[0:00] [Music] [0:51] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Good evening and welcome to the May 6th city council meeting. If you’ll join me for a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance. [1:13] **All**: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [1:28] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Okay, Ms. Orlofsky, roll call please. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Michelle Volk? **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: Here. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Luke Hellier? **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Here. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Dan Wolter? **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: Here. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Josh Lee? **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Here. [1:40] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Okay, great. Moving on to item number three, citizens' comments. This is an opportunity for you to provide citizens or business folks up to three minutes. If you do, come on up to the front and say your name for the record. [1:55] **Ammy Sanders**: Ammy Sanders. My time starts now. Mayor Hellier and city council members, I'm a 25-year resident of Lakeville. I'm passionate about the well-being of our community. Multiple times a month, week, and sometimes daily, community members reach out to me asking for help to address an issue, to vent about what is happening to them or their child in this community, or to ask me to share their story. I use my voice for them when they fear retribution from our leadership. Tonight, I'm here to address a matter that questions the integrity of our city's leadership. Last week, the unethical and disrespectful actions of Mayor Hellier not only violated the boundaries of civility but were an abuse of power entrusted to him by the citizens of Lakeville. It all began innocently enough with a simple exchange on his public social media account he uses as the mayor of Lakeville. What followed was a private message from him calling me a "psycho." The mayor of Lakeville called a citizen a psycho. [3:00] **Ammy Sanders**: I responded to the mayor privately with a sincere apology and advised him that I had already removed the post in less than 30 minutes of it being online. It should have ended there, but it didn't. Despite my apologies in private, on voicemail, and on his public social media account, what followed was a descent into a reprehensible display of harassment. Instead of reaching out to me and engaging in constructive dialogue, he chose to escalate the situation by publicly vilifying me, falsely accusing me of exploiting his children for political gain, and described me as a "lunatic" because "psycho" wasn't enough. He blocked me on other social media posts and created a platform for others to join in the barrage of hate, insults, and lies in his campaign of character assassination. When citizens reached out to him over concerns about his post, he made excuses for his behavior by claiming to be a victim. The mayor took this situation to a dangerous level without pause for his position in this community and has crossed the line into the realm of libel as he has knowingly spread falsehoods and defamatory statements to vilify a citizen. This is not only morally reprehensible but legally indefensible. His actions have now caused me and others to fear for my safety in my community. Mayor Hellier, it is your duty as a leader to foster an environment of respect and inclusivity, not one of fear and intimidation. I call on you to immediately cease your harassment of me and immediately remove any reference to me of this situation. I am neither psycho nor lunatic, but I am a woman in this community who will continue to use her voice. I call on you publicly to apologize for your behavior on the same public media platforms you use to harass me, this time without blocking citizens. To the city council, I urge you to take decisive actions to address this issue and ensure that the safety and rights of all citizens are protected. To hold Mayor Hellier accountable for his actions, to condemn his behavior in the strongest possible terms, and to take appropriate measures to ensure that such abuses of power are never allowed to occur again. We cannot allow fear, intimidation, and harassment to silence dissenting voices or suppress criticism. Our city deserves leadership that leads by example, that upholds the highest standards of ethics and integrity, and treats all citizens with dignity and respect. Thank you for your immediate and full attention to this matter. [5:17] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Well, first of all, it's Hellier. Second of all, if you ever mention my children again on social media, I will respond the same way again. **Ammy Sanders**: I don't think I will. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Yes, this is the meeting. If you ever mention my children the way you did again on social media, I will respond the same way. You had your three minutes. Thank you. You can sit down. **Ammy Sanders**: No, you can't make those statements that continue to be false. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: If you bring up my children again on social media, I will respond the same way. **Ammy Sanders**: I did not harass your children. You know I did not harass your children. You are continuing your harassment in these chambers. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: In these chambers, you're continuing the harassment and derogatory and defamatory statements. I did not harass your children and you know I did not. I'll respond the same way. You can sit down. Appreciate you for coming. **Ammy Sanders**: I'm not going to sit down now. You'll have to make me sit down because you do not get to use your power to defame me. You do not get to continue to do this. I get to call you out. I get to criticize you. You do not get to sit in that seat and continue this line. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Ma'am, if it was an issue about policy, about what I think or whatever, I'm happy to have the conversation. But you're not going to mention my children or what they wore to school. **Ammy Sanders**: I did not mention your children on that post. I mentioned you. I called you out. I said I'm not posting a picture. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: I am not—exactly right. On my page, it's exactly right. But on a private page that was sent to me, you mentioned my children, demanding to know if they were— **Ammy Sanders**: You don't get to intimidate me. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: I'm not intimidating you. I'm answering you, and you're wasting everyone's time. **Ammy Sanders**: I'm not wasting anyone's time. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Okay, well, you can stand there as long as you want. Okay, great. Okay, we'll move on. Any other comments? [7:43] **Tammy Field**: Mayor, reprehensible. Y’all are allowing this? I just came here to see what's going on with our city, right? Because we have a real issue with what's going on with our teachers and I'm just here to say— **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Say your name for the record and address. **Tammy Field**: My name is Tammy Field. I came here tonight to see what's going on with our city because obviously, we are a city of just homes. We don't—we have a lot of businesses, but really we are a city of homes that make up our community of kids and teachers. And it's like, at some point we have to learn to work together. And I'm appalled, sir. I'm appalled that this is how you just spoke to someone and everyone on this city council let it happen. Is this really what Lakeville has turned into, that we can talk to each other like this as citizens and as public figures? I am pleading with you guys to please bring back common decency. Just say we're sorry when we're sorry, when we make a mistake. This is a very heated time that we have in our life right now and it's like, if we cannot come together and just support each other—sir, please. You just said that you would call her those names again. You are the mayor of our city. You can feel that way, but to sit in the seat that you are sitting in right now does not feel good as a citizen. [9:14] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: I appreciate that. As I said before, if you mention my children, that's the type of response you get. If you want to talk about policy or what's happening, totally open to that. My children are—everyone's children are off limits. **Tammy Field**: But you know what? You do not get to say that sitting in that chair. