This transcript appears to be from a **Lakeville Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the recording, I have identified the speakers, including Chairperson Zimmer, various Commissioners, City Staff (Tina Goodroad and Zach Johnson), the Project Engineer (Joe Maylander), and members of the public. *** **[0:53] Chairperson Zimmer:** Good evening. I call this meeting of the Planning Commission for February 6th to order. I would like to ask members to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. **[1:08] Group:** I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America... **[1:23] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you. I'd like to ask Ms. Erickson to call the roll. **[1:27] Ms. Erickson (Secretary):** Traffas? **Commissioner Traffas:** Here. **Ms. Erickson:** Kusa? **Commissioner Kusa:** Here. **Ms. Erickson:** Zimmer? **Chairperson Zimmer:** Here. **Ms. Erickson:** Han? **Commissioner Han:** Here. **Ms. Erickson:** Swenson? **Commissioner Swenson:** Here. **[1:35] Chairperson Zimmer:** Next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes. Do we have any changes to the minutes? I'll let the minutes stand as presented. Do we have any announcements? And I'd ask Miss Jensen. **[1:45] Miss Jensen (Staff):** Yes, thank you, Commissioners. Before you tonight, you do have a handout that is the findings of fact for the CUP that's on the agenda this evening. We did have the wrong legal description attached to the document, so that is why you have a revised copy there. There were no changes to the findings of fact themselves. And then as a reminder, following tonight's regular meeting, we will adjourn and move to the Maring Conference Room for a joint work session with the Parks and Rec Committee, again immediately following this meeting. Thank you. **[2:17] Chairperson Zimmer:** Very much. Next item on the agenda, number five: the North Creek MHP conditional use permit. This is a public hearing to consider the application of Dirt Boys Incorporated for a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of North Creek manufactured home park for the development of manufactured home sites in the RSMH single-family manufactured home park district and Shoreland overlay district. We'll have a presentation, but I would like to ask anybody that does want to speak to sign up on the signup sheet at the back of the room. And there's a lot of people; we'll have to do some limiting of time, probably three minutes a piece. Thank you. Do we have a presenter? **[3:09] Joe Maylander (Project Engineer):** Okay, good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for your time today. My name is Joe Maylander. I'm a licensed engineer and I'm the design engineer on the project tonight. I wanted to quickly take you through our request and then touch on some of the highlights of the project. The project is located just south of the existing North Creek Estates manufactured home community and directly north of the Country View manufactured home community. The property is currently zoned RSMH and the future land use map also shows this as manufactured housing. A previous site development plan was approved by the city back in 1989. The site was considered phase three of the North Creek Estates community, and before that, the property was originally part of Country View. As this property was previously approved for development, city water lines have already been extended to the site boundary. Existing sanitary sewer runs along the east and west sides of the property. Storm sewer extends into the property and there are existing road connections to the property: Country View Lane on the south and then a ridge on the north side. North Creek Estates began this current process using the previously approved plan. We met with the neighborhood group back in October of 2023. Since that time, we've gone through several site revisions, most of those to address current Lakeville standards. The property, based on the zoning and land use around it, has been intended for manufactured housing. We're looking to add 132 new homes to the site, which is a decrease from what the original plan had. In summary, we're requesting approval of this project. It meets the city codes and standards. The property is zoned for this type of development. It utilizes existing infrastructure connections and places no further burden on the city, as all this will be privately owned and maintained infrastructure. And then we've worked to address the neighborhood's concerns, and we believe the current layout is better than the previously approved plan back in '89. I appreciate your time and I'm available for any questions. **[5:50] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you very much. I—we have a presentation from City staff? **[5:56] Tina Goodroad (Community Development Director):** Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm just going to review a few slides. A little bit of repeat from what the applicant shared, but that's just fine. But as he mentioned, Dirt Boy Incorporated on behalf of North Creek of Lakeville LLC is requesting the conditional use permit to expand North Creek manufactured home community. This addition will be immediately south of the existing North Creek. You can see that on the screen—it's the property outlined in yellow—and north of the existing Country View Trail neighborhood. The property is zoned RSMH. Can you pause for just a moment? Our screens aren't on. Oh, there we go. Thank you. That would help, huh? Okay, so you can see again on the area where the property is located how it is zoned. The two manufactured home parks that exist today are under the same zoning. The applicant did share that there is some history; there's been phasing on this project, so this is basically phase three. This property has been zoned for a manufactured home park since 1974, so there's a long history and an expectation that this remaining property would develop. This map is just showing the existing conditions. Here is a layout without all the home sites. You can see the street connection to the north. There'll be an emergency access to Country View on the south, the internal street system, and then there is an infiltration basin on the north and then a storm water detention pond on the south that adds some separation to Country View. A portion of the site is located within the Shoreland overlay district of North Creek. So with that, we have to review several different things, including impervious surface standards and so forth. That review has been completed by the city as well as DNR staff and has been determined that it meets all of the requirements of the Shoreland zone. Here's the site plan. The plans don't show really crystal clear on the screen, so I apologize for that, but you can see the location of the home sites scattered throughout the site. Again, the access point will be coming from the north to the existing North Creek neighborhood. There's several other features on the site, including recreation areas up in that corner; the shelter is centralized in the