This is a transcript of a **Lakeville Planning Commission** meeting. Please note that while the City Council members were provided in the context, the Planning Commission is a separate body of appointed officials. The speaker names have been identified using the roll call, staff introductions, and context clues from the dialogue. **Speakers:** * **Chair:** The presiding officer of the Planning Commission * **Tina Goodroad:** Community Development Director * **Melissa Jensen:** City Planner (referred to as "Miss Jensen") * **Mr. Dempsey:** City Planner (presenting agenda item #5) * **Trace S.:** Procurement Manager for PCL Construction (Applicant) * **Steve Trosky:** Representative for Lennar (Applicant) * **Joe Samson:** Local Resident * **Engineer Nelson:** City/County Traffic Engineer * **Commissioners:** Travis, Kusa, Morovich, Zimmer, Han, and Swenson. *** [0:46] **Chair**: I call to order the November 7th 2024 Planning Commission meeting please join me in the flag pledgees. [1:12] **Chair**: Miss Goodroad, will you please call a role of members? [1:13] **Tina Goodroad**: Zik, Travis (here), Kusa (here), Morovich, Zimmer (here), Han (here), Swenson (here). [1:25] **Chair**: All right, agenda item number three: approval of minutes of the October 17th 2024 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Fellow Commissioners, any changes? [Pause] And the meeting minutes will stand. Miss Jensen, any announcements tonight? [1:33] **Melissa Jensen**: Uh, you have before you some revised stipulations for agenda item number five. Mr. Dempsey will review those as a part of his report. Um, other than that, there are no other announcements. [2:00] **Chair**: All right, and agenda item number five. Um, this is a public hearing so anyone wishing to speak on the agenda item please make sure you fill out the information in the back. Um, this is a public hearing for PCL Construction Services Incorporated; the public hearing to consider the application of PCL Construction Services Inc for a conditional use permit to allow an exception to the exterior Building Material requirements in the I-1 light industrial district. [2:23] **Trace S.**: Thank for allowing me to speak this evening. Um, showing up this morning or this evening. Uh, my name is Trace S, I'm the procurement manager for PCL's Minneapolis district office and we are fortunate enough to be leasing a warehouse space here in Lakeville and Our intention for this um um requisition [2:47] is to have extend our um storage capabilities for the warehouse that we have. We have about 20,000 square feet of inside warehousing and allowing us to uh build this canopy temporary canopy structure while we're leasing the space in Lakeville allows us to keep our warehouse clutter free and in more of a safe working operation. I'm also here to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. [3:21] **Mr. Dempsey**: Thank you, Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners. [3:29] Here we go. Um, so the requests today from PCL Construction—they're located at 21435 Humboldt Court. Uh, they're proposing a um accessory building structure um that uh that would be located on the property uh in this I-1 Zone District. I-1 district property, light industrial I should say. Um, this is the the property, these two Parcels right here. Um, and uh adjacent to the property is uh public open space which is this uh the stream Corridor and adjacent to that are uh residential uh medium density and lower density uh single family um and an additional public open [4:16] space north of that, 205th Street. County Road 70 is located to the South. This is a recent aerial photo of the property and it shows the location here of where this building would be uh constructed. Um, this is a a a paved area that was a paved outdoor storage area for a large uh Tire Company uh that used to—that originally occupied this uh the space or most recently did I should say. And uh and this was their outdoor storage area, so it is a hard surface. There's an existing accessory building that was constructed by a previous tenant here in the past. Uh, um this is a copy of uh of the [5:02] plat and it again it shows kind of the outline here. It didn't it didn't uh develop exactly how this is laid out in here but it just shows the two different properties and I wanted to point out that this—these are two separate lots. And until recently, uh, these being two separate lots, we could not issue a building permit for a building on this property unless it was combined with the principal lot with the principal building. And so the property owner, which is not PCL Construction, did combine that; now it is considered one parcel. The building that's proposed, uh, and this opening here would be facing south. Uh, it'd be constructed—uh, kind of a fabric, um, special fabric type of hoop [5:47] shed uh design and it would be installed on top of shipping containers that would also be used for uh storage purposes potentially. The building height is about 26 ft; the building height allowed in the district is 45 ft. Um, one of the conditions we had is that—and this by the way is an example of a of a similar building. It's