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: I absolutely do, because not only am I elected to this position, I also am a parent, period. **Tammy Field**: So I want to tell you a story. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: You’ve got about a minute left. **Tammy Field**: My daughter was sexually assaulted in our school district. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: I feel awful for you. That's terrible. **Tammy Field**: Thank you. And guess what? Guess how much support I have gotten and what names I have been called and the things that I have had thrown against me. I understand what you're saying about your kids, but we have got to learn as Lakeville citizens to work together because this battery doesn't work. I understand what you're saying about your feeling for your children, but let's work together instead of just fighting each other. Thank you. [10:15] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Okay, last call from comments. Okay. Mr. Miller? [10:28] **City Administrator Justin Miller**: Mayor, Council, there's a revised item that will be at your table that'll be addressed at item 7D with the gravel use permit. [10:48] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Okay. Moving on to item five, the Police Department quarterly report. I'll turn over to our Police Chief, Paulson. [11:01] **Police Chief Brad Paulson**: Good evening. I'm here to present, like you mentioned, our first quarter report from the Police Department. Everything we do at the Police Department is all framed under our mission statement, which is to ensure an excellent quality of life in Lakeville by serving and protecting in a professional and innovative way. We always say that extends to everybody in our community—not just our residents, not just our citizens, but anybody going to school here, traveling through here, enjoying our parks. We aim to protect and serve all of those folks on a daily basis. I know the Council had a moment of silence at a prior meeting, but I think it's my first report since the tragic incident up in Burnsville on February 18th where we lost three fellow First Responders: two police officers, Matt Ruge and Paul Elmstrand, and firefighter-medic Adam Finseth. Obviously, with the proximity and with our communities and just the trauma and terrible incident that happened, it had an impact both on our Police Department, our Fire Department, but also our community. We had officers that were there early that morning with the incident and certainly in the hours and days that followed, and we're appreciative of the support from the Council to allow us to step up to help out. I know, like I mentioned, not just police, but also fire, public works, communications, and probably several other city departments as well. I was kind of touched by some of the comments we received from community members that saw our squads and our officers up in Burnsville offering their support for the work we were doing to support them. We see it internally, but it was nice to see the community at large see the support, and that that was their wish also, to see us doing that work. Talking about a few leadership rotations: highlighted here are three lieutenants. We have three in the department and they oversee our Patrol Division, our Investigative Division, and our Professional Standards. At the beginning of March, those three kind of did a musical chairs, or they rotated divisions. We do that for a couple of different reasons. Number one, as our mission statement says, we value innovation, and sometimes a way to do that is a fresh look and a fresh perspective on some of our units, and having a new leader in those areas helps to do that. But it also offers an opportunity for some career growth and development, allowing people to supervise and oversee things that maybe they haven't had as much experience with in the past. So for Jason Haider, Jason Jensen, and Jason Pinsky, we're appreciative of their efforts. You don't have to be a "Jason" to be a lieutenant, but it just so happens that's the way it worked out. Community engagement: we sometimes get the question, "Why do we do community engagement?" There's a lot of answers there, but just in a nutshell, policing really is built on working with the community and working in partnership. Trust is a huge factor there, and sometimes it's hard to really bridge trust and develop relationships on simply calls for service. These community engagement efforts are opportunities outside of someone calling 911 where we can spend time with folks in our community, and I think helping with building those relationships and offering some transparency certainly helps that trust-building piece. On the left there's our Citizens Academy graduation, which was in March. They kicked off in January with about 10 weeks, and I think we had 16 graduates from this year's class. That's always a well-received program that we offer. On the right there, we had some officers attend the Landscape & Consumer Expo at Lakeville North High School, partnered with Lakeville Fire and our Public Safety Foundation to staff a booth. And then in the middle, back to the Burnsville incident, the Minnesota Twins had a really nice gesture for their home opener this year in early April to bring a bunch of First Responders from Dakota County—police, fire, and paramedics—onto the field for a nice pregame ceremony where they honored the three fallen First Responders. Some upgrades to our interview room with our investigation capabilities: we've had camera systems in these rooms in the past, but those were a little bit dated, so we upgraded to an Axon system, which is tied into our body-worn cameras, our squad fleet cameras—all of our evidence-based systems are Axon. This just integrates a lot better behind the scenes with that work, saves some time on the back end with processing, and allows detectives to not only view live-stream interviews but also have quick access to review video. It also allows us to submit these things a lot easier to our prosecuting attorneys both at the city and county levels. Just a few training bullet points to highlight: the top one there is standardized field sobriety testing; that's what you see on the roadsides on DWI stops—the one-leg stand, the walk-and-turn, things like that. Annual defensive tactics and less-and-non-lethal training, annual firearms qualifications, and a few more. As we go down, you'll kind of notice a lot of these are mandated trainings. Our strategy throughout the year is to try to knock out as much of our mandated stuff as we can—our POST (Police Officer Standards and Training) board requirements. We have a lot of training requirements to keep licenses active, so our sworn staff tries to get through as much of this stuff early on as we can so we can do more discretionary work later in the year in case schedules get busy, which they often do. Couple of cases of distinction to note: on the left there was some good work by our Street Crimes Unit. They received some information on a wanted individual who had several outstanding warrants for felony-level crimes. This individual was attempted to be apprehended by Apple Valley PD, and he fled in a vehicle and was able to evade capture after stealing a felony amount up at their Menards. This was just a case where slowing things down, developing some good strategy, and utilizing resources paid off. By doing some surveillance and executing a search warrant in late March, the subject was safely taken into custody and also received some fresh charges for narcotics possession. And then on the right, kind