community, as well as a playground area. And there are areas for 26 additional parking stalls in different points of the neighborhood for guest parking, although the lots meet the required lot size setbacks and so forth. Each lot provides two off-street parking spaces and then again, as I mentioned, there are guest parking stalls scattered throughout the site. One of the things that the applicant will be providing: in addition to landscaping, there will be a fence along the entire western property, a six-foot-high privacy fence. That fence will extend around the corner and then it turns into a chain link fence. A couple of different drawings I've got here to kind of show where that transition point is—it's about here. This plan might show it a little bit better. With that transition, it turns into the chain link fence, connects then to a gate, and then the chain link fence extends along that entire south boundary, then wraps around that pond to enclose the pond area. So there is fencing between the two neighborhoods—partly privacy and then partly the chain link fence. The gate between this development and Country View is for emergency purposes only, so it is not intended to have daily traffic. When I shared these plans and when I had a conversation with the owner of Country View, there was some concern expressed over the gate in terms of the height and whether or not it would be climbable. There is a lot of concern between that neighborhood and this proposal of people being able to access into Country View Estates. You will hear that concern tonight from residents, and so I just put up on the screen what the gate looks like. It's a four-foot in height gate; it'll be a sliding gate. It does have a heavy-duty privacy screening attached, but again, there is concern over "is that tall enough to prevent people accessing the two neighborhoods?" I will point out though that even with that gate, when you look at the overall aerial, the entire neighborhood is not being enclosed, so there are other ways to get into Country View if somebody wanted to. But there is particular concern over this gate and how it's handled, so I just want to prime you for comments you're probably going to hear. I have shared that that is a concern to the applicant, so they are aware and can address those questions to you. Here's a landscaping plan. Almost every lot has a tree or more. There's areas where increased landscaping is provided along the west property line, along this property line, as well as trees provided for almost all of the lots. So all of the landscaping requirements have been met. Again, this is a conditional use permit, so with that, it is our job to review the code or review this item and this request based on the standards of the zoning ordinance, and staff has determined that it meets the requirements. We do, as a conditional use, have some suggested conditions that have been included in your staff report. They are also up on the screen. If there's any changes to those conditions based on what you hear in the public hearing and conversations that you have with the applicant, they will be noted prior to going to City Council. And I'm just going to put this plan up because it's probably the clearest, and I would stand for any questions or, if you desire, open the public hearing. **[12:19] Chairperson Zimmer:** I think we'll probably move to the public hearing but keep you on site. We will open the public hearing and I have a list here of 20 folks that want to speak. And we want to hear from folks, but we do need to limit time frames and it would be very important to not repeat the questions and comments that have already been asked by previous folks that are speaking, just to keep moving things along. And the questions asked by everyone who comes up will be noted by staff and Planning Commissioners, and we will address those questions after the public hearing is closed. And with that, then we'll start at the top of the list and I have Joyce Mallerie. Thank you for being here and please just speak into the microphone with your name and address so we have that for the record. Thank you. **[13:35] Joyce Mallerie (Citizen):** Hello, my name is Joyce Mallerie, 5640 Eveleth Court, Farmington, 55024. I am a 38-year Country View resident. My home currently faces the ball field, the basketball court. My biggest concern is it's like a speedway through back and forth in front of our home. We insisted on a four-way stop sign to be put right there on the corner and it's there now, it's been in place; however, people don't pay attention. And our biggest concern is the increase in the traffic in our neighborhood and what's going to happen. The pond—we enjoy the pond, the wildlife, the ducks, the geese, an occasional coyote will howl or a pack will howl. We've seen deer, bald eagles—we're going to lose all that if this goes through. Along with property taxes—how will this impact our property taxes? That's my question. How will this impact our property taxes? **[14:48] Chairperson Zimmer:** That's your question, okay. Thank you. Next up is Kurt Mikas. **[15:02] Kurt Mikas (Citizen):** Thank you. We were doing this thing, I thought there was just an entry you fill out... **[15:05] Chairperson Zimmer:** You are not required to speak, sir. **[15:07] Kurt Mikas:** I do have a couple questions I would like to address. My name is Kurt Mikas. I live at 17265 North Creek Lane in the North Creek trailer park community. I have a couple questions. As far as traffic goes: you put 132 homes in there, if there's two cars per house, figure that out—that's 264 cars coming through there at 7:00 in the morning going to work. North Creek Drive is like a NASCAR race; people fly down that road. We have no way of controlling that; there's no stop signs on North Creek Drive at all. You put in all these homes back there and people that live there already, it's hard enough to get out on Pilot Knob. Now you're going to put all these homes in there. Second thing I'm asking about is your shelter. I would like to find out—we don't even have a shelter adequate for all the people in North Creek trailer right now. There is a basement below the office, maybe holds 30 people, 40 people at the most. We don't—they have no plans on how many people can fit into that building. The people that live in the second part of North Creek trailer park, we don't have a shelter to go to. There's one more question I have. My backyard floods out all summer long, and last year it got 3 feet up to the property line. What is being done about that? If they put all these houses back there, the runoff, where is it all going to go? Into the North Creek creek? Because DNR has not done their job as far as keeping the bridge clear of brush, leaves, trees, and it just backs up. And I'm afraid—I believe in 2008 or 2006 the flood waters came over the property lines and went down the street. So those are my three questions I'd like to find out what's going on. **[17:28] Chairperson Zimmer:** Excellent. Thank you so much. Next up is Michael and Linda Baumgartner. **[17:51] Linda