not the exact um structure in terms of the shipping containers but uh one of our concerns was that uh is that the the shipping containers be, you know, recently or good painted or in good condition and you know not damaged. Um, and then of course a building permit would be required for the building. This is the rear, probably an actual view of [6:32] what the the fabric structure would look like. This one here is constructed on a concrete foundation type thing but this is representative of what the building material will look like. Uh, and this is this design of the uh of the shed um roof and you know the, like I said, building permit, wind load, all those kinds of things have to come into play with the design. Um, so the reason we're here for a conditional use permit is that uh the zoning ordinance does require that uh industrial buildings, accessory buildings, match or are similar to uh the principal building. In this case, the principal building is a part masonry, part steel-sided, pre-finished steel-sided building. [7:19] And so uh if there's a deviation from those matching building construction materials, uh, then a conditional use permit is required and that's where we come into play with making sure that the building is, you know, designed in a manner like uh like I said: dent-free um shipping containers, recently painted, and it's maintained. The roof would have to be in in repair; if there's any tears, that kind of thing would have to be repaired. So um the uh narrative by the applicant talks about the type of fabric roofing material that's proposed. There's a similar one out on uh Kenrick Avenue also an industrial Zone property that the city approved a conditional use permit for some years ago. So the total [8:05] square footage uh for this building would be 2,640 Square ft. The zoning ordinance allows 30% of the equivalent of the principal building on the property to be um—which is approximately 25,000 Square ft that can be used for accessory buildings. So with the existing uh shed and the proposed, it comes to 3,740 ft, which is well under the 30%. It would be approximately 22, perhaps 24 feet in height. Um, and again there's similar facilities at City of Lakeville properties and also uh uh on Kenrick Avenue. We have been getting similar [8:51] requests for these types of buildings uh just because of their economical uh nature for construction for buildings that just need cover and not, you know, heated buildings. Um, so there there is uh stipulation uh or conditional use permit stipulations in here. Um, there's stipulation number four uh recommending that uh it be removed because um the applicant had brought up—and I think he mentioned here—calling it a temporary building in the sense that if they left the site they would likely take the building with them. So I included that as a condition and it was brought to my attention that unless it's an interim use permit, uh, there are no Sunset Clauses in with conditional use [9:37] permits. So if it's removed as recommended, uh, it could remain on the property for a future tenant. But I'll leave it with that; once we approve this, if if the city authorizes this construction, we would just consider it another building and it would be, uh, you know, monitored over the years for, you know, blight purposes and things like that if it ever needed repair. So um I think that's it; if there's any questions, thank you. [10:17] **Chair**: And this is a public hearing; anyone wishing to speak can come forward. [10:19] **Commissioner Travis**: Madam Chair, seeing no one coming forward, I would make a motion to close the public hearing. [10:25] **Commissioner Kusa**: Second. [10:28] **Chair**: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. **Commissioners**: Aye. [10:32] **Chair**: All opposed? [Pause] All right, the public hearing is now closed. Um, fellow Commissioners, any questions or comments? [10:45] **Commissioner Kusa**: Madam Chair? [10:46] **Chair**: Yes. [10:47] **Commissioner Kusa**: Uh, the question I have is about "temporary." Um, how long is the building likely to be used? Is there a plan? [11:02] **Trace S.**: Sorry, we had uh agreed to an initial five-year lease with two uh five-year options behind it. [11:11] **Commissioner Kusa**: Okay, thank you. [11:13] **Chair**: Any additional comments, questions? [11:15] **Commissioner Swenson**: Madam Chair? [11:16] **Chair**: Yes. [11:17] **Commissioner Swenson**: Um, first off, I'm familiar with these types of buildings um working in the industry that I do. We do a lot of salt storage and equipment storage and things like that. Um, understand in this case you're leasing the site um so it's not that you own the site that type of thing. I'm I'm struggling a little bit with the Conex boxes or the um storage containers being [11:50] used as the base for this structure. Um, I know we talked and wrestled with this back when we were talking about the um Lakeville Brewing buildings going out there and kind of opening the door up to using more of these types of structures and that type of thing. And I'm just kind of curious what if any precedent we might be setting by allowing this type of structure