of a domestic-related incident—a series of incidents, actually, with a no-contact order and an order for protection in place. The victim of these orders noticed her ex-boyfriend outside of her home, which was obviously alarming. She tried to drive to a local gas station to evade him. He made contact with her vehicle and ended up fleeing the scene. We put some alerts out trying to apprehend him. Our Drug Task Force, which does a lot of work in fugitive apprehension, they were able to follow the court process and get a tracking order on the cell phone, pinned him down—or at least his phone down—in Rochester. He happened to be with his phone, as folks usually are these days, and the Drug Task Force paired up with Rochester PD and safely took him into custody as well. It’s just another example of utilizing our resources and other agencies and connections to bring folks to justice and hold them accountable for their crimes. This is a stat and a slide that we started to show late last year, but these are 911 calls that go directly into our Dakota 911 Dispatch Center. The call taker then realizes that some of these are related where they don't need a medical response or a law enforcement response, so they route these directly to the Dakota County Crisis Center. As you can see there, in the first quarter, 400 calls countywide went through that referral process. About 7% of those were in Lakeville—26 calls. I think last year for the entire year we accounted for about 9% of the calls, so staying somewhat consistent there. Generally, about three-quarters of those never require any law enforcement involvement. Once in a while, that crisis worker determines, "Yeah, we actually do need police or medics out there," but quite often they're able to resolve it without that level of involvement. Moving into some statistics: here are case numbers. These are actually incident reports that are pulled. You can see the first quarter of '24 was eerily similar to '23—just two more reports pulled for the first quarter of this year than last year. And then CAD calls—these are Computer Aided Dispatch calls. These are not only calls for service that get sent to officers, but also if an officer self-initiates on their computer screen, those are factored into these numbers as well. Those could be traffic stops, checking on suspicious vehicles, buildings, things like that. We had about 13,000 in the first quarter of this year, which was up from about 9,800 last year. Highlighting just a couple of areas that we routinely look at: our welfare checks were up (180 over 117 last year), and then mental health crisis calls (169 over 89 last year). Moving into traffic at an accident, you can see our traffic stop numbers were actually down quite a bit in 2024 in the first quarter, but the good news is accidents—both property damage and personal injury—were down as well. A lot of this is attributed to the mild winter and lack of snow and ice, which is helpful for not only Public Works but also the Police Department in fewer crashes. This is just a comparison of our CAD calls by jurisdiction, comparing to some of our neighboring communities that are of somewhat similar size and scope. You see we're just a little bit above Eagan in that graph. Then some of our major offense reporting on some of the higher-level crimes that we deal with: driving under the influence was down a little bit (down 18). Aggravated assault—these are assaults involving either some type of weapon or some type of injury that's more than just bumps and bruises—those were down a little bit. General assaults were up. Pretty consistent on damage, vandalism, and sex-related offenses. Our weapons calls were down, but obviously, you can see we receive very few of those overall, which is a good thing. And finally, our social media presence. Again, this is kind of tied to our community engagement, but we use social media in a lot of different ways to disseminate information and to solicit the public's help with certain things. As you can imagine, a lot of our work is quite serious, so we try to take some time to have a little fun on social media as well to the extent that we can. So on the left, there's Officers Lindberg and Nelson doing a little Valentine's Day pose, I guess you would call it—I'm not really sure. They were good sports about that. The middle one is an April Fool's Day spoof on a "Goat K9 Patrol." I'm not sure who created the photo, but there's a couple of goats in the front there. And then K9 Kilu, who's always happy to pose, donned some rabbit ears for a "Hoppy Easter" post. I’m happy to stand for any comments or questions you may have. [22:04] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Council questions, comments? Thank you, Chief. I just want to continue to extend our gratitude to you and your team for all the hard work. **Police Chief Brad Paulson**: Thank you. Appreciate it. [22:15] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: All right. Moving on to item number six, the consent agenda. Anything you'd like to highlight, Mr. Miller? [22:25] **City Administrator Justin Miller**: One item tonight, Mayor. Item 6C is a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. This is basically a grant that our Police Department received to help people who might be looking for a career transition and then move into law enforcement, and so this will help pay for their education. [22:45] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Cool. Um, Council, any issues that you'd like to discuss further? Otherwise, I'll take a motion to approve the consent agenda. **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: So moved. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Is there a second? **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Second. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Further discussion on the consent agenda? Not, all those in favor say "aye." **Councilmembers**: Aye. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Opposed? All right, consent agenda passes. Move on to item number seven. The first is a public hearing on application for Lakeville Brewing, DBA LBC on the Lake, for an on-sale liquor license. I—do we have a staff report or anything, or we're just going to have—okay. Applicants, if you wanted to share something, you can; otherwise, we'll just open the public hearing. Okay, I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anybody that has a comment about the license for LBC on the Lake? Seeing none, I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: I make a motion to close the public hearing. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Is there a second? **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: Second. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: All in favor say "aye." **Councilmembers**: Aye. [23:42] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Public hearing is closed. Um, with that, any Council discussion? Otherwise, I'll take a motion to approve the liquor license. **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: I move to approve a First Amendment to concession agreement between the City of Lakeville and Lakeville Brewing Company LLC— **Mayor Luke Hellier**: That's not the motion—is that correct? Um, I have my hand up as well, so I will make the motion to grant an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for LBC on the Lake at 20135 Ippava Avenue. **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: And can I give Dan the second? **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Yes. Is there a second? **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: Second. [24:19] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Okay, very good. Any further discussion about the liquor license? **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: Just to comment that this does not change the intent of what was approved before. For any public listening in wondering why this came up again, there's no intent to change the beer and wine sales that were previously established. [24:50] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Very good. I'll just add that through this process we learned of some very antiquated state statutes that required us to go through this process, and so here we are. So hopefully we'll get that changed next year's legislative session, but until then we'll move forward. So with that, roll call please. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Volk? **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: Aye. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Hellier? **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Aye. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Wolter? **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: Aye. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Lee? **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Aye. [25:12] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Okay, very good. Congratulations, we're looking forward to you guys opening. Moving on to Item B: a public hearing on the application for Final Final Final Lounge and Event Center for consumption and display permit. And only because this is a new business, is there somebody here that could just briefly talk about the business? Come on up, welcome. [25:42] **Christy Halby**: My name is Christy Halby, this is Tony Halby. We're the owners, and we are opening up a venue here in the city to help with the city and community having more opportunity to have different venues such as—or events at the venue itself—like graduation parties, retirement parties, gatherings, showers, fundraising, all of that. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Great. And just so people—how would people find you? Where are you located and is there a way to find you online if someone's looking to host an event? **Christy Halby**: Sure. So currently we do not have an online presence; however, that is being created. We are just off of 50. So if you know where the Cub Foods is on 50 or over that direction, we are also Exuberance Chiropractic and Wellness Center, so this is the backside of that building. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Got it. It's right in front of Remax. Very good. Okay, with that I will open the public hearing. Is there any public comment on the application for the display permit? Okay, seeing none, I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: So moved. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Is there a second? **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Second. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: All those in favor of closing the public hearing say "aye." **Councilmembers**: Aye. [26:50] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Public hearing closed. Any other comments from Council? **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: I'm surprised no one else wanted to ask this, but is there something behind the name "Final Final Final"? **Christy Halby**: Yes. It's about gathering, getting people together, and usually, people don't want to leave once you have a good time. So it's like the three goodbyes—the Minnesota goodbye. Final? Let's do a final. Final Final Final. Yeah. And you'll see it's F3, so it's also known as F to the third power, if you will, Lounge and Event Center. **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Great, thanks. [27:15] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: And with that, I'll take a motion to approve the license. **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Move to approve a consumption and display setup permit for Final Final Final Lounge and Event Center for the period of May 2024 through March 31st, 2025. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Is there a second? **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: Second. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: With that, roll call please. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Hellier? **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Aye. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Wolter? **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: Aye. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Lee? **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Aye. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Volk? **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: Aye. [27:35] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Good. Congratulations, good luck. Okay, moving on to item C: ordinance amending titles 10 and 11 of the city code. And I'll turn it over to our Community Development Director, Miss Goodroad. [27:52] **Community Development Director Tina Goodroad**: Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. We're here to present the annual zoning ordinance update. We're doing it in a couple of different parts. We'll be back again sometime early summer with a few other things. So this is our annual review. We like to review the code based on projects that have come through over the past year, things that staff has found in the ordinance that need clarity, updates for best practices, reflecting new development trends, and then including any statutory changes that might have occurred in the previous legislative session. So for background, a lot of research was done in-house as well as with our consultant. We had a work session on February 18th, 2024, and we did have a public hearing at our last meeting on April 25th. The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended approval for all of these items that are in your packet. I'm going to just highlight a few things and then we can go through any questions that you might have. One of the first things that we looked at was in the subdivision ordinance. It's not very clear in the subdivision ordinance that an outlot, if it's going to be divided, needs to be done through the platting process. So we needed to change that definition of "lot," and then we also clarified some older requirements that we have in the code that require a whole bunch of paper copies. We do everything electronically right now, so we wanted to clean that up and then make sure everything was consistent with statutes 15.99 for review times. We also looked at our definitions. This is something that we do every year; there's always new ones that pop up. We looked at commercial uses, minor auto repair, daycare facilities, and religious institutions and just updated those definitions and then added a few that were missing related to funeral homes and mortuaries, micro-dwelling units, and sacred communities—which deals with a new section that we're having to add to the ordinance. Last year, the legislature approved a new statute, 412.21, that basically requires that cities have to allow natural landscaping within their yards. So it's something that we need to add to our ordinance. We've added it to the landscaping section. We're following different elements of the state statute within that section, and we are requiring—so that we have some review authority—an administrative permit, looking at the planting list, and ensuring that there's a management plan so that somebody has some guidance if they choose to do this within their front yard, and that we have an opportunity to work with them, provide some education as well as making sure this area is managed. Educational uses: we wanted to address some of the daycare, Head Start, early childhood, and adult education and allow those within schools. That wasn't very clear in the ordinance as it reads today, and we added adult education into that. So that's what those clarities are. You're going to see that all over the pages because wherever we have those uses, we had to make all of those little adjustments in all of those districts. Sacred communities is another element that was added. It was approved last year—Governor signed it into law—that basically creates provisions for religious institutions to have the opportunity to locate micro-dwelling units on their campus for providing expanded affordable housing. And so the intent of the ordinance as it's drafted is to add reference to state statute but carry over some of the requirements that are outlined in the code. Micro-units are basically small units not larger than 400 square feet. They have to have