Baumgartner (Citizen):** My name is Linda Baumgartner. I live at 17390 Faraday Lane. So I'm one of those houses that backs right up to on the west side where they're putting a fence. My question is about the fence. What is the material going to be? Is it going to need maintenance? And if we have a big gust of wind and a storm, who's going to be in charge of replacing the fence to its existing area or whatever? I also have a concern that I don't imagine we can do anything about, but having looked at that property for 30 years—we built the house, so it's been like 32 years that we've lived there—it's an open area where there are so many animals that live there: deer and fox and rabbits and everything. And apparently, from looking online, Lakeville has no restrictions on—and I guess it's one of the future agenda items—there's no requirement for any trees to be left and everything gets torn down. And I don't see that that's a good objective to have. And I'm just—I'm just going to be really sad the day that I see those bulldozers come in there and take away all that habitat and those animals have nowhere to go because everything else has been taken down in the meantime that used to be across from North Trail where there was hunting because there was so much vegetation and everything. It's just—it's just really sad in my mind that this is going to happen... and I mean when I thought about it, they have to go miles to find another place to live. It's just really sad that this is going to happen anyway. So I hope that since I see it on the future agenda, that that's something that's taken care of and the restrictions are changed when there's a development. **[19:25] Chairperson Zimmer:** Excellent. Thank you so much. Michael Baumgartner, or are you...? No? Okay, thank you. Kevin Morgan, please. **[20:00] Kevin Morgan (Citizen):** Yeah, I thought it was just a signup sheet, but that's okay. Kevin Morgan, 17305 Fairgreen Avenue, Farmington, Minnesota, 55024. I live at the very end of the current park, right before you go over the bridge into the expansion. And as was mentioned, part of what always worries me is the amount of traffic. And I'm hearing that there's going to be some recreation area, is that true? I believe that was like basketball and things like that. My concern is that we already have unsavory individuals who come into the park. In fact, they come all hours of the night, park... they do a lot of things on that bridge, illegal things. There've been shootings, police have come down there. Now that's just at the end right now. Now if there's a recreational part where it's basketball—which no one in our subdivision really plays basketball, we have the park, we have the school people can go to—I'm concerned that it's going to invite more. Because most of the people who are on that bridge that are coming in are not from North Creek or anywhere, they're from way away. And so if you start bringing in this, it's going to bring in more of that outside influence and then therefore possibly cause more crime, more problems, and police activity. Thank you. **[21:40] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you so much. Russell? Okay. All right. You know, you write small enough I had to put my cheaters on. The next one is Jim Craig. Maybe? Okay. Jay Vassel? Okay. Dan Gustafson. **[22:25] Dan Gustafson (Owner, Country View):** Thank you so much. My name is Dan Gustafson. I'm the owner of Country View manufactured home community. I'll give my address: 5775 Country View Trail. And I'm also a landscape architect and site planner. I constructed Country View back in 1972 and I'm very familiar with planning. And I'm not here to demonize the owners of North Creek, but I am here as the owner and representing the residents of Country View. Our business philosophy has been, I would dare say, somewhat unique in the industry of manufactured housing. I have been involved in the management of Country View for 53 years, and we have had a balance between affordability and doing what we need to do to create a very healthy and safe living environment. We were the first community in the state of Minnesota to be approved for the crime-free program. We have relatively strict screening for our residents. We were also the first company in Minnesota to fulfill the requirements for shelters, and our shelter more than deals with the potential of serious storms. I don't have a lot of questions—I have been in touch with planning and they've been very forthcoming—but we do have some requests. One is that we would like to see the fence increased from 6 feet to 7 feet. The chain link fence I'm very comfortable with because I think it's going to be more substantial and long-lasting than some of the wood fences we see in other residential developments. I am also concerned about the height of the gate. I understand the desirability of maintaining access from one community to the other for police and fire protection, and the city has concurred with us on that in terms of limiting access. But I would like to recommend or request that that gate be as tall as the fence and also that it not be of a construction that invites people to use it like a ladder. Because we have a swimming pool—we're the only one of the two communities—we have two full-time lifeguards on the property all summer and we do have to be careful, but we try to limit the number of people outside the community coming and using our facilities, particularly the swimming pool. The other concern I'd like to address is if this request is approved, we would like a limitation on construction or equipment using Country View Trail, driving through our community as part of the construction. We're quite sensitive to that. And essentially, I've got other comments that we'd probably like to work with the city on, but generally, I understand completely that the owners have the right to develop this property. But for me as a planner, it's how. And we, just as a point of information, we do criminal checks; we're one of the few parks that do for anyone entering the park as a resident. We do not allow convicted felons to live in Country View, and that has contributed to a very low level of police calls within the community, as I've heard many times, as good as virtually any neighborhood in Lakeville. Thank you very much. **[27:38] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you very much, Mr. Gustafson. And we are limited as the Planning Commission to the purview of what we can deal with as far as issues; if it falls within zoning, that's what we deal with—is the zoning—and that's the extent of what we can do with things. Next up is Greg Paul? Okay. Dan? Same Dan. Chrissy and Steve Eno? You're good? Thank you. Maybe it'll help. Brian and Molly Baldwin? Jeff and Stacy Carell? **[28:46] Stacy Carell (Citizen):** Stacy Carell, 17616 Fairfax Avenue. So we're the housing development right on the west side, the homes. Since my husband's job... we've lived there for 23 years and like the lady said before who lived there for 30, it's been nothing but beautiful trees and