to city council approval of the tradition development comprehensive plan amendments and the zoning map amendment and approval of the findings of fact dated August 7th, 2025. [1:41:30] Commissioner Travis: Second. [1:41:31] Chair Zimmer: We have a motion and a second on this uh item. Would ask Miss Ericson to please take the role. [1:41:37] Clerk Miss Ericson: Kuza. [1:41:38] Commissioner Kuza: I. [1:41:39] Clerk Miss Ericson: Zimmer. [1:41:40] Chair Zimmer: I. [1:41:41] Clerk Miss Ericson: Swaney. [1:41:42] Commissioner Swaney: I. [1:41:43] Clerk Miss Ericson: Travis. [1:41:44] Commissioner Travis: I. [1:41:45] Clerk Miss Ericson: Duckworth. [1:41:46] Commissioner Duckworth: I. [1:41:47] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much and uh Mr. Stutz thank you for the really thorough presentation. And I hopeful I'm hopeful that it answers some questions for people and uh thanks to everyone who came here and participated today. Uh the scope and um breadth of what the planning commission deals with is very different from what the city council deals with and um that's where things—where the lines are drawn. So we appreciate everyone's input here. Thank you so much. For the city council to approve this. The next item on the agenda is item number eight. It's the Dakota Waste Solutions. Uh this is a public hearing to consider the application of Dakota Waste Solutions and OLAM Holdings for a comprehensive plan amendment to bring approximately 120 acres of land into the current municipal urban services area, the Musa, a comprehensive plan amendment to reguide property from office park to warehouse light industrial district and a zoning map amendment to rezone property from OP office park district to I1 light industrial district. Um we have here to present Mr. Brandt is going to introduce the item for us. And I think people are moving their conversations outside the room which is very helpful. So we can move on to the next item. Thank you. Please go ahead, Mr. Brandt. [1:43:40] Mike Brandt: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Mike Brandt with Kimley-Horn. I represent the Dakota Waste Solutions property on the south side of 215th. Uh what we're proposing here is with Dakota Waste Solutions is moving the current wood chip processing facility on the north side of 215 thing you really see from County Road 70 uh to the south side of the road along with other operations to take organic waste mainly it's expired food product that's been packaged depackage it and compost it and recycle it pretty much and bring it back into uh composting that citizens can use for gardens, potting plants or different things. Um it's kind of a unique process. It would not be taking meat or food waste from restaurants. It'd be really taking expired vegetables and plant material from the grocery stores and local commercial establishments like that. We're in the process of getting an MPCA permit. That process has been started with the MPCA which is required. That takes roughly in the neighborhood of 8 to 12 months to get along with we're going through the process also with Dakota County to get licensing and permitting through there as well. So, we're at the first step of this process with the city and been working with the city for I don't know 15 months. It's been a while, but we are progressively moving forward with this type of project and looking for support for that. [1:45:17] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much. And we have a presentation from Miss Goodroad, who's been very busy this evening. [1:45:23] Tina Goodroad: Thank you, chair, members of the commission. Um, so Dakota Waste Solutions LLC and Olam Holdings One LLC have applied for a comprehensive plan and um rezoning amendments. Um, the property is outlined in red. Um and so there's a couple of um things at play. As Mr. Brandt said, um Dakota Waste Solutions is moving their operations from the north side of 215th to 40 acres to the south that they own. Um they have submitted their development applications. So those are under review and it's going to take some time um for that in-depth review. Um but because of the infrastructure improvements that are going to occur on 215th Street, we wanted to separate out this land use change um which is a very simple land use change and bring these properties into the Musa because they are going to be receiving services and they're going to be assessed for them. Um and so this needs to happen. [1:46:21] Tina Goodroad: Um we ended up including the Olam Holdings properties. We just kind of tacked that on to this application. um they recently went through an AUAR. They have submitted um the first step in their development plans a sketch plan. Now a sketch plan is reviewed internally by staff so that we can work out um issues and concerns with their site plan. Um they will be preparing a preliminary plat soon. Um so that will be coming for you. And then there is this kind of exception property. I've worked with the property owners. I've kept them up to speed as things are progressing on the Olam Holdings property and I asked them if they wanted to be part of this amendment and you'll see why in a second