foundations anchoring them, water and electric utility access has to be provided either to the units or through the facility, there needs to be adequate parking, an operation plan by the church, and then there are limitations on occupancy. So there are some references to the statute but also within the code, this addition—because it was added by the state statute—we have to comply and add this to our own zoning ordinance. So again, you're going to see wherever we allow religious institutions, this language has been added with a reference to the main section in the code. [32:00] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Do you want us to ask questions now or to wait? Certainly, I'll do my best. I have the statute in front of me. I'm glad to get the clarification on the micro-dwelling because at first, as I was reading, I was visualizing like a tent city, and this obviously gives me a little bit more certainty on the projects, if you will. When we say "in," does it have to be tied to like a church building? Because you said it can be in an area where there are religious facilities, which is basically anywhere because we don't outgrow church basically anywhere. So does it have to be tied to a religious entity, number one? And number two, we have a series of home churches in town. In theory, could they set these up in the backyard based on how you read this? And maybe if you don't have the answer today—I mean, I think my decision is the same anyway because we don't really have a choice—but I'm just curious for our own purposes what type of parameters we can put on that. [33:00] **Tina Goodroad**: My interpretation is it needs to be connected with a religious institution and the statute does define that. So in subdivision two of the statute, it says religious institutions are authorized to provide permanent housing, i.e. micro-units. The "religious institution" is defined to mean church, synagogue, mosque, or other religious organization organized under Chapter 315 of the State Statutes. Now what I don't know is—so that would—I would interpret that to be the same as a local church, a local synagogue can provide this. I don't know how to answer the question on the "house" honestly. I think some of this will probably have to be developed as we move along. Right now I would agree with that interpretation, but I assume that somebody could try to put it on religiously owned land that doesn't already have a mosque or church on it. I don't think it's clear. [34:15] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Okay. Anybody else have questions on that? Helps a little bit. Thank you. [34:25] **Tina Goodroad**: Okay. We added some clarifications and some requirements around car washes, just looking towards requirements that the doors are closed other than as vehicles are coming through and churning through the wash. We've added a vacuum decibel limit and then a restriction that they not be located within the residentially zoned property or the yard abutting the residentially zoned property. We also added some hours' limitation and adjusted the location in some of the zoning districts where it's permitted or allowed as a conditional use. We’re addressing parking lots. This came up because we are getting a few phone calls of people who wanted to utilize commercial land simply for the parking of vehicles for EV stations. So until we have an opportunity to really determine if that's something that we want to allow, we do allow parking lots as a permitted use in the districts listed on the screen. We added the clause "City of Lakeville only," so it would be a parking lot, let's say in downtown, that we already own. We wanted to make sure that a commercial lot isn't bought simply for the parking of EV vehicles. [35:40] **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: Mayor? Yeah, sorry, I have a question on the car wash. If the wash is not occupied and they have the door open—the reason I'm asking this question is because having worked at a car wash, the reason you have the door open, especially when you don't have clients, is because you're trying to decrease the amount—you're trying to get the water to evaporate. It causes all kinds of mold and other types of issues and it's hard on the equipment if you can't get it dried out. So my question is, is there a way—does it have to be closed? Especially when you have an operation that's 24/7—some of them are—and they're not near residential. If they don't have any clients, can they leave the door open? [36:45] **Tina Goodroad**: The way this is written, the intent is that the door is closed while it's in use, so that it's closed during the noise. **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: Okay. I wasn't sure what "in operation" totally meant. **Tina Goodroad**: It's intended to be while it's in use. **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: Okay, because that's what we're trying to knock down is the noise. **Tina Goodroad**: Right. **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: I get that. All right. And then how do you—are you going to be sending a letter to all of the car washes in Lakeville to inform them of this rule? **Tina Goodroad**: It won't affect a lot of them. A lot of them keep it closed because of the fact that the dryer is too close to residential, etc. But this is more for any new car washes. If there's a car wash that's currently operating and we haven't had any issues, I don't see any reason into—you know, we haven't had any complaints. What's happening is we're getting more interesting car washes and different kinds of uses like the M2 district that was pointed out in the memo. [37:45] **Tina Goodroad**: One of the other sections that we spent some time on is in our industrial district. You know, in the Airlake portion of the industrial—the older portion, I should say—we have a lot of smaller building footprints. We also have a lot of shorter rooflines, and so those buildings don't often—they might have more difficulty in finding a new use if a business all of a sudden decides not to continue occupancy or a lease turns over. And so we wanted to create some more opportunities for those uses, particularly things that are happening internally, as an allowed use or even as an administrative use without having to go through the hurdles of a conditional use so that we can make these buildings more utilized. That was the reason for a lot of these uses being added to those I-1 categories or I-2 categories in the industrial district. So indoor firearms range, fitness centers, indoor vehicle sales with a limit on the number of vehicles that could be stored—there's restrictions in there that don't allow the outdoor display of vehicles—veterinary clinics, those kinds of uses to introduce to the ordinance so that we can keep those older buildings viable. And then other topics pertain to tree size. There was some other clarifications added to outdoor storage to ensure that there is proper pavement, hard surface material, and then home occupations—we’re allowing one resident employee for a non-service business. That was something that we've had a few requests for as home occupations are expanding. We added some clarity to our motor fuel signs on the canopies from a change that was done previously, and then just some minor changes and clarifications on our residential transition districts. Future topics look forward to: we're having a work session on Thursday night to talk a little bit about our off-street parking requirements. The first thing we'll do with the Planning Commission is ask them their view, their input, and direction on just the amount of spaces that we're requiring over different uses. We've done research over about 15 different communities and then that whole chapter will see an overhaul; it's just dated, it's a little cumbersome to read. We also will spend some time on the sign ordinance, attainable housing incentives as we go through conversations about our housing sales tax, and then revisit our commercial uses. For what has been in front of you in the packet, again, we did hold a public hearing with the Planning Commission. They recommend unanimous support, and I would