grasslands and animals. We have deer come right up to our fence; we have coyotes that come right up to our fence. There's bald eagles back there—what's going to happen to those bald eagles? I've seen them, I've taken pictures of them, there's many of them out there. There's all different kinds of birds and animals. And so that's besides... you know, if it's going to happen, it's going to happen, but we need—I'd like to at least have that addressed, like what happens to those eagles? We have an easement that goes right along our property because there is a power line there, and so I know they can't put the fence up to—they can go up to the easement—but what's that fence going to look like? Right now, I mean we just had storm damage and we had brand new siding, new roofs, we just put a brand new deck on our back, and now we're going to sit and look at a fence or a trailer court. And I said, we've been there our whole life, I mean our kids have been raised there. We don't want to see that in our backyard. I mean, I know it looks like they're putting in a pond along Country View—why could we have the pond put along where the houses are instead of along the trailer court side? I mean, does it have to be right up to our property? Can we have a little buffer? And if there's only that one entrance in, what's it going to do for traffic back there? I mean, Country View is only for emergency access only; all those cars are going to come in and out over that bridge. All that—I realize North Creek is still protected, but you know, what's with the overflow and how's that going to change it? Our trees already... I mean, we have very few because of the easement. Some of—a lot of our trees have been taken down because of Dakota Electric. Are we going to get any trees put in just as a buffer? I don't know what—and I know I've—honestly, I haven't driven through North Creek or Country View homes either one and I don't go walk back... I know a lot of people walk their dogs back there, I never have. But I mean, who's to say... I mean, if they can't keep up North Creek already? I mean, if you've driven through it and you see the disrepair that some of the homes are in—not all of them, a lot of them take care and pride—but if they don't take care of what is currently there, who's to say that this isn't going to be like that in 10 years? I don't want that in my backyard. So I mean, if it's as nice as Country View, maybe, but still, it concerns me. If they can't even take care of what they have, why should they be allowed to expand? Thank you very much. **[31:44] Jeff Carell (Citizen):** I'd like to say to that, when we bought our house 23 years ago, it was considered a wetland back there and that's one of the reasons we bought is because it wasn't supposed to be developed. Now I'm not really sure when it was changed over to something else, but I believe part of that back there is still wetland. So how are you planning to develop on the wetland when you can't develop—I mean, and when it was actually changed, because that again was one of the reasons we bought our home. Thank you. **[32:51] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you. Chad Vetta. **[33:01] Chad Vetta (Citizen):** Hello, I'm Chad Vetta. I live on the west side there at 17668 Fairfax Avenue, Farmington. I just—I thought that was a signup too, but there are some things I'd like to say and then one main question for you guys. First of all, I'm really shocked that the residents of North Creek aren't here because when we had a meeting like this at the school, which all those residents could walk to, they were all there. They were all upset, no one wanted anything to go through. I think now that they have to travel this far for this meeting has really... and I think they're afraid of a little bit of retaliation. So I really encourage—not all of you guys—so I know that no one wants this other than the developers. So you're taking a really high-density area already and packing it even fuller. You're packing more people in there. I already have kids playing around back there, jumping my fence on the west side. A six-foot fence isn't going to keep people from jumping a fence. I don't have problems with that—kids will be kids—but now you're putting a lot more people in that area and it's just going to be more and more of a problem. So my big question for you guys is back when we had this original meeting at the school—and with this being landlocked like this, it's really touchy, right? I don't know if that's the right term, landlocked, right? Because it hasn't been developed except everything around it's been developed and there's so much other land to do this on. It's like, why are we trying to force this issue and force everyone to be unhappy in that area? It's really disappointing and I hope you guys really think about this—about the residents in the area. Because us up in that northeast corner of Lakeville often get overlooked because we are Farmington school district, Rosemount phone number, right? We're in that triangle. No one really wants to deal with us, but you guys get us. So I just hope you know, you put a little bit more thought into that, like it was in your backyard even though we're so far away. But my question is, I asked the developer and I never got an answer, was about rentals. My question for them was: what is the percentage of these pads that could be set up as rentals? And they looked at me like I had... you know what I mean? Like, would you have to buy the trailer and move it on yourself and rent the lot, or would they provide the trailers and rent out the trailers and the lots? And I was told that they could set them up as complete rentals. So now you're going to have tons of people coming in that don't care for their property when the developer—or I should say the owner on the north side—has obviously not cared for the property that they're expanding. So my question is: is that going to be limited or is that going to be open for rentals to where, you know, like apartments? So that people can just come in and rent the whole trailer and pad all in one? So that's my question. Thank you. **[36:28] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you. Alex Rein. **[36:40] Alex Rein (Citizen):** Hi there, my name is Alex Rein. I live at the west side allotment there along with the rest of them there, and Abby Routh as well lives with me, she's here with me today. I have two concerns. One concern is when I first bought the house in 2023, the previous owner didn't have a fence until the two existing trailer parks were put in place, and then he said that he started to get a lot of foot traffic from his lawn into the neighborhood on the west side there on Fairfax Avenue. He said that a lot of kids were coming through and he was just mostly concerned about damage to his property and then injury to the kids and the foot traffic that was coming through. If you look on Google Earth, you can actually see the nature area there—that was kind of echoed, all the nature and the walking paths back there are man-made walking trails. So the