when I switch um the slide and they agreed and signed on to that. So you can see at the top of the screen these properties are split in terms of their land use. Um the north portion of the properties are guided OP office park and the south portion of the properties are guided um warehouse light industrial and so that is only for um what's on the screen um these portions. [1:47:38] Tina Goodroad: So the request really is to reguide these OP pieces to warehouse light industrial so the properties are one consistent land use. In reality it's not a major change. Um, the OP zoning district is very similar in uses to the I1 district. So, it's not a radical change. We're not going to have weird uses because of that change. The other change is three of the properties are in expansion area B and need to be moved into current. And again, because we are doing this improvement along 215th Street, utilities will be provided. So they need to be identified as in the current Musa. So this is a much simpler, much more straightforward application. Um but does require a public hearing. Um again we are working with the properties um on the assessment and our meeting with them the end of August. Um again rezoning is required for the consistency and you can again see that the zoning is split following the land use OP as a zoning district in I1 and we're simply trying to make that all consistent. So that is in a nutshell this um amendment to the Musa the land use and the zoning changes. And I stand for any questions and this too requires a public hearing. [1:48:54] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much for your comments uh to both of you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone that wishes to speak on this issue? Please come forward. I don't have any other names on a list. [1:49:10] Commissioner Travis: Madam Chair, seeing no one come forward, I uh motion to close the public hearing. [1:49:15] Commissioner Swaney: I second that. [1:49:17] Chair Zimmer: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please say I. [1:49:25] Planning Commission: I. [1:49:26] Chair Zimmer: Opposed. The public hearing is now closed. We'll move forward to comments from planning commissioners on this issue. [1:49:32] Commissioner Travis: Madam Chair, a question for Miss Goodroad. Um, Mr. Brandt mentioned the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Um, could they make a decision or take some action that would delay or change these plans? [1:49:50] Tina Goodroad: I don't believe so. No, their review is probably going to take longer than the city's review when it comes to their development application just because that agency, you know, it's a—it's a large application. Um, and that agency is notorious for taking its time. Um so the development plans which will consist of a plan unit development because of the unique uses um and a preliminary plat and ultimately a final plat. Those different applications will come before planning commission um probably early fall onto city council with a requirement that they receive the MPCA licenses. So we're going to track a little faster than them. [1:50:33] Commissioner Travis: Okay. Thank you. Uh my only comment and I went out to look at this. Seems like we're moving in the right direction to keep things moving along here and uh thank you Mr. Brandt for coming forward. Um I think we're ready to entertain a motion if there's no one wants to make any other comments. [1:50:56] Commissioner Kuza: Well, Madam Chair, I make a motion to recommend to the city council approval of the Dakota Waste Solutions LLC and Olam Holdings One LLC comprehensive plan amendments in the zoning map amendment and approval of the findings of fact dated August 7th, 2025. [1:51:17] Commissioner Travis: Second. [1:51:18] Chair Zimmer: We have a motion and a second. Miss Ericson, would you please take the role? [1:51:24] Clerk Miss Ericson: Zimmer. [1:51:25] Chair Zimmer: I. [1:51:26] Clerk Miss Ericson: Swaney. [1:51:27] Commissioner Swaney: I. [1:51:28] Clerk Miss Ericson: Travis. [1:51:29] Commissioner Travis: I. [1:51:30] Clerk Miss Ericson: Duckworth. [1:51:31] Commissioner Duckworth: I. [1:51:32] Clerk Miss Ericson: Kuza. [1:51:33] Commissioner Kuza: I. [1:51:34] Chair Zimmer: Thank you so much everyone. Um, Mr. Brandt, thank you again for your your work and your bonding time with the city staff since it seems like it's going to go for a while. Um, I don't know if we have any other staff notices. Um, Miss Jensen, perhaps I didn't ask this question. When the tradition folks are going forward, when will the two pieces go forward to city council? [1:52:02] Miss Jensen: Um, chair, um, commission members, um, the Dakota waste item will go on the 18th. Um, the tradition—I'm not certain. And the tree preservation will be on the 18th. [1:52:16] Chair Zimmer: And the what? [1:52:18] Miss Jensen: The tree preservation will be on the 18th. [1:52:19] Chair Zimmer: Okay. All right. Um, with that, um, thank you so much for your service and your first time meeting, Commissioner Duckworth. Happy to have you join us. [1:52:28] Commissioner Duckworth: Thank you. [1:52:29] Chair Zimmer: We are adjourned.