stand for any questions. [40:35] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Okay. Council questions, comments? [40:40] **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: A question—and not to dwell on car washes too much—but the addition of the hours for car washes, are there some that maybe under a conditional use permit or something already have hours in place? **Tina Goodroad**: Yes, and those will continue. **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: Thank you. And no, I think that's it for me. [41:10] **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Not a question. You answered my questions earlier today via email and I appreciate that. My only comment, I guess, is I'm not quite convinced yet about the impact of the change to section 13A around buffer yards due to the change in height of coniferous trees. There's a change from a requirement from an 8-foot tree to a 6-foot tree. At the Planning Commission meeting, the rationale around that was around the availability of those trees, but my concern really is more so as buffer yards tend to be the properties that we get the most complaints or concerns about noise. Buffer yards are a combination of both a berm and vegetation, and so I didn't want the impact to impact the height of the overall requirement for a screen even if the trees are shorter. I don't think I have an issue with the tree change; it's more of the overall buffer change in height. [42:30] **Tina Goodroad**: So to clarify, you don't mind the 8 to 6, but the next page, Section A, where it says 10 feet buffer versus 8—I’m guessing that's why that changed, because of the tree? **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Yep. So I guess what I'm asking—and I don't know how high that berm would have to be at this point or how challenging that would be to create a two-foot higher berm—but that's what I'd like to look at a little bit more before approving that buffer change. **Tina Goodroad**: Okay. So approve the tree height, but not the buffer height. Let us evaluate that. Right. Okay, we can make that change before the Mayor signs the ordinance. [43:20] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Great, thank you. Any further comments? If not, I will take a motion. Whoever makes the motion, we’d have to just say removing on Section 13, letter A, the change from 10 feet to 8 feet. [43:50] **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: I move to approve an ordinance amending titles 10 and 11 of the city code and an accessory ordinance for publication with the exception of Section 13A. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Is there a second? **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Second. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Any further discussion on the changes? Okay, great work on that. With that, I'll take a roll call please. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Wolter? **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: Aye. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Lee? **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Aye. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Volk? **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: Aye. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Hellier? **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Aye. [44:18] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Thank you so much. All right, moving on to item D: Superior Sand and Gravel interim use permit. Are we—do we want a staff presentation first or the applicant? Okay, so Mr. Swift, if you want to come up and give an overview of your request. [44:39] **Dan Swift**: Good evening, Council, Mayor. Thanks for taking the time tonight to hear our request. My name is Dan Swift, I'm an employee of Superior Sand and Gravel, SSG for short. I've been with the company for 10 years. I'm here tonight to represent the company and answer any outstanding questions you may have. A brief description of the request is: in years prior, this site has had a gas berm. The site located at 19250 Kenrick Avenue in Lakeville has had a berm that has remained untouched from the mining and excavation from us and the prior operator. The reason it's been untouched is because there was a gas main running through it. Last year, they did remove the gas main and turn the easement back over to the property owner. With that being said, that makes available approximately 300,000 cubic yards of aggregate material, which is a non-renewable natural resource, for use in construction projects in the area. We're asking for permission for an IUP (Interim Use Permit) to mine the berm and process the material until December 31st, 2029. I wanted to briefly touch on some points for some feedback that we've gotten throughout the process. One of those is the proposed timeline. The reason why we asked for 2029 is because it's consistent with the MUSA plan. There's no development there, or the earliest development can take place is 2030. The primary driver for the import/export of fill into this property is the local economic construction market. So the construction work in the area as the primary driver of import/export, we can't really predict that market. With that being said, I do have some numbers from prior years that maybe we could gain a better estimate on the timeline of reclamation filling operations. We took over the site in 2020, so we've been through four construction seasons. The average amount of fill brought in is about 92,000 yards per year, which is a 60% increase from the prior operator's year-over-year average from 2011 through 2019. Out of the past three construction seasons, we have brought in more fill than we've exported out of the site. 2022 being a year that we did capitalize on some good projects in the area—a year where we brought in 160,000 cubic yards of fill. During that year, for every cubic yard that we exported out of the site, there were two cubic yards imported. With that being said, with the availability of 300,000 more aggregates, it’s a good opportunity to get more involved in some construction projects in the area. Our goal is 3 years for reclamation—3 years for substantial reclamation, I should say, with possibly a fourth. [50:20] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Can I interrupt you for a second? When you say that, is that reclamation of this new deposit, or that's of the entire site? **Dan Swift**: Because of the availability of that, the grading plan—the grades were raised, so that would be replacing that berm plus raising grades on the rest of the property, which would be more attractive for a developer. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: So you say three years for the entire parcel, I guess is my question? **Dan Swift**: Yes, that is our best estimate. If approved, we would start as soon as we were allowed via our operating permit. We would start mining. We believe we can have the entire berm mined in two construction seasons, which would be the end of 2025/2026. We're hoping to have substantial completion of the site with a fourth possibly needed for buttoning up grading and seeding. Another clarification is the crushing of concrete and asphalt recycle will not be done in this pit. We will be asking to crush the natural stone in the berm, which will allow more diversity in products and allow us to go after some of the jobs—an example would be a chamber system, where we could take a lot of that export off of that site and import the rock for the chamber system. To clarify the hours of operation: we're asking for 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with no processing of material on Saturday. The reason we're asking for Saturdays to continue filling operations is so that we don't have to turn down work on a Saturday if there's a substantial amount of fill coming in for a construction project in the area. We want to have the opportunity to take that fill and not turn that contractor away. The last four construction seasons, we've worked a handful of Saturdays. Other than that, we're 100% committed to restoring the site. We are 100% committed to restoring it as fast