two trailer parks have actually made those on their own just walking through the wetlands there. My concern is that if you put the six-foot fence, how solid is that fence going to be and how climbable it's going to be? I'm trying not to echo previous speakers but that easement there between the two lots—I know everybody on that west side there has a fence of their own, almost a chain-link fence now, it's probably only 3 to 4 feet high for all of us—how easy is that going to be to climb? And then does that easement between the two property lines now become a walking trail for everybody else? I know it's controlled by Dakota Electric I think now, and it's not very well-kept for the brush line underneath the power lines. And then the second concern I have is the gentleman talked about the number of cars that were going to be coming through the neighborhood. Now take that times—a lot of these trailer park homes are going to be extended families with multiple cars, multiple children. Are additional school buses going to be coming through our neighborhood to pick up additional children now? I live on the T-intersection right in the middle there and we have already three school buses that pick up at our T-intersection. So are you going to have new school bus routes for this trailer park? And if they're going to come through the North Creek Trail entrance, I know the traffic study talked about putting in a potential U-turn for the northbound traffic on Pilot Knob that isn't already there. So are you going to tear up Pilot Knob Road again after all the construction that's been going on on the north side up by all the new development up there? So that's my two concerns and questions that I have. Thank you very much. **[39:20] Chairperson Zimmer:** This one's pretty hard... is it Guadalupe and Lucas Sanchez? Is there somebody close to that? Okay, I think they left. All right. Patricia Hassana? Amber Kipley. **[39:55] Amber Kipley (Citizen):** Amber Kipley, I'm at 17265 North Creek Drive, down by the end where this addition is going to go in. Simply going to say before you guys approve this, I would ask that all of you come and drive through our park. I've lived there for 14 years, I've always been just fine living there—no "trailer trash" for me, I've been happy there. It's a hot mess. It's in disrepair. The driveways haven't been done since they took over the park. The playgrounds are unsafe, should be torn down. There's trees that we've been told since 2023 that would be removed that have never been removed. I have pictures of my daughter's house with the tree that cracked in half and fell, and the other half—this was in I believe August—the other half of that tree is still hanging over the neighbor's house. Been told three separate times that this was coming, that they're going to remove the dead trees. We were told that once they got this extra addition to it, that they would then spend some money on our park. So they raise the rent, raise the rent—no maintenance on the park. It's embarrassing. I ask you all to go look and decide if that's what you want in Lakeville. I don't trust that our side of the park is going to get done because we've been told so many times before that these things would be done and they have not. Thank you. **[41:15] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you. Next up is Jody Raber. **[41:25] Jody Raber (Citizen):** What I have to say has already been said. The height of the fence—I mean really, this is over four feet, this would be the height of the gate. No, I'm all for the Trump wall down south; that's the height I'd like to see. Because if this is all going to be rentals, I'm worried about the safety and security of the children in Country View. Because we have standards in Country View—we are checked out, we've gone through the police checks and all just to move in there. Now if this is all going to be rentals, what kind of checks or what kind of guarantees can you give us, the residents of Country View? I guess I'll give you my address: 5695 177th Street. I'm on the south side of Country View where the new housing was all put in in the field, and they've got like a seven-foot fence there. It's a plastic fence; that would be the bare minimum of a fence because I would like to see none of our children in Country View to be affected by anybody who lives in rental properties. I mean, we do have pretty strict rules in our park. So I'd like to see that. That's my biggest concern—I raised two sons there, I'm a longtime resident, I've lived there since 1989. I said, I enjoy everything here that we have there. We've got the swimming pool, my kids have enjoyed that growing up, and we don't need other people... like Dan said about people coming in. But as far as height, I'm a little different from Dan; I'd just as soon go to that Trump wall height. But I'd like to see it go completely around the whole area there because I'm really worried about the safety and security of our children. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. **[43:08] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you very much. I haven't gaveled you down, but we're not supposed to have outbursts or clapping. That's the extent of this list. Is there anyone else that wanted to speak that has something to add to the conversation? And do we have anybody virtually? Don't think there's anybody there. **[43:35] Commissioner Kusa:** Madam Chair, seeing no one else come forward, I move to close the public hearing. **Commissioner Han:** Second. **[43:42] Chairperson Zimmer:** We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. **Group:** Aye. **Chairperson Zimmer:** Opposed? The public hearing is now closed. We have a very long list of questions and I think the best approach would be to ask Mr. Maylander to come forward and maybe give us a response to the questions. I saw you taking copious notes; that would be great. Thank you. **[44:20] Joe Maylander (Project Engineer):** I'm just going to kind of start at the top of my list of notes and if there's something I missed, let me know. The storm shelter: there is a storm shelter located as part of this expansion and that was designed and sized by a licensed architect who's familiar with these types of structures. I don't remember the exact square footage, but there is a code requirement for number of people per square foot for the size of the storm shelter, and we meet that code. Flooding in the creek: there were a lot of flooding concerns that we had with this project. There's a 100-year flood plane and a pretty good-sized floodway that runs right along North Creek. The original site plan kind of met FEMA's 100-year flood plane; the city has since then adopted a new flood modeling which is about 3 feet higher than FEMA's elevations, and we meet that increased level of flooding. So we pushed a lot of the homes out of that area along the creek to accommodate the flood plane in that area. From a storm water standpoint, we went through a pretty extensive review. We're doing a large infiltration basin on the north side there that most