to go in, particularly when there's not a removal Clause um associated with it. So I'm just kind of curious what staff's thoughts might be on that. [12:22] **Mr. Dempsey**: Yeah, I do—Madam Chair, Commissioner Swenson, I do recall those discussions. Uh, if we're going to allow them, the staff's position is that they have to be, you know, of a painted and non-dented at least. Um, that that's that's kind of the base that we're going to consider allowing [12:36] these. Uh, and then over time I guess if it has to be repaired, that would be something that the city would have to contact the owner about. Um, but you—it's possible we'll see more of these. We—the other consideration: if it doesn't have such a a wide uh building setback as maybe some other properties would have. The site was set up with this perimeter screening um even before this residential area was constructed and you know, if this building was going to be right up, you know, against these homes like right in here, I think there would be a different position on this for the entire structure. Um, but in cases like this or farther in other locations at the industrial park, we're seeing a lot more requests for these and I think other cities are also, you know, [13:21] considering allowing them as well. So it's a bit of an exploratory motion we're making here. [13:37] **Chair**: Are we out of place for a motion? [13:43] **Chair**: Madame Chair, you said make the motion? [13:45] **Commissioner Travis**: Uh, I motion to recommend approval of the PCL Construction conditional use permit for an exception to the exterior Building Material requirements of the I-1 light industrial district for a detached accessory building at 21435 Humboldt Court subject to the three stipulations listed in the November 1, 2024 planning report. [14:15] **Melissa Jensen**: Question is, is it as amended? [14:17] **Commissioner Travis**: As amended, that's correct. It should be as amended. I thought—because it thought I heard you say that. I'm sorry. In November one, okay, so it have to be as amended. Thank you. [14:26] **Commissioner Zimmer**: Second. [14:27] **Chair**: Right, I have a motion and a second. Um, Miss Goodroad, will you please take a roll call vote? [14:31] **Tina Goodroad**: Kusa? (Aye). Morovich? (Aye). Zimmer? (Aye). Han? (Aye). Swenson? (Nay). Travis? (Aye). [14:50] **Commissioner Swenson**: And I'm going to guess you're going to want some reasoning? Fair enough. So, I guess I was comfortable approving this when it was with the stipulation for removal of the structure when it was complete or when [15:07] the occupant might leave this facility, that type of thing. Now that that's been removed—with the understanding it would have to be under an interim permit—that's where I'm not comfortable with that, that this could become a permanent structure and remain in perpetuity. So that that is my logic and reasoning. [15:19] **Chair**: Thank you, Commissioner Swenson, no problem. And Miss Goodroad—or Miss Jensen—when would this go in front of City Council? [15:25] **Melissa Jensen**: November 18th. [15:26] **Chair**: Thank you. Um, all right, agenda item number six. This is a public hearing; uh, US Home LLC (Lennar) public hearing to consider the application of US Home LLC (Lennar) for a preliminary plat of 88 single-family lots and 144 attached townhome lots to be known as Cedar Hills North. And here to give us an overview of [15:54] the project is Steve Trosky. [15:58] **Steve Trosky**: You got it. Good evening, Steve Trosky with Lennar. Most people get that wrong, so thank you. Happy to be back in front of the Planning Commission for the next round of review and approvals for what we're calling Cedar Hills North. As it says, we're going to have 88 single-family homes and 144 Townhomes at full buildout. So it's not going to be all at once. If the weather holds on this project, we plan to start grading yet this fall; if not, we would go into spring, late spring of 2025 for this. So the buildings on this community would look just like those at the Cedar Hills Community to the South; so if you want to [16:39] take a drive there and and see what the buildings would look like, I invite you to do that, please. Uh, we plan three phases of construction for this project. Uh, the first phase would be all single-family homes; phase two would be single-family homes and townhomes; phase three would be single-family homes and townhomes as well. So happy to take any feedback you have. As I mentioned in September when I was here, we're very excited to be back in Lakeville. Staff has been great giving us a lot of guidance and so we're happy to be at this point. Thank you. [17:19] **Melissa Jensen**: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. Uh, this is the public hearing for the Cedar Hills North preliminary plat. Uh, its location is north of 200th Street between Cedar Avenue and our city boundary with the City of Farmington. Um, just to the South is the current Cedar Hills development that Lennar is working on, so that's where we get the name from. Uh, as you may recall about a month or so ago we did um zoning map amendment and a Comp Plan amendment for this