as possible. Thank you for taking the time to listen and I guess I'll answer any questions that you guys have. [53:36] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Okay, thank you Mr. Swift. Mr. Dempsey, do you want to give a staff report? We'll call you back up if we have any questions. Thank you. [54:22] **City Planner Frank Dempsey**: Evening, Mr. Mayor and Council members. Glad to be up here again; it's been a while. Mr. Swift gave a detailed outline on their proposal and I'll try to add to that as far as what the process has been for the review and what the city code requirements are and the Planning Commission's recommendation that was a result of the public hearing that was held on April 25th. The request here is for this property located northeast of the corner of 195th Street and Kenrick Avenue, I-35, and north of casperson. A little bit of background: this property has been mined since about 1968. The period of time between the '70s and the '80s, there was a considerable amount of material that was exported from this property after mining. Sometime in the early 1990s, there was a determination made that the property was likely over-excavated in terms of the amount of material. I shouldn't say over-excavated; there was no plan established for how that would be filled. So in 1993, the conditional use permit was renewed in a similar process as we're looking tonight to allow areas of new mining in the property. This project happens to be the very first planning report I wrote for presentation to the Planning Commission and Council in 1993—just a coincidence. And so it would be my joy to see this wrapped up as much as anybody. The last mining area was this strip here which was next to Kenrick Avenue. Since that interim use permit was considered and approved for one year in 2022, the gas company CenterPoint Energy removed this old high-pressure gas main that served the South Metro. I think it was installed sometime in the 1940s, and that was relocated to a different location in the city, and that left this area of 100-foot-wide easement area available for aggregate mining. That is why the property operator and property owner have approached the city. A little bit of zoning information: this property continues to be zoned for residential—a mix of medium to high and low-density residential. Sewer to develop this property is located in this vicinity, north of Porterhouse. All this land in here outside the MUSA area would have to be brought into the MUSA and served as development occurs north, bringing sewer. This represents the final estimated grading plan in order to bring the site to a level that would allow for future development. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 25th. There was one person that commented at the public hearing. We had two comments we received through emails: concerns relating to dust control, noise from trucks that are on Kenrick Avenue, with a request for "no engine braking" signs. The Planning Commission did recommend the City Council approve the interim use permit subject to 19 stipulations. I did make some amendments—stipulation E (number six) and stipulation K (number 11). Those have to do with removing reference to the crushing of materials not being allowed—clarifying that concrete and asphalt is not allowed—and then also the recognition that aggregate material, the natural rock being mined, would be allowed as crushing. And then also that there's no reference to Sunday operations, which is not being proposed. So with those 19 stipulations, there are also findings of fact for your consideration, and I'll stand for any questions you may have. [1:01:25] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Very good. Um, this is not a public hearing, but we typically for these type of issues we'll open it up if there are any public comments. I'll do that now and then allow the Council to have a discussion. Is there anybody that wants to share? [1:01:40] **Doug Anderson**: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council members, city staff. Doug Anderson, 19827 Jersey Avenue. Just for context, I live on the northeast side of Lake Marion down toward Antlers Park. I can view the boat launch and the eastern end of the gravel pit to the northwest of my home across the lake. I want to say at the outset, I'm grateful that the stipulations include that they no longer can bring in materials to crush and import and export out of the site. That's been a huge part of the operation the last number of years, and it's time just to stop that. I'm also grateful for Mr. Dempsey providing the clarifications on the stipulations that clarify particularly that demolition concrete and bituminous shall not be imported to the property, period. My real reason for coming tonight is to talk a bit about timing. I appreciate the gentleman with this operator talking about what it might take in terms of doing the mining. I was told by staff that they were told that it would take two construction seasons. I'm kind of a pro-business guy, and so I get it. I certainly would support them mining out and taking advantage of having that aggregate. But here's my concern: the operator is desiring a five-year extension as they said because that's when the MUSA potentially can kick in. I don't see any reason to do that. Two years, in my opinion, would be fine. I sat in your seat for 10 years up till a year and a half ago and sat through a number of these conversations. I'm pretty frustrated. There've been commitments over the years about reclaiming this mine, and quite frankly, it's just been really frustrating. It's just time to stop. So what I would suggest you might consider is that you would extend the permit for two years with the stipulations that are there and basically add a stipulation that says "no more extensions, we're done." If they don't have time to fully reclaim the mine by then, they could get a grading permit and continue to fill in what they need to do to accomplish the grading levels that they need. Thank you for letting me speak. [1:06:02] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Thanks. Any other comments about the permits? **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: Sure. My question would be to slightly maybe compromise on that a little bit, and that is to have something in writing that it can only be—if they need the third year to get the property back to whatever it is that is required of them, reclaiming it—I guess my thought process is I really don't want to put the pinch on that section. It's a great opportunity to have the whole thing cleaned up. I understand that it's been forever years, but this opportunity wasn't available until the pipeline got cleared out of there. I'm just wondering if we can kind of word it a little bit differently—maybe not allow the same type of operation after a certain period of time but allow them that extra year to be able to make sure that they can just get it to the point where it needs to be. We never know what the weather is going to be like. I'm just looking at it as an opportunity to help this business get it done as fast as they possibly can. [1:08:10] **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: I have a question. If this were not to be approved today, what would be the impact or next steps? [1:08:20] **Frank Dempsey**: The result then would be that this proposed area, this berm area, would not be mined, and then the property owner would have to continue to bring fill into the property for an undetermined amount of time under a grading permit. By removing that berm, it does create a void that needs to be graded again. Whatever cubic yards come out have to be brought in to replace that. [1:09:55] **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: To me, my concern is that this continues to get extended longer than it already has. I really struggle with extending this because of the impact on local residents. We've committed to them multiple times that there is going to be an end point to this, and I think mining reinitiates a new timeline, and I'm concerned that we just keep kicking that can down the road. As it stands, we're not in a rush to grade this