of the site drains to, and then we have the detention pond there in the southeast corner—excuse me. There is kind of an area down there that's already holding water. We did do a wetland delineation for the whole site. There was one area that classified as a wetland based on the hydrology and the vegetation there, but that was shown to have been—all of this was farmed in the past, and so it was a man-made, not a naturally occurring wetland. So we're in the final stages with the Army Corps on a no-loss certificate, so we don't believe there's any wetland issues that we have to address further than the permitting process we're going through right now. As far as putting the pond on the other side, the whole site just kind of drains this way, so it just didn't work out to put the pond over there. The fence material: right now we've got a 6-foot basically white vinyl privacy fence that runs along that entire western boundary and that's set outside of the electrical easement, and then beyond that is kind of a—I think it's a 20-foot landscape buffer where we have all the trees planted. So it would be, from the neighbors on the west, it'll be their fences, easement, fence, landscape buffer before you get to any homes on this project. And there's no access between this proposed community and then the existing community on the west. That six-foot fence wraps around into the southwest corner and then at the gate it does transition to a four-foot chain link fence. We did talk about that—Tina was good enough to reach out and say that was a concern—so I talked about that with the owner before the meeting and I think they're willing to go six foot across that entire back of that south boundary there, especially if we could do that in chain link instead of the white vinyl fence, that would work better. The gate's 4 foot; that was just kind of the standard gate that we could... I don't know if I can agree to a six-foot gate right now just because I haven't found a good one that would kind of match up with the vinyl fence, but I think we're open to looking at increased fence height along that south boundary. Buffer to the west: again, you have the easement fencing and then a landscape buffer along that side. The wetland issue: pretty lengthy delineation process that we've gone through on that. This is—the future land use map shows this is manufactured housing; four units to seven units is the range and we're just over five, like 5.1 units per acre, so I think we're within that density. I'm not sure on the rentals versus ownership; I would kind of defer that question to the owner here after I get through. And then also on the police background checks, I'm not familiar on that one, so I'll defer that as well. **[49:15] Chairperson Zimmer:** Is there something else that I—the rec area? **[49:18] Joe Maylander:** The rec area in the northwest corner was proposed as a basketball court, is what we were showing there. I think the owner is open to options if there's some other use that the community would be more supportive of. There's also playground equipment down on the south end. We've tried to space those things out a little bit to give residents in either part of the community easy access to open space. Traffic: with 132 new homes, you're going to definitely see an increase in traffic. We worked with the city and a third-party engineer was hired to do a traffic report along Pilot Knob there with the new development, and currently the levels of service that those intersections are passing—with our proposed project, the levels of service are still passing. So there are no recommendations or there was nothing warranted there for signal improvements at this time with this project. I guess if there's anything specific I missed, please let me know. **[50:15] Chairperson Zimmer:** Well, we can call you back up too, but thank you very much, Mr. Maylander. And now we'll have the "phone a friend"? Yes. **[50:35] Jay Vassel (Owner Representative):** Good evening. My name is Jay Vassel, I'm representing the owner of North Creek. So I just wanted to address the two questions—excellent questions. So as far as the rentals go, it is our intent to sell all of these homes. So as a company across the board, we really want people to have that pride of ownership in their home and be able to have a home and own a home. And so the majority of our communities in our portfolio are for sale only when we have vacant homes, and that is our intent here is to have everybody own their home. As far as the police background checks, we also do background checks on everybody who enters the community, whoever wants to live in the community. And you know, everything goes through a rigorous application and background check. **[51:28] Chairperson Zimmer:** Yes, please go ahead, Commissioner. **[51:30] Commissioner Kusa:** I know you said it's your intent to sell all of them. If that is not possible and some of these become rentals—a lot of our rental apartment buildings in the city have crime-free drug-free agreements. Would that be something that you guys would consider for those rentals if you're not able to sell them and they do become rental units? **[51:55] Jay Vassel:** Yeah, I mean that's our intent as well. Without even knowing what exactly is in those—if it's a commitment to be crime-free and drug-free, that's our intent as well, as we want that for our community for our residents. **[52:12] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you very much. Commissioners, we probably have a few questions that didn't get picked up, so feel free to raise those and we can ask the developer to come forward and our staff for clarification. **[52:25] Commissioner Traffas:** Madam Chair, I'd appreciate it if someone representing the owners of North Creek Park could respond to the description of the overall state of repair and maintenance of that park. **[52:45] Jay Vassel:** So, it's our mission as a company to provide caring communities to our residents, and so that involves investment into the community. I understand that there has been some investment that may have been deferred, has been planned and then deferred. You know, I don't know the details on why that was deferred, but we have committed—because we'll have access to additional capital when we do this expansion—we have committed to also doing the projects that are necessary in the existing community: namely resurfacing driveways, upgrading amenities, mailboxes I know is another thing that's been deferred. And so those are commitments that we want to do. And again, doing the expansion and then the additional access to capital, we'll be able to do that in conjunction with the expansion. **[53:55] Commissioner Kusa:** Madam Chair? Kind of to that point... you know, as Chair Zimmer said, we are limited to enforcing the zoning ordinance and making sure you guys comply with everything. The City Council has more leeway. I would strongly urge the owner to try to address some of those resident concerns before this goes to City Council. You know, we want to make sure that Lakeville is a