property. Um, this is the zoning that uh Planning Commission recommended approval of and the City Council approved. Um, it will not go into [18:06] effect until uh a final plat is recorded, but this is what the site would have for zoning. The area in orange is the RM-3; that's the attached townhome area. The area in green is the RST-2; that's where the single-family homes are located. Uh, this is the overall preliminary plat. While we are really looking at—I'll get my mouse here—the South half of the property is what's currently being developed. Because of the parcels that are involved in um the various parcels that are involved in this, the essentially the North half um is here on the preliminary plat because the parent parcels are that large, but the actual development only involves [18:53] that South half of the project. So there is the layout for uh that project. Uh, it's about 76 acres of the 148 that is proposed to be developed. As Mr. Trosky said, there's 88 single-family lots and 144 attached townhome lots. Um, point out a couple of unique items about this plat: there is a large 100-foot-wide gas main easement that runs through the property and then then there is also a a Waterway Channel that's being restored um that um is being worked on that um is also a constraint on the property as far as laying it out. So there's been a lot of work on this site between those uh [19:40] two items to to get a layout um that would work, meet our ordinances, and work for uh Lennar's needs. As I said, the the single-family is is on the East and kind of this South side, and then the attached townhomes are over here on the North and West. Um, there are three Street connections up to Future Parcels in the north: one within the townhomes; this minor collector, Galifray Way, that splits the property—that will go north; and then another uh local residential um over here on the east side. And there are two access points from 200th Street that align to existing streets on the South side into the Cedar Hills development. As I mentioned, Galifray Way is [20:25] a minor collector. Um, there is a stipulation in the report that those um those lots that are on corner lots uh adjacent to Galifray will be required to have their driveway from the side street. Um, there is this one lot up here that does not have an option, and minor collector roads are allowed to have driveways out onto them, but where we can avoid it um on the corners, we do require it be the side street just to help improve the flow of traffic um and minimize conflicts on those streets. Um, there are some private streets within the townhome area. Um, this street here is public and this street here is public, but these, you know, drives through here over here and then these in this area are all [21:13] private. They will be owned and maintained um by the HOA and they are between 24 and 28 ft wide, which does meet our ordinance requirements. Um, one of the stipulations in the report, stipulation number 14, was included in error. It uh refers to the units, the attached townhome units, needing to meet certain garage sizes, lot width, and size; the RM-3 district does not have those requirements. So um I would ask that you um amend the stipulations. I apologize, I didn't catch that until just before the meeting so I wanted to point that out for you. As Mr. Trosky said, this development would be within three phases. Um, first phase being generally south of the Waterway, the single-family homes. Second phase moving up Galifray to do [22:01] the uh attached townhomes that are east of the gas pipeline. And then phase three is the single-family north of the creek and then the attached townhomes on the other side of the gas pipeline. Um, that's how it's proposed; that may change as things move out. Um, just to show you a ghost plat that was put together for the areas to the north. Um, the developer or Future Property Owners are not obligated to develop uh the property in this manner; it's just looking at where are the potential Street connections and how could the property be laid out. Um, these parcels have the same challenges as the one to the south: the gas pipeline runs through there and there is a second Creek that runs through, a tributary in [22:47] that area as well. So the site is shown to be continued development with attached townhomes and single family. The attached townhomes in this area—the zoning on that is the Corridor Mixed Use for the Cedar, um, so it would allow high or higher density housing as well as um commercial uses on the site. But there is nothing proposed for that area currently. Um, the other exception parcel—as you'll recall at your last Plan Commission meeting, you approved a um or you recommended approval of some CUPs for uh an accessory structure on that site. The Council did approve that on Monday evening. Uh, Mr. Borman's property is here; the ghost plat is showing that [23:34] there could be a cul-de-sac off of the street here and several lots off of that, should Mr. Borman ever choose to sell or someone else purchase it for development. Um, it it could be um developed in that manner. Uh, this is the tree inventory. Uh, all the red