because of the MUSA—we determined that that was 2030, correct? Beyond just the ability to fill this, by having material come out, that's increasing dust and noise and the crushing of the aggregate that is there. I wasn't in favor of the last extension, and I still am coming to a conclusion today that I just don't think that's the right decision for the closest neighbors north of the mine. [1:11:25] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Other comments, Dan? **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: During the time that I was on the Met Council, I believe we were doing the regional study on aggregate and the availability of that, and it was a really good lesson for me on how important the proximity of these kinds of resources are to our construction costs. So I think that's important to recognize. I do think Michelle's point about maybe bringing in a little tighter timeline—I would be open to that. [1:11:55] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Thank you for the request and all the information. Joshua, I do share your same frustrations. I feel like the fact that we didn't mine has slowed reclamation. What my hope is, is if we can kind of find a middle ground on this shorter time period, that it'll encourage some faster response. The factor for me that has changed is that the last time we had this discussion, there wasn't anything else to mine. On page three, it mentions 2026, and that's based on the two construction seasons. I don't know if we need language on there for then the Council to review, or I guess it just runs out to be on the company to come back to the city again. [1:13:40] **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Mayor, can I ask a question of Frank? So if the timeline has changed—and I'm assuming on letter S here—rehabilitation is synonymous with reclamation, right? Site rehabilitation? **Frank Dempsey**: Yes. **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Right now, there's no deadline on when they have to rehab the entire site? **Frank Dempsey**: Currently, no, because there is no mining operation right now. It's strictly up to the property owner to arrange for fill to be brought onto the property. If this is approved, there's a drop-dead date of when any material would be coming in by this deadline under the mining activity. Bringing fill into the property after the expiration date would work under a grading permit that would be overseen by the city. **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: So it doesn't necessarily help really any timeline. It sounds like the only motivator to pulling this up to grade is the MUSA becoming in effect. [1:16:45] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: SSG, do you guys want to respond to that? [1:16:53] **Dan Swift**: If that wasn't able to be mined, the material coming in would be drastically reduced or even stop, because if there's no operator to take that incoming fill, then there's no reclamation. If we get 300,000 cubic yards of natural aggregates, the property owner's only stipulation with us is that you continue reclamation. With the sales of that aggregate, we can get bigger volume jobs and actually bring that fill in. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Can you explain the business model a bit? Are you selling aggregate to people who are also giving you fill, and so it's a better business relationship? Is that what you're saying? **Dan Swift**: It sort of is. Any construction site, you have export off of that job site and they need materials to replace that. They bring it to us and they would structure their haul to be a two-way haul—so they would come in, dump their common fill, and get reloaded with sand, Class 5, or rock products from this pit to back-haul to the job. If we have a significant amount of products available, we can quote bigger jobs, which will speed up the reclamation. John, you want to—maybe? He's our sales manager. [1:19:12] **John Fritz**: John Fritz, Superior Sand and Gravel. Basically, if we have aggregates to export, we will get more. It basically comes in at like a 2-to-1: if there's a street job in Lakeville, they dig their clay into here and then they take sand back out—probably two times the clay for every one sand. [1:19:58] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: I guess after learning that, that's why I'd say two years to say, well, how much do we actually reclaim? Are we finding the answer that we're hearing today? I mean, if you have two years of mining and we're actually getting that, that would then determine whether we extend or not. **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: If we get to the point where this site is developable and it's not at the proper grade but you want to sell that piece of land, what is the strategy for filling that on a tighter timeframe? **John Fritz**: It would be really tough if you didn't have any sand to sell out of there to get material back in. Everyone wants to two-way haul. [1:22:16] **Dan Swift**: The grading plan was designed so that the aggregate removed from that berm would be about a 1-to-1 for the fill needed. [1:23:02] **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: I would still like to stick to two years. **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: I mean, I think it gets a little more complicated because then you're asking our staff to do some sort of inspections. I would rather see it go with three years, but okay. One year is too short. I guess the thing is that we have to be respectful that this is a business, and this is an opportunity for them to be able to reclaim this property easier. I’m willing to compromise with the rest of the Council if you can at least give them the two years; that would be good enough for me. [1:25:21] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Somebody want to make a motion for this and then changing the date? I mean, I think there's at least two of us that have some sort of two-year, but I would agree with Michelle in three. The only problem is because there's four of us, I don't support three years and I think Joshua doesn't either, and so then we end up with a tie. **Dan Swift**: What you're basically saying is I come back to another Council? **Mayor Luke Hellier**: No, I meant if we tied today, the motion would fail. I would rather just lay it over till the next council meeting so we have a full council and let the deciding factor be the fifth person. [1:26:30] **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: I'll make a motion to table until the next meeting, May 20th. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Is there a second? **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Second. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Any discussion? Roll call. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Lee? **Councilmember Joshua Lee**: Aye. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Volk? **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: Aye. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Hellier? **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Aye. **City Clerk Ann Orlofsky**: Wolter? **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: Aye. [1:27:10] **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Okay, well, sorry, you’re going to have to come back in two weeks. Moving on to items eight and nine, unfinished and new business. Anything to add? Okay, with that, our next regular city council meeting is on the 20th of May right here at 6:00, and our next work session is the 28th also here at City Hall at 6:00. One more announcement: Saturday is International Day of Living Together in Peace at Casperson. It's a civic event sponsored by a handful of different community groups, and you can find information on their Facebook page. With that, I'll take a motion to adjourn. **Councilmember Dan Wolter**: So moved. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Is there a second? **Councilmember Michelle Volk**: Second. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: All in favor say "aye." **Councilmembers**: Aye. **Mayor Luke Hellier**: Opposed? We’re adjourned.