great livable community not just for future residents, but existing residents. And kind of to address one of the people had said: most of us as Planning Commission members do go drive through before this agenda item comes up, but I know a lot of the City Council members do too. So I would strongly encourage the owner to make as many changes as quickly as possible to help address some of those residents' concerns, because I know that the City Council does watch our hearings, they do hear all of the concerns through the public hearings, and they will be hearing this as well when it goes before the Council. **[55:24] Jay Vassel:** Understood. Thank you. Appreciate that. **[55:28] Commissioner Traffas:** Madam Chair? The one thing that remains for me is the space between the west side fence and the easement, and the possibility of that being a thoroughfare of some kind. I haven't really had that clarified for myself. So is that space open and accessible to anyone that wants to use it for a walking path, or is it somehow prevented? **[56:05] Joe Maylander:** So currently, there's just the fence from the individual owners on the west side, and then there's the poles, and then there will be another fence installed. And that fence runs all the way to the north boundary. So there really isn't a way to get in between those two fences. And nothing in there except for the power poles and then there's a sanitary sewer line that runs underground there. So I don't believe it'll be used for people walking; the street would be the way to kind of move through that area. **[56:45] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you. Other Commissioners? **[56:50] Commissioner Swenson:** Madam Chair. So I've heard the engineer talk about the wetlands on the site and I just want to echo that—by background I'm a water resources engineer—I understand the wetland permitting process, etc. So they are following the proper procedures for going through wetland review and permitting and making all the steps that need to be done there. Confident in that. The discussion about why can't the storm water basins be in a different location on the site—just a quick general overview of the site tells me the basins are where they should be because that's where the water wants to go today, just in terms of general grading of the site. Yeah, you can move a lot of dirt and move things around, but that all costs money, takes time, effort... it's better to not fight with what the site generally wants to do in place right now. So confident in those things there. I know there were some questions asked about storm water, "what are we doing with all the added surfaces on the site?" A couple of things I would point out is: recognize that they had previous proposals on the site to have more units on the site; they are losing units with this development relative to what they had previously permitted because of storm water restrictions that have come in place since that time and kind of decrease the amount of density they could actually get on the site. But by nature of including these basins on the site, they're working to protect water quality, working to protect rate controls. I'm confident City staff has reviewed those things and finds them to be all in order with those features. One thing I do want to kind of get on the table is just in terms of what we can do as Planning Commission versus what some of the requests are. What level of purview do we have as a Planning Commission body to ask for changes? Obviously being respectful of the neighboring residents and what they've requested—how much can we actually require? What can we actually do as a body, I guess, is a question I would ask. And I would defer to anyone on City staff who wishes to address that. **[59:10] City Attorney:** Chair, members of the Commission. The applicant is coming in with an application that is essentially a permitted use for this area, subject to appropriate conditions as laid out in the city code in the zoning ordinance. So to the extent that they meet the conditions that have been laid out, the city would have no basis for denial. Conditions that can be added would need to be subject to reasonable conditions related to the requirements under the zoning ordinance. So there would have to be some nexus to the basis for whatever additional conditions are required. **[59:58] Commissioner Swenson:** All right. So as an example of something that I think we've heard from some of the residents was just talking about how the main road through the park today kind of serves as a thoroughfare, kind of gets to be a racetrack with traffic. Having visited the neighborhood, I can kind of vouch for that; I can see that. So as an example, if we as the Planning Commission wanted to try to have something changed with that, is that within our purview, even though those are private streets? **[1:00:35] City Attorney:** I believe if there was a safety concern, that you might be able to require some change—not to the existing park area, but if there was a change that would benefit the current park for safety purposes. **[1:00:50] Commissioner Swenson:** Understood. So if I'm interpreting that correctly, that means as a planning body, we're not in a position to be able to say you need to make traffic changes to the existing roadway through the neighborhood, is that correct? **[1:01:05] City Attorney:** That's correct. **[1:01:10] Commissioner Swenson:** So I hear residents talking about the speeds on the street. I'm respectful of that and I would encourage the owners to consider that as this is moving forward. I don't think it's something that we as a body can force them to do anything with, but if there are traffic calming measures that they could consider to include with this, I think that would be important. **[1:01:30] Commissioner Kusa:** Madam Chair, I do have a question on that. I was going to go down the same road, so to speak—no pun intended. I come out of a neighborhood that has 300 homes in one egress, so I get the questions that you have on that. We also have a railroad track. At what point, given that how tucked in this thing is and how far it is to get out and the back is gated, at what point is there anything from the city perspective as to when we determine that it's a public safety issue to have multiple egress? **[1:02:18] Zach Johnson (City Engineer):** Madam Chair, Commissioner Kusa. That would be dependent on what the trip generations from the development show and how the intersections perform from said trip generations. From the traffic study that was performed, it showed approximately an increase of around 900 vehicles per day accessing this site. The trip generations from the peak hour would increase from a threshold of approximately 30 cars during that PM peak hour. That, as far as the engineering standards are concerned, has this intersection performing at about a level of service C, which from an engineering perspective is an acceptable level of service still with Pilot Knob Road. **[1:03:02] Commissioner Swenson:** Madam Chair. As I'm sure engineering