dots—uh, it's essentially the the trees that are around several of the homes that are on some of the smaller parcels. Um, those trees will all—are proposed to be removed uh with this with this development. Um, this is the landscape plan. The um the landscaping along 200th is required to meet our buffer yard standards. Those are the single-family [24:20] homes; that RST-2 district does require that there are plantings along Cedar here within the RM-3 district to buffer these Townhomes. RM-3 District doesn't require that the buffer yard standards um within the zoning ordinance be strictly met, um, but it does require that there be plantings there to serve um the buffering purpose. We were trying to provide some additional flexibility with that RM-3 district. So um Lennar is proposing um a a landscape buffer in that area to help with those townhomes and then there are some other trees scattered throughout mostly the um open public spaces on the site. And then this is just to give you [25:06] an idea of of some of the foundation plantings that could be around the um attached townhome units. Um, and that's all I have for you. This—if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the Cedar Hills North preliminary plat, staff does recommend it be subject to those 14 stipulations listed in the October 29th report as amended, and I will stand for any questions you may have. Thank you. [25:35] **Chair**: And this is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to speak on this agenda item can please come forward. [25:44] **Joe Samson**: My name is Joe Samson and we do live on the South side in the Cedar Hills development um and one thing that I didn't see addressed on here and I'm assuming it will— [26:00] **Chair**: Can you state your address, sorry, for the record? [26:03] **Joe Samson**: 286 Gamma Lane. Sorry. Um, the only concern I didn't see on here—we didn't see on here, and several of our other residents were expressing some concern—is uh the traffic control at 200th and Cedar Avenue. Um, it's very difficult now with traffic even today making a right-hand turn because there's many people trying to make a left turn on there to go south on Cedar, which backs up traffic. And I [26:30] understand it's only a two-lane road up there, but we've also been witness to several very significant accidents at that location. So I just—I was hoping to see or some conversation about, you know, what the trafficking situation is going to be; whether it's going to be a light or whether it's not going to permit a left turn or or what. So that's— [27:03] **Chair**: Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this agenda item? [Pause] Seeing no one else come forward, I would make a motion to close the public hearing. [27:12] **Commissioner Travis**: Second. [27:14] **Chair**: I have a motion and a second. Um, all those in favor of closing the public hearing please signify by saying aye. **Commissioners**: Aye. [27:16] **Chair**: All opposed? [Pause] All right, the [27:18] public hearing is now closed. Um, Miss Jensen, can we talk about the concerns with—is there any um planned lights or or anything regarding the—the 200th Street? [27:26] **Melissa Jensen**: 200th Street is a County Road, um, County Road 64. Cedar is a county state highway—uh, Highway 23—so both of those streets are currently under the jurisdiction of Dakota County. Um, I do know that they have been watching that intersection and um would likely do some sort of um restriction implementation. Um, I believe they are—and [28:04] Engineer Nelson can um correct me if I'm wrong—the in in the future near future 200th Street on the West side of Cedar will be improved to a paved road. It is currently gravel, and I believe the um intersection restriction would likely occur at that time. I I believe it would be um either a right-in, right-out or a three-quarter intersection. [28:44] **Engineer Nelson**: Yeah, that's correct. And just to add to that, they are going to be installing right turn lanes with this development as well, and the county is planning to do a traffic count upon buildout conditions to to further [28:50] analyze the situation. [28:54] **Chair**: Okay, thank you. Uh, fellow Commissioners, any additional comments, questions? [29:08] **Commissioner Travis**: Chair? [29:09] **Chair**: Yep. [29:10] **Commissioner Travis**: Are you ready for a motion? [29:11] **Chair**: I think so. [29:12] **Commissioner Travis**: Uh, I motion to recommend approval of the Cedar Hills North preliminary plat of 88 single-family home lots and 144 attached townhome lots subject to the 14 stipulations listed in the October 29th, 2024 planning report as amended. [29:39] **Commissioner Kusa**: Second. [29:41] **Chair**: All right, I have a motion and a second. Miss Goodroad, will you please take a roll call vote? [29:44] **Tina Goodroad**: Kusa (Aye), Morovich (Aye), Zimmer (Aye), Han (Aye), Swenson (Aye), Travis (Aye). [29:52] **Chair**: And when will this go in front of City Council? [29:54] **Melissa Jensen**: Uh, November 18th. [29:55] **Chair**: All right, thank you. Uh, good luck on your project and with that, uh, the meeting is adjourned. [30:04] [End of Audio]