staff will attest, I asked several questions related to what was happening with Pilot Knob and those intersections. I did note in the traffic study there was discussion about short windows of availability in terms of making left turns across Pilot Knob. I think we all acknowledge that Pilot Knob is a very busy road with a lot of traffic. This kind of gets to be a tricky thing here with some of the traffic studies—it's kind of the "chicken and the egg": which comes first? How do we decide where to implement changes? For the engineering studies right now, they're recommending no changes with this development. I think we all acknowledge it's going to add a significant number of cars to this area. Drivers in general tend to start to learn habits and find ways to get around areas where there are tough turns. So sometimes maybe it's easier to go right than it is to go left, but that's something that gets learned with time. County Road is under county purview; it's not something we as City staff or Planning Commission can dictate to the county what to do with the roadway. So I think we're leaning on those engineering experts in terms of what those studies say. They do recommend no changes today, but that doesn't mean that they're not going to watch them as time progresses. Traffic counts are going to continue to increase on Pilot Knob and the county may make changes with those crossings as time proceeds. **[1:04:40] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you very much. **[1:04:45] Commissioner Kusa:** Mr. Johnson, another item that was asked was related to the construction traffic. If maybe the applicant could just address kind of where that construction traffic will be going through to get to the site and kind of what the impact would be on neighbors. **[1:05:05] Joe Maylander:** Yeah, we fully intend on bringing all construction traffic through the North Creek Estate's property and not through Country View. So I don't think they'll see any... we will tell our contractors specifically they're not to access the site there. **[1:05:25] Commissioner Kusa:** Madam Chair, maybe for Miss Goodroad: is that a condition we should add as a stipulation? I don't know if you have some magic language for that that we could add to our stipulations. **[1:05:40] Tina Goodroad:** Certainly. We can add that as a condition: "All construction traffic must be through the existing North Creek development." **[1:05:55] Chairperson Zimmer:** I probably should have asked this, Miss Goodroad: one of the questions was "this is a high density area already." What is the density zoning? **[1:06:15] Tina Goodroad:** The applicant actually provided it. I honestly did not look that up. I think he said this comes in at around five units an acre, so it falls within that threshold. **[1:06:35] Chairperson Zimmer:** Excellent. Thank you. Are there any questions that we did not address? **[1:07:05] Commissioner Kusa:** Madam Chair, maybe if the applicant could just talk about the type of tree plantings and screening that will be going in. We have the map up there, but the applicant maybe just wants to talk about what kind of trees and the height. **[1:07:38] Joe Maylander:** As you can see on the map there, the majority of that planning is going to be along the west boundary, but then we've also added trees basically at every lot throughout the development. The breakdown is a mix of overstory deciduous trees, evergreens, and some shrub along the parking areas. All of the tree species we included were approved tree species for the area. In general, there's 195 trees proposed with the project. 36 of those trees will be overstory, 62 understory, and 97 coniferous trees. We're also preserving as many trees as we can along North Creek, trying to stay out of that area as much as possible. **[1:09:15] Commissioner Swenson:** Madam Chair, one more comment for the engineer. With the street crossing over the creek, I just recommend you make sure that someone takes a look at the condition of the crossing itself in terms of whether that's a bridge deck or moment slab on top of the box culverts. There seems to be some material potentially missing underneath there that you may want to take a look at. **[1:09:40] Joe Maylander:** We did have a local engineer take a look at that and gave us recommendations; those are included. **[1:10:00] Tina Goodroad:** Chair, members of the Commission. Did you want to make a change to the fence? It sounds like the applicant is willing to do six foot in height chain link along the south once it abuts the six-foot in height solid vinyl fence. They also appeared to be committed to finding a gate that would be taller than 4 feet. We could make those stipulations in number two, or add an item. We wanted to ensure in condition number two that the fencing is installed right away. We can add a stipulation that the chain link fence be moved up to a six-foot and that a gate be found taller than 4 feet. **[1:10:48] Chairperson Zimmer:** Yes, and then we have the additional condition to route construction traffic. **[1:11:00] Commissioner Swenson:** Madam Chair, I move to recommend approval of the North Creek MHP conditional use permit subject to the eight stipulations listed in the January 27th, 2025 planning report as amended and adoption of the findings of fact. **Commissioner Kusa:** Second. **[1:11:20] Joe Maylander:** I'll just add: we did have a local engineer take a look at that bridge and give us recommendations for improving it. Based on the recommendations, we have to do some filling around those box culverts, put in a new deck, put on guard rails, and with those improvements, there will be no need to post load signs on that and it'll be safe for all emergency and standard vehicles. **[1:12:35] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you, Commissioner Swenson, for bringing that up. I would ask Secretary Erickson to please take the roll. **[1:12:45] Ms. Erickson:** Kusa? **Commissioner Kusa:** Aye. **Ms. Erickson:** Zimmer? **Chairperson Zimmer:** Aye. **Ms. Erickson:** Han? **Commissioner Han:** Aye. **Ms. Erickson:** Swenson? **Commissioner Swenson:** Aye. **Ms. Erickson:** Traffas? **Commissioner Traffas:** Aye. **[1:13:13] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thanks to everyone for significant input and at least a few changes for the stipulations and the willingness to work together. I expect there'll be additional conversation after the meeting's over. The motion prevails. This plan will come before City Council. When is the next meeting? **[1:13:58] Tina Goodroad:** The next City Council meeting is February 18th. I have not confirmed that with the applicant representatives to make sure they're there. The public should certainly check the agenda for the 18th; if it's not on the agenda, it means it's been moved. They can always contact me as well, but I'll confer with these gentlemen after the meeting. **[1:14:20] Chairperson Zimmer:** Thank you. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for February 20th. And with no other business, we are adjourned.